ML16293A135: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 254
| page count = 254
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:'.., '.  ,*  .,~,.,, ~
* t\ --;--  *~~
5*>_*                *_ .
Reference 3-Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the WVDP, Rev. 2 (2009)
Reference 3 - Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the WVDP U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project.
Revision 2 December 2009 Prepared by Washington Safety Management Solutions, URS Washington Division Science Applications International Corporation The proposed decommissioning approach described in this plan is based on the preferred alternative in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center, which is referred to as the Decommissioning EIS. If changes to that document occur during the course of the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this plan, such as changes to the preferred alternative, or if a different approach is selected in the Record of Decision, this plan will be revised as necessary to reflect the changes.
Note that many of the comments received during the public comment period for the Revised Draft Decommissioning EIS stated that the 30-year time period for making the decision on the approach to Phase 2 of the decommissioning was too long. Therefore, as the agencies consider the public comments, DOE is evaluating the potential to reduce this time period. In recognition of this potential change, this plan acknowledges that the Phase 2 decision could be made within 10 years from the issuance of the Record of Decision and Findings Statement if the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative is selected.
This page is intentionally blank.
Record of Revisions No. Date*        Purpose 0  December 2008 Initial issue for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission review.
1  March 2009    (1)    Corrected some page numbers in the Contents.
(2)    Changed the preliminary, order-of-magnitude dose estimate for Waste Management Area 2 on page ES-19 from approximately 0.1 to approximately 0.05 millirem per year.
(3)    Added report USGS 2007 in the Section 3 reference list.
(4)    Incorporated radiological data on subsurface soil from the 2008 background and Process Building area north plateau groundwater plume investigations into Section 4.
(5)    Replaced Figure 5-3 with a modified figure to more accurately show the Lavery till depth where samples were taken.
(6)    Revised Table 5-1 to reflect the 2008 radiological data.
(7)    Corrected values in Table 5-10 and Table 5-11 to be consistent with Table C-1.
(8)    Revised Section 5.4.4 to show a maximum of 1.3 millirem per year for Waste Management Area 1 and 0.04 mrem per year for Waste management Area 2, clarified basis for estimates.
(9)    Corrected French drain location on Figure 7-10.
(10) Corrected soil data reference on Figure 7-11 and modified the figure to more accurately show the Lavery till depth where samples were taken. (This figure is the same as Figure 5-3.)
(11) Added WVNSCO 2004 to Section 7 references.
(12) Corrected some values in Table 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3.
(13) Changed cited page numbers on pages A-12 and A-13.
(14) Incorporated radiological data on subsurface soil from the 2008 background and Process Building area north plateau groundwater plume investigations into Appendix B.
(15) Revised Table C-4 to add the 2008 data and to clarify the content.
(16) Added Appendix C, Attachment 2 to provide another electronic file (Table C-48 Excel spreadsheet for the preliminary, order-of-magnitude dose estimates).
(17) Revised Appendix D to describe additional groundwater modeling using revised STOMP model. Corrected French drain location on Figure D-2.
Revision 1 changes appear in a blue font. Vertical lines used in the right margin to identify these changes were removed in Revision 2.
Record of Revisions No. Date          Purpose 2  December 2009 Revision 2 incorporates changes made in response to the Requests for Additional Information (RAls) submitted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on May 15, 2009 and includes other changes made in response to comments on the plan submitted by other agencies. DOE specifically identified the changes being incorporated in Revision 2 of the plan in connection with the RAls in the RAI responses provided to NRC.
Revision 2 changes appear in a red font and are marked with vertical lines in the right margin with the following exceptions. Two types of prevalent changes are not so marked: changing "would" to "will" to make the plan appropriately prescriptive and deleting the word "proposed" for the same reason. The three appendices added in Revision 2 (E, F, and G) are not marked either because they are entirely new.
Because Revision 2 changes appear in all parts of the plan, each page is identified as Revision 2 to facilitate a complete reissue of the plan, although the contents of some pages are unchanged from Revision 1.
Changes of "would" to "will" and deleting the word "proposed" were made in each part of the plan. The following summary identifies other key changes.
Executive Summary. Added information on DOE onsite presence after Phase 1 and movement of vitrified high-level waste canisters.
Provided for optional surface soil remediation during Phase 1 in selected areas. Updated derived concentrations guideline levels (DCGLs) and cleanup goals. Clarified text related to NRC review and underground waste tank status.
Section 1. Expanded information on Phase 1 studies, changed period for the Phase 2 decision from 30 years to the possibility that the decision could be made within 10 years, provided for NRC review of certain detailed designs, added Waste Management Plan, made several clarifications.
Section 2. Made minor changes to Table 2-5. Added information to Table 2-17. Made several clarifications.
Section 3. Updated information on groundwater modeling, geologic interpretation, maximum probable flood, underground waste tank status, the permeable reactive barrier, the Supernatant Treatment
* System, and historical earthquakes. Made several clarifications.
Section 4. Provided clarifying information on uranium radionuclide ratios, underground waste tank status. Made minor changes to Tables 4-9 and 4-1 O for consistency with other similar tables and made several clarifications.
Section 5. Revised Table 5-1. Added information on analyses of alternate conceptual models. Renumbered some subsections. Added new Section 5.2. 7 on probabilistic uncertainty analysis and new Section 5.2.8 on multi-source analysis. Revised cleanup goals based on results of these analyses. Added information on DOE presence after completion of Phase 1. Added new Figure 5-12 to define where streambed sediment cleanup goals apply.
Record of Revisions No. Date          Purpose 2  December 2009 Section 6. Added new Section 6.2 on ALARA good practices, new Section 6.3.6 on intergenerational concerns.
Section 7. Replaced Figures 7-6 and 7-8, added new figures showing filled deep excavations, revised conceptual schedule. Expanded information on mitigative measures. Added information on DOE presence after completion of Phase 1. Provided for optional surface soil remediation during Phase 1 in selected areas. Made other clarifying changes.
Section 8. Clarified acceptance criteria. Updated some references.
Section 9. Added new Section 9.4.4. on applying data quality objectives. Added new tables, other information on scan surveys.
Expanded information on iri-process surveys. Revised text for consistency with contents of Characterization Sample and Analysis Plan and Final Status Survey Plan, deleting some not-applicable information and rearranging other information. Made reference to new Appendix F and Appendix G.
Appendix A. Changed page numbers to reflect Revision 2 changes.
Appendix B. Only changed "would" to "will" and omitted "proposed."
Appendix C. Made changes to reflect minor changes in the deterministic conceptual models.
Appendix D. Added information on hydraulic barrier wall design.
Provided for providing final designs to NRC for review. Added information on DOE monitoring, maintenance, and security after Phase
: 1. Incorporated changes in groundwater model.
Appendix E. Added new appendix on probabilistic uncertainty analysis details. .
Appendix F. Added new appendix on details of subsurface piping and the associated residual radioactivity.
Appendix G. Added new appendix on the conceptual framework for the Final Status Survey Plan.
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN List of Effective Pages Page    Rev Page Rev *Page Rev Page      Rev  Page Rev  Page  Rev  Page Rev i  2  2-43  2 3-111    2    5-1    2    7-40  2    A-38  2    D-16  2 ii  2  2-44  2  3-112  2    5-2    2    7-41 *2    A-39  2    D-17  2 iii  2  2-45  2 3-113    2    5-3    2    7-42  2    A-40  2    D-18  2 iv    2  2-46  2  3-114  2    5-4    2    7-43  2    B-1  2    D-19  2 v    2  2-47  2  3-115  2    5-5    2    7-44  2    B-2  2    D-20  2 vi    2  2-48  2 3-116    2    5-6    2    7-45  2    B-3  2    D-21  2 vii    2  2-49  2 3-117    2    5-7    2    7-46  2    B-4  2    D-22  2 viii  2  2-50  2 3-118    2    5-8    2    7-47  2    B-5  2    D-23  2 ix    2  2-51  2  3-119  2    5-9    2    7-48  2    B-6  2    D-24  2 x    2  2-52  2  3-120  2    5-10    2    7-49  2    B-7  2  D-25  2 xi    2  3-1  2  3-121  2    5-11    2    7-50  2    B-8  2  D-26  2 xii    2  3-2  2 3-122    2    5-12    2    7-50  2    B-9  2    D-27  2 xiii  2  3-3  2 3-123    2    5-13    2    7-51  2    B-10  2  D-28  2 xiv    2  3-4  2  3-124  2    5-14    2    7-52  2    B-11  2    D-29  2 xv    2  3-5  2  3-125  2    5-15    2    7-53  2    B-12  2  D-30  2 xvi    2  3-6  2  3-126  2    5-16    2    7-54  2    B-13  -2  D-32  2 xvii  2  3-7  2  3-127  2    5-17    2    7-55  2    B-14  2  D-32  2 xviii  2  3-8  2  3-128  2 . 5-18    2    7-56  2    B-15  2  D-33  2 xix    2  3-9  2  3-129  2    5-19    2    7-57  2    B-16  2  D-34  2 xx    2  3-10  2  3-130  2    5-20    2    7-58  2    B-17  2    E-1  2 xxi    2  3-11  2  3-131  2    5-21    2    8-1  2    B-18  2    E-2  2 xx ii  2  3-12  2  3-132  2    5-22    2    8-2  2    B-19  2 . E-3  2 xxiii  2  3-13  2 3-133    2    5-23    2    8-3  2    B-20  2    E-4  2 xx iv  2  3-14  2  3-134  2    5-24    2    8-4  2    B-21  2    E-5  2 xxv    2  3-15  2 3-135    2    5-25    2    8-5  2    B-22  2    E-6  2 xxvi    2  3-16  2  3-136  2    5-26    2    8-6  2    B-23  2    E-7  2 xxvii  2  3-17  2 3-137  *2    5-27    2    8-7  2    B-24  2    E-8  2 ES-1    2  3-18  2  3-138 *2    5-28    2    8-8  2    B-25  2    E-9  2 ES-2    2  3-19  2 3-139    2    5-29    2    8-9  2    B-26  2  E-10  2 ES-3    2  3-20  2 3-140    2    5-30    2    8-10  2    B-27  2  E-11  2 ES-4    2  3-21  2 3-141    2    5-31    2    8-11  2    B-28  2  E-12  2 ES-5    2  3-22  2 3-142    2    5-32    2    8-12  2    B-29  2  E-13  2 ES-6    2  3-23  2 3-143    2    5-33    2    8-13  2    B-30  2  E-14  2 ES-7    2  3-24  2  3-144  2    5-34    2    8-14  2    B-31  2  E-15  2 ES-8    2  3-25  2 3-145    2    5-35    2    8-15  2    B-32  2  E-16  2 ES-19    2  3-26  2 3-146    2    5-36    2    9-1  2    B-33  2  E-17  2 ES-10    2  3-27  2 3-147    2    5-37    2    9-2  2    B-34  2  E-18  2 ES-11    2  3-28  2  3-148  2    5-38    2    9-3  2    B-35  2  E-19  2 ES-12    2  3-29  2  3-149  2    5-39    2    9-4  2    B-36  2  E-20  2 ES-13    2  3-30  2  3-150  2    5-40    2    9-5  2  . B-37  2  E-21  2 ES-14    2  3-31  2  3-151  2    5-41    2    9-6  2    B-38  2  E-22  2 ES-15    2  3-32  2  3-152  2    5-42    2    9-7  2    B-39  2  E-23  2
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN List of Effective Pages Page Rev  Page Rev Page. Rev  page  Rev  Page Rev  Page Rev Page  Rev ES-16    2 3-33  2  3-153  2    5-43    2    9-8  2  B-40  2  E-24    2 ES-17    2 3-34  2  3-154  2    5-44    2    9-9 ' 2  B-41  2  E-25    2 ES-18  . 2 3-35  2  3-155  2    5-45    2    9-10  2. B-42  2  E-26    2 ES-19    2 3-36  2  4-1  2    5-46    2    9-11  2  B-43  2  E-27    2 ES-20    2 3-37  2    4-2  2    5-47    2    9-12  2  B-44  2  E-28    2 ES-21    2 3-38  2    4-3  2    5-48    2    9-13  2  B-45  2  E-29    2 ES-22    2 3-39  2    4-4  2    5-49    2    9-14  2  B-46  2  E-30    2 1-1    2 3-40  2    4-5  2    5-50    2    9-15  2  B-47  2  E-31    2 1-2    2 3-41  2    4-6  2    5-51    2    9-16  2  B-48  2  E-32    2 1-3    2 3-42  2    4-7  2    5-52    2    9-17  2  B-49  2  E-33    2 1-4    2 3-43  2    4-8  2    5-53    2    9-18  2  B-50  2  E-34    2 .
1-5    2 3-44  2    4-9  2    5-54    2    9-19  2  B-51  2  E-35    2 1-6    2 3-45  2  4-10  2    5-55    2    9-20  2  B-52  2  E-36    2 1-7    2 3-46  2  4-11  2    5-56    2    9-21  2  B-53  2  E-37    2 1-8    2 3-47  2  4-12  2    5-57    2    9-22  2  B-54  2  E-38    2 1-9    2 3-48  2  4-13  2    5-58    2    9-23  2  C-1  2  E-39 . 2 1-10    2 3-49  2  4-14  2    5-59    2    9-24  2  C-2  2  E-40    2 1-11    2 3-50  2  4-15  2    5-60    2    9-25  2  C-3  2  E-41    2 1-12    2 3-51  2  4-16  2    5-61    2    9-26  2  C-4  2  E-42    2 1-13    2 3-52  2  4-17  2    5-62    2    9-27  2  C-5  2  E-43    2 1-14    2 3-53  2  4-18  2    5-63    2    9-28  2  C-6  2  E-44    2 1-15    2 3-54  2  4-19  2    5-64    2    9-29  2  C-7  2  E-45    2 1-16    2 3-55  2  4-20  2    5-65    2    9-30  2  C-8  2  E-46    2 1-17    2 3-56  2  4-21  2    5-66    2    9-31  2  C-9  2  E-47    2 1-18    2 3-57  2  4-22  2    6-1    2    9-32  2  C-10  2  E-48    2 1-19    2 3-58  2  4-23  2    6-2    2    9-33  2  C-11  2  E-49    2 1-20    2 3-59  2  4-24  2    6-3    2    9-34  2  C-12  2  E-50. 2 1-21    2 3-60  2  4-25  2    6-4    2    9-35  2  C-13  2  E-51    2 1-22    2 3-61  2  4-26  2    6-5    2    9-36  2  C-14  2  E-52    2 1-23    2 3-62  2  4-27  2      6-6  2    9-37  2  C-15  2  E-53    2 1-24. 2 3 2  4-28  2      6-7  2    9-38  2  C-16  2  E-54    2 1-25    2  3-64 2  4-29  2      6-8  2    9-39  2  C-17  2  F-1    2 1-26    2  3-65 2  4-30  2      6-9  2    9-40  2  C-18  2  F-2    2 1-27    2  3-66 2  4-31  2    6-10  2    9-41  2  C-19  2  F-3    2 1-28    2  3-67 2  4-32  2    6-1:1  2    9-42  2  C-20  2  F-4    2 1-29    2  3-68 2  4-33  2    6-12  2    .9-43  2  C-21  2  F-5    2 2-1    2  3-69 2  4-34  2    6-13  2    9-44  2  C-22  2  F-6    2 2-2    2  3-70 2  4-35  2    6-14  2    9-45  2  C-23  2  F-7    2 2-3    2  3-71 2  4-36  2      7-0  2    9-46  2  C-24  2  F-8    2 2-4    2  3-72 2  4-37  2      7-1  2    9-47  2  C-25  2  F-9    2 2-5    2  3-73 2  4-38  2      7-2  2    9-48  2  C-26  2  F-10    2 2-6    2  3-74 2  4-39  2      7-3  2      A-1  2  C-27  2  F-11  2
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN List of Effective Pages Page Rev Page Rev Page    Rev  Page Rev    Page Rev Page  Rev  Page Rev 2-7  2  3-75  2  4-40  2    7-4    2    A-2  2  C-28    2    F-12  2 2-8  2  3-76  2  4-41  2    7-5    2    A-3  2  C-29    2    F-13  2 .
2-9  2  3-77  2  4-42  2    7-6    2    A-4  2  C-30    2    F-14  2 2-10  2  3-78  2  4-43  2    7-7    2    A-5  2  C-31    2    F-15  2 2-11  2  3-79  2  4-44  2    7-8    2    A-6  2  C-32    2    F-16  2 2-12  2  3-80  2  4-45  2    7-9    2'  A-7  2  C-33    2
* F-17  2 2-13  2  3-81  2  4-46  2    7-10    2    A-8  2  C-34    2    F-18  2 2-14  2  3-82  2  4-47  2    7-11    2    A-9  2  C-35
* 2    G-1  2 2-15  2  3-83  2  4-48  2    7-12    2    A-10  2  C-36    2    G-2  2 2-16  2  3-84  2  4-49  2    7-13    2    A-11  2  C-37    2    G-3  2 2-17  2  3-85  2  4-50  2    7-14    2    A-12  2  C-38    2    G-4  2 2-18  2  3-86  2  4-51  2    7-15    2    A-13  2  C-39    2    G-5  2 2-19  2  3-87  2  4-52  2    7-16    2    A-14  2  C-40    2    G-6  2 2-20  2  3-88  2  4-53  2    7-17    2    A-15  2  C-41    2    G-7  2 2-21  2  3-89  2  4-54  2    7-18    2    A-16  2  C-42    2    G-8  2 2-22  2  3-90  2 . 4-55  2    7-19    2    A-17  2  C-43    2    G-9  2 2-23  2  3-91  2  4-56  2    7-20    2    A-18  2  C-44    2    G-10  2 2-24  2  3-92  2  4-57  2    7-21    2    A-19  2  C-45    2    G-11  2 2-25  2  3-93  2  4-58  2    7-22    2    A-20  2  C-46    2    G-12  2 2-26  2  3-94  2  4-59  2    7-23    2    A-21  2  C-47 . 2    G-13  2 2-27  2  3-95  2  4-60  2    7-24    2    A-22  2  C-48    2    G-14  2 2-28  2  3-96  2  4-61  2    7-25    2    A-23  2  D-1    2    G-15  2 2-29  2  3-97  2  4-62  2    7-26    2    A-24  2  D-2    2    G-16  2 2-30  2  3-98  2  4-63  2    7-27    2    A-25  2  D-3    2    G-17  2 2-31  2  3-99  2  4-64  2    7-28    2    A-26  2  D-4    2 2-32  2  3-100 . 2  4-65  2    7-29    2    A-27  2  D-5    2 2-33  2  3-101  2  4-66  2    7-30    2    A-28  2  D-6    2 2-34  2  3-102  2  4-67  2    7-31    2    A-29  2  D-7    2 2-35  2  3-103  2  4-68  2    7-32    2    A-30  2  D-8    2 2-36  2  3-104  2  4-69  2    7-33    2    A-31  2  D-9    2 2-37  2  3-105  2  4-70  2    7-34    2    A-32  2  D-10    2 2-38  2  3-106  2  4-71  2    7-35    2    A-33  2  D-11    2 2-39  2  3-107  2  4-72  2    7-36    2    A-34  2  D-12    2
' 2-40  2  3-108  2  4-73  2    7-37    2    A-35  2  D-13    2 2-41  2  3-109  2  4-74  2    7-38    2    A-36  2  D-14    2 2-42  2  3-110  2  4-75  2    7-39    2    A-37  2  D-15    2
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS NOTATION (Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Units) ..................................................... xxi EXECUTIVE
==SUMMARY==
............................................................................................... ES-1
==1.0    INTRODUCTION==
.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose. ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Scope ......................................................._................... ." ............................................. 1-2 1.3 Background .............................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Environmental Impact Statements ........................................................................ 1-8 1.4.1 Waste Management EIS ......... :....................................................................... 1-8 1.4.2 Decommissioning EIS .........................................: ............................................. 1-8 1.5  Decommissioning Criteria .................................................................................... 1-9 1.6  Project Management and Organization ............................................................. 1-10 1.7  Health and Safety Program ................................................................................. 1-12 1.8  Environmental Monitoring and Control.. ........................................................... 1-12 1.9  Radioactive Waste Management... ........................ ~ .................................... ,....... 1-14 1.10 Planned End States Before and After Phase 1 ................................................. 1-15 1.10.1 The Interim End State ..................................................................................... 1-15 1.10.2 Facilities and Areas Within Phase 1 Scope .................................................. 1-19 1.11 Organizational Responsibilities .......................................................................... 1-23 1.11.1 DOE .............................................................................................................. 1-24 1.11.2 NRC .............................................. :...................... :........................................ 1-24 1.11;3 NYSERDA .................................................................................................... 1-25 1.12 Organization of This Plan ..............................................:..................................... 1-25 1.13 Control of Changes .............................................................................................. 1-25 1.14 References .......................................................................................................*..... 1-26 2.0    FACILITY OPERATING HISTORY .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 License History ......... :............................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1 Nuclear Fuel. Services Operations From 1966 to 1982 .................................. 2-5 2.1.2 West Valley Demonstration Project From 1982 to 2008 ............................... 2-14 2.2 Site Decommissioning Activities (1966 -2011) .................................................. 2-18 Revision 2
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 2.2.1 NFS Remediation Activities (1966 - 1981) ................................................... 2-19 2.2.2 WVDP Remediation Activities (1982- 2011) ................................................ 2-19 2.3 Spills and Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity ............................................... 2-32 2.3.1. North Plateau Groundwater Plume ............................................................... 2-32 2.3.2 Old Sewage Plant Drainage .......................................................................... 2-35 2.3.3 The Cesium Prong ........................................................................................ 2-36 2.3.4 Summary of Spills During NFS Operations .......................... :....................... 2-36 2.3.5 WVDP Spills ................................................................................................. 2-40 2.4 Prior Onsite Burials ................................................................................................ 2-42 2.4.1. Lagoon 1 ........................................................................................................ 2-42 2.4.2 The NRG-Licensed Disposal Area ............................................................... 2-43 2.4.3 Other Burial Locations .................................................................................. 2-47 2.5 References .............................................................................................................. 2-47 3.0    FACILITY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Site Location and Description .................................................. '. .............................. 3-2 3.1.1 Site Location ..................................................... ;............................................. 3-2 3.1.2 Site Description ...................................................................... ~ ........................ 3-2 3.1.3 Facility Description .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.4 Surrounding Communities, Businesses, and Transportation System ........... 3-27 3.2 Population Distribution ........... ,........ :..................................................................... 3-29 3.2.1 Local Population Data ................................................................................... 3-29 322 Population Distribution .................................................................. :.............. 3-32 3.3 Current and Future Land Use ................................................................................ 3-35 3.3.1 Current Land Use .......................................................................................... 3-35 3.3.2 Summary of Anticipated Land Uses .............................................................. 3-38 3.4 Meteorology and Climatology ............................................................................... 3-40 3.4.1 The General Climate of Western New York .................................................. 3-40 3.4.2 Severe Weather Phenomena ........................................................................ 3-41 3.4.3 Weather-Related Radionuclide Transmission Factors .................................. 3-41 Revision 2                                                  ii
WVDP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 3.4.4 Weather-Related Site Deterioration Parameters ........................................... 3-42 3.4.5 Site Meteorology and Climatology ................................................................. 3-42 3.5 Geology and Seismology ....................................................................................... 3-47 3.5.1 Regional Physiography ................................................................................. 3-47 3.5.2 Site Stratigraphy ............................................................................................ 3-47 3.5.3 Site Geomorphology ................................... ,.................................................. 3-52 3.5.4 Regional Structure and Tectonics ................................................................ 3-55 3.5.5 Historical Seismicity ...................................................................................... 3-61 3.5.6 Evaluation of Seismic Hazard ....................................................................... 3-64 3.6 Surface Hydrology ...............................................................................................:.. 3-65 3.6.1 Hydrologic Description .................................................................................. 3-65 3.6.2 WVDP Effluents ............................................................................................. 3-67 3.6.3 Influence of Flooding on Site ......................................................................... 3-68 3.6.4 Water Use ...................................................................................................... 3-68 3.7 Groundwater Hydrology ........................................................................................ 3-70 3.7.1 Description of the Saturated Zone .... :............................................................ 3-70
            *3.7.2 Monitoring Wells ............................................................................................ 3-72 3.7.3 Physical Hydrogeologic Parameters in the Saturated Zone ......................... 3-73 3.7.4 Unsaturated Zone .......................................................................................... 3-73 3.7.5 Description of Unsaturated Zone Monitoring Stations ................................... 3-75 3.7.6 Physical Parameters ..................................................................................... 3-75 3.7.7 Numerical Analysis Techniques .................................................................... 3-75 3.7.8 Distribution Coefficients ................................................................................. 3-77 3.7.9 Hydraulic Properties ..................................................... :................................ 3-81 3.8 Natural Resources .................................................................................................. 3-82 3.8.1 Natural Gas and Oil ....................................................................................... 3-82 3.8.2 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................ 3-83 3.8.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-84 Revision 2                                                iii
_I
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 3.8.4 Timber Resources.:....................................................................................... 3-85 3.8.5 Renewable Energy Resources.: .................................................................... 3-86 3,9 References .............................................................................................................. 3-8~
4.0    RADIOLOGICAL STATUS OF FACILITY ......................................................................,4-1 4.1 Radiological Status of Facilities, Systems, and Equipment ................................ 4-2 4.1, 1 Sources of Available Data .............................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2 Impacted Facilities ......................................................... : ................................ 4-5 4.1.3 Non-Impacted Facilities ............................................................................... 4-12 4.1.4 Radionuclide Distributions ........................................................................... 4-12 4.1.5 Radiological Status of Facilities .................................................................... 4-16 4.2 Radiological Status of Environmental Media ...................................................... 4-24 4.2.1 Data Sources ................................................................................................. 4-25 4.2.2 Background Levels .............................................................*.......................... 4-26 4.2.3 Radiological Status of Surface Soil and Sediment... .................................... 4-29 4.2.4 Radiological Status of Subsurface Soil ....................................................... 4-31 4.2.5 Radiological Concentrations Exceeding Background in.Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil By WMA **********************************'****************** 4-36 4.2.6 Environmental radiation Levels ..................................................................... 4-49 4.2.7 Radiological Status of Onsite Surface Water ............................................... 4-55 4.2.8 Radiological Status of Groundwater ............................................................. 4-58 4.3 References ............................................................................................................. 4-68 5.0  DOSE MODELING .................... .' ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.1 Applicable Requirements and Guidance ......................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Context for DCGL Development ..................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3 Context for the Integrated Dose Assessment*****************************:******************* 5-9 5.1.4 Potential Impact from Long-Term Erosion ................................................... 5-13 5.1.5 Potential Changes in Groundwater Flow Fields ............. : ............................. 5-14 5: 1.6 Seepage of Groundwater ............................................................................. 5-14 Revision 2                                                  iv
WVDP PHASE                1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 5.1.7 Potential Impacts on the Kent Recessional Sequence ................................. 5-16 5.1.8 General Dose Modeling Process .................................................................. 5-17 5.2 DCGL Development ................. :.............................................................................. 5-19 5.2.1 Conceptual Models for DCGL Development.. ............................................... 5-20 5.2.2 Subsurface Soil Conceptual Models, ............................................................ 5-26 5.2.3 Stream bed Sediment Conceptual Model ...................................................... 5-34 5.2.4 Mathematic Model .....................................................: ................................... 5-38 5.2.5 Summary of Results ...................................................................................... 5-40 5.2.6 Discussion of Sensitivity Analyses ................................................................ 5-44 5.2.7 Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis ................................................................. 5-50 5.2.8 Subsurface Soil DCGL Multi-Source Analysis ................................. ~ ............ 5-52 5.2.9 Overall Conclusions ...................................................................................... 5-57 5.3 Limited Site-Wide Dose Assessment. ................................................................... 5-57 5.3.1 Basis for this Assessment ............................................................................ 5-57 5.3.2 Assessment Approach .................................................................................. 5-58 5.3.3 Results of the Assessments .......................................................................... 5-58 5.4 Cleanup Goals and Additional Analyses .............................................................. 5-60 5.4.1 Cleanup Goals ............................................................................................... 5-60 5.4.2 Refining DCGLs and Cleanup Goals ............................................................ 5-63 5.4.3 Use of a Surrogate Radionuclide DCGL ...................................................... 5-64 5.4.4 Preliminary Dose Assessment ...................................................................... 5-64 5.4.5 Final Dose Assessment ................................................................................. 5-65 5.5 Monitoring, Maintenance, and Institutional Controls .......................................... 5-65 5.6 References .................... ;............................................ :............................................. 5-65 6.0    ALARA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.1 Applicable Requirements and Guidance ......................................................... 6-2 6.1.2 Remediation Activities of Interest.. .................................................................. 6-3 6.1.3 The DCGLs Involved ...................................................................................... 6-3 Revision 2                                                    v
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 6'.2 Achieving a Decommissioning Goal Below the Dose Limits ... ~ ........................... 6-3 6.2.1 Phase 1 Proposed Decommissioning Strategy Promotes ALARA ................. 6-5 6.2.2 Good Practices that Promote ALARA ............................................................. 6-6 6.2.3 Conservatism in DCGL Development ............................................................. 6-6 6.3.4 Conservatism from the Decontamination and Final Status Survey Processes ........................................................................................................ 6-6 6.3 DCGL ALARA Analysis ............................................................................................ 6-7 6.3.1 ALARA Analysis Guidance ............................................................................. 6-7 6.3.2 Calculating Benefits and Costs ........................................................................ 6-8 6.3.3 Surface Soil Preliminary ALARA Analysis ....................................................... 6-9 6.3.4 Subsurface Soil Preliminar]i ALARA Analysis ..................... ,......................... 6-10 6.3.5 Stream bed Sediment Preliminary ALARA Analysis ...................................... 6-11 6.3.6 Addressing Intergenerational Concerns ........................................................ 6-11 6.4 Additional Alialyses .................................................................................................6-12 6.5 References ............................................................................................................... 6-13 7 .0  PLANNED DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES ........................................;....................... 7-1 7 .1  Conditions at the Beginning of the Phase 1 Decommissioning Work .............. 7-2 7.2 General Approach and General Requirements .................................................... 7-3 7.2.1 General Approach ........................................................,................................. 7-3 7.2.2 General Requirements ...................... ~ ............................................................ 7-5 7.3 WMA 1 Decommissioning Activities ............................................ ~ ...................... 7-11 7.3.1 Characterizing Soil and Stream bed Sediment ............................................. 7-12 7.3.2 Relocating the Vitrified HLW Canisters ........................................................ 7-12 7.3.3 Removing the Above-Grade Portion of the Process Building ...................... 7-16
* 7 .3.4 Removing the Above-Grade Portion of the Vitrification Facility .................. 7-18 7.3.5 Removing the 01-14 Building and the Vitrification Off-Gas Line ................. 7-19 7.3.6 Removing the Load-In/Load-Out Facility ...................................................... 7-19 7 .3. 7 Removing Other WMA 1 Structures ............................................................ 7-20 7.3.8 Removing the Underground Structures and Equipment and the Plume Source Area ................................. :.................................................... 7-21 Revision 2                                                    vi
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 7.3.9 Site Restoration ........................................................................................... 7-29 7.4 WMA' 2 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-30 7.4.1 Characterizing Soil and Sediment.. .............................................................. 7-31 7.4.2 Removing Structures .................................................................................... 7-31 7.4.3 Decommissioning the Lagoons .................................................................... 7-32 7.5 WMA 3 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-38 7.5.1 Removing Structures ................................................................................... 7-38 7.5.2 Removing the Waste Tank Pumps and Pump Support Structures ............. 7-39 7.5 . 3 Removing the HLW Transfer Trench Piping and Equipment ...................*... 7-39 7.5.4 Monitoring and Maintenance ....................................................................... 7-40 7.6 WMA 5 Decommissioning Activities .................................................................... 7-40 7 .6-.1 Removing Lag Storage Addition 4 and the Shipping Depot... ...................... 7-40 7 .6.2 Removing the Remote-Handled Waste Facility .......................................... 7-41 7.6.3 Removing Remaining Floor Slabs and Foundations and Gravel Pads ....... 7-41 7.7  .~MA    6 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-42
: 7. 7 .1 Removing the Sewage Treatment Plant ...................................................... 7-42 7.7.2 Removing the Equalizatiqn Basin ................................................................ 7-42 7.7.3 Removing the Equalization Tank.................................................................. 7-43 7.7.4 Removing the Demineralizer Sludge Ponds ................................................ 7-43 7.7.5 Removing the South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower .................................... 7-43 7.7.6 Removing the Remaining Floor Slabs and Foundations .............................. 7-43 7.7.7 Establishing that Surface Soil Meets cleanup Goals ...................... ,............ 7-44 7.8 WMA 7 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-44 7.9 WMA 9 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-44 7.10WMA10 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................. 7-45 7 .11 Establishing Areas Where Surface Soil Meets Cleanup Goals ........................ 7-46 7.11.1 Areas of Interest.. .........................................*................................................ 7-46 7.11.2 Process to be Followed ............................................... ~ ............................... 7-46 7.11.3 Additional Areas of Interest ...................................... :.................................. 7-47 7.12 Remedial Technologies ...................................................................................... 7-47 Revision 2                                              vii
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 7.12.1 Pipe Cutting and Other_ Metal Cutting ......................................................... 7-47 7.12.2 Tool Positioning Technologies ........................................................*............ 7-49 7 .12.3 Concrete Cutting and Demolition ............................................................... 7-50 7.12.4 Concrete Decontamination ......................................................................... 7-51 7.12.5 Demolition of Structures ............................................................................. 7-53 7.12.6 Excavation and Grading *********: ................................................................... 7-54 7.13 Schedule ...............................................................................................................7-55 7.14 References ..................................................:......................................................... 7-57 8.0    QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ............................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Quality Assurance Organization ............................ :............................................... 8-2 8.1.1 Quality Assurance Organization Duties and Responsibilities ........................ 8-3 8.1.2 Decommissioning Project Quality Assurance Duties and Responsibilities ...............................................................................................8-4 8.2 Assuring Quality in Preliminary Engineering Work ............................................. 8-4 8.2.1 Dose Modeling .............................................................................................. 8-4 8.2.2 Engineered Barrier Design ............. .".............................................................. 8-5 8.2.3 Other Engineering Work ................................................................................ 8-6 8.3 Decommissioning Quality Assurance Program ................................................... 8-6 8.3.1 General Description of the Program .............................................................. 8-7 8.3.2 Characterization and Final Status Survey Data .............................................. 8-7 8.3.3 Engineering Design and Data, Calculations*, and Modeling ......................... 8-10 8.4 Document Control .................................................................................................. 8-11 8.5 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment ......................................................... 8-12 8.6 Control of Purchased Material and Subcontractor Services ............................. 8-12 8.7 Corrective Action ...................................................................................................8-12 8.8 Audits and Surveillances ...................................................................................... 8-12 8.9 Quality Assurance Records .................................................................................. 8-13 8.10 References ............................................................................................................ 8-14 9.0    FACILITY RADIATION SURVEYS .................................................................................. 9-1 Revision 2                                                viii
WVDP PHASE              1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 9.1 Release Criteria ................................................................ ~ ....................................... 9-2 9.2 Types of Surveys and Their Purposes .................................................................. 9-5 9.2.1 Background Surveys ...................................................................................... 9-5 9.2.2 Scoping Surveys ................................................................. :.......................... 9-5 9.2.3 End-of-Task Surveys ..................................................................................... 9-6 9.2.4 Characterization Surveys ..............................................................................*.. 9-6 9.2.5 In-Process Surveys ......................................................................................... 9-6 9.2.6 Final Status Surveys ...................................................................................... 9-7 9.2. 7 Confirmation Surveys .................................................................................... 9-7 9.3 Background Surveys ...............................................: ............................................... 9-8 9.4 Characterization Surveys ........................................................................................ 9-8 9.4.1 Characterization Sample and Analysis Plan Content .................................... 9-9 9.4.2 Characterization Data Quality Objectives .................................................... 9-13 9.4.3 Characterization Quality Requirements ...................................... :................ 9-15 9.4.4 Applying DQOs for Characterization Surveys ............................................. 9-16 9.4.5 Characterization Surveys of Structures ....................................................... 9-17 9.5 ln~Process  Surveys ................................................................................................~9-20 9.5.1 Measurement Methods and Instrumentation ............................................... 9-20 9.5.2 Scan Surveys and Direct Measurements .................................................... 9-20 9.5.3 Documentation *............................................................................................ 9-23
* 9.6 The Phase 1 Final Status Survey ........;................................................................ 9-23 9.6.1 Phase 1 Final Status Survey Plan Content ................................................. 9-24 9.6.2 Data Quality Objectives for the Phase 1 Final Status Survey ..................... 9-29 9.6.3 Phase 1 Final Status Survey Quality Requirements ................................... 9-30 9.7 The Survey Process by Waste Management Area ............................................. 9-30 9.7.1 WMA 1 Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area .............................. 9-30 9.7.2 WMA 2 Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Area ...................................... 9-35 9.7.3 WMA 3 Waste Tank Farm Area ................................................................... 9-37 9.7.4 WMA 5 Waste Storage Area ....................................................................... 9-38 9.7.5 WMA 6 Central Project Premises ................................................................. 9-40 Revision 2                                                ix
WVDP PHASE              1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 9.7.6 WMA 7 NDAand Associated Facilities ........................................................ 9-41 9.7.7 WMA 8, State-Licensed Di?posal Area ....................................................... 9-41 9.7.8 WMA 9, Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area ............................... 9-41 9.7.9 WMA 10, Support and Services Area ........................................................... 9-42
: 9. 7.10 WMA 11, Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area ..... 9-43 9.7.11WMA12, Balance of the Site ...................................................................... 9-43 9.7.12 Environmental Media .................................................................................. 9-43 9.8 Phase 1 Final Status Survey Report Requirements ........................................... 9-45 9.8.1 Overview of Results ..................................................................................... 9-45 9.8.2 Discussion of Changes ................................................................................ 9-45 9.8.3 Description of How Numbers of Samples Were Determined ...................... 9-46 9.8.4 Sample Number Determination Values ....................................................... 9-46 9.8.5 Results for Each Survey Unit ....................................................................... 9-46 9.8.6 Survey Unit Changes ............................................................. ~ ..................... 9-46 9.8.7 ALARA Practices ......................................................................................... 9-46 9.8.8 Actions Taken for Failed Survey Units ................................................. '. ...... 9-46 9.8.9 Impact of Survey Unit Failures .................................................................... 9-47 9.9 References ..............................................................................................................9-47 APPENDIX A      *Decommissioning Plan Annotated Checklist ........................................................... A-1 B        Environmental Radioactivity Data ............................................................................ B-1 C        Details of DCGL Development and the Integrated Dose Assessment ................... C-1 D        Engineered Barriers and Post-Remediation Activities ............................................ D-1 E        Dose Modeling Probabilistic Uncertainty Anal.ysis ........................................ ;.......... E-1 F      Estimated Radioactivity in Subsurface Piping ......................................................... F-1 G      Phase 1 Final Status Survey Plan Conceptual Framework .................................... G-1 FIGURES ES-1      Location of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center ................................ ES-3 Revision 2                                                  x
WVDP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES ES-2  The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 ............... ES-4 ES-3  Waste Management Areas 1-10 ........................................................................... ES-6 ES-4  The Plant During the Early Years ...................................................................... ES-11 ES-5  Important Sources of Radioactive Contamination on theProject Premises ...... ES-14 1-1    The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 ................. 1-6 1-2    The Project Premises Showing WMAs and the Phase 1 Excavations ................. 1-16 1-3    WMA 1 Area in 2007 ............................................................................................. 1-17 1-4    WMA 2 in 2007 ..... :................................................................................................ 1-18 1-5    Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning, North Plateau .. 1-21 1-6    Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning, South Plateau . 1-22 1-7    The WVDP in the Interim End State ..................................................................... 1-23 1-8    The WVDP After Completion of Phase 1 .............................................................. 1-23 2-1    Spent Fuel Reprocessing Diagram (PUREX Process) ............................................2-7 2-2    Simplified HLW Pretreatment Process Diagram .............................................. :.... 2-15 2-3    Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in North Plateau Facilities at the WVDP ....................................................... ,.................................................. 2-21 2-4    Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in South Plateau Facilities at the WVDP ..........................................................................................................2-22 2-5    Location of Process Building Remediation Activities for Site facilities Prior to Phase 1 of the Proposed Decommissioning .................................................... 2-23 2-6    Sr-90 Groundwater Plume on the North Plateau .......... ,.......................................2-33 2-7    1984 Aerial Radiation Survey Isopleths of the WVDP and Surrounding Area ....... 2-37 2-8    NOA Disposal Area Burials ...................................................................................2-46 3-1    Location of the Center in Western New York .........................................................3-93 3-2    The Center, the WVDP, and the Surrounding Area ............................................... 3-94 3-3    Topography of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center ............................ 3-95 3-4    Topography of Project Premises, Showing 100-Year Floodplain .......................... 3-96 3-5    Security Fence Around WVDP Premises Boundary .............................................. 3.-97 3-6    North Plateau Geologic Cross Section .................................................................3-98 3-7    South Plateau Geologic Cross Section .................................................................3-98 Revision 2                                              xi
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 3-8    WMAs 1 Through 10 ..............................................................................................3-99 3-9    WMAs 11and12 ..................................................................................................3-100 3-10  WMA 1.............................................................................:.................................... 3-101 3-11    Aerial View of Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area in 2007 ................ 3-102 3-12  Construction of the Process Building ........................... :.......................................3-103 3-13A  Process Building Layout- Below Grade ..............................................................3-104 3-13B  Process Building Layout at 100-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-105 3-13C  Process. Building Layout at 114.5-Foot Elevation ................................................3-106 3-13D  Process Building Layout at 131-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-107 3-13E  Process Building Layout at 144-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-108 3-13F  Process Building Layout at 160-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-109 3-14  West Side of the Process Building .......................................................................3-110 3-15  Fuel Receiving and Storage Area ........................................................................3-110 3-16  HLW Canisters Stored in the Chemical Process Cell ..........................................3-111 3-17  Conditions in the General Purpose Cell in 1999 ... ,............... :.............................. 3-1'.11 3-18  Process Mechanical Cell During Deactivation .....................................................3-112 3-19  Extraction Cell 3 ..................................................................................................3-112 3-20  The Spent Fuel Pool After Deact.ivation ..............................................................3-113 3-21  Equipment Decontamination Room Before Cleanup ........................................... 3-113 3-22  Vitrification Facility General Arrangement... ......................................................... 3-114 3-23  Vitrification Cell at Time of Startup .......................................................................3-114
  .3-24  WMA2 ............................................................................................................-...... 3-115
  . 3-25  The Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility .............................................................3-116 3-26  The LLW2 Building that Replaced the 02 Building .............................................3-117 3-27  The Lagoon 1 Area .............................,. ................................................................3-117 3-28  The New lnterceptors ...........................................................................................3-118 3-29  WMA 3 ................................................................................................................. 3-119 3-30  Aerial View of WMA 3 Area ................................................................................. 3-120 3-31  Cutaway View of 750,000-Gallon HLW Tank ...................................................... 3-120 Revision 2                                                  xii
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 3-32  HLW Transfer and Mobilization Pumps .............................................................. 3-121 3-33  HLW Transfer Trench Under Construction ...........................................................3-122 3-34  Typical HLW Pump Pit ............................ :............................................................3-122 3-35  WMA 5 ..................................................................................................................3-123 3-36  The Remote Handled Waste Facility ...................................................................3-124 3-37  The Remote Handled Waste Facility First Floor Layout ...................................... 3-124 3-38  WMA 6 ..................................................................................................................3-125 3-39  The Rail Spur ........................................................................................................3-126 3-40  The New Cooling Tower ....................................................................................... 3-126 3-41  WMA 7 ..................................................................................................................3-127 3-42  WMA 9 ........................................................................., ........................................ 3-128 3-43  WMA 10 ................................................................................................................3-129 3-44  Population Around the WVDP by Compass Vector .......................... :.................. 3-130 3-45  Land Use in the Vicinity of the Center ..................................................................3-131 3-46  Tornado Events in Western New York (1950- 2002) ........................................ 3-132 3-47  Thunderstorm Wind Events in Western New York (1950 - 2002) ...................... 3-133 3-48  Hail Events in Western New York ( 1950 - 2002) ................................................. 3-134 3-49  Wind Rose Diagram .............................................................................................3-135 3-50  Cloud* Ceiling Information ....................................................................................3-136 3-51  Regional Physiographic map ..............................................................................3-137 3-52  Bedrock and Glacial Stratigraphy of the WVDP ................................................... 3-138 3-53  Surface Geology of the Project Premises and the SDA .....................................3-139 3-54  Fold and Selected Joint Trends in the Appalachian Plateau of Western and Central New York ............................................................................................3-140 3-55  Seismo-Tectonic Map of Western New York Showing Selected Regional Geologic Structures .............................................................................3-141 3-56  Major Northwest Trending Lineaments in New York and Pennsylvania ............. 3-142 3-57  Location of Seismic Lines WVN1 and BER 83-2A .............................................. 3-143 3-58  Seismic Hazard Curves for Peak Horizontal Acceleration ..................................3-144 3-59  Seismic Hazard Curves for 1.0 Second Horizontal Acceleration ........................ 3-145 Revision 2                                                xiii
WVDP PHASE              1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 3-60    Seismic Source Contributions to Mean Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard ... 3-146 3-61    Buttermilk Creek Drainage Basin .........................................................................3-147 3-62    Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Sand and Gravel Unit, First Quarter 2008 .................................................................................................3-148 3-63    Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Weathered Lavery Till, First Quarter 2008 ................................................................................................3-149 3-64    Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Lavery Till Sand, First Quarter 2008 ................................................................................................3-150 3-65    Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Kent Recessional Sequence, First Quarter 2008 ...........................................................................*.................... ;3-151 3-66    Vertical Distribution of Cesium Kd in the Weathered and Unweathered Tills ....... 3-152 3-67    Vertical Distribution of    Iodine~        in the Weathered and Unweathered Tills ......... 3-152 3-68    Vertical Distribution of Strontium ~ in the Weathered and Unweathered Tills .. 3-153 3-69    Locations of Natural Gas and Oil Wells in Western New York ........................... 3-154 3-70    Locations of Natural Gas and Oil Wells in the Vicinity of the WVDP ................... 3-155 4-1    Location of WMAs on the Project Premises .............................................................4-7 4-2    Impacted and Non-Impacted Facilities in WMA 1 ................................................... .4-8 4-3    Impacted and Non-Impacted Facilities in WMA 2 ................................................... .4-9 4-4    Impacted Facilities in WMA 3 .................................................................................4-10 4-5    Impacted and Non-Impacted Facilities in WMA 6 ................................................. .4-11 4-6    Surface Soil and Sediment Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ........................................................................................4-32 4-7    Subsurface Soil Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ........................................................................................................4-33 4-8    Cross Section of Sr-90 Concentrations Versus Depth in Subsurface Soil in WMA 1 ................................................................................................................4-35 4-9    Onsite Environmental TLD Locations ................................................................... .4-51 4-10  WVDP Radiological Control Areas ............................................ ;........................... .4-54 4-11  Surface Water Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ............................................................................................................4-56 4-12    Routine Groundwater Monitoring Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ............................................................. .4-63 4-13    Geoprobe Groundwater Locations with Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ........................................................................................4-66 Revision 2                                                xiv
WVDP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 4-14  North Plateau Groundwater Plume ...................................................................... ..4-67 5-1    Areas of Interest - Surface Soil, Subsurface Soil, and Streambed Sediment Within the Project Premises .............. .'......................................................................5-3 5-2    Conceptual Cross Section of WMA 1 Excavation With Representative Data on Sr-90 Concentrations ..........................................................................................5-5 5-3    Conceptual Cross Section of WMA 2 Excavation With Representative Data on Subsurface Soil Contamination ...........................................................................5-6 5-4    Sources at the Conclusion of Phase 1 of the Proposed Decommissioning ........... 5-11 5-5    Locations of Perimeter Seeps on the North Plateau .............................................. 5-15 5-6    General Dose Modeling Process ...........................................................................5-18 5-7    Conceptual Model for Surface Soil DCGL Development ....................................... 5-21 5-8    Conceptual Model for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development ................................. 5-27 5-9    Recreationist Conceptual Model Cross Section ..................................................... 5-32 5-10  Conceptual Model for Streambed Sediment DCGL Development... ...................... 5-34 5-11  Franks Creek Looking Upstream ........................................................................... 5-35 5-12  Areas Where  Streambe~      Sediment DCGLs and Cleanup Goals Apply ................ 5-43 5-13  Modified Conceptual Model for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development... ................ 5-53 6-1    Unit Remediation Costs vs. Monetary Discount Rate ............................................ 6-12 7-1    WMA 1 in 2007 ......................................................................................................7-11 7-2    Conceptual Arrangement for Transferring Vitrified HLW Canisters ...................... 7-14 7-3    Storage Module Conceptual Design .................................................................... :7-15 7-4    Process Building General Arrangement ................................................................7-16 7-5    Layout of Process Building Underground Structures ............................................ 7-22 7-6    Conceptual Layout of WMA 1 Excavation .............................................................7-23 7-7    Conceptual WMA 1 Excavation Contour, With Selected Subsurface Soil Data ... 7-24 7-8    Excavation Cross Sections ...................................................................................7-25
    *7-9  Conceptual Cross-Section View of the WMA 1 Excavation ...................................7-30 7-10  WMA 2 in 2007 ............................................................... :...................................... 7-30 7-11  Conceptual Arrangement of WMA 2 Excavation, Plan View ............................... 7-33 7-12  Conceptual Arrangement of WMA 2 Excavation, Cross Section ......................... 7-34 Revision 2                                          xv
WVDP PHASE                1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 7-13    Conceptual Cross Section of the Backfilled WMA 2 Excavation ......................... 7-38 7-14    Typical Demolition Machine ........ :........................................................................ 7-50 7-15    Moose ................................................................................................................. 7-52 7-16    Universal Demolition Processor ............................................................................ 7-54 7-17    Conceptual Schedule of Phase 1 Decommissioning Activities ............................ 7-56 8-1    Decommissioning Organization Quality Assurance Relationships ........................ 8-2 B-1    Background Sampling Locations More Than 10 Kilometers From the WVDP ...... B-3 B-2    Sampling Locations Within 10 Kilometers From the WVDP Used for Background Calculations ........................................................................................ B-6 B-3    Onsite Groundwater and Subsurface Soil Locations Used as Background .......... B-8 D-1    Plan View of the WMA 1 Excavation ...................................................................... D-4 D-2    Plan View of the WMA 2 Excavation ...................................................................... D-7 D-3    North Plateau Groundwater Flow Model Boundary ............. :................................. D-9 D-4    Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 0 to 80 Meters ................................................................................... D-10 D-5    Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 80 to 120 Meters .... :........................................ ~ ................................. D-10 D-6    Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 120 to 250 Meters ............................................................................. D-11 D-7    Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 250 to 310 Meters ............................. :............................................... D-11 D-8    Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 310 to 820 Meters ............................................................................. D-12 D-9    Groundwater Flow Associated with the WMA 1 and WMA 2 Engineered Barriers ............................................................................................ D-16 D-10  Groundwater Monitoring Locations Within the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ............................................................... D-21 D-11  Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................... D-25 D-12  Offsite Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ..................................................................... D-26 D-13  Storm Water and Sediment Sampling Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................... D-28 Revision 2                                                xvi
WVDP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES D-14  Air Monitoring Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................................................... D-29 D-15  Direct Radiation Monitoring Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ........................................ .'...................... D-30 D-16  Offsite Direct Radiation Monitoring Locations During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................................................... D-31 E-1    Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis Process ............................................................. E-8 Att-1  Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-to-Source Ratio vs. Time, Sr-90 Surface Soil ................................................................................................. E-33 Att-2  Cumulative Probability    Dose-to-Sou~ce            Ratio, Sr-90 Surface Soil ....................... E-34 Att-3  Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 - Surface Soil ........................................................................................... E-35 Att-4  Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 Surface Soil ......................... E-36 Att-5  Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time, U-232 - Surface Soil ............................................................................................. E-37
* Att-6  Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, U-232 Surface Soil .......................... E-38 Att-7  Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-to-Source Ratio vs. Time, Sr-90 Subsurface Soil ........................................................................................... E-39 Att-8  Cumulative Probability Dose-to-Source Ratio, Sr-90 Subsurface Soil ................. E-40 Att-9  Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 - Subsurface Soil ..................................................................................... E-41 Att-10 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 Subsurface Soil ................... E-42 Att-11 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time, U-232 - Subsurface Soil ....................................................................................... E-43 Att-12 Cumulative Probability Dose-to-Source Ratio, U-232, Subsurface Soil ............... E-44 Att-13 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time,                                                          .
Sr-90 Streambed Sediment.. ................................................................................. E-45 Att-14 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Sr-90 Streambed Sediment.. ........... E-46 Att-15 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time, Cs-137 - Streambed Sediment... .......................................................................... E-47 Att-16 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 Streambed Sediment.. ........ E-48 F-1    Location of Pipelines Beneath the Process Building .............................................. F-9 F-2    Leachate Transfer Line Routing from NDA to Lagoon 1 ....................................... F-16 G-1    Decision Logic for Surface Soil and Streambed Sediment Survey Units ............ G-16 Revision 2                                            xvii
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES G-2    Decision Logic for WMA 1 and WMA 2 Subsurface Soils .................................... G-17 TABLES ES-1. D.CGLw Values for 25 Millirem per Year (pCi/g) ................................................. ES-19 ES-2    Cleanup Goals to be Used in Remediation (pCi/g) ............................................ ES-20 1-1    Facilities and Areas Within Phase.1 Scope ............................................... :........... 1-20 2-1    Limits for Nuclear Fuel in Solid Fuel Elements and Solutions .................................2-2 2-2    Limits for Unirradiated Source Material ...................................................................2-3 2-3    Limits Used for Standards, Test, Measurements, and Calibrations ........................ 2-3 2-4    Nuclear Fuel Received and Reprocessed ...............................................................2-6 2-5    Estimated Radionuclide. Content (in Curies) of Tanks 8D-2 and 8D-4 at the Completion of Reprocessing *****************************************************************************:*****2-9 2-6    Chemical Composition of Tank 8D-2 Supernatant at the Completion of Reprocessing ........................................................................................................ 2-10 2-7    Chemical Composition of Tank 8D-2 Sludge at the Completion of Reprocessing ........................................................................................................ 2-12 2-8    Chemical Composition of Tank 8D-4 Waste at the Completion of Reprocessing .........................................................................................................2-13
* 2-9    Chemical Composition of Glass Waste Form ........................................................ 2-17 2-10    Typical HLW Canister Radionuclide Content.. ...................................................... 2-18 2-11    Activity Removed by NFS for the Period 1972 Through 1977 ............................... 2-19 2-12    Facilities Shown in Figures 2-3 through 2-6 ..........................................................2-24 2-13    Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decommissioning .................... :..................................................................2-25 2-14    DOE 10 CFR 835 Surface Contamination Guidelines ......................................... 2-30 2-15  Radiological Areas and Radioactive Material Areas ............................................ 2-31 2~16  Released Radionuclide Activity Estimates for the North Plateau Plume .............. 2-34 2-17  Principal Radionuclides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations .......... 2-38 2-18  WVDP Spills Impacting Environmental Media (1982 -2007) ......... :..................... 2-41 2-19  Estimated Residual Radioactivity in Lagoon 1 ......................................................2-43 2-20  Summary of Wastes in the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area ..................................... 2-44 2-21  Estimated Radioactivity in the NDA .......................................................................2-45 Revision 2                                            xviii
WVDP PHASE                1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 3-1    Businesses, Farms, and Community Centers Within a 3.1 Mile Radius of the Site ............................................................ ;.......................................................3-27 3-2    2002 Resident Population Estimates by Directional Sector Within a 3.1 Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack .................................................................3-29 3-3    Nearest Residences by Sector ...............................................................................3-29 3-4    Number of Residential Wells or Springs Used for Drinking Water By Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack ...................................... 3-31 3-5    Locations and Populations of Towns and Villages Partially or Totally Within 10 Miles of the Site .....................................................................................3-32 3-6    Populations Of Selected Municipalities, Counties, and States Within 50 Miles of the Site (1960-2000) ................................................................................3-33 3-7    Leading Agricultural Products in Cattaraugus County ........................................... 3-36 3-8    2002 Consumable Animal Population Estimates by Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack ..............................................................................3-36 3-9    2002 Crop Estimates in Acres by Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack .....................................................................................................3-37 3-10  Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution at 10 Meters .......................... 3-45 3-11  Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution at 60 Meters .......................... 3-46 3-12  Generalized Paleozoic Stratigraphic Section for Southwestern New York ........... 3-48 3-13  Summary of Erosion Rates Near the WVDP .........................................................3-53 3-14  Summary of Observed Faults on Seismic Lines WVN-1 and BER83-2A ............. 3-56 3-15  Historic Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Site ................................ 3-61 3-16  Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Hard Rock (g's) ............................. 3-65 3-17  Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g's) for the North Plateau ..... 3-65 3-18  Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g's) for the South Plateau .... 3-65 3-19  WVDP Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Testing Summary Table ................................... 3-73 3-20  Distribution Coefficients ...........................................................................'. .............. 3-80 3-21  Total Porosity ..........................................................................................................3-82 3-22  2001 Natural Gas and Oil Production in Ashford, Cattaraugus, and Erie Counties, and the State of New York ..............................................................3-83 4-1    Scaling Factors for Spent Fuel Reprocessed ........................................................ .4-13 4-2    Batch 10 Sample Data ...........................................................................................4-14 Revision 2                                                    xix
WVDP PHASE                1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 4-3    Relative Fractions of Process Building Dominant Radionuclides ........................ .4-15 4-4    Relative Fractions of Vitrification Facility Dominant Radionuclides ..................... .4-16 4-5    Estimated Process Building Residual Activity at Start of Decommissioning ........ .4-16 4-6    Estimated Total Activity in Representative Process Building Areas .................... .4-17 4-7    Measured Maximum Gamma Radiation Levels in Process Building Areas ......... .4-18 4-8    Estimated Total Activity in the Vitrification Facility ............................................... .4-19 4-9    Estimated Radioactivity in ttie Underground Waste Tanks .................................. .4-21 4-10  Estimated Radioactivity in the NOA ...................................................................... .4-23 4-11  Median and Maximum Background Concentrations for Environmental Media at the WVDP ............................................................................................... .4-27 4-12  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Subsurface Soil at WMA 1 ............................ :...........................................................................4-37 4-13  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil From WMA2 ...................................................................................................................4-37 4-14  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Sediment From WMA 2 .........................................................................................................4-38
* 4-15  Above-Ba.ckground Concentrations of Radionudides in Subsurface Soil From WMA 2 .........................................................................................................4-40 4-16  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Sµrface Soil                                                        .
at WMA 3 ...................................... :......... :...............................................................4-41 4-17  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil From WMA 4 ..............................*........................ .4-41 4-18  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil at WMA 5 ............................................................ .4-43 4-19  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil at WMA 6 ....,. ....................................................... .4-44 4-20  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil at WMA 7 ............................................................ .4-46 4-21  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil and Sediment at WMA 10 ..............................................................................................4-47 4-22  Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil and Sediment at WMA 12 .......................................................................................4-48 4-23  Environmental Radiation Levels on the WVDP Site (1998-2007 Data) ................ .4-52 4-24  Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/L) in Excess of Background in Surface Water .........................................................................................................4-57 Revision 2                                                  xx
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 4-25  Routine Groundwater Monitoring Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/L) in Excess of Background ............................................................................4-59 4-26  Geoprobe Groundwater Monitoring Points With Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/L) in Excess of Background ............................................................................4-64 5-1    Measured Maximum Lavery Till Radionuclide Concentrations ................................ 5-7 5-2    Exposure Pathways fsir Surface Soil DCGL Development .................................... 5-23 5-3    Key Input Parameters for Surface Soil DCGL Development ................................. 5-23 5-4    Exposure Pathways for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development .............................. 5-29 5-5    Key Input Parameters for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development ........................... 5-30 5-6    Exposure Pathways for Stream bed Sediment DCGL Development... ................... 5-34 5-7    Key Input Parameters for Streambed Sediment DCGL Development .................. 5-37
* 5-8    DCGLs For 25 mrem (pCi/g) ................................... :.............................................. 5-40 5-9    Summary of Parameter Sensitivity Analyses - Surface Soil DCGLs ..................... 5-44 5-10  Summary of Parameter Sensitivity Analyses - Subsurface Soil DCGLs ............... 5-47 5-11  Summary of Parameter Sensitivity Analyses - Streambed Sediment DCGLs ...... 5-49 5-11a  Summary of Results of Probabilistic Uncertainty Analyses ................................... 5-51 5-11 b Exposure Pathways for Modified Subsurface Soil DCGL Model ... :............ :.......... 5-54 5-11 c Subsurface Soil DCGL Comparison ................................. *; ................................... 5-56 5-12  Limited Site-Wide Dose Assessment 1 Results (DLGLs in pCi/g) ......................... 5-59 5-13  Limited Site-Wide Dose Assessment 2 Results (DLGLs in pCi/g) ......................... 5-59 5-14  Cleanup Goals to be Used in Remediation in pCi/g ............................................... 5-62 6-1    Possible Benefits and Costs Related to Decommissioning ..................................... 6-7 7-1    Expected Facility and Area Conditions at the Beginning of Phase 1 ....................... 7-2 9-1    Surface Soil Cleanup Goal Area Factors .................................................................9-3 9-2    Subsurface Soil Cleanup Goal Area Factors ...........................................................9-3 9-3    Streambed Sediment Cleanup Goal Area Factors ................................................... 9-4 9-4    Radiological Field Instruments ...............................................................................9-11 9-5    Radionuclide Target Sensitivity For Laboratory Sample Analysis ......................... 9-12 9-6    Radiological Field Instruments for Facility Characterization .................................. 9-19 Revision 2                                    xxi
WVDP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 9-7    Estimated Scanning Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDCs) of Radionuclides in Soil .... :........................................................................................9-21 9-8    Radiological Field Instruments for Phase 1 Final Status Survey ........................... 9-26 9-9    Scan Surveys for Different Area Classifications .....................................................9-27 9-10  Laboratory Methods .......................................................................................:.........9-31 A-1    NUREG-1757 Checklist- Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan Comparison ............... A-2 B-1    Summary of Comparisons of Radionuclide Data from Test Surface Soil Locations vs. SFGRVAL Background ..................................................................... B-4 B-2    Summary Information for Environmental Medium Background Calculations .......... B-9 B-3    Surface Soil Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ................ B-11 B-4    Sediment Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP .......... :.......... B-12 B-5    Subsurface Soil Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ........... B-13 B-6    Surface Water Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ............. B-14 B-7    Groundwater Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ............... B-15 B-8    Background Environmental Radiation Levels the WVDP ...................................... B-16 B-9    Radionuclides in Surface Soil: Ratios to Cs-137.. .................................................*B-22
* B-10  Radionuclides in Sediment: Ratios to Cs-137 ....................................................... B-23 B-11  Radionuclides in Subsurface Soil: Ratios to Cs-137 ............................................. B-25 B-12  Summary of Radionuclide Results from Routine Onsite Sediment Monitoring Locations .....................................................*......................................... B-27 B-13  Summary of Radionuclide Results from Routine Onsite Surface Water Monitoring Locations ................................. .' ........................................................... B-29 B-14  Summary of Radionuclide Results from Routine Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations ............................................................................................. B-33 B-15  Groundwater Monitoring Locations: Coordinates, Depth, Screened Interval, and Geologic Unit .................................................................................................. B-42 B-16  Location, Elevation, and Depth of Geoprobe Groundwater Sampling Points ..... B-45 B-17  Groundwater Points Excluded from the Evaluation .................................... ,.......... B-50 C-1    RES RAD Input Parameters ..................................................................................... C-4 C-2    Soil/Water Distribution Coefficients ....................................................................... C-12 C-3    Scenario Exposure Pathways for WVDP DCGL Development.. ............... :........... C-14 Revision 2                                            xxii
WVDP PHASE                1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES C-4    Radionuclide Concentrations from Soil Samples Containing Lavery Till in the WMA 1 and WMA 2 Excavation Areas ........................................................ C-15 C-50  Summary of Surface Soil DCGL Sensitivity Analysis ............................................ C-34 C-84  Summary of Subsurface Soil DCGL Sensitivity Analysis ...................................... C-37 C-100  Summary of Sediment DCGL Sensitivity Analysis ................................................ C-40 C-117  Summary of Primary Dose Pathways .................................................................... C-42 D-1    North Plateau Near-Field Model Calibration for Head ........................................... D-13 D-2    Summary of Sand and Gravel Unit Flow Balance ................................................. D-13 D-3    Average Linear Velocity for Flow Path Originating at the Process Building .......... D-14 D-4    Summary of Sand and Gravel Unit Flow Balance After Phase 1 .......................... D-15 D-5    Average Linear Velocity for Flow Path Originating at the Process Building After Phase 1 ......*...... :............................................................................................ D-17 E-1    Input Parameter Distributions for Surface Soil Model (Other than Kct and Biotransfer Factor Values) .............................................................................. E-10 E-2    Input Parameter Distributions for Subsurface Soil Model (Other than Kct and Biotransfer Factor Values) .............................................................................. E-11 E-3    Input Parameter Distributions for Stream bed Sediment Model (Other than Kct and Biotransfer Factor Values) .............................................................................. E-12 E-4    Summary of Data on Kct Parameter (ml/g) for the 10 Elements of Interest ......... E-13 E-5    Lognormal Distribution Parameters for                  Kct Values from Literature ........................ E-14 E-6    Lognormal Distribution Used for              Kct Uncertainty Analyses ................. ~ .................. E-15 E-7    Input Correlations for Probabilistic Evaluation ...................................................... E-16 E-8    Key Output Dose Statistics (DSRs) - Surface Soil Model (mrem/y per pCi/g) ..... E-18 E-9    Surface Soil DCGLw Values for 25 mrem in Peak Year in pCi/g .......................... E-19 E-10  Key Output Dose Statistics (DSRs) - Subsurface Soil Model (mrem/y per pCi/g) ................................................................................................. E-20 E-11  Subsurface Soil DCGLw Values for 25 mrem in Peak Year in pCi/g .................... E-21 E-12  Key Output Dose Statistics (DSRs)- Streambed Sediment Model (mrem/y per pCi/g) ................................................................................................. E-22 E-13  Streambed Sediment DCGLw Values for 25 mrem in Peak Year in pCi/g ............ E-23 E-14  Summary of Parameter Rankings - Surface Soil Model. ...................................... E-25 E-15  Summary of Parameter Rankings - Subsurface Soil Model. ................................ E-26 Revision 2                                                xxiii
WVDP PHASE          1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES E-16      Summary of Parameter Rankings - Streambed Sediment Model ........................ E-28 Att-1    Estimated WMA 1 Doses from Observed Maximum Radionuclide Concentrations in the Lavery Till ........................................................................... E-49 Att-2    Estimated WMA 2 Doses from Observed Maximum Radionuclide
* Concentrations in the Lavery Till ........................................................................... E-50 F-1      List of Buried Pipelines ............................................................................................F-2 F-2      Estimated Process Drain Line Activity in Curies ................................................... F-10 F-3      Estimated Waste Transfer Line Activity in Curies *****:*******************************************F-10 F-4      Estimated Cask Decon Line Activity in Curies .............. ;....................................... F-11 F-5      Estimated Wastewater Drain Line Activity in Curies ............................................. F-12 F-6      Estimated Total Residual Inventory in Lines Under the Process Building ............ F-12 F-7      Estimated Residual Inventory of Lines West of the Process Building in Curies ... F-14 F-8      Estimated Residual Inventory of Lines East of the Process Building in Curies .... F-15 Note that other tables appear in the Appendix C, Attachment 1 electronic files.
A single Table (C-48) is included in the Appendix C, Attachment 2 electronic files Additional tables are also included with the Appendix E electronic files.
Revision 2                                            xx iv
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NOTATION Acronyms and Abbreviations AEC      U.S . Atomic Energy Commission ALARA    as low as reasonably achievable ASTM    American Society for Testing and Materials CFR      Code of Federal Regulations BH      bore hole CG      cleanup goal DCGL    derived concentration guideline level DCGLw    derived concentration guideline level , wide DCGLEMC  derived concentration guideline level , elevated measurement concentration DCGLscan derived concentration guideline level , scan DOE      Department of Energy DQO      data quality objective DSR      dose/source ratio E        east EIS      environmental impact statement EMC      elevated measurement concentration EPA      U.S Environmental Protection Agency F        Fahrenheit FR      Federal Register FUS RAP  Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program HEPA    high-efficiency particulate air HLW      high-level waste ICORS    lnteragency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards K        hydraulic conductivity Kl      distribution coefficient KRS      Kent recessional sequence LLW      low-level waste LTR      License Termination Rule LTS      Lavery till sand MARSSIM Multi-Agency Rad iation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MDC      minimum detectable concentration MMI      Modified Mercalli Intensity N        north Revision 2                                    xxv
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NOTATION ND      not detected NOA      NRC-Licensed Disposal Area NESHAP  National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NPR      New Production Reactor NRC      Nuclear Regulatory Commission NFS      Nuclear Fuel Services , Inc.
NYSDEC  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority PUREX    plutonium uranium refining by extraction QA      quality assurance QC      quality control qtr      quarter RCRA    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RES RAD Residual radioactivity [computer code]
RFI    RCRA facil ity investigation S&G    sand and gravel SAIC    Science Applications International Corporation SB      subsurface soil SD      stream bank sediment SDA    State-Licensed Disposal Area SP DES  State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SS      surface soil THO REX thorium uranium extraction process TLD    thermoluminescent dosimeter ULT    unweathered Lavery till w      west WLT    weathered Lavery till WMA    waste management area WSMS    Washington Safety Management Solutions WVDP    West Valley Demonstration Project WVES    West Valley Environmental Services WVNSCO West Valley Nuclear Services Company Revision 2                                  xxvi
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NOTATION Units Ci      curie cfm      cubic feet per minute cm      centimeter 2
cm      centimeter squared 3
cm      centimeter cubed cpm      counts per minute
    . dpm      disintegrations per minute g        gram [mass]
g        acceleration due to gravity [in reference to accelerations]
h        hour kg      kilogram km      kilometer L        liter m        meter
* mCi      millicurie millirem 0.001 Roentgen equivalent man ml      milliliter mrem    millirem mR      milli Roentgen
      µCi      0.000001 curie
      µR      micro Roentgen
      µrem    micro rem
      µL      0.000001 liter pCi      10-12 curie R        Roentgen rem      Roentgen equivalent man s        second y        year Revision 2                                  xxvii
This page is intentionally blank.
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN EXECUTIVE
==SUMMARY==
PURPOSE OF THIS EXECUTIVE
==SUMMARY==
The purpose of this part of the Decommissioning Plan is to provide readers a synopsis of the plan content.
INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION The following matters are addressed in the order given :
* The requirements of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, the decommissioning requirements , and the decommissioning approach ;
* The name and address of the licensee and site owner;
* The location and address of the site;
* A brief description of the site and immediate environs;
* A summary of prior licensed activities and other activities involving radioactivity;
* The nature and extent of radioactive contamination at the site;
* The decommissioning objective;
* Decommissioning controls ;
* Derived concentration guideline levels and cleanup goals;
* A summary of ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) evaluations performed and planned;
* Planned initiation and completion dates for the decommissioning; and
* A summary of post-remediation activities.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS This summary briefly describes the content of key parts of the plan.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared this plan pursuant to its statutory obligations for decontamination and decommissioning of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) under the WVDP Act of 1980, Public Law 96-368 , and to satisfy commitments made to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1981 and 2003 to prepare a decommissioning plan for the project and submit it to NRC for review.
This plan addresses Phase 1 of the two phases of the WVDP decommissioning . Phase 1
* activities are expected to take eight to 10 years to complete. During th is eight to 10 year period, a number of activities will be conducted to help determ ine the best technical approach to complete decommissioning of the remaining facilities . These activities wi ll include further characterization of site contamination and additional scientific studies.
The approach for Phase 2 will be determined later after consideration of the results of the characterization and additional studies. The basis for this approach and the general context for the decommissioning are explained in the sidebar discussion on the next page.
Revision 2                                        ES-1
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The WVDP Act and the WVDP This decommissioning project is being conducted under the WVDP Act of 1980. The WVDP Act directed DOE to carry out the following activities: (1) solidify the high-level waste (HLW) at the site, (2) develop containers suitable for permanent disposal of the solidified HLW, (3) transport the waste to a federal repository for permanent disposal , (4) dispose of low-level radioactive waste and transuranic waste produced in the solidification of the HLW, and (5) decontaminate and decommission the tanks , facilities , materials, and hardware used in the proj ect in accordance with requirements prescribed by the NRC. The WVDP was initiated to allow DOE to carry out its responsibilities under the WVDP Act. Th is plan focuses on the fifth activity - decontamination and decommissioning.
Decommissioning Requirements The NRC has prescribed the requirements in its License Termination Rule in Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR Part 20 , Subpart E to WVDP facilities and as the decommissioning goal for the entire NRC-licensed site.
The Phased Decision-Making Approach The environmental impacts of the approach described in this plan are being analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship of the WVDP and Western New York Nuclear Service Center, hereafter referred to as the Decommissioning EIS. Decommissioning will not begin until the Record of Decision is issued .
The decommissioning is to be accomplished in two phases, with Phase 1 expected to begin in 2011 . This phased decision-making approach is the preferred alternative in the Decommissioning EIS. (If changes are made to the Decommissioning EIS during the course of the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this approach , such as changes to the preferred alternative, the approach will be revised as necessary to reflect those changes.)
Phase 1 of the decommissioning will entail removal of the Main Plant Process Building , the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility, and certain other facilities within the WVDP area , which is known as the project premises. These activities will clean up much of the project premises to standards that will not prejudice decisions on the approach for Phase 2, which will complete the decommissioning. The Phase 2 decision could be made "'.Vithin 10 years of the Record of Decision and Findings Statement documenting the Phase 1 decisions. Phase 2 actions will complete the decommissioning or long-term management decision-making following the approach determined most appropriate during the additional Phase 1 evaluations for each remaining facility.
The Phase 1 Decommissioning Scope The scope of this plan is limited to certain facilities on the north plateau area of the project premises and to removal of one major facility on the south plateau , the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell , a former rad ioactive waste storage area . This plan also provides for potential remediation of surface soil in selected areas of the project premises .
This plan does not address decommissioning of the underground waste storage tanks , the region of subsurface environmental contamination known as non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, or the two inactive radioactive waste disposal facilities on the south plateau, the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area and the State-Licensed Disposal Area , all of which will be considered in Phase 2 of the decommissioning .
Revision 2                                      ES-2
WVDP PHASE  1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Site Owner and Site Location Although DOE will accomplish the decommissioning for the portion of the site used by the WVDP , the entire site remains under the ownership of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), who is the licensee. NYSERDA's main office is in Albany at the following address:
NYSE RDA 17 Columbia Circle Albany , New York 12203-6399 NYSERDA also maintains an office near the site with the following mailing address: .
10282 Rock Springs Road West Valley, New York 14171-9799 The site, which is known as the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (the Center), is located at the latter address in a rural area in Cattaraugus and Erie counties approximately 30 miles south of the city of Buffalo as shown in Figure ES-1 .
N l - ... ... . "
i Western !New York
          /--)                                                    Nuclear Service Center (WNYINSC}
Boundary West Valley ___,
Demonstration Project (WVDP) Si~e Figure ES-1 . Location of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center Revision 2                                      ES-3
WVDP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Description of the Site and Immediate Environs The Center property comprises approximately 3,345 acres ranging in elevation from 1,000 to 1,800 feet above mean sea level. The area of the WVDP ranges from 1,300 to 1,445 feet above sea level. The undeveloped part of the Center remains a mixture of forest, wetlands, and abandoned farmland .
The following description of the site and its environs begins with the former 1irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and the WVDP facilities and then addresses the remainder of the Center property, known as the retained prem ises, and the surrounding area . The project premises are shown in Figures ES-1 and ES-2 . Note that residual radioactivity associated with the facilities is described later in th is summary under the heading "Nature and Extent of Contamination at the Site ."
                                  = Removed or to be removed prior to Phase 1 i:;( = To be removed in Phase 1 LLWTF =Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility LSA =Lag Storage Addition NDA =NRG-Licensed Disposal Area RHWF = Remote-Handled Waste Facility SDA = State-Licensed Disposal Area Figure ES-2. The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 The Project Premises. At the approximate middle of the Center property lies the former nuclear fuel reprocessing plant operated by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. from 1966 through 1972. In 1982, control of a 156.4-acre parcel of land that included this facility and the NRC-1 Licensed Disposal Area was transferred to DOE for accomplishment of the WVDP .
Figure ES-2 shows part of the Center and the project premises as they appeared in 2006. On the right side of the photograph in Figure ES-2 , one can see the Vitrification 1
Control of two additional small parcels of land was transferred to DOE in 1986, bringing the total to approximately 167 acres. One parcel is located in the area of the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell.
The other is located on the retained premises , which is that portion of the 3,345 acres outside of the initial 156.4 acres for which control but not ownership was transferred to DOE for accomplishment of the WVDP.
The parcel on the retained premises is not within the scope of Phase 1 decommissioning activities.
Revision 2                                              ES-4
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Facility and the Process Building standing just behind the Waste Tank Farm where the underground waste tanks are located . Dotted lines delineate the approximate location of the perimeter of the project premises and the two streams on the project premises.
At the top of Figure ES-2 are the two shallow-land disposal sites for radioactive waste on the Center, the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area and the State-Licensed Disposal Area .
The State-Licensed Disposal Area , which is licensed and permitted by the State and controlled by NYSERDA, lies outside of the project premises .
The approximate locations of the courses of the three named streams in the vicinity -
Erdman Brook, Franks Creek, and Quarry Creek - are indicated in Figure ES-2. Erdman Brook divides the project premises into two areas known as the north plateau and the south plateau , with the Process Building standing on the north plateau .
When the Phase 1 decommissioning activities begin, the project premises will be in a condition known as the interim end state . The interim end state will be the condition of the project premises at the conclusion of the waste reduction and material removal campaign currently underway. As part of this work, DOE is partially decontaminating certa in facil ities and removing other unneeded ancillary buildings. Several buildings shown in Figure ES-2 have been removed since the photograph was taken. These and others to be removed in establishing the interim end state are identified in the figure , along with key structures to be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
Part of the site has been divided into 12 waste management areas for remediation purposes. Nine of the waste management areas are located on the project premises and one (Waste Management Area 12) is partially within the project premises, as shown in Figure ES-3. The facilities of interest are addressed below as they fall within a particular waste management area .
Waste Management Area 1, the Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area. The multi-story Process Building structure is approximately 130 feet by 270 feet in area and rises approximately 79 feet above ground at its highest point (not including the main stack).
Most of the structure is reinforced concrete . Parts of the building lie as much as 45 feet below ground .
Within the Process Building are a number of shielded cells where disassembly and chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuel took place. Various rooms housed supporting activities. Aisles provided equipment for remote operations in the shielded cells and access to various plant areas.
On the east side of the building stands the Fuel Receiving and Storage Area . This steel-framed , steel-sheathed structure contains two fuel pools. The floor of the deeper pool lies 45 feet below grade at its lowest point.
The Vitrification Facility, which was constructed by the WVDP, is attached to the north side of the Process Building. The Vitrification Facility is a structural steel frame and sheet metal building housing the reinforced concrete Vitrification Cell , operating aisles, and a control room . It is approximately 91 feet wide and 150 feet long with the peak of the roof standing approximately 50 feet high . The pit in the Vitrification Cell extends 14 feet below grade.
Revision 2                                      ES-5
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
                                                                                            /
i' * ,                                                                    N c                                                                                                  \
A WMA12                            .1                                                              . ....
                                              .i                                                          i    \1'~
                                                                                                        !        \~
                                  ., , .**'°                                                      ./              \.Q.
_,,.,,.. ..... . ..."'/,.                                                                                    \~
  .....                                                                                                                \
j i
i i ...
                                                                                                                                          )
                                                                                                                                    )
(°                /
r
                                                                                                                              \              i'
                                                                                                                                            \ .,~---- ,
WMA                =Waste Management Area Legend c:J Waste Management Areas                        Former Lagoon
[::J Building                              CJ Waterbodies                                                                                        r .. - -*- ... ,
[::J *C<>ncrete Foundation
      - - Fence
      -+- Rallspur
                                                - ***- Slrums/ Stormwate1 Oralnagew*ys CJ Asphalt Road CJ Gravel Road/ Pad Figure ES-3. Waste Management Areas 1-10. (Part of WMA 12 is also shown . The State-
                                                                                              -Y' r :. 250              0
                                                                                                          *--.-*~--~~-~~!!1 50          O 50 100 150 200 Meters ~ .. )
                                                                                                                                                        ~
                                                                                                                                                                  . 1:000 Feel
                                                                                                                                                        ~=:::::::=-=,~\
Licensed Disposal Area in WMA 8 is not with in the project premises or the scope of this plan.
WMA 11 is entirely outside of the project premises.)
Revision 2                                                                        ES-6
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The steel-framed, steel-sheathed Load-In/Load-Out Facility connects to the west side of the Process Building as does the concrete block Plant Office Building . The 60-foot tall concrete and steel frame 01-14 Building stands at the southwest corner of the Process Building.
On the south side is the concrete-block Utility Room , with an addition known as the Utility Room Expansion, and the Laundry, which will be removed before decommissioning begins. The Fire Pump House and a large water storage tank stand south of the Process Building and an electrical substation is located on the east side.
All of the Waste Management Area 1 facilities are within the scope of this plan .
Waste Management Area 2, the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. This facility ,
located east of the Process Building , includes five lagoons used to manage radioactive wastewater, including Lagoon 1, which was removed from service in 1984. It also includes the LLW2 Building that contains liquid waste treatment equipment, two in-ground concrete interceptor tanks , the small underground concrete Neutralization Pit, and underground pipelines connecting these facilities . All of these facilities are within the scope of this plan ,
along with several concrete slabs, the Maintenance Shop leach field , and the inactive Solvent Dike.
Waste Management Area 3, the Waste Tank Farm Area. Located just north of the Vitrification Facility, this area contains two 750,000-gallon carbon steel underground waste tanks , designated Tanks 80-1 and 80-2, and two 15,000-gallon stainless steel underground waste tanks, designated 80-3 and 80-4. These tanks are housed in concrete vaults, with Tanks 80-3 and 80-4 sharing a common vault. Only Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 were used to store HLW during reprocessing operations; Tank 80-1 was subsequently exposed to HLW during the WVDP . A tank and vault drying system will be used to promote evaporation of the remaining liquid in the tanks, all of which are expected to be completely dry by approximately 2015.
Also in this area are the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building and the Permanent Ventilation System Building , both built by the WVDP, several smaller structures, and the HLW transfer trench that contains piping that was used to transfer waste to the Vitrification Facility.
The following facilities in Waste Management Area 3 are within the scope of this plan :
the Equipment Shelter and the associated condensers, the Con-Ed Building , the HLW mobilization and transfer pumps in the underground waste tanks , and the piping and equipment within the HLW transfer trench .
Waste Management Area 4, the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Area .
This 10 acre area contains the 1.5 acre landfill, which was used to dispose of non-radioactive waste, and is located north of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Fa~ility. No facil (ties in this area are within the scope of Phase 1 of the decommissioning.
Revision 2                                        ES-7
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Waste Management Area 5, the Waste Storage Area. This area , which is located west of Waste Management Area 4, will contain two structures when the interim end state is reached , both of which are within the scope of this plan . One is Lag Storage Addition 4, a clear span, steel frame , metal sheathed building with an attached steel frame , metal sheathed shipping depot. The other is the Remote-Handled Waste Facility. This steel sided building contains concrete cells and rooms and is currently being used by the WVDP for processing and packaging high-activity radioactive waste. Several concrete floor slabs and gravel pads in this area are also within plan scope .
Waste Management Area 6, the Central Project Premises. This area is located west of the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area and south of the Process Building . Facilities in this area ,
all of which are within plan scope, are the Sewage Treatment Plant, the south Waste Tank Farm Test Tower, the equalization basin , the concrete equalization tank, and two demineralizer sludge ponds, along with several asphalt and gravel pads and the concrete Cooling Tower basin.
Waste Management Area 7, the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area. In this area lies the 400-foot by 600-foot radioactive waste burial ground , which is no longer used for radioactive waste disposal. Only remaining concrete and gravel pads in this area are within plan scope.
Waste Management Area 8, the State-Licensed Disposal Area. This radioactive waste disposal area covers approximately 15 acres. It is no longer used for radioactive waste disposal and is not within the scope of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities.
Waste Management Area 9, the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area. This area , which is located on the south plateau , contains one building , the Drum Cell, a former radioactive waste storage area identified in Figure ES-3. The Drum Cell has a concrete block foundation and concrete shield walls and is enclosed by a pre-engineered metal building 375 feet long , 60 feet wide , and 26 feet high . It is within the scope of this plan, as are several asphalt, concrete , and gravel pads.
Waste Management Area 10, the Support and Services Area. The remaining concrete slabs and gravel pads in this area are within the scope of this plan , as is the New Warehouse , which is located south of the Process Building . This area borders Rock Springs Road .
Waste Management Area 11, the Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area. This area is located on the retained premises south and east of the project premises. There are no facilities in this area with in the scope of this plan .
Waste Management Area 12, the Balance of the Site. Only the small portion of this area within the project premises is within plan scope and that only for characterization of soil and stream bed sediment and possible remediation of surface soi l.
Underground Piping and Equipment. Fifty-seven lines or portions of lines beneath the Process Building carried radioactive liquid, along with other lines near the Process Building Revision 2                                      ES-8
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and at the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. Three underground stainless steel wastewater tanks near the Process Building contain radioactivity. The three wastewater tanks are within the scope of this plan , as are the underground lines within Waste Management Area 1 and some of the underground lines within Waste Management Area 2.
Site Geomorphology. Streams in the area are at a relatively young stage of development and are characterized by steep profiles, V-shaped cross sections, and little or no flood plains. Erosion within the drainage basin has been dominated by slump block formation along the stream valley walls. Gullies tend to form along the stream banks during thaws and after heavy ra in.
Surface Hydrology. The WVDP watershed is drained by Quarry Creek, Franks Creek, and Erdman Brook. Most surface water runoff from the project premises funnels into a single stream channel at the confluence of Franks Creek and Erdman Brook located just inside the perimeter of the project premises east of the lagoons as shown in Figure ES-3.
These waters flow into Buttermilk Creek, wh ich runs through the retained prem ises east and north of the project premises . Buttermilk Creek enters Cattaraugus Creek at the north end of the Center; Cattaraugus Creek eventually flows into Lake Erie. Figure ES-1 shows both creeks.
S&#xb5;bsurface Conditions. Underlying the north plateau and the south plateau is more than 500 feet of Pleistocene-age glacial tills. From the surface downward, the following layers are encountered :
* The surficial sand and gravel unit - with an average composition of 55 percent gravel , 20 percent sand , and 25 percent clay - with thickness ranging from 41 feet near the Process Building to a few feet near the northern , eastern, and southern margins of the north plateau. This unit is not present on the south plateau .
* The Lavery till - a silty-clay glacial till that contains lenses of sand , silt, and clay-silt laminations, with an average composition of 50 percent clay , 30 percent silt, 10 percent sand , and 10 percent gravel - with thickness ranging from a few feet at its western margin to more than 130 feet near Buttermilk Creek. On the south plateau ,
the upper three to 16 feet is weathered , with fractures and root tubes , and is known as the weathered Lavery till. Below the north plateau and the weathered Lavery till on the south plateau, the unit is referred to as the unweathered Lavery till.
* The Lavery till-sand unit - a lenticular-shaped silty, sandy layer - located on the north plateau immediately south of the Process Building . It is up to seven feet thick and lies within the upper 20 feet of the unweathered Lavery till.
* The Kent recessional sequence - with both lacustrine and kame delta deposits -
underlies the Lavery till on both the north and south pl ateaus. It is 30 to 60 fe et thick in the WVDP area.
Revision 2                                      ES-9
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING        PLAN
* Shale bedrock underlies the Lavery till and other geological units on both the north and south plateaus.
Groundwater Hydrology. The depth of groundwater in the sand and gravel unit on the north plateau ranges from the surface to 16 feet below the surface. The groundwater flows generally northeastward toward Franks Creek. Near the northwestern margin of the sand and gravel until, flow is toward Quarry Creek and , at the southeastern margin , toward Erdman Brook. Groundwater seeps to the surface in places along stream banks and the edges of the north plateau .
The Surrounding Area. The nearest incorporated village is Springville , 3.5 miles to the north of the WVDP. The hamlet of West Valley lies 3.4 miles to the southeast. The communities of Riceville and Ashford Hollow also lie within a five-mile radius of the site .
The closest major highway is U.S. Route 219 , located 2.6 miles to the west.
Population Distribution. A 2002 demographic survey showed 1,056 people living within a 3.1-mile rad ius of the WVDP . The nearest residence was 0.76 miles away. In 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 79,699 people lived in Cattaraugus County.
Summary of Licensed Activities Provisional Operating License Number CSF-1 was issued on April 19, 196~ by the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission to Nuclear Fuel Services and the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority to operate a spent fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal facility at the Center. This Part 50 license provided possession limits for nuclear fuel of 21 ,000 kilograms (about 46,000 pounds) of U-235, 3,200 kilograms (about 7,055 pounds) of U-233, and 4,000 kilograms (about 8,800 pounds) of plutonium . Possession limits for unirradiated source material were 50 ,000 pounds of natural uranium , 100,000 pounds of uranium depleted in U-235, and 50 ,000 pounds of thorium . The license specified typical limits for radioactivity used for standards, measurements, and calibration purposes.
From 1966 to 1972, Nuclear Fuel Services reprocessed under this license more than 600 metric tons (600 ,000 kilograms or about 1,320,000 pounds) of spent nuclear fuel and generated approximately 600 ,000 gallons of liquid HLW as a result. Irrad iated nuclear fuel reprocessing operations ended in 1972. In 1976, Nuclear Fuel Services informed New York State that it intended to withdraw from the reprocessing business and not renew the lease for the property when the initial term expired at the end of 1980. In February of 1982, Nuclear Fuel Services transferred possession of the reprocessing facilities to DOE so DOE could carry out its 2
responsibilities under the WVDP Act.
Figure ES-4 shows the plant at the beginning of the WVDP .
2 While Nuclear Fuel Services transferred physical possession of the reprocessing facilities to DOE ,
NYSE RDA granted exclusive use and possession of the project premises to DOE to carry out the WVDP under the provisions of the WVDP Act.
Revision 2                                        ES-10
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure ES-4. The Plant During the Early Years (The lagoons appear in the foreground. The Process Building can be seen in the background.)
Fuel received for reprocessing came from the N-Reactor at the Atomic Energy Commission 's Hanford site and from nine commercial reactors . Reprocessing took place in the Process Building .
The first step in reprocessing entailed disassembling and sectioning the fuel. The pieces of fuel were dissolved in concentrated nitric acid . The resulting aqueous stream underwent a five-stage solvent extraction process. After further purification , the uranium and plutonium product solutions were concentrated , packaged, and eventually shipped off site . The process utilized is known as the PUREX process for Qlutonium granium refining by extraction .
Aqueous waste generated was reduced in volume by evaporation , neutralized , and stored in 750 ,000-gallon Tank 80-2 . The neutralization process caused most fission products (not including cesium) to precipitate out and form sludge on the tank bottom . The remaining radionuclides were retained in the supernatant liquid.
Fuel received included thorium-enriched uranium , which was reprocessed using the THOREX (thorium reduction extraction) process. The resulting 12,000 gallons of liquid HLW, which was not neutralized to avoid precipitating out the thorium , were stored in 15,000-gallon Tank 80-4.
The amounts of radioactivity in Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 at the completion of reprocessing , with fission and activation products decay-corrected to July 1987, were :
* Tank 80-2 supernatant - approximately 14,000,000 curies , primarily from Cs-137, and Ba-137m ;
* Tank 80-2 sludge - approximately 15,000,000 curies , primarily from Sr-90 and Y-90 ; and Revision 2                                    ES-11
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* Tank 8D approximately 2,000 ,000 curies , primarily from Sr-90 , Y-90 , Cs-137, and Ba-137m .
During initial plant operations, low-level wastewater from the Process Building was piped underground to an interceptor tank and then held in the lagoon system before being discharged into Erdman Brook. In 1971 , a new Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility (the 02 Building) entered service . Since that time , wastewater has been treated prior to discharge from the lagoon system ,
which can be seen in Figure ES-4.
During the 1970s, after the tenmination of irradiated fuel reprocessing , Nuclear Fuel Services decontaminated many of the Process Building cells and flushed many of the systems. On February 18, 1982, the facility was formally transferred to DOE for performance of the WVDP.
During plant operations , 30 amendments were made to License CSF-1 , most related to technical specifications. License amendment 31 was issued in September 1981 to transfer the project premises to DOE in accordance with the WVDP Act. Amendment 32 was issued in February 1982 to terminate the responsibility and authority of Nuclear Fuel Services. No further amendments have been made, with the license technical specifications effectively being held in abeyance until completion of the WVDP.
Summary of WVDP Activities To solidify the HLW, DOE built the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System and the Vitrification Facility.
The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System included (1) the Supernatant Treatment System that decontaminated HLW tank solutions by ion exchange, (2) the Liquid Waste Treatment System to concentrate Supernatant Treatment System liquid waste by evaporation , (3) the Cement Solidification System to solidify Liquid Waste Treatment System concentrates, and (4) the Drum Cell to store cement solidified waste . By 1995, the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System had produced 19,877 71-gallon drums of solidified waste , which were stored in the Drum Cell. These drums were later shipped offsite for disposal.
Tanks 8D-1 and 8D-2 were modified and used to support the HLW solidification process .
Supernatant Treatment System ion exchange columns were installed inside Tank 8D-1 .
The Vitrification Facility was used to stabilize HLW sludge , loaded ion exchange resin (zeolite), and acidic THOREX waste from Tank 8D-4 in a borosilicate glass contained in stainless steel canisters. A number of modifications were made to the former reprocessing facilities to accommodate the vitrification system and the related systems . Among these changes were removing equipment from the Chemical Process Cell , decontaminating it, and installing storage racks for the HLW canisters.
Solidification of the HLW was completed in September 2002. A total of 275 canisters of vitrified HLW were produced and placed in interim storage in the former Chemical Process Cell ,
now known as the HLW Interim Storage Facility. DOE has deactivated portions of the Process Building and several other site facilities . In 2009 deactivation work, which includes removal of Revision 2                                      ES-12
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN unneeded ancillary facilities , remained underway. Additional deactivation work to be completed before activities under this plan begin will result in conditions known as the interim end state.
Before much of the work to remove the Process Building is undertaken, the 275 vitrified IHLW canisters wrn be relocated to a new Canister Interim Storage Facility to be established on the south plateau. The canisters will remain there until a decisi on is made and implemented with regard to their final disposal.
Nature and Extent of Contamination at the Site Due to problems experienced during reprocessing operations, contamination of the site is extensive. Rad ionuclides include the fission products Sr-90 and Cs-137, along with uranium radionuclides and actinides such as Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241 , and Am-241 . Substantial contamination levels exist in many of the cells and rooms of the Process Building and some contam ination is present inside other facilities . Subsurface soil and groundwater contamination is widespread . Figure ES-5 shows key areas of interest that are discussed below. This figure identifies major sources to be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning and others to be considered in Phase 2 .
Figure ES-5 shows two major areas of environmental contamination at the site: the cesium prong and the north plateau groundwater plume. The cesium prong is a large area northwest of the Process Building where surface soil became contaminated with Cs-137 as a result of two 3
ventilation system filter failures in the Process Building in 1968 . The north plateau groundwater plume originated that same year when releases of radioactive acid leaked into soil under the southwest corner of the Process Building . Since that time , mobile radionuclides such as Sr-90 have gradually migrated more than 40 feet under the building and approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the building .
3 Note that the cesium prong area del ineated on the figure provides only an approximation of the region of surface soil impacted by the ventilation system filter failures . Data to determ ine the extent of the resulting soil contamination on the project premises are not available. Such data would be collected early in Phase 1 of the decommissioning to establ ish the extent of residual surface and near surface soil contamination in the impacted area within the project premises . Note that other Process Building main stack releases that occurred in 1968 may have contributed to the cesium prong .
Revision 2                                          ES-13
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMM ISSION ING PLAN Cesium Prong (Impacted Surface Soil, >25 mR/h in 1984 O or 8 North Plateau Ground-water Plume (10 pCi/L Gross p Isopleth in September 2007) 8 Contamination in Streambed Sediment
                                                                            /
Lagoon 2 (Sediment Contamination Similar to Lagoon 1) O Figure ES-5. Important Sources of Contamination on the Project Premises (The O symbol denotes major sources to be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning while the 8 symbol denotes major sources to be considered in Phase 2. The estimates for total residual rad ioactivity are for 2011 .)
Revision 2                                  ES-14
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The following summary of radioactive contamination addresses the more significant contaminated facilities and areas and is organized by waste management area. DOE will perform additional characterization before Phase 1 begi ns or early during Phase 1. The estimates of residual radioactivity are as of 2011 , when Phase 1 is anticipated to start.
Waste Management Area 1, Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area.
* The total residual radioactivity in the Process Building is expected to be approximately 6,200 curies , with Cs-137, Sr-90, and Pu-241 being the predominant 4
radionuclides .
* The total res idual radioactivity in the Vitrification Facility is expected to be approximately 1,900 curies , with Cs-137 and Sr-90 being the predominant radionuclides .
* The total residual radioactivity inside the vitrification off-gas line that runs within a concrete trench from the Vitrification Facility to the 01-14 Building is expected to be approximately 340 curies.
* Underground wastewater Tank 70-13 is expected to contain up to 84 curies of residual radioactivity.
* Some of the underground lines in the area are expected to contain significant residual radioactivity , with one HLW transfer line expected to contain approximately 0.4 curies per linear foot.
* The subsurface soil and groundwater under the Process Building is expected to contain significant levels of residual contamination , from one or more releases of radioactivity that occurred during reprocessing that resulted in the impacted area known as the north plateau groundwater plume .
Waste Management Area 2, Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility
* Lagoon 1, which has been deactivated, is expected to contain approximately 750 curies , predominately Cs-137 and Pu-241 , with most of this amount associated with sediment.
* The sediment in Lagoon 2, some of which was pumped from Lagoon                      in 1984, is expected to contain a similar amount of residual radioactivity.
* The other three lagoons are known to contain residual radioactivity in their sediment, with concentrations much lower than concentrations in Lagoons 1 and 2.
* The water in all four active lagoons is expected to contain low levels of radioactivity ,
with the highest concentrations in Lagoon 2.
* The interceptors and the Neutralization Pit are expected to contain low levels of contamination , with the highest levels in the Old Interceptor.
4 This estimate does not include radioactivity in the 275 vitrified HLW canisters temporarily stored inside the building , which are estimated to contain an average of approximately 30 ,000 curies each in 2011 .
Revision 2                                          ES-15
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* Subsurface soil and groundwater in much of this waste management area has been impacted by Sr-90 associated with the north plateau groundwater plume .
* Surface soil near the interceptors contains low levels of contamination , particularly Cs-137 .
Waste Management Area 3, the Waste Tank Farm Area
* The four underground waste tanks together are expected to contain approximately 345,000 curies of residual rad ioactivity.
* The waste mobilization and transfer pumps , which will be removed during Phase 1, are expected to contain significant amounts of residual radioactivity , with gamma radiation levels around 50 R/h .
* Some of the piping and equipment in the HLW transfer trench , which also will be removed during Phase 1, is also expected to be highly radioactive .
* The Con-Ed Building and the Equipment Shelter and condensers , which will be removed during Phase 1, are expected to contain low levels of residual radioactivity ,
mostly inside equipment.
Waste Management Area 4, Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Area
* Although the buried waste in the landfill was not radioactive when it was emplaced ,
some of it is now expected to be contaminated with low levels of Sr-90 from the north plateau groundwater plume.
* Low levels of radioactivity are present in sediment in drainage ditches and in surface soil in this area .
Waste Management Area 5, Waste Storage Area
* The Remote-Handled Waste Facility is expected to have low levels of residual radioactivity .
* The other remaining facility - Lag Storage Addition 4 and the attached Shipping Depot - is expected to have little if any contamination above detection limits.
* Low-level contamination , especially Cs-137 associated with the cesium prong , is expected in surface soil in much of the area.
* Subsurface soil and groundwater in the eastern side of the area is known to have been impacted by the north plateau groundwater plume.
Waste Management Area 6, Central Project Premises. The soil in the two demineralizer sludge ponds is expected to contain low levels of radioactive contamination , as is the Cooling Tower basin , the remaining part of the Cooling Tower, which is being removed in establishing the interim end state.
Waste Management Area 7, the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area. The buried radioactive waste in this inactive waste disposal facility is expected to contain approximately 180,000 curies.
Revision 2                                      ES-16
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Waste Management Area 8, the State-Licensed Disposal Area. The buried radioactive waste in this inactive waste disposal facility is expected to contain approximately 83,000 curies. The State-Licensed Disposal Area is not within the scope of this plan, as noted previously.
Waste Management Area 9, the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area. The Drum Cell is expected to have little if any radioactive contamination above detection limits.
Waste Management Area 10, the Support and Services Area. No facilities in this area are expected to have been impacted by radioactivity.
Waste Management Area 12, Balance of the Site. Only the small part of this waste management area within the project premises security fence is within the scope of this plan .
The sediment in Erdman Brook and the portion of Franks Creek within the fenced area is expected to contain low levels of contamination , especially Cs-137.
The Decommissioning Objective The overall objective of Phase 1 of the decommissioning is to remove certain facilities and remediate portions of the project premises to criteria for unrestricted release in the License Termination Rule in 10 CFR 20 .1402, thereby fulfilling part of DOE's responsibilities under the WVDP Act for decontaminating and decommissioning the tanks, facilities , materials, and hardware used in the WVDP in accordance with requirements prescribed by the NRC. The Phase 1 decommissioning activities are intended to reduce short-term and long-term health and safety risks in a manner that will support any approach that could be selected for Phase 2 of the decommissioning, which will complete decontamination and decommissioning of the Center.
Consistent with the overa ll objective of Phase 1, surface soil in certain areas of the project premises may be remediated as necessary to ensure that residual radioactivity concentrations satisfy the cleanup goals discussed below. These areas will be identified after completion of the characterization program. They will undergo Phase 1 final status surveys to ensure that the cleanup goals have been achieved, along with any independent confirmatory surveys to be performed by NRC or its contractor.
The objective of the Phase 1 decommissioning is not license termination of any portion of the Center, which would be beyond DOE's purview since NYSERDA is the NRC licensee. However, the Phase 1 decommissioning activities are designed to support license termination for remediated portions of the project premises if license termination for all or part of the Center were to become an objective for Phase 2 of the decommissioning~
Decommissioning Controls The decommissioning will be accomplished by a contractor employed by DOE. DOE will provide appropriate oversight. The decommissioning organization will be structured to ensure that certain functions - radiological controls, health and safety, and quality assurance - are independent of the organizational elements performing the work.
The decommissioning will be accomplished in accordance with applicable DOE and NRC requirements, and in accordance with applicable requirements of other federal agencies and the Revision 2                                        ES-17
WVDP PHASE        1 DE.COMMISSIONING      PLAN State of New York. However, given DOE's authority under the WVDP Act and , and considering that the Department is not the NRC licensee for the site, certain aspects of the decommissioning will b.e controlled in accordance with DOE procedures, i.e. , DOE regulations , directives, and technical standards. These aspects are:
* Project management and organization ,
* Radiological safety controls and monitoring of workers,
* Environmental monitoring and control , and
* Radioactive waste management.
DCGLs and Cleanup Goals To support Phase 1 decommissioning activities and later decisions for Phase 2 of the decommissioning, derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) were developed for surface soil , subsurface soil in the deep WMA 1 and WMA 2 excavations , and stream bed sediment using the RESRAD RESidual RADioactivity computer Code, Version 6.4 and other models . To ensure that the conceptual models initially used in DCGL development were sufficiently conservative, a number of alternative conceptual models were also analyzed. These included evaluation of potential doses to offsite receptors from radioactivity displaced by erosion.
One alternative conceptual model for subsurface soil DCGL development involved consideration of continuing releases of residual radioactivity from the bottom of the remediated deep excavations, as well as radioactivity brought to the surface during installation of a cistern type well. This multi-source conceptual model proved to be more limiting than other conceptual models for most radionudides of interest.
Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify mode.I input parameters with the most i n~ uence on dose . In addition, a probabilistic uncertainty analysis was performed using RESRAD Version 6.4 to help ensure that key model input parameters were sufficiently conservative.
Table ES-1 provides the calculated DCGLs for 18 radionuclides of interest for surface soil ,
subsurface soil , and streambed sediment. These DCGLs, which take into account the results of the alternate conceptual model analyses and the probabilistic uncertainty analysis, assure that the dose to the average member of the critical group will not exceed 25 millirem per year when considering the dose contribution from each radionuclide individually.5 5
The DCGLs for Sr-90 and Cs-137 apply to the year 2041 and later, that is, they incorporate a 30-year decay period from 2011 . The 30-year decay period was selected for these key rad ionuclides because of their short half-life . As noted previously, the Phase 2 decision could be made within 10 years of issue of the Record of Decision and Findings Statement documenting the Phase 1 decision . If this approach were to involve unrestricted release of the site, achieving this condition would be expected to take more than 20 years due to the large scope of effort to exhume the underground waste tanks and the NOA. It is therefore highly unlikely that conditions for unrestricted release of the project premises could be established before 2041 . If Phase 2 were to involve closing radioactive facilities in place, then institutional controls would remain in place after 2041 . DOE will be responsible for maintaining institutional control of the project premises and providing for monitoring and maintenance of the project premises until completion of Phase 2 of the decommissioning.
Revision 2                                            ES-18
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table ES-1. DCGLw Values For 25 Millirem per Year (pCi/g)(1J Nuclide                      Surface Soil                Subsurface Soil        Streambed Sediment Am-241                          2.9E+01                        6.3E+03                    1.0E+04 C-14                            1.6E+01                        9.9E+02                    1.8E+03 Cm-243                          3.5E+01                        1.1E+03                    3. 1E+03 Cm-244                          6.5E+01                        2.2E+04                    3.8E+04 2
Cs-137( )                      1.5E+01                        3.0E+02                    1.0E-h03 1-129                          3.3E-01                        7.5E+OO                    7.9E+02 Np-237                          2.6E-01                        1.0E+OO                    3.2E+02 Pu-238                          4.0E+01                        1.3E+04                    1.2E+04 Pu-239                          2.5E+01                        3.1E+03                    1.2E+04 Pu-240                          2.6E+01                        3.4E+03                    1.2E+04 Pu-241                          1.2E+03                        2.4E+05                    3.4E+05 Sr-90(2 )                      4.1E+OO                        2.8E+02                    4.7E+03 Tc-99                          2.1E+01                        5.9E+02                    6.6E+05 U-232                          1.5E+OO                        7.4E+01                    2.2E+02 U-233                          8.3E+OO                        1.9E+02                    2.2E+04 U-234                          8.4E+OO                        2.0E+02                    2.2E+04 U-235                          3.5E+OO                        2.1E+02                    2.3E+03 U-238                          9.8E+OO                        2.1E+02                    8.2E+03 NOTES: (1) The DCGLw is the DCGL applicable to the average concentration over a survey unit.
(2) DCGLs for Sr-90 and Cs-137 apply to the year 2041 and later.
Phase 1 decommissioning activities will involve removal of subsurface soil in the bottom and sides of the large excavation for removal of the Waste Management Area 1 facilities and the large excavation in Waste Management Area 2 for removal of Lagoon 1, Lagoon 2, Lagoon 3, the interceptors, and the Neutralization Pit. Phase 1 decommissioning activities may include remediation of surface soil in selected areas, as discussed previously .
The DCGLs in Table ES-1 were developed considering the separate areas of interest and the critical group for exposure to rad ioactivity in surface soil and subsurface soil is different from the critical group for exposure to radioactivity in streambed sediment. In consideration of this situation , and because only limited portions of the project premises will be remediated during Phase 1 of the decommissioning , two assessments were performed that involved apportioning doses from different portions of the remediated project premises to ensure that DCGLs used for remediation in Phase 1 of the decommissioning will not limit Phase 2 options.
Considering the results of these assessments, and the results of the ALARA analysis discussed below, DOE has established the following cleanup goals, which are lower than the Revision 2                                            ES-19
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN DCGLs, to ensure that remediation accomplished during Phase 1 of the decommissioning will support any approach that might be used during Phase 2 of the decommissioning.
Table ES-2. Cleanup Goals to be Used in Remediation in pCilg(1>
4 Nuclide                        Surface Soi1<3 >            Subsurface Soi1< >          Streambed Sediment Am-241                              2.6E+-01                      2.8E+03                        1.0E+03 C-14                                1.5E+01                        4.5E+02                        1.8E+02 Cm-243                              3.1E+01                        5.0E+02                        3.1E+02 Cm-244                              5.8E+01                        9.9E+03                        3.8E+03 Cs-13i 2>                            1.4E+01                        1.4E+02                        1.0E+02 1-129                                2.9E-01                        3.4E+OO                        7.9E+01 Np-237                              2.3E-01                        4.5E-01                        3.2E+01 Pu-238                              3.6E+01                        5.9E+03                        1.2E+03 Pu-239                              2.3E+01                        1.4E+03                        1.2E+03 Pu-240                              2.4E+01                        1.5E+03                        1.2E+03 Pu-241                              1.0E+03                        1.1E+05                        3.4E+04 Sr-90<2>                            3.7E+OO                        1.3E+02                        4.7E+02 Tc-99                                1.9E+01                        2.7E+02                        6.6E+04 U-232                                1AE+OO                        3.3E+01                        2.2E+01 U-233                                7.5E+OO                        8.6E+01                        2.2E+03 U-234                                7.6E+OO                        9.0E+01                        2.2E+03 U-235                                3.1E+OO                        9.5E+01                        2.3E+02 U-238                                8.9E+OO                        9.5E+01                        8.2E+02 NOTES: (1) These cleanup goals, which ; like the DCGLw values in Table ES-1 , apply to the average concentration over a survey unit, are to be used as the criteria for the Phase 1 remediation activities.
(2) Cleanup goals for Sr-90 and Cs-137 apply to the year 2041 and later. That is, they incorporate a 30-year decay period from 2011 . The 30-year decay period was selected for these key radionuclides because of their short half-life. License termination actions that may take place in Phase 2 of the decommissioning will not likely be fully implemented before 2041 .
(3) The surface soil cleanup goals apply to the upper one meter (3.3 feet) of surface soil.
(4) The subsurface soil cleanup goals apply only to the bottoms of the large WMA 1 and WMA 2 excavations and to the sides of these excavations one meter (3.3 feet) or more below the surface.
Since these cleanup goals were developed for individual radionuclides of interest, a sum-of-fractions approach based on radionuclide distributions in different areas will be used to ensure that potential doses from the remediated areas will be no more than the dose from one of the individual radionuclides at the concentration specified in Table ES-2 .
Although the subsurface soil cleanup goals in Table ES-2 form the criteria for residual radioactivity in the two large excavations, remediation plans involve excavation at least one foot into the Lavery till and, in Waste Management Area 2, at least one foot below the sediment in the bottoms of Lagoons 2 and 3. This approach is expected to produce residual radioactivity levels Revision 2                                                  ES-20
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN well below the cleanup goals, based on limited existing data on residual radioactive contamination in the Lavery till. A preliminary, order-of-magnitude dose analysis using these data suggests that potential futures doses from these excavated areas will be approximately eight millirem per year for Waste Management Area 1 and approximately 0.2 millirem per year for Waste Management Area 2.
After additional characterization data become available, the DCGLs and the cleanup goals will be reevaluated using these data and refined as appropriate. After the Phase 1 decommissioning activities have been completed , another dose analysis using Phase 1 final status survey data will be performed to estimate the potential doses from the remediated subsurface areas.
Summary of ALARA Evaluations DOE has performed a preliminary cost-benefit analysis using NRC methodology to determine whether removal of soil or sediment with radioactivity concentrations below the DCGLs will be consistent with the ALARA principal. These analyses compared the cost of disposal of additional soil or sediment with the reduction in radiation exposure associated with removal of additional soil or sediment below the DCGLs valued at $2000 per person-rem as set forth in NRC guidance.
They indicate that removal of soil or sediment with radioactivity concentrations below the DCGLs will not be cost-effective.
DOE will perform another similar analysis when the subsurface soil remediation work is in progress (and when surface soil and streambed sediment remediation is in progress, if that work is done in Phase 1) to confirm the results of the preliminary ALARA evaluation . This second ,
more-detailed analysis will use updated information and consider other factors such as other societal and socioeconomic considerations and costs related to transportation of additional waste.
Th is second analysis will also consider the impacts of using lower discount rates on the estimated cost of remediation so that intergenerational concerns are taken into account.
Initiation and Completion Dates Subject to the decision in the Record of Decision for the Decommissioning EIS, expected to be issued in early 2010 , DOE will begin Phase 1 of the decommissioning in 2011 and it is expected to last approximately eight to 1.0 years.
Post-Remediation Activities The post remediation activities fall into fv.'.o categories: (1) a monitoring and maintenance program and (2) an institutional control program , both of which focus on the project premises.
The monitoring and maintenance program will continue until Phase 2 of the decommissioning .
starts, when it will be reevaluated . It will include an environmental monitoring program ta ilored to conditions that will exist at the conclusion of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities. This program will monitor onsite groundwater, storm water, and air, along with onsite and offsite surface water, sediment, and radiation. Groundwater monitoring will be accomplished using approximately 36 monitoring wells .
Revision 2                                        ES-21
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The monitoring and maintenance program will also ensure that important facilities and systems serye their intended purposes. Facilities and systems within the scope of this program include:
* The subsurface hydraulic barrier wall and French drain to be installed during Phase 1 on the north and east sides of the excavation for removal of the Waste Management Area 1 facilities ,
* The subsurface hydraulic barrier wall to be installed during Phase 1 on the northwest and northeast sides of the excavation for removal of key Waste Management Area 2 facilities ,
* The tank and vault drying system for the underground waste tanks that is to be installed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning,
* The dewatering well used to minimize in-leakage into the underground waste tank vaults ,
* The hydraulic barrier wall and geomembrane cover for the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area ,
and
* The security features and monitoring systems installed for the new Canister Interim Storage Facility to be established on the south plateau.
Performance of the hydraulic barrier walls will be assessed with hydraulic monitoring piezometers.
Insofar as institutional controls are concerned , DOE will continue control of the project premises and provide for monitoring and maintenance of the project premises until completion of DOE's Phase 2 decommissioning requirements . Institutional controls will include security fences and signs along the perimeter of the project premises, a full-time security force , provisions for controlled access through designated gateways, and appropriate security measures for the new Canister Interim Storage Facility on the south plateau, which will be established during Phase 1 of the decommissioning. DOE will be responsible for institutional controls for the new Canister Interim Storage Facility until the HLW canisters are shipped offsite.
Revision 2                                      ES-22
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING        PLAN
==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION The purpose of this section is to provide introductory information to help readers understand this plan, which is particularly complex for several reasons.
INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION This section explains the purpose of this plan and describes its scope. It briefly summarizes the background related to the decommissioning .
It then discusses the two environmental impact statements that pertain to the decommissioning, along with the decommissioning criteria. It briefly describes four programs pertaining to the decommissioning that will be carried out in accordance with Department of Energy directives and technical standards: (1) project management and organization, (2) the health and safety program, (3) the environmental monitoring and control program , and (4) the radioactive waste management program.
It describes the interim end state for the site that will be reached at the conclusion of deactivation work scheduled to end in 2011, which will form the starting conditions for the Phase 1 decommissioning work. It then briefly summarizes the Phase 1 decommissioning work.
Finally, this introduction briefly describes the responsibilities of the organizations involved, explains how the plan is organized, and describes the process to be used to control changes to the plan after initial issue .
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS The information in this section establishes the context for the other parts of this plan.
1.1      Purpose This plan is being issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to fulfill part of its statutory obligations under Public Law 96-368, the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act of 1980, which holds DOE responsible for decontamination and decommissioning of facilities used in solidification of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and 1
material and hardware used in connection with this project.
The decommissioning is being accomplished in two phases following a "phased decision-making" approach . This plan addresses Phase 1, describing :
( 1) The activities that will take place during this phase of the decommissioning ;
1 The WVDP Act states that "The Secretary [of Energy] shall decontaminate and decommission (A) the tanks and other facilities of the Center in which the high level waste solidified under the project was stored , (B) the facilities used in the solidification of the waste, and (C) any material and hardware used in connection with the project, in accordance with such requirements that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may prescribe."
Revision 2                                              1-1
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (2) The site conditions that will exist at the conclusion of Phase 1; and (3) The methods that will be used to organize and manage the project, to protect the health and safety of workers and the public, to protect the environment, and to ensure quality in the decommissioning work.
Phase 2 of the decommissioning will be accomplished using an approach determined to be the most appropriate after completion of additional Phase 1 studies and evaluations for remaining facilities .
Th is plan also provides information to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the first of the two phases of the WVDP decommissioning , consistent with the related 1981 Memorandum of Understanding betweer:i DOE and NRC (DOE and NRC 1981 ), wh ich calls for DOE to submit a decommissioning plan to NRC for review. On February 3, 2003, NRC specifically requested that DOE submit a decommissioning plan for the WVDP portion of the site (NRC 2003a). DOE agreed to do so in its response of February 28, 2003 (DOE 2003a).
