ML20128L407

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Potential Effects of Contichem-Proposed Residual Soil Criteria on Water Quality of Indian Kill Reservoir
ML20128L407
Person / Time
Site: 05000054
Issue date: 02/28/1993
From:
LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20128L398 List:
References
NUDOCS 9302190223
Download: ML20128L407 (23)
v • d • e


Text

' ' '

. . ' , , . ,, ; c ' i * . ~+ ,, , "'8,l'.,"'.., ,,I.?

i ." '

o'Ns3';' y-< [ , p F;' .i3( , , ',',

, . *.}. . . ,<

. s'

.p , i ". + , ' ag * .,

~ ' o.

y' + - Q' ,f i, o; .e', , I

, ,p ,. %, , . . , ,:. , '

?.i.1 ..L-..,( ' s ;, - y. 3, c . A. . -

i ,

. ' ;' gl. \ h ,-

. .\ e '.,'I i Y [" o., i

. ' [ $ , .I'. '.-

p' ,.g /., . ' ' 4 '. .,c}t , ., , ,,,, ,5 ' .!.;: , l '. v i,..

. ' ] 'g

.V ac .c.,, g. '

S; .

- # r .'

- l ., .,.. , .- ,

( ,, ,,' \, '

1, g ,

/

, , ., . . . ' - i, .,.

. gr 2 ;

e j m

, i . e... = p t

- a

. , ; ' .; l4 , , ' * - .4 , , , , ' , . . , . 4 ' ,a . , ; l, - ' .-

y, i

' . . .~,.:,.,..- - '

s ,. i.

'i a- q' .,,,,, ,

  • ,,,c

., -' -, ,, .., 4

,y g 3..,Q.,,',. .s-

.,.i, >

3 4 *

.4 -

,. o ,. ,. , . . , . .. , . , ., q . , . . . . .

- gp ,' . .. - ,. * * ' , . . , .

. .' . , ,,, *-  ;'. h, .3,',.

.8

,.,a

. 9 a., ,p *. -a ...a. , . - ip i4  %.: ,,,<'3.,' e .... , ,.. ' . . g,g

1. -

,e,,

,e, . ,

,1..

9..,, ,

- i * *

..I -

,,lq, . , . .,

  • t

'.3,. ,

. .e .

, g . , . , -i :, '. .'4,:, i a'*

., . .. , . , . .a,,: ,, ,-h., *.> '

- / '. . h*

..i,i,,'r'.,'.. -:

+

.. J ' ;,

e n ,,e a<

, * * *l, ,- ** *- .g ' [., . . e

[-<

. , , .. n e- 5 .' ,' ,i : -'. .. ,. . ,9 r,

.\ , ' 2 i f. g

.y- ', - .

.,t.

-'[, ,i g'.

.,'.,.f,' y 2, .f ,,

, Ij.., .* *' 7',

.u - p  ; . - -

p

. c , . ., ' ..

'.' 1' 4 - 9 ,, .

  • ~ ' b, ,i

. ' , . - [

f, '4,, - * , ' , ' *.  ;,l, . . .% s i, , ' e **[,a [

,- - - ,.- ,, 4
l. ,;. , ., - ..i 8,*

y g' ,

,4 ,. .. .. . , , . . . .

g,..,,t "i

+

(

.[ - .' y , f - ,,,

.. t, ..' - 4 .. -

- ,. c , '. . ,. ,,.., . , -. - y c s .+

' ', 3 s *.

1 ~ .e Q. : .; ,., ,;.,' ** d .., , '.,s ' ,. i

-: - ,s . F p.

, .;; ,, ' :q..

}; ;.( ' ,, '..

.;.,,... .' S 7 l-

  • ,, . ~ , ;~ j ' - [,,. , . " , , ' ;'. , Q, , , < 3, , , . . _ ., ,. ,

?.' ;

g> .

h; .- . 4 ,: . . l ,,'t e' l,.%q J. (-

71 -

i f.

1.,.

.g.i,-

.* e,, ' , . . ' 9' - . ' - ' i , ,' l - 1 k . >..; .'. v,is,<

}*,4 , . ,,

J. l '^ 4

( '. ' Q < ' i " ' ' .

s

, i.'

'lj. ' , ,, ,+y.. p . ., c. . !

f.'t..,",- .,,Mn . i , eol ..  ;, ,[ ,f ' , i . ,i+ 64.3# ' i (. ..,p. ,, 3.. . .

.. ,, , .j rg ,, {' .V,, .4y. . <

N,4 M, 4,,

.es ,- - ye,,y y ~,..,.,l'-.<- . .

t i. *i s..,.

g'r

. . (, , l. pq , . ,j g' , , e * , g

.. ,r . t >.

.,. g',;.,7,<l ..s'3.. . .a .

i . I

' ) {

1 .

.,yo- "

..'. "..I;.,,'- . " . ' . . , -4, 'i . W,

,',i' *, * *., o,',..,,,4 , , . .'i,

, , ,. ,g, .l . . , l i. n g' d -

. . t f- . gN,.. ; 'g.. 3 ,+= c 7 , . , .

' S 12, ' Ri,'

4, .-, .

,5 . ', .*

',g'*.'., j .' . , , 8- - ,i '. 'I i -

.D *p ,',18'.-

0 f. ,,

4 't. . ! ';,, ,

  • i- -.t,,r:;.. .

. <- , .; ' j ' . l,. , y,f e'. . . , . . M. e.

t.,. f

- . ,e

. ~

.'....' .; . : .;. .' }s  : ,

l,

,, -r ,* . ._,. .., ei

.' a 4.. ,.;'s

. ;.* e.

- . ,. ,i , .

4g e-

. ' . , .k.

.'s.

+ ' '- - -

,g* ,-

, j

,. , ; 4, 4

- ,** ,. ' . ,; r..,

e ,,- - *- . . .

.,Q. ,., . . . . ... .,

. j . - s.

  • ., '. , ;. t y. . ' . . ' . <.. ., ' .- .;  :'r - - ' . ' , *. . *-

d,,,,+,,

[ 'I.y ,' #

',W ',-['.

ti.

, , ' ' ' ' 4 * " . i..

