GJO-97-3 1-TAMGJO-HAN-17

Hanford Tank Farms Vadose Zone

Addendum to the S Tank Farm Report

Prepared forU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of River Protection

Richkmd, Washington

Prepared byU.S. Department of Energy

Albuquerque Operations OfficeGrand Junction Office

Grand Junction, Colorado

Work petformed under DOE Contract No. DE-AC13-96GJ87335.

I.. ..-. — ..— _ -e-, ,,,. . — ,.. ._.,. .—— -- ..— ..—.

DISCLAIMER

This repofi was prepared as an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United States Government. Neitherthe United States Government nor any agency thereof, norany of their employees, make any warranty, express orimplied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility forthe accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, orrepresents that its use would not infringe privately ownedrights. Reference herein to any specific commercialproduct, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constituteor imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring bythe United States Government or any agency thereof. Theviews and opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available originaldocument.

~Contents

Page

SignaturePage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O . . . . . . . . . . . . ..iv

ExecutiveSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..v

1.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1,1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4

2.0 Summary of Additional Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2,1 AdditionalBoreholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...52.2 HighRate Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...52.3 RepeatLogging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3.1 Spectral GammaLoggiug System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...72.3.2 HistoricalGross GamrnaLogging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8

3.0Discussion ofResults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...83.1 Additional Boreholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1.1 Borehole40-OO-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...83.1.2 Borehole 40-10-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 9

3.2 HighRate Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...93.3 RepeatLogging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...103.4 Changes tothe InterpretedData Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...10

4.OThree-DimensionalVisualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..’ . . ...114.1 InterpretedDataSet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...114.2 DevelopmentofThree-DimensionalVisualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...11

4.2.1 GeostatisticalModel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...124.2.2 Three-DimensionalPlumeCalculation audVisualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...12

4.3 PotentialUncertaintiesandInaccwacies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...134.4 DiscussionofVisualizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...144.5 ContarninatedVolumeandTotalActivity Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...16

5.0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...17

6.0 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...19

7.P references . . . .’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...20

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe STankFarmReportAugust2000 Page ii

Contents (continued)

Page

Appendix A. Additional Borehole Data forthe STank Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A-lAppendix B. Summaq of High Rate Logging Results for the S Tank Farm . . . . . . . . . . B-1Appendix C. Summary of Repeat Logging Results for the S Tank Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1Appendix D. Summary of the Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm . . . . . . . . . . . D-1Appendix E. STank Farm Visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-l

Figures

Figure 1, Map of the 200 West Area Showing the Location of the S Tank Farm . . . . . . . . . ...22. Mapofthe STank Farm Boreholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page iii

I

Hanford Tank Farms Vadose Zone

Addendum to the S Tank Farm Report

Prepared by:

MACTEC-ERS, Hanford

Concurrence:

Aiz/2z=7=&-‘R.G. McCain, Technical LeadMACTEC-ERS, Hanford

b

(q&f+.C.J. Koizumi,~hnic

“

MACTEC-ERS, Grand J

W. Be sch, Project ManagerA C-ERS, Hanford

M.C. Butherus, Task Order Manager

5’/z/oc2Date

Date

@’/a oDate

13//’&a&aDat~

I

I

U.S. Department of EnergyUOffIce of River Protection

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice . Addendumto the S TankFarm ReportAugust2000 pageiv

-- ..-

Executive Summary

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) requestedthe DOE Grand Junction OffIce (DOE-GJO), Grand Junction, Colorado, to perform a baselinecharacterization of gamma-emitting radionuclides in the vadose zone at all Hanford single-shelltank (SST) fimrnsusing high resolution spectral gamma-ray logging methods in existingboreholes surrounding the tanks. In 1998, Congress established the Office of River Protection(ORP) at Htiord, an autonomous organk?ation that reports directly to DOE Headquarters. ORPis responsible for managing all aspects of the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) proj ect,including characterization of the vadose zone potentially impacted by the SSTS. Theresponsibility for the baseline characterization project, originally under the auspices of DOE-RL,was transferred to ORP in December 1998.

The S Tank Farm Report, which was prepared as part of this characterization project, was issuedas documentGJO-97-31 -TQ GJO-HAN-17 in February 1998. That document reported theresults of the spectral gamma logging characterizations at the S Tank Farm that were originallyreported in Tank Summary Data Reports for each individual tank. The S Tank Farm Reportprovided background information, a history of the farm, geology and hydrology reviews, and adescription and review of adjacent waste sites. Data derived from logging existing boreholes inthe S Tank Farm were used to develop a three-dimensional model of the distribution of thecontamination in the vadose zone in the immediate vicinity of the S Tank Farm.

Since the original S Tank Farm Report was issued, additional data have been collected, newanalysis techniques developed, and additional insights into the nature and distribution ofcontamination have been gained. The purpose of this addendum is to present these additionaldata and to provide revised visualizations of the subsurface contaminant distribution in theS Tank Farm.

Additional data collected include spectral gamma data acquired from two boreholes that were notlogged during the original baseline logging effort. Both of these boreholes, 40-00-04 and40-10-01, extend to near the top of the water table. The boreholes were not logged previouslybecause the borehole construction consisted of dual casing and grout. At that time, appropriatecasing correction factors were not available. The S Tank Farm Report recommended spectralgamma logging in these two boreholes to determine if cesium-137 (137CS)had migrated deep intothe vadose zone. Log data from these boreholes might provide insights into the cause of hightechnetium to uranium and low tritium to technetium ratios measured in groundwater samplescollected from borehole 40-00-04 (Johnson and Chou 1998). Only near-surface contamination,presumably from a surface spill, was detected in these two boreholes.

A high rate logging system (HRLS) was developed and deployed in the S Tank Farm to measure137CSconcentration levels in high gamma flux zones in two boreholes where the spectral gammalogging system was unable to collect usable data because of high dead times and/or detectorsaturation. This new system has enabled measurement of 137CSconcentrations up to about

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page v

“-?— ,, ..,. ,. “.P .,. ,. ,., —.. . . . . . ..s=-?7= . ...- ~. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. !--- .. . .. ,’, :. -’..-. .—.

. . . . . . . . . . ,.

100 million picocuries per gram (pCi/g). *37CSconcentrations of more than 10GpCi/g were

detected in both boreholes (40-02-03 and 40-04-05) logged with the HRLS.

Other data collected since the S Farm Report was issued include repeat logging measurementsfrom borehole 40-00-02 acquired approximately 2.5 years aller the initial baseline data werecollected. This borehole was selected for repeat logging to assess the potential effects on the1s7’csContminmt distribution in the sediments near the leak. The 137CScontamination was

apparently not remobilized by the raw water leak (at least in the vicinity of the borehole). Noadditional boreholes were selected for repeat logging in the S Tank Farm.

A review of historical gross gamma logs provided no evidence of suspected contaminantmovement in the S Tank Farm. Independent analysis of historical gross gamma data by Randalland Price (1999) supports this conclusion. However, the repeat logging was limited in scope andthe gross gamma logging program was discontinued in 1994; no comprehensive vadose zonemonitoring program currently exists. “

The interpreted data set presented in the S Tank Farm Report was revised to incorporate the datafrom the two additional boreholes and the high rate logging. In addition, intervals of relativelylow 137CScontamination, which appeared to be related to borehole effects and/or contaminantdragdown, were removed fi-omthe data set. The decision to remove contamination intervalsfrom the data set was based on the results of the previous shape factor analysis, the Randall andPrice (1999) data, and the experience of the analysts. These new data sets were used to create therevised three-dimensional visualizations of subsurface contamination for the S Tank Farmpresented in this addendum. As a result, the plumes depicted in the visualizations are morerealistic and have been used to provide an estimate of contaminant inventories.’ Thevisualizations will also prove useful in directing future characterization work in the S Tank Farm.

This addendum completes the baseline characterization of the S Tank Farm. The purpose of thischaracterization was to identi~ the nature and extent of contamination associated with gamma-emitting radionuclides in the S Tank Farm using data collected from existing boreholes. Thiswork serves as a baseline against which fi~e m=s~ements CZUIbe compared to iden@.

changes in the vadose zone, to track gamma-emitting radionuclide contaminant movement, andto identifi or veri~ fiture tank leaks.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Pagevi

.....~7,.T., .-——.-...... ......

1.0 Introduction

The S Tank Farm is located in the southwest portion of the 200 West Area of the Hanford Site(Figure 1). Although the S and SX Tank Farms are included together in the S-SX WasteManagement Area, each farm is considered a separate entity for purposes of this report. TheS Tank Farm consists of twelve second-generation single-shell tanks (SSTS), each with anindividual capacity of 758,000 gallons (gal). These tanks currently store a total of 4,934,000 galof high-level nuclear waste that was generated primarily from the chemical processing ofirradiated uranium fhel. Only one of the tanks (S-104) is listed in Hanlon (2000) as an “assumedleaker.” This tank is estimated to have leaked 24,000 gal of high-level radioactive liquid to thevadose zone sediments (Hanlon 2000).

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) requestedthe DOE Grand Junction OffIce (DOE-GJO), Grand Junction, Colorado, to perform a baselinecharacterization of gamma-emitting radionuclides in the vadose zone at all Hanford SST fhrrnsusing high resolution spectral gamma-ray logging methods in existing boreholes surrounding thetanks. In 1998, Congress established the Ol%ce of River Protection (ORP) at Hanford, anautonomous organization that reports directly to DOE Headquarters. ORP is responsible formanaging all aspects of the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) project, includingcharacterization of the vadose zone potentially impacted by the SSTS. The responsibility for thebaseline characterization project, originally under the auspices of DOE-RL, was transferred toORP in December 1998.

Figure 2 shows the location of each borehole in the S Tank Farm. DOE-GJO deployed theSpectral Gamma Logging System (SGLS), which consists of a downhole sonde and sutiacesupport system (cable, winch, and electronic systems mounted in a custom-built truck). Thedownhole sonde contains an n-type high purity germanium (HPGe) semiconductor detector withapproximately 35-percent efficiency. The baseline S Tank Farm geophysical logging wascompleted in 1996, and the results of the radionuclide concentration logs for individual boreholeswere compiled and presented in 12 individual Tank Summary Data Reports (DOE 1997b, 1997c,1997d, 1997e, 1997f, 1997g, 1997h, 1997i, 1997j, 1997k, 19971,and 1997m).

The S Tank Farm Report was completed by the Hanford Tank Farms Vadose Zone Project inFebruary 1998. Since the report was completed, additional work has been performed, andmodifications to the original report are warranted. This document will discuss thosemodifications and serves as an addendum to the original report. The original report was issuedas document GJO-97-3 l-TAR, GJO-HAN-17.

1.1 Background

A compilation of all borehole data collected for the baseline characterization was presented in theoriginal S Tank Farm Report. Included within that report were three-dimensional visualizationsof contaminant distribution in the vadose zone around the S Tank Farm.

DOE/GrandJunction OffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 1

. ..

.. ——.—-~.------ - -=...IIIr

I(

k___

. ..

‘1~I\>-—

[

————.-. ———----- ———. —.-——

.-——----7-=--. -——=--—— =— —-. -= —— s=. = .== = _____ ___——- . .——. — — ..- —. —--- .

WASTEMANAGEMENTAREAT

T W/241-TTMFM

WASTEManagementAREATX-TY

L!241-TY ::

3=

TANKFINN 00

241-TX 000000

TANKFARI000000000000

Z PLAN

—

—

--t

0;:Ooc

: 00(7: O(IC

—-=.====. ~.

WASTEMANAGEMENTAREAU

U PLANT I$p241-U ,4*

‘ TANKFARI

216-U-IO 1

Figure 1. Map of the 200 West Area Showing the Location of the S Tank Farm

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page2

-——-- .- ... .. .

o-t0

DOE/GrandJunction OffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 3

In August 1996, a Phase I groundwater quality assessment for the S/SX Waste Management Area(wMA) was initiated in response to a directive from the Washington State Department ofEcology. This action was triggered by increases in specific conductivity and technetium-99(9gTc)observed in downgradient monitoring wells. Results of the Phase I assessment (Johnsonand Chou 1998) indicated that the S/SX WMA had contributed to the groundwater contaminationand that multiple source locations within the WMA were required to explain observed spatial andtemporal groundwater contamination patterns: This work was carried out independently of thework reported in the S Tank Farm Report.

Since the original S Tank Farm Report was issued in 1998, additional data have been obtainedand enhancements have been made in the SGLS data evaluation process. Shape factor analysishad been applied to the original baseline spectral data prior to issuing the S Tank Farm Report toassess contaminant distribution with respect to the borehole axis. However, experience in theshape factor interpretation has led to a more liberal approach when removing contaminant dataattributed to borehole effects. This more liberal approach has resulted from the recognition thatdragdown of contaminated material to lower depths during drilling is pervasive, particularlywhen high gamma flux zones are encountered. Other data were obtained from two additionalboreholes that were not logged during the original baseline, and repeat logging was performed inone other borehole. Finally, a high rate logging tool has been deployed to investigate intervals ofvery high gamma flux where the SGLS was unable to collect usable spectral data.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this addendum is to present additional data relevant to the S Tank Farm, and toprovide revised visualizations of subsurface contamination that are based on re-evaluation of theoriginal data, as well as incorporation of data from two additional boreholes and high rate logdata. Tank farm conditions, operational history, current status, and geologic conditions arediscussed in the original S Tank Farm Report and in relevant Tank Summary Data Reports(DOE 1997b, 1997c, 1997d, 1997e, 1997f, 1997g, 1997h, 1997i, 1997j, 1997k, 19971,and1997m), and will not be restated in this report. The reader is referred to those documents fordetailed information.