1.2  Scope Under the provisions of the WVDP Act, DOE exercises control over a portion of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (the Center) for the purpose of carrying out the WVDP . The Center is owned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) , who is the NRC licensee.
The area controlled by DOE comprises approximately 168 acres, lies in the approximate middle of the Center, and contains the facilities used by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) from 1966 through 1972 to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. This area is known as the project premises.
A small stream divides the project premises into two regions known as the north plateau and the south plateau . The facilities used by NFS are located on the north plateau , with the exception of two shallow land radioactive waste disposal facilities known as the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (NOA) and the State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) 2 , which are located on the south plateau.
The facilities of interest in Phase 1 of the decommissioning are located on the north plateau , with one exception : the WVDP Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell on the south plateau , which was used for radioactive waste storage. Phase 1 of the WVDP decommissioning will entail removal of the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell and all of the north plateau facilities with the exceptions of the Waste Tank Farm with its four underground waste storage tanks , the Waste Tank Farm supporting facil ities, and the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill.
Phase 1 activities include remediation of the "source area" portion of the impacted area known as the north plateau groundwater plume, where groundwater and subsurface soil is 2
The SDA, wh ich is not part of the project premises, is managed by NYSERDA, licensed by the New York State Department of Health, and permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
Revision 2                                            1-2
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN contaminated with radioactivity from spent fuel reprocessing . The source area lies underneath the Main Plant Process Building (Process Building). The non-source area of the plume, which is downgradient of the building , will be considered during Phase 2 of the decommissioning .
Phase 1 includes removal of impacted soil in excavations dug to remove the facilities in the Process Building and Vitrification area and in a portion of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility area . Phase 1 also includes characterization of soil and stream sediment within the project premises , especially in the Phase 1 areas.3 Phase 2, which this plan does not address, would complete the decommissioning for the Waste Tank Farm , the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill area , the NOA, the non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, and the other remaining impacted areas of the project premises . Phase 2 actions will complete the decommissioning according to the approach determined most appropriate during the additional Phase 1 evaluations for each remaining facility, as previously noted. The studies to be performed during Phase 1 are curre111tly being evaluated by DOE and NYSERDA, the joint lead agencies developing the Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissionjng and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center (the Decommissioning EIS, which is discussed in Section 1.4.2). Such studies could include :
* Characterization studies, which would include sampling of surface soil, subsurface soil, and stream sediments along with characterization of selected underground piping that would be exposed during other removal activities; and
* Data collection and studies, such as monitoring and evaluating technology developments regarding disposal facilities for orphan waste , underground waste tank cleaning and exhumation , along with research related to long-term performance of engineered barriers and work to enhance site erosion and hydrology models and exhuming buried radioactive waste.
DOE and NYSERDA will evaluate and consider several factors during Phase 1, including:
* The results of analyses to estimate the impacts of residual radioactivity that will remain after compl etion of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities;
* The additional information developed in the studies to be carried out in Phase 1; and
* The availability of new technologies that might be appli ed in Phase 2.
3 The project prem ises is the portion of the site controlled by DOE as shown in Figure 1-1 . The Phase 1 areas are those within the scope of this plan . The Phase 2 areas are the Waste Tank Farm area , the Construction and Demol ition Debris Landfi ll , the non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, and the NDA.
Although the Waste Tank Farm area is considered to be a Phase 2 area , limited work will be performed in this area during Phase 1, as shown in Table 1-1. Characterization of soil and sediment in the Phase 2 source areas will be limited and will not include the NDA.
Revision 2                                              1-3
WVDP PHASE          1 DECOMMISSIONING          PLAN Tihe evaluations will take into account the status of the underground waste tanks and tl'Je two waste disposal areas, which will be reviewed at approximateJy five-year intervals, along wi th the various decommissioning or long-term management approaches. Tthe final decision on the Phase 2 decommissioning and long-t erm management approach could be made within 10 y ears of the date of issue of the Phase 1 IRecorC!l of Decisi on.
These studies and evaluations are beyond the scope of this plan , except for the soil and sediment characterization within the project premises to be accomplished early in Phase 1, which is discussed in Section 1.10.2.
The Phase 1 activities are designed to be conservative with respect to the extent of remediation in the areas of interest to avoid prejudicing the decision on the Phase 2 approach . More information on the facilities within the scope of this Phase 1 plan appears in Section 1.10.2.
While this plan provides for removal of certain radioactive facilities and remediation of surface and subsurface soil on portions of the project premises, it does not address license termination of any portion of the site. Licensing matters are not within DOE 's purview since DOE is neither the licensee nor the property owner. However, the work accomplished under this plan will result in data that can potentially be used by NYSERDA in support of license termination for portions of the Center.
This plan focuses primarily on radioactivity. Hazardous and toxic materials are addressed in some instances and activities specified in this plan will be in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, closure of facilities under the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is being addressed separately in coordination with appropriate state and federal agencies and is not within the scope of this plan .
The approach described in this plan represents DOE's preferred alternative among those alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York 4
Nuclear Service Center, hereafter referred to as the Decommissioning EIS. Under this alternative, the decommissioning will be performed in two phases, as indicated above.
The organization and content of this plan are based on NRC guidance in Volume 1 of NUREG-1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees (NRC 2006) and agreements made between NRC and DOE on the applicability of this guidance to the Phase 1 plan (NRC 2008). This plan will be supplemented by more detailed plans for demolition of major facilities that will be completed prior to the start of the decommissioning .
4 When this plan was completed , the Decommissioning EIS existed in the form of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center. If changes are made to the Decommissioning EIS during the course of the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this plan ,
such as changes to the preferred alternative , this plan will be revised as necessary to reflect those changes .
Revision 2                                            1-4
WVDP PHASE          1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The Unique Nature of the Phase 1 Decommissioning Among the atypical elements of this                    Agency that is the NRC licensee ; and (4) decommissioning are (1) the radiological                the    purpose      of    the      Phase        1 complexity of the site; (2) the project being          decommissioning work being limited to carried out under the WVDP Act; (3) the                removing certain facil ities and remed iating project being carried out by a department              impacted soil in certain areas, rather than of the federal government when the                      terminating the NRC license.
property is owned by a New York State 1.3    Background Situated approximately 30 miles south of Buffalo on 3,345 acres of property owned by the State of New York, the Center is the location of the only NRC-licensed commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to operate in the United States. NFS reprocessed irradiated nuclear fuel to recover uranium and plutonium until 1972. Figure 1-1 shows a portion of the Center and the WVDP as they appeared in 2006.
The reprocessing operations produced approximately 600 ,000 gallons of HLW, which were stored in two underground waste tanks. These operations were conducted under License CSF-1 , which was issued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1966. After 5
NFS withdrew from the reprocessing business, NYSERDA became the sole licensee.
Reprocessing work resulted in extensive radioactive contamination of site facilities ,
especially the Process Building where the chemical processes that separated uranium and plutonium from fission products in the spent fuel were carried out. The Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility - which included five lagoons - also became contaminated with licensed radioactivity.
Environmental contamination also resulted from site operations. !he contaminated areas of most significance are known today as the north plateau groundwater plume and the cesium prong . The approximate lateral extent of both impacted areas is shown in Figure 1-1.s The north plateau groundwater plume impacts a subsurface area of more than 15 acres under and northeast of the Process Building . This contamination likely resulted from multiple leaks of nitric acid solution containing licensed radioactive material that occurred during fuel reprocessing . Groundwater movement has carried mobile radionuclides such as strontium 90 5
In 1976, NFS informe<l New York State that it intended to withdraw from the reprocessing business and not renew the lease for the property when the initial term expired at the end of 1980. In February of 1982, NFS transferred possession of the reprocessing facil ities to DOE so DOE could carry out its responsibilities under the WVDP Act.
6 Note that the cesium prong area delineated on the figure provides only an approxi mation of the region of su rface soil impacted by th e ventilation system filter fai lure. Data to determine the extent of the resu lting soil contam ination on the project premises are not available. Such data wi ll be collected early in Phase 1 of the decomm issioning to establish the extent of residual surface and near surface soil contamination in the impacted area within the project premises .
Revision 2                                                1-5
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the Process Building. Contamination beneath the Process Building is known to extend at least 40 feet below the ground .
Figure 1-1. The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 The cesium prong is an impacted area that extends northwest of the Process Building as a result of at least two ventilation system accidents that occurred in 1968. A series of investigations that included aerial monitoring surveys has shown that cesium 137 released from the Process Building main stack contaminated surface soil in the northwest part of the Center and offsite .
Streams in the vicinity of the project premises were also impacted with radioactivity from regulated discharges of treated wastewater, surface water runoff, and contaminated groundwater that seeps to the surface at several points on the project premises .
There are also other places on the Center where environmental media have been impacted by unplanned releases of radioactivity . These include low levels of contamination in a drainage channel near a sewage outfall that resulted from a 1974 underground sewer line fa ilure and low levels of contamination in drainage ditches resulting from a 1985 spill of radioactive condensate in the area of the underground waste tanks. Low levels of rad ioactive contamination have also been identified in surface and subsurface soil in other areas.
Revision 2                                        1-6
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN In 1980, Congress enacted the WVDP Act to establish the WVDP as a research and development project to demonstrate solidification techniques for HLW. The WVDP Act assigned the primary responsibility for the project to DOE, although it did not authorize the federal government to acquire title to the HLW.7 Since 1981 , portions of NYSERDA's NRC Part 50 license for the Center, including the technical specifications, have been effectively suspended by NRC to facilitate execution of the provisions of the WVDP Act.
In 2002 , DOE completed solidification of the HLW using a vitrification process. The solidified HLW is contained within 275 stainless steel canisters that are presently stored in the Process Building . This material will have to remain on site until disposition decisions are made and implemented, which is one factor in DOE's decision to pursue a two-phase decommissioning approach .
DOE in recent years has been partially decontaminating portions of the Process Building and other facilities and removing unneeded ancillary facilities in preparation for the WVDP decommissioning. This effort is expected to culminate in 2011 , achieving site conditions known as the interim end state, which are described in Section 1.10.1.
The amounts of residual radioactivity at the site are now substantially less than when the facility was shutdown in 1972 owing to radioactive decay and NFS and WVDP decontamination efforts. However, a significant amount of radioactivity will remain on site when the Phase 1 decommissioning activities are scheduled to begin in 2011 . The estimated amounts in key areas in 2011 , exclusive of radioactivity in the HLW waste canisters, include:
* The Process Building , approximately 6200 curies;
* The Vitrification Facility, approximately 1900 curies;
* Lagoon 1, approximately 750 curies ;
* The four underground waste tanks, approximately 345,000 curies;
* The NOA, approximately, 180,000 curies ; and
* The SDA, approximately, 83,000 curies.
The Process Building , the Vitrification Facility, and the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility lagoons are addressed in Phase 1 of the decommissioning , as explained below. The other facilities - commonly referred to, along with the radioactivity in the non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, as Phase 2 sources - will be addressed in Phase 2 of the decommissioning.
7 The WVDP Act states in pertinent part: "The Secretary [of DOE] shall carry out, in accordance with this Act, a high level radioactive waste demonstration project at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York , for the purpose of demonstrating solidification techniques which can be used for preparing high level radioactive waste for disposal. . .. The State will make available to the Secretary the facilities of the Center and the high level radioactive waste at the Center which are necessary for completion of the project.
The facil ities and the waste shall be made available without transfer of title and for such period as may be required for completion of the project. "
Revision 2                                            1-7
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1.4  Environmental Impact Statements In 1996, DOE prepared a Draft EIS covering the remain ing actions to be completed under the WVDP Act and evaluating different alternatives for closure and long-term stewardship of the facilities at the Center. Based upon comments received , ongoing discussions between DOE and NYSERDA, and various other factors , DOE decided not to move forward with the 1996 Draft EIS in its immediate form . Instead , DOE decided to revise its strategy to address the remaining activities required under the WVDP Act in two phases (and two EISs) - the first covering short-term , offsite waste disposal activities and the second covering longer-term closure and stewardship activities.
1.4.1    Waste Management EIS The Final West Va lley Demonstrati on Project Waste Management EIS (DOE 2003b) on short-term , offsite waste disposal activities was issued by DOE on January 12, 2004. It addresses, as DOE's preferred alternative :
* Continued onsite management of HLW until disposition decisions are made and            I implemented ,
* Shipping low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed (radioactive and hazardous)
LLW offsite for disposal ,
* Shipping transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad , New Mexico, and
* Actively managing the underground waste tanks , including ventilating them to minimize moisture and associated corrosion .
The Waste Management EIS Record of Decision was issued in the Federal Register on June 16, 2005 (70 FR 115). It partially implemented the preferred alternative, deferring the decision on transuranic waste shipment pending a determination that this waste meets all statutory and regulatory requirements for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
1.4.2    Decommissioning EIS The Decommissioning EIS addresses DOE's remaining activities under the WVDP Act, any waste management activities that could arise as a result of decommissioning activities, and activities related to decommissioning or long-term stewardship of the balance of the Center. DOE and NYSERDA are jointly preparing this EIS .
The Decommissioning EIS also evaluates potential management and disposition actions for those facilities and areas, including the SDA, for which NYSERDA is responsible . The NRC is participating in the Decommissioning EIS as a cooperating agency, as are the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NYSDEC, and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). A Notice of Intent to prepare the Decommissioning EIS appeared in the Federal Register on March 13, 2003 (68 FR 49) .
Revision 2                                      1-8
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN As noted previously, the decommissioning approach described in this plan is DOE's preferred alternative in the Decommissioning EIS. If changes to that document occur during the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this plan, such as changes to the preferred alternative, this plan will be revised as necessary to reflect the changes. The activities under the Decommissioning Plan will begin only after issuance of the Decommissioning EIS Record of Decision.
1.5  Decommissioning Criteria Under the authority of the WVDP Act, the NRC in 2002 issued its Final Policy Statement on the decommissioning criteria for the WVDP (67 FR 22) specifying the application of its License Termination Rule (10 CFR 20, Subpart E) to the decommissioning . This policy statement indicated that the final end-state may involve a long-term or even perpetual license for parts of the site where cleanup to License Termination Rule requirements would be prohibitively expensive or technically impractical. The policy statement also indicated that closure of the underground waste tanks (if the tanks were to be closed in place) must meet specified criteria for incidental waste as set forth in NRC's Final Policy Statement.
The criteria of the License Termination Rule are being applied to the decommissioning of: (1) underground waste tanks and other facilities in which HLW, solidified under the project, was stored; (2) facilities used in the solidification of the waste ; and (3) any material and hardware used in connection with the WVDP.
Requirements in 10 CFR 20.1402 address license termination without restrictions .
Requirements in 10 CFR 20.1403 address license termination under restricted conditions.
The unrestricted release criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 state that a site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a total effective dose equivalent to an average member of the critical group that does not exceed 25 mrem per year, including that from groundwater sources of drinking water, and the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Determination of the levels which are ALARA must take into 9ccount consideration of any detriments, such as deaths from transportation accidents, expected to potentially result from decontamination and waste disposal.
The restricted release criteria of 10 CFR 20.1403 involve addressing matters such as the following:
* That residual radioactivity levels are ALARA;
* Provisions for legally enforceable institutional controls that provide reasonable assurance that the total effective dose equivalent to the average member of the critical group will not exceed 25 mrem per year;
* Financial assurance ;
* Considering the advice of individuals and institutions in the community who may be affected by the decommissioning or planned institutional controls ; and Revision 2                                        1-9
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* That residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if the institutional controls were no longer in effect, there is reasonable assurance that the total effective dose equivalent from residual radioactivity to the average member of the critical group is ALARA and would not exceed either (1) 100 mrem per year or (2) 500 mrem per year provided certain conditions are met.
In 2003, NRC issued an Implementation Plan for its Final Policy Statement on the Decommissioning Criteria for the WVDP (NRC 2003b).
Although Phase 1 of the WVDP decommissioning will not resul t in license termination under either restricted or unrestricted cond itions, this plan does include derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) and associated cleanup goals to be used for remediation of surface and subsurface soil in the excavated areas on the project premises 8
described previously that are based on the unrestricted release criteria of 10 CFR 20 .1402.
The cleanup goals take into account the results of a limited , site-wide integrated dose assessment. This assessment was performed to ensure that cond itions in the excavations for the Process Building-Vitrification Facility and Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility lagoon areas at the conclusion of Phase 1 will not limit potential approaches that may be considered for Phase 2 of the decommissioning .
1.6    Project Management and Organization The project will be managed in accordance with DOE requirements in a manner similar to deactivation work currently underway at the WVDP . Necessary tasks will be defined and scheduled . Appropriate schedules will be used for this purpose , such as a long-range schedule, short-range schedules, and plans-of-the-week. NRC will be provided copies of these schedules for information .
Implementing plans will be prepared as necessary in support of the work. Examples of these plans include:
* A Health and Safety Plan to implement requirements outlined in Section 1.7;
* Decommissioning Work Plans for demolition of major facilities , which are discussed in Section 7;
* A Quality Assurance Project Plan , which is described in Section 8;
* A Characterization Sample and Analysis Plan , which is described in Section 9,
* A Waste Management Plan to implement requirements outlined in Section 1.9; and
* A Final Status Survey Plan , which is also described in Section 9.
NRC will be provided copies of these plans for information .
8 The DCGLs and cleanup goals for Sr-90 and Cs-137 incorporate a 30-year decay period from 2011 . That is ,
achieving res idual radioactivity levels less than the cleanup goals for these radionu clides will ensure that dose criteria of 10 CFR 20 .1402 will be met in 2041 and any time thereafter, around the time when the vitrified HLW canisters were expected to be shipped to the federal geolog ic repository when Revision 0 to this plan was issued. The year for shipping the vitrified HLW canisters offsite is uncertain until disposition decisions are made and implemented; however, shipment is not expected to take place before 2041 .
Revision 2                                              1-10
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING    PLAN Detailed engineering designs for the decommissioning will be developed based on the conceptual designs outlined in this plan . Detailed design information on the folloWing engineered features will be provided to NRC to provide an opportunity for NRC to review and comment on the safety aspects of the designs: the *designs for the large excavations in WMA 1 and WMA 2, including the !hydraulic barriers, the French drain , the groundwater control provisions, and the groundwater monitoring system as discussed in Section 7 and Appendix D.
DOE will also provide information on the detailed design of the 111ew Canister Interim Storage Facility to NRC and consult w ith NRC on the related documented safety a111alysis.
Written procedures will be prepared as necessary to support the project activities. Work packages would be used for individual procedures or groups of procedures. After completion of work activities, the work packages would be formally closed out to ensure that all required work was accomplished .
Radiological work permits will be prepared as necessary and approved by the Rad iological Control Manager or his or her designee in accordance with applicable DOE procedures. Persons working in areas covered by radiological work permits will be briefed before starting work in accordance with DOE procedures.
Training of project personnel will be commensurate with their experience, their responsibilities and the potential hazards to which they could be exposed . Records will be maintained showing the employee's name, training date , type of training received and other relevant information. This training will include, as applicable:
* General Employee Training , which will consist of a general orientation on site requirements and policies;
* Radiation worker training , with formal written and practical examinations to certify that the individuals are qualified as radiation workers ;
* Radiological control technician training , also with formal written and practical examinations to certify individual qualification ;
* Job-specific training , which will be performed as appropriate for individual jobs; and
* Pre-shift briefings, which will be conducted as appropriate at the beginning of each work shift.
DOE will employ a contractor to accomplish the Phase 1 decommissioning activities 9 . The decommissioning contractor organization will provide the necessary functions to this end, such as operations, engineering , radiological controls, health and safety, quality assurance, and tra ining.
The decommissioning contractor senior executive will be responsible to the Director of the WVDP for carrying out the decommissioning work in accordance with applicable DOE requ irements and guidance as specified in the contract. The requirements will include this plan and all of its provisions , such as those associated with the health and safety program ,
9 DOE may employ more than one contractor.
Revision 2                                        1-11
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN environmental monitoring and control, and radioactive waste management as specified in the subsections that follow. Additional contractual provisions may also be invoked by DOE, such as compliance with DOE-STD-1107-97, Knowledge; Skills, and Abilities for Key Radiation Protection Positions at DOE Facilities , and with DOE Order 5480.20A, Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for Nuclear Facilities .
1.7  Health and Safety Program The health and safety program for Phase 1 of the decommissioning will be based on DOE procedures. This approach is consistent with DOE's authority and responsibilities to protect human health and safety under applicable laws and the provisions of the WVDP Act.
The DOE procedures that address radiological safety controls during decomm issioning appear in the form of regulations , directives (orders, policies; guides, and manuals), and supplemental technical standards , and in contract conditions with its site or decommissioning contractors. DOE and its decommissioning contractor will follow these procedures for radiation safety controls and monitoring for workers during Phase 1 of the decommissioning ,
along with other applicable requirements and guidance.
Among the applicable DOE procedures is a policy statement that expresses the Department's position to ensure that radiation exposures to its workers and the public and releases of radioactivity to the environment are maintained below regulatory limits, and that deliberate efforts are taken to further reduce exposures and releases to ALARA. This statement appears in DOE Policy 441.1 .
Applicable requirements include the following :
* 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management
* 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection
* 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection
* DOE Policy 450.4, Safety Management System Policy
* DOE Order 420.1 B, Facility Safety
* DOE Order 430 .1 B, Real Property Asset Management
* DOE Order 5400 .5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment
* DOE Manual 231 .1-1 A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting Manual The Department's supplementc:il technical standards associated with these requirements will also be followed.
1.8  Environmental Monitoring and Control DOE has maintained an extensive environmental monitoring and control program at the site since 1982 to satisfy the environmental monitoring requirements of federal and state laws and regulations and of DOE Orders and technical standards , and to comply with environmental permits that have been issued to the WVDP by NYSDEC and the EPA.
Annual environmental monitoring reports (WVES and URS 2008) describe the results of this program .
Revision 2                                      1-12
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The environmental monitoring and control program that will be implemented during Phase 1 of the decommissioning will be based on the program currently in place at the WVDP. It will continue to comply with federal and state laws, federal and state environmental permits , DOE Orders and technical standards , and other applicable requirements and guidance under which the WVDP operates, which are consistent with the applicable NRC requirements of 10 CFR 20 .
Three major elements of th is program are : (1) the ALARA evaluation program , (2) the effluent monitoring program , and (3) the effluent control program . The program will be modified as necessary during decommissioning to ensure comp liance with applicable requirements . As noted in Section 1.7, it is DOE policy to ensure that releases of radioactivity to the environment are maintained below regulatory limits, and that deliberate efforts are taken to further reduce releases to ALARA (DOE Policy 441 .1).
The decommissioning environmental program will meet the following monitoring and 9ontrol requirements :
* Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended
* Clean Water Act of 1977
* Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
* Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951)
* Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961)
* Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements (58 FR 150)
* Executive Order 13101 , Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition (63 FR 179)
* Executive Order 13148, Greening the            Government through      Leadership    in Environmental Management (65 FR 81)
* 10 CFR 830 .122, Quality Assurance Criteria
* 40 CFR 61 , National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
* 40 CFR 141 , National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
* 40 CFR 143, National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
* DOE Manual 231 .1-1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting Manual
* DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance
* DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management
* DOE Order 440.1B, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal Employees
* DOE Order 450 .1, Environmental Protection Program Revision 2                                      1-13
WVOP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* DOE Order 451 .1 B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program
* DOE Order 5400 .5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment DOE and the decommissioning contractor will also comply with applicable DOE technical standards, active site environmental permits , and active administrative orders of consent associated with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Note that information specified in NUREG-17 48, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC 2003c) , that is normally provided in decommissioning plans, can be found in Section 3 of this plan , in the Decommissioning EIS, or both .
1.9    Radioactive Waste Management The radioactive waste management program for Phase 1 of the decommissioning will also be based on DOE procedures, consistent with the provisions of the WVDP Act. The WVDP Act states that DOE shall , in accordance with applicable license requirements, dispose of LLW and transuranic waste produced by the solidification of the HLW under the 10 project.
The DOE procedures that address waste management appear in the form of requirements contained in the Code of Federal Regulations , in DOE Orders, and in guidance contained in supplemental technical standards . DOE and its decommissioning contractor will follow these procedures for management of radioactive waste during Phase 1 of the decommissioning , along with other applicable requirements and guidance.
The principal requirements for management of DOE radioactive waste appear in DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. This order applies to HLW, transuranic waste ,
and LLW, and to the radioactive component of mixed waste. Additional detailed requirements appear in DOE Manual 435.1-1 , Radioactive Waste Management Manual. Detailed guidance for implementation of these requirements is given in DOE Guide 435.1, Implementation Guide for Use with DOE M 435. 1.
Other applicable requirements include the following :
* 10 CFR 830.120 , Quality Assurance Requirements
* 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection
* DOE Order 414.1 C, Quality Assurance
* DOE Order 460 .1B, Packaging and Transportation Safety The Phase 1 decommissioning waste management activities will also be consistent with applicable federal laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as 10 The WVDP Act also states that DOE "shall , as soon as feasible , transport in accordance with applicable provisions of law, the waste solidified at the Center [the vitrified HLW canisters] to an appropriate Federal repos itory for permanent disposal." This activity will take place in Phase 2 of the decomm issioning once disposition decisions related to the HLW are made and implemented.
Revision 2                                              1-14
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended , and with applicable permits and consent orders. These activities will also be consistent with other applicable DOE guidance, such as that contained in DOE Guide 460 .1-1, Implementation Guide for Use with DOE Order 460. 1A.
All radioactive waste produced during the decommissioning will be disposed of offsite at appropriate government-owned or commercial facil ities. In some cases , waste produced will be temporarily stored onsite for later shipment. Note that at the time th is plan was completed ,
there was no approved disposal path for transuranic waste that will be generated during Phase 1 of the decommissioning . Transuranic waste generated will therefore be temporarily stored onsite until such time that it can be shipped to an approved disposal facil ity.
1.10 Planned End States Before and After Phase 1 Site deactivation activities will produce conditions known as the interim end state that will be the conditions in effect at the start of the Phase 1 decommissioning work.
1.10.1 The Interim End State The map of the project premises shown in Figure 1-2 depicts the facilities that will still be in place at the start of Phase 1 decommissioning activities . It shows the waste management areas (WMAs) into which the project premises has been divided for remediation purposes. It also shows the two large excavations for removal of facilities in WMA 1 and WMA 2 during the Phase 1 decommissioning work, as explained in Section 1.10.2 below.
The deactivation activities required to achieve the interim end state will include removal of other ancillary facilities not shown in Figure 1-2. Certain facilities will be partially decontaminated to facilitate demolition during Phase 1 without the use of radiological containment. Section 3 of this plan describes the facilities in detail.
Revision 2                                        1-15
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN JG!SJA1cM                ""1-10      ~ h'!t
                                                /
I N
    *                                                                  ,,.. I I
                                                                                      / ,-;<)
                                                                                            ~
{'
                                                                                              \
                                                                                              \ "'
                                                                                                \
I A
                                                                                                                        ~~
WMA12 Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Excavation
                                                                                                            /
I WMA12 L@gend c:::J v.sae~ntN*s D WI/Of' . . _
CJ Coler..............        -            S<*....
                                  ~ Gnl...._            ...
0                            1,000 Feet LJ ........ Rood Figure 1-2. The Project Premises Showing WMAs and the Phase 1 Excavations Revision 2                                                          1-16
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WMA1 The partially decontaminated facilities in WMA 1 are the Process Building , the Vitrification Facility, and the 01-14 Building . The other facilities that will remain within WMA 1 when the interim end state is reached are the Utility Room, the Utility Room Expansion, the Plant Office Building , the Load-in/Load-out Facility, the Electrical Substation , the Fire Pumphouse , and the Water Storage Tank. Figure 1-3 shows these facilities , along with the Laundry Room , which will be removed in achieving the interim end state .11 Figure 1-3. WMA 1 Area in 2007 WMA2 The facilities that will remain in WMA 2, the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility area ,
when the interim end state is reached include the five lagoons, with Lagoon 1 having been backfilled in 1984; the LLW2 Facility; the two New Interceptors; the Old Interceptor; the Neutralization Pit; the inactive Solvent Dike, the pilot permeable treatment wall; and the Maintenance Shop Leach Field. Concrete floor slabs and foundations for removed facilities such as the Maintenance Shop will also remain in place. Figure 1-4 shows this area .
One additional facility will be installed in WMA 2 as part of the work to achieve the interim end state: a full-scale permeable treatment wall to control the leading edge of the north plateau groundwater plume.
11 The Electrical Substation , which is located beh ind the Process Building, cannot be seen in the photograph .
Revision 2                                            1-17
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 1-4. WMA 2 in 2007 WMA3 In WMA 3, the four underground waste tanks will remain in place, along with the Permanent Ventilation System Building , the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building , the Equipment Shelter and condensers , the Con-Ed Building , and the HLW transfer 12 trench . The tank drying system used to dry up liquid in the waste tanks may be operational .
The tank mobilization and transfer pumps and their support structures will remain in place .
OtherWMAs The closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill will remain in WMA 4. A full-scale passive permeable treatment wall is expected to be installed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning to mitigate the off-site migration of Sr-90 contaminated groundwater in the sand and gravel unit in the north plateau. It is expected to be composed of granular zeolite to reduce Sr-90 concentrations in groundwater through ion-exchange and be located in WMA 2 immediately south of the Construction Demolition and Debris Landfill in WMA 4.
Two buildings will remain in WMA 5, Lag Storage Addition 4 and its associated shipping depot and the Remote-Handled Waste Facility. Two structures will remain in WMA 6 along with the Equalization Basin, the Equalization Tank, and the two demineralizer sludge ponds.
The Old Sewage Treatment Plant will have been completely removed .
12 The tank and vault drying system may be operational when Phase 1 of the decomm issioning begins , but
* some liquid is expected to still be present in the tanks at that time.
Revision 2                                            1-18
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The NOA will remain in place in WMA 7, with the Interim Waste Storage Area removed and a new geomembrane cover and upgradient hydraulic barrier wall installed to control infiltration . The Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell will remain in place in WMA 9. The New Warehouse, the Meteorological Tower, and the Security Gatehouse will remain in place in WMA 10, along with the security fence that surrounds the project premises.
1.10.2 Facilities and Areas Within Phase 1 Scope Table 1-1 lists the facilities that are within the scope of Phase 1 of the decommissioning.
These facilities are described in Section 3 of this plan. Figures 1-5 and 1-6 show their locations on the project premises . Remediation of surface soil and sediment on the project premises will be accomplished as indicated in the table.
The new Canister Interim Storage Facility for the vitrified HLW canisters will be constructed on the south plateau near the rail spur early in Phase 1 and the canisters moved 13 to this location. The HLW canisters will be stored at this facility inside shielded canisters .
The soil and sediment characterization program described in Section 9 will be accomplished to better define the nature and extent of radioactive contamination in soil and stream sediment on the project premises. However, removal of contaminated soil excess of the cleanup goals will be limited to the areas of the major excavations in WMA 1 and WMA 2 unless DOE elects to provide for additional surface soil remediation after evaluation of the characterization data .
Before the large excavations for removal of the Process Building and the Low-Level 14 Waste Treatment Facility shown in Figure 1-2 are filled in, Phase 1 final status surveys of the excavated areas will be performed and arrangements made for regulator confirmatory surveys. The same process will be used for excavations associated with removal of concrete floor slabs, foundations, and gravel pads, which will be up to two feet deep.
Mitigative measures will be taken as described in Section 7 to eliminate or reduce potential impacts to human health and the environment during the decommissioning work and to prevent recontamination of remediated areas.
13 Section 7 of this plan describes the general conceptual design of the new Canister Interim Storage Facility, which may be changed somewhat as the design is finalized .
14 These surveys will be performed following guidance in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) (NRC 2000) and the provisions of NUREG-1575, Volume 2 (NRC 2006).
Revision 2                                            1-19
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1
Table 1-1. Facilities and Areas Within Phase 1 Decommissioning Scope< l WMA      Facility or Area to be Removed or Remediated                    Remarks 1      Process Building                                                The HLW canisters will be moved to a new Canister Utility Room                                                    Interim Storage Facility located on the south plateau .
Utility Room Expansion                                          All listed facilities will be rerl)oved along with the source Plant Office Building                                            area of the north plateau groundwater plume. A single Vitrification Facility                                          large excavation will be dug for this purpose. A vertical 01-14 Building                                                  hydraulic barrier wall will be installed on the north and east sides of the excavation as shown in Figure 1-2.
Load-in/Load-out Facility The soil in the excavated area will be removed to cleanup Fire Pumphouse goals for unrestricted release.
Water Storage Tank The vertical hydraulic barrier wall installed on the north Electrical Substation and east side of the excavation will remain in place. The Off-Gas Trench south and west hydraulic barrier walls (sheet pilings) will Underground piping and wastewater tanks (3)                      be removed after the excavation is backfilled.
Other remaining concrete slabs Source area of North Plateau Groundwater Plume 2      Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Building                      A single excavation will be made to remove Lagoons 1, 2, Lagoons 1 - 5                                                    and 3, the Interceptors, the Neutralization Pit, and the New Interceptors (2)                                            Solvent Dike. Underlying soil and sediment in this excavation will be removed to cleanup goals that support Old Interceptor unrestricted release.
Neutralization Pit The vertical hydraulic barrier wall shown in Figure 1-2 will Solvent Dike                                                    remain in place.
Maintenance Shop Leach Field Remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations 3      Mobilization and Transfer Pumps                                  The support structures for the mobilization and transfer Piping and equipment in HLW Transfer Trench                      pumps will.be removed as well as the pumps themselves .
Con-Ed Building Equipment Shelter and Condensers 5      Lag Storage Addition 4 and Shipping Depot Remote-Handled Waste Facility Remaining concrete floor slabs, hardstands, and gravel pads 6      Sewage Treatment Plant                                          The rail spur will remain operational.
South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower Remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations Asphalt, concrete, and gravel pads(2l Equalization Basin Equalization Tank Demineralizer Sludge Ponds (2)
Cooling Tower basin 7      NOA hardstand g      Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Trench soil container area, other pads 10      New Warehouse Former Waste Management Storage Area Remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations Surface soil and sediment within the project premises            To be remediated only in the Process Building-Vitrification Facility and Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility excavation areas. Surface soil in other selected areas may also be remediated in Phase 1.
NOTES: (1) See Section 3 of this plan for facility descriptions. (2) Including the LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area .
Revision 2                                                  1-20
WVDP PHASE              1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Parlcing let 100  0      100    200    300  *OO Fttt LEGEND c::::J  Facilities ~ttln the scope or Phase 1of the decommissioring c::J    Faciities not wthin Phase 1 scope CSS =Cemeril Solidiicalion System LSA =Lag Storage Addiion LSB =Lag Storage Building UW2: LLW2 Building PVS: Permanent Verdilalion System Blilding STS : ~ematant Tre!tment System Buidilg TSB =Test Md S1omge Bwdi'lg UR =Ubity Room Figure 1-5. Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning , North Plateau Revision 2                                                      1-21
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Disposal A1rea (N OA)
LEGEND
          .c :J Facilities within the scope of Phase 1 of the dec::omrrissioniog c::J Facllities not Within Phase 1 scope Figure 1-6. Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning, South Plateau Revision 2                                                    1-22
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 1-7 shows the expected appearance of the project premises in the interim end state , when Phase 1 decommissioning activities will begin .
Figure 1-7. The WVDP in the Interim End State Figure 1-8 shows the planned general appearance of the project premises after completion of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities. The interim storage area for the HLW canisters will be located on the south plateau near the rail spur. Note th at surface soil, subsurface soil, and stream sediment contam ination will remain in some areas after Phase 1.
Figure 1-8. The WVDP After Completion of Phase 1 1.11 Organizational Responsibilities Because the WVDP decommissioning is being carried out under the authority of the WVDP Act, organizational responsib ilities are different from decommissioning of a typical Revision 2                                    1-23
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NRC-licensed site. The organizational responsibilities prescribed by the WVDP Act for decontamination and decommissioning of the WVDP are summarized below.
1.11 .1 DOE The Act directed the DOE to carry out the following activities: (1) Solidify the HLW, (2) develop containers suitable for permanent disposal of the solidified HLW waste , (3) transport the waste to a federal repository for permanent disposal , (4) dispose of LLW and transuranic waste produced in the solidification of the HLW, and (5) decontaminate and decommission the tanks , facil ities , materials, and hardware used in the project in accordance with requirements prescribed by the NRC .
The Act also directed DOE to enter into a cooperative agreement with the State for the State to make available to DOE the facilities and HLW necessary to carry out the project, without transfer of title , with DOE providing technical assistance in securing required license amendments. The Act directed DOE to enter into an agreement with the NRC for review and consultation on the project by NRC and to afford NRC access to the site to monitor activities under the project for the purposes of health and safety. Both of these agreements were formalized in 1981 (DOE and NYSERDA 1981 , DOE and NR_C 1981).
The Act further directed DOE to consult with the EPA in carrying out the project. Under the WVDP Act, DOE is responsible for the activities outlined above and for determining the manner in which facilities , materials, and hardware for which DOE is responsible are managed or decommissioned , in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements.
To this end , DOE will determine what, if . any, material or structures for which DOE is responsible will remain on site and what, if any, institutional controls , engineered barriers, or stewardship provisions will be needed .
The Act also set up a cost sharing arrangement for the WVDP , with DOE paying 90 percent of the total project costs and the State paying 10 percent of these costs .
DOE is responsible as noted previously for certain matters associated with the decommissioning: (1) project management and the decommissioning organization , (2) safety and health , (3) waste management, and (4) environmental protection.
1.11.2 NRC The WVDP Act gave NRC the authority to prescribe requirements for decontamination and decommissioning and to review and consult with DOE , not to include formal procedures or actions pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act or any other law. It also gave NRC monitoring responsibilities for the purpose of assuring public health and safety. Pursuant to these responsibilities , NRC will issue public reports during decommissioning to document its position with respect to DOE compliance with NRC decommissioning criteria . The WVDP Act does not give NRC licensing authority over DOE.
Consistent with its role in the project, NRC submitted requests for additional information in connection with its review of Revision O and Revision 1 of this plan. DOE evaluated these Revision 2                                      1-24
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN requests for additio111 al information , provided written responses to NRC, and has ~ ncorporated the related changes 'in Revision 2 to this plan.
NRC is also a cooperating agency in development of the Decommissioning EIS , as mentioned previously.
1.11.3 NYSERDA As explained in the NRC Implementation Plan (NRC 2003b), NYSERDA will determine the manner in which facilities and property for which NYSERDA is responsible are managed and decommissioned , in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements . To this end , NYSERDA will determine what, if any, material or structures for which it is responsible will remain on the site and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship provisions will be needed.
The NRC Implementation Plan also indicates that if NYSERDA decides to terminate the license after DOE completes decommissioning activities for the project facilities , NYSERDA will be required to submit a decommissioning plan . As noted previously, NYSERDA is jointly preparing the Decommissioning EIS with DOE .
1.12 Organization of this Plan The organization and content of this plan are generally consistent with Volume 1 of NUREG-1757 (NRC 2006). Differences are described in Appendix A, which consists of an annotated version of the decommissioning plan evaluation checkl ist found in Appendix D to NUREG-1757 , Volume 1 (DOE 2006). NRC has concurred with certain topics not being applicable to this decommissioning as shown in the Appendix A checklist (NRC 2008).
The contents of the plan are described in the Table of Contents. To aid readability, certain details appear in appendices.
1.13 Control of Changes DOE plans to treat this plan as a "living document,'' rev1s1ng it when circumstances warrant. DOE may issue revisions to make significant changes that could affect the project end conditions. Such revisions will be provided to NRC for review and comment prior to issue. After NRC comments are incorporated or otherwise formally resolved , DOE will issue the revised plan .
DOE may make changes to the plan that could not affect the project end conditions without providing them to NRC for review and comment. DOE will informally consult with NRC on such changes prior to issue to ensure that NRC concurs that the changes could not affect project end conditions. NRC will be provided copies of such changes when they are issued . Examples of such changes could include:
* A change to reflect actual conditions of a particular facility at the end of deactivation wo rk planned fo r the 2008 - 2011 period ,
* A change in decontamination methods, or Revision 2                                          1-25
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* A change to include information on additional ALARA analyses performed after decommissioning activities began that did not result in a change to the decommissioning approach.
As indicated previously, DOE may elect to remediate surface soil in certain areas of the project premises during Phase 1 after evaluation of characterization data. DOE would n otify NRC in advance of such remedi ation, but no change to the Decomm issioning P~ an w ould be required for this activity.
1.14 References Federal Statutes Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended.
Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) of 1977.
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended .
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended .
West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Public Law 96-368 (S. 2443), of October 1, 1980 (and related legislative history).
Code of Federal Regulations and Federal Register Notices 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation 10 CFR 20 , Subpart E., Radiological Criteria For License Termination (LTR) .
10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management.
10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection.
40 CFR 61 , National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
40 CFR 141, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations .
    . 40 CFR 143, National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.
42 FR 26951 , Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. Federal Register, May 24, 1977.
42 FR 26961 , Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands . Federal Register, May 24, 1977.
58 FR 150 , Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. Federal Register, August 6, 1993.
63 FR 179, Executive Order 13101 , Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition. Federal Register, September 16, 1998.
Revision 2                                        1-26
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 65 FR 81, Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management. Federal Register, April 26, 2000 .
67 FR 22 , Decommissioning Criteria for the West Valley Demonstration Project (M-32) at the West Valley Site; Final Policy Statement. Federal Register, February 1, 2002.
68 FR 49, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Decommission-ing and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center. Federal Register, March 13, 2003 .
70 FR 115, West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. Federal Register, June 16, 2005.
DOE Orders, Policies, Manuals, Standards, and Guides DOE Order 414.1C, Change 1, Quality Assurance. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington ,
D.C. , June 17, 2005.
DOE Order 420 .1B, Facility Safety. U.S. Department of Energy, Wash ington , D.C.,
December 22 , 2005.
DOE Order 430 .1B, Real Property Asset Management. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., February 8, 2008 .
DOE Order 435.1, Change 1, Radioactive Waste Management. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., August 28, 2001.
DOE Order 440 .1B, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor Employees. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. , May 17, 2007.
DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., January 15, 2003.
DOE Order 451 .1B, Change 1, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 28, 2001 .
DOE Order 460.1 B, Packaging and Transportation Safety. U.S. Department of Energy, Wash ington , DC, April 4, 2003.
DOE Order 5400 .5, Change 2, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., January 7, 1993.
DOE Order 5480 .20A, Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for Nuclear Facilities . U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 15, 1994.
DOE Policy 441 .1, Department of Energy Radiological Health and Safety Policy. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., April 26, 1996.
DOE Policy 450 .4, Safety Management System Policy. U.S. Department of Energy,              I Washington, D.C., October 15, 1996.
Revision 2                                      1-27
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN DOE Manual 231 .1-1A, Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting Manual. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., June 3, 2004.
DOE Manual 435.1-1 , Change 1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., June 19, 2001 .
DOE Guide 435.1-1 , Implementation Guide for Use with DOE M 435.1. U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., July 9, 1999.
DOE Guide 460 .1-1, Implementation Guide for Use with DOE Order 460. 1A. U.S.
Department of Energy, Wash ington , D.C ., June 5, 1997.
DOE-STD-1107-97, Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities for Key Radiation Protection Positions at DOE Facilities , Change 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., November 2007.
Other References DOE 2003a , DOE Letter from Alice C. Will iams (Director, WVDP ) to Larry W . Camper of NRC (Chief Decommissioning Branch ), dated February 28, 2003.
DOE 2003b, West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/0337F. U.S. Department of Energy - West Valley Area Office ,
West Valley, New York , December 2003.
DOE and NRC 1981 , West Valley Demonstration Project Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 23, 1981 .
DOE and NYSERDA 1981, Cooperative Agreement between the United States Department of Energy and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority on the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, New York. Signed November 3, 1980, amended September 18, 1981 .
NRC 2000 , Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) ,
NUREG-1575, Revision 1. NRC, Washington, DC, August, 2000 . (Also EPA 4-2-R-97-016, Revision 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DOE-EH-0624, Revision 1, DOE)
NRC 2003a , NRC Letter from Larry W . Camper (Chief Decommissioning Branch) to Alice C.
Williams of DOE (Director, WVDP), dated February 2, 2003.
NRC 2003b, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Implementation Plan for the Final Policy Statement on Decommissioning Criteria for the West Valley Demonstration Project at the West Valley Site. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, Washington , D.C.,
May 2003.
Revision 2                                  1-28
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NRC 2003c, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs, Final Report, NUREG-1748. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
Washington , D.C., August 2003.
NRC 2006, NUREG-1757 , Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees, Volume 1, Revision 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., September 2006.
NRC 2008, Report of May 19, 2008 Meeting With U.S. Department of Energy to Discuss the West Valley Demonstration Project Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., June 2, 2008 .
WVES and URS 2008, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 2007. West Valley Environmental Services and URS Group ,
Inc., West Valley , New York, December 2008.
Revision 2                                  1-29
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.0 FACILITY OPERATING HISTORY PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION The purpose of thi s section is to describe the facility operating history, thereby providing a foundation for understanding the rest of the plan . Section 2 is also intended to provide information to allow NRC staff to understand (1) the license history, (2) previous decommissioning activities, (3) radioactive spills that have occurred, and (4) onsite burials of radioactive materials.
INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION This section provides the following information:
* A summary of the license history, including the radionuclides present and how they have been used , addressing both Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) operations under the license through 1982 and WVDP activities since that time that were not performed under the license;
* A summary of the previous decommissioning and remediation activities and the remediation activities to take place during the period leading up to the interim end state, which will be the point at which Phase 1 decommissioning activities begin;
* A summary of spills of radioactivity that have had the potential to have impacted the environment. both under NFS and during the WVDP; and
* Information on prior onsite burials of radioactive material, except for those in the State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) and Waste Management Area 11 (outside the project premises) , which are beyond the scope of this plan .
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS To put into perspective the information in this section, one must consider the information in Section 1 on the project background and those facilities and areas within the scope of the DP . Consideration of the information in Section 3 on the facility description and the information in Section 4 on the radiological status of the facility would also help place information in Section 2 into context.
The information in this section serves as the foundation for later sections, such as facility description in Section 3, the radiological status in Section 4, and the decommissioning activities in Section 7.
Revision 2                                        2-1
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.1  License History Provisional Operating License Number CSF-1 (AEC 1966) was issued on April 19, 1966 by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to NFS and the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority under Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to operate a spent fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal facility at the Center. The Atomic Energy Commission was the regulator of this license until 1975 when the NRC was established by passage of the Energy Reorganization Act of 197 4.
License CSF-1 provided limits for (1) nuclear fuel (source, special nuclear material and byproduct materials in irradiated or unirradiated solid fu el elements and solutions) ; (2) unirradiated source material ; and (3) material for storage and use for standards, test, measurements, and calibration. The radionuclides and possession limits for these categories are identified in Tables 2-1, 2-2 , and 2-3 . (See note at the end of Tables 2-1 and 2-2.)
1 Table 2-1. Limits for Nuclear Fuel in Solid Fuel Elements and Solutionsl J Category Pre-irradiation Fuel Compound                Pre-irradiation % U-235 Enrichment in U 1      U02                                          5%
2      U02                                        >5%. but    ~10%
3      Th02 + U02                                  No limitation Not exceeding 8.5% U 4      U-Mo alloy                                  26.5%
5      U-Zircaloy alloy                            No limitation U-Zr alloy (U content.10 w/o [wt.%] of alloy) 6      U metal or U02                              5%
7      U-AI alloy                                  No limitation 8      U-Mo alloy                                  4.5%
9      U metal                                      2.5%
10    Plutonium nitrate - In depleted            250 grams fissile plutonium (Pu-239 and uranyl nitrate solution                    Pu -241) per liter.
The possession limits of the above special nuclear material were 21 ,000 kg of U-235 ,
3,200 kg of U-233 , and 4,000 kg of plutonium .
NOTE: (1) The chemical forms of th e radionuclides authorized for use changed from solid fuel (elemental metal} to aq ueous solutions during reprocessing, with radionuclides used for cal ibration standards, testing, etc . used primarily in laboratories .
Revision 2                                            2-2
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-2. Limits for Unirradiated Source Material(ll Material                      Possession Limit              Form Uranium of natural            50,000 pounds                Hanford N-Reactor Fuel isotopic composition Uranium depleted in            100,000 pounds                U0 2 , metal prototype fu el elements and the isotope U-235                                            U3 0 8 granules of depleted uranium Thorium                        50,000 pounds                Thorium nitrate or thorium oxide NOTE: (1)  The chemical forms of the radionuclides authori zed for use changed from solid fuel (elemental metal) to aqueous solutions during reprocessi ng, with radionuclides used for calibration standards, testing, etc. used primarily in laboratories.
Table 2-3. Limits Used for Standards, Test, Measurements, and Calibrationl1l Material                                      Possession Limit                Form Uranium-235                                    105 grams                      Any Uranium-233                                    75 grams                        Any Plutonium(2l                                  62 grams                        Any Plutonium(2l                                  14 grams                        sealed source Plutonium -242                                6 grams                        Any Plutonium-238                                  1 gram                          Any Neptunium-237                                  3.5E-03 curie                  Any Americium-241                                  1.0E-03 curie                  Any Thallium-204                                    5.0E-06 curie                  Any Cesium-137                                      5.0E-03 curie                  Any Cesium-137                                      33 curies                      sealed source Cesium-134                                      5.0E-03 curie                  Any Cerium-144                                      1.0E-02 curie                  Any lodine-131                                    6.0E-06 curie                  Any lodine-129                                    5.0E-06 curie                  Any Ruthenium-106                                  1.0E-02 curie                  Any Zirconium-95                                  5.0E-02 curie                  Any Strontium-90                                  1.0E-02 curie                  Any Strontium -85                                  1.0E-02 curie                  Any Krypton-85                                    3 curies                        Any Revision 2                                            2-3
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1
Table 2-3. Limits Used for Standards, Test, Measurements, and Calibrationl l Material                                        Possession Limit              Form Zinc-65                                        1.0E-02 curie                Any Cobalt-60                                      5.0E-02 curie                Any Cobalt-58                                      1.0E-02 curie                Any Manganese-54                                    5.0E -03 curie                Any Antimony' 2l                                    5.0E-03 curie                Any Any byproduct material with atomic              3.0E-06 curie each            Any numbers from 3 to 85 NOTES : (1) From Section 3.3 of Appendi x A of Provisional License CSF -1, Change 18 (AEC 1966}
(2) Section 3.3 of Appendix A of Provisional License CSF -1, Change 18 (AEC 1966) omitted the mass number of this radionuclide.
From 1966 to 1972, NFS reprocessed under the license more than 600 metric tons of spent fuel in the Process Building (Table 2-4) and generated approximately 600,000 gallons of liquid high-level waste. The facility shut down in 1972 for modifications to increase reliability and to expand capacity. In 1976, without restarting the operation, NFS informed New York State that it intended to withdraw from the reprocessing business and not renew the lease when the ini~ial term expired at ~e end of 1980. The WVDP Act was enacted in 1980 providing for solidification of the HLW from reprocessing , then decontamination and decommissioning of the facilities used in the solidification effort. In February of 1982, NFS transferred possession of the reprocessing facilities to DOE for that purpose.
License CSF-1 has been amended by 32 License Amendments . Amendments 1 through 30 allowed operation of the facility with changes to the technical specifications. The changes to the technical specifications were based on changes to facility operations and physical plant modifications . No license amendments were made from 1976 to the start of the WVDP Act implementation in 1981 .
License Amendment No. 31 (NRC 1981) transferred the project premises to DOE in accordance with the WVDP Act. The WVDP Act authorized the DOE, in cooperation with NYSE RDA, the owner of the site and the holder of NRC license CSF-1, to carry out a high-level radioactive waste management demonstration project for the purpose of demonstrating solidification techniques that could be used for preparing high-level liquid radioactive waste for disposal (DOE and NYSERDA 1981) .
On February 11 , 1982, the NRC issued License Amendment 32, as requested by NFS, to terminate the authority and responsibility of NFS under the license effective upon DOE assumption of exclusive possession of the project premises. Control of the project premises was formally transferred to DOE effective February 26, 1982 (WVNSCO 1983a) .
Section 2.1.1 describes NFS activities under the license in more detail. As noted in Section Revision 2                                              2-4
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1, portions of NYSERDA's NRC Part 50 license for the Center, including the technical specifications, have been effectively suspended by NRC since 1981 to facilitate execution of the provisions of the WVDP Act.
2.1.1  Nuclear Fuel Services Operations From 1966 to 1982 Fuel receipt began in 1965, and reprocessing began in April 1966 and ended in 1972.
Receiving Fuel for Reprocessing Table 2-4 shows the sources of spent nuclear fuel reprocessed at th e facility . Additional shipments comprised of 7 50 spent nuclear fuel assemblies were received between February 1973 and December 1975 in anticipation of facility restart-, which never occurred .
Of these 750 assemblies, 625 were promptly returned to their original owners and the remain ing 125 assemblies remained in storage in the Fuel Receiving and Storage Facility.
The final shipment to remove the fuel assemblies from the WVDP was made in 2001.
The spent fuel assemblies were received in casks by rail or truck and placed into the Fuel Receiving and Storage area . The casks were unloaded in the Ca sk Unloading Pool and the fuel placed in storage canisters, which were then placed in the Fuel Storage Pool awaiting reprocessing . Reprocessing started with moving the canisters by underwater conveyer to the Process Mechanical Cell in the Process Building .
Process Building Arrangements The Process Building contained the physical and chemical reprocessing operations, which were conducted in specially designed cells, rooms , and aisles. Descriptions of these areas are contained in Section 3. The cells were shielded rooms with concrete walls up to five feet thick where remote spent fuel reprocessing occurred . The rooms in which activities such as chemical preparation and laboratory analysis occurred that did not involve high levels of radioactivity were typically not shielded. The aisles were located adjacent to the shielded cells and provided for remote control of the physical and chemical reprocessing in the cells .
Sectioning and Dissolving the Fuel The first step in reprocessing operations involved bringing fuel assemblies to the Process Mechanical Cell , where they were remotely disassembled with saws. The fuel rods were chopped into pieces with a shear prior to dissolution . The small pieces of fuel were then loaded into baskets, temporarily stored in the General Purpose Cell , and then transported to one of two dissolvers located in the Chemical Process Cell. The dissolution process consisted of placing the fuel pieces in a dissolver with concentrated nitric acid, which dissolved the irradiated fuel into an aqueous stream containing uranium nitrate, plutonium nitrate, and fission products. Unirradiated fu el went through a similar but abbreviated process.
Revision 2                                      2-5
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-4. Nuclear Fuel Received and Reprocessed (1l Process        Received    Recovered Pu Lot                  Source                    Reactor                              MTLJ(2l Date                              (kg) 2        AEC                              N-Reactor                  4-22-66            19.7            1.7 1        AEC                              N-Reactor                  5-20-66            28.8            2.3 3        AEC                              N-Reactor                  7-15-66            46.7            50.9 4        Commonwealth Edison              Dresden-1                11 66            50.0          191 .1 5        Yan kee Atomic Electric          Yankee Rowe                  6-7-67            49.8        285.1 6        AEC                              N-Reactor                    9-2-67            26.6          52.6 7        AEC                              N-Reactor                  12-2-67            26.1          47.4 8        AEC                              N-Reactor                    1-6-68          42.4            75.4 9        AEC                              N-Reactor                    5-5-68            38.8          79.1 10        AEC                              N-Reactor                  6-29-68            55.3        115.7 11Pl      Consolidated Edison              Indian Point-1          11-15-68              1.1              -
12        AEC                              N-Reactor                  2-13-69            48.9        102.5 13        Yankee Atomic Electric          Yankee Rowe                5-14-69            19.6        176.0 14(4)      AEC                              N-Reactor                  8-16-69            30.3              -
15          Commonwealth Edison            Dresden-1                  10-1-69            21 .5        104.6 16          Consolidated Edison            Indian Point-1            11 69            15.6          107.6 17        Yankee Atomic Electric          Yankee Rowe                  6-2-70            9.3          95.6 18          Northern States Power          Pathfinder                8-14-70              9.6            7.1 19          Consumers Power                Big Rock Point            11 70            16.4          72.8 20          Consolidated Edison            Indian Point-1            1-11 -71            7.6          68.1 21          AEC                            N-Reactor                  2-25-71            15.8          25.4 22          Puerto Rico Water              Bonus Superheater          4-15-71              1.7            0.9 Resources Authority            Bonus Boiler              4-18-71              2.4            4.0 23        Pacific Gas and Electric        Humboldt Bay              5-20-71            20.8          87.2 24        Yankee Atomic Electric          Yankee Rowe                7-16-71              9.5          95.7 25        Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear      Carolinas-Virginia          10-4-71            3.5          11 .6 Power Associates                Tube Reactor 26        Consumers Power                  Big Rock Point          11-30-71              5.8          27.9 27        NFS, Erwin , Tennessee(SJ        SEFOR                    12-12-71              0.1          95.5 Total          625.7            1983.7 NOTES: (1) From DOE 1996.
(2) Metric tons uranium (3) The lot 11 fuels from Indian Poi nt-1 consisted of highly enriched uranium and thorium but no plutonium .
(4) The lot 14 fuel was unirra di ated and therefore co ntained no plutonium.
(5) This material was a liquid resid ue generated during fabrication of fuel for the Southwest Experimental Fa st Oxid e Reactor (SEF OR) .
Revision 2                                                  2-6
WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Separating Uranium, Plutonium, and Fission Products A five-stage solvent extraction process used a tributyl phosphate/n-dodecane solution to separate the fission products from the uranium and plutonium, and then separate the uranium from the plutonium. Following initial separation, the uranium-bearing solution underwent two further solvent extraction purification cycles while the plutonium bearing solutions underwent one addition al purification cycle .
After leaving the extraction columns , the uranium-bearing solutions underwent an additional purification step that consisted of si lica gel bed sorption . An ion -exchange process further purified the plutonium bearing solutions. The product solutions were concentrated, packaged, stored, and shipped off site . The NFS West Valley product was a nitrate solution (uranyl nitrate or plutonium nitrate) that was shipped to another out-of-state facility for purification and conversion to oxide. A representation of the fuel reprocessing 1
operation is shown in Figure 2-1 . The process used was the PUREX process .
Irradiated Fuel
                                                      +
Fuel Preparation    _ , . Off-Gases Nitric Acid _ , .
                                                      +
Dissolution in Nitric  _,.      Off-gases and Acid                  Cladding (Hulls)
Solvent tributyl
                                                    +
Separation of Fission Nitric Acid phosphate and _ , .              Products from Recovery n-dodecane                  Uranium-Plutonium
                                                      +
Uranium-Plutonium
                                                                                          \
High-Level Partition                                  Waste Uranyl Nitrate                                    Plutonium Nitrate
                        +
Purification and
                                                                            +
Purification and Oxide conversion not Conversion to Oxide                                Conversion to Oxide at West Valley site
                        +
U03 Product
                                                                            +
Pu0 2 Product Figure 2-1. Spent Fuel Reprocessing Diagram (PUREX Process) 1 Plutonium uranium refining by extraction .
Revision 2                                            2-7
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Two systems, the HLW Evaporator and the LLW Evaporator were used to reduce the volume of aqueous waste generated during fuel reprocessing operations. The HLW Evaporator reduced the volume of aqueous waste generated during the partition cycle of the solvent extraction process. Both evaporators were used to reduce the volume of aqueous waste generated in the other four solvent extraction cycles .
Use of Tanks 80-1, 80-2, 80-3, and 80-4 Approximately 580,000 gallons of liquid HLW was produced from the normal operation of the plant in reprocessi ng uranium fuel using the PUREX process (Duckworth 1972a) .
This waste was neutralized by the addition of sodium hydroxide before transfer to Tank 80-2, a 750,000-gallon carbon steel storage tank. (Tank 80 -1, a spare 750,000-gallon tank identical to 80-2 was designed for storing excess liquid from Tank 80 -2, but was never used by NFS to store HLW.)
Neutralizing the acidic high-level waste prior to transfer caused most of the fission product elements (the major exception was cesium) to precipitate out and form sludge at 2
the bottom of Tank 80-2. Therefore, the waste was not homogeneous but was comprised of supernatant liquid and solids (sludge) .
Approximately 12,000 gallons of acidic high-level radioactive liquid waste were 3
produced in reprocessing thorium-enriched uranium fuel using the THOREX process . This waste was not neutralized because the thorium would have precipitated out of solution .
This acidic waste was stored in Tank 80 -4, a 15,000-gallon capacity stainless steel tank.
(Spare Tank 80-3 is identical to Tank 80-4 but was never used by NFS to store HLW.)
The radionuclide content of the HLW stored in Tanks 80 -2 and 80-4 at the completion of reprocessing is given in Table 2-5 . The chemical compositions of the supernatant and sludge in Tank 80-2 at the completion of reprocessing are provided in Tables 2-6 and 2-7 ,
respectively. The chemical composition of Tank 80-4 at the completion of reprocessing is provided in Table 2-8 . The radioactivity content is indexed to the start of HLW processing activities in 1988.
The spent tributyl phosphate/n-dodecane solvent solution used in each of the five solvent extraction cycles was cleaned in the extraction cells after each use. Following solvent wash. the clean solvent was transferred to the solvent storage tank. The spent wash solutions were then sent to tanks in the Liquid Waste Cell.
The Solvent Waste Catch Tank received the spent sodium carbonate and dilute nitric acid wash solutions that were used in the solvent cleanup system . The sodium carbonate and nitric acid washes used in the solvent cleanup were also collected in the Waste Catch Tank and then transferred to the Solvent Waste Hold Tank where they were sampled and 2
Actinides were also precipitated out into the sludge. Table 4-9 shows estimates of residual radioactivity in the underground waste tanks as of 2011 .
3 Thorium reduction extraction.
Revision 2                                            2-8
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN subsequently sent through normal plant waste processing (Tank 80-2 or LLW treatment) depending on their radioactivity concentration.
Other liquid waste from Process Building operations (i.e., acid fractionator condensate, floor drains in various cells, chemical makeup areas, analytical laboratory, wash solutions from decontamination operations, etc .) were either treated in the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility or routed to the underground waste tanks depending on their radioactivity level.
Use of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility During initial NFS operations prior to construction of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility in 1971 , low-level wastewater was routed through the Neutralization Pit, the Interceptors, and Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 in series before being discharged to Erdman Brook.
Following construction of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility and Lagoons 4 and 5, wastewater containing low levels of radionuclides (<0.005 &#xb5;Ci/ml} was treated in that facility by clarification, filtration, and ion exchange. This wastewater was collected from the Process Building , the Laundry, and the Fuel Receiving and Storage Facility and transported by underground drain lines sequentially to the Neutralization Pit, interceptors, and Lagoon 1, Lagoon 2, and to the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility for treatment. Treated wastewater was piped to Lagoons 4 or 5, then to Lagoon 3 before batch discharge to Erdman Brook. (NSF 1973) . See Figure 2-3 for the location of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility.
Radionuclides removed from the water were confined in a sludge that was packaged in drums and disposed of as radioactive waste . Much of the sludge was buried in the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (NOA), mostly after closure of the SDA in 1975. While NFS used the State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) for LLW disposal , the WVDP did not use the SDA for radioactive waste disposal (DOE 1978, Wild 2000) .
Table 2-5. Estimated Radionuclide Content (in Curies) of Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 at the Completion of Reprocessing (1)
Half-Life        Tank 80-2    Tank 80-2      Tank Radionuclide        (Year)(2)    Supernatant(3)    Sludge(4 )    80-4(S)        Total C-14                5.7E+03          1.4E+02      9.9E-02      1.3E -01      1.4E+02 Sr-90                2.9E+01          3.0E+03      6.9E+06      4.5E +05      7.4E+06 Tc-99                2.1E+05          1.6E+03      Note (6)    1.0E+02        1.7E+03 1-129                1.6E+07          2.1E-01      Note (6)    <1.8E-01      3.9E -01 Cs-137              3.0E +01          7.4E+06      Note (6)    4.8E+05        7.9E+06 U-232                7.2E+01          Note (6)      4.4E+OO      2.7E+OO        7.1 E+OO U-233                1.6E+05          5.0E-01      6.9E+OO      2.1 E+OO      9.5E+OO U-234                2.5E +05          3.0E -01      4.0E +OO    2.2E -01      4.5E+OO Revision 2                                            2-9
WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSI ONING PLAN Table 2-5. Estimated Radionuclide Content (in Curies) of Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 at the Completion of Reprocessing(i)
Half-Life        Tank 80-2          Tank 80-2          Tank Radionuclide          (Year)(z)    Supernatant(3)        Sludge(4)        8D-4(S)        Total U-235                  7.0E +08          6.5E-03          8.9E -02        5.2E-03        1.0E -01 U-2 38                4.5E+09            5. 8E-02          7.9E-01        7 .1 E-05      8.5E -01 Np-237                2.1E+06            Note (6)          2.6E+ 01        3.0E-01        2.6E+ 01 Pu -238                8.8E+01            1.3E+02          6.5E+03        4.8E+ 02        7.1E+03 Pu-239                2.4 E+04          2.5E+01          1.7E+03        1.5E+01        1.7E+03 Pu-240                6.6E+03            1.9E+01          1.3E+03        8.1 E+OO        1.3E+03 Pu -241                1.4E+01            1.6&#xa3;+ 03          8.5E +04        8.5E +02        8.7E +04 Am-241                4.3E+02            Note (6}          6.9E+ 04        2.4 E+02        6.9 E+04 Cm-243                2.9E +01          Note (6)          3.1&#xa3;+01          2.3E -01      3.1E+01 Cm-244                1.8E+01            Note (6)          2.0E+04        1.4 E+01        2.0E+04 NOTES : (1) From Ryk:ken 1986. This report provides estimates for numerous other radionuclides as well the key radionuolides included in this tabl e.
(2) Half-life values from Grove Engineering 2003 .
(3) From Rykken 1986, Table 6, as of 7/1/86.
(4) From Rykken 1986, Table 22 as of 7/1/87.
(5) From Rykken 1986, Table 12 as of 7/1/87 .
(6) Not reported .
Table 2-6. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-2 Supernatant at the Completion of Reprocessing (l)
                                        % (weight of                  % (weight of          Total Weight of compound/total                compound/total          compounds in Compound weight of supernatant) weight of compounds)                    Supernatant Wet Basis                      Dry Basis                    (Kg)
NaN0 3                                  21.10                        53 .38              602,659 NaN0 2                                  10.90                        27 .57              311,326 Na2S04                                    2.67                        6.76                  76,261 NaHC0 3                                    1.49                        3.77                  42,557 KN03                                      1.27                        3.21                  36,274 Na 2C0 3                                0.884                        2.24                  25,249 Na OH                                    0.614                        1.55                  17,537 KzCr04                                  0.179                        0.45                    5, 113 NaCl                                    0 .164                        0.42                    4,684 Revision 2                                                2-10
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-6. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-2 Supernatant at the Completion of Reprocessing (1l
                                        % (weight of        % (weight of    Total Weight of compound/total        compound/total    compounds in Compound weight of supernatant) weight of compounds)  Supernatant Wet Basis            Dry Basis            (Kg)
Na3P04                                0.133                0 .34          3,799 Na 2M004                            0.0242                  0 .06            691 Na 380 3                            0.0209                  0 .05            597 CsN0 3                              0.0187                  0 .05            534 NaF                                  O.Ql 76                0 .04            503 Sn(N0 3) 4                          0.00859                  0 .02            245 Na 2U20 1                          0.00808                  0 .02            231 Si(N03)4                            0 .00806                0 .02            230 NaTc04                              0 .00620                0 .02            177 RbN0 3                              0.00416                  0 .01            119 Na 2Te04                            0.00287                0.007                82 AIF3                                0.00271                0 .007              77 Fe(N03h                            0.00152                0 .004              43 Na2Se04                            0.00054                0.001                15 LiN03                              0.00048                0 .001              14 H2C03                              0.00032              0 .0008                9 Cu(N03h                            0.00022              0 .0005                6 Sr(N0 3)i                          0 .00013              0 .0004                4 Mg(N0 3)i                            0.0008              0 .0002                2 Compound Totals                    39.53 %            100.00 %        1,129,038 Total H20                          60.47 %                  NA        1,727,164 (100% - 39.53%)
NOTE : (1) From Ei senstatt 1986.
Revision 2                                          2-11
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-7. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-2 Sludge at the Completion of Reprocessing (1l
* Total Mass in                                              Total Mass in Compound                                                  Compound Sludge (kg)                                                Sludge (kg)
Fe(OHh                              66,040                Cu(OH)z                                376 FeP04                                6,351              Zr(OH)z                                159 Al(OHh                                5,852                Sm(OHh                                143 Mn02                                  4,581                Zn(OH)z                                128 CaC0 3                                3,208                Cr(OHh                                  65 UO(OH)z                              3,087                Hg(OH)z                                23 Ni(OH)z                              1,088                Eu(OHh                                  7.5 Si0 2                                1,263                Gd(OHh                                  1.7 MgC0 3                                  826              Pm(OHh                                  1.5 AIF 3                                    536 Fission Products                                          Fission Products Zr(OH) 4                                805              Y(OHh                                  103 Nd(OHh                                  621              Rh(OH) 4                                79 Ru(OHh                                  458              Pd(OH)z                                  34 Ce(OHh                                  354              Sn(OH) 4                                2.5 BaS0 4                                  303              Cd(OH)z                                1.7 SrS0 4                                  217              Ag OH                                  0.7 La(OHh                                  185              Sb(OHh                                  0.7 Pr(OHh                                  170              ln(OHh                                  0.3 Transuranics                                              Transuranics Pu0 2                                      37              Am02                                    28 Np02                                      35              Cm02                                    0.4 Total Chemical Composition = 97 ,172 kg NOTE: (1) From Eise nstatt 1986, with fission products reported separately, unlike other tabl es, consistent with Ei senstatt 1986.
Revision 2                                              2-12
WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1
Table 2-8. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-4 Waste at the Completion of Reprocessing l                              >
                    % (Mass of .      Total Solution                    % (Mass of Total Solution Mass Compound      Compound/Mass          Mass in Tank    Compound      Compound/Mass in Tank (kg) of Solution)            (kg)                          of solution)
Th(N03)4              26.69            12,997        Ce(N03)3              0.0387                    19 Fe(N03)3              19.41              9,452        Zr(N03)4              0.0288                    14 Al(NQ3)3                9.57            4,660        Sm(NQ3)3              0.0286                      14 HN03                    4.88            2,376        La(N03)3              0.0269                    13 Cr(N03)3                4.40            2,143        Pr(N03)3              0.0267                      13 Ni(N03)2                1.81              881        Zn(N03)2              0.0226                      11 H3B03                    1.10              536        Rh(N03)4              0.0222                      11 NaN03                  0.759                370        Na2Tc04              0.0206                      10 Na2S04                0.414                202        U02(N03)3            0.0156                      8 KNQ3                  0.294                143        Y(N03)3              0.0134                      7 Na2Si03                0.290                141        Na2SeQ4              0.00767                      4 KzMnQ4                0.281                137        RbNQ3                0.00619                      3 Nd(NQ3)3              0.146                71        Co(N03)2            0.00505                      2 Mg(N03)3              0.131                64        Pd(N03)4            0.00469                      2 NaCl                  0.115                56        NaF                  0.00244                      1 Na2MoQ4                0.114                56        Cu(N03)2            0.00177                    0.9 Ca(N03)2              0.0700                34        Pu (N03)4            0.00152                    0.7 Ba(N03)2              0.0697                34        Eu(N03)3            0.0014?                    0.7 Ru(N03)4              0.0643                31        Gd(NQ3)3            0.00037                    0.2 CsN03                0.0502                24        1X(N03)4            0.00035                    0.2 Na2Te04              0.0410                20        Pm(N03)2            0.00034                    0.2 Sr(N03)2              0.0407                20 Total Weight % in Solution =71.02 % (total mass of compounds/total mass of solution) or 34,583 kg in Tank. Total weight % of HzO (100% - 71.02%) =28.98 % or 14,114 kg in Tank Solids Compound                Total Solids Mass (kg)        Compound                Total Solids Mass (kg)
Th(NQ3) 4                      18,958                Insolubles                          39 NOTE : (1) From Eisenstatt 1986. LEGEND: X = Am-241 , Am-243, Cm-242, Cm-243, Cm -244, Cm -24 5.
Revision 2                                            2-13
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.1.2      West Valley Demonstration Project From 1982 to 2008 To meet its objective of solidifying HLW at the site, the WVDP developed the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System and built the Vitrification Facility.
Integrated Radwaste Treatment System The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System was designed for supernatant and sludge wash solution processing, solidification , and storage. The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System was comprised of four components:
* The Supernatant Treatment System, which decontaminated solutions from the HLW tanks through an ion-exchange process;
* The Liquid Waste Treatment System, which employed an evaporator to concentrate solutions received from the Supernatant Treatment System and byproduct solutions received from vitrification operations;
* The Cement Solidification System that was used to solidify Liquid Waste Treatment System concentrates; and
* The Drum Cell , which provided storage for solidified wastes received from the Cement Solidification System .
The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System pretreatment process is illustrated ih Figure 2-2 . The initial objective of this system was successfully attained in 1995, resulting in nearly 20,000 drums of solidified waste stored in the Drum Cell. In 2007 those drums were shipped to an offsite LLW disposal facility, leaving the Drum Cell empty of stored radioactive waste in 2008 .
Vitrification Facility This facility was designed for the stabilization and packaging of HLW sludge and contaminated ion-exchange resin (zeolite) generated as a byproduct of Supernatant Treatment System operations. It stabilized the following waste streams in a borosilicate glass matrix: (1) the HLW sludge in Tank 8D-2 that had been generated during PUREX reprocessing by NFS, (2), spent Supernatant Treatment System zeolite, and (3) acidic THOR EX waste from Tank 8D -4 generated by the reprocessing of thorium fuel.
The former reprocessing facilities were modified to accommodate the vitrification system and ancillary waste treatment and storage systems . Modifications included removing the reprocessing equipment and decontaminating a number of process cells so that workers could enter the cells for extended periods without respiratory protection. After cleaning the former reprocessing cells , equipment was installed to process gaseous and liquid waste streams. Risers were remotely installed in the HLW tanks, and equipment and pumps were installed for processing HLW supernatant and washing HLW sludge .
Revision 2                                        2-14
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN TAii BD-2 TAllK IG-4 1988 TO 1990                                                                                PUllEX SUl'EJllW'AllT PUREX SLUOCE "uJ>Croa t.a nt P rocc  ~i n ~                                        UOUIDWASTl TIIEATJlllPIT SYS'IOI (UllTSJ                          CEMEllT UQlllD                          EVAPOllATOR                        SOUDlflCJTION TR.EATMlJIT                                    CONCElrTllATES        SYSTEM (CS$)
DISTILLATES 276-l SQUAii&#xa3; ORUM$
SITE                                                                  DRUM CW.
DlSCIWIGE                                                              STOllAGE 1991 TO 1994
. Jud ge \\ a h J& l and P rocc sinJ:?
1995 l' l HE '      OH t X W hand Pro  .s 1n,:t 1995 TO 1996 WASHED SLUDGE &  ~llUTE ftUSllllUl Z collte UQUIOWASTE ransfor          TOUDUIO                              TIIEATMlllT DISTILLATES TREATMENT                          M'IOl(l.WTSI AHO SITE OISC'HARCE                EV-TOR        COllCDITRATfS Figure 2-2. Simplified HLW Pretreatment Process Diagram Underground Waste Tanks 80-1, 80-2, 80-3, and 80-4 Pre-Vitrification HLW tank usage by the WVOP is outlined in Section 2.1 .2 under Integrated Radwaste Treatment System . Tank 80-1 was used to house the Supernatant Treatment System treatment columns used to remove radioactivity from the Tank 80 -2 supernatant, sludge wash , and PUREX/THOREX wash processing campaigns . The treated liquid was transferred to Tank 80-3 and then volume-reduced in the Liquid Waste Treatment System, and solidified in the Cement Solidification System for offsite disposal as LLW. The zeolite resin used to treat the supernatant, sludge wash, and PUREX/THOREX wash remained in Tank 80 -1 , and was added to the feed mixture to be vitrified . The thorium-bearing HLW from tank 80-4 was mixed with the contents of tank 80-2 and washed to remove soluble salts before being readied for vitrification .
Revision 2                                                      2-15
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Solidification Activities During the vitrification process, the mobilized sludge and cesium -loaded zeolite resin (which was transferred from Tank 8D-1 to Tank 80-2) were transferred to the Concentrator Feed Makeup Tank in the Vitrification Cell, where excess water was removed and glass formers added . The resulting mixture was then transferred to the Melter Feed Hold Tank.
From this tank, the feed was delivered to the Slurry-Fed Ceramic Melter, where it was heated to form a molten, waste-loaded , borosilicate glass.
The molten glass was then poured into a stainless steel canister located in and positioned by a rotating turntable. Once a canister was filled , it remained on the turntable for initial cooling , then it was removed from the turntable for further cooling, canister lid welding, and external decontamination . The borosilicate glass matrix filled each canister to more than 80 percent of its volume as required by the Waste Acceptance Product Specifications established by DOE (DOE 1993).
After decontamination, the canister was loaded onto a transfer cart that moved on rails through the transfer tunnel and into the High Level Waste Interim Storage Facility (the former Chemical Process Cell) in the Process Building, where the canisters were loaded into racks for storage. The canisters will remain there until they are transported to the new Canister Interim Storage Facility.
A total of 27 5 canisters of HLW were produced . Two additional canisters were filled with materials which remained in the melter. The solidification of the liquid HLW waste was completed in September 2002 and the Vitrification Facility was radiologically characterized in November 2002 (Lachapelle 2003)4.
Table 2-9 provides the major chemical components of the glass waste form, and Table 2-10 describes the radionuclide content of a typical vitrified HLW canister processed during the HLW vitrification campaign (WVNSCO 2007a) .
Sodium-Bearing Waste As a component of tank management over time, sodium salts were added to the Tanks 80-1 and 8D-2 to limit corrosion of the carbon steel tanks. More recently, clean utility water used to cool the in-tank mobilization pumps added excess fluids to the tanks before and during vitrification. Since sodium is a limiting ingredient in a qualified glass recipe, the high-sodium water was segregated from the HLW feed mixture. A process was developed to volume-reduce the waste water containing high levels of sodium and solidify the 11 ,500 gallons of concentrate into a form suitable for LLW land disposal. The solidification was completed within the 01-14 building in 2004, and the sodium-bearing waste was shipped for disposal in 2007 . (Rowell 2001, WVNSCO and URS 2005, Bower 2008)
The amount of residual radioactivity in the HLW tanks is discussed in Section 4.1 .
4 This characterization took place before decontamination of the Vitrification Cell, which entailed removing th e slurry-fed ceramic melter, tanks, and other equipment.
Revision 2                                          2-16
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Liquid LLW Streams Under the WVDP, the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility included the Neutralization Pit, the interceptors, Lagoons 2-5, and the LLW2 Building, which replaced the NFS 02 Building . The wastewater is collected in one of the interceptors . After radiological analysis, the wastewater is transferred to Lagoon 2 and is then treated in the LLW2 Building .
Following treatment. the wastewater is transferred to Lagoons 4 and 5. If the treated wastewater in Lagoons 4 and 5 meets specifications, it is transferred to Lagoon 3 for eventual release through a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-permitted outfall to Erdman Brook. Out-of-specification wastewater is returned to Lagoon 2 and is re-treated .
In summary, under the WVDP the Vitrification Facility, the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System, the Sludge Mobilization System, and a new low level waste treatment facility (LLW2 Building) were developed and operated . The waste (supernatant and sludge) in the HLW tanks was vitrified and solidified in stainless steel canisters that are stored in the High-Level Waste Interim Storage Facility in the Process Building.
Table 2-9. Chemical Composition of Glass Waste Form(l)
Nominal        Range                        Nominal            Range Component                                    Component Weight%        Weight%                        Weight%          Weight%
AgO              0.0001                      Nd20 3          0.1209          0.08    0.19 Al 20 3          2.8295      1.19    7.15  NiO              0.3358          0.22    0.52 Am0 2            0.0073                      Np02            0.0224          0.01    0.03 Bao              0 .0540      0.04    0.08  P20 s            2.5084          0.21    3.16 Bz03            9.9516      9.33  10.66    PdO              0.0062 Cao              0 .5993      0.39    0.93  Pm 20 3          0.0003 CdO              0 .0003                      Pr5011          0.0321          0.02    0.05 Ce0 2          0.0670      0.04    0.10  Pu0 2            0.0076 Cm02            0.0001                      Rb20            0.0005 coo            0.0002                      Rh0 2            0.0136          0.01    0.02 Cr203          0.3112      0.21    0.48  Ru02            0.0759          0.05    0.12 Cs 20          0.0826      0.05    0.13  S03              0.2164          0.14    0.33 CuO            0.0001                      Sb20 3          0.0001 Eu 20 3        0.0014                      Se0 2            0.0005 Fe20 3        12.1573      8.32  18.50    Si0 2          44.8770        42 .08  48 .10 Gd20 3          0.0003                      Sm20 3          0.0267          0.02    0.04 ln203          0 .0001                      Sn0 2            0.0006 KzO            3.5733      3.36    3.84  SrO              0.0269          0.02    0.04 Revision 2                                      2-17
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONIN<S PLAN Table 2-9. Chemical Composition of Glass Waste Form (l)
Nominal            Range                            Nominal              Range Component                                          Component Weight%          Weight%                            Weight%            Weight%
La20 3            0.0337          0.02    0.05    Tc201              0.0021 Li20              3.0315          2.84    3.25    Th02                3.5844            1.83    6.56 MgO                1.3032          1.22    1.39    Te02                0.0028 Mn0 2              1.3107          0.84    1.96    Ti0 2              0.9800            0.92    1.05 Mo0 2              0.0088                  0.01    U02                0.5605            0.37    0.87 NaCl              0.0183          0 .01  0.03    Y20 3              0.0177            0.01    0.03 NaF                0.0013                          ZnO                0.0010 Na20              10.9335        10.25  11 .71    Zr0 2              0 .2943          0.19    0.45 Insolubles        0.0080 NOTE : (1) From Eisenstatt 1986.
Table 2-10. Typical HLW Canister Radionuclide Content(1l Estimated Activity                                    Estimated Activity Radionuclide                                      Radionuclide (Ci/canister)                                        (Ci/canister)
Ni-63                        3.5E+01              Pu-240                          4.0E+OO Sr-90                      1.36E+04              Pu-241                        1.75E+02 Sm-151                    1.89E+02              Am-241                        1.53E +02 Cs-137                    2.34E+04              Cm-243                          1.0E +01 Pu-238                      1.9E+01              Cm-244                          3.5E+01 Pu-239                      5.0E +OO NOTE : (1) From WVNSCO 2007a 2.2    Site Decontamination Activities (1966 - 2011) 5 This section summarizes remediation activities performed by NFS, those that have been performed by the WVDP, and those that will be performed by the WVDP to establish the interim end state before the beginning of activities under this plan. Although the WVDP remediation activities have generally been performed in connection with cleanup, modifications, or deactivation work, they are relevant to the starting point for the decommissioning .
5 For purposes of this section , the terms remediation and decontamination are roughly equivalent. Each is defined as the removal of undesired residual radioactivity from facilities , soil , or equipment prior to release (NRC 2006) . The term remediation may also be used in the context of preparing facilities to conform to specific requirements using fixatives or other treatments.
Revision 2                                              2-18
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.2.1 NFS Remediation Activities (1966-1981)
During the 1960s, NFS remediation efforts were limited to those actions needed to maintain production, such as spill cleanup and equipment replacement. In the 1970s, NFS initiated decontamination activities initially in preparation for extensive in-cell reliability and expansion work to increase production. Decontamination procedures were prepared for decontamination of the partition cycle, uranium cycle, plutonium cycle, solvent recovery systems, acid recovery system and acid storage tanks , and the dissolver off-gas system (Rieth miller 1981) .
Gross decontamination was accomplished by flushing process tanks and piping and removing loose contamination from the cells and process equipment. In some cases, fixatives were applied to contamination that could not be readily removed .
Changes in mixed fission product activity levels were determined from measurements obtained by lowering dosimeters, strung at various levels, into Extraction Cells 1, 2, and 3 through holes drilled in the Extraction Chemical Room floor. Activity removed by decontamination activities from 1972 through 1977, including amounts of uranium and plutonium, is summarized in Table 2-11. No extensive decontamination activities are documented from 1977 until commencement of DOE operations in 1982.
1 Table 2-11. Activity Removed by NFS for the Period 1972 Through 1977( l Mixed Fission Year                                      Uranium (grams)          Plutonium (grams)
Products (curies) 1972              182,758.1                    47 ,700                  1550 1973                  886.2                    3,722                        24 1974                  659 .6                  5,099                      229 1975                        15                    572                      12 1976                    22 .3                    282                      18 1977                        6.8                    718                        1 Total                184,348                  58,093                    1,834 NOTES: (1) From Riethmiller 1981 .
Radioactive material generated during the NFS remediation work was disposed of as radioactive waste in the NOA and SDA.
2.2.2 WVDP Remediation Activities (1982 - 2011)
After 1982, remediation activities included decontamination, waste removal, equipment removal , and the application of fixatives . Procedures were developed by West Valley Nuclear Services Company (WVNSCO) as part of the remediation project for each facility.
Radioactive material and waste generated or removed as part of remediation activities were packaged for offsite shipment or temporary storage, with some waste disposed of in the NOA prior to 1987 .
Revision 2                                        2-19
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show those WVDP facilities that have had a history of radiological contamination. Figure 2-5 shows locations of planned remediation activities for site facilities before Phase 1 of the decommissioning. Table 2-12 that follows these figures provides a legend for the acronyms and abb~eviations in the figures. This table also identifies the functions of the facilities.
List of Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated Table 2-13 that follows these figures lists those facilities (in alphabetical order) that have been or will be remediated (or partially remediated) before the start of the Phase 1 of the decommissioning. The type and form of contamination are specified, as well as information on the radiological conditions before and after remediation based on available data . The activities that caused the facility to become contaminated are also summarized.
Facilities that have been removed as of 2008 are identified as "Removed ." More-detailed descriptions of these facilities appear in Section 3, along with layout drawings showing their locations. Section 3 also contains photographs of many of these facilities .
Note that Table 2-13 does not list non-radiological facilities that have been or will be removed as part of the work to establish the interim end state, such as the Cold Chemical facility, the Vehicle Repair shop, and the Vitrification Test Facility (as shown on Figure 2-5).
The table also does not address facilities outside of the project premises since the scope of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities is limited to the project premises.
Revision 2                                      2-20
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMI SSIONING PLAN
            \
t While the drainage ditch running south of WMA 4 and the
                                                          "'""""L" old sewage drainage area are not facilities per se, they are        I I
included for here for completeness.                            'I
                                                                      ...JI Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides l=:='.::=:..::=-~_;;.._:-:=:=:==:.::-::--=-==
                                                                                                        ---=-:;:::-==j
    --J Nonradiological Facilities                                          See Table 2-12 for mea nings of fa cility Gravel Foundation                                              acronyms and abbreviations .
Concrete Foundation Figure 2-3. Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in North Plateau Facilities at the WVDP Revi sion 2                                                        2-21
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN N...._ROQU......,
C~l.ICeflsed OoopouJ ...,** (NOA}
Previous and Current Locat ions of Radi onuclide~----------------:=:::J Nonradiological Facilities                                  See Table 2-1 2 for meanings of faci lity acronyms and abbreviations .
Gravel Foundation Figure 2-4. Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in South Plateau Facilities at the WVDP Revision 2                                              2-22
W V DP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMIS SION ING PLAN North Plateau  South Plateau
                                                                                                                                                        *\
Remediation of the Vitrification Facility has been completed.
Legend See Ta ble 2- 12 for mea nings of facility Facrnues to be removed (down to slab or grade) prior to decommissioning                        acrqnyms and abbrevi ations.
Faelllllos made demoUtlon-rl!ad    rio t lo decornmlsslonln Figure 2-5. Locations of Planned Remediation Activities for Site Facilities Prior to Phase 1 of the Decommissioning Revision 2                                                                            2-23
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-12. Facilities Shown in Figures 2- 3 t h roug h25        -
Designation      Facility                                            Function 80-1, -2, -3, -4 Underground waste tanks                              Designed to store HLW; 80-1 , 80-2, and 80-4 have contained HLW.
01-14            The Cement Solidification System building            Facility housed the Cement Solidification System and the vitrification off-gas treatment equipment.
COOL            Construction &. Demolition Debris Landfill          Non-radioactive waste burial area.
Cold Chem        Cold Chemical facility                              Housed containerized non-radioactive chemicals.
Con Ed Bldg      Consolidated Edison Building                        Houses HLW tank instrumentation and equipment.
CPC-WSA          Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area            Storage for equipment and waste from the CPC (now HLW Interim Storage Facility).
css              Alternate designation for the 01-14 building        Facility housed the Cement Solidification System and the vitrification off-gas treatment equipment.
Env Lab          Environmental Laboratory                            Houses environmental testing equipment and instrumentation.
Equip. Shelter  Equipment Shelter                                    Houses HLW tank instrumentation and equipment.
Fab Shop        Fabrication Shop                                    Non-radioactive metal fabrication shop - demolished, slab remaining .
FRS              Fuel Receiving and Storage Facility                  Formerly used to store spent nuclear fuel.
FRS Vent        Fuel Receiving and Storage Ventilation Building      Housed cooling system equipment for the FRS pool water - demolished, slab remaining.
LLW2            Low Level Waste 2                                    Houses low level radioactive liquid treatment system currently in use.
LLWTF            Low Level Waste Treatment Facility                .. Housed low level radioactive liquid treatment system - demolished, slab remaining .
LSA 1            Lag Storage Area 1 (also, LSA2, LSA3 and LSA4)      Containerized radioactive waste storage. LSA 1 and LSA2 have been removed, gravel pads remain .
LSB              Lag Storage Building                                Containerized radioactive waste storage building - demolished, slab remaining .
NOA              NRC-Licensed Disposal Area                          Radioactive waste burial area.
02 Bldg          An alternate designator for the LLWTF                Housed low level radioactive liquid treatment system - demolished, slab remaining.
PVS              Permanent Ventilation System [Building)              Provides ventilation for the Supernatant Treatment System and the underground waste tanks.
STS              Supernatant Treatment System [Building]              Facility used primarily for treatment of HLW supernatant.
TSB              Test and Storage Building                            Non-radioactive fabrication and testing shop - demolished, slab remaining.
UR Expan        Utility Room expansion facility                      Houses utility systems equipment.
Vil. Facility    Vitrification Facility                              Housed systems for solidifying HLW.
WWTF            Waste Water Treatment Facility                      Sewage Treatment Plant.
Revision 2                                                                  2-24
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-13. Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decommissioningl11 Location and                                      Principal Radionuclides                                    Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function              Type                Form            Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination            1 of the Decommissioning 01 -14 Building  WMA-1              Radionuclide mix      Surface                Contamination from previous solidification      Deactivated and prepared for demolition .
Radioactive waste  typical of feed and  contamination ,        system operations, and filtration/treatment of  Partially decontaminated, radiation area in processing system  waste                fixed contamination    vitrification off-gas.!3l                      some cells, significant contamination in facility          contamination(2)                                                                            filters (if still in place).
Chemical        WMA-5              Radionuclide mix      Surface                -275 Ci Cs-137 in packaged equipment as of      Removed to grade.
Process Cell    Containerized      typical of feed and  contamination          1996.(4)                                        No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Waste Storage  LLW storage        waste                                        15 mR/h from stored waste, removable            control limits.(5)
Area                              contamination!2J                            contamination below detection limits.!6)
Incidental contamination possible from radioactive waste container storage activities.
Contact Size    WMA-1              Radionuclide mix      Surface                5 mR/h, removable contamination below          Removed to concrete slab.
Reduction      Radioactive waste  typical of feed and  contamination          detection limits.!6l                            No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Facility        size reduction    waste                                        Incidental contamination possible from          control limits.!5l system facility    contamination!2l                            radioactive waste size reduction activities.
Cooling Tower  WMA-6              Radionuclide mix      Fixed surface          < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below        Removed to concrete basin .
Utility water      typical of feed and  contamination          detection limits.!6l                            Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control cooling system    waste                                        Coil leaks from contaminated cooling water. limits, posting required.!5l contamination!2J FRS Ventilation WMA-1              Fission products      Surface                1.3 mR/h, removable contamination below        Removed October 2006, slab remains.
Building        Cooling system for and transuranics      contamination          detection limits.m                              No contamination above 10 CFR 835 fuel pool water    from spent fuel                              Spent nuclear fuel pool water contamination. control limits,!5)
Lag Storage    WMA-5              Radionuclide mix      Low-level fixed        < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below        Removed 2006, slab remains.
Addition 1      Radioactive waste  typical of feed and  contamination in      detection limits.!7)                            No contamination above 10 CFR 835 (LSA 1)        container staging  waste                some areas            Incidental contamination from containerized    control limits.!5) area              contamination!2J                            LLW staging and sorting activities.
Lag Storage    WMA-5              Radionuclide mix      Low-level fixed        15 mR/h from stored waste, removable            Slab remains .
Addition 2      Radioactive waste  typi<'.al of feed and contamination in      contamination below detection limits.!6l        No contamination above 10 CFR 835 (LSA 2          container staging  waste                some areas            Incidental contamination from containerized    control limits.!5l Hardstand)      area              contamination!2J                            LLW staging and sorting activities.
Revision 2                                                                  2-25
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMI SSION ING PLAN Table 2-13. Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before DecommissioningllJ Location and                                    Principal Radionuclides                                    Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function            Type                Form            Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination          1 of the Decommissioning Lag Storage  WMA-5              Radionuclide mix    Low-level fixed        50-100 mR/h from stored waste, removable      Slab remains.
Addition 3    Radioactive waste  typical of feed and contamination in      contamination below detection limits.(6)        No contamination above 10 CFR 835 (LSA 3)      container staging  waste              some areas            Incidental contamination from containerized    control limits.(5) area              contamination(2)                          LLW staging & sorting activities.
Lag Storage  WMA-5              Radionuclide mix    Low-level fixed        < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below      Removed October 2006, slab remains.
Building      Radioactive waste  typical of feed and contamination in      detection limits.m                              No contamination above 10 CFR 835 container staging  waste              some areas            Incidental contamination from containerized    control limits.(5) area              contamination(2)                          LLW staging & sorting activities.
Laundry Room  WMA-1              Radionuclide mix    Surface                0.4 mR/h, 2,000 dpm/100 cm2beta .(8)          To be removed to concrete slab.
Contaminated      typical of feed and contamination,        Incidental contamination from sorting and      Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control clothing cleaning  waste              fixed contamination    handling of contaminated laundry.              limits, posting required.(5) facility          contamination(2)
LLWTF (02    WMA-2              Radionuclide mix    Surface                0.12 mR/h, 3,700 dpm/100 cm2 beta.m            Removed October 2006, slab remains.
Building)    Radioactive        typical of feed and contamination ,        Contamination from previous radioactive water  Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control material          waste              fixed contamination    treatment system operations.                  limits, posting required. (5J processing system contamination(2) facility Maintenance*  WMA-2              Radionuclide mix    Incidental surface    < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below      Removed June 2007, slab remains.
Shop          Tool crib and non- typical of feed and contamination          detection limits.(8J                          No contamination above 10 CFR 835 radiological      waste                                      Incidental contamination from mud nests (bird  control limits.(5) equipment          contamination(2)                          and wasp) and tools.
maintenance.
Master Slave  WMA-1              Radionuclide mix    Surface                2.4 mR/h.(6J                                  To be removed to concrete slab.
Manipulator  Radioactive        typical of feed and contamination          Disassembly and repair of radiologically      No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Repair Shop  equipment repair  waste                                      contaminated equipment.                        control limitsC5l contamination(2)
NOA          WMA-7              Fission products    Surface                6 mR/h, 6,300 dpm/100 cm2 beta.(7)            Above-grade structure removed Hardstand/    Radioactive waste  and transuranics    contamination, soil    Storage of waste containers prior to disposal. September 2006, gravel pad remains.
Staging Area  container staging  from spent fuel    contamination                                                        Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control area                                                                                                        limits, posting required. (5J Revision 2                                                              2-26
W V DP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1
Table 2-13. Facilities Remed iated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decommissionin gl                              J Location and                                    Principal Radionuclides                                      Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function            Type              Form              Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination              1 of the Decommissioning Old/New        WMA-5              Radionuclide mix    Surface                -10 Ci beta, -2 Ci alpha prior to transfer to    Removed contaminated asphalt and Hardstand      Radioactive        typical of feed and contamination , soil  Lagoon 1 for stabilization.t9l                    peripheral biomass in 1984, gravel pad transport vehicle  waste              contamination          Storage of radioactive material transport        remains.
staging area      contamination(2l                          containers prior to disposition.                  Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control limits, posting required . (5)
Old Sewage    WMA6              Radionuclide mix    Possible surface      Low level radioactivity may be present from      Concrete basin to be removed .
Treatment      Sanitary waste    typical of feed and contamination          sewage lines running from the Process Building.
Facility      treatment until    waste 1985              contamination(2l Old (Main 1)  WMA-6              Radionuclide mix    Incidental surface    < 0.1 mR/h with removable contamination below    Removed May 2006, slab remains.
Warehouse    Receipt and        typical of feed and contamination          detection limits.(Bl                              No contamination above 10 CFR 835 storage of non-    waste                                      Incidental contamination from wasp, bird, and    control limits.(5) radiological      contaminationt2l                          rodent nests.
materiel Process      WMA-1              Radionuclide mix    Surface                Residual contamination -6,200 Ci (see Tables      Partially decontaminated, high radiation Building      Spent nuclear fuel typical of feed and contamination ,        4-5, 4-6, and 4-7) from operations associated    area in some cells, vitrified HLW canisters reprocessing      waste              some                  with reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.          stored in the HLW Interim Storage facility          contamination(2) in contamination in      (This does not include radioactivity in the 275  Facility. .
most areas (see    depth                  vitrified HLW canisters temporarily stored in the Table 4-3)                                HLW Interim Storage Facility as shown in Table 2-10.)
Radwaste      WMA-1              Radionuclide mix    Surface                8 mR/h, 3,700 dpm/100 cm 2 beta(?)                Removed October 2006, slab remains.
Process      Radiological      typical of feed and contamination          Stabilizing radiologically contaminated materials Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control (Hittman)    material          waste                                                                                        limits, posting required.(5l Building      processing        contaminationl2l Remote-      WMA-5              Radionuclide mix    Surface                -4,800 Ci aged mixed fission products (max        Deactivated and decontaminated, low Handled Waste Size-reduction    typical of feed and contamination          annual waste estimate).l10l                      levels of contamination may be present.
Facility      and packaging of  waste                                      Contamination of facility cell systems from size-highly radioactive contamination(2l                          reduction of highly radioactive waste waste Revision 2                                                              2-27
WVD P PHASE 1 D ECO MMISSIONI NG PLAN 1
Table 2-13. Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decomm issioningl                                                  >
Location and                                              Principal Radionuclides                                              Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function                    Type                Form                Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination                  1 of the Decommissioning Test and            WMA-2                      Radionuclide mix    Incidental surface      .< 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below              Removed May 2006, slab remains.
Storage              Testing & process          typical of feed and contamination              detection limits.!Bl                                    No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Building (TSB)      development,              waste                                          Incidental contamination from wasp and bird            control limits!Sl equipment                  contamination!2l                              nests fabri cation, office space Vitrification        WMA-1                      See Table 4-4.      Surface                    - 1900 Ci, see Table 4-8.                              Deactivated and prepared for demolition .
Facility            High-temperature                              contamination              Contamination from HLW vitrification process          Partially decontaminated, high radiation process system                                                                                                                  levels in Vitrification Cell.
for HLW vitrification NOTES: (1)      The list of faciliti es is from DOE 2006 and includes only contaminated facilities. Section 3 describes these facilities .
(2)  Feed and wa ste contamination is described in Section 4.1 and Table 4-3 shows typical relative fractions of the dominant radionuclides in this type of contamination.
(3)  No meaningful initial activity estimate is avai lable. The vitrification off-gas system contains significa nt residual activity as indicated in Section 4.1.5, but most is located outside the building in the off-gas line. Approximate ly 3000 cu ri es of decontaminated supernatant and sludge wash solutions were solidified in steel drums in the Cement Solidification System (Marschke 2006) .
(4) WVN SCO 2007a .
(5) Removable and fixed slab/soil contamination per 10 CFR 835 control levels. Listed radioactivity values for surface conta mination within a controlled area are shown in Table 2-13. Radioactivity levels inside a radio logical area within a controlled area may be higher, depending upon th e controls imposed , per Table 2-14.
(6) WVE S 2008.
(7) WVNSCO 2006.
(8) WVNSCO 2007b.
(9) Derived from WVNSCO 1995.
(10) URS 2001.
Revision 2                                                                                2-28
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Information in Table 2-13 Radiological survey data for 2006 through mid-2008 were used to identify recent radiological conditions for most facilities. Section 4 addresses the radiological status of various areas of the Process Building and other facilities within plan scope in more detail.
Discussion of WVDP Remediation Efforts Historical remediation activities are summarized in Section 2.2. Areas in which initial deactivation work was completed in late 2004 include three cells in the Process Building :
the General Purpose Cell , the Process Mechanical Cell , and Extraction Cell 2. Remediation of WVDP facilities conbinued in 2009 .
Work accomplished in 2009 included removal of equipment from the Acid Recovery Cell, Extraction Cell 3, and bhe Hot Acid Cell. A two-inoh layer of grout was applied to the filoor of the Acid Recovery Cell. Some pump niches in bhe Upper Warm Aisle were decontaminated and deactivated . The Product Purification Cell was partially decontaminated . In late 2009. decontami nation of the Process Mechanical Cell Crane Room was underway. Additional decontamination is planned for the floors and walls of the General Purpose Cell and the Process Mechanical Cell.
Deactivation of the Vitrification Cell in the Vitrification Facility was completed in 2005 . In 2009 , the cell was being used for remote sorting and packaging of radioactive waste so conditions in this area are subject to change and additional decontamination may be performed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
The Interim Waste Storage Facility and the Lag Storage Building, as well as the Lag Storage Area 1 weather shelter were decontaminated and demolition completed in 2006.
The Interim Waste Storage Facility concrete slab was removed . Support facilities and structures demolished and removed by the end of 2006 included the north Waste Tank Farm Test Tower, the 02/LLWTF Building, th~ Maintenance Storage Area , the Sample Storage and Packaging Facility, the Fabrication Shop, the Radwaste Process (Hittman)
Building, and the Cold Chemical Facility. In 2007 the Test and Storage Building, the Maintenance Shop, and the Main 1 Warehouse were demolished and removed . (WVNSCO and URS 2005, WVNSCO and URS 2006, WVNSCO and URS 2007, WVES and URS 2008)
The facilities being removed are being taken down to their concrete floor slabs and foundations . Facilities inside the fenced controlled area may already be below the surface contamination levels for materials in a controlled non-radiological area per 10 CFR 835, as shown in Table 2-14 . Those facility locations will have few, if any, access restraints imposed . Other remaining floor slabs and foundations within the controlled fenced area may be posted to restrict personnel access, per 10 CFR 835 requirements for radiological control area restrictions as shown in Table 2-15.
Revision 2                                          2-29
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2 1 Table 2-14. DOE 10 CFR 835 Surface Contamination Guidelines (in dpm/100 cm                                    )( )
Radionuclide Contaminant(z).(4).(GJ              Removable(z).( 4)        Total (Fixed + Removable)(z).(J)
U-natural. U-235 , U-238, and                            1,000(7)                          5,000(?)
associated decay products Transuranics, Ra-226, Ra-228, Th -                          20                                500 230, Th -228, Pa-231 , Ac-227, 1-125, 1-129 Th-natural. Th-232 , Sr-90, Ra -2 23, 200                              1,000 Ra-224, U-232, 1-126, 1-131 , 1-133 Beta -gamma emitters (nuclides with                      1,000                              5,000 decay modes other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission) except Sr-90 and others noted above(sJ Tritium and STC s(G) 10,000                        See note (6) .
NOTES : (1)  Th e values in this table, with the exception noted in note (6) below, apply to radioactive contamination deposited on, but not incorporated into the interior or matrix of. the contaminated item. Where surface co ntamination by both alpha - and beta -gamma-emitting nuclides exists, the limits establi shed for alpha- and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides apply independently.
(2) As used in this table, dpm (disintegrations per minute) means the rate of emission by radioactive material as determined by correcting the counts per minute observed by an appropriate detector for background, efficiency. and geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.
(3) The levels may be averaged over one square meter provid ed the maximum surface activity in any area of 100 cm 2 is less than three times th e value specified . For purposes of averaging, any square meter of surface shall be considered to be above th e surface contamination value if: (1) from measurements of a representative number of sections it is determined that the average contamination level exceeds the applica bl e value; or (2) it is determined that the sum of th e activity 2
of all isolated spots or particles in any 100 cm area exceeds three times the applicable value.
(4) The amount of removable radioa ctive material per 100 cm2 of surface area should be determined by swiping the area with dry filter or soft absorbent paper, applying moderate pressure, and then assessing the amount of radioactive material on the swipe with an appropriate instrument of known efficiency. (Note - The use of dry material may not be appropriate for tritium.) When removable contami nation on obj ects of surface area less than 100 cm 2 is determined, the activity per unit area shall be based on the actual area and the entire surface sha ll be wiped. It is not necessary to use swiping techniques to measure removabl e contamination levels if direct scan surveys indicate that the total residual surface contamination levels are within the limits for removable contamination .
(5) Thi s category of radionuclides includes mixed fi ssion products, including the Sr-90 which is present in them . It does not apply to Sr-90 which has been separated from the other fission products or mixtures where the Sr-90 has been enriched.
(6) Tritium contamination may diffuse into the volum e or matri x of materials. Evaluation of surface contamination shall consider the extent to which such contamination may migrate to the surface in order to ensure the surface contamination valu e provided in this appendix is not exceeded. Once thi s contamination migrates to the surface, it may be removable, not fi xed; therefore. a "Total "
2 value does not apply. In certain cases, a "Total" value of 10,000 dpm/100 cm may be applica bl e either to metals of the types from wh ich insoluble special tritium com pounds (STCs) are formed ,
that have been exposed to tritium , or to bulk materials to which insoluble special tritium compound particl es are fixed to a surface .
(7) These limits apply only to the alpha emitters within the respective decay series.
Revision 2                                                2-30
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-15. Radiological Areas and Radioactive Material Areas(l)
Area Name                    Posting                                Reference Value Radiation Area        "Caution, Radiation            Radiation area means any area, Area"                          accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving an equivalent dose to the whole body in excess of 0 .005 rem (0.05 mSv) in 1 hour at 30 centimeters from the source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates Contamination          "Caution,                      Contamination area means any Area                  Contamination Area "            area, accessible to individuals, where removable surface contamination levels exceed or are likely to exceed the removable surface contamination values specified in Table 2-14, but do not exceed 100 times those values.
Radioactive            "Caution, Radioactive          Radioactive material area means any area Material Area          Material(s)"                  within a controlled area, accessible to individuals, in which items or container.s of radioactive material exist and the total activity of radioactive material exceeds the applicable values provided in appendix E of 10 CFR 835 .(2)
NOTES: (1) From 10 CFR 835, with only those areas likely to be applicable to a foundation slab or other open area listed.
(2) Appendi x E of 10 CFR 835 lists individual radionuclide radioactivity levels below which radiological controls are not required.
During the deactivation activities, equipment is being removed using conventional segmenting and handling techniques. The structures are being removed using conventional dismantlement and demolition methods. Waste generated is being shipped off site.
Radiological surveys, which are discussed further in Section 9, will document the
* radiological conditions at the conclusion of deactivation. The radionuclide most significant from the standpoint of radiation protection during this work is Cs-137 .
As a major facility undergoing preparation for demolition during decommissioning, most Process Building areas are being deactivated during work to achieve the interim end state, with piping and equipment removed and piping cut. off flush with facility surfaces. The Vitrification Facility has undergone a similar deactivation and the Remote-Handled Waste Facility will be deactivated in the same manner. However, some radioactive equipment and significant amounts of residual radioactivity will remain in the Process Building and Vitrification facility at the beginning of Phase 1 decommissioning work as detailed in Section 4.1.
Revision 2                                                2-31
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.3  Spills and Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity This section describes spills and uncontrolled releases of radioactivity that have impacted the environment or had the potential to do so . Most of the numerous spills of radioactivity that occurred during NFS operations were contained within the Process Building and these are not detailed here. However, the radioisotope inventory reports generated by the Facility Characterization Project (Michalczak 2004) have documented conditions resulting from significant spills contained within the facilities .
There were two major spills considered to be significant to the site that occurred during licensed reprocessing operations, producing areas of contamination known today as the north plateau groundwater plume and cesium prong . Table 2-16 provides information about the radioactivity associated with the north plateau groundwater plume . More details on radioactivity associated with these two areas appear in Section 4.2.
2.3.1 North Plateau Groundwater Plume The north plateau groundwater plume is a zone of groundwater contamination .
Based on characterization data collected 1in 2008. ijie plume is approximately 600 feet wide by 1,400 feet long extending northeastward from the Process Building in WMA 1 to the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill in WMA 4, where it splits into three distinct lobes as shown in Figure 2-6 . The 2008 data, which are discussed in Section 4, indicate that the center leading edge lobe extends to the cenb"al portion of the Construction and Demolition Debris landfill (WVES 2009).
Lagoon 1 is also a possible contributor of gross beta activity in part of the plume, at least in this lagoon's immediate vicinity (WVES and URS 2009).
Strontium-90 and its decay product, Y-90, are the principal radionuclides in this plume, with both radionuclides contributing equal amounts of beta activity. In 1994 it was determined that Sr-90 concentrations were as high as 1.2 &#xb5;Ci/L in groundwater on the east side of the Process Building . Results of the latest core area investigation in 1998 determined that the highest Sr-90 concentration was 0.705 &#xb5;Ci/L beneath the Uranium Loadout Room near the southeast end of the Process Building (Hemann and Steiner 1999).
More information about the plume appears in Section 4.2.
The presumed primary source of the plume was an acid recovery line that leaked in the southwest corner of the Process Building during the late 1960's. The leak released an estimated 200 gallons of radioactive nitric acid from the Off-Gas Operating Aisle down to the underlying Off-Gas Cell and the adjacent southwest stairwell (Carpenter and Hemann 1995).
The leakage apparently flowed through an expansion joint in the concrete floor of the Off-Gas Cell and migrated into the sand and gravel underlying the Process Building (Westcott 1998) . This leak also contributed to sewage treatment system contamination (Duckworth 1972b) .
Revision 2                                        2-32
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
                                                                                                                          /
I
                                                                                                                      /
i I
I I
l
                                                                                                              \
j 1\
                                                                                                        /      l
                                                                                                      ,,        \
Well 111 " .
S.39E+D 3 pCifL )
I Well 8605 \
9.36E+03 pCi/l I
J l!r  /
  - - 2008 Gross Beta Contour
                                                                                                    /
                                                                                                            \
                                                          ~------------~!-~1'
    - -        - 2002 Gross Beta Contour This figure shows the approximate perimeter
    * -- * * * *
* 1994 Gross Beta Contour                of the plume in 2008; the dashed lines l
Isopleth r.nes at 1E+03 pC ill indicate the approximate perimeter in 2 002.
                                                          '---~-~  --,-._
                                                                        -----,~------'
                                                                                                              \
                                                                                                          / /'        -
(Strontiu m-90 DCG)
Figure 2-6. Sr-90 Groundwater Plume on the North Plateau Mobile radionuclides such as H-3, Sr-90, and Tc-99 have migrated with groundwater along the northeast groundwater flow path in the north plateau . The Lagoon 1 design (to allow liquid to seep from the impoundment while retaining sediment and non-aqueous Revision 2                                          2-33
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN contaminants inside the basin) allowed tritiated water, originally containing about 6,000 curies of tritium in leachate pumped from the SDA for treatment, to infiltrate areas of the north plateau groundwater in the mid -1970s (Smokowski 1977) . These conditions were an unintended consequence of the lagoon design, and resulted in an extensive investigation by NFS, extending through the transfer of operational control to DOE in the early 1980s (Marchetti 1982) .
The potential dose effects of the tritium are, however, small in comparison to the potential effects from the Sr-90 plume of present interest. Currently, the highest Sr-90 concentrations in groundwater exist at the closest GeoprobeT" sampling point downgradient from the original release point beneath the Off-Gas Cell in the Process Building . Less mobile radionuclides such as Cs-137 are expected to have remained beneath the immediate source area due to the high cesium sorption capacity of the minerals in the sand and gravel.
An order-of-magnitude estimate of the radionuclides and amounts released by the acid leak, and the estimated remaining amount in 2011 , are presented in Table 2-16. These estimates totaled approximately 200 curies in 1972 and will total approximately 77 curies in 2011 .
Table 2-16. Released Radionuclide Activity Estimates for the North Plateau Plume(lJ Radionuclide        Plume Activity in 1972 (Ci)    Plume Activity in 2011 (Ci)
H-3                          2.4E-03                            2.6E-04 C-14                          1.3E-03                            1.3E-03 Co-60                          3.8E-05                            2.3E-07 Sr-90                        9.3E +01                          3.6E+01 Tc-99                          1.5E-02                            1.5E-02 Cd-113m                        4.1 E-02                          5.7E -03 Sb-125                        1.8E+OO                            1.1 E-04 Sn-126                        3.8E-04                            3.8E-04 1-129                          2.0E-06                            2.0E -06 Cs-137                        9.8E+01                            4.0E+Ol Eu -154                      4.1 E+OO                            1.9E-01 Ra- 226                      0.0E+OO                            1.2E-10 Ac-227                        1.4E-08                            6.2E-09 Ra-228                        2.7E-13                            5.7E-14 Th-229                        6.lE-11                            2.5E-07 Pa -231                        2.7E-09                            3.4E-09 Th -232                        5.5E-14                            5.5E-14 Revision 2                                    2-34
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-16. Released Radionuclide Activity Estimates for the North Plateau Plume(1 >
Radionuclide          Plume Activity in 1972 (Ci)              Plume Activity in 2011 (Ci)
U-232                                4.8E -05                                3.3E-05 U-233                                6.9E-05                                  6.9E-05 U-234                                4.0E -05                                4.6E-05 U-235                                8.9E -07                                8.9E-07 Np-237                                2.4E-04                                  2.5E-04 U-238                                7.9E-06                                  7.9E-06 Pu-238                                6.9E-02                                  5.1E-02 Pu-239                                1.6E-02                                  1.6E-02 Pu-240                                1.2E-02                                  1.3E-02 Pu-241                                1.7E+OO                                  2.5E-01 Am-241                                6.6E -01                                6.6E-01 Cm -243                              4.2E-04                                  1.6E-04 Cm-244                                3.3E-01                                  7.4E-02 NOTE : (1) From Westcott 1998. Note that the values in Table 2-16 are based on a 1998 estimate of radioactivity in soil and groundwater beneath and downgradient of the Process Building that did not take into account radioactivity in groundwater that may have seeped to the surface and entered ditches or strea ms.
In 1995, a pump and treat system was installed to slow the migration and lower the water table in the western lobe of the plume. A pilot-scale permeable treatment wall was installed in 1999 to provide some plume migration control for the eastern lobe of the plume .
These facilities are described in Section 3.
In 2008 and 2009, data were collected to support design of a full -scale permeable treatment wall to be installed to mitigate the leading edge of the plume (WVES 2009) .
These data included concentrations of Sr-90 in subsurface soil and groundwater from samples collected in WMA 2, WMA 4, and WMA 5 as discussed in Section 4.
In addition to the known acid spill affecting the north plateau, during NFS operations several incidents such as inadvertent transfers of higher-than-intended activity occurred in the interceptor basin system upstream of the lagoon system (Lewis 1967, Taylor 1967, Wischow 1967). Documented accounts of leakage and spills in the area (Lewis 1967, Carpenter and Hemann 1995) corroborate the generally elevated observed subsurface soil contamination in the area west of Lagoon 1 to the vicinity of the Process Building . Such localized subsurface soil contamination can be attributed to these unintended operational releases.
2.3.2    Old Sewage Plant Drainage The old sewage treatment plant outfall drainage extends approximately 650 feet to the
* south of a culvert near the Old Warehouse location, flowing into the first culvert under the Revision 2                                              2-35
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN railroad tracks on the south plateau. In the 1960s and 1970s, the old sewage treatment plant experienced several contamination events, some of which were expressed as radioactivity increases in the treated effluent (DOE 1978). Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show where the drainage is located .
Actions were taken to find and repair the suspected sewage line leak, but when excavation of the line neared the south side of the Process Building, radiation levels from soil contamination hampered the project (Duckworth 1972b}. Direct radiation levels of several mR/h were measured on containers of sludge removed from the sewage treatment plant for disposal in ~he 1980s.
A 1982 gamma radiation survey of the drainage channel showed levels three feet above the surface ranging from 110 to 500 &#xb5;R/h on a section of the channel extending approximately 200 feet south of the sewer outfall (Marchetti 1982) . The contaminated portion of the area was about 15 feet wide and 600 feet long, the northern 200 feet of which exhibited significant contamination in sediments represented by an 800 pCi/g Cs-137 result on the sample collected at that location, and up to 1 mR/hr near the surface of the drainage ditch . The sediment layer is estimated to be at least a foot thick.
In order to prevent further contaminant transport downstream, a new drainage channel was excavated to the west of the contaminated drain, and the spoil was placed over the old 6
