PB99-964602
EPA541-R99-039
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Hanford Site
100 and 200 Areas (USDOE)
Benton County, WA
7/15/1999
-------
-------
INTERIM ACTION RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
U.S. Department of Energy Hanford 100 Area and 200 Area
EPA ED SWA38900900076 and WAI 890090078
100-BC-l, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-l, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-l, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1 100-HR-2
100-KR-l, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units
Hanford Site
Benton County, Washington
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial actions for portions of the U S
Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford 100 Area (100 Area Remaining Sites) 100 Area reactor
waste and portions of the 200 Area, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, which were
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative
Record for this site and for the specific operable units.
The State of Washington concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITES
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the waste sites and reactor buildings
it not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this Interim Action Record of'
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health
welfare, or the environment. '
INTEGRATION OF CERCLA AND RCRA REQUIREMENTS
The DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (referred to as the Tri-Parties) recognize the similarities between
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) corrective action and CERCLA
remedial action processes and their common objective of protecting human health and the
environment from potential releases of hazardous substances, wastes, or constituents As such
the Tn-Parties are electing to combine response actions under RCRA corrective action and
CERCLA remedial action.
-------
, aU*°ritieS have dear jurisdiction over waste with chemical
Tri T£ f v Mler aCU°n ^ be required mder Fcderal ""d «*« law. In parfculi
my B "8"1 ""^ RCM C0rrective ^o11 shaU addS? '
U« pursuant to a Class .permit modification, as specified in Washington Administrative Code
P«™«r i.;?-?' ^^ ^ public wil1 have *« opportunity to comment on the
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This fiiterim Action ROD includes three types of sites. The first type of sites are identified in
.,ta .00
Remove contaminated soil, structures, and associated debris
Treat these wastes as required to meet ERDF requirements
Dispose of contaminated materials at the Hanford Site's ERDF
11
-------
Backfill excavated areas with clean material and revegetate the areas.
In addition to the selected alternative for 46 waste sites identified in Table A-l, the use of the
"plug-in approach" for remedy selection at more than 161 other 100 Area sites and sites within
the 200-CW-3 Operable Unit (identified in Table A-2) will be implemented. The sites contained
in Table A-2 are candidates for remediation using the Remove/Treat/Dispose alternative;
however, further sampling is required to determine if there is a need for remedial action.
Because these sites are similar to the 46 sites being proposed for the Remove/Treat/Dispose
alternative, they will "plug-in" to this -same remedy if a remedial action is warranted.
/
Any newly discovered 100 Area sites requiring remedial action that are identified after remedy
selection and that are similar to the 100 Area Remaining Sites will also be "plugged-in" to the'
Remove/Treat/Dispose remedy. The Tri-Parties will notify the public regarding the decision to
plug-in newly discovered waste sites through the periodic publication of Explanations of
Significant Differences.
This ROD also identifies the selected alternative for disposal of hazardous and radioactive
equipment and debris from the 105-B, 105-D, 105-H, 105-KE, and 105-KW Reactor buildings at
the ERDF. The alternative for disposal of reactor building waste is consistent with previous
CERCLA disposal decisions for the 100-C, 100-F, and 100-DR Reactor areas.
This Interim Action ROD also provides a decision framework to evaluate leaving some
contamination in place at a limited number of sites, specifically where contamination is located
at depths greater than 4.6 m (15 ft). The decision to leave contaminated wastes in place at such
sites will be a site-specific determination made during remedial design and remedial action
activities that will balance the extent of remediation with protection of human health and the
environment, disturbance of ecological and cultural resources, worker health and safety,
remediation costs, operation and maintenance costs, and radioactive decay of short-lived
radionuclides (half life less than 30.2 years [e.g., cesium-137]) radionuclides. The application of
the criteria for the balancing factors and the process for determining the extent of remediation at
deep sites will be made by EPA and Ecology. Any decision to leave waste in place will occur
after the public has been asked to comment on the proposal to leave waste in place.
in
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy specified for this interim action is protective of human health and the
environment; complies with Federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or are
relevant and appropriate, for this interim action; and is cost effective. PPucaDie> or «
Although this interim action is not intended to fully address the statutory mandate for
£e^n?™rth e*^en« t0^& maxij?um extent Practicable, this interim action does utilize
treatment and, thus, is in furtherance of that statutory mandate.
oud substances remaining onsite above levels that allow
dr t •' re^6W l be conducted to ensurc that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment within 5 years after the
SSS^^fT^ action- ?* is ** ***** Action ROD> therefore- review
m^S^? T^ be °n?omS « ** Tri-Parties continue to develop final remedial
measures for the 1 00 Area National Priorities List site.
, mterPretati011 that when noncontiguous facilities are
' ^ ^ WHSteS at ^^ Sites « co^Patible for a selected
°?*i CERCLA'Section 104«W allows me lead agency to treat these
as one site for response purposes and, therefore, allows the lead a-encv to
"rT ^^etween «** noncontiguous faciHties without having to S a
100 ^^ ^ 2°° ^^ Sites addressed ^ this Interim Action ^D and
t0 °ne ""^ ^ « considered to be a single site for response
IV
-------
Signature sheet for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the U.S. Department of Energy
S?5j? 10°-BC-1' 100-BC-2, 100-DR-l, 100-DR-2,100-FR-l, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-l,
100-HR-2,100-KR-l, 100-KR-2,100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-GW-3 Operable Units interim
remedial actions between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, with concurrence by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Keith Klein
Manager, Richland Operatic!
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
-------
Regional Administrator, Region 10 Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
Signature sheet for the Interim Action Record of Decision for the U.S. Department of Ener<*y
?^f 10°-BC-1> 100-BC-2, 100-DR-l, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-l, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-l,
100-HR-2, 100-KR-l, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2,100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Unit interim
remedial actions between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, with concurrence by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Misbael WUson Date
Program Manager, Nuclear Waste Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OFDECISION .................
I- DECISION SUMMARY ...
E f25NAME' LOCATION,' AND DESCRIPTION .............................. J
JIL SITEHISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ' ........................... l
IV. KGHLIGHTSOFCONIMUNTrYPARTICIPATioN .......................... \*
VI. S^PCEHSP°NSE ACTON ^^'^E STRATEGY" '. \ '. \ \ \ \ \l
VE. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ........................................... 19
VTfl. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ....................................... 23
K. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................... 25
' ANAL'YSIS 'OF '^TERNXxrvEs : : .' : ! ! : : : : ; ; 2297
XE. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ........................................ 34
Xm. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES '.'.".'.'.".".'.'.'.";;; ............ "
APPENDICES
A. WASTE SITE TABLES
B. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY ......................................... A-i
................... ...................... B-i
vm
-------
-------
I. DECISION SUMMARY
«««j-iuouiiy ACI oj iy#u (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Sites: the 100 Area, the 200 Area, the 300 A^S^nS) A^ ^ ^^ " fourNPL
scH 10° ^wide Phase 1 «* 2 feasibility study and operable unit (OU)
^^^
of human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessmemTwS alsT '
T^^^r00" effCCtS °f C0ntamin^ « humar, health Id the
fot H ^^^ PhaS£ 3 Source waste site feas*ilitv ^dv and 100 .Area
j-spccic focused feasibility studies also were conducted to evaluate siecific waste site
remedial action goals, remedial action objectives (RAOs), and technolo£s
II. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Son Se^e nl ^ aT°S> Srazing' "" teiS^ted wildlife re&ses. Tie
"° ™cludes *= ^otporated cmes of Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick (Tri-CWes) and
"
-------
Figure 1. Map of the Hanford Site Showing the Reactors in the 100 Areas and
the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility.
White Bluffs Area
(100-IU-2 Operable Unit)
200-Northkwaj-ea 10
-------
disposal sites in the 100 Area and will, therefore, be considered as part of the 100 Area
Remaining Sites. These waste sites received cooling water and sludge from 100 Area reactor
operations. The remainder of the above operable units include waste sites around the 100 Area
production reactors where liquid and solid radioactive wastes and industrial chemicals were
disposed to the soil.
100 Area Land Use
Pre-Hanford uses included Native American usage and agriculture. Existing land use in the
100 Area includes facilities support, waste management, and undeveloped land. Facility support
activities include operations such as water treatment and maintenance of the reactor buildings.
The contaminated waste site land area resulted from former uncontrolled disposal activities in
areas now known as "past-practice waste sites." which are located throughout the 100 Area.
Lastly, there are undeveloped lands that comprise approximately 90% of the land area within the
100 Area. The undeveloped areas are the least disturbed-and contain minimal infrastructure. A
29-km (18-mi) stretch of the Columbia River is located within the 100 Area. The shoreline of
the Columbia River is a valued ecological area within the Hanford Site. Portions of the shoreline
within the 100 Area are within the 100-year flood plain of the Columbia River. Semi-arid land
with a sparse covering of cold desert shrubs and drought-resistant grasses dominates the Hanford
Site's landscape. Approximately 40% of the area's annual average rainfall of 6.25 in occurs
between November and January. Wetlands along the Columbia River are contained within the
boundaries of the 100 AreaNPL site.
In 1992, The Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group recommended that the 100 Area be
considered for the following four future land-use options:
Native American uses
Limited recreation, recreation-related commercial use, and wildlife use
• " 105-B Reactor as a museum and visitor center
Wildlife and recreational use.
The working group report was submitted to DOE as a formal scoping document for development
of DOE's Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive
Land-Use Plan (HRA-EIS). A draft of the HRA-EIS, released to the public in August 1996,
generated a variety of comments on a number of issues. In response, DOE made significant'
revisions to the draft document. A revised draft HRA-EIS was made available for public
comment on April 23, 1999. This document evaluated five "action alternatives," each of which
represented a Federal, state, local agency, or Tribe's preferred land-use alternative. Preferred
land-uses for the 100 Area included varying degrees and combinations of preservation,
conservation, research and development, and recreation. The public comment period on the
revised draft HRA-EIS ended on June 7, 1999. DOE is currently evaluating comments in
preparation for issuance of a final land-use determination.
At this time, a final land-use for the 100 Area has not been established. For the purposes of this
interim action, the RAOs are for "unrestricted use," consistent with the previous 100 Area soil
-------
cleanup decisions. The Tri-Parties may re-evaluate RAOs and cleanup goals selected in this
ROD following issuance of the land-use determination.
III. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
The Hanford Site was established during World War E as part of the Manhattan Project to
produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Hanford Site operations began in 1943 and DOF
facilities are located throughout the Hanford Site and the city of Richland, Washington. Certain
portions of the Hanford Site are .known to have cultural and historical significance and mav be
eligible for listing hi the National Register of Historic Places.
In 1988, the Hanford Site was scored using EPA's hazard ranking system. As a result of the
scoring, the Hanford Site was added to the NPL in November 1989 as four sites (i e the 100
Area, the 200 Area, the 300 Area, and the 1100 Area). Each of these areas was further divided
into OLs (a grouping of individual waste units based primarily on geographic area and common
waste sources). The 100 Area NPL site consists of the following OUs for contaminated sources
such as soils, structures, debris, and burial grounds: 100-BC-l, 100-BC-"* 100-KR-l lOO-KR-'*
100-NR-l, 100-DR-l, 100-DR-2, 100-HR-l, 100-HR-2, 100-FR-l, 100-FR-? 100-IU-l
100-IU-2,100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, 100-IU-5, and 100-IU-6 OUs. For contaminated szroundwater the
following OUs are included: 100-BC-5, 100-KR-4, 100-NR-2, 100-HR-3, and 100-FR-3
Previous RODs have addressed priority waste sites in the 100 Area. The waste sites bein*
considered for remediation in this ROD are in the 100-BC-l, 100-BC-2 100-DR-l 100-DR-?
iiS"™- 10°-FR-2' 10°-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-l, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-fu-6, and "
-UO-C^-j OLs. Because of their process history, the Tri-Parties have determined that the waste
sites of the 200-CW-3 OU waste site group are most closely aligned with liquid waste disposal
sites in the 100 Area and will, therefore, be considered as part of the 100 Area Remaining Sites
Also, contaminated equipment and debris from the 105-B, 105-KE, 105-KW, 105-H and 105-D
Reactors are being addressed by this Interim Action ROD.
Operable Unit Background
100-B/C Area. The 105-B Reactor, constructed in 1943, operated from 1944 through 1968
when it was retired from service. The 105-C Reactor, constructed in 1951, operated'from 195^
mn J£ V-T " alS° WaS retired fr°m Service- Currently, the only active facilities in the
100-BC-l OL are those that extract and treat water from the Columbia River and transport that
water to other 100 Area and 200 Area facilities. The 100-BC-l and 100-BC-2 OUs located in
100-B-C Area, include contaminant sources, and the 100-BC-5 OU includes contamination
present m the underlying groundwater. The 100-BC-l OU encompasses approximately 1 8 km2
(O./ mr) and is located immediately adjacent to the Columbia River shoreline. In <*eneral the
OL contains waste units associated with the original plant facilities constructed to support'
B Reactor operation, as well as the cooling water retention basin systems for both B and C
Reactors (see Figure 2).
4
-------
100-D Area. The 105- DR Reactor operated from 1950 to 1964, when it was retired from
service. Currently, sanitary and fire protection water is provided to the 100-H and 100-F Areas
from the 100-D Area. The 100-DR-l and 100-DR-2 are source OUs in the 100-D Area. The
100-HR-3 is the groundwater OU for the 100-D/DR and 100-H Areas. The 100-D/DR Area
contains two reactors: the 105-D Reactor associated with the 100-DR-l OU, and the 105-DR
Reactor associated with the 100-DR-2 OU. The D Reactor operated from 1944 to 1967, when it
was retired (see Figure 3).
100-H Area. The 105-H Reactor complex was constructed after World War H to produce
Plutonium for use in military weapons. The H Reactor operated from 1949 to 1965 when it was
retired from service. Currently there are no active facilities, operations, or liquid discharges
within the 100-HR-l source OU. The 100-HR-l and 100-HR-2 source OUs, located in the
100-H Area, include contaminant sources, and the 100-HR-3 groundwater OU includes
contamination present in the underlying groundwater. The OU contains waste units associated
with the original plant facilities constructed to support the H Reactor. The area also contains
evaporation basins that received liquid process wastes and non-routine deposits of chemical
wastes from the 300 Area (where fuel elements for the 105-N Reactor were produced) These
solar evaporation basins received wastes from 1973 throush 1985 and are regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as treatment, storaae, and disposal
facilities (see Figure 4). ~
100-F Area. The 100-F Area is situated in the north-central part of the Hanford Site alon* the
southern shoreline of the Columbia River, approximately 32 km (20 mi) northwest of the city of
Richiand, Washington. The 105-F Reactor was constructed from 1943 to 1945 and operated
from 1943 to 1963. Most of the facilities associated with the F Reactor, other than the biolo-ical
research facilities, were also retired in 1965. The 100-FR-l and 100-FR-2 source OUs located
in the 100-F Area, include contaminant sources, and the 100-FR-3 sroundwater OU includes
contamination in the underlying groundwater. The OUs contain wa^te units associated with the
original plant facilities constructed to support F Reactor operation, as well as the coolin* water
retention basin systems for the F Reactor and biological laboratories for studvins the effects of
radiation on plants and animals (see Figure 5). ' ~
100-K Area. The 100-K Area is situated in the north-central part of the Hanford Site alon* the
southern shoreline of the Columbia River, approximately 40 km (25 mi) northwest of the cttv of
Richland, Washington. The 105-KW Reactor operated from 1955 to 1970 and the 10--KE '
fnSnC^°Peratef fr°m 1955 t0 197L ^ ^Q-K*-1 ^d 100-KR-2 source OUs, located in the
100-K Area, include contaminant sources, and the 100-KR-4 groundwater OU include
c°nts™u*atlon m the underlying groundwater. Currently, there are several active facilities within
the 100-K Area. They include the 105-KE and 105-KW fuel storage basins, which are used to
store spent fuel from the N Reactor; the alum tanks adjacent to Buildins 1S3.1-KE; Buildin°-
1706-KE for research and development activities; one pumphouse; one~water treatment facility
and septic tanks and leach fields used for disposal of sanitary waste (see Figure 6).
100-IU-2 and 100-IU-6 OUs. The 100-IU-2 and 100-IU-6 OUs are the former locations of
temporary housing and support facilities for the Manhattan Project and include the former town
-------
°US
of construction
200 North Cooling Water Pond. Operations in the 200 North Area were mainly related to
irradiated nuclear fuel storage. Tie purpose of the facilities in this area was to provide a storage
sue for the fuel while the radioisotope decay processes for many of the short-lived radioisotopes
were occurring. The area is located approximately 7 to 12 km (4 to 7.5 mi) south of the
1 00 Areas and immediately north of the 200 Areas. The 200-CW-3 waste site group includes
contaminant sources resulting from the release of cooling water from the fuel storage basins (see
-------
Figure 2. 100 Area Remaining Sites in the 100-BC-l and 100-BC-2
Operable Units.
Columbia
River
100-BC-1
Operable Unit
.
Reactor —fv.-
--.- --~4r"' "Ute**0^ • j:
•__j1Cu-LJU-4l« --StiA.
Operable Unit' -^C
RemoveiTrear/Dispose Site
A Sampling Site
-------
Figure 3. 100 Area Remaining Site in the 100-DR-l and 100-DR-2
Operable Units.
£
-!
-•*..
•
i
•
i
Operable Unit S . .'.
^_ « . —v ••• ' -'
.'rReaaoai~"jt~< , ^:
!fi 'i | ^Sfe-- fe*.
I
3.
, -\
j^/XT
; ^.= ~**
"t, r~+
^lOO-DR-2
-Operable Unit"1,/
"A~ -—
i
•
i
•
i
i
•
i
i
i
•
i
>
i
»
t
. *-
i
•
i
RemoveTTrear/Dispose Site
A Sampling Site
Okm
1km
-------
Figure 4. 100 Area Remaining Site in the 100-HR-l and 100-HR-2
Operable Units.
Columbia
River
1QO-HR-2
.Operable Unit
Remove/Treat/Dispose Sins
A Sampling Site
-------
Figure 5. 100 Area Remaining Site in the 100-FR-l and 100-FR-2
Operable Units.
L
I
r*
: 100-FR-1
.1 Operable Unit
".105F
\
"---•^
100-FR-2
Operable Unit
5
2
ij
Remove/Treai/Dispose Site
A Sampling Site
J
J
-------
Figure 6. 100 Area Remaining Site in the 100-KR-l and 100-KR-2
Operable Units.
100-KR-i
/'Operable Unit
x /•
X*'
\t /
\ ,:
\ \
+ •" ..105KE .,:;-::v»^ '..A
•' '
Remove/Treat/Dispose Site
A Sampling Site
-------
Figure 7. 100 Area Remaining Site in the 100-IU-2 Operable Unit.
Remove/Treat/Dispose Site
A Sampling Sice
-------
Figure 8. 100 Area Remaining Site in the 100-IU-6 Operable Unit.
** a ^
* 100-HJ-6
Operable Unit
200-IU-3
Operable Unit
• Remove/Treat/Dispose Site
A Sampling Site
-------
Figure 9. 100 Area Remaining Site in the 200-CW-3 Operable Unit.
2GO-NO-1
Operable Uhi
\ ^.
2QO-IU-5 \ Nv
Operable Unit
-------
IV. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The DOE, Ecology, and EPA developed a community relations plan (CRP) in April 1990 as cart
reSt°rati0n- ^CRP W3S desi^ed»P-motepublic awaxeneTso?
*** decisi°^aking process. The CRP sxunmiLs
ene an conjrniimty interviews. Since that time, several public meetings have
aboutaford sTTS feCt ^^ ^ been ****** * » effort to keep the public mformed
5
SHE RL of ^ f?l nfrZ? RemldialAc«°™ <* ** 100 Area Remaining Sites,
mnp'^tlli 7J°°^88 S°UrCe °perable Unit Focused Feasibility Study
£ml"^ } WCre e aValIabIe t0 ^ pubUc * both *« Administrative Record and the
mformauon repositones maintained at the locations listed below on November 2 1998
^^^ ^ Pr0p°sed acti°n ^ infonned &e Pub^ that thcv could
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (contains all project documents)
U.S. Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office
Administrative Record Center
2440 Stevens Center
Richland, Washington 99352
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES (contain limited documentation)
University of Washington Gonzaga University, Foley Center
Suzzallo Library E. 502 Boone
Government Publications Room Spokane, Washington 99^58
Seattle, Washington 98195
Portland State University DOE Richland Public Reading Room
Branford Pnce Millar Library Washington State University Tri-cLs
Science and Engineering Floor 2770 University Drive, Room 1 0 LL
SW Harrison and Park Richland, Washington 9935?