In general, revisions to the visualizations are based on data from the two additional boreholes andthe high rate data. Repeat logging data are generally not incorporated into the interpreted dataset, unless the data clari@ ambiguities in the original log data. The primary justification forexcluding repeat data is that only a small fraction of the total logging footage was re-logged. Toroutinely insert these data would thus distort the original baseline. Comparisons between repeatlogging and the original logs are discussed in the text. The contaminant plumes shown in thevisualizations are based on the original data and the data from the two additional boreholes, asmodified by professional judgment, with the HRLS results included in intervals where the SGLSwas saturated.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm Report ~August2000 Page4 I

—,-.,+.,-- ... =. _,. ,,J ,,<a., >..,.,.b.A- ... ... . . .T7—x——— — . . . .. . . . . . . . . , ,... .. , . , ,.. . .. . . . ... >,..7. ,, . . —-7. I

2.0 Summary of Additional Data

Additional data presented in this addendum include data from two boreholes not logged duringthe original baseline, high rate logging, and repeat logging. Improvements in data analysis andinterpretation methods are applied to all borehole data where appropriate. Also referenced in thisaddendum is work performed by Randall and Price (1999), which provides an analysis ofhistorical gross gamma logging data for the S Tank Farm. This analysis by Randall and Price inaddition to SGLS repeat logging evaluated areas of possible contaminant movement within theS Tank Farm vadose zone.

2.1 Additional Boreholes

Two additional boreholes, 40-00-04 (299-W23-01) and 40-10-01 (299-W23-17), were loggedwith the SGLS after the S Tank Farm Report was issued. These two boreholes were not loggedduring the original baseline because of their construction configuration (double-cased andgrouted). Since that time the decision was made to log boreholes with this type of construction.These two wells were of particular interest because they could provide insights into whether ornot *37CShad migrated deep into the vadose zone. This insight may provide a clue as to the causeof the high technetium/uranium and low tritium/technetiurn ratios measured in the groundwaterdowngradient of the waste management area that maybe indicative of a tank waste source.Technetium was detected in groundwater samples from borehole 40-00-04 in 1985-86 and againin 1998. The tritiurnhechnetium ratios for both of these samples was near 1 (Johnson andChou 1999). Both of these boreholes are greater than 200 ft in depth. Other boreholes in theS Tank Farm only reached approximately 150 ft.

2.2 High Rate Logging

During SGLS logging operations in the S Tank Farm in 1996, it soon became apparent that someborehole intervals exhibited very high gamma-ray fluxes, such that the SGLS detectors becamesaturated, yielding no usable data.

DOE-GJO designed a sonde capable of recording gamma-ray spectra while operating in intensegamma-ray fluxes. The detector is a low-efficiency, 6-millimeter (mm) by 8-mm n-type HPGedetector. The sonde containing the detector is operated by either of the SGLS logging systems.This system is referred to as the High Rate Logging System (HRLS). Information regarding thissystem and its calibrations are described in a base calibration report (DOE 1999).

The HRLS operates normally in gamma-ray fluxes intense enough to “saturate” the SGLSS.Saturation refers to the circumstance in which the detector records spectra in which the peaks(fill energy peaks) are tiny or even absent. This situation is an extreme manifestation of“pileup,” that contributes to degradation of spectra (Knoll 1989). “Pulse pileup” occurs when thephoton flux at the detector is so great that two or more photons will deposit their energies in thedetector within a time interval that is short compared to the time resolution of the system. The

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S TankFarm ReportAugust2000 Page 5

----, .-r-~~ , ~..{ ,’.,,,,. ,>~.—r.—r ,.....-..-.+.- ,. ., . ..—.—. . ..—

electrical charge liberated by the several photons is then processed as if just one photon wereinvolved. Pulse pileup events give output pulses with variable amplitudes because the amplitudeof each output pulse depends on the total energy of the several captured photons that contributeto the pulse. The pulses with variable amplitudes add counts to the spectral backgroundcontinuum, and the photons that participate in pileup are lost, in the sense that they contribute tothe spectral background instead of a peak. Consequently, as pileup events increase in frequency,the spectral peaks become more and more obscure. Because peak counts are lost, the peakintensities are no longer proportional to the source concentrations.

Like the SGLSS, the HRLS is essentially nonparalyzable. “Nonparalyzable” and “paralyzable”describe system behavior during “dead periods” of data acquisition (Knoll 1989). Innonparalyzable systems, the deposition of photon energy in the detector is followed by a brieftime interval, or dead period, of fixed duration, during which the output electrical pulse is beingprocessed. The system is unresponsive to any additional photons that enter the detector duringthe dead period. If the gamma-ray flux is intense, a significant number of photons enter thedetector during dead periods, and are uncounted. Thus, the count rate rises as the gamma fluxincreases, but the count rate does not rise as rapidly as the flux. The count rate is non-linear inrelation to flux, but linearity is imposed by applying the dead time correction to the recordedcount rates (DOE 1995)..

In a paralyzable system, of which certain of the old Hanford Geiger-Mueller-based monitoringsystems are examples, the deposition of photon energy in the detector is followed by a deadperiod, but the duration of this period is lengthened if additional photons enter the detectorduring the dead period. Thus, on average, the dead periods grow longer as the gamma fluxincreases. A consequence is that as the gamma flux on the detector increases, the output countrate rises, but the count rate eventually reaches a maximum, then the rate decreases if the gammaflux continues to climb. Because of this property, system output maybe ambiguous in zones ofhigh gamma flux.

Two tungsten shields that can be used individually or in combination are available to extend therange of the high rate detector. One is a 0.3l-inch (in.).-thick tungsten pipe sleeve, designated asthe external shield, that fits over the sonde housing. The other is a 0.7-in.-thick tungsten “cup,”designated as the internal shield, that fits over the high rate detector, filling the excess spaceinside the sonde normally occupied by the SGLS detector. By using the shields individually orin combination, the measurement range of the high rate detector can be extended from severalthousand picocuries per gram without shielding to about 100 million pCi/g using maximumshielding.

The HRLS presented a particularly difiicult calibration challenge. Construction of test zoneswith uniformly distributed gamma-emitting radionuclides at high activity levels is not practical,for reasons of personnel exposure, cost, long-term surveillance requirements, and disposal.Hence, the calibration had to be carried out using existing calibration models. As a result, therelative degree of uncertainty for measurements made with the high rate tool is significantlyhigher than the uncertainty in the SGLS data. DOE (1999) describes the calibration in detail.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 6

. . ,=:7—. ,., , . ,,, -4..,,.‘., .,... .,,. -,??. f ,. i.. . -.., . . . ,. .,,. t “., :TT. - -------

For the SGLS, dead time, casing, and water corrections are computed by the analytical softwareand the output values are concentrations in picocuries per gram. However, it was not practical tocollect data for determination of casing and water correction factors for the HRLS. Only a deadtime correction is applied to high rate data by the analysis software. Depending on the boreholeconfiguration and whether or not shields were used, it maybe necessary to apply correctionfactors to the data after processing is completed.

Calibration measurements for the HRLS were made with a 0.28-in. steel sleeve in place over thesonde to simulate the effects of 6-in. schedule-40 casing, which is the most common boreholecasing used in Hanford tank farm boreholes. HRLS data accurately reflect contaminantconcentrations in unsaturated intervals with 6-in, schedule-40 casing. When otier casingconfigurations are present, a correction factor must be applied. The correction factor isdetermined by calculating the attenuation for the assumed casing thickness relative to attenuationassociated with a 0.28-in. thickness of steel. No water correction factor is available.

When shields are used, an additional correction factor must be applied. Factors were determinedfor all three shield contlgurations (internal shield, external shield, and both shields) from fieldmeasurements of 137CSactivity at 662 kilo-electron volts @eV). Shield correction factors forother energy levels can be determined by extrapolation of relative attenuation calculations.

*37CSwas the only radionuclide detected with the HRLS in the S Tank Farm. Both boreholeslogged in the S Tank Farm appear to have had 6-in. schedule-40 casing. High rate datacorrection factors for *37CS(662 kev) are provided in the following table:

6-in. Casing Internal Shield External Shield Both Shields

1.000 27.42 3.758 96.40

2.3 Repeat Logging

Repeat logging using the SGLS is usefid to evaluate possible contaminant movement over timeby comparing concentration data. Analysis of historical gross gamma logging by Randall andPrice (1999) has also proved usefil for determining potential movement, particularly in zones ofhigh gamma flux. A sufficient amount of time has not passed since the implementation of theHRLS to collect repeat data that would provide meaningfid comparisons.

2.3.1 Spectral Gamma Logging System

Repeat logging was performed for one borehole interval in the S Tank Farm using the SGLS.This borehole was selected for repeat logging to assess the impact of a raw water leak nearborehole 40-00-02 on the 137CSdistribution in the vadose zone. Approximately 500,000 gal ofwater were released in a 1 hour period in 1996 from a separated water main near the northeastside of the S Tank Farm. This water pooled in a low area along the east fence line of the fm

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice “ Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 7

estimated to be approximately 50 ft from borehole 40-00-02 (Johnson and Chou 1999). It is notpossible to determine if this wu%acewater changed the moisture content of the vadose zone in thevicinity of this borehole. The baseline 137C’S concentration profile collected on 6/4/96 wascompared to the repeat 137CSconcentration profile collected on 1/21/99. To provide for propercomparison of log data between the original baseline and the repeat logging, the baseline 137CSwas decayed from the date of the baseline logging (6/4/96) to the date of the repeat logging(1/21/99).

2.3.2 Historical Gross Gamma Logging

In 1998, Randall and Price (1999) conducted an analysis of historical gross gamma-ray log datacollected in the S Tank Farm between 1975 and 1994. All historical log surveys for individualdrywells (boreholes) were evaluated for each interval with elevated gross gamma count rates,allowing observations to be made regarding the stability of any contaminant interval overtime.Conclusions from this analysis are provided in this addendum. In general, no areas in the vadosezone were identified as showing contaminant movement. However, the gross gamma loggingprogram was discontinued in 1994 and only limited data are available for the period since 1994.

3.0 Discussion of Results

3.1 Additional Boreholes

Two additional boreholes (40-00-04 and 40-10-01) were logged since the S Tank Farm Reportwas issued. Both of these boreholes are double cased and grouted. As discussed previously,these boreholes were of particular interest to provide clues to the potential impact of tank wasteon the ground water. Combination log plots for these’boreholes showing the dkribution ofnaturally occurring and man-made radionuclides, as well as total gamma activity from both theSGLS and the most recent tank fiwmsgross gamma log, are included in Appendix A (FiguresA-1 through A-4).

3.1.1 Borehole 40-00-04

Borehole 40-00-04 is located east of tanks S-107 and S-110 and was given the Hanford Sitedesignation 299-W23-01, This borehole was drilled in June of 1952 to a depth of 262 ft with6-in.-diameter casing. Since then the borehole has been perforated and grouted with a 4-in.-diameter casing set from Oto 175 ft. This borehole was logged with the SGLS in three log runsfrom Oto 219 ft on Jan 21, 1999. Water was encountered in the borehole at about 216 ft. No logdata were collected below 219 ft. Both 137CSand cobalt-60 (soCo)were detected in this borehole.The ‘°Co was detected from 1.5 to 3.0 ft with a maximum concentration of about 1 pCi/g. The*37CSwas detected from 0.0 to 3.5 ft with a maximum concentration of about 30 pCi/g occurringat the ground surface. Low levels (less than 5 pCi/g) of 137CSwere detected intermittently

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 8

throughout the borehole to a maximum depth of 214.5 ft. These intermittent occurrences of137Cswere attributed to borehole effects.

3.1.2 Borehole 40-10-01

Borehole 40-10-01 is located approximately 25 ft northeast of tank S-110 and was given theHanford Site designation 299-W23-12. This borehole was drilled in September of 1970 to adepth of 238 ft with 6-in.-diameter casing. Since then it has been pedlorated and grouted with a4-in, -diameter casing set from Oto 180 ft. This borehole was logged with the SGLS in three logruns from Oto 209.5 ft on Jan 20, 1999. Both *37CSand cOCowere detected in this borehole. ThecOCOwas detected from 1.5 to 2.0 fi with a maximum concentration of about 0.25 pCi/g. The137CS was detected continuously from 0.0 to 54.0 ft at concentrations generally ranging from 1 to10 pCi/g with a maximum concentration of about 50 pCi/g occurring at the ground surface. Lowlevels (less than 2 pCi/g) of 137CSwere detected intermittently throughout the remainder of theborehole to a maximum depth of 186 ft. All 137CSdetected below 3.0 il is thought to bedragdown from a surface spill.

The absence of *37CSor cOCoat depth in either of these boreholes does not support deep migrationof tank waste as a cause of the anomalous 99Tcobserved in the groundwater. However, it is notconclusive, because it is also probable that neither borehole intersected the migration pathway.Moreover, contaminants such as 99Tcdo not emit a detectable gamma ray and are generallyconsidered to be more mobile than *37Cs.or‘°Co. Data from these two boreholes clearly do notprovide evidence supporting deep migration of tank waste, but neither can the data refite thispossibility.

3.2 High Rate Logging

Logging was conducted using the HRLS in boreholes 40-02-03 and 40-04-05 where the originalSGLS logs indicated zones of detector saturation resulting from very high gamma fluxes. TheSGLS provides reliable results from background levels up to several thousand picocuries pergram when an external shield is used. However, zones of more intense radiation wereencountered around these two boreholes in which dead times became excessive or the detectorbecame saturated. The HRLS detected *37CSas the primary radionuclide in both of theseintervals.

Table B-1 (Appendix B) summarizes borehole information where high rate logging wasconducted in the S Tank Farm. Included in the table are the depth intervals of each log run. Alog run refers to a single sequential set of log data collected during a borehole logging event.Multiple log runs may occur, for example, when using different shield configurations or whenlogging is terminated at the end of a day. Depth overlaps (1 fl) typically occur between two logruns. The shield configuration and the corresponding correction factors for each log run are alsolisted on the table. The comments column of the table generally includes a brief description ofthe maximum concentration detected, the date to which the HRLS data was corrected for decay,

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 9

-, -. ..-.

and an assessment of relative stability by Randall and Price (1999). A list of the specific HRLSdata points used to create the interpreted HRLS data set is also included in these comments. Theinterpreted HRLS data set is the high rate data that is added to the baseline SGLS data.

‘37CSconcentration values calculated from the high-rate data are presented on plots for each

borehole (Figures B-1 and B-2, Appendix B). All HRLS 137CSconcentration values have beencorrected for decay to the date of the SGLS baseline. Each of these figures includes two graphs.The graph on the left plots the baseline SGLS data with the interpreted HRLS data to produce acomposite baseline. Intervals of contamination that were removed from the interpreted data setare noted on this graph. Creation of the interpreted data set will be discussed in more detail inSection 4.1. The graph on the right plots all the baseline SGLS and HRLS data collected nearthe interval logged with the high rate tool. The scale has been expanded to allow the reader tocompare the data. The legend separates the data by borehole logging event. Borehole loggingevents are designated sequentially as A, B, C, etc. This designation describes separate episodesof data collection from a borehole. Thus, Event A is the initial logging event and referred to asthe SGLS baseline, while Events B or C are subsequent events that could refer to either repeat orHRLS logging.

