Recommendations On the Desiqn of the Characterization ...... SeO 4. S-2. OH. Zr. Sn. Th. PO4. WO4. Tl. Ti. U. V. Zn. (a) Type I-A Analytes, 0 to 90% from LTRR ...
_//
PNL-7573 Vol. 2 UC-702, 721 •
.-. 4
DE00 9 1991
A ResearchReportfor WestinghouseHanford Company |
lllllll I II
Preliminary Recommendations on the Design of the Characterization Program for the Hanford Site SingleShell Tanks--A System Analysis Volume 2 - Closure-Related Analyte Priorities, Concentration Thresholds, and Detection Limit Goals Based on Public Health Concerns J. W. Buck M. S. Peffers S. T. Hwang m
I
November 1991
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830
Pacific Northwest Laboratory Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute
-_ Z
7" ",4
._
,
OBallelle
t_
,_
::
:c,-
DIS'I'"qi_L,
JTIOi'J
C'ic -i';-;IG OOOU['.'ial4
_ t_, ' "'
' ,'i,"-:-
DISCLAIMER 'al
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United StatesGovernment. Neither the United StatesGovernment norany agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressedor implied, or assumesany legalliability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness,or usefulnessof any information, apparatus,product, or processdisclosed,or representsthat itsusewould not infringe privately owned rights. Referenceherein to any specificcommercial product,process,or serviceby trade name, trademark, manufacturer,or otherwisedoesnot necessarilyconstitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institule.The views and opinionsof authorsexpressedherein do not necessarilystate er reflect thoseof the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
LABORATORY
operated by BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
for the UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-ACO6-76RLO
1830
Printedin the United StatesofAmerica Availableto DOEar_4DOEcontractorsfromthe Officeof ScientificandTechnicalInformation,P.O.Box62, Oak Ridge,TN 37831; pricesavailablefrom (615) 57_;-8401.FTS626-8401. Availableto the publicfromtheNationalTechh!_alInformationService, U.S.Departmentof Commerce,5285 PortRoyalRd.,=_ringfield,VA 22161.
PNL-7573 Vol. 2 UC-702,721
m
-
A Research Report for WestinghouseHanford Company PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONSON THE DESIGN OF THE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM FOR THE HANFORD SITE SINGLE° SHELL.TANKS--A SYSTEM ANALYSIS Volume 2 - Closure-RelatedAnalyte Priorities, ConcentrationThresholds, and Detection Limit Goals Based on Public Health Concerns
J. W. Buck M. S. Peffers S. T. Hwang
Nove_aer 1991
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO6-76RLO 1830
"
Pacific Northwest Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352
PNL--7573-Vol. 2 DE92 004643
PREFACE
Preliminary ,
Recommendations On the Desiqn of the Characterization
for the Hanford Site four volumes-
Sinqle-Shell
Tanks -- A System Analysis
will
Proqram
appear in
•
Volume 1 contains a summary of the overall system analysis, ing a summary of observations and recommendations.
•
Volume 2 contains the recommendationson closure-relatedanalyte priorities, concentration thresholds, and goals for analytical detection limits based on public health concerns.
•
Volume 3 contains estimates of associatedresource requirementsand impacts for a number of alternate characterizationprogram designs. These cases are evaluated in terms of radiologicaldose to characterizationworkers, schedule impacts (compared to the milestones in the Tri-Party Agreement), and manpower requirements.
•
Volume 4 contains a preliminaryevaluation of remediationdecision quality for alternate characterizationprogram designs; that is, Volume 4 provides information on uncertaintiesassociatedwith the generation of tank inventory estimates. This includes an estimate of the likelihoodof a leave/retrievedecision error as a function of the numbers of risers sampled per tank.
"
includ-
This document, Volume 2, is the first of the series to be issued; it is being distributed ahead of the others because the informationcontained here is intended to support Westinghouse Hanford Company in characterizationactivities to be started in the summer of 1991. Volumes I, 3, and 4 are currently being prepared and will be issued later.
