3'2(o. - energy.gov...v on november 21, 2012, doe issued the final tank closure and waste...
TRANSCRIPT
Apr 05, 2018DATE:
CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company
1- ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT PROCESSING AND APPROVAL
DOCUMENT TITLE: OWNING ORGANIZATION/FACILITY:
kAnnual Status Report (FY 2017); CompositeAnalysis for LOW Level Waste Disposal in ...
EP&SP/Risk & Modeling :Ent etrat ion
Document Number: DOE/RL-2017 55 IRevlsion/Change Number: 0
DOCUMENT TYPE (Check Applicable) [ I Plan [x] Report [ ] Study [ ] Description Document [ ] OtherDOCUMENT ACTION (Check Otto) [x] New [ ] Revision [ ] Cancellation
RESPONSIBLE CONTACTS
Name Phone NumberAuthor: (IC Weber 509-946-9898Manager: AH Aly 5C9-376-3300
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Is the document intended to be controlled within the Document Management Control System N Yes [ ] No(DMCS)?Does document contain Scientific and Technical Information (STI) intended for public use? N Yes [ ] NoDoes document contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)? [ ] Yes [x] No
DOCUMENT REVISION SUMMARYNOTE: Provide a brief description is summary of btu changes for the document listed.
REVIEWERS Others
Name (print) OrganizationRD Hildebrand DOE-RL
APPROVAL SIGNATURESAuthor:
Me Wcte:c °jute
RELEASE / ISSUE
3'2(o. t I IPrint Name Date
Responsible Manager:
-.=!1.-W3 Ni cl-.01.a/Act acr Ail Al y . 27 Fee 208Print Name Signature Data
MM1IltJ/FORDRELEASE
Other.
D
Print Name Signature Date
Page I of I A-6005-184 (REV 7)
E. Required Information (MANDATORY)
A. Information Category
INFORMATION CLEARANCE FORM
Other
ADC Required (Print and Sign)
Software
Abstract
Summary Internet
Date Received for Clearance Process (MM/DD/YYYY)
C. Title
D. Internet Address
Report
1. Is document potentially Classified?
1. Title of Journal
F. Complete for a Journal Article
3. Export Controlled Information
If Yes
Manager Required (Print and Sign)
Full Paper
Visual Aid
Journal Article
B. Document Number
a. New or Novel (Patentable) Subject Matter?
7. Does Information Contain the Following:
No Yes
No Yes
If "Yes", Identify in Document.
If "Yes", OUO Exemption No. 4
Public
If "Yes", Attach Permission.e. Copyrights?
9. Release Level? Limited
No Yes8. Is Information requiring submission to OSTI?
No Yes
Yes
f. Trademarks? Yes
No
No
b. Commercial Proprietary Information Received in Confidence, Such as Proprietary and/or Inventions?
If "Yes", Disclosure No.:
No Yes
Yes ClassifiedNo
G. Complete for a Presentation
6. Will Material be Handed Out?
2. Group Sponsoring
3. Date of Conference 4. City/State
1. Title for Conference or Meeting
5. Will Information be Published in Proceedings?
Responsible Manager
YesNo No Yes
(Print and Sign)
Information Clearance Approval
Public Y/N (If N, complete J)I. Reviewers
Other
Yes Print Signature
General Counsel
Office of External Affairs
DOE
Other
Y / N
Y / N
Y / N
Y / N
Clearance Y / N
Y / N
5. Applied Technology
H. Information Owner/Author/Requestor
Approval by Direct Report to President (Speech/Articles Only)
(Print and Sign)
(Print and Sign)
If Additional Comments, Please Attach Separate Sheet
J. Comments
A-6001-401 (REV 3)
4. UCNI
2. Official Use Only
6. Other (Specify)
No Yes
No Yes
No Yes
Exemption No.
If "Yes", OUO Exemption No. 3
YesNod. Government Privileged Information?
If "Yes", Exemption No. 5OUO Exemption No. 3
OUO Exemption No. 5
YesNoc. Corporate Privileged Information?
If "Yes", OUO Exemption No. 4
Other
Proposed Internet Address
5A-60001-401 (REV 5)A-6001-401 (REV 5)
02/14/2018
DOE/RL-2017-55 Revision 0
Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site
Nichols, Will E
Swenson, Raymond T
Hildebrand, R Doug
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Aly, Alaa H
Aly, Alaa H
Approved Via IDMS Data File att.
Approved Via IDMS Data File att. Approved Via IDMS Data File att.
Approved Via IDMS Data File att.
Approved Via IDMS Data File att.
By Erin C Meegan at 2:55 pm, Apr 05, 2018
Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited
Page 1 of 2
® 0 0 0
0 00 0
0 0
0 00 0
0 00 0
0 0
0 0® 0® 00 0
® 0 0 0
X0
X0
APPROVED }
- <workflow name="(ECM)Normal - DOE/RL-2017-55-R0" id="220265473">- <task name="Clearance Process" id="0" date-initiated="20180228T0801"
performer="Erin C Meegan" performer-id="196316112" username="h8232327"><comments>ATTN: Due March 7, 2018 COB Please approve DOE/RL-2017-55
submitted by Will Nichols for public release. Thank you, Erin Meegan Information Clearance</comments>
</task><task name="Add XML" id="1" date-done="20180228T0801" /><task name="Manager Approval" id="41" date-due="20180305T0801" date-
done="20180228T0924" performer="Alaa H Aly" performer-id="141440097"username="h9198318" disposition="Approve" authentication="true" />
<task name="Document Reviewer2" id="53" date-due="20180305T0924" date-done="20180228T1206" performer="R (Doug) Hildebrand" performer-id="585415" username="h0073893" disposition="Public Release"authentication="true" />
<task name="Document Reviewer1" id="54" date-due="20180305T0924" date-done="20180305T1056" performer="Raymond T Swenson" performer-id="141094653" username="h0059138" disposition="Public Release"authentication="true" />
- <task name="Doc Owner Clearance Review" id="13" date-due="20180306T1057"date-done="20180405T0714" performer="William E Nichols" performer-id="141011074" username="h0063932" disposition="Send On"authentication="true"><comments>Added new version that includes one change, to add the DOE-
RL Site Manager's Certification signature. Ready.</comments></task><task name="Milestone 1" id="24" date-done="20180405T0715" /><task name="Milestone 2" id="62" date-done="20180405T0715" /><task name="Verify Doc Consistency" id="4" date-due="20180406T0715" date-
done="20180405T1221" performer="Erin C Meegan" performer-id="196316112"username="h8232327" disposition="Cleared" authentication="true" />
</workflow>
Page 2 of 2
4/5/2018
DOE/RL-2017-55Revision 0
Annual Status Report (FY 2017): CompositeAnalysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in theCentral Plateau of the Hanford Site
Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environmental Management
P.O. Box 550 Richland, Washington 99352
Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited
D'""m"T" Richland OperationsENERGY office
DOE/RL-2017-55Revision 0
Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Composite Analysis for LowLevel Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site
M. C. WeberINTERA, Inc.
L. L. LehmanCH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company
W. E. NicholsCH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company
Date PublishedFebruary 2017
Prepared for the U.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary for Environmental Management
P.O. Box 550 Richland, Washington 99352
Release Approval Date
Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited
By Erin C Meegan at 2:55 pm, Apr 05, 2018
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Richland OperationsENERGY Office
APPROVED
DOE/RL-2017-55Revision 0
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarilyconstitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by theUnited States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors orsubcontractors.
This report has been reproduced from the best available copy.
Printed in the United States of America
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
iii
Executive Summary
In accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements in DOE M 435.1
Chg 1,1 and as implemented by DOE/RL-2000-29,2 the DOE Richland Operations
Office (DOE-RL) has prepared this annual summary of the Hanford Site Composite
Analysis for fiscal year (FY) 2017. The Hanford Site Composite Analysis was originally
reported in PNNL-118003 and PNNL-11800, Addendum 14 (hereinafter referred to
collectively as the Hanford Site Composite Analysis). The Hanford Site Composite
Analysis was approved by a 2002 memorandum.5
As required by DOE/RL-2000-29, an annual evaluation of new information and data
developed by a number of onsite programs was completed. The reporting period for this
annual evaluation is FY 2017 (October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017).
The information provided in this evaluation includes the following activities performed in
FY 2017 that are considered pertinent to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis:
• Information that could change the source terms considered in the composite analysis,
including the following:
− Performance assessment (PA) development and maintenance activities:
• 200 East Area Low-Level Burial Grounds (LLBGs) PA
• 200 West Area LLBGs PA
• Integrated Disposal Facility PA
1 DOE M 435.1 Chg 1, 2001, Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0435.1-BOrder-chg1. 2 DOE/RL-2000-29, 2018, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 3 (in publication), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. 3 PNNL-11800, 1998, Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0079141H. 4 PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, 2001, Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0084085. 5 Frei, M.W., 2002, “Disposal Authorization for the Hanford Site Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities – Submittal of an Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, PNNL-11800 Addendum 1” (memorandum to R. Schepens, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, and K.A. Klein, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., July 24.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
iv
• Waste Management Area C PA
• Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility PA
− Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 19766 remedial activities
− Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 19807 remedial activities
• Monitoring, research, and development results, including the following:
− Groundwater flow and contamination monitoring
− Remediation science and technology programs
This annual evaluation did not identify any information in any of the above reviewed
activities that considered results of data collection and analysis from research, field
studies, and monitoring that would invalidate the continued adequacy of the currently
approved version of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. However, the determination of
the FY 2015 annual summary report,8 based on information reviewed for that year and
information presented in prior annual status reports, is that the Hanford Site Composite
Analysis requires an update. Reasons for this determination include that while the
original composite analysis (prepared in 1998, with an addendum in 2001) has been
maintained, the accumulation of basis changes reported in the annual summary reports
over the past 14 years merit evaluation in an updated analysis. This determination
remains in place in this annual summary; new information needs to be incorporated and
analyzed using environmental modeling software that meets current DOE quality
assurance requirements.
6 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. Available at: https://elr.info/sites/default/files/docs/statutes/full/rcra.pdf. 7 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC. 9601, et seq., Pub. L. 107-377, December 31, 2002. Available at: https://www.csu.edu/cerc/researchreports/documents/CERCLASummary1980.pdf. 8 DOE/RL-2015-66, 2016, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364347.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
v
On November 21, 2012, DOE issued the final Tank Closure and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement9 (TC & WM EIS) for the Hanford Site pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 196910 and implementing regulations
(40 CFR 1500-1508,11 Chapter V and 10 CFR 102112). From 2006 until the
TC & WM EIS was issued, the Hanford Site had deferred any revision of the
Hanford Site Composite Analysis. Since issuance of the final TC & WM EIS, planning
phase activities for preparing an update to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis were
completed in FY 2015, and scoping phase activities commenced at the start of FY 2016
and were completed in FY 2017. The culmination of the scoping phase was the
preparation of a summary analysis13 for the composite analysis update. Approval of the
summary analysis was granted in May 2017, enabling commencement of the
analysis phase.
The format for this report follows DOE G 435.1-114 requirements and closely, if not
exactly, follows guidance in DOE-STD-5002-2017.15 This report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 provides an overview of the changes in the reporting period that potentially
affect the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
• Chapter 2 provides an assessment of the cumulative effects of the changes on the
Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
• Chapter 3 summarizes sources of information that account for waste receipts during
the reporting period.
9 DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0391-final-environmental-impact-statement. 10 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/pdf/USCODE-2010-title42-chap55-sec4321.pdf. 11 40 CFR 1500–1508, “Purpose, Policy, and Mandate,” through “Terminology and Index,” Code of Federal Regulations. Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/40cfrv31_08.html 12 10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal Regulations. Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/10cfr1021_08.html. 13 CP-60649, 2017, Summary Analysis: Hanford Site Composite Analysis Update, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1412683. 14 DOE G 435.1-1, 1999, Implementation Guide for use with DOE M 435.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0435.1-EGuide-1-Chp01/view. 15 DOE-STD-5002-2017, 2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/5000/5002-astd-2017/@@images/file.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
vi
• Chapter 4 provides a review of recent onsite monitoring relevant to the current
Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
• Chapter 5 summarizes research and development that could affect the Hanford
Composite Analysis.
• Chapter 6 reports on planned or contemplated changes to relevant Hanford Site
programs that could affect the Hanford Site Composite Analysis and recommended
changes to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis maintenance program.
• Chapter 7 summarizes the status of disposal authorization statement conditions, as
well as key and secondary issues.
• Chapter 8 provides the required certification of the continued adequacy of the
Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
• Chapter 9 provides the references cited in this report.
• Appendix A provides a history of the maintenance of the Hanford Site
Composite Analysis.
• Appendix B provides a summary of the status of the update of the Hanford Site
Composite Analysis that is in progress.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
vii
Contents
1 Changes Potentially Affecting the Composite Analysis .............................................................. 1-1
1.1 Performance Assessments ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.1 200 East and 200 West Low-Level Burial Ground Performance Assessments .......... 1-2 1.1.2 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment ............................................... 1-6 1.1.3 Waste Management Area C Performance Assessment ............................................... 1-9 1.1.4 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment .................. 1-12
1.2 Central Plateau RCRA Remedial Activities ......................................................................... 1-15 1.3 Central Plateau CERCLA Remedial Activities .................................................................... 1-15
1.3.1 Central Plateau Source Operable Units ..................................................................... 1-21 1.3.2 Central Plateau Groundwater Operable Units ........................................................... 1-26 1.3.3 Other Central Plateau Remediation Activities .......................................................... 1-42
2 Cumulative Effects of Changes ..................................................................................................... 2-1
3 Waste Receipts ................................................................................................................................ 3-1
4 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Summary of Air Monitoring ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Summary of Groundwater Flow Conditions and Extent of Contamination ........................... 4-3
4.2.1 Groundwater Flow ...................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Extent of Contamination ............................................................................................. 4-7
4.3 Summary of Vadose Zone Characterization ......................................................................... 4-10 4.3.1 200-DV-1 Operable Unit .......................................................................................... 4-10 4.3.2 200-WA-1 Operable Unit ......................................................................................... 4-12 4.3.3 200-EA-1 Operable Unit ........................................................................................... 4-13
5 Research and Development ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Remediation Science and Technology ................................................................................... 5-1 6 Planned or Contemplated Changes .............................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Special Analyses..................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Changes in Site Land Use and Remediation Plans ................................................................. 6-1
6.2.1 Engineered Barriers (in Remediation Plans) ............................................................... 6-4 6.2.2 Operational Controls for Subsidence .......................................................................... 6-4
7 Status of Disposal Authorization Statement Conditions and Key and Secondary Issues ........ 7-1
8 Certification of the Continued Adequacy of the Composite Analysis ....................................... 8-1
8.1 Certification by the Field Element Manager or Designee ...................................................... 8-3 9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 9-1
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
viii
Appendices
A History of Hanford Site Composite Analysis Maintenance ........................................................ A-i
B Status of Hanford Site Composite Analysis Update .................................................................... B-i
Figures
Figure 1-1. Location of the LLBGs ........................................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1-2. Location of the IDF ............................................................................................................. 1-7 Figure 1-3. Photograph of the IDF First Expansion (Current Configuration) ........................................ 1-9 Figure 1-4. Location of WMA C .......................................................................................................... 1-10 Figure 1-5. Location of the ERDF ........................................................................................................ 1-13 Figure 1-6. Hanford Site Groundwater Interest Areas and Groundwater OUs .................................... 1-27 Figure 1-7. Central Plateau Groundwater Contaminant Plumes and Cleanup ..................................... 1-28 Figure 1-8. 200-BP-5 Groundwater OU Sampling Locations, 2016 .................................................... 1-37 Figure 1-9. Configuration of Disposal Cells at ERDF ......................................................................... 1-43 Figure 1-10. Photograph of ERDF with Indication of Disposal Cells .................................................... 1-44 Figure 4-1. Water Table and Inferred Groundwater Flow Directions for the Hanford Site,
March 2016 .......................................................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-2. 200 East Area Average Water Table Map – January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016 ........ 4-6 Figure 4-3. Distribution of Radionuclide Contaminant Plumes Originating at the Hanford Site
for Concentrations above DWSs in the Unconfined Aquifer .............................................. 4-8 Figure 4-4. Hanford Sitewide Plume Areas, 2000 through 2016 ........................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-5. Location Map of 200-DV-1 OU Characterization Boreholes Drilled in 2016 and 2017 ... 4-11 Figure 4-6. Location Map of 200-UP-1 OU Wells Sampled for 200-WA-1 OU
Vadose Characterization .................................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-7. Locations of 200-DV-1 OU Injection and Monitoring Wells on the South End
of the 216-U-8 Crib ............................................................................................................ 4-13 Figure 6-1. Hanford Site Area of September 30, 2015 – Land Conveyance to
the Tri-City Development Council ...................................................................................... 6-3
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
ix
Tables
Table 1-1. Potential Changes Affecting the Composite Analysis ......................................................... 1-1 Table 1-2. Hanford Site Performance Assessments in Planning, Scoping, Analysis,
and Maintenance Phases and FY 2017 Status ...................................................................... 1-3 Table 1-3. Inventory of PUREX Tunnels Evaluated in the Composite Analysis Addenduma ............ 1-17 Table 1-4. Central Plateau Source OU Activity during FY 2017 ....................................................... 1-21 Table 1-5. Central Plateau CERCLA/RCRA Deliverables, FY 2013 through FY 2019 .................... 1-23 Table 1-6. Status of Central Plateau Groundwater Remediation in CY 2016 ..................................... 1-33 Table 4-1. Compliance Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 4-2 Table 5-1. Research and Development Activities ................................................................................. 5-1 Table 6-1. Planned or Contemplated Changes ...................................................................................... 6-1 Table 7-1. Status of DAS Conditions, Key, and Secondary Issues ....................................................... 7-2
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
x
Contributors Topic Area Contributors (Affiliation) DOE Authority (Affiliation)
Annual Summary Editors M.C. Weber (INTERA, Inc.) W.E. Nichols (CHPRC) L.L. Lehman (CHPRC)
R.D. Hildebrand (DOE-RL)
Low-Level Burial Ground Performance Assessments (Section 1.1.1)
S. Mehta (CHPRC) R. Khaleel (INTERA, Inc.)
O.A. Farabee (DOE-RL) D.C. DeRosa (DOE-RL)
Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment (Section 1.1.2)
K.P. Lee (WRPS) G.L. Pyles (DOE-ORP)
Waste Management Area C Performance Assessment (Section 1.1.3)
M.P. Bergeron (WRPS) J.B. Bovier (DOE-ORP)
Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment (Section 1.1.4)
W.A. Borlaug (CHPRC) E.T. Glossbrenner (DOE-RL)
Central Plateau RCRA Remedial Activities (Section 1.2)
A.W. Radloff (WRPS) C.J. Kemp (DOE-ORP)
Central Plateau CERCLA Remedial Activities (Section 1.3)
T.B. Bergman (CHPRC) M. Cline (DOE-RL)
Remediation Activities for Central Plateau Source Operable Units (Section 1.3.1)
T.B. Bergman (CHPRC) M.E. Byrnes (CHPRC)
B.W. Vannah (DOE-RL)
Remediation Activities for Central Plateau Groundwater Operable Units (Section 1.3.2)
A.K. Lee (CHPRC) B.W. Vannah (DOE-RL)
Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Operations (Section 1.3.3.2)
W.A. Borlaug (CHPRC) E.T. Glossbrenner (DOE-RL)
Summary of Air Monitoring (Section 4.1) W.E. Nichols (CHPRC) R.D. Hildebrand (DOE-RL)
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring (Section 4.2)
J.M. Lynn (CHPRC) R.D. Hildebrand (DOE-RL)
Summary of Vadose Zone Characterization (Section 4.3)
S.D. Springer (CHPRC) R. D. Hildebrand (DOE-RL)
Remediation Science and Technology (Section 5.1)
M.D. Freshley (PNNL) J.P. Hanson (DOE-RL)
Changes in Site Land Use and Remediation Plans (Section 6.2)
T.B. Bergman (CHPRC) R.N. Krekel (DOE-RL)
CHPRC = CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company DOE-ORP = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
River Protection DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland
Operations Office
PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory WRPS = Washington River Protection Solutions
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
xi
Terms
AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CHPRC CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company
COC contaminant of concern
COPC contaminant of potential concern
Cr(VI) hexavalent chromium
CY calendar year
DAS disposal authorization statement
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOE-HQ DOE Headquarters
DOE-ORP DOE Office of River Protection
DOE-RL DOE Richland Operations Office
DVZ deep vadose zone
DWS drinking water standard
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility
ERT electrical resistivity tomography
ESD explanation of significant differences
ETF Effluent Treatment Facility
FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility
FS feasibility study
FY fiscal year
HHE human health and the environment
HLW high-level waste
IC institutional control
IDF Integrated Disposal Facility
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
xii
IX ion exchange
LFRG Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group
LLBG low-level burial ground
LLW low-level waste
LLWMA low-level waste management area
MNA monitored natural attenuation
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRDWL Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill
NTCRA non-time-critical removal action
OU operable unit
P&T pump and treat
PA performance assessment
PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PUREX Plutonium-Uranium Extraction
QA quality assurance
R&D research and development
RAO remedial action objective
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RD/RAWP remedial design/remedial action work plan
RI remedial investigation
RFI RCRA facility investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SALDS State-Approved Land Disposal Site
SVE soil vapor extraction
SWL Solid Waste Landfill
TC & WM EIS Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement
TCE trichloroethene
TPA Tri-Party Agreement
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
xiii
Tri-Parties U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Washington State Department of Ecology
Tri-Party Agreement Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order
TRU transuranic
TSD treatment, storage, and disposal
UDQE unreviewed disposal question evaluation
WIR waste incidental to reprocessing
WMA waste management area
WMIS Waste Management Information System
WRPS Washington River Protection Solutions
WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
xiv
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-1
1 Changes Potentially Affecting the Composite Analysis This chapter identifies potential or actual changes, discoveries, proposed actions, and new information identified during the operation of the Hanford Site during the reporting period (FY 2017, covering the timeframe of October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017) that potentially affect the basis of PNNL-11800, Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site; and PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Hanford Site Composite Analysis). This includes the following:
• Deletion of sources considered in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis
• Addition of new sources not considered in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis
• Changes to existing sources (e.g., completion of remedial activities at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] sites)
• Availability of new information that reduces uncertainty in characteristics of existing sources
Change control process evaluations arising from performance assessments (PAs) supported by the Hanford Site Composite Analysis are summarized in Table 1-1. There were no unreviewed disposal question evaluations (UDQEs) specific to the composite analysis itself.
Table 1-1. Potential Changes Affecting the Composite Analysis
Disposal Facility/Unit
UDQE/UCAQE or Change
Control Process Identification
Number
Change, Discovery,
Proposed Action, New Information
Description Evaluation Results
Special Analysis Number
(if applicable)
Composite Analysis Impacts
ERDF DOE/RL-2016-57 identified that the currently disposed ERDF inventory exceeds the inventory estimated at closure in the ERDF PA.
Quantitative evaluation of increased inventory estimates at closure indicates that peak dose estimates increase slightly due to increased inventory disposed at ERDF but remain significantly below the performance objectives.
ECF-ERDF-17-0198
Minimal
References: DOE/RL-2016-57, Annual Status Report (FY2016): Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. ECF-ERDF-17-0198, Evaluation of Increased Inventory Disposed at ERDF on the Post-Closure ERDF Performance.
ERDF = Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility PA = performance assessment USQE = unreviewed disposal question evaluation UCAQE = unreviewed composite analysis question evaluation
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-2
There was no deletion of any sources considered, and no addition of any sources not considered, in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis identified during review of FY 2017 information.
No major changes to Hanford Site radionuclide inventories were identified during review of FY 2017 information that would have the potential to alter the basis of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
Activities in the following categories are reviewed because they have potential to reveal new information that could constitute changes to existing radionuclide sources and/or new information that reduces uncertainty in characteristics of existing radionuclide sources:
• DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual (Section 1.1) • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) remedial activities (Section 1.2) • CERCLA remedial activities (Section 1.3)
Appendix A presents the history of the maintenance of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis, including all prior annual status reports.
1.1 Performance Assessments Table 1-2 lists the Hanford Site PAs, the scope of the PAs, and the FY 2017 status with respect to phases (planning, scoping, analysis, and maintenance) as identified in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) guidance for modeling at the Hanford Site (Williams, 2012, “Modeling to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking at Hanford”). Detailed summaries of activities associated with each of these PAs are provided in Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.4.
1.1.1 200 East and 200 West Low-Level Burial Ground Performance Assessments
In the annual reviews of the Hanford Site Low-Level Burial Ground (LLBG) PAs for FY 2017 (DOE/RL-2017-56, Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds; DOE/RL-2017-57, Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds), projected dose estimates from radionuclide inventories disposed in the active LLBGs (at locations shown in Figure 1-1), from September 26, 1988, through September 30, 2017, were calculated using the dose estimate methodology developed in the original PAs (WHC-EP-0645, Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds; WHC-SD-WM-TI-730, Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds). These estimates were compared with performance objectives defined in DOE O 435.1 Chg 1, Radioactive Waste Management, companion documents (DOE M 435.1-1; DOE G 435.1-1, Implementation Guide for use with DOE M 435.1-1). The performance objectives are currently satisfied. Operational waste acceptance criteria (HNF-EP-0063, Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria) and waste acceptance practices continue to be sufficient to maintain compliance with performance objectives.
Relevance of the LLBG PAs to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis
The LLBG PAs are supported by the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
Solid waste disposal constitutes one of the sources of radioactive waste inventory. The current estimated inventory disposed and projections of future inventory disposal in the LLBGs are refined regularly as additional data continue to be collected and reported through maintenance of the LLBG PAs. This updated information is pertinent to the composite analysis because of its potential to change the LLBG inventory evaluated in the composite analysis.
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
1-3
Table 1-2. Hanford Site Performance Assessments in Planning, Scoping, Analysis, and Maintenance Phases and FY 2017 Status Performance Assessment Scope FY 2017 Status
200 East LLBGs This PA is for operation of the LLBGs located in the 200 East Area. The LLBGs are operational and continue to receive small limited quantities of waste.
Maintenance phase: The original PA (WHC-SD-WM-TI-730) continues to be maintained per the approved 1997 maintenance plan (RFSH-9755566).
200 West LLBGs This PA is for operation of the LLBGs located in the 200 West Areas. The LLBGs are operational and continue to receive small limited quantities of waste.
Maintenance phase: The original PA (WHC-EP-0645) continues to be maintained per the approved 1997 maintenance plan (RFSH-9755566).
Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility
This PA is for operation of a CERCLA disposal facility located between the 200 East and 200 West Areas. It is operational and continues to receive waste from Hanford Site CERCLA remedial activities.
Maintenance phase: A revised disposal authorization statement (CCN 173929), based on the revised PA, was issued in early FY 2014. Maintenance activities, under an approved maintenance plan (CP-60150), continued thereafter.
IDF A PA for an ILAW disposal facility located in the 200 East Area was approved. This facility was constructed and is currently pre-operational. Plans call for use of this facility for future disposal of stabilized tank waste from the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Vitrification Plant (under construction). A new IDF PA is required to implement these plans.
Maintenance phase: The 2001 ILAW PA (DOE-ORP-2000-24) is no longer maintained because a new IDF PA is required to implement the TC & WM EIS ROD (78 FR 240).
Scoping phase: Planning activities were completed in FY 2015 to develop a revised IDF PA to address updated and additional waste form information, use current modeling tools, and integrate with the TC & WM EIS analysis (DOE/EIS-0391) and ROD (78 FR 240). Scoping phase activities were commenced and concluded in FY 2015. The analysis phase commenced in FY 2016, work continued in FY 2017, and LFRG review began at the start of FY 2018 and will continue into midyear FY 2018.