.e, .. , .

, .,,; 3 ,... , . . .. . ..,.

4 ' - -l.4 * .' , , , , -

.' e'. < - , . ., yi-.i . ,- .. ,

S l.

.. ... . h, '. ip. - . ' , ' ' ....

p . 4 g,+s . , ,

,o.,.. , 1 { , ..:, ,' ' , ; j , ,"j ., ' i ,... '

d,..

.' e . , .. , , .

, .. ,4 i., , , . , , , , e. ,'

, ,[1.

  • 4 ,

. ' ' , , M'

w c ', g .s , ,' . ', . . ' , .

p' ., i- . ' . ; ,1 . '. , ..U,',.',,t,

.. , .i =, ,

.fW..p^f.,

,4  ; . ; . .,

. .#;;. . . &,s 4 .. . ey- ,.

..-,,.. .f y.

., . { ~p .

. k g .

s ,

o, , . , . . ,

. f*,'..

e -, . h,.

. a,. ,

R- .*.,.,.

's p.' s. ,..

s,

,. - .. - ,- s, ,.

e

o e.
. *  : p.

' ' . ' , - - 'e. , , , ' f

. *, . . , . g . [ y . . ' .... '- .e .,.[ y ' ,' ' ' l - , . " '

), i i " -

~l'  ;

,}., .

,,, ,. , ' , '}'t :,3 ' '

Q ,'1 s

4 j

l,.,-

A,,,.

"; '.9 . 10 * '

- .' i.

4.,,...,'.,.?-"

,, g y . . ,,, . g -

,. (\ , ,, ,.. ; . .

S .. , ..

f ; ., . ,' t , .'

l'4 ' . - - - ,. /.- , ,- ,( 5,?,4 . '.3. , ,. , . ' . ':...',,J - '

,. i ',( 6. ' '. ' .

.'.',,8

,,,,,,- 3 4 i

ye.* s., ,, , .

,r 1

-,4*,. '-, 79 ,

,i.

'- ... s.9

.. . . .**' e"m.,.,."c,e,

,g . s. 'j- 1 .- .=-' , . .

. ' . . 8, e , . , -' i . . * } *

g- . $ -

f '

'u , -' . ,$p '

/, '. 4 .C

./ 3, -se

. . .i ,#. 3 de ;. - ' ' .. .- '."4',

s

  • . . ' **' .- ,/ i. 8 ', y , ., - .

...,r,

  • 3 , *,

- * ( , 's , , .

e

, y .

,8.,,

,4*

, i . ',s iJ

. . ^., 4' i ,

, - *.. -* l ' '.'

. c, ., ,: a '

'k.

.,d,... . , , . ..

.e

, , ' , . , , . , . ' f 'l i,q'. ,-

L

.4

'a','

{*8.*. i'

    • . '\

.I, -I ' ' ' * *

  • .b f .- ' i 8' *n 9 '

. e e

' . .. .I ' *'

..y* *' - .,O s', ,,! , g. , -. .

  • 1 ,' +-

,*,..)gi- , ,.,.*l*

..9 ,- ' , ,, ,, .. -, u

, ' , '. , . c.

n-3 . .. ,.

'3 . . , . , , . . .

'h .b . : . - .. i . >-- ' ' .

.9

, , .- . y' b- '.

i._ ., - ., , , , ,

.. :~ -

e

, } ', - , . y ._ ,

, . - 4..

u. , ;. . : _ , e. \, - . , -

' .:[;'

"i b . . - - , . .....,'.-

!.. .' ...4;..'t ' ' . .. ..a vi..

v. i.... . .. : '... .. . , -

s,-v , ..

'l ,. .,' .

c.~ ..

g, ,3 . . . .';, ,,. -}'..

, ...i l, ,

., ..', ,' . ., .. g p..,, . a

. .. .. 1,..

. .' , . . . - z . ., . , ,

y, ,,.=.*... '. .* . .. . , -.

.. i . ' .' - e* .i ' .. '-,. f..,, , . . , -, ',.7.....

0 *,

, , ,, ,',,l..',

t,. F a .

.. , ;, , 4; >e'

' -, ., ,' .., ,,,g

i ,, . .

. . . . s

,',y,* ' * , , * + {b ' .i*,. '. , '. i,' g .' *. *,* *- , ,8 e

.. .. . ~.

. . c ,

3 e ,. , . -, . . '. ...

. . .4  : ",.

. -) .

.q ..- ,s .. . v - s .,~f.<. . . . , , - - <

[ ] ,,;. . , ' . 'f. . f ~. 's i ~ ' - * '-

. i ',,. , p ., . j ' ' ,',, . , .[ ,s',,' . , , ' . , \'

.. .g .3 ,. .' ,s 6' ' '[,

i. . j; .

. , , - ' [.' g ., .,

7',, .: - . .,

a4 . . . , . . , .. ' '

-#. . , ..*i.p

,3 ,.g' '#

'.s ' ; ,. , g *  ; '. ,

'] . .-'.'.

I

,.<' i , j' J [, l . .

.J *.' , . ' < l, . . . .,  : -'

l.' ,. ; ,

, -- , -::. w . .. '

.e j , - , . ,. - . .q , .c , -<,gnL. t. ,.-*

..; g , . ;; , . , _.; . . :

.. . - -. , ,r.. , ,,,,,, ' J7c .'s . 1;i

p. ,, . ?,Q . o. ; ; 1., ,

, i l; . . - ._

. .y, . 3 ., .a . ,,,,. ,. y : , . ; . , .

  • * ', e'

' y

..;1 -y,- ' ' i ' :, ., ..' ,(,,- : l'.,.',,'.'.o'

4. .. ,p .; , . . . . ' . .., ' O f. , c - , Y . . ..(

.', . . . , , . . .i j 4.. q., 0 .; - l. f, .o. a!.

,.......f...'!,'.,J.<,';.-. ','-'.,.,.,.,,,.'.,.,!

e

  • e a,

.f. ,). s . . - -

..,i, , ' . ,1 .\

, .. , , " ' , , . .. a ,'l..,g'.'..,',., s';- ..... .E .

