ML20155K214
| ML20155K214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1986 |
| From: | Dale Goode NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1183, NUDOCS 8605270414 | |
| Download: ML20155K214 (242) | |
Text
_
NUREG-1183 Nonradiological Groundwater Quality at Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Daniel J. Goode poso u, kh )
og sago 4g a60 co umn non
, NOTICE Availability of Reference Meterials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20665
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082
- 3. The National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memorands; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcer.wnt bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of ,
Federal Regulations, and NucAser Regulatory Commission lasuances.
Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations,and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Betheads, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
NUREG-1183 Nonradiological Groundwater Quality at Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites h e Pu sh d Apn 1 D:niel J. Goode i Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20666
/ "*%,
3 y**% . .'.'.,. I i
f[
{ h # ( ( p, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
5 Ay WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 l
% /
maa TO THE READERS OF NUREG-1183, "NONRADI0 LOGICAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY AT LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES" 1
Commercial low-level radioactive waste is regulated by the U.S. Nuclear (
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and NRC Agreement State programs under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. Hazardot.s wastes are regulated by the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) and authorized states under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended.
In addition to radiological properties, certain low-level wastes may also contain chemical constituents that would classify the waste as hazardous under EPA regulations. These wastes have been referred to as " mixed wastes."
During the course of the NRC 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking on land disposal of low-level radioactive waste, questions emerged regarding the potential hazards presented by the nonradiological components of low-level waste. This report, "Nonradiological Groundwater Quality at Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites," describes the levels of nonradioactive hazardous chemical constituents in samples from several groundwater monitoring wells at two low-level waste disposal sites. These data are related to radiological water quality and the disposal history of the site and vicinity. In addition, this report discusses previously collected data from these two sites as well as other LLW disposal facilities.
The primary nonradiolugical contaminants observed in groundwater at LLW sites are organic solvents. Concentrations of several organics were above proposed drinking water levels at the Sheffield LLW site (nonoperating), while only trace levels (pg/f) of a few man-made chemicals were detected at the Barnwell LLW site (operating). At Sheffield, high concentrations are observed both onsite and offsite in an area of elevated tritium concentration. Organic chemicals and TOC (total organic carbon) have previously been detected in elevated concentrations in groundwater samples from these sites and in trench sump samples from two other LLW sites. Hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products were detected at both sites in this study.
Other potential hazardous constituents identified in an NRC study, "An Analysis of Low-Level Wastes: Review of Hazardous Regulations and Identification of Radioactive Mixed Wastes" (NUREG/CR-4406), were at or below detection limits or at background levels in collected groundwater samples. These constituents include lead, chromium, toluene, and xylene. The latter two are associated with liquid scintillation media. Toluene has previously been detected in groundwater and trench sump samples from Barnwell and other sites, but concentrations decrease over short time periods indicating a relatively brief persistence in groundwater.
2 In addition to the studies noted above, NRC is pursuing several other investiga-tions. A draft analysis of mixed waste management options, " Management of Radioactive Mixed Wastes in Commercial Low-Level Wastes" (NUREG/CR-4450), was recently published for public comment. The purpose of this analysis is to identify a range of management options for segregating, treating and disposing of mixed wastes, and to describe current generator management practices.
Guidance on environmentally sound, cost effective management methods will be developed following consideration of comments.. Copies of this and other NUREG reports on mixed waste may be obtained from the sources identified on the inside cover of this document.
The NRC will continue to provide information on potential mixed wastes. We are also interested in additional information and data which waste generators, the waste management service industry, or other agencies may offer on types and amounts of mixed wastes and improved management practices. Specific questions regarding this ieport may be directed to Mr. Dan Goode, Hydrogeologist, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 623SS, Washington, DC 20555.
b M Robert E. Browning, Directo Division of Waste Managemen
~
- -q- _
4 I
AB5 TRACT The NRC is investigating appropriate,rehulatory options for disposal of low-level radioactive waste centaining nonradiological hazardous constituents, as defined by EPA regulations. Standard EPA / RCRA procedures to determine hazardous organics, metals, indicator parameters, and general water quality are applied to samples from grcundwater monitoring wells at two comraercial low-level radioactive waste disposal -ites. At the Sheffield, Il site (nonoperat-ing), several .typicalc oYganic solvents are identified in e.levated concentra-tions in onsite wells and in an offsite area exhibiting elevated tritium con-centrations. Ai the Baiswell, SC site (operating), only very low concentra-tions of three erganics are four.d in wells adjacent to disposal units. Hydro-carbons associated With-petroleum products are detected at both sites. Haz-
~
~ ardous constituents associated with previously identified major LLW mixed waste streams, toluene, xylene, chromium, and lead, are at or below detection limits or at backgrcund levels in all samples. , Review of previously collected data also supports the conclusion that organic solvents are tha primary nonradiological contaminants associated wi.th LLW disposa). .
9 s
a
/
~
i ii
O l
1 t
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
i i The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the management of hazardous substances with the exception of source, special nuclear, and byproduct materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. Provisions in the regulations promulgated under the two acts have created uncertainty regarding the roles and responsibilities of NRC and EPA in regulating disposal of potentially hazardous nonradioactive constituents mixed with commercial low-level radioactive wastes (LLW). As a part of NRC's program to address this issue, groundwater samples from two LLW disposal sites have been analyzed for nonradiological constituents.
This report describes the levels of nonradioactive hazardous chemical constituents in samples from several groundwater monitoring wells at the Sheffield, Il and Barnwell, SC low-level radioactive waste disposal sites.
These data are related to radiological water quality and the disposal history of the sites and vicinities. In addition, this report discusses previously collected data from Sheffield and Barnwell, as well as from the West Valley, NY, and Maxey Flats, KY disposal sites.
The primary nonradiological contaminants observed in groundwater at LLW sites are organic solvents. Significant concentrations of several organics are detected at the Sheffield site while only trace levels of a few man-made organics are detected at Barnwell. At Sheffield, high concentrations are observed both on and off site in an area of elevated tritium concentrations.
Organics and TOC (total organic carbon) have previously been detected in elevated concentrations in groundwater samples from these sites and in trench sump samples from two other LLW sites. Hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products are detected at both sites in this study.
Other potential mixed waste constituents identified in an NRC study are at or
, below detection limits or at background levels in collected groundwater samples.
These constituents include lead, chromium, toluene, and xylene. The latter two are associated with liquid scintillation media. Toluene has previously'been detected in groundwater and trench sump samples from one of the two sites and other sites, but concentrations decrease over short time periods indicating a relatively brief persistence in groundwater.
These data indicate that organic solvents, typical groundwater contaminants at any solid waste disposal facility, hazardous or not, are also found in ground-water at LL'W sites. Contamination from lead, chromium, toluene, and xylene, which have previously been identified as potential mixed waste constituents in LLW, is not indicated by groundwater samples in this study.
v
1 .
l l
l TABLE OF CONTENTS i
Pag _e ABSTRACT ............................................................. iii EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
..................................................... v I. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1 A. Background ................................................. 1 B. Available Information from Disposal Sites .................. 2 C. Sampling Program ........................................... 4 II. SHEFFIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM AND RESULTS .......................... 5 A. Background ................................................. 5 B. Sampling and Analysis Procedures ........................... 12 C. Results and Discussion ..................................... 13 D. Conclusions ................................................ 26 III . BARNWELL SAMPLING PROGRAM AND RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 A. Background ................................................. 29 B. Sampling and Analysis Procedures ........................... 33 C. Results and Discussion ..................................... 35 D. Conclusions ................................................ 39 IV.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................... 43 REFERENCES ........................................................... 45 APPENDIX A - PRELIMINARY SAMPLING PROGRAM ............................ A-1 APPENDIX B - RESULTS OF RECONNAISSANCE EVALUATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL MIGRATION IN GROUND WATER IN THE VICINITY OF TWO LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES ............................................ B-1 APPENDIX C - RESULTS OF SEPTEMBER 1985 GROUND WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS .......................... C-1 ,
APPENDIX D - BACKGROUND DATA FOR SHEFFIELD SITE ...................... D-1 APPENDIX E - BACKGROUND DATA FOR BARNWELL SITE ....................... E-1 APPENDIX F - PROPOSED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS ..................................... F-1 l l
l l
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4
1 Site location of Sheffield LLW disposal facility (from Foster et al. 1984c) ....................................... 6 2 Sheffield site features, location of geologic section B-B',
and sample locations ....................................... 7 3 Geologic section B-B' showing representative stratigraphy for Shef field site (from Foster et al . 1984c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 Areal extent and thickness of pebbly-sand unit of Toulon Member of Glasford Formation (from Foster et al.1984c) . . .. 9 5 Contour map of June 1982 water table elevation, Sheffield si te (from Garkl avs and Healy 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Plot of total organic carbon versus tritium for Sheffield samples .................................................... 21 7 Plot of 1,1,1-trichloroethane versus tritium for Sheffield samples .................................................... 21 8 Map showing areas of Sheffield site where tritium has been detected above background concentrations (after Garklavs and Healy 1985) and relative concentrations of organics in wells ................................................... 22 9 Locations of Sheffield wells organics ....................previously sampled for
............................... 25 10 Site location of Barnwell LLW disposal facility (from Cahill 1982) ............................................... 30 11 Geologic section showing representative stratigraphy for Barnwell site (after Cahill 1982) ...................... 31 12 Contour map of November 1979 water table elevation, Barnwell site (from Cahill 1982) ........................... 32 13 Barnwell site features and sample locations ................ 34 viii
LIST OF TABLES Table h l
l l 1 Metals and anions concentrations in Sheffield groundwater I samples, 14-15 January 1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985) ..... 14 2 Cations concentrations in Sheffield groundwater samples, 14-15 January 1985 (from Ketelle et al . 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 Radionuclide, TOC, and T0X concentrations in Sheffield Groundwater Samples,14-15 January,1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985) ............................................... 16 4 Tentative identification of volatile organics in Sheffield groundwater samples, 14-15 January 1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985) ............................................... 17 5 Metals, cations, anions, tritium, TOC, and T0X concentrations ~in Sheffield groundwater samples, 18 September 1985 (from Ketelle 1986) ................................... 18 6 Volatile organic concentrations in Sheffield groundwater samples, 18 September 1985 (from Ketelle 1986) ............. 19 7 Partial results of previous USGS and IEPA groundwater sampling at the Sheffield site ......................... ... 24 8 Metals and anion concentrations in Barnwell groundwater samples, 14 May 85 (from Ketelle et al. 1985) .............. 36 9 Cation concentrations in Barnwell grgundwater samples, 14 May 85 (from Ketelle et al. 1985) ....................... 37 10 Radiological analyses, total organic carbon, and total organic halides of Barnwell groundwater samples, 14 May 85 (from Ketelle et al. 1935) ................................. 38 11 Summary of benzene, toluene, xylene, and total volatiles concentrations (ug/1) in selected wells for CNSI study (1982-1983) (from CNSI 1985) ............................... 40 i
l l
ix
I. INTRODUCTION A. Background The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the management of hazardous substances with I the exception of source, special nuclear, and byproduct materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. Provisions in the regulations promulgated under the two acts have created uncertainty regarding the roles and responsibilities of NRC and EPA in regulating disposal of potentially hazardous nonradioactive constituents mixed with commercial low-level radioactive wastes (LLW). As a parc of NRC's program to address this issue, groundwater samples from two LLW disposal sites have been analyzed for nonradiological constituents.
It has been recognized for some time that fuel cycle and nonfuel cycle LLW may contain nonradiological hazardous constituents (e.g., General Research Corporation 1980, their Table 3-2; Lohaus and Johnson 1983). As part of an NRC-funded study, Bowerman and others (1985) surveyed LLW generators and identified three waste streams which should be tested to determine if they constitute " hazardous waste" as defined by EPA regulations (40 CFR .aart 261).
These waste streams were organic liquid wastes, lead shielding and container wastes, and light-water-reactor process wastes containing chromium. The organic liquid wastes reported in the survey were scintillation liquids and vials (73% by volume), laboratory liquids (18%), and miscellaneous solvents (9%) (Bowerman et al. 1985). Toluene and xylene are the primary organic chemical components in scintillation vials.
Based on their predominance in the generated LLW, it would be expected that if organic chemicals are migrating from LLW disposal units, then toluene and xylene would be the most likely organics to be detected above background concentrations. Likewise, lead and chromium are the hazardous metals most likely to appear in the vicinity of the disposal units. These hypotheses, however, do not consider other factors which effect the migration, persistence, and fate of solutes in groundwater including biodegradation, adsorption, and volatilization. All of these processes are controlled by site-specific geochemical conditions which may vary with time and with location.
This preliminary sampling study has been carried out to investigate the nonradiological groundwater quality at actual LLW disposal facilities. These facilities serve as full-scale experiments of the effect of LLW disposal on groundwater. Although it is very unlikely that any future site will exhibit identical hydrogeologic and geochemical characteristics, the results of this sampling should indicate the order of magnitude of minimum containment performance of LLW disposal facilities using past and current shallow land burial technology.
Future sites which meet the site suitability requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 should exhibit even less groundwater contamination.
Available data from the sites not chosen for this sampling program are summarized below in this section. The procedures and results for sampling at the Sheffield site are presented and discussed in Section II.Section III describes results for the Barnwell site.Section IV summarizes the restilts of the preliminary sampling program and presents conclusions based on these and previous efforts.
1
y B. Available Information from Disposal Sites Groundwater and trench water from the West Valley, New York, and Maxey Flats, Kentucky, LLW disposal sites have previously been analy7ed for nonradiological constituents. Trenches at these humid sites have accumula?.ed water due to the low permeability of site soils in which the disposal units are located and due to inadequate trench covers (Clancy et al. 1981). Under NRC's regulation for LLW disposal (10 CFR Part 61), new sites must be well-drained and trench covers must minimize infiltration to eliminate this problem. Because these sites do not meet Part 61 siting criteria, they are not considered to be representative of current disposal technology. For this reason, these sites were not included in the present preliminary sampling program. Nonetheless, review of previous sampling results at these sites provides relevant background to the leaching of waste components at LLW disposal sites.
Clancy and others (1981), Dayal and others (1984), and Kirby (1984) summarize the characteristics and performance of the Maxey Flats LLW disposal facility.
Zehner (1983) presents the hydrogeology of the site. Disposal units at the Maxey Flats site were constructed in a fractured shale of low hydraulic con-ductivity. Water which infiltrates through the compacted soil covers percolates out of the trench only very slowly. The microbial degradation of organic mate-rials in the waste and the long residence time of trench water has resulted in elevated concentrations of inorganic, organic, and radioactive constituents which leach from the waste. Anoxic conditions have developed in the trenches due to biodegradation of organic materials.
Dayal and others (1984) summarize geochemical studies performed at Maxey Flats by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for NRC from 1976 to 1981. BNL analyzed trench and groundwater samples for cations, anions, radionuclides, and organic constituents. However, trace metals, including lead and chromium, were not included in these studies. Organic compounds identified in trench leachates included: toluene, xylene, naphthalene, cresol, phenol, cyclohexanone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. Dioxane was also detected in the trenches although the concentration was not quantified (Czyscinski and Weiss 1981; Weiss and Colombo 1980). Previously, BNL detected trichloroethane in trench water (reported by General Research Corporation 1980). Of these organics, toluene was detected in the highest concentrations with 9.5 mg/l in trench 19s in 1979 (Dayal et al.
1984). High concentrations of toluene were consistently found in trench leachates from Maxey Flats. Xylene was also often detected, although at order of magnitude lower concentrations. BNL also sampled two groundwater monitoring wells near trench 19s. Weiss and Colombo (1980) detected dioxane, toluene, xylene, naphthalene, and other organics in well UB1 (November 1977), and dibutyl phthalate and triphenyl phosphate only in well UB1-A (May 1978). In November 1979, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, polyglycol, and dioxane were detected, but not quantified, in well UB1-A. Well VB1 was not sampled.
Concentrations of dissolved organic carbon in trenches decreased from 1976 to 1979 (Czyscinski and Weiss 1981).
Kirby (1984) presents more recent results (1981-1982) from sampling at Maxey Flats by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL). Toluene was detected in trench 27 in April 1981 but not in July 1982. Toluene was not detected in trench 19s in 1982, in contrast to results reported by Dayal and others (1984). Likewise, toluene was detected by PNL in monitoring well W2NA in May 1981 but not in August 1981 or June 1982. Pyridina, nicotine, barbital, pentobarbital, and 2
l ,
l l
other constituents were also detected in groundwater wells. The latter two of these chemicals are barbiturates and are probably associated with disposal of radiopharmaceuticals (Kirby 1984).
PNL (Kirby 1984) did not detect many of the constituents identified by Dayal and others (1984) from samples taken in 1976 and 1979. These results may indicate improved cover performance and subsequent reductions in leaching, or removal of the source due to leaching (and ceased burial). Based on these data, toluene constitutes the primary hazardous organic constituent detected in trench water and groundwater at the Maxey Flats site. Toluene concentrations may have returned to background levels due to transient effects since the cessation of disposal operations.
The New York State Department of Health and BNL sampled trench water at the West Valley, New York, commercial LLW disposal site. This site is located adjacent to a dormant nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and to a DOE managed disposal facility where high-level wastes were buried and where an immiscible kerosene plume was detected in groundwater wells (Herbes and Clapp 1984). As above, no analyses appear to have been performed for trace hazardous metals, including lead and chromium. Trench water samples from the commercial LLW site were analyzed for organic constituents.
The results of the New York State sampling and analysis for organics in trench water from the West Valley commercial LLW site were summarized (Husain et al.,
as reported by General Research Corp. 1980):
The major components of the dichloromethane fraction were cresol, aromatic ketones, and xylyl butanoic acid, whereas the hexane fraction was dominated by phthlate ester and tributyl phosphate. Many constituents in the hexane fraction were likely derived from buried cleaning agents, germicidal cleansers, surfactants, and paints. The aromatic ketones, xylyl butanoic acid, and humic acid residues were probably naturally occurring breakdown products of living matter.
The organic chemicals and concentrations identified in the trench waters were considered to be " remarkably similar" to water samples from sanitary landfills in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin (General Research Corp. 1980).
BNL collected water samples from 6 trenches at the West Valley site (Weiss and Colombo 1980). Concentrations of dissolved organic carbon increased for 4 of j these trenches between November 1977 and October 1978. Organic chemicals identified in trench water included toluene, phenol, cresol, dioxane, and naphthlene. The concentration of toluene increased at all trenches from November 1977 to October 1978 with a maximum concentration of 25 mg/1. Cresol was also present in high concentrations and phenol concentrations were high in several samples. Xylene, however, was not detected in any trench water samples.
(Weiss and Colombo 1980). No data on nonradiological constituents in ground-water monitoring wells at West Valley have been reviewed for the present study.
1 The Beatty, Nevada, and Richland, Washington, LLW disposal site, both of which are currently operating, are located in arid regions; the water table is relatively deep at these sites (Clancy et al. 1981). No trench water or onsite groundwater sampling for organic or trace metal constituents has been performed at these sites. Samples from offsite groundwater wells adjacent to the Richland 3
LLW site did not exhibit elevated organics contamination (letter from D.A. Meyers, PNL, to Michael Brown, USEPA, 21 June 1984). No organic analyses are available for the Beatty site, although tritium was above background levels at two onsite wells. These sites were not included in the present preliminary sampling program due to the (estimated) low probability of nonradiological constituents migrating from the disposal units in groundwater.
C. Sampling Program The preliminary sampling program (Appendix A) has the following specific objectives:
- Develop an order of magnitude assessment of the migration of hazardous nonradiological constituents from LLW disposal units Provide preliminary data to assess the need and scope for comprehensive sampling and other activities Provide insight on potential problems prior to comprehensive sampling Assist in optimizing sampling locations and analyses for future monitoring.
The first objective is paramount; these data will help provide a realistic perspective of the problem from which to develop an appropriate regulatory response.
The Sheffield, Illinois and Barnwell, South Carolina LLW disposal sites were chosen to provide representative characterization of LLW sites. Although both of these facilities were sited prior to promulgation of Part 61, and both have exhibited tritium migration, observed concentrations are below limits in 10 CFR Part 20. In this sense, these disposal facilities are performing within design specifications. However, migration of tritium has occurred and it is likely that some migration of nonradiological constituents from the LLW disposal units (if present) has occurred. This is supported by elevated organic carbon concentrations in trench water and groundwater at both sites. In addition, each site's hydrogeology is considered relatively well understood at this time and a large number of groundwater monitoring locations exist.
4
1 1
1 l
II. SHEFFIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM AND RESULTS A. Background l
The Sheffield low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility wcs selected for this sampling program for the following reasons: organics have previously been detected in groundwater near the site; tritium transport in groundwater is known to occur and is relatively well understood; and, an extensive groundwater monitoring system is in place at the site. The site is located in north central Illinois near the western boundary of Bureau County (Fig. 1). The facility received waste between 1967 and 1978; currently a closure plan is under development. Waste disposed at Sheffield included materials containing organic chemicals such as " tritiated oil" and " labeled organics" (MacKenzie et al.
1985). Tritium is migrating from the disposal units through groundwater and has resulted in levels of over 50 nCi/1 in near-by offsite wells (Foster et al.
1984b). Figure 2 indicates site features, location of geologic section B-B',
and locations of wells sampled for organic and other nonradiological hazardous constituents.
The hydrogeology of the site has been investigated by the USGS. Foster and Erickson (1980) and Foster and others (1984a) describe the hydrogeology of the site area. Foster and others (1984c) describe the hydrogeologic setting of the area immediately east of the site. Garklavs and Healy (1985) modeled flow east of the site and discuss tritium migration. These reports are sumarized by Goode (1985). Groundwater is under water table (unconfined) conditions in the glacial and recent alluvial materials at the site. These units overlie shale bedrock which is weathered in the upper portion. The water table is generally more than 30 ft below land surface and 5 ft below trench bottoms, except at trench 18 (NRC 1981). The geologic units which control groundwater flow are described below. Figure 3 is representative of the site stratigraphy (from Foster et al. 1984c).
Bedrock in the site area is a shale of the Carbondale Formation of the Desmoinesian Series. The topography of this weathered shale is similar, though not identical, to the land surface topography. This formation is believed to isolate the shallow groundwater system from deeper bedrock aquifers (Garklavs and Healy 1985). Coal seams in this unit have been mined locally. The Hulick Till lies unconformably on the bedrock and is composed of sand-silt-clay with some gravel layers. In the absence of gravel layers, the hydraulic conductivity of this member is relatively low (Foster et al.1984a). This till does not overlie bedrock in all locations and is on occasion separated from bedrock by other members of the Glasford Forination, of which the Hulick is a member.
The Toulon Member of the Glasford Formation consists of sand, silty-sand, and sand and gravel, and is the most permeable hydrogeologic unit at the site (Garklavs and Healy 1985). Over much of the site, the bottom of the Toulon consists of a thin silt overlying the Hulick Till. In some areas sands of the Toulon rest directly on the till. On the northeast corner of the site, a very narrow shallow depression in the till is filled by a pebbly-sand unit of the Toulon Member (Fig. 4). Results of a natural gradient tracer test in the pebbly-sand unit east of the site indicate groundwater velocity of about 6.9 f t/ day (2,500 f t/ year) (Garklavs and Toler,1985).
5
o w
j _ _ _ _
> WAL si!O 3
O O o 3
@ a's 58
, x =
MINER AL yh f SHEFFJELO _j l PRINCETON l
- Sheffleid Site 4>
f NEPONSET TihlLWA a
pkNNEPIN 4
( 1 KEW [' NEE _ o> 2> ,
89050* l l a: 3l s 3 h 41 10 90 89 88 0
] _
m olk 4[-
91 0 g 7
4i 0 5 10 MILES O 5 10 15 KILOM TERS 39 380 1
Figure 1. Site Location of Sheffield LLW disposal facility (from Foster et al.1984c) 6
i I
I 89'4T45" 40" 35" 30" 25" 20" 15" 10" 05" 89'4700" ,
41'20'33" I I I I
,I I I I g
8 B' k
- ! n 30"- N
---~% NORTHEAST 3 N
\ TRIBUTARY l Burial Area 3) 516
,/[e 11
\
g7 i s
\ .-
e g-ll
\ N .. \ %
18 4f 25" 150 *w. * ' "$ 534 6 575 , 4KE Q T-18 / :: }
f II
' k $ 574
\* LAWSON CREEK TRIBUTARY IEPA SITE -
.%.N N.~.
,- 1 :,, J .
1
, LEGEND gg 7 LLW SITE H f B-B' Cro..-section location
$ USGS wells sampled g 11 O U.S. Ecology well sampled 15"-
N.N,N f* g C Trench sump sampled aB
.N 'N s 'N. ."*j- }
Il ll samen Township road
. H 0 200 400 800 FEET
/ H i i i .
. y 0 1 METERS 41'20'10" BASE FRoM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,1981 Figure 2. Sheffield site features, location of geologic section B-B',
and sample locations
EXPL AN ATION B $ Ca - Cahokia Alluvium B,
' o 780- Po - Peoria Loess -
g Rx - Roxana Silt
' e Gr - Glasford Formation, Radnor Till Member 770= -
'Ill Ot - Glasford Formation. Toulon Member Rx e Oh - Glasford Formation. Hulick Till Member e e W
760 -
e gg -
Gr N5%e w
z 750 - Po -
.I
^
$ Gt hs w
J 740-T r ; -
D G
$ ,' \y 8 DOI
- 730 - -
, Pe y Gh
! 720 - k*
- N '
w /
710 - Ca Oh yN a'
700 - -
Carbondale Formation '
Oh Carbondale
{ 690 - p,,,,,, ,
680 l 0, 100 20,0 30,0 40,0 600 FEET VERTICAL EX AGGERATION X 12.5 Figure 3. Geologic section B-B' showing representative stratigraphy for Sheffield site (from Foster et al. 1984c)
890 47'27* 890 46'54' 25*
20* 15* 10* 05*
890 47'00* 55' 41 020'33* ,,,f N 13,5 0 0
'li lrl/'
s 30'- _ , , _
. ,Jul
! s'h 5'\
\
.- \ \,
.' f /[. ii g s ,.
C
- N 13,000
%_, i l s N 3'- # ~ ~,-
70 i 'N._ T r , o . . -
, -7 4 f* 'N
- N 12. 5 0 0
/ k .
775 ' ,k .
,.A ' -
20'- ,-% *
,,- I
./ 's .
\'
/ - N 12,0 0 0
- 5 e
- EXPL AN ATION j 15 * - N
- -730-----Contour top of pebbly-sand udt t
' of Toulon Member of Glasford i
/
- Formation, dashed where inferred. (~ - N 1 1. 5 0 0
)
j Contour interval 10 feet (
+ - ----- --- Areal e xtent of pebbly-sand t /
/ t a -- . .
i -
~ ~
~ ~ ~
- N 11,0 0 0 410 20'08* --
e i a e i E 14. 5 0 0 E 15,0 0 0 E 15,5 0 0 E 16,0 0 0 E 16,5 0 0 E 17.0 0 0 Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET O 150 250 3b0 METERS Figure 4. Areal extent and thickness of pebbly-sand unit Of TOulon Member of Glasford Formation (from Foster et al. 1984c)
The Radnor Till Member of the Glasford Formation occurs near the strip mine
, lake and the southern portion of the site. This till consists of clayey silt interbedded with coarse materials. The Peoria Loess, composed of silt and clayey-silt, covers the entire site outside of eroded stream channels. The LLW disposal trenches are constructed in an on top of the loess unit. The Cahokia Alluvium occurs beneath a tributary to Lawson Creek to the south of the site.
This recent alluvium is clayey silty-sand of high permeability and acts as a groundwater drain for the southeast corner of the site (Garklavs and Healy 1985).
Of the average annual precipitation of 36 inches, an average of 1 to 4 inches is estimated to recharge local groundwater (Garklavs and Healy 1985). Recharge occurs primarily in the early spring when precipitation is high and plant 3
transpiration and surface evaporation are low. In addition, spring snowmelt may contribute a significant portion of annual recharge, depending on climatic
! conditions.
Because most groundwater beneath the site comes from local recharge, there is
. very little groundwater inflow to Lne site area. This is indicated by the i
water table contour map developed by the USGS (Garklavs and Healy 1985) which also shows a groundwater divide crossing the site near trench 11 (Fig. 5).
About 70 percent of groundwater discharge from the site occurs through the pebbly sand unit of the Toulon Member.
Tritium has migrated from the disposal units at Sheffield. Wells in the pebbly sand unit draining the site, particularly wells USGS-563 and USGS-575, and well j USGS-523 next to Trench 11, exhibit the highest tritium concentrations. The plume in the pebbly-sand unit is confined to a width of 30-50 ft which is only slightly wider than the unit itself (Garklavs and Toler 1985).
1 Sampling and analysis for organic constituents have previously been performed by Brookhaven National Laboratory, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) (see Appendix D). These analyses indicated several organic constituents in grcundwater in the site vicinity. However, all of the wells sampled are located such that they could be affected by disposal of chemical 4
waste at either the adjacent IEPA licensed hazardous waste facility or at the i unlicensed burial ground north of the LLW site (see Fig. 2). Organics detected include trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, dichloroethane, and chloroform. In well USGS-563, tetrachloroethylene was measured in the highest concentration of 120 pg/1. Several locations were also sampled for indicator parameters. Weiss and Colombo (1980) reported " organic carbon" concentrations of 50 mg/l and 40 mg/l for the Trench 18 sump and the J
USGS-523 respectively. The facility operator, U.S. Ecology, Inc. (USE), also analyzed groundwater for a few organics and reported that no toluene or xylene t
was found above their detection limit of 10 pg/l in 9 onsite and offsite ground-water wells (letter from W. K. Waller to J. Shaffner, November 13, 1984, i
WM Docket 27-39). These results are discussed in more detail below.
USGS analyzed samples taken on July 19, 1984 from trench 18 and well 563 for organics (see Appendix B). Well 563 indicated elevated levels of tetra-chloroethylene (62 pg/1), trichloroethylene, dichloroethane, and chloroform.
Toluene was below the detection limit. The trench 18 sump indicated elevated levels of only dichloroethane. IEPA sampled well 563 in November, 1983. Elevated i
10
. . . _ , . _ - , . - , _- , _ - - .__,-_-.--.-m - - _ - ,~ . , , , , . . . ,.
as*4r 4s* 4 o. 35 3 o. 2s* 20* i s* c3-t* as* 4r Oi 4t'20'ss' f I l i l u
Il il ,
. ll /
so - g ,
, N '
. j; .g '
O 3* %
s/ ), # \#
l !, a ,E s ,f e-17 mj!! !
n.
~
2s - i, uine c4xe g , ,,
a,,,,,,,,,,,., ,,
o I /
l y I i
~rs.P , /
- a -s ,/ I so o j g
a c3gg rals_up ay 20 - # #40 l k II -
g --
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ge'_. i ,.
l
/.%, EXPLANATION
%roacrive.nst sort u anr( .
g/ ll y -725- Line of equal altitude of (
X '
j water surface in shallow aquifer. /
, 3._ 'x N \ \V ,,,H Contour interva! S feet.
Altitude is referenced to NGVD of 1929. h S
s\ H '~
!! Basin boundary l i s ' N,, .. /
') lf I Basin number i
f 33 0
I 200 I
400 I
600 I
FEET
( y
/ U l 0 M I l 200 METERS
/
, ,, ,o. , o. / ll /
sA SE FROM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SUR VEY, East
.; Figure 5. Contour map of June 1982, water table elevation, Sheffield site 4 (from Garklavs and Healy 1985)
Y
+
levels of tetrachloroethylene (120 pg/1), trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, dichloroethane, and chloroform were detected. Toulene and xylene were not detected.
B. Sampling and Analysis Procedures January Sampling -
I Water samples were collected from four monitoring wells (USGS-523, 563, 574, and 575) and one trench sump (T-18) on January 14-15, 1985 (see Fig. 2; Appendix A). Figures in Appendix 0 show the construction of the 4 USGS wells with adjacent stratigraphy.
l Samplirg was performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) staff (R. H.
Ketelle and J.T. Kitchings) with the assistance of USE and IDNS personnel. USE and IONS staff took split samples at all wells except USGS-523. Well 523, which i is screened in till, did not recover quickly enough after purging to obtain a j full sample. Sufficient water was recovered for only organics analyses; no split samples were taken for this well. The other three wells, USGS-563, USGS-574, and USC -575, were bailed for 2-3 well volumes prior to sampling. Trench sump J 18, whit recovered rapidly, was bailed for 2 well volumes. Specific conductance
! and pH were measured during bailing at wells 563 and 575 and were stable prior to sampling. Location and weather conditions precluded this activity at Trench 18 and well 574. Sample containers, with preservatives as needed, were filled directly from the dedicated bailers. Metals samples were filtered using 0.45 micron micropore filter immediately after sampling. The details of the January sampling procedures are documented by Ketelle and others (1985; Appendix B).
September Sampling -
Water samples were collected from seven wells (USE-150, USGS-516, 523, 534, 563, 574, and 575) on September 18, 1985 (Fig. 2.; Appendix C). These samples were taken because of analytical difficulties and uncertainties associated with the organic concentrations of the January samples. These problems are discussed below and in Appendix C in detail.
I Sampling was performed by ORNL staff (R. Ketelle, K. Owenby, and K. Edwards) i with the assistance of USE personnel. USE took split samples at all wells.
7 General sampling procedures were as described above. To reduce loss of volatile organic samples, septum vials were inserted in a teflon bailer which was lowered
~
down the well. This bailer reduced air bubbling and mixing of samples.
Temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen were measured during bailing at all wells. Redox potential was measured immediately after bailing.
The details of the September sampling procedures are documented by Ketelle (1986; Appendix C).
All analyses were performed at ORNL. EPA's proposed Method 8600 (HAP) was utilized for the determination of organic constituent concentrations (EPA 1984).
The HAP prescribes several screening tests to determine what individual analyses should be performed. All other analyses (major ions, hazardous metals) were performed using EPA procedures (Ketelle et al. 1985). Two sets of field split samples and various spiked samples were also analyzed for Quality Assurance /
Quality Control. Samples collected in September were also analyzed using EPA 12
D Methods 624 and 625 for volatile and semi-volatile organics. These analyses were done sepurately from the HAP to ensure accurate determination of individual organic chemical concentrations.
C. Results and Discussion Ketelle and others (1985) present the detailed results of analysis of samples collected in January 1985. Results from September 1985 sampling are presented by Ketelle (1986). These reports are reprinted as Appendices 8 and C of this document. Table 1 shows the concentrations of metals and anions in groundwater wells and the trench sump in January 1985. Cation cor.centrations are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows radionuclide and TOC (total organic carbon) and T0X (total organic halogens) concentrations. Table 4 shows the tentative identi-fication of volatile and semi-volatile organics, and concentrations of organic indicators T0X (total organic halogens), TOC (total organic carbon), and total volatiles for samples collected in January. Metals, cations, anions, tritum, TOC, ana T0X for samples collected in September 1985 are shown in Table 5.
Organic volatile concentrations in samples collected in September are shown in Table 6.
An upgradient background well was not sampled because most groundwater flow originates on site as recharge (Garklavs and Healy 1985). However, well 574 is not in the pathway of groundwater leaving the site and this well is considered to represent the general quality of groundwater unaffected by waste disposal activities. Other human activities which may affect (or have affected) water quality at well 574 include strip mining and agriculture.
In general, onsite sampling locations and wells in the pebbly-sand unit offsite exhibit elevated levels of several constituents. Sulfate, bicarbonate, magnesium, manganese, and TOC, are all higher at Trench 18, and wells 523, 563, and 575 than at wells 574 (considered to represent background), 150, 516, and 534.
Of the two offsite wells in the tritium plume area, 563, which is closer to the site, shows higher levels of organics than 575. Tritium levels at these two wells are very similar (Tables 3 and 5; cf. Foster et al.1984b). The fact that organics are higher at 563 suggests that the site soils may retard organics relative to tritium, which moves at the rate of the groundwater. Other processes, such as biodegradation and spatial variability could also cause these variable concentrations.
Well 523, which is adjacent to Trench 11 onsite, shows the highest concentrations of organics of the sampled wells. The sands of the Toulon are not saturated in this area and groundwater flow rates are very low (Garklavs and Healy 1985).
The water table contour map (see Fig. 5) indicates a groundwater divide running across the site just north of well 523. Thus, groundwater flowing from the adjacent hazardous chemical waste disposal facility would not flow into well 523. However, groundwater from that facility may be flowing into Trench 18, and wells 563 and 575. The Trench 18 sump shows the highest concentrations of TOC of all sampling locations.
Preliminary analysis of samples collected in January identified several volatile compounds including trichloromethane, trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and ,
trichloroethylene, and several semi-volatile organics. Concentrations of these !
1 13
Table 1 Metals and anions concentrations in Sheffield groundwater samples,14-15 January 1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985)
Units of Well Well Well Well Trench Trengh Parameter Measurement 574 574-1^ 575 563 18 18-1 Metals measured by atomic absorption Ag mg/l <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
" D b As 0.002 0.052 0.005 <0.001 0.003 0.042 Ba 0.30 0.22 D 0.52 0.22 0.33 0.37 b Cd 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0.0004 0.0007 0.0015
" D Cr 0.002 0.019 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 0.009 Cu 0.011 0.01 0.004 0.005 0.020 0.01 Pb <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.002 Ni <0.005 <0.005 b <0.005 0.011 0.028 0.046 Se <0.003 0.007 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.008 Sb <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.007 0.008 D
% Hg "
<0.00005 0.0004 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0014 D
Anions Br <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Cl 13 4 4 19 32 23 F <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 C0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCO 3 436 440 563 562 1173 1161 N0 2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.9 NO 3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 50 4 84 89 295 171 380 390 Cyanide <0.0014 <0.002 <0.0014 <0.0014 0.0016 0.0032 Sulfide "
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 c <0.1 t
Table 2 Cations concentrations in Sheffield groundwater samples, 14-15 January 1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985) i Units of Well Well. 8 Well Well Trench Trengh Parameter Measurement 574 574-1 575 563 18 18-1 Cations measured by inductive coupled plasma Al mg/1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.44 0.34 B
0.59 0.74 0.32 2.1 27 27 Be
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
" 88 160 170 240 240 Ca 89 Co
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 !
Fe 0.44 0.4 0.65 0.22 0.28 0.22 :
Ga
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Hf "
<0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 K
2.8 2.9 0.8 0.9 120 120 Li "
<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
" 70 69 120 120 Mg 47 46 s Mn 0.17 0.17 1. 9 1.1 1.1 1.1
- <0.02 <0.02 Mo
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
" 200 Na 53 52 18 17 190 ,
P
<0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Si "
9.9 9.7 16 14 11 11 Sr "
0.7 0.68 0.18 0.19 0.89 0.89 Ti "
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.025 0.022 V <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Zn <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.073 0.17 0.18 Zr "
<0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 -
a Sam les 574-1 and Trench 18-1 are duplicated sample splits obtained for quality assurance purposes. .
D Value reported from a spiked sample with incomplete spike recovery - reported value is a maximum '
concentration.
c Sam le was accidentally lost during preparations for shipping.
t
_.. , __ _ _ _ __ . _ _ . _m. _ ._. _. . . _ . _ _ _. -- _. .. _ - . .. . _ _
i 1
4 Table 3 Radionuclide, TOC, and T0X concentrations in Sheffield groundwater samples, 14-15 January 1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985)
Units of Well Well Well Well Trench Trencg Parameter Measurement 574 574-l a 575 563 18 18-1 Gross alpha pCi/1 191108 2.71111 811135 811135 811135 391122 t Gross beta 541125 5.41119 <108 13.51127 1.3E312.4E2 1.2E312.4E2
< Tritium "
<810 <810 1.5E512.7E3 1.7E512.7E3 4.3E512.7E4 4.3E512.7E4 i
}
l
- $; Units of Well Well , Wall Well Trench Trengh Well j Parameter Measurement 574 574-1 575 563 18 18-1 523 ,
) TOC mg/l 2. 8 1.9 2.9 10 48 43 40 1
j T0X pg/l 3,950 b 3,600 140 11,000 2,250 5,450 i
a
{ Samples 574-1 and Trench 18-a are duplicate sample splits obtained in the field for Quality Assurance
- purposes.
b j Sample bottle broke after receipt at lab while warming.