WMA C This PA will support eventual closure of the C Tank Farm single-shell tank facility following completion of tank retrieval activities.
Analysis phase: The analysis phase was conducted in FYs 2015 and 2016 following the modeling approach set forth in the summary analysis approved by the Hanford Site Groundwater/Vadose Zone Executive Council. The PA was submitted to the LFRG in FY 2016. The WMA C PA is currently undergoing comment resolution (FY 2017 and 2018).
WMA A-AX This PA will support eventual closure of the A-AX Tank Farm single-shell tank facilities following completion of tank retrieval activities.
Planning phase: Scoping phase activities commenced in FY 2015 for a new PA, modeled after the scoping approach used for the WMA C PA. Work was suspended in FY 2016 due to funding issues. Work will recommence in FY 2017.
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
1-4
Table 1-2. Hanford Site Performance Assessments in Planning, Scoping, Analysis, and Maintenance Phases and FY 2017 Status Performance Assessment Scope FY 2017 Status
* The summary analysis is a document for demonstration of compliance with DOE guidance provided in Williams, 2012, “Modeling to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking at Hanford.” The summary analysis summarizes the topical areas covered by both a given PA and TC & WM EIS, evaluation of analyses in the TC & WM EIS and analyses planned for a given PA, with recommendations for updates to local scale model(s) and a discussion of potential concerns.
References: 78 FR 240, “Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.” CCN 173929, 2013, “Issuance of the Disposal Authorization for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington.” CP-60150, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Maintenance Plan. DOE/EIS-0391, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS). DOE-ORP-2000-24, Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Performance Assessment: 2001 Version. RFSH-9755566, “Transmittal of Program Plan for Maintenance of Hanford Burial Ground Performance Assessment (PA) Analyses, that Fulfills Performance Agreement WM 1.8.1.” WHC-EP-0645, Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Ground. WHC-SD-WM-TI-730, Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds.
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 DOE = U.S. Department of Energy FY = fiscal year IDF = Integrated Disposal Facility ILAW = immobilized low-activity waste LFRG = Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group LLBG = low-level burial ground PA = performance assessment ROD = Record of Decision TC & WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement WMA = waste management area
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-5
Figure 1-1. Location of the LLBGs
Low-
Central Plateau
Level Banal Ground
rc
Route uA Route 11A _,..-...
218-W-3A J218-W-3AE
218-W-5-„. 1 ,218-W-8
I 7Trench 31- I I
• •
Illtench 34 l
532 0 0 W I
218-W4B
218-E-10
218-W-4G n4-1. e pr A r e a/0
Low.Level Burial Sr untl
Trench
Genital Plateau
Inner Area
Operating Area
Outside land Interest
.218-E-10 ,218-E•12E1
Trench 04
2 0r
—JW7P; ; zoo—7EOF
us ECOLOGY
Central Plateau
Outer Area
ROLFE 45
13.
41} 0, 1 2 km
,t tl0 1 rrtl
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-6
For the 200 West Area LLBGs (DOE/RL-2017-56), low-level waste (LLW) and mixed LLW were disposed in two lined trenches in the 218-W-5 Burial Ground (Trenches 31 and 34). Trenches 31 and 34 will continue to be used until they are either filled or a decision is made to close the trenches. Overall, there are no substantive changes to primary PA assumptions and no changes to the PA analysis conclusion that compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is being maintained. All performance objectives are currently satisfied, and operational waste acceptance criteria (HNF-EP-0063) and waste acceptance practices continue to be sufficient to maintain compliance with performance objectives. Estimates of inventory and associated dose estimates from future waste disposal actions are unchanged from previous years’ evaluations, which indicate potential impacts well below performance objectives. Therefore, future compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is expected.
For the 200 East Area LLBGs (DOE/RL-2017-57), inventory estimates and associated dose estimates from future waste disposal actions are unchanged from previous years’ evaluations, which indicate potential impacts well below performance objectives. Therefore, future compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is expected. The only waste receipts during the reporting period for the 200 East Area LLBGs were two naval reactor compartments disposed in Trench 94. Overall, there are no substantive changes to primary PA assumptions and no changes to the PA analysis conclusion that compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is being maintained.
Dose estimate increases from disposed waste for groundwater contamination scenarios occurred only at the 200 West Area LLBGs and were essentially negligible (DOE/RL-2016-63, Annual Status Report (FY 2016): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds). Waste quantities disposed to these trenches in FY 2017 were 5,596 m3 (197,621 ft3) in Trench 31 (bringing this trench to 22% of its volume capacity) and 7.305 m3 (257.97 ft3) in Trench 34 (bringing this trench to 29% of its volume capacity).
During the reporting period, half-cell diffusion experiments were initiated to evaluate the effect of carbonation on contaminant migration. Diffusion of technetium and uranium was quantified for a portion of the half-cells by sampling the half-cells and measuring technetium and uranium concentrations in water extracts using inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry. An initial phase analysis was completed on some of the monoliths using scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry, and x-ray diffraction. Samples from sludge/concrete, half-cell diffusion experiments that were initiated during FY 2006 and FY 2008 were also evaluated.
1.1.2 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Figure 1-2 shows the location of the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). In 2001, DOE (Scott, 2001, “Disposal Authorization for the Hanford Site Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities – Revision 2”) approved DOE/ORP-2000-24, Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Performance Assessment: 2001 Version. Continuation of the disposal authorization statement (DAS) (Frei, 2003, “Review of the Annual Summary of the Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Preformance Assessment for 2003”) was based, in part, on RPP-15834, Integrated Disposal Facility Risk Assessment. This PA is maintained in accordance with DOE/ORP-2000-01, Maintenance Plan for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-7
Figure 1-2. Location of the IDF
■
Route 11P ROAM I1A
E1Integrated Dis pcsal Facility
Central Plateau
Innis( Area
Operating Area
Outside Land Interest
2 9 0 VV
A
noel- Area
ER OF i;
US ECOLOGY
✓
2 D 0 E
L-7-1
I ""
_E
Central Plateau
Outer Area
Roule
legra ad DisposalFac iry (IDF)
._1200TEOF
r trs
O 1 2 km
O roi
UGO
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-8
The first construction phase for the IDF was completed on April 28, 2006, which included installing cell liners and leachate collection tanks (Figure 1-3). The IDF is now in a pre-operational mode and will not receive treated (vitrified) tank waste for several years. Based on these circumstances, Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, Revision 8c, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Hanford RCRA Permit). The Hanford RCRA Permit for the IDF has been modified to recognize that the facility will not be receiving waste in the near future. A subsequent modification of the Hanford RCRA Permit transferred responsibility for the IDF from the DOE Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP) to the DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) in FY 2009.
Revision of the IDF PA was deferred from FY 2006 through FY 2012 pending issuance of DOE/EIS-0391, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS). In the second half of FY 2014, DOE-RL provided contract direction to commence planning phase activities for preparation of a revised IDF PA. Planning activities conducted included developing a project management plan and quality assurance (QA) project plan and conducting a technical review of existing data packages and TC & WM EIS models for the IDF to prepare for the scoping phase. The annual status reports for the IDF PA were not prepared since FY 2012 due to funding prioritization and in recognition that a new PA was required to implement decisions in the TC & WM EIS Record of Decision (ROD) (78 FR 240, “Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington”).
Management for preparing the revised IDF PA was transitioned from DOE-RL to DOE-ORP on October 1, 2014. DOE-ORP and its tank operations contractor (Washington River Protection Solutions [WRPS]) completed the planning and scoping phase activities in FY 2015 and continued to meet with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to discuss the PA models and parameters.
In December 2015, a summary analysis describing the modeling approach necessary to address comments received at the scoping workshops was approved by the Groundwater/Vadose Zone Executive Council, and modeling commenced. The summary analysis is a tool used to meet DOE direction (Williams, 2012) by describing the technical approach to be taken in the PA, with justification for any departures from the TC & WM EIS modeling platform or approach. In FY 2016, modeling was performed of chemical and radionuclide releases from the immobilized low-activity waste and secondary waste. Subsequent travel through the vadose zone beneath the facility and subsequent transport through the saturated zone to the point of calculation 100 m (328 ft) downstream of the facility were also evaluated. Parameter sensitivity was evaluated using deterministic model runs documented in calculation reports completed in FY 2017. The deterministic analyses results were used to develop abstractions for use in a probabilistic, integrated system model completed in the third quarter of FY 2017. The system model was used to evaluate parameter uncertainty and assess the long-term dose and groundwater impact from constituents that would be released from the facility over the next 10,000 years.
Relevance of the IDF PA to the Hanford Site
Composite Analysis
The IDF PA is supported by the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
Planned waste disposal at the IDF will constitute the largest source of radioactive waste inventory at the Hanford Site. Estimates of future inventory disposal of glass and secondary waste forms from the WTP and tank farms that are considered in the IDF PA must be incorporated into the composite analysis.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-9
Figure 1-3. Photograph of the IDF First Expansion (Current Configuration)
WRPS completed a draft of the revised IDF PA in the fourth quarter of FY 2017. To finalize the waste incidental to reprocessing (WIR) determination for the treated tank waste that will be disposed in the IDF, the draft PA will be reviewed by the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) and DOE Headquarters (DOE-HQ) beginning in the first quarter of FY 2018. The WIR determination approval process will be initiated in the second quarter of FY 2018 in anticipation of obtaining a revised DAS and WIR issuance by June 30, 2019. Changes to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) construction schedule could directly affect these schedule projections.
1.1.3 Waste Management Area C Performance Assessment Waste Management Area (WMA) C includes the C Tank Farm and ancillary equipment, and it is located in the eastern portion of the 200 East Area (Figure 1-4). In FY 2009, a scoping process was initiated to develop the risk assessments and PAs required for closure of WMA C. A series of working sessions will be held with the regulatory agencies and stakeholders to solicit input and obtain a common understanding regarding the scope, methods, and data to be used in the planned risk assessments and PAs. In addition to DOE-ORP, Ecology, and Hanford Site contractors, the working session members also include representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), interested Tribal Nations, other stakeholder groups, DOE-RL personnel and their contractors involved with groundwater/vadose zone or composite analyses efforts, and members of the interested public. NRC staff involvement in the working sessions is a technical resource to assess whether required waste determinations by DOE-RL for the WIR are based on sound technical assumptions, analyses, and conclusions relative to applicable incidental waste criteria. The scoping phase was completed in FY 2011.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-10
Figure 1-4. Location of WMA C
1r
2DOW
le 11A Rotes 11A
In Areait,
ERDF
2 0 0 E
VAiaste Management Area C
I-1
reTPi 0200
TEDF
Rpute 45
1N2ste Marnosment I Area c
Centel Plateau
Inner Area
C/arming Area
A Outside Lane Interest
us ECOLOGY
Central Plateau
Outer Area
km
AT
00
1 rti2
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-11
An initial analysis (modeling) phase of activities resulting from the WMA C PA scoping process completed in FY 2011 was delayed until FY 2013, awaiting issuance of the final TC & WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391). In FY 2014, an initial set of PA modeling results of impacts from a closed WMA C was completed for the groundwater pathway, air pathway, and hypothetical inadvertent intruder. Key elements of the WMA C PA modeling effort included (1) implementing the conceptual model for flow and contaminant transport into a three-dimensional numerical model of flow and transport at WMA C implemented in the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP16) computer code, and (2) implementing the conceptual model of flow and transport in a system-level model of WMA C based on the GoldSim® computer software. The GoldSim-based system model also has included implementation of (1) waste release models used to represent contaminant release from waste residuals remaining in tanks and ancillary equipment, and (2) exposure scenarios used to evaluate performance objectives and measures for the PA. The GoldSim-based system model has also been used to perform a system sensitivity and uncertainty analysis required as a part of the DOE M 435.1-1 PA effort.
In FY 2015, an initial set of PA modeling results for WMA C was supplemented with results from additional modeling cases identified in stakeholder interactions during FY 2014. Results of these analyses are being used to satisfy the requirements outlined in Appendix I of Ecology et al., 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement [TPA]), for assessing the radiological impacts of waste residuals in a closed WMA C under DOE O 435.1 Chg 1, and evaluating hazardous chemical impacts for the same wastes under RCRA.
In September 2015, two detailed documents summarizing the results of the radiological and hazardous chemical impact analyses of tank residuals left in a closed WMA C were completed and transmitted for technical review by DOE-ORP. A revised draft of the WMA C PA (RPP-ENV-58782, Performance Assessment of Waste Management Area (WMA) C, Hanford Site, Washington) for the radiological impacts from tank residuals was submitted by DOE-ORP to the LFRG on December 30, 2015, for review. This review was intended to ensure that the PA was technically sound prior to it being formally submitted to the NRC to initiate consultation under a process similar to that governed by Section 3116 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. The results of the LFRG review determined that the PA is technically adequate for the intended purpose of the PA. DOE-ORP was then authorized to transmit the PA formally to the NRC for consultation and to EPA, Ecology, and the public for review and comments. In addition to the PA, a draft WIR evaluation basis document is also required for the consultation and will be submitted to NRC at a later time.
16 STOMP is a copyright of Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, and used under the Limited Government License. GoldSim® is a registered trademark of GoldSim Technology Group, LLC, Issaquah, Washington.
Relevance of the WMA C PA to the Hanford Site
Composite Analysis
The WMA C PA, when completed, will be supported by the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
Other PAs discussed in this section were developed to obtain authorization for disposal of radioactive waste in disposal facilities constructed for this purpose. The WMA C PA differs in this respect; its purpose is to authorize closure of a tank waste system with residual waste remaining after retrieval as a disposal system.
As the WMA C PA is completed, the information on residual tank waste inventory and predicted releases will serve to update the basis of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. Other WMA PAs will follow in the future, providing further refinement.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-12
In September 2016, four complementary reports that met the intent of TPA Appendix I (Ecology et al., 1989) requirements for a PA were transmitted to DOE-ORP for further review by NRC and Ecology:
• RPP-ENV-58782, Performance Assessment of Waste Management Area C, Hanford Site, Washington, which addresses the radiological impacts of residual wastes left in tanks and ancillary equipment to meet regulatory requirements in DOE M 435.1-1.
• RPP-RPT-59197, Analysis of Past Tank Waste Leaks and Losses in the Vicinity of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, which provides input to the baseline risk assessment update (RPP-RPT-58329, Baseline Risk Assessment for Waste Management Area C).
• The baseline risk assessment (RPP-RPT-58329) was conducted to support a RCRA facility investigation (RFI) for WMA C (RPP-RPT-58339, Phase 2 RCRA Facility Investigation Report for Waste Management Area C).
• RPP-ENV-58806, RCRA Closure Analysis of Tank Waste Residuals Impacts at Waste Management Area C, Hanford Site, Washington, addresses regulatory requirements in WAC 173-303, “Dangerous Waste Regulations.”
In FY 2017, the DOE M 435.1-1 PA document (RPP-ENV-58782) will undergo review with the WIR for WMA C by NRC in support of its consultation role with DOE-ORP. The other three complementary documents will undergo a technical review by Ecology. All four complementary documents will be updated to address both NRC and Ecology comments.
1.1.4 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment
DOE/RL-2017-63, Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, provides the annual status of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) PA. ERDF was constructed in 1996 to receive waste generated by remediation of CERCLA sites at Hanford, and the facility began operations in July 1996. Figure 1-5 shows the location of ERDF. ERDF is an active operating disposal facility managed by CH2M Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) for DOE-RL. This section reviews the PA activities during FY 2017. Additional information about ERDF disposal operations during FY 2017 is provided in Section 1.3.3.2.
Relevance of the ERDF PA to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis
The ERDF PA is supported by the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
Similar to the LLBGs, disposal of solid waste at ERDF constitutes one of the sources of radioactive waste inventory. Because this facility is in active use, the current estimated inventory disposed is adjusted annually to reflect waste received. This updated information is pertinent to the composite analysis because of its potential to change the ERDF inventory evaluated in the composite analysis.
Information on the current inventory and operations for ERDF is presented in Section 1.3.3.2.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-13
Figure 1-5. Location of the ERDF
'Cl2=4G25°)217
LL,
Inns Area _I—Cent al Plateau
d Env ronnental RBSID aeon 0 up. Fac
r
Route 11Ai Rowe IIA
, — 1 F,'a I `I
I P i
200WI r
I 2 0 0 E I
rii i
Inner : I Areak" P
i 1., I " iI
I 1
--Raw. 45 ,
i 1 .-E RCF11L. — ` US ECOLOGY
Environmental RestorationDisposal Faciltty (ERDF)
Central Plateau
Outer Area
1-1 Environmental RestorationI [Disposal Facility (ERDF)
Li 200TEDF
Central Plateau
inner Area
Operating Area
Outside Land Interest
4tt 0 n2 ty
0 1 rie
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-14
Authorization to operate ERDF was granted by EPA in 1995 (EPA/ROD/R10-95/100, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site Benton County, Washington), and by DOE-RL with a DAS (Scott, 2001) in accordance with DOE Order 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Management. The primary technical analyses supporting approval to operate include the remedial investigation (RI)/feasibility study (FS) completed in 1994 (DOE/RL-93-99, Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Report for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility) for the ERDF ROD and a preliminary PA analysis (BHI-00169, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment) to address DOE Order 5820.2A requirements. A crosswalk analysis was completed to show that DOE Order 5820.2A facility performance requirements would be satisfied (Dronen, 1996, “Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility CERCLA/DOE Order 5820.2a Roadmap”). DOE-RL determined that the RI/FS and the preliminary PA analysis adequately evaluated the ability of ERDF to satisfy specific performance objectives in DOE Order 5820.2A and showed a reasonable expectation that these objectives would be met. A second crosswalk was completed to demonstrate compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 (Klein, 2000, “Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) Crosswalk to DOE Order 435.1 Requirements”), which resulted in the issuance of a DAS on June 18, 2001 (Scott, 2001).
Since completion of the preliminary PA analysis, two factors led to the DOE-RL decision to update the PA analysis and complete the formal review process in accordance with DOE M 435.1-1. DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is the successor to DOE Order 5820.2A. First, ERDF has accepted additional radioactive waste at higher inventory levels than originally foreseen (although still within the limits provided in the preliminary PA analysis). Secondly, new information has been developed at the Hanford Site that identifies large conservatisms in the initial analysis. The updated PA analysis is intended to provide a more realistic evaluation of ERDF performance and optimize the capability of ERDF to complete its mission for disposal of CERCLA remediation waste for the remainder of Hanford Site cleanup activities.
In FY 2011, WCH-426, Rev. 0, Work Plan for the Revision of a Performance Assessment Analysis for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, was prepared and approved (Einan, 2011, “Approval of the Work Plan for the Revision of a Performance Assessment Analysis for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, WCH-426, Revision 0, October 2010”), and WCH-462, ERDF Performance Assessment Modeling Approach, was developed for the ERDF PA.
The work plan to prepare the new ERDF PA was revised in FY 2012 (WCH-426, Work Plan for the Revision of a Performance Assessment Analysis for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 1), and a draft report was prepared in early FY 2013 for EPA review. Following review, the draft was revised to incorporate changes in response to EPA comments. WCH-520, Rev. 0, Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington, was published in March 2013, supported by the following data packages:
• WCH-463, Hydrogeologic Model for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site
• WCH-464, Hydrologic Data Package in Support of Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Modeling
• WCH-475, Biota Description Data Package for the Post Closure Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Location
• WCH-476, Chemical Reactivity of Radionuclides with Waste Material and Subsurface Soils During Release and Migration from the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility
• WCH-477, Conceptual Models for Release and Transport of Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Waste Contaminants through the Near Field Environment
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-15
• WCH-478, Exposure and Inadvertent Scenarios for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility
• WCH-479, Inventory Data Package for ERDF Waste Disposal
• WCH-515, Parameter Uncertainty for the ERDF Performance Assessment Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis
The LFRG formally reviewed the revised ERDF PA during the second half of FY 2013. The LFRG examined the validity of the analyses documented in the PA and determined that the PA and associated documentation were technically adequate. Three key issues were identified for resolution prior to approval of the PA, as well as 21 secondary issues. All of the key issues and most of the secondary issues were subsequently resolved, and WCH-520, Rev. 1, Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington, was published in August 2013. The revised ERDF PA (WCH-520, Rev. 1) was submitted for compliance evaluation. Based on the LFRG recommendation, DOE issued the DAS in November 2013, which permitted continued ERDF operations.
Stipulated conditions in the revised DAS included developing a demonstration that an as low as reasonably achievable analysis is not needed, as well as developing a closure plan, a monitoring plan, a maintenance plan, a UDQE procedure, and revised waste acceptance criteria. The plans and UDQE procedure were all developed and submitted to the LFRG in March 2014. The LFRG comments were received in September 2014, and responses were returned to the LFRG in April 2015. DOE-HQ accepted the responses and removed all outstanding conditions of the DAS in August 2015.
Results of the revised ERDF PA (WCH-520, Rev. 1) and an evaluation of the new information provided by this revised PA against the basis of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis were presented in DOE/RL-2013-40, Annual Status Report (FY 2013): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site.
1.2 Central Plateau RCRA Remedial Activities The RCRA corrective action program, directed by DOE-ORP, is pertinent to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis because the actions result in planned redistributions of radioactive inventory in time, location, and waste form.
During FY 2017, monitoring continued for the interim surface barriers at T Tank Farm (completed in FY 2008) and TY Tank Farm (completed in FY 2010). The annual interim surface barrier monitoring report for FY 2015 was provided to Ecology in July 2017 (RPP-RPT-60134, T-TY Tank Farm Interim Surface Barrier Demonstration – Vadose Zone Monitoring FY16).
1.3 Central Plateau CERCLA Remedial Activities CERCLA remedial activities directed by DOE-RL are pertinent to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis because they result in planned redistributions of radioactive inventory considered in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis in time, location, and waste form. Updated knowledge and information acquired while conducting remedial actions have the potential to change the analysis evaluated in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis and are reviewed in this section to assess any such impact.
Relevance of RCRA and CERCLA Remedial Activities
to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis
Remediation actions are pertinent to the Composite Analysis because they result in planned redistributions of radioactive inventory in time, location, and waste form. Updated knowledge and information acquired while conducting remedial actions have the potential to change the analysis evaluated in the composite analysis and are reviewed here to assess any such impact.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-16
The Central Plateau is located near the middle of the Hanford Site and covers an area of approximately 195 km2 (75 mi2). Most activities are concentrated in two main processing areas: the 200 East Area, and the 200 West Area. The Central Plateau contains facilities formerly used in the plutonium-production process, including five large chemical processing facilities (commonly known as canyons) and the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), as well as individual waste sites that include both buried solid waste and contaminated soil.
The approach for Central Plateau cleanup focuses on three major components:
• Inner Area: The final footprint area of the Hanford Site that will be dedicated to waste management and containment of residual contamination.
• Outer Area: Contains the balance of the Central Plateau.
• Groundwater: Comprised of contaminant plumes underlying the Central Plateau and originating from waste sites on the Central Plateau.
Several operating waste disposal facilities in the Inner Area will continue to receive waste from Hanford Site cleanup activities and limited offsite sources. ERDF was constructed for the disposal of waste generated during cleanup of the Hanford Site. Additional cells will be constructed in ERDF as needed to implement cleanup decisions. The LLW or radioactive mixed waste generated from Hanford Site activities may also be disposed in LLBGs or mixed waste trenches, as appropriate. The IDF has a final status RCRA permit for disposal future of some waste generated from radioactive liquid waste tank cleanup. Additional permit modifications are required to enable active operations and include other potential Hanford Site waste streams.
As CERCLA units are remediated, changes will occur in the composite analysis inventory. When waste has been removed from one of these sites, it is considered “generated” waste and is added to the inventory of the specific disposal facility for which it is intended. These inventory changes are tracked in the various PA annual summary reports and have been included the most recent facility PAs (see Chapter 3). These changes will be reflected in the location of the activity but not necessarily as a change in the total site inventory, unless unexpected circumstances are encountered. Some residual activity will remain in the waste sites after remediation has been finalized, but it is not expected to contribute significantly at that location in the composite analysis, given that cleanup has been based on numerical modeling calculations and meets Washington State regulations
Cleanup activities have already begun for some areas in the Central Plateau. The U Plant facility (221U Building) is one of five massive processing facilities at the Hanford Site. The building, commonly referred to as a canyon, was built during World War II to extract plutonium from fuel rods irradiated in Hanford Site production reactors. It was used for training and equipment testing and was later converted to recover uranium from waste generated at other canyon facilities. EPA et al., 2005, Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative) Hanford Site, Washington, was issued in October 2005 and determined that the U Plant Canyon would be disposed in place with a suitable surface barrier to prevent infiltration of water and/or intrusion by human or ecological receptors. In FY 2011, existing contaminated equipment from the canyon deck (near the ground-level portion of the facility) was size-reduced (as necessary), placed in the canyon process cells (below the ground-level portion of the facility), and grouted in place. The upper portion of the canyon building will be demolished to the approximate level of the canyon deck or higher. Debris from the partial demolition will be placed on (or adjacent to) the canyon deck. Appropriate actions (e.g., grouting) will be taken when necessary to minimize void space. The partially demolished building and debris will be covered with a surface barrier. Final decisions
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-17
for the remaining canyons and storage tunnels located at the Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Plant will be made as part of future CERCLA and RCRA cleanup decisions.
On May 9, 2017, workers discovered a partial collapse of the timber roof structure in a portion of PUREX Tunnel 1. Actions were immediately taken to protect personnel in the area, monitor for potential releases, notify the regulatory agencies and public of the event, and implement response actions. Initial response actions included backfilling the collapsed zone with soil to provide radiation shielding, performing contamination control, protecting from ambient conditions, and locally stabilizing the tunnel support structure. A temporary cover was placed over the tunnel to minimize water infiltration and provide a limited amount of dust/contamination control in the event of a future collapse. Additional surveillance activities were also implemented for both Tunnels 1 and 2. DOE-RL is addressing a significant threat of further failure of Tunnel 1 by void filling the tunnel with engineered concrete/grout (grout). Void filling was initiated on October 3, 2017, and completed on November 12, 2017. A structural evaluation also identified a future threat of future for Tunnel 2. DOE-RL plans to address this threat by void filling Tunnel 2, starting before the end of FY 2018. The storage tunnels are permitted as miscellaneous units in the Hanford RCRA Permit. Final closure of the tunnels will be coordinated with future remedial actions of the PUREX canyon as part of the 200-CP-1 Operable Unit (OU). PNNL-11800, Addendum 1 provides a bounding sensitivity analysis for the impact of the composite analysis results of the PUREX tunnels. The inventories of technetium-99 and iodine-129 as representative mobile constituents were used to evaluate potential impact of the PUREX tunnels. The results of the original composite analysis (PNNL-11800) indicated that these two radionuclides were key constituents in the projected dose and could be used as a general indicator of potential impacts. The inventory of technetium-99 and iodine-129 in the PUREX tunnels was obtained from an in-development inventory database (the best available estimate at that time [2001–2002]). The inventory evaluated is provided in Table 1-3 provides the inventory of the PUREX tunnels evaluated in PNNL-11800, Addendum 1.
Table 1-3. Inventory of PUREX Tunnels Evaluated in the Composite Analysis Addenduma
Site Name
Best Estimate of Technetium-99 Inventory
(Ci)
Best Estimate of Iodine-129 Inventory
(Ci)
218-E-14 (Tunnel 1) 0.27 0.001
218-E-15 (Tunnel 2) 1.6 27
PUREX tunnels total 1.9 27b
a. PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site. b. The inventory in Tunnel 2 analyzed in PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, is now considered high. Appendix A of CP-60195, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Radionuclide Inventory and Waste Site Selection Process, estimates the inventory of iodine-129 to be in the range 0.60 to 9.49 Ci for the total of processing canyons and PUREX Tunnel 2.