,f

. , . .. , j' i ", ~ ,. -. . , . ,

..*( .. .'

., ,, ,'...(.l.., .... ,'...,..,  ;

. . .1 .'

..,s .

.y.', , . ,

Y. .

s I '

.a I , k'

.- ' s' ,. ,t ..,' (,,

, 4 s.

,. , -.- .. ,- g-( ' .' '-

, .- '- , . . i . . ', .

g

, . . g

.s - ,

..t

, , i...

.,...,s , .

. ., . 3 ,,

, [,', ,, ,

,( *

[ ', -

. ., t . .. . . ' . * .

4 f ;. y;1.;.; ,ymy3.  ;. y ,gpa%onomm a, w .; w g m . w ;g, q cww g.a. .

g.g.x 3 w 7.,:n.ya  : ;.' s' wyny.7 .g.

y4,;Q.]3f,jJ.-1.l,.['.[.(,p,['..j

, '.'Kf:?.'Q'[: [;[ \.ggy. . J ;)yi, .Q} [ .} . . Jy .j ;./ ., Q.y'f.:p.,.} ,

g9 , q. 3. y. f W9.f ;x.9 @ yC. 4; .3 33.up:. cWanax' Nw9ttscuy, ,

.;-, ' . . , .m.,nx.x,p H, M. R..f 'E
W.ld.l.h...l..g6 egv .: .mm.y
3. n w n

.f : l[, . ;;h:;'ll hy. h,. .

Qff- A'f[l'l,l [h lf k ,. .',j M... _.N@_glg. g.

W m.m%_sgrMplllWN.. .. - m . -

~AMim@ M~

-h ' .

  • M M M g w # W M; ;%n% % A W M nMar m 2 7 y'g hkk'hh

- ,(y,#. '  :

, . ' . .- ,. c'* .: .+., .

a 4 o,'

'*, '..se..  ?

J

, .,'. . y . . '. . i ' i :/*. 4

,. $b.4..b h' .kNh.,xhhh*h.,

..,',4 .,.s

- '- ~.. . , :'.

r' . . ~ , ' ' . . . - '. '-

'".e J

,; , . '. g e 8.' ,

L /

d . iJ s ' 3 */5 . ,,t' -

  • C s- !i+ m .4 , . . 3 . . ' -

..U'.h (.*

I- ,

i I

I

,I  :

'I  :

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CINTICIIEAl-PitOPOSED I(ESIDUAL SOIL CIIITEltlA ON Tile WATEll QUALITY OF Tile  :

INDIAN KILL ltESEltVOllt

.I I

Prepared for l Cintichem, Inc.

l February,1993 l

l l

l l

LEGGETTE, liitASilEAltS & GilAllAh!, INC.

50011 Lake Street I Itamsey, NJ

'h EXECUTIVE SUSIS!AliY Cintichem has proposed residual soil acceptance criteria for terminating the decommissioning project to assure that potable water drawn from any point on the site will meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency radiological drinking water standards. This report j presents a simplified, but conservative modeling analysis of the hydrology of the Cintichem site and the Indian Kill Reservoir drainage basin. The analysis results indicate that a reduction in  ;

nuclide conceatration of more thrm 99 percent will occur between decontaminated areas at the site and the Sterling Forest Water Company intake in the Indian Kill Reservoir. As a result, concentrations of nuclides at the Sterling Forest Water Company intake are estimated to be g

reduced to at least (1/100) of those allowable by EPA drinking water standards, liased on the results of this analysis, no additionalinvestigations of the effects of Cintichem ground water on water quality of the Indian Kill Reservoir are considered warranted. ,

I I

I I

I I

i LI:GGETTI:, llP ASilCAR3 & GR Aiirst,Isc.

l I

1 1

1 TAllLE OF CONTENTS

)

i EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

........................ ........ 1 I NTit O D U CTI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !

I RESERYOlit ilYDROLOGY ................. .............. 1 Watet Dudget . . , ... ..... 1 I

Sterling Forest Water Company Operation . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 2 l

REDUCTION FACTOR ANALYSIS ........................... 3 I Ground Water Dilution ............................... 4 Decay During Ground Water Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 S u r face. Water Dilution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I Decay During Surface Water Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Calculated Total Reduction Factors ........................ 8 Alternative intake Dilution Calculation ...................... 9 C ON Cl.U S I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 REFERENCES I

I I

I I

g lI l Lr:act:ris:, liarsiir:Ans & GR All Ah!, INC.

k ..

I I

1.lST OF 'l AIll.ES l (at end of report)

T;1hlt.

I 1 Iteduction Factor Calculations for Nuclides of Interest Partial hiixing Conditions with Conservative Assumptions 2 Iteduction Factor Calculations for Nuclides of Interest Partial hiixing Conditions with Ilealistic Assumptions 3 hiinimum lleduction Factor Calculations fot Nuclides of Interest Non hiixing Conditions with Simple, Worst Case Dilution Assumptions at Sterling Forest Water Company Intale LIST OF FIGUllES (at end of report)

_Eintre_

I 2 3

1 Location hiap Drainage liasins of Indian Kill lleservoir Conservatively-Estimated Flow-Through Volume, I 4 Indian Kill iteservoir.

Schematic Diagram - Surface Water Dilution and Decay I

'I I

I I

I I

I umm, ,it,m e,:sne & an ,m,, i,c.

1 I INTROI)UCTION Cintichem has proposed residual soil criteria to assure that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (llPA) radiological drinking water standards will be met in all ground water and surface l water on the Cintichem site after the decommissioning project is completed (Cintichem,1992).

This study esamines the potential effects of the residual soil acceptance criteria on water quality in the adjoining Indian Kill Reservoir. The analysis was completed using dilution and decay data I obtained from a numerical giound water Dow model of the bedrock formation underlying the Cintichem facihty completed by 1.eggette, lirashrars and Graham, Inc. (1.11G) and summarized in a report previously submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (1.HO, 1992), and additional analysis of dilution and decay which would occur during transport through surface water in the Indian Kill Reservoir. This analysis was undertaken using a simplified model based on demonstrably conservative auumptions.

