issues for the tank waste committee hanford advisorary board october 10 2006
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Issues for the Tank Waste Committee Hanford Advisorary Board October 10, 2006

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 37

Issues for the Tank Waste Committee Hanford Advisorary Board October 10, 2006 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 168 Views
  • Uploaded on

Issues for the Tank Waste Committee Hanford Advisorary Board October 10, 2006. Inadequate Characterization/ Groundwater Issues. Ongoing degradation of groundwater due to past tank leaks, absence of RCRA Corrective Action

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Issues for the Tank Waste Committee Hanford Advisorary Board October 10, 2006' - jin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
inadequate characterization groundwater issues
Inadequate Characterization/Groundwater Issues
  • Ongoing degradation of groundwater due to past tank leaks, absence of RCRA Corrective Action
  • Groundwater contamination has yet to be officially attributed to an Individual tank leak
  • None of the larger tank leaks have been adequately characterized
  • Soil samples have not been acquired in any of the areas with ongoing migration of radionuclides
  • Questionable estimates of past tank leaks (RPP-23405)
pnnl annual groundwater monitoring b bx by wma and surrounding waste sites 1995 through 2000
PNNL Annual Groundwater MonitoringB-BX-BY WMA and Surrounding Waste Sites1995 through 2000
  • Five year gap in the mapping of the uranium groundwater plume.
  • ~10 metric tons of U lost to soil at tank BX-102 in 1951
  • ~1.5 metric tons of U discharged to Cribs and Trenches
slide8
Characterization Results for the B-BX-BY WMA and Surrounding Waste Sites Fails to Explain the Presence of Uranium in Groundwater
  • Anthropogenic uranium in the vadose zone was not detected within 190 feet of groundwater at the liquid waste sites
    • BY Cribs (DOE/RL-92-70, DOE/RL-2002-42, DOE/GJO-2003-458-TAC)
    • 216-B-7A & 7B Cribs (DOE/GJO-2002-343-TAR and DOE/RL-2002-42)
    • 216-B-8 Crib (DOE/GJO-2002-343-TAR)
  • Modeling results for the waste sites suggest that uranium will not reach groundwater for hundreds of years (DOE/RL-2002-42)
  • Characterization of the B-BX-BY WMA (RPP-10098) suggested that the source of uranium in groundwater was from the nearby liquid waste sites
slide9
Visualization of 238U Vadose ZoneData in the B-BX-BY WMA Area(Figure from DOE/GJO-2003-545-TAC, which has never been issued)
borehole 299 e33 41 comparison of geophysical logging runs figure from ctuir dose
Borehole 299-E33-41 Comparisonof Geophysical Logging Runs(Figure from CTUIR-DOSE)
  • Logged in 1991, 1997, 2002 and 2006
  • Significant influx of uranium contamination between log depths of 120 and 247 ft
  • Influx occurred between 1991 and 1997
  • 2006 results have not been released
  • Reference: DOE/GJO-2002-343-TAR)
slide11
Uranium concentrations tripled between 1997 and 2006 at 299-E33-18(Figure from Rick McCain, The S.M. Stoller Corp.)
  • Logged in 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2006
  • Uranium not detected in 1992
  • Influx of uranium occurred between 1992 and 1997
  • Uranium detected in 1997 and 2006 at log depths between 232 and 264 ft
slide14
Visualization of Uranium Vadose Zone Plume for the BX-102 Tank Leak(Figure from DOE/GJO-2002-343-TAC)
slide17
Uranium Concentrations in Groundwater Samples From Wells in Vicinity of B-BX-BY Waste Management Area (PNNL 11826)
slide18
Uranium Vadose Zone and Groundwater Contamination from the BX-102 Tank Leak(Figure from DOE/GJO-2003-545-TAC, which has never been issued)
bx 102 tank leak
BX-102 Tank Leak
  • The 1951 uranium spill at tank BX-102 is the only identified source of uranium in groundwater based on geophysical logging results of 287 boreholes ( ~70,000 individual measurements)
  • Based on log data, uranium concentrations in the deep vadose zone increased in boreholes 299-E33-41 and 299-E33-18 between 1991 and 2006
  • A southeastnorthwest-trending uranium plume has developed in the groundwater since 1993
  • DOE’s failure to identify the source of uranium in groundwater casts doubt upon the characterization/remediation efforts at Hanford and the validity of risk modeling
  • No short terms goals for RCRA Corrective Action
ongoing migration of co 60 since 1978 at 30 08 02 near tank c 108 figure from doe gjo 2003 400 tac
Ongoing Migration of Co-60 Since 1978 at 30-08-02 (near Tank C-108)(Figure fromDOE/GJO–2003–400–TAC)
c tank farm
C Tank Farm
  • C Tank Farm is the source of the recent Tc-99 groundwater plume
  • Groundwater monitoring network lacks upgradient well
  • Co-60 detected in vadose zone outside of the fence line
  • Ongoing migration of radionuclides in the vadose zone
  • Insufficient characterization for closure
issues tank leak volume estimates rpp 23405 rev 1
IssuesTank Leak Volume Estimates(RPP-23405, Rev. 1)
  • Inconsistent tank leak criteria
  • Reduction of documented leaks without a technical basis