The assumed end state for the PUREX tunnels in the composite analysis addendum evaluation of injection of grout matrix and placement of an engineered barrier capable of reducing facility infiltration rates to 5 mm/yr (PNNL-11800, Addendum 1). The waste form release was assumed to be a diffusion-controlled, cement-release model. The analysis predicted that release would not occur from the PUREX tunnels in the groundwater pathway for the next 500 to 1,000 years. This result was attributed to the assumed end state of grout injection and an engineered barrier. A sensitivity analysis was also
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-18
evaluated for an upper-end estimate of the inventory, which also predicted no release during the 1,000-year analysis period. The grout fill of void space in PUREX Tunnel 1 completed by DOE-RL following the partial collapse of the tunnel is consistent with the assumed end state in the composite analysis. DOE-RL is evaluating stabilization options for PUREX Tunnel 2, which may include grout filling of void space similar to the action taken for PUREX Tunnel 1 following the collapse event.
Disposition of the remaining facilities, including PFP, is being addressed using a combination of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), CERCLA, and RCRA processes. Radioactive or other hazardous substances are removed and treated (if necessary) and then packaged for disposal in approved disposal facilities. Debris and rubble from the demolition process are disposed onsite at ERDF or offsite in solid waste landfills (SWLs), as appropriate. Limited volumes of transuranic (TRU) wastes generated during demolition are packaged for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. RCRA closure requirements are integrated into the process, where necessary. Potential subsurface contaminants will be addressed in a manner consistent with waste site remedial alternatives, which are provided in the following discussion.
Approximately 15,000 m3 (20,000 yd3) of suspect TRU waste was placed in retrievable storage trenches in four LLBGs beginning in 1970. When waste is retrieved from the trenches, it is characterized to determine whether it is TRU or LLW. Approximately 12,000 m3 (15,700 yd3) have been retrieved to date.
The following extensive and significant inventory of radionuclides exists in other forms that require disposition:
• Approximately 2,000 cesium and strontium capsules are stored underwater at the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility. In 1996, DOE/EIS-0189, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, identified the capsules as waste byproduct material, potentially to be defined as high-level waste (HLW) in consultation with the NRC. The capsules have been managed for disposal at a HLW facility (i.e., WTP for treatment or disposal in a future national repository); to date, however, a decision has not been made regarding final disposal of these capsules. Disposition of the capsules by processing the material through WTP for disposal in the national repository was evaluated in the TC & WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391), which also evaluated the environmental impacts of temporary dry storage prior to final disposition. No decision was made regarding the disposition of the capsules in the TC & WM EIS ROD (78 FR 240).
DOE/RL-2012-47, Mission Needs Statement for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules, established an approach that will proceed with extended storage of the capsules that improves safety and reduces operating costs compared to the current storage configuration in the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility. The dry capsule storage project will be implemented pending future availability of funding.
The TPA (Ecology et al., 1989) included interim Milestone M-092-05, due June 30, 2017, requiring DOE to assess the viability of directly disposing the cesium/strontium capsules at the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository as an alternative to vitrification. However, work at the Yucca Mountain repository ended on April 14, 2011, which resulted from an amendment to a U.S. Department of Defense appropriations action, rendering a viability study impractical. DOE and Ecology agreed to a new interim milestone (TPA Milestone M-092-20) constituting completion of interim Milestone M-092-05, which requires completion of a capsules disposition pathway evaluation by March 31, 2022, and every 4 years thereafter until a final date for completion is established. In addition, DOE and Ecology are negotiating proposed milestones to achieve dry capsule storage and
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-19
to adopt proposed changes to major TPA Milestone M-092-00 to address final disposition of the capsules.
• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) produced 34 borosilicate glass-filled canisters for the Federal Republic of Germany. These German logs were isotopic heat sources for a repository testing program in Germany and are designated as nonhazardous, remote-handled TRU waste. Based on classification activities conducted at the time, the German log casks were shipped to the Central Waste Complex in the 200 West Area in 1997 and are currently managed as remote-handled TRU waste, pending decisions on final disposition.
Alternative evaluations for TPA (Ecology et al., 1989) interim Milestone M-091-52 identified a strategy using monitored natural attenuation (MNA) for waste packages (e.g., German logs) containing >100 Ci cesium-137 rather than shipping to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (CHPRC-03264, M-091-52 Alternative Evaluation). The activity level in the German logs is estimated to be 2.1 million Ci of cesium-137 in 2024. Continued storage will be necessary to allow the total activity level to decay before final disposition.
Since issuance of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1, baseline characterization information has been evaluated, and it was determined that the calculated TRU activity for each of the eight German log casks is <100 nCi/g and could be classified as LLW in accordance with DOE M 435.1-1 (HNF-30810, Acceptable Knowledge Document for the 325 Building Radiochemistry Laboratory Mixed Debris Waste Stream, RLM325D). A disposal pathway for the German logs was developed in 2012 that considered disposing the waste at ERDF (CHPRC-1203550, “Contract Number DE-AC06-08RL14788 – Disposal Pathway for Hanford’s German Logs”). This disposal pathway was supported by engineering calculations (ECF-HANFORD-12-0064, Preliminary Evaluation of Radiological Dose from Burial of German Logs in a Disposal Facility under the Inadvertent Intruder Scenario per DOE Order 435.1 (Radioactive Waste Management); ECF-HANFORD-12-0065, Preliminary Evaluation of Thermal Effects from Burial of German Logs in a Disposal Facility).
• Spent nuclear fuel is stored in multi-canister overpacks at the Canister Storage Building in the 200 East Area. Examples include N Reactor and single-pass production reactor fuel received from the K Basins and Shippingport pressurized water reactor core 2 blanket fuel assemblies. The 200 Area Interim Storage Area, located adjacent to the Canister Storage Building, is used to store other nondefense-related spent nuclear fuel in aboveground dry cask storage containers, including material from the Fast Flux Test Facility, commercial origin light water reactor spent nuclear fuel, and TRIGA® (a class of small nuclear reactor) from the Neutron Radiography Facility and Oregon State University. The Canister Storage Building/interim storage area is designed for interim storage until a suitable, long-term repository is established.
The Central Plateau includes more than 800 soil waste sites consisting of cribs, ponds, ditches, trenches, landfills, pipelines, diversions boxes, unplanned releases, and other types of sites used for liquid or solid waste disposal. Remedial actions or interim removal actions have been conducted for some of the soil waste sites located in the Outer Area. Sites in the 200 North Area have been remediated in accordance with EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (100 Area Remaining Sites), issued
TRIGA® (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) is a registered trademark of General Atomics and Affiliated Companies, San Diego, California.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-20
in 1999. Interim action has been conducted in other parts of the Outer Area to remove surface and shallow contamination and reduce the footprint of areas requiring radiological controls.
EPA et al., 2011, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 Operable Units, issued in September 2011, selected remedies for 20 plutonium-contaminated soil waste sites and pipelines in the 200 West Area (near PFP) and 5 cesium-contaminated soil waste sites in the 200 East Area. The selected remedies included removing, treating, and disposing plutonium-contaminated sludge and soils at 18 sites; constructing a surface barrier over the remaining waste at 9 of the 18 sites; and enhancing existing soil covers over 3 of the 5 cesium-contaminated sites. Two plutonium-contaminated sites and two cesium-contaminated sites were determined to pose no threat to human health and the environment (HHE) and require no remedial action.
Implementation of the selected remedies is described in DOE/RL-2015-23, Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 200-CW-5, 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 Operable Units (hereinafter referred to as the remedial design/remedial action work plan [RD/RAWP]), approved by DOE-RL and EPA in May 2016. Excavated soils that meet ERDF waste acceptance criteria (CP-59968, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria, formerly WCH-91, Rev. 4) will be disposed at ERDF. Excavated soils and sludge from 12 of the sites are expected to require disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant as TRU waste.
Two additional waste sites on the Central Plateau (inactive Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill [NRDWL] and adjacent inactive SWL) located outside of the 200 Areas are to be closed in accordance with closure plans approved by Ecology. Environmental impacts were evaluated in DOE/EA-1707D, Closure of Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (NRDWL) and Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, which was issued for public comment in August 2011. The proposed action, which consists of an engineered barrier, will be implemented pending a finding of no significant impact and approval of the closure plans.
Remediation of the remaining Central Plateau soil waste sites will be completed in accordance with CERCLA and RCRA corrective action requirements. CERCLA guidance requires that a range of alternatives be evaluated, including the following:
1. No action 2. Removal of contaminants as the primary remedy 3. Containment as the predominant remedy 4. Treatment of the contaminants to reduce their toxicity, mobility, or volume as the primary remedy
Evaluation of remedial alternatives conducted for the Central Plateau OUs will consider these alternatives, as well as an alternative that uses a combination of those key features.
Alternatives that involve removal will include treatment (where appropriate) and disposal in an approved facility such as ERDF. Containment remedies may involve maintaining or enhancing existing soil covers, capping with suitable engineered surface barrier, or performing other containment remedies. Treatment-based remedies may involve MNA to allow radioactive materials to decay, immobilization, or other forms of treatment. Surface barriers will be designed to limit the infiltration of water and, thereby, slow the movement of contaminants currently in the vadose zone into the underlying groundwater. Barriers will also be designed to prevent intrusion by plants and animals so underlying contamination is not dispersed.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-21
All alternatives are expected to result in the need for institutional controls (ICs), as long as the hazards are present, to maintain environmental monitoring and surface barriers, limit access to authorized users, and prevent unapproved excavation and inadvertent intrusion. DOE-RL has committed to retain the Central Plateau, as well as other areas of the Hanford Site, under federal control for the foreseeable future.
1.3.1 Central Plateau Source Operable Units The CHPRC Soil and Groundwater Remediation Project implements the RI/FS process for several source OUs in the Central Plateau. Since the inception of CERCLA programs at the Central Plateau, the configuration of the waste site OUs has been modified as needed to support the RI/FS process. In 2010, DOE, EPA, and Ecology (hereinafter referred to as the Tri-Parties) agreed to restructure the OUs to promote consistency in decision making and facilitate a geographic approach to implementing cleanup. Some of the existing OUs were retained, while others were absorbed into new geographic-based OUs. Table 1-4 lists the restructured Central Plateau source OUs and FY 2017 activity.
Table 1-4. Central Plateau Source OU Activity during FY 2017 OU Group Description FY 2017 Activity
Inner Area
200-PW-1/3/6 and 200-CW-5
Plutonium-contaminated soil sites located near the Plutonium Finishing Plant and cesium-contaminated sites near PUREX
No activity in FY 2017 (work not funded).
200-WA-1 and 200-BC-1
Soil waste sites located in the 200 West Inner Area that are not included in the 200-SW-2, 200-CR-1, 200-PW-1/6, 200-CW-5, and 200-IS-1 OUs Soil waste sites in the BC Cribs and Trenches
The RI/FS work plan (DOE/RL-2010-49) was approved by DOE and EPA. Characterization activities will be initiated subject to available funding.
200-EA-1 200 East Inner Area sites not included in the 200-SW-2, 200-CB-1, 200-CP-1, and 200-PW-3 OUs
RI/FS work plan development continued.
200-IS-1 Pipelines, diversion boxes, catch tanks, and neutralization tanks in the 200-IS-1 OU
DOE-RL and Ecology are working to complete and finalize the Rev. 0 RI/FS work plan.
200-SW-2 Solid Waste Burial Grounds and waste sites in the footprint of the burial grounds
Characterization activities will be initiated in accordance with the approved RI/FS work plan (DOE/RL-2004-60), subject to available funding.
200-DV-1 Selected soil waste sites in the Inner Area with deep vadose zone contamination
Characterization activities continue in accordance with the approved RI/FS and RFI/CMS work plan (DOE/RL-2011-102) and approved sampling and analysis plan and addendums (DOE/RL-2011-104, DOE/RL-2011-104-ADD1, and DOE/RL-2011-104-ADD2).
200-CB-1 B Plant Canyon Associated waste sites
No activity in FY 2017 (work not funded).
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-22
Table 1-4. Central Plateau Source OU Activity during FY 2017 OU Group Description FY 2017 Activity
200-CP-1 PUREX Canyon Associated waste sites
No activity in FY 2017 (work not funded).
200-CR-1 REDOX Canyon Associated waste sites
No activity in FY 2017 (work not funded).
200-CU-1 U Plant Canyon Associated structures
No activity in FY 2017 (work not funded).
Outer Area
200-OA-1, 200-CW-1, and 200-CW-3
Sites located in the Outer Area No activity in FY 2017 (work not funded).
References: DOE/RL-2004-60, 200-SW-2 Radioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study/Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan. DOE/RL-2010-49, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan for 200-WA-1 and 200-BC-1 Operable Unit. DOE/RL-2011-102, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study Work Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit. DOE/RL-2011-104, Characterization Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit. DOE/RL-2011-104-ADD1, Characterization and Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Addendum 1: Attenuation Process Characterization. DOE/RL-2011-104-ADD2, Characterization and Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Addendum 1: Supplemental Shallow Soil Risk Characterization Sampling.
CMS = corrective measures study DOE = U.S. Department of Energy DOE-RL = DOE Richland Operations Office Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FS = feasibility study
FY = fiscal year OU = operable unit PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant) REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant) RFI = RCRA facility investigation RI = remedial investigation
The decision-making process for these OUs will incorporate data and analyses previously conducted for the predecessor OUs, as appropriate. The OUs listed in Table 1-4 are subject to completion of the RI/FS process and remediation in accordance with the negotiated major and interim TPA (Ecology et al., 1989) milestones to track the progress listed in Table 1-5. Some changes to milestone dates negotiated in FY 2017 have resulted in due dates beyond 2019. The previous and revised dates are also shown in Table 1-5.
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
1-23
Table 1-5. Central Plateau CERCLA/RCRA Deliverables, FY 2013 through FY 2019 TPA Milestone
Number Title Due Date Status Completion Date
M-015-110A Submit RCRA RFI/CMS & RI/FS Work Plan for 200-DV-1 OU March 31, 2015 Completed March 18, 2015
M-015-112 Submit Draft B 200-IS-1 RFI/CMS/RI/FS Work Plan to Ecology with Schedule Dates
Previously February 28, 2014; revised to November 30, 2020 On schedule
M-015-113 Submit Draft B 200-SW-2 RFI/CMS/RI/FS Work Plan to Ecology Including Schedule March 31, 2015 Completed March 24, 2015
M-015-21A Submit 200-BP-5 and 200-PO-1 OU FS Report & Proposed Plan(s) to Ecology June 30, 2018 At risk
M-015-92A Submit RCRA RFI/CMS & RI/FS Work Plan for 200-EA-1 OU to Ecology
Previously September 30, 2017; revised to July 31, 2018 On schedule
M-015-93C Initiate Characterization Field Work for 200-SW-2 OU Landfills September 30, 2018 On schedule
M-015-98 Complete RI of U Plant Related Waste Sites Located in 200-WA-1 June 30, 2019 On schedule
M-016-125 Submit RD/RAWP to EPA for 200-CW-5 & 200-PW-1/3/6 per ROD September 30, 2015 Completed September 30, 2015
M-016-126 Submit Draft A RD/RAWP for 200-UP-1 to EPA June 24, 2013 Completed April 2, 2013
M-016-190 Complete Installation of Wells for U Plant Area Pump and Treat Per 200-UP-1 RD/RAWP December 29, 2015 Completed September 29, 2015
M-016-191 Complete Acceptance/Operation Test Procedures and Initiate Operations of U Plant Area Pump and Treat
March 30, 2016 Completed December 7, 2015
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
1-24
Table 1-5. Central Plateau CERCLA/RCRA Deliverables, FY 2013 through FY 2019 TPA Milestone
Number Title Due Date Status Completion Date
M-016-192 Submit Draft A Iodine-129 Technology Evaluation Plan to EPA Per 200-UP-1 RD/RAWP June 17, 2016 Completed December 3, 2015
M-016-193 Investigate Southeast Chromium Plume, Install Wells, Evaluate Groundwater Monitoring Data, & Install Monitoring Wells
Previously September 30, 2017; revised to September 30, 2018 On schedule
M-016-250A Submit a 3-Year Rolling Prioritized Schedule to Implement Waste Site Removal Actions March 31, 2016 Completed March 31, 2016
M-016-250B Submit a 3-Year Rolling Prioritized Schedule to Implement Waste Site Removal Actions March 31, 2017 Completed March 30, 2017
M-016-250C Submit a 3-Year Rolling Prioritized Schedule to Implement Waste Site Removal Actions March 31, 2018 On schedule
M-016-250D Submit a 3-Year Rolling Prioritized Schedule to Implement Waste Site Removal Actions March 31, 2019 On schedule
M-037-02 Submit Revised Closure Plans for 5 Specified TSD Units June 30, 2014 Completed June 23, 2014
M-037-03 Submit Revised Closure Plans for 216-B-3 & 216-S-10 April 30, 2013 Completed April 18, 2013
M-085-02 Submit Change Package to Establish Date for M-085-00
September 30, 2015 (extended during negotiations) Completed October 26, 2015
M-085-70 Submit RI/FS Work Plan for 200-CB-1 September 30, 2019 On schedule
M-085-74 Submit Approval Proposal(s) for Expedited Response Action(s) for Tier 1 & 2 Facilities in B Plant
June 30, 2018 Completed November 17, 2016
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
1-25
Table 1-5. Central Plateau CERCLA/RCRA Deliverables, FY 2013 through FY 2019 TPA Milestone
Number Title Due Date Status Completion Date
M-085-80A Submit Data Quality Objective Report to Ecology on Structural Integrity of the PUREX Storage Tunnels 1 and 2
September 30, 2017 Completed September 12, 2017
M-085-82 (new) Submit Approval Proposals(s) for Expedited Response Action(s) for Tier 1 & 2 Facilities in PUREX
December 31, 2017 On schedule N/A
CMS = corrective measures study Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FS = feasibility study OU = operable unit PUREX = Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (Plant) RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 RD/RAWP = remedial design/remedial action work plan
REDOX = Reduction-Oxidation (Plant) RFI = RCRA facility investigation RI = remedial investigation ROD = Record of Decision TPA = Tri-Party Agreement (Ecology et al., 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement
and Consent Order) TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-26
1.3.2 Central Plateau Groundwater Operable Units This section presents the results of the DOE-RL groundwater monitoring program for the Central Plateau groundwater OUs for calendar year (CY) 2016 (the period from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016) relating to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. The groundwater monitoring data and interpreted results for CY 2016 are drawn from information presented in DOE/RL-2016-67, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016,17 which describes the monitoring results for RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) units; CERCLA groundwater OUs; and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as required by DOE orders.
1.3.2.1 Central Plateau Groundwater Background When the Hanford Site was in operation, irradiated fuel reprocessing, isotope recovery, and associated waste management activities occurred on the Central Plateau. Since the 1990s, DOE-RL has worked to characterize, contain, and treat groundwater and to remove and dispose soil contamination from past operations from all onsite locations. The contaminant sources primarily included unlined cribs, trenches, ponds, ditches, and leakage from underground storage tanks (in WMAs).
Figure 1-6 shows the locations and boundaries of the Hanford Site groundwater interest areas and groundwater OUs. Four groundwater interest areas are located within the Central Plateau, and four groundwater OUs are associated with the groundwater interest areas. The groundwater OUs are the 200-ZP-1 and 200-UP-1 OUs in the 200 West Area, and the 200-BP-5 and 200-PO-1 OUs in the 200 East Area. Figure 1-7 depicts the extent of groundwater contaminant plumes above cleanup standards in 2016 and the active cleanup systems. Activities for each of the four groundwater OUs that provide new information on radionuclide constituents relevant to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis are discussed below. Remedial actions directed at nonradioactive contaminants are also discussed wherever it was deemed that these actions could potentially influence the characterization, extent, or remediation of radioactive constituents and, thereby, become relevant to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
Cleanup activities on the Central Plateau are being performed to protect HHE and the Columbia River. Consistent with strategy for Hanford Site remediation (DOE/RL-2009-10, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework), more progress has been made remediating waste sites within the River Corridor as compared to the Central Plateau in order to reduce the active cleanup footprint to the 195 km2 (75 mi2) in the center of the Hanford Site. Remediation of the Central Plateau waste sites is expected to accelerate once many of the River Corridor sites transition into long-term stewardship. Until that time, cleanup activities on the Central Plateau are focused on completing decision documents, remediating groundwater plumes in the 200 West Area, decontaminating and decommissioning facilities (including PFP), and initiating waste site cleanup in the Outer Area.
17 DOE/RL-2016-67 is available online in an interactive report viewer at http://higrv.hanford.gov/Hanford_Reports_2016/Hanford_GW_Report/index.html.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-27
Reference: DOE/RL-2016-67, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016 (Figure 1-2).
Figure 1-6. Hanford Site Groundwater Interest Areas and Groundwater OUs
Washin•to
P.M.11.71440fSpokanela
HanfordAM* Richland
116
d
100-13C-5
p.
r
IIKIRI3C
- 04'14)-eut
_ 1
Groundwater Interest Areas
100-BC 1100-E
100-FR C 200-BP
100-HR-D E-; 200-P0
L 100-HR-H 200-UP
L 100-KR Mil 200-ZP
100-NR 300-FF
0 1 2 3 4 5 kmI-1-1-1-1-1
I I I0 1 2 3 mi
200-ZP-1
•
200W'
r"
=NR-2
•
•
t' 200E
•
Outer Area_
• —
M MGroundwater Operable Unit
r jHanford Site Boundary//, Hanford Reach National Monument
.11:1 Hanford Operations Area Plateau Area Boundary
=Former Operational Boundary
Basalt Above VVater Table
CHSGW20160VY27
r'N
f-
300.FF
1100.EM-1
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-28
Reference: Plume contours from DOE/RL-2016-67, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016 (Figure 1-3).
Figure 1-7. Central Plateau Groundwater Contaminant Plumes and Cleanup
1.3.2.2 Central Plateau Groundwater Decisions The following groundwater interim and final remedial actions were either operated during the reporting period or were active in the recent past. Some of these remedial actions will continue into the next reporting period, while some remedial actions will cease because they were superseded by other interim or final actions. These include remedial actions in the 200-ZP-1 OU (soil vapor extraction [SVE] and groundwater pump and treat [P&T]), 200-UP-1 OU (groundwater P&T), and 200-BP-5 OU (groundwater P&T and perched water P&T). The remedial actions and supporting key documentation are as follows:
200 West Pumpand Treat Facility
•T Tank Farm
PFP
sAL
S-SX Tank Fa•216-5-25
200-UP-1
Central Plateau Groundwater Clean Up, 2016
200.2P-1
Soil Vapor Extraction Focus Area =Cyanide (200 pg/L)
BP-5 Extraction Well Iodine-129 (1 pCi/L)
• S-SX Extraction Well Nitrate (45 mg/L)
• UP-1 Extraction Well Strontium-90 (8 pCi/L)
♦ UP-1 Injection Well Technetium-99 (900 pCi/L)
• ZP-1 Extraction Well Tritium (20,000 pCi/L)
♦ ZP-1 Injection Well Uranium (30 pg/L)
Carbon Tetrachloride (5 pg/L) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 km
IM Chromium (48 pg/L)0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 mi
B ComplexPerched Water Extraction and200-BP-5 Treatability Test
200-DV-1 Perched WaterExtraction Wells
200E
Groundwater Interest Areas
1=1200-BP
1=1200-P0
1=200-UP
200-ZP
Basalt Above Water Table
-2Groundwater Operable Unit
CHSGW2016G W28 11/14/201
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-29
• 200-UP-1 OU interim remedial action (1997 and amended in 2009): A pilot-scale treatability test (DOE/RL-95-02, Treatability Test Report for the 200-UP-1 Operable Unit –Hanford Site), consisting of an onsite P&T system plus single extraction and injection wells, was constructed adjacent to the 216-U-17 Crib. Phase I P&T operations commenced on September 25, 1995, and continued until February 7, 1997. The treatability test demonstrated that the ion-exchange (IX) resin and granular activated carbon were effective at removing technetium-99, uranium, and carbon tetrachloride from groundwater. On February 25, 1997, EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 200-UP-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, was issued:
− This cleanup action started in 1997. The remedial action objectives (RAOs) were met, and the system was shut down in 2012. This ROD was amended through an explanation of significant differences (ESD) in 2009 (EPA et al., 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Hanford Site Benton County, Washington), which updated the uranium cleanup level from 48 to 30 μg/L. This system removed nearly 886 million L (234 million gal) of contaminated groundwater with 220 kg uranium, 127 g (2 Ci) technetium-99, 41 kg carbon tetrachloride, and 49,000 kg nitrate.
• WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system: A groundwater extraction system for technetium-99 at the WMA S-SX Tank Farms was implemented under the revised DOE/RL-97-36, 200-UP-1 Groundwater Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, and began operating in CY 2012. The design consists of a three-well extraction system, aboveground pipelines, and a transfer building to pump extracted groundwater to the 200 West P&T facility. This system was designed for a nominal combined flow rate of 300 L/min (80 gal/minute); the design flow rate was achieved by the end of CY 2012. During CY 2016, 167 million L (44.1 million gal) of water were pumped and treated, removing 0.38 Ci of technetium-99 from the aquifer. From system inception through CY 2016, 677 million L (179 million gal) of water were pumped and treated, removing 2.56 Ci of technetium-99 from the aquifer.
• 200-UP-1 OU interim action ROD (2012): A new interim action ROD addressing contamination within the entire OU was approved in September 2012 (EPA et al., 2012, Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-UP-1 Operable Unit), with the new ROD superseding the previous ROD. The selected remedies identified in the 2012 ROD include a combination of groundwater P&T, MNA, hydraulic containment, and ICs.
A new RD/RAWP (DOE/RL-2013-07, 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan) was developed to implement the 2012 ROD. The WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system will continue as a remedy under the new work plan, and it is being operated in accordance with the requirements of the new ROD.
In CY 2015, a P&T system for the uranium, technetium-99, and nitrate plumes near U Plant and injection wells for hydraulic containment of the iodine-129 plume were implemented as part of the 200-UP-1 OU groundwater remedy. Hydraulic containment of the iodine-129 plume is planned for 10 years while treatment technologies for iodine-129 are investigated. Operation of both remedies started in late CY 2015.
The U Plant P&T system began operating in September 2015. This system consists of two extraction wells and aboveground, dual-walled pipelines to convey extracted groundwater to the 200 West P&T radiological building for treatment. The U Plant P&T system was designed to operate at a nominal combined flow rate of 568 L/min (150 gal/min). At the end of CY 2016, the combined flow rate from the two extraction wells was 532 L/min (141 gal/min). The total volume of water extracted from the
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-30
aquifer during 2016 was 301 million L (80 million gal/min), removing 24.4 kg carbon tetrachloride; 48,800 kg nitrate; 0.47 Ci technetium-99; and 9.9 kg uranium. From system inception through CY 2016, 366 million L (97.3 million gal) of water were pumped and treated, removing 29.7 kg carbon tetrachloride; 71,100 kg nitrate; 0.66 Ci technetium-99; and 11.7 kg uranium from the aquifer.
The iodine-129 plume hydraulic containment system consists of three injection wells to inject treated effluent from the 200 West P&T at a nominal flow rate of 189 to 379 L/min (50 to 100 gal/min) per well. The three injection wells are located east of the iodine-129 plume boundary. Operation of these wells is expected to contain the plume by increasing the water table elevation downgradient of the plume to slow its eastward migration. The combined average flow rate for all three wells in CY 2016 was 506 L/min (134 gal/min). The total volume of water injected into the aquifer during 2016 was 336.9 million L (89.0 million gal).