The results of this analysis are intended to provide a conservative estimate of the reduction of nuclide activity that will occur between the decontaminated area and the water-supply intake on the Indian Kill Reservoir (the reservoir). It should be noted that the residual soil cleanup criteria were proposed by Cintiche") so that on site water sources will achieve compliance with applicable EPA radiological drinking water standards. The reduction in activity I occurring between the decontaminated area and the reser.oir will serve to reduce activity levels esen further below the applicable drinking water standards.

RESERVOIR llYDROI,0GY I

The Indian Kill Reservoir is located immediately south of Route 17A and immediately west of Long Meadow Road in Tuxedo, New York (figure 1). The reservoir intersects the northeastern boundary of the Cintichem property, and is located about 1,200 feet northeast of the reactor / hot lab complet The reservoir was constructed during the early 1960's, following the construction of the Cintichem facility. The reservoir occupies an area of approximately 70 acres, and averages ab ui 5 feet (fi) in depth. Prior to impoundment, the resenoir area was E

E occupied by a swamp. The reservoir is currently used as a water supply source by the Sterling Forest Water Company (SFWC).

I htLhudgel I The reservoir ,vatashed is comprised of seven identifiable drainage basins encompassing a cumulative area of 2,560 acres (figure 2). The largest drainage basin, entering the northwest corner of the reservoir, occupies 1,975 actcs, or about 77 percent of the total watershed, lly 1100171 n:, Iliu s tit:Aus & Guri A M, INc.

I  !

I 2

I contrast, the drainage basin containing the Cintichem property occupies 55 acres, or about 2.2 percent of the total reservoir watershed. Ground water discharge accounts for a portion of the resenoir inflow. Surface water is discharged from the reservoir to the Indian Kill through a vertical spillway structure along Long Meadow Road and the SFWC intake, located to the south of the spillway (figure 1).

listimates of the total annual discharge rate from the reservoir watershed are obtained by l multiplying the average annual precipitation (44 inches /yr) minus water loss (22 inches /yr) times the total watershed arca (2,560 acres), plus the net gain from precipitation minus evaporation i l (+ 13 inches) over the reservoir area of 70 acres (precipitation and evaporation data from llely et al.,1961). This approximation indicates an average watershed discharge rate of 4.3 million gallons per day (MGD) equivalent to 1,570 million gallons per year (MGY). Some fraction of I this amount (estimated by LBG to be less than 0.5 MGD) passes beneath the reservoir as ground-water flow. This leaves about 3.8 MGD on average, passing as surface water Dow out of the reservoir. ,

'I The drainage basin occupied by the Cintichem site occupies about 2.2 percent of the total Reservoir watershed, and is therefore estimated to contribute 34.5 MGY inflow to the reservoir using the above water budget. About 9.1 acres of this basin is located between the Cintichem hot lab / reactor complex and the reservoir. This area would be expected to contribute 5.5 MGY discharge, on average, to the reservoir by way of ground water discharge and surface 4 vater runoff. The LBG ground-water flow model of the bedrock farmation underlying the site indicates that about 2.9 MGY on average, is derived from the ground-water flow beneath the

'g site (this includes a regional now component crossing the site which originates outside the 9.1 m acre sub basin area).

ll SLcIlinrJEemt water companLDmatinn The SFWC withdraws an average of 150,000 gallons per day (gpd) (54.8 MGY), or an average daily rate of 104 galions per minute (gpm) (assuming constant withdrawal over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />), from an intake pipe in the reservoir to meet the current water system demand. When the intake pump is in use, the actual withdrawal rates range between 425 and 900 gpm.

Maximum pumping rates during periods of peak demand have ranged up to 200,000 to 250,000 - ,

gpd, and the system reportedly has a capacity of 1.2 MGD. The average daily water company l diversion represents about 4.0 percent of the average daily reservoir flow through, Using actual intermittent rates varying between 0 and 900 gpm, the instantaneous intake diversion ranges mumen

I t, _, c , ,

,mmo G,_.17

I 3-from 0 to 34 percent of the average flow leaving the reservoir as surface water. The maximum diversion percentage could be somewhat higher during dry climatic periods (i.e., low-flow).

REDUCTION FACTOlt ANAINSIS Following the completion of decornmissioning activities, infiltretion of water through residual soils beneath the former reactor / hot lab area (decontaminated area) at the Cintichem facility will provide a limited source of nuclides in the form of radioactive aalutes' to the I ground water regime. Peak concentrations of these solutes are predicted to occur within the first year after introduction into the soil and then become attenuated through the surface-water and l ground-water regimes (Cintichem,1992;. Ground water from beneath the Cintichem site flows toward and discharges into the reservoir through bedrock and overburden media. Fractures in I the bedrock provide the most rapid transport of ground water between the Cintichen site and the reservoir. For the purpose of this assessment, we will make the conservative assumption that all of the site ground-water discharge occurs through the bedrock fracture system.

Reduction in concentration (and the activity) of a radioactive solute between the decontaminated area and the water-company intake will occur as a result of radioactive decay and dilution in both the ground water and surface-water regimes. This reduction can be expressed in terms of a Reduction Factor. The Reduction Factor is related to the percent reduction in solute concentration:

A RF =

(1 - (percent reduction /100))

A total Reduction Factor can be calculated as the product of the reduction from each of these I sources:

RFwm = RFowru x RFowocy x RFma x RFswncy I i at or below EPA drinking water standards

. wa.u rp Ltcat n n, llRASHCARS & Gn AnAM, INc.

I I I where: RF mu =

i Total Reduction Factor (solute-speci6c)

RFowou4 = Reduction due to Dilution by Ground Water; RFowney = Reduction due to Decay in Ground Water; RFswou, = Reduction due to Dilution by Surface Water; and RFswncy = Reduction due to Decay in Surface Water.

I GIcnndMater Dilutien The results of the ground water flow model (L130,1992) provide an estimate of the amount of dilution that occurs during migration of solutes through the ground water regime.