1 i
i
Table 4 Tentative identification of volatile o ganics in Sheffield groundwater samples, 14-15 January 1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985)
Component Sample Origin Trench Well No.
18 523 563 574 575 Trichloromethane 15 <1 <1 nd nd Trichloroethane 1 1 <1 nd nd Benzene ? <1 nd nd nd nd Cyclohexene >15 >10 >5 nd X Trichloroethylene ? 1 <1 <1 nd nd Dioxane >15 11 5 nd 3 Perchloroethylene 11 4 1 nd nd Cyclohexene Oxide 1 <1 <<1 nd nd Cyclohexenol <1 <<1 nd nd nd Unknown - Glycol with Nitrogen function (M.W. 91)? b X X X nd nd Methyl cyclohexene ? X X nd nd nd Unknown - chlorinated Oxygenated hydrocarbon (M.W. 249)? b X X nd nd X a
Quantities listed in Table have units of pg/1. Entries marked with an X indicate that the compound was detected but not quantitated; nd indicates not detected. Quantities were estimated from chromatographic areas of the various gas chromatograms generated by the application of the Appendix VIII methods (8010, 8015, 8030, and 8620). Identifications are based on a GC/MS study of the combined acid and base-neutral extracts of the water with highest content (Trench 18).
These compounds cannot be tentatively identified from their mass spectra; however, based on the intensity of their peaks in the chromatogram, both are major organic constituents. Therefore, they are listed along with their apparent molecular weight.
17
Table 5 Metals, cations, anions, tritium, TOC, and T0X concentrations in Sheffield groundwater samples, 18 Septemter 1985 (from Ketelle 1986) table 1 at$utts or watta ANALv5t5a
$HEFFIELD. ILLim015 LLie $1TE Par ameter hell 523 well 563 well 574 well 575 well 150 well 534 Well $16 Metals Ag <0.0002b <0.05 (0.0002b <0.05 (0.00026 (0.00026 (0.00028 A1 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 As (0.003C (0.10 0.002C (0.10 0.017C 0.002C (0.0028 3 5.9 2.1 0.44 0.45 <0.08 0.12 (0.08 la <0.18 0.12 (0.1D 0.20 0.37D <0.10 (0.1%
5e <0.002 (0.002 (0.002 (0.002 (0.002 <0.002 (0.002 Ca 170 190 110 190 120 52 110 Cd <0.0001D (0.005 0.0001D (0.005 (0.0003b o,cootb 0.0001%
Co (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 <0.01 <0.01 (0.01 Cr <0.0096 0.04 0.004b <0.04 0.0068 0.003b 0.006%
Ce (0.02 (0.02 0.0058 (0.02 0.0068 0.0078 0.007b Fe 3.4 0.44 1.1 5.2 0.11 0.40 0.55 Ga (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0. 30 Hg (0.00005 d (0.00005 d <0.00005 (0.00005 <0.00005 K 3. 3 0.8 3.0 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.9 Li (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20
% 140 55 39 57 37 25 40 m 0.39 1.9 0.14 1.7 0.46 0.095 0.15
% (0.04 (0.04 (0.04 <0.04 (0.04 <0.04 <0.04 na 41 13 37 14 8.9 9.4 10 41 <0.01D (0.06 <0.01% <0.06 (0.01* <0.0lb <0.0lb P (0.30 (0.30 ( 0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 Pb <0.001D (0.20 0.003b <0.20 0.006% 0.004# 0.004b sb (0.0050 <0.20 (0.005b <0.20 <0.005# <0.005 (0.005b 5e (P.005C (0.20 (0.005C (0.20 0.005 d.005C Q .005C
$1 8.1 10 8.2 13 8.0 2.2 to sr 0.18 0.056 0.60 0.044 0.23 0.088 0.046 Tt (0.02 (0.02 (0.02 (0.01 (0.02 (0.02 d.02 a V 0.0 71 0.071 0.062 0.065 0.061 0.036 0.043 2n 0.03 0.032 <0.02 0.038 0.034 (0.02 (0.02 2r (0.02 <0.02 (0.02 c.02 (0.02 (0.02 d.02 Antons
, 8r (5 (5 <$ <5 (5 (5 ($
C1 23 19 4 12 1 4 17 l
CO O 0 0 0 0 0 0
, 1134 572 438 548 456 226 386
! (=39/t1
? F (1 (1 <1 (1 (1 <1 <1 402 ($ (5 <5 <$ (5 <1 <5 901 (5 5 (5 <5 <5 (5 (5 PO4 (5 (5 (5 (5 <5 (5 (5 504 120 150 69 ISO 16 44 53 Other TOC 33 29 5.3 7.3 4.6 4.1 3.6 T01%5/L 4.0 a 105 1.6 a 105 1.1 a 105 1.9 a 105 2.9 s 105 1.6 a 105 9.3 s 104 Tritt wo 4.32 s Ig5 . 1.92 a 105+ (8.1 a 102 1.78aIg5 1 (8.1 a 102 (8.1 s 102 <g,g ,102 pC1/L 2.7 a 10* 2.7 a 103 2.7 a 13 sell concentrations are u9/el wiess otherwise indicated.
beetals analyzed by grechtte furnace atante absorption. Other antals are analyzed by ICP.
carsente and solenia mee snelyred by the antal PyJride mothed.
duercury analyses are not pedorned on these semples.
'T01 values are creelf stically high.
4 18 i
- , _ . _ , . ~ _ . , _ _ _ _ . - . - _ , _ . . . _ _ . .. . , _ . _ - -
Table 6 Volatile organic cogcentrations in Sheffield groundwater samples, 18 September 1985 (from Ketelle 1986)
Well No.
NPDES b
Compound ID 523 563 574 575 150 534 516 Trans 1,3-dichloropropene 3 <1 Benzene 4 3 <1 <1 85 Chlorobenzene 7 <1 <1 1,1,2-trichloroethane 14 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 15 <1 1,2-dichloropropane 32 4 4 Cis 1,3-dicnloropiopene 33 <1
, Bromoform 47
! Bromodichloromethane 48 Dibromochloromethane 51 Tetrachloroethylene 85 14 110 c
>1000 Toluene 86 <1 <1 <1 <1 g Trichloroethylene 87 3 10 <1 22 Carbon Tetrachloride 6 <1 6 1,2-dichloroethane 10 2 21 9 2 1,1,1-trichloroethane c c c 11 >>1000 >1000 6 >1000 6 6 1,1-dichloroethane 13 320 89 117 <1 Chloroform 23 209 10 2 <1 175 1,1-dichloroethylene 29 6 5 1,2-dichloroethylene 30 2 1 <1 <1 2 Methylene Chloride 44 7 1 1 5 12
. "All concentrations are pg/1; A "less than" entry indicates that'the mass spectrometer may have detected the compound at a level too low to be quantitated; No entry indicates that the compound was not detected by the
- mass detector.
b Background well.
'These values are very high and exceed the dynamic range of the detector. Estimated 1,1,1-trichloroethane concentrations are 12, 3.2, and 2.5 mg/l for wells 523, 563, and 575, respectively. The estimated tetra-chloroethylene concentration in well 516 is 1.4 mg/1.
organics were estimated from a GC/MS run of a extract from the Trench 18 sample.
Subsequently, the more accurate EPA Method 1625 was carried out to identify specific organics concentrations. However, this method was applied to improperly collected and stored samples. As a result, very few organic chemicals were detected by this method and volatile organic concentrations were very low (Ketelle et al. 1985; Appendix B). These factors caused NRC and ORNL statf to conduct additional sampling in September 1985 to more accurately quantify con-centrations of individual volatile and semi-volatile organic constituents.
Samples collected in September 1985 exhibit significant concentrations of volatile organic compounds (Table 6). Concentrations of several organics exceed EPA's proposed drinking water standrds (Appendix F). Wells 523, 563, and 575 contain 1,1,1-trichloroethane in estimated concentrations of 12, 3.2, and 2.5 mg/1, respectively. The tetrachloroethylene concentration in well 516 is over 1 mg/1.
High concentrations of chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethane, and benzene are present.
Trichloroethylene is detected in four wells with the highest concentration of 22 pg/l in well 516. The sample from well 574, the background well, contains 6 pg/l 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1 pg/l methylene chloride. Five volatile organics are identified in well USE-150 at low concentrations (less than 6 pg/1).
Five volatile organics are present at less than detection limits (1 pg/1) in well 534. Toluene is present at less t.han detection limit (1 pg/1) in wells 523, 575, 534, and 516. Xylene is not detected in any sample. Hydrocarbons asso-clated with petroleum products are detected in all wells sampled (Ketelle 1986).
Organic chemical concentrations are positively correlated with tritium measure-ments for the Sheffield site. The levels of TOC and 1,1,1-trichloroethane increase with increasing tritium levels for the wells sampled (Figs. 6 and 7).
The tritium levels measured in the present sampling effort are consistent with previous data (Foster et al. 1984a; IONS files), indicating that the organic constituent levels should also be fairly representative of normal conditions.
The correlation between organic concentrations and Critium supports the hypothesis that at least a portion of the organic chemicals are associated with the tritium source, namely the LLW disposal units. It appears that organics are migrating from the LLW trenches along with tritium. Where tritium is not correlated with the organics concentration, tetrachloroethylene at well 516 for example, the organics are primarily from some source other than the LLW trenches.
The observed correlation between organic and tritium from the LLW indicates that tritium may be an appropriate parameter for detection monitoring to screen for organic contamination at this site. These hypotheses are, of course, based on a very limited sampling effort and should be considered preliminary.
Groundwater at Shef field exhibits elevated levels of tritium at several onsite wells and in two offsite areas: the first is in a subsurface pebbly-sand channel extending from the site eastward to the strip-mine lake; the second is in an isolated location to the site's southeast (Fig. 8). Four of the locations from the present sampling effort which indicate elevated organics concentrations are within the area of identified tritium contamination. In addition, it is noted that well 575, which is further from the site than 563, contains less organic constituents than 563 even though its tritium level is essentially the same as 563. Tritium concentrations in the pebbly-sand plume area (wells 563 and 575) vary significantly over very short distances and it is possible that higher concentrations than those measured at 563 occur near 563. The difference in organic concentrations may indicate that tritium moves faster in groundwater than organic constituents at this site, and that tritium could serve as an early warning or screening parameter for organic contamination. The extent to which 20
l SHEFFIELD LLW SITE l Correlation of Tdtlum and TOC
, 50 l T-18 40 -
ko 5 a E 30 -
j 563 o
g 20 -
o E
i-10 -
0 3 575
- t O , , , , , , , ,
O 100 200 300 400 Tritium Concentration (nC1/l)
Figure 6. Plot of total organic carbon versus tritium for Sheffield samples SHEFFIELD LLW SITE Correlation of Tritium and 1.1.1-TCE 14 -
13 -
12 - 0523 o 11 -
5 10 -
{ 9-j 8-h 7-k 6-3 5-3 f 4-3_ 0563 c575 2-1-
O , , , ,
O 200 400 Tdt!um Concentration (nCI/l)
Figure 7. Plot of 1,1,1-trichloroethane versus tritium for Sheffield samples 21
0 0
7 4
P 8 s 4 _-
.I i
t n
o n o
7 s Y a it.
R in a O m N s t a im.
t S
d n n R
" O e o e E 6I S e c c T d 0
Nl W A ,
c x
e ic n i c #
F E
M t e
L E a g .n c m g E.
" u r o r 0 e) o
% j it i
r t
h g -
o d
a Y I0 2
t5 e8 d9 _
e ih o
% I rd en h i
h r
n 1 _
0I 1
D \
\ V D hu wo N sg r it w
i t
w ip h
s ey el V] Y
. n b a -
ls
,N. E ak G ec le n. o w
I0 0
sH e _
E ra j '% t
.L Ab W w T m
1 a hd -
f $O m a Y ma n
" "e s u s 5I 1 - i sl t vl
>, ] ! i0 i ae rl w tk rn g\
- 'Q J eai rG
-r e s O [ h rc wei
{l8 0" I 2
,uE l ,
,iHNg t n 8
8 N!C i,g N ua N ggM ef a tag
/ - i( r s o
. -f I I,( /g / dnf s
TY S R
!. / "[ / l oo ei it s
(
5" AA s, I
f an 2 E H TU 2 2
, f ro T 6 s
eti RB I 1
s h nt OR S ea
- N cr NT 0 4 h,
- g .
f nt oon
_ ce m
1 s .
s c 0I N s N
- ad n eno 3
~O 7. - ruc
_' ~
es r ,, -
/
1 8
9 ao re s'
t 1
_ 1
- I f s Y
, ggv nki s /' E 5
._ a e s 3
1 Q% i s /,/< '- N V
R U
S ict h
waa obl e
3' _
r ser A
_ l a
C L A pod v
I ir B
u O( '
C I
G O
L ab n Maa O .
E 8 G
0I e
4 S. r U u g
E M i T
I O F S R F
A E 5 P S 4 E I A 74' B
9 ._ _ - -
8 "3 g , 0 5 "0 3 2 1 1 0"
N 2
1 1 4 4
~N i! )l !
j i < ,. <
l l
l this relationship applies would be clarified by further sampling both within and outside the tritium contaminated areas.
The Sheffield LLW site is located adjacent to an IEPA licensed hazardous waste disposal facility (chem site) and to a previously utilized unlicensed chemical waste burial area which could cause organic contamination at the LLW site.
Examination of concentrations in samples from wells USE-150, USGS-516, and 534 indicates, along with previous results, that the IEPA licensed chem site to the west of the LLW site is not contributing organic contamination to the onsite groundwater. However, leaching from the unlicensed burial area to the north of the LLW site has a significant impact on groundwater quality in the site vicinity.
Low concentrations in well USE-150 indicate that the IEPA licensed site is not contributing significant organic contamination to groundwater beneath the LLW site. Based on the USGS water table contour map (see Fig. 5), well USE-150 is upgradient of the LLW trenches and downgradient of the chem site. In particular, this well is upgradient of the Trench 18 sump which exhibits high organic content. TOC concentration is in the background range and tritium is below detection in this well. Five organics are detected in this sample, but the highest concentration is only 6 pg/l (Table 6). Only well 574, the background well, indicates fewer detected organics.
Concentrations in onsite well USGS-534 also support this conclusion. Well 534 is located on the northern border of the site and intercepts groundwater from the north and west of the site. As above, the TOC concentration is in the background range and tritium is below the detection limit. Five organics are identified, all below the detection limit of 1 pg/1. The USGS detected no organics in wells 533 and 535, which are north of the northern most LLW disposal units, Trench 18, and Trench 23, respectively, further supporting the hypothesis that the LLW disposal units are not the source of organic contamination in this area.
Results of previous sampling by USGS and IEPA (Table 7; Appendix B) also indicate organic contamination from the unlicensed burial area only, and not from the chem site. Wells USGS-511 and USGS-519 are also located upgradient of the LLW trenches and downgradient of the chem site (Fig. 9). Only USGS-519, which is very close to Trench 18, contained detectable levels of organic chemicals (Table 6) suggesting that the trench may be the contaminant source.
The sample from this well also exhibited an " oil sheen" and " diesel fuel like odor." This, in combination with a reported aliphatic hydrocarbons concentra-tion of 3900 pg/1, suggests contamination from petroleum product. In addition, no organics were detected in 511 and USE-150, supporting the conclusions of the present study, that significant organic contamination of the groundwater beneath the LLW site is not caused by the chem site.
The impact of the unlicensed burial area on groundwater quality is also shown in previous USGS and IEPA sampling results for several USGS wells north of the LLW site: 513, 514, 515, and 516 (Fig. 9, Table 7). Well 513 is downgradient from and closest to the chem site and did not exhibit organic constituents.
The sample from 515, next downgradient, exhibited a " peculiar odor" and an " oil like film." Chloroform, trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and methylene chloride were detected in this sample. However, samples taken from well 514 yielded no organics detected by the USGS, and only 2 pg/l tetrachloroethylene i in the IEPA sample . IEPA's sample also indicated a " fuel like odor." While 23
~
4 + 4 o Table 7 Partial results of previous USGS and IEPk groundwater sampling at the Sheffield site Well ID and Sampling Agsncy Date Results as reported by sarp1ing agency
, USE-150 -
PCB's <0.1 pg/l
- IEPA- 111/17/83- no extractable organics detected ,
no volatile' organics detected USGS-511 PCB's <0.1 pg/l IEPA 11/17/83 aliphatic hydrocarbons 3 pg/l no volatile organics detected USGS 7/19/84 noorganicsdetec'ted-aboie73pgli I USGS-519 PCB's not detected IEPA 11/17/83 aliphatic hydrocarborn 390(f pg/l no volatile organics ' detected (trace acetone) several unidentified co,mpounds
~
USGS-513- PCB's <0.1 pg/l '
'IEPA 11/17/83 alphatic hydrocarbons 3 pg/l no volatile organics detected USGS-514 FCB's <0.1 pg/l .
IEPA 11/17/83 alphatic hydrocarbon's 140 pg/l tetrachloroethylene 2 pg/1 USGS 7/19/84 no organics detected above 3 pg/l USGS-515 PCB's <0.1 pg/l IEPA 11/17/83 alphatic hydrocarbons 5 pg/l chloroform 5 pg/1; 1,1,1-trichloroethane 13 pg/l tetrachloroethylene 18 pg/l methylene chloride 1 pg/l USGS-516 PCB's <0.1 pg/l IEPA 11/17/83 no extractable organics detected chloroform 180 pg/1; 1.,1,1-tichloroethane 3 pg/l
, tetrachloroethylene 1000 pg/l methylene-chloride 4 pg/1; dichloroethylene 3 pg/l 1,2-dichloc9 ethane 2 pg/1; trichloroethylene 20 pg/l carben tetrachloride 4 pg/l USCS 7/19/84 chloroform 200 pg/l tetrachloroethylene 1000 pg/l trichloroethylece 19 pg/l ,
1,1-dichloroethylene 5.5 pg/l USE-P 11/17/83 1.,1,1-trichloroethane 6 pg/1; xylene (5/83) 16 pg/l IEPA dichloroethylene 1 pg/1; PCB's 0.6 pg/l' USE-C-1 11/17/83, methylene chloride 2'pg/1; tetrachloroethylene 11 pg/l '
IEPA chloroform 2 pg/1; PCB's (3/82) 29 pg/l ,
alphatic hydrocarbons 100-pg/l 4 i 24 e . , - - , ,--) , , - - , -e w e v -
b :
r s
c i
n _
a g
y r
g o
o e
log c r o
- 0. SwEe Us D ,-
N1 f N d
c l e
p
-I - i m
a s
c 3 i T
a 2 T
- . l y
L F s
' N u N
U o
i rl_
,4 2 T m
T 7
3 T
1 1 S v
. e l
T G e l 5 S r f
. e D U p
,r - 4 s T l
T ( l L[c, i e
w 4 - L d 1 l 5
0 e
, i A
, 8 f T f 5
~ e 1
6 8
P O l A
y h S
f 4
4 1
1-T o
T c . I s
O ,
~
, 6 n o
0 s T T
. 0 u i s t 3
1
- a c
6 9 - o
[ 7 . L
!rL T n.
o y t , . , .
O t ,
. n . 9
. O N
wo soc
_ E s E e
Gt sc .s. r N
O L u u u cO g i
F s
_. h
the other USGS wells in this area are screened only in the Teneriffe silt and underlying shale, well 514 is also screened in the Hullick Till unit. This and other factors, such as spatial variability or nonuniform release, may account for the lower concentrations at 514. Samples from well 516, further downgradient, yielded 1 mg/l tetrachloroethylene (both USGS and IEPA). This supports the hypothesis that a significant portion of the organics detected in this area north of the site are from the chemical waste buried in this area. The increase in concentrations from well 513 to 515 to 516 (well 514 does not follow this trend) also suggests that the IEPA licensed hazardous waste disposal facility I is not a current source of contamination.
Four USE wells in the area north of the LLW site were also sampled by IEPA (Fig. 9, Table 7). Notably, PCB's were detected in all of these wells but were not detected in any USGS wells located between these wells. Toluene was detected in well C-1, in the unlicensed burial area, farthest from the LLW site, and xylene was detected only in well P. Toluene and xylene are constituents of petroleum products, are mobile in groundwater, and are associated with organic contamination from industrial waste disposal (cf. Reinhard et al. 1984).
Contamination from major mixed waste streams identified in a survey by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is not indicated in groundwater at the Sheffield LLW site. Major waste streams identified as possibly constituting significant RCRA hazardous waste occurring in LLW include: liquid scintillation media (primarily containing toluene and xylene, also some dioxane); chromate wastes from reactors; and lead, primarily used as shielding at reactors (Bowerman et al.1985; Kempf et al. 1986). Notably, the chemicals associated with these waste streams, toluene, xylene, chromium, and lead, are at or below detection limits or at back-ground levels for the sampled locations at the Sheffield LLW site.
The problen of organic contamination is not unique to the Sheffield site; it occurs at waste disposal facilities of all types, hazardous as well as non-hazardous. The nonradiological chemical constituents which appear in elevated levels at Sheffield are primarily industrial solvents which are common ground-water contaminants: trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, dichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and chloroform. In an EPA sampling of finished drinking water from municipal water supply systems using groundwater, the most frequently found volatile organic compounds were trihalomethane (associated with chlorina-tion), trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, dichloroethylene, and dichloroethane (Westrick et al. 1984).
Because no groundwater pumping occurs in the area between the Sheffield LLW site and the strip mine lake, there does not appear to be an immediate public health concern at the site. All groundwater beneath the site discharges to the strip mine lake (Garklavs and Healy 1985) where any contaminants entering this water body are diluted to a large extent.
D. Conclusions The following preliminary conclusions are made:
The overall extent of organic chemical contamination of groundwater at the l Sheffield LLW facility is significant. The highest concentrations of I
identified organic contaminants are over 1 mg/1. Concentrations of several organics exceed EPA's proposed drinking water standards. Hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products are also identified.
26
There does not appear to be a public health concern at the Sheffield LLW site due to nonradiological corstituents being released to groundwater b2cause site groundwater is not used for water supply.
l -
The cccurrence of organics onsite and to the east of the site follows l the general pattern of tritium occurrence. Total organic carbon and l 1,1,1-trichloroethane are positively correlated with tritium concentrations l for onsite wells aad wells in the offsite tritium plume. This indicates that organic contaminants are being released to groundwater from the LLW disposal units.
The sampling resuits do not indicate that contamination from toluene and xylene scintillation liquids, chromate wastes, or lead is occurring at the Sheffield LLW site. Several industrial solvents, typical of groundwater contamination frcm waste disposal, are present in significant concentrations.
Toluene, xylene, and hazardous metals concentrations are at or below detection limits or at backgrount' levels.
These results and previous USGS and IEPA sampling results indicate that.
organic chemicals are not entering the LLW site groundwater systert from the IEPA licensed hazardous waste disposal facility across the LLW site's western boundary, but that the unlicensed chemical burial area north of the LLW site is a source of organic contamination.
The downhole bailer with an enclosed vial prevented loss of volatile organics and should be utilized for these samples. When the concentra-tions of individual organics are required, standard EPA / RCRA analysis procedures are preferred over the method 8tiOO screening methodology.
Only limited data have been collected to assess nonradiological contamination of groundwater at the Sheffield LLW site. Therefore, these conclusions must be
- considered preliminary in nature.
l I
l I
27
l III. SARNWELL SAMPLING PROGRAM AND RESULT 5 A. Background The Barnwell low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility was chosen for the mixed waste sampling program because it is an example of an operating commercial LLW facility using waste classification, waste segregation and, to the extent practical, operating procedures required in 10 CFR Part 61, NRC's rule for LLW disposal. Unlike the other two operating sites, numerous ground-water monitoring wells are available to sample the relatively shallow saturated zone. The site is located in Barnwell County, South Carolina, adjacent to the Savannah River Plant (SRP) (Fig. 10). The facility is operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc. (CNSI), and currently receives about one-half of the commercial LLW generated in the United States. Liquid scintillation vials containing toluene and xylene have not been disposed of at Barnwell sinca 1978 (NRC 1982).
The Barnwell site is underlain by about 1000 ft of unconsolidated formations, the deepest of which comprises the regional Tuscalooss Aquifer syeLem (Fig.11).
This aquifer is separated from shallowar sand units of the Congaree and McBean Formations by a 50-80 ft thick c?ay layer in the Ellenton Formation. The McBean Formation is overlain by the sandy clays of the Hawthorn and Barnwell Formations.
Up to several feet of wind blown sands overlie the Hawthorn Formation (Cahill 1982).
The site is located in the humid Atlantic Coastal Plain and the mean annual precipitation is about 47 inches. Because the surficial seoiments are sandy, very little surface runoff from the site occurs; most precipitation evapo-transpires while the remaining 30 to 40 percsat infiltrates to the underlying sediments through surficial depressions and Carolina Bays (circular surface depressions of undetermined origin) which are flooaed after rainfall. Perched zones occur above the water table in clayey portions of the Barnwell and Hawthorn Formations. These units recharge the sands of the Corgaree and McBean Formations which are water supply aquifers in the local area. These units in turn recharge the underlying Tuscaloosa Aquifer system through the leaky clay layer of the '
Ellenton Formation.
The Tuscaloosa Aquifer is a major source of dome; tic and industrial water and has an estimated transmissivity of about 22,000 ft / day 2 (Cahill 1982). Siple (1967) considered that the primary regional recharge mechanism of the Tuscaloosa Aquifer was leakage through the confining clays of the E11enton Formation. Cahill (1982) evaluated the hydrogeology of the site and vicinity, concentrating on units within 500 ft of the land surface. Cahill, disagreeing with Siple, conceptualized the clays of the Ellenton Formation as an impermeable bottom in his model of the shallow ficw system. The extent of leakage through this confining unit to the Tuscaloosa Aquifer is currently unresolved and may be important in assessing long-term performance of the site. Groundwater in the Tuscaloosa Aquifer flows west-southwest to discharge locations at pumping centers and along the Savannah River (Siple 1967).
Groundwater flow in the surficial units (Cahill's zones 1, 2, and 3) is genarally to the southwest towards Mary's Creek, a spring fed perennial stream about 3,000 ft south-southwest of the closest disposal units (Fig. 12 from Cahill 1982).
29
9 RT 82' 81' BO' 798 35' -
3 y n I 33' <
33 BARNWELL COUNTY 83* 82* 81* 80* 79*
aL SAVAhhAit Rivill
- FLAh! 00Uh0ARY g l
v BURIAL SITE
[
W o
SAVANNAH O saauwEL RIVER PLANT SNELLING PROPERTY j
(
l 3 3'10 -
_ 33 3o SCALE I I I I 31* 4 5 81'35 81'25 81'15 Figure 10. Site location of Barnwell LLW disposal-facility (from Cahill 1982)
)
2 8
9 1
- t. l l
. i F L h o o AE a s o 0 0 0 EV 0 0 0 0 C 4a t 5
1 0 5 SE 6 o 5 0 E'g l :
1
- j.L ,
1
- 2_ r e
~
C t i f a
~
S.
(
e n m e o i _ :: n t t = = m .~ io i a
- - t a s
- --i -
F m
r o
d:=Z L
~4
-=
=' i~==.n-
~?
r e
g g
e l
l e
==f n_ =~_
s f*'*" i =M -
E w l -
l i .=:
._ e f =i- - n W la 2"* w n
- - = g. .
- t c
s r
s e
c a a r
&= f.-
r e
=. B f
' a ~ -
V r u
n L ~ S r
2' c_ B n - io w o t
~
~
r e ic r
j 2 3
, e e 4
e f o
i t a ~~ : -
f i
t e
n n n n n o o o o w u a m .-
- . m r f . ~~I r- -
q r o y Z Z Z y
- o
)~"- a: A s r
2 t h n .
o
.- c .
F a . p
- N et u1 F .
- e s=l.:=~~- s .
a
-=
n a
e
- e r
a i=;-
- : 2 r :: la o
o O
i P T
A o ..
s
-- r g
ft
. g t t i B .
. n i - c e N n c o s e e t m ._
M -
C k -
in = :-
T u F A L m Y
y a r
" 2
- MU=
9 y= -
f o P s X d y d
e e '
s
' te d a n r
a t
s
-_ 3 s%..
~-
a e 4 n E a e *
- mu
=- . l e
l
__ e a ba
- lc
- i xBo
~
n n C: - e s u e
- - k-.- n- t- n y e o
, Z o - Z o
c- o ,. o h d n m *** pn r
r e i
v
-- po Z
Sa P e '
T, ;o T t
';= t ~-: i n " AZ a s
La i m =~
e - e ~ t n _ r c n n e
n
- $ o ==
a t
~ e s
T e
r _
- QwF_=_==
t:no
?~
_- D si e
r
~ en 2-t _
_- p e
L
~
sa
=_
~
i r
u
- l l
2:..
r E~ . o-B d'~
- :=d
.' g n
- [==r.===
- E i w
- iE :%=. ;= _
o
_ - t:=E~==
=E ?
h:
h s
, n:=iM=:-
- b:=:f==:=
= = n- f o o' n' n
o
$::.u s =.:-n :
l i _
i:. .=::: 3
=5 _ = 7: = =p wi' iec#
t e
t c _
w[~f : _ :
Vss , , e s
ki:=:=f = :.
~ 2 ns _
.=i=: ?
~; aor -
=
y - i=2=
l Pc E
C c
~ :J === 2= ; = = - i
- l l.
g
- - o
' s t~ ===E =- = =
=
3 Wh3v
=
.~.
~
=
~
~
- ri
='5:=-
= .==:~.=--:
I .:
l G
e o
Ei}
C 5 o
s 0
0 0
5 AE
_L 0
6 o
o 0
5 0
0 1 2 t 1 EV g 1 2 t
SE 1 L
- e
- r F u g
i F
aH t.
41'29'00* 81*20 30- 01*38 oo* 8t'27'30* 81'27'80' W16 W ,, . , , W16 ,80, a y *' / T -
/ ,l )'- /
- s,, n , I ,
s' ,,.*, ,,-
,/ ,/ ,
,/
2M # , 3 '
OND s y's N vn e -
\ ,,,
- .,f ,
s
- n. '
/-
/
224 . /
C w,.., _
, f/li asu
,2,
'/f
, wi. -
22$
22 22s ,,
/
s ,o + / ns .- -
23 215 f
m #
t d 1! N i
1 .
i
- i .. he :~ I 214 " PON j, .
wis co*
. /
2,18
\
4 e
s) 229 _
N n
' u\
- h. '(\ - wis se-
~
s s
>:':Q,ry 2,.
. 2,.
y gpi ti2, at ' il D .,a l I
- 212
, . ,+6 ,.-/
.N;g, G
] -lt . ,
_ d '
on #!O a%n tu n.. .
. .. n%
w.. . .
~
t j)E N, . s, %, Y i r
, ,,,,... set
,. h,% N, j -,,
2 <
, p *~. s,niu i s.tay.', N N, s's .
'- ,e,
[ .-
,E.'// . ., 's \., 'N \s(;N N, ' .' ,
, , ]*,,
s,
,,- 'a1*
,, " / //f/!l{: \. ,',
's -
i , EXPLANATION , N, .'. 5NEd M ,
, ,. / ,* * ,s1 '
/ /,, ,',,r'f f
/< I g
- e 's 's o ggo N, ' '
e %
\
N, s 's \
N
,f' ," / /, ' Residence Well used as control pomt Domestic Well 's, *
, , 's, 's,
, 220- POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR Shoes altitude of measured water levels Deemed where approssmate Contour interval 2 feet. Datum 6s Nat'onal Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 , ,g I i i Sc^"
w,. . .
u.,...,..
e . w oo- wn w w2e oo- er2r w e,.2rw Figure 12. Contour map of November 1979 water table elevation, Barnwell site (from Cahill 1982) 32
i l
Elevated tritium levels in a monitoring well 10 ft from Trench 8 (WM-0040) screened at a depth of 40 ft have indicated migration from the trenches to the shallowest groundwater (Cahill 1982). Czyscinski and Weiss (1981) found elevated tritium levels in soil cores more than 3 m (about 10 ft) below trench bottoms. More recent data indicates further vertical and horizontal migration of tritium in groundwater (CNSI 1985; Appendix E).
Limited sampling and analysis previously performed by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and the operator (see Appendix C) have detected organic constituents above background concentrations in and adjacent to disposal units. Investigators from BNL sampled trench water at the Barnwell facility under contract to NRC. Although specific organic constituents were not analyzed for, Czyscinski and Weiss (1981) presented organic carbon measure-ments for leachate f rom 7 trenches ranging from background levels, approximately 2 mg/1, to 200 mg/1; "The [trenci.] water quality reflected the interaction of groundwaters with the buried wastes and the effects of bacterial degradation of organic waste components." Weiss and Colombo (1980) reported dissolved organic carbon concentrations of 11.and 15 mg/l for shallow wells WM-0040 and WM-0022.
Well WM-0040 is adjacent to WM-0039, which is sampled for the present study, but WM-0040 is screened at a shallower depth.
A preliminary nonradiological groundwater sampling program conducted by CNSI (1985) indicates elevated levels of toulene, xylene, and other constituents in onsite wells. These results are discussed below in Section III-C.
Groundwater quality at Barnwell is potentially affected by waste disposal and other activities at the adjacent SRP and the adjacent Allied-General Nuclear Services' nuclear fuel reprocessing plant which is not currently operating (see NRC 1976).
B. Sampling and Analysis Procedures Five onsite wells (WM-0035, WM-0039, WM-0074, WB-0102, and WB-0802) were sampled on May 14, 1985 (Fig. 13; Appendix B). Well WB-0802 is on the eastern site boundary and is upgradient from the disposal units based on a Cahill's water table contour map (see Fig. 12). This is considered a background sampling location. Well WB-0102 is on the western site boundary directly downgradient from the disposal units. Wells WM-0039 and WM-0074 are adjacent to disposal units and WM-0035 is downgradient of WM-0039. Several of the originally pro-posed sampling locations (Appendix A) were not utilized; no trench sumps contained water at the time of this sampling and 2 proposed shallow wells were dry. CNSI also recommended 2 new boundary monitoring wells, as upgradient and downgradient locations, which were incorporated in the program.
Sampling was performed by R.H. Ketelle, J.T. Kitchings, and R.K. Owenby of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) with the assistance of CNSI personnel. CNSI staff took simultaneous split samples at all wells except WM-0035 because this well contained little water prior to sampling and recovered very slowly after purging. All wells were bailed for 2-3 well volumes, while specific conductance and pH were monitored to indicate stability prior to sampling. Sample containers, with preservatives, were filled directly from the dedicated bailers. Filtering of metals samples were performed within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> of sampling. The details of the sampling procedures are documented by Ketelle and others (1985; Appendix B).
33 1
ORNL-DWG 85-t4726 8t*28'3O= 81*
,"4 5" 33*15 45" 33
- WM-OO39 LOCATION OF WELL
- SAMPLED IN THIS STUDY FEET O 500 1000 l
3 # 0 150 300 METERS A
i AREA (1985)
\
, SITE BOUNDARY
]
p~~_,
I TRENCH I l AREA I l (1981) l I I f1 l' l M .
f WM-OO7j 3
/
- M-O 39
! V j *WM-OO35 WB-102
! l I t l
33* 14' 30F 33* 14'30" 81* 27'30" 84* 27'30" Figure 13. Barnwell site features and sample locations 34
l All analyses were performed at ORNL using EPA's proposed Method 8600 (HAP; EPA 1984) and standard EPA-RCRA methodologies for the determination of organic and hazardous metals concentrations. The HAP methodology prescribes several screening tests to determine what individual analyses should be performed. All other analyses (major ions, hazardous metals) were performed using EPA proce-dures (Ketelle et al. 1985; Appendix B). Two sets of field split samples and various spiked samples were also analyzed for Quality Assurance / Quality Control.
C. Results and Discussion The detailed results of the sampling and analysis are reported by Ketelle and others (1985; Appendix B). Table 8 shows the concentrations of metals and anions in five wells with two field splits. Cation concentrations are shown in Table 9. Table 10 shows radioactivity levels and the concentrations of indicators T0X (total organic halogens) and TOC (total organic carbon).
Tritium levels indicate migration from the LLW disposal units; highest activ-ities are observed in well WM-0039 adjacent to Trench 8. Well WM-0039 is perforated between 56 and 66 ft below the surface in the lower part of the Barnwell formation, part of Cahill's zone 2. Notably, Cahill (1982) reported that tritium had not yet migrated down to zone 2, in 1979. For the present study, the tritium concentration i, WM-0039, in zone 2, is 2.3E6 pCi/1. The reported tritium level is near ... tietection limit at the upgradient boundary well (WB-0802), and is below detect,on at the downgradient boundary well (WB-0102). Tritium levels are consistent with previous recent measurements (CNSI 1985) indicating that the collected samples are representative of normal groundwater conditions.
In general, shallow groundwater at the Barnwell site is of good quality. Low concentrations at the boundary wells indicate that activities at the adjacent SRP and Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant have not affected groundwater beneath the LLW facility. Concentrations of cations, anions, and metals are similar at all wells. Chromium is detected (at the detection limit) at wells WM-0039 and WM-0074. The split for WM-0039 indicates a somewhat higher concentration that may be due to adjustment of the analytical results for spike recovery (see Ketelle et al. 1985). Lead concentrations are highest at wells WM-0035 (0.005 mg/1) and WM-0G74 (0.006 mg/1). These concentrations indicate minimal effect of waste disposal activities on groundwater quality. Nitrate (NO3 ) is highest at WB-0102 (16 mg/1), the downgradient well, which may reflect fertilizer application. Notably, the next highest nitrate concentration is observed at WM-0802 (9 mg/1), the upgradient well. Sulfide, which is below the detection limit at the upgradient well, is detected in low concentrations at the other wells. The highest manganese concentrations are observed at WM-0035 (0.016 mg/1) and WM-0039 (0.017 mg/1).
The organic indicator parameters TOC and T0X are low and very similar for all sampled wells. As these indicators suggest, very few organic constituents are observed above detection limits (see Appendix B). Chloroform is detected in all samples with the highest concentrations at WM-0039 (14 and 12 pg/1) and WM-0074 (8 pg/1). Tetrachloroethylene is detected in the sample from WM-0074 and in one of two samples from WM-0039. Trichloroethylene is also detected in only one of the two samples from WM-0039. Toluene is not detected in any of the 5 samples. Xylene was not analyzed for because it is not a standard RCRA 35
Table 8 Metals and anion concentrations in Barne11 groundwater samples, 14 May 1985 (from Ketelle et al. 1985)
Units of Well Well Well Well Well Well Well a Parameter Measurement WB-802 WB-802-1 WB-102 WM-0035 WM-0074 WM-0039 WM-0039-l Metals measured by atomic absorption Ag mg/l <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.000g As
<0.001 b <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.056 Ba
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.24 0.072 c Cd 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.003 <0.008f Cr "
<0.001 b <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.022 c c 0.001 0.001 Cu 0.003 <0.01 0.002 0.014 <0.07g Pb 0.001 b 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.001 <0.01 c c <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.014 c Ni "
<0.005 <0.016 <0.005 Se
<0.001 b <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0011 Sb
<0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 Hg
<0.00005 b <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 b Anions i
Br "
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Cl "
3 3 3 2 3 2 2 F
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 C0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HCO 3 3 0 2 3 13 0 5 N0 2
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NO 3 9 9 16 <5 6 <5 <5 50 4
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Cyanide "
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Sulfide "
<0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.02 <0.01 t
Table 9 Cation concentrations in Barnwell groundwater samples, 14 May 85 (from Ketelle et al. 1985)
Units of Well Well Well Well Well Well Well a a WM-0039 WM-0039-l Parameter Measurement WB-802 WB-802-l WB-102 WM-0035 WM-0074 Cations measured by inductive coupled plasma Al mg/l <0.2 b <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 b B
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 c
- Be
<0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 Ca 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.6 4.9 2.4 2.2 c l Co
<0.02 b <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.011 c Fe
<0.03 <0.001 <0.03 0.4- <0.03 <0.03 0.041 Ga
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Hf "
<0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 K
0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 Li "
<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Mg 0.52 0.5 c 1.3 0.13 0.28 0.2 0.19 c w Mn
<0.003 <0.016 0.0072 0.016 0.0063 0.017 0.034 '
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Mo <0.02 Na 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.4 1.8 1.3 1. 6 P
<0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Si "
2.7 2.7 2.8 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.8 Sr <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.015 0.0062 0.0059 Ti "
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
" c V <0.03 <0.007 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.006
" c Zn 0.039 0.041 0.08 0.029 <0.02 0.073 0.095 Zr "
<0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 a
Samples WB-802-1 and WM-0039-1 are duplicate samples obtained for quality assurance analyses.
b Recovery of spike to QA sample was less than 100%, therefore, no sample concentration can be computed.
c Value is computed on the basis of remainder values in excess of 100% spike recovery from QA sample. Refer to section for spike recovery data.