3.3 Repeat Logging

Repeat logging was performed in only one borehole (40-00-02) in the S Tank Farm. Thepurpose was to evaluate possible effects of a surface water spill on the 137CSdistribution in thisborehole. This spill, which occurred soon afler the baseline logging, pooled in a low areaapproximately 50 ft from this borehole. The repeat data were collected approximately 2.5 yearslater. Table C-1 (Appendix C) summarizes the repeat logging performed in the S Tank Farm andincludes a comparison log plot for the repeat logging interval in borehole 40-00-02. There doesnot appear to be a significant change in log values, suggesting that either the water did not reachthe contamination in the vicinity of the borehole or that it failed to mobilize the 137CS.

3.4 Changes to the Interpreted Data Set ~

The original interpreted data set presented in the S T~, Farm Report was updated by addingspectral data from the two additional boreholes and substituting the high rate data in zones ofSGLS detector saturation. Further evaluation of shape factor data and contaminant profiles led toremoval of additional zones of contamination that were judged to be primarily associated withcontaminant dragdown and/or borehole effects from the original interpreted data set.

Table D-1 (Appendix D) includes a general discussion of the rationale for removing specificdepth intervals from the interpreted data set used to create the three-dimensional visualizations.Correlation plots of boreholes surrounding each tank are also included in Appendix D to providea visual representation of the contaminated intervals. The table and correlation plots constitutethe interpreted data set (Section 4.1).

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 10

4.0 Three-Dimensional Visualizations

An objective of this addendum is to create revised three-dimensional visualizations of the majorcontamination plumes within the vadose zone in the vicinity of the S Tank Farm and to presentviews derived from those visualizations. 13TcsC°Co,~d eul-opim-l 54 (1S4EU)were all detected

in the S Tank Farm. Visualizations were creat~d for each of these radionuclides. Thedevelopment of the visualizations are described in the S Tank Farm Report. The softwarepackage from C Tech Development Corporation called “Environmental Visualization System”(EVS) was used to create the visualizations both in the original S Tank Farm Report and in thisaddendum. However, some improvements to the data input and calculation parameters to themodel have been implemented since the original report and will be described in the followingsections,

4.1 Interpreted Data Set

The first step in the visualization process is to create an interpreted data set that represents theinput to the kriging process. This consists of the original interpreted data set presented in theS Tank Farm Report with the spectral data from the two additional boreholes and the HRLS dataadded and additional contamination intervals removed that are judged to be localized to theborehole and thus not representative of subsurface contaminant distribution.

All baseline SGLS data collected during 1996 in the S Tank Farm have been updated in thisaddendum to reflect current analysis practices and procedures. In addition, insights gainedduring the Expert Panel (a panel of experts appointed by DOE to provide independent oversightof vadose zone technical investigations @30E 1997a]) discussions have aided in judging thenature of subsurface contaminant distribution as detected by the SGLS and HRLS.

Generally, the borehole radionuclide concentrations have not been corrected for decay, andtherefore represent their 1996 baseline values. The HRLS data were adjusted to account fordecay between 1996 and 1999.

The final result is an interpreted data set where all contamination intervals judged to be local tothe casing and not representative of the surrounding formation are removed and HRLS data havebeen used to fill in zones of SGLS detector saturation.

4.2 Development of Three-Dimensional Visualizations

The original visualizations utilized an adaptive gridding option that results in estimated valueseverywhere inside a user-specified rectangular domain. In this addendum a convex hullboundary option is selected. This option produces an irregular boundary that is defined by thedistribution of measured data points, effectively restricting the extrapolation of parameters to thatvolume enclosed by the data points.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page I 1

I

~:. ,c ,—~~, . . . . . . . . . ,>..:... —- —. I

The data set derived from the SGLS data consists of measurement data at 0.5-fl intervals invertical boreholes with a lateral separation generally on the order of tens of feet, resulting in amuch greater data density in the vertical direction compared to the horizontal direction, Tominimize processing time, search routines in the kriging algorithm utilize a limited number ofdata points closest to the calculation point, creating a situation in which a contaminated intervalin a borehole tends to have an undue effect on nearby points. Because adjacent points in a singleborehole are closer than points from another borehole, the data search routine is truncated aftercollecting all data points from a single hole. To offset this effect, data points in individualboreholes were averaged over 5-fl intervals such that a single average concentration value isassigned to the midpoint of each 5-ft interval (e.g., at 2.5 ft, 7.5 ft, etc.), significantly reducingthe size of the input data set and the processing time. More importantly, it “forced” the searchalgorithm to bring in data from multiple boreholes at most calculation points, which resulted in amore realistic extrapolation of concentration values into the region between boreholes. Tomaintain fidelity to the original dat~ sphere plots and other representations of measurement dataare based on the interpreted data set, which contains actual values at 0.5-fl vertical increments.

4.2.1 Geostatistical Model

The EVS software determines geostatistical structure by calculating three-dimensionalvariograms that are plots of the variance of the data as a function of the distance between datapoints. The variogram is described by two parameters, the range and sill. The range is thedistance beyond which the data points are no longer correlated (i.e., they are independent of oneanother), and the sill is the variance of all the data.

For the S Tank Farm, the data did not show any significant decrease in variance as the data point-spacing decreased, implying that spatial correlation is poor and that more closely spaced datapoints are required to assess spatial variability. As a result, the geostatistical model takes on theform of the simple global variance value.

4.2.2 Three-Dimensional Plume Calculation and Visualizations

Kriging was used to estimate the contaminant concentration at points on a three-dimensionalgrid. Once this concentration grid was developed, visualizations of the estimated concentrationof each radionuclide could be produced in the form of a solid surface model. The visualizationcan be moved, rotated, and viewed from any angle or direction; color printouts can alsobe produced.

The kriging process calculates the average radionuclide concentrations of a volume of sedimentby using the information from nearby sample points. The influence of each sample point isdetermined by proximity, and weighting factors are based on the geostatistical structure.

The kriging software applies a horizontal-to-vertical anisotropy ratio that allows the user toinfluence the “fabric” of the data set. The anisotropy ratio applies a biased weighting to data

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S TankFarm ReportAugust2000 Page 12

. .. ..-.

points in horizontal and vertical’ directions from a given data node. The program default is 10,

which means that data points a given distance in the horizontal direction from anode will havean influence 10 times greater than data points at the same distance in a vertical direction.Analyses were performed at several anisotropy values and the value that yielded results thatappeared to most accurately honor the measured distributions of each radionuclide wasdetermined through trial and error. An anisotropy value of 4 was selected for the 137CS,CoCo,andlSIiEuplume calculations.

.

The MDLs for both 137CSand ‘°Co are near 0.1 pCi/g and the MDL for 154Euis approximately0,5 pCi/g. In the preprocessing module, a value of 0.01 pCi/g was substituted for non-detects ofeach radionuclide in the data file. This allowed the presence of non-detects in the data set tohave an impact on computation of nodal values during the kriging process. During post-processing, values less than 0.1 pCi/g for each contaminant were ignored.

During the laiging process, grids are constructed to encompass all dtia points in three-dimensional space. The horizontal extent of the grid is governed by the positions of theboreholes. The model does not extrapolate beyond the extent of either the range value or theIsriging limit. As a result, both the grid and the associated visualizations can extend only to themaximum depth of the boreholes and the extent of the range.

In the visualization process, solid surfaces are created by connecting the three-dimensional pointsin space that have equal concentrations. The outermost solid surface of the plume is defined by auser-selected contamination threshold value or isolevel. To view an inner surface, a cut sectionis inserted through the solid stiace plume. As the isolevel is increased, progressively higherradionuclide concentration stiaces can be visualized. Where a low concentration volumesurrounds a zone of higher concentration, a cut surface is helpfil in visualizing the variation inconcentration.

Tanks were portrayed by creating solid three-dimensional surfaces at the location of the tankcenters. In regions occupied by tanks, the model does not insert a contamination barrier so thatcontamination in a borehole can have some influence on concentrations on the opposite side ofthe tank, In a geostatistical estimation calculation, the closest boreholes will have the greatestinfluence and the model will be close to the actual distribution, except for areas where there arefew or no boreholes.

4.3 Potential Uncertainties and Inaccuracies

The visualizations presented in this report are based on estimated radionuclide values asdetermined by geostatistical estimation (kriging) procedures applied to an interpreted data setthat has been averaged over 5-ft depth intervals. In addition to the uncertainties associated withgeostatistical estimation applied to an interpreted and averaged data set, there are other sources ofuncertainty that must be considered. These include uncertainties in the assay calculation processas well as counting error. The uncertainty in assay calculation, which is discussed in the base

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 13

calibration report (DOE 1995) and subsequent recalibration reports, is estimated by combiningerrors associated with the calibration efficiency determination, counting statistics of thecalibration measurements, and uncertainties in the model concentration values. The countingerror is associated with the random nature of the radioactive decay process.

Potential model inaccuracies may also result from zones of high *37CSconcentrations (andresultant detector saturation). Where SGLS detector saturation occurred in the original baseline,no concentration values could be calculated, or they were highly suspect. Therefore, a value of8,000 pCi/g was placed in the database for kriging operations. In this addendum, concentrationvalues computed from high rate log data were substituted in the previously saturated intervals;the highest HRLS concentrations were about 100 times higher than the 8,000 pCi/g estimate.

The calibration of the logging system assumes contamination uniformly distributed in ahomogeneous medium that is effectively infinite in extent relative to the detector in bothhorizontal and vertical directions. This assumption is valid for most situations except at the verytop and the bottom of the boreholes or where the concentration changes rapidly with depth ordistance from the borehole. The data acquisition interval used to log the S Tank Farm boreholes(0.5 II) provides adequate spatial resolution to characterize the situations where thecontamination is not homogeneous in the vertical dimension.

Most inaccuracies or errors in the visualizations are insignificant compared to the inaccuracycaused by the introduction of contamination along the borehole and the generation of so-calledfalse plumes. However, the potential for the generation of a false plume from contaminatedboreholes is considered during the interpretation process. Specific borehole intervals suspectedto be primarily borehole contamination have been removed from the interpreted data set asdiscussed above.

The visualizations are intended to provide the reader with an understanding of how garnma-emitting contaminants that have leaked from the tanks may be distributed in the vadose zonesediments. A valuable attribute of the visualizations is that they can be utilized to define areas ofconcern in which to focus future characterization and monitoring efforts.

The radionuclide contamination plumes presented in the visualizations were evaluated bycomparing the visualizations with the spectral gamma-ray log data from the individualmonitoring boreholes surrounding the tanks. The interpretation of each plume or group ofplumes is discussed in Section 4.4.

4.4 Discussion of Visualizations

The following section presents a discussion of the visualizations created with the interpreted dataset as discussed previously. The visualizations are provided in Appendix E in the order in whichthey are discussed.

DOE/GrandJunctionOftice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 14

... -:.<y,w,rr.~,, ,.; .,, .> .:, , . ..>. ., ,., . ,. :..- .S.ti..,.> .... , - . .. . . ,, .>... . . ,X-T=- ~ , 4- X. ->.vs~~., ,- .. . . . , . . :-. . . .... . . .-..:~c., .. . .. . Tm7=,. ,. . —- —.. . . . . I

.Figure E-1 illustrates the ‘37(1 contamination derived from the interpreted data set for all

boreholes logged in the S Tank Farm. This figure portrays the data values at 0.5-ft intervals as

spheres that are colored and sized to show the relative radionuclide concentration. Theconcentrations are presented with logarithmic color scales that range from 0.1 to as high as

10 million pCi/g. The borehole numbers are indicated to facilitate correlation of the three-dimensional representation of the data in the remaining figures with the plan plot (see Figure 2),and the correlation plots presented in Appendix D.

Figures E-2 and E-3 are similar to Figure E-1 except they portray cOCoand *54Eu,respectively.The logarithmic color scales have also been changed to reflect the concentration range of eachradionuclide.

Figures E-4 through E-14 show horizontal planar slices at various depths in the S Tank Farm.The slices illustrate the distribution of contaminants that occur at concentrations greater than theisolevels listed on each figure. The depths of these slices were selected to indicate a balance ofthe highest concentration and maximum extent of plumes that existed between the selected depthintervals. For example, the 3-ft slice probably indicates the best representation of the lateral andaverage concentration of near-surface contamination that exists between Oand 3 ft.

Figure E-4, the horizontal slice from 3 ft, provides the best representation of the maximum lateralextent of the near-surface contamination resulting from surface spills. The next slice at 9 ft(Figure E-5), which lies just above the top of the tanks, shows the lateral extent of these spillshas greatly decreased. The near-surface contamination near tank S-110 is absent at this depth.The lateral extent of these plumes decreased in the next slice at 18 ft and the cOCocontaminationwest of tank S-103 is no longer visible.

Figure E-7 is a horizontal slice at 28 ft just below the depth of the cascade lines. The highconcentrations of 137Cson the east side of tank S-102 are likely the result of a cascade linebreach. The contamination depicted on the west side of tank S-102 probably represents verticalmigration from a large surface spill that occurred near this tank. bOCocontamination west of tankS-103 may also have originated from a surface spill even though it is not shown to be continuousdeposition from the ground surface to this depth of 28 ft (i.e., the visualization at 18 ft does notshow the bOCocontamination). The next slice at 35 ft shows’the top of the plume originatingfrom a leak in tank S-104 and the continued vertical migration of 137CSfrom the cascade linebreach near tank S-102. The slice at 42 ft shows the maximum concentration and lateral extentof the plume associated with the S-104 tank leak.