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Preliminary RecommendationsReport consists of four volumes that •
provide recommendationsand data quality objectives (DQOs) for designing and implementingthe waste characterizationprogram and closure decisions for the single-shelltanks (SSTs) at the Hanford Site. lt is a systems analysis
"
approach to provide information and preliminary DQOs for the SST waste characterizationprogram. This document, Volume 2, is the first of the series of four volumes to be completed. This volume provides recommendationsbased on the ranking of closure-relatedanalytes, concentrationthreshold (CT) values, and proposed detection limit goals (DLGs). These recommendationsare based on public health and regulatory concerns. The preliminary recommendationsin this volume focus on identifyingsignificant SST analytes and establishing analyticaldetection limit goals for them. The recommendationsfrom this volume will be applied during characterization Phase IC (the third phase of a multiple-samplingplan) as DQOs for waste characterizationand closure decision determinationsfor SSTs at the Hanford Site. The objectivesof the work described in this volume are 1) to prioritize SST analytes for sampling and analysis and 2) to define significantcontributing analytes and their DLGs using the CT concept. The CT concept defines the level at which an analyte concentration in the tank potentiallybecomes a significant risk contributor to public health. The CT concept can be used to identify analyticaldetection limits that may need to be improved for the characterizationprogram and that can be used as input for selecting closurerelated decisions. This volume contains the following recommendations: •
6
Recommendation2-1: Inventory estimates for the Type I and II analytes (those which present the highest potential risk) should be generated for the Limited Phase IC Characterizationprogram in association with closure decisions. These analytes should receive the greatest attention in terms of analyticalaccuracy requirements.
•
Recommendation 2-2: The Limited Phase lC Characterizationprogram should include tests for reducing the uncertaintiesassociated with closure-relatedanalyte priorities. This includes empirical solubility limits (i.e., source-term data) and adsorption coefficients (i.e., Kd values) in support of Long-Term Release Risk assessments (i e._ performance assessments). This informationshould be generated over a diverse set of waste types.
•
Recommendation 2-3: To the extent feasible, analyses conducted under the Limited Phase lC Characterizationprogram should be designed so that analyticaldetection limits are one order-ofmagnitude below computed Short-Term Intruder Risk and Waste Classification CT values and two orders-of-magnitudebelow computed Long-Term Release Risk CT values.
•
Recommendation2-4: The Extended Phase IC Characterizationprogram should be designed so that there is sufficientconfidence that when detection limits are not exceeded the true concentrationdoes not exceed the computed CT value.
The recommendationspresented here may be helpful in determining costs and schedules for waste characterization. The work and recommendationsin this volume are preliminary_as more information is obtained on the character of SST waste, better estimates of ana3yte priorities, CT values, and DLGs can be made. This volume is being distributed before the others because it contains information important to the SST characterizationefforts that are planned for 1991. This document was prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the WestinghouseHanford Company, the current operating contractor on the Hanford Site for the U.S. Departmentof Energy.
vi
"
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
this
report
could
people. The authors this document. o
We would like the PNL project study began.
would like
gestions would like
a great
of the report.
we received
managers,
with
this
study.
We would also like of WHCfor
No report
report.
their
The authors
in the text
insights
their
support.
The comments and sugwere very useful.
helpful
for
input
constructive without
Julian
from editing
to thank Sheila excellent
this
Leela Sasaki,
and text
Bennett,
editorial
and the graphics
team made the report
vii
Hill,
Baird,
comments.
support
providing processing
to the analyses
Winters,
We
and guidance on the Daryl
The hard work by Gene Wattenburger
Hale and others
We would like
and AI Noonan, for
his
the analyses
to thank the
support.
peer review.
when this
Jim Droppo, Pete Chamberlain,
would like
and Pat Hays for
for
woulG also like
Vern Hall
to thank Bill
can be completed
ing personnel.
insight
his continuing
Serne of PNL for
and Tom Jones of PNL also provide and Bob Miller
Project
from the PNL and WHCpeer reviewers
to thank Jeff
Darby Stapp,
The authors
can not be completed without
work associated report.