Portland, Oregon 97207
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in the Tri-City Herald on
November 1 , 1 998, The public comment period was held from November -> %>
December 2, 1998. No public meeting was requested during the comment period All submitted
wntten comments can be found in the Administrative Record. Responses to the public
15
-------
^
the.Selected i»teim remedy for the 1 00 Area Remaining Sites at
V.
SCOPE AM) ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
1 ad T s
105 KE anrf 1 n^vw Tabl\A:2 ^ contaminated equipment from the 105-B, 105-D 105-H
-'1 to a ^ R°D ^ IhS 'StSSfS an, a
The Observational Approach
-------
The interim remedial action selected by this Interim Action ROD has the following specific
RAOs:
Protect human and ecological receptors from surface exposure to contaminants in soils
structures, and debris by exposure, inhalation, or ingestion of radionuclides, inorganics
ororgamcs. 0^^-*,
Control the sources of groundwater contamination to minimize the impacts to
groundwater resources, protect the Columbia River from further adverse impacts and
reduce the degree of groundwater cleanup that may be required under future actions.
Provide the highest degree of protection of human health and the environment through
removal and disposal of the mass of contamination so institutional controls and/or
long-term monitoring are not required.
These objectives will be achieved by implementing the Remove/Treat/Dispose alternative as
appropriate or required. *
Plug-In Approach
This Interim Action ROD also provides a regulatory framework for a "plug-in" approach for
input to remediation decisions for analogous sites instead of a rigorous site characterization effort
that is often conducted during a remedial investigation. The plug-in approach is a process that is
proposed for more than 161 of the 100 and 200 Areas sites identified to date (see Table A-?) In
tne hiture, the plug-in approach is proposed for any newly discovered 100 Area waste site that is
similar to the 100 Area Remaining Sites. The plug-in approach benefits the goal of remediating
waste sites m the 100 Area. The traditional CERCLA approach for remedv selection would
require the development of multiple proposed plans and RODs that, for similar sites, would be
nearly identical to the feasibility studies, proposed plans, and RODs alreadv developed and
proven to be successful. The plug-in approach allows remedial actions to bean much more
quickly at a site and without the need for redundant remedv selection processes.
The plug-in approach requires three main elements to establish its use as a cost-effective tool for
remediation in the 100 Area. First, multiple sites must be identified that share common physical
and contaminant characteristics. These characteristics are referred to as the site profile. Second
a remedial alternative, or standard remedv, must be established that has been shown to be
protective and cost effective for sites sharing the common site profile. Lastlv, sites sharin- a
common site profile must be shown to require remedial action due to contaminant concenJations
that pose a nsk to human health and the environment.
nn describes how ±e Plu§'in approach is proposed to be used for remedv
at the 100 Area Remaining Sites. Costs are also provided for addressins sites that are '
candidates for the plug-in approach.
Establishing of the Site Profile
17
-------
Types of contaminants (e.g., radiological, chemical)
Types of contaminated environmental media (e.g soil)
Types of contaminated waste material (e.g., concrete, metal, wood).
Tri-Parties have a^ed ^ address the
™~ ***** ****** &°m
Onnation'
Establishing of the Standard Remedy
of irradi^d^actor
Tn-Parties have determined that the 100 and ?00 Areas sites
or££Z££j, S.'S^Sr8 r=sulted " "» disposal of OVCT one milli- <
sues listed m Table A-2 and for similar waste sites that may be identified in the future in the 100
Establishing the Need for Remedial Action
standard remedv i
?° ^T6^16 risk t'
18
-------
that a site does not fit the site profile but contains contaminants that exceed these criteria.
.
cleanup aCtl°n ^ ^ deferred t0 a SCparate CERCLA acdon or °fcer regulatory authority for
S^™ ^c°vered 10° A«a sites may be identified after the ROD or subsequent decision
documentation is signed and the Hanford RCRA Permit is modified. Where these newly
fcri0°neieetSltef "" df'ermined by ** Tri-Parties to fit the site profile and require remedial
remediated using the standard remedy of Remove/Treat/Dispose
M- i. *r : estabHshed for me candidate plug-in sites will be the same as those <*oals
tStdOilSllCQ. lOr tllfi T5T*f*TPT"T^f"? r&'maf^ir r**< v*3**•*++£-C^^3 "—. ^.1^ tcr\ f t •»• • —
,. , . picicrrca remeay as laentined in the Treferred Interim Remedial Alternative"
section of this Interim Action ROD. *«uicuiai ^iiemanve
^ aPPIication of ^ PIug-* approach to the 100 Area
anations of Significant Differences when newly discovered
t0 be ab°Ve deanuP levels ^ can PluS-^ to the standard
remedy, or when sites listed in Table A-2 or newly discovered sites are above cleanup levels but
°° edy because *e sites do -^^ain characteristics'sLS to
A'h ^^ SiteS ^ be addressed ^"Sh a separate cleanup
VI. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
- characteristics ^ Ae 1 00 .Area, available historical data that were
summaries of the 100 aggregate area studies, and the results of the 100 .Area
Remaining Sites specific waste site evaluations are presented below.
Site Geology and Hydrology
Geology
portion of the Hanford Site, adjacent to the Columbia
Ste^wWrt f °10§1C S5"ctur^beneath 1* 10° Area is similar to much of the rest of the Hanford
Site, which consists of three distinct levels of soil formations (see Figure 2). The deepest level is
a truck series of basalt flows that have been warped and folded resulting ' • h
fr^nT^ntn'-o"^ S°mh I°,<;atio?S- The top of to basalt in the 100 Area ranges kTelevarion"
r " . ^ near t"e 1U0'K Area to 64 m (210 ft) below sea level near the 100-B/C Ai
Layers of silt, gravel, and sand known as the Ringold Formation form the middle level. The
19
-------
before
5 a mark£d west-to-east variation in the 100 Area. The main channel of
T ^ ^ UmtanUm ^ «* **™& ^ 10°-B/C «* "*&
S°Uthttoflo1w a'onS Gable Momt^ and/or through the Gable Mountain-
,§ relauvely a™ deP°sits of ^d and gravel in the 100-B/C and 100-K
Uppennostjevel IS known « «« Hanford formation and consists of gravel and sands
v
y ^.PaSC° §raVelS facies' Wi± Iocal occurrences of the sand-dominated or
S0il tes m ^ «« sand (34%),
from 1 meter near the nver to approximately 30 meters near the reactor buildings.
Columbia River. The Columbia River is the second largest river in North America and the
f *e HaTrd s'te^
^
recreanon, mctoding fisning, hunting, boating, sailboarding, waters^ d"4g
surface and subsurface to a maximum of 1 1.6 m (38 ft) below grade in the 100-B C \rea and 7 6
m ndon b2°W f H^ "^ IO°-D/:DR ^ 10°-H ^eaS- San?les ^^co^S^?
retennon basin sludge and concrete and from effluent line scale and sludge. The samples were
20
-------
and the inventories of radionuclides for the facilities and sites were
Results from Dorian and Richards were a major resource used to develop the 100
Area conceptual models and LFI data needs. It should be noted, however, that onlv
0^5 °f SdeCted radionuclides were reported in the 1975:1976 study
waror H 7 /* ^^ P^nt * aCtlvitieS °n ^ Same Order <>f magnitude as
' J35 reP'™* /or only some samples; technetium-99 was not evaluated; and daughter
r * °f TntiUm'9° ^ cesium-137> *"** have approximately the samf
as the parent nuchdes, were not included in summaries of total activity.
Background Study The evaluation of levels of naturally occurring constituents in Hanford Site
area soils and groundwater was undertaken to better understand baseline conditions against
which to evaluate potential cleanup levels and actions. A report on inorganic constituents in
oUs was released in May 1994 by DOE. Preliminary results of the evaluation of radionucWes
i ** PUIpOSeS °f Ae faterim **«* ******
this
A Pnn ****
Action ROD, background considerations for radionuclides are being considered in
r"v si/year dose, and then by specific analyte(s), as appropriate. For the 100 Area, the
,_ , - •» v ^ ^ - — —ft j---— •—•• +. -w* i^iw ju w Aki WO, LI
anA ,. Q -0/ : do!e ^sociated with radionuclides in soils is approximately 60 mrem/yr
and the 9>% upper confidence limit (UCL) dose is approximately 78 mrem/yr.
Ecological Analysis
Coh , P ^ Samplmg haVe been conducted ^ the 100 Area and in and alona the
Columbia River adjacent to the 100 Area (Sackschewsky and Landeen 1992, 100 Area CERCLA
ECOO& ^esnganon [WHC-EP-0448]; Weiss and Mitchell 1992, A Synthe^ofTcolo^
,
storJ TH *** **?"* *' CWHC-EP^SOl]). Samplmg includd plan^ with
^ of documented contaminant uptake or with an important position in the food
f°°d Chai11 from al§ae)' burrow s°« excavated
n T ^ 7f 6 SIteS' ^ PelletS CaSt by rapt°rs ^ c°y°te scat » determine
contamination of the upper end of the food chain. Bird, mammal, and plant survevs
" co°±led 1 ^^ ^ Sackschews^ ^d Landeen. Current contamination data have
s Td^n Sd tY SOUIf,S' " WeH M ecol°SicaI Path-^ and lists of all wildlife and
endansered species-
Cultural Resources Review
H , . the Hanford Cultural
es Laboratory conducted an archaeological survey durina fiscal vear 1991 of the 100
-Area reactor compounds on the Hanford Site. This survey was conducted as part of a
comprehensive cultural resources review of the 100 Area OUs in support of CERCLA.
characterization activities. The work included a literature and records review and a pedestrian
survey of the project area and followed procedures presented in the Hanford Cultural Resources
.vianasement .rlan.
21
-------
Nature and Extent of Contamination
^
Reactor cooling water treatment and supply
Reactor products and effluent handling
Reactor support facilities.
d
contamination of the ficilitte~^oF™~ ^^ """ """^ reSUltea m
SS5SSS»B»=»£S3L_
aasfeiisiSSS^ssass™"
comanunated w,* comaminants similar ,o those found in .he 100 iea SLor a^L
-------
VII. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Potential rides to human health and ecological receptors have been evaluated in qualitative risk
assessments for some of the individual waste sites in the 100 Area. Where remedial investigation
results are not available, potential risks were evaluated by comparison to analogous sites with
similar process history, similar environmental media, similar waste material, and similar
£o?T^tf JSTSld ^ *i10° Area S°UrCe °perable Uni: Focused Fruity Study
nn 1"^ • Tn-Parties have designated high- or medium-priority waste sites within the
100 Area as requiring remediation. The following paragraphs discuss the results of applying the
evaluation methods of the focused feasibility study report^, the 1 00 Area sites. The resuTs of
these evaluations show that remedial measures are warranted at 46 of the 100 Area sites
In the Superfund process, potential risks to human health and the environment are evaluated to
determine if significant risks exist due to site contaminants. Two types of potential human health
effects due to contact with site contaminants are evaluated at Superfund sitk The first is the
xl 0° aaLTeTn-6V '^ ^ ThiS P°tential increase is «P«««i exponential as 1 x 1O*. 1
x iu , and 1 x 10 (one in ten thousand, one in one hundred thousand, and one in a' million
3SS2?' meanS/? f°r ' l X ia4 ^ if 10'00° pe°PIe Were exposed to a'onSninant
of concern for some period of time, one additional person could be expected to be diagnosed
with cancer m his/her lifetime. Based on current national cancer rates, approximate!^ 500
h±e n ff m 6XPeCted t0 bC diagn°Sed Wlth CSnCer- For *e second tvpe of potential
human health effect, noncarcinogenic health impacts, a hazard index is calculate^ A hLrd
index greater than or equal to 1.0 may pose a potential adverse human health risk.
Human Health Risk
* °r kn°Wn t0 SXiSt at Waste Sites P°ses the P°temial for increased human
uL T T USerS' ^ l™1 of Potential heal
-------
Table A-l provides a comparison of representative maximum contaminant levels with the
preliminary remediation goals in soil for the contaminants of concern. The preliminary
remediation goals generally represent a 1 x 10'6 risk level, or hazard index of 1, for unrestricted
i^fn T^'I ,^elentatlVe maximuin contaminant levels are presented for five waste sites in the
100-DR-l, 100-DR-2, and 100-FR-l OUs. These data were taken from the qualitative risk
assessments for waste sites 1 OO-D-4, 1 00-D- 12, 1 OO-D-3 1,11 6-D-5 and 1 1 6-F- 1 5 A
comparison of these data to the preliminary remediation goals indicates that the risks to future
site users would be expected to be above the risk range of 1 x 1Q-4 to 1 x 10'6 and above a. hazard
index of 1. Calculation of site risk from these data shows that these contamination levels present
an average nsk of 7.2 x 1(T3. This risk level shows that remedial action is necessary at these
sites. J
sites.
Ecological Risk
Ecological risks from the 100 Area sites were estimated by evaluating potential impacts to the
Great Basin pocket mouse. Where remedial investigation results were not available ecolo-ical
^1^1^^ ^ COIDParil« 10° *«» sites to analogous sites with similar characteristics.
Risks to the Great Basin mouse were estimated assuming the food pathway was the primarv
route of exposure to both radionuclides and inorganic/organic contaminants. An environmental
hazard quotient (EHQ) equal to or greater than 1.0 was considered to indicate that individual
mice were at nsk.
Nearly all of the radiological risk (EHQ > 1.0) to the Great Basin mouse at the 100 Area sites
was attributable to strontium-90, although cobalt-60 also exceeded an EHQ of 1.0 at some sites
A comparison to analogous sites indicates that the risk estimates to the Great Basin pocket mouse
due 'o exposure to heavy metals and various organic contaminants at selected sites would also
exceed an crlQ or 1.0.
VIII. RE>EEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial Action Objectives are site-specific goals that define the extent of cleanup necessarv to
achieve the specified level of remediation at the site. The RAOs are derived from applicable' or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), the points of compliance, and the restoration
ume frame for the remedial action. The RAOs were formulated to meet the overall *oal of
<~tKCLA, which is to provide protection to overall human health and the environment.
Contaminants of concern were identified based on a statistical and risk-based screening process
for affected media. The potential for adverse effects to human health and the environment were
initially identmed in the LFI report and were further evaluated in the qualitative risk assessment
findings of these assessments are summarized in the previous section.
24
-------
Land Use
d Le a7Se -Se 1 ^ i°f ^ * deterraininS *e *"** and potential future
5 Iong;range land-use ^sumptions are not predictors of long-term land
H yeara),and sfaould not be "^ M predictors of land use bey°nd
T 6j °°r f°r Iand'USe Changes resuItinS from longer term events The
recrend ?** ^^ GrOUP (the WoridnS GrOU^ was -nvened - April i?92 to
• recommendatoffls concerning the potential use of lands after cleanup. A draft of DOE's
USt ! "6- A -^cantly'revised draft o?L
lic comment penod on the revised draft HRA-EIS ended on June 7 ^99 DOE b cS
evah:atrng comments in preparation for issuance of a land-use determination Howeve
time the land-use of the 100 Area has not been established. For the purposes of this
£" ^e TrTp a? '^^ ^ ""^ ^ ^ P^vSTJS
Action R0?fnlTS ^ re:evaluate ^Os ^d cteaniip goals selected in this Interim
Action ROD following issuance of the land-use determination.
Chemicals and Media of Concern. Risks from soil contaminants of concern were identified at
NC?r uuSat t ov^ ^ thr5Sh°ld -d ^ Pose a P?t«tW threat to-SLSTl^
1 x 1 0 6 toTx ^0- thtoveraU mcrem^tal cancer risk aCR) at a site not exceed the range of
x iu to 1 x 10 For systemic toxicants or noncarcinosenic contaminants acceptable
exposure levels shall represent levels to which the human population mav^e
Iifetime- '
IeV£ls ^CLs> «• ™ maximum co^entratioTgufdX levels
Description of Remedial Action Objectives
The^interim remedial action selected by this Interim Action ROD has the following specific
25
-------
L
inorganics, or organics.
,o cwaminants in soih,
MCLGs under the j^ ZW«ft^JF««r^c/(SDWA) (see Table 1) ieSDWA>rrT f
"
,
1 overall goal
26
-------
IX. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The {00 Area Source Operable Unit Focused Feasibility Study Report (DOE/RL-94-61)
ti^^J^J?^-*^ ** C°Uld bC appHed t0 Waste Sites 'm ±e 10° A«a. The
es evaluated lor mtenm remedial action for the 100 Area Remaining Sites are as
No Action
Institutional Controls
Containment
In Situ Treatment
Remove/Treat/Dispose.
Controls' Containment, and In Situ Treatment alternatives
*?*** °f ^ 10° *""» namdy ^ waste sites themselves
considered is provided below.
No Action
The No Action alternative was evaluated to provide a baseline for comparison to the other
alternatives^ The alternative represents a hypothetical scenario where no^Stion? controls or
active remedial measures other than those currently existing are applied to aSte
Institutional Controls
This alternative includes deed and/or access restrictions and groundwater monitor^
*
Containment
This alternative includes the following elements:
• Institutional controls
• Groundwater monitoring
Surface water controls
Installation of a barrier at the surface.
-------
""If " I?titutional Cmtt°* alternative, deed restrictions and/or access
^
In Situ Treatment
t0 C°ntaminateci soil "rf solid wa*e and includes the following
• Institutional controls
• Groundwater monitoring
• Surface water controls
In situ vitrification (soil sites only)
Dynamic compaction (soil/solid waste sites)
Installation of a surface barrier, if needed (soil/solid waste sites)
Void grouting (pipelines).
Specific types of in situ treatment were identified for individual waste groups in the focused
-
Pr°eSS a"d Smface bOTte Placemem' Contaminated soil
op
Remove/Treat/Dispose
C0ntaminated soils' fcbris. equipment, and structures, and includes the
Remove contaminated media
Dispose media at an approved disposal facility
Backfill excavated areas with clean material. *
' C°ntaminated medla W0uld be «cavated. transported, and disposed at the
SSZSSZX^^
to ^sponation. Excavation would continue until all
site
Remedial alternatives considered for the 100 Area reactor building materials are as follows:
28
-------
No Action - This alternative would leave contaminated materials in place at the 1 00 Area
reactor buildings.
Disposal at the ERDF - This alternative would include removal and onsite disposal of
contaminated materials at the ERDF, which is designed to meet RCRA minimum
technological requirements for landfills (e.g., double liners, leachate collection systems
leak detection, and final cover).
Characterization, potential treatment, packaging, and transport of 100 Area reactor buildin*
materials would be required to be disposed at the ERDF. When fully characterized data w'ould
be compared to the ERDF waste acceptance criteria and appropriate waste profiles would be
developed to demonstrate acceptability. Trear.nent of materials to meet waste acceptance
criteria, such as RCRA land disposal restrictions, may be required. It is anticipated that the
majority of these wastes can be treated onsite using a macroencapsulation technolo-v such as
grouting. Should a material not be able to be treated onsite to meet ERDF waste acceptance
°ffsite ****** ^w disP°sal fccUity. A determination
wlH .
™L b*™de b^ EfA regarding the acceptability of the proposed offsite facility for receipt of the
LhKCLA waste. \V astes would be packaged in compliance with U.S. Department of '
Transportation i and waste management standards prior to transport. Reuse and recvclin- of
matenals will be considered where practicable. - =
X. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
This section summarizes the relative performance of each of the alternatives with respect to the
m
m 1 =-
of Human Health and the Environment, and Compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements) are considered threshold criteria and must be met The
next five criteria are considered balancing criteria and are used to compare technical and cost
aspects of the alternatives. The final two criteria (State Acceptance and Communitv Acceptance)
are considered modifying criteria. Modifications to remedial actions mav be made based upon
™ ™ . H comments and concerns. These criteria were evaluated after all public comments
mn ^nn ^ comParatlve Analysis is divided into two categories: one categorv for the
100 and .00 .Area waste sites listed in the appendices, and one category for the 100 Xrea reactor
Duiiamg matenals.
100 and 200 Area Remaining Sites
Tne discussion presented below is general in nature, rather than OU- or site-soecific due to the
similarity in characteristics of the waste sites. *
The No Action alternative has been evaluated to provide a baseline for comparison to the
preferred remedy. The No Action alternative represents a hypothetical scenario where no
restrictions, controls, or active remedial actions are applied to a site.