• 200-ZP-1 OU interim remedial action (1995): In 1996, a groundwater P&T system was implemented to reduce the mass of carbon tetrachloride and contain the plume where concentrations exceeded 2 mg/L. This action was completed, and the interim P&T system was deactivated in 2012. EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) OU 200-ZP-1, Benton County, WA, was issued on June 5, 1995
SVE was implemented as an expedited response action to remove and treat carbon tetrachloride contamination in the vadose zone at 200-PW-1 OU waste sites. The SVE systems operated from 1992 to 2012 and have been effective in removing and treating carbon tetrachloride. SVE was incorporated into the September 2011 ROD (EPA et al., 2011) for the vadose waste sites. The systems were maintained in standby mode from October 2012 through 2015 to allow sufficient time for carbon tetrachloride vapor concentrations to rebound. Calculations indicate that remaining contamination in the vadose zone is not causing groundwater cleanup levels to be exceeded (CHPRC-02507, Endpoint Evaluation for the 200-PW-1 Operable Unit Soil Vapor Extraction System Operations April 2015), and 2015 rebound sampling was recommended. The results for 2014 and 2015 rebound sampling are reported in DOE/RL-2014-48, Response Action Report for the 200-PW-1 Operable Unit Soil Vapor Extraction Remediation. The response action report established that the removal and remedial actions for carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride in the vadose zone at the 200-PW-1 OU carbon tetrachloride waste sites have achieved the RAO applicable to the SVE remedy in the 200-PW-1 OU ROD. In August 2016, DOE-RL and EPA approved DOE/RL-2014-48, thereby closing the SVE remedy and permanently discontinuing SVE operations and vadose zone monitoring.
• 200-ZP-1 OU ROD (2008): The use of P&T technology, MNA, flow-path control, and ICs to remediate contaminated groundwater are identified in EPA et al., 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site Benton County, Washington. Groundwater pumping from this activity affects the direction of groundwater flow and the levels of carbon tetrachloride present in the 200 West Area (including the 200-UP-1 OU). The P&T facility (known as 200 West P&T) began operation in 2012. The 200 West P&T also receives extracted groundwater from the 200-UP-1 and 200-BP-5 OUs, extracted perched water from the 200-DV-1 OU, and leachate from ERDF. The total volume treated in CY 2016 through the 200 West P&T was 3,038.7 million L (803 million gal), removing 1,721 kg carbon tetrachloride; 330,877 kg nitrate; 69.7 kg chromium (total and hexavalent); 8.6 kg trichloroethene (TCE); and 147 g (2.52 Ci) technetium-99. Iodine-129 removal was negligible; the influent and effluent concentrations throughout 2016 were less than the detection limit of 0.6 pCi/L.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-31
• 200-PO-1 OU RI (2012): The final RI for the 200-PO-1 OU was completed and released in 2012 (DOE/RL-2009-85, Remedial Investigation Report for the 200-PO-1 Groundwater Operable Unit). An RI addendum report (DOE/RL-2009-85-ADD1, Remedial Investigation Report for the 200-PO-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Addendum 1) was released as a Draft A in August 2015 to update the risk assessment and contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for the OU. The report recommended that the OU should advance to the next step in the CERCLA process, which is an FS to develop alternatives to remediate groundwater contamination. The RI identified tritium, iodine-129, nitrate, strontium-90, technetium-99, tetrachloroethylene, TCE, and uranium as final COPCs. No remedial decisions have been made at this time.
DOE-RL prepared a deep vadose zone (DVZ) treatability test plan in 2007 to study the effects of desiccation on soil-bound contaminants. The work began at the BC Cribs and Trenches in the 200-BC-1 OU in November 2010, with nitrogen injection and vacuum extraction concluding in June 2011. Two treatability test reports were published, with the final report issued in May 2012:
− DOE/RL-2007-56, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central Plateau
− DOE/RL-2012-34, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test for the Hanford Central Plateau: Soil Desiccation Pilot Test Results
Since 2011, post-test monitoring has been conducted and reported annually. Post-test monitoring will be concluded in 2017, and a final comprehensive post-test monitoring report will be issued.
• 200-BP-5 OU RI (2013): DOE/RL-2009-127, Remedial Investigation Report for the 200-BP-5 Groundwater Operable Unit, was completed to describe the nature and extent of contamination and to identify COPCs to support a future FS. This RI report was released as a Draft A in August 2015.
• 200-BP-5 OU treatability test (2015): A three-phase treatability test was initiated in September 2015 (DOE/RL-2010-74, Treatability Test Plan for the 200-BP-5 Groundwater Operable Unit). The test consisted of one extraction well, located west of the BY Tank Farm. Conveyance of the extracted groundwater to the 200 West P&T radiological building for treatment was completed through an aboveground, dual-walled pipeline. Testing continued through November 19, 2015. The total volume of water extracted from the aquifer during the test was 17.5 million L (4.62 million gal), removing 2.25 kg uranium and 0.13 Ci technetium-99. Other contaminants of concern (COCs) removed included 7,419 kg nitrate; 6.1 kg cyanide; 0.19 Ci tritium; and 3.08E-05 Ci iodine-129. Based on the test results, extraction continued into 2016. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) was submitted to Ecology in June 2015 (DOE/RL-2015-26, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Groundwater Extraction, to transition the extraction of contaminated water from a treatability test to a non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA). The removal action, approved in December 2016 by the Tri-Parties with the issuance of DOE/RL-2016-41, Action Memorandum for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Groundwater Extraction, is designed to recover elevated levels of groundwater contamination while awaiting completion of the CERCLA RI/FS process and issuance of a 200-BP-5 OU ROD. Through 2016, approximately 1,668 million L (43.8 million gal) of contaminated groundwater has been extracted from well 299-E33-268. Groundwater sample results, collected periodically between September 2015 and December 2016 indicate that approximately 1.29 Ci technetium-99 and 14 kg uranium have been removed from the B Complex unconfined aquifer.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-32
• 200-DV-1 OU perched water treatability test (2011): A perched water pumping/pore water extraction treatability test was started in 2011, near the north boundary of the B Tank Farm, as part of the DVZ treatability testing project. By the end of CY 2014, perched water extraction using well 299-E33-344 had removed 945,289 L (249,727 gal) of contaminated perched water, including 53.0 kg uranium, 0.031 Ci technetium-99, and 495 kg nitrate. The following two documents were completed in 2014 for transition of the perched water treatability test to an NTCRA:
− DOE/RL-2013-37, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Perched Water Pumping/Pore Water Extraction
− DOE/RL-2014-34, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping / Pore Water Extraction
In August 2015, perched water extraction was temporarily discontinued to enhance perched water removal by adding two new perched water extraction wells to the system. The perched water treatability test transitioned to a CERCLA NTCRA (DOE/RL-2014-34) when extraction began using all three wells in 2016. In CY 2016, the perched water extraction wells removed 224,434 L (59,289 gal) of perched water containing 11.2 kg uranium, 0.36 g technetium-99, and 195.0 kg nitrate. Since perched water extraction began in 2011, 1,364,306 L (360,444 gal) of perched water containing 79.7 kg uranium, 2.5 g (0.042 Ci) technetium-99, and 778.0 kg nitrate has been removed from the perched zone. The reconfiguration of surface piping to convey perched water to the 200 West P&T through the cross-site pipeline was completed in 2017.
1.3.2.3 Central Plateau Groundwater Remedial Activities Central Plateau groundwater and vadose zone remediation systems have removed more than 103,084 kg carbon tetrachloride from groundwater since 1992. During 2016, DOE-RL completed 15 new wells in the Central Plateau for monitoring, remediation, and/or characterization; no wells were decommissioned during 2016. Additionally, 24 characterization boreholes were drilled and decommissioned in 2016. DOE-RL collected and analyzed samples from 486 monitoring wells and 21 shoreline aquifer tubes for the Central Plateau groundwater interest areas to determine the distribution and movement of contaminants. Many of the wells and aquifer tubes were sampled multiple times during the reporting period, resulting in 1,006 well sampling events. The samples were analyzed for a variety of radionuclides and chemicals.
The P&T systems located in the Central Plateau target radionuclides (including technetium-99 in the 200-ZP-1 and 200-UP-1 OUs) and are, therefore, of direct interest with respect to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. However, all P&T systems are of indirect interest because perturbations to the hydraulic flow system induced by P&T systems were not included in the features, events, and processes modeled for the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. The groundwater model for the Hanford Site Composite Analysis was developed in the 1990s, before remedial decisions for groundwater had been made. At that time, it was not possible to anticipate the locations, rates, and durations of extraction and injection wells that since have been used to accomplish groundwater remedial actions. Table 1-6 summarizes the status of Central Plateau P&T systems for the reporting period and the recent past. The radionuclide activity removed to date and the hydraulic perturbations induced by P&T systems reviewed here are not yet considered to have a significant impact if they were to be included in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis model. It is reasonable to assume that the impact of inclusion of this feature in the model would result in a reduction in the projected radiological dose estimate from the groundwater pathway. Newer, large-scale P&T systems (particularly in the 200-ZP-1 and 200-UP-1 OUs) are planned to operate for an extended time, and consideration of the full impact of these systems will be
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-33
addressed in the upcoming revision of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis (expected to be completed in FY 2020).
Table 1-6. Status of Central Plateau Groundwater Remediation in CY 2016
Area Remedial Action
Site Active Dates
Purpose and Progress on Major Contaminant During Reporting Period
200 West 200-ZP-1 OU P&T 1994 to 2012
The system was shut down in May 2012 for transition to startup of the 200 West P&T. Since 1996, the total volume of groundwater extracted by this system was 6.0 billion L (1.6 billion gal) and 13,718 kg total of carbon tetrachloride was removed.
200-PW-1 OU SVE 1992 to 2016
Two SVE systems, with a total design capacity of 28.4 m3/min, were used from April through October. The systems were maintained in standby mode during the winter to allow time for carbon tetrachloride vapor concentrations to rebound. The systems were maintained in standby mode from October 2012 through April 2015 to allow time for carbon tetrachloride vapor concentrations to rebound. In 2012 (the last year of operation), the two systems removed 162 kg of carbon tetrachloride and treated 3.0 million m3 of vapor. Since startup in 1992, 80,107 kg of carbon tetrachloride have been removed in 118 million m3 of soil vapor. Passive SVE systems operated at eight wells near the 216-Z-1A Tile Field and the 216-Z-18 Crib near the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Passive SVE is a naturally occurring process driven by barometric pressure fluctuations. Passive SVE systems operated from January through March 2013. During 2013, the systems removed approximately 0.3 kg of carbon tetrachloride from the vadose zone. The passive SVE wells were taken out of service permanently in March 2013. Since operations began in 2001, the passive systems have removed approximately 110 kg carbon tetrachloride. DOE-RL and EPA approved DOE/RL-2014-48 in August 2016, thereby closing the SVE remedy and permanently discontinuing SVE operations and vadose zone monitoring.
WMA T technetium-99 test system
2007 to 2012
This system was shut down in May 2012 for transition to the 200 West P&T. During 2012, this system removed 5.5 g (0.01 Ci) technetium-99; 11.6 kg carbon tetrachloride; 4,417 kg nitrate; and 1.3 kg chromium.
200-UP-1 OU (U Plant) P&T
1994 to 2005
2007 to 2012
This system was shut down in March 2011 because interim remedial action objectives had been achieved, and flow rates from the extraction wells were too low to justify continued pumping. A final summary of the accomplishments for this system are described in the CY 2011 annual summary report (DOE/RL-2012-03) The volume of water removed from the aquifer since the system began operating in 1994 was 887 million L (234 million gal), and the mass removed was 220 kg uranium; 127 g (2.17 Ci) technetium-99; 41.4 kg carbon tetrachloride, and 49,200 kg nitrate.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-34
Table 1-6. Status of Central Plateau Groundwater Remediation in CY 2016
Area Remedial Action
Site Active Dates
Purpose and Progress on Major Contaminant During Reporting Period
200-UP-1 OU (U Plant) P&T
2012 to present
A new interim action ROD addressing contamination within the entire OU was approved in September 2012 (EPA et al., 2012), with the new ROD superseding the previous ROD. The selected remedies in the 2012 ROD consist of a combination of groundwater P&T, monitored natural attenuation, hydraulic containment, and institutional controls. The current U Plant P&T is the third system used for remediating the plumes from the 216-U-1 and 216-U-2 Cribs. The U Plant system began operating in September 2015. The system was designed to operate at a nominal combined flow rate of 568 L/min (150 gal/min). The total volume of water extracted from the aquifer during 2016 was 301 million L (80 million gal), removing 24.4 kg carbon tetrachloride; 48,800 kg nitrate; 0.47 Ci technetium-99; and 9.9 kg uranium.
WMA S-SX (well 299-W23-19) extended purging
2003 to 2012
Quarterly sampling of this well began in March 2000, and purging and disposal of at least 3,785 L (1,000 gal) of technetium-99 contaminated groundwater started in 2003. About 0.011 Ci (or 0.63 g) of technetium-99 was removed since startup. This remedy has been discontinued due to startup of the WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system.
WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system
2012 to present
The WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system began operating during 2012 to remove technetium-99 from the aquifer. The total volume of water extracted from the aquifer during CY 2016 was 167 million L (44.1 million gal), and the total volume of water extracted since startup in July 2012 is 677 million L (179 million gal). During 2016, 0.38 Ci (22.3 g) technetium-99 were removed from the aquifer, and 2.56 Ci (150.9 g) have been removed since startup.
200 West P&T 2012 to present
The 200 West P&T started operations in July 2012, replacing the interim 200-ZP-1 OU P&T. The 200 West P&T is designed to remove carbon tetrachloride, total hexavalent chromium, iodine-129, nitrate, technetium-99, and trichloroethene from groundwater using ion exchange, anoxic and aerobic bioreactors, and air stripping. The system design maximum capacity is 9,464 L/min (2,500 gal/min) and includes radiological treatment using ion exchange to remove technetium-99 and iodine-129 from groundwater at a maximum flow capacity of 2,271 L/min (600 gal/min). The total volume treated in 2016 through the 200 West P&T, including groundwater extraction from other Central Plateau OU, was 3,038.7 million L (802 million gal) and, since system, startup 13,383.4 million L (3,533.2 million gal) removed the following:
Contaminant Removed CY 2016
Since System Startup
(July 2012) Carbon tetrachloride 1,721 kg 10,985 kg
Nitrate 330,877 kg 1,174,990 kg Chromium (total and hexavalent) 69.7 kg 319.6 kg
Trichloroethene 8.6 kg 47.5 kg
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-35
Table 1-6. Status of Central Plateau Groundwater Remediation in CY 2016
Area Remedial Action
Site Active Dates
Purpose and Progress on Major Contaminant During Reporting Period
Technetium-99 147 g (2.4 Ci) 432 g (7.3 Ci)
Iodine-129 0.0 g (0.0 µCi) 1.5 g (242.0 µCi)
Uranium 33.3 kg 42.2 kg
200 East 200-DV-1 OU perched water extraction
2011 to present
Perched water extraction in the deep vadose zone overlying the 200-BP-5 OU continues as a non-time-critical removal action. Through the end of December 2016, the perched water extraction removed 1.36 million L (0.36 million gal) of contaminated water containing 79.7 kg uranium and 2.5 g (0.042 Ci) technetium-99.
200-BP-5 OU groundwater P&T
2015 to present
The 200-BP-5 OU groundwater P&T continues as a non-time-critical removal action. Through the end of December 2016, groundwater extraction removed 1.7 billion L (43.8 million gal) of contaminated water containing 14 kg uranium and 1.29 Ci technetium-99.
200-PO-1 OU (100-BC-1 OU) soil desiccation
2011 to present
Negligible contaminant removal; removed 18,000 kg of soil water.
References: DOE/RL-2014-48, Response Action Report for the 200-PW-1 Operable Unit Soil Vapor Extraction Remediation. DOE/RL‑2012-03, Calendar Year 2011 Annual Summary Report for the 200-ZP-1 and 200-UP-1 Operable Unit Pump-and-Treat Operations. EPA et al., 2012, Calendar Year 2011 Annual Summary Report for the 200-ZP-1 and 200-UP-1 Operable Unit Pump-and-Treat Operations.
CY = calendar year DOE-RL = DOE Richland Operations Office EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OU = operable unit
P&T = pump and treat ROD = Record of Decision SVE = soil vapor extraction WMA = waste management area
Four groundwater OUs are located in the Central Plateau: 200-UP-1, 200-ZP-1, 200-BP-5, and 200-PO-1 (as shown in Figure 1-6, as well as other groundwater OUs in the River Corridor that are not pertinent to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis). Activities in the four groundwater OUs that provide new information on radionuclide constituents relevant to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis are discussed in the following sections for each respective OU. Remedial actions directed at nonradioactive contaminants are also discussed when the actions could potentially influence the characterization, extent, or remediation of radioactive constituents and, thereby, have relevance to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. The remediation status for each of the applicable Central Plateau groundwater OUs is presented if remediation information exists for the OU for the reporting period. If remedial action was not in progress during the reporting period, the groundwater concentration status is summarized, as well as any other relevant work that occurred in the reporting period.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-36
1.3.2.4 200-BP-5 Groundwater Operable Unit The 200-BP-5 OU includes groundwater beneath the northern portion of 200 East Area and the region to the northwest, where mobile contaminants have migrated between Gable Mountain and Gable Butte. Figure 1-8 shows the location of the 200-BP-5 OU, the surface and subsurface features of the OU, and locations of monitoring wells used to collect groundwater data. Nitrate, iodine-129, and technetium-99 form the most extensive contaminant plumes in this OU. These contaminants originated mainly from local sources, except for iodine-129, which predominately migrated into the 200-BP-5 OU from the 200-PO-1 OU in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These mobile contaminants have migrated beyond the 200 East Area to the northwest due to past artificial groundwater gradients.
Cyanide and uranium are present as smaller plumes associated with past releases in the B Complex, located in the northwest corner of the 200 East Area, which includes the BY Cribs and B-BX-BY Tank Farms. Strontium-90 consists of two localized plumes that currently exist, mainly beneath the originating waste sites: 216-B-5 injection well and Gable Mountain Pond. Two other localized plumes are also present at the 216-B-5 injection well: cesium-137 and plutonium-239/240. The tritium plume has decreased to two localized areas in the upper aquifer: B Complex and 216-B-3 Pond. However, RI drilling in 2010 provided evidence of a concentrated plume in the lower part of the aquifer near the 216-B-12 Crib and B Plant. Two additional wells, one north and one south of B Plant, were drilled in this area during 2015 to improve characterization of the extent of tritium at depth. Tritium concentrations in the well north of B Plant ranged from 45,200 and 52,500 pCi/L at three depth-discrete sample intervals: 7.4, 13.5, and 15.8 m (24, 44, and 52 ft) below the water table. In the new well south of B Plant, tritium increased with depth from 18,900 pCi/L, to 49,000 pCi/L, to 91,600 pCi/L at depth-discrete sample intervals 7.4, 13.2, and 19 m (24, 43, and 62 ft) below the water table, respectively. Well coverage in the lower aquifer is sparse in the area, and it is the extent of the plume to north-northwest and south-southeast is uncertain.
Most groundwater contamination in the 200-BP-5 OU is concentrated beneath WMA B-BX-BY and adjacent waste sites in the northwestern portion of the OU. Draft A of the RI report (DOE/RL-2009-127) was submitted to Ecology in August 2015 and describes the nature and extent of contamination and identifies the COPCs for the OU. Additional work began on an FS in late 2015 that will be combined with the 200-PO-1 OU FS.
RCRA Monitoring. Six TSD units are monitored under RCRA in coordination with CERCLA and AEA requirements: Low-Level Waste Management Area (LLWMA)-1, LLWMA-2, WMA B-BX-BY, WMA C, the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility, and the 216-B-63 Trench. Assessment monitoring continued at WMA B-BX-BY and WMA C. A Class 2 modification to the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility groundwater monitoring portion of the Hanford RCRA Permit was drafted for Ecology review in FY 2013 to incorporate the new wells drilled in 2008 and to direct the 2015 installation of well 299-E26-15. This plan, as defined in DOE/RL-2013-46, Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility, was submitted for public comment in early 2014 and was implemented in April 2014.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-37
Reference: DOE/RL-2016-67, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016 (Figure 9-2).
Figure 1-8. 200-BP-5 Groundwater OU Sampling Locations, 2016
49-57A
ar,53-5513,C
ir-52-55
\ 52-558
48-80B4 C8706C8709, C9552216-B-50
E33-34% 833-7
832,8E32-9 E32-1005711.C95.50,E33-40
BY E3 Cr 3-3 ibs41
E33.265E33-266
E32-6
E32-2E32-3E32-5
E28-281E2828
833 29E33:21-E33-43E3-334E33.1.335E33-49,Enrw,
".8.28-8/E28-21 E3348
18 41E2ei2fiKE28- E2 _8.42425
216-B-12 E28-31 V216r43-5
• E28-9-,0E2iI34s,E28-3o-A,
•':82954E28 3• E28- 1 .• •
•
0.8-17.B Plant -
C6236,3;3814-D K-(.3-1:,41
;12-D K.183
72-73
11,70-68 \
1(66-6465-72
64-62
61-62
mAr
E33-342E33-38--. E33-38
216-8-57 ----7 •E33-268, E33-44E33-31 -wE33-42t4WIAAE33-32 ' B-BXC049:14
66-58
55_57 1455-50C-
Zt73 Pond
RIZIL48-91 -26- -
45-42 -= 43741b
;:4*nu w 42.40A-44-3913
'1" B Pond„r11--VO El tWZ29:1;'':
Ar o
Cat)833-IAE33-__1A.E331_340.E33139E3 15E33-16E33-345• E33-14E33-17
ig,E33-344E33-20E83-360
BY E33-41
GableMounfainPond •
(A
834-9833-33
/E34-8
Av.
1E33361E33-47
E33-338 216-B-63 E2743 827-9833.33•7 828-5827-19
216-B-2-3C9489 218-B-2-2a
C9490-1 216-13-2-1 E27.45/
4\NE28 828-70
0-E28-4
Extent of
Main Map
A
• 54-49•-54.48
/53-48A4 53-47B
E27-2-1
jr
E26-14
E26-77
E26479
E28-15
B Pond
arr2016 Sample Locations+ Aquifer Tube
• Groundwater Well
• Well Installed 2016
O Well Decommissioned 2016
• Instrument Boring
Well Prefix '2992 and '6992 omitted.
Waste Site
MI FacilityBasak Above Water Table
Mud Above Water Table
C7/A
Roads0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 lull1
0 0.25 0.5 nilCHSGW2016BP26 4/30/201
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-38
Since 2011, continued declining groundwater elevation in the 200 East Area has resulted in a changing flow direction in the northwest corner of the 200 East Area. Flow began changing from northwest to south-southeast in June 2011. By August 2011, a statistically significant gradient to the south-southeast was measured. The south-southeast flow direction has continued through 2016. This reversal is further documented by the southeast migration of groundwater contaminants extending from WMA B-BX-BY and the BY Cribs. The new groundwater flow direction also appears to have changed the groundwater flow direction beneath WMA C. During FY 2013, groundwater contamination west of WMA C began to decrease significantly, while concentrations increased in the south and southeast portion of WMA C. The following quarterly reports for WMA C, completed in 2015, explain the groundwater flow dynamics:
• SGW-59669, WMA C October Through December 2015 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report • SGW-59914, WMA C January Through March, 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report • SGW-60442, WMA C April Through June 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report • SGW-60494, WMA C July Through September 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report
Several wells were selected for low-gradient monitoring across the 200 East Area to define the groundwater flow near WMA C more accurately. The wells were precision surveyed and corrected for borehole deviation through gyroscope surveys. Data correction for barometric response was evaluated for these wells and the expanded water-level network in FY 2014. The expanded 200 East Area low hydraulic gradient water-level network and the relationship between the Treated Effluent Disposal Facility discharges and gradient magnitude are discussed in SGW-58828, Water Table Maps for the Hanford Site 200 East Area, 2013 and 2014.
Two LLWMAs and the 216-B-63 Trench in the 200-BP-5 OU are monitored under RCRA interim status contaminant indicator parameter programs. No significant changes occurred at these facilities in FY 2017.
Treatability Testing. DOE-RL designed and published a treatability test (DOE/RL-2010-74) to evaluate P&T of groundwater to remediate uranium and technetium-99 contamination near WMA B (B-BX-BY Tank Farms). In 2011, installation began for an extraction well to support the test, and the well was completed in 2012.
The treatability test (DOE/RL-2010-74) was completed from August through November 2015 to evaluate the groundwater extraction rate that could be sustained in the unconfined aquifer at the B Complex. The test results are documented in DOE/RL-2015-75, Aquifer Treatability Test Report for the 200-BP-5 Groundwater Operable Unit.
The Draft A EE/CA for B Complex groundwater extraction (DOE/RL-2015-26) was issued in June 2015 to evaluate the implementation of a NTCRA for the extraction and treatment of groundwater near the B Complex in the 200-BP-5 OU. The EE/CA recommended groundwater extraction for conveyance and treatment at the 200 West P&T. The removal scope was approved by the Tri-Parties in December 2016 with the issuance of an action memorandum for 200-BP-1 OU groundwater extraction (DOE/RL-2016-41).
Perched Water. A fine-grained geologic unit beneath the B Complex has created an area of saturated sediments (a perched aquifer) in the DVZ above the regional water table. The perched water is contaminated with uranium, technetium-99, and other contaminants. To address the groundwater impact associated with infiltration from the perching horizon, DOE-RL initiated a perched water pumping treatability test in 2011 (DOE/RL-2011-40, Field Test Plan for the Perched Water Pumping/Pore Water Extraction Treatability Test). Well 299-E33-344 was used for extraction during the test. Pumping began in August and continued until early December 2011, when extracted perched water results received from
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-39
the laboratory increased significantly and required a different waste disposal path. Pumping resumed in April 2012. The uranium concentration increased from 4,500 μg/L in September to 63,600 μg/L in October 2012. The increase in concentration was confirmed in December with a result of 71,500 μg/L. These were the highest uranium concentrations detected at the Hanford Site during 2011.
In December 2014, the action memorandum for 200-BP-5 OU perched water pumping/pore water extraction (DOE/RL-2014-34) was signed to document the selected alternative for perched water remediation under CERCLA. The selected alternative extracts perched water and transfers the water by tanker truck or pipeline to the 200 West P&T, where it is treated and injected into the aquifer below the 200 West Area. DOE/RL-2014-37, Removal Action Work Plan for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping/Pore Water Extraction, was approved in November 2015.
Two additional perched water extraction wells (299-E33-350 and 299-E33-351) were drilled in 2014. The two new wells were added to the extraction system in 2016 when the perched water treatability test transitioned to a CERCLA removal action (DOE/RL-2014-34). A total of 224,434 L (59,289 gal) of water has been removed, containing 195.0 kg nitrate, 0.006 Ci technetium-99, and 11.2 kg uranium in 2016. In 2017, the perched water extraction piping was reconfigured to convey perched water through the cross-site pipeline directly to the 200 West P&T.
Review of FY 2017 CERCLA investigations and CY 2016 CERCLA and AEA monitoring activities reported in the 2016 Hanford Site groundwater monitoring report (DOE/RL-2016-67) and evaluated in FY 2017 did not reveal any new information associated with the 200-BP-5 OU with potential to significantly alter conclusions of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
1.3.2.5 200-PO-1 Groundwater Operable Unit The 200-PO-1 OU is located in the southern portion of the 200 East Area. Disposal of large volumes of liquid waste from PUREX and its related facilities created regional groundwater plumes of tritium, iodine-129, and nitrate. Concentrations of tritium are declining as the plume attenuates naturally from radioactive decay and dispersion, and the tritium plume has decreased in size by approximately 57 percent since 1996. The area of the iodine-129 plume above the 1 pCi/L drinking water standard (DWS) has decreased slightly over the past decade, and maximum concentrations have declined due to dispersion. Radioactive decay has not decreased the level of iodine-129 noticeably because the isotope has a low decay rate (15.7 million years half-life). The nitrate plume covers a large area, with concentrations above background but mostly below the DWS for nitrate. Other contaminants include strontium-90, technetium-99, and uranium in smaller areas near their sources. In 2012, DOE-RL published the final CERCLA RI report (DOE/RL-2009-85) identifying tritium, iodine-129, nitrate, strontium-90, technetium-99, tetrachloroethylene, TCE, and uranium as the final COPCs for the 200-PO-1 OU. An RI addendum report (DOE/RL-2009-85-ADD1, Draft A) was submitted in August 2015 to update the risk assessment and COPCs for this groundwater OU.
