WAG 3NO ACTION

DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT

CPP-43Grease pit south of CPP-637

WAG 3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT INEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

No Action UnitCPP-43

Grease Pit South of CPP-637

1.

2.

ICPP Site Map showing CPP-43

Site Description and Chronology CPP-43 ii

3. Exhibit 1 1 0

Initial Assessment Report 1 1

CPP-43 Assessment 1 58

4. Exhibit 2 2 0

Initial Assessment Form 2 1

Documetation Records for HazarAousRanking System 2 11

5. Exhibit 3 3 0

ICPP Summary Assessment 3 i

6. Exhibit 4 \ 4 0

EPA To DOE-ID letter: Review of Selectedclimmary accaccmpritg 4 1

7. Exhibit 5 5 0

WINCO to DOE-ID letter: Revised SummaryAssessments 5 1

8. Exhibit 6 6 0

EPA to DOE-ID Letter: Summary Assessments

Reviews 6 1

9. Exhibit 7 7 0

INEL to DOE-ID: Response to 10/16/89

Letter from EPA 7 1

10. Exhibit 8 la A

Radiological Evaluation 8 1

1990 Radioactive Survey 8 3

ICPI A-17511

(5-91)

_43. Grease pit south of CPP-637

SITE DESCRIPTION

CPP-43 grease pit, was located south of CPP-637, at the presentlocation of CPP-651. The grease pit was used for the disposal ofan unknown quantity of oil and grease. The grease pit was filledin when the unirradiated fuel storage building upgrade (CPP-651)was completed in 1975.

Nay 1986

SITE CHRONOLOGY

No Action UnitCPP-43

Grease Pit South of CPP-637

Tha nroaca Pit qnnth nf OPP-417 wac firct

identified in the Installation AssessessmentReport.

October 1986 The unit was scored using the Hazard RankingSystem.

April 28, 1987 The unit was \summary assessed and submittedwith other ICPP Summary Assessments to DOE-ID.

January 5, 1988 The EPA requested more information.

March 31, 1988 Revised Summary Assessments were submitted.

October 16, 1989 EPA again requested additional informationabout CPP-43.

January 12, 1990 WINCO responded to EPA's request.

mnerr

The final decision to delete this unit from the list of SolidWaste Management Units was never received from EPA. However thisdocument presents all available information for making a decisionon this unit.

EXHIBIT 1

•

1.0

INSTALLATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

Idaho Chemical PrucebAny Plant

May 1986

Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company

Prepared for theU.S. Department of EnergyIdaho Operations Office

1.1

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Installation Description 1

1.2 Environmentai Setting 11.3 Methodology for Preparation of Installation Assessment . 2

1.4 Findings and Conclusions 21.5 Recommendations 3

2. INTRODUCTION 5

2.1 Background 5

2.2 Authority 52.1 purpncp 6

2.4 Scope 6

2.5 Methodology for Preparation of Installation Assessment . 6

3. INEL AND ICPP DESCRIPTION 8

3.1 INEL Description 83.2 ICPP Description 123.3 ICPP Process Description 133.4 INEL Organization and ICPP Mission 13

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF THE INEL 16

\4.1 Meteorology 16

4.1.1 Data Source 1c.

4.1.2 General Climatology 164.1.3 Meteorological Overview 17

4.1.3.1 Temperature 174.1.3.2 Wind 17

4.1.3.3 Precipitation 194.1.3.4 Evaporation 19

4.1.3.5 Severe Weather Conditions 19

4.2 Geology and Soils 22

4.2.1 Setting 22

4.2.2 Snake River Plain Formation 254.2.3 Soils 27

4.3 Hydrology and Hydrogeology 28

4.3.1 Surface Water 28A I 9 Clikeurfare Watar 31

4.4 Air and Water Quality 35

4.4.1 Air Quality 35

4.4.2 Water Quality 35

4.5

4.6

Environmentally Sensitive Conditions

4.5.1 Protection of Groundwater Quality 4.5.2 Seismology 4.5.3 Flooding Potential 4.5.4 Endangered Species

Biological Pathways

37

37394040

41

5.0 FINDINGS 42

5.1 Past Waste Activity Review 425.2 Disposal Units 42

5.2.1 Radioactiva 42

5.2.1.1 CPP Fuel Storage Basin Area 435.2.1.2 Other ICPP Areas 46

• C. • 4. Wsefme 49

5.2.2.1 25. ICPP Injection Well 495.2.2.2 Tank Farm Area 515.2.2.3 Other ICPP Areas 56

5.2.3 Chemical Wastes 57

5.3 Unit Summary 64

6.0 CONCLUSIONS nn0L,

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 89

8.0 REFERENCES 93

APPENDICES

A. Qualifications of Installation Assessment Team 94

8. Installation History, Organization and Mission 98

C. Environmental Setting 101

O. Hazard Ranking System Calculations 106

E. Glossary 183

FIGURES

3.1 Location Map of the INEL 9

3.2 Vicinity Map of the INEL 10

3.3 Population Distribution Around the INEL 11

3.4 ICPP Plot Plan 14

4.1 CFA 20-ft-level Wind Roses 20

4.2 Physiography in the INEL Region 23

4.3 Major Facilities and Surface Water Features 4n 4k.en wrc

INEL Vicinity 24

4.4 Generalized Geologic Map of the Eastern Snake River Plain . 26

4.5 Base Case Inundation Map 30

4.6 Location of Generalized Groundwater Flow Lines Hypothesizedfor the Snake River Plain Aquifer 32

4.7 Generalized Altitude Contours on the Regional W ater TableINEL and Vicinity 33

5.1 Location of ICPP Waste Releaies 79

6.1 Location of Ranked Units at the ICPP 84

TABLES

1.1 Ranking of Disposal Units 4

4.1 Monthly and Annual Temperature Averages and Extreme Averages. 18

4.2 Monthly and Annual Precipitation at the INEL 21

4.3 Chemical Analyses of Surface Water and Groundwater fromthe Region Around the INEL 36

4.4 Chemical Analyses of the Snake River Aquifer in the Vicinityof the INEL 38

5.1 Releases to the ICPP Injection Well 52

5.2 Summary of ICPP Waste Releases 65

6.1 Ranking of of Disposal Units 83

7.1 Recommendations for ICPP Potential Waste Units 90

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CEmuLA, proviuca 'or cne cleanup UT inactive naxardous waste

disposal sites. The Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order 5480.14,

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

Program2 " provide instructions far implAmanting thw nnr rrRriA

program. The first phase of the program requires that a review be

conducted to determine the releases that have occurred in the past at

each DOE installation. This document is the Installation Assessment for

the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) located at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory (INEL).

1.1 Installation Description

The ICPP is located in southeastern Idaho in the south central portion

of the INEL. The ICPP comprises a fenced area of over 100 acres. The

primary mission of the ICP8, which began operations in 1953, has been

for reprocessing of nuclear'fuel, recovery of uranium and krypton, and

The Tr" lemanautment Of the ygocu•ted waste. au.rr fa po ted for the DOE by

Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company (WINCO).

1.2 Environmental Setting

Characteristics of the ICPP which impact any potential environmental

damage from activities at the ICPP are:

The ICPP is located in a relatively sparsely populated area. No

one resides permanently at the ICPP. No populated area exists

within about a 10-mile radius of the ICPP. The nearest

permanent residents are in Atomic City (population about 35)

which is located to the southeast of the ICPP. The Central

Facilliles area (CFA) is located 4 miles southwest of the Alrfr Trno

.

- The average precipitation at the ICPP is 9.1 in. of water. Theaverage annual evaporation rate is about 36 in. The maximumobserved 24-hour precipitation amounts are less than 2 inches.

- The surface water from the ICPP area does not leave the INEL.

The predominant surface water stream, the Big Lost River which

is located north of the ICPP, flows through the INEL unt til i

evaporates or sinks into the ground.

- The Snake River Plain Aquifer is a large body of water located

beneath the INEL. The depth to the top of the aquifer at the

ICPP is about 450 feet.

The surface soil surrounding the ICPP consists of alluvial sands

and gravels of varying thicknesses near the Big Lost River and

windblown deposits elsewhere. Underlying the surface are basalt

layers of various thicknesses interbedded with unconsoiidated

materials.

- Nn andangornd cparisse recids within the IrPP, although the bald

eagle and peregrine falcon have been observed on the INEL.

1.3 Methodology for Preparation of Installation Assessment

Information necessary for the compilation of this document was obtained

from interviews conducted with personnel familiar with past waste

disposal practices, Unusual Occurrence Reports, Significant Operating

Occurrence Reports, and Radiatlon Incident Reports. A computerized data

base prepared previously from logbook entries and incident reports also

was examined.

1.4 Findings and Conclusions

Based on the sources in Section 1.3 ICPP sites of known releases of haz-

ardous, radioactive, and radioactive/hazardous (mixed) wastes were

identified. These sites consisted of operational waste release sites as

2

well as sites where accidental releases had occurred. The description

of the sites is in Section 5. ICPP sites identified as potentially cap-

able of resulting in further environmental damage were rated using the

modified Hazardous Ranking System (mHRS).' This system is applicable

to radioactive, hazardous and mixed wastes and considers such factors as

site characteristics, waste characteristics, waste migration, and con-

tainment of the waste. The details of the ratings are presented in

Appendix D and a summary of the results is shown in Table 1-1. No ICPP

sites were found to pose an immediate threat to the environment.

1.5 Recommendations

Chararteriyatine studies will be required. These characterizations will

consist of subsurface drilling, obtaining samples, and analyzing for

chemical and radioactive contaminants. Closure plans and remedial action

plans will further identify the work required at each individual site.

Continued monitoring may be required in some areas, and surface soil

sampling should be expandech,

3

TABLE 1.1

Ranking of Disposal Units

NumericalDisposal Unit Ranking

1.2.3.4.

ICPP Injection WellTank Farm Contaminated Soil (South of WM-183) - 9/75PCB Transformer Yard (CPP-705)PCB Transformer Yard (CPP-731)

34181313

5. PCB Staging Area 136. Paint and Paint Solvent Area (South of CPP-697) 137. Mercury Contaminated Soil (South of T-15) 138. Pilot Plant Tank Release (CPP-637 courtyard) 139. Contaminated Soil - 10/74 by WM-181 1310. Contaminated Soil by CPP-604 - 4/74 1311. Contaminated Soil Northwest and Southwest of Valve Box 8-4 1312. Included in Unit 11 -13. Contaminated Soil by WL-102 Northeast of CPP-604 1314. Contaminated Soil Burial by Northeast Corner of ICPP 1115. Asbestos 1216. WCF French Drain 1117. Leak in Line from WCF to M -1(12 1118. Kerosene Release 919. CPP-637 Storage Area 920. CPP-608 Grease Pit 9

*21. CPP-651 Grease Pit -22. PEW Evaporator Overheads n

J

23. Drum Storage Area by CPP-660 824. HF Acid Storage Tank (YDB-105) 825. Limestone Pit by CPP-601 Berm 726. CPP-637 Drainage Ditch 727. HNO3 Leakage lby CPP-734) 728. Gravel Pits 729. CPP-621 Chemical Storage 730. Peach Bottom Contaminated Soil 731. CPP-603-604 Transport Line Leak-3/78 432. CPP-603 Lay-down Area (Temporary Storage Areal 433. CPP-603 Vault and Drywell 434. Trench by CPP-603 435. WM-181 Transfer Line to Evaporator-1/76 236. Sewage Drain Tiles and Outfall Line 137. Soil - NE Corner of South Basin (CPP-603) 138. Basin Filter System Line Failure (CPP-603) 1

* The grease pit is under CPP-651. No further action.

4

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) was passed by Congress in 1980.1 This act provided for,

among other things, the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal

sites. In April 1985, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order

5480.14, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act Program.2 This order provides instructions for imple-

menting the DOE CERCLA Program. The oraer provides for five separate

phases of activities to be accomplished within ten years of the date of

the order. The phases include:

Phase I:

Phase II:

Phase III:

Phase IV:

and Phase V:

Installation Assessment

Confirmation

Engineering Assessment

Remedial Actions

Compliance\and Verification

This document fulfills the requirements of Phase I of DOE Order 5480.14

and is the Installation Assessment report for the Idaho Chemical

Processing Plant (ICPP) at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

(INEL). It describes the ICPP and the surrounding environment and

discusses present and past waste management practices at the ICPP. It

identifies and describes past releases to the environment at the ICPP

and characterizes ♦them k A n available and interviews bdith

past and present employees. Where appropriate, the modified Hazard

Ranking System (mHRS)3 has been used to rank the releases. Recommen-

dations regarding the need for treatment of each ranked site are given

in Section 7.

2.2 Authority

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, commonly known as Hsuperfund" or HCERCLAH was passed by

5

Congress and signed into law on December 11, 1980.1 The law has been

amended three times by Public Law 97-216 (July 18, 1982), Public Law

97-272 (September 30, 1982), and Public Law 98-45 (July 12, 1983). On

April 26, 1985, the Department nf Friary issue nrir Order 5480.14, "Com-

prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Pro-

gram".2 This order provides instructions for implementing a DOE

CERCLA program. This program requires a five-phase program beginning

with an Installation Assessment to be completed within one year of the

Order. It also requires a CERCLA site list. Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear

Company, Inc. (WINCO), as operating contractor for the ICPP, has prepared

this Installation Assessment Report in compliance with DOE Order 5480.14.

2.3 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to identify and assess releases of

contaminants to the environment at the ICPP. A11 known major environ-

mental releases are described, and those which are the most significant

are ranked using the modified Hazard Ranking System.3

2.4 Scone

This document pertains only to releases within the ICPP. Sites outside

the ICPP fenced boundary are covered in similar documents prepared by

other INEL contractors. This document describes the ICPP activities,

waste disposal practices, environment, and releases to the environment.

It ranks the environmental releases where appropriate to determine which

releases require attention first.

2.5 Methodology for Preparation of Installation Assessment

Determining releases from a plant that has operated for over thirty years

is obviously not an easy task. Significant changes in processes, prac-

ticcs, regulations, reporting ..... Aurae haus nreurraAp.

over this time period. In general, past records were obtained and re-

6

viewed, and present and past operating personnel were interviewed.Records were not always available or as complete as desired; however, log

books, significant operating occurrence reports, Unusual Occurrence Re-

ports, investigation reports, letters, safety analysis reports, environ-

mental impact reports, miscellaneous studies, and radioactive incident

reports (beginning in 1953) provided valuable information. A review of

past ICPP records was completed to identify problems which had been

experienced at the ICPP.4'5 These data were placed in a computer data

base for ready access. The data base included shift supervisor logbooks

(1965-1981), HP logbooks (1980-1981). Significant Operating Occurrence

Reports and unusual Operating Occurrence Reports (1972-1982), Maintnnancia

Job Requests (1978-1981), Monthly Reports (1965-1981), and Run Reports

(1965-1981).

The record review, origlnally completed as part of the justification for

the ICPP Fuel Processing Restoration Project, consisted of logging each

unusual operating occurrence. This computer data base current as of

January 1, 1982, was reviewed for identification of any events resulting

in discharge of wastes to the environment.

interviews with personnei aiso provided information not otherwise avail-

able. Based on these sources, and based on past and present operations,

a list of sites of releases of radioactive, hazardous, and radioactive/

hazardous (mixed) wastes sites W.. A CnimAifie. e4Ma AmMak ilortmamvc ww.w mem

all available sources were summarized, and each site was evaluated based

on the modified Hazard Ranking System (mHRS)3 for radioactive sites or

sites containing both radioactivity and chemical hazards and the Hazard

Ranking System for nonradioactive sites. The Hazard Ranking System6

(HRS) is used to evaluate hazardous waste sites that fall within the

jurisdiction of CERCLA. It is described 1n 40 CFR 300 (Appendix A) and

evaluates the hazard of a site by applying a score based on the

potential for a pollutant to reach the environment by groundwater,

surface water, air, fire, explosion, or direct contact. The number of

people invoived, uses of water, stabiiity of the pollutant, and other

factors are considered in scoring the site.

7

3.0 INEL AND ICPP DESCRIPTION

3.1 INEL Description

The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), formerly the National

Reactor Testing Station (NRTS), was established in 1949 by the U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) as an area to build, test, and operate

various nuclear reactors, fuel processing plants, and support facilities

with maximum safety and isolation. In 1974, the NRTS was redesignated

as the INEL to reficut the broad auwpc ef enyineeriny a‘tivitin uen-

ducted at the site.

The U.S. Government used portions of the Site prior to its being estab-

lished as the NRTS. During World War II, the U.S. Navy used about 270

square miles of the Site as a gunnery range. An area southwest of the

naval area was once used by the U.S. Army Air Corps as an aerial gunnery

range. The present INEL Site includes all of the former military area

and a large adjacent area withdrawm from the public domain for use by

the Department of Energy (DOE). The former Navy administration shop,

warehouse, and housing area is today the Central Facilities Area (CFA)

of the INEL.

The INEL Site covers approximately 890 square miies of sagebrush ana

basalt-covered land of the Snake River Plain in southeastern Idaho (see

Figure 3.1). The nearest INEL boundary is 29 miles west of Idaho Falls,

12 milec nnrthwact nf glerkfnnt. ge milne hnrthwoet nf Pnratalln, And 7

miles east of Arco. The site encompasses portions of five Idaho

counties: Butte, Jefferson, Bonneville, C1ark, and Bingham. Figure 3.2

provides a vicinity map of the INEL.

There are no permanent residents within the INEL; the nearest populated

area is Atomic City (about 35 residents), located less than one mile from

the southern boundary. Figure 3.3 shows the population distribution

within a 50 mile radius around the INEL, with the radii centered

8

KEY

/-4

AAA • AusiItaly Fitilitter ASCFA • Canna* Fume Ana

up t• fisanaltilal Stmt. ILSett/ IiltalltatiCal alitlaiuntett

lallP • lard Oral heassmc Mast

Ir • Ma* IlfallentlF0 TonLOFT • LanCl.Pluitl TeatNIP • Navel Mont. FacilityPal114$101PIT • Fen lint FeeCanonici rent

lacunae Mattel l'itillIMMC • Fildlactase Waste MIcagonilat Cassie,TPA • Yost Fouler Ms7312 • tail Suarort !unity

Minn - %Faux Reactor FtHOMO Tat Facility

.1a

014

in/ „edM ,dde jd ipso'

e IS

ICAPP

N

ss"

INEL

-"-r••••Lteal;"-;:47;ry

6aomlloomalSllgiOiliS

Figure 3-1. Locatioa Nap of tko

9

neat

4

&MAO skii

FiG'6RE 3.2 Vicinity Mao of tho INEL 10

11411241.20 112

Custr

Blab*

Lsmhl

1111)e-

31 se

22 247 22

4: ilbmilVas 15:

404

19• • 1063 997(

Jeffehon

3

Is_ 01044

WI 1747 1643

462 047

1331

23 r Butte

12In

14 0

Lincoln

0

11

fAinidoka

Fremont

Madison

1:1 litiras.,Ir

fit2,622

11:185

17,498

85,715

Bonneville

11,577

2225 Bingham

4094

oglifil7ii 0 Caribou

a

\eel.'

Bannock

11.POW*, i

*The computer listing of six Otani living in thls area is enormous, braise

of the prrarn.s. usuintian Mat persona within a oivsn my' section ars

uniformly distributed in Mat area No persons melds in tnis atmmei. 4 an

FIGURE 3.3 Population Distribution Around ths INEL

11

in the south-central portion of the Site in the area of the Test ReactorArea (TRA) - Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) complex. Population

estimates are based on the 1980 census but include a growth prediction

by the Idaho Chamber of Commerce of a growth rate of 2.7% per year for

the City of Idaho Falls. This projection adds an additlonal 4,452

people to the fifth sector at the 40- to 50-mile segment through CY

1984. It is assumed that the population in other sectors will remain

stable. The population residing within a 30- miie radius is shown in

Fi;ore 3.3 to be 4,625, and 50- mile radius, 119,957.

Mb VI UUMC 170m, the INEL employed 9,986 people, including both cite and

offsite workers. Approximately 6,500 employees are present at the INEL

during the day shift; about 700 are on site during each of the other

shifts. These are average numbers that vary with changes in operational

requirements and construction work. No one is allowed to reside on the

INEL. Employees llve tn more than 30 communities adjacent to the INEL,

the largest percentage residing in Idaho Falls. Contractor-operated bus

service is provided from the major communities. Westinghouse Idaho

Nuclear Company (WINCO) employes about 1,370 permanent employees with

about 1,200 of these working at the ICPP.

The INEL was established as an area where nuclear reactors and support

plants could be constructed, operated, and tested. The INEL was chosen

because of its isolation, iuw annual rainfall, cud wham.c uf surface

streams draining away from it. The Snake River Plain, on which the INEL

is located, is relatively flat. The ground structure underlying the INEL

consists of nnrnHe lava finis/it_ and the soil of the area has excellent

ionexchange and retention capacity. Except for the Snake River Plain

Aquifer which underlies the Site, the INEL is hydrologically isolated.

Surface streams dlsappear through porous surface soil and basalt after

entering the Site. No surface streams exit the Site.

3.2 ICPP Description

The ICPP is located in the southeastern, central part of the INEL. It

is in a fenced security area of over 100 acres. The facilities at the

12

ICPP are designed to recover unused uranium from irradiated nuclear

fuels. The fuel is dissolved, and the uranium is separated from the

fission products and cladding materials. The uranium is further puri-

fied, and the waste is stored first as a liquid and then converted to a

solid and stored in stalnless steel bins.

The IrPP, chnwn in Figure 3.4, is operated for the Department of Energy

by Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company, Inc. (WINCO).

3.3 ICPP Process Description

Nuclear fuels are recelved at the ICPP in heavily shielded casks. The

fuel is unloaded and stored underwater in large, concrete fuel storage

basins. When ready for processing, the fuel is transported to the fuel

dissolution area where the entire fuel element is dissolved in acid.

The dissolver solution is then sent to an extraction process where the

uranium is removed. The uranium is swrud for further purification, and

the waste material, consisting of fission products and cladding material

in an acid solution. is senfin underground encased lines to stainless

steel tanks insifie rnnerata vxultc until it can be converted to a gran-

ular solid. The solid calcine is pneumatically transported to bins in-

side concrete vaults where it is stored until a disposal decision is

made. Other liquid radioactive waste, containing low levels of radio-

activity, is processed by evaporation, with the vapor being released to

the envlronment through a surface percolation pond, and the evaporator

bottoms are sent to storage tanks to await calcination. Before 1984,

the waste and cooling water were discharged to an injection well. Off

gases from the process are discharged through a stack to the atmosphere

after being filtered and monitored.

3.4 INEL Organization and ICPP Mission

The INEL facilities are operated by one nf flvp gnvernment contractors:

Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W); EGaG Idaho, Inc. (EG&G); Exxon

Nuclear Idaho Company (ENIC0); Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC);

and Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company (WINCO).

13

• • ••••••111110 • • • •••II/N= /MOP •••••••• •

•11=

filammeariJill

e I

rzat,a-E.4 1111ria

,vvessesuel,

..... • --ha'

1

! Oa

I

•I I

I hi

•

i Ice...4 F.,.............. L.—`,..t,1 -Le,1 rizit.1=ora=.--th rear___

; i'

i Do 2L3piIii ,,fHi ?----w 1 S b.,, , ...,.. , i • I.I I I

......f....

• 1 •

\;N

0

/ 4 a

i i1/49111V

11 Ti dila(

$ 6

rL.

maiLSOL-ZDIJ hi 2\L c 17rr?. 1

•

i k:; I !• 1 1

Vs • illees" tine

1 4

I

.- • :

• ...

ts

ir.

These contractors conduct various programs at the INEL under the admin-

istration of three DOE offices: Idaho Operations Office (ID), Pittsburgh

Naval Reactors Office (PNRO), and Chicago Operations Office (CH). An-

other government contractor, American Protective Services (APS), P rovides

security services fnr tha 'NFL under the adMinictretinh nf nnF-In;

DOE-ID is the INEL Site manager and is responsible for common Site ser-

vices, Site environmental control and management, and overall Site safety

and emergency planning functions. It provides certain of these services

directly and the rest through its prime operating contractor, EG&G.

However, the other DOE program/project operations offices (PNRO and CH)

working at the INEL are responsible for activities within their own

designated test facility boundaries. DOE-ID performs functions or ser-

vices at these designated sites only through interface agreements with

the other DOE operations offices.

The ICPP is operated by WINCO. The general mission of the ICPP is the

safe, timely, and cost effective performance of five specific tasks:

1. Receive and store nuclear fuels.

2. Recover the fissile material for these fuels for reuse by DOE.

3. Recover the Krypton-85 from appropriate fuels for resale by DOE.

4. Safely manage radioactive wastes.

5. Perform research, development, and specialized services as re-

quested by DOE and other government agencies or contractors.

15

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF THE INEL

The INEL site was selected partially because of its advantageous

environmental characteristics. These include distance from population

centers, low rainfall, high evaporation, favorable soil characteristics,

distance from the surface to the aquifer, stable geology, and similar

items. Meteorology, geology and soils, hydrology and hydrogeology, air

and water quality, environmentally sensitive conditions, and biological

pathways are described in the following sections:

4.1 Meteorology

4.1.1 Oata Source. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-

tration (NOAA) and its prod. . ... the U.S. Weather Rilreali, halm ...pr-

ated a meteorological observation program at the INEL since 1949. Mete-

orological data have been collected at over 40 locations on and near the

INEL since that time. The weather station at Central Facilities Area

(CFA) was the first on-site station and appears on National Climatic

Center records as "Idaho Falls 46\W." In addition to recording

day-to-day weather data and providing daily operational forecasts for

the INEL, the NOAA staff maintains an intensive research and development

program to improve the reliability of prediction and measurement of

meteorological parameters which influence safe conduct of operations on

the INEL. A number of meteorological stations are location throughout

the INEL to measure simultaneously the spatial variation of several

meteorological parameters such as temperature and wind speed and direc-

tion, up to a height of 250 ft.

4.1.2 General Climatology. The location of the INEL in a flat

valley surrnuntinn hy mountains, its altitude above sea level, and its

latitude affect the climate and the day-to-day weather systems. A11 air

masses entering the Snake River Plain first cross a mountain barrier,

usually precipitating a large percentage of their moisture. Annual

rainfall at the INEL is light, and the region has semiarid character-

istics. The local northeast-southwest orientation of the plain and bor-

dering mountain ranges tends to channel prevailing west winds so that a

16

southwest wind predominates over the INEL; the second most frequent windscome from the northeast. The relatively dry air and infrequent low

clouds permit intense solar heating of the surface during the day and

rapid radiational cooling at night. These factors combine to give a

wide diurnal range of temperature near the ground. Due to the moderating

influence of the Pacific Ocean, most of the air masses flowing over this

area are usually warmer during winter and cooler in summer than air

masses flowing at a similar latitude in the more continental climate

east of the Continental Uivide. The Centennial and Bitterroot Mountain

Ranges keep most of the shallow, but intensely cold, winter air masses

from entering the Eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP) when they move south-

ward from Canada. Occasionally, however, the cold air can spill over

the mountains. When this happens, the cold air is then held in the ESRP

by the surrounding mountains, and the INEL expei~i . low ♦t. F. bufwafor periods lasting a week or longer.

4.1.3 Meteorological Overview.

4.1.3.1 Temperature. Monthly and annual average tempera-

tures for the INEL are provlded in Table 4.1. Average monthly maximum

temperatures range from 87°F in July to 28°F in January. Average

Monthly minimum temperatures range from 490F in July to 4°F in

January. The warmest temperature recorded was 101oF and the coldest

through January 198Z has been -40°F.

4.1.3.2 Wind. Wind directions at the INEL are mostly from

the southwest or northeast quadrants, due to airflow channeling by the

bordering mountains. During the summer months a very sharp diurnal

reversal in wind direction occurs. Winds blowing from the southwest

(upslope) predominate during daylight hours, and northeasterly winds

persist at night. Winter winds are controlled almost exclusively by

either large scale weather systems or by stagnation, which show no sig-

nificant dlurnal characteristics. The record of average wind speeds

shows a minimum of about 5 mph in December and maximum of 9 mph in April

and May. The highest maximum hourly average speed was 51 mph--measured

at the 20-ft level at CFA from the west-southwest. Peak gusts of 78

1 7

TABLE 4.1

MONTHLY AND ANNUAL TEMPERATURE AVERAGES AND

EXTREME AVERAGES

Maximum

(°F)

Average

(°F)

Minimum

(°F)

High Average Low High Average Low High Average Low

January 37.9 27.6 19.5 25.1 15.8 6.5 13.1 3.8 -8.8

February 45.9 34.0 25.6 34.2 21.6 9.9 22.4 9.1 -6.5

March 51.5 42.9 33.6 37.5 30.7 19.1 24.6 8.4 4.5

April 64.7 55.3 46.1 45.9 41.3 35.4 32.0 27.2 22.5

May 76.1 66.3 59.9 58.3 CI41.4 46.7 40.7 36.2 33.3

June 85.3 76.1 69.9 67.5 79.9 46.2 49.7 43.7 40.4

July 91.2 87.0 82.5 71.8 68.2 66.1 53.1 49.3 46.5

August gm RCA 75.4 70.2 65.9 60.3 53.4 47.1 43.2

September 81.2 73.4 64.1 61.1 55.5 48.6 45.2 37.4 31.9

October 67.7 60.5 53.7 4.2 43.5 38.2 32.1 26.5 21.2

November 50.7 42.5 37.8 36.4 29.9 24.5 24.3 17.3 10.3

December 37.1 31.2 22.3 26.8 19.6 10.2 17.6 7.5 -1.9

ANNUAL 59.5 59.0 53.8 44.3 41.8 39.1 29.9 28.1 24.0

a Based on National Weather Service (NWS) archived CFA data from April

1954 through December 1982.

18

and 87 mph were observed. Calm conditions prevail 11% of the time.

Figure 4.1 provides seasonal wind roses as measured at CFA.

4.1.3.3 Precipitation. The average annual precipitation is

9.07 in. of water. The yearly totals range from 4.50 to 14.40 in.

Individual months have had as little as no precipitation to as much as

4.42 in. Maximum observed 24-h precipitation amounts are less than 2.0

in. and maximum i-h amounts are just over 1.0 in. Table 4.2 summarizes

the average monthly and annual precipitation.

About 26.0 in. of snow falls each year. The maximum yearly total was

40.9 in. and the smallest total was 11.3 in. The greatest 24-h total

snowfall was 8.6 in. The greatest snow depth observed on the ground was

27 in. Januarv and February average about 7.0 in. for a monthly maximum

depth on the ground. The ground is usually free of snow from mid-April

to mid-November.

4.1.3.4 Evaporation. While extensive evaporation data have

not been collected on the INEL, evaporation information is available

from Aberdeen and Kimberly in southeastern Idaho. These data, which

should be representative of the INEL region, indicate that the average

annual evaporation rate is about 36 in. About 80% of this 29 in/yr

occurs from May through October.

4.1.3.5 Severe Weather Conditions. On the average, two or

three thunderstorm days occur during each of the months from June through

August. The curfacn affects from thunderstorms over the Snake River

Plain are usually much less severe than are experienced east of the Rocky

Mountains or even in the mountains surrounding the plain. Strong wind

gust can occur in the immediate vicinity of thunderstorms. These gusts

are usually quite localized and of short duration. The highest instan-

taneous speed record at 20 ft above the ground was 87 mph from the

west-southwest. Although some hail frequently accompanies the thunder-

storms, damage from hail has not occurred at the INEL.

19

20%

~ter Spring

. —........\ 17cr

)k

)

3% _AM

10% .--10%15% N...•as_N1/4%.„:„., -,... r••

• 20%25%

Summit

5%

10%

20%

Total

s%

—10%.*-15%"•20%

FIGURE 4.1 CFA 20-ft-level Wind Roses

Fdl

1.1$t4 .4.1e P

tIjmuso $ 90 9$ al 23 70 ze

imineamir

20

TABLE 4-2

MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PRECIPITATION AT INELa

Averageb(in.)

Highest(in.)

Lowest(in.)

January 0.81 2.56 Trace

February 0.64 2.40 0.01

March 0.59 1.44 0.07

April 0.78 2.50 0.00

May 1.28 4.42 0.07

June 1.27 3.89 0.02

July 0.40 1.70 0.00

August 0.56 3.27 Trace

September 0.70 3.52 0.00

October 0.54 1.53 0.00

November 0.55 1.53 0.00

December 0.85 3.43 0.05

ANNUALC 9.07 14.40 4.50

Mean unrertainiv

in monthly totalsd +0.07 +0.12 +0.02

a. From January 1950 through December 1982.

b. Average based on data measured from March 1954 through December 1982.

c. Considers only full calendar year.

d. Based on 1950-1982 values.

21

Five funnel clouds (vortex clouds which do not reach the ground) and two

tornadoes (which caused no damage) have been documented in the 23-yr per-

iod of observation at the INEL.

4.2 Geology and Soils

4.2.1 Settinn, The Snaka Rivar Plain ic tha largact rootinuhuc

structural element in southern Idaho. It stretches from the Oregon bor-

der in a curving arc across Idaho to Yellowstone National Park in north-

western Wyoming. It slopes upward from an elevation of about 2,500 ft

at the Oregon border to over 6,500 ft at Henry's Lake near the Montana-

Wyoming border. The plain can be roughly divided lnto eastern and

western parts lying east and west of Bliss, Idaho. The Snake River has

cut a valley through Tertiary basin-fill sediments and interbedded vol-

canic rocks from Bliss west to the Oregon border. The stream drainage

is well developed except in a few areas covered by recent thin flows of

Snake River basalt. East of Bliss, the complexion of the plain changes

as the Snake River carves a verttcal-walled canyon through thick sequen-

ces of Quaternary basalt. Drainage on the plain is in a youthful state.

The central porticu vf thc pleb, i .3 VcDcliglij hi'yhcr then thc OVI101 cud

south edges. The Snake River flows along the southern and southeastern

edges of the plain, pushed south by basalt flows.

Located entirely on the northern side of the eastern Snake River Plain,

the INEL adjoins mountains to the northwest that comprise the northern

boundary of the plain. Three mountain ranges end at the northern and

northwestern boundaries of the INEL Site: the Lost River and Lemhi

Ranges and the Beaverhead Mountains of the Bitterroot Range (see Figure

4.2). Saddle Mountain, near the southern end of the Lemhi Range, reaches

an altitude of 10,795 ft and is the highest point in the area. Birch

Creek, Little Lost River, and Big Lost River all descend southeastward

into the Snake River Plain from the mountains adjacent to the INEL (see

Figure 4.3).

The part of the plain occupied by the INEL Site may be separated into

three minnr physiral suhdivisinnc: a rontral trnugh that extends to the

22

=IGURE 4.2 physiography in the INEL Region

23

a Oa SA eftre Ms us Me sow

Iss se nweic

• •

sht — as"-.18.8

Nhw Smilmi

r

FIGURE 4.3 Major Facilities and Surface Water Features in theINEL Vicinity

24

northeast through the Site, and two flanking slopes that descend to the

trough, one from the mountains to the northwest and the other from a

broad ridge on the plain to the southeast. The slopes on the northwest

flank of the trough are mainly alluvial fans from the mountains and the

valleys of Birch Creek and the Little Lost River; however, some basalt

flows (see Figure 4.4), like that on the west side of the valley of Birch

Creek, have awfvud from the mountains toward the plain. The slopes of

the southeast flank of the trough are basalt flows which spread from an

eruption zone that extends northeastward from Cedar Butte. The lavas

which AruptAd along this zone built up a broad topographic swell that

pushed the Snake River to the southern and southeastern edges of the

plain. Big Southern Butte and Middle and East Buttes are aligned roughly

along this zone; however, they are formed of volcanic rocks older than

the surface basalts of the plain.

The central lowland of the INEL Site broadens to the northeast and joins

the extensive Mud Lake basin. The waters of the Big and Littie Lost

Rivers and Birch Creek drain into thls trough and toward a broad depres-

sion between Howe and Circular Butte. The streams flow through playalike

depressions on the INEL where their WCItCU4 are diaaiwated by accwayc q"d

evaporation. The lowest part of the INEL Site, at an altitude of about

4,755 ft, is in this trough.