channel. At least three feet of soil covers the old drainage channel sediment. Some drainage near the old outfall exhibits residual surface contamination . (See Section 4.)
2.3.3      The Cesium Prong Th e cesium prong is an airborne deposition plume resulting from a series of Process Building ventilation system air filter failures during licensed operations starting in March 1968, and culminating in a main ventilation system filter failure that occurred on September 4, 1968 (Urbon 1968a, Urbon 1968b). These airborne releases contaminated a portion of the West Valley site as shown in Figure 2-7. The primary contaminant is Cs-137.
A study that focused on the portion of the cesium prong outside of the Center boundary showed that contamination concentrations decrease with depth . Seventy-five percent of the activity was determined to be in the upper two inches of soil, 20 percent in the layer between two inches deep and four inches deep, and five percent in the four to six inch layer (Luckett 1995). Therefore, 95 percent of the activity in the affected area outside of the Center lies in the upper four inches of soil. It is probable that similar conditions exist on the Center property closer to the source of the contamination. but data from this area are not .
available. Surface soil within the project premises will be characterized during Phase 1 of the decommissioning as described in Section 9.
6 Section 5 describes cleanup goals for surface soil (within one meter, or approximately 3 feet of the surface) and for subsurface soil in the deep WMA 1 and WMA 2 excavations. Section 5 does not provide cleanup goals for near surface soil contamination below 3 feet from the surface such as that expected to be present in the old drainage channel. Remediation of this contamination is not within the scope of Phase 1 decommissioning activities .
Revision 2                                            2-36
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN N
WNYNSC Site Boundary Cesium Prong Letter        Net Counts*
Label        Per Second A              <66 B            66 - 140 c          140 - 310 D          310-660 E          660 -1,400 F        1,400 -3,100 G        3 , 100 - 6,600 H        6,600 - 14,000 - - - -
I        14,000 - 31 ,000 - - - -
* Net gross counts above background in the window 500 to 740 keV. [Measure ents made at 150 feet using Na(TI) detectors in 1984 as et gro ~s..____,,
counts above background in the 500 to 7 0 KeV energ range for Cs-137 gammas (EG&G/EM 1991)f.
  ~  - Soil Sampling Locations.                  This illustration shows actual radiation contours from a 1984 aerial survey . Note that i S~~&sect;~~~~~~~~~4~000 ~a-b_o_v_e-_b_a-ck_g_r_ou_n_d~le_v_e_ls_n_e_a_r-th-e~no-r~th_e_a_s-te_r_n_s-ite__.
boundary are associated with contaminated FTl .... streambed sediment, not the cesium prong. Th e 0                  2000 contours in this map will have changed due to radioactive decay and weatherinq since 1984.
GRAPHIC SCALE                                                          /
Figure 2-7. 1984 Aerial Radiation Survey Isopleths of the WVDP and Surrounding Area Revision 2                                          2-37
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMM ISSION ING PLAN 2.3.4    Summary of Spills During NFS Operations Tabl e 2-1 7 provid es a summary li sting of major spill s th at impacted the environment during the period when NFS was operating the reprocessing plant.
Table 2-17. Principal Radionuclides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location                                                  Activity or Type          Form                                    Documentation Notes Concentration 1968 radioactive acid spill    Sr-90          Liqu id to soil, 0.705 &#xb5;Ci/L            Lin e 7P-240-1-C failed that produced the major        (predomin ant  groundwater (maximum)!11                inside the OGA in January contribution to the north      mobile                          [Original spill volume 1968, and leakage drained plateau groundwater plume.      contaminant)                    estimated at 200        from the OGA through the WMA 1: from southwest                                          gallons, -93 Ci Sr-    OGC to the underlying corner of the Process                                            90](21                soil.(31 Building.
In 1967, wastewater Line to    Radionucl ide  Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and      Line 7P-1 60-2-C leaked an Tank 70-13 contri buted to      mix typical of groundwater activity At levels - 5E-    unknown amount of north plateau groundwater      feed and                          03 &#xb5;Ci /ml, the      radioactive wastewater in plume. WMA 1: near the          waste                            interceptor release    February 1967 during south side of the Process      contamination                    limit.                transfer from Tank 70-Building.                                                                              13.(5)
In 1967, contaminated          Radionuclide  Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and      Evidence of earlier groundwater noted during        mix typical of groundwater quantity; evidently not      leakage, but not a spill new interceptor construction. feed and                        sufficient to cause    reported by NFS(SJ WMA 2: south of Old            waste                            worker dose Interceptor at site of New    contamination                    constraints.
Interceptors.
Resin Pit spills during Fuel  Cs-1 37, Sr-90 Solid and        Unknown amount and      Incidental small spills of Receiving and Storage spent                  liquid to soil, quantity. Some effect    resin and fluid during nuclear fuel pool water                      groundwater on groundwater                maintenance. Information filtration system maintenance.                                  noted.                from subsurface probing WMA 1: east of FRS.                                                                    investigation (31 In 1967, Tank 80-2            Cs-137, H-3    Liquid to soil, No evidence of out-      Line 8P-46-6-A5 failed ventilation condensate line                  groundwater leakage, but                  integrity test. NFS (operates under vacuum) was                                      possibility exists of  evaluation in 1977 .(4) noted to be breached. WMA                                        localized groundwater 3: one leak noted between                                        effects.
HLW tanks and southwest side of Process Building (in WMA 1) at ARPR, other leaks thought to exist in WMA 3.
Revision 2                                              2-38
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-17. Principal Radionuclides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location                                                    Activity or Type          Form                                      Documentation Notes Concentration In 1967, a line from the in-cell Fission        Liquid to soil,  Leakage resulted in      Line 7P-170-2A failed in-LLW Evaporator to acid          products and    groundwater      555 gallons of liquid    cell on 2/14/67. Reported recovery failed in-cell during  transuranics                    waste entering the        by NFS (7), (SJ waste transfer to Tank 80-2. from spent fuel                ARPR sump and WMA 1: ARPR in southwest                                        draining to the Old corner of Process Building .                                      Interceptor (sufficient This release may have                                            to read >-100 mR/hr impacted soil and                                                at the interceptor),
groundwater under this part                                      and requiring of the Process Building.                                          pumpout back to the Process Building for treatment. This event led to installation of 12 inches of concrete shielding on the
                                                                .Interceptor floor. A radiation level of 408 mR/h was measured in the Interceptor in 2003.
Sanitary sewer line leak near  Cs-137, Sr-90, Liquid to soil,  Estimated 0.052 Ci        Sewage Treatment Plant Process Building allowed        1-129          groundwater,    Sr-90 released:          and outfall drainage were contaminated groundwater to                      eventual        sewage treatment          contaminated to low levels, affect Sewage Treatment                          release to      outfall area soil        effluent concentrations Plant. WMA 1: in-leakage                        Erdman          contaminated to 1        subsiding after leak was near southwest side of                          Brook            mR/h.                    repaired .
Process Building.                                impacting                                  Reported by NFS (BJ, (1 4J water, sediment.
Overflow of Lagoons 4 and 5: Cs-137, Sr-90      Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and        Temporary loss of Lagoon treated water released to                        groundwater activity: probably            3 capacity allowed local soil and groundwater.                                      close to free release    overflow of releasable WMA 2: northeast of the 02                                        level of< 3E-7            treated effluent to occur at Building.                                                        &#xb5;Ci /ml.                  an unplanned location.
Reported by NFS (9J Revision 2                                              2-39
WV D P P HASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING P LAN Table 2-17. Principal Radionucl ides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location                                                      Activity or Type          Form                                      Documentation Notes Concentration Leakage from waste                Fission        Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and          Leakage from waste containers or fuel casks            products and    groundwater activity of leaks:              transport trailers parked on contaminated asphalt "Old          transuranics                    maximum surface            the hardstand Hardstand" north of the            from spent fuel                  reading was 100            contaminated the asphalt Process Building . WMA 5:                                          mR/hr on localized          surface. Runoff footprint located west of LSA                                      surfaces. Material was      contaminated the adjacent 3 and LSA 4.                                                        removed and placed        soil and drainage ditch.
in Lagoon 1 in 1984.      Noted, but not detailed Approximately 1,700        during 1982 environmental cubic yards of              characterization .18J removed material,          Significant contamination
                                                                    <10,000 dpm/g beta-        was noted in 1983.110J gamma, <2,000 dpm alpha.111i Cesium prong created by          Cs-137          Airborne        Approximately 0.33 Ci Several events contributed particulate deposition                            particulate to  particulate gross beta to the deposits. A DOG following 1968 dissolver off-                      exposed          radioactivity released . filter failure in March, and a gas HEPA filter failure. WMA                      surfaces, soil  Offsite- 44 pCi/g          main plant filter failure in 1,3, 4,5,10: general                                                localized; 21pCi/g        September appear to have deposits to the north-                                              averaged over 2,500        been the main sources of northwest of the Process                                            m2(26,900 ft2). Offsite the observed depositions.
Building. Detectable deposits                                      data from Luckett.(13J    Reported by NFS 112J.l8J extend several miles (outside the scope of this plan).
LEGEND: ARPR = Acid Recovery Pump Room , DOG =dissolver off-gas, FR S = Fuel Receiving and Storage, OGA =Off-Gas Aisle, OGC = Off-gas Cell.
NOTES:      (1) From Hemann and Steiner 1999.          (6) From Taylor 1967.              (11) From WVNSCO 1995.
(2) From Westcott 1998.                  (7) From Wischow 1967 .            (12) From Urban 1968a.
(3) From Carpenter and Hemann 1995.      (8) From Marchetti 1982.            (13) From Luckett 1995.
(4) From Duckworth 1977.                  (9) From Taylor 1972.              (14) From Duckworth 1972b (5) From Lewi s 1967 .                    (10) From WVN SCO 1983b.
2.3.5      WVDP Spills Incidents occurring outside facility containment, qnd having the potential for residual environmental contamination are detailed as spills or unplanned releases. Spills that were confined inside facilities are not discussed because such spills did not lead to releases into the environment. For example, although the discovery of contaminant migration within the NOA in 1983 required action , the effects were contained within the facility (WVNSCO 1985a). Any residual contamination has been characterized along with the facility and is included in the respective facility radiological inventory.
Based on a review of event reports for the WVDP (1985 through 2008), one 1985 spill and one 1987 spill involving release of radioactive water were documented by unusual occurrence reports as identified below. These events are mentioned because they were Revision 2                                                  2-40
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN considered to be serious enough to be reportable under DO E requirements . They are listed below in Table 2-18, along with three other unplanned releases of less significance .
Table 2-18. WVDP Spill s Impacting Environmental Media (1982 - 2007)
Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location                                                  Activity or Type          Form                                Documentation Notes Concentration 1985 spill of radioactive      Cs-137, H-3    Liquid to        -400 gal at        Spill of radioactive water March water at the Waste Tank                        groundwater,      4.6 E-02 &#xb5;Ci/ml    1985 at the Waste Tank Farm Farm. WMA3: from valve                        soil              gross beta,        from a condensate line running pit northwest of 8D-2,                                          -4E-03 &#xb5;Ci/ml      from Tank 8D-1 to Tank 8D-2 between 8D-2 and 8D-1 .                                          H-3.              due to failure of flanged valve bolts. Some water (4.6E-02
                                                                                    &#xb5;Ci/ml gross beta) flowed out of valve pit. Contaminated soil was removed. Documented by Unusual Occurrence Report!1)
In 1987, condensate from a Radionuclide        Liquid to        Less than 10      A portable ventilation unit was ventilation unit spilled on top mix typical of groundwater,      gallons spilled,  disassembled after operations ofTank 8D-2. WMA3: upon feed and              soil              water probably    on March 2, 1987 near Tank disassembling the unit,        waste                            -2E-5 &#xb5;Ci/ml      8D-2. Condensate from the condensate leaked out onto contamination                        gross beta.        housing spilled onto the gravel the gravel surface.                                                                surface of Tank 8D-2 top. No soil or water contamination noted in samples collected.(2)
In 1987, the Neutralization    Radionuclide  Liquid to        Approximately      The Neutralization Pit Pit overflowed during          mix typical of groundwater,      5,000 gallons of  overflowed on February 25, transfer of liquid waste to    feed and      soil              waste water was    1987 due to a malfunctioning the interceptor. WMA2: the      waste                            spilled, -5E-05    drain valve. The overflow went overflow went to the ground    contamination                    uCi/mL gross      to the ground near the near the interceptors and                                        beta.              interceptors and Lagoon 1. The Lagoon 1. .                                                                        flow was stopped when noted by an operator. Documented by Unusual Occurrence Report !3l In 1987, water from a 55-      Radionuclide  Liquid to soil,  <15 gallons likely Drum was being transferred gallon drum containing          mix typical of potentially to    spilled, wetted    from the Lag Storage Building spent resin leaked. WMA 5:      feed and      groundwater      soil was <100      hardstand to a waste water spilled on the ground    waste                            dpm/g gross
* solidification area in the Process before or during transfer of    contamination                    beta.              Building when leakage was the drum to a processing                                                            noted.!4l station .
Revision 2                                              2-41
WV D P PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Tab le 2-18. WVDP Spills Impacting Environmental Media (1982 - 2007)
Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location                                                  Activity or Type              Form                                Documentation Notes Concentration In 2001 , release of airborne Radionuclide      Airborne          4.8E-04 &#xb5;Ci      Over a period of two months, particulate from Process      mix typical of    particulate to    gross beta.      September-October 2001 , excess Building stack in droplet    Process            exposed                            moisture appears to have form . WMA1 and 3: fallout    Building stack    surfaces and                        become entrained in the Main was localized due to droplet  particulate        soil                                Plant Ventilation system, and size.                        (Cs-137 & Sr-                                          was emitted from the stack as
: 90)                                                    droplets containing radioactive particulates. The fallout was confined to the area several hundred feet from the Process Building. Radiological surveys were conducted and accessible above-background spots were decontaminated. Total releases were less than 0.5% of the administrative release limits (SJ,(6!
In 2003, breach discovered  Radionuclide      Liquid to        Amount            Discovery of hole in riser to in wastewater drain line      mix typical of    groundwater,      unknown, water    drain line 15-ww-569 from allowing contaminated        feed and          soil              typically -2E-07  Laundry to Interceptors in laundry water to leak into    waste                                &#xb5;Ci/ml gross    October 2003: date of breach adjacent soils. WMA 1:        contamination                        beta.            unknown. A sample of during wastewater line                                                              subsurface soil near the breach inspection a breach was                                                            showed 3,300 pCi/g Cs-137 and discovered, but no specific                                                          87 pCi/g Am-241 as shown in event was identified which                                                          Table 4-12 in Section 4; the would have caused the                                                                breached line may not have breach. The line was                                                                caused all of this repaired .                                                                          contamination .m. (Bl NOTES:      (1) From WVNSCO 1985b.        (5) From Nagel 2001 .
(2) From WVNSCO 1987a.        (6) From Nagel 2002 .
(3) From WVNSCO 1987b.        (7) From Maloney 2003 .
(4) From WVNSCO 1987c.        (8) From WVNSCO 2006.
2.4      Prior Onsite Burials There are two prior burial sites within the NRC licensed property that contain radioactive material : Lagoon 1 and the NDA. A drainage area adjacent to the NDA is believed to contain contaminated soil below contouring fill. The location of these burial sites is shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.
2.4.1 lagoon 1 In order to prevent further water infiltration, and to isolate contaminated fill removed in the 1980s from a hardstand north of the Process Building, radioactive wastes were stabilized and capped within Lagoon 1, one of five lagoons associated with the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. Lagoon 1 was an unlined basin in the system for treating liquid Revision 2                                                2-42
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN low-level waste . It was removed from service in 1984 because it was determined during initial WVOP environmental assessments to be a major source of tritium in nearby groundwater (Marchetti 1982) .
After Lagoon 1 was taken out of service, liquid and sediment from it were transferred to Lagoon 2. Lagoon 1 was then filled with approximately 46,000 cubic feet of radioactively-contaminated debris removed during decontamination of the old/new hardstand area .
Among this debris were asphalt, trees, stumps, roots, and weeds (WVNSCO 1995) .
After being filled with debris, Lagoon 1 was then capped with clay, covered with topsoil, and re-vegetated . Table 2-19 provides an order-of-magnitude estimate for the residual radioactivity in Lagoon 1. Section 7 describes decommissioning activities for Lagoon 1, which will include removal and offsite disposal of the buried waste .
Table 2-19. Estimated Residual Radioactivity in Lagoon 1l1J Radionuclide                Activity (Ci)        Radionuclide              Activity (Ci)
C-14                                  0.053      U-234                                0.012 Sr-90                                    19      U-235                              0.0027 Tc-99                                  0.20      Np-237                              0.0031 Cd-113m                                0.065      U-238                                0.025 Sb-125                              0.0038        Pu-238                                  6.5 1-129                                  0.029      Pu-239                                  3.8 Cs-137                                  548      Pu-241                                  156 Eu-154                                    1.7    Am-241                                    11 U-233                                  0.22      Cm-244                                0.22 NOTE: (1) From WVNSCO 1995, decay-corrected to January 2011 . Most of the activity is estimated to be in the remaining sediment.
2.4.2 The NRC-Licensed Disposal Area As explained in Section 3, the NOA is a 400-feet wide and 600-feet long shallow-land radioactive waste disposal site southeast of the Process Building . It includes three distinct areas: (1) the NFS waste disposal area, (2) the WVOP disposal trenches and caissons, and (3) the areas occupied by an interceptor trench and subsurface barrier wall (Figure 2-8) .
Prior to 1972, the NOA was used exclusively for the disposal of highly radioactive solid wastes generated by the reprocessing plant. Wastes routinely buried in the area included spent fuel hulls, fuel assembly hardware, failed process vessels and large equipment, degraded process solvent absorbed on suitable solid medium, and miscellaneous packaged trash including laboratory wastes, small equipment, ventilation filters, and other process-related debris.
Revision 2                                            2-43
WV DP P HASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING P LAN Also buried in the NOA are 42 ruptured spent fuel elements from the Hanford N-Reactor. According to records. the total radioactive waste volume in the NOA is approximately 361,000 cubic feet. The estimated total activity present in 2000 was approximately 299, 000 curies (Wild 2000) . Table 2-20 is an abridged summary of the wastes buried in the NOA. Table 2-21 is a summary of radioactivity in wastes buried in the NOA, corrected to the estimated radioactivity present in 2011.
The swale between the SDA and the NOA has been historically contaminated.
presumably from spills during waste burial operations by NFS. and after SDA closure, during leachate control activities (DOE 1978) . During the NOA tank removal and subsurface control period in the 1980s and 1990s. the swale area was re-contoured to prevent erosion. An unknown amount of low-level radioactive contamination remains in that area, evidenced by continuing elevated radioactive contaminant indicators in surface water immediately downstream (WVNSCO and URS 2007) . The swale area averages approximately 30 feet wide running 300 feet north along the drainage from the old NOA hardstand . Based upon observations during radiation surveys in 1982, the contamination appeared to have permeated porous fill in the swale channel. Gamma readings in that area were five to seven times background, not inconsistent with observed downstream gross beta contamination (Marchetti 1982). Surface soi l contamination is still occasionally noted in that area (WVNSCO 1986, WVNSCO 2007b) .
Table 2-20 Summary of Wastes in the NRC-licensed Disposal Area '1J NOA                                                                                Estimated 2011 General Waste Types (typical)              Volume (ft 3 )
Location                                                                                Activity (Ci)
NFS Deep          Ai r filters, pumps. pipe. scrap. hull s,          65,145                  169,1 61 Holes              resin, solvent. fuel casing. shear ram, concrete, wood.
NFS Special        Air filters, pumps. pipe. scrap,                    97 ,298                  58,914 Holes              birdcages, resin. solvent. dissolver, jumpers, saw, shield, cask, railcar, low level waste treatment sludge, trash .
WVDP              Ai r filters, metal tanks, scrap. resin,          197,656                        926 Trenches          LLWT sludge, trash, concrete, wood ,
asphalt. glove box, snow blower.
WVDP              General wa ste, LLWT sludge .                          823                      0.15 Ca issons Disposal Tota ls      360,922                    229,000 NOTE : (1) Based on the estimates in Wild 2000, decay corrected to 2011 . Activity in each loca tion estim ated by proportion of overall 2000 activity.
Revision 2                                            2-44
WVDP PHASE      1  DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1
Table 2-21 . Estimated Radioactivity in the NDAl J Nuclide          Estimate (Ci)      Nuclide          Estimate (Ci)        Nuclide      Estimate (Ci)
Am-241                2,000        Np-237                  0.17          Tc-99                  10 C-14                      520        Pu-238                  350          U-233                11 Co-60                  7,000        Pu -239                  580          U-234              0.59 Cs- 137              29,000        Pu -240                  400          U-235              0.12 H-3                        35      Pu -241                9,100          U-238                1.5 1-129                  0.022        Ra -226                <0.01              -                  -
Ni-63              110,000          Sr-90                22,000              -                  -
NOTE : (1) From Wild 2000, radionuclide total s corrected for decay and in-growth to 2011 and rounded to two significant figures.
Revision 2                                            2-45
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN N
WMAS A
Approximate Location of Forme r NOA lagoon Trenc hes WMA9 Legend
~ NfS DEEP HOLE DISPOSAL AREA
* D VWOP DISPOSAL AREA                                    50    0  50    100  150  200 Feet LJ NFS WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
* 0.A 10 20--30 40I Meters 10 Figure 2-8. NOA Disposal Area Burials (The geomembrane cover is not shown in this view.)
Revision 2                                2-46
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.4.3    Other Burial Locations Two other areas on the Center contain buried radioactive material , although neither is 7
within the scope of this plan . One, the SDA. is not on the project premises. The other, the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill in WMA 4, is briefly described here for completeness because it is located within the project premises .
Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill The Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill in WMA 4 is located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Process Building . This landfill, the only facility within this WMA, covers approximately 1.5 acres in the southern part of the area. Nonradioactive waste material was typically placed in the landfill on existing grade in layers three to five feet thick, covered with soil, and compacted with bulldozers or trucks . The landfill is estimated to contain a total volume of 425 ,000 cubic feet of waste material and soil. It was initially used by Bechtel Engineering from 1963 to 1965 to dispose of nonradioactive waste generated during *construction of the Process Building (WVNSC01996) .
NFS then used this landfill from 1965 to 1981 to dispose of nonradioactive construction, office, and facility generated debris, including ash from the NFS incinerator.
The landfill was used from 1982 to 1984 to dispose of nonradioactive waste generated at the WVDP .
Disposal operations at the landfill were terminated in December 1984 and the DOE closed it in accordance with applicable New York State regulations . The final cover on the landfill was graded and grass planted to prevent erosion . In October 1986, the NYSDEC approved and certified the closure of the landfill (WVNSCO 1996) .
Because this landfill is located in the path of the north pJateau groundwater plume, radioactively contaminated grqundwater in the plume is assumed to have come in contact with waste in the landfill as discussed in Section 2.3.1 . Portions of the buried waste are therefore expected to be radioactive .
2.5    References Federal Statutes Atomic Energy Act of 1954 Energy Reorganization Act of 197 4 West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980 Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection.
7 The condition of the old Sewage Plant drainage described in Section 2.3.2 could also considered to be buried radioactivity since the contaminated sediment is covered with soil.
Revision 2'                                        2-47
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Other References AEC 1966, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., and New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority Docket No. 50-201 , Provisional Operating License No.
CSF-1 . U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1966.
    *Bower 2008, The U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project (DOE-WVDP) Air Emissions Annual Report for CY2007, per the NESHAP 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61 , Subpart H, letter DW:2008 :0181 . Bower, B., U.S.
Department of Energy-West Valley Demonstration Project to P. Giardina , U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, June 25, 2008 .
Carpenter and Hemann 1995, Subsurface Probing Investigation on the North Plateau at the West Valley Demonstration Project, WVDP-220, Revision 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, May 1, 1995.
DOE 1978, Western New York Nuclear Service Center Study Companion Report, TID-28905-2 . U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 1978.
DOE 1993, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, Rev. 0. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. Washington , DC, 1993.
DOE 1996, Plutonium Recovery from Spent Fuel Reprocessing by Nuclear Fuel Services at West Valley, New York from 1966 to 1972. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C .. February 1996.
DOE 2006, Environmental Assessment for the Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at the West Valley Demonstration Project - Final, DOE/EA-1552. U.S. Department of Energy, West Valley, New York, September 14, 2006 DOE and NYSERDA 1981, Cooperative Agreement between United States Department of Energy and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority on the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, New York. Effective October 1, 1980, Amended September 18, 1981 .
Duckworth 1972a, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for January 1, 1972 through March 31, 1972. J. Duckworth, Nuclear Fuel Services to S. Smiley, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., West Valley, New York, April 18, 1972.
Duckworth 1972b, Letter Report on Sanitary Sewer Activity. J. Duckworth, Nuclear Fuel Services to J. O'Reilly, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc .. West Valley, New York, February 25 , 1972.
Duckworth 1977, Memorandum regarding leak testing of WTF vent line , J. Duckworth to W. Oldham, both of Nuclear Fuel Services. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, May 25, 1977.
Revision 2                                  2-48
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN EG&G/EM 1991, An Aerial Radiological Survey of the WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT and Surrounding Area, EG&G/EM Survey Report EGG-10617-1080.
EG&G/EM, Las Vegas, Nevada September 1991 .
Eisenstatt 1986, Description of the West Valley Demonstration Project Reference High-Level Waste Form and Canister, DOE/NE/44139-26 . Eisenstatt, L. R. , U.S.
Department of Energy, West Valley, New York, 1986.
Grove Engineering 2003, MicroShield Version 6 User's Manual. Grove Engineering, Rockville Maryland , March 2003 .
Hemann and Steiner 1999, 1998 Geoprobe Investigation in the Core Area of the North Plateau Groundwater Plume, WVDP-346 , Rev . 0. Hemann, M . R. & Steiner II, R.
E., West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, June 1999.
Lachapelle 2003, Vitrification Facility (VF) Radioisotope Inventory Report, RIR-403-010, Rev . 1. Lachapelle, E.B., West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, June 2003 .
Lewis 1.967 , Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for January 20, 1967 through April 19, 1967. W . Lewis, Nuclear Fuel Services, to J.
McBride, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc ., West Valley, New York, May 16, 1967 .
Luckett 1995, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Western New York Nuclear Service Center Off-Site Radiation Investigation. Luckett. L., Dames &
Moore, Pearl River, New York, April 1995.
Maloney 2003, Solid waste Management Unit Assessment, SWMU #45 - Breach in Laundry Wastewater Line (EPA ID#NYD980779540) . M. Maloney, DOE-West Valley Demonstration Project. to R. Phaneuf, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, letter # DW:2003 :0571. U.S. Department of Energy, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, December 22, 2003 .
Marchetti 1982, Environmental Characterization of the Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant at West Valley, New York (Presolidification Baseline), WVDP:014 . S. Marchetti to Distribution . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, October 1982.
Marschke 2006, Radionuclide Inventory, Waste Form Stability Characteristics, and Waste Classification for Solidified Decontaminated Supernatant and Sludge Wash Solutions, Calculation Package WSMS -WV-06-CAL001 , Revision 0. Marschke, S.,
Washington Safety Management Solutions, West
* Valley, New York, February 2006 .
Michalczak 2004, Characterization Management Plan for the Facility Characterization Project, WVDP -403, Revision 3. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January 16, 2004 .
Revision 2                                      2-49
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Nagel 2001 , WVDP Effluent Summary Report and Environmental Monitoring Program Monthly Trend Analysis Report for September 2001, letter No. IB:2001 :0261 . A.
Nagel to Distribution, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 10, 2001 .
Nagel 2002, WVDP Effluent Summary Report and Environmental Monitoring Program Monthly Trend Analysis Report for October 2001 , letter No. 18:2002 :0020. A. Nagel to Distribution, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January 11 , 2002 .
NFS 1973, Safety Analysis Report: NFS Reprocessing Plant, Docket No. 50-201. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, 1973.
NRC 1981 , Change No. 31 Facility License No. CSF-1 . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wa shington D.C., September 30, 1981 .
NRC 2006, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees, NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Rev. 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C .. September 2006 .
Riethmiller 1981 , History of Decontamination. Riethmiller, G. E .. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc .. West Valley, New York, June 1981 .
Rowell 2001, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Sodium-Bearing Waste Water at the West Valley Demonstration Project. Subject of attached letter WD:2001 :0810 from L. Rowell , WVNSCO, to A. Williams, DOE . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 17, 2001 .
Rykken 1986, High-Level Waste Characterization At West Valley, Report of Work Performed 1982 - 1985, DOE/NEJ44139-14 (DE87005887) . Rykken, L.E ., West Va lley, New York, June 2, 1986.
Smokowski 1977, Memorandum regarding French Drain. R. Smokowski to W. Oldham, both of Nuclear Fuel Services. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, August 23, 1977.
Taylor 1967, Memorandum regarding contaminated water noted during excavation . C.
Taylor to K. Valentine, both of Nuclear Fuel Services. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, May 23, 1967.
Taylor 1972, Letter from C. Taylor, Nuclear Fuel Services, to J. Riley, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, November 2, 1972 Urbon 1968a, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for January 1, 1968 through March 31 , 1968. W. Urbon, Nuclear Fuel Services, to J. McBride, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, May 6, 1968.
Urbon 1968b, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for July 1, 1968 through September 30, 1968. W. Urbon, Nuclear Fuel Services, to Revision 2                                    2-50
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN J. McBride, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, November 4, 1968 URS 2001 , Assessment of Potential Radioactivity Emissions to the Atmosphere from the Remote Handled Waste Facility (RHWF) , Approval Request No. 2001-356, URS to WVNSCO. URS Corporation, Orchard Park, New York, August 21 , 2001 .
Wischow 1967, Incident report of Leak in Transfer Line 7P-170. R. Wischow, Nuclear Fuel Services, to E. Price, U.S. Atomic Energy Commi ssion . Nuclear Fu el Service s, West Vall ey, New York, March 14 1967 .
Westcott 1998, Memorandum from D. Westcott to Distribution on Expanded Source Term for the North Plateau Groundwater Plume. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January, 1998 .
Wild 2000, Estimated Radionuclide Inventory for the NRG Licensed Disposal Area at the West Valley Demonstration Project. Wild , R. E .. URS/Dames & Moore, Orchard Park, NY, August, 2000.
WVES 2008, West Valley Demonstration Project Radiological Survey Database. West Vall ey Environmental Services, West Valley, New York, May 2008 .
WVE S *2009, WVDP North Plateau Characterization to Support Design of Strontium-90 Groundwater Plume Mitigation Measure(s) , WVDP-500, Revision 0. West Valley Environmental Services LLC, West Valley, New York, September 28, 2009.
WVES and URS 2009, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report Calendar Year 2008. West Valley Environmental Services LLC and URS Washington Division, West Valley, New York, September 2009 .
WVNSCO 1983a, 1982 Environmental Monitoring Program Report for the West Valley Demonstration Project Site. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, May 1983 .
WVNSCO 1983b, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 1983.
WVNSCO 1985a, Investigation of Kerosene - TBP Movement from the NRG Licensed Disposal Area Western New York Nuclear Service Center. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, April 1985 .
WVNSCO 1985b, Letter from H. Daugherty, WVNSCO, to W. Hannum, U.S. DOE, WD:85:0203, Unusual Occurrence Report regarding 85-2-WTF-1 . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, March 28, 1985.
WVNSCO 1986, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 1986.
WVNSCO 1987a, Water Spill from PVS on 8D-2, Critique Minutes, WVNS No . CM87029.
West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, March 2, 1987 .
Revision 2                                    2-51
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WVNSCO 1987b, Spill of Radioactive Water from the Interceptor Neutralizer Pit During Normal Operation of the System, WVNSCO Unusual Occurrence Report No. 87            ENV-1 . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, March 13, 1987 WVNSCO 1987c, Leakage of Contaminated Liquid, WVNSCO Critique Minutes CM87095, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, August 17, 1987.
WVNSCO 1995, West Valley Demonstration Project, Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Waste Characterization Report, WVDP-EIS -019, Rev. 1. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, 1995.
WVNSCO 1996, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Report, Volume 3, Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, WVDP-RFl-019. West Valley Demon stration Project, West Valley, NY, April 22, 1996.
WVNSCO 2006, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Vall ey Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 2006 .
WVNSCO 2007a, Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processing and Support Activities, WVNS-SAR-001 . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, June 28, 2007 .
WVNSCO 2007b, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley , New York, December 2007 .
WVNSCO and URS 2005, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2004. West Valley Nuclear Services Company and URS Group, Inc. West Valley, New York, August 2005 .
WVNSCO and URS 2006, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2005. West Valley Nuclear Services Company and URS Group, Inc., West Valley, New York, September 2006.
Revision 2                                  2-52
WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION The purpose of this section is to describe the facility and its environs . This information provides a foundation for understanding the rest of the plan . Section 3 is also intended to provide information to allow NRC staff to evaluate DO E's estimation of (1) the impacts of the decommissioning activities on the site and its surrounding areas, and (2) the impacts of the environment on the site in the event of natural phenomena such as floods, tornados, and earthquakes.
INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION This section begins with the location and description of the site, including subsurface conditions. Facilities associated with the WVDP are addressed, including those that existed in 2008 and are to be removed before activities under this plan begin . As with other sections of the plan, these facilities are organized by waste management area (WMA) , with the focus on facilities located on the project premises .
The following matters are also addressed : (1) population distribution, (2) current land use and plans for future land use, (3) meteorology and climatology, (4) geology and seismology, (5) surface water hydrology, (6) groundwater hydrology, and (7) natural resources in the area.
All figures referred to in the text, which include photographs, are grouped at the end of the section .
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS To put into perspective the information in this section, one must consider the information in Section 1 on the project background and those facilities and areas within the scope of the Phase 1 decommissioning . Consideration of the information in Section 2 on site history, processes, and spills will also help place information in Section 3 into context. The information in this section serves as the foundation for later sections, such as radiological status in Section 4, the dose modeling in Section 5, and the decommissioning activities in Section 7.
Revision 2                                        3-1
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.1    Site Location and Description 3.1 .1    Site Location The WVDP is located about 30 miles south of Buffalo, in the Town of Ashford ,
Cattaraugus County, New York at approximately 42.450&deg; north latitude and 78 .654&deg; west longitude. The site location with respect to major natural and man-made features in the region is shown in Figure 3-1 .
The facility (i .e., the project premises) lies 2.4 miles southeast of Cattaraugus Creek at its nearest approach . Cattaraugus Creek forms the boundary between Cattaraugus and Erie counties . Buttermilk Creek, a tributary to Cattaraugus Creek, is 0.5 mile east of the project premises. Lake Erie lies approximately 30 miles west.
3.1.2    Site Description The WVDP site consists of approximately 167 acres within the 3,345 -acre Center.
Figure 3-2 delineates the boundaries of the Center and the WVDP. The brief description here focuses on the Center, the WVDP, subsurface conditions on the site, and site groundwater.
The Center The Center is located within the glaciated northern portion of the Appalachian Plateau Province of Western New York which is characterized by deep valleys which dissect rather flat-topped plateaus and range in elevation from 1, 100 to 1,850 feet above mean sea level (Figure 3-3) . The average elevation across the Center is 1,300 feet above mean sea level.
Slopes range from less than five percent to greater than 25 percent, with five to 15 percent slopes predominant. The Center is drained by Buttermilk Creek, which flows into Cattaraugus Creek.
Prior to 1961 , much of the Center was cleared for agriculture. As a result, the Center now consists of a mixture of abandoned agricultural areas in various stages of ecological succession, forested tracts, and wetlands, along with transitional ecotones between these areas. The area of the WVDP would be classified as an industrial land use .
The WVDP Site The WVDP lies on a plateau that ranges in elevation from 1,300 to 1.445 feet above mean sea level, 1929 datum . The plateau margins are defined by Franks Creek, Erdman Brook, and Quarry Creek which drain the WVDP and empty into Buttermilk Creek. This plateau is subdivided by Erdman Brook into the north plateau and south plateau areas. The topography on and around the WVDP site is shown on Figure 3-4.
A posted, barbed-wire fence surrounds the Center. An inner, eight feet high chain-link fence surrounds the WVDP site, with access controlled through one gate . The inner fence defining the WVDP boundary, i.e., the project premises, is shown in Figure 3-5 .
Most major activities related to the WVDP, including all involving radioactivity, are performed within the WVDP site boundary. Although the State-Licensed Disposal Area Revision 2                                          3-2
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (SDA) is located within the WVDP security fence, as shown in Figure 3-5, it is not considered part of the project premises.
Subsurface Conditions and Groundwater The subsurface conditions underlying the north plateau are different from the subsurface conditions underlying the south plateau, as shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7. The thickness of the unsaturated zone in the weathered till on the south plateau fluctuates annually, averaging approximately 1O feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow in the weathered Lavery till on the south plateau is generally controlled by surface topography and flow is eastward (WVNSCO 1995).
More detailed information on subsurface conditions and groundwater can be found below in Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7.
3.1.3    Facility Description The following descriptions focus on the WVDP facilities as they are expected to appear at the conclusion of the interim end state in 2011 . The facilities to be removed before 2011 are also briefly described .
Major Facilities Th e principal facilities at the site include the former irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, known as the Main Plant Process Building ; the Waste Tank Farm; and the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. These facilities are located on the north plateau . The two radioactive waste burial areas, the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (N OA) and the SDA, are located on the south plateau . Figure 3-8 shows the locations of these facilities .
Waste Management Areas For administrative purposes, the Center has been divided into 12 WMAs as listed below. The locations of WMA 1 through WMA 10 are shown in Figure 3-8 . WMAs 11 and 12 are shown in Figure 3-9.
* WMA 1 Main Plant Process Building and Vitrification Facility area,
* WMA2 Low Level Waste Treatment Facility area ,
* WMA3 Waste Tank Farm area ,
* WMA4 Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill ,
* WMA5 Waste Storage Area,
* WMA6 Central Project Premises,
* WMA 7 NOA and associated facilities,
* WMA8 SDA and associated facilities,
* WMA9 Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area ,
* WMA 1O Support and Services Area, Revision 2                                            3-3
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* WMA 11 Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area , and
* WMA 12 Balance of the Site.
Project Premises Facilities Removed Before Decommissioning Activities Begin WMA 1                                          WMA 5 (continued)
Cold Chemical Facility                          Lag Storage Addition 2 Contact Size Reduction Facility                Lag Storage Addition 3 Emergency Vehi cle Shelter                      Hazardous Waste Storage Lockers Laundry Room Master-Slave Manipulator Repair Shop            Old Warehouse Radwa ste Process (Hittman) Building            Old Sewage Treatment Facility Recirculation Ventilation System Building      New Cooling Tower (except basin)
WMA2                                            North Waste Tank Farm Training Platform 02 Building                                    Road -Salt and Sand Shed Test and Storage Building Maintenance Shop                                Interim Waste Storage Facility Maintenance Storage Area                        NDA Hardstand Vehicle Repair Shop                            WMA10 Vitrification Test Facility                    Administration Building Expanded (Environmental) Laboratory Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area        Fabrication Shop Lag Storage Building                            Vitrification Diesel Fuel Oil Building Lag Storage Addition 1 WMA 1: Main Plant Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area Figure 3-10 shows the layout of WMA 1. Figure 3-11 is an aerial photograph of the Main Plant Process Building and Vitrification Facility area . A description of each facility in WMA 1 follows :
WMA 1 facilities within the scope of this plan are:
* Main Plant Process Building ;
* Vitrification Facility;
* Load-In/Load-Out Facility;
* Utility Room and Utility Room Expansion;
* Fire Pumphouse and Water Storage Tank; Revision 2                                      3-4
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* Plant Office Building;
* Electrical Substation;
* 01 -14. Building;
* Vitrification Off-Gas Trench;
* Source Area of the North Plateau Plume; and
* Concrete Floor Slabs for the Laundry Room, Fuel Receiving and Storage Ventilation Building, Radwaste Process Building, Cold Chemical Facility, and other removed facilities .
Main Plant Process Building. The Main Plant Process Building (Process Building) was built between 1963 and 1966, and was used by Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) from 1966 to 1971 to recover uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. This multi-storied building is approximately 130 feet wide and 270 feet long, and rises approximately 79 feet above the ground surface at its highest point. Figures 3-12 through 3-21 show the building exterior, interior layouts, and representative areas.
The major Process Building structure rests on approximately 480 driven steel H-piles .
The building is composed of a series of cells, aisles, and rooms that are constructed of reinforced concrete and concrete block. The reinforced concrete walls, floors and ceilings range from one to six feet thick. The reinforced concrete walls are typically surrounded by walls of lighter concrete and masonry construction and metal deck flooring . Six floor layout plans of different levels of the Process Building appear in Figures 3-13A through 3-13F .
Most of the facility was constructed above grade, with some of the cells extending below ground (i .e., below the ground surface reference elevation of 100 feet) . The deepest cell, the General Purpose Cell, extends approximately 27 feet below-grade. The Cask Unloading Pool and the Fuel Storage Pool, located in the Fuel Receiving and Storage Area on the east side of the building, were used to receive and store spent fuel received for reprocessihg, and extend approximately 49 and 34 feet below grade, respectively .
Cells such as the Process Mechanical Cell , the Chemical Process Cell, and Extraction Cells 1, 2, and 3 were constructed of reinforced high-density concrete three to five feet thick. Such thicknesses were needed to provide.radiation shielding .
The operations performed in the cells were remotely controlled by individuals working in the various aisles of the Process Building, which were formed by adjacent walls of the cells. The aisles contained the manipulator controls and valves needed to support operations in the cells. Rooms not expected to contain radioactivity were typically constructed with concrete block and structural steel framing.
Wastewater generated during reprocessing was managed in one of two ways, depending on activity. High-level waste was transferred from the Process Building to the Waste Tank Farm via two underground transfer lines (7P-113 and 7P-120) to Tank 80-2 Revision 2                                        3-5
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and Tank 80-4 . Low-level wastewater was transferred to the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility via below-grade transfer lines associated with the interceptor system .
The WVDP modified portions of the Process Building to support its primary mission of solidifying HLW . Equipment in the Chemical Process Cell was removed to allow its use for storage of canisters of vitrified HLW. Extraction Cell 3 and the Product Purification Cell were emptied of equipment which was replaced with equipment used to support the Liquid Waste Treatment System. This system was used to manage supernatant and sludge wash solutions from Tank 80-2 which contained HLW.
Vitrification Facility. Shown in Figures 3-22 and 3-23. this structural steel frame and sheet metal building houses the Vitrification Cell, operating aisles. and a control room . The Vitrification Cell is 34 feet wide, 65 feet long and 42 feet high . Figure 3-23 shows how it looked when it went into service.
At the north end of the Vitrification Cell is the melter pit. The pit is 34 feet wide by 25 feet long with its bottom about 14 feet below grade. The Vitrification Cell is lined with 0.125-inch-thick stainless steel up to 22 feet above grade .
As explained in Section 2, HLW transferred from HLW Tank 80-2 was mixed with glass formers and vitrified into borosilicate glass within the Vitrification Cell. Vitrification operations were performed remotely by operators in the operating aisles or in the control room. The Vitrification Cell contained the Concentrator Feed Makeup Tank, Melter Feed Hold Tank. the slurry-fed ceramic melter, turntable, off-gas treatment equipment. canister welding station, and the canister decontamination station. All equipment was removed from the Vitrification Cell during the deactivation of this facility in 2003 and 2004 .
Load-In/Load-Out Facility. The Load-In/Load-Out Facility is located adjacent to the west wall of the Equipment Decontamination Room of the Process Building in WMA 1. It is a structural steel and steel sided building that is approximately 80 feet long, 55 feet wide, and 54 feet tall. The floor is poured concrete, and the roof is metal sheeting with insulation .
This facility was used to move empty canisters and equipment into and out of the Vitrification Cell. It has a truck bay and a 15-ton overhead crane that is used to move canisters and equipment. After the new Canister Storage Facility is constructed, the Load -
In/Load-Out facility will be used to transfer the vitrified HLW canisters from the Process Building to that facility .
Utility Room and Utility Room Expansion . The Utility Room and the Utility Room Expansion can be seen in Figures 3-10 and 3-11. The Utility Room is a concrete block and steel framed building located on the south end of the Process Building . It consists of two adjoining buildings that were built at different times, the original Utility Room and the Utility Room Expansion .
The original Utility Room , which was built during the construction of the Process Building, makes up the western portion of the facility and is 80 feet wide , 88 feet long, and Revision 2                                        3-6
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 20 feet high . It contains equipment that supplies steam, compressed air, and *various types of water to the Process Building . .
The *utility Room Expansion was built in the early 1990s immediately adjacent to the original Utility Room. The Utility Room Expansion is approximately 85 feet long, 56 feet wide , and 25 feet high . It contains equipment similar to that in the Utility Room .
Fire Pump House and Water Storage Tank. The Fire Pump House was constructed in 1963 and is 20 feet wide, 24 feet long, and 10 feet high at the peak. The structure is of steel frame and sheet metal construction on a four-inch concrete slab floor, which is supported on a concrete foundation wall. Its location is shown in Figure 3-10.
The Pump House contains two pumps on concrete foundations. An adjacent small metal storage shed is used to store fire hoses and fire extinguishers . The 4 75 ,800-gallon water storage tank (Tank 320-1) is located outside the Utility Room, as shown in Figure 3-11 .
Plant Office Building. The Pl ant Office Building is a three-story concrete block and structural steel framed structure located adjacent to the west side of the Process Building . It is approximately 40 feet wide, 95 feet long, and 44 feet high and contains offices and men's and women's locker rooms . Figures 3-11 and 3-14 show the building .
Electrical Substation. The electrical substation is located adjacent to the southeast corner of the Process Building . A 34 .5 kilovolt/480 volt transformer rests on a concrete foundation behind a steel framed structure . Its location is shown in Figure 3-10.
* 01-14 Building. The 01-14 Building is a four-story, 64 feet tall concrete and steel frame building located next to the southwest corner of the Process Building, as shown in Figures 3-10 and 3-11. This building was built in 1971 to house an NFS off-gas system and acid recovery system, but it was never used to support NFS operations. The 01-14 Building was modified to house the Vitrification Off-Gas System and the Cement Solidification System .
The off-gas system was used to treat off-gases generated in the melter in the Vitrification Facility. The Cement Solidification System wa5 used to stabilize radioactive waste generated from the Liquid Waste Treatment System in a cement matrix and to package this mixture in drums that were stored in the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell in WMA 9.
Laundry Room. The Laundry Room is located southeast of the Utility Room as shown in Figure 3-10. It is a concrete block structure 26 feet by 56 feet by 20 feet high with metal decking and asphalt roofing . The floor is a concrete slab six inches thick, which contains a sump .
The Laundry Room contains a commercial size washer and dryer, along with sorting tables and racks for laundering contaminated protective clothing . It is separated into a radiologically "hot" side and a "clean" side . It will be removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade before the start of Phase 1 decommissioning activities.
Revision 2                                        3-7
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Cold Chemical Facility Slab. The Cold Chemical Facility was a structural steel frame and sheet metal building that was approximately 34 feet wide, 57 feet long, and 36 feet tall.
It was located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the Vitrification Facility, as shown in Figure 3-27 . It was used to prepare non-radioactive feed materials, such as nitric acid and glass formers, which were used in the vitrification process. The Cold Chemical Facility was demolished to its concrete floor slab at grade in November 2006 .
Fuel Receiving and Storage Ventilation Building Slab. This steel-framed and sheet metal sided structure was located adjacent to the Radwaste Process Building . It was 30 feet by 35 feet by 12.2 feet high and rested on a six-inch-thick concrete slab . It contained equipment that provided the majority of the heating, ventilation , and air conditioning systems for the Fuel Receiving and Storage Building . It was removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade in October 2006 .
Radwaste Process Building Slab. This 15 feet wide by 46 feet long by 12 feet high steel structure, also known as the Hittman Building, was located north of the Fuel Receiving and Storage Building . It was used to manage shielded casks for high-integrity containers used to store loaded resins from the Fuel Pool Submerged Water Filtration System . This building was removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade in October 2006 .
WMA 2: Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Area WMA 2, the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility area as it existed in 2008 is shown in Figure 3-24 . Figure 3-25 shows the area before the advent of the WVDP .
This facility was used by NFS and then by the WVDP to process low-level radioactive wastewater generated on-site. The current Low Level Waste Treatment Facility includes the Neutralization Pit, interceptors, Lagoons 2-5 , and the LLW2 Building . It is expected to still be in use when Phase 1 decommissioning activities begin.
WMA 2 facilities within the scope of this plan are:
* The LLW2 Building;
* Closed Lagoon 1;
* Active lagoons 2, 3, 4, and 5;
* The two New Interceptors;
* The Old Interceptor;
* The Neutralization Pit;
* The Maintenance Shop Leach Field ;
* The Solvent Dike; and
* Concrete floor slabs such as those for the 02 Building , Maintenance Shop, Test and Storage Building, and Vitrification Test Facility.
A description of the WMA 2 facilities follows :
Revision 2                                        3-8
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The LLW2 Building. Located southwest of Lagoon 4, this pre-engineered, single-story, metal-sided bui lding rests on a concrete wall foundation, measuring 40 feet by 60 feet. The building houses two skid-mounted process equipment modules that are used to treat wastewater from WMA 1, WMA 3, and radiologically contaminated groundwater from the WMA 7 NOA Interceptor Trench and the north plateau groundwater plume . Figure 3-26 shows the building. The LLW2 Building was built in 1998 to replace the 02 Building, the original low-level wastewater treatment facility that was built by NFS in 1971 .
Th e building is divid ed into three work areas and an office . Th e processing area contains the process modules (including ion exchangers, valves, piping, pumps, filters, instrumentation, and controllers) , two surge tanks, and a sand filter . The packaging room contains a four feet by four feet by nine-feet-deep stainless steel lined catch basin . A portable ventilation unit located outside of ttie packaging area contains a high-efficiency particul ate air (HEPA) fi lter and a short stack on the roof of the building .
Lagoon 1. Lagoon 1 was an unlined pit excavated into the sand and gravel unit that was approximately 80 feet long on ea ch side and 5 fe et deep. It was fed directly from the Old Interceptor and the New Interceptors, and had a storage capacity of more than 200,000 gallons . As explained in Section 2, it wa s removed from service in 1984. Most of the contaminated sediment was transferred to Lagoon 2 and Lagoon 1 was filled with contaminated debris from the NFS hardstand and then capped with clay and topsoil.
Figure 3-27 shows the area of Lagoon 1. Section 2.4 .1 discusses the radioactivity in the closed lagoon .
Lagoon 2. Lagoon 2 is an unlined 17-foot deep basin excavated in the unweathered Lavery till. This lagoon has a storage capacity of 2.4 million gallons and is used to store wa stewater discharged from the New Interceptors before its transfer to the LLW2 for treatment.
From 1965 to 1971, before the installation of the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility system - which initially consisted of the 02 Building and Lagoons 4 and 5 - wastewater was routed through Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 in series before discharge to Erdman Brook.
Between 1971 and 1982, low-level wastewater was routed sequentially through Lagoon 1, Lagoon 2, and the 02 Building for treatment, then to Lagoons 4 or 5, and finally to La goon 3 before discharge to Erdman Brook. From 1982 following the closure of Lagoon 1 to the present. low-level wastewater has been routed sequentially through Lagoon 2, the 02 Building or LLW2 for treatment. Lagoons 4 or 5, and then to Lagoon 3 before discharge to Erdman Brook.
A French drain was instal led on the northwest sides of Lagoon s 2 and 3 and the northea st side of Lagoon 3 to prevent groundwater from flowing into Lagoons 2 and 3. The French drain was capped in 2001 and no longer discharges into Erdman Brook.
Lagoon 3. Lagoon 3 is a 24-foot deep unlined basin excavated in the unweathered Lavery till. It has a storage capacity of 3.3 million gallons . Lagoon 3 receives treated water Revision 2                                          3-9
WVDP PHASE          1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN from Lagoons 4 and 5. Lagoon 3 is periodically batch discharged to Erdman Brook through a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permitted discha rge .
Lagoon 4. Lagoon 4 is a basin constructed in the sand and gravel unit on the North Plateau with a capacity of 204,000 gallons . It receives only treated water from LLW2 and discharges to Lagoon 3.
Lagoon 4 was originally excavated into the sand and gravel unit on the North Plateau and lined with reworked glacial tills . In 197 4 a synthetic membrane liner was installed after NFS identified that Lagoons 4 and 5 were potential sources of tritium to groundwater in the sand and gravel unit (WVNSCO 1997) . In the late 1990's, the synthetic membrane liners were removed and replaced with concrete grout and a XR-5 liner, an ethylene inter-polymer alloy membrane.
Lagoon 5. Lagoon 5 is a basin constructed in the sand and gravel unit on the North Plateau with a capacity of 166,000 gallons. It receives only treated water from the LLW2 facility and discharges to Lagoon 3.
Lagoon 5 was originally excavated into the sand and gravel unit on the north plateau and lined with reworked glacial tills. In 197 4 a synthetic membrane liner was installed after NFS identified that Lagoons 4 and 5 were potential sources of tritium to groundwater in the sand and gravel unit (WVNSCO 1997) . In the late 1990's, the synthetic membrane liners were removed and replaced with concrete grout anti a XR-5 liner, an ethylene inter-polymer alloy membrane.
Neutralization Pit. The Neutralization Pit is a nine feet by seven feet by 5.5 feet deep concrete tank constructed with six-inch thick concrete walls and floor that are lined with stainless steel. The pit receives low-level radioactive wastewater from WVDP process areas. This liquid is subsequently transferred to the interceptors.
Old Interceptor. The Old Interceptor is a 40 feet by 25 feet by 11 .5 feet deep unlined concrete liquid waste storage tank located below-grade. The floor is 24-inches thick and the 1
walls 12 inches thick . The roof is made of steel.
The Old Interceptor received low-level liquid waste generated at the Process Building from the time of initial plant operation until the new interceptors were constructed . The Old Interceptor is currently used for temporarily storing radiologically contaminated liquids that exceed the effluent standard of 0 .005 &#xb5;Ci/ml gross beta activity. After verification of acceptable radiological contamination concentrations , the contents are transferred by steam jet to the New Interceptors.
1 The floor of the Old Interceptor was initially 12 inches thi ck . An additional 1 2 inches of concrete was poured on the floor during NSF operations to provide radiation shielding.
Revision 2                                              3-10
WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECO MMISSIONING PLAN New Interceptors. The New Interceptors are twin open-top concrete storage tanks, each 22 feet by 20 feet by 11 .5 feet deep, located below grade. The walls and floor are 14 inches thick, and are lined with stainless steel. The roof is steel. The New Interceptors were built in 1967 to replace the Old Interceptor, which had high levels of radioactivity (WVNSCO 1997). The New Interceptors are used to collect and sample wastewater before it is transferred to Lagoon 2.
Solvent Dike. The Solvent Dike is located about 300 feet east of the Proce ss Building .
It was an 30 foot by 30 foot unlined basin excavated in the sand and gravel layer. The Solvent Dike received rainwater runoff from the Solvent Storage Terrace, which formerly housed an acid storage tank and three storage tanks containing a mixture of used n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate . The sediment has been removed and the area has been backfilled, but the Solvent Dike still contains radiologically contaminated soil.
Maintenance Shop Leach Field. The Maintenance Shop Leach Field is located just northeast of where the Maintenance Shop stood and consists of three septic tanks, a distribution box, a tile drain field, and associated piping. The leach field , which occupies an area of approximately 1,500 square feet, was used until1988; all three tanks are out of service and filled with sand. Because it is located within the area of the north plateau groundwater plume, low levels of contamination may be present.
Groundwater Pump and Treat System. Installed in 1995, this system is located in the northwest corner of WMA 2 and draws water from two recovery wells at the western lobe of the north plateau groundwater plume, which is discussed in Section 2 and in Section 4.2.
Groundwater is pumped to the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility for treatment by ion exchange to remove Sr-90 contaminants. The treated groundwater is pumped to Lagoon 4 or Lagoon 5, and then to Lagoon 3, and, eventually, discharged into Erdman Brook through the permitted outfall.
Pilot Scale Permeable Treatment Wall. Installed in 1999 and located northwest of Lagoon 5, this treatment wall is about 30 feet wide. seven feet thick. and 25 feet deep, extending down to the Lavery till. It is filled with clinoptilolite. a natural zeolite material, and covered with soil. Its purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of such systems in treating groundwater contaminated with Sr-90.
02 Building Slab. The 02 Building was a two-story, steel-framed concrete block structure 27 feet wide, 39 feet long. and 30 feet high. It contains a 16 feet deep stainless steel lined sump. Figure 3-25 shows the building when it was in service .
The 02 Building once housed filters, ion exchangers and other equipment used by NFS and the WVDP to treat radioactive wastewater before transfer to Lagoon 3. It was replaced with the LLW2 Building. It was demolished down to its concrete floor slab at grade in October 2006 .
Test and Storage Building Slab. The Test and Storage Building was an 80 feet by 120 feet by 22 feet high timber frame and metal sided building located northeast of the Revision 2                                        3-11
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Process Building . It contained office spaces, a tool crib, and garage space. An 18 feet by 26 feet by 12 feet concrete block addition housed radiation and safety operations. It was demolished down to its concrete floor slab at grade in June 2007 .
Vitrification Test Facility. This 40 feet wide and 120 feet long and 36 feet high metal building with a concrete floor contains a scale vitrification facility and a bulk chemical storage tank. It will be removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade before Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
Maintenance Shop Slab. The Maintenance Shop was a 60 feet by 100 feet by 28 feet high metal building with steel supports . It housed locker rooms , lavatories, instrument shops, work areas, and a finished office area . The Maintenance Shop was demolished down to its concrete floor slab at grade in June 2007 .
Permeable Treatment Wall. A full-scale passive permeable ~reatment wall .is expected to be installed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning to mitigate ttie off-site migration of Sr-90 contaminated groundwater in the sanGl and gravel unit in the north plateau.
The permeable treatment wall is planned to be located in WMA 2 immediately south of the Construction Demolition and Debris Landfill in WMA 4 approximately perpendicular to the flow path of the north plateau groundwater plume. It will be approximately 750 feet long in a northwest-southeast direction . The permeable ~reatment wall will be two to four feet thick, extend down into tile underlying unweathered Lavery till, and be composed of granular zeolite to reduce Sr-90 concentrations in groundwater through ion-exchange .
Alternatives for potential mitigation of Sr-90 in surface water in the swamp ditch west of the Construction Demolition and Debris Landfill and downgradient of ~he permeable treatment wall will be considered after installation of the permeable treatment wall.
WMA 3: Waste Tank Farm Area Shown in Figures 3-29 and 3-30, WMA 3 includes the waste storage tanks (8D-1, 8D-2, 8D-3, and 8D-4) , and their associated tank vaults, the HLW transfer trench , the Permanent Ventilation System Building, the Equipment Shelter and condensers, the Con-Ed Building, and the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building .
WMA 3 facilities and equipment within the scope of this plan are:
2
* Tanks 8D -1, 8D-2, 8D-3, 8D-4, and the associated vaults      ;
* The HLW mobilization and transfer pumps;
* The HLW transfer trench piping;
* The Equipment Shelter and Condensers; and
* The Con-Ed Building .
Descriptions of the WMA 3 facilities follow .
2 Only removal of the pumps from the tanks is within the scope of Phase 1 decommissioning activities.
Revision 2                                          3-12
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Waste Storage Tanks. The waste storage tanks were built to store the liquid HLW generated during the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing operations. The WVDP subsequently modified these tanks to support treatment and vitrification of the HLW. Modifications included constructing a fabricated steel truss system over tanks 8D-1 and 8D-2 to carry the weight of sludge mobilization and transfer pumps and installation of the Supernatant Treatment System equipment in Tank 8D-1 .
Tank BD-1, Tank BD-2, and Vaults . Tanks 8D-1 and 8D-2 are identical in size and construction, with each tank housed within its own cylindrical concrete vault. Each tank is 27 feet high by 70 feet in diameter, with a storage capacity of 750,000 gallons. Figure 3-31 shows a cutaway view of a tank.
The tanks were constructed with reinforced carbon steel plate ranging in thickness from 0.4375 inch for the roofs and walls to 0.656 inch for the floors . The roof of each tank is supported internally by forty-five eight-inch diameter vertical pipe columns that rest on a horizontal gridwork of wide flange beams and cross members in the bottom two feet of each tank. Each tank rests on two six-inch-thick layers of perlite blocks that rest on a three-inch layer of pea gravel. The tank, perlite blocks, and pea gravel are contained within a carbon steel pan which rests on a three-inch layer of pea gravel that separates the pan from the floor of the vault.
Each tank and its associated pan are housed within a cylindrical reinforced concrete vault that has an outside diameter of 78 .6 feet. The walls of each vault are 18 inches thick and extend nearly 36 feet above the floor of the vaults .
The floor of each vault is 27 inches thick, except under the six 30-inch diameter vertical concrete columns that support the vault roof. These columns pass upward from the floor of the vault through the tanks and are encased in steel pipes 48 inches in diameter that are welded to the top and bottom of each tank. The columns are located approximately 16 feet from the center of the tank. The floor of each vault is underlain by *a four feet thick bed of gravel. The concrete vault roof is two feet thick and is supported by the six concrete columns . The top of the vaults are six to eight feet below grade .
Despite their robust construction, the tank vaults have not proven to be watertight.
Groundwater seeps into both vaults and has to be regularly pumped out. A tank and vault drying system will be installed during deactivation work to achieve the interim end state to dry Tanks 8D-1 , 8D-2, 8D -3, 8D-4 and their associated vaults. The tanks and vaults are expected to be in a dry condition several years after the start of Phase 1 of the decommissioning. The Tank and Vault Drying System will then maintain the tanks and vaults in a dry state .
The current conceptual design of the Tank and Vault Drying System includes a pre-cooling condensing unit and a desiccant wheel with a heater. Outside air will be pre-cooled as needed to lower the relative humidity entering the drying unit. The air will then flow through the desiccant unit for further drying and heating before being distributed to the bottom of the tanks and vaults.
Revision 2                                      3-13
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The dry air supplied to the bottom of the tanks will displace moist air which will follow thle tank ventilation flow pat'h frorrn the top of the tanks through the tank ventilation lines to the Permanent Ventilation System Buildi111g for treatment. At the Penmanent Ventilation System Buildi111g, the nrnoist air fJow from the tanks will flow ~hroUJgh a moisture separator, a heater, pre-filters, and two se:ts of HEPA filters .before being discharged through !the Permane111t Ventilation System Building stack.
The dry air supplied to ~he boVtom of the vaults will be a reciroUJlabion loop Glisplacing moist vaUJlt air which will be removed at the top of the vaUJlts. Moist exhaust air from the vaults will be drawn baok t'hrough the desiocant wheel along with the rmcessary make up air. Make up air will be neoessary sinoe the dry air that goes i n to the tanks is not retumed to the desicca111t unit.
T'he desiocant i111 t'he desiocant wheel will need to be regenerated peniodically. Moisture in the desiccant unit will be removed with filtered heated air passing through the reactivation sector of the desiccant drying unit. The moist air exiting the unit will be vented to the Permanent Ventilation System Building where it will join the air filow from the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building and the tanks before flowing throUJgh the moisture separator, heater, pre-filters and two sets of HEPA filters before discharge through the Permanent Ventilation System Building stack.
The HLW transfer pumps and the mobilization pumps in Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning. These pumps are illustrated in Figure 3-32.
Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 each contain a single HLW transfer pump . Each centrifugal multi-stage turbine type pump is more than 55 feet long and is driven by a 150 horse power motor. Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 also contain a total of nine mobilization pumps. These pumps are approximately the same size as the HLW transfer pumps.
Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 each contain an additional suction pump used in waste pretreatment and processing. The Tank 80-1 pump is a vertical turbine pump mounted on a pipe column with an overall length of approximately 31 feet. The Tank 80-2 pump is a submersible pump mounted on a three inch . pipe column with an overall length of approximately 33 feet. All of the pumps in the underground waste tanks are expected to be highly contaminated as explained in Section 4.1.
Tank 80-1 was modified by the WVOP to support operation of the Supernatant Treatment System and it contains the following Supernatant Treatment System equipment:
* Supernatant pre-filter
* Supernatant feed tank (1.726 gal)
* Supernatant cooler
* Four zeolite columns (1,900 gal each)
* Supernatant sand filter Revision 2                                        3-14
WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* Sluice lift tank (2,142 gal)
* Assooiated transfer piping .
llhe operation of the Supernatant Treatment System is desoribed below.
Tank BD-3, Tank BD-4 and Vault. Tanks 80-3 and 80-4 are identical in size and construction, and both are housed within a single reinforced concrete vault. Each tank is 12 feet in diameter and 15.67 feet high, with a nominal volume of 15,000 gallons . The shell of each tank is 0.313 to 0.375 inch thick; both the tanks and their associated piping were constructed from 304L stainless steel.
The concrete vault that houses the tanks is approximately 32-feet long, 19-feet wide ,
and 25-feet tall . The walls, floor, and roof of the vault are 21 -inches thick. The bottom of the vault is lined with stainless steel to a height of 18 in,ches above the floor. The floor contains a stainless-steel-lined sump. The top of the vault is six to eight feet below grade .
The HLW transfer pumps in tanks 80-3 and 80-4 will be removed to facilitate removal of liquids in these tanks during deactivation work to achieve the interim end state. The transfer pumps will be replaced with submersible pumps equipped with chemical resistant transfer lines. The submersible pumps and transfer lines will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning.
High-Level Waste Transfer Trench. The HLW transfer trench is a long concrete vault containing piping that conveyed waste between the Waste Tank Farm and the Vitrification Facility. Approximately 500 feet long, the trench extends from the Tank 80-3/Tank 80-4 vault along the north side of Tank 80-1 and Tank 80-2, before turning to the southwest and entering the north side of the Vitrification Facility. It is six to 20 feet wide and its height ranges from six to nine feet. Figure 3-33 shows the trench under construction .
The trench was constructed with reinforced concrete walls and floors, with pre-cast concrete covers. Stainless steel-lined concrete pump pits that house the upper sections of HLW transfer pumps are located on top of each of the tank vaults. The walls and floors of the pump pits are reinforced concrete, with pre-cast concrete covers forming the roof.
Figure 3-34 shows a typical pump pit.
There are six piping runs in the trench, two of which are unused spares, comprising approximately 3000 linear feet of double-wa lled stainless steel pipe.3 The trench also contains associated valves and jumpers. The pump pits each contain the upper part of the HLW transfer pump and flow monitoring* equipment. Pump Pit 80-2 over Tank 80-2 also contains grinding equipment used to size reduce zeolite.
The piping and related equipment will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
3 Portions of the trench contain only two piping runs; the section connecting to the Vitrification Facility contains all six runs.
Revision 2                                          3-15
WVDP PHASE      1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Permanent Ventilation System Building. The Permanent Ventilation System Building is located approximately 50 feet north of Tank 80 -2, as shown in Figure 3-30. This steel framed and sided building is 40 feet wide, 75 feet long , and 16 feet tall and is attached to a 12 inch thick concrete floor slab supported by concrete footings. The building has a sheet metal roof which supports the Permanent Ventilation System discharge stack.
The Permanent Ventilation System was designed to provide ventil ation to the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building, the Supernatant Treatment System valve aisle, the Supernatant Treatment System pipeway, and the HLW tanks . A skid-mounted, Permanent Ventilation System Stack Monitoring Build ing is located near the east end of the building .
Equipment Shelter and Condensers. The Equipment Shelter is a one-story concrete block building lies immediately north of the Vitrification Facility. as shown in Figures 3-29 and 3-30 . It is 40 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 12 feet high and ha s a concrete floor six inches thick, with a sma ll extension on the west side .
This structure houses the Waste Tank Farm ventilation system that was formerly used to ventilate the four waste storage tanks and the Supernatant Treatment System vessels in HLW Tank 80-1 .
The condensers are located immediately west of the Equipment Shelter. They were designed to condense the overheads from Tanks 80-1 and 80-2, which were originally designed to be in a self-boiling condition during NFS operations . The Equipment Shelter and condensers will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
Con-Ed Building. The Con-Ed Building is a concrete block building located on top of the concrete vault containing Tank 80-3 and Tank 80-4, as shown in Figures 3-29 and 3-
: 30. This building, which is 1O feet wide, 13 feet long. and 11 feet high, houses the instrumentation and valves used to monitor and control the operation of Tanks 80 -3 and 80-4. This building will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning.
Supernatant Treatment System Support Building. This building is located adjacent to and above Tank 80 -1. It is a two-story structure that contains equipment and auxiliary support systems needed to operate the Supernatant Treatment System.
The Supernatant Treatment System is a zeolite ion-exchange system that was designed to primarily remove radioactive cesium from the high-level PUREX supernatant and sludge wash solutions from Tank 80-2 . The majority of the Supernatant Treatment System equipment is located in Tank 80-1. This system was also capable of removing strontium and plutonium from these wastes. The high-level supernatant was pumped from Tank 80-2 and was treated in the Supernatant Treatment System between May 1988 and January 1991.
The Supernatant Treatment System was also used from 1991 to 1995 to remove radioactive cesium from sludge washes generated from the sludge mobilization and wash system which was designed to remove sulfate salts from the sludge in Tank 80-2 using a dilute caustic wash solution to dissolve the salts. Once a wash cycle was completed , the Revision 2                                      3-16
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN wash water was treated in the Supernatant TreallVlent System . Two sludge-wash cycles were completed between 1992 and 1994, anal a third sludge wash was oompleted in 1995.
During this third sludge wash campaign , THOREX wasle in Tank 8D-4 was transferred to Ta nk 8D-2 , where the combined PUREXfTHOREX mixlure was washed.
The upper level of the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building is a steel framework structure covered with steel siding . The lower level of the building was constructed with reinforced concrete walls, floors, and ceilings.
This building contains a control room ; heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment; utilities; and storage tanks for fresh water and fresh zeolite to support Supernatant Treatment System operations. A shielded valve aisle is located on the lower level of the support building, adjacent to Tank 8D-1 .
The Supernatant Treatment System pipeway is located on top of the Tank 8D-1 vault.
This concrete and steel structure contains the Supernatant Treatment System piping and structural members that support the Supernatant Treatment System equipment located in Tank 8D-1 .
WMA 4: Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Area WMA 4, which includes the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, is a 10-acre area in the northeast portion on the north plateau of the WVDP as shown in Figure 3-8 .
The landfill, which was utilized as described in Section 2, is the only waste management unit in WMA 4. It will be monitored and maintained during Phase 1 decommissioning .
WMA 5: Waste Storage Area The facilities in WMA 5 are shown in Figure 3-35 and are described below . WMA 5 facilities within the scope of this plan are:
* Lag Storage Addition 4 and its associated Shipping Depot;
* The Remote-Handled Waste Facility;
* Concrete slabs and foundations for the Lag Storage Building, Lag Storage Additions 1, 2, and 3, Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area; and.
* Several hardstands consisting of compacted gravel pads.
Lag Storage Addition 4. Lag Storage Addition 4 is a clear-span structure, with a pre-engineered steel frame and steel sheathing. Approximately 291 feet long. 88 feet wide and 40 feet high, it rests on a seven-inch concrete slab. It is similar to Lag Storage Addition 3, except that it includes a shipping depot, a container sorting and packaging facility, and a covered passageway between the two storage areas. The shipping depot is connected to Lag Storage Addition 4 and is a 91 feet by 85 feet metal frame structure. This facility and its concrete floor slab will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
Remote-Handled Waste Facility. The Remote-Handled Waste Facility is located in the western portion of WMA 5 as shown in Figure 3-35. It is a metal-sided, steel-frame building that includes a Receiving Area, a Buffer Cell, a Work Cell , a Waste Packaging Area, an Revision 2                                        3-17
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Operating Aisle, and a load-out /truck bay. Figure 3-36 shows the facility under construction and Figure 3-37 shows the layout of the first floor.
The Receiving Area includes a 20-ton bridge crane that also provides access into the adjacent Buffer Cell. The Buffer Cell is an air lock between the Receiving Area and the contaminated Work Cell. The Work Cell is the primary work area. with provisions for fully remote handling, surveying, segmenting, decontaminating, and repackaging operations.
This shielded space is 55 feet by 22 feet by 26 feet high, and is served by a 30-ton bridge crane.
Any spent decontamination solutions generated during operations are transferred to below-grade wastewater storage tanks located in a vault below the building for management before treatment. These tanks and vault will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
The Waste Packaging Area includes capability to load both waste drums and boxes.
The Operating Aisle houses two waste processing and packaging work stations and one waste sampling transfer work station . Each work station includes a shield window in the shield wall, and controllers for remotely operating facility equipment.
This facil ity and its concrete floor slab will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning.
Lag Storage Building Slab . The Lag Storage Building was a sheet metal structure built in 1984 to store LLW. It was supported by a clear span frame and anchored to a 140 feet long by 60 feet wide concrete slab foundation. The slab surface was coated with an acid-resistant. two-coat. application of epoxy sealer. It was demolished down to its concrete floor slab in October 2006 .
Lag Storage Addition 1 Slab. Lag Storage Addition 1 was a pre-engineered steel frame and fabric structure built in 1987 to store containerized LLW. It was 191 feet long by 55 feet wide by 23 feet high. It was removed down to its grade level floor in October 2006.
Lag Storage Addition 2 Foundation . Lag Storage Addition 2 was a tent structure that was built in 1988 and dismantled in 1993 after it was damaged by high winds . The foundation consists of eight inches of crushed stone covering an area 65 feet by 200 feet.
Lag Storage Addition 3. Lag Storage Addition 3, like Lag Storage Addition 4, is a clear-span structure, with a pre-engineered steel frame and steel sheathing, about 291 feet long, 88 feet wide and 40 feet high, on a seven-inch concrete slab . It is scheduled to be removed down to its concrete floor slab during the work to achieve the interim end state.
Hardstands. Several compacted gravel pads or hardstands are loi;:ated within WMA 5:
* The Lag hardstand, also known as the old/new hardstand storage area , is located southwest of Lag Storage Additions 3 and 4 and is used to store packaged equipment and containers of LLW; Revision 2                                      3-18
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
* The cold hardstand area, which is located west of the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, has been used as a nonradioactive material staging and storage area;
* The vitrification vault and empty container hardstand is located north and west of the hazardous waste storage lockers; and
* The HLW tank pump storage vault area .
Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area. This waste storage area is a structure used to store equipment removed from the Chemical Process Cell. It is a 200 feet by 70 feet by 30 feet high galvanized steel-panel enclosure with a gravel pad floor. It will be removed down to its gravel pad during the work to achieve the interim end state.
Hazardous Waste Storage Lockers. Four steel hazardous waste storage lockers are located east of the Waste Tank Farm . Each locker measures eight feet by 16 feet by eight feet high and is used for short-term storage of hazardous waste.          The lockers will be removed during the work to achieve the interim end state.
WMA 6: Central Project Premises Facilities in WMA 6, the Central Project Premises shown in Figure 3-38, include the rail spur, the above ground petroleum storage tank, the Sewage Treatment Plant. the New Cooling Tower, the two Demineralizer Sludge Ponds, the Equalization Basin, the Equalization Tank, the South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower, the Road-Salt and Sand Shed, and the LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area .
WMA 6 facilities within the scope of this plan are ~he :
* Sewage Treatment Plant,
* Equalization Basin and Tank,
* Demineralizer Sludge Ponds,
* South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower,
* Concrete slab for the Old Warehouse, and
* Cooling Tower basin .
Rail Spur. The rail spur runs about 8,000 feet from the south side of the Process Building to where it connects to the main line of the railroad . Figure 3-39 shows the tracks near the Process Building. The rails are cast iron and the ties are creosote pressure-treated wood. Low-level radioactive contamination identified in soil along a section of dual track east of the Old Warehouse is discussed in Section 4.2.
Sewage Treatment Plant. The Sewage Treatment Plant is a wood frame structure 41 feet by 44 feet by 15 feet high , with metal siding and roofing . The base of the facility is concrete and crushed stone. The Sewage Treatment Plant is used to treat sanitary waste and it contains six in-ground concrete tanks, one above-ground polyethylene tank, and one above-ground stainless steel tank.
Revision 2                                      3-19
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Equalization Basin . The Equalization Basin is a lined 7 5 feet wide, 125 feet long, by 1O feet deep basin excavated into the sand and gravel layer. It has been used for non-radioactive discharges.
Equalization Tank. The Equalization Tank is a 20,000-gallon underground concrete tank immediately north of the Equalization Basin that serves as a replacement for the Equalization Basin .
Demineralizer Sludge Ponds. The north and south demineralizer sludge ponds are separate, unlined ba sins excavated in the sand and gravel layer. They are approximately 100 feet long, 50 feet wide, and five feet deep . They were used to receive water softener regeneration waste, clarifier overflow and blow-down, boiler blow-down, sand filter backwash, and demineralizer regeneration waste from the Utility Room .
The north pond is nearly filled with sediment. Both ponds are radiologically contaminated . As of 2004, the ponds were no longer in service.
Old Warehouse Slab. The Old Warehouse was a pre-engineered steel building with three sections . The main warehouse section was 80 feet by 144 feet by approximately 21 feet high at the roof peak. A 38 feet by 42 feet by 15 feet high room was attached to the north end of the building that housed a radiological counting facility . A double-wide office trailer was located on a concrete foundation wall at the south end of the building . The Old Warehouse was removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade in May 2007 .
New Cooling Tower. The new cooling tower, shown in Figure 3-40, is 20 feet by 20 feet by 11 feet high and it stands on a concrete basin . The floor of the basin is an eight-inch-thick concrete slab. The facility will be removed, leaving the basin in place, during work to achieve the interim end state.
Waste Tank Farm Test Towers. The Waste Tank Farm Test Towers are pre-engineered structures erected as a stack of modules including ladders, handrails, and grating . The exterior "skin" is fabric . The north Tower was 16 feet by 16 feet by 57 feet high.
The south Tower is 16 feet by 16 feet by 48 feet high. The north tower was removed to its foundation in October 2006. The south tower will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
Road-Salt and Sand Shed. The Road-Salt and Sand Shed is a storage bin and a sand stall resting on asphalt pavement. It is constructed with a wooden frame covered with galvanized steel siding. This facility will be removed during work to achieve the interim end state .
LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area. The LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area covers approximately 27 ,000 square feet east of and adjacent to the railroad tracks at the south end of WMA 6. The area contains two eight-inch-thick reinforced concrete pads and another section covered with crushed limestone .
Revision 2                                          3-20
                                                          ------ - -- - - -- - - ---- -- - - - --------~
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WMA 7: NOA and Associated Facilities WMA 7, shown in Figures 3-8 and Figure 3-41, includes the NOA and ancillary structures. The NOA is a near-surface radioactive waste disposal facility about 400 feet wide and 600 feet long . The only WMA 7 facility within the scope of this plan is the NOA Hardstand gravel pad.
The NOA is divisible into three distinct areas: (1) the NFS waste disposal area containing shallow special holes and deep burial holes, (2) the WVDP disposal trenches and caissons, and (3) the area occupied by the Interceptor Trench Project. Other structures and facilities include the Liquid Pretreatment System, the NOA Hardstand, an inactive plant water line, a leachate transfer line, and a former lagoon located beneath the former Interim Waste Storage Facility floor slab. This floor slab was removed in May 2008 as required for the planned installation of the geomembrane cover over the NOA.
The NOA was operated by NFS under license from the NRC for disposal of solid radioactive waste exceeding 200 mrem/h from fuel reprocessing operations. Section 2.4 .2 describes the contents of the NOA and the estimated amount of radioactivity it contains.
Descriptions of the various features of the NOA follow :
NFS Deep Holes. About 6,600 cubic feet of leached cladding from reprocessed fuel, also known as hulls, are buried in approximately 100 deep disposal holes located in the eastern portion of the Li-shaped area . Most of these holes are 2.7 feet by 6.5 feet by 50 to .
70 feet deep.
The hulls were contained in 30-gallon steel drums stacked three abreast in the deep holes . Three of these drums contain irradiated, unreprocessed fuel with damaged cladding from the N-Reactor at the Hanford Site. The deep holes also contain LLW generated during fuel reprocessing .
NFS Special Holes. Approximately 230 NFS Special Holes are located in the northern and western portions of the Li-shaped NFS burial area. The special holes are typically about 20 feet deep, with various lengths and widths; most are about 12 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet long.
The length and width of each special hole were varied according to the quantity of waste requiring disposal at each disposal event. and the dimensions of large waste items such as failed equipment. Miscellaneous wastes, other than leached hulls or related spent fuel debris, were packaged in several types of containers, including steel drums, wooden crates, and cardboard boxes.
At least 22 1,000-gallon tanks containing a mixture of spent n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate in absorbent material were disposed in several special holes during the late 1960s and the early 1970s (Blickwedehl et al. 1987) . Eight of these tanks in special holes 10 and 11 were believed to be the source of n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate detected in a nearby monitoring well in the NOA on November 1983.
Revision 2                                      3-21
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN The following actions were taken by the WVOP between October 1985 and May 1987 to mitigate the migration of the n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate from special holes 1O and 11 (Blickwedehl et al. 1987):
* The eight 1,000-gallon tanks containing the n-dodecane/tributyl phosphate contaminated absorbents were removed .
* The tanks were size-reduced, contaminated absorbents and soils removed, and all waste packaged for disposal.
* Liquid n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate was removed and solidified into a qualified waste form suitable for disposal.
* Special holes 10 and 11 were backfilled .
Approximately 9,700 cubic feet of packaged contaminated soil, contaminated absorbents, size-reduced tanks, and solidified n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate were generated during this removal activity. Low level waste generated during this removal was either disposed of at the Nevada Test Site or the EnergySolutions Clive, Utah disposal 4
site , or remains in storage at the WVOP awaiting disposal. Transuranic waste remains in storage at the WVOP awaiting a path for disposal as WVOP transuranic waste is currently not approved for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
WVDP Trenches. The twelve WVOP trenches contain approximately 200,000 cubic feet of LLW resulting from decontamination activities performed between 1982 and 1986.
Most of these wastes are in the parcel of land located inside the Li -shaped disposal area used by NFS .
The WVOP Trenches are typically about 30 feet deep and about 15 feet wide. The lengths vary from 30 feet to 250 feet. Trenches 9 and 11 have composite liners and caps.
All other WVOP Trenches are capped with clay.
WVDP Caissons. Four steel-lined concrete caissons - cylindrical concrete vaults seven feet in diameter and 60 feet deep - were constructed by the WVOP near the eastern and southern corners of the NOA. WVOP disposal records indicate approximately 823 cubic feet of waste in drums was placed in Caisson 1. The WVOP disposal records do not indicate that any waste was placed in the other three caissons. The caissons are plugged with concrete for shielding and covered with a plastic shield to prevent rainwater infiltration .
Interceptor Trench and Liquid Pretreatment System. The Interceptor Trench and associated Liquid Pretreatment System were installed after groundwater contaminated with tributyl phosphate, n-dodecane, and several radionuclides was detected in a well in the NOA. The purpose of the project was to intercept potentially contaminated groundwater migrating from the NOA.
4 Which was the Envirocare Clive, Utah site at the time.
Revision 2                                          3-22
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The trench is located on the northeast and northwest boundaries of the disposa l area .
The base of the trench extends to a minimum of one foot below the interface of the weathered Lavery till with the unweathered Lavery till.
The trench is drained by a drainpipe that directs accumulated water to a collection sump. The collection sump has a submersible pump to transfer groundwater to the Liquid Pretreatment System . As of 2008, no groundwater has ever been transferred to the Liquid Pretreatment System .
Liquid that collects in the sump is routinely sampled, analyzed, and transferred to the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility in WMA 2 for treatment and release . Treated wastewater is discharged from Lagoon 3 in WMA 2 to Erdman Brook through the SPOES permitted outfall.
The liquid pretreatment system consists of seven tanks made of carbon steel: one 5,000-gallon holding tank, two 1,000 gallon pre-filtration holding tanks , two 700-gallon tanks containing granular activated carbon, and two 1,000-gallon post-filtration holding tanks. The granular activated carbon tanks are housed in a wooden shed 12 feet long by 10 feet wide. The other five tanks are located in a Quonset-style building .
Groundwater Barrier Wall. In July 2008, a subsurface groundwater barrier wall was installed on the southwest and southeast sides of the NOA to minimize groundwater migration into the disposal area (Figure 3-41 ). This barrier wall is a soil-bentonite slurry wall with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 E-07 cm/s that is keyed at least five feet into the underlying unweathered Lavery till. The slurry wall is approximately 850 feet long, three feet wide, and is 15 to 20 feet deep.
Geomembrane Cover. In the fall of 2008, the NOA was covered with XR-5 , an ethylene inter-polymer alloy geomembrane, to limit infiltration of precipitation into the disposal area. Prior to the installation of the XR-5 geomembrane, imported backfill was placed on the surface of the NOA and the surface was graded to form a suitable foundation for the installation of the XR-5 geomembrane .
NDA Hardstand. The NOA Hardstand, located near the southeast corner of the NOA, was an interim storage area where radioactive waste was staged before being disposed .
The NOA Hardstand originally was a three-sided structure with cinder block walls , located on a sloped pad of crushed rock 20 feet wide and 20 feet long. The NOA Hardstand is radiologically contaminated . The block walls were removed down to crushed rock pad in September 2006. The crushed rock pad will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
Inactive Plant Water Line. An eight-inch diameter cast iron water line from the plant runs along the southwestern border of the NOA. It was formerly used to supply clean water from the reservoirs to the Process Building, but was taken out of service in 1986 and capped with cement.
Leachate Transfer Line. The leachate transfer line is a two-inch diameter polyvinylchloride pipeline that runs along the northeast and northwest sides of the NOA, Revision 2                                      3-23
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and continues northward across WMA 6 and terminates at Lagoon 2 in WMA 2. It was originally used to transfer liquids from the SDA lagoons via a pumphouse next to the NOA hardstand, to Lagoon 1 The total length of the line is 4,000 feet. The section of the transfer line from the SDA to the interceptor trench sump is inactive and the two ends are capped . The section of the line from the northeast corner of the NOA to Lagoon 2 is currently used to transfer groundwater from the NOA interceptor trench sump .
Former Lagoon. This lagoon, formerly used by NFS for collecting surface water runoff, was located in the northeastern portion of the NOA. Around 1972 it was filled with radiologically contaminated soil from cleanup after a HEPA filter was dropped at the NOA during disposal operations.
WMA8: SDA The SDA, which is shown on Figure 3-8, is not within the scope of thi s plan .
WMA 9: Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell WMA 9 is located south of WMA 7 and it contains the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell (Figure 3-42) .
Drum Cell. The Drum Cell was built in 1987 to store radioactive waste solidified in cement and packaged in square 71 -gallon drums . It is a pre-engineered metal building 375 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 26 feet high . The facility consists of a base pad, concrete shield walls, remote waste handling equipment, container storage areas, and a control room within the weather structure. The base pad consists of concrete blocks set on a layer of compacted crushed stone, underlain by geotextile fabric and compacted clay. Concrete curbs to support the drum stacks lie on top of the base pad .
All of the drums stored in the Drum Cell were removed in 2007 and disposed of at off.
site LLW disposal facilities.      The Drum Cell will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
Subcontractor Maintenance Area. The Subcontractor Maintenance Area is a compacted gravel pad measuring approximately 20 feet by 30 feet located in the northwest corner of WMA 9. Prior to 1991 , it was used by construction subcontractors to clean asphalt paving equipment with diesel fuel. In November 1991, the area was remediated by removing the upper six inches of soil and replacing it with clean gravel. The removed soil was tested for toxicity characteristic leaching procedure parameters and found to be nonhazardou s solid waste. Since 1991 , the area has been used as a staging area for heavy equipment and construction material s (stone, gravel) . The gravel pad will be removed during Pha se 1 of the decommissioning .
Revision 2                                        3-24
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NDA Trench Soil Container Area. The NOA Trench Soil Container Area is a gravel pad storage area located on the north side of WMA 9. It was used to store roll-off containers containing soil excavated during the installation of the NOA Interceptor Trench which was completed in 1990. The containers were covered with tarps to prevent infiltration of precipitation and the rear gate was equipped with a rubber gasket to prevent the discharge of any soil or liquid . The roll -off containers and their contained soil have been removed and disposed of offsite. The gravel pad will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .
WMA 10: Support and Services Area WMA 10, shown in Figure 3-43, covers approximately 30 acres on the north pl~teau and south plateau, and includes: (1) the Administration Building, (2) the Expanded Laboratory, (3) the New Warehouse, (4) the security gate house, (5) the Meteorological Tower, (6) the main parking lot, and (7) the south parking lot. In addition, concrete slabs and foundations from several removed structures remain in place, along with the former Waste Management Storage Area .
The WMA 10 facilities within the scope of this plan are the New Warehouse, the former Waste Management Storage Area, and the remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations .
Administration Building. The administration building is a single-story structure 130 feet long and 40 feet wide, 10 feet high at the eaves, and 11 .7 feet high at the peak. The concrete base is nine inches thick. Construction materials include the concrete foundation, wood frame, metal siding, and metal roofing .
The administration building was built during the 1960s. The trailers were added beginning in 1982, and an addition to the west side of the building was added during the early 1980s. The trailers were removed in 2005 . The addition to the administration building is approximately 94 feet long and 30 feet wide with a concrete base six inches thick. This facility will be removed to grade during the work to achieve the interim end state.
Meteorological Tower. The meteorological tower is located south of the administration building. Constructed of steel, it stands approximately 200 feet high on a concrete foundation . It has three main support columns with interior trusses and is anchored with five support cables. A stand-by generator and electrical boxes rest on a concrete pad.
Security Gatehouse and Fences. The main security gatehouse is located adjacent to the Administration Building . It was constructed in 1963. The gatehouse is 34 feet long, 20 feet wide , and nine feet high at the edge of the roof.* Construction materials include a concrete foundation , concrete block walls , a concrete slab floor, and a built-up roof with metal deck.
A barbed wire security fence runs along the perimeter of the Center property line and the public roads running through it. The fencing has a total running length of approximately 24 miles .
Revision 2                                        3-25
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN A steel security fence surrounds the WVDP, the SDA, and miscellaneous other locations. It is made of galvanized chain link with galvanized steel pipe posts, with a spacing of 10 feet. The fence is seven feet high with a total length of 4.7 miles. Three strands of barbed wire are stretched across the top of the fence. Figure 3-5 shows the location of the fence around the project premises .
Expanded Lab. The Expanded Laboratory is located south of the Administration Building . It was constructed during the early 1990s. The laboratory is 92 feet long and 50 feet wide, and consi sts of eight one-story modular units supported by 72 concrete pi ers . It was manufactured from light wood framing , metal roofing, and siding . An addition, 20 feet wide and 50 feet long on a concrete foundation wall, was built on the east side of the laboratory. This facility will be removed to grade during the work to achieve the interim end state.
New Warehouse. The New Warehouse was built during the 1980s and is located east of the administration building. It is a pre-engineered steel building, 80 feet wide, 250 feet long, and 21 .5 feet high at the roof peak, resting on about 40 concrete piers and a poured concrete foundation wall . The concrete floor is underlain with a gravel base .
Former Waste Management Storage Area. This area is a lay-down area associated with the New Warehouse.
Parking Lots and Roadways. Two parking lots are located off Rock Springs Road : the Main Parking Lot and the South Parking Lot.
The Main Parking Lot has a total paved surface area of 180,000 square feet and is covered with asphalt underlain with gravel. The South Parking Lot with approximately 80,000 square feet of parking area is also paved with asphalt. A guardrail approximately 1,200 feet long borders the lot along its southern, eastern and western sides.
Roadways are constructed of a stone sub-base approximately eight-inches thick, covered with asphalt approximately four-inches thick. The total area of pavement is approximately 1,296,000 square feet.
    .WMA 11: Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area The facilities within WMA 11, as shown in Figure 3-9 are not within the scope of this plan . The Bulk Storage Warehouse was formerly called the Plutonium Storage Facility and it was used by NFS in the late 1960s and early 1970s to store plutonium nitrate solution recovered from its nuclear fuel reprocessing operation. The plutonium nitrate solution was contained in 10-liter doubly sealed polyethylene bottles that were stored in containers consisting of two 55-gallon stainless steel drums welded end-to-end and filled with concrete except for a void formed by an embedded 7-inch pipe. In 197 4, the Plutonium Storage Facility was deactivated and all stored plutonium nitrate was removed . The building became known as the Bulk Storage Warehouse as it was used by the WVDP as a warehouse to store files and office equipment and was also used as a primary emergency assembly area for the WVDP.
Revision 2                                      3-26
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN WMA 12: Balance of the Site The facilities within WMA 12, as shown in Figure 3-9, are not within the scope of thi s pl an.
3.1.4    Surrounding Communities, Businesses, and Transportation System The Center is located in a rural area with few population centers (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) .
The nearest incorporated village is Springville, 3.5 miles north of the WVDP . The hamlet of West Valley and the communities of Riceville and Ashford Hollow also lie within a five-mile radius of WVDP.
Bu sinesses, farms, and community centers within a 3.1-mile radius of the WVDP site in 2004 are li sted in Table 3-1 . Additional businesses, community centers and manufacturing facilities between 3.1-and 5 mile radii in 2008 includ ed several retail stores, small manufacturing facilities, a concrete suppl ier, a nursery, a hospital, and two nursing homes.
Table 3-1. Businesses, Farms, and Community Centers within a 3.1- Mile Radius of the WVDP Site Sector                                                                  Distance from
                                                *Facilities Direction                                                                  Stack (miles)
Businesses                                                        -
NE            Split Rai l Farm - Horse boarding and breedi ng                  1.42 w            Storage Warehouse                                                2.36 w            NORCO Propane Co./Pioneer Propane                                2.34 w            Countryside Car Center                                          2.37 WSW          Country Gifts and Storage                                        2.35 WSW          Starcrest Homes (Home Business) & U ~ Haul                      2.34 WSW          Heritage Pipe Organ                                              2.43 WSW        . (Riefler Inc .)                                                  2.78 ESE          Harrigan Realty - Attorney at Law                                2.13 NW            Springville Country Club                                        3.04 WSW          M&M Holland Propane                                              2.40 w            L.A. Hazard                                                      2.27 SE            Gerwitz and McNeil Electric                                      2.01 w            Ashford Auto and Marin e Repair                                  2.31 SE            Fox Valley Greenhouse                                            1.83 NW            Jack R. Preston's AutoBarn                                      0.94 SW            Phillip 's Christmas Tree and Wreath                            3.01 N            Codd 's Flower Shop                                              1.57 Revision 2                                        3-27
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-1. Businesses, Farms, and Community Centers within a 3.1- Mile Radius of the WVDP Site Sector                                                              Distance from Facilities Direction                                                            Stack {miles)
NNW        Model Shop                                                    1.28 w          House of Steel                                                2.26 N          Schichtel's Nursery - Bond Rd                                1.56 WNW          Schichtel's Nursery - Peters Rd                              2.62 Farms                                                          -
s          Tom Stuebchen - Fruit Trees                                  2.28 s            Charles Schichtel - Dairy Farm                              2.32 N            Clemence and Claudia Wolniewicz - Grain and Hay              2.45 NNW          David Reed - Dairy Farm                                      2.33 SE          Wayne Widrig - Dairy Farm                                    1.80 SE          Gary Feldman - Dairy Farm                                    3.11 WNW        Willard and Ann Miller - Dairy Farm                          2.55 SE          Kevin Hebdon - Dairy Farm                                    2.95 WNW          David Cobo - Farm                                            1.15 WSW          Timothy Klahn - Dairy Farm                                  2.51 Community Centers                                              -
SE          American Legion                                              3.00 E            Islamic Academy                                              2.91 N            Springfield Field and Stream                                3.09 WNW          Trinity Lutheran                                            1.19 Cattaraugus County Houndsmen and Conservation ENE                                                                      1.62 Club E            Riceville Community Church                                  2.83 SE          Ashford Municipal Building                                  1.71 A small military research installation is located in Cattaraugus County approximately 3.1 miles northeast of the WVDP. This facility was used to conduct research for the U.S.
Department of Defense Air Force Automatic Liquid Agent Detector Program.
Transportation System Transportation facilities near the Center include highways, transport repair and refueling services, rail lines, and aviation facilities.
The primary method of transportation near the site is motor vehicle traffic on the Revision 2                                        3-28
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN highway system shown in Figure 3-2 . In Cattaraugus County, all roads with the exception of those within the cities of Olean and Salamanca are considered rural roads .
Rural principal arterial highways connect population and industrial centers. These include U.S . Route 219, located 2.6 miles west of. the site, Interstate 86, located approximately 21 .7 miles south of the site, and the New York State Thruway (1-90),
approximately 21.7 miles north of the site. Traffic volume along the section of U.S. 219 west of the site between New York Route 39 and the Cattaraugus County Line averaged 9966 vehicles per day in 2002 (NYDOT 2005) . Construction of a 4.2 mile extension of U.S.
Route 219 began in 2007 .
Collectors are roads from smaller communities and industrial centers to the rural principal arterial highways. They frequently are intra-county in nature and serve short hauls and cross-county traffic . There are three county collector roads within 1.2 miles of the site.
Schwartz Roi:!d and Rock Springs Road serve as the principal site access roads. State Route 240, also identified as County Route 32, is 1.2 miles northeast of the site. The average annual daily traffic volume on State Route 240 near the site was 978 vehicles in 2002 (NYOOT 2003) .
Dutch Hill Road , approximately one mile west of the WVOP, is an oil and stone chip
* surface on a gravel base designed to accommodate local, lightweight vehicles . Edies Road is of similar construction. Mill Street is asphalt paved over a gravel base located on unstable soils.
Railroad service in a north-south direction is provided to the central part of Cattaraugus County. The Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad transects the Center approximately 0.5 mile east of the project premises at its nearest point. This rail line is now abandoned north of the Center. The Center is served by a railroad siding from this line, often referred to as the rail spur.
There are no commercial airports in the site vicinity. The only major aviation facility in Cattaraugus County is the Olean Municipal Airport, located in the Town of Ischua, 21 miles southeast of the site, which does not offer regularly scheduled commercial air service. The nearest major airport is Buffalo Niagara International Airport, 34 miles north of the site .
3.2  Population Distribution Local population information was obtained from a demographic survey performed in the area of the WVDP in 2002 (URS 2002) and regional population information from the 2000 U.S. census (Census Bureau 2003) . This demographic survey referenced in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 has not been updated as of 2008 . For analysis purposes, the area surrounding the WVDP is divided into 16 compass-direction sectors, with the WVOP main stack as the reference point.
3.2.1    Local Population Data The 2002 demographic survey was performed out to a 3.1-mile radius from the WVOP Main Plant stack and included all permanent structures that may be inhabited in that area .
Revision 2                                      3-29
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Results of this survey appear in Tables 3-2 and 3-3.
In 2002, approximately 1,050 people lived within a 3.1-mile radius of the site . The largest numbers of individuals were located east of the site . Figure 3-44 shows the results of the demographic survey by compass vectors .
Table 3-2. 2002 Resident Population Estimates by Directional Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack (URS 2002)
Radius (miles)
Sector 0.3-0.6    0.6-1.2    1.2-1.9    1.9-2.5    2.5-3.1  TOTAL A        N              0          0        19        17        18        54 B        NNE            0          0        19        52        34        105 c        NE            0          3        17          0        21        41 D          ENE          0          2        27          0        19        48 E          E            0          0        38        55        81        174 F          ESE          0          0          4        48        15        67 G          SE            0          0          6        29        30        65 H          SSE          0          0          0        26        24        50 I          s            0          0          6        12          8        26 J          SSW          0          0          2        10        19        31 K          SW            0          0          9          0        43        52 L          WSW          0          0          9        14          4        27 M          w            0          8        35        21        15        79 N          WNW          0        29        41          4        24        98 0          NW            0          9        65        13          2        89 p          NNW          0          6        14        19        11        50 TOTALS                        0        57      311        320        368      1,056 The nearest residences are located 0.76 to 1.94 miles from the WVDP site as shown in Table 3-3. The numbers of wells or springs used as drinking water within 3.1 miles of the WVDP are listed in Table 3-4 . The information in the table is not inclusive of every well used for water consumption because the survey was subject to residential participation .
Table 3-3. Nearest Residences by Sector (URS 2002)
Compass Direction        Distance (mi)                  Residence Location WNW                    0.76        6491 Boberg Rd .
NW                    0.83        10493 Rock Springs Road w                      1.09        10314 Dutch Hill Rd .
NNW                    1.17        10596 Rock Springs Rd .
NE                    1.20        10653 Rte . 240 Revision 2                                    3-30
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-3. Nearest Residences by Sector (URS 2002)
Compass Direction      Distance (mi)                  Residence Location ENE                    1.22        10625 Rte. 240 SW                      1.33        10086 Dutch Hill Rd .
WSW                    1.33        10122 Dutch Hill Rd .
s                      1.42        9911 Rock Springs Rd .
E                      1.53        5761 Heinz Rd .
N                      1.53        10927 Bond Road NNE                    1.63        10845 Rte . 240 ESE                    1.63        5579 Buttermilk Rd SSW                    1.76        10043 Dutch Hill Rd .
SE                      1.80        5768 Fox Valley Rd .
SSE                    1.94        5872 Fox Valley Rd .
Table 3-4. Number of Residential Wells or Springs used for Drinking Water by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack Sector            Direction          Number of Wells or Springs(1)
A                  N                            14 B                NNE                              23 c                NE                              5 D                ENE                              10 E                  E                            36 F                ESE                            20 G                  SE                              8 H                SSE                              12 I                  s                              7 J                SSW                              11 K                SW                              20 L                WSW                              9 M                  w                              22 N                WNW                              24 0                NW                              27 p                NNW                              11 Revision 2                                    3-31
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-4. Number of Residential Wells or Springs used for Drinking Water by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack Sector          I  Direction                Number of Wells or Springs( 1)
TOTAL                                                  259 NOTE : (1) Numbers of wells and springs estimated based upon resid ent interviews in URS 2002.
3.2.2      Population Distribution The Center lies within Cattaraugus and Erie counties. Regional popul ation data within a 50-mile radius of the WVDP was obtained from the 2000 U.S . Census .
Summary of Current Population In and Around the Site The 1960 through 2000 resident populations of towns and villages within 10 miles of 5
the WVDP are presented in Table 3-5 . The populations of New York and Pennsylvania counties within 50 miles of the WVDP are presented in Table 3-6 .
Erie County had a population of 950,265 in 2000, which is a 10.7 percent decline from 1960. Although both Erie County and the City of Buffalo have experienced a population decline, populations in the rural townships south of Buffalo - such as Orchard Park, Hamburg, East Aurora, and West Falls - have increased . The population of southern Erie County near the WVDP site is concentrated primarily in small villages and along roadways ,
much like in Cattaraugus County. The majority of people residing in these areas work in agriculture or nearby small industries.
Table 3-5. Locations and Populations of Towns and Villages Partially or Totally Within 10 Miles of the Site (from 2000 census)
DISTANCE/                      POPULATION                        POP.      1960-  1990-TOWN/                                                                                DENSITY DIRECTION                                                                    1990    2000 VILLAGE(1l                                                                              per (Miles)      1960    1970      1980    1990      2000                %CHG.  %CHG.
sq.mi.
Ashford (T)            Note (4)    1,490      1,577    1,922    2,162      2,223        43      45.1  2.82 Concord (T)                3.0N    6,452      7,573    8,171    8,387      8,526      122      30.0  1.66 Springville (V)(2)          3.5N    3,852    4,350    4,285    4,310      4,252      NIA        11 .9 -1 .35 Sardinia (T)          4.0 NNE      2,145      2,505    2,792    2,667      2,692        54      24.3  0.94 Yorkshire (T)          3.5 NNE      2,012      2,627    3,620    3,905      4,210      114      94.1  7.81 Delevan (V)(3)          8.9 ENE        777      994    1,113    1,214      2,321      NIA      56.2  91 .2 Machias (T)            4.0 ESE      1,390    1,749    2,058    2,338      2,482        61      68.2  6.16 Franklinville (T)      7.8 SSE      3,090    2,847    3,102    2,968      3,128        60        -3.9  5.39 Ellicottville {T}        12.0 s    1,968    1,779    1,677    1,607      1,738        39      -18.3  8.15 Mansfield (T)          7.5 SSW        632      605      784      724        800        20      14.6  10.50 5
In New York state, a town is the major subdivision of each county and a village is an incorporated area, usually within a town.
Revision 2                                                3-32
WVDP PHASE            1  D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-5. Locations and Populations of Towns and Villages Partially or Totally Within 10 Miles of the Site (from 2000 census)
DISTANCE/                          POPULATION                          POP.        1960*  1990*
TOWN/                                                                                    DENSITY DIRECTION                                                                          1990    2000 VILLAGEr11                                                                                  per (Miles)        1960      1970        1980      1990    2000                  %CHG.  %CHG.
sq.mi.
East Otto (T)            3.0 SW          701      910        942      1,003  1,105        27        43.1  10.17 Otto (T)              7.5WSW              n5        731        828        777    831        26          8.7  6.95 Collins (T)          7.5WNW          6,984      6,400      5,037      6,020  8,307      173        -13.8  37.99 North Collins(T)        8.9NW        3,805      4,090      3,791      3,502  3,376        79        -8.0  -3.60 TOT AL (OR AVERAGE)                31 ,384    33,393    34,724    36,060  39,418        ...        14.9  14.9 NOTES: (1)    (T) indicates town and (V) indicates village.
(2)  Springville village population is included in the town of Concord.
(3)  Delevan village population is included in the town of Yorkshire .
(4)  The WVDP is located within th e geographical boundary of the Town of Ashford .
Population Density Using the 2000 census data, the maximum population density of 448 persons per square mile occurs between 20 and 30 miles from the site. Table 3-5 includes the population densities of towns within 10 miles of the WVDP site.
Table 3-6. Populations of Selected Municipalities, Counties, and States within 50 Miles of the Site (1960-2000) (from U.S . Census, years cited)
MUNICIPALITY/                                                  POPULATION
                                                                                                                % Change COUNTY/STATEr11                                                                                            1960-2000 1960              1970              1980          1990              2000 NEW YORK (S)                16,782,304        18,241 ,391      17,558,072    17,990,455        18,976,457        13.1 Cattaraugus (C)                  80,187            81 ,666          85,697        84,234            83,955        4.7 Erie (C)                      1,064,688        1,113,491        1,015,472        968,532          950,265      -10.7 Hamburg (M)                      41 ,288          47,644            53,270        53,735            56,259        36.3 Orchard Park (M)                15,876            19,978            24,359        24,632            27,637        74.1 Buffalo (M)                    532,759          462,768          357,870        328,123          292,648      -45.1 Allegany (C)                    43,978            46,458            51 ,742        50,470            49,927        13.5 Wyoming (C)                      34,793            37,688            39,895        42,507            43,424        24.8 Chautauqua (C)                  145,377          147,305          146,925        141 ,895          139,750        -3.9 Livingston (C)                  44,053            54,041            57,006        62,372            64,328        46.0 Genesee (C)                      53,994            58,722            59,400        60,060            60,370        11 .8 Niagara (C)                    242,269          235,720          227,101        220,756          219,846        -9.3 Revision 2                                                  3-33
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-6. Populations of Selected Municipalities, Counties, and States within 50 Miles of the Site (1960-2000) (from U.S. Census, years cited)
MUNICIPALITY/                                              POPULATION
                                                                                                        % Change COUNTY/STATE!1l                                                                                      1960-2000 1960            1970            1980            1990        2000 Steuben (C)                    97,691          99,546          99,135          99,088      98,726      -1 .1 PENNSYLVANIA (S)          11,, 319,366      11 ,800,766      11 ,866,728    11 ,881 ,643  12,281 ,054      8.5 Warren (C)                      45,582          47,682          47,449          45,050      43,863      -3.8 McKean (C)                      54,517          51 ,915          50,635          47,131      45,936    -15.7 Potter (C)                      16,483          16,395          17,726          16,717        18,080      9.7 NOTE: (1) (M) indicates municipality, (C) indicates county, and (S) indicates state.
Transient Population The transient population around the site includes daily and seasonal transients including the workforce at the WVDP. In 2008 , an average of 300 employees was working at the site during daytime hours .
This .transient population is projected to vary in future years according to the activities on site . The seasonal transient population is associated with the area 's numerous small recreation sites . Where significant. this transient population is included in the distribution and projection figures .
Future Projected Population According to the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, the total Concord/Springville population is expected to reach 10,000 by the year 2020, a gain of almost 10 percent per decade. It is projected that the present 50/50 population split will continue, with Springville having 5070 people and the unincorporated areas of the town 4930 in 2020 (ECPD 1999). Population projections for Cattaraugus County were prepared by Cornell University in September of 2002 and are available for public viewing on the New York State Information System website {http://www.nysis.cornell .edu/cattaraugus .pdf) .
Projected population changes for Cattaraugus County were as follows :
2005 - 83,881                    2010 - 83 ,674                  2015 - 83,359 2020 - 82,815                    2025 - 81 ,989                  2030 - 80,886 Population trends may be influenced by the expansion of Route 219 through Cattaraugus County. The baseline population projections are projections illustrating the impact of recent rates of population change. Census 2000 county populations have been projected using current life expectancy and survival rates, age specific fertility rates, and rates of net migration . The rates of net migration have the greatest impact on changes in population size. These net migration rates are based on an analysis of total population Revision 2                                                3-34
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN change between the 1990 census and the 2000 census. In 2008, !lhe U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the population of Cattaraugus County was 79 ,688.
3.3  Current and Future Land Use This section describes current land use on the site and in the vicinity in detail, and future land use on site and in the vicinity within the limitations of available information .
3.3.1  Current Land Use Detailed information on current land use is available from a number of sources.
Onsite Land Use The project premises have served only industrial uses since the reprocessing plant was built in the 1960s. The balance of the Center, often referred to as the retained premises, has served only as a buffer area for the plant since that time. In 2008, no definitive information on plans for future use of the Center was available.
Land Use in Vicinity of the WVDP Land use within five miles of the WVDP site is predominantly associated with agriculture, arboriculture, and forestry. The major exception is the Village of Springville, in which many areas are devoted to residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Other major non-agricultural land uses within five miles of the site are :
* Hamlet of West Valley - residential/commercial/land use, 3.4 miles to the southeast;
* Cattaraugus County Forest - forestry/recreation, 3.7 miles to the south;
* Campground - five miles to the southwest;
* Machine shop - industrial land use, four miles to the northwest;
* Two retail shopping complexes - commercial land use - four miles to the north northwest; and
* Warehouse - commercial land use, 3.8 miles to the north-northwest in the village of Springville.
Cattaraugus County ranks fifth in the state for number of farms and eleventh in the state for the amount of land in farming . Approximately 24 percent of the county's total acreage is farmland (NYASS 2005). Production and sale of important agricultural commodities in Cattaraugus County are shown in Table 3- 7. The dairy industry is the dominant agricultural activity, with meat production occurring on a smaller scale .
Revision 2                                      3-35
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSION ING PLAN Table 3-7. Leading Agricultural Products in Cattaraugus County(l) 2002 Sales in        Percent of Total        County Rank Product
                                                  $1000s                  Sales          in New York Dairy Products                                36.486                    63                  19 Nursery and Greenhou se                        9,676                  17                  5 Cattle and Calves                              4, 83 2                  8                  22 Hay & Silage                                    1,976                    3                  28 Grains and Dry Beans                            1,628                    3                  22 Other Products                                  3754                    6 Total Sales                                  58,352                    -                  22 NOTE: (1) From NYASS 2005 .
Farming Statistics In 2002, a livestock and crop production survey wi thin a 3.1- mile ra dius of the WVDP was taken in conj unction with the popul ation survey . The resu lts of th is survey are shown in Tables 3-8 and 3-9.
Table 3-8. 2002 Consumable Animal Population Estimates<1J by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack (URS 2002)
Sector    Direction    Dairy Cattle Beef Cattle          Goats        Sheep      Pigs      Fowl (z)
A          N              0              0            0            0        0          0 B          NNE              0              11            0            0        0          0 c          NE              0              23            0            0        0          0 D          ENE            12              11            15            12        5          20 E            E            17              31            0            7        0          0 F          ESE              0              0            0            0        0          6 G          SE            135              0            0            15        0          32 H          SSE              0              0            0            0        0          0 I          s            100            12            0            0        0          0 J        SSW              60            45            0            0        2          4 K          SW                3              0            0            0        2          17 L        WSW                0              5            0            0        0          0 M          w                0            36            5            0        2          21 N        WNW              70              0            0            0        0          9 0          NW                5              0            0            0        1          13 p        NNW              60              0            0            30        0          20 TOTALS                  462            174            20            64        12        142 NOTES: (1) Numbers of animals are estimated based upon resident interviews and site reconnaissance .
(2) Fowl includes: Chickens, Ducks, Geese, Turkey, Ostrich (4) and Emu (1).
Revision 2                                          3-36
WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Dairy and beef cattle farming dominate within 3.1 miles of the WVDP . The majority of livestock production occurs northwest and southeast of the WVDP . Farming within 3.1 miles of the site typically occurs northwest and south and east of the site. The principal use of farmland is hay and pasture land . Hay and pasture lands account for approximately 57 percent of land used for agricultural purposes . The production of corn and oats accounts for 45 percent of agricultural land use.
Land -use surrounding the Center property - based on county land -use maps and tax parcel information - is shown in Figure 3-45.
Table 3-9. 2002 Crop Estimates in Acres by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack (from URS 2002)
Hay&        Ground        Fruit      Garden Sector      Direction        Corn        Oats                  Fruit(ll    Trees(2) Vegetables (3)
Pasture A              N            60          0          0            1          0          0.4 B          NNE            0          0          0            0            0          1.8 c            NE            0          0          0            0            0          0 .5 D            ENE            0          0          0            0          0.2          1.1 E              E            0          0          0            0            0          1.3 F            ESE            0          0        100            0          0          0.2 G            SE          83          34        250            0            0          1.7 H            SSE            0          0          30            0          .o          0.4 I              s            50        50        100            1          0          1.2 J          SSW            30        30          50            0            0          0 .8 K            SW            0          0          0            0            0          1.0 L          WSW              0          0          0            0            0          0 .0 M            w            0          0          80            0            0          0 .8 N          WNW            230          0        100            0            0          0.7 0            NW            0          0          0            0            0          1.0 p          NNW            0          0          0            0            0          0 .8 TOTALS                  453        114        710            2          0.2        13.7 NOTES: (1) Ground Fruit includes: blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, and grapes.
(2) Fruit Trees includes: apples and pears (3) Garden vegetables included: beans, cabbage, corn , cucumbers, peas, potatoes, pumpkins ,
tomatoes, squash , and zucchini.
Agricultural lands cultivated to produce fruits and vegetables represent less than one percent of the total agricultural acreage within 3.1 miles of the site. Fruit and vegetable fields tend to be smaller than dairy fields, and are not distributed in proportion to the occurrence of farmland . In general a few towns contain a disproportionately large share of Revision 2                                            3-37
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN these lands . Crops include lettuce, cabbage, broccoli , spinach, snap beans, tomatoes, sweet corn, potatoes, grapes, and apples. Total land area devoted to such production in Erie and Cattaraugu s counties is estimated at 10,189 acres and 2,319 acres, respectively.
3.3.2    Summary of Anticipated Land Uses The project premises will be available for only limited future uses in the coming decades . The ability to anticipate land use in the vicinity in future years is hmited by the limited available information from planning boards.
Future Use of Project Premises and the Center Future use of the retained premises will depend upon the wishes of NYSERDA as the property owner and will need to be consistent with institutional controls, where applicable.
As of 2008, no definitive information on NYSERDA plans for future use of the Center was available. However, the Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board ha s an ongoing West Valley Redevelopment Strategy Project in response to the ongoing decommissioning of the WVDP .
Future Use of Land in the Vicinity It is expected that future land uses in the vicinity of the Center will be similar to the historical land uses summarized in Section 3.3 .1. Information from local, regional , and State planning boards is limited . On June 9, 1999 the Town of Concord and the Village of Springville held a public hearing to review a draft of the joint comprehensive plan (ECPD 1999) . The vision of the plan was expressed as follows:
          "The Concord/Springville community values and wishes to preserve the scenic beauty, farmland , hamlets, and unique natural environment of the Town of Concord . It also wishes to enhance and strengthen the Village of Springville as the civic, cultural and economic center of Concord and the surrounding non-town area, and maximize its location at the southern gateway to Erie County."
Proposed developments related to this vision included :
* A 50-acre planned business park adjacent to US Route 219;
* Revitalization of downtown Springville;
* A new planned residential area in the northeastern section of the Village,
* Upgrading of the Town and Village Hall facilities; and
* Park and recreation improvements, which included a new park at Scoby Hill Dam and a new greenway along Spring Brook.
The greenway development would include a four-mile-long park area bordering Spring Brook from Middle Road to Cattaraugus Creek at Felton Bridge on Mill Street. This park would include nature trails , bicycle paths, canoe landings, and picnic areas.
Revision 2                                        3-38
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The new park at Scoby Hill Dam would include a canoe landing. fishing access. and recreational use. Further recreational development is proposed to encourage the development of hiking/biking trails, golf, snowmobiling. and skiing.
Additional proposals utilized the abandoned Buffalo-Pittsburgh Railroad line .from Springville to Salamanca to be developed either as a tourism train , connected with a railroad museum in Salamanca , or as a extensive bike trail as part of the "rails to trails" program .
Industrial and business development would be encouraged at or near current locations (along Cascade Drive and near the railroad tracks) . with the exception of a planned new business park located near the Zoar Valley Road, with a connector road intended to the future Route 219 . If Route 219 were to be extended down to Salamanca , certain land adjacent the route would be developed for business and/or industrial use (Ashford 1994).
Sand and gravel mining is a growing industry within the area with nine areas now designated for mining . Future intentions are to develop this industry to promote economic development in the area (Bishop. et al. 2004) .
Cattaraugus County The 1994 Comprehensive Master Plan anticipated much of its land use based on the extension of Route 219 and the development of the nuclear fuel industry through the WVDP . Given these assumptions, industrial and business development was planned to occur near the Route 219 extension and on some Center property.
Parcels reserved for industry in the future land use plan are located near the following roads : Henrietta Road (300 acres). Schwartz Road (50 acres) , Route 219 (80 acres) .
Thomas Corners (350 acres) . and within the Town of Ashford (265 acres). The closest business development complex to the WVDP property would be the Ashford Business and Education Park at the location of the Ashford Office Complex . The intersection of Route 219 and Schwartz Road. and Thomas Corners have been intended for residential development (Ashford 1994).
The Record of Decision on the Route 219 expansion was published in April 2003. The New York Department of Transportation selected the freeway alternative, which proposes a four-lane freeway from Springville to Salamanca . Construction of the Route 219 expansion began in 2007 .
Since the Comprehensive Master Plan was published , gravel mining has expanded rapidly . In 1993, 53 parcels of land totaling 3.455 acres were assessed for mining and quarrying in the Route 16 corridor of Cattaraugus County. This number increased to 76 parcels totaling 4,502 acres in 1999. In 2000, there were 49 active mining permits covering 1,030 acres.
Issues raised by concerned citizens have resulted in the Town of Yorkshire adapting zoning plans to remediate gravel mining activities . As of October 2002, the Town of Ashford had not adapted any zoning regulations .
Revision 2                                      3-39
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.4  Meteorology and Climatology This section begins with a description of the general climate in the region, followed by a discussion of severe weather phenomena. Weather-related radionuclide transmission factors and site deterioration factors are then described . Finally, site meteorology is discussed, along with air quality in the area .
3.4.1  The General Climate of Western New York Western New York is exposed to a variety of air masses that create a moist continental climate . Cold dry air masses that form over Canada reach the area from the northwest.
Prevailing winds from the southwest and south bring warm , humid air masses from the Gulf of Mexico and neighboring waters of the subtropical Atlantic Ocean. On occasion, cool ,
cloudy, and damp weather affects Western New York through air flow from the east and northeast.
Western New York is affected by a variety of cyclonic and anti-cyclonic pressure systems as they move across the continent. Continental storms and frontal systems move frequently across or near this region. In addition, Western New York usually feels the effects of well-developed storms moving up the Atlantic Coast.
Temperature The coldest winter temperature normally varies between -1O &deg;F to * -20 &deg;F in the southwestern highlands (WVNSCO 2007) . Extreme winter temperatures as cold as -40 &deg;F have been recorded in the higher elevations of Cattaraugus County (WVNSCO 2007).
Severe winter cold with below-zero minimums and/or lengthy periods of continuous temperatures below freezing occur between early December and mid-March. Winter thaws typically result in temperatures in the 40s to low 50s for a few days at a time, with rare maximums in the 60s.
The summer seasons are cool with the temperature typically ranging from 60 &deg;F at night to the low 80s in the afternoon (WVNSCO 2007) . On the average, temperatures of 90
      &deg;F or higher are recorded on five days or less per year at the higher elevations and along the shore of the Great Lakes (WVNSCO 2007) . Such temperatures occur between early June and early September. Readings of 100 &deg;F or higher are rare. It is sunny for 65 percent of the total daylight hours on the average during the summer (WVNSCO 2007) .
Temperatures from mid-September to mid-October frequently rise to the 60s and 70s in the daytime and cool to the 30s and low 40s at night. The comparatively warm waters of the Great Lakes reduce cooling at night to the extent that freezing temperatures in lakeside counties are normally delayed until mid-October or later.
Precipitation Lake Erie and Lake Ontario exert a major controlling influence on the climate of the region . In winter, cold air crossing unfrozen lake water picks up moisture and releases it as snow as the air stream moves inland over higher terrain. Heavy snow squalls frequently occur, producing from one to two feet of snow and occasionally as much as four to seven feet. Cattaraugus County and Erie County are generally subject to lake-effect snows in Revision 2                                        3-40
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN November and December, but as the lake gradually freezes lake-effect snow becomes less frequent. The snow season normally begins in mid-November and extends into mid- or late-April.
Winter precipitation is heaviest east of Lake Erie, where the average total snowfall is in excess of 120 inches (WVNSCO 2007). Summer season precipitation ranges from 10 to 12 inches with the rainfall distribution pattern reflecting the influences of the cool Lake Ontario waters to the north and the hilly terrain in the Southern Tier (WVNSCO 2007) . Rains resulting from warm fronts are usually light but last for several days; cold fronts often cause heavier rainfall in shorter periods.
3.4.*2 Severe Weather Phenomena Figures 3-46 through 3-48, provided by the National Weather Service observing station in Buffalo, show the distribution patterns of tornadoes (1950-2002) , thunderstorm winds (1955-2002), and hail events (1955-2002) for western and north central New York. The National Weather Service has not updated these figures as of 2008 . Corresponding charts depict distribution of events by month, time, and rating of severity.
Severe weather phenomena occurred during the 1993-2002 period as follows :
* Six tornadoes ;
* Seventy-five thunderstorm wind or hail events (where thunderstorm winds measured 58 mph or greater or produced damage, or where hail measuring 0.75 -
inch or larger fell) ;
* Seven injuries due to lightning strikes;
* Forty-nine flood or flash flood events (about one-third due to ice jams) ;
* Twenty-eight high wind events (high winds caused by large-scale, synoptic low pressure systems) ;
* Three ice storms (with ice accumulations of one-half inch or greater) ;
* One blizzard in March 1993 (with winds or frequent gusts of 35 mph or greater and visibilities of less than one-fourth mile sustained for three hours or more) ; and
* Sixty-six snowstorms (with seven inches or more of snow within a 12- hour period, or nine inches or more of snow within 24 hours, about two-thirds due to lake-effect snows.)
Additional historical meteorological data is provided .in WVNSCO 1993b, which summarizes regional meteorological information, analyzes trends, and correlates meteorological data collected by the National Weather Service with data collected at the site's regional and primary monitoring stations.
3.4.3    Weather-Related Radionuclide Transmission Factors Winds at the site are generally from the west and south at about 10.3 miles per hour (4 .6 m/s) and 9.6 miles per hour (4.3 mis) respectively, based on data from 1991-2002.
Figure 3-49 depicts the average wind vectors on site.
Revision 2                                        3-41
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The strongest winds occur from November through March and are generally southwesterly to west-southwesterly. The weakest winds occur from May to October and are generally southwesterly to southerly (WVNSCO 1993) .
Average and extreme duration of precipitation events are not measured at the WVDP .
Only annual, monthly, or daily precipitation data are available, recorded as inches fallen in a 24-hour period .
3.4.4    Weather-Related Site Deterioration Parameters Routine and extreme weather-related site deterioration parameters are considered in this section .
Routine Parameters Note that precipitation intensity is indicated by information provided in Section 3.4 .5.
The hourly average maximum recorded wind speed in the area was 35 .3 miles per hour in December of 1987 (WVNSCO 1993) .
Wind vectors were addressed in Section 3.4 .3. Temperature gradients were discussed in Section 3.4.1. Limited data are available on pressure gradient variation: reported barometric pressure measurements in 1991 and 1992 have ranged from lows of 29 .51 in March of 1991 and 28.17 in May of 1992 to highs of 30 .67 in December of 1991 and 30.43 in January of 1992 (WVNSCO 1993b).
Extreme Parameters Most extreme weather-related deterioration events that occurred during the 1993 -
2002 period were summarized in Section 3.4.2 . Regarding extreme air pollution, the WVDP and Cattaraugus County are considered "in attainment" or "unclassifiable" with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants. As of 2002, no extreme air pollution violations have been identified within Cattaraugus County.
3.4.5    Site Meteorology and Climatology Site topographic features previously discussed produce locally significant variations in climate. Meteorological data are collected both on site and at a nearby meteorological station on Dutch Hill Road. Wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, temperature, dewpoint, and rainfall are measured on site. Wind speed and direction are measured at the regional location.
