View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Case Studies fromDOE Closure Sites:
Emphasis on Reduction of Risk andRequirements for Long Term
Monitoring in Site Closure Design
Carol A. Eddy-Dilek and Brian B. Looney
Savanna River Technology Center
April 20, 2004
2
Office of Closure Support (EM-23)
qTechnical assistance from nationallyrecognized experts
q Focus is support to site with acceleratedclosure schedules
qRocky Flats and Ohio (Ashtabula,Columbus, Mound, Fernald) in 2006
q Parts of Oak Ridge Reservation in 2008q Sites are currently developing
Stewardship Plans
3
Intelligent Closure Design
qDesign of Remedial and Closuresystems can significantly impact longterm monitoring requirements
q Low-energy hydraulic controls can beused to contain and focus residualcontamination and optimize monitoringrequirements
4
Ashtabula Closure Project (ACP)
qRMI Extrusion Plant operated for DOEqRMI processed uranium between 1962
and 1968q Primary function was extrusion of
metallic uraniumq Extensive Contamination of Surface
Soilsq Localized U and solvent contamination
5
ACP Regulatory framework
q Cleanup of radioactive contamination (TCE, Tc-99) isbeing conducted under Decommissioning Plan
§ DP initially approved by NRC
§ Now under regulatory authority of Ohio Department ofHealth (ODH)
q TCE contamination
§ Waste Management Unit (WMU)
§ Estimated 1.3 acre groundwater plume
§ Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) regulatoryauthority
6
7
Current Clean-up Levels
Total Uranium 30 pCi/g
Tc-99 65 pCi/g
TCE 5 ug/L
8
Hydrogeology
qVery low permeability glacial sedimentsqUpper till has thin sand and silt lenses
in the predominately clayey materialqResidual contaminants present in clayey
material
9
Closure Strategy
q Excavate source termqResidual contamination in groundwater
expected to exceed regulatory levelsq Install gravity induced pumping system
to pull back contaminated groundwaterfor treatment
qAmendments could be added to highpermeability backfilled material
10
Map view of Possible Closure System
cree
k
Pond
s (p
oten
tial
mon
itorin
g or
com
plia
nce
poin
t)
GeoDrain
excavated source and line(s)backfill w/ coarse fill or treatment bed
hill
horizontal wells or drains if needed
treatment bed or system as needed
amendments if neededto remaining soil &
groundwater
11
excavation
initial water level
constant operatingwater level-- free
draining or controlledmanually
Treatment Options
in situ usingamendments in
backfillor
ex situ using waterfrom drain orpumped well
Possible Configuration of Closure System
12
Advantages of Proposed Design
qHydraulic control of residual plumeqCollection of contaminated groundwater
focused to one collection pointqAmendments could be used to further
stabilize contaminationqHigh permeability fills would improve
gradients
13
Monitoring Design
q Initially monitor groundwater toestablish contaminant trends
qGroundwater at discharge point couldbe collected/monitored/treated
qMonitoring options include§ Periodic analysis of water samples§ Sensor at outfall location to measure
trigger levels§ Sorbent/integrated sampling system for
periodic analysis
14
East Tennessee Technology Park
15
East Tennessee Technology Park
qTwo thousand acres potentiallyimpacted by site activities
q Zone 1: Area outside operationalfences where most disposal activitiesoccurred
qCOC’s include VOC’s, heavy metals,radionuclides, PCB’s
16
Zone Map ofthe EastTennesseeTechnologyPark
17
Graded Approach
q Site developed graded approach for sitecharacterization, remediation, andclosure
q Four classes of soil unitsqDeveloped criteria for classificationqDeveloped strategy for characterizationqBlair Quarry chosen as pilot area for
approach
18
Soil Unit Classification
qClass 1 Soil Unit§ is, or was, impacted (potentially influenced
by contamination)§ the SU has moderate to high potential for
COC concentrations to exceed RLs; and§ insufficient evidence for no-action
qClass 2 Soil Unit.§ SU is, or was, impacted;§ there is low to moderate potential for COC
concentrations to exceed RLs; and§ insufficient evidence for no-action decision.
19
Soil Unit Classification
qClass 3 Soil Unit§ the unit is, or was, impacted§ there is no or very low potential for COC
concentrations to exceed RLs; and§ there is insufficient for no-action decision.
q Class 4 Soil Unit/Non-impacted.§ no evident anthropogenic impacts will be
designated as Class 4/Non-impacted.
20
Graded Approach
qAnticipated that only units found toClass 1 will require consideration forlong term monitoring.
qUse of graded approach limits greatlyareas to be monitored and focusesactivities on areas with higher risk.
qMovement of areas from Class 1 toClass 2 may be allowed based onresults of characterization studies.
21
Conclusions
qDesign of remedial and closure systemscan significantly impact long termmonitoring requirements
q Experience is that closure sites resistinnovations relative to baseline asclosure dates approach.
Recommended