4.2.2 Snake River Plain Formation. The Snake River Plain began to

form in mid-Tertiary time. The Pleistocene age (the last million or so

years) has been marked by sporadic outbursts of lavas, which have led to

the accumulation of several thousand feet of basalt on the INEL Site.

The basalt is formed chiefly from fluid (low-viscosity--approximately 1

poise), high-temperature (1650 to 2190°F) pahoehoe lavas. The flows

have been extruded from rifts and from volcanoes whose locations are

rift-controlled. These form layers of hard rock of varying thicknesses,

10 to 100 ft. The physical characteristics and horizontal distribution

of the flows also vary. Unconsolidated material, cinders, and breccia

are interbedded with the basalt. The size and pattern of flows, when

considered in space and time, indicate that individual flows are small

Wti A 'with +ha anfin nlnin And ware cenarated in time bv

25

it30 1124

IXPLANATION

SuMWMMNOWIS

MIRwan

soleievavenom

Oldetrafts

CORtael

IfOQ

FIGURE 4.4 Generalized Geologic Map of the Eastern Snake Rivsr Plain

26

hundreds or thousands of years. Separate flows are interbedded with

sediments of aeolian, lacustrine, and fluvial origins (windblown, lake,

and stream deposits, respectively).

Thus, underlying the plain are composlte layers of interbedded volcanic

and sedimentary rocks, principally basaltic lava flow, and interflow beds

of sedimentary materials. These layers partly fill a basin of older

limestone and volcanic rocks. The older rocks, which are not waterbear-

ing, are exposed in the mountains northwest and southeast of the plain

and presumably underlie all of the plain at depths that may be as great

as 5,000 ft.

Mountain ranges bordering the plain consist of Mesozoic miogeosynclinal

rocks folded during Laramide orogenesis and later uplifted along normal

faults during basin and range tectonism. These ranges terminate abruptly

against both sides of the low-lying basalt and sediment-filled Snake

River Plain. Except for narrow strips of green along the banks of the

Snake River where irrigation makes farming practicable, clumps of dry

sage cover the plain, interrupted by hummocks of basalt flows. Formation

of the plain and filling to an unknown depth with tuffs, lavas, and sed-

iments began in middle Pliocene and apparently continues at present. The

last volcanic eruption at Craters of the Moon, 13 miles southwest of the

INEL Site, occurred about A.D. 400.

4.2.3 Soils. As described previously, a central trough extending

northeastward through the INEL Site intercepts the Big and Little Lost

Rivers and Birch Creek which descend from the mountain ranges northwest

of the Site. The surface soils and mantle rock along the streams are

made up of alluvial sands and gravel of varying thicknesses. These grade

lnto more finely textured sediments toward the terminal ends of the

streams. The surface solls over the remainder of the INEL are formed by

windblown deposits of varying thicknesses. Sandy soils derived from

windworked beach and bar deposits formed in old playa lakes or ponds are

especially common in the northern part of the INEL. In many places, the

basalt is not covered. Local playa areas contain deposlts 10 to 15 ft

thick. Alluvial fans occur along the mountain fronts.

27

4.3 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

4.3.1 Surface Water. Most of the INEL is located in the Pioneer

Basin, an informally named and pooriy defined closed drainage basin.

Surface water at the Site conslsts mainly of streams draining through

intermountain valleys to the northwest and into Pioneer Basin. The major

streams are the Big Lost River, Little Lost River, and Birch Creek (see

Figure 4.3). Local rainfall and snowmelt contribute to surface water,

mainly during the spring months. Most of the flow from the Little Lost

River and Birch Creek is diverted for irrigation purposes prior to reach-

ing the INEL. However, in very high flow years, Birch Creek flows into

the Birch Creek Playa (Playa 4 in Figure 4.3) on the north end of the

INEL and infiltrates into the subsurface.

The Little Lost River flows on site during high-flow years and infil-

trates into the subsurface. The flow of Birch Creek is remarkably uni-

form because it is primarily fed by groundwater inflow. During periods

of extremely rapid thawing and runof!, such as happened in the early

spring of 1969. water from the Birchtreek drainage can become a flood

threat to facilities at Test Area North (TAN) which iS on the southeast

edge of the Birch Creek Playa. The hlgh runoff in 1969 was caused almost

entirely by rapid snowmelt on the lower reach of the Birch Creek valley,

not from the dischArr of Wirth creek, The flow over Highway 22 was

estimated at 500 cfs in April 1969. The average discharge for Birch

Creek is about 57.000 acre-ft/yr. For comparison. the Big Lost River

discharges an average of 210.800 acre-ft/yr. Birch Creek and Little

Lost River have a minimal effect on INEL hydrology. Therefore, most of

the interest in surface water at INEL is directed toward the Big Lost

River.

The Big Lost River flows southeastward through the Big Lost River Basin

past Arco, and passes onto the Eastern Snake River Plain. The river

flows onto the INEL near its southwest boundary, curves to the northeast,

and flows northward to the Big Lost River Playas (sinks). After nearing

the plain, the river continuously loses water by infiltration through the

channel k ..... snot eitime Thas.afnra dannndinn nn dicehares and infil-

28

tration conditions, sometimes flow does not even reach the INEL, and at

other times, it continues as far as Playa 3 or even overflows into Playa

4. As flow approaches Playas 1 and 2, the channel branches into many

tributaries, and the flow spreads over several flooding and ponding

areas.

Storage and diversion systems on the Big Lost River include Mackay Dam

(an earthen structure used primarily for the impoundment of irrigation

water) 30 mi upstream of Arco, several irrigation diversions between

Mackay and the plain, and the INEL flood-diversion dam. The INEL flood

diversion system was built in 1958 to divert high flows on the Big Lost

River that might create flood hazards to INEL facilities. This system

consists of a small dam which diverts flow from the main river channel

into four spraading Aron (a. R, C, and D in Figure 4.3). Nearly all

flow is diverted during winter months to avoid ice jams in the main

river channel. The effectiveness of the INEL flood-control system was

calculated in 1972 by the U.S. Geological Survey by means of mathematical

models. Results indicated that floods in the Big Lost River would have

overflowed the INEL diversion dam about once every 55 years. However,

dikes were raised 6 ft in January and February 1984, providing a diver-

sion system that will be able to contain a flood with an average return

period well in excess of 300 yr.

As part of recent environmentai studies for a new facility at the INEL,

a detailed flood-routing analysis was conducted for a hypothetical fail-

ure of Mackay Dam. Results indicate potential flooding of some locations

on the INEL in •the event of the prohably mavimma flnnd. .111,11)10S

determined flood conditions resulting from an assumed inflow to Mackay

Reservoir equal to the probable maximum flood for the watershed and sub-

sequent failure of Mackay Dam. The failure mode was assumed to be over-

topping and subsequent breaching of the earthen structure. Figure 4.5

illustrates the approximately extent of the flood inundating for the

probably maximum flood conditions analyzed. It should be noted that

Figure 4.5 not only depicts a conservative estimate of the probable max-

imum flood, but it was accomplished before the INEL flood diversion sys-

tem was upgraded; a physical change that would increase the system's

ability to handle high flows.

29

FIGURE 4.5 Base Case Inundation Map

4.3.2 Subsurface Water. The Snake River Plain Aquifer (see Figure4.6), which flows beneath the INEL, is approximately 206 mi long, 30 to60 mi wide and covers an area of about 9600 m12. The aquifer is

composed of a series of thin basalt flows interbedded with sediments of

aeolian, fluvial, and lacustrine origin. Aquifer permeability consists

of lntergranular and intertrystalline pore spaces, fractures, flssures,

and other voids. The hydraulic properties of the aqulfer are not

spatially homogenous and the direction of local groundwater movement is

complicated. However, the overall flow pattern is to the south and

southwest.

The aquifer could contain 2 x 109 acre-ft of water, of which about 5 x

108 acre-ft are recoverable. The aquifer discharges about 6.5 x 106

acre-ft annually through springs in the area from Milner to Bliss, and

from Blackfoot to American Falls Reservoir in the region west of

Pocatello. Groundwater pumpage for irrigation totals about 1.5 x 106

acre-ft annually. The dlscharges from the springs significantly

contribute to the flow of the Snake River downstream of Twin Falls,

Idaho.

Groundwater flows to the south and southwest at 5-20 ft/day. The

average slope of the aquifer is about 0.2% from the northeast to

southwest. The aquifer transmissivity, measured in wells on the INEL,

ranges from 3 x iu to i.6 x lu gallons per day per ft tgpotrti. atorage

coefficients range from 0.001 to 0.06. Generalized altitude contours are

shown in Figure 4.7. Depth to the water table from land surface ranges

free Ahnut 200 ft in tna newt/meet Earner af the INEL te 1000 ft in the

southeast corner. At the ICPP, the depth to the aquifer is about 450 ft.

In 1983, the entire INEL water supply was provided by 24 production wells

which tapped the Snake River Plain Aqulfer. The wells pumped a total of

1.8 x 109 gallons for the year. Over half of the volume pumped was

returned to the surface or subsurface by waste disposal operations. An

additional unknown amount also returns underground by infiltration from

lawn irrigation and other water uses. A significant amount (about one

third) of the pumped water is consumed by evaporation and transpiratlon

31

4r rs...1

I I N1

I

1. I\ r

I 11/4,I.: hitto 10 asienit

I 1. we

I Sit Wage

i

IMMO‘hir APOloairriato boundary of Ms..... —Gailit-n GSM matt main

\ New Clenerailaed groundwater nowlino (front Mundorff et at.. 11114)

\Z.

krese;\

t ••

ilnakeRliferMagennan _

Wit

Twin Pe11711 "Wir%

FIGURE 4.6 Location of Genoralized Grouodwater Flow lines Hypothesizedfor the Snake Rive Plalq_Aettifer

32

•els

0 ••

• 11 4110

•-

•••

0 • •40 0• ••

net

•on

4TIC

SILO

.40

444,

tiPLAIgATiOn

INIL Sounipiry

011,12

0320 W.11, NM in 9000 00 eiter

---000 CORRAUR O:OR tRO *ter cccccim feet 000 ROO SOO10*I ryr Jut, IOU

CORtOUR i00001.

20 fest

rjtlyrU e- 0044 000 R000040

ttot Crictt• ey ■

FIGURE 4.7 Generalized Altitude Contours on the Regional Water TableINEL and Vicinity 33

to the atmosphere, principally from reactor cooling towers. It has been

calculated that roughly 2,000 cfs flows beneath the INEL Site at its

widest point which is equivalent to 6.4 x 1010 ft3/yr. Therefore,

in 1983 the INEL pumped less than 1% of the INEL underfiow and less than

0.1% of the volume that surfaces as springs down gradient from the Site.

Recharge to the Snake River Plain Aquifer is primarily in the form of

infiltration from the rivers and streams draining the areas to the north,

northwest, and northeast of the Eastern Snake River Plain. Significant

rm....karma from i n c ... flnum in the Rig Lect River has caused a regional

rise in the groundwater table over much of the INEL. Water levels in

some wells rise as much as 6 ft within a few months following very high

flows in the river.

Perched water tables occur beneath the surface but above the aqulfer in

areas where water infiltrating the ground surface is delayed by layers

of fine-grained sediments with low permeability. Perched water occurs

below the Big Lost River, the waste-seepage ponds at the Test Reactor

Area (TRA), the ICPP and other areas of the INEL.

Two such bodies of water have been identified in the past at the ICPP.

One resulted from water released when the ICPP injection well casing4.6.. kasha a* Aamok .41 kaleas +kg' ens...Fara

101 ICU • Inc tup unc !nay waa CI my'. gal Ids rine lie leCnIn .assliuu, •

The body of water formed a cone-shaped lens about 165 ft thick extending

4000 ft in radius from the well. Repair of the well lining, and

discontinuation of the use of the well have likely shrunk the size of

the body.

A second body of perched water was formed west of CPP-603. This body was

caused by discharges of water to a seepage pit west of CPP-603, which was

terminated long ago. This body of water was located about 22 ft below

the surface and was 30 ft deep. The new percolation ponds in the same

general area have formed perched water bodies.

34

4.4 Air and Water Quality

4.4.1 Air Quality. Air pollutant emissions which result from

industrial operations at INEL or from surrounding communities are small.

In addition, atmospheric dispersion at INEL is not constrained by topo-

graphy, and the site has no significant air stagnation problems. The air

quality at INEL is very good; data available indicates thn air quality

is well within Primary and Secondary Standards as established by EPA.

Since air quality is within established guidelines, no parts of the INEL

have been designated as non-attainment areas by the State of Idaho. The

closest such area to the INEL is Pocatello, about 50 miles to the

south. The area of Pocatello has been identified as a non-attainment

area for not meeting the total suspended particulate standards. However,

this is a localized condition and does not impact air quality at the

INEL.

4.4.2 Water Quality. The\chemical quality of groundwater of the

INEL reflects the different sourees of recharge and the minerals dissol-

ved from rocks with which it comes in contact. Chemical analyses of sur-

face waters from the Big Lost River, Little Lost River, and Birch Creek

are given in Table 4.3. These rivers flow through fractured carbonate

rnrkc rnncicting of relatively soluble calcite and dolomite. As a re-

sult, surface waters from this region contain calcium and magnesium bi-

carbonate. Small quantities of sodium, potassium and silica are also

present.

Water from the Snake River Plain Aquifer containing a relatively larger

percentage of sodium and potassium underlies the eastern half of the

INEL. Some of this water originates in the mountains to the north and

northeast. The mountainous recharge areas are underlain by silicic vol-

canic rocks which are much higher in sodium, potassium, and silica than

are the rocks to the west.

35

TABLE 4.3

CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SURFACE WASTE AND GROUNDWATERFROM THE REGION AROUND THE INEL

Analyses

Big Lost RiverNear Mbore, ID

08/27/63(1020 h)

Li ttle Lost RiverNear Howe, ID09/03/63(1020 h)

Birch CreekSouth of Blue Dome

09/03/63(1145 h)

Medicine Lodge CreekNear Medicine Lodge

09/03/63(1305 h)

Well 2N26E 36aa1Near Arco, ID08/30/51

(Depth: 57.g m)

Silica 12.0 12.0 8.8 18.0 24.0Calcium 48.0 39.0 39.0 64.0 67.0Magnisium 11.0 15.0 14.0 17.0 18.0Sodium 6.9 6.7 5.0 8.6 9.0Potassium 1.4 1.2 1.0 2.5 1.8Bicarbonate 192.0 177.0 164.0 233.0 274.0Carbonate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sulfate 18.0 16.0 25.0 48.0 24.0Chloride 3.5 8.8 4.5 6.0 7.5Fluoride 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3

CO Nitrate 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 1.7n Specific

conductance(mhos at 25°C)

pH (pH units) 7.7 7.7 8.0 7.8 7.6

Residue onevaporationat 180°C

191.0 192.0 186.0 284.0 289.0

Temperature °C 12.2 14.4 12.8 13.0

A. Analyses in mg/L, except as indicated.

The waters from the Snake River Plain Aquifer on the INEL are relatively

low in dissolved constituents (an average of slightly more than 200

mg/L). The low mineralization reflects the moderate-to-abundant precip-

itation 111 the mountainous ♦source a, , the f extensive de-

posits containing soluble minerals, and the low solubility of the basalt

that forms the principal aquifer system. The water in the aquifer is of

high quality and with modest treatment can be made suitable for most

uses. Table 4.4 provides the high, low, and average chemical analysis

values for groundwater samples taken at various locations in the area of

the INEL. The data are based upon single-sample results from 35 differ-

ent wells. The individual samplings occurred at various dates from 1951

to 1968.

The Snake River Plain Aquifer is the only source of water used at the

INEL. Water pumping and the effect on water levels in the aquifer are

closely monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey. Pumping has very lim-

ited and localized effect un annual water-level Lhanyea in the aquifer

in the vicinity of the INEL because the amount pumped is a small portion

of the total storage and recharge.

4.5 Environmentally Sensitive Conditions

4.5.1 Prntection of Ground Water Quality. The single most sensi-

tive environmental characteristic associated with hazardous waste dispo-

sal practices at the INEL is the Snake River Plain Aquifer. As described

in Section 4.3.2, this vast aquifer underlies the entire INEL and pro-

vides all of the industrial, irrigation and culinary water for the Site.

The down-gradient portion of the aquifer also provides the primary source

of water for the arid plain area stretching southwest from the Site to

the area around Hagerman where the aquifer surfaces in springs. At that

point, the surfacing water contributes significantly to the flow in the

Snake River. The aquifer is considered a valuable natural resource of

4.kaunw State and its contamination could have far-rearhing imparts.

37

TABLE 4.4

Chemical Analyses of the Snake River Aquiferin the Vicinity of the INEL

Analysesa Average High Low

Dissolved Solids

Ca 39.6 93.0 26.0Mg 15.6 43.5 3.9Na 13.2 42.0 6.3K 3.0 6:9 1,2HCO3 162.0 218.0 81.0CO3 0.5 9.8 0.0SO4 24.9 57.0 9.1C1 19.7 160.0 6.5mn_....:3 2.9 29.0 0.5F 0.3 0.9 0.03SiO3 25.8 39.0 15.0Fe 0.08 0.52 0.0Hardness as CaCO3

Total 161.8 368.0 94.0Noncarbonate 26.7 215.0 0.0

pH (no units) 7.9 8.4 7.6Specific Conductance 356.0 963.0 225.0( mhos at 250C)

Residue on evaporation at 1800C 226.0 583.0 153.0Temperature when collected (°C) 12.8 16.7 10.0

d In mg/L unless otherwise noted.

38

The U.S. Geological Survey routinely monitors the Snake River Plain Aqu-ifer around the INEL and has documented the migration of radionuclide

contamination caused by operations here. A limited number of nonradio-

active parameters are considered in the routine sampling; their migration

has also been well documented. Concentrations of tritium, which is not

diminished by sorption on earth minerals, have been detected in the aqu-

ifer as far as 9 mi down gradient from their point of disposal;

resulting from a migration that may have started as early as 1952. Other

radionuclides have migrated shorter distances. Some chemical wastes that

have been measured, such as sodium, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate, have

aiso formed waste plumes. However, none of these wastes can be detected

more than about 5 mi from the disposal site. Radionuclide plume size

and concentrations are controlled by aquifer flow conditions, the

quantity discharged, radioactive A4CaY, snrptinn, dilntinn hv disparcinn,

and perhaps other chemical reactions. Chemical wastes are subject to the

same processes except for radioactive decay.

4.5.2 Seismology. Prior to 1970 the INEL was classified in

Seismic Zone 2 of the Uniform BOlding Code of the International

Conference of Building Officials. In 1970 the classification was

changed to the higher-risk Zone 3, which imposed more stringent design

criteria on facilities constructed thereafter. Data cataloged by the

national Geophysical and Solar Terrestrial Data Center of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicated that regionai

earthquakes are historically centered around, but do not occur on, the

Eastern Snake River Plain. However, ground motion produced by

earthquakes in the mountains can be ♦t...mitted onto the plain.

The largest historical earthquake event in the Idaho seismic zone, which

lies north and northwest of the INEL. occurred on October 28, 1983, and

had a Richter magnitude of 7.3. The epicenter for this event was located

along the western flank of Borah Peak in the Lost River Range approxim-

ately 40 mi northwest of Arco. Another major earthquake occurred August

17, 1959 at Hebgen Lake, approximately 100 mi northeast of the INEL and

had a Richter magnitude of 7.1. Shocks from both earthquakes were felt

at the INEL, but neither caused structural or safety-related damage.

39

The data compiled by NOAA and other studies accomplished since 1970 ap-

pear to suggest that the plain is rather aseismic. Although the plain

is certainly not free of seismic risk, many had felt all factors pointed

toward thare heing lots risk than thP hIno 3 rlaccifiratinn whuld imply.

Therefore, in October 1981 the INEL and surrounding area were again re-

classified, this time back to a Seismic Zone 2.

4.5.3 Flooding Potential. The potential for flooding problems on

the INEL was discussed in Section 4.3.1. In 1962 and again in 1969 rapid

snow melt and heavy precipitation caused flooding in the southwest corner

of the INEL. Since those events, significant work has been done on the

Big Lost River drainage to prevent flooding problems, but the possibility

of diversion structure or upstream dam failure, although slight, does

exist. Flooding in the northern area of the INEL from Birch Creek is

also a potential problem. With much of the INEL located in a closed

drainage basin, the possibility of surface water accumulations in some

areas of the Site is of some concern.

4.5.4 Endangered Species. two species of milk vetch currently

undpr Federal review for endangered or threatened status were found on

the INEL (Astragalus ceramicus apus and Astragalus purshli var., ophi-

genes). These species were located during a 1981-1982 survey of rare

plants on the INEL conducted by the University of Idaho. Three taxa on

the Idaho State Watch List are also found on the INEL, and four other

species were found and recommended for the list. Taxa on the Idaho State

Watch List are considered rare and of special interest, but their popu-

lations are not in jeopardy and they may be common elsewhere.

The bald eagle and the American peregrin falcon are the only species ob-

served on the INEL that are ciassified as endangered or threatened wild-

life. Several bald eagles (endangered status) usually winter on or near

the INEL. The peregrin falcon (endangered status) has been observed in-

frequently -. ans. ..... nkont4nn nf +ha TIM faunal endwise nf wild-

life observed on the INEL are of special concern to the Idaho Department

of Fish and Game and the Bureau of Land Management. These species in-

clude the ferrudinoos hawk, merlin, falcon, osprey, burrowing owl, white-

40

faced ibis, long-billed curlew, and bobcat. However, only the ferrugin-

ous hawk, burrowing owl, long-billed curlew and bobcat occur regularly

on the INEL.

No endangered species are present within the ICPP fenced area.

A C 04Alas4^21 Dm+htflueJIV1 0.INIUGII I %A ylr

The biological pathway of primary concern at the INEL is through the

water of the aquifer underlying the Site. This is because of the aqu-

ifer's extent and its wide usage on site and off site (down gradient).

This water is used extensively as a source for humans, animals, and ir-

rigation. On the other hand, naturally occurring surface waters on site

have no significant downstream usage and terminate on site where they

either evaporate or become part of the aquifer by infiltration.

Another biological pathway results from process waters being discharged

to evaporation/seepage ponds which are then used by animals. This path-

way can be extended to humans if game animals use these waters and subse-

quently move off site won they are nar naucu Gnu I.VnalUMCU by hunters.

This potential transport of radioactivity to individuals has been studied

for many years. These studies suggest that ingestion of meat from water-

fowl that have resided on contaminated ponds presents the most important

pathway through game animals. Transport by mourning doves, sage grouse

and antelope residing for some time on site and eventually being killed

and consumed has also been studied.

Air transport and direct vegetation uptake of contaminants also present

potential biological pathways. Air dispersion of dry pond or spill sedi-

ments, subsurface contaminants brought up by burrowing animals, and other

such materials, as well as their uptake by vegetation, are possible. The

fact that the INEL is remote and has no permanent population and no

agricultural usage makes the signifivaouv vf these potential pathways

minimal.

41

5.0 FINDINGS

5.1 Past Waste Activity Review

The ICPP has routinely handled radioactive materials, as well as

potentially hazardous chemicals. Although waste handling processes have

changed since the ICPP first began operation, the necessity for safely

handling radioactive materials was recognized before operations began.

Most wastes at the ICPP consist of radioactive materials which are col-

lected, processed, concentrated, and stored. The waste process treats

streams so that there is a clean stream suitable for release to the

environment and a waste stream which is stored on site. A11 waste

streams are routinely monitored for radioactive contamination.

Waste areas (units) identified during this study are divided into the

following three groups:

1. Radioactive waste - contaminated only with radioactive material;

2. Mixed waste - contaminated both with radioactivity and hazardous

materials, such as acids or other chemicals;

3. Chemical waste - contaminated only with hazardous materials and

no radioactivity.

The waste units are described in detail in the following section. Units

have been grouped together according to the type of waste discharged and

the geographical areas at the ICPP.

5.2 Disposal Units

5.2.1 Radioactive. Units which received only radioactive material

are described in this section. Units where the received material con-

tained acidic solutions or potentially hazardous chemicals in addition

to radioactivity are described in Section 5.2.2.

42

5.2.1.1 CPP Fuel Storage Basin Area. Fuel elements sched-

uled for reprocessing at the ICPP were, in the past, stored in the CPP-

603 Fuel Storage Basin. Use of this basin is presently being phased out

as the fuel is transferred to the new fuel storage basin. Fission pro-

ducts in the fuel stored in the basin sometimes migrate or leak into the

basin water, thus contaminating the basin water. Throughout the time the

basin has been in use, various methods have been used for cleanup and

disposal of the fuel basin water. Waste releases associated with this

area are described in the following paragraphs:

1. When the basin was first constructed, a filtration system (known

,tY as the BIF filter) was included. Basin water was recirculated

continuously through the BIF filter which was coated with dia-

tnmareons oarth filter Aid. The filter was hackwachod pprindi-

cally, and the backwash slurry of filter aid and water was

pumped to a concrete settling vault (CPP-301) 5 ft by 5 ft and

23 ft deep. Supernate from the vault was drained to a dry well

(CPP-303). In 1962, a horizontal settling basin (CPP-741) was

constructed and effluent flowed to an open dry well

(MAH-SFE-SW-048). Use of the concrete settling vault was

discontinued at this time.

Use of the horizontal settling basin was discontinued in 1966.

Totai activity discharged is estimated to be about 6 curies in

700,000 gal of water. Later use of the CPP-301 settling vault

occurred, but the effluent was collected in a tank and sent to

the P. Waste (PFW) n r fnr treatment

rather than to the ground.

Some cleanup of the CPP-301 contaminated filter aid deposits

began in 1977, but contamination spread into the CPP-740

settling basin area. A dirt backfill was installed in the

CPP-740 basin area to prevent further spread of contamination.

Preliminary studies of the areas as part of an ongoing

decontamination program, have been completed, and the BIF

filter has been removed to the RWMC.

43

#

*3

2. A French drain west of cPP-603 was used in the 1960's to dispose

of basin water. Nitrate and chloride concentrations in the ba-

sin were controlled by discharging water from the basin to the

French drain and adding rlean water to the hacin. Tha

discharged water was radiologically contaminated. The French

drain was decommissioned late in the 1960's when the Graphite

Fuel Storm Facility (GFSF) was constructed. The drain was

removed, packaged and sent to the Radioactive Waste Management

Complex (RWMC) at the INEL. Low-level contaminated dirt was

either backfilled in place or buried near the dry fuel storage

area. The site is now under the GFSF building and is

inaccessible.

3. A temporary contaminated equipment storage area existed

southeast of the CPP-603 fuel storage area. This facility was

located south of the railroad tracks and north and west of a

existing perimeter road which curved around the area. The area

was approximately 100 by\ 500 ft and was used to store old and

abandoned equipment, most of which was radiologically con-

tAminatad. A trenrh through the area was used to store some of

the more highly radiologically contaminated or classified mater-

ial. The temporary contaminated equipment storage area was

decommissioned in the late 1970's, and the buried material

taken to the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC).

Also, much of the contaminated soil was removed and sent to the

RWMC. About 6 to 12 in. of clean soil and gravel was placed

over the area. However, the extreme eastern area of this unit

still contains some radioactive contamination; radiation

readings average about 6mR/hr.

44 4. In May 1953, the soil around the settling tank was found to be

contaminated. The contaminated soil was removed.

44

In September 1954, the ground surface near the settling basin

was found to be contaminated. Apparently a valve on the line

from the fuel storage basin to the settling basin developed a

leak, and the settling basin filled and overflowed. The con-

taminated soii was removed to the RWMC.

6. In the 1960's, a trench was constructed east of the fuel storage-11"76 basin to allow discharge of basin water for maintumm‘c •in the

basin. About 300,000 gal of water containing 40 ppm chloride

and 10-3

to 10-4

Ci/ml of activity was discharged to this

trenrth Contaminated soil was left in place.

41(

4,%

7. In September 1972, steam condensing from the vent line of the

basin waste collection tank contaminated a 15 by 25 ft area

northwest of CPP-642. An estimated one curie of activity was

released. The area downwind of the release was also

contaminated over an area about 10 by 20 ft. The contaminated

soil was removed and sent to the RWMC.

\8. An underground carbon steel line from the basin water filter

system faiied in April 1973. Approximately 21,000 gal of water

leaked to the soil. Contaminated soil was left in place.

Coil rnntaminatad tn a loyal nf ahnnt 2 R/hr at cnntact was

found near the northeast corner of the south basin in July

1975. The contamination apparently resulted when a sump

overflowed. The surface soil was removed and sent to the

RWMC. Some contamination may still be present in the area.

10. In December 1976, about 800 gal of water from the fuel storage

basin drained onto the floor from a plastic pipeline break.

Some of the water drained through the door and contaminated a

small area of asphalt and soil. The area was decontaminated.

45

11. In February 1978, up to 500 gal of waste containing sludge and

# it basin water was released to the ground near the basin waste

hold tank during basin cleanup activities. The contaminated

soil was cleaned up. During the same cleanup activities quan-

tities of water were released to the ground when some containers

holding the sludge and water froze. Upon melting, waste was

released to the ground. This waste also was cleaned up.

12. In May 1984, contaminated paint chips from a painted, concrete

agnipmant stnrago pad warp fnii 0 in thP hatin arPa. ThP pad had

been painted to control radiation spread. The chips, pad, and

any contaminated soil under and around the pad have been removed

and sent to the RWMC.

5.2.1.2 Other ICPP Areas.

13. Waste Calcining Facility (WCF). In October 1976, the solid

3 13 transport system carrying\calcine from the WCF to the calcine

solid storage facility becime plugged. During an attempt to

clear the cyclone, the cycione momentariiy pressurized and

released calcine to the environment. An area of about 300

ft2 was contaminated. The release was estimated to consist22A —r4 as e—cin AA ...r4 On-1A4 toi mr4 ni re-127

VI Ca. IIIVI VI ..11 —JW, TV VIVI VI MU— IVV, allu .F.JV 114%01 VI V4— IV/o

The area was decontaminated, and covered with a layer of clean

soil.

14. From 1951 till 1982 a sewage treatment plant, located west of

41d4 CPP-664, served most of the buildings present at the ICPP.

Sewage drain lines led to an Imhoff tank for digestion. Sludge

from the tank went to sludge drying beds, and the liquid

effluent from the Imhoff tank flowed to a trickling filter and

then to an outfall pit (Section 5.2.2.3, #39).

Because of low level radioactivety, sludge from the drying beds

was removed and sent to the RWMC. The drain tiles and the

outfall line were left in piace and may be contaminated. Con-

46

tamination is believed to have come from personnel decontamina-

tion showers which drained to the sewage treatment plant.

15 Before the mid 1970s, waste solvent consisting primarily of

kerosene and tributyl phosphate degradation products from fuel15 reprocessing, was burned in a solvent burner located near the

main ICPP stack. This solvent was contaminated with low quan-

tities of plutonium (0.1 Cl/L). Gases from the combustion

process were routed directly to the ICPP main stack.

Several releases were associated with the solvent burner. In

September 1958, approximately 0.25 Ci of long-lived particulate

activity was released from the solvent burner through the ICPP

main stack. Additional contamination around tne burner site

resulted from a continual leakage of combustion products from

the burner flue when the system was in operation. In March

1974, fluid was fnund leaking frnm a flange nn tnp nf the

solvent burner hold tank, LE-102. The contaminated soil was

placed in drums and r'emoved. The burner, concrete pad, and

soil under the pad have been removed and sent to the RWMC.

16. During the transfer of solution from a service waste diversion

41to tank (WM-181) to the PEW evaporator, a leakaoccurred on the

flange of the diversion valve. About 25 fe of soil became

contaminated with 500 mCi of Sr-90, 500 mCi of Cs-137, and 130

mCi of Ce-144. The release, which occurred in January 1976,

was calculated to be about 12 gal of waste. The contaminated

soil was left in place and covered with about 3 ft or more of

clean soil.

17. A mound of contaminated soil is located near the Peach Bottom

i413 Fuel Storage area. About 1000 yd3 of soil contaminated to

the low mR/hr (<10 mR/hr) range is stored in this area. This

soil was excavated during construction on the CPP-603 fuel

storage area south basin in 1955 and was contaminated from

basin water disposed to the ground.

47

18. A bottled gas storage building (CPP-616) used until the mid

.4•151 19701s, existed in the area where the CPP-668 office building

now exists. Gas storage cylinders from throughout the plant

were brought here for storage. Occasionally, some of these

cylinders were contaminated. Contaminated cylinders were

cleaned up, either at the site or at the decontamination facil-

ity. When clean, the cylinders were shipped off site. Any con-

tamination has been cleaned up before construction in the area

began.

19. On March 9, 1978 a leak developed in the waste transfer line

between 5FE-16 (Basin Liquid Waste Tank [CPP-603]) and WL-102

(ornrAtt equipment waste rPEW1 evaporator 1CFP-6041). This

underground line leak resulted in a discharge to the soil of

1-2 Ci of activity in 2000 gallons of liquid. Radiation

readings ranged from 50 mR/hr to 3.5 R/hr. The leak occurred

adjacent to the southwest corner of the Peach Bottom fuel

storage area. Approximatqly 3 ft of topsoil was removed from

the contaminated location, rest of contamination left in place

and covered with clean soil. The line was abandoned in place

after a new line was installed.

20. ICPP road contamination has occurred because of liquids being

spilled during transport; for example, from water dripping from

the surface of a contaminated cask. These releases were minor

in terms of quantity of mai:Arial relPagem At W011 at in tPrmg

of area contaminated. These spills have been cleaned up when

discovered or fixed in place with asphalt or other media.

21. Many pipelines connecting the various processes and facilities

have failed from aging, corrosion or other causes. Some of

these lines have been abandoned in place as they have been

replaced with new lines. The location of these lines has been

documented.8

48

22. Radioactive liquid waste from other INEL sites was routinely

solL° trucked to the ICPP where it was unloaded for evaporation in

the ICPP PEW evaporator. Occasional spills at the unloading

facility have been cleaned up ♦as they occurred.

23. Plant records show that solid waste including paper, rags, and

A ill, contaminated metals was collected in a waste bin located on the.r •ramp south of CPP-601 and then sent to the RWMC for disposal.

When the ICPP first began operation, contamination of the waste

bin area was not unusual. Any contamination originally present

has since been removed.

24. During ICPP operation, releases of radioactivity to the

atmosphere have occurred. Releases included iodine, noble

gases, ruthenium, and mixed fission products. Because of the

short radiological half-life of the material involved, most

radioactivity has decayed. In Ug.I.VLICI- 1 lACO7;4,0, cell ventilation

filters at the Fuel Element Cutting Facility at the CPP-603

Fuel Storage Basin failed, releasing 1200 curies of particulate

material ta tha Atmnephara Land adjacent to the facility was

contaminated, and some contamination was carried onto the

roadways within the ICPP. The contamination was cleaned up.

5.2.2 Mixed Wastes

5.2.2.1 ICPP Injection Well (#25) (MAH-FE-304). For many

years, an injection well was used at the ICPP for disposal of cooling

water and condensate. This well is still available for use on an

emergency basis but has not been used routinely since February 1984. The

waste discharged to the well contained minor quantities of radioactivity

generally below existing guidelines. About 97% of the activity has been

tritium, a hydrogen isotope with a 12.3-year half life. The well is

p.csc”tly 560 ft deep and extends Inn ft intn the aquifer. The well

casing is a 12-in. diameter carbon steel pipe lined with a 10-in.

diameter high-density polyethylene pipe, perforated within the aquifer

(450 to 555 ft below the surface).

49

Large quantities of water containing small quantities of radioactivity

have been discharged to the well since ICPP began operation. Chemicals,

generally within drinking water concentration standards, also have

occasionally been discharged. Waste discharges are monitored and

sampled to assure that discharges are within appropriate guidelines.