Table 10 Radiological analyses, total org nic carbsn, and total crginic halides of Bsrnwell groundwater samples,14 May 85 (from Ketelle et al.1985)
Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Parameter WB-802 WB-802-1 WB-102 WM-0035 WM-0074 WM-0039 WM-0039-1 Tritium 8101945 11881972 <810 16741999 2.7E411.9E3 2.3E618.1E4 2.3E618.1E4 Gross alpha 0.5112.24 2.1612.97 2.702.971 16.4715.94 2.1613.24 2.1612.7 0.9212.35 Gross beta 1.62 2.7 4.3212.97 <2.712.97 9.4513.51 0.76 2.62 2.712.97 1.6212.7 Cs-137 <13.5 <13.5 <10.8 <10.8 <10.8 <8.1 <10.8 Co-60 <16.2 <13.5 <10.8 <8.1 <10.8 <13.5 <13.5 All values are pCi/L.
Unit of Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Parameter Measurement WM-0035 WM-0039 WM-0039-1" WM-0074 WB-102 WB-802 WB-802-1 8
TOC mg/l 1. 9 0.97 0.91 0.29 0.45 0.24 0.54 T0X pg/l 10 7 7 5 7 7 10 a
Samples WM-0039-1 and WB-802-1 are duplicate samples obtained for QA purposes.
scan constituent. No other organic constituents are observed above detection
, limits. These results indicate that the LLW disposal units have had a very l minor effect on the nonradiological quality of onsite groundwater.
i l The sample from WM-0035 has a hydrocarbon content which might be related to petroleum products (Ketelle et al. 1985; Appendix 8). Two fuel pumps are located about 50 ft to the southwest of WM-0035 and it is possible that fuel leaking from underground storage tanks migrated upgradient to this well due to heterogeneity of the near surface geology. CNSI (1985) indicated that the relative mixture of hydrocarbon components in this well was similar to gasoline (see Appendix E).
Results of a CNSI nonradiological monitoring program at 50 wells during 1982-1983 (see Appendix E) indicate organic chemical contamination at the site.
Table 11 is CNSI's summary of benzene, toluene, xylene, and total volatiles concentrations in samples from onsite wells (CNSI 1985). Toluene and xylene were highest at WM-0035 which, as discussed above, may be contaminated by gasoline. However, these constituents were also detected at several other wells in significant concentrations. Total volatile measurements were high for several onsite wells. Chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, acetone, and isoproponal were detected in elevated con-centrations. Concentrations of individual organics were typically less than 1 mg/l and several constituents were detected in only one or two wells. Organic constituent concentrations were very low at site boundary wells (WB series);
the highest total volatiles was 11 pg/1, composed entirely of toluene. As discussed above, this contamination may be due to petroleum product. However, the reported occurrence of toluene and xylene in several onsite wells does indicate that these constituents have been released to groundwater from the disposal units, whether the source in the waste is petroleum product (absorbed oil, for example) or liquid scintillation media disposed of prior to 1978.
Absence of toluene in samples taken for the present study (Ketelle et al. 1985; Appendix B) may indicate that variability in site hydrology or source release rates causes transient effects in nonradiological groundwater quality.
Groundwater from shallow aquifers is a water supply source in the site vicinity (Law Engineering 1970). Concentrations of nonradiological constituents at water supply wells, particularly those screened in shallow units, could be reviewed to assess whether or not there is a potential health and safety problem. These data were not reviewed for the present study. However, concentrations of indi-vidual organics are very low in onsite wells and are below detection at boundary wells (WB series).
D. Conclusions The following preliminary conclusions are made:
The overall extent of organic chemical contamination of groundwater at the Barnwell LLW facility is low. The highest organic constituent concentra-tion from this study is 14 pg/l for chloroform in a well about 10 ft from a disposal unit. Previous efforts have found no organic chemical concen-trations above 1 mg/l in groundwater.
39
iI L Table 11 Sumary of benzene, toluene, xylene, and total volatiles concentrations (pg/1) in selected wells for CNSI study i (1982-1983)(from CNSI 1985) i
! i Sample Point Benzene Toluene Xylene Total Volatile Organics i WM-0019 8 <1 <1 32 WM-0021 <1 13 <1 30 WM-0022 <1 2 --
92 WM-0032 <1 2 <1 4 i WM-0033 <1 2 2 13 WM-0034 1 7 11 33' WM-0035 <1 70 124 --
1 WM-0037 --
<1 3 1 WM-0039 8 <1 1 100 WM-0041 2 <1 1 8
), WM-0042 <1 <1 <1 6 WM-0043 <1 <1 4 100 WM-0044 3 1 2 60 WM-0045 <1 1 2 22 WM-0046 <1 <1 2 8 WM-0047 <1 <1 2 14 WM-0048 --
1 1 --
WM-0049 -- -- -- --
WM-0050 <1 <1 2 91 l WM-0051 1 <1 <1 5
WM-0057 <1 <1 <1 14 i
WM-0070 <1 1 <1 6 WM-0071 <1 1 <1 4 WM-0072 <1 <1 <1 <1 J
WM-0073 1 2 <1 3 WM-0074 <1 2 <1 26 WM-0075 <1 <1 <1 20 WM-0089 <1 1 <1 40 i
I
}
l l
\
40 1
. _ . .=_ . . . .
l l
The occurrence of organic contamination in five onsite wells follows the j same trend as tritium occurrence: organics (except for hydrocarbons in WM-0035) are detected in 2 wells with elevated tritium levels located adjacent to disposal units. Chromium and lead appear to be at background levels. Based on CNSI (1985) data, toluene and xylene, associated with liquid scintillation media and petroleum products, appear to have migrated from the disposal units to groundwater in the past. Toulene is not detected in the present study. Three common organic solvents, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene are detected at very low con-centrations in groundwater adiacent to waste disposal units.
There is no apparent effect of activities at the adjacent SRP or Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant on the nonradiological quality of shallow groundwater beneath the site.
For future sampling, wells close to disposal units are the only ones
- likely to contain organic chemicals in measurable concentrations.
Only limited data have been collected to assess nonradiological contamination of groundwater at the Barnwell LLW facility. Therefore, these conclusions must be considered preliminary in nature.
l l
l 1
4
)
i f
41 i
- . _ _ =. _ - .-
IV.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Groundwater sampling at low-level radioactive waste disposal sites indicates nonradiological contamination by organic chemicals, primarily organic solvents. At the Sheffield LLW site, organic solvents typical of groundwater contamination associated with municipal, industrial, and hazardous waste 1 disposal are measured in significant concentrations. Three wells exhibit 1,1,1-trichloroethane concentrations over 1 mg/1. Concentrations of several organics exceed EPA's proposed drinking water standards. Hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products were also detected.
- In groundwater samples from the Barnwell site, organic chemical concentrations I are very low. Chloroform is detected in all wells at the Barnwell site in low l concentrations, with a peak of 14 pg/1. Two other organic solvents are
! identified at or below detection limits in two wells adjacent to disposal units. The only other organic chemicals identified above detection limits were semi-volatile constituents associated with petroleum products. In a
- previous study by the facility operator, toluene and xylene were the organic chemicals whose concentrations were highest, although they are not detected in
, samples for the present study. At both these sites, results indicate that organic chemicals are being released by the LLW disposal units.
, Previous samples from trench sumps and onsite wells at two other LLW sites have
- also indicated organic contamination from LLW. In particular, toluene and xylene have been detected, in addition to organic solvents. The xylene con-centration is usually about one order of magnitude lower than the toluene concentration. Concentrations of these constituents typically drop over time l indicating a relatively brief persistence in groundwater. Toluene and xylene are at or below detection limits at Sheffield and Barnwell in the present study.
I An appropriate approach to regulating disposal of potentially hazardous waste mixed with LLW should consider that the groundwater contaminants identified at these sites are primarily organic solvents, and not other components identified i
in BNL's waste generator survey (Bowerman et al.1985) as major mixed waste j streams. For example, lead and chromium have not been detected above background levels at any LLW site.
j The sampling program has also identified important considerations for future
- efforts. Analytical results for volatile organic chemical concentrations are a very sensitive to the sa.npling method. To properly preserve these components, the special teflon baller, with organics vial inside the bailer, should be
, used. Samples from wells closest to the disposal units are likely to contain higher concentrations than LLW site boundary wells, if contamination is present.
1 i
l il 43
]
i REFERENCES l
Bowerman, B.S., C.R. Kempf, D.R. MacKenzie, B. Siskind, and P.L. Piciulo, An analysis of Icw-level wastes: Review of hazardous waste regulations and j identification of radioactive mixed wastes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-4406, 1985.
Cahill, J.M., Hydrology of the low-level radioactive-solid-waste burial site and vicinity near Barnwell, South Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-863, 1982.
Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc., Nonradiological monitoring report [Barnwell], Oct.
82-Feb 83, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management Docket, May 1985.
Clancy, J.J. , D.F. Gray, and 0. I. Oztunali, Database for radioactive waste management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1759, 1981.
Czyscinski, K.S., and A.J. Weiss, Evaluation of isotope migration-land burial.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1862, 1981.
Dayal, R., R.F. Pietrzak, and J. Clinton, Geochemical investigations at Maxey Flats radioactive waste disposal site, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3993, 1984.
Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous waste management system; Ground water testing and monitoring activities, Federal Register, v. 49, No. 191, 38786-38809, October 1, 1984.
Foster, J.B., and J.R. Erickson, Preliminary report of the hydrogeology of a low-level radioactive waste disposal site near Sheffield, Illinois, U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 79-1545, 1980.
Foster, J.B., J.R. Erickson, and R.W. Healy, Hydrogeology of a low-level radioactive-waste disposal site near Sheffield, Illinois, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4125, 1984a.
Foster, J.B. , G. Garklavs, and G.W. Mackey, Geologic and hydrologic data collected 1976-1983 at the Sheffield low-level radioactive waste disposal site and adjacent areas, Sheffield, Illinois, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 83-926, 19840.
Foster, J.B., G. Garklavs, and G.W. Mackey, Hydrogeologic setting east of a low-level radioactive-waste disposal site near Sheffield, Illinois, U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4183, 1984c.
Garklavs, G., and L.G. Toler, Measurement of groundwater velocity using rhodamine WT dye near Sheffield, Illinois, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file report 0F 84-0856, 1985.
45
Garklavs, G. , and R.W. Healy, Ground-water flow and tritium movement at a low-level radioactive-waste disposal site near Sheffield, Illinois, U.S.
Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations report 85-DRAFT,1985.
General Research Corporation, Study of Chemical Toxicity of Low-Level Wastes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1793,1980.
Goode, D.J. , Perspective on groundwater flow at Sheffield, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management Docket, unpublished internal report, working draft dated June 14, 1985.
Herbes, S.E. , and R.B. Clapp, Plan for diagnosing the solvent contamination at the West Valley facility disposal area, unpublished report submitted to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 2416, Draf t October 1984.
Kempf, C.R. , D.R. MacKenzie, and B.S. Bowerman, Management of radioactive mixed wastes in commercial low-level wastes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-4450, 1986.
Ketelle, R.H. , Results of September 1985 ground water sampling and analyses Sheffield, Illinois, Final letter report to M. Halsfield, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management Docket, January 27, 1986.
Ketelle, R.H. , J.T. Kitchings, R.K. Owenby, and J.E. Caton, Results of reconnaissance evaluation of hazardous chemical migration in ground water in the vicinity of two low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities
[Sheffield and Barnwell], Final letter report submitted to M. Haisfield, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Olvision of Waste Management Docket, September 1985.
Kirby, L.J. , (ed.), Radionuclide distributions and migration mechanisms at shallow land burial sites [Maxey Flats], U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3607, 1984.
Law Engineering Testing Company, Report of geologic and hydrologic studies near Snelling, South Carolina, LETCO Job 6605, Atlanta, GA, November 4, 1970.
Lohaus, P.H., and T.C. Johnson, The NRC approach to dealing with hazardous substances in low-level radioactive waste, Transactions American Nuclear Society, 44, 1983.
MacKenzie, D.R. , J.F. Smalley, C.R. Kempf, and R.E. Barletta, Evaluation of the radioactive inventory in, and estimation of isotopic release from, the waste in eight trenches at the Shef field low-level waste burial site, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3865,1985.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft supplement no. 1 to the final environmental statement related to construction and operation of Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant, NUREG-0082 Supp. 1 (Draft), 1976.
l 46
l i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Interim environmental appraisal, Sheffield -
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, Sheffield, Illinois, Unpublished report prepared by Low-level Waste Licensing Branch, Division 7 of Waste Management Docket, 1981. "
t Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental assessment for the Barnwell low-level waste disposal facility, NUREG-0879, 1982.
Reinhard, M., N.L. Goodman, and J.F. Baker, Occurrence and distribution of organic chemicals in two landfill leachate plumes, Environmental Science and Technology, 18(12):953-961, 1984.
j Siple, G.E., Geology and ground water of the Savannah River Plant and i vicinity, South Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1841,
! 113 p., 1967.
Weiss, A.J., and P. Colombo, Evaluation of isotope migration - land burial, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1289, 1980.
j
- Westrick, J.J., J.W. Mello, and R.F. Thomas, The groundwater supply survey, J.
j American Water Works Assoc., 52-59, May 1984.
j Zehner, H.H. , Hydrogeologic investigation of the Maxey Flats radioactive waste i burial site, Fleming County, Kentucky, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file I
- report 83-133, 1983.
1 l 6 i
l, l
I i ,
1 1 i I
l l
l T
I i
i
) 47 4 _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _
l i
i I
i i
1 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SAMPLING PROGRAM i
I l
I
I PRELIMINARY SAMPLING PROGRAM 3 JAN 85 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the disposal of hazardous substances with the exception of source, special nuclear and byproduct materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. Provisions in the regulations promulgated under the two acts have created confusion and uncertainty regarding the roles and responsibilities of NRC and EPA in regulating disposal of potentially hazardous non-radioactive constituents comingled with radioactive wastes. An Ad Hoc Task Group has been addressing this issue since February 1984. WMLU is currently revising a Task Plan which includes assessment of the hazardous non-radioactive component of generated LLW, and evaluation of disposal experience at existing LLW sites.
This preliminary sampling program is a part of the second half of the Task Plan on disposal experience, and has the specific objectives:
Order of magnitude assessment of the migration of hazardous chemical constituents (RCRA)fromLLWtrenchesatSheffieldandBarnwell Provide preliminary data to assess the need and score for a comprehensive sampling program and other activities Provide insight on potential problems prior to comprehensive sampling Assist in optimizing sampling locations and analyses for the comprehensive sampling program.
For both Sheffield and Barnwell, 4 well samples and 1 trench sump sample will be analyzed for non-radioactive hazardous chemical constituents using EPA methodology. This methodology includes a screening method for all RCRA listed (Appendix VIII) organic compounds. The sampling and analysis will be performed by ORNL under an URF0 contract. Dan Goode (WMGT) and Derek Widmayer (WMLU) will oversee the sampling at both sites.
PROPOSED SITES AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS Sheffield, Illinois -
Not receiving waste U.S. Ecology, BNL recently performed trench inventory, site extensively monitored by USGS (100 wells), current USGS contract on site characterization and A-1
migration of tritium, trench 18 sump probably contains water, licensee reports than no significant toluene or xylene found in 9 onsite wells (1984), IEPA identified organics in several wells in trace quantities, hazardous waste site adjacent, unlicensed chemical waste site adjacent, WMLU and WMGT have been involved, NRC license under litigation (J. Shaffner, P.M.).
The proposed sampling locations are (see Figures A-1 and A-2):
- 1. Trench 18 sump, probably has water, near chem waste site, ' worst case' location
- 7. USGS528(523) moderate tritium
- 8. USGS 544 (trench 18) moderate tritium Barnwell, South Carolina - Operating, Chem-Nuclear, about 46% of current U.S. volume, humid coastal plain, many wells onsite, migration of tritium, organics found in a soil core 10 ft from trench, Chem-Nuclear has monitored 86 sampling locations for certain chemical constituents over last 2 i yrs, WMLU expects data (report?) soon (1 month?),
water table within 25 ft of ground, has SNM license from NRC (D. Widmayer, P.M.,
good relationship), Chem-Nuclear has own hydrogeologist, USGS (Cahill) hat studied extensively, and continues to, BNL has sampled for organics.
The proposed sampling locations are (see Figures A-3 and A-4):
- 2. CN-4W, next to 4E, (32-42'), high tritium, migration from trench 8
- 3. CN-4E,neartrench8.(56-66')minortritium
- 4. CN-1W near trench 13. high concs of several constituents
- 5. GS-13, background, upgradient of trenches A-2
l alternates l 6. Trench 5, high tritium, high organic carbon
- 7. CN-2 (shallow), near trench 8, high tritium
- 8. Trench 7, high tritium, beta, and alpha
- 9. CN-1E, (near IW) shallow, 15 mg/l dissolved organic carbon
- 10. CN-5 or 6.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES Sampling will be perfomed by R. Ketelle and one assistant from ORNL; D. Goode will be along for observation. In addition, D. Widmayer will observe at Barnwell site.
Stabilization - Wells will be purged to insure that sample represents ambient groundwater. For high K zones, moniter temperature, pH, E conductivity (flow-through system?) to assess stabilization (about 5 well volumes). For low K zones, pump dry 1 or 2 times, then take sample. Seperate pump for purging and sampling. Purge pump will be supplied onsite by licensee (or USGS,etc.).
Field measurements Temperature pH dissolved oxygen (with meter) specific conductance (meter)
Sampling will be perfomed with double valved teflon bailers or bladder pumps.
Sample will be emptied (minimizing bubbling) into seperate glass or plastic containers with appropriate preservatives for each analysis. Aluminum foil will be placed inside volatiles container covers to prevent vapor transport.
Samples will be placed immediately into cooler. At end of day, cooler will be express mailed to ORNL for analysis.
Sample quantity will be sufficient to perform analyses in triplicate (if necessary) and to perform QA/0C splits, etc.
Samples will be labeled in the field with Lab ID number only, this number will be recorded and correlated with well or trench sump number by ORNL and NRC staff. All procedures will be thoroughly documented (see attached sample form).
1 A-3
CHEMICAL ANALYSES The attached table supplied by ORNL describes the analyses to be performed.
Proposed EPA Method 8600 will be used (FR 49-191:38786-38809, October 1, 1984).
This method provides steps and criteria for screening samples for all listed (appendix VIII) organic constituents. In addition, certain samples will be analyzed for EPA hazardous metals, major cation / anions, TOC, T0X. Specific conductance and pH will be measured in the lab to compare to field values.
Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium will be measured for all samples to correlate to previous monitoring data.
QA/QC Results will be delivered to NRC as letter report, containing documentation of
- all sampling and analysis procedures, numerical results with error bars, QA/QC documentation, including splits, and summary discussion.
i 1
4 A-4
.. o u a- n- n- n- .. u u-
,,..... _ l.eh I" t
- /-
J -
v iso
.n ,
Tos) .
57f d((
n' - '-
r- ~~b~_'j
/
N _m ,.__._--_=__2',
n
__J q W
- e u
= ,, - N=_, . o/-
s sg.
'____z_ g=sN(si 5 .-<
5- --- ,. _3 '"N f m-
,a , a- - - - - - - A 3 - - = = =,= = = = = _= ... Ao/j
" _t -- _ =. 2p=-;:::::r---- ,-_;j P;- ___ys s
~Nn &--*C,--.,, %?s;..P lq./
NNL==: :::__:. e_
n~
%. _ f (d' .
.f<
N --
d w% i
)-
-d[-
e r .,+ -
._ \ \ e-ir
_ Q ___
y s -
l sito i N 760 2
/
f f90 7 30 ,%
u n or Sase free U.S. Seelegical 0 23 400 FtET Survey. 1978 COMT00R litTERVAL 10 FEET CAfuel is SEA LEVEL EIPLAllATION
{- ,---] WASTE.tuRIAL TRINCH GROUNO. WATER DIVIDE $NEFFitLO sift
% .-- . .J ANO DE31 GNAT 10N BOUNOART Figure A-1 Proposed sampling locations at Sheffield LLW site -
close-up (after USGS).
A-5
. - - . _ . _ . . ~ _ _ - - . - - - __ _ .. . .-- .-_
898 47*39' ggo40'52*
35' 30* 26* 20* 15" 10* 05" 89847*00* 66*
4 "* 2 0
- 3 3 *--
I I l l l l l l il - N 13.500
% 'Is ll I,', 569 30*- (_.. . . . .
$) ' k. IO elt NORTHE AST TRIBUT ARY f y pa<
g [-)ln
\ - y ,3,ooo
~(
0 \ 571.
515, 5,14 514 7 pgis , gl. s s 513, 3 % Sitt (36e
- q , ,, g Mine L*** /
t 553 54 36
- . \
'l o INSET A \ '573 M74 l h..518 U 544 [
! .- P,5$ a'2N . 561\ , [s - N12.500 543 ,50s 57 3 k'*C % b* ,,,, y, f511
.. 1 504. 503q: . .02 2 0*-,l' 522* 8,
- 566 ye5 . /
' > 529 507 3 b j 546 54I 528*540
- 42 .
606 l 532, 559 541 526 : 567 ./ INSET A - N12.000 ss2' 524 $27+ .
['
a 510 11 l ' [
$ 531' 530 / % j"l= G8) I 600,.601 M 12.8 e 1 ll SITE BOUNDARY 525 h,h03 g Q 594,
'560-
' EXPLANATION FLUME
- 1 N 576 591* 597e 15'- ',, *
.F 8'*804
'If Il '5965
.. .510 won and numtier / g l 583 581 592* 599* *
(8 I! -f- Horizontes contros datum point _., N N 580)1lhf03 75
,584 5$38 5985 e5955
- N11.500 es ::.: Township roads "a .
e588**M 589 U l lI ,7" 0 578 0 100 290 FEET 6 Surface water semple site / e '
u 88 5 '
lI "565 f 5 M Rs ll 8l - N 12,6 6 0
[ a , ,
10*- ee E 15.2 6 0 [E 18.600 E 15.4 81 y / '! E 14.7 8 9 E 16.000 *
' .~.I/= a1
~
,_ . w.!L .. =nt---- - = m 1_ . . -
- ~ -8~~ -
- ~
~ N11.000
~~~- -
43 02 0
- 0 8 *-. I I I 1 1 I E15.500 E16.000 Ele,500 E 17.00 E 14.000 E 14.600 E15.000 E 13.610 8 se from U.S. Geological Survey.1981 0 200 400 000 800 1000 FEET 4
1 1 I I I I I i i l o 100 200 300 METERS Figure A-2 Proposed sampling locations at Sheffield LLW site (after USGS).
l I
i i Y , _ _ _
1000 FEET SCALE F M7 -
-l ,
g Y $. d Y 4 < 4 -<
CHEM NUCLEAR BUR'lAL SITE % h ~5 E E E l
EXPLANATION 0- 0 B-30 CE.1 WME F
LOCATION OF MULTIPLE WELLS AND RELATIVE I COMPASS POSITIONS Tr.: TRENCH e,
( u _
S.Tr.: SLIT TRENCH '- '
Tr. ag N13 %r, .
%.7 r i
- B-15 rr. i,
%_,,* %.,, 99CN-1
%.y N ,i f ,
B 14 $ %y2W s s. 7, r.
%.s N
\ rr r, ,
4 B
' Tr.
<Q.2g .B-41 S.42.
%.gN N ,'
s tr. 3%. YEW N B-40 WE CN 5 s ' CN-4 WE , g,)
CN 6 Ws CN2WE , gy3 CE-2 WE NN CN 7 WE G5W xmmmmmaxxxxx!waxx a
~~
Figure A-3 Proposed sampling locatior,s at Barnwell LLW site -
close-up (after USGS). ..
A-7
i l
. s _ 'N a .i 6 5-13 EXPLANATION
- C(*1w 6,5 LOCAfteel 0F asULitPLE wtLLS Aest RELATWC compass rossisons
= 01J ut
.rwJ ;
?'
I es otras ce oas.ao asta ser acuss s
___ ' ' ' l = - - - -
t F'1 1 1 f n i l ALLIED GENERAL CHEM-NUCLEAR t NUCLEAR SERVICES BURIAL SITE g z PROPERTY 6,* t t ~ t t a% El _t /
\ T l
+.% 4 t
4 i
+++ 4 ,.= 1 4 4
s
- s,3 s *e l l \
g + t 42 4 \
'o.
+ +,i\ o.a t-
_n . . ..,,
t i \
\
g 4[ _ _
\ {
\
\ a..;
e # #
7
\ ma
/?
//
\
\
i
// g A '
// d u ,. s. k c a
\ { t. ca-,
H N Figure A-4 Proposed sampling locations at Barnwell LLW site (after USGS).
A-8
i Table 1 Parameters, Analytical Methods, and Costs l
Parameter Method Costsa l
Hazardous Metalsb Silver Graphite Furnace AA Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Copper Mercury Cold Vapor AA Lead Graphite Furnace AA Nickel "
Antimony "
Selenium Major Cationsb ,c Inductive Coupled Plasma Major Anionsb ,d Anion Chromatography Total Organic Carbonb Cyanidesb EPA 9010 Sulfidesb EPA 9030 Total Organic Halogenb EPA 9030 Halogenated Volatile Organicse EPA 8010 Non Purgeable Organicse EPA 3560f Total Aromaticse EPA 8610 Total Nitrogen-Phosphoruse EPA 8620 Derivitization Procedurese EPA 8630 Non Halogenated Volatile Organicse EPA 8015 Acrolein, Acrylonitile. Acetonitrilee EPA 8030 a Cost in dollars per sample.
b Analysis for this parameter will be performed on all samples.
c Cationi. included in ICP analysis are included in Table 2.
d Antons included in Anion Chromatography analyses are included in Table 3.
e Analysis required only if indicated in performing 8600 Decision Matrix, cost includes contingency for positive identification of compounds, f
Method 3560 will be performed using an approved variation of Method 3560. i A-9
- a- a + 2 -..w, - a...+ .-- > .,. - e . n na . a +.2. ..- -+-+ . x n.
i f
4-4 6
l
. J g
l b I
i
.le. 6
-) e d-i 4
4 Y
4 1
1 4
1 i
5 4
l 2
t 1L 1
(
l i
l .
a d
4 t
1 e i
I i
- r i
!r I
1 l
A I.
l o
1 I
I
+
I Ir
? l
.) ,
'I I
{
i a
i i
P e
- a +- ar'm w gwu+-w3 1M*DMC'~W*"T**"W"*-'W-*6-'5'NN-r- '9PPWetN W4W+ WPF*1 T F-"M'TT' *"M V7vv'-*T=='"+WW W YN rrf *
- t
.t f
APPENDIX B i
RESULTS OF RECONNAISSANCE EVALUATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL MIGRATION IN GROUND WATER IN THE VICINITY OF TWO LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE' DISPOSAL FACILITIES by R.H. Ketelle, J.T. Kitchings, R.K. Owenby, and J.E. Caton Oak Ridge- National Laboratory l
1
l l
RESULTS OF RECONNAISSANCE EVALUATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL MIGRATION IN GROUND WATER IN THE VICINITY OF TWO LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES R. H. Ketelle Energy Division l
J. T. Kitchings R. K. Owenby Environmental and Occupational Safety Division J. E. Caton Analytical Chemistry Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 September 1985
- 0perated by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., under Contract No.
DE-AC05-840R21400 with the U.S. Department of Energy l
/
CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES ........................... iii EXECUTIVE SUM 1ARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . ............... B- 1 2.0 METHODS ............................ B- 3 2.1 General Field Supling and Seple Preparation Methods . . . B- 3 2.1.1 Supling Method and Field Measurements . . . . . . . B- 3 2.1.2 Suple Preparation Procedures ........... B- 8 2.2 L abor atory An al yt i c al Me t hod s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B- 4 2.2.1 Inorganic Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . B- 4 2.2.2 Radiological Analytical Methods .......... B- 7 2.2.3 Org an i c An al yt i c al Me tho d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . B- 7 2.3 Quality Assurance Measures ................ B-13 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15 3.1 Sheffield Low Level Waste Disposal Site _. . . . . . . . . . B-15 3.1.1 Field Data and Descriptions of Smoling Activities . B-15 3.1.2 Laboratory Analytical Results ........... B-18 Inorganic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-18 Radiological Parameters .............. B-21 Organic Parmeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-21 3.1.3 Quality Assurance Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . B-29 3.1.4 Comparison of Analytical Results to Ground Water Protection Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-33 3.2 Barnwell Low Level Waste Disposal Site .......... B-34 3.2.1 Field Data and Descriptions of Sepling Activities . B-34 3.2.2 Laboratory Analytical Results ........... B-37 Inorganic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-37 Radiological Parameters .............. B-37 Organic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-43 3.2.3 Quality Assurance Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . B-47 3.2.4 Comparison of Analytical Results to Ground Water Protection Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-50
4.0 CONCLUSION
S .......................... B-53 REFERENCES ............................. B-54 i
APPENDIX A: PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . B-55
-1 APPENDIX B: TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC ORGANIC COMP 0UNDS DETECTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-57 B-i
i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Schematic of the Hierarchical Analysis Protocol (HAP) .. B- 9 Figure 2. Location of wells sapled at the Sheffield site ..... B-16 Figure 3. Location of wells sampled at the Barnwell site . . . . . . B-35 l
i B-il
i LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Seple Containers, Preservatives, and Maximum Holding Times ..................... B- 5 Table 2. Inorganic Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B- 6 Table 3. Summary of HAP Methods to Screen for Organic Constituents in Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B- 8 Table 4 Volatile Organic Compounds Detected by the Pentane Extraction Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10 Table 5. Semi-volatile Organic Constituents Detennined by Method 1625 ........ .............. B-ll Table 6. Listing of Classes of Organic Compounds in Various Tables Related to the 8600 Methods .............. B-12 Table 7. Summary of Field Data Recorded During Sanpl'ing at Sheffield, Illinois .................. B-17 Table 8. Results of Inorganic Analyses on Ground Water Sanples from Sheffield, Illinois (1/14-15/85) . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19
, Table 9. Results of Radiological Analyses Performed on Ground Water Samples from Sheffield, Illinois (1/14-15/85) ..... B-22 Table 10. Results of Total Organic Carbon and Total Organic Halides Analyses, Sheffield Water Sanples (1/14-15/85) . . . . . B-23 Table 11. Summary Showing Tables of Organic Compounds May be Present in Sheffield, Illinois Water Sanpbs (1/14-15/85) ... B-24 Table 12. Estimate of Volatiles in Sheffield Water sanples (1/14-15/85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26 Table 13. Seni-Volatile Organic Constituents in the Sheffield, Illinois Sanples (1/14-15/85) ............. B-27 Table 14. Analytical Results and Deviation for EPA Inorganic Control Material, Sheffield Analytical Program . . . . . . . . . B-30 Table 15. Results of Inorganic Quality Control Analyses - Sheffield Anal ytic al Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-31 Table 16. Summary of Field Data Recorded During Sanpling at B arnwell , S . C . ( 5 /14/85 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-36 B-iii
LIST OF TABLES Page Table 17. Results of Inorganic Analyses on Ground Water Samples from Barnwell, S.C. (5/14/85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-38 Table 18. Results of Radiological Analyses of Ground Water from Barnwell , S.C. ( 5/14/85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-41 Table 19. Results of Tetal Organic Carbon and Total Organic Halides Analyses, Barnwell Water Sanples (5/14/85) . . . . . . . B-42 Table 20. Sunnary Showing Which Tables of Organic Conpounds Could not be Eliminated by HAP Screen for Barnwell Water Samples ........................ B-43 Table 21. Volatile Organic Canpounds in Barnwell, South Carolina Sanples (5/14/85) ................... B-44 Table 22. Semi-Volatile Organic Constituents in the Barnwell, South Carolina Sanoles (5/14/85) . . . . . . . . . . . . B-45 Table 23. Analytical Results and Deviation for EPA Inorganic Control Material, Barnwell Analytical Program ..... B-48 Table 24. Results of Inorganic Quality Control Analyses - Barnwell An al ytic al Progr am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-49 Table 25. Extraction Recovery of DIO-Phenanthrene in the Set of Water Sanples Associated with Barnwell . . . . . . . . . B-51 8-iv
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A reconnaissance evaluation of ground water contamination by hazardous substances at two low-level radioactive waste disposal sites; the U.S.
Ecology facility at Sheffield, Illinois, and the Chan-Nuclear facility at Barnwell, South Carolina, was performed for- the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission (fftC). Ground water sampling and analyses were performed by staff of Oak Ridge National Laboratory using procedures recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
At both sites, background wells and wells which have contained varying concentrations of tritiun in previous monitoring activities were sampled.
At the Sheffield site a sample was also obtained from a trench sump, but no trench sumps contained water at the Barnwell site.
Analytical results indicate that tritium is the principal mobile contaminant at both sites. At the Sheffield site, tritiun levels exceed the ;
drinking water limit in two downgradient wells located outside the perimeter l of the disposal site area. At Barnwell, tritium levels exceed the drinking water limit in wells located adjacent to disposal . trenches but do not exceed drinking water limits at a downgradient well located at the site boundary.-
At the Sheffield site, significant concentrations (hundreds to
. thousands of parts per billion) of volatile organic compounds were detected l in all the wells sampled. Identification of the source of volatile
! compounds is beyond the scope of this study. Semi-volatile conpounds
- detected in samples from Sheffield include Di-N-Butyl pthalate, cyclohexene, dioxane, a glycol compound, and an unidentified chlorinated or oxigenated hydroc arbon. At Barnwell, only traces to low concentrations of volatile organic compounds were detected. Aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected in one well at Barnwell . None of the samples from either site showed l concentrations approaching the EPA groundwater protection limits- for EPA listed inorganic metals.
1 1
- B-v i
,-.,,,y.,_v.,_., ,,-.,_,.,,_,.,.,_..,_m.,_,m. , . , , . _ - - . _ , , _ _ , , , _ . , , , . . _ , _ _ , , . - , . - - - , . - - , , , _ . - ,
-u- < - * -A :.s-e, ,w 4Aa u -g 4,h . -a .w u .-ar-,, ,.- < --..e_ ;- ..%< ~ . -
4 4
9 b
1-4 1
I i
t i
j 4
4 4
e t
P I
r I !
'l !
i !
l 6
ll 't 4
1 i.
4 4
4 f
f I
i 1
l J
W-A 8
6 L
1 i
f 4
I i
i l'
i 1
l L
S 5
4 f
I t
i 1'
f i+weav .ww-'er*~-.- - . - ,.-. ., +.-4-=. +we,-.,-.,a-.n'e..-h , v eve r % c m- , , - , , v % e- er--ey,-,-w+ we.. rw--.y-w-smen: - mcw- , . --w,- = ,e---- ,3- --ey-- --q%- - - , - - ,,e -
I RESULTS Oc RECONNAISSANCE EVALUATION OF HAZARD 0US CHEMICAL MIGRATION IN GROUND WATER IN THE VICINITY OF TWO LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the work reported here was to perform a reconnaissance evaluation of hazardous constituent migration fran low level radioactive waste disposal trenches at two sites. Hazardous constituents are defined by and listed in Appendix VIII of the Environmental Protection Agency Resource Conservation and Recovery Regulations (40 CFR 260). The two sites sampled were the U.S. Ecology facility at Sheffield, Illinois, and the Chen-Nuclear f acility at Barnwell, Soutn Carolina. Both sites began operation prior to -
promulgation of the NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 61) for low-level radioactive waste disposal. These two sites were selected for study by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The scope of work performed included:
o Visiting each site to obtain ground water suples fran five wells at each site.
o Placing smples in appropriate containers with apropriate chemical and physical preservatives.
o Maintaining chain of custody documents on each sample.
o Transporting samples fran the site to analytical facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, o Perfonning and reporting the required analyses, o Providing quality assurance measures in the analytical program.
Preferred and alternative wells were selected by the MtC staff on the basis of past monitoring data. Upon arrival at each site, a determination was made as to the feasibility of sampling fran the preferred wells. Factors considered were present physical condition of the wells and the ability of each well to provide sufficient sample quantity within a reasonable recovery time.
D-1
__ . , _ . ..-.. . . = . - - . . - . . - _ . . . .
?
9 l
This report includes a discussion of field and -laboratory methods,
) ~
presentation.of results obtained at each sitel and a discussion of the resul ts .
i a
L 4
i
[
i I
j 9
J I
i i i t
A g i
I f
t >
J 5
I
+
0 B-2
2.0 METHODS
! This section presents descriptions of general smpling procedures and field measurements, sample preparation procedures, analytical techniques, and quality assurance measures utilized in this study.
2.1 FIELD SAMPLING AND SAMPLE PREPARATION ETHODS Field procedures included measurement of water level and total depth of each well, hand bailing to purge the well, hand bailing of samples, and sample preservation and preparation for shipping.
2.1.1 Sampling Method and Field Measurements Upon arrival at each sampled well, an initial water level measurement was made using a conductive probe to indicate the water level in the well.
The total depth of the well was also measured with the probe. The volume of water in the well casing was then computed to indicate the required well purging volume.
At both sites (Sheffield and Barnwell) wells were purged of standing water within the casing by hand bailing. Dedicated bailers were available for all but one well at the Sheffield site and all wells had dedicated bailers at Barnwell. Wells were purged of approximately three casing volumes of water or were bailed dry and allowed to recover prior to s ampling. At the Barnwell site, pH and specific conductance were measured periodically during well purging to evaluate stabilization of these para-meters quality prior to sampling. At the Sheffield site, pH and conductance data were obtained at two of the wells. Due to subfreezing temperatures the other wells were purged as rapidly as possible prior to sampling. Well purging details are reported for specific wells in Section 3.
2.1.2 Sample Preparation Procedures Ground water samples were transferred from the bailer to the appropriate sample containers in the field. Suple container type used, B-3
volume, and preservative are listed in Table 1. Suple containers and preservatives used are in accordance with EPA requirements (40 CFR Part136). 5mples analyzed for dissolved metals were filtered through a 0.45 micron filter at the site, prior to acidification to a pH less than 2 at the Sheffield site. At the Barnwell site, three saples were filtered and acidified in the field and the remaining samples (4) were filtered and acidified within six hours. Likewise, at the Sheffield site, samples for sulfides and cyanides were preserved with soditsn hydroxide at the site and at Barnwell the preservative was added at the end of the day samples were collected. Chain of custody forms were completed for all samples on the day suples were collected and accompanied the samples through transport and analyses. A sample numbering systen was developed which provided anonynity of the sample location while the samples were in the laboratory. All saples were stored on ice fran the time of collection until they wre transferred to refrigerators at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
2.2 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS In this section, inorganic, radiological, and organic analytical methods used in the study are described.
2.2.1 Inorganic Analytical Methods Inorganic parameters analyzed included dissolved metals, anions, sulfide, and cyanide. Table 2 summarizes inorganic parameters, analytical techniques, and EPA designation. The EPA priority pollutant metals (Ag, As, Ba, Cd Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se) were analyzed by graphite furnace atomic absorption using the techniques specified in Table 2. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) was used to measure concentrations of other dissolved metals.
Sulfide and cyanide analyses were performed using the indicated analytical techniques.
