View
6
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Tank Operations Contract
1 1TOC-PRES-16-4687
DOE Order 435.1Performance Assessment of WMA C
Overview
Performance and Risk Assessment Community of Practice Meeting
Marcel BergeronMatthew Kozak
Alaa Aly
October 19, 2016
Tank Operations Contract
2 2TOC-PRES-16-4687
Hanford Site and Surrounding Area
WMA C
• Encompasses ~1,500 km2
(~586 mi2) northwest of the city of Richland along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington State
• Federal government acquired the Site in 1943 for the production of plutonium.
• Production of special nuclear materials continued until the 1980s.
• Since the 1990s, DOE has focused on environmental remediation of the Hanford Site.
Tank Operations Contract
3 3TOC-PRES-16-4687
WMA C Location
Tank Operations Contract
4 4TOC-PRES-16-4687
WMA C Operational History
• Constructed in 1943-1944
• Operated from 1946 through mid-1980s storing and transferring waste
• Due to long operational history, WMA C received waste generated by essentially all of the Hanford Site major chemical processing operations
100-Series SSTs
200-Series SSTs
C-301 catch tank
Tank Operations Contract
5 5TOC-PRES-16-4687
WMA C Tanks and Associated Infrastructure
• Twelve 100 series tanks each with a waste capacity of 530,000 gals
• Four 200-series tanks each with a waste capacity of 50,000 gals and
• Related ancillary equipment that includes:
• C-244 CR-Vault containing 4 tanks
• C-301 catch tank• Seven diversion boxes• About 7 miles of waste
transfer pipelines
Tank Operations Contract
6 6TOC-PRES-16-4687
WMA C Operational Period Releases*
Summary of Past Releases
C-101 37,000 GalC-104 28,000 GalC-105 2,000 GalC-108 18,000 GalC-110 2,000 GalC-112 7,000 GalUPR-81 36,000 GalUPR-82 2,600 GalUPR-86 17,000 Gal
Total Releases 149,600 Gal* RPP-ENV-33418, 2014, Hanford C-Farm Leak Assessments Report, Rev. 3.
UPR-82
UPR-81UPR-86
TOC-PRES-16-4687
Tank Operations Contract
7 7TOC-PRES-16-4687
APPENDIX I - Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO)
• Defines “Single-Shell Tank System Waste Retrieval and Closure Process”
• Section 2.5 – Appendix I Performance Assessment (IPA)– A single performance assessment for the purposes of
evaluating whether SST system closure conditions are protective of human health and the environment for all contaminants of concern, both radiological and non-radiological.
– Documents by reference relevant performance requirements defined by:
• RCRA, HWMA, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, • Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), and • Any other performance requirements that might be ARARs
under CERCLA.
Tank Operations Contract
8 8TOC-PRES-16-4687
Elements of Appendix I Required Analyses
DOE O 435.1 Performance Assessment
- Radionuclides
RCRA Closure Analysis- Dangerous chemicals/
Hazardous chemicals
Baseline Risk
Assessment- Current Impacts
(Rev. 0)- Current and future
Impacts (Rev. 1)
Analysis of Past Leaks
-Future impacts- Other cumulative
impacts from other sites
Landfill Closure of Tanks & Ancillary Equipment Residual
Waste Impacts
RCRA Corrective Action of Soil Contamination
(RFI/CMS)
Updates to Rev. 1 of BRA
RPP-ENV-58782
Appendix I Performance Assessment Synopsis- High-Level Summary of Four Documents
RPP-RPT-59625
RPP-ENV-58806 RPP-RPT-58329 RPP-RPT-59197
Tank Operations Contract
9 TOC-PRES-16-4687
DOE O 435.1 Performance Assessment
Radiological Impacts from Waste Residuals in Tanks and Ancillary Equipment
Tank Operations Contract
10 10TOC-PRES-16-4687
Background
• A scoping process was conducted as a series of working sessions sponsored by ORP and WA State Department of Ecology during fiscal years 2009 – 2010
– Solicit input from the working session participants– Obtain a common understanding concerning the scope,
methods, and data to be used– Participating members from DOE, Ecology, EPA, NRC, Tribal
Nations, and other stakeholders groups– Included agreements to perform a number of specific
calculations• Funding hiatus (2011 – 2013)• Upon restart, the performance assessment took
account of updated information developed after scoping– Retrieval status– New data and hydrogeological interpretations
Tank Operations Contract
11 11TOC-PRES-16-4687
WMA C Safety Functions (Section 1 and Appendix H)
Tank Operations Contract
