ML20214N811
| ML20214N811 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000008 |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1986 |
| From: | Kirch G, Toy H Battelle Memorial Institute, COLUMBUS LABORATORIES |
| To: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| 28188, BCD-5186, NUDOCS 8706030084 | |
| Download: ML20214N811 (79) | |
Text
_-
76 4
&s&s##oIV OS/#/F7 BCD 5186 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR I
CALENDAR YEAR 1986 i
on RADIOLOGICAL AND NONRADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CHICAGO OPERATIONS OFFICE May 1, 1987 i
Prepared by Environmental Health Physics Nuclear Services Section Contributors:
I E. R. Swindall, R. G. Evans, and D. G. Stewart, Environmental Health Physics, Nuclear Services Section; G. E. Kirsch, Health Physics Supervisor, Nuclear Services Section; P. Gorman, Facilities Engineering and Operation Section; M. J. Stenhouse and R. H. Snider, Radiochemistry Services, Nuclear Technology Section BATTELLE Columbus Division 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 8706030084 861231 PDR ADOCK 07000008 C
PDR,
-l APPROVAL LIST APPROVED BY kD DOE Liaison Officer APPROVED BY
- E/
Mt" Health,P)fysics Supervisor Nuclear Services Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag _e LIST OF TABLES..........................................................
iv LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................
vi FOREWORD................................................................
vii SUPNARY.................................................................
1 SITE AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION...........................................
3 S i te De s cr i p t i o n s..................................................
3 Demography....................................................
4 Climatology...................................................
4 Geology.......................................................
5 Hydrology.....................................................
6 Background Radiological Characteristics.......................
7 FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS...................................................
7 The King Avenue Site...............................................
8 The West Jefferson Site............................................
8 Hot Laboratory, JN-1...............................................
9 Administrative Building, JN-2......................................
9 Battelle Research Reactor, JN-3....................................
9 Hazardous Material Laboratory, JN-4................................
10 Radiological Waste.................................................
10 E N V I R ONMENTAL MON IT OR I NG................................................
12 West Jefferson Site................................................
12 Air-Radioactive...............................................
12 l
Water-Radioactive.............................................
13 Water-Nonradioactive..........................................
15 Grass-and-Food-Crops-Radioactive..............................
15 Sediment-Radioactive..........................................
16 Soil-Radioactive..............................................
16 Fish-Radioactive..............................................
16 Background Radiation Levels...................................
17 KING AVENUE SITE........................................................
17 Water-Radioactive..................................................
17 l
11
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
- Page, EVALUATION OF DOSE TO THE PUBLIC........................................
17 Estimated Radiation Doses to the Public From Emissions from j
the Battelle West Jefferson Site During Cy 1986....................
17 i
Atmospheric Discharges........................................
18 Liquid Discharges.............................................
18 Estimated Radiation Dose to the Public from Atmospheric Discharges.........................................................
19 4
Computation of Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters..............
19 Canputation of Girl Scout Camp, Nearest Resident, and Popu l at ion Group Doses....................................
19 Computation of the 70-Year Dose Commitment at the Girl Scout Camp and for Nearest Resident, Population Groups, and Integrated 80 km (50-Mile) Population.............
20 4
Estimated Annual Radiation Dose to the Public from Liquid Discharges.........................................................
20 Radiation Dose from Swimming (External Whole Body)............
20 Radiation Dose Due to Boating and Water Skiing................
20 Radiation Dose from Drinking Water............................
20 i
Annual Radiation Dose from Eating Fish........................
20 70 -Ye a r Do s e Comm i tme n t.......................................
20 Fence Po s t Do se Es t imate......................................
22 i
Maximum Organ Dose Estimate...................................
22 1
REFERENCES..............................................................
23 Quality Assurance..................................................
24 APPENDIX. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION LIST...................................
A-1 i
i i
j l
111 i
- m..-., _, _ _ _ _.. _ _......... -.. _,..,. _ _ _ - - -.. -,,. -... - _
-, _ _ _ =,,, _ _..
.,.m_,.,
LIST OF TABLES
.P_ag.e.
Table 1.
Sumary of Atmospheric Radiative Emissions -
West Jefferson Site'..........................................
25 Table 2.
Gama Emitting Radionuclides Identified in the JN-1 (Hot Cell Stack Particulate Emissions).......................
26 Table 3.
Sumary of Liquid Radioactive Emissions - West Jefferson Site (Measure of Effluent from Sanitary Sewerage System into Big Darby Creek - Figure 4, Designation 010)............
27 Table 4.
Nonradiological Sampling for West Jefferson Site j
January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986.........................
28 Table 5.
Sumary of Gras s Analyses....................................
29 i
Table 6.
Sumary of Food Crop Analyses................................
30 Table 7.
Sumary of Sed iment Analyses.................................
31 3
Table 8.
Sumary of Soi l Core Analyses................................
32 Table 9 Sumary of Gama Isotopic Analyses of Soil Core Samples......
33 Table 10. Sumary o f F i s h An a lys i s.....................................
34 Table 11.
Integrated External Background Radiation Measurements at Recreation Area and Property Boundary Line -
West Jefferson Site..........................................
35 Table 12. Sumary of On-Site Ground Water Survey Sumary Analyses......
36 Table 13. Concentration of Radioactivity in Liquid Discharges to Columbus Municipal Sanitary Sewerage System..................
37 Table 14. Sumary of Site Boundary Air Sample Analyses for Gross Radioactivity................................................
38 Table 15. Sumary of Site Boundary Air Sample Analyses for Specific Radionuclides................................................
39 Table 16 Sumary of Off-Site Air Sample Analyses......................
40 Table 17 Summary of Environmental Water Sample Analyses...............
41 i
f I
iv
~ _ _. __ _ _ __.,._ _._ _.___ _-
~
~..
LIST OF TABLES
.P. aSe Table 18. Radionuclide Composition of BCL Effluents for CY 1986........
42 Table 19. Sumary of Annual Radiation Dose to the Girl Scout Camp Nearest Residence and Population Groups from Atmospheric Emissions of Krypton-85 During CY 1986.......................
43 Table 20. Annual Dose to the Girl Scout Camp from Effluents Released During CY 1986......................................
44 Table 21. Annual Dose to the Nearest Resident (0.75 Km NW) from Effluents Released During CY 1986............................
45 Table 22. Annual Dose to the Nearest Population Group (Darby Estates) from Effluents Released During CY 1986.......................
46 Table 23. Annual Dose to the Population Group (West Jefferson) from Effluents Released During CY 1986............................
47 Table 24. 70-Year Dose Comitment for the Girl Scout Camp from Effluents Released During CY 1986.......................
48 Table 25. 70-Year Dose Comitment for the Nearest Resident (0.75 Km NW) from Effluents Released During CY 1986..........
49 Table 26. 70-Year Dose Comitment for the Nearest Population Group (Darby Estates) from Effluent Releases During CY 1986........
50 Table 27. 70-Year Dose Comitment for the Population Group (West Jefferson) from Effluent Releases During CY 1986.............
51 Table 28. 70-Year Dose Comitment for 80-Kilometer Population from Liquid Effluents Released During CY 1986.....................
52 Table 29. 70-Year Dose Comitment for 80-Kilometer Population from Airborne Effluents Released During CY 1986...................
53 Table 30. Parameters for West Jefferson Site Airborne Release Dose Calculations.................................................
54 Table 31. Average Annual Percent Frequency of Wind Direction and Average Wind Speed (M/S) for CY 1986.........................
55 Table 32. Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion Around the West Jefferson Site for an 18 Meter Stack Height Release..........
56 Table 33. BMI King Avenue Site Population Within 80 km (50 Miles)......
57 Table 34. BMI West Jefferson Site Population Within 80 km (50 Miles)...
58 y
LIST OF FIGURES
?ag,e, Figure 1.
Regional Map for King Avenue and West Jefferson Sites.......................................................
59 7
Figure 2.
Local Vicinity Map of King Avenue Site......................
60 Figure 3.
Local Vicinity Map of Nuclear Sciences Area West Jeffeson Site..........................................
61 Figure 4.
Nuclear Sciences Area West Jefferson Site...................
62 Figure 5.
Map of Grass, Foodcrop and Soil Sampling Locations..........
63 Figure 6.
Map of Site Boundary Air Sampling Location and Battelle Lake and Darby Creek Water Sampling Locations...............
64 Figure 7.
Batte11e's Columbus Laboratories King Avenue Site............
65 Figure 8.
Map of TLD Locations Within 3/4 Mile Radius of the Nuclear Sciences Area.......................................
66 Figure 9.
Map of Columbus and Vicinity Showing Off-Site Air i
Sampling Locations..........................................
67 Figure 10. 1986 Wind Rose Pattern for West Jefferson Site..............
68 vi
FOREWORD This report'was prepared by Nuclear Service's Environmental Health Physics 4
group. The radiological monitoring data were supplied by environmental and operational health physics staff. The nonradiological data were compiled by the environmental protection representative of the Facilities' Engineering and Operation Section. The radioanalyses of environmental air and water samples for gross radioactivity and gamma isotopic determinations were performed by Radiochemistry services Nuclear Services Section. Radioanalyses of air, water, grass, soil, food crop and soil samples for specific radionuclides were performed by the Eberline Instrument Corporations' Radiochemistry Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Nonradiological analyses of environmental water samples were performed by the Columbus Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio.
1 1
l t
}
i I
vif
FOREWORD
- This report was prepared by Nuclear Service's Environmental Health Physics 4
group. The radiological monitoring data were supplied by environmental and operational health physics staff. The nonradiological data were compiled by the environmental protection representative of the Facilities' Engineering and Operation Section. The radioanalyses of environmental air and water samples for gross radioactivity and gamma isotopic determinations were performed by
+
Radiochemistry services, Nuclear Services Section. Radioanalyses of air, water, grass, soil, food crop and soil samples for specific radionuclides were performed by the Eberline Instrument Corporations' Radiochemistry Laboratory, Albuquerqu(., New Mexico. Nonradiological analyses of environmental water samples were performed by the Columbus Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio.
't i
}
i vii i
.._.---._..-,_.._-..-____m.
SUMMARY
Environmental data collected during CY-1986 show continued compliance by Battelle Columbus Division (BCD) with all applicable state and federal regulations.
In addition to the routine monitoring of liquid and atmospheric emissions at the King Avenue and West Jefferson nuclear sites, data were collected for var-ious environmental media including air, water, grass, fish, food crop, sedi-ment and soil. These samples were taken from the area surrounding the West Jefferson Nuclear Site.
In general, off-site levels of radionuclides attributable to the West Jefferson nuclear operation were indistinguishable from Chernobyl fallout and background levels. The data are summarized as follows.
West Jefferson nuclear operations during 1986 caused no distin-guishable impact on concentrations of airborne radionuclides or on external radiation doses measured adjacent to the nuclear site or at the West Jefferson site boundary (Tables 2 and 11.)
Radionuclides observed in food crop, grass, creek bottom sediment, fish and soil samples were all attributed to either utmospheric nuclear tests Chernobyl fallout or natural sources (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.)
Low level concentrations of a few radionuclides released to Darby Creek from the West Jefferson nuclear site were all less than 9.17 percent of the respective derived concentration guide (DCG) for an individual'radionuclide released to an unrestricted area. Concen-trations observed at down-stream sampling locations were statis-tically indistinguishable from background levels (Tables 3 and 17).
The estimated radiological dose resulting from the nuclear operation at the West Jefferson site was calculated for the Girl Scout Camp, nearest residence and population groups, and the integrated fifty mile population surrounding the site.
(The Girl Scout Camp dose is calculated assuming a full time resi-dent custodian.) These dose calculations take into account both the measur-able levels of environmental contaminants and the impact of radionuclides suspected to have been released but not found in detectable concentrations during the year's environmental sampling program. The doses are surmiarized as follows:
The 70-year dose commitment computations for the Girl Scout Camp nearest resident and population groups and the 80-km (50 mile) population have been prepared and are included in the dose evaluation section of this report.
Three modes of exposure were considered in the calculations of the 70-year dose commitment:
(1) chronic inhalation of radioactive mixture using an
2 l
1 atmospheric diffusion model; (2) chronic ingestion of a radioactive mixture through terrestrial and (3) aquatic pathways (Tables 24,25,26,27,28,29).
The annual whole body dose at the Girl Scout Camp during CY 1986, was calcu-4 lated to be 0.0058 mrem. This estimate includes the external radiation L
exposure in excess of that received from normal background levels as well as contributions from airborne and aquatic recreation pathways.
The maximum organ dose conunitment received at the Girl Scout Camp from all pathways was 0.018 mrem /yr to the skin from Krypton-85 (Table 19). The dose can be compared with the standards given in DOE Order 5481.1 Chapter XI of 3000 mrem /yr for the skin. A discussion of how the maximum organ dose was calculated is given in the text on page 21.
Airborne emissions from the West Jefferson nuclear site resulted in a whole body 70 year dose commitment to the population within 80-km (50-mile) radius of the nuclear site of 9.13 x 10-5 person-rem. Liquid effluents during 1986 i-contributed approximately 3.9 x 10-1 person-rem to the total population dose.
This estimate may be compared with the approximate 2.08 x 105 person rem /yr
]
received annual from natural background radiation (Tables 28, 29).
The whole body " fence-post" exposure during 1986, for external radiation at the site boundary line, was at background levels at the Girl Scout Camp adjacent to the Battelle property line 0.5 km east of the nuclear site. This evaluation was verified through the use_of TLDs placed at the site boundary (Table 11). A discussion of how the " fence post" exposure was determined is i
given in the text on page 22.
Releases of low-level concentrations of radioactivity to the Columbus municipal sewage system from the Building 3 (U-235 Processing Facility) were i
less than 3.07 percent of the concentration guide for discharges of mixtures inte sanitary sewerage systems (Table 13).
Discharges of sanitary water from the West Jefferson nuclear site into Darby Creek under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit were, with two exceptions, all within the parameter limits specified in Ohio i
EPA Permit No. N404-CD (Table 4). A discussion of releases is found under Environmental Monitoring--Water Nonradioactive on page 15 of this report.
i 4
i l
)
l-i I'
_.,_,~,___._ _ _. _. _. -. ~. _., _ ~.., _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _
3 SITE AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION The activities performed under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-92 are conducted at BCD's King Avenue Site and the West Jefferson (Nuclear Science Area) Site. An 80-km (50-mile) area map showing both sites is presented in Figure 1.
Figures 2 and 3 show property boundaries. Various Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed activities are also conducted at both sites but are not addressed in this report. However, the effluents considered in this report are a result of both contract and license activities.
Site Descriptions The BCD King Avenue facility is located at 39 degrees 59'N, 83 degrees 03'W in the western central portion of the city of Columbus, Ohio. The ten-acre plot, acconinodating twenty-one buildings, is bounded on the north by King Avenue, Perry Street to the east, Fifth Avenue to the south and the Olentangy River to the West. Figure 7 is an expanded view of the BCD King Avenue facility.
Building 3 houses the uranium processing activities at the King Avenue facility.
The West Jefferson site is located at 39 degrees 58'N, 83 degrees 15'W, approximately 15 statute miles west of the BCD King Avenue facility. The West Jefferson Site consists of a 1,000 acre tract which accommodates the Engineer-ing Area in the southeastern portion, the Experimental Ecology Area in the east central portion and the Nuclear Sciences Area in the northern portion.
The northern boundary of the Site lies approximately one mile south of Inter-state Highway 70 extends from the Georgesville-Plain City Road eastward to the Big Darby Creek. The eastern boundary of the Site roughly parallels the valley of the Big Darby Creek southward to the Conrail tracks which constitute the southern boundary. The Georgesville-Plain City Road defines the western boundary of the Site.
For this report, the Nuclear Sciences area is the focus of interest at the West Jefferson Site. As illustrated in Figure 6 it consists of a ten-acre fenced area enclosing a guardhouse, four buildings and two other small struc-tures on a flat bluff above Battelle Lake to the south and Big Darby Creek to the east. The eastern edge of the bluff drops rather abruptly from an average elevation of 910 feet to 870 feet mean sea level (MSL), then more gradually to the 860 foot elevation of the Big Darby Creek Floodplain. The land to the north, west, and south, to a distance of two miles, is essentially cleared farmland, although there is one narrow wooded area along the northern portion of the fence around the Nuclear Sciences facility, and another wooded area about 1,000 feet to the northeast. To the east, within the Big Darby Floodplain and along the bluffs to the east of the Creek, the land is heavily vegetated with deciduous trees, scrub and high grasses.
i 4
Demography The area within a two-mile radius of the BCD King Avenue facility to the east and south can be characterized as, high-density residential. The Ohio State University, with a student enrollment of 53,278, is adjacent to the BCD King Avenue facility on the north. The area west of the Olentangy River consists mainly of small business and light industrial properties with scattered resi-dential patches. Table 33 shows the population within a fifty-mile radius of the King Avenue facility.
The area imediately adjacent to the West Jefferson Site has a low population density. Table 34 shows the population distribution, by direction and dis-tance, within 50 miles of BCD West Jefferson. The nearest residences to the Nuclear Sciences area are two houses located 2,500 feet to the northwest and southwest, respectively. A Girl Scout Camp, Camp Ken Jockety, is located on a bluff on the east side of the Big Darby Creek at a distance of 1,640 feet.
Four thousand feet to the southeast, on the eastern side of the Big Darby Creek, the Lake Darby Estates residential subdivision (Figure 3) is under construction. A total of 965 single family units have been built. A second subdivision, West Point, east of the Lake Darby Estates and Hubbard Road, has approximately 540 housing units.
There are 18 industries located within the ten-mile radius. Of these, there are only four that employ more than 100 people. These are White-Westinghouse Electric Corporation, General Motors, Janitrol Aircraft, and Capital Manufac-turing Company. Each of these is located at least 8 miles from the facility.
Closest to the Site are three small industries within West Jefferson that individually employ less than 60 people. The primary agricultural activity in the area is raising field crops such as corn and soybeans. Approximately 10 percent of the land area in agricultural use is devoted to pasturing beef cattle.
During the last 19 years two major highways, I-70 and I-270, have been com-pleted near the West Jefferson Site. The junction of these highways, which occurs near the eastern edge of the ten-mile perimeter around the Nuclear Sciences Area, has proven to be a popular area for industrial growth.
It is estimated that the industrial population has shown an increase equivalent to that of the general population in this area; i.e., two and one-half times the ten-mile population distribution for 1965. Most of the growth has taken place near the outer limits of Columbus; however, the larger employers, e.g.,
General Motors and White-Westinghouse, have actually decreased their number of employees.
Climatology Climatology of the south-central Ohio region may be described as continental-temperate. As such, the region is subject to a wide seasonal range in temperature. Summers are quite warm with the mean temperature for the months of June, July, and August being 73.3 F.
Temperatures of 90 F or above are expected for about 15 days during these months. The mean for the months of
5 December, January, and February is 31.2 F.
The number of days per year with temperatures below 32 F and below 0 F are 122 and 4, respectively. Precipita-tion is distributed fairly uniformly during the year although 60 percent falls during the spring-summer seasons. The annual monthly average rainfall is about 3.5 inches and the greatest recorded rainfall for any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period was 3.87 inches in July of 1947.
Changeable wind directions are characteristic of the region due to the incur-sion of maritime tropical air masses from the Gulf of Mexico and outbreaks of continental polar air masses from Canada. Warm air mass inversion is most common during the later spring and summer and frequently results in frontal showers and thundershowers. Tropical air mass thunderstorms are also common during the sunner and are frequently accompanied by high winds. Additionally, it is not uncommon for hot air mass thunderstorm development to be suffi-ciently strong to spawn tornado activity. Cold fronts that invade the region, principally during the late fall, winter, and early spring also bring showers and thunderstorms.
During the late spring fast moving cold fronts, with large temperature discon-tinuities ahead of and behind the frontal surface, travel through the region and are often accompanied by thunderstorms and frequently by tornadic activ-ity. Of the 567 tornadoes recorded within 144 miles of the BCD facilities during the period 1950-1975, one hundred sixty-three have occurred in the month of April.
The regional climatological data gathered by the National Weather Service at Port Columbus, seven miles east-northeast of the King Avenue facility, is generally representative of the local climatic conditions at the Columbus Site. A local meteorology station is maintained at the West Jefferson Site.
The data collected by the local station are used for preparing the wind rose shown in Figure 10. Table 31 summarizes the windspeed and direction at the West Jefferson Site for 1986.
Geology The arrangement of geological strata in the BCD facilities area consists of glacial till and outwash with formations of clay, sands, and gravel. The sands and gravel of the outwash are found in scattered, thin, discontinuous lenses within the till which is composed of unstratified clay containing fragments of rock. The unglaciated basement formations in the West Jefferson area, at depths of from about 80 to 100 feet, consist of nearly horizontal beads of limestone, dolomite and shale several hundreds of feet thick.
Surface soils consist of patches and mixtures of: Brookston Silty Clay Loam, Crosby Silt Loam, Lewisburg Silt Loam, Celina Silt Loam and Miamian Silt Loam.
The greatest portion of the surface soils is represented by the Brookston-Crosby Association with little more than traces representing the remaining types. All of these solid types exhibit relatively low permeability and all grade into till clay at depths of 55 to 60 inches where the impermeability of the near-surface geology nearly precludes further percolation.
e 6
There have been no recorded earthquakes within 50 miles of the area of interest, although in 1937 a strong quake was experienced at Anna, Ohio, a little over 50 miles to the northwest of the West Jefferson Site. The Columbus-West Jefferson areas are, however, considered to be in a non-seismic region. The 8CD facilities are in a Zone 1 low-risk area.