Soil Desiccation Test. A soil desiccation treatability test (DOE/RL-2009-119, Characterization of the Soil Desiccation Pilot Test Site) was performed from 2010 to 2011 in an interval containing high moisture and associated technetium-99 contamination near the BC Cribs and Trenches. This technology is being considered as a potential remedy in the DVZ. For 6 months, nitrogen was injected into a well and soil gas was extracted from another well. A combination of in situ sensors and geophysical measurements provided data to monitor performance. As anticipated, desiccation occurred more rapidly from higher permeability sediment. The active portion of the test was completed, and the pilot test results were reported in DOE/RL-2012-34. DOE-RL has continued to monitor rewetting of the desiccated region and provide results annually. Post-test monitoring concluded in 2017, and a final comprehensive post-test monitoring report will be issued.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-40
RCRA Assessment Monitoring. During 2016, monitoring continued at seven RCRA units: WMA A-AX single-shell tanks, 216-A-36B Crib, 216-A-37-1 Crib, 216-A-29 Ditch, IDF, 216-B-3 Pond, and NRDWL. One other facility, the SWL, is monitored but is not regulated under RCRA; however, the SWL is subject to Washington Administrative Code requirements. The IDF is an expandable, double-lined landfill that is regulated under RCRA and AEA. (Note: The IDF PA is discussed in Section 1.1.2 of this report.) The IDF is not yet in use, and current groundwater monitoring is directed at obtaining baseline data. The SWL is regulated under Washington State solid waste handling regulations. As in previous years, some of the downgradient wells showed higher concentrations of regulated constituents than the statistically calculated background values. Background threshold values exceeded during 2015 included specific conductance, pH, nitrite, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, and total organic carbon.
Review of FY 2017 CERCLA investigations and CY 2016 CERCLA monitoring activities reported in DOE/RL-2016-67 and evaluated during FY 2017 did not reveal any new information associated with the 200-PO-1 OU with potential to significantly alter the conclusions of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
1.3.2.6 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit The 200-UP-1 OU includes the southern portion of the 200 West Area and adjacent areas to the east and south. Primary contaminant sources in the OU include cribs, ditches, ponds, and single-shell tanks associated with Reduction-Oxidation Plant operations for plutonium and uranium separation and/or U Plant for uranium recovery. Technetium-99, uranium, tritium, iodine-129, nitrate, chromium, and carbon tetrachloride plumes are present in groundwater. Strontium-90 and TCE also exceed their respective DWSs in isolated areas, but monitoring data are limited due to well location and depths. The carbon tetrachloride plume originated from the 200-ZP-1 OU. Technetium-99 concentrations in the 200-UP-1 OU are the highest measured in groundwater on the Hanford Site. Near U Plant, the areal extent of the technetium-99 plume has decreased substantially due to operation of an interim action P&T system from 1997 until 2011. In contrast, the technetium-99 plume near WMA S-SX has increased in areal extent over time. A new groundwater extraction system began operating in 2012 to address the plumes downgradient of WMA S-SX. The tritium plume is attenuating due to dispersion and radioactive decay and has not migrated substantially, and the areal extents of other plumes in the OU have remained largely unchanged or have decreased slightly in the past decade.
In CY 2015 a P&T system for the uranium, technetium-99, and nitrate plumes near U Plant and injection wells for hydraulic containment of the iodine-129 plume were implemented as part of the 200-UP-1 groundwater remedy. Hydraulic containment of the iodine-129 plume is planned for 10 years while treatment technologies for iodine-129 are investigated. Operation of both remedies started in late CY 2015.
Decision Documents. In 2012, DOE-RL released the final RI/FS report (DOE/RL-2009-122, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit) and DOE/RL-2010-05, Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit. The interim action ROD (EPA et al., 2012) was signed in September 2012 and issued as interim for all 200-UP-1 OU COCs. The selected remedies use a combination of groundwater P&T, MNA, hydraulic containment for iodine-129 while treatment technologies are investigated, and ICs. Work on the RD/RAWP (DOE/RL-2013-07) began in October 2012 and was issued in September 2013.
Remedial Actions. Although originally designed as a remedy under the 1997 ROD (EPA/ROD/R10-97/048), as modified by the 2009 ESD (EPA et al., 2009a), the WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system is now operating under the ROD (EPA et al., 2012). The new cleanup level for technetium-99 is 900 pCi/L. Extracted groundwater from the WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-41
is treated at the 200 West P&T to well below 900 pCi/L (nondetect) before being reinjected into the aquifer. Although the WMA S-SX groundwater extraction system was specifically designed to address the technetium-99 plume, it also removes carbon tetrachloride, chromium, and nitrate from the aquifer for treatment at the 200 West P&T. Design work on the other remedial actions identified in the new ROD were initiated in FY 2014.
Since startup in 2012, 677 million L (179 million gal) have been extracted from the aquifer, and 150.9 g (2.56 Ci) technetium-99; 41.4 kg chromium; 27,510 kg nitrate; and 50.9 kg carbon tetrachloride have been removed from the aquifer.
At the end of CY 2016, the U Plant P&T system extracted 366 million L (97.3 million gal) of contaminated groundwater, removing 29.7 kg of carbon tetrachloride; 71,100 kg of nitrate; 0.66 Ci of technetium-99; and 11.7 kg of uranium.
From startup in October 2015 to the end of the CY 2016, the combined average flow rate for the iodine-129 plume hydraulic containment was 656 L/min (173 gal/min), and the total volume of water injected into the aquifer was 407 million L (107.5 million gal).
RCRA Monitoring. In the 200-UP-1 OU, RCRA monitoring included interim status groundwater quality assessment monitoring at WMA S-SX and WMA U, as well as interim status indicator parameter evaluation monitoring at the 216-S-10 Pond and Ditch. The monitoring results did not show major changes in the extent of contamination. Indicator parameters did not exceed statistical comparison values at the 216-S-10 Pond and Ditch during 2015. Monitoring in the 200-UP-1 OU also included the ERDF monitoring program (operated under CERCLA but monitored under RCRA). (Note: The ERDF PA is discussed in Section 1.1.4, and ERDF operations are discussed in Section 1.3.3.2 of this report.) In 2016, groundwater monitoring results continued to indicate that the facility has not adversely affected groundwater quality.
Review of FY 2017 CERCLA investigations and CY 2016 CERCLA monitoring activities reported in the Hanford Site groundwater monitoring report for 2016 (DOE/RL-2016-67) and evaluated in FY 2017 did not reveal any new information associated with the 200-UP-1 OU with potential to significantly alter the conclusions of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
1.3.2.7 200-ZP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit The 200 West P&T operated during 2016 in the 200-ZP-1 OU. Two SVE systems for soil vapor remediation were maintained in standby mode from October 2012 through April 2015 to allow time for carbon tetrachloride vapor concentrations to rebound. Passive SVE systems operated from January through March 2013. The passive SVE wells were taken out of service permanently in March 2013. In August 2016, DOE-RL and EPA approved DOE/RL-2014-48, thereby closing the SVE remedy and permanently discontinuing SVE operations and vadose zone monitoring.
The 200-ZP-1 OU also contains four TSD units (LLWMA-3, LLWMA-4, WMA T, and WMA TX-TY), which are monitored under RCRA (in coordination with CERCLA and AEA), and one state-permitted unit (the State-Approved Land Disposal Site [SALDS]).
The COCs for the 200-ZP-1 OU are carbon tetrachloride, TCE, iodine-129, technetium-99, nitrate, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)), total chromium, and tritium. Since 1994, DOE-RL has operated an interim action groundwater P&T system to prevent carbon tetrachloride in the upper portion of the aquifer from spreading. The interim system limited the movement of shallow, high-concentration portions of the plume but did not address contamination deeper in the aquifer and at the periphery of the plume.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-42
The new 200 West P&T will remediate groundwater from the entire aquifer thickness and provide treatment for carbon tetrachloride, TCE, technetium-99, nitrate, Cr(VI), and total chromium.
The interim 200-ZP-1 OU and T Tank Farm P&T systems were shut down in May 2012, and operation transitioned to the 200 West P&T. The interim P&T system removed 13,718 kg carbon tetrachloride from 6 billion L (1.6 billion gal) of groundwater, and the T Tank Farm system removed 5.5 g (0.1 Ci) technetium-99; 11.6 kg carbon tetrachloride; 4,717 kg nitrate; and 1.3 kg chromium before shutdown in May 2012. Since startup in July 2012, the total volume treated through the 200 West P&T was 13,383.4 million L (3,533.2 million gal), removing 10,985 kg carbon tetrachloride; 1,174,900 kg nitrate; 319.6 kg chromium (total and hexavalent); 47.5 kg TCE; 432 g (7.3 Ci) technetium-99; 1.5 g (242.0 µCi) iodine-129; and 42.2 kg uranium.
Operation of the SVE systems from 1992 to 2012 removed 80,107 kg of carbon tetrachloride from the vadose zone in 118 million m3 (4.2 billion ft3) of soil vapor. Passive SVE systems operating at eight wells near the 216-Z-1A Tile Field and 216-Z-18 Crib (near PFP) from 2001 to 2013 removed 110 kg of carbon tetrachloride. Passive SVE is a naturally occurring process driven by barometric pressure fluctuations.
Two LLWMAs in the 200-ZP-1 OU are monitored under RCRA interim status contaminant indicator parameter programs. At LLWMA-3, new upgradient well 299-W9-2 was installed in 2011 and sampled quarterly to establish background levels used to calculate new critical mean values to enable statistical evaluations to resume. No significant changes occurred at LLWMA-3 or LLWMA-4 in 2016.
RCRA assessment monitoring continued at WMA T and WMA TX-TY. The concentrations and extent of dangerous waste constituents from these facilities are declining. Changes in concentrations of all analytes are expected because of the new wells extracting contaminated groundwater upgradient and downgradient of WMAs. The SALDS receives treated water from the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) and is regulated under a Washington State waste discharge permit. The declining water table in the 200 West Area has caused several of the SALDS monitoring wells to go dry over the years. This issue is being addressed during the permit renewal process.
Review of FY 2017 CERCLA investigations and CY 2016 CERCLA monitoring activities reported in the Hanford Site groundwater monitoring report for 2016 (DOE/RL-2016-67) and evaluated in FY 2017 did not reveal any new information associated with the 200-ZP-1 OU with potential to significantly alter conclusions of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
1.3.3 Other Central Plateau Remediation Activities Other remediation activities on the Central Plateau (aside from source and groundwater OU activities) are presented in this this section. For FY 2017, confined aquifer monitoring and ERDF operations are activities reported in this category.
1.3.3.1 Confined Aquifer Monitoring Although most Hanford Site groundwater contamination is found in the unconfined aquifer, DOE monitors wells in deeper aquifers because of potential downward movement of contamination and its potential migration offsite through confined aquifers. There is no evidence of offsite migration via the confined aquifers. Appendix D of DOE/RL-2014-32, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2013, provides more detailed information about confined aquifer monitoring.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-43
One confined aquifer occurs within sand and gravel at the base of the Ringold Formation. Carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, and technetium-99 have contaminated this unit in a portion of the 200 West Area where the upper confining unit is absent. New wells were installed in recent years to monitor and remediate this contamination. The Ringold confined aquifer is the uppermost aquifer in a region east of the 200 East Area (within portions of the 200-BP-5 and 200-PO-1 OUs). Iodine-129 and tritium are detected in wells at this location, but the contamination has not migrated farther to the east and/or southeast.
Groundwater within basalt fractures and joints, interflow contacts, and sedimentary interbeds make up the upper basalt-confined aquifer system. No significant contamination is detected in the basalt-confined aquifer, except in the northwestern 200 East Area, where poor well construction and temporary drilling effects allowed local migration of groundwater from the overlying unconfined aquifer.
1.3.3.2 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Operations Hanford Site low-level radioactive, hazardous, dangerous, and low-level mixed waste generated during waste site closures and remediation activities from Hanford Site contractors, as authorized by CERCLA, is disposed at the ERDF.
The ERDF began operating in July 1996. Located between the 200 East and 200 West Areas, the facility currently consists of 10 cells and covers an area of approximately 43.3 ha (107 ac). The configuration of the ERDF cells is shown in Figure 1-9 and Figure 1-10.
Figure 1-9. Configuration of Disposal Cells at ERDF
:1)714. •
,I0VeLkie.
L2
Environmental RestorationDisposal Uarility
o WelVtlattrhole uwd la. t...e.tiotts
e Other wt41,borehnle
etsy, Cm., styli,. tint-
- [rood am l'ahSe cone.. (Interval it Attm)
O Cell. that filkd
1:=3 Call. that Am airrrntly reccovins ooh-
Cas that AN unit+ t:oretrutl ton 12010) And et.p.Ntirts atIt 12011.2012
Dedtcattxt FREW Area titlenttfted In Ow &vont of Dttertiont,,,,
L3
0 1.900 2000 3.000 leet
250 500 750 , meters FREESTONE
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-44
Figure 1-10. Photograph of ERDF with Indication of Disposal Cells
Requirements associated with the facility are identified in the following RODs and amendments:
• EPA/ROD/R10-95/100, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site Benton County, Washington
• EPA/ESD/R10-96/145, Explanation of Significant Differences: USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington
• EPA/AMD/R10-97/101, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington
• EPA/AMD/R10-99/038, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary
• EPA/AMD/R10-02/030, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary
• EPA et al., 2007, Amendment to the Record of Decision for the USDOE Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility
• EPA et al., 2009b, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site 200 Area Benton County, Washington, Amended Record of Decision and Explanation of Significant Differences
• EPA et al., 2015a, Explanation of Significant Differences For the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, WA
Cell 9 Cell 8
Cell 3
Cell 4
Cell 5
Cell 6
Cell 7 Cell 10
Cell 2
Cell 1
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-45
• EPA et al., 2015b, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary
Leachate Monitoring. Each ERDF cell is double-lined to collect leachate resulting from water added as a dust suppressant and precipitation. The liner is sloped to a sump in each cell, and the leachate is pumped from the sump to holding tanks. The leachate is then pumped to the 200 West Area P&T or the ETF for treatment.
ERDF leachate is sampled for constituents identified in EPA/AMD/R10-99/038 and CP-60070, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Leachate Sampling and Analysis Plan, formerly WCH-173 Rev. 2. The 1999 ERDF ROD amendment (EPA/AMD/R10-99/038) delisted leachate and identified the necessary sampling parameters. Leachate samples are obtained directly from the holding tanks. Constituents detected in ERDF leachate samples are then compared with the groundwater monitoring analyte list to determine whether additional analytes should be added to the groundwater PA project. Leachate data are also evaluated for trends and compared to specific action levels. Target analytes for groundwater monitoring are consistent with the leachate monitoring program. Based on groundwater sampling and leachate data, no impact to groundwater has occurred from the ERDF facility or operations. An annual report is prepared for ERDF that summarizes the leachate and groundwater monitoring data, providing conclusions and recommendations as appropriate. The most recent report is ERDF-00050, Groundwater, Leachate, and Lysimeter Monitoring and Sampling at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Calendar Year (CY) 2016.
Current Inventory Estimates. DOE/RL-2017-63 provides the annual activity inventory of key radionuclides placed in ERDF from the inception of ERDF operations (July 1, 1996) through September 30, 2017. In the 20+ years since operation began, over 206,000 Ci have been disposed at ERDF. The data source for this summary is the Inventory Disposed by Radionuclide (WMIS983) report from the Waste Management Information System (WMIS) database.
A DOE O 435.1 PA (WCH-520, Rev. 1) was completed in FY 2013 (see Section 1.1.4), and the revised DAS was issued in November 2013. The inventory data package developed for that PA (WCH-479) indicates that the ERDF inventory estimate is very conservative. The ERDF inventories are derived from data accumulated in WMIS database, which documents the ERDF waste acceptance process using waste profiles, onsite waste tracking forms (online manifest for wastes that will be shipped to ERDF), truck scale weights, and disposal records to calculate and accumulate the disposed inventory. One of the functions of the WMIS database is to ensure that waste above the ERDF waste acceptance criteria (CP-59968) limits is not accepted for ERDF disposal. The waste acceptance process biases system inputs (e.g., profiles and onsite waste tracking forms [i.e., ERDF manifest]) to the highest expected levels before comparison with waste acceptance criteria. The net effect of this bias is to inflate the ERDF radionuclide inventory. While this bias does not allow for precise knowledge of the actual inventory, it does provide assurance that inventory limits are not being exceeded, which is the intent of this process. Because of this deliberate bias, it is inappropriate to expect that the listed ERDF inventories (DOE/RL-2017-63) will match best estimate inventories prepared for other purposes (e.g., the PA inventory data package or the inventory for the Hanford Site Composite Analysis).
In the current annual status report for the ERDF PA (DOE/RL-2016-63), four unreviewed disposal question screenings/UDQEs were reported, all regarding inventory:
• UDQ-2017-001-S (ERDF inventory exceeded forecast): The radionuclide inventory disposed at the ERDF as of September 30, 2016, was greater than the inventory projected in the PA. This was a positive unreviewed disposal question screening and led to preparation of UDQ-2017-001-E.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
1-46
• UDQ-2017-001-E (ERDF inventory exceeded forecast): This was a negative UDQE, so a special analysis was not required. However, it will be necessary to revise the forecasted inventory based on the discovered condition that the recorded facility inventory exceeds the inventory forecast at closure. Revision of the forecast will be documented and considered for a future PA revision.
• UDQ-2017-002-S (hafnium-182 omitted from the ERDF waste acceptance criteria): Hafnium-182 was identified as a radionuclide potentially present in K East Reactor Basin waste, yet this radionuclide was not included in the ERDF waste acceptance criteria. The result was to add hafnium-182 to the ERDF waste acceptance criteria.
• UDQ-2017-003-S (elevated activated metal inventory values, as identified in WCH-479): Elevated activated metal inventory values led to an interoffice memorandum issued to the WMIS database coordinator to reduce activity values for activated metals.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
2-1
2 Cumulative Effects of Changes Based on the information provided in Chapter 1, with respect to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis, information was not noted that would be expected to result in higher dose estimates if included in a revised calculation. The final TC & WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) states that DOE would continue to defer the importation of offsite waste at the Hanford Site, at least until the WTP is operational. Any future decision to import offsite waste will be subject to appropriate NEPA review.
Some activities continue to be qualitatively considered that would be expected to result in lower dose estimates if included in a revised calculation. The CERCLA P&T systems on the Central Plateau that are qualitatively evaluated as likely to reduce the projected dose are the most notable. Such dose reduction would be due to removal of contaminant mass from the groundwater pathway. The Hanford Site Composite Analysis did not account for remedial actions such as P&T systems. Hydraulic perturbations to the unconfined aquifer in the Central Plateau and contaminant mass reduction in groundwater resulting from P&T systems will be considered in the update of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis (expected to be completed in FY 2020). Potential for closure of the 200-SW-2 Burial Grounds is another change qualitatively evaluated as likely to reduce the projected dose. The dose reduction for this site would be due to the lower realized inventory than was considered in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis, resulting from cessation of the use of the unlined trenches (with the unused portions being withdrawn from the Hanford RCRA Permit because they will not be used at this time). The inventory reduction at this site, based on this change, will also be considered in a future revision of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
The Hanford Site vadose zone is extensive and deep (on the order of 100 m [328 ft] thick in the Central Plateau), and radioactive contamination is present at numerous locations as a result of past practices, as simulated in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. At present, all LLBGs in active operation (in the 200 West and 200 East Area LLBGs as discussed in Section 1.1.1, and ERDF as discussed in Section 1.1.4), except Trench 94 (naval reactor disposal site), have liner/leachate collection and removal systems. Trench 94 is located in the 200 East Area LLBGs and has an exemption from the liner/leachate collection and removal system requirements because each reactor compartment is sealed. Consequently, these PA sites have not impacted the vadose zone or groundwater. The presence of radiological contamination in the vadose zone at past-practice disposal sites represents continuing sources of groundwater contamination at several locations in the Central Plateau, and potential future continuing source that have not emerged in groundwater at several other locations. Many past-practice disposals involved large liquid discharges of waste, with the associated hydraulic influences on vadose zone hydraulics (including transient perched water impacts above the Cold Creek unit in the 200 West Area and the enduring perched water impact below the B Complex in the 200 East Area). These impacts then influence the subsurface transport of radionuclide contaminants in the impacted vadose zone in these locations. The Hanford Site Composite Analysis simulates the vadose zone for the past, present, and future in order to represent the distribution of water and radiological contaminants in the vadose zone from past practices, as well as future releases. Hanford Site cleanup is being performed under the TPA (Ecology et al., 1989), which divides the Central Plateau into source OUs (vadose zone only) and groundwater OUs for CERCLA. The source OUs are discussed in Section 1.3.1, and the groundwater OUs are discussed in Section 1.3.2.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
2-2
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
3-1
3 Waste Receipts Waste receipts are accounted for in these individual PA annual summary reports:
• ERDF PA annual status report: DOE/RL-2017-63, Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility
• 200 East Area LLBG PA annual status report: DOE/RL-2017-56, Annual Status Report (FY2017): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds
• 200 West Area LLBG PA annual status report: DOE/RL-2017-57, Annual Status Report (FY2017): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds
• US Ecology commercial LLW disposal facility annual utilization report: US Ecology, 2016, US Ecology Washington – 2016 Facility Utilization Report
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
3-2
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-1
4 Monitoring This chapter describes the Hanford Site monitoring results for CY 2016 (the CY 2016 results are the latest available in the reporting period of FY 2017) relevant to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. Compliance monitoring activities are summarized in Table 4-1 and discussed in this chapter.
4.1 Summary of Air Monitoring Air monitoring results for CY 2016 are summarized in DOE/RL-2017-24, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2016, specifically Section 6.0, “Air Monitoring.” The following information was drawn from that report.
Distinguishing Hanford Site-produced radionuclides in the environment is challenging because concentrations of site stack emissions are comparable to widespread background concentrations of radionuclides originating from historical atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. Gross alpha and gross beta concentrations in stack emissions are, on average, equivalent to concentrations in the environment, including concentrations at distant locations upwind of the Hanford Site. Radioactive emissions decreased on the Hanford Site largely because the production and processing of nuclear materials ceased more than 30 years ago in 1987, when the Hanford Site’s current mission of environmental cleanup and remediation was initiated.
Small quantities of particulate and volatilized forms of radionuclides are emitted to the environment through state and federally permitted radioactive emission point sources (i.e., stacks and vents) during routine operations. The isotopes most commonly measured include tritium (i.e., hydrogen-3), strontium-90, iodine-129, cesium-137, plutonium-238, plutonium-239/240, plutonium-241, americium-241, and protactinium-231. Emission points are monitored continuously if they have the potential to exceed 1 percent of the public dose limit of 10 mrem or 100 microsieverts per year.
Radioactive emission points are located on the Hanford Site in the 100, 200, 300, and 400 Areas. The prime sources of emissions and number of emission points, by operating area, are as follows:
• In the 100 Areas, three radioactive emission points were active in 2016. Emissions originated from cleanup activities at the 100-K Area west fuel storage basin (which contained irradiated nuclear fuel in previous years) and from the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility.
• In the 200 Areas, 35 radioactive emission points were active in 2016. The primary locations of these emission points were the PFP, T Plant, B Plant, Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility, underground tanks storing HLW, the 242A waste evaporator, Waste Receiving and Processing Facility, the 222S Laboratory, and PUREX Plant.
• In the 300 Area, four radioactive emission points were active in 2016. The primary sources of these emissions were laboratories and research facilities, including the 324 Waste Technology Engineering Laboratory, 325 Applied Chemistry Laboratory, and 331 Life Sciences Laboratory.
• In the 400 Area, three radioactive emission points were active in 2016. The sources of these emissions are three facilities that have been shut down: the Fast Flux Test Facility, the Maintenance and Storage Facility, and the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility.
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
4-2
Table 4-1. Compliance Monitoring
Disposal Facility/Unit
Monitoring Type
Monitoring Results and Trends
Performance Objective
Measure or Other
Regulatory Limit Action Level Action Taken
Performance Assessment/ Composite Analysis
Impacts
Sitewide Air Stable; comparable to widespread background concentrations
— — Monitoring None
Central Plateau groundwater OUs: 200-ZP-1, 200-UP-1, 200-BP-5, and 200-PO-1
Groundwater
Groundwater flow system continues recession since cessation of large-volume liquid discharges in the early 1990s Groundwater radioactive contaminant plumes of tritium, iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, and uranium formed when waste discharged to ponds and cribs reached the aquifer
RCRA, CERCLA, and AEA
Determined in OU decision documents
200 West Area pump-and-treat system; 200-BP-5 OU treatability tests
Reduction of groundwater contamination not evaluated in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis; this feature will be addressed in composite analysis update
Selected source OUs: 200-DV-1, 200-WA-1, and 200-EA-1
Vadose zone Characterization CERCLA To be determined Characterization
Data will support refined analysis of vadose zone in Hanford Site Composite Analysis update
AEA = Atomic Energy Act of 1954 CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 OU = operable unit RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-3
4.2 Summary of Groundwater Flow Conditions and Extent of Contamination DOE-RL has developed a plan to address groundwater and vadose zone contamination in consultation with EPA and Ecology. Key elements associated with managing the Hanford Site groundwater and vadose zone contamination are to protect the Columbia River and groundwater, develop a cleanup decision process, and achieve final cleanup.
DOE is committed to protecting the Columbia River and HHE from Hanford Site contaminated groundwater. As part of this commitment, DOE-RL developed four cornerstone documents for monitoring and remediation of Hanford Site contaminated soils and groundwater:
• DOE/RL-2002-59, Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation
• DOE/RL-2002-68, Hanford’s Groundwater Management Plan: Accelerated Cleanup and Protection
• DOE/RL-2007-20, Hanford Integrated Groundwater and Vadose Zone Management Plan
• DOE/RL-2009-10, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework
Due to the reporting cycle for the groundwater monitoring program, the results discussed in the following discussion reflect sampling and analyses completed in CY 2016 that were reported in DOE/RL-2016-67. Groundwater at the Hanford Site is monitored under various sampling and analysis plans that are reviewed and/or approved by DOE-RL, Ecology, and EPA.
4.2.1 Groundwater Flow The natural pattern of groundwater flow was altered during Hanford Site operational years by water table mounds created by the discharge of large volumes of wastewater to the ground. These mounds were present in each reactor area and beneath the 200 Areas. Since effluent disposal decreased substantially in the 1990s, these mounds have dissipated in the reactor areas and have declined considerably in the 200 Areas. Declining water levels from mounding continue to affect groundwater flow and depth to water. Additionally, active groundwater P&T remediation systems have resulted in local changes to groundwater gradients near associated extraction and injection wells. Figure 4-1 shows the water table and inferred groundwater flow directions in March 2016.