Figure E-10 is a horizontal slice at 47 ft, just below the base of the tanks. The tank S-104 plumeappears to have migrated to the west under the tank. This figure also shows the vertical extent ofthe continuous 137CScontamination from the cascade line breach. 137Cscontamination is againshown on the west side of tank S-102 near boreholes 40-02-07 and 40-02-08. This is thought tobe continued vertical migration of the contamination associated with the large surface spillobserved in previous slices. Some of the deep 137CSand bOCorelated to this stiace spill,between tanks S-102 and S-103 shown in Figures E-10 through E-13, maybe due to

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 15

y-7--m.~.>... ,>.,., . . . . . . . ,. ,,%..~, q,; ,k. ,,dm~. ,. . . . . . ,, ,. \ - -..,, ,. ~.,. ., ,. . . . . . . . ——. .

contaminants migrating along the outside of a borehole casing and pooling near finer grained

sediments. The potassium-40 (40K),uranium-238 ~38U),and thorium-232 ~32Th)(KUT) plotsincluded in the Tank Summary Data Reports for tanks S-102 and S-103 (DOE 1997c, 1997d)show increases in 40Kat various depths between 50 and 70 ft that support this theory.

The slice from 55 ft, Figure E-11, shows separate 137Csand cOCoplumes located between tanksS-102 and S-103 that are probably associated with the large surface spill discussed previously.Figure E-12, the slice from 63 ft, still shows some cOCobetween tanks S-102 and S-103. It alsoshows a plume on the east side of tank S-102 that maybe associated with the cascade linebreach. This occurrence of an apparently separate plume of 137Csbelow a larger plume abovemay be the result of waste migrating along the borehole casing and pooling on finer grainedsediments. The possibility exists that this plume and the deep plumes of 137CSand ‘°Coassociated with the surface spill may not extend laterally more than afoot or so from theboreholes in which they were detected. The final slice from 69 ft, Figure E-13, shows cOCobetween tanks S-102 and S-103 that represents the deepest extent of contamination in the vadosezone near the S Tank Farm and appears to be the result of the large surface spill in the vicinity oftanks S-102 and S-103.

Figures E-14 through E-16 are three-dimensional visualizations that illustrate contaminationplumes for 137CS‘°Co, and 154Euwithin the vadose zone at the S Tank Farm. The figures showthe plumes creat~d with the EVS soflware superimposed over the SGLS and HRLS data from theinterpreted data set. In these figures, the plumes are presented with a degree of transparency toview the data that define the plume. Each figure is viewed looking down at the tanks fi-omthenortheast. Only one radionuclide was presented on each figure, allowing the reader to moreeasily view the extent of each plume.

Figure E-17 shows a view from the northeast of the plumes associated with tanks S-101, S-102,S-104, and S-105. These plumes are cut by a southeast-northwest-trending vertical plane thatpasses through tank S-104 and between tanks S-101 and S-102. This cut exposes the interior ofthe three major plumes associated with S Tank Farm: 1) S-104 tank leak, 2) cascade line breachnear tank S-102, and 3) the large surface spill near tanks S-102 and S-103. The cut waspositioned to show the maximum concentrations of these plumes.

4.5 Contaminated Volume and Total Activity Estimate

With completion of the revised visualizations, it became possible to calculate a rough estimate ofthe volume of contaminated soil and total activity inventory as a function of contaminantthreshold level within the plumes shown in the S Tank Farm visualizations. Volume estimatesare prepared by numerically integrating the volume within the specified isosurface. Contaminantinventories (in Curies) are calculated by numerically integrating the total mass within theisosurface. The total activity for each volumetric element is determined by multiplying thespecific activity (concentration) in picocuries per gram by the mass per volume .(density) for eachelement. A density of 1.8 g/cm3 was assumed in the volume calculation.

DOE/GrandJunctionOftice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 16

---- -7- .7,:.- . .,.. .<,. . . ... ! . . ., . . . . . . . . . ..>. ,.. .- . .. ...”. ..-, .,. > , . ..- . . . . . . . . .. . ., . . . . . —.. — . .

These estimates are b~ed on the kriged values extrapolated from the interpreted data set, whereconcentration values have been averaged over 5-ft intervals. They represent the volumes of thecontaminated formation and total radioactivity for *37CS,‘°Co, and 154Eu.The total activityrepresents values at the time of the baseline logging in 1996. The activities have not beencorrected for decay. These estimates are based entirely on the data from the baseline spectralgamma characterization program (SGLS), with HRLS data included in zones of detectorsaturation. The data sets used for the volume and total activity inventory estimates did notinclude any data from historical gross gamma logs or any soil sample data.

The contribution from ‘°Co and *54Eumaybe slightly underestimated because these data are notalways measured accurately in zones of high gamma flux by the HRLS. A further limitation ofthis inventory is that no data are available from directly under the tanks where presumably thehighest concentrations of radionuclides would exist.

The table below lists the threshold levels, the contaminated soil volume, and total activity thatoccurs at or above each level for *37CS,‘°Co, and 154Eu.

Contaminant Contaminated Volume Total ActivityContaminant Threshold (pCi/g) (Cubic Meters) (Curies)

0.5 17,180 9.86

5 5,481 9.81

137(TS50 1,682 9.64

500 599 9.01

5,000 211 7.14

25.000 63.9 4.0

‘co0.1 2,777 8.67X 104

0.5 145 1.7X10-4

154EU0.5 267 6.76X 104

2 68.8 3,13 X1O-4

5.0 Conclusions

The purpose of this addendum is to provide an update to the original S Tank Farm Report thatwas issued more than 2 years ago. The interpretations and conclusions provided in the originalreport are essentially unchanged. However, since the original report was issued, knowledge hasbeen gained that provides a more complete framework by which the contaminant distribution canbe viewed. In addition, enhancements to the data collection and analysis process have been madesince the S Tank Farm Report was issued. Some of the more important improvements in theunderstanding of the log data have resulted from the following:

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank FarmReportAugust2000 Page 17

-7-TT-TT%~..’ , , ,x’.— . . .—.

● Although re-evaluation of shape factor results and other data provided a justification forfhrther eliminating many borehole contamination intervals horn the interpreted data set, mostintervals of significant contamination remain and only relatively low-concentration “ghost”plumes were eliminated from the visualizations.

Analysis of historical gross gamma logging data provides a qualitative identification ofcontaminant movement.

High rate geophysical logging has allowed determination of maximum concentrations incontamination plumes, providing an improved basis to estimate the volume of contaminatedsoil and”contaminant inventory in the vadose zone. It also provides a method for futurequantitative comparisons of contaminant movement in high gamma flux if a monitoringprogram is implemented. Historical gross gamma logging detectors may have been paralyzedin some cases and the data produced may not be reliable for comparison purposes in the veryhigh concentration zones.

Re-evaluation of existing data, integration of the high rate data, and re-calculation of the spatialdistribution based on the revised interpreted data set have resulted in an improved visualizationof subsurface contaminant distribution in the S Tank Farm. Conclusions stated in the originalS Tank Farm Report remain appropriate and will not be entirely reiterated.

To date there is no evidence of contaminant movement in the vadose zone under the S TankFarm. The repeat logging Iiom borehole 40-00-02 did not provide evidence of remobilization of‘37CS horn the infiltration of a surface water spill. Randall and Price (1999) determined there

was no movement observed from the historical gross gamma logging performed from 1975 to1994. However, routine gross gamma logging was discontinued in 1994, and there has been nocomprehensive monitoring effort since that time. A comprehensive routine monitoring programfor selected drywells in the S Tank Farm should be implemented to provide data that willsubstantiate the long-term stability of the observed gamma-emitting contaminants.

Contamination from the tank S-104 plume may not exist as deep as originally thought. 137CSbelow 47 ft in borehole 40-04-05 has been determined to be dragdown and was removed fromthe interpreted data set. The original interpreted data set included 137CSas deep as 120 ft inborehole 40-04-05.

There is no evidence of deep migration of gamma-emitting radionuclides that maybe aiXectingthe groundwater quality beneath the S Tank Farm. Boreholes 40-00-04 and 40-10-01 were bothlogged to investigate this possibility. Only intermittent occurrences of low concentrations of‘37CSwere detected at any significant depth and these were all attributed to borehole effect andremoved from the interpreted data set. This does not rule out the possibility that migrationpathways were not intersected by existing boreholes or that more mobile contaminants havereached the groundwater at this site.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 18

. .++,! ..,,...!.,-, —... . . . . . I

High rate logging of borehole 40-02-03 detected a maximum ‘37CSconcentration of2,240,000 pCi/g at 26.5 ft, supporting the conclusion in the S Tank Farm Report that the cascadeline at approximately 22 ft may have been breached during one of the four attempts to drill thisborehole. On the basis of drill cuttings measurements, some contamination existed prior todrilling. Therefore, it is not known conclusively if the cascade line was breached, addingadditional contamination to the vadose zone, or that all the contamination existed prior todrilling. However, all *37CScontamination measured Ilom 22 to 47.5 ft and from 57 to 62 ft isbelieved to be associated with the cascade line. The 137CSabove 22 ?3is probably from nearbysurface spills.

Significant amounts of 137CS,once attributed to surface spills in the vicinity of tanks S-101,S-102, S-103, and S-104, have been determined to be dragdown and were removed from theinterpreted data set. It still appears, however, some of this 137CSnear boreholes 40-02-07 and40-02-08 has migrated to approximately 55 ft, perhaps by migrating along the borehole casingsand pooling in finer grained sediments. The ‘°Co associated with this plume appears to havemigrated to 72 ft in the vicinity of borehole 40-03-05.

Most of the ‘37CSpreviously attributed to undocumented sutiace spills near tanks S-107, S-108,s-1:set,

O,and S-111 has also been attributed to dragdown and removed from the interpreted dataAll 137CSaround tank S-112 was removed.

6.0 Recommendations

Recommendations included in the original S Tank Farm Report have not substantially changed.Areas where recommendations have been implemented have resulted in improvements in theunderstanding of the nature and extent of vadose zone contamination in the S Tank Farm.The baseline data reported in the S Farm Report and this addendum did not provide anyindication of ongoing migration of gamma-emitting radionuclides. An independent assessmentof historical data supports this conclusion (Randall and Price 1999). However, the gross gammalogging program was terminated in 1994, and only one borehole was selected for repeat logging.This provides little new data with which to assess any recent (post-1994) migration. Therefore, itis imperative that a routine monitoring program be reinstated within the S Tank Farm as soon aspossible. It is not necessary to monitor all boreholes; the S Tank Farm baseline data clearlyindicate where monitoring is required. The monitoring program should be based on the use ofcalibrated detectors with continuing verification measurements to assure detector stability. Both “the SGLS and HRLS are complex systems and relatively slow. A faster logging system capableof routine operation by tank farms personnel should be deployed. Preliminary work has beencompleted on such a system, known as the Radioelement Assessment System (RAS). The SGLSand HRLS should remain available for follow-up investigation of anomalies.

An additional borehole should be drilled and samples collected to fiuther investigate non-gamma-emitting contaminants associated with the tank S-104 plume. Reinterpretation of the

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page 19

.—. .

137CSassociated with thk plume indicated the maximum depth of contamination was about 48 l?.This fails to explain the reoccurring technetium detected in groundwater in borehole 40-00-04(299-W23-01).

The Results of Phase I Groundwater Quality Assessment for Single-Shell Tank WasteManagement Areas S-SX at the Hanford Site (Johnson and Chou 1998) indicated several drivingforces that may be contributing to contaminant migration in S Tank Farm. One such drivingforce was the main water line leak in 1996. Borehole 40-00-02 was relogged in hopes ofdetermining the impact of this large quantity of surface water infiltrating through the vadose zoneon the ‘37CSdistribution. The 137CSdistribution did not change, but without moisture data it wasimpossible to determine the amount of water, if any, that actually moved through this zone.Moisture logging in and around this fhrm would provide valuable data concerning the location ofthese sources and help quanti@ the extent to which they maybe remobilizing tank waste.

7.0 References

Hanlon, B,M., 2000. Waste Tank Summary Report for Month Ending March 31, 2000, HNF-EP-0182-144, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Johnson, V.G., and C.J. Chou, 1998. Results of Phase I Groundwater Quality Assessment forSingle-Shell Tank Waste Management Area S-SXat the Hanford Site, PNNL-12 114, PacificNorthwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

, 1999. RCRA Assessment Plan for Single-Shell Tank Waste Management Areas S-

SXat the Hanford Site, PNNL-1 1810, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,Washington.

Knoll, G.F., 1989. Radiation Detection and Measurement, 2n~Ed., John Wiley and Sons, NewYork,

Randall, R.R., and R.K. Price, 1999. Analysis and Summary of Historical Dry Well GammaLogs for S Tank Farm -200 West HNF-4220, Rev. O,prepared by Waste ManagementNorthwest and Three Rivers Scientific for Lockheed Martin Htiord Corporation, Richland,Washington.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1995. Vadose Zone Monitoring Project at the Hanford TankFarms, Calibration of Two Spectral Gamma-Ray Logging Systems for Baseline CharacterizationMeasurements in the Hanford Tank Farms, GJPO-HAN-1, prepared by Rust Geotech for theGrand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, August.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page20

-. ~:.-.T.. .;.., -,,,.. . . . .

. . . . . . ..- I

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1997a. Tank Waste Remediation System Vadose ZoneContamination Issue: Independent Expert Panel Status Report, DOERL-97-49, Rev. O,FluorDaniel Hanford Inc., Richland, Washington.

~ 199713. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-101, GHI.AN-70, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects OffIce, Grand Junction, Colorado, May.

, 1997c. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-102, GJ-HAN-71, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, May.

, 1997d. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-103, GJ-HAN-72, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects OffIce, Grand Junction, Colorado, May.

, 1997e. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-104, GJ-HAN-73, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, June.

~ 1997f. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-105, GJ-HAN-74, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects OffIce, Grand Junction, Colorado, July.

, 1997g. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-106, GJ-HAN-75, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, June.

, 1997h. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-107, GJ-HAN-76, prepared by MACT13C-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects OffIce, Grand Junction, Colorado, June.

, 1997i. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-108, GJ-HAN-77, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects Oftlce, Grand Junction, Colorado, June.

, 1997j. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-109, GJ+L4N-78, prepared by MACT13C-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, June.

, 1997k. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-110, GJ-HAN-79, prepared by MACT.EC-ERS for theGrand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, June.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page21

-,: ->-47 ,7 .:-..~ r ,. ....~ ;.,, .,,! ,.,... ,, .”. . ,~.>.r.!,. ~,, .::.., .,. “,, .<.,.”.,, & . ---- ., >,. ,., ., -- . . .. . . . . . -,< . . ..------ I

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 19971. Vadose Zone Characterization Project attheHanford Tank Farms, Tank Farm Summary Data Report for Tank S-111, G.J-IIMN-80, prepared

by MACTEC-ERS for the Grand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, June.