The dilution rates are different for each of the identified fractures that transect the Cintichem site. Dilution rates (expressed as percent reduction per foot of travel) for the principal fractures in the vicinity of the decontaminated area are summarized in the following table:

g Fracture: Al PZA 131 Cl Dilution Rate: 1.43 0.07 0.43 0.43 I Utilizing the dilution rates predicted by the flow model, total dilution occurring during ground-water transport can be calculated utilizing distance of travel between the decontaminated area and the reservoir shoreline (1,000 feet) using the following equation:

Total Ground-Wa ter = (1- (1 - (DRF/100) *) ) x 100 Di1 u ti on (perc'en t) '

I where: DRF - Dilution Rate (percent) per foot This results in total dilution percentages for each of the fractures analyzed as follows:

I Fracture: Al FZA Bl Cl I Tomi Dilution: > 99.99 % 50.4 % 98.7 % 98.7 %

For the purposes of this analysis, the total dilution for Fracturc Zone A (PZA) of 50.4 percent will be used to characterize the dilution occurring through all of the ground water bearing g _ _ .

I uocem. n-mms & G_a .

E 5

fractures underlying the site. The use of this dilution value providn an extremely conservative g representation of the actual cumulative dilution which would occur through the composite 5 fracture system.

Ribom = 1/(! - fraction dilution) = 1/(1-0.504) = 2.02 I A more realistic, but still censervathe estimate of the ground-water dilution reduction factor would be obtained by averaging the total dilution factors for fractures 111, Cl, and FZA.

This method would provide an average total dilution of 82.6 percent and a corresponding ground-water dilution reduction factor of 5.75.

DrG1HUIiDLGEnadMatulmum00 Additional reduction in activity resulting from radioactive decay occurs during the I ground-water transport period. The amount of reduction is a function of the decay rate of the nuclide of interest and the travel time for ground water between the decontaminated area and the point of discharge into the reservoir. To provide the most conservative estimate of det ay, the most rapid transport velocity (16 day travel time based on model output) between the decontaminated area and the recervoir is assumed. 13ased on this assumption, the Reduction Factor due to radioactive decay during ground-water transport through bedrock fractures is:

RFowney = 1 / (1 - A 40 Ka)

I where A K,

=

u radioactive decay rate (day4 ) (solute specific)

Distribution Coefficient (solute and site-specific) htIfaccMMcIDilutina Ground water entering the reservoir from the Cintichem site will become mixed with resident surface water. The degree of mixing that occurs is controlled by various factors; primarily currents within the reservoir, and temperature and density gradients. Ilased on the relative location of the Cintichem site to the SFWC intake, and the irregt.lar cc,n0guration of the reservoir shoreline, it is unlikely that complete mixing occurs throughout the entire reservoir volume (Ogure 3). Instead, most of the ground-water discharge from the Cintichem site is most likely to be concentrated in the southern half of the reservoir.

, mea m IJGGETIE, IlitASill:AltS & CR All AM, INC.

l I I A conservative estimate of the effects of dilution was made by assuming that mixing occurs nly within a 30 acre now-through area between the Cintichem site and the water I

E company intake, rather than the ful! 70 acre reservoir area (figure 3). The dilution in this area is further assumed to result only from the 144.4 h1GY inflow of the drainage basins bordering l this 30-acre area (hasins 11, C and D; ngure 2), rather than the entire 1,570 h10Y aserage discharge rate from the watershed. These partial-mixing conditions conservatively account for potential preferential now between the discharge area and the intake.

A simple, conservative model for estimating solute concentration in a surface-water body resulting from dilution is provided by the following equation documented in USNitC llegulatory Guide 1.ll3 "listimating Aquatie Dispersion of F.ffluents from Accidental and Routine Iteactor iteleases for the Purposes of implementing Appendix I" [Section 5.a.(6)]:

I C=E o

I where: Cu n Steady-state concentration of non-decaying solute; W rate of radioactivity addition (Ci/sec)

I

=

(derived from ground-water innow rate);

q, = rate of effective volume Dow-through (ft'/d)

(flow from drainage basins 11, C and D).

In this case, the ratio of W to q, is equivalent to the ratio of the steady-state rate of ground-water inflow from the decontaminated area to the cumulatise rate of contribution of surface water from drainage basins 11, C and D. This ratio can be used to determine the percentage of dilution as follows:

1 - ((2.9 h10Y)/(144.4 h10Y)) :: 97.99% Dilution The dilution percentage may be expressed in terms of a lleduction Factor:

I ItFyom = l!(1-percen' dilution) = 1/(1-0.9799) = 49.8 g -.-

I - , m ,n _ mmn, m _ ,i .

I I I This calculation provides a simplified " worst-case" estimate of dilution for Oow directly i bemeen the Cintichem site and the SFWC intake because additional dilution tesulting from inflow from the remaining contributory drainaEe basins is not accounted for. l l A more reahsue, yet still conservative estimate of surface-water dilution would use a y, value equivalent to half of the How through rate for the entire reservoir (q = 785 MGY), '

Using the procedure outlined above, this approach would yield a reduction value of 99.63 i percent and a corresponding surface water dilution reduction factor of 270.3.

l IkcayJAuintStulustktTnu15mut Some reduction in radioisotope activity will occur as a result of radioactive decay during transport through the 30 acre reservoir flow-through volume. The degree of reduction is a function of the reservoir hold up time and the decay rate of the isotope of interest. An analytical model for calculating this reduction is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.113 [ Appendix A, Section 5.a.(1), Equation 45). The d: cay reduction undet fully mixed conditions is calculated based on a now rate and hold-up basin volume, and the solute-specific decay rate. The model is expressed as follows:

J.L c, V,. A (1+ y)

I where: C = radioisotope activity at reservoir outflow point (uCi/L);

Co

= Steady-state concentration of non-decaying solute (uCi/L);

A = radioactive decay coefficient (dd);

V7 = cffective volume (flow through volume) of reservoir (ft');

q ,, = rate of effective .olume flow through (ft'/d) l (flow from drainage basins 11, C and D).

A schematic diagram of the surface ~ water dilution and decay model 4s presented as ,

figure 4. For the purposes of thi*; analysis, the reservoir is represented in a situation similar to a flow-through cooling pond, which is an "open loop" configuration (i.e., reservoir water is not

. recirculated through the source area). The Dow-related values V1 and q, applied here result in values of V: = 19,602,000 ft' (1,306,800 ft' sub-basin area x 15-foot average depth), and l <mmu m I u_, o_ o a _,, i,c.