Temperature The average monthly temperatures recorded at site from 1984 - 2002 are listed below:
January: 24 .26 &deg;f      May: 55 .22 &deg;f          September: 58.82 &deg;f February: 25 .34 &deg;F      June: 63 .86 &deg;f          October: 48 .74 &deg;f March : 32.36 &deg;F        July: 67.46 &deg;F          November: 38 .66&deg;f April: 44.6 &deg;f          August: 66.02 &deg;F        December: 28 .22&deg;f Extreme temperatures have been as high as 98 .6 &deg;F and as low as -43 .6 &deg;f.
Revision 2                                        3-42
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Precipitation and Wind Vectors Average annual precipitation for the site is 39 .4 inches, including an average 120 inches of snow, based on 1985 - 2002 data , and is evenly distributed throughout the year.
Winds are generally from the west and south at about 10.3 miles per hour (4 .6 mis) and 9.6 miles per hour (4.3 mis) respectively, as previously noted.
Severe Weather Phenomena According to U.S. Weather Bureau meteorological analysis, the theoretically greatest precipitation (probable maximum precipitation) that could be expected over the applicable drainage area in a 24-hour period is 24.9 inches. Factors figuring into this estimate include the size of the 1,200-acre drainage area, its topography, and seasonal effects . The highest measured 24-hour total as of 2003 was five inches .
Atmospheric Water Vapor There are diurnal and seasonal vanat1ons in relative humidity, according to measurements made at the Buffalo National Weather Station office . Humidity during predawn hours ranges from 35 to 83 percent throughout the year. Afternoon humidity varies from 55 to 60 percent during the summer (June-August) months and from 18 to 25 percent during winter (December - February).
Figure 3-50 illustrates the percent frequency of occurrence of ceilings (defined as cloud cover of 5/8 or greater) less than 3,000 feet and/or visibility less than three miles at Buffalo and Niagara Falls, the closest locations with this data. The cycle of maximum and minimum occurrence should be approximately the same at West Valley. (WVNSCO 1993)
The normal annual number of hours of sunshine is approximately 2,100. In summer the daily value is ap~roximately nine hours and in winter the normal is 3.5 hours .
Fog Fog has a well-defined seasonal cycle with annual maximums occurring during the winter months . Buffalo has a normal expectation of ten days per year of dense fog ; light fog occurs much more frequently .
Atmospheric Stability Measurements of temperature, wind speed, and wind direction made at the 10-meter and 60-meter heights at the on-site meteorological tower are used for determining wind patterns and for determining atmospheric stability
* characteristics at the site. Seven Pasquill -Gifford atmospheric stability categories (A through F) have been determined for the site based on vertical temperature differences (temperature lapse rates, ~T) calculated from temperatures measured at the 197 feet (60-meter) and 33 feet (10-meter) heights at the onsite meteorological tower.
These stability class conditions determine how a parcel of air will react when it is displaced adiabatically (~T/~Z method) , i.e., without exchanging heat. Stability classifications were determined in accordance with the methodology described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23 (NRC 2007) on onsite meteorological programs and Regulatory Revision 2                                      3-43
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Guide 1.145 (NRC 1982) on atmospheric dispersion models. Hourly-averaged values of temperature obtained at the 197 feet (10-meter) and 33 feet (60-meter heights) at the tower were used in the calculations . The temperature differences were derived from temperature data collected at the on-site meteorological tower, from January 1, 1994, through December 31 , 1998 (Spector and Grant 2003).
Joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction for each stability class are tabulated in Table 3-10 for measurements at a height of 33 feet (10 meters) and Table 3-11 for measurements at a height of 197 feet (60 meters) (Spector and Grant 2003) . These joint frequency distributions were derived from data collected at the on-site meteorological tower from January 1, 1994, through December 31 , 1998. Wind directions are grouped into 16 principal directions (22.5-degree sectors centered on true north, northeast, and so on) .
Wind speeds are classified into seven wind speed categories. Calms are distributed, in the form of hourly-averaged wind speeds, into the first wind speed category representing the 0-0 .5 mis speed bin (Spector and Grant 2003) .
Revision 2                                      3-44
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-10. Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distributions at 10 Meters (January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1998, based on Spector and Grant 2003, Attachment G)
Wind                                              Direction From Stability Speed Class (m/s)    N  NNE    NE  ENE    E    ESE    SE  SSE      s  SSW    SW  WSW    w  WNW    NW  NNW 0.0-1 .5    0    0    0    0    0    0      0  0.005 0.01 0.005    0.002 0.005 0.02    0  0.002  0 1.5-3.0  0.051 0.044 0.032 0.027 0.039 0.017 0.022 0.015 0.022 0.027    0.039 0.024 0.021 0.054  0.113 0.047 3.0-6.0  0.049 0.029 0.024 0.029 0.022 0.015 0.024 0.024 0.05 1 0.039    0.034 0.007 0.007 0.098  0.592 0.1 64 A
6.0-9.0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0.002  0    0    0    0      0  0.005 0.015 9.0-12.0    0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0
          <12.0      0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0 0.0-1 .5    0  0.005 0.007 0.005  0    0    0.002  0.005    0  0.005 0.002  0  0.002 0.002    0    0 1.5-3.0  0.059 0.069 0.054 0.032 0.037 0.024 0.037  0.047  0.056 0.083 0.122 0.064 0.083 0.164 0.291  0.083 3.0-6.0  0.044 0.037 0.024  0.01 0.017  0.01  0.039  0.098 0.103 0.064 0.066  0.024 0.034 0.149  0.59 0.233 B
60-90      0      0    0    0    0    0    0.005    0    0.007    0    0    0    0  0.002  0.002 0.005 9.0-12.0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0      0      0    0    0    0      0    0    0
          <12.0      0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0      0    0    0    0      0    0    0 0.0-1 .5 0.002 0.022 0.012 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.012 0.005 0.012 0.007    0.007 0.007 0.005  0.02  0.017 0.01 1.5-3.0  0.174 0.095 0.081 0.044 0.042 0.054 0.095 0.095 0.166 0.181    0.25 0.118 0.174 0.35 0.497    0.233 3.0-6.0  0.073 0.027 0.027 0.015 0.049 0.034 0.108 0.103 0.181 0.071    0.073 0.047 0.051 0.176 0.835  0.289 c      6.0-9.0    0      0    0    0    0.01  0    0.005  0.022    0      0    0    0    0  0.005  0.01  0.012 9.0-12.0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0      0      0    0    0    0      0    0    0
          <12.0      0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0      0    0    0    0      0    0    0 0.0-1 .5 0.321  0.34 0.223  0.22 0.252 0.343 0.468  0.441 0.695    0.72 0.629 0.615 0.832  1.05 0.906  0.36 1.5-3.0  1.031 0.639 0.416 0.348 0.394 0.769 1.616  1.307 2.274  2.296 1.785 1.227 2.025 3.529 .6.305 1.542 3.0-6.0  0.308 0.113 0.071 0.286 0.313 0.495 1.709 1.951    1.506 0.693 0.443 0.235 0.524 1.809 4.447  1.205 D
6.0-90    0      0    0    0.02 0.002 0.005 0.279 0.661    0.061 0.002 0.002  0    0  0.002  0.02  0.01 9.0-12.0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0.01  0.071    0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0
          <12.0      0      0    0    0    0    0      0  0.007    0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0 0.0-1.5  0.093 0.093 0.078 0.132 0.233 0.279 0.673  1.408 1.983  1.092 0.686 0.654 0.71 0.776  0.428 0.147 1.5-3.0  0.02 0.02 0.022 0.02 0.037 0.179 1.06      1.694 2.191  0.705 0.144 0.1 0.162 0.448    0.654 0.083 3.0-6 0  0.002    0    0    0    0.01 0.017 0.487  1.165 0.771  0.095 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.005  0.069 0.007 E
60-9 0    0      0    0    0    0    0    0.007  0.23    0.024  0    0    0    0      0    0    0 9.0-12.0    0    0    0    0    0    0      0  0.027    0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0
          <12.0      0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0 00-1.5  0.039 0.024 0.049 0.042 0.103 0.235 0.546  1.741  1.547 0.676 0.406 0.272 0.166 0.069  0.049 0.056 1.5-3.0    0  0.002  0    0  0.002 0.034 0.176  0.333    0.24 0.022 0.002  0.01 0.017 0.005  0.015 0.01 3.0-6.0    0    0    0    0    0  0.002 0.007  0.024    0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0 F
6.0-9.0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0 9.0-12.0  0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0
          <12.0      0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0      0    0    0 0.0-1.5  0.012 0.04  0.015 0.029 0.039  0.13  0.637  2.931  1.704 0.411 0.218 0.125 0.039  0.01  0.02  0.022 1.5-3.0    0    0    0    0  0.002 0.007 0.066  0.208  0.054  0    0  0.002 0.002    0    0    0 3.0-6.0    0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0 G
6.0-9.0    0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0 9.0-12.0  0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0
          <12.0      0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0    0    0      0    0 Revision 2                                            3-45
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-11. Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distributions at 60 Meters (January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1998, based on Spector and Grant 2003, Attachment H)
Wind                                                  Direction From Stability Speed Class (mis)    N    NNE    NE    ENE    E    ESE    SE  SSE        s  SSW    SW    WSW    w  WNW      NW  NNW 0.0-1 .5    0      0    0      0  0.002    0    0.002 0.002      0    0      0    0  0.002 0.002    0      0 1.5-3.0  0.017  0.007 0.007 0.015 0.022  0.01  0.005 0.007  0.005  0.005 0.012 0.012 0.01  0.017  0.019  0.022 3.0-6.0  0.005    0    0      0    0      0    0.002 0.002  0.017  0.053 0.051 0.027 0.039  0.2 11 0.296  0.099 A
6.0-9.0  0.005    0    0      0    0      0    0.002 0.002  0.017  0.012 0.029 0.012 0.01    0.17  0.143  0.051 9.0-12.0    0    0    0      0      0      0      0    0    0.002    0      0    0  0.002 0.005  0.007  0.002
          <12.0        0    0      0    0      0      0      0    0      0    0      0    0    0      0      0      0 0.0-1.5  0.007    0  0.002    0      0  0.005    0  0.005      0  0.002 0.002    0    0      0      0      0 1.5-3.0  0.034  0.051 0.046 0.019 0.017  0.022  0.017 0.015  0.019  0.07 0.012 0.022 0.039  0.075  0.075 0.056 3.0-6.0  0.053  0.051 0.039 0.024 0.034    0.01  0.036  007    0.083  0.109 0.175 0.102 0.092  0.386  0.408 0.175 B
6.0-9.0      0    0      0    0      0  0.002  0.012 0.029  0.017  0.036 0.029 0.024 0.046  0.133 0.124  0.017 9.0-12.0    0    0      0    0      0      0      0    0    0.005  0.002    0  0.002  0  0.015  0.002    0
          <12.0        0      0    0    0      0      0      0    0      0      0    0    0    0      0      0      0 0.0-1.5  0.005  0.002  0.01  0.002 0.002  0.007 0.002    0    0.01  0.005 0.005 0.002    0  0.002  0.007  0.01 1.5-3.0  0.126 0.067  0.068  0.034 0.034  0.034 0.066  0.309  0.036  0.068 0.073  0.07 0.085 0.116  0.129 0.129 3.0-6.0  0.109 0.053 0.041  0.034 0.051  0.036 0.097  0.092  0.148  0.26 0.294 0.172 0.279  0.645  0.631 0.238 c      6.0-9.0                      0.002 0.017  0.01  0.01 0.034  0.027  0.022 0.041  0.032 0.034 0.192  0.099 0.036 0      0    0 9.0-12.0    0      0    0    0  0.007    0  0.002 0.015      0      0    0      0  0.005 0.029  0.002    0
          <12.0        0      0    0    0      0      0      0  0.002      0      0    0      0    0    0      0    0 0.0-1.5  0.199 0.204  0.18  0.184  0.15  0.206  0.209 0.092 0.102 0.058    0.07  0.112 0.119 0.119    0.17 0.163 1.5-3.0  0.757  0.568 0.468  0.255 0.306  0.531    0.9 0.551 0.393 0.587    0.99  1.063 1.281  1.42 ' 1.272 0.755 3.0-6.0  0.636  0.405  0.24  0.473 0.519  0.682  1.628 1.662    1.153 2.203 3.237 2.587 4.21 5  5.63 3.458  1.138 D
6.0-9.0  0.034  0.002  0.15  0.024 0.029  0.08  0.548 0.784  0.675  0.495 0 718  0.439 1.228 1.815  0.781 0.112 9.0-12.0    0      0    0  0.007 0.002    0  0.129 0.495 0.131    0.015 0.005 0.005 0.058  0.078  0.019    0
          <12.0        0      0    0    0      0      0  0.015 0.109 0.012      0    0      0    0    0      0    0 0.0-1 .5  0.113 0.104 0.087 0.097  0.133 0.269 0.544  0.403    0.158 0.095  0.92  0.073 0.078 0.102 0.114  0.136 1.5-3.0  0.175 0.083 0.078 0.085  0.143 0.294 1.23    0.818    0.432 0.422 0.371 0.485 0.446    0.4 0.325  0.158 3.0-6.0  0.024  0.01 0.017 0.034 0.034  0.102  1.104 1.301    1.269 1.767  1.429 0.604 0.726 0.694 0.488    0.15 E
60-9 0      0      0    0      0  0.015  0.002  0.121 0.502    0.548  0.33 0.167 0.015  0.017 0.024  0.015    0 9.0-12.0    0      0    0      0    0      0      0  0.184 0.068      0    0      0    0  0.002      0    9
          <12.0      0      0    0      0    0      0      0  0.034    0.002    0    0      0    0    0      0    0 0.0-1 .5  0.102 0.049 0.068 0.068  0.095  0.175  0.908  1.109 0.175 0.046 0.063 0.066    0.044 0.063  0.104 0.107 1.5-3.0  0.019 0.01  0.07 0.007  0.17  0.085  0.946 0.694 0.243 0.211 0.112 0.136    0.121 0.133  0.126 0.083 3.0-6 0    0      0    0      0    0  0.015 0.393  0.325    0.34 0.279  0.16  0073 0.053  0.61    0.85 0.032 F
6.0-9.0    0      0    0      0    0      0  0.007  0.019  0.002    0    0  0.002    0    0      0    0 9.0-12.0    0      0    0      0    0      0    *o      0        0    0    0      0    0    0      0    0
          <12.0      0      0    0      0    0      0      0    0        0    0    0      0    0    0      0    0 0.0-1.5  0.036 0.046  0.068 0.041  0.066  0.153 0.769  1.344    0.24 0.067  0.061 0.078 0.049  0.051  0.075 0.058 1.5-3.0 0.005 .0.002    0  0.005  0.002 0.029 0.895    1.24  0.417 0.277 0.211 0.165 0.09    0.061  0.107 0.039 3.0-6 0    0      0    0      0    0    0.005 0.216  0.267  0.296 0.403 0.119 0.017 0.019  0.015  0.015 0.002 G
60-90      0      0    0      0    0      0      0      0    0.002 0.002    0      0    0    0      0    0 9.0-12.0    0    0    0      0    0      0      0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0      0    0
          <12.0        0    0    0      0    0      0      0    0      0    0      0    0    0    0      0    0 Revision 2                                              3-46
                              ~~~~~
WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Air Quality The EPA regulates National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants as defined in the Clean Air Act Titles I through VI , which are designed to protect human health and welfare from adverse effects. Cattaraugus County falls within the Southern Tier West Intrastate district (Air Quality Control Region 164), with the following status of attainment:
      "Better than National Standards/Unclassifiable (cannot be classified) ."
Radiological emissions are regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations . Non-radiological air emissions are regulated by the NYSDEC whose regulations dictate monitoring and compliance of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. The WVDP was approved for a capping plan for non-radiological emissions . There were no cases where air permit or regulatory criteria were exceeded during calendar year 2007. (WVES and URS 2008) 3.5  Geology and Seismology The geology and seismology of the site and surrounding areas are described in this section .
3.5.1    Regional Physiography The Center is located within the glaciated northern portion of the Appalachian Plateau Province, a maturely dissected upl*and region underlain in western New York by shales and siltstones of Devonian age. This region is bounded on the north by the Erie Ontario Lowlands, on the east by the Tughill Upland, on the south by the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau, and on the west by the Interior Lowlands (Figure 3-51 ).
The Appalachian Plateau of western New York has been subjected to multiple glaciations during the Wisconsinan glacial period 38,000 to 14,500 years ago, that resulted in the deepening and oversteepening of many pre-glacial valleys and in the accumulation in those valleys of as much as 500 feet of glacial tills , lacustrine, and glaciofluvial sediments.
The Center is situated within one of these north-trending valleys (Figure 3-3).
3.5.2    Site Stratigraphy The Center is located in a glacial valley filled with upwards of 500 feet of Pleistocene age glacial tills, lacustrine, and glaciofluvial sediments that were deposited during the Wisconsinan glacial period . The thickness of glacial deposits at the site ranges from five feet or less on the uplands to 500 feet along the axis of the valley. These glacial sediments were deposited on shales and siltstones of the Middle Devonian Conneaut and Canadaway Groups which comprise the uppermost portion of the Paleozoic bedrock that underlies the Center.
The Paleozoic section in the vicinity of the Center is approximately 7,500 feet thick and is comprised predominantly of shales, siltstones, sandstones, carbonates , and evaporites of Cambrian through Devonian age (Table 3-12) . Bedrock stratification in the area is nearly flat and essentially undeformed . However, bedrock is tilted to the south at an average dip of six to eight meters per kilometer (approximately 32 to 42 feet per mile) . The Paleozoic Revision 2                                      3-47
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING    PLAN bedrock underlying the Center was deposited on a basement of older Precambrian-age rocks that are part of the Grenville Orogenic Belt which extends from eastern Canada, through the United States, and into Mexico.
Table 3-12. Generalized Paleozoic Stratigraphic Section for Southwestern New York(ll System          Series    Group              Unit          Lithology Thickness (ft)
Pennsylvanian              Pottsville        Olean          Ss, Cgl  75 - 100 Mississippian              Pocono            Knapp          Ss, Cgl  50 - 100 Devonian        Upper    Conewango                        Sh, Ss,  700 Cgl Conneaut          Chadakoin      Sh, Ss    700 Canadaway        Undiff        Sh, Ss    1100 - 1400 Perrysburg    Sh,Ss West Falls        Java          Sh, Ss    375-1250 Nunda          Sh, Ss Rhinestreet    Sh, Ss Sonyea            Middlesex      Sh        0- 400 Genesee                          Sh        0- 450 Middle                      Tully          Ls        0- 50 Hamilton          Moscow        Sh        200 - 600 Ludlowville    Sh Skaneateles    Sh Marcellus      Sh Onondaga      Ls        30 - 235 Lower      Tristates        Oriskany      Ss        0- 40 Helderberg        Manlius        Ls        0 -10 Rondout        Doi Silurian        Upper                        Akron          Doi      0-15 Salina            Camillus      Sh, Gyp  450 -1850 Syracuse      Doi, Sh, Salt Vernon        Sh, Salt Lockport          Lockport        Doi      150- 250 Clinton          Rochester      Sh        125 Irondequoit    Ls Lower                        Sodus          Sh      75 Reynales        Ls Thorold        Ss        2-8 Revision 2                                    3-48
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-12. Generalized Paleozoic Stratigraphic Section for Southwestern New York(l J System            Series      Group              Unit                Lithology        Thickness (ft)
Medina              Grimsby            Sh, Ss          75 - 160 Whirlpool          Ss              0 - 25 Ordovician        Upper                          Queenston          Sh              1100 - 1500 Oswego              Ss Lorraine            Sh              900-1000 Utica              Sh Middle      Trenton-Black      Trenton            Ls              425 - 625 River              Black River        Ls              225 - 550 Lower      Beekmantown        Tribes Hill        Ls              0- 550
                                                          /Chuctanunda Cambrian          Upper                          Little Falls        Doi              0- 350 Galway              Doi , ss        575-1350 (Theresa)
Potsdam            Ss, Doi          75 - 500 Precambrian                                                            Meta Rx NOTE: (1) From Jacobi and Fountain 1993.
LEGEND: Cgl = conglomerate, Doi = dolomite, Gyp - gypsum, Ls= limestone, Sh = shale, Ss = sand stone, Meta Rx = metamorphic rocks Site Glacial Stratigraphy The WVDP is underlain by upwards of 500 feet of Pleistocene-age glacial sediments that were deposited in a northwest-trending bedrock valley (Figure 3-52) . The principal glacial units are identified below.
Surficial Sand and Gravel Unit The surficial sand and gravel unit is a silty, sandy gravel deposit that incorporates two overlapping units of different ages and origins. The older unit, the slack-water sequence, is a Wisconsinan glaciofluvial deposit deposited in Buttermilk Creek Valley by draining glacial meltwaters of Lavery-age ice . The younger unit. the thick-bedded unit, is a post-glacial Holocene-age alluvial fan deposited by streams entering Buttermilk Creek Valley.
This unit is found at grade in the north plateau area of the Center where it has a maximum thic kness of 41 feet in the center of the plateau . The sand and gravel unit thins to a few feet towards the northern, eastern, and southern margins of the north plateau where it has been truncated by the downward erosion of stream channels bounding the north plateau . The Process Building, Vitrification Facility, and adjacent facilities were built on these alluvial and glaciofluvial deposits (Figure 3-5) .
The composition of the sand and gravel unit vari es. but on the average it is a mixture of gravel (41 percent) , sand (40 percent) , silt (11 percent), and clay (8 percent) . X-ray Revision 2                                          3-49
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN diffraction analysis indicates the mineralogy of this unit is dominated by quartz, illite, chlorite, and plagioclase with subordinate amounts of calcite and dolomite.
Surficial sands and gravels that are equivalent to the surficial sand and gravel unit in the north plateau are located in a number of areas within the Center (Figure 3-53) . These sands and gravels have been quarried for gravel in three locations within the Center. Two of the gravel pits are located west of the Process Building on the west side of Rock Springs Road (Figure 3-8) . These gravel pits are no longer in operation and were closed in accordance with NYSDEC regulations . The third gravel pit was located on the southeastern margin of the Center (Figure 3-9) . This gravel pit was quarried by the Town of Ashford . The three gravel pit quarries do not contain any residual radioactive contamination from NFS or WVDP operations .
Lavery Till The Lavery till is predominantly an olive-gray, silty-clay, glaci al till with lenses of sand, gravel, silt. and rhythmic clay-silt laminations (Albanese. et al. 1983) . This unit underlies the surficial sand and gravel unit in the north plateau and is exposed at the surface in the SC?Uth plateau (Figure 3-53) . As noted previously, the Lavery till is the host unit for both the SDA and the NOA.
The thickness of the Lavery till ranges from a few feet at its western margin to upwards of 130 feet to the east towards Buttermilk Creek. The Lavery till is a mixture of clay (50 percent} , silt (30 percent), sand (18 percent}, and gravel (two percent) (WVNSCO 1993e) .
The mineral composition of the till largely resembles that of local bedrock.
On the south plateau , the upper three to 16 feet of the Lavery till is weathered to a brown color and it contains root tubes and numerous fractures whose number decrease with depth. This upper layer is referred to as the weathered Lavery till and it is principally found in the south plateau of the Center. The weathered Lavery till is either absent or only a few inches thick on the north plateau .
X-ray diffraction analysis indicates the mineralogy of the weathered Lavery till is composed mainly of illite, quartz, calcite, kaolinite, plagioclase feldspar, and dolomite in decreasing quantities . The mineralogy of the unweathered Lavery till is composed mainly of quartz, illite, calcite, and kaolinite in decreasing abundance.
A borrow pit excavated into the Lavery till is located on the south plateau east of the SDA between Franks Creek and Buttermilk Creek (Figure 3-9) . Clay was excavated from this pit beginning in the 1970's to provide clay fill for use at the SDA. The borrow pit did not contain any residual radioactive contamination from NFS or WVDP operations. The pit covered an area of less than one acre and it was closed by backfilling and grading in accordance with the NYSDEC Mined Land Reclamation Program in the early 2000's.
Lavery Till-Sand Unit The Lavery till -sa nd unit is a lenticular shaped, silty. sand layer that is locally present within the Lavery till in the north plateau of the Center, immediately southeast of the Revision 2                                          3-50
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Process Building . It is thought to be either a pro-glacial sand deposit or a reworked kame deposit.
The till-sand is limited in areal extent, occurring on the north plateau in an east-west band approximately 750 feet wide. It lies within the upper 20 feet of the Lavery till (Figure 3-
: 6) and is up to seven feet in thickness .
Re-examination of borehole logs from the north plateau in 2007 resulted in a re-evaluation of the areal extent of the Lavery till sand_ From 1991 to 2007 , the Lavery till sand was inferred to be present to the west, south, and southeast of the Process Building in a location ~hat was hydraulically upgradient and cross-,gradient to the north plateau groundwater plume. Eanlier interpretations of the borehole logs considered a prominent olay-rich geologic honizon up to several feet in thickness as part of the unweathered Lavery till and the underilying sandy unit as the Lavery till sand_
Following bhe completion of the 1993 soil boring program to support the RCRA Facility Investigation, the 1993 borehole data indicated that the sand and gravel unit was composed of two distinct subunits, the thick-bedded unit and the underlying slack water sequence which are separated by the prominent clay-rich geologic horizon mentioned earllier. In 2007 it was noted that the elevation of the original Lavery till sand west and soulilwest of the Process Building was much shallower in elevation than the Lavery till sane;! to the southeast of the Process Building. It was determined that this western and southwestern portion was more consistent with the elevation of the slack water sequence of the sand and gravel unit and it was reclassified as part of the slack water sequence. As a result, the areal extent of the Lavery till sand was substantially reduced and it is now located southeast of the Process Building away from the north plateau groundwater plume as shown in Figure 3-64.
Kent Recessional Sequence The Kent Recessional Sequence underlies the Lavery till on both the north and south plateaus and it includes both lacustrine and kame delta deposits; it is 30 to 60 feet thick at the WVDP . Lacustrine strata composed of laminated silt and clay forms the lower 30 feet of the Kent Recessional Sequence, which is present in the subsurface across the entire WVDP.
The lacustrine section is interpreted as forming in a pro-glacial lake that formed after the recession of the Kent ice margin (LaFleur 1979): The lacustrine section is composed mainly of quartz, illite, calcite, dolomite, and plagioclase feldspar in decreasing abundance.
Calcite and dolomite together make up 12 to 20 percent of the lacustrine section by weight.
The lacustrine section in the eastern portion of the WVDP is overlain by upwards of 30 feet of sand and gravel believed to represent several kame deltas. (Figure 3-6) Several of these kame deltas are exposed along Buttermilk Creek and extend into the WVDP west of the NDA (Bergeron, et al. 1987).
The kame deltas were deposited during pauses in the recession of the Kent glacier through a pro-glacial lake that allowed the accumulation o(kame deltas over lakebed silts Revision 2                                        3-51
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and clays. This unit is underlain by at least two older silty-clay tills, the Kent till and the Olean till, which also are separated by similar lacustrine and glaciofluvial deposits (LaFleur 1979).
3.5.3 Site Geomorphology Karst terrains are not developed at the Center as there are no occurrences of carbonate bedrock in the vicinity of the site. Natural subsidence of surficial soils has not been observed at the Center. However, small scale subsidence has been observed over some of the burial holes in the NOA and SDA during their operating history which are believed related to collapse and compaction of buried waste .
Geomorphological studies at the WVDP have focused on the major erosional processes acting on Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek drainage basins near the WVDP.
This section describes these processes - channel incision, slope movement. and gullying -
and details where they occur. The erosion rates from these processes have been measured at numerous locations throughout the drainage basins, as summarized in Table 3-13 . Results vary based on location and methodology used in the measurements.
Channel Incision The streams in the vicinity of the WVDP are at a relatively young stage of development and are characterized by steep profiles, V-shaped cross-sections, and little or no floodplains. At this stage, streams are able to move large quantities of sediment and erode their channels, a process referred to as channel incision or stream downcutting. The channel incision process is greatest during high-flow, high-energy rainfalls from prolonged soaking storms and brief, high-intensity thunderstorms .
These streams are also actively elongating their stream course or profiles through erosion upstream, a process referred to as headward advance . Headward advance starts when the movement of channel sediment is blocked by debris in the stream channel, which results in an abrupt change in the longitudinal profile of the stream bed, referred to as a knickpoint.
The stream erodes the knickpoint area by simple basal scour due to an attached impinging jet which undercuts the knickpoint face . Large blocks of material are then removed by cantilever mass failure and are then dispersed and washed downstream.
Ttie shape of the channel cross-section changes from a Li-shape, or flatbottom , with a low erosion rate to a V-shaped channel with a higher erosion rate. The knickpoint migration rate has been measured at 10.7 feet per year along Erdman Brook and 7.5 feet per year along Franks Creek (WVNSCO 1993d).
Slope Movement Slope erosion within the Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek drainage basin has been dominated by the formation of slump blocks along the stream valley wall. Slumps develop when water infiltrates into fractures within stream banks, causing an increase in soil pore pressures, which reduces the soil strength until the slope slumps down into the stream Revision 2                                      3-52
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN valley. Slumps also occur on the outside of a stream meander loop, where the increased stream flow velocity undercuts the base of the slope. decreasing the slope stability and accelerating the slumping process.
Three slump blocks have been identified along Franks Creek, one on Erdman Brook, and one on Quarry Creek. The blocks vary in length from about five feet to greater than 100 feet and tend to be about three to four feet in height and width when they initially form (WVNSCO 1993d).
On the basis of data collected from 1982 to 1991 , the rate of downslope movement within the slump blocks on Erdman Brook is reported to range from 0.09 and 0.16 feet per year. which equates to a stream valley rim widening rate of approximately 0.07 to 0.12 feet per year.
Gullying The steep walls of the stream channels within the Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek drainage basin are susceptible to gully formation . Gullies are most likely to form along stream banks, where slumps and deep fractures are present. groundwater seeps are flowing . and the toe of the slope intersects the outside of a stream meander loop.
Gully formation occurs during thaws and after thunderstorms , where a concentrated stream of water flows over the side of a plateau , which is great enough to promote entrainment and removal of soil particles from the base of the gully. Surface water runoff into the gully contributes to gully growth by removing fallen debris at the base of the scarp.
More than 20 major and moderate-sized gullies have been identified near the WVDP .
The initiation and growth of gullies may be the most rap id means for eroding the north and south plateaus. Gully advance was calculated at 1.2 feet per year near the SDA on the south plateau, and at 2.2 feet per year for two areas on the north plateau (WVNSCO 1993d).
Table 3-13. Summary of Erosion Rates Near the WVDP Location                    Erosion Rate (m/y)    Reference    Method Sheet and Rill Erosion        0 to 0.0045        URS 2001      Erosion frame measurements (11-year average rate)
Deepening of Buttermilk Creek 0.0015 to 0.0021    LaFleur 1979 Carbon-14 date of terrace - depth of stream below terrace Deepening of Buttermilk Creek 0.005              Boothroyd, et  Carbon-14 date of terrace - depth of al. 1982        stream below terrace Deepening of Quarry Creek,    0.051to0 .089
* Dames &      Difference from 1980 to 1990 in Franks Creek, and Erdman                        Moore 1992      stream surveys Brook Revision 2                                          3-53
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-13. Summary of Erosion Rates Near the WVDP Location                    Erosion Rate (m/y)    Reference  Method Downcutting of Buttermilk    0.0032              USGS 2007    Optically stimulated luminescence Creek                                                          age dating of 9 terraces along Buttermilk Creek Buttermilk Creek Valley Rim  4.9 to 5.8          Boothroyd, et Downslope movement of slump block Widening                                        al. 1979      over 2 years Valley Rim Widening of        0.05to0.13          McKinney      Extrapolate Boothroyd data for 500 Buttermilk and Franks Creeks                    1986          years and Erdman Brook Erdman Brook Valley Rim      0.02 to 0.04        Dames &      Downslope movement of stakes over Widening                                        Moore 1992    9 years Downcutting of Franks Creek  0.06                Dames &      Stream profile, knickpoint migration Moore 1992    1955 to 1989 SDA Gully Headward          0.4                Dames &      Gully advancement Soil Conservation Advancement                                      Moore 1992    Service TR-32 method NP3 Gully Headward          0.7                Dames &      Gully advancement Soil Conservation Advancement                                      Moore 1992    Service TR-32 method 006 Gully Headward          0.7                Dames &      Gully advancement Soil Conservation Advancement                                      Moore 1992    Service TR-32 method Slope Stability Landslides provide an active mechanism to headward erosion for altering the landform in Buttermilk Creek Valley. Since landslides typically occur on slopes that have a relief of more than 10 feet, all currently eroding surfaces except the upland flats have potential for landslide development. Landslides range from three feet to 65 feet in height. Landsliding has been recognized since the mid-1970s along the small streams bordering the burial areas.
Stratigraphy affects both landslide location and development. Landsliding takes place along Buttermilk Creek where the Lavery till unit is dissected and the underlying lower sand and gravel of the Kent Recessional Sequence is exposed . These unconsolidated sands and gravels are removed by stream erosion, leaving the overlying till unsupported, followed by bank collapse, bringing down large blocks of the valley wall.
Landslides on the smaller streams draining the WVDP tend to occur as the channel cuts downward through the Lavery till , increasing the steepness of the stream banks, which eventually results in a series of short slide blocks. The blocks tend to be less than four feet high and occur along the slope from the edge of the plateau to the edge of the stream channel.
Revision 2                                        3-54
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Creep occurs on the slopes of Buttermilk Creek and its tributaries at relatively slow rates of a few centimeters per year. A slope may have surface layers a few centimeters thick that move a few centimeters per year. If highly charged with water, the surface soils may liquefy and then move down-slope as mudflows . These mudflows occur most frequently in conjunction with landsliding .
Down-slope movement of till in the Buttermilk Creek Valley by landslides, slumping, and earthflow appears to be a continuous process measured at an average rate of five feet per year (Boothroyd , et al. 1982) . The average volume of material delivered to Buttermilk Creek has been estimated to be 5,250 cubic feet per year (Boothroyd, et al. 1982) .
Landslide mapping and monitoring suggests areas most susceptible to failure have the following characteristics : surface slopes exceeding eight degrees, slopes composed of silty and clayey tills or alluvial fan material , an active stream channel at the foot of slope, and little or no vegetative cover or heavy overburden (WVNSCO 1993c) .
3.5.4      Regional Structure and Tectonics The bedrock in the immediate vicinity of the Center is composed of interbedded shales, siltstones, and sandstones of the Upper Devonian Canadaway and Conneaut Groups (Rickard 1975) . These and underlying Paleozoic sediments were deformed by compressive stresses originating from the Pennsylvanian-Permian Alleghanian orogeny which was the last major orogenic episode affecting the Appalachian mountain belt.
The major manifestations of this Alleghanian deformation are the prominent regional folds, thrust faults, and metamorphism that are found to the southeast in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, and Piedmont Provinces (Figure 3-51) . However, Alleghanian deformation did extend into the Appalachian Plateau Province of western New York where geologic structure such as joints, low amplitude folds, and thrust faults with small stratigraphic separation were developed in Paleozoic bedrock.
Alleghanian Folds and Thrust Faults The Alleghanian deformation within the Appalachian Plateau of western New York principally affected the Upper Silurian Salina Group and overlying Devonian-age rocks (Table 3-14) . During the Alleghanian orogeny, Paleozoic strata overlying the Salina Group was detached from underlying older strata by a decollement in the Salina Group . The stratigraphic section overlying this decollement was deformed, shortened, and translated to the northwest during the Alleghanian orogeny. The deformation of the strata overlying the decollement was manifested in the development of thrust faults, folds, and systematically oriented bedrock fractures.
The thrust faults that splayed off of the Salina decollement into the Lower to Middle Devonian section displaced and folded overlying bedding, producing an arcuate fold belt in western and central New York (Figure 3-54) . The trend of this fold belt changes across New York State. Anticline fold axes, which trend roughly northeast-southwest in Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegany Counties, are observed to rotate to the east and become more east-west trending in Steuben and Chemung Counties.
Revision 2                                        3-55
WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN These folds have low amplitudes with limb dips that are generally 1 to 2 degrees        I (Wedel 1932, Engelder and Geiser 1980) . The low amplitudes of these folds are related to the small amount of stratigraphic separation that occurs across the thrust faults forming these folds . Higher amplitude folds, with corresponding higher limb dips and larger amount of separation across thrust faults, are found in the Valley and Ridge Province of Pennsylvania (Figure 3-51).
The Bass Islands Trend , a northeast trending , oil and gas producing structure extending from northeastern Ohio into western New York, is an example of an Alleghanian foreland fold and thrust structure. The Bass Islands Trend extends from the southwest corner of New York State, through Chautauqua Lake, northwestern Cattaraugus County, and into southern Erie County (Figure 3-55). The Bass Islands Trend is a regional fold that formed as the result of a thrust fault ramping up-section from the Salina Group into the overlying Lower Devonian section .
Bedrock mapping in the south branch of Cattaraugus Creek, approximately 12 miles west of the WVDP, indicates the presence of northeast-striking inclined bedding, folds , and faults which are attributed to faults associated with the Bass Islands Trend (Baudo and Jacobi 1999, Jacobi and Zhao 1999). Recent field mapping in the Ashford Hollow quadrangle, in which the Center is located, indicates the presence of northwest and northeast striking fractures that represent typical Alleghanian age cross-fold and fold-parallel fracture sets (Tober and Jacobi 2000) .
Table 3-14. Summary of Observed Faults on Seismic Lines WVN-1 and BER83-2A<1 >
Shot Point                    Shot Point    Fault Displacement                              Fault  Displace Seismic Line    Location Top                  Location Base Apparent (feet)                              Type    Trenton of Fault                      of Fault  Dip Angle INVN-1          155.5                          156.5      82.1E  Reverse      No 204.5          75            206.0      85.4E    Normal      No 241 .5          35            239.0      84.6W  Reverse      No 265.0          23            264.5      88.9W  Reverse      ?
467.0          47            465.0      81.4W    Normal      No 478.5          23            484.0      81.?E  Reverse      No 486.0          35            502.0      50.9E  Reverse      No 522.5          47            506.5      62.9W  Reverse      ?
557.0 601 .0        70            585.0      61 .3W  Reverse    Yes 621 .5          35            622 .0      88.0E  Normal      No 633.0          58            631.0      86.2W  Reverse      Yes 668.5          58            667.5      87.7W  Reverse    Yes Revision 2                                        3-56
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-14. Summary of Observed Faults on Seismic Lines WVN-1 and BER83-2Al1J Shot Point                        Shot Point    Fault Displacement                            Fault  Displace Seismic Line    Location Top                    Location Base Apparent (feet)                              Type    Trenton of Fault                          of Fault  Dip Angle 699.0              10            699.5      88.7E  Reverse      ?
740.0              28            737.5      87.6W  Normal      Yes 766.0            287            764.5      88.6W  Normal      Yes 797.5              57            792.0      65.7W  Reverse      No 871.0              48            859.5      65.0W  Normal      Yes BER83-2A          412.0              51            421 .5    75 .9S  Normal      Yes 451 .5            38            457.0      84.3S  Normal      Yes 452.5            102            457.0      85.3S  Normal      Yes 519.0                            521 .0    81 .0S  Normal      No 681 .0                            684.0      84.3S  Normal      No 709.5              13            714.0      85.0S  Normal      Yes 748.0                            752.0      83.4S  Normal      No 779.5              26            791 .5    70.1S  Reverse      No 800.0              39            822.0      60.?S  Reverse      No 828.0              12            842.0      87.2S  Normal      No NOTE : {1) From Bay Geophysical 2001 .
The presence of northeast trending fracture intensification domains suggest thrust faults associated with the Bass Island Trend or other Alleghanian thrust faults may extend eastward into the Ashford Hollow quadrangle (Tober and Jacobi 2000) . Alleghanian folds and thrust faults are no longer tectonically active or seismically active . As a result there is no rate of deformation associated with these structures.
Bedrock Fractures Fractures are ubiquitous in the Paleozoic bedrock of western New York. Systematically oriented fracture or joint sets have been identified in the Paleozoic bedrock of the Appalachian Plateau of western New York (Engelder and Geiser 1980, Fakundiny, et al.
1978, Geiser and Engelder 1983, McKinney, Gross and Engelder 1991 , Jacobi, et al. 1996, Zhao and Jacobi 1997). These joint sets are part of a regional fracture system that formed primarily in response to compressive stresses originating during the Pennsylvanian-Permian AllE: ghanian Orogeny. However, other joint sets identified in bedrock in western New York may have originated in response to the contemporary east-northeast regional stress field currently affecting eastern North America (Engelder and Geiser 1980, Geiser and Engelder 1983, Gross and Engelder 1991 ), or post-Precambrian movements along the Clarendon-Linden Fault System (Jacobi , et al. 1996, Zhao and Jacobi 1997).
Revision 2                                            3-57
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Three vertical joint sets in Paleozoic bedrock from western New York, including rocks from the Upper Devonian Canadaway and Conneaut Groups have been identified (Engelder and Geiser 1980) . Two of these joint sets, trending approximately north 45&deg; west (N45W) and N45E, were produced from the compressive stresses generated during the All eghanian orogeny (Figure 3-54) .
The N45Ejoint set parallels fold axes in the Appalachian plateau and formed during the Alleghanian-age compression that produced these folds . The N45W joint set is generally perpendicular to fold trends in thi s area and was produced before the folding of bedrock in the Appalachian Plateau (Figure 3-54). A third set trending N60E is found throughout New York and probably formed under the current east-northeast regional compressive stress field . These joints sets are cells found in the Devonian bedrock in and around the Center.
Eight systematic joint sets were identified in rocks from the Canadaway and Conneaut Groups in All egany County (Engelder and Geiser 1980, Zhao and Jacobi 1997) . The strike of these joint sets ranged from west-northwest to east-northeast and they were produced at various stages of the Alleghanian deformation that affected western New York. The orientation of these joint sets reflects changes in the orientation of the principal stresses that were associated with the deformation of the Appalachian plateau of western New York, beginning with north-northwest trending cross fold joints followed by the progressive development of joint sets to the east and west.
Regional Northwest Trending Lineaments and Structures Regional northwest trending lineaments have been identified across the eastern United States based on analyses of regional gravity and magnetic anomaly trends . These lineaments are typically hundreds of kilometers in length and are believed to be the surface expression of regional crustal fracture zones that extend into the crust and which juxtapose rocks of differing densities and magnetic susceptibility. Examples of these lineaments include the Tyrone-Mt. Union lineament in Pennsylvania and the Lawrenceville-Attica lineament in New York (Figure 3-56).
The Tyrone-Mt. Union lineament is believed to extend southeast from Lake Erie to beyond the Atlantic coastline of the United States where it is thought to coincide with transform faults associated with the mid-Atlantic ridge system . Subsurface geologic mapping and analysis of regional magnetic and gravity patterns suggest significant lateral displacement of at least 31 to 37 miles across this lineament.
The Lawrenceville-Attica lineament in western New York extends northwest from Lawrenceville, New York through Attica , New York and into western Lake Ontario . The Lawrenceville-Attica lineament may be contiguous with the Georgian Bay Linear Zone, a northwest-trending zone extending from Georgian Bay in southern Ontario southeastward in western New York State.
The Georgian Bay Linear Zone is an 18 .6-mile wide structural zone that extends from Georgian Bay to the southeast across southern Ontario, western Lake Ontario, and into western New York (Figure 3-56) . The Georgian Bay Linear Zone has been delineated by a Revision 2                                        3-58
WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN set of northwest-trending aeromagnetic lineaments, one of which parallels the straight eastern shoreline of Georgian Bay.
A variety of neotectonic structures and features have been identified in surficial bedrock and in lake bed sediments within the Georgian Bay Linear Zone. These include faults and bedrock pop-ups and linear pockmarks and linear acoustic backscatter anomalies imaged on seismic sidescan profiles in lake bed sediments that may represent bedrock fractures and faults .
Clarendon-Linden Fault System The Clarendon-Linden Fault System is located approximately 19 miles east of the Center (Figure 3-56) and is comprised of at least five north-south striking, high-angle faults which extend southward from Lake Ontario through Orleans, Genesee, and Wyoming Counties, and into All egany County.
Stratigraphic relationships indicate that the overall sense of movement across the Clarendon-Linden Fault System is consistent with reverse faulting from east to west with up to 330 feet of stratigraphic separation across the Clarendon-Linden Fault System . Recent bedrock mapping and soil gas surveying in Allegany County suggests the Clarendon-Linden Fault System extends further south into Allegany County based on the presence of at least seven north-south striking fracture intensification domains and associated soil gas anomalies.
The southwest trending Attica Splay has been interpreted to splay off of the western north-south trending fault approximately 0. 75 mile south of Batavia (Figure 3-56) and to continue to the southwest through Alexander and Attica , New York to a point approximately 1.25 miles northwest of Varysburg , New York. Seismic reflection data suggest the presence of at least two east-dipping faults extending from the Precambrian basement into the Paleozoic section forming a graben structure with a stratigraphic separation of 74 - 148 feet (Fakundiny, et al. 1978). The eastern fault is a reverse fault showing east to west movement and the western fault is a normal fault showing west to east movement.
Seismic reflection profiling suggests that the faults comprising the Clarendon-Linden Fault System are contiguous with faults located within the Grenville Province Central Metasedimentary Belt which underlies the Paleozoic bedrock of western New York. The Central Metasedimentary Belt has been subdivided into two distinct terrains, the Elzevir terrain and the Frontenac terrain, which are separated by the Elzevir-Frontenac Boundary Zone, a northeast trending six- to 22-miles wide crustal shear zone. The eastern boundary of the Elzevir-Frontenac Boundary Zone, which is known as the Maberly shear zone in southern Ontario, appears contiguous with the Clarendon-Linden Fault System in Western New York.
The Clarendon-Linden Fault System has been active at least since the Middle Ordovician and has displayed a complicated movement history alternating from normal or extensional faulting , to reverse or compressional faulting during the Paleozoic . The episodic movement along the Clarendon-Linden Fault System during the Paleozoic Revision 2                                      3-59
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMIS SIONING PLAN occurred in response to orogenic induced subsidence of the Appalachian basin. Normal faulting with down-to the-east motion occurred when the basin axis was located east of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System . Reverse faulting with east to west movement sense occurred when the basin axis was located west of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System .
WVDP Seismic Reflection Survey In June 2001 , the WVDP collected nearly 18 miles of seismic reflection data along an east-west line in southern Erie County, approximately 5 miles north of the Center (Bay Geophysical 2001) . (See Figure 3-57 .) Thi s seismic survey was designed to image any north or northeast-trending structures in the Preca mbrian basement and overlying Paleozoic bedrock.
The WVDP also reviewed approximately 16 miles of reprocessed seismic reflection data collected in 1983 along a north-south line along Route 219 in Erie and Cattaraugus Counties. This line was reviewed to evaluate whether any east-west trending* structures were present in the Precambrian basement and Paleozoic bedrock near the Center.
Both seismic lines indicate the presence of numerous high-angle faults originating in Grenville-age basement which extend up-section into Middle Ordovician or Middle Devonian strata . (See Figure 3-57) The majority of these faults terminate near the Middle Ordovician Trenton Group. These faults have apparent dips of 50 to 89.45 &deg; to the west, east, or south, show reverse and normal offset of bedding, and have up to 300 feet of stratigraphic separation .
Strata overlying some of the fault terminations are folded above the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation, suggesting that these faults were emplaced or reactivated after the deposition of the uppermost folded unit. The most recent period of movement along these faults cannot be determined based on a lack of definitive age-dating relationships . Two faults near Sardinia, New York were interpreted to continue up-section through the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation . These west-dipping normal faults show up to 300 feet of estimated stratigraphic separation (Figure 3-57).
A series of east- and south dipping high-angle faults spaced at intervals of 500 to 4,500 feet were interpreted in the Silurian to Devonian section northwest of Springville, New York.
These faults originate in the Silurian Salina Group and cut up-section to the northwest through the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation . These are believed to be thrust faults associated with the Bass Islands Trend .
Revision 2                                      3-60
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.5.5 Historical Seismicity Earthquake catalogs maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Earthquake Information Center were used to identify historical earthquakes with a magnitud e of three or greater and a Modified Mercalli Intensity of IV or more within a 200-mile radius of the site. Three of the National Earthquake Information Center earthquake catalogs were queried to obtain information on earthquake activi ty in western New York. These included the Preliminary Determination of Epicenters, the Significant U.S. Earthquakes, and the Eastern, Central, and Mountain States of the United States catalogs . . The historical seismicity search also utilized historical events identifi ed in the Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processing and Support Activities (WVNSCO 2007) . Historical seismicity within 200 miles of the site is summarized in Table 3-15. Table 3-15 also lists the date, location , time ,
depth, intensity, magnitude, distance, and information source .
From 1840 to 2003, there have been 45 recorded earthquakes with epicentral magnitudes of 3 or greater and Modified Mercalli Intensity of IV or greater within 200 miles of th e WVDP. None of these earthquakes were reported to have caused landsliding or liquefaction events in the vicinity of the site. The geographic distribution of this seismicity is shown on Figure 3-55 .
Table 3-15. Historical Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Sitet1J (Only events with a magnitude .2:. 3 or a MMI intensity .2:. IV are listed)
Latitude    Longitude      Origin    Depth  Intensity  Magnitude Distance    NEIC Date (oN)        (oW)          Time      (km)      (MMI)        (mb)    (km)      Catalog 1840 9/10        43.20        79.90      -              -        5+-          -        113.7 Unk 1853 3/12        43.70        75.50      -              -        6+-          -        302.3 Unk 1853 3/13        43.10        79.40      -              -        5+-          -          74.9 Unk 1857 10/23        43.20        78.60      2015          -        6+-        4.3 FA          83 USHIS 1873 7/6          43.00        79.50      -              -        6+-          -          73.6 Unk 1900 4/9          41.40        81 .90    14            -        6+-        3.4 FA        293 USHIS 1906 6/27        41.40        81 .60    -              -        5          4.2        269.8 Unk 1912 5/27        43.20        79.70      -              -        5+-          -        100.6 Unk 1914 02/10        44.98        76.92      1831          -        7        5.20 FA        313 Unk 1927 1/29        40.90        81 .20    -              -        5            -        275.8 Unk 1928 9/9          41 .50      82.00      21            -        5        3.70 FA      297    SRA 1929 8/12        42.91        78.40      112448.70      9        8+-      5.20 Mn      54*  SRA/
USHIS 1929 12/2        42.80        78.30      -              -        5+-          -      47.4*  Unk 1932 1/21        41 .10      81 .50    -              -        5            -      280.9    Unk 1934 10/29        42.00        80.20      -              -        5+-          -      134.9  Unk Revision 2                                          3-61
WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSI ONIN G PLAN Table 3-15. Historical Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Sitel1' (Only events with a magnitude -> 3 or a MMI intensity~ IV are li sted)
Latitude  Longitude      Origin    Depth Intensity  Magnitude Distance    NEIC Date (oN)      (oW)          Time      (km)    (MMI)      (mb)      (km)    Catalog 1938 7115      40.68      78.43      224612        -      6~        3.30 FA      233  SRA/
USHIS 1943 3/09        41.63      81 .31    032524.90      7        5      4.50 Mn      238  SRA/
USHIS 1951 12/03      41.60      81.40      0702          -        4      3.20 FA      246  SRA 1954 01 /31      42.90      77.3      12:30:00      -      4          3.1        121  NCEER 1954 02/1        43.03      76.65      00.:37:50      -                  3.3        178  NCEER 1954 02/21      41.20      75.90      -              -      +7~          -      288.5 Unk 1954 04/27      43.10      79.20      02:14:08      -                  4.1        85  NCEER 1955 5/26        41.50      81.70      -              -        5          3.8      272.0  Unk 1955 6/29        41 .50    81.70      -              -        5          3.8      272.0  Unk 1955 8/16        42.90      78.30      -              -        5          -      53.5*  Unk 1958 5/1        41 .50    81.70      -              -        5          4.0      272.0  Unk 1958 07/22      43.00      79.50      01 :46:40      -                  4.4          92  NCEER 1958 08/4      43.13      80.00      20:25:58      -        4          3.8        134  NCEER 1958 08/22      43.00      79.00      14:25:05      -                  3.6          67  NCEER 1962 3/27        43.00      79.30      -              -      5(-          3.0      61 .0 Unk 1963 01/30      44.00      75.90      1450          -        4      3.00 ML      281  SRA 1964 02/13      40.38      77.96      194640.80      1        5      3.30 Mn      237  SRA 1964 05/12      40.30      76.41      064510.70      1        6      4.50 mb      303  SRA/
USHIS 1965 07/16      43.20      78.50      110655        -      4      3.50 ML        84 SRA 1965 08/28      43.00      78.10      0155            -      4      3.10 ML        75 SRA
. 1966 1/1        42.84      78.25      132339        0      6~      4.70 mb        54* SRA/
USHIS 1967 6/13        42.84      78.23      190855.50      1      6~      4.40 Mn        54* SRA/
USHIS 1980 6/6        43.56      75.23      131552        1        5      3.80 UK      304  PDE 1980 6/6        43.57      75.14      131552.90      1      5      3.80 Mn      311  SRA 1983 10/4      43.44      79.79      171840        2        4      3.10 Mn      144  PDE Revision 2                                      3-62
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOM MISSIONING PLAN 1
Table 3-15. Historical Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Sitel                        J (Only events with a magnitude;::. 3 or a MMI intensity;::. IV are listed)
Latitude        Longitude      Origin    Depth    Intensity  Magnitude    Distance    NEIC Date                                                                                                    Catalog (oN)            (oW)        Time      (km)      (MMI)        (mb)        (km) 1986 1/31            41 .65            81 .16    164642.30      2          6        5.00 mb          226  SRA/
USHIS 1986 1/31            41.65            81 .16    164643.33      10        6        5.00 mb          226  PDE 1987 7/13            41.90            80.77      054917.43      5        4        3.80 Mn          185  PDE 1991 1/26            41 .54          81.45      032122.61      5        5        3.40 Mn          253  PDE 1991 8/15            40.79            77.66      071607.15      1        5        3.00 Mn          202  PDE 1992 3/15            41 .91          81 .25    061355.22      5        4        3.50 Mn          222  PDE 1993 10/1 6          41.70            81 .01    063005.32      5        4        3.60 Mn          212  PDE 1995 5/25            42.99            78.83      142232.69      5        4        3.00 Mn          62  PDE 1998 9/25            41.49            80.39      195252.07      5        6        5.20 Mn          179  PDE 2001 1/26            41 .94          80.80      030320.06      5        5        4.40 Mn          186  PDE 2003 6/30            41 .80          81 .20    192117.20      4        4        3.60 Mn          223  PDE 2005 10/20            44.68            80.48      211628.75      11                  4.20 Mn          316  PDE 2006 6/20            41 .84          81 .23    20 1118.54      5                  3.80 Mn          239  PDE 2007 3/12            41.28            81.38      231816.41      5                  3.70 Mn          271  PDE NOTE : (1) From earthquake catalogs of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Earthquake Information Center. The coordinates used in the search criteria were latitude 42.450N and longitude 78.654W, which correspond to a point near the process Building.
LEGEND : +.-C ould have been felt at site
* Associated with Clarendon -Linden Structure Origin time is th e time the earthquake occurred.
PDE =      NEIC Preliminary Determination of Epicenters NCEER =National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research USHIS = NEIC Significant U.S. Earthquakes SRA =      NEIC Eastern, Central, and Mountain States of the United States MM I =    Modified Mercalli Intensity Mn =      Nuttli magnitude ML =      Local magnitude Mb =      Compressional Body Wave (P-wave) Magnitude FA=        Felt Area Magnitude UK =      Unknown Magnitude The Buffalo-Lockport earthquake of October 23, 1857 affected an area of approximately 18,000 square miles. The epicentra l intensity of VI was felt in an area 75 miles long, from north-northeast to south-southwest, and 62 miles wide . This earthquake was felt at Hamilton, Petersborough, and Port Hope in Ontario and at Rochester, New York, Warren, Pennsylvania, and Dayton, Ohio.
Revision 2                                                  3-63
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The August 12, 1929 earthquake occurred near Attica, New York, about 30 miles northeast of the WVDP. The affected area of approximately 50,000 square miles included parts of Canada . The earthquake was felt most strongly in the eastern part of the city of Attica and immediately to the east. There was less effect on structures immediately to the south of the epicenter, but changes in groundwater conditions were noted . Based on the reported damage, an epicentral intensity of VII and a Compressional Body Wave magnitude mb = 5.2 was assigned to the 1929 Attica event (WVNSCO 2007).
The Attica earthquakes of January 1, 1966 (Modified Mercalli Intensity VI) were felt over approximately 3,500 square miles of western New York, northwestern Pennsylvania ,
and southern Ontario , and the main shock was most strongly felt at Varysburg, about eight miles southwest of Attica . The Attica earthquake of June 13, 1967 (Modified Mercalli Intensity VI) was felt over an area of about 3,000 square miles in western New York. Slight damage was sustained at Attica and at Alabama , New York, where the shock was felt by many people. Focal mechanism solutions of these earthquakes indicate focal depths of approximately 1.2 to 1.9 miles and a combination of right-lateral strike-slip and reverse faulting on planes parallel to the northerly trend of the Clarendon-Linden Structure (Herrmann 1978) .
3.5.6    Evaluation of Seismic Hazard A site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the Center was performed to estimate the levels of horizontal ground motions that could be exceeded at specified annual return periods at the site (Wong, et al. 2004). The hazard for the site was computed for a hard rock condition . Site response analyses were also performed for the north and south plateau areas of the site to evaluate the potential ground motion amplification resulting from soils and unconsolidated sediments that underlie the site, such as the Surficial Sand and Gravel Unit, Lavery till, and Kent Recessional Sequence.
A total of 19 seismic sources were included in the probabilistic hazard analysis, including four fault systems or fault zones and 15 regional seismic source zones. The fault systems considered in the analysis included the Clarendon-Linden fault zone, the Charleston fault zone, the New Madrid fault system, and the Wabash Valley fault system .
The analysis considered the Southern Great Lakes seismic source zone in which the Clarendon-Linden fault zone is located . Regional seismic source zones were included in the analysis to incorporate the hazard associated with earthquakes affiliated with buried or unknown faults.
Peak horizontal ground acceleration and 0.1 and 1.0 second horizontal spectral accelerations) were calculated for bedrock at the Center for three DOE-specified return periods (Table 3-16) . Figure 3-58 shows the various hazard curves for peak ground accel eration at the site including the mean and median curves. The hazard curves for the 1.0 second SA are shown in Figure 3-59.
The analysis indicates the largest contributor to the hazard at the Center is the Clarendon-Linden fault zone at almost all return periods, whereas seismicity within the Southern Great Lakes seismic source zone is the second most important contributor to seismic hazard at the site (Figure 3-60) .
Revision 2                                        3-64
WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-16 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Hard Rock (g's) (ll Return Period (yrs)                    PGA                0.1 sec SA    1.0 sec SA
                      .500                      0.04                      0.07        0.02 1,000                      0.05                      0.11        0.03 2,500                      0.10                      0.20        0.06 NOTE : (1) From Wong, et al. 2004.
LEGEND: PGA = peak ground acceleration, SA= spectral acceleration.
Site response analyses were performed for the north and south plateau areas for return periods of 500 and 2,500 years to evaluate potenti al ground motion amplification resulting from the unconsolidated glacial sediments underlying these areas (Tables 3-17 and 3-18) .
The increased peak ground acceleration in the north plateau evaluation suggests slight amplification of ground motions in the north plateau area of the site (Tables 3-16 and 3-17) .
The south plateau evaluation suggests ground motions for the 500 year return period are deamplified whereas ground motions are slightly amplified for the 2,500 year return period (Tables 3-16 and 3-18) .
Table 3-17 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g 's) for the North Plateau(1l Return Period (yrs)                    PGA                0.1 sec SA    1.0 sec SA 500                      0.05                    0.09        0.04 2500                      0.14                    0.24        0.11 NOTE: (1) From Wong, et al. 2004.
LEGEND: PGA =peak ground acceleration, SA    =spectral acceleration.
Table 3-18 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g 's) for the South Plateau Return Period (yrs)                    PGA                0.1 sec SA    1.0 sec SA 500                      0 .03                    0.08        0.05 2500                      0.11                    0.22        0.14 NOTE: (1) From Wong, et al. 2004 .
LE GEND: PGA = peak ground acceleration, SA = spectral acceleration.
3.6  Surface Hydrology 3.6.1    Hydrologic Description The WVDP watershed is drained by three named streams: Quarry Creek, Franks Creek, and Erdman Brook (see Figure 3-3) . Erdman Brook and Quarry Creek are tributaries to Franks Creek, which in turn flows into Buttermilk Creek. The WVDP drainage basin is approximately 1,200 acres.
The point where all surface runoff from the site reaches a single stream channel (the watershed outfall) is located at the confluence of Franks Creek and Quarry Creek, north of Revision 2                                          3-65
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN the main project facilities . On the WVDP site, numerous drainage ditches and culverts direct flow away from roadways and facilities to the channels of the stream headwaters that are located on or around the site . The most significant of these ditches and culverts would be those associated with the site railroad spur and Rock Springs Road .
Erdman Brook has a 140-acre drainage area and drains the central portion of the developed project premises, including a large portion of the disposal areas, the areas surrounding the lagoon system, the Process Building, warehouse areas, and a major part of the parking lots. Following treatment. the project's waste waters are also discharged to this brook.
Erdman Brook flows from a height of over 1,400 feet above mean sea level west of Rock Springs Road to 1,305 feet above mean sea level at the confluence with Franks Creek northeast of the lagoons . It flows through the project facilities for about 3,000 feet.
Quarry Creek drains the largest area of the three named streams (740 acres) and receives runoff from the HLW Tank Farm, the north half of the northern parking lot, and the Lag Storage Buildings . It flows from an elevation of 1,930 feet west of Dutch Hill Road to 1,245 feet at its confluence with Franks Creek. The segment that flows along the north side of the project is about 3,500 feet in length .
Franks Creek has a drainage area of 295 acres and receives runoff from the east side of the project, including the Drum Cell , part of the SDA, and the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill. Franks Creek flows into Buttermilk Creek about 2,000 feet downstream of its confluence with Quarry Creek. It flows from an elevation of 1,790 feet above mean sea level west of Rock Springs Road , to 1,245 feet at the Quarry Creek confluence, to 1, 180 feet at the Buttermilk Creek confluence . About 6,000 feet of its length lies adjacent to WVDP facilities . (WVNSCO 1993c)
Buttermilk Creek, shown in Figure 3-2, roughly bisects the Center property and flows in a northwestwards direction to its confluence with Cattaraugus Creek at the northwest end of the Center. Several tributary (perennial) streams flow into Buttermilk Creek in the Center (Figure 3-61) .
Th e flow length of Buttermilk Creek through the Center is about 4.7 miles . Within the Buttermilk Creek watershed , a small 18-acre sub-basin on the east side of Buttermilk Creek drains the area around the Bulk Storage Warehouse.
Buttermilk Creek lies in a deep, narrow valley cut into glacial deposits, with a downstream portion down-cut to shale bedrock. The reach of stream to the east of the WVDP facilities has down-cut through the Lavery till and the underlying Kent Recessional Sequence, and is presently incising the Kent till. The Kent Recessional Sequence is discussed below.
The stream invert drops from an elevation of 1,310 feet above mean sea level at the southern Center boundary, to 1,215 feet at the northern edge of the Project facilities, to 1, 110 feet at the confluence with Cattaraugus Creek. The drainage area of the Buttermilk Creek basin has been estimated to be 19,600 acres (Boothroyd, et al. 1982).
Revision 2                                      3-66
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Buttermilk Creek flows at an average rate of 46 cubic feet per second to its confluence with Cattaraugus Creek. Peak flows were 340.3 cubic feet per second at the confluence of Quarry Creek and Franks Creek, 161 cubic feet per second where Franks Creek leaves the project premises, and 60 cubic feet per second in Erdman Brook downstream of the SDA.
Peak flow measured at the U.S. Geological Survey USGS gauge station at the Bond Road Bridge over Buttermilk Creek (which operated from 1962 to 1968} was 3,910 cubic feet per second on September 28, 1967 . The historic high-water level of 1,358.6 feet above mean sea level in the reservoirs was recorded on th e same day.
Cattaraugus Creek flows westward generally at a rate of 353 cubic feet per second from the Buttermilk Creek confluence to Lake Erie, 39 miles downstream . The total drainage area is estimated to be 524 square miles. A gauging station has been maintained at Gowanda, New York since 1939. The drainage basin to this point is estimated to be about 432 square miles . The drainage area of Cattaraugus Creek upstream of the Buttermilk Creek confluence is an estimated 220 square miles .
A small hydroelectric dam and water impoundment is located on Cattaraugus Creek about 1,000 feet upstream of where the Scoby Road bridge was located, southwest of Springville, New York. Neither Buttermilk Creek nor Cattaraugus Creek downstream of the WVDP are used as a regular source of potabl e water. Cattaraugus Creek downstream of Buttermilk Creek is a popular fishing and canoeing/rafting waterway. As such, Cattaraugus Creek water, fish, and sediments are monitored as part of the WVDP environmental monitoring program.
The WVDP obtains potable and process water from two water supply reservoirs located south of the main plant facilities (see Figure 3-12) . The reservoirs were formed by damming headwater tributaries to Buttermilk Creek and collect drainage from numerous small streams over a 3, 100-acre drainage basin, of which 2,000 acres drain directly to Reservoir 1 and 1, 100 acres drain directly to Reservoir 2. The storage capacity of the reservoirs is 19,815.435 cubic feet at 1,353 above sea level, and 17,857,265 cubic feet at 1,350.5 above sea level. An emergency spillway is located at the south end of Reservoir 1.
As explained in Section 3.1.3, the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility includes four in -
series lagoons (lagoons 2, 3, 4, and 5). The largest is Lagoon 3, which has a capacity of 467 ,900 cubic feet. Lagoon 3 is the final lagoon in the system before the wastewater is discharged into Erdman Brook.
The site Sewage Treatment Plant discharges to a gully that flows into Erdman Brook.
A former equalization basin for the Sewage Treatment Plant in 2004 served as a sludge pond for utility room discharges.
3.6.2        WVDP Effluents WVDP effluents discharged to surface waters must meet limits prescribed by the NYSDEC for non-radiological parameters in a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and by DOE for radiological parameters. Discharges are monitor.ed to ensure that all standards are met. Monitoring is performed at the point of effluent discharge Revision 2                                      3-67
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and several surface water drainage locations . There are two permitted discharge locations at the WVDP :
* Outfall 007 (WNSP007} with an average daily flow of approximately 10,000 gallons (WVES and URS 2008) . This outfall includes waters from the site sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facility, and
* Outfall 001 (WNSP001} is batch discharged from lagoon 3. Approximately seven batches are discharged annually, totaling approximately 13.5 million gallons per year, including water from the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility.
3.6.3      Influence of Flooding on Site Franks Creek, Quarry Creek, and Erdman Brook are located in deep steep-sided valleys bound*ng the north and south plateaus. Historical evidence and computer modeling indicate that flood conditions, including the probable maximum flood, will not result in stream flows overtopping their banks and flooding ~he north or south plateau . Therefore, the effects on the WVDP of flooding by these creeks are negligible, as supported by historical data. Figure 3-4 shows the 100-year floodplains of these streams.
An analysis of the probable maximum flood has been evaluated (URS 2008). The probable maximum flood is generally more conservative than the 500-year flood because it is defined as the flood resu lting from the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions (DOE .2002) .
Peak discharges of the probable maximum flood were generated for the sub-areas constituting the watershed using the SCS TR-20 computer modeling program (USSCS 1983} . These discharges were then used to determine the depth of flow at four stream locations adjacent to site facilities . The results of these analyses demonstrate that the depths of flow associated with the probable maximum flood on area streams are well below the elevations of site facilities The results of this analysis indicate that the probable maximum flood floodpla in is very similar to the 100-year floodplain , particularly in areas adjacent to the developed portions of the site including areas where waste is stored or buried (URS 2008) . Most of the stream channels near the developed portions of the north plateau area have relatively steep sides and the probable maximum flood flow remains in these channels. The probable maximum flood floodplain is wider than the 100-year floodplain in areas where the topography is relatively flat. such as the extreme upper reaches of Erdman Brook and Franks Creek.
Indirect short-term impacts, including stream bank failure and gully head advancement in the event of high stream flows could impact Lagoons 2 and 3 in WMA 2, the NOA in WMA 7, and site access roads in several locations of the project premises.
3.6.4      Water Use Current Water Use of Buttermilk Creek The project premises lies entirely within the Buttermilk Creek watershed . The Center property is adjacent to Buttermilk Creek nearly the entire stream length from its intersection Revision 2                                        3-68
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN with the Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad to its outlet into Cattaraugus Creek, approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the Felton Bridge . There is no public or private use of stream water within the Center property.
Current Water Use of Cattaraugus Creek From the Buttermilk Creek outlet, Cattaraugus Creek flows approximately 39 miles to Lake Erie. The use of water within Cattaraugus Creek varies along the length of the stream .
Downstream of the Buttermilk outlet, Cattaraugus Creek flows through the Zoar Valley Multiple Use Area, Deer Lick Nature Sanctuary, the town of Gowanda, the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation, the town of Versailles, the town of Irving, and the town of Hanover, and outlets into Lake Erie at the hamlet of Sunset Bay . Cattaraugus Creek is not used as a source of public drinking water, as noted previously. Land use adjacent to Cattaraugus Creek is comprised of agricultural, forest, residential, recreational, and commercial. Some water is take.n from Cattaraugus Creek for irrigation purposes.
The segment of Cattaraugus Creek which flows through the Zoar Valley Multiple Use Area is used for unsupervised swimming , rafting , and canoeing where water depth permits .
Motorized boating is generally limited to within two miles of Lake Erie. Sunset Bay at the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek is a dense residential area with mixed recreation such as swimming beaches, marinas, boating and fishing .
Cattaraugus Creek downstream of the Springville dam provides habitat for lake-based fisheries, is a popular recreational fishing area, and is a top salmonid spawning stream within the Lake Erie drainage basin . Since 1994, New York has stocked Cattaraugus Creek with walleye, steel head trout, and brown trout.
Current Water Use of Lake Erie Lake Erie is used for transportation, industrial, commercial, and recreational purposes .
Recreational activities include sailing, boating, jet skiing, fishing, and swimming beaches.
Recent information on commercial fishing in the New York waters of Lake Erie is contained in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Annual Report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Erie Committee (NYSDEC 2004) .
This report indicates that rainbow smelt currently are the target of a major commercial fishing industry on the Ontario, Canada side of Lake Erie, but are fished less in the United States waters. Since 1960, New York commercial fishing efforts have focused on walleye and yellow perch . However, yellow perch and walleye production from New York is a small fraction (less than five percent) of total Lake Erie landings for those species.
Open lake sport fishing in 2003 measured 352 ,128 angler-hours, the second lowest total in 16 years. Peak fishing activity occurred in July and Dunkirk Harbor was the most frequently used access site . Harvested fish include walleye, smallmouth bass, yellow Revision 2                                        3-69
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN perch, and lake trout. Electro-fishing surveys within Cattaraugus Creek document high densities of spawning -phase walleye, and continued stocking efforts are planned .
3.7  Groundwater Hydrology Groundwater hydrology in the WVDP area is summarized below.
3.7 .1    Description of the Saturated Zone The subsurface of the WVDP has been investigated since the early 1960's, resulting in hundreds of borings and installation of groundwater wells and other subsurface monitoring equipment. As explained previously, the hydrogeology of the WVDP site includes a sequence of glacial sediments underlain by shale bedrock . In chronologically descending order, this sequence is composed of an alluvial-glaciofluvial sand and gravel unit on the north plateau underlain by a sequence of up to three relatively impermeable glacial tills of Lavery, Kent. and possibly Olean age, separated by stratified fluvio-lacustrine deposits, which are in turn underlain by shale bedrock.
The sediments above the Kent till - the Kent Recessional Sequence, the weathered and unweathered Lavery till , the Lavery till-sand , and the surficial sand and gravel - are generally regarded as containing all of the potential routes for the migration of contaminants (via groundwater) from the WVDP site . Figures 3-6 and 3-7 are generalized cross-sections across the north and south plateaus showing the relative locations of th.ese sediments . The Lavery till , the Kent Recessionpl Sequence, and the Kent till are common to both the north and south plateaus. Detailed geologic cross sections have been constructed using lithologic data collected from boreholes installed from 1961 to the present.
The WVDP does not use groundwater for drinking or operational purposes, nor does it discharge effluent directly to groundwater. No public water supplies are drawn from groundwater downgradient of the WVDP or from Cattaraugus Creek downstream of the WVDP . However, groundwater upgradient of the WVDP is used for drinking water by local residents .
Sand and Gravel Unit As explained previously, the sand and gravel unit is unique to the north plateau and is a silty sand and gravel layer composed of younger Holocene alluvial deposits, the thick-bedded unit, that overlie older Pleistocene-age glaciofluvial deposits, the slack-water sequence . Together these two layers range up to 41 feet in thickness near the center of the plateau and pinch out along the edges of the plateau, where they have been truncated by the sidewall of the bedrock valley or the downward erosion of stream channels.
Disturbed materials and fill from construction activities also exist to varying depths on the developed portions of th e north plateau . These are typically composed of re-compacted original sediment.
Depth to groundwater within the sand and gravel unit varies from O to 16 feet. being deepest generally beneath the central area of the north plateau , decreasing to the west, Revision 2                                      3-70
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN east. and north, and intersecting the ground surface farther northeastward toward the security fence .
Groundwater in thi s unit generally flows northeastward toward Franks Creek (Figure 3-
: 62) . Groundwater near the northwestern and southeastern margins of the sand and gravel layer also flows radially outward toward Quarry Creek and Erdman Brook, respectively .
In areas upgradient of the north plateau groundwater plume, recharge is limited by run-off diversions and culverts that channel surface flow to distant parts of the plateau . There is minimal groundwater flow downward into the underlying Lavery till. The overall hydraulic gradient across the north plateau has been calculated at 0.031 ; gradients up to 0.049 and as little as 0.026 exists in localized areas . An average groundwater velocity of 61.0 feet per year has been calculated for this unit (WVNSCO 1993e) .
Recharge to the north plateau has been estimated as ranging from 3.0 inches to 13 .5 inches and averaging 6.8 inches per year. Precipitation and bedrock underflow are the largest contributors to this recharge . Discharge occurs through evapotranspiration and drainage to streams, seeps, and springs along the edge of the north plateau, with a negligible amount as downward flow into the underlying Lavery till .
Weathered and Unweathered Lavery Till Groundwater flow in the weathered till has both horizontal and vertical components.
Groundwater typically flows laterally across the south plateau before moving downward or discharging to nearby incised stream channels. A lateral groundwater velocity has been calculated at 4.4 feet per year in this unit.
Groundwater elevation contours of the weathered Lavery till illustrate a potentiometric surface that dips generally to the northeast (Figure 3-63), with the exception of the northern section of the NOA, which is controlled by the operation of the interceptor trench .
Groundwater in areas next to the trench flows directly toward and into the trench. Once inside the trench, laterals along the bottom of the trench drain the water toward the manhole sump (monitoring location NDATR on Figure 3-63). where it is pumped regularly to Lagoon 2.
On the north plateau, the weathered Lavery till is much thinner or nonexistent. and the sand and gravel unit typically immediately overlies the unweathered Lavery till , as noted previously. Hydraulic head distributions in the unweathered Lavery till indicate that groundwater flow is predominantly vertically downward at a relatively slow rate, toward the underlying Kent Recessional Sequence. A vertical groundwater velocity of 0.2 feet per year has been calculated for this unit.
Lavery Till-Sand Unit The Lavery till-sand is a sandy unit of limited areal extent that is up to 16 feet thick within the Lavery till , primarily beneath the southeastern portion of the north plateau. The potentiometric surface of the Lavery till-sand is characterized by a variably sloping surface Revision 2                                        3-71
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN that generally dips to the east and southeast across the entire unit towards Erdman Brook (See Figure 3-64) . Surface discharge locations have not been identified .
Kent Recessional Sequence The Kent Recessional Sequence is a fine-grained lacustrine unit of interbedded clay and silty clay layers locally overlain by coarse-grained glacial sands and gravels. These deposits are found below the Lavery till beneath most of the site and range up to 75 feet in thickness beneath the eastern portions of the site (WVN SCO 1993e) .
Groundwater flow in the Kent Recessional Sequence is predominantly to the northeast, toward Buttermilk Creek (Figure 3-65) . Recharge comes primarily from bedrock in-flow in the southwest, with limited recharge from the overlying Lavery till . Th e Kent Recessional Sequence discharges to Buttermilk Creek. Because of the limited recharge received from the overlying Lavery till, the upper portions of the Kent Recessional Sequence are unsaturated . The deeper portions are saturated, and the groundwater velocity has been calculated at 0.4 feet per year (WVNSCO 1993e).
Groundwater elevation contours of the Kent Recessional Sequence illustrate a potentiometric surface that dips to the northeast. The steepest gradient is found in the southwestern portion of the south plateau, where the shoulder of the underlying bedrock valley slopes steeply to the northeast. Toward the middle of the south plateau. the glacial sediments filling the valley thicken. and the groundwater contours flatten somewhat and begin to slope to the north-northeast.
Shale Bedrock The bedrock underlying the site occurs as a U-shaped valley of upper Devonian shales and siltstones. The upper 10 feet of rock is weathered and fractured. Bedding in these units generally dips 0.5 degree southward .
3.7.2    Monitoring Wells Monitoring Equipment Inventory There are currently 286 wells, well points, piezometers, seepage points, manholes, and surface water elevation hubs in the WVDP groundwater monitoring equipment inventory. Of this total, 222 devices are actively used for various monitoring purposes, and 64 are considered inactive (i .e .. not used for any purpose) . A total of 235 monitoring devices have previously been removed from service via approved decommissioning protocols . The monitoring equipment inventory includes equipment installed since 1960.
Aquifer tests were performed at the WVDP to support development of the North Plateau Groundwater Recovery System and the pilot Permeable Treatment Wall in 1996 and in 2003, respectively . Slug tests are also routinely performed on selected groundwater monitoring wells as part of a site-wide well maintenance program. This information is used to determine if degradation of a well has occurred. indicating that redevelopment is needed.
Revision 2                                        3-72
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.7.3    Physical Hydrogeologic Parameters in the Saturated Zone Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity The WVDP performs hydraulic conductivity testing of selected wells on an annual basis in accordance with approved site procedures and good engineering practices. A rotational system of testing a different group of selected wells every year ensures that most wells are tested periodically.
A summary of averaged hydraulic conductivity results for the five hydrogeologic units, based on testing performed from 1987 through 2004, is provided in Table 3-19.
Table 3-19. WVDP Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Testing Summary Tablel1J Maximum        Average        Minimum Geologic Unit              Sub-Unit K (cmfs)      K (cmfs)      K (cmfs)
Thick-Bedded 3.78 E-02    4.43 E-03      1.25 E-04 Unit Sand and Gravel Unit Slack Water 1.13 E-01    2.44 E-02      8.19 E-04 Sequence Weathered Lavery Till              NA          1.50 E-03    3.36 E-04      4.87 E-07 Upper 3 meters        na        1.00 E-06          na Unweathered Lavery Till Below 3 meters        na        6.00 E-08          na Lavery Till-Sand                    NA          4.54 E-03    2.04 E-03      1.06 E-04 Kent Recessional NA          1.62 E-03    7.03 E-04      2.98 E-06 Sequence NOTE: (1) From DOE and NYSERDA 2008 .
LEGEND: NA = Not Applica ble na = not availabl e The WVDP does not regularly perform hydraulic conductivity tests on
* bedrock wells because so few onsite wells penetrate bedrock. The hydraulic conductivity of bedrock at the WVDP, based on values collected for similar rock types, is estimated to range from 1.0E-07 emfs for unweathered rock to 1.0E-05 emfs for the weathered zone (WVNSCO 1993e).
Transmissivity The transmissivity of the sand and gravel unit varies across the north plateau due to the variability of its saturated thickness and hydraulic conductivity. The transmissivity ranges from 4.8 E-03 cm 2fs to 6.8 E-03 cm 2/s (WVNSCO 1993e}.
3.7.4    Unsaturated Zone Description of the Unsaturated Zone The unsaturated zones (vadose zones) within the surficial sand and gravel layer and the weathered Lavery till have been characterized separately, due to their different lithologies .
Revision 2                                        3-73
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Hydrologic data obtained from unsaturated zone monitoring arrays were used to determine response to wetting and drying events. These data indicate that a downward migrating wetting front is generated after significant precipitation, and is dependent upon the soil moisture, soil hydrogeology, and structural features in the soil. When the soil is near saturation, this front raises the water table; when the soil is dry, the front will either redistribute into or evapotranspire from the vadose zone before contacting the water table.
The vadose zone in the weathered Lavery till fluctuates an average of 10 feet (i .e. , one foot to 11 feet from grade) and varies with the season; horizontal and vertical fracture flow occurs within the entire fractured zone during the wet season and in the lower weathered mne during the dry season.
Dry season matric potentials in the Lavery till create an upward flow gradient from grade to five feet, with widening fractures increasing thi s depth during the late discharge season . The capillary fringe of the Lavery till is approximately seven feet thick.
Due to a varying topography, the vadose zone of the sand and gravel layer fluctuates in thickness over a generally uniformly sloping water table that itself annually fluctuates an average of 30 inches. Water within this vadose zone flows vertically downward to the water table. Dry season and matric potentials in the surficial sand and gravel create an upward flow gradient from grade to 6.9 feet (WVNSCO 1993f) . The capillary fringe of the sand and gravel varies between 8.3 inches to 16.7 inches, depending on local lithology (WVNSCO 1993f).
The unsaturated zone at the WVDP has been modeled with several different computer codes. Results of these efforts are available in WVNSCO 1992 .
Water Budget within the Unsaturated Zone Precipitation occurring from December through April is lost mainly to rapid runoff and infiltration. From May through November, precipitation is lost mainly to infiltration and subsequent evapotranspiration, with a minor portion going to runoff.
Maximum recharge to most soils occurs when the ratio of the infiltration rate to precipitation rate is equal to or less than 1.0. For dry Lavery till soils (<75 percent saturated) , precipitation is almost immediately absorbed and stored in the soil as recharge .
In wet or nearly recharged soils (> 75 percent saturated), the capillary potential of the primary pores is low, and any fractures may show less conductivity due to soil swelling.
Thus. for the same precipitation rate , the wet season infiltration rate is lower and recharge is governed by the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil matrix and, to a lesser extent, by any fracture flow . However, if the fractures are not yet fully closed (as occurs in the late fall) , the absorptive capacity of the bulk soil volume can still be high, allowing horizontal flow of the meteoric water.
The local runoff to precipitation ratio is highest in spring since the ground is saturated from late fall rains, early winter snow melt, and spring rains that contribute new water to soil profile of high antecedent soil moisture. This ratio lowers throughout the late spring, Revision 2                                          3-74
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN summer, and early fall (April-October) due to a soil moisture deficit that is produced from increasing summer evapotranspiration rates, as indicated by tensiometric data .
3.7.5 Description of Unsaturated Zone Monitoring Stations In addition to groundwater monitoring wells, the WVDP maintains 11 surface water monitoring hubs (SE001 through SE011) to collect surface water elevations in areas of the north plateau where the water table in the sand and gravel unit intersects the ground surface . This information is correlated with groundwater well data and is used to define the water table surface in areas where monitoring well coverage is sparse or nonexistent.
3.7.6 Physical Parameters Total and Effective Porosity Total porosity of the sand and gravel unit has been calculated and ranges from 21 .0 percent to 22 .8 percent with an average value of 21 .9 percent (WVNSCO 1993e).
Specific Yield The specific yield (Sy) of the sand and gravel unit has been calculated to range from 0.10 to 0.25 (WVNSCO 1993e). Lower values reflect areas of poor sorting, and highe~
values reflect areas characterized by well sorted sands and gravels.
Specific Storage The specific storage of the unweathered Lavery till has been calculated through consolidation tests, and was observed to decrease with depth from a maximum of 1.6E -05 per cm (6 .3E-06 per inch) to a minimum of 2.0 E-06 per cm (7 .9E-07 per inch), with an average of 8.0E-06 per cm (3.15 E-06 per inch) (WVNSCO 1993e).
3.7.7 Numerical Analysis Techniques Three-dimensional far-field and near-field groundwater flow and transport models were developed to support the preparation of the Decommissioning EIS . These models were
* developed to evaluate site-wide groundwater flow patterns across the project premises and underlying geologic units, evaluate local changes in groundwater hydrology resulting from the proposed EIS closure alternatives, and identify transport parameters required to complete the performance assessments for the closure alternatives.
The three-dimensional site-wide groundwater flow model was the Finite Element Heat and Mass Transfer Code (FEHM), a finite element code developed by the DOE's Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL 2003) . The FEHM model used in the preparation of the Draft EIS was an improvement over earlier models developed for the site which were limited to evaluating groundwater flow in the surficial sand and gravel unit in the north plateau of the Center. The FEHM model evaluated groundwater flow over a larger lateral and vertical extent of the Center, including the glacial geologic units underlying the surficial sand and gravel unit. The lateral and vertical boundaries of the site-wide FEHM model are as follows:
Revision 2                                      3-75
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN
* Northern Boundary - from Quarry Creek eastward to Frarnks Creek downstream to its ocmfluenoe with Bubtermilk Creek,
* Western Boundary - follows the 1.450 foot sUJrl'ace elevation contour along !Rock Spri ngs Road between Quarry Creek and Franks Greek to the south,
* Soul!hem Boundary - follows Franks Creek along the souti'hern bol!lndary of      ~he South Plateau and continues as an imaginary line to Buttermilk Creek,
* Eastern Boundary - follows Bl!lttermilk Creek from the conRuernce with Franks Creek to the no~h . to the intersectiion of the Southern Boundary wi ~h Buttermilk Creek in the soul!h,
* Upper Boundary - the upper surface of the model domain follows the ground surface, and
* Bottom Bol!lndary - the bottom surface of the model domain is at an elevation of 525 feet above sea level.
The finite-element grid used in the site-wide model used a total of 955 grid blocks with a uniform dimension of 140 feet in the x-y plane with a node located in the center of each grid block. The model was subdivided vertically into 23 discrete layers to represent the
* varying thicknesses of the 10 geologic units being modeled {thick-bedded unit, slack-water
    . sequence, weathered Lavery till, unweathered Lavery till, Kent Recessional Sequence, Kent till, Olean Recessional Sequence, Olean till, weathered bedrock, and bedrock) . The site-w-de model has a total of 21 ,965 nodes with 955 in each model layer.
The site-wide model was calibrated both manually and with the automated calibration code, Parameter Estimation (PEST) (Doherty 2004) . The manual calibration involved the comparison of model predicted heads with the median of observed groundwater level elevations from 56 well locations, and comparison of model predicted seepage flows with actual estimated seepage flows . The model simulated water table contours generated for the thick-bedded unit in the north plateau and the weathered Lavery till in the south plateau are in close agreement in most areas with the observed fourth quarter water table for the north plateau and south plateau . Differences were noted in several areas of the north and south plateaus that are partly attributed to the model grid size.
The site-wide FEHM groundwater flow model was not well suited for evaluating flows associated with the proposed small-scale close-in-place alternative and phased decision-making alternative engineered structures. A three-dimensional near-field groundwater flow model, the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Code (STOMP} , was used to evaluate rates and directions of groundwater flow in the surficial sand and gravel unit that would be affected by the proposed engineered barriers associated with the close-in-place and phased decision-making alternatives. STOMP is a finite difference code developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL 2000) . The stratigraphy and boundary conditions used in the FEHM far-field model were incorporated into the STOMP model to the maximum extent. The results of the STOMP near-field groundwater flow modeling associated with the WMA 1 and WMA 2 hydraulic barriers are described in Appendix D.
Revision 2                                      3-76
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.7.8    Distribution Coefficients.
An important aspect of site hydrogeology is the mobility of a contaminant in the various soil layers under the influence of groundwater. The distribution coefficient. also called partition coefficient or Kd, is used to describe the decrease in concentration of a contaminant in solution through interactions with geologic media in *a soil-groundwater system . The Kd is defined as the ratio of the concentration (or activity in the case of radionuclides) of a species sorbed on the soil, divided by its concentration (or activity) in solution under steady-state conditions. It is an empirical parameter and its use in a given situation implies that the soil-groundwater system under study is in equilibrium .
The set of elements whose sorption onto West Valley geologic media have been studied over the years is representative in several respects . First. most of the elements considered have radioisotopes typically identified as key in post-closure performance assessments. The elements considered are also representative in that. based on location in the periodic table, several potentially different chemical behaviors are considered, such as monovalent and multivalent cations, chelation, formation of anionic species, and actinides.
Kd values for several important radionuclid es have been determined for materials from those hydrogeological units of primary interest - the surficial sand and gravel unit on North Plateau, the weathered Lavery till , and the unweathered Lavery till. There are fewer results for the lacustrine unit and no data for the Kent Recessional till or bedrock.
Finally, Kd values at West Valley have been estimated by a variety of different techniques - batch studies, experimental sorption isotherms, column studies, and the analysis of contaminant migration in soil cores taken from the site.
Kd Studies at the Center Five studies have been performed , as described below.
Brookhaven studies - Chemical Environment. Kd values for Cs, Co, Sr, Am , and Eu were determined in a series of experiments at the Brookhaven National Laboratory for four West Valley geochemical environments: the Lavery till, the lacustrine unit. overland flow, and the waste mass in the disposal trenches (Pietrzak et al. 1981). Samples of unweathered Lavery till collected at a depth of 35 feet in the SDA were tested for their sorption characteristics in the presence of trench leachate collected from sumps and well points . Batch Kd determinations were conducted in both oxic and anoxic environments. This study was sponsored by NRC .
A description of the equipment and procedures employed in the Brookhaven study, and preliminary results and conclusions, were reported in Columbo and Weiss 1979 and subsequently expanded by Pietrzak et al. 1981 . The latter report includes Kd values for europium and americium as well as cesium , strontium, and cobalt, and discusses the observed effects of each of several variables on the sorption characteristics of the till.
In addition to quantifying distribution coeffi cients, the Brookhaven studies clearly demonstrate both the effects of anoxic or reducing environments on sorption, and the effect of complexing agents, i.e., organics in the trench water, on sorption. The studies also Revision 2                                      3-77
WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN indicated that the soil disaggregation technique used in an experiment has an impact on the Kd. Hence, there is an element of uncertainty in the observed Kd values due to experimental method, as well as to natural variation, in the Brookhaven numbers.
NFS Sorption Studies - Variation With Depth. In 1974, Duckworth (Duckworth, et al. 1974) reported percentage sorption for Cs-137, Sr-85, Ru-106 , and Co-60 on a total of 37 samples of weathered and unweathered Lavery till taken from the SDA at depths of four to 51 feet. Iodine sorption percentages were also determined for 10 samples of weathered and unweathered till. Later, the WVDP used these data to calculate the distribution coefficients for the radioisotopes studied (WVNSCO 1993a) .
The number and distribution of the samples tested clearly indicate differences between sorption on weathered and sorption on unweathered till but for not all radionuclides . This pattern is illustrated in Figures 3-66 through 3-68 .
6 The right half of each figure shows stripplots of the Kd values determined at four increasing depths: 10 feet, 25 feet, 30 feet, and 50 feet. The 10-foot Kd values are for weathered till and the remaining Kd values are for unweathered till. The left half of each 7
figure shows the normal probability plot of all of the Kd values where the weathered (10-foot) Kd values are solid black circles and the unweathered till Kd values are solid gray circles.
In the figures, cesium and strontium - and possibly iodine - show variation of the Kd with soil type (i .e., by depth). (The iodine data show a similar variation by soi l type, but this trend is less statistically significant in light of the smaller number of samples involved .)
Neither the ruthenium nor the cobalt Kd values vary with depth .
Finally, there is one drawback to this set of distribution coefficients: the longest contact time in the batch experiments was 16 hours, and it is unlikely that equilibrium was attained .
However, shorter contact times lead, in principle to lower (more conservative) Kd values.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Study - Competitive Sorption on the Lavery Till.
Lavery Till samples from 1961 were submitted to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for batch-test radionuclide sorption studies. The locations and sampling depths were selected to provide coverage at both shallow to intermediate depths within the till , providing a comparison of the weathered and unweathered materials (WVNSCO 1993a).
8 The study results for cesium and strontium were numerically similar to the results from Duckworth's data, showing that the Lavery till has a high affinity for cesium and a lower affinity for strontium . Cobalt-60 was almost completely sorbed by both weathered and unweathered tills with cobalt exhibiting no selectivity for either material.
6 Individual Kd determinations are plotted and grouped by weathered or unweathered .
7 A normal probability plot presents the ordered values of the Kd versus the z-scores of the corresponding quantiles from the standard normal distribution . In these figures , the "Sample Quantiles" are just the Kd values and the "Theoretical Quantiles" are the z-scores. (A z-score is a measure of the distance in standard deviations of a sample from the mean .)
8 The Oak Ridge tests were 24 hour batch tests. The Kd 's were higher but still comparable Revision 2                                          3-78
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Some tests were also run for ruthenium, but the results were not considered particularly meaningful because they were conducted using ruthenium which had percolated through the Oak Ridge soil and from which the sorbable and filterable portions had been removed .
The Oak Ridge sorption percentages were much lower than those observed by Duckworth.
Chelation or complexation of the ruthenium in the Oak Ridge solution is a plausible explanation for the lower sorption .
Competitive sorption effects - cesium/potassium and strontium/calcium - were also examined in the Oak Ridge study. In both cases, the presence of a competitor species slowed sorption. The introduction of potassium ions reduced the sorption of cesium by a factor of six. Similarly the sorption of strontium was found to be reduced fourfold by the presence of calcium in the leachate .
United States Geological Survey Estimates. U.S. Geological Survey studies (Prudic 1986) on groundwater flow and contaminant transport in till immediately adjacent to the SDA have also included estimates of Kd values for several elements - cesium , strontium, hydrogen, and carbon. In this study, the Kd values were inferred from travel distances from the trench . The results for the carbon, cesium and strontium are consistent with the Brookhaven results for unweathered till under anoxic conditions. The tritium is assumed to be in the form of tritiated water and to experience no sorption 9 (i.e .. a Kd of 0).
WVDP - North Plateau Sand and Gravel. In 1995 Dames and Moore reported the results for radionuclide sorption onto samples of the surficial North Plateau sand and gravel (Aloysius 1995 and Dames and Moore 1995) . Kd values were determined for strontium, technetium , iodine, cesium , europium, uranium, neptunium, plutonium and americium . Most of the determinations used either batch tests and/or plots of the sorption isotherms.
This study also examined several related phenomena of potential interest. The effect of having tributyl phosphate/n-dodecane present was investigated for both uranium sorption and americium sorption . No effects were observed for either radionuclide . Competitive effects between technetium and iodine were also studied , indicating that iodine is preferentially sorbed.
At the present, Sr-90 is the primary radionuclide of interest in the north plateau surficial aquifer. For this reason, strontium 's sorption behavior was studied in great detail by the investigators . In addition to batch and isotherm testing. the Kd of strontium was determined in column experiments and by the analyses of field data showing the distribution of Sr-90 in the surficial sand and gravel aquifer and the observed flow field of the aquifer. These dynamic estimates for the Sr-90 Kd were consistent with the batch and isotherm determinations.
The effect of the chemical environment on strontium sorption was also investigated .
The Kd was found to be sensitive to small changes in pH and to increase with increasing pH . The strontium Kd was observed to increase with increasing ionic strength, but decrease with increasing calcium concentrations, i.e .. the calcium is preferentially sorbed . These 9
This neglects absorption into pore-space deadwater.
Revision 2                                        3-79
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING          PLAN experimental findings were corroborated with geochemical* modeling using the MINTEQA2 code.
Table 3-20 summarizes the distribution coefficients quantifying the sorption of fourteen elements onto West Valley soils . The primary Brookhaven references are not available and values have been taken from citing documents . Where possible, the values have been entered as ranges .
Table 3-20. Distribution Coefficients Element          Kd(cm 3/g)  Geohydrological Unit                  Notes                    Reference Hydrogen      0            Unweathered Lavery Till  Assumed zero (tritiated water)    Prudic 1986 Carbon        0.7-1 .1      Unweathered Lavery Till  Anoxic conditions, organic carbon Prudic 1986 3 -12        Unweathered Lavery Till  Anoxic conditions, inorganic Prudic 1986 carbon Cobalt        1- 5          Unweathered Lavery Till  Anoxic trench water              Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 1.8- 2.3      Unweathered Lavery Till  Oxic trench water                Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 6400          Unweathered Lavery Till  16 hr batch                      WVNSCO 1993a 5400          Weathered Lavery Till    16 hr batch                      WVNSCO 1993a Strontium    4.5          Surficial Sand and Gravel North plateau                    Aloysius 1995 6.9 - 7.4    Unweathered Lavery Till  Anoxic trench water              Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 25-32        Unweathered Lavery Till  Oxic trench water                Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 1-7          Unweathered Lavery Till  In-situ assessment, SDA, anoxic Prudic 1986 conditions 30            Unweathered Lavery Till                                    WVNSCO 1993a 130            Weathered Lavery Till                                      WVNSCO 1993a Technetium    4.1            Unweathered Lavery Till  Regression fit of linear isotherm Aloysius 1995 1300          Unweathered Lavery Till                                    WVNSCO 1993a Ruthenium 1200          Weathered Lavery Till                                      WVNSCO 1993a Iodine      0.4 - 3.4      Lavery Till                                                WVNSCO 1993a Cesium      48 .;_ 260    Unweathered Lavery Till  Anoxic trench water              Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 100-200        Unweathered Lavery Till  Oxic trench water                Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 3350-4500      Unweathered Lavery Till                                    WVNSCO 1993a Revision 2                                        3-80
WVDP PHASE          1 DECOMMISSIONING            PLAN Table 3-20. Distribution Coefficients Element          Kd(cm 3/g)      Geohydrological Unit                      Notes                      Reference 4900-8000          Weathered Lavery Till                                          WVNSCO 1993a Europium      > 14,000          Surficial Sand and Gravel Based on detection limit              Aloysius 1995 600 - 2100        Unweathered Lavery Till    Anoxic trench water                Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 3700-4300          Unweathered Lavery Till    Oxic trench water                  Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 Radium        195                Unweathered Lavery Till                                        Pietrzak, et al. 1981 cites Bergeron, et al.
1987 Uranium      9.1 - 9.6          Unweathered Lavery Till    Regression fit of linear isotherm  Aloysius 1995 11.9              Unweathered Lavery Till    Regression fit of linear isotherm, TBP/n-dodecane present              Aloysius 1995 Neptunium    2.3                Surficial Sand and Gravel  Recommendation                      Aloysius 1995 0.5 - 5.2          Unweathered Lavery Till    Regression fit of linear isotherm  Aloysius 1995 5.5-18.1          Weathered Lavery Till      Regression fit of linear isotherm  Aloysius 1995 Plutonium    2600              Surficial Sand and Gravel  Kinetic sorption experiment (120 Aloysius 1995 hr batch) 27900              Unweathered Lavery Till    Kinetic sorption experimen t (120 Aloysius 1995 hr batch) 5-56              Unweathered Lavery Till    Anoxic trench water                  Matuszek 1980 111000            Unweathered Lavery Till                                          Aloysius 1995 Americium    77,000-272,000      Unweathered Lavery Till    In presence of TBP/ n-dodecane      Aloysius 1995 420 - 1000        Unweathered Lavery Till    Anoxic trench water                  Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Americium                                                                                        Weiss 1979 4000- 4700        Unweathered Lavery Till    Oxic trench water                    Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 NOTE : (1) Range reflects differences due to experimental technique employed for soil di saggregation .
3.7.9    Hydraulic Properties Prudic noted the abundant fractures in the weathered Lavery till zone, indicating that fractures with oxidized walls, spaced a few meters apart, extended down to about 14.7 feet (Prudic 1986) . The oxidized zones bordering the fractures, as well as thin coatings of manganese and/or iron oxide, calcite , root hairs, and thin gray (reduced) zones on the inner surfaces of some fractures, clearly suggest water movement along the fractures.
The WVDP has total porosity data from several investigations. Table 3-21 shows results from samp les obtained during monitoring well installation in the 1989-1990 period Revision 2                                              3-81
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN as reported in WVNSCO 1993e, which are representative of the available data. In the case of samples from the sand and gravel layer, the weathered Lavery till , and the unweathered Lavery till , total porosity was calculated using the equation:
P = [ 1 - p I G] x 100 %
where P = total porosity p = bulk dry density G = specific gravity 3
An estimated bulk dry density of 2.1 g/cm was used in the calculations for the sand and 3
gravel layer and1 .6 g/cm for the Lavery till , both weathered and unweathered .
Table 3-21. Total Porosityl1J Average Total Geologic Unit                        Range of Total Porosity(%)
Porosity (%)
Sand and Gravel(2l                                        21 to 22 .8                    21 .9 3
Weathered Lavery Till( l                                  40.3 to 41                    40.7 4
Unweathered Lavery Ti11 ( l                              41.4 to 42 .5                  41 .7 Lavery Till Sand (sJ                                          NA                          25 Kent Recessional Sequence(sJ                                  NA                          25 NOTES: (1) From WVNS CO 1993a . Th e total porosity values were determined from borin g samples collected during monitoring well installation in 1989 and 1990.
(2) From Tabl e 2-1 of WVNSCO 1993e.
(3) From Tabl e 3-1 of WVNSCO 1993e.
(4) From table 4-1 of WVNSCO 1993e.
(5) Estimated based on particle size and sorting.
3.8  Natural Resources This section describes existing and potential natural resources at and in the vicinity of the WVDP. These resources include natural gas and oil , sand/gravel/clay deposits, surface water, groundwater, timber and two renewable energy sources-geothermal and wind energy.
3.8.1  Natural Gas and Oil New York has proven natural gas and oil resources (NYSDEC 2001) . The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation estimates that the state 's 2001 production was enough to heat approximate 353,000 homes . A significant portion of these resources are found in Chautauqua , Cattaraugus , and Erie Counties.
The annual production of natural ga s and oil in New York State during 2001 is summarized in Table 3-22 along with production in nearby areas such as the Town of Ashford . New York produced 28 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 2001 . Cattaraugus County and Erie County were the fourth and fifth largest producing counties in the state accounting for 9 percent of the production for that year. The largest Western New York producer of natural gas was Chautauqua County which was responsibl e for almost 23 Revision 2                                                3-82
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN percent of the State's production.
Table 3-22. 2001 Natural Gas and Oil Production in Cattaraugus and Erie Counties, and the State of New York(1l Active Inactive  Active  Inactive Gas        Oil Location                County                              Gas      Gas      Oil      Oil (1000s ftl)  (barrels)
Wells  Wells    Wells    Wells Ashford                  Cattaraugus      20,879    1,065      13        4        2        0 East Otto                Cattaraugus        6,133                6        2        0        1 Ellicottville            Cattaraugus        6,344              16        0        0        0 Machias                  Cattaraugus          220                1        1        0        0 Yorkshire                Cattaraugus      23,740              18        3        0        0 Colden                  Erie              6,374              11        6        0        0 Sardina                  Erie              19,228              11        3        0        0 Total                                      82,918    1,065      76      19        2        1 Total Cattaraugus County              1,383,691 116,373      427    175    1,557      440 Total Erie County                      1,132,634        45    875    239        1        1 New York State                        28,020,207 175,666    5,949    843    3,373    1,416 NOTE: (1) From NYS DEC 2001 .
Cattaraugus County was the top oil producing county in New York in 2001 contributing more than 66 percent to the state total. However, less than one percent of the county's contribution came from the Town of Ashford 's two active oil wells . There are no active wells in any of the towns adjacent to Ashford .
Figure 3-69 shows the locations of all of the known wells associated with the production of natural gas and oil in Western New York. Figure 3-70 shows production in the Town of Ashford in Cattaraugus . The approximate location of the WVDP is indicated on Figure 3-72 by the black "WV. " These two graphics clearly indicate that production occurs in the immediate vicinity of the site, but the site lies on the fringes of known resources . Most of the gas production occurs in a band paralleling Lake Erie west of the site, and most of the oil production occurs in the southern part of Cattaraugus County near the Pennsylvania state line.
3.8.2      Mineral Resources Sand , Gravel , and Clay As described above, the WVDP site and surrounding valley area are underlain by a sequence of glacial tills comprised mainly of clays and silts separated by sands and gravels . These materials are a potential mineral resource, although a determination of their classification (USGS 1980) as resource, reserve, marginal reserve, or sub-economic resource has not been evaluated . In any event these materials are currently restricted by Revision 2                                      3-83
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN virtue of the restricted access to the Center.
Sand and gravel mines are New York's most common type of min~. Construction sand and gravel is a high-volume, low-value commodity. The industry is highly competitive.
Production costs vary widely depending on geographic location, the nature of the deposit, and the number and type of products produced . Transportation is a major factor in the delivered price of construction sand and gravel, and because of the high cost of transportation, construction sand and gravel continues to be marketed locally (NYSDEC 2005).
In 2001 , there were 1931 active sand and gravel mines in the state producing more than 30 billion metric tons worth at least $162 million . Data for production by mine for that year are not available. However, based on permitted acreage two of New York's seven largest producers have mines in the vicinity of the WVDP (NYSDEC 2005) . One is in the adjacent town of Machias, and the other in nearby Sardinia . There are approximately 20 mine sites within six miles of the WVDP . Approximately half of those were active in 2001.
The major clay minerals found in the site tills are illite and chlorite. Such clays are not particularly valuable for ceramic or industrial applications. There is one regulated clay mine in the Town of Concord which is within six miles of the site.
3.8.3    Water Resources Both surface water and groundwater resources are found at the WVDP (see Sections 3.6 and 3.7) . Buttermilk Creek Basin is a proven surface water resource. Its headwaters are located in and adjacent to the southern part of the site, and the creek flows northwest through the site . Two small water reservoirs were constructed on headwater tributaries to supply both potable and process water to Center and WVDP facilities .
Groundwater within the Center and the WVDP is not utilized for any purpose, as noted previously. However, groundwater is a proven if limited resource in the West Valley area as indicated by the use of several off-site residential wells. Approximately 259 homes within a 3.1-mile radius of the WVDP utilize groundwater as a potable water source. These wells utilize groundwater from surficial sand and gravel aquifers of limited areal extent, as well as weathered bedrock aquifers. Significant quantitative characterization of groundwater is limited to the WVDP, specifically the north plateau and south plateau. That effort has focused on contaminant hydrology as opposed to water resource characterization .
Using knowledge of the groundwater in the vicinity of the WVDP, one basin-wide aquifer is postulated, the weathered and fractured bedrock system. Lying above the competent, low permeability shale bedrock and below the low-permeability glacial tills, this system is recharged from the upland slopes bordering the valley. Discharge is largely to Buttermilk Creek which has cut through the till to bedrock in the valley floor. Little if any connection of the West Valley fractured bedrock aquifer with similar systems in the Connoissarauley and Broad Valleys is expected due to the intervening shale uplands .
Aquifers associated with the glacial drift are sand and/or gravel units of limited areal extent. The surficial sand and gravel unit of the north plateau receives significant recharge Revision 2                                      3-84
WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN from infiltrating precipitation, is highly permeable, and lies on top of low-permeability clayey/silty till. However, it has limited lateral extent and discharges along much of its perimeter.
Subsurface sand and/or gravel units also appear to be limited in extent. Recharge to these units is poorly understood . Given the low permeability of the clayey/silty tills in which they are embedded, some connections with and recharge from the upland fractured-rock flow system at the valley periphery is plausible.
In sensitivity analyses with the three-dimensional site groundwater model, simulations have been run with and without the subsurface till sand unit which is situated on the north plateau east of the Project facilities . The simulations showed little sensitivity to the presence of this unit and the model fit was slightly better when it was left out. These results suggest that the flow associated with this system is not a significant participant in the overall scheme and this inference, by extension, implies that the unit (and others like it) are limited as water resources .
Finally, it is noted that the West Valley aquifer system is part of the Cattaraugus Creek Basin Aquifer System, designated as a sole source aquifer. Similar to West Valley, the sand and gravel aquifers in this system used as water sources tend to be local and limited in spatial extent. Generally, the gradient from the Cattaraugus sand and gravel aquifers is downward toward the fractured bedrock system or laterally to surface waters. ,
3.8.4 Timber Resources The region's (Southern Tier) specific soil and climate help to produce several commercial species of hardwood timber including maple, ash, red oak and black cherry.
The estimated annual net growth of timber amounts to over 1.6 million tons a year (STPRDB 2003). At present, about one third of this amount is being removed through harvesting, leaving a significant potential for future economic development, including the potential for increased domestic secondary use and export use .
Much of the Center is forested, as is characteristic of the region. A smaller portion of the WVDP is forest, however. The last sawtimber harvest occurred mid-century with cull ,
inferior, and smaller trees left. There has been no management in the interim . In 1978, the volume of sawtimber at the Center was estimated to be 3.2 million board feet having a total standing value of $313,000. Most of the value came from hardwoods. The annual growth rate was estimated to be low at 100 board-feet per acre per year. When corrected for inflation, the average stumpa ge rate of all eastern hardwoods increased by roughly 250 percent from 1978 to 1999 (Howard 2001 ). Neglecting new growth, degradation, the absence of management, changes in mix, etc., the current value of the Center forest would be $750,000 .
3.8.5    Renewable Energy Resources There are two renewable energy sources which are notable potential resources at or in the vicinity of the WVDP . These are geothermal energy and wind energy.
Geothermal Revision 2                                        3-85
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Geothermal energy is an inferred, i.e., unproven, resource at the Center. Recently development studies for the western Southern Tier (STPRDB 2003) have recognized the geothermal potential in that region . The reports indicate that low temperature geothermal wells are available in portions of Western New York. Analysis of bottom hole temperature data from Cambrian sandstones indicates the presence of extractable fluids in the low temperature geothermal target zone. The report notes that the potential of geothermal power has not yet been utilized in the region due to technological obstacles, high initial capital costs, and a reluctance to engage new resources . Low temperature geothermal resources may be used for direct heat. i.e .. heat pumps, but not for the generation of electricity.
Wind Recent work suggests that the hilltops to the west of the WVDP are suitable for the development of wind energy resources . In 2004, NYSERDA was engaged in wind energy research and recently has funded the development of wind resource maps for the entire state of New York (TrueWind 2005). Based on extensive meteorological data and numerical models, the maps rate every location in the state for wind energy potential. In these maps, locations along the ridge or hilltops separating West Valley from Connoissarauley Valley are rated as having a good potential for wind energy development.
3.9  References Albanese, et al. 1983, Geologic and Hydrologic Research at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York, NUREG/CR-3207 . Albanese, J.R.,
et al., in NRC Annual Report, August 1981 - July 1982, 1983 .
Aloysius 1995, Testing and Characterization of Glacial Deposits: Geochemical and Radionuclide Adsorption Data . Aloysius, D.L., Dames and Moore Report for West Valley Demonstration Project, Orchard Park, New York, June 26, 1995.
Ashford 1994, A Comprehensive Master Plan for the Growth and Development of the Town of Ashford. Town of Ashford, Cattaraugus County, New York, January 1994.
Baudo and Jacobi 1999, "Fracture Patterns Along a 2.3 km Scanline in the Appalachian Plateau, Cattaraugus County, Western New York: Statistical Analysis and Implications for Fault Activity. " Baudo, A., and R.D. Jacobi, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 31, No. 2: A-3, 1999.
Bay Geophysical 2001 , Seismic Reflection Survey to Identify Subsurface Faults Near the West Valley Demonstration Project. Bay Geophysical Inc ., Traverse City, Michigan, September 21 , 2001 .
Bergeron, et al. 1987, Geohydrologic Conditions at the Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Plant and Waste Management Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, Cattaraugus County, New York. Bergeron, M.P, et al .. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85 -4145, 1987 .
Revision 2                                        3-86
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Bishop, et al. 2004, Gravel Mining and Community Development: A Balanced Approach in the Route 16 Corridor. Bishop, P., et al., presentation to the Cattaraugus County Legislature, October 25, 2004 .
Blickwedehl, et al. 1987, Implementation of the Kerosene Mitigation Plan, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York . DOEINEl44139 :38 (DE88015385) ,
1987.
Boothroyd , et al. 1979, Geomorphic and Erosion Studies at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York, NUREGICR-0795 . Boothroyd , et al., U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1979.
Boothroyd, et al. 1982, Geomorphic Processes and Evolution of Buttermilk Valley and Selected Tributaries, West Valley, New York. Boothroyd, et al., NUREGICR-2862, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1982.
Census Bureau 2003, Census 2000, State and County Quick Facts, Cattaraugus County, New York. U.S. Census Bureau , Population Division, Washington, D.C., April 20, 2003 .
Columbo and Weiss 1979, Evaluation of Isotope Migration - Land Burial, Water Chemistry at Commercially Operated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites, BNL-NUREG -50965 . Columbo, P., and A.J . Weiss, Progress Report 9, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 1979.
Dames & Moore 1975, Report: Foundation and Hydrology Studies, Emergency Water Supply for Cooling of the Spent Fuel Processing Plant, West Valley, New York - for the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Dames and Moore, Orchard Park, New York, February 21 , 1975.
Dames & Moore 1992, Draft Report on Sediment and Soil Sampling and Analysis, SDA Lagoon Closure . Dames & Moore, Orchard Park, New York, Spring 1992.
Dames & Moore 1995, Investigation of Strontium Behavior in the Surficial Sand and Gravel
              - Groundwater System. Dames and Moore report submitted to the West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, June 9, 1995.
DOE 2002, Natural Phenomena Hazards Site-Characterization Criteria, DOE-STD-1022-94, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC, April 2002.
DOE and NYSERDA 2008, Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center.
DOEIEIS-0226-R, December 5, 2008 .
Doherty 2004, PEST, Model-Independent Parameter Estimation, User Manual, 5th ed .,            I July, 2004 .
Duckworth, et al. 197 4, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Research Project -
Final Report. Duckworth, J.P., et al. , Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc ., West Valley, New York, 1974.
Revision 2                                    3-87
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN ECPD 1999, Draft Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Concord and Village of Springville. Erie County Planning Division, Erie County, New York, May 3, 1999.
Engelder and Geiser 1980, "On the Use of Regional Joint Sets as Trajectories of Paleostress Fields During the Development of the Appalachian Plateau." Engelder, T., and P. Geiser, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 85 : 6319-6341 , 1980.
Fakundiny, et al. 1978, Structural Instability Features in the Vicinity of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System Western New York and Lake Ontario. Fakundiny, R.H ., et al.,
in Advances in Analysis of Geotechnical Instabilities, SM Study No . 13, Paper 4, University of Waterloo Press, 1978.
Geiser and Engelder 1983, 'The Distribution of Layer Parallel Shortening Fabrics in the Appalachian Foreland of New York and Pennsylvania : Evidence for Two Non-
* Coaxial Phases of the Alleghanian Orogeny. " Geiser, P. and T. Engelder, R.D.
Hatcher, H. Williams, and I. Zietz, eds. Contributions to the Tectonics and Geophysics of Mountain Chains, Geological Society of America , Memoir 156, 1983.
Gross and Engelder 1991 , "A Case for Neotectonic Joints Along the Niagara Escarpment. "
Gross, M. R. and T. Engelder, Tectonics, Vol. 10, No. 3: 631-641 , 1991.
Herrmann 1978, "A Seismological Study of Two Attica , New York Earthquakes. " Herrmann, R.B .. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 68: 641-651, 1978.
Hill 1990, Preconditioned Conjugate-Gradient 2 (PCG2), A Computer Program for Solving Ground-Water Flow Equations. Hill, Mary C., U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4048, Denver, Colorado, 1990.
Howard 2001 , U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics 1965-1999. Howard, J.L. , United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Research Laboratory, Research Paper FPL-RP-595, April 2001 .
Jacobi and Fountain 1993, "The Southern Extension and Reactivations of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System." Jacobi, R.D., and J . Fountain, Geographie Physique et Quaternaire, Vol. 47, No . 3: pp . 285-302, 1993.
Jacobi , et al. 1996, "Character and Reactivation History of the Clarendon-Linden Fa ult System: Evidence From New York State." Jacobi. R.D .. et al. , Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 28, No. 3:
67, 1996.
Jacobi and Zhao 1999, "Faults Exposed in Zoar Valley, Western New York, and Their Possible Relation to Geophysical Anomalies, Landsat Lineaments and Seismicity."
Jacobi, R.D .. and M. Zhao, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 31, No . 2: A-25, 1999.
Lafleur 1979, Glacial Geology and Stratigraphy of Western New York Nuclear Service Center and Vicinity, Cattaraugus and Erie Counties," New York. Lafleur, R.G .,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-989, 1979.
Revision 2                                          3-88
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN LANL 2003, Software Users Manual (UM) for the FEHM Application, Version 2.2.1, Rev.
No . 00. Dooument ID: 10086-UM-2.21 -00. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, October, 2003 .
Matuszek 1980, "Biochemical and Chemical Processes Leading to Radionuclide Transport from Low-Level Waste Burial Sites. Matuszek, J.M .. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 24 . pp . 155-156, 1980.
McKinney 1986, Letter Report Review of Erosion Projections, Low-Level Waste Disposal Area, Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York.
McKinney, T.F.. 1986.
NRC    1982, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington , D.C .. November 1982.
NRC 2007 , Meteorological Programs for Nuclear Power Plants , NUREG 1.23 , Revision 1.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington , D.C .. March 2007 .
NYASS 2005, Cattaraugus County Farm Statistics. New York Agricultural Statistics Service, Albany, New York, 2005 . (www.nass.usda .gov/ny/CountyBrochures/Catta-raugus . pdf)
NYDOT 2003, 2003 Traffic Volume Report. New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York, 2003 .
NYSDEC 2001, New York State Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources 2001. Annual Report, NYSDEC, Albany, New York, 2001 .
NYSDEC 2004, 2003 Annual Report to the Lake Erie Committee and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) , Lake Erie Unit, Albany, New York, March 2004 .
NYSDEC 2005 , New York State Department of Environmental Conservation online map navigator at http://www.dee .state.ny.us/website/imsmaps/minera Is/ viewer.htm Pietrzak, et al. 1981 , "Sorption Measurements Performed under Site-Specific Conditions --
Maxey Flats, Kentucky, and West Valley, New York, Disposal Sites. " Pietrzak, R.F ..
K.S. Czyscinski, and A.J. Weiss, Nuclear and Chemical Waste Management. Vol.
2, pp. 279-285, 1981.
PNNL 2000 . STOMP, Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases, Version 2.0 Theory            I Guide, PNNL-12030, Richland , Washington. March, 2000.
Prudic 1986, "Groundwater Hydrology and Subsurface Migration of Radionuclides at a Commercial Radioactive-Waste Burial Site, West Valley, Cattaraugus County, New York." Prudic, D.E. , U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1325, 1986.
Rickard 197 5, Correlation of the Silurian and Devonian Rocks in New York State. Rickard, L.V .. New York State Museum and Science Service Map and Chart Series, No. 24, 1975.
Revision 2                                      3-89
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Spector and Grant 2003 , Manual for Radiological Assessment of Environmental Releases at the WVDP, WVDP-065, Rev. 4. Spector, H. and M. Grant, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, February 28, 2003 .
STPRDB 2003, 2003 Regional Development Strategy. Southern Tier Planning and Regional Development Board , Salamanca, New York, 2003 .
Tober and Jacobi 2000, "Fracture Trends and Spacing in the Appalachian Plateau of Western New York : Implications for the Bass Islands Trend and North-Striking Lineaments." Tober, B.K. , and R.D . Jacobi, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 32, No. 1: A- 79, 2000.
TrueWind 2005, New York State Wind Resource Map, interactive map prepared for the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority by TrueWind Solutions, LLC . http:// .truewind.com .
URS 2001 , Progress Report on Erosion Frame Monitoring at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York . URS Corporation 2001 .
URS 2002, Land Use Survey in Support of the 2001 National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Annual Site Environmental (ASER)
Reports, TA-2002-3 -019. URS Corporation, March 8, 2002 .
URS 2008, Memorandum to Science Applications International Corporation,
==Subject:==
Probable Maximum Flood Inundation Study, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York. URS Corporation, West Valley, New York, August 28, 2008.
USDOT 2003, Record of Decision, U.S. Route 219: Springville to Salamanca, Erie, and Cattaraugus Counties, New York, FHWA-NY-EIS-98 -02F. U.S. Department of Transportation, September 4, 2003.
USGS 1980, Principles of a Resource/Reserve Classifications for Minerals: A revision of the classification system published as U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1450-A. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 831 . U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S . Geological Survey, 1980.
USGS 2007, Report to Sandi Doty and Greg Tucker on Buttermilk Creek Watershed, West Valley, NY (DOE Waste Disposal Site) . Informal memo from USGS Luminescence Dating Lab, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Colorado, March 15, 2007.
USSCS 1983, Technical Release 20 - Computer Program for Project Formulation Hydrology, Version 3.40. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, 1983.
Wedel 1932, "Geological Structures of the Devonian Strata of South-Central New York. "
Wedel, A.A., New York State Museum Bulletin, Vol. 294 : 74, 1932.
Revision 2                                      3-90
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Wild 2000, Estimated Radionuclide Inventory for the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area at the West Valley Demonstration Project. Wild , R.E., URS/Dames and Moore, Orchard Park, New York, August 2000 .
Wong , et al. 2004, Seismic Hazard Evaluation for the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, New York. Wong , I. et al., URS Corporation, Oakland , California , June 24, 2004.
WVES and URS 2008, West Valley Demorstration Project Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 2007. WVNSCO and URS, West Vall ey, New York, December 2008 WVNSCO 1975, Subsurface Characterization Report, Low-Level Waste Disposal Area, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, WVDP-046 .
WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, October 1985 .
WVNSCO 1992, Environmental Information Document: Volume Ill: Hydrology, Part 5:
Unsaturated Zone Hydrology, WVDP-EIS -009, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, December 1992.
WVNSCO 1993a, Environmental Information Document Volume I - Geology, Part 4:
Geochemical Characterization. WVDP -EIS-004 . WVNSCO, West Vall ey, New York, January 1993 .
WVNSCO 1993b, Environmental Information Document: Volume VIII: Air Resources, Part 2: Meteorology, WVDP-EIS -015, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, 1993 .
WVNSCO 1993c, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 2:
Surface Water Hydrology, WVDP-EIS-009, Rev. 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January 1993 .
WVNSCO 1993d, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 3:
Erosion and Mass Wasting Processes, WVDP-EIS-009, Rev . 0 . WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, January 1993.
WVNSCO 1993e, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 4:
Groundwater Hydrology and Geochemistry, WVDP-EIS -009, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, February 1993 .
WVNSCO 1993f, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 5:
Vadose Zone Hydrology, WVDP-EIS-009, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, February 1993 .
WVNSCO 1995, RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Volume 2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Disposal Area, WVDP-RFl-018, Rev . 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company (WVNSCO). West Vall ey, New York, October 1995 .
WVNSCO 1997 , RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Volume 4, Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility, WVDP-RFl-021, Rev. 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company (WVNSCO) , West Valley, New York, January 1997 .
Revision 2                                    3-91
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WVNSCO 2007, Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processing and Support Activities, WVNS-SAR-001, Revision 11 . WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, June 28, 2007 .
Zhao and Jacobi 1997, "Formation of Regional Cross-Fold Joints in the Northern Appalachian Plateau ." Zhao, M. and R.D. Jacobi, Journal of Structural Geology, Vol. 19, No. 6: 817-834, 1997 .
Revision 2                                3-92
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN N
Ontario ALBION MEDINA
* LOCKPORT ST. CATHARINES FALLS TONAWANDA BATAVIA ATTICA Wyoming County Allegany County 0          10          20 Miles I
l""m Approx imate Scale Figure 3-1 . Location ofthe Center in Western New York Revision 2                                    3-93
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
(
      &#xa9;__
1 - Springville High School 2 - Springville Middle School                        o    50 +ooo  8000 FT 3 - Springville Elemenlarary School 4
5
        - St. Aloysius Parochial School
        - Bertrand Chaffee Hospital l"~----------1 6 - West Volley Central School Figure 3-2. The Center, the WVDP, and the Surrounding Area Revision 2                                3-94
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-3. Topography of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center Revision 2                              3-95
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 10 FT CONTOUR INTERVAL
        ~ 100-YEAR
        ~ FLOODPLAIN Figure 3-4. Topography of the Project Premises, Showing 100-Year Floodplain Revision 2                                3-96
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
.llGISl>.n:io!
N
                /
(
l                                                                        A Security Area Boundary I
                                                          \
                                                                        /
I
                                                          '81
{        I
                                                                                    /
                                                        ,fJ                  , *I I
                                                  '<>i;;<
                                                ,-r i I                                    ~/' &~ '
                                        -'J J~
NRC-Ucensed Disposal Area (N OA) 690    920 Feet
                                                            '40 O 40 BO 120 160 Meters Figure 3-5. Security Fence Around WVDP Premises Boundary Revision 2                                3-97
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMI SSIONING PLAN Pt North Plateau WSW                                                                                                        ENE I            Main Plant Vertical Exaggeration= -2: 1 L egena S&G-TGU Sand and Gravel-Thick Bedded Unit
            ' S&G-SWS Sand al'ld Gravel-Slack Water Sequence KT
* LTS      Lavery  n1 Sand                      BR      Shale Bedrock WLT      Weathered Laverty Till
* __.. Conceptual Groundwater Flow ULT      Unweathered Lavery Till                NGVD    National Geodetic Vertical Datum Figure 3-6. North Plateau Geologic Cross Section South Plateau SDA                                          East (Slate-licensed
                                                                          ~!Area)
                                                                                                                        'i 0
Legen a S&G-TGU Sand and Gravel-Thick Bedded Unit          KRS    Kent Recessional Sequence S&G-SWS Sand and Gravel-Slack Water Sequence      KT    Kent Till LTS        Lavery Till Sand                        BR    Shale Bedrock WLT        Weathered Laverty Till                  ___.. Conceptual Groundwater Flow Direction ULT        Unweathered Lavery Till                NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum Vertical Exaggeration= - 2.5:1 Figure 3-7. South Plateau Geologic Cross Section Revision 2                                                                  3-98
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
                                                                        \
                                                                      /
                                                                          / "-
                                                                                *.,                                                        N 0
A WMA 12
                                                                                              \
i WMA 12 Legend c:J Waste Management Afeas        Former L.agoon c::J Building              c::J Wlll*erbodles                                                                            <.:- ***- -.. \
c:::J Concrete Foundation  _ ,,,_ Slrea ms/ Slormwaler Orainagew ays
                                                                                ..-,250      0    250        500        750        1,000 Feel
  - - Fence                  c:::J Asphalt Road
  -+- R*IJspur              c:::::J Gravel Road/ Pad                    ..JI -~.,      ,~
                                                                                          ,iC:llll~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!i..=::::;:::.~
                                                                                                                                      , =\\
                                                                        ';/            50    0  50  100 150          200 Meters      L..J Figure 3-8. WMAs 1 through 10 Revision 2                                                      3-99
WVOP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN
                                                            *--------------*  I I
I N
A I
I I
I Lovier Extent d                                                  I I
S~ewK!e Erosion Con1rols                                              *I (Confluence of Franks Creel<                                            ... ;.-:.:.":."::.":.:.-~--":---::::.:oi to B uttermilk Creel<)                                                    .........
Buttermilk                                                        -.,....,
Creek                                                                  ......
Western New York Nuclear:
Service Center (WNYNSC)
Boundary I
State Licensed D isposal Ar~a '(SDA) (NMA 8)
(
Approximate Location of
                                                                                    \
Gravel Pit Quarries (WMA 12)                                                                                                  \
Scrap MateriaJ- -- -
Landfill (INMA 11)
Former Schoolhouse CNMA 12)
Legend ezl Reservoir                    -+- Rallspur c:::J Waste ManageJMn1 Areas            Fonner Lagoon c:::J Building                  - ***- Streams/ Stormwater Dralnageways C:::J Concrete Foun da tion
  ~ Fence Waterbodies
[=:J Asphalt Road c:::J Gravel Roatlf Pad 500 125 0
o 500 1,000 *1,500 2,000 125 250 375 500 Meiers Feet Figure 3-9. WMAs 11 and 12 Revision 2                                                      3-1 00
WVDP PHASE            1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN N
WMA 5 A
WMA2 High Level Waste, Interim Storage Facilit\ y Main Plant Offi<:e
                            \Cemenl Sotidiftcaiion Sys t,em wrv1A 10 Legend c:JWaste Management Areas c:J Waterbodies c:J Build ing c:J Concrete Foundation
  - - - Fence
  -+- Rallspur
                                    - * -- Streams/ Stormwater Drainageways c:J Asphalt Road CJJ Gravel Road/ Pad                            ....
50 10 0
0 10 50 20 100 30 I
150 40 Meters 200 Feet Figure 3-10. WMA 1. (The Phase 1 decommissioning activities will include removal of the facilities and the underlying north plateau groundwater plume source area.)
Revision 2                                                        3-101
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-11. Aerial View of the Process Building Area and Vitrification Facility Area in 2007.
(The Laundry Room will be removed before the Phase 1 of the decommissioning beg ins.)
Revision 2                                  3-102
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-12. Construction of the Process Building.
Revision 2                                3-103
WVDP PHASE        1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
              ~                                              D EJ
            /
LWC                                        GPC GOA FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: GCR = General Purpose Cell Crane Room GOA = General Purpose Cell Operating Aisle GPC = General Purpose Cell LWC =Liquid Waste Cell MC= Miniature Cell Figure 3-13A. Process Building Layout- Below Grade Revision 2                                  3-104
WVOP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING        PLAN UR LWA                                                              MSM DECON SGR FRS LAUND:_r  't,                                                                                FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE I URE LEGEN D: ARPR =Acid Recovery Pump Room          PMC = Product Mechanical Cell
[J        :                                              CAA = Cell Access Aisle                PPC = Product Purification Cell
          - - ==;.i
                                  -ELECTRICAL VAULT AREA          CPC = Chemical Process Cell            RER = Ram Equipment Room EDR = Equipment Decontamination Room    SGR = Switchgear Room
                                -ELECTRICAL ROOlvl EMOA = East Mechanica l Operating Aisle SRR = Scrap Removal Room GCRE = General Purpose Cell Crane      ULO = Uranium Load-Out 0                                                      Room Extension                          UPC = Uranium Product Cell LWA =Lower Warm Aisle                  UR = Utility Room LWC = Liquid Waste Cell                URE = Utility Room Expansion Figure 3-138. Process  Building Layout at 100-Foot Eliavation    MSM = Manipulator Repair Shop          WMOA = West Mechanical Operating Aisle OGBR = Off-G as Blower Room            WRPA = Waste Reduction & Packaging Area OGC = Off-Gas Cell                      XC = Extraction -Cell Revision 2                                                      3-105
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING    PLAN GCRE CVA EDR ARC CPC VSR r -
1      PPC L _
D                                                                                FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: ARC =Acid Recovery Cell              LXA = Lower Extraction Aisle COA = Cell Operating Aisle          OGC = Off-Gas Cell CPC = Chemical Process Cell          PMC = Product Mechanical Cell CVA =Chemical Viewing Aisle          PPC =Product Purification Cell EDR = Equipment Decontamination Room PMCR = PMC Crane Room GCRE = General Purpose Cell Crane    VWR = Ventilation Wash Room Figure 3-13C. Process Building Layout at 114.5-Foot Elevation              Room Extension                XC = Extraction Cell Revision 2                                                  3-106
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CPC OGA CHEMICAL STORAGE ANALYrlCAL LAB MASS VIT LAB      SPECTROSCOPY LAB DON/DO FF AREA PMCRE AIRLOCK STORAGE FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: ADA= Analytical Decontamination Aisle NOA = North Operating Aisle ANA = Analytical Aisle              OGA = Off-Gas-Acid Recovery Aisle Figure 3-130. Process Building Layout at 131-Foot  Elevation        ANC =Analytical Sample Cell          PMCRE = Process Mechanical Cell CCR = CPC Crane Room                          Crane Room Enclosure CPC = Chemical Process Cell          PPC = Product Purification Cell XC = Extraction Cell Revision 2                                                    3-107
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMM ISSIONING P LAN
                                        ~
AC VE:C EJ G              u CR G
B                                                      FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: CR= Control Room HAC = Hot Acid Cell VEC = Venti lation Exhaust Cell PPC = Product Purification Cell UXA = Upper Extraction Aisle Figure 3-13E. Process Building Layout at 144-Foot Elevation                VEC = Ventilati on Exhaust Cell XC = Extraction Cell Revision 2                                                  3-108
WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN STACK I
                    -----..,  I I    xc      I I  HATCH    I I            I L-----j r - ----- ..,
I
:      XC2        I
: HATCH :
I L ______        _J  XCR XC3
: __HATCH            :
_ _ _ _ _ .!                                FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE I        PPC I        HATCH                                        LEGEND : PPC = Produ ct Purification Cell XC =Extraction Cell
            '... - - -- -- - - '                                            XCR - Extraction Chemical Room Figure 3-13F. Process Building Layout at 160-Foot Elevation Revision 2                                        3-109
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-14. West Side of the Process Building. (The building with windows is actually the Plant Office Building. The plant part of the Process Building is behind the Office Building Figure 3-15. Fuel Receiving and Storage Area. (This facility is located on the east side of the Process Building .)
Revision 2                                    3-110
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-16. HLW Canisters Stored in the HLW Interim Storage Area Figure 3-17. Conditions in the General Purpose Cell in 1999. (These were the cond itions before the beginning of cleanup in connection with deactivation .)
Revision 2                                    3-111
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-18. Process Mechanical Cell During Deactivation Figure 3-19. Extraction Cell 3 (After removal of processing equ ipment and before installation of the WVDP Liqu id Waste Treatment System Equipment)
Revi sion 2                                    3-112
WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-20. The Spent Fuel Pool After Deactivation Figure 3-21. Equipment Decontamination Room Before Cleanup Revision 2                                3-113
WVDP PHASE    1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN mg Secon\I Fitter Room Figure 3-22. Vitrification Facility General Arrangement Figure 3-23. Vitrification Cell at Time of Startup Revision 2                                  3-114}}