, 1997m. Vadose Zone Characterization Project at the Hanford Tank Farms, TankFarm Summary Data Report for Tank S-112, GJ-HAN-81, prepared by MACTEC-ERS for theGrand Junction OffIce, Grand Junction, Colorado, August.

1999. Base Calibration of a High Rate Logging System for Characterization of~ation Zones in the Hanford Tank Farms, GJO-?MN-29, prepared by MACTEC-ERSfor the Grand Junction Ol%ce, Grand Junction, Colorado, October.

I

I

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page22

Appendix AAdditional Borehole Data

for the S Tank Farm

I

I

I

40-1 0=01 Combination Plot

o 0. . . . . . . ...!..... ,,, ,,, ,

‘aIll

10/1W93+- – _/__

IIu

ax oun

1- –4cJ3–_

III -~

10 10

20 20*-l------l l--%71----l----i l---143-l---L --ii-! --4-

30 30~–T––~T–q~–~–r–––f~ ~-~~–-~–– il_=Ex-r--i–---i+ W-i-+t–-i–-+F%-t---J=-F%--t-

1!Ill i

o 100 200 300 Cps1

Cps

2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50

40 40

fl-1t-Z?T---lETE1--l--lt=4frTPiH%RT ‘n=%’ it-a ! 11-

+--l--l--+ ---il-----4F.---it----t5&---+----il--4izF?---+-"

4?’70 70h–––zi+11-–--ll––––u&n– -t–--14=&s4&+4––+––lH ––+–‘=%&J II JR= I II

L-?!?r.,—— it 2$JltsJ Ml—— ——————1

I80 80

‘25--,u---

~

IIla- I

90 90

+ .F100 100

--J ZiYI (J2 pcilg

I I Ql==O-

1I

I----110 1100 1 3

pCi/g2 LI I25 0.0

pCi/gI I I I I I 1

0.5 1.0 1.5I I I5 15

Figure A-1. Additional Borehole Data for the S Tank Farm

o 0 0 0 0 -“o-” “o o 0 0 0 00 04 m -a’ Ln co

T

F- Co 0) 0N z

I I I II I I 1 I II I I I I 1 I 1 I I I

+ ~:1

— 3T__+__ ;__–&+––:__ I

______ ~––+-–+_+__

u)(/) –––f–~-––~-–j-––~-–:-––f-––

~

——

IL _––;__{__–;__;–__;_–;__–;___

F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0

I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 0r-l

(/lQv

1-

3 bl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 I 7 I I 1 ‘i— I I I I I I I I I I I I I [0 q:I I I I I I I

,,l,i-n-

fUI

C9g?

N

IQ0

0

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I Im 0

I I I I I I I I I I

–__+___;.___; ~ –+-–M–-–L [ i

3 I I 1 I I“Q

co gmOJ

J v LA.--L–L––L–7 -

r I I I

F––~–––[–––f–––k–– ;–––~––:–––~––;–––y––z $

I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 90

0 0 00

0 0N .s

0z

0“8 E

Yco m 0

(&)q&a - - = m N

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice AddendumtotheS TankFarmReport

August2000 PageA-3

40-00-04 Combination Plot

0 0

10 10

20 20‘T–T—s‘T---l%iri?-lr-lr—%

-=-l–-j’–_ __j

I I m I1

I IPH1

I it-lII

30 30.–-I–--–Q=R==LRI=IU--I---IU---I –-l–--–L%C–!%I--! ---I--I’

1 HIV{‘ t$IIII

‘+- – ~ +_

m<— 1

II ~1

40 40

‘T-IT37TTI II a- I I I II 1% I I I

+–J ––––41-<-i–-i–--> l–>––lUSj-–lUSj –i––-lKL-iL.i-J-Jd1-1

kl

--H-%--HI%

H--H!IW70 70

80 80T‘m===mr--3----$2?/- ,-=---ltl=E3cn7171--l%’%

m-it-mm-tI ! T 3 T %42!?!I I T !m’ I 190 90TFE5T-11_-W----lT_-.1~-_?E=H71?1=H71--l

It P-1100 100#S-i–––--it––%––t-–-lt-–tii-i––t--iH--i \— t––-l”i-d?-i?-i--i-+

-lL- -.lL1 )! -IL I I -1110 110

.,,3

1,pCi/g

1,6,1,0

I

1( 200,ps

300

1,, , ,,, ,,Cps

,,, .,,,pCi/g L-u-LL-’ n~.i/r3 ,,. ,A ~-.s~ I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 lrlrtllllllltlltllllttllll

5 15 25 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure A-3. Additional Borehole Data for the S Tank Farm

40-00=04 Combination Plot

‘37CS40

K238

--- u 232Th

110 1---L--L-Lll-+=--L---

““wlw%.————

130 &.p–+-–&&–$J+---

}iiiIll

t,140 –i––+–+ --iF>-+---

I--i*Ii -II-%. i1-150 –d––J––J– --ll--=J----

0g 1-111

Ill

1Uu I 111111I I [11111/nlml

Ill ““!~’ ‘ ‘>’- I ‘ -

+––

I

j––—

/~––—

~––—

I

+––

I

j––

:4

/\f

————

——

I——

-l–

—— —

E————J

J+

=160 1-11

1 --IES+--4-----4 I----=--4--4L.–l––-t–-–l––.s L iiis.

I I I I Ii C.+

J1 1~ I I I I lM_&_l_l-1(3.2 q@l 100 q01 102 pulg o 1 2 3 (

Total Y TF Gross y

PL’’’’P’’’’’’’’;””

+-— —4——L—

5=+1111II

‘1

+p+–

1111

~–+–+

II !1~_+++–

}++

1111

LLL–L–

—100 200 300 Gpa

J I ,., I I I 1 I I I I II I I I I I.-.

pCilg I I I I I pCilg Ld_LILd5 15 25

Cps11111111111111111111111111

0.0 0.5 1,0 1,5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure A-4. Additional Borehole Data for the S Tank Farm

100

110

120

130

140

180

190

200

210

220

Appendix BSummary of High Rate Logging Results

for the S Tank Farm

Table B-1. Summary of High Rate Logging Results for the S Tank Farm

Log Run ShieldlBorehole Depth CorrectionNumber Interval (ft) FactoF Comments

137CS WaS identifiedfrom35.0 to 21.5 ft. The highest

20.0 -29.0 NS/1.00 concentration(lOspCi/g) occursat 26.5 ft.

Thesedatawere correctedfor decayback to 5/22/96.

10-02-03 23.0 -29.0 ES13.758The HRLS ‘37CSdata addedto the baselinedata:22.0 -23.5 ftHRLS ‘37CS(w/noshield);24.0 -27.5 fi HRLS ‘37CS(w/externalshield);28.0 -31.0 ft HRLS ‘37CS(w/noshield).

R/Pbstatethat due to instrumentlimitationsthe stabilhy of28.0 -35.0 NSI1.00 the intervalfrom 17-32 ft was undeterminedand there was a

possibilityof changing‘37CSdktribution.

137CsWasidentifiedfrom 54.0 to 49.5 R and from 46.5 to37.0 -43.0 NS/1.00

38.0 ft. The highestconcentration(lOspCi/g) occursat43.5 ft.

38.0 -47.0 1S/27.42

40-04-05Thesedatawere correctedfor decaybackto 615196.

42.0 -45.0 NSI1.00 The HRLS ‘37CSdataaddedto the baselinedata: 38.5 -46.0 ft. HRLS ‘37CS(w/noshield).

44.0 -55.0 NSI1.00 R/P indicatethat the ‘37CSfi-om35-55 ft was stable.

aShieldconfigurationoptions:NS - No shield;ES - Externalshield;IS - Internalshiel~ BS - Both shieldsbIUP- Randalland Price (1999)

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page B-2

-—---- ----=* ,,,,, —.-. — -

&._....lJ-l

n—‘---r------l----w------r~–––––~––––––j––––

I II

II

0 0 0 0Y

0 0 0N@ * m

0E 0 0%

0 0 0

m(paj) q$aa= = e 2 y 2DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe STankFarmReportAugust2000 Page B-3

Borehole 40-04-05

o Illu -1-mIIli I I 1111111I 1I111111I I 1111111Ilm1111

/

Ill-;–~y

.+L+

Ill-J.-l--l- 1 II

-. II1111

.—

d 111111

10

20

30 l-iii.

40

50

IL+1

i i iii

I11111111

13 I 1111

\I ii \ Uuu!L 55

-+-–I-H-+---I--+-I 1 1 102 I 03 104 405 106 107 ‘-

I pCilg-tl–tl+._&.j.i

LEGENDHRLS Data (Event B)

(Corrected for decay back to 6/5/96)

o ‘37CS (Unshielded), SCF=I .00

0 137CS(Internal Shield), SCF=27.42o ‘37CS(Interpreted High Rate)

SGLS Baseline (Event Al●

137CS

Note SCF=Shield Correction Factor

1I VI100 ....;,.~ - indicates zone of SGLS detector,

. . . .. ... .. saturation (no usable spectral data)

110

Note: Red Italics Remove~ represent changes\to the base Ine correlation plots.120

130

140

q5i) ~10210’ 100101 IOZI.0SIO+I03106 107

pcllg

Figure B-2. Summary of High Rate Logging Results for the S Tank Farm

. . ..

Appendix CSummary of Repeat Logging Results

for the S Tank Farm

,, ---v..,(,>:,,~.:, Al..,,+,,,+,.,.,..>>,., :,. ,,} >><;-,:, ,.. .>.,,, *$*$ ,>:?,,-, ,; .?,..”. .; ..1 . . :. . .’ .. . . .. . .. w .<.4 -< ..: :. . .. . . .. . .%-. . :-f. -.-, . - - . .. - -..— ,—-— -- --

Table C-1. Summary of Repeat Logging Results for the S Tank Farm

Logging Unit &(count time)

Borehok Depth ReasonNumber Interval (ft) for Repeat Baseline Repeat Evaluation

G2A G2BNo apparentchangein

40-00-02 136.5-0.0 IAa(loo s) (100 s)

contaminantconcentrationordistribution.

aIA - Infiltrationassessment

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S TankFarm ReportAugust2000 Page C-2

,+;\-,:...1

Borehole 40-00-02 Comparison of Baseline and Repeat Logging

o

10

20

30

40

50

60

100

110

120

130

140

150

Baseline Repeat Interval (’37Cs~I 1111111 I I 1111111

•~1°l% !

––––i+––-l------ -

mt-–i T 1Pill

.-L”#ll -i-J1111

I––.-J&__J____ 20

I.ol

/4 /

[–_–JJ!!L~–&––– 3(JI 1- 1 I

0

* Data are normalized for decay to 1/29/99

10

-1-=-----1- 40bl

‘I IIIIJ

-lv--tO mq

; :1:

Itillt–1 t-iI* II

+?,–}+

1111._L_l_J—_l _

11111111

–+–l–++—11111111

–~–l–ti—

t11-

ITQ o ed+-‘T 1– 1

-1111-1 I 1111111 I I I 1111U_

I02101100JOII02103 I 0.2 ‘j 0.1 100 I fy

pcllg

-1 8-

1-’/–––+:-–60 u

;0IQ

–––:–+–”–– 70

——— 4 ––––]–––– 80la10I s-c!

–––-l–––-4.–––– 90

pCi/g

100

LEGENDSGLS Re~eat (Event B) - 1/21/99

o ‘37CSSGLS Baseline (Event A) - 6/4/96

● ‘37CS

Note: Red Italics (Removed) represent changesto the baseline correlation plots,

I

4

1

Figure C-1. Summary of Repeat Logging Results for the S Tank Farm

I

I

Appendix DSummary of the Interpreted Data Set

for the S Tank Farm

Table D-1. Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

DepthInterval (ft) I Source” I SFA= Disriosition/Commerits II

0.0- 2.5 Ssb Ins!

3.0- 16.0 BEC Ins.

16.5-128.0 None Ins.

128.5-129.0 BE Ins.

0.0- 2.0 Ss Df

Included‘37CS.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

No man-madecontaminantsdetected. I

Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface. IIncluded137CS. I

2.5- 10.5 BE Localb Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown. I

%%-l=+INo man-madecontaminantsdetected. I

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.* I

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown. I26.0 -40.5 I BE I Ina.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

41.0 -42.0 I BE I Ina.

42.5 -100.0 / None I Ins.

Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface. I100.5 I BE I Ina.I

Included‘37CS. I0.0- 3.0 Ss Ins.

3.5- 30.0 BE Ins.

30.5 -36.0 None Ins.

36.5 -52.5 BE Ins.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown;perforatedcasing.*

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown;perforatedcasing.

No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Included‘37CS.

53.0 -99.0 I BE I Ins.

99.5 -137.0 I None I Ins.

0.0- 10.0 Ss Ins.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.I10.5 -19.5 BE Ins.

“Source- Sowceofcontaminationin judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dp.plumeOfCC)33ttU31i33ati0n

c SFA- ShapeFactorAnalysk‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.‘R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* - indicates changes to original interpreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-2

——. ..—. . I

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Borehole DepthNumber Interval (ft) Source’ SFAe Disposition/Comments

20.0 -38.5 BE Ins, Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

40-01-06 39,0 -49.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

(conk,) 50.0 -96.5 None Ina. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

97.0 -97.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 10.0 Ss Ins. Included‘37CS,CoCo,and ‘S4EU;possibletransfer line.

10.5-15.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.40-01-08

15.5-102.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

103.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fkomthe groundsurface.

0.0- 3.0 Ss Ins. Included‘37CS.

3.5- 29.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

29.5 -36.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.40-01-10

37.0 -48.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

48.5 -96.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

97.0 -98.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 1.5 Ss Ins. Included‘37CS.

40-02-01 2.0- 129.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

129.5-130.0 BE lna. Removed‘37CS;fell in from the groundsurface.

0.0- 20.0 Ss D Included‘37CS.

40-02-0320.5 -21.5 Pd Inc.S Included‘37CS;possibletransfer line leak.