.W I I l 8.-

1 l

I q,=52,890 ft'/d (equal to 144.4 MGY flow into the reservoir from drainage basins 13, C and D).

i l

Using these values, the model reduces to: j I C Ca 0.0027

0. 0027 + A The equation for the reduction factor due to decay is:

RFywy = 1/(C/Ca) ,

The results of these calculations for isotopes of interest are presented in table 1.

I For the more realistic scenario, Vr would equal 22,785,000 ft'(1,519,000 ft' area x 15-icot average depth) and q, equal to half the rate of inflow to the reservoir (785 MGY or I 287,525 ft'/d). The calculated results under these assumptions for each isotope of interest are presented in tabh; 2.

f.hlntlilled.Tatallkduction Facion Total calculated reduction factors assuming very conservative conditions for several I nuclides of interest are presented in tabic 1. The nuclides listed in this table were selected because for these nuclides, ground-water exposure pathway limits the selection of the ,

corresponding criteria for residual soils. The calculated total reduction factors range from 102.61 for St-90 to 353,59 for Ce-144, which equate to reductioa percentages of greater than 99 percent for all nuclides of interest.

g The results of ca:culations completed using the identical equations but using realistic, yet still conservative estimates for the dilution and decay factors are summarized in table 2. The analysis assuming realistic conditions indicates total reduction factors ranging from 1,569.8 to St 90 to 3,421.6 for Ce-144, which equate to reduction percentages of greater than 99.9 percent for all nuclides of interest.

I meaaue LEccErri:, I.lR ASHEARS & CR All AM, INC.

I I 9 I The calculated total reduction factors may be applied to the maximum allowable I concentrations in water for the Cintichem facility, bawd on U.S. linvironmental Protection Agency National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 rFR Part 141) to predict maximum potential concentrations which cou'd occur at the SFV'C intake. The results of these calculations l are presented in tab!c 1. Ilased on this analysis, predicted maximum concentrations which could occur at the intake resulting from Cintichem ground water discharge are well within the applicable drinking water standards, and are indis:inguishable from general " background

  • concentrations found throughout the northeastern United States. -

Alltmalilc_lataktlltlutiaQtltulatwa An additional calcult. tion of total reduction factors was completed utilizing the assumption that no mixing or decay of nuclides occurs during the surface water transport stage. Using this assumption, no surface-water dilution or surface-water decay reduction factors are included in the analysis. All of the 2.9 f.lGY (5.5 gpm) ground water now from the Cintichem site are I assumed to be reaching the water company intake while the pump is operating, with the remainder of the SFWC diversion being comprised of water derived from other sources. In this l scenario, the Ciatichem contribution to the water company intake could range from 0.6 percent to 1.3 percent of the total intake volume (assuming a 425 to 900 ppm intake pumping rate). An even more conservative assumption would be that the water company intake operates I continuously at its daily average rate of 104 gpm, resulting in a Cintichem ground-water contribution of 5.3 percent of the SFWC intake rate. The dilution percentate resulting from this assumption is 94.7 percent.11ased on this most conservative calculation, almost a nineteen-fold reduction in concentration (and activity) of Cintichem ground water would occur at the water company intake as the result of direct surface-watcr dilution:

RFi nt s = 1/(1-0.947) = 18.9 ,

Calculated total reduction factors based on this calculation are presented in table 3. The calculated total reduction factors range from 38.18 for Sr-90 and 11-3 to 70.63 for Cc 144, which equate to reduction percentages ranging from 97.45 percent to 98.60 percent, respectively.

The non-mixing, non dilution assumptions used in this calculation are unrealistically I conservative, but provide reinforcement that the results of the previously-discussed partial-mixed condition analyses presented in tables 1 and 2 are reasonable, u,m.u ,n 1,r:act:nt:, Iliasui:Ans & GH AH AM, INC.

10-I CONCLUSIONS A simp'ified, but conservative analysis of the reduction of nuclide concentration in ground water from the Cintichem site, surface water in the Indian Kill Reservoir and at the Sterling Forest Water Company intake indicates that:

1. Residual soil citeria have been proposed by Cintichem to assure that concentrations of nuclides in ground water from the Cintichem decontaminated zone will be below applicable EPA drinking water limits. Peak nuclide concentrations have been predicted to occur within the first year after introduction into soils and then be attenuated by transport through the Surface-water and ground water regimes.

I 2. A greater than 99 percent reduction of nuclide concentration is predicted to occur between the area of introduction to the ground-water regime at the decontarninated area I and the intake in the surface-water Indian Kul Reservoir.

3. Maximum predicted concentrations of nuclides at the surface-water intake which could result from implementation of the proposed soil criteria are well within applicable EPA drinking water standards. The maimum predicted levels are indistinguishable from I " background" concentrations.
4. Additional calculations of nuclide reduction based on unrealistically conservative non-mixing conditions provides reinforcement that the results of the methods utilized in this analysis are reasonable.
5. 13ased on the results of this conservative analysis, no further investigations of the effects of Cintichem ground water on water quality of the Indian Kill Reservoir are deemed to be necessary.

I I

l a.w.a m ,e Locotrrn,linAsucAns & GnAi:AM,Isc. i

iS; M

11 I

( l EGGisfTE, DRASilEARS & GRAli. i, INU.-

h($f

3 David 11. Terr > '

'7

,5 Asscriate i . 'y Frank J. ' tchel , Cl U Senior . sociate I Reviewed:

_ ,,f ( f Icugb(1Ck/g ,(

R.G. Slayback Presideni I

I I

g.

I I

.g _ . ..

I ox_,,, n. ,,-,o c . e, isc.

REFERENCES Cintichern, Inc.,1992, Proposed Soil Criteria, Cintichem, Inc., Submission to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and N.Y. Dept. of Labor, July 1992.

l IIely, A.G., T.J. Nordenson and others,1961, Precipitation, Water Loss and Runoff in the Delaware River Basin and New Jersey, U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigation Atlas HA-ll.