During the ICPP operating life, accidental discharges have occurred

which are described briefly in the following paragraphs.

a. On July 25, 1954, the contents of tank WG-100 were discharged

tn thP Well via the Service Waste System. A post-discharge

analysis showed that 51 mCi of beta activity was released in

244,000 gal of waste. This exceeded the guidelines at the time.

b. In August 1956, approximately one curie of long-lived fission

activity was released to the ICPP well.

c. In December 1958, about 29 curies of activity, including seven

curies of Sr-90, were released to the ICPP disposal well from

an unknown source in the plant.

d. In September 1969, two separate releases resulted in about 19

curies of fission product activity being released to the ICPP

uall through drain --Mons from dissnlvor tranefar

steam lines to the service waste headers. Released activity

included Cs-137, Cs-134, Ce-144, and Sb-125. The total volume

of water released was 3.28 million gal.

e. In December 1969, two releases occurred in which the quantity

of Sr-90 released was higher than expected because the

concentratlon of Sr-90 in the waste was higher than normal.

About 1 curie of activity, consisting of 30% Sr-90 was released.

f. In March 1981; the discharge of mercury to the weii exceeded

0.2 mg/L (0.207 mg/L), the present EPA Toxicity limit. This is

the only month since specific sampling of toxic materials began

that the limit was exceeded. No evidence " maneuru mi nrafinn

within the aquifer has been found.

50

g• Fuel uil (Bunker C oil) used previously in the ICPP steam gener-

ators was heated prior to use by steam coils inside the fuel oil

tanks. Steam flowing inside these coils then was condensed and

discharged to the Service Waste System which in turn discharged

to the injection well. At one time, a leak developed in the

steam coils, and fuel oil may have entered the steam lines and

in turn may have been discharged to the well. No information

is available on the volume of oil that might have been

discharged.

During the life of the ICPP, it is estimated that a total of 10,152 cur-

ies (approximately 97% tritium) have been released in 1.1 x 1010 gal

nf water, Rerance nf radinartive decay, the radioactivitV on December

31, 1984 was estimated to be 4,110 curies. Annual releases and

radioactive content are shown in Table 5.1.

In addition to releases to the injection well, leaks in lines associated

with the collection system for\the well have occurred. In January 1970,

the line from CPP-709, the service waste monitoring station, to the in-

jection well was found to be leaking. The line was abandoned in place.

Any released material would have been essentially pure water.

5.2.2.2 Tank Farm Area. Acidic high-level liquid wastes

from fuel reprocessing activities are temporarily stored in stainless

steel tanks inside concrete vaults until the waste can be converted to a

solid. The ♦tank farm area contains a cnmplev piping n A two rk fnr

transferring waste between tanks and to the calcining facilities.

Various leaks in these underground pipes and releases from other sources

have occurred throughout the years the plant has been operated. These

releases are classified as mixed wastes because of the radioactive and

acidic nature of the released materials and other chemicals (i.e.,

mercuric nitrate, fluorides, sulfates) which may be present in the waste.

51

TABLE 5.1ANNUAL RELEASES TO THE ICPP INJECTION WELL (7)

Year(s)

Volume(millions of liters) Curies(b)

Curies Remainingat 12-31-84After Decay

1952-74 25,876 7651 2220

1975 1040 45 26

1976 1346 45 28

1977 1583 736 482

1978 1620 321 220

1979 1451 227 168

1980 1513 111 86

1981 2019 362 294

1982 2045 214 185

1983 2058 437 398

1984(a) 296 3 13

1985(c) 0.32 < 0.01 < 0.01

Total 40847.32 \Total 10,152 Total 4,110

a. Flow to the ICPP Injection Well was officially terminated on Feb. 9,

1984.

b. The majority (approximately 97%) of the radioactivity is caused by

the presence of tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen which has a

haif iife of 12.26 years.

c. This volume resulted from emergency use of the Injection Well on

1 nrrAvinne_

52

Waste releases associated with the tank farm are described in the

following paragraphs:

26. In February 1954, a bucket of liquid waste from inside tank WM-

180 was accidently dumped on the ground near the tank. A spot

3 by 6 ft was contaminated. The contaminated spot was cleaned

up and was removed to the RWMC.

27. In August 1960, the area north of CPP-604 was found to be con-

dt16- Laminated from a ruptured line. About 9 yds3 of contaminated

soil were removed to the RWMC.

28. In May 1964, a steam flushing operation was being conducted to

remove radioactive contaminatinn frnm *lira° pipolindat to allow

their tie-in to new lines. A leak developed in a hose coupling,

and contaminated fluid and steam was dispersed over an area of

about 3 to 4 acres inside the plant fence. About 10 acres

outside the plant fence was also found to be contaminated above

background. The containated area was cleaned up. The radio-

active material released consisted of Sr-90 (18%), Ru-106 (3%),

Ce-144 (57%), and Cs-137 (22%).

29. On April 4, 1974, excavation work in the tank farm area east of

42.1- CPP-604 uncovered contaminated dirt reading up to 25 R/hr.

Investigation showed that a 12-in. carbon steel pressure relief

vent line had corroded badly. It was found that another vent

line and other a4a_lne k.A kaan AA A eke. lino AnA41V-1/14 fflaW

waste solutions had backed up into the pressure relief vent

line through the stack drain. An estimated 1000 to 3000 curies

of activity, consisting primarily of Cs-137 and Sr-90 with

trace amounts of Cs-134 and Eu-154, were released. An

estimated 225 yd3 of soil were removed and taken to the

RWMC. Total liquid leaking to the soil was estimated to be

about 300 gal. The leak was determined to possibly have

started as early as in the 1960's following startup of the

53

WCF. Although most of the contaminated soil was removed to the

RWMC, small amounts of residual activity remained in place or

wat Head for backfill.

30. On October 1, 1974, contaminated soil reading up to 40 R/hr was

4 18 discovered adjacent to a high-level liquid waste line about 10

ft south of Tank WM-181 vault near valve box A-6. Investigation

showed that a 0.15-in. diameter hole had inadvertently been

drilled through the pipe wall during installation of the pipe

encasement system in 1955. When the pipe became more than half

full, liquid leaked out. About 120 gal of waste containing as

much as 6000 curies may have been released. Approximately 60

yd" of contaminated soil were removed to tne RWMC. Other

less-contaminated soil (approximately 3,000 curies) was left in

place. The release occurred about seven feet below ground.eeine4c0aA nioimaniflu nf re..117 ou_inx

ICICO3CU OUUIVOUJ UWIlaWaiWCw ri.mwwwlj w. yr nw uww,

Ce-144, and 5r-90. Eleven test pipes were driven into the area

of contaminated soil to determine the extent of contamination

and to define the zone of contamination below the pipe

encasement. The area of remaining contamination is

approximately 9 ft in diameter by 2 ft deep (approximately 5

yd3).

31. On November 14, 1974 contaminated solution was found seeping

.flM from two separate areas (one north and the other west) at the

base of the main stack. The soil had contamination readings up

to 1500 R/hr. The contaminated soil for both areas (about 9

ft2, no more than a few inches deep) was removed and sent to

RWMC. The area has since been built over when the stack base

was expanded.

12. In inns, 1075. rontxmioatad %nil was found near valve box 8-9.

430 Contaminated soil from a 20 ft2 area was removed and sent to

the RWMC.

54

33. In September 1975, contaminated soil was found south of tank WM-

431. 183 in the tank farm area. The contaminated soil zone was ap-

proximately 150 by 20 ft along a backfilled pipe at a depth of

12 to 25. The discharged waste, estimated to be about 14,000

gal, apparently came from a corroded carbon steel line in the

radioactive liquid waste transfer system. About 30,000 curies

of radioactivity, consisting primarily of Cs-i37, Sr-90, and

Y-90 were released. Because of the quantity of contaminated

soil (about 800 yd3) and the depth of the contamination, it

was recommended that the soil be left in place. The contami-

nated soil zone has been mapped based on samples obtained at

the time.

34. In December 1976, contaminated soil to 2 R/hr. was found

43;,southwest of valve box B-4. The contamination appeared to have

resulted from leakage from the stand pipe adjacent to the valve

box. Soil located 50 ft northwest of the same valve box was

also found to be contaminated to 2 R/hr. The contaminated soil

was left in place.

35. During the summer of 1983, contaminated soil was encountered

33 when work began to replace tank WL-102 north of CPP-604. About

14,000 ya- of contaminated soil was removed. Any soil

contaminated to levels in excess of 30 mR/hr (approximately

2,000 yd3) was boxed and sent to the RWMC for disposal. Soil

r ont A minatati lavala laaa than 30 mR/hr (12,000 yd3) was

moved temporarily to an area east of CPP-603. This soil

(12,000 yd3) has been put into a trench in the northeastern

corner of the ICPP (Section 5.2.2.2 #36.)

36. In August-September 1984 soil radioactively contaminated to

levels of less than 30 mR/hr was moved from east of CPP-603 to

a trench in the northeastern corner of the ICPP. This soil was

originally excavated out of an area east of CPP-604 (Section

5.2.2.2 #35.)

55

About 12,000 yd3 of soil was buried between the animal and

security fences in a trench beginning on the east side of the

ICPP, south of the surface drainage line leading to the surface

drainage percolation pond. The trench continues to the north

perimeter and runs west along the north fence for about 500

ft. This trench was 10 ft deep and 45 ft wide at the top.

5.2.2.3 Other ICPP Areas.

37. In May 1972, during decontamination activities at the Waste Cal-

036- cining Facility (WCF), contamination was released to the ground.

Investigation showed that radioactive decontamination solution

leaked through an open valve on a decontamination line which

connected to a transport air line from the WCF to solids stor-

age. It was estimated that 20 to 30 curies of long-lived fis-

sion products and corrosive decontamination solutions had been

released. Several thousand square feet of area was

contaminated. The area was sprayed with a material to hold the

contamination and covered \with plastic until the soil could be

packaged and removed. About ten ton of contaminated gravel

were removed and sent to the RWMC for dlsposal.

111. nn NovAmher 5t 1974, while dilute decontamination solution was

430 being transferred from the WCF to tank WL-102, about 750 gal of

solution leaked from the line into a manhole and from there to

the ground. About one-half curie of radioactivity in the

dilute corrosive solution was released between the WCF and the

stack. The contaminated soil was left in place.

A previous leak in the same area was dlscovered on October 15,

1974. Corrosion occurred on an orifice plate allowing waste to

be discharged to the ground. Radiation readings up to 20 R/hr

were found at a depth of 7 to 8 ft. Some of the contaminated

soil was removed and sent to the RWMC, and the rest was left in

place. The contaminated area was about 70 by 10 ft.

56

39. Two gravel pits near the northeast corner of the ICPP have been

used for the discharge, disposal, and decontamination area of

miscellaneous materials. Sanitary waste, service waste, con-

struction debris, and possibly miscellaneous chemical wastes

were discharged here. The gravel pit located outside the ICPP

fence was used as a decontamination area for radioactively

contaminated construction equipment. This pit has cinra undPr-

gone decontamination and will eventually be used for surface

water drainage. The other gravel pit, located inside the ICPP

security fence, was used to contain the outfall from the Sewage

Treatment Plant which was decommissioned in 1982. When this

plant was decommissioned, the pit was used as a landfill for

radioactively contaminated construction equipment. The equip-

ment has been left in place and the pit filled in and covered.

40. During the summer of 1985, while repairing a portion of the

#3E5 CPP-603 roof, workmen noticed fibrous materiai in the crevasses

of the roof. Sampling\and analysis of the CPP-603 area (roof

and surface soil) confirmed the presence of chrysotile

(asbestos fibers) and low-level radioactive hot spots (6(10-1Ann

cpm), possibly from a filter failure that occurred here earlier.

Additional investigations were conducted at other ICPP locations.

where trancitta had heen used for outside walls and roofs. This

transite (40% chrysotile asbestos fiber - 60% Portland cement)

was found to be friable on CPP-601, -602, -603, -604, -605 -606,

-640, -644, and -648. However, radioactive hot spots seem to

be only in the CPP-603 area.

5.2.3 Chemical Wastes

41. HF Storage Tanks (YDB-105) and Dry Well. Hydrofluoric acid for

the process makeup area was received and stored in tank

1*9 (YDS-105) located southwest of CPP-640. The tank overflow

drained and vented to a limestone neutralization pit beneath

the tank. The neutralized solution drained to a dry well

located south of CPP-637, Pact nf CPP-651. The volume of waste

57

(approximately 7M HF) sent to the dry well is estimated to have

been about 800 gal per year. The storage tank (Y08-105) is

scheduled for ripout in 1986.

42. Lime Pit by CPP-601 and French Drain. A lime pit is located

*Lio south of the HF tank (YD8-105). Vapors from an HF holding tank

vented to this pit. The volume of acid discharged to this pit

is unknown. A French drain located inside the southwest corner

of the CPP-601 building also discharged to this pit. These

areas are no longer in use.

43. Fire Training Pits. Two small depressions between CPP-603 and

4 442 CPP-602 were used for the burning of organic materials for firebrigade training. The organic material was placed in a smaii

pit and ignited. Fire brigade members would then immediately

extinguish the blaze. The area has since been covered withenn cc, ren_ccg ma 4.mmaa at +ha ..... mammin

171.111U1H95 anu w-r-wwu anu nu Yra‘W J. bow latvga IC014;1111*

44. CPP-637 Drainage ()itch. A normally dry drainage ditch located

ii-da watt of CPP-637 is used to control surface water runoff during

periods of rain and snow. Some laboratory and pilot plant chem-

icals (nonradioactive) may have been disposed of in this ditch.

45. Grease Pit. A grease pit existed south of CPP-637. Oils and

-3413 greases of an unknown quantity may have been discharged to this

pit. The pit was filled in when the unirradiated fuel storage

C.9R

building security upgrade (CPP-651) was completed. The pit is

presently located under CPP-651.

46. A grease pit was located south of CPP-608. This pit was used

for the discharge of oils and greases. In addition, unknown

quantities and types of chemicals also may have been discharged

to the pit.

58

47. CPP-621 Chemical Storage Area. Various acids (HC1, HNO3, HF,

.44S- and H2SO4) and aluminum nitrate are stored in large metal

and fiberglass tanks encircled by earth berms south of

CPP-621. The storage area consirs of 8 tanks, 2 open bottom

limestone pits and 6 French drains.

The HF tank is surrounded by an open bottom pit which ‘V1160in3

enough limestone to neutralize the contents of the HF tank if

the acid and limestone were contained in a completely mixed

tank. Any leakage in this pit goes directly to the soil.

However, the overflow from the HF tank is currently being

rerouted to an overflow collection vessel.

The HCL and H2SO4 tanks are surrounded by an open bottom

pit which drains into the HF containment structure. These acid

tanks have been taken out of service.

The 3 aluminum nitrate tanks and 2 nitric acid tanks all have

French drains for overflow discharges. The overflow lines have

been rerouted to two overflow containment vesseis.

Some acid has overflowed or spilled into these drains and

nier In March 1982, HNO3 delivereA to tank rq-Inn.

Approximately 1200 gallons of acid overflowed to the French

drain and eventually the ground. The acid was not contained

since the berm had been removed for a construction project.

The overflowed acid pooled along side the concrete wall being

installed for the plpe trench. Several thousand pounds of soda

ash was applied to neutralize the acid and the contaminated

soil was excavated for disposal.

48. Pilot Plant Tank Release. In November 1978, a permanent tank

.411.4(4 in the CPP-637 courtyard ieaked about 450 gallons of

nonradioactive simulated zirconium dissolver product to the

ground when a coupling on the bottom of the tank failed. The

aVIM.Pwri was neutralized and mnst of thn rnntaminatnd

removed for disposal.

59

cnil wac

49. Pilot Plant Storage Area. Chemicals used in pilot plant

operations were stored in barrels on pallets in a location

northwest of CPP-620 by CPP-637. Leakage (a few liters) of

acid and organics (primarily kerosene) has occurred to the

soil. The contaminated soil was left in place.

50. French Drain South of Waste Processing Faciiity (WCF). A

French drain south of the WCF was used for disposal of nitric

acid and other chemicals consisting primarily of aluminum

nitrate and calcium nitrate. Use of the drain has been

discontinued. There are no records of the types or quantities

of chemicals disposed of to this drain. Prior to construction

of the French drain, chemicals were disposed of directly to the

soil in a trench located by the present French drain.

51. PCB Transformer Yard (CPP-705). As part of the ICPP Utilities

rttiq Replacement and Expansion Project (UREP), several 2400 volt

transformers were removed from service. These included the

XFR-PHE-4, XFR-PHE-5, and XFR-PHE-6 transformers located in

CPP-705. These transformers contained polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) at concentrations up to 330 ppm. The

transformers were transferred to a staging area west of CPP-660

until they couid be shipped to a commercial dispusal facility.

During an inspection of the staging area in July 1985, leakage

around valves and .....ngs was noted An snme nf the

transformers. The transformer yard was inspected and oil was

found on some of the concrete pads. It is not known if oil

leaked to the oround.

52. PCB Transformer Yard (CPP-731). As part of the ICPP Utilities

450 Replacement and Expansion Project (UREP), several 2400 volt

transformers were removed from service. This included a

transformer (XFR-YDC) located in CPP-731. The transformer

contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at a concentration

of 400 ppm. The transformer was transferred to a staging area

west of CPP-660 until it could be shipped to a commercial

disposal facility.

During an inspection of the transformer yard in July 1985,

leakage around valves and fittings was noted. It is not known

if nil inand tn thP grnund hut nil was fnund nn tho rnncnntn

pad.

53. PCB Staging Area. As part of the ICPP Utilities Replacement

.4611_, and Expansion project (UREP). several 2400 volt transformers

were removed from service. These included the XFR-YDC

transformer in CPP-731, and the XFR-PHE-4, XFR-PHE-5, and

XFR-PHE-6 transformers located in CPP-705. These transformers

contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at concentrations up

to 400 ppm. The transformers were transferred to a staging

area west of CPP-660 until they couia be shipped to a

commercial disposal facility.

During an tnenertinn nf that etaminn APDA in Aulv 10A; laakana

around valves and fittings was noted on some of the

transformers. Some leakage to the soil had occurred. In

August 1985, approximately 40 barrels of PCB-contaminated soil

and debris and a 15-ton concrete pad from CPP-718 were placed

in the staging area until disposal. The barrelled soil con-

tained up to 31 ppm of PCB, and the pad was contaminated to ap-.

proximately 134 ppm. Some of the concrete pad pieces fell onto

the soil at the staging area and possibly contaminated the area.

A11 barrelled soil, debris, transformers, and concrete have

been shipped from the area to a commercial disposai faciiity.

54. Pickling Shed. During original ICPP construction, a pickling

alcd two,. piping and other structural --les with

mineral acids was located east of the present location of

CPP-631. Spent solutions were disposed of to the liquid waste

storage tanks. The temporary wooden structure was torn down

61

3510

around 1954. No radioactivity was involved, and any acid

released would have been neutralized by the soil. Extensive

construction activity in the area has occurred since the site

was used.

55. Paint and Paint Solvent Area. During construction for the FAST

iig3 building (CPP-666) a painting subcontractor stored paint and

paint solvent drums on pallets located south of CPP-697. Some

of these 30-40 drums may have leaked to the ground. In 1983

the drums were shipped to a commercial disposal site.

56. Drum Storage Area. In 1985, 30-40 drums of organic solvent and

miscellaneous chemicais were stored in drums on pallets west of

CPP-660. These drums were originally stored near the northwest

corner of CPP-660 and were later moved to the field west of

CPP-660. S 1 of these drums may have laaaed tn tha soil.

In August 1985, the drums were shipped to a commercial disposal

facility.

57. Mercury-Contaminated Area. During a baseline study of

*Sr controlled pollutants at the ICPP in 1984, painters/carpenters

were observed discarding used paint solvent to the soil in an

area south of T-15. In August 1985 seven soil sample analyses

showed mercury levels ranging from 48 to 236 ppb. Some soil

has been removed and sent to a commercial disposal site, but

the area has not been fully characterized.

58. Nitric Acid Contamination. In February 1968, waste from the

west side fluurodiodctive liquid waste holdup tank (WL-103) was

being pumped to the westside Monitoring Station (CPP-734) when

the line developed a leak and waste surfaced near CPP-734. No

rarorda of ths quantity discharged or the area impacted could

be found.

62

59. Sulfuric Acid Spills. In October 1984, sulfuric acid was beingtransferred to a storage tank located east of CPP-603 from a

delivery truck. The tank overfilled, and 50 gal of sulfuric

acid spilled. The acid was neutralized with 1800 lb of soda

ash and flushed with 30,000 gal of water.

In June 1985, the storage tank, which had just been filled,

developed a leak, and 4500 gal of acid leaked to the ground. A

dike was constructed to contain the acid until it could be

neutralized with dolomite. The soil was removed, neutralized,

and packaged. Cleanup of the area has been completed.

60. PEW Evaporator Overheads. The line from the PEW evaporator to

at‘ 5 the monitoring station developed minor leaks in August 1954. A

similar leak between the evaporator and the CPP-751 Service

Waste Diversion System was discovered in September 1976. These

leaks reieasea waste containing about 0.2 M nitric acid to the

soil. In the September\ 1976 incident, about 20,000 gal of

condensate leaked to the soil.

61. Kerosene Spill. In September 1983, kerosene was being

3i5di transferred from a storage tank to the New Waste Calcining

Facility. About 200 gal overflowed to the vent line outside

the containment barrier. Later, another 60 gal also was

spilled.

62. Old Paint Shop. An old paint shop existed north of CPP-637.

dicot) Paint and paint solvents may have been disposed of here. This

building then called CPP-615 (hazardous storage building on old

prints) was east of the bottied gas buiiding and was located

about where CPP-645 is located now.

63

5.3 Unit Summary

TbP releases described in the previous section are SuMarized in Tahla

5.2 and are shown on the map in Figure 5.1. In some cases, exact bound-

aries are uncertain and vary with the degree of contamination. Also,

Table 5.2 lists and identifies those units which were (a) ranked (see

Section 6), (b) reported to have been cleaned up, and (c) have a

potential for further environmental concern.

64

TABLE 5.2

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

I. Radioactive

A. ICPP Fuel StorageBasin Area (CPP-603)

1. Concrete settling

basin, vault anddry wells

2. French Drain Westof CPP-603

3. CPP-603 TemporaryStorage Area

4. Soil Around Set-tling Tank

5. Soil Around Set-tling Basin

6. Trench East ofFuel Storage Basin

May 1953

Sept. 1954

1960's

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

Date Description

1953-1966 Contaminated cooling water Cl-, and NO3-.

BIF filter has been sent to RWMC.

1960's Contaminated cooling water. Removed,packaged, and sent to RWMC.

1953-1970's Solid storage area. Buried material has beenbeen removed. Some soil contaminationleft in place.

Soil around settling tank was found to becontaminated. Soil removed, area cleaned.

Soil contaminated when basin overfilled.Soil removed, area cleaned.

About 300,000 gallons of 10-3 to 10-4 Ci/mlactivity water also containing chlorides wasdischarged to trench. Contaminated soil leftin place..

Potential forEnvironmental

Concerin Rankeda

Low

None

Low

None

None

Very Minor

Y

Y

01

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF 1CPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

7. Soil Contamination(Northwest CPP-642)

8. Basin Filter SystemLine Failure

9. Soil Contamination(Northeast Corner ofSouth Basin)

10. Plastic PipelineBreak

11. Sludge and WaterReleases

Date

Sept. 1972

April 1973

July 1975

Dec. 1976

Feb. 1978

12. Contaminated Paint May 1984Chips and Pad

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

Description

One curie of activity released from collec-tion tank vent line. Contaminated soil wasremoved and sent to RWMC.

Approximately 21,000 gallons of water withlow activity leaked to soil. Contaminatedsoil left in place.

Soil contaminated to a level of about 2 R/hrat contact. Surface soil removed. Somecontamination may still be present.

About 800 gallons of water from fuelstorage basiin drained onto floor. Somewater drained to soil and asphalt. Areacleaned.

Up to 500 gallons of contaminated water andsludge released during cleanup operations.Area cleaned.

Potential torEnvironmental

Concern kankeda

None

Low

Minor

None

None

Paint chips from contaminated equipment storage Nonepad removed and sent to RWMC. Area cleaned.

N

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

B. Other ICPP Areas

13. Pressurization ofSolid StorageCyclone

14. Sewage Drain Tilesand Outfall Line

15. Solvent Burner

16. Leak in line fromWM-181 to PEW(Contaminated Soil)

Date Description

Oct. 1976 Cyclone pressurized and blew calcine to soil.An area approximately 300 ft2 to the morth-east of the WCF was contaminated. The areawas cleaned and covered with clean soil.

1951? to Sewage Treatment plant located west of1982 CPP-664, decommissioned in 1982. Sluclge

from plant sent to RWMC. Drain tiles andoutfall line in place.

1953? to Atmospheric releases of radioactivity. Con-mid 1970s taminated organic materials (kerosene, etc.)

leaked to soil. The burner, concrete pad,and soil under pad have been removed andsent to RWMC. Area cleaned.

Jan. 1976 About 25 ft3 of soil contaminated by12 gallons of waste containing 1-2 curiesof activity. Contaminated soil covered withclean soil.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

Potential forEnvironmental

Concern Rankeda

None

Minor

None

Minor

Y

11

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

17. Soil Storage Area(Peach Bottom)

Date Description

1955 About 100 yd3 of soil contaminated with<10 mR/hr radioactivity buried in moundsand covered with clean soil.

18. Gas Storage Building 1953-odd1970's

19. CPP-603-604 WasteLi ne

20. Roads

Gas cylinders, contaminated with radioactivi-ty, were stored here. Any contaminationwas removed. Area cleaned.

Mar. 9, 1978 Discharge to so14-of 1-2 curies of activityin 2000 gallons of liquid. Radiationreadings ranged from 50 mR/hr to 3.5 R/hr.Leak occurred adjacent to southwest cornerof the Peach Bottom Fuel Storage area.Some contamination removed, rest left inplace.

Various Contamination of roadways has occurred fromwater containing radioactivity leaking toroad during fuel transport. Contaminaticmhas been mowed, roads cleaned.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

PotRntial foirEnvironmental

Concern Rankedd

Minor

None

Minor

None

Y

N

Y

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

21. Pipelines

Potential forEnvironmental

Date Description Concern Rankeda

Various Pipelines carrying radioactive solutions have Nonesometimes been abandoned in place when newlines are installed. The location of theselines has been documented.8

22. Radioactive Waste Various Liquid waste from other 1NEL areas being unloaded None NUnloading Areas for PEW evaporation has occasionally spilled at

unloading area. Spills tave been cleaned up.

23. CPP-601 Solid Various Minor contamination from storage of miscel- None NWaste Bin laneous materials prior to disposal. All

contamination associated with the waste hasat been removed.u3

24. Airborne Releases Various Releases of radioactive gases to the atmos- Nonephere have occurred. Any soil contaminationhas been cleaned up.

II. Mixed Wastes

A. ICPP Injection Well

25. Releases to Well Various 10,152 curies of radioactivity (decayed to Moderate4,110 curie; as of Dec. 31, 1984) dischargedin 1.1 x 1010 gal of water.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

B. Tank Farm Area

Potential forEnvironmental

Date Description Concern Rankeda

Mercury and other chemicals discharged.

Minor quantities of organic materialsdischarged.

26. Bucket Spill Feb. 1954 Spill of acidic-radioactive waste. Area None N

cleaned up and contaminated soil sentto RWMC. __

27. Contaminated soill Aug. 1960 Acidic-radioactive waste rtleased from None N

(North of CPP-604) ruptured line. About 9 ydi of soil removedto the RWMC, area cleaned.

28. Steam Flushing May 1964 Contamination released to surface during None N

steam flushing of lines. Contaminated soilcleaned up.

29. Contmminated Soil Itlibt.

300 gallons of acidic-radioactive waste Minor

(East of CPP-604) containing up to 3000 curies of radioactivity

released to soil from corroded vent line.

Most of soil removed, some left in place.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)(b) Date of Discovery

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

30. Contaminated Soil(South of WM-181)

31. Contaminated Soil(North and West ofMain Stack)

32. Contaminated Soil(Near Valve Box B-9)

33. Contaminated Soil(South of WM-183)

34. Contaminated Soil(Southwest of ValveBox 8-4 and North-west of ValveBox B-4)

Potential forEnvironmental

Date Description Concern Rankeda

Oct. 1 About 120 gallons of acidic-radioactive waste MinorIgmbi containing up to 6000 curies released to soil

because of a hole drilled in a pipe at time ofinstallation. Mot of soil removed, ap-proximately 5 ydi of soil left in place.

Nov. 14, A release of acidic-radioactive waste around1974 the base of the staa (2 locations).

Contaminated soil was removed, area clean.

A 20-ft2 area was contaminated withacidic-radioactive waste. The soil wasremoved, area clean.

Juneiges(b)

Sept,IgEigibs

Dec., t1976ibl

ia) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)(b) Date of Discovery

About 14,000 gallon of acidic liquid wastecontaining up to 30,000 curies of radio-activity released underground. Contami-nated soil remains in place.

A release of acidic-radioactive waste contami-nated to 2 R/hr (2 locations). Contaminatedsoil left in place.

None

None

Moderate

N

N

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RIELEASES

Location Date

35. Contaminated Soil Summer,(Northeast of CPP-604 19831b)by WM-102)

36. Soil Storage Area(Northeast CornerICPP)

C. Other ICPP Areas

37. WCF DecontaminationSpill

38. Transfer Line Leak(WCF to WL-102)

Aug. -.Sept. 1984

Description

Soil contaminated with acidic radioactivewaste and mercuric nitrate. Most of contami-nated soil was removed, some contaminationleft in place.

Soil contaminated with acidic-radioactivewaste and mercuric nitrate, buried in atrench between the animal and security fence.

May 1972 Corrosive-radioactive decontamiination solu-tion released to ground. Soil removed toRUNC, area cleaned, and stabiliized.

Nov. 5, Decontamination solution from WCF being1974 transferred to waste tank. About 750 gallons

of corrosive-radioactive solution containing0.5 curies released to a manhole and then tosoil. Further releases occurred in the samearea when an orifice plate corroded. Con-taminated soil left in place.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)(b) Date of Discovery

Potential torEnvironmental

Concern Rankeda

Minor

Minor

None

Minor

Y

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

Potential forEnvironmental

Date Description Concern Rankeda

35. Gravel Pits Various Two gravel pits used for equipment decontam- Minor Yination, construction rubble disposal,service waste, etc. Gravel pit inside ICPPfence used as a landfill for radioactivelycontaminated construction equipment. Theequipment has been left in place and the pitfilled in ancl covered.

40. Asbestos Various , Weathering of transite on several ICPP build- Minor Yings and roofs has resulted in asbestos being

'V released to the air and soil. CPP-603 transiteco has radioactive hot spots.

III. Chemical Wastes

41. HF Storage Tank HF acid received and stored in tank Minor(YDB-105) andl Dry YDB-105, located southwest of CPP-640.Well The tank overflow drained and vented to a

limestone neutralization pit beneath thetank. The neutralized solution drainedto the dry well located south of CPP-637.YDB-105 scheduledl for rip out in 1986.Pit area and drywell will be characterized.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)(b) Date of Discovery

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

42. Lime Pit by CPP-601and French Drain

Date

43., Fire Training Pits Early(Between CPP-602and CPP-603)

44. Drainage Ditch(West of CPP-637)

45. Grease Pits (ByCPP-637)

46., Grease Pit (ByCPP-608)

47. Chemical StorageArea (CPP-621)

- -

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

Description

Lime pit located south of YOB-105. TheFrench drain which drained to the limepit is located inside the soutimest cornerof CPP-601. These areas are no longer inuse. Pit area and French drain line areawill be characterized.

Oils and organics burned in open pits forfire training. The two areas have sincebeen covered with Buildings CPP-663 andCPP-666.

Soot laboratory and pilot plant chemicals(nonradioactive) may have been disposed ofin the ditch.

Grease pit south of CPP-637 (under CPP-6511)used for disposal of unknown materials.

Grease pit south of CPP-608, used for dis-posal of unknown materials. Pit has beenfilled in.

Spills of acid or aluminum nitrate, duringfilling of chemical storage tanks. Somespills cleaned up at time of occurrence.

Potential forEnvironmental

Concern Rankeda

Minor

None

Minor

None

Minor

Minor

N

Y

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

Potential forEnvironmental

Date Description Concern Rankeda

48. Pilot Plant Tank Nov. 1978 Feed tank released' 45C gallons of zirconium MinorRelease fluoride in the CPP-637 courtyard. Most of

contaminated soil removed.

49. Pilot Plant Storage --Area

Chemicals used in pilot plant operations Minorwere stored in barrels on pallets northwestof CPP-620. _Leakage of acicl and organicshas occurred to the soil.

50. WCF French Drain Variety of non-raclioactive chemicals dis- Minor(South of CPP-633) charged to French drain south of CPP-633.

Quantities unknown.

51. PCB Transformer 1985 Three transformers removed from service MinorYardl (CPP-705) because of an electrical upgrade. Trans-

formers contained polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) at concentrations up to330 ppm. Leakage around valves and fittingswas noted on some of the transformers andconcrete pads. It is not known if oil leakedto the ground.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Locatica

Potential torEnvironmental

Date Description Concern Rankedd

52. PCB Transformer 1985 Transformer removed from service because MinorYard (CPP-731) of an electrical upgirade. Transfonner

contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)at a concentration of 400 ppm. Leakagearound valves and fittings was noted onthe transformer. It is not known if oilleaked to the ground.

53. PCB Staging Area 1984-1985 Transformers were removed from service be- Minorcause of an electrical upgrade. Thesetransformers Wire transferred to a staging

rn area located west of CPP-660. The trans-formers contained polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) at concentrations up to 400 ppm.PCB oil leaked to the soil from around valvesand fittings. Also, in August 1985, approxi-mately 40 barrels of PCB contaminated soil,debris and a concrete pad from CPP-718 wereplaced in the staging area until disposal.A11 barrelled soil, debris, transformers, andconcrete have been shipped to a commercialdisposal facility.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

54. Pickling Shed

Date

Early

55. Paint and Paint 1983Solvent Area(South of CPP-697)

56. Drum Storage Area(West of CPP-660)

57. Mercury Contami-nated Area (T-15)

58. Nitric AcidContamination(WL-103 to CPP-734)

59. Sulfuric Acid Spills(East of CPP-606)

Description

A pickling shed to treat piping and otherstructural materials with mineral acidswas located east of CPP-631. The structurewas torn down aroung 1954. No radioactivitywas involved, and any acid released wouldhave been neutralized by the soil.

Paint and paint solvent drums may have over-flowed or leaked and contaminated soil.

1985 Drums containing solvents and chemicals mayhave leaked to soil.

1984 Paints and solvents containing toxic materialoxide, discharged to ground.

Feb. 1968 Nitric acid released to soil when linecorroded. No records of the quantity dis-charged or the area impacted.

Oct. 1984 50 gallons of sulfuric acid spilled when tankJune 1985 overfilled. 4500 gallons of sulfuric acid

later released to soil. Soil neutralized andarea cleaned up in both cases.

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

PotentiaT forEnvironmental

Concern Rankeda

None

Minor

Minor

Minor

Minor

None

Y

Y

Y

03

TABLE 5.2 (Contd)

SUMMARY OF ICPP WASTE RELEASES

Location

60. PEW EvaporatorOverheads

61. Kerosene Spill

62. Old Paint Stop

Da te

Aug. 1954Sept. 1976

Sept. 1983

Early

(a) Ranked (Y) or not Ranked (N)

Description

Evaporator overheads containing approximately0.2 M nitric acid leaked to ground. Contam-inatid soil has been left in place.

Approximately 260 gallons of kerosene over-flowed to the vent line outside the contain-ment barrier. Later, another 60 gallonsalso was spilled.

Disposal of chemicals, paint, and paintsolvents from an old paint shop may haveoccurred in the present location of CPP-645.