Relevance of Groundwater Monitoring to the Composite
Analysis
The groundwater monitoring program provides additional data that serve to validate or revise the modeling basis used in the Composite Analysis. The unconfined aquifer at the Hanford Site was subject to large volume liquid discharges during the Hanford Site operational phase (1944 to 1989) and the water table is now experiencing a slow decline to pre-Hanford flow conditions. It is also subject to pumping stresses associated with P&T actions. Historical water-level data predominantly reflect the operational phase. Consequently, later data continue to support improvement in the predictive capability of groundwater flow models as the system approaches long-term flow conditions.
Similarly, monitoring of groundwater contamination provides important data to validate or revise the modeling basis used.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-4
References: DOE/RL-2016-67, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016 (Figure ES-2). NAVD88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
Figure 4-1. Water Table and Inferred Groundwater Flow Directions for the Hanford Site, March 2016
rr
100-BC
12411.— :126•••:- /?.9 -
.'ti"
100-K
Water Table
Groundwater Flow Direction
Water Table Elevation, March 2016(m NAVD88) - Dashed Where Inferred
Former Operational Boundary
I •_.I Hanford Site BoundaryBasalt Above Water Table
Mud Above Water Table
0 1 2 3 4 5 krnIII
0 1 2 3 rn
L'1
1.1
Hanford Town Site
ti
ii
I/
II/I 1
I
I
I
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-5
The unconfined aquifer beneath the 200 East Area exhibits a low hydraulic gradient magnitude (i.e., flat water table); therefore, water table measurements have a low signal-to-noise ratio, making the determination of hydraulic gradients difficult. SGW-58828 presents an evaluation of the hydraulic gradient in this area based on improvements to measurement accuracy using gyroscopic surveys in wells to correct for verticality error, resurveys of well casings using a highly accurate leveling technique, and barometric pressure effect corrections within the expanded network. The low hydraulic gradient evaluation continued during 2016, and updated water table maps were presented in DOE/RL-2016-67 using evaluation criteria provided in ECF-200E-16-0093, Preparation of 200 East Area Water Table Maps for Calendar Year 2015. The updated maps indicate that flow was toward the southeast over most of the 200 East Area during 2016 (consistent with 2013 through 2015) and confirming the gradient change in recent years in this area.
In conjunction with ECF-200E-16-0093, ECF-HANFORD-16-0139, Hydraulic Gradients and Velocity Calculations for RCRA Sites in 2016, is a supporting document that includes the hydraulic gradients for RCRA sites within the 200 East low-gradient network. According to ECF-HANFORD-16-0139, the hydraulic gradient magnitude ranges from 1.68×10-6 m/m at the WMA B-BX-BY Tank Farm to 6.35×10-6 m/m at the 216-A-37-1 Crib.
In 2014, the hydraulic gradients decreased to an average of 6.1×10-6 m/m and were an order of magnitude lower than the 2013 average hydraulic gradient of 1.1×10-5 m/m for the 200 East Area (SGW-58828). The lower hydraulic gradient magnitude has remained consistent throughout 2016 and is attributed to resuming effluent discharges to the Treated Effluent Disposal Facility, combined with reduced influence of the Columbia River. Columbia River pressure effects propagate to the 200 East Area from the northwest along a region of high transmissivity. Discharges to the Treated Effluent Disposal Facility act as a hydraulic dam that slow the flow of groundwater toward the southeast.
Local flow directions inferred from the 200 East Area water table maps generally agree with interpretations based on other lines of evidence (e.g., the movement of contaminant plumes), indicating that the water table maps will be helpful for interpreting flow at individual 200 East Area waste sites. The average water table from this evaluation is shown in Figure 4-2 for the period of January through December 2016. The contours shown in these figures are between the intervals that encompass the 200 East Area in the sitewide hydraulic head map (121 to 122 m [397 to 400 ft]) presented in Figure 4-1.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-6
References: ECF-200E-17-0121, Preparation of 200 East Area Water Table Maps for Calendar Year 2016 (Figure 5). NAVD88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
Figure 4-2. 200 East Area Average Water Table Map – January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016
121.721 (49-57A
121.7
121.714 (E32-6)
121.716 (E32-5)
B.IV
121.735 (50-56)
121.7,19 (E32-8)
21.720
(E33-34)
21,731 (49-55A
BY Cribs
121., ,a (E3
121.713E28
121.72 (E28-18
200-BP-5
L_
Gable MountainPad
/' B-8 Crib
I///
LLWMA-2
B-BX-BYYUMA• B Farm /////////
• • //16 ;533 330
I 12' 710 ,E33 3i\216-B-63
1121 /19'(E21i.7 ' (E2738)
121.753 (E18-2)
• Neil12-i.r121
/
Average Water Table January 2016 - December
• Low-Gradient Water Level Well Network r- 200 East Area Fence
Well label = Elevation in meters (Well Name) i Groundwater OperableWell prefix '299-' and '6992 omitted Unit Boundary
— Water Table Elevation (m NAVD88) Basalt Above Water Table
RCRA Waste Sites
//A Waste Site
IM Facility
0 400 800 m
0 1,500 3,000 ft
51 53 lE
E27 5 '21 7'3 (,27,7,
216-B-3Pond
216.13-3-3 Ditch
707 (E26-13)
216-0-29Ditch
Ringold Mud Unit Above Water Table
Roads
VVMA = Waste Management Area10F = Integrated Disposal FacilityLLINMA = Low Level Waste Management AreasLERF = Liquid Effluent Retention Facility
CHSGW20170368
121-717 (j :4Ogila@
galai)(E27 2).121 709 0.027-'.
WMA'CE27 23 I 216-0,24
121 700 rir.;0.4'
ifflIKA E27- ''' (7----• .216-A-8 Crib
°) 2. (E2.; —11A ° El<KI..M(L IVVr.IA-AX'
21.704 (E24121.09
8 :21 602 (=28-10). POREX
E243211 11.
F216-0-3613,..---12.1,705
seltr-121 705 (017-212)
121.11 (E17-25)121 E00 ;El (-23) 4(121.688 (37.47A) pp
121.687 (37-43),
121;702/
!E35-,34):
121:701.1E25.25)
25-32P)
216 A 37 1 Crib
(•=.25-24)
216.0.30 Crib
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-7
4.2.2 Extent of Contamination Well-defined groundwater contaminant plumes of tritium, iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, and uranium formed when waste discharged to ponds and cribs reached the aquifer. Cesium-137 and plutonium-239/240 were also above the DWS in the 200-BP-5 OU adjacent to the decommissioned 216-B-5 injection well, where waste was discharged directly into the aquifer in the past. However, in 2016, cesium-137 was above the DWS in only one well, and plutonium-239/240 was above the DWS in only two wells. Plume extents for cesium-137 and plutonium-239/240 are not further discussed. Figure 4-3 shows the distribution of radionuclide contaminant plumes originating at the Central Plateau that are at concentrations above respective DWSs in the unconfined aquifer. The status of the well-defined groundwater plumes for tritium, iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, and uranium are summarized as follows:
• Tritium occurs above the DWS within all four Central Plateau groundwater interest areas. The highest tritium result detected within the Central Plateau in 2016 was 418,000 pCi/L at the PUREX Cribs in the 200 East Area. The plume continues to attenuate in areas away from operational areas due to dispersion and radioactive decay. However, concentrations near the PUREX Cribs and trenches remain up to 20 times the DWS (20,000 pCi/L).
• The largest iodine-129 plume occurred within the 200-PO-1 OU groundwater interest area, extending from the 200 East Area. At the 1 pCi/L contour, the 200-PO-1 plume extends 12 km (7.5 mi) east of the 200 East Area, and its extent has changed very little over the past 20 years. While the contaminant continues to migrate downgradient, concentrations at the leading edge of the plume are being reduced by dispersion, and the contour position at 1 pCi/L is stable. Iodine-129 was detected in wells near the Columbia River shoreline below the DWS. There is no significant reduction in concentrations due to radioactive decay because iodine-129 has a long half-life (15.7 million years). Iodine-129 also exceeds the DWS in 200 West Area. The maximum concentration within the Central Plateau during 2016 was 20.2 pCi/L in the 200-UP-1 OU groundwater interest area.
• The most substantial uranium plumes occur within the 200-BP-5 and 200-UP-1 OU groundwater interest areas. Wells in the northwestern part of the 200-BP-5 OU detect the highest concentrations of uranium in Hanford Site groundwater, with a maximum of 3,790 μg/L in the unconfined aquifer. The 200-BP-5 OU plume originates from the B Complex, where uranium is entering the aquifer from a perched zone above the unconfined aquifer. In December 2014, the Tri-Parties signed an action memorandum (DOE/RL-2014-34) that specifies perched water extraction and transfer to the 200 West P&T for treatment and injection into the aquifer. Perched water extraction continued in 2016. The maximum measured concentration in the perched zone was 150,000 μg/L, and approximately 11.2 kg of uranium were removed from the perched water in 2016. Uranium plumes in the 200-UP-1 OU groundwater interest area occur near U Plant, originating from the 216-U-1 and 216-U-2 Cribs and in a second area near the 216-U-10 Pond. A new remedy for uranium at the 200-UP-1 OU began operating in September 2015. Groundwater is extracted from two wells near U Plant and treated at the 200 West P&T. During 2016, a total of 9.9 kg of uranium (as well as other contaminants) was removed from the aquifer.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-8
Reference: DOE/RL-2016-67, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016 (Figure ES-1).
Figure 4-3. Distribution of Radionuclide Contaminant Plumes Originating at the Hanford Site for Concentrations above DWSs in the Unconfined Aquifer
j.
100-DArea
100-HR-3
100-BCArea
100-NR-2
100-NArea
100-KR-4100-KArea
Gable Butte
200 West Area
200-ZP-1
1
200-UP-1
Hills
100-FArea
NRDWL
Sitewide Groundwater Contaminants
Carbon Tetrachloride (5 pglL) Uranium (30 pg/L)
Hexavalent Chromium (10 pg/L) Trichloroethene (5 pg/L)
Hexavalent Chromium (48 pg/L) Former Operational Area
Cyanide (200 pg/L) Groundwater Operational Unit Boundary
Iodine-129 (1 pCilL) El Groundwater Interest Area Boundary
Nitrate (45 mg/L) Basalt Above Water Table
1.1 Strontium-90 (8 pCi/L) ri Ringold Mud Unit Above Water TableTechnetium-99 (900 pCi/L)
1
Tritium (20,000 pCi/L) 'I' 4 SI.I I
CHSGW2016GW32 10126/2017 2 3 mi
100-HArea
8. 1
44;1hluke Slope :
300-FF-5
618-11
EnergyNorthwest
618-10
1100-EM-1
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-9
• Technetium-99 plumes are present within all four Central Plateau groundwater interest areas, but the largest plume occurs within the 200-BP-5 OU. This large plume originates from the BY Cribs and extends to the northwest, beyond the 200 East Area. Technetium-99 plumes also occur in association with the tank farms in both the 200 East and 200 West Areas. The maximum sample result at the Central Plateau in 2016 was 39,000 pCi/L at the U Plant P&T system in the 200 West Area. Technetium-99 is extracted from two extraction wells near U Plant, as well as from the S-SX Tank Farm P&T system. In total during 2016, 0.47 Ci and 0.38 Ci of technetium-99 were removed from the two extraction wells near U Pant and the S-SX Tank Farm extraction wells, respectively.
• Strontium-90 plumes are present within the 200-BP-5, 200-PO-1, and 200-UP-1 OU groundwater interest areas. Within the 200-BP-5 OU, strontium-90 is detected above the DWS (8 pCi/L) at the former Gable Mountain Pond and 216-B-5 reverse well. Strontium-90 at the 200-PO-1 OU exceeds the DWS in a small area near the PUREX Cribs. The highest concentration of strontium-90 detected in the Central Plateau in 2016 was 4,470 pCi/ L adjacent to the 216-B-5 reverse well.
RCRA and Washington Administrative Code-regulated groundwater monitoring continued in CY 2016 at facilities in all four Central Plateau groundwater interest areas. No potential new impacts to groundwater quality were detected in CY 2016, although several of the sites remain in assessment monitoring. All sites will continue to be monitored under existing requirements.
Of the radionuclide contaminant plumes present in groundwater at the Hanford Site, tritium and iodine-129 have the largest areas with concentrations above DWSs. The most expansive of these plumes have sources in the 200 East Area, extending east and southeast toward the Columbia River. Less expansive tritium, uranium, iodine-129, strontium-90, and technetium-99 plumes are present in the 200 West Area. Figure 4-3 provides a comparison of the areal extent of key radionuclide contaminant plumes in groundwater (at levels above DWSs) for CY 2000 through CY 2015.
Reference: DOE/RL-2016-67, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016 (Figure ES-3).
Figure 4-4. Hanford Sitewide Plume Areas, 2000 through 2016
250
200 -
0
0
— 150-`m
0.2 100 -0E
0
50 -
0
Hanford Sitewide Plume Areas —•— Carbon Tetrachloride (5 pg/L) —m— Chromium (48 pg/L)
—m— Iodine-129 (1 pCi/L) —•— Nitrate (45 mg/L)
—•—Tritium (20,000 pCi/L) —A—Total Footprint (All Plumes)
• Chromium area notcalculated for 2008-2009 at
• the given concentration.
•• • • 1. • • • •
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year CHSGW2016GW17
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-10
4.3 Summary of Vadose Zone Characterization A variety of vadose zone characterization efforts have taken place recently at the Central Plateau. The Central Plateau source OUs responsible for characterization of the vadose zone are 200-WA-1/ 200-BC-1, 200-EA-1, 200-DV-1, 200-IS-1, 200-PW-1/3/6/CW-5, 200-SW-2, and 200-OA-1/ 200-CW-1/3.
4.3.1 200-DV-1 Operable Unit The majority of active vadose characterization has occurred in the 200-DV-1 OU, with 22 boreholes drilled in the 200 East and 200 West Areas in FY 2016. The boreholes were drilled between 30.5 and 77.1 m (100 and 253 ft) deep in the B Complex (200 East Area), T Complex (200 West Area), and the S Complex (200 West Area). Four additional boreholes were in progress during FY 2017. The boreholes were drilled to characterize the nature and extent of mobile contamination in the DVZ at waste sites that had not yet been adequately characterized. Figure 4-5 shows the borehole locations and the associated waste sites that the boreholes will characterize.
The 200-DV-1 project used continuous, intact coring methods to obtain analytical samples at ideal depths. The conceptual model guiding characterization is that lithological changes and heterogeneities are critical to controlling contaminant distribution through the vadose zone. By collecting intact core samples, the 200-DV-1 team was able to record high-resolution lithologic logs and select analytical samples where contamination is most likely. Geophysical logs are also instrumental in selecting sample depths. Neutron moisture logs indicate zones of high residual moisture or relatively high clay content. Spectral gamma-ray logs can provide information on the presence of manmade contamination, as well as the grain size and composition of the subsurface sediments. Details on the sample selection process for the 200-DV-1 project are provided in CHPRC-03107-FP, High-Resolution Characterization of Comingled Contaminants in the Deep Vadose Zone, Hanford Site, Washington.
Additional information about 200-DV-1 OU drilling, sampling, and logging, as well as the results from these efforts, are captured in field summary reports for each geographic area. The first report prepared for four BY Crib boreholes was SGW-60265, 200-DV-1 Operable Unit BY Cribs Field Summary Report. Similar reports for B Complex, T Complex and S Complex are in progress.
Additional geochemical and physical property analyses were performed by PNNL for multiple samples across the 200-DV-1 OU to gather model parameter data. The geochemical reports include PNNL-26208, Contaminant Attenuation and Transport Characterization of 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Sediment Samples; and PNNL-26266, Geochemical, Microbial, and Physical Characterization of 200-DV-1 Operable Unit B-Complex Cores from Boreholes C9552, C9487, and C9488 on the Hanford Site Central Plateau. The physical properties report is currently being prepared and has not yet been published.
Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) data for the BY Cribs were collected and analyzed by PNNL. Surface arrays and borehole-based surveys were used for a three-dimensional resistivity map to track vadose plumes. PNNL-22520, Re-inversion of Surface Electrical Resistivity Tomography Data from the Hanford Site B-Complex, provides the ERT results, and several other reports are also currently being prepared.
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
4-11
Note: B Complex is in the northern portion of the 200 East Area, T Complex is in the northern 200 West Area, and S Complex is in the southern 200 West Area.
Figure 4-5. Location Map of 200-DV-1 OU Characterization Boreholes Drilled in 2016 and 2017
B Complex
C9491216443404.411
C94972114142 Tend.
,,""e-
070664446 CrIb
C9549BY Cola
Tit i,94152cnen
Patted Wertsr t...k ran
VI wit lams
0 C9488)16 BS Cob I.I•
I rid
2948]216 107/010 Cab,
0 Tank tarn
L•gend
• 440, ou
• 4044, 04.1•414•102.44.44
hear
men,
0 150 200
1.0008
I ComplexC9496216-0heath
21G-T.SCIC9492lb C94950 • a 29505216.1,IS2164.111•
heathC9494 1 TIo0Ch
214.7.1 inb,4 204.0 yhak 1.,
•
C95032164.7 TIM $1444
C9510114745 Vera..a-
.44/46.
114443 Thma
241-TVTwit 1.014
241.1X
C955421414 8116•21
• (9506214141 Crib
09907
li1147.1t 01 ovw1 MI FM.
O 150 400 m
immair4/4
O ODD 1 000 11
-srC94911>164.1
44011•
0499111444114lb lel)
Legend
• ruts 'In Own
• n.ur.4 re •••1•••••••
M1 µ
nun wy. wits
mi 1144
S Complex
OC9514Ilk S-21
Crib
0
241.5Y rank Ban.
242-S lwi Ora
153 IOU r‘
0 tAu 1 WO 4
0513 •210411 Cr.
lg•441• x•eV.C•••••=0
0/11.1.0•0malnim
WO. We
WS* twat
▪ /000V.0.0 WAGON,IBIS
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-12
The sampling and analysis plan governing the 200-DV-1 OU characterization effort is part of the 200-DV-1 OU work plan (DOE/RL-2011-104, Characterization Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit).
4.3.2 200-WA-1 Operable Unit Field operations are in the planning stages for the 200-WA-1 Source OU. However, opportunities for integration with groundwater OUs have emerged that allow some vadose characterization to occur before active operations commence. The 200-UP-1 OU wells 299-W19-115, 299-W19-123, and 299-W19-125 were drilled in close proximity to 200-WA-1 OU waste sites (Figure 4-6). Opportunistic soil samples were collected using split-spoon sampling above, in, and below the Cold Creek unit and above the water table and were analyzed for the 200-WA-1 OU COPCs. Results from these analyses will be integrated into the 200-WA-1 U Complex field summary report when field work is completed in that area.
Figure 4-6. Location Map of 200-UP-1 OU Wells Sampled for 200-WA-1 OU Vadose Characterization
A deep vadose treatability test is underway at the 216-U-8 Crib in the 200 West Area to evaluate uranium sequestration by ammonia gas injection. The purpose of the test is to gather information for a subsequent FS. To that end, a series of 24.4 m (80 ft) deep boreholes were drilled on the south end of the 216-U-8 Crib: one injection well and five monitoring wells (Figure 4-7). Two boreholes will be drilled after the treatment period is complete to evaluate the efficacy of the ammonia injection. The intention is to drill the first post-treatment borehole to 24.4 m (80 ft) deep (as with the injection and monitoring wells), and the second borehole will be drilled to groundwater to obtain characterization samples for the 200-WA-1 OU. As of the preparation of this report, only the first six boreholes have been drilled, sampled, logged and completed with ERT and temperature sensors. The results of the data collected will be provided in the treatability test report that is currently in preparation. DOE/RL-2010-87, Field Test Plan for the Uranium Sequestration Pilot Test; and DOE/RL-2010-88, Sampling and Analysis
, \
\ .
E3
O
N \ .al
\ #444 W. A •
/
//
299-W19-125
C9594•
99-
C9414 • \\0
•
29 -W19-123 \\
El El • C 567 ..
0 00
o zo ao so so loom
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-13
Plan for the Uranium Sequestration Pilot Test, direct the field tests and sampling plans for these activities.
Reference: DOE/RL-2010-88, Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Uranium Sequestration Pilot Test (Figure 3-1).
Figure 4-7. Locations of 200-DV-1 OU Injection and Monitoring Wells on the South End of the 216-U-8 Crib
Split-spoon samples were collected through the length of the boreholes, with photos taken and the lithology described. Five intervals were selected for sequential extraction of uranium, technetium, cesium and strontium, as well as physical property evaluation such as moisture content, grain size, and soil resistivity. DOE/RL-2010-88 provides additional details regarding the characterization.
4.3.3 200-EA-1 Operable Unit Scoping was completed and documented in SGW-60540, 200-EA-1 Operable Unit Scoping, which summarizes extensive available information on waste sites in the 200-EA-1 OU. A work plan is currently being prepared for the OU to characterize the waste sites in 200 East Area that fall under jurisdiction of the 200-EA-1 OU. A new monitoring well being drilled at 216-A-29 (299-E25-238) provided an opportunity to obtain vadose samples for this characterization effort. The opportunistic sampling efforts were in accordance with DOE/RL-2017-35, Characterization Sampling and Analysis Plan for the C9617 Borehole at the 216-A-29 Waste Site. The results for the samples are not yet available and will be part of a follow-up report that is currently being prepared.
10013 mg.kg
I !1216-U-8 Crib—..00"...r
15mpg 4X 1X 3X
2x
3.2 mgg 6X
X5
Direction ofincreaanguraniumconcentration
N
t
Note: Uranium concentration data is from D&D-27783, 200-&W-1 Field Stemma", Report prFiscal roan 2004 and 2005. Contours are the estimated uranium sediment concentrationsfrom previous characterization in the upper 25 m (82 ft) of the vadose zone (not to scale).
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
4-14
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
5-1
5 Research and Development This chapter summaries research and development (R&D), including field studies and other details, that have the potential to impact the basis of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis, usually through reduction of uncertainty. Table 5-1 is a required table for this report to summarize the R&D documents for the reporting period; however, there are none to report for this period.
Table 5-1. Research and Development Activities
Document Number Results
Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis
Impacts
No research and development documents to report this period.
5.1 Remediation Science and Technology The Hanford Site uses science and technology investigations to provide new knowledge, data, and tools necessary to accomplish the site cleanup mission. This mission includes investigating technologies and approaches to improve characterization and remediation of contaminated soil sites and groundwater, as well as resolving key technical issues that help to inform and influence decisions for remediation, waste management, and closure. Science and technology work that is specific to the Hanford Site and relevant to soil and groundwater characterization and remediation has been conducted through projects funded under the site soil and groundwater contractor (CHPRC) and directly by DOE-RL. Significant efforts under site contractor funding include DVZ treatability testing and characterizing attenuation and transport processes for mobile contaminants in the vadose zone and groundwater. DOE-RL efforts have covered a range of technical needs for the Hanford Site and are organized under a project administered by PNNL. Summaries of science and technology efforts in FY 2017 pertinent to radionuclide migration in the Central Plateau are as follows:
• CERCLA treatability studies of remediation technologies relevant to radionuclide contaminants in the DVZ are being conducted for the Central Plateau. Laboratory modeling and field testing of soil desiccation were completed in FY 2017, and a final treatability test report is scheduled for publication in FY 2018. Multiple interim reports and journal manuscripts have been published describing the technology. Laboratory and field testing for using ammonia as a reactive gas to sequester uranium in the vadose zone are underway and are expected to be completed in FY 2018. Multiple interim reports and journal manuscripts have been published describing the laboratory development of this technology.
• Characterization efforts for the 200-DV-1 and the 200-UP-1 OUs have included laboratory analyses to identify and quantify the attenuation and transport processes for mobile contaminants. In FY 2017, reports describing these results were published for samples collected in FY 2016 from B Complex, S Complex, and T Complex in the Central Plateau vadose zone. A report describing the results for samples collected within different contaminant plumes of the 200-UP-1 OU was also published (PNNL-26894, Contaminant Attenuation and Transport Characterization of 200-UP-1 Operable Unit Sediment Samples). Additional efforts included examining the effect of mixed contaminants conditions on these attenuation and transport processes.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
5-2
• Geophysical characterization techniques were improved to help reduce the uncertainty associated with quantifying contaminant fluxes and to provide a link to effective monitoring of vadose zone contaminant sites. This effort included conducting an ERT survey at the 200 Area BY Cribs for comparison to a survey conducted 10 years ago. It was demonstrated that source terms in the vadose zone have vertically migrated but have not yet entered the water table.
• An ERT inversion code, E4D-RT, was published and made publicly available as a high-resolution subsurface imaging software that allows researchers see subsurface processes and solutions in real time. The E4D-RT code is also unique because it can run on distributed-memory super-computing systems, which makes it scalable. Therefore, the software can be used on both desktops and large super-computing systems.
• The conceptual site model describing subsurface iodine behavior at the Hanford Site was updated, improving the understanding and quantification of biogeochemical and transport factors important for remedial decision making. The work on the conceptual model included the results of laboratory studies that improved the understanding of iodine species distribution in the Central Plateau subsurface (iodate, iodide, and organic-iodine species), quantified the interaction of iodate and carbonate precipitates, identified organic-iodine complexes and organic compounds in Hanford Site groundwater and sediment capable of complexing with iodine, and improved understanding of iodine interactions with iron oxides.
• A literature study and initial laboratory evaluation of candidate technologies were conducted as part of evaluating remediation options for iodine-129 in the 200-UP-1 OU, as specified in the interim ROD (EPA/ROD/R10-97/048). In situ and ex situ remediation technologies are being considered based on these studies.
• A laboratory evaluation of simultaneous candidate technologies was conducted to determine the impacts of flux-reduction techniques for technetium-99 (using zero-valent and sulfur-modified iron) and iodine-129 (using calcite-forming solutions). Results indicated the need to consider competing impacts from targeting individual contaminants and the combined effects of natural attenuation pathways.
• To support the evaluation of iodine-129 remedy technologies specified in the 200-ZP-1 OU ROD (EPA et al., 2008,), which also recognized the potential for a technical impracticability waiver, a report was published compiling information necessary to support evaluating a technical impracticability waiver or other applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement waivers, including information about iodine-129 fate and transport.
• Laboratory evaluations were conducted to provide information needed to assess monitoring natural attenuation for the Central Plateau OUs due to the mixed contaminant and biogeochemical conditions present. Investigations examined the impacts of nitrate, cyanide, and other geochemical factors on biological activity.
• Conditions at the 200 West P&T were investigated (including microbial analysis, chemical analysis of process streams and IX resins) to help improve P&T facility operations. In addition, these efforts examined the fate I-129 in the facility as part of evaluating the potential for ex situ treatment of iodine-129. These latter efforts were integrated with evaluation of remediation options for iodine-129 in the 200-UP-1 OU.
• The 20+ year prototype Hanford Barrier PA was completed to collect information relevant for consideration of long-term surface barriers as a component of Central Plateau remedies.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
6-1
6 Planned or Contemplated Changes This chapter summarizes the changes affecting the Hanford Site Composite Analysis that occurred during FY 2017. This summary includes any changes resulting from special analyses (DOE M 435.1-1; DOE-STD-5002-2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation) and any expected changes to future conditions (e.g., site land-use plans or remediation plans). Table 6-1 summarizes the planned or contemplated changes.
Table 6-1. Planned or Contemplated Changes Planned or
Contemplated Changes Change Basis
Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis
Impacts Schedule
Land conveyance in the 300 Area
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
None. The land conveyed is located near the Hanford Site 300 Area, and this conveyance will not impact land use or remediation plans on the Central Plateau; the land conveyed is well outside of the assessment boundary used in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
Land conveyed in 2015; analysis of groundwater impacts to 300 Area remedial decisions were evaluated in 2017 (no impact).
No outstanding current information needs (e.g., data gaps or uncertainties) were identified in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis or in any of the prior annual reviews.
