OBallelle - International Atomic Energy Agency

_//

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_-