Latest revision as of 22:53, 4 February 2020

Radiological Survey and Dose Assessment Report for the Western New York Nuclear Service Center and Off-Site Areas in Follow Up to Aerial Gamma Radiation Survey Conducted in 2014, Rev. 0, Reference 3, Part 1 of 4
ML16293A135
Person / Time
Site: West Valley Demonstration Project, P00M-032
Issue date: 08/22/2016
From:
MJW Technical Services
To:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, State of NY, Energy Research & Development Authority, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16293A155 List: ... further results
References
Download: ML16293A135 (254)
v • d • e


Text

'.., '. ,* .,~,.,, ~

  • t\ --;-- *~~

5*>_* *_ .

Reference 3-Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the WVDP, Rev. 2 (2009)

Reference 3 - Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the WVDP U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project.

Revision 2 December 2009 Prepared by Washington Safety Management Solutions, URS Washington Division Science Applications International Corporation The proposed decommissioning approach described in this plan is based on the preferred alternative in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center, which is referred to as the Decommissioning EIS. If changes to that document occur during the course of the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this plan, such as changes to the preferred alternative, or if a different approach is selected in the Record of Decision, this plan will be revised as necessary to reflect the changes.

Note that many of the comments received during the public comment period for the Revised Draft Decommissioning EIS stated that the 30-year time period for making the decision on the approach to Phase 2 of the decommissioning was too long. Therefore, as the agencies consider the public comments, DOE is evaluating the potential to reduce this time period. In recognition of this potential change, this plan acknowledges that the Phase 2 decision could be made within 10 years from the issuance of the Record of Decision and Findings Statement if the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative is selected.

This page is intentionally blank.

Record of Revisions No. Date* Purpose 0 December 2008 Initial issue for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission review.

1 March 2009 (1) Corrected some page numbers in the Contents.

(2) Changed the preliminary, order-of-magnitude dose estimate for Waste Management Area 2 on page ES-19 from approximately 0.1 to approximately 0.05 millirem per year.

(3) Added report USGS 2007 in the Section 3 reference list.

(4) Incorporated radiological data on subsurface soil from the 2008 background and Process Building area north plateau groundwater plume investigations into Section 4.

(5) Replaced Figure 5-3 with a modified figure to more accurately show the Lavery till depth where samples were taken.

(6) Revised Table 5-1 to reflect the 2008 radiological data.

(7) Corrected values in Table 5-10 and Table 5-11 to be consistent with Table C-1.

(8) Revised Section 5.4.4 to show a maximum of 1.3 millirem per year for Waste Management Area 1 and 0.04 mrem per year for Waste management Area 2, clarified basis for estimates.

(9) Corrected French drain location on Figure 7-10.

(10) Corrected soil data reference on Figure 7-11 and modified the figure to more accurately show the Lavery till depth where samples were taken. (This figure is the same as Figure 5-3.)

(11) Added WVNSCO 2004 to Section 7 references.

(12) Corrected some values in Table 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3.

(13) Changed cited page numbers on pages A-12 and A-13.

(14) Incorporated radiological data on subsurface soil from the 2008 background and Process Building area north plateau groundwater plume investigations into Appendix B.

(15) Revised Table C-4 to add the 2008 data and to clarify the content.

(16) Added Appendix C, Attachment 2 to provide another electronic file (Table C-48 Excel spreadsheet for the preliminary, order-of-magnitude dose estimates).

(17) Revised Appendix D to describe additional groundwater modeling using revised STOMP model. Corrected French drain location on Figure D-2.

Revision 1 changes appear in a blue font. Vertical lines used in the right margin to identify these changes were removed in Revision 2.

Record of Revisions No. Date Purpose 2 December 2009 Revision 2 incorporates changes made in response to the Requests for Additional Information (RAls) submitted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on May 15, 2009 and includes other changes made in response to comments on the plan submitted by other agencies. DOE specifically identified the changes being incorporated in Revision 2 of the plan in connection with the RAls in the RAI responses provided to NRC.

Revision 2 changes appear in a red font and are marked with vertical lines in the right margin with the following exceptions. Two types of prevalent changes are not so marked: changing "would" to "will" to make the plan appropriately prescriptive and deleting the word "proposed" for the same reason. The three appendices added in Revision 2 (E, F, and G) are not marked either because they are entirely new.

Because Revision 2 changes appear in all parts of the plan, each page is identified as Revision 2 to facilitate a complete reissue of the plan, although the contents of some pages are unchanged from Revision 1.

Changes of "would" to "will" and deleting the word "proposed" were made in each part of the plan. The following summary identifies other key changes.

Executive Summary. Added information on DOE onsite presence after Phase 1 and movement of vitrified high-level waste canisters.

Provided for optional surface soil remediation during Phase 1 in selected areas. Updated derived concentrations guideline levels (DCGLs) and cleanup goals. Clarified text related to NRC review and underground waste tank status.

Section 1. Expanded information on Phase 1 studies, changed period for the Phase 2 decision from 30 years to the possibility that the decision could be made within 10 years, provided for NRC review of certain detailed designs, added Waste Management Plan, made several clarifications.

Section 2. Made minor changes to Table 2-5. Added information to Table 2-17. Made several clarifications.

Section 3. Updated information on groundwater modeling, geologic interpretation, maximum probable flood, underground waste tank status, the permeable reactive barrier, the Supernatant Treatment

  • System, and historical earthquakes. Made several clarifications.

Section 4. Provided clarifying information on uranium radionuclide ratios, underground waste tank status. Made minor changes to Tables 4-9 and 4-1 O for consistency with other similar tables and made several clarifications.

Section 5. Revised Table 5-1. Added information on analyses of alternate conceptual models. Renumbered some subsections. Added new Section 5.2. 7 on probabilistic uncertainty analysis and new Section 5.2.8 on multi-source analysis. Revised cleanup goals based on results of these analyses. Added information on DOE presence after completion of Phase 1. Added new Figure 5-12 to define where streambed sediment cleanup goals apply.

Record of Revisions No. Date Purpose 2 December 2009 Section 6. Added new Section 6.2 on ALARA good practices, new Section 6.3.6 on intergenerational concerns.

Section 7. Replaced Figures 7-6 and 7-8, added new figures showing filled deep excavations, revised conceptual schedule. Expanded information on mitigative measures. Added information on DOE presence after completion of Phase 1. Provided for optional surface soil remediation during Phase 1 in selected areas. Made other clarifying changes.

Section 8. Clarified acceptance criteria. Updated some references.

Section 9. Added new Section 9.4.4. on applying data quality objectives. Added new tables, other information on scan surveys.

Expanded information on iri-process surveys. Revised text for consistency with contents of Characterization Sample and Analysis Plan and Final Status Survey Plan, deleting some not-applicable information and rearranging other information. Made reference to new Appendix F and Appendix G.

Appendix A. Changed page numbers to reflect Revision 2 changes.

Appendix B. Only changed "would" to "will" and omitted "proposed."

Appendix C. Made changes to reflect minor changes in the deterministic conceptual models.

Appendix D. Added information on hydraulic barrier wall design.

Provided for providing final designs to NRC for review. Added information on DOE monitoring, maintenance, and security after Phase

1. Incorporated changes in groundwater model.

Appendix E. Added new appendix on probabilistic uncertainty analysis details. .

Appendix F. Added new appendix on details of subsurface piping and the associated residual radioactivity.

Appendix G. Added new appendix on the conceptual framework for the Final Status Survey Plan.

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN List of Effective Pages Page Rev Page Rev *Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev i 2 2-43 2 3-111 2 5-1 2 7-40 2 A-38 2 D-16 2 ii 2 2-44 2 3-112 2 5-2 2 7-41 *2 A-39 2 D-17 2 iii 2 2-45 2 3-113 2 5-3 2 7-42 2 A-40 2 D-18 2 iv 2 2-46 2 3-114 2 5-4 2 7-43 2 B-1 2 D-19 2 v 2 2-47 2 3-115 2 5-5 2 7-44 2 B-2 2 D-20 2 vi 2 2-48 2 3-116 2 5-6 2 7-45 2 B-3 2 D-21 2 vii 2 2-49 2 3-117 2 5-7 2 7-46 2 B-4 2 D-22 2 viii 2 2-50 2 3-118 2 5-8 2 7-47 2 B-5 2 D-23 2 ix 2 2-51 2 3-119 2 5-9 2 7-48 2 B-6 2 D-24 2 x 2 2-52 2 3-120 2 5-10 2 7-49 2 B-7 2 D-25 2 xi 2 3-1 2 3-121 2 5-11 2 7-50 2 B-8 2 D-26 2 xii 2 3-2 2 3-122 2 5-12 2 7-50 2 B-9 2 D-27 2 xiii 2 3-3 2 3-123 2 5-13 2 7-51 2 B-10 2 D-28 2 xiv 2 3-4 2 3-124 2 5-14 2 7-52 2 B-11 2 D-29 2 xv 2 3-5 2 3-125 2 5-15 2 7-53 2 B-12 2 D-30 2 xvi 2 3-6 2 3-126 2 5-16 2 7-54 2 B-13 -2 D-32 2 xvii 2 3-7 2 3-127 2 5-17 2 7-55 2 B-14 2 D-32 2 xviii 2 3-8 2 3-128 2 . 5-18 2 7-56 2 B-15 2 D-33 2 xix 2 3-9 2 3-129 2 5-19 2 7-57 2 B-16 2 D-34 2 xx 2 3-10 2 3-130 2 5-20 2 7-58 2 B-17 2 E-1 2 xxi 2 3-11 2 3-131 2 5-21 2 8-1 2 B-18 2 E-2 2 xx ii 2 3-12 2 3-132 2 5-22 2 8-2 2 B-19 2 . E-3 2 xxiii 2 3-13 2 3-133 2 5-23 2 8-3 2 B-20 2 E-4 2 xx iv 2 3-14 2 3-134 2 5-24 2 8-4 2 B-21 2 E-5 2 xxv 2 3-15 2 3-135 2 5-25 2 8-5 2 B-22 2 E-6 2 xxvi 2 3-16 2 3-136 2 5-26 2 8-6 2 B-23 2 E-7 2 xxvii 2 3-17 2 3-137 *2 5-27 2 8-7 2 B-24 2 E-8 2 ES-1 2 3-18 2 3-138 *2 5-28 2 8-8 2 B-25 2 E-9 2 ES-2 2 3-19 2 3-139 2 5-29 2 8-9 2 B-26 2 E-10 2 ES-3 2 3-20 2 3-140 2 5-30 2 8-10 2 B-27 2 E-11 2 ES-4 2 3-21 2 3-141 2 5-31 2 8-11 2 B-28 2 E-12 2 ES-5 2 3-22 2 3-142 2 5-32 2 8-12 2 B-29 2 E-13 2 ES-6 2 3-23 2 3-143 2 5-33 2 8-13 2 B-30 2 E-14 2 ES-7 2 3-24 2 3-144 2 5-34 2 8-14 2 B-31 2 E-15 2 ES-8 2 3-25 2 3-145 2 5-35 2 8-15 2 B-32 2 E-16 2 ES-19 2 3-26 2 3-146 2 5-36 2 9-1 2 B-33 2 E-17 2 ES-10 2 3-27 2 3-147 2 5-37 2 9-2 2 B-34 2 E-18 2 ES-11 2 3-28 2 3-148 2 5-38 2 9-3 2 B-35 2 E-19 2 ES-12 2 3-29 2 3-149 2 5-39 2 9-4 2 B-36 2 E-20 2 ES-13 2 3-30 2 3-150 2 5-40 2 9-5 2 . B-37 2 E-21 2 ES-14 2 3-31 2 3-151 2 5-41 2 9-6 2 B-38 2 E-22 2 ES-15 2 3-32 2 3-152 2 5-42 2 9-7 2 B-39 2 E-23 2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN List of Effective Pages Page Rev Page Rev Page. Rev page Rev Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev ES-16 2 3-33 2 3-153 2 5-43 2 9-8 2 B-40 2 E-24 2 ES-17 2 3-34 2 3-154 2 5-44 2 9-9 ' 2 B-41 2 E-25 2 ES-18 . 2 3-35 2 3-155 2 5-45 2 9-10 2. B-42 2 E-26 2 ES-19 2 3-36 2 4-1 2 5-46 2 9-11 2 B-43 2 E-27 2 ES-20 2 3-37 2 4-2 2 5-47 2 9-12 2 B-44 2 E-28 2 ES-21 2 3-38 2 4-3 2 5-48 2 9-13 2 B-45 2 E-29 2 ES-22 2 3-39 2 4-4 2 5-49 2 9-14 2 B-46 2 E-30 2 1-1 2 3-40 2 4-5 2 5-50 2 9-15 2 B-47 2 E-31 2 1-2 2 3-41 2 4-6 2 5-51 2 9-16 2 B-48 2 E-32 2 1-3 2 3-42 2 4-7 2 5-52 2 9-17 2 B-49 2 E-33 2 1-4 2 3-43 2 4-8 2 5-53 2 9-18 2 B-50 2 E-34 2 .

1-5 2 3-44 2 4-9 2 5-54 2 9-19 2 B-51 2 E-35 2 1-6 2 3-45 2 4-10 2 5-55 2 9-20 2 B-52 2 E-36 2 1-7 2 3-46 2 4-11 2 5-56 2 9-21 2 B-53 2 E-37 2 1-8 2 3-47 2 4-12 2 5-57 2 9-22 2 B-54 2 E-38 2 1-9 2 3-48 2 4-13 2 5-58 2 9-23 2 C-1 2 E-39 . 2 1-10 2 3-49 2 4-14 2 5-59 2 9-24 2 C-2 2 E-40 2 1-11 2 3-50 2 4-15 2 5-60 2 9-25 2 C-3 2 E-41 2 1-12 2 3-51 2 4-16 2 5-61 2 9-26 2 C-4 2 E-42 2 1-13 2 3-52 2 4-17 2 5-62 2 9-27 2 C-5 2 E-43 2 1-14 2 3-53 2 4-18 2 5-63 2 9-28 2 C-6 2 E-44 2 1-15 2 3-54 2 4-19 2 5-64 2 9-29 2 C-7 2 E-45 2 1-16 2 3-55 2 4-20 2 5-65 2 9-30 2 C-8 2 E-46 2 1-17 2 3-56 2 4-21 2 5-66 2 9-31 2 C-9 2 E-47 2 1-18 2 3-57 2 4-22 2 6-1 2 9-32 2 C-10 2 E-48 2 1-19 2 3-58 2 4-23 2 6-2 2 9-33 2 C-11 2 E-49 2 1-20 2 3-59 2 4-24 2 6-3 2 9-34 2 C-12 2 E-50. 2 1-21 2 3-60 2 4-25 2 6-4 2 9-35 2 C-13 2 E-51 2 1-22 2 3-61 2 4-26 2 6-5 2 9-36 2 C-14 2 E-52 2 1-23 2 3-62 2 4-27 2 6-6 2 9-37 2 C-15 2 E-53 2 1-24. 2 3 2 4-28 2 6-7 2 9-38 2 C-16 2 E-54 2 1-25 2 3-64 2 4-29 2 6-8 2 9-39 2 C-17 2 F-1 2 1-26 2 3-65 2 4-30 2 6-9 2 9-40 2 C-18 2 F-2 2 1-27 2 3-66 2 4-31 2 6-10 2 9-41 2 C-19 2 F-3 2 1-28 2 3-67 2 4-32 2 6-1:1 2 9-42 2 C-20 2 F-4 2 1-29 2 3-68 2 4-33 2 6-12 2 .9-43 2 C-21 2 F-5 2 2-1 2 3-69 2 4-34 2 6-13 2 9-44 2 C-22 2 F-6 2 2-2 2 3-70 2 4-35 2 6-14 2 9-45 2 C-23 2 F-7 2 2-3 2 3-71 2 4-36 2 7-0 2 9-46 2 C-24 2 F-8 2 2-4 2 3-72 2 4-37 2 7-1 2 9-47 2 C-25 2 F-9 2 2-5 2 3-73 2 4-38 2 7-2 2 9-48 2 C-26 2 F-10 2 2-6 2 3-74 2 4-39 2 7-3 2 A-1 2 C-27 2 F-11 2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN List of Effective Pages Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev Page Rev 2-7 2 3-75 2 4-40 2 7-4 2 A-2 2 C-28 2 F-12 2 2-8 2 3-76 2 4-41 2 7-5 2 A-3 2 C-29 2 F-13 2 .

2-9 2 3-77 2 4-42 2 7-6 2 A-4 2 C-30 2 F-14 2 2-10 2 3-78 2 4-43 2 7-7 2 A-5 2 C-31 2 F-15 2 2-11 2 3-79 2 4-44 2 7-8 2 A-6 2 C-32 2 F-16 2 2-12 2 3-80 2 4-45 2 7-9 2' A-7 2 C-33 2

  • F-17 2 2-13 2 3-81 2 4-46 2 7-10 2 A-8 2 C-34 2 F-18 2 2-14 2 3-82 2 4-47 2 7-11 2 A-9 2 C-35
  • 2 G-1 2 2-15 2 3-83 2 4-48 2 7-12 2 A-10 2 C-36 2 G-2 2 2-16 2 3-84 2 4-49 2 7-13 2 A-11 2 C-37 2 G-3 2 2-17 2 3-85 2 4-50 2 7-14 2 A-12 2 C-38 2 G-4 2 2-18 2 3-86 2 4-51 2 7-15 2 A-13 2 C-39 2 G-5 2 2-19 2 3-87 2 4-52 2 7-16 2 A-14 2 C-40 2 G-6 2 2-20 2 3-88 2 4-53 2 7-17 2 A-15 2 C-41 2 G-7 2 2-21 2 3-89 2 4-54 2 7-18 2 A-16 2 C-42 2 G-8 2 2-22 2 3-90 2 . 4-55 2 7-19 2 A-17 2 C-43 2 G-9 2 2-23 2 3-91 2 4-56 2 7-20 2 A-18 2 C-44 2 G-10 2 2-24 2 3-92 2 4-57 2 7-21 2 A-19 2 C-45 2 G-11 2 2-25 2 3-93 2 4-58 2 7-22 2 A-20 2 C-46 2 G-12 2 2-26 2 3-94 2 4-59 2 7-23 2 A-21 2 C-47 . 2 G-13 2 2-27 2 3-95 2 4-60 2 7-24 2 A-22 2 C-48 2 G-14 2 2-28 2 3-96 2 4-61 2 7-25 2 A-23 2 D-1 2 G-15 2 2-29 2 3-97 2 4-62 2 7-26 2 A-24 2 D-2 2 G-16 2 2-30 2 3-98 2 4-63 2 7-27 2 A-25 2 D-3 2 G-17 2 2-31 2 3-99 2 4-64 2 7-28 2 A-26 2 D-4 2 2-32 2 3-100 . 2 4-65 2 7-29 2 A-27 2 D-5 2 2-33 2 3-101 2 4-66 2 7-30 2 A-28 2 D-6 2 2-34 2 3-102 2 4-67 2 7-31 2 A-29 2 D-7 2 2-35 2 3-103 2 4-68 2 7-32 2 A-30 2 D-8 2 2-36 2 3-104 2 4-69 2 7-33 2 A-31 2 D-9 2 2-37 2 3-105 2 4-70 2 7-34 2 A-32 2 D-10 2 2-38 2 3-106 2 4-71 2 7-35 2 A-33 2 D-11 2 2-39 2 3-107 2 4-72 2 7-36 2 A-34 2 D-12 2

' 2-40 2 3-108 2 4-73 2 7-37 2 A-35 2 D-13 2 2-41 2 3-109 2 4-74 2 7-38 2 A-36 2 D-14 2 2-42 2 3-110 2 4-75 2 7-39 2 A-37 2 D-15 2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS NOTATION (Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Units) ..................................................... xxi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

............................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose. ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Scope ......................................................._................... ." ............................................. 1-2 1.3 Background .............................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Environmental Impact Statements ........................................................................ 1-8 1.4.1 Waste Management EIS ......... :....................................................................... 1-8 1.4.2 Decommissioning EIS .........................................: ............................................. 1-8 1.5 Decommissioning Criteria .................................................................................... 1-9 1.6 Project Management and Organization ............................................................. 1-10 1.7 Health and Safety Program ................................................................................. 1-12 1.8 Environmental Monitoring and Control.. ........................................................... 1-12 1.9 Radioactive Waste Management... ........................ ~ .................................... ,....... 1-14 1.10 Planned End States Before and After Phase 1 ................................................. 1-15 1.10.1 The Interim End State ..................................................................................... 1-15 1.10.2 Facilities and Areas Within Phase 1 Scope .................................................. 1-19 1.11 Organizational Responsibilities .......................................................................... 1-23 1.11.1 DOE .............................................................................................................. 1-24 1.11.2 NRC .............................................. :...................... :........................................ 1-24 1.11;3 NYSERDA .................................................................................................... 1-25 1.12 Organization of This Plan ..............................................:..................................... 1-25 1.13 Control of Changes .............................................................................................. 1-25 1.14 References .......................................................................................................*..... 1-26 2.0 FACILITY OPERATING HISTORY .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 License History ......... :............................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1 Nuclear Fuel. Services Operations From 1966 to 1982 .................................. 2-5 2.1.2 West Valley Demonstration Project From 1982 to 2008 ............................... 2-14 2.2 Site Decommissioning Activities (1966 -2011) .................................................. 2-18 Revision 2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 2.2.1 NFS Remediation Activities (1966 - 1981) ................................................... 2-19 2.2.2 WVDP Remediation Activities (1982- 2011) ................................................ 2-19 2.3 Spills and Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity ............................................... 2-32 2.3.1. North Plateau Groundwater Plume ............................................................... 2-32 2.3.2 Old Sewage Plant Drainage .......................................................................... 2-35 2.3.3 The Cesium Prong ........................................................................................ 2-36 2.3.4 Summary of Spills During NFS Operations .......................... :....................... 2-36 2.3.5 WVDP Spills ................................................................................................. 2-40 2.4 Prior Onsite Burials ................................................................................................ 2-42 2.4.1. Lagoon 1 ........................................................................................................ 2-42 2.4.2 The NRG-Licensed Disposal Area ............................................................... 2-43 2.4.3 Other Burial Locations .................................................................................. 2-47 2.5 References .............................................................................................................. 2-47 3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Site Location and Description .................................................. '. .............................. 3-2 3.1.1 Site Location ..................................................... ;............................................. 3-2 3.1.2 Site Description ...................................................................... ~ ........................ 3-2 3.1.3 Facility Description .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.4 Surrounding Communities, Businesses, and Transportation System ........... 3-27 3.2 Population Distribution ........... ,........ :..................................................................... 3-29 3.2.1 Local Population Data ................................................................................... 3-29 322 Population Distribution .................................................................. :.............. 3-32 3.3 Current and Future Land Use ................................................................................ 3-35 3.3.1 Current Land Use .......................................................................................... 3-35 3.3.2 Summary of Anticipated Land Uses .............................................................. 3-38 3.4 Meteorology and Climatology ............................................................................... 3-40 3.4.1 The General Climate of Western New York .................................................. 3-40 3.4.2 Severe Weather Phenomena ........................................................................ 3-41 3.4.3 Weather-Related Radionuclide Transmission Factors .................................. 3-41 Revision 2 ii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 3.4.4 Weather-Related Site Deterioration Parameters ........................................... 3-42 3.4.5 Site Meteorology and Climatology ................................................................. 3-42 3.5 Geology and Seismology ....................................................................................... 3-47 3.5.1 Regional Physiography ................................................................................. 3-47 3.5.2 Site Stratigraphy ............................................................................................ 3-47 3.5.3 Site Geomorphology ................................... ,.................................................. 3-52 3.5.4 Regional Structure and Tectonics ................................................................ 3-55 3.5.5 Historical Seismicity ...................................................................................... 3-61 3.5.6 Evaluation of Seismic Hazard ....................................................................... 3-64 3.6 Surface Hydrology ...............................................................................................:.. 3-65 3.6.1 Hydrologic Description .................................................................................. 3-65 3.6.2 WVDP Effluents ............................................................................................. 3-67 3.6.3 Influence of Flooding on Site ......................................................................... 3-68 3.6.4 Water Use ...................................................................................................... 3-68 3.7 Groundwater Hydrology ........................................................................................ 3-70 3.7.1 Description of the Saturated Zone .... :............................................................ 3-70

  • 3.7.2 Monitoring Wells ............................................................................................ 3-72 3.7.3 Physical Hydrogeologic Parameters in the Saturated Zone ......................... 3-73 3.7.4 Unsaturated Zone .......................................................................................... 3-73 3.7.5 Description of Unsaturated Zone Monitoring Stations ................................... 3-75 3.7.6 Physical Parameters ..................................................................................... 3-75 3.7.7 Numerical Analysis Techniques .................................................................... 3-75 3.7.8 Distribution Coefficients ................................................................................. 3-77 3.7.9 Hydraulic Properties ..................................................... :................................ 3-81 3.8 Natural Resources .................................................................................................. 3-82 3.8.1 Natural Gas and Oil ....................................................................................... 3-82 3.8.2 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................ 3-83 3.8.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-84 Revision 2 iii

_I

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 3.8.4 Timber Resources.:....................................................................................... 3-85 3.8.5 Renewable Energy Resources.: .................................................................... 3-86 3,9 References .............................................................................................................. 3-8~

4.0 RADIOLOGICAL STATUS OF FACILITY ......................................................................,4-1 4.1 Radiological Status of Facilities, Systems, and Equipment ................................ 4-2 4.1, 1 Sources of Available Data .............................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2 Impacted Facilities ......................................................... : ................................ 4-5 4.1.3 Non-Impacted Facilities ............................................................................... 4-12 4.1.4 Radionuclide Distributions ........................................................................... 4-12 4.1.5 Radiological Status of Facilities .................................................................... 4-16 4.2 Radiological Status of Environmental Media ...................................................... 4-24 4.2.1 Data Sources ................................................................................................. 4-25 4.2.2 Background Levels .............................................................*.......................... 4-26 4.2.3 Radiological Status of Surface Soil and Sediment... .................................... 4-29 4.2.4 Radiological Status of Subsurface Soil ....................................................... 4-31 4.2.5 Radiological Concentrations Exceeding Background in.Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil By WMA **********************************'****************** 4-36 4.2.6 Environmental radiation Levels ..................................................................... 4-49 4.2.7 Radiological Status of Onsite Surface Water ............................................... 4-55 4.2.8 Radiological Status of Groundwater ............................................................. 4-58 4.3 References ............................................................................................................. 4-68 5.0 DOSE MODELING .................... .' ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.1 Applicable Requirements and Guidance ......................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Context for DCGL Development ..................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3 Context for the Integrated Dose Assessment*****************************:******************* 5-9 5.1.4 Potential Impact from Long-Term Erosion ................................................... 5-13 5.1.5 Potential Changes in Groundwater Flow Fields ............. : ............................. 5-14 5: 1.6 Seepage of Groundwater ............................................................................. 5-14 Revision 2 iv

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 5.1.7 Potential Impacts on the Kent Recessional Sequence ................................. 5-16 5.1.8 General Dose Modeling Process .................................................................. 5-17 5.2 DCGL Development ................. :.............................................................................. 5-19 5.2.1 Conceptual Models for DCGL Development.. ............................................... 5-20 5.2.2 Subsurface Soil Conceptual Models, ............................................................ 5-26 5.2.3 Stream bed Sediment Conceptual Model ...................................................... 5-34 5.2.4 Mathematic Model .....................................................: ................................... 5-38 5.2.5 Summary of Results ...................................................................................... 5-40 5.2.6 Discussion of Sensitivity Analyses ................................................................ 5-44 5.2.7 Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis ................................................................. 5-50 5.2.8 Subsurface Soil DCGL Multi-Source Analysis ................................. ~ ............ 5-52 5.2.9 Overall Conclusions ...................................................................................... 5-57 5.3 Limited Site-Wide Dose Assessment. ................................................................... 5-57 5.3.1 Basis for this Assessment ............................................................................ 5-57 5.3.2 Assessment Approach .................................................................................. 5-58 5.3.3 Results of the Assessments .......................................................................... 5-58 5.4 Cleanup Goals and Additional Analyses .............................................................. 5-60 5.4.1 Cleanup Goals ............................................................................................... 5-60 5.4.2 Refining DCGLs and Cleanup Goals ............................................................ 5-63 5.4.3 Use of a Surrogate Radionuclide DCGL ...................................................... 5-64 5.4.4 Preliminary Dose Assessment ...................................................................... 5-64 5.4.5 Final Dose Assessment ................................................................................. 5-65 5.5 Monitoring, Maintenance, and Institutional Controls .......................................... 5-65 5.6 References .................... ;............................................ :............................................. 5-65 6.0 ALARA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.1 Applicable Requirements and Guidance ......................................................... 6-2 6.1.2 Remediation Activities of Interest.. .................................................................. 6-3 6.1.3 The DCGLs Involved ...................................................................................... 6-3 Revision 2 v

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 6'.2 Achieving a Decommissioning Goal Below the Dose Limits ... ~ ........................... 6-3 6.2.1 Phase 1 Proposed Decommissioning Strategy Promotes ALARA ................. 6-5 6.2.2 Good Practices that Promote ALARA ............................................................. 6-6 6.2.3 Conservatism in DCGL Development ............................................................. 6-6 6.3.4 Conservatism from the Decontamination and Final Status Survey Processes ........................................................................................................ 6-6 6.3 DCGL ALARA Analysis ............................................................................................ 6-7 6.3.1 ALARA Analysis Guidance ............................................................................. 6-7 6.3.2 Calculating Benefits and Costs ........................................................................ 6-8 6.3.3 Surface Soil Preliminary ALARA Analysis ....................................................... 6-9 6.3.4 Subsurface Soil Preliminar]i ALARA Analysis ..................... ,......................... 6-10 6.3.5 Stream bed Sediment Preliminary ALARA Analysis ...................................... 6-11 6.3.6 Addressing Intergenerational Concerns ........................................................ 6-11 6.4 Additional Alialyses .................................................................................................6-12 6.5 References ............................................................................................................... 6-13 7 .0 PLANNED DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES ........................................;....................... 7-1 7 .1 Conditions at the Beginning of the Phase 1 Decommissioning Work .............. 7-2 7.2 General Approach and General Requirements .................................................... 7-3 7.2.1 General Approach ........................................................,................................. 7-3 7.2.2 General Requirements ...................... ~ ............................................................ 7-5 7.3 WMA 1 Decommissioning Activities ............................................ ~ ...................... 7-11 7.3.1 Characterizing Soil and Stream bed Sediment ............................................. 7-12 7.3.2 Relocating the Vitrified HLW Canisters ........................................................ 7-12 7.3.3 Removing the Above-Grade Portion of the Process Building ...................... 7-16

  • 7 .3.4 Removing the Above-Grade Portion of the Vitrification Facility .................. 7-18 7.3.5 Removing the 01-14 Building and the Vitrification Off-Gas Line ................. 7-19 7.3.6 Removing the Load-In/Load-Out Facility ...................................................... 7-19 7 .3. 7 Removing Other WMA 1 Structures ............................................................ 7-20 7.3.8 Removing the Underground Structures and Equipment and the Plume Source Area ................................. :.................................................... 7-21 Revision 2 vi

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 7.3.9 Site Restoration ........................................................................................... 7-29 7.4 WMA' 2 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-30 7.4.1 Characterizing Soil and Sediment.. .............................................................. 7-31 7.4.2 Removing Structures .................................................................................... 7-31 7.4.3 Decommissioning the Lagoons .................................................................... 7-32 7.5 WMA 3 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-38 7.5.1 Removing Structures ................................................................................... 7-38 7.5.2 Removing the Waste Tank Pumps and Pump Support Structures ............. 7-39 7.5 . 3 Removing the HLW Transfer Trench Piping and Equipment ...................*... 7-39 7.5.4 Monitoring and Maintenance ....................................................................... 7-40 7.6 WMA 5 Decommissioning Activities .................................................................... 7-40 7 .6-.1 Removing Lag Storage Addition 4 and the Shipping Depot... ...................... 7-40 7 .6.2 Removing the Remote-Handled Waste Facility .......................................... 7-41 7.6.3 Removing Remaining Floor Slabs and Foundations and Gravel Pads ....... 7-41 7.7 .~MA 6 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-42

7. 7 .1 Removing the Sewage Treatment Plant ...................................................... 7-42 7.7.2 Removing the Equalizatiqn Basin ................................................................ 7-42 7.7.3 Removing the Equalization Tank.................................................................. 7-43 7.7.4 Removing the Demineralizer Sludge Ponds ................................................ 7-43 7.7.5 Removing the South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower .................................... 7-43 7.7.6 Removing the Remaining Floor Slabs and Foundations .............................. 7-43 7.7.7 Establishing that Surface Soil Meets cleanup Goals ...................... ,............ 7-44 7.8 WMA 7 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-44 7.9 WMA 9 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................... 7-44 7.10WMA10 Decommissioning Activities ................................................................. 7-45 7 .11 Establishing Areas Where Surface Soil Meets Cleanup Goals ........................ 7-46 7.11.1 Areas of Interest.. .........................................*................................................ 7-46 7.11.2 Process to be Followed ............................................... ~ ............................... 7-46 7.11.3 Additional Areas of Interest ...................................... :.................................. 7-47 7.12 Remedial Technologies ...................................................................................... 7-47 Revision 2 vii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 7.12.1 Pipe Cutting and Other_ Metal Cutting ......................................................... 7-47 7.12.2 Tool Positioning Technologies ........................................................*............ 7-49 7 .12.3 Concrete Cutting and Demolition ............................................................... 7-50 7.12.4 Concrete Decontamination ......................................................................... 7-51 7.12.5 Demolition of Structures ............................................................................. 7-53 7.12.6 Excavation and Grading *********: ................................................................... 7-54 7.13 Schedule ...............................................................................................................7-55 7.14 References ..................................................:......................................................... 7-57 8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ............................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Quality Assurance Organization ............................ :............................................... 8-2 8.1.1 Quality Assurance Organization Duties and Responsibilities ........................ 8-3 8.1.2 Decommissioning Project Quality Assurance Duties and Responsibilities ...............................................................................................8-4 8.2 Assuring Quality in Preliminary Engineering Work ............................................. 8-4 8.2.1 Dose Modeling .............................................................................................. 8-4 8.2.2 Engineered Barrier Design ............. .".............................................................. 8-5 8.2.3 Other Engineering Work ................................................................................ 8-6 8.3 Decommissioning Quality Assurance Program ................................................... 8-6 8.3.1 General Description of the Program .............................................................. 8-7 8.3.2 Characterization and Final Status Survey Data .............................................. 8-7 8.3.3 Engineering Design and Data, Calculations*, and Modeling ......................... 8-10 8.4 Document Control .................................................................................................. 8-11 8.5 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment ......................................................... 8-12 8.6 Control of Purchased Material and Subcontractor Services ............................. 8-12 8.7 Corrective Action ...................................................................................................8-12 8.8 Audits and Surveillances ...................................................................................... 8-12 8.9 Quality Assurance Records .................................................................................. 8-13 8.10 References ............................................................................................................ 8-14 9.0 FACILITY RADIATION SURVEYS .................................................................................. 9-1 Revision 2 viii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 9.1 Release Criteria ................................................................ ~ ....................................... 9-2 9.2 Types of Surveys and Their Purposes .................................................................. 9-5 9.2.1 Background Surveys ...................................................................................... 9-5 9.2.2 Scoping Surveys ................................................................. :.......................... 9-5 9.2.3 End-of-Task Surveys ..................................................................................... 9-6 9.2.4 Characterization Surveys ..............................................................................*.. 9-6 9.2.5 In-Process Surveys ......................................................................................... 9-6 9.2.6 Final Status Surveys ...................................................................................... 9-7 9.2. 7 Confirmation Surveys .................................................................................... 9-7 9.3 Background Surveys ...............................................: ............................................... 9-8 9.4 Characterization Surveys ........................................................................................ 9-8 9.4.1 Characterization Sample and Analysis Plan Content .................................... 9-9 9.4.2 Characterization Data Quality Objectives .................................................... 9-13 9.4.3 Characterization Quality Requirements ...................................... :................ 9-15 9.4.4 Applying DQOs for Characterization Surveys ............................................. 9-16 9.4.5 Characterization Surveys of Structures ....................................................... 9-17 9.5 ln~Process Surveys ................................................................................................~9-20 9.5.1 Measurement Methods and Instrumentation ............................................... 9-20 9.5.2 Scan Surveys and Direct Measurements .................................................... 9-20 9.5.3 Documentation *............................................................................................ 9-23

  • 9.6 The Phase 1 Final Status Survey ........;................................................................ 9-23 9.6.1 Phase 1 Final Status Survey Plan Content ................................................. 9-24 9.6.2 Data Quality Objectives for the Phase 1 Final Status Survey ..................... 9-29 9.6.3 Phase 1 Final Status Survey Quality Requirements ................................... 9-30 9.7 The Survey Process by Waste Management Area ............................................. 9-30 9.7.1 WMA 1 Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area .............................. 9-30 9.7.2 WMA 2 Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Area ...................................... 9-35 9.7.3 WMA 3 Waste Tank Farm Area ................................................................... 9-37 9.7.4 WMA 5 Waste Storage Area ....................................................................... 9-38 9.7.5 WMA 6 Central Project Premises ................................................................. 9-40 Revision 2 ix

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS 9.7.6 WMA 7 NDAand Associated Facilities ........................................................ 9-41 9.7.7 WMA 8, State-Licensed Di?posal Area ....................................................... 9-41 9.7.8 WMA 9, Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area ............................... 9-41 9.7.9 WMA 10, Support and Services Area ........................................................... 9-42

9. 7.10 WMA 11, Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area ..... 9-43 9.7.11WMA12, Balance of the Site ...................................................................... 9-43 9.7.12 Environmental Media .................................................................................. 9-43 9.8 Phase 1 Final Status Survey Report Requirements ........................................... 9-45 9.8.1 Overview of Results ..................................................................................... 9-45 9.8.2 Discussion of Changes ................................................................................ 9-45 9.8.3 Description of How Numbers of Samples Were Determined ...................... 9-46 9.8.4 Sample Number Determination Values ....................................................... 9-46 9.8.5 Results for Each Survey Unit ....................................................................... 9-46 9.8.6 Survey Unit Changes ............................................................. ~ ..................... 9-46 9.8.7 ALARA Practices ......................................................................................... 9-46 9.8.8 Actions Taken for Failed Survey Units ................................................. '. ...... 9-46 9.8.9 Impact of Survey Unit Failures .................................................................... 9-47 9.9 References ..............................................................................................................9-47 APPENDIX A *Decommissioning Plan Annotated Checklist ........................................................... A-1 B Environmental Radioactivity Data ............................................................................ B-1 C Details of DCGL Development and the Integrated Dose Assessment ................... C-1 D Engineered Barriers and Post-Remediation Activities ............................................ D-1 E Dose Modeling Probabilistic Uncertainty Anal.ysis ........................................ ;.......... E-1 F Estimated Radioactivity in Subsurface Piping ......................................................... F-1 G Phase 1 Final Status Survey Plan Conceptual Framework .................................... G-1 FIGURES ES-1 Location of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center ................................ ES-3 Revision 2 x

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES ES-2 The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 ............... ES-4 ES-3 Waste Management Areas 1-10 ........................................................................... ES-6 ES-4 The Plant During the Early Years ...................................................................... ES-11 ES-5 Important Sources of Radioactive Contamination on theProject Premises ...... ES-14 1-1 The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 ................. 1-6 1-2 The Project Premises Showing WMAs and the Phase 1 Excavations ................. 1-16 1-3 WMA 1 Area in 2007 ............................................................................................. 1-17 1-4 WMA 2 in 2007 ..... :................................................................................................ 1-18 1-5 Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning, North Plateau .. 1-21 1-6 Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning, South Plateau . 1-22 1-7 The WVDP in the Interim End State ..................................................................... 1-23 1-8 The WVDP After Completion of Phase 1 .............................................................. 1-23 2-1 Spent Fuel Reprocessing Diagram (PUREX Process) ............................................2-7 2-2 Simplified HLW Pretreatment Process Diagram .............................................. :.... 2-15 2-3 Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in North Plateau Facilities at the WVDP ....................................................... ,.................................................. 2-21 2-4 Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in South Plateau Facilities at the WVDP ..........................................................................................................2-22 2-5 Location of Process Building Remediation Activities for Site facilities Prior to Phase 1 of the Proposed Decommissioning .................................................... 2-23 2-6 Sr-90 Groundwater Plume on the North Plateau .......... ,.......................................2-33 2-7 1984 Aerial Radiation Survey Isopleths of the WVDP and Surrounding Area ....... 2-37 2-8 NOA Disposal Area Burials ...................................................................................2-46 3-1 Location of the Center in Western New York .........................................................3-93 3-2 The Center, the WVDP, and the Surrounding Area ............................................... 3-94 3-3 Topography of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center ............................ 3-95 3-4 Topography of Project Premises, Showing 100-Year Floodplain .......................... 3-96 3-5 Security Fence Around WVDP Premises Boundary .............................................. 3.-97 3-6 North Plateau Geologic Cross Section .................................................................3-98 3-7 South Plateau Geologic Cross Section .................................................................3-98 Revision 2 xi

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 3-8 WMAs 1 Through 10 ..............................................................................................3-99 3-9 WMAs 11and12 ..................................................................................................3-100 3-10 WMA 1.............................................................................:.................................... 3-101 3-11 Aerial View of Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area in 2007 ................ 3-102 3-12 Construction of the Process Building ........................... :.......................................3-103 3-13A Process Building Layout- Below Grade ..............................................................3-104 3-13B Process Building Layout at 100-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-105 3-13C Process. Building Layout at 114.5-Foot Elevation ................................................3-106 3-13D Process Building Layout at 131-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-107 3-13E Process Building Layout at 144-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-108 3-13F Process Building Layout at 160-Foot Elevation ................................................... 3-109 3-14 West Side of the Process Building .......................................................................3-110 3-15 Fuel Receiving and Storage Area ........................................................................3-110 3-16 HLW Canisters Stored in the Chemical Process Cell ..........................................3-111 3-17 Conditions in the General Purpose Cell in 1999 ... ,............... :.............................. 3-1'.11 3-18 Process Mechanical Cell During Deactivation .....................................................3-112 3-19 Extraction Cell 3 ..................................................................................................3-112 3-20 The Spent Fuel Pool After Deact.ivation ..............................................................3-113 3-21 Equipment Decontamination Room Before Cleanup ........................................... 3-113 3-22 Vitrification Facility General Arrangement... ......................................................... 3-114 3-23 Vitrification Cell at Time of Startup .......................................................................3-114

.3-24 WMA2 ............................................................................................................-...... 3-115

. 3-25 The Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility .............................................................3-116 3-26 The LLW2 Building that Replaced the 02 Building .............................................3-117 3-27 The Lagoon 1 Area .............................,. ................................................................3-117 3-28 The New lnterceptors ...........................................................................................3-118 3-29 WMA 3 ................................................................................................................. 3-119 3-30 Aerial View of WMA 3 Area ................................................................................. 3-120 3-31 Cutaway View of 750,000-Gallon HLW Tank ...................................................... 3-120 Revision 2 xii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 3-32 HLW Transfer and Mobilization Pumps .............................................................. 3-121 3-33 HLW Transfer Trench Under Construction ...........................................................3-122 3-34 Typical HLW Pump Pit ............................ :............................................................3-122 3-35 WMA 5 ..................................................................................................................3-123 3-36 The Remote Handled Waste Facility ...................................................................3-124 3-37 The Remote Handled Waste Facility First Floor Layout ...................................... 3-124 3-38 WMA 6 ..................................................................................................................3-125 3-39 The Rail Spur ........................................................................................................3-126 3-40 The New Cooling Tower ....................................................................................... 3-126 3-41 WMA 7 ..................................................................................................................3-127 3-42 WMA 9 ........................................................................., ........................................ 3-128 3-43 WMA 10 ................................................................................................................3-129 3-44 Population Around the WVDP by Compass Vector .......................... :.................. 3-130 3-45 Land Use in the Vicinity of the Center ..................................................................3-131 3-46 Tornado Events in Western New York (1950- 2002) ........................................ 3-132 3-47 Thunderstorm Wind Events in Western New York (1950 - 2002) ...................... 3-133 3-48 Hail Events in Western New York ( 1950 - 2002) ................................................. 3-134 3-49 Wind Rose Diagram .............................................................................................3-135 3-50 Cloud* Ceiling Information ....................................................................................3-136 3-51 Regional Physiographic map ..............................................................................3-137 3-52 Bedrock and Glacial Stratigraphy of the WVDP ................................................... 3-138 3-53 Surface Geology of the Project Premises and the SDA .....................................3-139 3-54 Fold and Selected Joint Trends in the Appalachian Plateau of Western and Central New York ............................................................................................3-140 3-55 Seismo-Tectonic Map of Western New York Showing Selected Regional Geologic Structures .............................................................................3-141 3-56 Major Northwest Trending Lineaments in New York and Pennsylvania ............. 3-142 3-57 Location of Seismic Lines WVN1 and BER 83-2A .............................................. 3-143 3-58 Seismic Hazard Curves for Peak Horizontal Acceleration ..................................3-144 3-59 Seismic Hazard Curves for 1.0 Second Horizontal Acceleration ........................ 3-145 Revision 2 xiii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 3-60 Seismic Source Contributions to Mean Peak Horizontal Acceleration Hazard ... 3-146 3-61 Buttermilk Creek Drainage Basin .........................................................................3-147 3-62 Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Sand and Gravel Unit, First Quarter 2008 .................................................................................................3-148 3-63 Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Weathered Lavery Till, First Quarter 2008 ................................................................................................3-149 3-64 Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Lavery Till Sand, First Quarter 2008 ................................................................................................3-150 3-65 Groundwater Elevation Contours of the Kent Recessional Sequence, First Quarter 2008 ...........................................................................*.................... ;3-151 3-66 Vertical Distribution of Cesium Kd in the Weathered and Unweathered Tills ....... 3-152 3-67 Vertical Distribution of Iodine~ in the Weathered and Unweathered Tills ......... 3-152 3-68 Vertical Distribution of Strontium ~ in the Weathered and Unweathered Tills .. 3-153 3-69 Locations of Natural Gas and Oil Wells in Western New York ........................... 3-154 3-70 Locations of Natural Gas and Oil Wells in the Vicinity of the WVDP ................... 3-155 4-1 Location of WMAs on the Project Premises .............................................................4-7 4-2 Impacted and Non-Impacted Facilities in WMA 1 ................................................... .4-8 4-3 Impacted and Non-Impacted Facilities in WMA 2 ................................................... .4-9 4-4 Impacted Facilities in WMA 3 .................................................................................4-10 4-5 Impacted and Non-Impacted Facilities in WMA 6 ................................................. .4-11 4-6 Surface Soil and Sediment Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ........................................................................................4-32 4-7 Subsurface Soil Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ........................................................................................................4-33 4-8 Cross Section of Sr-90 Concentrations Versus Depth in Subsurface Soil in WMA 1 ................................................................................................................4-35 4-9 Onsite Environmental TLD Locations ................................................................... .4-51 4-10 WVDP Radiological Control Areas ............................................ ;........................... .4-54 4-11 Surface Water Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ............................................................................................................4-56 4-12 Routine Groundwater Monitoring Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ............................................................. .4-63 4-13 Geoprobe Groundwater Locations with Radionuclide Concentrations in Excess of Background ........................................................................................4-66 Revision 2 xiv

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 4-14 North Plateau Groundwater Plume ...................................................................... ..4-67 5-1 Areas of Interest - Surface Soil, Subsurface Soil, and Streambed Sediment Within the Project Premises .............. .'......................................................................5-3 5-2 Conceptual Cross Section of WMA 1 Excavation With Representative Data on Sr-90 Concentrations ..........................................................................................5-5 5-3 Conceptual Cross Section of WMA 2 Excavation With Representative Data on Subsurface Soil Contamination ...........................................................................5-6 5-4 Sources at the Conclusion of Phase 1 of the Proposed Decommissioning ........... 5-11 5-5 Locations of Perimeter Seeps on the North Plateau .............................................. 5-15 5-6 General Dose Modeling Process ...........................................................................5-18 5-7 Conceptual Model for Surface Soil DCGL Development ....................................... 5-21 5-8 Conceptual Model for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development ................................. 5-27 5-9 Recreationist Conceptual Model Cross Section ..................................................... 5-32 5-10 Conceptual Model for Streambed Sediment DCGL Development... ...................... 5-34 5-11 Franks Creek Looking Upstream ........................................................................... 5-35 5-12 Areas Where Streambe~ Sediment DCGLs and Cleanup Goals Apply ................ 5-43 5-13 Modified Conceptual Model for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development... ................ 5-53 6-1 Unit Remediation Costs vs. Monetary Discount Rate ............................................ 6-12 7-1 WMA 1 in 2007 ......................................................................................................7-11 7-2 Conceptual Arrangement for Transferring Vitrified HLW Canisters ...................... 7-14 7-3 Storage Module Conceptual Design .................................................................... :7-15 7-4 Process Building General Arrangement ................................................................7-16 7-5 Layout of Process Building Underground Structures ............................................ 7-22 7-6 Conceptual Layout of WMA 1 Excavation .............................................................7-23 7-7 Conceptual WMA 1 Excavation Contour, With Selected Subsurface Soil Data ... 7-24 7-8 Excavation Cross Sections ...................................................................................7-25

  • 7-9 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the WMA 1 Excavation ...................................7-30 7-10 WMA 2 in 2007 ............................................................... :...................................... 7-30 7-11 Conceptual Arrangement of WMA 2 Excavation, Plan View ............................... 7-33 7-12 Conceptual Arrangement of WMA 2 Excavation, Cross Section ......................... 7-34 Revision 2 xv

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES 7-13 Conceptual Cross Section of the Backfilled WMA 2 Excavation ......................... 7-38 7-14 Typical Demolition Machine ........ :........................................................................ 7-50 7-15 Moose ................................................................................................................. 7-52 7-16 Universal Demolition Processor ............................................................................ 7-54 7-17 Conceptual Schedule of Phase 1 Decommissioning Activities ............................ 7-56 8-1 Decommissioning Organization Quality Assurance Relationships ........................ 8-2 B-1 Background Sampling Locations More Than 10 Kilometers From the WVDP ...... B-3 B-2 Sampling Locations Within 10 Kilometers From the WVDP Used for Background Calculations ........................................................................................ B-6 B-3 Onsite Groundwater and Subsurface Soil Locations Used as Background .......... B-8 D-1 Plan View of the WMA 1 Excavation ...................................................................... D-4 D-2 Plan View of the WMA 2 Excavation ...................................................................... D-7 D-3 North Plateau Groundwater Flow Model Boundary ............. :................................. D-9 D-4 Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 0 to 80 Meters ................................................................................... D-10 D-5 Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 80 to 120 Meters .... :........................................ ~ ................................. D-10 D-6 Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 120 to 250 Meters ............................................................................. D-11 D-7 Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 250 to 310 Meters ............................. :............................................... D-11 D-8 Cross Section of North Plateau Near-Field Model - Southwest to Northeast, Distance of 310 to 820 Meters ............................................................................. D-12 D-9 Groundwater Flow Associated with the WMA 1 and WMA 2 Engineered Barriers ............................................................................................ D-16 D-10 Groundwater Monitoring Locations Within the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ............................................................... D-21 D-11 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................... D-25 D-12 Offsite Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ..................................................................... D-26 D-13 Storm Water and Sediment Sampling Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................... D-28 Revision 2 xvi

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES D-14 Air Monitoring Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................................................... D-29 D-15 Direct Radiation Monitoring Locations on the Project Premises During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ........................................ .'...................... D-30 D-16 Offsite Direct Radiation Monitoring Locations During the Phase 1 Institutional Control Period ................................................................................... D-31 E-1 Probabilistic Uncertainty Analysis Process ............................................................. E-8 Att-1 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-to-Source Ratio vs. Time, Sr-90 Surface Soil ................................................................................................. E-33 Att-2 Cumulative Probability Dose-to-Sou~ce Ratio, Sr-90 Surface Soil ....................... E-34 Att-3 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 - Surface Soil ........................................................................................... E-35 Att-4 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 Surface Soil ......................... E-36 Att-5 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time, U-232 - Surface Soil ............................................................................................. E-37

  • Att-6 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, U-232 Surface Soil .......................... E-38 Att-7 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-to-Source Ratio vs. Time, Sr-90 Subsurface Soil ........................................................................................... E-39 Att-8 Cumulative Probability Dose-to-Source Ratio, Sr-90 Subsurface Soil ................. E-40 Att-9 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 - Subsurface Soil ..................................................................................... E-41 Att-10 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 Subsurface Soil ................... E-42 Att-11 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time, U-232 - Subsurface Soil ....................................................................................... E-43 Att-12 Cumulative Probability Dose-to-Source Ratio, U-232, Subsurface Soil ............... E-44 Att-13 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time, .

Sr-90 Streambed Sediment.. ................................................................................. E-45 Att-14 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Sr-90 Streambed Sediment.. ........... E-46 Att-15 Probabilistic and Deterministic Dose-Source Ratio vs. Time, Cs-137 - Streambed Sediment... .......................................................................... E-47 Att-16 Cumulative Probability Dose-Source Ratio, Cs-137 Streambed Sediment.. ........ E-48 F-1 Location of Pipelines Beneath the Process Building .............................................. F-9 F-2 Leachate Transfer Line Routing from NDA to Lagoon 1 ....................................... F-16 G-1 Decision Logic for Surface Soil and Streambed Sediment Survey Units ............ G-16 Revision 2 xvii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS FIGURES G-2 Decision Logic for WMA 1 and WMA 2 Subsurface Soils .................................... G-17 TABLES ES-1. D.CGLw Values for 25 Millirem per Year (pCi/g) ................................................. ES-19 ES-2 Cleanup Goals to be Used in Remediation (pCi/g) ............................................ ES-20 1-1 Facilities and Areas Within Phase.1 Scope ............................................... :........... 1-20 2-1 Limits for Nuclear Fuel in Solid Fuel Elements and Solutions .................................2-2 2-2 Limits for Unirradiated Source Material ...................................................................2-3 2-3 Limits Used for Standards, Test, Measurements, and Calibrations ........................ 2-3 2-4 Nuclear Fuel Received and Reprocessed ...............................................................2-6 2-5 Estimated Radionuclide. Content (in Curies) of Tanks 8D-2 and 8D-4 at the Completion of Reprocessing *****************************************************************************:*****2-9 2-6 Chemical Composition of Tank 8D-2 Supernatant at the Completion of Reprocessing ........................................................................................................ 2-10 2-7 Chemical Composition of Tank 8D-2 Sludge at the Completion of Reprocessing ........................................................................................................ 2-12 2-8 Chemical Composition of Tank 8D-4 Waste at the Completion of Reprocessing .........................................................................................................2-13

  • 2-9 Chemical Composition of Glass Waste Form ........................................................ 2-17 2-10 Typical HLW Canister Radionuclide Content.. ...................................................... 2-18 2-11 Activity Removed by NFS for the Period 1972 Through 1977 ............................... 2-19 2-12 Facilities Shown in Figures 2-3 through 2-6 ..........................................................2-24 2-13 Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decommissioning .................... :..................................................................2-25 2-14 DOE 10 CFR 835 Surface Contamination Guidelines ......................................... 2-30 2-15 Radiological Areas and Radioactive Material Areas ............................................ 2-31 2~16 Released Radionuclide Activity Estimates for the North Plateau Plume .............. 2-34 2-17 Principal Radionuclides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations .......... 2-38 2-18 WVDP Spills Impacting Environmental Media (1982 -2007) ......... :..................... 2-41 2-19 Estimated Residual Radioactivity in Lagoon 1 ......................................................2-43 2-20 Summary of Wastes in the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area ..................................... 2-44 2-21 Estimated Radioactivity in the NDA .......................................................................2-45 Revision 2 xviii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 3-1 Businesses, Farms, and Community Centers Within a 3.1 Mile Radius of the Site ............................................................ ;.......................................................3-27 3-2 2002 Resident Population Estimates by Directional Sector Within a 3.1 Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack .................................................................3-29 3-3 Nearest Residences by Sector ...............................................................................3-29 3-4 Number of Residential Wells or Springs Used for Drinking Water By Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack ...................................... 3-31 3-5 Locations and Populations of Towns and Villages Partially or Totally Within 10 Miles of the Site .....................................................................................3-32 3-6 Populations Of Selected Municipalities, Counties, and States Within 50 Miles of the Site (1960-2000) ................................................................................3-33 3-7 Leading Agricultural Products in Cattaraugus County ........................................... 3-36 3-8 2002 Consumable Animal Population Estimates by Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack ..............................................................................3-36 3-9 2002 Crop Estimates in Acres by Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack .....................................................................................................3-37 3-10 Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution at 10 Meters .......................... 3-45 3-11 Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution at 60 Meters .......................... 3-46 3-12 Generalized Paleozoic Stratigraphic Section for Southwestern New York ........... 3-48 3-13 Summary of Erosion Rates Near the WVDP .........................................................3-53 3-14 Summary of Observed Faults on Seismic Lines WVN-1 and BER83-2A ............. 3-56 3-15 Historic Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Site ................................ 3-61 3-16 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Hard Rock (g's) ............................. 3-65 3-17 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g's) for the North Plateau ..... 3-65 3-18 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g's) for the South Plateau .... 3-65 3-19 WVDP Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Testing Summary Table ................................... 3-73 3-20 Distribution Coefficients ...........................................................................'. .............. 3-80 3-21 Total Porosity ..........................................................................................................3-82 3-22 2001 Natural Gas and Oil Production in Ashford, Cattaraugus, and Erie Counties, and the State of New York ..............................................................3-83 4-1 Scaling Factors for Spent Fuel Reprocessed ........................................................ .4-13 4-2 Batch 10 Sample Data ...........................................................................................4-14 Revision 2 xix

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 4-3 Relative Fractions of Process Building Dominant Radionuclides ........................ .4-15 4-4 Relative Fractions of Vitrification Facility Dominant Radionuclides ..................... .4-16 4-5 Estimated Process Building Residual Activity at Start of Decommissioning ........ .4-16 4-6 Estimated Total Activity in Representative Process Building Areas .................... .4-17 4-7 Measured Maximum Gamma Radiation Levels in Process Building Areas ......... .4-18 4-8 Estimated Total Activity in the Vitrification Facility ............................................... .4-19 4-9 Estimated Radioactivity in ttie Underground Waste Tanks .................................. .4-21 4-10 Estimated Radioactivity in the NOA ...................................................................... .4-23 4-11 Median and Maximum Background Concentrations for Environmental Media at the WVDP ............................................................................................... .4-27 4-12 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Subsurface Soil at WMA 1 ............................ :...........................................................................4-37 4-13 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil From WMA2 ...................................................................................................................4-37 4-14 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Sediment From WMA 2 .........................................................................................................4-38

  • 4-15 Above-Ba.ckground Concentrations of Radionudides in Subsurface Soil From WMA 2 .........................................................................................................4-40 4-16 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Sµrface Soil .

at WMA 3 ...................................... :......... :...............................................................4-41 4-17 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil From WMA 4 ..............................*........................ .4-41 4-18 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil at WMA 5 ............................................................ .4-43 4-19 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil at WMA 6 ....,. ....................................................... .4-44 4-20 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil, Sediment, and Subsurface Soil at WMA 7 ............................................................ .4-46 4-21 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil and Sediment at WMA 10 ..............................................................................................4-47 4-22 Above-Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Surface Soil and Sediment at WMA 12 .......................................................................................4-48 4-23 Environmental Radiation Levels on the WVDP Site (1998-2007 Data) ................ .4-52 4-24 Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/L) in Excess of Background in Surface Water .........................................................................................................4-57 Revision 2 xx

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 4-25 Routine Groundwater Monitoring Locations With Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/L) in Excess of Background ............................................................................4-59 4-26 Geoprobe Groundwater Monitoring Points With Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/L) in Excess of Background ............................................................................4-64 5-1 Measured Maximum Lavery Till Radionuclide Concentrations ................................ 5-7 5-2 Exposure Pathways fsir Surface Soil DCGL Development .................................... 5-23 5-3 Key Input Parameters for Surface Soil DCGL Development ................................. 5-23 5-4 Exposure Pathways for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development .............................. 5-29 5-5 Key Input Parameters for Subsurface Soil DCGL Development ........................... 5-30 5-6 Exposure Pathways for Stream bed Sediment DCGL Development... ................... 5-34 5-7 Key Input Parameters for Streambed Sediment DCGL Development .................. 5-37

  • 5-8 DCGLs For 25 mrem (pCi/g) ................................... :.............................................. 5-40 5-9 Summary of Parameter Sensitivity Analyses - Surface Soil DCGLs ..................... 5-44 5-10 Summary of Parameter Sensitivity Analyses - Subsurface Soil DCGLs ............... 5-47 5-11 Summary of Parameter Sensitivity Analyses - Streambed Sediment DCGLs ...... 5-49 5-11a Summary of Results of Probabilistic Uncertainty Analyses ................................... 5-51 5-11 b Exposure Pathways for Modified Subsurface Soil DCGL Model ... :............ :.......... 5-54 5-11 c Subsurface Soil DCGL Comparison ................................. *; ................................... 5-56 5-12 Limited Site-Wide Dose Assessment 1 Results (DLGLs in pCi/g) ......................... 5-59 5-13 Limited Site-Wide Dose Assessment 2 Results (DLGLs in pCi/g) ......................... 5-59 5-14 Cleanup Goals to be Used in Remediation in pCi/g ............................................... 5-62 6-1 Possible Benefits and Costs Related to Decommissioning ..................................... 6-7 7-1 Expected Facility and Area Conditions at the Beginning of Phase 1 ....................... 7-2 9-1 Surface Soil Cleanup Goal Area Factors .................................................................9-3 9-2 Subsurface Soil Cleanup Goal Area Factors ...........................................................9-3 9-3 Streambed Sediment Cleanup Goal Area Factors ................................................... 9-4 9-4 Radiological Field Instruments ...............................................................................9-11 9-5 Radionuclide Target Sensitivity For Laboratory Sample Analysis ......................... 9-12 9-6 Radiological Field Instruments for Facility Characterization .................................. 9-19 Revision 2 xxi

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES 9-7 Estimated Scanning Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDCs) of Radionuclides in Soil .... :........................................................................................9-21 9-8 Radiological Field Instruments for Phase 1 Final Status Survey ........................... 9-26 9-9 Scan Surveys for Different Area Classifications .....................................................9-27 9-10 Laboratory Methods .......................................................................................:.........9-31 A-1 NUREG-1757 Checklist- Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan Comparison ............... A-2 B-1 Summary of Comparisons of Radionuclide Data from Test Surface Soil Locations vs. SFGRVAL Background ..................................................................... B-4 B-2 Summary Information for Environmental Medium Background Calculations .......... B-9 B-3 Surface Soil Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ................ B-11 B-4 Sediment Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP .......... :.......... B-12 B-5 Subsurface Soil Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ........... B-13 B-6 Surface Water Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ............. B-14 B-7 Groundwater Background Radionuclide Concentrations for the WVDP ............... B-15 B-8 Background Environmental Radiation Levels the WVDP ...................................... B-16 B-9 Radionuclides in Surface Soil: Ratios to Cs-137.. .................................................*B-22

  • B-10 Radionuclides in Sediment: Ratios to Cs-137 ....................................................... B-23 B-11 Radionuclides in Subsurface Soil: Ratios to Cs-137 ............................................. B-25 B-12 Summary of Radionuclide Results from Routine Onsite Sediment Monitoring Locations .....................................................*......................................... B-27 B-13 Summary of Radionuclide Results from Routine Onsite Surface Water Monitoring Locations ................................. .' ........................................................... B-29 B-14 Summary of Radionuclide Results from Routine Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations ............................................................................................. B-33 B-15 Groundwater Monitoring Locations: Coordinates, Depth, Screened Interval, and Geologic Unit .................................................................................................. B-42 B-16 Location, Elevation, and Depth of Geoprobe Groundwater Sampling Points ..... B-45 B-17 Groundwater Points Excluded from the Evaluation .................................... ,.......... B-50 C-1 RES RAD Input Parameters ..................................................................................... C-4 C-2 Soil/Water Distribution Coefficients ....................................................................... C-12 C-3 Scenario Exposure Pathways for WVDP DCGL Development.. ............... :........... C-14 Revision 2 xxii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES C-4 Radionuclide Concentrations from Soil Samples Containing Lavery Till in the WMA 1 and WMA 2 Excavation Areas ........................................................ C-15 C-50 Summary of Surface Soil DCGL Sensitivity Analysis ............................................ C-34 C-84 Summary of Subsurface Soil DCGL Sensitivity Analysis ...................................... C-37 C-100 Summary of Sediment DCGL Sensitivity Analysis ................................................ C-40 C-117 Summary of Primary Dose Pathways .................................................................... C-42 D-1 North Plateau Near-Field Model Calibration for Head ........................................... D-13 D-2 Summary of Sand and Gravel Unit Flow Balance ................................................. D-13 D-3 Average Linear Velocity for Flow Path Originating at the Process Building .......... D-14 D-4 Summary of Sand and Gravel Unit Flow Balance After Phase 1 .......................... D-15 D-5 Average Linear Velocity for Flow Path Originating at the Process Building After Phase 1 ......*...... :............................................................................................ D-17 E-1 Input Parameter Distributions for Surface Soil Model (Other than Kct and Biotransfer Factor Values) .............................................................................. E-10 E-2 Input Parameter Distributions for Subsurface Soil Model (Other than Kct and Biotransfer Factor Values) .............................................................................. E-11 E-3 Input Parameter Distributions for Stream bed Sediment Model (Other than Kct and Biotransfer Factor Values) .............................................................................. E-12 E-4 Summary of Data on Kct Parameter (ml/g) for the 10 Elements of Interest ......... E-13 E-5 Lognormal Distribution Parameters for Kct Values from Literature ........................ E-14 E-6 Lognormal Distribution Used for Kct Uncertainty Analyses ................. ~ .................. E-15 E-7 Input Correlations for Probabilistic Evaluation ...................................................... E-16 E-8 Key Output Dose Statistics (DSRs) - Surface Soil Model (mrem/y per pCi/g) ..... E-18 E-9 Surface Soil DCGLw Values for 25 mrem in Peak Year in pCi/g .......................... E-19 E-10 Key Output Dose Statistics (DSRs) - Subsurface Soil Model (mrem/y per pCi/g) ................................................................................................. E-20 E-11 Subsurface Soil DCGLw Values for 25 mrem in Peak Year in pCi/g .................... E-21 E-12 Key Output Dose Statistics (DSRs)- Streambed Sediment Model (mrem/y per pCi/g) ................................................................................................. E-22 E-13 Streambed Sediment DCGLw Values for 25 mrem in Peak Year in pCi/g ............ E-23 E-14 Summary of Parameter Rankings - Surface Soil Model. ...................................... E-25 E-15 Summary of Parameter Rankings - Subsurface Soil Model. ................................ E-26 Revision 2 xxiii

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTENTS TABLES E-16 Summary of Parameter Rankings - Streambed Sediment Model ........................ E-28 Att-1 Estimated WMA 1 Doses from Observed Maximum Radionuclide Concentrations in the Lavery Till ........................................................................... E-49 Att-2 Estimated WMA 2 Doses from Observed Maximum Radionuclide

  • Concentrations in the Lavery Till ........................................................................... E-50 F-1 List of Buried Pipelines ............................................................................................F-2 F-2 Estimated Process Drain Line Activity in Curies ................................................... F-10 F-3 Estimated Waste Transfer Line Activity in Curies *****:*******************************************F-10 F-4 Estimated Cask Decon Line Activity in Curies .............. ;....................................... F-11 F-5 Estimated Wastewater Drain Line Activity in Curies ............................................. F-12 F-6 Estimated Total Residual Inventory in Lines Under the Process Building ............ F-12 F-7 Estimated Residual Inventory of Lines West of the Process Building in Curies ... F-14 F-8 Estimated Residual Inventory of Lines East of the Process Building in Curies .... F-15 Note that other tables appear in the Appendix C, Attachment 1 electronic files.

A single Table (C-48) is included in the Appendix C, Attachment 2 electronic files Additional tables are also included with the Appendix E electronic files.

Revision 2 xx iv

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NOTATION Acronyms and Abbreviations AEC U.S . Atomic Energy Commission ALARA as low as reasonably achievable ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CFR Code of Federal Regulations BH bore hole CG cleanup goal DCGL derived concentration guideline level DCGLw derived concentration guideline level , wide DCGLEMC derived concentration guideline level , elevated measurement concentration DCGLscan derived concentration guideline level , scan DOE Department of Energy DQO data quality objective DSR dose/source ratio E east EIS environmental impact statement EMC elevated measurement concentration EPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit FR Federal Register FUS RAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HLW high-level waste ICORS lnteragency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards K hydraulic conductivity Kl distribution coefficient KRS Kent recessional sequence LLW low-level waste LTR License Termination Rule LTS Lavery till sand MARSSIM Multi-Agency Rad iation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MDC minimum detectable concentration MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity N north Revision 2 xxv

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NOTATION ND not detected NOA NRC-Licensed Disposal Area NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NPR New Production Reactor NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NFS Nuclear Fuel Services , Inc.

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority PUREX plutonium uranium refining by extraction QA quality assurance QC quality control qtr quarter RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RES RAD Residual radioactivity [computer code]

RFI RCRA facil ity investigation S&G sand and gravel SAIC Science Applications International Corporation SB subsurface soil SD stream bank sediment SDA State-Licensed Disposal Area SP DES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SS surface soil THO REX thorium uranium extraction process TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter ULT unweathered Lavery till w west WLT weathered Lavery till WMA waste management area WSMS Washington Safety Management Solutions WVDP West Valley Demonstration Project WVES West Valley Environmental Services WVNSCO West Valley Nuclear Services Company Revision 2 xxvi

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NOTATION Units Ci curie cfm cubic feet per minute cm centimeter 2

cm centimeter squared 3

cm centimeter cubed cpm counts per minute

. dpm disintegrations per minute g gram [mass]

g acceleration due to gravity [in reference to accelerations]

h hour kg kilogram km kilometer L liter m meter

  • mCi millicurie millirem 0.001 Roentgen equivalent man ml milliliter mrem millirem mR milli Roentgen

µCi 0.000001 curie

µR micro Roentgen

µrem micro rem

µL 0.000001 liter pCi 10-12 curie R Roentgen rem Roentgen equivalent man s second y year Revision 2 xxvii

This page is intentionally blank.

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF THIS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The purpose of this part of the Decommissioning Plan is to provide readers a synopsis of the plan content.

INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION The following matters are addressed in the order given :

  • The requirements of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, the decommissioning requirements , and the decommissioning approach ;
  • The name and address of the licensee and site owner;
  • The location and address of the site;
  • A brief description of the site and immediate environs;
  • A summary of prior licensed activities and other activities involving radioactivity;
  • The nature and extent of radioactive contamination at the site;
  • The decommissioning objective;
  • Decommissioning controls ;
  • Derived concentration guideline levels and cleanup goals;
  • A summary of ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) evaluations performed and planned;
  • Planned initiation and completion dates for the decommissioning; and
  • A summary of post-remediation activities.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS This summary briefly describes the content of key parts of the plan.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared this plan pursuant to its statutory obligations for decontamination and decommissioning of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) under the WVDP Act of 1980, Public Law 96-368 , and to satisfy commitments made to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1981 and 2003 to prepare a decommissioning plan for the project and submit it to NRC for review.

This plan addresses Phase 1 of the two phases of the WVDP decommissioning . Phase 1

  • activities are expected to take eight to 10 years to complete. During th is eight to 10 year period, a number of activities will be conducted to help determ ine the best technical approach to complete decommissioning of the remaining facilities . These activities wi ll include further characterization of site contamination and additional scientific studies.

The approach for Phase 2 will be determined later after consideration of the results of the characterization and additional studies. The basis for this approach and the general context for the decommissioning are explained in the sidebar discussion on the next page.

Revision 2 ES-1

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The WVDP Act and the WVDP This decommissioning project is being conducted under the WVDP Act of 1980. The WVDP Act directed DOE to carry out the following activities: (1) solidify the high-level waste (HLW) at the site, (2) develop containers suitable for permanent disposal of the solidified HLW, (3) transport the waste to a federal repository for permanent disposal , (4) dispose of low-level radioactive waste and transuranic waste produced in the solidification of the HLW, and (5) decontaminate and decommission the tanks , facilities , materials, and hardware used in the proj ect in accordance with requirements prescribed by the NRC. The WVDP was initiated to allow DOE to carry out its responsibilities under the WVDP Act. Th is plan focuses on the fifth activity - decontamination and decommissioning.

Decommissioning Requirements The NRC has prescribed the requirements in its License Termination Rule in Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR Part 20 , Subpart E to WVDP facilities and as the decommissioning goal for the entire NRC-licensed site.

The Phased Decision-Making Approach The environmental impacts of the approach described in this plan are being analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship of the WVDP and Western New York Nuclear Service Center, hereafter referred to as the Decommissioning EIS. Decommissioning will not begin until the Record of Decision is issued .

The decommissioning is to be accomplished in two phases, with Phase 1 expected to begin in 2011 . This phased decision-making approach is the preferred alternative in the Decommissioning EIS. (If changes are made to the Decommissioning EIS during the course of the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this approach , such as changes to the preferred alternative, the approach will be revised as necessary to reflect those changes.)

Phase 1 of the decommissioning will entail removal of the Main Plant Process Building , the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility, and certain other facilities within the WVDP area , which is known as the project premises. These activities will clean up much of the project premises to standards that will not prejudice decisions on the approach for Phase 2, which will complete the decommissioning. The Phase 2 decision could be made "'.Vithin 10 years of the Record of Decision and Findings Statement documenting the Phase 1 decisions. Phase 2 actions will complete the decommissioning or long-term management decision-making following the approach determined most appropriate during the additional Phase 1 evaluations for each remaining facility.

The Phase 1 Decommissioning Scope The scope of this plan is limited to certain facilities on the north plateau area of the project premises and to removal of one major facility on the south plateau , the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell , a former rad ioactive waste storage area . This plan also provides for potential remediation of surface soil in selected areas of the project premises .

This plan does not address decommissioning of the underground waste storage tanks , the region of subsurface environmental contamination known as non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, or the two inactive radioactive waste disposal facilities on the south plateau, the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area and the State-Licensed Disposal Area , all of which will be considered in Phase 2 of the decommissioning .

Revision 2 ES-2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Site Owner and Site Location Although DOE will accomplish the decommissioning for the portion of the site used by the WVDP , the entire site remains under the ownership of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), who is the licensee. NYSERDA's main office is in Albany at the following address:

NYSE RDA 17 Columbia Circle Albany , New York 12203-6399 NYSERDA also maintains an office near the site with the following mailing address: .

10282 Rock Springs Road West Valley, New York 14171-9799 The site, which is known as the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (the Center), is located at the latter address in a rural area in Cattaraugus and Erie counties approximately 30 miles south of the city of Buffalo as shown in Figure ES-1 .

N l - ... ... . "

i Western !New York

/--) Nuclear Service Center (WNYINSC}

Boundary West Valley ___,

Demonstration Project (WVDP) Si~e Figure ES-1 . Location of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center Revision 2 ES-3

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Description of the Site and Immediate Environs The Center property comprises approximately 3,345 acres ranging in elevation from 1,000 to 1,800 feet above mean sea level. The area of the WVDP ranges from 1,300 to 1,445 feet above sea level. The undeveloped part of the Center remains a mixture of forest, wetlands, and abandoned farmland .

The following description of the site and its environs begins with the former 1irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and the WVDP facilities and then addresses the remainder of the Center property, known as the retained prem ises, and the surrounding area . The project premises are shown in Figures ES-1 and ES-2 . Note that residual radioactivity associated with the facilities is described later in th is summary under the heading "Nature and Extent of Contamination at the Site ."

= Removed or to be removed prior to Phase 1 i:;( = To be removed in Phase 1 LLWTF =Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility LSA =Lag Storage Addition NDA =NRG-Licensed Disposal Area RHWF = Remote-Handled Waste Facility SDA = State-Licensed Disposal Area Figure ES-2. The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 The Project Premises. At the approximate middle of the Center property lies the former nuclear fuel reprocessing plant operated by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. from 1966 through 1972. In 1982, control of a 156.4-acre parcel of land that included this facility and the NRC-1 Licensed Disposal Area was transferred to DOE for accomplishment of the WVDP .

Figure ES-2 shows part of the Center and the project premises as they appeared in 2006. On the right side of the photograph in Figure ES-2 , one can see the Vitrification 1

Control of two additional small parcels of land was transferred to DOE in 1986, bringing the total to approximately 167 acres. One parcel is located in the area of the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell.

The other is located on the retained premises , which is that portion of the 3,345 acres outside of the initial 156.4 acres for which control but not ownership was transferred to DOE for accomplishment of the WVDP.

The parcel on the retained premises is not within the scope of Phase 1 decommissioning activities.

Revision 2 ES-4

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Facility and the Process Building standing just behind the Waste Tank Farm where the underground waste tanks are located . Dotted lines delineate the approximate location of the perimeter of the project premises and the two streams on the project premises.

At the top of Figure ES-2 are the two shallow-land disposal sites for radioactive waste on the Center, the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area and the State-Licensed Disposal Area .

The State-Licensed Disposal Area , which is licensed and permitted by the State and controlled by NYSERDA, lies outside of the project premises .

The approximate locations of the courses of the three named streams in the vicinity -

Erdman Brook, Franks Creek, and Quarry Creek - are indicated in Figure ES-2. Erdman Brook divides the project premises into two areas known as the north plateau and the south plateau , with the Process Building standing on the north plateau .

When the Phase 1 decommissioning activities begin, the project premises will be in a condition known as the interim end state . The interim end state will be the condition of the project premises at the conclusion of the waste reduction and material removal campaign currently underway. As part of this work, DOE is partially decontaminating certa in facil ities and removing other unneeded ancillary buildings. Several buildings shown in Figure ES-2 have been removed since the photograph was taken. These and others to be removed in establishing the interim end state are identified in the figure , along with key structures to be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

Part of the site has been divided into 12 waste management areas for remediation purposes. Nine of the waste management areas are located on the project premises and one (Waste Management Area 12) is partially within the project premises, as shown in Figure ES-3. The facilities of interest are addressed below as they fall within a particular waste management area .

Waste Management Area 1, the Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area. The multi-story Process Building structure is approximately 130 feet by 270 feet in area and rises approximately 79 feet above ground at its highest point (not including the main stack).

Most of the structure is reinforced concrete . Parts of the building lie as much as 45 feet below ground .

Within the Process Building are a number of shielded cells where disassembly and chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuel took place. Various rooms housed supporting activities. Aisles provided equipment for remote operations in the shielded cells and access to various plant areas.

On the east side of the building stands the Fuel Receiving and Storage Area . This steel-framed , steel-sheathed structure contains two fuel pools. The floor of the deeper pool lies 45 feet below grade at its lowest point.

The Vitrification Facility, which was constructed by the WVDP, is attached to the north side of the Process Building. The Vitrification Facility is a structural steel frame and sheet metal building housing the reinforced concrete Vitrification Cell , operating aisles, and a control room . It is approximately 91 feet wide and 150 feet long with the peak of the roof standing approximately 50 feet high . The pit in the Vitrification Cell extends 14 feet below grade.

Revision 2 ES-5

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

/

i' * , N c \

A WMA12 .1 . ....

.i i \1'~

! \~

., , .**'° ./ \.Q.

_,,.,,.. ..... . ..."'/,. \~

..... \

j i

i i ...

)

)

(° /

r

\ i'

\ .,~---- ,

WMA =Waste Management Area Legend c:J Waste Management Areas Former Lagoon

[::J Building CJ Waterbodies r .. - -*- ... ,

[::J *C<>ncrete Foundation

- - Fence

-+- Rallspur

- ***- Slrums/ Stormwate1 Oralnagew*ys CJ Asphalt Road CJ Gravel Road/ Pad Figure ES-3. Waste Management Areas 1-10. (Part of WMA 12 is also shown . The State-

-Y' r :. 250 0

  • --.-*~--~~-~~!!1 50 O 50 100 150 200 Meters ~ .. )

~

. 1:000 Feel

~=:::::::=-=,~\

Licensed Disposal Area in WMA 8 is not with in the project premises or the scope of this plan.

WMA 11 is entirely outside of the project premises.)

Revision 2 ES-6

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The steel-framed, steel-sheathed Load-In/Load-Out Facility connects to the west side of the Process Building as does the concrete block Plant Office Building . The 60-foot tall concrete and steel frame 01-14 Building stands at the southwest corner of the Process Building.

On the south side is the concrete-block Utility Room , with an addition known as the Utility Room Expansion, and the Laundry, which will be removed before decommissioning begins. The Fire Pump House and a large water storage tank stand south of the Process Building and an electrical substation is located on the east side.

All of the Waste Management Area 1 facilities are within the scope of this plan .

Waste Management Area 2, the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. This facility ,

located east of the Process Building , includes five lagoons used to manage radioactive wastewater, including Lagoon 1, which was removed from service in 1984. It also includes the LLW2 Building that contains liquid waste treatment equipment, two in-ground concrete interceptor tanks , the small underground concrete Neutralization Pit, and underground pipelines connecting these facilities . All of these facilities are within the scope of this plan ,

along with several concrete slabs, the Maintenance Shop leach field , and the inactive Solvent Dike.

Waste Management Area 3, the Waste Tank Farm Area. Located just north of the Vitrification Facility, this area contains two 750,000-gallon carbon steel underground waste tanks , designated Tanks 80-1 and 80-2, and two 15,000-gallon stainless steel underground waste tanks, designated 80-3 and 80-4. These tanks are housed in concrete vaults, with Tanks 80-3 and 80-4 sharing a common vault. Only Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 were used to store HLW during reprocessing operations; Tank 80-1 was subsequently exposed to HLW during the WVDP . A tank and vault drying system will be used to promote evaporation of the remaining liquid in the tanks, all of which are expected to be completely dry by approximately 2015.

Also in this area are the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building and the Permanent Ventilation System Building , both built by the WVDP, several smaller structures, and the HLW transfer trench that contains piping that was used to transfer waste to the Vitrification Facility.

The following facilities in Waste Management Area 3 are within the scope of this plan :

the Equipment Shelter and the associated condensers, the Con-Ed Building , the HLW mobilization and transfer pumps in the underground waste tanks , and the piping and equipment within the HLW transfer trench .

Waste Management Area 4, the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Area .

This 10 acre area contains the 1.5 acre landfill, which was used to dispose of non-radioactive waste, and is located north of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Fa~ility. No facil (ties in this area are within the scope of Phase 1 of the decommissioning.

Revision 2 ES-7

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Waste Management Area 5, the Waste Storage Area. This area , which is located west of Waste Management Area 4, will contain two structures when the interim end state is reached , both of which are within the scope of this plan . One is Lag Storage Addition 4, a clear span, steel frame , metal sheathed building with an attached steel frame , metal sheathed shipping depot. The other is the Remote-Handled Waste Facility. This steel sided building contains concrete cells and rooms and is currently being used by the WVDP for processing and packaging high-activity radioactive waste. Several concrete floor slabs and gravel pads in this area are also within plan scope .

Waste Management Area 6, the Central Project Premises. This area is located west of the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area and south of the Process Building . Facilities in this area ,

all of which are within plan scope, are the Sewage Treatment Plant, the south Waste Tank Farm Test Tower, the equalization basin , the concrete equalization tank, and two demineralizer sludge ponds, along with several asphalt and gravel pads and the concrete Cooling Tower basin.

Waste Management Area 7, the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area. In this area lies the 400-foot by 600-foot radioactive waste burial ground , which is no longer used for radioactive waste disposal. Only remaining concrete and gravel pads in this area are within plan scope.

Waste Management Area 8, the State-Licensed Disposal Area. This radioactive waste disposal area covers approximately 15 acres. It is no longer used for radioactive waste disposal and is not within the scope of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities.

Waste Management Area 9, the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area. This area , which is located on the south plateau , contains one building , the Drum Cell, a former radioactive waste storage area identified in Figure ES-3. The Drum Cell has a concrete block foundation and concrete shield walls and is enclosed by a pre-engineered metal building 375 feet long , 60 feet wide , and 26 feet high . It is within the scope of this plan, as are several asphalt, concrete , and gravel pads.

Waste Management Area 10, the Support and Services Area. The remaining concrete slabs and gravel pads in this area are within the scope of this plan , as is the New Warehouse , which is located south of the Process Building . This area borders Rock Springs Road .

Waste Management Area 11, the Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area. This area is located on the retained premises south and east of the project premises. There are no facilities in this area with in the scope of this plan .

Waste Management Area 12, the Balance of the Site. Only the small portion of this area within the project premises is within plan scope and that only for characterization of soil and stream bed sediment and possible remediation of surface soi l.

Underground Piping and Equipment. Fifty-seven lines or portions of lines beneath the Process Building carried radioactive liquid, along with other lines near the Process Building Revision 2 ES-8

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and at the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. Three underground stainless steel wastewater tanks near the Process Building contain radioactivity. The three wastewater tanks are within the scope of this plan , as are the underground lines within Waste Management Area 1 and some of the underground lines within Waste Management Area 2.

Site Geomorphology. Streams in the area are at a relatively young stage of development and are characterized by steep profiles, V-shaped cross sections, and little or no flood plains. Erosion within the drainage basin has been dominated by slump block formation along the stream valley walls. Gullies tend to form along the stream banks during thaws and after heavy ra in.

Surface Hydrology. The WVDP watershed is drained by Quarry Creek, Franks Creek, and Erdman Brook. Most surface water runoff from the project premises funnels into a single stream channel at the confluence of Franks Creek and Erdman Brook located just inside the perimeter of the project premises east of the lagoons as shown in Figure ES-3.

These waters flow into Buttermilk Creek, wh ich runs through the retained prem ises east and north of the project premises . Buttermilk Creek enters Cattaraugus Creek at the north end of the Center; Cattaraugus Creek eventually flows into Lake Erie. Figure ES-1 shows both creeks.

Sµbsurface Conditions. Underlying the north plateau and the south plateau is more than 500 feet of Pleistocene-age glacial tills. From the surface downward, the following layers are encountered :

  • The surficial sand and gravel unit - with an average composition of 55 percent gravel , 20 percent sand , and 25 percent clay - with thickness ranging from 41 feet near the Process Building to a few feet near the northern , eastern, and southern margins of the north plateau. This unit is not present on the south plateau .
  • The Lavery till - a silty-clay glacial till that contains lenses of sand , silt, and clay-silt laminations, with an average composition of 50 percent clay , 30 percent silt, 10 percent sand , and 10 percent gravel - with thickness ranging from a few feet at its western margin to more than 130 feet near Buttermilk Creek. On the south plateau ,

the upper three to 16 feet is weathered , with fractures and root tubes , and is known as the weathered Lavery till. Below the north plateau and the weathered Lavery till on the south plateau, the unit is referred to as the unweathered Lavery till.

  • The Lavery till-sand unit - a lenticular-shaped silty, sandy layer - located on the north plateau immediately south of the Process Building . It is up to seven feet thick and lies within the upper 20 feet of the unweathered Lavery till.
  • The Kent recessional sequence - with both lacustrine and kame delta deposits -

underlies the Lavery till on both the north and south pl ateaus. It is 30 to 60 fe et thick in the WVDP area.

Revision 2 ES-9

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • Shale bedrock underlies the Lavery till and other geological units on both the north and south plateaus.

Groundwater Hydrology. The depth of groundwater in the sand and gravel unit on the north plateau ranges from the surface to 16 feet below the surface. The groundwater flows generally northeastward toward Franks Creek. Near the northwestern margin of the sand and gravel until, flow is toward Quarry Creek and , at the southeastern margin , toward Erdman Brook. Groundwater seeps to the surface in places along stream banks and the edges of the north plateau .

The Surrounding Area. The nearest incorporated village is Springville , 3.5 miles to the north of the WVDP. The hamlet of West Valley lies 3.4 miles to the southeast. The communities of Riceville and Ashford Hollow also lie within a five-mile radius of the site .

The closest major highway is U.S. Route 219 , located 2.6 miles to the west.

Population Distribution. A 2002 demographic survey showed 1,056 people living within a 3.1-mile rad ius of the WVDP . The nearest residence was 0.76 miles away. In 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 79,699 people lived in Cattaraugus County.

Summary of Licensed Activities Provisional Operating License Number CSF-1 was issued on April 19, 196~ by the U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission to Nuclear Fuel Services and the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority to operate a spent fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal facility at the Center. This Part 50 license provided possession limits for nuclear fuel of 21 ,000 kilograms (about 46,000 pounds) of U-235, 3,200 kilograms (about 7,055 pounds) of U-233, and 4,000 kilograms (about 8,800 pounds) of plutonium . Possession limits for unirradiated source material were 50 ,000 pounds of natural uranium , 100,000 pounds of uranium depleted in U-235, and 50 ,000 pounds of thorium . The license specified typical limits for radioactivity used for standards, measurements, and calibration purposes.

From 1966 to 1972, Nuclear Fuel Services reprocessed under this license more than 600 metric tons (600 ,000 kilograms or about 1,320,000 pounds) of spent nuclear fuel and generated approximately 600 ,000 gallons of liquid HLW as a result. Irrad iated nuclear fuel reprocessing operations ended in 1972. In 1976, Nuclear Fuel Services informed New York State that it intended to withdraw from the reprocessing business and not renew the lease for the property when the initial term expired at the end of 1980. In February of 1982, Nuclear Fuel Services transferred possession of the reprocessing facilities to DOE so DOE could carry out its 2

responsibilities under the WVDP Act.

Figure ES-4 shows the plant at the beginning of the WVDP .

2 While Nuclear Fuel Services transferred physical possession of the reprocessing facilities to DOE ,

NYSE RDA granted exclusive use and possession of the project premises to DOE to carry out the WVDP under the provisions of the WVDP Act.

Revision 2 ES-10

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure ES-4. The Plant During the Early Years (The lagoons appear in the foreground. The Process Building can be seen in the background.)

Fuel received for reprocessing came from the N-Reactor at the Atomic Energy Commission 's Hanford site and from nine commercial reactors . Reprocessing took place in the Process Building .

The first step in reprocessing entailed disassembling and sectioning the fuel. The pieces of fuel were dissolved in concentrated nitric acid . The resulting aqueous stream underwent a five-stage solvent extraction process. After further purification , the uranium and plutonium product solutions were concentrated , packaged, and eventually shipped off site . The process utilized is known as the PUREX process for Qlutonium granium refining by extraction .

Aqueous waste generated was reduced in volume by evaporation , neutralized , and stored in 750 ,000-gallon Tank 80-2 . The neutralization process caused most fission products (not including cesium) to precipitate out and form sludge on the tank bottom . The remaining radionuclides were retained in the supernatant liquid.

Fuel received included thorium-enriched uranium , which was reprocessed using the THOREX (thorium reduction extraction) process. The resulting 12,000 gallons of liquid HLW, which was not neutralized to avoid precipitating out the thorium , were stored in 15,000-gallon Tank 80-4.

The amounts of radioactivity in Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 at the completion of reprocessing , with fission and activation products decay-corrected to July 1987, were :

  • Tank 80-2 supernatant - approximately 14,000,000 curies , primarily from Cs-137, and Ba-137m ;
  • Tank 80-2 sludge - approximately 15,000,000 curies , primarily from Sr-90 and Y-90 ; and Revision 2 ES-11

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • Tank 8D approximately 2,000 ,000 curies , primarily from Sr-90 , Y-90 , Cs-137, and Ba-137m .

During initial plant operations, low-level wastewater from the Process Building was piped underground to an interceptor tank and then held in the lagoon system before being discharged into Erdman Brook. In 1971 , a new Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility (the 02 Building) entered service . Since that time , wastewater has been treated prior to discharge from the lagoon system ,

which can be seen in Figure ES-4.

During the 1970s, after the tenmination of irradiated fuel reprocessing , Nuclear Fuel Services decontaminated many of the Process Building cells and flushed many of the systems. On February 18, 1982, the facility was formally transferred to DOE for performance of the WVDP.

During plant operations , 30 amendments were made to License CSF-1 , most related to technical specifications. License amendment 31 was issued in September 1981 to transfer the project premises to DOE in accordance with the WVDP Act. Amendment 32 was issued in February 1982 to terminate the responsibility and authority of Nuclear Fuel Services. No further amendments have been made, with the license technical specifications effectively being held in abeyance until completion of the WVDP.

Summary of WVDP Activities To solidify the HLW, DOE built the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System and the Vitrification Facility.

The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System included (1) the Supernatant Treatment System that decontaminated HLW tank solutions by ion exchange, (2) the Liquid Waste Treatment System to concentrate Supernatant Treatment System liquid waste by evaporation , (3) the Cement Solidification System to solidify Liquid Waste Treatment System concentrates, and (4) the Drum Cell to store cement solidified waste . By 1995, the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System had produced 19,877 71-gallon drums of solidified waste , which were stored in the Drum Cell. These drums were later shipped offsite for disposal.

Tanks 8D-1 and 8D-2 were modified and used to support the HLW solidification process .

Supernatant Treatment System ion exchange columns were installed inside Tank 8D-1 .

The Vitrification Facility was used to stabilize HLW sludge , loaded ion exchange resin (zeolite), and acidic THOREX waste from Tank 8D-4 in a borosilicate glass contained in stainless steel canisters. A number of modifications were made to the former reprocessing facilities to accommodate the vitrification system and the related systems . Among these changes were removing equipment from the Chemical Process Cell , decontaminating it, and installing storage racks for the HLW canisters.

Solidification of the HLW was completed in September 2002. A total of 275 canisters of vitrified HLW were produced and placed in interim storage in the former Chemical Process Cell ,

now known as the HLW Interim Storage Facility. DOE has deactivated portions of the Process Building and several other site facilities . In 2009 deactivation work, which includes removal of Revision 2 ES-12

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN unneeded ancillary facilities , remained underway. Additional deactivation work to be completed before activities under this plan begin will result in conditions known as the interim end state.

Before much of the work to remove the Process Building is undertaken, the 275 vitrified IHLW canisters wrn be relocated to a new Canister Interim Storage Facility to be established on the south plateau. The canisters will remain there until a decisi on is made and implemented with regard to their final disposal.

Nature and Extent of Contamination at the Site Due to problems experienced during reprocessing operations, contamination of the site is extensive. Rad ionuclides include the fission products Sr-90 and Cs-137, along with uranium radionuclides and actinides such as Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241 , and Am-241 . Substantial contamination levels exist in many of the cells and rooms of the Process Building and some contam ination is present inside other facilities . Subsurface soil and groundwater contamination is widespread . Figure ES-5 shows key areas of interest that are discussed below. This figure identifies major sources to be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning and others to be considered in Phase 2 .

Figure ES-5 shows two major areas of environmental contamination at the site: the cesium prong and the north plateau groundwater plume. The cesium prong is a large area northwest of the Process Building where surface soil became contaminated with Cs-137 as a result of two 3

ventilation system filter failures in the Process Building in 1968 . The north plateau groundwater plume originated that same year when releases of radioactive acid leaked into soil under the southwest corner of the Process Building . Since that time , mobile radionuclides such as Sr-90 have gradually migrated more than 40 feet under the building and approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the building .

3 Note that the cesium prong area del ineated on the figure provides only an approximation of the region of surface soil impacted by the ventilation system filter failures . Data to determ ine the extent of the resulting soil contamination on the project premises are not available. Such data would be collected early in Phase 1 of the decommissioning to establ ish the extent of residual surface and near surface soil contamination in the impacted area within the project premises . Note that other Process Building main stack releases that occurred in 1968 may have contributed to the cesium prong .

Revision 2 ES-13

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMM ISSION ING PLAN Cesium Prong (Impacted Surface Soil, >25 mR/h in 1984 O or 8 North Plateau Ground-water Plume (10 pCi/L Gross p Isopleth in September 2007) 8 Contamination in Streambed Sediment

/

Lagoon 2 (Sediment Contamination Similar to Lagoon 1) O Figure ES-5. Important Sources of Contamination on the Project Premises (The O symbol denotes major sources to be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning while the 8 symbol denotes major sources to be considered in Phase 2. The estimates for total residual rad ioactivity are for 2011 .)

Revision 2 ES-14

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The following summary of radioactive contamination addresses the more significant contaminated facilities and areas and is organized by waste management area. DOE will perform additional characterization before Phase 1 begi ns or early during Phase 1. The estimates of residual radioactivity are as of 2011 , when Phase 1 is anticipated to start.

Waste Management Area 1, Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area.

  • The total residual radioactivity in the Process Building is expected to be approximately 6,200 curies , with Cs-137, Sr-90, and Pu-241 being the predominant 4

radionuclides .

  • The total res idual radioactivity in the Vitrification Facility is expected to be approximately 1,900 curies , with Cs-137 and Sr-90 being the predominant radionuclides .
  • The total residual radioactivity inside the vitrification off-gas line that runs within a concrete trench from the Vitrification Facility to the 01-14 Building is expected to be approximately 340 curies.
  • Underground wastewater Tank 70-13 is expected to contain up to 84 curies of residual radioactivity.
  • Some of the underground lines in the area are expected to contain significant residual radioactivity , with one HLW transfer line expected to contain approximately 0.4 curies per linear foot.
  • The subsurface soil and groundwater under the Process Building is expected to contain significant levels of residual contamination , from one or more releases of radioactivity that occurred during reprocessing that resulted in the impacted area known as the north plateau groundwater plume .

Waste Management Area 2, Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility

  • Lagoon 1, which has been deactivated, is expected to contain approximately 750 curies , predominately Cs-137 and Pu-241 , with most of this amount associated with sediment.
  • The sediment in Lagoon 2, some of which was pumped from Lagoon in 1984, is expected to contain a similar amount of residual radioactivity.
  • The other three lagoons are known to contain residual radioactivity in their sediment, with concentrations much lower than concentrations in Lagoons 1 and 2.
  • The water in all four active lagoons is expected to contain low levels of radioactivity ,

with the highest concentrations in Lagoon 2.

  • The interceptors and the Neutralization Pit are expected to contain low levels of contamination , with the highest levels in the Old Interceptor.

4 This estimate does not include radioactivity in the 275 vitrified HLW canisters temporarily stored inside the building , which are estimated to contain an average of approximately 30 ,000 curies each in 2011 .

Revision 2 ES-15

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • Subsurface soil and groundwater in much of this waste management area has been impacted by Sr-90 associated with the north plateau groundwater plume .
  • Surface soil near the interceptors contains low levels of contamination , particularly Cs-137 .

Waste Management Area 3, the Waste Tank Farm Area

  • The four underground waste tanks together are expected to contain approximately 345,000 curies of residual rad ioactivity.
  • The waste mobilization and transfer pumps , which will be removed during Phase 1, are expected to contain significant amounts of residual radioactivity , with gamma radiation levels around 50 R/h .
  • Some of the piping and equipment in the HLW transfer trench , which also will be removed during Phase 1, is also expected to be highly radioactive .
  • The Con-Ed Building and the Equipment Shelter and condensers , which will be removed during Phase 1, are expected to contain low levels of residual radioactivity ,

mostly inside equipment.

Waste Management Area 4, Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Area

  • Although the buried waste in the landfill was not radioactive when it was emplaced ,

some of it is now expected to be contaminated with low levels of Sr-90 from the north plateau groundwater plume.

  • Low levels of radioactivity are present in sediment in drainage ditches and in surface soil in this area .

Waste Management Area 5, Waste Storage Area

  • The Remote-Handled Waste Facility is expected to have low levels of residual radioactivity .
  • The other remaining facility - Lag Storage Addition 4 and the attached Shipping Depot - is expected to have little if any contamination above detection limits.
  • Low-level contamination , especially Cs-137 associated with the cesium prong , is expected in surface soil in much of the area.
  • Subsurface soil and groundwater in the eastern side of the area is known to have been impacted by the north plateau groundwater plume.

Waste Management Area 6, Central Project Premises. The soil in the two demineralizer sludge ponds is expected to contain low levels of radioactive contamination , as is the Cooling Tower basin , the remaining part of the Cooling Tower, which is being removed in establishing the interim end state.

Waste Management Area 7, the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area. The buried radioactive waste in this inactive waste disposal facility is expected to contain approximately 180,000 curies.

Revision 2 ES-16

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Waste Management Area 8, the State-Licensed Disposal Area. The buried radioactive waste in this inactive waste disposal facility is expected to contain approximately 83,000 curies. The State-Licensed Disposal Area is not within the scope of this plan, as noted previously.

Waste Management Area 9, the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area. The Drum Cell is expected to have little if any radioactive contamination above detection limits.

Waste Management Area 10, the Support and Services Area. No facilities in this area are expected to have been impacted by radioactivity.

Waste Management Area 12, Balance of the Site. Only the small part of this waste management area within the project premises security fence is within the scope of this plan .

The sediment in Erdman Brook and the portion of Franks Creek within the fenced area is expected to contain low levels of contamination , especially Cs-137.

The Decommissioning Objective The overall objective of Phase 1 of the decommissioning is to remove certain facilities and remediate portions of the project premises to criteria for unrestricted release in the License Termination Rule in 10 CFR 20 .1402, thereby fulfilling part of DOE's responsibilities under the WVDP Act for decontaminating and decommissioning the tanks, facilities , materials, and hardware used in the WVDP in accordance with requirements prescribed by the NRC. The Phase 1 decommissioning activities are intended to reduce short-term and long-term health and safety risks in a manner that will support any approach that could be selected for Phase 2 of the decommissioning, which will complete decontamination and decommissioning of the Center.

Consistent with the overa ll objective of Phase 1, surface soil in certain areas of the project premises may be remediated as necessary to ensure that residual radioactivity concentrations satisfy the cleanup goals discussed below. These areas will be identified after completion of the characterization program. They will undergo Phase 1 final status surveys to ensure that the cleanup goals have been achieved, along with any independent confirmatory surveys to be performed by NRC or its contractor.

The objective of the Phase 1 decommissioning is not license termination of any portion of the Center, which would be beyond DOE's purview since NYSERDA is the NRC licensee. However, the Phase 1 decommissioning activities are designed to support license termination for remediated portions of the project premises if license termination for all or part of the Center were to become an objective for Phase 2 of the decommissioning~

Decommissioning Controls The decommissioning will be accomplished by a contractor employed by DOE. DOE will provide appropriate oversight. The decommissioning organization will be structured to ensure that certain functions - radiological controls, health and safety, and quality assurance - are independent of the organizational elements performing the work.

The decommissioning will be accomplished in accordance with applicable DOE and NRC requirements, and in accordance with applicable requirements of other federal agencies and the Revision 2 ES-17

WVDP PHASE 1 DE.COMMISSIONING PLAN State of New York. However, given DOE's authority under the WVDP Act and , and considering that the Department is not the NRC licensee for the site, certain aspects of the decommissioning will b.e controlled in accordance with DOE procedures, i.e. , DOE regulations , directives, and technical standards. These aspects are:

  • Project management and organization ,
  • Radiological safety controls and monitoring of workers,
  • Environmental monitoring and control , and
  • Radioactive waste management.

DCGLs and Cleanup Goals To support Phase 1 decommissioning activities and later decisions for Phase 2 of the decommissioning, derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) were developed for surface soil , subsurface soil in the deep WMA 1 and WMA 2 excavations , and stream bed sediment using the RESRAD RESidual RADioactivity computer Code, Version 6.4 and other models . To ensure that the conceptual models initially used in DCGL development were sufficiently conservative, a number of alternative conceptual models were also analyzed. These included evaluation of potential doses to offsite receptors from radioactivity displaced by erosion.

One alternative conceptual model for subsurface soil DCGL development involved consideration of continuing releases of residual radioactivity from the bottom of the remediated deep excavations, as well as radioactivity brought to the surface during installation of a cistern type well. This multi-source conceptual model proved to be more limiting than other conceptual models for most radionudides of interest.

Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify mode.I input parameters with the most i n~ uence on dose . In addition, a probabilistic uncertainty analysis was performed using RESRAD Version 6.4 to help ensure that key model input parameters were sufficiently conservative.

Table ES-1 provides the calculated DCGLs for 18 radionuclides of interest for surface soil ,

subsurface soil , and streambed sediment. These DCGLs, which take into account the results of the alternate conceptual model analyses and the probabilistic uncertainty analysis, assure that the dose to the average member of the critical group will not exceed 25 millirem per year when considering the dose contribution from each radionuclide individually.5 5

The DCGLs for Sr-90 and Cs-137 apply to the year 2041 and later, that is, they incorporate a 30-year decay period from 2011 . The 30-year decay period was selected for these key rad ionuclides because of their short half-life . As noted previously, the Phase 2 decision could be made within 10 years of issue of the Record of Decision and Findings Statement documenting the Phase 1 decision . If this approach were to involve unrestricted release of the site, achieving this condition would be expected to take more than 20 years due to the large scope of effort to exhume the underground waste tanks and the NOA. It is therefore highly unlikely that conditions for unrestricted release of the project premises could be established before 2041 . If Phase 2 were to involve closing radioactive facilities in place, then institutional controls would remain in place after 2041 . DOE will be responsible for maintaining institutional control of the project premises and providing for monitoring and maintenance of the project premises until completion of Phase 2 of the decommissioning.

Revision 2 ES-18

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table ES-1. DCGLw Values For 25 Millirem per Year (pCi/g)(1J Nuclide Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Streambed Sediment Am-241 2.9E+01 6.3E+03 1.0E+04 C-14 1.6E+01 9.9E+02 1.8E+03 Cm-243 3.5E+01 1.1E+03 3. 1E+03 Cm-244 6.5E+01 2.2E+04 3.8E+04 2

Cs-137( ) 1.5E+01 3.0E+02 1.0E-h03 1-129 3.3E-01 7.5E+OO 7.9E+02 Np-237 2.6E-01 1.0E+OO 3.2E+02 Pu-238 4.0E+01 1.3E+04 1.2E+04 Pu-239 2.5E+01 3.1E+03 1.2E+04 Pu-240 2.6E+01 3.4E+03 1.2E+04 Pu-241 1.2E+03 2.4E+05 3.4E+05 Sr-90(2 ) 4.1E+OO 2.8E+02 4.7E+03 Tc-99 2.1E+01 5.9E+02 6.6E+05 U-232 1.5E+OO 7.4E+01 2.2E+02 U-233 8.3E+OO 1.9E+02 2.2E+04 U-234 8.4E+OO 2.0E+02 2.2E+04 U-235 3.5E+OO 2.1E+02 2.3E+03 U-238 9.8E+OO 2.1E+02 8.2E+03 NOTES: (1) The DCGLw is the DCGL applicable to the average concentration over a survey unit.

(2) DCGLs for Sr-90 and Cs-137 apply to the year 2041 and later.

Phase 1 decommissioning activities will involve removal of subsurface soil in the bottom and sides of the large excavation for removal of the Waste Management Area 1 facilities and the large excavation in Waste Management Area 2 for removal of Lagoon 1, Lagoon 2, Lagoon 3, the interceptors, and the Neutralization Pit. Phase 1 decommissioning activities may include remediation of surface soil in selected areas, as discussed previously .

The DCGLs in Table ES-1 were developed considering the separate areas of interest and the critical group for exposure to rad ioactivity in surface soil and subsurface soil is different from the critical group for exposure to radioactivity in streambed sediment. In consideration of this situation , and because only limited portions of the project premises will be remediated during Phase 1 of the decommissioning , two assessments were performed that involved apportioning doses from different portions of the remediated project premises to ensure that DCGLs used for remediation in Phase 1 of the decommissioning will not limit Phase 2 options.

Considering the results of these assessments, and the results of the ALARA analysis discussed below, DOE has established the following cleanup goals, which are lower than the Revision 2 ES-19

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN DCGLs, to ensure that remediation accomplished during Phase 1 of the decommissioning will support any approach that might be used during Phase 2 of the decommissioning.

Table ES-2. Cleanup Goals to be Used in Remediation in pCilg(1>

4 Nuclide Surface Soi1<3 > Subsurface Soi1< > Streambed Sediment Am-241 2.6E+-01 2.8E+03 1.0E+03 C-14 1.5E+01 4.5E+02 1.8E+02 Cm-243 3.1E+01 5.0E+02 3.1E+02 Cm-244 5.8E+01 9.9E+03 3.8E+03 Cs-13i 2> 1.4E+01 1.4E+02 1.0E+02 1-129 2.9E-01 3.4E+OO 7.9E+01 Np-237 2.3E-01 4.5E-01 3.2E+01 Pu-238 3.6E+01 5.9E+03 1.2E+03 Pu-239 2.3E+01 1.4E+03 1.2E+03 Pu-240 2.4E+01 1.5E+03 1.2E+03 Pu-241 1.0E+03 1.1E+05 3.4E+04 Sr-90<2> 3.7E+OO 1.3E+02 4.7E+02 Tc-99 1.9E+01 2.7E+02 6.6E+04 U-232 1AE+OO 3.3E+01 2.2E+01 U-233 7.5E+OO 8.6E+01 2.2E+03 U-234 7.6E+OO 9.0E+01 2.2E+03 U-235 3.1E+OO 9.5E+01 2.3E+02 U-238 8.9E+OO 9.5E+01 8.2E+02 NOTES: (1) These cleanup goals, which ; like the DCGLw values in Table ES-1 , apply to the average concentration over a survey unit, are to be used as the criteria for the Phase 1 remediation activities.

(2) Cleanup goals for Sr-90 and Cs-137 apply to the year 2041 and later. That is, they incorporate a 30-year decay period from 2011 . The 30-year decay period was selected for these key radionuclides because of their short half-life. License termination actions that may take place in Phase 2 of the decommissioning will not likely be fully implemented before 2041 .

(3) The surface soil cleanup goals apply to the upper one meter (3.3 feet) of surface soil.

(4) The subsurface soil cleanup goals apply only to the bottoms of the large WMA 1 and WMA 2 excavations and to the sides of these excavations one meter (3.3 feet) or more below the surface.

Since these cleanup goals were developed for individual radionuclides of interest, a sum-of-fractions approach based on radionuclide distributions in different areas will be used to ensure that potential doses from the remediated areas will be no more than the dose from one of the individual radionuclides at the concentration specified in Table ES-2 .

Although the subsurface soil cleanup goals in Table ES-2 form the criteria for residual radioactivity in the two large excavations, remediation plans involve excavation at least one foot into the Lavery till and, in Waste Management Area 2, at least one foot below the sediment in the bottoms of Lagoons 2 and 3. This approach is expected to produce residual radioactivity levels Revision 2 ES-20

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN well below the cleanup goals, based on limited existing data on residual radioactive contamination in the Lavery till. A preliminary, order-of-magnitude dose analysis using these data suggests that potential futures doses from these excavated areas will be approximately eight millirem per year for Waste Management Area 1 and approximately 0.2 millirem per year for Waste Management Area 2.

After additional characterization data become available, the DCGLs and the cleanup goals will be reevaluated using these data and refined as appropriate. After the Phase 1 decommissioning activities have been completed , another dose analysis using Phase 1 final status survey data will be performed to estimate the potential doses from the remediated subsurface areas.

Summary of ALARA Evaluations DOE has performed a preliminary cost-benefit analysis using NRC methodology to determine whether removal of soil or sediment with radioactivity concentrations below the DCGLs will be consistent with the ALARA principal. These analyses compared the cost of disposal of additional soil or sediment with the reduction in radiation exposure associated with removal of additional soil or sediment below the DCGLs valued at $2000 per person-rem as set forth in NRC guidance.

They indicate that removal of soil or sediment with radioactivity concentrations below the DCGLs will not be cost-effective.

DOE will perform another similar analysis when the subsurface soil remediation work is in progress (and when surface soil and streambed sediment remediation is in progress, if that work is done in Phase 1) to confirm the results of the preliminary ALARA evaluation . This second ,

more-detailed analysis will use updated information and consider other factors such as other societal and socioeconomic considerations and costs related to transportation of additional waste.

Th is second analysis will also consider the impacts of using lower discount rates on the estimated cost of remediation so that intergenerational concerns are taken into account.

Initiation and Completion Dates Subject to the decision in the Record of Decision for the Decommissioning EIS, expected to be issued in early 2010 , DOE will begin Phase 1 of the decommissioning in 2011 and it is expected to last approximately eight to 1.0 years.

Post-Remediation Activities The post remediation activities fall into fv.'.o categories: (1) a monitoring and maintenance program and (2) an institutional control program , both of which focus on the project premises.

The monitoring and maintenance program will continue until Phase 2 of the decommissioning .

starts, when it will be reevaluated . It will include an environmental monitoring program ta ilored to conditions that will exist at the conclusion of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities. This program will monitor onsite groundwater, storm water, and air, along with onsite and offsite surface water, sediment, and radiation. Groundwater monitoring will be accomplished using approximately 36 monitoring wells .

Revision 2 ES-21

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The monitoring and maintenance program will also ensure that important facilities and systems serye their intended purposes. Facilities and systems within the scope of this program include:

  • The subsurface hydraulic barrier wall and French drain to be installed during Phase 1 on the north and east sides of the excavation for removal of the Waste Management Area 1 facilities ,
  • The subsurface hydraulic barrier wall to be installed during Phase 1 on the northwest and northeast sides of the excavation for removal of key Waste Management Area 2 facilities ,
  • The tank and vault drying system for the underground waste tanks that is to be installed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning,
  • The dewatering well used to minimize in-leakage into the underground waste tank vaults ,
  • The hydraulic barrier wall and geomembrane cover for the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area ,

and

  • The security features and monitoring systems installed for the new Canister Interim Storage Facility to be established on the south plateau.

Performance of the hydraulic barrier walls will be assessed with hydraulic monitoring piezometers.

Insofar as institutional controls are concerned , DOE will continue control of the project premises and provide for monitoring and maintenance of the project premises until completion of DOE's Phase 2 decommissioning requirements . Institutional controls will include security fences and signs along the perimeter of the project premises, a full-time security force , provisions for controlled access through designated gateways, and appropriate security measures for the new Canister Interim Storage Facility on the south plateau, which will be established during Phase 1 of the decommissioning. DOE will be responsible for institutional controls for the new Canister Interim Storage Facility until the HLW canisters are shipped offsite.

Revision 2 ES-22

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION The purpose of this section is to provide introductory information to help readers understand this plan, which is particularly complex for several reasons.

INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION This section explains the purpose of this plan and describes its scope. It briefly summarizes the background related to the decommissioning .

It then discusses the two environmental impact statements that pertain to the decommissioning, along with the decommissioning criteria. It briefly describes four programs pertaining to the decommissioning that will be carried out in accordance with Department of Energy directives and technical standards: (1) project management and organization, (2) the health and safety program, (3) the environmental monitoring and control program , and (4) the radioactive waste management program.

It describes the interim end state for the site that will be reached at the conclusion of deactivation work scheduled to end in 2011, which will form the starting conditions for the Phase 1 decommissioning work. It then briefly summarizes the Phase 1 decommissioning work.

Finally, this introduction briefly describes the responsibilities of the organizations involved, explains how the plan is organized, and describes the process to be used to control changes to the plan after initial issue .

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS The information in this section establishes the context for the other parts of this plan.

1.1 Purpose This plan is being issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to fulfill part of its statutory obligations under Public Law 96-368, the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act of 1980, which holds DOE responsible for decontamination and decommissioning of facilities used in solidification of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and 1

material and hardware used in connection with this project.

The decommissioning is being accomplished in two phases following a "phased decision-making" approach . This plan addresses Phase 1, describing :

( 1) The activities that will take place during this phase of the decommissioning ;

1 The WVDP Act states that "The Secretary [of Energy] shall decontaminate and decommission (A) the tanks and other facilities of the Center in which the high level waste solidified under the project was stored , (B) the facilities used in the solidification of the waste, and (C) any material and hardware used in connection with the project, in accordance with such requirements that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may prescribe."

Revision 2 1-1

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (2) The site conditions that will exist at the conclusion of Phase 1; and (3) The methods that will be used to organize and manage the project, to protect the health and safety of workers and the public, to protect the environment, and to ensure quality in the decommissioning work.