Potential torEnvironmental

Concern Rankedd

Minor

Minor

None

I

36

39

.......... .....

33

34

.17,7%, 26 30'Vied I

22

27 29

16 35

—I i4

„r _11 —V.1 1

•

__.—_•=-•--:4

I I

‘--

48 . 44 4145

-

1

5if

_ 4 t•no A ." El ciA50 43_ .

DO

46

17

53 A - !56

••

Y.

4 5

II

fir.dpr 4 1 tnrahinn nf won Wacta Polaacae

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) has operated as a nuclear re-processing plant since 1953. During this time, radioactive materials

have been handled, and hazardous materials consisting primarily of

acids, caustics, mercury, and miscellaneous chemicals have been used.

Because the potential hazards associated with handling radioactive

materials were recognized early in the history of the ICPP, care has

been taken to minimize releases of both radioactive and chemical pollut-

ants to the environment and to quickly clean up any spills that do occur.

Furthermore, environmental releases at the ICPP have had only minimal

impact on the public because of factors which were considered when the

site was chosen many years ago. These factors include:

1. Lack of permanent population on the INEL.

2. lOw population surrounding the INEL.

3. Distance from the surfaccto the groundwater.

4. Low precipitation and high evaporation which minimize the trans-

port of released materials to the groundwater.

5. Soil characteristics which tend to neutralize acidic liquids and

retaln most chemicals and radionuclides as they migrate to or

through the ground water.

6. A closed basin for surface water accumulation that drains into

the ground rather that flowing to a surface river system.

The ICPP, however, is located above the Snake River Plain Aquifer, and

protection of the purity of the water in the aquifer is of prime impor-

tance. Extreme care therefore has Men, and cnntinues to he, used to

assure that any releases to the environment are within appropriate limits

to prevent contamination of the aquifer.

80

) omm m ommmmpmmipmProMM

The releases of chemicals and radionuclides at the ICPP have been de-scribed in detail in Section 5. For completeness, all known, suspected,or reported units and releases identified during this study have beenincluded in Section 5 and are listed in Table 5.2, regardless of theextent or consequences of the releases. Many of the releases describedin Section 5 are minor in terms of quantities of materials released.Furthermore, many of these units were treated and cleaned up at the timeokaWIC reiease was discovered. In some cases, the extent of cieanup is notdefinitely known.

In some cases, quantitiess of waste involved, types of waste involved,and the area impacted could not be determined from existing information.In these cases, rankings were made based on the most conservative estim-ates and available information. Available information has been presentedin Section 5.

The units identified in Section 5 were ranked using the modified HazardRanking Systems which places a numerical score on each unit. The numeri-cal score prioritizes the unit for cleanup. Only those units wherewaste is known or believed to exist were ranked; units which are reportedto have been cieaned up were not ranked; however, units where the extentof cleanup is not known were also ranked. Efforts were made to rank allunits conservatively. The rankingis primarily based on the ground watermigration pathway since it is the major potential path for contaminationat the ICPP. Ranking scores were based on the known or estimatedquantities of chemi- cals or radioactive material released, the toxicityand persistence of the released material, depth of 450 ft to theaquifer, net evaporation rate of 27 in. of water, a permeable zone forfluid movement, a popula- tion of 1200 workers at the ICPP, and thedistance from the point of release to the ICPP supply wells. Wherewaste releases contained both radioactive materials and chemicals,rankings were completed for both components and the highest ranking was

used. High-level radioactive waste releases were assumed to occur inhigh-acidic soiution which could contain fluorides or mercury.

81

Ranking results are shown in Table 6.1, and the location of these ranked

units is shown in Figure 6.1. No units were found which are a cause for

immediate environmental concern. However, two units require further

study and possible action. Specific units are discussed in the foiiowing

paragraphs.

1. ICPP injection Well (Unit I)

The ICPP well discharges directly to the Snake River Plain Aqu-

ifer. It has not been u5ed •routinely Once February 1984.

During the period of time that it was used, over 1.1 x 1010

gal of liquid consisting primarily of cooling water with minor

quantities of radioactive and toxic chemicals (mercury) were

released to the well. Although most of the radioactive and

toxic chemicals appear to have been retained near the well,

tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen has migrated from

the area a distance of 9 miles. A release of mercury in March

1981 resulted in the well\receiving the highest ranking.

However, the potential for migration within the aquifer is

low. This unit received a ranking score of 34.

2. Tank farm area (Units 2, 9, 10, 11, and 13)

Highly radioactive acidic solutions containing zirconium fluor-

ide. aluminum nitrate, mercuric nitrate, and other chemicals

have been released to the tank farm area because of leaking

pipes and other causes. Although some of the contaminated

surface soil has been replaced with clean soil, the area still

is contaminated below the surface. Studies have shown that the

soil is safer in its present location than if removed

elsewhere. Unit 2, because of the high levels of radio-

activity involved, received a higher ranking than other units.

82

TABLE 6.1

Ranking of Disposal Units

Num iceralDisposal Unit Ranking Type

(a)

1. ICPP Injection Well 34 M2. Tank Farm Contaminated Soil (South of WM-183)-9/75 18 M

3. PCB Transformer Yard (CPP-705) 13 C

4. PCB Transformer Yard (CPP-731) 13 C

5. PCB Staging Area 13 C

6. Paint and Paint Solvent Area (South of CPP-697) 13 C

7. Mercury Contaminated Soil (South of T-15) 13 C

8. Pilot Plant Tank Release (CPP-637 courtyard) 13 C

9. Contaminated Soil - 10/74 by WM-181 13 M

10. Contaminated Soil by CPP-604 - 4/74 13 M

11. Contaminated Soil Northwest and Southwest of Valve Box 8-4 13 M

12. Included in unit 11 - -

13. Contaminated Soil by WL-102 Northest of CPP-604 13 M14. Contaminated Soil Burial by Northeast Corner of ICPP 13 M15. Asbestos 12 M16. WCF French Drain 11 C17. 'Pak in Line from WCF to WL-102 11 M18. Kerosene Release 9 C

19. CPP-637 Storage Area 9 C

20. CPP-608 Grease Pit \ 9 C

(b)21. CPP-651 Grease Pit (Unit deleted) - -

22. PEW Evaporator Overheads 9 C

23. Drum Storage Area by CPP-660 8 C

24. HF Acid Storage Tank 8 C

25. Limestone Pit by CPP-601 Berm 7 C

26. CPP-637 Drainage Ditch 7 C

27. HNO3 Leakage (by CPP-734) 7 C

28. Gravel Pits 7 M

29. CPP-621 Chemical Storage 7 C

30. Peach Rottom Contaminated Soil 7 R

31. CPP-603-604 Transport Line Leak - 3/78 4 R

32. CPP-603 Lay-down Area (Temporary 5torage Area) 4 R

33. CPP-603 Vault and Drywell 4 R

34. Trench by CPP-603 4 R

35. WM-181 Transfer Line to Evaporator - 1/76 2 R

36. Sewage Drain Tiles and Outfall Line 1 R

37. Soil - NE Corner of South Basin (CPP-603) 1 R

38. Basin Filter System Line Failure (CPP-603) 1 R

(a) Radioactive (R) ,Mixed (M), or Chemical (C)(b) The grease pit is under CPP-651. No further action.

83

,IA

I

C4Tillafferriella santa I 0 CC

ir

I

ai

!•• •«

• I

•••Lilsio14

•.2:./

r

re" —1; .;=nrs=—.!I

I p. 0011g1(

i.}

1 I

•

Eumul3)m 11:§tiCi7-31 ® 0 .

?iltit

IPPISPHOOK .. • • • . • «

This unit will require further study. Continued monitoring and

sampling will be required to determine if migration is occurring

and the potential for further environmental damage. Because of

emell quantities of waste involved, other units are of minor

concern.

3. PCB Transformer Yards and Staging Areas (Units 3, 4, and 5)

The toxic nature of PCBs and their persistence in the environ-

ment resulted in an mHRS score of 14. Because of the small

quantities present, there is low potential for further damage.

Sampling and characterization will be required to determine the

extent of contamination.

4. Chemical Spills (Units 6, 7, 8, 19, 23, 26, and 27)

The minor •quantities of meterialc invAlved and the ability of

the soil to neutralize acids result in low potential for further

contamination in spiteNof the toxicity of some of the materials

released. Rankings are based on lack of specific knowledge

regarding quantities of chemicals released. Sampling and char-

acterization will be required to determine the extent of local-

ized damage, if any, to these areas.

5. Asbestos (Unit 15)

Although samples of certain soiis show asbestos to be present,

steps presently being taken to remove or seal the building

materials containing asbestos to prevent further release should

minimize the environmental contamination

12 was given to this release.

85

nntanfiAl- A crnro nf

6. Contaminated Soil Storage (Units 14 and 30)

Soil contaminated with low levels of radioactivity and possibly

minor quantities of chemicals is stored within the ICPP bound-

ary. Characterization will be required to determine if chemi-

cals are present. This storage does not appear to pose signif-

icant environmental risks.

7. The WCF French Drain (Unit 16)

The French drain south of the WCF was used for disposal of

chemicals. Quantities and compositions are not totally known.

Contamination is expected to be localized with low potential

for eAcensive envirumental releaaca beyond the imuediate

vicinity. This area is currently being characterized.

8. Transport Line Leaks (Units 17, 22, 31, and 35)

Because of the small quantities of waste released, environ-

mental damage is expected to be localized and minimal. Re-

leases are underground where further migration will be mini-

mal. The major radioactivity release (Unit 17) has been exten-

sively mapped to assure that its location is known.

9. Kerosene Release (Unit 18)

The quantity of materiai released and the small area invoived,

minimize and localize this release. Major environmental damage

is not a concern.

10. Grease Pits (Units 20 and 21)

Grease pits at the ICPP, especially the one by CPP-608, appear

to have been used for the discharge of unknown quantities and

86

types of chemicals. Characterization will be required to deter-

mine if any environmental damage has occurred to Unit 20. No

major environmental damage is expected because of the distance

to the aquifer and minor amonnts nf water discharged. Char-

acterization will not be conducted for Unit 21 because it is

under CPP-651.

11. HF Pit and Dry Well and Lime Pit by CPP-601 Berm (Unit 24, 25)

Hydrofluoric acid previously drained to two lime pits near

CPP-640. Following neutralization, the solution from one pit

flowed to a dry well. The volumes and extent of this contami-

nation are not known but will be determined. Potential for

further environmental damage is localized to the vicinity of

the pits and dry well.

In n----1 n4r. ðu-4. ,0%14. uravel %Will. 401

The two gravel pits in the northeast sector of the ICPP received

varinuc chemical and radioactive wastes that are largely unre-

corded. Further identification will be required to determine

what was discharged. Any environmental damage will be localized

to the vicinity of the pits.

13. CPP-621 Acid Storage (Unit 29)

Neutralization by the soil and small release volumes minimize

any further potential environmental damage. This area is sched-

uled for upgrading to prevent any releases of tank contents and

will be characterized at that time.

14. Fuel Storage Area (CPP-603) Releases (Units 32, 33, 34, 37, and

1A)

Because these releases consisted of low levels of radioactivity,

many of which were at least partially cleaned up, no significant

environmental damage is anticipated. Characterizations will be

conducted.

87

15. Sewage Drain Tiles and Outfall Line (Unit 36)

The levels of contamination involved make this a low priority

area for further environmental concern. Any activity amounts

were extremely low. A characterization will be conducted.

88

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to further assess the potential for environmental contam-

ination and to take corrective action as necessary at the ICPP are pre-

sented in this section. Units with a known or expected potential for

environmental contamination will require further investigation during

Phase II of the CERCLA program and may require further corrective action,

based on the results of the characterization studies.

Those units which have received only minor quantities of contamination

iranfliima rh ... nthar citae nf knnwn rnntaminatinn hut

of unknown extent, will require characterization by exploratory drilling

to depths and at distances required to determine the extent of the con-

tamination. Soil samples will be obtained and analyzed for constituents

such as pH, PCBs, sulfate, fluoride, nitrates, boron, radioactivity, and

EPA EP toxic materials. Routine soil sampling surveys, similar to those

done in the past, also are planned. High-level radioactive contaminated

sites have been mapped, and wells and monitoring holes have been dug to

determine the extent of these areas. Existing data will be evaluated

and the need for more monitoring wells will be considered. Radiation

readings taken from monitoring wells (through hoies driiied to bedrock

through which radiation instruments can be lowered) will be compared

with existing data. Routine monitoring for surface radioactivity will

continue.

The use of the injection well, currently used only during emergency con-

ditions, should be discontinued. Samples down-gradient from the well

will continue to be analyzed to determine what migration, if any, is

occurring. Sample well locatlons should be reviewed to determine if they

are adequate in terms of depth and locatlon.

The specific recommendation for each ranked waste site is shown in Table

7.1. Areas which were not ranked have been cleaned and no further

action is expected.

89

TABLE 7.1

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ICPP POTENTIAL WASTE UNITS

Ranking Locations Recommendation

1

2

ICPP Injection Well

Tank Farm Contaminated Soil(9/75)

3, 4, 5 PCB Transformer Yards (CPP705 and 731) and StagingArea (West of CPP-660)

7

Paint and Paint S.IventStorage Area (South ofCPP-697)

Mercury-Contaminated Soil(T-15)

Pilot Plant Tank Release(CPP-637 Courtyard)

9, 10, Contaminated Soil Incldents11, 13 in Tank Farm Area

90

Discontinue use. Continue with closureplan presently being prepared. Furtheraction when closure plan completed.

Review existing data. Monitor existingwells. Expand characterization studiesto clearly identify boundaries of con-tamination (where existing data are in-adequate). Reevaluate studies regardingleaving in place. Decide if removal isrequired.

Complete closure plans.

Charart•rin And prow!plan.

ramediAI Artinn

Characterize by further soil samplingand analysis. Closure plan being pre-pared. Remove material as required.

Chemical sampling of courtyard area todetermine if all waste cleaned uporiginaiiy. Remove any hazardousmaterial.

Review existing data. Monitor existingwells. Expand characterization studiesto clearly identify boundaries of con-tamination (where existing data are in-adequate). Determine if migration isoccurring. Reevaluate studies regardingleaving in place. Decide then if re-moval is required.

TABLE 7.1 (contd.)

Ranking Locations Recommendation

14 Contaminated Soii StorageBurial (northeast Corner ofthe ICPP)

15

16

17

18

19

20, 21

Asbestos

WCF French Drain (South ofCPP-633)

Leak in Line From WCF toWL-102

Kerosene Release

CPP-637 Storage Area

Grease Pits (By CPP-651 andCPP-608)

22 PEW Evaporator Overheads

23 Drum Storage Area by CPP-660

24 HF Acid Storage Tank(YDB-105), Pit and Dry Well

- 25 Lime Pit by Base ofCPP-601 Berm

26 CPP-637 Drainage Ditch (Westof CPP-637)

27 HNO3 Leakage (WL-103 toCPP-734)

91

Continued monitoring of area. Character-ize soil.

Continue sampling. Clean up areas asidentified.

Extensive characterization (presently inprogress) required. Cleanup if neces-sary.

Continue routine monitoring. Determineif extent of release requires furtheraction.

Characterize by using soil sampling.Prepare closure plan.

Sample around drum storage area.Remove any hazardous materiAl detectad.

Pit by CPP-651 covered by building. Nofurther action. Pit by CPP-608will require chemical sampling and aclosure plan with possible furtheraction based on closure plan.

Minor characterization for acid andtoxic metals.

Complete closure plan.

Complete closure plan. Clean up area.Remove tank; remove pit and dry well ifrequired.

Complete closure plan. Clean up area1f necessary. Remove pit and Frenchdrain if required.

Closure plan being prepared. Minorchemical sampling; cleanup if con-tamination found.

Minor chemical sampling; cleanup ifcontamination found.

TABLE 7.1 (contd.)

Ranking Locations Recommendation

28 Gravel Pits

29 CPP-621 Chemicai Storage Area

30 Peach Bottom ContaminatedSoil Storage Area

31

32

33

CPP-603, -604 TransportLine Leak - 3/78

CPP-603 Lay-down Area

CPP-603 Vault and Dry Wells

34 Trench near CPP=603 StorageBasin

35

36

37

WM-181 Transfer Line toEvaporator - 1/76

Sewage Drain Tiles andOutfall Line

Soil Contaminatlon (NECorner of South Basin)

38 Basin Filter System LineFailure (CPP-603)

Sample area for radioactivity and chemi-cals. Characterize; prepare closure planCleanup depends on sampling results.

Complete closure plan. Install contain=ment vaults to retain any spills occur-ring in the future (design completed -project pending).

Continued monitoring of area. Removesmall quantities of soil to RWMC ifcontaminated.

Characterize and contlnue monitoringif necessary. Remove contaminated soil.

Characterize by soil sampling andremove soil if necessary.

Characterize and decontaminate site byremoval of material to RadioactiveWaste Management Complex as required.

Charact a rintinn wnrk to determine ifany radioactive contamination exists inarea. If contamination is found, re-move to RWMC.

Characterize for chemicals and radio-activity.

Characterization to see if contaminationis present.

Characterization to determine if anyradioactive contamination exists. Ifcontamination is found, remove soil toRWMC.

Characterization to determine if anyradioactive contamination exists. Ifcontaminated soil is found, remove to

RWMC.

92

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Public Law No. 96-510(1980), 42 USC Section 9601, et.seq, "Comprehen-sive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liability Act oflflonit170V .

2. U.S. Department of Energy, Order DOE 5480.14, "Comprehensive Envir-

onmental Ratpnnto, Compensation, and Liability Act Program," April

26, 1985.

3. K. A. Hawlay and B. A. Napier, "A Ranking System for Sites with Mixed

Radioactive and Hazardous Wastes," (comment draft), February 1985.

4. Bingham, G. E. and E. Gerstenberger, (editors), "Fuel Processing

Restoration Project Justification," ENI-220 (March 1983).

5. Wilson, Jones, R., "ICPP Failure/Event Database (Users Guide)," up-

dated by Tony O. Pham (june 1985).

6. 40 CFR 300, Appendix A, "Uncdntrolled Hazardous Waste Site Ranking

Systems," A Users Manual.

7. D. L. Litteer, "Radioactive Waste Management Information 1984 Sum-

mary and Record-to-Data," DOE-ID-10054(84) (June 1984).

8. B. E. Paige (ed.), "Buried Waste Line Register for NRTS Part IV,

CPP," ACI-110, (June 1972).

93

TIM CONTENTS OrlinDOCUMENT ARE THE HOOTQUMNY OBTAINABLE

INITIALoh,1 DAN goo)

Appendix A

Qualifications of Installation Assessment Team

94

EDUCATION

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

ROBERT L. NEBEKERSENIOR ENGINEER

BS ChE (Chemical Engineering), 1964 University of Utah, SaltLake City, Utah.

Master of Nuclear Science, 1969 University of Idaho, Moscow,Idaho.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION

American Institute of Chemical Engineers, including NuclearEngineering Division

EXPERIENCE RECORD

1964-1967 Phillips Petroleum Company and Idaho Nuclear Company, IdahoFalls, Idaho.Nuclear Test Reactor Engineer

1967-197, Hahn Modem* rompany And Alliad rhaMiral Cnrpnratinn,Idaho Falls, Idaho.Research EngineerPilot Plant Development and Safety Review

In', 1n70 All4sA rkawanal r elan Telakei Calle Idaho17IG-171V 0,11 .1CM V11%1011011 • V .141.11

Group LeaderSafety Review, Transuranic Waste Management, EnvironmentalImpact Statement Preparation, Pilot Plant Design

1978-1981 Allied Chemical Corporation/Exxon Nuclear Idaho Company,Idaho Falls, IdahoSubsection ManagerPilot Plant Development (Waste Management), EnvironmentalImpact Statement Preparation

1981-1985 Exxon Nuclear Idaho Company/Westinghouse Idaho NuclearCompany, Idaho Falls, IdahoSenior EngineerPlanning, Program Control

1985-Present Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company, Idaho Falls, IdahoSenior EngineerLow-Level and Hazardous Waste Management

95

EDUCATIoN

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

D. JOAN POLANDENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER II

BS Geology, 1984Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Inc.Idaho Association of Professional Geologists

EXPERIENCE RECORD

1983-1984 Idaho State University, Pocatello, IdahoDepartment of Geology and Museum of National HistoryWork Study

1984-1985 EG&G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, IdahoAssociate Scientist, Environmental Sciences SectionEnvironmental impact assessments and evaluations

1985-Present Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company, Idaho Falls, IdahoEnvironmental Englneer IIDirect cleanup opArations and assure compliance withCERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA

96

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

CINIWATTAUGYULA/11.W°

GEORGE E. BUKERENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER III

BS, Mechanical Engineering Technology, 1980Montana State University, Boseman, Montana

PKUrtbblUNAL AFFILIATION

Associated Students of Mechanical Engineering Technology

EXPERIENCE RECORD

1980-1984 Bechtel Power Corporation, SFPDColstrip Units 3 and 4, Colstrip MontanaEngineer, Mechanical Piping Division

1984-1985 Bechtel Energy Corporation, LSPDSouth Texas Project, Bay City, TexasEngineer, Mechanical Piping Division

1985-Present Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company, Idaho Falls, IdahoEnvironmental Engineer IIIInstrumentation and Quality Assurance

97

Appendix B

INSTALLATION HISTORY,AtIPAUT,ATTnu Akin UTCCYAMkinunnL4nown nmw 111441VM

The ICPP is owned and eminister a d by DOE primarily for recovering

uranium from spent reactor fuels. A secondary but important purpose of

the ICPP is the development of improved fuel processing and waste manage-

ment methods. Initially completed in 1951, the ICPP began nuclear fuel

processing in 1953 and has been expanded greatly since then. Changes are

continually being made to upgrade existing facilities and to add proces-

sing capability as required.

The ICPP processes highly enriched () 20% U-235) research, test,

and propulsion reactors fuels. These fuels are clad with aluminum,

zircon- ium, or stalnless steel and contain uranium alloys or uranium in

other various physical forms. Special fuels or fuel material

occasionally are processed using'customized processes and equipment in a

hot ceii faciiity.

Because of the complex compositions of highly enriched reactor fuels,

the fuel mixture and fuel cladding Materials generally are not separable

by mechanical means, and thus the processes involved are dictated by com-

pounds used to dilute, disperse, and encase the uranium. The processes

used incorporate acid dissolution of fuel materials, liquid-liquid sol-

vent extraction to separate and purify the uranium, and evaporation and

decomposition (called denitration in this system) of the uranium product

solution to a solid UO3 product. The UO3 product is

shipped to other

DOE facilities as directed by DOE.

The high level radioactive liquid wastes from fuel reprocessing oper-

ations are coliectea in stainiess sceel tank) within undw,w wund

vaults. This liquid waste is calcined to solid granules in the New Waste

Calcining Facility (NWCF), and the resultant high-level radioactive solid

waste is $ d in stainolaes Ctael bins within underground concrete

98

vaults. Other liquid and gaseous waste streams are processed as neces-

sary to comply with the appropriate limits established for release to the

environment. A11 effluents are monitored to detect any deviations from

experted rnntami nation levels. Ultimately, all radioactive wastes not

suitable for release to the environment are converted to solid wastes and

are stored or disposed in accordance with procedures approved by DOE.

Within the confines of the ICPP area are all the facilities necessary

to receive, store, process, and recover U-235 from spent reactor fuels.

The process begins with the receipt of shielded casks of spent irradiated

reactor fuels. These casks arrive by truck or rail. The fuel is removea

from shipping casks and stored underwater. If the fuel is not suitable

for underwater storage (e.g., graphite fuel), it is stored either above

or below ground in speciai ary sto rage fel-untie).

Fuel processing at ICPP begins with dissolution in acid, using one

of several headend Far example, aluminum-alloyed fuel is

dissolved in nitric acid, using a mercuric nitrate catalyst. This re-

sults in a solution contai\ning uranyl nitrate and fission product nitr-

ates. Zirconium-clad fuel is dissolved in hydrofluoric acid and com-

plexed with aluminum nitrate. In one former instance, (graphite fuel)

dissolution was preceded by a combustion step. The fuel solution is then

contacted with an organic solvent, tributyl phosphate (TBP), in a normal

paraffin hydrocarbon diluent. The uranium is extracted by the solvent,

leaving most of the radioactive fission products and other fuel compon-

ents in the aqueous solution. Uranium is stripped from the solvent by

water and extracted two more times with another organic solvent, methyl'

isobutyl ketone (hexone), for further purification.

SV1VVIlta are dc.""taminated before reryrling or disposal. Fission

products from the first-cycle extraction, as well as the small losses of

fissile material contained in the aqueous raffinate, are collected in

cooled, high-integrity stainless steel storage tanks, with secondary con-

tainment provided by concrete vaults. Aqueous raffinate from later ex-

traction cycles is collected in similar uncooled tanks. The liquids in

99

these tanks are then calcined to solid radioactive wastes, which are

stored in air cooled, stainless-steel bins in underground concrete

vaults.

The final product stream is a uranyl nitrate solution, practically

free of fission products and other impurities. The uranyl nitrate

bulut;uu ev.v.....ted and (denit.__) tn nrAnium trinXidn

(UO3) granules and shipped to other OOE facilities for reuse.

100

APPENOIX C

Environmental Setting

C.1 Vegetation and Habitats

The INEL is dominated by sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and various species of

bunchgrass. Other locally important shrubs include winterfat, shadscale

saitbush, Nuttall saltbush, and gray horsebrush. Bottlebrush squirrel-

tail, needle-and-thread grass, Great Basin wildrye, bluebunch wheatgrass,

thickspike wheatgrass, and bluegrass are the most abundant grass species.

Common forhc include dandelion, milkvetch, phlox, hawksbeard, and yellow

salsify. Three-hundred and ninety-four vascular plant species were re-

ported on the INEL, and five more species have been recently added for a

total of 299.

Nonnative habitats also occur on or around the INEL. These include ap-

proximately 9880 acres of the INEL that were seeded with cres- ted

wheatgrass in the late 1950s.

Dominant vegetation existing on and adjacent to the INEL includes sage-

brush, juniper, crested wheatgrass, end Lidic! wiucyfuaa. Sagebrush pro-

vides the largest habitat on the INEL and is important to many animal

species.

Juniper communities occur in the northwest and southeast portions of the

INEL. These communities are generally associated with increasing eleva-

tion and are found near East and Middle Buttes and in the foothills of

the Lemhi Range. Although these communities are restricted in distribu-

tion, they provide important nesting habitat for raptors and are used by

a number of passerine species.

Crested wheatgrass seedings are found throughout the INEL. These

seedings have existed on the INEL for 25 or more years, with little

evidence of reinvasion by native species. Limited dibpeuael from the

native community and abundant seed production by crested wheatgrass

perpetuate this community.

101

A grass community dominated by Indian ricegrass occurs in a relatively

narrow band near the eastern border of the INEL. This community appar-

ently represents an old burn and also contains needle-and-thread grassanA km•Plahruch ennitroltail_

Irrigated farmland borders much of the INEL, interspersing agriculture

and caphrusn habitats. Much of the farmland is planted with alfalfa.

but fields of wheat, potatoes, and irrigated pasture are also planted.

These areas are used extensively by a number of passerine species, as

well as by four species of game birds; mourning doves, pheasants, gray

partridge, and sage grouse. About 37% of the INEL boundary is bordered

by irrigated farmland and 60-70% of the INEL is grazed by cattle and

sheep.

Although the INEL is dominated by sagebrush/grass uplands, over 2000

acres of wetlands may temporarily exist on the INEL during periods

of high water fiow in the Big Lost River. The Big Lost River 5preadiny

areas and the Big Lost River sink.‘ are major wetlands on the INEL. These

wetlands provide habitat for migraiory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other

w41A14fa enne4ae..r,...........

C.2 Fauna

A diverse insect population is associated with sagebrush communities and

is an integral part of the rangeland ecosystem.

One amphibian and nine reptile species have been recorded on the INEL.

Published reports indicate that an additional five reptile and five am-

phibian species may be found on the INEL. The only amphibian observed

on the INEL is the Great Basin spadefoot toad. This species remains bur-

rowed in the soil until moisture conditions are adequate for breeding.

Of the nine reptile species occurring, the short-horned lizard, sagebrush

lizard, gopher snake, and western rattlesnake occur commonly ♦throughout

the INEL.

102

At some time during the year, 159 bird species are found on the INEL and15 additional species have been listed as possible occurrences. Twenty-nine species of game birds have been recorded on the INEL, 23 of whichare species of waterfowl (including coots and common snipe). Sage grouse

are the most common resident game bird on the INEL, which provides an

important wintering and breeding/nesting habitat for this species. Al-

though many grouse migrate from wintering/breeding ranges on the INEL

to offsite areas, some grouse summer near INEL facilities and the Big

Lost River. The pheasant, gray partridge, chukar, blue grouse, and

mourning dove are other game birds found on the INEL. A11 except the

mourning dove are uncommon; only one observation of a biue grouse has

been reported on the INEL.

Sikty-nine byrcie of pa” n ti!Innvw bewn Ftcurded on TIM 4fic 1J n

1e

these, the most common species include the horned lark, black-billed mag-

pie, robin, sage thrasher, Brewer's sparrow, sage sparrow, and western

meadowlark. These species occur throughout the INEL. The sage sparrow,

Brewer's sparrow, and sage thrasher are the most common nongame bird

species breeding the INEL.

The INEL is an important nesting and wintering area for raptors. Twenty-

two species of raptors have been observed on the INEL. American rough-

legged hawks, American Kestrels, prairie falcons, and golden eagles are

the most abundant raptors observed on the INEL during the nonbreeding

season. The most abundant breeding raptors on the site are American

Kestrels and long-eared owls.

Thirty-seven species of mammals are found on the INEL. Eighteen of these

species are rodents. The Townsend's ground squirrel, least chipmunk,

areAt Patin porknt monks. ()Mak kangaroo rat, western harvest mouse, deer

mouse, bushy-tailed wood rat, and montane vole are the most common small

mammals on the INEL. These animals are also relatively common throughout

sagebrush regions of the Intermountain West.

Four species of leporids occur on the INEL: Black-tailed jack rabbits,

white-tailed jack rabbits, Nuttall cottontails, and pygmy rabbits. All

but the white-tailed jack rabbit are considered abundant.

103

Six species of carnivores occur on the INEL. Of these, the coyote, long-

tailed weasel, and the badger are considered common. The bobcat occurs

throughout the INEL but is generally uncommon. The mountain lion is con-

sidered rare. Tha spotted skunk is generally uncommon, but can be found

in basalt outcrops.

The INEL supports resident populations of mule deer and pronghorn. Mule

deer are considered uncommon and are generally concentrated in the

southern and central portion of the INEL. They occur in greater numbers

on the buttes and mountains surrounding the INEL. Pronghorn are found

throughout the INEL and are generally considered abundant. Most prong-

horn in south eastern Idaho are migratory. During winter, 4500 to 6000

pronghorn, or about 30% of Idaho's total population, may be on the INEL.

C.3 Important Habitats

fon maintaining a viable)Important habitats are those which are nareecary

wildlife population or which have a limited distribution on the INEL --

and could thus be eradicated by hmrturbation (e.g., a fire). Because

many wildlife species on the INEL are sagebrush obligates, all sagebrush

habitats within the INEL are important. However, the northern end of the

INEL contains an interspersion of low sagebrush and big sagebrush

habitats that provides critical winter and spring range for sage grouse

and pronghorn.

Juniper communities on and adjacent to the INEL are important to nesting

raptors and several species of songbirds. The Big Lost River sinks pro-

vide wetlands in an area where this habitat type is generally lacking.

When water is present, the sinks are used by a large number of waterfowl

and shorebird species. Tne relatively iimited GIM03 wf these habitats

and their importance to wildlife suggest that they should also be con-

sidered important.

C-4. Aquatic Ecology

Aquatic habitat on the INEL consists of evaporation and percolation ponds

and the Big Lost River and associated sinks and spreading areas. Aquatic

104

and littoral vegetation associated with distributed sites are likely to

predominate around the man-made ponds. Littoral plants include thistle,

speedwell, wild lettuce, wheatgrass, wild barley, and willow. Sedges,

cattails, and rushes are the most common macrophytes. The surrounding

vegetation of all ponds is dominated by big sagebrush.

The Big Lost River flows across approximately 31 miles of the INEL,

from the southwest to north, before it terminates in the Big Lost River

sinks, which contribute to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Plains cotton-

wood is the primary riparian species along the river.

105

Appendix D

HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM(a)

106

Appendix D

HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM(a)

The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) was developed to distinguish between

those abandoned waste sites that may pose human health or environmental

problems from those that do not. Each waste site is evaluated using a

series of standard questions that examine aeverai cwc‘ts of the site,

and numerical scores are assigned according to prescribed guidelines.

To use the HRs, ono enlIncts information on exposure routes, exam-

ines the characteristics of the waste, and then assesses the potential

targets in the vicinity. While the system does not provide an absolute

assessment of potential risk, it is one of the few tools available for

comparing a diverse number of waste sites.

The HRS consists of several work sheets that are used to group the

information about the site. Each work sheet covers one potentiai route

of release of (or exposure to) pazardous material from the site. The

routes are: migration of the hdzardous material through 1) air, 2) sur-

face water and 3) ground water; 4) exposure by fire or explosion; and 5)

exposure by direct contact with material at the site. The work sheets

aid in the evaluation of the characteristics of each exposure route (in-

rinel4nn eneh +Milne AC Amnlint of ra4n fall and soil oermeability), the

characteristics of the waste(the degree of hazard presented by the

waste), and the targets (people or sensitive environments) near the site.

A score is given for each of the five routes of exposure, and an overall

site ranking is generated by weighting each of the individual route

scores.

The modified Hazard Ranking System (mHRS) was developed to work

within the framework of the EPA's HRS without changing the overall scor-

ing system. The design of the HRS permitted a modification that allowed

(a) See Reference 3 in section 8.0

107

radioactive and chemical wastes to be evaluated separately without having

radioactive and chemical wastes to be evaluated separately without having

to duplicate information used to evaluate other aspects of the waste

site.

The modifications to the HRS for radioactive waste sites were re-

stricted to the waste characteristics category of the ground-water,

surfarA-water, air, fire and explosion, and direct contact routes. this

approach allowed for the common use of information in the route charact-

eristics and targets sections of the HRS, which are pertinent to the

radioactive, as well as to the nonradioactive, constituents of the site.

The mHRS splits the waste characteristics categories into two sub-

sections: 1) radioactive wastes and 2) chemical wastes. A "separate but

equal" approach was taken in that the relative hazards of the radioactive

and nonradioactive constituents are evaluated separately and the scores

assigned over the same range of values.

The scores for the radioactive wastes and chemical wastes are calculated

separately and then compared. The higher the score is the value assigned

the site.

Ranking scores from evaluation of the ICPP Waste Sites follow.

108

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charae of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

MAH-FE-304 Injection Woll.

Score: Sm = 34

SFE =

SDC =

Total = 34

Ing

Ground Water Route Work Shoot

NatIna Fester A4169ned Value(Cirete Onel

Mvit•Or

gees Maa.Seore

Ref.(Swan I

Rain ea Am 11 45 3.1al Observed LIT I 96-1 1

Release is Given a Seers of 45. Pressed te Utte gj.If ObservedObserved Snow is Sven a Sows ef 0. Preen le Uns alIf .