Hydrology There are two aquifers, or sources of water, in the site area. The shallow aquifer is, of course, the dense clay till. The deep, or principal, aquifer is the limestone bedrock underlying the till. Earlier wells in the site area ranged in depth from 10 to 40 feet, which placed them in the glacial deposits.
Till is not very permeable and yields water slowly. The effective velocity of water moving through clay under a hydraulic gradient of one percent is reported to be less than 0.004 foot per day; for water moving through silt, sard, and loess under the same gradient, the rate is about 0.0042 and 0.065 foot per day. Water movement in the till at the Battelle site is probably within the range of the former figure, since the hydraulic gradient of the water table in the area is only slightly greater than one percent.
The present wells at the Battelle facility lie below the surface of the bedrock. The north well is 130 feet deep, the centrally located well in the Life Sciences area is 162 feet deep, and the south well is 138 feet deep.
Bedrock was encountered at approximately 103 feet below the surface in drilling these wells.
A man-made hydrologic feature of the site is the artificial lake covering an area of about 25 acres that was formed by damming Silver Ditch south of, and down gradient from, the Nuclear Sciences area. The normal surface elevation of the lake is 888 feet MSL.
The source of ground water in the site area is local precipitation. Recharge to the shallow aquifer takes place relatively uniformly over the area. Con-tours of the water table, which are about 40 feet below the surface, are a subdued replica of the surface topography. Ground water moves downslope at right angles to the contours and follows a path similar to surface runoff. At the Nuclear Sciences area surface runoff moves downslope into the lake, thence through the controlled dam on the site into Big Darby Creek.
Test borings carried out in 1970 for an addition to the Hot Laboratory reaffirmed the geology described above. Only isolated pockets of water were encountered during that boring and foundation-piling excavation operations.
These pockets were readily pumped out and remained dry, which indicated that there is no interconnection of the pockets with the lake.
Flood water calculation for the lake indicated a capacity of releasing water that was about three times the inflow rate measured during the January 1959 floods.
It can be concluded that the lake has not adversely affected the hydrology of the area.
7 Big Darby Creek accounts for the principal surface water flow. Normal flow at the Darbyville gauging station, the only continuous recording gauge on Darby Creek, 40.46 river miles south of the West Jefferson facility, is 430 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Background Radiological Characteristics t
The external radiation background levels at the Nuclear Science Area and the West Jefferson Site are continuously monitored at 15 dosimeter stations using comercially available type TLD-110 thermoluminescence (lithium fluoride) dosimeter packets. All TLD packets are changed and evaluated each calendar quarter. Table 11 gives the local external background radiation levels measured at the West Jefferson Site during 1986.
In comparison, 1966 aeroradioactivity measurements of the region including the BCD facilities showed that the natyrgl terrestrial background for the area surrounding BCD was 60 mrem /yaar.u01 This number is equal to the average natural terrestrial background for the U.S.
The cosmic background for the State of Ohio is averaged to be 50 mrem / year, compared to a U.S. average of 45 mrem / year. The estimate for natural whole-body internal background is cons <-
dered to be 25 mrem / year for the U.S. with only minor regional variations.G2)
Based on the these figures, the total natural background near the BCD facili-ties is estimated to be approximately 135 mrem / year, as compared with an average of 130 mrem / year for the U.S. as a whole.
FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS The center of nuclear activities at the BCD King Avenue Site is the U-235 Processing Facility, located on the first floor of Building 3.
It is the nuclear materials management point for all transactions involving nuclear material at the King Avenue Site. Figure 7 shows the location of Building 3 in the King Avenue Site building complex.
At the BCD West Jefferson Nuclear Sciences Area, the major operation involved is research on the properties of irradiated materials. This work is performed in the Hot Cell Laboratory (JN-1) and involves examination and testing of irradiated reactor fuel, nuclear pressure vessel material, and fuel cladding material. The experiments serve to collect data for the development or test-ing of theories about material performance under irradiation conditions.
NuclearsupportactivitiesareconductedintheAdministrativeBuilding(JN-2) and the retired Battelle Research Reactor (JN-3). Figure 4 shows the loca-tions of these nuclear facilities in the Nuclear Sciences Area building complex.
In August 1986, Battelle went into a surveillance and maintenance mode of operations, awaiting decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of both the King Avenue and the West Jefferson facilities. During September 1986, a short section of slightly contaminated duct work was removed from a passage way at the King Avenue site. The duct was wrapped in plastic and held for future disposal. This is the only D&D work performed during 1986 and it had no environmental implications.
8 The King Avenue Site The U-235 Processing Facility is located in Building 3 of the King Avenue Site. This facility was constructed in the mid 50's.
It served until the late 60's as an exclusion area specifically designed for the processing and storing of unirradiated enriched uranium utilized on various government and industrial R&D programs. Presently Building 3 is used for several activities, but access to the U-235 processing area is limited and entry doors to the area are alarmed. The vault is used for the temporary storage of limited quantities of unirradiated enriched uranium. The area is also used for the receiving, storing, waste processing and packaging for shipment of source materials.
The major piece of processing equipment located in the area is an electric calcine furnace which is used for the reduction of scrap or waste to an oxide residue suitable for shipping to either a waste disposal site or scrap repro-cessor. The furnace consists of a closed system muffle and glove box com-bination. The exhaust system for the furnace is arranged so that room temperature air is drawn into and mixed with the hot exhaust gases within a blending box. The semi-cooled exhaust gases are then drawn through a water scrubber system which is equipped with a re-circulating water system. After passing through the scrubber, the washed exhaust gases flow through a bank of absolute filters and are then exhausted to the outside atmosphere through a blower and duct opening on the roof.
The reduced residues and ash, after being burned and cooled, are dumped into plastic bags within the glove box. The glove box is an exhausted closed system and therefore the system operating pressure is negative to the room pressure. This prevents any problem of contamination in the surrounding area exterior to the system.
This calcine system can be used for the reduction to oxide of limited quanti-ties of unirradiated enriched uranium scrap. The removal of enriched uranium ash and residues from the glove box is accomplished by dumping the material into a hopper built into the floor of the glove box. This drops directly into a can which, when full, is removed and a lid applied and sealed for shipment.
The area is also the central gathering and packaging spot for low-level radio-active contaminated waste. The area also served as a receipt and shipping, sampling, and measurement area for shipments of both source materials and small quantities of unirradiated uranium which are to be, or have been, utilized on programs being performed at the BCD King Avenue Site.
The West Jefferson Site As shown in Figure 4, there are four principal buildings at the West Jefferson Nuclear Sciences area: JN-1, the Hot Laboratory; JN-2, the Administrative Building; JN-3, a retired Research Reactor; JN-4, the Hazardous Material Lab (Decommissioned Plutonium Laboratory). Each of these facilities is described in the following paragraphs.
f i
9 Hot Laboratory. JN-1 This laboratory, containing approximately 22,000 square feet of space, is con-sidered to be one of the most completely equipped such installations available to the nuclear comunity. The Hot Laboratory is capable of providing research and technical assistance in the areas of:
i e Power reactor fuel performance evaluations e Pressure vessel irradiation surveillance capsule examinations and evaluations e Postirradiation examinations of nuclear materials and i
j'? t components e Radiation source encapsulation, and
_e Physical and mechanical property studies of irradiated materials and structures.
[
The Hot Laboratory consists of a large high energy cell and connecting pool capable of handling complete power reactor fuel assemblies, five smaller cells, and supporting facilities. The smaller cells are the high-level and J
low-level cells, the two mechanical test cells, and a segmented alpha gama cell. The supporting facilities include areas for cask handling, solid and liquid-waste disposal, contamination control, equipment decontamination, and other miscellaneous operations.
i Administrative Building. JN-2
- This butiding was designed and constructed for use as a critical assembly laboratory.
It was used for critical experiments from 1957 through 1963.
Since the cessation of critical experiments, the facility has been used for c
several nuclear related projects including direct conversion concepts, irradi-ation experiment assembly, and special nuclear materials handling. The oper-ating license was terminated by Battelle in 1970 when project work was ended.
Offices and small laboratories are used by nuclear supporting services staff including Section Administration, Health Physics Services Nuclear Materials i
Accountability, Quality Assurance, and Instrument Maintenance. These activi-ties,are the major building activities at this time. The building also currently houses the vault, used for storage of special nuclear materials, and a radiochemistry laboratory utilized for the assay of routine health physics samples and low activity irradiated materials study specimens.
i
(
Battelle Research Reactor. JN-3 The Battelle Research Reactor began operations October 29, 1956, but those operations were terminated on December 31, 1974, and dismantling initiated.
i The dismantling was completed without incident during 1975 and the license i
changed to a possession only status. Storage of waste awaiting shipment for burial is the only Itcensed activity conducted in JN-3 at this time.
t 1
]
_.,-__.,~_;m,_,a_.._____,__.._,
i 10 Hazardous Material Laboratory, JN-4 Building JN-4 was built in 1960 to house activities in plutonium research and processing. These operations were terminated in 1978 and dismantling was com-pleted in 1985. A hazardous materials study laboratory has been approved for operation in JN-4.
These t.ctivities involve non-radioactive material only.
Radiological Waste The processing of liquid waste from nuclear operations at the West Jefferson site involves the collection of contaminated liquid in holding tanks and con-centrating it using an evaporator. All laboratory sink and floor drains in the nuclear facilities are connected to holding tanks. Only office area and restroom drains are connected to the sanitary drain system. Contaminated liquids are solidified and the solid waste shipped to a Department of Energy (DOE) or DOE approved site.
Liquids which could potentially contain radioactive materials from these facilities are contained, thus preventing the accidental release of radio-active materials to the sanitary sewer system. Highly contaminated liquids are mixed (remotely if required) with a solidifying agent and disposed of separately rather than being permitted to mix with large volumes of mildly contaminated liquids in the holdup tanks.
Liquid wastes from the King Avenue site include solutions and, possibly, waste water from the U-235 processing area. All liquid waste from the U-235 processing are solidified for disposal. Quality assurance procedures insure that no solution is discharged to the sewer systems without approval of the Radiological Safety Comittee.
Solid radiological wastes from operations at the King Avenue site are collected, compacted if necessary, and packaged for shipment to a DOE or DOE approved disposal site. Solid waste from the West Jefferson site is from many sources. Examples of solid waste are the HEPA filters and disposal cartridge water filters, the spent fon-exchange resins, disposal clothing or other supplies consumed and contaminated in the laboratories. The transportation of solid waste to disposal sites is performed in accordance with 49CFR and 10CFR.
l Any releases of gaseous wastes to the environment are carefully controlled and dispersed to ensure that concentrations are as low as practicable within l
recomended standards. Radionuclides in particulate form are removed from exhaust stack effluents by the use of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. The air effluents are filtered first at the points of operations, i.e., hoods, test cells, and finally at the stack release point by one or two banks of HEPA filters in series. To the extent possible, radioactive gases i
present in the fuel pins under examination at the Hot Cell Facility are drawn off for subsequent disposal with solid wastes. The residual gases trapped in l
the fuel matrix or otherwise released is monitored continuously by effluent monitors.
i 11 i
Continuous air monitors (CAMS) are located throughout the laboratory. They monitor the environmental air for alpha, beta. and gamma-emitting particu-late matter. For each monitor, if the concentration in the stacks equals or exceeds the applicable concentration guidc (CG) level then an alarm and cor-responding action is taken. Under this procedure the activity in uncontrolled areas will remain less than the values in DOE Order 5480.1. The hot labora-tory has two separate exhaust stack systens. One for JN-1A; one for JN-18.
There are two significant differences in the two systems. First, the JN-1A system consists of six individual stackt; the JN-1B system uses only one large stack. The other difference in the two exhaust systems is that the JN-1B system contains a large I-131 charcoal trap.
For the JN-1A stacks each stack has a complex of separate alpha and beta-gamma particulate CAMS, with some having gaseous effluent and Iodine-131 detectors.
Any of the monitors can activate an alarm and shut off the exhaust fan for the individual high level cell, low level cell, mechanical test cell or the alpha-gamma (basement) cell, isolating the particular cell.
I For the JN-1B stack there are four separate CAMS, alpha particulate, beta-gamma particulate, gaseous effluent and Iodine-131. Any of the four instru-ments will activate the alarm, shut down all exhaust fans for the High Energy Cell (HEC) and close the butterfly valves so no more air can be drawn from the cell.
In the event that the I-131 monitor activates the alarm, two additional operations take place; an exhaust fan is started and a diversion damper opens causing any exhaust air to flow through the charcoal trap.
Although the two stack monitoring and control systems operate independently, they function on a similar basis. The alarm set point of each instrument is set at a level based upon regulatory values of Concentration Guide (CG) in DOE Order 5480.1 for various radiation species in uncontrolled areas. Alpha particulate monitors are set on the basis of the CG for Pu-239, beta-gamma particulate monitors, on the basis of the CG for Sr-90. Effluent monitors are set for the the Kr-85m CG. The I-131 monitor is set on the basis for that l
isotope.
l Ventilation in the JN-2 storage vault and the radiochemistry laboratory is l
provided by separate exhaust fans that are designed and operated to maintain a negative pressure atmosphere in the vault and to provide adequate air l
exchange in the radiochemistry laboratory. The air exhausts for the storage vault and the radiochemistry laboratory empty into large plenums to which absolute filters are sealed. The exhaust stack for the storage vault is equipped with alarmed continuous alpha monitoring to detect the release of any radioactive matter.
,-,w--+-,
,,,,_,,--y
-v
-,w--,-,,,,,-.n-,,,,-,--v,.y------,,,.y-<,,,.,,,-,y
f i
12 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING The impact of operations on the health and safety of the public is avaluated routinely by an environmental monitoring program which has been in existence since 1955. The basic objective of the environmental monitoring program is to evaluate the effectiveness of the waste management program of all operations.
Concentrations of radioactive and non-radioactive wastes are controlled so that effluent levels are maintained as low as reasonably achievable and well within applicable standards. All effluents involving potentially polluting materials are contained within the operating facilities to the extent possible and are disposed of as packaged wastes by authorized services.
West Jefferson Site Air-Radioactive In-stack air samplers continuously monitor the exhaust stack effluent release from each facility to assess the effectiveness of systems controlling airborne emissions. Eight continuous stack monitors ensure detection of any inadver-tent release of radioactive materials and provide data for the prompt assess-
' ment of the environmental impact, if any (Figure 4). Particulate sanples of-the effluent are collected from each exhaust stack. The particulate samples are collected on two types of filter paper, GVB-6 and Type E glass fiber.
Theairissampledatanaveragerateof2.8x10gcm3/ min.
The filters are
~
changed weekly, which represents average sample volume of 285.5 m3 This volume is determined to facilitate the detection of airborne activity in concentration well below regulatory standards.
Analyses are performed on a weekly basis for gross alpha and gross beta for stacks 001 - 004, 006, 012, 013, and 014. The results reported represent l
total average annual concentrations at the stack and also at the site boundary as calculated from stack sample data. The site boundary concentrations, reported in Tables 1 and 2, for the various exhaust stack locations were cal-culated by multiplying the individual stack concentration by the abnospheric j
i dispersion parameter computed for the site boundary.
i The site boundary atmospheric dispersion parameter was obtained using the j
i atmospheric dispersion model incorporated in computer code Dacrin (see reference 8, page 23).
The cumulative average concentration of the alpha and beta mixture, emitted from stacks 001 - 004, 012, 006, 013, and 014 was less than 0.014 percent of the CG value at the site boundary. The results are sunnarized in Table 1.
t l
Based on routine monthly gamma ray analyses of in-line system charcoal gas sampling cartridges installed in stacks 001 and O concentrationofiodine-131waslessthan9x10g2thecumulativeaverage, percent of the CG value at represents a weekly average sample volume of 1.3 x 10 m$. x 10D cm3/ min.
the site boundary. The air is monitored at a rate of 1 3 This 3
This volume was i
1 i
---.,,w
,,,-~mv-
,---,,,-,,,,,--vnr---
,,---r
,----,--,-w--,-
.--,--,-,--_n.,
,e e,-,
w w-e
,-,v
~
,-e.
13 determined to facilitate the detection of airborne activity in concentrations well below regulatory standards.
The cumulative average concentration of Krypton-85 released from stacks 001, 002, and 013 was less than 0.0012 percent of the CG value at the site boundary. The concentrations wtre calculated by using strip chart recorder data from the gaseous monitors on exhaust stacks 001, 002 and 013. The results are summarized in Table 1.
Identification of radionuclides in the JN-1 stack particulate emissions from stacks 001 through 004, 013, and 014 was made by monthly gama spectrometric analyses and specific radiochemistry analyses of weekly stack air sample filters composited over a 4-week period. Gama spectrometric analyses were performed using an intrinsic germanium detector coupled to a Nuclear Data Model ND66 multi-channel analyzer. The concentrations of the radionuclides identified were all less than 3.7 x 10-4 percent of the applicable CG values at the site boundary (Table 2).
Supplementary air sampling was performed at four site perimeter locations during 1986 (Figure 6). These air samples were collected continuously and analyzed on a weekly basis for gross alpha and beta activities. The average concentrations of activity at each of the site boundary locations were all statistically lower than the average gross alpha and beta activities found at G off-site background air sampling locations surveyed weekly at distances varying 5 to 44 miles from the Nuclear Sciences Area (Table 14). Quarterly air samples from the four site boundary locations were analyzed for qqposipVSr and game emitting radionuclides.
M Pu, The concentrations were all less than 3.56 x 10-4 percent of the respective CG values (Table 15).
Water-Radioactive A sanitary sewage system, which is operated in accordance with State of Ohio regulations under NPDES Permit No. N404-CD, handles all sanitary sewerage generated on the West Jefferson Site. The liquids are first treated in a 2,500-gallon septic tank and then released to a 2,160-sq-foot contained sand and gravel filter bed. From the filter bed the effluent goes to a chlorinating system prior to release to Big Darby Creek.
Sampling of all liquid effluents, from the Nuclear Sciences Area to Big Darby Creek, is performed using a continuous water sampling system. The effluents consist of the liquid discharge from the 2,160-ft2 filter bed (Figure 4). The effluent samples are analyzed weekly for gross alpha and beta activity in suspended and dissolved fractions. Any sample exceeding 3 x 10-8 pCi/ml*
receives a supplementary gamma isotopic (gel 1) analysis and/or an alpha spectrometric analysis as appropriate.
- CG value for unidentified radionuclides in unknown concentrations releasgp to an uncontrolled area, 00E Order 5480.1, Chapter XI, Attachment XI-1.lW
14 The weekly samples are held, composited, and receive gama spectrometric analyses as well as specific analyses for plutonium-239, plutonium-238, iodine-129, strontium-90, radium-226, and radium-228 at the end of each month.
The concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta activity in suspended and dissolved fractions as well as the concentrations of specific radionuclides identified in the sample are sumarized -in Table 3.
In most cases the activity in the samples is due to a mixture of nuclides. The average con-centration of the mixture was 30.2 percent of the CG. The average concen-trations of identified radionuclides in the mixture were 0.51 percent of the CG for iodine-129, 0.07 percent of the CG for plutonium-238, 0.08 percent for plutonium-239, 0.17 percent of the CG for strontium-90, 1.09 percent of the CG for cesium-137, 0.62 percent of the CG for radium-226, 2.00 percent of the CG for the radium-228, 2.10 percent for lead-212, and 9.17 percent for uranium-235.
Ground water samoles are collected from three wells. One from the West Jefferson north site and two from the middle site. Results of the collected samples (Table 12) indicate no contribution from JN1 activities. All activity was indistinguishable from background contributions.
The non-community drinking water supply at the West Jefferson Site is exempt from radiological monitor per Ohio Evnironmental Protection Agency (0 EPA) review.* However, weekly tap water samples are collected at the Nuclear Sciences Area to verify compliance with applicable water quality standards for radioactivity in drinking water. The weekly tap water samples are composited and analyzed monthly for gross alpha and beta activity in suspended and dissolved fractions. Any sample exceeding 1.5 x 10-0 pCi/ml for gross alpha activity receives a supplementary gama isotopic (gel 1) analysis and/or an alpha spectrometric analysis as appropriate. The average concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta activities in the dissolved and suspended fractions for 1986 were 0.002 percent of the EPA standard for gross alpha particle activity in the drinking water.
Supplementary water samples are collected weekly 18.29 m above and 18.29 m l
below the sanitary drain outfall at Darby Creek. Weekly water samples are l
also collected below the Battelle Lake dam and at the drain spillway at Darby l
Creek (Figure 6). The supplementary water samples are analyzed weekly for mixed alpha and beta activity. The average concentrations of total activity in the down stream water samples and the below dam water samples were all less than 34.0 percent of the CG (3 x 10-8 pCi/ml) for release of mixed alpha and beta activity to uncontrolled areas and showed no significant difference from the upstream control sample (Table 17). These findings show that liquid effluent releases from the site to Darby Creek did not exceed background levels of radioactivity already present in Darby Creek.
Reference:
Letter to John Paulian from Karen H. Cooper, OEPA, dated September 20, 1983, i
. =
6 W
15 Water-Nonradioactive Presently, liquid effluents discharged from the West Jefferson Facility are subject to the restrictions of our National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
Battelle monitors and reports on a monthly basis to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (0 EPA). Table 4 includes a list of the parameters for which BCD is presently required to analyze and report.
The data provided for the North Sanitary Sewer were obtained in accordance with the BCD NPDES Permit No. N404-CD, application number OH0005461 issued by the OEPA. The conditions of BCD's NPDES Permit were determined by the_ Ohio EPA following an extensive study of the Scioto River Basin, of which Batte11e's West Jefferson Site is a part. The maximum chlorine reading was the result of a sample taken during routine maintenance and was corrected immediately. The maximum total suspended solids reading was attributed to the start up of a new aeration treatment plant which serves the non-nuclear facility located south of Battelle Lake.