Leggette, lirashears & Graham, Inc.,1992, Ground-Water Flow Modeling of tr ~ r actured Ikdrock System at the Cintichem Facility, Tuxedo, New York, prepared for Lintichem, -

~

Tuxedo, New York.

I l

l I

i.

I l

I

'I I --

l

m' M 'm.m -

m m , 'm M -

m ~m m M M m m' TABLEI REDUCTION FACTOR cal.CULATIONS FOR NUCLIDES OF INTEREST PARTIAL-MIXING CONDITIONS WITil CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS Reduction Factor Comnments Cir ichem Maximum Activity at I K. Decay Const. TOTAL Percent Ground-Water Nuclide (ccKi) (di) RFam RForcy RFm,, RF3 ,:, v RF Reduction Standard' SFWC Intake 2 Ce-144 4.7 2.44 x 10 ' 2.02 1.85 49.8 1.90 353.59 99.72 % 2.23 x 10* 6.24x 10" Cs-134 3.7 9.20x l&' 2.02 1.16 49.8 1.34 156.37 99.36 % 7.4S x10* 4.79x10

  • Cs-137 3.7 6.29x10 5 2.02 1.01 49.8 1.02 103.63 99.04 % 1.10 10' 1.06x10' Co-60 2.8 3.60x10 ' 2.02 1.04 49.S 1.I3 115.22 99.t 6 % 2 03x10 7 1.71x10' Ru.106 2.6 1.86x 10 ' 2.02 1.24 49.E 1.69 210.R1 99.53 % 2.09x 10' 9.82x 10" Sr-90 0.7 6.53 x 10-5 2.02 1.00 49.S 1.02 102.61 99.03 % 8.00xt&* 7.76x t&"

H-3 0 1.54 x 10" 2.02 1.00 49.S 1.06 106.63 99.07 % 2.00x10 5 1.86x10*'

Consena:ive Assumptions.

A. Gmund-water dilution rate using only the most conservative value at site. (FZA).

B. Ground-water decay value from most rapid transit time calculated for site.

C. Surface-waier dilution effected by only three contributory drainage basins to reservoir.

Notes: 1. Maximum Allowable Coccentration (microcuries per milliliter (uCi/mL) in Water based on 40CFR Pt 141; 4 mRemlyr to total body or any internal organ).

2. Maximum Concentration at SFWC (uci/mL) if maximum allowable concentration occurs in site ground water beneath the hot lab / reactor complex.

ciatnGdbBapt LtcctTTE, UnrsiirAns & GRAIIOt. INC.

9

m M M M M M M M M mm m ~ mm TABLE 2 REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATIONS FOR NUCLIDES OF INTEREST PARTIAL-MINING CONDITIONS WITli REALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

! Reduction Factor Components Cmtichem Maximum K, Decay Const. TOTAL Percent Ground. Water Activity at Nuclide (cclG) (d ') RFcwto RFcwm RF . RFsev RF Reduction' - Standard 2 SFWC Intake' Ce-144 4.7 2.44x 10 5 5.75 1.85 270.3 1.19 3.421.6 99.97 % 2.23x 10' 6.69x 10'2 Cs-134 3.7 9.20x10 5.75 1.16 270.3 1.07 1,929.1 99.95 % 7./ 8 x 10' 3.74 x 10 "

Cs-137 3.7 6.29x 10' 5.75 1.01 270.3 1.01 1,585.5 99.94 % 1.10x104 6 fox 10 "

Co-60 2.8 3.60x 10* 5.75 1.04 270.3 1.03 1,664.9 99.94 % 2.03 x 10 ' l .22xin'"

Ru-106 2.6 1.86x 10 ' 5.~75 1.24 270.3 1.15 2,2!6.3 99.95 % 2.09x 10' l.05x10" Sr-90 0.7 6.53x 10-5 5.75 1.03 270.3 1.01 1.569.8 99.94 % 8.00x10* 4.80x 10 'r 11-3 0 1.54 x 10 ' 5.75 1.00 270.~4 1.01 1.569.8 99.94 % 2.00.10-5 1.20x 10*

Conmative Assumptions:

A. Ground-water dilution rate is average of lowest calculated values (Bl. Cl, FZA).

B. Gruund-water decay vah>e from most rapid transit time calculated for site.

C. Surface-water dilution effected by only half of the reservoir flow-through rate.

Notes: 1. Percent Reduction of = 100% indicated where value is greater than 99.99%.

2. Maximum Allowable Concentrarian (microcuries per milliliter (uCi/mL) in Water bawxi on 40CFR Pt 141; 4 mrem /yr to total body or any internal organ;.
3. Maximum Concentration at SFWC (uCi/mL) if maximum allowable concentration occurs in site ground water beneath the hot lah/ reactor complex.

cinaxwain rp LEGGETTE,13RASilEARS & GRAllet,INC.

'm-

^

M -m M M m m m m .m .

m m m-TABLE 3 SilNIMUM REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATIONS FOR NUCLIDES OF INTEREST NON-MINING CONDITIONS WITil SIMPLE, WORST-CASE DIllJflON ASSUMI'TIONS AT STERLING FOREST WATER COMPANY INTAKE Reduction Factor Components .

Cintichem Maximum K, Decay C.>nst. TOTAL Percent Ground-Water Activity at Nudide (cc/G) (di) RFam ,, RFeua RFm RF Reduction' Standard: SFWC Intake5 Ce-144 4.7 2.44x105 2.02 1.R5 18.9 70.63 98.60 % 2.23 x 10' 3.12x 10" Cs-134 37 9.20x 10 ' 2.02 1.16 18.9 44.29 97.79 % 7.48 x10* 1.65x10*

Cs-137 3.7 6.29x10 5 2.02 1.01 18.9 38.56 97.47 % 1.10x10 ' 2.78x 10**

Co-60 2.8 3.60x I0* 2.02 1.G4 18.9 39.71 97.54 % 2.03 x 10' 4.99x 10*

Ru-lG5 ' 2.6 1.86x!R' 2.02 1.24 18.9 47.34 97.93 % 2.09x 10' 4.33x 10 "

St-90 0.7 6.53 x 10' 2.02 1.00 18.9 '3S.18 97.45 % 8.00x10' 2.04 x10 *

!!-3 0 1.54x104 2 02 1.00 18.9 33.18 97.45 % 2.00x10-5 5.10x10*'

Notes: L Percent Reduction of = 100% indicated where value is ;:rrater than 99.99 %.