Souse Cheresternes 3.2xiDepth te Aquifer ef 0 1 2 3 2 6ConineNot nrettleitatien 0 1 2 3 I 3nennebilky et the 0 1 2 3 1 3Unwanted Lane"win Stets 0 1 2 3 t 3

Total Route Cherseternes Seers 15

cm Containment 0 1 2 3 1 — 3 3.3

a Wane ChneteriadesChains,

ndity/Penistenoss. Tee Inflow Wen

0 3. 6 * 12 14 10 2 3 4 6 (el 7 S 1

16II

3.4

QuantityItedlesedve

a)

\

b.1 Mann Observed6.2 Maanum petental

0 9 3 7 1 1 II 21 25 10 3 7 Al IS 21 21 1

2526

Total Wan Charanenties Score W.25(Upset of 44. b. 1.11.2.1 46.+

31 TargetsGreund Water Use 0 t 2

i a 4 a I 3 9

T 10 1 40

3.5

Mann te MenetWeil/PepuIsten 1 IS .11 is itaServed J 24ag 32 36 40

iTeter Tanns Score

13? 49

an If Une al is as. wadi M a 33 x 1 ChainIf Um CO le O. Maly 1 a an a Ca di fladiesethre

14311957.330

kr Divide Use it *67.330 and PAuttlely by 100 36, • III. • 37. a I

110

mHRS r011FR cHFEI

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Pfulataiiny Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Tank Farm = Sept. 1975 Cont. Soil incident.

Score: SM = 18

SFE 2

SDC

Total = 18

111

ASNO1ISSISSMPINVomonnovuoillipooli

Ground Water Route Work Shimt

Rating hetet Assigned Value I Multi.fatale Onel 1 pller

sects Maa.Uwe

RotISecton)

rii) At • I I 46 1 IMt cm...moved Rotes 1/4.;.-., •I a 3.1

Release is Given4 Seers of 411. Premed to Une Go .a Seers of O. Proceed te Line CO.

If obeened

If Obsorved Rinses Is Given

nit 06 --.. 4.4

6 1 2 3 2 •

0 1 2 in I 30 1 2 3 1 3

O 1 a s 1 3

Sanaa etweaseadjoiro•

Depth to Aquifer ofcome',Net PrecieltatIonPenned/Iv of tlisUnmturted Wm

Intmical State

Total Reins Characteristics kora4 1

a3 Containment 0 1 2 (9 1 13 3 3.3

al Waste CharastarisMisChemicala. Tosicity/Persistenes

riassnieue Waste0 3 6 a 12 14 6 1 1110 1 2 us 4 6 e 7 it 1 I

\0 1 3 7 11 15 21 26 1 290 1 3 7 4.1 15 21 AP 1 29

3.4

CluendwRadioactiveb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

al anonstiaties Score 44.Wane ChTot(WPM of 44. b.1. b.2.I 4b.1"331" 26

3.50 1 2 3 9

es n A a I In 1 401St 4,. 20

i 24 32 35 40

n TargetsGround Water Use'Megan...a ta N•arectWell/PopulationStemd

Twins Ileors 32 49i Total

GO If Une en is 411. MUM.* al to CM a al Chemicaile um QS O. mai, ag a 00 it al ii cm Radioactive

57.330/saga

al Olinda Line al Im417.330 Multi** 100 Sig,„ a qv, I 34and

Sm.= 314)473 % /g*

112

mHRS COVER SHPFT

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Locadun; idahv Chemi‘al PI ing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebolor Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

TransformerYard CPP-705 PCBs.

Score: SM = 13

SFE =

Soc 2

Total = 13

113

Ground Water Rout. Work Shoot

Rating Pastor Anion. Yalu.(Orals Onsl

Muithpast

soon MaSW.

Ref.111•Ctionl

III Oberst Melees. CV 411 1 I d i " I 3.1

If Obseend Reiss is Given

R•litase Is Given

a Soon of MI. Preend to Une eg .

a Seers of 0. hos* to Una cm ,If Obeyed

Route Cherststaristios 3.20 1 2 3 2 i

a 1 2 L 1 30 1 2 (3) 1 3

0 1 2 0 t 3

paDepth to Aquifer ofCommaNet liraelplenionheritability of theUnmanned Zone

SItysial Sate

Ton Routs Charestentides lien 4 15

CZ Containment 0 1 2 0 i 3 3 13

GO Wens Charamarlades

0 y a III. 12 IILAZI 1 1.0 e, 2 3 4 eir 7 3 1 e

\

S. 1 3 7 11 19 21 26 1 29' 1 3 7 Al It 21 29 1 a

3.4Wriesta. Tozitts-..,/R—,-0-r—

Hazardous WasteOustnIty

Radiantly.b.1 Manua Observedb.2 Maximum Polonsiai

Wats Chareatentios boors 4•14.sb. 26out

linen of 44. b.1. b.2.1

iti TargetsGfround Wan UseMaumee to Nearest 1

o .1 a 3 . 3 90 • 0 0 10 1 40

1 21114 31: 23: 40

3.5

Well/PopuledonServed

I TotalTargets Sows .29 49

a 31 x 00 Chanel

x CB x 1 x i Radinatin

a slita..57.330

CI If Line alls 45. mutilate EllIf Une al is a. mums*. (2)

Ca Ohne Line 33 *117,330 and Multiply by 100 cilw • Oriw • 4.733

Sft= A3.2,1473 :/3

114

muCie rAUCD CUCCTYVV...,

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemicai Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Transformer yard CPP-731 PCBS.

Score: SM = 13

SFE 2

SDC

Total = 13

115

Ground Water Route Work Shoot

Rating haterAsstrod Valuelarclo Ono,

Mug*.Piler

'sem Mas.Scots

Rot(Sootion)

rin All•--..• 111.....n..... 0 49 AS

14.1 WIEN•WVIIME ••••••••••• Z 1i

If Obsormid Rides is Ghim a goers of 45. Pressed to Uns 3.Rolm* Is Given a Seers of O. Proceed le Una ao.If Observed

3,2LTI neau weinersenitem0•9111 to Aquifer of 03 1 2 3 2ComernNot arsolidenlon 1 2 1

Prmobilky of the 0 1 2 sa 1

U.......... 7.....Plivaidal State 0 1 2 & 2

i

33

3

Total Routs Charsaterlades So 15

M Cootainmont 0 1 a 4) i 13 3 3.3

IM Won CharacteristicsChoreal

idatty/Persistones 0 ,..„, 6 * 12 14 1s. ToHaserdeus Wants 0 cl, 2 2 a s i) 7 9 iGuandty

Radioactive \

15.

3.4

6.1 Malcom Obstamd 9.. 1 3 \‘7 11 15 21 26 1b.2 Maximum Retaritial (V 1 3 71 '11 15 21 26 1

2626

Total Wens Clianictsrlstics Scots 4a. 26Mag of 44. 6.1. 6.2.) 46.1-9—ma

3:1 TargetsGround Water Um 0 *1 2 CO 3 9..,—....._ ea Mdaadmia. vans 10 1 40

3.5

10111•11a•Ol• RAW Iril••••••ryn

all/atipulation 13 n WSewed I 24st

ls 2032 35 40

I Total Tars Soon 37 49

Gil If Us* CO is M. Multiiiii 03•313100 Chemical

If Line Mis O.i

MuM0119 CM i M se El ig OD Radlooctivo

aut57.330

M Divide Une trj 6,67.330 and Multiply by 100 S. . q,„ • .13.3

3. 3/73 I 3

116

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering_Laboratory

Location: Luanw 0 Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker WW•111. a-a 4_,c_aarow

General Description of Facility:

PCB - Staging Area W. of CPP-660.

Score: SM = 13

SFE 2

SOC 2

Total = 13

117

Ground Water Routs Work Shoot

Rating FactorAssigned Value(Circle One)

Multi.Par

soots MatScore

Ref.ISection

M 811wwwid ftsiams ro) 45 1 I /) l a I1 - 1 3.1is Gluon Sara 411. Praised to Una 02H Observed Release

Mika is Given

a of .

a Score of O. Prateed to Una Ca .If Observed

Pri gas eparsemostiesa'

Oepth to Aquifer ofComoroNot PreolokationPennabillty of theUneventod Zane

.....(2) 1 2 3 a 6

1 2 1 30 1 2 3 1 3

0 1 2 GI t 3

3.2

Armload State

Total Remo Characterisdas 1

xnCM Cantainmant 0 1 2 c..y

13 33.3

al Wen CharamaristiosChemise(

0 3, 6 * 12 14 0 1 111a fil• w (.2 4 0 AAAAA . 4

\9.,„ 1 3 1 11 15 21 25 1 25CV 1 3 7 AI IS 21 25 1 26

i

3.4

•a. Tonicity/Persistence

nassurentiw nwirrieQuantity

Radlemnive6.1 Maximum Obenoti6.2 Masknum Potential

I Total Waste Ownoterleties aeon 44.1÷1Maroon of 44. 6.1, 6.2.1 4b.

26

ila TargetsGround Water UmDistance to NanaWell/PootilationSound

0 • 4. 2 3 91 0 • 6 10 1 40 q? tea Ill_ IS 20J 24Cig 32 35 40

3.3

ITargets Score

la 41

Go if us co is 44.1Ausisi tat a m si asTalli

Chemical

If Une C13 Is O. Molly* 013 a CM ii al a 31 Radioactive57.330

1

rin Divide Line CE bp57.330 and Multiply by 100 Wys • sitv • ,g3. 3

Sus A3.3 3 /3

118

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location; Idaho Chemical Pruceaaing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker ['ate: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Paint and Paint Solvent Storage Area by CPP-697.

Score: SM = 13

SFE =

SOC =

Total = 13

119

Ground Water Route Work Shen

Plating Faster Assigned Valuelane Onel

MunkOr

seen MetScore

Ref.likens%)

(0 41 1 I a I 45 I 3.1— 111 Observed Release—

Rena is Givena Sere of 411. Proceed to Una a .a Seen of 0. Prised Ur Una CO .

lf ObservedRelease is Givenif Observed

m Routs ChenateristlesDeath to Aquifer ofC110011011No Preslatardenannebility ef theUnsaturated Zone

...nt 3.2(0.1 1 2 3 1 s

1if 1 2 k 1 31 3

9 1 a cit) t 3*veal Sate

Tetal Route Charecteriedes Seen 15

nu • • As . As Alsr A a . (Iv

...

t ii

.•

3.3A•rinsamei•

La """ '1"'""" '

El Waste CharacteristicsChemicala. Toxicity/Penitence 0 i_ • 5. 12 la 6%) 1 15

0 /41 L.% 11 • &&&& 0 I •

11 3 I 11 15 21 25 1( 1 3 7 11 15 21 26 1

2626

3.4

1

Hasnainsaa Weems

Clare,

Radiantly'6.1 Mittman Observedb.2114exinium Potential

I TVA WWII CifilelletellstICIP 111COM

Marten 4a. 6.1. 6.2444.}÷1—4b.

26of

aa TargetsGround Winer UseOnion te NearestWell/PopthallonServed

0 1 2 3 91 0 • is f 10 1 40? ISA 111 20J 24 . 32 311 40

3.5

Totai Targets Score_37 1

41I

an if Una 03 is 41. Multiplir ED R ag x i Chemical

0 Une CO le O. Multiply i a CD x LI s an Radioactive

zata17.330

Une i bp57.350and Multiply Ity 1 co nye • A.3.3CZ] Divide

5m. A3.3473 I 3

120

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Oescription of Facility:

T-15 Hg contamination soil.

Score: SM = 13

SFE

SDC =

Total = 13

121

Ground Water Route Worlc Shoot

Rating Pastor Assigned nemICirelo 0a

Munkpin

scan Max.Same

- Ref.ISectice)

CO Observed Rana dit) 46 1 Lel I 411 I 3.1

is Ginn Seers of 46. Pressed te Una auIf Observed Release a .If Observed Reines Is Given a Seem of O. Preemd le Line GO,

Routs Characterises* 3.2HOepth te Aquifer ef 3 1 2 3 2 eCanaanNet Prealeitstien & 1 2 A 1 3Portftehelly of the 0 1 2 /3) 1 3Unsaturated Zone

"nisei State 0 1 2 S t 3

I Teal Route Cliametensties Scare 15h

al ContaMment 0 1 2 IC 1 3 3 3.3

El Waste Charaaterbrece 3.4Chernal

A 1 A A. • 4 •A tr..)TO / Persia 'I 16I. feel owlsHeardem Waste ; ; ; Z 11"-r 7 3 1Canny \

Radiomen \

II

b.1 Maximum Observed 1 1 3 7 ii 15 r 26 1b.2 Maximum Petentai — 1 3 7 AI 1 I 21 26 1

26AM

otal Wane Characteristics Mote 441+1 25Magna of 4a.b.l. b.2.) 41).I Targets

Ofreund Water UseMama to Newest

3.50 7 2 (0 . 3 90 4 e M 10 1 40

Well/PepulatienServed 1

111 It 1$ 2024CS1 32 31 40

Total Targets !Mere 39 46

GO If LineIf Une

MINI

46, Metre EaNGB xiIs O. Man en 1 fil II Li

Chemical

a an Radioacevo

OS57.330

CO Ohne Um ll bp57.330 and Multiply by 100 cre, • nv, • ,R3.3

Snt a3. 3 si /3

122

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering_ Laboratory

Location: TAskA Ch=.9in=1 P inn Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Oate: 1-15-86

General Oescription of Facility:

Courtyard CPP-637 Zirc. Fluoride release.

Score: Sm = 13

SFE 2

SDC

Total = 13

123

Ground Water Route Work Shot

Rating FewerAssigned ValueICIrelo Onol

Multi.pllor

soon Mas.Soots

Ref,Mondani

Release (0.) 45 1 0 45 I 3.1al Observed I I

Release is Given a doers of 45. Pressed to Unto alIf Observed .

If Observed Reboot Is Ginn a Sore of 0. hosed to Una al],

Route Charectelistlits 3.2GaDepth to Aquifer of 0 1 2 3 2 4

ConcernNet Prololtallen CO 1 2 A t 3Pernmeillty of tte 0 1 2 (3) 1 3Unsaturated Zone

Physical State 0 1 2S t 3

Total Route Chareattinsties :MOM 6 15go Containment o 1 2 S 1 13

3 3.3

al waste ChareeteristlosChemical

a A A S 12 14 PIZ 1

3.4

18a. To-I-It/P---1-6-1--liasardous Wasta 002341Y711alma \

Rodioectre

1

b.1 Minimum Obasived 0 1 3 7 11 15 21 26 1•

44 •b.2 Maximum Potential A1 a d• ••• 414 fill 410 4

• • i SN, G IS •Il •f/ OW •

261 g

total Waste Chentatenstlos Score 4I.1.4"..1 26(Largest of 4a. 6.1, b.2.) 4b.

(11 TargetsGround Water UseDistance Nearer

3.50 4 2 (.3) • 3 90 4 II 11 10 1 40to

Well/PopulationSenied

ItbA 32 35 40 15 20

24

Toad Tegets Score 3 y 49

al:1 If Une al la 46. Multipli EV sIf Une al is 0. Multittlt MaliligS]zOD

CI a Eln Chemical

Radioactive

at17.330

al IMMO Une BO bp67.330 and Multiply by 100 568 • 11;v, • ,R3 3

SA a3 . 34:7 3 13

124

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Prvccaaing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker

General Description of Facility:

Oct. 1974 South of Tank 181 Tank Farm.

m_s-. i_ie_ocUdJAI • .1-1J-fau

Score: SM = 13

SFE =

SDC =

Total = 13

125

Ground Water Route Work Shatit

Rating FactorAssigned ValueICIstio Onel

Mufti*Mee

ken MaScore

Ref.(Sectloni

I gri.....M (0) 46 1 1 4 at I i 1i .

0........4.•

Release la Givena Seem of 46. Proceed te Una al.a Son of 0. Proceed to Line al .

If ObservedRelease Is GivenIf Observed

nit ethseeffiffieselsrin 2;2

0 1 2 3 a 0

1 2 10 1 2 61 1

33

0 1 2 0 c 3

sin...OOPS te Aquifer ofConsentNet precieltetlenPentiesility of thelatairpated Thoida

Physical State

Total Recto Chamomile** Score 6 15/-_.

Lai containment 0 1 2 0) 1 I3 3 3.3

U Waste Charactotistica

0 A 6 * 12 14 G) 1 1110 C9 2 34: 0 7 9 1 •

,0 1 3 1 11 As 21 26 1 290 1 3 7 1.10y 21 20 1 25

3.4Chemicala. Toxicity/Penistenes

Haartious WasteQuantity

Radioactiveb.1 Maximum Obuindb.2 Maximum Potential

Total Waste Chantaterlatics Score 44.1...a.1Margate of 4a, b.1. b.2.1 4b. 26

LE TargetsGround Water UseEllitageta

0 1 2 co 3 91 O 4 t 11 10 1 40

111..ii 16 20I 24C, 32 36 40

3.6

ell mamasWell/PopuladonSaved

ITotal Targets Score 39 491

GO If Line al Is 46. Multioli ED • al a al Chemical

If Une al is 0. Multiplier CD li CO x al • DE Radioactive13 33:•iii•57.330

al Civet, Lino 00 bp67.330 Multiply by 100 $6, • nw, • ‘23.3and

Snot= s / 3

126

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering_Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Pervn(b) •in Ch wo vf Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

April 1974 Cont. Soii near CPP-604 E of CPP-604 by Stack.

Score: SM = 13

q„ =-rc

SDC =

Total = 13

127

Ground Water Route Work Shoot

Rating fleeter Assigned value(Circle Onel

Multi*pile

saws Mu.Seam

Ref.(Section)

al Reines4'1Lv 46 i I 0 1 46 1 3.1Observed

Reissue is Given Score of 46. Proceed to Una alIf ObservedRelease is Given

s .

a Score of 0. amend to Use I.If Observod

-12 Route CharacteristicsDepth to Muller ofCousinNet PresiitatenPerniamity of UmUneetureted Zone

Physical Sesta

3.215) 1 2 3 1 fl

6;) 1 2 k 1 30 1 2 CV 1 3

O 1 2 0 C 3

Total Route Chersaterledes Seem 6 isCO Continuant 0 1 2 0

1 13 3 3.3

EU Waste ChwurteriedesChemicala. Tordelty/lIersletenes

Maserdeus WasteOusialty

Rediticire

0 3_ 4 * 12 14 66) 1 150 02 3 4 6 -1- 7 II 1 6

\

0 1 3 * 11 11. 21 26 1 260 1 2 et Al A 0 21 22 1. 2.

3.4

6.1 Maximum Observedto asasitimi nusulai

Totsi Waste Chnutteristies Score 44.ilargeet of 44. b.1, b.2.1 4b .1-4— 25

130 TargetsGround Water Use

to 1111/1111111110 * 2 3 3 9 0 4 6 6 10 i aoIS 16 IS 2024e9) 32 35 40

3.5

cannonmanopuistionSaved

Total Targets Score 3 ÿ 49

El3 if Una Wis 45, Mukha+ III it Gg x 1 Chemical

If Une al he O. Multiply (2) s al it CM x (11 Redioadtirs

gal57.330

ra Divide Line OD by417,330 Multiply by 100 cow s qv, s 023.3and

Sin= a3.3X93 = /3

1 2 8

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Faciiity:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Valve Box 8-4 NW 50 ft.

Score: SM = 13

e __aFE

Soc =

Total = 13

129

Ground Watar Route Work 3heet

Rating Fader Assigned Value(Orel. Onel

Mufti-Pilef

gam Max.Sears

Ref.13ectIon)

Al A bussed 40 411 ip, in a i 3 IL:••

j Lt I .

As—.laid "'nil" 4

Reis is Given a Seem of 411. Premed to Una Gg .e Ikon of 0. Presd to Lim al ,

If ObtainedNOM, ill Givenif Observed

rat . iMmarseasleSk• a 1.1

61/ 1 2 3 2 6

1 2 I 3a?) 1 2 al 1 3

0 1 2 & r1 3

Si alba

la•" "n• Depth le Aside, ofConcernNet nreeklitetiellnennettlikty el theIlransamat Tana

Phylisal State

Total Reuse Chamaterledes Seen 6 16

/71Lai Containment 0 1 2 3/ 7

i3 3 3.3

eu Waste Cbarsatarisdos

0 L 6 19 12 14 6) 1 180 0 2 3 4 6 6 7 3 i 3

\0 1 3 ' 7 At 11 21 26 1 260 1 3 7C9 15 21 26 1 26

3.4Chemical4. Toxicity/Persistence

Halartion WasteQuantity

Radioactiveb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

Total Warta Cheremenstias Score 4e.H7r1Onset of 44. b.1. b.2.1 4b. 26

ag TargetsGround Wow Usenisesien taanat

0 1 2 61 3 91 • • • • 10 1 40

It& ji, it 20I ad& 32 38 40

3.6

taWed/PopuladenSenna

I Total Targets Seers13?

I49

GO If Line CO le N. Middy* allmajxl Chemical

If Lbw CO Is 0. Multildr 0Dxaligu mi Radioactive

ilia57.330

132 Olyide Une ag *67.330 and Multiply by 100 11;rw • 11;‘, • A3,3

Sm.% .2.3.3X-73 z 13

130

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Va1ve Rox R-4 SW,

Score: SM = 13

SFE a

SDC

Total = 13

131

Ground Water Route Work Shen

Rating haterAssigned Value(Circle Onel

Munkidier

soon Ms&San

Ref.ISactionl

al Obeened Roles= 0 45 1 0 45 I 3.1

Release ia Given a Seers of 45. Premed ts Use allf Observed .

Release is Given a Seem of 0. Pressed a Une al,lf Observed

al Route Charecterletles 3.2

Depth te Aquifer of 0 1 2 3 2 6

CanaanNet Preelpitstien g 1 2 ;,, 1 3

iennerniky of t a he 1 2 Iiiw (.7 1 y

Unsaturated ZoneR1Weisal State 0 1 2 S t 3

I Total Route Chereetendes San G 16.aticenueninent o i a N , 3 3 13

eg Waste Charecteristies 3.4

Chemical r_111s. Tendeity/Psnistsnee 0 43, 6 1. 12 14 (.9., 1 15

Haserdeus Waste 0 01 2 3 4 5 4 7 3 1 II

QuantityRadinetveb.1 Minimum Observed 0 1 3 7 11, 15 21 26 1 26

b.2 Main:um Potential 0 1 3 7' (11)111 21 26 1 24

onrs 4s.al ns Cannades SeeSeTe(Largest

26of 44. b.1. b.2.) 4b.1-÷

fla TargetsGres= Wear Ups

Newest

3.5• • I /CO 3 2

w - w LIY0 4 4 10 1 40Oistanos aWell/PepulatienSaved I

1f2: 1,I, 18 2024 ce 32 35 40

Teal Targets Seen: ay 43

. al if Line 031.4.. Multi.% in • a! x OD ChemicalOa I in rel La a iinilliall MN • MI y 121 . III

ega 57.330

re, lai us •• psonsative

IT Yo• gnessPen• a — LW - i - 1 -' iai I

a! Divide Line al b1,57.330 and Multiply by 100 cre • c„,•a3.3

Sm. A3.3, -4. 2 1- 13

132

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: idaho Chemical P, Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker n _s_. 4 ,e_aeUAGUi 1-1fliv

General Description of Facility:

Contaminated Soil Northeast of CPP-604 bY WM-102.

Score: Sm = 13

SFE 2

SOC =

Total = 13

•

133

Ground Wenn Routs Work Shoot

Radii Factor Amigned Value(Circle Onel

Multi-Idler

sews Ma. 1Sawa

Ref.(Soeton)

Release ' 0 45 1 101 46 I 3.103 ObservedObeyed Relemei la Olven a Score of 45. Premed to Una mi.

a !core of 0. Proceed to Una T.If

If Obsoleted Reims Is Given

al Route CharectedadossOmit• to Aquifer ofCementNot ProdokationPannebilite of seUnmotivated 7.ene"mai Sate

3.2S 1 2 3 2 6

0 1 2 I_ 1 30 1 2 M 1 3

0 1 2 s I 3

I Total Route Chanciest Score ‘ 16

III Containment o 1 2 1$ i 3 3 13

al Wen CharainerWtka

A 1 a a. II d• • A /tin 1 le002 3 4 5 11 7 S 1 S

\ k,0 1 3 i 11 111 21 26 1 260 i 3C. nr 3.1 15 21 26 i 26

3.4OwnsicalG. Titutklasti i 'walla— si—ittiefiei

Hammlotta WarsGamily

Remlimativeb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Patentai

Totai Van CJatietNbtfw Score 48.1./4.1(Largest of do, b.1. b.2.1 4b. 26

}

0 *1 2 & ' 3 !)0 4 II 5 10 1 40VIA 15 2024 32 35 40

3.6H TaraGround Water UmMauna to NewestWolf/PopulationServed

Total Twists Score 39 41

GE If Uno ai le 45. lAiddoli al aIf Um, al le 0, Multiple CD 4

Ile x On Chemicala57.330al i Eil all Redimativo

Ca Divide Una IE *67.330 Multiply by 100 V a Vra ow

• 02.3 3and

Sts a3.3 73

134

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in (Margo nf Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

ContamiucLud soil buried in NE security ,....

Score: Sm = 13

SFE 2

Soc

Total = 13

135

Ground Writer Route Work Sheet

Rating PesterAmMned Value(ande Onel

Muni'slier

scats Max.Score

Ref.ISselon1

133 Release GI) 46 1 I a [ a I 3.1Observed

If Observed Reines is Given a Seers of 45. Pressed to Une al .If Observed Release is Given a Score of O. Proceed to Une al .

1-4 Route Charecterisden /.71 12

1,Depth to Aquifer ef urj 1 2 3 2 '

CeramNet Precipitation 1 3

1 2 1 3Semmering, of . T, 1 2 ?)

Unsaturated Zeno 4.1 O . .. • ..eltvelesi State i e Li,/ .1. ..

Total Route Characterising Seers IS_6rim consomme o 1 2 (3) 1

%._.-- 2 3 3.3

Eg Waste Characteristics 3.4

Chemicals. Tordeity/Persistance 0 3 6 II. 12 14 CO I 18

Mandela Warta 00234 5 6 7 8 1 8

GoonsRadiendveb.1 Maximum Observed 0 1 3 \ 7 11 111 21 26 1 26

b.2 Maximum Potential 0 1 3 trEttl 11 21 211 1 211ekaanterimnies lanes Lei If I ITana Wants

26I Ilareeet et 44. b.1. b.2.1 4brrl 1

ari Targets 3.5

Ground Water Use 0 9 2 3 9

Ohara to Nearest 1 0 4 6 f,, , , 40

wenieoptdation ( Its 1A 111 20Served J 24 1 32 36 40

Teta linen SeersI

l it2 iis/49

33 if Une En ts 45. mos* CO it M x DE Chemical a 33f

If uno 03 is o. Molar IM a CB x 09 x i Radioactive—r---57.330

st . sfl . / 7 -2rni Divide Line al iit57.330 and Muldrow tr, too -ter - -sw an,/ • .."

Sm.:. al 43 = /3

136

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Asbestos,

Score: SM = 12

SFE =

SEX 2

Total = 12

137

Air Routs Work Shoot

Rutin Penar _

ratinti ma.Seem

i usf,

FiSamion)i A..mviso value mum.

1 lama Ons) 1 pike

120 Observed Reims 0 S 1O 45 5.1tic

On IS"; /4/ef - eft 40/1 id R k 03, 40 1, &u:576;01;slid Sum/Pier

Small lintil": SO/Siany9/C. — "Ci19.5C.V IC 414.4,5-;<5-

It Mee IS Oahe Se • O.if Una is MI. Then Proceed

Inter on Line gg .to Una al .

23 Waste Chareateimica 5.2

a. ChemicalPlatetivity and @ 1 2 3 1 3

ineorlreirdUntyTate/ 0 1 al 3 3 9

Hannieus Wane 0 0 2 3 • 5 • 7 9 1 I

Clusnetyb. Radkutaave (2 2 5 II 12 14 20 1 20

Total WaseiChaniatariatka Mni a 2.*29.

.20 I

.e)

Lai TennPepulatien Within4.Mlis Radius

Oistanaa Sonedet

1 0 4 ir2. le 13 1 30

I 2,1 27 30C 2 3 2 e

41. ... 4 itv . ..... 1 3

5.1

seEnvironment

Land Mae

Total Then Saone a.hantal

- C

MultlpPe Ill r CI 11 H hadkumitive311.100

an Dhilda Una Eg in 36.100 and Multiply by 100 5;• n • s-a

m. clu szi. 3 a

138

mMRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemicai Processing Piant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

CPP-633 French Drain (Excess Chemical Waste).

Score: SM = 11

SFE

SDC =

Total = 11

139

Ground Water Routs Work Sheet

Ratio* PiesAssigned Value I &WS(Clads Onel _I Wm

seen Max.San

Ref.Onion)

Observed Renee (.8) 46 1 1 0 ( 48 I 3.1W

tf Obseaved Reines is (Svena Seers of 46. Proceed to Uns 3 .a Score of 0. Proceed ts Une al ,Renee Is GivenIf Observed

Route Chereeternes 3.2C) 1 2 3 2 6

61) 1 2 3 1 30 1 2 71) 1 3

0 1 2 p T 3

geairmen to Aquifer ofCanna

Net PreelphirdenPennebility of UtsUnwanted ZenoFlynn State

Total Route Chereeternies Seers ‘3 1 5

al Comaimnant 0 i 2 ---- 1 3 3 3.3

al Waste Chem:tering

0 2 S f Z 1 2 1 A A 1 1*0 1 2 3 4 5 l& 7 3 1 8

\

9.., 1 3 7 11 IS 21 26 1 26ze ,ii • . de. •• • • • il• 41. • ••••L WS/ II • • Pa II NW A i OM I se

3.4Chemina, Torden/RermietweeHeardeue WasteCluentIty

Redonda*b.1 Maximum Observed•••••• IMMAINTIUM rvienal

Total Waste Ghereaterlsdas Scots 44.1.hiril(Largest of 44. b.1. b.2.I 4b. 26

Ctil TargetsGround wan UseOhnenee Nearest

1

0 '1 2 S ' 3 90 4 6 8 10 1 40IS 1,4. 11 2024 es 32 36 40

3.3

tewen/PopulatIonServed

Tete( armlets Scare 21 43

IL If Use EC Is 46. Multiphi EU s GB it afi Chantal

If Uns alb 0. MM11111, CD a al a El a Ila Radioactive

lim87.330

IM Divide Une BB In87.330 and Multiply bey 1 00 S. a 3;,„ * /2.. ci

sat % R.s4 3 .= It

140

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering_Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Persnn(c) in charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

ul_lm* 2 "I to same unit.Line fr-VM Li-r-uaa uw M6-1Wm

Score: SM = 11

SF; =

SOC =

Total = 11

141

Ground Water Route Work Sheet

Rating factor,

Assigned Value(Circle Onel

WASPlier

saws Mat.Score

Rel.,Issetion,

03 Observed Release 0 41 1 0 46 3.1

If Observed Release is Given • Seers of 45. Proceed to Une ag .

I. Given Sears O. Premed to Una 03,If Observed Release • of

Cheracterledes 3.2rz ROWS‘11 1 2 3 9 ayews le mown. gm L..-,

CononNet Preelehation qp 1 2 3 I 3Penneolltiht of the 1 a 4) 1 3Unesonted Zone

0 1 2 i.ftv----. 0-- Lif

Total Route Charsateriedes Score 154,Fl contsament o 1 2 g 1 . A 3 3.3

U Waste Chnetariedos 3.4Chemicale. Tosksity/Penistance 0 9,,, 6 6) 12 14 1 s 1 111

Neserdoua Waste 0 0.) 2 3 4 II 0 7 S 1 IIQuantity

Radioactiveb.1 Maximum Observed 0 1 3 \ 7 11 11, 21 26 1 26\b.2 Masirnum Potential 0 1 3 '7 'SI iN 21 26 1 26

1 Total Waste Characteristics Score 44.1 AO i " I

I (Largest of 4s. b.1. b.2.1 4b.i7ri a 1

Li Targets 3.3Ground Water Use 0 i 2 ig 3 9

Distance to Nearest I o 4 S • lo 1 40a gia 1 0 9n......, r.„,,,......

Served 1 34,g 32 36 40

I Total Thre ats ScoreI

,..29 I) 49

11 If Um, co is Mk MUNI* al IP al a 3:1 Chemical

If Une 03 hi O. muss Gg * i x es x i Radioactive Anal57.930

IV miasma., i ire nn huat7 ihn aged Muitiellw M. 1 On :IL •it 5.1— 2 /C a, „ r 4, 1 /

Sm.= /81.4±13

142

mliRc rOM cHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engjneering Laboratory

Location: idaho Chemicai Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Kerosene soill bv WDS-100 9-24-83.

Score: SM = 9

SFE

SIX a

Total = 9

143

Ground Water Route Work Shoot

Rating Poeta Asslened Value(Circle Onel

multi.pile

&se MaSome

Not(Section)

rzt ..........._ ......- . a ) aLY .. 1 0- 46 1 3.1us womenyee ninguiti

Release is Given a Soon of 45. Proceed to Unit al .a Score of O. Premed to Line ag .

If ObeemedRelease le evenIf Observed

Route Chersoteriadee0 1 2 3 2 6

1 2 I1

30 1 2 3, 3

a 1 2 9 t 3

3.2rzDepth to Aquifer ofCeramNet PreeloitetionPennebility of theUnestureted Zane

Physical State

Tetal Nano Chem:triads San 6 le0 1 2 (3)

I 13 3 3.3PI Containment

al wane ChersonedsticaChismittai

0 An 1 it, 15) 14 1 ll 1 150 (3) 2 3 4 5 4 7 $ 1 11

0n 1 3 7 11 le 21 25 1 26/0) 1 3 7 1.1 IS 21 211 1 26

14

a. Toxicity/PenimenesHatawdous WasteGuenter

Rediesetvo11 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

total Waste Characteristics Score(Largest of 44. b.1. b.2.1

44.1.4intl4b. 25

MI TargetsOround Water UseOletance to

0 41 2 CP 3 9% a A IN ill4A • AA

I 24 4 13: 23: 403.5

.:eareatWeil/PeouladonServed

i Total Targets Seem 3er MI

al lf Une al le Mk Multioli Ell • alit Chemical

lf un• CO is O. wads 01) a Cli i al a On Radiendy•9 ia6as.57.330

al Divide Una ap *57.330 Maly by 100 s;„, • sly, • /.519and

sm. (5.9A.3

144

nAnrn /miser.MMK3 LWICK ancLi

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

CPP-637 Acid St Araa SA, Cerner.

Score: SM = 9

SFE 2

SDC 2

Total = 9

145

Ground Water Route Work Shot

Rada. FactorAssigned ValueICIrcie Onal

%ASWier

see Max.Score

Re,1Sectioni

III Observed Roles (0) 45 1 1 0 1 46 1 3.11

Raffles is Givena leers of 46. Proceed to Line GO.a Soon of 0. Premed to Line au.

if Observed

lf Observed Release I. Given

rm Route ChareotaristiesOn* to Aquifer ofCeram

Net eresieltatenPermabillty of theUnsaturated Zone

...-z. 3.20( J 1 2 3 2 a

1 2 1 30 1 2 e) 1 3

e'0 1 2 dy T 3Physic* State

Total Route Charemenedm Sart I 6 isrinaarte"teradtt * '1 2 '4) 1LW ..... W W 1

/1/4)

3 4 1

al Waste Championed=Chemicala. Tosietty/Persiatenee 0 3,„, 6 * 6:014 18 1 14

0 /I i 2 3 4 1 0 7 2 1- a

0 1 3 \.7 11 15 21 24 1 20S 1 3 7 11 15 21 26 1 26

3.4

1

HOSMINS•lin W114414Quantity

Radioactiveb.1 Minimum Observedb.2 Minimum Potential

I roulli rasa v.ingl:To ledba.121 go" :::EJERAIH 26

M TargetsGround Was UseDletance to NewestWell/PopuletionServed

0 1 2 0 3 91 0 4 4 0 10 1 40? TS .4 11 20J 24 32 35 40

3.5

1T Tests Soot* - a

3 y 49t

1 lf Uns 51 Is 45. MuitiPhi 011133xl Chemical

lf Une en is 0. "tumor I a CB a 1:43 a M Radioactive

gies 57.330

uu Divide Une t 1 *57.33D and Multiply by 100 Scow • SI, st 45-. 1

146

mHRS CnVFP. SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: idaho Chemicai Processing rran,

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Oate: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Grease Pit South of CPP-608.