B-4
- _ . - . - = _ -
Table 1 Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Maximum Holding Times Maximum Allowable Analysis Container Preservative Holding Time Metals 1-L pa Filter prior to 6 monthsb acidification HNO3 to pH<2 l Cyanide 1-L p Cool 4*C, NaOH to 14 days pH)12 Sulfide 1-L p Cool 4*C, add zinc 7 days acetate plus sodium hydroxide to pH)9 Other Antons 1-L p Cool 4*C 7 days TOC 1-L p and Cool 4*C, hcl to 28 days 40 mL-Gc Ph<2 with teflon-lined septum Gross Alpha 2-L p HNO3 to pH<2 6 months Gross Beta Gamas Tritium 1-L p 3 months Total Nitrogen 2-L G with Cool 4*C, 0.0085 7 days
- Phosphorus teflon cap Na25023 Total Aromataics Non-Purgeable Organics Derivatization Products Volatile 2-40 mL G Cool 4*C, 0.008% 7 days Organics with teflon- Na25023 lined septum Acrolein 2-40 mL G Cool 4*C, pH 4-5 14 days Acrylonitrite with teflon- with HNO3 lined septum l
aPolyethylene bExcept for mercury for which maximum allowable holding time is 28 days.
cGlass l
Source: 40 CFR 136 EPA Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act, Friday, October 26, 1984, Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 20.
B-5
Table 2 Inorganic Analytical Methods Parameter Analytical technique EPA designation Ag GFAA 272.1
.As Hydride 206.3 Ba GFAA 208.2 Cd GFAA 213.2 Cr 218.2 Cu 220.2 Pb 239.2
Be " "
Ca Co "
a "
i Fe .
" =
Ga Hf "
K " "
i Li " "
" a Mg
, m a a i Mo "
Na "
p - =
Si "
Sr "
Tl " "
y a n Zn "
Zr " "
- Br IC Cl F
C03 TA 310.1 HCu3 NO2 IC NO3 SO4 i Cyanide 335.1 Sulfide 376.2 1
Notes: GFAA - Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption ICP - Inductively Coupled Plasma IC - Ion Chromatography TA - Total Alkalinity B-6
l l
2.2.2 Radiological Analytical Methods l
Tritium was determined by counting 2-mL portions of each sample mixed
! with a scintillation cocktail on an automated liquid scintillation counter with automatic quenching correction. Gross alpha and gross beta determina-
! tions were made by evaporating 250 mL of samples on planchets and counting the planchets on an automatic alpha / beta system programmed to correct counting data for self absorption due to solids on the planchets. The gamma-emitting radionuclides (137Cs and 60Co) were determined by counting 900 mL contained in Marinellt beakers on Ge(L1) detectors inter-faced to a multichannel analyzer for data acquisition.
I 2.2.3 Organic Analytical Methods The analyses of these water samples for organic constituents was essentially a two-fold approach. The samples were initially screened by the Hierarchical Analytical Protocol (HAP) as outlined by the U.S. EPA (Ref.
2). This hierarchical approach is essentially a set of screening methods, listed in Table 3, which are applied in the sequence outlined in Figure 1.
The idea behind such a screening approach is that if the sample being analyzed passes the various test points in the screen, specific lists of organic compounds can be considered absent fra the sample. On the other hand, failing to pass the screen at a given test point indicated that organic capounds frm a given class may be present. Such failures require further analytical testing not necessarily specified by the HAP. After completion of the initial screen, samples which failed the HAP screen were further analyzed by EPA Method 1625, (method for semi-volatile priority pollutants Federal Register, October 26,1984) and by a method for volatile organic compoundsL involving pentane extraction and a dual column capillary gas chromatographic separation utilizing both electron capture detection and flame ionization detection. Table 4 lists the priority pollutant volatile compounds which are detected and quantitated by this method along with their detection limits. The semi-volatile compounds detected and quantitated by EPA Method 1625 are listed in Table 5. Table 6 identifies the classes or organic compounds included in the various tables accompanying the HAP.
B-7
Table 3 Summary of HAP Methods to Screen for Organic Constituents in Water EPA Method No. Description Tables Eliminateda 9020 Total Organic Halides 3A,38 8010 Halogenated Volatile Organics 3A 3560 Reversed Phase Cartridge b 8610 Ultraviolet Absorption 4,5,8,9 8620 Total Nitrogen-Phosphorus 6,7 (Specific detection by Gas Chromatography) 8015 Non-halogenated Volatile Organic Constituents 8
8030 Heated Purge and Trap (Acrolein, Acrylonitrile, and Acetonitrile) i
- 8630 Derivitization procedure to b convert compounds to Ultra-violet Absorbers aThe Appendix VIII procedures list 10 different Tables of conpounds.
Tables 3A, 38, 4, . . ., 9 list different classes of Organic Canpounds as indicated in Table 6.
bN o tables are eliminated by this method, it is a sample preparation procedure for other methods.
B-8
Nethod 9020 lHign Method 8010 l
> Halogen. Volat. j T0X l organics i Lowh No / Eliminate f
Aesults . Taele IX l / m t &tecte_
yg g ,,,
/ E;f,n*fx*
- 1. 2. x / -
[AeDort [
/ Aesults ,/
Metnod 3560 Non Polar - Non Purgeable Crganic Compounds Polar Aeverse Phase Cartridoe Extraction V V Metnco 8610 Metnoo 8610 Total Aromat. Fail Total Aromet. Fail W acseccance w ansoreance
,, ass Passy
' Eliminate ' liminate
/TaDieXI Table XI v
Metnoo 8620 Metnod 8620 Total N-P c}- Total N-P (Gas Chromat.) (Gas Chromat.) f P Eliminate Results Passkliminate
/ Table XIII,k/
ass Results Table XIV Fall Fail
? > List Remaining <y Constituents t
~Mh5?iYSi"*c"-
Metnod 8630 Derivitization Proced. Accendix VIII Comounds Metnod 8610 Total Aromat. (Visual Lignt Range) Results > TaleXV XVI
, ign Metnod 8015 Method 8030 Aesults > Eliminate
.ol Xy t
Figure 1. Schematic of the Hierarchical /1alysis Protocol (HAP). B-9 l
i 1 i i Table 4
- Volatile Organic Compounds Determined by the Pentane Extraction Procedure 1
Compound Name NPDES No. - Detection Limit, ug/L l Acrolein 01V 1'O Acrylonitrile 02V 10 Benzene 03V 10 Carbon tetrachloride 06V 10 Chlorobenzene . 07V 10 1,2-dichloroethane 15V 10 1,1,1-trichloroethane 27V 10 1 1,1-dichloroethane 14V 10 t 1,1,2-trichlorcethane 28V 10 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 23V 10 Chloroethane 09V 10 Bis (chloromethyl) ether 04V 10 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether 10V 10 Chloroform 11Y 1 1,2-dichlorobenzene 25 10 1,3-dichlorobenzene 258 10 1,4-dichlorobenzene 278 10 trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 26V 10 1,1-dichloropropane 17V 10 1,3-dichloropropylene 18V 10 Ethyl benzene 19V 10 . Methylene chloride 22V 10 i Methyl chloride 21V 10 , Bromoform 05V 1 Dichlorobromomethane 12V 1 Trichlorofluoromethane 30V 10 Chlorodibromomethane 08V 1 r Tetrachloroethylene 24V 1 Toluene 25V 10 Trichloroethylene 29V 1 l Vinyl chloride 31V 10 1 i i i I i i I i r i l B-10
Table 5 Semi-volatile Organic Constituents Determined by Method 1625 NPDES Detection NPDES Detection Compound Code Limita Compound Code Limita 2-Chlorophenol 1A 10 Fluoranthene 318 10 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2A 10 Fluorene 32B 10 2,4-Dimethylphenol 3A 10 Hexachlorobenzene 33B 10 4,6-Dinitro-0-Cresol 4A 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 348 10 2,4-Dinotrophenol SA 10 Hexachlorocyclo- 35B 10 2-Nitrophenol 6A 10 pentadiene 4-Nitrophenol 7A 10 Hexachloroethane 36B 10 P-Chloro-M-Cresol 8A 10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 378 10 Pentachlorophenol 9A 10 Isophorene 388 Phenol 10A 10 Naphthalene 398 10 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 11A 10 Nitrobenzene 408 10 Acenaphthene IB 10 N-Nitrosodimethyl anine 418 b Acenaphtylene 28 10 N-Nitrosodi-N- 428 b Anthracene 38 10 Propylamine Benzidine 48 10 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 438 b Benzo ( a) anthracene 58 10 Phenanthrene 44B 10 Benzo ( a) pyrene 6B 10 Pyrene 458 10 3,4-Benzofl uoranthene 7B 10 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 468 10 Benzo (ght) Perylene 8B 10 Aldrine IP 10 Benzo (k)fluoranthene 9B 10 -BHC 2P 10 Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) 10B b -BHC 3P 10 Methane -BHC 4P 10 Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) 118 b -BHC SP 10 Ether Chlordane 6P b Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) 128 b 4,4 '-DDT 7P 10 Ether 4,4'-DOE 8P 10 Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) 13B 10 4,4'-000 9P 10 Phthal ate Dieldrin 10P 10 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl 148 b -Endosul f an 11P 10 Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 158 10 -Endosul fan 12P 10 2-Chloronaphthalene 168 10 Endosulfan Sulfate 13P 10 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl 178 b Endrin 14P 10 Ether Endrin Aldehyde 15P b Chrysene 188 10 Heptachlor 16P 10 Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene 198 10 Heptachlor Epoxide 17P 10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 208 10 PCB-1242 18P b 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 21B 10 PCB-1254 19P b 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 228 10 PCB-1221 20P b 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 238 b PCB-1232 21P b Diethyl Phthalate 24B 10 PCB-1248 22P b Dimethyl Phthalate 25B 10 PCB-1260 23P b Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 268 10 PCB-1016 24P b 2,4-Dinitrotol uene 278 10 Toxaphene 25P b 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 28B 10 Di-N-Octyl Phthalate 29B 10 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 308 b (as Azobenzene) aUnits are ppb based on original sample. b - No detection limit has been determined. B-ll
Table 6 Listing of Classes of Organic Compounds in Various Tables Related to the 8600 Methods I l Table 3A: Volatile Halogenated Organics Table 38: Semi-Volatile Halogenated Organics Table 4 : Non-Polar UV Compounds Table 5 : UV Active, Semi Volatile Polar Organics Table 6 : N/P Containing, UV Active Non-Polar Organics i Table 7 : N/P Containing, UV Active Polar Organics Table 8 : Volatiles Derivatized by Method 8630 Table 9 : Non-Volatiles Derivatized by Method 8630 ( 7 B-12 l
i It should be noted here that the Sheffield and Barnwell sanples were treated in a slightly different manner. Initial intent was to follow the HAP as outlined in Figure 1 for the Sheffield sanples. However, as the HAP I progressed it was evident that the Sheffield sanples would fail many of the screening procedures. Upon failing a screening test one would hope to follow with a method that would identify and possibly quantitate the constituents responsible for the failure. However such qualitative and quantitative procedures are not an inherent part of the HAP. Thus only af ter about two weeks were the Sheffield sanples subjected to analysis by the pentane extraction method for volatiles and Method 1625 for semi volatiles. In the case of the Barnwell sanples these methods with their inherent qualitative and quantitative capabilities were applied immediately. 2.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES o In order to provide a check of laboratory accuracy, duplicate sanples were obtained from two wells at each site, spiked with an EPA quality control material, and analyzed. The wells selected for duplicate sanpling and analyses were the background well, a sanple from which was spiked with a low concentration of standard, and the well suspected to be most cont aminated . At the Sheffield site, the trench sump sanple was spiked, and I at the Barnwell site, a sanple from a well adjacent to trenches was spiked. Recovery of the spikes in each case is reported in Section 3. Quality assurance for the organic analytical procedures was essentially three-fold. For the HAP screen a " blind" standard was prepared and submitted for analysis. This " blind" standard contained parathion, fluoranthene, and trichlorophenol and would lead to "f ails" in the screening procedure for the polar extract, (from Method 3560) when tested by Methods 8610 and 8620. In addition the nonpolar extract from Method 3560 should fail Method 8610. Thus this " blind" standard should cause Tables 4, 5, and 7, (listed in the EPA in the HAP) to not be eliminated by the screen. For the quantitative organic analyses two different sets of standards were spiked into the water sanples in the laboratory. Before extraction known anounts of 2-fluorophenol, 2-fluoronaphthalene, and D10-phenanthrene were B-13 J
added to the water. These three compounds served as recovery standards for the extraction. Af ter extraction and before final concentration 08-napthalene, 010-acenaphthalene, 010-Fluorene, 010-anthracene, 012-chrysene, and 012-Benzo (a) pyrene were added to serve as internal standards for the qucntitation. This latter set of six deuterated standards were selected to ensure presence of an internal standard at various retention time intervals throughout the chromatogra during the gas chromatography / mass spectrometry analysis of the semi-volatile extract, (Method 1625). B-14 l
l l l 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results of sampling and analytical activities at Sheffield, Illinois and Barnwell, South Carolina are presented in this section. 3.1 SHEFFIELO LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE The U.S. Ecology Low Level Waste Disposal Facility is located three miles southwest of the town of Sheffield, Illinois. The terrain in the vicinity is gently rolling. At the site, an average of 17 m (55 f t) of glacial deposits overlie Pennsylvanian age shale (Ref.1). 3.1.1 Field Data and Description of Sampling Activities On January 14-15, 1985, saples were obtained from Sheffield. Figure 2 shows the locations of wells sampled in this study. Well T-18 is a trench sump weil, Well 523 is located very near disposal trenches, Wells 563 and 575 are both located in the offsite migration pathway (Ref.1), and Well 574 is used as a background water quality well. Even though Well 574 is located downgradient from the site, it has not shown either tritium or organic contamination in previous monitoring activities. During bailing to purge the stagnant water from the well, Wells 523 and 563 Were bailed dry. Well 523 yielded only enough water to perform the organic analyses. All the other wells yielded sufficient water to enable bailing at least three well volumes prior to sapling. Because previous monitoring ~ data indicate elevated tritium content, water purged from well T-18 was collected in a 55 gallon drun and was poured back into the well after sampling was completed to prevent spread of contamination. Table 7 includes field data recc-ded during the 'Iampling trip. Water levels in wells, total depths, and well diameters were used to compute the volume of water in the well. Specific conductance and pH data were obtained on sanples fran two wells using equipment at the U.S. Ecology onsite lab facility. Temperature data recorded are not reliable ground water temperatures because very low atmospheric temperatures rapidly cooled the B-15
ORNL- DWG 85-44727
.i N43,500 ll*
Y NORTHEAST TRIBUTARYjll[*m,} i / l* \ -N13DOO
- N, . .. f ; /. ,j, ei N
.g l
-~'.' Oi!.*&5N.
- I\ 8T4'P MINE t kd'
,. Tgte . .. ', .*g 's, j l 3 I #574 ./
i
= . ll l : . l K'yAwsgCREEK - w.s TRIBUTd
- j, .. , . .
E 523 3;l * ,,.T I l< i, e I.
-N42,000
,l
- I./
l /
% s .
l SITE BOUNOARY}.jlf. s , , r^,l .
! FEET
) INjli O 200 400 600 800 4000 -Nit,500
' l O THIS WELL PROJECTSAMPLED
- I I i i i i i I'. i i i i ,
fini . OTHER USGS WELLS .I 0 10 0 200 300 i h' g
/ lll l
METERS _ ___es______________________:._______ _ i i i i i y , Nil 000 jl E44,000 Et4,500 E45,000 E456 500 Et6,000 E46,500 Et7,000 l Figure 2. Location of walls sampled at the Sheffield site. 1
Table 7 Summary of Field Data Recorded During Samplirig at Sheffleid, Illinois Well Inforsation Physicochemical Data m Well I.D. Depth Height Vol. of and to Total of Well Water in Bailed Specific-Date Sampled Water Depth Water Col. Dian. Casing . Volume Temperature pH Conductance
'. (galicn) (gallon) .. (F*) (paho/cm) cm b
" Well 563 41.29' 45 "' 5.6' 4" 3.6 2.5 38.4 7.5 -
1/14/85 5.2 38.4 6.45 840.
- . 7.9 38.4 6.47 840 4
Af ter ballig '. ,dions the well balled down to near dry - allowed to recover prior to saapilng Well 575 32.56' 38.66' 6.0'
~
4" 3.9 2.6 38.5 6.45 860 1/14/85 5.2 38.5 6.37 850 7.9 38.4 6.13 850 10.6 38.4 6.15 850 { I" Well 574 9.88' 19.58' 9.7' 4" 6.3 1/15/85 s Balled 60 L 1/14/85 . l - Balled 20 L a.m.1/15/85 prlor to pulling smples
- Well 523~ 30.79' 33.5' 2.8' 5" 1/15/85 4" screen .
- Balled approxleately 1 gal ia.m.1/15/85 well was bailed dry
! Sampled for organics analyses only af ter recovery Well T-18 17.25' 22.42' 5.2' 6" 7.6 . 1/15/85 Balled approxleately 15 gallons prior to sapilng Aote: All ballers used were approximately 1L ballers.
s amples. Conductance and pH data were not obtained from the other wells because of inaccessibility by vehicle due to snow, and all three wells were remote from the laboratory. Battery failure occurred rapidly in field equipment due to low tenperature, precluding use of field meters at the well sites. 3.1.2 Laboratory Analytical Results ;
)
This section presents results of analyses obtained on the sanples from Sheffield, Illinois. Parameters are reported in three groups: inorganic , radiological and organic parameters. Inorganic Parameters Table 8 includes the results of inorganic analyses on sanples obtained from four wells. Single sanples were obtained and analyzed from Wells 563 and 575, and duplicate sanples were collected and analyzed from Wells 574 and T-18. Ground water obtained from Well 574 is presumed to represent the local background graund water quality. Dissolved constituents are predominated by calcium, sodium, magnesium, and bicarbonate with minor sulfate and chloride content. Trace metal concentrations are low. Concentrations of the major dissolved constituents in T-18 are more than twice the levels detected in the background well. Water quality in bblis 563 and 575 is intennediate between the water quality encountered in T-18 and the background condition. The general trend observed for major dissolved constituents and several trace constituents is lowest in Well 574, slightly higher in Well 575, higher in Well 563, and highest in the Trench 18 well. Constituents which show this trend include bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, boron, cadmium, and nickel . Iron content is possibly related to well casing materials and is higher in the steel cased wells than in the PVC cased trench well. Potassium and sodium are highest in the trench well, lower in the background well, and lowest in Wells 563 and 575. B-18
Table 8 Results of Inorganic Analyses on Ground Water Samples from Sheffield, Illinois (1/14-15/85) Paraneter Units Well Well Well Well Trench Trench of 574 574-la 575 563 18 18-la Measurement Metals measured by atomic absorption Ag gg/ml <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 , As 0.002 0.052b 0.005 <0.001 0.003 0.042b Ba 0.30 0.22 0.52 0.22 0.33 0.37 Cd 0.0002 0.0005b 0.0002 0.0004 0.0007 0.0015b Cr 0.002 0.019b <0.002 <0.002 0.003 0.009b o' " Cu 0.011 0.01 0.004 0.005 0.020 0.01 g Pb "
<0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.002 Ni <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.011 0.028 0.046b Se <0.003 0.007b <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.008b Sb <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.007 0.008 Hg <0.00005 0.0004b <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0014b Antons Br <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 C1 13 4 4 19 32 23 F <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 C0 3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HCu3 436 440 563 562 1173 1161 N02 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.9 NO3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 SO4 84 89 295 171 380 390 Cyanide <0.0014 <0.002 <0.0014 <0.0014 0.0016 0.0032 Sulfide "
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 c <0.1 i
i
l Table 8 (Continued) Parameter Units Well Well Well Well Trench Trench of 574 574-la 575 563 18 18-la Measurement Cations measured by inductive coupled plasma Al ug/ml <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.44 0.34 B 0.59 0.74 0.32 2.1 27 27 Be
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Ca 89 88 160 170 240 240 Co
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Fe 0.44 0.4 0.65 0.22 0.28 0.22 Ga
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Hf "
<0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
= K 2.8 2.9 0.8 0.9 120 120 g Li "
<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Mg 47 46 70 69 120 120 Mn 0.17 0.17 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 Mo
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Na 53 52 18 17 190 200 P
<0.3 . <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Si "
9.9 9.7 16 14 11 11
- Sr "
0.7 0.68 0.18 0.19 0.89 0.89 Ti "
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.025 0.022 V
<0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Zn
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.073 0.17 0.18 Zr "
<0.06 <0.05 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 aSamples 574-1 and Trench 18-1 are duplicate sample spilts obtained for quality assurance purposes, bValue reported from a spiked sample with incomplete spike recovery - reported value is a maximum concentration.
cSample was accidentally lost during preparations for shipping. i
Radiological Parameters i l Radiological parameters analyzed on the Sheffield samples included gross alpha activity, gross beta activity, and tritium. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 9. Statistical counting uncertainty is expressed as the plus/minus range. Tritium was detected in Wells 575, 563, and in the trench sump well. Insufficient sample was available for analysis from Well 523. Tritium values obtained from these samples are similar to those reported by the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety from samples obtained in July 1983. Some beta activity was detected in the samples obtained from the trench sump. No other significant beta activity was detected and no significant alpha activity was detected in any of the sampl es. Tritium levels in Well T-18 (3.8E5 pCi/L), Well 563 (1.7E5 pC1/L), and Well 575 (1.5ES pCi/L) are above the 2.0E4 pCi/L primary drinking water limit for tritium. Organic Parameters Total organic carbon (T0C) and total organic halides (T0X) analyses were performed on samples fran all wells. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 10. TOC and T0X show, in general, the same relative concentration trend as tritium and major dissolved constituents previously discussed. Table 11 shows the results obtained for the HAP screen of the Sheffield water samples. It is evident from these results that many classes of compounds were not eliminated. This is quite understandable because the requirements to pass Method 8610, (ultraviolet absorption) specify that the absorbance between 220 nm and 310 nm should not exceed 0.005 when measured relative to the upgradient sample. Many single constituents originally present at concentrations on the order of 1 ppb can give rise to absorbances of this magnitude. The results of the HAP for each of the Sheffield water samples can be suninarized as follows: B-21 ,
-_-__ . . - - . - - - - - - - . - - -- -_ - -.. ..-_ - -_ .- . - . - - - . - - - - . ~~
l l l Table 9 Results of Radiological Analyses Performed on Ground Water Samples from Sheffield, Illinois (1/14-15/85) Parameter Units Well Well Well Well Trench Trench a of 574 574-la 575 563 18 18-la Measurement Gross alpha pCi/l 19+108 2.7+111 81+135 81+135 81+135 39+122 Gross beta 54+125 5.4+119 <108 13.5+127 1.3E3+2.4E2 1.2E3+2.4E2 Tritium "
<810 <810 1.5ES+2.7E3 1.7ES+2.7E3 4.3ES+2.7E4 4.3ES+2.7E4 i
j I i n ) l j
Table 10 Results of Total Organic Carbon and Total Organic Halides Analyses, Shef fleid Water Saples (1/14-15/85) t Unit of Well Well Well Well Trench Trench Well 1 Parmeter Measurement 574 574-la 575 563 18 18-la 523 TOC pg/mi 2.8 1.9 2.9 10 48 43 40 T0X 89/1 3,950 b 3,600 140 11,000 2,250 5,450 aSmples 574-1 and Trench 18-a are duplicate smple splits obtained in the field for Quality Assurance purposes. bSuple bottle broke after receipt at lab dile warming. I I
Table 11 Summary Showing Which Tables of Organic Compounds May Be Present in Sheffield, Illinois Water Sanples (1/14-15/85) Sanple Tables of Organic Canpound 3 38 4 5 6 7 8 9 Well 575 (1636) X X X - - - X X Well 563 (1638) X X X - - - X X Trench 18 (1639) X X X X - X X X
, Trench 18 (1640) X X X X -
X X X Well 523 (1643) X X X - - - X X Well 574 (1637/1641) - X X - - - - X (X) Indicates a table that could not be eliminated. (-) Indicates a table that could be eliminated. t i i i B-24
Well 575. This suple has relatively low organic content with the bulk of this organic content being volatile. There appear to be two major volatile halogenated constituents (Method 8010) and several additional non-halogenated volatile constituents. Well 563. The semi-volatile and non-volatile organic content appears to be low; however, the organic volatiles content (both halogenated and non-l halogenated) appears to be quite high with the chromatograpMc ;: ofiles from l Metheds 8010, 8015, and 8030 all showing several major '.;hromatographic peaks Trench 18. Water samples from this trench showed very high organic content including both volatile and semi-volatile campounds. In the halogenated volatiles profile (Method 8010), there are at least eight major components.- In like manner, the ultraviolet spectrum of the reversed phase extract (Method 8610) showed the highest intensity of any sample. Well 523. This well showed fairly high organic content with both the - volatile methods (8010, 8015, and 8030) and general method (8610) showing positives. Well 574. This was the upgradient sample. Thus, only the volatile results can be compared with the other samples; but in all cases (Methods 8010, 8015, and 8030), this saple showed the lowest response for organic volatile compounds. Because each of these samples failed one or more of the HAP screening tests, the samples were analyzed for both volatiles and semi-volatiles. The pentane extraction method along with Methods 8010, 8015, and 8030 were used i for volatiles and Method 1625 was used for semi-volatiles. A number of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds were tentatively identified in gas chromatograms obtained after completion of the EPA Method 8600 analysis (Appendix B). The accuracy of reported concentrations is questionable because the samples had aged considerably prior to analysis and the analyzed samples were aliquots from bulk suples rather than from valid volatile smple vials. The data in Table 12 represents an estimate based on chromatographic area without regard to individual calibrations. However, this estimation should reflect the relative snounts of volatiles in the Sheffield Samples with Trench 18)Well 523>Well 563)Well 575>Well 574. For the semi volatile organic constituents EPA Method 1625 was followed. Here the suple was prepared by solvent extraction and the analysis was carried out by Gas Chromatography with mass spectrometry detection. The method is B-25
Table 12 Estimate of Volatiles in Sheffield Water Saples (1/14-15/85) Seple Estimated Concentration, ppb Well 575 200 Well 574 170 Well 563 500 Trench 18 1800 Well 523 1450 i B-26 i
designed to identify and quantitate the compounds listed in Table 13 (except those campounds listed under "Other Compounds Detected". As shown in Table 13 only di-N-butylphthalate and several "other compounds" were detected in these saples. It should be pointed out that phthalates are common industrial chemicals and in some situations are almost siquitous. l Thus the content of semi volatile organic campounds in these waters does not appear to be significant. 3.1.3 Quality Assurance Assessment - Sheffield Analytical Progra Measures taken to quantify the analytical accuracy of this study included analysis of an EPA quality control check sample as a blind control, spiking two duplicate sample sets with the same EPA material, and analysis of two internally prepared organic standard samples. Table 14 presents EPA data on the quality control material used including average concentrations, percent error at the 955 (2a) confidence interval, the value obtained by ORNL for the material, and the percent deviation of the ORNL value from the EPA average. The ORNL determinations are well within the 95% confidence interval for all elements except Hg. Analysis of other EPA standards for lower concentrations of Hg were accurate , within 4%, therefore the reliability of the EPA quality control material for Hg is in question. Table 15 presents results of analyses of the two ground water saples which were spiked with the inorganic control. This table shows the analytical recovery of the EPA QC material spiked into natural water saples with a relatively complex chemical composition. In such a situation, the potential exists for chemical effects which lead to -incomplete spike recovery or chemical interference in analyses. The spiked concentrations were above the regulatory limits for the EPA toxic metals and for some analyses, dilutions were required to bring the saple concentrations into the proper range for analysis. The process of sample dilution also introduces error in the final analytical volume. The table includes the value determined on the unspiked duplicate saple and the spike concentration added. For elements dich were detected above the detections limit, the detected value plus spike concentration B-27
Table 13 Sent-volatile Oroante Constituents in the Sheffield. Illinois Samples (1/14-15/85) NPDES Detection Well Trench Compound Code Limita 575 563 523 574 18 2-Chlorophenol 1A 10 2.4-Olchlorophenol 2A 10 2.4-Dimethyl phenol 3A 10 4.6-Otnttro-0-Cresol 4A 10 2.4-Olnotrophenoi SA 10 2-Nitrophenol 6A 10 4-Nitrophenol 7A 10 P-Chloro-N-Cresol 8A 10 Pentachlorophenol 9A 10 Phenol 10A 10 2.4.6-Trichloropheno) 11A 10 Acenaphthene 18 10 Acenaphtylene 28 10 Anthracene 38 10 Bentidine 48 10 3 ento (a)antheacene 58 10 Benzo (alpyrene 68 10 3.4-8entofluoranthene 78 10 Benro(ght) Perylene 88 10 Benzo (k)fluoranthene 98 10 81s(2-Chloroethony) 100 b Methane 81s(2-Chloroisopropyl) 118 b Ether 815(2-Chlorotsopropyl) 128 b Ether Bis (2-Ethylhenyl) 138 10 Phthalate 4-8rcanophenyl Phenyl 148 b Butyl Bentyi Phthalate 158 10 2-Chloronaphthalene 168 10 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl 178 b Ether Chrysene 188 10 Olbento(a.h) Anthracene 198 10 1,2-Olchloronentene 208 10 1.3-Olchlorotenzene 218 10 1,4-Otchloroutnzene 228 10 3.3'-Olchlorobenzidine 238 b Olethyl Phthalate 248 10 Otmethyl Phthalate 258 10 Ot-N-Butyl Phthalate 268 10 >10 >10 >10 >10 10 2.4-Olnttrotoluene 278 10 2.5-Olnitrotoluene 288 10 01-4-Octyl Phthalate 298 10 1,2-Olpheny1hydrazine 308 b (as Aaobenzene) Fluoranthene 318 10 Fluorene . 328 10 Hesachlorobenzene 338 10 Henachlorobutadiene 348 10 B-28
l Table 13(Continued) ' NPOES Detection Well Trench Compound Code t.te t ta $75 563 523 574 18 Henachlorocycle. 358 10 pentadiene Hexachlcrosthane 368 10 Indeno(1,2,3.cd) pyrene 378 10 1sophorene 388 Naphthalene 390 10 Nitrobenzone 408 10 N-41trosedleethyl amine 418 b N.Nitrosedt-N. 428 b Propylamine N.Nitrosodiphenyl mine 438 b Phenanthrone 448 10 Pyrene 458 10 1,2,4-Trtchlorobenzene 448 10 Aldrin IP 10 8HC 2P 10 8HC 3P 10
-BMC 4P 10 8HC SP 10 Chlordana 6P b 4,4'-00T TP 10 4,4'.00E 8P 10 4,4'.000 9P 10 Oteldrin 10P 10 -Endosulfan 117 10 .Endosutfan 12P 10 Endosulfan Sulfate 13P 10 Endrin 14P 10 Endrin Aldehyde 15P b Heptachlor 16P 10 Heptachlor Eposide 17P 10 PCB 1242 ISP b PCB 1254 19P b PC3 1221 20P b PCI-1232 21P b PC8 1244 22P b PC8 1260 23P b PC8 1016 24P b Texaphene 25P b Other Co ocunds Detected Cyclohemene >10 >10 >10 >10 50 l Oloxane >10 >10 >10 >10 50 Glycol uf a nitrogen functfon 0 i
i Hydrocarbon w/C1 and/or 0 0 aUnits are ppt based on ortgtnal suple. Ne entry means that capound was not detected. b . No detection limit has been determined. 0 . Capound detected at concentratton less than 10 pph. B-29
Table 14 Analytical Results and Deviation for EPA Inorganic Control Material Sheffield Analytical Program EPA 95% % Deviation Average Confidence from EPA Element Concentration Interval ORNL Concentration Average ug/ml ug/mi Al 0.745 17% 0.86 +15 As 0.234 22% 0.23 -2 Be 0.232 11% 0.24 +2 Cd 0.0369 16% 0.037 +0.3 Cr 0.258 19% 0.25 -3 Co 0.259 12% 0.26 -0.4 Cu 0.335 10% 0.36 +7 Fe 0.789 12% 0.79 -0.1 Pb 0.430 14% 0.41 -5 Mn 0.346 12% 0.35 +1 Hg 0.00850 30% 0.005 -41 Ni 0.206 14% 0.20 -3 Se 0.0469 33% 0.037 -21 V 0.864 16% 0.84 -3 Zn 0.415 8% 0.44 +6 B-30
Table 15 Results of Inorganic Quality Control Analyses - Sheffleid Analytical Progran Concentrations la og/el narrsa0UIS WELL TREIOl Sisr IELL Unspiked Spiked Ibispiked Spiked Seple Spike Sample Mantoun 1 5 mple spike $mple Manteum 5 Element Concentration Concentration Concentration Error Concentration Concentration Concentration Error EXPECTED RAAGE EXPECTED RAIIE Al <0.2 0.373 (0.573 0.59 +31 - +585 (0.2 0.373 (0.573 0.48 -161 - +291 As 0.002 0.117 0.119 0.17 +431 0.002 0.117 0.119 0.16 +355 Se (0.001 0.116 (0.117 0.14 +205 <0.001 0.116 (0.117 0.12 +31 - +41 Cd (0.009 0.0185 (0.0275 0.022 -205 - +195 (0.000 0.0185 (0.0275 0.021 -241 - +141 Cr 0.031 0.129 0.16 0.18 +135 0.031 0.129 0.16 0.16 m Co <0.02 0.130 (0.15 0.15 0 - +155 (0.02 0.130 <0.15 0.13 -135 - 05 Cu <0.02 0.168 <0.188 0.2 +61 - +205 0.023 0.168 0.191 0.2 +55 Fe 1.4 0.395 1.795 1.8 0.35 <0.03 0.395 (0.425 0.42 +61 Pt (0.2 0.215 <0.415 0.27 -355 - +265 (0.02 0.215 <0.235 0.25 -165 '- +151 sei 0.17 0.173 0.343 0.36 +55 1.1 0.173 1.273 1.2 -61 Ng (0.00005 0.0043 <0.0044 0.004 -1 5 - -M <0.00005 0.0043 <0.0044 0.003 -325 - -35 ut (0.06 0.103 (0.163 0.11 +75 (0.06 0.103 (0.163 0.13 -205 - +135 l Se <0.003 0.0235 (0.0265 0.021 -215 - -115 <0.003 0.0235 <0.0265 0.020 -251 - -151 V (0.03 0.432 <0.462 0.5 +0E - +165 <0.03 0.432 (0.462 0.44 +25 Zn 0.21 0.208 0.418 0.3 -235 0.36 0.20B 0.568 0.49 -lag 1 L_ _ _ _ _ _____._ _ __ _ _ ~ __ . _ - . . . . .
should be detected in the spiked sample. For elements which wre reported below detection limit in the unspiked sample, a range of expected concentration is computed assuming that the true value lies between 0 and the detection limit. The expected range of concentrations in the spiked suple then ranges from the spike concentration (if the true value is 0) to the spike plus detection limit (if the true value is equal to the detection
' %i t) . The maximum percent error is then expressed as a single value for tbse elements detected above detection limits (for example As, Cr, Mn, Zn) and as a range of possible maximun error for elements present at less than the detection limit.
The data in Table 15 show that for most elements, recovery of the spike was good. Recovery of arsenic was consistently high and recovery of mercury was low. EPA standard materials were also analyzed concurrently with these samples and analytical results obtained on those samples were within 5% for arsenic and 4% for mercury indicating that the analytical accuracy on the unspiked samples is very good. The maximun percent error determined from the spike is not unusual ten you are dealing with such low concentrations and does not affect the interpretation of results for the EPA toxic metals because the detected values are at least an order of magnitude below the regulatory limits (Section 3.1.4) . The set of water samples from the Sheffield, Illinois site also contained two blank water sanples which had been spiked with parathion, trichlorophenol, and fluoranthene. For both cases conpounds in Tables 4, 5, and 7 f ailed to pass the HAP screen, which is what one would expect for pure water containing only these three organic constituents. It should be noted here however that the screening procedure to eliminate Tables 8 and 9 did - not appear to be very definitive. This screening procedure consists of sample isolation by Method 3560, derivitization by Method 8630, and screening evaluation by Method 8610. In all cases applying this sequence of methods resulted in yellow solutions with fairly high absorbances. Thus when Method 3560 was applied to these preparations the relative absorbances appeared to be mere a function of the sanple preparation rather than of the original organic content of the sanples. Because two high absorbance values
were being compared, this screening test appears to be of little value. It , is simply a fortuitous event if the upgradient sample has a lower absorbance ! than a contaminated sample because this sample treatment process contributes the bulk of the absorbance to a given sample. Thus this portion of the HAP screen may require extensive modification. The HAP approach was also assessed by duplicate samples. The original set of samples contained two samples from Trench 18. The polar and nonpolar portions of these samples were isolated and screened by Methods 3560 and 8610, respectively. The total integrated spectral areas for both the polar and nonpolar fractions were 0.76 absorbance-nm and 0.69 absorbance-nm. Thus the sample recovery as measured by total ultraviolet absorbance, agreed within aoout 10% between the two samples from Well T-18. 3.1.4 Comparison of Analytical Results to Ground Water Protection Standards The analytical results obtained at the Sheffield site are discussed in comparison to ground water protection requirements developed by the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The RCRA ground water protection standards for eight heavy metals and for pesticides are based on the National Interior Primary Drinking Water Regulation [(NIPOWR) (40 CFR 141)] established under the Clean Water Act. Primary drinking water standards also exist for certain radiological constituents including tritium, gross alpha, and a maximum annual dose fran beta and gamma emitting radionuclides. The primary drinking water standards are tabulated in 1 Appendix A. The EPA regulations regarding organic contamination at hazardous waste disposal sites include defining a conpliance boundary around a disposal facility or unit and comparing upgradient and downgradient concentrations of listed organic constituents (40 CFR 260). Detection of listed organic constituents in the downgradient wells at levels exceeding background indicates failure of the facility to adequately contain those materials. The low level radioactive wste disposal site lies to the east of and downgradient fran a chemical waste disposal site. Interference in monitoring at the LLW site by contaminant migration from the chemical mste l B-33
4 4 j disposal site has not been evaluated, however the potential for such j interference appears to exist. The chemical disposal site could be a source j of inorganic and organic contaminants. The results of analyses perfonned in this reconnaissance study of the Sheffield site show that heavy metal concentrations were at least one order of magnitude below the NIPOWR in all samples analyzed. Tritium concentrations were found to exceed the NIPOWR by approximately an order of l 5 magnitude in the trench well sampled and in Wells 563 and 575, located in a i documentea migration pathway (Ref.1). Grose alpha and beta results l indicate no migration of alpha or beta emittirg radionuclides to the wells i sampled with the exception that the Trench 18 camples contained
; approximately 50 pC1/L beta activity.
l 3.2 BARNWELL LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE The Chem Nuclear low-Level Waste Disposal Facility is located five miles west of the town of Barnwell, South Carolina. The terrain is nearly flat and the site is underlain by a thick sequence of marine sedimentary deposits of Miocene age and older (Ref. 4). 3.2.1 Field Data and Description of Sampling Activities On May 14, 1995, samples were obtained from the Barnwell site. Figure 3 shows the locaticns of the wells sampled. Wells WM-0039, nM-0035, and
- WM-0074, are Ic,cated near low level waste disposal trenches. Well WB-802 is j an upgradient background well . Well WB-102 is located at the downgradient l perimeter fence of the disposal area.
Field data recorded during the sanpling activities are presented in
! Table 16. Water levels in wells, total depths, and well diameters were used l to compute the volume of water in the well . Specific conductance and pH data were recorded during bailing of each well and are reported in Table 16.
j Variation in pH and conductance occurred during well purging; however, the ) variations were typically small. Well WM-0035 contained the least volume of water of any of the wells sampled. This well had partially silted in, l B-34
, _..~. -_.-m - . . - _ . - ._. , -- - - , _ _ - ,_- - -. -, , ._.,_,-...m.--. _ . - . - , -
ORNL-0WG 85-14726 81*28'30" 81*27'30" 33*15'45" 33*15' 45"
- WM-OO39 LOCATION OF WELL q SAMPLED IN THIS STUDY FEET O 500 1000 l l l l 8 O 150 300 g METERS i
' \ ACTIVE \ 1 AREA \
; (1985) '
SITE BOUNDARY I
. r~~~~, l I TRENCH I % I
! AREA I I (1981) l I I
- I 1 i
( WM-OO7jj\e., M I l
/
M-Ob39 N
*WM-OO35
-10 2 i
I k l 33* 14'3Cf 33*14'30" , 81* 27'30" 81*27'30" } Figure 3. Location of wells sampled at the Barnwell site. 4 B-35
Table 16 Summary cf Field Data Recorded During Supling at Barnwell, S.C. (5/14/85) Well Infonmation Physicochemical Data Depth Height Vol. of to Total of Well Water in Salled Specific Salled Spec ific i, Well I.D. Water Depth Water Col. Dim. Casing Volume pH Conductance Volume pH Conductance l (gallon) (gallon) (emho/on) (Continued) (Continued) (Continued) a Well ME-0039 43.7' 64.4* 20.7' 10' a 2* screen 8.6 First ball 5.9 21 20 6.1 24 C' 4*d casing 15 6.1 25 End of 6.1 25 18 6.1 24 sampling Well WM-0035 41.2' 45.6* 4.4' 0 -40 ' *4
- 0.70 First ball 5.6 38 2 5.6 19 40-45.6'*2' 1 5.5 19 3 6.0 nell kB-102 36.8' 44.9' 10.1' 1.9* 1.5 First ball 5.0 41 7 5.1 40 1 5.1 37 Middle of 5.1 39 2 5.0 39 sampilng 3 5.0 39 End of 5.1 39 5 5.0 41 s ampilng 6 5.1 41 hell WM-0074 49.6' 65.0' 15.4' 1.9* 2.3 First ball 5.9 28 5 6.3 37 l 1 5.9 28 6 6.2 38 2 6.0 35 7 6.4 38 3 6.2 38 8 6.3 38 4 6.2 35 Mell us-802 41.0* 61.1* 20.1' 1.9* 3.0 First ball 5.5 26 6 5.6 24 1 5.4 26 7 5.4 26 2 5.4 28 8 5.6 26 3 5.4 29 9 5.6 26 4 5.4 29 End of 5.4 30 5 5.5 28 sampilnt
i l yielded very silty sample water, and required over two hours to sample because of relatively slow recharge and recovery time. All the other sampled wells yielded sufficient water to enable continuous balling to purge wells and obtain the necessary sample voltanes. 3.2.2 Laboratory Analytical Results l This section presents the results of analyses on the samples from Barnwell, SC. Parameters are reported in three groups: inorganic, radiological, and organic. Inorganic Parameters Results of inorganic analyses performed on samples from the Barnwell site are presented in Table 17. The ground water from all wells is low in dissolved constituents. Metals classified by the EPA as toxic are present in low parts per billion concentrations. Anionic constituents are also low, and minor sulfide concentrations were detected. The major dissolved constituents are sodium, calcium, silicon, nitrate and bicarbonate. Silicon concentrations are fairly uniform, and calcium and sodium concentrations vary between the wells. Wells WM-0035 and WM-0074 have slightly higher concentrations of several constituents relative to the other wells. Elements which are slightly elevated in these wells include Cd, Cu, Pb, Fe, and sulfide. The background well has a slightly elevated Zn content relative to most of the other wells, with the exception of Well WM-0039. Nitrate values approach the 10 ppm drinking water limit in the background well and exceed the limit at the downgradient well; however, nitrate values are low from the wells located near the disposal trenches. Radiological Parameters Radiological analyses performed on the Barnwell samples included measurement of gross alpha activity, gross beta activity, tritium, and B-37
_ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ ._.__.~.. _ _. _ ._. _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . - - - _ _ . . . 4 Table 17 l Results of Inorganic Analyses on Ground Water Samples fra Barnwell, South Carolina (5/14/85) j Parameter Units Well Well Well Well Well Well Well of WB-802 W8-802-la WB-102 WM-0035 E 0074 WM-0039 E 0039-la i Measurement
~
j Metals measured by atomic absorption i j Ag ag/ml <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.0002 i
- As (0.001 b <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.056c Ba <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
<0.02 0.24 0.072 i l Cd 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.003 <0.0081c ,
! Cr <0.001 b <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.022C i i" Cu 0.003 <0.01c 0.002 0.014 0.001 0.001 <0.075C ?} g Pb 0.001 b 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.001 <0.01c 1 Ni <0.005 <0.016c <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.014C j Se
<0.001 b <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0011c Sb <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 i Hg <0.00005 b <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 b
) Anions
- k <5 <5 <5 G <5 <5 <5 i C1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 i F <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
] C0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' I 3 ~3 0 2 3 13 0 5
=
N02 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ; NO3 9 9 16 <5 6 <5 <S
! 50s <5 (5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 i Cyanide <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 i Sulfide "
<0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07. 0.02 <0.01 l
i Table 17 (Continued) Parameter Units Well Well Well Well Well Well Well of WB-802 WB-802-la W8-102 W-0035 W-0074 W-0039 WM-0039-la Measurement l Cations measured by inductive coupled plasma l l Al ug/mi <0.2 b <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 b 8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 l 8e <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.008c 1.4 1.3
- Ca 1.1 1.6 4.9 2.4 2.2 Co <0.02 b <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.011c l
Fe <0.03 <0.001 <0.03 0.4 <0.03 <0.03 0.041c Ga <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 a Nf <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 T' K " 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 O Li "
<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Mg 0.52 0.5 1.3 0.13 0.28 0.2 0.19 Mn <0.003 <0.016c 0.0072 0.016 0.0063 0.017 0.034c Mo <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Na 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.6 P
<0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 (0.3 <0.3 <0.3 l Si 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.8 -
Sr <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.015 0.0062 0.0059 Ti "
<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 V <0.03 <0.007 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.006c Zn 0.039 0.041 0.08 0.029 <0.02 0.073 0.095c Zr <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 aSamples WB-802-1 and W-0039-1 are duplicate samples obtained for quality assurance analyses. ;
bRecovery of spike to QA sample was less than 1005, therefore no sample concentration can be computed. ' cValue is computed on the basis of remainder values in excess of 1005 spike recovery from QA sample. Refer to section for spike recovery data. l i
perfomance of a gamma scan. Table 18 presents the results of the radiological analyses. Well WM-0039 contains the highest tritium levels (2.3E6 pCi/L), Well WM-0074 has the second highest (2.6E4 pC1/L), followed by Well WM-0035. Tritium was essentially undetected in the background well and in the downgradient well. Well WM-0035 had minor alpha and beta activity. All other values reported represent detection limit values for the analyses. The tritium levels measured in Wells WM-0039 and WM-0074 are in excess of the 2.0E4 pC1/L primary drinking water standant. Organic Parameters
!, Total organic carbon (TOC) and total organic halogen (T0X) analyses were perfomed on all the water samples. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 19. TOC and T0X are low in all the samples.
Table 20 summarizes the results of the HAP screen for the water samples collected at Barnwell, South Carolina. Here, as for the Sheffield samples, I only a few classes of organic compounds could be eliminated by the screen. The results for the determination of specific volatile and semi-volatile organic constituents in the Barnwell water samples are summarized in Tables 21 and 22. The solvents chloroform, trichloroethylene, and tetrachlorothylene appear to be the only detectable volatile organic constituents. Chloroform was detected in all semples and trichloroethylene and tetrachlorothylene were detected in samples WM-0039, and WM-0074. Only the chlorofonn content in the sample from Well WM-0039, WM-0074, and WM-0039 exceed the detection limits listed (Ref. 4) in Method 624. For the semi-volatile organic constituents only sample, WM-0035, appears to have any significant organic content. This sample appears to have a very significant hydrocarbon content is probably related to petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, etc.). As indicated in footnote X of Table 22 there are numerous organic compounds estimated to be present in the 5-100 ppb range. These compounds are generally common to petroleum products thus indicating that this well may have been exposed to such products. Although these concentrations are 1 certainly significant for organic compounds in water, Method 1625 does not B-40 i
_ _ _ _ .-_____m. ._ _ _ _._.- _.._, _ _ _.--_____ _ _ _ _ .._m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - - . . - - Table 18 l Results of Radlological Analyses of Ground Water Seples from Barnwell, S.C. (5/14/85) Well Well Well h11 kil Well Well Parameter W-802 W-802-1 WB-102 m-0035 M-0074 W -0039 M-0039-1 i
?
m
~
Tritium 810%5 1188+972 <810 16741999 2.7E411.9E3 2.3E6_+8.1E4 2.3E618.1E4 Gross alpha 0.5112.24 2.1612.97 2.702.971 16.4715.94 2.16 +3.24 2.1612.7 0.92 +2. 35 Eross beta 1.62+2.7 4.32+2.97 <2.7+2.97 9.45+3.51 0.7612.62 2.7+2.97 1.62+2.7 Cs-137 <13.5 (13.5 <10.8 (10.8 <10.8 (8.1 <10.8 Co-60 <16.2 <13.5 (10.8 <8.1 <10.8 <13.5 <13.5 All values are pCl/L. s I
l
- Table 19 Results of Total Organic Carbon and Total Organic Halides Analyses, Barnwell Water Samples (5/14/85)
I Unit of Well Well Well Well Well Well Well l Parameter Measurment E 0035 WM-0039 WM-0039-la WM-0074 WB-102 WB-802 W8-802-la i TOC g/ml 1.9 0.97 0.91 0.29 0.45 0.24 0.54 I i T0X g/L 10 7 7 5 7 7 10 .I i 1 aSamples h0039-1 and WB-802-1 are duplicate samples obtained for QA nurposes.
'~ ;
l F i N i -i k i i I. e
l Table 20 Sumary Showing Which Tables of Organic Campounds Could Not Be Eliminated by HAP Screen for , Barnwell Water Saples Sample i Table Nos. 3 3B 4 5 6 7 WM-0039 X X X X - - WM-0035 X Xt X X - X WB-102 X X X - - - WM-0074 X X X X - - WB-802 X tX X X - - WM-0039-1 X X k - - - (X) indicates a table that could not be eliminated. (-) indicates a table that could be eliminated. t l l
}
l f j 1 B-43
Table 21 Volatile Organic Conpounds in Barnwell, South Carolina Samples (5/14/85) Sample Identification Compound NPDES Limit WB-802 WM-39 WM-35 WB-102 WM-74 WB-802 WM-39-1 ID
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 i
Brosofona 05V 1 I Carbon tetrachloride 06V 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <1G <10 <10 Chlorobenzene 07V 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 m 08V <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ) Chlorodibronomethane 1
- 8 12 Chlorofonn 11V 1 1 14 1 1 1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dichlorobronomethane 12V 1 1,2-dichloroethane 15V 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Methylene chloride 22V 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 23V 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 j
Tetrachloroethylene 24V 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 1 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1.1.1-trichloroethane 27V 1,1,2-trichloroethane 28V 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Trichloroethylene 29V 1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 All concentrations are .ug/L. i
i l Table 22 Seet-volattle Organic Constitusats in the Barnwell, touth Carolina imples (5/14/85) Septe ! NP0t3 Detection ! Campound t.te t ta Code 4-802 6 39 4 35 W-102 E 74 W-802 m39 2-Chlorophenol - s 1A 10 2,4-Olchloropheno) ' 2A 10 2,4-01eethylphenol x 34 10 4,6-01n t tro-O-Cresol 4A 10 2,4-Olnetrophonel SA 10 ' 2.N1trophenol 6A . 10 - 4.N1trophonel 7A 10
, P-Chloro-Scrosol SA 10
Pentachlorophenol 9A 10 Phenol 104 10 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 11A 10 Acenaphthone ' 18 10 Acanaphtylene 2s 10 Anthracene 38 10 Senatstne 48 10 Benseg a)anthracone 58 10 Bennot a) pyrene 68 10 3,4-Oenaofluorar,thene 75 10 Sento( at 10 Benso(6h1) Perylene k)flueranthene 98 10 Its(2-Chloroethony) 105 b Methane Bis (2-Chlorotsopropyl) 115 b
. Ether 81s(2-Chloroisopropyl) 128 b Ether Bis (2-Ethylhenyl) 138 s 10 -
Phthalate 4-trosophenyl Pheny) 148 b Buty) Benzyl Phthalate 158 10 - 2-chloronaonthalene 165 10 4-Chlorophecy1 Phenyl 178 b Ether Chryseet 18B 10 Olbento(a,%) Anthracene ISO 10 1,2-Olchlorobenzene 208 10 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 215 10 1,4-01 chlorobenzene 228 10 3,3'-Olchlorobenzidine 238 b Otethyl Phthalate 244 10 Olmethyl Phthalate 258 10 Ot-N Butyl Phthalate 265 10 0 0 0 0 2,4-Dinitroteluene 0 23 0 278 10 s 2,6-01nttrotoluene 28B 10 01-N-Octyl Phthalate 298 10 26 01 65 32 0 1,2-Olphenythydraatne 32 308 b (as Aschenaene) Fluoranthene 315 10 Flucrene 328 10 Hasachlorobenzene 335 10 Hexachlorobutarliene 348 '10 Hesachlorocyclo- 354 10 pentadiene Hexachloroethane 363 10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 378 10 Isophorene 383 Naphthalene 398 10 Nttrobenaene 408 10 5 B-45 s ; 1
Table 22(Continued) Semi-volatile Organic Constituents in the Barnwell, South Carolina Seples Sample NPOES Detection Compound Code Listta WB-802 WM-39 WM-35 WB-102 WM-74 W8-802 WM-39 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 418 b N Nttrosodi-N- 428 b Propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylmaine 438 b Phenanthrone 448 10 Pyrene 458 10 1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene 468 10 Aldrin IP 10
-BHC 2P 10
-8HC 3P 10
-8HC 4P 10
-8HC SP 10 Chlordane 6P b 4,4'-00T 7P 10 4,4'-GDE 8P 10 4,4'-000 9P 10 01eldrin 10P 10
-Endosulfan 11P 10
-Endosulfan 12P 10 Endosulfan Sulfate 13P 10 Endrin 14P 10 Endrin Aldehyde ISP b Heptachlor 16P 10 Heptachlor Epoxide 17P 10 PC8-1242 18P b PC8-1254 19P b PC8-1221 20P b PC8-1232 21P b PC8-1248 22P b PC8-1260 23P b PC8-1016 24P b Toxaphone 25P b Other Comoounds K Cyclohexanol 10 20 20 Cyclohexanone O Sulfur 0 0 0 0 Epoxy Cyclohexane 0 2,2,4-trimethyl penta- 0 1,3-diol at isobutyrate auntts are ppb based on original sample.
K: entry esens that c a pound was not detected. b - No detection limit has been determined. 0 - Campound detected at conce.itration less than 10 ppb. K - Numerous hydrocarbons were detected in the range of 5 to 100 ppb. These included several isomers of trimethyl cy:lohexane, 3-methyl tetracosane, 4-methyl decane, 4 ethyl heptane. and some 40 additional hydrocarbons that could not be copletely identified fra electron impact mass spectra. i 8-46
l include specific calibrations for such campounds. In addition simple electron impact mass spectrometry can not unequivocally identify such compounds because such hydrocarbons have similar fragmentation patterns.
- 3.2.3 Quality Assurance Assessment - Barnwell Analytical Program Measures taken to quantify the analytical accuracy of the Barnwell
- analytical program are similar to those used in the Sheffield analyses. Two duplicate samples were spiked with an EPA quality control material which was
! also analyzed as a blind control sample. An organic standard was prepared i at ORNL and was submitted for analysis along with the Barnwell ground water samples. Table 23 presents EPA data on the. quality control material used including average concentrations, percent error at the 95% confidence interval (2e), the value obtained by ORNL for the material, and the percent deviation of the ORNL value from the EPA average. The ORNL results are within the 95% confidence interval for most elements with the exception of Ni which was determined by atomic absorption. The inductively coupled plasma detennination for the sample was within the 95% confidence interval . Table 24 presents results of analyses of the two spiked ground water i samples. This table shows the analytical redovery of the EPA QC material spiked into natural waste samples with a relatively canplex chemical l composition. In such a situation, the potential exists for chemical effects which lead to incomplete spike recovery or chemical interference in analyses. The spiked concentrations were above the regulatory limits for the EPA toxic metals and for some analyses, dilutions were required to bring the sample concentrations into the proper range for analysis. The process ] of sample dilution also introduces error in the final analytical value. l The table includes the value detennined on the unspiked duplicate sample and the spike concentration added. For elements which were detected above the detections limit, the detected value plus spike concentration should be detected in the spiked sample. For elements which were reported below detection limit in the unspiked sample a range of expected concentration is camputed assuming that the true value lies between 0 and I B-47
Table 23 Analytical Results and Deviation for EPA Inorganic Control Material Barnwell Analytical Program EPA 95% % Deviation Average Confidence from EPA Element Concentration Interval ORNL Concentration Average ug/ml ug/ml Al 0.745 +17% 0.72 -3 As 0.234 +22% 0.26 +11 Be 0.232 111% 0.24 +4 Cd 0.0369 +16% 0.041 +11 Cr 0.258 +19% 0.21 -19 Co 0.259 +12% 0.27 +4 Cu 0.335 +10% 0.34 +2 Fe 0.789 +12% 0.83 +5 Pb 0.430 +14% 0.47 +9 Mn 0.346 +12% 0.37 +7 Hg 0.00850 +30% 0.0061 -28 Ni 0.206 -+14% 0.17 AA -18 AA 0.22 ICP +7 ICP Se 0.0469 +33% 0.046 -2 V 0.864 +16% 0.88 +2 Zn 0.415 +8% 0.45 +8 , B-48 l
Table 24 Results of Inorganic Quality Control Analyses - Barnwell Analytical Program Concentrations in ug/el 8ACKGROUNO WELL WELL NEAR TRENCHES Unspiked Spiked unspiked Spiked Sample Spike Sample Maximum 1 Sample Spike Sample Max huum 1 Element Concentration Concentration Concentration Error Concentration Concentration Concentration Error EXPECTED RANGE EXPECTED RANGE Al <0.2 0.365 <0.565 0.36 -361 <0.2 0.745 <0.945 0.7 -331 As (0.001 0.118 <0.119 0.096 -191 <0.001 0.2 34 <0.235 0.29 +241 - +231 Be <0.001 0.118 <0.119 0.12 +0.81 <0.001 0.232 <0.233 0.24 +41 - +31 Cd 0.004 0.0195 0.235 0.022 -61 0.005 0.0369 0.0419 0.045 +71 Cr (0.001 0.131 <0.132 0.13 -21 <0.001 0.258 <0.259 0 .28 +81 - +91 Co <0.02 0.131 <0.133 0.13 -21 <0.02 0.259 <0.279 0.27 -3K - +41 Cu 0.003 0.170 0.173 0.14 AA -191 0.014 0.335 0. 349 0.41 +181 0.18 ICP +41 Fe (0.03 0.399 <0.429 0.4 -0. 31 <0.03 0.789 <0.819 0.83 +51 Pb 0.001 0.218 0.219 0.19 -131 0.005 0.430 0.435 0.44 +11 Mn <0.003 0.174 <0.177 0.19 +71 - +91 0.017 0.346 0.363 0.38 +51 Hg <0.00005 0.00437 <0.0044 0.0036 -181 <0.00005 0.00850 (0.0086 0.0076 -121 - -lit Ni <0.005 0.104 <0.109 0.12 +101 - +151 <0.005 0.206 <0.211 0.18 AA -151 - -131 0.22 ICP +41 ICP Se <0.001 0.0251 <0.0261 0.021 -161 - -201 <0.001 0.0469 (0.0479 0.048 + 2K - +0. 21 V <0.03 0.423 <0.426 0.43 +0.91 - +21 (0.03 0.864 <0.894 0.87 +0. 71 Zn 0.039 0.209 0.248'. 0.25 +0.81 0.073 0.415 0.4880 0.51 +51
the detection limit. The expected range of concentration in the spiked ssple then ranges from the spike concentration (if the true value is 0) to the spike plus detection limit (if the true value is equal to the detection limit). The maximum percent error is then expressed as a single value for those elements detected above detection limits (for example Cd, Cr, Pb, and i Za) and as a range of possible maximun error for elements present at less l than the detection limit. The data in Table 24 show that for most elements, recovery of the spike was good. Recovery of arsenic, copper, nickel, lead, and seleniun was variable between the two spikes. Mercury recovery was low and was consistent with the low recovery obtained in the EPA QC material analyzed as a blind sample. Analysis of EPA standards concurrently with these saples provided results accurate within 5 percent for Cu, Ni, Pb, Cr, and Hg and within 10% for As and Se. Therefore, we conclude that the difficulty with spike recovery is related to chemical interactions with the sample water or to errors in performance of dilution. The maximum percent error determined fran spike recovery has no effect on interpretation of results on the unspiked samples because all detected values for the EPA toxic metals were at least an order of magnitude below the primary drinking water standard (Section 3.2.4). Table 25 summarizes the recovery of D10-phenanthrene for the extraction of nine different samples associated with the analysis of the water saples from Barnwell. These recovery values were used to adjust any final quantitative evaluations of the semi-volatile constituents. In brief, these recoveries are quite consistent for real suples and conpare favorably with recovery ranges shown for EPA Methods (Ref. 3). 3.2.4 Comparison of Analytical Results to Ground Water Protection Standards The results of analyses performed in this reconnaissance study of the Barnwell site show that heavy metal concentrations were at least one order of magnitude below the National Interior Primary Drinking Water Standard (POWS) in all smples analyzed. Tritium was two orders of magnitude higher B-50
Table 25 Extraction Recovery of D10-Phenanthrene in the Set of Water Suples Associated with Barnwell Suple Recovery WB-802-1 (upgradient) 86% WM-0039 86% WM-0035 81% WB-102 76% WM-0074 79% WB-802 52% WM-0039-1 76% 801 (blank with spike) 100% 901 (blank with spike) 100% I B-51 l
l l 1 than the POWS in Well WM-0039 and was about 23% higher than the POWS in Well WM-0074. Both of these wells are located adjacent to disposal trenches. Well WM-0035 contained approximately 16+6 pCi/L alpha activity and approximately 10+4 pCi/L beta activity. No other wells had significant radiological constituents. The organic analytical program detected very low concentrations of only a few compounds in the Barnwell water samples. Traces to low concentrations of chloroform were detected in water sanples from all wells. Traces of dichlorobromomethane and trichloroethylene were detected in one sanple from Well WM-0039. Traces of tetrachloroethylene were detected in sanples from WM-0039 and WM-0074. The sample fran Well WM-0035 contained aliphatic hydrocarbons. Tritium was the principal mobile constituent detected in ground water in this study. e-B-52
i
4.0 CONCLUSION
S This reconnaissance study was undertaken to determine the extent of l migration of EPA listed hazardous substances (RCRA Appendix VIII) from low level radioactive waste disposal trenches at Sheffield, Illinois, and Barnwell, South Carolina. At both sites, tritium appears to be the principal mobile constituent. At the Barnwell site, the results of inorganic and organic analyses showed only traces to very low concentrations of listed compounds in ground water adjacent to disposal trenches. At the Sheffield site, volatile organic compounds were detected at elevated concentrations (hundreds to thousands of parts per billion) in all the samples. Tritium was detected at levels above the primary drinking water standard in two wells downgradient of the site. Inorganic parameters were well below the drinking water and RCRA ground water protection limits (40 CFR 264). The detection of volatile organic compounds in downgradient wells at Sheffield, and the apparent correlation between tritium and volatile organic compounds suggests a common source of both. The proximity of the Chemical Waste Disposal site to the low-level site raises questions regarding the source of organics. Determination of the potential for migration of organic compounds fran the Chemical Waste Disposal Site through the low-level waste site is beyond the scope of this reconnaissance study. l 1 B-53
REFERENCES
- 1. Foster, J. B., J. R. Erickson, and R. W. Healy. 1984. Hydrogeology of a low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site near Sheffield, Illinois.
U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigation Report 83-4123.
- 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA). Proposed Sampling and Analytical Methodologies for Addition to Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical / Chemical Nkthods, NTIS PB85-103026.
- 3. Federal Register, Vol . 49, No. 209, October 26, 1984. pp. 43234-43442.
4 U.S. NRC,1982, Environmental Assessment for the Barnwell Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility. NUREG-0879. B-54
I APPENDIX A i PRIMARY ORINKING WATER STANDARDS 1 B-55
Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs) Established Under the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) Contaminant MCL Arsenic (mg/L) 0.05 Barium (mg/L) 1 Cadmium (mg/L) 0.010 Chromium (mg/L) 0.05 Lead (mg/L) 0.05 Mercury (mg/L) 0.002 Nitrate-N(mg/L) 10 Selenium (mg/L) 0.01 Silver (mg/L) 0.05 Fluoride (mg/L) 1.4-2.4a Endrin (mg/L) 0.0002 Lindane (mg/L) 0.004 Methoxychlor (mg/L) 0.1 Toxaphene (mg/L) 0.005 2,4-0(mg/L) 0.1 2,4,5-TP Silvex (mg/L) 0.01 , Total trihalomethanes (mg/L) 0.10 Colifonn bacteria d Combined radium-226 and radium-228 (pCi/L) 5 Gross alpha particle activity including Ra but excluding U and Rn (pCi/LO 15 Man-made beta- and photon-emitting radio-nuclides -- dose-rate limit to whole body or any organ of 4 mrem /y; a few nuclide-specific concentration limits (pCi/L) associated with the dose-rate limit are given below H-3 20,000 Co-60 100 S r-90 8 I-131 3 Cs-137 200 a0epending on annual average maximum daily average air temperature. B-56 I
APPENDIX B TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED B-57
l TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC ORGANIC COMP 0UNDS DETECTED In a preliminary transmittal several compounds were listed in a table (copy attached) with their estimated concentrations. This list of compounds included several volatile compounds [ trichloromethane, trichloroethane, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene], and semi-volatile compounds [cyclohexene, dioxane, some compounds related to cvclohexene at very low levels, and two major (greater than 10 ppb) cmponents described as an unknown glycol with a nitrogen ... and a hydrocarbon with a chlorine and/or an oxygen function]. As indicated in the table of the preliminary report, all the concentrations "... were estimated from ... Various gas chromatograms generated by the application of the Appendix VIII Methods ..." At that time identifications were based on a single Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry run of a single cabined acid and base-neutral extract from Trench 18. (See Footnote (a) of attached table.) Initially, only the Appendix VIII screening methods had been planned for these water suples. However, the results fra the screen indicated that there was a definite organic content in the water with concentrations which varied over the site. Thus it was decided to perform a more thorough analysis on these samples following the EPA 600 methods dich start with a much larger water saple and are designed for the analysis of specific cmponents. Specifically, EPA Method 1625 was carried out resulting in Table 13 of the final report. This method covers some eighty semi-volatiles listed in Table 5 of the final report. In addition, this method was expanded to identify and estimate the major constituents not listed in Table 5, ("Other Capounds Detected" listed in Table 13). Results from Method 1625 should be considered more reliable than the estimate presented in the preliminary report. However as specified in Table 13, these results are for semi-volatile organic compounds only. Volatile results for these samples should be regarded as minimun concentrations for two reasons: (1) the sample had aged before it was decided to apply the more specific (quantitative rather than screening) methods and (2) volatile samples were aliquots fra bulk samples rather than B-58
l aliquots from sealed volatile sample vials. Thus it is quite likely that any data for true volatiles (volatile compounds not soluble in water such as chlorofonn, perchloroethylene and trichloroethane) would be low because of losses due to sample aging, etc. Thus no volatiles were reported in the-final report. I i l l l a i 1 1 4 B-59
, Organic Contenta of Water Sanples from Sheffield, Illinois Canponent Sanple Origin Well No. Trench 18 523 563 574 575 4 } Trichloromethane 15 <1 <1 nd nd Trichloroethane 1 1 <1 nd nd Benzene ? <1 nd nd nd nd Cyclohexene >15 >10 >5 nd X Trichloroethylene ? I <1 <1 nd nd Dioxane >15 11 5 nd 3 Perchloroethylene 11 4 1 nd nd Cyclohexene Oxide 1 <1 <<1 nd nd Cyclohexenol <1 <<1 nd nd nd Unknown - Glycol with X X X nd nd Nitrogen function (M.W. 91)? D Methyl cyclohexene ? X X nd nd nd Unknown - chlorinated X X nd nd X 0xygenated hydrocarbon (M.W. 249)? b aQuantites listed in Table have units of parts-per-billion (ppb). Entries marked with an X indicate that the compound was detected but not nd indicates not detected. Quantities were estimated from quantitated; chromatographTc areas of the various gas chromatograns generated by the i application of the Appendix VIII methods (8010, 8015, 8030, and 8620). Identifications are based on a GC/MS study of the combined acid and base-neutral extracts of the water with highest organic content (Trench
- 18).
bThese conpounds can not be tentatively identified from their mass spectra; however, based on the intensity of their peaks in the chromatogram, both are major organic constituents. Therefore, they are listed along with their apparent molecular weight. l B-60
I 1
)
APPENDIX C RESULTS OF SEPTEMBER 1985 GROUND WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES : SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS by R.H. Ketelle Oak Ridge National Laboratory I
RESULTS OF SEPTEMBER 1985 GROUND WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES- , SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS l l R. H. Ketelle Energy Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 January 1986
*0perated by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., under Contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400 with the U.S. Department of Energy B occeptence of this ort 4-oc{p t oc ed the e $1 cfusi royetty-tree license in end
'"'"S i* 4"IriiW.'.S"' '
CONTENTS Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C- 1 2.0 F IELD PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C- 1 3.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C--3 3.1 Inorganic, Screening Organic, and Tritium Analyses . . . . .C- 3 3.2 Organic Analyses ......................C-5 3.3 Results of Method 8600 Screening Analyses . . . . . . . . . .C-10 3.4 Results of Quality Assurance Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . .C-10 4.0
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-15 5.0 COMPARIS0N OF JANUARY AND SEPTEMBER 1985 WATER ANALYSES . . . . .C-16 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-18 ATTACHMENT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-19 C-1
1 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Results of Water Analyses, Shef field, Illinois LLWD Site . . . . C- 4 2 Volatile Organic Compounds Determined According to EPA , Method 624 . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C- 6 4 3 Semivolatile Organic Compounds Detected by EPA Method 625 . . . C- 7 ', 4 Appropriate Concentrations of Other Semivolatile Compounds . . . C- 9 5 Summary Showing Which Tables of Organic Compounds Could Not be Eliminated by HAP Screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-ll
! 6 Results of QA Analyses of Samples Spiked With Metals . . . . . . C-12 7 Recovery of Organic QA Spikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14 8 Recovery Factors for Deuterated Semivolatile' Standard Spikes . . C-14 4
i i l l 2 I J i i l C-il l
- , . . . _ . . _ . _ . _ ~ - . - - - . . - . . _ ~ , _ - _ . . - . - - _ - - -- ._. - _
{ LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Locations of wells sampled at Shef field, Illinois . . . . . . . . C-2 l l s b b 4 t 4 O C-lii
I RESULTS OF SEPTEMBER 1985 GROUND WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES l SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 In September 1985, personnel from Oak Ridge National Laboratory obtained 6 suite of ground water samples for the U.S. Nuclect Regulatory Cconission (NRC) from the U.S. Ecology Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal l (LLWD) Site. Saroples were collected from seven monitoring wells located within and adjacent to ttie LLkD site. The purpose of the project is to ( investigate the presence and migration of non-radiological cont &minants in the vicinity of the LLWD site. This study is a fol10t up to work performed .
&nd repor(ed previnusiy (Ref.1). Parameters included in the analytical program include dissGived metals, anions, total organic carbon, total organic r.alogen, tritium, and crganic campounds including volatile and extractable compounds. The nrganic analyses included performance of the Method 3600 screening analyses as uell as EPA Methods 624 and 625. The analytical procedores used in this study aPG t.he same as th'ase used pre-viously (Ref.1) and that report jncludet, discussigns of analytical pf oto- -
- ole.
Tne locations of wells sa nplett in January cnd September 1985 are shown or Figure L. The September scnpling mclyded all numbered wells except T. '.8 . 2.0 FifLD PROCEDURES . Wells were purgad and sampled by hard tailing, tiells with suffictent ; yield were purged cf stagnant water by bailing a mininum cf approximately ' three well volm.es prior to sampling. Three walls (150, 523, 534) yielded water sinuly enough to permit purging by hailing to dryness. These wells were batled dry and allowed to recover prior to Sampling. Physicochemical parameters includng temperature., pH, specific conductance and dissolved oxygen were measured and recorded periodically during bailing. Tne oxidatico-reduction potential (reacx potent $al) was measured in the lab immediately after sampling. Well information and physicochemical data are tabulated for each well in the field datJ logs in Attachment 1. C-1 l
i , t l ! ORNL- Dws a5-64727R NG,500
\
s, .
! ll ll
\ Bl k
j NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY )/jj! ~.* (
, se St6 -
f \. -N13DOO
- N. * **
*f TI ojl 'g i 'd 534 Oi,.*&5N,f%'\, .
srRip MINE L
;gO r _7f - , ,
j
, # 5e3
) 4 i
,
- li' K -
#574 ./
i , i -N12*500
! i t p,AWS,0N CREEK TRIBUTd.f l *. .lil *
- q
~*y s l
lg , . . ' ' *
- 523
. . s'
! I't
- f
.A./
? l s* .
.il n /
l
'n * .
N i . # . , l / -N12,000 i j SITE BOUNDARY) N
\ l .J'/
, l e WELL SAMPLED IN ( EET I 0 200 400 600 800 4000 -Nii,500 I
THIS PROJECT / lel i I I I I I l', I' i i 3 i
- ii . OTHER USGS WELLS .I ll O 10 0 200 300 jf
)
ll METERS
,e
' r __________________-/--.--.___====____..:t N11,000 E14,000 E14,500 E45,000 E15,500 E16,000 E16,500 E17,000 1 i Fi g . 1. Locations of wells sampled at Shef field, Illinois. I
Samples were obtained using bailers and were transferred into appro- l priate containers with preservatives and stored on ice or refrigerated from l the time of collection to the time of analysis. Samples collected for the analysis of dissolved metals were filtered through 0.45 micron Millipore l filter paper prior to acidification to pH <2 with nitric acid. Samples for volatile organic constituent analyses were collected using a teflon, closed top bailer, on wells 150, 516, 563, 574, and 575. Water levels in Wells 523 and 534 were too low for use of the closed top bailer, consequently a stain-less steel bailer with a teflon check valve was used to collect these sam-ples. 3.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSES 3.1 Inorganic, Screening Organic, and Tritium Analyses Analytical results obtained for inorganic parameters, screening level organic parameters, and tritium are included in Table 1. Comparison of results obtained for inorganic parameters and tritium between the September 1985 sampling program and the January 1985 sampling indicates that only minor variations in parameter concentrations were detected between the two data sets. Total organic carbon (TOC) and total organic halogen (T0X) analyses were performed on the samples and are reported in Table 1. TOC results appear reasonable, however, the T0X values are extremely high and are regarded as unreliable for these samples. The T0X values reported do not show proportionality with TOC or other organic analytical results for the samples. Instrument error has been eliminated as a cause of the high values since instrument calibration was checked between samples and blanks were analyzed between samples to ensure proper instrument operation. The high T0X values are attributed to an unidentified source of interference within the samples. 1 C-3
Table 1 RESULT 5 7 WATER ANALY5(Sa
$wtFFIELO, ILL14015 LLWI $1T!
Parameter hell 523 Well 563 mell 57a well 575 well 150 W11534 well 516 Metals Ag (0.0002b (0.05 (0.00026 (0.05 (0.0002# (0.00026 (0.00020 Al (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 <0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 As (0.0034 (0.10 0.002C (0.10 0.017C 0.002C (0.00ZD 8 5.9 2.1 0.44 0.45 (0.08 0.12 (0.08 Ba <0.1D 0.12 (0.lb O.20 0.379 <0.1# (0.1% 5e (0.002 <0.002 (0.002 (0.002 (0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Ca 170 190 110 190 120 52 110 Cd <0.0001% (0.005 0.000th <0.005 <0.00038 0.0001% 0.000lb Ca <0.01 <0.01 (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 Cr <0.009b C.04 0.004b (0.04 0.006b o,coje 0.006% Ce (0.02 <L 02 0.005# <0.02 0.006# 0.007# 0.0010 Fe 3.4 C.44 1.1 5.2 0.17 0.40 0.55 Ga (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 <0.30 Mg (0.00005 d (0.00005 d (0.00005 (0.00005 <0.00005 K 3.3 0.8 3.0 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.9 Lt (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 (0.20 mg 140 55 39 57 37 25 40 Mn 0.39 1.9 0.14 1.7 0.46 0.095 0.15 Ms (0.04 <3.04 (0.04 (0.04 <0.04 <0.04 (0.04 na 41 13 37 14 8.9 9.4 10 44 (0.01% <0.06 <0.01b <0.06 (0.0lb (0.01b <0.016 P (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 (0.30 Pb (0.007b <0.20 0.0036 <0.20 0.006% 0.004b 0.004b
$b <0.005S (0.20 (0.0058 (0.20 (0.005D <0.005 (0.005b 5e (0.005C <0.20 <0.005C (0.20 (0.005 (0.005C (0.005C +
54 8.1 10 8.2 13 8.0 2.2 10
$r 0.18 0.056 0.60 0.0a8 0.23 0.088 0.046 11 (0.02 (0.02 <0.02 (0.02 <0.02 (0.02 <0.02 V 0.071 0.071 0.062 0.065 0.061 0.036 0.063 2n 0.03 0.032 (0.02 0.038 0.034 (0.02 (0.02 2r <0.02 (0.02 (0.02 (0.02 (0.02 (0.02 (0.02 Antons Br (5 (5 <5 (5 (5 <5 (5 C1 23 19 4 12 1 4 17 C0j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1134 572 438 548 456 226 386 MW)(eg /L)
F <1 <1 <1 (1 <1 (1 (1 M02 (5 (5 (5 <5 (5 (5 <5 NO3 (5 5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 PO4 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 504 120 150 69 180 16 a6 53 Other TOC 33 29 5.3 7.3 4.6 4.1 3.6 TC1%g/L 6.0 a 105 1.5 a 105 g,g a gg5 1.9 a 105 2.9 a 105 1.6 a 105 g,3 394 Tritius ca,g a go2 <8.1 a 102 (8.1 a 102 <g.1 a 102 pct /L 4.32 a tjl + 2.7 a 10 1.92aIg5. 2.7 a 10 g,73 , gg5 2.7 a 10 agit co,centrattens are og/e1 unless otherwise indicated. beetals analyzed by grachtte furnace atonte absorption. Other metals wre analyzed by ICP. carsenic and setenten wre analyred by the metal hydet4e method. duercury emelyses are not performed on these samples.
' TOR values are uprealistically htgh.
C-4
3.2 Organic Analyses The organic analytical program included. analyses by EPA Methods 624,
- and 625 for detection and identification of volatile and extractable com-pounds. Volatile compounds identified and concentrations present are listed in Table 2. Very high concentrations of EPA listed volatile compounds were detected in four of the seven wells sampled. The suite of volatile com-pounds detected was fairly consistent in three of the wells which contained high concentrations. Wells 523, 563, and 575 contained very high concentra-tions of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The concentrations present exceed the instrument calibration range and are reported in Table 2 a; being greater than 1,000 ppb. Estimated actual concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in these wells are 12 ppm in well 523, 3.2 ppm in well 563 and 2.5 ppm in well 575. Well 516 contained a similar suite of compounds but in different pro-portions, with tetrachloroethylene predominating at an estimated concentra-tion of 1.4 ppm. Well 523, located adjacent to a trench has the highest concentration of volatiles. Wells 563 and 575, located in the seepage plume pathway have a similar assemblage of volatile compounds as those found in Well 523 but in slightly lower concentrations. Well 574, the background well, contains only trace concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and methylene chloride. Very low concentrations of volatiles were detected in Wells 150 and 534. Well 516 had high concentrations of volatiles which are attributed to an undocumented chemical waste disposal near that well prior to operation of the Chemical Waste Disposal Site.
Extractable organic compounds detected and reported by EPA Method 625 are listed in Table 3. Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in several samples and petroleum derived hydrocarbons were detected in five of the seven well sar0ples. Table 4 lists other semi volatile compounds detailed but not included in the required reporting list of EPA Method 625. These compounds include petroleum fuel compounds and petroleum solvent derived compounds (cyclohexene related compounds), and oil and grease type hydro-carbons as well as sulfur, and a high molecular weight oxygenated hydro-carbon which was detected in well 575. C-5
. . - - = _ - - .-
4 Table 2 Volatile Organic Compounds Detennined According to. EPA Method 624a Well No. NPDES Compound ID 523 563 574b 575 150 534 516 Trans 1,3-dichloropropene 3 <1 Benzene 4 3 <1 <1 85 Chlorobenzene 7 <1 <1 1,1,2-trichl oroethane 14 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 15 <1
~
1,2-dichloropropane 32 4 4 Cis 1,3-dichloropropene 33 <1
~~
i Bromofonn 47 Bromodichloromethane 48 Dibromochloromethane 51 [ Tetrachloroethylene 85 14 110 >1000c Tol uene 86 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trichloroethylene 87 3 10 <1 22 Carbon Tetrachloride 6 <1 6 1,2-dichloroethane ' 10 2 - 21 9 2 1,1,1-trichloroethane 11 >>1000c >1gooc 6 >1000c 6 '6 1,1-dichloroethane - 13 320 89 117 <1 Chloroform 23 _ 209 10 2 <1 175 1,1-dichloroethylene 29 ' 6 5 1,2-dichloroethyl ene 30 2 1 <1 (1 2 Methylene Chloride 44 7 1 1 5 12 aAll concentrations are ug/L; A "less than" entry indicates that the mass spectrometer may have detected the compound at a level too low to be quantitated; No entry indicates that the compound was not detected by the mass detector. bBackground well . cThese' values are very high and exceed the dynamic range of the detector.
l Table 3 Semivolatile Organic Constituents l Well No. NPDES Detection Compound Code Limita 523 563 574 575 150 534 516 i 2-Chlorophenol 1A 10 , 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2A 10 ! 2,4-Dimethylphenol 3A 10 4,6-Dinitro-0-Cresol 4A 10 2,4-Dinotrophenol SA 10 2-Nitrophenol 6A 10 4-Nitrophenol 7A 10 i P-Chloro-M-Cresol 8A 10 1 Pantachlorophenol 9A 10 l Phenol 10A 10 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 11A 10 Acenaphthene IB 10 Acenaphtylene 2B 10 l Anthracene 38 10
! Benzidine 4B 10 Brnzo(a) anthracene SB 10 Brnzo(a) pyrene 6B 10 3,4-Benzofluoranthene- 7B 10 4 Benzo (ghi? perylene 8B 10 j Benzo (k)f.uoranthene 9B 10
'. Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) 108 b [ Methane
. Bis (2-Chloroi sopropyl) 11B b ! Ether l Bis (2-Chloroi sopropyl) 128 b i Ether
- Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) 13B 10 28 16 17 24 40 Phthalate '
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl 148 b Butyl Benzyl Phthalate ISB 10
! 2-Chloronaphthalene 16B 10 1
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl 17B b Ehter Chrysene 18B 10 01 benzo (a.h) anthracene 19B 10 4 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 208 10 s 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 21B 10 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 228 10 , 1 3 3'-Dichlorobenzidine 238 b DIethyl Phthalate 24B 10 5 Dimethyl Phthalate 25B 10 i Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 268 10
; 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 27B 10
- 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 288 10 Di-N-Octyl Phthalate 29B 10 0
; 1 2-Diphenylhydrazine 308 b as Azobenzene) . F uoranthene 31B 10 4 ' Fluorene 32B 10 H2xachlorobenzene- 338 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 34B 10 H;xachlorocyclo-358 10 j pentadiene i
l C-7
4 o Table'I(Cont'd) Semivolatile.0rganic Constituents Well No. NPDES Detection Compound Code Limita 523 563 '5/4 575 150 534 516 Hexachloroethane 36B - 10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 378 10 Isophorene 388 Naphthalene 398 10 Nitrobenzene 408 10 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 41B b
)
N-Nitrosodi-N- , 428 b Propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 438 b - s Phenanthrene 44B 10 ' - Pyrene 458 10 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 46B 10 Aldrin IP 10
-BHC 2P 10
-BHC 3P 10
-BHC 4P 10
-BHC SP 10 Chlordane 6P b 4,4'-DDT 7P 10
, 4,4'-DDE 8P 10 4,4'-DDD 9P 10 Dieldrin 10P .10
-Endosulfan 11P 10
-Endosulfan 12P 10 Endosulfan Sulfate 13P 10 Endrin 14P 10 Endrin Aldehyde ISP b Heptachlor 16P 10 Heptachlor Epoxide 17P 10 ,
.1 PCB-1242 4 18P b i PCB-1254 b 19P PCB-122b 20P b PCB-1232. 21P b' .'
PCB-1248 22P b - _s i PCB-1260 23P .b PCB-1016 24P mb Toxaphene 25P b Other Compounds X X X X X X" X
\
aUnits are ppb based on original sample. No entry means that compound was not det ected. No detection limit has been detennine.d. Compound detected at concentration lcss than 10 ppb. Some aliphatic hydrocarbons were detected. Identification of such hydrocarbons by electron impact mass spectrometry is quite difficult, However, the presence of such compounds may indi ate the trace contamipa' tion ..by petroleum-derived products. . ll ;; i p f . " Y #
's (.
;D 7
C-8 '"\ 5 7- -
, , , , . . , , - . <w . = - - y . +
Table 4 Approximate Concentrationsa of Other Semivolatile Compounds Compound 523 563 574 575 150 534 516 Cyclohexane diol 5 3 2 4 Cyclohexanone 5 10 14 1 13 Fuel hydrocarbons b 5 b b b Other petroleum hydro-carbons (oil or grease) b 16 b b b t Sulfur c c c c t c Organic sulfide 5 High molecular weight oxygenated hydrocarben d aConcentrations are approximate pg/L. (b) Fuel type hydrocarbons and other petroleum hydrocarbons (oil and grease) were detected in low concentrations in several of the wells sampled. (c) Elemental sulfur was detected in high concentrations in several of the ground water samples. (d) A high molecular weight oxygenated hydrocarbon was detected in the well 575 sample. (t) Trace. C-9
4 3.3 Results of Method 8600 Screening Analyses The EPA Method 8600 Decision Matrix analytical approach was used on the Sheffield sample set for comparison with the standard EPA methods. This analytical approach involves application of various organic analytical tech-niques in a hierarchical sequence to determine the presence or absence of groups of organic compounds. By following the hierarchical sequence, various groups or tables may be eliminated from further analysis. The results of the Method 8600 analyses for the Sheffield water samples are summarized in Table 5. All the samples had high UV absorbance. The pass / fail absorbance is 0.005 when measured relative to an upgradient or
! background sample. Three of the samples had UV absorbance lower than that of Well 574, the well used as background for the site. Four samples (Well Nos. 523, 563, 575, and 516) contained EPA Table 3 constituents (volatile and semi-volatile halogenated organics). Three samples (Well Nos. 523, 563, and 534) contained EPA Table 4 constituents (non-polar UV absorbing compounds). Three samples (Well Nos. 523, 563, and 534) contained EPA Table 5 constituents (UV active, semi-volatile polar organics).. No EPA Table 6 or 7 compounds (nitrogen and phosphorus containing organics) were detected in l the samples. Comparison of the results of the 8600 screen to those of the
~
l GC and GC/MS analyses indicates that comparable results were obtained for halogenated volatiles and semi-volatiles. Table 2 showed that Wells 523, 563, 575, and 516 contained high concentrations of halogenated volatile com-pounds which is consistent with the Method 8010 results (Table 5). 1 1 l 3.4 Results of Quality Assurance Analyses Water sample splits from two wells were spiked with an EPA Quality Con-1 trol Material to test the analytical accuracy for-dissolved metals. Two spike concentrations were used; one for atomic absorption analyses (AA) and the other for inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analyses. The AA spike con-j centrations were well below the primary drinking water standards and were typically within about 10 ppb or less of the analytical detection limits. The results of the QA analyses for dissolved metals are summarized in Table
- 6. Spiked concentrations, found concentrations, and spike recovery are l
C-10 _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ - . _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ ~ _ _ - . - - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ -
l l l Table 5 Summary Showing Which Tables of Organic Compounds
- Could Not Be Eliminated By HAP Screen Table Nos.c-3 4 5 6 7-Well No.a ABSb (8010) (8610) (8610) -(8620) (8620) 523 >5 X X X - -
563 >5 X X X - - 575 1.35 X - - - - 150 1.10 - - - - - 534 >5 - X X - - 516 1.20 X - - - - a8ackground well was No. 574. b Absorbance at 250 nm of reversed phase isolate obtained by Method 3560, (combined isolates). The absorbance of Well No. 574 at 250 nm was 1.40. Thus it must be noted that the ultraviolet absorbance of all samples was very high; however, throughout the entire spectrum (220 nm to 310 nm) the absorbance for three extracts (Well Nos. 575, 150, and 516) was less than the absorbance of the sample extracted from the water taken from the background well. cNumber in parenthesis indicates the 8600 method applied. (X) indicates a table that could not be eliminated. (-) indicates a table that could be eliminated. C-ll l
Table 6 Results of QA Analyses of Samples Spiked With Metals Spiked Spiked Percent Concentration Concentration Error in for Atomic Absorption Found Spike for ICP Found Spike EPA Spike Element Analysis Concentration Recovery Analysis Concentration Recovery Concentration (ug/ml) (ug/ml) (ug/ml) (pg/ml) Al 0.036 <0.2a 0.729 0.69-0.89 -5% - +221C + 17% As 0.012 0.016 +33% 0.235 0.1-0.2 -57% - -15%C I 2 21 Be 0.012 0.0078-0.0098 -181 - -35%C 0.235 0.219-0.22 -7% -6%C I11% Cd 0.00195 0.0019 -3% 0.039 0.038 -3% T 161 Cr 0.013 0.011 -15% 0.261 0.28 +7% 7 191 Co 0.013 0.016 +23% 0.261 0.23 -12% T 12% Cu 0.017 0.042 +147% 0.339 0.333 -2% ][101
- j, Fe 0.040 Ob -- 0.797 0.75 -6% + 12%
ro Hg 0.00044 0.00025-0.0003 -32% - -43%c 0.00873 0.00555 -361 + 301
- Mn 0 .017 0.01 -41% 0.348 0.34 -21 7 12%
N1 0.010 0.005-0.015 -50% - +50%C 0.207 0.19 -81 I 141 i Pb 0.022 0.021 -5% 0.435 0.436 +<11 T 14% Se 0.003 <0.005a -- 0.050 0.035-0.040 -301 - -201C + 33% V 0.042 0.038 -10% 0.846 0.787 -7% T 16% 4 Zn 0.021 0.002-0.022 -901 - +5%c 0.418 0.41 -21 ][ 8% aAnalytical method used has a detection limit higher than the spiked concentration, b1ron concentration in the spiked sample was so much higher than the spiked concentration that the spike was
-not reported.
cSpike recovery is computed as a range because elemental concentrations in the unspiked split were below detection limits, however, a measurable concentration was determined in the spiked sample. dPercent error is at the 95% confidence interval for the EPA quality control check sample.
tabulated for each spiked sample. The concentration error of each metal in the EPA material is also included in Table 6. For cases in which metal con-l centrations in the unspiked split were below the detection limit for the ! analytical technique, a range of recovery is reported. The recovery range is defined by assuming that the true initial sample concentration was between zero and the reported detection limit. The spike recovery is used as a measure of the accuracy of the analyses. The spike recoveries obtained in the QA analyses are typically within the confidence limits of the QA spike material with exceptions for As, Be, Co, Cu, Hg, and Mn at the AA spike level. Quality assurance measures used in the organic analytical program included preparation and analysis of an organic spike to deionized water and addition of deuterated standards to samples extracted for semivolatile analyses. The organic spike solutions contained volatile and semivolatile compounds in concentrations several times the detection limit for GC and GC/MS analyses. This solution was prepared prior to the sampling trip and was stored in a laboratory freezer. Two 40 ml vials of deionized water were spiked for GC analysis of volatiles and one, one liter bottle of deionized water was spiked for extraction and GC/MS analysis of semivolatiles. Table 7 is a listing of recovery factors for the organic compounds spiked into deionized water. Recovery of three volatile compounds was approximately 125% and 163% from each sample, respectively. Possible reasons for the higher-than-anticipated recovery include difficulties in obtaining total mixing in the sealed vials and higher-than-calculated vola-tile concentrations in the spike sample due to insufficient warming of the standard prior to spiking. Recovery of the two semivolatile compounds spiked was 13% and 26%, respectively. The poor recovery is attributed to lower-than-calculated semivolatile content due to insufficient warming of the standard prior to spiking. 1 Recovery factors for the deuterated standards spiked into each :: ample analyzed for semivolatiles prior to the extractions are listed in Table 8. These recovery factors are generally lower than normal for the ORNL organic analytical laboratory which typically obtains recovery factors higher than 0.7 for the deuterated standards. The deuterated spike recovery factor for the wel.1 574 sample (background well) was good. This well produces low C-13
Table 7 Recovery of Organic QA Spikes Compound Type QA-1 QA-2 QA-3 Chloroform V 133% '163% - l l Toluene V 121% 161% - Trichloroethylene V 125% 172% - Napthalene S - - 26%.
- Dibutylphthalate S - - 13%
V = Volatile Compound S = Semi Volatile Compound Table 8 Recovery Factors for Deuterated Semivolatile Standard Spikes Sample Well Number Compound 523 563 574 575 150 534 516 4 4 1-Fluoronapthalene 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 ^ d-10 Fluorene 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.2. ! C-14
sediment content samples. The high silt 'and c. lay content of most other Sheffield well samples may allow sorbtion of semivolatile compounds to the l solids resulting in low spike recovery.- 4.0
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS The results of this sampling and analytical program are consistent with the previous study. Dissolved metal concentrations are far below primary - drinking water standards. Tritium concentrations in Wells 563 and 575 'off-site, and in Well 523 onsite, exceed the primary drinking water standard. The results of organic analyses confirm the conclusion of the previous study that significant organic contamination exists in ground water at- the site. In this study, specific EPA listed organic contaminants and other organic compounds have been identified and quantified. Several of the wells (523, 563,575) contained parts per million concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroeth-ane and high parts per billion concentration of other volatile organic com-pounds. These wells are located in close proximity to disposal trenches or in the previously documented Seepage plume located east of the disposal site area. Well 516, located at the northern perimeter of the disposal site also contained high volatile solvent concentrations but in proportions slightly different from the previously-mentioned wells. The organic contamination in this well is attributed to sources located outside the Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site. The only EPA listed semivolatile compounds detected were phthalate compounds. Other semivolatile organic compounds including ; petroleum-derived solvents, fuel hydrocarbons, and petroleum oil were present in most of the samples. The results of total organic halogen (T0X) analyses performed suggest the presence of compounds which cause interference with the T0X analysis. If further T0X analyses are performed on water samples from this site, the neutron activation analysis method may provide more accurate values than the standard electrolytic conductivity technique. The results of the quality assurance analyses performed in this study indicate that data reported for metals from samples containing detectable concentrations are typically accurate within 10 to 15%. Quantification of the analytical accuracy for organic compounds is more difficult than for inorganic compounds. The organic QA measures used in this study indicate < that results for volatile organic rapounds are probably accurate within C-15 i
approximately 50%, which is within the acceptable accuracy range for GC , analyses. Results of the deionized water spike analysis for semivolatile compound QA yielded poor results because of a laboratory error in performing the spike. The recovery of deuterated organic compound spikes added to each sample prior to extractions was variable between the seven samples analyzed. The variability in spike recovery is attributed to the presence of silt and clay in the samples which may have sorbed a portion of the organic com-pounds, and inhibited their extraction. I 5.0 COMPARIS0N OF JANUARY AND SEPTEMBER 1985 WATER ANALYSES Qualitatively, the results of the two Sheffield data sets are very similar. Comparison of inorganic analytical results for the three wells sampled in both sample trips (563, 574, 575) shows very minor differences in , parameter concentrations between the two data sets. Of the additional wells sampled in the September trip (150, 523, 516, and 534), well 523 showed water quality similar to the trench 18 well which was sampled in January, and the others contained concentrations of inorganic constituents similar to the background well. Results of the organic analyses were also similar between the two sam-ple sets. Differences in the analytical protocols used in analysis of the two sample sets results in detection of slightly different suites of organic compounds in the two data sets. Application of the Method 8600 protocols on tne January sample set resulted in detection of several classes of organic compounds. Later analysis of the January sample set resulted in detection of several volatile and semivolatile compounds including chlorinated solvents (trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene), dioxane (a liquid scintillation fluid), several petroleum fuel derived compounds (cyclohexene related compounds) and two high molecular weight compounds. The same principal organic compounds were detected in the September sample set as were detected in the January samples. Differences in the two data f sets include detection of dioxane in January but not in September, more accurate quantification of the volatile compounds present in September, and qualitative identification of petroleum hydrocarbons in the September sample set. C-16
The dioxane was detected as a result of having performed the reverse phase cartride extraction on the January samples. This extraction procedure was not performed on the September data set and the dioxane (a water soluble semivolatile which is not recovered by-the extraction procedure used in conjunction with Method 625) was therefore not detected. C-17
REFERENCES
- 1. Ketelle, R. H., J. T. Kitchings, R. H. Owenby, J. E. Caton, "Results of Reconnaissance Evaluation of Hazardous Chemical Migration in Ground
~ Water in the Vicinity of Two Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal l
l Facilities," Contractors Report to the U.S. NRC Low-Level Waste ' Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Management, Washington, D.C., September 1985. 1 i J J l i i C-18 ( -
. , . , _ , . . - , - . .m - - - , , . - . - - , . _ _ - - . . , , - . . ---_--,__--..__~.......--,_._--,_m,, .- . - .- _ ,.
i I l ATTACHMENT 1 Field Data Logs September 1985 Sanpling Progran Sheffield, Illinois C-19
FIELD DATA LOG SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS LLWD SITE Well 523 Date: 9/18/85 Initial Depth to Water 31.1' Total Depth 33.8' Casing Stickup 4.1' Well Diam. 0.42' Surface, 0.25-0.33' Screen Ft. of Water in Well 2.7' Estimated Water Vol. in Casing 6.6L Specific Balls Removed Temp pH Conductance Do Redox (liters) (C) umho/cm (mg/L) (my) 1 17.8 7.2 1510 1.1 2 15.3 7.2 1370 1.9 3 14.7 7.2 1330 2.0 4 14.4 7.1 1240 1.9 5 14.3 7.1 1310 2.1 6 14.2 7.0 1310 1.7 126 Well was dry after removing approximately 6L. C-20
FIELD DATA LOG ! SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS LLWD SITE Well 563 Date: 9/.18/85 Initial Depth to Water 41.3' ' Total Depth 43.8' Well Diam. 0.33' Casing Vol/ foot Stickup 0.087 ft3.g/ft Ft. of Water in Well 2.5' Water Vol . in Casing 6.1L Speci fic Bails Removed Temp pH Conductance Do Redox (Liters) (C) umho/cm (mg/L) (mv) 1 15.2 7.3 670 2.3 6 13.7 7.2 590 3.1 10 13.6 7.1 590 3.5 15 12.0 6.9 660 4.4 20 13.0 6.9 650 4.9 22 13.2 6.9 650 5.1 136 C-21
FIELD DATA LOG SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS LLWD SITE Well 574 Date: 9/18/85 Initial Depth to Water 11.75' Total Depth 19.75' Well Diam. 0.33' Casing Vol/ foot Stickup 0.087 ft2.g/ft Ft. of Water in Well 8.0' Water Vol . in Casing 19.8L Speci fic Bails Removed Temp pH Conductance Do Redox i (Liters) (C) umho/cm (mg/L) (my) 1 19.1 8.3 10 1.3 5 16.9 8.5 60 1.7 10 15.5 8.4 60 2.2
. 15 15.7 8.1 10 2.7 i
20 16.2 7.9 30 ' 2.5 30 15.0 7.7 60 3.7
. 40 15.1 7.5 20 3.1 50 14.5 7.4 270 2.8 60 14.8 7.5 300 2.6 65 13.1 7.3 290 2.8 70 13.5 7.2 280 3.0 193 1
C-22
-~ , _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ - - . . _ . , . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . - . _ , . . . _ , _ . . . , . . , . _ . , , _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ , _ ,
FIELD DATA LOG SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS LLWD SITE Well 575 Date: 9/18/85 Initial Depth to Water 32.7' Total Depth 38.9' ' Well Diam. 0.33' O.25' Screen Casing Vol/ foot Stickup 0.087 ft2.g/ft Ft. of Water in Well 6.2' Water Vol . in Casing 15.3L Specific Bails Removed Temp pH Conductance Do Redox (liters) (C) umho/an (mg/L) (mv) t 1 13.3 7.2 640 2.2 10 12.9 7.1 620 3.4 20 13.0 7.1 650 3.7 30 12.7 7.1 640 3.7 40 12.8 7.1 620 3.8 45 13.0 7.0 630 4.0 49 12.7 6.9 630 3.7 134 3 1 1 l C-23
l FIELD DATA LOG 1 SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS LLWD SITE l l Well 150 Date: 9/18/85 Initial Depth to Water 32.1 Total Depth 57.1' Casing Diam. 0.2' Vol/ foot 0.022 ft3 /ft l Ft. of Water in Well 25' Water Vol . in Casing 15.5L Specific Bails Removed Temp pH Conductance Do Redox (mg/L) (my) (Liters) (C) umho/cm 1 16.8 7.6 320 0.6 10 16.6 7.5 260 1.5 17 18.4 7.6 270 1.1 191 Well bailed dry at 17L removed. l 4 C-24
FIELD DATA LOG SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS LLWD SITE Well 534 Date: 9/18/85 Initial Depth to Water 16.1' Total Depth 27.7' ' Well Diam. 0.33' Casing Vol/ foot Stickup 0.087 ft0.g/ft i Ft. of Water in Well 11.6' i Water Vol . in Casing 28.8L , Specific Bails Removed Temp pH Conductance Do Redox (liters) (C) umho/cm (mg/L) (my) 2 17.8 8.2 70 1.6 15 15.7 8.2 90 2.6 30 15.4 8.1 110 1.8 115 Well bailed dry at approximately 30L removed. i 9
+
4 , I l l
)
- l l
C-25 l
FIELD DATA LOG SHEFFIELD, ILLIN0IS LLWD SITE j Well 516 Date: 9/18/85 Initial Depth to Water 22.8' ' Total Depth 37.9' Well Diam. 0.42' Casing Vol/ foot Stickup 0.136 ft4.g/ft Ft. of Water in Well 15.1 i i Water Vol . in Casing 58.3L Specific Bails Removed Temp pH Conductance Do Redox (mg/L) (my) (Liters) (C) umho/cm 1 14.4 7.6 230 1.0 10 13.6 7.6 110 2.2 . 30 14.9 7.5 150 3.5 , 2.0 50 13.9 7.5 150 i 70 13.7 7.5 190 3.1 90 14.5 7.5 210 4.4 120 16.1 7.5 150 5.0 140 14.5 7.4 190 2.3 160 14.8 7.3 180 3.9 170 14.4 7.3 240 4.4 176 13.6 7.4 170 2.6 126 i l t
- 6 i
A E 6 C-26 l
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND DATA FOR SHEFFIELD SITE
- 1. Results of USGS sampling on 19 July 1984 at wells 511, 514, 516, 533, 563, and Trench 18
- 2. Solvents identified in wells upgradient from disposal units by U.S.
Ecology
- 3. Illinois Dept. of Nuclear Safety and Illinois EPA summary and data sheets for organic sampling and analysis, March 1982 - November 1983
- 4. USGS well construction and stratigraphy diagrams for wells 516, 523, 534, 563, 574, and 575 ,
l l __ __-__._____-__________.m_ _ _ _ . _ m ._ _ _ m __________.m_-______...__.-_- ____-___ .__.____--.._.-_.____.__ __ _ _ _--__.
,- r,
/ ~#1 United States Department of the Interior
; WM 00CXEI C0!ita0 LOGICAL SURVEY -
C PlI P 4th Floor
-l ,, ..- 7, . .; 102 East Main Street Os
- Urbana, IL 61801 January 16, 1985 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 623-SS Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Mr. Shaffner
Dear Mr. Shaffner ,
Enclosed are results of organic anal.yses for water samples taken from SY. b wells 511, 514, 516, 535,pand Trench 18 sump. samples were collected on July 19, 19'84. Of organic costpounds analyzed for, above background concentrations were found in wells 516, Trench 18 stanp, and 563. If I can be of further assistance, please call me at FTS 958-5368. Sincerely yours, h # George Garklavs Hydrologist GGamy Enclosures < cc: Sherrill ' s TM E96$r C D-1
U41720 STafts DEPARTMthf CP TMt 14 Tit!OE U.S. f SGICAL Suevtf wa0 CENTRAL La aT047, ATLANTA, GEORGla
'9665 W EL Sl4 lab 64aTORY ap4LTT3 CAL $nttt PDhl Lac-10 4229914 REC 040-8 30779
[TTkTION.1st *120270t9473201 COLLECT G15 D4Tf!840799>t:4e 40t=0 Daft fant Lar-t0mG-sice: ...
.mant Data 73 51 #!Tt!Evtc Psom Mta0
- COMPLEft * ' Stat 5ss1 te Coot 17 ILLINOIS C09hTft G SanPLE Pt; u1: e 5fafuls n SOURCE: ..CONSITION: ' SaNP T P;t s ,9 MTO. event: *tOJECT# ACCT-se ILD5eC0
.C5hatNTS:
- WalGu! hJ-)? 4 afcu 17tG .5 3 Carp 0Lil'Uste-13913 Co '! 0 ' 0 70fal Patantists 28 NOTE: T=:S t&*PLE wa$ LOGGt0 IN al.?t*?TTPt.0af a an0 v!LL me naNSPet TO WaTST04t. "G" In COLT 313 0F an -a :
PRINT!; ;% C t:1/16 Pla57 affativat tLitpagn*,09/01/84 A00 $ tut b SAMPLE Ptom LCu Leytt 4a0 5178 3 maat s*siv& Lug 041t's NETMeg6 W-C C DE *tC ;mant ansivaLut uhtTS *!TnGr an' ALT 2thG aGihCT 20010 *-- - 28 at91 SP.'C040uCTaNCE PLO 8100 uamot 1-17t!- St41tute total < 3.0 udit' b-301(ie0 34030 1911 ftTsaCnt0totTwfLE=,f < 3.0 uGit 0-3011-SROM0F0am, Tofat 4 3.0 UGtt! 2 iTOCutut,4 TOTAL < 3.0 UGit 0-3311-C3 Catson itTsa., TGT. < 3.0 $*3011-8032102 uGEL #?3459-80 6321C4 19110}3 :Te CutomotinTLEnt,7 < 3.0 UGit 0-2011-a CthTAaL Lal-IC-e 4;2991- [- ' -*' 99994 1500 Ja:Caton0PLu0nantt,T < 3.0 us/L 0-3e11-CML0e08th:;e.5, TOTAL < 3.0 ugit. .Od3011-80 34301 1014' vafft TenPERATutt 13.3 OtG C - - CMLet00It a a-G. , 107. < 3.0 UGtt c0-10117 84 32105 1013 +1,1-OtCMLostTNTLee,T ( 3.0 WGIL 0-!011-CML040P0ap, TLTat 4 3.0 UGtL 0-3011f80 32154 1010 ,1el-DICML0totTMaut,T 4 3.0 us/L 0- ! *s i t - COLLECT 10r a :! *.0 7 81700
- t 43 1,141-TRICptometTM T 4 3.0 UE/L G-!?ti-01CnL0 tota -trtTwa,T < 3.0 . . ~ ..32101 U G t LT. 0-1011-09 2[1019 'ta1,2-ft!CHL0totTM,7 4 3.0 ucti c-!?11-DICMLOt0C;PLuca0*!,7 < 3.0 uG/L: 0*3011d80 34464 1920' 1,1e2,t-TETRCPLOR$,7 4 3.0 us#L ca1011-ETNTLSENIthi, 10faL < 3.0 UGtL 0-30tt*48 .543t1 1827 162-stCwtCacefMant,9 c 3.0 usit c-!?It-ntTNTLt=1 ;aLC'::t,T < 3.0 U G/ L' q*3011*ec. 34423 1876 1,2-CICrLot0Pacran,i < 3.c estL 0 3?11-i F4;P8tLD *.4 0915) 13tp44477 4H 3T 12 Tea >501CL-tTMTkt81 < 3.C LGfL 0-3011-4 h
1
h 4 ls otran*ntaf Cp Tat twittroe UNITEDJ7al.4t0LO" U.1; eL SUtTtf uso Cthitat La00Ra t, eT(asTa, GE0aGTA
# N LA)CtaTott 4WALMIC&L,5Nf t! FOR Lal*IO &l19916 REC 010-8 50783 NT104.10: 412:213?9473901 CCLLtCTtos. PfStk C5fE*040719 Timt 090e 360 CaTE T:st taf-L0mG-SF:s 412021 Was 5ntPPItt; .iLL 111 Stattf 1? USt4(G00ts 1T 14Lta015 GCumTY: 011 CiC.L'
.F Lt atClums
- STATUS: a 50uette NTS.CONDITICet SAMPLE TTPE: 9 MTO.tvihT** #a0 JECT / ACCT-e ILO5a0C C01 MENTS:
DERGUt Numat If;wisT!3 (CNtoDLs! US!C 1391 0 0 0 T5laL *itantites 28 4475702t STCa st st;Jtsvic. Stafics Mracle OaTa was SuSSTITuth. 8ttast Cotta matt, StaTF Coat, COU4Tve amo Lav.Lt; P32nft0 C= caiO1/to sta51 s?teegvat aLasPaI4- 09/01154 a00 stList - SassLe p20= LCW 6tett tao 511t. ht anstwaLw! U4175 attach W-CDit LC maal ema/VaLUt UNITS affMCC A'TI!nc L aGr%;v 103t; - - 26 91 SP. CONOUCTsNCE FLO 7800 C3
- u==05 t-17t? '?
attet, TOTAL !.J UG/L G-1011-86 3a030 1011 ftfasCML0a0ETMvLfN,T C 1.C UG/L 0-!311 83 da Dh0 Pose, T3 fat < !.) UGIL 0-3011-80 32104 1012 TOLutNE, total < 3.C UGIL 0-3311-50 000h.ftTta., TCT. < b.J UGIL 0-3011-80 32102 1013 TatCMLot0ETnTLtat,T 4 3.0 UGtL 0-3011-50 RTRAL lab-!;-s 6.2641c - - 99998 1500 TBICMLeacPLU0toptist < 3.0 UG/L 0-3011-i? L0ecetm2ths, Tafat < !.0 uGiL 0-3011-80 34301 1014 WATER TEMPERATURE 12.0 OfG C - - LO4001se0mc., 707 < 3.J UGtL 0-3011-80 32105 1015 Ta1*0!CML00tTNTLEN,7 4 3.0 UG/L O-1011-?? Lancreen, TCT L < 3.J UGIL 0-3011-80 32J 06 1018 tit-0!CML040ETwant,Y < 3.0 UGiL 0-3011-tc
'LECTION AGtNCv a17CC * -
27 83 1 plat-ft!CMLetotTM,7 4 '3. 0 UG/L 0-3011-90 OW0te0mce:Tma,T < 3.3 UG/L 0-3011*80 32101 1019 1ste2-TRICML000tTM,7 4 3.0 UGIL 0-3011-?0 EML0000!PLU0t:=5,7
- 3.0 UGtL 0-3011-80 34660 1020 141,2,2*TtfacnLoto,7 4 3.0 uGtt 0-3011-83 gytsguttet, teTat < !.0 UGit 0*3411-80 34371 1027 ! CwLeestTwant,T 4 3.0 UGit 0-1011-tG
$$mtent CnLC41GE,7 < 3.0 UG/L 6tS011-80 54423 1029 Cutenopt0Pau,T < 30 UG/L 0-3011-20 mF)tt0 s ,
7.3 U4175 1-1984-77 '400 51 i ,450!CL-tinTLENE < 3.0' UGtL 0-3011-90
e es. .. e to u es em h e a e's o e ene as en et eu es are e s e e e o f a e e f 6 e e. e e e9es o' ee e; me u ehe ed u e e e e e e e e ee e e e e e o opeep creweree e e 43 etewee weepepem o e I honoo Oooooooo u o e > eMMMM MMMMMeeMM e e w e e e eeee e e ee ee e as - M N E Moooo oooooooo w>o e Mks M M u oBH m > osada sasassas
@3 o H K%%%%W%%%%%%%%
Fom e 2 SO@@@woOOud@@@ oue mMw 3 33333o33333333 s e New e > Mw
> u wM 4 u MJ s e moowug w ooooooooooooo e e o e e o e e e a e e o M %
e > > W 3 oMMMMMMMMMMMMM
> u w2 J D e a w ems e O M 7 4 w > M
*o es e b %
N now W m w S E8 s E e we m W 'W V W WWWWWWWW o EM - J -3 ' e -o a eo > > * > > > > > > = - wws o. =s==ss== e 3
. . =
o u um. w se how om am aw
>+
=>
w w w .z r>>===awxtommw e ~ m a *o a suaanwwoes*
. w .s => zo
. o. m -e >
M. wm r a swo3>xon uzwe>o=*woouwam
= > r > = = I w = >r a o e = =
eow . wmo peo o a aw aw>u2=wassmoos
.au i
= w
= . >
=t om
*a woopsweerx*=es u=>wamoouwmoou no ooussaa*ssa e->> e w . o. w. .e os==
a x w o E *wuup**uuM z z u ew ==~ erao eos we
== = , oe
, Seso==g u,-
m M w our ~~e uewYaa m o n - = m o n .s e3> e ww m .; N a u w w e .ecec eswwww * = s=we e e m e. ge e3 = . ?,.. 'w g g eee em w . .. m o u s-.e re
. w e = .= e= e= r% w
.e.es gru m dFe , . .eens s -- w ee
> .~e.
r s s w e, s u o . .. - , O*e n ne s- s ' e s o
;w% u.eenMo
,.ew eeeweeo ,e k o. Moonee e o 8%n me
*TEwI ,, es sse ee .,-
A W.e .oe
,o wt o 5 e e
.ee. ew 'e-ee .oeIwef
. e. e e ee sew ta .e se ,om =
Mo mowmweMew-m m 4 s ,% - > 3 Moe a s o ee nM o o .oM-e ooonee . n.. no o oe. AM s 4 M Q3 E % u 4NN64NN N 4 4 4' sem u e m -4'.'ge se -MMMcMnw }npgM Du, en en e m -e- n 1 e= e. w e= se
>+ .see > es > %= - . " e d. gon..- g n
,y. *e., .ee.en .e J em
- 5. eI = .Y I sus( o; fr -
- s. :s o
.. . .e---
i - e e e- sano o .. ee. ....e
=t -w- -
=ww o uma z e- yeRneoco-onRoM M M MMM, MM ee 9 = wan -we>= e- se w eoeeeeetoeeee e
; e4 'n 998 8% 4 P P L
- P O 9,'*,
8.
= y mw 0 [>e eo ,n -* .e M .
.. e.
m - -ee - saa saa sass > o e oW .- em J M F
%%% %%% %%%%w O49 @ , 63gg3 g 3 ene one . G 49 e e nom 44 3 333 3D3 333p3 s;uem >
wmu XM
~
s5M N 40 s 3 M UWo (9 > oon ooo c o n te h woM es . m o e e e o e o e e e o W to g J o M M M h M M M o M M M Do h
& 5% J ea em o ao E O> ee Te ee- P.
ou a tre JD CD er en e en ee en a % et re me MDM wMM W N ww3 > 46 5 4 4Mk M B e WWW WWW WWWW Wwe w 4 g oo k > D w ee J e >> > a es ao eeJ% e es be 4 j MW N wh y 4 to u k t) o*J> Fekn wwJ 4 4 w J aew, gg > apop g y p ej u o. N ** GW eq > Le *e e g e,- F ene ce = se
** ** ae* eb dJ> so% e u ne e u u
-e e e S .so se -as se 9) e eo uma f 9 >= se e o 3 e .A
> J '
sus a>>eean neswa n M 3Ea do aemoe osgu a4o Em >%>4MmK2=Mw 3 w w w ee o is e n s w o w o m e w w ' so seaMw w
>3-*
===> w*owoonso
-wo seas >=mwus o'=ROwB .
NWLR4onouo@@dW MuswMpM >woommWWWJJJ>m om' W
>w45
= ag g y-JM
==
s ee muco3
.m.axa asu p
8.8e. e
= EE me. ==== e ese ame* e e c e e o e o e e M emene*=
D-4
...-..e,-. .. .... .m ca.wa U.S. Gt0 LOGICAL Sutviv uno Cthfast Lagosaf0tT, aTLamia, CtDacta
/ .
ggg gg g, {}p LABORATORT ANALTTICAL Sk . POR La8,*IO 4229918 atCORO-8 50787
$faf!0N 10: .1 ? C 2 5 0 8 9. .'2 d L 1 COLLECTtos etGIN Dett'040719 71st:0930 END Daft i1ME Laf-LokC-5!Ce: ....
pants Data T. it RETLItytt FAC4 Mgacit.WMEN COMPLtft 5f attt '1F WSER C002: 1F ILLIN0!$ COUNiv G?
}anPLE pt;Iu= n status: n SOURCE: '; MT O.C.03QITION: '. 3 4#PLF.(ITPt s ,9 MTO.Efthis Pa0JECTtaCCT-*: ILC5400 e COMMENTS: ~
UNICut hu=:te t!CutSff3 i .. SCNteULt5.U5tBI1391* Jbo '0 0 70faL Pasamettes 28 N0fts in!5 Sa48tt has LO;GED 14 85 "3".ffPt.04T4 aND w!LL*m07,tfeaN5Pla 70 WAT510Rt." "0" IN CCLt51) , 0F AN "a Ca PRINTED 3*. sv/01/ 8 6 *14s7 affettvaL "LaSPRIN"iO9/01/a4 y ta0 ((LE,NE ? Sa4PLE PROM LOWELevet eso SITE 4 magt umff(.mtfM00,,,,W-C002..LC ama/vaLui ihbaPt A- 'sRREtyaLUE UNIT 5 METHOD
~
amaLTIlhG 4GC%Cv *Cria E 285'91 ' UMMC5 I-1780-7
- SP;ID0#0pCTa4CE PL0E'k, l'1000 ty ateltet, f0 fat < :.0 UGtL* 0-3011? 80 '34030 1011 ~
3.0 UGtL 0-3011
- e gaon0P0am, TLfat < 3.0 UG/L". 0-301 tes0' ' 32104:1012 . .f tf455btotetTNTLEN,T, ifetuses, TOTAL - < 3.0 Cn UGtL 0-3011
- Camach fifaa., 107 < !.0 UGtL, 0-3011?00, 32102 1013 Ja! MLee0ETNTLent,T . < 3.0 UG#L 0-3011-!
CENTRAL Lat- L-s 6226414 .' - t VI*" 99990 *tS00 9 7 01 De0PLU0eonti,T 3.0 UGtL 0-3011-? CMLeaCath: 'n , 1074L < CML0a001840mg., 707. < 3.0 3.0 us/L, 0-301.1-80 34301c.1014 ; UG/L. 0*30 *00- 3310521013. 7%,1-01CwLeetinTLEu,T < mattevitapteafust ..'c.. 17.0 OtG C - - CMLea0Poa , Tofat f 3.0 utiL 0-3011-1
< 3.3 COLLtCTIch AGebCT ,EE.$2104dO18 I ) ,1*DICML0ectinent,T 4 3.0 uGtL O-3011-9 91700 . - -
SIL4L0a0sec L=tf=a,7 < 3.0 ustL'0430jh4]S2101 UGtL* 0-301Yt
,. 2F .43 0197 ' 4,1,1ffRICnL000tfM,7 1st,2*TAICNLeactfM,7 < 4 3.0 3.0 UGtL 0-3011-?
UGtL 0-3011 ' OICktoe00!PLwCa'.mt,T 4 3.3 UGtL _ 0-3011v80 14440 020 -),1,2,2-TETACML000,T-< 3.0 UGtL 0-3011-5 tinTLeCNttst, T: fat < 3.0 UGtL. 0?3011*00 3437 027 . , 1,2-01CWLeactinant,T < 3.0 UG/L O-3011-! htTNTLEnt C= ice!:let t 3.0 U G t L'4. .0-3011*80 3442 029 - ?1,2-OtCML0a0Pt0Pau,7 4 3.0 UGtL 0-3011-1 Pn PItte 7.5 UNITS I-1584-FF 600' 31:d 12feaul03CL-tinTLENE < 3.0 UGtL 0-3311 *
- i , . Ill!;
= !C 730Cc 0C0C0?CC
* ! ! 76* ?e 505f1!!3
- G 5 - - * - - - - - - - - - - -
a 3 01111 11111111
" ! 0 51111 11111111 0 L M 70000 00000000 s 0 P T 13333 33333333 e e E - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C:! M 10000 00000000 fYO .
- $T L t 5 S C
- NI 4 T CLLLL LLLtLLLL GU 0 I w//#tGt//it/t/
MOs 7 . N nGGGGEGGGGGGGG OCe 81E U uUUUUDUUUUUUUU L - 2TT
- T aI f C W$
a C s ' 1 9 L a
/
T eO0 tTa i t t u 000000.'000300 03333634333433 7 C tO L 0 1 7 0 E nEL a 1 5 J a#t V 3 0 t#f # 1 4 ate E e P PFL N
- tS N e <<4< < < << <<
o aI taw e !0 aeo T, T, T, Y, 7, 7, Y, 7, N E 0 Ta fT L O 1, 7, T mtMMseuE C ! : o LN a t LT tam PE ttteuTTemaL
! e LN tO L nmnLatEeaPT G IE aR ET e0uTMc0LnoN e 0 V CP CNLL#fnTeewieT o wTaTenTE0eCEPt ur 2
1 27 t. OE atTnuet0LLe00-nG 9 71o 0NL T0OiLte#MMTeeL u, 2 a i p CeTtPPeOCCEeoC 2 0:M m uO 00nLLItTLt1 a 6 5 .a cL,#8eMWee wa0 o0 OS tf sg O m09 0M n M s o 0 T !1 oCuLL C C Te T 2,t tC33 h ua ! EC u- CatuCCf-tMNe -00.1,t,2,O mL - s o t - -0t8 uT t et PE n .fL!Ift11t1t2T
- aA a 0tP N a P t9 0 B a e ,*g e 9 s ,2
. L 05Y 0fE N SV17fsS1111111 6, 0UT OL
*t e 1 T
_ 6e 3 7t 7R a0 E1L 0 , eT M P 143 C 1 9 2 3 0 4'5839 791 wa In 9 C L 9111011111 25
- *8 w3 i t Tta 3ea 8993999 9 0 iS 1 t 1111111 1111 sg m 9a u ua 5 1t 0e f 4042s194714130 7s tC6 O 23800890204720
.t t 0 5 8 O 0119311 14344 t a 6 : 5N/ C 6429422 4444
- a. a C 8 4 O1 - 3339333 3333
._ we f 1
T ET1 E0 sI0 tT1 W h T TET ta9 9 e89 800$7 t L a alt um0 0 c90 888$7 C g cP0 Se pw - - = *- 3 111 111 )1114 a no0 tapo "m 0 111 111 11110
!C C. tw1 n 000 000 00005 f G St4 i 333 333 33331 . e tNO P e - - - - - * * *- -
0 SET Gt m t99 #S0 00001 T MM 4a - a e 0 s Ce W 1L 0" 8 S T t LLL
#//
LLL
/tt LLtLT
/Eitt 5
t ft tk n GGG CGG GGGGn
- a T3 Ma U UOU uUU UUUUu .
L Cat T Ett 1 Lwe t - L u De O*0 Et 000 003 C5 Ts f 3. C. 3 0 4 s I* u o333G33303333F g * ! L f 2 3 a 4 J 3 7 -
- : u. 37 T C 5 1 tt 0!% s 3 2 8 vt !ea n 2 0iu f
- 6 5tt $s u a<s a<a <<<<
g 4ta ta4 . 2
- Tt
- s 3w! t ,
t . aT T, T tt, r ftT t fC s!a1 AaJ c oTtT awT 0 e a# v LTeT
.te : - a - ,T a C. tsT4 t ; ; :
- e s 8 J c.
s t T ,0,
.;wCLee,C tac.1tcT Tu w7 15 crTsne,a*Lt % - s t u 2 esIs a0,Ta:ea481t 0FuC 0as h! 7
. 4.t nD f iuTT aastGft eD G,eTs4Lsgt080it 4 3te te0PT8etiL i t!o100ttc C thtSh 2efnat00C0 Celt E tttTt Ytsoes0eE4LLTi eesa t LtpsfeCeLpmTmP am s 4o4setLLLC8#f TtwmwWP
- 1. as A a l 4.OAaGIn D eb 3 8TI m t
?m
i e eu se as A$3 (1
.e es,
- 4) u se b e e. to O ee == e e.
L e teesOeu.enf> Cs e O.eC e eo u 6 9 e e e e e e e # D e e 4 e n Oweee e eeeeeece O 3 g O mewee perceece E AOOOO 00000000
= O.
S b leMMMM M M M M M M M ** I I UnM E m E
- MOOOO ee eea ee e o e e e e e wpO g 0D000000 MWJ M M U e E ye m > OJJJJ og O JJJJJJJJ 20= .
M 2 E%%%%@%%%%%%%% EUGuewodooooop Oum enw 3 33333033333333 e e Ne> 0 > MM
> u wM 4
J u g WJ \ \ e - m u .n wu ' m \ O. M. O. O. O.g o. O. O.. O' O. O. e > > a u 3 ONmemmmemenemm k NE 'J De e N O w SHJ W h e 5 d w > N O W WW> '% e e 6 WOW W g we 65 e E G EM a W W W VWW VW J B e MO e oc > > O >E wwJ Og k t
>>h>>>>w u 4 st 4 % b g2 Ma Om JE su EwEEOwEm g w J> >OE Es M ,M JE >O wwww2kkmEed o Mw Me wh J EEEdewwC4L>
w M > >E WO3kFOOJEOE O e w e uEJJekEkmW E>g>O4kwOOuwkw EkWh Ow e wh
- BW me p een O ewwE3MwCJJuGOG B N 4 > Oh J NOOMJwe=EE>**J 4 N Omt ME uWewE&Ocuuwoou 30 n 4 w e OOEJJMMkJJM
>> OO MM DJ6m8mEENM 0 EED REWOOppukkNuuM WE O EOD ' OW De M wu at OUEMJ WewEXeopeNNOO4 MMS 9 *MME WJ 9 m M - W
*J W e We e M u w .S S 4 4 4 0 0 m EW E' -%
MMkweeceNNM M4 .4 M mph O'm b S SW W K4 4 g-4 984 m .4 N DW W MM bJ % mm a er's 9e w-f >4>JR >MDeppepece WW O hw MM HO % wed O. U> E E -30 09 MNE D .. G -JW erNModeeMOOhbe
@peeGeremeNNNM we d >me mee OO w -
_>M eJ
'WDOMOOO eeeeeep C000 he E De epee M
Ge M ep OE J he. w e Ow WOWNerM9hemeMO e J O MOe O WMOOOOOONoe>NO Orwemee 4 e w 3E% M eeMed M. -J o a WNNedNN N@dd
>=> >
u. wkN WO Me% se
. O z e
menemen emnn 2 w J wm> J>p OOO 000 000D> M
- edu 2e0 OEO ese ape meme>
OS 2 4 32 w g O 9 pee9 0 8 9pee 91 0 0 ceped 000tf EOD Kb3 MQu' O wee ere eceem
> W-. M6H
- Mbe E
GOO MMM DOO MMm COOOM M MmeMe O msgwEO - ,b,& .e w E '0 eet 9 eae3 e eeea 000 000 OOOOM k e Em 4 4 3 MJ M E
- 8 S > M O Os JJJ JJJ JJJJV M %%% %%%
@ ww MJ E OGO %%%%M ,
4 mom ge OOO OG@@2 J uom 3 333 333 33333 wwu EM JEW Mw J OFO 3 . \ nk 00m WOM ww O. O r ep O. O, en a
& +.9 W w e eNe e 3 O M pe a ws ya pt 4, O 883 m pe eq q R % J F e e f O fe> W G S A L'D eJ J e4 & Q @
M es se e* 83 & % #e N we g N D e9 wMM W N Aw3 wet 3 e 4MW M t e WWW j
; ewg e, s WW fWWW e >> J+e y r e.e en ess e J e J aw .e . ese > > n s
.* e*Jes..ee P4 $a E o J *1 ** e > F 9 D- e t ad e6 +4m & J> G se
(# 'et
*e 14 e 1 % J *e e
*e e,# e= I J f y e4 a em & ees er o. ,e sa
- s.e Y 3F.. dJV teae e t o a.e a u 9
I wa
.e4 SMJ 4
48 4 O 9 e e 'ee O > d () 3 . is J
# H H 3EO d>>4 40 0 3r g EJws D 04h H o w eb % OmEu M*w.Ep o o V 4>4MeEgeMW
$4EWm m E %ek EwJE==O=OMwW MOMOONED EO >3m> Mme JeOh>wWWmJ OM-**gh EOwE Jwh>M MEEE4DOOuOOeJw
>WOOmegewdJJk hwh{bnE, MSEa p
MON W E JMSe>OOOJEEPXt eEONEJJJJuuBN M Mg Me. de 4
- Ew**>BREuMMwww l
l l . l l 1 D-7 I 1 i
e eO ts
- 48 v er P- O O e 3 O O CeO O O O O O ew 4
.o u k. e.w. e.m. . G.e r. m.w. e.e e.m. e. j e o u----
meppe
---p-e--
werewepe 9 3 O O e E WOOOO 00000000 w O 5 > eMMMM MMMMMMMM ' 4 e w 9 e t B 8 6 8 9 9 9 8 9 4 e ' U"M E E HOOOO 00000000 ea > O e p>J M M u S EM E > OJJJJ JJJJJJJJ ' o3 O - E%%%%o%%%%%%%% EOm o 2 RodGdwoGOGGG@@ Que saw 3 33333033333333 J e New
$ > MM
> W WW 4 MJ J Y. N O. g D. O. M. O. O. Oe O M ~ - D O.
wu w e O. Oe O.
* > > a 3 OOMOM4MMMMMMMM h M MB J QO e F O w Ems e 00 e 9 4 w D be O m3 D %
m 40w g
- M & &S J K , .
O wM S f 'W 'WWWWWWW D EM J 3 - e MO 4 *O P P >>>kb>>w w O P2 kwJ O g pg g g 4 s t e mR O Q nw Om JE sp EmESONEm M 4 w J> WOW Em WWHw2>>m34J E m M JE WO J SEOJnwwO46> w d ww MW w> WO3>EDOJEOS
> W e D WE WEJJh>EVESEkew E D N w 4 E>4NOGWwCOUNbw mow e wh e 3w ewkW35mOJg8909 m@ D >>O O J >OokJe*WE=>WWJ w2 N 4 umpeg&cOWuwOOu E
- N OmE > * >E Oh 30- OwSddMM>JJM
> g W w g- OJteswzamW9 RMS -
>> OO NM 3Sw&DmUM>>NUM* ,
Ew2 O EOD 4WRdj
- m me B 9 sMMS
- mu #- -GW p wwwwmOOQeMNEO4 One w 6 9 WJ G 1 WW 9 5 4 49 GE*
W3> d e -S % '.f M' W w W ' M I MN7 2M4 4 SbM: %dB 3 " eh % ' gap a AW w ed M at GP .4 M Op ,.i s5 ,yest ,
& > e se e g*T,P P EJ . e p p ,I - >J, e -
e= es > Wuw et O O-.g he
/"'>-~>M,*+- e.** %
e as g ge go A O - * * - ..
& - E, & e30 M.. p p M"*M- WMGMSObDe w
O_. H M
* .m .E- *O*MJ.(.$.pppe -
.00 eemppeSNNNM eeO Mwe OO ens E De
*>e eJ , w e= en se es nom e= w e.
==
M WOg M w> 03 W MOwMeep heewMO
> J hM W d O NMOO90g NO4kNO 4
- J O 'M e O O*w*Mee weM**
>MJ e d 'm. 3 % W @NNSWNN Mdq@
W eW W G B w 4 M M M S,MM M , M M M.M;
*3
, as e.e eO e4 . g3 3 -fb~* .
O > e= es > ee ee ow - Y'** .-e W - w a = www
> w J =Jw J>>
3 e o*
.., ewe S Qe 3.e *"a a e'n.
em M W 4 G&D $ @ r* - 8 0 9 6 9 6 & G $ # 8 0 8 5 E S ES W. 8- O wwe www PeMwW7 506 KHS
. OOO O&O OOOOMwweed}
3 % O www* p w w Muu UEM E g
> G -s M>m > MMM MMM MMMMm .
er es 3 9 *W& hs 9 4 -4 6 p- t 9
- 9 $4 8 8 e 9. 4 O
ew> .. *e e E 999 C O 6y O O G O M,y E E- *3 4 3 MJ M M M w S t > JJJ JJJ JJJJW D Om m %%% %%% %%%%M ww 4 J kom vem
*J 44
'5 3 333.4&G
@@@ , 333 3333J O L9 @ @ 9 wwW FM JEW Mw J 3 M OEG O> OOn OO uow e. w we e o e
- ek OO.Oce e e e o
& @@ 3 OMMMMMMOOMMMMA e d J e N 00
** 2 O> *a *3 9 N em UU JH 9 Q O w
** ss as f # % e. s4 er NDW w't pM d N DAW-3 >4& S @
== w .vv ww wwwv Y ped w 4
..e> ,ww J . He >
O M ee S J% 4> % %J g Om e e. a w= e.9 6- #3 e se as e.s m N se 3 F3 O *Je= J > T F>te 58 ( 3 e68 9 se % > Jg. e p+ d gJ > 4 4
- D e e
*e ne de get 4 gj t 0 4 De F ' *D Go t* 8' e ** *as O J> ta3 4 e %# w I 0- U
* #4.41 e4 +4 .#a 4 ea e M esO e-+3 0 3' 4 J W3 Bdd 69>>g t at W EJmE a M 3 E t3 40 w w w t3 s pa2u G49- EM >%>44sENwww 3M>wm O G EwdReMOegM*
$4&MW w E 4WW WMGMO ERO BO >3m> HwO JOOb>mEwwJ
'S MSOWS NE62400CucceJw wwJaM>M NwoommsewJJJpH kW Eos e JNEm>OSO4 SW EE
, SS 3R& E WESSRggJJ UEp um 4 EmedeswTn =>m*
r 0-8 i
A. . * *
-f *
US Ecology. Inc. 9200 Shelb/ville Road. Suite 526 P.O. Son 7246 Louisville. Kentucky 40207 f, 502 426 7160 - l. WM DOCMEI CONTROL - -
+
CENTER
< '84 E 27 Pl2:08 l
i USEcok y ' n w t 4 > 2
~.
Mr. James Schaffner August 24,1%4 ' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission s^ " ' Mail Stop 115-623-SS Washington, DC 20555 -
Dear Mr. Scr.6ffner:
,e e A review of our records oii non-radiological data for the Sheffield, Illinois disposal :ite indicates that the wells monitored are all upgradient from ther disposal treaches. Therefore this data is enclosed .for your perusal per '
your request. j ', J , t Should you have any questions or de;.iri' additional informatiar.,'please dd w not hesitate to contact us. ,e - Sinc -
, g_ . x- n r i er . rtinez .
Deputy Chief Radiologi ,, Control and Safet icer , ',,'e EDM:db " s
./
Enclosures e ,- , , cc: Ron Gaynor , <- - 'rT' Vice Pres' dent Technical s" ?, Services and Safety " ' Ken Waller - Chief Radiological Contrcl - and Safety Officer 's- ,, f J sj sw s . . f J y E D-9 . ,
~ s~ ,
k
- e. _-
6- -
4 2ND QUARTER SOLVENT ANALYSIS G-112 Acetone .G-104 Acetone N,N-Dime.sthylformaline G-105 None found Toluene Ethyl Benzene. G-106 None found G-ll3 N,N Dimethyl Acetamide N,N Dimethylfomamide G-107 None found Methylene Chloride Toluene G-108 Toluene N,N Dimethylformamide G-109 None found G-418 Toluene G-111 None found G-419 Acetone Methylene Chloride G-ll4 None found Toluene G-115 None found G-421 N,N Dimethylformamide
- t Toluene G-303 None found j G-422 Toluene G-199'(,I' None found 1 G-423 Toluene 9
G-424 Toluene t' G-435 Toluene G-426. Toluene G-427 Toluene G-428 Methylene Chloride G-196 Acetone l 0, Toluene 1 G-197 . O, Acetone l G-198 'N' Toulene Trichloroethylene 4 D Detection Conc. Organics Concentration Location Date Limits Detected (1) Methylene Chloride 0.002 ppm G 199 'C-l' 11/83 40.001 t,1 ppm @ 0.001 USGS 515 11/83 . Old Chemsite 7 . 0.004 ppm N (2) 3,1,1-trichloro- 0.006 G196 'P' 11/83 /_0.001 g ppm -- ethane 0.003 G198 'N' 6/83 0.032 G198 'N' 7/83 E 0.013 USGS 515 11/83 O.003 USGS 516 11/83 b 0.068 USGS 563 11/83 .<y (3) Trichloroethylene 0.047 G'198 'N' 7/83 L O.001 /_1 ppm . 0.020 USGS 516 11/83 + 0.007 USGS 563 11/83 g . -0 (4) Perchloroethylene 0.011 G 199 'C-l' 11/83 l-1 ppm b gg) 0.002 0.018 USGS 514 USGS 515 11/83 11/83 S 1.000 USGS'516 11/83 _w
.120 USGS 563 11/83 - (5) Toluene 0.006 G 198 'N' 5/83 /_0.005 ppm f_1 ppm (6) Xylene 0.016 G 196 'N' 5/83 (0.005 ppm L1 ppm (7) Acetone ~ 0.012 G 196 'P' 5/83 /_1-ppm 0.162 lG 196 'P' 7/83 0.003 G 197 'O' 5/83 0.432 G 197 '0' 7/83 (8) Diocytlpthalate 0.240 G 199 'C-l' 3/82 -t1 ppm 1
Detection Conc. Oroanics Concentration Location Date Limits Detected (9) Chloroform 0.0002 G 199 'C-l' 11/83 t .001 0 ppm ni ppm 0.005 USGS 515 11/83 0.180 USGS 516 11/83 0.002 USGS $ 11/C3 (10)Dichloroethylene 0.001 G 196 'P' 11/83 L O.001 ppm /_1 ppm 0.003 USGS 516 11/83 (11) Carbon tetrachloride 0.004 USGS 516 11/83 L O.001 ppm L1 ppm (17)1,2-Trichloroethane 0.009 63 USGS36_3, 11/83 L O.001 ppm L1 ppm (13)PCBs (Alg/l) 0.6 = 0.0006 ppm G 196 'P' 11/83 0.0001 ppm f_1 ppm 0.54 = 0.00054 ppm G 196 'O' 3/82 l c 3.7 = 00.0037 ppm G 197 'O' 11/83 l .'. 6.1,= 0.0061 ppm G 198 'N' 3/82 l N 29.0 = 0.029 ppm G 199 'C-l' 3/82
.010 = 0.000010 US,GS 519 (new) 11/83 (14)Trichlorobenzene 0.007 G 199 'C-l' 3/82 (15) Caprolactam 0.720 G 199 'C-l' 11/83 (16)1, 2 Dichloro- 0.002 USGS 516 11/83 L O.001 ppm L1 ppm ethane (17)1, 1 Dichloro- 0.048 USGS 563 11/83 L O.001 ppm c1 ppm 2
Detection Conc. G. t..ics Concentration Loca tion Date Limits Detected Tib7/ulphatic Hycro- 0.023 6 198 'N' V2 carbons 0.39 G 199 'C-l' 3/82 Alichatic Hydro- 0.100 G 199 'C-l' 11/83 carbons 0.003 USGS 513 11/83 0.003 USGS 513 11/83 L4 ppm 0.140 USGS 515 11/83 0.005 USGS 516 11/83 3.900 USGS 519 (new) 11/83 (19)Uridentifiec 2.100 USGS 519 (new) 11/82 n3 ppm corapouncs (extractable) ? C
, 4 -. . . - _ . - _ . - . .
1 Eh.
'k'q '
h 7 f I l . - . J N I I , 6 b-ts*
& a s cM *
" ll 6. 7 S" u l75 99
. . . "d -
F '_ . l' w n o c O
- N ,
I l N -' 2 @s' N I S h , h (I d S .k $-E \ t -!.N ih AM B n
\
k gm
) ~ ] cc cc I
t 4 mg g m UdOQ
. =>
l 5 k h. ! A u a c *&G % N 9 u
.)ai!E 4 23 25l N 9 g V3 C I .
2 bN 4r F
< < .- n
. !.gh@h!a e a - a '
s 0
=- i -:
.: l?
'9 C u%v e= I$\0 5 s N p 8{
$ 5f !5 k, bel s
a hy o ef hd e-
. x, 9@"4%.-Q s -
tt M. . .
~
h J ,
. o s e w
m% - .,
- d. h, 3 m
- mo So bs hk' d'
is 3 a F 6 -{ E Pp i r -
- %'- _.1 "
w . . .
- b. . I ti g ..M g) y j 4- - -=4
- % b n x[
s t i y g b .g E M es> D" M
%& t
- t t t \
NE - g Ne 4-
? N 4 Q N } 4 1 4 43' J )4 3 e N Q yN 3L ij b M N k "N U
- ! kl I \' k k$
y t k ^ l $l$ ' (
. Yi N
V D. ED D-14
LA, %: c>v fyy- Os. : J., p if/ Time Conectec: /os/5 om toi, , D031410 SPECIAL ANALYSIS F0151 Date Conected: //-/ '7-M Date Received NOV l8 lc83 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUNTY: r1LE G: FILE NUMBER: 8 area n,, S Yf$ 3f O//O9 S~l2.5 SCURCE OF SAMPLE: (Exact Incation) d /95
.2 tl / / gb G nu f ,G) S;s 05k PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, REMAPZS:
Os nobpcrm e. Ales /l poo'r- k romp k;boseJk mc& e
/~asl k sitA e eYa
~
s o h or l** u e >::ro e s::to u igMb~n,sd4 TESTS EEQUESTED: Mo / organdes h m e.[r/r4o . ErdAadrsgzza? - 1%ge. N $ s?/c k oclYe s~ O rs 'end J pas,;P d id A d6/.J COLLECTED BY: J, rraord # X Note (TRANSPORTED BY: 03nd Sruardi-' LABORATORY FICEIVED BY: f/fBP; C LITED: / [J # /g s/ FORWARDED: //3///'2/ Pc es == o ,c .Me 6eo &% 0 D C 4 CL H C. Comfatt a4 r _s ho N be e che d / 'f*k e 2.X h rQ C h S (8a e -deu.t-cd I1cid) etC WS @ mpf-e (43 L} Uold,/-c. o c cia n: c co m,& dic4/o s . et41/e 1 e. = /4
/,l, l- ft'I C.$t lo ro t O 9 W = f"&.e RECEIVED FE9 di fyr E.P./. -, D.LP.C. D031410 NGV 18 I983
"'nsr. veJLLINois LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING)
D-15 l
L ,/ ;, n, - oy
%7 Ti:ne Conected:
- # 4'/
/t /9 p- Iab #
r;031411 SPECIAL ANAIISIS FDPR Date Conected: //-/ 9-83 Date Received EV 18 ic83 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUhTI: FILE HEADING: FILE NUMBER: Burent s~aecriszo/ tis scos. cay =51L osso 9.s o2 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Eract Iceation) M/97 [oe// C) f2 d! ,$ l , PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, REMARKS: Pma,. 208 a km ue //,/.fdx m //-/4-82 M s.p ll 4ll' . Al Nmp. CE *F - ad<d,asa,.~ .sAW - n*/4
/* o b o_ d m Go e -
TESTS REQUESTED:llokbk drac.,,se3 h pme /& , $he Abs - L e -s.11 / 6) .fi Nadi kubA SAC ~/J ' LLL a' J res COLLECTED BY: J. grooeg , U~ Not;q TRANSPORTED BY: 7 s-TAosAJT- , LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: . // C LETED: //5/ [87/ FORWARDED _: /[5//ftf PC.6s = 3.'1he (pts) (t 4roc lO (~ ("L60)
&t/* D Q Mi C. C O"$0 lot N #10 h SC he C be el / -l- k 2. 8X q C. (<E C 6e ra - njeele-4 v-O) oO +-4 8h Co %v/c .
~
Oo I< J r (-e O e q n n s c. C o mpo vsd.c /r o 4- efe d e e / e- c/ __-.,,-n KtLt.n V E.u FEB 011Eo4' E.P_s - c.L.v.C. D031411 NOVIRic83 cTbT; M 111 INOIS LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) D-16
1
.s. ,, a re: 0 +' \
Monce M : LP W g03i4ig time ColleeT.ed: /.7 I+'o pe Iab # SPECIAL ANALYSIS FDPR NOV lR ;983 Date Collected: //- /'/-83 Date Received ILLINOIS DiVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUNIX: FILE HEADING: FILE NUMBHt: Bureau snerriel.o/t/s Ecotoav"A ciso9soa SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Eract location) d-/99 [4e// d-/\ l 6 4 5 / e} m du A> d hl b PuYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, RounS:&ne) 4/8 m A- ex////:s&, o, sA' M-93 Mll pd' L & . J~s. E' */~ - sbed drawi2} in ad-u Y m -s ec e. r* ~ MSO ? Aer .5"=y TESTS REQUESTED: '/ orew)s [ Me [b b /o fe S-n -Ah 1 4 s r :) ELJ L AIA uf;L,GRuJJL66) ' cd PC8s COLLECTED BY: 1 S ra c a e r , 7, N o2:ra e._ TRANSPORTED BY: J, r-rucsA)T-g LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: fg M,/M C STED: /*/3 / /g7/ FD WARDED: //a/[72/ Pc./3y = a. s%h M""? do wo I a c_4 o m = 720 ML Alipheh L hadeoca chans = sc5c g e l urladi /-e-a cu. a r i s rIew /w cWocicle = wJe u m- v n n n C4/oco 4 e m = 2% v
/r Mt.w v L.v FEB 011bo4 fe-fcec hio eo e 4 luIe.ne. e
~
// u+/e.
s[5iiNICUIo$s D031412 NnV IR 1983 LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) D-17
r% . 04/
%y c: LP4!
0031413 time Conected: .?Iff' pm Lab i SPECIAL ANALYSIS FDRM NOV 18 ;983 Date Conect.ed: //-/?'82 Date Received ILLINOIS ENV1MONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUNTI: FILE HEADING: FILE ffdMBER: 8O464M SMLFF/ELOlt/S &C40GY"Q Of/OQs*Q3 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Exact Iceation)(6fS Eco4ca F I4L-// /sd C160 2 UI s fl , PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, REMARKS: /L 4dd
/ es eJe/ //_E p - c,cr //-8-83 4 . d e a tt c . c. ,t~, k-se Ne $ bc E I sb e2 '
LA,AQ foc&- CC"LLECTED BY: I Snsyg y " 1 TRANSPORIED BI: 7 E- uC&tle LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: . D' /// C LETED: /[,5//3V FORWARDED:
//3///Tf PClos < o.I b' lc W '"y o c 9 w ic co m p o u n cLs >, o 4 dele &c.cr a + A e e.x +-ca. c I c f,ou -o uMf 5w) o/-nk o
.co ,a/c . < 2 n /s hO!# / d. O PC1 4 H( d CoH#d44tC!1 d'7 0 " "" # C <f C/
RECElVEU FEB 011bb4~ E.P.~ - DlJ C- D031413 NOVIR!c83
- Tancsunan LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING)
D-18
r~,.- % v%GA: A pe:oyAP/// Time Conected: S ffo p- I4b # W31414 % SPECIAL ANALYSIS *DIDL h43 l8 l%g] j Date Conected: //-/ 9- 62 Date Received ILLINOIS INvix0NMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF IAND/ NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL GQUNTY: FILE HEADING: FILE NUMBER: B u e s <at Cowerisio/us sces.6sv % 0//07 Car SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Exact location t/pdS Ale // [// O/8l (2 v:Js r i v J cL Lid 4 ) v PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, REMARKS: h / R ,o a k,e c /Offf% e //-/7-83 F,*elb = c N 9,,3 . h>.ve>. [4! 'F - l w d d b ,J a l 4 , ) <a e N . 4 4,4 L s/LEN/ae#
< g - --
s- -
] auN,6/,6,YoA-eA.4/
tJ, MSS &&M Mt Ua TESTS REQUESTED: //,/ d cru%,$, [, u nc / b ; 6 hao
/or -
u-LLLJhalc W ,LO2 - ihL a J PcL% - COLLECTED BY: goyd f n ogg, ARANSPORTED BY: Os,,s.4 hjng A7, LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: f W C W: //.3f //2/ FORWARDED: /[$/[$ Pces <o,iL/s V* Aliph a hi Aqctro ca cico n s = am./, a 00 la h le o n y e n, c. s no-/-deJe eje/ ocopl.VFD FEC 01hU
- e. e > c-n sTdiCFii.bHOIS 0031414 fi;^1V l8 ; C83 LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING)
D-19
[ ampA 5 Purpe:e: 04/ A 3ru. Cone: 4 4 4// l
'iime Collected: /.'Of pw gg bbOINI5 SPECIAL ANALYSIS FDRM i.
Date Collected: //-/ 9-82 Date Received 3 'i ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROIECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUNTY: FILE liEADING: FILE NUMBER: BuenM sseristo/tts sectoa? 6 //o e r a.t _ SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Eract Iocation) (//SGS / DEAL 5/3) GlB3 I (b w1 s l J L LEA) PEYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, RD/. ARKS: 8 (10 a 3,'$p, m //-(( @ c.u.~n 2a w 2; w 3aL i~iw La- -~ lAe SAS Oc rn en-. r ecllee . h c cc 64 M t ei JallJ hie / m b, L aihA 1 TESTS REQUESTED: Y en% 1 ,,f.,. e,o b ; E;r e3e u . u A L s r d ri k z , l'L L A 3 L L L -
~
J y:eas~ COLLECTED BY: J .Shoc# , CT. mea TRANSPORTED BY: I hc4Wi LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: e . MC : / [5/ [ff-/ FORW ED: //3// PCss < o I q[A 9 W'* 'gy Ali oh de c: A&coc.a c6on.s = 3 de V 00 la Ji j < acasu, a s no / c/e,%-/act nmc n
\/FD FUi 0 iG';
sYido, ios D03141s M:V 18 !c83 LPC-BA 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) 0-20
L.y Q Pyu. : O4 Py Ode.- LP41 Time Conected: S f,2 f ,o x lab # D031416 i SPECIAL ANAIISIS FDRM a Date Conected: //- /9- B3 Date Received I d ILLINOIS ENVIRONIENIAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUNTY: FILE HEADING: FILE N'JMBER:
8uREMa Sr/Cff'ELO/luS EO:1oo& 0//0950.Z SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Exact location)(//SU t.de // 8/Y)
/
O/89 (a v'L d iJ & LJ&h PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, RD! ARKS: P /62 m _ R 'fd u e M- E S R R'eU pIl ID.Q , k 54 tcp - ve/faj_a,)k ,) Nef,l Le.});f ,cel , wJwas & koadL,~06 y L ~ TESTS muESTED: uML ws L ~.,e JL . nLaW/.s. , sw AGL cd Lfc;JL$ JJa LALLcJn J pcA COLLECTED BY: 1 S ru my , n . m m TRANSPORTED BY: E S ruos C
~-N R Eow< LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: ,
Aff/ CC!.[ TED: / / 3 i ,f EL/ FDRhARDED: (f3/ PC8s <o,1 A /z % v - g liyaha &c i f y /co a ,6 a u , -- jyo /g TMce c.41la to e4q le ae. = a m/r&' MFAFM fi"N f\ L V El V E L/ l FEB 011504 t.; . .. - e.t., .c. STATE cF ILUNots D031416 NN IH!CR1 LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) 0-21 l
sc ,.I, , n y p s : W Pecyum Cade s 4P'/) Tim.e Oo11ected: /!4/6pe Lab # D031417 SPECIAL ANALYSIS MEM Date Collected: //-/ 7-83 Date Received NOV lR :c83 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUNTY: FILE liEADING: FILE N'JMBER: Bama SHowamba acme."*a 01/09503 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Eract Incation) /JM
\
- 4. JELL 6/6~ '
h[86 ' ut s f es C4L e PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, REMAES: Peel s74m L ae// 3;/f- m //-4-82
% N : o N % . L.-,.o 5 4 -bm$ls an . r a d/N /~ .
eJ rs,# Leit L:anh& 2c/? kJ zem .4.#J Ur $ e)ck.cm TESTS REQUESTED: //o[cI/e omU /w., m e /do-of F#hae uALlh/Ldf= aim d/AJ M n a.- d R G s COLLECTED BY: J. gnnw , J. Hop ca. TRANSPORTED BY: 1 JnsnSF LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: . #M/// C mD: / /g/ [FL/ MR ARDED: /[3//gT[ PC(b S < o,I O { 2. k -P klI f)h u ht 5 k uc/ro c a r bc z1.s = f e J~ & ( g'/ U o fc< $<'l e a e a a m o c .c c 4/n ce, Co e ,s, = s~u-+ 4 s v l,1, I rc~n ck loro ekh a n e = /3 &r v' -
-nn u-n -th chlo ro e H <sle i n p = /8u r/.e McLClV CU '
w e. n.4t e m c 4/o c, ele _ =. In/p ' FEB 01Eb4
- i.P.P - 0.L.WC.
STATE OF ILLINOIS D031417 NOV 18 Ics3 LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) 1 0-22
5 - A A n 0 9' ?!c.D% CYe: 1 9 4'/ Time Collected: 7SC pe Lb# bb3Id1b SPECIAL ANALYSIS FDRM Date Collected: //- / '/- 6.2 Date Received .. NnV 18 ,,383 II.LINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COUhTY: FILE liEADING: FILE NUMBER: Bure:4a Cactriexc/us Ecotcctv*.2. 0//09S0.2 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Eract Incation NSd,' S cJeg f,
[/k h[8b 2v h l e-PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, EIM E S P le/V9 a b~ ad, P.'.fd en //-/P-R3 FA : n N d.9 , lce.
Sruo,ey;- TRANSPORIED BY: G'en4J Srvoc417~ LABORATORY RECEIVID BY: - ,#// C 1. ED: /[3//8"I-/ FORW ED: /[3/[f7-f PC.Ss < 0 , t %/t ' ND Exten tfa b /e_ eceone c ' - ue k cJe L. e. he el ( < 2. n t ] ' (.soa.-r.ie m ees) 00/a N/e oec,aniis ke%le se. chlocu d-c. L/&e dieh lo e oe.d-k u I e vt e = 3E< v r,r ACf\/CD C4 /o co -fo em = /fd Nv /e nuvuvww 1, z.- clo c. h I o t o c+l a n e = 2 de . t l FEB01 E4 /, /, / - f ci c. h to ce e+ e: % e = a " <__ I w; . w c n e b e m +e + r c. e 4 /o e a c/ r -- At .c __ _
- w. _v STATE OF 'LuNois -fyj c_.t.,/ o e o e f (1y /e n e = a o e_,f/.e.
fefca c4Io co e.+hy lene.; looous/ 0031418 Nay la sc83 / p LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) D-23 h 5 Pa v e n : 0 ff %m- d.h: 4M/ b I410 $1meCollected: J//d M Lab # SPECIAL ANALYSIS FDPR Date Collected: //-/'7- 63 Date Received N ! ILLINOIS F.5VIR0hENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF LAND / NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL COWri: FILE HEADING: FILE NUMBEP.: Banesc.< Cncein si a /t.</r seozoaty u . O//09C03 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Eract Iocation) //.fd.9 A/g/1 [/7 h/89 [ 2 unb s & I 9A o b w . )>e l-llu PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, REMARKS: Pae //93 ox fae!/ 9f3[a,_. en //-/7-83 FreY nh l0. [ % 55'P - all lwl- belln e ce $ v b Y clecA h a,tl ,,1 cJe e IJ 14 L1 LA ~Au~ 14J kl. . c- cdelm ' Li L.I he cdcs. %1 rem 4AL 6L L c.Jl.J L RESTS muESTED: L4/J:1. wm L -e. cJb : acLAL < b M e. - e v h Ac me es oear J Pcm COLLECTED BY:J, froocar' 4' 3. He3t2crA TRANSPORIED BY: Te u STuo eArr LABORATORY RECEIVED BY: , A490 C0! ED: /[3/fg7/ FORW ED: / f3 (((l./' PC6: - m + L +e.cAe.cp <s'o N,;fr (WL) W#';f Alis4o/-ie Acibo c.a n 6cu s = 39omo 4.e. I flRic/en [. $r e cf Co mponn.cfr es$1m uleelJobe a r'o n 10 0 M lt. +-o h I (.r, d < a s esetc#mouss va /a H f.e. oeuao e < n o -/ d'e /ecde J u . i. ~ s .- .u . .,1. c.. s , u A .a x c. & + -Qo <~ G.c.e 4-o a <mu. Dmpl\/CD 5 % b %e# Eme B T h her FES 0164 sThiCF L i S OU01410 LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) l D-24 So,,,.l Q A pe:- : 0Y P.:5 w' Cd . 4 PM ,L1n a3 4 2,0 ~1. .c Ccue:tet: _5"'tX) p m Irb i SPECIAL AN8'VSIS FDFI gy j g : ,"-93 Iate .,e n e:ted: __ //-/9-M __ D9te Theeived -- - TU iNOIS Elh'1?.31MiGCAL i?3IECTiGN AGD;CY DESIO.(OF IAN?/'CISE' POLLUTION CON ROL ~ 03imII: SILE r2tJIliG: "T217 n: Bal?sAQ $aefrieto /tJ3 Ec:Los." *.;2. O1)o95qq Soc?.CE OF SA!sLI: (Enet Ic:atica)(f/.M3 tJell .5 s3 /$ i l N l f.2 ds ed /d, e L !^ h . m - PEYSICAL 0"MVATICl!S, FUS.?KS: Pae M3d n . & tJ . Y.'2 0% e //-/6 -83 F~') s pN d.Y \!w e 59 - ora e- , no sk N hoccucYek in U.SY2.? Pd2 l>u. a em / e IE e - A.)C s er S - e a: bey.kd.2/-83by?.DhDcleYmi , o can in. 5.2 .2 7/ pf* r%sriur( h 7 TESTS ?IQUES~ED:ll),lk o on - se.1- s ;e m e /r'scso : Eclr.seb b'es ! Aase- A]mb:b ;f' J A a ,. } a fd a d N i ; d b - e n j D d',A n L s J )=t*B , s - . COLLECTED BY: J.Srunco{ ,U Hot.2en_ IR3S?0RIED BY: E h rAccJr' U.30?J. TORY FICEIVED SY: j'f// C ED: /[3I[6'll ' . ~ EDED: /f3/ [Q Pcrh < o. %v /.e
- Si%
- Ekfrae % blE % - A./o 4 d.e / e c h cl <2 f.L
!-lJtu ht h O r<7L*ns c 5 /, l- c;Is c.$r /o ro.a-l-!r o n e__;::- ' WA>-c.f(- v !O # 0 0 O ""'I ' _2 " 4.- ._ l I.i $^.*.'?_h I ' 0 eb' W =_ 9& L _ ,c n,- njrn _.L_l,/-1r<c-4Ioeac: Iw_ = G7c.de M C.U Lk V t- v " I *$TtC!1[oroC.'!,'1yf .e -,} w , f _. .. _ . __P_ _U.$, _ ._ A h e.c % e o e ! * / u -t = ^'2 '"J[L $ilish'U$i D031420 NOV iR :983 ; LPC-M L/77 (NOT F07. D;,TA TRO:ISSING) 1 D-25 Sampd f b pcoat O Y Pm m e: J.P'N Time Collected: 9/3Ipd Lab , 0031421 SPECIAL ANALYSIS FORM Date Collected: //-/9- 83 Date Received N v I R *. '3'3 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENIAL PROTECTION AGENCY DIVISION OF IAND/ NOISE POI 1UTION C0hTROL COUhTY: n LE HEADING: FILE NUMBER: BugEAR SWEFREAD/GS AboLOW"*2. CHO9503 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: (Eract Iocation)(ascs ce// s'/o) GlFO (.2 aal f 6t' J a 4 #4) < r - PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, RDJAEKS: jbM ,932 e. - es 9/4 /fo,,, c.,, //-/4-SLT SeY: pN 0 4I dem,= . 55 # - l lV nY .1 e . s' r b s~sk , no o , (Jee EPA Akn ide ed TESTS EEQUESTED: /// , [ o r.n a , $ y [ , w / d p f [ r [ es i 5_~-/6d;A J 4,5/ A ' l / X i/L, 2 A.L d - PdB, COLLECTED BY: 15 mocor f No m IRANSPORTED BY: 7 SmoW LABOPJLTORY RECEIVED BY: h//f/#/// C0hLETED: /[5t M F0 ARDED: I f 3/ /TI/ Pcsa < c> .t %/t 9% Erkc-l a6/c o e9%les (base - o e u.4-cr i > ne: d) No4- de kcle ( U s / a S i / e. o c3o m c e a o # c/& e c + a.e/ . RFCEIVED FE6 u 1"od FP: - P *.P.C. STATE OF ILUNOIS 0031421 Ni!V 18 Ic83 LPC-8A 4/77 (NOT FOR DATA PROCESSING) D-26 . . ~ l I l g 4e c4, c, % l e m , 'f- s - U o l of ' l < O C$N' c L s y-- - - - - g , .~ ,=- ; Yk fb k c ~nethylene chloride <l f 1,1-dichloroethane </ _ j t-1,2-bichloroethylene l -< / f chloro forrn <l I 1,2-dichloroethane <l j l,1,-trichloroethane #/
- carbon tetrachloride <l '
i dichlorebronomethene <f _
t r i ch lo roet hy lene <f dibromochloromethane </ f bromoform </ j 2etrachloroethylene 4[ f be>r z.e n -e <5 _
i fo /u e n e - < S~
rcilesee <S -
8W4eIben z.en e , t%s % des nof defe'f*d *,
riress sc<myle s ,
f P.irame get pg/l Parameter pg/l luncane 4 o,ol o.p' DDE g6,c /
Hep *acMor g g,g l p.p' DDE go , o [ _..
i A8drin o.p' DDD
< c ,o l
{o o_l_
Heotara;or Eposide DDD , go,O /
O .O g o.o pha Ch!ordane g
o,p' DDT <O.O/ _
p.o D*; r Samma Chlordane O.O ; <o,o/
Dieide:n go,gg i Texaphene
.cg,g
= ~1 c ' "
_c o.o l T P
.ie tho wy cht er' g g,g g I q,, g L. - !
tl Pce- _. . _ ..
I
; i -
os.a.. i. . n.c e us, , .;. o.i n n i 11 RECEIVED'^~ ~"
. . .s.. . o.. .-
FEB 011bb4' E.P< - D.LP.C.
STATE OF ILLil40lS D-28
WELL 516 09-02-76 v
C w 748.50 l
C =
C C C
o -
Peoria n r M Loess l 1 729.70 l
l v 725.08 D m 9.. @ 720.00
.. - ... c
**. _ *.. C n
Toulon Member
" . :c. . . . .. . '. 712.50
. . . J e. ./, - Teneriffe
. . . . . .. ., . .. . Silt
*'.'..: 707.50 _ _ __.
D-29
WELL 523 09-13-76 e
N.
768.70 Fill 764.20 o -
*. C Peoria 1
j M g Loess n
i C p 744.86 M. &. .
~
J_742.67 Hulick Till 8
.'. w
_ D.ry 739.23 Shale
~ . .. .. .. .. ' .
r
. . . '. 736.70 I
\
D-30 a . . _ _ . . - . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . - _ - . ,_,c ._ ,_ . _ _ _ - _ . _ ..
WELL 534 11-08-78 .
n e4 741.07 Peoria Loess o e o e N
n sb n
726.10 1/
725.07 1 724.10 Teneriffe Silt 722.07 g g 720.57 Toulon Ma'=her N. i.
l.. .:,
~
".I .' Till A h.
716.07 _ _ _
D-31 i
WELL 563 11-17-81 cn
=.
753.63 Peoria Loess o \
@ l N i N '
738.63 -
C w
w e
b.
e Toulon C
_Y 721.20 Member m
6 v
- - 713.88 o
_- C.
=
.==. __ _
706.13 Teneriffe, 705.1t Silt D-32 l
WELL 574 12-17-81
- ~
o
" 706.15 i Peoria j 703.15 Loess
.g.700.36 L Radnor C y 697.54 Till oc e
694.65 C
M
_m N
N N
eummme N
N N
N 9
- C Toulon N
$ Member N
N N
N N
N SummmD N
m_ mW 664.15 _,, _ _
D-33
- . . - . - . ~ . . . ..- . . . . . . . ._. .. .. -- ...
a WELL 575 12-23-81 c-v
^
745.06 Peoria l . . Loess C C Ln m n e M M 1
h 1
718.06 4
,y_ 714.40 2 713.64 c
Z C Toulon Z Member 703.06 i Teneriffe 701.06 111I D-34
APPENDIX E BACKGROUND DATA FOR BARNWELL SITE
- 1. Table E-1 Correlation of Barnwell LLW facility well numbers
- 2. Example well construction diagrams, CNSI wells
- 3. CNSI non-radiological monitoring report - 1985
.54 34 44 6 .A + .34 4 43-D6e .- 2.
- 4*hm. # - 4 -44a .# s&A
- 4 - m- E.J---A.
.h 1
4 1
1 f
I'
?
f a
i T
5 l
1 i
f T
l d
r k
I a
4 1
i t
j j
t i,
t I
I 4k e
'l, l.
i e
v l
1e I'
I l
, -. - . , -- , , , , - , . -, .- . .. ~ - .-,- -. --. , .. ...--n,- - , . - - . ,,.-,. .,- , , , . - , ,.,, ,.,- , . , . - n--,,--..-~.. - -- . -- .- , . - ., . .,,.
g/ ,
<~
t
.n Y
/ 5 '
, ,, ,a" ,
df -
g;' n
, w Plr TARLE E-1 , f ,
p ? - s CORRELATION Oi; BARNWELL LLW FACILITY WELL NtiMBERS
~
L n."
CNSI 1985 Cahill 1982* CNSI'1985 J' Cahill 1982*
l
, / ;. --{ .a l
WM-0001 CN-7N *. i
~
.-5 _ f' WW-0034 ~
^
CN-6E WM-0002 CN-7E WM-0035* ~ - CN-Sw WM-0003 CN-7W WM-00?fi -
CN-64 04 B-42 -
37 CN-SS 05 B-14S . '30- CN-5N 06 B-14N 39 ~. CN-4E 07 B-30 40 CN-4W 08 B-20 41 s 09 OT-1E s '
42 ,,
10 GT-1W 43 W-8 .
11 C-26 ~44 W-5' '
12 <
B-25 45 W-6 13 TW-1.(N or S ?) 46 -
WW-9 14 CE-7M 47 W-4 15 CE-7S 48 W-2W 16 CE-7N 49 WW-7 17 CE-7SS' 50 W-11 18 GS-21 51 WW-13 19 B-18 52 WW 20 B-15 53 W-10 21 CN-IW 54 WW-2E 22 CN-1E 55 W-1W 23 56 WW-1E 24 57 WW-4E 25 GS-22 26 27 28 29 30 '
31 32 CN-2E 33 , CN-2W-E This numbering system was also used by Weiss and Columbo (1980),
'Czycinski and Weiss (1981), NRC-(1982), and previously by CNSI.
. g.e *
- E-1
DRAWINGI . PROTECTION PAQ.
SUPFACE
-GROUND._ , ,,-
9
,/
,r* **'
,a* ***
,o* ***
d gy
- m e GROUT w
,a* ,o*
.' p-
... ... PIPE go
.= ,,
*# ,a
,o*
**# l
..- I
,a*
i
,s
- A *. ". . ...
SAND - Q !:.-
Iy 5.2 I
) ~
j)Y '
WM-0001 To 03, 21 & 22, Wii-0032 to 42 WELLS INSTALLED FOR CNSI UNDER THE Pioe Casina Diameter 4" Except WM-0021,& 22 411provisinN OF JIM CAHILL. USGS. AS which is 3" PART OF A USGS S"TE STUDY.
CNSI DWNSY DLT 1 0-01-81 .
ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESEARCHLAB CKDBY ,
BARNWELL SITE APPR'D E-2
DRAWING I J-o Meeeosou e -+
$moueso StHeFACE
$' .YklY/ l OtM Ett ttoM A c h n
- D u .;
t 5
?
~ hj
- f. h
.m; a
vntum er o SE NTO.elTE-CEM ENT. BE AL _
i3 :-
B-h ' [.
's ir u O-a . ;o.' h g 7 i-i 1 g
w'
%-. 3 p :.{ g ,
)
4-t[Rt To de gtNTONITE
*
- P S -Pf"
. LLE T H BE As.
ji -
,j
- I sLOTTro Pvc Piet ] .
.T .*: *
'. .-ll
- ., 2
- o Pravious eAenniu. g g,,. :- ;;
- m. .
.p.: .i:
,, :: ::, 4 9 frYPICAL PIEZOMETER INSTALLATIO?!
CHEM-NUCLEAR SERVICES. INC.
Norm t see TamLas A uso B rom oeucasions or u w re.oi cre o Testown c a a u ONDivlOUAL PsEgometvEns Ar t A*sT A. OCTORE m 9 9?S E-3
i ; 7' -
y*
Cd)" 2.' ,.
NON-RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT Non-radiological monitoring of selected site monitoring wells was performed to evaluate present conditions and for the establishment of a routine monitoring program, if determined necessary.
Water samples were collected from strategically located site monitoring wells. 'These wclls include old wells located at the end of completed trenches, and new cluster wells. Specific wells included in this survey are:
! WM-0019 WM-0043 WM-0055 WM-0021 WM-0044 WM-0056 WM-0022 WM-0045 WM-0057 WM-0032 WM-0046 WM-0070 WM-0033 WM-0047 WM-0071 WM-0034 WM-0048 WM-0072 WM-0035 WM-0049 WM-0073 WM-0037 WM-0050 WM-0074 WM-0039 WM-0051 WM-0075 WM-0041 WM-0052 WM-0089 WM-0042 WM-0054 Samples were also collected from the deep well at each of the site boundary environmental stations and selected of f-site wells to determine a baseline for data review. These consists of the following:
WB-0101 WB-0701 WO-0024 WB-0201 WB-0801 WO-0026 WB-0301 WB-0901 WO-0027 WB-0401 WB-1001 WO-0028 WB-0501 WO-0007 WO-0029 WB-0601 WO-0023 WO-0032 Each sample was collected with a. pneutaatic water sampler using nitrogen to obtain a sample without the introduction of oxygen into the system. Collection was performed in stages between October 1982 and February 1983. To preserve sample integrity each sample was collected, stored, and shipped on ice. Sample integrity was confirmed by the vendor laboratory as being received in satisfactory condition for analysis. In-situ chemical parameter measurements, performed by CNSI personnel prior to sampling, include temperature, pH, conductance, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation reduction potention (ORP).
Duplicate samples were collected for quality assurance measures.
E-4
.p;fy9 'c. y
'. O l' . . .l i.
Analyses were performed by EAL Corporation of Richmond, California. i Sample analyses include total organic carbon (TOC), total alkalinity, '
f ron, specific solvents, EDTA /DTPA, and priority pollutants. Methods of analysis include gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. l The method used for non-GC/MS volatiles is a GC purge and trap flame ionization detector-method 602 EPA. Variations in results for the GC purge and trap flame ionization versus GC/MS is due to precision and accuracy of the procedures used.
Data are summarized in Attachments 1 and 2. Attachment I lists data for l thG baseline determinations. Attachment 2 lists data for total volatile organics with the specific organic constituents Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene. A review of this data shows a difference between the total volatile organics and the sum of the specific organic analysis.
j i
E-5 l
ATTACilMENT 1 ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Nm-RADIOWGICAL MONI'IORING OF SEllX' RED WB AND WO WELLS ANALYSIS UNI'IS NO. OF SAMPLES NO. OF ANALYSIS DE,rECTION POSITIVE VAWES ANALY2ED BELIM DETECTION LIMIT LIMIT IIM flIGH AVERAGE FERROUS IRON rng/l 18 17 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Il m rrg/l 18 10 <0.1 0.1 6.1 1.4 AMALINITY, HYDROXIDE rngCaCo /1 18 17 <2 28 28 28 3 BICARDONKIE ngCaCO /1 18 6 <2 2 59 21.3 3 CARDW ATE rngCaCo /1 18 16 <2 38 85 42.5 3 m '1UTAL ORGANIC " <1 1 5 2.5 CARDW rrg/l 18 1 ACE'IONE ug/l 18 10 <1 2 5 3.3 l Bm2ENE ug/l 18 18 <1 - - -
'IOWmE ug/l 18 6 <1 1 11 4.1 SAMPLE POINTS INCWDED IN 'IllIS
SUMMARY
ARE: WB-0101, WB-0201, WB-0301, WB-0401, WB-0501, WB-0601, WB-0701, WB-0801, WB-0901, WB-1001, NO-0007, WO-0023, WO-0024, m-0026, WO-0027, WO-0028, NO-0029, and WO-0032
,J 2 3 ~1UrAIS FOR ALKALINITY AND VOIATILE ORGANICS ARE PUr INCWDED IN '111IS
SUMMARY
. 'lilIS DATA SHOULD BE RLVIEWED EOR A ' I SPECIFIC SAMPLE POINr. l k d
. y
, i, , ;, , , ,-;;- 7 e' e' ,
;/ \l3/it 11 ATTACHMENT 2 ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
NON-RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF SELECTED WM WELLS ANALYSIS (ug/l)- SAMPLE POINT BENZENE TOLUENE XYLENE TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS WM-0019 8 <1 <1 32 WM-0021 <1 13 <1 30 WM-0022 <1 2 -- 92 WM-0032 <1 2 <1 4 WM-0033 <1 2 2 13 WM-0034 1 7 11 33 WM-0035 <1 70 124 -- WM-0037 --
<1 3 --
WM-0039 8 <1 1 100 WM-0041 2 <1 1 8 WM-0042 <1 <1 <1 6 WM-0043 <1 <1 4 100 WM-0044 3 1 2 60. WM-0045 <1 1 2 22 WM-0046 <1 <1 2 8 WM-0047 <1 <1 2 14 WM-0048 -- 1 1 -- WM-0049 -- -- -- -- WM-0050 <1 <1 2 91 WM-0051 1 <1 <1 5 WM-0052 <1 3 <1 20 WM-0054 <1 <1 5 430 WM-0055 <1 5 2 9 WM-0056 <1 8 1 35 WM-0057 <1 <1 <1 14 WM-0070 <1 1 <1 6 WM-0071 <1 1 <1 4 WM-0072 <1 <1 <1 <1 WM-0073 1 2 <1 3 WM-0074 <1 2 <1 26 WM-0075 <1 <1 <1 20 WM-0089 <1 1 <1 40 E-7
f P / O T l} 7l Y ,7
%fNUh.~^ ]L NON-RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING DATA SELECTED WM, WB, AND WO WELLS WITM TRITIUM RESULTS WM-0019
- Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L
- Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L i Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron <0.1 mg/L Ferrous Iron <0.2 mg/L TOC 3 mg/L
. TVO 32~ug/L i Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1, Trichloroethane 13 ug/L Benzene 8 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethlbenzene -< 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 5.75+0.20E+03 pCi71 l 2 mg/L I EDTA <
; DTPA < 5 mg/L i
WM-0019 VOLATILES-GC/MS PER ug/L (ppb) Acrolein <1 Acrylonitrile <1 Benzene 5 Carbontetrachloride <1 Chlorobenzene <1 1,2-Dichloroethane 10 . 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 8 1,1-Dichlotsethane <1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <1 Chloroethane <1 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether <1 Chloroform 30 1,1-Dichloroethylene <1 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene <1
! 1,2-Dichloropropane <1 1,3-Dichloropropylene <1
. Ethylbenzene <1 i Methylene Chloride <1 Methyl Bromide <1 Bromoform <1 Dichlorobromomethane <1 Trichlorofluoromethane 10 Dichlorodifluoromethane <1 Chlorodibromomethane <1 l Tetrachloroethylene 1.4 Toluene 1 Trichloroethylene <1 Vinyl Chloride <1 E-8
g ;, n ,~ Wji' h y ,4.L/ v. 31 WM-0019 (Continued) DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 20.3 4.9 +382 58 10 -- 9/13/82 18.2 4.0 +435 25 14 4.5 WM-0021 Alkalinity Hydroxide 20 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 180 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 45 mg/L Ferrous Iron 0.6 mg/L TOC 7 mg/L TVO 30 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 13 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 5.21+0.32E+02 pCI/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L WM-0021 VOLATILES-GC/MC PER ug/L (ppb) Acrolein <l Acrylonitrile <1 Benzene <1 Carbontetrachloride <1 Chlorobenzene <1 1,2-Dichloroethane <1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <1 1,1-Dichloroethane <1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <1 Chloroethane <1 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether <1 Chloroform <1 1,1-Dichloroethylene <1 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene <1 1,2-Dichloropropane <1 l E-9
COPY WM-0021 (Continued) 1,3-Dichloropropylene <1 < Ethylbenzene <1 Methylene Chloride <1 Methyl Chloride <1 Methyl Bromide <1 Brosoform <1 Dichlorobronomethane <1 Trichlorofluoromethane <1 VOLATILES-GC/MC PER uc/L (ppb) 1 Chlorodibronomethane <1 Tetrachloroethylene <1 l Toluene 19 Trichloroethylene <1 Vinyl Chloride <1 1 4 DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.9 11.4 +137 .619 175 6.0 9/13/82 20.5 10.3 +186 488 210 5.5 l WM-0022 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L , Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 35 mgCaCO /L
- l Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 35
, TOC 20 mg/L Acetone < 8 ug/L
- Benzene < 1 ug/L l Toluene 2 ug/L TVO 92 ug/L
,DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3/7/83 18.0 5.7 +247 151 95 9.6 4
l E-10
~~f n'e 'Ti.V }"
' g)/ ;\, ,fL WM-0032 Alkalinity Hydroxide 69 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 48 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.1 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC < 1 mg/L TVO 4 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L i Benzene < 1 ug/L l Toluene 2 ug/L l Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L i
Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 7.25+0.43E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L j DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO i 7/7/82 19.5 9.7 +167 281 -- 6.4 9/13/82 18.9 10.0 + 89 336 85 6.6 WM-0033 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 60 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 1 mg/L Ferrous Iron 1 mg/L TOC 12 mg/L TVO 13 ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L
, Toluene 2 ug/L i
Xylene 2 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.27+0.068E+03 pCi/L E-11
COPY WM-0033 (Continued) EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO
, 7/'/82 19.2 7.8 +215 132 58 7.6 9/13/82 18.9 6.8 +171 162 100 3.6 l WM-0034 Alkalinity Hydroxide 1500 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 280 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.1 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 7 mg/L TVO 33 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L
. Benzene 1 ug/L Toluene 7 ug/L Xylene 11 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene 2 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 4.68+0.29E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L TOC 3 mg/L Solvents 150 ug/L Acetone 65 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Chloroform 2 ug/L 1,2-Dichloroethane 51 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene 3 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.5 10.9 - 90 1025 4500 6.4 9/13/82 19.5 10.9 +158 8180 5000 2.9 4 E-12
;! " , ;,'i\ i( , V .Y N:) N./Y.$' N WM-0035 (Collected 7/12/84)
Alkalinity Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCOg /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 8.3 mgcaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO3 / Iron 58 ag/L TOC 29 mg/L Alkalinity Total 8.3 mgCaCO3 /L [ WM-0035 PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA VOLATILES uq/L(ppb) Per ua/L(ppb) Acrolein <20 Acrylonitrile <20 Benzene <1 Carbon Tetrachloride <1 Chlorobenzene <1 1,2 Dichloroethane <2 1,1,1 Trichloroethane <1 1,1 Dichloroethane <1 1,1,2 Trichloroethane <1 1,1,2,1 Tetrachloroethane <1 Chloroethane <1 2 Chloroethylvinyl ether <1 Chloroform <1 1,1 Dichloroethene <1 Trans 1,2 Dichloroethene <1 1,2 Dichloropropane <1 Trans 1,3Dichloropropane <l Cis 1,3 Dichloropropene <1 Ethylbenzene 11 Methylene Chloride <1 Chloromethane <1 Bromomethane <1 Bromoform <1 Bromodichloromethane <1 Fluorotrichloromethane <1 Dichlorodifluoromethane <1 Chlorodibromomethane <1 Tetrachloroethene <1 Toluene 70 Trichloroethene <1 Vinyl Chloride <1 l E-13 i l l
k
- COPY WM-0035 (Cont.) NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA' Carbon Disulfide <1 i 4 Methyl 2 Pentanone <10 Styrene <1
- Vinyl Acetate <2 Butane '*160 2 Methylbrtane *580
! Pentane *180 Methylcyclopentane *120 2,2 Dimethylbutane *120 Acetone <10
- 2 Butanone <20 j
, 2 Hexanone <10 j Xylenes 124 ! 2 Methylpentane *420 l i Hexane *180 l 3 Methylhexane *340 Heptane *200 2 2,5 Dimethylheptane *620
- Estimated concentration. This mixture is similar to gasoline.
f i
, WM-0037
'; Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L . Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L j Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L i Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L ! TOC -- TVO --
-Acetone j 1,1,1 Trichloroethane -- ! Benzene --
l Toluene -- Xylene -- . Isopropanol -- ! Ethylbenzene -- ! Dichloroethylene -- i I Tritium 3.77+0.24E+02 i pCi/L i DATE TEMP. g ORP COND. DS DO 4 7/7/82 19.5 4.2 +292 96 10 12.5 9/13/82 19.2 4.5 +509 14 12 4.5 l E-14
*3 )
WM-0039 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 33 mgcaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 4.3 mg/L Ferrous Iron 0.9 mg/L TOC 5 mg/L TVO 100 ug/L Acetone 77 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 4 ug/L Benzene 8 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 2.84+0.028E+05 pCi/L DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 20.3 5.2 +390 57 17 5.2 9/13/82 19.5 5.2 +298 22 19 WM-0041 Alkalinity Hydroxide 34 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 47 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 0.63 mg/L Ferrous Iron <0.2 mg/L TOC 8 mg/L TVO 8 ~u g/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene 2 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 3.73+0.15E+03 pCi/L ! EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 20.1 10.3 +151 1182 210 4.1 9/13/82 19.4 10.1 +146 386 90 53.0 E-15
COPY WM-0042 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 5 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 2 mg/L TVO 6 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.36+0.072E+03 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.9 6.3 +258 41 1.3 8.5
, 9/13/82 19.6 4.9 +382 16 13.0 8.6
-WM-0043 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 4 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 0.60 mg/L Ferrous Iron 0.26 mg/L TOC 7 mg/L TVO 110 ug/L Acetone 37 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene 4 ug/L Isopropanol 39 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.21+0.065E+03 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 20.6 5.3 +134 49 14 7.1 9/13/82 19.5 4.8 +372 15 12 6.6 i E-16 l
,( c'j f r .
y O. '
,1 WM-0044 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkslinity Bicarbonate 4 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.? mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 2 mg/L TVO 60 ug/L Acetone 13 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene 3 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L Isopropanol 16 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.06+0.060E+03 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 21.2 8.5 +190 39 11 3.9 9/13/82 20.0 8.6 +191 16 11 2.5 WM-0045 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 CACO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 3 CACO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 CACO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 2 mg/L TVO 22 ug/L Acetone 6 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 8.78+0.51E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 20.7 5.2 +362 44 14 6.0 9/13/82 20.0 5.3 +278 14 11 5.7 E-17
WM-0046 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L
- Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 2.4 mg/L Ferrous Iron 0.3 mg/L TOC 2 mg/L TVO 8 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 2.38+0.llE+03 pCi/L 1
EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.5 4.8 +383 19 10 6.0 9/13/82 20.4 4.9 +328 12 8 6.6 WM-0047 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bic'arbonate 27 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 2 mg/L TVO 14 ug/L Acetone < 10 ug/L , 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L i Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 20.0 5.8 +377 87 34 4.6 9/13/82 20.2 5.8 +323 60 32 4.4 l E-18 a
- . . - . . . , . - . . . , . -c., -., , , . , . , . , - . - . _ . . . ,, .,.-n, - -
78 S [e/U}IfR)[NR/ WM-0048 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 11 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 2 mg/L
' Solvents 030) 120 ug/L Acetone 17 ug/L Isopropanol 74 ug/L Chloroform < 1 ug/L 1,2-dichloroethane 23 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L Xylene 1 ug/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. EH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/62 19.7 5.8 +364 31 15 5.1 9/13/82 19.9 6.2 +294 28 18 3.7 WM-0049 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 6 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 4 mg/L TVO 91 ug/L i
Acetone 7 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.94+0.10E+03 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L
; Tritium 1.11+0.029E+04 DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.8 5.6 +373 66 25 5.4 9/13/82 19.0 4.9 +347 20 --
5.3 l E-19
WM-0050 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO3 /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO3/L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 0.8 mg/L 3 Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 4 mg/L TVO 91 ug/L Acetone 7 ug/L 1,1,1, Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L Isopropanol < 20-ug/L Ethylbanzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 2.94+0.13E+03 pCi/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO
~
7/7/82 19.3 4.4 +442 43 18 4.5 9/13/82 18.6 4.5 +323 -- 18 4.2 I WM-0051 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L 4 Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L , Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L 1 Total Iron 0.77 mg/L rcrrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L q TOC 4 mg/L TVO 5 ug/L Acetone < 21 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium S.84+0.36E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.9 4.2 +419 24 11 9.2 9/13/82 19.9 4.5 +510 34 11 7.6 l E-20 L _ __ -
*l{\
.? l (td%Un()il ,
WM-0052 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity ~ Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 1 mg/L Ferrous Iron 1 mg/L TOC '2 mg/L TVO 20 ug/L Acetone 4 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L ' Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 3 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol 13 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L
-Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L I
EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L Tritium 3.34+0.22E+02 _pEi/L DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.8 5.5 +305- 18 7.5 5.3-9/13/82 19.5 4.3 +348 6 6.0 6.6 WM-0054 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 110 mgCaCO /L-Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 1 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 15 mg/L TVO 430 ug/L Acetone 200 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane <- 1 ug/L Benezone -< 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L i Xylene 5 ug/L Isopropanol 44 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 4.05+0.059E+04 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L i DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.3 5.8 -396 356 125 3.6 9/13/82 19.9 6.0 -308 475 130 6.0 i E-21
)
ss /ss} < u - WM-0055
- Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 16 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L i Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 1 mg/L TVO 9 ug/L Acetone < 10 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene .< 1 ug/L ! Toluene 5 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L
] Isopropanol < 20 ug/L
; Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L l Dichloroethane < 1 ug/L ! Tritium 1.27+0.013E+05 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L ] DTPA <5 mg/L i DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 2
7/7/82 19.3 6.6 +345 86 33 6.5 9/13/82 20.6 6.0 +436 115 31 6.6 i WM-0056 , Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 11 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 1 mgCaCO /L , Total Iron 1 mg/L , Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 1 mg/L TVO 35 ug/L Acetone < 10 ug/L i 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L
- Benzene < 1 ug/L 1
Toluene 8 ug/L i' Xylene 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L 1 a Tritium 1.12+0.01E+05 i pCi/L i EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L l l DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 1
- 7/7/82 19.3 5.9 + 80 103 30 3.9
- 9/13/82 20.2 5.5 +236 50 27 3.0
} E-22
l l l hb!i.' Y WM-0057 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 24 mg/L i TVO 14 ug/L l Acetone 5 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L' Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 9.35+0.094E+04 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.7 4.4 +429 16 9 7.0 9/13/82 20.6 5.2 +380 37 15 3.1 WM-0070 Alkalinity Hydroxide <. I mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 8 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 0.19 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 3 mg/L TVO 6 ug/L Acetone .
< 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 2.04+0.f1E+02 PCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L E-23
COPY WM-0070 (Continued) DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.2 5.8 +416 49 22 8.3 9/13/82 19.0 5.0 +348 25 22 7.8 WM-0071 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 4 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.1 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC < 1 mg/L TVO 4 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 5.62+0.35E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.2 5.1 +453 28 13 9.2 9/13/82 19.0 4.5 +369 14 12 9.5 E-24
WM-0055 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 16 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 1 ag/L TVO 9 ug/L Acetone < 10 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 5 ug/L Xylene 2 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethane < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.27+0.013E+05 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS i!X) 7/7/82 19.3 6.6 +345 86 33 6.5 9/13/82 20.6 6.0 +436 115 31 6.6 WM-0056 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 11 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 1 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 1 mg/L TVO 35 ug/L Acetone < 10 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 8 ug/L Xylene 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.12+0.01E+05 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.3 5.9 + 80 103 30 3.9 ) 9/13/82 20.2 5.5 +236 50 27 3.0 i E-22
/
. 'T /['s . .
- lNYe t il WM-0057 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 24 mg/L TVO 14 ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 9.35+0.094E+04 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.7 4.4 +429 16 9 7.0 9/13/82 20.6 5.2 +380 37 15 3.1 WM-0070
~ ~ ' ~
Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 8 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 0.19 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 3 mg/L TVO 6 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Ben'ene < 1 ug/L Tolt ene 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 2.04+0.flE+02 PCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L ' E-23
COPY i WM-0070 (Continued) DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.2 5.8 +416 49 22 8.3 9/13/82 19.0 5.0 +348 25 22 7.8 WM-0071 s , Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 4 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.1 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC < 1 mg/L TVO 4 ug/L i Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L q Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L 1 Xylene < 1 ug/L j Isopropanol < 20 ug/L
! Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L l Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 5.62+0.35E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO < 7/7/82 19.2 5.1 +453 28 13 9.2
- 9/13/82 19.0 4.5 +369 14 12 9.5 T g
) j E-24
1
. v. y '
WM-0072 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 24 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 0.4 mg/L i Ferrous Iron 0.4 mg/L TOC < 1 mg/L TVO < 1 ug/L Acetone < 10 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethane < 1 ug/L Tritium 6.36+0.38E+02 pci/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.0 6.2 +393 111 42 3.1 9/13/82 18.9 5.4 +329 58 36 2.1 WM-0073 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 25 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 15 mgCaCO /L Total Iron 0.7 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 4 mg/L TVO 3 ug/L Acetone < 20 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene 1 ug/L Toluene 2 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 4.52+0.28E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.6 10.1 +240 207 100 0.7 9/13/82 21.3 9.1 +248 120 60 4.8 l 1 E-25
/, i T' ?
k--: ( li WM-0074 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 28 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 20 mgcaCO /L Total Iron < l.9 mg/L Farrous Iron 0.6 mg/L TOC 66 mg/L --. TVO 26 ug/L Acetone 21 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L m_ Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 2 ug/L Xyler.e < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L
. Dictrloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 1.51+0.078E+03 pCi/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.4 10.2 +221 139 48 7.0 9/13/82 21.4 9.3 +257 88 53 8.8 i
WM-0075 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 24 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 mgCaCO /L Total Iron < 0.2 mg/L Ferrous Iron < 0.2 mg/L TOC 2 mg/L TVO 20 ug/L Acetone < 10 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dicloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 2.41+0.044E+04 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.6 6.8 + 33 304 100 4.0 9/13/82 19.8 6.1 +224 131 60 3.6 E-26 l __ _-_-- - - - - - - - -
_ }.. WM-0089 Alkalinity Hydroxide < 1 CACO,/L Alkalinity Bicarbonate < 1 CACO'/L Alkalinity Carbonate < 1 CACO /L Total Iron 0.82 mg/L Ferrous Iron <0.2 mg/L TOC 4 mg/L TVO 40 ug/L Acetone 38 ug/L 1,1,1 Trichloroethane < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L Xylene < 1 ug/L Isopropanol < 20 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 1 ug/L Dichloroethylene < 1 ug/L Tritium 8.42+0.49E+02 pCi/L EDTA <2 mg/L DTPA <5 mg/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 7/7/82 19.9 4.7 +253 41 14 4.8 9/13/82 19.9 4.7 +234 18 15 1.1 E-27
', l , f5' e .c' s _1 WB-0101 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L Iron 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 14 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 14 mgCaCO /L TOC 2 mg/L Acetone 4 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 2 ug/L TVO 6 ug/L DATE TEMP. p,H ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 18.1 6.0 +332 39 35 --
WB-0201 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaC0 /L Alkalinity, Total < 2 mgCaC5 /L jl TOC 3 mg/L Acetone 2 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L TVO 2 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 17.1 4.3 +399 16 20 -- WB-0301 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L Iron 0.3 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide 28 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate 47 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 75 mgCaCO /L TOC 3 mgcaCO /L Acetone 2 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L TVO 2 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 18.1 6.0 +332 39 35 -- E-28
.J Y . s n, 7 ], ..
WB-0401 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L Iron 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 35 mgcaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Total 35 mgcaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 2 mg/L Acetone 2 ug/L Toluene 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L TVO 3 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 17.4 7.1 +276 119 90 -- WB-0501 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaC /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate < 2 mgCaC /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaC /L Alkalinity, Total < 2 mgCaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 2 mg/L Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 11 ug/L TVO 11 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 18.1 3.9 +371 34 29 -- WB-0601 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total < 2 mgCaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 2 mg/L Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L TVO < 1 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 16.3 4.4 +375 10 15 -- E-29
-s eye .' .t.
WB-0701 Ferrous Iron <0.01 mg/L Iron 0.4 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 28 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 2P mgCaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 2 mg/L Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L TVO < 1 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 18.3 7.2 +287 69 45 -- WB-0801 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 4 mgCaCQ /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaC$ /L Alkalinity, Total 4 mgCaCO /L TOC 1 mg/L Acetone < 1 mg/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 6 ug/L TVO 6 ug/L DATE TEMP. gH ORP COND. DS DO I 3-22-83 18.1 5.4 340 25 23 -- l WB-0901 Ferrous Iron < 0.3 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 19 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 19 mgCaCO /L TOC 2 mgCaCO /L Acetone 4 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 2 ug/L TVO G ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 17.0 7.5 243 36 30 -- E-30
\
WB-1001 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Bicarbonate 7 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity Carbonate 38 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 45 mgCaCO /L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 4 ug/L TVO 9 ug/L DATE TEMP. pH ORP COND. DS DO 3-22-83 17 10.2 147 79 11 -- I E-31
V fQ ; - N : 5/ O. _9 ' WO-0007 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 52 mgcaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L 52 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total == Total Org. Carbon 1 mg/L ,, Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L . Toluene < 1 ug/L TVO < 1 ug/L WO-0023
- Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron 0.6 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 23 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 23 mgcaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 2 mg/L
< 1 ug/L ==
Acetone Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 6 ug/L '[_--- TVO 6 ug/L WO-0024 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 7 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 7 mgCaOC /L Total Org. Carbon 4 mg/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 2 ug/L TVO 7 ug/L WO-0026 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron 0.2 mg/L Alkalinity; Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, 91 carbonate 59 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L hlkalinity, Total 59 mgCaCO /L , Total Org. Carbon 4 mg/L Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L ' Toluene 2 ug/L TVO 2 ug/L i ! E-32
~'
y? * [c='ifjp, ?Q,V:. D. WO-0027 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 22 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 22 mgCaCO /L TOC 2 mg/L Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene < 1 ug/L TVO < 1 ug/L WO-0028 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron < 0.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 0.2 mdCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 2 mgCaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 5 mg/L Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 2 ug/L TVO 2 ug/L WO-0029 Ferrous Iron 0.1 mg/L Iron 4.9 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 10 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 10 mgCaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 2 mg/L Acetone < 1 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 5 ug/L TVO 5 ug/L WO-0032 Ferrous Iron < 0.1 mg/L Iron 6.1 mg/L Alkalinity, Hydroxide < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 16 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Carbonate < 2 mgCaCO /L Alkalinity, Total 16 mgCaCO /L Total Org. Carbon 3 mg/L Acetone 2 ug/L Benzene < 1 ug/L Toluene 6 ug/L TVO 8 ug/L E-33 l
> s y ,'
,; , e
'e, s 4;/
-u
.t s TYPE ANALYSIS UNITS Alkalinity Hydroxide mgCaCO3
/L Alkalinity Bicarbonate- mgCaCO /L 3
Alkalinity Carbonate mgCaCO3
/L Total Iron mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L Total Organic Carbon (TOC) mg/L Ethylenediamina Tetraacidic Acid (EDTA) mg/L Pentetic Acid (DTPA) mg/L Total Volatile Organics (TVO) ug/L Acetone ug/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L Benzene ug/L Toluene ug/L Xylene ug/L Isopropanol ug/L Ethylbenzene ug/L Dichloroethylene ug/L E-34
APPENDIX F PROPOSED EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS l
PROPOSED NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATI0'lS; V0LATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 219, November 13,1985,46902-46933) Contaminant Maximum Contaminant Level (ug/1) trichloroethylene 5 carbon tetrachloride 5 vinyl chloride i 1,2-dichloroethane 5 benzene 5 1,1-dichloroethylene 7 1,1,1-trichloroethane 200 p-dichlorobenzene 750 F-1
_a_ A Cro== = u s. =uct A nou<Avoa, Co .sio= i R ,oR r ~vo iR ,4-m rioC. P,
-]
v., .. . ., 5 E*,"3E BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-ll83 6 sim i~srRuctio~s o p. Revers.
,,81<..~....,<.
. <.....<.~. __
]
e Nonradiologi 1 Groundwater Quality at Low-Level _1 7 Radioactive Waite Disposal Sites 4
,,,,,,,,,,,,co,,,,,,
* ^v'"ca '5' k j oo~r.
j v.AR _]
/ Aoril 1986 7
- Daniel J. Goode -
f " =_ *^"""".AR 3..
,\ f
( oo~1R April l v 1986 % 7 P.RFORMING ORGAmt2 AYsceu NAWE ANO taAstiNG ADDRt$$ riacsi, dele Ceaws S PROJECTIT A$E wQRK y%sT NUMSER j Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Materidl. Safety and Safeguards s = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co?mlission Washington, DC 20555 j [ i p
\
10 SPo%$ORiNG oRGA%i2 ATiON % AWE AND M AlWNG ADDRESS fiac8erdele Codes l'. Y VP. o, REPORT g
?
= Division of Waste Management 4 / Office of Nuclear Material Safeiy and Safeguards , Technical N
- . , R,oo Cov . R io ,,,,,,,,..
3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission;( Washington, DC 20555 __= ! m . a .. ~, . R . ~ou, t i s _:- ( - 13 ASSTR ACT (Jdo wer.s .r sess) - x., = k The NRC is investigating appropriate regulatory options for disposal of low-level - radioactive waste containing nonradiological hazardous constituents, as defined by EPA i regulations. Standard EPA / RCRA procedures to determine hazardous organics, metals, _, indicator parameters, and general water quali,ty 'are applied to samples from groundwater __- monitoring wells at two commercial low-level.-; radioactive waste disposal sites. At the - Sheffield, Il site (non-operating) severalitypicahorganic solvents are identified in - elevated concentrations in onsite wells andiin an offsite area exhibiting elevated - tritium concentrations. At the Barnwell, SC site (o'perating), only very low i m concentrations of three organics are foundfin wells adfacent to disposal units. Hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products are detected at both sites. Hazardous E [ m ccnstituents associated with previously identified major 1.LW mixed waste streams, toluene, d
- xylene, chromium, and lead are at or below detection limits or at background levels in all =
samples. Review of previously collected data also supports \the conclusion that organic 6 m solvents are the primary nonradiological contaminants associated with LLW disposal. __; g [
- I r
\
b, kg __
-E E
is oocuptNT ANALY5i5 - e KE vwoRD5;DEscRiPTOR5 IS AVAILAttLIT V low-levelwaste,radioactivemixedwaste,landdisposal, organics,k "'""'" N toluene, xylene, lead, tritium,groundwatercontamination,Sheffieldh Illinois, Barnwell, South Carolina Unlimited
=
y
\' t. S.CuRITV CLAS$1FICATioh q
ITh. engel m
. ov.Ti i Rson~ i~oso ""*$
Unclassified ---
< r.. ,
g Unclassified 17 NuketR o* PAGES 3 _
, . ,R ,C .
3 a 7 _
-1 UNITED STATES sncet rovarw ctess navn NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION msmg,9;cu mo WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 ' wasw. o.c.
MRuti h G47 __ m OFFICIAL BUSINESS - PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 4300 _-_
-E
.e 4: en7' N
.- a M
$ _- - y -E;
, . 3 ,
i b ' m. . i > R, ( ~ m h C 2
- EE
=A
- E -
E N q M S I
-a -
- ==
'M_
[ - ^ 4 i
-===
O c -
=
b m M 7 d T 1 2 l =
=
=
--}}