acknowledgement to Bob Wegeng,. who was
deal of technical
manager, Tom Wood, for
to thank the WHCproject A report
to acknowledge those who worked on or reviewed
to extend a special
Bob provided
project
the help of many other
manager of the SST Waste Characterization
and the structure current
not have been completed without
process-
Dave Payson,
support
on this
group and Marlene a reality.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
b
ADL
analyticaldetection limit
CPF
cancer potency factor
CT
concentrationthreshold
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DLGs
detection limit goals
DQO
data quality objective
_B
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
.
EDTA
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
EHW
extremely hazardeus waste
EIS
environmentalimpact statement
EPA
U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
GTCC
greater than Class C
IRIS
IntegratedRisk InformationSyste_
Kd
adsorptioncoefficient
LTRR
Long-Term Release Risk
MEPAS
Multimedia EnvironmentalPollutant Assessment System
NAS
National Academy of Science
NIOSH
National Instituteof Occupational Safety and Health
NRC
U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission
OU
operable unit
PNL
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
RCRA
Resource ConservationRecovery Act
RDF
radiologicaldosimetry factors
RfD
referencedose
ix
SEIS
supplementalenvironmental impact statement
SST
single-shelltank
STIR
short-term intruder risk 4
TEC
toxicity equivalent concentration
TR_AC
Tracks radioactive components
WAC
Washington AdministrativeCode
WC
Waste Classification
WCP
Waste CharacterizationPlan
WHC
WestinghouseHanford Company
CONTENTS
PREFACE •
...............................
iii
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...........................
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................
vi i
ACRONYMS ANDABBREVIATIONS ...................... 1.0
INTRODUCTION ..........................
1.1
DESCRIPTIONOF SINGLE-SHELLTANKSAT THE HANFORDSITE
2.0
3.0
I.I ......
1.2
1.2
EARLYEFFORTSTO CHARACTERIZESINGLE-SHELLTANK WASTE
1.3
DESCRIPTIONOF SINGLE-SHELLTANK WASTECHARACTERIZATION PLAN ............................
I. 7
1.4
REASONSFOR ISSUING THIS REPORT...............
I.I0
1.5
VOLUMEOUTLINE .......................
I.I0
. . .
OVERVIEWOF APPROACH ...................... DIFFERENTMETHODS OF RANKINGANALYTES
2.2
SELECTIONOF ANALYTEPRIORITIES
2.3
DETERMINATIONOF CONCENTRATION THRESHOLD VALUES
2.4
APPLICATION OF THE CONCENTRATION THRESHOLD CONCEPT .....
...........
2.1
..............
SINGLE-SHELLTANK ANALYTERANKINGANALYSIS
3.2
1.4
2. I
2.1
3.1
2.4 ......
2.7 2.8
...........
3.1
LONG-TERMRELEASERISK RANKINGMETHOD ...........
3.1
3.1.1
Long-Term Release Risk Ranking Scenario
Definition
3.1.2
Long-Term Release Risk Ranking Scenario
Results
SHORT-TERMINTRUDERRISK RANKINGSCENARIO 3.2.1
.
ix
Short-Term Definition
.
3.1
. . .
3.6
.........
Intruder Risk Ranking Scenario .....................
3.2.2 _hort-Term Intruder Risk Ranking Scenario Results . . 3.3 WASTE CLASSIFICATIONRANKING METHOD
xi
............
3.7 3.8 3.11 3.14
3.3.1 Dangerous Waste ClassificationDescription 3.3.2
4.0
5.0
6.0
.....
3.14
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Classification Description .....................
3.15
3.3.3 Waste ClassificationRanking Method Results .....
3.16
CONCENTRATIONTHRESHOLD VALUES FOR SINGLE-SHELLTANK ANALYTES 4.1
LONG-TERM RELEASE RISK CONCENTRATIONTHRESHOLD VALUES
4.2
SHORT-TERM INTRUDER RISK CONCENTRATIONTHRESHOLD VALUFS
4.3
WASTE CLASSIFICATIONCONCENTRATIONTHRESHOLD VALUES
4.4
APPLICATION OF THE CONCENTRATIONTHRESHOLD CONCEPT
. .