2. Maximum A!hwahle Concentration (microcuries oer milhliter (uCn/mL) in Water based on 40CFR Pt 141; 4 mRemlyr to total body or any internal organ),
3. Maximum Concentration at SFWC (uCi/mL) if maximum allowable concentration occurs in si:e ground water beneath the her lxb/rmetor complex.

emaam ig -

Ltcc;cTTE, BRASi!EAns Sc Garitru. Isc.

m m m m .m .m m m m m m m m m m M M m M l'

+ a ./

/

) I  !

i j ,I

/

J ,e J

/ */ I

/

./ \

i j f'i; l

t. t j \ ['.- '{

' \_)

/

' .  ;[\

j ~ i v 'n] D= ,1

/

h Iridian Kill.; -

/ Reservoir: /

\, /

0 ,.

  • 17A CtNTICHEM stTE ..

SFWC

. Water Supply Intake

. .b 4#

~

r

/ x

.CINTICHEM. INC.

SCALE: '

LOCATION MAP o 500 1000 we em mye ,r.

IIGGITTL BRA 51frXts & CFAIAM. IE ene  ; c,.,ne e.a.r cm.at.

5006 lek Sr++t

' ~ -

Ramsey. RJ C7466

, m o ese-c7eo i cart se/so/we i ncret -

, c .. .c -.. .- , . , ,

j ,

ff .! -- ,

E*f

$ Y' h h~5 gh[j b-

  • h l -

? i b&,k%$

wdgMpiHARswel aw wrwwn

)

na*"r /^;=Q'%am f

O

& '.,'~.

-L j

, 1s-,P,,w  %~~

e~ -

h!,

m '. C m w? k

'?lfl};,~

g,

~

f* _ ' '}~ ~-* y ln

\ a' '[ ar

_ q )?  ;: . 5=y : i- [ { ^j yf' &

k g,

' ki: - Tg e

  • i N E -,b

' $-b

~

(

\ ,.*: . )! l.

Y F , ,,,

J' '

\? y kfS' -  !! ~

'W T  ?~ lKR * ,/

~

O' .* h ) '! t 3D k W

p 4 B , .. ~,

/2_.

'i hf,, ',8,.[p(y[,Y . Cy;Ee:.f yF d a,fg' SLOATSBURG AND MONROl', N.Y, e

-l V.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLES /'j/I ,

'b efb '.

/ Mh 5 .~ 0 s'xff"W.'t/4 g klf',0 l' .,?  ::,, _, -2000 '_

~

b  ;

I 'I. 'b I .

Oninage Duin Actste Percent o(Toul Wstenhed Area h ft .

hjj gg;'yj y { T{hy' l j/, , /ju fg,,) N h] ,/

SCALE (IN FEET) whMG'.'M w., .M .~ st?

lI B 144 5.6 %

c 55 m CINTICHEM, INC.

D 37 L4 '4 DRAINAGE BASINS OF INDIAN KILL RESEVOIR I c E

f 197 M

97 77'i M

3.61 cary l ur.:t nz*oi: a r 'LEGGETTE, H RASHEARS &

GRAHASt, INC, I

+yN Pn/ e n=1crmr.4 % urcasmtsaw Total 2,5% 100 4 1 M 5008 Laka 5treet Ratnaey, Nj 07444

x. ,k.e'[jj r uanat w oo E APPROXIM ATE DECONTAMINATED AREA # 000 :18.esof tocArioN i oAre: 01/20/93 i rTOURE: 2

_I

- n ~ ___

. E ___. M ....._. m ,._.. E ..._. M .___ m _.. M ... M _ . M ._ W ._... M ... M __... M .._.. M _ M .._ M _. M .._ E M I r-1

,.m

>/ >

)

/

lN xs it

,/, e

/ j ,

i

/  !

1 l /

y

. 7

/ La, ,

/ ie ,, 1

\

i- \ s l  :

/- i s ('

1

/

/ ' s, .

\ I.

f. / 's. \ 1

/ s. L \/

,'j e s ..

i/ '

/

~ / .  : Indian Kill-

/

N ' i-

. Reservoir

) \- /

Conservative i., 7 I[ Flow-Through i /

l t

\

Volume a <

a

\

s -

/

'N I / SPIII" Y CINTICHEM 9 SITE

\

x [m. l eg[-- J sw '/ .c v v y %.

\

SPNC Water Supply intake CINTICIIEM INC.

SCALE:

CONSERVATIVELY-EST1 MATED FI4hTHROUGH YOLUWE INDIAN KILL RESERVOIR 0 250 soo carr arvtsco ;rtpm ey

}- FEET IracETTE. BRAsHEARs a GPJG4AM. INC.

Pr.r 4c-m4-auc - .e.-

soos ta. str.et Ramwy. MJ 07446 (201) 8:4-#?00 I/!6/93 3

{ DATL l nCURE

l

!I E . Decontaminated: '

E -E Areac I W = rate of radioactive solute addition (Cl/s)

I, Decay Rate = 1 Inflow from W=0 Drainage Basins B, C & D ~

S2,890 ft */d = q C,= concentration of radioactive solute y

C"Wo q (Dilution Model) -

,-- b

/ Rosorvoir '

Flow-Through 9b f VA Volume - i, 7 3 o b

\ V =T 19,602,000 ft +1

)

y vT x-

'N x

/ (Decay Model)

/

, Flow Rate = q, _

La

' Outflow  :

Activity = C I ClNTICHEM, INC.

x SCllEMATIC DIAGRAM - SURFACE-WATER DlLUTION 'AND DECAY.

M_ ME l'REPAREC i l 1 trucme Busuuns & awau. mc.

g tretesennal Cnw.4-voter raneuhats 5000 lake 5treet = l Ramsey. N 07446 l I , . ..

f DATi. til6 Mt C401)818-0700-l -- DGURE.

1.

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20128L407&oldid=2893485"