22.0 -23.5 P Ins.ReplacedSGLS ‘37CSwith HRLS(w/noshield) ‘37CS.Included‘37CS;possibletransfer line leak.*

‘ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contamination‘ SFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.s Inc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.*R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* . indicates changestooriginalinterpreteddata@presentedinST~k FtUXYIReport.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-3

I

?Tyzyy,,. ,., J , ! >, . ,/.. !,,.. ,,.. . ..4.,. $--Y , ,<.,... %.%,,Y...,. . . e-.i!~~ ‘,, ,,. ..,.,,.,., , ., , ,, . . ,, .,, <*, . .< ,.-. * .,, .,,,. =,.. , .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . ,. , ,.4

—.. — . . . . . I

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Borehole DepthNumber Interval (ft) Source’ SFAe Disposition/Comments

24.0 -27.5 P Ins.ReplacedSGLS 137CSwith HRLS(w/externalshield) ‘37CS.Included137CS;possibletransfer line leak.*

28.0 -31.0 P Ins.ReplacedSGLS ‘37CSwith HRLS(w/noshield) 137CS.Included137CS;possibletransfer line leak.*

40-02-03(con’t.) 31.5 -47.5 P Inc. Included137CS;possibletransfer line leak.

48.0 -56.5 BE Local Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.

57.0 -62.0 P Inc. Included137CS;possibletransfer line leak.

62.5 -98.5 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.

0.0- 9,0 Ss Ins. Included137CS.40-02-04

9.5- 144.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0-27.0 Ss Inc. Included137CS.

27.5 -43.5 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.40-02-05

44.0 -87.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

88.0 -99.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 2.0 Ss Ins. Included*37CSand ‘Co.

2.5- 45.0 BE& SS Ins. Removed*37CS;appearsto be dragdown. IncludedCoCo.*

40-02-0745.5 -54.5 Ss Ins. Included137CSand ‘Co.

55.0 -90.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

90.5 -95.5 BE Ins. Removed137CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 30.0 Ss D Included137CSand ‘Co.40-02-08

30.5 -41.5 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

‘ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)d p. plumeof C013@31h3ati0n

0 SFA - Shape Factor AnalysisfD. contamination distributed in formation.

8Inc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.1R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns, - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* - indicates ch~ges to original interpreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 PageD-4

-.-—.---, I

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Borehole DepthNumber Interval (ft) Source’ SFAe Disposition/Comments

42.0 -55.0 Ss ,D Included137CSand ‘Co.

40-02-08 55.5 -57.0 BE Ins. Removed*37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

(con’t.) 57.5 -99.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

99.5 -100.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 2.0 Ss Ins. Included*37CS.

2.5- 12.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

40-02-10 12.5: 13.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

13.5-99.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

100.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 2.5 Ss Ins. Included‘37CS.

40-02-11 3.0- 99.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

100.0-100.5 BE Ins. Removed137CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 0.5 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

1.0- 14.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.40-03-01

14.5-15.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.

15.5-98.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0- 5.5 Ss Ins. Included137CS.

40-03-03 6.0- 6.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

7.0- 123.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

40-03-05 0.0- 1.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

‘ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contamination‘ SFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.1R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIna. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* . indicates changes to original inteqreted data set presentedinSTank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-5

.,-,? . ..??=- .......$ .{.’.. -I-i r , =., .-.7., -.. :,.--..., , :-----, .. ...-.1 ! > c,. ,,4. - “ . *,. . . . . .-..—.

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

BorehoIe DepthNumber Interval (ft) Source’ SFAe Disposition/Comments

1.5- 48.0 None Ina. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

40-03-0548.5 -72.5 BE&P Ins.

Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown;perforatedcasing.(con’t.) Included‘°Co.*

73.0 -148.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-03-06

0.5- 98.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0- 5.5 Ss 133a. Included137CS.

40-03-08 6.0- 11.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

11.5-96.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0- 2.5 Ss Ins. Included137CSand ‘Co.

3.0- 50.5 BE& SS Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown. Included‘CO.*

40-03-09 51.0 -58.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

58.5 -130.0 BE Ins.Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown;fell in fromthegroundsurface.

0.0 BE Ins. Removed*37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-03-11

0.5- 98.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0- 2.0 Ss D Included137CS.

2.5- 18.0 BE Inc. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

40-04-01 18,5-44.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

44.5 -62.5 BE Ins. Removed*37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

63.0 -98.0 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.

nSource - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dp. plume of COtI@33hIdi0n

‘ SFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations,1’Local - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.‘R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.Jh. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* . indicates changes to original interpreted data set presentedh STank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-6

I

7-7nf -..--’=’77 . . . . . . , . .. . . ,. ,’ .,,...-,...,,, ,. ...,4 .,, . .. . . . . .,, ,. . . ,.. y.._. .4, . . . .- .. . . . . . . ..-. .. . I

I

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

BoreholeNumber

40-04-05

40-04-07

40-04-08

40-05-03

DepthInterval (ft) Sourcea SFAe “ Disposition/Comments

0.0- 4.5 I Ss

38.5 -46.0 P

Inc. Included‘37CS.

Inc. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

Ri Included‘37CS;probableS-104tank leak.

Ins.ReplacedSGLS ‘37CSwith HRLS(w/noshield) ‘37CS.Included‘37CS;probableS-104tank leak.*

46.0 -47.0 1P IR I Included‘37Cs;probableS-104tank leak.

47.5 -95.0 I BE I Inc. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.*

95.5 -111.0 I BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.

111.5-120.0 I BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

120.5-134.0 I BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.

0.0- 18.0 I Ss ID I Included‘37CS,

18.5-45.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.1 I ,

45.5 -51.0 I BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.*

51.5 -54.0 1P ID I Included‘37Cs;probableS-104tank leak.

54.5 -97.5 I BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown,

0.0- 24.5 I Ss ID I Included ‘37CS.

25.0 -30.0 I BE ] Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.*

30,5-48.0 I BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.

0.0- 2.5 I Ss ID I Included‘37CS.

3.0- 24.0 I BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.*

24.5-35.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

nSource - Source of contamination in.judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)d p. p]ume of CC)ntrU31inati0n

c SFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.6Inc. . Inconclusive, genera]ly due to [OW Or rapidly changing concentrations.

hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.1R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.j Ins. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* . indicates changes to original interpreted &b set presentedin S Tank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce” Addendumto the S Tank FarmReportAugust2000 Page D-7

“.. :,.-.7 -., q,,_. # ,, ,,. . . . . -... ,, .,, ,~-?- . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . ~., .“. ... -. .,”., .. . . . . ,.! ,. . . . . .

. —. I

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

EBoreholeNumber

40-05-03(con’t.)

40-05-07

40-05-08

40-05-10

40-06-02

40-06-04

IDepth

Interval (ft) Source’ SFAe

35.5 -36.0 BE Ina.

Disposition/Comments IIRemoved ‘37CS;appears to be dragdown.

No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.

No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Removed137CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

36.5 -89.0 I None I Ins.

89.5 I BE I Ins.

90.0 -100.0 I None I Ins.

100.5 I BE I Ins.

0.0- 19.5 I BE I Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

20.0 -56.5 I None I Ins. No man-made contaminants detected.

Removed ‘37CS;appears to be dragdown.57.0 I BE I Ins.

No man-made contaminants detected.

Removed ‘37CS;appears to be surface shine.

57.5 -96.5 I None I Ins.

0.0- 1.5 I BE I Ina.

2.0- 9.0 I None I Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

9.5- 12.0 I BE I Ins.

12.5-98.5 I None I Ins.

0.0- 1.5 BE Ins.

2.0- 89.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected. I

Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.0.0- 8.5 I BE I Ins.

Removed 137CS;appears to be dragdown.* I9,0- 14.0 BE Ins.

14.5-99,5 None Ins.

0,0- 4.5 BE Ins.

5.0- 125.0 None Ins.

No man-madecontaminantsdetected. IRemoved‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown. I

No man-made contaminants detected. I

a Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)d p. plume of COnt~inatiOn

‘ SFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.‘R- Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* - indicates changes to original interpreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report,

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 PageD-8

Table D-1 (con’t.). Su lmary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

I II&0.0 BE

BoreholeNumber SFA= Disposition/Comments

Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-06-05

0.5- 140,5 None Ins. I Noman-madecontamimmtsdetected. I

Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.0.0 I BE

Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.0.5- 31.0 I BE

40-06-06 31.5 -57.5 I None Ins. I Nonmn-madecontaminantsdetected. I

Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.58.0 -60.0 I BE

60.5 -96.5 I None Ins. ] No man-madecontaminantsdetected. I0.0- 97.0 None40-06-08 Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Ins. Included‘37CS.

Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.

0.0- 2.5 ] Ss

3.0- 9.0 I None40-06-09

9.5- 32.0 BE

32.5 -99.0 I None Ins. I Noman-made contaminantsdetected. IInc. Included137CS. 1’0.0- 6.0 1Ss

Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*6.5- 23.0 I BE

23.5 -39.0 I None Ins. I No man-madecontaminantsdetected. I

Inc.Included*37CS;correlatesw/40-04-05;probableS-104tankleak.39.5 -43.5 P40-07-0 I

Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in tlom the groundsurface.

44.0 -51.5 I None

52.0 I BE

52.5 -98.5 None

99.0 BE

“ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contamination‘ SFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.1R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* - indicates changes to original interpreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-9

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Source’ SFAC Disposition/Comments

Ss Ina. Included137CS.

DepthInterval (ft)

0.0- 1.5

BoreholeNumber

40-07-04 2.0- 101.5 None I Ins. I Noman-rnadeccmtaminrmtsdetected.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.102.0

0.0- 0.5 Ss I hr. I Included‘37CS.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*1.0- 4.0

4.5- 98.0

98.5

0.0- 11.5

12.0 -20.5

21.0

21.5 -25.0

25.5 -30.0

40-07-06None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

Ss Ins. Included‘37CS.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

BE Ir3a. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

40-07-08 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

30.5 -81.0 None I Ins. I Noman-made contaminantsdetected.

BE I Ins. Removed‘37CYappearsto be dragdown.81.5

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.82.0 -98.5

BE I Ins. I Removed‘37CS;fell in fiomthe groundsurface.99.0

BE I Ina. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.*0.0- 16.040-07-10

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

Ss D Included‘37CS.

BE Inc. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

16.5 -98.5

0.0- 11.040-07-1 I

11.5-57.0

a Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, ~nside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contamination“SFA - Shape Factor AnalysisfD. contamination distributed in formation.

s Inc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.1R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIna. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* . indicates changes to original inteqreted data set presentedinST~k FMMReport.

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-10

, —--— ---

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

II ,

l-l=EGLld&40-07-11 57.5 -97.0

(con’t.) 97.5

Source= SFAe Disposition/Comments INone Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-08-01

0.0- 1.0

1.5- 97.0 None I In.. I Noman-mrtdecontarninrmtsdetected. I

BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.0.0

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.0.5- 12.540-08-06

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected. I13.0 -99.0

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.99.5

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-08-08

0.0- 1.0

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

1.5- 97.5

40-08-090.0

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.0.5- 95.0

40-08-12

0.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.5- 4.5

5.0- 123.5

0.040-09-01

0.5- 96.0

0.0 BE Ins. Removed 137CS;appears to be surface shine,

40-09-02 0.5- 97.5

98.0

None I Ins. I Noman-made contaminants detected. I

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

‘ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contamination‘ SFA - Shape Factor AnalysisfD. Contamination distributed in f03’3UatiM.

gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.IILocal. contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole Wing.

‘R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

I

* . indicates changes to original interpreteddamsetpresentedinSTank FMTUReport.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 PageD-11

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Borehole DepthNumber Interval (ft) Source’ SFAe Disposition/Comments

0.0- 1.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

1,5- 49.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

49.5 -63.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown;perforatedcasing.40-09-05

64.0 -108.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

108.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

109.0-141.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-09-06

0.5- 98.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0- 97.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-09-08

1.5- 97.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

40-09-09 0.5- 2.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

3.0- 138.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsdetected.

0.0- 3.0 Ss Ins.Included‘37CSand ‘Co. This boreholewas not loggedduringthe baseline.*

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdownor ‘37CSis in the40-10-01

3.5- 185.5 BE Ins.grout. This boreholewas drilledin 1970,possiblyafter thesurfacespillhad occurred. Borehole40-00-04,which wasdrilledin 1952,doesnot show as extensivedragdown.*

186,0-209.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.*

40-00-04 0.0- 3.5 Ss Ins.Included137CSand ‘Co. This boreholewas not loggedduringthe baseline.*

oSource - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contaminationcSFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contwination distributed in formation.gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.[R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns, - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* . indicates changes to original interpreted data set presentedin S T~k Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-12

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

BoreholeNumber

40-00-04(con’t.)

40-10-03

40-10-05

40-10-06

40-10-08

DepthInterval (ft) Sourcea SFA’ Disposition/Comments

4,0- 214.5 BE Ina.Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdownor ‘37CSis in thegrout.*

215.0 -219.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.*

0.0- 1.5 Ss Ins. Included‘37CS.

2,0- 16.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

16.5-97.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

97.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 1.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

1.5- 98.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

0,0- 3.0 Ss Ins. Included‘37CS.

3.5- 15.0 BE Ina. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

15.5-22.0 BE Ina. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

22.5 -49.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

49.5 -144.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

137.0-144.0 BE Ina. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

0.0- 3.0 Ss Ins. Included‘37CS.

3.5- 17.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

17.5-28.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

29.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

29.5 -95.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

95.5 -100.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

‘ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contaminationcSFA - Shape Factor Analysis “rD. Contamination distributed in fOrf33atiCm.

LIInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.‘R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.j Ins. . Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* . indicateschanges to original inteqreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 PageD-13

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

BoreholeNumber

Depth IInterval (ftl I Source’ SFA= Disposition/Comments

Included‘37CS.

No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

Included‘37CS.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

Included‘37CS.

Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

0.0- 2.5 I Ss Ins,

3.0- 9.5 . None Ins.

40-10-09 10.0 BE

10.5-99.0 None

Ins.

Ins.

99.5 -100.5 I BE Ins.

*

0.0- 2.0 Ss

2.5- 7.5 BE

8.0- 122.0 None

Ins.

Ins.0-13

Ins.

122.5-124.0 I BE Ins.

0.0- 2.0 I Ss Ins.