Phase 2 of the decommissioning will be accomplished using an approach determined to be the most appropriate after completion of additional Phase 1 studies and evaluations for remaining facilities .

Th is plan also provides information to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the first of the two phases of the WVDP decommissioning , consistent with the related 1981 Memorandum of Understanding betweer:i DOE and NRC (DOE and NRC 1981 ), wh ich calls for DOE to submit a decommissioning plan to NRC for review. On February 3, 2003, NRC specifically requested that DOE submit a decommissioning plan for the WVDP portion of the site (NRC 2003a). DOE agreed to do so in its response of February 28, 2003 (DOE 2003a).

1.2 Scope Under the provisions of the WVDP Act, DOE exercises control over a portion of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (the Center) for the purpose of carrying out the WVDP . The Center is owned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) , who is the NRC licensee.

The area controlled by DOE comprises approximately 168 acres, lies in the approximate middle of the Center, and contains the facilities used by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) from 1966 through 1972 to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. This area is known as the project premises.

A small stream divides the project premises into two regions known as the north plateau and the south plateau . The facilities used by NFS are located on the north plateau , with the exception of two shallow land radioactive waste disposal facilities known as the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (NOA) and the State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) 2 , which are located on the south plateau.

The facilities of interest in Phase 1 of the decommissioning are located on the north plateau , with one exception : the WVDP Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell on the south plateau , which was used for radioactive waste storage. Phase 1 of the WVDP decommissioning will entail removal of the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell and all of the north plateau facilities with the exceptions of the Waste Tank Farm with its four underground waste storage tanks , the Waste Tank Farm supporting facil ities, and the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill.

Phase 1 activities include remediation of the "source area" portion of the impacted area known as the north plateau groundwater plume, where groundwater and subsurface soil is 2

The SDA, wh ich is not part of the project premises, is managed by NYSERDA, licensed by the New York State Department of Health, and permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

Revision 2 1-2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN contaminated with radioactivity from spent fuel reprocessing . The source area lies underneath the Main Plant Process Building (Process Building). The non-source area of the plume, which is downgradient of the building , will be considered during Phase 2 of the decommissioning .

Phase 1 includes removal of impacted soil in excavations dug to remove the facilities in the Process Building and Vitrification area and in a portion of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility area . Phase 1 also includes characterization of soil and stream sediment within the project premises , especially in the Phase 1 areas.3 Phase 2, which this plan does not address, would complete the decommissioning for the Waste Tank Farm , the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill area , the NOA, the non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, and the other remaining impacted areas of the project premises . Phase 2 actions will complete the decommissioning according to the approach determined most appropriate during the additional Phase 1 evaluations for each remaining facility, as previously noted. The studies to be performed during Phase 1 are curre111tly being evaluated by DOE and NYSERDA, the joint lead agencies developing the Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissionjng and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center (the Decommissioning EIS, which is discussed in Section 1.4.2). Such studies could include :

  • Characterization studies, which would include sampling of surface soil, subsurface soil, and stream sediments along with characterization of selected underground piping that would be exposed during other removal activities; and
  • Data collection and studies, such as monitoring and evaluating technology developments regarding disposal facilities for orphan waste , underground waste tank cleaning and exhumation , along with research related to long-term performance of engineered barriers and work to enhance site erosion and hydrology models and exhuming buried radioactive waste.

DOE and NYSERDA will evaluate and consider several factors during Phase 1, including:

  • The results of analyses to estimate the impacts of residual radioactivity that will remain after compl etion of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities;
  • The additional information developed in the studies to be carried out in Phase 1; and
  • The availability of new technologies that might be appli ed in Phase 2.

3 The project prem ises is the portion of the site controlled by DOE as shown in Figure 1-1 . The Phase 1 areas are those within the scope of this plan . The Phase 2 areas are the Waste Tank Farm area , the Construction and Demol ition Debris Landfi ll , the non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, and the NDA.

Although the Waste Tank Farm area is considered to be a Phase 2 area , limited work will be performed in this area during Phase 1, as shown in Table 1-1. Characterization of soil and sediment in the Phase 2 source areas will be limited and will not include the NDA.

Revision 2 1-3

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Tihe evaluations will take into account the status of the underground waste tanks and tl'Je two waste disposal areas, which will be reviewed at approximateJy five-year intervals, along wi th the various decommissioning or long-term management approaches. Tthe final decision on the Phase 2 decommissioning and long-t erm management approach could be made within 10 y ears of the date of issue of the Phase 1 IRecorC!l of Decisi on.

These studies and evaluations are beyond the scope of this plan , except for the soil and sediment characterization within the project premises to be accomplished early in Phase 1, which is discussed in Section 1.10.2.

The Phase 1 activities are designed to be conservative with respect to the extent of remediation in the areas of interest to avoid prejudicing the decision on the Phase 2 approach . More information on the facilities within the scope of this Phase 1 plan appears in Section 1.10.2.

While this plan provides for removal of certain radioactive facilities and remediation of surface and subsurface soil on portions of the project premises, it does not address license termination of any portion of the site. Licensing matters are not within DOE 's purview since DOE is neither the licensee nor the property owner. However, the work accomplished under this plan will result in data that can potentially be used by NYSERDA in support of license termination for portions of the Center.

This plan focuses primarily on radioactivity. Hazardous and toxic materials are addressed in some instances and activities specified in this plan will be in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, closure of facilities under the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is being addressed separately in coordination with appropriate state and federal agencies and is not within the scope of this plan .

The approach described in this plan represents DOE's preferred alternative among those alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York 4

Nuclear Service Center, hereafter referred to as the Decommissioning EIS. Under this alternative, the decommissioning will be performed in two phases, as indicated above.

The organization and content of this plan are based on NRC guidance in Volume 1 of NUREG-1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees (NRC 2006) and agreements made between NRC and DOE on the applicability of this guidance to the Phase 1 plan (NRC 2008). This plan will be supplemented by more detailed plans for demolition of major facilities that will be completed prior to the start of the decommissioning .

4 When this plan was completed , the Decommissioning EIS existed in the form of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center. If changes are made to the Decommissioning EIS during the course of the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this plan ,

such as changes to the preferred alternative , this plan will be revised as necessary to reflect those changes .

Revision 2 1-4

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The Unique Nature of the Phase 1 Decommissioning Among the atypical elements of this Agency that is the NRC licensee ; and (4) decommissioning are (1) the radiological the purpose of the Phase 1 complexity of the site; (2) the project being decommissioning work being limited to carried out under the WVDP Act; (3) the removing certain facil ities and remed iating project being carried out by a department impacted soil in certain areas, rather than of the federal government when the terminating the NRC license.

property is owned by a New York State 1.3 Background Situated approximately 30 miles south of Buffalo on 3,345 acres of property owned by the State of New York, the Center is the location of the only NRC-licensed commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to operate in the United States. NFS reprocessed irradiated nuclear fuel to recover uranium and plutonium until 1972. Figure 1-1 shows a portion of the Center and the WVDP as they appeared in 2006.

The reprocessing operations produced approximately 600 ,000 gallons of HLW, which were stored in two underground waste tanks. These operations were conducted under License CSF-1 , which was issued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1966. After 5

NFS withdrew from the reprocessing business, NYSERDA became the sole licensee.

Reprocessing work resulted in extensive radioactive contamination of site facilities ,

especially the Process Building where the chemical processes that separated uranium and plutonium from fission products in the spent fuel were carried out. The Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility - which included five lagoons - also became contaminated with licensed radioactivity.

Environmental contamination also resulted from site operations. !he contaminated areas of most significance are known today as the north plateau groundwater plume and the cesium prong . The approximate lateral extent of both impacted areas is shown in Figure 1-1.s The north plateau groundwater plume impacts a subsurface area of more than 15 acres under and northeast of the Process Building . This contamination likely resulted from multiple leaks of nitric acid solution containing licensed radioactive material that occurred during fuel reprocessing . Groundwater movement has carried mobile radionuclides such as strontium 90 5

In 1976, NFS informe<l New York State that it intended to withdraw from the reprocessing business and not renew the lease for the property when the initial term expired at the end of 1980. In February of 1982, NFS transferred possession of the reprocessing facil ities to DOE so DOE could carry out its responsibilities under the WVDP Act.

6 Note that the cesium prong area delineated on the figure provides only an approxi mation of the region of su rface soil impacted by th e ventilation system filter fai lure. Data to determine the extent of the resu lting soil contam ination on the project premises are not available. Such data wi ll be collected early in Phase 1 of the decomm issioning to establish the extent of residual surface and near surface soil contamination in the impacted area within the project premises .

Revision 2 1-5

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the Process Building. Contamination beneath the Process Building is known to extend at least 40 feet below the ground .

Figure 1-1. The Former Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant and the WVDP in 2006 The cesium prong is an impacted area that extends northwest of the Process Building as a result of at least two ventilation system accidents that occurred in 1968. A series of investigations that included aerial monitoring surveys has shown that cesium 137 released from the Process Building main stack contaminated surface soil in the northwest part of the Center and offsite .

Streams in the vicinity of the project premises were also impacted with radioactivity from regulated discharges of treated wastewater, surface water runoff, and contaminated groundwater that seeps to the surface at several points on the project premises .

There are also other places on the Center where environmental media have been impacted by unplanned releases of radioactivity . These include low levels of contamination in a drainage channel near a sewage outfall that resulted from a 1974 underground sewer line fa ilure and low levels of contamination in drainage ditches resulting from a 1985 spill of radioactive condensate in the area of the underground waste tanks. Low levels of rad ioactive contamination have also been identified in surface and subsurface soil in other areas.

Revision 2 1-6

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN In 1980, Congress enacted the WVDP Act to establish the WVDP as a research and development project to demonstrate solidification techniques for HLW. The WVDP Act assigned the primary responsibility for the project to DOE, although it did not authorize the federal government to acquire title to the HLW.7 Since 1981 , portions of NYSERDA's NRC Part 50 license for the Center, including the technical specifications, have been effectively suspended by NRC to facilitate execution of the provisions of the WVDP Act.

In 2002 , DOE completed solidification of the HLW using a vitrification process. The solidified HLW is contained within 275 stainless steel canisters that are presently stored in the Process Building . This material will have to remain on site until disposition decisions are made and implemented, which is one factor in DOE's decision to pursue a two-phase decommissioning approach .

DOE in recent years has been partially decontaminating portions of the Process Building and other facilities and removing unneeded ancillary facilities in preparation for the WVDP decommissioning. This effort is expected to culminate in 2011 , achieving site conditions known as the interim end state, which are described in Section 1.10.1.

The amounts of residual radioactivity at the site are now substantially less than when the facility was shutdown in 1972 owing to radioactive decay and NFS and WVDP decontamination efforts. However, a significant amount of radioactivity will remain on site when the Phase 1 decommissioning activities are scheduled to begin in 2011 . The estimated amounts in key areas in 2011 , exclusive of radioactivity in the HLW waste canisters, include:

  • The Process Building , approximately 6200 curies;
  • The Vitrification Facility, approximately 1900 curies;
  • Lagoon 1, approximately 750 curies ;
  • The four underground waste tanks, approximately 345,000 curies;
  • The NOA, approximately, 180,000 curies ; and
  • The SDA, approximately, 83,000 curies.

The Process Building , the Vitrification Facility, and the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility lagoons are addressed in Phase 1 of the decommissioning , as explained below. The other facilities - commonly referred to, along with the radioactivity in the non-source area of the north plateau groundwater plume, as Phase 2 sources - will be addressed in Phase 2 of the decommissioning.

7 The WVDP Act states in pertinent part: "The Secretary [of DOE] shall carry out, in accordance with this Act, a high level radioactive waste demonstration project at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York , for the purpose of demonstrating solidification techniques which can be used for preparing high level radioactive waste for disposal. . .. The State will make available to the Secretary the facilities of the Center and the high level radioactive waste at the Center which are necessary for completion of the project.

The facil ities and the waste shall be made available without transfer of title and for such period as may be required for completion of the project. "

Revision 2 1-7

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1.4 Environmental Impact Statements In 1996, DOE prepared a Draft EIS covering the remain ing actions to be completed under the WVDP Act and evaluating different alternatives for closure and long-term stewardship of the facilities at the Center. Based upon comments received , ongoing discussions between DOE and NYSERDA, and various other factors , DOE decided not to move forward with the 1996 Draft EIS in its immediate form . Instead , DOE decided to revise its strategy to address the remaining activities required under the WVDP Act in two phases (and two EISs) - the first covering short-term , offsite waste disposal activities and the second covering longer-term closure and stewardship activities.

1.4.1 Waste Management EIS The Final West Va lley Demonstrati on Project Waste Management EIS (DOE 2003b) on short-term , offsite waste disposal activities was issued by DOE on January 12, 2004. It addresses, as DOE's preferred alternative :

  • Continued onsite management of HLW until disposition decisions are made and I implemented ,
  • Shipping low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed (radioactive and hazardous)

LLW offsite for disposal ,

  • Shipping transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad , New Mexico, and
  • Actively managing the underground waste tanks , including ventilating them to minimize moisture and associated corrosion .

The Waste Management EIS Record of Decision was issued in the Federal Register on June 16, 2005 (70 FR 115). It partially implemented the preferred alternative, deferring the decision on transuranic waste shipment pending a determination that this waste meets all statutory and regulatory requirements for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

1.4.2 Decommissioning EIS The Decommissioning EIS addresses DOE's remaining activities under the WVDP Act, any waste management activities that could arise as a result of decommissioning activities, and activities related to decommissioning or long-term stewardship of the balance of the Center. DOE and NYSERDA are jointly preparing this EIS .

The Decommissioning EIS also evaluates potential management and disposition actions for those facilities and areas, including the SDA, for which NYSERDA is responsible . The NRC is participating in the Decommissioning EIS as a cooperating agency, as are the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NYSDEC, and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). A Notice of Intent to prepare the Decommissioning EIS appeared in the Federal Register on March 13, 2003 (68 FR 49) .

Revision 2 1-8

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN As noted previously, the decommissioning approach described in this plan is DOE's preferred alternative in the Decommissioning EIS. If changes to that document occur during the National Environmental Policy Act process that affect this plan, such as changes to the preferred alternative, this plan will be revised as necessary to reflect the changes. The activities under the Decommissioning Plan will begin only after issuance of the Decommissioning EIS Record of Decision.

1.5 Decommissioning Criteria Under the authority of the WVDP Act, the NRC in 2002 issued its Final Policy Statement on the decommissioning criteria for the WVDP (67 FR 22) specifying the application of its License Termination Rule (10 CFR 20, Subpart E) to the decommissioning . This policy statement indicated that the final end-state may involve a long-term or even perpetual license for parts of the site where cleanup to License Termination Rule requirements would be prohibitively expensive or technically impractical. The policy statement also indicated that closure of the underground waste tanks (if the tanks were to be closed in place) must meet specified criteria for incidental waste as set forth in NRC's Final Policy Statement.

The criteria of the License Termination Rule are being applied to the decommissioning of: (1) underground waste tanks and other facilities in which HLW, solidified under the project, was stored; (2) facilities used in the solidification of the waste ; and (3) any material and hardware used in connection with the WVDP.

Requirements in 10 CFR 20.1402 address license termination without restrictions .

Requirements in 10 CFR 20.1403 address license termination under restricted conditions.

The unrestricted release criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 state that a site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a total effective dose equivalent to an average member of the critical group that does not exceed 25 mrem per year, including that from groundwater sources of drinking water, and the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Determination of the levels which are ALARA must take into 9ccount consideration of any detriments, such as deaths from transportation accidents, expected to potentially result from decontamination and waste disposal.

The restricted release criteria of 10 CFR 20.1403 involve addressing matters such as the following:

  • That residual radioactivity levels are ALARA;
  • Provisions for legally enforceable institutional controls that provide reasonable assurance that the total effective dose equivalent to the average member of the critical group will not exceed 25 mrem per year;
  • Financial assurance ;
  • Considering the advice of individuals and institutions in the community who may be affected by the decommissioning or planned institutional controls ; and Revision 2 1-9

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • That residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if the institutional controls were no longer in effect, there is reasonable assurance that the total effective dose equivalent from residual radioactivity to the average member of the critical group is ALARA and would not exceed either (1) 100 mrem per year or (2) 500 mrem per year provided certain conditions are met.

In 2003, NRC issued an Implementation Plan for its Final Policy Statement on the Decommissioning Criteria for the WVDP (NRC 2003b).

Although Phase 1 of the WVDP decommissioning will not resul t in license termination under either restricted or unrestricted cond itions, this plan does include derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) and associated cleanup goals to be used for remediation of surface and subsurface soil in the excavated areas on the project premises 8

described previously that are based on the unrestricted release criteria of 10 CFR 20 .1402.

The cleanup goals take into account the results of a limited , site-wide integrated dose assessment. This assessment was performed to ensure that cond itions in the excavations for the Process Building-Vitrification Facility and Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility lagoon areas at the conclusion of Phase 1 will not limit potential approaches that may be considered for Phase 2 of the decommissioning .

1.6 Project Management and Organization The project will be managed in accordance with DOE requirements in a manner similar to deactivation work currently underway at the WVDP . Necessary tasks will be defined and scheduled . Appropriate schedules will be used for this purpose , such as a long-range schedule, short-range schedules, and plans-of-the-week. NRC will be provided copies of these schedules for information .

Implementing plans will be prepared as necessary in support of the work. Examples of these plans include:

  • A Health and Safety Plan to implement requirements outlined in Section 1.7;
  • Decommissioning Work Plans for demolition of major facilities , which are discussed in Section 7;
  • A Quality Assurance Project Plan , which is described in Section 8;
  • A Characterization Sample and Analysis Plan , which is described in Section 9,
  • A Waste Management Plan to implement requirements outlined in Section 1.9; and
  • A Final Status Survey Plan , which is also described in Section 9.

NRC will be provided copies of these plans for information .

8 The DCGLs and cleanup goals for Sr-90 and Cs-137 incorporate a 30-year decay period from 2011 . That is ,

achieving res idual radioactivity levels less than the cleanup goals for these radionu clides will ensure that dose criteria of 10 CFR 20 .1402 will be met in 2041 and any time thereafter, around the time when the vitrified HLW canisters were expected to be shipped to the federal geolog ic repository when Revision 0 to this plan was issued. The year for shipping the vitrified HLW canisters offsite is uncertain until disposition decisions are made and implemented; however, shipment is not expected to take place before 2041 .

Revision 2 1-10

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Detailed engineering designs for the decommissioning will be developed based on the conceptual designs outlined in this plan . Detailed design information on the folloWing engineered features will be provided to NRC to provide an opportunity for NRC to review and comment on the safety aspects of the designs: the *designs for the large excavations in WMA 1 and WMA 2, including the !hydraulic barriers, the French drain , the groundwater control provisions, and the groundwater monitoring system as discussed in Section 7 and Appendix D.

DOE will also provide information on the detailed design of the 111ew Canister Interim Storage Facility to NRC and consult w ith NRC on the related documented safety a111alysis.

Written procedures will be prepared as necessary to support the project activities. Work packages would be used for individual procedures or groups of procedures. After completion of work activities, the work packages would be formally closed out to ensure that all required work was accomplished .

Radiological work permits will be prepared as necessary and approved by the Rad iological Control Manager or his or her designee in accordance with applicable DOE procedures. Persons working in areas covered by radiological work permits will be briefed before starting work in accordance with DOE procedures.

Training of project personnel will be commensurate with their experience, their responsibilities and the potential hazards to which they could be exposed . Records will be maintained showing the employee's name, training date , type of training received and other relevant information. This training will include, as applicable:

  • General Employee Training , which will consist of a general orientation on site requirements and policies;
  • Radiation worker training , with formal written and practical examinations to certify that the individuals are qualified as radiation workers ;
  • Radiological control technician training , also with formal written and practical examinations to certify individual qualification ;
  • Job-specific training , which will be performed as appropriate for individual jobs; and
  • Pre-shift briefings, which will be conducted as appropriate at the beginning of each work shift.

DOE will employ a contractor to accomplish the Phase 1 decommissioning activities 9 . The decommissioning contractor organization will provide the necessary functions to this end, such as operations, engineering , radiological controls, health and safety, quality assurance, and tra ining.

The decommissioning contractor senior executive will be responsible to the Director of the WVDP for carrying out the decommissioning work in accordance with applicable DOE requ irements and guidance as specified in the contract. The requirements will include this plan and all of its provisions , such as those associated with the health and safety program ,

9 DOE may employ more than one contractor.

Revision 2 1-11

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN environmental monitoring and control, and radioactive waste management as specified in the subsections that follow. Additional contractual provisions may also be invoked by DOE, such as compliance with DOE-STD-1107-97, Knowledge; Skills, and Abilities for Key Radiation Protection Positions at DOE Facilities , and with DOE Order 5480.20A, Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for Nuclear Facilities .

1.7 Health and Safety Program The health and safety program for Phase 1 of the decommissioning will be based on DOE procedures. This approach is consistent with DOE's authority and responsibilities to protect human health and safety under applicable laws and the provisions of the WVDP Act.

The DOE procedures that address radiological safety controls during decomm issioning appear in the form of regulations , directives (orders, policies; guides, and manuals), and supplemental technical standards , and in contract conditions with its site or decommissioning contractors. DOE and its decommissioning contractor will follow these procedures for radiation safety controls and monitoring for workers during Phase 1 of the decommissioning ,

along with other applicable requirements and guidance.

Among the applicable DOE procedures is a policy statement that expresses the Department's position to ensure that radiation exposures to its workers and the public and releases of radioactivity to the environment are maintained below regulatory limits, and that deliberate efforts are taken to further reduce exposures and releases to ALARA. This statement appears in DOE Policy 441.1 .

Applicable requirements include the following :

  • 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection
  • DOE Policy 450.4, Safety Management System Policy
  • DOE Order 420.1 B, Facility Safety
  • DOE Order 430 .1 B, Real Property Asset Management
  • DOE Order 5400 .5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment
  • DOE Manual 231 .1-1 A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting Manual The Department's supplementc:il technical standards associated with these requirements will also be followed.

1.8 Environmental Monitoring and Control DOE has maintained an extensive environmental monitoring and control program at the site since 1982 to satisfy the environmental monitoring requirements of federal and state laws and regulations and of DOE Orders and technical standards , and to comply with environmental permits that have been issued to the WVDP by NYSDEC and the EPA.

Annual environmental monitoring reports (WVES and URS 2008) describe the results of this program .

Revision 2 1-12

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The environmental monitoring and control program that will be implemented during Phase 1 of the decommissioning will be based on the program currently in place at the WVDP. It will continue to comply with federal and state laws, federal and state environmental permits , DOE Orders and technical standards , and other applicable requirements and guidance under which the WVDP operates, which are consistent with the applicable NRC requirements of 10 CFR 20 .

Three major elements of th is program are : (1) the ALARA evaluation program , (2) the effluent monitoring program , and (3) the effluent control program . The program will be modified as necessary during decommissioning to ensure comp liance with applicable requirements . As noted in Section 1.7, it is DOE policy to ensure that releases of radioactivity to the environment are maintained below regulatory limits, and that deliberate efforts are taken to further reduce releases to ALARA (DOE Policy 441 .1).

The decommissioning environmental program will meet the following monitoring and 9ontrol requirements :

  • Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended
  • Clean Water Act of 1977
  • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
  • Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951)
  • Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961)
  • Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements (58 FR 150)
  • Executive Order 13101 , Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition (63 FR 179)
  • Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management (65 FR 81)
  • 40 CFR 61 , National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
  • 40 CFR 141 , National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
  • 40 CFR 143, National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
  • DOE Manual 231 .1-1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting Manual
  • DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance
  • DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management
  • DOE Order 440.1B, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal Employees
  • DOE Order 450 .1, Environmental Protection Program Revision 2 1-13

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • DOE Order 451 .1 B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program
  • DOE Order 5400 .5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment DOE and the decommissioning contractor will also comply with applicable DOE technical standards, active site environmental permits , and active administrative orders of consent associated with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Note that information specified in NUREG-17 48, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC 2003c) , that is normally provided in decommissioning plans, can be found in Section 3 of this plan , in the Decommissioning EIS, or both .

1.9 Radioactive Waste Management The radioactive waste management program for Phase 1 of the decommissioning will also be based on DOE procedures, consistent with the provisions of the WVDP Act. The WVDP Act states that DOE shall , in accordance with applicable license requirements, dispose of LLW and transuranic waste produced by the solidification of the HLW under the 10 project.

The DOE procedures that address waste management appear in the form of requirements contained in the Code of Federal Regulations , in DOE Orders, and in guidance contained in supplemental technical standards . DOE and its decommissioning contractor will follow these procedures for management of radioactive waste during Phase 1 of the decommissioning , along with other applicable requirements and guidance.

The principal requirements for management of DOE radioactive waste appear in DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. This order applies to HLW, transuranic waste ,

and LLW, and to the radioactive component of mixed waste. Additional detailed requirements appear in DOE Manual 435.1-1 , Radioactive Waste Management Manual. Detailed guidance for implementation of these requirements is given in DOE Guide 435.1, Implementation Guide for Use with DOE M 435. 1.

Other applicable requirements include the following :

  • DOE Order 414.1 C, Quality Assurance
  • DOE Order 460 .1B, Packaging and Transportation Safety The Phase 1 decommissioning waste management activities will also be consistent with applicable federal laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as 10 The WVDP Act also states that DOE "shall , as soon as feasible , transport in accordance with applicable provisions of law, the waste solidified at the Center [the vitrified HLW canisters] to an appropriate Federal repos itory for permanent disposal." This activity will take place in Phase 2 of the decomm issioning once disposition decisions related to the HLW are made and implemented.

Revision 2 1-14

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended , and with applicable permits and consent orders. These activities will also be consistent with other applicable DOE guidance, such as that contained in DOE Guide 460 .1-1, Implementation Guide for Use with DOE Order 460. 1A.

All radioactive waste produced during the decommissioning will be disposed of offsite at appropriate government-owned or commercial facil ities. In some cases , waste produced will be temporarily stored onsite for later shipment. Note that at the time th is plan was completed ,

there was no approved disposal path for transuranic waste that will be generated during Phase 1 of the decommissioning . Transuranic waste generated will therefore be temporarily stored onsite until such time that it can be shipped to an approved disposal facil ity.

1.10 Planned End States Before and After Phase 1 Site deactivation activities will produce conditions known as the interim end state that will be the conditions in effect at the start of the Phase 1 decommissioning work.

1.10.1 The Interim End State The map of the project premises shown in Figure 1-2 depicts the facilities that will still be in place at the start of Phase 1 decommissioning activities . It shows the waste management areas (WMAs) into which the project premises has been divided for remediation purposes. It also shows the two large excavations for removal of facilities in WMA 1 and WMA 2 during the Phase 1 decommissioning work, as explained in Section 1.10.2 below.

The deactivation activities required to achieve the interim end state will include removal of other ancillary facilities not shown in Figure 1-2. Certain facilities will be partially decontaminated to facilitate demolition during Phase 1 without the use of radiological containment. Section 3 of this plan describes the facilities in detail.

Revision 2 1-15

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN JG!SJA1cM ""1-10 ~ h'!t

/

I N

  • ,,.. I I

/ ,-;<)

~

{'

\

\ "'

\

I A

~~

WMA12 Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Excavation

/

I WMA12 L@gend c:::J v.sae~ntN*s D WI/Of' . . _

CJ Coler.............. - S<*....

~ Gnl...._ ...

0 1,000 Feet LJ ........ Rood Figure 1-2. The Project Premises Showing WMAs and the Phase 1 Excavations Revision 2 1-16

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WMA1 The partially decontaminated facilities in WMA 1 are the Process Building , the Vitrification Facility, and the 01-14 Building . The other facilities that will remain within WMA 1 when the interim end state is reached are the Utility Room, the Utility Room Expansion, the Plant Office Building , the Load-in/Load-out Facility, the Electrical Substation , the Fire Pumphouse , and the Water Storage Tank. Figure 1-3 shows these facilities , along with the Laundry Room , which will be removed in achieving the interim end state .11 Figure 1-3. WMA 1 Area in 2007 WMA2 The facilities that will remain in WMA 2, the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility area ,

when the interim end state is reached include the five lagoons, with Lagoon 1 having been backfilled in 1984; the LLW2 Facility; the two New Interceptors; the Old Interceptor; the Neutralization Pit; the inactive Solvent Dike, the pilot permeable treatment wall; and the Maintenance Shop Leach Field. Concrete floor slabs and foundations for removed facilities such as the Maintenance Shop will also remain in place. Figure 1-4 shows this area .

One additional facility will be installed in WMA 2 as part of the work to achieve the interim end state: a full-scale permeable treatment wall to control the leading edge of the north plateau groundwater plume.

11 The Electrical Substation , which is located beh ind the Process Building, cannot be seen in the photograph .

Revision 2 1-17

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 1-4. WMA 2 in 2007 WMA3 In WMA 3, the four underground waste tanks will remain in place, along with the Permanent Ventilation System Building , the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building , the Equipment Shelter and condensers , the Con-Ed Building , and the HLW transfer 12 trench . The tank drying system used to dry up liquid in the waste tanks may be operational .

The tank mobilization and transfer pumps and their support structures will remain in place .

OtherWMAs The closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill will remain in WMA 4. A full-scale passive permeable treatment wall is expected to be installed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning to mitigate the off-site migration of Sr-90 contaminated groundwater in the sand and gravel unit in the north plateau. It is expected to be composed of granular zeolite to reduce Sr-90 concentrations in groundwater through ion-exchange and be located in WMA 2 immediately south of the Construction Demolition and Debris Landfill in WMA 4.

Two buildings will remain in WMA 5, Lag Storage Addition 4 and its associated shipping depot and the Remote-Handled Waste Facility. Two structures will remain in WMA 6 along with the Equalization Basin, the Equalization Tank, and the two demineralizer sludge ponds.

The Old Sewage Treatment Plant will have been completely removed .

12 The tank and vault drying system may be operational when Phase 1 of the decomm issioning begins , but

  • some liquid is expected to still be present in the tanks at that time.

Revision 2 1-18

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The NOA will remain in place in WMA 7, with the Interim Waste Storage Area removed and a new geomembrane cover and upgradient hydraulic barrier wall installed to control infiltration . The Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell will remain in place in WMA 9. The New Warehouse, the Meteorological Tower, and the Security Gatehouse will remain in place in WMA 10, along with the security fence that surrounds the project premises.

1.10.2 Facilities and Areas Within Phase 1 Scope Table 1-1 lists the facilities that are within the scope of Phase 1 of the decommissioning.

These facilities are described in Section 3 of this plan. Figures 1-5 and 1-6 show their locations on the project premises . Remediation of surface soil and sediment on the project premises will be accomplished as indicated in the table.

The new Canister Interim Storage Facility for the vitrified HLW canisters will be constructed on the south plateau near the rail spur early in Phase 1 and the canisters moved 13 to this location. The HLW canisters will be stored at this facility inside shielded canisters .

The soil and sediment characterization program described in Section 9 will be accomplished to better define the nature and extent of radioactive contamination in soil and stream sediment on the project premises. However, removal of contaminated soil excess of the cleanup goals will be limited to the areas of the major excavations in WMA 1 and WMA 2 unless DOE elects to provide for additional surface soil remediation after evaluation of the characterization data .

Before the large excavations for removal of the Process Building and the Low-Level 14 Waste Treatment Facility shown in Figure 1-2 are filled in, Phase 1 final status surveys of the excavated areas will be performed and arrangements made for regulator confirmatory surveys. The same process will be used for excavations associated with removal of concrete floor slabs, foundations, and gravel pads, which will be up to two feet deep.

Mitigative measures will be taken as described in Section 7 to eliminate or reduce potential impacts to human health and the environment during the decommissioning work and to prevent recontamination of remediated areas.

13 Section 7 of this plan describes the general conceptual design of the new Canister Interim Storage Facility, which may be changed somewhat as the design is finalized .

14 These surveys will be performed following guidance in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) (NRC 2000) and the provisions of NUREG-1575, Volume 2 (NRC 2006).

Revision 2 1-19

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1

Table 1-1. Facilities and Areas Within Phase 1 Decommissioning Scope< l WMA Facility or Area to be Removed or Remediated Remarks 1 Process Building The HLW canisters will be moved to a new Canister Utility Room Interim Storage Facility located on the south plateau .

Utility Room Expansion All listed facilities will be rerl)oved along with the source Plant Office Building area of the north plateau groundwater plume. A single Vitrification Facility large excavation will be dug for this purpose. A vertical 01-14 Building hydraulic barrier wall will be installed on the north and east sides of the excavation as shown in Figure 1-2.

Load-in/Load-out Facility The soil in the excavated area will be removed to cleanup Fire Pumphouse goals for unrestricted release.

Water Storage Tank The vertical hydraulic barrier wall installed on the north Electrical Substation and east side of the excavation will remain in place. The Off-Gas Trench south and west hydraulic barrier walls (sheet pilings) will Underground piping and wastewater tanks (3) be removed after the excavation is backfilled.

Other remaining concrete slabs Source area of North Plateau Groundwater Plume 2 Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Building A single excavation will be made to remove Lagoons 1, 2, Lagoons 1 - 5 and 3, the Interceptors, the Neutralization Pit, and the New Interceptors (2) Solvent Dike. Underlying soil and sediment in this excavation will be removed to cleanup goals that support Old Interceptor unrestricted release.

Neutralization Pit The vertical hydraulic barrier wall shown in Figure 1-2 will Solvent Dike remain in place.

Maintenance Shop Leach Field Remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations 3 Mobilization and Transfer Pumps The support structures for the mobilization and transfer Piping and equipment in HLW Transfer Trench pumps will.be removed as well as the pumps themselves .

Con-Ed Building Equipment Shelter and Condensers 5 Lag Storage Addition 4 and Shipping Depot Remote-Handled Waste Facility Remaining concrete floor slabs, hardstands, and gravel pads 6 Sewage Treatment Plant The rail spur will remain operational.

South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower Remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations Asphalt, concrete, and gravel pads(2l Equalization Basin Equalization Tank Demineralizer Sludge Ponds (2)

Cooling Tower basin 7 NOA hardstand g Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Trench soil container area, other pads 10 New Warehouse Former Waste Management Storage Area Remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations Surface soil and sediment within the project premises To be remediated only in the Process Building-Vitrification Facility and Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility excavation areas. Surface soil in other selected areas may also be remediated in Phase 1.

NOTES: (1) See Section 3 of this plan for facility descriptions. (2) Including the LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area .

Revision 2 1-20

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Parlcing let 100 0 100 200 300 *OO Fttt LEGEND c::::J Facilities ~ttln the scope or Phase 1of the decommissioring c::J Faciities not wthin Phase 1 scope CSS =Cemeril Solidiicalion System LSA =Lag Storage Addiion LSB =Lag Storage Building UW2: LLW2 Building PVS: Permanent Verdilalion System Blilding STS : ~ematant Tre!tment System Buidilg TSB =Test Md S1omge Bwdi'lg UR =Ubity Room Figure 1-5. Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning , North Plateau Revision 2 1-21

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Disposal A1rea (N OA)

LEGEND

.c :J Facilities within the scope of Phase 1 of the dec::omrrissioniog c::J Facllities not Within Phase 1 scope Figure 1-6. Facilities Within the Scope of Phase 1 of the Decommissioning, South Plateau Revision 2 1-22

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 1-7 shows the expected appearance of the project premises in the interim end state , when Phase 1 decommissioning activities will begin .

Figure 1-7. The WVDP in the Interim End State Figure 1-8 shows the planned general appearance of the project premises after completion of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities. The interim storage area for the HLW canisters will be located on the south plateau near the rail spur. Note th at surface soil, subsurface soil, and stream sediment contam ination will remain in some areas after Phase 1.

Figure 1-8. The WVDP After Completion of Phase 1 1.11 Organizational Responsibilities Because the WVDP decommissioning is being carried out under the authority of the WVDP Act, organizational responsib ilities are different from decommissioning of a typical Revision 2 1-23

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NRC-licensed site. The organizational responsibilities prescribed by the WVDP Act for decontamination and decommissioning of the WVDP are summarized below.

1.11 .1 DOE The Act directed the DOE to carry out the following activities: (1) Solidify the HLW, (2) develop containers suitable for permanent disposal of the solidified HLW waste , (3) transport the waste to a federal repository for permanent disposal , (4) dispose of LLW and transuranic waste produced in the solidification of the HLW, and (5) decontaminate and decommission the tanks , facil ities , materials, and hardware used in the project in accordance with requirements prescribed by the NRC .

The Act also directed DOE to enter into a cooperative agreement with the State for the State to make available to DOE the facilities and HLW necessary to carry out the project, without transfer of title , with DOE providing technical assistance in securing required license amendments. The Act directed DOE to enter into an agreement with the NRC for review and consultation on the project by NRC and to afford NRC access to the site to monitor activities under the project for the purposes of health and safety. Both of these agreements were formalized in 1981 (DOE and NYSERDA 1981 , DOE and NR_C 1981).

The Act further directed DOE to consult with the EPA in carrying out the project. Under the WVDP Act, DOE is responsible for the activities outlined above and for determining the manner in which facilities , materials, and hardware for which DOE is responsible are managed or decommissioned , in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements.

To this end , DOE will determine what, if . any, material or structures for which DOE is responsible will remain on site and what, if any, institutional controls , engineered barriers, or stewardship provisions will be needed .

The Act also set up a cost sharing arrangement for the WVDP , with DOE paying 90 percent of the total project costs and the State paying 10 percent of these costs .

DOE is responsible as noted previously for certain matters associated with the decommissioning: (1) project management and the decommissioning organization , (2) safety and health , (3) waste management, and (4) environmental protection.

1.11.2 NRC The WVDP Act gave NRC the authority to prescribe requirements for decontamination and decommissioning and to review and consult with DOE , not to include formal procedures or actions pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act or any other law. It also gave NRC monitoring responsibilities for the purpose of assuring public health and safety. Pursuant to these responsibilities , NRC will issue public reports during decommissioning to document its position with respect to DOE compliance with NRC decommissioning criteria . The WVDP Act does not give NRC licensing authority over DOE.

Consistent with its role in the project, NRC submitted requests for additional information in connection with its review of Revision O and Revision 1 of this plan. DOE evaluated these Revision 2 1-24

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN requests for additio111 al information , provided written responses to NRC, and has ~ ncorporated the related changes 'in Revision 2 to this plan.

NRC is also a cooperating agency in development of the Decommissioning EIS , as mentioned previously.

1.11.3 NYSERDA As explained in the NRC Implementation Plan (NRC 2003b), NYSERDA will determine the manner in which facilities and property for which NYSERDA is responsible are managed and decommissioned , in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements . To this end , NYSERDA will determine what, if any, material or structures for which it is responsible will remain on the site and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship provisions will be needed.

The NRC Implementation Plan also indicates that if NYSERDA decides to terminate the license after DOE completes decommissioning activities for the project facilities , NYSERDA will be required to submit a decommissioning plan . As noted previously, NYSERDA is jointly preparing the Decommissioning EIS with DOE .

1.12 Organization of this Plan The organization and content of this plan are generally consistent with Volume 1 of NUREG-1757 (NRC 2006). Differences are described in Appendix A, which consists of an annotated version of the decommissioning plan evaluation checkl ist found in Appendix D to NUREG-1757 , Volume 1 (DOE 2006). NRC has concurred with certain topics not being applicable to this decommissioning as shown in the Appendix A checklist (NRC 2008).

The contents of the plan are described in the Table of Contents. To aid readability, certain details appear in appendices.

1.13 Control of Changes DOE plans to treat this plan as a "living document, rev1s1ng it when circumstances warrant. DOE may issue revisions to make significant changes that could affect the project end conditions. Such revisions will be provided to NRC for review and comment prior to issue. After NRC comments are incorporated or otherwise formally resolved , DOE will issue the revised plan .

DOE may make changes to the plan that could not affect the project end conditions without providing them to NRC for review and comment. DOE will informally consult with NRC on such changes prior to issue to ensure that NRC concurs that the changes could not affect project end conditions. NRC will be provided copies of such changes when they are issued . Examples of such changes could include:

  • A change to reflect actual conditions of a particular facility at the end of deactivation wo rk planned fo r the 2008 - 2011 period ,
  • A change in decontamination methods, or Revision 2 1-25

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • A change to include information on additional ALARA analyses performed after decommissioning activities began that did not result in a change to the decommissioning approach.

As indicated previously, DOE may elect to remediate surface soil in certain areas of the project premises during Phase 1 after evaluation of characterization data. DOE would n otify NRC in advance of such remedi ation, but no change to the Decomm issioning P~ an w ould be required for this activity.

1.14 References Federal Statutes Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended.

Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) of 1977.

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended .

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended .

West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Public Law 96-368 (S. 2443), of October 1, 1980 (and related legislative history).

Code of Federal Regulations and Federal Register Notices 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation 10 CFR 20 , Subpart E., Radiological Criteria For License Termination (LTR) .

10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management.

10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection 29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection.

40 CFR 61 , National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

40 CFR 141, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations .

. 40 CFR 143, National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.

42 FR 26951 , Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. Federal Register, May 24, 1977.

42 FR 26961 , Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands . Federal Register, May 24, 1977.

58 FR 150 , Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. Federal Register, August 6, 1993.

63 FR 179, Executive Order 13101 , Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition. Federal Register, September 16, 1998.

Revision 2 1-26

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 65 FR 81, Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management. Federal Register, April 26, 2000 .

67 FR 22 , Decommissioning Criteria for the West Valley Demonstration Project (M-32) at the West Valley Site; Final Policy Statement. Federal Register, February 1, 2002.

68 FR 49, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Decommission-ing and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center. Federal Register, March 13, 2003 .

70 FR 115, West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. Federal Register, June 16, 2005.

DOE Orders, Policies, Manuals, Standards, and Guides DOE Order 414.1C, Change 1, Quality Assurance. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington ,

D.C. , June 17, 2005.

DOE Order 420 .1B, Facility Safety. U.S. Department of Energy, Wash ington , D.C.,

December 22 , 2005.

DOE Order 430 .1B, Real Property Asset Management. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., February 8, 2008 .

DOE Order 435.1, Change 1, Radioactive Waste Management. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., August 28, 2001.

DOE Order 440 .1B, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor Employees. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. , May 17, 2007.

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., January 15, 2003.

DOE Order 451 .1B, Change 1, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program. U.S.

Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 28, 2001 .

DOE Order 460.1 B, Packaging and Transportation Safety. U.S. Department of Energy, Wash ington , DC, April 4, 2003.

DOE Order 5400 .5, Change 2, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. U.S.

Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., January 7, 1993.

DOE Order 5480 .20A, Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for Nuclear Facilities . U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 15, 1994.

DOE Policy 441 .1, Department of Energy Radiological Health and Safety Policy. U.S.

Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., April 26, 1996.

DOE Policy 450 .4, Safety Management System Policy. U.S. Department of Energy, I Washington, D.C., October 15, 1996.

Revision 2 1-27

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN DOE Manual 231 .1-1A, Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting Manual. U.S.

Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., June 3, 2004.

DOE Manual 435.1-1 , Change 1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., June 19, 2001 .

DOE Guide 435.1-1 , Implementation Guide for Use with DOE M 435.1. U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., July 9, 1999.

DOE Guide 460 .1-1, Implementation Guide for Use with DOE Order 460. 1A. U.S.

Department of Energy, Wash ington , D.C ., June 5, 1997.

DOE-STD-1107-97, Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities for Key Radiation Protection Positions at DOE Facilities , Change 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington , D.C., November 2007.

Other References DOE 2003a , DOE Letter from Alice C. Will iams (Director, WVDP ) to Larry W . Camper of NRC (Chief Decommissioning Branch ), dated February 28, 2003.

DOE 2003b, West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/0337F. U.S. Department of Energy - West Valley Area Office ,

West Valley, New York , December 2003.

DOE and NRC 1981 , West Valley Demonstration Project Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 23, 1981 .

DOE and NYSERDA 1981, Cooperative Agreement between the United States Department of Energy and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority on the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, New York. Signed November 3, 1980, amended September 18, 1981 .

NRC 2000 , Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) ,

NUREG-1575, Revision 1. NRC, Washington, DC, August, 2000 . (Also EPA 4-2-R-97-016, Revision 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DOE-EH-0624, Revision 1, DOE)

NRC 2003a , NRC Letter from Larry W . Camper (Chief Decommissioning Branch) to Alice C.

Williams of DOE (Director, WVDP), dated February 2, 2003.

NRC 2003b, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Implementation Plan for the Final Policy Statement on Decommissioning Criteria for the West Valley Demonstration Project at the West Valley Site. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, Washington , D.C.,

May 2003.

Revision 2 1-28

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NRC 2003c, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs, Final Report, NUREG-1748. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington , D.C., August 2003.

NRC 2006, NUREG-1757 , Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees, Volume 1, Revision 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., September 2006.

NRC 2008, Report of May 19, 2008 Meeting With U.S. Department of Energy to Discuss the West Valley Demonstration Project Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., June 2, 2008 .

WVES and URS 2008, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 2007. West Valley Environmental Services and URS Group ,

Inc., West Valley , New York, December 2008.

Revision 2 1-29

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.0 FACILITY OPERATING HISTORY PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION The purpose of thi s section is to describe the facility operating history, thereby providing a foundation for understanding the rest of the plan . Section 2 is also intended to provide information to allow NRC staff to understand (1) the license history, (2) previous decommissioning activities, (3) radioactive spills that have occurred, and (4) onsite burials of radioactive materials.

INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION This section provides the following information:

  • A summary of the license history, including the radionuclides present and how they have been used , addressing both Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) operations under the license through 1982 and WVDP activities since that time that were not performed under the license;
  • A summary of the previous decommissioning and remediation activities and the remediation activities to take place during the period leading up to the interim end state, which will be the point at which Phase 1 decommissioning activities begin;
  • A summary of spills of radioactivity that have had the potential to have impacted the environment. both under NFS and during the WVDP; and
  • Information on prior onsite burials of radioactive material, except for those in the State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) and Waste Management Area 11 (outside the project premises) , which are beyond the scope of this plan .

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS To put into perspective the information in this section, one must consider the information in Section 1 on the project background and those facilities and areas within the scope of the DP . Consideration of the information in Section 3 on the facility description and the information in Section 4 on the radiological status of the facility would also help place information in Section 2 into context.

The information in this section serves as the foundation for later sections, such as facility description in Section 3, the radiological status in Section 4, and the decommissioning activities in Section 7.

Revision 2 2-1

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.1 License History Provisional Operating License Number CSF-1 (AEC 1966) was issued on April 19, 1966 by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to NFS and the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority under Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to operate a spent fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal facility at the Center. The Atomic Energy Commission was the regulator of this license until 1975 when the NRC was established by passage of the Energy Reorganization Act of 197 4.

License CSF-1 provided limits for (1) nuclear fuel (source, special nuclear material and byproduct materials in irradiated or unirradiated solid fu el elements and solutions) ; (2) unirradiated source material ; and (3) material for storage and use for standards, test, measurements, and calibration. The radionuclides and possession limits for these categories are identified in Tables 2-1, 2-2 , and 2-3 . (See note at the end of Tables 2-1 and 2-2.)

1 Table 2-1. Limits for Nuclear Fuel in Solid Fuel Elements and Solutionsl J Category Pre-irradiation Fuel Compound Pre-irradiation % U-235 Enrichment in U 1 U02 5%

2 U02 >5%. but ~10%

3 Th02 + U02 No limitation Not exceeding 8.5% U 4 U-Mo alloy 26.5%

5 U-Zircaloy alloy No limitation U-Zr alloy (U content.10 w/o [wt.%] of alloy) 6 U metal or U02 5%

7 U-AI alloy No limitation 8 U-Mo alloy 4.5%

9 U metal 2.5%

10 Plutonium nitrate - In depleted 250 grams fissile plutonium (Pu-239 and uranyl nitrate solution Pu -241) per liter.

The possession limits of the above special nuclear material were 21 ,000 kg of U-235 ,

3,200 kg of U-233 , and 4,000 kg of plutonium .

NOTE: (1) The chemical forms of th e radionuclides authorized for use changed from solid fuel (elemental metal} to aq ueous solutions during reprocessing, with radionuclides used for cal ibration standards, testing, etc . used primarily in laboratories .

Revision 2 2-2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-2. Limits for Unirradiated Source Material(ll Material Possession Limit Form Uranium of natural 50,000 pounds Hanford N-Reactor Fuel isotopic composition Uranium depleted in 100,000 pounds U0 2 , metal prototype fu el elements and the isotope U-235 U3 0 8 granules of depleted uranium Thorium 50,000 pounds Thorium nitrate or thorium oxide NOTE: (1) The chemical forms of the radionuclides authori zed for use changed from solid fuel (elemental metal) to aqueous solutions during reprocessi ng, with radionuclides used for calibration standards, testing, etc. used primarily in laboratories.

Table 2-3. Limits Used for Standards, Test, Measurements, and Calibrationl1l Material Possession Limit Form Uranium-235 105 grams Any Uranium-233 75 grams Any Plutonium(2l 62 grams Any Plutonium(2l 14 grams sealed source Plutonium -242 6 grams Any Plutonium-238 1 gram Any Neptunium-237 3.5E-03 curie Any Americium-241 1.0E-03 curie Any Thallium-204 5.0E-06 curie Any Cesium-137 5.0E-03 curie Any Cesium-137 33 curies sealed source Cesium-134 5.0E-03 curie Any Cerium-144 1.0E-02 curie Any lodine-131 6.0E-06 curie Any lodine-129 5.0E-06 curie Any Ruthenium-106 1.0E-02 curie Any Zirconium-95 5.0E-02 curie Any Strontium-90 1.0E-02 curie Any Strontium -85 1.0E-02 curie Any Krypton-85 3 curies Any Revision 2 2-3

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1

Table 2-3. Limits Used for Standards, Test, Measurements, and Calibrationl l Material Possession Limit Form Zinc-65 1.0E-02 curie Any Cobalt-60 5.0E-02 curie Any Cobalt-58 1.0E-02 curie Any Manganese-54 5.0E -03 curie Any Antimony' 2l 5.0E-03 curie Any Any byproduct material with atomic 3.0E-06 curie each Any numbers from 3 to 85 NOTES : (1) From Section 3.3 of Appendi x A of Provisional License CSF -1, Change 18 (AEC 1966}

(2) Section 3.3 of Appendix A of Provisional License CSF -1, Change 18 (AEC 1966) omitted the mass number of this radionuclide.

From 1966 to 1972, NFS reprocessed under the license more than 600 metric tons of spent fuel in the Process Building (Table 2-4) and generated approximately 600,000 gallons of liquid high-level waste. The facility shut down in 1972 for modifications to increase reliability and to expand capacity. In 1976, without restarting the operation, NFS informed New York State that it intended to withdraw from the reprocessing business and not renew the lease when the ini~ial term expired at ~e end of 1980. The WVDP Act was enacted in 1980 providing for solidification of the HLW from reprocessing , then decontamination and decommissioning of the facilities used in the solidification effort. In February of 1982, NFS transferred possession of the reprocessing facilities to DOE for that purpose.

License CSF-1 has been amended by 32 License Amendments . Amendments 1 through 30 allowed operation of the facility with changes to the technical specifications. The changes to the technical specifications were based on changes to facility operations and physical plant modifications . No license amendments were made from 1976 to the start of the WVDP Act implementation in 1981 .

License Amendment No. 31 (NRC 1981) transferred the project premises to DOE in accordance with the WVDP Act. The WVDP Act authorized the DOE, in cooperation with NYSE RDA, the owner of the site and the holder of NRC license CSF-1, to carry out a high-level radioactive waste management demonstration project for the purpose of demonstrating solidification techniques that could be used for preparing high-level liquid radioactive waste for disposal (DOE and NYSERDA 1981) .

On February 11 , 1982, the NRC issued License Amendment 32, as requested by NFS, to terminate the authority and responsibility of NFS under the license effective upon DOE assumption of exclusive possession of the project premises. Control of the project premises was formally transferred to DOE effective February 26, 1982 (WVNSCO 1983a) .

Section 2.1.1 describes NFS activities under the license in more detail. As noted in Section Revision 2 2-4

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1, portions of NYSERDA's NRC Part 50 license for the Center, including the technical specifications, have been effectively suspended by NRC since 1981 to facilitate execution of the provisions of the WVDP Act.

2.1.1 Nuclear Fuel Services Operations From 1966 to 1982 Fuel receipt began in 1965, and reprocessing began in April 1966 and ended in 1972.

Receiving Fuel for Reprocessing Table 2-4 shows the sources of spent nuclear fuel reprocessed at th e facility . Additional shipments comprised of 7 50 spent nuclear fuel assemblies were received between February 1973 and December 1975 in anticipation of facility restart-, which never occurred .

Of these 750 assemblies, 625 were promptly returned to their original owners and the remain ing 125 assemblies remained in storage in the Fuel Receiving and Storage Facility.

The final shipment to remove the fuel assemblies from the WVDP was made in 2001.

The spent fuel assemblies were received in casks by rail or truck and placed into the Fuel Receiving and Storage area . The casks were unloaded in the Ca sk Unloading Pool and the fuel placed in storage canisters, which were then placed in the Fuel Storage Pool awaiting reprocessing . Reprocessing started with moving the canisters by underwater conveyer to the Process Mechanical Cell in the Process Building .

Process Building Arrangements The Process Building contained the physical and chemical reprocessing operations, which were conducted in specially designed cells, rooms , and aisles. Descriptions of these areas are contained in Section 3. The cells were shielded rooms with concrete walls up to five feet thick where remote spent fuel reprocessing occurred . The rooms in which activities such as chemical preparation and laboratory analysis occurred that did not involve high levels of radioactivity were typically not shielded. The aisles were located adjacent to the shielded cells and provided for remote control of the physical and chemical reprocessing in the cells .

Sectioning and Dissolving the Fuel The first step in reprocessing operations involved bringing fuel assemblies to the Process Mechanical Cell , where they were remotely disassembled with saws. The fuel rods were chopped into pieces with a shear prior to dissolution . The small pieces of fuel were then loaded into baskets, temporarily stored in the General Purpose Cell , and then transported to one of two dissolvers located in the Chemical Process Cell. The dissolution process consisted of placing the fuel pieces in a dissolver with concentrated nitric acid, which dissolved the irradiated fuel into an aqueous stream containing uranium nitrate, plutonium nitrate, and fission products. Unirradiated fu el went through a similar but abbreviated process.

Revision 2 2-5

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-4. Nuclear Fuel Received and Reprocessed (1l Process Received Recovered Pu Lot Source Reactor MTLJ(2l Date (kg) 2 AEC N-Reactor 4-22-66 19.7 1.7 1 AEC N-Reactor 5-20-66 28.8 2.3 3 AEC N-Reactor 7-15-66 46.7 50.9 4 Commonwealth Edison Dresden-1 11 66 50.0 191 .1 5 Yan kee Atomic Electric Yankee Rowe 6-7-67 49.8 285.1 6 AEC N-Reactor 9-2-67 26.6 52.6 7 AEC N-Reactor 12-2-67 26.1 47.4 8 AEC N-Reactor 1-6-68 42.4 75.4 9 AEC N-Reactor 5-5-68 38.8 79.1 10 AEC N-Reactor 6-29-68 55.3 115.7 11Pl Consolidated Edison Indian Point-1 11-15-68 1.1 -

12 AEC N-Reactor 2-13-69 48.9 102.5 13 Yankee Atomic Electric Yankee Rowe 5-14-69 19.6 176.0 14(4) AEC N-Reactor 8-16-69 30.3 -

15 Commonwealth Edison Dresden-1 10-1-69 21 .5 104.6 16 Consolidated Edison Indian Point-1 11 69 15.6 107.6 17 Yankee Atomic Electric Yankee Rowe 6-2-70 9.3 95.6 18 Northern States Power Pathfinder 8-14-70 9.6 7.1 19 Consumers Power Big Rock Point 11 70 16.4 72.8 20 Consolidated Edison Indian Point-1 1-11 -71 7.6 68.1 21 AEC N-Reactor 2-25-71 15.8 25.4 22 Puerto Rico Water Bonus Superheater 4-15-71 1.7 0.9 Resources Authority Bonus Boiler 4-18-71 2.4 4.0 23 Pacific Gas and Electric Humboldt Bay 5-20-71 20.8 87.2 24 Yankee Atomic Electric Yankee Rowe 7-16-71 9.5 95.7 25 Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear Carolinas-Virginia 10-4-71 3.5 11 .6 Power Associates Tube Reactor 26 Consumers Power Big Rock Point 11-30-71 5.8 27.9 27 NFS, Erwin , Tennessee(SJ SEFOR 12-12-71 0.1 95.5 Total 625.7 1983.7 NOTES: (1) From DOE 1996.

(2) Metric tons uranium (3) The lot 11 fuels from Indian Poi nt-1 consisted of highly enriched uranium and thorium but no plutonium .

(4) The lot 14 fuel was unirra di ated and therefore co ntained no plutonium.

(5) This material was a liquid resid ue generated during fabrication of fuel for the Southwest Experimental Fa st Oxid e Reactor (SEF OR) .

Revision 2 2-6

WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Separating Uranium, Plutonium, and Fission Products A five-stage solvent extraction process used a tributyl phosphate/n-dodecane solution to separate the fission products from the uranium and plutonium, and then separate the uranium from the plutonium. Following initial separation, the uranium-bearing solution underwent two further solvent extraction purification cycles while the plutonium bearing solutions underwent one addition al purification cycle .

After leaving the extraction columns , the uranium-bearing solutions underwent an additional purification step that consisted of si lica gel bed sorption . An ion -exchange process further purified the plutonium bearing solutions. The product solutions were concentrated, packaged, stored, and shipped off site . The NFS West Valley product was a nitrate solution (uranyl nitrate or plutonium nitrate) that was shipped to another out-of-state facility for purification and conversion to oxide. A representation of the fuel reprocessing 1

operation is shown in Figure 2-1 . The process used was the PUREX process .

Irradiated Fuel

+

Fuel Preparation _ , . Off-Gases Nitric Acid _ , .

+

Dissolution in Nitric _,. Off-gases and Acid Cladding (Hulls)

Solvent tributyl

+

Separation of Fission Nitric Acid phosphate and _ , . Products from Recovery n-dodecane Uranium-Plutonium

+

Uranium-Plutonium

\

High-Level Partition Waste Uranyl Nitrate Plutonium Nitrate

+

Purification and

+

Purification and Oxide conversion not Conversion to Oxide Conversion to Oxide at West Valley site

+

U03 Product

+

Pu0 2 Product Figure 2-1. Spent Fuel Reprocessing Diagram (PUREX Process) 1 Plutonium uranium refining by extraction .

Revision 2 2-7

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Two systems, the HLW Evaporator and the LLW Evaporator were used to reduce the volume of aqueous waste generated during fuel reprocessing operations. The HLW Evaporator reduced the volume of aqueous waste generated during the partition cycle of the solvent extraction process. Both evaporators were used to reduce the volume of aqueous waste generated in the other four solvent extraction cycles .

Use of Tanks 80-1, 80-2, 80-3, and 80-4 Approximately 580,000 gallons of liquid HLW was produced from the normal operation of the plant in reprocessi ng uranium fuel using the PUREX process (Duckworth 1972a) .

This waste was neutralized by the addition of sodium hydroxide before transfer to Tank 80-2, a 750,000-gallon carbon steel storage tank. (Tank 80 -1, a spare 750,000-gallon tank identical to 80-2 was designed for storing excess liquid from Tank 80 -2, but was never used by NFS to store HLW.)

Neutralizing the acidic high-level waste prior to transfer caused most of the fission product elements (the major exception was cesium) to precipitate out and form sludge at 2

the bottom of Tank 80-2. Therefore, the waste was not homogeneous but was comprised of supernatant liquid and solids (sludge) .

Approximately 12,000 gallons of acidic high-level radioactive liquid waste were 3

produced in reprocessing thorium-enriched uranium fuel using the THOREX process . This waste was not neutralized because the thorium would have precipitated out of solution .

This acidic waste was stored in Tank 80 -4, a 15,000-gallon capacity stainless steel tank.

(Spare Tank 80-3 is identical to Tank 80-4 but was never used by NFS to store HLW.)

The radionuclide content of the HLW stored in Tanks 80 -2 and 80-4 at the completion of reprocessing is given in Table 2-5 . The chemical compositions of the supernatant and sludge in Tank 80-2 at the completion of reprocessing are provided in Tables 2-6 and 2-7 ,

respectively. The chemical composition of Tank 80-4 at the completion of reprocessing is provided in Table 2-8 . The radioactivity content is indexed to the start of HLW processing activities in 1988.

The spent tributyl phosphate/n-dodecane solvent solution used in each of the five solvent extraction cycles was cleaned in the extraction cells after each use. Following solvent wash. the clean solvent was transferred to the solvent storage tank. The spent wash solutions were then sent to tanks in the Liquid Waste Cell.

The Solvent Waste Catch Tank received the spent sodium carbonate and dilute nitric acid wash solutions that were used in the solvent cleanup system . The sodium carbonate and nitric acid washes used in the solvent cleanup were also collected in the Waste Catch Tank and then transferred to the Solvent Waste Hold Tank where they were sampled and 2

Actinides were also precipitated out into the sludge. Table 4-9 shows estimates of residual radioactivity in the underground waste tanks as of 2011 .

3 Thorium reduction extraction.

Revision 2 2-8

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN subsequently sent through normal plant waste processing (Tank 80-2 or LLW treatment) depending on their radioactivity concentration.

Other liquid waste from Process Building operations (i.e., acid fractionator condensate, floor drains in various cells, chemical makeup areas, analytical laboratory, wash solutions from decontamination operations, etc .) were either treated in the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility or routed to the underground waste tanks depending on their radioactivity level.

Use of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility During initial NFS operations prior to construction of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility in 1971 , low-level wastewater was routed through the Neutralization Pit, the Interceptors, and Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 in series before being discharged to Erdman Brook.

Following construction of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility and Lagoons 4 and 5, wastewater containing low levels of radionuclides (<0.005 µCi/ml} was treated in that facility by clarification, filtration, and ion exchange. This wastewater was collected from the Process Building , the Laundry, and the Fuel Receiving and Storage Facility and transported by underground drain lines sequentially to the Neutralization Pit, interceptors, and Lagoon 1, Lagoon 2, and to the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility for treatment. Treated wastewater was piped to Lagoons 4 or 5, then to Lagoon 3 before batch discharge to Erdman Brook. (NSF 1973) . See Figure 2-3 for the location of the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility.

Radionuclides removed from the water were confined in a sludge that was packaged in drums and disposed of as radioactive waste . Much of the sludge was buried in the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (NOA), mostly after closure of the SDA in 1975. While NFS used the State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) for LLW disposal , the WVDP did not use the SDA for radioactive waste disposal (DOE 1978, Wild 2000) .

Table 2-5. Estimated Radionuclide Content (in Curies) of Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 at the Completion of Reprocessing (1)

Half-Life Tank 80-2 Tank 80-2 Tank Radionuclide (Year)(2) Supernatant(3) Sludge(4 ) 80-4(S) Total C-14 5.7E+03 1.4E+02 9.9E-02 1.3E -01 1.4E+02 Sr-90 2.9E+01 3.0E+03 6.9E+06 4.5E +05 7.4E+06 Tc-99 2.1E+05 1.6E+03 Note (6) 1.0E+02 1.7E+03 1-129 1.6E+07 2.1E-01 Note (6) <1.8E-01 3.9E -01 Cs-137 3.0E +01 7.4E+06 Note (6) 4.8E+05 7.9E+06 U-232 7.2E+01 Note (6) 4.4E+OO 2.7E+OO 7.1 E+OO U-233 1.6E+05 5.0E-01 6.9E+OO 2.1 E+OO 9.5E+OO U-234 2.5E +05 3.0E -01 4.0E +OO 2.2E -01 4.5E+OO Revision 2 2-9

WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSI ONING PLAN Table 2-5. Estimated Radionuclide Content (in Curies) of Tanks 80-2 and 80-4 at the Completion of Reprocessing(i)

Half-Life Tank 80-2 Tank 80-2 Tank Radionuclide (Year)(z) Supernatant(3) Sludge(4) 8D-4(S) Total U-235 7.0E +08 6.5E-03 8.9E -02 5.2E-03 1.0E -01 U-2 38 4.5E+09 5. 8E-02 7.9E-01 7 .1 E-05 8.5E -01 Np-237 2.1E+06 Note (6) 2.6E+ 01 3.0E-01 2.6E+ 01 Pu -238 8.8E+01 1.3E+02 6.5E+03 4.8E+ 02 7.1E+03 Pu-239 2.4 E+04 2.5E+01 1.7E+03 1.5E+01 1.7E+03 Pu-240 6.6E+03 1.9E+01 1.3E+03 8.1 E+OO 1.3E+03 Pu -241 1.4E+01 1.6£+ 03 8.5E +04 8.5E +02 8.7E +04 Am-241 4.3E+02 Note (6} 6.9E+ 04 2.4 E+02 6.9 E+04 Cm-243 2.9E +01 Note (6) 3.1£+01 2.3E -01 3.1E+01 Cm-244 1.8E+01 Note (6) 2.0E+04 1.4 E+01 2.0E+04 NOTES : (1) From Ryk:ken 1986. This report provides estimates for numerous other radionuclides as well the key radionuolides included in this tabl e.

(2) Half-life values from Grove Engineering 2003 .

(3) From Rykken 1986, Table 6, as of 7/1/86.

(4) From Rykken 1986, Table 22 as of 7/1/87.

(5) From Rykken 1986, Table 12 as of 7/1/87 .

(6) Not reported .

Table 2-6. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-2 Supernatant at the Completion of Reprocessing (l)

% (weight of  % (weight of Total Weight of compound/total compound/total compounds in Compound weight of supernatant) weight of compounds) Supernatant Wet Basis Dry Basis (Kg)

NaN0 3 21.10 53 .38 602,659 NaN0 2 10.90 27 .57 311,326 Na2S04 2.67 6.76 76,261 NaHC0 3 1.49 3.77 42,557 KN03 1.27 3.21 36,274 Na 2C0 3 0.884 2.24 25,249 Na OH 0.614 1.55 17,537 KzCr04 0.179 0.45 5, 113 NaCl 0 .164 0.42 4,684 Revision 2 2-10

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-6. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-2 Supernatant at the Completion of Reprocessing (1l

% (weight of  % (weight of Total Weight of compound/total compound/total compounds in Compound weight of supernatant) weight of compounds) Supernatant Wet Basis Dry Basis (Kg)

Na3P04 0.133 0 .34 3,799 Na 2M004 0.0242 0 .06 691 Na 380 3 0.0209 0 .05 597 CsN0 3 0.0187 0 .05 534 NaF O.Ql 76 0 .04 503 Sn(N0 3) 4 0.00859 0 .02 245 Na 2U20 1 0.00808 0 .02 231 Si(N03)4 0 .00806 0 .02 230 NaTc04 0 .00620 0 .02 177 RbN0 3 0.00416 0 .01 119 Na 2Te04 0.00287 0.007 82 AIF3 0.00271 0 .007 77 Fe(N03h 0.00152 0 .004 43 Na2Se04 0.00054 0.001 15 LiN03 0.00048 0 .001 14 H2C03 0.00032 0 .0008 9 Cu(N03h 0.00022 0 .0005 6 Sr(N0 3)i 0 .00013 0 .0004 4 Mg(N0 3)i 0.0008 0 .0002 2 Compound Totals 39.53 % 100.00 % 1,129,038 Total H20 60.47 % NA 1,727,164 (100% - 39.53%)

NOTE : (1) From Ei senstatt 1986.

Revision 2 2-11

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-7. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-2 Sludge at the Completion of Reprocessing (1l

  • Total Mass in Total Mass in Compound Compound Sludge (kg) Sludge (kg)

Fe(OHh 66,040 Cu(OH)z 376 FeP04 6,351 Zr(OH)z 159 Al(OHh 5,852 Sm(OHh 143 Mn02 4,581 Zn(OH)z 128 CaC0 3 3,208 Cr(OHh 65 UO(OH)z 3,087 Hg(OH)z 23 Ni(OH)z 1,088 Eu(OHh 7.5 Si0 2 1,263 Gd(OHh 1.7 MgC0 3 826 Pm(OHh 1.5 AIF 3 536 Fission Products Fission Products Zr(OH) 4 805 Y(OHh 103 Nd(OHh 621 Rh(OH) 4 79 Ru(OHh 458 Pd(OH)z 34 Ce(OHh 354 Sn(OH) 4 2.5 BaS0 4 303 Cd(OH)z 1.7 SrS0 4 217 Ag OH 0.7 La(OHh 185 Sb(OHh 0.7 Pr(OHh 170 ln(OHh 0.3 Transuranics Transuranics Pu0 2 37 Am02 28 Np02 35 Cm02 0.4 Total Chemical Composition = 97 ,172 kg NOTE: (1) From Eise nstatt 1986, with fission products reported separately, unlike other tabl es, consistent with Ei senstatt 1986.

Revision 2 2-12

WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1

Table 2-8. Chemical Composition of Tank 80-4 Waste at the Completion of Reprocessing l >

% (Mass of . Total Solution  % (Mass of Total Solution Mass Compound Compound/Mass Mass in Tank Compound Compound/Mass in Tank (kg) of Solution) (kg) of solution)

Th(N03)4 26.69 12,997 Ce(N03)3 0.0387 19 Fe(N03)3 19.41 9,452 Zr(N03)4 0.0288 14 Al(NQ3)3 9.57 4,660 Sm(NQ3)3 0.0286 14 HN03 4.88 2,376 La(N03)3 0.0269 13 Cr(N03)3 4.40 2,143 Pr(N03)3 0.0267 13 Ni(N03)2 1.81 881 Zn(N03)2 0.0226 11 H3B03 1.10 536 Rh(N03)4 0.0222 11 NaN03 0.759 370 Na2Tc04 0.0206 10 Na2S04 0.414 202 U02(N03)3 0.0156 8 KNQ3 0.294 143 Y(N03)3 0.0134 7 Na2Si03 0.290 141 Na2SeQ4 0.00767 4 KzMnQ4 0.281 137 RbNQ3 0.00619 3 Nd(NQ3)3 0.146 71 Co(N03)2 0.00505 2 Mg(N03)3 0.131 64 Pd(N03)4 0.00469 2 NaCl 0.115 56 NaF 0.00244 1 Na2MoQ4 0.114 56 Cu(N03)2 0.00177 0.9 Ca(N03)2 0.0700 34 Pu (N03)4 0.00152 0.7 Ba(N03)2 0.0697 34 Eu(N03)3 0.0014? 0.7 Ru(N03)4 0.0643 31 Gd(NQ3)3 0.00037 0.2 CsN03 0.0502 24 1X(N03)4 0.00035 0.2 Na2Te04 0.0410 20 Pm(N03)2 0.00034 0.2 Sr(N03)2 0.0407 20 Total Weight % in Solution =71.02 % (total mass of compounds/total mass of solution) or 34,583 kg in Tank. Total weight % of HzO (100% - 71.02%) =28.98 % or 14,114 kg in Tank Solids Compound Total Solids Mass (kg) Compound Total Solids Mass (kg)

Th(NQ3) 4 18,958 Insolubles 39 NOTE : (1) From Eisenstatt 1986. LEGEND: X = Am-241 , Am-243, Cm-242, Cm-243, Cm -244, Cm -24 5.

Revision 2 2-13

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.1.2 West Valley Demonstration Project From 1982 to 2008 To meet its objective of solidifying HLW at the site, the WVDP developed the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System and built the Vitrification Facility.

Integrated Radwaste Treatment System The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System was designed for supernatant and sludge wash solution processing, solidification , and storage. The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System was comprised of four components:

  • The Supernatant Treatment System, which decontaminated solutions from the HLW tanks through an ion-exchange process;
  • The Liquid Waste Treatment System, which employed an evaporator to concentrate solutions received from the Supernatant Treatment System and byproduct solutions received from vitrification operations;
  • The Cement Solidification System that was used to solidify Liquid Waste Treatment System concentrates; and
  • The Drum Cell , which provided storage for solidified wastes received from the Cement Solidification System .

The Integrated Radwaste Treatment System pretreatment process is illustrated ih Figure 2-2 . The initial objective of this system was successfully attained in 1995, resulting in nearly 20,000 drums of solidified waste stored in the Drum Cell. In 2007 those drums were shipped to an offsite LLW disposal facility, leaving the Drum Cell empty of stored radioactive waste in 2008 .

Vitrification Facility This facility was designed for the stabilization and packaging of HLW sludge and contaminated ion-exchange resin (zeolite) generated as a byproduct of Supernatant Treatment System operations. It stabilized the following waste streams in a borosilicate glass matrix: (1) the HLW sludge in Tank 8D-2 that had been generated during PUREX reprocessing by NFS, (2), spent Supernatant Treatment System zeolite, and (3) acidic THOR EX waste from Tank 8D -4 generated by the reprocessing of thorium fuel.

The former reprocessing facilities were modified to accommodate the vitrification system and ancillary waste treatment and storage systems . Modifications included removing the reprocessing equipment and decontaminating a number of process cells so that workers could enter the cells for extended periods without respiratory protection. After cleaning the former reprocessing cells , equipment was installed to process gaseous and liquid waste streams. Risers were remotely installed in the HLW tanks, and equipment and pumps were installed for processing HLW supernatant and washing HLW sludge .

Revision 2 2-14

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN TAii BD-2 TAllK IG-4 1988 TO 1990 PUllEX SUl'EJllW'AllT PUREX SLUOCE "uJ>Croa t.a nt P rocc ~i n ~ UOUIDWASTl TIIEATJlllPIT SYS'IOI (UllTSJ CEMEllT UQlllD EVAPOllATOR SOUDlflCJTION TR.EATMlJIT CONCElrTllATES SYSTEM (CS$)

DISTILLATES 276-l SQUAii£ ORUM$

SITE DRUM CW.

DlSCIWIGE STOllAGE 1991 TO 1994

. Jud ge \\ a h J& l and P rocc sinJ:?

1995 l' l HE ' OH t X W hand Pro .s 1n,:t 1995 TO 1996 WASHED SLUDGE & ~llUTE ftUSllllUl Z collte UQUIOWASTE ransfor TOUDUIO TIIEATMlllT DISTILLATES TREATMENT M'IOl(l.WTSI AHO SITE OISC'HARCE EV-TOR COllCDITRATfS Figure 2-2. Simplified HLW Pretreatment Process Diagram Underground Waste Tanks 80-1, 80-2, 80-3, and 80-4 Pre-Vitrification HLW tank usage by the WVOP is outlined in Section 2.1 .2 under Integrated Radwaste Treatment System . Tank 80-1 was used to house the Supernatant Treatment System treatment columns used to remove radioactivity from the Tank 80 -2 supernatant, sludge wash , and PUREX/THOREX wash processing campaigns . The treated liquid was transferred to Tank 80-3 and then volume-reduced in the Liquid Waste Treatment System, and solidified in the Cement Solidification System for offsite disposal as LLW. The zeolite resin used to treat the supernatant, sludge wash, and PUREX/THOREX wash remained in Tank 80 -1 , and was added to the feed mixture to be vitrified . The thorium-bearing HLW from tank 80-4 was mixed with the contents of tank 80-2 and washed to remove soluble salts before being readied for vitrification .

Revision 2 2-15

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Solidification Activities During the vitrification process, the mobilized sludge and cesium -loaded zeolite resin (which was transferred from Tank 8D-1 to Tank 80-2) were transferred to the Concentrator Feed Makeup Tank in the Vitrification Cell, where excess water was removed and glass formers added . The resulting mixture was then transferred to the Melter Feed Hold Tank.

From this tank, the feed was delivered to the Slurry-Fed Ceramic Melter, where it was heated to form a molten, waste-loaded , borosilicate glass.

The molten glass was then poured into a stainless steel canister located in and positioned by a rotating turntable. Once a canister was filled , it remained on the turntable for initial cooling , then it was removed from the turntable for further cooling, canister lid welding, and external decontamination . The borosilicate glass matrix filled each canister to more than 80 percent of its volume as required by the Waste Acceptance Product Specifications established by DOE (DOE 1993).

After decontamination, the canister was loaded onto a transfer cart that moved on rails through the transfer tunnel and into the High Level Waste Interim Storage Facility (the former Chemical Process Cell) in the Process Building, where the canisters were loaded into racks for storage. The canisters will remain there until they are transported to the new Canister Interim Storage Facility.

A total of 27 5 canisters of HLW were produced . Two additional canisters were filled with materials which remained in the melter. The solidification of the liquid HLW waste was completed in September 2002 and the Vitrification Facility was radiologically characterized in November 2002 (Lachapelle 2003)4.

Table 2-9 provides the major chemical components of the glass waste form, and Table 2-10 describes the radionuclide content of a typical vitrified HLW canister processed during the HLW vitrification campaign (WVNSCO 2007a) .

Sodium-Bearing Waste As a component of tank management over time, sodium salts were added to the Tanks 80-1 and 8D-2 to limit corrosion of the carbon steel tanks. More recently, clean utility water used to cool the in-tank mobilization pumps added excess fluids to the tanks before and during vitrification. Since sodium is a limiting ingredient in a qualified glass recipe, the high-sodium water was segregated from the HLW feed mixture. A process was developed to volume-reduce the waste water containing high levels of sodium and solidify the 11 ,500 gallons of concentrate into a form suitable for LLW land disposal. The solidification was completed within the 01-14 building in 2004, and the sodium-bearing waste was shipped for disposal in 2007 . (Rowell 2001, WVNSCO and URS 2005, Bower 2008)

The amount of residual radioactivity in the HLW tanks is discussed in Section 4.1 .

4 This characterization took place before decontamination of the Vitrification Cell, which entailed removing th e slurry-fed ceramic melter, tanks, and other equipment.

Revision 2 2-16

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Liquid LLW Streams Under the WVDP, the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility included the Neutralization Pit, the interceptors, Lagoons 2-5, and the LLW2 Building, which replaced the NFS 02 Building . The wastewater is collected in one of the interceptors . After radiological analysis, the wastewater is transferred to Lagoon 2 and is then treated in the LLW2 Building .

Following treatment. the wastewater is transferred to Lagoons 4 and 5. If the treated wastewater in Lagoons 4 and 5 meets specifications, it is transferred to Lagoon 3 for eventual release through a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-permitted outfall to Erdman Brook. Out-of-specification wastewater is returned to Lagoon 2 and is re-treated .

In summary, under the WVDP the Vitrification Facility, the Integrated Radwaste Treatment System, the Sludge Mobilization System, and a new low level waste treatment facility (LLW2 Building) were developed and operated . The waste (supernatant and sludge) in the HLW tanks was vitrified and solidified in stainless steel canisters that are stored in the High-Level Waste Interim Storage Facility in the Process Building.

Table 2-9. Chemical Composition of Glass Waste Form(l)

Nominal Range Nominal Range Component Component Weight% Weight% Weight% Weight%

AgO 0.0001 Nd20 3 0.1209 0.08 0.19 Al 20 3 2.8295 1.19 7.15 NiO 0.3358 0.22 0.52 Am0 2 0.0073 Np02 0.0224 0.01 0.03 Bao 0 .0540 0.04 0.08 P20 s 2.5084 0.21 3.16 Bz03 9.9516 9.33 10.66 PdO 0.0062 Cao 0 .5993 0.39 0.93 Pm 20 3 0.0003 CdO 0 .0003 Pr5011 0.0321 0.02 0.05 Ce0 2 0.0670 0.04 0.10 Pu0 2 0.0076 Cm02 0.0001 Rb20 0.0005 coo 0.0002 Rh0 2 0.0136 0.01 0.02 Cr203 0.3112 0.21 0.48 Ru02 0.0759 0.05 0.12 Cs 20 0.0826 0.05 0.13 S03 0.2164 0.14 0.33 CuO 0.0001 Sb20 3 0.0001 Eu 20 3 0.0014 Se0 2 0.0005 Fe20 3 12.1573 8.32 18.50 Si0 2 44.8770 42 .08 48 .10 Gd20 3 0.0003 Sm20 3 0.0267 0.02 0.04 ln203 0 .0001 Sn0 2 0.0006 KzO 3.5733 3.36 3.84 SrO 0.0269 0.02 0.04 Revision 2 2-17

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONIN<S PLAN Table 2-9. Chemical Composition of Glass Waste Form (l)

Nominal Range Nominal Range Component Component Weight% Weight% Weight% Weight%

La20 3 0.0337 0.02 0.05 Tc201 0.0021 Li20 3.0315 2.84 3.25 Th02 3.5844 1.83 6.56 MgO 1.3032 1.22 1.39 Te02 0.0028 Mn0 2 1.3107 0.84 1.96 Ti0 2 0.9800 0.92 1.05 Mo0 2 0.0088 0.01 U02 0.5605 0.37 0.87 NaCl 0.0183 0 .01 0.03 Y20 3 0.0177 0.01 0.03 NaF 0.0013 ZnO 0.0010 Na20 10.9335 10.25 11 .71 Zr0 2 0 .2943 0.19 0.45 Insolubles 0.0080 NOTE : (1) From Eisenstatt 1986.

Table 2-10. Typical HLW Canister Radionuclide Content(1l Estimated Activity Estimated Activity Radionuclide Radionuclide (Ci/canister) (Ci/canister)

Ni-63 3.5E+01 Pu-240 4.0E+OO Sr-90 1.36E+04 Pu-241 1.75E+02 Sm-151 1.89E+02 Am-241 1.53E +02 Cs-137 2.34E+04 Cm-243 1.0E +01 Pu-238 1.9E+01 Cm-244 3.5E+01 Pu-239 5.0E +OO NOTE : (1) From WVNSCO 2007a 2.2 Site Decontamination Activities (1966 - 2011) 5 This section summarizes remediation activities performed by NFS, those that have been performed by the WVDP, and those that will be performed by the WVDP to establish the interim end state before the beginning of activities under this plan. Although the WVDP remediation activities have generally been performed in connection with cleanup, modifications, or deactivation work, they are relevant to the starting point for the decommissioning .

5 For purposes of this section , the terms remediation and decontamination are roughly equivalent. Each is defined as the removal of undesired residual radioactivity from facilities , soil , or equipment prior to release (NRC 2006) . The term remediation may also be used in the context of preparing facilities to conform to specific requirements using fixatives or other treatments.

Revision 2 2-18

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.2.1 NFS Remediation Activities (1966-1981)

During the 1960s, NFS remediation efforts were limited to those actions needed to maintain production, such as spill cleanup and equipment replacement. In the 1970s, NFS initiated decontamination activities initially in preparation for extensive in-cell reliability and expansion work to increase production. Decontamination procedures were prepared for decontamination of the partition cycle, uranium cycle, plutonium cycle, solvent recovery systems, acid recovery system and acid storage tanks , and the dissolver off-gas system (Rieth miller 1981) .

Gross decontamination was accomplished by flushing process tanks and piping and removing loose contamination from the cells and process equipment. In some cases, fixatives were applied to contamination that could not be readily removed .

Changes in mixed fission product activity levels were determined from measurements obtained by lowering dosimeters, strung at various levels, into Extraction Cells 1, 2, and 3 through holes drilled in the Extraction Chemical Room floor. Activity removed by decontamination activities from 1972 through 1977, including amounts of uranium and plutonium, is summarized in Table 2-11. No extensive decontamination activities are documented from 1977 until commencement of DOE operations in 1982.

1 Table 2-11. Activity Removed by NFS for the Period 1972 Through 1977( l Mixed Fission Year Uranium (grams) Plutonium (grams)

Products (curies) 1972 182,758.1 47 ,700 1550 1973 886.2 3,722 24 1974 659 .6 5,099 229 1975 15 572 12 1976 22 .3 282 18 1977 6.8 718 1 Total 184,348 58,093 1,834 NOTES: (1) From Riethmiller 1981 .

Radioactive material generated during the NFS remediation work was disposed of as radioactive waste in the NOA and SDA.

2.2.2 WVDP Remediation Activities (1982 - 2011)

After 1982, remediation activities included decontamination, waste removal, equipment removal , and the application of fixatives . Procedures were developed by West Valley Nuclear Services Company (WVNSCO) as part of the remediation project for each facility.

Radioactive material and waste generated or removed as part of remediation activities were packaged for offsite shipment or temporary storage, with some waste disposed of in the NOA prior to 1987 .

Revision 2 2-19

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show those WVDP facilities that have had a history of radiological contamination. Figure 2-5 shows locations of planned remediation activities for site facilities before Phase 1 of the decommissioning. Table 2-12 that follows these figures provides a legend for the acronyms and abb~eviations in the figures. This table also identifies the functions of the facilities.

List of Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated Table 2-13 that follows these figures lists those facilities (in alphabetical order) that have been or will be remediated (or partially remediated) before the start of the Phase 1 of the decommissioning. The type and form of contamination are specified, as well as information on the radiological conditions before and after remediation based on available data . The activities that caused the facility to become contaminated are also summarized.

Facilities that have been removed as of 2008 are identified as "Removed ." More-detailed descriptions of these facilities appear in Section 3, along with layout drawings showing their locations. Section 3 also contains photographs of many of these facilities .

Note that Table 2-13 does not list non-radiological facilities that have been or will be removed as part of the work to establish the interim end state, such as the Cold Chemical facility, the Vehicle Repair shop, and the Vitrification Test Facility (as shown on Figure 2-5).

The table also does not address facilities outside of the project premises since the scope of the Phase 1 decommissioning activities is limited to the project premises.

Revision 2 2-20

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMI SSIONING PLAN

\

t While the drainage ditch running south of WMA 4 and the

"'""""L" old sewage drainage area are not facilities per se, they are I I

included for here for completeness. 'I

...JI Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides l=:='.::=:..::=-~_;;.._:-:=:=:==:.::-::--=-==

---=-:;:::-==j

--J Nonradiological Facilities See Table 2-12 for mea nings of fa cility Gravel Foundation acronyms and abbreviations .

Concrete Foundation Figure 2-3. Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in North Plateau Facilities at the WVDP Revi sion 2 2-21

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN N...._ROQU......,

C~l.ICeflsed OoopouJ ...,** (NOA}

Previous and Current Locat ions of Radi onuclide~----------------:=:::J Nonradiological Facilities See Table 2-1 2 for meanings of faci lity acronyms and abbreviations .

Gravel Foundation Figure 2-4. Previous and Current Locations of Radionuclides in South Plateau Facilities at the WVDP Revision 2 2-22

W V DP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMIS SION ING PLAN North Plateau South Plateau

  • \

Remediation of the Vitrification Facility has been completed.

Legend See Ta ble 2- 12 for mea nings of facility Facrnues to be removed (down to slab or grade) prior to decommissioning acrqnyms and abbrevi ations.

Faelllllos made demoUtlon-rl!ad rio t lo decornmlsslonln Figure 2-5. Locations of Planned Remediation Activities for Site Facilities Prior to Phase 1 of the Decommissioning Revision 2 2-23

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-12. Facilities Shown in Figures 2- 3 t h roug h25 -

Designation Facility Function 80-1, -2, -3, -4 Underground waste tanks Designed to store HLW; 80-1 , 80-2, and 80-4 have contained HLW.

01-14 The Cement Solidification System building Facility housed the Cement Solidification System and the vitrification off-gas treatment equipment.

COOL Construction &. Demolition Debris Landfill Non-radioactive waste burial area.

Cold Chem Cold Chemical facility Housed containerized non-radioactive chemicals.

Con Ed Bldg Consolidated Edison Building Houses HLW tank instrumentation and equipment.

CPC-WSA Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area Storage for equipment and waste from the CPC (now HLW Interim Storage Facility).

css Alternate designation for the 01-14 building Facility housed the Cement Solidification System and the vitrification off-gas treatment equipment.

Env Lab Environmental Laboratory Houses environmental testing equipment and instrumentation.

Equip. Shelter Equipment Shelter Houses HLW tank instrumentation and equipment.

Fab Shop Fabrication Shop Non-radioactive metal fabrication shop - demolished, slab remaining .

FRS Fuel Receiving and Storage Facility Formerly used to store spent nuclear fuel.

FRS Vent Fuel Receiving and Storage Ventilation Building Housed cooling system equipment for the FRS pool water - demolished, slab remaining.

LLW2 Low Level Waste 2 Houses low level radioactive liquid treatment system currently in use.

LLWTF Low Level Waste Treatment Facility .. Housed low level radioactive liquid treatment system - demolished, slab remaining .

LSA 1 Lag Storage Area 1 (also, LSA2, LSA3 and LSA4) Containerized radioactive waste storage. LSA 1 and LSA2 have been removed, gravel pads remain .

LSB Lag Storage Building Containerized radioactive waste storage building - demolished, slab remaining .

NOA NRC-Licensed Disposal Area Radioactive waste burial area.

02 Bldg An alternate designator for the LLWTF Housed low level radioactive liquid treatment system - demolished, slab remaining.

PVS Permanent Ventilation System [Building) Provides ventilation for the Supernatant Treatment System and the underground waste tanks.

STS Supernatant Treatment System [Building] Facility used primarily for treatment of HLW supernatant.

TSB Test and Storage Building Non-radioactive fabrication and testing shop - demolished, slab remaining.

UR Expan Utility Room expansion facility Houses utility systems equipment.

Vil. Facility Vitrification Facility Housed systems for solidifying HLW.

WWTF Waste Water Treatment Facility Sewage Treatment Plant.

Revision 2 2-24

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-13. Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decommissioningl11 Location and Principal Radionuclides Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function Type Form Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination 1 of the Decommissioning 01 -14 Building WMA-1 Radionuclide mix Surface Contamination from previous solidification Deactivated and prepared for demolition .

Radioactive waste typical of feed and contamination , system operations, and filtration/treatment of Partially decontaminated, radiation area in processing system waste fixed contamination vitrification off-gas.!3l some cells, significant contamination in facility contamination(2) filters (if still in place).

Chemical WMA-5 Radionuclide mix Surface -275 Ci Cs-137 in packaged equipment as of Removed to grade.

Process Cell Containerized typical of feed and contamination 1996.(4) No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Waste Storage LLW storage waste 15 mR/h from stored waste, removable control limits.(5)

Area contamination!2J contamination below detection limits.!6)

Incidental contamination possible from radioactive waste container storage activities.

Contact Size WMA-1 Radionuclide mix Surface 5 mR/h, removable contamination below Removed to concrete slab.

Reduction Radioactive waste typical of feed and contamination detection limits.!6l No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Facility size reduction waste Incidental contamination possible from control limits.!5l system facility contamination!2l radioactive waste size reduction activities.

Cooling Tower WMA-6 Radionuclide mix Fixed surface < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below Removed to concrete basin .

Utility water typical of feed and contamination detection limits.!6l Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control cooling system waste Coil leaks from contaminated cooling water. limits, posting required.!5l contamination!2J FRS Ventilation WMA-1 Fission products Surface 1.3 mR/h, removable contamination below Removed October 2006, slab remains.

Building Cooling system for and transuranics contamination detection limits.m No contamination above 10 CFR 835 fuel pool water from spent fuel Spent nuclear fuel pool water contamination. control limits,!5)

Lag Storage WMA-5 Radionuclide mix Low-level fixed < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below Removed 2006, slab remains.

Addition 1 Radioactive waste typical of feed and contamination in detection limits.!7) No contamination above 10 CFR 835 (LSA 1) container staging waste some areas Incidental contamination from containerized control limits.!5) area contamination!2J LLW staging and sorting activities.

Lag Storage WMA-5 Radionuclide mix Low-level fixed 15 mR/h from stored waste, removable Slab remains .

Addition 2 Radioactive waste typi<'.al of feed and contamination in contamination below detection limits.!6l No contamination above 10 CFR 835 (LSA 2 container staging waste some areas Incidental contamination from containerized control limits.!5l Hardstand) area contamination!2J LLW staging and sorting activities.

Revision 2 2-25

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMI SSION ING PLAN Table 2-13. Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before DecommissioningllJ Location and Principal Radionuclides Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function Type Form Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination 1 of the Decommissioning Lag Storage WMA-5 Radionuclide mix Low-level fixed 50-100 mR/h from stored waste, removable Slab remains.

Addition 3 Radioactive waste typical of feed and contamination in contamination below detection limits.(6) No contamination above 10 CFR 835 (LSA 3) container staging waste some areas Incidental contamination from containerized control limits.(5) area contamination(2) LLW staging & sorting activities.

Lag Storage WMA-5 Radionuclide mix Low-level fixed < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below Removed October 2006, slab remains.

Building Radioactive waste typical of feed and contamination in detection limits.m No contamination above 10 CFR 835 container staging waste some areas Incidental contamination from containerized control limits.(5) area contamination(2) LLW staging & sorting activities.

Laundry Room WMA-1 Radionuclide mix Surface 0.4 mR/h, 2,000 dpm/100 cm2beta .(8) To be removed to concrete slab.

Contaminated typical of feed and contamination, Incidental contamination from sorting and Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control clothing cleaning waste fixed contamination handling of contaminated laundry. limits, posting required.(5) facility contamination(2)

LLWTF (02 WMA-2 Radionuclide mix Surface 0.12 mR/h, 3,700 dpm/100 cm2 beta.m Removed October 2006, slab remains.

Building) Radioactive typical of feed and contamination , Contamination from previous radioactive water Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control material waste fixed contamination treatment system operations. limits, posting required. (5J processing system contamination(2) facility Maintenance* WMA-2 Radionuclide mix Incidental surface < 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below Removed June 2007, slab remains.

Shop Tool crib and non- typical of feed and contamination detection limits.(8J No contamination above 10 CFR 835 radiological waste Incidental contamination from mud nests (bird control limits.(5) equipment contamination(2) and wasp) and tools.

maintenance.

Master Slave WMA-1 Radionuclide mix Surface 2.4 mR/h.(6J To be removed to concrete slab.

Manipulator Radioactive typical of feed and contamination Disassembly and repair of radiologically No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Repair Shop equipment repair waste contaminated equipment. control limitsC5l contamination(2)

NOA WMA-7 Fission products Surface 6 mR/h, 6,300 dpm/100 cm2 beta.(7) Above-grade structure removed Hardstand/ Radioactive waste and transuranics contamination, soil Storage of waste containers prior to disposal. September 2006, gravel pad remains.

Staging Area container staging from spent fuel contamination Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control area limits, posting required. (5J Revision 2 2-26

W V DP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1

Table 2-13. Facilities Remed iated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decommissionin gl J Location and Principal Radionuclides Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function Type Form Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination 1 of the Decommissioning Old/New WMA-5 Radionuclide mix Surface -10 Ci beta, -2 Ci alpha prior to transfer to Removed contaminated asphalt and Hardstand Radioactive typical of feed and contamination , soil Lagoon 1 for stabilization.t9l peripheral biomass in 1984, gravel pad transport vehicle waste contamination Storage of radioactive material transport remains.

staging area contamination(2l containers prior to disposition. Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control limits, posting required . (5)

Old Sewage WMA6 Radionuclide mix Possible surface Low level radioactivity may be present from Concrete basin to be removed .

Treatment Sanitary waste typical of feed and contamination sewage lines running from the Process Building.

Facility treatment until waste 1985 contamination(2l Old (Main 1) WMA-6 Radionuclide mix Incidental surface < 0.1 mR/h with removable contamination below Removed May 2006, slab remains.

Warehouse Receipt and typical of feed and contamination detection limits.(Bl No contamination above 10 CFR 835 storage of non- waste Incidental contamination from wasp, bird, and control limits.(5) radiological contaminationt2l rodent nests.

materiel Process WMA-1 Radionuclide mix Surface Residual contamination -6,200 Ci (see Tables Partially decontaminated, high radiation Building Spent nuclear fuel typical of feed and contamination , 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7) from operations associated area in some cells, vitrified HLW canisters reprocessing waste some with reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. stored in the HLW Interim Storage facility contamination(2) in contamination in (This does not include radioactivity in the 275 Facility. .

most areas (see depth vitrified HLW canisters temporarily stored in the Table 4-3) HLW Interim Storage Facility as shown in Table 2-10.)

Radwaste WMA-1 Radionuclide mix Surface 8 mR/h, 3,700 dpm/100 cm 2 beta(?) Removed October 2006, slab remains.

Process Radiological typical of feed and contamination Stabilizing radiologically contaminated materials Contamination above 10 CFR 835 control (Hittman) material waste limits, posting required.(5l Building processing contaminationl2l Remote- WMA-5 Radionuclide mix Surface -4,800 Ci aged mixed fission products (max Deactivated and decontaminated, low Handled Waste Size-reduction typical of feed and contamination annual waste estimate).l10l levels of contamination may be present.

Facility and packaging of waste Contamination of facility cell systems from size-highly radioactive contamination(2l reduction of highly radioactive waste waste Revision 2 2-27

WVD P PHASE 1 D ECO MMISSIONI NG PLAN 1

Table 2-13. Facilities Remediated or to be Remediated by the WVDP Before Decomm issioningl >

Location and Principal Radionuclides Expected Status at the Start of Phase Facility Function Type Form Initial Activity and Cause of Contamination 1 of the Decommissioning Test and WMA-2 Radionuclide mix Incidental surface .< 0.1 mR/h, removable contamination below Removed May 2006, slab remains.

Storage Testing & process typical of feed and contamination detection limits.!Bl No contamination above 10 CFR 835 Building (TSB) development, waste Incidental contamination from wasp and bird control limits!Sl equipment contamination!2l nests fabri cation, office space Vitrification WMA-1 See Table 4-4. Surface - 1900 Ci, see Table 4-8. Deactivated and prepared for demolition .

Facility High-temperature contamination Contamination from HLW vitrification process Partially decontaminated, high radiation process system levels in Vitrification Cell.

for HLW vitrification NOTES: (1) The list of faciliti es is from DOE 2006 and includes only contaminated facilities. Section 3 describes these facilities .

(2) Feed and wa ste contamination is described in Section 4.1 and Table 4-3 shows typical relative fractions of the dominant radionuclides in this type of contamination.

(3) No meaningful initial activity estimate is avai lable. The vitrification off-gas system contains significa nt residual activity as indicated in Section 4.1.5, but most is located outside the building in the off-gas line. Approximate ly 3000 cu ri es of decontaminated supernatant and sludge wash solutions were solidified in steel drums in the Cement Solidification System (Marschke 2006) .

(4) WVN SCO 2007a .

(5) Removable and fixed slab/soil contamination per 10 CFR 835 control levels. Listed radioactivity values for surface conta mination within a controlled area are shown in Table 2-13. Radioactivity levels inside a radio logical area within a controlled area may be higher, depending upon th e controls imposed , per Table 2-14.

(6) WVE S 2008.

(7) WVNSCO 2006.

(8) WVNSCO 2007b.

(9) Derived from WVNSCO 1995.

(10) URS 2001.

Revision 2 2-28

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Information in Table 2-13 Radiological survey data for 2006 through mid-2008 were used to identify recent radiological conditions for most facilities. Section 4 addresses the radiological status of various areas of the Process Building and other facilities within plan scope in more detail.

Discussion of WVDP Remediation Efforts Historical remediation activities are summarized in Section 2.2. Areas in which initial deactivation work was completed in late 2004 include three cells in the Process Building :

the General Purpose Cell , the Process Mechanical Cell , and Extraction Cell 2. Remediation of WVDP facilities conbinued in 2009 .

Work accomplished in 2009 included removal of equipment from the Acid Recovery Cell, Extraction Cell 3, and bhe Hot Acid Cell. A two-inoh layer of grout was applied to the filoor of the Acid Recovery Cell. Some pump niches in bhe Upper Warm Aisle were decontaminated and deactivated . The Product Purification Cell was partially decontaminated . In late 2009. decontami nation of the Process Mechanical Cell Crane Room was underway. Additional decontamination is planned for the floors and walls of the General Purpose Cell and the Process Mechanical Cell.

Deactivation of the Vitrification Cell in the Vitrification Facility was completed in 2005 . In 2009 , the cell was being used for remote sorting and packaging of radioactive waste so conditions in this area are subject to change and additional decontamination may be performed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

The Interim Waste Storage Facility and the Lag Storage Building, as well as the Lag Storage Area 1 weather shelter were decontaminated and demolition completed in 2006.

The Interim Waste Storage Facility concrete slab was removed . Support facilities and structures demolished and removed by the end of 2006 included the north Waste Tank Farm Test Tower, the 02/LLWTF Building, th~ Maintenance Storage Area , the Sample Storage and Packaging Facility, the Fabrication Shop, the Radwaste Process (Hittman)

Building, and the Cold Chemical Facility. In 2007 the Test and Storage Building, the Maintenance Shop, and the Main 1 Warehouse were demolished and removed . (WVNSCO and URS 2005, WVNSCO and URS 2006, WVNSCO and URS 2007, WVES and URS 2008)

The facilities being removed are being taken down to their concrete floor slabs and foundations . Facilities inside the fenced controlled area may already be below the surface contamination levels for materials in a controlled non-radiological area per 10 CFR 835, as shown in Table 2-14 . Those facility locations will have few, if any, access restraints imposed . Other remaining floor slabs and foundations within the controlled fenced area may be posted to restrict personnel access, per 10 CFR 835 requirements for radiological control area restrictions as shown in Table 2-15.

Revision 2 2-29

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2 1 Table 2-14. DOE 10 CFR 835 Surface Contamination Guidelines (in dpm/100 cm )( )

Radionuclide Contaminant(z).(4).(GJ Removable(z).( 4) Total (Fixed + Removable)(z).(J)

U-natural. U-235 , U-238, and 1,000(7) 5,000(?)

associated decay products Transuranics, Ra-226, Ra-228, Th - 20 500 230, Th -228, Pa-231 , Ac-227, 1-125, 1-129 Th-natural. Th-232 , Sr-90, Ra -2 23, 200 1,000 Ra-224, U-232, 1-126, 1-131 , 1-133 Beta -gamma emitters (nuclides with 1,000 5,000 decay modes other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission) except Sr-90 and others noted above(sJ Tritium and STC s(G) 10,000 See note (6) .

NOTES : (1) Th e values in this table, with the exception noted in note (6) below, apply to radioactive contamination deposited on, but not incorporated into the interior or matrix of. the contaminated item. Where surface co ntamination by both alpha - and beta -gamma-emitting nuclides exists, the limits establi shed for alpha- and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides apply independently.

(2) As used in this table, dpm (disintegrations per minute) means the rate of emission by radioactive material as determined by correcting the counts per minute observed by an appropriate detector for background, efficiency. and geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.

(3) The levels may be averaged over one square meter provid ed the maximum surface activity in any area of 100 cm 2 is less than three times th e value specified . For purposes of averaging, any square meter of surface shall be considered to be above th e surface contamination value if: (1) from measurements of a representative number of sections it is determined that the average contamination level exceeds the applica bl e value; or (2) it is determined that the sum of th e activity 2

of all isolated spots or particles in any 100 cm area exceeds three times the applicable value.

(4) The amount of removable radioa ctive material per 100 cm2 of surface area should be determined by swiping the area with dry filter or soft absorbent paper, applying moderate pressure, and then assessing the amount of radioactive material on the swipe with an appropriate instrument of known efficiency. (Note - The use of dry material may not be appropriate for tritium.) When removable contami nation on obj ects of surface area less than 100 cm 2 is determined, the activity per unit area shall be based on the actual area and the entire surface sha ll be wiped. It is not necessary to use swiping techniques to measure removabl e contamination levels if direct scan surveys indicate that the total residual surface contamination levels are within the limits for removable contamination .

(5) Thi s category of radionuclides includes mixed fi ssion products, including the Sr-90 which is present in them . It does not apply to Sr-90 which has been separated from the other fission products or mixtures where the Sr-90 has been enriched.

(6) Tritium contamination may diffuse into the volum e or matri x of materials. Evaluation of surface contamination shall consider the extent to which such contamination may migrate to the surface in order to ensure the surface contamination valu e provided in this appendix is not exceeded. Once thi s contamination migrates to the surface, it may be removable, not fi xed; therefore. a "Total "

2 value does not apply. In certain cases, a "Total" value of 10,000 dpm/100 cm may be applica bl e either to metals of the types from wh ich insoluble special tritium com pounds (STCs) are formed ,

that have been exposed to tritium , or to bulk materials to which insoluble special tritium compound particl es are fixed to a surface .

(7) These limits apply only to the alpha emitters within the respective decay series.

Revision 2 2-30

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-15. Radiological Areas and Radioactive Material Areas(l)

Area Name Posting Reference Value Radiation Area "Caution, Radiation Radiation area means any area, Area" accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving an equivalent dose to the whole body in excess of 0 .005 rem (0.05 mSv) in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at 30 centimeters from the source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates Contamination "Caution, Contamination area means any Area Contamination Area " area, accessible to individuals, where removable surface contamination levels exceed or are likely to exceed the removable surface contamination values specified in Table 2-14, but do not exceed 100 times those values.

Radioactive "Caution, Radioactive Radioactive material area means any area Material Area Material(s)" within a controlled area, accessible to individuals, in which items or container.s of radioactive material exist and the total activity of radioactive material exceeds the applicable values provided in appendix E of 10 CFR 835 .(2)

NOTES: (1) From 10 CFR 835, with only those areas likely to be applicable to a foundation slab or other open area listed.

(2) Appendi x E of 10 CFR 835 lists individual radionuclide radioactivity levels below which radiological controls are not required.

During the deactivation activities, equipment is being removed using conventional segmenting and handling techniques. The structures are being removed using conventional dismantlement and demolition methods. Waste generated is being shipped off site.

Radiological surveys, which are discussed further in Section 9, will document the

  • radiological conditions at the conclusion of deactivation. The radionuclide most significant from the standpoint of radiation protection during this work is Cs-137 .

As a major facility undergoing preparation for demolition during decommissioning, most Process Building areas are being deactivated during work to achieve the interim end state, with piping and equipment removed and piping cut. off flush with facility surfaces. The Vitrification Facility has undergone a similar deactivation and the Remote-Handled Waste Facility will be deactivated in the same manner. However, some radioactive equipment and significant amounts of residual radioactivity will remain in the Process Building and Vitrification facility at the beginning of Phase 1 decommissioning work as detailed in Section 4.1.

Revision 2 2-31

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.3 Spills and Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity This section describes spills and uncontrolled releases of radioactivity that have impacted the environment or had the potential to do so . Most of the numerous spills of radioactivity that occurred during NFS operations were contained within the Process Building and these are not detailed here. However, the radioisotope inventory reports generated by the Facility Characterization Project (Michalczak 2004) have documented conditions resulting from significant spills contained within the facilities .

There were two major spills considered to be significant to the site that occurred during licensed reprocessing operations, producing areas of contamination known today as the north plateau groundwater plume and cesium prong . Table 2-16 provides information about the radioactivity associated with the north plateau groundwater plume . More details on radioactivity associated with these two areas appear in Section 4.2.

2.3.1 North Plateau Groundwater Plume The north plateau groundwater plume is a zone of groundwater contamination .

Based on characterization data collected 1in 2008. ijie plume is approximately 600 feet wide by 1,400 feet long extending northeastward from the Process Building in WMA 1 to the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill in WMA 4, where it splits into three distinct lobes as shown in Figure 2-6 . The 2008 data, which are discussed in Section 4, indicate that the center leading edge lobe extends to the cenb"al portion of the Construction and Demolition Debris landfill (WVES 2009).

Lagoon 1 is also a possible contributor of gross beta activity in part of the plume, at least in this lagoon's immediate vicinity (WVES and URS 2009).

Strontium-90 and its decay product, Y-90, are the principal radionuclides in this plume, with both radionuclides contributing equal amounts of beta activity. In 1994 it was determined that Sr-90 concentrations were as high as 1.2 µCi/L in groundwater on the east side of the Process Building . Results of the latest core area investigation in 1998 determined that the highest Sr-90 concentration was 0.705 µCi/L beneath the Uranium Loadout Room near the southeast end of the Process Building (Hemann and Steiner 1999).

More information about the plume appears in Section 4.2.

The presumed primary source of the plume was an acid recovery line that leaked in the southwest corner of the Process Building during the late 1960's. The leak released an estimated 200 gallons of radioactive nitric acid from the Off-Gas Operating Aisle down to the underlying Off-Gas Cell and the adjacent southwest stairwell (Carpenter and Hemann 1995).

The leakage apparently flowed through an expansion joint in the concrete floor of the Off-Gas Cell and migrated into the sand and gravel underlying the Process Building (Westcott 1998) . This leak also contributed to sewage treatment system contamination (Duckworth 1972b) .

Revision 2 2-32

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

/

I

/

i I

I I

l

\

j 1\

/ l

,, \

Well 111 " .

S.39E+D 3 pCifL )

I Well 8605 \

9.36E+03 pCi/l I

J l!r /

- - 2008 Gross Beta Contour

/

\

~------------~!-~1'

- - - 2002 Gross Beta Contour This figure shows the approximate perimeter

  • -- * * * *
  • 1994 Gross Beta Contour of the plume in 2008; the dashed lines l

Isopleth r.nes at 1E+03 pC ill indicate the approximate perimeter in 2 002.

'---~-~ --,-._

,~------'

\

/ /' -

(Strontiu m-90 DCG)

Figure 2-6. Sr-90 Groundwater Plume on the North Plateau Mobile radionuclides such as H-3, Sr-90, and Tc-99 have migrated with groundwater along the northeast groundwater flow path in the north plateau . The Lagoon 1 design (to allow liquid to seep from the impoundment while retaining sediment and non-aqueous Revision 2 2-33

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN contaminants inside the basin) allowed tritiated water, originally containing about 6,000 curies of tritium in leachate pumped from the SDA for treatment, to infiltrate areas of the north plateau groundwater in the mid -1970s (Smokowski 1977) . These conditions were an unintended consequence of the lagoon design, and resulted in an extensive investigation by NFS, extending through the transfer of operational control to DOE in the early 1980s (Marchetti 1982) .

The potential dose effects of the tritium are, however, small in comparison to the potential effects from the Sr-90 plume of present interest. Currently, the highest Sr-90 concentrations in groundwater exist at the closest GeoprobeT" sampling point downgradient from the original release point beneath the Off-Gas Cell in the Process Building . Less mobile radionuclides such as Cs-137 are expected to have remained beneath the immediate source area due to the high cesium sorption capacity of the minerals in the sand and gravel.

An order-of-magnitude estimate of the radionuclides and amounts released by the acid leak, and the estimated remaining amount in 2011 , are presented in Table 2-16. These estimates totaled approximately 200 curies in 1972 and will total approximately 77 curies in 2011 .

Table 2-16. Released Radionuclide Activity Estimates for the North Plateau Plume(lJ Radionuclide Plume Activity in 1972 (Ci) Plume Activity in 2011 (Ci)

H-3 2.4E-03 2.6E-04 C-14 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 Co-60 3.8E-05 2.3E-07 Sr-90 9.3E +01 3.6E+01 Tc-99 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 Cd-113m 4.1 E-02 5.7E -03 Sb-125 1.8E+OO 1.1 E-04 Sn-126 3.8E-04 3.8E-04 1-129 2.0E-06 2.0E -06 Cs-137 9.8E+01 4.0E+Ol Eu -154 4.1 E+OO 1.9E-01 Ra- 226 0.0E+OO 1.2E-10 Ac-227 1.4E-08 6.2E-09 Ra-228 2.7E-13 5.7E-14 Th-229 6.lE-11 2.5E-07 Pa -231 2.7E-09 3.4E-09 Th -232 5.5E-14 5.5E-14 Revision 2 2-34

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-16. Released Radionuclide Activity Estimates for the North Plateau Plume(1 >

Radionuclide Plume Activity in 1972 (Ci) Plume Activity in 2011 (Ci)

U-232 4.8E -05 3.3E-05 U-233 6.9E-05 6.9E-05 U-234 4.0E -05 4.6E-05 U-235 8.9E -07 8.9E-07 Np-237 2.4E-04 2.5E-04 U-238 7.9E-06 7.9E-06 Pu-238 6.9E-02 5.1E-02 Pu-239 1.6E-02 1.6E-02 Pu-240 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 Pu-241 1.7E+OO 2.5E-01 Am-241 6.6E -01 6.6E-01 Cm -243 4.2E-04 1.6E-04 Cm-244 3.3E-01 7.4E-02 NOTE : (1) From Westcott 1998. Note that the values in Table 2-16 are based on a 1998 estimate of radioactivity in soil and groundwater beneath and downgradient of the Process Building that did not take into account radioactivity in groundwater that may have seeped to the surface and entered ditches or strea ms.

In 1995, a pump and treat system was installed to slow the migration and lower the water table in the western lobe of the plume. A pilot-scale permeable treatment wall was installed in 1999 to provide some plume migration control for the eastern lobe of the plume .

These facilities are described in Section 3.

In 2008 and 2009, data were collected to support design of a full -scale permeable treatment wall to be installed to mitigate the leading edge of the plume (WVES 2009) .

These data included concentrations of Sr-90 in subsurface soil and groundwater from samples collected in WMA 2, WMA 4, and WMA 5 as discussed in Section 4.

In addition to the known acid spill affecting the north plateau, during NFS operations several incidents such as inadvertent transfers of higher-than-intended activity occurred in the interceptor basin system upstream of the lagoon system (Lewis 1967, Taylor 1967, Wischow 1967). Documented accounts of leakage and spills in the area (Lewis 1967, Carpenter and Hemann 1995) corroborate the generally elevated observed subsurface soil contamination in the area west of Lagoon 1 to the vicinity of the Process Building . Such localized subsurface soil contamination can be attributed to these unintended operational releases.

2.3.2 Old Sewage Plant Drainage The old sewage treatment plant outfall drainage extends approximately 650 feet to the

  • south of a culvert near the Old Warehouse location, flowing into the first culvert under the Revision 2 2-35

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN railroad tracks on the south plateau. In the 1960s and 1970s, the old sewage treatment plant experienced several contamination events, some of which were expressed as radioactivity increases in the treated effluent (DOE 1978). Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show where the drainage is located .

Actions were taken to find and repair the suspected sewage line leak, but when excavation of the line neared the south side of the Process Building, radiation levels from soil contamination hampered the project (Duckworth 1972b}. Direct radiation levels of several mR/h were measured on containers of sludge removed from the sewage treatment plant for disposal in ~he 1980s.

A 1982 gamma radiation survey of the drainage channel showed levels three feet above the surface ranging from 110 to 500 µR/h on a section of the channel extending approximately 200 feet south of the sewer outfall (Marchetti 1982) . The contaminated portion of the area was about 15 feet wide and 600 feet long, the northern 200 feet of which exhibited significant contamination in sediments represented by an 800 pCi/g Cs-137 result on the sample collected at that location, and up to 1 mR/hr near the surface of the drainage ditch . The sediment layer is estimated to be at least a foot thick.

In order to prevent further contaminant transport downstream, a new drainage channel was excavated to the west of the contaminated drain, and the spoil was placed over the old 6

channel. At least three feet of soil covers the old drainage channel sediment. Some drainage near the old outfall exhibits residual surface contamination . (See Section 4.)

2.3.3 The Cesium Prong Th e cesium prong is an airborne deposition plume resulting from a series of Process Building ventilation system air filter failures during licensed operations starting in March 1968, and culminating in a main ventilation system filter failure that occurred on September 4, 1968 (Urbon 1968a, Urbon 1968b). These airborne releases contaminated a portion of the West Valley site as shown in Figure 2-7. The primary contaminant is Cs-137.

A study that focused on the portion of the cesium prong outside of the Center boundary showed that contamination concentrations decrease with depth . Seventy-five percent of the activity was determined to be in the upper two inches of soil, 20 percent in the layer between two inches deep and four inches deep, and five percent in the four to six inch layer (Luckett 1995). Therefore, 95 percent of the activity in the affected area outside of the Center lies in the upper four inches of soil. It is probable that similar conditions exist on the Center property closer to the source of the contamination. but data from this area are not .

available. Surface soil within the project premises will be characterized during Phase 1 of the decommissioning as described in Section 9.

6 Section 5 describes cleanup goals for surface soil (within one meter, or approximately 3 feet of the surface) and for subsurface soil in the deep WMA 1 and WMA 2 excavations. Section 5 does not provide cleanup goals for near surface soil contamination below 3 feet from the surface such as that expected to be present in the old drainage channel. Remediation of this contamination is not within the scope of Phase 1 decommissioning activities .

Revision 2 2-36

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN N

WNYNSC Site Boundary Cesium Prong Letter Net Counts*

Label Per Second A <66 B 66 - 140 c 140 - 310 D 310-660 E 660 -1,400 F 1,400 -3,100 G 3 , 100 - 6,600 H 6,600 - 14,000 - - - -

I 14,000 - 31 ,000 - - - -

  • Net gross counts above background in the window 500 to 740 keV. [Measure ents made at 150 feet using Na(TI) detectors in 1984 as et gro ~s..____,,

counts above background in the 500 to 7 0 KeV energ range for Cs-137 gammas (EG&G/EM 1991)f.

~ - Soil Sampling Locations. This illustration shows actual radiation contours from a 1984 aerial survey . Note that i S~~§~~~~~~~~~4~000 ~a-b_o_v_e-_b_a-ck_g_r_ou_n_d~le_v_e_ls_n_e_a_r-th-e~no-r~th_e_a_s-te_r_n_s-ite__.

boundary are associated with contaminated FTl .... streambed sediment, not the cesium prong. Th e 0 2000 contours in this map will have changed due to radioactive decay and weatherinq since 1984.

GRAPHIC SCALE /

Figure 2-7. 1984 Aerial Radiation Survey Isopleths of the WVDP and Surrounding Area Revision 2 2-37

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMM ISSION ING PLAN 2.3.4 Summary of Spills During NFS Operations Tabl e 2-1 7 provid es a summary li sting of major spill s th at impacted the environment during the period when NFS was operating the reprocessing plant.

Table 2-17. Principal Radionuclides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location Activity or Type Form Documentation Notes Concentration 1968 radioactive acid spill Sr-90 Liqu id to soil, 0.705 µCi/L Lin e 7P-240-1-C failed that produced the major (predomin ant groundwater (maximum)!11 inside the OGA in January contribution to the north mobile [Original spill volume 1968, and leakage drained plateau groundwater plume. contaminant) estimated at 200 from the OGA through the WMA 1: from southwest gallons, -93 Ci Sr- OGC to the underlying corner of the Process 90](21 soil.(31 Building.

In 1967, wastewater Line to Radionucl ide Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and Line 7P-1 60-2-C leaked an Tank 70-13 contri buted to mix typical of groundwater activity At levels - 5E- unknown amount of north plateau groundwater feed and 03 µCi /ml, the radioactive wastewater in plume. WMA 1: near the waste interceptor release February 1967 during south side of the Process contamination limit. transfer from Tank 70-Building. 13.(5)

In 1967, contaminated Radionuclide Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and Evidence of earlier groundwater noted during mix typical of groundwater quantity; evidently not leakage, but not a spill new interceptor construction. feed and sufficient to cause reported by NFS(SJ WMA 2: south of Old waste worker dose Interceptor at site of New contamination constraints.

Interceptors.

Resin Pit spills during Fuel Cs-1 37, Sr-90 Solid and Unknown amount and Incidental small spills of Receiving and Storage spent liquid to soil, quantity. Some effect resin and fluid during nuclear fuel pool water groundwater on groundwater maintenance. Information filtration system maintenance. noted. from subsurface probing WMA 1: east of FRS. investigation (31 In 1967, Tank 80-2 Cs-137, H-3 Liquid to soil, No evidence of out- Line 8P-46-6-A5 failed ventilation condensate line groundwater leakage, but integrity test. NFS (operates under vacuum) was possibility exists of evaluation in 1977 .(4) noted to be breached. WMA localized groundwater 3: one leak noted between effects.

HLW tanks and southwest side of Process Building (in WMA 1) at ARPR, other leaks thought to exist in WMA 3.

Revision 2 2-38

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 2-17. Principal Radionuclides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location Activity or Type Form Documentation Notes Concentration In 1967, a line from the in-cell Fission Liquid to soil, Leakage resulted in Line 7P-170-2A failed in-LLW Evaporator to acid products and groundwater 555 gallons of liquid cell on 2/14/67. Reported recovery failed in-cell during transuranics waste entering the by NFS (7), (SJ waste transfer to Tank 80-2. from spent fuel ARPR sump and WMA 1: ARPR in southwest draining to the Old corner of Process Building . Interceptor (sufficient This release may have to read >-100 mR/hr impacted soil and at the interceptor),

groundwater under this part and requiring of the Process Building. pumpout back to the Process Building for treatment. This event led to installation of 12 inches of concrete shielding on the

.Interceptor floor. A radiation level of 408 mR/h was measured in the Interceptor in 2003.

Sanitary sewer line leak near Cs-137, Sr-90, Liquid to soil, Estimated 0.052 Ci Sewage Treatment Plant Process Building allowed 1-129 groundwater, Sr-90 released: and outfall drainage were contaminated groundwater to eventual sewage treatment contaminated to low levels, affect Sewage Treatment release to outfall area soil effluent concentrations Plant. WMA 1: in-leakage Erdman contaminated to 1 subsiding after leak was near southwest side of Brook mR/h. repaired .

Process Building. impacting Reported by NFS (BJ, (1 4J water, sediment.

Overflow of Lagoons 4 and 5: Cs-137, Sr-90 Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and Temporary loss of Lagoon treated water released to groundwater activity: probably 3 capacity allowed local soil and groundwater. close to free release overflow of releasable WMA 2: northeast of the 02 level of< 3E-7 treated effluent to occur at Building. µCi /ml. an unplanned location.

Reported by NFS (9J Revision 2 2-39

WV D P P HASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING P LAN Table 2-17. Principal Radionucl ides in Major Spills Occurring During NFS Operations Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location Activity or Type Form Documentation Notes Concentration Leakage from waste Fission Liquid to soil, Unknown amount and Leakage from waste containers or fuel casks products and groundwater activity of leaks: transport trailers parked on contaminated asphalt "Old transuranics maximum surface the hardstand Hardstand" north of the from spent fuel reading was 100 contaminated the asphalt Process Building . WMA 5: mR/hr on localized surface. Runoff footprint located west of LSA surfaces. Material was contaminated the adjacent 3 and LSA 4. removed and placed soil and drainage ditch.

in Lagoon 1 in 1984. Noted, but not detailed Approximately 1,700 during 1982 environmental cubic yards of characterization .18J removed material, Significant contamination

<10,000 dpm/g beta- was noted in 1983.110J gamma, <2,000 dpm alpha.111i Cesium prong created by Cs-137 Airborne Approximately 0.33 Ci Several events contributed particulate deposition particulate to particulate gross beta to the deposits. A DOG following 1968 dissolver off- exposed radioactivity released . filter failure in March, and a gas HEPA filter failure. WMA surfaces, soil Offsite- 44 pCi/g main plant filter failure in 1,3, 4,5,10: general localized; 21pCi/g September appear to have deposits to the north- averaged over 2,500 been the main sources of northwest of the Process m2(26,900 ft2). Offsite the observed depositions.