29
-------
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The No Action alternative does not meet this criteria. Institutional controls alone cannot be
relied upon to provide protection. The Containment and In Situ Treatment alternatives would
provide protection of human health and the environment by eliminating or reducing exposure to
tS; ?6 Remove/T^t/DispOSe alternative would provide overall protection of
environment by removing and/or treating contaminants to attain protective
Environmental Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The No Action and Institutional Controls alternatives would not meet soil, groundwater and
nver protection ARARs. All other alternatives are expected to be able to meet ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness
The No Action and Institutional Controls alternatives would not meet cleanup soals and
£tr±re> "7 n0t PrOVfde f°r IonS-tem effec*veness. The Containment Ld fc-Situ '
LdlSwr^5 WOUM ,Pr°Vide a 8reater degree Of lonS-tenn *&«iveness bv stabilizing
c^ol Th^e WaSt%m P^' bUt b0th alteraatives would ^™* tong-tenn institutional °
controls. The Remove/Treai'Diso alternative would provide the greatest Ion-term
contarninated materiai
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment »
Sv o^?011' InStitUti°nal Controls' Containment, and In Situ Treatment alternatives would
contain? r V^5™ °* ™™ial attenuation ^ost importantly radioactive decav) to reduce
cpntaminant concentranons. The Remove/Treat/Dispose alternative would include' ieatment if
to meet ERDF wast
restriction compliance.
Short-Term Effectiveness
T°IS ^^^^ P°se ^^^ ri«* to implement. The
em alte^atives re^ire t«hnology that is readily available with
, • , u Remove'TreafDispose alternative would achieve protection
y quickly, but would present a short-term risk to workers.
Implementability
. C°Uld easily be implemented. The Institutional Controls alternative
beavrn-mSTVe ""ST' SUCh " ^ restrictions' *«fore, this alternative mav not
be easy to maintain implementabihty over a long period of time. The Containment, In Situ '
Treatment, and Remove/TreafDispose alternatives are implementable with existing technologies.
30
-------
Costs
•
^ ^ u1SP?ue altemative was s^own to be the most cost-effective alternative, is
feclnl^ *? ^ *? t**0*™**- »* ™* -How ** a wider range of future land
use. Because of the sumlanties of the 100 Area Remaining Sites to the sites that have been
previously assessed and are currently undergoing remediation, the Remove/Treat/Dispose
alternative would continue to be the most cost-effective altemative for remediation of these sites.
Because of these cost considerations and because the other alternatives would limit the future
uses of the 100 Are^detailed costs have not been provided in this Interim Action ROD for the
other alternatives. The Remove/Treat/Dispose Altemative costs for the sites listed in Table A-l
are estimated to be approximately S26 million.
The cost for addressing the candidate plug-in sites listed in Table A-2 is estimated at S30 million
°°St ementS aSS°dated *** me use of *« Pl«*-fe Broach at these sites are as "
Sampling of sites identified in Table A-2 = S12 million
Remediation of plug-in sites = SI 8 million (for the purposes of this cost estimate
approximately 20% of the 161 plug-in sites are assumed to require remedial action using
the standard remedy of Remove/Treat/Dispose).
State Acceptance
. The State of Washington concurs with the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
fication to the remedy was necessary as a result of public comment. Public comments
are located in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix B).
RCRA Corrective Action Performance Standards
S^r?^0^?^/ aCti°n Performance standards of Washington Administrative Code
t W.A^J i / j-jUj>-646(2) state that corrective actions must:
Protect human health and the environment for all releases of dangerous wastes and
dangerous constituents, including releases from all solid waste management units.
Be required regardless of the time at which waste was managed at the facility or placed in
such units and regardless of whether such facilities or units were intended for the
management of solid or dangerous waste.
Be implemented by the owner/operator beyond the facility propertv boundary where
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
31
-------
The RCRA corrective action performance standards will be achieved under the preferred
CERCLA remedial action.
National Environmental Policy Act Evaluation
The regulations found in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) require an
evaluation of the environmental consequences of the remedial alternatives under consideration.
Criteria used to compare alternatives include examination of potential effects on ecological,
cultural, and historical resources; review of socioeconomic aspects; and identification of
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The following summary compares how
the remedial alternatives impact NEPA values.
The No Action, Institutional Controls, Containment, and In Situ Treatment alternatives would
require irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources by restricting availabilitv
of surface use of the sites. Cumulative impacts would occur at the borrow pit associated with the
Containment alternative.
The Remove/Treat/Dispose alternative would result in an irreversible and irretrievable
commitment.of natural resources at the disposal unit (i.e., ERDF) and borrow sites used to obtain
materials to fill the excavated sites and cover the ERDF. Excavation could disturb cultural
resources located at a site, and careful adherence to cultural resource mitisation planning would
be required. Excavation may also impact ecological resources. Cumulative impacts mav occur
at borrow sites and transportation routes.
Reactor Building Materials
The following information provides an analysis of the No Action alternative versus the ERDF
Disposal alternative evaluated against the nine CERCLA criteria and NEPA requirements.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The No Action alternative would not eliminate, reduce, or control risks to workers, the public or
the environment. Because this alternative does not meet the threshold criterion of protectiveness
it cannot be considered a viable alternative. The ERDF Disposal alternative provides for
disposal in a unit that meets the substantive landfill requirements under RCRA. This unit is
double-lined and includes leak detection and leachate collection systems.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Key ARARs for removal and disposition of 100 Area reactor building materials include the
substantive requirements of the dangerous waste manasement standards WA.C 1 "3-303 RCRA
land disposal restrictions (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 268), low-level radioactive
waste disposal requirements (10 CFR 61), transportation requirements (49 CFR 100 -179)
radiation protection standards (10 CFR 835), and air emission standards (40 CFR 61 and '
-------
WAC 246-247). The No Action alternative could result in eventual release of hazardous
substances into the environment or cause human exposure to contaminants. The ERDF Disposal
alternative can meet all ARARs associated with disposal of 100 Area reactor building material.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The No Action alternative provides no controls for long-term effectiveness and permanence. The
ERDF Disposal alternative would provide long-term effectiveness and permanence through
disposal of contaminants in a unit designed for 500 years.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
The No Action alternative does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. The
ERDF Disposal alternative would reduce the toxicity of contaminants in 100 Area reactor
building waste through natural attenuation in the soil column, particularly through radioactive
decay. The degree of treatment of materials required to meet waste acceptance criteria at either
disposal unit would be similar.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The No Action alternative would not present short-term risks as no remedial alternatives would
be conducted. The ERDF Disposal alternative would provide adequate short-term protection to
human health and the environment. The primary risk to workers would be potential exposure to
contaminants during waste handling, transport, and disposal. This risk would be mitigated by
appropriate training, personal protective equipment, and waste-handling practices. Either
alternative could be implemented immediately.
Implemen lability
The No Action alternative could be implemented within a short time period and would not
present any technical problems; however, this alternative would not be consistent with DOE's
long-range goals for the decontamination and decommissioning of the Hanford Site reactor
buildings. The ERDF Disposal alternative is immediately impTementable. The ERDF ROD was
modified in 1996 by an Explanation of Significant Difference, which stated that decontamination
or decommissioning waste, such as 100 Area reactor building material, may be disposed in the
ERDF in accordance with a remedial action ROD or removal action memoranda.
Cost
No costs are associated with the No Action alternative. The volume of waste is estimated to be
2.045 cubic yards. Costs for disposal at the ERDF are 5172,000 for transportation and disposal
of low-level waste, mixed waste, hazardous waste, and asbestos. For transportation and offsite
treatment and disposal of liquid PCBs, the estimated cost is 524,000. Therefore, the total cost for
the ERDF Disposal alternative is 5196,000.
-------
State Acceptance
The State of Washington concurs with the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
The community acceptance modifying criterion was implemented after all public comments on
the proposed plan were received. No modification to the remedy was necessary as a result of
public comment.
National Environmental Policy Act Values
The No Action alternative would continue to present a risk of direct exposure to both human and
ecological receptors. No direct cumulative impacts would result from this alternative
Cumulative impacts from the ERDF Disposal alternative are not expected to occur due to the
relatively low volumes of waste (relative to other Hanford Site waste-generatin* activities)
requiring disposal. This alternative would not be expected to significantly affect natural or
cultural resources. No new facilities require construction. The work force required for disposal
of the wastes would be small and would be drawn from existing work force resources
Socioeconomic impacts from either of the alternatives would be minimal.
XI. SELECTED REMEDY
The components of the selected remedy achieve the best balance of the nine evaluation criteria
described above.
The selected remedy for 100 and 200 Areas waste sites will include the following activities:
Per the Tri-Party Agreement, DOE is required to submit the remedial desim report
remedial action work plan, and sampling and analysis plan as primary documents. ' These
documents and associated documents concerning the planning and implementation of
remedial design and remedial action shall be submitted to EPA and Ecology for approval
pnor to the initiation of remediation. The current remedial design report and remedial
action work plan may be revised as an alternative to submitting new documents.
Removing and stockpiling any necessary uncontaminated overburden will involve to the
extent practicable, that this material will be used for backfilling excavated areas.
Excavation activities will follow standard construction practices for excavation and
?^^10n °fhazardous materials and will follow as low as reasonable achievable
(ALARA) practices for remediation workers. Dust suppression during excavation,
transportation, and disposal will be required, as necessary.
34
-------
Treatment, as necessary to meet ERDF waste acceptance criteria will be performed in the
100 Area or at the ERDF prior to disposal. Recycling of treated materials and re-use of
treated materials for backfilling excavated areas are expected to reduce remedial action
costs. Materials that are transported to ERDF for disposal must meet the disposal
acceptance criteria, including treatment provisions, for that facility.
As discussed in previous sections, the extent of remediation of the waste sites will take
into account certain site-specific factors. The waste sites are represented by the following
two general categories and the primary factors for consideration are discussed for each:
For shallow sites where the entire engineered structure, soil, or debris
contamination is present within the top 4.6 m (15 ft), RAOs will be achieved
when contaminant levels are demonstrated to be at or below MTCA Method B for
inorganics and organics for residential exposure and the 15 mrem/yr residential
dose level and are at levels that provide protection of groundwater and the
Columbia River.
For sites where the engineered structure and/or contaminated soil and debris
begins above 4.6 m (15 ft) and extends to below 4.6 m (15 ft), the engineered
structure (at a minimum) will be remediated to achieve RAOs so the contaminant
levels are demonstrated to be at or below MTCA Method B levels for metals and
organics for exposure and the 15 mrem/yr residential dose level and are at levels
that provide protection of groundwater and the Columbia River. Any residual
contamination present below the engineered structure and is greater than 4.6 m
(15 ft) in depth shall be subject to several factors in determining the extent of
remediation including reduction of risk by decay of short-lived radionuclides
(half-life of less than 30.2 years) protection of human health and the environment,
remediation costs, sizing of the ERDF, worker safety, presence of ecological and
cultural resources, the use of institutional controls, and long-term monitoring
costs. The extent of remediation must ensure that contaminant levels remaining in
the soil are protective of groundwater and the Columbia River. For
nonradioactive contaminants MTCA specifies that concentrations of residual
contaminants are protective of groundwater at levels equal to or less than the 100
times the groundwater cleanup levels established in accordance with WAC 173-
340-720. If residual concentrations exceed cleanup levels calculated using the
100 times rule , site specific modeling will be preformed to provide refinement on
contaminants found to simulate actual conditions at the waste site. For
radionuclides, groundwater and river protection will be demonstrated through a
technical evaluation using the computer model Residual Radioac::vity
(RESRAD). The application of the criteria for the balancing factors will be made
by EPA , Ecology, and DOE on a site-by-site basis. A public comment period of
no less than 30 days will be required prior to making any determination to invoke
balancing factors.
-------
NOTE: The practice of placing clean fill over site to reduce exposure to
Z^T!T °°nt?m™nts has resulted in ™ny of the sites, (e.g.. trenches) being
f* ™ near-surface sites receiving additional clean fill above
them. When considering the top 4.6m (15ft), such past practices shall not be
taken into account; rather the grade at the time of disposal will be considered as
the rou
the ground surface.
bfi deanuP levels ** RA03' ^ site
will be backfilled with clean materials and revegetated in accordance with approved
plans. Revegetation plans will be developed as part of remedial design activities .vim
mput from affected stakeholders such as Natural Resource Trustees Sd Native American
S^'J 'T T eff0rtS WiU attempt t0 SStabIish a ^k habitat a< the remediated
areas and will emphasize the use of native seed stock.
! monitorinS ^ be re^d for sites where wastes are
of thTs remed ?T ? ^^^ land ^ Institutional controls selected as part
of this remedy are designed consistent with the interim action nature of this ROD
c^ntcTsTf AeTT ma>b? QeCeSSary t0 SnSUre Ion§-tenn ^^ of institutional
unr^^mV H ! ^ '"T^^ ^^ Sel€Cted f°r ^ 10° A«a does n^ a"°w for
^ ^ ^ T^-' y additi0nal COntr°IS Wil1 be !?>ecified « P^ of d» feal
remedy. The following institutional controls are required as part of this interim action:
f ing Pr0gram t0 contro1 access to a« associated
for the duration of the interim action. Visitors enterine anv of the sites
associated with this Interim Action ROD are required to be'escorted at all times.
ir UtiliZe ^ °nSite excavation Pennit process to control land use (e -
dnlling or excavation of soil) within the 1 00 Area OUs. ' '*"'
3. , DOE will maintain existing signs prohibiting public access.
4.
5. Trespass incidents will be reported to the Benton Countv Sheriffs Office for
investigation and evaluation for possible prosecution. '
necessary-precautions to add access restriction languase ro anv
a™™™ t u-, OT ^ of P™?6^ ** the ^-S- Government considers
appropnate while institutional controls are compulsory-.
Until final remedy selection. DOE shall not delete or terminate anv institutional
control requirement established in this Interim Action ROD unless EPA. and
annrnS JTJ provided .Wlitten ^^urrence on the deletion or termination and
appropnate documentation has been placed in the Administrative Record.
36
-------
" fooo^on ' ™plementfuon md effectiveness of institutional controls
tor the 100 Area OUs on an annual basis. The DOE shall submit a report to EPA
for tfeC°n ^H 'V MTh,3° °f CaCh ^ summari^S the results of th?eval^tion
e^altT % H§fendaryear" Atami^^ the report shall contain an
vsssss SSSSK • -
XII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
-------
is expected that inorganics and organics, due to co-location with radionuclides, will be
remediated to levels at or below MTCA levels during the course of implementation of the interim
remedial actions.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with the federal and state ARAR's identified below. No waiver
of any ARAR is being sought. The ARARs identified for the 100 Area source OUs include the
rollftwirK?-
following:
The SDWA MCLs for public drinking water supplies are relevant and appropriate for
protecting groundwater.
MTCA (WAC 173-340) risk-based cleanup levels are applicable for establishing cleanup
levels for soil, structures and debris.
Clean Water Act, (33 U.S.C. 1251) requirements for protection of aquatic life are relevant
and appropriate for protecting the Columbia River.
"Water Quality Standards for Waters of the State of Washington" WAC 173-201-035 are
applicable for protecting the Columbia River.
"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants" (40 CFR 61), are applicable
for radionuclide emissions from facilities owned and operated by DOE. Radionuclides
are presented in the contaminated soils, structures, and debris that will be excavated,
treated, transported, and disposed under this interim action.
State of Washington "Dangerous Waste Regulations," (WAC 173-303), are applicable for
the identification, treatment, storage, and land disposal of hazardous and dangerous
wastes. °
RCRA Subtitle C (40 CFR 261, 264, 268) is applicable for the identification, treatment,
storage, and land disposal of hazardous wastes.
"U.S. Department of Transportation Requirements for the Transportation of Hazardous
Materials" (49 CFR 100 to 179), will be applicable for any wastes that are transported
offsite. r
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1801-1813) is applicable for
transportation of potentially hazardous materials, including samples and wastes.
-------
"Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells" (W\C 173-160 and
162), applicable regulations for the location, design, construction, and abandonment of
water supply and resource protection wells.
Water Quality Standards for Waters in the State of Washington, (WAC 173-^00) are
relevant and appropriate for establishing for establishing cleanup goals that are protective
or the Colombia River.
"RCRA Standards for Miscellaneous Treatment Units" (40 CFR 264 Subpart X)
Contains substantive requirements of this are relevant and appropriate to the construction
operation, maintenance, and closure of any miscellaneous treatment unit (e ° thermal '
desorption unit) constructed in the 100 Area for treatment of hazardous wastes.
"RCRA Standards for Tank Systems Units" (40 CFR 264, Subpart J) contains substantive
requirements that are relevant and appropriate to the construction, operation, maintenance
and closure of any tank units associated with soil washing treatment units constructed in
the 100 Area for treatment of hazardous wastes.
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601, implemented via 40 CFR 761) is
applicable to the management and disposal of remediation waste containin- reflated
concentrations of PCBs, including specific requirements for PCB remediation'waste.
State of Washington, "Department of Health" (WAC 246-247) is applicable to the release
or airborne radionuclides.
National Archeological and Historical Preservation Act (16 U.S C 469) 36 CFR 65) is
relevant and appropriate to recover and preserve artifacts in areas where an action mav
cause irreparable harm, loss, or destruction of significant artifacts.
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470; 36 CFR 800) is relevant and
appropriate to actions in order to preserve historic properties controlled bv a Federal
QCr^^f*^/ •*
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531; 50 CFR 200; 50 CFR 402) is relevant
and appropriate to conserve critical habitat upon which endangered or threatened species
depend. Consultation with the Department of the Interior is required.
Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance to be Considered for this Remedial Action (TBC'sj
The ERDF waste acceptance criteria (Rev. 3) delineate primary requirements, includin-
regulatory requirements, specific isotopic constituents and contamination levels the =
dangerous/hazardous constituents and concentrations, and the physical chemical waste
characteristics that are acceptable for disposal of wastes at the ERDF
39
-------
59 FR 66414, " Radiation Protection Guidance for Exposure to the General Public,"
contains EPA protection guidance recommending (non-medical) that radiation doses to
the public from all sources and pathways not exceed 1 00 mrem/yr above background It
also recommends that lower dose limits be applied to individual sources and pathways
One such individual source is residual environmental radiation contamination after the
cleanup of a site. Lower doses limits and individual pathwavs are referred to as
secondary limits,
The Future For Hanford: Uses and Cleanup, The Final Report of the Hanford Future
bite Uses Working Group, December 1992.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional to its cost. In addition, the use
of the observational and plug-in approaches will ensure that a protective remedv is implemented
and will result in savings relative to the time and money required to evaluate and select and
implement remedies on a site-by-site basis, as well as through combining aspects of
characterization with remediation.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable »«» «i me
Permanent solutions ^d alternative treatment technologies to the
f°r ^f6 SiteS' ^ SdeCted remedieS Provide ** best ™™* of
of long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobilitv or
f Ort-tem effective-ss' -Plementabilitv, and cost whi e
" a nCa em «**
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy utilizes treatment, as appropriate, to meet ERDF waste disposal criteria.
Onsite Determination
NCP ?ateS ^ When noncont^°^ facilities are reasonably close to one
c Waf?lat thCSe SiteS m coraPatibIe ?°r * selected treatment or disposal approach
°n ° °WS ^ M *S™y tO ^ ^^ related "
reon nu™ °n °^ f°WS ^ M *S™y tO ^ ^^ related facili"« « oneit or
such nnn^ " ^ ' -r^^' aI1OWS ^ ^ asency tO man^s waste ^sferred between
such noncontiguous facilities without obtaining a permit. The 100 .Area NPL sites addressed bv
Ae E^±er°n °,D ™ reaS°nably Cl°Se t0 ^ ERDF ^ « comPatibIe ^ dispolafa?-
I1ille' ffid the ERDF « considered to be a si^Ie «* ^ ^ -—
40
-------
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Tri.Parties have reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public
comment penod. Upon review of these comments, it was determined that no significant changes
to the selected remedy, as originally identified in the proposed plan, were necessary
41
-------
Table 1. Look-Up Values Summary: Contaminant-Specific Cleanup Levels. (2 Pages)
jx ^!jJ .£ *~ V»
Hll.i
42
-------
Contaminant
Chromium (VI)
l.eml
Manganese
Mercury
/itic
I'olychloriiuiletl
liplieuyls
Hen/o(a)|>yrciic
Uirysenc
I'ciilacliloroplicnol
I'irsl Remedial Aclion Objective -
IVolcclion from Direct F.iposiirc
Remedial Action
(ioal for
NoMiatlionuclitles
(mg/lig)
400
353
1 1,200
24
24,000
0.5
0.33*
0.33*
8.33
Remedial
Action (>oal foi
Kadiimnclidey
(pC.i/y)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Second Remedial Action Objective -
(Volet-linn of <;roiindw2iler/rohunhia Rivci
Coolainiiiant-Specifk
Concentration in Soil
IVolcclivc of
Groniithvaler (pCi/g
or ing/kg)
K.O
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
(.\niecntrationinSoil
Protective of the
Columbia River
(|»Ci/g or ing/hg)
2.2
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
l.imK-llp Values Summaiy
Remedial Aclioi
Coal - Shallow
Zone
(<4.6m|l5ft|)"
2.2
353
11,200
24
24.000
0.5
0.33'
0.33*
8.33
Remedial Action
Coal - Deep /one
(>4.6nij|5ft|)kc
2.2
.NA
NA
NA
"~ • '"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
• ;ESSS::9£^ --""'•" —^^
Columbia Rivei" value* i» the applicable looul" value' ° '"" '" ""' " *" 'l'trC'Ufc' llle low*41 v*tue Ulw««n lllt! "Protective of (irouiidwaler' *nd the 'Protective of Ilia
^
| Ihe KI.SHAI)mmlcl ptcdklj the conlnniinanl will nul r^cli ponndwaler williin« 1,000-yeiir lime fiume
( .c icmedul ,ti,«n goal i, below tlie padial qii.ntjution limit (I'QI.). T|« value picsculed i> |l,e I'OI.