The data. listed in: Table 4 represents an average of the monthly data collected during the twelve-month period connencing January 1,1986, and ending Decem-ber 31, 1986, and are required under the limits or restrictions set forth in BCD's permit. The table serves to illustrate actual performance against those limits or restrictions defined in BCD's permit. Battelle.has applied for renewal of the NPDES Permit and it is anticipated that approval will be forthcoming in 1987.
Grass-and-Food-Crops-Radioactive Grass and food crop samples are collected from the surrounding area. The intent of this portion of the Environmental Monitoring Program is to determine whether there is uptake and concentration of radionuclides by plant or animal life. Where possible, sampling sites are chosen at maximum deposition loca-tions predicted by meterological studies. Grass and food crop (soybean or field corn)-samples are collected at varying distances and directions within a 5-mile radius of the Nuclear Sciences Area as shown in Figure 5.
Sampling locations falling into the same directional quadrant of the nuclear site are composited. The samples are analyzed for plutonium-239, plutonium-238, and strontium-90. A qualitative analysis by ganna scan (gel 1) is also performed.
The results of the grass and food crop analyses are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
The average concentration of strontium-90 detected in grass samples was i
0.3 1 0.3 pCi/g and less than 0.1 + 0.1 pCi/g for cesium-137. The average concentration of strontium-90 in fTeld corn samples was 0.0 + 0.2 pCi/g and less than 0.1 + 0.1 pCi/g for cesium-137. Plutonium-238 and plutonium-239 average concentrations were less than 0.01 1 0.01 pCi/g for all samples taken of grass and food crops. These findings show that effluent releases from the site did not contribute any significant activity to the surrounding area.
1 p-----..
e w
-w ew r-w-..-e.,-,.m,. - - -. - +
-..w-
...v,-, -, - - -.,
-e
+ - -
w w~,r--=--*--w--om--=-=--
16 Sediment-Radioactive Sediment samples are collected semiannually at two locations; i.e., Darby Creek 18.29 m above and 18.29 m below the point of sanitary effluent release to Darby Creek (Figure 6). The purpose of collecting sediment samples is to estimate the inventory of certain radionuclides deposited in this waterway and document for future reference. These samples are collected to a depth of 2.5 cm using a 10 cm soil plugging tool fitted with a gate valve. Prior to a
analysis, the samples are air dried and then blended in a pulverizing mill.
1 The sediment samples are analyzed for plutonium-239, plutonium-238, and strontium-90. A quantitative gama isotopic (GeLi) analysis is also per-formed. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 7. -Concentra-e tions of strontium-90 in sediment samples collected above the effluent release point averaged 0.0 + 0.5 pCi/g and 0.0 + 0.3 pCi/g below; for plutonium 238, and for plutonium-279, 0.01 + 0.01 pC1/g and 0.01 + 0.01 pCi/g, respectively.
Cesium-137 averaged 1.1 1 0.T pCi/g above and 1.7 1 0.4 pC1/g below the release point. No contribution from the site for the isotopes is detectable.
Soil-Radioactive Soil samples are collected annually from fourteen locations at varying dis-tances and directions within a 5-m11e radius of the Nuclear Sciences Area.
Locations falling into the same directional quadrant from the nuclear. site are composited (Figure 5). The soil samples are collected to a depth of 2.5 cm using a 10 cm soil plugging tool. Each soil sample consists of a composite gf five " plugs" of soil collected at random from an area of approximately 100 m'.
Prior to analysis, the composite samples are air dried and then blended in a pulverizing mill. The soil samples are analyzed for plutonium-238, plutonium-239, and strontium-90. A qualitative analysis by gama scan (GeLi) is also performed. The results of the analyses are sumarized in Tables 8 and 9.
The concentration of strontium-90 in soil samples averaged 0.1 + 0.3 pCi/g. The average concentration of plutonium-239 was 0.01 + 0.01 FCf/gand the plutonium-238 average concentration was 0.02 1 0.03 pC1/g for all soil samples collected. Gama isotopic analyses of the soil samples showed the average concentration of cesium-137 to be 0.1 1 0.1 pCi/g.
Fish-Radioactive Fish samples were collected from Darby Creek and Battelle Lake over a nine month period and composited for analyses on a quarterly basis. The fish samples were analyzed for. plutonium-238, plutonium-239, and strontium-90. A quantitative gama isotopic (GeLi) analyses was also performed. The results of the analyses are sumarized in Table 10. Average concentrations of plutonium-239 in fish samples taken from Darby Creek were 0.0 1 0.1 pC1/g and 0.0 + 0.1 pCi/g for plutonium-238. The average concentration of strontium-90 in fTsh samples taken from Darby Creek was 0.0 2 0.2 pCi/g, and 0.0 2 0.5 pCi/g for cesium-137. Fish taken from Battelle Lake had average concentra-tions of plutonium-239 and plutonium-238 of 0.0 + 0.1 pCi/g and 0.0 1 0.1 pC1/g, respectively. Average concentrations of strontium-90 and cesium-137 in i
f
,e m,
e
.,,-.w.--
17 fish samples taken from Battelle Lake were 0.3 + 0.4 pCi/g and 0.2 + 0.3 pCi/g, respectively.
Background Radiation Levels The external radiation background levels at the West Jefferson site boundary are continuously monitored at 15 dosimetry stations using commercially available environmental TLD packets (Figure 8). All TLD packets are changed and evaluated each calendar quarter. The annual average dose at the site boundary based on the 15 dosimeter stations was 120 1 10 mrem. The limit established for the general public is 500 mrem. This value does not include contributions from natural background radiation which is estimated to be approximately 120 mrem /yr. The results are summarized in Table 11.
KING AVENUE SITE Water-Radioactive Sampling)of all liquid discharges from the Building 3 (U-235 Processing Facility sump to the Columbus municipal sewerage system is performed on a monthly basis (Figure 7). This discharge consists of the liquid wastes from the building laboratory drain systems. The building sump samples are rou-tinely analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activities. Any sample exceed-ing 4 x 10-7 pC1/ml* receives a gamma isotopic (GeLi) analysis and/or an alpha spectrometric analysis as necessary.
Sample analyses are performed monthly on the Building 3 sump samples. The concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta activity are summarized in Table 13. The average concentration of the mixture was less than 3.07 percent of the CG for release to a public sanitary sewerage system. For averaging purposes, samples below the minimum detection limit are assumed to be the value of the limit.
EVALUATION OF DOSE TO THE PUBLIC Estimated Radiation Doses to the Public from Emissions from the Battelle West Jefferson Site During CY 1986 The BCD Environmental Monitoring Report for CY 1986 presents data which provide information for determining those sources of environmental radiation
- CG value for unidentified radionuclides in unknown concentrations released to a public sanitary sewerage system, DOE Order 5480.1, Chapter XI.
18 resulting from past or current nuclear activities and those due to atmospheric-nuclear tests or natural radioactivity. Contributions from BCD's nuclear operations were undistinguishable from other. sources with only two exceptions.
These include minimal airborne releases of mixed fission products from Hot Laboratory activities and very low concentrations of mixed fission products in liquid effluents at the West Jefferson Nuclear Sciences Area. The radio-logical impact of BCD's nuclear activities is calculated from the quantity of radionuclides measured directly in effluents from operating facilities in 1986 from the annual deposition of airborne radionuclides on vegetation and food crops, and from residual radionuclides in stream sediment from past operations.
Atmospheric Discharges Measured releases and ground level annual average concentrations at the site boundary during 1986 for the West Jefferson Site are sumarized in Table 1.
The downwind position from the facility where the annual ground level concen-trations will be highest is considered coincident with the site boundary, which determines the perimeter for uncontrolled exposure. This point is on BCD property within the site boundary line. The gross beta data in Table 1 shows that the total mixed fission product releases for 1986 amounted to 2 38 pCi with a total average concentration at the site boundary of 5.21 x 10-d pCi/ml. The total krypton-85 emission was 7.76 Ci with g corresponding average concentration at the site boundary of 4.64 x 10-0 pC1/ml. The total plutonium-239 emissions were 0.38 pC1. Review of JN-1 facility operation for 1986 indicates that most of the gross alpha reported was due to plutonium-239.
Taking the conservative approach, all the alpha emissions are considered to be plutonium-239 gnly, with an annual average concentration at the site boundary of 5.24 x 10-2u pC1/m_1. The total isotopic composition of the effluents emitted from the five stacks of the JN-1 facility was used in evaluating the off-site dose to the public.
Liquid Discharges l
Measured aqueous releases and effluent concentrations during 1986 for the West Jefferson Site are sumarized in Table 3.
The concentration values apply to the water discharged into Big Darby Creek after passage through a conventional leaching bed. Based on a knowledge of the isotopic composition of radio-nuclide concentrations released to the leaching bed, emissions should be due to very limited elution from the leach bed of contaminants that were delivered i-to the bed in the past year and a half. Therefore, the alpha activities is considered to be primarily uranium-238 and the gross beta activity is presumed l
l to contain only relatively long-lived radionuclides.
F 1
i 19 Estimated Radiation Dose to the Public from Atmospheric Discharges Calculation of Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters In all cases on-site meteorological data were used as input to compute the annual average dispersion parameters for the site. Computer Code DACRIN programmed for localized applications, was used to generate the required X/Q data for calculating dose to the maximum individual, nearest residence and population groups. Thus, annual average X/Q values were developed for a series of concentric rings extending from the site boundary out to a distance to 80 km (50 miles) (refer to Table 34). The annular rings were broken down into sixteen sectors corresponding to the normal wind rose pattern (refer to Figure 10).
Computation of Girl Scout Camp Nearest Residence, and Population Group Doses v
The annual radiation dose from gaseous and particulate radionuclides dis-charged into the atmosphere was computed for a person continuously immersed in an infinite hemispherical cloud containing the radionuclides. Tables 1 and 2 list stack release data used to estimate the Girl Scout Camp, nearest the residence and the population group concentrations from the X/Q data noted in the above paragraph. The radionuclide composition and concentration of the more sensitive biological form (soluble or insoluble)gan doses assuming the atmospheric emissions was used to compute critical or was present. Doses arising from.the alpha activity emissions were based on plutonium-239, liberated entirely as the insoluble oxide form. The annual dose estimates obtained for the Girl Scout Camp, the nearest resident and for population groups from both gaseous and particulate emissions are summarized in Tables 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
The estimated off-site doses listed in the tables are very low compared to thg
. maximum permissible exposures (MPE) which have been reconnended by the ICRPl41 and other groups for the general public. The MPE values recommended for an l
individual are: bone - 3 rem /yr, GI tract - 1.5 rem /yr, whole body -
0.5 rem /yr, skin - 3 rem /yr, thyroid - 3 rem /yr, lung - 1.5 rem /yr, and kidney - 1.5 rem /yr. The recommended values for a population group are one-third of these values. Therefore, from Table 19 it may been seen that the largest fraction of MPE occurs to the skin and is 0.0006 percent of the recommended limits at the site boundary.
In comparison, exposure of persons to natural background radiation in the area would be approximately 120 mrem /yr as measured by TLD stations. Atmospheric emissions from the site (Table 18) led to maximum estimated whole body radiation doses which are approximately 0.005 percent of that expected from natural hackground. The highest single emission (Kr-85) contributed only 5.87 x 10-4 percent of Maximum Permissible i
Exposure for skin.
1 i
r
)
20 Computation of the 70-Year Dose Commitment at the Girl Scout Camp and for Nearest Resident. Population Groups. and Integrated 80-km (50-Mile) Population The 70-year dose commitments were determined by using computer Code DACRIN based on annual meteorological data (Table 31), the 1980 estimated geographic distribution of the population in the various sectors around the site out to a 50-mile radius (Figure 12) and the radionuclide release data given in Table 18. Sumaries of the 70-year. dose commitment groups are given in Tables 24, 25,-26, 27, and 29. The values given in Table 29 may be compared against the integrated person-rem dose that would be expected for the population radiationwould be expected for the population group due to natural background. Since the level of natural background radiation would be essen-tially constant over the whole area, the corresponding person-rem value is simply the product of the total population and the natural background radia-tion value. Using a natural background of approximately 120 mrem /yr and a total 80 km (50-mile) population figure of 1.73 x 106 produces an integrated population dose from natural background of 2.08 x 105 person-rem /yr. The total body dose comitment caused by emissions from Batte11e's West Jefferson Site to the integrated 80 km (50-mile) population, is less than 4.4 x 10-8 percent of that due to natural background radiation.
Estimated Radiation Dose to the Public from Liquid Discharges Radiation Dose from Swi ming (External Whole Body)
It is not known if any of the area below the outfall on Big Darby Creek is used for swi m ing purposes; however, such use could be possible.
Swimers are assumed to receive an external radiation dose from being sub-merged in water containing radionuclides which are anticipated to be present in the liquid effluent. The measured emissions at the outfall were sumarized l
in Table 3.
Only the beta releases were used in calculating the external radiation dose to potential swimers, since the less penetrating alpha emissions do not make a significant contribution to the total body dose.
Using computer Code PABLM the estimated dose to the swimer who might spend 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> in the water each week from June to September 30 were obtained.
Results are given for the Girl Scout Camp, nearest resident, population groups and the integrated 80-km (50-mile) population in Tables 20, 21, 22, 23, and 28.
Radiation Dose Due to Boating and Water Skiing Big Darby Creek is too small to allow boating or other water recreation sports. Thus, there will be no dose from these activities.
i 21 i
Radiation Dose from Drinking Water i
Water from Big Darby Creek below the outfall is not used for drinking prior to its confluence with the Scioto River according to the U.S. Geological Survey; therefore, there will be negligible dose contribution from this source.
Annual Radiation Dose from Eating Fish There may be limited fishing in Battelle Lake and along Big Darby Creek, but no estimate of the extent of this activity is available. Radiation dose to man can occur from eating fish which have resided in water which contains i
radionuclides from the liquid effluent. The concentration of an individual radionuclide in the fish (pC1/g dry wt.) is assumed to be directly related to the concentration of the radionuclide in the water in which the fish reside multiplied by a bioaccumulation factor.(8) Computer Code PABLM was used to estimate doses from eating fish taken from Battelle Lake and Big Darby Creek to the Girl Scout Camp, nearest resident, population groups, and the inte-grated 80 km (50-mile) population (Tables 20, 21, 22, 23, and 28).
Internal radiation doses were estimated on the basis of analytical data given in Table 3 for water samples taken from liquid effluents discharged to Darby Creek.
Comparison of the data in Table 20 for the Girl Scout Camp, show that fish consumption it expected to be the dominant exposure pathway for persons from liquid emissions at the Battelle West Jefferson Site. However, individuals in this area would routinely be exposed to natural background radiation at levels of about 120 mrem /yr. Therefore, maximum annual doses to the whole body resulting from liquid emissions from the site should have been approximately 5.7 x 10-4 percent of that produced by natural background.
70-Year Dose Comitment -
Tables 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of this report provide estimated 70-year dose commitments to the Girl Scout Camp, nearest resident, population groups and the 80-kilometer population from one year of exposure. Also given for terrestrial pathway exposures is the estimated 70-year accumulated dose to the maximum individual (and the 80-kilometer population from 70-years of con-tinuous exposure to the residual environmental contamination left by the one-year release. The radionuclide composition of effluents reported for 1986 is shown in Table 18. Since these quantities of radionuclides, when dispersed in large volumes of air and water, were generally undetectable in the off-site environment, dose models (References 9 and 10) were employed to assess the resulting radiological dose impact. Code DACRIN was used to estimate doses from chronic inhalation of a radioactive mixture using an atmospheric 4
diffusion model. Code PABLM was used to estimate doses from the chronic ingestion of a radioactive mixture through terrestrial and aquatic pathways.
i
~
22 Fence Post Dose Estimate The " fence post" dose is the maximum measured accumulative dose possible to an individual having access to an uncontrolled area, excluding ingestion and inhalation pathways (Table 11). The " fence post" dose for 1986 was equal to or less than the annual average TLD background reading of 120 mrem measured at off-site background monitoring stations.
Maximum Organ Dose Estimates The maximum annual organ dose for 1986, calculated at the Girl Scout Camp, is estimated as 1.76 x 10-2 mrem to the skin from Krypton-85 (Table 19). The maximum 70-year organ dose commitments for 1986, computed at the Girl Scout Camp, were estimated as 1.24 x 10-2 mrem to the Lungs from the atmospheric inhalation pathway and 2.60 x 10-3 mrem to the bone from eating fish (Table 24).
23 REFERENCES (1)
U.S. Census,1980 Population Data, Dayton, Ohio, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.
(2) Operational and Environmental Safety Division, Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Reporting Requirements, 00E Order 5484.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, February 1981.
(3) Scioto River Basin Waste Load Allocation Report for the 303 (e)
Continuing Planning Process for Water Quality Management.
(4)
ICRP Publication 2, " Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation." Pergamon Press, 1959.
(5) Operational and Environmental Safety Division, Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Programs for 00E Operations, DOE Order 5480.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, May 1980.
(6)
U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for Purpose of Evaluating Compliance With 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1."
(7) 00E/EP-0023, A Guide for Environmental Radiological Surveillance at USD0E Installations, Revised July 1981.
(8)
J. R. Houston, D. L. Strenge and E. C. Watson, DACRIN - A Computer Code for Calculating Organ Dose From Acute or Chronic Radionuclide Inhalation, BNWL-B-389, PNL, Richland, WA 99352, August 1975.
(9)
- 8. A. Napier, W. E. Kennedy Jr., and J. K. Soldat, PABLM - A Computer Program to Calculate Accumulated Radiation Doses from Radionuclides in the Environment, PNL-3209, PNL, Richland, WA 99352, March 1980.
(10) Civil Effects Operations (LEX 59.4.23) Aeroradioactivity Surveys and A Real Geology of Parts of Ohio and Indiana (ARMS-1), May 1966.
(11) " Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000",
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP/CSD 72-1.
(12) Chapter I Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40CFR Part 141, Federal Register /Vol 48, No. 194, October 5, 1983.
p i
24 Quality Assurance Several methods are used to assure that the data collected each year are representative of actual concentrations in the environment. Extensive environmental data are collected to eliminate an unrealistic reliance on only a few results. Newly collected data are compared with historical data for each environmental medium to assure that current values are consistent with previous results. This allows for timely investigation of any unusual results. Samples are collected using identical methods near to and far from the nuclear site, as well as upstream and downstream on Darby Creek, to provide for identification of any net differences that may be attributable to the West Jefferson nuclear operations. These procedures, in conjunction with a program to demonstrate the accuracy of radiochemical analyses, assure that the data accurately represent environmental conditions.
The majority of the routine radioanalyses for the BCD environmental surveillance program are performed at the radiochemistry facility located at the West Jefferson nuclear site. Environmental samples requiring specific isotopic analysis are sent to Eberline Instrument Corporation's Albuquerque Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Both laboratories maintain internal quality assurance programs that involve routine calibration of counting instruments, daily source and background counts, routine yield determinations of radiochemical procedures, and replicate analyses to check precision. The accuracy of radionuclide determination is assured through the use of standards traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, when available.
Assurance of the dose calculation quality is provided in the following ways.
Since doses are similar from year to year, a comparison is made against past calculated doses and any differences are validated. All computed doses are double checked by the originator and by an independent third party who also checks all input data and assumptions used in calculation.
Information neces-sary to perform all of the calculations are fully documented.
BCD also participates in the DOE sponsored Quality Assessment Program which is administrated by the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) and requires the qualitative analyses of spiked air, water, soil, vegetation and tissue samples furnished by DOE /EML semiannually. The spiked media samples are analyzed by the radiochemistry facilities serving BCD and the results reported to DOE /EML for verification of accuracy.
_m _
TABLE 1.
SupMARY OF ATMOSPHERIC RA010 ACTIVE EMISSIONS - WEST JEFFERSON SITE - CY 1986 4
Stack 10-3 Per-Number Volyge Site centage of Stack of Stack 10W Activity Stack Boundary (a)
CG at Site i
Species Locations Samples liters /yr
$1/yr 10-14 pC1/ml 10-19 $1/m1 Boundary (b)(c) i i
Gross a 001 52 3.86 0.09 0.23 + 0.64 0.77 + 0.05 2.67 Gross 8 001 52 3.86 0.52 1.3610.24 4.56I0.80 Gross a 002 52 11.85 0.19 0.16 + 0.12 0.54 + 0.40 2.12 l
Gross 8 002 52 11.85 1.30 1.1010.22 3.6910.74 I
Gross a 003 52 3.88 0.03 0.09 + 0.22 0.30 + 0.74 1.01 l
Gross 8 003 52 3.88 0.20 0.5110.16 1.7110.54 l
Gross a 004 52 1.69 0.03 0.15 + 0.14 0.50 + 0.47 1.63 Gross 8 004 52 1.69 0.14 0.8210.71 2.7510.74
)
Gross a 013 52 1.00 0.02 0.16 + 0.12 0.54 + 0.40 ro 1*20 l
Gross 8 013 52 1.00 0.09 0.89 + 0.66 2.9812.21
}
Gross a 014 52 2.00 0.02 0.11 + 0.12 0.37 + 0.40 1*IO t
+
Gross 8 014 52 2.00 0.13 0.5910.18 1.9810.60 Gross a 012 52 2.48 0.04 0.16 + 0.18 0.54 + 0.60 1.85 j
Gross 8 012 52 2.48 0.23 0.9410.22 3.1510.74 I
Gross a 006 52 0.38 0.002 0.06 + 0.10 0.20 + 0.34 0.86 l
Gross 8 006 52 0.38 0.02 0.4510.16 1.5110.54 l
131g 001 9
3.86 0.20 5.09 E-15 1.71 E-19 0.00004 3
131g 002 9
11.85 0.67 5.66 E-15 1.90 E-19 0.00005 i
85 r 001 3.86 2.24 E6 5.79 E-8 1.94 E-12 0.65 K
85 r 002 11.85 5.39 E6 4.53 E-8 1.52 E-12 0.51-K j
85Kr 013 1.00 1.30 E5 1.30 E-9 4.36 E-14 0.01 l
(a) Site boundary concentrations were calculated by multiplying stack concentrations by the atmospheric dispersion parameter computed for the site boundary using computer code DACRIN (See refercqce 9. Page 22).