12 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Hybrid Approach to Safety Functions and FEPs
• Addresses issues with FEP-based structuring of performance assessment
• Combines top-down safety function approach with bottom-up FEP approach
Tank Operations Contract
13 13TOC-PRES-16-4687
Categories of WMA C Sensitivity Analysis Cases Evaluated (Section 8.2)
Safety Function categories (no. of cases) Key ParametersSurface Barrier Flow (5 cases) RechargeVadose Zone Flow & Dispersion (5 cases) Hydraulic properties and
dispersionAquifer Dilution (3 cases) Aquifer water fluxGrout Flow (3 cases) Diffusion and advectionResidual Chemistry (1 case) Waste release Tank Flow (3 cases) Timing of tank degradationResidual Inventory (1 case) Bounding inventory
Tank Operations Contract
14
All Pathway
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Tank Operations Contract
15 15TOC-PRES-16-4687
DOE Order 435.1Performance Objectives and Measures
Performance Objectives
All Pathways: Groundwater + Air Pathways 25 mrem/yr EDE
Air Pathway 10 mrem/yr EDE
Radon Flux 20 pCi.m-2.s-1 radon flux(at surface of disposal facility)
Performance Measures
Acute Inadvertent Intruder 500 mrem EDE
Chronic Inadvertent Intruder 100 mrem/yr EDE
Groundwater Protection (water resources)
(40 CFR 141)
Beta-gamma dose equivalent ≤ 4 mrem/yr
Gross alpha activity concentration (excluding radon
and uranium) ≤ 15 pCi/L
Combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 concentration ≤ 5 pCi/L
Uranium concentration ≤ 30 μg/L
Sr-90 concentration ≤ 8 pCi/L
H-3 concentration ≤ 20,000 pCi/L
EDE = Effective Dose Equivalent
Tank Operations Contract
16 16TOC-PRES-16-4687
Complimentary Use of Process- Level & System-Level Models
Tank Operations Contract
17 17TOC-PRES-16-4687
Modeling Approach
Groundwater Pathway Analysis
Air Pathway Analysis
Analysis of DirectContact with Waste
Model Abstraction
Tank Operations Contract
18 18TOC-PRES-16-4687
Conceptual Evolution of WMA C
Tank Operations Contract
19 19TOC-PRES-16-4687
WMA C Tank Retrieval Status and Basis for Inventory
Three Single Shell Tanks Retrieval Ongoing Inventory estimated from
chemical process knowledge and estimated volume at closure
Ten Single Shell Tanks Retrieval complete Inventory based on sampled
residuals and final residual volumes
Seven tanks with release rate studies*
Three Single Shell Tanks Retrieval complete and
sampling underway Inventory estimated from
chemical process knowledge and final residual volumes
* PNNL has completed release rate studies on tank residuals for tanks C-103, C-106, C-108, C-203, C-203, C-204, and is starting on C-104 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Tank Operations Contract
20 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Source Term – Tanks
• Residual Waste left in bottom of tanks
• Tanks, diversion boxes, and pits filled with grout
• Release of constituents from tank controlled by diffusion through tank base mat
Alternative sensitivity analysis cases evaluating differing assumptions
Tank Operations Contract
21 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Source Term – Pipelines
• Approx. 7 miles of pipelines in WMA C
• Residual waste left in flushed pipelines
• Pipelines buried in place without grouting
• Release of constituents from pipelines controlled by combination of advection and diffusion
Tank Operations Contract
22 22TOC-PRES-16-4687
Hanford (Hf2) sandsHanford (Hf2) sandsHanford (Hf3) unsat. gravelsHanford (Hf3) unsat. gravels
Hanford (Hf3) sat. gravelsHanford (Hf3) sat. gravelsColumbia River BasaltsColumbia River Basalts
BackfillBackfillHanford (Hf1) gravelsHanford (Hf1) gravels
* RPP-RPT-56356, 2014, Development of Alternative Digital Geologic Models of Waste Management Area C, Rev. 0
Hydrogeologic Framework
Tank Operations Contract
23 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Alternative Hydrogeologic Frameworks (1)
Hanford H2 sandsHanford H2 sands
Hanford H2 Coarse Gravelly SandHanford H2 Coarse Gravelly SandHanford H2 Silty SandHanford H2 Silty Sand
Hanford (Hf3) unsat. gravelsHanford (Hf3) unsat. gravels
Columbia River BasaltsColumbia River Basalts
Hanford (Hf3) sat. gravelsHanford (Hf3) sat. gravels
Hanford (Hf1) gravelsHanford (Hf1) gravels
BackfillBackfill
Tank Operations Contract
24 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Alternative Hydrogeologic Frameworks (cont.)
Appendix F - Development Of Heterogeneous Media Model And Comparison To Base Case Model Results For Waste Management Area C Performance Assessment
Tank Operations Contract
25 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Process-level Model Based on STOMP with Points of Calculation (100 m Distance)
Tank Operations Contract
26 TOC-PRES-16-4687
System Level Model Based on GoldSim
• Implemented using GoldSim• Used for:
– Source Term Release– One-Dimensional Fate and Transport Model for
Groundwater Pathway based on flow abstraction from STOMP process-level model
– Air Pathway Transport and Radon Flux Calculations
– Dose Calculations– Uncertainty Analysis & Selected Sensitivity
Analyses
Tank Operations Contract
27 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Model Abstraction – Vadose Zone
Tank Operations Contract
28 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Source Loading Zone in AquiferSource Loading Zone in Aquifer
Point of Calculation
at 100 m distance
Point of Calculation
at 100 m distance
WMA C Fenceline
WMA C Fenceline
Model Abstraction – Saturated Zone
Tank Operations Contract
29 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Exposure Scenarios for Dose Calculations
All–Pathways Exposure
Tank Operations Contract
30 30TOC-PRES-16-4687
Inadvertent Intrusion Into Tanks and Ancillary Equipment
• Qualitative treatment of the likelihood of intrusion the primary purpose of intrusion
analyses is to establish waste classification
Intended as hypothetical analyses to people living in the future under extreme scenarios of uncertain but generally very low likelihood
Potential for misinterpretation
• Intrusion into grouted tanks differs from pipelines Mechanical difficulty of drilling through
the tank dome and the grout infill would likely deter intrusion by drilling
Tanks represent “robust intrusion barriers” (NUREG-1854)
Intrusion into tanks assumed at 500 years, pipelines at 100 years
Tank Operations Contract
31 31TOC-PRES-16-4687
DOE Order 435.1 Performance Assessment Summary and Conclusions
• All performance objectives and measures are – Met for 1000-year Compliance Time Period (CY 2020 to 3020) – Also met during 9000 –year Post-Compliance Period (CY 3020 to
12020)
• Performance objectives for all-pathways dose met in results of probabilistic analysis performed to evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty on dose
• Results for tank residual waste impacts demonstrate the robustness of Landfill Closed WMA C where the key safety functions are degraded compared to the base case (i.e sensitivity cases)
Tank Operations Contract
32 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Compliance Period(2020-3020)
Post-Compliance Period
(3020-12020)
Performance Objectives
All Pathways(Groundwater + Air Pathway) 25 mrem/yr EDE 4E-3 mrem/yr 0.1 mrem/yr
Air Pathway 10 mrem/yr EDE 4E-3 mrem/yr 2E-5 mrem/yr
Radon Flux 20 pCi.m-2.s-1 radon flux(at surface of disposal facility) 2E-04 pCi.m-2.s-1 7E-3 pCi.m-2.s-1
Performance Measures
Acute Inadvertent Intruder 500 mrem EDE 36 mrem 11.1 mrem
Chronic Inadvertent Intruder 100 mrem/yr EDE 8.2 mrem/yr 7E-02 mrem/yr
Groundwater Protection (Water Resources)
(40 CFR 141)
Beta-gamma dose equivalent ≤ 4 mrem/yr 5E-4 mrem/yr 0.13 mrem/yr
Gross alpha activity concentration (excluding radon and uranium)
≤ 15 pCi/L0 pCi/L 1E-10 pCi/L
Combined Ra-226 and Ra-228 concentration ≤ 5 pCi/L 0 pCi/L 7E-7 pCi/L
Uranium concentration ≤ 30 μg/L 0 μg/L 0.05 μg /LSr-90 concentration ≤ 8 pCi/L Not applicable Not applicable
H-3 concentration ≤ 20,000 pCi/L 0 pCi/L 1E-10 pCi/L
Comparison of WMA C PA Results with DOE O 435.1 Performance Objectives and Measures
EDE = Effective Dose Equivalent
Tank Operations Contract
33
Backup Supporting Material
Tank Operations Contract
34 34TOC-PRES-16-4687
Groundwater Pathway Dose (Section 7)
Key Results for GW Pathway:• Peak dose – 0.1 mrem/yr• 250 times below 25 mrem/yr
performance objective • Primarily from Tc-99
Technetium-99
Selenium-79
Tin-126
U-Isotopes
Radium-226
Iodine-129
Performance Objective (All Pathways) 25 mrem/yr
Peak Total Dose – 0.1 mrem/yr
Tank Operations Contract
35 35TOC-PRES-16-4687
Results of the PA Analysis – Base Case (Section 7)
Key Base Case Results
• Peak Tc-99 Concentration
• 30 pCi/L (All Sources)
• 22 pCi/L (Tank C-105)
• MCL for Tc-99 – 900 pCi/L
Points of Calculation at 100 m
Tank Operations Contract
36 36TOC-PRES-16-4687
Air Pathway Dose (Section 7)
Key Results for Air Pathway• Peak dose - 4e-03 mrem/yr• 2500 times below 10 mrem/yr
performance objective• Primarily from Tritium
Peak Dose - 4e-03 mrem/yr
Tritium
Iodine-129
Carbon-14
Tank Operations Contract
37 37TOC-PRES-16-4687
All Pathway Dose (Section 7)
Technetium-99
Iodine-129
Selenium-79 Tin-126 U-Isotopes
Radium-226C-14
Tritium
Peak Total Dose 0.1 mrem/yr
(Post-compliance period)
Peak Total Dose 4E-03 mrem/yr
(Compliance period)
Tank Operations Contract
38 38TOC-PRES-16-4687
Uncertainty Analysis (Section 8.1)
• Performed using System-level model based on GoldSim• Evaluated uncertainty estimates of about 130 model
parameters in the areas of:– Groundwater Pathway
• Recharge rates• Residual inventories• Source-term release • Vadose zone hydraulic properties• Vadose zone flow fields• Distribution coefficients (Kd)• Aquifer fluxes• Macrodispersivity in Vadose Zone and Groundwater
– Air pathway• Gas-phase tortuosity• Wind Speed
Tank Operations Contract
39 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Uncertainty Analysis of PA (Section 8)
GW Pathway: 300 Realizations All Pathways Mean Dose Calculation
• Uncertainty in parameters propagated using Monte Carlo sampling methodology
• All realizations remain below the Performance Objective (25 mrem/yr )
2.5 mrem/yr Performance Objective – 25 mrem/yr
Peak Total Mean Dose0.166 mrem/yr
Tank Operations Contract
40 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Sensitivity Analysis Examples(Section 8)
Varying Tank Grout Degradation Timing
• In all sensitivity cases, the Tc-99 concentration remains below MCL (900 pCi/l)
Tc-99 MCL - 900 pCi/l
42.5 pCi/l
26 pCi/l
30 pCi/l
44 pCi/l
Com
plia
nce
perio
d
Tank Operations Contract
41 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Sensitivity Analysis Examples(Section 8)
Tc-99 Upper Bound Inventory Sensitivity Analysis
For Upper Bound Tc-99 inventory sensitivity case, the groundwater concentration (~145 pCi/l) remains factor of ~6.5 below MCL (900 pCi/l)
145 pCi/l
30 pCi/lTc-99 MCL - 900 pCi/lC
ompl
ianc
e pe
riod
Tank Operations Contract
42 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Inadvertent Intruder ScenariosInadvertent Intruder Scenarios
Acute Well Driller ScenarioAcute Well Driller Scenario Chronic Suburban Gardener ScenarioChronic Suburban Gardener Scenario
Chronic Rural Pasture ScenarioChronic Rural Pasture Scenario Chronic Commercial Farm ScenarioChronic Commercial Farm Scenario
Tank Operations Contract
43 43TOC-PRES-16-4687
Inadvertent Intrusion Results For UngroutedFlushed Waste Transfer Pipelines
Doses from acute well driller scenario do not exceed performance measure of 500 mrem for acute exposure after assumed loss of institutional control
Performance Measure – 500 mrem
Acute Well Driller Expsure Scenario (Waste Transfer Pipeline)
Compliance period
Tank Operations Contract
44 44TOC-PRES-16-4687
Inadvertent Intrusion Results For UngroutedFlushed Waste Transfer Pipelines (continued)
Doses from chronic exposure scenarios do not exceed performance measures of 100 mrem/yr after assumed loss of institutional control
Performance Measure – 100 mrem/yr
Chronic Rural Pasture Exposure Scenario (Waste Transfer Pipeline)
Chronic Suburban Gardener Exposure Scenario (Waste Transfer Pipeline)
Performance Measure – 100 mrem/yr
Compliance periodCompliance period
Tank Operations Contract
45 TOC-PRES-16-4687
Sensitivity Case: Long Term Groundwater Pathway Dose Evaluation* (Section 8)
* Tank considered degraded at 30,000 years
Technetium-99 (Tank Sources)
U-Isotopes (Pipelines)
Ra-226
0.1 mrem/yr
0.28 mrem/yr0.08 mrem/yr
1,000 10,000 100,000
Time after Closure (years400,000
U-Isotopes (Tank Sources)
Pb-210
Com
plia
nce
perio
d
Recommended