Score: Sm = 9

SFE =

SOC

Total = 9

147

Ground Water Route Work Sheet

Rating Peas Assigiwd Value(Circle Onel

MCI-, lilior

son Max.Sac

Ref.(SectionI

En Observed Release 0 46 1 I 0 l 45 i 3.11 I I

Misses is Glum a Seers of 41. Pruned to Une G.a Seers of O. Pressed to Use ao ,

If ObservedRelease is GivenIf Observed

fl 3.2(31) 1 2 3 a 4

34 1, 2 3, ,1 3

0 1 2 (I/ t 3

HIloves Chincemisdas— Dunn se Aquifer of

CensersNet PreeleltstionPence/Sty of theUnmanned Zone

Physical Stets

Total Route Characteristic Sac 4 I, 15

PR e.antaimmas1 0 1 A 41 1 J- (...7 ‘...) 2

IA 13

al Waste ClisiesterledasChemicala. Toxlefty/Pemimenes

Hangelleima Wain

0 ;,,, 6 S. 6)14 n i 150 A i 2 . 2 4 a 4 7 11 1 111/4_0.-

0 1 3 \7 11 18 21 26 1 26V 1 3 7 '1,1 15 21 25 1 20

3.4

I

CO/entityRadioactiveb.1 Maithnum Observedb.2 Maximum Poundal

i1 ioui Wen Charm:mimic Score 4e.HA.1

(Largest of 4s. b. 1 . is.2.1 4o.26

0 1 2 3 91 o 4 11 410 1 40? 112(4

32 35 40 IS 20

J 24

3.3IA TargetsOniund Wear UseMance to Neatenwen/PopulationServed

I Tots; Taints Stieti yI ..

..r91

un if Une (33 Is 411. Multililli alsalal Chemical

if Une Q 0. Melte* CD 2 al 4 MI 4 as Radiondve

#416—I--57.330

im Clivid• Une LE 11,1117.310 and Multiply by 100 tow s sit s ig-. 7

sivt. z IS.9 3 9

148

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Pargon(s) in Charae of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Pit north of CPP-651.

Score: SM = 9

SFF =

Six 2

Total = 9

•

149

"7711.7Tr!

Ground Water Routs We* Sheet

Rating PermAssigned Wino(Circle Onei

WAS*paler

soon Mu.Score

Ref.flues")

rn Observed Nils, (0) 46 1 i n I 45i ,...- 1 I 3.1

Nelsen is Given a Seen of 4L Proceed to Une 131 .

a Score of 0. Premed ts Une rm.if Observed

If Obinnred Release is Given

r21 Route CheresterledesDepth to Aquifer ofCreanNet PrecipitationPecnebillty of thsUnsaturated Zone

CO2 1 2 3 2 6

3(f) 11

2 1 3 4 1

.--10 1 2 a/ S 3

3.2

MY140.1 Stets

Total Route Charesteriseles San 1, ‘ 1 15

a 4 0 in 1Lau wfurmitten. v • am, cv ',•_,

3 3.3

eg were CharecterledesChemicala. Tosiorty/Penistense..4 0 ,.. 6 & g 1 4 1 s i 1 s

a /40 1 2 a o a 7 2 1L.:0- 6

\0 1 3 ',.7 i t 15 21 26 1 2602 1 3 7' 3.1 16 21 25 1 26

I1

3.4

a z ar..—...: W. ensQuantity

Radioactiveb.1 Minimum Observed0.2 Masimum Potential

I TOW MO causeurnsucts WNW 441.H Carnet of 44. b.1. b.2.1 40.

25ti

Efa TargetsGround Water UseDistance to Newest

0 '1 2 0 3 91 0 4 S 5 10 1 40i n4 ,. 2024 32 31 40

3.5

Well/PepuladonServed

r[

Tsai Targets Score 3t- i ..we

i If Unit CO ie 45. Multi.? ED II Gn 1 00 Chemise*

5 Une a) is 0. wed.* ag a m i (33 a ag Radioactive

g ha57.330-J.

CD Divide Line I. i br17.330 and Mutely by 100 56, • 3;,, • /5,9

150

—tIne nAurnmnna t.wecn ancci

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebsksr Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

cervtre waate line from PFW to CPP-751 (PFW evaoorator overheads).

Score: SM = 9

SFE 2

SEX 2

Total = 9

151

Ground Wstor Route Work Shoot

Rating FactorAssigned Value(CIrclo One)

-

Min*plior

seem MatScore

Ref.(Section)

M Raisin (0) 46 1 i n i MI 1 3.1i_ i

Observed

If Obesnad Meioses is GivenReims is Given

a Seers of 46. Pressed to Line LE .

• Score of O. Pressed to Une I ,If Observed

IV poise CharsinenstiesDepth to Aquifer ofConcernNet InicloitationPiinnsbility of tlwUnwanted 7.one

3.26)- 1 2 3 a a

1 2 1 30 1 2 15 1 3

0 1 2 NI L 3"nal State

Total La Chereateriedes icon 1

RI a —a- —.a A • el faV 1 a U., • ‘....) 1- AI .•

laj INSPFIVIEVOT••••

EU Were Characteristics

0 3 6 q 12 14 16 1 1 110 1 2 ail• 7 * . •L7' - •

\0 1 3 7 11 15 21 20 1 20(g) 1 3 7' 11 1$ 21 26 1 20

3.4

I

Chemicala. Tosicity/Peninanos

11.11•••••••11rea•11.11FIra VVINHIMP

MasaRadioactiveb.1 Masiinwn ()beamedb.2 Maximum Potential

I Total wan characteristics 1140ts a(Largest of 411. b. 1 . b.2.I 4b.

25

aa TargetsGround Water UseDistance to NearestWell/PopulationServed

3.50 t 2 3 9

1 0 • 41 (2 10 1 40? 151.(0) 16 20J 24 . 32 36 40

Tar" Mom

I

I 311 46

I If Une Wis 415. filuitillii IINI33 OnToui1 Chemical

if Una 03 is a. moor agitalizai RI Radioactive

Ly:g 57.330

[CD [Avid* Une 33 bell7.330 Multiply by 100 rivi ' nur. 1/ POand

Sm.= 14.7 .73

152

_“ne rAtlen eurrrmnma I.VVCR amcci

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Permon(S) in Charge of FacilitY:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Organic Solvent and Misc. St Ars* W. mf CPP-660,

Score: SM = 8

SFE =

SDC 2

Total = 8

153

Ground Water Route Work Sher

Rating feats Assigned Vies I Mule'Circle One, 1 011st

gam Max.Score

net(Section)

CO Observed Rees g 46 1 i O 1 45 1 3.1I I

If Obsented Reese is eVell

Reline is Given

aeriea

46. Pressed to Una au.Sere of O. heed to Use CM ,If Obseived

al Route ChintnerlstlesCleve to Meter ofCensus

Nin PreeeitationPermabinty of ateUnsetwatad Zone

3.23 3 a 5

1 2 1 30 1 2 ti 1 3

0 1 2 cy T 3P1+esies1 Mate

Total Reins Characterises 16

MI cantamment n 1 2 Alll/

'2....)

1 3.3

[33 Chareirtaristice

0 4, 6 * cv 14 II 1 160 MY 2 2 5 4 7 s 1 a

0 1 3 \ 7 11 15 21 26 1 261 3 ' 7 3.1 15 21 26 1 26

3.4

I

WaneChemicala. Tintietty/PeraistenosHaareue WasteQuante

Relents6.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maid:num Potential

I iota: :ream Charamenees eaufe mid .1.1.1flargest of 44. b.l. b.2.I b,

26

aa TargetsGround Wes Use

Nearest0 .9 a 0 3 90 4 4 5 ;10 1 40

(..1 101 11 20 30 32 35 40

3.5

Olsten@ towee/PoouistionSoled

I(

Total Targe-a ewe .13 ..•

I If Una CD Is 46. Millflei al a 31 xi ChemicalIf Una al Is ci. tad** CD si an x 133 2 CI Rediosedve

122.1.57.330

run Mete Line re imq.311 imii Multiply by 100 re • Sire • 15.5

SrtiL 13.5X13 z

154

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processinq Plant

EPA Region: X

Parson(e) in !Marge nf Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

YOB-105 MF Tank

Neutralization Pit

Dry Well

Score: Sm = 8

SFE 2

SDC =

Total = 8

155

Ground Water Route Work Sheet

Rating Factor Assigned VOWS(Circle One,

MUM'

Owsoon Max.

SoonRef.

(Section)

ITI Release (01 48 I zi- I

Observed

If Observed Rases is Given

Reline Is Given

a Seers of 45. Premed ts Una a .

a Seen of O. Premed to Une CM,If Observed

Minute ChmecteriedesDepth to Aquifer ofCensers

Net PrecipitatesOrmwsidlity of theunsaturated Zone

2,2Cli, 1 2 3 2 e

1 2 A 1 30 1 2 CV 1 3

0 1 2 y c 3Physical Stets

Total Routs Charesteriades Score 18

/..1 .new ...••••°"--ta..."•.......—. 0 1 2 Lgi • I

— -...1 I ' 13

al Waste Chareateriedas

0 3 I,. CI 12 14 18 1 18A • Inal ea A a a • a a 0%V IliSfe.••••10 0 I •

\9, 1 3 \ 7 11 18 21 26 1 26(V 1 3 7 1.1 18 21 26 1 26

3.4Chemise'a. Tottleity/Persistenes

LllarmaitIflialflaili• VVINISIN

QuantityRadioactiveb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Masknum Potential

I Total Waste ChanteurrIstios Score 4a.pir(Largest of 4a. 6.1. 6.2.) otb. 26

ffil TargetsGround Water UseDistance n Nearest

0 i 2 3 91 0 4 11

3 10 1 40i 12 a II 2024 a) 32 38 40

3.6

WWI/ PopulationServed

{ Total Targets Score 3t? 49

lin if Une CE is MI, MultIgli Erjualxl Chemical

If Unto al I. 0. mumps. CO a al a Ill ig 1 Reding**

Was_- 57.330

PA Divide Use il Irp117.3110 Multiply by 100 11;w • Ilinv • /3,5ad

Sn,L= l3.s%73 = g

156

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

1---eion: Idaha rhamieal Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R L. N-k-=er

General Description of Facility:

Limestone Pit by CPP-601 and French Drain.

natal: 1.05-A6

Score: SM = 7

SFE

SOC

Total = 7

157

Ground Water Route Work Shot

Rating Pecter Auloned Vohs*Circle Onel ,_

MIASOW

30•410_

MasScore

Ref.ISectionl

W Observed Rates • 10 46 1 I I 46 I 3.1)

Release ia Given a Some of 45. Prised to Una Ill .a Scare of O. Proceed to Une CO.

If ObservedRelease le Givenif Observed

3.20 1 2 3 2 6

Si 1 2 (1, ta 1 2 1

33

oiae) _

3

H Route CharecterietimDepth to Aquifer ofConcernNet PreeipitatienPinmeaility of OmUnsaturated Zone

Phveleal *tate

Total Route Chnetraiss Scots 1

rmeassinensat a 1 2 al 1(..-/ ,...?

2 3.3

al Wnte CharacterietleaCheinicals. Toxickv/PriletenseReardon WanQuantity

Radioactive

0 A 6 012 14 18 1 180 (1)2 3 4 5 II 7 II 1 8

1 3\ 7 11 15 21 25 1 26, .1 3 7 13 15 21 26 1 26

3.4

I

0.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

I)

• "P

Wane CharecteruM4-• Score r.a.tl-. i largest of 4a. b.1. b.2.) 4b.101

La i • '" 9 a

--MI Targets

Ground Water UmDistance to NanaWoli/PopulstIonServed

0 i 2 6) 3 91 0 4 6 5.10 1 40II ti Iihill 20i 24 sw 32 35 40

3.5

I1

Total Tenet Score .99 45

an if Une allsi 46. Middy* CD si ag ail Chemical

if Une al is 0. Mcillolp ali x an 4 I2g a ag Nadinative

Lail57.330

1,71 Divide Una aba irti7.316 Multiply by 100 Stow • qv* • /A. 7.and

11%. IA. a,73 = 7

158

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: 'A"- o 1.401IV lonymn.we inn Pl=nt

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebiker

General Description of Facility:

Drainage Ditch by CPP-637 (West).

1-1:_ec1—/J —OV

Score: SM = 7

SFE

Soc 2

Total = 7

159

Ground Water Route Work Sheet

Rating PosterAssigned Value(Circle One,

Muir*IOW

seen MetScore

Ref.(Section)

co Obeved Release . 0 46 1 0 46 3.1

If Observed Release is Given

Ream le Givena Seem of 46. Preened le Une al .

• Seers of 0, Pressed te Une al .If Observed

41 3.2w 1 2 3 2 6

6P 1 2 I 30 1 2 1 3

tl0 1 2 or F 3

Gt1 Route CharecterladesDepth te aquifer srCannaNet PreeipitstenPennebility of theUnmounted Zone

"nisei State

Total Reins Cheractrimies Score ‘ 15

it Containment o 1 2 Al 1t..„../

'A 3 3.3

131 Wane CharacteristicsChemicels. Texisity/Persistenes

Neardeue Waste0 1.,, 4 6, 12 14 14 1 150 M) 2 3 4 8 6 7 8 1 8

1 7 T 11 15 21 26 1 261 3 7 11 18 21 26 1 24

3.4

I

I

asandtvRadioactiveb.1 Maximum Obsvedb.2 Maximum Patents(

1 ism: Waste Chamteristics Scam "I listen of 4a. b.1. b.2.1 46.1-11

1 i a I -

25

I TenetsGround Muir Use

Nearest

3.60 1 2 a 3 9

1 0 4 111 11: 10 1 40t ""ial 14 18 20J 24 49 32 36 40

Distance toWen/PopulationServed

I nav--- lei...7 7

i 41Torsi Tenets esI

03 • 113 x I Chemical

a 11 a El a li Radioactive

hal 57.330® if Une il is 46. WIPP?

if Liner:01st WS* CD

ral -Myleset _ 111411 . a ., •••"IP, - IniVI - id-4 . ..i.... 1Unc rt im67.330 end Mulaply by 100

11/4- 7; l <73 1 7

160

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical P. ing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker

General Description of Facility:

Nitric Acid Seepage by CPP-734.

1_1C_Og1-4a-WW

Score: SM = 7

SFE =

Soc =

Total = 7

161

Ground Water Route Work Shoot

Rating Pester Astigiod Vauen l (CMs Ong) ._

MushOr

son PAWL

ScoreRef. .

illactioru

(E Obsonned Rims 0 45 1 45 [ 3.1

If Observed Raison is Given a hors of 45. Premed to Line GU .

If Observed Nelms Is Given a Soon, of O. Prised to Una I.

aril Ram Chneterinles1....age. aa Samsdaso ainiinn 101. ••••elga•••• •••

ConantNot Pres40141/40Pranks, of dmUnwonted Zona

3.2fe°3 1 9 2 9 4

w

1 2 1 30 1 2 1 3

_ t 1a 1 2 Al

Total Rano Charartsfimiers I a it 1 1

II Cantainment 0 1 2 6) 1 A. —

3._

3.3

al Wafts ChamatoriatiorChwinala. Toxisity/Persistsnos

linardous WasteQuantity

Rsdissadvs

o )1. • Cir 12 14 11 1 110 CV 3 3 4 1 6 7 8 1 8

1 3 \ 7 11 11 21 28 1 260 1 3 ' 7 3.1 18 21 26 1 28

3.4

II

6:trauma Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

I otal West* Charsotsrlstias Sams 44.1I ILargest of 4a. b.1. b.2.) 4ti.771

itl I .,,--

33 TargetsGround Was UseDistance to NearestVV-4/111*—dranServed

0 t 2 0 3 91 0 4 It 5 10 1 40% 41% l• 15 28.I . ,Ak.• - - --.1 24 449 32 35 40

3.5

I Total Throats harei

2,I 48

an If Une CO Is 4111. MUM,* Castaliti Chemisal

If Line al le 0. Mullin* OD x GO x al x i Radios:Ova

lag57.330

M1 nkshiagi lira 1111 byartnisAss Nlialtley by 1 aft SL-. • 1!-- • / / . n, , , ...,- ---

51/ft- X7.3

162

O

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Persnn(c) in rhArga of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

n4r. Mt 41 Ansrel.* nine.

Score: Sm = 7

SFE 2

SDC 2

Total = 7

163

Ground Water Routs Work Shan

Mating Pastor Agaionod Value(CIS* On*

Main-par

soon Max.Sears

Re.(Siectioni

a a:I

3.1m Observed Mats tO as 1 1 CI

I

Rolossi is Givena Sees of Mk Pressed to Una al .a limn of 0. Pressed to Una CM ,

if Obeyed

if Obestvod Rene is Given

131 Citaromoriados es OaMika

(0 1 2 3 a •

nq 1 2 At 1 30 1 2 (3) 1 3

0 1 2 Cy ! 3

pintoOn* es Muffs, ofCaenNet ProontationPerneebillty of theUniatiand 2ane

Mission guns

Total Routs Chinatodadas San 4 Is I

.ei0 1 2 1 13La) 3 3.3tau ...entainwl

al Wens ChontatatiadosChotnialla. Ttudaity/Pardatonn o A . (2 la 14 is i 13

0 (.2, 2 • 4 6 6 7 6 i 6

\0 1 3 \ X 11 15 21 26 1 260 1 3 OV 't1 15 21 26 1 26

3.4

Haat..., nay*Quantity

Radiantsb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Poundal

Totsl Waste Chatostristin Sian 4a.,+1ab. 26Maroon of M. b.1. b.2.1

ag Ternamend Wear UseM N

a .1 2 dv 3 3I 0 4 4 e • 1 o 1 Alli 1:1 a is 20J 24 egg 32 35 40

3.5

aumee to earerwel/PopulationSend

I

I Total Tents Scars 39 MI

an if Una r.Dia al. MtIMIIM; 0:1 m @I II LID ChemicalIf une 03 is O. Mods* CD 1 all 1 El 4 al Madinat*

is57.330

12] Divide Una al *67.330 Meth* br 100 S.. Sriv, • /A . aand

SALT; 1 A.A113 7

164

Onurn CUrrT1111111‘.1 •••1•01 ION 40661

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemicai Processing Piant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

CPP-621 Acid Storaae Area.

Score: SM = 7

SFE =

SDC =

Total = 7

164

Ground Water Route Work Sheet

Rasing has Amioned ValueMimi. One)

Mufti.', idler

soon Max. Score

Re,18action)

Ill abasevad Raises* (0) 46 1 n as 2, iL/

If Observed Ralson I. Ginna Soon of 46. Promod te Una Q.a 600rs of 0. Prase ts Una M .If Observed Raison is Given

III Charammitias /n(9/ 1 2 3 2

21i 1, 2 b 1

0 1 a ya ;

1.211

33

3

fleaOmens Aguilar ofCansNot ProalMationlimmadtty of MaUnseated 2ono

Arnica State

Total &NM Chemist Score 18

LA0 1 2 Ey 1 I •...2 3 3.3IA uurrierirmarn

Eg Waste Charoatariatica

0 11 6 (1? 13 14 18 ,, 1v cv

0 1 3 ,..7 11 le 21 28 1fip 1 3 7 41 16 21 MI 1

188

2626

3.4Chemicala. Toxicity/Pomiatimos"---.--- las—191•141111111MIN MORO

OusraltyRadioactiveb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum notantal

Total Waste Chafactoristics kora 44.14,..ammo of 44. ir.1. b.2.1 4b. 28

el aS 31 0 4 6 8 10 11 24 32 36 40 SA 11 20

J

840

3.811 TargetsGround Miter UseDistance to NoneWell/PopulationSend

I

I Total Tarpon Sam 39 411

on If Una Da 46. Mutepli 07 a 133 a OD Chemical

If Um al la 0. Mai," M x M a M a op Radiomen

iipaz 57.330

al Divide Una i I *87.330 and Multiply by 100 36,, x 11;,,, • AR . a I

Sm a' aX73 = 7

165

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: idaho Chemicai Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Peach Bottom Cont. Soil Storage Area.

Score: SM 2 7

SFE

SOC 2

Total = 7

A

166

Ground Wator Routs Work Sheet

Rating PastorAssigned ValueMinder One)

Multi-Misr

son maSoon

Rat(Seaton)1

Ca Raises* (5, 46 1 3.1Obeervad I 0

Nolan is Obsen a Seers of 48. Premed Os Uns pl.If Observed

If Observed Relines I. Given s Seers of 0. Pressed ts Una al.[23 Nouse Chersetsesdas 3.2

Depth to Aquifer of CO 1 2 3 1 2

CamNot PlasslpItatlen 19 1 2 3, i 3Penealtaks of Ma 0 1 2 (3) 1 3

Unsaturated 2onsP1Wsisal Stets 0 1 2 0 ic 3

j Toul Route Oureatarlsties Son 15LCD Contsinmont 0 1 2 10 1 3 3 3.3

GB Worts CharacteristicsChemicalii. ToiialWrftralatirte•

tri ) 3 3 es 11 lt 1111 1 1 a

3.4

Hazardous Mae 0 1 2 3 4 8 II 7 8 1Cluentity

nedloaatIve

8

b.1 Maximum Observed 0 1 2 7 1j. 15 21 26 1b.2 Maximum Potentai 0 1 2 7 C4)15 21 2: 1

262a

romeartles aeon 4s.Tout Waste Cheliana

26of ts. b.1. 6.24 41).}-4F

3.1 Targets0round water UmOlasnee to MenaWoll/PopulationSorted

14111

o ..2 2 (0" 30 • 4 11 10 1 40

18 2030 32 MI 40

3.5

Total Tars Soots 33 49

r I If Uns W Is 45. Multhfli a • Ila 11 aa Chunks&57.330

If Una M Is ex memoir CD a CD x M Is 1 Radleactiv• UV

in Olvkle Llit• te lits7.330 SS Multiply by 100 86,,, • nit • N. 9

// 444.-7 3 =

167

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Porson(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebsksr Dats: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

r. roosanA *%."-r-vv.4 4W vrr vv. far lin• leak by Peach Bottom.

Score: SM = 4

SFF 2

SOC a

Total a 4

168

Ground Water Route Work Sham

Rating FesterAssigned Viduelards OnsI

Multi•pller

son Maz.kore

set(Section)

131 Release 6D 45 1 I n i 45 I 3.1I 1/4,, I I

Obesned

MMus is Given Seen 48. Pressed te Une CMif Obeenad a of .

Release Is Given !este 0. Plead le UneIf Obseind s of ao .n(9, 1 2 3 2 5

1 2 it 1 3f 1 2 C3) 1 3A

0 1 2 4/ s 3

3.2H Route CharsaterisdesDepth te Aquifer ofConsentNei PreeipitutienPenn/ability of theUnsaturated Zane"ran Sun

Total Revue Charseariedes ioer. 15

Pn r--ranewint o 1 2 723lau ........L7 1

A•-•/

3L

1.3

133 Wan ChaniateriedesChemicala. Tindeity/Pervistsnae

Hamamatsu& WINOSQuantity

Redissolve

3 II 9. 12 14 18 t 15il 2 241047 11 1 aL.V

0 1 3 ' 11 18 21 25 1 20,0 1 3 7 '1.1 1$ 21 25 1 20

1

3.4

b.1 Maximum Obsiandb.2 Muimum Potential

1 Toni Wen t latritt.116Citt :::14.1 26

an TargetsGround Water UseDistance to Nearest

2 .2 2 0 3 91 0 • 0 0 10 1 40jicyll 10 20

WI 32 33 40

3.0

Waa/Paantion Served

I Total Tar-an :sore .1.5 "I

GE If Una CD is 40. Mali ED s 13:1 at OD Chinni

If Una 03 la O. Mann CD x CU x i x i Rwanda* syst57.330

in Maids Una i 2,17.330 Multiply by 100 Stew 8 51, . 7z. 3an

Snit 3 .-7 3 9

169

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

' Ydaho Chemlcal D. ing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker

General Description of Facility:

CPP-603 Temp. Storage Area (Bone yard) CLaydown Area).

Score: SM = 4

SFE

SDC a

Total = 4

170

Ground Water Route Work Shoot

Ran haterAs sionod V011is(Circle Onel

Mint*IIMir

son Max.Some

Ref.(Section)

131 Observed Reines (CD 45 1 1/7 l 4$ I 3.1I_ I I

Meioses is Given a Seers of 45. Pressed to Une Gg.If ObservedRaines Is Given a Score of O. Prost ts Une EllIf Observed ,

rii ROWS Cherecteristice r) 3.2One to Aquifer of (a) 1 2 3 a •ConcernNet Precipitation 1 2 A t 3Permsbility of the 0 1 2 cy 1 3Unsaturated 2ons

Physiesi State 0 1 2 (9 t: 3

Taxi Reins Otisreeterietkis Score 1 5‘

rm r abrigesparas * i 2 (° 1IAN 'aim"'

S 3 1,2

Gg Charecteriedes 3.4WasteChemicals. Toxiaity/Piesimance Q 3 6 * 12 14 1 • 1 12Hausa wen AD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 1 8aunt" c_..-

Radioactiveb.1 Maximum Observed 0 1 3 \ 11 15 21 25 1 29

b.2 Maximum Potontial 0 1 3 3.1 15 21 25 1 26cli

i - - Waste whstacionstios Score 4a.Ly____Il n i la

TugalLamest Iof 4a. b.1. 6.2.) ata.I-1-1 s-

1 Targets 3.5

Giround Water Uss ts 1 a G 3 9

Distance to Nearest 1 0 4 5 5 10 1 40

Well/Poouladon r ik, 1 0 1 5 20Served J gym 32 36 40

Ii

I OW I 1111,11•40 elillinir '41 '.

4.,

49

GE If Lino alls 45. elidl1efig1 • GB • OD Chemical

if Urn Ell Is 0. maw ag • a) • ght an Radioactive 49st57.3301

Divide Lin* i 1 *67.330 and Multiply by 100 try s Siv or 7.3PA

SnA- = 7. 3 K..F3

171

mHRS CAVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: idaho Chemical Processing_ Piant •

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Fuel Storage Basin - Dry Well

Score: Sm = 4

SFE =

SDC 2

Total = 4

172

Ground Water Routs Work Shen

Rating Fess_.

Assigned Value(Circle Onel

Wait*pller

usgs MatSoon

not(Seaton)

(0) 45 1 0 a li 3.1II Obsormd Rabies'

If Observed Reiss is Given a Some of 45. "mead to Uns GB.If Observed Reiman le Given a Saws of O. Premed to Une Et

f31 Route ChmacterlstittsDapN to Aquifer ofCommaNet Prosipitatieneviniseaty of theUnsaturated lane

3.2CO) 1 2 3 a s

1 2 3, 1 30 1 2 cv i 3

o 1 2 -4 * 3"WSW State

Total Routs Chersatoriadin San 15

nn ... 1.----• . ,41isj Wil••••••••••••••••• 11 1 • (...v 3 13

Ei Waits ChersoterisdaA 3 4 * 12 14 18 1 18

•c.,2, 1 Olea I la7 3 1 •

\0 1 3 t 11 1$ 21 26 1 250 1 3 W11 15 21 25 1 28

3.4

I

Chemicala. Tociatty/Panistenos

.......—........ Y..VI I Salillai V•1111101.11

QuantityRadioactiveb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

(Largest of 4s. b.1. b.2.1 an.I Total Waste Characteristics icon 46.1+ 26

il TargetsGround Water UmDistance Newest 1

.

o .1 20 3 90 4 II 8 10 1 40

30 32 35 40111 18 20

3.5

toWell/PopulationServed

I

1 Total Targets Son 33 1

49

en xi Chemical

Mat it Eg a op Radioactive ffor57.330

I If Uns is 41I. Multipli 03223If Una Mle O. Melo*

PI Divide Una i 0,57.330 Multiply by 100 56,, a iirm • 7 3and

3 .-? 3

173

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location. ♦A~L~ Chamital PT in Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Trench East of CPP-603 Fuel Storage Basin.

Score: SM = 4

SFE

Soc 2

Total = 4

174

Ground Water Rout* Work Sheet

Rating FactorAssigned ValueOrate Onel

Mufti'Par

seen Ma.Soon

Ref.(Section)

M Cissessi Rata. ' Z 41 I 2.1

If Observed Rolm* is Given a Soots of 45. Preened to Line M .a Soave of O. Pniand to Una al.Release is GivenIf Observed

Minims charecteriscee /Si

(.9) 1 2 3 2 6

1 2 1 30 1 2 bi 1 3

0 1 2 e) S 3

2.2

Death le Aquifer ofConcern

Net PreeleitagenPecnbillty of th.Unrested Zeno

MIVeiosi State

Total Route Chnetefiedes Score I

0 1 2 cf) 1 3 t 3 3.3ail c........GO Wane Characteristics

6) 3 6 * 12 14 111 1 111AIM • ille•Iinaaa •

CIP , . 1 0 1 .

\0 1 3 1 11 15 21 26 1 260 1 3 (511 15 21 25 1 26

3.4Chemicala. Toidetty/Peraletenee

Liaandir••••••••••11•1 •-•••111•1

QuantityRadioactiveb.1 Maximus Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

Total Waste Cheniaterletiore 44.(Lamm of 44. b.1. b.2.) 4b. 26

ag TargetsGround Water useOirance to Nearest

0 t 2 0 3 91 0 4 II 5 10 1 40

15 IS 2030 32 36 40

3.5

Well/PopulationServed

Total Targets Score .33 46i

1 If Une M la at Mutt** ailligli ChemicalIf Una en is 0. MSS* CD a ill a M it an Radioactive te, Ay

57.330

al Olvlde Una 11 6,57.330 and Multiply bv 100 Wry . 11;,„, a 73

San- 3.7 3

175

—Lane rAure curerVVVVV JOLLA

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Piant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nobelium Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

WM-181 transfer line to PEW evaoorator.

Score: SM = 2

SFE

SDC 2

Total = 2

176

Ground Water Route Work Sheet

Rating Fester__

Assigned ValueMirele Onel

Multi-plier

kin MatScore

_Ref.

(Section)

al Release () 46 1 I O I 46 I 3.1Observed1 - I 1

Nolen is Given a Seem of 45. Pressed te Line alif Observed .

if Observed Release Is Given a Seers of 0. Pressed to Use au ,ril Nom Chareatindes /Th 3.2— Depth te Aquifer of ty 1 2

2 3 a a

Censer'sNet PrealpitstienPennebility of Se 4 1 1 2 , 3, 1 3Unsaturated 2ene

Physical Stem a 1 a (a) ; 3

Total Rom Charesteristies San it‘; 1rim .....r.../.trpaset 0 i 9 791

1UZI 0•••

aI s....."

2 I./

Eg Waste Chereateriedes 3.4Chemical

Wan Q 1 2 2 4 6 6 7 II 1 6a. Tasiaity/Persistenee 3 6 S. 12 14 111 1 111

MISliklita

Quantity (...7

Nedleamiveb.1 Maximum Observed 0 1 \7 11 111 21 26 1 26b.2 Maximum Potential 0 1 7 11 IS 21 211 1 2$

-- Wine Chamatatiams San •Sa.1_4-2 j " iTina.oinIaltl of at b.1, 0.2.1 St 1-3-1 -- 1

i 1 Targets 3.5Greund Water Use 0 't 2 6) 3 9

Distance to Nene 1 0 • II 3 10 1 40ANO/Poludedon titalli 18 20Sensed J2400 32 36 40

It

'Total Tarim San .010 1-7/

43

al if Une gg Is 46. Muftis* 03 n In Chentissi

or un. (1) is a. Mao COsggii(E a ao Podia/salve 4/04_$7.330

12] Width, um up 1.1•57.330 snd Multiply by 100 cow • 3;w * 3.7

Sm_ 3 .7-<? 3 a-

17 7

—Line rAlin, fuer.mnn., 1.vircn 4ricci

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

old sewage Treatment drain tiles and outfall line:

Score: SM = 1

SFE 2

SDC

Total = 1

178

Ground Write Route Work Sheet

Rating PastorAssigned Value(Circle One'

Muftis- plir

saws Max.Son

Ref.(Section)

fTI as......i...•1/4.1.0

4a i .., 45 I 3.1I_ (..) I

ps••••

If Obaswed Release is WWII a Score of 45. Proceed M Une al .If Observed Ralson Is Given a Ilan of O. Premed to Una ay.

rn ....- etnlialniesidil•al

Depth to Aquifer oftanninNet PreelpitadonPinmebility of theUnasserted 2and•

a 3.2(9) 1 2 3 a s

1 2 1 3f? 31 2 1 3

0 1 a ) t 3Physical State

Total Moine Chareeterknina San 6 1c /ia 1l omainrn.at 0 I 2 Lai

3 33.3

all Wen CharesterledasChiimicala. Toxicity/Poniards

Himardous WasteGI 3 fl * 12 14 15 1 11S i 2 .7 4 4 1 i 1 I a

\0 I 3 7 11 1 5 21 26 1 260 1 3 7 11 IS 21 21 1 2$

3.4

amenderRadioactiveb.1 Maximum Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

Total Waste Characteristics Score 44.1.454(Largest of 44.11.1. b.2.1 4b. 29

Oa TargetsGround Water UseMinna ts Nang!

Well/PoindatkinServed

0 1 2 3 91 a 4 a f i a 1 40

1 244 32" 2305 40

3.5

Targets Soong sy 49i Total

au if Una 11 is 41. Muhl.? ID * GB If an Chemical

tf Lino co I, 0. Multiply OD x CB it 131 a 11 Radioactive57.330

702

Ezi Olinda Una al *57.330 end Multiply by 100 Vim • S. • /. A

Sni1/4. s

179

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

I---tion: Idaho Chemical P ing Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker waue; 1-iu-oo

General Description of Facility:

NE corner of South Basin (CPP-603).

Score: SM =

SFE 2

soc a

Total = 1

180

Ground Witter Route Work Sheet

Rating PaterAssigned Value(Chita One)

Multi•eller

um an.Score

net(Sation1

Relate 46 1 I I 41 I 3.1al Observed 10 0

Release is Gaon a Seem of 45. liteand 19 Une 13If Observed .

Release Is Given a More of O. Proceed to Une EtIf Observed

GO Routs Chaniaterisdas 3.2Depth to Aquifer et f6) 1 2 3

• .. a •

ConsentNet Precieitaten f 1 2 3 I 3Rentability of the 1 2 4g1 1 3Unsaturated Zone • •

v •nas taste 0 1 alMi 2 Ly i

Teal Route Characteristics $4010 ‘ 15

131... containment o 1 2 4 3 3.3

LI Wen Chemateristkis 3.4Chemicala. Tosktia/Persistenee 4 3 6 * 12 14 111 1 18

ihnerdous gluts 1 2 34 5 II 7 8 1 •.....-

owns,Radioactiveb.1 Maximum Observed 0 1 2 4 1 1 15 21 26 1 25

b.2 Maximum Potential 0 3 7 1.1 15 21 2S 1 25I fthAl01•01,1•Intillite Seal. al A 1 ITen Werti

26--(Largestof 44. b.1. b.2.I 4i:rim-II [

CE Targets 3. 5

Ground Water Use 0 1 2 C&I 3 9

Mauna Nearest 0 4 4 5 10 1 40to 1wri/comaiston r ja.15 18 20Saved 4.91 30 32 35 40

I Tafel Tercets tamsi ...7-1

-,I 49

[10 If Uns al le 45. MultianD a GO it 00 Chemical

If Une al Is O. masa GD a GB a al a II Redioactive 51, y57.330

PM Divide Una r, by47..130 sad Mtilticily tit la...0 r - et i a iin-flw - -9w I . G "7

sin I . 3

181

mHRS COVER SHEET

Facility Name: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Location: Idaho Chemical P inn Plant

EPA Region: X

Person(s) in Charge of Facility:

Name of Review: D. J. Poland/R. L. Nebeker Date: 1-15-86

General Description of Facility:

Underiround carbon steel line leak of 21.000 gal. at CPP-603 (19731

Score: SM = 1

Ii SFE =1

SOC =

Tota1 = 1

182

Ground Water Route Work Sheet

Rade. Factor Assigned Value(Circle Onel

MIASy MP

son Matleers

Ref.cSecdonl

IT1 etammi Rasa (01 41 C./ ti )

i As l ft -I

1

If Observed Redeem is Oven a Seem of 46. Premed to Line Q.