I he remedial action goal it below background. The value piesenled it batkyound
V..uc. m the uu. Ue lookup va.ue, bated on U,e ge,,e,ic ,il, mode,. Si,e,pecif,c .en.di.l .ction go.,, wil, be c^cuUled for «i,c do,*™, verific.lion u,ing .itc-^ecifie infocmatioa
2
fT
r
o
o
r
ej
T3
in
3
3
O
o
a
ff
3
5'
•o
n
o
B
•a
r*
5
n
t)
n
8
-------
-------
Table A-l. 101) A rat Remaining Sites for Itcmnvc/Truil/Dispose. (7 pages)
•
Unit
-
HHIIIC.)
(( IUCIA
bile 1 I'A
i .M)
1011 IM( 1
It '!•!(( '1 A
bile -1 I'A
le.iil)
Site Name
Hi. II ;
(I'JIH HI O.illall
Slimline)
I.'K II 1
(I'u.il A bli ami
1 Icnii.lHliMi Wilble
Nile)
1 12 III.
(I 'Jill II.M)iill,il|
.Slimline)
.
1 12 C-2
(1 'Jill COnilall
Slimline)
Hid II 1
(( iiiil.iiiiiiialfil
Nliiini l)i,iiii|
Hill II 1
(I e.iil Mia1 1.11(1)
HKHH
(Silica (ielllini.il
Site)
•• •• -
Cm i till Nile Kliimli'il|;i:
Kcicivcil II Itcaelm nineess illliicnl lui iliscliiiiye In pi|tclineb In (lie Culniiiliia
Mivti Sue iiinsibU nl mi it|H'ii uHicick s p uml a cumii-le spillway limn ihe
sump in Hie nvvi blinieline i iiucnlly emlnse.l ivilli aviaiy eulmiim wiie uml
lyilniie li'iue Spillway h.is ken mveietl \villi snil In iiii iiiikiinwii ilcplli lliill'nll
slimline i> 8 2 x 1 1 x (. 1 in ilcep (>l \ 14 x .M I) tlcip)
(Kck-uiiieb t aipci.lei IWI. IMll |(|. |W>e. |HI| |t|. I'WIe, TI'A I'W.)
1 niiiivily nseil (in limning mumulioatlive, tninhiiblilile wastes ami ilisjNisiil nl'snliil
linililuig ileiniiliiinii wusle 1 'lieinieiil-bl.iiiictl snil ami sliessed vegeliilii.ii vlsililc
.ilmiBllie iivvi lianks Vctelalinn tnveieil tle|iiessinn 1.17.2 x 18 1 nt(-IMIx MM)).
UpeiuU'il I'JII I'JdK 'Hns site iudmles Inmici wa-ile sik dlHI 57
(Keleieiues Cniptlilei W 1. DIM: Ul. l'W2c, IJ'A I'Wh)
Ueiciu-il II Ueacli.i elllneiil Ini ilisiliiiigc In ellliwul pipelines In Hie ( 'nlmiiliia
Hive. 1'iiiK-iele niillall sliuclnie ami spillway icilnceil In (.'linle will uweieil \nlli
lU-aiibiiil llnik-i|>iiiiiii.l 1 7 in («• in) elllneiil «lisili,iigc lino icniaiiib in plate.
I Ipeiak-il I'Ji 1- 1%'J. Smlaie lailinniicliile ciinlaiiliiialii.il is lemmal In Iw piebenl,
Sue is H 2 x 4 1 HI (27 x II II); Intal ilcpih iissiniH.'it In k (. 1 m (21 It); nvctlmulen
iU plli iiiikiinwii. IKeleienies: Ciii|wlikl I'J'JI. IHIIMII, IWie, IW|c;l I'A IWli)
Iteceiveil C lleiielni elllneiil ami nincvss sewvi elllneiil liir ilibclinite elllneiil
pipelines In Ihe ( 'nliiiiilii.1 Hivur. ( 'nuviclu niillall iliiiclme unit spillway leiluecil In
Uiailc iiml inveieil \viiluleiiii snil. dpcialc.l |'>52-l%'>. Sin lace liHlinniK title
ii>iilaiiiin,iliiiii is icpiulc.l in IK; pieboil. Site is 16 x H 2 x d 4 HI ileep
02 x D x 21 II ikv|i). nveilniiileii ile|illi iiiikiinwii (Iteleicnces: Caijieiilet I(WI;
IHH. III. IW2e, I'J'lle;! I'A I'J%)
Iteieivnl i.nlin,uiive ami li,i/auliins liipiiil waste leukayc linm 1 U. II 7 (III? D)
ieleiilii.ii liiisin Sile is u enncielc sluiin iliain S) skin, 1 x 1 in ( 1 1 x .1 .1 II) INIX
(ili-plli iiiiLiinwn) fnveieil willi bleel plak II is iilliidie.l in iniileiyrniuiil 22 Vein
I1' in ) pipi.iy ii.m.i.ig linm Ihe snnlli side nlllie palml mail In Hie I'JIM Illlniliil)
(Kck-ieiaes I'iiipvnlei I'J'Jl.l I'A IWd)
1 eatl ihcclmu wiii mil leninveil limn enntieic pa.l when p,ul was liniieil ilnliiiK
leiiiiihlii.il nl l««l |l HniMint; in |Wi | ,.uueil neat Hie l'«l-l> Annex. 12 x 1.2 in
Ixlll) l'ni|Hibe imkiumn (Uekicnees. Cui|ieiilei I'WI. I:I'A !'»%)
teieiveil silita gel liuni Hie 1 15-1 VI IK .liyiiiu l.nveis May II|SII)K! Hie sile ul'llw
1 (HI 1 1 1'liiin (. i ih I'lileniially timlami.i.ikil with lailinaclive uml ha/uitlnns
naleiials. Sile is in a vcteiaiimi-livc tnivtletl In), sile iliuiensiniis iiie iiiikiinwii.
Kelueiit'es. Catjieiilei I'W.I, M'A I'Wd)
Mcilin/
Mulerial
Cnncielc, soil
Snil,
uuisliiicllnii
itelnis'
< 'iintiele, snil
( 'niiciele, snil
I'lllll'IVlC,
sleel, snil
1 vat),
ei.iuicle
Snil, silica |>cl
I'uUiitiil
-------
Opcnilile
Unit
KMIDIt 1
(ami )
III!) lilt ->
(KCKAMic
- •futility
cad)
Site Niime
ion i> 19
(Sludge Tifliili
nc.li 116 |) /)
(I'lncess Sewer
•System)
Slinclme)
I'HM-imOnUall
Slinclme)
.Ml 1) >
IKMUViislK
\ciil Ucseivnir)
(ill I) |>
Siidmm
>k Ilium. lie and
cid Unloading
tiiliim)
Ift-U-K
HDD Cask
majje I'.id)
Table A-l. 100 Am, Remaining Kites for Ucmovf/Trent/DIsposc. (7 pages)
riirrcnl Site Knowledge
lleceivcd icacinr pinceis ellhicnl finiiaiiiing ladinactivc and lin/aidons
uiiilaniiiiiiiils limn Ilic 1 lfi-D-7 (107-1)) iclcnlinn liavin timing liiel clml.linu
WIICI99I) ' '
( auied water treatment waste and lainwalcr riimilHuiimrall | |6.|)-S unlit 1977
Ilic (imcess sewer diainage was diveiled solely In the 1211 l)-l |(H)-|) Ponds' limn
19/7 in 1991. Site dues nut include ptnccss sewer liir rcael.ir laeiliiics «r reaelnr
pioccss cllliicnl. Diiiiciisinib unknown (Hclcicncc: WIDS)
Keceived reactor pincess elllneiil from Hie 1 16-1 )-7 releiilinn basin lioin 1944 In
I97> Aliii icceived (irocess waslu water limn 183-1), 184-1), I9I).|). 185/189-1)
ami other iniscvllanenns lacililics 1 .ncaled 1 22 m (4IX) II) wusl iifilw
1 16-D-7 retention hasin on (lie hank olllie Cnlnmhia Itiver. 'the slniclmc Is
18. 1 x 7 .1 in (Ml x 24 II); depth unknown. (Itcteienccs: Ciii|ienler IW.I;
Kcceivcil leactor prncess elllncnl lioui the 1 lft-DU-9 rclcnlinn l.asi,, | (ICi,led 9) „,
(3(MI II) miilli nl the imilliwesl cnrner ufilic 107-1) iclenlion hasin. Slniclnre is
8.2 x 4.3 in (27 x 14 II); depili unknown. (Uefercnas: Cnrpcnicr IW.3;
DeslBiMled as a waste site he-cause lead Hashing was mil icmovcd when Hie facilily
was demolished in place in 1979. I ocalcd al Hie nmlheasl corner ol Hie
1 B6-0 llnildmg; 2K x 28 x 4 in deep (92 x 92 x 14 II deep) pit cnmirnclcd of
ici,lpr.Hi| liiuk. walerpio.irmcml.raiic, viliilicd jiijw. «8 lead Hashing, and gmmile.
•iieility never used (mi lecords liiiiml to document use).
(llelcicnces Caipenler 199), | |'A |9%)
Ucccived smhimi diclno e ami bulimic acid solutions in water limn Hushing and
'"'" l| "' l">ics iH111 pipelines toimcclcd in lailcais ami lim.ks Cor unloading Tcsl
pits dmiiiy (he KID |)|<-2 I imiled I jcld Invesliyation (l.l;|) (|H)|-.|(|. |99Sc
' 1) /X) liiimd clnoiniiiin VI and ladionnclides nliove Iliinfoid Sile l.adgioiind
llmiensions unkiimvn. lias adjacent (1 9-m- { l-|i) diameter lieneh diaiii.
(Kek-icnees: C,ii|ienlci |«)9I. llllli-HI. I'OSc)
< oncicle pad an.l Iwo associated l-iciith diains conlaniinaled liy ladionntlides.
iiilassnim limale. and ulliei inoiganic chemicals 1 tioiciisiims unknown
(Keleienccs: Cai|ieiilei l'J9l. |-:i'A I99d)
Media/
MMlerial
.Soil
t'miucle,
slccl, snil
Cnncrclu,
slccl, soil
( 'oncicle,
slccl, suit
thick, lead
( 'oncicle,
bled, soil
( 'oncrelc,
steel, soil
-
i'uknllal
Cn-60.Cs- 137.
tM38.clvi "
Cr.llg.
mitlclcnnincd
>adiniiiiclides
and organic
chemicals
C-I4.CS-I37,
Sr-90.11-235.
11-238.
midclcimincil
inorganic
clicmicals
C-M.Cs-137,
Sr-90. 11-235.
U-238,
I'H-2JO/240.
nmlelcrmiiicd
inorganic
chemicals
PI)
CrVI
(VI37.I-II-I52,
lh-228, 11-238
_
Eslini»leil
Volume fur
i)is|iusul
(I.CV ')
8.202
5.547
1,633
442
7.022
579
5.957
Estimated
Coat of Site
Uemetlialiuit
$1.075.555
V2.386.452
$391.615
$213.8911
$2,1158,138
VI 96. (77
$902,645
-------
Tlllllt'
.Sid's for KvmoviVTrcaf/Dupose. (7 pages)
Ojii'inlilv
Unit
Hill Dl( .'
(nun )
Kill 1 l( I
(I I ItCI A
MIC -I I'A
le..,l>
IOII-ltt-2
|( 1 Id 1 A
MIC II'A
K-iiil)
- • -—
Nile Name
lldim /
lid 1 X
(I'llll 1 <>llH,,ll
MnullUC)
....: .
IHil-li
(IIIK 1 l(mli.lli»ll
Cllli)
(Mil Id
(I'NI Oiill.ill)
.....
H.ll/ 1 2
ili.iiii Iklil)
Kill/ II,
1 1 2 1 1 (i Sc|ilic
l.mt. mill ill. mi
Ik 1,1)
INliiinliiim
1 i.llllcill)
I2III-I
(dl.ISS l)lllll|l)
< 'uiii-iil Sili! Knuwluil|;e
Kucivcil lii|iiul |iiii,iv,inm In u, ik siiliiiimi uiiii,imin,ikx Sx III II i|ci-|i) 1 Inc m Uvii 2.0X2 (.(.ISO jjiiDslnrinji!
l.ml.s iii.ii iil-,11 lie hmii-il ill ilic silc (ttckmitxv 1 'iii|ifiiici I'W 1, I'l'A IW<«)
Kciciuil IC,IL)OI |miic» cllluoil limn Ihc 1 Id 1 II iclcniinu hiishi DvmnlislicJ
tiimiclc slim Hue liumcily X 2 x 4 1 x 7 'i m ilicji (2) x II « 2(. II deep). Aiea a
maiU'il uiili iimlcigiimiMl i>»liii,u.iive OMiliimiiMiiiiii warning signs 1 nwvr (iiui nl'
ll'AIWi.) ' ''
I'lnaick- sinii|i in Ihc (•IIMIII,! Ilihii ul ilic 1118 1 l(.i,liii|,|,,|ug> | ulmiiituiy. KuccivcU
ili.iin.i^c liiini l.ili II, UM iin,| hiiiul ili.uni Siini|i U (l i) « u M x 0 ') m ilcf|i
( 1 \ 1 x 1 II ila|i) (Ktkicmvk. Itclunl IWI, ll.iuis |'N|>)
t 'iiiitu-ic b|iillwiiy finiitcilcil In Ihc 1 IM-'-tt 1 liiilall. tkhiili icaivcil wadv wiilci
limn (lie 100 I -.») I'AI sends Mml ol (lie s|iillwiiy has Ucii liiiillillcil. lull a
|iniiiiiii HIM) ihc livci slum line is visible. Uimuhiuiis me III 5 x •! (i m
1 KHI \ 1 i II) (ItckiciKO. Dcliml IWI, IMHMd. IW2,i, I'W 1,1, 1 I'A I'Wd)
Ucuivcil s,mil,iiy vviisles IKIIII (lie l'«l 1 . Illvl-'. |OX 1 . iiiiilulliei lu.il.liiip
MiiiU-il with iiMilciuMiiinil i.nlio.kiivi: niiiieii.il WHiiiiii|> si^ns Iteiiilimeil cmiciclc
M|Hk (.ml. is X U ) 5 x >l 1 m ilct-|i (27 x 1 » x 1 1 II ilo.'|>). iliuin liehl is J 107 m1
1 1 MlIX ll') (ItikRmcs: Deliml |W|, I I'A IWI.)
Hcieivc.l siiniliiiy ww.iyc IIOMI die IX. l; uml N(, 1 It IliiiUiuys. .Silc uiiiluiiis til'
iwu timeicie i.ml.i> (ciuh 0 ') m 1 1 ll| long liy O'j m 1 1 1|| iliimwiuO, u Heel liiiil,
1 '' m ((, .'.^ III Iniii! liy I X 1 m ((> II) ih.imelei, u iliaiu Iklil. IHI,| |ii|ielines, 1 lie
•hum Iklil is 2X0 m1 ( I.OIHI II1) (Keleiciucs: lleliml I'WI, I'l'A IWd)
I'NI. ceiil,iL>ie.il slmly yiiuleii Inimeily nscil I'm uiowi»ij jiliuiK hi Mills ciiiiluiiiiny
LKhoiiiiiliiles Silc is cinii|ilcicly eiitliue,! liy a 2\ x •) x .1 m lull (KO x .111 x 10 ll
l.ill) sneeii sliiielmc (ItcleieiKcs. llcliiid I'WI. IMMi-KI. I'WSu |A|iiicmlix II,
I'WSc. 1 I'A IWd)
Site is JIM n|*n liciii.li, 10 7 x 2.1 x 1 .2 m ilvcii ( JU 1 x 4 1) ilccp) ei.iilainiiiB
i|i|iioum,itcly 0 (, m (2 ll) ol lluuiesceiil li.lies, li|>li| linllis, VHCIUIIII lul>cs, siniill
•.Hleiicj, mill cui|iiy vliciniciil (Hilllet. (Kckieiices; Dcliiid IWI. IM)|i-UI. l'W5n
A|i|tcinlix l.|, I'WSc; lil'A I'Wfc)
Mi'iliu/
Muleriul
Soil
('nucleic,
soil, kiccl
< 'iiiieiclc,
steel
Ciiiieiclo,
sleel. suit
( 'nnciele, lilc,
|ii|ic, soil
('nucleic,
ineliil, lilc,
suit
Soil
luliili. will
I'ukiillul
CuilluillillMllU
(VI.17.I-B-IS2,
lli-228,ll-2IK
Cn6(l. In 152.
liu-l 5-4, l-.i- 155
l'n-2 !'>/.' 10.. Si -
'III, II--2IK, I'll
(VI.! 7.
911
Iliiilelciiiiineil
lailiniiiiiliiks
lluik'leimiiieil
oituiiie UIHJ
iiHiiguniu
iheiuiciilii
Cs-IJ7, Si-'JII
lliiileluMiiliwil
IMIfgHllic
cliemiculi
KililllHl«ll
Vulume fur
(I.CV ')
IM
•102
2
it'll
21.412
2.IJ7
2,011
411
K.slimiiUil
Cuilof.S'Jle
Kviiiciliuliuii
SI«MW
S2.IO.MII
im.m
~~im"iiiT —
• '
t2.«M2l
tlX5»">l
'
VIM, 521
SIJIIIW
*
-------
I'nil
101) IIU-I
(Hit! I A
Mlc-l I'A
lc.ul)
Sile Ntime
lllll II II
(7 p»ecs)
Ciirrcnl Sik Knowledge
Hill l|.|j
l'x|i;iiliiim Hoi
Di.iinl-)
11 (hem
Sin lute
ciiiiluininuliiui
/niic II)
(I Hliio
I till.)
Kill II-.M
(I.SI-II
I iiyilmvu Yniil)
Hill (Mi
d'< 'II ill Mill ill
lllvllKcikhu)
lid 11-5
(MXII-IIOiiiliill
Sluahiic)
Mediii/
I lie site i> i. I 2.m. H.
t'lWCfClC.
mil. ilccl
Ciuicculc,
siiil. slccl.
1'olenlinl
OiiifiiiiiiniiiiU
I'liilcicciiiiiicil
riiiliiiiiiicliilcs
Vuluine for
nhnnsiil
(I-CV)
72
Mlitnaled
Cost of Sik
Kcnieilmliun
J 15.1.7 12
I'h.
I iiiulclunniiicil
Viliilkiltliiy,
I'mkicnniiicil
liiiliiHiiicliiles
Noil
fiiilinniictiilcs
'"'i:1!:11; "1l'bl ..... «' »"' tawi JHwed ....lyd.lu.ii.aK,! l.i,,I^Tlc^^~
clcicnics. IKMMd. IWIIi.l|'A|W(l) "
" hlsl"""™'» ...... 'ir-i
.
Soil
iner cm.uclc slnicluic lluil WHS tlcniolWicil
('imetelc.
ilccl. suit
72
72
1,022
$15.1.712
$I5),7I2
$256.6^
Siiil
Soil
1
Co-60. l:'u-|S2,
CrVI
I'CMs
4.I5J
512
$656,276
$I8J.55S
I'Clls
(•o-60..Sr-«W.
-------
O|ivruli|v
Unit
HUH lit I
(mill f
HHI Kit 1
{( 1 1« 1 A
MIC I l'.\
I..I.I)
HHM.It »
|l 1 III 1 A
MIC I I'A
ll.l,l)
Site Nil me
IK, 1C;
c IHIIM tin: 1 1 7 II 1 ilu-i Ihuliliiiit will |iii«. DMiiiai-ii eiileicil ilunnuli nil
XI) in (.'til II) luiii! Ill .'mi (| In ) tviiiciii ihkslm |ii|ii>. Ciili ivTvivvii klinil lived
'»''" » Ii** ll'-rt hive iki-.it fil Siltf Wiii lilciiieil limn imlihlhiii i-millult ill l%7,
iimlllie IIHI III! I I l||lH>r III, I'J'Mlllu.lltluilc.llll.HIIWiilCWIIS-llclcilllillc"
HmH-vvi, Ilie ii id u-iiiiiiiis liiK'il n> » ( ')»» V IMII|CI|,|IIIIIH| liijcillmi well.