  • Multiple leaks from a tank
  • Highest gamma activity results not considered
  • Minimum leak detection volume
  • Tank leaks attributed to surface spills
  • Misuse of krigging estimates
  • Dismissal of the Historical Leak Model (HNF-3233)
inconsistent tank leak criteria
Inconsistent tank leak criteria
  • Evidence of a tank leak (RPP-23405)
    • Cs-137 activities greater than 10,000 pCi/g
    • Below base of tank
  • Inconsistent with field results
    • Maximum Cs-137detected with SGLS near bases of SX-115 and SX-113 are less than 10 pCi/g
      • 50,000 gallons lost at SX-115
      • More than 15,000 gallons lost at SX-113
evidence of tank leaks not always considered in rpp 23405
Evidence of tank leaks not always considered in RPP-23405
  • Radionuclides other than Cs-137
    • Co-60, Eu-152, Eu-154, Nb-94, Sb-125, Sn-126, U-235, and U-238
  • Lower levels of Cs-137 (i.e. TY-102)
  • Logging anomalies on gross gamma data
reduction of documented leak volumes without a technical basis
Reduction of documented leak volumes without a technical basis
  • RPP-23405 estimates 1,000 gallon leak SX-112
    • ARH-R-43 is not discussed or referenced in the section on SX-112 in RPP-23405
    • ARH-R-43 is listed as reference in RPP-23405
  • ARH-R-43 reported a leak of 30,000 gallons from SX-112 based on:
    • Liquid level measurements
    • Soil radiation readings
multiple leaks from a tank
Multiple leaks from a tank
  • Represented as single event
    • Volume from one leak event represented in RPP-23405
  • Examples
    • A-105
      • Reported as a 1,000 gallon leak in RPP-23405
      • Unstable liner resulted in 26 “suck back occurrences” (ARH-78) not discussed in RPP-23405
      • Gross gamma logging results for the laterals (RPP-26705)
        • Maximum estimated Cs-137 encountered was 34 million pCi/g
    • SX-113
      • Volume “well documented” according to RPP-23405
      • 1958 leak event (HW-56972)
      • 1962 leak test
      • Only the 15,000 gallon leak from the leak test is reported in RPP-23405
highest gamma activity results not considered
Highest Gamma ActivityResults Not Considered
  • Activities greater than 10,000 pCi/g below base of tank criteria for a tank leak according to RPP-23405
  • Examples where RPP-23405 should have developed leak estimates
    • B-105 (20-05-06 and 20-06-06)
    • TX-114 (51-14-04)
    • BX-110 (21-10-05)
minimum leak detection volume
Minimum Leak Detection Volume
  • Assumed as 1,000 gallons in RPP-23405
  • De-Minimus leak volume estimate (Appendix A, RPP-23405)
    • 5,000 gallons
    • Issues
      • Differences in stratigraphy underneath the tanks
      • Number of drywells
      • Depth of drywells
      • Location of tank leak
      • Based on moisture measurements instead of gamma activity which was actually measured
  • In-tank levels reported to nearest inch for many years
    • Waste transfers reported to nearest 1,000 gallons (HW-83906)
    • One inch change in a 75 ft diameter tank is ~2750 gallons (HW-83906)
  • Maximum permissible leak was 50,000 gallons (HW-68661)
misuse of krigging estimates
Misuse of Krigging Estimates
  • BY Tank Farm
  • SX Tank Farm
    • IPEP’s review of krigging estimate (HNF-5782) is ignored
    • Gross gamma logging results for the laterals (RPP-26705)
      • Maximum estimated Cs-137 encountered was greater than 200 million pCi/g
      • Upper limit for Cs-137 detected by HRLS in drywells had appeared to be 100 million pCi/g
    • Krigging based on data from HNF-5782 underestimates leak volumes in SX tank farm
      • Upper limit for Cs-137 appeared to be ~50 million pCi/g (under SX-107)
tank leaks attributed to surface spills
Tank Leaks Attributed to Surface Spills
  • BY Tank Farm
    • RPP-23405 claims Co-60 detected below base of tanks is from the surface
    • This claim is not supported by SGLS data (i.e. 22-12-03)
      • Co-60 detected between 3 and 15 ft bgs is unrelated to Co-60 detected below 83 ft bgs
historical leak model hnf 3233
Historical Leak Model (HNF-3233)
  • Premature dismissal by HNF-4756
  • Recent logging results (RPP-26705) may validate estimates in HNF-3233
    • Maximum Cs-137 in laterals under SX-108 was estimated (HNF-5782) at between 5 and 50 million pCi/g versus 200 million pCi/g (RPP-26705)
    • RPP-6285 estimates based on krigging may be an order of magnitude low for SX-108
  • Field data tend to support HNF-3233 tank leak estimates
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Tank Farms are the source of recent groundwater plumes in 200 East, absence of RCRA Corrective Action
  • DOE’s failure to identify the source of uranium in 200 East groundwater casts doubt upon the characterization/remediation efforts at Hanford and the validity of risk modeling
  • Soil samples have not been acquired in any of the areas with ongoing migration of radionuclides
  • RPP-23405 provides questionable estimates of past tank leaks. Unsupported estimates from RPP-23405 should not be used in any risk modeling
  • Historical Leak Model (HNF-3233) estimates should be used as an upper limit for SX tank leaks
ad