If Obstmed Rokisse Is Given a Seem of O. Premed te Une 131.

rin ....."... ttantislaelsa 7.'1 Z2CA) 1 2 3 260 1 2 3 1 30 1 2 S 1 3

0 1 2 (9 t 3

al nennlw ..Depth to Muffin offConcernNot PrecipitationPomussinty of Ms

7••••••th.......re&"nisei Stem

Total Route Charectoriodes Seem 1

zfiLii Containment 0 1 2 (y i 1

•1...., 3 3.3

al Waste Characteristics

liZ 3 6 * 12 14 II 1 15cui 1 2 34 6 6 7 5 i 8

\0 1 3 4 11 15 21 26 1 260 ti, 3 7 1.1 15 21 26 1 26

3.4Chemicals. Toakity/Penistenee

Heassous iliumQuantity

Rodlescdveb.1 Minimum Observedb.2 Maximum Potential

Total Waste Characteristics Sears 44.14.1(Lomat of 44. b.1. b.2.I 4b.

26

I TargetsGround Water Useriir•nn

0 *1 2 (P 3 91 a d di 9 10 1 40

•ictiz 31: 23: 40

3.5

ts PlantainWoll/PooulationServad

i Total Targets Seers 3.3 49

[1 If Une ai Is 116, faultily./ Ca a i x i Creel

if Una Ca la O. PAW** OD x ag x Ca a 1 Radioactive57.330

5.fr

Ca Divide Une 13 *67.330 Muld011 by 100 S.r 116 • / , 0 teand

45nk = 1.0401 ,3

183

APPENDIX E

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC Atomic Energy Commission; predecessor to theDepartment of Energy

ANL-W Argonne National Laboratory-West

Alluvium Sediment deposited by flowing water.

Aquifer A zone of permeable rock on soil which issaturated with water.

Calcination A process where liquid waste is sprayed onto thesurface of hot granular particles as they arebeing agitated in a vessel. The liquidevaporates, and the solids adhere to theparticles.

Calcine Solids with tho consistency of sand mixed withpowder produced by the calcination process.

Cask A massive shipping container which providesshielding from highly radioactive materials.

CERCLA The CoMprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act.

CFA Central Facilities Area; an INEL area.

CH Chicago Operations office of the DOE.

Curie A unit of radioactivity (decay rate of aradioactive substance) defined as 3.7 x 10" (37billion) disintegrations per second.

[Ina"a tv The spontaneous transformation of one nuclide into•

a different nuclide or into a different energystate of the some nuclide.

Decontamination The selective removal of radioactive material fromA surface Ar frAm within enAther material.

Diurnal Having daily cycles.

DOE Department of Energy

EG&G Idaho Prime operating contractor for the INEL.

ENICO Exxon Nuclear Idaho Company; operating contractorat the INEL.

ESRP Eastern Snake River Plain.

184

Fission Products A nuclide produced by the fission of a heavyelement or the daughter(s) resulting from theradioactive decay of the nuclide thus formed.

Fuel Processing Recovery of unused nuclear fuel from used fuelelements.

UUVUHUIVOUVI

Halflife

Water beneath the esrth i e sutfars between nr within saturated soil and rock.

The time required for one-half the atoms of aparticular nuclide to disintegrate by radioactivedecay.

HRS Hazard Ranking System.

ICPP Idaho Chemical Processing Plant.

ID Idaho Operations Office of the DOE.

INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

Injection Well A well through which cooiing water is returned tothe aquifer.

Isotope A form of the same atom having a different atomicwelght.

MHRS Modified Hazard Ranking System.

Migration The natural travel of a material through the air,soil, or aroundWater.

NOAA

Moteroni4

Nuclide

The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration.

natinnal ;Marton Tasting Station; previous name ofthe INEL.

A species of atom characterized by the number ofneutrons and protons in the nucleus and the energycontent of the nucleus.

PC8s Polychlorinated biphenyls.

PEW Process Equipment Waste.

Playa A dry, flat area at the lowest part of anundrained desert basin.

PNRO Pittsburgh Naval Reactor Office.

Radioactive Spontaneously disintegrating; emitting ionizingradiation.

185

R (Roentgen) A unit of radiation.

RWMC

TAN

TRA

Tritium

UREP

WCF

WINCO

Radioactive Waste Management Complex; an INELfacility.

Test Area North; an INEL facility.

Test Reactor Area; an INEL facility.

A radioactive isotope of hydrogen.

Utilities Replacement and Expansion Project.

Waste Calcining Facility at the ICPP.

Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company; operator ofthe ICPP.

•

186

EXHIBIT 2

2.0

INITIAL ASSESSMENT FORM

I. SITE NAME AND LOCATION

)1 SITE NAMEGrease pit south of CPP-637.

02 ADDRESSIdaho National EngineeringLaboratory (INEL)

03 CITYScoville

04 STATEIdaho

05 ZIP CODE83403

06 COUNTYButte

09 COORDINATES: NORTH

6 9 5 2 5 0

EAST

1 2 9 6 1 2 5

07 COUNTY CODE 08 CONG. DIST.

10 DIRECTIONS TO SITE (Starting from nearest public road)N. on Lincoln Blvd.; E. on Cleveland Ave.

II. OWNER/OPERATOR

01 OWNER (If known)Department of Energy (DOE)

02 STREET ADDRESS785 DOE Place

03 CITYIdaho Falls

04 STATEIdaho

05 ZIP CODE83402

06 TELEPHONE NUMBER(208) 526-1122

07 OPERATOR (If known)Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Co.

08 STREET ADDRESSP.O. Box 4000

09 CITYIdaho Falls

laSTATEIdaho

11 ZIP CODE83403

12 TELEPHONE NUMBERI (208) 526-0998

III. CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL HAZARD

01 ON SITE INSPECTION x YES NO DATE 7 /10 /86

02 SITE STATUS (Check one)

__ A. Active SWMU x B. Inactive C. Unknown

03 YEARS RECEIVED HAZ WASTENone /Start Stop Unknown

AA ler efl, C.T115e1717,WWIre T^COTVIT.J. ThrleeVWM WW^MW ^1. XITWO.WTUV 1.M.M1C11% 4.1 WE JUDJ1eda....a.0 CW.a.010L3 EaCsa.C.JOIS, NOIWTTAM, WV.

See Waste Information Section

05 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL HAZARD TO ENVIRONMENT AND/OR POPULATIONSee Hazardous Conditions and Incidents Section

IV. INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM

01 CONTACT Clifford Clark

102 OF (Agency/Org.)DOE-ID

03 TELEPHONE NUMBER(208) 526-1122

04 PERSON RESPONSIBLEFOR ASSESSMENTD. Joan Poland

05 AGENCY

WINCO

06 ORG.

N&IS

07 TELEPHONE NUMBER

(208) 526-3650

08 DATE10 /15 /86

Mon Day Year

WASTE INFORMATION

I. WASTE STATES, QUANTITIES, AND CHARACTERISTICS

01 PHYSICALA. SolidB. PowderC. SludgexD. Other

STATES (Check all that apply)E. Slurry

Fines F. LiquidG. Gas

Contaminated soil

02 WASTE QUANTITY

TONSCUBICNO.

AT SITE

YARDSOF DRUMS

10

03 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS (Check all that apply)A. Toxic D. Persistent G. Flammable J. ExplosiveB. Corrosive E. Soluble H. Ignitable K. ReactiveC. Radioactive F. Infectious I. Highly Volatile L. Incompatible

_NM. Not Applicable

II. WASTE TYPE

CATEGORY SUBSTANCE NAME 01 GROSS AMOUNT 02 UNIT COMMENTSSLU SludaeOLW Oily WasteSOL Solventspsp Pesticidesnrr nthor nrnohir rhomirolo

;OC Inoraanic chemicalsACD AcidsHAS BasesMES Heavv metals

III. HAZARDOUS CONST/TUENTS

01 CATEGORY 02 SUBSTANCENAME

03 CASNUMBER

04 STOR/DISP. METHOD

05 CONC. 06 MEASURE

IV. SOURCES OF INFORMATIONUse specific references, e.a.. state titles. sample analvsis reports.etc.)

sita inspections, personnel interviews, process records, laboratory records.

9 9

HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS

I. HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS (Continued)

01 J. DAMAGE TO FLORA 02 VDJLlCVED (Date ) POTENTIAL

04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: ALLEGED

Not Applicable

01 K. DAMAGE TO FAUNA 02 OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIAL

04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: (include name(s) of species) ALLEGED

Not Applicable

01 L. CONTAMINATION OF FOOD CHAIN 02 OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIAL04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: ALLEGED

Not Applicable

01 M. UNSTABLE CONTAINMENT OF WASTES 02 OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIAL(SPILL RUNOFF, STANDING LIQUIDS/LEAKING DRUMS)03 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: ALLEGED

Not Applicable

01 N. DAMAGE TO OFFSITE PROPERTY 02 OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIAL

04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: ALLEGED

Not Applicable

01 O. CONTAMINATION OF SEWERS,STORM 02 OBSERVED(Date ) POTENTIAL

DRAINS, WWTPs04 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: ALLEGED

Not Applicable

01 P. ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORIZED DUMPING 02 OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIAL

U4 NAKKATIVZ uticacirw.wo; ATTrrrnnuaosa.as,m

Not Applicable

05 DESCRIPTION OF ANY OTHER KNOWN, POTENTIAL OR ALLEGED HAZARDS

III. COMMENTS 'Miscellaneous chemicals may have been disposed of here.

IV. SOURCES OF INFORMATION (List specific references, e.g., state titles,

sample analysis, reports)

Site inspections, personnel interview, disposal quantity records and

Installation Assessment Report.

2.3

HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS

01 A. GROUNDWATER CONT. 0/03 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:

Not Applicable

ringwavyn (nAro ) pomplITTAT.ALLEGED

01 B. SURFACE WATER CONT. 0203 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:

Not Applicable

OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIAL1__ ALLEGED 1

01 C. CONTAMINATION OF AIR 0203 POULATION PoTENTIALLY AfFECTED U4

OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIALALLEGEDNAKKATIVZ kit Lkcirssupi

Not Applicable

01 D. FIRE/EXPLOSIVE CONDITIONS 0203 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED % 04

OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIALALLEGEDNARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

Not Applicable

01 E. DIRECT CONTACT 0203 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 04

OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIALALLEGEDNARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

Not Applicable

01 _x F. CONTAMINATION OF SOIL 0203 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:The volume of potentially contaminated soil

cubic yards.

OBSERVED (Date ) x POTENTIAL__ ALLEGED

is approximately 10

01 G. DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION 02

03 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:Not Applicable

OBSERVED (Date ) POTENTIAL__ ALLEGED

2.4

PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM

I. GENERAL FACILITY INFORMAT/ON

FACILITY NAME: 2,42/61 6"-red,_17-e F/-

LOCATION: Sera_j_-/ A (>7/:)- 63 7

POINT OF CONTACT: NAME:

Annprgs:

__PHONE:

( /REVIEWER: I ",,./.1-1(--2,-bEi--,2, DATE: 164/2f/Sef,

II. GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION .

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY: (For example: landfill, surfaceaui.mi ' ''' n wfimpoundment, piie, container, tes of haaasdwiam woubnnyp

facility; contamination route of major concern; types of information needbd

for rating; agency action, etc.)

(C-te-eatt acil ,...441_4_0( 17-s-c- -c,,9 a-,_0? f/„........4„2.2.,d776-- _..;4- ,-/-1-4.c57 .?".1A 1? 7.-.4 4.41•16,14-•• 727/14: ///7 i /:/-C-e, fri AP7Ci 10 /- -,-47 _ CILW.1104-.4.1 c--tteLLA r /.72"-i Cl ,-_/--,-,,

- - / 1 1 1 Letft/- _I

( C., PiC7 ''' 467j L4 I d r Cerrs./0 /0- 40 Li" • /A-e- /Sfadd

,fiM z-- re.---n 74- /Ai an, for ("dot ,4 Si •i/

TTT1 A. J• • DaWablia

SM = 0 (STA= 0 Ssw= Sa= G2 )

SFE = 0

SDC = 0

2.5

GROUND WATER ROUTE WORKSHEET

RATING FACTOR ASSIGNED VALUE(Circle one)

MULTI-PLIER

SCOREI

MAX.SCORE

REF.Section

1.ROUTE CHARACTERISTICSDepth to

ConcernNet PrecipitationPermeability

UnnaturirrodPhysicai

3.2

iaAquifer of 6,1 2 3 2 6

(671,23 1 3of the 0 1c2/3 1 3Zeinta

State 0 1 2(9 1 3

Total Route Characteristics Score I 5-' I 151 -^........m n 1 1 iin 1 ?

..-.)1 1,1

3.WASTE CHARACTERISTICSToxicity/PersistenceHazardousQuantity

, 3.4i3 6 9 12 15 18 1 18

Waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 8

Totai Waste Characteristics Score 0 26

4. Multiply lines 1 x 2 x 30

1170

5. Divide line 4 by 1170 and multiply by 100 Sqw= 0

2.6

SURFACE WATER ROUTE WORKSHEET

RATING FACTOR ASSIGNED VALUE MULTI- SCORE MAX. REF.(Circle one) PLIER SCORE Section

1.ROUTE CHARACTERISTICSFacility Slope andIntervening Terrain

1-yr. 24-hr. RainfallDistance to Nearest

Surface WaterPhysical State

1

12

1

3

36

3

4.2

1.0rINTATNPIPAr ITotal Route Characteristics Score

2 3 1 g

15

4.3

3.WASTE CHARACTERISTICSToxicity/PersistenceHazardous WasteQuantity

( 3 6 9 12 15 18 11:2)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

188

4.4

Total Waste Characteristics Score 26

4. Multiply lines 1 x 2 x 3 1170

5. Divide line 4 by 1170 and multiply by 100 Ssw=so

9

ATR ROUTE WORKSHEET

RATING FACTOR ASSIGNED VALUE(Circle one)

MULTI-PLIER

SCORE MAX.SCORE

REF.Section

1.HISTORIC RELEASE (9) 45 1 I a 45 5.1

Date and Location: See attached supplement pages

If line 1 is 0, the Sa = O. Enter on line 5.

If line 1 is 45, then proceed to line 2.

2.WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 5.2

Reactivity and 0 1 2 3 1Incompatibility

Toxicity 0 1 2 3 3 9Hazardous Waste 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 8

Ouantitv

Total Waste Characteristics Score 20

3.TARGETS 5.3nsnewlm*inn wihhin 0 9 12 15 18 21 24 1 30

1-mile Radius 27 30Distance to Sensitive 0 1 2 3 2 6

EnvironmentLand Use 0 1 2 3 1 3

Total Tarqet Scores 39

4. Multiply lines 1 x 2 x 3 35100

5. Divide line 4 by 35100 and multiply by 100 Sa = a

2.8

S2

S

O=OUNDWATER ROUTE ermfir (cgw) AL./

..7E./

SURFACE WATER ROUTE SCORE (Ssw) C7,-,

c.../AIR ROUTE SCORE (Sa) 22

2 2 2Sgw + Ssw + Sa

1110111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111iiiiiiiiIii

3111111111111111111101111111111pritriplormi

11111111311111111 111111J 1.1

fi

1 i

CI2 2 2

SQR(Sgw + Ssw + Sa) 0

2 2 2SQR(Sgw + Ssw + Sa)/1.73 = SM

no i

111111111111111",Hid I 00 i

.

1.1 Ii 1 C.)

,;

OCCUMENTATION RECOROSFOR

HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM

INSTRUCTIONS: As briefly as possible, summarize the information you usedto assign the score for each factor (e.g., "Waste quantity = 4,230 drumsplus 800 cubic yards of sludges"). The source of information should beprovided for each entry and should be a bibliographic-type reference.Include the location of the document.

FACILITY NAME: esoo

LOCATION: e5,..6 57

DATE SCORED: 1040476-

PERSON SCORING: >cilLae

v

PRIMARY SOURCE(S) OF INFORMATION:

re_44.64—n--a-ze

FACTORS NOT SCORED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION:

COMMENTS OR QUALIFICATIONS:

2.11

GROUNDWATER ROUTE

1. OBSERVED RELEASE - Undertake Corrective Action

Contaminants detected (3 maximum):

RaLluval= for attributing the contaminants to tha farility:

2. ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS

Depth to Acluifer of Concern

Noma/description of aquifer(s) of concern:

ed_c, —• 716-4 n% Ay( 41 le A

1Depth(s) from the ground surface to the highest seasonal level of thesaturated zone [water table(s)] of the aquifer of concern:

7-1 '

Depth from the ground surface to the lowest point of waste disposal/storage:

Cl in Ji2,71- /C111

2.12

Net Precioitation

Mean annual or seasonal precipitation (list months for seasonal):

9.07 inches

Mean annual lake or seasonal evaporation (list months for seasonal):

36 inches

Net precipitation (subtract the above figures):

- 26.93 inches

Permeability of Unsaturated Zone

Soil type in unsaturated zone:

An interbedded sequence of basaltic lava flows and

sedimentary deposits.

Permeability associated with soil type:

10-7 to 10-3 cm/sec

Physical State

Physical state of substances at time of disposal (or at present time for

generated gases):

Ltt-cL" SLc-der—

" 2.13

3. CONTAINMENT

Containment

Method(s) of waste or leachate •containment evaluated:

Method of highest score:

A unerr ruAnnrTrOTCTTrCY. risi4 I L. l • ...

Toxicity and Persistence

Compound(s) evaluated:

Compound with highest score:

Hazardous Waste Quantity

Total quantity of hazardous substances at the facility, excluding those

with a containment score of 0 (Give a reasonable estimate even if

quantity is above maximum):

A ) . C

raOW , -

Basis of estimating and/or computing waste quantity:

'2.14

Checklist for Groundwater Releases

Identifying Release

1. Potential for Groundwater Relc.aca from ♦the Unit

o Unit type and design

• Does the unit type (e.g., lana-based)indicate the potential for release?

▪ Does the unit have engineered struc-tures (e.g., liners, leachate collec-tion systems, proper constructionmaterials) designed to prevent releasesto groundwater?

o Unit operation

▪ Does the unit's age (e.g., old unit) oroperating status (e.g., inactive, active)indicate the potential for release?

▪ Does the unit have poor gee citing pre-cedures that increase the potential forrelease?

▪ Coes the unit have compliance problemsthat indicate the potential for arelease to groundwater?

o Physical condition

Does the unit's physical condition in-dicate the potential for release (e.g.,lack of structural integrity, deterior-ating liners, etc.)?

o Locational characteristics

Is the unit located on permeable soilso the release could migrate throughthe unsaturated soii zone?

▪ Is the unit located in an arid areawhere the soil is less saturated andtherefore a release has less potentialfor downward migration?

▪ Does the depth from the unit to theuppermost aquifer indicate the poten-tial for release?

2.15

Yes No

11111••••••

111•111111••••

111•1•••••

/

dz

.m111•1•111•11

Checklist for Groundwater Releases

▪ Does the rate of groundwater flow greatlyinhibit the migration of a release from

the facility?

• Is ;he facilPoy 1,..06cd in an arearecharges surface water?

o Waste characteristics

that

▪ Does the waste in the unit exnibit high

or moderate characteristics of mobility(e.a., tendency not to sorb soil parti-cles or organic matter in the unsaturatedzone)?

Does the waste exhibit high or moderate

levels of toxicity?

▪ Evidence of Gr-aunriwarar PTIAASOA

o Existing groundwater monitoriag systems

▪ Is there an existing system?

▪ Is the system adequate?

• Are there recent analytical dataindicate a release?

1

o Other evidence of groundwater releases

that

- Ls there evidence of contamination aroundthe unit (ca., discolored soils, lack ofor stressed vegetation) that indicates thepotential for a release to groundwater?

▪ Does local well water or spring water

sampling data inchoate a releAce from the

unit?

Determining the Relative Effect of the Release on Human

Health and the Environment

1. Exposure Potential

o Conditions that indicate potential exposure

▪ Are there drinking water well(s) located

near the unit?

▪ Does the direction of groundwater flow in-

aicAte the potential for hazardous constitu-

ents to migrate to drinking water wells?

.2.16

Yes No

✓

•••1•••••••

•••••••••

_z✓

✓

SURFACE WATER ROUTE

I. OBSERVED RELEASE - Undertake Corrective Action

Contaminants detected in surface water at tne facility or downnill fromit (3 maximum):

/1)

Rationale for attributing the contaminants to the facility:

2. ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS

Facility Slope and Intervening Terrain

Average slope of facility in percent:

A4:2 ,

A 722 r e

Name/description of nearest downslope surface water:2_ GC .

0 A ,t

Avaraga clops of terrain between facility and above cited surface waterbody in percent:

Is the fatility located eitner totally or partially in surface water?

/id

2.17

Is the facility completely surrounded by areas of high elevation?

1-year 24-Hour Rainfall in Inches

less than 2 inches

Distance to Nearest Downslooe Surface Water

Physical State of Waste

3. CONTAINMENT

Containment

wi.14...Afe1 elf

;75'

etdrICC7-Lee Oal

wacte or lnarhate containment

Method with highest score:

2:18

evaluated:

Checklist for Surface Water/Surface Drainage Releases

Identifying Releases

I. Potential for Surface Water/Surface Drainage Release

from the Facility

o Proximity to Surface Water and/or to Off-siteReceptors

▪ Could surface run-off from the unit reachthe nearest downgradient surface water body?

▪ Could surface run-off from the unit reachoff-site receptors (e.g., if facility islocated adjacent to populated areas and nobarrier exists to prevent overland surfacerun-off migration)?

o Release Migration Potential

▪ Does the slope of the facility and inter-vening terrain innicata pntontial fnrrelease?

• Is the intervening terrain characterizedby soils and vegetation that allow over-land migration (e.g., clayey soils, andsparse vegetation)?

• Does data on one-year 24-hour rainfallirtdicate the potential for area storms tocause surface water or surface drainagecontamination as a result of run-off?

o Unit Design and Physical Condition

• Are engineered features (e.g., run-offcontrol systems) designed to preventrelease from the unit?

• Does the K—tion.1 histnry nf tha unitindicate that a release has taken place(e.g., old, closed or inactive unit, notinspected regularly, improperly maintained)?

Does the physical condition of the unit in-dicate that releases may have occurred(e.g., cracks or stress factures in tanksor erosion of earthen dikes of surfaceimpoundments)?

2.19

Yes 10

••=11111•1•=t

✓

✓

Checklist for Surface Water/Surface Drainage Reieases

Yes No

o Waste Characteristics

• Is the volume of discharge high relative

to the size and flow rate of the surfacewater body?

• Co constituents in the discharge tend tosorb to sediments (e.g., metals)? v 7

▪ Do constituents in the discharge tend to

be transported downstream? viv

▪ Do waste constituents exhibit moderate or

high characteristict nf portistence (e.g.,

PCBs, dioxins, etc.)?

▪ Do waste constituents exhibit moderate orhigh characteristics of toxicity (e.g.,metals, chlorinated pesticides, etc.)?

2. Evidence of Surface Water/Surface Drainage Releases

o Are there unpermitted discharges from thefacility to surface water that require an

NPDES or a Section 404 permit?

o Is there visible evidence of uncontrolled

run-off from units at the facility?

Determining the Relative Effect of the Release on Human

Health and the Environment

1. o Are there drinking water inttkot natrhy?

o Could human and/or environmental receptors

come into contact with surface drainage from

the facility?

o Are there irrigation water intakes nearby?

o Could a sensitive environment (e.g., critical

habitat, wetlands) be affected by the discharge

(if it is nearby)?

2.20

•

•••

•

1. CBSERVED RELEASE

Contaminants detected:

AIR ROUTE

Ale

Oate and Location of detection of contaminants:

Methods used to detect the contaminants:

Rationale for attributing the crint2minanre to the site:

2. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

Reactivity and IncomoatibilitNe

Most reactive compound:

Most incompatible pair of compounds:

A

2.21

Toxicity

Most toxic compound:

Hazardous Waste Quantity

Total quantity of hazardous waste:

Basis of estimating and/or computing waste quantity:

'2.22

Checklist for Air Releases

Identifying Releases

1. Potential for Air Releases from the Facility

o Unit Characteristics

the wn;t w w.i.ting andwaste to the atmosphere?

does is exposes

• Does the size of the unit (e.g., depthand surface area) create a potential forair release?

• Does the unit contain waste that exhibits amoderate or high potential for vapor phaserelease?

▪ Does the unit contain hazardous constitu-ents of concern as vapor releases?

▪ On waste constituents have a high poten-tial for volatilization (e.g., physicalform, concentrations,\ and constituent- -specific physical and\chemical parametersthat contribute to volatilization)?

• Does the unit contain waste and exhibit siteconditions that suggest a moderate or highpotential for particulate release?

• Does the unit contain hazardous conttitu-ents of concern as particulate releases?

▪ Do constituents of concern as particulatereleases (e.g., smaller, inhalable particu-lates) have potential for release via winderosion, reentrainment by moving vehicles,or operational activities?

• Are particulate releases comprised ofsmall particles that tend to traveloff-site?

Yes No

.1111M•11.

.1•1111•IM.

.mi•••••••••

o Do certain environmental and geographic factors

affect the t.V1161111 Old VII4 wf airborne contaminants?

Do atmospheric/geographic conditions limitconstituent dispersion (e.g., areas withatmospheric conditions that result ininversions)?

▪ Is the facility located in a hot, dry area? -7/

2.23

/✓

z

z

z

Checklist for Air Releases

2, Evidence of Air Releases

Yes No

o Does on-site monitoring data show that releaseshave occurred or are occurring (e.g., OSHA data)?

• Have particulate emissions been observed at thesite?

• Have there been citizen complaints concerningodors or observed particulate emissions fromthe site?

Determining the Relative Effect of the Release on Human Health and the Environment

1. Exposure Potential

o Is a populated area located near the site?

.2.24

Checklist for Subsurface Gas Releases

Identifying a Release

1. Potential for Subsurface Gas Releases

o Does the unit contain waste that generatesmethane or generates volatile constituentsthat may be carried by methane (e.g., decom-posable refuse/volatile organic wastes)?

o Is the unit an active or closed landfill ora unit C.:loco/1 ae a landfill (e.g., surfaceimpoundments and waste piles)?

2. Migration of Subsurface Gas to On-site or Off-siteBuildings

Yes No

.11111=1••

o Are on-site or off-site buildings close to theunit? /

o Do natural or engineered barriers prevent gasmigration from the unit to on-site or off-sitebuildings (e.g., low soil permeability andporosity hydrogeologic barriers/liners, slurrywalls, gas control systems)1

o Do natural site characteristics or man-madestructures (e.g., underground power trans-mission lines, sewer pipes/sand and gravellenses) facilitate gas migration from theunit tn blinding?

Determining the Relative Effect of the Release on Human Health and the Environment

i. Exposure Potential

o Does building usage (e.g., residential,commercial) exhibit high potential for exposure?

2.25

.1•111111111.

FIRE AND EXPLOSION

CONTAINMFNT

Hazardous substances present:

Type of containment, if applicable:

2. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

Direct Evidence

Type of instrument and measurements\t

Compound used:

Reactivity

Most reactive und:

14,1

Incompatibility

Most incompatible pair of compounds:

.2.26

Hazardous Waste Quantity

Total quantity of hazardous substances at the facility:

Basis of estimating and/or computing waste quantity:

3. TARGETS

Distance to Nearest Pooulation

Distance to Nearest Building

Distance to Sensitive Environment

nictanea.tn wetlands:

Greater than 100 feet

Distance to critical habitat:

Greater than 1/2 mile

Land Use

Distance to commercial/industrial area, if 1 miie or less:

The INE1 is a research facility. There are no commercial/

industrial facilities within 1 mile.

Distance to national or state park, forest, or wildlife reserve,

if 2 miles or less:

Greater than 2 miles

Distance to residential area, if 2 miles or less:

Greater than 2 miles

Distance to agricultural land in praA,,,rion within pact 3 years, if

1 mile or less:

Greater than 1 mile

2.27

Distance to prima agricultural land in production within past 3 years,if 2 miles or less:

Greater than 2 miles

If a historic or landmark site (NAtional Registar or Historic Plac's

and National Natural Landmarks) within the view of the site?

Pooulation Within 2-Mile Radius

Buildings Within 2-Mile Radius

/1?

2.28

DIRECT CCNTACT

I. OBSERVED INCIDENT

Date, location, and pertinent details of incident:

2. ACCESSIBILITY

Oescribe type of barrier(s):

3. CONTAINMENT

73 LAA.4.1—ela

Typa-of containment, if applicable:

4. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

Toxicity

Compounds evaluated:

7.1

cf"."--2---

hinhact ernra:

2.29

5. TARGETS

Population within one-mile radius

Distance to critical habitat (of endangered soecies)

Greater than 1 mile

2.30

FICETTRIT 3

3.0

INESIdaho National Engineartng Laboratory

AJM-25-87

April 28, 1987

".1

c

cl

JAN 0 4 1991

F. H. WeilerFuel Processing and Waste Operations Division.-

Idaho Operations Office, "en"785 DOE PlaceIdaho Falls, ID 83402

Dear Mr. Weiler:

Subject: ICPP Summary Assessments.

Attached for your review are the Summary Assessments for the

following ICPP unite.

CPP-41 - Fire Training PitsCPP-43 - Grease PitCPP-52 - Pickling ShedCPP-70 - Septic TankCPP-71 - Seepage PitsCPP-72 - CesspoolCPP-73 - Leaching CesspoolCPP-74 - caapags PitCPP-75 - Septic TankCPP-76 - Septic TankCPP-77 - Seepage Pit and Cesspool

If you have any questions, please contact D. Joan Poland 2t 6-165n.

6-±""es.

A. 4I. Matu , ManagerEnvironmental Engineering

DJP/tlr

Attachment

cc: J. H. Barry, DOE-ID w/o enclosure

C. E. Clark, DOE-IDM. W. Littelton, DOE-ID w/o enclosure

J. L. Lyle, DOE-ID

Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company. Inc. Box 4000 Idaho Falls, ID 83403

3.1

ICPP SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS

APRIL 1987

RECEPVED

JAN 0 4 1991

Ev. FILE COPY

3.3

Summary Assessment of CPP-43

Unit Name:

CPP-43, Grease Pit.

Unit Description:

CPP-43, grease pit, was located south of CPP-637, at the presentlocation of CPP-651. The grezed pit wac Ne°11 fnr the dicpogal of an

unknown quantity of oil and grease. The grease pit was filled in whenthe unirradiated fuel storage building upgrade (CPP-651) was completedin 1975.

Initiai Assessment:

The grease pit ranked zero on the EPA Priority Ranking System.

Motor vehicle oils and arease were the only known materials disposedof in the grease pit. Neither of these materials are listed ashazardous materials. Also, meaningful sampling cannot be conducteddue to the construction of CPP-651'over the unit.

3ummary A went:

The grease pit should be removed from the list of potentiallyhazardous units. Based on the information gathered, the materialsdisposed in the grease pit were not hazardous and meaningful samplingcannot be conducted due to the construction of CPP-651 over the unit.It is recommended that the unit be administratively closed and that nofurther investigations be conducted.

Methods of A ement:

The methods used in this assessment include:

o Reviews of engineering drawingso Review of the ICPP Faciiity Master Piano Interviews with ICPP personnel.

OO

1.;

3.5

EXHIBIT 4

" 4.0

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ito s72.0.

elk

REPLY to,,,ATTNI or nrt-112 •

1200 SIXTH AVENUE

SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981-01

JAN 0 5 1559

Thomas F. GesellDeputy Assistant Manager fnr

Nuclear ProgramsU.S. Department of EnergyIdaho Operations Office

Er.CETiVEZ:

'63 ,F; p

M. §.. - A. • _ ,

REGION 10 vm t

Ok- fa 14,24•141

RECElygn

JAN 0 8 Iibd785 DOE Place

'Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 AMMAN?' MAN.:GUFOR NUCLEAR PROGRAMS

Re: Review of Selected Summary Assessments

near Mr. natal):

We have reviewed the summary assessments for the following solid waste

management units: c-ee *TA"

(1) CPP-41 Fire Training Pits (Rev. 3)(2) CPP- Grease Pit (Rev. 3)(3) CPP-4523— t4 Pickling Shed E\, of CPP-631 (Rev. 3) Ac.=

(4) CPP-70 Septic Tank E. 6f CPP-655 (Rev. 3) / ,

(5) CPP-71 Seepage Pits W. of CPP-656 (Rev. 3) /

(6) CPP-72 CPP-758 Cesspool E. of CPP-651 (Rev. 3) Y.:-•

(7) CPP-73 Leaching Cesspool E. of CPP-T-5 (Rev. 3),:-/

(8) CPP-74 Seepage Pit W. of CPP-626 (Rev. 3)(9) CPP-75_ Septic Tank W. of CPP-603 (Rev. 3)(10) LOFT-04 rke7 LOFT Injection Well (Rev. 2)(11) P8F-01 PBF Control Area Septic Tank & Seepage Pit (Rev. 2)

(12) PBF-03 PBF Control Area Septic Tank & Seepage Pits (Rev. 2)

(13) TRA-08 TRA Cold Waste Disposal Pond (Rev. 2)(14) TRA-10 MTR Construction Excavation Pile (Rev. 2)

(15) TRA-23 ETR Excavation Site Rubbie Piie (Rev. 2)

(16) TRA-24 TRA Guardhouse Constr. Rubble Pile (Rev. 2)

(17) TRA-25 TRA Sewer Plant Settling & Pond Rubble Pile (Rev. 2)

(18) TRA-26 TRA Rubble Site by USGS Observation Well (Rev. 2)1101%lag T°A-28 TRa North Rubble Site (Rev. 2)

(20) TRA-29 TRA ATR Constr. Rubble (Rev. 2)

Each of the 20 summary assessments listed above provide a good review of

the available background data in support of each proposal to delete a Solid

Waste Management Unit (SWMU) from the priority listing. Before dieructing our

particular comments on each assessment it may be valuable to discuss our views

on the topic of summary assessments and the basis for dropping SWMU's off of

the priority listing. Our first level of review is to evaluate the

probability that wastes containing hazardous constituents have been disposed

of in the unit. Unfortunately, many of the summary assessments discuss

hazardous waste disposal or release. The criteria is hazardous constituents

not hazardous waste. Hazardous constituents are those chemicals listed on

Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261. This listing of several hundred compounds

.1 • 4.1

1537

can be found as ingredients in a wide variety of materials. Second, attentionmust be paid to the probable quantity of hazardous constltuents which weredisposed. Third, the likelihood that hazardous constituents present in the

unit can migrate from the unit; and fourth, if we can assume a release from

the unit, is the release likely to migrate to surface water, ground water or

air. The first level of review is straightfnrward. More information is

required to support unit deletion at the second level. Chemical inventory

records, interviews, process descriptions and other indirect data collection

efforts may be required to develop a convincing position. At the third level

of review, documentation is needed establishing that the hazardous

constituents in the unit are contained. It is probable that such a

demonstration will require some level of sampling activity. Proving the case

that hazardous constituent migration is bound in the soil and not releasable

sto ground water is extremely difficult without a good characterization of the

underlying unsaturated and saturated earthen materials.

Our specific comments are as follows:

CPP-41, Fire Training Pits - The dangers of the use of hazardous waste as

fuel foe fire training exercises is only now becoming apparent. The oid adage

that volatile organics evaporate away diminishes with each discovery of ground

water contamination. Pouring volatile organics on the ground with subsequent

addition of copious amounts of fire fighting water results in soil and ground

water contamination. Therefore, we do not agree with the recommendation of

this summary assessment. Sampling of the underlying subsoils for the presence

of hazardous constituents will be necessary to support deletion of this unit

from the list.