(Ili'litnuo llclin.lim.ll III.HI I'Wi; IHH:-HI. I'W.'c, I'WIli, I'I'A I'Wli)
Hi«viuilkiiiiil.iiykvwHi!t!liiimlliU IX.' II. IHI-II, |'«l 1 1, Mini all 1 7IMI nwliilciiaiitc
inviic lniililiiig> CIIIKICIC kf|Hic l.nil ic|>niicil in (w 12. In J n 2.S m ik-v|i
( HU III >t 8 1 II ilt-v|i|; iliiiiii liw-lil l> Ml 5 x .III 5 m 1 IIMI K KM) II). Sc|i||ti liink
»lii,li;c »,iiii|ikv »lnmtj tlcviilcil lii'iivy indul cuiiunlhilliiiii (llvl'viciice«: Hvliml
mill 1 in.iii I^)S. |H II: III. I'NIli, 1 1',\ )')'»,)
Kci-civi'il Miiiliiiy kvwii(|v limn llitt IKI-II Klvci l'iiiii|iliiiiuo. 'I In! tl/t) mill
uiiMimlimi nwicii,il me IIH(.IIII\MI, u IWO unuuul |h.'iiclniliii|t iiuliii smvcy ilimvcil
iiiiilci|,iiii|ilini; ilhiHi'il ln-jivy invl.il tiHiliiiniiiiitiiiM niiiiiiul ilm illuliiiiuu |il|ie In (lie
liuiiici n |,lic Innk 1 iinl \\ liclicvt-il In liiivc liccii 1 1 \ 0 d » J.5 in iU'|i
1 1 < .' v KM iki>|i) Ilic ilhiiu lk'1,1 1> klicvtil In IK) Mi in' ( III 1 1|'|
llUlcu-inci IMniil iiinl Ciiiaii I'm. IHIi; III. IWIIi.CI'A I'Wd)
1 uiMK-ily imivi-il KT Mini K W HMU.II III.K.-CX cllliwiil liu iliuhmiji; In |il|K'linc«
In Hie I iiliiinlii,! KivL-i. 1 'iiiu-iilly K'|*nl,ikil dy u II S II1 A NI'lHiS inilliill |iciiiiil In
,li« li.m;c i (can |n,iu-»ii KHiliciu iv.ilci Mini tv.ilci llt'iilnifiil tllliivnl In llw ( 'ulnmlii.i
Kivci Ilic niiH.ill ilnuliiK- U » K-iiilinu-il inmiilc wiik'i INK wild iill.lilicil
>|iill«ay III » III / » 7 in ila-|i 1 1 K h » i 1 II ila-|i) (IU-lui.-iia'ii: Dclnnl mill
1 mini IW; III if HI. I'Wlc, iwili. I-I'A I'J'Wi)
Itcu'ivnl viilliiiic mill iivvillnw liimi Ilic IK 1 Kli il.iy-mu iwlil Link 'llw
CM.H.llh.ll lilt Illi! ill, till \\.l> M III (^ II) UillC, 4 A III (M II) lla'|l II Wilk Illlcil \\illl
iin;u'i;jili; 1,1 1 7 i cm ( Hn ) limn Die luji HIM) cnvvivil wild u liiiwsluno liiyi!)
1 i S \ in (^ in | ik'i-|i Ilic slul tnvci ul Ilic |iii K \\cil nl iliu iilnnt thiniyc liiuU,
iinilh ul Ilic iiiiillmuvl IIMIICI ul Iliu 1 K 1 K 1 i » nlfi litalnKiil |,l,inl i lilniliiu »lniii|!L'
IniililiMI! (Ili-li u'luc ('iii|U'nlci .mil I'nic I'J'M)
1 tic kill- it ii lnn.,1 (ill iiu-,1 in ncnii,ili/tf citihlic iiiliiliiin> Inline ili<,|iii>iil In Ilic
|iniic» iHU'i >> >li'ni 1 lie |iil h 11 .' .i » i x II ') in ilcc|i (8 1 » (i 1 x .1 II ili'i-p)
In ill, Inuil nun telii IHIH Ini-iiivil M in (H II) iiinlliivoi nl Hie nuUnile ueiil l.iiil, nl
die IHl-HWuitieilieiiinieni|il,mi, |l(clcienie«: t'iii|ienlei MinK'iile |')'JI,
DOIMU.IWI.i)
Mi-illn/
Mnli'iliil
Snil, I'uni-ii'le
HlllOllli
Suit,
i-iincieic, tile
Snil
CiiiKiele,
tleel, mil
Null
( 'nni'ielc,
In ii(,
rultnlliil
riiiiimiiiiiHiiii
rs.|l7,|ji.|S2.
IU-2?lll
Av, llj.Cil.Ci,
!'!>, lly, Ay, So,
.Snlliiie
A»,llii, (•»).(>.
l'l',llB,Ati,.Sc
KtllnmUil
Volume fur
IHi|lllkHl
(I.CV)
ill
2I.XM
2.WI7
2,11'JK
78
1)
Ksllmukil
CoHofSile
lU'ineiliiillnn
VII'J.liU
tJ,S»i,-l-M
\m,Mi
S«I,')IH
thl,l(,2
til VI"
-------
('nil
MH) Kit-'
(nun )
fPw^\'^ I'J'H.IMIIMU. IW-lii)
11 ..... -"teh"
i 1 ncl -CM,,,,,, „, UK, K itohB. The r,,c| dcmcnls h, ,|w KtS-KI-' l,w| S| in
md.k ..... V
(iii|x;nicr MII.I ( Vi
I ImkieiiMNid 0.5- ,„- (l.j-r,) Amae[ s(a., amply aiMliciiuniiii«lliiBilni
fa-Mtilr/frr1^
, I Id M:-SJ «IHj ihu K,vM: J'mv,.-,!,,.,,^ i.^,,,ll( |h , „ ( /
K:;;;-^; •«"H»-M,^,=,,,»:(',,,,.;:;S:*;;',.
llpp^rir^^
l"^f^w5^4S!ffiS.I*R!'/««
II'A
|clWli|M)l:.K|.|9Mni
PofentiAl
CoiilHiiiinit
I .S'lltliHu
1 Cu-60. Sr-90,
l'il-239/24()
l'l>i "u, Ag, He,
S'lillali;
Kstiiuile
Volume fo
(I.CV)
22
6.719
2,(HW
191
191
22
Estimated
Cost of Sile
Kemedialloii
Jl 17.0(4
JI.IW8.786
$745.078
J74 5.078
$117.014
-------
A-l. 100 Arcii lU-miiiniiig Silc.s for lU'iiiovc/'IVcsif/Disposc. (7 pages)
Silv Name
2ii Kl. -2
1X1 KCIilici
V.I-.IC 1 auhly
muli |li, mi)
.'IIKW 1
1X1 I.WIilU'i
Valci l.uilily
li) \\\ll)
.'II KVV-2
IKIMVhlui
V.ilci 1 aiihly
uiuli |)i am)
HI) M1' (Small
\nm Itainji-)
Cnni'iil Nile luMmlciiyi1
1 muli iliiiin iiiol limn I'JSS in |«>/| (in ilh|Mibal nl iiilluiii mitl hlmlgc icmovcil
limn bulimic iicii| lank*. A II ''-in- ( l-ll) iliamclci, 1 Km (Ml) |uii|> vinjlieil day
|ii|ic was jil.ucil vi'Hkally in an iMMviiliun >l mill II) nciiibs ami 1 4 in
1 1 1 II ilcc|i) 1 lie Imllimi II .1 in ( 1 II) ul llic |ii|ic anil killnm 1 5 In 1 8 ill (5 In 6 II)
nl llic cxi.w.iliiiii vvcic lillcil willi oiaibe mil,, lilciiiii-al In 1211 K W-2.
(lUliumo Ciii|icnU-i ami (iilc IWI, 1 I'A I'J'Mi)
Kcivivcil bulimic uciil ami bulimic lU'iiNinlgc lin neiiliiili/alinn he line iliaining In
llic (imicbi bcwci lyilcm llic tile >i a liiak Imcil unu'iclc IMIK
.' •> » 2 » 1 5 in ilccji (X \ \ d 1 * S II ilcc|i) iliirf ciHilaineil cuibhcil liniCblimc.
1 liiiiiiu llic lime llm l.ailily »|ici,iicil, bulimic actil ami ilml^c wcic i-nnlaininalcil
nilluiii-Kiny lilcnlK-.il In 1211 Kl 1 (Kclciciu'Cb. (',ii|>ciilci amlCnlc I'J'M,
Hill III. r/'Ma, I'Wia |A|i|icmli>, K|. 1 I'A l^'d)
1 iciuli iliain iibcil limn I'JSi in |'J/| I'm ilh|iiibal iilbiiirmic iniil iliul|>c icmnvi'il
limn Millmic uiiil l.mki A I) '' m- ( l-li) iliiiniclci, 1 Km- (d II) |IHI|> viliilicil Uay
|ii|ie »,iii placcil vciikally in an cxi-.tvaiimi -1 in (1 1 li) uviiibS anil .M in
III Ililccji) IhcliulliiinO lm(l II) ul llic |ii|ic ami (milum 1.5 In 1 K iil(5ln6li)
ul llic cuavaliim wi-ic lillcil ivilli I'naibc mil., lileiiliial In 1211 Kli-2.
Illckiiiaci Illlli- Ul. I'WIa. 1 I'A |'j%)
1 lie silc mm mcil limn llic IM III* llnniujli llic 1 MMIs us u (HiWlicc iiiii|>c I'm
liauilljiiiii, lillcj, blinl(;iiiib. iiuili'mc uiiiii, liaiul yitiiiMlcs, smuU iMinilii. iiml nllicr
bm.ill ai mi iiml iiicciuliaiy ilevkck. Idilihlc, uiic, Icail Imllcli. ami liiinnilc |ii|iiny
iciim.inli me icalicicil alHiiil the silo, 'llic aica cniilailiiili; Ic.ul hiillcu mcabiiici
a|i|iiuxim,ilcly 'I i \ b x 1 5 m ilcc|i ( IIHI s 2(1 * 5 ll ileeji)
(Ki-lcivmcb Deliinl |WS, IHIC Ul. l'l%)
fiiiiiiiiiiii; Silc-t lui l(i-miivi-/lical/|li-i|ui, lla.Cil.Ci,
I'li.llU, Ay, Sc,
Sulliilc
I'll
Klinuleil
Vuliinie fur
niiiiukiii
(I.CV)
12)
15
121
I.27X
m.wii
KUI..I.I
i I dl). A|i|K.-|iili« N, Suclinn N.S II liu rclcicnic* tiled IlKiiii^liniil (Ills table.
' I hit »iie i> an ,n live u.iilc in.iiMcciiiciil null uheic lia/afilmii jiilnlaiieeii have litVii |mlt
-------
-------
Table A-2. Candidate 100 Area Reniaining Sites for Plug-in of Remove/Treal/Dispose. (19 pages)
Operable
llnil
l()()-lt('-l
(CI:IUT.A
site - I-I'A
lead)
Sile Name
IOO-B-3
(Former
llol thimble lluiiid
(iround)
l(l().|t-5
(I'llhicnl Vent
Disposal licncli)
100-11-10
(107-B Basin Leak
and Wiiim Spiings)
116-11-15
(Clcaitonl
Percolation I'll)
1 20-11-1
(llallery Acid
Sump)
26-11-3
IH4-D Coal I'it)
I28-U-2
(lOO-IUIunil'il
No 2)
I12-D-I
(108-H Tritium
Separation Ntilily)
I3MJ-.1
(108-11 Vcnlilal ion
•.xhaust Slack Sile)
Current Site Knowledge
Undocumented solid waste site. A highly contaminated vertical thimble was removed from the
105-11 Reactor Building in 1952 and temporarily buried in a trench at this site. The Ihiinhle was later
removed and taken to another Imiial ground. Radioactive and nonradionclive contaminants may
remain in the unlined trench, which was approximately 30 x 7.6 x 6. 1 in deep (100 x 25 x 20 I)
deep) (References: Carpenter 1994, IX)I:-RI. I992e. [:PA 1996)
Sile is result ol leakage that occurred at a junction box for reactor ellliienl pipeline. Ihis site is
within the larger "(Iwlergroimd Radioactive Material" area extending the length of the ellliienl
pipeline. The bile is about .10 x j x j in deep (100 x 10 x 10 II deep). (Kclcicncc: Carpenter 1994)
In February 1949 several warm springs were observed along the Columbia River below the
100-11 Area Retention Basin. The springs were attributed to leaks in the 1 16-11- 1 1 retention basin.
Samples ofllte water in 1949 showed 4 n('i/l. beta activity. Dimensions unknown.
(Reference. IXMMtl. I992e)
Received treated water from the 101-1) Fuel Storage Item cleanup project. Contaminated water was
processed through litters and an ion exchange system before discharge. Sile is an open excavated pit
10 5 x 15 2 x 1.8 in deep (100 x 50 x 6 11 deep) with cobble and soil walls.
(References: Carpenter 1994, DOI--RI. I992e)
Site is a concrete-lined sump, cleaned in 1986, immediately adjacent to the 105-R Reactor Building.
Sump was formerly used for disposal of waste ballery acid, solvents, and elhylene glycol.
Dimensions not staled. (References: Carpenter I994,IX)I;-RI. I992e, EPA 1996)
Solid waste site; Inert Landfill. Received non-hazardous, non-radioactive solid waste and demolition
lebris. (Inlined pit 122 x 69 x 3 in deep (400 x 225 x 10 11 deep).
Used for homing of mmradioaclive, combustible wastes, including office wastes, paint, and chemical
solvents. 1 Inlined pil 117 2 x 1 5 2 x 9 1 m deep (450 x 50 x 30 ft deep).
(References: Carpenter 1994, 1X)L:-RL I992c, P.I'A 1996)
Facility oiiginally designed for mixing and adding chemicals for lieatmenl of reactor cooling water.
Later convened to tritium recovery. Building demolished to 3 in (10 It) below grade; any
contaminated rubble Icll insilu. '1 he site is 45 x I()m(l50x 32 ll).deplli unknown
(Refeiences Carpenter 1994, DOF.-RI. I992e, I-1'A 1996)
Slack and foundation weie decontaminated, decommissioned, and demolished using explosives in
198 1. Allowable residual contaminant level (ARCL) report calculations predicted 2.2 mrem/yr
exposure limit a rudiomiclide inventory of 21 mCi. Burial trench 9.1 x 76 x 5.5 m deep
30 x 250 x 18 It deep) Trench and nibble covered with clean (ill. (References: Carpenter 1994,
il'A 1996)
Media/
Material
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Concrete, soil
Concrete, soil
Soil.
concrete,
misc. debris
Soil, concrete
Concrete,
steel liner,
soil
Potential
Contaminants
li-3,C-l4,Co-60,
Sr-90,Cs-l37.
!:u-l52.l:ti-l54.Cd,
Hg. I'b,
undetermined
organic chemicals
1 )n determined
radionuclides, Cr VI
Undetermined
radionuclides, Cr VI
Co-60, Sr-90,
Cs- 137, I-M- 155.
U-238,CrVI
C.rVI.Pb.llg,
elhylene glycol,
undetermined
organic chemicals
.cad (batteries)
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Tritium (11-3)
Undetermined
radiomiclides
Estimated
Cost of
Sampling
$97,235
$52,638
$52,638
$49.203
$64,663
$100,201
$176,869
$51,350
$80,057
-------
Table A-2. Candidate 100 Area Remaining Sites for Plug-in of Reniovc/Trcat/Dispose. (19 pages)
Operable
Unit
HUM if.)
(COIII )
IOO-HC-2
(CtRCLA
site lil'A
Icud)
Site Name
I32-IJ-4
(117-11 Miter
llnihliiig)
1 32-11-5
(II5-l)/C(ias
Itccirculalion
facility)
Ui07-U2J
(1 24-11-2 Septic
System)
1607-117
(I24-C-I Septic
System)
100-11-1"
(Surface Chemical
Dumping Area)
IOO-C-3
(II9-C. Sample
Building l-'iencli
Diain)
1 ()()-( '-7
! IX M Tiller
(milling
>cmi>li(ion Waste)
II6-C-.) (Chemical
Waslc Tanks)
II6-C-6
I'crcolalion Pit)
Current Site Knowledge
llnilding was decontaminated, decommissioned, and demolished in situ AIU'I. rcpurl calciiliitinns
predicted less than 1 iniciii/yr exposure from a radinnnclide inventory ofV2 nCi. Rubble was buried
Irnni 1 in 5 in deep (3,3 In 16 II deep) under clean fill lltiilding was originally reinlurced concrete
18 3 x 12 in (59 x 39 It) and III 7 in (35 II) high, with only 2.4 in (8 11) iilmve grade
(Reference* Carpenter 1994. 1-I'A 1996, IX)E-RI. I993a)
Iliiildiiig was decontaminated, decommissioned, ami demolished in situ AIU'L report calctilalinns
picdicled 17 mrem/yr exposure The facility contained vacuum and pressure seal pits and (minds.
'1 he silo is 51 x 3()x 3 4 mdecp(l6K x 98 x II It deep) (References: Carpenter 1994. 1-J'A 1996,
UOI--RI. I993a)
Received sanilary wastes from ollice lurildings, 105-1) Reactor, and 190-1) I'uinphouse. Reinforced
conciele septic tank and tile drain field, fop visible, has two steel manhole covers on concrete slab.
Site is reported to he 7.6 x 3.5 x 4 in deep (25 x 1 1.5 x 13 11 deep) Diain field is 90 x 23 in
(31)0 x 75 l») (References: Carpenter 1994, I-TA 1996)
Received sanitary sewage from 183-1) Water Treatment Plant. Reinforced concrete septic lank and
tile drain licld. Tank is 1 8 x 1 x 25 in deep (6 x 3 x 8 11 deep); drain Held is 71 m' (768 11').
(References: Carpenter 1994. HI'A 1996)
Undocumented solid and liquid wasle site and laydown yard. Area approximately 45.7 x 30.5 m
(150 x 100 11) containing several surface dump sites. Depth of contamination unknown. Site
reportedly smells of oil and other petrochemicals. Affected soils arc vegetation-free.
(Reference: Carpenter 1994)
Received water coolant from the heat exchanger for (he air sampler and eflluenl from (he building
swamp cooler and lloor drain. Site is a small French drain (approximately 0.6 m |2 11) diameter)
associated with the 1 19-C Sample Duilding. (Reference: Carpenter 1994)
Duilding demolished with concrete contaminated with sodium dichromate left in place, along with
steam pipe covered wilh asbestos. Remaining concrete backfilled to minimum of 1 in (3 11). Site
leveled In match existing terrain .Site is 93 x 88 x 3 m deep (305 x 290 x 10 11 deep).
(Reference. WIDS)
I'wo below ground storage lanks which may have never been used. The tanks were installed to
eceive caustic wasle from the metal examination facility and may be tilled wilh water. Doth tanks
we 3.7 m (12 11) diameter x 3 7 in (12 ft) deep. (References: Carpenter 1994, HI'A 1996)
tcceivcd treated water from the 105-C Fuel Storage llasin cleanup project. Contaminated water was
uoccsscd through liliers and an ion exchange system before discharge. Site is an unlined,
'l."-shaped, open excavated pit with side lengths of 30.5 m, 30.5 m, 13.7 m, 16 8 m, and 15.2 m;
uliil area of 674 m1 {side lengths of !00 ft. IflO IS, 45 11, 50 !',, 55 ft; tola! area of 7,250 II1}.
Reference: Carpenter 1994)
Media/
Material
Concrete, soil
Concrete, soil
Concrete,
soil, steel, tile
Concrete, tile,
soil
Soil,
concrete,
miscellaneous
debris
Soil.
unknown
construction
materials
Concrete,
soil, steel,
asbestos
Steel, soil
Soil
Potential
Contaminants
lt-3,C-l4.Sr-90.
Cs-l37.Pn.239/246
II-3.C-I4.CO-60,
Sr-90,Cs-l37,
Kn-152, l'n-239
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Petroleum
hydrocarbons;
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Sodium dichroinale
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
C.o-60, Sr-90,
Cs-137, l-u-155.