2.5- 7.0 I BE Ins.40-11-01

7.5- 143.0 I None Ins. I No man-madecontaminantsidentified. I

143.5-144.5 I BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

Ins. Included‘37CS.0.0- 1.5 I Ss

Ins. I Removed‘37CS;appearstobedragdown.* I2.0- 7.0 I BE

7.5- 47.5 I None Ins. I Noman-made contaminantsidentified. I

40-00-06 Ins.

Ins.

Removed ‘37CS;appears to be dragdown; perforated casing.*

No man-made contaminants identified.

Removed 137CS;appears to be dragdown.

No man-made contaminants identified.

=%-l-==98.0 ] BE Ins.

98.5 -150.0 I None Ins.

‘ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contaminationcSFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.IJInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.1R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.j Ins. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* - indicates changes to original interpreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunction OffIce” Addendumto the S Tank FarmReportAugust2000 Page D-14

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Borehole I DepthNumber Interval (ft)

I

40-11-050.0- 2.5

3.0- 97.51

E0.0

0.5- 13.5

14.0 -36.040-11-07

36.0 -41.5

42.0 -100.0

100.5I

+

0.0-1.040-11-08

1.5- 97.5I

40-11-090.0

0.5- 98.5

+

0.040-12-02

0.5- 99.5

40-12-045.0- 7.0

7.5- 125.0

125.5-126.0

40-12-06 I 0.0-17”0

17.5-60.5

I I 11

Source” SFAe Disposition/Comments

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in fromthe groundsurface.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

BE Ins. Removed137Cs;appearsto be surfaceshine.

None I Ina. I Noman-made contaminantsidentified. IBE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;fell in ffomthe groundsurface.

BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

‘ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spill‘BE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)dP - plume of contaminationcSFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.fIInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.;R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.JIns. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* - indicates changes to original interpreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report.

DOE/Grand Junction OffIce Addendum to the S Tank Farm Report

August 2000 Page D-1 5

Table D-1 (con’t.). Summary of interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Borehole DepthNumber Interval (ft) Source’ SFA= Disposition/Comments

40-12-06 61.0 -63.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

(con’t.) 63.5 -144.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

0.0- 0.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.40-12-07

1.0- 98.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

0.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be surfaceshine.

0.5-’8.5 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

9.0 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.

9.5- 15.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.40-12-09

15.5-25.5 BE Ins. Removed‘37CS;appearsto be dragdown.*

26.0 -29.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

29.5 BE Ins. Removed137CS;appearsto be dragdown.

30.0 -99.0 None Ins. No man-madecontaminantsidentified.

“ Source - Source of contamination in judgment of analyst.bSS- surface spillcBE - borehole effects (e.g., dragdown, inside/outside casing contamination)d p - plumeof COntM33inati0n

‘ SFA - Shape Factor Analysis‘D - Contamination distributed in formation.gInc. - Inconclusive, generally due to low or rapidly changing concentrations.hLocal - Contamination is confined to the vicinity of the borehole casing.[R - Contamination is remote from the borehole.j Ins. - Inapplicable to apply SFA in this instance.

* - indicates changes to original interpreted data set presented in S Tank Farm Report.

DOE/GrandJunctionOftlce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-16

I

o 0 0 00

00 0

0 00

0 00

o-i- N m s U3

ox- Nm%-=u-) co b w O-)-= -r. l- r-

> >[ t

++p+q–’-p, f

*!S–t––k–+q–+––k––k–+––+––+– –__+____~__+eAl_.>__+__+_-k-+ --+__+- _+–++J++--+–– /X –--F

~Jwi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I aa)

~p—F

-.—

c? “o c)—

g.a

r=t=-–l-––-t–-+–-+–-l–-i–-+–-+-–k--i--+=–+i=-k-~ QT

I I I I I I I I I I Io

I I I

I

I

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumtothe STankFarmReport

August2000 PageD-17

0

10

20

30

40

50

100

110

120

130

140

150

40-02-01

1111‘T–l–Tl—–1111––+–H{-

–1111––+–;–f-j—

–1111––’m-:-

1111‘T–l–Ti—–1111––+–;–{j_

–1111–_l_l_-L_l —

1111–1111––:–:–:;—

1111–t–l–t-l—–1111–

1111‘T–I–Tl—–1111–+++

$’44

: x :

1111II

~t 1

_ :{+44DIOGD

T–l–Tl—–1111–IIlld~ ! 1

lozlo-~loolol 102103pCilg

1

40-02-03

-1 I 11111–-1–l

-Ill

-1 I

-+–:

-1

l–rl–rT–11111–

Id 111111-1 I 111111–

_l*l’ FR@t”w-?:- + –l–

Ie I 111111-t–l–” t-l-i–-t–t––t–

II 111111–- lk!ll lll_ll

3F%W: m__L_l_L_l_LJ-_LJ-J

40-02-04 40-02-05 40-02-07 40-02-08 _lllnl

-1111–1111

‘T–l–Tl–-1111–~Ll_ L _l _

. .. .~. ~e’;;::::$$y:d:;;~ti”n” l//–l..k..- _’ -l–;;—, , 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 , *Note: Red Itallca Removed) represent changes II

\to the base Ine correlation plots, ti—I I I I I I I I I I11111111

‘T–l–Tl–rT–rT– -Hf4&-11 I II I I l– –1 1X1 1–

-T–I–T.

-Ill-+–:–+-

-111-+–;.-f-

-111-:–;–:-

111-T_l_T_

-Ill-+–;–+-

-111.+_:._+_

-Ill-+-l-+-_lll

Ill–+–,–+-

~21@lfI)Olol l(j2f031041051@lI)7 lo-21~110010111)2103

pcllg pCi/g

–y-m

: :[~-

:L ~1-

1111 _ll–1 IT1 ~–l–l Ill–+–;.-+;

f:

-L*I– J1 lR6pnoyed

–l Ill

: :4

1111–+–l–+-1 + l–i -1

1111 1$1 I I1*111

:$$4~ –1

eij Ml :~--.. ;& ,d

II–*T

j 10~G+_

I IAI I-ypyy

–P4_l_l_L_l_ -L_l_L_l_.

LEGEND II

v 60co● ‘37CS0 ‘37CS (High Rate)

# 1 1 L I I

1111–y–:–:;— ‘T–l–Tl—

–1111–

IozIoIIo13fol IOZI0310Z101 IOOI.O1 10ZIO3I

pcllg pcllg

L -rrt-—i—–_ , Rcynoyed, _

–-i–-l——l——l— –1111

–1111––:–;–::— –

lRe!mdvedp -1-I

:4: ~

II

+ NtD ~OdGEt

_L_LL_l_ –1111

–1111––+–l–+-l— –_llll _

1111–t–l–t-l— ––1111–

1111‘T–l–Tl— ––1111–

0210-1100101102103

pCi/g

o

10

20

30

40

50

60

100

110

120

130

140

150

Figure D-2. Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

(WJ) q]daao 0 0 0 0

00

0 00

00

0 0ol- fN m

o-r olc9=l-m-4- Ln a ? a a--e --? --

-~ 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 111111~1.y ‘j_-l–-fi-–j_–j_– j i i

N –p––;––:––:––f––:–:––:–~ ——————————————————————od’ –1––-LLl––-L–-L–L

z-! —

‘a

I

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumtothe STankFarmReport

August2000 PageD-19

I

& –_j__+__+–_py ——————_———————————_—_———o* –k––LL–LLL-–LL–i-–i-–+

m I I_;__; __+__ ~J_~–L;–L+–’_~:_~’ ~ ‘ ~–4––4––ppj-:j-–T-–f-T–$–:---

———————————————————4————In I–w–-+–-L–L–L-L–Ll+l+–4–4

FI I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I

I I I II I~ –;––;––T~ ‘

__+__+__~_:–:::–-l–-4’-–+– t–g–&–

––~––;––lplp- I

—

pf*, ill, ,,, llll

o0 I––+––;––;––-j–-+–-r–-p

d’ r –t–-l–-–t-–+--’ –’ –+––t––l–-–l-–+--t

I.-~r–~g;–:+–q:-p-p &&qLy–j-q-’

T–#j––+––+––f––:––j––:––:––:–j––:

g~––,––+––+————————————————————————

-–t–l––+––+––u––;––w––-l–-–u- 3

————

v

u

I I I I I I I I I I I I––~––#+–-\–-}&j-- c&UJ .–’r–

C9––l––-+–-+–-t–-k& i-- LU “% -–l––

0 / +__+ __p&+-- g“, m __lr_

0J

w’ ––l––-t–-+–-t–-t-e-t--1 I I I 3

I I I I I I I I

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe S TankFarm ReportAugust2000 PageD-20

— ..__ ___ —... ,-,’2 ., .,. ,.. . ..’

I

o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0sm ccl o 0-= N

o-r (u co b m ~.?x-0 0m %-FY

v

y

mq ——————.—..—————————————0d’

4=.1 I I q I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I I I I-1-———— — -1 ————

“––+––L––I–-4–-+ –--I–A––-I––+–:

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page D-21

. .. ....< ;,=, ,,, ,, . ...... . --K?7777+7*.?. . >,W.l>.,l.,, U ,}&s. . . .,,. -. .-, --7:-.,, —F&...: :.;..: .. . . . ...~.mDt...~.mDt ,: ,. ““-”- - ,. ii. ... . ..>.. . . . ... ..-— — --- -

I I I ! a I ! ! ! I I I I I !I I

,—v_—!W$-’’-’’-’’-’’-’’-’’-’-

L––i––WStLI––~––&–~––~L5LLSLi–i.

I I I I

+g&&..~l.+~~–+––+––+––1++--–*-–*

,..:

0 0 0 0 0N

oF-)

os o 0m

oa

o 0 0 0a

oo-e ml co * In

(pa4~q]d;a - - - - - -

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumtothe STankFarmReport

August2000 PageD-22

“7>:,- , —.-->. -.-,, ,,x ;, . !, . . . . . .. .. ... ,., . , ,,W . . . . . ,??., !,.: . ,. ../ , .-J , .,. ., .s..%-. .. . . . . .. .-, ..- >-,. .!.,. ,., ... .,, ..,-,

, -... -—.

o 0 00

0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-= N co s u-l

0- N co * U3 co E m all -r-=-= -~

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m 1’ I–~––~––l––l––r––r––r––r––r$–r–– - : l––:––

––+––+––f––:––:––:––:––:––L$–L–– r 5y Ql-–:–

:g ~_+_–+– I———————————————————— _————

I II–+––+_–~__t__:__t__*__~__~~–*––t gg l––-l––

g?jgg28

I I I I I I I I I I I Im I I~ ~––T––T––T–– r––l& r%& r––~–––~––~––

~––~––yppk>kk~l~~--–;--–~-–;–-

~ ~–-~--~--~––p=p==~pr=l--–r-–l---l--——

0 –+––+––+––+––+*__*__t__~+*__l__+__+____+__T

I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I0

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe STankFarmReportAugust2000 Page D-23

, -r-m- -.=.,,.,. . . . .? . -., -+.-.-, ,., +.., , ..-, ,, ..,. ,., ,. ., ... . ,. . ‘- 7-?7T-rw..w.- . . .. .cc> .Z==x= . .. .?:7-/.”>. -.. ‘ —.- -7&%—T—V— -—-. - I

——‘1g1. ●

I

q–-j.-L-&’-+qq–q-

––:––j––~––________————_——————————————————————

0 _&j–-;__

I I I I I I I I I I I I

d’I I

~_&;”-i&p_p

C9 –&j-–<-–y-f–-:–-————————————————————————————————

_~––;––;;–_:_:~ __;__ ;__; _;__;____

N~

0––-1–-T–-l–-––l––l––-T–-~--l

d’ -E–*––l––-f–-+–-&–-l–-+–-+–-+–-t-p-l–-+–-+–-l--” $

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 00

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe STankFarmRepotiAutwst2000 PageD-24

I

...=.-” ..,.., -,.., . . .,, . . .,rv .,-7 ..-. . .. . . .. ... . .. ~..>>..., ..: ...4 .,.. ,,. ’-,,,. ,. - ,....- ——-—---” --- ‘ ‘“” I

!jp%4ii&&’KTn”~”—l——-l—--t:—+-—t-—-—l---t--+--#

I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I

F %“F— —

—— —-~—- –——. ——‘–~––~––~–

––+––;––’r–

F1–-l–-+–-+–-l––

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

D–r–

–:–

———

–l–––

~––T–_l ;

––t––l––II———————II i

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe S TankFarmReportAugust2000 PageD-25

~

——————————

ow

‘0

.——

i

~–-~

.––/– ~g

II “.O————————Ill .-Q

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumtothe STankFarmReportAugust2000 PageD-26

UI

0“

d

––#–-––-+–-+–-+–-t–-t––t–-!&l I I I I 1

~~,1, ,,, ,,1, ,11

— ——b 101111111——

w_+__+ __+_–+––+––+–

I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I II I I I I

+I i’! I 16 k &# I I

‘~–T––T––T~T%=~A%%A~%–~ -–l––r–l-%l–-1

m –*––+––+––+*+––+––f––:––:–

,,~,,,,,,1 ,11,,,,,,F

––p––pl-–&l––~ 1~_+__+––L E .-.!- I QI*

I=————————— —————l———l——d I——

0––+––+––+–– ––t––H4+-=4-––l-–+–*-–

I I I I IaI I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I

? ‘T——T——T——T——r——r——r—;r——~—r——r—l——l——–:––~––~––~––:––~––:–~l––w–p––l––+––+––

q M!U___~___&+__~, ____—T__T——r——~——~—Mql ~ ,0d’ –+k––+––+––+––t––t––&––t––+––&–w––+––+––

I I I I I I IF~

–.&-+–-&–&&y-,LJ-l ~--}-+:-y- }–;–1;–!

–-lL–+-–+-–+-–t-–t-–t-–+-–-l–-+–-L–-l–-–l––+––q

–&–+––+––;––;––}––;––}––}–~ ~~--;---;.

3 –-F-+–-+–-t–-t–-t–-t–-h–-F-–4-–h-i–-–i-–4---2$w

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I0

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe STankFarmReportAugust2000 PageD-27

:,----- , --n-r.- -.TV.—:T7-C--- ,, . . ... . -&-c’rT7’ .2..-, - m. 7- , . ;...m>m,m.. ..- --m ix?.rmxx~r-—’. — -737<---- --- .-.--

u

10

20

30

40

50

c

-a(D 80

n

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

40-10-01

Ill I–Ill I

_ld

–Ill 1- -Ill I

‘T–I–T -1- -–Ill 1- -–~_~_~ j. .