6.1 Special Analyses Special analyses were not conducted in FY 2017.
6.2 Changes in Site Land Use and Remediation Plans There have been no changes in site land use or remediation plans in FY 2017 that will affect the Central Plateau.
The overall cleanup strategy for the 195 km2 (75 mi2) Central Plateau is described in DOE/RL-2009-10. The cleanup strategy is the result of thousands of hours of work that considered input from the regulatory agencies, Tribal Nations, the public, and stakeholders. Selection of cleanup remedies that are consistent with the reasonably anticipated future land use is one of the foundational elements of the Central Plateau strategy. The strategy calls for cleanup on the Central Plateau to be organized into the following three major components:
• Inner Area: The final footprint area of the Hanford Site that will be dedicated to waste management and containment of residual contamination.
• Outer Area: All of the Central Plateau beyond the boundary of the Inner Area.
• Groundwater: Contaminant plumes underlying the Central Plateau and originating from waste sites on the Central Plateau.
These components are consistent with land uses designated for the Central Plateau in DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement; subsequent ROD (64 FR 218, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS)”); 2008 supplement analysis (DOE/EIS-0222-SA-01, Supplement Analysis: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement); subsequent ROD
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
6-2
(73 FR 188, “Amended Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement”); and 2015 supplement analysis (DOE/EIS-0222-SA-02, Supplement Analysis of the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement). Designated land uses on the Central Plateau are industrial-exclusive for 50 km2 (20 mi2) at the core of the Central Plateau (including the Inner Area and a portion of the Outer Area) and conservation (mining) in the surrounding 145 km2 (55 mi2) area (which includes the majority of the Outer Area).
On September 30, 2015, DOE-RL conveyed approximately 664 ha (1,641 ac) of Hanford Site land to the Tri-City Development Council (the DOE-recognized community reuse organization) in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (as shown in Figure 6-1). The conveyed land is located near the Hanford Site 300 Area, and this conveyance will not impact land use or remediation plans on the Central Plateau; the land conveyed is well outside of the assessment boundary used in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. During public review of the draft environmental assessment for this transfer (DOE/EA-1915, Final Environmental Assessment Proposed Conveyance of Land at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington), DOE-RL was asked about the potential for land-use changes and stormwater management systems to impact groundwater under the area, potentially speeding the migration rate of groundwater contaminants in the 300 Area towards the Columbia River. To address this concern, a range of conceptual potential development scenarios was evaluated using Washington State stormwater management guidelines (ECF-300FF5-17-0039, Analysis of Potential Land Development Approaches on Recharge and Groundwater Flow Near the Land Conveyance in the 300 Area; ECF-300FF5-17-0065, Analysis of Stormwater Management for Potential Land Development Scenarios for the 300 Area Land Conveyance Site). These scenarios established potential changes in water entering the aquifer from development, which were used with groundwater models to estimate how much water levels could increase in areas of known uranium contamination, and how groundwater flow paths and rates could change near the 300 Area nitrate and uranium groundwater plumes. The results of this analysis showed the following:
• Because of the large capacity of the Hanford formation to transmit water, the potential groundwater level rises due to land-use changes and stormwater management systems range from near zero to about 13 cm (5 in.), which is a negligible change relative to the multiple meter (over 10 ft) changes induced annually by the Columbia River and natural variations in the hydrologic cycle. This implies that leaching of uranium near the water table will not be impacted by the proposed land development.
• The flow-path directions in the area do not change due to land-use changes and the stormwater management systems; groundwater flow remains from west to east, toward the Columbia River. Groundwater velocity along these paths is essentially unchanged because the potential change in recharge to the aquifer is negligible compared to the quantity of natural groundwater flow. This implies that uranium discharge into the Columbia River will not be increased by the proposed land development.
From these considerations, prudent development of the parcel following eastern Washington State stormwater guidelines (Publication Number 04-10-076, Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington) will not likely exacerbate groundwater contamination in the 300 Area or its migration rate toward the Columbia River.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
6-3
Reference: DOE/EA-1915, Final Environmental Assessment: Proposed Conveyance of Land at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (Figure S-2).
Figure 6-1. Hanford Site Area of September 30, 2015 – Land Conveyance to the Tri-City Development Council
590000 592000 594000
8 8t`:4 r Fs,
Iii
29
33 34
310
cr,
CU
300 Area8 •2- •
••
Patrol TrainingAcademy
8
4
9
1 r1 .°21 1 'I < .•W—-
.L
""
I —I .
8'4 1 -
..,._. 16 HRD II 2I 0
PsNitNeL 1) 8.... ....
4= ------- .. _ is .--'
••
CITY OF RICHLAND, WA "rn Rapids Rd
Prepared for:US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYRICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICECENTRAL MAPPING SERVICESMSA, RICHLAND, WA (509) 373-9076Intended Use: REFERENCE ONLYIN: LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONICWASHINGTON STATE PLANE,SOUTH ZONE, METERSHorizontal Datum: NAD83Vertical Datum: NAVD88Map As of 1:42:46 PM 10/27/20151027_TRIDEC_Lanc1Transfer_85x11_Rev0
El
TRIDEC Land TransferTract 37 - 1,641 Acres for Transfer to TRIDEC
TRIDEC Hanford 1---1 Township, Range,Land Transfer Boundary L-1 Section Grid Lines
"/ Roads
&memo. 2013 NAIP imagery
Om 500 1,000I I I I Ilir iOft 1,500 3,000 N\
Hanford
Area Shownin
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
6-4
6.2.1 Engineered Barriers (in Remediation Plans) In the original Hanford Site Composite Analysis (PNNL-11800), transport through the vadose zone to the water table was simulated under transient flow conditions. The recharge rate in the vadose zone was allowed to vary with the application of different surface treatments and covers (i.e., barriers). Thus, performance was evaluated with and without surface infiltration barriers.
The Hanford Site disposition baseline (PNNL-15829, Inventory Data Package for Hanford Assessments) compiled a suite of all remedial actions for waste sites at Hanford. The Hanford Site disposition baseline was developed to represent the most credible end state of the Hanford Site based on information made available by DOE and its contractors, including interim and final RODs. Therefore, the Hanford Site disposition baseline is a combination of remedial actions based on interim and final RODs and remedial actions proposed by DOE but not yet interim or finally approved by the regulatory agencies. This baseline will be updated in the updated Hanford Site Composite Analysis (Appendix B) to reflect new decisions and changed projections since the origination compilation in 2005. The use of infiltration barriers will be evaluated in accordance with the expected use of these barriers at various source sites rather than globally with, and without, as was presented in the original composite analysis.
6.2.2 Operational Controls for Subsidence The annual status reports for the 200 West and 200 East Area LLBGs (DOE/RL-2015-67, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds; DOE/RL-2015-68, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds) noted that LLBG waste acceptance criteria (HNF-EP-0063) address disposal in a physically stable configuration with minimal void space, minimal gas emission, and elimination of pyrophoric characteristics. These criteria are also used to minimize long-term subsidence. These requirements are being administered by LLBG operations and typically involve solidification or void-fill processes. As necessary, waste packages are grouted or placed into concrete boxes that are high-integrity containers (or equivalent). Surveillance for local subsidence is performed routinely by LLBG staff, and any cavities that form are filled in with dirt or grout.
The ERDF waste acceptance criteria (CP-59968) states that packaged waste will be structurally stable for ERDF disposal to limit potential subsidence. Packaged waste that is not structurally stable may be accepted at ERDF on a case-by-case basis and stabilized before and during disposal. Depending on the waste stream, stabilization may be accomplished using soil, cement-based agents, or other stabilization agents with acceptable structural characteristics, size reduction, a mixture of biodegradable waste and stabilizing agents, and/or voids filled with stabilization agents. Additional physical limits for waste forms including concrete, steel plate, piping and tube steel, building debris, structural steel, containerized waste, equipment, soft waste, and rebar are defined in ERDF-00003, Supplemental Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
7-1
7 Status of Disposal Authorization Statement Conditions and Key and Secondary Issues
Table 7-1 summarizes the DAS conditions pertaining to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. Appendix B provides the status of the current effort to update this composite analysis.
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
7-2
Table 7-1. Status of DAS Conditions, Key, and Secondary Issues
Disposal Facility/Unit
Key/Secondary Issue or Disposal
Authorization Statement Condition Number Issue Description
Initial Resolutions
Schedule Date
Projected Resolution Scheduled
Date Disposition Documentation
and Date Completed Composite
Analysis Impact
CA 1 High-level waste tank inventories did not account for chemical effects that may increase inventories of certain radionuclides in the residual tank solids.
2002 2004 Closed; however, requires further evaluation. Closure of this issue was based on “a sitewide effort is underway to address this and other inventory-related concerns.” The SAC effort was suspended in 2006.
This issue will be addressed in the composite analysis update.
CA 2 Use of a Kd “switch depth” needs additional justification.
2002 2004 Closed; addressed in 2002 ASR (Hildebrand and Bergeron, 2002); issue closed in Chung (2004).
None
CA 3 Need justification for not using reduction-oxidation as a Kd discriminator.
2002 2004 Closed; addressed in 2002 ASR (Hildebrand and Bergeron, 2002); issue closed in Chung (2004).
None
CA 4 Numerical modeling grid spacing was used as a constraint for selecting the dispersivity values in the analysis. This had no physical basis and leads to increased dispersion.
2002 2004 Closed; addressed in 2002 ASR (Hildebrand and Bergeron, 2002); issue closed in Chung (2004).
None
CA 5 Sensitivity analysis should be conducted to investigate the effect of potential fast paths.
2002 2004 Addressed in 2002 ASR; issued closed in Chung (2004). However, closure of this issue was based on major studies of groundwater and vadose zone systems are underway. A new analytical method (Systems Assessment Capability) was developed for analytical purposes; however, the SAC effort was suspended in 2006.
This issue will be addressed in the composite analysis update
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
7-3
Table 7-1. Status of DAS Conditions, Key, and Secondary Issues
Disposal Facility/Unit
Key/Secondary Issue or Disposal
Authorization Statement Condition Number Issue Description
Initial Resolutions
Schedule Date
Projected Resolution Scheduled
Date Disposition Documentation
and Date Completed Composite
Analysis Impact
CA 6 Sensitivity analysis that investigates the consequences of temporally overlapping plumes should be conducted to determine effects of alternative assumptions.
2002 2004 Addressed in 2002 ASR; issue closed in Chung (2004). However, closure of this issue was based on a new analytical method (Systems Assessment Capability) that was developed to address this issue; however, the SAC effort was suspended in 2006.
This issue will be addressed in the composite analysis update
CA 7 Modeled releases of technetium 99 from liquid discharge zones are based on quicker and smaller releases than observed with existing plumes.
2002 2004 Addressed in 2002 ASR; issue closed in Chung (2004). However, closure of this issue was based on studies underway to should address this issue. Inventory issues were evaluated, and transporting and modeling issues were studied separately. In addition, a new model (Systems Assessment Capability) was developed; however, the SAC effort was suspended in 2006.
This issue will be addressed in the composite analysis update.
DO
E/RL-2017-55, R
EV. 0
7-4
Table 7-1. Status of DAS Conditions, Key, and Secondary Issues
Disposal Facility/Unit
Key/Secondary Issue or Disposal
Authorization Statement Condition Number Issue Description
Initial Resolutions
Schedule Date
Projected Resolution Scheduled
Date Disposition Documentation
and Date Completed Composite
Analysis Impact
CA 8 Provide justification for the assumption that the basalt aquifers and interbeds do not contain significant contaminants.
2002 2002 Issue closed in disposal authorization statement (Frei, 2002).
None
References: Chung, 2004, “Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Review of the Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, April 2003.” Frei, 2002, “Disposal Authorization for the Hanford Site Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities – Submittal of an Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, PNNL-11800 Addendum 1.” Hildebrand and Bergeron, 2002, Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area of the Hanford Site.
ASR = annual status report CA = composite analysis Kd = distribution coefficient SAC = systems assessment capability
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
8-1
8 Certification of the Continued Adequacy of the Composite Analysis The Hanford Site Composite Analysis was approved in 2002 (Frei, 2002, “Disposal Authorization for the Hanford Site Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities – Submittal of an Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, PNNL-11800 Addendum 1”). The DAS (Scott, 2001) conditions on the Hanford Site Composite Analysis have all previously been met through PNNL-11800, Addendum 1 and prior maintenance activities. The Hanford Site Composite Analysis has been maintained since that time (Table 1-1) in accordance with DOE M 435.1-1 requirements.
Based on this annual evaluation of new information obtained from a review of PAs, remedial actions, and operations (Chapter 1), a review of the data collected and analyzed from monitoring (Chapter 4), and other changes (Chapter 5), no new information was identified in FY 2017 that would invalidate the continued adequacy of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. However, the determination of this annual evaluation is that an update to the composite analysis is necessary based on information reviewed for FY 2015 and presented in prior annual status reports. The following reasons this determination was made in FY 2015 remain applicable:
1. The original Hanford Site Composite Analysis was prepared in 1998 with an addendum in 2001. While maintained since that time, the accumulation of basis changes reported in the annual summary reports over the past 15 years merits evaluation in an updated analysis. The following new information needs to be incorporated in an updated analysis:
a. The original Hanford Site Composite Analysis deferred evaluation of planned remedial actions to the second iteration of the composite analysis because time and information were insufficient to determine if alternate remedies would be necessary from the results of the composite analysis and identify them through the negotiation process. Accordingly, a single remedial action (i.e., leave in place and cover with surface barrier) was analyzed in the composite analysis. Significant changes have been made through decision making in the CERCLA process since that time, and a detailed Hanford Site baseline disposition was prepared to project remedial activities through site closure that should be incorporated into an updated Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
b. Issuance of the TC & WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) in FY 2013 provided an updated inventory basis, new modeling capabilities, and new decisions reached in the associated ROD (78 FR 240, “Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.”) that need to be incorporated into the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. Updates to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis were deferred from 2006 until 2013, awaiting final issuance of DOE/EIS-0391 and transfer of the modeling capability developed for that study. The modeling capability developed for and applied in the TC & WM EIS was transferred from the DOE-ORP to DOE-RL during FY 2013 (DOE-ORP, 2012, Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement Technology Transfer Document). Development of a Hanford Site groundwater model from the baseline provided in DOE-ORP (2012) commenced in FY 2014 and continued in FYs 2015 and 2016.
c. The P&T systems, which were not evaluated in the original Hanford Site Composite Analysis, have had significant impact on groundwater flow system behavior, contaminant transport, and contaminant removal from Hanford Site groundwater (Section 1.3.2).
d. Development of the Central Plateau cleanup strategy (Section 6.2) may lead to establishing a different point of compliance for evaluation of DOE M 435.1-1 performance metrics for the
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
8-2
Hanford Site Composite Analysis than the core zone boundary used in the original 1998 composite analysis (PNNL-11800).
e. Data collected as the unconfined aquifer water levels continue to recede since the cessation of large liquid discharges during the operational era (Section 4.1) have led to marked improvement in understanding the flow system for future conditions, particularly regarding northward flow potential in the critical Gable Gap area.
f. The revised ERDF PA was completed in 2013 (WCH-520, Rev. 0) (Section 1.1.4). The updated inventory for this PA and evaluation of expanding this facility to about twice the size that was evaluated in the original Hanford Site Composite Analysis are needed.
g. The geologic structural basis for groundwater models has continued to improve with additional data collection and interpretation (ECF-HANFORD-13-0020, Process for Constructing a Three-dimensional Geological Framework Model of the Hanford Site 100 Area; ECF-HANFORD-13-0029, Development of the Hanford South Geologic Framework Model, Hanford Site, Washington).
h. Tank residual inventory estimates have improved with the incorporation of tank retrieval inventory data for those tanks that have completed retrieval. In contrast, the original Hanford Site Composite Analysis (PNNL-11800) was necessarily reliant upon assumptions regarding future retrieval and associated retrieval losses.
i. The first PA for a tank farm closure decision was completed in FY 2016 for WMA C. A PA is currently being prepared for WMA A-AX and is expected to be completed during the period required to prepare a revised Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
j. An update to the IDF PA was completed in FY 2017, during the period required to prepare a revised Hanford Site Composite Analysis.
k. The risk assessment scenarios currently used for Hanford Site CERCLA and RCRA analyses differ from those evaluated in the original 1998 Hanford Site Composite Analysis (PNNL-11800). Therefore, a revision should use current risk assessment scenarios.
2. The original Hanford Site Composite Analysis (PNNL-11800) was prepared before DOE required that NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications, standards be applied by its contractors for use of simulation software for environmental modeling. DOE has required CHPRC, through the Plateau Remediation Contract (Contract No. DE-AC06-08RL14788, Section C.3.2.4, “Quality”), to develop documented QA program(s) that implement DOE O 414.1D, Admin Chg 1, Quality Assurance. A new analysis, performed with current software tools qualified under DOE O 414.1D, standards and applied under current, compliant QA plans and procedures, would support confidence in the analysis.
DOE-RL plans maintenance activities for the original Hanford Site Composite Analysis until the updated composite analysis is completed in order to maintain the current DAS. Continuing the maintenance program will provide support for periodic collection and reporting of information affecting the basis of the composite analysis in the annual status reports during the period required to develop an updated composite analysis.
This annual summary identifies additional data and information from FY 2017 to be considered for purposes of updating the Hanford Site Composite Analysis. Appendix B summarizes the plans and status for developing an updated composite analysis.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
8.1 Certification by the Field Element Manager or Designee
I certify, to the best of my knowledge, that information presented in this Annual Status Report is true,accurate and complete and that any proposed or implemented changes associated with the Hanford SiteComposite Analysis provide a reasonable expectation that the performance objectives/measures identifiedin DOE 0 435.1 Chg 1 will be met.
oop, Ager
DOE Ric Operations Office
8-3
4//471:eDate
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
8-4
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-1
9 References ERDF-00003, 2016, Supplemental Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Environmental Restoration
Disposal Facility (formerly 0000X-DC-W0001, Rev. 22), Rev. 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
10 CFR 1021, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal Regulations. Available at: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/10CFRPart1021.pdf.
40 CFR 1500–1508, “Purpose, Policy, and Mandate,” through “Terminology and Index,” Code of Federal Regulations. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4aa967d99d6e922b8a0d3073a4b3bc2e&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfrv37_02.tpl#1500.
64 FR 218, “Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS),” Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 218, pp. 61615-61625, November 12, 1999. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-11-12/pdf/99-29325.pdf.
73 FR 188, “Amended Record of Decision for the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 188, pp. 55824-55826, September 26, 2008. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-09-26/pdf/E8-22676.pdf.
78 FR 240, “Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 240, pp. 75913-75919, December 13, 2013. Available at: http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/TCWM_ROD_FR_pub_12_13_13.pdf.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2011, Pub. L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 919. Available at: https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/nureg_0980_v1_no7_june2005.pdf.
BHI-00169, 1995, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, Rev. 00, Bechtel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.
CCN 173929, 2013, “Issuance of the Disposal Authorization for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington,” (memorandum to Matthew S. McCormick, Richland Operations Office Manager, from Mark A. Gilbertson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Site Restoration), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 19.CHPRC-03107-FP, 2016, High-Resolution Characterization of Comingled Contaminants in the Deep Vadose Zone, Hanford Site, Washington, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-02507, 2015, Endpoint Evaluation for the 200-PW-1 Operable Unit Soil Vapor Extraction System Operations April 2015, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CHPRC-03264, 2017, M-091-52 Alternative Evaluation, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0068322H.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-2
CHPRC-1203550, 2012, “Contract Number DE-AC06-08RL14788 – Disposal Pathway for Hanford’s German Logs” (letter to J.C. Connerly, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, from J.G. Lehew), CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington, September 18.
Chung, D.Y., 2004, “Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Review of the Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, April 2003,” Memorandum to R. Schepens, Manager, Office of River Protection, and K.A. Klein, Manager, Richland Operations Office. May 11, 2004.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq., Pub. L. 107-377, December 31, 2002. Available at: https://www.csu.edu/cerc/researchreports/documents/CERCLASummary1980.pdf.
CP-59968, 2016, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria, formerly WCH-191, Rev 4, Rev. 2, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Washington.
CP-60070, 2016, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Leachate Sampling and Analysis Plan, formerly WCH-173 Rev. 2, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CP-60150, 2017, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Maintenance Plan, Rev. 1, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CP-60195, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Radionuclide Inventory and Waste Site Selection Process, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CP-60649, 2017, Summary Analysis: Hanford Site Composite Analysis Update, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1412683.
DOE/EA-1707D, 2011, Environmental Assessment Closure of Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill (NRDWL) & Solid Waste Landfill (SWL), Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0093731.
DOE/EA-1915, 2015, Final Environmental Assessment Proposed Conveyance of Land at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0079690H.
DOE/EIS-0189, 1996, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0189-final-environmental-impact-statement.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-3
DOE/EIS-0222-F, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D199158842. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D199158843. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D199158844. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D199158845. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D199158846. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D199158847.
DOE/EIS-0222-SA-01, 2008, Supplement Analysis: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/SAwith_signed-R1.pdf.
DOE/EIS-0222-SA-02, 2015, Supplement Analysis of the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/EIS-0222-SA02-2015.pdf.
DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0391-final-environmental-impact-statement.
DOE G 435.1-1, 1999, Implementation Guide for use with DOE M 435.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0435.1-EGuide-1ch1/view.
DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1, 2001, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0435.1-DManual-1-chg1.
DOE O 414.1D, Admin Chg 1, 2011, Quality Assurance, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0414.1-BOrder-d/view.
DOE O 435.1 Chg 1, 2001, Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0435.1-BOrder-chg1.
DOE Order 5820.2A, 1988, Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. (superseded by DOE O 435.1). Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/5800-series/5820.2-BOrder-a.
DOE-ORP, 2012, Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement Technology Transfer Document, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington.
DOE/ORP-2000-01, 2004, Maintenance Plan for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-4
DOE/ORP-2000-24, 2001, Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Performance Assessment: 2001 Version, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D8862887. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D8862892.
DOE/RL-93-99, 1994, Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Report for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D196061256.
DOE/RL-95-02, 1995, Treatability Test Report for the 200-UP-1 Operable Unit – Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D196008296.
DOE/RL-97-36, 2010, 200-UP-1 Groundwater Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Rev. 3, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=1003100445.
DOE/RL-2000-29, 2018, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 3 (in publication), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2002-59, 2004, Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy Protection, Monitoring, and Remediation, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0084084.
DOE/RL-2002-68, 2003, Hanford’s Groundwater Management Plan: Accelerated Cleanup and Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0075638H.
DOE/RL-2004-60, 2016, 200-SW-2 Radioactive Landfills Group Operable Unit RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study/Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0075017H.
DOE/RL-2007-20, 2007, Hanford Integrated Groundwater and Vadose Zone Management Plan, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0098519.
DOE/RL-2007-56, 2008, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central Plateau, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0804160110.
DOE/RL-2009-10, 2010, Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0076744H.
DOE/RL-2009-85, 2012, Remedial Investigation Report for the 200-PO-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0091415.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-5
DOE/RL-2009-85-ADD1, 2015, Remedial Investigation Report for the 200-PO-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Addendum 1, Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0080465H.
DOE/RL-2009-119, 2010, Characterization of the Soil Desiccation Pilot Test Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0092552.
DOE/RL-2009-122, 2012, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0092247.
DOE/RL-2009-127, 2015, Remedial Investigation Report for the 200-BP-5 Groundwater Operable Unit, Draft A, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0080466H.
DOE/RL-2010-05, 2012, Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0092248.
DOE/RL-2010-49, 2017, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan for the 200-WA-1 and 200-BC-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072177H. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072173H. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072172H. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072171H. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072170H. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072169H. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072168H. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072167H.
DOE/RL-2010-74, 2015, Treatability Test Plan for the 200-BP-5 Groundwater Operable Unit, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0081243H.
DOE/RL-2010-87, 2015, Field Test Plan for the Uranium Sequestration Pilot Test, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=008164H.
DOE/RL-2010-88, 2015, Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Uranium Sequestration Pilot Test, Rev. 0, U.S Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0081163H.
DOE/RL-2011-40, 2011, Field Test Plan for the Perched Water Pumping/Pore Water Extraction Treatability Test, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0093355.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-6
DOE/RL-2011-102, 2016, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study Work Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0075538H.
DOE/RL-2011-104, 2012, Characterization Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=1202020261.
DOE/RL-2011-104-ADD-1, 2017, Characterization and Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Addendum 1: Attenuation Process Characterization, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0071507H.
DOE/RL-2011-104-ADD-2, 2017, Characterization and Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Addendum 1: Supplemental Shallow Soil Risk Characterization Sampling, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0071506H.
DOE/RL-2012-03, 2012, Calendar Year 2011 Annual Summary Report for the 200-ZP-1 and 200-UP-1 Operable Unit Pump-and-Treat Operations, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=1207180240.
DOE/RL-2012-34, 2012, Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test for the Hanford Central Plateau: Soil Desiccation Pilot Test Results, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0092484.
DOE/RL-2012-47, 2015, Mission Needs Statement for the Management of the Cesium and Strontium Capsules, Rev. 6, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2013-07, 2013, 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0087671.
DOE/RL-2013-37, 2013, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Perched Water Pumping/Pore Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0086598.
DOE/RL-2013-40, 2014, Annual Status Report (FY 2013): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1363964.
DOE/RL-2013-46, 2017, Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0068832H.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-7
DOE/RL-2014-32, 2014, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2013, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0084842. (Interactive Report Viewer available at: http://higrv.hanford.gov/Hanford_Reports/Hanford_GW_Report/.)
DOE/RL-2014-34, 2014, Action Memorandum for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping / Pore Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0082284H.
DOE/RL-2014-37, 2015, Removal Action Work Plan for 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Perched Water Pumping/Pore Water Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0079128H.
DOE/RL-2014-48, 2016, Response Action Report for the 200-PW-1 Operable Unit Soil Vapor Extraction Remediation, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0074963H.
DOE/RL-2015-23, 2016, Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 200-CW-5, 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 Operable Units, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/pdf.cfm?accession=0076381H.
DOE/RL-2015-26, 2016, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Groundwater Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0077225H.
DOE/RL-2015-66, 2016, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364347.
DOE/RL-2015-67, 2016, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364348.
DOE/RL-2015-68, 2016, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364349.
DOE/RL-2015-75, 2016, Aquifer Treatability Test Report for the 200-BP-5 Groundwater Operable Unit, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0074649H.
DOE/RL-2016-41, 2016, Action Memorandum for 200-BP-5 Operable Unit Groundwater Extraction, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0073242H.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-8
DOE/RL-2016-57, 2017, Annual Status Report (FY2016): Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364350.
DOE/RL-2016-63, 2017, Annual Status Report (FY 2016): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364353.
DOE/RL-2016-67, 2017, Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2016, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0068229H.
DOE/RL-2017-24, 2017, Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2016, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://msa.hanford.gov/files.cfm/DOE-RL-2017-24_Rev0_9-26-171.pdf.
DOE/RL-2017-35, Characterization Sampling and Analysis Plan for the C9617 Borehole at the 216-A-29 Waste Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0069229H.
DOE/RL-2017-56, 2018, Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds, Rev. 0 (in publication), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-57, 2018, Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds, Rev. 0 (in publication), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-63, 2018, Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 0 (in publication), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE-STD-5002-2017, 2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/5000/5002-astd-2017/@@images/file.
Dronen, V.R., 1996, “Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility CERCLA/DOE Order 5820.2a Roadmap” (letter to O. Robertson, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office), Bechtel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington, November 8.
ECF-200E-16-0093, 2016, Preparation of 200 East Area Water Table Maps for Calendar Year 2015, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072754H.