U-23K,CrVI
Estimated
Cost of
Sampling
$95.088
$69,188
$72,945
$51,350
$74,126
$52,495
$120,703
$59,382
$52,638
-------
O|UTull|t
Unit
Km DIM
(tout )
100 I It-1
CF.RCI.A
site IvI'A
ead)
Table A-]
Site Namu
lliiDIMO
(lOJ-l)KFnel
Storage llaMii
I'ercolalion I'on.l)
I2H-D-I
(lOO-D/DK
limning I'M)
112 -DIM
(liiOK-DK
Waste-water/
Station)
600-30
(100 l)|t
diminution
.uy-down Area)
IOO-F-4
KI8 I' lluilding
i2-in. Ficnih
Diuin)
Fuel Storage Tank)
IOOF9
FiislFieiK-liDiain
at Fast Cud of
105 FSlouge
oom)
1 OOF- 10 (Second
•'lentil l>i ail, at
•last F.nd uf
105-Fstoiage
toom)
Candidate 1 00 Area Ucmai,,i,,g Sites for Plug-fa, »f Remove/IYerf/Dispose. ( 1 9 pages)
Ciirrvnl Site Kiioulc%
Kcccived Healed wale, I,, he I05.|)|t Fuel Storage Hash, cleanup project. Coiilaminaled ivalcr
was (Mocessed through filters and an ion exchange system beloie dischaigc In |9«.| conlaminal d
«H| was lemoved and site was .cleased using AltC'l. mc.hodology. I',, has been backfilled and "
paled to maul, the terrain oflhe aica Site is M .( M 5 2 m (HO x 50 II), depth of excavation is
unknown (Kelcrcnces: Caipenler 1994, l.PA 1996. DOIMU. I995c)
1 Ised lor binning o| ,„ estimated 40,000 1,,' of noiua.lioatlive comlHislihle materials sued as paint
waste, otiue waste, and chemical solvents Disposal site was used lion, 1944-1967 Kile was
JO.J x 30.5 x 3 n, deep (100 x 100 x 10 It deep) Hadioaclively co,,.,mi,u,,ed nui.eri.ls weic found
at the site m 1951 and removed (References: Caipenler 1991, F.I'A 1996, DOIMU. I995c)
llmlding was decontaminaled. decommissioned, and demolished in sun in 1987 Received waler
hum reactor building drains (piimaiily li.cl stoiage basin oveillows) containing low-level
ladionuclides and deconlamjnalioii chemical*. I'omped waler liom collection pits lo
I05.DU Ueailor ,«ocess diluent pipelines. She is 1 1 x KM x H.5 m deep (36 x J4 x H II deep)
.References: Carpenter 1994. F.CA 1996, IMili-HI. 19'JJc)
He ii an open field containing niiscellaiieoiis debris and areas of distressed vegetation. Approximate
imcnsioni ar«2l3 x 18.1 x 1.3 in deep(7(HJx 600x511 deep).
Veitical 0 3 in- (Ml) diameter vitrified clay pipe adjacent lo loulh wall of UK | OB-F lluildine A
.1 cm ('/,-in) »teel pipe enter: the dmin liom the IOK-F Diiilding No record of dales of operation
vasle lype. or uuantily. (References: Deford 1994, KI'A 1996)
...cation ,.| » steel under grnnnd fuel oil storage (auk lo, the 1705-F Ituilding lleale, jlo.,,,, (building
vas demolished in 19/5) It is not known if the lank was removed when the building was
demolished Dimensions unknown. (JJeferencc. Ciiipenler 1991)
Vcilical 0.9 in- (l-Jl) diameter concrete pipe bmied lo unknown depth with upper surface 3 cm
2 in ) above grade, located adjacent to the noitheasl comer ufilu 105-F Miscellaneous Sloiage
loom ol the IOJ-F Heaclor. 'I he upper surface is a lew inches ahovc grade and is gravel filled No
ecord ol dalei of ope,ali.Mi. waste lype. and quantity. Diain lias a 2.5-cm (|.fai.)Mecl pipe coming
oin the 105 F limldmg. (Keference: Deford 1994)
Veilical 0.9 in- (3-ft) diameter concrete pipe bmied lo unknown dtplli with upper surface J cm
2 in.) above grade. Scaled adjacent lo the southeast corner oflhe 103-F Miscellaneous Storage
own oh u> 105-FReaclor. 'll.e upper so, face is a few inchei abovB grade andii gravel filled No
ecord of dalea of operation, waste lype. and quantity. Drain liaa a 2. J-cm ( 1 -in.) sleel pipe coming
OIH the 105-1- lltnlJnijj. (References: Deford 1994, EPA 1996)
Media/
Muluriul
Soil
Soil, asbestos
miscellaneous
debits
Concrete, soil
oil
Clay and ilcel
Soil
Concrete, soil
oncrcle, toil
I'oleiillnl
('nilelei mined
ladionuclides
Undeleriniiied
radionuclidei,
inorganic and
"Iganic chemicals
tlndelermined
radionuclides,
organic and
inorganic ckmicals
Vganic Solvent!;
Petroleum
lydrocarboni
Jndclcrniined
organic and
norganic chemicals
Indclerinincd
organic and
norganic chemicals
Indelermined
organic and
norganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
norganic chemicali
CuU uf
Siint|)liiig
J49.201
$80,059
$121,951
$134.127
$32,638
J55,OK7
$52.638
S31.63K
-------
I ^,1: ± s sr t.
i ^* *E. — — ' S*
K fill
-------
Table A-2. Candidate 100 Area Remaining Sites for Plug-in of Kcmove/Treal/Dispose. (I<) pages)
Operable
Unit
Mil). DIM
(com )
Site Name
1 00-1 >-.!<)
(.Sodium
Dichromalc Snil
Ciiiilaiiiiniilitin)
II6-IJ-IO
(I05-l>|-ucl
Storage llasin
( 'Icanotil
I'ercolalion I'ils)
I28-D-2
limning I'il
IIO-l)-lb
(1716-f) Gasoline
Slorage Tank Nile)
I.I2-IM
(M5-l)/l)l«i;is
Kccirciilaling
facility)
H2-l>.2
(117-1)1 illcr
'Inilding)
I.12-D-3
1608-1) Waste
Walci/CI'lliicm
'limping Slalioii)
628-3
Hum I'il)
Current Site Knowledge
,* .
Sodium dichiomale soil contamination liiund alter demolition of the 190-1) Iluilding. Also called
1X5-1) Na( 'r Trench. 1 >iiiicnsiiui$ given sue 9.1 x \ m (104 x 3.3 ft) Site may lie coveted with 3 in
(10 ll> ill' clean Mill and nibble backfill Iroin 190-1 > Iluilding demolition. (Reference: WIDS)
Received Healed wafer from Ilie 105-1) T'uel Sloiagc Kasin cleanup piojecl. C'onlaniiiiiilud water was
processed through liliers and an ion exchange system he-lore dischaige. A Her an unplanned release,
Ilie (wo pits were excavaled, coiitaininated soil was removed, and the site surveyed, released, and
backfilled. Wesl pil was 107 x 6 7 x 09m deep (35 x 22x3 It deep), under (he hack (ill 1-asl pil
Wiis 1 5 2 x 7 .t x 1 2 in deep (50 x 24 x 4 1) deep). (References: Carpenlei 1994. HI'A 19%)
deceived noncoiilaininiiled graphite blocks and oilier solid wastes dining reactor construction.
Located abonl 1X0 in (6IH) II) multicast ol'lhe I28-D-I burn pil. Site is approximately 73 x 73 in
(2-40 x 24011). No definite boundaries Concrete and metallic debris exposed. Currently used to
dispose of lumhlcwceds (References: Carpenter 1994, 1:I'A 1996)
l-'omicr location ul'a steel underground gasoline storage tank (removed during 1989). lank was part
ofllie former 1706-1) fuel station that operated from 1944 to 1968 and was used for storage of leaded
gasoline. Alter removal ol the liink, the site was backfilled without removal of contaminated soil.
Dimensions unknown. (Reference: Carpenter 1994)
Building was decontaminated, decommissioned, and demolished in situ in 1985-1986. AKCI, report
calculations exist. Site consisted ofa building with vacuum and pressure seal pits and tunnels to the
105-1) and 105-1 W Kcaclor Buildings. Site is 5 1 x 30 x 3.4 m deep ( 168 x 98 x 1 1 It deep). Buried
under at least 1 m (3.3 11) ol'hacklill. (References. Carpenter 1994, lil'A 1996, DOH-KI. I994g)
llnilding was decontaminated, decommissioned, ami demolished in situ in 1986. AKC'I. report
calculations exist. 1 he site is 18 x 12 x 8.2 m deep (59 x 39 x 27 11 deep) Contaminated rubble is
Miricd a minimum of 1 m (3 3 II) deep, except Itu seal pil ruhhle, which is buried under minimum of
5 in (16 4 II) clean (ill. (References: Carpenter 1994, l:PA 1996, DOIMU. I994g)
Iluilding was decontaminated, decommissioned, and demolished in situ in 1986-1987. A RC'I. report
calculations exist Received water from reactor building drains (primarily fuel storage basin
iverllows) containing low-level radiomiclides and decontamination chemicals. I'umpcd water from
collection pits to 105-1) Reactor process effluent pipelines. Site is 6. 1 x 6.1 x 9.8 m deep
20 x 20 x 32 (1 deep) (Rcleiences: Carpenter 1994. 1-I'A 1996, DOI--KI. I994g)
Ised for burning of nonradioaclive, combustible wastes, including construction debris and chemical
olvcnls Depression in site center shows signs ol severe plant stress and soil discoloration. Site is
ipproximalely 76 x 122 m (250 x 40 ft) and poorly defined. Site is littered with burned wood, nails,
nelal pipes, rehar, and glass debris. (References: Carpenter 1994, lil'A 1996)
Media/
Material
Soil
Soil
Soil,
concrete,
metals
Soil
Concrete,
metal
Concrete, soil
Concrete, soil
Soil,
niscellaneoiis
debiis
Potential
Contaminants
Sodium dichromate
llmlctcimincd
radiomiclides
Undetermined
inorganic and
01 gaiiic chemicals
I'etrolemn
hydrocarbons;
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
ll-3,(M4,Co-60,
Sr-90,Cs-l.)7,
Mil- 152, l'u-239
H-3,C-l4,Co-60,
Sr-9(),Cs-l37,
l:'u- 152, l'n-239
C-l4,Sr-90,Tc-99,
Ua-226, tJ-235,
IJ-238, Pu-239,
Am-241,
indelennined
ugnnic chemicals
Indelennined
>rganie and
norganie chemicals,
asbestos
Estimated
Cost of
Sampling
$48,645
$51,350
$123,037
$52,940
$72.513
$99,382
$128,823
$126,540
-------
Table A-2. Candidate 100 Area Remaining Sites for Plug-in of Remove/Trcat/Dispose. (19 pages)
Operable
(luil
IWM1C-2
(Will ) •
1(10 DIM
(CI-KCI.A
site - 1 PA
lead)
Site Name
I28-C-1
(lOO-Clliiming
I'il)
I32-C-I
(105-C Kcitcior
Slack llmial
(iiouml)
I32-C-3
(II7-C Killer
Iliiilding Site)
1607-HK
(Seplic Tank niitl
Drain Field)
1607-119
(Seplic Tank and
Dfiiiiil-'icld)
1607-WO
(Seplic 'I'ank and
Drain Field)
Ih07-ltll
(.Septic 1'iink and
Drain Held)
1 0(1-1 )-8
(1 05-1 )K Process
ScwcrOiilfiill)
l()()-l)-7
J lumping Area)
IOO-D-24
(1 I'M) Sample
iuilding l-rends
)rain)
Current Site Knowledge
Used liii burning miiiiitdiiiitclivc contotilile materials mid disposal of imncniitnniimited equipment
nnd other solid waste .Site is 6H 6 x IX in (225 11 x 125 II) and reportedly contains short-lived
radmniiehdes (References, Carpenter 1994. lM)li-RI, 19941)
Slack and foundation were decontaminated, decommissioned, and demolished using explosives in
1 98 ). Al(( '1. report culcnlaliiins predicted 4.4 mrem/yr exposure from a rndiomiclide inventory of
2 8 milliciirics, Sile is an unmarked, vegetation-free cohhlc-covered licld 61 in (2(H) U) long. 9.2 in
(.11) II) wide, and 4 6 in (15 II) deep (References- Carpenter 1994. DOI-.-KI. 19941)
Kuilding was decontaminated, decontmissicined, and demolished in situ in 1988. AIU.'I. report
calculations exist Itiihlile was buried from 1 lo 5 in deep (3.3 ID 16 11) under clean (ill. lluilding
\vas originally reinforced concrete 18 x 12 in (59 x 39 U) anil 10 7 in (35 li) high, with only 2.4 in
(8 It) above grade. (References: Carpenter I994;I)OI:-IU. I994f, I993c)
Received sanitary sewnge from 190-C I'nniplinnsc. 1,125-1. (350-giil) slcel septic lank and tile drain
field Seplic lank dimensions are 1 8 x 1) 9 x 2.5 in deep (6 x 3 x 8 3 11 deep). Drain field is 59 in'
(640 It') (References: Carpenter 1994, HI'A 1996)
Received sanitary sewage from 105-C Reactor. 9,085-1. (2,400-gal) septic lank and (ile drain field.
Seplic tank dimensions are 4.3 x 0.9 x 2.5 in deep ( 14 x 3 x 8.3 II deep) Drain field is 408 m'
(4390 It1). (References. Caipenler 1994.1-l'A 1996)
Received sanitary sewage from licadlionse of 183-C Water Treatment I'lanl. 1,325-1. (350-gal) sleel
septic lank and lile drain field. Sile dimensions are 4 6 x 9.1 in (15 30 II), depth assumed lo be
2.5 in (8.3 II) Drain field is 59 in' (640 (»'). (Reference: I:TA 1996)
Received sanitary sewage limn 183-C l-ilter llnilding and Pump Room. 1,325-1. (350-gal) sleel
septic lank and lile drain Held Site dimensions arc 4 6 x 9 1 in ( 1 5 x 30 It), depth assumed lo be
2.5 m (8 1 II). Drain field is 59 in' (641) li') (References. Carpenter 1994. lil'A 1996)
Received waste water from water treatment facilities, including chemical discharges from spills in
the treatment facilities. I'otcnlial contamination from the 100-D Area Cask I'ad storm drains. Sile is
upstream of (he I8I-D Pnmphoiise Structure was demolished in 1978, and covered to hlend with
the riveibank appearance Dimensions unknown. (Reference: Carpenter 1994)
Solid waste sniface dumping areas continuing noiuiidioaclivc, non-ha/ardmis waste including
vilrilied clay pipe, concrete cores, metal painl cans, and wood dclnis located noilli and east of the
1 28-D-2 bum pit Approximate dimensions are: wcsl area - 35 x 24 m (1 15 x 80 11), northeast area
- 80 x 45 m (260 x 1 20 II). east area - 3 1 x 45 in ( 100 x 1 20 II).
Sile drawing ll-l -19810 shows an "existing dry well" located sooth of the 1 19-1) Sample Duilding
demolished) Ihiil received drainage from a lloor drain A 5 -cm (2-in) drain pipe 0.9 in (3 It) below
;rnde Ciiiiiiccled the building ID ihc dry well The sile is no! masked or posted, lies in a
cobble-covered licld, and cannot he distinguished. Dimensions unknown. (Reference: WIDS)
Media/
Material
.Soil.
concrete,
miscellaneous
debris
Concrete
Concrete, soil
.Sleel, lile, soil
Concrete, lile,
soil
Sleel, lile. soil
Steel, lile, soil
Concrete, soil
Concrete, tile.
soil
Soil
Potential
Contaminants
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Co-60, Sr-90,
(VI37(l:u-l54,
l'u-2.18, l'u-239/240
11-3. C-14, Sr-90,
Cs-137, P.u-154,
l:u-l52,l'u-239/240
lliidclcnniiicd
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
radiomiclides and
organic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
radionuclides,
inorganic and
organic chemicals
Estimated
Cost of
Sampling
J77.792
$55,803
$95.088
$51,350
$51,350
$51,350
$51,350
$70.389
$96,300
$73,824
-------
Opcrul.lc
llnil
1(10 1 U-l
(mill )
Table A-;
SHe Nmue
(IIIHriluilding
Ill-in. 1'icinli
Oiain)
KI01-I2
(16 in 1 icndi
Drain at
105-Kllnilding)
KIO-r-16
(1118-IMIuil.ling
Kl-iii I'Kiuli
He Jin)
1001 18(1, HUM
Conilcmale 'lank ul
IOVI)
1(101-21
I4l-l'l>iywell)
(IOI--24
I4»l DiywehV
'•em bill, mi)
M6-III Iliywells/
iiriiiliDiains
(III 1 29
.A|- I'incess
ewei I'lpclmcs)
1101 -II
III I'S.iml.HV
cwv, SuKin)
(III I'-ll
Camlhlare 100 Area Remaiiiiiig Silcs f«r Plug..,, «f RemovertYeal/Dispose. (19 pages)
rurreul Site Knowledge
Vcilical 05,,, ,(!.$-«) duniclc, ^conc.c.e pipe (length unknown) adjacent lo no.lhweU corner oflhe
lid 1? "lbi|i"1"" « w"'w''! 0( I""-'-' iWMhMS. No record ol dale, of operation, w.sle type,
mi quaii ity. | he diaii^sinface is^lcw inches above gradj, has no cover, and is tilled with gravel.
Vcilical O.V-IH- (3 ft) dimneter concrete pipe ofunknown length sl.ndmg S cm (2 in ) above w.de
with .Heel lid. Ucaled al the nonh«as| corner oflJie JO J.f Kcaclor. No record ofdales of
u|ieialiiin, waits lypc. or ipiuility. (Reference!: Dclord J9!>4. liPA 1996)
108-l'llnilding east porch. No record of dales of operation 'waste type or Ja.'iiily °
(Kelcrence; Delord 1994) '
Uece.ved condcnsale horn the KI5-I' lau House and discharged lo a dtain Keld Tw* and piping
were removed d.ning demolilion oflhe fan house in 1994, hut drain field may remain in place No
reaudol dales ol operation, waste type, or wells o, I'.ench diains in the a,c» The i.niis may have been removed or
oveied will, backlill dnrmg removal oflhe neaiby I4(,-|-|« slab in 1975. No record of dales or
peulion. waste type. 01 i|iianlity. (Iteference. WIDS)
his unit contains the many piocess sewer lines al the l-hpeiimenlal Animal l-arm site When the
mldmgs weie u-moved. ll.e unde,g,ound lines weie Icll in place. The nnil excludes ll.e lleaclor and
valei Irealiiu-nlelllucnl lines (Itel'eicnces: Ocfoid I'J94, IM)I>-I<|. I9!)2a)
no sue is Hie sepdc system receiving sanilaiy sewage liom (he 1 -1 1 1" lluil.ling Sile diawini-s do
..1 nuhcale il system also icceived animal waslis uilli 1, a,, wastes 'I lie scp.ic syslen. may have
eeiiieiiiovedduriugilwD&DiilNM in 1977. (Keleifiicu. WIDS)
lav have ieceive.1 unplanned releases ..fwale, containing ,H,K-es« ellbienl liom the |jsh ponds No
l-Mses are known. I>.,| UK ponds weie unlined. uiuemloiced co.Mete. and Hiev and ihei, piping
,iv have leaked Wale, limn Hie ponds was dischaiged lo (he I'NI. (iiiUull via Hie
•17-1 rinnphuiisc 1 be pond slmdiires weie removed in I'J75 and the site backfilled
(eference. DOh-RI. !9'J2a)
MerliK/
Nfnlt'tliil
Concrete, toil
Concrete,
si eel, toil
Steel, toil
Steel
Soil
Soil
1 InknowH
Concrete,
clay, metal
Soil
Soil
Potcnllul
CuiiiNiiiliiHnli
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chcmicali
Undcterniincd
organic and
inorganic chcmicali
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic clieinicali
Undetermined
organic and
inoiganiu chemicals
Undetermined
radionuclidct
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
l-l3l,Sr-90,Cii-|37,
U-235, U-238,
Pu-239/240
Undeleiinined
radionuclides and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
radjonuclides
Ei»lm»led
Cost of
$52,638
$52,638
$52,638
$68,686
J6J.5I8
$73.824
$61,657
$123,105
$54.785
$49.203
-------
Opcrulite
Unit
100 Fit 1
(l-IHH )
Table A-2
Sile Name
IliO-F-M
(llniliigylatilily
lieiKlilliain)
(II7-F French
Diain)
(1 -18 F French
Dtain)
I26-F-2
(IHI-FCIi-ai wells)
I28F-2
HM1F limning Pit)
H2I-I
Cluonie Feeding
lain Sue)
IISKi.i
lecir dilating
•'•i-ilily Site)
I2-F-4
1 161- Reactor
latk Demolition
lie)
321-5
1 17 F Filler
tnilding Sile)
Jia"cl"lal^^ (19 pages)
*
Current Sile Kunwlcilge
lleheved In have received tvatlc water li om the 1705-F lUliohiology 1 aluHaloiy « Fivli Ms
Ihe vile ik a 0 7 in (29 in ) iliameici day pipe, appioxinulcly I) 6 in (2 It) deep
(Keleience. WIDS)
1'.™ ?Tre 'T,*" twRlKmtM "liaml »yslcms ™« >"' P«» '« 'lie 1 17-F llmlding timing
1 J60-I965. Kadiomiclidcs received had a vliwl half-lifc and have decayed until they are no longer o
concern. Site was released liom ladialion lone stains The piping system contained some
avbevlos-concrele pipes. (Reference. Delord 1994)
Received an estimated 10.00(1 1. of cllluonl pump ,* Jme water Horn the lilt station between 1 944 and
1964. Diain is 0.9-m (36.Jn ) diameter by 1 8-m (6-11) deep (constructed of clay or concrele pipe)
l.i.|iilds discharged lo Ihe diain |«rcolaled into the soil. Contaminants, ifany are unknown
(Keleience: Defotd 1994)
I'ormer cleaiwells for vlorage of liver water being processed for reactor coolant. I'ailially Ueniotished
and used as an ineil landlill for div|toval of iinconlaminated nibble and debits lium D&D wojccls
1 )imeniions aie 229 x 4 1 x4 6 m deep (75 1 x 1 3 5 x 1 5 « deep).