[
(b) DCG does not list limits for mixed alpha and beta activity.RCG3.0x10jimit2x10-Hused.
RCG i
(c) QCG for I-131, 4.0 E-4 pC1/m3; no limit for Kr-85.
for Kr-85.
(d) 3 % r concentration calculated by evaluation of data on strip chart recorder used with gaseous stack monitor.
26 TABLE 2.
GAMA EMITTING RADIONUCLIDES IDENTIFIED IN THE JN-1 (HOT LAB) STACK EMISSIONS CY 1986 10-7 Percentage Volume (d)
Site Concentration of (d) CG (a)(b) 1010 Activity Stack Boundary (a)
Guide Limit at Sit 9 Species liters /yr pCi/yr-pCi/ml 10-19 pCi/ml pC1/m3 Boundaryla)
Ru-103 24.28 1.72
< 7.08 x 10-15 2.37 2 x 10-3 0.20 Sb-125 24.28 5.05
< 2.08 x 10-14 6.97 1 x 10-3 0,70 I-131-24.28 0.87
< 3.58 x 10-15 1.20 4 x 10-4 0.30 Cs-134 24.28 1.45
< 5.97 x 10-15 2.00 2 x 10-4 1.00 Cs-137 24.28 3.04
< 1.25 x 10-14 4.19 4 x 10-4 1.05 Ac-228 24.28 10.09
< 4.16 x 10-14 13.9 4 x 10-5 0.35 Pb-212 24.28 3.02
< 1.24 x 10-14 4.17 8 x 10-5 5.21 U-235 24.25 2.64
< 1.09 x 10-14 3.64 1 x 10-7 3640.0 (a) Only those radionuclides which contributed to critical organ doses to the maximum individual greater than 1 x 10-lu rem /yr are listed.
(b)
Identification of radionuclides in stack particulate emissions was by gamma spectrometric analysis of stack particulate air filters composited by stack location by month.
l (c) Site boundary concentrations were calculated by multiplying stack concentration by the atmospheric dispersion parameter computed for the site boundary using computer code DACRIN (reference 9, page 23).
(d) Volume is composite of stack locations identified in Figure 4.
27 TABLE 3.
StM ARY OF LIQUID RADI0 ACTIVE EMISSION - WEST JEFFERSON SITE (MEASUE OF EFFLUENT FROM SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM INTO BIG DARBY CREEK - FIGURE 4, DESIGNATION 010(aJ CY 1986 Average Percentage Number of
- Activity, Concentration DCG of Concen-Species Samples pC1/yr pCi/ml pC1/L tration Guide Gross a 52 69.1
< 4.2912.13 E-9
--(c) 30.2 Gross 8 52 77.0
< 4.7810.90 E-9
--(c) 90 r 12 26.9
<1.6710.65 E-9 1 E-3 0.17 S
238 u 12 4.30
< 2.6710.91 E-10 4 E-4 0.07 P
239 u 12 4.03
< 2.5010.29 E-10 3 E-4 0.08 P
137 s 12 528.08
< 3.28 E-8 3 E-3 1.09 C
129I 12 41.2
< 2.5610.30 E-9 5 E-4 0.51 226 a 12 9.93
< 6.1715.87 E-10 1 E-4 0.62 R
228 a 12 32.1
< 2.0011.68 E-9 1 E-4 2.00 R
212Pb 12 1014.3
< 6.30 E-8 3 E-3 2.10 235U 12 885.5
<5.50 E-8 6 E-4 9.17 11 (a) Annual average flow in Big Darby Creek = 429 cu ft/sec - 3.82 x 10 litets/yr. Total volume of liquid effluent discharge for CY 1986 = 1.61 i
x 10/ liters.
(b) Isotopic data for effluents released at this location were obtained from monthly composite samples.
(c) No QCG listing for mixture: CG - mixture of alpha and beta activity; 3 x 10-o pC1/ml.
. -.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _. _, ~ _ _ _ _ _
TABLE 4.
NONRADIOLOGICAL SAMPLING FOR WEST JEFFERSON SITE January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986 i
Permit Requirements (d)
Discharge Limitations North Sanitary System Sewer (c)
Loading Concentration DK Kg/Dayle)
Other Units Da Avg.
Max.
Min.
Avg.
30 Day Daily 30 Day Daily
'T Flow Rate (ga./ day) 12276 49680 3312 (b)
(b)
Residual Chlorine (mg/1)
.475
.6
.3
.0221 0.5 pH Value (S.U.)
7.88 8.53 7.43 6.0 to 9.0 Fecal Coliform (f/100 ml) 0 0
0 200 400 g
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 5 52 0.0
.2323 0.49 0.99 10 20 Temperature (O )
(a)
(a)
(a)
F 90 B.0.D.(5 day)(Mg/1) 3.7 4.7 3.1
.1719 0.49 0.99 10 20 (a) Sample analysis for this parameter was not required by our NPDES Permit.
(b) No restrictions for flow under our NPDES Permit.
(c) Sampling site location No. 001. Includes discharge from Middle Area Sanitary System.
(d) Permit requirement discharge limitations based on NPDES Permit #404-CD.
(e) Flow rate 0.013 mgd.
TABLE 5.
SupmARY OF GRASS ANALYSES-CY 1986 Location (a)
Number of Direction and Distance Composite pC1/q dry wt.(b) from Nuclear Science Area)
Samples 90 r 238 u 239 u 137 s S
P P
C North Quad 6.4 km (4.0 miles) 2 0.0 + 0.2 0.00 + 0.01 0.00 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.2 8.0 km (5.0 miles)
East Quad 1.6 km (1.0 miles) 3.2 km (2.0 miles) 6.4 km (4.0 miles) 5 0.0 + 0.2 0.01 + 0.02 0.00 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.3 7.2 km 4.5 miles 8.0 km 5.0 miles South Quad 0.8 km (0.5 miles) 2 0.0 + 0.3 0.01 + 0.01 0.00 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.1 g
3.1 km (1.9 miles)
West Quad 4.8 km (3.0 miles) 6.4km(4.0 miles) 3 0.0 + 0.3 0.01 + 0.02 0.00 + 0.01 0.1 + 0.1 8.0km(5.0 miles) 2 1.7 i 0.3 0.01 t 0.02 0.00 t 0.01 0.0 + 0.1 On Site Note: No standards for radionuclides in grass have been established.
(a) Locations are shown in Figure 5.
Minimum Detection Limit for 90 r in grass is 0.2 pC1/g dry wt.
S (b) 239 u in grass is 0.01 pCi/g dry wt.
Minimum Detection Limit for 238 u and P
P Minimum Detection Limit for 137 s in grass is 0.2 pCi/g dry wt.
C
TABLE 6.
SUPMARY OF FOOD CROP ANALYSES CY 1986 Location (a)
Number of pCi/a dry wt.(b)
Type of (Distance from Composite Samples Quadrant Nuclear Sciences Area)
Samples 90 r 238 u 239Pu 137Cs S
P Field Corn West 0.74 km (2400 feet) 2 0.0 + 0.3 0.00 + 0.01 0.00 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.1 West 3.2km(2.0 miles) 2 0.0 1 0.1 0.00 1 0.01 0.00 1 0.01 0.0 1 0.1 ajjes Field Corn f
Field Corn South 4.0 km (1.5 miles)
South 6.4 km 4.0 miles 3
0.0 + 0.2 0.00 + 0.01 0.00 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.1 w
~
~
~
South 8.0 km 5.0 miles 2
0.0 1 0.2 0.00 1 0.01 0.00 1 0.01 0.0 1 0.1 Ea t mi s 1
0.0 1 0.1 0.00 1 0.01 0.00 1 0.01 0.0 1 0.1 Field Corn On Site No standard for radionuclides in food crops have been established.
Note:
(a) Locations are shown in Figure 5.
Minimum Detection Limit for 90 r in food crops in 0.1 pCi/g dry wt.
S (b) 239 u in food crops in 0.01 pCi/g dry wt.
Minimum Detection Limit for 238 u and P
P Minimum Detection Limit for 137 s in food crops is 0.1 pCi/g dry wt.
C
31 TABLE 7.
SUMMARY
OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES CY 1986 Location (b)
Number of pCi/g dry wt.(a)
Figure Samples 90Sr 238 u 239 u 137 s P
P C
A (18.29 m above) 2 0.0 + 0.5 0.0 + 0.1 0.0 + 0.1 1.1 + 0.4 outfall)
B (18.29 m below 2
0.0 + 0.3 0.0 + 0.1 0.0 + 0.1 outfall) 1.7 + 0.4 Note: No standards for radionuclides in sediment have been established.
137 s in sediment is 0.3 pCi/g and (a)
Minimum Detection Limit for 90 r and S
C 0.4 pC1/g dry wt. respectively.
Minimum Detection Limit for 238 u and 239 u in sediment is 0.1 pCi/g P
P
(
dry wt.
(b)
The collection of sediment samples at these locations, where sediment deposition and accumulation should be at a maximum, was based on observations of the average flow pattern of Big Darby Creek in the vicinity of the outfall.
TABLE 8.
StMiARY OF SOIL ANALYSES FOR SPECIFIC RADIONUCLIDES CY 1986 i
Location (a)
Number of (Direction and Distance from Composite pCi/a dry wt.(b) the Nuclear Science Area)
Samples 238 u 239Pu 90 r P
S North Quad 6.4 km (4.0 miles) 8.0km(5.0 miles) 0.00 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.2 2
0.04 + 0.04 East Quad 1.6 km 1.0 miles) 3.2 km 2.0 miles 6.4 km 4.0 miles 5
0.01 + 0.03 0.01 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.2 7.2km(4.5 miles 8.0 km (5.0 miles N$
South Quad 0.8 km (0.5 miles) 3.1 km (1.9 miles) 0.00 + 0.02 0.0 + 0.2 2
0.02 + 0.04 West Quad 4.8 km (3.0 miles) 8.0 km (5.0 miles) 0.01 + 0.02 0.7 + 0.4 6.4 km (4.0 miles 3
0.02 + 0.02 l
On Site 2
0.02 + 0.04 0.00 + 0.01 0.0 + 0.3 Note: No standards for radionuclides in soil have been established. The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed federal radiation protection guidance for exposures to transuranium elements in the environment has recommended a reference level of 0.2 pCi/m2 for soil contamination.
(a) Locations are shown in Figure 5.
(b) Minimum Detection Limit for 238 u and 239 u in soil are 0.02 pCi/g and 0.01 pCi/g dry wt. respectively.
P P
Minimum Detection Limit for 90 r in soil is 0.2 pC1/g dry wt.
S
_ ~ - -.
TABLE 9.
Supe %RY OF GAPOM ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS OF Soll SAMPLES CY 1986 Location (Direction and Distance from the Nuclear Science Area)(a)
North Quad East Quad South Quad West Quad 6.4 km (4.0 miles) 1.6 km (1.0 miles 0.8 km (0.5 miles) 4.8km(3.0 miles) 8.0 km (5.0 miles) 3.2 km (2.0 miles 3.1 km (1.9 miles) 6.4 km (4.0 miles) 6.4km(4.0 miles 8.0 km (5.0 miles) 7.2 km (4.5 miles 8.0 km (5.0 miles)
On Site g
Number of Composite 2
5 2
3 2
Samples Nuclide Average Concentration pC1/g (dry) wt.(b) 137 s 0.1 1 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 0.2 1 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 0.0 1 0.1 C
Note: No standards for radionuclides in soil hae been established.
(a) locations are shown in Figure 5.
(b) Minimum detection limit for 137 s (in pCi/g dry wt.) is 0.1.
C
TABLE 10. SU MARY OF FISH ANALYSES CY 1986 Number of Period of Composite pCi/a dry wt.(b)
Location (a)
Collection Samples 238 u 239 u 137 s 90 r P
P C
S Darby Creek ist quarter (c)
Battelle Lake 1st quarter (c)
Darby Creek 2nd quarter 1
0.0 + 0.1 0.0 + 0.1 0.0 + 0.3 0.0 + 0.2 Battelle Lake 2nd quarter 1
0.010.1 0.010.1' O.010.3 0.010.4 Darby Creek 3rd quarter (c)
Battelle Lake 3rd quarter (c)
Darby Creek 4th quarter 1
0.0 + 0.1 0.0 + 0.1 0.0 + 0.7 0.0 + 0.2 Battelle Lake 4th quarter 1
0.010.1 0.010.1 0.310.3 0.510.3 I
Note: No standards for radionuclides in fish have been established.
(a) Fish samples were collected from various locations within Battelle Lake. Fish samples from Darby Creek were taken at various distances within 1000 ft, downstream from the sanitary outfall. (See Figure 6).
137 s, and Minimum Detection Limit for 90 r in fish was 0.2 pCi/g dry weight, 0.3 pC1/g dry weight C
S (b) z38 u and 239 Pu.
0.1 pCi/g dry weight for P
(c) No fish samples were collected during this quarter of CY 1986.
l
35 TABLE 11.
INTEGRATED EXTERNAL BACKGROUND RADIATION MEASUREMENTS AT RECREATION AREA AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE -
WEST JEFFERSON SITE - CY 1986 Location aqd Integrated TLD Measurements in Rem Total Distance (al 1st Qtr.
2nd Qtr.
3rd Qtr.
4th Qtr.
for Year Southwest 121.9m(400ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 731.5 m (2400 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 1234.5 m (4050 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 West 152.4 m (500 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 630.2m(2070ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 Southeast 365.8 m (1200 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 1005.9 m (3300 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 South 365.8 m 1200ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 411.5 m 1350 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 548.6 m 1800 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 1097.3 m (3600 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 East 420.6m(1380ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 f
Northeast i
395.9m(1200ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 Northwest 402.3m(1320ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 North 457.2 m (1500 ft) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.120 (a) Refer Figure 8.
Average off-site background for year 0.120 Rem.
t 4
. - ~.,
m,,
36 TABLE 12. CONCENTRATION OF RADI0 ACTIVITY IN GROUND WATER Well Number 10-9 uCi/ml Percent Identifi-of Gross Gross of cation Samples Alpha Beta CG(b)
JN 1
Sol 5.36 + 5.08 5.02 + 1.68 2.66 Insol 0.11 1 0.48 0.17 1 0.70 JM 1
Sol 6.59 + 5.27 2.87 + 1.44 2.28 Insol 0.00 1 0.22
-0.34 1 0.61 JM1 1
Sol 0.75 + 3.34 4.28 + 1.60 1.23 Insol -0.22 1 0.31 0.11 1 0.69 (a) Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) for: gross alpha: 2.5 x 10-9 pCi/ml; gross beta: 4.0 x 10-9 pC1/ml.
(b) No DCG for mixture: CG - Mixture of alpha and beta activity:
400 x 10-9 pCi/ml.
l
--.y
---~-.--
yw
..-,_,,,,m_..~w
,-y,-_,,
2 1
37 TABLE 13. CONCENTRATION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN LIQUID DISCHARGES TO COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWAGE SYSTEM CY 1986 Concentration Location Number of
- Activity, Average, Percent Nuclide Figure 7 Samples pC1/yr 10-9 pCi/ml of CG(a)
G'.
- Gross a 005 12 105.0 4.43 + 3.16 3.07 Gross S 005 12 186.0 7.83 + 1.92 (a) No QCG for mixture: using CG - mixture of alpha and beta activity: 40 x 10-9 pC1/ml.
i
(
.=
38 TABLE 14.
SUMMARY
OF SITE B0UNDARY AIR SAMPLE ANALYSES FOR GROSS RADI0 ACTIVITY - CY 1986 Location (a)
Direction and Distance Number of 10-15 uCi/ml from Nuclear Sciences Area Samples Gross a(c)
Gross S(b)
North Quadrant Station (137.2 m North of JN-4 Stacks) 52 0.00 j; 4.67 0.00 + 6.97 East Quadrant Station (121.9 m East of JN-1 Stacks) 52 0.00 + 4.61 0.00 j; 7.04 South Quadrant Station (228.6 m South of JN-2 Stacks) 52 0.00 j; 4.63 0.00 j; 6.97 West Quadrant Station (121.9 m West of JN-2 Stacks) 52 0.00 j; 4.62 0.00 j; 6.97 I
(a) Locations are shown in Figure 6.
(b) The values shown for gross a and gross S indicate site boundary l
l concentrations above background concentrations found at off-site air monitoring stations. See Table 16.
I l
39 TABLE 15. SUMARY OF SITE BOUNDARY AIR SAMPLE ANALYSES FOR SPECIFIC RADIONUCLIDES CY 1986 Location 10-15 uCi/m1(b)
(a)
North East South West l
Be-7 43.8 1 5.10 44.5 1 5.10 44.8 1 4.80 55.5 1 5.60 Ru-103
<1.72 1 0.20
<1.65 1 0.30
<1.77 1 0.20
< 0.20 1 0.04 Rh-106
<2.16
< 2.4411.10
< 2.52 1 1.10
<2.4 l
Cs-134
<1.12 1 0.20
< 1.07 1 0.20
<1.05 1 0.20
<1.46 1 0.20 Cs-137
<2.28 1 0.35
< 0.04
<1.96 1 0.40
< 0.56 10.16 i
<0.13
< 0.25 10.03
<0.00 1 0.24
< 0.07 1 0.53 Pu-238
<0.01
< 0. 01
<0.10
<0.01 l
)
<0.01
< 0.04
<0.05
< 0.20 1 0.19 i
j (a) Locations are shown in Figure 6.
North Quadrant Station (137.2 m North of JN-4 stacks); East Quadrant Station (21.9 m East of JN-1 stacks);
South Quadrant Station (228.6 m South of JN-2 stacks); West Quadrant Station (121.9 m West of JN-2 stacks).
(b) Minimum detection limit for 90 r is 7 z 10-20 pCi/ml, 238 u 2 x 10-21 S
P pCi/ml, 239 u 2 x 10-21 pCi/m1, 137 s 3.84 x 10-16 pC1/ml, and 144 e P
C C
2.16 x 10-15, i
4
)
40 TABLE 16. SUMUlY OF 0FF SITE AIR-SAMPLE ANALYSES CY 1986 Location (a)
Direction and Distance Number of 10-14 uCi/ml from Nuclear Sciences Area Samples Gross cx Gross S Grandview (17.8 km east) 58 0.82 1 0.47 3.47 1 0.72 Chesapeake (24.4kmeast) 54 0.81 1 0.43 3.28 1 0.64 Fairgrounds (24.8kmnortheast) 58 0.84 1 0.45 3.01 1 0.64 Newark (70.8kmnortheast) 57 0.84 1 0.46 3.34 1 0.69 Grove City (14.5 km southeast) 57 0.84 1 0.49 3.69 1 0.76 New Rome (8.0 km east) 53 0.77 1 0.44 3.26 1 0.67 l
(a) Locations are shown in Figure 9.
l
[
l l
l
l 41 l
TABLE 17. SUM ERY OF ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SAMPLE ANALYSES CY 1986 Location (a)
Direction and Distance Number of 10-9 uCi/m1(b) from Nuclear Sciences Area Samples Gross a Gross 8 Darby Creek Upstream (18.3 m above sanitary outfall) 52 3.93 1 1.94 5.04 1 92 Darby Creek Downstream (18.3 m below sanitary outfall) 52 4.79 1 2.03 4.98 1 0.91 Darby Creek Downstream (186.3 m below sanitary outfall) 52 3.12 1 1.24 4.64 1 0.83 Battelle Lake Spillway (18.3 m below dam) 52 5.48 1 2.51 4.56 1 1.13 (a) Locations are shown in Figure 6.
(b) Minimum Detection Limit for gross a is 1 x 10-9 pCi/ml and 1.6 x 10-9 pC1/mi for gross S.
i
,,,-.m.-
_.-m~._
._r
..m....
42 TABLE 18. RADIONUCLIDE COMPOSITION OF BCD EFFLUENTS - CY 1986 West Jefferson Site Air Activity (uC1)
Gross Alpha 0.42 Gross Beta 2.63 Plutonium-239 0.40 Strontium-90 0.43
~
Cesium-137 3.04 Cesium-134 1.45
. Lead-212 3.02 Lead-214*
15.15 Bismuth-214*
24.25 Antimony-125 5.05 Krypton-85 7754232.00
. Uranium-235 2.64 Potassium-40*
1.48 Thallium-208 0.003 Water Activity (uC1)
- Gross Alpha 69.07 Gross Beta 76.96 Iodine-129 41.20 Strontium-90 26.90 Plutonium-238 4.30 Plutonium-239 4.03 Radium-226 7.25 Radium-228 32.20 Lead-212 1010.00 Bismuth-214*
6790.0 Potassium-40*
74100.0 Cesium-137 499.0 Cesium-134 386.0
(
Lead-214*
464000.0 Thallium-208 773.0 Uranium-235 886.0 King Avenue Site Water Activity (uCi)
Gross Alpha 103.33 Gross Beta 185.57
- Lead-214, bismuth-214 and potassium-40 are naturally occurring radionuclides which were part of the total effluent composition.
m 43 TABLE 19.