ECF-ERDF-17-0198, 2017, Evaluation of Increased Inventory Disposed at ERDF on the Post-Closure ERDF Performance, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-9
ECF-300FF5-17-0039, 2017, Analysis of Potential Land Development Approaches on Recharge and Groundwater Flow Near the Land Conveyance in the 300 Area, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
ECF-300FF5-17-0065, 2017, Analysis of Stormwater Management for Potential Land Development Scenarios for the 300 Area Land Conveyance Site, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
ECF-HANFORD-12-0064, 2012, Preliminary Evaluation of Radiological Dose from Burial of German Logs in a Disposal Facility under the Inadvertent Intruder Scenario per DOE Order 435.1 (Radioactive Waste Management), Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
ECF-HANFORD-12-0065, 2012, Preliminary Evaluation of Thermal Effects from Burial of German Logs in a Disposal Facility, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
ECF-HANFORD-13-0020, 2017, Process for Constructing a Three-dimensional Geological Framework Model of the Hanford Site 100 Area, Rev. 5, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
ECF-HANFORD-13-0029, 2017, Development of the Hanford South Geologic Framework Model, Hanford Site, Washington, Rev. 4, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072357H.
ECF-HANFORD-16-0139, 2017, Hydraulic Gradient and Velocity Calculations for RCRA Sites in 2016, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0071845H.
ECF-200E-17-0121, 2017, Preparation of 200 East Area Water Table Maps for Calendar Year 2016, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, 2 vols., as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://www.hanford.gov/?page=81.
Einan, D.R., 2011, “Approval of the Work Plan for the Revision of a Performance Assessment Analysis for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, WCH-426, Revision 0, October 2010” (letter to J.R. Franco, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington, February 3. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=1102081317.
EPA/AMD/R10-02/030, 2002, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D9066891.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-10
EPA/AMD/R10-97/101, 1997, EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Seattle, Washington. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100O3EY.TXT.
EPA/AMD/R10-99/038, 1999, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D199122784.
EPA/ESD/R10-96/145, 1996, Explanation of Significant Differences: USDOE Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Seattle, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0093773.
EPA/ROD/R10-95/100, 1995, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100NW77.txt.
EPA/ROD/R10-95/114, 1995, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) OU 200-ZP-1, Benton County, WA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=9100NWA2.PDF.
EPA/ROD/R10-97/048, 1997, Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision for the 200-UP-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0078954H.
EPA/ROD/R10-99/039, 1999, Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (100 Area Remaining Sites), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0078953H.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2005, Record of Decision 221-U Facility (Canyon Disposition Initiative) Hanford Site, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=DA01060264.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2007, Amendment to the Record of Decision for the USDOE Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=DA04316406.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-11
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2008, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area 200-ZP-1 Superfund Site Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=00098825.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2009a, Explanation of Significant Differences for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 200-UP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Hanford Site Benton County, Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0903310669.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2009b, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site 200 Area Benton County, Washington Amended Record of Decision and Explanation of Significant Differences, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0908030975.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2011, Record of Decision Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-CW-5 and 200-PW-1, 200-PW-3, and 200-PW-6 Operable Units, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0093644.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2012, Record of Decision For Interim Remedial Action Hanford 200 Area Superfund Site 200-UP-1 Operable Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0091413.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2015a, Explanation of Significant Differences For the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, WA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0079657H.
EPA, Ecology, and DOE, 2015b, U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Hanford Site – 200 Area Benton County, Washington Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Department of Energy. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0075583H.
ERDF-00050, In Press, Groundwater, Leachate, and Lysimeter Monitoring and Sampling at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Calendar Year (CY) 2016, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
Frei, M.W., 2002, “Disposal Authorization for the Hanford Site Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities – Submittal of an Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, PNNL-11800 Addendum 1” (memorandum to R. Schepens, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, and K.A. Klein, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., July 24.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-12
Frei, M.W., 2003, “Review of the Annual Summary of the Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Performance Assessment for 2003” (memorandum to R.J. Schepens, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, and K.A. Klein, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., December 12.
Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, Revision 8c, as amended, Washington State Department of Ecology. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/permitting/hdwp/rev/8c/index.html.
Hildebrand, R.D. and M.P. Bergeron, 2002, Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area of the Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
HNF-EP-0063, 2017, Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria, Rev. 17, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
HNF-30810, 2007, Acceptable Knowledge Document for the 325 Building Radiochemistry Laboratory Mixed Debris Waste Stream, RLM325D, Rev. 1, Fluor Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.
Klein, K.A., 2000, “Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) Crosswalk to DOE Order 435.1 Requirements” (letter to J.J. Fiore and M.W. Frei), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, July 17.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 2014, Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany H.R. 3979 Public Law 113-291, Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113HPRT92738/pdf/CPRT-113HPRT92738.pdf.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321, et seq. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/pdf/USCODE-2010-title42-chap55-sec4321.pdf.
NAVD88, 1988, North American Vertical Datum of 1988, National Geodetic Survey, Federal Geodetic Control Committee, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/.
NQA-1, 2008, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York.
PNNL-11800, 1998, Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0079141H.
PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, 2001, Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0084085.
PNNL-15829, 2006, Inventory Data Package for Hanford Assessments, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15829rev0.pdf.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-13
PNNL-22520, 2013, Re-inversion of Surface Electrical Resistivity Tomography Data from the Hanford Site B-Complex, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-22520.pdf.
PNNL-26208, 2017, Contaminant Attenuation and Transport Characterization of 200-DV-1 Operable Unit Sediment Samples, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0069250H.
PNNL-26266, 2017, Geochemical, Microbial, and Physical Characterization of 200-DV-1 Operable Unit B-Complex Cores from Boreholes C9552, C9487, and C9488 on the Hanford Site Central Plateau, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0069249H.
PNNL-26894, 2017, Contaminant Attenuation and Transport Characterization of 200-UP-1 Operable Unit Sediment Samples, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-26894.pdf.
Publication Number 04-10-0762004, 2014, Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0410076.pdf.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. Available at: https://elr.info/sites/default/files/docs/statutes/full/rcra.pdf.
RFSH-9755566, 1997, “Transmittal of Program Plan for Maintenance of Hanford Burial Ground Performance Assessment (PA) Analyses, that Fulfills Performance Agreement WM 1.8.1” (memorandum to T.K. Teynor, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, from D.E. McKenney), Rust Federal Services of Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington, June 25.
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811, Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ375/content-detail.html.
RPP-15834, 2003, Integrated Disposal Facility Risk Assessment, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. Available at: http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/812309.
RPP-ENV-58782, 2016, Performance Assessment of Waste Management Area (WMA) C, Hanford Site, Washington, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072363H.
RPP-ENV-58806, 2016, RCRA Closure Analysis of Tank Waste Residuals Impacts at Waste Management Area C, Hanford Site, Washington, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072360H.
RPP-RPT-58329, 2016, Baseline Risk Assessment for Waste Management Area C, Rev. 2, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072361H.
RPP-RPT-58339, 2016, Phase 2 RCRA Facility Investigation Report for Waste Management Area C, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072359H.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-14
RPP-RPT-59197, 2016, Analysis of Past Tank Waste Leaks and Losses in the Vicinity of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 1, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072362H.
RPP-RPT-60134, 2017, T-TY Tank Farm Interim Surface Barrier Demonstration - Vadose Zone Monitoring FY16, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, Richland, Washington.
Scott, R.S., 2001, “Disposal Authorization for the Hanford Site Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities – Revision 2” (memorandum to H.L. Boston, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, and K.A. Klein, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office), Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 1.
SGW-59669, 2016, WMA C October through December 2015 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0076994H.
SGW-59914, 2016, WMA C January through March 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072441H.
SGW-58828, 2015, Water Table Maps for the Hanford Site 200 East Area, 2013 and 2014, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0079727H.
SGW-60265, 2016, 200-DV-1 Operable Unit BY Cribs Field Summary Report, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0073618H.
SGW-60442, 2016, WMA C April through June 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0072439H.
SGW-60540, 2017, 200-EA-1 Operable Unit Scoping, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0068822H.
SGW-60494, 2016, WMA C July through September 2016 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0071832H.
US Ecology, 2016, US Ecology Washington – 2016 Facility Utilization Report, US Ecology, Richland, Washington.
WAC 173-303, “Dangerous Waste Regulations,” Washington Administrative Code, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-303.
WCH-426, 2010, Work Plan for the Revision of a Performance Assessment Analysis for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0084118.
WCH-426, 2011, Work Plan for the Revision of a Performance Assessment Analysis for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 1, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-15
WCH-462, 2013, ERDF Performance Assessment Modeling Approach, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
WCH-463, 2013, Hydrogeologic Model for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
WCH-464, 2013, Hydrologic Data Package in Support of Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Modeling, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
WCH-475, 2013, Biota Description Data Package for the Post Closure Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Location, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
WCH-476, 2013, Chemical Reactivity of Radionuclides with Waste Material and Subsurface Soils During Release and Migration from the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
WCH-477, 2013, Conceptual Models for Release and Transport of Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Waste Contaminants through the Near Field Environment, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
WCH-478, 2013, Exposure and Inadvertent Scenarios for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Rev. 1, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0083703.
WCH-479, 2013, Inventory Data Package for ERDF Waste Disposal, Rev. 1, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0083702.
WCH-515, 2013, Parameter Uncertainty for the ERDF Performance Assessment Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0075136H.
WCH-520, 2013, Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington, Rev. 0, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington.
WCH-520, 2013, Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington, Rev. 1, Washington Closure Hanford, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0083701.
WHC-EP-0645, 1995, Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0075582H.
WHC-SD-WM-TI-730, 1996, Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0071840H.
Williams, A.C., 2012, “Modeling to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking at Hanford” (memorandum to M.S. McCormick, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and S.L. Samuelson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 9.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
9-16
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-i
Appendix A
History of Hanford Site Composite Analysis Maintenance
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-ii
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-iii
Table Table A-1. Hanford Site Composite Analysis Maintenance Documents ..........................................A-2
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-iv
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-1
A History of Hanford Site Composite Analysis Maintenance DOE O 435.1 Chg 1, Radioactive Waste Management, requires that the Hanford Site maintain site performance assessments (PAs) and composite analyses. Requirements for composite analysis maintenance under DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, are the same as the requirements for PA maintenance and are described in Chapter 3 of DOE, 1999, Maintenance Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses. The plan for maintaining the Hanford Site Composite Analysis (PNNL-11800, Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site; PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site) is described DOE/RL-2000-29, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington. Revision 2 of DOE/RL-2000-29 was approved in 2004 (Talarico, 2004, “Low-Level Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Review of Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, April 2003”). Rev. 3 was prepared in FY 2017 and issued concurrently with this report to update the maintenance plan to conform to DOE-STD-5002-2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation.
DOE M 435.1-1 requires routine review and revision of PAs and composite analyses. The objective of routine review and revision is to ensure that the PAs and composite analyses are updated appropriately, whenever changes in their bases (e.g., assumptions and parameters) are contemplated or affected, in order to maintain the validity and effectiveness of the controls that are based on the PA and composite analysis. These reviews provide a mechanism for routine assessment of the site plans (e.g., remediation, closure, decommissioning, and land use) developed from the results of a composite analysis. This review process allows potential problems to be identified and managed at an early stage. The revisions ensure cohesive documentation, providing a reasonable basis to conclude that DOE requirements for radiological protection of the public and the environment will be met in the future. The composite analysis is a planning tool that allows for evaluation of the cumulative effects of all sources of radioactive materials that may interact with those in the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility. The impact of future activities on the dose to hypothetical future members of the public can be evaluated using the composite analysis, and the results can be used to develop land-use plans, remediation plans, or long-term stewardship documents. The annual review of the composite analysis is used to determine whether actual and planned conditions are consistent with those contained in the composite analysis. Revisions and special analyses provide a mechanism for evaluating conditions not originally included in the composite analysis to determine if these conditions could be accommodated without violating the conclusions of the composite analysis.
DOE G 435.1-1, Implementation Guide for use with DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter 4 states the following:
IV.P (4) Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis Maintenance. The performance assessment and composite analysis shall be maintained to evaluate changes that could affect the performance, design, and operating bases for the facility. Performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance shall include the conduct of research, field studies, and monitoring needed to address uncertainties or gaps in existing data. The performance assessment shall be updated to support the final facility closure. Additional iterations of the performance assessment and composite analysis shall be conducted as necessary during the post-closure period.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-2
Performance assessments and composite analyses shall be reviewed and revised when changes in waste forms or containers, radionuclide inventories, facility design and operations, closure concepts, or the improved understanding of the performance of the waste disposal facility in combination with the features of the site on which it is located alter the conclusions or the conceptual model(s) of the existing performance assessment or composite analysis.
The statements also appear in DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1 and constitute the requirements for maintaining a PA or composite analysis. Further guidance is provided in DOE-STD-5002-2017.
A1 History of Hanford Site Composite Analysis Maintenance Table A-1 lists the documents that have been prepared to maintain the Hanford Site Composite Analysis (PNNL-11800; PNNL-11800, Addendum 1) since maintenance commenced in FY 2000.
Table A-1. Hanford Site Composite Analysis Maintenance Documents Reporting
Period Document
FY 2000
DOE/RL-2000-29, Rev. 0, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington
DOE/RL-2000-29, Rev. 1, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington
FY 2001 Hildebrand and Bergeron, 2002, Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area of the Hanford Site
FY 2002 DOE/RL-2003-26, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2003
DOE/RL-2000-29, Rev. 2, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington
DOE/RL-2004-12, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (FY 2003): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2004 DOE/RL-2005-58, Rev. 0, 2004 Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis of Low-Level Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2005 DOE/RL-2006-28, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (FY 2005): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2006, FY 2007
DOE/RL-2008-43, Draft B, Annual Status Report (FY 2007): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2008 DOE/RL-2009-82, Rev. 1, Annual Status Report (FY 2008): Composite Analysis of Low-level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2009 DOE/RL-2009-132, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (FY 2009): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2010 DOE/RL-2010-105, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (Fiscal Year 2010): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2011 DOE/RL-2011-108, Rev. 1, Annual Status Report (Fiscal Year 2011): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-3
Table A-1. Hanford Site Composite Analysis Maintenance Documents Reporting
Period Document
FY 2012 DOE/RL-2012-56, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (Fiscal Year 2012): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2013 DOE/RL-2013-40, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (FY 2013): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2014 DOE/RL-2014-45, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (FY 2014): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site
FY 2015 DOE/RL-2015-66, Rev. 1, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site
FY 2016 DOE/RL-2016-62, Rev. 0, Annual Status Report (FY 2016): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site
FY 2017 DOE/RL-2017-55, Rev. 0 (this report), Annual Status Report (FY 2017): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site
FY 2018 DOE/RL-2000-29, Rev. 3, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington
Notes: Hanford Site Composite Analysis refers to PNNL-11800, Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, and corresponding PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site. FY = fiscal year
A2 References DOE, 1999, Maintenance Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility
Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses, Rev. 4, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/em/MaintenanceGuideforDOELLWDisposalFacilityPACA.pdf.
DOE G 435.1-1, 1999, Implementation Guide for use with DOE M 435.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0435.1-EGuide-1ch1/view.
DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1, 2001, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0435.1-DManual-1-chg1.
DOE O 435.1 Chg 1, 2001, Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0435.1-BOrder-chg1.
DOE/RL-2000-29, 2000, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-4
DOE/RL-2000-29, 2000, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2000-29, 2003, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2000-29, 2018, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 3 (in publication), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2003-26, 2003, Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2004-12, 2004, Annual Status Report (FY 2003): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2005-58, 2004, Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2006-28, 2006, Annual Status Report (FY 2005): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2008-43, 2008, Annual Status Report (FY 2007): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Draft B, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2009-82, 2009, Annual Status Report (FY 2008): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1363923.
DOE/RL-2009-132, 2010, Annual Status Report (FY 2009): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1363929.
DOE/RL-2010-105, 2011, Annual Status Report (Fiscal Year 2010): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1363944.
DOE/RL-2011-108, 2012, Annual Status Report (Fiscal Year 2011): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1363957.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-5
DOE/RL-2012-56, 2012, Annual Status Report (Fiscal Year 2012): Composite Analysis of Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1363962.
DOE/RL-2013-40, 2014, Annual Status Report (FY 2013): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1363964.
DOE/RL-2014-45, 2015, Annual Status Report (FY 2014): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364342.
DOE/RL-2015-66, 2016, Annual Status Report (FY 2015): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364347.
DOE/RL-2016-62, 2017, Annual Status Report (FY 2016): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1364351.
DOE-STD-5002-2017, 2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/5000/5002-astd-2017/@@images/file.
Hildebrand, R.D. and M.P. Bergeron, 2002, Annual Status Report: Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area of the Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
PNNL-11800, 1998, Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0079141H.
PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, 2001, Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0084085.
Talarico, J., 2004, “Low-Level Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Review of Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, April 2003” (memorandum to R. Schepens, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, and K.A. Klein, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., May 11.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
A-6
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-i
Appendix B
Status of Hanford Site Composite Analysis Update
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-ii
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-iii
Tables
Table B-1. Planning-Phase Activities ................................................................................................... B-1 Table B-2. Scoping-Phase Activities .................................................................................................... B-3 Table B-3. Analysis Phase Activities.................................................................................................... B-6
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-iv
This page intentionally left blank.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-1
B Status of Hanford Site Composite Analysis Update
In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the planning phase for preparing an updated Hanford Site Composite Analysis was undertaken and was completed under U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) direction and at the request of U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters (DOE-HQ) in its review of the FY 2013 annual status report for the composite analysis (Gilbertson and Marcinowski, 2015, “Review of Richland Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Summaries for 200 West and 200 East Burial Grounds, Composite Analysis, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, and Integrated Disposal Facility”).
A strategy for the update, consistent with DOE-HQ direction (Williams, 2012, “Modeling to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking at Hanford”), was developed in FY 2015 and used to guide planning-phase activities that were completed by the end of FY 2015. DOE-RL approved the baseline change request and funded scoping phase activities, which commenced at the start of FY 2016 and will be completed in FY 2017.
The high-level plan for revision is provided with respect to phases defined in memorandum direction (Williams, 2012) direction; planning-phase activities completed in FY 2015 are listed in Table B-1; scoping phase activities were completed in FYs 2016 and 2017 are listed in Table B-2, and analysis phase activities completed, in progress, or planned for FYs 2017, 2018, and 2019 are listed in Table B-3.
Table B-1. Planning-Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Description Status
Develop Strategy for Composite Analysis Update
2015 White paper Top-level strategy for the update of the composite analysis (provided to DOE-RL and the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group).
COMPLETED: “White Paper: Strategy for Update of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis,” submitted to DOE-RL in June 2015.
Develop Project Schedule for FY 2016
2015 Detailed project schedule
Support baseline change request.
COMPLETED: Schedule developed for baseline change request in August 2015.
Update Maintenance Plan
2015 Revision to Composite Analysis Maintenance Plan
Current maintenance plan requires update; plans for update of composite analysis to be added.
COMPLETED: DOE/RL-2000-29, Rev. 3, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington (being submitted as a companion document to this annual status report).
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-2
Table B-1. Planning-Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Description Status
Hanford Site Groundwater Model Development and Maintenance
2015 Revision to Model Package Report: Hanford Site Groundwater Model
Update TC & WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) groundwater model to incorporate new geologic data, new calibration data, and migrate to support by a hydrogeologic framework model for efficient future maintenance of the groundwater model.
IN PROGRESS: CP-56407, Model Package Report: Hanford Site Groundwater Model (in publication).
Hanford Site Scale-Appropriate Fate and Transport Model Development and Maintenance
2015 Revision to Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Fate and Transport Model
Develop multiple fate and transport models that link to the Hanford Site groundwater model for boundary conditions and other information, providing an integrated system of groundwater models to support decision making at appropriate scales.
COMPLETED: CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Transport Model Version 7.1, issued July 2015.
Hanford Soil Inventory Model (SIM) Upgrade: Hardware
2015 Hardware update
Past work demonstrates that development of a sitewide inventory to support composite analysis modeling is the longest duration activity; new data from completed tank retrievals and CERCLA and RCRA activities, as well as inventory basis provided by the TC & WM EIS, need to be incorporated into the revised composite analysis basis. Update of the SIM is a key activity.
COMPLETED: SIM computer hardware platform replaced in FY 2015.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-3
Table B-1. Planning-Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Description Status
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office FY = fiscal year RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 SIM = Soil Inventory Model TC & WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0391, Final Tank
Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS))
Table B-2. Scoping-Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Description Status
Project Management Planning
2016 Project management plan
Management plan to direct project execution.
COMPLETED: PRC-MP-EP-53107, Hanford Composite Analysis Project Management Plan, approved and issued May 2016.
Project Quality Assurance Planning
2016 Quality assurance plan
Quality assurance and quality control planning for control of modeling activities for the composite analysis.
COMPLETED: Project quality assurance plan issued as part of PRC-MP-EP-53107.
Phase 1 Scoping
2016 Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Scope & Approach document
Establish high-level scope of the composite analysis, including period of evaluation, inclusion or exclusion of Columbia River and atmospheric pathways, inclusion or exclusion of atmospheric pathway, strategy for addressing uncertainty, extent of groundwater pathway domain, handling of historical simulation period, and identification of compliance boundary.
COMPLETED: Key Aspects Workshop conducted May 2016. Key aspects scope summarized in preliminary summary analysis document submitted to DOE-RL in September 2016.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-4
Table B-2. Scoping-Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Description Status
Hanford Soil Inventory Model (SIM) Upgrade: Software
2016 Software update (issue new SIM version and documentation, featuring operational implementation in new, maintainable software framework)
During FY 2016, the focus was on updating the software platform, which is obsolete and cannot be migrated to new hardware.
COMPLETED: New model implementation completed in FY 2016
Update Hanford Site Disposition Baseline (End States)
2016 Hanford Site disposition baseline 2016 (database and description report)
Update disposition baseline – the database of the evolution of site remedial decisions, surface cover, and other actions (past and future) needed to support vadose zone modeling for the hundreds of waste sites to be simulated in the composite analysis based on Records of Decision, anticipated decisions, and planning.
COMPLETED: CP-60254, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Hanford Site Disposition Baseline
Draft Data Packages
2017 Series of draft data packages to support the composite analysis
Develop draft data packages to define detailed technical approach for models and framework to conduct the composite analysis.
COMPLETED: Draft technical approach description documents were prepared for all facets of the composite analysis update in 2017; these are listed under “Finalize Data Packages”
Phase 2 Scoping
2017 Workshop summary reports
Conduct series of workshop to define the context, scope, and general methodology of the composite analysis.
COMPLETED: Technical Approach Workshop to present and refine detailed technical approach was conducted March 29-30, 2017.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-5
Table B-2. Scoping-Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Description Status
Finalize Data Packages
2017 Series of final data packages to support the composite analysis
Finalize data packages based on scoping workshops.
COMPLETED: CP-60195, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Radionuclide Inventory and Waste Site Selection Process CP-60405, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Vadose Zone CP-60406, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Groundwater CP-60408, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Air Transport Modeling CP-60409, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Groundwater Pathway Dose Calculation CP-60410, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Waste Form Release
Develop and Submit Summary Analysis
2017 Summary analysis for the Hanford Site Composite Analysis
Define modeling approach and identify departures from TC & WM EIS (DOE/EIS-0391) modeling approach with justification in a summary analysis document and submit to Groundwater/Vadose Zone Executive Council for approval of modeling approach.
COMPLETED: CHPRC-60649, Summary Analysis: Hanford Site Composite Analysis Update, approved May 10, 2017, and issued June 5, 2017.
DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office FY = fiscal year SIM = Soil Inventory Model TC & WM EIS = Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0391, Final Tank
Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS))
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-6
Table B-3. Analysis Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Notes
Hanford Soil Inventory Model (SIM) Upgrade: Content
2017 Hanford Soil Inventory Model (SIM) Version 2
COMPLETED: CP-59798, Model Package Report: Hanford Soil Inventory Model ECF-HANFORD-17-0079, Hanford Soil Inventory Model (SIM-v2) Calculated Inventory of Direct Liquid Discharges to Soil in the Hanford Site's 200 Areas
Update Sitewide Inventory
2018 Comprehensive sitewide inventory data set to support composite analysis using upgraded SIM and current versions of Hanford defined waste model and other source information
IN PROGRESS
Prototype Development and Testing for Composite Analysis Computational Approach
2017 Hanford Site Composite Analysis model integrated computational framework function and requirements specification
COMPLETED: CP-60407, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Integrated Computational Framework CP-60411, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Automated Quality Assurance Process Design
Develop Waste Form Release Model and Software Implementation
2017 Waste form release models for the Hanford Site Composite Analysis
COMPLETED: CP-60410, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Waste Form Release.
Implement the Approach Developed in Hanford Site Composite Analysis Model Integrated Computational Framework Function and Requirements Specification
2018–2019
IN PROGRESS: Construct and test integrated modeling framework.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-7
Table B-3. Analysis Phase Activities Task FY Deliverable Notes
Analysis of Performance
2017–2018
IN PROGRESS: Conduct modeling and analyses to provide basis for evaluation of cumulative impacts and supporting sensitivity analyses.
Prepare Composite Analysis Draft and Supporting Documentation
2018–2020
Hanford Site Composite Analysis, Draft A
IN PROGRESS: Prepare documentation.
Issue Composite Analysis Decisional Draft for DOE-RL Review
2020 Submit draft documentation for field office review.
DOE-RL Comment Resolution
2020
Prepare Composite Analysis Revision 0
2020 Hanford Site Composite Analysis, Revision 0
Submit Composite Analysis Revision 0 to LFRG
2020 Submit final documentation for LFRG review.
DOE-RL = U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office FY = fiscal year LFRG = Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group SIM = Soil Inventory Model
References CHPRC-60649, 2017, Summary Analysis: Hanford Site Composite Analysis Update, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL
Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1412683.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9601, et seq., Pub. L. 107-377, December 31, 2002. Available at: https://www.csu.edu/cerc/researchreports/documents/CERCLASummary1980.pdf.
CP-56407, 2017, Model Package Report: Hanford Site Groundwater Model, Rev. 0 (in publication), CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-8
CP-57037, 2015, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Transport Model Version 7.1, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0080149H.
CP-59798, 2018, Model Package Report: Hanford Soil Inventory Model (SIM v.2), Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CP-60195, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Radionuclide Inventory and Waste Site Selection Process, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
CP-60254, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Hanford Site Disposition Baseline, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1412547.
CP-60405, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Vadose Zone, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1407710.
CP-60406, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Groundwater, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1412549.
CP-60407, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Integrated Computational Framework, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1412550.
CP-60408, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Atmospheric Transport Modeling, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1412671.
CP-60409, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Groundwater Pathway Dose Calculation, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1412672.
CP-60410, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Waste Form Release, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1412677.
CP-60411, 2017, Hanford Site Composite Analysis Technical Approach Description: Automated Quality Assurance Process Design, Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1412679.
DOE/EIS-0391, 2012, Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0391-final-environmental-impact-statement.
DOE/RL-2000-29, 2018, Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington, Rev. 3 (in publication), U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-9
ECF-HANFORD-17-0079, 2018, Hanford Soil Inventory Model (SIM-v2) Calculated Inventory of Direct Liquid Discharges to Soil in the Hanford Site's 200 Areas, Rev. 0 (in publication), CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
Gilbertson, M.A. and F. Marcinowski, 2015, “Review of Richland Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Summaries for 200 West and 200 East Burial Grounds, Composite Analysis, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, and Integrated Disposal Facility” (memorandum from Mark. A. Gilbertson, Deputy Secretary for Site Restoration, and Frank Marcinowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management, to Stacey Charboneau, Manager, Richland Operations Office), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March 24.
PRC-MP-EP-53107, 2016, Hanford Composite Analysis Project Management Plan, Rev. 0, Chg. 0, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901, et seq. Available at: https://elr.info/sites/default/files/docs/statutes/full/rcra.pdf.
Williams, A.C., 2012, “Modeling to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking at Hanford” (memorandum to M.S. McCormick, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, and S.L. Samuelson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 9.
DOE/RL-2017-55, REV. 0
B-10
This page intentionally left blank.