Building. Detectable deposits data from Luckett.(13J Reported by NFS 112J.l8J extend several miles (outside the scope of this plan).

LEGEND: ARPR = Acid Recovery Pump Room , DOG =dissolver off-gas, FR S = Fuel Receiving and Storage, OGA =Off-Gas Aisle, OGC = Off-gas Cell.

NOTES: (1) From Hemann and Steiner 1999. (6) From Taylor 1967. (11) From WVNSCO 1995.

(2) From Westcott 1998. (7) From Wischow 1967 . (12) From Urban 1968a.

(3) From Carpenter and Hemann 1995. (8) From Marchetti 1982. (13) From Luckett 1995.

(4) From Duckworth 1977. (9) From Taylor 1972. (14) From Duckworth 1972b (5) From Lewi s 1967 . (10) From WVN SCO 1983b.

2.3.5 WVDP Spills Incidents occurring outside facility containment, qnd having the potential for residual environmental contamination are detailed as spills or unplanned releases. Spills that were confined inside facilities are not discussed because such spills did not lead to releases into the environment. For example, although the discovery of contaminant migration within the NOA in 1983 required action , the effects were contained within the facility (WVNSCO 1985a). Any residual contamination has been characterized along with the facility and is included in the respective facility radiological inventory.

Based on a review of event reports for the WVDP (1985 through 2008), one 1985 spill and one 1987 spill involving release of radioactive water were documented by unusual occurrence reports as identified below. These events are mentioned because they were Revision 2 2-40

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN considered to be serious enough to be reportable under DO E requirements . They are listed below in Table 2-18, along with three other unplanned releases of less significance .

Table 2-18. WVDP Spill s Impacting Environmental Media (1982 - 2007)

Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location Activity or Type Form Documentation Notes Concentration 1985 spill of radioactive Cs-137, H-3 Liquid to -400 gal at Spill of radioactive water March water at the Waste Tank groundwater, 4.6 E-02 µCi/ml 1985 at the Waste Tank Farm Farm. WMA3: from valve soil gross beta, from a condensate line running pit northwest of 8D-2, -4E-03 µCi/ml from Tank 8D-1 to Tank 8D-2 between 8D-2 and 8D-1 . H-3. due to failure of flanged valve bolts. Some water (4.6E-02

µCi/ml gross beta) flowed out of valve pit. Contaminated soil was removed. Documented by Unusual Occurrence Report!1)

In 1987, condensate from a Radionuclide Liquid to Less than 10 A portable ventilation unit was ventilation unit spilled on top mix typical of groundwater, gallons spilled, disassembled after operations ofTank 8D-2. WMA3: upon feed and soil water probably on March 2, 1987 near Tank disassembling the unit, waste -2E-5 µCi/ml 8D-2. Condensate from the condensate leaked out onto contamination gross beta. housing spilled onto the gravel the gravel surface. surface of Tank 8D-2 top. No soil or water contamination noted in samples collected.(2)

In 1987, the Neutralization Radionuclide Liquid to Approximately The Neutralization Pit Pit overflowed during mix typical of groundwater, 5,000 gallons of overflowed on February 25, transfer of liquid waste to feed and soil waste water was 1987 due to a malfunctioning the interceptor. WMA2: the waste spilled, -5E-05 drain valve. The overflow went overflow went to the ground contamination uCi/mL gross to the ground near the near the interceptors and beta. interceptors and Lagoon 1. The Lagoon 1. . flow was stopped when noted by an operator. Documented by Unusual Occurrence Report !3l In 1987, water from a 55- Radionuclide Liquid to soil, <15 gallons likely Drum was being transferred gallon drum containing mix typical of potentially to spilled, wetted from the Lag Storage Building spent resin leaked. WMA 5: feed and groundwater soil was <100 hardstand to a waste water spilled on the ground waste dpm/g gross

  • solidification area in the Process before or during transfer of contamination beta. Building when leakage was the drum to a processing noted.!4l station .

Revision 2 2-41

WV D P PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Tab le 2-18. WVDP Spills Impacting Environmental Media (1982 - 2007)

Principal Radionuclides Release Event and Origin Location Activity or Type Form Documentation Notes Concentration In 2001 , release of airborne Radionuclide Airborne 4.8E-04 µCi Over a period of two months, particulate from Process mix typical of particulate to gross beta. September-October 2001 , excess Building stack in droplet Process exposed moisture appears to have form . WMA1 and 3: fallout Building stack surfaces and become entrained in the Main was localized due to droplet particulate soil Plant Ventilation system, and size. (Cs-137 & Sr- was emitted from the stack as

90) droplets containing radioactive particulates. The fallout was confined to the area several hundred feet from the Process Building. Radiological surveys were conducted and accessible above-background spots were decontaminated. Total releases were less than 0.5% of the administrative release limits (SJ,(6!

In 2003, breach discovered Radionuclide Liquid to Amount Discovery of hole in riser to in wastewater drain line mix typical of groundwater, unknown, water drain line 15-ww-569 from allowing contaminated feed and soil typically -2E-07 Laundry to Interceptors in laundry water to leak into waste µCi/ml gross October 2003: date of breach adjacent soils. WMA 1: contamination beta. unknown. A sample of during wastewater line subsurface soil near the breach inspection a breach was showed 3,300 pCi/g Cs-137 and discovered, but no specific 87 pCi/g Am-241 as shown in event was identified which Table 4-12 in Section 4; the would have caused the breached line may not have breach. The line was caused all of this repaired . contamination .m. (Bl NOTES: (1) From WVNSCO 1985b. (5) From Nagel 2001 .

(2) From WVNSCO 1987a. (6) From Nagel 2002 .

(3) From WVNSCO 1987b. (7) From Maloney 2003 .

(4) From WVNSCO 1987c. (8) From WVNSCO 2006.

2.4 Prior Onsite Burials There are two prior burial sites within the NRC licensed property that contain radioactive material : Lagoon 1 and the NDA. A drainage area adjacent to the NDA is believed to contain contaminated soil below contouring fill. The location of these burial sites is shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.

2.4.1 lagoon 1 In order to prevent further water infiltration, and to isolate contaminated fill removed in the 1980s from a hardstand north of the Process Building, radioactive wastes were stabilized and capped within Lagoon 1, one of five lagoons associated with the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. Lagoon 1 was an unlined basin in the system for treating liquid Revision 2 2-42

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN low-level waste . It was removed from service in 1984 because it was determined during initial WVOP environmental assessments to be a major source of tritium in nearby groundwater (Marchetti 1982) .

After Lagoon 1 was taken out of service, liquid and sediment from it were transferred to Lagoon 2. Lagoon 1 was then filled with approximately 46,000 cubic feet of radioactively-contaminated debris removed during decontamination of the old/new hardstand area .

Among this debris were asphalt, trees, stumps, roots, and weeds (WVNSCO 1995) .

After being filled with debris, Lagoon 1 was then capped with clay, covered with topsoil, and re-vegetated . Table 2-19 provides an order-of-magnitude estimate for the residual radioactivity in Lagoon 1. Section 7 describes decommissioning activities for Lagoon 1, which will include removal and offsite disposal of the buried waste .

Table 2-19. Estimated Residual Radioactivity in Lagoon 1l1J Radionuclide Activity (Ci) Radionuclide Activity (Ci)

C-14 0.053 U-234 0.012 Sr-90 19 U-235 0.0027 Tc-99 0.20 Np-237 0.0031 Cd-113m 0.065 U-238 0.025 Sb-125 0.0038 Pu-238 6.5 1-129 0.029 Pu-239 3.8 Cs-137 548 Pu-241 156 Eu-154 1.7 Am-241 11 U-233 0.22 Cm-244 0.22 NOTE: (1) From WVNSCO 1995, decay-corrected to January 2011 . Most of the activity is estimated to be in the remaining sediment.

2.4.2 The NRC-Licensed Disposal Area As explained in Section 3, the NOA is a 400-feet wide and 600-feet long shallow-land radioactive waste disposal site southeast of the Process Building . It includes three distinct areas: (1) the NFS waste disposal area, (2) the WVOP disposal trenches and caissons, and (3) the areas occupied by an interceptor trench and subsurface barrier wall (Figure 2-8) .

Prior to 1972, the NOA was used exclusively for the disposal of highly radioactive solid wastes generated by the reprocessing plant. Wastes routinely buried in the area included spent fuel hulls, fuel assembly hardware, failed process vessels and large equipment, degraded process solvent absorbed on suitable solid medium, and miscellaneous packaged trash including laboratory wastes, small equipment, ventilation filters, and other process-related debris.

Revision 2 2-43

WV DP P HASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING P LAN Also buried in the NOA are 42 ruptured spent fuel elements from the Hanford N-Reactor. According to records. the total radioactive waste volume in the NOA is approximately 361,000 cubic feet. The estimated total activity present in 2000 was approximately 299, 000 curies (Wild 2000) . Table 2-20 is an abridged summary of the wastes buried in the NOA. Table 2-21 is a summary of radioactivity in wastes buried in the NOA, corrected to the estimated radioactivity present in 2011.

The swale between the SDA and the NOA has been historically contaminated.

presumably from spills during waste burial operations by NFS. and after SDA closure, during leachate control activities (DOE 1978) . During the NOA tank removal and subsurface control period in the 1980s and 1990s. the swale area was re-contoured to prevent erosion. An unknown amount of low-level radioactive contamination remains in that area, evidenced by continuing elevated radioactive contaminant indicators in surface water immediately downstream (WVNSCO and URS 2007) . The swale area averages approximately 30 feet wide running 300 feet north along the drainage from the old NOA hardstand . Based upon observations during radiation surveys in 1982, the contamination appeared to have permeated porous fill in the swale channel. Gamma readings in that area were five to seven times background, not inconsistent with observed downstream gross beta contamination (Marchetti 1982). Surface soi l contamination is still occasionally noted in that area (WVNSCO 1986, WVNSCO 2007b) .

Table 2-20 Summary of Wastes in the NRC-licensed Disposal Area '1J NOA Estimated 2011 General Waste Types (typical) Volume (ft 3 )

Location Activity (Ci)

NFS Deep Ai r filters, pumps. pipe. scrap. hull s, 65,145 169,1 61 Holes resin, solvent. fuel casing. shear ram, concrete, wood.

NFS Special Air filters, pumps. pipe. scrap, 97 ,298 58,914 Holes birdcages, resin. solvent. dissolver, jumpers, saw, shield, cask, railcar, low level waste treatment sludge, trash .

WVDP Ai r filters, metal tanks, scrap. resin, 197,656 926 Trenches LLWT sludge, trash, concrete, wood ,

asphalt. glove box, snow blower.

WVDP General wa ste, LLWT sludge . 823 0.15 Ca issons Disposal Tota ls 360,922 229,000 NOTE : (1) Based on the estimates in Wild 2000, decay corrected to 2011 . Activity in each loca tion estim ated by proportion of overall 2000 activity.

Revision 2 2-44

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 1

Table 2-21 . Estimated Radioactivity in the NDAl J Nuclide Estimate (Ci) Nuclide Estimate (Ci) Nuclide Estimate (Ci)

Am-241 2,000 Np-237 0.17 Tc-99 10 C-14 520 Pu-238 350 U-233 11 Co-60 7,000 Pu -239 580 U-234 0.59 Cs- 137 29,000 Pu -240 400 U-235 0.12 H-3 35 Pu -241 9,100 U-238 1.5 1-129 0.022 Ra -226 <0.01 - -

Ni-63 110,000 Sr-90 22,000 - -

NOTE : (1) From Wild 2000, radionuclide total s corrected for decay and in-growth to 2011 and rounded to two significant figures.

Revision 2 2-45

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN N

WMAS A

Approximate Location of Forme r NOA lagoon Trenc hes WMA9 Legend

~ NfS DEEP HOLE DISPOSAL AREA

  • D VWOP DISPOSAL AREA 50 0 50 100 150 200 Feet LJ NFS WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
  • 0.A 10 20--30 40I Meters 10 Figure 2-8. NOA Disposal Area Burials (The geomembrane cover is not shown in this view.)

Revision 2 2-46

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2.4.3 Other Burial Locations Two other areas on the Center contain buried radioactive material , although neither is 7

within the scope of this plan . One, the SDA. is not on the project premises. The other, the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill in WMA 4, is briefly described here for completeness because it is located within the project premises .

Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill The Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill in WMA 4 is located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Process Building . This landfill, the only facility within this WMA, covers approximately 1.5 acres in the southern part of the area. Nonradioactive waste material was typically placed in the landfill on existing grade in layers three to five feet thick, covered with soil, and compacted with bulldozers or trucks . The landfill is estimated to contain a total volume of 425 ,000 cubic feet of waste material and soil. It was initially used by Bechtel Engineering from 1963 to 1965 to dispose of nonradioactive waste generated during *construction of the Process Building (WVNSC01996) .

NFS then used this landfill from 1965 to 1981 to dispose of nonradioactive construction, office, and facility generated debris, including ash from the NFS incinerator.

The landfill was used from 1982 to 1984 to dispose of nonradioactive waste generated at the WVDP .

Disposal operations at the landfill were terminated in December 1984 and the DOE closed it in accordance with applicable New York State regulations . The final cover on the landfill was graded and grass planted to prevent erosion . In October 1986, the NYSDEC approved and certified the closure of the landfill (WVNSCO 1996) .

Because this landfill is located in the path of the north pJateau groundwater plume, radioactively contaminated grqundwater in the plume is assumed to have come in contact with waste in the landfill as discussed in Section 2.3.1 . Portions of the buried waste are therefore expected to be radioactive .

2.5 References Federal Statutes Atomic Energy Act of 1954 Energy Reorganization Act of 197 4 West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980 Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection.

7 The condition of the old Sewage Plant drainage described in Section 2.3.2 could also considered to be buried radioactivity since the contaminated sediment is covered with soil.

Revision 2' 2-47

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Other References AEC 1966, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., and New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority Docket No. 50-201 , Provisional Operating License No.

CSF-1 . U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1966.

  • Bower 2008, The U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project (DOE-WVDP) Air Emissions Annual Report for CY2007, per the NESHAP 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61 , Subpart H, letter DW:2008 :0181 . Bower, B., U.S.

Department of Energy-West Valley Demonstration Project to P. Giardina , U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, June 25, 2008 .

Carpenter and Hemann 1995, Subsurface Probing Investigation on the North Plateau at the West Valley Demonstration Project, WVDP-220, Revision 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, May 1, 1995.

DOE 1978, Western New York Nuclear Service Center Study Companion Report, TID-28905-2 . U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 1978.

DOE 1993, Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms, Rev. 0. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. Washington , DC, 1993.

DOE 1996, Plutonium Recovery from Spent Fuel Reprocessing by Nuclear Fuel Services at West Valley, New York from 1966 to 1972. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C .. February 1996.

DOE 2006, Environmental Assessment for the Decontamination, Demolition, and Removal of Certain Facilities at the West Valley Demonstration Project - Final, DOE/EA-1552. U.S. Department of Energy, West Valley, New York, September 14, 2006 DOE and NYSERDA 1981, Cooperative Agreement between United States Department of Energy and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority on the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, New York. Effective October 1, 1980, Amended September 18, 1981 .

Duckworth 1972a, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for January 1, 1972 through March 31, 1972. J. Duckworth, Nuclear Fuel Services to S. Smiley, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., West Valley, New York, April 18, 1972.

Duckworth 1972b, Letter Report on Sanitary Sewer Activity. J. Duckworth, Nuclear Fuel Services to J. O'Reilly, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc .. West Valley, New York, February 25 , 1972.

Duckworth 1977, Memorandum regarding leak testing of WTF vent line , J. Duckworth to W. Oldham, both of Nuclear Fuel Services. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, May 25, 1977.

Revision 2 2-48

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN EG&G/EM 1991, An Aerial Radiological Survey of the WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT and Surrounding Area, EG&G/EM Survey Report EGG-10617-1080.

EG&G/EM, Las Vegas, Nevada September 1991 .

Eisenstatt 1986, Description of the West Valley Demonstration Project Reference High-Level Waste Form and Canister, DOE/NE/44139-26 . Eisenstatt, L. R. , U.S.

Department of Energy, West Valley, New York, 1986.

Grove Engineering 2003, MicroShield Version 6 User's Manual. Grove Engineering, Rockville Maryland , March 2003 .

Hemann and Steiner 1999, 1998 Geoprobe Investigation in the Core Area of the North Plateau Groundwater Plume, WVDP-346 , Rev . 0. Hemann, M . R. & Steiner II, R.

E., West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, June 1999.

Lachapelle 2003, Vitrification Facility (VF) Radioisotope Inventory Report, RIR-403-010, Rev . 1. Lachapelle, E.B., West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, June 2003 .

Lewis 1.967 , Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for January 20, 1967 through April 19, 1967. W . Lewis, Nuclear Fuel Services, to J.

McBride, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc ., West Valley, New York, May 16, 1967 .

Luckett 1995, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Western New York Nuclear Service Center Off-Site Radiation Investigation. Luckett. L., Dames &

Moore, Pearl River, New York, April 1995.

Maloney 2003, Solid waste Management Unit Assessment, SWMU #45 - Breach in Laundry Wastewater Line (EPA ID#NYD980779540) . M. Maloney, DOE-West Valley Demonstration Project. to R. Phaneuf, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, letter # DW:2003 :0571. U.S. Department of Energy, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, December 22, 2003 .

Marchetti 1982, Environmental Characterization of the Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant at West Valley, New York (Presolidification Baseline), WVDP:014 . S. Marchetti to Distribution . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, October 1982.

Marschke 2006, Radionuclide Inventory, Waste Form Stability Characteristics, and Waste Classification for Solidified Decontaminated Supernatant and Sludge Wash Solutions, Calculation Package WSMS -WV-06-CAL001 , Revision 0. Marschke, S.,

Washington Safety Management Solutions, West

Michalczak 2004, Characterization Management Plan for the Facility Characterization Project, WVDP -403, Revision 3. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January 16, 2004 .

Revision 2 2-49

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Nagel 2001 , WVDP Effluent Summary Report and Environmental Monitoring Program Monthly Trend Analysis Report for September 2001, letter No. IB:2001 :0261 . A.

Nagel to Distribution, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 10, 2001 .

Nagel 2002, WVDP Effluent Summary Report and Environmental Monitoring Program Monthly Trend Analysis Report for October 2001 , letter No. 18:2002 :0020. A. Nagel to Distribution, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January 11 , 2002 .

NFS 1973, Safety Analysis Report: NFS Reprocessing Plant, Docket No. 50-201. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, 1973.

NRC 1981 , Change No. 31 Facility License No. CSF-1 . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wa shington D.C., September 30, 1981 .

NRC 2006, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees, NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Rev. 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C .. September 2006 .

Riethmiller 1981 , History of Decontamination. Riethmiller, G. E .. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc .. West Valley, New York, June 1981 .

Rowell 2001, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Sodium-Bearing Waste Water at the West Valley Demonstration Project. Subject of attached letter WD:2001 :0810 from L. Rowell , WVNSCO, to A. Williams, DOE . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 17, 2001 .

Rykken 1986, High-Level Waste Characterization At West Valley, Report of Work Performed 1982 - 1985, DOE/NEJ44139-14 (DE87005887) . Rykken, L.E ., West Va lley, New York, June 2, 1986.

Smokowski 1977, Memorandum regarding French Drain. R. Smokowski to W. Oldham, both of Nuclear Fuel Services. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, August 23, 1977.

Taylor 1967, Memorandum regarding contaminated water noted during excavation . C.

Taylor to K. Valentine, both of Nuclear Fuel Services. Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, May 23, 1967.

Taylor 1972, Letter from C. Taylor, Nuclear Fuel Services, to J. Riley, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, November 2, 1972 Urbon 1968a, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for January 1, 1968 through March 31 , 1968. W. Urbon, Nuclear Fuel Services, to J. McBride, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, May 6, 1968.

Urbon 1968b, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley Reprocessing Plant Quarterly Report for July 1, 1968 through September 30, 1968. W. Urbon, Nuclear Fuel Services, to Revision 2 2-50

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN J. McBride, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission . Nuclear Fuel Services, West Valley, New York, November 4, 1968 URS 2001 , Assessment of Potential Radioactivity Emissions to the Atmosphere from the Remote Handled Waste Facility (RHWF) , Approval Request No. 2001-356, URS to WVNSCO. URS Corporation, Orchard Park, New York, August 21 , 2001 .

Wischow 1967, Incident report of Leak in Transfer Line 7P-170. R. Wischow, Nuclear Fuel Services, to E. Price, U.S. Atomic Energy Commi ssion . Nuclear Fu el Service s, West Vall ey, New York, March 14 1967 .

Westcott 1998, Memorandum from D. Westcott to Distribution on Expanded Source Term for the North Plateau Groundwater Plume. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January, 1998 .

Wild 2000, Estimated Radionuclide Inventory for the NRG Licensed Disposal Area at the West Valley Demonstration Project. Wild , R. E .. URS/Dames & Moore, Orchard Park, NY, August, 2000.

WVES 2008, West Valley Demonstration Project Radiological Survey Database. West Vall ey Environmental Services, West Valley, New York, May 2008 .

WVE S *2009, WVDP North Plateau Characterization to Support Design of Strontium-90 Groundwater Plume Mitigation Measure(s) , WVDP-500, Revision 0. West Valley Environmental Services LLC, West Valley, New York, September 28, 2009.

WVES and URS 2009, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report Calendar Year 2008. West Valley Environmental Services LLC and URS Washington Division, West Valley, New York, September 2009 .

WVNSCO 1983a, 1982 Environmental Monitoring Program Report for the West Valley Demonstration Project Site. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, May 1983 .

WVNSCO 1983b, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 1983.

WVNSCO 1985a, Investigation of Kerosene - TBP Movement from the NRG Licensed Disposal Area Western New York Nuclear Service Center. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, April 1985 .

WVNSCO 1985b, Letter from H. Daugherty, WVNSCO, to W. Hannum, U.S. DOE, WD:85:0203, Unusual Occurrence Report regarding 85-2-WTF-1 . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, March 28, 1985.

WVNSCO 1986, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 1986.

WVNSCO 1987a, Water Spill from PVS on 8D-2, Critique Minutes, WVNS No . CM87029.

West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, March 2, 1987 .

Revision 2 2-51

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WVNSCO 1987b, Spill of Radioactive Water from the Interceptor Neutralizer Pit During Normal Operation of the System, WVNSCO Unusual Occurrence Report No. 87 ENV-1 . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, March 13, 1987 WVNSCO 1987c, Leakage of Contaminated Liquid, WVNSCO Critique Minutes CM87095, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, August 17, 1987.

WVNSCO 1995, West Valley Demonstration Project, Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Waste Characterization Report, WVDP-EIS -019, Rev. 1. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, 1995.

WVNSCO 1996, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Report, Volume 3, Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, WVDP-RFl-019. West Valley Demon stration Project, West Valley, NY, April 22, 1996.

WVNSCO 2006, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Vall ey Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, December 2006 .

WVNSCO 2007a, Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processing and Support Activities, WVNS-SAR-001 . West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, June 28, 2007 .

WVNSCO 2007b, West Valley Demonstration Project radiological survey database. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley , New York, December 2007 .

WVNSCO and URS 2005, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2004. West Valley Nuclear Services Company and URS Group, Inc. West Valley, New York, August 2005 .

WVNSCO and URS 2006, West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2005. West Valley Nuclear Services Company and URS Group, Inc., West Valley, New York, September 2006.

Revision 2 2-52

WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION The purpose of this section is to describe the facility and its environs . This information provides a foundation for understanding the rest of the plan . Section 3 is also intended to provide information to allow NRC staff to evaluate DO E's estimation of (1) the impacts of the decommissioning activities on the site and its surrounding areas, and (2) the impacts of the environment on the site in the event of natural phenomena such as floods, tornados, and earthquakes.

INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION This section begins with the location and description of the site, including subsurface conditions. Facilities associated with the WVDP are addressed, including those that existed in 2008 and are to be removed before activities under this plan begin . As with other sections of the plan, these facilities are organized by waste management area (WMA) , with the focus on facilities located on the project premises .

The following matters are also addressed : (1) population distribution, (2) current land use and plans for future land use, (3) meteorology and climatology, (4) geology and seismology, (5) surface water hydrology, (6) groundwater hydrology, and (7) natural resources in the area.

All figures referred to in the text, which include photographs, are grouped at the end of the section .

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLAN SECTIONS To put into perspective the information in this section, one must consider the information in Section 1 on the project background and those facilities and areas within the scope of the Phase 1 decommissioning . Consideration of the information in Section 2 on site history, processes, and spills will also help place information in Section 3 into context. The information in this section serves as the foundation for later sections, such as radiological status in Section 4, the dose modeling in Section 5, and the decommissioning activities in Section 7.

Revision 2 3-1

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.1 Site Location and Description 3.1 .1 Site Location The WVDP is located about 30 miles south of Buffalo, in the Town of Ashford ,

Cattaraugus County, New York at approximately 42.450° north latitude and 78 .654° west longitude. The site location with respect to major natural and man-made features in the region is shown in Figure 3-1 .

The facility (i .e., the project premises) lies 2.4 miles southeast of Cattaraugus Creek at its nearest approach . Cattaraugus Creek forms the boundary between Cattaraugus and Erie counties . Buttermilk Creek, a tributary to Cattaraugus Creek, is 0.5 mile east of the project premises. Lake Erie lies approximately 30 miles west.

3.1.2 Site Description The WVDP site consists of approximately 167 acres within the 3,345 -acre Center.

Figure 3-2 delineates the boundaries of the Center and the WVDP. The brief description here focuses on the Center, the WVDP, subsurface conditions on the site, and site groundwater.

The Center The Center is located within the glaciated northern portion of the Appalachian Plateau Province of Western New York which is characterized by deep valleys which dissect rather flat-topped plateaus and range in elevation from 1, 100 to 1,850 feet above mean sea level (Figure 3-3) . The average elevation across the Center is 1,300 feet above mean sea level.

Slopes range from less than five percent to greater than 25 percent, with five to 15 percent slopes predominant. The Center is drained by Buttermilk Creek, which flows into Cattaraugus Creek.

Prior to 1961 , much of the Center was cleared for agriculture. As a result, the Center now consists of a mixture of abandoned agricultural areas in various stages of ecological succession, forested tracts, and wetlands, along with transitional ecotones between these areas. The area of the WVDP would be classified as an industrial land use .

The WVDP Site The WVDP lies on a plateau that ranges in elevation from 1,300 to 1.445 feet above mean sea level, 1929 datum . The plateau margins are defined by Franks Creek, Erdman Brook, and Quarry Creek which drain the WVDP and empty into Buttermilk Creek. This plateau is subdivided by Erdman Brook into the north plateau and south plateau areas. The topography on and around the WVDP site is shown on Figure 3-4.

A posted, barbed-wire fence surrounds the Center. An inner, eight feet high chain-link fence surrounds the WVDP site, with access controlled through one gate . The inner fence defining the WVDP boundary, i.e., the project premises, is shown in Figure 3-5 .

Most major activities related to the WVDP, including all involving radioactivity, are performed within the WVDP site boundary. Although the State-Licensed Disposal Area Revision 2 3-2

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (SDA) is located within the WVDP security fence, as shown in Figure 3-5, it is not considered part of the project premises.

Subsurface Conditions and Groundwater The subsurface conditions underlying the north plateau are different from the subsurface conditions underlying the south plateau, as shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7. The thickness of the unsaturated zone in the weathered till on the south plateau fluctuates annually, averaging approximately 1O feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow in the weathered Lavery till on the south plateau is generally controlled by surface topography and flow is eastward (WVNSCO 1995).

More detailed information on subsurface conditions and groundwater can be found below in Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7.

3.1.3 Facility Description The following descriptions focus on the WVDP facilities as they are expected to appear at the conclusion of the interim end state in 2011 . The facilities to be removed before 2011 are also briefly described .

Major Facilities Th e principal facilities at the site include the former irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, known as the Main Plant Process Building ; the Waste Tank Farm; and the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. These facilities are located on the north plateau . The two radioactive waste burial areas, the NRC-Licensed Disposal Area (N OA) and the SDA, are located on the south plateau . Figure 3-8 shows the locations of these facilities .

Waste Management Areas For administrative purposes, the Center has been divided into 12 WMAs as listed below. The locations of WMA 1 through WMA 10 are shown in Figure 3-8 . WMAs 11 and 12 are shown in Figure 3-9.

  • WMA 1 Main Plant Process Building and Vitrification Facility area,
  • WMA2 Low Level Waste Treatment Facility area ,
  • WMA3 Waste Tank Farm area ,
  • WMA4 Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill ,
  • WMA5 Waste Storage Area,
  • WMA6 Central Project Premises,
  • WMA 7 NOA and associated facilities,
  • WMA8 SDA and associated facilities,
  • WMA9 Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell Area ,
  • WMA 1O Support and Services Area, Revision 2 3-3

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • WMA 11 Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area , and
  • WMA 12 Balance of the Site.

Project Premises Facilities Removed Before Decommissioning Activities Begin WMA 1 WMA 5 (continued)

Cold Chemical Facility Lag Storage Addition 2 Contact Size Reduction Facility Lag Storage Addition 3 Emergency Vehi cle Shelter Hazardous Waste Storage Lockers Laundry Room Master-Slave Manipulator Repair Shop Old Warehouse Radwa ste Process (Hittman) Building Old Sewage Treatment Facility Recirculation Ventilation System Building New Cooling Tower (except basin)

WMA2 North Waste Tank Farm Training Platform 02 Building Road -Salt and Sand Shed Test and Storage Building Maintenance Shop Interim Waste Storage Facility Maintenance Storage Area NDA Hardstand Vehicle Repair Shop WMA10 Vitrification Test Facility Administration Building Expanded (Environmental) Laboratory Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area Fabrication Shop Lag Storage Building Vitrification Diesel Fuel Oil Building Lag Storage Addition 1 WMA 1: Main Plant Process Building and Vitrification Facility Area Figure 3-10 shows the layout of WMA 1. Figure 3-11 is an aerial photograph of the Main Plant Process Building and Vitrification Facility area . A description of each facility in WMA 1 follows :

WMA 1 facilities within the scope of this plan are:

  • Main Plant Process Building ;
  • Vitrification Facility;
  • Load-In/Load-Out Facility;
  • Utility Room and Utility Room Expansion;
  • Fire Pumphouse and Water Storage Tank; Revision 2 3-4

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • Plant Office Building;
  • Electrical Substation;
  • 01 -14. Building;
  • Vitrification Off-Gas Trench;
  • Source Area of the North Plateau Plume; and
  • Concrete Floor Slabs for the Laundry Room, Fuel Receiving and Storage Ventilation Building, Radwaste Process Building, Cold Chemical Facility, and other removed facilities .

Main Plant Process Building. The Main Plant Process Building (Process Building) was built between 1963 and 1966, and was used by Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) from 1966 to 1971 to recover uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. This multi-storied building is approximately 130 feet wide and 270 feet long, and rises approximately 79 feet above the ground surface at its highest point. Figures 3-12 through 3-21 show the building exterior, interior layouts, and representative areas.

The major Process Building structure rests on approximately 480 driven steel H-piles .

The building is composed of a series of cells, aisles, and rooms that are constructed of reinforced concrete and concrete block. The reinforced concrete walls, floors and ceilings range from one to six feet thick. The reinforced concrete walls are typically surrounded by walls of lighter concrete and masonry construction and metal deck flooring . Six floor layout plans of different levels of the Process Building appear in Figures 3-13A through 3-13F .

Most of the facility was constructed above grade, with some of the cells extending below ground (i .e., below the ground surface reference elevation of 100 feet) . The deepest cell, the General Purpose Cell, extends approximately 27 feet below-grade. The Cask Unloading Pool and the Fuel Storage Pool, located in the Fuel Receiving and Storage Area on the east side of the building, were used to receive and store spent fuel received for reprocessihg, and extend approximately 49 and 34 feet below grade, respectively .

Cells such as the Process Mechanical Cell , the Chemical Process Cell, and Extraction Cells 1, 2, and 3 were constructed of reinforced high-density concrete three to five feet thick. Such thicknesses were needed to provide.radiation shielding .

The operations performed in the cells were remotely controlled by individuals working in the various aisles of the Process Building, which were formed by adjacent walls of the cells. The aisles contained the manipulator controls and valves needed to support operations in the cells. Rooms not expected to contain radioactivity were typically constructed with concrete block and structural steel framing.

Wastewater generated during reprocessing was managed in one of two ways, depending on activity. High-level waste was transferred from the Process Building to the Waste Tank Farm via two underground transfer lines (7P-113 and 7P-120) to Tank 80-2 Revision 2 3-5

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and Tank 80-4 . Low-level wastewater was transferred to the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility via below-grade transfer lines associated with the interceptor system .

The WVDP modified portions of the Process Building to support its primary mission of solidifying HLW . Equipment in the Chemical Process Cell was removed to allow its use for storage of canisters of vitrified HLW. Extraction Cell 3 and the Product Purification Cell were emptied of equipment which was replaced with equipment used to support the Liquid Waste Treatment System. This system was used to manage supernatant and sludge wash solutions from Tank 80-2 which contained HLW.

Vitrification Facility. Shown in Figures 3-22 and 3-23. this structural steel frame and sheet metal building houses the Vitrification Cell, operating aisles. and a control room . The Vitrification Cell is 34 feet wide, 65 feet long and 42 feet high . Figure 3-23 shows how it looked when it went into service.

At the north end of the Vitrification Cell is the melter pit. The pit is 34 feet wide by 25 feet long with its bottom about 14 feet below grade. The Vitrification Cell is lined with 0.125-inch-thick stainless steel up to 22 feet above grade .

As explained in Section 2, HLW transferred from HLW Tank 80-2 was mixed with glass formers and vitrified into borosilicate glass within the Vitrification Cell. Vitrification operations were performed remotely by operators in the operating aisles or in the control room. The Vitrification Cell contained the Concentrator Feed Makeup Tank, Melter Feed Hold Tank. the slurry-fed ceramic melter, turntable, off-gas treatment equipment. canister welding station, and the canister decontamination station. All equipment was removed from the Vitrification Cell during the deactivation of this facility in 2003 and 2004 .

Load-In/Load-Out Facility. The Load-In/Load-Out Facility is located adjacent to the west wall of the Equipment Decontamination Room of the Process Building in WMA 1. It is a structural steel and steel sided building that is approximately 80 feet long, 55 feet wide, and 54 feet tall. The floor is poured concrete, and the roof is metal sheeting with insulation .

This facility was used to move empty canisters and equipment into and out of the Vitrification Cell. It has a truck bay and a 15-ton overhead crane that is used to move canisters and equipment. After the new Canister Storage Facility is constructed, the Load -

In/Load-Out facility will be used to transfer the vitrified HLW canisters from the Process Building to that facility .

Utility Room and Utility Room Expansion . The Utility Room and the Utility Room Expansion can be seen in Figures 3-10 and 3-11. The Utility Room is a concrete block and steel framed building located on the south end of the Process Building . It consists of two adjoining buildings that were built at different times, the original Utility Room and the Utility Room Expansion .

The original Utility Room , which was built during the construction of the Process Building, makes up the western portion of the facility and is 80 feet wide , 88 feet long, and Revision 2 3-6

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 20 feet high . It contains equipment that supplies steam, compressed air, and *various types of water to the Process Building . .

The *utility Room Expansion was built in the early 1990s immediately adjacent to the original Utility Room. The Utility Room Expansion is approximately 85 feet long, 56 feet wide , and 25 feet high . It contains equipment similar to that in the Utility Room .

Fire Pump House and Water Storage Tank. The Fire Pump House was constructed in 1963 and is 20 feet wide, 24 feet long, and 10 feet high at the peak. The structure is of steel frame and sheet metal construction on a four-inch concrete slab floor, which is supported on a concrete foundation wall. Its location is shown in Figure 3-10.

The Pump House contains two pumps on concrete foundations. An adjacent small metal storage shed is used to store fire hoses and fire extinguishers . The 4 75 ,800-gallon water storage tank (Tank 320-1) is located outside the Utility Room, as shown in Figure 3-11 .

Plant Office Building. The Pl ant Office Building is a three-story concrete block and structural steel framed structure located adjacent to the west side of the Process Building . It is approximately 40 feet wide, 95 feet long, and 44 feet high and contains offices and men's and women's locker rooms . Figures 3-11 and 3-14 show the building .

Electrical Substation. The electrical substation is located adjacent to the southeast corner of the Process Building . A 34 .5 kilovolt/480 volt transformer rests on a concrete foundation behind a steel framed structure . Its location is shown in Figure 3-10.

  • 01-14 Building. The 01-14 Building is a four-story, 64 feet tall concrete and steel frame building located next to the southwest corner of the Process Building, as shown in Figures 3-10 and 3-11. This building was built in 1971 to house an NFS off-gas system and acid recovery system, but it was never used to support NFS operations. The 01-14 Building was modified to house the Vitrification Off-Gas System and the Cement Solidification System .

The off-gas system was used to treat off-gases generated in the melter in the Vitrification Facility. The Cement Solidification System wa5 used to stabilize radioactive waste generated from the Liquid Waste Treatment System in a cement matrix and to package this mixture in drums that were stored in the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell in WMA 9.

Laundry Room. The Laundry Room is located southeast of the Utility Room as shown in Figure 3-10. It is a concrete block structure 26 feet by 56 feet by 20 feet high with metal decking and asphalt roofing . The floor is a concrete slab six inches thick, which contains a sump .

The Laundry Room contains a commercial size washer and dryer, along with sorting tables and racks for laundering contaminated protective clothing . It is separated into a radiologically "hot" side and a "clean" side . It will be removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade before the start of Phase 1 decommissioning activities.

Revision 2 3-7

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Cold Chemical Facility Slab. The Cold Chemical Facility was a structural steel frame and sheet metal building that was approximately 34 feet wide, 57 feet long, and 36 feet tall.

It was located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the Vitrification Facility, as shown in Figure 3-27 . It was used to prepare non-radioactive feed materials, such as nitric acid and glass formers, which were used in the vitrification process. The Cold Chemical Facility was demolished to its concrete floor slab at grade in November 2006 .

Fuel Receiving and Storage Ventilation Building Slab. This steel-framed and sheet metal sided structure was located adjacent to the Radwaste Process Building . It was 30 feet by 35 feet by 12.2 feet high and rested on a six-inch-thick concrete slab . It contained equipment that provided the majority of the heating, ventilation , and air conditioning systems for the Fuel Receiving and Storage Building . It was removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade in October 2006 .

Radwaste Process Building Slab. This 15 feet wide by 46 feet long by 12 feet high steel structure, also known as the Hittman Building, was located north of the Fuel Receiving and Storage Building . It was used to manage shielded casks for high-integrity containers used to store loaded resins from the Fuel Pool Submerged Water Filtration System . This building was removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade in October 2006 .

WMA 2: Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility Area WMA 2, the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility area as it existed in 2008 is shown in Figure 3-24 . Figure 3-25 shows the area before the advent of the WVDP .

This facility was used by NFS and then by the WVDP to process low-level radioactive wastewater generated on-site. The current Low Level Waste Treatment Facility includes the Neutralization Pit, interceptors, Lagoons 2-5 , and the LLW2 Building . It is expected to still be in use when Phase 1 decommissioning activities begin.

WMA 2 facilities within the scope of this plan are:

  • The LLW2 Building;
  • Closed Lagoon 1;
  • Active lagoons 2, 3, 4, and 5;
  • The two New Interceptors;
  • The Old Interceptor;
  • The Neutralization Pit;
  • The Maintenance Shop Leach Field ;
  • The Solvent Dike; and
  • Concrete floor slabs such as those for the 02 Building , Maintenance Shop, Test and Storage Building, and Vitrification Test Facility.

A description of the WMA 2 facilities follows :

Revision 2 3-8

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The LLW2 Building. Located southwest of Lagoon 4, this pre-engineered, single-story, metal-sided bui lding rests on a concrete wall foundation, measuring 40 feet by 60 feet. The building houses two skid-mounted process equipment modules that are used to treat wastewater from WMA 1, WMA 3, and radiologically contaminated groundwater from the WMA 7 NOA Interceptor Trench and the north plateau groundwater plume . Figure 3-26 shows the building. The LLW2 Building was built in 1998 to replace the 02 Building, the original low-level wastewater treatment facility that was built by NFS in 1971 .

Th e building is divid ed into three work areas and an office . Th e processing area contains the process modules (including ion exchangers, valves, piping, pumps, filters, instrumentation, and controllers) , two surge tanks, and a sand filter . The packaging room contains a four feet by four feet by nine-feet-deep stainless steel lined catch basin . A portable ventilation unit located outside of ttie packaging area contains a high-efficiency particul ate air (HEPA) fi lter and a short stack on the roof of the building .

Lagoon 1. Lagoon 1 was an unlined pit excavated into the sand and gravel unit that was approximately 80 feet long on ea ch side and 5 fe et deep. It was fed directly from the Old Interceptor and the New Interceptors, and had a storage capacity of more than 200,000 gallons . As explained in Section 2, it wa s removed from service in 1984. Most of the contaminated sediment was transferred to Lagoon 2 and Lagoon 1 was filled with contaminated debris from the NFS hardstand and then capped with clay and topsoil.

Figure 3-27 shows the area of Lagoon 1. Section 2.4 .1 discusses the radioactivity in the closed lagoon .

Lagoon 2. Lagoon 2 is an unlined 17-foot deep basin excavated in the unweathered Lavery till. This lagoon has a storage capacity of 2.4 million gallons and is used to store wa stewater discharged from the New Interceptors before its transfer to the LLW2 for treatment.

From 1965 to 1971, before the installation of the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility system - which initially consisted of the 02 Building and Lagoons 4 and 5 - wastewater was routed through Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 in series before discharge to Erdman Brook.

Between 1971 and 1982, low-level wastewater was routed sequentially through Lagoon 1, Lagoon 2, and the 02 Building for treatment, then to Lagoons 4 or 5, and finally to La goon 3 before discharge to Erdman Brook. From 1982 following the closure of Lagoon 1 to the present. low-level wastewater has been routed sequentially through Lagoon 2, the 02 Building or LLW2 for treatment. Lagoons 4 or 5, and then to Lagoon 3 before discharge to Erdman Brook.

A French drain was instal led on the northwest sides of Lagoon s 2 and 3 and the northea st side of Lagoon 3 to prevent groundwater from flowing into Lagoons 2 and 3. The French drain was capped in 2001 and no longer discharges into Erdman Brook.

Lagoon 3. Lagoon 3 is a 24-foot deep unlined basin excavated in the unweathered Lavery till. It has a storage capacity of 3.3 million gallons . Lagoon 3 receives treated water Revision 2 3-9

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN from Lagoons 4 and 5. Lagoon 3 is periodically batch discharged to Erdman Brook through a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permitted discha rge .

Lagoon 4. Lagoon 4 is a basin constructed in the sand and gravel unit on the North Plateau with a capacity of 204,000 gallons . It receives only treated water from LLW2 and discharges to Lagoon 3.

Lagoon 4 was originally excavated into the sand and gravel unit on the North Plateau and lined with reworked glacial tills . In 197 4 a synthetic membrane liner was installed after NFS identified that Lagoons 4 and 5 were potential sources of tritium to groundwater in the sand and gravel unit (WVNSCO 1997) . In the late 1990's, the synthetic membrane liners were removed and replaced with concrete grout and a XR-5 liner, an ethylene inter-polymer alloy membrane.

Lagoon 5. Lagoon 5 is a basin constructed in the sand and gravel unit on the North Plateau with a capacity of 166,000 gallons. It receives only treated water from the LLW2 facility and discharges to Lagoon 3.

Lagoon 5 was originally excavated into the sand and gravel unit on the north plateau and lined with reworked glacial tills. In 197 4 a synthetic membrane liner was installed after NFS identified that Lagoons 4 and 5 were potential sources of tritium to groundwater in the sand and gravel unit (WVNSCO 1997) . In the late 1990's, the synthetic membrane liners were removed and replaced with concrete grout anti a XR-5 liner, an ethylene inter-polymer alloy membrane.

Neutralization Pit. The Neutralization Pit is a nine feet by seven feet by 5.5 feet deep concrete tank constructed with six-inch thick concrete walls and floor that are lined with stainless steel. The pit receives low-level radioactive wastewater from WVDP process areas. This liquid is subsequently transferred to the interceptors.

Old Interceptor. The Old Interceptor is a 40 feet by 25 feet by 11 .5 feet deep unlined concrete liquid waste storage tank located below-grade. The floor is 24-inches thick and the 1

walls 12 inches thick . The roof is made of steel.

The Old Interceptor received low-level liquid waste generated at the Process Building from the time of initial plant operation until the new interceptors were constructed . The Old Interceptor is currently used for temporarily storing radiologically contaminated liquids that exceed the effluent standard of 0 .005 µCi/ml gross beta activity. After verification of acceptable radiological contamination concentrations , the contents are transferred by steam jet to the New Interceptors.

1 The floor of the Old Interceptor was initially 12 inches thi ck . An additional 1 2 inches of concrete was poured on the floor during NSF operations to provide radiation shielding.

Revision 2 3-10

WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECO MMISSIONING PLAN New Interceptors. The New Interceptors are twin open-top concrete storage tanks, each 22 feet by 20 feet by 11 .5 feet deep, located below grade. The walls and floor are 14 inches thick, and are lined with stainless steel. The roof is steel. The New Interceptors were built in 1967 to replace the Old Interceptor, which had high levels of radioactivity (WVNSCO 1997). The New Interceptors are used to collect and sample wastewater before it is transferred to Lagoon 2.

Solvent Dike. The Solvent Dike is located about 300 feet east of the Proce ss Building .

It was an 30 foot by 30 foot unlined basin excavated in the sand and gravel layer. The Solvent Dike received rainwater runoff from the Solvent Storage Terrace, which formerly housed an acid storage tank and three storage tanks containing a mixture of used n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate . The sediment has been removed and the area has been backfilled, but the Solvent Dike still contains radiologically contaminated soil.

Maintenance Shop Leach Field. The Maintenance Shop Leach Field is located just northeast of where the Maintenance Shop stood and consists of three septic tanks, a distribution box, a tile drain field, and associated piping. The leach field , which occupies an area of approximately 1,500 square feet, was used until1988; all three tanks are out of service and filled with sand. Because it is located within the area of the north plateau groundwater plume, low levels of contamination may be present.

Groundwater Pump and Treat System. Installed in 1995, this system is located in the northwest corner of WMA 2 and draws water from two recovery wells at the western lobe of the north plateau groundwater plume, which is discussed in Section 2 and in Section 4.2.

Groundwater is pumped to the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility for treatment by ion exchange to remove Sr-90 contaminants. The treated groundwater is pumped to Lagoon 4 or Lagoon 5, and then to Lagoon 3, and, eventually, discharged into Erdman Brook through the permitted outfall.

Pilot Scale Permeable Treatment Wall. Installed in 1999 and located northwest of Lagoon 5, this treatment wall is about 30 feet wide. seven feet thick. and 25 feet deep, extending down to the Lavery till. It is filled with clinoptilolite. a natural zeolite material, and covered with soil. Its purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of such systems in treating groundwater contaminated with Sr-90.

02 Building Slab. The 02 Building was a two-story, steel-framed concrete block structure 27 feet wide, 39 feet long. and 30 feet high. It contains a 16 feet deep stainless steel lined sump. Figure 3-25 shows the building when it was in service .

The 02 Building once housed filters, ion exchangers and other equipment used by NFS and the WVDP to treat radioactive wastewater before transfer to Lagoon 3. It was replaced with the LLW2 Building. It was demolished down to its concrete floor slab at grade in October 2006 .

Test and Storage Building Slab. The Test and Storage Building was an 80 feet by 120 feet by 22 feet high timber frame and metal sided building located northeast of the Revision 2 3-11

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Process Building . It contained office spaces, a tool crib, and garage space. An 18 feet by 26 feet by 12 feet concrete block addition housed radiation and safety operations. It was demolished down to its concrete floor slab at grade in June 2007 .

Vitrification Test Facility. This 40 feet wide and 120 feet long and 36 feet high metal building with a concrete floor contains a scale vitrification facility and a bulk chemical storage tank. It will be removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade before Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

Maintenance Shop Slab. The Maintenance Shop was a 60 feet by 100 feet by 28 feet high metal building with steel supports . It housed locker rooms , lavatories, instrument shops, work areas, and a finished office area . The Maintenance Shop was demolished down to its concrete floor slab at grade in June 2007 .

Permeable Treatment Wall. A full-scale passive permeable ~reatment wall .is expected to be installed before Phase 1 of the decommissioning to mitigate ttie off-site migration of Sr-90 contaminated groundwater in the sanGl and gravel unit in the north plateau.

The permeable treatment wall is planned to be located in WMA 2 immediately south of the Construction Demolition and Debris Landfill in WMA 4 approximately perpendicular to the flow path of the north plateau groundwater plume. It will be approximately 750 feet long in a northwest-southeast direction . The permeable ~reatment wall will be two to four feet thick, extend down into tile underlying unweathered Lavery till, and be composed of granular zeolite to reduce Sr-90 concentrations in groundwater through ion-exchange .

Alternatives for potential mitigation of Sr-90 in surface water in the swamp ditch west of the Construction Demolition and Debris Landfill and downgradient of ~he permeable treatment wall will be considered after installation of the permeable treatment wall.

WMA 3: Waste Tank Farm Area Shown in Figures 3-29 and 3-30, WMA 3 includes the waste storage tanks (8D-1, 8D-2, 8D-3, and 8D-4) , and their associated tank vaults, the HLW transfer trench , the Permanent Ventilation System Building, the Equipment Shelter and condensers, the Con-Ed Building, and the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building .

WMA 3 facilities and equipment within the scope of this plan are:

2

  • Tanks 8D -1, 8D-2, 8D-3, 8D-4, and the associated vaults  ;
  • The HLW mobilization and transfer pumps;
  • The HLW transfer trench piping;
  • The Equipment Shelter and Condensers; and
  • The Con-Ed Building .

Descriptions of the WMA 3 facilities follow .

2 Only removal of the pumps from the tanks is within the scope of Phase 1 decommissioning activities.

Revision 2 3-12

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Waste Storage Tanks. The waste storage tanks were built to store the liquid HLW generated during the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing operations. The WVDP subsequently modified these tanks to support treatment and vitrification of the HLW. Modifications included constructing a fabricated steel truss system over tanks 8D-1 and 8D-2 to carry the weight of sludge mobilization and transfer pumps and installation of the Supernatant Treatment System equipment in Tank 8D-1 .

Tank BD-1, Tank BD-2, and Vaults . Tanks 8D-1 and 8D-2 are identical in size and construction, with each tank housed within its own cylindrical concrete vault. Each tank is 27 feet high by 70 feet in diameter, with a storage capacity of 750,000 gallons. Figure 3-31 shows a cutaway view of a tank.

The tanks were constructed with reinforced carbon steel plate ranging in thickness from 0.4375 inch for the roofs and walls to 0.656 inch for the floors . The roof of each tank is supported internally by forty-five eight-inch diameter vertical pipe columns that rest on a horizontal gridwork of wide flange beams and cross members in the bottom two feet of each tank. Each tank rests on two six-inch-thick layers of perlite blocks that rest on a three-inch layer of pea gravel. The tank, perlite blocks, and pea gravel are contained within a carbon steel pan which rests on a three-inch layer of pea gravel that separates the pan from the floor of the vault.

Each tank and its associated pan are housed within a cylindrical reinforced concrete vault that has an outside diameter of 78 .6 feet. The walls of each vault are 18 inches thick and extend nearly 36 feet above the floor of the vaults .

The floor of each vault is 27 inches thick, except under the six 30-inch diameter vertical concrete columns that support the vault roof. These columns pass upward from the floor of the vault through the tanks and are encased in steel pipes 48 inches in diameter that are welded to the top and bottom of each tank. The columns are located approximately 16 feet from the center of the tank. The floor of each vault is underlain by *a four feet thick bed of gravel. The concrete vault roof is two feet thick and is supported by the six concrete columns . The top of the vaults are six to eight feet below grade .

Despite their robust construction, the tank vaults have not proven to be watertight.

Groundwater seeps into both vaults and has to be regularly pumped out. A tank and vault drying system will be installed during deactivation work to achieve the interim end state to dry Tanks 8D-1 , 8D-2, 8D -3, 8D-4 and their associated vaults. The tanks and vaults are expected to be in a dry condition several years after the start of Phase 1 of the decommissioning. The Tank and Vault Drying System will then maintain the tanks and vaults in a dry state .

The current conceptual design of the Tank and Vault Drying System includes a pre-cooling condensing unit and a desiccant wheel with a heater. Outside air will be pre-cooled as needed to lower the relative humidity entering the drying unit. The air will then flow through the desiccant unit for further drying and heating before being distributed to the bottom of the tanks and vaults.

Revision 2 3-13

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The dry air supplied to the bottom of the tanks will displace moist air which will follow thle tank ventilation flow pat'h frorrn the top of the tanks through the tank ventilation lines to the Permanent Ventilation System Buildi111g for treatment. At the Penmanent Ventilation System Buildi111g, the nrnoist air fJow from the tanks will flow ~hroUJgh a moisture separator, a heater, pre-filters, and two se:ts of HEPA filters .before being discharged through !the Permane111t Ventilation System Building stack.

The dry air supplied to ~he boVtom of the vaults will be a reciroUJlabion loop Glisplacing moist vaUJlt air which will be removed at the top of the vaUJlts. Moist exhaust air from the vaults will be drawn baok t'hrough the desiocant wheel along with the rmcessary make up air. Make up air will be neoessary sinoe the dry air that goes i n to the tanks is not retumed to the desicca111t unit.

T'he desiocant i111 t'he desiocant wheel will need to be regenerated peniodically. Moisture in the desiccant unit will be removed with filtered heated air passing through the reactivation sector of the desiccant drying unit. The moist air exiting the unit will be vented to the Permanent Ventilation System Building where it will join the air filow from the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building and the tanks before flowing throUJgh the moisture separator, heater, pre-filters and two sets of HEPA filters before discharge through the Permanent Ventilation System Building stack.

The HLW transfer pumps and the mobilization pumps in Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning. These pumps are illustrated in Figure 3-32.

Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 each contain a single HLW transfer pump . Each centrifugal multi-stage turbine type pump is more than 55 feet long and is driven by a 150 horse power motor. Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 also contain a total of nine mobilization pumps. These pumps are approximately the same size as the HLW transfer pumps.

Tanks 80-1 and 80-2 each contain an additional suction pump used in waste pretreatment and processing. The Tank 80-1 pump is a vertical turbine pump mounted on a pipe column with an overall length of approximately 31 feet. The Tank 80-2 pump is a submersible pump mounted on a three inch . pipe column with an overall length of approximately 33 feet. All of the pumps in the underground waste tanks are expected to be highly contaminated as explained in Section 4.1.

Tank 80-1 was modified by the WVOP to support operation of the Supernatant Treatment System and it contains the following Supernatant Treatment System equipment:

  • Supernatant pre-filter
  • Supernatant feed tank (1.726 gal)
  • Supernatant cooler
  • Four zeolite columns (1,900 gal each)
  • Supernatant sand filter Revision 2 3-14

WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • Sluice lift tank (2,142 gal)
  • Assooiated transfer piping .

llhe operation of the Supernatant Treatment System is desoribed below.

Tank BD-3, Tank BD-4 and Vault. Tanks 80-3 and 80-4 are identical in size and construction, and both are housed within a single reinforced concrete vault. Each tank is 12 feet in diameter and 15.67 feet high, with a nominal volume of 15,000 gallons . The shell of each tank is 0.313 to 0.375 inch thick; both the tanks and their associated piping were constructed from 304L stainless steel.

The concrete vault that houses the tanks is approximately 32-feet long, 19-feet wide ,

and 25-feet tall . The walls, floor, and roof of the vault are 21 -inches thick. The bottom of the vault is lined with stainless steel to a height of 18 in,ches above the floor. The floor contains a stainless-steel-lined sump. The top of the vault is six to eight feet below grade .

The HLW transfer pumps in tanks 80-3 and 80-4 will be removed to facilitate removal of liquids in these tanks during deactivation work to achieve the interim end state. The transfer pumps will be replaced with submersible pumps equipped with chemical resistant transfer lines. The submersible pumps and transfer lines will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning.

High-Level Waste Transfer Trench. The HLW transfer trench is a long concrete vault containing piping that conveyed waste between the Waste Tank Farm and the Vitrification Facility. Approximately 500 feet long, the trench extends from the Tank 80-3/Tank 80-4 vault along the north side of Tank 80-1 and Tank 80-2, before turning to the southwest and entering the north side of the Vitrification Facility. It is six to 20 feet wide and its height ranges from six to nine feet. Figure 3-33 shows the trench under construction .

The trench was constructed with reinforced concrete walls and floors, with pre-cast concrete covers. Stainless steel-lined concrete pump pits that house the upper sections of HLW transfer pumps are located on top of each of the tank vaults. The walls and floors of the pump pits are reinforced concrete, with pre-cast concrete covers forming the roof.

Figure 3-34 shows a typical pump pit.

There are six piping runs in the trench, two of which are unused spares, comprising approximately 3000 linear feet of double-wa lled stainless steel pipe.3 The trench also contains associated valves and jumpers. The pump pits each contain the upper part of the HLW transfer pump and flow monitoring* equipment. Pump Pit 80-2 over Tank 80-2 also contains grinding equipment used to size reduce zeolite.

The piping and related equipment will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

3 Portions of the trench contain only two piping runs; the section connecting to the Vitrification Facility contains all six runs.

Revision 2 3-15

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Permanent Ventilation System Building. The Permanent Ventilation System Building is located approximately 50 feet north of Tank 80 -2, as shown in Figure 3-30. This steel framed and sided building is 40 feet wide, 75 feet long , and 16 feet tall and is attached to a 12 inch thick concrete floor slab supported by concrete footings. The building has a sheet metal roof which supports the Permanent Ventilation System discharge stack.

The Permanent Ventilation System was designed to provide ventil ation to the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building, the Supernatant Treatment System valve aisle, the Supernatant Treatment System pipeway, and the HLW tanks . A skid-mounted, Permanent Ventilation System Stack Monitoring Build ing is located near the east end of the building .

Equipment Shelter and Condensers. The Equipment Shelter is a one-story concrete block building lies immediately north of the Vitrification Facility. as shown in Figures 3-29 and 3-30 . It is 40 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 12 feet high and ha s a concrete floor six inches thick, with a sma ll extension on the west side .

This structure houses the Waste Tank Farm ventilation system that was formerly used to ventilate the four waste storage tanks and the Supernatant Treatment System vessels in HLW Tank 80-1 .

The condensers are located immediately west of the Equipment Shelter. They were designed to condense the overheads from Tanks 80-1 and 80-2, which were originally designed to be in a self-boiling condition during NFS operations . The Equipment Shelter and condensers will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

Con-Ed Building. The Con-Ed Building is a concrete block building located on top of the concrete vault containing Tank 80-3 and Tank 80-4, as shown in Figures 3-29 and 3-

30. This building, which is 1O feet wide, 13 feet long. and 11 feet high, houses the instrumentation and valves used to monitor and control the operation of Tanks 80 -3 and 80-4. This building will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning.

Supernatant Treatment System Support Building. This building is located adjacent to and above Tank 80 -1. It is a two-story structure that contains equipment and auxiliary support systems needed to operate the Supernatant Treatment System.

The Supernatant Treatment System is a zeolite ion-exchange system that was designed to primarily remove radioactive cesium from the high-level PUREX supernatant and sludge wash solutions from Tank 80-2 . The majority of the Supernatant Treatment System equipment is located in Tank 80-1. This system was also capable of removing strontium and plutonium from these wastes. The high-level supernatant was pumped from Tank 80-2 and was treated in the Supernatant Treatment System between May 1988 and January 1991.

The Supernatant Treatment System was also used from 1991 to 1995 to remove radioactive cesium from sludge washes generated from the sludge mobilization and wash system which was designed to remove sulfate salts from the sludge in Tank 80-2 using a dilute caustic wash solution to dissolve the salts. Once a wash cycle was completed , the Revision 2 3-16

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN wash water was treated in the Supernatant TreallVlent System . Two sludge-wash cycles were completed between 1992 and 1994, anal a third sludge wash was oompleted in 1995.

During this third sludge wash campaign , THOREX wasle in Tank 8D-4 was transferred to Ta nk 8D-2 , where the combined PUREXfTHOREX mixlure was washed.

The upper level of the Supernatant Treatment System Support Building is a steel framework structure covered with steel siding . The lower level of the building was constructed with reinforced concrete walls, floors, and ceilings.

This building contains a control room ; heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment; utilities; and storage tanks for fresh water and fresh zeolite to support Supernatant Treatment System operations. A shielded valve aisle is located on the lower level of the support building, adjacent to Tank 8D-1 .

The Supernatant Treatment System pipeway is located on top of the Tank 8D-1 vault.

This concrete and steel structure contains the Supernatant Treatment System piping and structural members that support the Supernatant Treatment System equipment located in Tank 8D-1 .

WMA 4: Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Area WMA 4, which includes the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, is a 10-acre area in the northeast portion on the north plateau of the WVDP as shown in Figure 3-8 .

The landfill, which was utilized as described in Section 2, is the only waste management unit in WMA 4. It will be monitored and maintained during Phase 1 decommissioning .

WMA 5: Waste Storage Area The facilities in WMA 5 are shown in Figure 3-35 and are described below . WMA 5 facilities within the scope of this plan are:

  • Lag Storage Addition 4 and its associated Shipping Depot;
  • The Remote-Handled Waste Facility;
  • Concrete slabs and foundations for the Lag Storage Building, Lag Storage Additions 1, 2, and 3, Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area; and.
  • Several hardstands consisting of compacted gravel pads.

Lag Storage Addition 4. Lag Storage Addition 4 is a clear-span structure, with a pre-engineered steel frame and steel sheathing. Approximately 291 feet long. 88 feet wide and 40 feet high, it rests on a seven-inch concrete slab. It is similar to Lag Storage Addition 3, except that it includes a shipping depot, a container sorting and packaging facility, and a covered passageway between the two storage areas. The shipping depot is connected to Lag Storage Addition 4 and is a 91 feet by 85 feet metal frame structure. This facility and its concrete floor slab will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

Remote-Handled Waste Facility. The Remote-Handled Waste Facility is located in the western portion of WMA 5 as shown in Figure 3-35. It is a metal-sided, steel-frame building that includes a Receiving Area, a Buffer Cell, a Work Cell , a Waste Packaging Area, an Revision 2 3-17

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Operating Aisle, and a load-out /truck bay. Figure 3-36 shows the facility under construction and Figure 3-37 shows the layout of the first floor.

The Receiving Area includes a 20-ton bridge crane that also provides access into the adjacent Buffer Cell. The Buffer Cell is an air lock between the Receiving Area and the contaminated Work Cell. The Work Cell is the primary work area. with provisions for fully remote handling, surveying, segmenting, decontaminating, and repackaging operations.

This shielded space is 55 feet by 22 feet by 26 feet high, and is served by a 30-ton bridge crane.

Any spent decontamination solutions generated during operations are transferred to below-grade wastewater storage tanks located in a vault below the building for management before treatment. These tanks and vault will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

The Waste Packaging Area includes capability to load both waste drums and boxes.

The Operating Aisle houses two waste processing and packaging work stations and one waste sampling transfer work station . Each work station includes a shield window in the shield wall, and controllers for remotely operating facility equipment.

This facil ity and its concrete floor slab will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning.

Lag Storage Building Slab . The Lag Storage Building was a sheet metal structure built in 1984 to store LLW. It was supported by a clear span frame and anchored to a 140 feet long by 60 feet wide concrete slab foundation. The slab surface was coated with an acid-resistant. two-coat. application of epoxy sealer. It was demolished down to its concrete floor slab in October 2006 .

Lag Storage Addition 1 Slab. Lag Storage Addition 1 was a pre-engineered steel frame and fabric structure built in 1987 to store containerized LLW. It was 191 feet long by 55 feet wide by 23 feet high. It was removed down to its grade level floor in October 2006.

Lag Storage Addition 2 Foundation . Lag Storage Addition 2 was a tent structure that was built in 1988 and dismantled in 1993 after it was damaged by high winds . The foundation consists of eight inches of crushed stone covering an area 65 feet by 200 feet.

Lag Storage Addition 3. Lag Storage Addition 3, like Lag Storage Addition 4, is a clear-span structure, with a pre-engineered steel frame and steel sheathing, about 291 feet long, 88 feet wide and 40 feet high, on a seven-inch concrete slab . It is scheduled to be removed down to its concrete floor slab during the work to achieve the interim end state.

Hardstands. Several compacted gravel pads or hardstands are loi;:ated within WMA 5:

  • The Lag hardstand, also known as the old/new hardstand storage area , is located southwest of Lag Storage Additions 3 and 4 and is used to store packaged equipment and containers of LLW; Revision 2 3-18

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

  • The cold hardstand area, which is located west of the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, has been used as a nonradioactive material staging and storage area;
  • The vitrification vault and empty container hardstand is located north and west of the hazardous waste storage lockers; and
  • The HLW tank pump storage vault area .

Chemical Process Cell Waste Storage Area. This waste storage area is a structure used to store equipment removed from the Chemical Process Cell. It is a 200 feet by 70 feet by 30 feet high galvanized steel-panel enclosure with a gravel pad floor. It will be removed down to its gravel pad during the work to achieve the interim end state.

Hazardous Waste Storage Lockers. Four steel hazardous waste storage lockers are located east of the Waste Tank Farm . Each locker measures eight feet by 16 feet by eight feet high and is used for short-term storage of hazardous waste. The lockers will be removed during the work to achieve the interim end state.

WMA 6: Central Project Premises Facilities in WMA 6, the Central Project Premises shown in Figure 3-38, include the rail spur, the above ground petroleum storage tank, the Sewage Treatment Plant. the New Cooling Tower, the two Demineralizer Sludge Ponds, the Equalization Basin, the Equalization Tank, the South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower, the Road-Salt and Sand Shed, and the LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area .

WMA 6 facilities within the scope of this plan are ~he :

  • Equalization Basin and Tank,
  • Demineralizer Sludge Ponds,
  • South Waste Tank Farm Test Tower,
  • Concrete slab for the Old Warehouse, and

Rail Spur. The rail spur runs about 8,000 feet from the south side of the Process Building to where it connects to the main line of the railroad . Figure 3-39 shows the tracks near the Process Building. The rails are cast iron and the ties are creosote pressure-treated wood. Low-level radioactive contamination identified in soil along a section of dual track east of the Old Warehouse is discussed in Section 4.2.

Sewage Treatment Plant. The Sewage Treatment Plant is a wood frame structure 41 feet by 44 feet by 15 feet high , with metal siding and roofing . The base of the facility is concrete and crushed stone. The Sewage Treatment Plant is used to treat sanitary waste and it contains six in-ground concrete tanks, one above-ground polyethylene tank, and one above-ground stainless steel tank.

Revision 2 3-19

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Equalization Basin . The Equalization Basin is a lined 7 5 feet wide, 125 feet long, by 1O feet deep basin excavated into the sand and gravel layer. It has been used for non-radioactive discharges.

Equalization Tank. The Equalization Tank is a 20,000-gallon underground concrete tank immediately north of the Equalization Basin that serves as a replacement for the Equalization Basin .

Demineralizer Sludge Ponds. The north and south demineralizer sludge ponds are separate, unlined ba sins excavated in the sand and gravel layer. They are approximately 100 feet long, 50 feet wide, and five feet deep . They were used to receive water softener regeneration waste, clarifier overflow and blow-down, boiler blow-down, sand filter backwash, and demineralizer regeneration waste from the Utility Room .

The north pond is nearly filled with sediment. Both ponds are radiologically contaminated . As of 2004, the ponds were no longer in service.

Old Warehouse Slab. The Old Warehouse was a pre-engineered steel building with three sections . The main warehouse section was 80 feet by 144 feet by approximately 21 feet high at the roof peak. A 38 feet by 42 feet by 15 feet high room was attached to the north end of the building that housed a radiological counting facility . A double-wide office trailer was located on a concrete foundation wall at the south end of the building . The Old Warehouse was removed down to its concrete floor slab at grade in May 2007 .

New Cooling Tower. The new cooling tower, shown in Figure 3-40, is 20 feet by 20 feet by 11 feet high and it stands on a concrete basin . The floor of the basin is an eight-inch-thick concrete slab. The facility will be removed, leaving the basin in place, during work to achieve the interim end state.

Waste Tank Farm Test Towers. The Waste Tank Farm Test Towers are pre-engineered structures erected as a stack of modules including ladders, handrails, and grating . The exterior "skin" is fabric . The north Tower was 16 feet by 16 feet by 57 feet high.

The south Tower is 16 feet by 16 feet by 48 feet high. The north tower was removed to its foundation in October 2006. The south tower will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

Road-Salt and Sand Shed. The Road-Salt and Sand Shed is a storage bin and a sand stall resting on asphalt pavement. It is constructed with a wooden frame covered with galvanized steel siding. This facility will be removed during work to achieve the interim end state .

LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area. The LLW Rail Packaging and Staging Area covers approximately 27 ,000 square feet east of and adjacent to the railroad tracks at the south end of WMA 6. The area contains two eight-inch-thick reinforced concrete pads and another section covered with crushed limestone .

Revision 2 3-20

- -- - - -- - - ---- -- - - - --------~

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WMA 7: NOA and Associated Facilities WMA 7, shown in Figures 3-8 and Figure 3-41, includes the NOA and ancillary structures. The NOA is a near-surface radioactive waste disposal facility about 400 feet wide and 600 feet long . The only WMA 7 facility within the scope of this plan is the NOA Hardstand gravel pad.

The NOA is divisible into three distinct areas: (1) the NFS waste disposal area containing shallow special holes and deep burial holes, (2) the WVDP disposal trenches and caissons, and (3) the area occupied by the Interceptor Trench Project. Other structures and facilities include the Liquid Pretreatment System, the NOA Hardstand, an inactive plant water line, a leachate transfer line, and a former lagoon located beneath the former Interim Waste Storage Facility floor slab. This floor slab was removed in May 2008 as required for the planned installation of the geomembrane cover over the NOA.

The NOA was operated by NFS under license from the NRC for disposal of solid radioactive waste exceeding 200 mrem/h from fuel reprocessing operations. Section 2.4 .2 describes the contents of the NOA and the estimated amount of radioactivity it contains.

Descriptions of the various features of the NOA follow :

NFS Deep Holes. About 6,600 cubic feet of leached cladding from reprocessed fuel, also known as hulls, are buried in approximately 100 deep disposal holes located in the eastern portion of the Li-shaped area . Most of these holes are 2.7 feet by 6.5 feet by 50 to .

70 feet deep.

The hulls were contained in 30-gallon steel drums stacked three abreast in the deep holes . Three of these drums contain irradiated, unreprocessed fuel with damaged cladding from the N-Reactor at the Hanford Site. The deep holes also contain LLW generated during fuel reprocessing .

NFS Special Holes. Approximately 230 NFS Special Holes are located in the northern and western portions of the Li-shaped NFS burial area. The special holes are typically about 20 feet deep, with various lengths and widths; most are about 12 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet long.

The length and width of each special hole were varied according to the quantity of waste requiring disposal at each disposal event. and the dimensions of large waste items such as failed equipment. Miscellaneous wastes, other than leached hulls or related spent fuel debris, were packaged in several types of containers, including steel drums, wooden crates, and cardboard boxes.

At least 22 1,000-gallon tanks containing a mixture of spent n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate in absorbent material were disposed in several special holes during the late 1960s and the early 1970s (Blickwedehl et al. 1987) . Eight of these tanks in special holes 10 and 11 were believed to be the source of n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate detected in a nearby monitoring well in the NOA on November 1983.

Revision 2 3-21

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN The following actions were taken by the WVOP between October 1985 and May 1987 to mitigate the migration of the n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate from special holes 1O and 11 (Blickwedehl et al. 1987):

  • The eight 1,000-gallon tanks containing the n-dodecane/tributyl phosphate contaminated absorbents were removed .
  • The tanks were size-reduced, contaminated absorbents and soils removed, and all waste packaged for disposal.
  • Liquid n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate was removed and solidified into a qualified waste form suitable for disposal.
  • Special holes 10 and 11 were backfilled .

Approximately 9,700 cubic feet of packaged contaminated soil, contaminated absorbents, size-reduced tanks, and solidified n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate were generated during this removal activity. Low level waste generated during this removal was either disposed of at the Nevada Test Site or the EnergySolutions Clive, Utah disposal 4

site , or remains in storage at the WVOP awaiting disposal. Transuranic waste remains in storage at the WVOP awaiting a path for disposal as WVOP transuranic waste is currently not approved for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

WVDP Trenches. The twelve WVOP trenches contain approximately 200,000 cubic feet of LLW resulting from decontamination activities performed between 1982 and 1986.

Most of these wastes are in the parcel of land located inside the Li -shaped disposal area used by NFS .

The WVOP Trenches are typically about 30 feet deep and about 15 feet wide. The lengths vary from 30 feet to 250 feet. Trenches 9 and 11 have composite liners and caps.

All other WVOP Trenches are capped with clay.

WVDP Caissons. Four steel-lined concrete caissons - cylindrical concrete vaults seven feet in diameter and 60 feet deep - were constructed by the WVOP near the eastern and southern corners of the NOA. WVOP disposal records indicate approximately 823 cubic feet of waste in drums was placed in Caisson 1. The WVOP disposal records do not indicate that any waste was placed in the other three caissons. The caissons are plugged with concrete for shielding and covered with a plastic shield to prevent rainwater infiltration .

Interceptor Trench and Liquid Pretreatment System. The Interceptor Trench and associated Liquid Pretreatment System were installed after groundwater contaminated with tributyl phosphate, n-dodecane, and several radionuclides was detected in a well in the NOA. The purpose of the project was to intercept potentially contaminated groundwater migrating from the NOA.

4 Which was the Envirocare Clive, Utah site at the time.

Revision 2 3-22

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The trench is located on the northeast and northwest boundaries of the disposa l area .

The base of the trench extends to a minimum of one foot below the interface of the weathered Lavery till with the unweathered Lavery till.

The trench is drained by a drainpipe that directs accumulated water to a collection sump. The collection sump has a submersible pump to transfer groundwater to the Liquid Pretreatment System . As of 2008, no groundwater has ever been transferred to the Liquid Pretreatment System .

Liquid that collects in the sump is routinely sampled, analyzed, and transferred to the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility in WMA 2 for treatment and release . Treated wastewater is discharged from Lagoon 3 in WMA 2 to Erdman Brook through the SPOES permitted outfall.

The liquid pretreatment system consists of seven tanks made of carbon steel: one 5,000-gallon holding tank, two 1,000 gallon pre-filtration holding tanks , two 700-gallon tanks containing granular activated carbon, and two 1,000-gallon post-filtration holding tanks. The granular activated carbon tanks are housed in a wooden shed 12 feet long by 10 feet wide. The other five tanks are located in a Quonset-style building .

Groundwater Barrier Wall. In July 2008, a subsurface groundwater barrier wall was installed on the southwest and southeast sides of the NOA to minimize groundwater migration into the disposal area (Figure 3-41 ). This barrier wall is a soil-bentonite slurry wall with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 E-07 cm/s that is keyed at least five feet into the underlying unweathered Lavery till. The slurry wall is approximately 850 feet long, three feet wide, and is 15 to 20 feet deep.

Geomembrane Cover. In the fall of 2008, the NOA was covered with XR-5 , an ethylene inter-polymer alloy geomembrane, to limit infiltration of precipitation into the disposal area. Prior to the installation of the XR-5 geomembrane, imported backfill was placed on the surface of the NOA and the surface was graded to form a suitable foundation for the installation of the XR-5 geomembrane .

NDA Hardstand. The NOA Hardstand, located near the southeast corner of the NOA, was an interim storage area where radioactive waste was staged before being disposed .

The NOA Hardstand originally was a three-sided structure with cinder block walls , located on a sloped pad of crushed rock 20 feet wide and 20 feet long. The NOA Hardstand is radiologically contaminated . The block walls were removed down to crushed rock pad in September 2006. The crushed rock pad will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

Inactive Plant Water Line. An eight-inch diameter cast iron water line from the plant runs along the southwestern border of the NOA. It was formerly used to supply clean water from the reservoirs to the Process Building, but was taken out of service in 1986 and capped with cement.

Leachate Transfer Line. The leachate transfer line is a two-inch diameter polyvinylchloride pipeline that runs along the northeast and northwest sides of the NOA, Revision 2 3-23

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and continues northward across WMA 6 and terminates at Lagoon 2 in WMA 2. It was originally used to transfer liquids from the SDA lagoons via a pumphouse next to the NOA hardstand, to Lagoon 1 The total length of the line is 4,000 feet. The section of the transfer line from the SDA to the interceptor trench sump is inactive and the two ends are capped . The section of the line from the northeast corner of the NOA to Lagoon 2 is currently used to transfer groundwater from the NOA interceptor trench sump .

Former Lagoon. This lagoon, formerly used by NFS for collecting surface water runoff, was located in the northeastern portion of the NOA. Around 1972 it was filled with radiologically contaminated soil from cleanup after a HEPA filter was dropped at the NOA during disposal operations.

WMA8: SDA The SDA, which is shown on Figure 3-8, is not within the scope of thi s plan .

WMA 9: Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell WMA 9 is located south of WMA 7 and it contains the Radwaste Treatment System Drum Cell (Figure 3-42) .

Drum Cell. The Drum Cell was built in 1987 to store radioactive waste solidified in cement and packaged in square 71 -gallon drums . It is a pre-engineered metal building 375 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 26 feet high . The facility consists of a base pad, concrete shield walls, remote waste handling equipment, container storage areas, and a control room within the weather structure. The base pad consists of concrete blocks set on a layer of compacted crushed stone, underlain by geotextile fabric and compacted clay. Concrete curbs to support the drum stacks lie on top of the base pad .

All of the drums stored in the Drum Cell were removed in 2007 and disposed of at off.

site LLW disposal facilities. The Drum Cell will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

Subcontractor Maintenance Area. The Subcontractor Maintenance Area is a compacted gravel pad measuring approximately 20 feet by 30 feet located in the northwest corner of WMA 9. Prior to 1991 , it was used by construction subcontractors to clean asphalt paving equipment with diesel fuel. In November 1991, the area was remediated by removing the upper six inches of soil and replacing it with clean gravel. The removed soil was tested for toxicity characteristic leaching procedure parameters and found to be nonhazardou s solid waste. Since 1991 , the area has been used as a staging area for heavy equipment and construction material s (stone, gravel) . The gravel pad will be removed during Pha se 1 of the decommissioning .

Revision 2 3-24

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN NDA Trench Soil Container Area. The NOA Trench Soil Container Area is a gravel pad storage area located on the north side of WMA 9. It was used to store roll-off containers containing soil excavated during the installation of the NOA Interceptor Trench which was completed in 1990. The containers were covered with tarps to prevent infiltration of precipitation and the rear gate was equipped with a rubber gasket to prevent the discharge of any soil or liquid . The roll -off containers and their contained soil have been removed and disposed of offsite. The gravel pad will be removed during Phase 1 of the decommissioning .

WMA 10: Support and Services Area WMA 10, shown in Figure 3-43, covers approximately 30 acres on the north pl~teau and south plateau, and includes: (1) the Administration Building, (2) the Expanded Laboratory, (3) the New Warehouse, (4) the security gate house, (5) the Meteorological Tower, (6) the main parking lot, and (7) the south parking lot. In addition, concrete slabs and foundations from several removed structures remain in place, along with the former Waste Management Storage Area .

The WMA 10 facilities within the scope of this plan are the New Warehouse, the former Waste Management Storage Area, and the remaining concrete floor slabs and foundations .

Administration Building. The administration building is a single-story structure 130 feet long and 40 feet wide, 10 feet high at the eaves, and 11 .7 feet high at the peak. The concrete base is nine inches thick. Construction materials include the concrete foundation, wood frame, metal siding, and metal roofing .

The administration building was built during the 1960s. The trailers were added beginning in 1982, and an addition to the west side of the building was added during the early 1980s. The trailers were removed in 2005 . The addition to the administration building is approximately 94 feet long and 30 feet wide with a concrete base six inches thick. This facility will be removed to grade during the work to achieve the interim end state.

Meteorological Tower. The meteorological tower is located south of the administration building. Constructed of steel, it stands approximately 200 feet high on a concrete foundation . It has three main support columns with interior trusses and is anchored with five support cables. A stand-by generator and electrical boxes rest on a concrete pad.

Security Gatehouse and Fences. The main security gatehouse is located adjacent to the Administration Building . It was constructed in 1963. The gatehouse is 34 feet long, 20 feet wide , and nine feet high at the edge of the roof.* Construction materials include a concrete foundation , concrete block walls , a concrete slab floor, and a built-up roof with metal deck.

A barbed wire security fence runs along the perimeter of the Center property line and the public roads running through it. The fencing has a total running length of approximately 24 miles .

Revision 2 3-25

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN A steel security fence surrounds the WVDP, the SDA, and miscellaneous other locations. It is made of galvanized chain link with galvanized steel pipe posts, with a spacing of 10 feet. The fence is seven feet high with a total length of 4.7 miles. Three strands of barbed wire are stretched across the top of the fence. Figure 3-5 shows the location of the fence around the project premises .

Expanded Lab. The Expanded Laboratory is located south of the Administration Building . It was constructed during the early 1990s. The laboratory is 92 feet long and 50 feet wide, and consi sts of eight one-story modular units supported by 72 concrete pi ers . It was manufactured from light wood framing , metal roofing, and siding . An addition, 20 feet wide and 50 feet long on a concrete foundation wall, was built on the east side of the laboratory. This facility will be removed to grade during the work to achieve the interim end state.

New Warehouse. The New Warehouse was built during the 1980s and is located east of the administration building. It is a pre-engineered steel building, 80 feet wide, 250 feet long, and 21 .5 feet high at the roof peak, resting on about 40 concrete piers and a poured concrete foundation wall . The concrete floor is underlain with a gravel base .

Former Waste Management Storage Area. This area is a lay-down area associated with the New Warehouse.

Parking Lots and Roadways. Two parking lots are located off Rock Springs Road : the Main Parking Lot and the South Parking Lot.

The Main Parking Lot has a total paved surface area of 180,000 square feet and is covered with asphalt underlain with gravel. The South Parking Lot with approximately 80,000 square feet of parking area is also paved with asphalt. A guardrail approximately 1,200 feet long borders the lot along its southern, eastern and western sides.

Roadways are constructed of a stone sub-base approximately eight-inches thick, covered with asphalt approximately four-inches thick. The total area of pavement is approximately 1,296,000 square feet.

.WMA 11: Bulk Storage Warehouse and Hydrofracture Test Well Area The facilities within WMA 11, as shown in Figure 3-9 are not within the scope of this plan . The Bulk Storage Warehouse was formerly called the Plutonium Storage Facility and it was used by NFS in the late 1960s and early 1970s to store plutonium nitrate solution recovered from its nuclear fuel reprocessing operation. The plutonium nitrate solution was contained in 10-liter doubly sealed polyethylene bottles that were stored in containers consisting of two 55-gallon stainless steel drums welded end-to-end and filled with concrete except for a void formed by an embedded 7-inch pipe. In 197 4, the Plutonium Storage Facility was deactivated and all stored plutonium nitrate was removed . The building became known as the Bulk Storage Warehouse as it was used by the WVDP as a warehouse to store files and office equipment and was also used as a primary emergency assembly area for the WVDP.

Revision 2 3-26

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN WMA 12: Balance of the Site The facilities within WMA 12, as shown in Figure 3-9, are not within the scope of thi s pl an.

3.1.4 Surrounding Communities, Businesses, and Transportation System The Center is located in a rural area with few population centers (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) .

The nearest incorporated village is Springville, 3.5 miles north of the WVDP . The hamlet of West Valley and the communities of Riceville and Ashford Hollow also lie within a five-mile radius of WVDP.

Bu sinesses, farms, and community centers within a 3.1-mile radius of the WVDP site in 2004 are li sted in Table 3-1 . Additional businesses, community centers and manufacturing facilities between 3.1-and 5 mile radii in 2008 includ ed several retail stores, small manufacturing facilities, a concrete suppl ier, a nursery, a hospital, and two nursing homes.

Table 3-1. Businesses, Farms, and Community Centers within a 3.1- Mile Radius of the WVDP Site Sector Distance from

  • Facilities Direction Stack (miles)

Businesses -

NE Split Rai l Farm - Horse boarding and breedi ng 1.42 w Storage Warehouse 2.36 w NORCO Propane Co./Pioneer Propane 2.34 w Countryside Car Center 2.37 WSW Country Gifts and Storage 2.35 WSW Starcrest Homes (Home Business) & U ~ Haul 2.34 WSW Heritage Pipe Organ 2.43 WSW . (Riefler Inc .) 2.78 ESE Harrigan Realty - Attorney at Law 2.13 NW Springville Country Club 3.04 WSW M&M Holland Propane 2.40 w L.A. Hazard 2.27 SE Gerwitz and McNeil Electric 2.01 w Ashford Auto and Marin e Repair 2.31 SE Fox Valley Greenhouse 1.83 NW Jack R. Preston's AutoBarn 0.94 SW Phillip 's Christmas Tree and Wreath 3.01 N Codd 's Flower Shop 1.57 Revision 2 3-27

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-1. Businesses, Farms, and Community Centers within a 3.1- Mile Radius of the WVDP Site Sector Distance from Facilities Direction Stack {miles)

NNW Model Shop 1.28 w House of Steel 2.26 N Schichtel's Nursery - Bond Rd 1.56 WNW Schichtel's Nursery - Peters Rd 2.62 Farms -

s Tom Stuebchen - Fruit Trees 2.28 s Charles Schichtel - Dairy Farm 2.32 N Clemence and Claudia Wolniewicz - Grain and Hay 2.45 NNW David Reed - Dairy Farm 2.33 SE Wayne Widrig - Dairy Farm 1.80 SE Gary Feldman - Dairy Farm 3.11 WNW Willard and Ann Miller - Dairy Farm 2.55 SE Kevin Hebdon - Dairy Farm 2.95 WNW David Cobo - Farm 1.15 WSW Timothy Klahn - Dairy Farm 2.51 Community Centers -

SE American Legion 3.00 E Islamic Academy 2.91 N Springfield Field and Stream 3.09 WNW Trinity Lutheran 1.19 Cattaraugus County Houndsmen and Conservation ENE 1.62 Club E Riceville Community Church 2.83 SE Ashford Municipal Building 1.71 A small military research installation is located in Cattaraugus County approximately 3.1 miles northeast of the WVDP. This facility was used to conduct research for the U.S.

Department of Defense Air Force Automatic Liquid Agent Detector Program.

Transportation System Transportation facilities near the Center include highways, transport repair and refueling services, rail lines, and aviation facilities.

The primary method of transportation near the site is motor vehicle traffic on the Revision 2 3-28

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN highway system shown in Figure 3-2 . In Cattaraugus County, all roads with the exception of those within the cities of Olean and Salamanca are considered rural roads .

Rural principal arterial highways connect population and industrial centers. These include U.S . Route 219, located 2.6 miles west of. the site, Interstate 86, located approximately 21 .7 miles south of the site, and the New York State Thruway (1-90),

approximately 21.7 miles north of the site. Traffic volume along the section of U.S. 219 west of the site between New York Route 39 and the Cattaraugus County Line averaged 9966 vehicles per day in 2002 (NYDOT 2005) . Construction of a 4.2 mile extension of U.S.

Route 219 began in 2007 .

Collectors are roads from smaller communities and industrial centers to the rural principal arterial highways. They frequently are intra-county in nature and serve short hauls and cross-county traffic . There are three county collector roads within 1.2 miles of the site.

Schwartz Roi:!d and Rock Springs Road serve as the principal site access roads. State Route 240, also identified as County Route 32, is 1.2 miles northeast of the site. The average annual daily traffic volume on State Route 240 near the site was 978 vehicles in 2002 (NYOOT 2003) .

Dutch Hill Road , approximately one mile west of the WVOP, is an oil and stone chip

  • surface on a gravel base designed to accommodate local, lightweight vehicles . Edies Road is of similar construction. Mill Street is asphalt paved over a gravel base located on unstable soils.

Railroad service in a north-south direction is provided to the central part of Cattaraugus County. The Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad transects the Center approximately 0.5 mile east of the project premises at its nearest point. This rail line is now abandoned north of the Center. The Center is served by a railroad siding from this line, often referred to as the rail spur.

There are no commercial airports in the site vicinity. The only major aviation facility in Cattaraugus County is the Olean Municipal Airport, located in the Town of Ischua, 21 miles southeast of the site, which does not offer regularly scheduled commercial air service. The nearest major airport is Buffalo Niagara International Airport, 34 miles north of the site .

3.2 Population Distribution Local population information was obtained from a demographic survey performed in the area of the WVDP in 2002 (URS 2002) and regional population information from the 2000 U.S. census (Census Bureau 2003) . This demographic survey referenced in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 has not been updated as of 2008 . For analysis purposes, the area surrounding the WVDP is divided into 16 compass-direction sectors, with the WVOP main stack as the reference point.

3.2.1 Local Population Data The 2002 demographic survey was performed out to a 3.1-mile radius from the WVOP Main Plant stack and included all permanent structures that may be inhabited in that area .

Revision 2 3-29

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Results of this survey appear in Tables 3-2 and 3-3.

In 2002, approximately 1,050 people lived within a 3.1-mile radius of the site . The largest numbers of individuals were located east of the site . Figure 3-44 shows the results of the demographic survey by compass vectors .

Table 3-2. 2002 Resident Population Estimates by Directional Sector Within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack (URS 2002)

Radius (miles)

Sector 0.3-0.6 0.6-1.2 1.2-1.9 1.9-2.5 2.5-3.1 TOTAL A N 0 0 19 17 18 54 B NNE 0 0 19 52 34 105 c NE 0 3 17 0 21 41 D ENE 0 2 27 0 19 48 E E 0 0 38 55 81 174 F ESE 0 0 4 48 15 67 G SE 0 0 6 29 30 65 H SSE 0 0 0 26 24 50 I s 0 0 6 12 8 26 J SSW 0 0 2 10 19 31 K SW 0 0 9 0 43 52 L WSW 0 0 9 14 4 27 M w 0 8 35 21 15 79 N WNW 0 29 41 4 24 98 0 NW 0 9 65 13 2 89 p NNW 0 6 14 19 11 50 TOTALS 0 57 311 320 368 1,056 The nearest residences are located 0.76 to 1.94 miles from the WVDP site as shown in Table 3-3. The numbers of wells or springs used as drinking water within 3.1 miles of the WVDP are listed in Table 3-4 . The information in the table is not inclusive of every well used for water consumption because the survey was subject to residential participation .

Table 3-3. Nearest Residences by Sector (URS 2002)

Compass Direction Distance (mi) Residence Location WNW 0.76 6491 Boberg Rd .

NW 0.83 10493 Rock Springs Road w 1.09 10314 Dutch Hill Rd .

NNW 1.17 10596 Rock Springs Rd .

NE 1.20 10653 Rte . 240 Revision 2 3-30

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-3. Nearest Residences by Sector (URS 2002)

Compass Direction Distance (mi) Residence Location ENE 1.22 10625 Rte. 240 SW 1.33 10086 Dutch Hill Rd .

WSW 1.33 10122 Dutch Hill Rd .

s 1.42 9911 Rock Springs Rd .

E 1.53 5761 Heinz Rd .

N 1.53 10927 Bond Road NNE 1.63 10845 Rte . 240 ESE 1.63 5579 Buttermilk Rd SSW 1.76 10043 Dutch Hill Rd .

SE 1.80 5768 Fox Valley Rd .

SSE 1.94 5872 Fox Valley Rd .

Table 3-4. Number of Residential Wells or Springs used for Drinking Water by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack Sector Direction Number of Wells or Springs(1)

A N 14 B NNE 23 c NE 5 D ENE 10 E E 36 F ESE 20 G SE 8 H SSE 12 I s 7 J SSW 11 K SW 20 L WSW 9 M w 22 N WNW 24 0 NW 27 p NNW 11 Revision 2 3-31

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-4. Number of Residential Wells or Springs used for Drinking Water by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack Sector I Direction Number of Wells or Springs( 1)

TOTAL 259 NOTE : (1) Numbers of wells and springs estimated based upon resid ent interviews in URS 2002.

3.2.2 Population Distribution The Center lies within Cattaraugus and Erie counties. Regional popul ation data within a 50-mile radius of the WVDP was obtained from the 2000 U.S . Census .

Summary of Current Population In and Around the Site The 1960 through 2000 resident populations of towns and villages within 10 miles of 5

the WVDP are presented in Table 3-5 . The populations of New York and Pennsylvania counties within 50 miles of the WVDP are presented in Table 3-6 .

Erie County had a population of 950,265 in 2000, which is a 10.7 percent decline from 1960. Although both Erie County and the City of Buffalo have experienced a population decline, populations in the rural townships south of Buffalo - such as Orchard Park, Hamburg, East Aurora, and West Falls - have increased . The population of southern Erie County near the WVDP site is concentrated primarily in small villages and along roadways ,

much like in Cattaraugus County. The majority of people residing in these areas work in agriculture or nearby small industries.

Table 3-5. Locations and Populations of Towns and Villages Partially or Totally Within 10 Miles of the Site (from 2000 census)

DISTANCE/ POPULATION POP. 1960- 1990-TOWN/ DENSITY DIRECTION 1990 2000 VILLAGE(1l per (Miles) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 %CHG. %CHG.

sq.mi.

Ashford (T) Note (4) 1,490 1,577 1,922 2,162 2,223 43 45.1 2.82 Concord (T) 3.0N 6,452 7,573 8,171 8,387 8,526 122 30.0 1.66 Springville (V)(2) 3.5N 3,852 4,350 4,285 4,310 4,252 NIA 11 .9 -1 .35 Sardinia (T) 4.0 NNE 2,145 2,505 2,792 2,667 2,692 54 24.3 0.94 Yorkshire (T) 3.5 NNE 2,012 2,627 3,620 3,905 4,210 114 94.1 7.81 Delevan (V)(3) 8.9 ENE 777 994 1,113 1,214 2,321 NIA 56.2 91 .2 Machias (T) 4.0 ESE 1,390 1,749 2,058 2,338 2,482 61 68.2 6.16 Franklinville (T) 7.8 SSE 3,090 2,847 3,102 2,968 3,128 60 -3.9 5.39 Ellicottville {T} 12.0 s 1,968 1,779 1,677 1,607 1,738 39 -18.3 8.15 Mansfield (T) 7.5 SSW 632 605 784 724 800 20 14.6 10.50 5

In New York state, a town is the major subdivision of each county and a village is an incorporated area, usually within a town.

Revision 2 3-32

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-5. Locations and Populations of Towns and Villages Partially or Totally Within 10 Miles of the Site (from 2000 census)

DISTANCE/ POPULATION POP. 1960* 1990*

TOWN/ DENSITY DIRECTION 1990 2000 VILLAGEr11 per (Miles) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 %CHG. %CHG.

sq.mi.

East Otto (T) 3.0 SW 701 910 942 1,003 1,105 27 43.1 10.17 Otto (T) 7.5WSW n5 731 828 777 831 26 8.7 6.95 Collins (T) 7.5WNW 6,984 6,400 5,037 6,020 8,307 173 -13.8 37.99 North Collins(T) 8.9NW 3,805 4,090 3,791 3,502 3,376 79 -8.0 -3.60 TOT AL (OR AVERAGE) 31 ,384 33,393 34,724 36,060 39,418 ... 14.9 14.9 NOTES: (1) (T) indicates town and (V) indicates village.

(2) Springville village population is included in the town of Concord.

(3) Delevan village population is included in the town of Yorkshire .

(4) The WVDP is located within th e geographical boundary of the Town of Ashford .

Population Density Using the 2000 census data, the maximum population density of 448 persons per square mile occurs between 20 and 30 miles from the site. Table 3-5 includes the population densities of towns within 10 miles of the WVDP site.

Table 3-6. Populations of Selected Municipalities, Counties, and States within 50 Miles of the Site (1960-2000) (from U.S . Census, years cited)

MUNICIPALITY/ POPULATION

% Change COUNTY/STATEr11 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 NEW YORK (S) 16,782,304 18,241 ,391 17,558,072 17,990,455 18,976,457 13.1 Cattaraugus (C) 80,187 81 ,666 85,697 84,234 83,955 4.7 Erie (C) 1,064,688 1,113,491 1,015,472 968,532 950,265 -10.7 Hamburg (M) 41 ,288 47,644 53,270 53,735 56,259 36.3 Orchard Park (M) 15,876 19,978 24,359 24,632 27,637 74.1 Buffalo (M) 532,759 462,768 357,870 328,123 292,648 -45.1 Allegany (C) 43,978 46,458 51 ,742 50,470 49,927 13.5 Wyoming (C) 34,793 37,688 39,895 42,507 43,424 24.8 Chautauqua (C) 145,377 147,305 146,925 141 ,895 139,750 -3.9 Livingston (C) 44,053 54,041 57,006 62,372 64,328 46.0 Genesee (C) 53,994 58,722 59,400 60,060 60,370 11 .8 Niagara (C) 242,269 235,720 227,101 220,756 219,846 -9.3 Revision 2 3-33

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-6. Populations of Selected Municipalities, Counties, and States within 50 Miles of the Site (1960-2000) (from U.S. Census, years cited)

MUNICIPALITY/ POPULATION

% Change COUNTY/STATE!1l 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Steuben (C) 97,691 99,546 99,135 99,088 98,726 -1 .1 PENNSYLVANIA (S) 11,, 319,366 11 ,800,766 11 ,866,728 11 ,881 ,643 12,281 ,054 8.5 Warren (C) 45,582 47,682 47,449 45,050 43,863 -3.8 McKean (C) 54,517 51 ,915 50,635 47,131 45,936 -15.7 Potter (C) 16,483 16,395 17,726 16,717 18,080 9.7 NOTE: (1) (M) indicates municipality, (C) indicates county, and (S) indicates state.

Transient Population The transient population around the site includes daily and seasonal transients including the workforce at the WVDP. In 2008 , an average of 300 employees was working at the site during daytime hours .

This .transient population is projected to vary in future years according to the activities on site . The seasonal transient population is associated with the area 's numerous small recreation sites . Where significant. this transient population is included in the distribution and projection figures .

Future Projected Population According to the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, the total Concord/Springville population is expected to reach 10,000 by the year 2020, a gain of almost 10 percent per decade. It is projected that the present 50/50 population split will continue, with Springville having 5070 people and the unincorporated areas of the town 4930 in 2020 (ECPD 1999). Population projections for Cattaraugus County were prepared by Cornell University in September of 2002 and are available for public viewing on the New York State Information System website {http://www.nysis.cornell .edu/cattaraugus .pdf) .

Projected population changes for Cattaraugus County were as follows :

2005 - 83,881 2010 - 83 ,674 2015 - 83,359 2020 - 82,815 2025 - 81 ,989 2030 - 80,886 Population trends may be influenced by the expansion of Route 219 through Cattaraugus County. The baseline population projections are projections illustrating the impact of recent rates of population change. Census 2000 county populations have been projected using current life expectancy and survival rates, age specific fertility rates, and rates of net migration . The rates of net migration have the greatest impact on changes in population size. These net migration rates are based on an analysis of total population Revision 2 3-34

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN change between the 1990 census and the 2000 census. In 2008, !lhe U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the population of Cattaraugus County was 79 ,688.

3.3 Current and Future Land Use This section describes current land use on the site and in the vicinity in detail, and future land use on site and in the vicinity within the limitations of available information .

3.3.1 Current Land Use Detailed information on current land use is available from a number of sources.

Onsite Land Use The project premises have served only industrial uses since the reprocessing plant was built in the 1960s. The balance of the Center, often referred to as the retained premises, has served only as a buffer area for the plant since that time. In 2008, no definitive information on plans for future use of the Center was available.

Land Use in Vicinity of the WVDP Land use within five miles of the WVDP site is predominantly associated with agriculture, arboriculture, and forestry. The major exception is the Village of Springville, in which many areas are devoted to residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Other major non-agricultural land uses within five miles of the site are :

  • Hamlet of West Valley - residential/commercial/land use, 3.4 miles to the southeast;
  • Cattaraugus County Forest - forestry/recreation, 3.7 miles to the south;
  • Campground - five miles to the southwest;
  • Machine shop - industrial land use, four miles to the northwest;
  • Two retail shopping complexes - commercial land use - four miles to the north northwest; and
  • Warehouse - commercial land use, 3.8 miles to the north-northwest in the village of Springville.

Cattaraugus County ranks fifth in the state for number of farms and eleventh in the state for the amount of land in farming . Approximately 24 percent of the county's total acreage is farmland (NYASS 2005). Production and sale of important agricultural commodities in Cattaraugus County are shown in Table 3- 7. The dairy industry is the dominant agricultural activity, with meat production occurring on a smaller scale .

Revision 2 3-35

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSION ING PLAN Table 3-7. Leading Agricultural Products in Cattaraugus County(l) 2002 Sales in Percent of Total County Rank Product

$1000s Sales in New York Dairy Products 36.486 63 19 Nursery and Greenhou se 9,676 17 5 Cattle and Calves 4, 83 2 8 22 Hay & Silage 1,976 3 28 Grains and Dry Beans 1,628 3 22 Other Products 3754 6 Total Sales 58,352 - 22 NOTE: (1) From NYASS 2005 .

Farming Statistics In 2002, a livestock and crop production survey wi thin a 3.1- mile ra dius of the WVDP was taken in conj unction with the popul ation survey . The resu lts of th is survey are shown in Tables 3-8 and 3-9.

Table 3-8. 2002 Consumable Animal Population Estimates<1J by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack (URS 2002)

Sector Direction Dairy Cattle Beef Cattle Goats Sheep Pigs Fowl (z)

A N 0 0 0 0 0 0 B NNE 0 11 0 0 0 0 c NE 0 23 0 0 0 0 D ENE 12 11 15 12 5 20 E E 17 31 0 7 0 0 F ESE 0 0 0 0 0 6 G SE 135 0 0 15 0 32 H SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 I s 100 12 0 0 0 0 J SSW 60 45 0 0 2 4 K SW 3 0 0 0 2 17 L WSW 0 5 0 0 0 0 M w 0 36 5 0 2 21 N WNW 70 0 0 0 0 9 0 NW 5 0 0 0 1 13 p NNW 60 0 0 30 0 20 TOTALS 462 174 20 64 12 142 NOTES: (1) Numbers of animals are estimated based upon resident interviews and site reconnaissance .

(2) Fowl includes: Chickens, Ducks, Geese, Turkey, Ostrich (4) and Emu (1).

Revision 2 3-36

WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Dairy and beef cattle farming dominate within 3.1 miles of the WVDP . The majority of livestock production occurs northwest and southeast of the WVDP . Farming within 3.1 miles of the site typically occurs northwest and south and east of the site. The principal use of farmland is hay and pasture land . Hay and pasture lands account for approximately 57 percent of land used for agricultural purposes . The production of corn and oats accounts for 45 percent of agricultural land use.

Land -use surrounding the Center property - based on county land -use maps and tax parcel information - is shown in Figure 3-45.

Table 3-9. 2002 Crop Estimates in Acres by Sector within a 3.1-Mile Radius of the Main Plant Stack (from URS 2002)

Hay& Ground Fruit Garden Sector Direction Corn Oats Fruit(ll Trees(2) Vegetables (3)

Pasture A N 60 0 0 1 0 0.4 B NNE 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 c NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 D ENE 0 0 0 0 0.2 1.1 E E 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 F ESE 0 0 100 0 0 0.2 G SE 83 34 250 0 0 1.7 H SSE 0 0 30 0 .o 0.4 I s 50 50 100 1 0 1.2 J SSW 30 30 50 0 0 0 .8 K SW 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 L WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 M w 0 0 80 0 0 0 .8 N WNW 230 0 100 0 0 0.7 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 p NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 .8 TOTALS 453 114 710 2 0.2 13.7 NOTES: (1) Ground Fruit includes: blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, and grapes.

(2) Fruit Trees includes: apples and pears (3) Garden vegetables included: beans, cabbage, corn , cucumbers, peas, potatoes, pumpkins ,

tomatoes, squash , and zucchini.

Agricultural lands cultivated to produce fruits and vegetables represent less than one percent of the total agricultural acreage within 3.1 miles of the site. Fruit and vegetable fields tend to be smaller than dairy fields, and are not distributed in proportion to the occurrence of farmland . In general a few towns contain a disproportionately large share of Revision 2 3-37

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN these lands . Crops include lettuce, cabbage, broccoli , spinach, snap beans, tomatoes, sweet corn, potatoes, grapes, and apples. Total land area devoted to such production in Erie and Cattaraugu s counties is estimated at 10,189 acres and 2,319 acres, respectively.

3.3.2 Summary of Anticipated Land Uses The project premises will be available for only limited future uses in the coming decades . The ability to anticipate land use in the vicinity in future years is hmited by the limited available information from planning boards.

Future Use of Project Premises and the Center Future use of the retained premises will depend upon the wishes of NYSERDA as the property owner and will need to be consistent with institutional controls, where applicable.

As of 2008, no definitive information on NYSERDA plans for future use of the Center was available. However, the Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board ha s an ongoing West Valley Redevelopment Strategy Project in response to the ongoing decommissioning of the WVDP .

Future Use of Land in the Vicinity It is expected that future land uses in the vicinity of the Center will be similar to the historical land uses summarized in Section 3.3 .1. Information from local, regional , and State planning boards is limited . On June 9, 1999 the Town of Concord and the Village of Springville held a public hearing to review a draft of the joint comprehensive plan (ECPD 1999) . The vision of the plan was expressed as follows:

"The Concord/Springville community values and wishes to preserve the scenic beauty, farmland , hamlets, and unique natural environment of the Town of Concord . It also wishes to enhance and strengthen the Village of Springville as the civic, cultural and economic center of Concord and the surrounding non-town area, and maximize its location at the southern gateway to Erie County."

Proposed developments related to this vision included :

  • A 50-acre planned business park adjacent to US Route 219;
  • Revitalization of downtown Springville;
  • A new planned residential area in the northeastern section of the Village,
  • Upgrading of the Town and Village Hall facilities; and
  • Park and recreation improvements, which included a new park at Scoby Hill Dam and a new greenway along Spring Brook.

The greenway development would include a four-mile-long park area bordering Spring Brook from Middle Road to Cattaraugus Creek at Felton Bridge on Mill Street. This park would include nature trails , bicycle paths, canoe landings, and picnic areas.

Revision 2 3-38

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The new park at Scoby Hill Dam would include a canoe landing. fishing access. and recreational use. Further recreational development is proposed to encourage the development of hiking/biking trails, golf, snowmobiling. and skiing.

Additional proposals utilized the abandoned Buffalo-Pittsburgh Railroad line .from Springville to Salamanca to be developed either as a tourism train , connected with a railroad museum in Salamanca , or as a extensive bike trail as part of the "rails to trails" program .

Industrial and business development would be encouraged at or near current locations (along Cascade Drive and near the railroad tracks) . with the exception of a planned new business park located near the Zoar Valley Road, with a connector road intended to the future Route 219 . If Route 219 were to be extended down to Salamanca , certain land adjacent the route would be developed for business and/or industrial use (Ashford 1994).

Sand and gravel mining is a growing industry within the area with nine areas now designated for mining . Future intentions are to develop this industry to promote economic development in the area (Bishop. et al. 2004) .

Cattaraugus County The 1994 Comprehensive Master Plan anticipated much of its land use based on the extension of Route 219 and the development of the nuclear fuel industry through the WVDP . Given these assumptions, industrial and business development was planned to occur near the Route 219 extension and on some Center property.

Parcels reserved for industry in the future land use plan are located near the following roads : Henrietta Road (300 acres). Schwartz Road (50 acres) , Route 219 (80 acres) .

Thomas Corners (350 acres) . and within the Town of Ashford (265 acres). The closest business development complex to the WVDP property would be the Ashford Business and Education Park at the location of the Ashford Office Complex . The intersection of Route 219 and Schwartz Road. and Thomas Corners have been intended for residential development (Ashford 1994).

The Record of Decision on the Route 219 expansion was published in April 2003. The New York Department of Transportation selected the freeway alternative, which proposes a four-lane freeway from Springville to Salamanca . Construction of the Route 219 expansion began in 2007 .

Since the Comprehensive Master Plan was published , gravel mining has expanded rapidly . In 1993, 53 parcels of land totaling 3.455 acres were assessed for mining and quarrying in the Route 16 corridor of Cattaraugus County. This number increased to 76 parcels totaling 4,502 acres in 1999. In 2000, there were 49 active mining permits covering 1,030 acres.

Issues raised by concerned citizens have resulted in the Town of Yorkshire adapting zoning plans to remediate gravel mining activities . As of October 2002, the Town of Ashford had not adapted any zoning regulations .

Revision 2 3-39

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.4 Meteorology and Climatology This section begins with a description of the general climate in the region, followed by a discussion of severe weather phenomena. Weather-related radionuclide transmission factors and site deterioration factors are then described . Finally, site meteorology is discussed, along with air quality in the area .

3.4.1 The General Climate of Western New York Western New York is exposed to a variety of air masses that create a moist continental climate . Cold dry air masses that form over Canada reach the area from the northwest.

Prevailing winds from the southwest and south bring warm , humid air masses from the Gulf of Mexico and neighboring waters of the subtropical Atlantic Ocean. On occasion, cool ,

cloudy, and damp weather affects Western New York through air flow from the east and northeast.

Western New York is affected by a variety of cyclonic and anti-cyclonic pressure systems as they move across the continent. Continental storms and frontal systems move frequently across or near this region. In addition, Western New York usually feels the effects of well-developed storms moving up the Atlantic Coast.

Temperature The coldest winter temperature normally varies between -1O °F to * -20 °F in the southwestern highlands (WVNSCO 2007) . Extreme winter temperatures as cold as -40 °F have been recorded in the higher elevations of Cattaraugus County (WVNSCO 2007).

Severe winter cold with below-zero minimums and/or lengthy periods of continuous temperatures below freezing occur between early December and mid-March. Winter thaws typically result in temperatures in the 40s to low 50s for a few days at a time, with rare maximums in the 60s.

The summer seasons are cool with the temperature typically ranging from 60 °F at night to the low 80s in the afternoon (WVNSCO 2007) . On the average, temperatures of 90

°F or higher are recorded on five days or less per year at the higher elevations and along the shore of the Great Lakes (WVNSCO 2007) . Such temperatures occur between early June and early September. Readings of 100 °F or higher are rare. It is sunny for 65 percent of the total daylight hours on the average during the summer (WVNSCO 2007) .

Temperatures from mid-September to mid-October frequently rise to the 60s and 70s in the daytime and cool to the 30s and low 40s at night. The comparatively warm waters of the Great Lakes reduce cooling at night to the extent that freezing temperatures in lakeside counties are normally delayed until mid-October or later.

Precipitation Lake Erie and Lake Ontario exert a major controlling influence on the climate of the region . In winter, cold air crossing unfrozen lake water picks up moisture and releases it as snow as the air stream moves inland over higher terrain. Heavy snow squalls frequently occur, producing from one to two feet of snow and occasionally as much as four to seven feet. Cattaraugus County and Erie County are generally subject to lake-effect snows in Revision 2 3-40

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN November and December, but as the lake gradually freezes lake-effect snow becomes less frequent. The snow season normally begins in mid-November and extends into mid- or late-April.

Winter precipitation is heaviest east of Lake Erie, where the average total snowfall is in excess of 120 inches (WVNSCO 2007). Summer season precipitation ranges from 10 to 12 inches with the rainfall distribution pattern reflecting the influences of the cool Lake Ontario waters to the north and the hilly terrain in the Southern Tier (WVNSCO 2007) . Rains resulting from warm fronts are usually light but last for several days; cold fronts often cause heavier rainfall in shorter periods.

3.4.*2 Severe Weather Phenomena Figures 3-46 through 3-48, provided by the National Weather Service observing station in Buffalo, show the distribution patterns of tornadoes (1950-2002) , thunderstorm winds (1955-2002), and hail events (1955-2002) for western and north central New York. The National Weather Service has not updated these figures as of 2008 . Corresponding charts depict distribution of events by month, time, and rating of severity.

Severe weather phenomena occurred during the 1993-2002 period as follows :

  • Six tornadoes ;
  • Seventy-five thunderstorm wind or hail events (where thunderstorm winds measured 58 mph or greater or produced damage, or where hail measuring 0.75 -

inch or larger fell) ;

  • Seven injuries due to lightning strikes;
  • Forty-nine flood or flash flood events (about one-third due to ice jams) ;
  • Twenty-eight high wind events (high winds caused by large-scale, synoptic low pressure systems) ;
  • Three ice storms (with ice accumulations of one-half inch or greater) ;
  • One blizzard in March 1993 (with winds or frequent gusts of 35 mph or greater and visibilities of less than one-fourth mile sustained for three hours or more) ; and
  • Sixty-six snowstorms (with seven inches or more of snow within a 12- hour period, or nine inches or more of snow within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, about two-thirds due to lake-effect snows.)

Additional historical meteorological data is provided .in WVNSCO 1993b, which summarizes regional meteorological information, analyzes trends, and correlates meteorological data collected by the National Weather Service with data collected at the site's regional and primary monitoring stations.

3.4.3 Weather-Related Radionuclide Transmission Factors Winds at the site are generally from the west and south at about 10.3 miles per hour (4 .6 m/s) and 9.6 miles per hour (4.3 mis) respectively, based on data from 1991-2002.

Figure 3-49 depicts the average wind vectors on site.

Revision 2 3-41

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The strongest winds occur from November through March and are generally southwesterly to west-southwesterly. The weakest winds occur from May to October and are generally southwesterly to southerly (WVNSCO 1993) .

Average and extreme duration of precipitation events are not measured at the WVDP .

Only annual, monthly, or daily precipitation data are available, recorded as inches fallen in a 24-hour period .

3.4.4 Weather-Related Site Deterioration Parameters Routine and extreme weather-related site deterioration parameters are considered in this section .

Routine Parameters Note that precipitation intensity is indicated by information provided in Section 3.4 .5.

The hourly average maximum recorded wind speed in the area was 35 .3 miles per hour in December of 1987 (WVNSCO 1993) .

Wind vectors were addressed in Section 3.4 .3. Temperature gradients were discussed in Section 3.4.1. Limited data are available on pressure gradient variation: reported barometric pressure measurements in 1991 and 1992 have ranged from lows of 29 .51 in March of 1991 and 28.17 in May of 1992 to highs of 30 .67 in December of 1991 and 30.43 in January of 1992 (WVNSCO 1993b).

Extreme Parameters Most extreme weather-related deterioration events that occurred during the 1993 -

2002 period were summarized in Section 3.4.2 . Regarding extreme air pollution, the WVDP and Cattaraugus County are considered "in attainment" or "unclassifiable" with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants. As of 2002, no extreme air pollution violations have been identified within Cattaraugus County.

3.4.5 Site Meteorology and Climatology Site topographic features previously discussed produce locally significant variations in climate. Meteorological data are collected both on site and at a nearby meteorological station on Dutch Hill Road. Wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, temperature, dewpoint, and rainfall are measured on site. Wind speed and direction are measured at the regional location.

Temperature The average monthly temperatures recorded at site from 1984 - 2002 are listed below:

January: 24 .26 °f May: 55 .22 °f September: 58.82 °f February: 25 .34 °F June: 63 .86 °f October: 48 .74 °f March : 32.36 °F July: 67.46 °F November: 38 .66°f April: 44.6 °f August: 66.02 °F December: 28 .22°f Extreme temperatures have been as high as 98 .6 °F and as low as -43 .6 °f.

Revision 2 3-42

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Precipitation and Wind Vectors Average annual precipitation for the site is 39 .4 inches, including an average 120 inches of snow, based on 1985 - 2002 data , and is evenly distributed throughout the year.

Winds are generally from the west and south at about 10.3 miles per hour (4 .6 mis) and 9.6 miles per hour (4.3 mis) respectively, as previously noted.

Severe Weather Phenomena According to U.S. Weather Bureau meteorological analysis, the theoretically greatest precipitation (probable maximum precipitation) that could be expected over the applicable drainage area in a 24-hour period is 24.9 inches. Factors figuring into this estimate include the size of the 1,200-acre drainage area, its topography, and seasonal effects . The highest measured 24-hour total as of 2003 was five inches .

Atmospheric Water Vapor There are diurnal and seasonal vanat1ons in relative humidity, according to measurements made at the Buffalo National Weather Station office . Humidity during predawn hours ranges from 35 to 83 percent throughout the year. Afternoon humidity varies from 55 to 60 percent during the summer (June-August) months and from 18 to 25 percent during winter (December - February).

Figure 3-50 illustrates the percent frequency of occurrence of ceilings (defined as cloud cover of 5/8 or greater) less than 3,000 feet and/or visibility less than three miles at Buffalo and Niagara Falls, the closest locations with this data. The cycle of maximum and minimum occurrence should be approximately the same at West Valley. (WVNSCO 1993)

The normal annual number of hours of sunshine is approximately 2,100. In summer the daily value is ap~roximately nine hours and in winter the normal is 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> .

Fog Fog has a well-defined seasonal cycle with annual maximums occurring during the winter months . Buffalo has a normal expectation of ten days per year of dense fog ; light fog occurs much more frequently .

Atmospheric Stability Measurements of temperature, wind speed, and wind direction made at the 10-meter and 60-meter heights at the on-site meteorological tower are used for determining wind patterns and for determining atmospheric stability

  • characteristics at the site. Seven Pasquill -Gifford atmospheric stability categories (A through F) have been determined for the site based on vertical temperature differences (temperature lapse rates, ~T) calculated from temperatures measured at the 197 feet (60-meter) and 33 feet (10-meter) heights at the onsite meteorological tower.

These stability class conditions determine how a parcel of air will react when it is displaced adiabatically (~T/~Z method) , i.e., without exchanging heat. Stability classifications were determined in accordance with the methodology described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23 (NRC 2007) on onsite meteorological programs and Regulatory Revision 2 3-43

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Guide 1.145 (NRC 1982) on atmospheric dispersion models. Hourly-averaged values of temperature obtained at the 197 feet (10-meter) and 33 feet (60-meter heights) at the tower were used in the calculations . The temperature differences were derived from temperature data collected at the on-site meteorological tower, from January 1, 1994, through December 31 , 1998 (Spector and Grant 2003).

Joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction for each stability class are tabulated in Table 3-10 for measurements at a height of 33 feet (10 meters) and Table 3-11 for measurements at a height of 197 feet (60 meters) (Spector and Grant 2003) . These joint frequency distributions were derived from data collected at the on-site meteorological tower from January 1, 1994, through December 31 , 1998. Wind directions are grouped into 16 principal directions (22.5-degree sectors centered on true north, northeast, and so on) .

Wind speeds are classified into seven wind speed categories. Calms are distributed, in the form of hourly-averaged wind speeds, into the first wind speed category representing the 0-0 .5 mis speed bin (Spector and Grant 2003) .