SUMMARY
OF ANNUAL RADIATION DOSE TO THE GIRL SCOUT CAMP, NEAREST RESIDENT AND POPULATION GROUPS FROM RELEASES OF KRYPTON-85 DURING CY 1986 Critical Dose to the Girl Scout' Camp Organ (0.500 kM)
Total Body 5.83 x 10-3 mrem /yr Skin 1.76 x 10-2 mrem /yr Dose to the Nearest Resident (0.800 Km NW)
Total Body 2.52 x 10-3 mrem /yr Skin 1.52 x 10-2 mrem /yr Dose to the Nearest Population Group (Darby Estates, Population 3,000)
Total Budy 2.89 x 10-3 person-rem /yr Skin 1.74 x 10-2 person-rem /yr Dose to the Population Group (West Jefferson, Population 6,000 Total Body 6.34 x 10-4 person-rem /yr Skin 3.81 x 10-3 person-rem /yr 4
i
.- - - -,,,,, - - -., -.. - -, - -, - - -, - - - -, _ -, - - ~ -, - - -,,, -, - -.
, ~,.
-r,-
-, -, -,n
4 i
I i
t 1
4 h
I TABLE 20. ANNUAL DOSE TO THE GIRL SCOUT CAMP FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 L
4 Dose (ares /yr)
Whole Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs 4
a l
Airborne (inhalation) 1.12 E-5 6.76 E-5 1.99 E-5 3.29 E-5 7.23 E-5 5.14 E-3 i
l Airborne (ingestion) 3.90 E-7 1.20 E-8 1.00 E-6 4.00 E-4 5.80 E-7 4.90 E-8 Eating Fish 6.80 E-4 9.00 E-7 1.60 E-5 3.60 E-4 4.90 E-4 7.80 E-5 h
Aquatic Recreation 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8
]
]
(a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
}
I 4
l n
.. ~.
i i
l 1
i.
1 i
TABLE 21. ANNUAL DOSE TO THE NEAREST RESIDENT (0.8 KM W) FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 i
i Dose (ares /yr)
- y; Whole Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs i
Airborne (inhalation) 4.85 E-6 2.94 E-6 8.64 E-6 1.43 E-5 3.14 E-5 2.23 E-3 Airborne (ingestion) 3.90 E-7 1.20 E-8 1.00 E-6 4.00 E-7 5.80 E-7 4.90 E-8 Eating Fish 6.80 E-4 9.00 E-7 1.60 E-5 3.60 E-4 4.90 E-4 7.80 E-5 Aquatic Recreation 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 4.10 E-8 l
j (a) Gastrointestinaltract(lowerlargeintestine).
1 i
l i
i 1
i '
i 4
I l
i a
1 TABLE 22. ANNUAL DOSE TO THE NEAREST POPULATION GROUP (DARBY ESTATES)
]
FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 i
4 5
Dose (Person-res)(b)
Whole l
Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs l
j Airborne (inhalation) 1.11 E-5 6.72 E-6 1.97 E-5 3.26 E-5 7.14 E-5 5.08 E-3 Airborne (ingestion) 1.17 E-6 3.60 E-8 3.00 E-6 1.20 E-6 1.74 E-6 1.47 E-7 l
Eating Fish 2.04 E-3 2.70 E-6 4.80 E-5 1.08 E-3 1.47 E-3 2.34 E-4 Aquatic Recreation 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 i
(a) Gastrointenstinal tract (lower large intestine).
1 (b) Population affected: 3000.
i I
i 1
4
l
}
}
1 TABLE 23. ANNUAL DOSE TO THE POPULATION GROUP (WEST JEFFERSON)
FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 i
i Dose (Person-rem)(b)
Whole Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs O
Airborne (inhalation) 2.45 E-6 1.46 E-6 4.31 E-6 7.19 E-6 1.59 E-5 1.13 E-3 Airborne (ingestion) 2.34 E-6 7.20 E-8 6.00 E-6 2.40 E-6 3.48 E-6 2.94 E-7 Eating Fish 4.08 E-3 5.40 E-6 9.60 E-5 2.16 E-3 2.94 E-3 4.68 E-4 Aquatic Recreation 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 (a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
(b) Population affected: 6000.
I.
i
I i
i 4
i 8
i 1
i TABLE 24. 70 YEG DOSE C(391tTMENT FOR THE GIRL SCOUT CAMP FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 l
l Dose (Rem)
-l h le a
Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs co I
j Airborne (inhalation) 1.92 E-7 6.90 E-9 1.99 E-8 7.10 E-7 3.76 E-6 1.24 E-5 i
Airborne (ingestion) 9.40 E-10 1.20 E-11 1.00 E-9 4.70 E-10 2.80 E-9 8.70 E-11 Eating Fish 2.60 E-6 9.00 E-10 2.60 E-8 4.20 E-7 2.60 E-6 1.40 E-7 f
Aquatic Recreation 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 l
t i
(a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
1
)
l l
I l
l 4
)
TABLE 25. 70 YEAR DOSE COMMITMENT FOR THE NEAREST RESIDENT (0.8 KM NW) FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 l
I, i
Dose (Rem) i Whole Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs d;
b l
Airborne (inhalation) 8.34 E-8 3.00 E-9 8.64 E-9 3.08 E-7 1.63 E-6 5.39 E-6
)
Airborne (ingestion) 9.40 E-10 1.20 E-11 1.00 E-9 4.70 E-10 2.80 E-9 8.70 E-11 i
Eating Fish 2.60 E-6 9.40 E-10 2.60 E-8 4.20 E-7 2.60 E-6 1.40 E-7 1
Aquetic Recreation 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 4.10 E-11 1
(a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
i i
1
TABLE 26. 70 YEAR DOSE C0petITNENT FOR THE NEAREST POPULATION GROUP (DARBY ESTATES) FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 Dose (Person-ren)(b)
Whole Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs IS Airborne (inhalation) 1.91 E-4 6.84 E-6 1.97 E-5 7.05 E-4 3.74 E-3 1.23 E-2 Airborne (ingestion) 2.82 E-6 3.60 E-8 3.00 E-6 1.41 E-6 8.40 E-6 2.61 E-7 Eating Fish 7.80 E-3 2.82 E-6 7.80 E-5 1.26 E-3 7.80 E-3 4.20 E-4 Aquatic Recreation 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 1.23 E-7 (a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
(b) Population affected: 3000.
TABLE 27. 70 YEAR DOSE CGetI1 MENT FOR THE POPULATION GROUP (nCST JFFFERSON)
FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 Dose (Person-res)(b)
Whole Pathway Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone.
Lungs Airborne (inhalation) 4.17 E-5 1.49 E-6 4.31 E-6 1.54 E-4 8.17 E-4 2.69 E-3 Airborne (ingestion) 5.64 E-6 7.20 E-8 6.00 E-6 2.82 E-6 1.68 E-5 5.22 E-7 Eating Fish 1.56 E-2 5.40 E-6 1.56 E-4 2.52 E-3 1.56 E-2 8.40 E-4 Aquatic Recreation 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 2.46 E-7 (a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
(b) Population affected: 6000.
..a
TABLE 28. 70-YEAR DOSE C0p9tITMENT FOR INTEGRATED 80-KILOMETER POPULATION FROM LIQUID EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 u,
Population Dose (Person-res)
Exposure Population Whole Mode Affected Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs Eating Fish 1.5 x 105 3.90 E-1 1.30 E-4 3.80 E-3 6.30 E-2 3.90 E-1 2.10 E-2 Aquatic Recreation 1.5 x 105 6.10 E-6 1.30 E-6 6.10 E-6 6.10 E-6 6.10 E-6 6.10 E-6 (a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
- -. ~..
'l l
l i
I I
i l.
TABLE 29. 70-YEAR DOSE CGetI1 MENT FOR INTEGRATED 80 KILMETER POPULATION i
FR M AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS RELEASED DURING CY 1986 4
l j
Population Dose (person-res) 80-Kilometer b le w
l Exposure Mode Population Body GI(a)
Thyroid Kidneys Bone Lungs i
Foodstuff (ingestion) 1.73 x 106 1.90 E-5 2.50 E-7 2.1 E-5 9.60 E-6 5.70 E-5 1.80 E-6 Chronic (inhalation) 1.73 x 106 7.23 E-5 2.42 E-6 7.32 E-6 2.66 E-4 1.42 E-3 4.64 E-3 J
I i
(a) Gastrointestinal tract (lower large intestine).
1 (b) 70-Year Accumulated Dose, i
i l
1
-l ll i,-
54 TABLE 30. PARAMETERS FOR WEST JEFFERSON SITE AIRBORNE RELEASE DOSE CALCULATIONS Facility Name:
JN-1 (Hot Lab)
Releases:
See Table 2 Meteorological Conditions:
West Jeff meteorological station 1-year data (1/1-12/31/86), annual average Dispersion Model:
Gaussian, BCD parameters X/Q:
Girl Scout Camp 3.35 x 10-5 sec/m3 0 500m SE 80-km population 7.24 x 10-9 sec/m3 Release Height:
24.2 meters effective (18.28 meters actual stackheight) 6 1.73 x 10, see Table 34 Population Distribution:
Computer code:
DACRIN, version 1.2, Rev. 1980 Calculated Dose:
Chronic inhalation, maximum individual and 80-km population, 70-year dose commitment Files addressed:
Radionuclide Library, Rev. 1-15-81 Organ Data Library, Rev. 2-5-81 Computer Code:
PABLM, version 2.1, Oct. 1980 Calculated Dose:
Chronic ingestion, Girl Scout Camp and 80-km population, 70-year dose commitment Files Addressed:
Radionuclide Library, Rev. 1-15-81 Food Transfer Library, Rev. 2-27-78 Organ Data Library, Rev. 2-5-81 External Dose Factor Library, Rev. 3-15-81 Bioaccumulation Factor Library
55 P
TABLE 31. AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT FREQUENCY OF WINO DIRECTION AND AVERAGE WIND SPEED (M/S) FOR CY 1986 Average Direction Percent Speed (M/S)
N 4.5 4.7 NNE 4.1 4.2 NE 4.8 4.0 ENE 5.0 4.1 E
5.8 4.4 ESE 4.7 3.8 SE 5.0 4.3 SSE 4.3 3.8 5
5.5 4.5 SSW 8.1 4.9 SW 11.5 5.5 WSW 8.3 5.3 W
7.8 5.1 WNW 6.5 4.9 NW 6.1 4.6 NNW 4.2 4.2 CALM 3.8
[0TAL 100.0 4.5
I 1
TABLE 32. ANNUAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AROUND THE WEST JEFFERSON SITE FOR A 18 METER STACK HEIGHT RELEASE (UNITS ARE SEC/M )(a) 3 I
i Direc-Range in km (miles) tion 0.5(0.3) 0.8 (0.5) 1.5(0.9) 4.5(2.7) 5.6(3.5) 7.2(4.5) 12(7.5) 24(15) 40(25) 56(35) 72(45)
N 3.13 E-5 1.42 E-5 4.76 E-6 6.% E-7 4.78 E-7 3.12 E-7 1.36 E-7 4.45 E-8 1.97 E-8 1.16 E-8 7.85 E-9 NNE 3.51 E-5 1.59 E-5 5.32 E-6 7.79 E-7 5.35 E-7 3.49 E-7 1.52 E-7 4.98 E-8 2.21 E-8 1.30 E-8 8.79 E-9 NE 3.68 E-5 1.67 E-5 5.59 E-6 8.18 E-7 5.61 E-7 3.66 E-7 1.59 E-7 5.23 E-8 2.32 E-8 1.36 E-8 9.22 E-9 ENE 3.59 E-5 1.63 E-5 5.45 E-6 7.98 E-7 5.48 E-7 3.57 E-7 1.55 E-7 5.10 E-8 2.26 E-8 1.33 E-8 9.00 E-9 E
3.35 E-5 1.52 E-5 5.08 E-6 7.43 E-7 5.10 E-7 3.33 E-7 1.45 E-7 4.76 E-8 2.11 E-8 1.24 E-8 8.39 E-9 ESE 3.88 E-5 1.76 E-5 5.88 E-6 8.61 E-7 5.91 E-7 3.85 E-7 1.68 E-7 5.51 E-8 2.44 E-8 1.43 E-8 9.71 E-9 SE 3.43 E-5 1.56 E-5 5.20 E-6 7.61 E-7 5.22 E-7 3.41 E-7 1.48 E-7 4.87 E-8 2.16 E-8 1.27 E-8 8.58 E-9 SSE 3.88 E-5 1.76 E-5 5.88 E-6 8.61 E-7 5.91 E-7 3.85 E-7 1.68 E-7 5.51 E-8 2.44 E-8 1.43 E-8 9.71 E-9 5
3.27 E-5 1.49 E-5 4.97 E-6 7.27 E-7 4.99 E-7 3.25 E-7 1.42 E-7 4.65 E-8 2.06 E-8 1.21 E-8 8.20 E-9 SSW 3.01 E-5 1.37 E-5 4.56 E-6 6.67 E-7 4.58 E-7 2.99 E-7 1.30 E-7 4.27 E-8 1.89 E-8 1.11 E-8 7.53 E-9 SW 2.68 E-5 1.22 E-S 4.06 E-6 5.95 E-7 4.08 E-7 2.66 E-7 1.16 E-7 3.80 E-8 1.68 E-8 9.90 E-9 6.71 E-9 WSW 2.78 E-5 1.26 E-5 4.22 E-6 6.17 E-7 4.24 E-7 2.76 E-7 1.20 E-7 3.95 E-8 1.75 E-8 1.03 E-8 6.96 E-9 W
2.89 E-5 1.31 E-5 4.38 E-6 6.41 E-7 4.40 E-7 2.87 E-7 1.25 E-7 4.10 E-8 1.82 E-8 1.07 E-8 7.23 E-9 WNW 3.01 E-5 1.37 E-5 4.56 E-6 6.67 E-7 4.58 E-7 2.99 E-7 1.30 E-7 4.27 E-8 1.89 E-8 1.11 E-8 7.53 E-9 NW 3.20 E-5 1.45 E-5 4.86 E-6 7.11 E-7 4.88 E-7 3.18 E-7 1.39 E-7 4.55 E-8 2.01 E-8 1.18 E-8 8.02 E-9 NNW 3.51 E-5 1.59 E-5 5.32 E-6 7.79 E-7 5.35 E-7 3.49 E-7 1.52 E-7 4.98 E-8 2.21 E-8 1.30 E-8 8.79 E-8 (a) Calculated from meteorological data collected during the period 1-86 through 12-86.
~. - _. _ _. _. _ - _ _. -. _. _ _ _ _.
i i
l TA8LE 33. BCD KING AVENUE SITE POPULATION WITHIN 80 km (50 miles) l Distance in km (elles?
0-1.6 1.6-3.2 3.2-4.8 4.8-6.4 6.4-8.1 8.1-16.1 16.1-R.2 32.2-48.3 48.3-64.4 64.4-8D.5 j
(0-1)
(1-2)
(2-3)
(3-4)
(4-5)
(5-10)
(10-20)
(20-30)
(30-40)
(40-50)
Total i
N 1,205 4,202 8,700 7,216 8,502 26,724 7,615 11,143 15.914 24,936 116.157 NNE 2,225 8,882 10,041 0,061 9,073 36,911 8,315 2,702 8,687 13,102 116,999 NE 2,389 8,782 7,145 12,067 9,991 14.091 15,950 14,544 12,792 15.118
-112,919 j
ENE 3,699 6,296 9,335 9,041 6,378 13.580 19,159 16,745 22,731 21,900 128,864
}
E 3,232 4,964 5,301 4,316 7,159 19,409 16,516 16,463
'24,353 22.328 134,041 ESE 2,563 3.382 5.595 14,082 12,465 63,939 15,088 17,222 19,994 12,672 167,002 m
SE 4,232 2,719 7,523 17,120 17,140 16,319 19,666 18,241 18,211 9,927
.131,098 SSE 1,679 3,685 6,098 10,100 14,492 21,466 12,312 11,862 13.044 10,022 104.760 5
1,346 1,797 5,940 2,969 2,229 5,673 9,019 8,323 13,122
-16,497 66,915 4
l SSW 837 1,685 6,718 9,083 4,526 17,293 10,880 8,284 10,637 14,278 84,221 SW 1,400 2,167 5,119 15,565 15,129 11,062 14,925 7,001 9,529 11,322 93.219 l
WSW 1,288 3,018 1,561 3.094 2,723
.14,483 9,903 7,661 31,354 53,895 128,980 W
1,632 3,658 3,057 898 838
,2,498 8,374 11,035 32,199 41,631 105,820 nNel 1,301 3,296 5,159 3,432 1,401
.7,797 7,951 6,477 10,379 14,358 61,551 NW 1,150 2.990 5,497 5,720 7,371 6,565 9,288 7,062 9,984 13,974 69,601 NNW 963 3,363 4,383 5,132 5,540 7,463 7,956 10,381 15,148 25,452 85,781 j
j Total 31,141 64,886 97,172 129,896 124,957 295,273 192,917 182,196 268,078 321,412 1,707,928 j
Total within 80 km (50 miles) = 1,707,928 4
}
i
TA8LE 34. BCD WEST JEFFERSON SITE POPULATION WITHIN 80 km (50 miles)
Distance in km (allesk 0-1.6 1.6-3.2 3.2-4.8 4.8-6.4 6.4-8.1 8.1-16.1 16.1-32.2 32.2-48.3 48.3-64.4 64.4-80.5 (0-1)
(1-2)
(2-3)
(3-4)
(4-5)
(5-10)
(10-20)
(20-30)
(30-40)
(40-50)
Total N
14 76 133 190 247 8,950 2,900 2,200 3.200 40,000 57,910 NNE 5
24 42 60 79 4,500 2,000 23,000 6,200 11,000 46,910 l
NE 15 64 107 152 202 10,150 1,450 4,000 5,200 15,000 36,340 ENE 4
19 34 49 64 20,650 164,000 3,500 5,800 12,000 206,120 E
350 395 202 583 250 10,500 625,000 34,500 6,400
- 5. 000 731,180 g
ESE 310 380 100 250 550 6,430 2,000 5,000 5,200 24,000 44,220 l
SE 300 290 85 120 190 4.200 1,500 14,000 39,925 10,000 70,610 l
SSE 8
25 42 60 85 3,050 1,000 2,300 6,300 30,400 43,270 5
5 20 35 45 55 4,100 800 2,000 3,100 8,000 18,160 SSW 10 40 70 340 150 3,040 750 2,200 7,400 7,000 21,000 i
SW 70 500 500 300 350 4,150 790 2,300 4,400 15,000 28,360 WSW 60 900 900 200 240 5,400 8,700 3,200 31,000 145,000 195,600 W
24 300 300 190 220 7,200.
800 1,000 78,796 55,000 143,830 WNW 15 60 105 150 200 6,150 650 14,500 5,200 9,600 36,630 NW 4
14 26 38 48 3,040 900 3,200 13,500 9,500 30,270 i
NNW 6
24 42 60 78 3,050 7,600 1,200 3,100 6,000 21,160 Total 1,200 3,131 2,723 2,787 3,008 104,560 820,840 118,160 224,721 450,500 1,731,570 Total within 80 km (50 alles) = 1,731,570
59
[
l 3
4 i.3
.l o..
'4 wount Gw (n} --
l
~
.+
5 A
cCu %* v Q
DEI 4aase 7,
f g
wo.*e ve,naa cM"
' teWenwas I
L-l
.:n lal l
u.,
, ce,
"N
- s,.,,
u,,
c-*w*c=
n
- A n.._
- 'a c *'
I rw_
c,'O,8
?"*
]
h A
- 1';;
~~.
g
'I Y
j ser.eie c',7 f
77d i
7
, a.v - e 1
c.
cm...
f y
cou%r
- r, Fa p
,f asset.=
3 cov= v y
,s OA TON w
W Lancasese 4
I 3
se ve rts y
- *{'j',',0
{
casas ne-e
- a
.I D
- mcases,
_ e.
I N
noss "5
"x a m lwn, l cou er, n
I counts e
/
- 8anacea
~**#*
KING AVENUE SITE I
l ev%,og LEGEND cov%r' E NUCLEAR SCitPdCES AREA Chaincothe wtst JEFFEMSON 3173 9
10 JD s: m FIGURE 1.
REGIONAL MAP FOR KING AVENUE AND WEST JEFFERSON SITES
60 I
f I
\\
\\
se us i
i l
\\
- i s
i i
\\
u 5,
[
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
\\
NORTH g
g g-l c _ _ __ _ _- _ _ _ a g Ri l
's
} k.'i[______j i
o~c avisu BATTELLE
- COLUMBUS
,I LABORATORIES L._.
......v.~m. o l
4
\\ SuiLQiNG 3 1
/}
r*4ao ava~ue LEGEND 1
._._..m._..,
- - - - o su p,.
o eso isoo scate rest l
lIi l
FIGURE 2.
LOCAL VICINITY MAP 0F KING AVENUE SITE l
61
, ~%,
S 1
s
=
i.to
\\
- g4
=
I "2 /
g g
c g
l B
J
}\\
\\
- .. = _
/
i LEGEND L'* *
- d~/7 077 st es#
', g Corseremen tmus l
GAfftLLS PROPt#ff 08 O
s 5,,,,,
.0
\\,
" ~~-
\\s t
y S
\\
/c 3....c...
/--
',/ N N
n.,....... l
\\
FIGURE 3.