CPP-43, Grease Pit - This unit is reported to have been filled in and

covered by a building in the mid-1970's. Previously it had been used for the

disposal of an unknown quantity of oil and grease. Although hazardous

constituents are likely present in the unit, ground water is located hundreds

of feet below •and the •unit is covered hy 2 huiiding. In the Chemical

Processing Plant area, the Snake River Plain Aquifer is reported to be highly

prolific and would make monitoring difficult. Although the case made is

persuasive, some additional information is necessary. First, a description of

how the unit is located under the building needs expanding. Second, the years

of operation of the ynit are not provided. Third, what are the likely

solvents used during the years of operation should be explored (e.g., were

carburetor solvents used). Fourth, the size of the operation which would have

expected to use the pits Should be evaluated which can provide an estimate of

quantities of oils and grease which may have been disposed.

CPP-52, Pickling Shed E. of CPP-631 - Was a temporary structure which was

demolished in approximately 1954. Based on interviews, the materials which

would have been stored at the shed were mineral acids. The location of the

shed is poorly knOwn and it is reported that the area has been extensively

reworked which would make sampling difficult. As over 30 years have passed

and the hazardous waste was limited to mineral acids in addition to the soil

being naturally basic, it is unlikely that further investigation would be

4.3

fruitfull. Therefore, we would agree that this unit can be deleted from thelist.

CPP-70, Septic Tank E. of CPP-655 - is used to treat sanitary waste

generated at the Craft Shop and Warehouse Building. Operations reported at

the building include equipment main.-- ropxir, welding and carpentry.

It is reported that there are no drains in the work areas and therefore, it is

unlikely that hazardous constituents were disposed tnto the septic system. As

part of our quality audit of summary assessments, we would like to review

engineerina drawing #057140 as it is used to support the claim that no drains

are located in the work areas. If our review of the drawing confirms the

findings in the summary assessment, we will agree to delete this unit from the

list.

CPP-71, Seepage Fits W. of CPP-655 - Is used in conjunction with CPP-70and our comments for CPP-70 apply.

CPP-72, CPP-758 Cesspool E. of CPP-651 - This septic system was used to

treat sanitary sewage from temporary office trailers TR-1 through TR-9. The

trailers have subsequently been.disconnected from the system which is no

longer in use. As this septic system was only connected to office bathrooms,

it is improbable that hazardous constituents were disposed of into the system

and we therefore, agree with the deletion of this unit from the list.

CPP-73, Leaching Cesspool E. of CPP-T-5 - It is reported that this septic

system is connected to temporary building CPP-T-5 which is used as a

lunch/break room by a construction caintractor. No hazardous materials are

reported to have been used or stored at this locatlon and we therefore, concur

with the assessment that this unit should be deleted from the iist.

CPP-74, Seepage Pit W. of CPP-626 - It is reported that this septic system

built around 1971, is used to treat santtary waste from both the Fuel

Reuciviny sud 4‘wilayw Building and the Storaga Rasin Change Room. The

building is reported to contain a cafeteria, bathroom facilities, showers, and

office space. No operations involving hazardous materials are known to have

been employed in the building. We therefore concur with the assessment that

this unit should be deleted from the list.

• CPP-75, Septic Tank W. of CPP-603 - This septic system is reported to have

received sanitary wastes prior to the operation of CPP-74 and was built around

1953. Interviews with employees identified that the septic system was only

...tad to a sink and enfants which were physically isolated from from

hazardous material operations. It was also reported that the primary

hazardous material used was mineral acid. As it is unlikely that additional

information will be found on this unit and there is no information supporting

the disposal of hazardous constituents into the unit, we agree that this untt

should be deleted from the list.

CPP-76, Septic Tank W. of CPP-659 - This unit was reported to have

received sanitary waster from the old Waste Calcining Facility which was built

in 1960. It is rapartan that the septic system was removed in approximately

4.5

4

1976. Little tnformation is provided on what fixtures would have been

connected to the unit and the types of processes which would be located

nearby. Also, it would appear an easy matter to provide documentation thatthe unit was removed. We request that this additional information be provided

in a revised summary assessment. We also request that engineering drawings

numbered 05518Z and 055335 De appended onto the revised asxe3amcnt which we

will review as part of our quality audit.

LOFT-04, LOFT Injection Well - Is a 300 ft. deep injection well designed

for the (11 1.,v3,21 of or cold waste water fnme LOFT operations.

It is currently used as a USG5 monitoring well. As there is no unit remaining

for hazardous constituents to migrate from, this unit can be deleted from the

list. Any plume of contamination detected in the aquifer as part of

corrective action or unit investigation activities would be evaluated

separately.

P8F-01, PBF Control Area Saptic Tank & Seepage Pit - This septic system is

used to treat sanitary waste discharges from the electrical maintenance shop.

S..m-maries of i“.-..iews repmrtwd in Vie assessment support that the

maintenance activities in the shop which used solvent did not result in free

liquid which could be discharged into the septic system. Although the

assessment erroneously addresses hazardous waste rather than hazardous

constituent discharges, the information provided in the assessment report

supports the conclusion that this unit shouid be deleted from ♦the list.

PBF-03, PBF Control Area Septic rank & Seepage Pits - This septic system

receives waste from 0i:ultra Building P8F-632. ft is reported that the

engineering drawings show that the system is only connected to non-industrial

common areas and interview summaries support this finding. However, as part

of our quality audit program, we request that all supporting documentation be

provided on this unit for our review. If our review agrees with your findings

we will support the deletion of this unit from the list.

TRA-08, TRA Cold Waste Disposal Pond - This unllned unit, constructed in

1982, has a capacity ot over one million gallons and handles flows up to 800

gallons per minute. It is reported that sampling and analysis of pond

influent for heavy metals show an annual mean concentration whiCh is very low,

but this conclusion is highly subjective. As the operation of this pond

promotes liquid migration to ground water, we require that all sampling

results be appended to the assessment to allow an evaluation of the potential

of the.unit to release hazardous constituents into the environment.

TRA-10, MTR Construction Excavation Pile - This construction pile is

reported as containing only concrete and excavated soil. Interview summaries

with employees familiar with the operation are included to support this

finding. The only observed components of the pile is reported to be concrete

and soil and the pile is periodically used to provide backfill in ether

construction projects. Although the information provided supports deletion of

this unit, we are reluctant to agree at this time. Instead, we vdll add this

unit to our inspection inventory for the spring site visit. Based on our

observations at that time we will •then •revisit the issue of list deletion.

A 77 .

z

TRA-23, ETR Excavatlon Site Rubble Pile - This excavation pile isassociated with the construction of the ETR Building and the assessment 1svery similar to that provlded for TRA-10. Therefore, our response is the same

as for TRA-10 and we will inspect this unit at our next site visit.

TRA-24, TRA Guardhouse Construction Rubble Piie - This site consists of

construction rubble from the building of the TRA Guardhouse. Photographs are

lncluded in the assessment which support the finding that no hazardous

constituents are present. Based on the source of the material and as this

pile is outside the fence and the area is •a Security area where unenthnri,ed

visitors would be stopped and questioned, we agree with the proposed deletion

of this unit from the list.

TRA-25, TRA Sewer Plant Settling & Pond Rubble Pile - This site consists

of construction ru • e rom t e •u •ing o t e TRA Sewer Plant Settling

Ponds. Photographs are included in the assessment which support the finding

that no hazardous constituents are present. Based on the source of the

material and as this pile is outside the fence and the area is a security area

where unauthorized visitors would be stoppri and questioned, we agree with the

proposed deletion of this unit from the list.

TRA-26, TRA Rubble Site by USGS Observation Well - Contains construction

debris of unknown origin. Photographs are included in the assessment which

support the finding that no hazardous constituents are present. However, as

the source of the material is unknown, we are reluctant to agree at this time

to delete the unit from the list. Iristead, we will add this unit to our

inspection inventory for the spring site visit. Based on our observations at

that time we will then revisit the iCtUP nf list deletion.

TRA-28, TRA North Rubble Site - Contalns construction debris of unknown

origin. Photographs are inc]uded in the assessment of three test excavations

which support the finding that no hazardous constituents are present.

Although the source of the material is unknown, the 1.01CV Ian ....hes

provide adequate support to justify deletion of this the unit from the list.

TRA-29, TRA ATR Construction Rubble - Contains construction debris of

unknown origin. -Photographs are included in the assessment of four test

excavations which support the finding that no hazardous constituents are

present. Although the source of the material is unknown, the four test

trenches provide adequate support to justify deletion of this the unit from

the list.

In summary, eleven of the summary assessments provided are sufficient to

support unit deletion from the universe. In accordance with Paragraph 0.1(a)

of Appendix I to the Consent Order and Compliance Agreement, we concur with

the findings of the following summary assessments: CPP-52; CPP-72; CPP-73;

CPP-74; CPP-75; LOFT-04; PBF-01; TRA-24; TRA-25; TRA-28; and TRA-29. In

accordance with Paragraph D.1(b) we have identified additional informatlon

needs for the remainder of the summary assessments identified above.

Please contact Wayne Pierre of my staff at FT5 399-7261 if you would liketo discuss this matter further.

•Sincerely,

4ED•

K, neth D. Feigng.;;;;fWaste Management Branch

cc: Cheryl Koshuta, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare

Greg Weatherby, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare

4.11

EXHIBIT 5

5.0

INELIdaho National Eng:rowing Laboratont

AJM-18-88

March 31, 1988

F. H. Weiler, Physical Scientist

Office of Assistant Manager for Nuclear Programs 1.21 cnnenri Office

Idaho Operations Office, USDOE785 DOE PlaceIdaho Falls, ID 83402

• '—

I JAN 0 4 1991

Zt‘r c;r•-• COPY

Dear Mr. Weiler:

Subject: Revised Summary Assessments.

Attached for your review and/or submittal to the EPA are the 2nd

revisions of the following Sumary Assessments:

CPP-41 Fire Training Pits \

CPP-43 Grease Pit south of CPP-637

CPP-70 Septic Tank east of CPP-655

CPP-71 Seepage Pits west of CPP-656

CPP-76 Septic Tank west of CPP-659

CPP-77 Seepage Pit and Cesspool north of CPP-662

If you have any questions, please contact D. Joan Poland at 6-3650.

A 1 Manamern.

Environmental Engineering

GS/tlr

Attachment

cc: W. K. Anawalt, DOE-IDJ. H. Barry, DOE-ID w/o attachment

T. F. Gesell, DOE-ID w/o attachment

W Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company. Inc. Box 4000 Idaho Falls, ID 2911111

5.1

The Summary Assessments in this document replace Summary Assessments

CPP-41, -43, -70, -71, -76, and -77 which were submitted to the United

States Environmental Protection Agency Region X (EPA, Region X) on August

26, 1987. EPA Region X's review comments have been incorporated to ensure

compliance with the Consent Order and Compliance Agreement (CO&CA) for the

INEL.

5.3

REVISED SUMMARY ASSESSMENTSFOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS

CPP-41, -43, -70, -71, -76, AND -77

PrPpared by:

Reviewed by:

R A - - rcr"NUS Dept :--- Date

L7

DateN&IS Der.

41 PatrtZAJ

Engineering/Projects Dept. Date

C,2/ zdA--2r6duction Dept. Date

Technical Dept. "

5.5

eV3/./errDate

Revised Summary Assessment of CPP-43

Unit Name:

CPP-43, Grease Pit.

Unit Description:

CPP-43, grease pit, is located south of the Process Improvement Facility

(CPP-637), at the present location of the Unirradiated Fuels Storage

facility (CPP-651)1. CPP-651 is a 1,500 ft2 vault-like steel

reinforced concrete structure. The grease pit was used for the disposal

of an unknown quantity of oil and grease1. The grease pit was filled in

and covered by CPP-651 when the facility upgrade was completed in 19752.

Initial Assessment:

The grease pit ranked zero on the EPA Priority Ranking System3.

Motor vehicle oils and grease were the only known materials disposed of in

the grease pit. Neither of these materiais are listed as hazardous

constituents in 40 CFR 261. Due to the presence of the Unirradiated Fuels

Storage Facility over the unit meaningful sampling cannot be conducted.

Summary Assessment:

The grease pit should be removed G. the list of potentially hazardous

units. Although oils and greases may contain hazardous materials (e.g.

heavy metals and PCB's), it was concluded that the probability of

hazardous materials migrating from ♦the unit is negligible because hkaunc uni4uni‘

is covered by the Unirradiated Fuels Storage Facility2. Thebuilding

acts as a barrier against volatiles being released to the atmosphere and

against precipitation carrying hazardous materials tn the groundwater

below the ICPP. Also, meaningful sampling cannot be conducted because of

the presence of the Unirradiated Fuels Storage Facility over the unit.

4

5.7

Information concerning the operation of the unit is not available because

the grease pit was used in the "early" operation of the ICPP when records

of these operations were not maintained. The dates of use and the size of

che operatiun that venerated waste could not be determined, but interviews

indicated that grease and oil were the materials discarded in the pit4.

The quantities of materials discarded could not be determined, but it is

estimated that approximately 10 yd3 of soil w2c rrintAminAtpdi,

Since there is little probability of materials migrating from the unit and

me,eiegfo eamplpc rannnt hp collected, it is recommended that the unit be

administratively closed and that no further investigations be conducted.

Methods of Assessment:

The methods used in this assessment include:

1. Reviews of the Installation Assessment Report, Idaho Chemical

Processing Plant, May 1986 (p. 58 and Table 5.2).

2. Reviews of the ICPP Facility Master Plan (IPM XVII, p. 11).

3. Reviews of the Initial Assessment Report, Idaho Chemical Processing

Plant, Vol. IV, November 1986.

4. Interviews with ICPP personnel: Interviews were conducted with the

individuals responsible for preparing the Installation Assessment

Report, Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, May 1986.

D. J. Poland (WINCO Environmental Engineering; phone number 526-3650)

and R. L. Nebeker (WINCO Technical Department; phone number 526-3578)

established the location of the grease pit during interviews and

reviews of old ICPP maps. The grease pit was located under the

northwest corner of building CPP-651. Poland and Nebeker were unable

to determine the dates of use or the size of the operation that

generated waste, but interviews indi t d th_a_ yrease and uil were theca_e_ _

only materials discarded in the pit.

5

5.9

11MT7TYTTlYrilrakn1131 1 0

6.0

Agency SeaIle AA ,J1Wasnington

49 EPA

Reply Attention of: HW-112

Mr. Hunter Weiler

U.S. Department of Energy

Idaho Operations Office

785 DOE PlaceIdaho Falls, Idaho 83402

RE: Summary Assessment Reviews

Dear Mr. Weiler:

OCT 1 s 1999MIRERnn

l.177-7 FThn

•

We have reviewed the summary assessments for the following Solid

Waste Management Units:

RockwellNRFIET-07ARA-07ARA-09ARA-10ARA-11PBF-03

EOCR-04CPP-41CPP-43CPP-70CPP-71CPP-76CPP-77

SMC Septic Tank and Drain Field

SWMU #4 Top Soil Pit Area

Hot Waste TankARA-II Seepage P tARA-II Septic TaARA-II Septic Tank East

ARA-II Septic Tank West

PBF Control Area Septic Tank for PBF-632 and

Seepage PitsSeptic TankFire Training PitsGrease PitSeptic Tank East of CPP-655

Seepage Pits West of CPP-656

Septic Tank West of CPP-659

Seepage Pit and Cesspool North of CPP-662

The Summary Assessments for Rockwell SMC Septic Tank and Drain

Field, NRF SWMU #4, ARA-7, ARA-9, ARA-10, PBF-03, and EOCR-04 are

sufficient to support the deletion of these seven (7) units from

the RCRA universe. In accordance with Paragraph D.1(a) of

Appendix I to the Consent Order and Compliance Agreement

("Agreement"), we concur with the findings of the above

identified summary assessments.

EPA intendsassessmentsreferenced.reached fordecision isFor qualityinformation

to quality assure the accuracy of the summary

by periodically reviewing the support information

Although we are concurring with the conclusions

selected summary ..... amants, ft must be noted this

based on the assumption the information is correct.

assurance purposes we request all supporting

(i.e., notes, interview logs, drawings, etc.) for the

6.1

summary assessments for: ARA-7, ARA-9, ARA-10, and PBF-03 besubmitted for our review. If any summary assessment is found tobe deficient, we will require each summary assessment to includeall supporting information.

In accordance with Paragraph Dl(b) of the Agreement we haveidentified additional information needs for the other unitsreviewed.

TET-a7 Not Waste Tank. This assessment references the closure

plan of October 1986 for the IET Container Storage Unit. This

closure plan was never approved,(see EPA letter to Cliff Clarkfrom 10/27/87 of which a copy is enclosed). A copy of theclosure certificate (from the unapproved closure plan) has notbeen received.

ARA-71 ARA-9, and ARA-10: These units which are all connected,have been approved for deletion from the list. The summaryassessments did not address the possibility of radioactivecontamination. Radioactive contamination does not fall underRCRA regulation, but if these units are found to be radioactivelycontaminated they would be subject to regulation under CERCLA orAEA.

ARA-11: The history of this unit indicates the building may have

also been used as a light laboFatory. More information is needed

to determine if this unit should be deleted from the list.

CPP-41: This unit is proposed for administrative closure due toconstruction over the former pit area. More detail is needed on

the location of the unit under the building and the location and

construction of the building.

CPP-43: This unit is also proposed for administrative closure

due to construction over the unit. EPA commented on this summary

assessment in a letter dated January 5, 1988. The comments were

not addressed in the revisions of the summary assessments. The

description of how the unit is located under the building needs

to be expanded. The years of operation of the unit are not

provided. Identify the solvents likely to have been usad duringthe years of operation. Provide the size of the operation which

would have imp--a-A the pit.

CPP-70: This summary assessment references two engineeringdrawings, only one of which was included with the packet. The

drawing which was included (057140) does not provide information

on floor drains from the unit.

CPP-71: This summary assessment also references two engineering

drawings, only one of which was provided. The drawing does not

show thc drainage system from the& "I"4", and it cannot beconcluded that there are no floor drains from the work area.

Information from the summary assessment for CPP-71 and CPP-70

does not make it clear if CPP-655 had no floor drains in the work

6.3

area, or if the statements are meant to say the drains could notdrain to the septic system. This point should be verifiable by

an inspection of the building and a more comprehensive look into

the building history to see if there formerly were floor drains.

CPP-761 This domummnt J.=& 0 =4.ca...cm anninaa4nn Anwinne%.flacc. N.n.jaAsccran,

only one of which is provided. This summary assessment does not

contain sufficient information on the history of the unit. Theassessment also states that a septic tank was removed during

construction. The one engineering drawing provided (135505),

states that the cess pool and septic tank are to be abandoned in

place.

CPP-77: Revise and resubmit this summary assessment after the

sampling data is av-21-'1-.

There ..:ere other engineering drawings submitted with the TCPP

summary assessments, however the drawing numbers did not match

the ones referenced in the assessments.

Please contact Jeffry Rodin of EPA Region 10 at FTS 399-2859 if

you would like to discuss any of these comments.

Michael Gearheard, ChiefWaste Management Branch

r.) Cheryl Koshuta, Directorit daho Hazardous Material

Bureau

6.5

1171X7TTT11171-1 Ps7rditruan 1 /

7.0

INELIdaho AlatIonal Enginwing Laboratora

Mr. F. H. WeilerU. S. Department of EnergyIdaho Operations Office785 DOE PLACEIdaho Falls, ID 83402

January 12, 1990- — -a's— —.I

r,L }It!. j

—

rh,: Cr py

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT REVIEW LETTER FROM THE EPA/STATE - DJB-09-90

Dear Mr. Weiler:

In response to the letter from the EPA dated October 16, 1989, EG&G andWINCO have the following remarks.

EG&G

Enclosed are seven copies of the supporting information requested for theSunward Anmaaments for Solid Waste Mau.v.ment Units (SWMU1s), ARA-07,ARA-09, and PBF-03, a certified statement of verification of closureactivities conducted by Energy Incorporated for SWMU 1E7-07 and additionalinformation on the history of SWMU ARA-11.

WINCO

The comments pertaining to the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP),SWMU's, CPP-41 and CPP-43 both stated that the information provided wasinsufficient for administrative closure. It was also stated thatinformation requested on CPP-43 in EPA's January 5, 1988 letter was notprovided in this revision. The comments also stated that the drawingsreferenced in the Summary Assessments for CPP-70, 71, 76 and 77 were notsubmitted with the assessments.

Very little information exists on CPP-41 and CPP-43 since they were inexistence in the "early" years of the ICPP (approximately late 1950's tomid 1960's). The information about these units was gathered byinterviewing individuals, and many of the interviewee's recollectionsabout units were imprecise. Therefore, little information was availablewhen the Summary Assessments were written. This was denoted in the"Methods of Assessment" sections (see note 2 in Revised Summary Assessmentof CPP-41, and note 4 in Revised Summary Assessment of CPP-43.)

04 Esse has. int P.O. Box MS Idaho Fogs, ID 83415

7,1

Mr. F. H. WeilerJanuary 12, 1990OJB-09-90Page 2

EPA's January 5, 1988 letter requested information on 1) where the unitwas located under CPP-651, 2) years of operation 3) the likely solventsused during operation and 4) the size of the operation/quantities of wastedisposed at CPP-43. Since little is known about the unit, the informationrequested was unavailable when the Summary Assessment was written. Thiswas stated in note 4 of the "Methods of Assessment" section. Theindividual interviewed (only one individual could recall the grease pit)ctated that the pit was located near the northwest corner of the building.but he was unsure exactly where. He also stated that he was unsure of howlong the unit was used, or what the dimensions of the unit were. He aisostated that to his knowledge the unit was only used for the disposal ofmotor oil and grease.

Concerning the drawings referenced in Summary Assessments, all drawingsreferenced in CPP-70, 71, 76, and 77 are present in the documentsubmitted.

SWMU CPP-41

CPP-41 consists of two pits, one\is reported to be beneath the FASTFacility (CPP-666) and the other beneath the Maintenance Building(CPP-663). The exact location of the pits is unknown. WINCO discussedEPA's comments with one of the individuals who interviewed plant personnelfor the initial assessment. He stated that the descriptions were in thevein of "... the old fire training pits were out around where CPP-666 andCPP-663 are now located ...," but when asked for more specifics, they wereunable •to provide any more details. WINCO also reviewed historicalphotographs of the ICPP and was unable to confirm the locations of thepits.

Although the exact location of the pit near building CPP-666 is not known,the area excavated for the construction was so large the likelihood of anyhazardous constituents remaining in the location after construction isni1. CPP-666 is approximately 305 x 125 feet. During construction of thesite an area of approximately 500 x 250 was excavated, most of the 40 foothacait layer. The hese slab for the building was poured directly on thebasalt. The facility was then constructed on the base slab and theexcavation was backfilled around the building foundation.

CPP-663 is approximately 210 x 161 feet. Prior to construction, the areawas lower than the surrounding surface grade. Excavated materials fromprevious construction projects were piled in the area as fill. Duringconstruction, the excavated materials were leveled and additional fillmaterials were brought in to level the surrounding surface grade. Duringinterviews with personnel associated with construction, they stated thatthey did not remember a pit being in the area prior to construction.Since the exact locations of the pits are not known and extensive sitepreparation was conducted at each location, it is unlikely that either pit

7.3

Mr. F. H. WeilerJanuary 12, 1990DJB-09-90Page 3

exists as a unit in its original location and it would be impossible todetermine where to conduct sampling for characterization. Therefore,WINCO still recommends that CPP-41 be removed from the "universe ofSWMU's" by administrative closure.

SWMU CPP-43

re', Al ^flne4e*AA etc a nb•naca nit lnr24aA enuth nf the rPO A17/A711 rnmnlov

The exact location of the pit could not be determined from interviewsconducted during the initial assessment. Only one individual couldremember the pit, but he could not remember a specific location or wastetype/location. Other employees who worked in the area during the early1960's were interviewed, but none could substantiate that a grease pitexisted in the area.

WINCO has since re-interviewed the individual and reviewed additionalhistorical photographs of the ICPP. The individual was able to locatewhat he believes to be the pit on an old photograph (photograph 462-7669).WINCO was unable to confirm that the location on the photograph wasactually a grease pit. However,\if the location indicated by theindividual is correct, the pit was located approximately on the northeast f the Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility (CPP-651). Howavar, itcould not determine from the photograph if the pit was actually under thebuilding or adjacent to the building.

The individual was asked to give his:"best guess" on the dates ofoperation, waste types, and construction of the unit. He stated that hedid not remember the dates of operation; however, the photographs(photograph 4s 62-7669 and 66-2370) indicate that the pit was in existencein 1962 and was filled in by 1966. He stated that all he could rememberbeing disposed to the pit was automotive oil and possibly small quantitiesof acid (he stated that he did not remember any other "organics" goinginto the pit). The individual was still unsure of the dimension of thepit, but stated that he thought that it may have been 18 inches wide by5-8 feet long by 4-5 feet deep. To his best recollection, he thought thatthe walls were concrete and ♦the bottom consisted of red fire hrick.

Since the information is still inconclusive, WINCO will sample the generallocation around the northeast corner of CPP-651, if directed to do so.

SWMUfs CPP-70. 71. 76. and 77

EPA's letter stated that the drawings referenced in the text were notincluded in the Summary Assessment. The referenced drawings are present

as stated. snme ennfusion may have arisen from the fact that the drawings

are from different years and produced by several different contractors.

7.5

Mr. F. H. WeilerJanuary 12, 1990DJB-12-90Page 4

Depending on the time frame and contractor, various numbering systems wereused. However, the file numbers cited are included on each drawing. Thefile numbers that are presently being used are the last six digits in the"Index Code Number" box. These numbers may be stated as Medal" or"drawing" numbers, but in all cases the last six digits are used.

A draft letter which presents the above information has been FileTransferred to your secretary, Barbara, for transmittal to the followingindividuals:

Mr. Michael Gearheard, ChiefEnvironmental Protection AgencyWaste Mcucyc,ncnt Branch1200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101

Ms. Cheryl Koshuta, ChiefHazardous Materials BureauState of Idaho450 West State StreetBoise, ID 83720

If you have any additional questions regarding the content of this letter,feel free to contact me at 526-1996.

tlm

Enclosure(s):As Stated

cc: S. A. Morreale, DOE-IDW. N. Sato, DOE-IDA.

t4LJ Matule,UMMEMM uen

WINCOas- ut

I' Walla ittonAr

L. P. Leach, EG&G IdahoR. R. Stiger, EG&G IdahoJ. O. Zane, EG&G Idaho

Very truly yours,

i):::t14MbergINEL COCA Coordinator

7.7

uN

LETTER FILE TRANSFERRED TO BARBARA

Mr. Michael Gearheard, ChiefWaste Management Branch1200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101

Dear Mr. Gearheard:

In response to the letter from the EPA dated October 16, 1989, EG&G andWINCO have provided the following remarks.

Lai

Enclosed is the supporting information requested for the SummaryAssessments for Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU's), ARA-07, ARA-09, andPBF-03 and a copy of a certified statement of verification of closureactivities conducted by Energy Incorporated for SWMU IET-07. Additionalinformation ♦on the history of SWMU ARA-11 is being compilad and will hatransmitted at a later date.

WINCO

The comments pertaining to the idaho Chemicai Processing Plant (ICCP),SWMU's, CPP-41 and CPP-43 both stated that the information provided wasinsufficient for administrative Closure. It was also stated thatinformation requested on CPP-43 in EPA's January 5, 1988 letter was notprovided in this revision. The comments also stated that the drawingsreferenced in the Summary Assessments for CPP-70, 71, 76, 77 were notsubmitted with the assessments.

Very little information exists on CPP-41 and CPP-43 since they were inexistence in the "early" years of the ICPP late 1950'c tnmid 1960's). The information about these units was gathered byinterviewing individuals, and many of the interviewee's recollectionsabout units were imprecise. Therefore, little information was available

when the Summary Assessments were written. This was denoted in the"Methods of Assessment" section (see note z in Revised Summary Assessmentof CPP-41 and note 4 in Revised Summary Assessment of CPP-43).

EPA's January 5, 1988 letter requested information on 1) where the unitwas located under CPP-651, 2) years of operation, 3) the likely solvents

used during operation, and 4) the size of the operation/quantities ofwaste disposed at CPP-43. Since little is known about the unit, theinformation requested was stated in note 4 of the "Methods of Assessment"

section. The individual interviewed (only one individual could recall the

grease pit) stated that the pit was located near the northwest corner of

the building, but he was unsure exactly where. He also stated that he was

unsure of how long the unit was used, or what the dimensions of the unit

were. He also stated that to his knowledge the unit was only used for the

disposal of motor oil and grease.

Concerning the drawings referenced in the Summary Assessments, all

drawings reference in CPP-70, 71, 76, and 77 are present in the document

submitted.

7.9

SWMU CPP-41

CPP-41 consists of two pits, one is reported to be beneath the FASTFacility (CPP-666) and the other beneath the Maintenance Building(CPP-663). The evact lnratinn nf tha pitc ic unknnwn wiNrn Hicrliccari EPA's comments with one of the individuals who interviewed plant personnelfor the initial assessment. He stated that the descriptions were in thevein of "... the old fire training pits were out around were CPP-666 andCPP-663 are now located ...," but when asked for more specifics, they wereunabie to provide any more details. WINCO also reviewed historicalphotographs of the ICPP and was unable to confirm the locations of thepits

Although the exact location of the pit near building CPP-666 is not known,the area excavated for the construction was so large the likelihood of anyhazardous constituents remaining in the location after construction isnil. CPP-666 is approximately 305 x 126 feet. During construction of thesite an area of approximately 500 x 250 was excavated, most to the 40 footbasalt layer. The K2"' Slah fnr th4 huilding wac pnurad dirartiv nn thabasalt. The facility was then constructed on the base slab and theexcavation was backfilled around the building foundation.

CPP-663 is approximately 210 x 161 feet. Prior to construction, the areawas lower than the surrounding surface grade Excavated materials G.

previous construction projects were piled in the area as fill. Duringconstruction, the excavated mateiOals were leveled and additional fillmaterials were brought in to level the surrounding surface grade. Duringinterviews with personnel associated with construction, they stated thatthey did not remember a pit being in the area prior to construction.

Since the exact locations of the pits are not known and extensive sitepreparation was conducted at each location, it is unlikely that either pitaviehe fte m un44 in ite nrininal lnratinn and it wnlild ha imnnccihla tn

determine where to conduct sampling for characterization. Therefore,WINCO still recommends that CPP-41 be removed from the "universe ofSWMU's" by administrative closure.

SWMU CPP-43

CPP-43 consisted of a grease pit located south of the CPP-637/620 complex.The exact location of the pit could not be determined from interviewsconducted during the initial assessment. Only one individual couldremember the pit, but he could not remember a specific location or wastetype/location. Other employees who worked in the area during the early1960's were interviewed, but none could substantiate that a grease pitexisted in the area.

WINCO has since re-interviewed the individual and reviewed additionalhistorical photographs of the ICPP. The individual was able to locatewhat he believes to be the pit on an old photograph (photograph 462-1669).WINCO was unable to confirm that the location on the photograph wasactually a grease pit. However, if the iocation indicated by theindividual is correct, the pit was located approximately on the northeast

7.11

,

corner of the Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility (CPP-651). However, itcould not be determined from the photograph if the pit was actually underthe building or adjacent to the building.

The individual was asked to give his "best guess" ♦on the dates ofoperation, waste types, and construction of the unit. He stated that hedid not remember the dates of operation; however, the photographs(photograph #s 62-7669 and 66-2370) indicate that the pit was in existencein 1962 and was filled in by 1966. He stated that all he could rememberbeing disposed to the pit was automotive oil and possibly small quantitiesof acid (he stated that he did not remember any other "organics" goinginto the pit). The individual was still unsure of the dimension of thepit, but stated that he thought that it may have been 18 inches wide by5-8 feet long by 4- 5 feat done, Tn hia hest roc dllection, he thought thatthe walls were concrete and the bottom consisted of red fire brick.

Since the information is still inconclusive, WINCO will sample the generallocation around the northeast corner of CPP-651, if directed to do so.

SWMU's CPP-70. 71. 76. and 77

The EPA/State letter stated that the drawings reference in the text werenot included in the Summary Assessment. The referenced drawings arepresent as stated. Some confusion may have arisen from the fact thatdrawings are from different years and produced by several differentcontractors.

Depending on the tima frama and rnntracter, various numbering systems wereused. However, the file numbers cited are included on each drawing. Thefile numbers that are presently being used are the last six digits in the"Index Code Number" box. These numbers may be stated as "serial" or"drawing" numbers, but in all cases,. the last six digits are used.

DOE-ID looks forward to your review of this information and anticipatesthat this information will be sufficient to allow elimination of theseSWMU's from the universe of SWMU's. If you have any questions about thisinformation, feel free to contact Hunter Weiler at 208-526-0601, GaveBlumberg at 208-526-1996, or Gerry Sehlke at 208-526-3008.

Sincerely

J. E. Solecki

Attachments:As Stated

cc: Cheryl Koshuta, State of Idaho (w/Attach)G. Sehlke, WINCO (w/o Attach)O. J. Blumberg, EG&G Idaho (w/o Attach)

J. H. Barry G. C. Bowman D. N. RaschJ. E. Solecki F. H. Weiler

7.13

W. N. Sato

0'8

8

RADIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

1. Only oils and greases were discharged to the Grease Pit

South of CPP-627 and did not involve the dicharge of

radioactive materiais.

2. No radioactive contamination of the surface areas on or near

the location of CPP-43 have been identified on surveys.1

1 April 1991 Radiologic Survey Map, ICPP-A-17-407,

Appendix C

8.1

(eviN) 27, l\ las /)20 .*1K

786 C ft/*--_-• U623 ,-- 33

'<Ilk (•vEsM3001(r evEs •21Ki _me_ 1 • f it_ 1WS kk las / I. 184 /)

I1 0

MM 780, _ (VESM,_ 622(, -P (CM2 ) 7 '0619-6180 .t> 7; r. im

C.7 :27

1_

YES 7= /

06-461—104 \ 163 /f/

78i\Er_.181 /

2

41K

em• - 4- atriooribrier

692

L• -1,

44-ti/711 633 1Kes._

1. &LOH 6607 atilt C81142.601$-WDS-100)

702B(YekZ52-101)

• m:, _ern0, viler •

r ah......=1 ye, 1r 1,6,7 , ,kN. 'aft,

NEP1FN-IL lez!„. inrisoef-_,au,g-{„5190-129WO130

X X

7

dre..•M1V OV

16- •n• l.crn Cavn mai

630

074S(

1.

662

lits 'tap triii ...--Ify45K 1.5K

59

1608

•1K

7 7

41 663

678

754

8750C0709

1751

477 “1/41.1•K ';cv

.

-1/4 676 2

49 50

iot4K

657

686

❑7

O753A 5852

*5Ke1.2K

r\,.?__L1 LI 0831

5

627 1

7

637

637

• 9•U 637 620

16

-1

0 I I40 M7

620

211800 aann•6

1--...0. ilin MP98 19001. EuRai S1REE7

CIO.elsols.'WOOS731 looshloisloss_„„.. •..-- —

`roe

4. :WI17g I 64

73

40

34

117-1 796

■

as.A 4••••

r 42 —71

Y/ ///////

121 • • •

4 651

NA6-TDO-137-000

”4.1.472 rTh X

684

90

Cei)767

-10K

613

18

4.5

s2KN+

11

656

+-

719-A YES -CS- 100) APL

719 8

\wenr.10621

-CS-152)720-ACS-102)720-8

X X X ,?•3K

71743

1990 RADIOACTIVITY SURVEYICPP-A-17407 (4-91)

VALUES ARE IN COUNTSPER MINUTE (CPM)

3go\ -- 72 6139C )

HS< ” X--X

CLEVELAND BLVD.

8 3

X

x

09

,A• ar

vas-cs-451

633s9K

X—X—X-

=11.5K

* 617

727 ws-aHig)

r-n 720-C (vEs-a;- ,i)

608 ❑

A A—

607

11'19

-c

L

•\\;\]\ /7/

X X X