–1~ I 1- -– -h–l– + 4- -_lll 1. _

101 I I–t–l–t -t- -–Ill 1. -

Ill I_ _–T–l–

–1.1 I T -,,~102101100101102103

pCilg

~ 40-00-04 40-00-04u

– T ‘1– -rl~10 –;++j- -

–1.1 I 1: - –l*l-P-

+4 +,8

+ :

J% - 160 20 –++{ -{– -

1°111 –Ill 1- --j-q 44$ - I 7(3 30 –;–fj .j– -1:1 ~ is

i *–Ill 1- -

180 40 –+–[–+ -+– -pl T: _lll 1- -

1o11 It–l–t; 190 50 ‘TTPI-I -i– -1111 –Ill 1- -;:;:: - 2-J() ~ 60 – Ill - I_ -

G Ill 7–1111~ - @

–1x–-l--l~ - 210 g

❑TD lLOIGqE~ & LEGEND

–Illlf - c ● ‘37CS c

–-f-:-:-p - 220 g v 60co

n n1111–t–l–-t-l+ 230 90 –+–:–; -;

–1111– Note: Red italics Removed) represent changes\to the base Ine correlation plots. –Ill I

1111–m–:–

240 ‘ q00 –+–:– I -;

–Ill 1- -_+_:_fj_ 250 qlo _+_;_; -j_ -

–1111– –Icl I 1- -–:–:–:j— 260 120 –+~1–+ --l– -

_lll 1- -1111

270Ill I

–t–l–t-i— 130 –+–l–~ -j– -

–1111– –Ill 1- -llll_ 28(J

–:–;–:;I 40 –+–;– 1-;– -

–I”l I 1- -~ 290 150 ~

Iozlolloofollozlos .l~21@l oOlollo2fio3

pcllg pCilg

Figure D-12. Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

Je

-

-

170

;fl

4

~1quII

-1- -240

1 -250

–lll!- -–+–l–+-l- 260_llll _

1111–t–l–t-i— 270

–1111–1111

‘T–l–Tl— 280

–1111–~ 290

10210110’J~ol 102103pcllg

40-10-03 40-10-05.— -- .-. ---

40-10-09 40-10-13

–:–:–:;–- –

–++++. –

–1111–_~–:–:j– -–

–1111––:–;–:;– ‘–

1111‘T–l–Tl– ‘––1111––+–;–+{_ .–

–1111––-L-l-L–l– .–

1111–1111––:–;–::– -

1111–t–l–t-l– ‘––1111–

l_l_l [–: / y~– ‘-

40-10-060

–j”j–:!_+‘——

eqnc

–-l-–/.–_l I

–-4-–/–_l I

–+ –~–

–++

–j +

– J-–/–_l I

IIp

3‘ Y

3T, –$

–; –l–_l I

–;–:_

–1 I_+ –/–

–1 I

u 11111.

20 – –

–1111–30 – – +–/.-fj—

–1111–40 – –y–;–::—

50 –1111

‘Ti–tl—

m 10

20

l-l I30E-i-–i–

IIII

401-+ –l–

bIIII

t –l– 50

-1 I-++

-1 I. _l_l_

-/ /- + –l–-1 I

-~–~–

-H–-1 I_~_~_

-1 I-+–l–_l I

-fl–

r-+ L?

aiihw‘2101100

pc

l-l60

0a)

70 g

60

90W’v-l t- t–i–

z _l_+ I H-

–ID ~OQG~D- =1”1T IO(

–++LEGEND

● ‘37CS – -1 –/–I I I

Note: Red Italics I?efnovec$ represent changes\to the base lne correlation plots,

100100

110

120

130

140

150

110

120

‘-l‘!130

m10.210.1100101402103 lo210flo’Jl, ol 102103 II

pCi/g pcllg

140

150lozlofloojo~lozlos

pcllg10.210.11001,01 ‘1(-J2 403

pcllglozlolloo~ol 102103

pcllg

Figure D-13. Summary of Interpreted Data Set for the S Tank Farm

I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iy I I I I I I I Im~

–~––~––+––+––;––~––; ––+–’–~:–$!; –:+

–%––~––:––:––p: –-;–-:–-t–-w+--+I 4;_h;__+

k———————————————————————

- +––LLLLL–J––L–I-H–+––+– —. -

(nCDu)cm.

Born

w FI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

q–m––l––T––T––T––r–T––T––~–– ‘A––T ‘–}––lr–

–&~-–p~––~––~––:––yt–-–~–_+__+____

Fy I tip_:__+__}–_lr_F ——————————————————————~ ~,, ,1,,1,~_$@__&;––;__;_ ;-–; _–;_– –+––+–_+__l__

‘l’l’ 1 , I , ,

‘ I ‘ I ‘Ill ’31 ‘‘+:2+’ /JJOJfd––1––7+ =Tb–w–+++-–,-–a–a ~~~%r–&–1-–4-–&-y-+–-+–Tpp&&%w&&%w-0

~ –++ ~ ~,y,,ll,, Fl,,,l,,ll,l,————+–u] !i-I g- .$+_—————————0 I Elw

_*__,__+––+–– __;__+__+_*/_;–;––J–eF&&g–

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumtothe STankFarmReport

August2000 PageD-30

m

I

!II

! ! ! I ! !

mq

––+––;l–;l–~i–~:–$!–~~–:-

m –:––pf–-:–-p%-–;-– g –;–– --

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

14~o ~ ,—————————————————~—————- : ————11111 I

d’ ––+––+––t––t––t––t––t––e–l––-l-- ~~ –-l––0%p —~

In-l

I ,

I I I I

I––+–’–}––+––+––

.——

II—————.II

.——

––+––t––

jlj

~- 0-r-–r-_r_

.–y––-k –:––j–,——. ——————

“–!––-i–-+––-u–II———————II

T.—rI.——

I.——II.—— ‘7

0

LI I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I‘–T––r––r––r––r––r––r––r~–r–7&-

E–~–~~––~ ~ ~––+––pp~-–~-–~%~–~%~–-mly 51 I I

I-@———-—+———ti~–-–~-–~-–~–––-–l-–~-–~-–~--l ~~ la I

-+--+--+--+--t--+--t--+--l---l---l----l---li--i--

I I I Iml

I I I I

~–&.&&&&-&&\––}:–}%}q–:-p: ~ ‘

N –S––:––p:–-:–-ppb%–wp:%––w––:--

f——————————————————————————

o F_qr_—~-——~___l__

- - –*––L–L-L–L–L-L–-L*F*F-–F-+–-+-–9

I I I I I I I I I I I I I Io

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumtothe STankFarmReportAugust2000 PageD-31

n.<-~-,. ------ . . < . >. ...) . . . -,. . ,.. ! ..r. , ----- . . . . . . . .:4.——. ..—

.-’5 T7?G7rT.n- z - c .?. .

Appendix ES Tank Farm Visualizations

I

Assumed leakers (Hanlon2000) are shown in red text.

/

440+ /

660-.

640. .

620. . \600. .

580+ .

560- .

540- .

520. .

500. .

/

/

420

Elev. (ft)

CS-137 Concentration (pCi/g)

10-1100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

toward

/readerare illustrate-dby heavy outlines.

Figure E-1. S Tank Farm Visualization

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-2

Assumed /eakers (Hanlon 2000) are shown in red text

/ II/_--l\40-1249+Jw I.llm-rll;

Is-

404246I

7 40-li660

640h

620

/ 7 ‘ “~ ‘

\’600 -11T

580 , ,11451

k!

404560

540 40-1046r520

40-10.-.\

500 I-k480

460

440v

420 I IElev. (ft)

CO-60 Concentration (pCilg)I ,..0.1 1

‘ok /

Panels of block diagram that face towardreader are illustrated by heavy outiines.

Figure E-2. S Tank Farm Visualization

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-3

Assumed leakers (Hanlon2000) are shown in red text

f

40.12660

640

620

600

580

660

540

520

500

480iy T

460

440v

Elev. (ft)

I

420I

’00 \Eu-154 Concentration (pCilg)

0.1 /

Panels of block diagram that face towadreader are illustrated by heavy outlines.

Figure E-3. S Tank Farm Visualization

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-4

~..,.., . .....-?77 .,. .,, .,. . . . ,,. ... d,.” . ..!+ %.,\- :,w.!,,mszm=TF’- - -~ -’T7-7:.~.~,.. , . . L,.> ...-. . . . . .. . ,.- .,, ..=-.— --.+. ---- -.

●

●

(0oY

d)●

● 2’”-’

●

●

●

030

(h

‘&--J’‘1

~-– u) ●

●

Ch● ✎

9

●

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 PageE-5

‘~,’

g!mio;-

‘.._, .------‘“”

d)●

●

●

O*.●

●

-..

● ●

(f)0

● ●

●

●

.m vo

“%Q-

d) J)..

●

● m _*.;.,.

●

●

●

b8

●

●

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 PageE-6

9

●

moY

Ch●

●

●

●

●

Loo

h

●

UI0

Ciilb..-. ......ii)●

b

9●

●

(x3o7

(h●

●

●● ✘

0N

v-

i)●

●

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-7

The reader is advised to review Section 4 for discussions

,:regarding the limitations of this visualization.

●

Assumed /eakers (Hanlon 2000) are shown in red text >

●● ● ●

●● ,9,

9

● ● ●

● S-112 “ s-1 09 S-106 s-1 03●

●

●

●● ● * ●

●

o

●

●8 ●

Q $ ,

h

● ● ●b

S-111 ● S-108 ● S-105 S-102

●

●

●●

.*

●

● ●●

●●

● ●

●● b

●

●

● S-no . S-107 S-104 ● S-lol

● ● ●

●●

●

8● ●

●●

●

● Monitoring Borehole-.. . . . . . ---- .. —-- .. —-—ueptn or HorizontalPlanarslice@ 25 tt BGS

Cs-137 Isolevel = 0.5 DCi/a CO-60 Isolevel = 0.1 ~Ci/aCS-137 Concentration ‘(pCllg)

q/jjo7

CO-60 Concentration’(pC~lg)1 } :1

0.1 1 10

Figure E-7. S Tank Farm Visualization

●

d)●

● w ●●

●

●

●

●

●

c,- ●

m0

cl)

m0

hb

●

●●

● 9●

●● ✎

●

●

b●

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-9

●

● 9 ●●

+

●●

●

● ●

m0

U5●

●

●●

●

●

● ☛

●

●

a)0

d)●

●

●

●

● ●●

●● W

●●

N

7

(h●

x--

d)●

●

99

DOE/GrandJunction Office Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-10

,.. . ....7 .T. —-

., .,.., , , . . . ,.’. , i,< . . ... ... . .. . . . , . :..-. ,rzxR7- < .... ->. . ..-. WT2T7Z ,7.-, .: ,-,-=-==7?;.-, -, J.,,. ..TY--T25--- -.. ... ...

.——. . . . . . . . . . . . . -- —, --—

● ●

●

● ●

m0“”.

C/5

0--.,,$ ;

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

u)o~ .,

● ●In’0 ,’,, +“- .7

Ch .’ F ‘“”- ‘“,- “La;● ;

● ’.

● * 9 7

●

●

Cbo-

h

m0 ●

(/5

f-0

9

●● *

●

●

DOE/GrandJunctionOftlce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-11

...-.,-.- ~,,.. .==’P’n. . .. . ~ .77 ccczFz.m?T+t. .+ -...3. :“- :-% -. .. . . .. . ---- r--v --— ----- ,- —-

●

● ● ’co mlo ● o o

d)

.L ~@d’Y: ‘“,, ;.-r--x.

,.,. . \● ● ●

●\ A’

●

. .

●

● ✎✎ ●

m u)”,o- 0’

cl’ ●

~ ,,

. .,,., Q’

,- :,.

,’,, . CA

● ✌✎

●

●

● ● ●

● ● ✎

●

,.’ ,. ’:..- ,

,, kh’

,’ .’.●

9

●

●

0

T

(h●●

●

,●

●● ● ●

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-12

● ●● ●

●

●

●

“(Z9-.“’+

5CNo

h Ch● -

●

●.

● ✎✌ ● ’coo

lo,, 0

~d) + Cn

● ✍●

●●

●

9 .>

,“ b., 0.,

h ●

●✚✌

● ☛

●

●

N

T

CA

o7

(h● ●

DOE/GrandJunctionOffIce Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-13

The reader is advised to review Section 4 for discussions

.{:.:.

~.,,.,I,.

.,

regarding the limitations of this visualization.

Assumed leakers (Hanlon 2000) are shown in red text

●

● S-112 ● s-1 09 S-106●

●

S-103

●

●

●

●

S-111 ● ,

●

S-no

●

S-108 8 S-105 S-102,, ● ’,- 9

●

●●

●

●●

●

●● 9

,.

● S-107 S-104 ● , S-lol

● Monitoring Borehole

Depth of Horizontal Planar Slice@ 69 ft BGS

CO-60 Isolevel = 0,1 pCi/gCO-60 Concentration (pCi/g)

0.1 1 10

Figure E-13. S Tank Farm Visualization

i!--

\/,I

\Y

I J /

vi’‘k ‘1w

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-15

A-. A/\

al- -r 1 \

\

\\

1 I

r. \

\

‘1

El

DOE/GrandJunctionOffice Addendumto the S Tank Farm ReportAugust2000 Page E-16

/\

/\

/ /

I /

\/4‘...,=

;

\/

\ 1

DOE/Grand Junction Office Addendum to the S Tank Farm ReportAugust 2000 Page E-17

... .

.,-..1

.: :

Y:.....

.... .,..j-~..!

‘!-..:,.:.“1?

{J.,

..(

The reader is advised to review Section 4 for discussionsregarding the limitations of this visualization. Pane/s of b/ock diagmm that fice towad

540 “

outlines.

66

64

62

60

58

56

\

520- ~

5;-Y~

Elev. (ft)

10-1 100 101 q02 403 104 qos 106 407 CO-60 Isolevel = 0.1 pCi/gCO-60 Concentration (pCi/g)

I0.1 1’ 10

Eu-154 Isolevel = 0.5 DCMEu-154 Concentration (pCi/g)

0-00

Figure E-1 7. S Tank Farm Visualization