4.1
. . .
4.2
. .
4.3
.... .....
4.3 4.4
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .....................
5.1
5.1
SELECTION OF ANALYTE PRIORITIES
5.3
5.2
DETERMINATIONOF CONCENTRATION THRESHOLD VALUES
5.3
DETECTION LIMIT GOALS BASED ON HEALTH RISK
REFERENCES
.............. ......
........
5.3 5.10
...........................
6.1
APPENDIX A - DESCRIPTION OF LONG-TERM RELEASE RISK ANALYTE METHOD BY TANK FARM GROUP ...................
A.I
APPENDIX B - RADIOACTIVEWASTE AND NIOSH TOXICITY CLASSIFICATION FOR SINGLE-SHELLTANK ANALYTE ANALYSIS .........
B.I
APPENDIX C - RISK INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR ANALYTES WITH DECAY PRODUCTS ........................
C.I
APPENDIX D - COMPARISONDF CONCENTRATIONTHRESHOLD VALUES TO STANDARD HEALTH IMPACT LEVELS ..............
D.I
APPENDIX E - CONCENTRATIONTHRESHOLD LIMITS FOR LONG-TERM RELEASE RISK, SHORT-TERM INTRUDER RISK, AND WASTE CLASSIFICATION RANKING METHODS BY TANK FARM GROUPS ...........
E.I
APPENDIX F - COMPARISONOF DETECTION LIMIT GOALS, ANALYTICAL DETECTION LIMITS, AND 241-B-110 TRAC AND MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS .....................
F.I
xii
FIGURES
I.I 1.2
Wastes Contained Characterization
in the Hanford Single-Shell Tanks Require in Order to Make Prudent Closure Decisions
. . .
1.3
Schematic of the Location of Single-Shell Tanks and Other Related Facilities in the 200 Areas ..............
1.5
1.3
Relationship Between the Preliminary and the Waste Characterization Plan
1.11
1.4
Overview of the Preliminary
3.1
The Single-Shell Tank Analyte Ranking Process Using the long-Term Release Risk Ranking Method .............
3...4
The Single-Shell Tank Analytes Ranking Process Using the Short-Term Release Risk Ranking Method .............
3.13
The Single-3hell Tank Analyte Ranking Process Using the Waste Classification Ranking Method ..............
3.18
Diagram of the Single-Shell Ali Three Ranking Methods
5.5
I
3.2 3.3 5.1 5.2 5.3
Recommendations Report ...............
Recommendations Report
Tank Analyte ....................
.......
Ranking Process Using
Diagram of the Single-Shell Tank Analyte Concentration Values Using the Most Restrictive Values ............
Threshold
Diagram of the Relationship Between the Single-Shell Tank Analyte Ranking, Concentration Threshold Values, and Proposed Detection Limit Goals Using Ali Three Methods ..........
xiii
1.12
5.9
5.12
TABLES 2.1
List
of Analytes
2.1
List
of SST Analytes
3.1
Carcinogen Analyte
3.2
Noncarcinogen
3.3
Carcinogen Analyte
3.4
Noncarcinogen
3.5
Carcinogen Analyte
3.6
Noncarcinogen
5.1
Combined S_r Analyte
5.2
Alternate
5.3
Concentration
Threshold
Values for
Carcinogen Analytes
5 4
Conuentrati_n
Threshold
Values for
Noncarcinogen
5.5
Single-Shell Limits that
5.6 5.7 A.I A.2 A.3 A.4
of Potential W;thout
Concern
...............
Tank Inventories
2.5 ..........
2.6
Ranking Based on Long-Term Release P.isk
Analyte
3.6
. .
3.8
. .
3.11
.
3.12
Ranking Based on Long-Term Release Risk
Ranking Based on Short-Term
Analyte
Intruder
Ranking Based on Short-Term
Risk
Intruder
Risk
Ranking Based on Waste Classification
Analyte
....
Ranking Based on Waste Classification Ranking
Combined SST Ana|yte
. . .
.................. Ranki_g
.............
3.17
5.6 . ....
5.7
....
5.8
Analytes
Single-Shell Tank Analytes with Svspect Analytical Li_r,its and that Appear to be in Small Quantities that Need Analytical ........................
3.16
5.4
Tank An:.lytes with Suspect Analytical Detection Appear to be in Large Quantities ..........
Important Analytes to be Determined
. . .
J
Detection
Detection ........
5.13 5.14
Limits 5.15
Long-Term Release Risk Method Risk Indexes for Noncarcinogen and Carcinogens in Tank Farm Group A ..............
A.5
Long-Term Release Risk Method Risk Indexes for Noncarcinogen and Carcinogens in Tank Farm Group B ..............
A.6
Long-Term Release Risk Method Risk Indexes for Noncarcinogen and Carcinogens in Tank Farm Group C ..............
A.7
Long-Term Release Risk Metho_ Risk Indexes for Noncarcinngen and Carcinogens in Tank Farm Group S ............
A.8 Q
A.5
Long-Term Release Risk Method Risk Indexes for and Carcinogens in Tank Farm Group T .............
xiv
Noncarcinogen A.9
A.6
Long-Term Release Risk Method Risk Indexes for and Carcinogens in Tank Farm Group U ...............
B.I
Long- and Short-Lived
Radionuclide
B.2
Equivalent
C.I
Parent-Daughter
D.I
Comparison of Concentration
E.I
Long-Term Release Risk Ranking Scenario for Carcinogenic Analytes ....................
Noncarcinogen
Concentrations
A. IO Threshold
. . .
B.3
and Other Compounds . .
B.4
4
E.2 E.3 E.4
Toxicity
Category for
Relationships
Analytes
and Chemical Threshold
Properties
Intruder Risk Concentration of Chemicals .....................
Short-Term Release Risk Concentration Ingestion of Chemicals .....................
C.3
to Standard Risk Levels Concentration
. .
D.2
Thresholds E.I
Long-Term Release Risk Concentrations Thresholds Noncarcinogeni c Analytes ................... Short-Term Inhalation
......
Thresholds
for E.2 for E.3
Thresholds
for E.i
E.5
Concentration
Thresholds
for
Inhalation
E.6
Concentration
Thresholds
for
Ingestion
E.7
Concentration
Thresholds
for
Ground Exposure of Radionuclides
E.8
Concentration
Thresholds
for Waste Classification
E.9
Concentration
Thresholds
for Waste Classification
F.I
Detection Limit Goals, Analytical Detection Limits, and 241-B-II0 TRAC and Measured Concentrations for Type I Carcinogens ...........................
F. I
Detection Limit Goals, Analytical Detection Limits, and 241-B-II0 TRAC and Measured Concentrations for Type I Noncarcinogens .........................
Fo2
Detection Limit Goals, Analytical Detection Limits, and 241-B-II0 TRAC and Measured Concentrations for Type II Carcinogens ..........................
F.3
Detection Limit Goals, Analytical Detection Limits, and 241-B-II0 TRACand Measured Concentrations for Type II Noncarcinogens ........................
F.3
F.2
F.3 , F.4
XV
of Radionuclide_ of Radionuclides
....
E.5
.....
E.6 . .
........ Radionuclides
E.7 E.8
.
E.9
F.5
Detection Limit Goals, Analytical Detection Limits, and 241-B-110 TRAC and Measured Concentrationsfor Type III Carcinogens ..........................
F.4
Detection Limit Goals, AnalyticalDetection Limits, and 241-B-110 TRAC and Measured Concentrationsfor Type III Noncarcinogens ........................
F.5
Detection Limit Goals, AnalyticalDetection Limits, and 241-B-110 TRAC and Measured Concentrationsfor Unranked Carcinogens ...........................
F.5
F.8 Detection Limit Goals, Analytical Detection Limits, and 241-B-110 TRAC and Measured Concentrationsfor Unranked Noncarcinogens ........................
F.6
F.6
F.7
xvi
'
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The work described in this volume was conducted by Pacific Northwest Lab•
oratory(a)to provide preliminaryrecommendationson data quality objectives (DQOs) to support the Waste CharacterizationPlan (WCP) and closure decisions for the Hanford Site single-shelltanks (SSTs). The WCP describes the first of a two-phase characterizationprogram that will obtain informationto assess and implement disposal options for SSTs. This work was performed for the WestinghouseHanford Company (WHC), the current operating contractoron the Hanford Site. Data quality objectives provide decision makers with information on the type, quantity, and quality of the data needed to make closure decisions on SSTs. Accurate estimates of the inventoriesof the tanks are needed to categorize, treat, and close each SST. Unfortunately,the inventory of each tank is not well known; thus, it will require a detailed characterizationprogram to supply the critical informationon which to base decisions for disposal of the waste and closure of the tanks, lt is also important to know which analytes are most important (type of data) in the closure process and the analytical detection limits (ADLs) required for those analytes (quality of data) to properly characterizethe waste in the tanks. The preliminary DQOs contained in this volume deal with the analysis of SST wastes in support of the WCP and final closure decisions.(b_ These DQOs include information on significant contributorsand detection limit goals (DLGs) for SST analytes based on public health risk. Final closure decisions
i
(a) m
Pacific Northwest Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Battelle Memorial Institute. (b) Final closure decisions are considered to be separate and distinct from safety issues associatedwith current and future storage of the SST wastes. This report does not address characterizationof the SST wastes in support of resolving such safety issues. 1.1
include "leave" or "retrieve"decisions(a)for each SST, and the selection and implementationof a remediationsystem for the ultimate disposition of the wastes. A "leave" decision for an SST indicates in-tank treatment of the waste (e.g., grouting or in situ vitrification),while a "retrieve"closure
•
decision indicates removal of the waste and offsite disposal of at least some portion of the tank contents in a waste repository. For the purpose of this report, remediationdecisions and closure decisions are considered to be synonymous. The recommendationsand preliminary DQOs in this report pertain to the design of the characterizationeffort and provide informationon sampling and analysis techniques that can reduce resources (worker impacts) and increase the value of characterizationinformation obtained. The recommendationsin this volume, the first of four volumes to be issued, focus on developing DQOs that determine requirementsfor identifyingsignificant analytes and DLGs for the characterizationprogram. Subsequent volumes will deal with recommendations for the number of cores to be sampled from each tank and discuss the advantages and disadvantagesof analyzing individual core segments versus core composites. 1.1 DESCRIPTIONOF SINGLE-SHELLTANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE The Hanford Site SST closure process involves 149 concrete underground storage tanks, each containing a single steel-shell liner and ranging in capacity from 55,000 to 1,000,000gallons (Figure 1.1). The tanks were designed to contain the chemical and radioactive waste products of nuclear fuel separation processes that were performed in the 200 East and 200 West (a) For this report, the "leave/retrieve"question is consideredto be a question regarding whether the waste in a tank can be acceptably disposed of while within the tank, or whether acceptabledisposal will require retrieval (prior to processing and disposal). As such, resolution of the "leave/retrieve"question is part of the development of a closure plan for the tanks. A number of subtleties are involved in a "leave/retrieve" decision, including the possibility that the waste may have been judged to be unacceptablefor near-surfacedisposal (e.g., containing transuranic wastes in concentrationsgreater than 100 nCi/g) or that the most risk/cost-effectivemethod for treating the waste requires that the waste first be retrieved. 1.2
|
Production Phase
l I li I ill ]liJilllillilli lt
1944-
55,000 - 1,000,000 GallonCapacity I Single-ShellTanks 1
' 1980
Gr--3 _, _ _ __
•_
..:.,ijitllJltllllllll__i_-