liregnUily shaped depression used for binning nonha^ar doiis office waste, vegetation, paint
solvent., and oilier combnMibles Received some haidware and machineiy. 'Ilic site was bmied with
clean soil in pieparalion for Jiilling leil well F5-42 in 1992. I'il was 45 7 x 18 3 x 3 mdeeii
(!50Bx60Hx lOlldecp) (References: Deford 1994,1'I'A 1996)
Feeding Dam was a 455 m1 (4,900 II1) conwel* block iHiilding with concrete animal |wns; main
touting lacihly Ibr sheep and other livestock used in radiological dose tlndiet. Ihe facilities were
cleaned out and washed down regularly; ibaiiu weic comiecled to sewer IOO-F-29. Operated
1950-19811. Demolished sometime alter 1980 anil Imiicd in place. May still contain residual
adiological conlaminulion; Ihcie are no recoids of decommissioning aclivilies Sampled in 1992
WIIC-SD-i:N-TM28.llcvO) (Rcleicnces: DOF.-lll. |99hl, FI'A 1996)
luilding D&D'd in situ in 1984. AKCI. lepoil calculations exist. Dimensions aie 53.3 x 30 5 x 4 m
deep ( 175 x 100 x 1 3 It deep). The aiea was coveicd with clean backfill lo an average depth of 2. 1 lo
2.7m(7lo9fl) Site i« now a giavel lot. free of debris. (References: Hedslrom 1984
Moid 1994. DOK-III. I994d, KI'A 19%)
Slack and fonmlnju,, weie decoiiUniinaled. dcconiniissioned, and demolished using explosives in
983. AKCI.ienoit calciilaliuiw piediclcd 12.5 mrem/yr exfiosnie using ladioniiclide assays Iwfore
econlaminalioii. •|liebiiiiallieiiLhis6| x6.l x4 6mdeep(200 x 20 x 15 It deep) Rubble was
oveied with 1 m (3 II) of soil. (References: Heckslrom 1984. Defoid 1994, F.PA 1996)
Received and lillcicd ventilation air liom the woik areas of the 105-K Reactor Diiilding and
istliiiged i! la His .' !6 -F Slack, iiuiiding wa* decoiiiamiiulcii. decommissioned, and demolished in
(Hi in 1984. AKCI. repwl calculations exi»l. Rubble Was buiicd under 1 in (3.3 H) of clean soil
Ilednneiisionsarel81xl22x8.2mdeej)(60x40x27«deep). (References: Defoid 1994.
'1 A 1 J96)
Media/
Claypijie.
soil
t'oncrele,
asbestos, toil.
clay
Concrele,
clay, (oil
Concrele. Soil
Soil
Soil, concrete
Concrele,
nclal pipes,
oil
.'oncrele
.'oivcrele
PolenlUI
L'ltdelciinincd
organic and
inorganic chemicals
I'lidelediiincd
ladiomiclides
OitdiHennined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
'ossible lx)W-l.cvel
ItaJioictive Waste
I'ndelcriiiined
ofganic chemicals
Sr-90,Cs-l37,
Pu-239
I-3.C-I4,C^60,
Sr-90,C«-l37
1-3, C- 14, other beta
nd gamma entitling
adionticlides
C- 14, Co 60,
C»-I37. Sr-90,
tu-l54.Hu.|52
Eillmaleil
Coil of
SllM)l)|j|)i>
$61.657
$52.638
$43,477
$118,194
$52.940
$57,950
$72,588
$57.950
$99.382
-------
Table A-2. Candidate 100 Area Remaining Sites for IMiig-iii of Remove/Treat/Dispose. (19 pages)
Opcrnlile
Ui.il
KiDI It- 1
(coul.)
mo rn-2
ilc I-I'A
kjd)
S'llv Nuinc
I32F6
(I608-I1 Waste
Water I'umping
Station Sile)
I4I-C
(Ijiigc Aitinul
lUiiiiail Iliotogy
laboratory)
IK2-I<
(182-rUescivuii)
16071 1
( 124 l;-l Septic
System)
IC.07-N
(124-1-4 Septic
System)
1607-11
(124 1-5 Septic
System)
160717
(l2ll:-7Scplic
.Sy^cm)
III'K-IOUI-I
(l-IIClo
MI-MScwci line
1 cat.)
IH'II KIOI-I
(KkniMY S'|ii|| at
I-I6-I Tishlah)
100-1-14
(Vcni I'ipe)
Current Sile Knowledge
I'umpcd waste water containing trace amounts of low-level ridioimclides and decontamination
chemicals lioni diains and swnpi in the 105-F Keailur liuilding iiilu (lie process diluent pipeline.
Dimensions ate 1 5.2 x 1 5.2 x 10.4 in deep (50 x 50 x 34 It deep); demolished and tuiicd under 5 ill
( 16 11) of ck-^n lill. (Keforoicei: Dol'urd I'J!>4. 1>I>A 1V96)
This fucilily wii a Heel Ixiildiiig on a cunaele pad, covering 43 1 in' (4.640 1)1), 'lite building.
coiiucle fuiiiiikliun, footings, mul adjacent tuiiucniitcilcd toil were reniuved and Jitposcd of lu the
200 Aica Ilitiul lifoiinJ. Uiidcrgi utinil pipet wcie loll in place. Filly toil samples were taken after
demolition was vuinjitcled lu dcmoiulrale release under AEC ReguUloty Guide 1.86.
(Uererence: lil'A IV96)
Incil liiidlill fix dii|kinl ufdcluis liuni D&l) (Hojocli. Covered will) lill lioni ndjaccnt land.
5611 x 3d1; x 15 II deep. .
|tca'ivcdsiiiiii.ny sewage lioni the IK2-l;i>tiinp.S'lalinn, IKM: Water Ticjlnicnl I'Util, and
I5|-rsul,j|j|ion Keinlora-di-cHiacte septic Uiik 2.6 x 1.3 x 1.4 in deep (K.5X4. 5 x II II deep).
ilic A am licld is 244 in1 (2.624 It1). (Keleiences: Dclord 1994, til'A 1996)
llci-cived tinilaiy sewage lioni the 1 l5-l;(i»s Kecin-nlulion llnilding. Dimensions olilicrciiiloited
loiurete »c|ilic laiO, ire 1.2 x 0 6 x 2.5 m deep (4x2 x 8.1 It deep) 'Hie diain lie 14 is 36 in1
(JX4II1) (Itclcrcnces: DdWJ 1994, bPA 1996)
Keccived saniinry scwjgc lioni (he 181-h I'nmplionse. hiniensioiii ut'llie reinltirced concede veplic
Uiik aie 1.2 x 06 x 2.5 in deep (4 x 2 x 8.3 11 deep), the diai'n licld is 16 in' (184 It').
(Kelcrenccs: Delord 1994. I-I'A 1996)
Received saniUiy sewage liuni the 141-Ki linildiii|{. Dimension* of the septic liink are not known.
'Iliediainneldiseslinuledlohe 170 m1 (1,8 10 It1). (Kelerencei: DelWd 1994. IT A 1996)
Spill ol64.l52 1, ( 1 7,1100 gal) ol'animal pen vva&h water occnired when a process sewer line from the
141 •(.' Hog HJIII plugged .tiulovei (lowed adjacent to lite Intiltling it) 1971. Spill sile, I2.2x 12 2 m
(-10 x 40 II), is louilcd \villiin (lie peiiiiiinenl pioteclive concrete nioninneiils sinioimding the
H.s'pciimcntul Aiiinul 1 anil (Kefeience: Del'oid 1994)
lta'i:ivcd IIICHIMV spilled un the llnurofihe 1-16 lit I'isli 1 uh (since demolished) All material was
"Miuccgccd" oiil the diHii
-------
O|RTnlile
Unit
KMI Fit-2
(mm.)
lim-im-i
((.T.KCI.A
site -l-l' A
lead)
TnlilcA-2
Mlc NKIIIL-
IflO l-'-JH
(.Scplic System)
IU-F-4
(Silica (let llmial
(hound. II 5-F 1'il)
I28-F-I
(limning I'il)
I28IM
(I'NI. Homing I'il)
1607-FI
;i24-F-l Septic
System)
100-11- lk
;i7l6-|l,.ildi,,g .ml ».«r.,,y cmlimhnKil lacililic. T1,e
MWiMil titc «l Uic mill i» 1 K Ix IK .1 IH (fid N {,»))) (Reference: WIDS)
Received 270 kg (O.J lout) ol silica gel from ,|u. | | 5-F j^, room>. mn , „„ di j
Himll luilined d,vpus,l pi) J x J x 4 6 „. deep ( 10 x 10 x 1 5 II deep). The tile .ppeui .! ... open
unvcgeuied collide field (Kelirenees: Defurd I9'H fl'A 1996)
U»ed Iw Umiing noiir»dio.clive. cumbmlible rnaleri.ls tucli » in ptim wwle. office ivasle ind
ilicinicil tolveius. Horning pil i> 30. J x 30.5 x 3 ... deep ( 100 x 100 x 10 It deep) Scaled cut of
Hie I26-F-I Aih I'il. Opeuicd 1945- I96J. Sile h« l.eeu Imck filled. (References- Delurd W!M-
IXIK-KI. mi», I99JI.. FI'A 1996) •••••»• "•«.
l)»cd IIK iHiiiiiiig nialciiaU liuni llic Kxperiineiilal Aninul Farm. Shallow pit 30 } x 30 5 m
(l«0x 100(1). J0.5«,(l(IOH)eaMofll,e lflO.Fwhpil. I'il WM Lack tilled will, coaUl, No records
•vaiMileoiinialciulslHiiiKd. (References: Deford 199-1, Kl'A 1996)
Received Military sewage froinllic I70I-F lladge House. 1709-FFire Slalion, and 1720-F
Admiiiiilr.live OlJice. J lie reinforced wiicrelescplicmiik is 4.3x2.1 x3.4mdeep(H x7 x llfl
Icep). 'Hie drain field U 968 in' (21.600 II1). (Refeiences: Deford 199-1, EPA 1996)
-ocalion of i tied »nd«Bromid gusolme ilonge lank for .11 nitomolive service slalion Dial operiled
rum I94V-I96). Hie inlomolivc service uea included gas ptimpi will. underground iloiagc laiJ^s
«nd possibly in oil pil. No records could be locale.1 lo delenuinc wlielher (lie fuel Unks have heen
euioved Dimensions unknown. (Reference: Defoidiindliinaii 1995)
Sue ol i former maintenance building Dial wit decontaminated mid decommissioned in Ihe I97(('s
••leiich .ham wai upparcntly used lo, di>|ioM| o| low level la.lioaclive muleiials. Diincnsioiu
nknown. (Relereiices: IMbidimd l-nun 1995. FI'A 1996)
'eilicil 0.76-m- (2.5-H) diameter vitrified clay pipe (length unknown) located 5.5 in (1 8 fl) east of
he 105-11 Iteatlur IliiilJiiig No recoid ofdjles of operation, waste lype. or i|ii«nlily. A 6.3-cin
2 5-in ) steel pipe from Hie reactor is in line with die drain, suggesting a connection
References: Defnrd and l-iiun 1995. KPA I99b)
ir jvellilled vertical 0.9 1 m- (3-11) d.ameler concrete pipe with a steel cover (length unknown)
oculed 9. 1 m (30 11) casl of the 105-H Kcaclor Huilding. No record of dale* of operation, waste
ype, or quantity. (References: Defon! anil Kuan 1995. El'A 1996)
eilicil 0 6-m- (2-11) diameter concrete pipe (length unknown) located 27 m (90 ft) west of the
midwest comer of the 105-11 Re.clo, Ikulding No record of datei of operation, waste lype or
uanlily. (Rclerencea: Deford and Email 1995, EHA 1996)
MctllkV
Malcriul
I'llkllOXVll
Soil, silica ge
Soil.
miscellaneous
debris
Ash, soil
Concrete,
vitrified pipe,
coil
Soil
Soil
Soil, vilrilied
lay
Concrete, toil
'oncrele, toil
PolClHlll
ConiHinliiHnis
I'lMleleiniiiicd
orgauic aitd
inorganic chemicals
Undciemmied
radioniiclides,
inorganic and
organic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
orgtnic and
inorganic chemicals
i'elroleum
lydroctihons;
Indclermiued
organic and
tioigiiiic chemicals
tndetermincd
adiomiclidci and
organic chemicals
Jndclcrmiiicd
adionuclidei
Indelerniined
organic and
UKKfanic chemicils
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicali
Eillniulcd
Cost uf
.Smnpliny
J5 1,350
$61,686
$67.462
$80.059
$51,350
J55.087
$70,389
$51,350
$51.350
151,350
-------
Operable
Unit
mo HIM
(coin.)
KM) lilt- 2
(Kl'ltA site
- Kcotogy
lend)
Table A- Candida (e 100 Area Remaining Silcs for rlue-in of Kemove/TrcniVnUpnc, (IQ pnm)
Site Niinc
KM) II 10
(liemlil>i»inl>)
12611-2'
(l8MICIeai wells;
Disposal I'll)
U2-IM
(1 16-11 Keictof
l-xhansl Slack
llmialSilc)
132 11-3
(1608-11 Waste
Water I'liiiiping
Station Silo)
I2KII-I
limning I'il)
I2XII.2
llm tiing I'il)
2811 J
"Oil limning
luilllitf/))
J2-II-2
1 17-11 1 ilia
liiilding Site)
W-IM
're-Hanimd
imping AICII)
Current SKe Knowledge
Vertical 1.2-111. (4 n.) ,li.,nclcr vili ilitd cliy pipe with steel lid (length unknown) looted 76m
(23 11) noilh of Hie 105 II Reactor Ituilding. No record ofdtlei of ope, .lion, waste type or uuairiilv
(Reference: Defwd and Kuan 1995) ' H '
1 wo 228 6 x -II. 1 x 3.3 n, (750 II x IJ5 ft x 18 H) deep reiiif,««d concrete basins .1 Hie site ofihe
former 183-11 Water liealmc.il lacilily. 'Hie l>asim were lii.Moiically uted to ctoie clean reactor
coolant water. l-aslem half cuiienlly holds D&l) mblile (west halfis still intact). Waste from the
I8J-II Solar Evapoialion llasiiis that was disposed here ii suspected of being contaminated with
radionuclides. (Reference: Defoid and Hinan 1993)
Slack and foundation were decontaminated, decommissioned, and dcmolislted using explosives in
I98J. AKCI, report call -illations exist, low-level iineaiable conlaniiiuition wai present on concrete
it the lime of demolition |1« Imriil trench was 67 x 7.6 x 3 in deep (220 x 25 x 10 II deep). Knhhle
wit covered wild 1 m (1 II) ul'soil. (Refeicncci: Dcfw,! aixl Cimui I WJ, IMMi-RI. |993|,(
Received waste water coniaining trace amounts of low-level ladionnclides ami decontamination
Uieimcals lioni diains and sumps in the 1(15 II Keactor liuilding and piini|icd these wastes into the
process diluent pipeline. Dimensions are 1 1 x 10.4 x 9.7 in ilccp (16 K 34 x .12 ft deep), hmicd
undci clean fill (References Dclwd and h'inaii 1995, DOIMU. I995h. CI'A 1996)
1 »sed fiir Ininiing m.niadioaclive. comlHislihle inalctials tucli as an paint waste, nllice waste and
chemical solvents. Hunting pit is 91.3 x 9 1.5 x 3m deep (.100 x 300 x 10ft deep) rilhaslieen
»ilially backfilled with soil and asl,. Some dcliiis remains at the tile. (References- Delmd and
IJnan 1995; IX >I--R|. 1993.1. 19941.; CI'A 1996)
Used lor limning nonradioactive, combustible nialeiials sucli as paint waste, ollke waste and
hcimcal solvents limning pji j, 52 x 41.2 m (170 x 1.15 II), depth m.l.nown. (References- Defoid
WKl l-inan 1995. IK)i;-|t|. I99ld, I994h; I'l'A 1996)
s ganic Solvents;
'clrolenm
ydrocaiboni
1-3. C- 14, Co 60,
C«-l37.Sr-90.
:u-l52,l-:n-l54.
•u-239/240
'robable Pesticides
id Petroleum
ydiocaihons
EsllmKed
Cost of
Stunnllng
S3 1,330
$196,313
$57.950
$114,413
$101,919
$68,766
$65,787
$110,118
$138,422
-------
|
Operable
Unil
IODIIK-2
(ClHll )
ICOKU.2
(CKMCI.A
sile- KI'A
lead)
i'llc Nunic
IdOMII1
[.SVplk I »n(v awl
™1^^
Mcillii/
Current Site Kitnulcilge
lOO-K.n
(liquid Waste Nile
|Fi.
IOO.K-29
(181-KK
Sand-blasting Nile)
KIO-K-JU
(ISJ-KKKulfmic
Avid Tank Site
KIO-K-JI
(IHl-KI'S'niriiiic
Acid Tank Site
Qtcference.; Caq.e.uer and Cole 1994. DOK-RI. |994», MPA 1996)
outlined.
IOO.K-J2
(l8l-KWSulfi,,ic
Acid T«nV Site
(Kelcrcnccs: <.aipciHcr >nd Cote L994, |X)|j.H|.
No
IOO-K-.1t
(IHI-KWSiilmiic
Acid Tank She
=SiEHH5SSS~
(Relcremes; Cupeirfer and Cole 1994. IXM--RI. 1994.. I-PA 1996)
Miitcilnl
p,llll, ,, .,„ wesl Of ,,ie ,K»« «
W.»«»ldy 50 x 30 „, (160 x 96II) i, delinealed by ,|,e presence of red g n
(References: Cupeirter ind Cole 1994, IX)E-R|, |994»» S
Soil, red
gaiiicl
saiulblisl gij|
Soil, concrete
.
IOO-K-3J
(UI-KI-Acid
Nculitliialion I'il)
^^
Suit, Concrete
S'uil, concietc
Ginlnmlimnu
wgauic and
timiginic cliciiucats
EsllniHlcil
(.'nil of
$51. ISO
(Jiulclertiiined
wgmic ind
inorganic chemicals
UiHleleriiiined
wginicaiKl
norganic chemicals
As, |)a, Cd, Cr, Pb.
Ig. Ag. Se, Sulfale
$56,074
$7ll,9(Mi
As,|la,Cd,Cr,l'b.
llg. Ag.Se.Siilf.ie
As, IU.Cd.CV.rb.
llg.Ag.Se.&'iilfale
J59..I82
J59.I82
A», |U. Cd, Cr, Ph.
Mg. Ag.Se, Sulf.ie
A», Ila. Cd, Cr, I'b,
Ug.Ag.Se, Snir.lt
$59,1«2
J50.79.1
-------
Unit
IOOKR-2
com.)
Silt Nmue
IOO-K-36 .
(l7U6Kli
Chemical Storage
Facility |)(y Well)
IOO-K-46
(H9K|.;ire.Kli
Diain)
00-K.48'
100.Ki; Oil
Coiilaniiiialion
Areas)
IOO.K-491
(l(H).KWOj|
Contamination
Aieas)
^'J^1^^ (,9 pagcs)
Current Slle Knowledge
IMM-.RI. I994a) "'"Wing (Reference* Carpenter andCote 1994,
.K.;,,c.llor H-iM
Cote |994,
g andJn..Ol
"K|. 1994, >H A 1996) "' "'d'"8
Water l-'acilily
Titmli, 10(1 MM)
I20-M--6
(IK l-Ki: Sodium
mk)
I20KW.J
(IK1KW Sodium
(K'ltK"C" ( """"" ^J^J^UW^S, (Appendix K|;VpA iSfi,
IJKK-
(IUU-K
Ur* remain i ..... K . No k v , ,* «
l..».linB and b. ,d|lllg ,,„" " j |« ^ o Ml ,, ' P°"'e " 'o li
-------
Opcmlitc
Illlil
IUO.KI1.2
(coirt.)