LOCAL VICINITY MAP OF NUCLEAR SCIENCES AREA WEST JEFFERSON SITE
62 k
'1o nafinso Joe 4 l PLUTOfuuM faCEJTY REllRE O neacron i
y N
f
\\
g'l L -_,
L
\\g
[
\\
i
~suestarfon h
-b'#'*
?,\\ <l
\\
e..,;
l
- s.,
'M l
f not cett g] 4 w..
j l
\\
n c
Q*L 't u.-------
l saNIf aAY DAaWe D p
I secunirv eanca
-4 r
S
=--
x, b
X%g%
LEGEND s
j a m-a p
/
y a
001-J80 t Hot CELLIOLD stDoiENHausf staCE j
oon-m i not cstt inew smo i smaust staca sf j
p coa-m i nor cett ecominot ansas e maust araca g
co4-m i nor cett ax2 wasis evarismaust staca
/
ois-m i not cett maarMeanimaust stacs
/
8 014-Jfl I Hof cEttIMECH f C)I AMAust sfaCE cos. Joe a vauts a muaust atAca
/
010-west JEppensom safs pettEn sf D
/ Oto sil-Jfe 2 nADIOCMEM LA4 ENHAusf sTACE F
s s
SCAtt fif f FIGURE 4.
NUCLEAR SCIENCES AREA WEST JEFFERSON SITE
63 8"ObAOeAgt
' "'i t 'Amo no f '%........
e 1
1 x.- g
=
= i
}
\\
{I l"'"D-e'
\\ a,.,,
\\
.o 1
i$
4 5
g pf.
t a g, **
X
"# %N, - no gg*
47'
\\
e in h,
pt
,1 w
\\0 1
1, g
8EOtm eo t
i p
3, I
/ dp.
8
.\\
f 8
- y og an j
"'M zy't
'S h
e o'.'.
0 ND watt b
JEFFERSON l g
g
=~.~.
i s
_p i
8 i i 4,- C._,,
/.
s
- b. I s
bs" SOurn QuA0manr O
90 to SCALt ustgg FIGURE 5.
MAP OF GRASS, F000cgop AND Soll SAMPLING LOCATIONS s
r 4'
64 6
SANITARY
+g.
,'O ouff ALL
. sh.
u.,
t "i
hUCLEAA s,CIEPeCES AREA g
/
ta,,,es *o"
,g*
Sau***
,,,,$,, g':..
x ou*ao ousa s '------
i
...: g:,
/
u*a m
sara ^ ace
-:.: :1..
- .:-w
'- < g _ g.:
y
}
oA.
~v-sanrus tus r
- R stana s.
- ::- : ::
e I :.: :- -;-
--:/
g 3
P
?
l i nesinoous ano aP
)
J" '
n st.atten e.ousa 2
e e
$m 3
.J e
i e
a LEGEND e a., s is.. %,,,
e w..
s u.. o., c,
?
a so, s.,. is.o.m.. o., c,.
l scate eier A
l l
i l
FIGURE 6.
MAP 0F SITE B0UNDARY AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND BATTELLE LAKE AND DARBY CREEK WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS l
65
-e j ',
J>
)
(
JL o.a.vi.
70
)
n
),
- 1 4
m 1
5 12 NORTH C
'c,1
'==
o I
- t
- t
.......u.
JN-g 6
I 7C 8
4 a
O j
5 11 6
7 6 g
ggg r
g 7
B 8
A 13
- t a
v 5-rocou us - uma q-e.eg,'*'ftg l
30 l t
""" ~~
troeno 2 2 3
~ ' ' " '
~
l
. ~ -
)
ser.v.m e
se
,co
.c...
1i FIGURE 7.
BATTELLE'S COLUMBUS DIVISION KING AVENUE SITE 1
g l
66
- %*o f
90
\\ /.s Y
muoiso= co enu.aun co l
k k
.STf::5bT
'o 8
g.
d
$Y:h 7a{l7}.
/
5 q ^fc,s.,..y"-
LEGEND 8-
- t*%
=a 6:
E33 m an.
n
- e y%g gm
.::-f o
o as oa
.:w:
L0'
'f:,
w w,,,:$$'f....,,;,
.c u a.
.>i ' (T '
r
[
'g nuoison co sau.num co r=~~-
<8
)
FIGURE 8.
MAP 0F TLD LOCATIONS WITHIN 3/4 MILE RADIUS OF THE NUCLEAR SCIENCES AREA
DELAWARE 23 42 MARYSVILLE 42 33 4
(23 II WESTERVILLE 4
161 WTKJ'oM t3 mEwAnn 7~
f.
16 HILLIARD 33 EA8 EA 7 g __._
4 I
a
- =
,i H~
> ^ - =
,le
=
O
.E.
o.E a*
4 wEsumason
'"*g' n
4, tonDon 33 22 23 LEGE ND m~c.s,E.
-- m._
$ OEPA Aw
- wa seat u,a s FIGURE 9.
MAP OF COLUMBUS AND VICINITY SHOWING OFF SITE AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS
68 w
-t w
t/l k
R e
e
+
+
~
M
,e #
%c,
.ior.
k
%rst s f
M l
..s*
a ob se, N 5
St 4
\\
ay s
~
g
'*+
t 5
, - - - " - ' ~
_ _ - - - - - - - ^ -
APPENDIX ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION LIST Tom Alexander Charley Taylor, Chief Sanitation Engineer Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste 61 E. High Street 361 E. Broad Street London, Ohio 43140 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Dr. John C. Starr Ken Schultz, Chief Health Conunissioner Office of Emergency Response 61 E. High Street 361 E. Broad Street London, Ohio 43140 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Michael Pompili Stuart Bruny, Chief Assistant Health Consnissioner Office of Public Water Supply Environmental Health 361 E. Broad Street Columbus Health Department Columbus, Ohio 43215 City of Columbus 181 Washington Boulevard Matt Tin, Chief Columbus, Ohio 43215 Water Pollution Control 361 E. Broad Street Robert M. Quillin Columbus, Ohio 43215 Radiological Health Program Director Ohio Department of Health Paul Flanigan P.O. Box 118 Deputy Director of Water Programs 246 N. High Street Title X Columbus, Ohio 43215 Ohio EPA 361 E. Broad Street Warren Tyler Columbus, Ohio 43215 Director Ohio EPA Samuel I. Baker 361 E. Broad Street Senior Environmental Protection Officer Columbus, Ohio 43216 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory P.O. Box 500 Batavia, Illinois 60510 Bob Stemper Public Utilities Consnission Ohio Power Siting Board Mr. David Kee, Director 180 E. Broad Street Air and Radiation Division Columbus, Ohio 43215 US EPA Region 5 Office of Assistant Administration 230 S. Dearborn Street for Public Information Chicago ~ Illinois 60604 361 E. Broad Street
-Columbus, Ohio 43215 Mr. Larry Kertcher, Chief Air Compliance Branch, 5AC-26 Mr. Steve Rothblatt, Deputy Director US EPA, Region 5 Air and Radiation Branch, SAR-26 230 S. Dearborn Street USEPA, Region 5 Chicago, Illinois 60604 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604
RETURN IQ 393-55 7d-7 '
OBaHelle Columbus Division a
g-505 King Avenue
~
4 Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693 g
Telephone (614 4244424 Q
May 11, 1987 yky k4190 N ukHg %
d$
q e
(9 W
a Leland C. Rouse, Chief Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Rouse:
In accordance with Condition 19 of our Materials License No. SNM-7, we are providing you with three copies of the Battelle Columbus Division Environmental Monitoring Report for calendar year 1986.
Sincerely,
-;Q\\W'"Q")p>)'
197d
/
... o,
l Harley L. Toy DOE Liaison Officer b yj;. \\ ' '
i
~-
l HLT:llr f-Enc.
o m
h Doc q Ussm
.\\\\ \\
14.AYj 4,g8,& }e
}
4 e
,, m
- E5cIS$,
k/
CO d?2/W
DOCHET fiO.
7 ~k C0!iiROL I!O..
DATE OF D0r' DME flCVD.
FCUF _ _
PDR _E FCAF.
LFCR __
I & E iiEF. __ /
smu FCTC Gill m $ n_n @
DATE[
8[ lilii: AL i
i
REVIEW 0F "GE0 HYDROLOGIC TESTING PROGRAM FOR THE HANFORD SITE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST EXPLORATORY SHAFT" by Nuclear Waste Consultants Inc Terra Therma Inc April 7-9,1987
- 87/4 - p. 1-
I SCOPE OF EVALUATION 1.
Objectives.
Review objectives for gaps, and adequacy.
2.
Feasibility of Proposal.
Review feasibility of proposal with respect to technology, equipment, j
and instrumentation.
l 3.
Sequence.
Review sequence of tests with respect to whether it is reasonable with respect to the objectives of the program.
4.
Vertical Permeability.
Review the proposed testing program with respect to the extent to which the vertical permeability of the units in the Grande Ronde will be evaluated.
Discuss any percieved problems with the proposed testing in obtaining supportable values, and examine the rationale behind the tests.
5.
Porosi ty.
Review the testing program with respect to the-extent to which the porosity of the units in the Grande Ronde will be evaluated.
l l
- 87/4 - p. 2-p p
-m-y
STRUCTURE OF EVALUATION 1.
Review objectives of program 2.
Review proposed program:
Hydraulic baseline LHS tests Hydrochemical sampling Tracer testing Review of each item uses the following categories:
Description of proposed action Evaluation with test objectives Data needs assessment Feasibility assessment Conclusions on utility of test 3.
Overview
- 87/4 - p. 3-
1.0 EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES 1.1 OBJECTIVES 1.
To collect data on geohydrologic conditions that will be significantly changed or rendered unobtainable after shaft construction (the
" perishable data" objective).
2.
To provide an early indication of whether disqualifying conditions are present before proceeding with construction of the ES (the
" disqualification" objective).
3.
To provide data on geohydrologic conditions that may affect the design of the ESF or the repository (the " engineering design" objective)."
4.
To collect data on geohydrologic conditions in order to identify the effects of the ESF on the geohydrologic system and on subsequent geohydrologic tests (the "ESF impact" objective).
- 87/4 - p. 4-i
1.0 EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES 1.2 EVALUATION 1.
Objectives appear complete with respect to pre-ESF testing objectives.
2.
Objectives appear reasonable.
3.
Objectives have differing relative importance with respect to licensing.
i 1
- 87/4 - p. 5-
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM.
2.1 HYDRAULIC BASELINE 2.1.1 Description 1.
Install two new nests of piezometers (DC-24 and DC-25), to bring total to 36 locations.
2.
Allow head measurements to stabilize and measure pre-waste-emplacement head conditions, presumably using up-hole techniques.
3.
Calculate flow directions and gradients from results.
- 87/4 - p. 6-ew--
a
\\
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.1 HYDRAULIC BASELINE 2.1.2 Evaluation with respect to objectives 1.
Perishable?
- Yes.
- ESF program will perturb both flows and heads in the site area.
- Appropriate prior to ESF program.
2.
Needed to evaluate disqualification?
- Probably minor.
- Gradient uncertainties reflect in GWTT uncertainties, but remaining uncertainties are minor.
- Head impact on uncertainties about inflow to ESF are negligable.
i 3.
Need for design?
- No.
4.
Need for evaluation of ES impact?
- Possibly: the head impact of the ES construction may be able to be measured against this head.
1
- 87/4 - p. 7-I
,._,__..__.,__._..7,,,..m
-,-y__,,,
,_,,_m.
2.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.1 HYDRAULIC BASELINE 2.1.3 Data Needs Assessment 1.
Does the data already exist?
- Gradient is quite well known already.
- Pre-test gradients have been established.
- GWTT gradients essentially established.
- May be other constituencies that need better gradient data.
- Improvement in spatial data density minor.
2.
Can the proposed data be obtained?
- Yes, provided accuracy is not required to be better than about 1-2 meters.
3.
Is the data necessary for licensing evaluations?
- Yes: GWTT, and possibly for flux evaluations.
- 87/4 - p. 8-
S 2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.1 HYDRAULIC BASELINE 2.1.4 Feasibility 1.
Uphole head measurements of water pressure continue to be a problem due to density differences in the column of water.
2.
Less than 1-2 meter absolute accuracy unrealistic by any method.
3.
Downhole pressure measurements should be taken for the most supportable evaluation of real " heads".
4.
Strongly recommend drawing formation water into all piezometers ASAP.
- 87/4 - p. 9-
l 2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.1 HYDRAULIC BASELINE 2.1.5 Conclusions 1.
Generally the additional head information that is proposed does not appear to provide significant additional understanding for licensing purposes.
2.
Current accuracy of readings is sufficient to observe the key vertical and horizontal gradients that will be required for licensing.
f 87/4 - p. 10-
~,. - -, -,..... _. _. - - - -. -,. _.,,,,,
,- -- w
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.2 LARGE SCALE HYDRAULIC STRESS TESTS 2.2.1 Description 1.
Perform four tests: Rocky Coulee Flow Top, Cohassett Flow Top, Cohassett Vesicular Zone, and Birkett Flow Top.
2.
Pump each horizon in RRL-2B.
3.
Pump for up to 100 days.
4.
Observe in all piezometers; these are essentially in flow tops, not dense interiors, which is appropriate.
D t
87/4 - p. 11-l l
l 2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.2 LARGE SCALE HYDRAULIC STRESS TESTS 2.2.2 Evaluation with respect to objectives 1.
Perishable?
- Perhaps.
- Shaft may cause some leakage.
- Installation of ESF may cause significant perturbations to heads, rendering evaluation of tests harder.
2.
Needed to evaluate disqualification?
- Yes.
- Very high vertical hydraulic conductivity would likely lead to engineering disqualification due to inflow.
- High horizontal hydraulic conductivity would probably not lead to disqualification.
3.
Need for design?
- Yes.
- Flow to ESF important for design.
4.
Need for evaluation of ES impact?
- Possibly.
- Might be possible to identify change in vertical permeability due to shaft installati c using retest of Birkett.
- 87/4 - p. 12-
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM i
l 2.2 LARGE SCALE HYDRAULIC STRESS TESTS i
2.2.3 Data-Needs Assessment 1.
Does the data already exist?
- Vertical. hydraulic conductivity not known.
- Large scale values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity are poorly known at present.
- Boundary locations are poorly known.
2.
Can the proposed data be obtained?
- Vertical hydraulic conductivity: yes, within bounds.
- Horizontal hydraulic conductivity: yes.
- Boundaries: probably not.
3.
Is the data necessary for licensing evaluations?
- Vertical hydraulic conductivity: yes.
- Horizontal hydraulic conductivity: yes.
- Boundaries: probably not.
j
- 87/4 - p. 13-
2.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.2 LARGE SCALE HYDRAULIC STRESS TESTS 2.2.4 Feasibility i
1.
The test does not have very good discrimination for vertical permeabilities less than about 1E-10 meters /second.
Discrimination would be improved with a piezameter at about 500 meters.
2.
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity will be excellent.
3.
Boundaries will likely not be identified unless the transmir.sivities are in the order of 100 square meters per day (the highest spot value recorded in the. Grande Ronde).
4.
Use of sucker pumps is not considered to be a significant problem in the test, providing appropriate flows and drawdowns can be obtained.
I
- 87/4 - p. 14-l l
1
--.--~.---e-~s.--
e
2.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.2 LARGE SCALE HYDRAULIC STRESS TESTS 4
2.2.5 Conclusions l
1.
Plans appear appropriate for evaluating general vertical hydraulic conductivities.
2.
Horizontal hyraulic conductivities will be very well identified in the area of the RRL.
3.
Boundaries will in general not be identified.
4.
Sequence of testing is considered to be appropriate, if somewhat overdone for the matters to be evaluated.
e 1
l
- 87/4 - p. 15-l l
l l
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.3 HYDR 0 CHEMICAL SAMPLING 2.3.1 Description 1.
Measure water quality in output from LHS tests.
2.3.2 Evaluation with respect to objectives 1.
Perishable?
- Probably not.
2.
Needed to evaluate disqualification?
- No.
3.
Need for design?
- Possibly, for cannister design.
4.
Need for evaluation of ES impact?
- Probably not.
- 87/4 - p. 16-
9 2.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.3 HYDR 0 CHEMICAL SAMPLING 2.3.3 Data Needs Assessment 1.
Does the data already exist?
- Yes.
2.
Can the proposed data be obtained?
- Yes, although the degassing and temperature changes make the value of the data questionable.
3.
Is the data necessary for licensing evaluations?
- Not directly.
2.3.4 Feasibility 1.
Yes, however the samples are not significantly better than currently available.
2.3.5 Conclusions 1.
Data is not needed, but is readily and cheaply available, so may as well be collected.
1 l
- 87/4 - p. 17-i l
i 2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.4 TRACER TESTS 2.4.1 Description 1.
Perform four tests: Rocky Coulee Flow Top, Cohassett Flow Top, Cohassett Vesicular Zone, and Birkett Flow Top.
2.
Radial convergent tests from two locations between 50 and 150 meters distant from the pumped well.
3.
Pump for up to 100 days.
4.
Inject from RRL-2A and RRL-2C with different tracers.
- 87/4 - p. 18-
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.4 TRACER TESTS 2.4.2 Evaluation with respect to objectives 1.
Perishable?
- Possibly.
- If done at a larger scale, then would be peri shabl e.
2.
Needed to evaluate disqualification?
- Yes.
- Porosity a key uncertainty in GWTT evaluations.
- Dispersivity important for licensing, but not necessarily for disqualification.
3.
Need for design?
- No.
4.
Need for evaluation of ES impact?
- No.
- 87/4 - p. 19-
. _ _ _ _ = _
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.4 TRACER TESTS 2.4.3 Data Needs Assessment 1.
Does the data already exist?
- No.
Two tests remote from the site.
2.
Can the proposed data be obtained?
- Probably not in right place.
- Probably too small scale.
- Probably unconservative value of Kv.
3.
Is the data necessary for licensing evaluations?
- Yes.
- GWTT and flux measurements require
" ~
porosi ty.
l t
l i
- 87/4 - p. 20-4
.,=..,,-,,_.,--,-,---,,.-,.-,.,-...,.---,,-,,,,,,---.n.--,,..-_.---n,-,,__
1 2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.4 TRACER TESTS 2.4.4 Feasibility 1.
Porosity likely to be overestimated, which is unconservative with respect to GWTT and flux.
2.
Test may very well fail.
3.
Short distance not necessarily representative, and not between boundary of repository and accessibly environment.
4.
Alternatives exist and are feasibly.
However note that they may not be perishable.
- 87/4 - p. 21-
2.0 REVIEW 0F PROPOSED PROGRAM 2.4 TRACER TESTS 2.4.5 Conclusions 1.
Poor tracer test selection for needs of project.
. 2.
Disqualification due to GWTT will not be seriously addressed in entire program.
3.
This is seen as the major weakness in the program.
1 e
4 3
N 4
- 87/4 - p. 22-
~
t 3.0 OVERVIEW TEST NEEDED?
IETHOD TIMELY?
PROGRAM OK?
OK?
Yes Hydraulic baseline No Yes Large-scale hydraulic stress Yes Yes Yes Yes l
Water quality No Yes Yes Tracer Yes No Yes No i
DATA OBTAINED PERISH-DISQUAL-DESIGN ESF ABLE IFIER?
NEED?
IMPACT?
l Vertical hydraulic conductivity
?
Yes Yes
?
l llorizontal hydraulic conductivity
?
No
?
?
l Effective porosity Yes Yes No
?
Boundaries
?
No No No i
t j
k EFFECTIVE POROSITY AS A DATA NEED FOR 10 CFR 60 1.
10 CFR 60.113(a)(2) - Pre-emplacment Groundwater Travel Time GWTT = L / V V = K i / n, Therefore, GWTT = n L/Ki e
2.
10 CFR 60.112 - EPA Limits Consider 1-D Flow and Transport:
x ( 2 *C / d x ') - v3 ( d C / d x) 3C/3t
=D (K i / n I v
=
x ex Therefore, x ( d *C / d x *) - (K i / n,)x( d C / d x) dC/dt
=D l
l i
-,.,+.---n..---,--------,,-n-r.,
e, r -
9 VOLUME I STABILIZATION OF WATER LEVELS i
l 1
l 1
1 i
l
STABILIZATION OF WATER LEVELS AND GRADIENTS OBJECTIVE Determine the extent to which BWIP water levels have stabilized and baseline conditions have been achieved.
J i
+
e e te>
m.
m 9y g.y,*e-,ym-----s 9
9 9
m-g-u----
g-,.
y g
-,-weegw-h.-
,-p.,,
w,.rgw.,.--47wg,,w
..r--,---p+gg-.-w-.,ypqf 9.. - - - -.y g,
t ANALYSIS Construct.hydrographs using all available data (at the time, was January, 1985 to April, 1986) for piezometers DC-19C, 20C, and 22C.
)
Using a straightline extrapolation, determine predicted water level channges per year and total expected change to some date (January 1, 1992).
Compare these values to projections made by DOE.
Calculate water levels and gradients for November 1, 1986 and compare to recently obtained water level data.
I l
i l
l l
COMPARISON CF WATER LEVELS AND GRADIENTS BETWEEN PREDICTED (FROM TTI Im #9) AND ACTUAL VALUES FOR NOVEMBER 1, 1986 WATER LEVELS AND VERTICAL GRADIENTS DELL /
WATER LEVEL ELEV. (FT MSL)
VERTICAL GRADIENTS MONITORED ZONE PREDICTED ACTUAL DIFFER-PREDICTED ACTUAL DIFFER-INTERVAL DC-19C NOV. 86 NOV. 86 ENCE NOV. 86 NOV. 86 ENCE ROCKY COULEE 402.06 402.00
.06
.0034
.0028
.0006 (RC-COH)
COHASSET 401.29 401.38
.09
.0017
.0018
.0001 (CCH-UM)
UMTANUM 402.26 402.38
.12 OC-20C ROCKY COULEE 405.62 405.43
.19
.0008
.0007
.0001 (RC-CCH)
COHASSET 405.47 405.30
.17
.0020
.0018
.0002 (COH-VM)
UMTANUM 406.73 406.45
.28 HORIZONTAL GRADIENTS (DETERMlNED FROM DC-19C, DC-20C, AND DC-22C)
PREDICTED ACTUAL DIFFER-MONITORED ZONE NOV. 86 NOV. 86 ENCE ROCKY COULEE
.0001
.0007
.0006 COHASSET
.0008
.0001
.0007 UMTANUM
.0001
.0003
.0002 i
l l
l
.=
l 1
CONCLUSIONS Water levels have stabilized sufficiently to calculate vertical
- and horizontal gradients in the Grande Ronde Basalts.
Errors in predicted vertical gradients, compared to actual gradients, are consistently an order of magnitude lower than the gradient values.
A 1
M a.m A
a-A.
2 VOLUME I TRACER TEST t
i 1
I 1
l i
l
TRACER TEST EVALUATION OBJECTIVE Determine the feasibility of performing tracer tests at distances approaching 5 kilometers.
i ANALYSIS Determination of likely horizontal flow-path, based on' effects of thermal build-up.
-Determine feasibility and define tracer test configuration, using hydraulle parameters related to flow path determined in step 1.
1 Calculate likely tracer travel time.
Assess significance of vertical leakage to results of step 3.
i
't i
i i
t
(
l i
CALCULATED TRACER TRAVEL TIE (days)
SPACING OF EFFECTIVE POROSITY WELL FIELOS
5
-4 (Kilometers) 10-3 10 10
- 1 2
69 6.9
.69 5
431 43.1 4.31
)
i n
I I
t l
l
._~
I CONCLUSIONS Thermally induced vertical gradients could introduce radionuclides to the Rocky Cculee flow top. The probability of radionuclides reaching Interflows above the Rocky Coulee is 4
considerably less.
A push-pull tracer test with 3 pumping and 3 injection wells could produce gradients sufficient to transport a tracer in the Rocky i
Coulee over distances of 2 to 5 km.
i Minimum tracer travel times calculated for 2 and 5 km tests I
Indicate tracer tests performed at i
this scale are feasible, based on the level of this analysis.
)
Vertical leakage would not have a significant impact on tracer travel times for aquitard hydraulic conductivitieslessthanlp12 m/s for the 5 km test and 10-m/s for the 2 km test.
s 2
l i
f l
l i
i
ze+~,,
,,m-en_,,--,n,,,,,
nn,e-ww.,.,_
w_,,,n,,,na,]--__,---,-...e,.w-----
TRACER TEST EVALUATION - ROCKY COULEE E-w SECTICN O 10510 N (200 CATS. S KW) 2
/
1.5
/
\\
/
h 0.5 5
N E
O Ii
\\;
/
gg
-0.5 f
'v a
5 Y
/
\\
/
-1. 5
\\ /
-2
-15 0
10 00 30 40 (Thouseres)
EASONG (feet)
C CRAW 0CwN (v.r s)
TRACER TEST EVALUATION - ROCKY COULEE E-W SECTICN 912510 N (100 DAYS. 2 KW) 2 A
1.5 j g/ \\
f f
q e
U 0.5 t' ?
v7 I:!
I O
O O
O N
N g
-0. 5
/
-t.s
-2 0
to 20 30 40 (TNaveands)
EASONG (feet)
C ORAwCCwN (E..)
TRACER TEST EVALUATION - ROCKY COULEE E-w sz:ncN O t0510 N (?CC CUS. 5 Ku)
,'jl i
I I
Fs I
i i
/
N
,,,I I
/
\\1
~
i I
/
\\l 0.a I
I
/
I 1
l 0.a I
I /
I lh o.,
3 I
I I
l/
I I \\
o'.
53 l
I i
A I
I k
o
= j y,
Kl l
I/
I I
I l'
l( d N* I 8
il i
V i
l i
I 5
^
I f\\
l
/1 1
I I
I Ib i
/I I
I I
I I
\\
l
/
I I
I
\\
l a
I i
i
_, ],
\\
l/
I I
I
\\ I/
)
I i
-1.8 1
I I
I
-2 a
10 D
c 40 Chaus:res)
EASENG (teet)
C CRAWCCwN (>u.)
TPACER TEST EVALUATION E-w SECTICN O 10510 N (.O CAYS, 2 KW) 1.6 1.4
/\\
l
]
/
\\
L
/
\\
0.8 R
\\
0.6
/
\\
\\
h, 0#
+
j b$
0.2 ig,
~
^
~
o
~
~
-0.2 -
-o. 4 T
/
-0.6
\\
F
-0. 8
\\
l
\\
./
-1.2
-i. 4 g
l
-1. 6 0
10 00 33 40 Uboussnds)
EAsnNG (feet) c CRA#CowH (ru.;
VOLUME I LEAXY AQUIFER EVALUATIONS 1
I
-n.
a.-.
LEAKY AQUIFER ANALYSES OBJECTIVES FRE-ANALYSIS OF LHS TESTS CONDUCTED IN SELECTED BASALT INTERFLOWS FEASIBILITY OF MEASURING VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF FLOW INTERIORS FEASIBILITY OF CONDUCTING A MULTIFLE BOREHOLE TEST IN THE COHASSETT FLOW TOP i
i
LEAKY AQUIFER ANALYSES AtJALYSIS MODIFIED HANTUSH (1960) LEAKY AQUIFER SOLUTION NUMERICAL INVERSION OF Laplace TRANSFORM SOLUTION USING SELFEST ALGORITHM (MOENCH AND OGATA, 1984)
IMAGE WELLS TO SIMULATE HYDROLOGIC BOUNDARIES e
LEAKY AQUIFER ANALYSES ASSUMPTIONS BASIC ASSUMPTIONS GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH WELL HYDRAULICS PROBLEMS AQUlrARDS AEOVE AND BELOW THE PUMPED AOUIFER ARE A SOURCE OF WATER TO THE PUMPING WELL AQUITARDS ARE CAPABLE OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE TOP OF UPFER AOUITARD AND BOTTOM OF LOWER AQUITARD ARE MAINTAINED AT CONSTANT HEAD (ZERO DRAWDOWN) n
1 1
LEAKY AQUlFER ANALYTICAL MODEL I?*
o-
@ Constant Head Boundary
./t
- . ;. y
-X; s
.~
,?.-
o s
.'.'.f.
s hy;5'.
'p r
, ~ < 7..;
- 4.. gKv:,g, Aquitard
~
pg.
g_.:p
- yg s.
7cc z,.,
3
.s
- a.
g-,
- ., sg.
' 5Ih pf:
I ib b
?;$ *hk h.i:;$..se.Wi!k f.744";WS&MlM,:
Pumped Aquifer u *!.; w@li W 5f.J m i he.-.
gM.
- s,ei;:a:r 4.si
\\.%'V.
f
=
V,tM;n.&
%M
?!k Mc
- t=
ic.,
' +:
Ri
'c,.'
~
- c....
..a
..'...-.':g
.]
ji:
9..M3 p
c.
4.:.: '
gs:$l s:p;;:!;
w$ '
E,f?
a;h..:.. :
y "-.
3.:.
s
?L
~
- Aquitard
~'
5
- 3
,n.
.. -.. a.. g s..
,y
... :~.
~ ~
yp.
v
.a s
s
...s w
?
~,
.- r
~
t.h
.a p:,
..,y~
~
i 8 Constant Head Boundary O
4 e
r ROCKY COULEE LHS TEST ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES ASSESS ABILITY OF LHS TEST IN ROCKY COULEE FLOW TOP TO MEASURE OR FROVIDE UPPER BOUND VALUE OF FLOW INTERIOR VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY EVALUATE USEFULNESS OF 500 METER OBSERVATION WELL ASSESS ABILITY OF LHS TEST IN ROCKY COULEE FLOW TOP TO IDENTIFY HYDROLOGIC BOUNDARIES
ROCKY COULEE LHS TEST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS UPPER AOUITARD EXTENDS FROM ROCKY COULEE FLOW TOP TO LOWER-MOST FRENCHMAN SPRINGS FLOW TOP LOWER AQUITARD EXTENDS FROM ROCKY COULEE FLOW TOP TO BIRKETT FLOW TOP O
ROCKY COULEE LHS TEST ANALYSIS i
INPUT PARAMETERS AQUIFER TRANSMISSIVITY (T):
0.24 m2/d (2.6 ft2/d)
AQUIFER STORATIVITY (S):
10-5 DISCHARGE RATE (0):
4~,.6 m*/d (8 gpm)
'AQUITARD VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K ):
10-12 to-sa go-so 10-'
n./ s j
ACUITARD SPECIFIC STORAGE (S.):
10-7 m-*
j J
UPPER AQUITARD THICKNESS tba):
61 m LOWER AQUITARD THICKNESS (b2):
126 m OBSERVATION WELL RADIAL DISTANCE (r):
100 i
500 I
1000 l
2500 m l
I i
. = -, - _ _. _ _,. _ _. - -. _, _ _ _ _. _ -.. _ - _.
-._= -.
4 ROCKY COULEE LHS TEST ANALYSIS i
~
CONCLUSIONS i
100 METER OBSERVATION WELLS FROVIDE l
RELIABLE VALUES OF ACUIFER l
TRANSMISSIVITY AND STORATIVITY, BUT I
HAVE LIMITED CAPABILITY TO MEASURE AQUITARD CONDUCTIVITIES BELOW 10-to 4
i M/S 500 AND 1000 METER OBSERVATION WELLS PROVIDE FOR BEST RESOLUTION OF AOUITARD CONDUCTIVITY, BUT HAVE i
LIMITED CAPABILITY TO MEASURE 4
AQUITARD CONDUCTIVITIES BELOW 10-1*
a 1
M/S i
2500 FOOT OBSERVATION WELLS ARE OF LIMITED VALUE FOR MEASURING i
AQUIFER /AQUITARD PROPERTIES, BUT MAY
- ~
HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONFIRM THE
}
PRESENCE OF HIGH AQUITARD CONDUCTIVITY i
l LHS TEST IN ROCKY COULEE FLOW TOP l
WILL NOT BE CAPABLE OF IDENTIFVING i
HYDROLOGIC BOUNDARIES r
i i
l l
1I f)ll l
- fI 1
,ll
(
'P g
OT S S W
l i
l lO O
\\o I
I O
T T A A L
C C F
O O L L E
G D E
E l
l l
L i i T
l t
S U
A IX L O
e*
E P g"
C d '*
ll I I
Y m"
K u^
52@
n C
a '*
C l
O N
I a
D m"
R U
E l
T N
i e
N g
d I
i l
S e
f an E
m ml i
c I
iki T
t o
an Ya IL 0
0 I
C 5
9 1
A F
D G
s
~
N 0\\l 1
s a
/-
I C
l 2
R f
C h J'
4 O
S 3
i 2@
' i 2,
T L
C C
I D
R YD N N
O
\\A
=
2 2
4 M
6 D
2 1-1 s
C a
L L
T 0
l R
l S
a E p[
l s
s.
T i
7 E
Z S
S E@
H A
I 4
G C
L CM Y
I s
I3 RA e-n
~
M i
I 2
s.
I 1
R a
P I
8 l a I
8
~
I l
f ll Il l
Jili I I I
tilI I I i
i Ill I i i i
i 2
s E t.2e O
O._
^
- O O
i O
w P-O E
O w
w J
O 8
.E
.o
.O c
^
O_
p O
E
=
h 0
e x
EF
_z O
d
.3 n..
vb f
O
.O l-
~
~
t iIII I I I
I ili i ii i
i iii l I i i
I 6*
O O
~
O._
(w) umopmoJo
+
+
g J II I I I
i 11 I I I I I
I til6 I i i
I 4
W 4
4 M
O< ?=
?
?
E o_.9 o o.
E o
o O
O 0
0 y
O J
O O
u g
W O
O F-Z o
M M
W O
O
_J 8
e
.O O
U OO n
0 0
O g
x a
u v
U O
w g
E
%^
-F
^
E N_
3 m'
mas g
M
~r O
e M
i W
Z but l
i 1ei i
t iII 1 1 I t
I IIII I I I
I 6
o o
7 o
(w) umopmoJO
alli ie i
i till I i i
e il l i ie i
4 a.S E
- 5. =.
2 e
O_ O O_
o_
M O
w-o
~
o o
c o
o c-g o
j O
O O
e f
G Q
O 2
o y
W g
g J
a O
6 O
u O
O O
O x
M E
u O
u EF z
W W
2 g
a.
m W
~
i 1
l 1
l sii,e i i
i titi ei i
i li t i i i i
i 5,
9 o
o
~
O (W) UMopMDJG tL
g-l l
i i
i t
i i
s i
i
)
l s
/m2 0
l i
1 I
1 i
(
y 0o 0
K 1
1 g
00
)
l 1
i l
i i
i g
O t
i_
I s-O e
I i
W O
I i
3 0 LF i
R i
ETN I
0 1
l i
E l
s i
E i
t
- L i
U I
O m
i I
C 0
i 0
I i
)
5 s
Y 2
y K
a f
d i
C
=
(
O r
e R
m i
I T
N l
i l
I i
i i
t E
i S
I N
I O
i
, P I
_ S i
E R
i i
I.
l s
l i
i i
t s
I i
I i
i i
t i
10 l
g 0
0 1
0 5 c$o3Eo 1
m i'
s li 1
1
)j1j!1!l;);!
1 3I.il 4
1
~ _ -
O i
i i
i s
/
i m
Y i
2 R
'0 A
1 DN
=,
U
/
K O
/,
00 B
1 i
a i
EL i
B i
AE i
M R
E P
M I
0 1
i H
i tc d T
s e
n I
f a
i W
f r
e i
e 2
i i
r y
W r
r a
a L O
B d R
)
i L
n R s
u y
F mm a
o a
RE 00 m
b nt d
i e c
(
lk e e T
00 f
o e
wf e
N 50 Y
z t
e m
in e
26 T
I i
I a
r t y i
t x
r i
=
=
a a d a i
E r r u
m ed g
l s
E m
n n i
s o
o u L
i o
i l
U b
y t
l O
o a
i l r
i t
d o e C
d e
pz d
r n
e i
i e
m u
n s
Y d
o i
o i
is x
m b
K i
l t
a n
l i
e u
C s
o m
i c
d e
o w
O p
e b
l o
R nt m
o s
s o
e i
i I.
r t
)
e r
N y
ar i
r y
t r
I v a i
a K
rd n
e i
d p
s i
e n f
E n
S u
w s u n
m i
o o b o I
i i
N B
L Ob O
A O
i P
S i
E R
i 1
- - e& 6 M
e 0
I O
0 l
0 1
^E C5e>$
__. =_.... -.-. _-
- _. - - ~ _ _ _ _...-.-
i j
r COHASSETT NULTIPLE BOREHOLE TEST ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES ASSESS ABILITY OF MULTIPLE BOREHOLE TEST IN COHASSETT FLOW TOP TO MEASURE OR PROVIDE UFFER BOUND VALUE OF FLOW INTERIOR VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY EVALUATE USEFULNESS OF OBSERVATION WELLS AT 500 M OR GREATER DISTANCES i
I i
\\
l t
l r-~re,-
r
C3HASSETT MULTIPLE BOREHOLE TEST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS UFFER ACUITARD EXTENDS FROM CCHASSETT FLOW TOP TO ROCKY COULEE FLOW TOP LOWER AQUITARD EXTENDS FROM j
COHASSETT FLOW TOP TO BIRKETT FLOW l
,u COHASSETT MULTIFLE BOREHOLE TEST ANALYSIS INPUT PARAMETERS AOUIFER TRANSMISSIVITY (T):
0.004 m2/d (0.04 ft2/d)
AQUIFER STORATIVITY (5):
10-5 4
I DISCHARGE RATE (O):
1.68 m=/d (0.31 gpm)
AQUITARD VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (M ):
10-2=
10-**
10-*o 10-'
m/s AOUITARD SPECIFIC STORAGE (S.):
10-7 m-*
.i UPPER AQUITARD THICKNESS (bs):
47 m LOWER AQUITARD THICKNESS (ba):
78 m OBSERVATION WELL RADIAL DISTANCE (r):
76 l
152 500 m i
1 s
COHASSETT MULTIPLE BOREHOLE TEST ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS OBSERVATION WELLS AT RRL-CA AND RRL-2C PROVIDE GOOD RESOLUTION OF ACUITARD HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, SUT HAVE LIMITED ABILITY TQ MEASURE CONDUCTIVITIES BELOW 10-28 M/S
^
500 METER OBSERVATICN WELLS ARE OF LIMITED VALUE FOR MEASURING AQUIFER /AQUITARD PROPERTIES, BUT MAY HAVE ABILITY TO CONFIRM PRESENCE OF HIGH AQUITARD CONDUCTIVITY 4
I t
n
,, -,, -,, -.,,,,,.. - - -,,... ~,. ~~,
,.-..,,...,-,,,a
44eii I 3
I ii i i i i i i
i4ii i 1 4
4 g
W>
N E
w-
_o m
e e e
s x
OO O
O O
L, O
O O
O N
8 O
O
_J g
x 0
0 H<
O O
O 3
w O
J L
C O
m g>
O O
~
Z m
o H
O
~
w B-m O O
U)
.5 U)
F
- ^
u I
~
O U
_ Z.
U)
Z O
0.
U)
W l
x l
l ffII t I t
t I I I t_ l I f.
I iti1 I I i
1
~
O O
O M
~
l O
~
(w) umopmoJG
4 f
M M
e m
e O
O N
E N
M d.
S
=
O O. _O.
O.
O o
-n w
w w
N O
.O O
i
-)
O O
O x
O O
O F<-
O O
O 3
i o
0 a
g$
- m O
0:
p.
z E
-m N
nm c
H x
e y
T LLj 18 v
(O o
u M
._E F
I O
0 I.D 2
W W
g (h
2 O
i c.
(A LLJ m
M M
M M
M M
t W
III I I I I
f IfIf f f f
I IffI f I f
f 9~
I O
O
\\
o (w) umopmoJo
=.
I
-
- m m
=
_ - - m-l l
i l
s l
l l
i
)s
/
m a
l i
i
(
~
v O
0
'0 K
I 1
1 00 3
i i
1 m
l l
0 O
I 0
l 5
)
l
=
I r
l T
A W
0 O
1 l
i L
l i
F l
s R
l i
E l
i T
l N
i I
)
l s
i ya T
l (d
E i
S e
S m
A iT H
i O
l i
l C
i l
i l
1 N
I I
i E
I i
S N
l O
i PS ER I.
l l
i i
i t
i I
i l
i l
i i
i 1
_ _ m - -
_ ~ - - -
0 e
g 0
0 1
0 1
,E C*om3eo 1
4 I
j l
3;'
!:1ii!
1
V e
VOLUME I TRACER TRAVEL DISTANCE
- rRACER TRAVEL DISTANCE ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES DETERMINE DISTANCE IN ROCKY COULEE INTERFLOW THAT A CONSERVATIVE TRACER CAN TRAVEL FROM POINT OF INJECTION
- TO PRODUCTION WELL WITHIM TIME FRAME j.
OF CONVERGENT TRACER TEST EVALUATE TRACER TRAVEL DISTANCE FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF EFFECTIVG POROSITY EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF 500 METER CONVERGENT TRACER TEST
/
h a
e.--
- - -,, -, rm.
.--m
~r-.-,..
.,,-w-.,
a e-a
- _-.,.,n.
,-..,a
--m.-,
_-,,,r..,,,-
TRACER TRAVEL DISTANCE ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS BASALT INTERFLOW TREATED AS AN EQUIVALENT POROUS MEDIUM BASALT INTERFLOW IS HOMOGENECUS AND l
ISOTROPIC WITH REGARD TO HYDRAULIC AND TRANSFORT FROPERTIES BASALT INTERFLOW HAS CONSTANT THICKNESS NEGLIGIBLE VERTICAL LEAKAGE FROM AQUITARDS CONSERVATIVE TRACER UNIFORM PUMPING RATE AT PRODUCTION WELL i
I
C TRACER TRAVEL DISTANCE ANALYSIS i
INPUT PARAMETERS
- [ -
ROCKY COULEE INTERFLOW THICKNESS (b):
5.1 m a
FUMPING RATE (G):
8 25 gpm EFFECTIVE PCROSITY (ne):
10-*
1o-s 10-2
)
10-*
i t
4 I
i l
l
,, _.... _,.. _,.. ~,. _ -..
. _ _ _ _ _., _ _ _.. -.,. _.. ~.,... _ _ _ _ - _.... _ _ _ _ _ ~,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _, _ _ _ _, _..
I.
TRACER TRAVEL DISTANCE ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS FOR A 500 METER INJECTICN FOINT AND FUMPING RATE OF 8 GPM, EFFECTIVE PDFOSITY MUST BE LESS THAN ABOUT 10-3 FOR CENTER OF MASS OF TRACER TO REACH PUMPING WELL IN 100 DAYS f
FOR A 500 METER INJECTION POINT AND FUMPING RATE OF 25 GPM, EFFECTIVE POROSITY MUST BE LESS THAN ABOUT 2 X 10-3 FOR CENTER OF MASS OF TRACER TO REACH FUMPING WELL IN 100 DAYS 500 METER CONVERGENT TRACER TEST IN ROCKY COULEE INTERFLOW IS FEASIBLE FOR MEASURING EFFECTIVE POROSITY s
LESS THAN ABOUT 10-s 4
m - - ~ -
--a
,,e r,
,a
,-v
TRACER TRAVEL DISTANCE ANALYTICAL MODEL Y
Tracer injection Point t
/ ///s i sssss/
// /// / / 9 s /
4
' Il
- 13.,
[N ' l' I Rocky Coulee b
' t-t,.
E if-i.,
- lI 4
$3.
interflow s -
g if
' -l 9
_=
y
/ /
4
/
/
/
/ / /
/
/
//
/ / ////M r
Volume of water removed from formation before arrival s
of tracer center of mass at well (V) a
- ( r b n, Qt V
=
=
l l
l r =
Qt i
l 7r bn, i
t i
4 3
2 1
e0 o
0 0
h 0
i 1
1 1
0 4
.~
- Z
- _p
- /-
0 0
_X-3 E
C N
A T
Sm I
p g
D 8
)
0
=
s L
0 y
f-2 a
/
E ET d
(
A VR E
AE M
I G
T RR A
TH f
C S
RDI E
C
~0
=-
/ -
A 0
R
/
1 T
- g 0
8 6 4 2 0 4 2 3 8 6 4 2 2 8 6 4 2 j
O 0 O O 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
1 1
1
,E 8o v w0z4>_Wo ada(.M
.+
1l
,ljl ii i 1
)\\
l ll lll l
4 3
2
~
e~
~
n0 0
o l
0 1
1 0
/
/
1
~
/
~
~
~
/
~
~
~
0
~
~
0
~
3
~
E
~
C N
~
AT
/
/
m Sp I
g D5 2
0
)
L =
s 0
y
[-
2 a
EE d
T
(
VAR E
AE M
/
I RG T
R TA RSI
/
H C
D E
C
/
0 A
0 1
RT 0
0 5
4 3
2 3
1 03 05i5 E r~
n I
lI l
l
VOLUME I DRILLING RESPONSE I
(
DRILLING RESPONSE OBSERVATIONS E
oO' C-o s7 crc 7s ve.s; EVALUATE LATERAL HYDRAULIC CONTINUITY OF BASALT INTERFLOWS IDENTIFY EVIDENCE OF VERTICAL LEAKAGE ASSESS RELATIVE DIFFERENCES IN TRANSMISSIVITY OF BASALT INTERFLOWS f
i e
l l
i.
i DRILLING RESPONSE OBSERVATIONS
- APPROACH 1
CORRELATE DRILLING / COMPLETION ACTIVITIES WITH HYDRAULIC RESPONSES j
MEASURED IN DESERVATICN WELLS /PIEIOMETERS I
NOTE MAGNITUDE, DIRECTION, AND DISTANCE OF HYDRAULIC RESPONSE NOTE ABSENCE OF RESPONSES WHERE EXFECTED
.i
- l f
~ -
-e y-,.e.
g vr m t w
'= **
- swr
- r~-=
v w-m eo vw-e s---*=-
v-e e,-m v"
m = - - - - ----
i DRILLING RESPONSE OBSERVATIONS ASSUMPTIONS RAPID AND/OR LARGE MAGNITUDE RESPONSES GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH TRANSMISSIVITY SIMILAR RESPCNSE3 IN DIFFERENT FLOW TOPS INDICATE VERTICAL COMMUNICATION (FORMATION LEAKAGE OR POOR INTEGRITY OF BOREHOLE SEALS)
RESPONSES OBSERVED AT LARGE DISTANCES FROM POINT OF STRESS INDICATE LATERAL HYDRAULIC CONTINUITY l
e+-
e v._
.-.3
,c
,m
.,..., ~ - - _ - -
,4
7..
DRILLING RESPONSE OBSERVATIONS WANAPUM BASALTS SPACIAL AND CHRONCLOGICAL LIMITATIONS OF DATA ARE RECCGNIZED DRILLING OF DC-19C, DC-20C, DC-22C, AND DC-23W INVOLVED LARGE WITHDRAWAL / INJECTION OF FLUID DRILLING RESFONSES FROM ABOVE WELLS OBSERVED AT LARGE RADIAL DISTANCES FROM POINT OF STRESS.
SUGGESTS RELATIVELY HIGH TRANSMISSIVITY IN PRIEST RAPIDS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST LACK OF HYDRAULIC CONTINUITY IN PRIEST RAPIDS
DRILLING RESPONSE OBSERVATIONS J
GRAbDE RONDE BASALTS SPACIAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS OF DATA ARE RECOGNIZED SOME RESPONSES OBSERVED OVER LARGE DISTANCES DURING BRIDGE PLUG REMOVAL IN RRL-14, NO RESFONSE OBSERVED IN ROCKY COULEE AT DC-22C.
DURING BRIDGE PLUG REMOVAL IN RRL-14, SIGNIFICANT RESPONSES IN COHASSETT AND UMTANUM AT DC-22C DURING BRIDGE PLUG REMOVAL IN RRL-14, LARGER RESPONSE OBSERVED IN COHASSETT AT DC-22C WHILE DRILLING RRL-17, RESPONSE NOT OBSERVED IN ROCKY COULEE AT DC-20C UNTIL COHASSETT PENETRATED WHILE DRILLING RRL-17, FLUID LOSSES IN COHASSETT LARGER THAN THOSE IN 4
ROCKY COULEE WHILE DRILLING RRL-17, ROCKY COULEE AND COHASSETT INTERFLOWS RESFOND IN UNISON AT DC-20C NO DRILLING RESPONSES OBSERVED IN
p-DC-19C
DRILLING RESPONSE OBSERVATIONS PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS PRIEST RAPIDS APPEARS TO EXHIBIT.
LATERAL HYDRAULIC CONTINUITY THE ACROSS RRL AND VICINITY IN GRANDE RONDE, SOME RESPONSES OBSERVED OVER LARGE DISTANCES, BUT INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ASSESS OVERALL LATERAL HYDRAULIC CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT RRL AND VICINITY COHASSETT INTERFLOW MAY HAVE RELATIVELY HIGH TRANSMISSIVITY IN VICINITY OF RRL-14 AND RRL-17 VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CCMMUNICATION IN GRANDE RONDE INDICATED AT DC-20C (FORMATION LEAKAGE OR POOR BOREHOLE SEAL)
ADDITIONAL MONITORING INSTALLATION MAY BE REQUIRED IN NE AREA OF RRL TO PROVIDE DATA ON VERTICAL COMMUNICATION IN GRANDE RONDE e
DRlLLING
RESPONSE
OBSERVATIONS EXPLANATION O
WELL LOCATION OBSERVED HYDRAULIC RESPONSE l
.r Tail indicates location of hydraulic stress.
Arrow indicates location of observed head change.
POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC
RESPONSE
i e
O 3,
Oo
+Z Oo e
o 3
E C
O x
o 3
o 5
yQ G
J k
YE e
an E
N.
ba ae
-L y
C 9
O O
O0 4
,u e
eJ M
O N
N U
T o
a 0ll
-~\\-- -
)
I l
lllll 1
C 9
1 C
D D
fN W
O LF R
c E
0 7
T 1
2 N
L c
R I
o R
E O^
ELUO 3
C 2
-c C
Y 2
o K
C D
L R
O 4
R R
0 C
D O
m 6
LRR 0
C2 4
2 l
c L
o R
R O
11 l
l l
l 11 li 1(
s C
9 1
C D
D N
~
~
c 0
7.
~
1 W
2 L
O C
R L
D R
F DA R
E
}/
TN 3
I
~
2 9
E C
2 4
D E
L L
R U
4 R
O 0
C C
D Y
O K
C O
R 6
~
~
L R
R U
4 1
L R
R g
I (l'
ll
g u
COHASSETT INTERFLOW 1
i DDC-23
[
l N
ODc-04
>C Dc - 20 c n
I l
- DC-22C
]
l] RRL-17 i
RRL-14 I
ORRL-2 i
i 1
ORRL-6 i
l D DC-19C i
i 4
__t b
]bMTANUM INTERFLOW D oc-23 I l N
i Doc-04 l
oc-20c 9
R RL-14 i
O RRL-2 i
a 5
J j
ORRL-6
)
l O DC -19 C I
4 1
i i
~
O FIGURE 1 FLUID LOSS DATA AND HYOROGRAPH AT OC-20C OURING RRL-17 0 RILLING 000s
- eace, Feet 7000
=
Cebee E R*W IP saa -
9.J.,.b.d 58c' 4
Sees Sage e
3 400s
=
4eGe
.J du 2003 30ee
=
2000 Sees
=
=
- 800s test 0
0 Co.
Zs.
roe no, ISSE ISe3 FIGU R E 1A SCAOiCLCs CC-tec affCACCCOLOGIC ustT CAAretC AcMlC E ichAr'.rt LOCA f!CNe M til.est C 2.tl3.tes CAturt CLCVAftCNe PCN4 $CA (CVCL AQ2uSfC3 TO A CON $thtf Aff'CSPHCA!C PAC 15UAC Cr 84.347 PSC 4ee 40s 4c7.3 te7.S.-
407 487 E 40s.3
~
~
408.3 40s tes
~
tes.3 4
4es.:
3 4es g
4es 4et.3 e set.1 cC-r2CA 2
tai 0
4e,
=
403.1 d 403.3 l
43 g
=
J set.tr 4e3 2 402.3.*
~
I 402.3 est 3
3 c
tot E
408.3 >
tel.3 w
I.2
. tel g
w 4el.
t
- 33g,3 311.3
- e
- urifNast TLOW TCP 333 333 3Se.3
- 3te.3 33e 39e Z
r..
n.,
A,,
8 ISee Ite$
FIGU R E IS Terra Therma, Inc
(1333)
~;5W 'NCI1WA3~3 m
m m.
e, m.
m.
n.
' m.
m.
n.
e e
If? 5 C3 A.
N W IS m M e e M M N N =
- O n m m O G G D S O O G G G G G D G D D D Q C tri Irt v v v v w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w t=1 n
l 4* 4' j'i*4' 8' i'&' i' l i3 4'I
&'I *I a'I p
d 5
>1 j
j
~E.
=
n 6 D N
b e
g
= m C b 3
as c
E~
w s
U
'E
,3 0
=w C
m o
a
~
Ce w
E f
3n U
k k
4 hw 9 = o N
A_
n g
g >
1 E
W W "w
g E
b U
{l U
~
W a
's sg N
=
8 m-m i
.= W N
a g
w
- C m
I'-*"-
a C wi 4; '
r-G u.-
u.
s s
I
[
~
U i
w m
w o
u C
aama m
A MO wo mmNm ou e
W g %.
W mome=c g*
o A
NNNNCA
=
C g
3r.
C W vomcw a 3
O C O NNw-wm 5
'gu y
C NN NCm o
n m
- m -I N
~w 0
o i
- C
- Jo g O W
mmincn O
o a
e N
t maam-N 3-N C N
-cgc=w 3
o Nsesme c
b II NEw$
=
~
W 3
d l
6 vmesen 0 O J
w*
- WN o
o o"
0 G U L
e rg O
E W
C Um=NWU N,
c w
.t NNw-=a 8OO 6HL
$$d)Np U
m LJ,0 mz=cyc e e M
s's-mezew m =.
m
's 3
W w
ot Ua=
umeb E
a E5s0'S oogogg a = =
c J=
w eeme=w 3
O m CJLOW
~~
~"g 5
hw C
W UWU m' w" W w U
3-
$~@>@2 JJoJJ m M C e
wwvveg JJCJ-C L
3
=
4 g
U m-wwe=
,.=g_
U
.=
I I IIl l umysn
" ~~
b
~NMenc t2.
)
, f, !, f, !, t, t. t, I, f, f, f, t, f, l ', f, t h t',
f, C
l 1
m n 5 Irl P.
m (3 m m tr3 e trl m trl N It1
- m O trl m O
e G e G e O
- O e t3 e C e O e C e
O e m e CD e P.
v (D e = w e y m y N y - e 5 w m n O
G G
Q G
O O
O G
m v
v v
v v
v v
v v
n (1333)
- iS*4 'NOI1WA3i3
.p-.
VOLUME I SIGNIFICANT HEAD ERRORS
)
CONTOURS OF SIGNIFICANT HEAD VARIATION RELATIVE TO GRADIENT THROUGH THE RRL SENTINEL GAP
__~%
N qPASCO BASIN BCUNDARY N
A 10S 4
og, MBIA 10 m HANFORD SITE Sm BCUNDARY q
,y
=o-
<V
(
\\
T.
4
\\
_,,c
~
m N
)
}ALLULAGAP O
rp 2p km O
5 10 miles i
HEAD VARIATION REQUIRED TO PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON GRADIENT AT THE RRL; AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE l
FROM THE RRL 10 0 "
~3
$ SO-i=
m z
20-10' I".
1 10 20 50 10 0 Distance from center of RRL (km)
,-_,e.,---.,,..._,....,,
,n._.,_,-,
-..,..,.--_--_n,,
g _ _.m....__
.... _ _ _ - -... = _. =
_.m m
. ~ _ -..
~.
4 4
f 4
ATTACHEMENT 2 4
+
1 t
I i
I
.I i
t-wev o v ~m s ee-m m -- e w e-esm owee.
. wn wws ve wmeowre-exm--~n--w-*
..--,,.wr~-sr-e-wm- _ _,
.nt
NOTES ON LHS TESTING PLAN Adrian Brown, April 8, 1987
SUMMARY
These notes contain information in support of specific technical problems / questions that have been identified by the NWC/TTI team with respect to the proposed LHS program.
1.
HEAD MEASUREMENTS / BASELINE 1.1 DOE Proposal The DOE proposal is that the network of 36 piezometers will be measured to create the baseline, and the resulting set of heads will form the " pre-emplacement" network for the evaluation of GWTT.
1.2 Issues There are three principal technical issues that arise in respect of the head baseline:
1.
Is the distribution of the locations of the observation points adequate for the definition of the GWTT gradients?
2.
Is the head information adequately equilibrated so as to provide a "truo" pre emplacement head database?
3.
Are the heads being measured truly representative of the pressures at the completion locations of the piecometers?
i 4.
Are the holes completed in such a way that the pressures that actually occur at the pienometer tip are actually representative of the pressures in the formation in which they are completed?
1.3 Comments The following technical comments are made, based on the evaluations performed by the team:-
1.
Distribution.
Review by the team indicates that the l
distribution of the total monitoring network appears to be appropriate for providing head information needed for the evaluation of the pre emplacement groundwater travel time, l
.-_-. _ _. ~. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -_.- ___.
2.
Equilibration.
Review of the vertical and horizontal gradients measured in DC-19, 20, and 22 indicates that the equilibration process is sufficiently well advanced in these locations that there will not be a significant modification of the gradients with further equilibration.
Therefore equilibration is considered to have been reached for the purposes of licensing.
3.
Accuracy of Pressures.
Detailed evaluation of the measurements and the approach to evaluating them performed as part of the TTI mini-report series indicates that the most accurate method of estimating head gradients is to measure the level of water in a properly completed well where the wellbore is filled with formation water, and to compute the gradients based on these measurements and the distances between them.
Accordingly, the technology being used is considered to be appropriate.
There remains some question as to the nature of the fluid in some of the wells.
It is considered that all the piezometers should be pumped prior to the performance of the LHS test, to ensure that there is a consistent fluid in all wells.
4.
Completion.
The completion of some of the piezometers has been called into question as a result of some responses to external perturbations that are di f ficult to explain by other means.
In particular, the seals between the piezometers in some of DC-19, 20, and 22 have been questioned.
Evaluation by the NWC/TTI team indicates that for the impact of a poor seal to be felt, the effective hydraulic conductivity of the defective seal would need to be in the order of IE-4 m/s or higher, approximately the permeability of coarse sand.
However, it is considered that this is a sufficiently important matter for licensing that further testing of the integrity of multi piezometer installations should be undertaken (it is planned by BWIP).
2.
VERTICAL PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENTS 2.1 DOE proposal The proposed approach to the investigation of vertical permeability in the Hanford situation is the use of large scale, high stress tests, and to measure the impact of those tests in the pumped and adjacent horizons.
2.2 issues The concept that is being used is consistent with that set out in STP 1.1, and is therefore acceptable to the.NRC.
However there are some remaining concerns that the NRC would raise, in i
i
. _ _ _ - ! ;I
preparation to the review of the detailed test plan later this year:
1.
Heterogeneities in vertical permeability.
It is considered possible that the vertical permeability in the material under test will be the result of flow in a few heterogeneities.
NWC/TTI has evaluated the extent to which the measurement of a " gross" vertical leakance (the actual result of this kind of test) will provide information needed for licensing.
The conclusion of this preliminary work is that the location of the vertical leakage is important for the purposes of GWTT evaluation, under the strictest interpretation of the Rule, but that in general the gross evaluation will be appropriate for licensing purposes.
Further, evaluation suggests that the vertical leakage measurement will include the effects of these possible heterogeneities, and thus that-the testing will be appropriate.
It is suggested that the DOE perform independent checks to assure themselves that this matter is not a problem.
i 2.
Discrimination of testing.
Evaluations performed by NWC/TTI indicate that the discrimination of the Hantush style test that is contemplated by BWIP is limited to about 1E-10 m/s for the typical Grande Ronde flow top.
For a lower permeability flow top (such as the Cohassett flow top is believed to be) it appears that the discrimination of the test improves to about 1E-11 m/s, which is about the value that is expected by BWIP.
Accordingly, it is considered that the test in the Cohassett flow top is particularly important, and should be conducted at the largest scale possible.
1 3.
HORIZONTAL PERMEABILITY EVALUATION
[
3.1 DOE proposal l
i The DOE proposal is that the horizontal hydraulic conductivity will be evaluated by the large scale tests using as many of the pienometers in the tested horizon that respond.
It is proposed that the test he analyced using the standard Hantush-style approach; it is further suggested that the analysis may use a response matching procedure, using models of the groundwater system being tested.
l l
3.2 Issues The possible issues that arise in this caso are:
1.
Is the test approach appropriate?
2.
Can the test be analyzed by methods that have general acceptance?
3.3 Comments The proposed testing is a standard procedure, and is not contentious.
It is considered that both approaches to analysis are potentially appropriate; the modeling approach also has the advantage of being a method of calibrating the models of the hydraulics of the site, which is a priacipal objective of the LHS testing.
4.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 4.1 DOE Proposal The DOE has no pre-EG plans to directly interrogate remote lateral boundaries. If the tests happen to stress far enough from the test well to discover boundaries, this will be considered a further benefit.
4.2 Issues The issues with respect to lateral boundaries (boundaries within the RRL are discussed under vertical permeability) include the following:
1.
Are lateral braundaries " perishable"?
2.
Are lateral boundaries likely to lead to disqualifying conditions?
4.3 Comments NWC/TTI have evaluated the impact of lateral boundaries on the GWTT criterion.
Provided that the evaluations are made using properly observed heads, the impact of boundaries is only i
expected to increase travel times, and hence not being aware of boundaries is considered by the NRC to be conservative for the purposes of the pre-ES test program.
With respect to the evaluation of the constructability issues, lateral boundaries were found to have 1ittle or no adverse effects.
Accordingly, it was considered that they were not important for pre-ES evaluation.
l l
i P
5.
EFFECTIVE POROSITY MEAGUREMENTS 5.1 DOE position The DOE position is that essentially preliminary evaluations of porosity will be conducted using a radially convergent tracer test technology, as an adjunct to the LHS tests.
5.2 Issues The issues that appear to he important with respect to the porosity in a pre-ES time-frame are:
1.
Will the test as proposed produce reasonable estimates of effective porosity in the location where the test will be conducted?
2.
Will data collected in the center of the RRL be adequate to provide at least an indication of compliance or non-compliance of the site with the GWTT criterion?
5.3 Comments The comments which have been developed in preparation for the meeting by the NWC/TTT team are an follows:
1.
Quality of Effective Porosity Estimates.
The quality of the effective porosity estimates that can be derived from a radially convergent tracer test appears to be questionable, particularly in a situation where (as might occur) the flow in the basalts is dominated by a few " master" joints.
In this case, the gradient of the flow field is large around the withdrawal well, and it la expected to be efficient as a collector.
However the gradient around the injection well is small, so the time that it may take for tracer to get from the we11 to the firat major joint may be a very I
significant portion of the transit time.
Such an occurrence would have the effect of providing a considerable overestimate of the porosity that would be computed from the test, which would in turn lead to an overestimate of the GWTT.
Evaluations indicate that a conniderably better technology is a two-hole or " push pull" tracer test.
2.
Adequacy of data.
Presumind that accurate effective porosity data is collected from whatever test is conducted at RRh-2, it is still debatable that this data would provide support for either dinqualifying or not dinqualifying the site.
The data will be essentially small scale (over lengths of between 50 and 150 metern), and will be taken in an area which currently is considered to be of relatively I
high permeability (anc1 possibly 1.h we rv re of high porosity).
If this dat,a i:. t,o be uned in t.h" evaluation of GWTT, it woulst have to be t ra n s po r t.ed frou t,he RRh-2 area to the pathway of interest, which may not he reasonable.
At the end of the currently proponed pre-ES tent.ing, t,he project would have the current two small scale ef fect,ive porosity valuen pl.us about four more, all of them not, in the area bet. ween the RRh and the accessible environment.
It, is questioned whether this in an adequate basti for a continue / abandon decision.
mum i i
l DOE-NRC MEETING ON THE GE0 HYDROLOGY TESTING PROGRAM FOR THE HANFORD SITE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT i
Richland, Washington April 7-9, 1987 3
f*
4 6
l I
l
[
~
~
1 y
f O
g NUCLEAR WASTE CONSULTANTS INC.
m L
- - - - _ - _ - - - - -