Revision 2 3-44

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-10. Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distributions at 10 Meters (January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1998, based on Spector and Grant 2003, Attachment G)

Wind Direction From Stability Speed Class (m/s) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE s SSW SW WSW w WNW NW NNW 0.0-1 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.02 0 0.002 0 1.5-3.0 0.051 0.044 0.032 0.027 0.039 0.017 0.022 0.015 0.022 0.027 0.039 0.024 0.021 0.054 0.113 0.047 3.0-6.0 0.049 0.029 0.024 0.029 0.022 0.015 0.024 0.024 0.05 1 0.039 0.034 0.007 0.007 0.098 0.592 0.1 64 A

6.0-9.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.015 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1 .5 0 0.005 0.007 0.005 0 0 0.002 0.005 0 0.005 0.002 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 1.5-3.0 0.059 0.069 0.054 0.032 0.037 0.024 0.037 0.047 0.056 0.083 0.122 0.064 0.083 0.164 0.291 0.083 3.0-6.0 0.044 0.037 0.024 0.01 0.017 0.01 0.039 0.098 0.103 0.064 0.066 0.024 0.034 0.149 0.59 0.233 B

60-90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0 0.007 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.005 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1 .5 0.002 0.022 0.012 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.012 0.005 0.012 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.02 0.017 0.01 1.5-3.0 0.174 0.095 0.081 0.044 0.042 0.054 0.095 0.095 0.166 0.181 0.25 0.118 0.174 0.35 0.497 0.233 3.0-6.0 0.073 0.027 0.027 0.015 0.049 0.034 0.108 0.103 0.181 0.071 0.073 0.047 0.051 0.176 0.835 0.289 c 6.0-9.0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.005 0.022 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.012 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1 .5 0.321 0.34 0.223 0.22 0.252 0.343 0.468 0.441 0.695 0.72 0.629 0.615 0.832 1.05 0.906 0.36 1.5-3.0 1.031 0.639 0.416 0.348 0.394 0.769 1.616 1.307 2.274 2.296 1.785 1.227 2.025 3.529 .6.305 1.542 3.0-6.0 0.308 0.113 0.071 0.286 0.313 0.495 1.709 1.951 1.506 0.693 0.443 0.235 0.524 1.809 4.447 1.205 D

6.0-90 0 0 0 0.02 0.002 0.005 0.279 0.661 0.061 0.002 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.02 0.01 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.071 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1.5 0.093 0.093 0.078 0.132 0.233 0.279 0.673 1.408 1.983 1.092 0.686 0.654 0.71 0.776 0.428 0.147 1.5-3.0 0.02 0.02 0.022 0.02 0.037 0.179 1.06 1.694 2.191 0.705 0.144 0.1 0.162 0.448 0.654 0.083 3.0-6 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.01 0.017 0.487 1.165 0.771 0.095 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.069 0.007 E

60-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.23 0.024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00-1.5 0.039 0.024 0.049 0.042 0.103 0.235 0.546 1.741 1.547 0.676 0.406 0.272 0.166 0.069 0.049 0.056 1.5-3.0 0 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.034 0.176 0.333 0.24 0.022 0.002 0.01 0.017 0.005 0.015 0.01 3.0-6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.007 0.024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F

6.0-9.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1.5 0.012 0.04 0.015 0.029 0.039 0.13 0.637 2.931 1.704 0.411 0.218 0.125 0.039 0.01 0.02 0.022 1.5-3.0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.007 0.066 0.208 0.054 0 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 0 3.0-6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G

6.0-9.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revision 2 3-45

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-11. Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distributions at 60 Meters (January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1998, based on Spector and Grant 2003, Attachment H)

Wind Direction From Stability Speed Class (mis) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE s SSW SW WSW w WNW NW NNW 0.0-1 .5 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 1.5-3.0 0.017 0.007 0.007 0.015 0.022 0.01 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.012 0.01 0.017 0.019 0.022 3.0-6.0 0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.017 0.053 0.051 0.027 0.039 0.2 11 0.296 0.099 A

6.0-9.0 0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.017 0.012 0.029 0.012 0.01 0.17 0.143 0.051 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.002

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1.5 0.007 0 0.002 0 0 0.005 0 0.005 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 1.5-3.0 0.034 0.051 0.046 0.019 0.017 0.022 0.017 0.015 0.019 0.07 0.012 0.022 0.039 0.075 0.075 0.056 3.0-6.0 0.053 0.051 0.039 0.024 0.034 0.01 0.036 007 0.083 0.109 0.175 0.102 0.092 0.386 0.408 0.175 B

6.0-9.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.012 0.029 0.017 0.036 0.029 0.024 0.046 0.133 0.124 0.017 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.002 0 0.002 0 0.015 0.002 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1.5 0.005 0.002 0.01 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.002 0 0.01 0.005 0.005 0.002 0 0.002 0.007 0.01 1.5-3.0 0.126 0.067 0.068 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.066 0.309 0.036 0.068 0.073 0.07 0.085 0.116 0.129 0.129 3.0-6.0 0.109 0.053 0.041 0.034 0.051 0.036 0.097 0.092 0.148 0.26 0.294 0.172 0.279 0.645 0.631 0.238 c 6.0-9.0 0.002 0.017 0.01 0.01 0.034 0.027 0.022 0.041 0.032 0.034 0.192 0.099 0.036 0 0 0 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0.007 0 0.002 0.015 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.029 0.002 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1.5 0.199 0.204 0.18 0.184 0.15 0.206 0.209 0.092 0.102 0.058 0.07 0.112 0.119 0.119 0.17 0.163 1.5-3.0 0.757 0.568 0.468 0.255 0.306 0.531 0.9 0.551 0.393 0.587 0.99 1.063 1.281 1.42 ' 1.272 0.755 3.0-6.0 0.636 0.405 0.24 0.473 0.519 0.682 1.628 1.662 1.153 2.203 3.237 2.587 4.21 5 5.63 3.458 1.138 D

6.0-9.0 0.034 0.002 0.15 0.024 0.029 0.08 0.548 0.784 0.675 0.495 0 718 0.439 1.228 1.815 0.781 0.112 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0.007 0.002 0 0.129 0.495 0.131 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.058 0.078 0.019 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.109 0.012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1 .5 0.113 0.104 0.087 0.097 0.133 0.269 0.544 0.403 0.158 0.095 0.92 0.073 0.078 0.102 0.114 0.136 1.5-3.0 0.175 0.083 0.078 0.085 0.143 0.294 1.23 0.818 0.432 0.422 0.371 0.485 0.446 0.4 0.325 0.158 3.0-6.0 0.024 0.01 0.017 0.034 0.034 0.102 1.104 1.301 1.269 1.767 1.429 0.604 0.726 0.694 0.488 0.15 E

60-9 0 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.002 0.121 0.502 0.548 0.33 0.167 0.015 0.017 0.024 0.015 0 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.184 0.068 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 9

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.034 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1 .5 0.102 0.049 0.068 0.068 0.095 0.175 0.908 1.109 0.175 0.046 0.063 0.066 0.044 0.063 0.104 0.107 1.5-3.0 0.019 0.01 0.07 0.007 0.17 0.085 0.946 0.694 0.243 0.211 0.112 0.136 0.121 0.133 0.126 0.083 3.0-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.393 0.325 0.34 0.279 0.16 0073 0.053 0.61 0.85 0.032 F

6.0-9.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.019 0.002 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0-1.5 0.036 0.046 0.068 0.041 0.066 0.153 0.769 1.344 0.24 0.067 0.061 0.078 0.049 0.051 0.075 0.058 1.5-3.0 0.005 .0.002 0 0.005 0.002 0.029 0.895 1.24 0.417 0.277 0.211 0.165 0.09 0.061 0.107 0.039 3.0-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.216 0.267 0.296 0.403 0.119 0.017 0.019 0.015 0.015 0.002 G

60-90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0-12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revision 2 3-46

~~~~~

WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Air Quality The EPA regulates National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants as defined in the Clean Air Act Titles I through VI , which are designed to protect human health and welfare from adverse effects. Cattaraugus County falls within the Southern Tier West Intrastate district (Air Quality Control Region 164), with the following status of attainment:

"Better than National Standards/Unclassifiable (cannot be classified) ."

Radiological emissions are regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations . Non-radiological air emissions are regulated by the NYSDEC whose regulations dictate monitoring and compliance of stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. The WVDP was approved for a capping plan for non-radiological emissions . There were no cases where air permit or regulatory criteria were exceeded during calendar year 2007. (WVES and URS 2008) 3.5 Geology and Seismology The geology and seismology of the site and surrounding areas are described in this section .

3.5.1 Regional Physiography The Center is located within the glaciated northern portion of the Appalachian Plateau Province, a maturely dissected upl*and region underlain in western New York by shales and siltstones of Devonian age. This region is bounded on the north by the Erie Ontario Lowlands, on the east by the Tughill Upland, on the south by the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau, and on the west by the Interior Lowlands (Figure 3-51 ).

The Appalachian Plateau of western New York has been subjected to multiple glaciations during the Wisconsinan glacial period 38,000 to 14,500 years ago, that resulted in the deepening and oversteepening of many pre-glacial valleys and in the accumulation in those valleys of as much as 500 feet of glacial tills , lacustrine, and glaciofluvial sediments.

The Center is situated within one of these north-trending valleys (Figure 3-3).

3.5.2 Site Stratigraphy The Center is located in a glacial valley filled with upwards of 500 feet of Pleistocene age glacial tills, lacustrine, and glaciofluvial sediments that were deposited during the Wisconsinan glacial period . The thickness of glacial deposits at the site ranges from five feet or less on the uplands to 500 feet along the axis of the valley. These glacial sediments were deposited on shales and siltstones of the Middle Devonian Conneaut and Canadaway Groups which comprise the uppermost portion of the Paleozoic bedrock that underlies the Center.

The Paleozoic section in the vicinity of the Center is approximately 7,500 feet thick and is comprised predominantly of shales, siltstones, sandstones, carbonates , and evaporites of Cambrian through Devonian age (Table 3-12) . Bedrock stratification in the area is nearly flat and essentially undeformed . However, bedrock is tilted to the south at an average dip of six to eight meters per kilometer (approximately 32 to 42 feet per mile) . The Paleozoic Revision 2 3-47

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN bedrock underlying the Center was deposited on a basement of older Precambrian-age rocks that are part of the Grenville Orogenic Belt which extends from eastern Canada, through the United States, and into Mexico.

Table 3-12. Generalized Paleozoic Stratigraphic Section for Southwestern New York(ll System Series Group Unit Lithology Thickness (ft)

Pennsylvanian Pottsville Olean Ss, Cgl 75 - 100 Mississippian Pocono Knapp Ss, Cgl 50 - 100 Devonian Upper Conewango Sh, Ss, 700 Cgl Conneaut Chadakoin Sh, Ss 700 Canadaway Undiff Sh, Ss 1100 - 1400 Perrysburg Sh,Ss West Falls Java Sh, Ss 375-1250 Nunda Sh, Ss Rhinestreet Sh, Ss Sonyea Middlesex Sh 0- 400 Genesee Sh 0- 450 Middle Tully Ls 0- 50 Hamilton Moscow Sh 200 - 600 Ludlowville Sh Skaneateles Sh Marcellus Sh Onondaga Ls 30 - 235 Lower Tristates Oriskany Ss 0- 40 Helderberg Manlius Ls 0 -10 Rondout Doi Silurian Upper Akron Doi 0-15 Salina Camillus Sh, Gyp 450 -1850 Syracuse Doi, Sh, Salt Vernon Sh, Salt Lockport Lockport Doi 150- 250 Clinton Rochester Sh 125 Irondequoit Ls Lower Sodus Sh 75 Reynales Ls Thorold Ss 2-8 Revision 2 3-48

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-12. Generalized Paleozoic Stratigraphic Section for Southwestern New York(l J System Series Group Unit Lithology Thickness (ft)

Medina Grimsby Sh, Ss 75 - 160 Whirlpool Ss 0 - 25 Ordovician Upper Queenston Sh 1100 - 1500 Oswego Ss Lorraine Sh 900-1000 Utica Sh Middle Trenton-Black Trenton Ls 425 - 625 River Black River Ls 225 - 550 Lower Beekmantown Tribes Hill Ls 0- 550

/Chuctanunda Cambrian Upper Little Falls Doi 0- 350 Galway Doi , ss 575-1350 (Theresa)

Potsdam Ss, Doi 75 - 500 Precambrian Meta Rx NOTE: (1) From Jacobi and Fountain 1993.

LEGEND: Cgl = conglomerate, Doi = dolomite, Gyp - gypsum, Ls= limestone, Sh = shale, Ss = sand stone, Meta Rx = metamorphic rocks Site Glacial Stratigraphy The WVDP is underlain by upwards of 500 feet of Pleistocene-age glacial sediments that were deposited in a northwest-trending bedrock valley (Figure 3-52) . The principal glacial units are identified below.

Surficial Sand and Gravel Unit The surficial sand and gravel unit is a silty, sandy gravel deposit that incorporates two overlapping units of different ages and origins. The older unit, the slack-water sequence, is a Wisconsinan glaciofluvial deposit deposited in Buttermilk Creek Valley by draining glacial meltwaters of Lavery-age ice . The younger unit. the thick-bedded unit, is a post-glacial Holocene-age alluvial fan deposited by streams entering Buttermilk Creek Valley.

This unit is found at grade in the north plateau area of the Center where it has a maximum thic kness of 41 feet in the center of the plateau . The sand and gravel unit thins to a few feet towards the northern, eastern, and southern margins of the north plateau where it has been truncated by the downward erosion of stream channels bounding the north plateau . The Process Building, Vitrification Facility, and adjacent facilities were built on these alluvial and glaciofluvial deposits (Figure 3-5) .

The composition of the sand and gravel unit vari es. but on the average it is a mixture of gravel (41 percent) , sand (40 percent) , silt (11 percent), and clay (8 percent) . X-ray Revision 2 3-49

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN diffraction analysis indicates the mineralogy of this unit is dominated by quartz, illite, chlorite, and plagioclase with subordinate amounts of calcite and dolomite.

Surficial sands and gravels that are equivalent to the surficial sand and gravel unit in the north plateau are located in a number of areas within the Center (Figure 3-53) . These sands and gravels have been quarried for gravel in three locations within the Center. Two of the gravel pits are located west of the Process Building on the west side of Rock Springs Road (Figure 3-8) . These gravel pits are no longer in operation and were closed in accordance with NYSDEC regulations . The third gravel pit was located on the southeastern margin of the Center (Figure 3-9) . This gravel pit was quarried by the Town of Ashford . The three gravel pit quarries do not contain any residual radioactive contamination from NFS or WVDP operations .

Lavery Till The Lavery till is predominantly an olive-gray, silty-clay, glaci al till with lenses of sand, gravel, silt. and rhythmic clay-silt laminations (Albanese. et al. 1983) . This unit underlies the surficial sand and gravel unit in the north plateau and is exposed at the surface in the SC?Uth plateau (Figure 3-53) . As noted previously, the Lavery till is the host unit for both the SDA and the NOA.

The thickness of the Lavery till ranges from a few feet at its western margin to upwards of 130 feet to the east towards Buttermilk Creek. The Lavery till is a mixture of clay (50 percent} , silt (30 percent), sand (18 percent}, and gravel (two percent) (WVNSCO 1993e) .

The mineral composition of the till largely resembles that of local bedrock.

On the south plateau , the upper three to 16 feet of the Lavery till is weathered to a brown color and it contains root tubes and numerous fractures whose number decrease with depth. This upper layer is referred to as the weathered Lavery till and it is principally found in the south plateau of the Center. The weathered Lavery till is either absent or only a few inches thick on the north plateau .

X-ray diffraction analysis indicates the mineralogy of the weathered Lavery till is composed mainly of illite, quartz, calcite, kaolinite, plagioclase feldspar, and dolomite in decreasing quantities . The mineralogy of the unweathered Lavery till is composed mainly of quartz, illite, calcite, and kaolinite in decreasing abundance.

A borrow pit excavated into the Lavery till is located on the south plateau east of the SDA between Franks Creek and Buttermilk Creek (Figure 3-9) . Clay was excavated from this pit beginning in the 1970's to provide clay fill for use at the SDA. The borrow pit did not contain any residual radioactive contamination from NFS or WVDP operations. The pit covered an area of less than one acre and it was closed by backfilling and grading in accordance with the NYSDEC Mined Land Reclamation Program in the early 2000's.

Lavery Till-Sand Unit The Lavery till -sa nd unit is a lenticular shaped, silty. sand layer that is locally present within the Lavery till in the north plateau of the Center, immediately southeast of the Revision 2 3-50

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Process Building . It is thought to be either a pro-glacial sand deposit or a reworked kame deposit.

The till-sand is limited in areal extent, occurring on the north plateau in an east-west band approximately 750 feet wide. It lies within the upper 20 feet of the Lavery till (Figure 3-

6) and is up to seven feet in thickness .

Re-examination of borehole logs from the north plateau in 2007 resulted in a re-evaluation of the areal extent of the Lavery till sand_ From 1991 to 2007 , the Lavery till sand was inferred to be present to the west, south, and southeast of the Process Building in a location ~hat was hydraulically upgradient and cross-,gradient to the north plateau groundwater plume. Eanlier interpretations of the borehole logs considered a prominent olay-rich geologic honizon up to several feet in thickness as part of the unweathered Lavery till and the underilying sandy unit as the Lavery till sand_

Following bhe completion of the 1993 soil boring program to support the RCRA Facility Investigation, the 1993 borehole data indicated that the sand and gravel unit was composed of two distinct subunits, the thick-bedded unit and the underlying slack water sequence which are separated by the prominent clay-rich geologic horizon mentioned earllier. In 2007 it was noted that the elevation of the original Lavery till sand west and soulilwest of the Process Building was much shallower in elevation than the Lavery till sane;! to the southeast of the Process Building. It was determined that this western and southwestern portion was more consistent with the elevation of the slack water sequence of the sand and gravel unit and it was reclassified as part of the slack water sequence. As a result, the areal extent of the Lavery till sand was substantially reduced and it is now located southeast of the Process Building away from the north plateau groundwater plume as shown in Figure 3-64.

Kent Recessional Sequence The Kent Recessional Sequence underlies the Lavery till on both the north and south plateaus and it includes both lacustrine and kame delta deposits; it is 30 to 60 feet thick at the WVDP . Lacustrine strata composed of laminated silt and clay forms the lower 30 feet of the Kent Recessional Sequence, which is present in the subsurface across the entire WVDP.

The lacustrine section is interpreted as forming in a pro-glacial lake that formed after the recession of the Kent ice margin (LaFleur 1979): The lacustrine section is composed mainly of quartz, illite, calcite, dolomite, and plagioclase feldspar in decreasing abundance.

Calcite and dolomite together make up 12 to 20 percent of the lacustrine section by weight.

The lacustrine section in the eastern portion of the WVDP is overlain by upwards of 30 feet of sand and gravel believed to represent several kame deltas. (Figure 3-6) Several of these kame deltas are exposed along Buttermilk Creek and extend into the WVDP west of the NDA (Bergeron, et al. 1987).

The kame deltas were deposited during pauses in the recession of the Kent glacier through a pro-glacial lake that allowed the accumulation o(kame deltas over lakebed silts Revision 2 3-51

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and clays. This unit is underlain by at least two older silty-clay tills, the Kent till and the Olean till, which also are separated by similar lacustrine and glaciofluvial deposits (LaFleur 1979).

3.5.3 Site Geomorphology Karst terrains are not developed at the Center as there are no occurrences of carbonate bedrock in the vicinity of the site. Natural subsidence of surficial soils has not been observed at the Center. However, small scale subsidence has been observed over some of the burial holes in the NOA and SDA during their operating history which are believed related to collapse and compaction of buried waste .

Geomorphological studies at the WVDP have focused on the major erosional processes acting on Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek drainage basins near the WVDP.

This section describes these processes - channel incision, slope movement. and gullying -

and details where they occur. The erosion rates from these processes have been measured at numerous locations throughout the drainage basins, as summarized in Table 3-13 . Results vary based on location and methodology used in the measurements.

Channel Incision The streams in the vicinity of the WVDP are at a relatively young stage of development and are characterized by steep profiles, V-shaped cross-sections, and little or no floodplains. At this stage, streams are able to move large quantities of sediment and erode their channels, a process referred to as channel incision or stream downcutting. The channel incision process is greatest during high-flow, high-energy rainfalls from prolonged soaking storms and brief, high-intensity thunderstorms .

These streams are also actively elongating their stream course or profiles through erosion upstream, a process referred to as headward advance . Headward advance starts when the movement of channel sediment is blocked by debris in the stream channel, which results in an abrupt change in the longitudinal profile of the stream bed, referred to as a knickpoint.

The stream erodes the knickpoint area by simple basal scour due to an attached impinging jet which undercuts the knickpoint face . Large blocks of material are then removed by cantilever mass failure and are then dispersed and washed downstream.

Ttie shape of the channel cross-section changes from a Li-shape, or flatbottom , with a low erosion rate to a V-shaped channel with a higher erosion rate. The knickpoint migration rate has been measured at 10.7 feet per year along Erdman Brook and 7.5 feet per year along Franks Creek (WVNSCO 1993d).

Slope Movement Slope erosion within the Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek drainage basin has been dominated by the formation of slump blocks along the stream valley wall. Slumps develop when water infiltrates into fractures within stream banks, causing an increase in soil pore pressures, which reduces the soil strength until the slope slumps down into the stream Revision 2 3-52

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN valley. Slumps also occur on the outside of a stream meander loop, where the increased stream flow velocity undercuts the base of the slope. decreasing the slope stability and accelerating the slumping process.

Three slump blocks have been identified along Franks Creek, one on Erdman Brook, and one on Quarry Creek. The blocks vary in length from about five feet to greater than 100 feet and tend to be about three to four feet in height and width when they initially form (WVNSCO 1993d).

On the basis of data collected from 1982 to 1991 , the rate of downslope movement within the slump blocks on Erdman Brook is reported to range from 0.09 and 0.16 feet per year. which equates to a stream valley rim widening rate of approximately 0.07 to 0.12 feet per year.

Gullying The steep walls of the stream channels within the Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek drainage basin are susceptible to gully formation . Gullies are most likely to form along stream banks, where slumps and deep fractures are present. groundwater seeps are flowing . and the toe of the slope intersects the outside of a stream meander loop.

Gully formation occurs during thaws and after thunderstorms , where a concentrated stream of water flows over the side of a plateau , which is great enough to promote entrainment and removal of soil particles from the base of the gully. Surface water runoff into the gully contributes to gully growth by removing fallen debris at the base of the scarp.

More than 20 major and moderate-sized gullies have been identified near the WVDP .

The initiation and growth of gullies may be the most rap id means for eroding the north and south plateaus. Gully advance was calculated at 1.2 feet per year near the SDA on the south plateau, and at 2.2 feet per year for two areas on the north plateau (WVNSCO 1993d).

Table 3-13. Summary of Erosion Rates Near the WVDP Location Erosion Rate (m/y) Reference Method Sheet and Rill Erosion 0 to 0.0045 URS 2001 Erosion frame measurements (11-year average rate)

Deepening of Buttermilk Creek 0.0015 to 0.0021 LaFleur 1979 Carbon-14 date of terrace - depth of stream below terrace Deepening of Buttermilk Creek 0.005 Boothroyd, et Carbon-14 date of terrace - depth of al. 1982 stream below terrace Deepening of Quarry Creek, 0.051to0 .089

  • Dames & Difference from 1980 to 1990 in Franks Creek, and Erdman Moore 1992 stream surveys Brook Revision 2 3-53

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-13. Summary of Erosion Rates Near the WVDP Location Erosion Rate (m/y) Reference Method Downcutting of Buttermilk 0.0032 USGS 2007 Optically stimulated luminescence Creek age dating of 9 terraces along Buttermilk Creek Buttermilk Creek Valley Rim 4.9 to 5.8 Boothroyd, et Downslope movement of slump block Widening al. 1979 over 2 years Valley Rim Widening of 0.05to0.13 McKinney Extrapolate Boothroyd data for 500 Buttermilk and Franks Creeks 1986 years and Erdman Brook Erdman Brook Valley Rim 0.02 to 0.04 Dames & Downslope movement of stakes over Widening Moore 1992 9 years Downcutting of Franks Creek 0.06 Dames & Stream profile, knickpoint migration Moore 1992 1955 to 1989 SDA Gully Headward 0.4 Dames & Gully advancement Soil Conservation Advancement Moore 1992 Service TR-32 method NP3 Gully Headward 0.7 Dames & Gully advancement Soil Conservation Advancement Moore 1992 Service TR-32 method 006 Gully Headward 0.7 Dames & Gully advancement Soil Conservation Advancement Moore 1992 Service TR-32 method Slope Stability Landslides provide an active mechanism to headward erosion for altering the landform in Buttermilk Creek Valley. Since landslides typically occur on slopes that have a relief of more than 10 feet, all currently eroding surfaces except the upland flats have potential for landslide development. Landslides range from three feet to 65 feet in height. Landsliding has been recognized since the mid-1970s along the small streams bordering the burial areas.

Stratigraphy affects both landslide location and development. Landsliding takes place along Buttermilk Creek where the Lavery till unit is dissected and the underlying lower sand and gravel of the Kent Recessional Sequence is exposed . These unconsolidated sands and gravels are removed by stream erosion, leaving the overlying till unsupported, followed by bank collapse, bringing down large blocks of the valley wall.

Landslides on the smaller streams draining the WVDP tend to occur as the channel cuts downward through the Lavery till , increasing the steepness of the stream banks, which eventually results in a series of short slide blocks. The blocks tend to be less than four feet high and occur along the slope from the edge of the plateau to the edge of the stream channel.

Revision 2 3-54

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Creep occurs on the slopes of Buttermilk Creek and its tributaries at relatively slow rates of a few centimeters per year. A slope may have surface layers a few centimeters thick that move a few centimeters per year. If highly charged with water, the surface soils may liquefy and then move down-slope as mudflows . These mudflows occur most frequently in conjunction with landsliding .

Down-slope movement of till in the Buttermilk Creek Valley by landslides, slumping, and earthflow appears to be a continuous process measured at an average rate of five feet per year (Boothroyd , et al. 1982) . The average volume of material delivered to Buttermilk Creek has been estimated to be 5,250 cubic feet per year (Boothroyd, et al. 1982) .

Landslide mapping and monitoring suggests areas most susceptible to failure have the following characteristics : surface slopes exceeding eight degrees, slopes composed of silty and clayey tills or alluvial fan material , an active stream channel at the foot of slope, and little or no vegetative cover or heavy overburden (WVNSCO 1993c) .

3.5.4 Regional Structure and Tectonics The bedrock in the immediate vicinity of the Center is composed of interbedded shales, siltstones, and sandstones of the Upper Devonian Canadaway and Conneaut Groups (Rickard 1975) . These and underlying Paleozoic sediments were deformed by compressive stresses originating from the Pennsylvanian-Permian Alleghanian orogeny which was the last major orogenic episode affecting the Appalachian mountain belt.

The major manifestations of this Alleghanian deformation are the prominent regional folds, thrust faults, and metamorphism that are found to the southeast in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, and Piedmont Provinces (Figure 3-51) . However, Alleghanian deformation did extend into the Appalachian Plateau Province of western New York where geologic structure such as joints, low amplitude folds, and thrust faults with small stratigraphic separation were developed in Paleozoic bedrock.

Alleghanian Folds and Thrust Faults The Alleghanian deformation within the Appalachian Plateau of western New York principally affected the Upper Silurian Salina Group and overlying Devonian-age rocks (Table 3-14) . During the Alleghanian orogeny, Paleozoic strata overlying the Salina Group was detached from underlying older strata by a decollement in the Salina Group . The stratigraphic section overlying this decollement was deformed, shortened, and translated to the northwest during the Alleghanian orogeny. The deformation of the strata overlying the decollement was manifested in the development of thrust faults, folds, and systematically oriented bedrock fractures.

The thrust faults that splayed off of the Salina decollement into the Lower to Middle Devonian section displaced and folded overlying bedding, producing an arcuate fold belt in western and central New York (Figure 3-54) . The trend of this fold belt changes across New York State. Anticline fold axes, which trend roughly northeast-southwest in Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegany Counties, are observed to rotate to the east and become more east-west trending in Steuben and Chemung Counties.

Revision 2 3-55

WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN These folds have low amplitudes with limb dips that are generally 1 to 2 degrees I (Wedel 1932, Engelder and Geiser 1980) . The low amplitudes of these folds are related to the small amount of stratigraphic separation that occurs across the thrust faults forming these folds . Higher amplitude folds, with corresponding higher limb dips and larger amount of separation across thrust faults, are found in the Valley and Ridge Province of Pennsylvania (Figure 3-51).

The Bass Islands Trend , a northeast trending , oil and gas producing structure extending from northeastern Ohio into western New York, is an example of an Alleghanian foreland fold and thrust structure. The Bass Islands Trend extends from the southwest corner of New York State, through Chautauqua Lake, northwestern Cattaraugus County, and into southern Erie County (Figure 3-55). The Bass Islands Trend is a regional fold that formed as the result of a thrust fault ramping up-section from the Salina Group into the overlying Lower Devonian section .

Bedrock mapping in the south branch of Cattaraugus Creek, approximately 12 miles west of the WVDP, indicates the presence of northeast-striking inclined bedding, folds , and faults which are attributed to faults associated with the Bass Islands Trend (Baudo and Jacobi 1999, Jacobi and Zhao 1999). Recent field mapping in the Ashford Hollow quadrangle, in which the Center is located, indicates the presence of northwest and northeast striking fractures that represent typical Alleghanian age cross-fold and fold-parallel fracture sets (Tober and Jacobi 2000) .

Table 3-14. Summary of Observed Faults on Seismic Lines WVN-1 and BER83-2A<1 >

Shot Point Shot Point Fault Displacement Fault Displace Seismic Line Location Top Location Base Apparent (feet) Type Trenton of Fault of Fault Dip Angle INVN-1 155.5 156.5 82.1E Reverse No 204.5 75 206.0 85.4E Normal No 241 .5 35 239.0 84.6W Reverse No 265.0 23 264.5 88.9W Reverse  ?

467.0 47 465.0 81.4W Normal No 478.5 23 484.0 81.?E Reverse No 486.0 35 502.0 50.9E Reverse No 522.5 47 506.5 62.9W Reverse  ?

557.0 601 .0 70 585.0 61 .3W Reverse Yes 621 .5 35 622 .0 88.0E Normal No 633.0 58 631.0 86.2W Reverse Yes 668.5 58 667.5 87.7W Reverse Yes Revision 2 3-56

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-14. Summary of Observed Faults on Seismic Lines WVN-1 and BER83-2Al1J Shot Point Shot Point Fault Displacement Fault Displace Seismic Line Location Top Location Base Apparent (feet) Type Trenton of Fault of Fault Dip Angle 699.0 10 699.5 88.7E Reverse  ?

740.0 28 737.5 87.6W Normal Yes 766.0 287 764.5 88.6W Normal Yes 797.5 57 792.0 65.7W Reverse No 871.0 48 859.5 65.0W Normal Yes BER83-2A 412.0 51 421 .5 75 .9S Normal Yes 451 .5 38 457.0 84.3S Normal Yes 452.5 102 457.0 85.3S Normal Yes 519.0 521 .0 81 .0S Normal No 681 .0 684.0 84.3S Normal No 709.5 13 714.0 85.0S Normal Yes 748.0 752.0 83.4S Normal No 779.5 26 791 .5 70.1S Reverse No 800.0 39 822.0 60.?S Reverse No 828.0 12 842.0 87.2S Normal No NOTE : {1) From Bay Geophysical 2001 .

The presence of northeast trending fracture intensification domains suggest thrust faults associated with the Bass Island Trend or other Alleghanian thrust faults may extend eastward into the Ashford Hollow quadrangle (Tober and Jacobi 2000) . Alleghanian folds and thrust faults are no longer tectonically active or seismically active . As a result there is no rate of deformation associated with these structures.

Bedrock Fractures Fractures are ubiquitous in the Paleozoic bedrock of western New York. Systematically oriented fracture or joint sets have been identified in the Paleozoic bedrock of the Appalachian Plateau of western New York (Engelder and Geiser 1980, Fakundiny, et al.

1978, Geiser and Engelder 1983, McKinney, Gross and Engelder 1991 , Jacobi, et al. 1996, Zhao and Jacobi 1997). These joint sets are part of a regional fracture system that formed primarily in response to compressive stresses originating during the Pennsylvanian-Permian AllE: ghanian Orogeny. However, other joint sets identified in bedrock in western New York may have originated in response to the contemporary east-northeast regional stress field currently affecting eastern North America (Engelder and Geiser 1980, Geiser and Engelder 1983, Gross and Engelder 1991 ), or post-Precambrian movements along the Clarendon-Linden Fault System (Jacobi , et al. 1996, Zhao and Jacobi 1997).

Revision 2 3-57

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Three vertical joint sets in Paleozoic bedrock from western New York, including rocks from the Upper Devonian Canadaway and Conneaut Groups have been identified (Engelder and Geiser 1980) . Two of these joint sets, trending approximately north 45° west (N45W) and N45E, were produced from the compressive stresses generated during the All eghanian orogeny (Figure 3-54) .

The N45Ejoint set parallels fold axes in the Appalachian plateau and formed during the Alleghanian-age compression that produced these folds . The N45W joint set is generally perpendicular to fold trends in thi s area and was produced before the folding of bedrock in the Appalachian Plateau (Figure 3-54). A third set trending N60E is found throughout New York and probably formed under the current east-northeast regional compressive stress field . These joints sets are cells found in the Devonian bedrock in and around the Center.

Eight systematic joint sets were identified in rocks from the Canadaway and Conneaut Groups in All egany County (Engelder and Geiser 1980, Zhao and Jacobi 1997) . The strike of these joint sets ranged from west-northwest to east-northeast and they were produced at various stages of the Alleghanian deformation that affected western New York. The orientation of these joint sets reflects changes in the orientation of the principal stresses that were associated with the deformation of the Appalachian plateau of western New York, beginning with north-northwest trending cross fold joints followed by the progressive development of joint sets to the east and west.

Regional Northwest Trending Lineaments and Structures Regional northwest trending lineaments have been identified across the eastern United States based on analyses of regional gravity and magnetic anomaly trends . These lineaments are typically hundreds of kilometers in length and are believed to be the surface expression of regional crustal fracture zones that extend into the crust and which juxtapose rocks of differing densities and magnetic susceptibility. Examples of these lineaments include the Tyrone-Mt. Union lineament in Pennsylvania and the Lawrenceville-Attica lineament in New York (Figure 3-56).

The Tyrone-Mt. Union lineament is believed to extend southeast from Lake Erie to beyond the Atlantic coastline of the United States where it is thought to coincide with transform faults associated with the mid-Atlantic ridge system . Subsurface geologic mapping and analysis of regional magnetic and gravity patterns suggest significant lateral displacement of at least 31 to 37 miles across this lineament.

The Lawrenceville-Attica lineament in western New York extends northwest from Lawrenceville, New York through Attica , New York and into western Lake Ontario . The Lawrenceville-Attica lineament may be contiguous with the Georgian Bay Linear Zone, a northwest-trending zone extending from Georgian Bay in southern Ontario southeastward in western New York State.

The Georgian Bay Linear Zone is an 18 .6-mile wide structural zone that extends from Georgian Bay to the southeast across southern Ontario, western Lake Ontario, and into western New York (Figure 3-56) . The Georgian Bay Linear Zone has been delineated by a Revision 2 3-58

WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN set of northwest-trending aeromagnetic lineaments, one of which parallels the straight eastern shoreline of Georgian Bay.

A variety of neotectonic structures and features have been identified in surficial bedrock and in lake bed sediments within the Georgian Bay Linear Zone. These include faults and bedrock pop-ups and linear pockmarks and linear acoustic backscatter anomalies imaged on seismic sidescan profiles in lake bed sediments that may represent bedrock fractures and faults .

Clarendon-Linden Fault System The Clarendon-Linden Fault System is located approximately 19 miles east of the Center (Figure 3-56) and is comprised of at least five north-south striking, high-angle faults which extend southward from Lake Ontario through Orleans, Genesee, and Wyoming Counties, and into All egany County.

Stratigraphic relationships indicate that the overall sense of movement across the Clarendon-Linden Fault System is consistent with reverse faulting from east to west with up to 330 feet of stratigraphic separation across the Clarendon-Linden Fault System . Recent bedrock mapping and soil gas surveying in Allegany County suggests the Clarendon-Linden Fault System extends further south into Allegany County based on the presence of at least seven north-south striking fracture intensification domains and associated soil gas anomalies.

The southwest trending Attica Splay has been interpreted to splay off of the western north-south trending fault approximately 0. 75 mile south of Batavia (Figure 3-56) and to continue to the southwest through Alexander and Attica , New York to a point approximately 1.25 miles northwest of Varysburg , New York. Seismic reflection data suggest the presence of at least two east-dipping faults extending from the Precambrian basement into the Paleozoic section forming a graben structure with a stratigraphic separation of 74 - 148 feet (Fakundiny, et al. 1978). The eastern fault is a reverse fault showing east to west movement and the western fault is a normal fault showing west to east movement.

Seismic reflection profiling suggests that the faults comprising the Clarendon-Linden Fault System are contiguous with faults located within the Grenville Province Central Metasedimentary Belt which underlies the Paleozoic bedrock of western New York. The Central Metasedimentary Belt has been subdivided into two distinct terrains, the Elzevir terrain and the Frontenac terrain, which are separated by the Elzevir-Frontenac Boundary Zone, a northeast trending six- to 22-miles wide crustal shear zone. The eastern boundary of the Elzevir-Frontenac Boundary Zone, which is known as the Maberly shear zone in southern Ontario, appears contiguous with the Clarendon-Linden Fault System in Western New York.

The Clarendon-Linden Fault System has been active at least since the Middle Ordovician and has displayed a complicated movement history alternating from normal or extensional faulting , to reverse or compressional faulting during the Paleozoic . The episodic movement along the Clarendon-Linden Fault System during the Paleozoic Revision 2 3-59

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMIS SIONING PLAN occurred in response to orogenic induced subsidence of the Appalachian basin. Normal faulting with down-to the-east motion occurred when the basin axis was located east of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System . Reverse faulting with east to west movement sense occurred when the basin axis was located west of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System .

WVDP Seismic Reflection Survey In June 2001 , the WVDP collected nearly 18 miles of seismic reflection data along an east-west line in southern Erie County, approximately 5 miles north of the Center (Bay Geophysical 2001) . (See Figure 3-57 .) Thi s seismic survey was designed to image any north or northeast-trending structures in the Preca mbrian basement and overlying Paleozoic bedrock.

The WVDP also reviewed approximately 16 miles of reprocessed seismic reflection data collected in 1983 along a north-south line along Route 219 in Erie and Cattaraugus Counties. This line was reviewed to evaluate whether any east-west trending* structures were present in the Precambrian basement and Paleozoic bedrock near the Center.

Both seismic lines indicate the presence of numerous high-angle faults originating in Grenville-age basement which extend up-section into Middle Ordovician or Middle Devonian strata . (See Figure 3-57) The majority of these faults terminate near the Middle Ordovician Trenton Group. These faults have apparent dips of 50 to 89.45 ° to the west, east, or south, show reverse and normal offset of bedding, and have up to 300 feet of stratigraphic separation .

Strata overlying some of the fault terminations are folded above the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation, suggesting that these faults were emplaced or reactivated after the deposition of the uppermost folded unit. The most recent period of movement along these faults cannot be determined based on a lack of definitive age-dating relationships . Two faults near Sardinia, New York were interpreted to continue up-section through the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation . These west-dipping normal faults show up to 300 feet of estimated stratigraphic separation (Figure 3-57).

A series of east- and south dipping high-angle faults spaced at intervals of 500 to 4,500 feet were interpreted in the Silurian to Devonian section northwest of Springville, New York.

These faults originate in the Silurian Salina Group and cut up-section to the northwest through the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation . These are believed to be thrust faults associated with the Bass Islands Trend .

Revision 2 3-60

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.5.5 Historical Seismicity Earthquake catalogs maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Earthquake Information Center were used to identify historical earthquakes with a magnitud e of three or greater and a Modified Mercalli Intensity of IV or more within a 200-mile radius of the site. Three of the National Earthquake Information Center earthquake catalogs were queried to obtain information on earthquake activi ty in western New York. These included the Preliminary Determination of Epicenters, the Significant U.S. Earthquakes, and the Eastern, Central, and Mountain States of the United States catalogs . . The historical seismicity search also utilized historical events identifi ed in the Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processing and Support Activities (WVNSCO 2007) . Historical seismicity within 200 miles of the site is summarized in Table 3-15. Table 3-15 also lists the date, location , time ,

depth, intensity, magnitude, distance, and information source .

From 1840 to 2003, there have been 45 recorded earthquakes with epicentral magnitudes of 3 or greater and Modified Mercalli Intensity of IV or greater within 200 miles of th e WVDP. None of these earthquakes were reported to have caused landsliding or liquefaction events in the vicinity of the site. The geographic distribution of this seismicity is shown on Figure 3-55 .

Table 3-15. Historical Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Sitet1J (Only events with a magnitude .2:. 3 or a MMI intensity .2:. IV are listed)

Latitude Longitude Origin Depth Intensity Magnitude Distance NEIC Date (oN) (oW) Time (km) (MMI) (mb) (km) Catalog 1840 9/10 43.20 79.90 - - 5+- - 113.7 Unk 1853 3/12 43.70 75.50 - - 6+- - 302.3 Unk 1853 3/13 43.10 79.40 - - 5+- - 74.9 Unk 1857 10/23 43.20 78.60 2015 - 6+- 4.3 FA 83 USHIS 1873 7/6 43.00 79.50 - - 6+- - 73.6 Unk 1900 4/9 41.40 81 .90 14 - 6+- 3.4 FA 293 USHIS 1906 6/27 41.40 81 .60 - - 5 4.2 269.8 Unk 1912 5/27 43.20 79.70 - - 5+- - 100.6 Unk 1914 02/10 44.98 76.92 1831 - 7 5.20 FA 313 Unk 1927 1/29 40.90 81 .20 - - 5 - 275.8 Unk 1928 9/9 41 .50 82.00 21 - 5 3.70 FA 297 SRA 1929 8/12 42.91 78.40 112448.70 9 8+- 5.20 Mn 54* SRA/

USHIS 1929 12/2 42.80 78.30 - - 5+- - 47.4* Unk 1932 1/21 41 .10 81 .50 - - 5 - 280.9 Unk 1934 10/29 42.00 80.20 - - 5+- - 134.9 Unk Revision 2 3-61

WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSI ONIN G PLAN Table 3-15. Historical Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Sitel1' (Only events with a magnitude -> 3 or a MMI intensity~ IV are li sted)

Latitude Longitude Origin Depth Intensity Magnitude Distance NEIC Date (oN) (oW) Time (km) (MMI) (mb) (km) Catalog 1938 7115 40.68 78.43 224612 - 6~ 3.30 FA 233 SRA/

USHIS 1943 3/09 41.63 81 .31 032524.90 7 5 4.50 Mn 238 SRA/

USHIS 1951 12/03 41.60 81.40 0702 - 4 3.20 FA 246 SRA 1954 01 /31 42.90 77.3 12:30:00 - 4 3.1 121 NCEER 1954 02/1 43.03 76.65 00.:37:50 - 3.3 178 NCEER 1954 02/21 41.20 75.90 - - +7~ - 288.5 Unk 1954 04/27 43.10 79.20 02:14:08 - 4.1 85 NCEER 1955 5/26 41.50 81.70 - - 5 3.8 272.0 Unk 1955 6/29 41 .50 81.70 - - 5 3.8 272.0 Unk 1955 8/16 42.90 78.30 - - 5 - 53.5* Unk 1958 5/1 41 .50 81.70 - - 5 4.0 272.0 Unk 1958 07/22 43.00 79.50 01 :46:40 - 4.4 92 NCEER 1958 08/4 43.13 80.00 20:25:58 - 4 3.8 134 NCEER 1958 08/22 43.00 79.00 14:25:05 - 3.6 67 NCEER 1962 3/27 43.00 79.30 - - 5(- 3.0 61 .0 Unk 1963 01/30 44.00 75.90 1450 - 4 3.00 ML 281 SRA 1964 02/13 40.38 77.96 194640.80 1 5 3.30 Mn 237 SRA 1964 05/12 40.30 76.41 064510.70 1 6 4.50 mb 303 SRA/

USHIS 1965 07/16 43.20 78.50 110655 - 4 3.50 ML 84 SRA 1965 08/28 43.00 78.10 0155 - 4 3.10 ML 75 SRA

. 1966 1/1 42.84 78.25 132339 0 6~ 4.70 mb 54* SRA/

USHIS 1967 6/13 42.84 78.23 190855.50 1 6~ 4.40 Mn 54* SRA/

USHIS 1980 6/6 43.56 75.23 131552 1 5 3.80 UK 304 PDE 1980 6/6 43.57 75.14 131552.90 1 5 3.80 Mn 311 SRA 1983 10/4 43.44 79.79 171840 2 4 3.10 Mn 144 PDE Revision 2 3-62

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOM MISSIONING PLAN 1

Table 3-15. Historical Seismicity Within 320 Kilometers (200 Miles) of Sitel J (Only events with a magnitude;::. 3 or a MMI intensity;::. IV are listed)

Latitude Longitude Origin Depth Intensity Magnitude Distance NEIC Date Catalog (oN) (oW) Time (km) (MMI) (mb) (km) 1986 1/31 41 .65 81 .16 164642.30 2 6 5.00 mb 226 SRA/

USHIS 1986 1/31 41.65 81 .16 164643.33 10 6 5.00 mb 226 PDE 1987 7/13 41.90 80.77 054917.43 5 4 3.80 Mn 185 PDE 1991 1/26 41 .54 81.45 032122.61 5 5 3.40 Mn 253 PDE 1991 8/15 40.79 77.66 071607.15 1 5 3.00 Mn 202 PDE 1992 3/15 41 .91 81 .25 061355.22 5 4 3.50 Mn 222 PDE 1993 10/1 6 41.70 81 .01 063005.32 5 4 3.60 Mn 212 PDE 1995 5/25 42.99 78.83 142232.69 5 4 3.00 Mn 62 PDE 1998 9/25 41.49 80.39 195252.07 5 6 5.20 Mn 179 PDE 2001 1/26 41 .94 80.80 030320.06 5 5 4.40 Mn 186 PDE 2003 6/30 41 .80 81 .20 192117.20 4 4 3.60 Mn 223 PDE 2005 10/20 44.68 80.48 211628.75 11 4.20 Mn 316 PDE 2006 6/20 41 .84 81 .23 20 1118.54 5 3.80 Mn 239 PDE 2007 3/12 41.28 81.38 231816.41 5 3.70 Mn 271 PDE NOTE : (1) From earthquake catalogs of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Earthquake Information Center. The coordinates used in the search criteria were latitude 42.450N and longitude 78.654W, which correspond to a point near the process Building.

LEGEND : +.-C ould have been felt at site

  • Associated with Clarendon -Linden Structure Origin time is th e time the earthquake occurred.

PDE = NEIC Preliminary Determination of Epicenters NCEER =National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research USHIS = NEIC Significant U.S. Earthquakes SRA = NEIC Eastern, Central, and Mountain States of the United States MM I = Modified Mercalli Intensity Mn = Nuttli magnitude ML = Local magnitude Mb = Compressional Body Wave (P-wave) Magnitude FA= Felt Area Magnitude UK = Unknown Magnitude The Buffalo-Lockport earthquake of October 23, 1857 affected an area of approximately 18,000 square miles. The epicentra l intensity of VI was felt in an area 75 miles long, from north-northeast to south-southwest, and 62 miles wide . This earthquake was felt at Hamilton, Petersborough, and Port Hope in Ontario and at Rochester, New York, Warren, Pennsylvania, and Dayton, Ohio.

Revision 2 3-63

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN The August 12, 1929 earthquake occurred near Attica, New York, about 30 miles northeast of the WVDP. The affected area of approximately 50,000 square miles included parts of Canada . The earthquake was felt most strongly in the eastern part of the city of Attica and immediately to the east. There was less effect on structures immediately to the south of the epicenter, but changes in groundwater conditions were noted . Based on the reported damage, an epicentral intensity of VII and a Compressional Body Wave magnitude mb = 5.2 was assigned to the 1929 Attica event (WVNSCO 2007).

The Attica earthquakes of January 1, 1966 (Modified Mercalli Intensity VI) were felt over approximately 3,500 square miles of western New York, northwestern Pennsylvania ,

and southern Ontario , and the main shock was most strongly felt at Varysburg, about eight miles southwest of Attica . The Attica earthquake of June 13, 1967 (Modified Mercalli Intensity VI) was felt over an area of about 3,000 square miles in western New York. Slight damage was sustained at Attica and at Alabama , New York, where the shock was felt by many people. Focal mechanism solutions of these earthquakes indicate focal depths of approximately 1.2 to 1.9 miles and a combination of right-lateral strike-slip and reverse faulting on planes parallel to the northerly trend of the Clarendon-Linden Structure (Herrmann 1978) .

3.5.6 Evaluation of Seismic Hazard A site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the Center was performed to estimate the levels of horizontal ground motions that could be exceeded at specified annual return periods at the site (Wong, et al. 2004). The hazard for the site was computed for a hard rock condition . Site response analyses were also performed for the north and south plateau areas of the site to evaluate the potential ground motion amplification resulting from soils and unconsolidated sediments that underlie the site, such as the Surficial Sand and Gravel Unit, Lavery till, and Kent Recessional Sequence.

A total of 19 seismic sources were included in the probabilistic hazard analysis, including four fault systems or fault zones and 15 regional seismic source zones. The fault systems considered in the analysis included the Clarendon-Linden fault zone, the Charleston fault zone, the New Madrid fault system, and the Wabash Valley fault system .

The analysis considered the Southern Great Lakes seismic source zone in which the Clarendon-Linden fault zone is located . Regional seismic source zones were included in the analysis to incorporate the hazard associated with earthquakes affiliated with buried or unknown faults.

Peak horizontal ground acceleration and 0.1 and 1.0 second horizontal spectral accelerations) were calculated for bedrock at the Center for three DOE-specified return periods (Table 3-16) . Figure 3-58 shows the various hazard curves for peak ground accel eration at the site including the mean and median curves. The hazard curves for the 1.0 second SA are shown in Figure 3-59.

The analysis indicates the largest contributor to the hazard at the Center is the Clarendon-Linden fault zone at almost all return periods, whereas seismicity within the Southern Great Lakes seismic source zone is the second most important contributor to seismic hazard at the site (Figure 3-60) .

Revision 2 3-64

WVDP PHASE 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-16 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Hard Rock (g's) (ll Return Period (yrs) PGA 0.1 sec SA 1.0 sec SA

.500 0.04 0.07 0.02 1,000 0.05 0.11 0.03 2,500 0.10 0.20 0.06 NOTE : (1) From Wong, et al. 2004.

LEGEND: PGA = peak ground acceleration, SA= spectral acceleration.

Site response analyses were performed for the north and south plateau areas for return periods of 500 and 2,500 years to evaluate potenti al ground motion amplification resulting from the unconsolidated glacial sediments underlying these areas (Tables 3-17 and 3-18) .

The increased peak ground acceleration in the north plateau evaluation suggests slight amplification of ground motions in the north plateau area of the site (Tables 3-16 and 3-17) .

The south plateau evaluation suggests ground motions for the 500 year return period are deamplified whereas ground motions are slightly amplified for the 2,500 year return period (Tables 3-16 and 3-18) .

Table 3-17 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g 's) for the North Plateau(1l Return Period (yrs) PGA 0.1 sec SA 1.0 sec SA 500 0.05 0.09 0.04 2500 0.14 0.24 0.11 NOTE: (1) From Wong, et al. 2004.

LEGEND: PGA =peak ground acceleration, SA =spectral acceleration.

Table 3-18 Site-Specific Mean Spectral Accelerations on Soil (g 's) for the South Plateau Return Period (yrs) PGA 0.1 sec SA 1.0 sec SA 500 0 .03 0.08 0.05 2500 0.11 0.22 0.14 NOTE: (1) From Wong, et al. 2004 .

LE GEND: PGA = peak ground acceleration, SA = spectral acceleration.

3.6 Surface Hydrology 3.6.1 Hydrologic Description The WVDP watershed is drained by three named streams: Quarry Creek, Franks Creek, and Erdman Brook (see Figure 3-3) . Erdman Brook and Quarry Creek are tributaries to Franks Creek, which in turn flows into Buttermilk Creek. The WVDP drainage basin is approximately 1,200 acres.

The point where all surface runoff from the site reaches a single stream channel (the watershed outfall) is located at the confluence of Franks Creek and Quarry Creek, north of Revision 2 3-65

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN the main project facilities . On the WVDP site, numerous drainage ditches and culverts direct flow away from roadways and facilities to the channels of the stream headwaters that are located on or around the site . The most significant of these ditches and culverts would be those associated with the site railroad spur and Rock Springs Road .

Erdman Brook has a 140-acre drainage area and drains the central portion of the developed project premises, including a large portion of the disposal areas, the areas surrounding the lagoon system, the Process Building, warehouse areas, and a major part of the parking lots. Following treatment. the project's waste waters are also discharged to this brook.

Erdman Brook flows from a height of over 1,400 feet above mean sea level west of Rock Springs Road to 1,305 feet above mean sea level at the confluence with Franks Creek northeast of the lagoons . It flows through the project facilities for about 3,000 feet.

Quarry Creek drains the largest area of the three named streams (740 acres) and receives runoff from the HLW Tank Farm, the north half of the northern parking lot, and the Lag Storage Buildings . It flows from an elevation of 1,930 feet west of Dutch Hill Road to 1,245 feet at its confluence with Franks Creek. The segment that flows along the north side of the project is about 3,500 feet in length .

Franks Creek has a drainage area of 295 acres and receives runoff from the east side of the project, including the Drum Cell , part of the SDA, and the Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill. Franks Creek flows into Buttermilk Creek about 2,000 feet downstream of its confluence with Quarry Creek. It flows from an elevation of 1,790 feet above mean sea level west of Rock Springs Road , to 1,245 feet at the Quarry Creek confluence, to 1, 180 feet at the Buttermilk Creek confluence . About 6,000 feet of its length lies adjacent to WVDP facilities . (WVNSCO 1993c)

Buttermilk Creek, shown in Figure 3-2, roughly bisects the Center property and flows in a northwestwards direction to its confluence with Cattaraugus Creek at the northwest end of the Center. Several tributary (perennial) streams flow into Buttermilk Creek in the Center (Figure 3-61) .

Th e flow length of Buttermilk Creek through the Center is about 4.7 miles . Within the Buttermilk Creek watershed , a small 18-acre sub-basin on the east side of Buttermilk Creek drains the area around the Bulk Storage Warehouse.

Buttermilk Creek lies in a deep, narrow valley cut into glacial deposits, with a downstream portion down-cut to shale bedrock. The reach of stream to the east of the WVDP facilities has down-cut through the Lavery till and the underlying Kent Recessional Sequence, and is presently incising the Kent till. The Kent Recessional Sequence is discussed below.

The stream invert drops from an elevation of 1,310 feet above mean sea level at the southern Center boundary, to 1,215 feet at the northern edge of the Project facilities, to 1, 110 feet at the confluence with Cattaraugus Creek. The drainage area of the Buttermilk Creek basin has been estimated to be 19,600 acres (Boothroyd, et al. 1982).

Revision 2 3-66

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Buttermilk Creek flows at an average rate of 46 cubic feet per second to its confluence with Cattaraugus Creek. Peak flows were 340.3 cubic feet per second at the confluence of Quarry Creek and Franks Creek, 161 cubic feet per second where Franks Creek leaves the project premises, and 60 cubic feet per second in Erdman Brook downstream of the SDA.

Peak flow measured at the U.S. Geological Survey USGS gauge station at the Bond Road Bridge over Buttermilk Creek (which operated from 1962 to 1968} was 3,910 cubic feet per second on September 28, 1967 . The historic high-water level of 1,358.6 feet above mean sea level in the reservoirs was recorded on th e same day.

Cattaraugus Creek flows westward generally at a rate of 353 cubic feet per second from the Buttermilk Creek confluence to Lake Erie, 39 miles downstream . The total drainage area is estimated to be 524 square miles. A gauging station has been maintained at Gowanda, New York since 1939. The drainage basin to this point is estimated to be about 432 square miles . The drainage area of Cattaraugus Creek upstream of the Buttermilk Creek confluence is an estimated 220 square miles .

A small hydroelectric dam and water impoundment is located on Cattaraugus Creek about 1,000 feet upstream of where the Scoby Road bridge was located, southwest of Springville, New York. Neither Buttermilk Creek nor Cattaraugus Creek downstream of the WVDP are used as a regular source of potabl e water. Cattaraugus Creek downstream of Buttermilk Creek is a popular fishing and canoeing/rafting waterway. As such, Cattaraugus Creek water, fish, and sediments are monitored as part of the WVDP environmental monitoring program.

The WVDP obtains potable and process water from two water supply reservoirs located south of the main plant facilities (see Figure 3-12) . The reservoirs were formed by damming headwater tributaries to Buttermilk Creek and collect drainage from numerous small streams over a 3, 100-acre drainage basin, of which 2,000 acres drain directly to Reservoir 1 and 1, 100 acres drain directly to Reservoir 2. The storage capacity of the reservoirs is 19,815.435 cubic feet at 1,353 above sea level, and 17,857,265 cubic feet at 1,350.5 above sea level. An emergency spillway is located at the south end of Reservoir 1.

As explained in Section 3.1.3, the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility includes four in -

series lagoons (lagoons 2, 3, 4, and 5). The largest is Lagoon 3, which has a capacity of 467 ,900 cubic feet. Lagoon 3 is the final lagoon in the system before the wastewater is discharged into Erdman Brook.

The site Sewage Treatment Plant discharges to a gully that flows into Erdman Brook.

A former equalization basin for the Sewage Treatment Plant in 2004 served as a sludge pond for utility room discharges.

3.6.2 WVDP Effluents WVDP effluents discharged to surface waters must meet limits prescribed by the NYSDEC for non-radiological parameters in a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and by DOE for radiological parameters. Discharges are monitor.ed to ensure that all standards are met. Monitoring is performed at the point of effluent discharge Revision 2 3-67

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN and several surface water drainage locations . There are two permitted discharge locations at the WVDP :

  • Outfall 007 (WNSP007} with an average daily flow of approximately 10,000 gallons (WVES and URS 2008) . This outfall includes waters from the site sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment facility, and
  • Outfall 001 (WNSP001} is batch discharged from lagoon 3. Approximately seven batches are discharged annually, totaling approximately 13.5 million gallons per year, including water from the Low Level Waste Treatment Facility.

3.6.3 Influence of Flooding on Site Franks Creek, Quarry Creek, and Erdman Brook are located in deep steep-sided valleys bound*ng the north and south plateaus. Historical evidence and computer modeling indicate that flood conditions, including the probable maximum flood, will not result in stream flows overtopping their banks and flooding ~he north or south plateau . Therefore, the effects on the WVDP of flooding by these creeks are negligible, as supported by historical data. Figure 3-4 shows the 100-year floodplains of these streams.

An analysis of the probable maximum flood has been evaluated (URS 2008). The probable maximum flood is generally more conservative than the 500-year flood because it is defined as the flood resu lting from the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions (DOE .2002) .

Peak discharges of the probable maximum flood were generated for the sub-areas constituting the watershed using the SCS TR-20 computer modeling program (USSCS 1983} . These discharges were then used to determine the depth of flow at four stream locations adjacent to site facilities . The results of these analyses demonstrate that the depths of flow associated with the probable maximum flood on area streams are well below the elevations of site facilities The results of this analysis indicate that the probable maximum flood floodpla in is very similar to the 100-year floodplain , particularly in areas adjacent to the developed portions of the site including areas where waste is stored or buried (URS 2008) . Most of the stream channels near the developed portions of the north plateau area have relatively steep sides and the probable maximum flood flow remains in these channels. The probable maximum flood floodplain is wider than the 100-year floodplain in areas where the topography is relatively flat. such as the extreme upper reaches of Erdman Brook and Franks Creek.

Indirect short-term impacts, including stream bank failure and gully head advancement in the event of high stream flows could impact Lagoons 2 and 3 in WMA 2, the NOA in WMA 7, and site access roads in several locations of the project premises.

3.6.4 Water Use Current Water Use of Buttermilk Creek The project premises lies entirely within the Buttermilk Creek watershed . The Center property is adjacent to Buttermilk Creek nearly the entire stream length from its intersection Revision 2 3-68

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN with the Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad to its outlet into Cattaraugus Creek, approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the Felton Bridge . There is no public or private use of stream water within the Center property.

Current Water Use of Cattaraugus Creek From the Buttermilk Creek outlet, Cattaraugus Creek flows approximately 39 miles to Lake Erie. The use of water within Cattaraugus Creek varies along the length of the stream .

Downstream of the Buttermilk outlet, Cattaraugus Creek flows through the Zoar Valley Multiple Use Area, Deer Lick Nature Sanctuary, the town of Gowanda, the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation, the town of Versailles, the town of Irving, and the town of Hanover, and outlets into Lake Erie at the hamlet of Sunset Bay . Cattaraugus Creek is not used as a source of public drinking water, as noted previously. Land use adjacent to Cattaraugus Creek is comprised of agricultural, forest, residential, recreational, and commercial. Some water is take.n from Cattaraugus Creek for irrigation purposes.

The segment of Cattaraugus Creek which flows through the Zoar Valley Multiple Use Area is used for unsupervised swimming , rafting , and canoeing where water depth permits .

Motorized boating is generally limited to within two miles of Lake Erie. Sunset Bay at the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek is a dense residential area with mixed recreation such as swimming beaches, marinas, boating and fishing .

Cattaraugus Creek downstream of the Springville dam provides habitat for lake-based fisheries, is a popular recreational fishing area, and is a top salmonid spawning stream within the Lake Erie drainage basin . Since 1994, New York has stocked Cattaraugus Creek with walleye, steel head trout, and brown trout.

Current Water Use of Lake Erie Lake Erie is used for transportation, industrial, commercial, and recreational purposes .

Recreational activities include sailing, boating, jet skiing, fishing, and swimming beaches.

Recent information on commercial fishing in the New York waters of Lake Erie is contained in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

Annual Report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Erie Committee (NYSDEC 2004) .

This report indicates that rainbow smelt currently are the target of a major commercial fishing industry on the Ontario, Canada side of Lake Erie, but are fished less in the United States waters. Since 1960, New York commercial fishing efforts have focused on walleye and yellow perch . However, yellow perch and walleye production from New York is a small fraction (less than five percent) of total Lake Erie landings for those species.

Open lake sport fishing in 2003 measured 352 ,128 angler-hours, the second lowest total in 16 years. Peak fishing activity occurred in July and Dunkirk Harbor was the most frequently used access site . Harvested fish include walleye, smallmouth bass, yellow Revision 2 3-69

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN perch, and lake trout. Electro-fishing surveys within Cattaraugus Creek document high densities of spawning -phase walleye, and continued stocking efforts are planned .

3.7 Groundwater Hydrology Groundwater hydrology in the WVDP area is summarized below.

3.7 .1 Description of the Saturated Zone The subsurface of the WVDP has been investigated since the early 1960's, resulting in hundreds of borings and installation of groundwater wells and other subsurface monitoring equipment. As explained previously, the hydrogeology of the WVDP site includes a sequence of glacial sediments underlain by shale bedrock . In chronologically descending order, this sequence is composed of an alluvial-glaciofluvial sand and gravel unit on the north plateau underlain by a sequence of up to three relatively impermeable glacial tills of Lavery, Kent. and possibly Olean age, separated by stratified fluvio-lacustrine deposits, which are in turn underlain by shale bedrock.

The sediments above the Kent till - the Kent Recessional Sequence, the weathered and unweathered Lavery till , the Lavery till-sand , and the surficial sand and gravel - are generally regarded as containing all of the potential routes for the migration of contaminants (via groundwater) from the WVDP site . Figures 3-6 and 3-7 are generalized cross-sections across the north and south plateaus showing the relative locations of th.ese sediments . The Lavery till , the Kent Recessionpl Sequence, and the Kent till are common to both the north and south plateaus. Detailed geologic cross sections have been constructed using lithologic data collected from boreholes installed from 1961 to the present.

The WVDP does not use groundwater for drinking or operational purposes, nor does it discharge effluent directly to groundwater. No public water supplies are drawn from groundwater downgradient of the WVDP or from Cattaraugus Creek downstream of the WVDP . However, groundwater upgradient of the WVDP is used for drinking water by local residents .

Sand and Gravel Unit As explained previously, the sand and gravel unit is unique to the north plateau and is a silty sand and gravel layer composed of younger Holocene alluvial deposits, the thick-bedded unit, that overlie older Pleistocene-age glaciofluvial deposits, the slack-water sequence . Together these two layers range up to 41 feet in thickness near the center of the plateau and pinch out along the edges of the plateau, where they have been truncated by the sidewall of the bedrock valley or the downward erosion of stream channels.

Disturbed materials and fill from construction activities also exist to varying depths on the developed portions of th e north plateau . These are typically composed of re-compacted original sediment.

Depth to groundwater within the sand and gravel unit varies from O to 16 feet. being deepest generally beneath the central area of the north plateau , decreasing to the west, Revision 2 3-70

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN east. and north, and intersecting the ground surface farther northeastward toward the security fence .

Groundwater in thi s unit generally flows northeastward toward Franks Creek (Figure 3-

62) . Groundwater near the northwestern and southeastern margins of the sand and gravel layer also flows radially outward toward Quarry Creek and Erdman Brook, respectively .

In areas upgradient of the north plateau groundwater plume, recharge is limited by run-off diversions and culverts that channel surface flow to distant parts of the plateau . There is minimal groundwater flow downward into the underlying Lavery till. The overall hydraulic gradient across the north plateau has been calculated at 0.031 ; gradients up to 0.049 and as little as 0.026 exists in localized areas . An average groundwater velocity of 61.0 feet per year has been calculated for this unit (WVNSCO 1993e) .

Recharge to the north plateau has been estimated as ranging from 3.0 inches to 13 .5 inches and averaging 6.8 inches per year. Precipitation and bedrock underflow are the largest contributors to this recharge . Discharge occurs through evapotranspiration and drainage to streams, seeps, and springs along the edge of the north plateau, with a negligible amount as downward flow into the underlying Lavery till .

Weathered and Unweathered Lavery Till Groundwater flow in the weathered till has both horizontal and vertical components.

Groundwater typically flows laterally across the south plateau before moving downward or discharging to nearby incised stream channels. A lateral groundwater velocity has been calculated at 4.4 feet per year in this unit.

Groundwater elevation contours of the weathered Lavery till illustrate a potentiometric surface that dips generally to the northeast (Figure 3-63), with the exception of the northern section of the NOA, which is controlled by the operation of the interceptor trench .

Groundwater in areas next to the trench flows directly toward and into the trench. Once inside the trench, laterals along the bottom of the trench drain the water toward the manhole sump (monitoring location NDATR on Figure 3-63). where it is pumped regularly to Lagoon 2.

On the north plateau, the weathered Lavery till is much thinner or nonexistent. and the sand and gravel unit typically immediately overlies the unweathered Lavery till , as noted previously. Hydraulic head distributions in the unweathered Lavery till indicate that groundwater flow is predominantly vertically downward at a relatively slow rate, toward the underlying Kent Recessional Sequence. A vertical groundwater velocity of 0.2 feet per year has been calculated for this unit.

Lavery Till-Sand Unit The Lavery till-sand is a sandy unit of limited areal extent that is up to 16 feet thick within the Lavery till , primarily beneath the southeastern portion of the north plateau. The potentiometric surface of the Lavery till-sand is characterized by a variably sloping surface Revision 2 3-71

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN that generally dips to the east and southeast across the entire unit towards Erdman Brook (See Figure 3-64) . Surface discharge locations have not been identified .

Kent Recessional Sequence The Kent Recessional Sequence is a fine-grained lacustrine unit of interbedded clay and silty clay layers locally overlain by coarse-grained glacial sands and gravels. These deposits are found below the Lavery till beneath most of the site and range up to 75 feet in thickness beneath the eastern portions of the site (WVN SCO 1993e) .

Groundwater flow in the Kent Recessional Sequence is predominantly to the northeast, toward Buttermilk Creek (Figure 3-65) . Recharge comes primarily from bedrock in-flow in the southwest, with limited recharge from the overlying Lavery till . Th e Kent Recessional Sequence discharges to Buttermilk Creek. Because of the limited recharge received from the overlying Lavery till, the upper portions of the Kent Recessional Sequence are unsaturated . The deeper portions are saturated, and the groundwater velocity has been calculated at 0.4 feet per year (WVNSCO 1993e).

Groundwater elevation contours of the Kent Recessional Sequence illustrate a potentiometric surface that dips to the northeast. The steepest gradient is found in the southwestern portion of the south plateau, where the shoulder of the underlying bedrock valley slopes steeply to the northeast. Toward the middle of the south plateau. the glacial sediments filling the valley thicken. and the groundwater contours flatten somewhat and begin to slope to the north-northeast.

Shale Bedrock The bedrock underlying the site occurs as a U-shaped valley of upper Devonian shales and siltstones. The upper 10 feet of rock is weathered and fractured. Bedding in these units generally dips 0.5 degree southward .

3.7.2 Monitoring Wells Monitoring Equipment Inventory There are currently 286 wells, well points, piezometers, seepage points, manholes, and surface water elevation hubs in the WVDP groundwater monitoring equipment inventory. Of this total, 222 devices are actively used for various monitoring purposes, and 64 are considered inactive (i .e .. not used for any purpose) . A total of 235 monitoring devices have previously been removed from service via approved decommissioning protocols . The monitoring equipment inventory includes equipment installed since 1960.

Aquifer tests were performed at the WVDP to support development of the North Plateau Groundwater Recovery System and the pilot Permeable Treatment Wall in 1996 and in 2003, respectively . Slug tests are also routinely performed on selected groundwater monitoring wells as part of a site-wide well maintenance program. This information is used to determine if degradation of a well has occurred. indicating that redevelopment is needed.

Revision 2 3-72

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.7.3 Physical Hydrogeologic Parameters in the Saturated Zone Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity The WVDP performs hydraulic conductivity testing of selected wells on an annual basis in accordance with approved site procedures and good engineering practices. A rotational system of testing a different group of selected wells every year ensures that most wells are tested periodically.

A summary of averaged hydraulic conductivity results for the five hydrogeologic units, based on testing performed from 1987 through 2004, is provided in Table 3-19.

Table 3-19. WVDP Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Testing Summary Tablel1J Maximum Average Minimum Geologic Unit Sub-Unit K (cmfs) K (cmfs) K (cmfs)

Thick-Bedded 3.78 E-02 4.43 E-03 1.25 E-04 Unit Sand and Gravel Unit Slack Water 1.13 E-01 2.44 E-02 8.19 E-04 Sequence Weathered Lavery Till NA 1.50 E-03 3.36 E-04 4.87 E-07 Upper 3 meters na 1.00 E-06 na Unweathered Lavery Till Below 3 meters na 6.00 E-08 na Lavery Till-Sand NA 4.54 E-03 2.04 E-03 1.06 E-04 Kent Recessional NA 1.62 E-03 7.03 E-04 2.98 E-06 Sequence NOTE: (1) From DOE and NYSERDA 2008 .

LEGEND: NA = Not Applica ble na = not availabl e The WVDP does not regularly perform hydraulic conductivity tests on

  • bedrock wells because so few onsite wells penetrate bedrock. The hydraulic conductivity of bedrock at the WVDP, based on values collected for similar rock types, is estimated to range from 1.0E-07 emfs for unweathered rock to 1.0E-05 emfs for the weathered zone (WVNSCO 1993e).

Transmissivity The transmissivity of the sand and gravel unit varies across the north plateau due to the variability of its saturated thickness and hydraulic conductivity. The transmissivity ranges from 4.8 E-03 cm 2fs to 6.8 E-03 cm 2/s (WVNSCO 1993e}.

3.7.4 Unsaturated Zone Description of the Unsaturated Zone The unsaturated zones (vadose zones) within the surficial sand and gravel layer and the weathered Lavery till have been characterized separately, due to their different lithologies .

Revision 2 3-73

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Hydrologic data obtained from unsaturated zone monitoring arrays were used to determine response to wetting and drying events. These data indicate that a downward migrating wetting front is generated after significant precipitation, and is dependent upon the soil moisture, soil hydrogeology, and structural features in the soil. When the soil is near saturation, this front raises the water table; when the soil is dry, the front will either redistribute into or evapotranspire from the vadose zone before contacting the water table.

The vadose zone in the weathered Lavery till fluctuates an average of 10 feet (i .e. , one foot to 11 feet from grade) and varies with the season; horizontal and vertical fracture flow occurs within the entire fractured zone during the wet season and in the lower weathered mne during the dry season.

Dry season matric potentials in the Lavery till create an upward flow gradient from grade to five feet, with widening fractures increasing thi s depth during the late discharge season . The capillary fringe of the Lavery till is approximately seven feet thick.

Due to a varying topography, the vadose zone of the sand and gravel layer fluctuates in thickness over a generally uniformly sloping water table that itself annually fluctuates an average of 30 inches. Water within this vadose zone flows vertically downward to the water table. Dry season and matric potentials in the surficial sand and gravel create an upward flow gradient from grade to 6.9 feet (WVNSCO 1993f) . The capillary fringe of the sand and gravel varies between 8.3 inches to 16.7 inches, depending on local lithology (WVNSCO 1993f).

The unsaturated zone at the WVDP has been modeled with several different computer codes. Results of these efforts are available in WVNSCO 1992 .

Water Budget within the Unsaturated Zone Precipitation occurring from December through April is lost mainly to rapid runoff and infiltration. From May through November, precipitation is lost mainly to infiltration and subsequent evapotranspiration, with a minor portion going to runoff.

Maximum recharge to most soils occurs when the ratio of the infiltration rate to precipitation rate is equal to or less than 1.0. For dry Lavery till soils (<75 percent saturated) , precipitation is almost immediately absorbed and stored in the soil as recharge .

In wet or nearly recharged soils (> 75 percent saturated), the capillary potential of the primary pores is low, and any fractures may show less conductivity due to soil swelling.

Thus. for the same precipitation rate , the wet season infiltration rate is lower and recharge is governed by the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil matrix and, to a lesser extent, by any fracture flow . However, if the fractures are not yet fully closed (as occurs in the late fall) , the absorptive capacity of the bulk soil volume can still be high, allowing horizontal flow of the meteoric water.

The local runoff to precipitation ratio is highest in spring since the ground is saturated from late fall rains, early winter snow melt, and spring rains that contribute new water to soil profile of high antecedent soil moisture. This ratio lowers throughout the late spring, Revision 2 3-74

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN summer, and early fall (April-October) due to a soil moisture deficit that is produced from increasing summer evapotranspiration rates, as indicated by tensiometric data .

3.7.5 Description of Unsaturated Zone Monitoring Stations In addition to groundwater monitoring wells, the WVDP maintains 11 surface water monitoring hubs (SE001 through SE011) to collect surface water elevations in areas of the north plateau where the water table in the sand and gravel unit intersects the ground surface . This information is correlated with groundwater well data and is used to define the water table surface in areas where monitoring well coverage is sparse or nonexistent.

3.7.6 Physical Parameters Total and Effective Porosity Total porosity of the sand and gravel unit has been calculated and ranges from 21 .0 percent to 22 .8 percent with an average value of 21 .9 percent (WVNSCO 1993e).

Specific Yield The specific yield (Sy) of the sand and gravel unit has been calculated to range from 0.10 to 0.25 (WVNSCO 1993e). Lower values reflect areas of poor sorting, and highe~

values reflect areas characterized by well sorted sands and gravels.

Specific Storage The specific storage of the unweathered Lavery till has been calculated through consolidation tests, and was observed to decrease with depth from a maximum of 1.6E -05 per cm (6 .3E-06 per inch) to a minimum of 2.0 E-06 per cm (7 .9E-07 per inch), with an average of 8.0E-06 per cm (3.15 E-06 per inch) (WVNSCO 1993e).

3.7.7 Numerical Analysis Techniques Three-dimensional far-field and near-field groundwater flow and transport models were developed to support the preparation of the Decommissioning EIS . These models were

  • developed to evaluate site-wide groundwater flow patterns across the project premises and underlying geologic units, evaluate local changes in groundwater hydrology resulting from the proposed EIS closure alternatives, and identify transport parameters required to complete the performance assessments for the closure alternatives.

The three-dimensional site-wide groundwater flow model was the Finite Element Heat and Mass Transfer Code (FEHM), a finite element code developed by the DOE's Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL 2003) . The FEHM model used in the preparation of the Draft EIS was an improvement over earlier models developed for the site which were limited to evaluating groundwater flow in the surficial sand and gravel unit in the north plateau of the Center. The FEHM model evaluated groundwater flow over a larger lateral and vertical extent of the Center, including the glacial geologic units underlying the surficial sand and gravel unit. The lateral and vertical boundaries of the site-wide FEHM model are as follows:

Revision 2 3-75

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN

  • Northern Boundary - from Quarry Creek eastward to Frarnks Creek downstream to its ocmfluenoe with Bubtermilk Creek,
  • Western Boundary - follows the 1.450 foot sUJrl'ace elevation contour along !Rock Spri ngs Road between Quarry Creek and Franks Greek to the south,
  • Soul!hem Boundary - follows Franks Creek along the souti'hern bol!lndary of ~he South Plateau and continues as an imaginary line to Buttermilk Creek,
  • Eastern Boundary - follows Bl!lttermilk Creek from the conRuernce with Franks Creek to the no~h . to the intersectiion of the Southern Boundary wi ~h Buttermilk Creek in the soul!h,
  • Upper Boundary - the upper surface of the model domain follows the ground surface, and
  • Bottom Bol!lndary - the bottom surface of the model domain is at an elevation of 525 feet above sea level.

The finite-element grid used in the site-wide model used a total of 955 grid blocks with a uniform dimension of 140 feet in the x-y plane with a node located in the center of each grid block. The model was subdivided vertically into 23 discrete layers to represent the

  • varying thicknesses of the 10 geologic units being modeled {thick-bedded unit, slack-water

. sequence, weathered Lavery till, unweathered Lavery till, Kent Recessional Sequence, Kent till, Olean Recessional Sequence, Olean till, weathered bedrock, and bedrock) . The site-w-de model has a total of 21 ,965 nodes with 955 in each model layer.

The site-wide model was calibrated both manually and with the automated calibration code, Parameter Estimation (PEST) (Doherty 2004) . The manual calibration involved the comparison of model predicted heads with the median of observed groundwater level elevations from 56 well locations, and comparison of model predicted seepage flows with actual estimated seepage flows . The model simulated water table contours generated for the thick-bedded unit in the north plateau and the weathered Lavery till in the south plateau are in close agreement in most areas with the observed fourth quarter water table for the north plateau and south plateau . Differences were noted in several areas of the north and south plateaus that are partly attributed to the model grid size.

The site-wide FEHM groundwater flow model was not well suited for evaluating flows associated with the proposed small-scale close-in-place alternative and phased decision-making alternative engineered structures. A three-dimensional near-field groundwater flow model, the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Code (STOMP} , was used to evaluate rates and directions of groundwater flow in the surficial sand and gravel unit that would be affected by the proposed engineered barriers associated with the close-in-place and phased decision-making alternatives. STOMP is a finite difference code developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL 2000) . The stratigraphy and boundary conditions used in the FEHM far-field model were incorporated into the STOMP model to the maximum extent. The results of the STOMP near-field groundwater flow modeling associated with the WMA 1 and WMA 2 hydraulic barriers are described in Appendix D.

Revision 2 3-76

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3.7.8 Distribution Coefficients.

An important aspect of site hydrogeology is the mobility of a contaminant in the various soil layers under the influence of groundwater. The distribution coefficient. also called partition coefficient or Kd, is used to describe the decrease in concentration of a contaminant in solution through interactions with geologic media in *a soil-groundwater system . The Kd is defined as the ratio of the concentration (or activity in the case of radionuclides) of a species sorbed on the soil, divided by its concentration (or activity) in solution under steady-state conditions. It is an empirical parameter and its use in a given situation implies that the soil-groundwater system under study is in equilibrium .

The set of elements whose sorption onto West Valley geologic media have been studied over the years is representative in several respects . First. most of the elements considered have radioisotopes typically identified as key in post-closure performance assessments. The elements considered are also representative in that. based on location in the periodic table, several potentially different chemical behaviors are considered, such as monovalent and multivalent cations, chelation, formation of anionic species, and actinides.

Kd values for several important radionuclid es have been determined for materials from those hydrogeological units of primary interest - the surficial sand and gravel unit on North Plateau, the weathered Lavery till , and the unweathered Lavery till. There are fewer results for the lacustrine unit and no data for the Kent Recessional till or bedrock.

Finally, Kd values at West Valley have been estimated by a variety of different techniques - batch studies, experimental sorption isotherms, column studies, and the analysis of contaminant migration in soil cores taken from the site.

Kd Studies at the Center Five studies have been performed , as described below.

Brookhaven studies - Chemical Environment. Kd values for Cs, Co, Sr, Am , and Eu were determined in a series of experiments at the Brookhaven National Laboratory for four West Valley geochemical environments: the Lavery till, the lacustrine unit. overland flow, and the waste mass in the disposal trenches (Pietrzak et al. 1981). Samples of unweathered Lavery till collected at a depth of 35 feet in the SDA were tested for their sorption characteristics in the presence of trench leachate collected from sumps and well points . Batch Kd determinations were conducted in both oxic and anoxic environments. This study was sponsored by NRC .

A description of the equipment and procedures employed in the Brookhaven study, and preliminary results and conclusions, were reported in Columbo and Weiss 1979 and subsequently expanded by Pietrzak et al. 1981 . The latter report includes Kd values for europium and americium as well as cesium , strontium, and cobalt, and discusses the observed effects of each of several variables on the sorption characteristics of the till.

In addition to quantifying distribution coeffi cients, the Brookhaven studies clearly demonstrate both the effects of anoxic or reducing environments on sorption, and the effect of complexing agents, i.e., organics in the trench water, on sorption. The studies also Revision 2 3-77

WVDP PHAS E 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN indicated that the soil disaggregation technique used in an experiment has an impact on the Kd. Hence, there is an element of uncertainty in the observed Kd values due to experimental method, as well as to natural variation, in the Brookhaven numbers.

NFS Sorption Studies - Variation With Depth. In 1974, Duckworth (Duckworth, et al. 1974) reported percentage sorption for Cs-137, Sr-85, Ru-106 , and Co-60 on a total of 37 samples of weathered and unweathered Lavery till taken from the SDA at depths of four to 51 feet. Iodine sorption percentages were also determined for 10 samples of weathered and unweathered till. Later, the WVDP used these data to calculate the distribution coefficients for the radioisotopes studied (WVNSCO 1993a) .

The number and distribution of the samples tested clearly indicate differences between sorption on weathered and sorption on unweathered till but for not all radionuclides . This pattern is illustrated in Figures 3-66 through 3-68 .

6 The right half of each figure shows stripplots of the Kd values determined at four increasing depths: 10 feet, 25 feet, 30 feet, and 50 feet. The 10-foot Kd values are for weathered till and the remaining Kd values are for unweathered till. The left half of each 7

figure shows the normal probability plot of all of the Kd values where the weathered (10-foot) Kd values are solid black circles and the unweathered till Kd values are solid gray circles.

In the figures, cesium and strontium - and possibly iodine - show variation of the Kd with soil type (i .e., by depth). (The iodine data show a similar variation by soi l type, but this trend is less statistically significant in light of the smaller number of samples involved .)

Neither the ruthenium nor the cobalt Kd values vary with depth .

Finally, there is one drawback to this set of distribution coefficients: the longest contact time in the batch experiments was 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, and it is unlikely that equilibrium was attained .

However, shorter contact times lead, in principle to lower (more conservative) Kd values.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Study - Competitive Sorption on the Lavery Till.

Lavery Till samples from 1961 were submitted to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for batch-test radionuclide sorption studies. The locations and sampling depths were selected to provide coverage at both shallow to intermediate depths within the till , providing a comparison of the weathered and unweathered materials (WVNSCO 1993a).

8 The study results for cesium and strontium were numerically similar to the results from Duckworth's data, showing that the Lavery till has a high affinity for cesium and a lower affinity for strontium . Cobalt-60 was almost completely sorbed by both weathered and unweathered tills with cobalt exhibiting no selectivity for either material.

6 Individual Kd determinations are plotted and grouped by weathered or unweathered .

7 A normal probability plot presents the ordered values of the Kd versus the z-scores of the corresponding quantiles from the standard normal distribution . In these figures , the "Sample Quantiles" are just the Kd values and the "Theoretical Quantiles" are the z-scores. (A z-score is a measure of the distance in standard deviations of a sample from the mean .)

8 The Oak Ridge tests were 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> batch tests. The Kd 's were higher but still comparable Revision 2 3-78

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Some tests were also run for ruthenium, but the results were not considered particularly meaningful because they were conducted using ruthenium which had percolated through the Oak Ridge soil and from which the sorbable and filterable portions had been removed .

The Oak Ridge sorption percentages were much lower than those observed by Duckworth.

Chelation or complexation of the ruthenium in the Oak Ridge solution is a plausible explanation for the lower sorption .

Competitive sorption effects - cesium/potassium and strontium/calcium - were also examined in the Oak Ridge study. In both cases, the presence of a competitor species slowed sorption. The introduction of potassium ions reduced the sorption of cesium by a factor of six. Similarly the sorption of strontium was found to be reduced fourfold by the presence of calcium in the leachate .

United States Geological Survey Estimates. U.S. Geological Survey studies (Prudic 1986) on groundwater flow and contaminant transport in till immediately adjacent to the SDA have also included estimates of Kd values for several elements - cesium , strontium, hydrogen, and carbon. In this study, the Kd values were inferred from travel distances from the trench . The results for the carbon, cesium and strontium are consistent with the Brookhaven results for unweathered till under anoxic conditions. The tritium is assumed to be in the form of tritiated water and to experience no sorption 9 (i.e .. a Kd of 0).

WVDP - North Plateau Sand and Gravel. In 1995 Dames and Moore reported the results for radionuclide sorption onto samples of the surficial North Plateau sand and gravel (Aloysius 1995 and Dames and Moore 1995) . Kd values were determined for strontium, technetium , iodine, cesium , europium, uranium, neptunium, plutonium and americium . Most of the determinations used either batch tests and/or plots of the sorption isotherms.

This study also examined several related phenomena of potential interest. The effect of having tributyl phosphate/n-dodecane present was investigated for both uranium sorption and americium sorption . No effects were observed for either radionuclide . Competitive effects between technetium and iodine were also studied , indicating that iodine is preferentially sorbed.

At the present, Sr-90 is the primary radionuclide of interest in the north plateau surficial aquifer. For this reason, strontium 's sorption behavior was studied in great detail by the investigators . In addition to batch and isotherm testing. the Kd of strontium was determined in column experiments and by the analyses of field data showing the distribution of Sr-90 in the surficial sand and gravel aquifer and the observed flow field of the aquifer. These dynamic estimates for the Sr-90 Kd were consistent with the batch and isotherm determinations.

The effect of the chemical environment on strontium sorption was also investigated .

The Kd was found to be sensitive to small changes in pH and to increase with increasing pH . The strontium Kd was observed to increase with increasing ionic strength, but decrease with increasing calcium concentrations, i.e .. the calcium is preferentially sorbed . These 9

This neglects absorption into pore-space deadwater.

Revision 2 3-79

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN experimental findings were corroborated with geochemical* modeling using the MINTEQA2 code.

Table 3-20 summarizes the distribution coefficients quantifying the sorption of fourteen elements onto West Valley soils . The primary Brookhaven references are not available and values have been taken from citing documents . Where possible, the values have been entered as ranges .

Table 3-20. Distribution Coefficients Element Kd(cm 3/g) Geohydrological Unit Notes Reference Hydrogen 0 Unweathered Lavery Till Assumed zero (tritiated water) Prudic 1986 Carbon 0.7-1 .1 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic conditions, organic carbon Prudic 1986 3 -12 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic conditions, inorganic Prudic 1986 carbon Cobalt 1- 5 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 1.8- 2.3 Unweathered Lavery Till Oxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 6400 Unweathered Lavery Till 16 hr batch WVNSCO 1993a 5400 Weathered Lavery Till 16 hr batch WVNSCO 1993a Strontium 4.5 Surficial Sand and Gravel North plateau Aloysius 1995 6.9 - 7.4 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 25-32 Unweathered Lavery Till Oxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 1-7 Unweathered Lavery Till In-situ assessment, SDA, anoxic Prudic 1986 conditions 30 Unweathered Lavery Till WVNSCO 1993a 130 Weathered Lavery Till WVNSCO 1993a Technetium 4.1 Unweathered Lavery Till Regression fit of linear isotherm Aloysius 1995 1300 Unweathered Lavery Till WVNSCO 1993a Ruthenium 1200 Weathered Lavery Till WVNSCO 1993a Iodine 0.4 - 3.4 Lavery Till WVNSCO 1993a Cesium 48 .;_ 260 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 100-200 Unweathered Lavery Till Oxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 3350-4500 Unweathered Lavery Till WVNSCO 1993a Revision 2 3-80

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Table 3-20. Distribution Coefficients Element Kd(cm 3/g) Geohydrological Unit Notes Reference 4900-8000 Weathered Lavery Till WVNSCO 1993a Europium > 14,000 Surficial Sand and Gravel Based on detection limit Aloysius 1995 600 - 2100 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 3700-4300 Unweathered Lavery Till Oxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 Radium 195 Unweathered Lavery Till Pietrzak, et al. 1981 cites Bergeron, et al.

1987 Uranium 9.1 - 9.6 Unweathered Lavery Till Regression fit of linear isotherm Aloysius 1995 11.9 Unweathered Lavery Till Regression fit of linear isotherm, TBP/n-dodecane present Aloysius 1995 Neptunium 2.3 Surficial Sand and Gravel Recommendation Aloysius 1995 0.5 - 5.2 Unweathered Lavery Till Regression fit of linear isotherm Aloysius 1995 5.5-18.1 Weathered Lavery Till Regression fit of linear isotherm Aloysius 1995 Plutonium 2600 Surficial Sand and Gravel Kinetic sorption experiment (120 Aloysius 1995 hr batch) 27900 Unweathered Lavery Till Kinetic sorption experimen t (120 Aloysius 1995 hr batch) 5-56 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic trench water Matuszek 1980 111000 Unweathered Lavery Till Aloysius 1995 Americium 77,000-272,000 Unweathered Lavery Till In presence of TBP/ n-dodecane Aloysius 1995 420 - 1000 Unweathered Lavery Till Anoxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Americium Weiss 1979 4000- 4700 Unweathered Lavery Till Oxic trench water Pietrzak, et al. 1981 and Columbo and Weiss 1979 NOTE : (1) Range reflects differences due to experimental technique employed for soil di saggregation .

3.7.9 Hydraulic Properties Prudic noted the abundant fractures in the weathered Lavery till zone, indicating that fractures with oxidized walls, spaced a few meters apart, extended down to about 14.7 feet (Prudic 1986) . The oxidized zones bordering the fractures, as well as thin coatings of manganese and/or iron oxide, calcite , root hairs, and thin gray (reduced) zones on the inner surfaces of some fractures, clearly suggest water movement along the fractures.

The WVDP has total porosity data from several investigations. Table 3-21 shows results from samp les obtained during monitoring well installation in the 1989-1990 period Revision 2 3-81

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN as reported in WVNSCO 1993e, which are representative of the available data. In the case of samples from the sand and gravel layer, the weathered Lavery till , and the unweathered Lavery till , total porosity was calculated using the equation:

P = [ 1 - p I G] x 100 %

where P = total porosity p = bulk dry density G = specific gravity 3

An estimated bulk dry density of 2.1 g/cm was used in the calculations for the sand and 3

gravel layer and1 .6 g/cm for the Lavery till , both weathered and unweathered .

Table 3-21. Total Porosityl1J Average Total Geologic Unit Range of Total Porosity(%)

Porosity (%)

Sand and Gravel(2l 21 to 22 .8 21 .9 3

Weathered Lavery Till( l 40.3 to 41 40.7 4

Unweathered Lavery Ti11 ( l 41.4 to 42 .5 41 .7 Lavery Till Sand (sJ NA 25 Kent Recessional Sequence(sJ NA 25 NOTES: (1) From WVNS CO 1993a . Th e total porosity values were determined from borin g samples collected during monitoring well installation in 1989 and 1990.

(2) From Tabl e 2-1 of WVNSCO 1993e.

(3) From Tabl e 3-1 of WVNSCO 1993e.

(4) From table 4-1 of WVNSCO 1993e.

(5) Estimated based on particle size and sorting.

3.8 Natural Resources This section describes existing and potential natural resources at and in the vicinity of the WVDP. These resources include natural gas and oil , sand/gravel/clay deposits, surface water, groundwater, timber and two renewable energy sources-geothermal and wind energy.

3.8.1 Natural Gas and Oil New York has proven natural gas and oil resources (NYSDEC 2001) . The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation estimates that the state 's 2001 production was enough to heat approximate 353,000 homes . A significant portion of these resources are found in Chautauqua , Cattaraugus , and Erie Counties.

The annual production of natural ga s and oil in New York State during 2001 is summarized in Table 3-22 along with production in nearby areas such as the Town of Ashford . New York produced 28 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 2001 . Cattaraugus County and Erie County were the fourth and fifth largest producing counties in the state accounting for 9 percent of the production for that year. The largest Western New York producer of natural gas was Chautauqua County which was responsibl e for almost 23 Revision 2 3-82

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN percent of the State's production.

Table 3-22. 2001 Natural Gas and Oil Production in Cattaraugus and Erie Counties, and the State of New York(1l Active Inactive Active Inactive Gas Oil Location County Gas Gas Oil Oil (1000s ftl) (barrels)

Wells Wells Wells Wells Ashford Cattaraugus 20,879 1,065 13 4 2 0 East Otto Cattaraugus 6,133 6 2 0 1 Ellicottville Cattaraugus 6,344 16 0 0 0 Machias Cattaraugus 220 1 1 0 0 Yorkshire Cattaraugus 23,740 18 3 0 0 Colden Erie 6,374 11 6 0 0 Sardina Erie 19,228 11 3 0 0 Total 82,918 1,065 76 19 2 1 Total Cattaraugus County 1,383,691 116,373 427 175 1,557 440 Total Erie County 1,132,634 45 875 239 1 1 New York State 28,020,207 175,666 5,949 843 3,373 1,416 NOTE: (1) From NYS DEC 2001 .

Cattaraugus County was the top oil producing county in New York in 2001 contributing more than 66 percent to the state total. However, less than one percent of the county's contribution came from the Town of Ashford 's two active oil wells . There are no active wells in any of the towns adjacent to Ashford .

Figure 3-69 shows the locations of all of the known wells associated with the production of natural gas and oil in Western New York. Figure 3-70 shows production in the Town of Ashford in Cattaraugus . The approximate location of the WVDP is indicated on Figure 3-72 by the black "WV. " These two graphics clearly indicate that production occurs in the immediate vicinity of the site, but the site lies on the fringes of known resources . Most of the gas production occurs in a band paralleling Lake Erie west of the site, and most of the oil production occurs in the southern part of Cattaraugus County near the Pennsylvania state line.

3.8.2 Mineral Resources Sand , Gravel , and Clay As described above, the WVDP site and surrounding valley area are underlain by a sequence of glacial tills comprised mainly of clays and silts separated by sands and gravels . These materials are a potential mineral resource, although a determination of their classification (USGS 1980) as resource, reserve, marginal reserve, or sub-economic resource has not been evaluated . In any event these materials are currently restricted by Revision 2 3-83

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN virtue of the restricted access to the Center.

Sand and gravel mines are New York's most common type of min~. Construction sand and gravel is a high-volume, low-value commodity. The industry is highly competitive.

Production costs vary widely depending on geographic location, the nature of the deposit, and the number and type of products produced . Transportation is a major factor in the delivered price of construction sand and gravel, and because of the high cost of transportation, construction sand and gravel continues to be marketed locally (NYSDEC 2005).

In 2001 , there were 1931 active sand and gravel mines in the state producing more than 30 billion metric tons worth at least $162 million . Data for production by mine for that year are not available. However, based on permitted acreage two of New York's seven largest producers have mines in the vicinity of the WVDP (NYSDEC 2005) . One is in the adjacent town of Machias, and the other in nearby Sardinia . There are approximately 20 mine sites within six miles of the WVDP . Approximately half of those were active in 2001.

The major clay minerals found in the site tills are illite and chlorite. Such clays are not particularly valuable for ceramic or industrial applications. There is one regulated clay mine in the Town of Concord which is within six miles of the site.

3.8.3 Water Resources Both surface water and groundwater resources are found at the WVDP (see Sections 3.6 and 3.7) . Buttermilk Creek Basin is a proven surface water resource. Its headwaters are located in and adjacent to the southern part of the site, and the creek flows northwest through the site . Two small water reservoirs were constructed on headwater tributaries to supply both potable and process water to Center and WVDP facilities .

Groundwater within the Center and the WVDP is not utilized for any purpose, as noted previously. However, groundwater is a proven if limited resource in the West Valley area as indicated by the use of several off-site residential wells. Approximately 259 homes within a 3.1-mile radius of the WVDP utilize groundwater as a potable water source. These wells utilize groundwater from surficial sand and gravel aquifers of limited areal extent, as well as weathered bedrock aquifers. Significant quantitative characterization of groundwater is limited to the WVDP, specifically the north plateau and south plateau. That effort has focused on contaminant hydrology as opposed to water resource characterization .

Using knowledge of the groundwater in the vicinity of the WVDP, one basin-wide aquifer is postulated, the weathered and fractured bedrock system. Lying above the competent, low permeability shale bedrock and below the low-permeability glacial tills, this system is recharged from the upland slopes bordering the valley. Discharge is largely to Buttermilk Creek which has cut through the till to bedrock in the valley floor. Little if any connection of the West Valley fractured bedrock aquifer with similar systems in the Connoissarauley and Broad Valleys is expected due to the intervening shale uplands .

Aquifers associated with the glacial drift are sand and/or gravel units of limited areal extent. The surficial sand and gravel unit of the north plateau receives significant recharge Revision 2 3-84

WVDP PHAS E 1 D ECOMMISSIONING PLAN from infiltrating precipitation, is highly permeable, and lies on top of low-permeability clayey/silty till. However, it has limited lateral extent and discharges along much of its perimeter.

Subsurface sand and/or gravel units also appear to be limited in extent. Recharge to these units is poorly understood . Given the low permeability of the clayey/silty tills in which they are embedded, some connections with and recharge from the upland fractured-rock flow system at the valley periphery is plausible.

In sensitivity analyses with the three-dimensional site groundwater model, simulations have been run with and without the subsurface till sand unit which is situated on the north plateau east of the Project facilities . The simulations showed little sensitivity to the presence of this unit and the model fit was slightly better when it was left out. These results suggest that the flow associated with this system is not a significant participant in the overall scheme and this inference, by extension, implies that the unit (and others like it) are limited as water resources .

Finally, it is noted that the West Valley aquifer system is part of the Cattaraugus Creek Basin Aquifer System, designated as a sole source aquifer. Similar to West Valley, the sand and gravel aquifers in this system used as water sources tend to be local and limited in spatial extent. Generally, the gradient from the Cattaraugus sand and gravel aquifers is downward toward the fractured bedrock system or laterally to surface waters. ,

3.8.4 Timber Resources The region's (Southern Tier) specific soil and climate help to produce several commercial species of hardwood timber including maple, ash, red oak and black cherry.

The estimated annual net growth of timber amounts to over 1.6 million tons a year (STPRDB 2003). At present, about one third of this amount is being removed through harvesting, leaving a significant potential for future economic development, including the potential for increased domestic secondary use and export use .

Much of the Center is forested, as is characteristic of the region. A smaller portion of the WVDP is forest, however. The last sawtimber harvest occurred mid-century with cull ,

inferior, and smaller trees left. There has been no management in the interim . In 1978, the volume of sawtimber at the Center was estimated to be 3.2 million board feet having a total standing value of $313,000. Most of the value came from hardwoods. The annual growth rate was estimated to be low at 100 board-feet per acre per year. When corrected for inflation, the average stumpa ge rate of all eastern hardwoods increased by roughly 250 percent from 1978 to 1999 (Howard 2001 ). Neglecting new growth, degradation, the absence of management, changes in mix, etc., the current value of the Center forest would be $750,000 .

3.8.5 Renewable Energy Resources There are two renewable energy sources which are notable potential resources at or in the vicinity of the WVDP . These are geothermal energy and wind energy.

Geothermal Revision 2 3-85

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Geothermal energy is an inferred, i.e., unproven, resource at the Center. Recently development studies for the western Southern Tier (STPRDB 2003) have recognized the geothermal potential in that region . The reports indicate that low temperature geothermal wells are available in portions of Western New York. Analysis of bottom hole temperature data from Cambrian sandstones indicates the presence of extractable fluids in the low temperature geothermal target zone. The report notes that the potential of geothermal power has not yet been utilized in the region due to technological obstacles, high initial capital costs, and a reluctance to engage new resources . Low temperature geothermal resources may be used for direct heat. i.e .. heat pumps, but not for the generation of electricity.

Wind Recent work suggests that the hilltops to the west of the WVDP are suitable for the development of wind energy resources . In 2004, NYSERDA was engaged in wind energy research and recently has funded the development of wind resource maps for the entire state of New York (TrueWind 2005). Based on extensive meteorological data and numerical models, the maps rate every location in the state for wind energy potential. In these maps, locations along the ridge or hilltops separating West Valley from Connoissarauley Valley are rated as having a good potential for wind energy development.

3.9 References Albanese, et al. 1983, Geologic and Hydrologic Research at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York, NUREG/CR-3207 . Albanese, J.R.,

et al., in NRC Annual Report, August 1981 - July 1982, 1983 .

Aloysius 1995, Testing and Characterization of Glacial Deposits: Geochemical and Radionuclide Adsorption Data . Aloysius, D.L., Dames and Moore Report for West Valley Demonstration Project, Orchard Park, New York, June 26, 1995.

Ashford 1994, A Comprehensive Master Plan for the Growth and Development of the Town of Ashford. Town of Ashford, Cattaraugus County, New York, January 1994.

Baudo and Jacobi 1999, "Fracture Patterns Along a 2.3 km Scanline in the Appalachian Plateau, Cattaraugus County, Western New York: Statistical Analysis and Implications for Fault Activity. " Baudo, A., and R.D. Jacobi, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 31, No. 2: A-3, 1999.

Bay Geophysical 2001 , Seismic Reflection Survey to Identify Subsurface Faults Near the West Valley Demonstration Project. Bay Geophysical Inc ., Traverse City, Michigan, September 21 , 2001 .

Bergeron, et al. 1987, Geohydrologic Conditions at the Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Plant and Waste Management Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, Cattaraugus County, New York. Bergeron, M.P, et al .. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85 -4145, 1987 .

Revision 2 3-86

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Bishop, et al. 2004, Gravel Mining and Community Development: A Balanced Approach in the Route 16 Corridor. Bishop, P., et al., presentation to the Cattaraugus County Legislature, October 25, 2004 .

Blickwedehl, et al. 1987, Implementation of the Kerosene Mitigation Plan, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York . DOEINEl44139 :38 (DE88015385) ,

1987.

Boothroyd , et al. 1979, Geomorphic and Erosion Studies at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York, NUREGICR-0795 . Boothroyd , et al., U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1979.

Boothroyd, et al. 1982, Geomorphic Processes and Evolution of Buttermilk Valley and Selected Tributaries, West Valley, New York. Boothroyd, et al., NUREGICR-2862, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1982.

Census Bureau 2003, Census 2000, State and County Quick Facts, Cattaraugus County, New York. U.S. Census Bureau , Population Division, Washington, D.C., April 20, 2003 .

Columbo and Weiss 1979, Evaluation of Isotope Migration - Land Burial, Water Chemistry at Commercially Operated Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites, BNL-NUREG -50965 . Columbo, P., and A.J . Weiss, Progress Report 9, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 1979.

Dames & Moore 1975, Report: Foundation and Hydrology Studies, Emergency Water Supply for Cooling of the Spent Fuel Processing Plant, West Valley, New York - for the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Dames and Moore, Orchard Park, New York, February 21 , 1975.

Dames & Moore 1992, Draft Report on Sediment and Soil Sampling and Analysis, SDA Lagoon Closure . Dames & Moore, Orchard Park, New York, Spring 1992.

Dames & Moore 1995, Investigation of Strontium Behavior in the Surficial Sand and Gravel

- Groundwater System. Dames and Moore report submitted to the West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, June 9, 1995.

DOE 2002, Natural Phenomena Hazards Site-Characterization Criteria, DOE-STD-1022-94, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC, April 2002.

DOE and NYSERDA 2008, Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center.

DOEIEIS-0226-R, December 5, 2008 .

Doherty 2004, PEST, Model-Independent Parameter Estimation, User Manual, 5th ed ., I July, 2004 .

Duckworth, et al. 197 4, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Research Project -

Final Report. Duckworth, J.P., et al. , Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc ., West Valley, New York, 1974.

Revision 2 3-87

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN ECPD 1999, Draft Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Concord and Village of Springville. Erie County Planning Division, Erie County, New York, May 3, 1999.

Engelder and Geiser 1980, "On the Use of Regional Joint Sets as Trajectories of Paleostress Fields During the Development of the Appalachian Plateau." Engelder, T., and P. Geiser, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 85 : 6319-6341 , 1980.

Fakundiny, et al. 1978, Structural Instability Features in the Vicinity of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System Western New York and Lake Ontario. Fakundiny, R.H ., et al.,

in Advances in Analysis of Geotechnical Instabilities, SM Study No . 13, Paper 4, University of Waterloo Press, 1978.

Geiser and Engelder 1983, 'The Distribution of Layer Parallel Shortening Fabrics in the Appalachian Foreland of New York and Pennsylvania : Evidence for Two Non-

  • Coaxial Phases of the Alleghanian Orogeny. " Geiser, P. and T. Engelder, R.D.

Hatcher, H. Williams, and I. Zietz, eds. Contributions to the Tectonics and Geophysics of Mountain Chains, Geological Society of America , Memoir 156, 1983.

Gross and Engelder 1991 , "A Case for Neotectonic Joints Along the Niagara Escarpment. "

Gross, M. R. and T. Engelder, Tectonics, Vol. 10, No. 3: 631-641 , 1991.

Herrmann 1978, "A Seismological Study of Two Attica , New York Earthquakes. " Herrmann, R.B .. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 68: 641-651, 1978.

Hill 1990, Preconditioned Conjugate-Gradient 2 (PCG2), A Computer Program for Solving Ground-Water Flow Equations. Hill, Mary C., U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4048, Denver, Colorado, 1990.

Howard 2001 , U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics 1965-1999. Howard, J.L. , United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Research Laboratory, Research Paper FPL-RP-595, April 2001 .

Jacobi and Fountain 1993, "The Southern Extension and Reactivations of the Clarendon-Linden Fault System." Jacobi, R.D., and J . Fountain, Geographie Physique et Quaternaire, Vol. 47, No . 3: pp . 285-302, 1993.

Jacobi , et al. 1996, "Character and Reactivation History of the Clarendon-Linden Fa ult System: Evidence From New York State." Jacobi. R.D .. et al. , Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 28, No. 3:

67, 1996.

Jacobi and Zhao 1999, "Faults Exposed in Zoar Valley, Western New York, and Their Possible Relation to Geophysical Anomalies, Landsat Lineaments and Seismicity."

Jacobi, R.D .. and M. Zhao, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 31, No . 2: A-25, 1999.

Lafleur 1979, Glacial Geology and Stratigraphy of Western New York Nuclear Service Center and Vicinity, Cattaraugus and Erie Counties," New York. Lafleur, R.G .,

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-989, 1979.

Revision 2 3-88

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN LANL 2003, Software Users Manual (UM) for the FEHM Application, Version 2.2.1, Rev.

No . 00. Dooument ID: 10086-UM-2.21 -00. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, October, 2003 .

Matuszek 1980, "Biochemical and Chemical Processes Leading to Radionuclide Transport from Low-Level Waste Burial Sites. Matuszek, J.M .. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 24 . pp . 155-156, 1980.

McKinney 1986, Letter Report Review of Erosion Projections, Low-Level Waste Disposal Area, Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York.

McKinney, T.F.. 1986.

NRC 1982, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington , D.C .. November 1982.

NRC 2007 , Meteorological Programs for Nuclear Power Plants , NUREG 1.23 , Revision 1.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington , D.C .. March 2007 .

NYASS 2005, Cattaraugus County Farm Statistics. New York Agricultural Statistics Service, Albany, New York, 2005 . (www.nass.usda .gov/ny/CountyBrochures/Catta-raugus . pdf)

NYDOT 2003, 2003 Traffic Volume Report. New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York, 2003 .

NYSDEC 2001, New York State Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources 2001. Annual Report, NYSDEC, Albany, New York, 2001 .

NYSDEC 2004, 2003 Annual Report to the Lake Erie Committee and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) , Lake Erie Unit, Albany, New York, March 2004 .

NYSDEC 2005 , New York State Department of Environmental Conservation online map navigator at http://www.dee .state.ny.us/website/imsmaps/minera Is/ viewer.htm Pietrzak, et al. 1981 , "Sorption Measurements Performed under Site-Specific Conditions --

Maxey Flats, Kentucky, and West Valley, New York, Disposal Sites. " Pietrzak, R.F ..

K.S. Czyscinski, and A.J. Weiss, Nuclear and Chemical Waste Management. Vol.

2, pp. 279-285, 1981.

PNNL 2000 . STOMP, Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases, Version 2.0 Theory I Guide, PNNL-12030, Richland , Washington. March, 2000.

Prudic 1986, "Groundwater Hydrology and Subsurface Migration of Radionuclides at a Commercial Radioactive-Waste Burial Site, West Valley, Cattaraugus County, New York." Prudic, D.E. , U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1325, 1986.

Rickard 197 5, Correlation of the Silurian and Devonian Rocks in New York State. Rickard, L.V .. New York State Museum and Science Service Map and Chart Series, No. 24, 1975.

Revision 2 3-89

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Spector and Grant 2003 , Manual for Radiological Assessment of Environmental Releases at the WVDP, WVDP-065, Rev. 4. Spector, H. and M. Grant, West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, February 28, 2003 .

STPRDB 2003, 2003 Regional Development Strategy. Southern Tier Planning and Regional Development Board , Salamanca, New York, 2003 .

Tober and Jacobi 2000, "Fracture Trends and Spacing in the Appalachian Plateau of Western New York : Implications for the Bass Islands Trend and North-Striking Lineaments." Tober, B.K. , and R.D . Jacobi, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section Meeting, Vol. 32, No. 1: A- 79, 2000.

TrueWind 2005, New York State Wind Resource Map, interactive map prepared for the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority by TrueWind Solutions, LLC . http:// .truewind.com .

URS 2001 , Progress Report on Erosion Frame Monitoring at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York . URS Corporation 2001 .

URS 2002, Land Use Survey in Support of the 2001 National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Annual Site Environmental (ASER)

Reports, TA-2002-3 -019. URS Corporation, March 8, 2002 .

URS 2008, Memorandum to Science Applications International Corporation,

Subject:

Probable Maximum Flood Inundation Study, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York. URS Corporation, West Valley, New York, August 28, 2008.

USDOT 2003, Record of Decision, U.S. Route 219: Springville to Salamanca, Erie, and Cattaraugus Counties, New York, FHWA-NY-EIS-98 -02F. U.S. Department of Transportation, September 4, 2003.

USGS 1980, Principles of a Resource/Reserve Classifications for Minerals: A revision of the classification system published as U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1450-A. U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 831 . U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S . Geological Survey, 1980.

USGS 2007, Report to Sandi Doty and Greg Tucker on Buttermilk Creek Watershed, West Valley, NY (DOE Waste Disposal Site) . Informal memo from USGS Luminescence Dating Lab, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Colorado, March 15, 2007.

USSCS 1983, Technical Release 20 - Computer Program for Project Formulation Hydrology, Version 3.40. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, 1983.

Wedel 1932, "Geological Structures of the Devonian Strata of South-Central New York. "

Wedel, A.A., New York State Museum Bulletin, Vol. 294 : 74, 1932.

Revision 2 3-90

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Wild 2000, Estimated Radionuclide Inventory for the NRG-Licensed Disposal Area at the West Valley Demonstration Project. Wild , R.E., URS/Dames and Moore, Orchard Park, New York, August 2000 .

Wong , et al. 2004, Seismic Hazard Evaluation for the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, New York. Wong , I. et al., URS Corporation, Oakland , California , June 24, 2004.

WVES and URS 2008, West Valley Demorstration Project Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 2007. WVNSCO and URS, West Vall ey, New York, December 2008 WVNSCO 1975, Subsurface Characterization Report, Low-Level Waste Disposal Area, West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, New York, WVDP-046 .

WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, October 1985 .

WVNSCO 1992, Environmental Information Document: Volume Ill: Hydrology, Part 5:

Unsaturated Zone Hydrology, WVDP-EIS -009, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, December 1992.

WVNSCO 1993a, Environmental Information Document Volume I - Geology, Part 4:

Geochemical Characterization. WVDP -EIS-004 . WVNSCO, West Vall ey, New York, January 1993 .

WVNSCO 1993b, Environmental Information Document: Volume VIII: Air Resources, Part 2: Meteorology, WVDP-EIS -015, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, 1993 .

WVNSCO 1993c, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 2:

Surface Water Hydrology, WVDP-EIS-009, Rev. 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company, West Valley, New York, January 1993 .

WVNSCO 1993d, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 3:

Erosion and Mass Wasting Processes, WVDP-EIS-009, Rev . 0 . WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, January 1993.

WVNSCO 1993e, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 4:

Groundwater Hydrology and Geochemistry, WVDP-EIS -009, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, February 1993 .

WVNSCO 1993f, Environmental Information Document, Volume Ill, Hydrology, Part 5:

Vadose Zone Hydrology, WVDP-EIS-009, Rev. 0. WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, February 1993 .

WVNSCO 1995, RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Volume 2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Disposal Area, WVDP-RFl-018, Rev . 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company (WVNSCO). West Vall ey, New York, October 1995 .

WVNSCO 1997 , RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Volume 4, Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility, WVDP-RFl-021, Rev. 0. West Valley Nuclear Services Company (WVNSCO) , West Valley, New York, January 1997 .

Revision 2 3-91

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WVNSCO 2007, Safety Analysis Report for Waste Processing and Support Activities, WVNS-SAR-001, Revision 11 . WVNSCO, West Valley, New York, June 28, 2007 .

Zhao and Jacobi 1997, "Formation of Regional Cross-Fold Joints in the Northern Appalachian Plateau ." Zhao, M. and R.D. Jacobi, Journal of Structural Geology, Vol. 19, No. 6: 817-834, 1997 .

Revision 2 3-92

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN N

Ontario ALBION MEDINA

  • LOCKPORT ST. CATHARINES FALLS TONAWANDA BATAVIA ATTICA Wyoming County Allegany County 0 10 20 Miles I

l""m Approx imate Scale Figure 3-1 . Location ofthe Center in Western New York Revision 2 3-93

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

(

©__

1 - Springville High School 2 - Springville Middle School o 50 +ooo 8000 FT 3 - Springville Elemenlarary School 4

5

- St. Aloysius Parochial School

- Bertrand Chaffee Hospital l"~----------1 6 - West Volley Central School Figure 3-2. The Center, the WVDP, and the Surrounding Area Revision 2 3-94

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-3. Topography of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center Revision 2 3-95

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 10 FT CONTOUR INTERVAL

~ 100-YEAR

~ FLOODPLAIN Figure 3-4. Topography of the Project Premises, Showing 100-Year Floodplain Revision 2 3-96

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

.llGISl>.n:io!

N

/

(

l A Security Area Boundary I

\

/

I

'81

{ I

/

,fJ , *I I

'<>i;;<

,-r i I ~/' &~ '

-'J J~

NRC-Ucensed Disposal Area (N OA) 690 920 Feet

'40 O 40 BO 120 160 Meters Figure 3-5. Security Fence Around WVDP Premises Boundary Revision 2 3-97

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMI SSIONING PLAN Pt North Plateau WSW ENE I Main Plant Vertical Exaggeration= -2: 1 L egena S&G-TGU Sand and Gravel-Thick Bedded Unit

' S&G-SWS Sand al'ld Gravel-Slack Water Sequence KT

  • LTS Lavery n1 Sand BR Shale Bedrock WLT Weathered Laverty Till
  • __.. Conceptual Groundwater Flow ULT Unweathered Lavery Till NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum Figure 3-6. North Plateau Geologic Cross Section South Plateau SDA East (Slate-licensed

~!Area)

'i 0

Legen a S&G-TGU Sand and Gravel-Thick Bedded Unit KRS Kent Recessional Sequence S&G-SWS Sand and Gravel-Slack Water Sequence KT Kent Till LTS Lavery Till Sand BR Shale Bedrock WLT Weathered Laverty Till ___.. Conceptual Groundwater Flow Direction ULT Unweathered Lavery Till NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum Vertical Exaggeration= - 2.5:1 Figure 3-7. South Plateau Geologic Cross Section Revision 2 3-98

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

\

/

/ "-

  • ., N 0

A WMA 12

\

i WMA 12 Legend c:J Waste Management Afeas Former L.agoon c::J Building c::J Wlll*erbodles <.:- ***- -.. \

c:::J Concrete Foundation _ ,,,_ Slrea ms/ Slormwaler Orainagew ays

..-,250 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feel

- - Fence c:::J Asphalt Road

-+- R*IJspur c:::::J Gravel Road/ Pad ..JI -~., ,~

,iC:llll~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!i..=::::;:::.~

, =\\

';/ 50 0 50 100 150 200 Meters L..J Figure 3-8. WMAs 1 through 10 Revision 2 3-99

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSION ING PLAN

  • --------------* I I

I N

A I

I I

I Lovier Extent d I I

S~ewK!e Erosion Con1rols *I (Confluence of Franks Creel< ... ;.-:.:.":."::.":.:.-~--":---::::.:oi to B uttermilk Creel<) .........

Buttermilk -.,....,

Creek ......

Western New York Nuclear:

Service Center (WNYNSC)

Boundary I

State Licensed D isposal Ar~a '(SDA) (NMA 8)

(

Approximate Location of

\

Gravel Pit Quarries (WMA 12) \

Scrap MateriaJ- -- -

Landfill (INMA 11)

Former Schoolhouse CNMA 12)

Legend ezl Reservoir -+- Rallspur c:::J Waste ManageJMn1 Areas Fonner Lagoon c:::J Building - ***- Streams/ Stormwater Dralnageways C:::J Concrete Foun da tion

~ Fence Waterbodies

[=:J Asphalt Road c:::J Gravel Roatlf Pad 500 125 0

o 500 1,000 *1,500 2,000 125 250 375 500 Meiers Feet Figure 3-9. WMAs 11 and 12 Revision 2 3-1 00

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN N

WMA 5 A

WMA2 High Level Waste, Interim Storage Facilit\ y Main Plant Offi<:e

\Cemenl Sotidiftcaiion Sys t,em wrv1A 10 Legend c:JWaste Management Areas c:J Waterbodies c:J Build ing c:J Concrete Foundation

- - - Fence

-+- Rallspur

- * -- Streams/ Stormwater Drainageways c:J Asphalt Road CJJ Gravel Road/ Pad ....

50 10 0

0 10 50 20 100 30 I

150 40 Meters 200 Feet Figure 3-10. WMA 1. (The Phase 1 decommissioning activities will include removal of the facilities and the underlying north plateau groundwater plume source area.)

Revision 2 3-101

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-11. Aerial View of the Process Building Area and Vitrification Facility Area in 2007.

(The Laundry Room will be removed before the Phase 1 of the decommissioning beg ins.)

Revision 2 3-102

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-12. Construction of the Process Building.

Revision 2 3-103

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

~ D EJ

/

LWC GPC GOA FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: GCR = General Purpose Cell Crane Room GOA = General Purpose Cell Operating Aisle GPC = General Purpose Cell LWC =Liquid Waste Cell MC= Miniature Cell Figure 3-13A. Process Building Layout- Below Grade Revision 2 3-104

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN UR LWA MSM DECON SGR FRS LAUND:_r 't, FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE I URE LEGEN D: ARPR =Acid Recovery Pump Room PMC = Product Mechanical Cell

[J  : CAA = Cell Access Aisle PPC = Product Purification Cell

- - ==;.i

-ELECTRICAL VAULT AREA CPC = Chemical Process Cell RER = Ram Equipment Room EDR = Equipment Decontamination Room SGR = Switchgear Room

-ELECTRICAL ROOlvl EMOA = East Mechanica l Operating Aisle SRR = Scrap Removal Room GCRE = General Purpose Cell Crane ULO = Uranium Load-Out 0 Room Extension UPC = Uranium Product Cell LWA =Lower Warm Aisle UR = Utility Room LWC = Liquid Waste Cell URE = Utility Room Expansion Figure 3-138. Process Building Layout at 100-Foot Eliavation MSM = Manipulator Repair Shop WMOA = West Mechanical Operating Aisle OGBR = Off-G as Blower Room WRPA = Waste Reduction & Packaging Area OGC = Off-Gas Cell XC = Extraction -Cell Revision 2 3-105

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN GCRE CVA EDR ARC CPC VSR r -

1 PPC L _

D FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: ARC =Acid Recovery Cell LXA = Lower Extraction Aisle COA = Cell Operating Aisle OGC = Off-Gas Cell CPC = Chemical Process Cell PMC = Product Mechanical Cell CVA =Chemical Viewing Aisle PPC =Product Purification Cell EDR = Equipment Decontamination Room PMCR = PMC Crane Room GCRE = General Purpose Cell Crane VWR = Ventilation Wash Room Figure 3-13C. Process Building Layout at 114.5-Foot Elevation Room Extension XC = Extraction Cell Revision 2 3-106

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CPC OGA CHEMICAL STORAGE ANALYrlCAL LAB MASS VIT LAB SPECTROSCOPY LAB DON/DO FF AREA PMCRE AIRLOCK STORAGE FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: ADA= Analytical Decontamination Aisle NOA = North Operating Aisle ANA = Analytical Aisle OGA = Off-Gas-Acid Recovery Aisle Figure 3-130. Process Building Layout at 131-Foot Elevation ANC =Analytical Sample Cell PMCRE = Process Mechanical Cell CCR = CPC Crane Room Crane Room Enclosure CPC = Chemical Process Cell PPC = Product Purification Cell XC = Extraction Cell Revision 2 3-107

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMM ISSIONING P LAN

~

AC VE:C EJ G u CR G

B FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: CR= Control Room HAC = Hot Acid Cell VEC = Venti lation Exhaust Cell PPC = Product Purification Cell UXA = Upper Extraction Aisle Figure 3-13E. Process Building Layout at 144-Foot Elevation VEC = Ventilati on Exhaust Cell XC = Extraction Cell Revision 2 3-108

WVOP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN STACK I

.., I I xc I I HATCH I I I L-----j r - ----- ..,

I

XC2 I
HATCH :

I L ______ _J XCR XC3

__HATCH  :

_ _ _ _ _ .! FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT TO SCALE I PPC I HATCH LEGEND : PPC = Produ ct Purification Cell XC =Extraction Cell

'... - - -- -- - - ' XCR - Extraction Chemical Room Figure 3-13F. Process Building Layout at 160-Foot Elevation Revision 2 3-109

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-14. West Side of the Process Building. (The building with windows is actually the Plant Office Building. The plant part of the Process Building is behind the Office Building Figure 3-15. Fuel Receiving and Storage Area. (This facility is located on the east side of the Process Building .)

Revision 2 3-110

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-16. HLW Canisters Stored in the HLW Interim Storage Area Figure 3-17. Conditions in the General Purpose Cell in 1999. (These were the cond itions before the beginning of cleanup in connection with deactivation .)

Revision 2 3-111

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-18. Process Mechanical Cell During Deactivation Figure 3-19. Extraction Cell 3 (After removal of processing equ ipment and before installation of the WVDP Liqu id Waste Treatment System Equipment)

Revi sion 2 3-112

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Figure 3-20. The Spent Fuel Pool After Deactivation Figure 3-21. Equipment Decontamination Room Before Cleanup Revision 2 3-113

WVDP PHASE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN mg Secon\I Fitter Room Figure 3-22. Vitrification Facility General Arrangement Figure 3-23. Vitrification Cell at Time of Startup Revision 2 3-114

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML16293A135&oldid=2442538"