100-111-2
(CEHCI.A
tile - F.I'A
lead)
JN^JS!!!!*!^^
C'urrcnl Sile Kiwwleitj;e
.Vile Name
I28-K-2
(HH) KComliitiliun
IhlllljlA Hunting
I'M)
I10-K-2*
(1717-KWasleoil
Dotage link)
I3NKIM
(105-KE
Fmergcncy Diesel
Oil Slmage Tank)
I30KW-I
(105-KW
Finer gency Diesel
Oil Sloiagc Tank)
600-29
(100-K
Consliiicijoii
l-aydown Aica)
UPR-IOO-K-I
(105-KKFuel
•Storage llasin
Uak)
^V, :""'•'• ••|'(2'W'?*l>e"ier««'«X<»'<"»°il »l«»ge tanks that were removed in 1992 No
evidence of leakage was found. However, insulating material covc.i,,g the lank e.Meri,*, showed
oWs'dw^ 'H'ci-onlaminnledinsnlulingnialeMalwa,
^?Jo^7l^feKncesM;a,peiiler and Cole 1994. MlK.RUwl'^M'm^' "P™*"*
Site of two 7 )7M.(2.0(ll).g,l)e.ne,gency diesel oil .loraget.nk.lhal were removed in 1992 No ~
evidenceofleakage wa, found However, radio.dive contamina.iou wa, discoveredill"l«"l
SE±.£r ST£^.r±^**r"-^?sr
„
Suit
™™n^,Tct V "" '7^"-"" r« Uie~««n«ll«.of 105-KE Reactor d.iring ...
coiH.m, „„!„« theimcal dumping area, with oil-slained soil ami disliessed veRelalion
(Reference: Caipeiiler and Cole 199-1) «g«a"i»n..
Sile
Slle
cRo7/.miirtjci'S,!!rn"]f il"he I05'KE K"clof Fucl siorii:e Iiasi"- 'ihe w*ier *
;: Cirpenlcr and Cole 199-1. IK)E-RI. I994a. EPA 1996)
Soil
Soil
600 Jk
(Waste Oil Dump.
As|.lnll lleliptHl)
600-52
(While Dliilli
Suilue llasin)
bi* M?'6*^ °'' " *S|>lHl11 "'">l" ^ *'" ° 3 ft>'" <"*mele'-*l"
-------
Operable
Unit
IOOIU-2
(com.)
iS'llv Nil me
J*«I.I.J«M^^ of ltei)H)v^rea(/I).S|1Me ((9 ^^
600-911
(l-'ul While Dliifli
600-99
(J.A. Juno HI)
Current Silt Knowledge
600-100
While Illulit
dl'ill. all**
6IMI.I20
Sjuic I'jili limn
'il)
600-124
Ihiin Site ind
'•Jill l)il|K)iil|
AICI)
6(11). 1 2)
(ItU'l Slll
'Ilic Mt cuniiiiicd minor constitutio
Medl«/ I PottrtM
Conlnnilrunli
— ••
. Stable Pctticidci
md Organic Solvents
SijiS^^
Soil
Estimated
CojJ of
Sinipllng
"-™1 i ..-—.
$96,59!
Soil, Dcbrii
Undetermined
organic ind
inorganic chemicili
Aili, toil
Probable Pcriicidci
and Organic Solvciili
W5.087
S5J.087
(oil JM.I oil rii
Dlllllp.Vili;)
(.()()• 129
(Wliiie I
Sue)
lilllllC.lllOII.Sflllp
and Wuicliitiise)
ii~"r:^
oS^^^ « «w»-^
iK^m'.'iS)2"'<6 6 (l)'" ^"^ c°""i"$ uil i"d oil lilu>'s ">'»«>«. ««*l««*. !«** J..cVwell and
M.,,, ,„ I |,c „ « ,s guvelcd and Intered with deli is. Solvents and oils were Lc.llv « ed ,,
»miU bnliiict (Bel««i«v. Ca^penler 1995 IH)E-|«| (996)
l and water
Concrete,
foil, Iransile.
mitccllaiieoiit
debrit
Undelerinined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
$116,23.1
-------
— ..
Opera ML
Unit
mud i
(CUM) )
Kill II 16
(t:i:KCI.A
site - KPA
lead)
Table A-;
.Site Name
(.IHI.IU
(Coiuliilclion
C'oMluttiii Simp
lumllill)
6UU.IJ'/
(Aiilonuiiive
Repair Shop)
6UO-I76
[While Illulis I'ainl
Disposal Area)
600-|8lk
While Illuils Oil
tamp)
6 oo- mi
While Hulls
Va»le Disposal
I'rciuli 2)
600- 1 90
While Illulfi
Varelionse T«r/
'aiii! Disposal
Area)
00-20!
While Illuni Faint
ltd Solid Waste
iisposal Site)
2S-I
While Illnlis Iliun
il)
00-3
Unford Towiuile
Ximping Area and
aim Hi)
• Caiulnble IM Area Renwiumg Site for llng-in of «etnovenVea«/l)i,pose. ,|9 nnMrt
CurrcHl She Knuwletleis
IIlC KlIC III! ICllkfcd (IcLfil llU'll Ml Liitlrrv rant u«*.t -i- :i a • 11 A " '
•*-^«^»,i:^x^.s^^^
Kxccsi pauil riuleiuU were d«spo«d ofby dumping them 04, the groMnd. l),ied iw,a chins renui
.IlliesUti. (Kcluietictfs: Carpciriei I995, IH)l:-R|. (996)
A large .|Uanl,ly of oils have been dumped on the smfi.ce in an area ,U,I |7 x 15 n, (56 x 50 M
(Helerences: Carpenter 1995. IKUMd. 1996) * '
— ,.
HW sue ,s «n o|)en licmli will, imhisliial wastes tilling about one-third ol'lhe trench, l-mpiy 208-1.
ar ml pa,,,., .ppear lo have been dumped .1 the site. 11* ,i,e also **,«„, WMel,o,,« she, .,,d
uoiuied tienvli dr.mi, wncrele fouadalioiu, valve boxe«, and iniscelUneixii debri*.
Hel'crences: C.rpenler 1995, IH)K-ltl, 1996)
lie sue contain, miscellaneous debrii such .u glass, metal shaving,, canvas and d,ied puiid
Heferencet: Caipenler 1995, IX)E-KL 1996) F
pproxinukly 1/4 acre ha» sliessed vegeUlio,,. 'H.e U,,n pil j, covered will, w,,d and Rravcl
Jelerciices: Carpenter I9!)5. IH)|i-|<|. 1996) e
lie sue is an old bouow pit. and a luge ( -490 x 2UO ,n 1 1,600 x 925 ll|) area ofscallcred lush.
ullJUeiey Ust.ks i!iJ!L,'±!c Si! t>t'Cii«ut !u tHii V ifJUfi ruilx ui lite i " n
aressed vegelalion. 11« site may have been used as railroad nuilenanceXp disuo'sTv.,!'^
HeI«eiiLCk: DclojJ 191)5. IX >f.KI. 1996)
McilW
MMlfliul
Soil
Soil,
miscellaneous
debits
Soil, paint
chips
Soil
Soil.
miscellaneous
debris
Soil.
concrete,
debrii
Soil.
miscellaneous
debris
Soil
Soil, asbestos
nuscellancout
debria
1'olcnllul
ruijlaiiiliiunts
I'mlelermi'iicd
udioniiclides,
inorganic and
organic chemicals
Petroleum
liydrocaiboni;
Undetermined
organic chemicals
Undetermined
organic chemicals
Petroleum
liydrocaiboni;
Undetermined
organic chemicals
Undetermined
orginic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic chcmicili
Undetermined
organic chemicals
Undetermined
wganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
norganic clieinic.U
('ml of
Sampling
SW.9UJ
$55,OK7
$116.233
$52.940
$V4.679
$116.233
$116,233
$62.738
$220.103
-------
Unit
100-10.2
(com.)
Table A-2. Candida! e 100 Area Ueinaiiiiiig Siles for Pluft-i,i of lleiiiove/T,
Sllc Nurne
60098
(Cast While llhiHs
rilyl-andlill
600-99
(J.A. Junes 02)
600-100
(While Illnlis
•andlill; alias
600-119)
600-120
[.Spate Pails Hum
Pil)
600-124
1 hint She nut!
Aiea)
00-125
Waste Itaposal
ICIkll |)
6(HI-l27k
l-'uel Sluiage Area)
600-128'
Oilaiid Oilfiller
)uni]> Sue)
10-129
Vhile IHiiUs |)inii|)
00- HI
Special
iiUlcal.un Shop
nd Warehouse)
•• — — — _ — .
Current SHe Knowledge
KSfss-aV-r—- — — —*«.«.».
UK tile co.Mai.ied minor consl.unioi, deUis used by U,« J.A. Jone, conu.uctiou company inchidime
wood co,,c,e.* .nd mdaU. The site was exlumied and conlenU lake,, to a 200 Are. Lial wound
in 1971. (lie dimensions are 9.1 x9.| m(JOx30|») (Kclerences- C»,,.enter 1995 IK)ERI 1996)
^omT;;^?^
llw site is a Utiii pit that was us,-d lor in.lnsltial and commercial wastes, and has bee,, baiif.lled
with coal ash. Dtmensiuiis unknimn. (Uelerences: CaineiUer 1995, IX)|; 1<|. 19%)
Hie area u littered will, debr.s. such at burned wood, roofing roaleiialt. glas», nails chii.i of Oncd
patnt, and pana cani. (Kelerencea: Carpcirfcr 1995. IK)li-l(|. |!W6)
"•""""ir11 -!!'"",'1' lrah* COV<:rt:d WW| V'ltfi<11 ''" |)i""!»"11«» •« »!'!« wimalely 30 « 76 x 3 m
dee|.(|OOK25x|Ojlldcep) (llelerence: Cai,«.ileH995) I .
\ low su,l b,-,m - 55 K 35 m (182 x 1 16 II) sui.onmU ,wo lu^ij.^ d.aks The soil is covered by a
aycr ol coal ash. Fuel storage lunks may Iwve been held in lhi> a.ea. The soil under the coal ash
and adjaa-nt to the be.... is disco|o,ed. (Holmhly liom pdrokwu conl.mhuijon (oil, and gasoline)
Kcleiences: Caipe.iler 1995, IX)IM(|. 1996)
ja-.,.^*-.^.-. »,,,«_,_„,
e-llai.loidlandr.il mid tommiinilyd,im|i site. Diniemioiisaieapi.roMmatelv 201 x 152x3 m
60 .v 50(1 .v 10 II deep) (llele.ciice: I'arpeiilci 1995)
lie site u Ihe renmunii u| a luluu-alion sliup. bojle. h.Hise, waiehonse. loading dock/well and water
* ' '' l>i " " « B"*«lea and tillered will. deU is. Solvents and oils were Ivpically used in
nular fjLiliiic. (Helercnces. Caipcnler 1995. IMHMM. 1996)
•ea(/Dispos
-y
Muleilnl
Soil.Debiii
Soil
Soil, Dcbrii
Ash, toil
Soil,
iiuscelUneoui
tleUii
Soil, Oelvii
i
Soil, ash
Soil
i'oil, Dclnis
i
CoiR'fClC,
toil, iransile,
miscellaneous
debrii
e. (19 pages)
• i —
PolcnlUI
CunUmliunli
P.olablc Petlicidca
aild Organic Solvent!
iuiwga.uc chemicali
Probable Peilicidei
and Organic Solvent!
Uihlclennined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Undetermined
organic and
inorganic chemicals
Probable P«ilicidet
and Organic Solvents
Petroleum
hyuVociibons;
Undetermined
organic chemicali
Petroleum
liydrocaiboni;
Undetermined
organic chemicals
'robable Pesticides
iidOiganicSulvciils
Undetermined
organic and
norganic chemicals
EslliiiNled
Cost of
$96.591
$55,087
$55,087
$112.225
$126,540
$55,087
$68,766
$52.940
$127.685
$1 16.23.)
-------
r
Ojpcrnlili:
Hull
11)11 It Id
(i-iinl )
2UO-CW-3
(ci-itc'i-A
Jilc KI'A
tad)
Table A-2
.Site NHIIIC
ui'l(-6im.|6
(l-iic mid
('uiiUniiiialiuii
S|>< Mil)
2I6-N-I'
Cooling Wiler Pond
2I6.N-21
Wing Wiiicr
'lentil
I6-N-.V
.'ouling Wilcr
'reiicli
I6-N-41
'ooling Waler I'ond
16-N-J'
'ooliug Wiler
'lentil
I6-N-6'
ouliiig Wmer Fund
. Cmiilklnle 100 Area Reimmiing Silcs for n.ig-hi of Reinove/IVeal/Dispose. 09 mart
Ciirrfiil Silc Kninvlcilfie
A lue Annul .leco.UaHH.uuu,, rffe |'., , ,.-Ki,ily ,-„, ,,,,„„,„-„„ „;„,.,,; ^^
iu,d,HUiuH.,i ilHouKhaui ||M 1,0,1,!). h, |V74 die »ile m> Jwort^HjcJ. demulahed «, d ,cle.«d
bam uJ^liun zone iUliis. 'I lie dimciiiiuns p( ovitlcJ we J5 x JO 5 m ( 1 80 x 100 II)
(Helitewcei: Dclord I'jyj. IM)IM(|. |';%)
K.TSCtS^^
Kcwived U.I,, w.ler md vl...!^ when il,c 2 12-N Iliiildi,,,. liid u,«Bc b»i,H were duincd for .ncciil
leilii in 1947. St\i diineiuiuiik ire nj.proxiiiuicly 1 } x J x 2. 1 in deep (5U x 10 x 7 H deep).
leceived»liidgc .ndioiO...! w*ier lioni cleiiiiuiil ol'212-N llnil.ling liiel Hor»Be tusin, when
(iculluiis cemed in 1952. Sile dimcimutit we uftMoximiilely IJ x 6.1 x I.K in deep (JO x 20 x 6 It
^nt?r^
eteived tludge «nd usiJu.l water fiuin fleamml of2 12-H lluildiug ftiel slouge Imins wlien
peraliuiis censed in 19 12. Sile dimcmions uc upixoxinwkly 24 x 4.6 x IJ in deep (DO x 1 J x 6 II
eceived cooling w.l« fion. 2 12-R lluilding rue) Uor.ge buiiu. Sile dimeMion, arc tpivuxinulcly
J2 X 46 x 1.8 m deep (.500 x 1 J0x6ll deep). 1 l-roxinuiieiy
Mcillu/
Mulcriul
Suil
Soil
•Soil
Soil
oil
oil
oil
Pltlciiliul
ContumiiiMiils
I'liiluniiiH)
Co-60.Sr-'JO.C$-|37.
Ku-I55,l».21».
l'u-239/240
Co-60.Sf-9«1Ci-n7.
i:u-IS5.U-2J8(
l'u-2J9/240
V60.Sr-90.Cs-m.
:u-ISS.lJ-2J8.
u-239/240
V60,Sr-90.Cs-|17.
U-IS5.U-23K.
u-239/240
o-60.Sr-90.Cs-l37.
U-IJ5.U-231I,
u-239/240
0-60. Sr-90.Ci- 137.
u-l5J.U.23i.
u-239/240
Eiliinwlcil
('list (if
^uiiijilint*
S69.IIH
J49.203
$•19.20)
S49.203
$82,388
$49.203
$69. Kg
-------
Operable
Unit
IOO-IU-6
(com.)
S'ilc Nuiue
^^1^
Current Site Knowledge
600 107
(L'iili*»l2|
(irft'lc Mm
riiiluiiiii
fcOO.IOK'
(211 J j..JK(iMl,|
Kiln I'liiluiiiiiui
Sloi .<(;«; Vaiillk)
600-|0y
(llauluid Tuilcr
'
-------
O|icr«tik
Dull
200 CW-3
COHl.)
Situ NMIIIC
2I6-N-7'
Cooling Water
llCIII.ll
Current Site Knovtlftlge
T«JTAI,i 161 Itciiiiiiiiiiic •*>'«« '•* S«in|ilin<
Medli/
Material
Suit
1 . —
PolenlU!
ConJunilnnnH
Co40,8r.90.Ci.|37,
fu-IJJ.U-23»,
hl-239/240
~
EtllmKed
Coil of
Summing
$49.203
J 12.2811,024
•r »-^^SSS!r^U±S^±S±Sft^* ~tal*
lining Site* |»Urim KOI). ' J ™°" ft" "1C4e UIUU'•" •>««» completed and addie«ed by (he
.in. MIL » a pcuo cum Hlc llul u being remcditlcdlo tlc.m.p HamUrdj eilnbli^lu-d in ll.c Model Toxic. Couirol Ati Cl«,,m, it I ,- nu »„ „
Mlciiion IIIOKU. II u aniicipaled ih.l il,i« ,ilc can be remediated by i|,e Remove Tieai . JI Hi,,,l "Ti? • u R*IS'|I«<">"» (WAC 173-340) and i> outside U,e CERCI A remedy
remcdMl .l.c.Ma.ive, ,,,.y be .elecled by ll* EPA. Ecology. ,,,d U.eK ' A"C"U"Ve' "°WCVC'' 'llOUl4 '""ol'u"'Ue fuuitj «' ^H"'«'«'« «il or in grouadwlS
liencd with li-cn-J w,,ie dispoal ,|,e. |nt|,. 100 Ar«. Therefor., ,heM unit,« being .ddrc,KJ by
ARCI. " Allowable Residual Coiiianiiiiaiion Level
• *
-------
Responsiveness Summary Overview
for nuc,ear weapon, It is
focused on •n^m" " "*
of
aligned with liquid waste disposal *s£ in t?e ! nn f ^ $lte ^^ ^ most
* WlU '
e spoa s in te ! nn
pan of the Remaining Sites These ^S ^ -^ M ^* WlU '^^ be
reactor operations, fne remaS^o^^^^? C°°ImS T" ^ SlUdge fr°m 10°
tes ese - M
reactor operations, fne rema^o^^^^? C°°ImS T" ^ SlUdge fr°m 10° ^ea
Area production reactors where Sid^d ^soHd £ r ^ mdUde WaSt£ Sit£S ^^ &e 10°
disposed to the soil. Q lld radloactlve wastes and industrial chemicals were
» 1«5- To date, oVer 1,000,000 ton, of
Facility in the Hanf'd 2oS ^T^S±3^ * Environme^ ^oration Disposal
by approximately the vear '"of! T£^S fi^?i^f? "T l^ "^P^ to be complete
into the integral 100 .Arefcleanup schedule " ^ ^ R°D Wl11 be
IL
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
=T^e&HSo^^£^
B-l
-------
p uenSti0nS aDd Com^ents Received During the Public Comment
Penod and the Agency Response to Those Comments
Comment:
Additional detail should be provided about the effects of the Remove/Treai/Dispose fill material
on the movement of contaminants remaining below the excavation level.
zod6 ^t^ WC rSCarge Water' °r Other fluids' move through vadose
zone and therefore increase the rate of movement of contaminants?
Response:
Seneral *<*** of *e r^tor areas. The
» n -e°-Physical characteristics as the waste material being removed In
addition, all waste sites will be revegatated and this will reduce the rate of infliction
Comment:
rnc , f°r 6ValuatinS a sites suitability for the plug-in approach. This
nuhhr , ^f evaluat:on crireria ^ evaluation methodologies and provisions for
public review and comment on the final decision as a minimum.
Response:
The 161 sites proposed have been screened and initial information indicate they do meet the
d^TJ T? m ** Pr°POSed Plan f°r R«no veTTreai^ispose. If during detailed design or
durmg actual cleanup a sue is found to be outside the Remove/Treat'DispJse alternative^
0 or a ROD amendment would be required
Comment:
rn ial altematives sec:ion discusses storing waste if it is impractical to
for mis Sorage acceptance cnteria • ****** « ^ discussion the options being considered
Response:
It is the intent of the Tri-Parties not to store this waste, however, if storaae is required it will
lte' ERDF' Central WaStS ComPlex or other Appropriate storage '
B-2
-------
Comment:
• """•"-Mu.ai.c iut r^ev uecisions are addressed.
Response:
B-3
-------
-------
0
3gj
0 O Q)
"" &. *•» +*
M- Q.
0 m
0)
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |