PB99-964606
                              EPA541-R99-095
                              1999
EPA Superfimd
      Record of Decision:
      Idaho National Engineering Lab (USDOE)
      OU3-13
      Idaho Falls, ID
      9/28/1999

-------

-------
DOE/ID-1Q6W
Revision I)
           Final Record of Decision

         Idaho Nuclear Technology and
               Engineering Center

                   Operable Unit 3-13
       Idaho Nauonal Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
                    Idaho Kails, Idaho

-------

-------
                                         DOE/ID-10660
                                            Revision 0
       Final Record of Decision
   Idaho Nuclear Technology and
         Engineering Center
              September 1999
             Operable Unit 3-13
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
             Idaho Falls, Idaho

-------

-------
                 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION

                                Site Name and Location


  Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Waste Area Group 3
  Operable Unit 3-13
  Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (CERCLIS ID 4890008952)
  Idaho Falls. Idaho


                          Statement of Basis and  Purpose


       The Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) (formerly the Idaho Chemical
 Processing Plant) Waste Area Group (WAG) 3 is one of 10 Idaho National Engineering and
 Environmental Laboratory (IN'EEL) WAGs identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent
 Order (FFA CO) by the U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID), the U S
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
 (IDHW).  Operable Unit (OU) 3-13 is listed as the "WAG 3 Comprehensive Remedial Investigation
 (RD/Feas.b.hty Study (FS)" in the FFA/CO (DOE-ID  1991).  The objective of the comprehensive RI/FS
 is to: (1) review previous WAG 3 investigations, (2) investigate release sites not previously evaluated,
 (3) determine the risks posed by individual release sites and the overall risk posed by the WAG, and
 (4) identify, screen, and analyze remedial alternatives for release sites where risks are determined to be
 greater than allowable levels.

      This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the disposition of 101 identified release sites including
 four newly identified sites.  Sixty-one release sites were determined to exhibit unacceptable risks that if
 not addressed may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the
 environment.  Appropriate remedies for 55 of the sites are described in this ROD, while the remaining six
 sites were judged to be more appropriately managed under other OUs, WAGs, or INEEL regulatory
 programs. Information is provided in this ROD to support the remedial action decisions for the 55'release
 sues where contamination presents unacceptable risks or poses a threat, and to support the "No Action"
 and "No Further Action" decisions for the other 40 sites.  These remedial actions are chosen in
 accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and  Liability Act
 (CERCLA) of 1980 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
 1986. and to the extent practicable, with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
 Contingency Plan (NCP). The selected remedial actions are also intended to satisfy the requirements of
 the FFA/CO.  These decisions are based on the Administrative Record for WAG 3, OU 3-13.

      The DOE-ID is the lead agency for the remedy decisions under Executive Order 12580. The EPA
 approves the decisions, and along with the IDHW, has participated in the selection of the final remedies
 The IDHW concurs with the selected remedies for the WAG 3 sites of concern, the "No Action" and "No
 Further Action" determinations, and the sites that will be administered under other INEEL regulatory
 programs.  The basis for decisions arc made in this ROD and documented in the Administrative Record
 tor WAG 3, OU 3-13. The DOE. EPA. and IDHW will be collectively referred to as the Auencies in this
document.

-------
                                Assessment of the Site


      Fift\-fi\e of the 101 identified release sites uithin WAG 3 have actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances that, if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this ROD.
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and or the environment. Six
oilier sues are identified  in this ROD that will be managed under other OL's. WAGs, or INEEL regulatory
programs.  The response actions selected in this ROD are designed to reduce the potential threats to
human health and or the  en\ ironment to acceptable levels. The remaining 40 sites are designated as "No
Action" or "No Further Action" sites. Thirty-four of these 40 sites are determined to have an acceptable
risk to human health and or the environment, under current industrial and future potential residential land
use. and are designated as "No Action" sites. The six other sites are identified as "No Further Action"
and may present an unacceptable risk to human health if land use changes prior to 2095 or if future
construction requires excavations below the assumed 3 m (10  ft) residential basement scenario.

                       Description of the Selected Remedies


      The  WAG 3 release sites were grouped according to shared characteristics or common contaminant
sources. The seven groups include: (I) Tank Farm Soils. (2) Soils Under Buildings and Structures,
(3) Other Surface Soils. (4) Perched Water. (5) Snake River Plain Aquifer (SRPA), (6) Buried Gas
Cylinders, and (7) SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System.  Because the release sites in each group have
common characteristics or contaminants, a single remedy is selected for all release sites within each
group. In addition, those sites classified as "No Further Action" sites require institutional controls to
remain protective. Institutional Controls are also a part of the  remedy for each of the seven groups
described below. Institutional Controls will be established in accordance with the requirements set forth
in the April 1999. EPA Region  10 Policy. The selected remedy for each group  is described below.

Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)

      The Tank Farm Soils represent principal threat wastes due to direct radiation exposure to workers
or the public: and due to  potential leaching and transport of contaminants to the perched water or the
SRPA. u sole source aquifer.  A final remedy for the Tank Farm Soils release sites  has been deferred
pending further characterization and coordination of any proposed remedial actions with the Idaho High
Level Waste (HLW) and Facilities  Disposition (FD) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),  currently in
preparation. A separate RI.-'FS,  Proposed Plan, and ROD will be prepared for the Tank Farm  Soils under
OU 3-14.  Interim actions uere evaluated to provide protection until a final remedy is developed and
implemented.  The selected Tank Farm Soils Interim Action is Institutional Controls with Surface Water
Control. The major components of this remedy include:

      •     Restrict access to control exposure to Corkers and prevent exposure to the public from -;oils
            at the Tank  Farm until implementation of the final remedy under OU 3-14

      •     Accommodate a I  in 25-year. 24-hour storm e\ent with surface water run-on diversion
            channels

      •     Mmimi/e precipitation infiltration by grading and surface sealing  the Tank Farm Soils
            sufficient to dnert Xi)% of the average annual precipitation tailing on the Tank Farm Soils
            area

      •     Improve exterior building drainage to direct \\aier aua\ from the contaminated  areas,.
                                              i\

-------
       The Agencies believe this interim action will be protective of human health and the environment
 while the OU 3-14 RI/FS is being performed and a final remedy is selected. The interim action will
 comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), be cost effective, and is
 consistent with the expected final Tank Farm remedy or the HLW&FD EIS. The Tank Farm Soils group
 includes one new site, CPP-96 (Tank Farm Interstitial Soils).  Site CPP-96 is a consolidation of all of the
 previously identified Tank Farm Soils sites and the intervening interstitial soils within the site CPP-96
 boundary.

 Soils Under Buildings and Structures (Group 2)

       The major threats posed by Soils Under Buildings and Structures release sites are direct radiation
 exposure to workers or the public caused by intrusion into contaminated soils and potential soil
 contaminant leaching and transport to perched water or the SRPA. The purpose of the selected remedy is
 to minimize the potential for direct exposure to contaminated soils and to prevent or reduce the leachinu
 of contamination from the soils to the perched water or SRPA.

      Until the buildings and structures above these sites are closed, and decontamination and
dismantlement (D&D) occurs, it is assumed that the building or structure limits infiltration of water
through the contaminated soils and prevents direct exposure to the contaminated soils. The selected
deferred action remedy  for Soils Under Buildings and Structures is Institutional Controls and
Containment. The major components of the selected remedy include:
•
            Implement institutional controls, including site access restrictions, and periodic inspections
            of buildings or structures to ensure that infiltration is limited and exposures to contaminated
            soil is prevented.  Access to the Group 2 sites will be restricted through the use of warning
            signs. Notification of this restriction will be made to the affected local county governments,
            ShoBan Tribal Council, General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Bureau of Land
            Management (BLM), and other agencies, as necessary.

            Assess completed D&D building or structure and release site configuration to determine if
            they prevent radiation exposures or limit contaminant migration to the SRPA, as would be
            achieved through meeting the substantive requirements of Idaho Administrative Procedures
            Act (IDAPA) 16.01.05.008 (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 264.310).  If the
           completed D&D configuration is assessed as inadequate for long-term protection of human
           health and the environment, then contaminated soils will be capped in conformance with the
           above referenced hazardous waste landfill closure requirements with an engineered barrier.
           or removed and disposed on-Site as discussed in the following section for Group 3 soils.
           Environmental monitoring and maintenance requirements will be included in the OU 3-13
           post-ROD monitoring plan.

           The Waste Calciner Facility (VVCF) has been closed under an approved Hazardous Waste
           Management Act (HWMA) closure plan and a post-closure monitoring and maintenance
           plan is required. In order to reduce the duplication of effort for monitoring and maintenance
           of the WCF. maintain consistency with the publicly-noticed WCF closure plan, and
           acknowledge the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/CERCLA parity policy
           these requirements will be addressed under this ROD as ARARs. The WCF will be "included
           during the CERCLA 5-year reviews uith the Group 2 Soils Under Buildings and Structures
           sites and will address the substantive requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR
           264.310). Additionally these requirements \\ill  be incorporated into the post-ROD
           monitoring plan for OU 3-13.

-------
Other Surface Soils (Group 3)


      The Other Surface Soils release sites are also principal threat wastes due to potential external
exposure of workers or the public to radionuclide-contaminated soils. The purpose of the selected remedy
is to prevent external exposure to radionuclides at these sites and to allow these sites to be released for
unrestricted use in the future.  The selected remedy for Other Surface Soils is Removal and Onsite
Disposal in the 1NEEL CERCLA Disposal Facility 
-------
                                                                                          1
 Engineer to meet IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264.301)Tor hazardous waste.
 40 CFR 761.75 lor PCB. and DOE Order 435.1 for radioactive waste landfill design
 and operating substantive requirements.

 Locate in an area meeting hazardous waste. PCB waste, and low-level radioactive
 waste (LLRW) landfill siting requirements. Through a preliminary evaluation of all
 the relevant decision criteria, the Agencies have determined the "Study Area" for
 suing the ICDF to be the CPP-67 Percolation Ponds and adjacent area's to the west.
 However, the specific ICDF  cell locations will be determined through the completion
 ot a comprehensive geotechmcal evaluation of the entire Study Area, which shall be
 reviewed and approved by the Agencies.  Siting criteria for the location of the ICDF
 included:

       Outside the  100-year Hood plain

       Outside of wetland areas

       Not in active seismic zones

       Not in high surface erosion areas

       Not in an area of high historic groundwater table.

Construct and operate an ICDF supporting complex, including a waste Storage.
Sizing, Staging, and Treatment (SSST) facility, in accordance with the substantive
requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264 Subparts DD, I, J, and X) and
IDAPA 16.01.05.006.01 and  16.01.05.006.02 (40 CFR 262.34[a][l]). It is anticipated
that this facility will consist of a storage/staging building, an evaporation  surface
impoundment, a  waste shredder, solidification/stabilization tanks, and associated
equipment. Operations at the-facility will include chemical/physical treatment to
prepare ICDF wastes to meet  Agency-approved WAC and RCRA land  disposal
restrictions (LDRs).

Use one or more remediation  waste staging and storage areas to stage and handle
remediation waste.  Operate the storage areas in accordance with the substantive
requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.006^.01  and 16.01.05.006.02 (40 CFR 262.34[a][l j).

Manage and treat monitoring  well construction and sampling wastes generated prior .to
construction of the  ICDF and  SSST (i.e.. purge water, decontamination water, and
drill cuttings) using remediation waste  staging piles and temporary treatment units in
accordance with the substantive requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR
264.553 and 40 CFR 264.554). Accomplish treatment using mobile tankage and
physical, chemical treatment and comply with the substantive requirements of
IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264 Subpart J. BB. and CC).

Construct and designate an evaporation pond as a Corrective Action Management
Unit (CAMU) in accordance with the substantive requirements of IDAPA
16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264.552 and 40  CFR 264 Subparts K. and CC) for the purpose
ot  managing ICDF  leaehate and other aqueous wastes generated as a result of
operating the ICDF complex.
-------
                 Operate, close and post-close the ICDF complex in accordance with the substantive
                 requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264 Subparts G, F, and N) and
                 pTriod3'" S'te aCCCSS restnctlons and institutional c°ntrols throughout the post-closure

 Perched Water (Group 4)
 threat \ti '^h  ^^ ^ ^ "?' CUrrent!y P°SC a direct human health »*or environmental
 ~F^^^^
5S°F^^^
contammauon.  The perched zone may impact SRPA groundwater quality because it is a contaminant
uansport pathway between contaminated surface soils and the SRPA. Although a future vv° t rTppl -
 e   ic S wmh   P    ? WatCr KS "Ot CaP3ble °f Pr°Viding SUftldent "ater for dom^tic"i pulses
re.tncl.on, w,|| be requ.red to prevent any future attempts to use perched water after 2095 when INTEL
wide inst.tut.onal controls are projected to end. A response action is necessary to m nimize  or elimfnfte'
                00" °fCOn         fr°m the P-hed — to the SRP^A and to
                             *****
 Implement institutional controls (to include a DOE-ID Directive limiting access) to prevent
 tPher±h rich' dVhi'e 7HEC °hPerati°nS C°minUe 3nd t0 Prevent futu- Sg'nto o
 through the perched zone (through noticing this restriction to local county governments
 ShoBan Trrbal Council. GSA. BL.M, and other agencies as necessary).       emments'

 Implement remedies to control surface water recharge to perched water beneath INTEC by
      " "   mg    '  Slin INT    erC°                 are estimated to comnbue
                   "o? hmg   h' HSling INT^ PerC°Iati0n P°"ch are estimated to comnbue
                   min im '^  r  "TT^' °Ut °f Sm'iCe' Limitin8 infiltration to the P«ched
                           P     3l reIeaSCS t0 the SRPA ^ reducinS the volume of water
                                            ig"' C0nstruction' and °Perate replacement ponds
                       A  r                  f°"owing the removai of the existin« INTEC
                 n oPn°nn ft r°m tfmCe' -The replacement Percolatio" P^ds will be shed about
          December - ?            ^ Ot    INTEC a"d wi" be °Perational on °r before
In addition, minimize recharge to the perched water from lawn irrigation, and lininu the Bi*
co ^ro s ^are?rnt C0nt"br8 l° ll]^EC Perched -ter zones, if additional infihratbn
 °        neCeb:>ar'- ^'^nt
                                                                 ,
         Pr   < v                    additional infiltration controls if the recession of the
         Perched VV ater zone does not occur as predicted by the Rl/FS vadose zone model « ithin
         ? year* ot removmg the percolation ponds. If implementation of the additional infiltration
         controls is necessary, implement as a second phase to the Group 4 remedy.

         Measure moisture content and contaminant of concern (COC) concentration(s) in the
         perched water zones to determine if water contents and contaminant fluxes are decreasing as

                                                                                  ^
                                          in
-------
 Snake River Plain Aquifer (Group 5)


      The major human health threat posed by contaminated SRPA groundwater is exposure to
 radionuclides via ingestion by future groundwater users. Based on the groundwater simulations presented
 in the FS (DOE-ID !997a) and FS Supplement (FSS) (DOE-ID I998a), removal of the existing
 percolation ponds from service will significantly reduce the concentrations of contaminants in SRPA
 groundwater by 2095. Additional remedial action may be necessary to meet the groundwater maximum
 contaminant levels (MCLs) of 4 mRem/yr for beta particle and photon-emitting radionuclides.  Remedial
 action for the SRPA is bounded by the contaminant plume that exceeds Idaho groundwater quality
 standards or the federal MCLs for 1-129, H-3, and Sr-90.

      An  interim action is selected for the SRPA. While the remediation of contaminated SRPA
groundwater outside of the current INTEC security fence is final, the final remedy for the contaminated
portion of the SRPA inside of the INTEC fence line is deferred to OU 3-14. As a result of dividing the
SRPA groundwater contaminant plume associated with INTEC operations into two zones, the remedial
action described herein is classified as an interim action. The selected interim action remedy for the
SRPA is Institutional Controls with Monitoring and Contingent Remediation. The SRPA interim action
remedy includes:

     •     Implement institutional controls over the area of the aquifer that exceeds the MCLs for H-3.
           1-129, and Sr-90 (to include a DOE-ID Directive limiting access) to prevent groundwater use
           while INTEC operations continue, and to restrict future groundwater use (through noticing
           this restriction to local county governments, ShoBan Tribal Council, GSA, BLM, etc.),
           including site access restrictions, drilling restrictions, and maintenance during DOE
           operations at INTEC.

     •     Implement institutional controls, including land use restrictions to prevent the use of SRPA
           groundwater over the area of the aquifer that exceeds the MCLs for H-3,1-129, and Sr-90,
           until drinking water standards are met, which are projected to be achieved by 2095.

     •     Construct new SRPA monitoring wells outside of the current INTEC security fence to assess
           whether MCLs will be exceeded after 2095.

     •     If observed COC(s) concentrations exceed their action levels  at a sustained pumping rate of
           at least 0.5 gpm for 24 hours, implement pump and treatment remedial action. Extract
           contaminated SRPA groundwater from the zone of highest contamination and treat  to reduce
           the contaminant concentrations to meet MCLs by 2095.  The action level is the modeled
           maximum concentration predicted in the year 2000 so that the MCL will not be exceeded in
           2095 (the projected end of the institutional control period).

     •     It is anticipated that standard pump and chemical/physical treatment (which may include
           evaporation in the ICDF Complex surface impoundment) will be able to meet the aquifer
           restoration goal. Conduct treatability studies, which include a technical  evaluation of
           treating the 1-129 and other COCs. as part of this remedy.  These studies may include
           evaluation of the ability to treat and selectively withdraw contaminants from the aquifer.  It
           is estimated that these studies will not extend more than  ! 2 months and are  limited to a total
          cost of S2 million.                                                   •
            V
     •      If the treatability studies  indicate the presence of sufficient quantities of 1-129 and other
           COCs. and contaminated groundwater can be selectively extracted and cost-effectivelv
                                            IX
-------
            treated to meet the drinking water MCLs outside the current INTEC security fence by 2095.
            then implement active remediation.

      •     Either return treated water to the aquifer through land recharge in accordance with the Idaho
            \Vaste\vater Land Application ARARs if a recharge impoundment is used; or in accordance
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).State Pollutant Discharge
            Elimination System (SPDES) ARARs if the treated effluent is discharged to the Big Lost
            Riser, which recharges the aquifer downstream of the INTEC facility: or evaporate in the
            1CDF complex evaporation pond or equivalent.

Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)

      The Buried Gas Cylinders pose a safety hazard to inadvertent intruders (i.e., backhoe operators or
drillers). The cylinders are presumed to be pressurized and could burst during excavation. In addition.
hydrofluoric acid, which may be present in the cylinders, is very corrosive, reacts violently with moisture.
and can generate explosive concentrations of hydrogen gas. The selected remedy for the Buried Gas
Cylinders is Removal. Treatment, and Disposal. This alternative includes:

      •     Remove the gas cylinders using a contractor specializing in gas cylinder removal

      •     Treat the cylinder contents, if necessary

      •     Recycle or'dispose of the empty gas cylinder containers.

      The Agencies may elect to pursue a contingent remedy of capping in place pursuant to the
substantive requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264.310) if safety concerns with excavation
and removal prevent implementation of the selected remedy.

SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)

      The major threat posed by the SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System  is leaching and transport of
contaminants to the SRPA and subsequent exposure of future groundwater users to radionuclides v. ia
ingestion. The selected alternative for the SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System is  Removal. Treatment, and
Disposal. This alternative includes:

      •     Remove and treat on-site the liquid and  sludge contents of the tank.

      •     Excavate and remove the tank, vault, and associated structures.

      •     Land dispose treated waste, the tank, vault,  and other debris.  The preferred disposal site i-,
            the ICDF; however, if any residue or material fails to meet the ICDF WAC. an alternate
            suitable disposal facility will be identified during the remedial design.

      •     Remove and treat off-site, if wastes found in the tank are alpha-LLW (i.e.. exceed 10 nCi g
            transtiranic [TRU] constituents [alpha emitters \\ ith an atomic number greater than 92 and a
            half-life exceeding 20 years]I or TRL' wastes (i.e.. greater than 100 nCi g  TRL'l.
-------
   "No Action" Sites

        Ten sites were determined to be "No Action" sites with the signing of the FFA/CO. Twenty-four
  additional "No Action" sites have been determined in this ROD.  These sites each represent less than
  1x10  risk and a hazard index (HI) of less than 1 for the potential  residential scenario, and could be
  available for current unrestricted use.

  "No Further Action" Sites

       Six of the 101 sites addressed in this ROD are classified as "No Further Action" sites and require
  only institutional controls to remain protective.  These controls will ensure that the land use will remain
  industrial until at least 2095 at which time contaminant levels will be reduced sufficiently to be protective
  for residential use. Those sites with contamination at depths below  traditional residential construction
  (i.e., 3  m [10 ft]), that do not require remedial action to safeguard the drinking water aquifer from future
  contaminant releases, will continue to require institutional controls to prevent excavation or drilling below
  3 m (10 ft) to remain protective.

 Closed and Closing RCRA/HWMA Sites

      Sites being closed under RCRA/HWMA will be handled as previously described for the WCF
 The WCF has been closed under an approved HWMA closure plan and a post-closure monitoring and
 maintenance plan is required.  In order to reduce the duplication of effort for monitoring and maintenance
 of the WCF, maintain consistency with the publicity-noticed WCF closure plan, and acknowledge the
 RCRA/CERCLA parity policy, these requirements will be addressed under this ROD as ARARs  The
 WCF will be included during the CERCLA 5-year reviews with the Group 2 Soils Under Buildings and
 Structures release sites and will address the substantive requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008
 (40 CFR 264.310).  Additionally these requirements will be incorporated into the post-ROD monitoring
 plan forOU 3-13.

 Disturbances of OU 3-13 Sites

      The INTEC facility is an operating facility. As such, periodic maintenance and upgrade activities
 will be conducted during the implementation of the remedial actions under this ROD. Prior to conducting
 any site disturbance activities, the Agencies will be notified to the extent of any disturbance, and will be &
 provided a plan for their approval, including necessary  corrective actions that will be performed to ensure
 that the remedies identified in this ROD remain operational and functional. A formal system for
 notification and approval of disturbances to OU 3-13 sites  will be developed during the remedial design.

      Sites Managed Under Other Operable Units, WAGs, or INEEL
                                 Regulatory Programs

      Six of the release sites identified in WAG 3 are outside the scope of this ROD and, therefore, will
be managed under other OUs. WAGs, or other INEEL regulatory programs.  Site CPP-38 (asbestos in
nine INTEC buildings) will be addressed by the INEEL Asbestos Management Program. Site CPP-65
(Sewage Treatment Plant Lagoons) will be addressed under the Idaho Wastewater Land  Application
Rules. Site CPP-66 (Steam Plant Fly Ash Pits) only presents a potential ecological risk and will be
addressed under CERCLA OL 10-04. which focuses on INEEL-wide ecological risk concerns.  Sites
CPP-61.-Sl.and-S2 will be further e\aluated and addressed under the OU 3-14 RI.FS.
-------
                                          New Sites

       Four new sites are identified in this ROD. Site CPP-96 (Tank Farm Interstitial Soils) is a
 consolidation of all of the previously identified Tank Farm release sites and the intervening interstitial
 .soils within the site CPP-96 boundary.  This site also includes three sites that were determined through
 the Track 2 process to be "No Action" sites. The final remedy for release site CPP-96 will be addressed
 in the OL' 3-14 Tank Farm  RI FS along with other Group 1 sites. Release site CPP-97 (Tank Farm Soil
'Stockpile). CPP-9X (Tank Farm Shoring Boxes), and CPP-99 (Boxed Soil) are added to this ROD to
 address soil stockpiles and wood construction debris that originated from the Tank Farm upgrade and. or
 the building CPP-604 tunnel egress projects.  These sites are included as part of the OU 3-13 Group 3
 sites and will be remediated accordingly.

                                Statutory Determination


      The selected remedy for each release site group, the "No Action" sites, and "No Further Action"
 sites have been determined  to be protective of human health and/or the environment, to comply with
 federal and state regulations that are ARARs for the remedial actions, and to be cost-effective.

      The selected remedies use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
 maximum extent practicable.  The selected remedies for the Buried Gas Cylinder sites (Group 6) and the
 SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7) incorporate treatment, and the selected interim action remedy
 for the SRPA (Group 5) incorporates treatment if COCs in the aquifer outside the current 1NTEC security
 fence exceed action levels.  However, treatment of radionuclide-contaminated soil and perched water was
not found to be practicable for the other groups and, therefore, the selected remedies for the Soils Under
Buildings or Structures (Group 2), Other Surface Soils (Group 3). and Perched  Water (Group 4) do not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. The EPA's preferred
remedy for sites that pose relatively low. long-term threats, or where treatment is impracticable, is
engineering controls, such as containment. The selected remedial alternatives for Soils Under Buildings
or Structures (Group 2) and Perched Water (Group  4) will result in contaminants left in place at
concentrations exceeding health-based concentrations for direct exposure, but the contaminants will not
be available to present unacceptable risk to human health and/or the environment.

      Because these remedies will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining
onsite above levels that allow  for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be
conducted within 5 years after initiation of the remedial actions to ensure that each remedy is. or will be.
protective of human health and the environment. This review will also assess the need for continued
long-term environmental monitoring, administrative controls, and institutional controls at each group and
"No Further Action" site. Reviews will be held no  less  frequently than every 5  years thereafter to ensure
that the remedies continue to be protective. These periodic reviews will be discontinued when the
Agencies determine that the sites no longer pose an unacceptable risk to human health and, or the
em ironment and site access or use restrictions are no longer required.

      The 5->ear reviews will e\aluate factors such as contaminant migration from sites where
contamination has been left in place, newly discovered sites, effectiveness of institutional controls, and
effectiveness of the remedial actions. For remedies incorporating institutional controls, it is assumed that
institutional controls will  remain effectixe until the  year 2095. Additional institutional controls will apply
to specific sites after 2095.  This time period is consistent with the  100-\ear industrial land use
a.v»umption for the INTEC.
                                              \n
-------
                                                                                                               1
       Sites for which "No Further Action" determinations were made, based on an industrial land use
 assumption through 2095, and residential thereafter, will be included in the 5-year reviews. These
 reviews will evaluate whether the "No Further Action" determination  is still appropriate for the current
 and projected land uses at the time of the review.

       Sites for which "No Action" determinations have been made based on no evidence of a source or
 release or where the risk is less than 1 x  10'4 or a HI less than 1  will not require institutional controls or
 5-year reviews.

       It is possible that new information will be discovered in the future during routine operations.
 maintenance activities, and/or D&D activities that will require additional remedial actions be taken at the
 sites listed in this ROD. Through the 5-year review process, the Agencies will evaluate new information
 to ensure that the selected remedy, including institutional controls, remain protective.

      As IN.TEC is an operating facility, it is possible that changes in physical configuration of INTEC
 may uncover new sites or change the residual risk posed by those sites addressed under this ROD. Any
planned disturbance at a site for which action is required under this ROD (including the "No Further
Action" sites with institutional controls) will be preceded by appropriate planning documents to be
submitted to and concurred on by the Agencies prior to implementation. Newly discovered sites will be
subject to remedial action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the FFA/CO.

      The following information is included in the decision summary section of this  ROD; additional
information can be found in the Administrative Record for WAG 3:

      •     COCs and their respective concentrations

      •     Baseline risks represented by the COCs

      •     Cleanup levels established for the COCs and the basis for  the action levels

      •     Current and future land and groundwater use assumptions

      •      Land and groundwater use available at the site as a result of the remedy

      •      Estimated capital, operations and maintenance, and net present value costs,  discount rate.
            and number of years over which costs are projected

      •      Description of alternatives

      •      Evaluation of the remedial action alternatives

      •      Decision factors that lead to selection of the remedies.
                                              XIII
-------
M\
-------
                                                                                   1
                              Signature Sheet
by the Idaho Departmenof Healh  < wfe
                                                               , with concurrnce
Chuck Clarke, Regional Administrator
Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 Date
                                                    54.^
                                  XV
-------

-------
                             Signature Sheet




                          °f Dedsi°n for °Perable Unit 3-13< for the Idaho Nuclear

     US oar       f T' ^U*""*™* En^e-ng and Environmental Laboratory,
ru  r,  Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with concurrence
Waho Department of Health and Welfare.                                 '      concurrence
              1, Administrator

 ^vision of Environmental Quality

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
                                                   Date
                                   XVII
-------
-------
                                   Signature Sheet

     Signature sheet for the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 3-13, for the Idaho Nuclear
Technology and Engineering Center, of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence
by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.
 Beverly A. Cdok; Manager                                 Date
 Idaho Operations Office
 U.S. Department of Energy
                                          XIX
-------
-------
                                     CONTENTS

 DECLARA riON OF THE RECORD OF DECISION	
 1.    DECISION SUMMARY	

      1.1   Site Name. Location, and Description.
 2.   SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES	        M
     2.1   INTEC History	                ,

     2.2   FFA'CO Implementation at INTEC	                    •> ,

     2.3   Other Regulatory Programs at INTEC	               ->.-


3.   HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION	               M

4.   SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS	    4.;
     4.1    Tank Farm Soils (Group 1)	      ...                           ,  ,

     4.2    Soils b'nder Buildings and Structures (Group 2)	                         4.7

     4.3   Other Surface Soils (Group 3)	                  4_s

     4.4   Perched Water (Group 4)	                              49

     4.5   Snake River Plain Aquifer (Group 5)	                 4_y

     4.6   Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)	             4_IQ

     4.7   SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)	   4.10

     4.8   "No Action" And "No Further Action" Sites	    4. j(,

          4.8.1   "No Action/No Further Action" Sites Determined in OU 3-13 ROD	   4-1 i
          4.S.2   "No Action" Sites Designated in the FFA/'CO	      4.if,
     4.9   New Soil Release Sites.
          4.9.1   CPP-96—Tank Farm Interstitial Soils	                4.;,x
          4.9.2   CPP-97—Tank Farm Soil Stockpiles	•"	   4_is
          49.3   CPP-98—Tank Farm Shoring Boxes	                      j.-s
          4 9.4   CPP-99—Boxed Soil	'.	'..;....'..'.'.'."".   4-1 s

    4. ] 0  Sites Addressed Under Other WAGs or Regulatory Programs	
          4. ID. 1  CPP-3S—Asbestos in Nine INTEC Buildings.
          4 I" 2  ( TP-65—Sewage Treatment Plant Lagoon	
                                         xxi
-------
            4,10.3  CPP-66—Steam Plant Fly Ash Pit	   4.19


 5.    SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS	   5.]

      5.1   Physiography. Geology, and Hydrology	    j.j.

            5.1.1   Conceptual Model of Water Sources and Hydrogeology at WAG 3	    5-1

      5,2   Conceptual Model of Contaminant Distribution and Transport at WAG 3	5-4

      5.3   Nature and Extent of Contamination	,.,.    5.9

            5.3.1   Tank Farm Soils (Group 1)	    5.9
            5.3.2   Soils Under Buildings or Structures (Group 2)	   5-15
            5.3,3   Other Surface Soils (Group 3)	          5-17
            5.3,4   Perched Water (Group 4)	   5.51
            5.3.5   Snake River Plain Aquifer (Group 5)	   5-"0
            5.3.6   Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)	   5.77
            5.3.7   SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)	   5.7-


6.    CURRENT AND POTENTIAL SITE AND RESOURCE USES	    6-1
      6.1    Current Land Uses	         (,_[

      6.2    Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use	    6-1

      6.3    Basis for Future Land Use Assumptions	    6-2

      6.4    Groundwater Uses	    6-2

      6.5    Grounduater Classification and Basis	     6-3
7.    SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS	
      7.1   Human Health Risk Evaluation.
            "1.1   Derivation of Exposure-Point Concentrations.
             1.2   Site Source and Contaminant Identification....
            ". 1.3   Human Health Risk Assessment	
            ".1.4   Toxicity Assessment	
            ", 1,5   Human Health Risk Characterization	
            * 1.6   Human Health Risk Uncertainty	
           Kcolouical Evaluation.
                  Si-c and Contaminant Screening.
                  Exposure Assessment	
                   I'oxicity Assessment	
                  Risk Characterization	
                  Additional Screening	
                                            xxn
-------
       7.3   Ba-10
            •S.I.6   Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)	    $_1 \
            S.I."   SFI£— 20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)	   g.| t

9.    DESCRIPTION of ALTERNATIVES	'.	 9_i
      9.1    Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)	    9.]

            9.1.1    Interim Alternatives Descriptions	    9.)

      9.2    Soils L'nder Buildings or Structures (Group 2)	    9-2

            9.2.1    Alternatives Descriptions	       9.2

      9.3    Other Surface Soils (Group 3)	                  9.3

            9.3.1    Alternatives Descriptions	     9.3

      9.4    Perched Water (Group 4)	     9.4

            9.4.1    Alternatives Descriptions	          9.4

      9.5    Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim Action (Group 5)	     9-5

           9.5.1    Alternatives Descriptions	4.5

      9.6   Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)	     9.7

           9.6.1    Alternatives Descriptions	         9.7

      9."   SFF.-20  Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)	    9-S

           9 ~.l    Alternatives Descriptions	     9-,x


10.   SL'MMARV OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES	    10-1
      10.1  Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)	    !0-2
           1" i.!  Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	    10-2
           !" !  2  Compliance with ARARs	  iO-2
                                            XX1U
-------
       10 1.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence	.-.	    jo-2
       10.1.4  Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment	    10-2
       10.1.5  Short-term Effectiveness	              KJ_?
       10.1.6  Implementability	           JQ.-^
       10.1.7  Cost	            IQ/-

 10.2  Soils  I'nder Buildings and Structures (Group 2)	    10-4

       102.1  Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	    10-4
       10,2.2  Compliance with ARARs	    fo-4
       10.2.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence	,	    10-4
       10.2.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment	    10-4
      10.2.5  Short-term Effectiveness	,	         10.5
      10.2.6  Implementability	                                           10 5
      10.2.7  cost	;	i"i"i"i";;;"";;;;;;    10.5

 10.3  Other Surface Soils (Group 3)	   10.5

      10 3,1  Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	   10-6
      10.3.2  Compliance with ARARs	   10-6
      10.3.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence	   10-6
      10.3.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment	   10-6
      10.3.5  Short-term Effectiveness	   10-7
      10.3.6  Implementability	   10-7
      10.3.7  Cost	[.[[]".'.'.'.'.'.".'.   10-8

10.4  Perched Water (Group 4)	    10-8

      10.4.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	    10-8
      10.4.2  Compliance with ARARs	     K)-8
      10.4.3  Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence	   10-8
      10.4.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment	   10-9
      10.4.5  Short-term Effectiveness	  10-9
      10 4.6  Implementability	   10-10
      10.4."  Cost	   10-10

10.5  Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim Action (Group 5)	   10-10

      10.5.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	   Id-lu
      10.5.2  Compliance with ARARs	....:	   10-10
      10.5.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence....	   10-13
      10.5.4  Reduction of Toxicicy, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment	   10-13
      10.5.5  Short-term Effectiveness	   10-13
      10.5.6  Implementability	   10-13
      :05.~  Cost	   jo-14

10 6  Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)	'...'.   10-14

      '.'>.().;   < herall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	   ;o-!4
      '.o.d 2  ('omphance with ARARs	   HI-]4
                                       xxiv
-------
             10.6.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence....	                          ln ,4
             10.6.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment	'""	   ;0-N
             10.6o  Short-term Effectiveness	                          ,,-, ,'1
             10.6.6  Impiementability		   'n"i-
             :o.6.7  cost	          	'	'	
       10.-   SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7).
                                                                                         :0-16
             10.-.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment...                 \Q i6
             10. ".2   Compliance with ARARs .................................................            ...... ""  ,() I6
             10.7.3   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ..............................     ................  !(j.16
             10.7.4   Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment ....................  10-P
             10.7o   Short-term Effectiveness [[[          .......  I0_r
             10. T. 6   [mplementability .........                                  .........................  mi-*
             10-7-7   c»si ................................... ::                                           "'
       10.8  Modifying Criteria
            10..S.I  State Acceptance	                            ,()  ,y
            10.S.2  Community Acceptance	^""	   10_lx
 11.   SELECTED REMEDY	
      11.1   Descriptions of the Selected Remedies	„„

            11.1.1   Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)....	          H.p
            '1.1.2  Soils Under Buildings and Structures (Group 2)	       	   n-14
             1.1.3   Other Surface Soils (Group 3)	       [[	   I!_15
             1.1.4  Perched Water (Group 4)	..J"."!...l".....	   11'.^
             1.1.5   Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim Action (Group 5)	.'."'"	   11-->5
             1. t .6   Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)	         [""_[	   11.?9
             1.1.7   SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)	..1..".^...^......'.'.''......   -j I -30
             1.1 .S   Future Site Closures Under RCRA and D&D	            11.31
            1 1.1.9   Five-Year Reviews	
            1 ! 1.10 Post-Closure Care and Monitoring	^	
      1 1 .2  Estimated Costs of Selected Remedies

      1 1.3  Expected Outcome of Selected Remedy
12.   STATUTORY DETERMINATION [[[ . ...............................      p.,
      12.1  .Protection of Human Health and the Environment ........... . ...............................................   12-1
           121.1  "No Action" Sites	
           12 1.2  "No Further Action" Sites	
           1 2.'.  3   ! ank Farm Soils Interim Action Selected Remedy: Alternative 3—
                  Institutional Controls with Surface Water Controls	;...
           '. 2.:  4  Soils I 'nder Buildings or Structures Selected Remedy: Alternative .
                  2   Existing and Additional Institutional Controls and Containment...
-------
            12 !.6  Perched Water Selected Remedy: Alternative 2—Existing and
                   Additional Institutional Controls with Aquifer Recharge Control	  12-4
            12,1."  Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim Action Selected Remedy:
                   Alternative 2B—Institutional Controls with Monitoring and
                   Contingent Remediation	'.	    12-5
            12.1.8  Buried Gas Cylinders Selected Remedy:  Alternative 2—Removal.
                   Treatment and Disposal	    12-6
            12.1 .«>  SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System Selected Remedy:  Alternative 4—
                   l:\isting Institutional Controls, Removing and Treating Tank Liquid
                   and Sludge Contents, and Removing the Tank and Associated
                   Structures	    12-"
            12 1.10 Sites Under Other Regulatory Authority	    12-"
            12.1,1 I  Five-Year Reviews	    12-S

      12.2  Compliance with ARARs	    12-9

            12.2.1   Tank Farm Soils Interim Action: Alternative 3—Institutional
                   Controls with Surface Water Control	   12-9
            12.2.2  Soils Under Buildings and Structures Selected Remedy: Alternative
                   2—Institutional Controls with Containment	   12-12
            12.2.3   Other Surface Soils Selected Remedy: Alternative 4A—Removal
                   and On-Site Disposal	   12-15
            12.2.4  Perched Water Selected Remedy: Alternative 2—Institutional
                   Controls with Aquifer Recharge Control	   12-23
           12.2.5   Snake  River Plain Aquifer Interim Action Selected Remedy:
                   Alternative 2B—Institutional Controls with Monitoring and
                   Contingent Remediation	   12-26
           12.2.6   Buried Gas Cylinders Selected Remedy:  Alternative 2—Removal,
                   Treatment and Disposal	   12-29
           12.2.7   SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System Selected Remedy:  Alternative 4—
                   Removal. Treatment and Disposal	   12- 3

      12 3  Cost  liftectiveness	   12- 6

           12.3,1   Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)	   12- 6
           12,3.2   Soils Under Buildings and Structures (Group 2)	   12- 6
           12.3.3   Other Surface Soils (Group 3)	   12- 6
           12.3.4  Perched Water (Group 4)	   12- ~
            12.3.5   Snake  River Plain Aquifer Interim Action (Group 5)	   12- "
            12.3.6  Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)	   12- ~
            12.3.7  SFE-20 Hot Waste Tanks System (Group 7)	   12- "

      124  Utilization Of Permanent Solution And Alternative Treatment Technology
            I'o The  Maximum Extent Practicable	   12-.^

      12.5  Preference  tor  Treatment as a Principal Element	  ;2-3l>

      12,d  h\e-Yea:- Review	12-4(1
13.   DOCl'\|[ NTAI'ION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
                                             XXVI
-------
            Nev\ Sue*.
            13.1.1  CPP-96—Tank Farm Interstitial Soils	                            p]
            13.1.2  CPP-97—Tank Farm Soil Stockpiles	   	'	    ,][",
            13.1.3  CPP-98—Tank Farm Shonng Boxes                   	    p  ,
            13.1.4  CPP-99—Boxed Soils...	!."ZZ."Z.""Z"	    H-l

      13.2  Sites Included in Other Programs or Other OUs	                      1 ;.j

      13.3  Other Chanues	
                                                                                           .,
 14.   RES PONS IVF.NIESS SUMMARY [[[         14_,
 15.   REFERENCES
                                                                                           ,
Appendix A- Operable Unit 3-13 Responsiveness Summary-Public Comments and Responses on the
OU 3-13 Proposed Plan


Appendix B— Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Administrative Record File
Index tor the C. omprehensive RI/FS Index for the Comprehensive RI/FS of Operable Unit 3-13 06.- 10 99


                                        FIGURES


1-1.    Location of the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center ......... . ..........................     1-2

I -2.    Land ownership distribution in the vicinity of the INEEL and onsite areas open
       for permit grazing [[[                         , ,
                                                                                         _ >
 1-3.   Group 1: Tank Farm Soils numbered release sites	


 1-4.   Group 2: Soils Under Building and Structures numbered release sites	    1-6

 1-5.   Group 3: Other Surface Soils numbered release sites	           i _-

 1-6.   Group 4: Appropriate extent of the Perched Water at the INTEC (CPP-83)	     i-S

 1-7.   Group 5: Estimated extent of the 1-129 plume in the Snake River Plain Aquifer
       (CPP-23)	                                         . j  9


 1-8.   Group 6: Buried Gas Cylinders numbered release sites	               \.\<)


 1-9.   Group 7: SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System numbered release sites	   1-11

 1-10.   Ol" 3-13 area of contamination (CPP-95)	,	;...,                    ;.;->


5-1.   100-year :".oodplam map at INTEC (USGS 1998)	    ;_T

3-2.   Cross section of the vadose zone at the INTEC illustrating the generalized
-------
 5-3    IN Il:C site conceptual model	   ...;                 -.<

 5-4    SRPA tritium plume 11995 data)	,	„	           5.-

 ->>    SRPA Sr-9() plume 11995 data)	       5-.x

 5-6    IN II,C ueli map showing wells where perched water has been observed	     5-h(,

 5-~.    Sr-90eoncentration in the upper perched groundwater (May-June 1995)	 	5-6"

 5-^    SRPA sampling wells location map	;	.,	       ,.    5.-2

 "-1     WAG 3 conceptual site model	       ~-L5

 ! i-l,   Schematic cross-section of the ICDF facility	,....,.	\\-\t,

 11-2.   Conceptual cross-section of the ICDF cap (typical Hanford Barrier)	; !-!"

 11-3.   Summan-of the AHP decision evaluation criteria for the preliminary ICDF sitinu
        evaluation	,	;   1 1-20

 11-4,   Proposed study area for the ICDF	   i l_2i

 11-5,   Location of replacement percolation ponds	„.'..  ] 1-24

 11-0.   SRPA contingent remediation decision flow chart	   1 l-2~




                                          TABLES


-i-l     WAG 3 CPP release sites and site grouping	    4-2

5-1.     Intimated volume of water recharging the perched water bodies at INTF-C	    5~i.

  2.    Summan' sampling results statistics for Tank Farm i Group 1) soil contaminants	    5-'.fi
 -
       Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-89
       (excavated soil \\as placed into boxes that are currently stored in Site CPP-92).
••-•N
       Summary sampling results statistic* for soil contaminant at Site CPP-35	,	-   5,2"

       Summan -Numplmg results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-36	   5-2'.

5-6.    Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants in CPP-91 soil borings	   5-24

*-"    Mimnun >amplmg results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-01	   5-2(>

5-^    Sum:v.ar\ -amnimi: results statistics for radioniichdes at Sites CPP-04 05	   5-2^
-------
  5-9.    Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-08/09	   5-29

  5-10.   Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-10	   5.31;

  5-11.   Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-11	   ^ \

  5-12.   Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-03	      5.",4

 5-13.   Summar> sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-67	    5.35

 5-14.   Summan,- sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-34.	        5.39

 5-15.   Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-13	    5-41

 5-16.   Summary- sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-19	    5-43

 5-17.   Summary sampling results statistics soil contaminants for Site CPP-93	    5-46

 5-18.   Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-14	    5.49
 5-19.   Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-37A
        Gravel Pit =?1	
                                                                                            5-55
5-20.   Summan,- sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-37B,
        Gravel Pit =*2	
5-21.   Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-48	    5-59

5-22.   Summary statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-44	    S-62

5-23.   Summary- statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-55	               5-6"?

5-24.   Summan,- sampling results statistics for contaminants in the perched water wells
        (May-June 1995)	....                   5.64

5-25.   Activity of radionuclides discharged to the ICPP injection well (RWMIS
        Database)	                                       5-"l

5-26.   Summary sampling results statistics for contaminants in the SRPA Wells (Mav-
        June 1995)	           '              >.T-

5-27.   Summan.- analytical results for the SFE-20 hot waste tank system	:	    5-~9

7-1.     Results of the site and chemical screening processes	     "-2

7-2.     Summary of the identified groundwater COPCs	    "-12

7-3.     rOPl" exposure-point concentrations in air	    ^-13
                                              xxix
-------
   -4.
        Potentially complete exposure pathways quantitatively evaluated for WAG 3 and
        associated soil depths by exposure route	'....
 7-5.    Cancer risks due to COPC concentrations in air
 7-6.    Noncarcmogenic hazards due to COPC concentrations in air	     7.->0
 >•-1.     Summary of RI BRA conclusions and recommendations for groups and sites of
         concern.	
               • 	~""-"->-"<-"'^ *»">j n-^umiiiciiuiiiiuris ior groups ana sites ot
        iMltli'i'rn
                                                                      	-	-	   7-21


7-8.    Human health baseline risk assessment summary for WAG 3 sites of concern...	     -.26


7-9.    Screening of liquid effluent concentrations at the Sewage Treatment Plant
        CPP-65	                  '                 _,.


7-10.    Screening of nonradionuclide liquid effluent concentrations at CPP-67,
        Percolation Ponds	;...                                  '                    -, ,,,
 7-11.   Threatened and endangered species, special species of concern, and sensitive
        species that may be found on the INEEL.* [[[
7-12.   Results of additional site/contaminant evaluation and screening ...... . .............................      7.34


7-13.   Sites and COCs which may present an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. .-. .............   7.35


8-1.    Soil risk-based remediation goals ...............................................                            c ,


8-2.    SRPA remediation goals [[[                             ,-. ,


10-1.   Summary of comparative analyses for the Tank Farm Soils Intenm Action,
        Group! ..............................                                         '                 ,r
            '             [[[ . ................ ..   iO-.i


10-2.   Summary of comparative analyses for the Soils Under Buildings and Structures

        Groi'P- [[[ '. ......... ......   io-5


10-3.   Summary of comparative analyses for the Other Surface Soils, Group 3 .............................   10-7


10-4.   Summary of comparative analyses for the Perched Water. Group 4 ........ '. .....................        10-9


10-5.   Summary of comparative analyses for the Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim
        Action. Group 5 [[[                            |()_, .


10-6.   Summary of comparative analyses for the Buried Gas Cylinders. Group 6 .......................... , 10- if


10-7.   Sur.m.ir;. ofcomparative analyses for the SFE-20 Tank System. Group 7 ..........................  lu-r


-------
  M-3.   Estimated Capua! .and Operates Costs (100 years) for Soils L'nder Building
         ana Structures Selected Alternative 2. Costs are ,n 1997 dollars except as Sd	  1 I -34


  11 -4.   Estimated Capual and Operations Costs (100 years) for Other Surface Soils
         Selected Alternate 4A. Costs are ,n 1997 dollars except as noted.	        M _^-
            ™.,( "P',tal and °Pe7l°nS,C°StS (100 years) for Perched Water Selected
            -mativ e 2.  ( osts are in 1997 dollars except as noted                                , ,  ,A
                                                r          	   ll-j>6

  11 -6.  Esumated Capual and Operations Costs (100 years) for Snake River Plain
        Aquitcr Intenm Action Selected Alternative 2B.  Costs are in 1997 dollars except
        as noted	                                                         "
                       	   11-3-

  11-7.  Estimated Capual and Operations Costs (100 years) for Buned Gas Cylinder  '
        Sues Selected Alternative 2. Costs are in 1997 dollars except as noted	   ;, _^


 11-8.   hsnmated Capual and Operations Costs (100 years) for SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank
        System Selected Alternative 4. Costs are in 1997 dollars except as noted	   11.39


 12-1.   Comphance wuh ARARs for Group 1-Tank Farm Soils Intenm Action Selected
        Kemedv	
                      	'	-	  12-10

 12-2.   Comphance wuh ARARs for Group 2-Soils under Bu.ldings and Structures
        Selected Remedv	
                            	  12-13

 12-3.   Comphance wuh ARARs for GroupS-Other Surface Soils Selected Remedy	  i2-16

 12-4.   Comphance wuh ARARs for Group 4—Perched Water Selected Remedy	  i2-24


 12-5.   Comphance wuh ARARs for Group 5-Snake River Plain Aquifer Intenm
        Action Selected Remedv	
12-6.   Comphance wuh ARARs for Group 6-Buned Gas Cylinders Selected Remedy.


12-7.   < omphanee « uh ARARs for Group 7—SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System
       Selected Remedv	
                           	-.	  12-34

12-8.   Comparison of costsj of alternatives" for WAG 3	                   , -, V)
                                            XXXI
-------
ll\\\
-------
                            ACRONYMS

  A LARA       as lou a> reasonably achie\able

  AOC          area of contamination

  ARAR         applicable or relexant and appropriate requirement

  bgs            belosv ground surface

  BRA           Baseline Risk Assessment

  CERCLA      Comprehensive En\ ironmental Response, Compensation, and
               Liability Act

  BLM          U.S. Bureau of Land Management

 CAB          Citizens Adx isory Board

 CFR          Code of Federal Regulations

 COC          contaminant of concern

 COCA         Consent Order and Compliance Agreement

 COPC         contaminant of potential concern

 cpm           counts per minute

..CSV!          conceptual site model

 COPC         contaminant  of potential concern

 D&D          decontamination and dismantlement

 DEQ          Division of Environmental Quality

 DOE          U.S. Department of Energy

 DOE-ID        U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office

 F.BR           Experimental Breeder Reactor

 I'BSL          ecologicaih based  screening le\el

 F.E- C'A         engineering evaluation cost analysis

 HIS            I:n% ironmental Impact Statement

 L-PA           I ,S. Fin ironmental ProtectionAucnc\
                                \\\IH
-------
 ERA           ecological risk assessment

 ESRP          Eastern Snake Riser Plain

 FFA CO       Federal Facility Agreement Consent Order

 FD            facilities disposition

 FR            Federal Register

 FS             feasibility study

 FSS            feasibility study supplement

 GSA          General Services Administration

 HEPA         high-efficiency paniculate air

 HEU          Highly Enriched Uranium

 HHRA         human health risk assessment

 HI             hazard index

 H-I            a designation for a sedimentary interbed located between the H
               and I basalt layers.

 HLW          high-level waste

 HLLW         high-level liquid waste

 HQ            hazard quotient

 HWMA        Hazardous Waste Management Act

 ICDF          INEEL CERCLA Disposal Facility

 1CPP           Idaho Chemical Proce>smg Plant

 1DAP.A         Idaho Administrative Procedure* Act

 IDH W         Idaho Department of Health and Welfare

 IDW           inve.itigation derived \\aste

INEEL         Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

INThC         Idaho Nuclear Technolog> and Engineering Center

LDR           Land Dispo-al  Re.-tnctionx
-------
  LITCO




  LLW




  LMITCO




  \!CL




  MCP




  NCP




  NEPA




 NESHAPS




 NPL




 NSR




 NWCF




 O&M




 OU




 OSWER




 PCB




 PEW




 PPE




 R&A




 RAO




 RCRA




 RD RA




 RID




Rl




Rl BRA




Ron
  Lockheed Idaho Technology Companv. Inc.




  low-lev el waste




  Lockheed Manm Idaho Technologies Company




  maximum containment level




  Management Control Procedure




  National Contingency Plan




  National Environmental Policy Act




 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants




 National Priorities List




 no surface risks




 New Vv'aste Calcining Facility




 operating and maintenance




 operable unit




 Office of Solid Waste and  Emergency Response




 polychlorinated biphenyl




 Process  Equipment Waste




 personal protective equipment




 relevant  and appropriate




 remedial action objectives




 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act




 remedial design remedial action




 reference dose




remedial investigation




remedial investigation baseline risk assessment




Record of Decision
                                 \\\v
-------
 RWMC       Radioactive Waste Management Complex




 SARA         Superfund Amendment Reauthon/ation Act




 SC'M          Mte conceptual model




 SF            slope factor




 SLERA        >creening level ecological risk assessment




 SNF           spent nuclear fuel




 SRPA         Snake River Plain Aquifer




 SSST          storage, stagings, sizing, and treatment




 STP           sewage treatment plant




 SVOC         semi-volatile organic compound




 S\VP           service waste percolation pond




 TBC           to-be-considered




 TCLP          toxicity characteristic leaching procedure




 T E            threatened and. or endangered




TRA           Test Reactor Area




TRU           transuranic




TRV           toxicity reference value




TSCA          Toxic Substances Control Act




TSDF          treatment, storage, and disposal facility




TU            temporary unit




 LCL           upper confidence level




 I RF.P          L'tility Replacement and Expansion Project




 I TL           upper tolerance level




 VOC           volatile organic compound




 \V-\cJ          w.iste area group
                                 \\\\ i
-------
WCF          Waste Calcining Facility




^ERF         Waste Experimental Reduction Facility




\VINCO        Westinghou.se Idaho N'uclear Company. Inc.




WIPP          Waste Isolation Pilot Plant




WWP          vVarm Waste Pond
                                \\\\ i
-------
\\\\ 111
-------
                          Final Record of Decision
      Idaho Nuclear Technology and  Engineering Center
                               Operable Unit 3-13
                             1.    DECISION SUMMARY
  NOTE: The Idaho \uclear Technology and Engineering Center f/.VTEO urn formerly known as the
  Idaho Chemical Processmg Plan, (ICPP,. The facility name Was changed in 199ft to more accurately
  reflect (he operational mission. The previously published supporting documents use the ICPP
  nomenclature.
                  1.1    Site Name, Location,  and Description

      The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is a government facilitv
 managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), located 51.5 km (32 mi) west ofldaho Falls Idaho
 and occup.es 2,305 km- (890 mr) of the northeastern portion of the Eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP)'
 ,h  IVPC?     uar Technol°gy and Engineering Center , INTEC) ,s located in the south-central portion of
 the INEEL. as shown in Figure 1-1.

      Facilities at the INEEL are primarily dedicated to nuclear research, development and waste
 management. Surrounding areas are for multipurpose use and are managed by the U.S Bureau of Land
 Management (BLM). The developed area within the INEEL is surrounded by a 1 ^95-km: (500-mi:>
 buffer zone used for cattle and  sheep grazing.  Communities nearest to the INTEC are Atomic City
 (south), Arco (west), Butte City (west), Howe (northwest). Mud Lake (northeast) and Terreton  '
 (northeast). In the count.es surrounding the INEEL. approximatelv 45% is  agricultural land. 45% is open
 land, and I0>-o is urban. Sheep, cattle,  hogs, poultry, and dairy cattle are produced: and potatoes  suaar
 beets, wheat, barley, oats, forage, and seed crops are cultivated.  Private individuals or the U S
 Government own most of the land surrounding the INEEL. as shoun in Figure 1-2.

      Public access to the  INEEL.is strictly controlled by  fences and security personnel  State
 Highways _2. 28. and 33 cross  the northeastern portion of the  INEEL approximately 32.2 km POm.)
 v ™'NTfC' a"d LLS- "'ghwa.vs ^O and 26 cross the southern port.on approximately 8 km (5 mi, from
 INTEC.  A total ot  145 km (90  mi) of paved highways pass through the  INEEL and are used bv the
 general public.                                          "                      -

      To better manage environmental investigations, the INEEL ,s divided into 10 waste area  -roups
 (WAGs). Identified contaminant release sites in each WAG were grouped into operable units (6l\) to
 expedite the investigations  and any required remedial actions.  The INTEC is designated as WAG ^
 which was subdivided mto  13 OUs that were investigated for contaminant releases to environmental
 pathways.  \V .thin these 13 OUs. 101 release sites were identified. Thus Record of Deasion (ROD)
 applies to xi of the  101 sites, which, on the basis of the comprehensive remedial investigation
(RI )• teasibil.tv studv (FS) for WAG 3 (OU 3-13). were identified as posin* a potential risk or threat to
 human health and or the environment. Of the 101  sites. 4.0 are recommended for "No Action" or "No
 Further Action.'  The MX remaining sites (CPP-65. CPP-3X. CPP-fih. CPP-ftl. CPP-S1  and CPP-S^ u.|l
be managed under other Ol'x \V..\Gs. or INEEL reuulatorv programs.
-------
 0)

 3
 O)
iZ
-------




 f'l^P~   !v~s^ Eoe'~~-V^.^- "-"'•: ;.:"••,•


Figure 1-2. [.and ounership distnhuti.on in the % iciniu ot'the INHHL and onsite areas open for permit
-------
        The 55 release sites \\ ith identified risks greater than I  < HP or that pose a threat to human health
  and or the environment require remedial aetion to mitigate these risks or threats.  The 55 sites were
  divided into seven groups based on Mmilar media, contaminants of concern iCOCs). accessibility, or
  geographic proximity. The >e\. en groups are:

        •     Group 1: Tank Farm Soils

        •     Group 2: Soils Under Buildings and Structures

        •     Group 3: Other Surface Soils

        •     Group 4: Perched Water

       •     Group 5:  Snake River Plain Aquifer

       •     Group 6:  Buried Gas Cylinders

       •     Group 7:  SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank Svstem.

       The locations of these groups are shown in Figures 1-3 through  1-9.

       During the RI FS and subsequent remedy development, data gaps were identified. In some cases
 the missing data were important enough to prevent selection of final remedies. Because delays in
 restoration were undesirable. OU 3-14 was created.  Where available information was insufficient to
 select a final remedy in OU 3-13. interim actions were developed for implementation in the OU 3-13
 ROD with the final remedy relegated to OU 3-14. Specifically, Group 1, Tank Farm Soils, and Group <
 the Snake River Plain Aquifer (SRPA). are interim actions in this ROD and are included in OU 3-14 for
 final remedy selection.

      To allow flexibility in managing the remediation of the various groups discussed above, an
 OL 3-13 area of contamination (AOC) was designated as shown in Figure 1-10. An AOC is an area of
 contiguous surface contamination that can be used for consolidation of remediation wastes without
 triggering Land Disposal Resolutions and  other Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
 requirements.

      Action sites and cleanup levels are based on a 1 * \ O'4 carcinogenic risk. For Cs-137,
contaminated soils will be cleaned up to below 23 pCi g. for the future residential use scenario. The
background Cs-137 activity is approximately 1 pCi g. which is equivalent to a lk.^ The acceptable risk for cleanup to future residential standards for Cs-137 is 1 x 1I)"1 by the \ ear
2095. "No Further Action" sites are sites that represent a threat if land use was residential, but do not
represent a threat under an industrial land use scenario.
-------
             =J
Portion of CPP-26
having no further
action recommendation.
                                                                    26
                                                      ;u
                                              INTEC Main Stack
Figure 1-3. Group I: Tank Farm Soils numbered release Mies.
-------
                 £f
                          1.1   Jn11
                                       • 
-------
     INTEC  Main Stack   Q
     iReferencel
            48
   Note:
   Sj'.es 98 and 99 consist of waste
   siorage ooxes
   Re!ocat-on o( tnese soxes adjacent
   'o site 92 s penamg
                                                                                    CT99 OO59
                                                                                    Rev 1
Figure 1-5, Group 3: Other Surface Soils numbered release
-------
 c

       Mt.«OU-i

                                                                                       0..

                                                                                                                       CcnoljlKfl ISintli TjnL
                                                                                                                       F-m U^TtC Bou.id.ii)
                                           0    MO   400   top    101  1000 f
Figure 1-6.
\ppro*muic sxcent of ihe Perchtd Water ai the INTEC (CPP-83).
-------
                         Iodine-129 concentrations  (pCi/L)
                                                                TRA
           Area covered by map
                                                                                CFA
     RWMC
                                          2000   J(XX)  MXX) SIKH) Pea
                                                            2 VMe,
Nulcs:
I The MCI. for I- 129 is I pCj/i..

2. The- Jala used 10 produce ihc.sc
contours came directly imm ihe
Jucumcni DOU/ID- 221 IS 'Indine-
m the Snukc River Plain Aquilcr
nl and ncarlhi: IJahu Naliunul
lingmixnng l_irKirjniry. Idaho
iWO-MI" (U.S. Ucological Survey
Walcr- Resources Invcsli-atiou
Rcpon 44-40531 pg.')- I.V
                                                                             I- 12l)CnnccniniiK)n m pCi/L
Figure 1-7.  Group 5: Estimated extent of the 1-129 plume m the Snake River Plam Aquifer (CPP-231


                                                1-9
-------
                                                                  W
                                                  INTEC Main  Stack
                                                 (Reference)
                                                                           94
                                                               50C   >:CO Fee:
                                                                    53C Vie:e-
Figure 1-8. Group 6: Buried Gas Cylinders numbered release sites.
-------
                                             INTEC
                                             Main  Stack
                                             (Reference)
                                      D  r~]  -g
                                                       Group  7
                                                  69. SFE-20
                                                        Hot Waste
                                         \  648   ^  Tank System
                                                        0:9900-10
Figure 1-9. Group 7: SFE-20 Hot AVaste Tank Sv.tem numbered release sites.
-------

                                                                                 .5
                                                     CFA
Figure 1-10.  Ol' ."-I? area ofconiaiiiination
                                              i-i:
-------
           2.   SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Nation!"
(NCR). The EPA issued a
Register [FR] 29820)  As a result  the
EnvironmentI, Response. C^
and Consent Order (FFA.-CO) and associated
Office [DOE-IDJ 1991 ) uw d^lo^ to
                                                 A>
                                 «  ed
                                                              *" «re tranfe™d „ la™
Se,s). Calcinin. achie" ^, an °i -l ° o one
nuclear fuel
                                           * "*" "'^ '° lhe """">«"™  The
                                               r""^ '" 'hiCk COnCreK vau"s 
-------
       Following procedures identified in the action plan, preliminary scoping Track I  and or Track 2
 investigations were completed for all sites except the  10 "No Action" sites and 4 ne\\ sites. CPP-96. -9".
 -9S. and -99, recently added to the FFA CO. A Track 1  investigation is a site evaluation using existing
 data to qualitatively determine if an actual or potential threat to human health or the environment exists.
 Track I investigations include very limited or no field characterization. A Track 2 investigation is a more
 detailed evaluation in which existing data and additional field characterization data are used to determine
 release site risks. Track 1  and Track 2 investigation identify if sufficient information exists to determine
• \\hether an unacceptable risk exists,  and recommend steps to either: (a) conduct "No Action" or "No
 Further Action." (b) conduct an interim action or removal action, or (c) conduct additional investigation
 under the Rl FS process.

       Site CPP-95. the Windblown Area for INTEC. was evaluated in the OU 10-06 RLFS. which
 became an engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE.CA) for a removal action (Lockheed Idaho
 Technologies Company [L1TCO] 1995a)

       Four new sites were recently added to OU 3-13. Site CPP-96. is considered part of the Group 1
 Tank Farm soils and will be addressed by both the Tank Farm Interim Action under OU 3-13 and the
 Final Action selected under OU 3-14. Sites CPP-97. CPP-98, and CPP-99 will be remediated under the
 selected remedy for OU 3-13 Group  3. The Agencies have determined that six other sites. CPP-38.
 CPP-61. CPP-65. CPP-66. CPP-81, and CPP-82 are more appropriately dispositioned under other OUs or
 regulatory programs other than CERCLA.  Site CPP-38 will be administered and remediated, if
 necessary, under the IN'EEL Asbestos Abatement Program. Site CPP-65 will be handled under  the Idaho
 Wastevvater Land Application Rules. Site CPP-66 may pose an ecological risk and was transferred to
 OU 10-04 for further evaluation and  remedy selection, if necessary.

       In 1997.  a remedial investigation/baseline risk assessment (Rl/BRA) (DOE-ID 1997b) was
 conducted to determine the comprehensive risks posed by past releases at WAG 3.  That document
 addressed all known release sites including those previously subject to Track  1 or Track 2 investigations.
 The final  RI-'BRA was issued in November 1997. Concurrently, an FS (DOE-ID 1997a) was written to
 determine and evaluate feasible remedial alternatives. During preparation of the FS, the need for
 additional information was identified. Because of the cost of the remedies recommended at the  INTEC.
 review by the National Remedy Review Board was required. The Board recommended modifications to
 the Feasibility Study concerning the Snake River Plain Aquifer alternatives and the cost estimates.  To
 support the board's recommendations, an FS supplement was written and published in  1998
 (DOE-ID 1998a).

       Four CERCLA removal actions have been completed to date at WAG 3. The contents of a buried
 acid pipeline were removed during the summer of 1993 at  Site CPP-81. The pipe was cleaned but was
 left in place.  A second removal action was performed in the summer of 1993 on Calcine Bin Set 3 to
 prevent precipitation runoff from migrating through soil that was previously contaminated by a  calcine
 spill. The contaminated soil was removed and disposed. A third removal  action, completed in the  fall of
 1993. consisted of removing sludge from the Horizontal Filter Basin (CPP-740) and a dry well
 (CPP-301). The OU 3-13  Rl BRA (DOE-ID 1997b) \%as performed after these three removal actions, and
 therefore, the source removal was accounted for in the BRA. The fourth removal action, completed in the
 fall of I99X. consisted of consolidating four Cs-137 contaminated soil stockpiles from  INTEC into the
 Test Reactor Area (TRA) Warm Waste Pond (WWP) 195" Cell.  The stockpiles identified as Acid
 Rccvele. New Control Room. Electrical Utility System Upgrade, and Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility, all
 contained low activity radionuclide-contaminated soil.

       Four polvchlonnatcd hiphenvl (PC'B) site,-, had undergone removal actions prior to the signing of
 the FFA CO, These sites CPP-41). -5n. -51. and -M comprised Ol  3-01.  The sites were evaluated in .1
-------
                               , I*1"    ^^ InC' [WINC01 1992a> and were a" ^ermined to
   heen    hi <       J".   *£" °f available dean UP ™* sampling information,  in this ROD
   the Agency have determined that additional information is needed to make a final decision for site   '
   CPP-61 and have transferred it to OU 3-14 for further evaluation.

                    2.3    Other Regulatory Programs at INTEC

       . Inl992- the State of Idaho and DOE-ID entered into a Consent Order to resolve alleged violations
  'X^W  ^P'*™' » ' "0 <»• the EPA.  The Consent Order ^modlSTn
   hat bv June 30  "oo? rh  nor"   ni°dlficatlon-J which '"percedes the first modification, stipulated
  that bv June 30. 2003. the DOE must cease use of high-level waste Tanks WM-182 through WM-186-
  ceasing use means emptying the tanks to the heels. However, Tank WM- 1 85 could be used as emergency

  Scon e^f1" ^r mil ^^ Wlume '" °ther tanks became available' <" ^ ^
  second Consent Order mod.ficat.on st.pulated that on or before December 31, 2012  the DOE must
  nnTvv-u"! LC^ uS£ °f thC.SiX °ther tankS kn°Wn HS WM- ' 80> WM- 1 8 1 , WM- 1 87. WM- 1 88  WM- 1 89
  first ank"    3     e"" aSS°Ciated VaUltS' A d°SUre Pla" mUSt bC SUbmitted by December 3 ' ' 200°  for the'
  and trealm^at1 IXTFar ^rl^ ^ DOE "^ * se«lement ag^men. that would guide waste storage
  and treatment at INTEC. The agreement ,s commonly known as the Batt Agreement. Amone many other
  requirements, the Batt Agreement stipulated the following:                             S     *

             The DOE shall complete the process of calcining all remaining nonsodium-bearing HLLW
             currently located at INEEL by June 30, 1998.

       •     The DOE shall treat all high level waste (HLW) currently at the INEEL so that it is ready for
             disposal outside of Idaho by a target date of 2035.

            The DOE shall commence negotiating a plan and schedule with the State of Idaho for
            calcined waste treatment (into a form suitable for transport to a permanent repository- or
            interim storage) by December 31, 1999.                                      *     '

      •     The DOE shall commence calcination of sodium-bearing waste by June 1, 2001.

      •     The DOE shall complete calcination of sodium-bearing waste by December 3 1, 2012.

            The DOE shall submit to the State of Idaho an application for a RCRA Part-B permit bv
            December 1. 201 2 for the treatment of calcined waste at INEEL into a form suitable for
            transport to a permanent repository or interim storage.
                    onnn        the HLLW evaPorator as to reduce Tank Farm volumes bv no less
            than 1,249.000 L (330.000 gal, by December 31. 1997. After December 31  1997 efforts
            u,!l continue to reduce the remaining volume of the Tank Farm liquid waste bv operation of
            the HLLvV evaporator.                                               '
a. Loiter from ,ho State ofldahoN Hnan R. M,,,,M>n I0 Don Ra>ch. DOlMn. on Jan,- 12. |«MK  Attached uas the "Second
Modmcunon ,o C o^n, Order." .duho Code 30.4413. ,\o .uhjca hne or mimhtfr ucrc provlt],d t"Seu«*>   ^"^
-------
        •     The DOE agrees to treat spent fuel. HLW. and transuramc (TRU) wastes in Idaho requiring
             treatment so as to permit ultimate disposal outside the State of Idaho.

        Several RCRA-regulated units operate at the 1 NT-EC. Currently, the INTEC Process Equipment
 Wa.Me (PEW)  Evaporators. Tank Farm. N\VCF. and Calcine Storage Facility operate under RCRA
 interim status. A RCRA Part-B permit application will be submitted to the Idaho Division of
 Environmental Quality (DEQ) at a future date. The Percolation Ponds 1 and 2 vyere initially under the
 RCRA interim status permit but were RCRA-closed in 1995. The ponds are currently operated under a
 wastevvater land application permit issued by the State of Idaho.  The DEQ has agreed that these ponds
 have met clean closure requirements. The radionuclide contaminants in the pond^sediments and potential
 subsurface contamination were evaluated in the RI. BRA as Site CPP-67 in OU 3-13.J

       The NWCF is a facility that converts radioactive liquid waste solutions into a granular solid calcine
 material.  Liquid  wastes are evaporated in a fluidized bed allowing the dissolved metals and fission
 products to be  converted to salts and oxides which are subsequently stored in the calcine bin-sets.  The
 NWCF operates under a Permit to Construct issued by the State of Idaho and Federal National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) administered by EPA and the state of Idaho.
 Although the EPA has proposed to revise air emission and operational requirements for hazardous waste
 incinerators (EPA 1997). those regulations have not yet been promulgated.

       By June  1. 2000. the DOE must also decide if the NWCF will  be closed or continue to be operated.
 If the DOE chooses to close the NWCF, a closure plan  must be submitted by June 1 +  180 days. If DOE
 chooses to continue NWCF operations. DOE must submit a schedule for submission of a permit
 application by July I, 2000.

      The PEW evaporator system separates liquid radioactive waste into  two fractions; one fraction is
 currently directed to the HLLW Tank Farm and the other fraction is directed to the Liquid Effluent
 Treatment and  Disposal Facility. The PEW evaporator is included in the RCRA interim status document
 (DOE-ID 1997c). which includes a closure and post-closure plan that defines the closure and post-closure
 requirements and performance standards.

      The WCF was taken out of service in 1981 after  18 years of operation. The WCF contains six units
 that are included in the 1NEEL RCRA Part-A permit application and are subject to the closure
 requirements for interim status treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). These units include
 four storage vessels, the WCF evaporator, and the high-efficiency paniculate air (HEPA) filter storage
 area. Surface and subsurface releases of radionuclide-contaminated solutions from the  WCF are
 addressed in the comprehensive OU 3-13 FS (DOE-ID  1997a), the Proposed Plan (DOE-ID 1998b). and
 this ROD. The  WCF is not included in the FFA CO and therefore, the disposition of the six RCRA units
and ancillary equipment will be performed in accordance with the WCF RCRA closure plan, which calls
 for closure of the WCF as a landfill with a RCRA-compliant cap.  The WCF RCRA closure plan was
approved in August 1997.  The closure consists of Hushing the lines,  isolating the structure, and uroutinu
the six RCRA units in place, followed by collapsing the aboveground structures into the WCF lower
 level?; and filling voids with concrete to act as a structural support for the cap.  A concrete cap extending
approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) beyond the WCF perimeter has been constructed.  Final closure construction"^
expected to be completed by September 1999.
11 I.elterliom the Stole ut'ld.iho'-.On.ilk-1) Green to Dun \V Ka-.ch. [)()i.-II>. on l-'ehruar> 13.1W5. Attached to the letter
*\.is the "Sloie nl Idaho Permit to Construct .in Air Pollution I'miumi: s.turee."-Pomw Number  ( oiiMriM Amendment Re^ueii i
                                              2-4
-------
  -^^
 nonsodmm-beanng waste has been processed.                                    rcspecmeiv  All

                        'mpaCtS °f disP°sition of the HLLW and calcined solids stored at INTEC will
the Waho HL\& FD E'S at'VeS ^   P°Siti°n °f facilities associated with HLW ™» also be included m
-------
-------
                 3.
                      HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
          In accordance with CERCLA $ I I3(k)P »RW_
    information and participation in the Rl FS and I  '  *      *      Series o/"°PP°rtunities tor public
    1994 through February' 999. The! p^fu ^  o ZHT "T ^^ WaS provid4d *™ OcTber
     k.ck-otf fact sheet, uh.ch briefly discussed the Sat of h  R!^" *"" """'^ mpUt mdlided a
    newsletter articles fa publication ofthe IVEEL ^Fnv         ^ D  ' numerous /A'^ *Wc>r
    Guide supplemental updates. Hve -^ tt hee  Xoo  ^T^0" '^^ '^Citizens'
    -nterested groups, and public meetings.                 °P°bed P'3n' bnetm8s an<* Presentations to


    individual? £ genial pubUctld
    list  Included in the fact sheet was a posp
    from tour members ofthe public The comments w,
   project w0rk plan. This fac't sheet als^ offered" chnica
   comprehensive investigation.  It was the initial
   how the investigation wou,d be condu  ed   Xo
   held later in the investigation process.
                                                     *'
                                                               R'/FS W3S S6nt tO about ^-200
                                                               C°mmUmty RelatIOns "™ -ailin,
                                                         ?0mment torm- Comments were received
                                                                   *"11 > the PreP-ation of the
                                                                   Interested in '»* WAG 3
                                                                      involved in d««™»m«
                                                                at the time- b"' briefings were"
                                  aa
  representatives from the DOE and the IXEEL dossed h'    B,°1Se'  Dunng these
  articles were generated as a result of these bdefin,s and  7'°^ ^ anSWered ^uestions- Ne
  The investigation was also highlighted in twoSes of a naZ 7* ^"^ ** the ^claled p
  and on an Idaho Falls radio talk show.                "atl°nal env'ronmental restoration newsletter
                                                                                    Cltizens
                and the second in Septembe  998  The  P      / Shert "^ dl"strib«ted in
 appraised of developments during the^l FS  to mdude  LSe  f^ d°CUmemS WM l°
 «he appro.xmiate dates when public meetmgs wo Id tat p ace TL  f TSt'gation' and to ann<^<*
 bnehngs to those interested in the WAG 3 investigation                   ^ a'S° °ffered technica'


                                                               <» b,monthly issues ofthe
                                                        ''f appeared in four ''«ues of a
                                                      suPPieme"t to the INEEL Reporter} in



recommendaiions to DOE. EPA. and the State of dah'/Pg ^ CItJZenS °ndaho- *«o make
early 1995. 1996. 1997. and 1998.
     , and
                          :r
                     national pub,,,a,io,K

                                          the Pocutdlo and Moscow areas the week of
                                          : Pubhc meetings and to see if a briefing uas desired.
-------
 A.i a result, public meetings were held with the Shoshone-Bannock tribes the morning of November 16.
 IWS.  Meetings were also held with stakeholder groups in Idaho Falls on the afternoon of November 16.
 Tw in Falls on November 17, Boise on November I S. and Moscow on November 19. A meeting was held
 with University of"Idaho students in Moscow on November 19. 199X.

      During the week of October 18, 1998, DOE-ID issued a news release to more than 100 media
 contacts concerning the beginning of a 30-day public comment period pertaining to the WAG 3 Proposed
 Plan.  Although the period began on October 23. 1998. it was automatically extended by the Agencies for
 an additional 30 da>s in anticipation of a large amount of public interest.  The initial comment period
 ended on December 22. 1998, but at the request of United States Congresswoman Chenoweth (Idaho
 District -1), the comment period was extended until February 12.  1999.  As a result of several news
 releases, a short note was placed in community calendar sections of newspapers and in public service
 announcements on radio stations. This note gave notice to the public that supportive WAG 3
 investigation documents were available in the Administrative Record of the INEEL Information
 Repositories located in the DOE Public Reading Room at the INEEL Technical Library in Idaho Falls, the
 Albertson Library on the campus of Boise State University, and the University of Idaho Library in
 Moscow.

      Display advertisements announcing the availability of the Proposed Plan, the locations of public
 meetings, and the comment period extension, appeared in six regional newspapers during the week of
 October 18,  1998 located in  Idaho Falls. Boise. Moscow. Fort Hall. Pocatello. and Twin Falls. Large
display advertisements appeared in the following newspapers:  Post Register (Idaho Falls), Sho-Ban News
(Fort Hall), Idaho State Journal (Pocatello), Times News (Twin Falls). Idaho Statesman (Boise), and
Daily News (Moscow).  A follow-up advertisement ran in newspapers approximately 2 days before the
public meetings in Idaho Falls, Twin Falls. Boise, and Moscow. Additionally, a post card was mailed to
about 6,200 citizens on the INEEL mailing list informing them of the availability of the Proposed Plan,
comment period, and upcoming public meetings. A note was also sent to all INEEL employees informing
them of the same.

      Copies of the Proposed Plan were mailed to about 700 members of the public on the INEEL
Community Relations Plan mailing list the week of October 18. 1998, urging citizens to comment on the
plan and to attend public meetings. Public meetings were held in Idaho Falls on  November 16, Twin
Falls on November 17. Boise on November 18. and Moscow on November 19, 1998. Prior to public
meetings in each location, an availability session took place from 4 to 7 p.m. The public meetings began
at 7 p.m.

      For the general public, participation in the decision-making process included receiving and
reviewing the Proposed Plan, attending the availability sessions before the public meetings to informally
discuss the issues, with the Agencies remedial  project managers and INEEL environmental restoration
technical personnel, and submitting verbal and written comments to the Agencies during the public
comment period.

      Written comment forms (including a postage-paid business-reply form) were available to those
attending the public meetings. The forms were used to submit written comments either at the meeting or
by mail. The reverse side of the meeting agenda contained a form for the public to use in evaluating the
 effectiveness of the meetings. A court reporter was present at each meeting to record transcripts of
 UitCUNSions and public comments. The meeting transcripts were placed in the Administrative Record for
 WAG 3 OL  3-13 m three INEEL  Information  Repositories. For those who could not attend the public
 meetings, but wanted to make formal written comment-., a postage-paid written comment form was
 attached to the Proponed Plan.
-------
                pd     ^                         "" »*"* ^""^ A"
                 ,n thls ROD are
                     vea c
receive are also     d d „ A               h  A'^   Pl""'C mMIi"gS '"" *" Wri"e"
                                                         as pan of this ROD •        -

-------
-------
                  4.   SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
                                  AND RESPONSE ACTIONS

        This comprehensive ROD addresses the known contaminant releases at WAG 3 resulting from
  SNF reprocessing storage and research, and ancillary activities except for those releases assoaated with
  the Tank Farm.  Closure of RCRA-regulated units and impacts associated with the closed RCRA units
  also ,s not included in this ROD. However, post-closure monitoring of closed units, such as the WCF
  and past releases of hazardous substances from RCRA-regulated units are addressed. Similarly closure
  or decontamination  and dismantlement (D&D) of HLW units is not included, but past releases of
  hazardous substances from these units are addressed.

       The  1NTEC is one of 10 WAGs at the INEEL. Each WAG contains a number of contaminant
  release sues grouped into OUs based on similarity of waste streams and projected remedial actions
  Fourteen OUs have been defined for WAG 3.< OU 3-01 through OU 3-13 are addressed in this ROD
  UL 3-14 will address the final action for the Tank Farm Soils and SRPA  inside the current INTEC
  rSf^ ^ °U ,3~'3 RI/BRA detemiined that 5' relea^ ^tes. including the perched water and
  the SRPA pose risks or threats to human health or the environment greater than allowable levels  Four
  new sites recently added to OU 3-13. were not evaluated in the RI/BRA but are presumed to pose a risk
  or threat because ot their origin and similar contaminants.  During the OU 3-13 FS evaluation the release
  sues and Obs were further categorized into seven groups relating to media, similar contamination or
  geographic  proximity. These groups are discussed and defined in the following sections.  Table 4-1  lists
  each WAG  3 site, site description, and site grouping. The DOE, EPA and the IDHW have selected "No
  Action,  ' No Further Act.on/'or a remedial alternative for each of the release site groups and the
  individual sues listed in the table, based on the comparative analyses of alternatives presented in the
 WAG 3 comprehensive RI/FS and other documents contained in the Administrative Record "  In addition
 four new sues recently added to OU 3-13  and their planned disposition are discussed in Section 4.9 and in
 Table 4-1.  Sect.on 4.10 describes six other sites that will be dispositioned under another WAG or other
 regulatory programs, but will be reviewed by the CERLCA program during the 5-year review process.

                         4.1    Tank Farm Soils  (Group  1)

 , ., ™e Tank Farm Soils (Figure 1-3) previously consisted of sites in OUs 3-06, 3-07 3-08 3-1 I  and
 -S-IJ. The sites are located in the area of the Tank Farm (Sites  CPP-16.-20 -^4  --»5 -26 -28* 30 '31
 -32, and-79) and adjacent to the PEW evaporator building (Sites CPP-15  -27 -33*and-58) are   '  " '
 consolidated into Site-96.  These sites consist of soil contaminat.on that resulted from spills and pipeline
 leaks ot radioactive liquids from plant liquid transfer operations.  Distributed throughout the Tank Farm
 soils outside of the previously identified release sites are low concentrations of contaminants at varvin-
 locations and depths.  New Site CPP-96 is a consolidation of all of the previously identified Tank Farm*
 So.ls sues and the intervening interstitial soils within the Sue CPP-96 boundary.' Contamination resultin-
 from releases from waste transfer lines and valve boxes in the Tank Farm area currently account for    =
 approximately 95% ot the known contaminant inventory, in total curies of radioactive material.


c   In addMu,,, lu -No Action Sues" uere uicnulled m .he l-'FA CO hut uere mn gnen an operable uni< number.  See
    Section 4 s lor jtldiiional Ji>cu*->ion
                                             4-1
-------
Table 4-1.  \VAG 3 CPP release sites and site grouping.
Site
CPP-Ol
CPP-02
CPP-03
CPP-04
CPP-05
CPP-06
CPP-07
CPP-08
CPP-09
CPP-IO
CPP- 1 1
CPP- 1 2
CPP- 1 3
CPP- 1 4
CPP- 1 5
CPP- 1 6
CPP- 1 7
CPP- IX
CPP- 1 9
CPP-20
CPP-2 1
CPP-22
CPP-2."
CTP-24
Op^able OU 3- 1 3 ROD
L'nit Description Site Group rwkinn
OU 3-09 Concrete settling basins and drv wells east 3
ofCPP-603
OU 3-09 French drain west of CPP-603 2
OU 3-09 Temporary storage area southeast of 1
CPP-603
OU 3-09 Contaminated soil area around CPP-603 3
settling tank
OU 3-09 Contaminated soil around CPP-603 settling 3
basin
OU 3-09 Trench east of CPP-603 fuel storage basin none
OU 3-02 Soil contamination northwest of CPP-642 none
OU 3-09 CPP-603 basin filter system line failure " 3
OU 3-09 Soil contamination at northeast corner of 3
CPP-603 south basin
OU3-09 CPP-603 plastic pipeline break 3
OU 3-09 CPP-603 sludge and water release 3
OU 3-02 Contaminated paint chips and pad south of none
CPP-603
OU 3-08 Pressurization of solid storage cyclone 3
northeast of CPP-633
OU 3-05 Old Sewage Treatment Plant west of 1
CPP-664
OU 3-08 Solvent burner east of CPP-605 1
OU 3-07 Contaminated soil from leak in line from 1
CPP WM-1 XI to PEW Evaporator
OU 3-09 Soil storage area south of CPP Peach none
Bottom fuel storage area
OU 3-02 Gas storage buildina. current location of none
CPP-66S
OU 3-09 CPP-603 to CPP-604 line leak 3
OU 3-07 CPP-604 radioactive waste unloading area 1
OU 3-02 Solid waste storage bin south of CPP-601 none
01 3-09 Paniculate air release south of CPP-603 none
Ol 3-02 CPP injection \\. ell (MAH-FE-PL-304) 5
OU 3-0- CPP Tank Farm area bucket >pill |
RD RA
RDRA
RD RA
RDRA
RD. RA
"No Further Action"
"No Action"
RD/RA
RD/RA
RD/RA
RD/RA
"No Action"
RD/RA
RD RA
RD/RA
RD.RA-OU 3-14J
"No Further Action"
"No Action"
RD RA
RD RA
"No Action"
"No Further Action"
RD RAh
RD RA-OU 3-14'
                                            4-2
-------
    Table 4-1.  (continued).
   CPP-27

   CPP-28

   CPP-29

   CPP-30
   I
   none
                                     Description
              OU 3-07  Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area
                        north of CPP-604
   CPP-26     OU 3-07  Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area
                        from steam Hushing
              OU 3-08  Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area
                       east of CPP-604
              OU 3-07  Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area
                       south of WM-181  by Valve Box A-6
              OU 3-08  Contaminated soil north and west of the
                       main stack (CPP-708)
              OU 3-07  Contaminated soil  in  the Tank Farm area     1
                       near Valve Box B-9
  CPP-3I     OU3-07 Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area     1
                      south of Tank WM-183
  CPP-32     OU3-07  Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area      1
                      southwest and northwest of Valve Box B-4
  CPP-33     OU3-06  Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area      |
                      near WL-102, northeast of CPP-604
 CPP-34     OU3-06  Soil storage area (disposed trenches) in the   3
                      northeast corner of the ICPP
 CPP-35      OU3-08 CPP-633  decontamination spill
 CPP-36     OU 3-08 Transfer line leak from CPP-633 to
                     WL-102
 CPP-37a .   OU 3-02  Gravel pit—outside INTEC fence            3
 CPP-37b    Of 3-02  Gravel pit and debris landfill Inside INTEC   3
                     fence
 CPP }*{     Ol '  i n 1  rr • LI
    '"               -Wl"™SP~6()]ihr0^-™'  C—nderanotherprogram
CPP-39     OU 3-13  CPP HF storage tank (YDB-10S, and drv
                     well. OU 3-13  no Track I or Track 2.  '
C PP-40     OU 3-06  Lime pit at the base of the CPP-601 berm
                     and trench drain
                                                              3
                                                              3
    RD RA

    RDRA

    RD-RA

    RD.RA

   "No Action"

   RD/RA-OU3-!4J

   RD.RA

   RD/RA

  RD/RA

  RD/RA

  RD/RA
  RD/RA

  RD/RA
  RD.RA
                                                             none
                                                            none
C PP-41 a    OU 3-02  Fire training pits between CPP-666 and
                     CPP-663. under asphalt
CPP-41b    OU 3-02  Fire training pus between CPP-666 and
                     CPP-663
CPP-42      OL 3-IO  Drainage ditch \\estofCPP-63-
none
                                                            none
 "No Action"

 "No Action"

 RDRA

"No Action"

"No Action"
-------
Table 4-1. (continued).
Site
CPP-43
CPP-44
CPP-45
CPP-46
CPP-47
CPP-48
CPP-49
CPP-50
CPP-51
CPP-52'
CPP-53
CPP-54
CPP-55
CPP-56
CPP-57
CPP-5X
CPP-59
CPP-60
CPP-61
CPP-62
CPP-63
CPP-64
CPP-65
CPP-66
CPP-6"
CPP-6S
Operable
Unit
none
OL 3- ID
OL3-1I
OU3-IO
OU 3-06
OU3-13
OU3-OI
OL'3-Ol
OU3-0]
none
OU 3-02
OL 3-02
OU 3-02
OU3-IO
OU 3-02
OU3-H
OU 3-02
OU 3-02
OU3-OI
OU 3-02
OU 3-02
OU 3-02
OU 3-02
OU 3-02
OU 3-D3
OL 3-D2
Description
Grease pit south of CPP-(>3~
Grease pit south of CPP-60X
CPP-62 1 chemical storage area spills
CPP-637 courtyard pilot plant release
Pilot plant storage area uest of CPP-620
French drain south of CPP-633
PCB transformer yard (CPP-705)
PCB transformer yard (CPP-73 1 )
PCB staging area west of CPP-660
Pickling shed east of CPP-63 1
Paint and paint solvent area south of
CPP-697
Drum storage area west of CPP-660
Mercury-contaminated area south of
CPPT-'l5
Nitric acid contamination south of
CPP-734
Sulfuric acid spills east of CPP-606
CPP PEW evaporator overhead pipeline
spills
Kerosene tank overflow west of CPP-633
Paint shop at present location of CPP-645
PCB spill in CPP-718 transformer yard
Mercury-contaminated area near CPP TB-4
HexonespillbyCPP-710
Hexone spill uest of CPP-660
CPP Sewage Treatment Plant lagoons
CPP coal-fired steam generation facility
Fly Ash Pit
CPP Percolation Ponds =1 and =2
Abandoned uasoline tank
CPP VF.S-t TI-652
(North of Buildins: 6(161
Site Group
none
3
none
none •
none
3
none
none
none
none
none
none
3
none
none
1
none
•>
none
none
none
none
OU3-13 ROD
Decision
"No Action" per
FFA CO
RD.RA
"No Action"
"No Action"
"No Action"
RD-'RA
"No Action"
"No Action"
"No Action"
"No Action" per
FFACO
"No Action"
"No Action"
RD/RA
"No Action"
"No Action"
RDRA
"No Action"
RD.RA
OU3-14RLFSJ
"No Action"
"No Action"
"No Action"
Closure under another program
WAG 10
3
•>
RD RA
RD. RA
RD RA '
                                              4-4
-------
Table 4-1. (continued). 	
S~\ t i
^^k Site
/""D D AO
' ' 1
- — — 	
uperaoie
Unit n OL 3- 13 ROD
	 *- "ll 	 L/escrinhnn o-. /•-
~ 	 	 	 ' 	 	 	 	 Site Group Decision
^rr-ov UL J-uv Abandoned liquid radioactive waste storage 7
Tank CPP VES-SFE-20
CPP-70

CPP-71

CPP-72

CPP-73

CPP-74

CPP-75

CPP-76

CPP-77

4fe CPP-78
CPP-79
CPP-80
CPP-S 1
CPP-82
CPP-S3
CPP-84
CPP-S5
CPP-S6
CPP-S7
CPP-X.X

CPP-X9
CPP-90
_^**L
none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

OL 3-09
OL 3-07
OL 3- 1 2
OL3-I2
OL3-I2
OL 3-08
OL3-13
OL3-I3
OL3-I3
OL3-I3
OL 3-13

Of 3- 1 3
OL3-I3
Septic tank east of CPP-655 none

Seepage pits west of CPP-656 none

CPP-758 cesspool east of CPP-65 1 none

Leaching cesspool east of CPP T- 1 5 none

Seepage pit and septic tank west of none
CPP-626

Septic tank and cesspool west of CPP-603 none

Septic tank and cesspool west of CPP-659 none

Seepage pit and cesspool north of CPP-662 none

Contaminated soil west of CPP-693, east of none
dry fuel storage area
Tank farm release near Valve Box A-2 1
CPP-601 vent tunnel drain leak 2
Abandoned CPP-637.CPP-601 VOG line none
Abandoned line (3.8 cm(1.5in.j) PLA-766 none
west of Beech Street
The entire perched water svstem at the 4
INTEC
Gas canisters (buried gas cylinders) 6
Waste Calcining Facility blower corridor 2
CPP-602 waste trench sump T
CPP-604 VOG blower cell sump and floor 2
drain
Radiologically contaminated soil none

CPP-604 -605 tunnel exeaxation ->
CPP-~09 ruthenium detection none
RD/RA
"No Action" per
FFA/CO
"No Action" per
FFACO
"No Action" per
FFA/CO
"No Action" per
FFA/CO
"No Action" per
FFA/CO
"No Action" per
FFA/CO
"No Action" per
FFA/CO
"No Action" per
FFA/CO
"No Action"
RD/RA
RD/RA
OL:3-I4RI/FSJ
OL3-l4RI/FSd
RD/RA
RD/RA
Part of WCF closure
RDRA
RD/RA
"No Further Action" -
Conduct 5-year review
RD-'RA •
"No Further Acrinn" -
                          Conduct 5-year revieu
4-5
-------
Table 4-1. (continued).
Operable
Site Unit Description
CPP-9 1 OU3-I3 CPP-633 blower pit drain
CPP-92 OU3-I3 Soil boxes west ofCPP- 16! 7
CPP-93 OL'3-13 Simulated calcine disposal trench
CPP-94 OU3-13 Gas canisters (buried gas cylinders)
CPP-95 OU 3-13 Airborne plume (also shown in 10-06)

CPP-96 OU3-13 Tank Farm interstitial soils
CPP-97 OU3-13 Tank Farm soil stockpile
CPP-98 OU3-13 Tank Farm shoring boxes
CPP-99 OU3-I3 Boxed soil
a. No action Mte-, withm the Tank Fann are consolidated MHO Site CPP-96. Because
will he -.uhieei to the tjroup 1 Interim Action and to the Ol' 3-14 Rl-FS.
C PP-_. i> j Mitircc lor Ol 3-13 (iroup 5 aquifer contamination outside the INTC
c= CPP-3X IN asbeMOs on rook and walls ofbuildings. The Mte will be closed under
d. Site mined to the OU 3-14 RI FS because not enoush data is available to make a
Site'G
3
3
T
6
None

I
3
3
3
: the sue*
E fence.
OU 3- 13 ROD
roup Decision
RD.RA
RD RA
RD RA
RDRA
"No Further Action" -
Conduct 5-year re\ ieu
RD-RA
RD/RA
RD/R.-\
RDRA
i are within the Tank Farm they
The source will be remediated
the INEEL Asbestos Abatement Program.
risk based decision. 	
-------
 -:: ::v !M l-.r. No ev.dence has been ;ound to md.cale ihas urn nt'ihc  lank harm tanks have 'e-i^v

  i-.vc, comammam. round m the mterstiual so.ls are hkelv ,he re.uit of aec.dental relea^ a " , „


          " f""? )        ^ l>'" "^ U"d Cr0^'" "™'™">" "^ "-v^on., and munvo- r
          s.  i,m,tcd sue nnestigauon, have been conducted at the Tank Farm sues became ,  r'  ,•


           "                                                                       '
                 RpRl> V                -                                     t, :o thc
                SRI A.  SRPA «rounduaior c.^nu.m.nated by Tank l-'arm so.N releases could be

vur.s;:iiiei: :i\ uiture grounduater u>ci'h.                       '
           4.2    Soils  Under Buildings  and Structures (Group 2)


      TheSo.ls I nder Buildmy, and Structures are comprised of release sues that occur beneath [\ i i-
.nu.hn.s or structures, and mclude Sues C'PP-,,2. -41a. -60. -08. -«0. -85. -*6. -87. and S9  "'-^ 4

                                        - Pil that was COVered b-v asPhalt du""S construction
           Site CPP-60 is the soils that were beneath the former pamtshop buildim?. CPP-64S „
           over this site.                                                  _         -  •
          Site CPP-68 is the former location of an abandoned. ! .892 L (500 gal) undereround tiasolme
          siOF3uc t*ink.                                                        w      *"



     *     r PP n?,1"80 reSU'ted 'ir°m a huzardous- radioactive liquid condensate leak from the Bundm-
          <- I r-oU-l  vent tunnel drain.                                                         ~



     •     Sue CPP-S5 is the WCF Blower Con'idor.  It has been closed m place as part of the \V< T

          under an approved H WMA closure plan. The WCF w,l! be mcluded w.th the Group 2 s«,U

          Lnder Buildings and Structures sites in the CHRCLA 5-year reviews.


          Sue CPP-S6 ,s a waste trench that runs beneath CPP-602. which collects liquid waste for
          transfer to the Rh\V  evaporator from various CPP-602 operations.



          Sue CPP-87 is located beneath the vapor off-gas blower cell of Building CPP-604.


          Site CPP-89 is a tunnel excavation located beneath  Buildings CPP-604 and -6U5.


    Sites CPP-87 and CPP-89 are integrally related: thcVoil and contamination removed from  ( TI


                " rpp-89- Comaminated ^ irom
    I ,ie major threats posed by Group 2 Mies are external exposure to contaminants if the bmldnv or

.tc ure is removed and potential leachmg and transport of soil eoniammants to the perched water or

I  A  1,, ...v.suns: hmldmg or sirueture a,:ren.I> prov:,!e^ an adequate rad.at.on protection hamer.,:-J
-------
  M.T\CS 10 limn infiltration into the contaminated soils. Group 2 >oils are not considered "principal threat'
  wastes became the lexels of radionuelide* pre.sent ha\e not been directly mea>ured.

                         4.3    Other Surface Soils (Group 3)

       The Other Surface Soils consist of release sites located in the following areas:

       •     Building CPP-603
             (Sites CPP-OI. -03. -04. -05. -OS. -09. -10. -11. and -19)

       •     Building CPP-633
             (Sites CPP-36 and-91)

       •     Calcined Solids Storage Bins
             (Sites CPP-13.-35. and-93)

       •     Disposal Trenches
             (SiteCPP-34)

       •      Old Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
             (SiteCPP-14)

       •     Grease Pit
            (Site CPP-44)

       •     Near Building CPP-16!9
            (Site CPP-55)

       •     Near temporary Building TB-1

       •     Percolation Ponds that are situated south of the INTEC fence
            (SiteCPP-67).

      In addition. Group 3. also includes Sites CPP-37a. CPP-37b. and CPP-48. Site CPP-37a is a
former gravel pit located outside of the current INTEC security fence, that is used to collect storm uater
runoff from the Tank Farm. Site CPP-37b is a former gravel pit located inside the current INTEC
security fence that was pre\iously used for disposal of wastewaters from the old STP and subsequently
used for disposal of construction debris. Site CPP-4S is an excess chemical dump tank located south of
the old \VCF (CPP-633)  that was used as a trench drain from 1975 to 1981. Figure  1 -5 shows the
location of the Group 3 sites. These sites generally consist of «,oil contamination that resulted from
inadvertent spills and leaks of radioactive waste, decontamination solutions, spent fuel storage water.
Storage of radionuclide-contaminated equipment, and other plant-generated wastewaters.  Group 3 also
includes Site CPP-92. which consists of 648 boxes of radionuclide-contaminated soils that were generated
from a \ariety of INTEC activities.  In addition, the neu sites similar to Group 3 (CPP-97. -98. and -99)
di;«cus:icd in Section 4.9. consist of soils and other materials \\ili be remediated as Group 3 soils.

      The results of the Rl BRA (DOE-ID 199'b) indicate that the major threat posed by the Group 3
MIC.N i> external exposure to radionuclides. Additionally, throe MIC-, (CPP-35 -16 and -91 j pose a risk to
iheSRPA.
                                              4-S
-------
                       4.4   Perched Water (Group 4)
                                                             .
  the perched water at INTEC Perched wirVrrnn  ,   f   • u,          he aPProx'™te extent of

  ^^•K^^^













 ccor:=:s0:th7sTph:i^
 water recharge is the percolation ponds             P     Pnmaiy man*made S°UrCe °f Perched


                4.5  Snake River Plain Aquifer (Group  5)

                                                                - fr°m
inrcrim aaion. Th, actions Selec,ed for the    "
               associa,ed
-------
                        4.6    Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)

       Sites CPP-84 and CPP-94 comprise the Buried Gas Cylinders group. Site CPP-84 is located
 outside the current INTEC security fence, east of Lincoln Boulevard and south of the Big Lost River (see
 Figure 1-8).  The site consists of a buried trench where compressed gas cylinders were previously-
 disposed.  The cylinders at the burial site originated from INTEC and contain gases used for construction.
 The exact number and contents of the discarded cylinders is not known, but it Is believed that 40 to 100
 cylinders were disposed at the site.  The gases in the cylinders may include acetylene, compressed air.
 argon, carbon dioxide, helium, nitrogen, or oxygen. These gases do not pose a  human health risk but are
 considered a safety hazard because ruptures of the cylinders could lead to personal injury, fire, or
 explosion. DOE will  evaluate the safety concerns  of removing the cylinders versus capping them in
 place.

       Site CPP-94 includes an area about 2.4 km (1.5  mi) northeast of the  INTEC along the south side of
 a dirt security road (see Figure  1-8). Four exposed gas cylinders have been observed at the site and are
 believed to contain hydrofluoric acid.  The safety hazards associated with CPP-94 are similar to those at
 Site CPP-84. The potential for cylinder over-pressurization and bursting is considered the most serious
 hazard at CPP-94.  The buried gas cylinders pose a safety hazard to inadvertent  intruders (i.e.. back hoe
 operators or drillers).  Hydrofluoric acid is very corrosive, reacts violently with  moisture, and can
 generate explosive concentrations of hydrogen gas. Fluoride, a chemical residual of hydrofluoric acid
 reactions, is a potential human health and ecological hazard.

                4.7     SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)

      The SFE-20  Hot Waste Tank System is also  known as. Site CPP-69, which consists of a concrete
 vault containing an abandoned radioactive liquid waste storage tank. The top of the tank vault is located
 about 3m (10 ft) below grade. The tank contains about 1.514 L (400 gal) of liquid and about 208  L
 (55 gal) of sludge (Figure 1-9).  The tank system consists of the tank contents, tank, and associated
 structures located east of Building CPP-603. The SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank  System was constructed m
 19>7 to collect liquid radioactive wastes from the south basin area of Building CPP-603  and the Fuel
 Receiving and Storage Facility.  In 1976. the SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System was taken out of service
 and the inlet pipe was disconnected and capped. Contaminated soil may  have been used as backfill
 material for the excavation. The pump was also removed from the pump pit and the connections capped
 A preliminary investigation conducted  in 1984 indicated that the tank liquid and sludge contain elevated
 levels of Cs-137. Cs-134, Co-60, Sr-90. and isotopes of europium, plutonium. and uranium. The
 concentration  of plutonium indicates that the liquid is transuranic waste and that the sludge may be
 classified as transuranic waste. Previous spills w ithin the tank vault and pump pit contained similar
contaminants.  No data exists  to determine if contamination currently exists under SFE-20. however.
 when the vault is removed any contaminated soils w ill be excavated' and disposed in the ICDF in a
 manner consistent with the Group 3 soils remedy.

      The major threat posed by the SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System is a potential release to the
underlying M)ils and subsequent leaching and transport  of soil contaminants to the perched water or
SRPA.

              4.8    "No Action" And "No Further Action" Sites

      The Agencies, have determined that "No Action" or "No Further Action" be taken under CERCLA
.it 40 Mie.s.  In all cases, the determination applies to the soils onlv and not to overlying man-made
•structures, A "No Action" MIC is a site  that has no contaminant source or has a mino/contaminant source
                                              4-10
-------
   with an acceptable risk level under a current residential exposure scenario, i.e. the risk is less than
                                             ^
            1 x 10  or HI >1 . (Radioactive decay will allow many sites that are currently unacceptaWe to
            decay to acceptable risk levels by the year 2095.)                  Currently unacceptable to

            The site has contamination that exists at depths greater than 1 0 ft bss and does not have an
            exposure route ava.lable under current site conditions.
                                                                       ' *« «* under a

                          sites- The technicai
       All "No Further Action" sites will be reviewed
          pro,ec,,veness of ,he rem«,ia, «i^ ^ Jen
^^^^^^^^^^^   - - ™* C -en,
4.8.1    "No Action/No Further Action" Sites Determined in OU 3-13 ROD
**'.*• ^    ?fPP-°6- CPp-°6 consists of a trench near the southern border of the INTEC that wi< i. ^H


                                                                       "
                                         - che Asencies have

                                            4-1
-------
 storage pad: feathering caused the paint to fall off and was wind dispersed outside of the control area.
 The contaminated paint chips and storage pad were both removed.  Subsequent surveys indicate that no
 contaminated surface soils exist at this site. The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-12 is a "No
 Action" site because the minor source was completely removed {WINCO 1992c).

 4.8.1.4    CPP-17.   CPP-17 consists of two areas near Building CPP-603. The site was used for
 storing piles of soil, asphalt, concrete, metal debris, and other items that reportedly came from a variety of
 construction and maintenance activities within the INTEC.  In addition, sludge and liquid generated
 during CPP-603 fuel storage basin maintenance activities may have been deposited in these areas
 resulting in contamination of the underlying soils.  The soil in CPP-17 was containerized in
 approximately 653 standard radioactive waste boxes. Three soil borings were sampled to characterize
 CPP-17. The results of the investigation and risk assessment, which are reported in Chapter 14 of the
 BRA, indicated that the risks to current onsite workers and hypothetical future residents is acceptable but
 the current residential risks are unacceptable. Therefore, the Agencies have determined that Site CPP-17
 is a "No Further Action" (LITCO  1995b).

 4.8.1.5     CPP-18. Site CPP-18 is an area that was used to store spent gas cylinders.  Building
 CPP-668 is presently located on this site.  In addition, excavation for, and construction of Building
 CPP-668 would have disturbed any minor contamination that may have existed at the site
 (WINCO I992d).  The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-18 is a "No Action" site because there is
 no documentation or other evidence of a release.

 4.8.1.6     CPP-21.  Site CPP-2I is an area south of CPP-601 that was used to store solid waste
 including paper, rags, and contaminated metal. The waste was contained in three dumpsters.  A
 radiological survey of the area revealed no evidence of contamination. The Agencies have determined
 that Site CPP-21 is a "No Action"  site because there is no evidence of a source or a release at this site
 (WINCO I993b).

 4.8.1.7     CPP-22.  Site CPP-22 is the location of surface contamination associated with a 1958 air
 release that resulted from the failure of a HEPA filter. The HEPA filter was associated with the Fuel
 Element Cutting Facility. Contamination from this airborne release has most likely been removed or
 covered over with soil during the period from 1958 to the present as a result of construction activities that
 have disturbed the area. The area was extensively surveyed and three boreholes were drilled within Site
 CPP-22 at the locations surveyed to have the highest radiation levels above background.  During the
 investigation, the peak concentration for Cs-137 was 14 pCi.-g. The Agencies have determined That Site
CPP-22 is a "No Further Action" site because the future risks are acceptable but the current residential
risks are not acceptable (LITCO 1995b).

 4.8.1.8     CPP-29.  Site CPP-29 is the result of a release of small quantities of radioactive liquid at the
 base of the original ICPP stack  in I974.  The original contaminated area  was estimated to be 0.7 nr (S frs
and no more than a few inches thick. Since the release, the Main Stack Refurbishment Project complcteK
excavated this site to a depth of 2.1 m (7 ft) (bis) and extended the concrete base of the new stack over the
area of the release.  The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-29 is a "No Action" site because the
original area of contamination was completely excavated and covered with concrete (WINCO 1993c.
 DOEetal. I994b).

 4.8.1.9     CPP-39.  Site CPP-39 consisted of a Indrofluoric acid storage tank, a concrete containment
 vault, and a 3S-m (125-ft) tile line  connected to the dry well.  The storage tank was used as a makeup tank
 to provide Indrofluonc acid to the  CPP-601 dissolution process.  The tank was also used to receive off-
 specifieauon hvdrofluone acid where it was cither adjusted to meet specifications or neutralized and
 discharged to a dry well. The dry well and vault both contained limestone  rock to neutrali/e the


                                               4-12
-------
                            r                              with this             -
    and subsequent risk analysis ind?«e Lmn^^M  ? 1"*,!™ remOVKl '" ' "3 Sam>>"n-a
    a« contaminants „ „, depths «vZ^^.1^r V^ xTo— ^'^ ""* *""
    Agencies have determined that Site CPP-39 is a °4 1 ,c Z,'    h        carcmogemc risk levels.  The
    acceptable! DOE-ID 1 997b).    reLKrJy'sa >™ Action  sue because the risks are considered
   plp'ng",, conssd-a I6'                a h'S10ric":id ""-tn-l^tion pi, and assoda.ed
   The drain pipe ,ed from a dr^






                                                ^
  .his *c33       Hte ccausc n° s°urce re™j-
  based concen.ra.ion (WINCO 1993d and DOETe Iwb"     ?   *      " "''^ Ihe ' X t0" risk-
      ! drip                                     T£'.«** -?«. were placed in

  been totally excavated and partially co'ered by Buildta CPP 66fi N  "° T*" '" "*'  CPP-4lb te
  therefore, no quantitative risk assessment was perfomed  nl A       T"   "*" talte" fr°m lhis sile:
  CPP-4,b is a -No Ac,ion- site because ,he ^'^'^ ""
 d'efig'n",,,

 been disposed to the surface soil at this site The A«^ h! Tf "°nr^loac"ve laboratory waste had
 Action" site because the emulated H, ^'^                            *" "^ " " "N°
                  .          e4 hi" operas ^CPP o'u"^ "T" ^ M
documented and other spills or releases were susr,er?,>H Tfc             '   ' releases were
asse                                    "
                                       susr,er,>           ,     M
 assessment indicated tha  the contaminan     "^ ^ Jel, e ^ Hl            """"  **
 dete,™^ ,ha, S,,e CPP-45 is . -N
                                                     '          '-700L
                                                          -
nonradioactive feed stock for process e   f Fo lloJI  ,h   ,     ! W"S'e ™K being used as a
contaminated soils were removed  Subseaum,rS,   '      ' "* WaS'e was ncu»alized and
removed. The h.ghes, C^^^S^^^^^' *??"" "^ *"*"
contaminated »as later entirely remnv,H A,n    "    S   -     • remam|ng soil that was clearly
tanks no, si,  The ^^^1^^%™^ ~ ^ «« ^- -he
              d and Ihc ra™» res"                                        beus     sourcc

                                           4-13
-------
 [2 gal]) \vas known to have occurred. The area was sampled and the analysis showed that although high
 fluoride concentrations were observed, but they were below risk-based levels. The Agencies have
 determined that Site CPP-47 is a "No Action" site because the calculated HI is much less than  1
 (XVISCO I992x).

 4.8.1.16   CPP-49. Site CPP-49 is the site of soils underneath an active transformer yard that
 contained three PCB transformers.  Visual evidence of leaks lead to sampling the concrete pads and
 surrounding soil.  Sampling results indicate that the soil contained less than O.I ppm PCBs: One concrete
 pad sample contained 29.1 ppm PCBs.  Subsequent sealing activities completed on the transformer pad
 ha\e resulted in encapsulation of the pad within a larger resultant concrete pad structure. The Agencies
 have determined that Site CPP-49 and the soils under the transformer pad is a "No Action" site because
 the PCB concentrations observed in the soil were less than the CERCLA cleanup criteria for PCBs. In
 addition, the concrete pad was sealed and incorporated into a larger concrete pad (WINCO I992a).

 4.8.1.17    CPP-50. Site CPP-50 is the location of soils beneath a PCB transformer pad. The
 transformer contained 874 L (231 gal) of 400 ppm PCB oil. Leakage was noted during an inspection of
 the transformer in 1985.  The leaked oil was isolated on the transformer concrete pad and did not impact
 the surrounding soil. The transformer was removed and disposed at an approved off-Site disposal facility.
 The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-50 is a "No Action" site because there is no evidence that
 contamination spread to the surrounding soil (WINCO 1992a).

 4.8.1.18    CPP-51.  Site CPP-51 is defined as the soil below a storage area for PCB-transformers,
 contaminated soil, debris, and concrete from the ICPP Utilities Replacement and Expansion Project. The
 storage area was unpaved:  During the upgrade project, two transformers leaked onto plastic sheeting.
 The sheeting, transformers, and debris have been removed from the site.  The PCB concentrations in the
 soil are less than the I ppm cleanup criteria specified by TSCA for unrestricted access areas (40 CFR
 761.125 (c)(4)(v). Of the eight samples collected, the maximum PCB concentration observed was
 O.I20 ppm.  The Agencies have determined that C'P-51 is a "No Action" site because the PCB
 contamination is below the TSCA cleanup standards (WINCO I992a).

 4.8.1.19   CPP-53.  Site CPP-53 was an area used by a painting subcontractor for the storage of
 approximately 30 to 40 drums of paint and paint solvents.  In 1983, the stored materials were removed to
 an EPA approved disposal facility and the area was covered with 61 to 76 cm (24 to 30 in.) of gravel.
 The area was subsequently used as a construction laydown area and vehicle parking. There are no
 documented releases at this site. Sample results did not indicate any contamination above detection
 limits.  The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-53 is a "No Action" site due to the lack of an
 apparent source (XVINCO 1992g).

 4.8.1.20   CPP-54. Site CPP-54 is an area that was used to store approximately 30 to 40 drums of
organic sohent and used oil.  There are no known releases from the drums.  Analysis of soil samples
collected did not reveal any contamination above risk-based levels. The Agencies have determined that
 Site CPP-54 is a "No Action" site due the lack of an apparent source (WINCO I992h).

4.8.1.21   CPP-56. Site CPP-56 is an area where a nitric acid leak occurred in a transfer line in 1968.
The nitric acid was neutralized prior to disposal and was nonradioactive.  In  1986-87, the site was
 e\ca\ated to support construction of CPP-796. Any residual contamination would have been blended
 with backfill soil as part of construction of CPP-796. The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-56 is
 a "No Action" >ite because the HI was qualitativelv determined to he less than 1. and the residual
 contamination was removed (LITCO I9l)4).
                                              4-14
-------
   4'8t\ V2 UCPP'57' Site CPP-57 is a sulfuric acid tank,  Approximated 189 L (50 aal) of sulfuric ici.l
   ^ on the ground in 1984  and I7J>34 L ,4.500 gal, spilled in 1985.  The so,, was ne tr Srf and
   removed; any residual acid that was not removed would have been naturally neutralized bv  he soi s  The
   Agenc.es have determined that Site CPP-57 ,s a "No Action" site because no source relL and  ne HI
   was qualitatively determined to be less than one ( W1NCO 19921).
  75*™? M         L  ^^ CPP"59 C°nSiStS °f S°'1S Withm a contai"^nt berm surrounding two
  75.708 L (0.000 gal) kerosene storage tanks.  Contamination of CPP-59 occurred in two separate
  kerosene releases that occurred ,n 1983; the combined release was 984 L (260 gal) of kerosene  There is

  mfi t^m'toT   f T? ^T?* '"' "" ^^ ^ ^^ ™*^ ™P™Jo
  m nitrated into the soil. Nme borehole samples were collected to characterize CPP-59  Xvlenes were the
  only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in the soils at concentrations ran.ed between 1 and 11
  ugykg.  Risks were calculated to be less than 1 x 10'4 and an HI less than 1. The Agencies have
  determmed Site CPP-59 is a "No Action" site because the risk and His are less than 1 x 10'4 and one
  respectively. (W1NCO 1 992J, WINCO 1994a.)                                        ana one


  t£1'24 e,£PP*2' Ske SPP"62 'S a" 3rea Where paint solvents were ^carded to the soil.  In 198< a
  cleanup oi this area was conducted in which 28 drums of contaminated soil were removed and shipped to
  a commercial hazardous waste facility. Subsequently, in 1 987. the area was excavated for the
  construction of the 7* Calcined Solids Storage Vault. The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-6^ is

           °                 S°UrCe "^ rem°Ved 3nd addhi0nal  excavation has been             " "
 4.8.1.25   CPP-63.  Site CPP-63 is the site of a hexone spill in 1982. During excavation for cathodic
 protection mamtenance or repair, a hexone line was cut by a backhoe; approximately I89 L (50 g I) w
 released  There were no reports indicating if the soil was removed after the spill. Three soil samples
      '                                                                        "
 he  Theor                            -                           or      s  nc
 hexone. The V OC concentrations were less than the method detection limits. The Agencies have
 determmed that Sue CPP-63 is a "No Action" site because the HI is less than I ( WINCO 1 9930

 48. 1.26   CPP-64. Site CPP-64 is the site of a hexone spill in which a forklift operator punctured a
 £oTo° f th^T'    7 l° 8L (55 ga0 °f heX°ne lCaked °nt° the 3SPhait- VermicuL wasused to absorb
 were I  I   T^     ^f""'™'^ ™ collected and disposed. Soil samples from five boreholes
 uere analyzed and revealed  that no hexone was detected significantly below risk-based concentrations
 The other contammams detected were below an HI of I . The Agencies have determined that Site CPP^

                                                  he s°urce was removed' and the
4.8.1.27   CPP-78.  Site CPP-78 consists of a 2.3 nr (25 fr) area of potentially radioactivelv-
comaminated soil located west of building CPP-693 and east of the Dry Fuel Storage Area   '

D^t?^" um^h*800^ f r™* eXCaVati°n activities-  The origj" o^he contaminat.on is not kno.n
bu  ,> plumed to have resulted from a surface spill. Two soil borings were drilled and soil samples     .
collected and  analyzed. The analysis of the samples showed that the radiation levels barelv exceeded
background values and are below I  x iO'4 residential risk-based concentrations. The Auencies have
                                        "                                             "d the
™-1-*3   CPP:88- Site CPP-88 consists of the radioactively-contaminated soils withm the current
rpp vv^T1?' ,'nCe    l haVe "Ot been attribmed to anotlner sP«ific release site. Investigation of
virnu  INTrrt cxjcnsixe ^«nwnt reviews and analysis of samples collected from 16 boreholes from
%anou> INTEC. localion.s.  The maximum Cs-I37 concentration uas 36.6 pCi u and the <)^n UCL for
                                              4-15
-------
  Cs-137 was 14.1 PCi g. The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-88 is a "No Further Action" sue
  because it is above the current I x IO'4 residential risk range and below the vear 209S 1 x H/4 residential
  risk range (DOE-ID 1997b).                                         "

  4.8.1.29   CPP-90.  Site CPP-90 consists of soil contaminated by leaks  in sen-ice waste transfer lines
  ?olr?LnUlldlTg CPP-T and thC CPP'23 mjeCti0n WelL  The Ori^inal concrete PiP«"ne was replaced in
  1959-1960 with a vitnhed clay line.  The vitrified clay line  was replaced in 1969 with a stainless steel line
  that was partially replaced in I982 with another stainless steel line.  In 1986. the line was permanently
  taken put ot service and abandoned in place. Three soil borings were drilled to support the BRA  Soil
  analytical data trom those borings indicate a maximum Cs-l37 concentration of 7.5 pCi/a and a 95%
  LCL for Cs-137 of 7.5  pCi.g.  The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-90 is a "No Further Action"
  site because the future residential  risk is acceptable but the current residential risk is not acceptable
  (DOE-ID 1997b). This site will be reviewed under the CERCLA 5-year review to ensure that if this pipe
  is removed in the future, any contamination discovered will  be properly addressed.

 f:il'?°  . CPP'95-  Site CPP-95 is the wind-blown plume and consists of areas outside the current
 INTEC perimeter fence that are potentially contaminated as  a result-of wind dispersion of radionuclides
 from facility operations. The area delineated as Site CPP-95 (i.e., the WAG 3 AOC) is shown in
 Figure I-10. Surveys and soil sampling were conducted as part of the 10-06 RI and EE/CA  The 95%
 upper confidence level (UCL) 95% concentration for Cs-137 within the AOC is 5.9 pCi/e. Site CPP-95 is
 a "No Further Action" site . because it is above the current 1  x 10'4 residential risk range'and below the
 year 2095 I x 10" residential risk range (DOE-ID 1997b).

 4.8.2     "No Action" Sites Designated in the FFA/CO

 4.8.2.1    CPP-43-Grease Pit South of CPP-637. This pit was used for the disposal of an
 unknown quantity of oil and grease. The site occupies an area of 141 m2 (1,520 ft2)  The site was filled
 and  a building (CPP-651) was constructed on the site in the mid-1970s. A "No Action" decision
 documentation package was placed in the Administrative Record in September 1991; in December 1991
 the Agencies formally determined that this site is a "No Action" site in the FFA/CO (WINCO 1991 a).

 4-8.2.2    CPP-52.  Site CPP-52 was a pickling shed used to treat piping  and other structural materials
 with mineral acids during the original construction of the ICPP.  The  site involved an area of 13 4 m:
 (144 tf).  The building was a temporary structure located east of CPP-631.  Spent pickling solutions were
 disposed in liquid waste storage tanks: there are no records of spills or leaks. The building was
 demolished in 1954. A "No Action" decision documentation package was placed in the Administrative
 Record in September 1991; in December 1991, the Agencies  formally determined that this site is a "No
 Action" site in the FFA.CO (WINCO 199ib).

 4.8.2.3    CPP-70.  Site CPP-70 is a septic tank located east of CPP-655.  This septic tank was used to
 treat  sanitary waste generated at the craft shop and warehouse building Operations in the building
 included equipment maintenance and repair, welding, and carpentry.  There  are no drains located in the
 work areas and there is no evidence hazardous constituents were disposed in the septic system.  \ "No
 Action" decision documentation package was placed in the Administrative Record in September 199! • in
 December 1991. the  Agencies formally determined that this site is a "No Action" site in the FFA/CO
 (WINCO 199 lei.

 4.8.2.4    CPP-71. Site CPP-7] consists of the seepage pits west of CPP-656.  These pits were used in
conjunction with the septic tank located east of CPP-655 |CPP-0). There are  no records of hazardous
constituent releases.  A "No  Action" decision documentation  package was placed in the Administrative
                                              4-1A
-------
  Record in September 1991; in December 1991. the Agencies formally determined that this site is a "No
  Action  site in the FFA. CO (WINCO I991c).

  4.8.2.5    CPP-72. Site CPP-72 consists of the CPP-758 cesspool east of CPP-651  Site CPP-72 used
  to treat sanitary sewage from temporary office trailers. The trailers have been disconnected and the
  system is no longer in use. Because the septic system was only connected to office restrooms it is
  unlikely hazardous constituents were disposed in the system. A "No Action" decision documentation
  package was placed in the Administrative Record in September 1991; in December 1991, the Agencies
  formally determined that this site is a "No Action" site in the FFA/CO (WINCO 1 99 Id).

  ™24-6     CPP"73-  Site CPP-73 is a cesspool located east of and connected to temporary building
  LPP-T-5, which was used as a lunch/break room by a construction contractor.  No hazardous materials
  have been stored at this location, and no hazardous wastes are reported to have been disposed into the
  unit.  A ' No Action ' decision documentation package was placed in the Administrative Record in

                                                                      * site JS a "N° Acti°n" site
 4.8.2.7    CPP-74.  Site CPP-74 is a seepage pit and septic tank located west of Building CPP-626
 This septic system was constructed in the early 1970s and is used to treat sanitary waste from the fuel'
 receiving and storage building and storage basin change room. The building contains a cafeteria
 restroom. facilities, showers, and office space. No operations involving hazardous materials are known to
 have occurred in the building and it is unlikely hazardous wastes have entered the system. The Summary
 Assessment recommending "No Action" for this site was approved in 1988.  A "No Action" decision
 documentation package was placed in the Administrative Record in September 1991; in December 1991
 the Agencies formally determined that this site is a "No Action" site in the FFA/CO (WINCO 199 If).  '
 t"8'2'f  \^P'l5' Site CPP'75 c°nsists of the septic tank west of Building CPP-603. It was built in
 the early 1950s and received sanitary wastes before operation of CPP-74. The system was connected to a
 restroom facility, which was physically isolated from hazardous materials operations  The primary
 hazardous materials used in operations that might have been associated with this unit were mineral acids
 I he Summary Assessment recommending "No Action" for this site was approved in 1988 A "No
 Action" decision documentation package was placed in the Administrative Record in September 1991 • in
 December 1991, the Agencies formally determined that this site is a "No Action" site in the FFA/CO '
 (WINCO 1991g).

 4.8.2.9    CPP- 76.  Site CPP-76 consists of the septic tank and cesspool west of Building CPP-659
 which was used to treat sanitary wastewater from the old calcining facility, built in 1960   There are no
 records ot hazardous wastes entering the system. The septic tanks are currently being removed in support
 ot the NO, Abatement Facility construction. The Summary Assessment recommending "No Action" for
 trns sue was approved m 1988.  A "No Action" documentation package was placed in the Administrative
 Record in September 1991 : in December 1991, the Agencies formally determined that this site is a "No
 Action" site in the FFA/CO (WINCO 199lh).

 4.8.2. 10   CPP-77.  Site CPP-77 is a seepage pit and cesspool located north of Building CPP-66">
 There are no know n records that indicate hazardous materials ever entered this system The Summary
 Assessment recommending "No Action" for this site was approved in 1 988. A "No Action"
documentation package for this site was placed in the Administrative Record in September 1 991 • in
 December 1 99 1 . the Agencies formally determined that this site is a "No Action" site in the FFA/CO
(WINCO 1991 i).
                                              4-17
-------
                             4.9    New Soil Release Sites

        The Agencies have added four release sites e\en groups.  These sites were iinestitiated a.s
                                             4-IN
-------
   4.10.1   CPP-38— Asbestos in Nine INTEC Buildings

                               TK A Tsio;1 a ved io be/riabic
                   ^^^^

      e—
  with NESHAPS.                          SbeStOS manaSement is conducted in accordance

  be transferred to OU 3- 1 4 for further evaln^n h/    r Jgencie;> have determined that CPP-61 will


  that may rema.n under the concrete £2          ^ °f *' UnCertai" 3m°Unt °f PCB Contamination




  4.10.2  CPP-65-Sewage Treatment Plant Lagoon




      Site CPP-65 is the lagoons for the INTEC Sewage Treatment Planr ^STPI  TK   i

 waste from 3 1 FNTEC facilities  The STP hpoan oL T  • mf^  5 ( TP)' The plant trea
4.10.3  CPP-66~Steam Plant Fly Ash Pit
"sssr.'rjss.rssssr*?*"
(W.NCO .993h)  Sub        ar co     ri k
Rl RR A »-hi ^h      tqucHuv. an txoiogical risk screening was performed durin" the OU ^  n
                             ^^
                                   4-1
-------
 4.10.3.1   CPP-81. Site CPP-81 is an abandoned line from the 30-cm < 12-in.) Calciner Pilot Plant.
 The line, located approximately 0.6- to 0.9-m (2- to 3-ft) bis, contained simulated calcine that became
 plugged in the line following a test run. During the fall of 1993. the line was cleaned as part of a time-
 critical removal  action.  The line was flushed with hot acid to remove the simulated calcine. No leaks
 were observed during the removal action indicating that no previous release to the environment had
 occurred. The final water rinse was analyzed and found to not contain contaminants above toxicity
 characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) limits. The Agencies  have determined the Site CPP-81 will be
 transferred to OU 3-I4 for further evaluation because of the lack of sufficient data to make a final
 decision.

 4.10.3.2   CPP-82. Site CPP-82 is the location of three waste water spills (designated Sites A. B. and
 C) caused by rupturing of previously abandoned underground lines. The lines were ruptured during
 excavation activities.  In the spill associated with Site A, an  estimated 9.4 L (2.5 gal) of low-level
 radioactive waste escaped; the abandoned line and contaminated soil associated with the leak were
 removed and disposed. Sites B and C are associated with spills of nonradioactive, nonhazardous waste
water;  these spills occurred during the repair activities associated with Site  A. The Agencies have
determined the Site CPP-82 will be transferred to OU 3-14 for further evaluation because of the lack of
sufficient data to make a final decision.
                                               4-20
-------
5.
                      SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

                       Physiography,  Geology, and Hydrology
   volcanic p'a                  ^« *f — Sna.ce R,ver PWn (ESRP) .




                                                   ™
 "-1    Concep.ua, Mode, ., Water Sources ,„„ Hydrooeo.ogy „ WAG 3






Raver flowed dunng most of 1997 and 1998  At,and  'V^'^ ^ 3t INTEC- however the B.gfost
alluvmm ls composed of gravelly medium t«         °e' 3S much as 18-2 ™ (60 ft) of stuS
                                                                -
                        ^^^

                                  5-1
-------
                                     INTEC
                                   "i
             
       Legend
                                         I MX) Feel
                                                          D,iwDrj*n August 1*. !
Figure 5-1. 100-year floodplain map at [NTEC (L'SGS 1998).
                                      5-2
-------
   5000
  4900
  4800
 4700
  4600-
 4500 -
 4400 -
  4300
 4200-
4100 -
             A
                                           Percolation
                                             Ponds
	    Tank      Big LOS<
co    c          River
to    rsrm          OT
o
A

T"~
CM
                                                                                                    4175
                                                                                              K  7-  4163
                                                                                                             f-5000
                                                                                                             -4900
                                                                                                             -4800
                                                                                                            -4700
                                                                                                            ,_4600
                                                                                                            -4500
                                                                                                            -4400
                                                                                                           -4300
                                                                                                             4200
                                                                                                             4100
                                                                                                                                      A'
 Figure 5-2. Cross sect.on untie vadosc /one at the INTEC illustrating the generalized movement of vvaier from III,- -,ui foe to llic juuilcr WJ
 on AnJurson I99I.                                                                 '
                           Vertical exaggeration X 9.5
                               Saturn is sea level
                                     FEET
                        0        1000      2000     3000

                        0      250    500     750
                                     METERS

                        I ..  . 1 Basalt


                                Perched water

                                Contamination
                                 Inferred stratigraphy
                        Note: See Table 5-1 for the estimated
                        wciLii-s of recharge from ths different
                        sources.
                                                                                                                                                  5-3
-------
  based on drilling logs. Each modeled interbed zone consists of multiple noncontiguous sedimentary units
  that were lumped together to preserve total sediment thickness.                      caimentary un.ts

  5.1.1 1    Recharge Sources. Perched water bodies are known to exist beneath the INTEC
  Perched  water bodies are present beneath the percolation ponds and the INTEC plant facilities including
  the Tank Farm. The uppermost perched water zone identified at the INTEC occurs within the Big Lost
  nah™?TUm    A f  basalt.  The source of water creating these perched water zones include both

   re^ itad^TndThe Bi     eS>        ^'^ "** recharge sources at the INTEC ™^&

  ?mwvli0n P.°nd^ (SC7iCe WastewatCr P°nds)' W3ter System leakTse^^Sm ponds^lalScL
  .mgat.onunl.ned surface water drainage ditches, steam condensate, and CPP-603 basins  Table 5-1
  source  R "iT^n V°JUme f W3ter recharSinSthe Perched wa*r bodies at INTEC from the various
  sources.  F.gure 5-2 .llustrates the occurrence of the interbeds beneath the INTEC and the associated
  ondI   ^—-r-20nCS"          St perched water body in the southern INTEC results from
       The percolation ponds and the Big Lost River are the primary sources of recharge to perched water
 composing about 91% of the total recharge at the INTEC.  The percolation ponds conSbuteTbout 70%
 of the total perched water recharge. Percolation Ponds 1 and 2 are located outside the INTEC southern

               °eaStf C        "
                                                         U"Iined
                                                                                        of
            5.2    Conceptual Model of Contaminant Distribution
                                  and Transport at WAG 3

      Figure 5-3 is a conceptual drawing showing the main contaminant sources and transport
              T° 3> ,Wa? flltrating fr°m thC SUrfaCC t™^rt» contam,nanTs be'een
            surface soils and the SRPA. Contaminants present in the recharge water and perched water
 orioST      Va^ 2°ne ^ Primarily Sr-9° 3nd tritium'  Contam.nat.on in the lower
portion of the vadose zone is different m composition and concentration than the upper zone  The lower
S^t J°SS?^ Water Waf,influenced and Partia»y contaminated as a result of L events during
Ton'   h   ^H  ,  mjeCtr We" (CPP'23) C°"apSed and Service ^stewater was released mto the vaLe
zone above the lower sed.ment unit, Addit.onal contamination in the lower perched water zone 1S the
Source
Service wastewater (percolation ponds)
Sewage treatment ponds
Water system leaks'
Landscape irrigation1
Precipitation infiltration
Steam condensate
CPP-603 Basins
Big Lost River
Total
J Ostimaie based on past leaks and irrigation practices Actual loss
Volume
(gal/yr)
690,000.000
14,974,228
3,973,202
1,299,470
64.957.269
1,668.327
49.275
202.564.301
979,486.072
from piping leaks is noi known
nc.
Volume
Percent
70.4
1.5
0.4
0.1
6.6
02
<0 1
20.7
100

                                          5-4
-------
           INTEC
           Northern
           Edge
        Big Lost
         River
                                INTEC
                               Facilities
                        INTEC
                        Southern
                        Edge
Air Exposure
                                Tank
                                Vaults
                            Perched Water
Groundwater Exposure
    ~	
                                  Percolation
                                    Ponds
                                                   •Recharge
                                                        I ^     Ecological
                                                                 " "i Factors
                                                  Direct Contact  SurfldaJ Soils
                                                  	-.Route	-	
                                                                 Perched Water
                              Perched Wate
                                                       Perched Water
                                                                                      Fractured
                                                                                       Basalt
      Snake River
      Plain Aquifer
                            Groundwater Flow Direction
Figure 5-3. INTIiC'siicconcc;
conceptual model.
                                                                                                 GT990062
-------
 result of the transport of contaminants from the alluvial soils and upper perched water contamination
 The lower vadose zone contamination includes Cs-137, Sr-90, plutonium, 1-129 and mercury. Although
 contaminants are locally present in perched water, they are generally not available for consumption
 because of limited availability of that water. There are no water supply wells m the perched zone  Wells
 installed in the perched zone would not be capable of sustaining the pumping rates needed for future
 domestic water supplies. Furthermore, following this ROD's perched water remedies, the elimination and
 absence of man-made recharge will greatly reduce the primary recharge sources of perched water.  As
 such, the perched water does not pose a direct human health threat, but impacts aquifer groundwater
 quality because it is a contaminant transport pathway between the contaminated surface soils and the
 SRPA

       The SRPA has been contaminated by historical INTEC operational waste disposal activities.
 Release site CPP-23 (OU 3-02) consists of the  former INTEC injection well, which was the primary
 means of disposing of service wastewater from 1952 to 1984 and is the primary source of contamination
 in the SRPA at INTEC. In 1984, the well was removed from routine service and wastewater was
 subsequently discharged to the percolation ponds. After 1984, the well was used for emergency  purposes
 in 1986, and was permanently sealed in 1989.

      Radionuclides that were introduced into  the aquifer from the former injection well include Pu-23S.
 Pu-239, Pu-240, Sr-90,1-129, and  tritium. Of these, tritium was the most common, comprising about
 96% of the contaminant activity. At the time of injection, the radionuclides were generally below
 federally regulated levels. The injected wastewater also contained other (nonradioactive) chemicals
 including arsenic, chromium, mercury, and nitrates at concentrations below federal and state groundwater
 quality standards.  Mercury, however, is estimated to exceed groundwater quality standards in the
 immediate vicinity of the former injection well but has not been detected in downgradient wells.

      Subsequent migration of these contaminants has produced several overlapping groundwater
 contaminant plumes, containing tritium, Sr-90,  and 1-129 currently occurring in groundwater beneath
 INTEC and extending downgradient for several miles (Figures 5-4, 5-5, and 1-7).  Short-lived (<30 year
 half-life) radionuclides, such as tritium, do not pose a long-term risk. Strontium is predicted to persist in
 the aquifer beyond 2095 at levels above the MCL if no action is taken. 1-129 has a very long halt-life and
 is predicted to persist in the aquifer at concentrations exceeding  MCLs.

      Leaching and transport of Tank Farm soil contaminants poses an additional future risk to the
aquifer from Sr-90 and other contaminants (see Section 7). An evaluation of these risks and possible
remedial actions for the Tank Farm soils is the focus of the OU 3-14 RI/FS.

      The human health and environmental threat posed by the contaminated aquifer is groundwater
ingestion. Based on the groundwater simulations presented in the RI/FS, the contaminant plume  is not
expected to migrate beyond the INEEL boundary at concentrations exceeding MCLs The plume  does not
present a threat to off-INEEL drinking water users. The remedial action objectives will assure that the
aquifer meets MCLs within the INEEL boundary by 2095. As the plume gets further from INTEC. it
becomes more dilute, and by the time it reaches the INEEL boundary the MCLs are no longer exceeded.

      The aquifer beneath the INTEC fenceline will be evaluated in OU 3-14.  The focusofOU 3-14 will
address aquifer contaminants from  the injection well (CPP-23) and the Tank Farm. Other sources of
aquifer contamination inside the INTEC fence will also be investigated as part of OU 3-14, as necessary
                                              5-6
-------
                          Tritium concentrations (pCi/L)
  1 The ibuttwd 10 produce these
     i came JjrrcUy rmm UK
  Infnmuuon Sydcm (l-RIS)
      iver Man
      SWGtacic
     sfcral hy KM Amen.
Area covered by map
                                    1000  2CXX>  3000  4 5000 Fat
                                                                     2 Miles
Figure 5-4.  SRPA tritium plume (1995 data).
                                           5-7
-------
                   Strontium-90 concentrations  (pCi/L)

                                                                    Area covered by map
  Naa
  I nieMri.rcrSrJ«l»lliCifl.
     s one dtrcnly ^mm tfie
  Itnwnwnenul Roumum
  MmiuiKX S)Unn lERISI
     « js tuund in Uv
     Ri«r Pt«n A
                             I)    UXX)   2(KX)  .1000   4(XX)  5(XX)F«l
                                           I
                                                                      2 Miles
Figure 5-5. SRPA Sr-90 plume (1995 data).
-------
                     5.3    Nature and Extent of Contamination

        The nature and extent of contamination at the WAG 3 release sites determined to present an
  unacceptable risk or threat to human health or the environment are described below, by site group  These
  sites have actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances, which, if not addressed by implement
  the response actions selected in this ROD, may present imminent and/or substantial endangerment to   =
  public health, welfare, and/or the environment.  The detected contaminants of potential concern for each
  group or site are summarized.

  5.3.1    Tank Farm Soils (Group 1)

       Based on the results of drilling and sampling at previously identified release sites, the horizontal
  extent of contamination is generally localized at the site of the spill or leak, but, in some cases,
  contamination has been found to extend vertically to the soil/basalt interface at approximately 14 m
  (45 ft) bgs. Contamination has also been found along gravel lenses within the Tank Farm  Some spills
  and releases were cleaned up and excavated soils were replaced with contaminated backfill
  Contaminants released to the soils are suspected to have migrated into the underlying basalt and the
  SRPA. Because current information regarding the nature and extent of Tank Farm contamination is
  inadequate to support selection of a final remedy, a separate RI/FS for the Tank Farm is underway  The
 OU 3-14 RI/FS will further investigate contamination at the Tank Farm and develop alternatives for a
 final remedy. An mtenm action for the Tank Farm soils is presented in this ROD. Soil contaminat.on at
 the Tank Farm is summarized in Table 5-2 except data from sites CPP-16, CPP-24  and CPP-30 which are
 classified as "No Action" sites.  All the Tank Farm sites are shown in Figure 1-3. The Tank Farm soils
 are considered principal threat wastes.

       The major radionuclide contaminants in the Tank Farm soils are Am-241, Sr-90  Cs-137 Eu-154
 Pu-238, Pu-239/240, Pu-241, and U-235. Nonradionuclide contaminants include mercury and nitrate.

      Tank Farm sites with wastes derived from spills associated with the INTEC liquid waste treatment
 system wtil be assigned four EPA listed waste codes (F001, F002, F005,  and U134). The wastes will also
 be evaluated to determine  if they exhibit hazardous characteristics.  The results of the investigations
 performed to date indicate that the principal threats posed by the Tank Farm Soils sites are from external
 exposure to surface and near-surface radionuclides and from future ingestion risks from leaching and
 transport of radionuclides to the SRPA.  In addition, nonradionuclide constituents may be present m Tank
 Farm soils; the presence of such contamination will be addressed in the OU 3-14 RI/FS.  Known releases
 to the Tank Farm include a number of separate documented release sources as  follows:

 5.3.1.1    CPP-15.  The solvent burner at Site CPP-15 began operation in the late 1950s and was
dismantled m 1983. Before the solvent burner, a stack preheater was located at this site.  Waste solvent
primarily kerosene and tributyl phosphate degradation products contaminated with low levels of
radionuclides, were held in the tank and piped to the solvent burner for disposal.  Demolition of the
solvent burner occurred in  late 1983 including removal of the furnace/burner unit, furnace duct control
shed, pipmg, valves and controls within the shed, and piping penetrating the shed. In addition, an
unknown amount of contaminated soil was removed along with the solvent tank.  In September 1995
LMITCO construction personnel encountered elevated radiological readings while conducting an
excavation in the western half of the sue.  Six soil samples were collected in the area of the contaminated
footing. Based on this sampling, contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) identified for this site
include thallium, zirconium. Am-241. Cs-137, Eu-154. Np-237, Pu-238, Pu-239/240, Tc-99. and U-235.
                                             5-9
-------
Table 5-2. Summary sampling results statistics for Tank Farm (Group I) soil contaminants.
Soil Concentration
(nig/kg [nonradionuclide] orpCi/g [radionuclide])
C'onlaminanis
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
V C'u
5 »fr
I'b
Mn
Ni
Se
Sr
Th
V
Xn
/.r
Fluoride
NuiaiL-
Minimum
2.80E-01 B
2.80E+00 J
4.45E+01
2.43E-02
2.20E-01 B
1.86E+00
l.OOE+OOJ
7.38E+00
2.00E-02 J
4.80E+00
9.15E+OI
1.34E-OI J
5.10K-01 J
3.61E+03
4.85E+00
9.10E+OOB
3.20E-KH
5.I3K»00
5.30I--01
3.50I--UI
Maximum
1.15E+OOJ
6.80E+OOJ
I.93E+02J
4.50E-01
1.12E<-OI J
4.40EK)OB
!.13Ef02J
I.28E^01
4.44I-+00
3.17E<01 J
1.18E*05
1.94E+01 J
8.00E-01 B
3.61E+03
4.85E+00
I.85E+01
5.55EtOl
I.40E+OI
6.72E-IOOJ
8. 101- (00
Arithmetic
Mean
6.54E-01
4.25E+00
9.06E+01
2.84E-01
3.84E+00
3.33E+00
2.05E-KH
9.92 EiOO
3.03E-01
I.17E-»OI
5.08E+03
I.35E+01
6.97E-01
3.61E403
4.85E+00
I.47E»01
4.18E+OI
8.61 E <00
].70EiOO
l.681£<00
Standard
Deviation
I.78E-01
9.25E-OI
4.39E+01
1.49E-01
3.39E+00
6.47E-01
2.07E+01
1.81E+00
6.32E-01
6.82E+00
2.42E+04
4.03E+00
1.62E-01
NA
NA
2.77E+00
6.98E+00
3.55E+00
1.14E+00
1.541- +00
RMEb
1.01E+00
6.10E+00
1.78E+02
5.82E-01
1.06E-H)!
4.62E+00
6.19E+01
1.3SE+OI
1.57E+00
2.53E+01
5.35E+04
2.16E+01
1.02E+00
NA
NA
2.02E+01
5.58E+01
1.57E+01
3.98E-HX)
4.76E+00
Number
of
Samples
50
50
50
16
83
16
58
16
95
50
24
24
34
1
16
17
16
5
41
54
Number
of
Detects
35
47
50
15
53
16
58
16
59
50
24
24
3
1
1
17
16
5
40
51
Frequency
of
Detection
70%
94%
100%
94%
64%
100%
100%
100%
62%
100%
100%
100%
9%
100%
6%
100%
100%
100%
98%
94%
1NEEL
Background' .
(mg/kg or pCi/g) '
O.OOE+00
5.80E+00
3.00E+02
1.80E+00
2.20E+00
I.IOE-KH
3.30E+01
2.20E+01
5.00E-02
1.70E-KH
4.90E+02
3.50E+01
2.20E-01
NA
4.30E-01
4.50E+01
1.501-+02
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
35
3
0
0
34
0
10
0
53
10
1
0
3
NA
1
0
0
'. NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 5-2. (continued).
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg (nonradionuciide) or pCi/g [radionuclide])
Contaminants
Methylene
Chloride
Toluene
Trichlorocthane
Am-241
Ce-144
C:o-60
Cs-134
Cs-137
E-u-154
11-3
Np-237
Pu-238
Pu-239/240
Pu-241
Pu-242
Ru-106
Sr-90
Tc-99 '
1 1-234
I I-23S
U-2.U)

Minimum

5.90E-03 JB
1.00E-03J
I.OOE-03J
6.00E-02
I.44E + 01
9.00E-02
1.30E-OI
4.78E-02
I.54E-01 J
2.49E+04
I.OOE-01 J
2.99E-02
2.58E-02
1.05E»06
3.20E*01
6.66E-02
1.60E-01
9.00E-OI
7.00E-02
2.031--02
7xSI:-OI

Maximum

9.10E-03JB
2.00E-03 J
4.60E-03J
1.66E+04J
I.44E+01
2.27E+04
7.55E+04
1.02E+08
5.65E+05
2.49E+04
1.63E+00
2.76E<05
I.26E+04
1.05E+06
3.20E+01
5.41E+01
5.68E+07
3.67E+OI
2.l2EiOI
(>.OOIit03
7.55I--01

Arithmetic
Mean

8.08E-03
I.14E-03
2.80E-03
6.25E+02
l.44Et01
1.81E+03
5.40E+03
I.31E+06
1.65E+04
2.49E+04
5.12E-01
8.25E+03
1.08E+03
1.05E*06
3.20Ei01
2.7 IE-* 01
7.02E+05
4.40E+00
9.85E-01
7.7()I-t02
7.55E-OI

Standard
Deviation

1.31E-03
3.78E-04
2.55E-03
3.08E+03
NA
6.28E+03
2.02E+04
1.02E+07
9.54E+04
NA
4.94E-01
4.73E+04
3.35E+03
NA
NA
3.82E+01
5.97E+06
1.02E+01
2.75E+00
2.17E*03
NA

RMEb

1.07E-02
1.90E-03
7.90E-03
6.79E+03
NA
I.44E+04
4.58E+04
2.17E+07
2.07E+05
NA
1.50E+00
1.03E+05
7.78E+03
NA
NA
1.04E+02
1.26E+07
2.48E+OI
6.49E-KH)
5.11E+03
NA
1> ^\
Number
of
Samples

5
22
6
64
12
41
41
119
45
1
46
64
70
1
1
31
93
12
63
53
i
i
Number
of
Detects

5
7
2
29
I
13
14
111
35
1
14
34
26
1
i
2
91
12
61
19


Frequency
of
Detection

100%
32%
33%
45%
8%
32%
34%
93%
78%
100%
30%
53%
37%
100%
100%
6%
98%
100%
97%
36%

1 00%
INEHl.
Background1
(mi>/ki> or oCi/o)
x o o r*- "£/
NA
NA
NA
1.IE-02
NA
NA
NA
8.2E-01
NA
NA
NA
4.90E-03
1. 001- -01
NA
NA
. NA
4.90E-01
NA
1.44E-IOO
NA

NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Rn(*K (>r/\t in/~l
ua\* R.JJI UUIiU
NA
NA
I '/»
NA
29
NA
NA
NA
99
NA
NA
NA
34
17
NA
NA
1 1/\
NA
85
NA
3
NA

NA
-------
Table 5-2.  (continued).
                                                 Soil Concentration

Contaminants
U-238
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta

Minimum
4.5IE-02
5.20E+00
3.60E+OI

Maximum
I.39E+00
I.20E+01
6.89E+02

Arithmetic
Mean
5.42E-OI
7.35E+00
1.62E402

Standard
Deviation
4.31E-01
2.19E+00
1.86E+02
— -
RMEb
1.40E+00
I.I7E+01
5.34E+02

Number
of
Samples
63
II
11

Number
of
Detects
58
11
11

Frequency
of
Detection
92%
100%
100%

1NEE1
Background'
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
I4E400
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
0
NA
MA
       NOTI-.
          Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis
                                                                           R'/FS Part A (DOE'ID'
                                                                                                          rouP ' Siles: ('pp-'5- -20. -25. -26. -27, -28. -Jl, -J2A, -32U. -JJ. -58A
                    ci;^^
      •   Samples rejected because ol'an unacceptable quality control parameter are not included in the table.
 b    The RM1-. concentration is lhe 95% upper value based on the empirical rule <95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean)
U
J
NA
       I he INI-I-.I background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood et al. 1 995)
       -   The analyte reported value is 
-------

   transferred to an underground storage tank before concentration m the PEW Evaporator  ItltoZ that
                                                                       of less than 2. It has been
                                                                         of leaks in the hoses. The

 though the fil, so,l 1S beueved to be %£££!£££?£
 containing trace quantities of radioactiV1ty during the 1 980s.
 ff m'^18 fl"te CPP"24 'V003^ '" thC Tank Farm and consists of a" ^ea of approximately

      The eastern portion of Sue CPP-25 overlaps the area of Sue CPP-20.  The transfer line that was
be,ng used to transfer hqu.d waste from VVC-1 19 to WL-102. ruptured on August 28 11960 conta^at.g
                                             5-13
-------
 the soil adjacent to the building. According to direct radiation readings at the time of the incident, the soil
 was initially contaminated to levels of 2 x I0~w R/hr. Approximately 7 m3 (9 yd3) of contaminated soil
 was removed and taken to the RWMC for disposal. No records exist to verify the effectiveness of these
 cleanup activities. However, during 1981 and 1983 the entire site was excavated during Phases I and II of
 the Fuel Processing Facility Upgrade Project. This excavation included the eastern portion of sites
 CPP-20 and CPP-25 as discussed above. Fill materials placed back into the excavation consisted of 3 mR
 material in the bottom of the excavation and clean soils in the upper 9.1 m (30 ft).

       Contaminated soils at Site CPP-25 are believed to be confined to soil with gross radiation readings
 of 3 to 5 mR placed at depths between 9.1 to 12.2 m (30 to 40 ft) during upgrade projects in the 1980's.
 Soil above a depth of 9.1 m (30 ft) was reportedly clean fill.  Because of the lack of confirmatory soil
 sampling in the area, sample results from previously excavated Tank Farm soil will be assumed, for the
 purposes of the BRA, to be representative of the soil beneath both sites CPP-20 and CPP-25.

 5.3.1.6     CPP-26. CPP-26 consists  of soil potentially contaminated by a 1964 release of radioactive
 steam that was inadvertently released to the air through a faulty hose coupling on the decontamination
 header. The volume of radioactively-contaminated steam that was released at Site CPP-26 is unknown.
 The release is assumed to have contaminated the land surface of approximately 13 acres to the northeast
 of building CPP-635.  However, in an approved Track 2 NFA recommendation, the scope of the
 CERCLA investigation was limited to that portion of the site inside the Tank Farm. The original land
 surface at the time of the release (prior to membrane installation) is now located at a depth of 0.7 m
 (2.5 ft) bgs.

 5.3.1.7    CPP-27 and CPP-33. Sites CPP-27  and CPP-33 consist of contaminated soil associated
 with subsurface releases of HLLW from the Tank Farm transfer system near the northeast comer of
 building CPP-604.  These sites were determined to be related to releases from the same source and,
 therefore, are being addressed as a single release site. Following cleanup, it was estimated that 25  mCi of
 radioactivity in soil remained in place (WINCO 1993i).

      In 1983, additional contaminated soil was discovered.  This additional contamination, thought to be
 the result of a separate release from the same transfer line, was designated CPP-33. Cleanup efforts in
 1983 removed approximately 10,710 m3 (14,000 yd3) of contaminated soil. Of this total, approximately
 1,530 m3 (2,000 yd3) exceeding 30 mR/hr of beta-gamma radiation was removed and placed in trenches.
The soil in these trenches is addressed separately as Site CPP-34 (Section  18). After the 1983 excavation.
 the CPP-33 area was backfilled and trace amounts of radioactively contaminated soils were reportedly left
 in place below, and lateral to the excavated area (WINCO 1993i).  It appears that the majority of
contamination is located in the southwest portion, of the site where levels as high as 30 mR/hr were
measured below a depth of 6.1 m (20 ft).

 5.3.1.8    CPP-28.  The contamination at Site CPP-28 was discovered in 1974 during the installation
of a cathodic protection electrode in the Tank Farm area. Soil with radioactive contamination up to
40 R/hr was encountered at a depth of about 1.8 m (6 ft) bgs.  The leak was later determined to be from a
0.3 cm (1/8 in.) diameter hole inadvertently drilled through one side of the 7.6-cm (3-in.) diameter
stainless steel pipe during original construction in 1953. The HLLW consisting of first-cycle raffinate
most likely leaked through secondary containment to the surrounding soil.  In late 1974, approximately
45 m3(56 yd3) of contaminated soil having an estimated 3,000 Ci of gross radioactivity was removed
 from the area above the pipeline leak. No contaminated soil was removed from below the pipe
encasement due to high levels of radioactivity in the soil. The excavated area was subsequently
backfilled.
                                              5-14
-------
   "                         '" "'      '     <20 ' 20 ft> '"* »f =«ice so.l contam,M,,on
                                     ^
                    1 8 !°a!8
                                                                                   ae
  5.3. If f   CPP-32. Site CPP-32E is an area of contaminated soil southwest of valve bnx R d  Th,c













  o n , to a depth of about 0.3 m ( 1 ft). The contaminated material apparently originated from a 5 I cm
                               ^^^
5.3.2   Soils Under Buildings or Structures (Group 2)
















.he  o,l>. ,nou,c. thc> be ava,!ab!e tor exposure and contmued leachmg of contaminants to the SRPA.  The
                                           5-15
-------
 c\: currcntlx an' :ncomp:e:c patinxax and :he leachmu is bcum controlled bv the
 P^CKCC 01 ihohutldiny.uhich limits miiliraiiun.                        "                    '

 ,  ,  The Soils Lnder Bu'IdinJ?s or Structures group is comprised of release sites in OUs 3-09. 3-1 .t and
 .'-I.' that occur beneath INTEC buildings or structures, and includes Sites CPP-02. -41 A. -60, -68. -SO.
 -N>. -S6. -s~. and -S9 (Figure 1-5). These sites consist of soil contamination that resulted from past
 h.i/ardou-, ur radioactive liquid spills. leaks, and plain operations and are considered low-level tlux-it
 \\a>ies.

       I he individual release sites comprising Ciroup 2 include:

 5.3.2.1     CPP-02, French Drain West of Building CPP-603:  14.000.000 L (3.698.408 »al) of
 hasm xxater \\as disposed per year. An estimated 493 Ci was released with the major isotope beinii
 tritium. The Graphite fuel storage building was constructed over this site.  The site has not been sampled
 If not for the depth of release and the presence of the graphite fuel storage buildinc. this site  would pose -i
 threat due to external exposure. Modeling performed during the Rl FS  indicated that this site presents -i *
 grmmdxxater risk. Currently the leaching of contamination is being controlled by the building limiting '
 inllllralion.  Should the building be removed this contamination will present a direct exposure risk and
 increased groundsater risk.

 5.3.2.2    CPP-41A.  Site CTP-41A is one of two pits where oils and organic materials were placed in
 metal drip pans and ignited for fire brigade practice. The training pits are no longer in use. CPP-41A is a
 pit that has been covered with asphalt and. because it is close to building CPP-663, it is suspected of
 having been excavated and removed during construction of CPP-663.

 5.3.2.3    CPP-60. Site CPP-60 is a small cinder block building commonly referred to as  a paint shop
 Inn xxa* actually used to house hazardous materials.  It was suspected that during paintbrush cleaning
 Mihents were discharged to the surrounding soil. The building \\as removed in*the I970's and .CPP^645
.in office building, is nou located oxer the area. No samples xxere collected to confirm the existence or
.licence of contamination at this site (WINC'O 19920.

5.3.2.4    CPP-68. Site CPP-68 is the former location of an abandoned 1.892 L (500 gal) under»round
gasoline storage tank. Use of the tank xvas discontinued in 198? and the tank was removed  in 1986=
During exhumation of the tank, there xvas no visual evidence to suggest that the tank leaked. There arc no
opcuting records prior to 19S3 or records of -pills associated \x nh the operation of this tank.  A smJle
>.impie oi the tank bed soil xxas analyxed and found to contain only traces of gasoline ran»e onianic"
cor.-.::u;c:il< th.it did not exceed risk-based !c\c!s.  hi addition, \ >ual examination of the Tank  bed soil du1
 I'.oJ «.:.:geM tank lc.ik.iuc i \V1NV()  199?gi.

 5.3.2.5    CPP-80, Building CPP-601 Vent Tunnel Drain Leak:  Soil contamination  resulted
 Iroin leakage of corrosive condensate from a cast iron underground line.  No soil sampling xvas performed
 due to the  inaccessibility of the site. Approximately 397.468 I. (105.000 gal) of condensate containinu
 550 d of radionuchdes xvere estimated to haxx* been released to the soil  betxveen 1983 and 1989. The"'
 leaked contaminants haxx> been observed in the 34 m (110 ft I perched water.  Due to the depth of the
 rolea^ and the presence of Building CPP-601  this sue only presents risks via'the uroundxvater exposure
 pathxxax. Modeling performed during the RI  FS indicated that this site presents a^minor siroundxxaier
 -:-k  Jn»r p-.irpo.cs .if^mnJ^awr modeling. :i'.e :«.venior>- for tins .«M:.V!. -.he :ii!ild::ig be reir.oxx-d. ;h;s co:v,am;r.at:on «ill present a direct exposure risk and
 •r.c:oa>v\! jroundwater risk. Should the bi;:;dmg be remoxed ihi- contamination would pose an external
 expo>ure risk and a minor increased groundxxater r-^k.
-------

  S.J   A A  u TT   7.     excavatl<>n included an area immediately south of CPP-604 as well as


                                       '                        -  Soils       "8 - ™
            in Tab,c „.

 5.3.3   Other Surface Soils (Group 3)

                                                                               cpp-
radionucluie-contaminated soils that were generated as a result of a vanery o  MTEC ^a^v^es
the rKultSof dr,iBH, " T S"CS'h'™ deK™'"1:d *E ««"' of soil conaminatran.  B,Scd .on
                  -
                                           5-17
-------
'" S°" C°ntaminants at Sile CPP-89 (excavated so,! was placed ,n«o boxes that are currently
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg Inonradionuclide] or pCi/g [radionuclide])
Number
Standard of
Contaminants Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation RMEb Samples
As l.60E-tOOB 5.90E+00 4.11E+00 1.25E+00 6.61E+00 15
Hg 6.00E-02B 1.04E+01 1.49E+00 2.90E-tOO 7.29E+00 17
Sc 2.IOE-01B .IOE-01B 3.20E-01 l.OOE-OI 5.20E-01 16
Am-241 2.00E-02 2.36E+01 2.83E+00 6.58E+00 1.60E+01 14
Co-60 3.90E+00 3.90E+00 3.90E+00 NA NA 1
Cs-134 2.30IitOO 2.30E+00 2.30E+00 NA NA 1
Cs-137 1.40K-OI 7.73E+03 1.25E+03 2.70E-I-03 6.65E+03 14
1-129 3.1 OF. tOO 3.IOE+00 3.10E+00 NA NA |
Np-237 I.50E-01 I.50E-01 1.50E-01 NA NA 1
l>u-238 2.00E-02 ' 2.59E+02 3.83E+01 8.86E+01 2.16E+02 14
I'u-239/240 O.OOE'OO 2.47E+01 3.30E+00 7.57E+00 1.84E+01 14
Sb-125 1.30E+01 1.30E+01 1.30E+01 NA NA 1
Sr-90 3.00E-01 1.08E+04 1.48E+03 3.02E+03 7.52E+03 14
U-234 S.lOF.tOO 5.10E-tOO 5.10E+00 NA NA 1
U-235 2.301--01 2.30E-01 2.30E-01 NA NA i

a NOIli:
• Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis
— ^ .
Number
of
Detects
15
15
4
14
1
I
14
1
1
14
14
I
14
1
1



	 . 	 , —
	
Number of
INEE1. amples Greater
Frequency Background0 than
of Detection (mg/kg or pCi/g) Background
100% s soK+nn
88%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ioo%
100%


• Analytical results used in this table are samples collected from boxed soil from the 1991 -1 992 emergency fire exit excavation at building 604/605 ((
5.00E-02
2.20E-OI
1.IOE-02
NA
NA
8.20E-01
NA
NA
4.90E-03
1E-OI
NA
4.90E-01
1 .44E+00
NA


TH-89)
. Samples were analysed lor VOCs, morgamcs, and rad.onuchdes Only those constituents identified ,n Appendix 0 of the OU 3-13 RI/HS Part A (IX)K-ID l'W7b) are show,, ,„
• Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter are not included in this table
t
1


NA
i I/A
| i
i i
NA
tin
NA
IN/\

NA
i*tf\
n
i j
NA



this table
h The RMI- cuncciiiiaiHm is Ihe 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of.he measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean)
c Hie INhl-.l backgrouiul concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood et al. 1995)
H - The analylc reported value is *-RI)l., but >IDI..
1 1 he anal)tc «ah uleiililied in ihe .sample but the numerical resuli may not be accurate
NA Not Applicable
KMi Kca.stiiuhlc NtuMinuin I'XMOMIIC




















-------
  rr^ Because of the general]y small area and contaminant mass of most of these sites, the quantities of
  COCs present at most sites do not pose a threat to groundwater.  However, several sites have significant
  sources at or near the soil basalt interface.  For those sites there is a minor threat to groundwateflhe
  COCs at these sites include both radionuclide and nonradionuclide contaminants.

  5.3.3. 1    CPP-35 (Building 633 Decontamination Spill).  Site CPP-35 resulted from a spill of
  decontamination fluid that entered the WCF air transport system and was released to soil  Th,s release
  was estimated to have a contaminated area of 1 1 1 m2 (1200 ft2).  The release was approximately 38 L
  (10 gal) of solution containing nitric acid, mercuric nitrate, heavy metals, fluoride, nitrates, and as much
  as iU u of total activity. Contaminated soil and gravel were removed and shipped to the RWMC for
  disposal.  Sampling results data from the Track 2 investigation are summarized for CPP-35 in Table 5-4
  No contaminants were detected below 2 m (7 ft).
  Stem ™°T36 ^ontemmaterf Soil Southeast of the INTEC Stack). The contamination at
  Site CPP-36 is the result of the three separate releases, which are described below:

        1 .     In 1 970, the calciner offgas lines between the WCF and the stack were excavated  Highly
             contaminated soil (up to 20 R/hr) was encountered at a depth of 1.8 m (6 ft) beneath Olive
             Avenue.  The exact location of the release source is unknown. According to records  the
             contaminated soil was excavated and disposed at the RWMC. Clean fill was used as
             backfill.

       2.     In October 1 974. contamination was encountered under Olive Avenue during excavation for
             installation of lines. This contamination apparently was the result of waste that flowed out
             of an onficecorroded by nitric acid. The waste was probably from liquids being transferred
             from  Tank WC-1 19 (sump tank at the WCF) and Tank WC-102 (PEW evaporator).

       3.     In November 1974. 2,840 L (750 gal) of solution containing an estimated 4 Ci of total
            activity leaked into Valve Pit MAH-OGF-P-04.

 i 074 IW° quant,ltatlve sar"Pling events were undertaken at this site before the Track 2 investigation  In
 1 974, three samples were collected from the excavation under Olive Avenue and analyzed for
 radionuc ides  The depths from which the samples were collected cannot be established from available
 reports. In 1 99 1 , samples were collected from four boreholes (Colder Associates 1 992)  The boreholes
 were drilled to amaximum depth of 1.8 m (6 ft). The samples were analyzed for VOCs, metals and
 radionuchdes. The VOCs were not measured above detection levels.

      The Track 2 investigation involved installing seven "observation wells" to measure  subsurface
 radiation levels and the drilling and sampling of two boreholes.  Samples from the boreholes were
 analyzed for selected metals, nitrate and nitrite, fluoride, PH, and radionuclides. Summary sampling
 results statistics for data from CPP-36 is provided in Table 5-5.  Based on the result of investigation's
 conducted at Site CPP-36. the zone of contamination is assumed to extend from the ground surface  to the
 soil/basalt interface at about 12.8 m (42 ft).  This depth is based on high activity levels measured  m the
deepest samples collected from borings CPP-36-1 and CPP-36-2. Results from the "observation wells"
show elevated radiation levels to at least 7.6 m (25 ft) below ground surface (bgs).

      The area of CPP-36 is shown in Figure 1-5.  The initial area was expanded because "observation
wells located at the boundaries of the area indicate radiation levels above background.  In addition  the
CPP-36 area has been extended to the southeast to incorporate Site CPP-91. Investigative r-ults  indicate
contamination at CPP-91 to be indistinguishable from CPP-36.  The rev.sed area of Stte CPP-36 ,s about
 /4s m" (8.052 ft").
                                             5-19
-------
Table 5-4. Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-35 '
Soil Concentration
(ing/kg Inonradionuclide] or pCi/g [radionuclidej)

Contaminants
Mercury
Cadmium
Am-241
Cs-137
Eu-154
Pu-238
Pu-239/240
Sr-90
1 1-234
1C l1'235
0 1 1-238
(iross Alpha
dross Beta

Minimum
5E-02 B
1.40E+00
I.38E-02
2.14E-01
3.18E-01
7.93E-01
5.24E-02
7.52E+00
9.59E-OI J
5.20H-02
l.OlK-rOO
3.65I-+00
2.04EKH

Maximum
7.20E+00
1.40E+00
1.2IE+00
8.64E+03
II.80E+00
1.32E+01
7.25E-01
3.24E+03
1.02E+OOJ
7.20E-02
1.14E+00
2.02E+02
1.21 1- +04

Arithmetic
Mean
1.66E+00
1.40E+00
5.17E-01
6.63E+02
3.37E+00
5.44E+00
3.21E-01
5.77E+02
9.82E-01
6.03E-02
1.07E+00
2.76E+01
1.I4E+03

Standard
Deviation
2.49E+00
NA
6.01E-01
2.14E+03
4.81E+00
6.77E+00
NA
I.10E+03
3.32E-02
1.03E-02
6.51E-02
5.21E+01
3.19E+03

RMEb
6.64E+00
NA
1.72E+00
4.94E+03
1.30E+01
1.90E+01
NA
2.78E+03
1.05E+00
8.09E-02
1.20E+00
1.32E+02
7.52E+03

Number
of
. Samples
14
14
3
14
5
3
3
8
3
3
3
14
14

Number.
of
Detects
12
1
3
14
14
3
3
8
3
3
3
14
14

Frequency
of
Detection
86%
7%
100%
100%
36%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
inn%

1NEEI.
Background1
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
5E-02
2.20E»00
1.10E-02
8.20E-01
NA
4.90E-03
IE-01
4.90E-01
1.44E+00
NA
1.40E+00
NA
MA
Number of
Samples Greater
than
1 1

T
q
MA
7
2

o
NA
0
NA

M
J
NA
RMI
 •   I >uphcate sample re^ulls were not included in the sialislical analysis.
 .   Analyneal results used in diu, table are from samples colleced from two borings installed dunng the OU 3-08 Track II invesl.gaUon (WINCO I
 .   Samples were also analyzed for fluonde, pH. nitrate, nitrite, and K-40  These constituents are no, shown in this table because they are no, present a, hazardous concen.rat.ons
 •   Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter are not included in this table.
The KMH concentration is the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule <95%ofthe measurements lie within two standard deviates of,heir mean).
 The INI-.lil background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood et al.  1995)
  -  The analyte reported value is IDL.
  -  The analyle was, identified in Ihe sample but the numerical result may nol be accurate.
  -  Not Applicable
     Reasonable Maximum I'xpnsure
-------
T?.bJl5.-5. Jjummaiyjampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-36.'
Soil Concentration
(mg/kgjmmradionuclide] or pCi/g Iradionuclide])

Contaminants
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
"g
Pb
Am-241
Cs-137
l:u- 1 54
1-129
Np-237

l'u-238
Pu-239/240
Sr-90
U-234
U-235
1 1-238
(iross Alpha
Gross Beta

Minimum
3.20E+00
6.76Ef01
8.10E-01B
9.60HiOO
I.20E-OI
7.20E*00
1.03EfOO
2.04E+01
8.75E-02
I.23E+00
4.00E-02

1.70E-01
7.00E-02
2.90E-01
l.OOE-OI
4.44E-02
I.20E-01
5.46EiOOJ
7.48HK)1

Maximum
4.10E+00
8.92EKH
8.40E-OI.B
I.49E+OI
1.66E+01
3.22E+02 J
7.63E+02
4.08E+05
4.74E+03
2.43E»02
I.90E+00

8.18E+03
3.24E-J02
5.13E+04
2.81E+00
9.95E-02
I.S4EiOO.-
2.751- *04J
2.51E«05
Arithmetic
Mean
3.69E+00
7.69E+01
8.25E-01
I.21E+01
I.43E+00
4.74E+OI
2.29E^02
2.93E+04
5.91E+02
6.33E+OI
8.90E-OI

I.82E+03
7.41E+01
2.8IE+03
6.54E-01
7.I9E-02
6.48E-01
3.73E-t03
4.50E<04
Standard
Deviation
•
2.59E-01
7.43 E^OO
2.12E-02
1.76EtOO
3.78E+00
1.IIE+02
3.63E+02
9.71E+04
l.SOE-t-03
1.20E+02
6.99E-01

3.58E+03
1.4IE+02
1.14E+04
7.95E-01
2.26E-02
5.94E-01
8.831: +03
9.85E+04

RMEb
— 	 	 -. 	
4.21E+00
9.18E+01
8.67E-01
I.56E+01
8.99E+00
2.69E+02
9.55E+02
2.24E+05
3.59E+03
3.03E+02
2.29E+00

8.98E+03
3.56E+02
2.56E+04
2.24E+00
1.17E-OI
1.84Ef-00
2.I4E+04
2.42E+05
Number
Samples
8
8
19
8
19
8
13
20
11
9
9

13
13
20
13
13
13
ll
11
Number
of
Detects
8
8
2
8
19
8
4
20
10
4
s
•J
5
5
20
13
5
13
11
11
Frequency
of
Detection
— — 	 	 	 „
100%
100%
11%
100%
100%
100%
31%
100%
91%
44%
c/;o/
->O7o
38%
38%
100%
100%
38%
100%
100%
100%
INEEL
Background'
(mg/kg or pCi/K)
5.80E+00
3EK»2
2.20E*00
3.30E+01
5E-02
I.70E+01
1.10E-02
8.20E-01
NA
NA
1 1/*
NA
4.90E-03
1E-01
4.90E-01
I.44E400
NA •
11/1.
1 40Fffl()
» .~V/l— I \J\I
K] A
IN/\
NA
Number of
Samples Greater
than Background

0
V7
o
\J
o
\J
10
1 f
1
1
70
&\)
K( A
NA
MA
INA

•
10
1 7
HI A
NA
K.I A
NA
NA
-------
Table 5-5. (continued)
                                Soil Concentration
                 [nig/kg jnonradionuclide] orpCi/g [radionuclide])
                                                  .     „   .  _,                Number   Number   Frequency        INEEl.           Number of
                                          Arithmetic    Standard                   of         of          of         Background'     S     ,1
H!!«:J.m!najy?..  Mjnimum,  Maximum     Mean __Dgvjajion     RME"     Samples   Detects   Detection    (mg/kg or pCiM   thanBa^kground
 a      NOII-                                                                              ~                    ~	—	
       •    I hiplicalc sample results were not included in the statistical analysis

       '    on firs1! ^sstsiKSSr(oar bonnss inslalleddurin8 thc )W! asse™ (Guldcr Assodates wi *and rrom tw° adi""unai *«»insiaiicd*™« ^
       .    sampling results from an investigation m 1974 are not included in this table because the locauon of one of the samples and depths ofall of the samples could not be esuMuhed
       •    fhesanipleslrornthel991investigalionwereanalyzedforV(K"s.MetalsandRadiologicalConstituents No VOC"s were measured above detection hm.t- ™t   i  ,1,
            and radiological constituents that were identified with concentrations greater than detection limits are shown in the table                                  X 'h°Se meta'S
       .    I he 0113-08 Track II Investigation samples were also analyzed for lluonde, pit. nitrate, nitrite and K-40  These constituents are not shown m the table because thev are noi r^en,
            at ha/ardous concentrations                                                                                               ^^UMS*. me/ !!)!..
 I      -   I lie analyie was identified m the sample but the numerical result may not be accurate.
NA    -   Not Applicable                                               •
KMI-      Reasonable Maximum Exposure
-------

                                                            S.teCPP-91
    WCF (CPP-633). The blower pt contom  d2n th <   I ^ T P" l<>Cated °n the nOrth Slde of *c    '
    below the blower pit floor, which s pp"ox ™a"lt m ( U fti!" f tof ^ tO the Sed'™
    revealed elevated radiation levels on the blowe ph walTs and floof  nt   ^ ' ^ °f the bI°Wer p«
    and snowmelt had entered the blower p,t and was observed to h?J"      § theu°IeanuP' water fr™ ram
    sample of the dirt on the blower plt fl^ £^ ^etatedleve                               A
   d-scovery of the water anTd anfn ?992 TheaL tnTh? ""^ ^ WCF beCame °Pera^nal  Upon
              sa.phng results ^^^^^      TO **
   settling basin (CPP-740),                 K^^^T^ Z™1** h°n'20nlal
   MAH-SFE-SW-048) east of CPP-603  The Pnl 1  (C.fP:301>' ^ ^ ^ wells (CPP-303 and
   backwash slurry of filter aS material rd,^         ^ JS" Clea"UP SUpP°rt System rece'v^ a
   filter system.^ ^^^^l^^ ^ ^ ™ R*CeiVin* and Stora8e F-^
                                                           ^
 manho,, Ms syn, sc    to e«            SS^ ™mP«™="« - - access
                              atuutoiw
 •he supernatant ,„ waste s.orage  S SFM??Ste 'cpr"^,^0™? ?"lJ1;ttin8 W°S UScd '» ™sf»
 Expenmental Breeder Reactof (EBR) No 2 fill ™  ,      OU 3-09). In March 1969, several
                                               **>"     '                   These s.tes
re!ease.  S,,e CPP-04 *l™*tt?a« » »™ resulKd *»


an,n,emona, leases
                                          5-23
-------
Table 5-6. Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants in CPP-91 soil borings.'
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg [nonradionuclidej or pCi/g (radionuclide])
Arithmetic Standard
Contaminants Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
As
Ha
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
MB
Ul
to Mn
-p.
- Ni
Pb
Sb
So
Tli
V
/n
Cs-137
Pu-238 .
l'u-239
Sr-'X)
1 L- w
3.60E+00 P
7.81EKMP
3.70E-01 P
4.3E-01 BP
4.80E+00 BP
l.52E»01 JP
1.25E+01 P
7.00E-02B
1.67E*02P
1.81E+01 P
5.60EiOOP
5.80E-01 BP
2.00E+00 P
1.80E+OOBP
2.34E+01 P
4.73E+01 P
l.OOE-Oi
3.20E-01
6.00E-02
2. 001: <-0 1
2. 3 2 !•: 'GO
I.03E-»01 P
I.86E+02P
1.20E+00 P
3.30E+00 P
I.22E+01 P
3.73E+01 JP
3.28E+01 P
5.40E-01
5.34E+02 P
3.80E+01 P
1.72E+0! P
1.20E+OOBP
2.00E+00 P
I.80E+OOBP
4.34E+01 P
1.07E+02P
I.40E+02
3.20E-01
6.00E-02
7.58E*03
232E»00
6.17E<00
1.11E+02
5.90E-01
1.27E+00
7.05E^O
2.397E+01
1.768E+OI
2.70E-01
2.616E+02
2.472E+01
9.74E+00
8.50E-0!
2.00E+00
1.80EI-00
3.083E+01
6.716E^01
3.081EtOl
3.20E-OI
6E-02
2.287EHB
2.32H* 00
2.20E+00
3.12E+01
0.28E-01
8.90E-01
2.72E+00
7.49E-KH)
6.78E+00
1.50E-01
1.28E+02
6.85E+00
3.79E+00
2.30E-01
NA
NA
7.70E+00
2.03E+01
4.59E+01
NA
NA
3.60Et03
NA
RMEb
1.06E+01
1.73E+02
6.46E-01
3.05E+00
1.25E+01
3.90E+01
3.12E+01
5.70E-01
5.18E+02
3.84E+01
1.73E+01
1.31E+00
NA
NA
4.62E+01
1.08E+02
1.23E+02
NA
NA
9.49E+03
NA
Number
of
Samples
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
4
1
Number
of
Detects
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
9
1
1
10
10
8
1
1
4
1
Frequency
of
Detection
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
100%
100%
100%
90%
10%
10%
100%
100%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
INEEL
Background'
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
5.80E+00
3Et02
1.80E+00
2.20E<00
1.10E+01
3.30E+01
2.20E+01
5.00E-02
4.90E+02
3.50E+01
1.70E+01
4.80E+00
2.20E-01
4.30E-01
4.50Et01
1.50E+02
8.20E-01
4.90E-03
IE-01
4.90E-01
NA
Number of
Samples Greater
than Background
6
0
0
1
2
2
2
8
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
6
1
0
4
NA
-------
  Table 5-6.  (continued).
                                       Soil Concentration
                        (mg/kg [nonradionuclide] or pCi/g (radionuclidel)
                                                                                Number   Number  Frequency
                                                                                   °f         of         of
                                                                                Samples   Detects
                                                                                    1
                                                                                                                                  INEHl.
                                                                                                                               Background1"
   Number of
Samples Greater
than Background
  (iross Alpha
  Ciross Beta
        NOT!-:
             Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis
                                                            ^^
                                                                                                            A,.c,Ft,Ml!.K.N,mdIonls,.
j
j
M
i>
NA
KMI'
 be an estimated quam.ty
I he analyte reported value is < RDl., bul > 11)1.
Sample analyse by inductively coupled plasna atomic emission spectroscopy
Not applicable
Reasonable Maximum l:\posure
-------
       Table 5-7. Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-01.'
to

Soil Concentration
(pCi/g [radionuclide])
Number
Arithmetic Standard of
Contaminants Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation RMEb Samples
Am-24 1
Co-57
Co-60
Cs-137
Hu-152
l-u-154
En- 155
l'u-239
Sr-l)0
U-235
1 1-238
(iross Alpha
dross Beta
a NOTI:
.
1.78E+OOJ 1.78E+OOJ 1.78E+00 NA NA 3
1.02E+00 1.02E+00 I.02E-KH) NA NA 19
1.38E+00 3.32E+02 7.12E+01 1.46E+02 3.63E+02 19
1.29E+00 4.60E+04 4.64E+03 1.20E+04 2.86E+04 19
2.23E+00 1.04E+02 5.37E+01 5.75E-I-01 1.69E-H)2 19
4E+00 7.97E+01 5.03E+01 4.06E-r01 1.32E+02 19
8.81E+00 8.81E+00 8.81E+00 NA NA 19
5.30E+OOJ 1.20E+OIJ 8.83E+00 3.36E+00 1.56E+01 11
1.11E+01 4.85E+03 9.43Et02 1.46E+03 3.86E+03 16
9.34E-03 3.94E-02 2.40E-02 8.55E-03 4.11E-02 11
I.I2E-OI 2.50E-01 2.01E-01 4.26E-02 2.86E-01 11
4.30E-KK) 3.32E*03 4.47E+02 8.61 £+02 2.17E+03 19
7.46E+00 4.32E+04 4.99E+03 1.01E+04 2.52E+04 19

Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis
Number of
Number Frequency 1NEEL Samples
of of Background' Greater than
Detects Detection (mg/kg or pCi/g) Background
1 33%
1 5%
5 26%
15 79%
4 21%
3 16%
1 5%
3 27%
16 100%
1 1 100%
11 100%
14 74%
19 100%

• Analytical results are from samples collected from three bonngs and from the bonom of dry well SW-048 during the Oil 3-09 Track 2 Investigation
Preliminary Scoping Track 2 Summary Report For Operable Unit OU 3-09 (LITCO I995b) and Appendix G of the OU3-I3 Rl/FS Part A (DOU-II)
1.10E-02
NA
NA
8.20E-01
NA
NA
NA
l.OOE-01
4.90E-01
NA
1.4
NA
NA

Results arc provided in
1997b).
1
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
NA
3
16
NA
0
NA
NA

the I-inal
• Selected samples were also analyzed for Cd, K-40, Np-237, Pu-238 and U-234. This data is nol shown because concentrations were below detection limits.
•
Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter were not included in the table.



h The RMI- concciuration is the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean)
c The INI-
l-l background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood et al. 1995}



J Questionable 1 I'S recovery or analytical yield
NA NIII applicable
UMI KI-J
snmihli: Maximum l-xptmire



-------
                                                                                                      1
        TheCOPGs for CPP-04/05 include Ce- 144, Co-60. Cs- 134, Cs-137, Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 and
   U-235. The areal extent of contammation is est.mated at 408 m2 (4,422 fr)  Assuming an
   of contamination of 0.6 m (2.0 ft), the total volume of contammated soil is Lfmated a? 245
  5.3.3.6    CPP-08/09 (Contaminated Soil Area Around CPP-603 Basin Filter
  ™^im^rt ber se they were detemimed to have resuited ^
  carbon steel filter system line due to corros.on. Approximately 25 1 m3 (2,700 ft3) of soil were
                                     L (21-000 gal) *^™^^^        *•
  remnv^f ^ iocatl°" of the leak was nev^ determined. The leaking line section was replaced and
  removed from serv.ce.  Contaminated soil resulting from the leak was apparently encountered by
  construction crews on the east side of CPP-603, where a section of the line was located  T^e area of
  contamination was delmeated by radiolog,cal survey instruments, however no soil samples were

                      -
                                                             T
                                                                assumed
                                                                       imated contammated
 53.3.7   CPP-10 (Contaminated Soil Area around CPP-603 Plastic Pipeline Break)

     65         a rel
                                       3000 L (800 gal) of radionuclide-conmmecPPO
          tc  3w3             ,     «? as a result of fa'lu- of a PVC line ,n Decemben976.
 Approximately 34 m (366 ft ) of asphalt and soil outside the building were contaminated Aooarentlv no
 remed.al actions were performed at the s.te, other than placing several inches of ckan oU oter the  '
 contammated area. Table 5-10 provides summary sampling results statistics for CPP 10

      Radionuclide contaminants include Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-152. -154 and -155 Sr-90 and I J 7is  Th*

        d
ctntfnf  t HT^ 1 (CAPP'603e **«*• and Water Release). This site resulted from a release of
(3oTSlnUnf
-------
       Table 5-8. Summary sampling results statistics for radionuclides at Sites CPP-04/OS.'
NJ
00
Soil Concentration
(nig/kg InonradionucliJeJ or pCi/g [radionuclide])
Conlammants Minimum Maximum
(VI 44
Co-60
Cs-134
Cs-137
Hu-152
liu-154
liu-155
U-235

2.00E-01 2.39E+03
1.05E-02 1.45E+03
7.50E-02 2.26E+02
2.19E-01 2.65E+04
2.00E-01 3.50E+04
4.73E-01 3.22Ef04
5.38E-03 7.60E+03
4.75E-02 3.02E-01

Arithmetic Standard
Mean Deviation
1.20E+02 3.28E+02
4.62E+01 1.57E+02
1.81E+01 3.77E+01
9.60E+02 3.27E+03
9.32E+02 3.49E+03
9.31E+02 3.34E+03
2.27E+02 7.96E+02
7.0IE-02 3.62E-02
RMEb
7.76E+02
3.60E+02
9.35E+01
7.50E+03
7.91E+03
7.61E+03
I.82E+03
1.43E-01



Number of
Number Frequency INEEL Samples
of Number of Background1 Greater than
Samples of Detects Detection (nm/ku ornCi/e) naelcimiimrf
204 133
204 172
204 89
204 204
204 199
204 187
204 178
120 120
65%
84%
44%
100%
98%
92%
87%
100%
NA NA
NA
NA
8.20E-OI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
196
NA
NA
NA
NA
a NOII-
• Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis.
' ^V™* «sulls are from samples collected from 51 bonngs installed to charactenze the CPP-740 horizontal settlmg basin hi 1981. Results are prov.ded in the Rad.oactive Was.,
( haracteruation o. CPP-603 Cleanup Basm-CPP-740 (EG«i 1 982) and in Appendix E of the Preliminary Scopmg f rack 2 Summary Report For Operable UnU SfSwn^bl
h 1 he
c The
NA
KMI: =
KMI- concentration is the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean).
INI'l-.l. background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limn (Rood el al. 1995).
Not applicable
Reasonable Maximum Hxposure.












-------
 Jjbje5j._Summaiy sampling results statistics forjojlcrmt^ntc at Site CpP.08/09 •
                                                 "~~~~"""	                    '
                                Soil Concentration
                _.	(pCi/g (radionuclide))
  (Joniiiminaiits
  Cs-137
  liu-15:
  I-u-15.4
 .Sr-90
  U-235
JL'-?-H-
 Gross Alpha
 Gross Beta
         Minimum   Maximum
Arithmetic
  Mean
  I.49E+01
  4.38E+00
  7.78E-01
2.52E+01 J
  1.93E-02
  1.56E-01
 5.10E+00
 9.88E+01
 1.08E+03
 4.38E+00
 2.95E+00
 1.40E+02
 2.61E-02
 1.61E-01
7.99E+01
9.36E+02
      NO) I:
 5.32E+02
 4.38E+00
 1.86E+00
 8.53E+01
 2.27E-02
 1.59E-01
-•
2.91E+01
5.19E+02
 5.83E+02
      NA
 1.54E+00
 5.76E+OI
 4.81E-03
 3.54E-03
  ' ' '     .—
3.48E+01
4.34E+02
  RMEb
 I.70E+03
      NA
 4.94E+00
 2.01E+02
 3.23E-02
 1.66E-01
————•!•„__
9.87E+01
1.39E+03
                                                           Number   Number   Frequency
                                                              °f        of         of
                                                           Samples   Detects   Detection
  4
  4
  4
  3
 2
_2_
 4
 4
                                                                                4
                                                                                I
                                                                                2
                                                                                3
                                                                                2
             I )uplicale sample results were not included in Ihe statistical analysis.
                                                         100%
                                                          25%
                                                          50%
                                                         100%
                                                         100%
                                                         100%
                                                         100%
                                                         100%
    INEEL
  Background1
(mg/kg or pCi/K)
    8.20E-01
         NA
         NA
    4.90E-OI
         NA
    1.40EjM30
        NA
        NA
 Number of
  Samples
Greater than
Background
   4
 NA
 NA
   3
 NA
                                           ^^^
                                                                                                  the Final Preliminary Scoping I rack 2
c
1
NA
KMI
yueslionahle I.CS recovery or analytical yield
Nol applicable
Kcasonahlc Maximum lixposure
-------
Table 5-10.  Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-IO.*
Soil Concentration
(pC'i/g [radionuclide])
( 'oiuaminants
C'o-60
Cs-137
hu- ! 52
Iui-154
l-u-155
Sr-90
U-235
U-238
(MOSS Alpha
(iross Beta
a N( ) 1 1-
Minimum
3.18E+00
2.I5E+00
9.16E+00
5.701-400
1.48E+00
4.17E»01
1.13E-02
1.76K-01
2.78H+00
1.42K*02

Maximum
3.I8E+00
1.I9E+03
9.16E+00
5.70E+00
I.48E+00
5.83E401 J
1.42E-02
2.IOE-01
1.38E+02
5. 45 E* 03

Arilhmeti
c Mean
3.18E+00
4.91E+02
9.16E-HX)
5.70E+00
1.48E+00
5.00E+01
1.28E-02
1.88E-OI
4.97E+01
1.48E+03
Standard
Deviation
NA
5.36E+02
NA
NA
NA
I.17E+01
1.46E-03
1.88E-02
5.65E+01
2.05E+03
RME"
NA
1.56E+03
NA
NA
NA
7.34E+01
1.57E-02
2.26E-01
1.63E+02
5.58E+03
Number
of
Samples
6
6
6
6
6
2
3
3
6
6
Number
of
Detects
1
&
1
1
1
2
3
3
5
6
Frequenc
yof
Detection
17%
100%
17%
17%
17%
100%
100%
100%
83%
100%
INEEL
background'
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
NA
8.20E-01
NA
NA
NA
4.90E-01
NA
1.4
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
0
NA
NA
h
c
J
NA
KM I
 •       Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis.
 •       Analytical results are from samples collected from one boring installed during the OU 3-09 Track 2 Investigation  Results are provided in the Final Preliminary Scoping Track ">
         Summary Report For Operable Unit OU 3-09 (I.ITtt) I995b) and Appendix G of the OU3-13 Rl/FS Part A (DOE-ID 1997b).
 •       Selected samples were also analyzed for Co-57. K-40, U-234, Np-237, Pu-238. Pu-239 and Am-241. This data is not shown because concentrations were below detection limits
 •       Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter were not included in the table.
'I he RMI: concentration is the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean).
'I he INl-hl background concentrations  represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood el al. 1995)
-  Questionable I X'S recovery ur analytical yield.                                                                                                              .
   Not applicable
   Reasonable Maximum I-xpnwiic
-------
l l^&mirnary C
results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg [nonradionuclide] orpCi/g (radionuclidel)

Contaminants
As
Ha
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
£ Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
'111
V
Xn
Co-60
Cs-137
lui-154
Np-237
Si -00



Minimum
2.80E+00
6.34E+01 P
2.50E-01 P
4.30E-OI P
3.50E+00 B P
1.32E+01JP
7.80E+OOP
5.00E-02 B
1.32E+02P
1.16E+01 P
5.30E+00 P
4.40E-01 B P
8.50E-01 B P
1.30E+OOBP
1.83E+01
3.29E+01
1 10E+OI
2.90E-01
360E-OI
1 501--01
I.UKiOl J



Maximum
6.40E+00
1.22E+02P
5E-01 P
1.70E+OOP
6.30E+00 B P
2.37E+OI P
1.54E+01 P
5.00E-02 B
2.58E+02 NJ P
2.06E+01 P
8.80E+00 P
8.30E-01 B P
8.50E-01 B P
1.30E+OOB
2.81E+01
6.42E+01
6.10E-01
7.27E+01
1.80EIOO
1.50H-01
1 3H-;i()l J



Arithmetic
Mean
4.77E+00
9.76E+01
4.23E-01
1.12E+00
5.13E+00
1.85E+01
1.3IE+01
5.00E-02
I.97E+02
1.73Ef01
6.96EfOO
6.06E-01
8.50E-01
1.30E+00
2.50E+01
5.04E+01
2.93E-01
2.56E+01
7.53E-01
1.50H-01
1.311^01



Standard
Deviation
-•" 	 ....,.-. i i _
1.27E+00
1.96E+01
7.32E-02
5.00E-01
7.83E-01
3.07E+00
2.26E+00
NA
4.44E+01
2.78E+00
1.11E+00
1.56E-01
NA
NA
3.14E+00
8.44E+00
2.75E-01
2.64E+01
5.64E-01
NA
NA



RMEb
7.31E+00
1.37E+02
5.69E-01
2.I2E+00
6.70E+00
2.46E+01
1.76E+01
NA
2.86E+02
2.29E+01
9.18E+00
9.18E-01
NA
NA
3.13E+01
6.73E+01
8.43E-01
7.84E+01
1.88E*00
NA
NA
IN /\


Number
of
Samples
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
i
i


Number
of
Detects
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
9
1
1
10
10
3
10
6
1

1


Frequency
of Detection
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
10%
100%
100%
100%
90%
10%
10%
100%
100%
30%
100%
60%
100%

100%


1NEEL
Background'
(mg/kg or pCi/g)

3.00E+02
1.80E+00
2.20E+00
1.10E+01
3.30E+01
2.20E+01
5.00E-02
4.90E+02
3.50E+01
1.70E-KH
4.80E+00
2.200-01
4.30E-OI
4.50E+01
1.50E+02
NA
8.20E-01
NA
NA

4TOI-:-OI

Number of
Samples
Greater than
Mni'L' urfiiitifi
U«L Ivgl (JUIIU
2
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
1 ''•*'•
1
0
0
NA .:
9
\l A
IN A .
MA
t*f\
1
*•* i
-------
  Table 5-11.
                                               Sllll ( UlkClllUllOII
                             (inu ku InomadiouueluleJ en pCij; |uuhctmielidej]_


Arithmetic Standard
Contaminant:, Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
1 1-234
I I-23S
tiioss Alpha
(iio.ss Ik-la
.1 Mill
•
•

1.201*00 . 1. 201- KM) 1 .201:400 NA
1. 001; K)() l.OOl-i 00 I.OOK+OO NA
4.(.()1-.K)0 2. 301: 1 01 UlEfOI 5.1 (if-! 100
. 2.40HKH 	 .2/WJi'03..l 3.741*02 9.171:102

1 liiplicjlc sample lesull.s vveie nol ineliided in the siali.slical analysis

RMHh
NA
NA
2.141*01
2.211*03


Aiialvlical u-Mills aie Irnni samples i-ollecled Iron) three borings iiiblalled during the Oil j-13 R| Rei
Samples vveie analy/ed hu t 1 1' Metals and Radiological I onslilneiils Only those e
omliluenls that \v
Numhei nl
Numhei Numhei |Nhl;I. Samples
"' °' l-"iei|ueney HacknuuuuT (iieatei than
Samples Detects (,ri)f*if»rhni, (I,,H>L*I. >tT-n/-^. ., i> i i
	 i.vii t:vlii,. . ul i^itcuon ( mu KJJ t)r p\ j/jy Hyckunnmil
1 1 100% 1.441-100 ()
1 1 100" ii 1 JflK ifU) a
10 10 100% NA NA
10 10 100% NA NA


lilts aiepiovuled in Appendix (iol iheOIH \) M I s I'aii A (l)()l II) l')')7|,);1,,,| ,|lt.
eie identified above detection hmib in lite samples aie shown in the table ex. cm 1.. 	
         •        Sample:, leveled because ul'an iin.iccepl.ihk- quality coiiliol paiamclci  weie not included in tile table.
I-       I lu- KMI , ,,,,ce,il,al,,,n is .he W.. up|v, value based on the en.pineal rule ('K-,.,1 H,e ,11,-asuren,enl> he wilhm Hvo sla,,,l.ml deviaiu.t.s ,,l ihe.r meant
c       I lie IM-1 I  h.ii'kj:ii,iind IUIICL-IIIIJIIKIIS u-pieseiil Ihe')>"„ uppn ciinl'ideiice Innil (Koudelal. l<)')5)
I   i Nun U.i.11 Ihcjiialue vvaMileiinlieil in ilie .sample bill the nunieiical le.sull nia>  mil heaccuiale
.1   (K.id I I he u Mill is Mati.stieally positive at the "y:,, eunlidence level and b eon.sideial lo he an estimated quantity.
H   Ihe.inalvle lepmleil value is-  KDI  , hut  -11)1
N   Spiked s.iinple,eiiivei>  not vvilhin coiiliol Innil

I'   Sample .mjlvsis by indiietively coupled plasma atomic emission spectioscopy
NA   Kol .ipplu.ihle
KMI    Ke.ison.ihle Maximum l:\posure
-------
        Radionuclide activities were still above background Ie%'els at that depth; however COPC activities
  decrease with depth. The areal extent of the site is 208 nr (2,240 ft2). The total estimated contaminated
  soil volume is 1,140 m (40,390 ft3).

  5.3.3.9     CPP-03 (Temporary Storage Area Southeast of CPP-603).  Site CPP-03 is a
  temporary storage area southeast of CPP-603 that was used to store old and abandoned equipment, most
  ot which was radioactively contaminated.  The area was decommissioned in the late 1970s and all stored
  material was boxed and sent to the RWMC for disposal. Contaminated soil was removed, boxed and sent
  to the RWMC, and the area was covered with 28 cm (11 in.) of "cold" soil. Subsequently, 9.175 m3
  (12,000 yd ) of contaminated soil excavated from the Tank Farm was stockpiled at the site before burial
  in three trenches located in the northeast corner of the INTEC.

       Radiological field surveys in the area have indicated surface activity levels above background at
  various locations at the site. Three boreholes in the area were drilled to 3.0 m (10 ft) bgs in locations
  where high surface activities were observed. Samples were collected and submitted for radionuclide
  analysis.  Summary sampling results statistics are provided in Table 5-12. The COPCs include Cs-137
 and Sr-90. Cesium-137 is the primary COC, with contamination detected from the surface to about 1 2 m
 (4 ft) bgs.  The areal extent of contamination is estimated at 6,970 m2 (75,000 ft2), and the estimated
 volume of contaminated soil is 8,364 m3 (300,000 ft3).

 5.3.3.10   CPP-67 (CPP Percolation Ponds #1 and #2). Site CPP-67 consists of two unlined
 service waste percolation ponds.  The ponds receive service wastewater consisting primarily  of cooling
 water and condensed steam generated by various INTEC operations.  INTEC wastewater that contains
 only traces of radioactivity (or none at all) passes through the service waste system. The waste consists
 primarily of cooling water and steam condensates.  This waste activity is monitored before being
 discharged to SWP-1 or SWP-2.  There are three main service waste systems at INTEC- (1) the eastside
 system, (2) the westside system, and (3) the CPP-604 PEW process condensate monitor/shutdown system
 Figure 1-5 shows the relative location of the ponds, which are fenced to exclude entry of large wildlife
 and unauthorized personnel.  Table 5-13 shows summary sampling results statistics for CPP-67.

      S WP-1 is located outside the south INTEC security fence, southeast of CPP-603 and was
 established in 1984. The pond is  approximately 125.0-m (410-ft) long in the east-west direction and
 146.3 m (480 ft) in the north-south direction and approximately  5.5-m (18-ft) deep. The pond was
 excavated in gravelly alluvium that is approximately 7.6- to 9.1-m (25- to 30-ft) thick and is underlain by
 basalt, which locally outcrops in the pond.

      The SWP-2 is located outside the south INTEC security fence, southeast of CPP-603. The SWP-?
 was established in 1985 when it became apparent that the infiltration capacity of SWP-1 had decreased "
 and water levels began to rise. The pit bottom is approximately  152.4-m (500-ft) square and 3 to 4 m
 (12 to 14 ft) deep. The pit was excavated in gravelly alluvium approximately 6 to 11 m (20 to 35 ft)
 thick, underlain with basalt. Basalt outcrops in the comer of SWP-2. The pond is designed to
 accommodate continuous disposal of approximately 11.4 M L (3 M gal) of water per day.

      RCRA clean-closure equivalency was achieved for metals contamination in Pond SWP-1 in April
 1994 and Pond SWP-2 in May 1995: therefore, only radionuclide contamination was assessed as part of
the WAG 3 RI/BRA. Site CPP-67 is considered to be a significant source of the perched water beneath
the southern portion of the INTEC.
                                             5-33
-------
 Table 5-12. Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-03.1
Soil Concentration
(pCi/g [radionuclide])

Containinunts
Cs-137
Sr-90
(iross Alpha
( iross Beta

Minimum
2.53E-01
1.60E+01
O.OOEiOO
3.02E+00

Maximum
6.I6E+01
4.39E+01 J
7.24E+00
1.67E+02

Arithmetic
Mean
I.89EKH
3.00E+01
3.57E+00
4.68E+01

Standard
Deviation
2.46E+01
1.97E+01
3.25E+00
6.76E+01

RMEb
6.81E+01
6.94E+01
1.01E+01
1.82E+02

Number
of
Samples
9
2
9
9

Number
• of
Detects
7
2
4
6

Frequency
of Detection
78%
100%
44%
67%

INEEl.
Background'
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
8.20E-OI
4.90E-01
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
7
3
NA
MA
       NO 11:.
        •       Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis.
                Analytical results are from samples collected from three borings installed during the OU 3-09 Track 2 Invesl.gation. Results are provided in the Final Preliminary Scomn* Track 7
                Summary Report l-or Operable Unit OU 3-0') (I.ITCO I995b) and Appendix 0 of the OU3-13 RI/FS Part A (DOE-ID I997b).                     rrel.m.nary Scoping I rack 2
                Selected samples were also analysed for Co-57. Co-60, Hu-152, Eu-l 54. BU-I55 and K-40. Th.s dau, is not shown because concentrations were below detection limits
        •       Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter were not included in the table.
h      The KM!-: concentration is the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%ofthe measurements lie within two standard deviations oftheir mean).
c      The INI-J-I. background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood el  at. 1995).
J - Questionable I.CS recovery or analytical yield.
NA - Nut applicable
KMI-  -      Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
-------
Table 5-13.  Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminant at site CPP-67.'
uv/n v_.uin,ciiu*iuun 	 — 	 — • " 	 • — •
(mg/kg (nonradionuclidej or pCi/g [radionuclideh
Contaminants
Ag
As
Bu
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
E »«
Pb
Mn
Ni
Sb
Se
Th
V
Zn
Cyanide
Sulfide
2-Butanone
Acetone
Ben/ene
bis(2-
I'lliylhe.xyl).
Minimum
2.IOE-OI BJ
1 .20E+00 B
3.21E+01
3.00E-01 J
4.20E-01 B
I.70E+OOB
3.60E+OONJ
8.60E+OOJ
9.00E-02
3.90E+OOJ
3.86E+01 EJ
6.90E + 00
3.60E-01 B
l.OOE-01 BJ
2.10E-01 B
5.60E*00
2.44Ef01 NJ
1.20E-01 B
5.40E-OI
7.00E-03 J
5.00H-03 J
1 .<)OI-;-03 J

3. ()()!•: -02 J
Maximum
I.80E+01 J
1.38E+01
4.00E+02
8.30E-01
I.I2E+OI
l.OOE+01
1.08E+02
1.49E+02J
1.26E+02J
1.95E+OU
3.59E+02 EJ
2.83E+OI
6.90E+00 B
8.00E-01 J
2.10E-01 B
3.63E+OI N
1.02E+02J
5.20E-01 J
1.57E-J01
9.00E-03 J
9.10E-02B
1. OOIi-03 J

3.70EfOO
Arithmetic
Mean
— — — 	 —
2.91E+00
4.52E+00
1.44E+02
5.61 E-01
1.8'2E+00
4.82E+00
2.35E+01
2.43E+01
1.26E+01
8.49E+00
1.23E+02
1.51E+OI
1.42E+00
3.88E-01
2.10E-01
1.53E+01
4.77E+01
2.90E-01
8.10E+00
8.00E-03
2.39E-02
l.OOE-03

1.311-^00
Standard
Deviation
- — • — ' 	 — —
3.84E+00
2.17E+00
8.40E+01
1.62E-01
2.14E+00
I.83E+00
1.90E+01
2.06E+01
2.76E+OI
3.33E+00
7.12E+01
5.37E+00
2.42E+00
2.71 E-01
O.OOE+00
5.66E+00
1.74E+01
2.07E-01
5.20E+00
1.41E-03
2.99E-02
NA


RMEb
• — — 	 	
I.06E+01
8.86E+00
3.12E+02
8.85E-01
6.IOE+00
6.I5E+01
6.55E+01
6.78E+01
1.52E+01
2.65E+02
2.58E+01
6.26E+00
9.30E-01
2.10E-01
2.66E+01
8.25E+01
7.04E-OI
1.85E+01
1.08E-02
8.37E-02
MA
IN A

Number
of
Samples
87
99
92
ft!
u /
100
66
UU
99
66
81
98
59
67
S6
j\j
100
1 \J\J
S7
-f /
67
67
65
10
33
7
1 -j
33

Number
of
Detects
	 	 	 __
34
98
92
65
AS
46
95
66
66
88
59
67
8'

67
67
3
10
2
33
1

Frequency
of
Detection
39%
99%
100%
12%
65%
70%
96%
100%
81%
90%
100%
100%
13%
8%
2%
100%
100%
5%
100%
6%
21%
3%

INEEL
Background'
(mg/kg or
PCi/g)
O.OOE+00
5.80E+00
3.00E+02
1.80E-tOO
2.20EHH)
1.10E+01
3.30E+01
2.20E+01
5.00E-02
1.70E+01
4.90E+02 •
3.50E+01
4.80E+00
2.20E-01
4.30E-01
4.50E + 01
1.50E+02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
34
24
4
0
9
0
15
22
66
I
o-
0
1
4
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

                                                                  4.83E »00
                                                                               29
                                                                                                  17%
                                                                                                               NA
                                                                                                                             NA
-------
Table 5-13. (continued).
Soil Concentration
(nig/kg [nonradionuelide] orpCi/g [radionuchde])

Contaminants
phthalate
Butylbenzyl-
phthalate
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Di-n-
butylphthalate
Diethyl-phthalate
Methylene
Chloride
^ I'cnlachloro-
°^ phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Am-241
Ce-144
Co-60
Cs-134
Cs-13?
Hu-154
H-3
1-129
Np-237
l'u-23S
1V2.W.240
KM- 100

Minimum


4.00E-02 J
1.40E-02
l.OOE-03 J

3.80E-02 J
4.10E-02 J

2.00E-03 J

3.70E-01 J
l.OOE-03 J
l.OOE-03 J
8.00E-02 J
4.00E-01
1.60E-01
1.50E-01
l.OOE-01
2.80E-01
6.10E-01 J
I.46EMDO
6.30E-OI
9.00H-02
5.00H-02 ,
1 401: MX)

Maximum


1.40EHX)
1.40E-02
l.OOE-03 J

I.30E-01 J
4.10E-02J

2.40E-02 J

3.70E-01 J
l.OOE-03 J
l.OOE-03 J
7.80E+00
1.50E+00
2.35E+00
3.50E+00
1.80E+02
4.00EHH)
6.10E-OI J
3.70E+00 i
I.63E+00
3.04H+01
2. 07 F. tOO
5.971:' UK)

Arithmetic
Mean


6.12E-01
I.40E-02
l.OOE-03

8.92E-02
4.10E-02

9.63E-03

3.70E-01
l.OOE-03
l.OOE-03
6.31E-01
9.23E-01
5.99E-01
1.50E+00
4.06E+01
1.63E+00
6.10E-01
2.50E+00
1.12E+00
6.10E*00
5.49E-01
3.451: 1 00

Standard
Deviation


6.75E-01
NA
NA

4.74E-02
NA

7.44E-03

NA
NA
NA
1.46E+00
5.52E-01
6.43E-01
9.23E-01
4.67E+01
1.26E+00
NA
9.67E-01
2.90E-01
7.50EM30
5.43E-01
1 91 Hi 00

RMEb


1.96E+00
NA
NA

1.84E-01
NA

2.45E-02

NA
NA
NA
3.55E+00
2.03E+00
1.89E^OO
3.35E+00
1.34E+02
4.15E+00
NA
4.43EiOO
1.70EMJO
2.11F>OI
1.641itOO
7.27E-fOO

Number
of
Samples


29
33
33

29
29

33

29
33
33
53
58
58
58
58
38
10
20
10
53
53
58

Number
of
Detects


4
1
1

5
1

8

1
1
1
27
3
12
23
43
7
1
4
10
36
22
7

Frequency
of
Detection


14%
3%
3%

17%
3%

24%

3%
3%
3%
51%
5%
21%
40%
74%
18%
10%
20%
100%
68%
42%
12%
INEKl.
Background1
(mg/kgor
pCi/g)
r o/

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA
1.1E-02
NA
NA
NA
8.2E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.90E-03
I.OOE-01
NA
<
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background


NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA
27
NA
NA
NA
35
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
21
NA
1
-------
t
able 5-13. (continued).
                                        Soil Concentralion
                        _Jmg/kg [nonradionuclidel orpCi/g [radionuclidel)
               !^ __    Minimum
  Sb-l25
  Sr-90
  U-234
  U-235
  U-235/236
  H-238
  Y-90
 Gross Alpha
 Gross Beta
                   3.IOE-01
                   1.20E-OI
                   O.OOE+00
                   7.00E-02
                   l.OOE-Ol
                   9.00E-02
                   I.IOE-OI
                  ~"	''    .—
                  7.70E+00
                  U9E+01
       NOTl::
 Maximum
     -—-
 5.IOEKX)
 1.63E+OI
 2.75E+00
 7.00E-02
 l.OOE-01
2.60E+00
1.20E-K)0
7.30E+01
1.63E+02
 Arithmetic
    Mean
     ii   —
  1.76E+00
 2.07E+00
 9.98E-01
 7.00E-02
 l.OOE-01
 8.92E-01
 4.04E-01
""
 2.85E+01
 4.80E+01
  Standard
  Deviation
 —
  1.73E+00
  3.73E+00
  5.12E-OI
    NA
    NA
 4.37E-01
 4.05E-01
	'  .-	.
 I.78E+01
 3.27E+01
   RMEb
  5.22E+00
  9.53E+00
  2.02E+00
    NA
    NA
  I.77E+00
 1.21E+00
—     i
 6.41E+01
 1.13E+02
Number
of
Samples
58
54
53
43
10
54
11
— 	 _
34
44
Number
of
Detects
8
24
53
1
1
50
7
~-- i 	
34
44
Frequency
of
Detection
14%
44%
100%
2%
10%
93%
64%
1 " '
100%
100%
INEEL
Background'
(mg/kg or
pCi/g)
NA
4.90E-OI
1 .44E+00
NA
NA
I.4E+00
NA
	 ' 	 • 	 _.
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
NA .
20
6
NA .
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
              Huphcwe sample results were no. mcluded m the statistical analysis
                                                                                                                                       Decision Docuinent
I- • The reported value is es.m.a.ed because of the presence of m.erference
N* S^r.   T' ldt'm"led '" 'hC SamP'C bU' 'he nUmenCa' resu" ™y «« >- accurate
N- Spiked sample recovery was no. wiihm Ihe control limits
S - The reponcd value was dc,em,med by ,he meihod ofsUndard adduions
NA  Not applicable                                      '
                                             '/-w
-------
   i 9          !!-1^ '™esti8atl've results« the zone of contamination for SWP-1 is estimated to be about
   iw?   J    ?    ^  C     S     thC SUrfaCC t0 ' '8-m (6'°-ft) b§s' Based on the dimensions of
   bWP-1, the volume of contaminated soil beneath SWP-1 was estimated to be 32,922 m3 (1,1 80,800 ft').
  //: n e ^,u °n ?C inve,sti|ative results< the 2<>ne of contamination for SWP-2 is assumed to be 1 8-m
  (6.0-ft) thick  and extends from the surface to 1.8-m (6.0-ft) bgs. This depth is based on the decrease in
  radionuchde COPCs with depth, and the low activities measured in deeper samples. Based on the
  7i^nnSnnnSf£   Plt> the V°lume °f contammated soil beneath the pit was estimated to be 14,8 14 m3
  (1,500,000 ft ).
  f££11f* °™™r *£ - This sue resulted from a 1978 release of 7.570 L
       gal) of radionuchde-contaminated liquid that leaked from an underground waste transfer line
between CPP-603 and WL-102 in CPP-604. The waste transfer line was constructed of 304 stainless steel
that reduced from a 3.81- to 3.18-cm (1-1/2- to 1-1/4-m.) diameter line and ran for 530 m (0.33 mi) at a
depth of approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) bgs.  The major area of contamination was estimated at the time to be
approximately 1 0 m- ( 1 08 ft-) on the surface. The waste transfer line was abandoned m place after the
leak was discovered.  Table 5-16 shows summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants for


      Numerous radionuclides were identified as COPCs for Site CPP- 19. Cesium- 137, Sr-90 and
isotopes of europium are the most widespread and are found at the  highest activity levels  These COPCs
range irr activity as high as 408.000 pCi/g for Cs-137 at boring CPP- 19-2 drilled at the site of the release
                                             5-38
-------
Soil ( oiici-niiuiuin 	 	 	
(1111; ku [noniailioiuicluk-J 01 p( Vjj [rai
Contaminants
AL-
As

Ki
Ik
( \\

Ci
Co
Cu
I' 1(101 idi-
":-'
Mn

Ni
I'll
1 II
Sc
Sul fide
V
/.it
ms(2-cihylhexl)
pluilate
CN 137
Np 2*7
Minimum
1 90HiOO
1 501: 1 00
x2.SI-.i01
5. 001 -01

600H-01
9 lOHiOO
3.60l-:i()()
1 271-JOI
1 301:100
I.OOH-OI
1.191:102
1.3 II: lOl
3.001: 1 00
7.00E-OI
2.I8HI01
1.721-1 01
3.71 Hi 01
4.60H-OI
1 101: 1 00
7 OOl-.-OI
Maximum
2.501-100
7. lOHi 00
2.39l:i02
5.00l-:-()l

I.OOl-iOO
7.601:100
1.7II-JOI
2.60l-:tOO
6,o()i-;-oi
2.691:102
2.60H.IOI
1.32HK)2
7.00H-OI
8.I4H101
2.2IHfOl
8.95HiOI
6.20H-OI
2 OOI-. 1 03
7.00I--OI
Arithmetic
Mean
2.20I-IOO
3.%l-iOO
I.07H102
5.00l-:-OI

7..SOI--01
I.53I-;»()|
'5.601-100
i.49|.;toi
'3.50E-0!
I 94 Hi 02
I.96H.O!
l.4IH(OI
7.00H-OJ
3.95H101
1.971-101
6.331- ) 01
5.401--01
3901;, 02
VOOI-.-OI
lionuclidejj 	
Standard
Deviation
4.24H-01
I.86E100
4.87H10I
NA

2.05H-OI
4.I2H+00
2.83H100
3.1IH100
3.72H-01
3.54E-01
I.06E(02
9.12I-IOO
O.OOH1-00
2.46EtOl
3.46EHK)
3.7IEK)!
I.I3H-OI
6. 1 3 1: 1 02
NA

RMhh
3.051-100
7.68F.IOO
2. 04 Hi 02
NA

1. 1 9 1- 1()()
2.35H101
2.1 IHK)1
2. 67 Hi 00
1 .061: 1 00
4.061- H)2
3.78H+01
7.03 Hi 01
7.00H-01
8.87H101
2.66H101
1.38H402
7.66H-01
1.621-103
NA

Number
of
>;i ill r\ I »>c
*.JUlll|)ICo
20
20
20
•^
20
20
T
£,
T
£,
1 5
20
2
2
20
20
5
2
2
20
20
20

Number
ol hequency
._iM.ocl!! . of Detection
2 10%
~)t\ I /i/\|) •
^" 1 U(J/u
20 loo1;;,
1 50%

211 100%
2 1 00%
2 1 00%
15 100%
2 10%
T 1 /WUJ/
- 1 00%
2 100%
20 100'H,
1 
-------
 Table 5-14.
                                               Still ('cilKvllll.llliHI
                             (ins; kg Liiiimadiiwucliijk'J 01 ji( '[_» [iiuliniiuduiij]

( 'oniamiiKini.s
I'll -MX
Si W
1 --I <4
I -MX
a N( ) 1 1

Mininuim

5 IOI-.M10
1 (.01- ' 00
1 10I-.00
I ()()!• MM)


Maximum

5.1 OH MM)
6.001: M)3
2.501: M)0
...2-MH '«<>_.


Arithmetic
Mean
5.1 (Hi MM)
K.I3I:M)2
1 .471-: 1 00
1.7 II: MM)


Slaiuiaid
Deviation
NA
l.40KM)3
4.40H-01
6.45I-.-01


JIM,.*
NA "
3.701-103
2.351: MM)
3.001: MM)


Number
of
Samples
20
20
20
20


Numhei
of
De!eel:s
1
10
8
0


l-ieqtiency
"1" Detection
5'!,,
05%
40%
45%


INI-I-.L
Umrkijoi 'pl'i/ji) •
4 O01'-0^
4 90I--0 1
1.44
1.4

N'miihi-i ol
Samples
(iieatei than
liuckuiiiuiiil
1
17
2
/

                 Diiplu.iir simple u-Mills \\i-icmit incluilal in the Nlulislic
                                                             .
A^^.Hl.lU•^u-|l,l.lJll,llll.\|l|H•lllll\(i..^lll•()IM•l.»K|•|•SI•anA(l«)l•-ll)l«W7h)
                                                 i mtugtHM-.. ladhi.iiiclulcs. a lull -.uilL-ol' V()CS. SV()(\.
                                                        • in ihc bMe oxcci ** ** (
         "U


Miculo l'( I
                                                                                                                                           .-\sMiujlis I > H»
                                                                                                                                                                    ,,        .....
                                                                                                                                                                    aic |ii.m,k-.l in llu- 1 mlilu uiu!
        •        Sjnipk^ i.-ii-, k-il IVI.IUM ul .1	uai-pl.ililc i|iialil> omlitil pjiamek-i were mil mdmk-.l HI llic tahk-

I-       II.,- KMI c.-,,a-n.,.,,,,m ,, UK- «jv-. „,„,,, ljUlL. ha:,,,! »„ U.cnnpmcal n,lc WM the iiMMiicnieni!, lie unit,,, ,«„ ,,all(b,,| .k-Man,,,,, ,,i ,!„,, i,KUi

1        I hl  IM  I I  l>ai-k;jninii,l KIIU.-II	ion-, i.-pa-^iil the MS",, nppei ennliili-nci- liinil (KiHid L-I ul
KMI
                              I  \jmsim
-------
	 	 	 : — • 	 : i 	 c- ' ' 	 ••"" "i»-.i iv'i .lull lUUlUIIIIIIUIltS ai OIIC I 1 1 - | ^
Soil ( imceiiiiaium ~" ' "
(nit! ku hionnuiiiimiclidoj o_r_p< -i jjjnidioiuiclidcjj
( 'oniammaiiis
As
Ha
He

( it
(•
i
( 'u
III!
Mn
V,
IN 1
I'lt

Se
\ •
\
/,,
f -it
/.i
Co (>0

Cs- 1 *4
Cs-IW
1 .,, i «. i
1 It- 1 . '-4
S| ')(!
1 • <1O

Minimum

5.30li*OOHP
7.581-:* 01 p
3.80I--01 HP

4. 1 01-: 1 00 HP
I.I6EHII P
1 20I:M)I JP
I.30K-OI
I.391-J02JP
1.41 1:1 01 P
6.MII-.IOOP
(>.SOI:-Oi HP
1. 691-1 01 P
3.S41:*OI P
7.501-MOOP
4.90I--01

.6.00I--01
8.00I-.02
2.201:H)1
4.701-:tOO
_
9.00I-..OI
Maxuiuim
8.301:. OOP
I.I 31: K)2 P
5.30I--01 HP

5.601: -00 HP
I.7II;'0| P
I.74I-.IOI JP
2.57l-:'i02 JP
I.97l-i01 P
1.39|:< 01 P
9.60l-:-()| HP
2. 65I-J 01 P

1. 231: 101 P
9.00E-OI

6.00K-01
4.63EI03
3.IOI-IOI
4 181i*03

2. 701-j 00
Arithmetic
	 Mean
6.301-100
4.361--OI

4.6 11: 1 00
1.37EiOI
4.40E-OI
l.82l-*02
1.571-tOl
8.46EiOO
8.40H-01
2.111:101

I.06E+OI
6.95E-OI

6.00E-01
1.2IH103
2.651: »OI
1. 371-:. 03

1. (.71: KM)
Standard
Deviation
1.02 Hi 00
5.I3I-X)2

5.70h-OI
2.251: 1 00
2.011:100
4.14H-OI
4.07EK)!
2.231:100
2.5 IE fOO
I.24E-OI
3.341-100

1.57EfOO
2.9()[>()1

NA
2.04E+03'
6.36I-+00
1.931-103

9.29I.:,,,
RMH"
8. 34 E U)()
l.l7E*02
5.39E-01

5.75EUM)
1.82E10I
I.82E-*OI
I.27H*00
2.63E*02
2.02E101
1.35Ki01
1.09E<00
2.78E+01

8.27E-KH
1.37E*Ol
1.28EfOO

' NA
5.29E+03
3.92E-K)!
5.23E*03

3.53l-;iOO
Number
of
Samples
7
7
7

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

7
7
7

7
7
7
5

4
Number
of
Delects
7
7
7

7
7
7
7
7
7
4
7

7
7
2

l
i
7
7
*^

3
1'icqiieiicy
of
1 Jt'tt'C t ll 111
i '*• Ik. L t HJI I
100%

100".;,
100%
100%
43" (i
100%
100%
100%
57%
100%

100%
100%
70"
^ / /(,

loo1;;,
_
29%
1 /Win
HH) ,,
75",,
IM:lil.
5.801- 1 0()
3.001: 1 02
1 .801: lOO

3 301: i ()|
2.2(11:101
4. 901: i 02
3.501: .01
1 7()lM()l
2.20I-.-01
4.50I-.I (I]

1.501: <02

f\I A
i ^ / \
NA
8.20E-01

NA
4 9oi-:-oi
NA
Numbei of
Samples
Greater lluii
Hack^iotnul
.
0

0

0
3
0
0

4
0

0
N.
A
NA
A
NA
6

NA
c
\A
-------
       Table 5-15. (continued).
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg (nonradionuclide] orpCi/g (radionuclidej)

Contaminants
(iross Alpha
(iross Beta

Minimum
4
27

Maximum
15
7950

Arithmetic
Mean
8.03E+00
1.99E+03

Standard
Deviation
3.72E+00
3.35E+03

RMEb
1.55EHH
8.69E+03

Number
of
Samples
7
7

Number
of
Detects
7
7

Frequency
of
Detection
100%
100%

INEEL
Background1"
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
NA
MA
                       Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysts
              NOTI:
                                                                                                                               in Appendix G of the OU3-13 RI/FS Part A (IX)Iv-ll) 1997b) and the
                       Samples were analysed for CLP Metals, zirconium and rad.olog.cal constituents  Only those constituents that were identified above detection l.mils are shown in the table excem li.r th.
                       following constituents which were delected but are not considered to be present at hazardous concentrations: Al. Ca, Fe, Mg. K and Na
               •       Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter were not included in the table
^     h      I he RMl: concentration is the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean)
*j     c      IhclNM:!  background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood etal. 1995).
       J - (Non-Kud) The analyte was identified in the sample but the numerical result may not be accurate.
       II •  I'hc analyte reported value is < KOI., but > 11)1..
       I' - Sample analysis by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy
       NA - Not applicable
       KMI' -  Reasonable Maximum Exposure,
-------
Tab.je 5-16.S
•* • 	
— » 	 '. 	 L

iiiiuiiiiinanis
at Mtci ri'-M
)



Sinl ( cmcciiiration "" 	
mi; kg InoiiiacliomidiileJ t.i p(j/j. [ladiomiclidcj)
Niiinhft
Contaminants Minimum
As 3.101-iOOJP
B-' 4.45F10I P
(';l 2.18i;»03P
('<> l.90i;t()OHP
(l 5.ioi-:ioo.ip
r" 6.00I-. i OOP
.. I.-1M
N''i l>. II lit Oil'
N'' s.4oi-:ioop
l>h 3.S01-.IOOJP
•sh 5.30i;-01 HP
v 6.50F. IOOHP
/•» 2.211; (01 NJP
Am-241 1 .971-: 100
Co 60 I.90F-01
Cvl34 5.00l-:-02
<-l.<7 6.00I-.-02
1 II- 1^2 | S7|. ,()()

1 " i vi i '.'oi-.-oi

Maximum
7.001-1 00 JP
! 84F.I02P
2.321:105 P
9.60I-.-01 HP
8 201 vi 00 HP
2.63F,i 01 P
1.671- i()l P
'••""Ol-.-OI
2.94l-.i02 NJP
2. 641-101 P
I.OII-iOI P
8.30F.-OI HP
3. 641: (01 P
8.6()1-:(01 P
I.97F.100
2. 1 fili i 04
6.00I--02
4.0X1-105
....
, ./()!. M)4
5.351-'i()4

Arithmetic
Mean
4.65FiOO
1.03 Ft 02
4. 08 1:-0 1
3. 531-;. 04
' 4.77FJOO
1.541:101
1.50I-.-OI
I.80H(02
1.651- 101
6.861-100
7.I2F-OI
4.751: K)l
1.971: (00
1. OS Ft 04
5.50F-02
3.40F 104

- '-'' '"4 •
1. 34l-i 04

Standard
Deviation
1.23 Hi 00
I.56F.-01
6.97H104
2.92H-01
2.00F.IOO
7.45HIOO
3.85FiOO
O.OOFtOO
6.77Ht()l
5.761- tOO
I.80H100
1.04Ft01
2.00H101
NA'
1.531--104
7.07i;-03
1.1 Slit 05

5.061-104
2.671: K)4

RMl;h
7.IIF.IOO
I.96HI02
7.20F-OI
1.75Ht05
I.02F(00
8.77F.iO()
3.03E101
2.02F»01
1.50F-OI
3.15F.+02
2.80F+01
1.05EK)!
9.38F-01
4.02E(01
8.75F-+OI
NA

6.91F-02
2.70FtOS

1 .301: t OS
6. OS HI 04

of
10
10
10
10
21
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
71
10
7|

1 1
21

Number
it:> 	 01 Detects
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
6
10
10

1
1 •)

,
4

Frequency
(>l deteeiion
100-;;,
100%
100",,
100%
100%
100",,
100%
"
100%
100%
1 00".;,
60",,
loo11;,
100%
1 00%
10%
— 0 t.
57 „



Nuiuln/i til
Background1 (iu-atei liian
5.80EKM) |
3.00lit02 o
1. SOli 1 00 o
2.401-:i04 i
2.20FiOO o
l-IOl-JOl o
3.301; 1 01 o
l. 201; ioi o

5.00I:-02 |
4.9()l:i02 o
3.501-1 01 ()
1. 701-101 o
4.80i;K)0 o
4.50i;ioi o
1. 501: 102 o
1.I01--02 |
NA NA
NA NA
s2oi-:-oi K,

NA NA
NA NA
-------
Table 5-16.
Soil CuiKiiili.ilinn
iiu1 ku [nunuiiliniiiiclidcj in pt'i'jj [luduniuclidcj)

( 'onlainin.iiiis
lui-155
Nh-95
l'u-239 240
Si -90
1 1-235
l'-23X
(iioss Alpha
( iioss Ik-la
.1 Mill

Minimtim
1 (iOh.-()I
o OOI--02
1 4 Ih. i02
1X5 hi 01
1 73I--02
1 S(>h-OI
1 S7I-MJO
2 Slh.iOO


Maxinuini
9.621-,. ,3
9.00I--02
1.4 II: '02
1.251:i05
2.3()I-iOO
4.53I-.-OI
I.hlhi04
5-4 X I-M) 5

Arithmetic
Mean
3.21 1: K»
7.33H-02
1.4 11: (02
2.h8Hi04
X.nii-01
2.5XI--01
1. 5()li i03
3.531: « 04

Standard
Deviation
5.551-103
1.53I--02
NA
5.02H-I04
1.341:100
1.69F.-OI
4.50f:i03
1.251- 105

Nuinbei

RMI:k }•
1.431:t04
1.04H-01
NA
1.271--I05
3.501-iOt)
5.96I--01
1.051-104
2.X5lit05

of
iamples
21
10
1
10
5
5
21
21


l-icquency
Tdeleclion
14%
30'«,
100'!,,
X0%
dO%
hO%
100%
90%
IN! hi
(Illl! kl! ill Jll'lrjj)
NA
NA
I.OOh-0]
4 901: 01
NA
1. 4()|-i 00
NA
NA
Ntimlii-i i>l
(iK-Jlcl lll.lll
Hack".i niinil
NA
NA
1
X
NA
0
NA
NA
                        .iii' >jni|ili- icMilb \\cii; nut meliuU.I in ihi- Malislical analysi
                                                                                                                                 19

                                                                                                                                 11
                 A,uK lu-jl ivsulis aic Hum samples roll* .,-,1 !„„„ |fto hmnj* installed dunnj- ihc ( )l I 3-0-> Track 2 lnvnii?aii.ni uiul ivv,,lh.i U,L>.S niMalluJ ilurini: .lu- ( )l M . |  i |<|  «..,..,,  .
                 I ,.»!  l-K-l,M,,»;,,y Scop,,,, hack 2 Sun.m.ns l<,p,,,, l-o, tlpcmblc linn O.I 3-,W(l.l ICO  |W5b,. Appends < i ,„ ,l,c (.1 ,.-..» KI/I-S !>.,. A (I)OI -II, 1,,7I,, ',n!l ,|J I ! £

                 Samplo ««o analy/cd Inr H.I' MclaK ami Kiuln.kigical lon.s.nucnls Only Un.sc vimMiluiiils Ihu. »«« idcnuiic.1 jhnu- ilctccli.ni Innih .» Ihc samples  nc sl,,,«i, ,„ ,h, u.l .
                 lolkm mp L-,.i.Miu,ciib "Inch wc,c tlclcclal h,,i a.c no. cun^Jcrcd hi he present a. ha/a.dous c.mcent.atmns  Al. I c. Mg. K. NJ ami K-JO       '

        •        Sample-, u-jci-lcil IICCJIIM- of an tinuccejxulile i|iialily conliol paramelei aie not included in  Ihc lahlc

        Ihc KMI- coitcciilialitHi ^ the ';.V,. upper value based on Hie enlpiiical mlc C>.S%oCi|,e  nieasu.eincnlb he \\tllnn  I«o biaiulaul de» i. ..... n-, ul ihen mean)

>•'       I In.' INI I I  li.ick(!iiiiindciiiicciilialioiiMcpieNetil the 'J.v1,. uppci con fulenci: limit (Rood et al  IW5)

I   I he anaKle was ulentilied in Ihc sample hut ihc munciical icMilt may nol he aeeurale.

li   Hie aiulsie icpiiiled \aluc is-- Kl)l . hut '• 11)1

N   Spiked sample icemcix  nut \Mllllil conliol limits

I'   .Sjmple an.il\sis In uiiliMixcly coupled plaMiual ...... t CIIIISMOII .•.pcetinscupy

N\  'Nolapplicahle

KMI    Ke.iMin.ihK- M.IMIIIIIIII I \POMIIC_ _
                                                                                                                                                                                             ,    „
                                                                                                                                                                                              '"
                                                                                                                                                                                     .v . .„. ,   „
                                                                                                                                                                                         '        '
 l>
-------
                                                                                                            1

  taed test O^P2!^0^ "*?? CPP^1917>' ™s ** « a group of 648 boxes of soil
  located wes  ot CPP-1617 ha contain soils and debns with low levels of rad.oact.ve contamination. The
  (075 n Vn,     i  X,  X , .h) and L2 * !-2 * 2-4 m (4 x 4 x 8 ft) boxes are constructed of I 9-cm
  (0.75-,n.) plywood and are Imed with a polyethylene membrane.  The soils were generated during vanous
  INTEC acnvrties. including the Tank Farm upgrade, CERCLA remedial projects  the CPP-603 cleanuD
  excavation tor the hre exit from building 604/605 and miscellaneous excavations' at INTEC ' wh  e soT
                  ^^^
            are                                                                        6°4/6°5
     -ss                                 f°T the Various Cation activities are arsenic,
 U234 and U ?s  vnr      '   ^ EU'154> ^^^ Np'237' Pu'238> P"-239/240, Sr-90, Sb-125
 U-234, and U-235. VOCs were not detected in the samples. The only inorganics detected above
 Ren n           ,                            '        '          was   ow  e
 Region III nsk-based soil concentration of 23 mg/kg residential, noncarcmogemc soil screening level
 These contaminants are consistent with the types of contaminants contamed in the servS^SLtS

 ™
                  deb?S u^6 contained in Polyethylene-lined boxes that have not deteriorated
           and eaf   ! ******* ^^ of contaminated soil have not leaked from the boxes and
 h!  IK        ono  contaminant migration from the box staging area have not occurred  Assumme
 that the boxes are 80% tail, there is a total of approximately 1,000 m' (37,000 ft') of so^ln the "

 :o m^?96off d"93 ^"^ Ca/f  Tt^ '" ^ ^^ ^ *™h W2S aPP™-™ately 61 m (200  ft, ,n
length and  4 m  * tt) m vv.dth at the bottom, sloping to 4.9 m ( 16 ft) in width at the top.  The trench
contamed 1 I to 1 .2 m (3.3  to 4 ft) of nonrad.oactive calcine before being backfilled to grade with
          Cy  1-2.m<4ftI)?ft°P»il-  Based °» Photographs and operator logs, the trench was used for
         calcine disposal from  1964 through 1966.
                                            5-45
-------
Table 5-17. Summary sampling results statistics soil contaminants for Site CPP-93/
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg [nonradionuclide])
Coiiliiminunis
Al
11(5
Nitrate/Nitrite
Na
Minimum
6.!!E*03
2.80E+00
l.OOE+00
4.29E*02 B
Maximum
1.20E+05
1.40E+02
7.49E+01
4.29E+02 B
Arithmetic
Mean
3.97E1-04
4.43EKH
1.66E+01
4.29E+02
Standard
Deviation
4.48E-r04
5.19E+OI
2.77E+01
NA
RMEb
1.29E+05
1.48E+02
7.20E+01
NA
Number
of
Samples
8
8
8
8
Number
of Detects
8
8
8
1
Frequency
of Detection
100%
100%
100%
13%
INEE1.
Background*
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
1.60E404
5.00E-02
NA
5.20E+02
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
3
8
NA
0
       NOTI-:
               Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis.
        «       Analytical icsults are from samples collected from four borings installed during the OU 3-13 Rl.  Results are provided in Appendix U of the OU3-I3 RI/I:S Pan A (DO1:-II> I Wb) and
               the i-RIS Database.
h      1 he KM!- concentration is the ')5% upper value based on the empincal rule (95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean).
c      I lie INl-.hl. background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood el al. 1995)
U   I he analyte reported value is  •; RDl., but > IDL
NA - Not applicable
KMI- = Reasonable Maximum lixposure
-------
   TW»,,  T8 ,  mvestlgatlon more than 60 bo™gs were dnlled to define the simulated calcine
   Because the calcine was easily identified visually only a few samples were collected for laboratory
   analysis The analytical results from borings CPP-93-1 through CPP-93-4 confirm the p esence oTth,
   layers of simulated calcine material in the vicinity of a trench located southeast oTbuScPP 603
   PJTenC,!L? SmTted calcme material is supported by visual observations in the borings and elevated
   S^torm°[SSUiyi     mUm' mtrate/nitrite< and S°dlum- T** °bs<™d calcii was only 3 t
                 H the.slmu!*ed cal<='"e contain elevated concentrations of mercury, aluminum.
  w     n    r h         Concentrates of sodium, nitrate/nitrite, and aluminum appear to decrease
  the d!P V  the,b°nng,S to b^kground levels but mercury concentrations are still above backed at
  but £ ^n TtmP, HS m    ^""u85-  ^ fU" CXtent °f merCUry above Background has not beenSed
  30 m ( 1 0 ftf^     Su 8gf lhat ^^ concentrat'°"s w^d continue to decrease with depth be ow
  31 fi  f?;   ?       of additional borings drilled outside of the area of the trench indicate that
  s^ficam lateral m.grat.on of mercury and aluminum from the buried calcine has not ocoSed

        The contaminated zone for this site is assumed to be from 0.8 to 7.6 m (2 5 to 25 ft)  A
  contaminated soil of 2,039 m> (72,000 ft') was estimated based on the reported dimensions rt

                     ^ ? } ^ t0 ^ °/7'6 m (25 ft) ^ ^ t
                     This site is being addressed as an ecological risk site.
  5.3.3. 16   CPP-14 (Decommissioned Sewage Treatment Plant).  Site CPP-14 ,s the site of a
  decommissioned sewage treatment plant that operated from 1951 through 1982. The Jm^ent pTant
  processed sanitary wastes from nine facilities at the INTEC.  Site CPP-14 is located inThe north renLl
  portion of the INTEC, south of Cypress Avenue, east of Beech Street, and north S '£ SfS? Tank FaL
  as shown on Figure M.  Site CPP-14 was determined in the RI/BRA (Dol-ID T^^e solely an
 ecol0g,cal concern due to the presence of mercury at a depth greater than 9 feet.                X

                                     *mo"dled as part of the ™i* ^placement and Expansion
                                         Dem°lition Was comPleted in September 1983 and


            Removing the wastewater treatment facilities and associated equipment to a depth of 1 5-m
            p- tt) belowgrade


      •     Rerno.v«ng and disposing of all remaining sludge in the drying beds

            Removing all buried piping, except the 0.3-m (12-m.) infiuent line and the 0. 15-m (6-m )
            etiluent lines from the chlorine contact basin to the drain field.

      The excavated area was backfilled and graded to match the surrounding ground surface.
H.en            r                Jt- Imh°ff UnkS' final tank' and chlorination tank extended to as
deep as 6.1 m (20 tt) belowgrade. The lower port.ons of these facilities were left abandoned in place.
                                            5-47
-------
 Demolition planning documents stated that drainage holes approximately 0.09 m: (1 ft2) would be cut in
 the bottoms of all abandoned structures to prevent accumulation of infiltrating surface water.  Also left in
 place were the 0.3 m (12 in.) diameter influent line, the 0.15 m (6 in.) effluent line to the drain field, and
 the drain field distribution piping.

       The extent of contamination at the former sewage treatment plant was evaluated based on the
 results of sampling. The zone of contamination in the area of the Imhoff Tanks is assumed to be 0.9 m
 (3.0 ft) thick, and extends from 2.4 to 3.4 m (8 to 11-ft) bgs. This thickness is based on the initial depth at
 which sludge was encountered in sampling, and the depth of the base of the tanks. The area of the tanks
 is 18.6 m' (200 ft2). Radionuclide COPCs at this site include Cs-137, Np-237, U-235, and Sr-90. Of
 these, Cs-137, Np-237, and Sr-90 were detected at activities above 1.0 pCi/g. Cs-137 activity ranged as
 high as 6.21 pCi/g.

       The zone of contamination at CPP-14 Plant site was assumed to be 8.2 m (27 ft) thick.  This zone
 extends from 1.5 to 9.7 m (5.0 to 32.0 ft) bgs. The area of CPP-14 Plant site measures 900 m3 (9.860 ft2).
 Numerous radiological COPCs were detected in multiple plant site area samples. These include Cs-137.
 U-234. U-238. and Np-237.  Of these, U-234 and U-238 were detected at the highest activities, 6.89 and
 52.1, respectively. Cs-137 and Sr-90 detections were also common, but at lower activities. Table 5-18
 provides summary sampling results statistics for soil samples collected at CPP-14.

       The zone of contamination at the drain  field is assumed to extend from 4.3 to 7.6 m (25 ft) bgs.
 The top of this interval is based on the depth of the drain field piping. The area of CPP-14 drain field is
 estimated to be 306 m2 (3,300 ft2). Radiological COPCs at the drain field are Np-237 and Sr-90. Of these
 COPCs, only Np-237 was detected above 1 pCi/g. Np-237 was detected at a maximum activity of
 1.4pCi/g.

 5.3.3.17  CPP-37A (Gravel Pit #1). Site CPP-37A (Pit #1) is located outside of the INTEC security
.fence and measures approximately 43 m (140  ft) in  width 64 m (210 ft) in length and is 4.3 m (14 ft) in
 depth. No information is available on the date pit usage began; however, Pit #1 was used for
 decontamination of radiolonuclide-contaminated construction equipment during July and October 1983.
 In addition, during 1982 and 1983, the pit was used as a percolation pond for INTEC service wastewater
 while the injection well was being refitted. This pit currently receives stormwater runoff from the
 INTEC.

     Soil samples were collected from Pit #1  in 1991. Analytical results are summarized in Table 5-19.
 Based on the contaminant screening, COPCs identified for Pit #1 were arsenic, Co-60, Am-241, Cs-137,
 Np-237. Pu-238. Sr-90, U-235, and U-238. The Track 2 investigation for Site CPP-37 (WINCO 1994a)
 Pit #1 indicated that arsenic was detected above background in eight out of 14 samples collected.
 However, the maximum arsenic concentration was only 8.7 mg/kg relative to the background value for
 arsenic of 5.8 mg/kg.

     Radionuclides detected above background in soil samples collected in Pit #1 were Am-241. Cs-137.
 Pu-238, Sr-90, and U-238. Other radionuclides that do not have a background value were detected at low
 concentrations including (maximum concentrations in parentheses): Co-60 (0.55 pCi/g), Np-237
 (1.07 pCi/g) and U-235 (0.05 pCi/g). No radionuclides were detected in the 0- to 0.3-m (0- to 0.5-ft)
 samples except for Sr-90 at 0.69±0.12 pCi/g in the southwestern portion of the pit. Radionuclides were
 not detected above background in the deep borehole below 4.6 m (15 ft).

     The contaminated zone at Pit #1 is assumed to extend from 0 to 3.0 m (10 ft). The area of Pit # 1 is
 2.731 m: (29.400  ft2) and 9,179 m2 (98,800 ft2) based on the dimensions reported in the Track 2
 (WINCO I994a).
                                              5-48
-------
Table 5-18.  Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-14.'
Soil Concentration ~ 	 —
(mg/kg [nonradionuclidel or pCi/R fradmnnrljdpl)
< 'oMluminuiils
Imhoff Tanks
As
Ua
Be
'.Cr
HB
Mn
Ni
Pb
Th
V
Zn
Acetone
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Bis(2-hthylhexy!)
Phthalate "
Toluene
Total Xylencs
Phenol
Minimum
1.22E+01
4.60E+00
1.75E+02
5.30E-OI B
5.12E+01
9.63E+01
L20E+00
2.07E+02
2.40E+01
3.56E+01
2.40E-01 B
3.10E+01
1.35E+02
I.30E-02
2.90E-01 J

9.80E-01
6.00E-03 J
5.00I--03 J
2.201--01 J
Maximum
4.89E-I01
4.90E+00
2.07E+02
5.60E-01 B
6.07E+01
9.63E+01
4.00E+00
2.48E+02
2.62E+01
2.1IE+02
2.40E-01 B
3.49E+01
4.75E-*02
2.10E-02
2.90E-01 J

1.70E+00
2.90E-02
2.70E-02
2.30E«0()
Arithmetic
Mean
3.06E^01
4.75E+00
1.91E+02
5.45E-01
5.60E+OI
9.63E+OI
2.60E+00
2.28E+02
2.51E+01
1.23E+02
2.40E-01
3.30E+01
3.05E+02
1 70E-02
2.90E-01

1 .34E+00
1.75E-02
1 .60M-02
1.261-!iOO
Standard
Deviation
2.60E+01
2.12E-01
2.26E+01
2.12E-02
6.72E-KH)
NA
1.98E+00
2.90E+01
1.56E+00
1.24E+02
NA
2.76E+00
2.40E+02
5.66E-03
NA

5.09E-01
I.63E-02
1.56E-02
1.471HOO
Number Number
of Of
RME Samples Detects
8.26E+OI 2 2
S.17E+00 2 2
2.36E+02 2 2
5.87E-01 2 2
6.94E+01 2 2
NA - ? i
6.56E+00 2 2
2.86E+02 2 2
2.82E-H)! 2 2
3.71E+02 2 2
NA J i
3.85E+01 2 •>
~* £•
7.85E+02 2 2
2.83E-02 2 2
NA ~> \

2.36E+00 2 2
5.01E-02 2 2
4.72E-02 2 •>
4.20E+00 2 2
l-'requency
of
Detection
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
50%

100%
100%
100%
100%
1NEEL
Background"
(mg/kg or pCi/g)
O.OOE+00
5.80E<00
3.00Ei02
1.80E+00
3.30E-KM
2.20E+01
5.00E-02
4.90E+02
3.50E+OI
I.70E+01
4.30E-01
4.50E+OI
1.50E+02
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
2
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
NA
NA

NA ,
NA
NA
NA
-------
       Table 5-18. (continued).
Ui
o
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg Inonradionuclide] or pCi/g [radionuclide])
('oMlumiiiants
4-Mcthylplienol
l,2-I)ichloroethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ben/.oic Acid
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Phcnanthrene
Fluoranthene
I'yrene
Bcn/.o(u)unthraccnc
Chryscne
Ben/.o(b)fluoranthene
Ben/o( k ) lluoranthene
Benzol a jpyrene
Aroc lor- 1260
(VI 37
Np-237 .
Sr-90
1 1-234
I '-235
I -.M.X
Minimum
7.60E-01 J
3E-03 J
3.10E-01 J
2.30E-01 J
1.20E-01 B
1.70E-OI J
6.40E-01 J
1.50E-01 J
2.40E-OI J
3.00E-01 J
1.50E-01 J
3.80E-01 J
3.20E-01 J
2.70E-01 J
3.40E-01 J
6EH)0 X
4.94E+00
I.70E»00
7.10H-01
7.00L-01
5.00E-02
5 ioi-:-oi
Maximum
7.60E-01 J
3E-03 J
3.10E-01J
3.20E-01 J
1.20E-01 B
1.30E+00
1.10E+OOJ
3.70E-01 J
7.20E-01 J
6.60E-01 J
3.80E-01 J
3.80E-01 J
3.20E-01 J
2.70E-01 J
3.40E-01 J
2.30E+01 X
6.21E+00
1.98E-<00
1.07E«-00
1.15EHK)
5.00E-02
.V301i-()l
Arithmetic
Mean
7.60E-01
3E-03
3.10E-OI
2.75E-01
1.20E-01
7.35E-01
8.70E-01
2.60E-01
4.80E-01
4.80E-01
2.65E-01
3.80E-01
3.20E-01
2.70E-01
3.40E-OI
1.45E+01
5.58EtOO
1.84E+00
8.90E-01
9.70I--01
5.00I--02
5 201-.- 01
Standard
Deviation
NA
NA
NA
6.36E-02
NA
7.99E-01
3.25E-01
1.56E-01
3:39E-01
2.55E-01
1.63E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.20E+01
8.98E-01
1.98E-01
2.55E-01
2.55E-01
NA
I.4IH-02
RMEb
' NA
NA
NA
4.02E-01
NA
2.33E+00
1.52E+00
5.72E-01
U6E+00
9.90E-01
5.91E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.85E+01
7.38E+00
2.24E+00
1.40E+00
1.48EKK)
NA
5.481--OI
Number
of
Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Detects
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
Frequency
of
Detection
50%
50%
50%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
INEE1.
Background'
(mg/kg or.pCi/g)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.20E-01
NA
4.90E-OI
1.44E+00
NA
1 .40H > 00
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
2
0
NA
0
-------
Table 5-18. (continued).
Soil Concentration
	 _ (n^kgjnpnradionuclidej ot pCi/g [radionuclidel)

( 'iiiiuiminani.s
Y-90
Plant
Ag
As
Ba
Be
( d
( o
r
u
Hg
Mn
Ni
I'b
Sb


/n
2-Buianone
4-Nitrophenol
Di-n-octyl Phlhalate
MfiliylencChloiulc

Minimum
7.00E-01
8.00E-01 B
2.40EHH)
4.96E+OI
2.40E-01 B
4.00E-OI B
3.70E+00 B
7.30E+00 J
9.40E»00
4E-02
1.02E + 02 J
I.05E-KH
4.60E + OOJ
1.23E+OI B

1.04E+01
2.31E+01
I.OOE-03J
2.60E-OI J
2.40H-0] J
2.50E-U2 B

Maximum
UOE'OO
8.30E+OOJ
4.10E+OOJ
I.49E+02
6.30E-OI B
6.60E-01 B
6.60E+00 B
3.04E+OI
3.11E+OI
1.10E-01
2.92E+02 J
2.65E+OI
6.22E-t01
I.23E+01 B

3.04E + 01
1.00E-03J
2.60E-01 J
2.40E-01 J
I.20K-01 B

Arithmetic
Mean
9.00E-01
4.12E+00
3.50E+00
8.54E+01
4.09E-01
5.25E-01
4.72E+00
1.60E+01
1.50E+OI
7.50E-02
1.69E+02
1.61E+01
I.68F,t01
1.23E+01

1.82E+OI
4.20E+01
l.OOE-03
2.60E-01
2.401--01
7.33I--02

Standard
Deviation
2.83E-OI
2.77E+00
7.30E-01
3.16E+01
1.44E-01
1.1IE-01
1.16E+00
6.44E+00
8.34E+00
4.95E-02
5.93E+01
5.57E+00
1.95E+01
NA

6.42E+00
1.91E+01
NA
NA
NA
4.42E-02

RMEb
I.47E+00
9.66E+00
4.96E+00
1.49E+02
6.97E-01
7.47E-01
7.04E+00
2.89E+OI
1.74E-01
2.72E+01
5.58E+01
NA

3.10E+01
8.02E+01
NA
NA
NA
I.62E-01

Number
of
Samples
2
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
t 1

11
11
1 1
10
1 A
11

Number
of
Detects
2
5
7
11
10
4
6
11
6
2
11
11
8

11
8
i

4

Frequency
of
Detection
100%
45%
64%
100%
91%
36%
55%
100%
55%
18%
100%
100%
73%
9%
100%
73%
9%
10%
1 0%
36%



INEE1.
Background'
(nig/kgorpCi/g)
NA
OH+00
5.80E»00
3.00E + 02
1 80E*00
2 20E+00
1 lOEfOl
3 30E+01
2.20E+01
5.00E-02
4.90E*02
3.50E«01
1.70Et01
4.80E*00

1.50E+02
NA
NA
NA
NA


Number of
Samples
(ireaterthan
Background
NA

0
0 .
0,


0'
1
I
0
0
2
I

.
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
       Table 5-18. (continued).
Ul
I


NJ
Soil Concentration
(nig/kg [nonradionuclidej orpCi/g [radionuclide])

Contaminants
Bis(2-Lilliylhexyl)
Fhllialatc
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Ben/oic Acid
Tetrachloroethylene
Penlachlorophenol
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Am-241
Cs-137
Np-237
Sb-125
Sr-90
1 1-234
U-235
U-238
Y-90
Drain Field
Ag
As
I):i

Minimum

4.30E-02 J
4E-03 J
4.40E-02
2.00E-01 J
1E-03J
3.80E-01 J
2.10E-02JX
l.OOE-01 JX
1.15E+00
3.10E-01
4.05E-OI
l.OOE-01 J
7.00E-02
9.00E-02 J
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01 J
I.OOE+OI J

3.30IHOOJ
l.lOEiOOJ
7 121-tOl

Maximum

4.30E-02 J
4E-03 J
4.40E-02
2.00E-01 J
IE-03J
3.80E-01 J
1.20E-01 JX
5.70E-01 DJX
1.I5E+00
3.89E+00
S.SOEiOO
I:OOE-OI J
5.70E-01
6.89E+00
6.80E-01
5.21E*01
4.00E-01

3.30E
-------
Table 5-18. d minimal).


< •..nu.miM.iMK
Me
.
( \l
( 'o
(•
i
('u

l!
\ 1
Mil
Ni
1.1
n
Se
1 1)
V
•/
/n
l)i-ii-hiii\l I'lnlialaie
Naphthalene
I'heiiaiithiene
Autcloi-1260
(VI 37
Np-237
Si-'W
1 ' ") M
I -.'>!
1 ' MS



I"1;: ku [

Minimum
4.30H-OI H

8.IOH-OI M
4.401-1 00 M
l.57lii()|
I.S'M-JOI

3.SOI:'-()1 J

8 I31it()l
I.33I-H01
9.401-1 00 J
4.30I-.-OI H
2.101i-()l It
I.47I-+01
4. 501-101
9.0()l-:-02 J
I.20I--OI J
8.70I-:-02 .1
7.20li-OI DJX
3. 15 1- 100
5.90I--OI
vlnl'-OI
2 'OI--OI

— .- 	
Soil Ctwu
iiuiii jihoiuielulej

Maximum
4.30I--OI H

S.10I-.-OI M
9.00!-;iOOB
2 52 lit 01
l.94l-:t()|

3 S()|i-OI J

4.l3|-!i02J
2.201-:. oi
1. 551;. t 01 J
<-.'>oii-oi j
2.40I-.-OI H
•2.97I-..OI
S SOli 1 01
9 OOIi-02 J
I.SOIi-0] J
8.70I--02 J
7.2oi:-orr>jx
3.I5H-MH)
1. 401: '00
S.XOI-.-01
-1 20I-.-01
* 9<)|- .01







"Till: li^hoiuk-lulej)

Arithmetic
	 Mean
4.30I--01

S.IOI:-OI
6.001: *00
l.WI-iOl
l-921-i 01

3.80I--OI

2.38I- + 02
I.75LK)!
1. 271: +01
5.60K-OI
2.25H-OI
2.24Ht()l
6.78F.IOI
9.00L-02
I.50H-01
8.70K-02
7.20I--OI
3. 151; tOO
1.04 lit 00
5.00I--0]
3.73J-OI
2.90I;-0|


Slundarti
Deviation
NA

NA
2.00LiM)0
' 5.371- » 00
3.54H-OI

NA

I.671-I02"
4.711->00
3.081; +00
' I.X4E-01
2.I2H-02
7.5 IH tOO
2.. 9E*01
4.24l:tOO
NA
NA
NA
4.I21--OI
5.69li-02
.S.72I--02


RMHb
NA

NA
I. I2I-M)!
2.971-:. OJ
1 991-' 1 01
.
NA
1 N f \
5.721it()2
2.691-: + 01
1.89Iit()|
9.28I--01
2.67I--OI
3.741- »01
1.121: 1 02
NA
8.63 1:.iOO
NA
NA
NA
1 N/\
1. 861- i.OO
1.291- MM)
4.871-i-Ol
4 641-' 01
'

Number Numhei l-iei|iiene\
"' <>!' of
1 ** * 'ClCC IS I'CtCCllOll
3 I TV

1 33'},,
•l 3 100".,.
3 loo11,,
"1 -) , -7,.
-s 2 07";,
^
I 33",,
3 100%
3 100",,
•; 3 1 00%
" •' . 2 07'!,, '.
; •>
•! 3 loo1!-;,
•; 3 100%
'i i i >ii
* .I.>/K
^ 9 /»-?"
*- \t l U
3 1 •! •»!-
1 .V^ ',,
1 .^.'.11
\ 1 » 1 1
1 1 33 „
•' 3 loo11,,
'' 3 loo",,
5 3 loo-.,
\ 1 i.i
3 |()(l",,

Maekgnniiul'
«»'S'!'£.4L£LL/IS.)
1. SOI: tOO
2201-JOO
I.IOIitOI


2.201-101

5.00I--02
4.901: 1 02
3. 501- 1 01
1.701-1 01
2.20I:-OI

4. 501: 1 0|
.I.50hi02
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.20H-OI
NA
1.441-1 00

1 ,40l-.t 00
Niniil
Sam
Maekf
(l
0
(i
o

o

1
0
0
o


0
f)
1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
0

n
                                                                                                                                iluui
-------
Table 5-18.  (continued).
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg Inonradionuclide] or pCi/g [radionuclide])

( 'lllll.llllllKllllS
Y-90
a NO II-.

Arithmetic
Minimum Maximum Mean
9.00E-02 9.00E-OI 4.95E-01


Standard
Deviation RMI:b
5.73E-01 1.64E+00


Number
of
2


Number
of
2


Frequency
of
100%


INEEL
Background1
(nig/kgor pOYg)
NA

Number of
Samples
Greater than
Background
NA

        »       Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis.
        •       Analytical results are from 17 soil samples collected from five pipe excavation locations and 10 boreholes installed under the OU 3-05 Track 2 investigation.  Results are provided in The Track 2
                Summary Report, Waste Area Croup 3, Operable Unit 3-05. Old Sewage Treatment Plant West of CPP-664 (WINCO 1993j) and Appendix G of the OU3-I3 RI/KS Part A (OOIMD 1997b).
                Selected maniples were analyzed for metals, radionuclidcs. VOCs. SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides/herbicides and dioxin/furans  Only those constituents that were identified above detection limits are
                shown in the table except for the following constituents which were detected but are not considered to be present at hazardous concentrations: Al, Ca, He, Mg, K and Na
        •       Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter are not included in the table
h       flic RM1: concentration is the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean).
i'       flic INI-I-I  background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood et al. 1995).
J   I lit; anulyle was identified in the sample but the numerical result may not be accurate.
H   I lie unalyle reported value is <('RD1., but > 11)1..
J.\ - I lie icporled value is an estimate quantity manually entered onto the results form.
I)J.\ =- I he compound was analy/ed at a secondary dilution factor and was an estimated quantity that was manually entered onto the results form.
NA - Not Applicable
KMI:  -  Reasonable Maximum Lxposure.	
-------
                                                  MTI --M-I... L.  >|.|'-"l'l.lri..N   \  s,
                                    KM   ""I  KIM    • "'I'''  l'.'111'.hi iM(rur.M||   ,|
.'in,,,,,:.,,, „.„ „-,„ „„,„ ,,•„,.„„„„ ,,„ „„, ,,,!„„., «	,„„„„,,„  „.„ .,„,,,„..„„    |
'•'(|-->I|IIII|O|IIM.II|.III:'M|IIS.I>| iu|'UnimVni'l<>TUf-cl«!.) l«'ll |nsixlsi(| jmc j ,„ uiniSloj.i 8ui|duics a?3ui||ii<| itiq i •»IH«TMIU ICIKUIU '
. • « -,1,1.1 ''•'rW''ullf'"s*'™'^,m^^^
1 OIHMOM .'.0111 f| n
I. I II
v\ VN ";« i
v 'N »« .1 1 1
' -ncf> t 1 f [
1 I0--|06f "!ifi(J /". r i
"".' fl VI
c V('--IOf) f "' C 1 -
' ' "O> 1 ^ 11

VN' VN "«sx - ii t-(
(- IO''-|(P X "•/()
<• ' nil/ 6 ^-|
VN VN »;,x | -|

i co-'ion «i,t.c ^ n
Vfs' VN VN i VN
VN VN VN | VN
vx VN VN f VN
1 Ki-:i(ir7 «i,(M)i fi M
1 l(|r-HlZ. i « ;,(io | f, N
*" ro-'-inos" ",,r.r t- t.,
HOC f f|
" i<)-:-ii)f f ",,0111 f | f |
0 IHi'-IOct ",,(l()| f| ^i
0 r(i'-iin)-»- »„„„, _ M t,|
S mi'-'IOSV ".,(l(l| f| f|
uuii^ir[j i|pij|~" "(1iT)iI in IM TuiJ"" ~T~"i — " 	 	
|oi.i.|uinN' ' H'INI"'" nil;illhnj-l ^^.1^ ^^.10^

r'\n n,| l-^Anjo'v/r-,

OOt4V/.c 00»H()0-| HKIiCi •
VN VN ro-;ioo\-

1" 'it. I I l()-;h'> k
io-;i80'z. 10-360 1 io-:-io/. f

lO'.-ISk 1 c()-3IM KK-IOI 1

- ' •''<• ' '
OO'liS'V (MHHcc'l OIHMVI 1
VN VN \()-W
Id ) ^IK' in ^Hinillllininoi nm.- riu {.-1II...III,

OOi-166'V t(l-.-H)()i
cOvlOO'S tO--l(H) V

lo-'iorz. uK-iorr
I/.-,,,,.,, in-'i/i/'i
'" '"'4 '
in~'.in-"i iH~*ifv/i
. .
no ' ,-iz.o i M)":ior i
-.•(M)':If8'f 10: :•!()(-• |
I()-:1()!,"C lO'i-IOs S
io--io6'(> i()--iov r
r vo-i-joo'c rw-ioiic
r vo-:-ioo i rviMniii

H io-:-iorf rii io-:-ionr
IOK-IU I 00 1 -101 L
1 1\ "tim
lot-jio'v lof-iror

00»H()S'I fl III- HIS f
t '<- c lOi-liX L
OOiHOi'8 (HM-IOI I-
(tinunxp[/^ iiiiuuiuiiv
^pllOIHIOIpI'lllollI ,IN ,1m)
ilio ) |iov;
	 	 ^ 	 1 	 ,___ • ,
>,|iln,| .
	 ~ 	 4,H'-.i[
a-0

h'r-ji

Of,- IS

^vr-'M
M"-ii\
",H., ,
"lI'MM
'i:;:
OM.||p|||.rri
.ni.i|\i|P|M
•>S

•Ml
i )

I1 )
''II
••v
siiiiuiiuiriiiii )


-------
 5.3.3.18   CPP-37b, Gravel Pit and Debris Disposal Pit #2. Site CPP-37b is located inside the
 INTEC security fence. Before being backfilled, the site was approximately 79 m (260 ft) in width,
 116 m (380 ft) in length and was 7.9-m (26-ft) deep and area of approximately 9,179 m: (98,800 ft2).
 Prior to 1982. this pit was often  used for the disposal of waters released from the sludge dewatering pit of
 the old STP (CPP-715). After 1982, the pit was used to dispose of construction debris, some of which
 may have been radionuclide contaminated.  Anecdotal information suggests that the Pit may also have
 been used for the disposal of chemical wastes. Additionally, the CPP-37b was open in 1964 when the
 release of radioactive steam associated with Site CPP-26 occurred.  Radioactive steam containing Cs-137
 was released from a decontamination header in the HLLW Tank Farm. The year this pit was backfilled is
 unknown, but it is believed to have been backfilled to grade shortly after its use as a construction debns
 landfill was discontinued. Modeling and sampling of the site indicated the site is not a significant
 contributor to groundwater risk or surface exposure risk. However, since the pit was previously used as a
 landfill, characterization is considered insufficient to recommend no further action at the site.  Table 5-20
 provides summary sampling results statistics for soil samples from Site CPP-37B.

 5.3.3.19    CPP-48 (French Drain South  of CPP633).  Site CPP-48 was an excess chemical dump
 tank located south of the old WCF (CPP-633) that was used as a french drain from 1975 to 1981 (herein
 referred to as "dump tank"). The dump tank was made of steel and measured approximately 1.5 m (5 ft)
 m diameter and 3.7 m (12 ft) long, with a lid and no bottom.  The top of the dump tank stood
 approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) above the ground surface, with the tank bottom at 3 m (10 ft) bgs. As part of
 the calcining process, nitric acid  and other chemicals consisting primarily of aluminum nitrate and
 calcium nitrate used in the calcining process were disposed into CPP-48. The chemicals and
 radionuclides released to the dump tank were not treated or neutralized before percolating into the soil
 matrix through the bottom of the tank. A portable above ground disposal line was used to discharge
 effluent to the dump tank. Table 5-21 provides summary sampling results statistics for soils collected at
 CPP-48.

      Prior to the installation of an excess chemical dump tank (CPP-48), in 1975, waste chemicals were
 disposed directly to the soil in  a trench-like depression located at the dump tank site. The trench is
 approximately 3 x 1.5 x 0.3 m (10 x 5 x 1 ft) in size.  From 1975 to 1981, chemicals from the calcining
 process were disposed directly to the CPP-48 dump tank. The above ground piping used to move
 calcining effluent from CPP-633  to CPP-48 was a flexible hose that, when not in use, was "rolled up" and
 stored in CPP-633. In August  1993, the dump tank was dismantled, packaged, and removed to the Waste
 Experimental Reduction Facility  (WERF).

      Records indicate that the chemical disposal to CPP-48 was in low quantities (several gallons at a
 time). Through the years of operation, however, site personnel  indicate thousands of gallons of waste
effluent may have been disposed. No records were kept regarding the volume of effluent disposed or the
constituents in the waste stream,  but it is suspected the mercury, Cs-137, Sb-125, and Eu-155 may have
been introduced to this site via waste chemicals from the calcining process.

      In March 1991. a RCRA sampling program was conducted to characterize possible soil
contaminants in the vicinity of the dump tank.  Samples were collected from a boring drilled to 14 m
(46.5 ft) bgs and analyzed for RCRA metals, pH, nitrite, and nitrate. Analysis indicated soil samples
contained no detectable levels  of the VOCs, semiVOCs. pesticides, dioxin/furan, or herbicides.
                                             5-56
-------
_Table 5-20  Smniiu
iix
results su
. — . - ' -
'MIIIIIUII \ .Til Mill
MIIL: it .-M.III.I nu
IIIM1LA 11)1 ,S()||
loiiiuniiiui
m*ai Mict
IT-37H.. 101-02.1
4001-01
3.501-01
2.201-01 J
2.101-01 J

720i;-02J
1. 101-01 J
2.401- 01 .1
2 '01 -01

Maximum

8. 501; tOO
I.141-. 101 J
4.6SI-:t()2
3201-iiOO
4.261:. 01
1.201-01 .1
2.261: Mil J
6.50I-.-01 li

?9()|.,()|
VOOI- 02 J
.« 7()1- 02 .1
<>. 1 01-02 J
4 001-01
< 501-01
2.201-0] .1
2.101-01 .1

72(11- '-02 .1
1 101-01 .1
.' 401 III 1
.' ;H| 01

Arithmetic
Mean

4.191; UK)
4.42IOOO
1.261-;) 02
1.221: UK)
1.851:1 01
1.201-0!
9.(,0i;.00
2.8 11-01

1 201 •;-()!
7 00i;-02 -
3.701-02
6.101-02
4.001-01
.3 501-:-01
2.20I:-01
2.IOI--01

7.201--02
i.ioi;-oi
2401-01
2 501-01

Standard
Deviation

4. 01 lit 00
1.84litOO
7.73liK)|
6.551-01
7.061: 1 00
.NA
4.561:100
1.321-01

1.04 li-0 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

RM1:'1

I.22HIOI
8.101-iOO
2.81HK12
2. 531: (00
3.261; t ()|
NA
l.871:.to]
5.45I--OI

3.28H-OI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

Numhei
of
Samples
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
avcl Pit 112."


Numhei hcquency
of of
Deteets Detection
3 11",,
28 |()0%
28 100'!,,
22 79
28 100%
1 3'},,
28 100%
15 54'.',,

7 NA
1 . NA
1 NA
! NA
1 NA
1 NA
1 NA
1 NA

1 NA
1 NA
1 NA
1 NA



INI-.I-.I.
Hackinomur
(Illli/ku 01 p('| i;)
Ol-.tOO
5.801: t()()
3.001; -02
2.201: 1 00
3.301-!i01
5.0()l-:-02
1 701- .01
2.201-01

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA


Numhei ol
Samples
(ireater than
•J"
;
1
I
1
1

4

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i^/\
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 5-20.  (continued).
Soil Concentration
(nig/kg [nonradionuclidej or pCi/g [radionuclide])
Ciini.imiiMiih
.•\mclm-l2M)
Am-241
Cs-I37
1-12')
Np-237
I>u-238
Sr-90
1 1-234
y U-235
00 1 1-238
a NOU--
Minimum
4.20E-OI
2.1E-01
1.40E-01
1.57E+00
3.20E-01
6.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.50E-OI
5.00E-I02
1.60E-013

Maximum
420E-01
3.89E+00
6.3 IE-* 00
I.57E+00
8.60E-01
5.00E-01
4.31E+00
I.21E400
7.00E-02
7.44E+00

Arithmetic
Mean
4.20H-01
I.18E+00
2.04E+00
1.57E+00
5.13E-01
1.99E-01
9.30E-01
3.12E-01
5.75E-02
7.87E-01
Standard
Deviation
NA
1.40E+00
1.67E+00
NA
1.26E-01
1.57E-01
1.06E+00
2.14E-01
9.57E-03
1.46E+00
RMEb
NA
3.98E+00
5.38E+00
NA
7.65E-01
5.13E-01
3.05E-rOO
7.40E-01
7.66E-02
3.71E+00
Number
of
Samples
NA
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
Number
of
Delects
1
6
17
1
26
8
21
26
4
26
Frequency
of
Detection
NA
26%
65%
4%
100%
31%
81%
100%
15%
100%
1NEEL
Background1
(mg/kgorpCi/g)
NA
1.10E-02
8.20E-01
NA
NA
4.90E-03
4.90E-01
I.44E+00
NA
I.40E+00
Number of
Samples
(Jreater than
Background
NA
6
11
NA
NA
8
12
0
NA
3
        •       Duplicate sample results were nut included in the statistical analysis
        •       Analytical results are from samples collected from four borings installed under the OU 3-02 Track 2 Preliminary Scoping Package for CPP-37 by Ciolder Associates. Ine  Results are
                provided in the Draft Report for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant Drilling & Sampling Program at Und Disposal Unit CPP-37 (Oolder Associates I'W2) and Appendix (i of the
                OU3-U RI/I;S Part A (DOL-ID I997b).
        .       Selected samples were analyzed for metals, radionuclides, V(X's, SVOCs, PCBs and pesticides/herbicides. Only those constituents that were identified above detection limits are
                shown in the table
        •       Samples rejected because of an  unacceptable quality control parameter are not included in the table
li       The RMI: concentration is the '>5% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie wilhm two standard deviations of their mean)
c       the INhl-.l  background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood et al. 1995).
j   I lie unulyte was identified in the sample but the numerical result may not be accurate.
H  - The analyse reported value is < RD1 , but •* IDI.
NA   Not applicable 01 not available
KMI-  •  Reasonable Maximum l-.xpusure '
-------
Table 5-21.  Summary sampling results statistics for soil contaminants at Site CPP-48."
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg]nonradionuciide] or pCi/g [radionuclidel)

< 'iinKiimnanis
As
Ha
Cr
Cu
Ug
Ni
<-/i
6, v
vO
X.n

Niliale
Nitrite
Niirale/Nitrite
Chloride
Fluoride
Sul fate
Sulfide

Tin

Cs-137
1- u-lf>5
. -i if
Sh I2~i

Minimum
2.70EK)0
3.70E+01 B
7.70EHOO
I.05EK31 J
5.10E-01
I.89E»01
4.60E+00
I.SOEiOl
4.52E+01

7.05E-01
5.29E-01
9.60E-01
I.20E-KJOJ
5.20E+00
2.21E+OI
1.56E+00

3. OOE-02

3.30EKJO
5.201--01
6.00E-02
2-10l:.()0

Maximum
1.32EKM
J.14E-KH
3.96EKM
1.05E-K)! J
9.50E-01
1.89E+01
2.39E+01
I.80E+OI
4.52E+OI

5.71E+00
5.90E-01
5.40E+00
3.30E^OOJ
2.64E+02
1.31E+02
1.56E^OO

3. OOE-02

6.50E+OI
(>.7()l-:-OI
''.OOE-02
.\30lMOO

Aiiihmeiic
Mean
5.45EKJO
9.92Ef01
1.79E+01
I.05Et01
7.87E-01
1.89E+01
9.51E+00
1.80E+01
4.52Et01

2.58E400
5.72E-01
2.88E + 00
2.42EiOO
1.91E+02
5.18E-t01
1.56F^OO

3. OOE-02

4.13E1-01
5.95E-OI
7.50I--02
3.2Xl:i 00

Standard
Deviation
2.92E+00
7.51E+01
8.10EHX)
NA
2.41E-01
NA
6.05E-tOO
NA
NA

2.42E+00
2.91E-02
2.I2E+00
8.92E-01
I.24E+02
5.31E+01
NA

NA

2.4IEKH
1.06E-01
l.2'JI-:-{)2
1.3 81: KM)

RMHb
1.13EHM
2.49E(02
3.41E+01
NA
I.27E-HW
NA
2.16E+01
NA
NA
i vf\
7.42E+00
6.30E-01
7.12E+00
4.20E+00
4.39E+02
1.58E+02
NA
i *f\
NA
1 vf\
8.95E+01
8.07E-01
l.OIE-OI
6.04E.OO

Number
ol'
Samples
11
11
1!
1
11
1
8
1
i
i
7
7
4
4
4
4
i
i
i
i
11
4
4
11

Number
of
Deieels
11
11
11
1
3
1
8
1
1'

5
4
4
4
4
4




5
2
4
4

l;requency
of
1 'election
100%
100%
100%
100%
27%
100%
100%
100%

100%
71%
57%
100%
100%
100%
100%

100%

100%
45%
50%
100%
36",,

INEEl.
Haekgiouiul l
(mg/kgoi pCi/g)
5.80EKJO
3.00E+02
3.30EfOI
2.20E*01
5. OOE-02
3.50E+OI
I.70E+OI
4.50E-f01

1.50E+02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

NA
8.20E-01
NA
4.90ii-03
NA
Number of
Samples
(iiejtei tliun
HackiitiHind

"
1
1
• 0
3
o
I
o

0
MA
j if\
MA
IN A
MA
IN/V
MA
IN A
MA
JN/V

NA
I 't /\
NA
1> f\
'
4
NA
-------
Table 5-21.  (continued).
L/l
I
o
Soil Concentration
(nig/kg [nonradionuclide]
( 'i>Hi.imm,mls
Si ')()
U-234
U-238
(iross Alpha
Gross Beta
Miniinuin
I.20I--OI
I lOE+00
I.IOE-tOO
9.00E-*00
U2IM02
Maxinuim
2.60E-OI
2.50E+00
2.70E+00
1.40E+01
1.22E+02
or pOi/g {radionuclide])
Arithmetic
Mean
I.K7IJ-OI
l.58EtOO
1.68E+00
1.I5E+01
1.18E+02
Standard
Deviation
7.02E-U2
6.29E-01
7.04E-01
3.54E+00
4.32E+00
RMEb
3.27E-01
2.84E+00
3.09E+00
1.86E+01
I.27E+02
Number
of
Sample-.
8
4
4
4
4
Number
of
Detects
3
4
4
2
4
Frequency
of
Detection
38%
100%
100%
50%
100%
INEEI.
Background c
(mg/kgorpfi/g)-
4.<;t)h-OI
1.44E-KH)
I.40E100
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Greater than
Backunnmil
0
1
2
NA
NA
a.    NO'I I:
      •    Duplicate sample results were not included in Ihe statistical analysis.
      •    Analytical results are from samples collected from I boring installed m 1991 and from three boreholes and excavated soil in 1993  Results are provided in the Closure Plan for I and
           UnitO'P-48(INI-:i  1991) and the I-RIS database.                                                                                                                '
      •    Selected samples were analy/cd lor inorganics, radionuclides, V(X's, SVCK's, pesticides/herbicides, and dioxins/furans Only those constituents that were identified above detection limits are
           shown in the table
      •    Samples rejected because of an  unacceptable quality control parameter are not included in the table.
h      I he RMI- concentration is the 95%  upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie within two standard deviations of their mean)
c      The INfchl. background concentrations represent the 95% upper confidence limit (Rood el al. 1995).
J   I he analylc was identified in the sample but the numerical result may not be accurate.
H •--The analyte leportcd value is < RDI., but > IDL,
NA - Not applicable or not available.	
-------
       In August 1993. the dump tank was removed, cut into sections, packaged, and delivered to WERF
 for disposal. Four soil samples were taken at the bottom of the dump tank excavation (3 m [10 ft] bgs)
 and at (3.7 m [12 ft] bgs), to determine possible soil contamination in the underlying soil. Samples were
 analyzed for kerosene. VOCs, semiVOCs, RCRA metals, and radionuclides.  Kerosene, VOC, and
 semiVOC constituents were not detected. Analysis for radionuclide contamination showed a Cs-137
 concentration highest at 3.7 m (12 ft) bgs with 65±1 pCi/g, an Sb-125 concentration of 5.3±0.2 pCi/g at 3
 m (10 ft), and the highest Eu-155 concentration of 0.67±0.10 pCi/g at 3.7 m (12 ft).

 5.3.3.20   CPP-44.  A grease pit south of CPP-608 has an ecological HI greater than 1.0 from exposure
 to cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, lead, mercury, nickel, and decanal. Cadmium and nickel are
 native metals that are eliminated as COPCs when compared to 10X background (Rood et al. 1995).
 Table 5-22 provides summary sampling results statistics for soils collected at CPP-44.

 5.3.3.21   CPP-55. An area contaminated with paint solvents, has an ecological HI  greater than 1.0
 from exposure to metals (arsenic, chromium III, chromium VI, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and
 silver). Arsenic, chromium III, lead, and nickel are native metals that are eliminated as COPCs when
 compared to 10X background (Rood et al. 1995). Chromium is not expected to persist in the environment
 in the chromium VI form (Bartlett and Kimble 1976, Rai  et al.  1989). Mercury remains a concern after
 this initial screening with a maximum concentration of 5.2 mg/kg. The next highest was 0.62.  It is highly
 probable that the one sample having the high hit was a small hotspot that would not contribute that greatly
 to average exposure. Table 5-23 provides summary sampling results statistics for soils collected at CPP-


 5.3.4   Perched Water (Group 4)

       Perched water consists of water in the vadose zone  that is saturating sediments or basalts above the
 regional aquifer (Figure 5-2 and 5-3).  The perched water  is discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.
 Contaminants already in the perched water are a potential source of SRPA contamination.  Contaminants
 of concern (Sr-90) were selected based on transport of the contaminant to the SRPA, and future ingestion
 of SRPA ground water post 2095. Other contaminants are summarized in the following paragraphs. The
 Perched Water (Group 4) is identified as containing low-level threat wastes. As noted in Section 5.2,
 Table 5-1, the perched water is a result of recharge from man-made sources at INTEC.  When INTEC
 operations cease  the recharge sources will stop and the perched water bodies will not yield sufficient
 water to be usable to future users.

      As part of the WAG 3 RI, a complete round of groundwater samples were collected during May
and June 1995 from all perched water wells having sufficient water for sample collection. These data are
summarized in Table 5-24. The results of previous groundwater sampling efforts have been described in
the WAG 3 Comprehensive RI/FS Work Plan (LITCO 1995c).  Figure 5-6 shows well locations where
perched water has been observed at INTEC and Figure 5-7 shows measured Sr-90 activities in the
perched water.

      The only chemical constituent in the upper perched  groundwater zone beneath the northern portion
of INTEC detected above either a Federal primary or secondary MCL was nitrate. The MCL  for nitrate is
 10 mg/'L. The highest nitrate/nitrite concentrations (35.4 mg/'L in well CPP 55-06 and 26.8 mg/L in
well MW-10) were measured in the southeastern portion of the northern perched groundwater.
                                             5-61
-------
Table 5-22.  Sunninux Man.stic.s l>n _soij cn»iaminanu> al Site C TI'-44.J
	 * . •-"•-• »-»P —  Minimum Maximum Mean Devi;iti,i|, R(vn:h
As
Me


("i
Cu
1 It!
Ni
l'l>
Sh
Se
III
/n
I.I.I hi
cllianc
Imlmxy
Decanal
Oil ami (
.1 Mill
•
•
•
•
b NIC
i Ilk-
2.11-NOOJ 7JI-.OOJ 4.061-100 2.321*00 9.30HtOO
8.XOH-OI lOOhMJO 1.171*00 3.50I--OI 1.87E-KX)

I.OIMOOJ 8.40I*0()J 4.951-100 2.581*00 l.OIRiOl
2.931*01 J I.54I-.-03J 5.171*02 5.991-102 1.721*03
1 . 091-1 01 J 4.781-.. ()|J 2.7IK-I01 1.171*01 5.05l*-01
2.00I--OI 5.00I-.IOO 2.431-100 I.74I-..00 5.911-100
3.51-M)] J 3,441-102.1 1.541*02 1. 101*02 3.741*02
S.91*0()J 2..SII-.02J 8.09I-H01 1.121*02 3. Ill-* 02
OOI--OIIJJ I.9I-.IOOH.I 1.091*00 7.(M)l-.-()| 2.491*00
1.5I--OI UJ 2.20I:KIOJ 1.181*00 1.451*00 4.081*00
1.II--01UJ 4.701-01 ItJ 3.401i-()l 2.00I-.-01 7.4()h-()l
4.031-MJIJ 1.221-;. 02.1 0.791*01 2.901*01 1.261*02
i liliui)
5.00I--03J 5.ooi-;-o3 .1 5.ooi-;-o3 NA • NA
4-melhyl 7.801*00 J 9.501-JOOJ 8.051*00 1.201*00 1.111*01
9.00I-.-03 J 9.001M)3J 9.001-;-03 NA NA
iiea.se 2.581* 03J 3.831*1)3 J 3.2 Hi 1 03 8.84Iit02 .4.981*03
Duplicate sample results were nut included in the slalislieal analysis.
Analytical lemlts are Ironi soil samples collected from the surface soil overlying the pad grease pit
1 inal Scoping Summary Repon OU .1-10, Reference 10, Analytical Data Report, CPI'-44 Grease 1


Numhei
of
.Samples
5
0

0
0
0
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
6

Si"1'5


Numbei
of
Delecls
5
4

6
0
6
6
6
()
3
2
•^
6
1
2
1
2

iunip beneath
lilmv dOX Nin
Selected .samples were analysed lor rnetals, V(X 's. SVOCs, 1'1'Bs, ami TPM Only those consiuueiib that weie ,dem,.kd abmc
Sjinples teiecleil because ol an unacceptable qualily control paramelei are noi included in ihe table
KMI c.mccniialiou is (he 'JV,. upper value bused on Hie t-tnpuieal rule |VS'!u,,filie ineasincmenis he with
IM 1 1 b.it ki'ioiind iuiii.eiili:i|iiiiis icpicscul ihe 'JS11,. unpei conllilcnce limn iko.i.l ,•! .,1 ImKi
in tuo stamhid
tlev laiions ot
— 	 ,.

hcquency
ol"
I ^ctcciioti
100",,
(>7 , n

loo1];,
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
33%
50%
100%
17%
33%
no/
/(I
33%

^rr^nrcnc,
detection hums arc
Ilien nicjn)
	 _

I XI -1:1
Background '
5.80l:t()()

1 .801: 1 00
2. 201: (00
3.301*01
2.201*01
5.00I--02
3.501*01
1.701*01
4.801*00
2.20I--OI
4 3()i;.()|
1.501: K)2
NA
NA
N«
A
NA

, KcsulK.ep,,,,,,
( O 1 ')')•! )
sluiun in Ihe table

	 _. 	

Nuinliei til
Sample.sd'iea
L_.lhaiiHackuioti
"•



S

s

^
i
1
i
1
0
NA
v \
i\A
NA
NA

d ill (he Hack 2 Diali


         v u	kmilk-.l in ihi-.sjinple Inn llieniinieiical ii-Mill nuv nul Iv aeriuale
                          Kill.bul  -11)1
-------
Table 5-23. Summary statistics for soil contaminants
at Site CPP-55.'
Soil Concentration,
(ing/kg [nonradionuclidej orpCVg [radionuclide])

( 'onluininuiils
AB
As
Da
Cd
Cr
Hg
Ni
1'b
i/i
6s Sr-')0


Minimum
1. 90li tOO
3.80EKH)
7.00E-rOI
9.40E-01
1.33E+OI
5.00E-02
1.38E-t01
4.10E+00
4.30Et03


Maximum
6.10Et-00
1.34Et01
6.09E+02
1.40E+00
6.47E+01
5.20E+00
1.21E+02
3.20E+01
4.80E+03

Mean
3.00E100
6.34E+00
1.59E+02
1.16E+00
2.54E+01
4.30E-OI
2.70E+01
9.59E+00
4.55E+03

Standard
Deviation
1.31 1- +00
1.78E+00
I..01E+02
1.90E-01
9.09E+00
1.03E+00
2.04E+01
5.13E+00
3.54E+02

RMHb
5.62E+00
9.90E+00
3.60E+02
1.54E+00
4.35E+01
2.49E+00
6.77E+01
1.99E+01
5.26E-f03
Number
of
Samples
49
- 49
49
49
49
49
49
49
5
Number
of
Detects
16
49
49
4
48
24
49
49
2
Frequency
of
Detection
33%
100%
100%
8%
98%
49%
100%
100%
40%
INEEL
Background '
(mg/kg or p(Vg)
O.OOI-tOO
5.80E+00
3.QOE+02
2.20E+00
3.30E+01
5.00E-02
3.50E+01
I.70E-KH
4.90E-01
Number of
Samples (iiealer
16
30
4
0
6
22
7
2
2
Duplicate sample results were not included in the statistical analysis.

Analytical results are from samples collected from 1 1 boreholes drilled during the
taken from the Closure Report for tTP-SS.' Mercury ConUmm J \£l "wE
Mercury Contaminated Area South of CH> T-15 (WINCO 1993).
      SS ,nv^i,»»i, «, h  <* 1 1  »
** n^ided  n?h  W^Vo V  t     *"
    provided in the W1NC O Track
                                                                                                                                                          '° devel°P 'h'S table
                                                                                                                                      Document Package OU 3-02, Site CPP-55,
                Selected samples were analyzed lor VOC's, metals and radionuclides as well as the full 40 CFR 264 Anrv»nrt,, « ,n t r    , t-
                ^™*^™-*^^^
                Samples rejected because of an unacceptable quality control parameter were not included in the table.

I'      The KMI: concentrate ,s the 95% upper value based on the empirical rule (95%of the measurements lie wiihm .wo standard dev.ations of their mean)
c      I he INI-.I-I  background concentrations represent the l)5% upper confidence limit (Rood ct al. 1995)
H - The iinalyte icported value is «• RDI , hut •• 11)1.
NA •  Nol applicable
-------
Table 5-24.  .Siimnuu   ^i
results Muiistics loi contaminants
\Vaici ciiiiccntMlhiii. niu I  oip(VI.
'JJ'J.lln.1 JL>«.Tch»:il \\;iler wcl|sj[May-Jiine IW5) *
( uiii.mim.mis
A,!
As
H.I
Itc
( "Itlomle
( 0
Ci
t'n
1 lumule
Mn
Ni
NO, NO,- N
I'll
Sh
Si-
Sul laic
11)
\'
/n
Ani-241
I'u 23S
I'll 239 240
M ''D
Mininniii)
7.701-04 BNJ
3.401-03 It
7 141-02 B
1.201-04
2 lil-.'Ol
.1 701-04
4 301-03 It
1.301-03 It
1 .001-01
N .101-04 It
2,501-03 It
3 5|)| MX)
2.001-03 111
2.001-03 H
3.001-03 It
2.021'JOI
3.3()1:-03 It
I.501--03 ItJ
2.60I--03 It
3.00]-:-02
0 001- iOO
II 001 MIO
Dill III
Maximum
1.40H-03B
4.90I-.-03 B
3.941-01
I.20I--04
1 .251: 1 02
1.3()l-:-03
l.llli-02
I.49I--02H
3.6oi-o r
1. 801-0 1
7.50I--03 It
6.%l-..01
2.001-03 ItJ
6.40I-.-03 B
4.0()l-:-()3 B
6.181-iOi
5.00H-03 B
6.701--03 B
6.93K-02 HJ
1.601 l-OI
o.ooi-: .00
O.OOI- • 1)0
3 201- -us
Aiithnietic
Mean
1 091-03
4 1 71-, 1 00
I95K-OI
1.2()!-:-04
5.491- 1 01
7.801--04
6.05l-:-03
3.75I-.-03
2.51 li-OI
2.111-02
4.63I--03
1.991:101
2.001--03
3.60H-03
3.331--03
4.03H101
4. 15 1- -03
3.56H-03
2.15L-02
9.5011-02
0.001-. 1 00
o.ooi-: too
4 061- '04
Slynd.iiil
Dcvialiiin
4.45I--04
7.5I1-.-OI
9.141--02
NA
2.781: -01
2.521-04
2.52l-:-03
4.531-03
4.681 -.-02
5.l5l-:-02
2.58I--03
1.691:i(ll
' NA
I.67I--O.V
5.77I-.-04
•1.271- K)l
1.20K-03
1.8II--03
2.06F-02
9.19H-02
0.001: ' 00
O.OOI: 1 00
S.(i()i-;.04
RMHh
1.981--03
5 671: MM)
3.78H-01
NA
l.lll-H)2
1.28I--03
1.IIH-02
1.28I--02
3.45I-.-01
1.241- -01
9.791--03
5.37IiU)l
NA
6.94li-()3
.'4.48I--03
6.571-1 01
6.551--03
7.18H-03
6.27I--02
2.791i-0|
O.OOI-: 1 00
O.OOI: '00
2. 131: 'Oi
Numhi-i of
Suniplc.s
"io
H.
16
10
16
10
16
16
16
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
16
16
16
10
10
10
Numhci ol
Delects
2
3
16
1
16
S
6
X
16
13
3
16
1
5
3
16
2
II
10
2
2
2
14
Detection
1 V',,
19",,
100",,
6",.
100",,
50",,
IS",.
50",,
100",,
S 1 ".,
19",,
100",,
0",,
31",,
19",,
100",,
13",,
69%
63V n
13",,
13",,
13",,
NX11,,
-------
  Table 5-24.  (continued).
Water concentration, mg/L or pCi/L
Contaminunls
k <><>
1 nliiim
II-..M4
1 1-2.<8
(iross Alpha
(iross Heta
a NOTI-;
Minimum
400E-01
6.21 Hi 02
l.WKtOOJ
8.00E-01 J
2.30E+00
5.20E*00

Maximum
7.36l-t02J
7JOIM04
I.ISIifOl
2.70E+OOJ
I.I4E*03
5.89E+05
Arithmetic
Mean
8.96Et()l
2.00F.<<)4
4.70E(00
1.94E+00
1.88E+02
7.00E+04
Standard
Deviation
1.91E+02
2.35E<04
3.24EIOO
6.08E-01
3.68E+02
I.51E+05
RMEb
4.72E+02
6.7()Ki{)4
I.I2EI01
3.16E+00
9.24E-f02
3.72E+05
Number of
Samples
16
l(>
16
16
16
16
Number of
Detects
14
14
7
7
9
16
Frequency of
88%
88%
44%
44%
56%
100%
                Duplicate and QC sample results were not included in the statistical analysis
                                  ^
                                                                                                      ~«« -, -re .ent.Hed above detect.on „.„ ,„ ,he samp,e5 are
                Carbonate. TKN and Ammonia-N                                      °' conslderc<1 lo ^ Pre«nt at hazardous concemrat.ons. Ci. He, Mg. K. Na, Alkalinity. B.c Alkalme

                Samples rejected because of an unacccpuble quality control parameter were not included in the table

h       I he RMh concentration ,s the 95% upper value based on the ernpmca, rule <95%of the measurement he w.thm two standard dev.ations of the.r mean)
II   ( onla'niinanl in associated blank
!•  - I'he reported value is an estimate because of interference
J  l-slimatedconcenlration
N   Spiked sample recovery was not within control limits
NA  Nol applicable
-------
  V
  A,>
 /
\r
i:  ii »!;:-i J:  ^^?£O^o^^-v~^^
H-jrl—-^  * rf.^--teS^r^i;:.0.^^,;^^ sr^f^
.....><
                                                                                 ,  !  I I  !
                                                                         j Jill t   IIP1

                                                                        llllliil! llllHfi
                                                                                  «  -  $.  -
                                                                   $b~..;
             AV*""" ••—"••-. ™.. <«™--* ^ *>"W(^*"»f *.^ ----- •*•*..      ^t j, __,  -«». ••  «.               •    *'*'•  i-f-f- it\ *.*» .   ^1 •





               %.  ''•-  \            "I  il    "vl  i /          :    ' ''•-, a-      """'• ii"
                \V 	           _ .V):     -v : •'           '       -. ?  \        :s
                                            1     i    J  ': *  '  'i
                                             J     *    i    s     S
-------
                                        CPP-033-04E
                                   - .--'.l.qt-pCtXL-—
              MW.'
              0.7
	 0.7 pCi/L
 -  i                     i  MW-020
~  :       '                25800  pCi/L
~  j	
 CPP-033-02~  .  MW-010
 102  pCi/L    ,j. 17200  pCi/L

                          20000 pCi/L
                                                                    CPP-0_37-04  |:
                                                                  '5
                                                              Mll-
                                                                          004
       I  -1
                                                                        I
                                         'l04000^0t/L   :.  &CPP-055-06 I
                                            "^—"'        \  66300  '
                                         .,-1
              	j	j
                                                       I I
               MW-017
              ' 1.6 pCi/L
               MW-015
               22100' pCrrtr--
                                                •. 0 - 200 pCi/L

                                                «  10.000  - 30,000 pCi/L

                                                O  30.000  - 300.000  pCi/L

                                               © >  300.300  pCi/L
                                                                           March S.
Figure 5-7. Sr-W concentration in the upper perched groundwater (May-June 1995).
                                            5-67
-------

         ea«
 55-06 fFimirP s M TV,    P°njon 01 INTEC, particularly associated with wells MW-2 MW-5 and TPP

                                         °s                                 '
                                          o
            42 m ( 140 ft) the maxrm™ «     ,'   P?  re$Pecllvel>'' ln we" MW-2. At a depth of
                       ^^^^^^^
l=ve,s

                                     ^
detected in all we! s                              ^^^ C°nSM °f H'3' Stronti^-90 was

                s^^P^^^^s^^
   MW-5.       concentration detected in the upper perched groundwater zone was 1 05±2 pCi/L in


                                   5-68
-------
   exceeded e  17  P H      '"   C UPPCT PerChed water zone   Manganese concentrations exceeded the Federal
  5.3.4.3    Deep Perched Groundwater. Contamination in the lower portion of the vadose zone is
  different in composition from the upper perched zone. The lower vadose z^e ^hed water





                               ^^^^^
     rounds o groundwater samples have been collected from MW-U one round o
           Ct°!IeCted. T MW'17 and MW-1*. a"d a substantial database concern ng
                        WL-22i^

        wa  r     e      f ^f ^ ^ ^ ^ *** *" *" H 3 Concentrations inwov  "
        water bodies, the source of this contamination is either from a historical release where the
 contaminants have moved through the system or waste water disposal to the ICP^ec Jn wel.
 INTECome JuneQ       r    ***** **"*** ""*" ^ "^ the CaStem b°undarv of 
-------
      From the May 1995 water sampling of USGS-50, the concentrations of all chemical contaminants
except nitrate/nitrite were below Federal primary or secondary MCLs.  Nitrate/nitrite concentration was
measured at 31.3 mg/L. compared to the Federal primary MCL of 10 mg/L. Radionuclides in the
groundwater that were detected include H-3 (61,900±700 pCi/L), Sr-90 (151±2 pCi/L), and Tc-99
(63±1J pCi/L).  The concentrations for H-3 and Sr-90 are within the expected values based on the
historical sampling conducted by the USGS.

      Well M W-17 is  the only deep perched water monitoring well located in the southern portion of the
INTEC. This well has been constructed to monitor three perched water bodies:  an upper zone from 55.4
to 58.4 m (181.7 to 191.7 ft) bis, a middle zone from 80.4 to 83.5 m (263.8 to 273.8 ft) bis, and a lower
zone from 110 to 116 m (360 to 381 ft) bis. During the May 1995 sampling event, water was only present
m the upper and lower zones. None of the chemical constituents detected in the groundwater exceeded
either a Federal primary or secondary MCL.  Only two radionuclides (H-3 and Tc-99) were detected in
groundwater samples collected from MW-17. The concentrations of these two radionuclides were similar
between the upper and lower perched water zones. H-3 concentrations varied from 25,1001400 to
25,700±400 pCi/L and Tc-99 concentrations varied from 5.9±0.6 to 6.4±0.6 pCi/L.

5.3.5    Snake River Plain Aquifer (Group 5)

      The water quality in the SRPA  at and downgradient from the ICPP has been adversely impacted
due to past  facility operations.  The SRPA (Group 5) is identified as containing  low-level threat wastes.
The majority of INTEC-related SRPA contamination is due to the disposal of wastes through the ICPP
injection well.  Contamination in the aquifer is also due to downward migration of contaminants from
surface soils and perched groundwater zones. The injection well was the primary source for waste
disposal from 1952 through February  1984 and used intermittently for emergency situations until 1986.
The average discharge to the well during this period was approximately 1.4 B L/yr (363 M gal/yr) or
about 3.8 M L'day (1 M gal/day) (DOE-ID I997b). It has been estimated a total of 22,000 Ci of
radioactive  contaminants have been released in 4.2 x 1019 L (1.1 x 1010 gal) of water (WINCO 1994c).
Table 5-25 is a summary of the total curies discharged to the injection well for each radionuclide and
includes the curies remaining after radioactive decay (DOE-ID 1997b). The vast majority of this
radioactivity is attributed to H-3 (approximately 96%) with minor components of Am-241, Tc-99. Sr-90.
Cs-137, Co-60.1-129. and Pu.  The remedy selection for the SRPA was based on groundwater transport
modeling used to predict the activities/concentrations of contaminants in groundwater at the time of
exposure (post 2095).  This section presents data on the current water quality in the SRPA.

      Since the 1950's, the USGS has installed 33 monitoring wells around the ICPP to characterize the
occurrence, movement, and quality of the water in the SRPA.  The location of the wells completed in the
SRPA and the frequency of groundwater sample collection by the USGS are provided in Figure 4-12 of
the OU 3-13 RI  (DOE-ID 1997b). The ICPP has a groundwater sampling program of selected SRPA
wells to satisfy the groundwater monitoring requirements for the RCRA and DOE Order 5400.1.  This
sampling program, implemented in October 1991, uses selected USGS wells and collects samples on a
quarterly basis to be analyzed for the RCRA groundwater contamination parameters, RCRA drinking
water parameters. RCRA groundwater quality parameters, and selected radionuclides. The results from
this sampling program  are provided in the WAG 3 RI/FS Work Plan (LITCO 1995c).

      In Ma\ and June 1995. a complete round of groundwater samples were collected from the aquifer
wells located near and  downgradient from the ICPP (Figure 5-8). The results from this sampling effort
are provided in Table 5-26. The aquifer data summarized in the RI are discussed in the following
paragraphs. An isopleth map of 1995 1-129 concentrations is shown in Figure 1-7 to identify the extent of
Group 5. A vnap of the 1995 Tritium  plume is shown in Figure 5-4 and the Sr-90 plume is shown in
Figure 5-5.
                                             5-70
-------
Raduaucfidc
A|.ilOm
Arn-241
8*- 140
C-I4
Ce-141
Ce- 141/144
Co- 144
Co-37
Co-60
Cr-JI
C»-134
C»-I37
CM38
Eo-132
£»154
Eu-133
H-3
Hi-203
[-129
1-130
K-40
La- 140
Mn-34
Nb-93
Np-237
Pr-144
Po-238
Po-239
P9-239/Z40
P»-2JO
Rt»-I0«
Ra-103
R u-106
Sb-124.
Sb-125
Sr-SJ
St-S9
Sr-89/90
Sr-90
U-234
U-235
U-236
U-231
Y-90
Za-65
Zr-95
Z^Nb-95
Uiudomfiri Alpha
UtudmnTied Beta-Gamma
Qtixa—

Ha* Lift
4.SOE-01
4J2E*02
3.49E-02
5.73E*03
190E-02
7JOE-01
T.SOE-01
7.40E-01
3.27E«00
7J9E-02
IME^OO
3.02E-rOI
i.lOE-05
1J«E«OI
LSOEtOO
l.23E'*OI
1.3E-OI
1J7EWJ7
2.21E-02
1.2aE>09
4.60E-03
8.30E-01
9J5E-02
i!4E*06
3.3E-05
I.73E*01
2.44E+04
2.44£*04
6J7EWJ3
9.4IE-07
l.lOE-Ot
I.OOE»00
I.45E-OI
2.77E«00
1.7SE-01
l.JOE^JI
156E-OI
2.JiE*OI
143E'rOi
T.O*E*03
2J4E*O7
4.«7E«09
7J2E-03
6^SE4I
1.T8E-01
I.TSE-Ol
_
-

Total
Total AcriruT
Injccud
(cn
8-34E-05
1.1TE-Q4
5.03E-04
1.27E-01
USE-04
l.UE-OI
l.73E*Ol
SJ4E-03
I.49E-OI
5J7E-03
IJOEfOO
1Q5E«01
ZJOE-Ol
8.12E-02
• USE42
122E-02
113E-H04
7J3E-03
2.7SE-01
198Ei-01
24IE-12
6J2E-04
6.55E-01
4.63E-OI
5.AIE-03
4.47E-01
IJ2E-OI
I.05E-02
3.74Emi
I.14E-03
4.IIE*00
1.4JE-OI
1.70E*OI
Z41E-04
1.86E*OO
9.I4E-05
5J9E->00
1JI£*00
I.60E-M31
22SE-02
I.94E-03
4.Q9E-04
6.I1E-03
I-32E«OO
4^JE-04
2J4E-01
XOSE«01
5J6E-OI
3.nE-^)l •
6.33E^32
2J2E->44
Total Aomry
araauuoc*
	 (CD 	
1.34E-12
3.08E-04
8.S6E-1J6 .
1.27E-01
3.19E-61
142E-14
2.07E-06
8.91E-09
J.77E-03
2.91E-67
2.03E-03
1.19E*01
O.OOE*00
4J«E-02
193E-02
3.43E-03
3J9E*03
3.10E-42
2.7IE-OI
-UJE-152
2.31E-12
O.OOE*00
7.02E-OI
•1.17E-33
3.4SE-03
O.OOE*OD
I.15E-OI
I.04E-02
3.74&02
I.14E-03
O.OOE-MX5
4.39E-J7
S.S5E-04
5.02E-36
1.22E-02
1.7IE-23
-tJiE-27
6 JOE-01
8.75E-MX
123E-02
I.94E-03
4.09E-04
6.J1E-03
O.OOEWX
U9E-II
U3E-23
IJ8E-43

-
-
3JCEWH
Fcrtfaioftkt
Injocud Aomty
0.0
97.2
0.0
99J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
0.1
S7J
0.0
33.7
33i
IS ^
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
17.1
99.9
99.9
99.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0

34.S
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

-
-

feraatoftb*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n ffi
U.UU
QJO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OQ ' *
W.1**
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00

_
-
100.0
• Dteayed to January 1.1995
" Einmateof odionuctideiotter t&aa H-3 from 1957to l962[»wimta|9SJ%of the aaimncta H-3. Ban*cloi|t)( 1966)1
                                                                  5-71
-------
             LM-10
                 UF3-04
                 IM-O8
LF2-1S
          Legend
                                         0     IflW)    ilWI)  3000 teei
Figure 5-8. SRPA sampling \\ells location map.
                                                 5-72
-------
 (it-
 dt-
 OL

 IT
                                                                        .,iot:-isn
                                                                         frO i HZ
                                                                         00+H8
                                                                          VN
                       (M)'.|0|  I
                       001:109  t
                                                                                              ooc-irs't
                                                                                            U tO-:-!
     III- 100'S
     IO--IOOY
    lO'-ns's;
    ",,(101
III \.'tl.1lllv>l.l
                             oi
                             01
it-
it-
it-
  CO-H9

   VN  •

 to-?!:
oo+nvi
 io-;u
  VN

 001-12
 t ()-;•! c
 ,io-:-u
                                                                                             lO-i-ltO'c
                                                                                           H cO'-ISO'l
                                                                                          I'NJI  H1--IOS
  H ;0--lO(ri
 r.\\u 5"o--Ku:'i
  SI i'0--l()i"t-
  H HC'IO^S
  !| MI--IOO I
 I'H !()- I09'|


 H HI--IOS t-
 M tO-'-lOO'C
 H t'o-'iort
I'N'H H)-':IOV"9
•Mil
 "X
u IV
-------
 Table 5-26.  t
                                                   W.iu-1  iMikvnii.iiinii  iiiL1 I  in p(  11
                                                                                                                                                                                        1 lt't|llflU \  III
                                                                                                                        NumbiM ol  Samples      Nuinhci  nl l)i-UM%            IH-ialinn
                                                                                                                                   4'J                           21)                         -11"..
                                                                                                                                   4')                           4«>                         I III)",.
        Mill
         •         I iii|ilK,ik .mil 1.11  sample ICMllls vveie nul iiulntlcil in tile, slalisliciil anal v sis
         •         \nalviii.il lesnlls aie liom (!rniniihvalei samples enllci'leil  linm (he SKI'A ilnnn;.' Mas and June I')'H as pull nl llie ()l I  '  I I Kl  Kesnlts ,ue pmv nkil m  lalik I -I ul tin-1 H -1  I ' Kl I s
                   I'.nl  \il)ii|  ID lw7h)aiulllic I UK Dalahase
         •         s.nnpli-s \veie .in.ilv/cil Ini  I Al  iniiii'.inics anil lailinnncliiles  Onlv tlinse ennsliliielils that were ulenlilieil ahnvc ilcleelinn linuls in (lie s.nnplos .IK sh,,un in  the l.ililc e\ii|il Im tin
                   lulliiuin;1 onnsliliKnts vvlnel) vveic ileleelcil lint aic nut cniisulcicil In he pioscnl al ha/aiilnus enncentialiiiiis ( a.  I e. M;'  K, ami Na
( utii. mini. nits
t H«IS. Alpli.i
dinss Mcl.i
Mininiuni
2 .U)l: 1 1)()
2.4(H-JO()
M.tMiiuiin
1 ()()!• idl
4.(i'H-.i02
TKci'__
1 SI-iOl"
4inU/yrh
         •        N.nii|iliv n.|i\loil ln\.iiiM-iil an nli.iiVi-|il.llik' i|li;illl> i-i)iiliiil puiuinclt-i wi'ii- unl UK Imlfil 111 tlw lahlo
I,     |  |,r |'|- li i nil llu- I'niiKiiy ( nn-.liliK-nl Mjuil.ilils luhlc ill ID.-M'A I (ill I  II _'mi(u) mili^s MlhauiM- liniliinU.1
.      III. I'Hi i tiuiifhli.il inns It M  m.iir'.iik-M-  sihi-i, jiul /me .iic liuni Ilk' SiYoiul.ii) (  inisliluail M.imlanK  in IDAI'A  I Ml I  11  Jim ih)
,1     |  in- I'Ki i >iiiitviili.ilinii> l"i  Ain-.MI. l-IJ'J.aml lo Wan- oaknlalal \;iliiushj!>c.'ll 'I  'ti nns
>•     S,ii i nh.il \ s.iinpliif.' il.ila IKI  I-IJ'< \\ai lakon litiiililjU iulluck-(l illlllllj; ihc I'Nil ''I I I.Sd.S sampling cvcnl (USdS I')')-!)   UK- ,l;i|;i sluiuu in I In.- lulilo is uiiK limn llmsc Molls .s.niipkil Imlli ,l,n nr- |i.
      |'i'm.«i| I .si i>, s.nii|iliii!' IM-III an.l llu- \\ Ad ' Kl I-S. Ma\  Juno I')'>.•>, nuniplini!  cvcnl
I      I  lu- I'Kt 11 UIIK nil.limns l« H  '• .''•' .mil I1-?'X.IK- limn Sivlinn S. lahlc S-^orilns KOI)
      I  IK- I'Ki i iunK-iili.iliini l"i ;'iu-.s .ilph.i iiu'luilcs i.uliuiil .Vli hnl cvchuk's latliin mill niaininn
11     I  In I'Ki i Kincciilialiiiii l"i I'lnsilWu u-iiinhinal liclii plinlnn cniitlciM is 4 nil<.\i 'cltcclivc ilusc cquivalcill
It    I i.hi.nn.n.ii.I in jsvioulcil III.ink
I     Ih. ii'puiii-il \.iliii- iscsiun.ik-il lu..uiso oi ilio pii-scncc nl micilcii'iioc
I   I -.11111.11, ,I i.iliii-llll.lllllll                                                             ;
N   S|>il..,l  s.llllplc IvVtlVi'lV \VJS lltll vvillllll Killlltll Illlll^                   '
\\    I'.ixl tlii-'isliiin spike liir (il-AAS .nuUsis is nut nl cnnlinl limits, while sample ahsnilunee. is less Ilian 5(l"mil spike iiliMiiluiice
N \   \ui .ipplualilc
I'Ki t   I'liliiiim.nv  JxVjiicilialtnn (iii.il
-------
  levek L, ^ o«T   ^i ^od'ng l° Bartholomay H997), Cs-137 has been detected above reporting
   eyds through 1985 m wells USGS-40 and USGS-47 at the ICPP due to liquid-waste discharge to L
  ICPP injection well.  Dunng 1982 to 1985, maximum concentrations ,n wells USGS-40 and USGS 47
                  2°°±5° pCi/L' re*«**ly- Dunng 1986 to 1988, Cs-137 was not detected in these
                                             37 was detected '" one sam'
  roo  rvi
   992f ?  n7°n      ^   '  ,90) 3nd °nC Sample fr°m Wel1 USGS'47 <70±3° PC^ on April 29
  for Cs-n? L 3oT7S vr°s.        " ^ °f *" ^^ ^ ^^ dUn°g the WAG 3
  tt'^DD A- P/t/f°n/"/"'  M<>n'toring the quantities of Pu-238 and Pu-239/-240 (undivided) discharged to
  was not sets  L  ^ "V^  ^ '° *" time' 3'Pha actJV1^ from Plut— dismtegraS
  was not separable from the monitored,  undifferentiated alpha activity.  During 1 974 through 1 985 about
  aiSCi of Pu-238 and 0.05 C, of Pu-239/-240 (undivided) were discharged tc ^theVcPP ± ion well
       According to Orr and Cecil (1991), plutonium has been detected in the SRPA near the ICPP in

            '4?^ U/p°S;47' B°th °f *** WdlS are located near the ICPP Action weH  n we.
 0 47+0 16 oG/L I'd 5 £T?n ^^ TO ^ ^^ '" ^^ I98? at Concentrations of
 a47±0 16 pd/L and 5.5±0.4 pd/L. respectively.  In well USGS-47, Pu-238 was last detected m October
 1983* a concentrate of 0.5±0.06 PCi^. Since the 1986 to 1988 period reported by Orr and Cecf


       Pu-238 was only detected in a single water sample collected from well USGS-48   The samole was
 coHected ,n October 1 990 and had a concentration near the MDL at 0.05±0.02 PCi/L. Be^e^i a7d
 1995, all plutonium measurements at the INEEL were below the reporting leveH
 Plutonium was not detected m any of the aqutfer wells sampled during thf WAG
                            Ame™"m'241 is a decay product of Pu-241 and has a half-life of

        and TAN  Smce,       ^ ^ ^^ *» ^ ^ detCCted » the SRPA «* *c
        and TAN.  Since 1988, however, Am-241 was detected in well USGS-44 during July 1992 at
 concentrations of 0.07±0.03 and 0.08±0.03 pCi/L, in well USGS-37 during October 1992 at a

                  9±0-03 Cl/L ^             -         June ^91  at concentrations of
         at a concentration of 0.54±0.14 pCi/L.

5.3.5.4    lodine-129. From 1953 to 1983, an estimated 0.01 to 0.136 Ci/yr (0.56 to 1 18 Ci) of 1-129
were contamed m the wastewater d.scharged to the disposal well (Mann et al. 1988). For 1984 to  986

                        "                                                              '
0
rh Ir^V°Und"fD^OUndwatersamPlesn^  1981' 1986- 1990, and 1991) have been collected bv
 1994) -In X   ^ ^ thC ICPP (Mann 3nd BeaSiCy 1994)- AcCOrdin^ to Mann »d Beasiey
(1994).  In 1990 and 1991 concentrations of 1-129 in water samples from wells that obtain water from the
Snake River P!am aqu.fer ranged from 6.00E-7±2.00E-7 to 3.82±0.19 pCi/L. The mean concentration ,n
water from 1;, wdis was 0.81±0.19 as compared to 1.3±0.26 in 1986." Mann et al. (1988) reported a
                                           5-75
-------
                                                                                                          1
similar decrease in 1-129 groundwater concentrations between the 1981 and 1986 sampling events. The
distribution of I-129 in the SRPA for 1990-91 is provided in Figure 1-7.

      During the WAG 3 RI, 1-129 was detected in wells USGS-67, LF2-12, and LF3-08 at
concentrations of 1±0.3 pCi/L, 1.2±0.3 pCi/L, and 0.9±0.3 pCi/L, respectively.  Two of these wells are
located several miles downgradient from the ICPP. The limited amount of 1-129 contamination m the
aquifer is consistent with the observations made by Mann et al. (1988) where decreasing 1-129
concentrations were attributed to decreasing 1-129 disposal and the change in disposal techniques. The
half-life of 1-129 is 1.57E+07 years.

5.3.5.5    Tritium. A H-3 plume has developed in the SRPA from disposal of liquid wastes at the
INEL. The principle sources of H-3 in the aquifer have been through injection of liquid wastes through
the disposal well at the ICPP and discharge of waste water to the infiltration ponds at the ICPP and the
TRA. It  is estimated approximately 30,900 Ci of H-3 have been discharged to the SRPA at the ICPP
since 1952 (Orr and Cecil 1991). Of this amount, approximately 22,200 Ci were discharged via the
disposal well at the ICPP. The remainder of the H-3 was discharged to the aquifer via the ICPP
percolation ponds.

      According to Orr and Cecil (Page 30, 1991), "Tritium concentrations in water from the Snake
River Plain aquifer decreased by as much as 39,000 pCi/L during 1986-1988. By October 1988, tritium
concentrations ranged from 700±200 pCi/L to 6l,600±l,100 pCi/L and the tritium plume extended
southwcstward in the general direction of ground-water flow. The size of the plume in which tritium
concentrations exceeded 500 pCi/L decreased from about 51 mi2  in October 1985 to about 45 mi2 in
October 1988.  The area of the plume containing tritium concentrations in excess of the MCL of
20,000 pCi/L (EPA 1989, p. 551) decreased from 4.4 to 2.8 mi2.' The reduced concentrations of H-3
were attributed to radioactive decay processes, overall reduction in H-3 disposal rates, dilution from
recharge, and changes in the disposal methods

      The distribution of H-3 in the SRPA for May 1995 is shown in Figure 5-4. The size of the plume
that exceeds the federal drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L  is approximately 3.3 km2 (1.3 mi'),
significantly smaller than the 7.3 km" (2.8 mi2) reported in October 1988.

5.3.5.6    Strontium-90. A plume of Sr-90  has formed downgradient from the ICPP primarily in
response to the ICPP disposal well. According to Orr and Cecil (page 32,  1991), "in October 1985, the
size of the strontium-90 plume where concentration exceeded 6 pCi/L was about 2 mi2 (Pittman et al.
1988, p. 53): the concentrations of strontium-90 in wells 57 and 47 were 74±5 and 63±5 pCi/L,
respectively. Strontium concentrations decreased as much as 33 pCi/L during 1986-1988.  By October
1988, strontium-90 concentrations ranged from  8±2 to 48±3  pCi/L. and the area of the strontium-90
plume had decreased to approximately 0.8 mi2.  The strontium-90 concentrations in wells 57 and 47, both
within the plume, decreased to 41±3 and 48±3 pCi/L. respectively."  They attributed the reduced areal
extent and concentration of Sr-90 to the diversion of liquid radioactive wastes from the disposal well to
the infiltration ponds in addition to radioactive decay, diffusion, dispersion, and dilution from natural
recharge.  Since 1989. concentrations of Sr-90 in water  samples from most wells have remained relatively
constant.

      The distribution of Sr-90 in the SRPA for May 1995 is provided in Figure 5-5. The areal extent of
the Sr-90 plume has decreased between October 1988 and May 1995. consistent with the previous trend.
The maximum Sr-90 concentration detected in the aquifer was 84 pCt/L in well MW-18.  Historical Sr-90
concentrations for the USGS and CPP aquifer wells were provided in the WAG 3 RI/FS Work Plan
(LITCO  19950.
                                             5-76
-------
  5.3.5.7    Technetium-99. Tc-99 was identified in 32 of the 44 wells sampled during the WAG 3 RI.
  The highest concentrations of Tc-99 were identified in the north central portion of the ICPP in wells
  MW-18, USGS-47, and USGS-52 having concentrations of 448±4 pCi/L, 235±3 pCi/L, and 174±2 pCi/L
  respectively. The Tc-99 plume extends to the southwest of the ICPP and includes wells USGS-123,
  USGS-57, and USGS-39.  The maximum Tc-99 concentration outside the ICPP security perimeter fence
  is 49 pCi/L in well USGS-123.

       Chemical constituents detected in SRPA at the INEEL have in the past included total chromium,
  sodium, chloride, and nitrate. During the WAG 3 RI, water samples were collected from all aquifer wells
  and analyzed for CLP metals plus zirconium.  From the 44 wells tested, only the water sample from well
  LF2-11 exceeded a federal primary or secondary MCL. The magnesium concentration in LF2-11 was
  measured at 62.8 ug/L, compared to a federal secondary MCL of 50 ug/L. This well is located
  approximately three miles downgradient from ICPP and since magnesium was not measured in other
  wells above the federal  secondary MCL, this contamination is not likely associated with the ICPP.

  5.3.6    Buried Gas  Cylinders (Group 6)

       Site CPP-94 includes an area about 2.4 km (1.5 mi) northeast of the INTEC along the south side of
 a dirt security road.  Four exposed gas cylinders have been observed at the site and are believed to contain
 hydrofluoric acid. Site CPP-84 is located outside the INTEC fence line, east of Lincoln Boulevard and
 south of the Big Lost River. An estimated 40 to  100 cylinders were disposed in a trench  at Site CPP-84
 The safety hazards associated with CPP-94 and CPP-84 are similar.  The potential for cylinder
 over-pressunzation and  bursting is considered to be the most serious hazard at both sites.  Hydrofluoric
 acid is very corrosive, reacts violently with moisture, and can generate explosive concentrations of
 hydrogen gas. Fluoride, a chemical residual of hydrofluoric acid reactions, is a potential  health and
 ecological hazard. No known release of the cylinder contents has occurred.  As no sampling activities
 have been conducted at these sites, no sample results or sampling statistics are available.  The buried gas
 cylinders (Group 6) are considered to contain low-level threat wastes.

 5.3.7    SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)

      A preliminary  investigation conducted in 1984 indicated that the tank liquid and sludge contain
 elevated levels of Cs-137, Cs-134, Co-60, Sr-90, and isotopes of europium, plutonium, and uranium.
 Previous spills within the tank vault and  pump pit contained similar contaminants.  Site CPP-69  soil
 contamination is associated with CPP-VES-SFE-20.  Soils beneath the tank vault have not been sampled
 due to inaccessibility. There is no evidence that the vault has leaked. The soils were not included as a
 source in the vadose zone and groundwater models used  for risk assessment. The SFE-20 Hot Waste
 Tank System (Group  7) is identified as containing principal threat wastes.

      In February 1984,  liquid and sediment samples were taken from the tank interior, vault floor  and
 pump pit (Table 5-27). The  analysis consisted of only Co-60, Cs-137, Cs-134, Eu-152, Eu-154. Eu-155.
 Sb-125, total strontium, and  plutonium and uranium isotopes. The  reported concentrations of Cs-137.
 total strontium, and plutonium isotopes in the single tank liquid sample  were 2,050,000" 9 700 OOo'and
 17.600.000 pCi/L. respectively (WINCO 1984).  For the  same radionuclides, the concentrations m'the
 tank sediment sample were reported at 55,400,000,000; 4,700,000,000;  and 93,500,000 pCi/L,
 respectively.  Three samples were collected from the floor (two liquids and one sediment). Trie reported
concentrations in the two liquid floor samples for Cs-137 (analysis  for total strontium and  plutonium
 isotopes was not requested) taken from the south and center vault floor locations  were 905.000 and
248.000.000 pCi  I., respectively. The reported concentrations of Cs-137, total strontium, and piuton-um
 isotopes in the sediment sample collected on the north end of the vault were 8,920,000: 1.720,000: and
                                             5-77
-------
79.200 pCi/g. respectively. For the same radionuclides, the concentrations in the pump pit sediment
sample were 2.290.000; 5,890,000; and 3,010 pCi/'g, respectively.  Only Cs-137 at a concentration of
76,000 pCi/L was reported for the pump pit liquid sampling (WINCO 1984).

      There are no data available for nonradioactive constituents; however, the tank contents may contain
inorganic and organic constituents that were associated with the operation of the CPP-603 spent fuel
storage pool filtration system. It should be noted that generally, longer lived radionuclides (i.e.. those
having half-lives greater than 10 years) are of most concern and thus, those with shorter half lives were
not summarized in this section.
                                              5-78
-------
Table 5-27. Summary analytical results for the SFH-20 hot waste tank system.
  Identification Number and
         I oGilion
              Co-60
                         Cs-137      Cs-134      Eu-IS2      Eu-154
                                                                                                     Eu-155
                                                                                      Sb-I25
 Uadioisotopic content of tim-ars and samples of SFK-20 area (Sample concentration (pCi/smear jsear samples), pCi/g |solids| orp('i/nil. (liquids!)
  I    l'i|ii.-> (cMcnors) ;IIK!
      u.ilK (inlciiiu) in
           |>il   midway
      and pit floor
 2    I'ipes and walls in
      pump pa  I ID 2 ft
      from bottom
 11    Floor-north end of
      vault.
 12    Bottom 6 ni:-tank
      interior.
 13    Bottom of pump pit.
 14    I'ump pit-sump
  Sincai
                         7 681'M)2
* Walls, tloor, and
ceiling of access
tunnel.
4 Representative areas
of vault walls.
<-/. 5 SFL-20 tank
-^ (exterior).
7 A teas of apparent
seepage on walls
8 Floor-south end of
vault.
') Floor-center section.
10 SFH-20 tank interior.
Smear

Smear
Smear

Smear
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
  Smear         --'      897E+03       -"         —*          —»

             5.54E+OI    I.39EKM    5.92E+OI    5.84E+02     5.70E+02     I.21E+02

                        2.19E+03

             I.5IE+00    5.84E-KM    9.84E+OI    1.20E+03     7.70E+02     204E+02

             9.5IE+OI    4.I6E+04      —'         —•          _•          _•

             5.83E+00    9.05E+02    I.35E+00       —*          —'          —•

             I.OSE+02    2.48E+05    I.55E+00       —"          —*          _'
             7.43E*-OI    2.05E+03    7.76E+00       —•          —*          .._•
Dry Solids    2.I5E+04    8.92E+06    I.06E+04    I.50E+05     I.3IE+05     4.73E+04

Wei Solids    3.27E+05    5.54E+07    I.62E+05    I.38E+05     I.2IE+05       —'
                                                                                                                                           Pu
                                                                                                 I.7IE405     I.02E+02
                                                                                     7.32E+OI     9.70E+03     l.76Et(M
                                                                                        -a       I.72E+06    7.92E+04
                                                                                                                                                   - 1.60E-04
                                                                                                                                                   ()6    9.35E+04    I 9IE-03
Wet Solids   238E+04    229E^06    I.33E+04    5.65E+04     4.62E+04     2.05EKM     4.73E+04    5.89H^06    3.0IEf03
  Liquid
                           76
-------
     Table 5-27. (continued).
            Sample Numbci                 ,,1"±]-H_           .         Jl'f!?	Ra-226        __  _       Th-232                       Alpha
           lws Tor SKK-20 surface soil samples (Sample concentration lp('i/g|)
                   I                        22WKMII                    I7KI-..OI                    122KUHI                    2031-..(HI                                             2..WJOI                    3171:1(11
                   5                        3431-101                    29IEiOI
      *    I lie mm i>riiKUMii<::> lor IJunium (U) was rcptmcd in g/I.
      j    iMiinpc lu-lou ilcteciion limn
      b    Aiulyii^ \>.as mil icqucilcd  IK-cibiun was bused on earlier Alpha Scan results
      c    Anal\M.s nut pL'rloniK'il Analy/ud only ianiplcs expected to show highest concentrations
oo
O
-------
6.
 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL SITE AND RESOURCE USES
            6.1   Current Land Uses
































,DOE)
  6.2   Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use
                           ^^
                   6-1
-------
  Shoshone-Bannoek Tribes, the BLM. DOE. U.S. Forest Sen-ice. U.S. National Park Service, Idaho
  Department of Transportation. Idaho Fish and Game, and emht business, education, and citizen
  organizations. In addition, the EPA. and IDHW participated"in an ex-officio capacity.  Following review
  and comment by the public participation forum, the document underwent a 30-day public comment period
  and was subsequently submitted to the CAB for review and recommendations. No recommendations for
  residential use of any portions of the INEEL until at least year 2095 have been received to date.

       Areas of the INEEL are expected to be either industrial or non-industrial for the next 100 years  In
  the northern area of the INEEL. potential industrial use of the land for a spaceport is being considered
  The non-industrial areas are expected to involve grazing and similar activities. In addition  the INEEL is
  currently a National Environmental Research Park and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable  future
  This future use is expected to last until at least 2095.

       The reasonably anticipated future use for WAG 3 until 2095 is as a government-controlled
  industrial  facility.  The industrial area is expected to involve activities such as national laboratory research
 and development or handling, treatment, and disposal of radioactive materials.  The industrial operations
 assumptions  include a 10-ft basement scenario. Section 11 of this document discusses institutional
 controls to be implemented at OU 3-13 CERCLA sites. An Institutional Control Plan for specific sites
 will be developed during RD. Section 21. lof the FFA/CO provides EPA site access with or without prior
 notification.  The Institutional Control Plan will include provisions that any lease or privatization effort
 by DOE will  include EPA access.

                 6.3    Basis for Future  Land Use Assumptions

      The projection for future land use at INTEC is based upon:

      •     DOE projections for the future of its national laboratory research and development activities
            and nuclear reactor programs

      •    The presence of active industrial and research  facilities

      •    The presence of an industrial infrastructure

      •    No apparent non-industrial uses, other than grazing within the  INEEL

      •    Recommendations from the INEEL CAB and other stakeholders regarding future use
           assumptions.

                               6.4   Groundwater Uses

      Current SRPA groundwater use at INTEC is for drinkirm and irrigation.  Groundwater is extracted
Irom several production wells, which are located upgradient of WAG 3 groundwater contamination
There is no current water usage from regions of the aquifer that have been contaminated above MCLs
immediately downgradient of INTEC. Future groundwater  use from contaminated portions of the SRPA
outside ot the  current INTEC security fence will be restricted by institutional controls until 2095
Follow ing 2095. it is anticipated that groundwater in  the SRPA'will be available for all use/
Groundwater contamination from INTEC is not expected to migrate past INEEL boundaries. Water use
restrictions during the restoration time frame will apply onK inside the INEEL boundaries.
                                             6-2
-------
       There is no current or future planned groundwater use from the perched water zones  The nerched
 water zones are trans.ent and are not capable of producing sufficient w'ater for domes^othe,u'sef

                  6.5    Groundwater Classification and Basis


aquifj^bv*" SSS^'Sl' Thr^T ^ °^ **** ™ ^ S°'e *>urc"
unrW M  h    ' i           uctooer /. ivvi.  Three categories of aquifer protectiveness are applied
no orev    regulatlons:  (' > Sensitive Resources. (2) General Resources, and (3) Other Resources. Since
-r-lL i  oS a°    l° categonze the SRPA under state regulations has occurred, the aquifer defaults to the
cuaHt     HSTeS  Categ0ry' Genera! ReS°UrCe a"uifers are Protected to ^sure that groundwater
Oual tv R^rS! ^ruf"^', State W3ter quality standards are specified by the Idaho Groundwater
Vuai.ty KUIC. the Idaho Water Quality Standards, and Wastewater Treatment Requirements  Idaho's
groundwater standards mcorporate  10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table 2 and 40 CFR 14lTnd  43
                                         6-3
-------
-------
                                                                                                         1
                           7.    SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

                       7.1    Human Health Risk Evaluation

       The purpose of a human health risk assessment (HHRA) is to evaluate potential adverse impacts to
 human health resulting from exposure to site-related radioactive and nonradioactive contamination  The
 HHRA approach and results are summarized in this section.  First, Section 7. 1 I summarizes the
 conservative screenmgs performed to identify sites or sources of contamination and COPCs by media
 Contaminated media evaluated in the HHRA at OU 3- 1 3 include soil, groundwater, and air  The release
 sites sources, COPCs, and COPC concentrations for each of these med.a were evaluated independently
 primarily due to the complexity of the groundwater evaluation and the number of soil sites  These
 uuDAm?J VCre Summarized and lhe results were '"en used as input in the performance of the baseline
 HHRA. This assessment is summarized in Section 7.1.2.  A somewhat different grouping of sites was
7.1.1    Derivation of Exposure-Point Concentrations

      Generally, the analytical results of the field investigations conducted since 1 99 1 were used to
est.mate exposure point concentrations for each site-related chemical. This was accomplished bv
implementing the measures below for each retained site:

           Extract (by site) contaminant of potential concern (COPC) concentration data from the
           Environmental Restoration Information System (ERIS) or from appropriate information


     •     Eliminate data that were rejected per the method validation

     •     Eliminate data that indicated probable blank contamination

     •     Segregate quality control data (e.g., blanks, duplicates)

     •     Average duplicate results

     •     Assume nondetects are one-half the reported sample quantitative limit

     •     Aggregate data by individual COPC


           Aggregate COPC data by select depths, i.e.. surface and surface - subsurface (see Table 7- 1

           Calculate the 95% upper confidence level (UCL) of the arithmetic mean for each COPC bv
           select depths (EPA 1 992a)                                                       '

     •      Assess appropriateness of the 95°,, UCL  versus maximum concentration (EPA  I992a)

     •      Select appropriate concentration estimate

     •     Calculate contaminant concentration and or contaminant mass.
-------
 Table 7-1. Results of the site and chemical screening processes.
                              OLVSite
                                                                           COPCs
  3-01 CPP-61
  PCB Spill in CPP-7I8 Transformer Yard-Radiological contamination

  3-02/CPP-23
  CPP Injection Well
 3-02/CPP-37A
 CPP Gravel Pits'I
 3-02/CPP-37B
 CPP Gravel Pit tf2
3-02.CPP-65
Sewage Treatment Plant
3-03CPP-67
CPP Percolation Ponds #\ and ^2—Sediments
  Cesium-137
  Strontium-90
  Technicium-99

  Osmiuma
  Cesium-137
  Europium-152
  Europium-154
  Strontium-90
  Arsenic
  Americium-24l
  Cesium-137
  Cobait-60
  Neptunium-237
  Plutonium-238
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-235
 Uranium-238

 Aroclor-1260
 Keponea
 Arsenic
 Americium-241
 Cesium-137
 Iodine-129
 N'eptunium-237
 Plutonium-238
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-235
 L'ranium-23S

 Will be evaluated
 only as a source of"
 recharge to perched
 zones and SRPA.

 Americium-241
 Cerium-144
Cobalt-60
Cesium-134
Cesium-137
 Iodine-129
Neptunium-237
 PIutonium-23S
Plutonium-239 -240
 Ruthenium-106
Antimony-125
Strontium-90
-------
  Table 7-1. (continued).
   3-05/CPP-14
   ImhoffTanks
  3-05/CPP-14
  Plant Site
 3-05/CPP-14
 Drain Field
 3-06/CPP-33
 Contaminated Soil in the Tank Farm Area NE of CPP-604
 3-06.CPP-34
 Soil Storage Area in the NE Corner of the ICPP
3-06 CPP-40
Lime Pit at the Base of the CPP-601 Berm and French Dram-
RadiologicalContamination

3-07.CPP-20
CPP-604 Radioactive Waste Unloading Area
   Tritium
   L'ranium-234
   Uranium-235
   Uranium-238

   Aroclor-1260
   Benzo(a)pyrene
   Phenanthrene3
   Cadmium
   Cesium-137
   Neptunium-237
   Strontium-90
   Uranium-235

   Aroclor-1260
   Americium-241
  Cesium-137
  Neptunium-237
  Antimony-125
  Strontium-90
  Uranium-234
  Uranium-235
  Uranium-238

  Phenanthrene3
  Arsenic
  Neptunium-237
  Strontium-90
  Arsenic
  Americium-241
 Cesium-137
 Neptunium-237
 Plutonium-238
 Plutonium-239/240
 Strontium-90
 Arsenic
 Cesium-137
 Neptunium-237
 Plutonium-238
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-234
 Uranium-238
 Cesium-137
Americium-241
Cesium-134
Cesium-137
-------
 Table 7-1.  (continued).
                              OU-Site
                                                                           COPCs
 3-07CPP-25
 Contaminated Soil in Tank Farm Area North of CPP-604
 3-07/CPP-26
 Contaminated Soil in Tank Farm Area Steam Flushing—Operation
 inside the Tank Farm perimeter
 3-07CPP-28
 Contaminated Soil in the Tank Farm Area South of WM-I81 by
 Valve Box A-6
3-07CPP-31
Contaminated Soil in Tank Farm Area South of Tank WM-1X3
  Cobalt-60
  Europium-154
  Neptunium-237
  Plutonium-238
  Strontium-90
  Technicium-99

  Americium-24l
  Cesium-134
  Cesium-137
  Cobalt-60
  Europium-154
  Neptunium-237
  Plutonium-238  •
 Strontium-90
 Technicium-99

 Americium-241
 Cesium-137
 Europium-154
 Plutonium-238
 Plutonium-239
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-234
 Uranium-235
 Cerium-144
 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Cobalt-60
 Europium-154
 Neptunium-237
 Plutonium-239
 Plutonium-240
 Plutonium-241
 Plutonium-242
 Ruthenium-106
 Strontium-90
 Tritium
 Uranium-234
 L'ranium-235
 Uranium-236

 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Cobalt-60
 Europium-154
 Plutonium-239'-240
 Ruthenium-106
Strontium-90
                                          "-4
-------
                                                                                                        1
   Table 7-1. (continued).
                                 Of. Site
                                                                             COPCs
    3-07CPP-32W,E
    Contaminated soil in the Tank Farm area of Valve Box B-4

    3-07/CPP-79
    Tank Farm Release Near Valve Box A-2
   3-07/CPP-83
   Perched Water
   3-08/CPP-13
   Pressurization of the Solid Storage Cyclone NE of CPP-13
   3-08.'CPP-l5
   Solvent Burner East of CPP-605—Radiological Contamination
' . 3-08.CPP-27
  Contaminated Soil in Tank Farm Area East of CPP-604 and CPP-33
  3-ns CPP-35
  Uranium-235

  Cesium-137
  Europium-154
  Strontium-90

  Americium-24l
  Cesium-137
  Plutonium-238
  Strontium-90
  Uranium-234
  Uranium-235
  Arsenic
  Chromium
  Americium-24l
  Strontium-90
  Technicium-99
  Tritium
  Uranium-234
  Uranium-238
 Arsenic
 Zirconium"
 Cobalt-60
 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Europium-154
 Strontium-90
 Technicium-99

 Thallium3
 Zirconium1
 Americium-241
 Cesium-137
 Europium-154
 Neptunium-237
 Plutonium-238
 Plutonium-239/-240
 Tecnicium-99
 Uranium-235

 Americium-241
 Cesium-137
 Europium-154
 Neptunium-237

 Plutonium-238
 Plutonium-239 -240
Strontium-90
Uranium-235

Americium-241
-------
 Table 7-1. (continued).
                               OU Site
                                                                           COPCs
  CPP-633 Decontamination Spill
 3-08.CPP-36
 Transfer Line Leak from CPP-633 to Wl-102
 3-09.CPP-OI
 Horizontal Settling Basin, and Vertical Settling Pit and Soil Adjacent
 to SVV-048 Dry Well and CPP-303 Dry Well—Environmental Release.
3-09CPP-02
French Drain
     of CPP-603
3-09 CPP-03
Temporary Storage Area SE of CPP-603 Stockpiled Soil


3-09 CPP-Q4 and CPP-05 Contaminated Soil Around CPP-603
Settling Tank
3-09 CPP-06
Trench En^t ol'CPP-f>u3 Fuel Storage BIIMI
  Cesium-137
  Europium-154
  Plutonium-238
  Plutonium-239
  Strontium-90
  Uranium-235

  Americium-241
  Cesium-134
  Cesium-137
  Europium-154
  Plutonium-238
  Plutonium-239
  Potassium-40
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-234
 Uranium-235
 Uranium-238

 Americium-241
 Cobalt-57
 Cobalt-60
 Cesium-137
 Europium-152
 Europium-154
 Europium-155
 Plutonium-239
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-235

 Suspected Cesium-
 137
 Suspected
 Strontium-90
 Suspected Tritium

 Cesium-137
 Europium-152
 Strontium-90

 Cerium-144
 Cobalt-60
 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Europium-152
 Europium-154

 Europium-155
 Uranilim-235

Cesium-137
Strontium-90
-------
 Table 7-1.  (continued).
                               OUSite
                                                                           COPCs
  3-09/CPP-08 and CPP-09 CPP-603
  Basin Filter System Line Failure and Soil Contamination Near NE
  Corner of CPP-603 South Basin
  3-09/CPP-lO
  CPP-603 Plastic Pipeline Break
 3-09/CPP-1 I
 CPP-603 Sludge and Water Release
 3-09/CPP-17a
 Soil Storage Area South of CPP Peach Bottom Fuel Storage Area
 3-09/CPP-17b
 Soil Storage Area South of CPP Peach Bottom Fuel Storage Area
 3-09/CPP-19
 CPP-603 to CPP-604 Line Leak
  Cesium-137
  Europium-152
  Europium-154
  Strontium-90
  L'ranium-235

  Cobalt-60
  Cesium-137
  Europium-152
  Europium-154
  Europium-155
  Strontium-90
  L'ranium-235

  Arsenic
  Thallium3
  Cesium-137
  Cobalt-60
  Europium-154
  Neptunium-237
  Strontium-90
 Cesium-137
 Europium-152
 Europium-154
 Strontium-90
 Cobalt-57
 Cesium-137

 Arsenic
 Calcium1*5
 Americium-241
 Cobalt-60
 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Europium-152
 Europium-154
 Europium-155
 Niobium-95
 Plutonium-239
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-235
3-09 CPP-22
Paniculate Air Release South of CPP-603
Abandoned Liquid Radioactive Waste Storage Tank CPP VES-SFE-20
Cesium-137
Strontium-90
Techrticium-99

Cobalt-60
Cesium-134
-------
Table 7-1. (continued).
                              OU Site
                                                                          COPCs
 3-09CPP-78
 Contaminated Soil West of CPP-693, East of Dry Fuel Storage Area
 3-IO.CPP-46
 CPP-637 Courtyard Pilot Plant Release—Radiological Contamination
 3-U/CPP-58W/E
 Subsurface release of contaminants associated with PEW spills
 and CPP PEW Evaporator Overhead Pipeline Spills
3-12/CPP-80
CPP-60I Vent Tunnel Drain Leak (VT-300)
3-13.CPP-85
WCF Blower Corridor
3-13CPP-87
VOG Blower Cell Floor Drain. Sump and PEW Evaporator Feed
Pump Cell
 Cesium-137
 Europium-152
 Europium-154
 Europium-155
 Plutonium-239 -240
 Antimony-125
 Strontium-90

 Strontium-90
 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Strontium-90
 Technicium-99

 Americium-24l
 Cesium-137
 Europium-154
 Plutonium-238
 Plutonium-239
 Strontium-90
 Uranium-235

 Chloride3
 Suifate3    ,
 Zirconium3
 Cerium-144
 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Europium-154
 Europium-155
 Plutonium-238
 Plutonium-239/-240
 Ruthenium-106
 Antimony-125
 Strontium-90

Cobalt-60
Cesium-134
Cesium-137
 Europium-154
Strontium-90

Arsenic
 Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
 Lead'
Mercury
Cobalt-60
Cesium-134
-------
                                                                                                       1
  Table 7-1. (continued).
   3-13CPP-88
   Radiologically Contaminated Soils Map
  3-13/CPP-89
  CPP-604/605 Tunnel Excavation
 3-13/CPP-90
 CPP-709 Ruthenium Detection
 3-13/CPP-9!
 CPP-633 Blower Pit Drain
3-13-CPP-92
Soil Boxes West ofCPP-1617
       COPCs
             lm
    Cesium-137

    Arsenic
    Thallium3
    Cesium-137
    Strontium-90

    Americium-241
    Cesium-134
   Cesium-137
   Cobalt-60
   Iodine-129
   Neprunium-237
   Plutonium-238
   Plutonium-239.240
   Strontium-90
   Antimony-125
   Uranium-234
   Uranium-235

   Benzo(a)pyrene
   Phenanthrene3
  Arsenic
  Thallium3
  Cobalt-58
  Cesium-134
  Cesium-137
  Europium-155
  N'iobium-95
  Strontium-90  .
  Arsenic
  Manganese
 Thallium3
 Cesium-137
 Strontium-90

 Americium-241
 Cesium-134
 Cesium-137
 Cobalt-60
 Europium-152
 Europium-154
 Iodine-129
 Neptunium-237
 Plutonium-238
 Plutonium-239/240
 Stronfium-90
Antimony-125
Uranium-234
L'ranium-235
-------
 Table 7-1. (continued).
                                 OL' Site	-              COPCs
  3-13 CPP-93 Simulated Calcine Trench                                        Aluminum
                                                                             Mercury
  3-l3,Windbloun Area 
-------
  7.1.2    Site/Source and Contaminant Identification

  7.1.2.1    Soil.  This section summarizes the identification of sites and COPCs assessed in the HHRA
  tor soil contamination.  First, the sites that were designated "No Action" or "No Further Action" in the
  Track I, Track 2, or Rl/BRA were eliminated based on whether the soil concentration exceeded the
  PRGs.  These sites either: (a) contain no source of contamination, either through process knowledge or as
  a result of sampling activity; or, (b) contain no source of contamination because of remediation  All
  signed and pending decision statements were reviewed during the RI/BRA to ensure that the assumptions
  on which these recommendations were based remain valid (see Section 4.8). The second step of the site
  screening process was based on the results of previous risk evaluations. All sites for which preliminary
  risk evaluations using Track I or Track 2 methods have shown cancer risk or hazard levels to be less than
  I * 10-  or an HI< I.0, respectively, were eliminated from further evaluation. The contamination
  screening process was performed for each of the retained WAG 3 release sites.  Historical sampling data
  were used to identify COPCs present in soils at the WAG 3 sites. The list of contaminants was reduced
  by eliminating contaminants with observed concentrations  less than INEEL background concentrations
  by eliminating contaminants with detection frequencies less than 5% (i.e.. one detect in 20 samples equals
  a 3% frequency of detection) and without evidence of release at the site, and by consideration of whether
  or not the contaminant is an essential nutrient. Because substances that are essential nutrients can be toxic
  at high concentrations, the latter screening step was only applied at sites where essential nutrient
 concentrations are less than  10 times the background concentration.  The results of the site and 3
 contaminant screening are presented in Table 7-1.  Soil concentrations for assessment were then
 calculated for sites of concern as discussed in Section 7.1.3 of the RI/BRA (DOE-ID  I997b).

 7.1.2.2     Groundwater.  This section summarizes the  identification of COPCs and sources, and the
 modeling to determine groundwater contaminant concentrations. Groundwater COPCs were identified
 using three steps. First, an initial set of contaminants was identified by comparing the maximum
 concentrations measured in the aquifer and perched water to the limiting concentration defined bv either
 the water concentration based on a  IE-06 risk level, an HI of I, or the applicable MCL.  The seco'nd
 identification step designed and applied a screening process to evaluate the potential for groundwater
 contamination from contaminated soils. Soil contaminants were evaluated for their maximum risk in the
 alluvium pore-water, their propensity to infiltrate through the alluvium, and the predicted reduction in
 activity due to radioactive decay. These first two steps used field data presented in Section 5.1 of
 Appendix F of the OU 3-13 RI/BRA. including maximum observed concentrations of individual chemical
 species and the associated risk. The field data included:  (I) sampling and analysis of aquifer and perched
 water, (2) service wastewater source logs, and (3) sampling and analysis of soil contamination.
 Contaminants of concern based on other factors such as water sample information and soil contamination
 screens, were identified in the third  step.  As a result, three nonradionuclides and IO radionuclides were
 identified as COPCs in groundwater as shown in Table 7-2.  The identification and evaluation of the
 contaminant sources for the groundwater pathway are discussed in Section 5.2 of Appendix F of the
 OU 3-13  RI/BRA (DOE-ID 1997b).

      The contaminant transport modeling was limited to three  nonradionuclides (arsenic, chromium  and
 mercury-) and 10 radionuclides (Am-241. Co-60. Cs-137. H-3. 1-129. Np-237, Total Pu, Sr-90. Tc-99 and
combined uranium). Each COPC was incorporated in the model using the mass (radionuclide activity is
converted to mass units) defined from the known  releases, service waste, soil contamination, or TRA
discharge to the aquifer.  These contaminant mass sources were  modeled as either a uniform'release over
a known time frame, a variable release over a known time frame, or a one-time release at a particular
time. For the  simulations, the plutonium isotopes were combined into a Total Pu run and the uranium
isotopes arc combined into a Total L run.
-------
  Table 7-2.  Summary- ofthe identified .uroundwater COPC
COPCs Based on Waier Samples
Additional COPCs
Aquifer Based Based on Perched
COPCs Water
Am-241 None
H-3
I- 129
Np-237
Sr-90
Tc-99
u-234
U-238






Additional COPCs Additional COPCs
Based on Soil Based on Other
Contamination 	 Considerations
Arsenic Cs- 1 37
Chromium Mercurv
Co-60
U-235
Pu-238
Pu-239
Pu-240







Final List of the
COPCs for the
Groundwater
Pathway
Arsenic
Chromium
Mercury
Am-241
Co-60
Cs-137
H-3

1-129
Np-237
Total Pu
Sr-90
Tc-99
Total U 	
       The total mass or activity ofthe contaminants at the general source location was divided into more
 specific locations and given the best estimate of time during which the releases occurred  Table 6-1 and
 Figure 6-1 of Appendix F ofthe OU 3-13 RI/BRA report summarize source locations and simulation time
 frames tor each ofthe contaminant sources.  Section 7 of Appendix F ofthe OU 3-13 RI/BRA presents
 the vadose zone and aquifer simulation results. Table 6-4 ofthe OU 3-13 RI/BRA (DOE-ID I997b)
 presents a summary ofthe results by COPC.

       The aquifer transport simulation results consist of contour plots ofthe peak concentration at eiuht
 ditferent time frames centered about the MCL. contours of either the HI or risk number, depending on
 applicability, for eight time frames centered on the 10'" risk (or HI = 1), and the time history of the peak
 concentration and corresponding risk for the entire aquifer, for the Test Reactor Area footprint and the
 INTEC footprint. (TRA is an upgradient source of tritium and chromium to INTEC.) Tables 6-5 to 6-8
 ofthe Rl-BRA present result summaries by COPC.

      Concentrations for each contaminant were calculated as maximum values to coincide with the
 100-year future residential scenario time frame over the entire WAG 3 and therefore is the same
 regardless of location within the INTEC. This was the only scenario for which aroundwater was
 considered a pathway. The risk calculated for the SRPA are on-Site risks. There are no projected
 off-lNEEL impacts to downgradient SRPA users.

 7.1.2.3    Air. Area-weighted concentrations were calculated tisinn  the soil concentration terms
 prepared for each group and site within INTEC that are  presented in Sections 8 through 26 ofthe
 Of 3-13 Rl BRA (see Table 7-3 of this ROD). For the  oriMte worker scenarios. COPC concentrations in
 the 0- to l>cm  (0- to 0.5-ft) depth range were used.  For the future residential scenario CQPC
concentrations in *oil in the 0- to 3.05-m (0- to lO-ft) depth range were used. The individual site
concentrations were then used to estimate the contaminant air concentrations due to emissions that may
 result from multiple sues of concern within WAG 3.  Tin-, methodology j., presented in Section 7 \ T>"
and 2- 2 of the OU 3-13  Rl BRA (DOE-ID I WHit. Huch U)PC concentration term was calculated a> an
-------
                                                                                                          1
Table 7-3. COPC exposure-point concentrations in air
COPCs
Aroclor-1260
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Manganese
Mercury-
Uranium
Am-241
Ce-144
Co-57
Co-58
Co-60
Cs-134
Cs-137
Eu-152
Eu-154
Eu-155
H-3
1-129
K-40
Nb-95
Np-237
Pu-238
Pu-239/240
Pu-241
Pu-242
Ru.Rh-106
Sb-125
Sr-90
Tc-99
U-234
U-235
U-236
U-23S
Current Onsite Worker
Fugitive Dust Volatiles
(mg/nr or pCi-nr'l (nm nv )
• — ' - —
1.5E-I2 8.4E-16
— - __
1 .2E-09 —
3.2E-09 —
— —
5.1E-09 —
4.5E-06 —
4.6E-07 _
4.4E-10 —
— . —
5.1 E-06 —
1.5E-06 —
• 5.0E-04 —
1.3E-04 —
1 .OE-04 —
1 .4E-05 —
2.7E-07 —
3.1 E-06 —
— —
4.4E-12 —
1.3 E-06 —
5.5E-06 —
! .7E-06 —
— . . _
— - —
2.9E-07 —
1 .7E-07
2.1E-04 —
6.4E-07 _..
2. 1 E-06 —
5.6E-08 —
• — '
I.T.-H6 ' --
Future Onsite Worker
Fugitive Dust Volatiles
( nm nr or pCi. nr' ) ( me/m3)
— —
I.5E-12 8.4E-16
— —
1.2E-09 — -
3.2E-09 —
— •• — •
5.1E-09 —
3.9E-06 —
9.5E-46 —
1.2E-50 - . — '
•• — • _
l.OE-11 —
3.6E-2I —
5.0E-05 —
8.1E-07 —
3.9E-08 —
• 1.2E-1I —
9.7E-10 —
3.1E-06 —
— • —
	 • 	 .
1.3E-06 —
2.5E-06 — -
I.7E-06 —
— .... — -.
— - —
4.6E-37 —
2.3E-1S —
1 .9E-05 —
6.4E-07 —
2.1 E-06 —
5.6E-OS —
— —
1 T-D6
Future Qnsite Resident
Fugitive Dust Volatiles
(mg/nr orpCi/nr') (mem')
1.9E-11 1.6E-13
I.6E-12 5.7E-16
7.1E-07 _
7.4E-08 —
3.4E-09 —
8.3E-10 —
4.3E-09 —
1.1E-05 —
I.3E-45 —
1.7E-50 —

7.4E-II —
8.5E-21 	
2.3E-03 —
2.4E-06 —
l.OE-07 —
2.2E-11 —
5.4E-09 —
I.2E-06 —
3.0E-07 —
. _ _
1.4E-06 —
4.2E-06 -
3.2E-06 —
5.4E-07 —
3.8E-09 —
L8E-37 —
I.SE-18
6.3E-04
1 .6E-06
1.5E-06 —
5.8E-08 —
9.0E-1I
I.4E-06
-------
  7.1.2.4    average v alue over the entire WAG 3 are and therefore, the same value is .used regardless of
  location within INTEC.

  7.1.3    Human Health Risk Assessment

        The OU 3-13 HHRA methodology is presented in Section 7 of the OL' 3-13 RI/BRA
  (DOE-ID I997b).  This methodology was applied consistently for all retained sites within WAG 3  The
  HHRA evaluated risks due to exposure to COPCs through soil ingestion. fugitive dust inhalation  VOC
  inhalation, external radiat.on exposure, groundwater ingestion, ingestion of homegrown produce  dermal
  absorption of groundwater, and inhalation of water vapors during indoor water use.  The approach is
  described in the following sections.

  7.1.3.1    Exposure Assessment.  The exposure assessment stage of the human health risk
  evaluation process estimates the exposure route, magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposures that
  receptors may experience due to contact with contaminants at a specific site or group of sites.  The
  primary purpose of the exposure assessment is to estimate total dose for a receptor that can later be
 compared with chemical-specific dose response data to estimate cancer risk and the likelihood of other
 noncancer adverse health effects. A conceptual site model (CSM) was prepared to identify receptors and
 exposure routes under current and future land use conditions (Figure 7-1).  The CSM  illustrates the
 contaminant sources, primary release mechanisms, secondary sources and release mechanisms exposure
 pathways  exposure routes, and receptors specific to WAG 3.  Aspects of the exposure assessment process
 are described m more detail below.

 7.1.3.2    Identification of Potentially Exposed Receptor Populations. The identification of
 potentially exposed receptor populations includes consideration of applicable current and future land use
 T^f'  A discussion of these scenarios at the INEEL  is found in Section 7 of the BRA  As shown by
 the CSM, potential receptor populations include occupational site workers and hypothetical future
 residents  The current land use includes continued  use of operating facilities. Access to these facilities is
 controlled: therefore, the only potential receptor is an occupational worker during the current land use
 seennrin
scenario.
      Because current industrial uses at WAG 3 are expected to continue in the future, the future land use
scenario included occupational workers. Also, for the purposes of the WAG 3 HHRA it was assumed
that residential development may occur and thus, exposures to hypothetical future on-Site residents mav
occur and were evaluated.  The residential receptor is assumed to be an adult for all potentially complete
pathways: additionally, a child receptor was included in the soil ingestion pathway assessment  For this
pathway, the child and adult parameters were averaged on a time-weighted basis.  Child exposures were
evaluated specifically for the soil ingestion exposure route because children  have the potential for much
greater exposure via this route. The timing for the future land use exposure scenarios was assumed to be
100 years in the future for both receptor populations.

7.1.3.3    Identification of Potential Exposure Pathways. The CSM  for WAG 3 includes
sex eral exposure pathways and associated routes that vv ere selected for further  evaluation based on
process and release history. The completeness of exposure pathways and routes are expected to varv
between release sites according to the presence or absence of site-related  chemicals or the presence of
engineering features or artifacts that prevent exposure from taking place.  Exposure pathwavs evaluated at
each Mie of concern are summarized in Table 7-4.  Site-specific  features that influenced the"completeness
01  pathway and evpOMire routes are described separately for each site in  Sections S through 26 of the
OL 3-13 Rl BRA.
                                              "-I4
-------
G
                                         or BTBJM gigac
                                 occoifiuiniai suinaa usa
                                 M TtC PCW CVAMMATOI FACUH
                                    T-7/AC  3  conceptual  site model.
          Figure 7-1  WAG 3 conceptual s.temodd
                                                                                                                                                                                                     7-15
-------
                                                                                                       1
                                  «posure pathways quawjtaively CTataed for WAO 3
    Potentially Exposed
         Receptor
    Occupational
    worker
   Residential
                        Scenario

                  Current land use
                  Future land use
   Occupational
   worker
                 Future land use
  Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways and Soil Depths by
 __ _ . _ Exposure Route _

 Inhalation of VOCs (0- 1 5 cm [0-6 in.])'
 Inhalation of airborne particulates (0-15 cm [0-6 in.]?
 Ingestion of surface soil (0-15 cm [0-6 in.])'
 External radiation (0- 1 .22 m [0-4 ft])b

 Inhalation of VOCs (0-3.05 m [0-10 ft])c
 Inhalation of airborne particulates (0-3.05 m [0-10 (Of
 Ingestion of surface soil (0-3.05 m [0-10 ft])'
 Ingestion of homegrown produce (0-3.05 m [0-10 ft])*
 Ingestion of groundwater
 External radiation (0-3.05 m [0-10 ft])c
 Inhalation of VOCs (0-15 cm [0-6 in.])'
 Inhalation of airborne particulates (0- 1 5 cm [0-6 in.])*
 Ingestion of surface soil (0-15 cm [0-6 in.])*
External radiation (0-L22 m [0-4 ft])*
                                                                    -

     ExposureisassumedtobelimitedtosuifecesoiL Surfaced is considered as the top 0-1 Scm((Win.>
                                                                         .

subs                                                       Contamination betew todepthi,



                        *'          * """^ ***** **«** to become *"*«* «>« *™ allowing exposure
  tooccur to the
  7.1.4   Toxfcity Assessment
 and reference dose values are presented in Section 7.2 of the OU 3-13 RI/BRA (DOE-ID 1997b).

 7.1.5    Human Health Risk Characterization
 to a ootiarnP    *?****** is f**«* « both cancer risk and noncarcinogenic hazard
 to a potential receptor. Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a sinele
              1**     ***• WWch * *" rad° °™< «timated intake dJUdSSJSSSS
                                ?e COntaminant>s refe™* ^se (RfD). A RfD is defmed^ddly
                                         * WJU "Ot prOduCe delcterious effects durin8 a Iife^- ^
ny be rhlv e                           ^ °f aCn)SS a" media to *hich a S^n Population
                         '    HI  3" bC calculated- ^ HI expresses noncarcinogenic eflS-ts of
                                          mCdiUm °r across media-  Potential carcinogenic risks are
                                          dividual might devel°P cancer in *eir life^e fr°»
                                   Er°JeCted intakeS and Che™^-specif5c, dose-response data called
                                d *" eS'imated daily intake °f a comP°URd' ^eraged over a lifetime
devdop cc                      'nc«™ntal risk that an individual exposed to that compound may
                                            7-16
-------
                                                                                                            1
   calculate the Z         T  "?"? **" ^ '° S°/V *&>»""• The intake equations used to
   Rl BtS mOF 1CH'Q™  rl       J°m Ttammated S°ilS 3re PreSemed in Sectlon 7 of the °U 3-<^
   Jct-m^ h         /   ''     SC mtakeS 3nd the aV3ilable t0xidty inf°™^ion were then used to
   riS^S f,'nCreaSed can«r madence and noncarcinogenic hazards.  The results of the soil exposure
   nsk calculations are presented by site in Sections 8 through 26 of the OU 3-13 RI/BRA (DOE-ID 1997b)
   mrtTnToo^tr™   C fiSkS WerC eVa'Uated cumu|a ^ Air Exposures.  The intake equations used to
  calculate the! scenano-specific mtakes from the inhalation of fugitive dust and volatilized contaminants
  are presented ,„ Section 7 of the OU 3-13 RI/BRA.  These intakes and the available to^i^Son
  were used to estimate the increased cancer incidence and  noncarcinogenic hazards (Tab  ^7-5 anT77)
  2  Sn  ^ tender a!,' h6 "1CreMed.can^ Hsk from exP— » area-weighted air concentrations if"
  we 1 below a HI ofl  fn  ^T SCena"°S-     "°ncarcin°genic hazard for this pathway was found to be
  mtction 27 of the OU f, wiSS""*' ^^^ M°W'theSe "** WCK CVaIuated
  in section 21 ot the OU 3-13 RI/BRA report (DOE-ID I997b).
 7.1.5.4    Cumulative Risk Presentation. Cumulative cancer risks and noncarcinogenic hazards
 associated w.th WAG 3 were estimated by summing all risk contributions across all paZ^y and
 exposure routes tor all contaminants. Risk contributions from the groundwater and air pathways were
 added to nsk contributes from the soil pathway at each group and site within WAG 3   The resuUs are
 anirrweT"31^ '" SeCt'°n 27 of theOU 3-13 RI/BRA (DOE-ID I997b).  From these results Tables 7-7
 cannce"r r^^^^l^^^^^^^y ^ HHRA a"d the Corresponding

 7.1.6    Human Health Risk Uncertainty

       Many sources of uncertainty are introduced during the risk assessment process, beginning with site
 investigations and samphng and analysis through risk characterization. Site-specific uncertainty is
 discussed separately for each release site in Sections 8 through 26 of the OU 3-13 RI/BRA  A summary
 of uncertamty sources and their potential effects on the risk evaluation is given in the following
 paragraphs.                                                      w                 fe


Or f n R • Rp1°S"re f*thWayS- Generally, pathways and exposure routes were evaluated in the
OU 3-13 RI BRA according to their potential risk contribution.  Exclusion of less significant pathways
may underestimate the total nsk to human  health. However, those pathways not quantified were        '
decisions l° rePreSCm Sma" S0urces °f exP°sure and were not expected to influence risk management
-------
       ^Many of the sites are rarely, if ever, visited by onsite workers.  The actual exposure time is
  significantly lower than the values used in human health risk assessments (i.e.. 10 hr d) and therefore risk
  calculations likely represent an overestimate of the actual risk.

  7.7.6.2     Contaminant Fate and Transport. With the exception of radionuclides. the evaluation
  of human health risks assumed that environmental media concentrations determined from sampling will
  remain at the same levels over the assumed periods of exposure. This assumption is likely to result in an
  overestimation of risk, since concentrations are expected to decline over the long-term as natural
  processes degrade, dilute, or remove site contaminants.  The rate of the these natural processes in the
  contaminated media are unknown, therefore, the magnitude of the overestimate is difficult to determine.

  7.1.6.3    Exposure-Point Concentration. The exposure-point concentrations used for assessing
  risks associated with the reasonable maximum exposure case were  either the maximum detected value or
 the upper 95th percentile of the mean value (whichever is less). Nondetected values were treated as
 concentrations equal to half the detection limit.  This procedure would overestimate the risk except in
 cases where the actual concentration of the chemicals is below the detection limits.

 7.1.6.4    Exposure Levels.  The amount of exposure that an individual receives is highly dependent
 on their activity patterns.  There is considerable variability regarding the values assumed in calculating
 human intake factors.  For instance, estimates of soil ingestion rates for all populations  are subject to
 ongoing debate. This may again result in overestimating or underestimating the risk on an individual
 basis.  Additionally, exposure levels estimated for this project did not take into account the fact that
 individuals such as onsite workers would be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when
 working in contaminated areas. This results in an overestimation of risk for these potential receptors.

 7.1.6.5    Cancer-Risk Estimates.  The predicted cancer risk in  humans due to chemical exposure
 (i.e.. nonradiological) is often based on cancer dose-response data in animals. There is  a long-standing
 controversy in the scientific community as  to the best way by which cancer-dose response data obtained
 from animal studies should be extrapolated to humans. In general, the EPA follows a conservative
 procedure in deriving slope factors, so cancer risk estimates due to chemical exposure based on these
 values are likely considerably higher than the true risks.

 7.1.6.6     Computer Modeling.  A computer model  was used to estimate exposure concentrations of
Site-related chemicals in groundwater. These values were subsequently used to estimate chronic daily
intakes, and subsequent total cancer risk and noncarcinogenic hazard.  Numerical predictions of
contaminant fate and transport in the vadose zone and the aquifer were based on:  {I) hydroueoloeic data
forming the conceptual models for both zones:  (2) contaminant release source term estimates: and"
(3) estimates of the contaminam-soil-basalt chemical interactions. The uncertainty in the conceptual
model and its parameterization was qualitatively assessed. This uncertainty may have lead to either an
over estimation  or underestimation of risk.  Uncertainty in source term estimates,  including the volume.
mass and content: and in the interaction of the contaminant with the  soil and basalt, parameterized as the
distribution coefficient or Kd; cannot be quantified accurately. The predicted contaminant concentrations
are much more sensitive to these latter two  parameter values than the first. The uncertainty associated
with the UNO of a computer model to estimate groundwater exposure  concentrations is discussed in detail
in Section (•> of die OL' 3-13 RI  BRA.
-------

COPCs
Aroclor-1260

Benzo(a)pyrene
Aluminum

Arsenic
Manganese
Mercury

Uranium
Am-241
Ce-144
Co-57
Co-58
Co-60
Cs-134
Cs-137
Eu-152
Eu-154
Eu-155
H-3
I- 129
K-40

Nb-95
Np-237
Pu-238
Pu-239240
Pu-241

Pu-242

Ru Rh-106
Sb-I25
Sr-90
Tc-99
L'-234
U-235
L'-236

L-23S
Total Cancer Risk
Indicate" that the c.c
\ 1 1) indicate" that >",
Current Onsite Worker
Inhalation of Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust Volatiles


2E-14 1E-17
	

IE-15 —
NTD _


NTD —
4E-15 _
IE-IS _
3E-23 _
	 	
8E-18 —
IE-18 _
2E-I6 —
2E-16 —
2E-16 —
3E-18 —
6E-22 —
9E-18 —


3E-25 _
IE-15 _
3E-15 —
IE-15 — .




SE-19 _
2E-20 —
3E-16 —
4E-20 —
7E-16 —
2E-P —


5H-I6 _
3FM4 IE-IT •
'iM.iMiitunt ;- not a c 1 )('( m the medium IT
Kit1. Jala i^ not a\ai.'ahle
UlULl^lU HI Ull .
	 Future Onsite Worker
Inhalation of Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust V'olatiles

— — ;
2E-14 IE-17

—
IE-15 _
NTD _

• 	
NTD —
3E-15 _
2E-57 _
8E-64 _
	 _
2E-23 —
2E-33 —
2E-17 _
IE-18 —
8E-20 —
3E-24 _
2E-24 _
9E-18 —

	 ; • „ —
	 . 	
IE-15 —
2E-15 —
IE-15 —

: 	

	 	
1 E-48 —
3E.-31 —
3E-I7 _
4E-20 —
~E-16 —
2E-1? —

	 	 . -
5E-I6
.3E-I4 IE-17
.it the N,K-

Future Onsil
Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust

NTD
2E-14

NTD
1E-13
NTD

NTD
NTD
IE-14
3E-57
IE-63

1E-22
6E-33
IE-15
4E-I8
2E-19
5E-24
1E-23
3E-18

5E-20

IE-15
3E-15
2E-15

5E-16

2E-18
5E-49
2E-3I
IE-15
1E-I9
5E-16
2E-17

3E-20
4E-16
n


:e Resident
Inhalation of
V'olatiles

NTD
8E-18

	



	














	





	

	







	
	

SE-l,s

-------
  Table 7-6. Noncarcinouenic hazards due to COPC concentrations in air.
                     JTurrent Onsite Worker
                                Future Onsite Worker
      COPCs
Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust
                                 Inhalation of
                                   Volatiles
                                                                               Future Onsite Re
Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust
Inhalation of
 Volatile*
Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust
Inhalation of
 Volatiles
  Aroclor-1260
  Ben/o(ajpvrene
  Aluminum
  Arsenic
  Manganese
  Mercurv
  Uranium
  Am-24]
  Ce-144
  Co-57
  Co-58
 Co-6t)
 Cs-134
 Cs-137
 Eu-152
 Eu-154
 Eu-155
 H-3
 1-129
 K-40
 Nb-95
 Np-237
 Pu-23X
 Pu-23^ 240
 Pu-241
 Pu-242
RuRh-106
Sb-125
   NTD
    —
   NTD
   4E-06
    —
   STD
                                     NTD
                                                   NTD

                                                   NTD
                                                  5E-07

                                                   NTD
                  NTD
                 NTD
                 NTD
                 NTD
                 NTD
                 5E-07
                 1E-07
                 NTD
                  NTD
                  NTD
 Tc-'W
 l'-234
 L-235
 I -2.V>
   In.: «.j
.VII lhi
                                                               n|.;-oo
                                                                                           Oli-dO
-------
 Table 7-7. S

     (iroup Site
ry.l?LK'/»!JA concjusionsand recommendations for groups andsile^f mnr.»rn_
 CojiilamiiKuiis Identified
Sues ,,f I M-lusix e      CPP-02: Kad.onuclidcs  CH'-02: Unknown
(iiouiulwaiei Concern
                               site included in'me gmundwa'ter modd*"1" C°IlUimillalioni   J'hcsc sites|we"; e^»^ i" the RI/BRA u.
                                                                                        I HO i?\liMll lh:il tl\j»t( .»»-.. 	_ __..**.  i
                   '   C'PP-23: Radionuchdes  CI'l'-23: Significant potential source of groundwater
                                             contamination, site included in the groun.dwater model.
                     Cl>l>-o5: Low levels of   CPP-65: Significant source of water, i
                                                                       -
                                                                                          source
                     Kudioiuielidcs
                                             C;iM'-W|: Unknown potential for groundwater coniammalion
                                             site included in the groundwater model.

                     C -IM'-XJ: Kadi<,nuclule.s   fPI>-83: Signitlcant potcnlial source of groundwater
                     a'ul mcli'ls              contamination, site included in the groundwater model.

                     U'l'-*7: Radionuclidcs   CPP-K7: No identified route for contamination transport to
                                             the aquifer, site not included in the groundwater model

                                                                                 al- con,amin.,ion.
                                                                                                  *
      and metals

      Kiulionuclidcs at all
-28,   siles
                                       -. f---•••• i iu • t\Jt KIVJU||VJW

                       site. Included in the groundwater model.
                                            Current occupational:  surface risk >IE-04 due to external
                                            radiation exposure (Cs-137)

                                            Future occupational:  surface risk >1 E-04 due to external
                                            radiation exposure (Cs-137)

                                            Future residential: surface risk >1 E-04 due to external
                                            radiation exposure (Cs-137)
                                                                                                                         0
                                                                                  Ihe extent that they are a source of recharge
                                                                                  and/or contamination to the SRPA and will he
                                                                                  evaluated further in the Oil .1-13 l-easibility
                                                                                  Study.
                                                                                 The potential increased cancer risk is
                                                                                 unacceptable regardless of land use
                                                                                 assumptions. Alternatives protective of future
                                                                                 residents should be evaluated during the Oil
                                                                                 3-13 Feasibility Study for this group.
-------
         Table 7-7.  {continued)..
 I

I J
        lank I .inn South
        ldT-15.-27 \.\.
        s.xU'l )
        \Vaste Calcine
        I-acihtv (CI'l'-35.
OldSloiaiie I'ool
(CIM'-UI  (1-1 U.S. .
US II1). -III. -II)
Stoiaue Vatd l.asl of
(IT-olM (Cl'l'-03. -
I7A.-I7H)
                       Contaminants Itlenlilled

                       Radionuclidesat all
                       .Mies
                       (TP-35: Uadionuclides

                       (TI'-36.-«M:
                       kadionticlidcs

                       CIT-X5: Nti release
                       idcnlilled

                       Kadionuclidcs for nil
                       sites
                              Kadionuclidcs for the 3
                              siles
                  Risk Assessment Results'*

 Current occupational: surface risk >1H-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future occupational:  surface risk --II--04 due to external
 radiation exposure (C's-137)

 l-'uture residential: surface risk -'II--04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137) and ingestion of homegrown
 produce
 (Cs-137)

 Current occupational:  surface risk •> I li-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137) Future occupational:  surface
 risk > Ili-(l4 due to external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Fulurc residential:  surface risk > 1 li-04 due to soil ingeslion
 (Am-241, Cs- 137, Sr-W), homegrown produce ingestion
 (C's-137 and Sr-90), and external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Current occupational:  surface risk > I [{-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Co-60, Cs-134, Cs-137, Lu-152, liu-154)

 Future occupational:  surface risk >  IL-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137, Liu-152)

 l-'uture residential:  surface risk > I li-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137, Fu-152,  Hu-154)

Current occupational: surface risk > I  li-04 due to external
radiation exposure (Cs-137)

l-'uture occupational:  I li-04- surface  risk  •- IF.-OISduelo
radiation exposure (Cs-137)

Future residential:  surface risk > I li-04 due to external
radiation exposure (Cs-137)
	      Conclusions andJRecomniciulations

   The potential increased cancer risk is
   unacceptable regardless of land use
   assumptions. Remedial alternatives
   protective of future residents should  lie
   evaluated during the Oil 3-13 Feasihility
   Study for this group.
   The potential increased cancer risk is
   unacceptable regardless of land use
   assumptions. Remedial alternatives
   protective of future residents should he
   evaluated during the OH 3-13 Feasibility
   Study for this group.

   The potential increased cancer risk is
   unacceptable regardless of land use
   assumptions. Remedial alternatives
   protective of future residents should he
   evaluated during the ()t) 3-13 Feasibility
   Study for this group.


   '['he potential increased cancer risk is sliglulv
   greater than I li-04 under current occupational
   and future residential assumptions. Only site
   CTIMJ3 should be evaluated further in the ()l I
   3-13 Feasibility Study.
-------
   Table 7-7.  (continued).

       < iroup.Sile      ..<>?»

  l"IT-.17A U            Radionuelides and
                        arsenic
 CIT-(i7
                       Kadionuclide
CIT-14
                       Kadionuclides
CIT-34
                      Radioiuielidcs
Risl< Assessment Results'1
  Current occupational: I H-04 > surface risk > I H-06 due to
  external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

  Future occupational:  I H-04 > surface risk > I H-06 from
  external radiation exposure (Cs-l37, Np-237)

  Future residential: 1 H-04 > surface risk >  I H-06 due to soil
  mgcslmn (arsenic) and external radiation exposure (Cs-137,


  Current occupational: surface  risk >l H-04 due to external
  radiation exposure (Cs-137)

  Future occupational: I H-04> surface risk > I H-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137, Np-237)

 Future residential: surface risk >1E-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Current occupational:  I H-04>surface risk > I H-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137, Np-237)

 Future occupational:  I H-04> surface risk > I H-06 due to
 external  radiation exposure (Cs-137,  Np-237)

 Future residential: I H-{)4> surface risk > I H-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137,  Np-237)

 Current occupational:  1 H-04> surface risk >  1 H-06 external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future occupational:  1 H-04> surface risk > I H-06 due to
external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

Future residential: surface risk > I H-04 due to homegrown
produce inges.ion (Sr-90) and external radiation exposure
                                          The potential increased cancer incidence at
                                          this release site is less than I H-(M under all
                                          land use assumptions; therefore, further
                                          evaluation in the OU 3-13 Feasibility Study is
                                          not warranted.
                                         The potential increased cancer risk i.s
                                         unacceptable under future residential  land use
                                         assumptions. Remedial alternatives
                                         protective of future residents should he
                                         evaluated during the OU 3-13 Feasibility
                                         Study for this site.


                                         The potential increased cancer incidence al
                                         this release site is less than I H-04 under all
                                         land use assumptions; therefore, further
                                         evaluation in the OU 3-13 Feasibility Study is
                                         not warranted.
                                                                                                         The potential increased cancer risk is
                                                                                                         unacceptable under future residential land use
                                                                                                         assumptions. Remedial alternatives
                                                                                                         protective of future residents should be
                                                                                                         evaluated during the OU 3-13 Feasibility
                                                                                                         Study for this site.
-------
 Table 7-7.  (continued).

     dump Site      Con
(Tl'-l 3               Riulionuelides
 Cl'l'-on
                      Radionudides
                       Radionucliiles
ci-i1-::
                      Kndionuclidcs
      .._.._..     Kisk Assessment Results'*

 Current occupational:  surface risk > I H-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137, Hu-154)

 Future occupational:  surface risk > I H-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future residential:  surface risk > I H-04 due to homegrown
 produce ingestion (Sr-90) and external radiation exposure
 (Cs-137)

 Current occupational:  surface risk > I li-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future occupational:  I H-04 > surface risk - 1 li-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future residential:  I li-04 > surface risk > 1 H-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Current occupational:  surface risk > 1 H-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future occupational:  I H-04 > surface risk >  I H-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future residential:  surface risk >  I H-04 due to soil digestion
 (Cs-137, Sr-90), homegrown produce ingestion (Cs-137,
 Sr-'JO) and external radiation exposure (Cs-137, Hu-152
 Hu-154)

 Current occupational:  surface risk > I li-04 due to external
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future occupational:  1 H-04 > surface risk >  1 H-06 due to
external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future residential:  1 H-04 > surface risk > I H-06 due to
external radiation exposure (Cs-137)
                                                                                                        ——   tV'iielusmns and JKa:oniniendations

                                                                                                          The potential increased cancer risk is
                                                                                                          unacceptable under all land use assumptions
                                                                                                          evaluated. Remedial alternatives protective of
                                                                                                          future residents should be evaluated during
                                                                                                          the OU 3-13 Feasibility Study for tins site"
The potential increased cancer incidence at
this release site is greater than I H-04 under
current land use but less than I H-04 under
future occupational and residential land use
assumptions; therefore, further evaluation of
this site in the FS is not warranted.


The potential increased cancer incidence at
this release site is greater than 1 li-04 under
current and future residential land use
assumptions but less than  I li-04 under future
occupational  land use. Remedial alternatives
protective of future residents should be
evaluated during the  OU 3-13 Feasibility
Study  for this site.


The potential increased cancer incidence at
this release site is greater than I li-04 under
current land use but less than 1 H-04 under
future occupational and residential land use
assumptions; therefore, further evaluation of
this site in the OU 3-13 Feasibility Study is
not warranted.
-------
          7-7.  (continued).
          nip /Site
jCj>ntjiininaiits Men tilled

 Kadionudidc.s
                                                   	  Risk Assessment Results'1
 UT-XN
                        Radiomiclidcs
                       Radionuclides


                       Mercury
                                                Current occupational:  I E-04> surface risk > 1 |£-()6 due to
                                                radiation exposure (Cs- 137)
                         Future occupational:  I K-04> surface risk
                         radiation exposure (Cs-137)
                                                                                          I li-06 due to
.1  I llC tlsk
         •issoV.nu-111 io;.iilis in Ihis milk- tin inn intflmltf llie air and
 Future residential:   I L-()4> surface risk '> 11-:-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Current occupational: I K-04> surface risk > I li-06 due to
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future occupational:   1l>04> surface risk > I f>06 due to
 radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 Future residential:  I E-04> surface risk > IL-06 due to
 external radiation exposure (Cs-137)

 The waste boxes that contain radioactive soil were not
 evaluated quantitatively in the RI/BRA Report.
 Current occupational: 111 > I

 Future occupational: III > |

Future residential:  non-carcinogenic hazard > I due to
ingestion of home grown produce
—	Conclusions and Recommendations

 The potential increased cancer incidence at
 this release site is less than IH-04 under all
 land use assumptions; therefore, further
 evaluation of this site in the OU3-I3
 l-easibiliiy Study is not warranted.
                                                                                                           The potential increased cancer incidence at
                                                                                                           this release site is less than I H-04 under all
                                                                                                           land use assumptions; therefore, further
                                                                                                           evaluation of this site in the OU3-I3
                                                                                                           Feasibility Study is not warranted.
                                                                                    The disposition of these boxes will be
                                                                                    deferred to the OU 3-13 Feasibility Study.
                                                                                    The noncarcinogenic ha/ard under future
                                                                                    residential assumptions is > 1; therefore,
                                                                                    further evaluation of this site in the OU 3- \ 3
                                                                                    FS is warranted.
-------
                                                                                                                                                    1
 Table  7-8. Human health baseline risk assessment summary for WAG 3 sites ofconcern.
                                                                                                 Exposure Scenario
                                                                                         Excess Risk of Incurring Cancer
Group
Group 1— INTECTank Farm1


Group 2 — Soils Under Buildings and
Structures
Group 3— Other Surface Soils



Group 4 — Perched Water

Group 5 - Snake River Plain Aquifer1-'




Group 6 — Buried Gas Cylinders
Group 7— SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank
System8"1

* Half-life ten \carsl used in modeling lor Ol ' 3
COC
Cs-137"
Sr-90***
U-235
NSR'
Cs-137
Eu-i52
Eu-154
Sr-90
Total Pu
Sr-90
Am-24 !
Cs-137
[-129
Np-237
Sr-9()
—
Pu •
U
•13 risk assessment.
Half-
life*
30
29
10"

30
13.3
8.8
29
104
29
432
30
1.57x10"
2.1x10"
29

2xl04
10"
Current
Worker
6 in 10
5 in 1 0.000
5 in 1 0.000
NSR-"
5 in 1 00
2 in 1 .000
2 in 1 .000
1 in 100
NRd
NRd
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NRCr
NRCh
NRCh
Future Worker
(in 2095)
6 in 100
5 in 100.000
5 in 10.000
NSR"'
5 in 1 ,000
1 in 100,000
Sin 10.000.000
1 in 1.000
NRJ
NRd
NRJ
NRJ
NRJ
NRJ
NRJ
NRCf
NRCh
NRCh
Future Resident
(in 2095)
3 in 10
2 in 10.000
2 in 1 .000
\SRC
2 in 100
6 in 100.000
4 in 1 .000.000
4 in 1 .000
NRd
NRd
4 in 2.000.0001-'
4 in l.OOO.OOO1-'
2 in IOO.OOO'
8 in l.OOO.OOO'
9 in l.OOO.OOO'
NRC'
NRCh
NRCh
** Os-13? contributes to risk only MJ direct exposure.
*•* Sr-*) contributes to risk \ ta groundwaler. soil
a Pu. which prtmariK originates Irom the Tank
direct exposure, and
Farm soils, is predici
ingest ion.
led to exceed

SRPA MCLs and i

3ose a i»round\vat«?r mut*

<;tinn rikL in fhr* vmr
                    •            	    	—~ i—' - — 	 — •  -   •--.•••»....^mv« i \ti\jj\. uibuikiivMia UP (vi 11.1 MVU lauvjii, 11 nciv: 33411 v. i\ in uu
     addressed in the Ol. 3-14 Rl FS.

b    Ke\ OOCs and  their concentration-; are assumed to he the same as tor (jroup .' soils

C    No suruce risks tNSRl due to incomplete exposure pathway, while buildings arc m place.  No risk to future residential receptor it'huildings are
     lell in place, or  removed with subsequent capping or removal ofunderK mg soil  Release sues pose a potential risk to groundwatcr \ la -.oil
     contaminant leaching and transport. Risks to grounjwatcr are presented under Group 5  Hie contaminants from soils are not a significant
     I'uturc impact to grounduater

J    Nil risk because perched water is not capable ot\ustaimng a pumping rate needed I'or t'uture domestic water supplies, therelore. it :s not a
     Miurce ol'potable uater.  However, perched water is a  source of contamination I'or the SRPA  Risk calculations on future impacts -A ill he
     rellned underthe Tank Farm Rl FS (OL 3-14)

c    Thove i allies are predicted risk to luture residential in  :i«5 and he>ond  I'umulatue groundwater risk to future residential in :V>5 jnd bejond
     i> 5 in i'lll.niHI ouKide the current 1STEC •iecunn  tencc  Ri>k calculation^ on I'ulure impacts inside the current INTf-X  seeuniv fence «ill be
     refined under the Tank Farm RI FS i Ol  .'-I4i.

i    No n-.k-. vsere calculated i NRO tor these Mies  1 hcsc sues prescni .1 %aiet>  r^k and threaten t'uture release of contaminants
^    High coiKentration> <i unuinJw.iier :l a 'ele.i-,e oc>.ur-

i    MlhiMi^h «nrkcr> .Innk -sRP \, ihe Jrinkin.: water well- d.i IM: -nierse^t the plunie/
'    No ;i«k to i.iluie .>»-ri>ct il' iisiii.ifiMi.ii ^.-ii'.-.-k retnam -;i p!.n.e "f waier 'reairiient •- inipie-inenied	
                                                             '-26
-------
                            7.2    Ecological Evaluation
  .o cause undesirable eel, aTef ec s  The ^T""!"1""' "T " WA° 3 thal have "«
.  associa,ed con^n^s also proeo

  7.2.1    Site and Contaminant Screening

       As discussed in Section 28.2.2 of the OU 3- 1 3 RI/BRA (DOE-ID I997hj fnr „ t  ,- n




 at these sites was initially screened from concern iS                 ' a"y contaminant identified
 than the 95V5% upper tolerancHevd omTS h  t     IT""1 COntaminant concentrations was less
 (Roodeta,. I^S)^^^^^                                         .
 of concern remained to be evaluated in the ERA.         screening levels (EBSLs). As a result 27 s.tes
      Contaminant concentrations in water at CPP-65 and TPP f,i „.» ^       j
                       '
                                       ,
 concern, and sensi,,ve species ,ha, may be fourfd
7.2.2   Exposure Assessment
      As discussed in 28.3 in the OU 3-13 RI/BRA fDOF rn iQ07K\ *u      •  •
site of concern were then evaluated to de term nZ V     u       }<  he remaming contaminants at each


   •£.z±T^^
         ERA ,he maxin,um value                                "" Perf0™ed ^ ** "*
7.2.3   Toxicity Assessment
-------
   Table 7-9.  Screening of liquid effluent concentrations at the Sewage Treatment Plant. CPP-65.
COPC
As
Ba
Cd
Cl
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Ag
Zn
Nitrate
Total phosphorous
Plutonium-239/240
Strontium-90
Liquid Effluent
Concentration
(nm:L)J
l.OE-03
8.4E-02
5.0E-03
9.5E-01
6.0E-03
1.7E-02
2.8E-03
l.OE-04
1.7E-02
I.5E-02
2.0E-03
l.OE-03
2.7E-02
I.2IE-K)]
2.9E+00
1.9E-031'
3.6E-011'
Toxicological
Benchmark
(me/LorpCi.L)h
1.6E-01
1.56E+01
2.3E-02
2.3E^05':
9.36E-HX)
4.7E-01
I.01E-01
9, 1 E-02
3.3E-01
1.14E+02
9.6E-02
NA
3.04Et-02
1 .9E+03
NA
NA
NA
Water Concentration of
	 ConcenUmg/'L^
X
X
X
X
• • x
X
X
X
X
X
x
j.OE-03d
X
X
2.9E-H)Oe
X
X
 "J^1 CmC™™t0ns aretmean concentrations, except Cl. nitrate, and total phosphorous are maximum observed
 concentrations,  I nits are mg-L. except tor radionuclides. which are pCi-L.


          ^ IOVICOl0!?!cal benchmarks for wildlife exposure through dnnking water from Opresko et al  < 199<> unless othenv.se

                                      d beiK-hmark ™

d. S.l\ er toxicity .s related to water hardness.  At water hardnesses of 50. 1 00 and 200 mgAL ' as CaCo-  the t ' S ' F.P A 1 1 980 »


SErlJ ed.lhiatI^.5I0"CemratIon "f »ial recoverable silver not exceed 1 .2. 4.1 and 1 3~ugAL-'. respec'tivelv.'at'anv t.me ' The


C, u ,t   ^h,n he        a ^rr °' 5?° mg "- Thert-'tbre l°XICIty "°UW be 10Wer' A|S° the concentration m the
citluem ,» « ,ihm Ihe range seen as background nationally.  Kopp < 1964, found silver in 6.6". of 1 .577 surface waters sampled

u.th a mean detected concentration of 2.6 ug L (range: 0.1E 38 ug D. For 1 -TUB 1 979. according to U S  surface uiater

^.nplmg data .mm UFA'S STORE! database, the annual mean le>el> ranged from 1 to 9 u. L and annual max'mun
c,  Phospl«>roU> ,> .m e^ennal component of the annual hodv and eliminated as a concern at this lex el.  Excess phos

exacted ,n the unnc t\AS. I9.SO.  Th,s contaminant «,ll he eliminated as a concern based on this rationale   Ph0:>



f  Rjdnmuclidc IcieN acccpuble as dnnkmg water tor human receptors should he acceptable for ecolomcal receptors as

.1 hoc voni.iniin.inis u ill he eliminated Kised on this criterion                                         ^i-piors J>
                                                      "-2X
-------
Table 7-10.  Screening
^^^^                                               Ponds.
	 COPC
Al
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
Ag
Tl
V
Zn
Cyanide
Fluoride
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phosphate
Sulfate
Sulfide
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Huoramhene
Mothylene chloride
Phenanthrene
P^ rene

j |. |-|iucil, . .
i n» jr.. maximu
Liquid Effluent Sediment
ND{4E-02) v

1.04E-01
X
NDflE-03)
6.30E-02
X
6.30E-03
5.70E-02
ND(I.5E-02)
1 .60E-03
ND(2.5E-04)
4.50E-03
ND(1E-03)
ND(2E-03)
X
X
X
X
ND(5.4E-OI)
5.58E-00 '
ND(8E-0)
5.22E-00
,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

m observed concemraiu.
*
X
5.00E-01
X
X
X
4.60E-00
V
*\
x
X
X
X
V
.\
X
X
2.10E-01
I.88E+OI
4.58E+OI
1.20E-01
X
V
A
x
x

X
1.57E-01
2.40E-OI
6.20E-01
3.50E-0!
4.40E-OI
2.50E-01
6.00E-OI
1.50E-00
1.10E-02
8JOE-01
9.30E-01
ns. ND = not deli

x
250
X
X
X
55

X
X
X
X
X
3.300
1,000
18
0.0000
X
X
.
X
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
18.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
100
eieJ. detec
Calculated
water Toxicological
x
X
3.3E-03
X
2.98E-1-02
X
8.33E-02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.36E-05
1.88E-02
2.51E-K)0
5.63E-01
X
X
X
X
X
7.34E+01
1.I3E+00
2.91E+00
1 .64E+00
2.06E+00
I.37E-02
2.81E-00
' 7.03E+00
5.I6E-02
3.80Et-00
8.08E-00
ton limit is in oaren
ha*JCS^^^^ ! n * ''f" cx~.lhrilu^ Jnnk.ng *a,cr from Opresko et al. , | w<,
observed or • il ••' -d v ° Ct J '''r'1 tljljhasc lorc"nw'rvl"1 ••-•••••••" 	 	 	 '-

•.onceniraiinns :n the micnial iiieestkin
••• 1 he A. \ .ilue, are '\i%ej .MI a ci'inp.
Mi.mu.it \Mieiin.i.N \.ilue -,.i\ nl ihle
.1 1 1 hlllllMU- \H .;. :,,.„. .!„„ ,rl V
lion e coed*, the lo\i 'ol
fouio il exposure \-V
u[|on (-jx li( u . i •
TI i, nn^erv'iiiie.v ^
evtvoi!-, hv.VK-nni.irk
r . , ,
T 1. _ •
tlllL. fJUIpubtb. LO
2.45E+00
1.56E-I-OI
1.88E-00
2.3E-02
NA
9.36E-HK)
NA
4.7E-1-OI
NA
i.OIE-01
2.51E+02
9.1E-02
1.14E-f-02
9.6E-02
NA
2.1E-02
5.4E-01
3.04E-K)2
1.8E+02
7.48E+OI
I.9E-KJ3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.27E-KX)
NA
l.OE+01
NA
NA
1.67E*OI
NA
NA

The lowest applicable
ncentralions are i>uen
E
E
E
E
NB
E
NB
E
NB
E
E
E
E
E
NB
1 "• I_>
E
E
E
E
E
E
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
X
NB
E
NB
NB
E
NB
NB

NOAHL
if the
fc\ ' r , ™rk ' nc rcsullini? 'inal concentrations are used as the uaicr
' * H J\ 
-------
Table 7-11.  Threatened and endangered species, special species of concern, and sensitive species that
mav be found on the INEEL.*
        Common Names
                     Scientific Name
                             Federal
                             Siaiush.c
             State
            Statusc
            BLM
           Statusc
            L'SFSf     ISPS
           Statusc    Statusc
 Plants
 l.emhi mi lk\ etch
 I'umiedmilkv etch-
 Plains niilk\ctch
 Winged-seed evening primrose
 Nipple cactus'"
 Spreading gilia
 King's bladdcrpod
 Tree-like oxuheca"
 Inconspicuous phucelia^
 Puzzling hahmolobos
 l,'te=s ladies tresses'"
 Birds
 Peregrine falcon
 Merlin
 Gyrlhlcon
 Bald eagle
 Ferruginous hawk
 Black tern
 Northern pygmy o«.la
 Burrowing owl
 Common loon
 American white pelican
 (Jrejtegrei
 \\ bite-faced ibis
 Long-billed curleu
 Loggerhead shrike
 Northern goshank
 Swjinson'i ha\vk
Trumpeter swan
Sharptailed grouse
 Boreal o\\ I
 1-lanmuilatcdiml
 MammaK
 \\olt
       rabbit
bijj-
                    u.'i t'craniii'iix var jpus
            Astragalus gilvilliirux
            Ctiiiii.\siinit] ptcnu-pcnna
            Cor\phaniha nn
                 pMX tCiiliiti pnlycladon
            Li.'Mjiii.'1'L'lla kingii iw ctihrcnxi.'i
            On t/ii-cn denJrnitica
            Phacclia incon.\f)icua
                     tH pcrplcxa \ur. pcrplcxa
            Falco pcivgrinux
            Falcii culumhariut
            Falco msticolus
            Haliaeetus leucocephalus
            Buteo regalis
            Chlidonias niger
            Glaiicitlium gnmna
           Athene cunicularia
            (javia immer
           Pi'licumis t'n ihrorhynchos
           Casincrodius alhuA
           Plegatlis chilli
           \umcnius amttricanus
           Lanius ludovicianu*
           Accipiler /•entiiis
           Buicn MI amount
           Cygnus buccinator
                 lti/>n\
 X

 NL
 NL
 NL
 NL
 X
 NL
 C2
 X
 LT

 LE
 NL
 NL
 LT
 C2
 C2
 X
C2
 X
X
X
C2

C2
C2
X
C2
Tuuniend'
carud but
                                        Hi (Sytvilagu*)
* (oirn\i'itdii
1.I-. XN
C2

C 2
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 ssc
 X
 X

 E
 X
 ssc
 T
 SSC
 X
 ssc
 X
 ssc
 ssc
ssc
X
 X
 M.
s
X
ssc
X
ssc
ssc

 L:
ssc

ssc
 s
 X
 s
 X
 X
 s
 X
 R
 s
 X
 X

 X
 s
 s
 X
 s
 X
 \
 s
 X
 X
 X
 X
 s
 s
 X
s
s
s
s
 X

 X
s
  s
  X
  s
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  s
  s
  X

  X
  X
  X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 X
 s
 X
 s
 s
 s
 s

 X
'x
                                                                    s
                                                                    R
                                                                    I
                                                                    S
                                                                    R
                                                                    T
                                                                    M
                                                                    R

                                                                    M
                                                                    X
-------
 Table 7-11.  (continued).
         Common Names
  Nferriam's shrew
  Long-eared myotis
  Small-footed myoeis
  Western pipistrel!ej
  Fringed myotisd
 California myot.sj
 Reptiles and Amphibians
 Northern sagebrush lizard
 Rtngneck snakej
 Night snake1'
 Insects
 Idaho potntheaded
grasshopper11
Fish
Shorthead sculpinj
                                            Scientific Name
                                   Son:* mcrrianu
                                   Myotis evotis
                                   Myotis subulatus
                                   Pipistrellus hespcna
                                   Myotis thysanodfs
                                   Myotis californicus

                                  Sceloporus graciosus
                                  Dtadophis ptiiictaius
                                  Hypsiglena torqttara

                                 Acrolopliiius punchellus


                                 Coitus confiuus
Federal
Siaiusb.c
X
C2
C2
NL
X
X
C2
C2
X
State
Statusc
— —
S
X
X
ssc
ssc
ssc
X
ssc
X
BLM
Statusc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
R
L'SFSf
Statusc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/\PS
Siatusc









C2
                                                                    X
  T^l'laTc113re IhOSe T'E and Ca'e80r> 2 -LSFS»  (INPS 1^5:
-------
                                                                           in
    and, therefore, are not necessarily representam e of loci/
    underestimation of potential heal'th impacts.

    7.2.4    Risk Characterization

          As discussed in Section 28.4 of the
    is divided by the TRV to calculate a HQ
    at each site. Any contaminant with a HQ s,caicr inan me ,
    tor rad.onucl.de) was presented in the risk characterization
                                                             * '
                                                                                    at the 1N'EEL
                                                               Th'S "*y rCSult in °*«*'imai,on
                                                                                              or
                                           "    '
                                                            ,
                                                       §
                                                                       *"
                                                                  * ° H°S f
                                                                                          °-
                                                                 Have nonradio.og.ca,
includes CPP-13. -14 (Imhoff tanks,   rea I? T T?7a
-93. Old Storage Pool Group (CPP-01  -04  05  08  09  1 On  ^c    ' ~55' '^ ^ '84< '88- -90-
 for loggerhead shrike, peregrine facon and  e
 low overal, rating for bats wal g iv n at'cPP-l
 rating at site CPP-34.  Sites rated ov^alUs 4w" are
 therefore potential for incidental use by vi dl ?e  These  es
Significantly to chronic wildlife contaminant exposure? ™,
of WAG sites of concern in an ecoiogkal comext Th  H
                                                       °"

                                                          T
                                                             §
 adequate to verify presence or          0««     The r
 professional opinion supported by liml ^e7obse"at!on            "

 7.2.5    Additional Screening
                                                                             Overail site rati"g
                                                                 l° "^ CPP'34 3nd CPP-37a' A
                                                                 ^ als° 8iVe" & '°W °Veral1
                                                               °     P,°S"iVe a"ributes and
                                                                     dlSCOUnted as Contributing
                                                             W3S conduct^ to allow evaluation
                                                                ' °f *** surv^w™ "°t
                                                                        SUbJeCtive' based °"
 currently within the fenced area that
 the activities ^ocl^
 less than that modeled in the ERA  Addj ,'on- k  u  h '
 sources]) most of these sitesare ^axei anZn ui'tlhl
 any special attraction to
                                                           lhat
                                                            er- n^nv of the sites of concern are
                                                                the 'NTEC-  B°th the fence and
                                                               eXp°SUre of recePtors to niuch
                                                     eXC,eptlOns [particularly sites with water
                                                     "    ^^ ""^ a"d XV°U'd "Ot provide
ofcxtrapolaunu to multiple species  TRV
    e metals, ^.ch               ™
                                                                                      «o be
                                                                       e a"d ^ uncertainty
                                                                  This is particularly true for
-------
        Based on this rationale, an additional screening was determined appropriate for the WAG 3 sites as
  agreed on in an October 20, 1997 conference call between DOE-iD, EPA. and 1DHW.

        This screening was composed of two steps:

        1.     As a risk management decision, it was decided to eliminate ecological contaminants as a
              concern if the exposure point concentration was less than 1 Ox the background value
              (Roodetal.  1995). For those contaminants that have no site-specific background the mean
              for the western United States presented in Shacklette and Boemgen (1984) or other sources
             was considered acceptable.

       2.    For those sites that initially used the maximum values, if possible, the 95% UCLs were
             calculated (see Table 7-12) for each contaminant that was not eliminated in the HQ
             evaluation of the ERA.  This value was also eliminated if the 95% UCL was less than the
              I Ox background.

       This screening resulted in eliminating Sites CPP-37A, -39, -40, -42, -84, -88, and -90 as sites of
 concern. The sites and COCs remaining after the screening are listed in Table 7-13. Four sites pose
 solely an ecological risk, CPP-14 (the imhoff Tank), CPP-44, -55, and -66.

       Because Sites CPP-14, -44, and -55 presented an unacceptable risk for ecological receptors only
 these sites were added to the Other Surface Soils Sites (Group 3) for alternative evaluation. The
 ecological risk screening approach resulted in establishing conservative risk assumptions  Actions
 undertaken at sites CPP-44, -14, and -55 are based on the small volume of COC contaminated material
 and the cost benefit of action now rather than further study. Final assessment  for site CPP-66 will be
 conducted under OU  10-04.  For sites that pose a potential threat to both human and ecological receptors
 it is assumed that remedial alternatives developed to address human health risks will also be designed to '
 adequately address ecological concerns. This WAG ERA represents the second phase of the three-phased
 approach to ERA.  The first phase is the "preassessment" performed at the WAG level. This screen is
 performed to reduce the number of sites and  contaminants to be addressed in subsequent assessments
 This screen for WAG  3 is presented in Section 28 of the RI/BRA (DOE-ID 1997b).

      In phase two, the WAG sites and COCs identified by the initial screening are assessed for potential
 risks to ecological receptors using an approach that parallels the human health  risk assessment
 methodology.

      The third phase of the ERA process is  the OU 10-04 (INEEL Site-wide) ERA, which is performed
 to integrate the results of the WAG ERAs to evaluate risk to OU 10-04 ecological resources The
 OU  10-04 ERA will integrate the results of the WAG ERAs for all INEEL WAGs to determine whether
 contamination at the WAGs contributes to potential risk to populations and communities on an
 ecosystem-wide basis. Those sites previously screened at the WAG level based on either lOx background
 or lOx HQ will be reevaluated at a population level at this time. If the OU 10-04 ERA determines That
 those WAG 3 sites screened at less than lOx background or HW less than 10. require further action that
action will be determined during the WAG 3  5-year reviews.

                              7.3    Basis for Response

     Forty-nine sites  within  WAG 3 have actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances that if
not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this ROD. may pose unacceptable risks to
human health or the environment. For analysis of remedial alternatives, release sites were combined into
-------
Table 7-12. Results of additional .site.-coniaminant evaluation and screenim
Site
CPP-I3
CPP-I4
Area 1
Area 2


CPP-19
CPP-34
CPP-37A
CPP-39

CPP-40
CPP-42
CPP-44





CPP-53




CPP.()f>

CI'P-Xs

CPP-90

I'l'P-'J?

DM
Mi»r.it!o
COC
Arsenic
Mercury

<'hromium III
Lead
Mercury

Silver
Arsenic
Arsenic
Mercury-
Mercury
Barium
Di-2-ethv Ihexy Iphthalate
Fluoride
Mercury
Silver
Chromium III
Fluoride
Lead
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Decano)
Lead
Mercurv
Nickel "
Arsenic
Chromium III
Chromium VI
1 J
Lead
Mercurv
Nickel '
Selenium
Silver

Boron
Fluoride
Selenium
Siromium
Arsenic
Mercur>
Nickel
\niimonv
\ricmc
Mercurv
Mumimim
Mercurv
\riCIUC
Mereiirv
Maximum
Concentration
•S.30E-00
5.95E-OI '

5.I2E-01
3.56E-OI
1 .20E---00

I.22E-OI
6.30E-00
7.IOE-00
6.00E-01
9.60E-OI
UOE-03
1.40E-OI
9.29E-02
1 70E-OI
1 S^E-01
'.20E-OI
UOE-M)!
6.00E-OI
UOE-03
8.40E-00
I.54E-03
1.54E+OI
9.00E-03
2.81E-02
5.00E-00
3. 44 E -02
I.34E-OI
6.50E-OI
6.50E-01
3,20ET01
5.20E+00
6.50E-OI
6.40E-OI
300E-00

3.10E-02
I.65E-02
I.60E-00
6.90E-02
~ IOE-00
I.OOE-00
1.63E-02
9.50E-00
2.95E-01
1 MOE-flO
1 201: -i)5
I.4nl:-ij2
5 >)n|: -nn
5 5:i:.-nl
IOX
1'5",, I'CL Backs-round
5.80E-0!
4.'OE-OI 5.00E.OI

5.80E-01
1.70E-02
5.00E-01

3.7E-01
5.80E-OOI
5.80E-01
2.80E-01 5.00E-OI
4.40E-OI 5.00E-OI
3.00E-03
2.80E~03J
5.00E-OI
3.7E-01
3.30E-02
2.80E-03J
1 .70E-02
3.00E+03
' 3.30E-02
NA
NA
1.70E+02
5.00E-01
3.50E-02
5.80E-01
3.30E-02
8.70E-00 NA
I.70E-02
6JOE-01 5.00E-OI
3.50E-02
2.20E-00
3.7E-OI

2.30E-02
2.80E-03a
2.20E-00
2.00E-03J
5.80E-01
3.00E-01 5.00E-01
3.50E-02
4.80E-01
5.SOE-01
4.5"I:-OI 5.00E:-OI
1.NJH-05
ii Mil: -HI 5.00F.-OI
5 Mlt:-lJ|
2.2"li-ul 5,iKiF:-n|
	 	 Elimination Rationale 	
Below IOX background
95" n L'CL beiow"i OX background

Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Sample was taken at approximately 9
ft bgs
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
95% L'CL belowr!OX background
95% UCL below IOX background
Below 10X Background
Contaminant below 1 5 ft
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below 10 X background
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Below I OX background
Below IOX background
Below 1 OX background
Not expected to exist as Chromium
VI in the environment
Below IOX background
Retain
Below 1 OX background
Below 1 OX background
Below IOX background •
Retain
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
95% UCL below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below 1 OX background
Below IOX background
95% UCL below IOX background
Below IOX background
Retain
Below luX background
95% I'd. helovv~10X backuroumi
-------
 Table 7-12.  (continued).
Site

Storage
Yard"
Tank Farm
Tank Farm
WCF


coc
Nickel
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel '
Mercury
Arsenic
Cadmium
Mercury
Nickel "
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel

Ma.ximum
Concentration
y.-IE-OI-
5.90E-00
5.52E-01
5.5IE-OI
2.30E-OI
5.90E-00
3.42E-H30
I.51E-00
5.51E-01
7.50E-00
2.80E-02

IOX
95",, L'CL Backerounc
3.50E-02
5.80E-01
3.30E-01 5.00E-01
3.50E-02
5.00E-OI
5.80E-01
2.60E-01 5.00E-OI
3.50E-02
5.80E-01
1.50E-00 5.00E-01
3.50E-02
	 Elimination Rationale
Below IOX background
Below 1 OX background
95% UCL below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
Below IOX background
95% L'CL below"] OX background
Below IOX background
Below I OX background
Retain
Below IOX background
J. Background from Shackleue and Boemgen II9S4).
-------
   Table 7-13. Sites and COCs which mav
                     ""  —               -• —
                           N'onradionuclides
present an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors.
          Radionuclide
 CPP-13
 CPP-14
 (ImholT Tanks)
 Area I
 CPP-19


CPP-34

CPP-44
  CPP-55

  CPP-66

  CPP-67



 CPP-93
 Old Storage Pool
 (CPP-01.-04.-05.
 •08.-09.-10.-II.
 -88)

 Tank Farm
 fCPP-20. -25. -26.
 •28.-3I.-32E W.
 -79. excavated
 soil)

 Tank Farm South
(CPP-I5.-27.-33.
-58. -88)
                       Mercury

                       Mercury
                       Chromium III.
                       Chromium VI. Lead.
                       mercury

                       Chromium VI
                      Boron
                      Metals and organics
                      Mercurv
  (CPP-35. -36. -X5.
  -S8. -91)
                     Mercury
     Sr-l>0
                                               Cs-137. Eu-I52. Eu-154.
                                               Sr-90, Co-60
                                               Sr-90
   Am-241. Np-237.
   Pu-238-239. U-234.and
   U-238
                                             Cs-137, Eu-152. Eu-154.
                                             Co-60. and Sr-90
                                             Am-137. Cs-137. Eu-154.
                                             Pu-239. and Sr-90
                                             Cs-137
  Am-241. Cs-134. and Cs-
  137
                                                                                   Comments
                                                                         Solely an ecological concern.
                                                                         Approximately 105 nr of soil.
                                                                    Solely an ecological concern.
                                                                    Approximately 88 nr of soil.


                                                                    Solely an ecological concern.
                                                                    Approximately 325.5 nr of soil.

                                                                    Solely an ecological concern.
                                                                    Approximately 79,800 m3 of soil.

                                                                    This site will be remediated based
                                                                    on the HHRA, an assessment
                                                                    beyond the screening level was
                                                                    not deemed necessary.
       he SRpfg ?R    T; S°r\ S°iIS Lnder BU"dinSS and StrUCtUr"' ^er Surface Soils. Perched
        r.               'ed GaS Cylmder Sites' Indiv idual sites include «he SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank
b > em. The response act.ons selected in this ROD are designed to reduce the potential threat"  o human
health and or the em ironment to acceptable lex els.
-------
                      8.   REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES


 «*c!!rS£S
 pathways, and remediat.on goals. Remediation goals establish acceptable exposuretveL that are



 Agencies (1UHW, EPA. and DOE). The RAOs are primarily based on the results of the baseline ri«fc-
 assessment and applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
 remedvT?orChieKe * reaS°fnable de§ree ^ Protection at the WAG 3 sites, the Agencies have selected
 remedy tor each group of sites that meet the RAOs. These remedies protect human health and the
 environment and meet regulatory requirements. The WAG 3 RAOs were d veloped f ^^ spec, fie

                                     The applicable *** for a
                    d*le]°pSd f°r ecol°8ical receptors, based on a screening-level ERA For release
                    :s^^^
developed for S,,es ,ha, solely pose a Uuea, ,o ecological receptors For ecoTogical recep,* te

            lTfEnnpdlity Wl11 bC USCd aS a" industrial facility "P to the year 2095.  During the
          period of DOE operates, expected to last to at least 2045, this area is a radiological control




          Only the contaminated groundwater present in the SRPA outside of the current INTEC

          security fence ,s addressed in this ROD. The selected remedy is expected to fully address

          h , coniammanon. However, this action does not address groundwater inside the cuS
          INTEC security fence, which will be addressed under OU 3-14.
    J-    r^LS! time Per'od 2095^d bey°nd- ^ is assumed that the SRPA located outside the current
          INTEC security fence will be used as a drinking water supply.
    5.
JlevZn31 Ca^cin^enic;iskia' INTEC from natural background radiation due to surface

UNEP°985      gr°    S°  radlol°2ical contamination is 10"1 (EPA 1994, NEA 1997.



Permanent land use restrictions will be placed on those release site source areas and the

 CDF complex  *h,ch u ill be closed in place, for as long as land use and access restrictions
are required to be protective of human health and the environment
                                         X-l
-------
The human health RAOs developed for soils and groundwater at OU 3-13 include:

  1.    Groundwater

        a.    For INTEC-impacted groundwater (located in the groundwater contaminant plume
              outside of the current INTEC security fence) restore the aquifer for use by 2095
              and beyond, so that the risk will not exceed a cumulative carcinogenic risk of
              1  x 10"1  for groundwater ingestion.                                     .

        b.    For INTEC-impacted groundwater (located in the groundwater contaminant plume
              outside of the current INTEC security fence) restore the aquifer to drinking water
              quality (below MCLs) for use by 2095 and beyond.

        c.     For INTEC-impacted groundwater (located in the groundwater contaminant plume
              outside of the  current INTEC security fence) restore the aquifer to so that the non-
              carcinogenic risk will not exceed a total  HI of 1  for groundwater ingestion.

        d.     For INTEC-impacted groundwater (located in the groundwater contaminant plume
              outside of the current INTEC security fence), prevent groundwater consumption by
              the public until Objectives a, b, and c, listed above, are met.

        e.     Maintain caps  placed over contaminated soil or debris areas that are contained in
              place and the closed ICDF-complex, to prevent the release of leachate to
              underlying groundwater which would result in exceeding a cumulative
             carcinogenic risk of I x 10'4, a total HI of 1; or applicable State of Idaho
             groundwater quality standards (i.e., MCLs) in the SRPA.
      Surface Soils

       a.
Prevent exposure to contaminated surface soils at each release site such that for all
surface exposure pathways, a cumulative carcinogenic risk of ! x 10'4 and a total
HI of 1 is not exceeded at each release site.  These RAOs also address "No Further
Action" Sites where the current radiological contaminant levels will meet
residential risk-based concentration on or before year 2095. The RAOs will be
achieved as follows:

(I)    DOE Operational Phase,  expected until year 2045:

      (a)    Implement Institutional Controls to limit  access and exposure
            duration at each source area to achieve a cumulative carcinogenic risk
            of 1 x  IO"1 and a total HI of 1.

      (b)    Remove contaminated soil at each source area, sufficient to achieve a
            cumulative carcinogenic risk of I x 10'4 and a total HI of 1 to a future
            residential user: or cap in place contaminated soil or debris areas
            presenting a cumulative carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10"4 and a total
            HI of I.

 (2)   Go\ernment Control Phase:  expected between year 2045 and 2095

       (a)    Implement Institutional Controls to limit the duration and frequenc>
             of exposure to non-cupped contaminated .soil areas by the public to
-------
                         achieve a cumulative carcinogenic risk of 1 x i Q'4 and a total
                         HI of 1.

                    (b)   Maintain caps for contaminated soil areas which are contained in
                         place, to prevent exposure of the public to a cumulative
                         carcinogenic risk of i x ] 0'4 and a total HI of 1.

                    (O   Maintain the closed and capped ICDF complex to prevent exposure
                         oMhe public to a cumulative carcinogenic risk of I x 10'4 and a total


              (3)   »^^^*;s^^t^£:r
                   .cumulative carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10'4 and a total HI of 1.
3.    Perched Water
a.
           •Prevent migration of radionuclides from perched water in concentrations thar
            would cause SRPA groundwater outside ihe current INTEC ^7"^ f^  to

            S  ra,HCTU'atiVe,CarCin08eniC Hsk °f '  X 10"  a total HI of I : or applicable
            State of Idaho groundwater quality standards (i.e., MCLs) in 2095 and beyond
                                    drilling through the contaminated earth materials
                                    :on of the perched water to prevent exposure of the
                              carcmogemc risk of 1 x 10'4, a total HI of 1; and protection
                         neet Objective 3a listed above.

                         (INTEC-derived groundwater contaminant plume outside current


           CDDA      j      .          "    Corkers and general public from ingesting
           SRPA groundwater that exceeds a cumulative carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10* • a total
           HI of 1; or applicable State of Idaho groundwater quality standards (i.e., MCLs)

     b.    In 2095 and beyond ensure that SRPA groundwater does not exceed a cumulative
           carcinogenic risk of 1 x KT4; a total Hf of 1; or apphcable State of Idaho
           groundwater quality standards (i.e.. MCLs).

  Other Areas


     a.     For other source areas that either pose a safety hazard, a threat of release to
           groundwater. or an ecological hazard, the RAOs include:

                                        posed by buried compressed ga
                 Wa"te            °freleaSe IO the SRPA Posed by the SFE-20 Hot
           ( 3 )    Pre% ent ecological receptor exposure to surface soil COCs with a
                 concentration greater than 10 times background concentrations that may
                 cause adverse effects to resident populations of flora or fauna as
                 determined h\ the screening level ERA.
-------
                                8.1    Remediation Goals

   b^°-'oi, radiological coma^a^s
           Risk-based soi, concen,ra,L co^pld™ H??*'' a"d ««« "»*« and
  COCs are presented ,n Table 8- 1. If more , ban one 00^        nsk o™ HI of .I for individual soil
            C°"CemraIi°"s ""I ^ modified so ,ta .hclul^T" ",' .Pa'tiC'"a: releKC site- "«'
 Table 8-1.  Soil
     Contaminant
 Radionuclides
    Am-24l
    Cs-I37
    Eu-152
   Eu-154
   Pu-238
   Pu-239240
   Pu-2-Jl
   Sr-90
Nonradionuclides6
 -Mercury (human health)
 Soil Risk-Based
Remediation Goal3
For Single COCs"
       290
        23
       270
     5200
      670
      250
   56.000
      223
                                                                    23
                                        X-4
-------
                                 11 Soals that correspond to the concentration- or activity-based soil
               n    sou

    Dfied in  0 CFR 83502 T      ^ ^^ "^ DOE-workers- the occupational dose limit is

   eaua to 5 rem , A M I  >  P       '"""'I °CCUPatlonal dose limit « a total effective dose equ.valent

   aS, J, T Th   I  ')- F°r "P°sure of the Senera! Public prior to the Year 2095, land use is projected

   for ±     ,     a/TC rerTd?°n goals combined with institutional controls are considered p'rSve
   for mdustnai use of the area by the general public prior to the Year 2095.                    p««ecuve



        Nonradionuclide remediation goals for mercury, lead, and chromium were also estimated for

  ecological receptors. The ecological receptor remediation goals estimated for these consSts aVe o 5


                              *"
  ud bec                                                                         gs «
  used because of the small volume of the sites and the cost effectiveness of taking remedial act, on versus

  addmonal study to refine the estimate. An evaluation of whether additional soil excavation is


                                                                                  "
  comrpleetedeCOl0gICal '~~pl"'° "'" uc tu"uut;ica a»er me WAU  iu plant uptake treatability study is
                   cge°are tesedln^hl?'^ C°CS PreSCnt'" ^ SR?A groundwater outside the cu^nt
  /FDA PA i Am "mi ->nn\  T-i.  r-r,^. -^^-.        state of Idaho groundwater quality standards
  UUAFA 16.01.011.200).  The SRPA COCs consist of tritium, Sr-90 and daughters, 1-129 Np-237


  heTrTure"* T1117 Pri°r %n°o9<5 ^ Sr-9°' M29< NP'237< P'^onmm and uranium isotopes and
  ineir uaugnters. and mercurv tn /oo^ anH K»»«/<-.n^  TU« cr>r>»       i           .           v   »••«»»

  COCs are presented in Tabk 8-2           y             * gr°Undwater remed.ation goals for these




                      goal for INTEC-derived alpha-emitting radionuclides (i.e., Np-237, Pu is
 cu   ntTEC             '                                         gtounvude
 current INTEC security fence corresponds to a cumulative alpha-activity of 1 5 PCi/L in the year 2095 and

 beyond  Modelmg has shown that alpha-emitting radionuclides are not expected * «SS ^ ^pCi/r

 standard ,n the SRPA inside the current INTEC security fence until the year 2750 with a ^
      '  Remediatio"' * necessary. of   Tank Fa™ insde the current

' tO       * lhe
                        .NTPr                      alpha-emi«ing radionuclide impacts in the
    uLd    /,                    '            tl°n g°als f°r Chromium and mercu±
    ug, L and 2 ug/L. respectively, for individual constituent VICLs.



8.1.1    Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)
nn,  r Tn ^^ ^ 3t ** Tank Farm Soils rdease sites are extemal exposure to radiation and

uo    b  nrSFnamtrasTrt °f CO"taminantS tO lhe Perc^d -ter or the SR'PA.  The rendition
goals ror the I ank Farm Soils interim action are:
      I -     Preventing intrusion into soil contaminants by the general public




      2'    tRheds"te  PreCipitati°n inflltratio" b>- approximately K0»o of the average annual'precipitation at




      3.    Maximize run-off and minimize surface ^ ator ponding on the Tank Farm
                                             X-5
-------
       4.    Prevent surface water run-on from a I in 25 vear. 24 hour storm event
       5.     Minimize infiltration and subsequent contaminant leaching due to external building drainage
             and run-on.

       These remediation goals support groundwater RAOs la through Id; surface soil RAO 2A(1 )(a)
 perched water RAO 3a. and SRPA RAO 4b.

 8.1.2    Soils Under Buildings and Structures (Group 2)

       The primary threat posed by Soils Under Buildings and Structures sites is external exposure to
 radionuclides and possible leaching and transport of soil contaminants to the perched water or SRPA.
 The selected alternative for Group 2 is a deferred action. It is assumed that the present buildings or
 structures aid in limiting external  exposure and infiltration directly over the contaminated soils.

       Remediation goals were developed for the Soils Under Buildings and Structures for the pre-D&D
 and post-D&D time periods.  The remediation goals for the pre-D&D time period are to prevent exposure
 to current workers and non-workers and to minimize possible leaching and transport of contaminants to
 underlying SRPA groundwater. The remediation goals for the post-D&D time period are to prevent
 exposure to future workers and residents and to minimize possible leaching and transport of contaminants
 to underlying SRPA groundwater.

Table 8-2. SRPA remediation goals.
 Contaminant of Concern
           SRPA Remediation Goals
       (Maximum Contaminant Levels)
              For Single COCsa
                                                                                 Decay Type
 Beta-gamma emitting radionuclides


 Sr-90 and daughters
 Tritium
 I-129
 Alpha-emitting radionuclides

 Uranium and daughters
 Np-237 and daughters
 Plutonium and daughters
 Am-241and daughters
 Nonradionuclides
 Chromium
 Mercurv
J   If multiple contaminants are present. u.se a
h,   Pernod concentration il'onK beui-uamma
  Total of beta-gamma emitting radionuclides   Beta-Gamma
  shall not exceed 4 mrem/yr effective dose
  equivalent
  8pCi/L                                   Beta
  20,000 pCi/L                              Beta
  1  Pd'-Lh                                   Beta-Gamma
  I5pCi/L                                   Alpha
  total alpha emitting radionuclides
  l5pCi-'L                                   Alpha
  15pCi.'L                                   Alpha
  15pCiL                                   Alpha
  15pCiL                                   Alpha


  100(.tg. L                                  Not applicable
  -  l-ig L                                     Not applicable
sum ol the fractions to determine the combined COC's remediation goals.
radionuchdc present.	
-------
        These remediation goals will be accomplished by the following:

        1.    Pre-D&D

              a.     Warning current building or structure users that contaminated soils lie beneath the
                    basement floor.  Maintaining the buildings or structures to minimize moisture
                    infiltration and to prevent unacceptable exposure to current industrial users.

             b.     Minimizing surface water run-on and precipitation infiltration adjacent to the
                    buildings or structures by modifying drainage patterns around buildings and
                    performing surface modifications as necessary to minimize leaching and transport of
                    soil contaminants to underlying SRPA groundwater.

        2.    Post-D&D

             a.     Implementing the institutional controls described in Table 11 -1.

             b.     Capping the contaminated areas with an engineered barrier in accordance with the
                   substantive requirements of the hazardous waste landfill closure standards
                   (IDAPA 16.01.05.008 [40 CFR 264.310]).

             c.     Excavating the contaminated soils that exceed the soil remediation goals listed in
                   Table 8-1 and subsequent disposal and management in the ICDF.
•
 water                                          *"* " '""^ * ""*" ""
 8.1.3    Other Surface Soils (Group 3)

       The primary threat posed by the Other Surface Soils is external exposure to contaminated soils
 The remediation .goal for the Other Surface Soils is to prevent external exposure to current workers and
 non-workers and future workers and residents. This  remediation goal will be accomplished by:

       I .    Implementing the institutional controls described in Table ll-l .

       2.    Minimizing future residental exposure to surface soils in 2095 and beyond by excavating the
            contaminated soils exceeding the remediation goals in Table 8- 1, to a minimum depth of 3m
            { 10 ft) and subsequent disposal and management of the excavated soils in the ICDF.

       3.    Capping the contaminated areas that are not excavated with an engineered barrier in
            accordance with the substantive requirements of the hazardous waste landfill closure
            standards (IDAPA 1 6.0 1. 05.008 [40 CFR 264.3 10]).

      The remediation goal supports surface soil RAO 2a.

8. 131    INEEL CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) Goals and Requirements. Contaminated
soi s from the Group 3 sites will be disposed and managed in the ICDF. The primary threats posed bv
soils and debris disposed and  managed in the ICDF are external exposure to radiation and the release of
 eachate to underlying grounduater that could potentially impact the SRPA. The remediation *oal for the
It. Ur is to consolidate contaminated soils at a single location to prevent exposure of human and
-------
ecological receptors.  This remediation goal will be accomplished by siting designing, operating and
closing the ICDF to prevent exposures or leachate releases to the underlying SRPA uroundwater. The
siting, design, operation, closure, and post-closure requirements necessary to accomplish these
remediation goals include:

      Siting Requirements—The ICDF will  meet or exceed RCRA Subtitle C location standards
specified in IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264.18).

     Design Requirements—The ICDF design will:

      1.    Meet or exceed RCRA Subtitle C design standards specified in I DAP A 16.01.05 008
           (40 CFR  264.301 and 40 CFR 264.302) and the PCB Chemical Waste Landfill design
           requirements 40 CFR 761.75.

     2.    Minimize precipitation run-on and maximize precipitation run-off to effectively reduce
           infiltration through the contaminated soils and debris.

     3.    Minimize subsidence of the waste and the landfill cap.

     4.    Ensure that the resulting design is protective of human and ecological receptors.

     5.     Ensure that the resulting design is protective of the SRPA.

     Operational Requirements—The ICDF operation will:

     I.     Limit disposed wastes to those generated by the INEEL CERCLA program.

     2.     Limit disposed wastes to those with  contaminant concentrations that will not result in MCLs
           being exceeded in the SRPA.

     3.     Limit disposed wastes to low level radioactive waste. PCB solids, hazardous, and mixed low
           level radioactive waste.

     4.     Treat waste (soils, debris, and treatment residues) on-Site as necessary to meet
           Agency-approved Waste Acceptance Criteria developed during the RD.

     5.    Treat waste (soils, debris, and treatment residues) originating from outside the WAG 3 AOC
          to comply with the land disposal requirements specified in IDAPA 1601 05 01 1
          (40 CFR 268 and 40 CFR 268.49) as applicable.

     6.    Minimize leachate generation.  Leachate will be collected and treated using
          physical.'chemical treatment (i.e.. evaporation  in a surface impoundment designed in
          accordance with the substantive requirements of the hazardous waste surfacelmpoundments
          (IDAPA 16.01.05.008 [40 CFR 264.221 ]). Residues from the evaporation process will be
          managed in the ICDF as necessary durin« the active life and post-closure period of the ICDF
          cells.
                                           s-s
-------
        Closure and Post-Closure Requirements—The ICDF closure and post-closure will:

        1.     Meet or exceed RCRA Subtitle C closure and post-closure care requirements specified in
              IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR264.310).

        2.     Ensure that the final cover is designed to serve as an intrusion barrier for a period of at least
              1,000 years.

        3.     Minimize subsidence of the landfill and its final cover.

        4.     Place easily located permanent markers at all corner boundaries for each cell of the landfill
              that identify the potential exposure hazards.

        5.     Place permanent land use restrictions, zoning restrictions, and deed restrictions on the ICDF
              and its adjacent buffer zone to permanently preclude industrial or residential development
              until unacceptable risk no longer remains at the site.

       6.     Include the disposal records and the surveyed permanent marker locations in the land use
             restriction  documents.


          mdrSRpdiati0n 8°alS SUPPOIt groundwater RAOs  Ia through Ie, surface soil RAOs 2a(l )(a) and

 8.1.4    Perched Water (Group 4)

       The primary threat posed by perched water is migration of contaminants  to the SRPA The perched
 water remediation goals are to:                                                            pcitiicu

       I.    Reduce recharge to the perched zones

      2.    Minimize migration of contaminants to the SRPA, so that SRPA groundwater outside of the
            current INTEC security fence meets the applicable State of Idaho groundwater standards
            by 2095.

      The remediation goals for the perched water are primarily designed to reduce the moisture content
of the perched zone so that the contaminant transport rate in the vadose zone is reduced and radionuclide
contaminants present in the perched zone have more time to naturally decay and reduce the concentration
ot potential contaminants released to the SRPA.

      The perched water remediation goals will be accomplished by:

      I -     Limiting recharge to the perched zone by closing and relocating the existing percolation
            ponds, and ceasing lawn irrigation, where necessary, at the INTEC  so that the moisture
            content is sufficiently reduced to retard Sr-90 migration by approximately three (3) half-lives
            (about 90 years).

      If the moisture content and contaminant flux is not sufficiently reduced as indicated by moisture
content and perched water monitoring and verified by the OU 3-13 vadose zone model, then additional
mhltrat.on controls uill be implemented to achieve the necessarv desaturation. and corresponding
                                             S-9
-------
  reduction in contaminant transport rate, in the perched zone. The additional infiltration controls that will
  be implemented (in the listed order) include:

        1.    Lining the Big Lost River

        2.    Closing and relocating the existing Sewage Treatment Plant lagoons and infiltrat.on galleries

        3.    Upgrading the INTEC-wide drainage controls, repairing leaking fire water lines  and
             eliminating steam condensate discharges.
       7"cDSp AeS\e^a!L0n g°alS SUPPOrt Sroundwater RA°s I a through 1 c. perched water RAOs 3a and
 ^
 ->D, and

 8.1.5    Snake River Plain Aquifer (Group 5)
    ,  /h!PrJnnry thrCat P°Sed by SRPA is in£estion of contaminated groundwater. The remediation
 goals tor the SRPA outside the current INTEC security fence are to:

       I .     Preventing current on-site workers and non-workers during the institutional control period
             from ingesting contaminated drinking water above the applicable State of Idaho eroundwater
                           -                                                        "      '
            standards or risk-based groundwater concentrations.
            Achieving the applicable State of Idaho groundwater standards or risk-based groundwater
            concentrations in the SRPA plume, south of the INTEC security fence by the year 2095.

                predicts that the Applicable State of Idaho groundwater standards will be naturally
of heistin  ne T?" *"" ^ *' ' ?' '  "' P'Ut°niUm iSOtOpeS'  Modelin« ais° Predicts val
ol the existing percolation ponds (the principal component of the selected Perched Water remedy) will
reduce the moisture content so that the individual Sr-90 MCL is achieved by 2095.

       Modeling also has shown that plutonium, an alpha-emitting radionuclide, is not expected to exceed
 lu is pC.,L .alpha-emitting radionuclide standard in the SRPA inside of the current INTEC security
fence until the year 2750. with a peak concentration occurring in the year 3804.  Remediation if   '
necessary, of the SRPA inside the current INTEC security fence will mitigate the future plutonium
impacts m the SRPA outside the current INTEC security fence. The remedy for the  SRPA inside  the
current INTEC security fence is being developed under OU 3-14. Therefore, a decision on plutonium
remediation goals is deferred to the OU 3- 1 4 ROD.
The SRPA remediation goals will be accomplished by:

I.
            Maintaining institutional controls over the area of the INTEC-derived SRPA contaminant
            plume outside of the current INTEC security fence to prevent exposure to contaminated
            groundwater during the time that groundwater in the aquifer remains above the remediation
            goals specified in Table 8-2.

            Determining if grounduater quality outside the current INTEC security fence will be
            restored by 2095 and beyond.  If the modeled action levels for COCs are exceeded a
            contingent pumping and treatment action uill be implemented to remove sufficient
            contaminant source to facilitate aquifer restoration by 20l)5.
-------
        These remediation goals support groundwater RAOs la through le, and SRPA RAOs 4a and 4b.

  8.1.6    Buried Gas Cylinders (Group 6)

        The principal threat posed by the buried gas cylinders is a safety hazard, including chemical
  exposure fire explosion, and projectile hazards. The remediation goal for the buried gas cylinders is to
  remedy the safety hazard posed by the disposed cylinders.                            tyiinaers is to

        The remediation goal will be accomplished by:

        I.  Excavating, removing, treating, and disposing the cylinders (waste that meets the ICDF WAC
           will be disposed in the ICDF).

        The Agencies may elect to pursue a contingent remedy of capping in place pursuant to the
  substannve requirements of IDAPA I6.0l.05.008 (40 CFR 264.310) if safety concerns with excavation
  and removal prevent implementation of the selected remedy.

       The remediation goal supports Other Areas RAO 5a.

  8.1.7    SFE—20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)

       The principal threats posed by the SFE-20 Tank system is external exposure and the potential for a
 STs-          * t0    envir°nment- The ^mediation goals for the SFE-20 tank system are as


       I.    Limit potential external exposures to workers and non-workers

       2.    Remove radioactive and hazardous substances remaining in the tank system to prevent
            potential contaminant releases to the underlying soils or groundwater.

       The remediation goals will be accomplished by:

       I -    Maintaining existing institutional controls to prevent current worker and non-worker
            exposure.

      2.    Removing, excavating,  treating, and disposing the SFE-20 hot waste tank system waste and
            components to eliminate the threat  of release to the environment (waste that meets the ICDF
            WAC will be disposed in the ICDF).

      3.    Remediating contaminated soils present beneath the SFE-20 tank system that may pose an
            external exposure risk or threat to groundwater (waste that meets the fCDF WAC will be
            disposed in the ICDF).

      These remediation goals support Other Areas RAO 5a and also support groundwater RAOs 1 a
throuah le.
-------
(
-------
                        9   DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

   crterareachofrh     a'ter"atl'VeS.was devel°Ped ™<* evaluated against the nine CERCLA evaluation
   renr,    ,       s       ^^ Sl* ^^ The altema^es were developed from a list of
   ep esentauve remed.ation technologies for technical and cost evaluation purposes.  With he exception of
   the  No Act.on  altemat.ve. the selected remedies are protective of ecological concern   The !

      °n
         T ea           df °  Tan  eat and ^ -™    <* the  nstuaUontro,
         i  altematlve/uevaluated for each group are summarized in the following sections  For more
  DOE  D  lIST   f e;'^ated 3lternatiVeS refcr f° the OU 3'13 FS and pSS (DOE-ID I997a
  fhould be  r H rh  HrC      d deSCnPtions of the selec«* alternatives are found in Section 1 1   if*
  what activls co       * ^^^ °f "" "** eStimaKS f°r the FS" ^sumptions were made regarding
  mafntenan ef ?hTfT eXIStl7 mSt'tUtl°"al COntrols - °r ""<" a ^ — dy decision ^ by
-------
  9.1.1.2 Alternative 2—Enhanced Institutional Controls. Alternative 2 consists of the existing
  institutional controls described for Alternative I and additional monitorinu and institutional controls "
  This additional monitoring and controls include the installation of new clustered monitoring wells in the
  perched water and aquifer to enhance the existing groundwater monitoring capabilities during the interim
  action period and to verify hydraulic parameters and water quality. They also include additional warning
  .signs, surface and subsurface markers, and land use restrictions to prevent exposures to contaminated
  groundwater.

  9.1.1.3 Alternative 3—Enhanced Institutional Controls with Surface Water Control.
  Alternative 3 includes the existing and additional institutional controls described for Alternative'^' and an
  interim remedy to control surface water runon and infiltration at the Tank Farm.  The interim remedv
  includes surface grading and sealing of the Tank Farm soils to divert 80% of the average annual    '
  precipitation away from the contaminated areas, and exterior building drainage improvements to direct
  water away from the contaminated areas so that moisture infiltration  is min.mized and contaminants are
  not mobilized. The run-on water will be managed as part of the existing surface water drainage system
  and the run-offwater will be collected and managed in a lined evaporation pond, to be constructed as part
  of this alternative.                                                                            p


              9.2    Soils  Under Buildings or Structures (Group 2)

       Contaminant source releases are not well defined for the Soils Under Buildings and Structures
 sites.  Contaminated soil release sites are assumed to be present as a result of accidental past releases
 during plant operations. The releases occurred under buildings or structures making characterization
  u  L-i-     pnmary threat P°sed by these s'tes is external exposure to radionuclide-contaminated soil if
 the buildings or structures are removed.  The soils also pose a minor threat to groundwater  Although
 these potential releases to  the environment are recognized, the release sites are not readily accessible and
 may remain covered by the facilities, since the buildings or structures may be closed in place as
 operations cease. The D&D program is determining the fate of individual buildings. Buildings may
 remain in place upon closure. Evaluations, conducted as part of the CERCLA 5-year review process will
 confirm whether the presence of the existing structures over these sites limits soil exposures and moisture
 infiltration. Three alternatives were evaluated for the Soils Under Buildings or Structures group to
 minimize the threat of contaminant exposure or mobilization.

 9.2.1    Alternatives Descriptions

 9.2.1.1    Alternative 1—"No Action" with Monitoring. Alternative I is comprised of existing
 institutional controls currently implemented at the site.  No active remediation will be performed under
 this alternative to alter the  existing site conditions.  The existing institutional controls include DOE land
 use and site access restrictions.  These controls will remain in place until 2095.

 9.2.1.2    Alternative 2—Containment.  Alternative 2 is a deferred action which includes the
 existing institutional controls described for Alternative I. additional institutional controls and soil
 containment with engineered barriers.  The additional institutional controls may include land or regulatory
 restrictions to prevent inadvertent exposure to contaminants.  The proposed engineered barriers will be
comprised of natural earthen materials designed to  isolate the contaminants until they are no longer a risk
The final cover designs will meet ARARs and are subject to the FFA CO review process.  It should be
 noted that the engineered barriers cannot be constructed until adjacent building or structures have
 undergone D&D.  In ;h.e meantime, the presence of the existing bnildinus or structures is assumed to limit
NOI! exposures and moisture infiltration. The effectiveness of the buildings and structures in limiting
exposures and infiltration will be evaluated as part of the CERCLA 5-year review process for Of 1-11
                                              9-"
-------

                          9.3    Other Surface Soils (Group 3)

             ^






 9.3.1    Alternatives Descriptions

          •scribed for Alfrmari^ ">   A      • A!temative 3 inciudes existing and additional in.mu
          .scribed tor Alternative 2 and containment using an engineered barrier.  The proposed
          barner is compnsed of natural earth materials and designed to isolate the contamTnants
          vater infiltration, and reduce contaminant leaching and transport for up to 1 000 years  The
          Carrier will be subject to operation and maintenance activities and 5-year reviews under
carrier construct?™* en ""f" .     risk remains> Some of the operating facilities may interfere with
several decades in ihellTe    C°ntamment ma>' "ot be ''"iplemented until facility D&D has concluded
                                            9-3
-------
   institutional controls will be terminated at each site but maintained at the location of the ICDF  The FCDF
   is planned to be constructed southwest of the INTEC facility and west of the current INTJEC percolation


  ,VB  'CDF~"T° imP'ement onsi
-------
                                      l° reduce m°isture content in the Perch«i water.  The existing
    on o  navnde .d               ^"'^ *' A'temative  ' '  The additional institutiona  '
   controls may include land or regulatory restrictions, to prevent inadvertent exposure to contaminated
   mf±  rWateh    1  I!'0"" PerChed water-monit0^ -ells will be installed to provide adSna
   nforniation about the deep perched water. The proposed remedies are actions that control source
   Mipplying water to the perched zone. The aquifer recharge controls, discussed below are denned to
   perZd Tone".* T ^^ of soil.conttmin^ <° P->-d "«er. reduce the volume oftf  n he
   perched zone, and minimize contaminated perched water releases to the SRPA.

        The initial aquifer recharge controls will include removal of the percolation ponds from service and
  discontinuing lawn .mgation at the INTEC, where necessary. A major contributio no the peTched water
  or.gm.tes from the existing percolation ponds, which contribute approximately ^70^ofte water
  rechargmg the perched water bodies. Removal of this water source will slow the rate of conTamLnt
  transport to the SRPA sufficiently to allow natural radioactive decay to reduce ^ the           ™
                                         quality standards will not be
          |em°Vfai °f 'I6 Percolation P°nds and cea«i"g 'awn irrigation do not protect the aquifer
          l aquifer recharge controls will be implemented. Additional recharge controls may include

 firew± r'8    rt r^ 
-------
   SnH V     T,   ™W ™mediation wi» be Performed under this alternative to alter the existing site
   ,ro±         eXIStmg instltutional controls inc'«*** ^ ** *«** ^ *£ Pro^
          studio For company and cost estimating purposes, the most likelv candidate treatment
                                            9-6
-------
   technology. ,on exchange, ,s assumed to be part of this alternative. Extracted groundwater will be treated
   n a newly constructed water treatment plant using ion exchange to concentrate the contaminants  The
   concentrated waste w.ll be treated and disposed onsite. The remediated water will be rdijS mto the
   aquifer through (he s* mjection wells.  Remediation could be challenging and may requJSSm^
   .tud.es because current technology is not sufficiently developed to remove 1. 1 29 to its derived MCLof
    P.Cl' L' ,Ther trfatf''ty stud.es will also evaluate the presence of mercury, Sr-90 chromium  Tc-99  and
   tnt.um al I of which are known or are predicted to be present in the groundwater p urn ^significant'
  trea '"nT T       these '°"<™« are not long-term risk drivers, they may foul the groundwater
  GroT T    °r P°Se rad'ol°S1Cal exP°sure co^rns if brought to the surface  for treatment
  Groundwater extraction and  .njection will also reduce contaminant transport by hydraulicaUy controlling
  wa'erorth'mo"16 '" l™l«d"reas- A tOtaI °^ approximate^ 492 billion*!. (.30 bil ion ga o    *
  water, over the  100-year operatmg l.fe, would be extracted and treated under this alternative.

                       9.6   Buried Gas  Cylinders (Group 6)

       The Buried Gas Cylinders group is comprised of Sites CPP-84 and CPP-94  These sites eenenllv

  STstSJTsr1 gastcylinders frr in construction gases at site cpp^ss22
  mn TK         f ' u    Xa  "Umber °f cyhnders 1S ""known but is estimated to be between 40 and
 xn   nn                                                         ™W <™*    punc
explosion of the cylmders.  A risk assessment was not performed for these sites during the RI/BRA
                             and evaluated for the Buried
                                                                                         or
 9.6.1   Alternatives Descriptions

 ».Rf .t    Alternative 1-"No Action" with Monitoring. Alternative I consists of existing
 msmufonal controls. Under Alternative I, no active remediation will be performed a  the site  The
 ex.st.ng .nst.tut.onal controls will consist of security, access restrictions, a'nd site inspections until ?095.

 9*1.2    Alternative 2-Removal, Treatment, and Disposal. Alternative 2 consists of the

 nZ 'leXhS'tU r'™11'' and diSP°Sal °f thC gaS CyHnderS 3t each Slte" This a"e™tive -ill abo include
 in itial site characterization us.ng geophysical surveys to determine the location and quantity of buried «£
 cyhnders pnor to removal  After the cylinders are located, they will be removed using convent.onal  g

  n e" o ;ee±oUnehS " fT C°nUjnment StmCtUre'  GaSCS pr£Sent '" the "cavated'cyl.nders tS  be
 con rac nr rhaf   ^  £     Y are,.be"18n' °r treated usin§ a ™*°* suitable for the particular gas. A
 contractor that specializes in gas  cvhnder removal, treatment, and disposal will perform Alternative "»
                                                                    P                "
                                       - Alteraalivc 3 consi;its «f the existing institutional controls
         iN inc       H           '"S',tut10nal controls, and containment. Additional institutional
       Mill include land-use or regulatory restrictions. The principal component of Alternative 3 is

           US? 3n eng"rred bamer-  Th£ barriCr Wi" C°nS1St of natural earthen materials des gned to
      the bur.ed gas cylmders. A concrete pad will be poured over each of the sites prior to placement
of the engmeered bamer to minimize the potential for an uncontrolled uas release dudng barrfer
-------
                  9.7    SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group  7)

        Based on the results of the preliminary investigation conducted at the SFE-20 site in 1984
  radiological contamination is present within the tank liquids and sludges, and on the tank, tank vault and
  pump pit surfaces. The principal threat posed by the SFE-20 tank system is a release of the radioactive
  contaminants from the tank due to loss of integrity that could potentially contaminate soils, perched
  water, or SRPA groundwater beneath the site.  In 1976. the tank and its transfer system were replaced
  The SFE-20 inlet pipe was disconnected, and the pipe leading to the SFE-20 tanks was capped. At
  present, there is no exposure to humans or ecological receptors under existing conditions given that the
  tank vault is 3 m (10 ft) below the ground surface and area access is restricted. However, radiation
  exposure could occur if the existing access restrictions are not maintained.  In addition, the excavation
  needed to cap the piping to SFE-20 may have been backfilled with radionuclide contaminated soil  Four
  alternatives were developed and evaluated for the SFE-20 tank system to limit exposure to radiation or to
  minimize the potential for a release to occur from the tank system.

 9.7.1     Alternatives Descriptions

 9.7.,1.1    Alternative 1—"No Action" with Monitoring.  Alternative I consists of existing
 institutional controls. Under Alternative I, no active remediation will be performed at the site  The
 existing institutional controls will consist of security, access restrictions, site inspections, environmental
 monitoring, and general maintenance until 2095.

 9.7.12    Alternative 2—In Situ Stabilization with Containment  Alternative 2 consists of the
 existing institutional controls described for Alternative 1, additional institutional controls in situ
 treatment, and containment. Characterization of tank liquid, sludge, and surrounding soil is needed for
 remedia design.  Additional institutional controls will include land-use and regulatory restrictions  The
 principal component of Alternative 2 is containment using an engineered barrier.  The barrier will consist
 of natural earthen materials designed to minimize exposure and moisture infiltration at the site for up to
 1.000 years. Prior to placing the barrier, the tank system, including the tank  vault, will be filled with
 concrete grout to stabilize tank liquids and sludge and  minimize differential settlement after capping.

 9.7.1.3    Alternative 3—Liquid Removal and Treatment with In Situ Stabilization.
 Alternative 3 consists of existing and additional institutional controls described for Alternative 2 removal
 and ex situ treatment of the tank liquid, and in situ treatment of the tank sludge, tank, and associated
 structures. Characterization of tank liquid, sludge, and surrounding soil is needed for remedial design and
 liquid waste disposal.  The tank liquid will be removed and treated at the PEW evaporator  The tank
 sludge, tank, and associated structures will be filled with concrete or similar urout to solidify and stabilize
 the contaminants that remain.

 9.7.1.4    Alternative 4—Removal, Treatment,  and Disposal. Alternative 4 includes the
 existing institutional controls described for Alternative I, removal and ex situ treatment of the tank liquid
 and sludge, and excavation, removal, and onsite disposal of the tank and associated structures  The tank
 liquid will be removed and treated as described in Alternative 3. The tank sludge will be removed and
 treated (ex situ) using a suitable grout to solidify  and stabilize the contaminants"^ the sludge
 Characterization of tank sludge, liquid, and surrounding soil is needed for remedial design and waste
disposal. The sludge will be drummed  and disposed at a suitable enuineered  disposal facility The
 remaining components of the tank  system will be excavated, removed, and disposed either in the ICDF or
otts.te  depending on the ICDF waste acceptance  criteria. The excavation will be backfilled to »rade with
clean soils.
-------
      10.  SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
  specif,!^ cTRaCLA ^h"^ • " ^'7? *W eVa'Uated against the "^^aluation criteria as
  specmed by LhKLLA. These criteria include:

        I     Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment-This criterion addresses
             whether a remedy provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and
             describes how risks posed by each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, oncontrolled
             through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.

        2.    Compliance with ARARs-This criterion addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the
             ARARs under federal and state environmental laws and/or justifies a waiver.
4.
             *TETT? EffrC thT? * a"d Permanenc^-™S criterion refers to expected residual risk
             and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
             environment over time, once cleanup goals have been met.

             Reduction of Toxidty, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment-This criterion
             addresses the degree to which a remedy employs recycling or treatment that reduces the
             toxicity mobility, or volume of the COCs, including how treatment is used to address the
             principal threats posed by the site.
                        Effectiveness—This criterion addresses any adverse impacts on human health
            and the environment that may be posed during the construction and implementation oeriod
            and the period of time needed to achieve cleanup goals.             Fomentation period,

      6.    Implementability-This criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a
            remedy mcludmg the availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular


      7.    Cost-This criterion includes estimated capita] and operation costs, expressed as net
            present-worth costs.                                       .

      8.    State Acceptance—This criterion reflects aspects of the preferred alternative and other
            alternatives that the state favors or objects to and any specific comments regarding state
            ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.

      9.    Community Acceptance-This criterion summarizes the public's general response to the
            alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and in the RI/FS, based on public comments
            received.


      ^-KST^SSt ?±!a'l!riV!i ** ~" '*-sue group is pressed in
                             pr                                                      of
and   T\M   H. 1  •    Tm ?       Cntena ^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^°UP in the followi^ text
and m Table, IO-! through 10-7. A d.scussion of CERCLA Criteria 8 and 9 is found in Section 10.8.
                                           10-1
-------
                  10.1   Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)

  10.1.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

        Alternative 3 provides the most overall protection of human health and the environment. All three
  alternatives limit human and ecological receptor exposure to contaminants by maintaining the existing
.  institutional controls, which are a common component of all of the alternatives. Alternatives I and •>  do
  not provide any direct action to limit leaching and transport of contaminants from the surface soils to  the
  perched water. Alternative 3 includes remedies involving engineering controls to limit surface water
  infiltration into contaminated soils and leaching and transport of contaminants to perched water.
  Implementation of surface water controls to limit future soil contaminant leaching and transport to the
  perched water will reduce the future risk to the SRPA.  All of the alternatives will provide perched water
  monitoring to determine if additional degradation of perched water is occurring. Table I0-l  summarizes
  the comparative analysis of the Tank Farm Soils interim action alternatives.

  10.1.2  Compliance with ARARs

        All of the proposed alternatives comply with the ARARs and to be considered (TBCs) during the
  interim action period, which ends in 2008. These alternatives would  also comply with the ARARs
  beyond the interim action period as long as the existing institutional controls are maintained  ARARs
  concerning monitoring well installation and other construction activities  will be met using engineering
  controls, health and safety practices, and radiological control methods.

  10.1,3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

       None of the proposed alternatives provide long-term effectiveness or permanence. As  interim
 measures, the period of performance is assumed to be about 8 years (until 2008) or until the final remedv
 1S selected and implemented. The proposed alternatives will minimize human and ecological  receptor  "
 exposure to contaminants during the interim action period.  Alternative 3 will limit further perched water
 degradation during the interim action period. It is presumed that the final Tank Farm remedy  developed
 under Ob 3-14 will provide an effective and permanent long-term solution that mitigates human and
 environmental exposure risks and limits further perched water degradation.

 10.1.4   Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

       None of the alternatives provide a reduction of toxicity. mobility, or %-olume through treatment
 since treatment will not be implemented during the interim action period.  Some reduction in contaminant
 mass, and thus volume, is achieved indirectly through natural radioactive decay of short-lived
 radionuclides, such as Cs-l37 and Sr-90; however, the contaminant toxicity will remain the same
 Reduction in contaminant mobility will be achieved by implementing  the surface water controls in
 Alternative 3 to limit leaching and transport of soil contaminants to the perched water.

 10.1.5   Short-term Effectiveness

      All of the alternatives can be implemented u ithout significant additional risk to the community or
 Corkers.  The primary risk to the workers from implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 involves fueitive
 dust and toxic substance emissions, which will be controlled with dust suppressants and engineering
 controls.  Alternatives 2 and 3 also pose a ver> minor risk to workers from direct exposure to radiation
 and personal injury during construction activities.  Sampling of the monitoring wells, proposed in all
                                              10-2
-------
                    IQf comparative analyses for the Tank Farm Soils Interin^non  Grouf


                                            Alternative 1
                                        	~

Overall Protection                                v
                                                •^               N                \

Compliance with ARARs                         v

                                                                 Y          '      \
Long-term Effectiveness                          c
                                                3                5                3

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume          N               N

Short-term Effectiveness                          3


Implementability                                 i
                                                                                     N


                                                                                     3


                                                                                     3
   Net Present Value Cost                            c, JVf            f,nn*.
  —	S3.4M            SIO.OM          SI5.1M
                                                        be
                                                                             not be
 10.1.6   Implementability
10.1.7   Cost

                                           10-3
-------
                                                                                                             1
              10.2  Soils  Under Buildings and Structures (Group 2)

   10.2.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

        All of the proposed alternatives provide overall protection of human health and the environment
   during the institutional control period, which ends in 2095. Beyond 2095, only Alternatives ? and 3
   provide long-term protection and satisfy the applicable RAOs. Current workers will be protected bv the
   SmaKrTh COntr°iS Pr°PT d '"" eaCH alternative-  Alternative 2 provides long-term protection of
   hTfor SM   M nnrf enVIr°nmem / 'S°latmg the contami"ants with an engineered barrier desired to
   last for at least 1 .000 years and implementing additional institutional controls. The barrier and the
  additional institutional controls prevent inadvertent exposures to humans or ecological receptors bv
   muting contaminant accessibility through engineering controls and land use restrictions. The presence of
  the existing buildings or structures is assumed to provide the functional equivalent of an engineered
  barrier and will minimize exposures until D&D is completed. Alternative 3 provides the most overall
  protection pt human health and the environment by removing contaminated soils exoosed durine D&D
  and disposing them in the proposed ICDF.  Removal  of the soils will prevent exposure of humans or
  ecological receptors to soil contaminants. Table 1 0-2 summarizes the comparative analysis of the Soils
  Under Buildings and Structures alternatives.

  10.2.2  Compliance with ARARs
 ends inWS '^iTS? T ?f ARARS ** TBCS d"ring the institutional ™™ P^od. which
 ends m 2095  Beyond 2095, only Alternat.ves 2 and 3 satisfy ARARs.  Alternative 2 meets the ARARs
 using institutional controls and an engineered barrier designed for 1 ,000 years of protection
 Alternative 3 satisfies ARARs through the use of engineering controls while removing the contaminated
 soils and disposing of the contaminated materials in an engineered disposal facility designed to provide
 long-term protection of human health and the environment.                         geuioproviae

 10.2.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

       Alternative I does not provide any long-term effectiveness or permanence, because the existing
 institutiona  controls  will end m 2095, and no exposure controls will remain in place.  Alternative ?
 provides reliable long-term effectiveness and permanence by reducing human or ecological receptor
 exposure to  contaminants beyond 2095. The proposed engineered barrier is designed to provide Ions-
 term isolation of these release sites for up to 1 ,000 years, during which time the residual risk will decrease
 Sinn  '  tra,dl°af tIVC deCa/\ Alternative 3 will provide the most  long-term effectiveness bv removing the
 contaminated soils exposed during D&D and disposing of them in the proposed ICDF that will be    "
 designed for long-term isolation of radioactive materials.  The residual risk posed by soils disposed in this
 engineered disposal facility will naturally decrease by radioactive decay  of the short-lived radk>nuclides. '

 10.2.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

      None  of the alternatives reduce the toxiciiy. mobility, or volume of contaminants through
 treatment, as treatment is not included in any of the alternatives. Contaminants are indirectly reduced
 oxer time by natural radioactive decay under each alternative.  Contaminant bioavai lability to human and
 ecological receptors is also  reduced by the engineered barrier.  Removal and disposal of the  soil
contaminants in the proposed ICDF will also indirectly reduce the contaminant mobility by Ions-term
contaminant  isolation.                                                       .  '  y    ^
                                             10-4
-------
                                        JH£!^^^
                                                 Alternative,      Alternative^      Alternative 3
                    Criterion
    Overall Protection
    Compliance with ARARs
    Long-term Effectiveness
    Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
    Short-term Effectiveness
    Implementability
    Net Present Value Cost
   a. Co. does not .nclude the pro,ata share for construction and opeloTof the ,CDF

                                                              '    '     • — •
 10.2.5   Short-term Effectiveness
 \
 N
 5
 \
 5
 1
S6.4M
                                                                       Y
                                                                       Y
                                                                       3
                                                                       N
                                                                       3
                                                                       1
                                                                      S9.2M
                                                              Y
                                                              Y
                                                              1
                                                             N
                                                             5
                                                             5
                                                             SSJ.Vf
                                * <
im
 Alternatives 2 and 3 can be implemented w^thouTanv
 env,ronmem.  Risks to workers and the env onmem
 or so,l excavation, because of worker expos"? ™
 environment. and the       ja, f       J
 tamer construction, or soil excavaL,
practices will be used to minimize
pathway during the institutional
implementation.
10.2.6   Implementability
                                                                  «he

                                                                               . or workers;
                                                                          U"der this al*™tive.
                                                                                work^, or the
                            2 and 3
                                                                                    tO the
                                                                   controls w'» be used during
                                                                     °T KleaSeS-  Safe work
                                                                     1"" ^ ^^ f°r thesoii
                                                                  be protective at the time of
                                                                          easi.y implemented.
 easily continued. The additional institutional cTnt ok  nd        y, ™plemented at *e site and are
 have been used at other Superfund ^^s^^^^^" Pr°vided in Alternative 2
 or construction concerns. Engineered barrier con WcTonTs si ^ LT,  T "° SPCdal 'ega'' en8ineering
 h.ghway construction, and requires no special personnel ecu Z          ' ^ °f earthwork' ^uch as
 • mp ementability issue concerns the timfng of bS "onsSSn  ^ T^' ^ °n'y S''gnificant
 unt,l adjacent buildings or structures have undergone D&D  whTch           ' ^T" be construc^
 the future. Alternative 3  also is readily implement but onlv f ' ,h T^ °CCUr f°r SeVera' deCades in
 dunng D&D. The timing for implementation of AUerna^ v  Ms  f " H"   f "* C°mp'etely removed
are projected to extend o^•er the next several decades THH    ?, dependent on D&D activities that
construction of the proposed ICDF.                    dd"1On- Altemative 3 also depends on the
10.2.7   Cost

                                            10-5
-------

                 e^^^

                      10.3   Other Surface Soils (Group 3)
  10.3.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
                                                                      reducc human
 10.3.2   Compliance with ARARs







 10.3.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
existing             r      e
Alternative 2 will prove son e m easu re of!on« i  ^ reStnCtl°rnS 'imiti"8 '^ a"d grou"dwater use in
controls may not effect velv controTno em   g     protection ,f maintained beyond 2095. but these
      s may not
                        s
10.3.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
                                 ^r^ m°bilit>'' °r ^Iume thro^h treatment as no
 lternative 3 reduces co n- u^     n JH? h       "'  °nMmctIon of an engineered barrier under
  ls. roducinu l«chin» "^LT0r "y / T111"1112"1? uater that ^^ through the contaminated
  bH.u a, the re£ ^es,^ ^bv « S? in -TiT'™^  AJtematKcs 4A and 4B «™it contaminant
   downed to hrnit col ,^ So it^'r"1™1"1 *"" " " ^
                                      10-6
-------
    Table 10-3. Summary

            Criterion
           ••

    Overall Protection

    Compliance with ARARs

    Long-term Effectiveness

    Reduction of Toxicity,
    Mobility, or Volume

    Short-term Effectiveness

    Implementability

    Net Present Value Cost
N
N
5
N
N
N
3
N
Y
Y
3
N.
Y
Y
I
Y
.
Y
Y
I
V
                             I

                            S6.8M
I
2
SI5.0M
3
3
S37.5M
3
3
S84.9M
5
5
S 208.4M

  10.3.5  Short-term Effectiveness
«is, a,, hesi.es.
dust emissions or cause personal i
These risks will be
                                                an,y addition*
                                            »t ™ Aliematlvef 3' 4A- and 4B may generate fugitive
                                             f^^ "^ tO WOrkerS °r the environment
      motives win be procec.i™
 10.3.6  Implementability



 also easily implemented as land us^ScSS^  H afe ^ * C°nti"Ued- Altemative 2 «
                                       ^
                                         ir ±rated,soils and either °n-site
use standard excavation equipment and d.l,            i a'tematl Ves are ''mplementable as thev
common landfill opera «on  Altlma ," e 4Au U   '" '!'"     diSpOSal facility Which is similar to a"
         l disposal sit^outh eTo L '^TEcTr ^ ^T^"1' desi§^ ™* construction of an
                              ---
-------
                        S0iis' *reat distanc« off-Site and depends on the availability of off-Site
   10.3.7  Cost




                                                                       "      "
                          10.4  Perched Water (Group 4)

  10.4.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

       All of the proposed perched water alternatives will provide overall protection nf h,,™™ »,  i,u  A





 ™1K3£^Z^^^
       *          *           *-viwaotu vvaicr conicnL in inc perched zone will inprpjicf* th#»
 M fvrt* *% MA in^nt/*        *      f                   ^i***HfliuiaI ulLdlLlollOil pTOCCSSCS tO QCCf*^JlQ^




 10.4.2   Compliance with ARARs

     Alternative I does not satisfy the ARARs. Alternatives 2 and 3  meet all of the ARAR, if th. T u






10.4.3   Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
                                         IO-.X
-------
                        ^                   for the Perched
                    Criterion
    Overall Protection
    Compliance with ARARs
    Long-Term Effectiveness
    Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
    Short-Term Effectiveness
    Implementability
   Net Present Value
   * = exc.ud.ng Tank Fan, con«am,nant comnbution, reduced contaminant flux ,o «he SRPA wii. sausfy the MCLs

 
-------
   10.4.6  Implementability
        All of the alternatives are technically and administratively implementable. None of the alternatives
  require any special.matenals. equipment, or personnel that are not readily available at the site or from the
  local community.  Existing institutional controls proposed in Alternative I  are currently in place at the
  sue and can be easily continued. Alternative 2 is also readily implemented usins.standard construction
  methods and requires no special personnel, equipment, or materials. Alternative 2 mav pose some
  Implementability challenges, as this alternative requires replacement of the existing percolation ponds
  which are currently used by INTEC operations.  Alternative 3 also poses additional implementabilitv '
  concerns  because of the surface and underground utilities that occur throughout the plant that could be
  damaged  by activities such as installation of perched water extraction welfs or construction of holding
  tanks and transfer lines.                                                                    °

  10.4.7   Cost

       Alternative I  is the least expensive alternative evaluated because it only involves continuation of
  existing institutional controls and perched water monitoring. Conversely, it provides the least overall
  protection effectiveness and reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume of all the alternatives.  Alternative ">
  T? ™ S Capltalcosts  than Alternative I because of the implementation of aquifer recharge controls
  The O&M costs for Alternatives I and 2 are similar since perched water monitoring will be conducted
  under each alternative.  Alternative 3 is the most costly alternative because it involves construction and
 operation of perched water extraction wells and a water treatment facility for 25 years  A detailed cost
 (DOE8!!) 1998? ****** WatCr altemative is Presented in Appendix A of the FS supplement


           10.5  Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim Action (Group 5)

 10.5.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

      Each of the proposed alternatives temporarily eliminates human health and environmental risks
 using existing institutional controls.  Alternative I will not provide human health protection beyond the
 institutional control period,  which ends in 2095. Alternatives 2A. 2B and 3, provide long-term protection
 through implementation  of additional institutional controls such as land  use restrictions until groundwater
 cleanup goals are achieved.  These controls would limit land and groundwater use as long as they remain
 S£ it* ™n,    g W conservative groundwater modeling, predictions Alternative 2A may not satisfy
 .YICLs by 2095 (see Figure I0-l). Groundwater monitoring is required to verify that RAOs are achieved
 Alternatives -B and 3 contain contingent active remediation of the SRPA to meet MCLs by ">095  if the
 COC action level(s) are exceeded. Table 10-5 summarizes the comparative analysis of the SRPA
 alternatives.                                                            '

10.5.2   Compliance with ARARs

      Alternatives I  and  2A do not comply with ARARs beyond the institutional control period
Altemames 2B and 3 are predicted to achieve ARARs before 2095.
-------
                 •129 (pCi/L) (10/2095) For Slice (11
                                                              1-129 (pCi/U (10/2095) For Slice (21
  199000:
     79900
 199000
    79900
-.99000
               83500     87100     90700
                           EASTING (M)
               51830.0 DAYS FROM 1953MAX C . 3.18*01
                                                                      87100     90700     94300
                                                                        EASTING (M)
                                                            51830.0 DAYS FROM 1953MAX C. 381*-01
                                                            97900
                                                                          1-129 (PCM.) MO/2095) For Slice 14}
                        B7100     90700     9430O
                          EASTING (M)
              51830 0 DAYS FROM 1953MAX C » 1 27e*00
                                       97900
                                                 79900
                                                                                        94300
                    83500     87100     90700
                                EASTING (M)
                    51830.0 DAYS FROM 1953MAX C « 1 21»»00
               1-129 (pCi/Ui (10/2095) For Slice (5)
                                                                         M29 (pCi/U (10/20951 For Slice (6)
    79900
                                          94300
83500      87100     90700
            EASTING i Ml
51830 0 DAYS FROM 1953MAX C • 4 68e»OO
      199000
97900      79900
                                                                                                    94300
                   83500     87100      90700
                               EASTING {M)
                   5'83OO DAYS FROM 1953MAX C > 2 B4«,OO
                                                                                                              97900
Figure 10-1.  Predicted 1-129 concentrations for slices l-IO in 2095.
-------
(Q
C

3
r,
C
C
a.
NORTHING (M)
                                     8  8

                                    JJLJJJLI
                       NORrHING(M)

                        8 8
-------
         ^O-S. -Summary of comparative analyses for the Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim Action,
Alternative 1   Alternative 2A  AltemativejBAIr.m,,.-,,,. 3
                  Criterion
    Overall Protection
    Compliance with ARARs
    Long-term Effectiveness
    Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or
    Volume
    Short-term Effectiveness
    I mplemen lability
    Net Present Value Cost
                                            S13.9M
                SI4.8M
3
5
S39.8M
3
4
S787.9M
   ^leas. sat.sfies cn.enon; 1 - hes, saosnescntenon; V - ves. cntena
  10.5.3  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
                                                                                          d


 10.5.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment


10.5.5   Short-term Effectiveness


10.5.6  Implementability
                                          IU-13
-------
                                              ter and available groundwater treatmem
       -  _..— «*.1N,4 v.x-»\_a iciuuvm. ijround\vatt?r ^Ytm  t'      -i   L             ***»nvni **-*,*»n\yiu^jc:j> i^j-
     without any special personnel, equipment or materiil'0^!     •  ot ]S3 m (60° ft> can be implemented
     and treatment of millions to billions of callon^ ntv   ,   .   er"atlves ~B and 3 will also require handling
     testing may be required to determine the most an r     1lnated S^md^ater.  Bench-scale treatability
     concentration contaminants present in the SRPA BrnfinH^ ttreatmentja"d extract|on technology for the lov
    groundwater from the low permeability H l'hvU ;         u'    addltlon- "faction of contaminated
    contemplated in Alternative 3       '                technically challenging than aquifer extraction
    10.5.7  Cost
                    .;:^                                "-« provides the least overall
   costs. Alternatives 2B and 3 cost the ^mo« S« r^v'? T? C°St'y beCaUSC of addltio«al monitoring
   Alternative 3 extraction and treatment ^aoacitv fc£ ?7i      u eXtraCt'°n 3"d treatment costs"
   protection, long-term efTect^e^dSon^^^^                    hi^her ^ Oveml.
   increased costs.  A detailed cost estimate for each altem^v           !/  a"d V°lume increase with
   supplement (DOE-ID I998a).                  alternat.ve ,s presented m Appendix- A of the  FS
                         10.6  Buried Gas  Cylinders (Group 6)
  10.6.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
                   ^                             of human health and the environment.
  sites. Alternatives 2 and 3 Ml^fy1'^^^^^'' acf s «>n««,.s are in force at these
  the RAOs through containmenfand will be proSSe ?or a  LastTooo     ^ A'tematiVe 3 achieves
  protective beyond  1 ,000 years, but it was onl v eva nlTr   t    '    -1"5-  Altemative 3 may be
  Alternative 2 provides the most ove all protection ^theburild6 ""T^ ^'^ Hfe °f the barrier'
  reactive and ignitable gasses will be removed I  reated ^T  gas/ylinder Sltes be"use the hazardous
  Table ,0-6 summarizes the comparativ^S                                    ™*

  10.6.2   Compliance with ARARs
                        Ot comolv with A R A PC rlnt-;«,. ,u
 ^..e* an o, me ARARs usina engineering com™1  ™d nm ms^tlona Controi Pe"°d- Alternativ
 complies with all of the ARAR^s durin "he tardier  ! onnpr°pei;,dlSPosal Procedures.  Altemative 3
 1.000 years, it is assumed that the waste and the h™/™ i    ""functlonal des'Sn life-  Beyond
 minimize risks.                                fee so" mass comprising the barrier will continue to

 10.6.3   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
                                                                                  ' buried
           an approved ^          ^ •-^e YSv'"AT "^ 'T'"16"1 resid"e wi" be
long-tern, e.Tectiveness and permanence^- coma 1 M^';  ^!ternal1 v?   P^des a high degree o
u-, reduce the current risk to huma.and cco^ca
                                            10-14
-------
    TableJO-6.  Summary- of comparative analyses for the
                    Criterion
                   —	
    Overall Protection
    Compliance with ARARs
    Long-term Effectiveness
    Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
    Short-term Effectiveness
    Implementability
    Net Present Value
                                                                      i. Group 6.
Alternative 1
	 . 	
N
N
5
N
1
1
	 • 	 : 	 -t_J
Alternative 2
Y
Y
1
Y
5
3
Alternative 3
Y
Y
3
N
3
3
                                                                                    S8.2M
                cn.cnon: I • hes, sansjle^e.^ y - yes, cnter.a wi.l he
1 0.6.4
           Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
  10.6.5   Short-term Effectiveness








10.6.6   Implementability
                                                    is technicall-v and administratively



.mplementabk. Alternate 3 reqmres no spec,al,zcd conMniciion personnel, equipment, or matenak
                                           \n-\5
-------
  Existing institutional controls are currently implemented at the site and are easily continued.
  Construction of an engineered barrier is similar to other types of earthwork, such as highway
  construction, and can be readily implemented.

  10.6.7   Cost

       Alternative 2 is the least costly of the alternatives evaluated, and provides the most overall, long-
 term protection.  Alternatives I  and 3 are similar in cost and are much more costly than Alternative 2 "
 because these alternatives include^ 100 years of environmental monitoring, whereas. Alternative 2 does
 not include environmental monitoring after the buried gas cylinders are removed. Alternative 3 is the
 most expensive alternative because it includes increased capital costs for constructing an engineered
 barrier.  A detailed cost estimate for each alternative is presented in Appendix A of the FS supplement
 (DOE-ID I998a)

                10.7   SFE-20  Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)

 10.7.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

       Alternative I is not protective of human health and the environment because no active remedial
 measures will be implemented to limit the threat of contaminant release to the environment.
 Alternatives 2. 3. and 4 are the only alternatives that fully satisfy the SFE-20 tank system RAOs.
 Alternative 2 achieves the RAOs through in situ treatment and containment and will be protective for at
 least 1,000 years. Alternative 2 probably may be protective beyond 1,000 years, but it was only evaluated
 for the minimum design life of the barrier. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide the greater protection of the
 SFE-20 tank system alternatives because the radioactive liquids and/or sludges will be removed, treated.
 and disposed in an engineered disposal facility. Alternative 4 provides the most overall protection of
 human health and the environment. Table 10-7 summarizes th; comparative analysis of the SFE-20 tank
 system alternatives.

 10.7.2  Compliance with ARARs

      Alternative I  does not comply with the ARARs either during the 100-year institutional control
 period or beyond. Alternative 2 complies with all of the ARARs and TBCs during the barrier's
 1.000-year functional design life. Beyond 1,000 years, it is assumed that the solidified waste and the
 large soil mass comprising the barrier will continue to minimize exposure risks from alpha-emitting
 radionuclides and satisfy all of the  ARARs and TBCs. Alternatives 3 and 4 will satisfy all of the ARARs.

 10.7.3   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

      Alternative I does not provide any measure of long-term effectiveness or permanence beyond the
 institutional control period, which ends in 2095. Alternative 2 provides a high degree of long-term
effectiveness and permanence by solidifying and containing the waste.  Alternative 3 will provide a hiah
degree of long-term  effectiveness and permanence because the tank liquid  will be removed, treated and
disposed, the tank sludge solidified using grout, and the tank and associated structures filled with grout to
 prevent future exposures.  Alternative 4 will provide the  highest degree of long-term effectiveness"and
permanence because the tank liquid and sludge will be removed, treated, and disposed, and the remaining
components of the tank system will be excavated and disposed at the proposed ICDF.
-------
   Table 10-7.  Summary of comparative analyses for the SFE-20 Tank System  Group 7.
                                           Alternative I  Alternative 2  Alternative 3  Alternative 4
               Criterion
 Overall Protection
 Compliance with ARARs
 Long-term Effectiveness
 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
 Volume
 Short-term Effectiveness
 Implementability
NPV Cost
                                               N
                                               N
                                               5
                                               N

                                               I
                                               I
                                              S6.4M
 Y
 Y
 3
 Y
3
3
                                                        S8.7M
 Y
 Y
 3
 Y

5
5
S8.5M
 Y
 Y
 I
 Y

5
5
S4.6M
   5 • to., sat-sfies cmenon^, - best satisfies critenon; V - yes, criteria w.ll be met; N = no, cnteria will not be met.
  10.7.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
 10.7.5   Short-term Effectiveness









10.7.6   Implementability
                                                    '» *Ch™M* and administratively
-------
  Barriers are routinely used to control exposures and leaching and transport of contaminants. Barriers
  have been used at numerous Superfund sites. Alternatives 3 and 4 are more difficult to implement than
  Alternatives 1 and 2 because of the potential for construction workers to be exposed to radiation or
  occupational injury during the characterization, removal, handling, treatment, or disposal of the tank
  liquids, sludges, and other components. Engineering controls, health and safety plans, radiation controls,
  and safe work practices will be used to minimize radiation exposure and reduce personal injury.
  Treatment of similar tank liquids at the PEW evaporator is routinely conducted and would be reliable for
  these alternatives.  Solidification of the tank system is readily implemented, as grouting is a demonstrated
  technology that has been used at numerous Superfund sites.

  10.7.7   Cost

       Alternative 4 is the least costly of the alternatives evaluated for the SFE-20 tank system,  and it
 provides the most long-term effectiveness of the alternatives.  Alternatives  1,2, and 3 are similar in total
 costs but vary slightly in capital costs. Alternative 4 is much less expensive than the other alternatives
 because Alternative 4 does not include long-term environmental monitoring for the 100-year institutional
 control period. Alternatives 2 and 3 cost essentially the same because of higher capital costs.
 Alternative 2 is the most expensive alternative because it includes capital costs for grouting the  tank
 system and constructing an engineered barrier.  A detailed cost estimate for each alternative is presented
 in Appendix A of the FS supplement (DOE-ID  1998a).

                                10.8   Modifying Criteria

      The modifying criteria, state and community acceptance, are used in the final evaluation of
 remedial alternatives. For both of these criteria, the factors include the elements of the alternatives that
 are supported, the factors of the alternatives that are not supported, and the elements of the alternatives
 that have strong opposition.

 10.8.1   State Acceptance

      The  IDHW has been involved in the development and review of the OU 3-13 RI/FS report the
 Proposed Plan (DOE-ID I998b). and this ROD. All comments received from IDHW on these documents
 have been resolved and incorporated into these documents accordingly.  In addition, IDHW has
 participated in public meetings where public comments and concerns have been  received and responses
 offered.

      The IDHW concurs with the selected remedial alternatives for the sites contained in  this ROD and
 is signatory to the ROD with  DOE and EPA.

 10.8.2   Community Acceptance

      Community participation in the remedy selection process and Proposed Plan reviews includes
participation in the public meetings held November 16 through 19, 1998.  Community acceptance is
summarized in the Responsiveness Summary presented as Appendix A of this document.  The
Responsiveness Summary includes comments received either verbally or in writing from the public, and
the Agencies' responses to  these comments.  A total of about 55 people not associated with the project
attended the Proposed Plan public meetings. The community was generally supportive of the proposed
remedial actions. All comments received on the Proposed Plan \vere considered  during the development
of this ROD.
                                             in-is
-------
                                                                                        1
                           11.  SELECTED REMEDY

                11.1   Descriptions of the Selected Remedies

































                  -                                               '
                                                           drg
mechanism to identify, at a minimum, all CERCLA hnd a     ,NEFT   H    '*  • ^

This planning document mav itself become a pLt of ,  I\EEL St -waf } h  P^ reStnC"O-n T C°ntroL
modifications to the I\EELL-md L\e Finn  m h           L      P  a" °r e^uivalent- but any
               J.  CCL Lana L*«. I Ian uill be consistent with the requirements of this ROD.
-------
  Table 11-1.  Institutional controls lor OU 3-13 ROD.
dump III
-SniiKe AIC.I
I I. ink I .inn
-SniK Inlet mi
At lion
1 line 1-rame
< iineni DOI-
operations until
final action
implemented
Land
Restriction
lndiiMri,tl
radiological!}-
conlrollcd area.
C«t Vaud
l-xptisure 1 hrcat
Radinnuchdcs
and metals
Moderate
exposure ilircat
                                                                             Objective
I'ndei
lilllllllllUs .Illll
Sli in.-liili.-s
(i-.ip -m-pl.icc)
cm i cm nor
opeialions
prior to I),VI)
ol 'building
liuliisin.il        Kudidiiuclidcs
rudiologiciilly    and niulal
conlrollcd area.   ,
                 l.o\\ exposure
                 Ilircul
                                                                      1'rcvcni inirusion inio
                                                                      underlying
                                                                      coiilaininaicd .soils,
                                                                      except for, approved
                                                                      activities pursuant to
                                                                      the KKA/CO.  Limn
                                                                      access to only
                                                                      auihori/.ed personnel
                                                                      and/or DOli certified
                                                                      radiation workers.
Limit access to only
authori/ed personnel
and/or [)()!•: certified
radiation workers.
                                                                                                        Controls
                                                             Visible accevs rcslnciiiHis
                                                             (warning signs, provide
                                                             copies of .surveyed maps)
                                                             Control of activities
                                                             (drilling or excavating).
                                                             Publish surveyed
                                                             boundaries and description
                                                             ofcontrols in INI-1:1. Land
                                                             Use Plan.
Visible access restrictions
(warning signs, provide
copies of surveyed maps).

Control of activities
(drilling or excavating).
Publish surveyed
boundaries and description
of controls in INI-1:1. Land
Use Plan.
                                                             Regulatory
                                                     , 	liaxi.s/Auiluiriiy
                                                      M-A/CO. IOC1-KXJ5.
                                                      "Radiological Worker
                                                      Protection." I )()!•" Ordei
                                                      5400 5. "Radiation
                                                      Protection of the Public."
                                                      Ai.ARA40CI-RI>art
                                                      300.
M;A'CO, 10 (TRIOS.
"Radiological Worker
Protection," |)()l-Order
5400.5, "Radiation
Protection of the Public,"
ALARA40CFR
Pan 300.
   Surveillance to ASMIIC
  _____ Controls in place

  Periodic inspectioii% by
  lX)I:andU)IIW.||'A
  reviews.  |-rei|uenc> to
  lie determined m the
  remedial action work
  plan.

  Nnu:  Hit- Intci im
  .•tfllOII 11 ct/ICf/l'i/ III ltl\l
  fi>rk\\ than I II wars
  timl he ivfiUuvtl hy llic
Jinul actiutt. A
 reviews,  l-'iequeiicy to
 be determined in the
 remedial action  work
 plan.
                                                                                                                                                    ilcmnliinin it •/// he
                                                                                                                                                    l>er/t>rmeti initsitle V( •«/>,•
-------
Table 11-1. (continued).
- 	 	 • •• 	 	
<"'»i'l"" Land COCs/and
Soiin-e Area '1 ime iTiime Restriction Lxpostire Threat
Current DOli Industrial Radiomichdes
operations after landlill no and metal
building D&D- unautliori/ed ,
Low exposure
coni.imination intrusion into .,
iii . threat
[ell in place capped area.
I-VA/CO
approved
O&M activities
authori/ed.








••- — 	 — - 	 —
1)01' control Landfill no
post operations unaulhon/ed
intrusion into
capped area.
I'l-A/CO
approved
O&M activities
auihori/ed.












Objective
Limit direct exposure to
underlying
radiologically
contaminated soil areas'
by public to < \ li-4 risk
through shielding
provided by building.
Limit water recharge
activities adjacent to
 . .
I-I-A/CO, 10 CIR 835. Periodic inspections and
"Worker Protection," reviews, l-rcqueiicy to
DOI-: Order 5400.5. be determined m the
"Radiation Protection of Remedial Action Work
the Public," ALARA 40 Plan.
CI-'R Part30()C!:RCI.A










H'A/CO, Ch'RCI.A 5-year review until
Section I20(h)(5),' Hall determined to not be
Amendment Section needed.
3154 of the National
Defense Authori/alion
Act,' DOli order 5400.5,
"Property Release
Restrictions "










-------
Table 11-1.  (continued).
dump 01
.Si HI no AHM 1 ime 1 r.nnc
I'osl 1)01-
innliol







1 and cot
Rj^liictHHi 	 	 (•.\posui
1 andiill no
uiiaiilhori/cd

mirusion into
capped area
M-'A/CO
approved
O&M activities
authoriVed.
\ and
vllmu _ Obteeiivc
Maintain integrity of
cat).
§





                                                                                             	,	Controls
                                                                                               Notice Iti allected
                                                                                               Mak-clMildcn. (e.g., HI.M
                                                                                               l;&W.SIuiIJan Tribal
                                                                                               Council, loeal coiiniy
                                                                                               governiiieni.s; Stale and
                                                                                               I'-I'A), ineliiding nonce ol"
                                                                                               any change in land use
                                                                                               designation, restriction.
                                                                                               land users or aciivitie.s.
                                                                                               Property iransler
                                                                                              requirements including
                                                                                              i-'ntdmg oI'Miitabiliiy to
                                                                                              ininsler and requirements
                                                                                              lor control ol'land-use
 H-A/CO.CWl.A
 .Section I2»(h)(3).'
 CI-.RCl.A Section
                                      cc to Avstire
                             ..Controls ni.n
                                 .... i ^^ „ __, ^
5-year rev icu mini
determined ID not he
needed
 CI-RCI.A Section
 i20(h)(.i)(A)(i,,);
 CI-RCI.A Section
             .:
Section I20(h)(4).7 j\
CI;R2.172.I.X4.U-|--R
2.174.2." 4 1 CI-R 101 .
47.202- 1, -2.-7.1" l)()|:
order 5400.5 property
release restrictions.
-1' Soils Cuirent 1)01:
l'"lln opeialions
Mmlilitius .nul
•Sllliclllies
(K'ln.iiiiuii!
•llk-l IfllHU.ll
1" «IIK| disposal
ill l( 1)1 )
1 \i \ 1 1
DOr control
post operations

Industrial. Coiiiamiiianis
removed to
10 It.



	 	 	 	 .. 	 	
Industrial. Contaminants
removed lo
10 ft.

	 . 	
l-.nsure land-use is
appropriate if
contamination left
ill-place > 10 ft.



(•insure land-use is
appropriate if
contamination left
m-place>IOtt.
coiisisleni with the ROD
Review and control of
activities as applicable.




Property lease requirements
including requirements for
control of land-use
consistent with the ROD.
                                                                                                                          10 CI-R 1021 NI:|>A
                                                                                                                          Review of Activities.
                                                                                                                         I«(TR 1021 NI-.PA
                                                                                                                         Rev lew of Activities.
                                                                                                                         CI-RC'I.A Section
                                                                                                                                  ,
                                                                                                                         Amendment Section
                                                                                                                         3 1 54 of the National
                                                                                                                         Defense Authori/ation
                                                                                                                         Acr DOli Order 5400.5,
                                                                                                                         "I'ropeny Release
                                                                                                                         Restrictions "
                          5-yi'arievie\v until
                          (leleriinned to not he
                          needed including review
                          <>l land use assumptions
                         W55.7-02A)
                         (Supplemenlal l-ive-year
                        --^iiii.1:' w ii.lildance).

                         5-year review until
                         deiermiiKxl lo not he
                         needed including review
                         <>l land use assumptions.
-------
 Table 11-1. jconiimitfd)._
     (iwup or
    Somce Arc;
                   Post I )()!•:
                   control
	 .— — . „ 	 , 	 	 .
1 and
Restriction
Industrial to
2095.
lesidcntial alter
2(W5.


COCVand
_hxposure Threa
Coniaminanis
removed to
10 It.



' Objective
l-.nsure land-use is
appropriate if
contamination left
m-place >IO ft.



C'ontrols
Property transfer
requirements including
Finding of suitability to
transfer and requirements
tor control of land-use
consistent with the ROD.
	 . _
Regulatory
Basis/Authorily
Oil 3- 1 3 ROD, H- A/CO.
U-ilU'l.A Section
l20(h)(3),Vl-:RCI.A
Section

CHRC1.A. Section
 '•'  ICDI-        Same as 2a
                                                                                                          C'hRCl.A Section
                                                                                                          l20(h)(l)-(3),"cl-.RCI.rt
                                                                                                          Section I20(h)(4),'41
                                                                                                            Othei Soil   Same as 2b

 Uonl.imm.ilinii
depth  -I (Ml
•iltci removal
t» and di.s
4   I'eiched
U'aler
1 Current I)()!•:
 operations
Industrial.
                                  Prevent consumption
                                  anduseof>MCL&/or
                                   • 11--04 risk drinking
                                  water.
Control of activities
(drilling of wells for
drinking).
                                                                                                                            ii-IO directive
                                                                                                                        limiting access lo prevent
                                                                                                                        groundwater use while
                                                                                                                        INTf-C operations
                                                                                                                        continue1, and to restrict
                                                                                                                        future groundwater use
                                                                                                                        (through noticing this
                                                                                                                        restriction to local county
                                                                                                                        governments, ShoBan
                                                                                                                        Tribal council, (iSA,
                                                                                                                        BLM, etc.) including site
                                                                                                                        access restrictions, and
                                                                                                                        drilling restrictions.
                                                                                                                                  5-year review until
                                                                                                                                  determined to not he
                                                                                                                                  needed.
-------
Table 11-1. (continued).
    (noiipiil
   .SoilHT AlCil
  I inn-1 r.iinc
OOI- control
post opcr.itioiis
UXVand
     e Threat
                                   ImliiMriHl,
                                                                            Objective^
                                                Controls
                                                                      Prevent consumption
                                                                      anduseof>MCI. &/or
                                                                      * I I:-1M risk drinking
                                                                      water.
                                                                            (drilling ol'well.s fur
                                                                            drinking).
                                                                            Property lea.se requirement:,
                                                                            including liuding of
                                                                            .suiiahiliiy to transfer and
                                                                            requirements for control of
                                                                            UL-IIVIIIC.S.
        Regulatory1
	Basiji/Aulluiriiy 	
  OU.VI3ROD.CI-.RCI.A
  Section I2()(li)(5).'Hall
  Amendment .Section
  315-loftlicNalional
  Defense Antliori/uiiiia
  Act.;
  DOIM!) directive
  limiting access to prevent
  groundwaleru.se while
  INTliC operations
  coniinuc. and to restrict
  future grnuiidxvaier use
  (through noiicing this
  restriction to local couniy
  governments, ShoBan
  Tribal council, (ISA,
  BI.M, etc.) including site
 access restrictions, and
 drilling restrictions.
 Surveillance to Assure
	C 'pnlrols ill-place
5-year a-Mcwuniil
delennmed to not lie
needed.
-------
Table 11-1.  (continued).
(inwpor
Soiiu-c Area lime l-'ramc
Post 1 )()(•.
control
( -2(W5)
	 	
Land
Restriction
Residential.
	 . 	
COCs/and
Hxposure Threat Obiective
Prevent drilling through
"contaminated inierbeds
and dragging
contamination
downhole to the SRPA.

Controls
Property transfer
requirements including
finding of suitability to
transfer and requirements
for control of activities

Regulatory
B-A/CO, CHRCI.A
Section I20(h)(.1),'
CHRCl.A Section
CHRCLA Section

Surveillance to Assure'
( onlrols m-place
5-year review until
delennined to not be
needed including review
of land use assumption*
5  Siukc
Ui\ei I'lam
Ai|infer -
milside IN'1'I-C
IWHencelnie
Cuiieiil DOI-.
Operations
Industrial.
                                  Prevent consumption
                                  and use of >MCL &/or
                                  >lh'-04risk drinking
                                  water.
                                                                                              consistent with ROD.
Control of activities
(drilling of wells for
drinking).
                                                                                                                          ChRCI.A Section

                                                                                                                          Section I2()(h)(4),'4.}
 M)l-47.202-l,-2,-7."'
 l>OI-:-ll) directive
 limiting access to prevent
 groundwater use while
 I NThC operations
 continue, and to restrict
 future groundwater use
 (through noticing this
 restriction to local county
 governments, ShoBan
 Tribal council, (iSA,
 Hl.M, etc.) including site
access restrictions, and
drilling restrictions.
I'TA/CO
                                                                                                                                  5-year re\ lew until
                                                                                                                                  delennined to not be
                                                                                                                                  needed.
-------
Table 11-1.  (coniimictl).
    (iinupoi
   Snuii tf AfCi
  I line I mine

l)t)l eoniiol
post opcialiniis
      S lip |(l
     Land
  Resinclioii
Industrial
    fOlVand
J:\posnre 1 lircaj_
                                                                             Objective
                                                                      Preveffl cunsumpiHtn
                                                                      andu.se of >M(*I. &/or
                                                                       •N:-(M risk drinking
                                                                      wilier.
                                                                                                        ('onirols
                                                            Conirohifacliviiieh
                                                            (drilling of wells for
                                                            drinking)
                                                            I'riiperty lease reqiiireinenis
                                                            including finding of
                                                            suiiabiliiy to Iraiisfer.
        Keguljiiny
      Hasis/Aulluiriiy
 OM.M3ROI). I-TA/CO.
 (T.KTI.A Seeiion
 120(11X5).'Hall
 AnieiKlnieni .Section
 3154 of llieNaiion.il
 Defense Aulhori/alion
 Acl.-

 IK)I:-I I) directive
 liiniling access to proven)
 groundwaler use while
 IN'I'l-.Copcniiions
 eoniinue, and to restrict
 future groundwaier use
 (through noticing tins
 reslricluin lo local couniy
 Boverninenis. Sliolian
 Trihal council, (iSA,
 UI.M. eie.) including sue
 access restrict ions, and
drilling restrictions.
Xuneillunce to Assure
  ('oiUrolsiu-pljec
                                                                                                  5-year review until
                                                                                                  delerinined to not lie
                                                                                                  needed.
-------
Table 11-1.  (conlinued).
     (iroup or
   .Souice Area
•- - 	 	 . .
lime l-rainc
control -
applies up to
2(WS



Land
Restriction
Industrial
(residential
after 20l>5).



COCs/and •
Exposure Threat Objective
Prevent consumption
and use of >MCL &/or
--lli-04 risk drinking
waier(NA after 100
years).


Controls
Property transfer
requirements including
finding of suitability to
transfer (NA after
100 years).


Regulatory
0113-13 ROD, I-FA/CO.
CI-RU.A Section
l20(h)(3),5U-RCI.A
Section l2()(h)(3)(C)(n|4
CI-RCL.A Section
l20(h)(3)(A)(ni)/
CI-RCI.A Section
Surveillance to Assure
t onlrols iii-plucu
5-year review mini
determined to not be
needed.



l>ii   Uuiicil
<  )lmdcis"
dcnunal)
Current DOI-
operations


I'osl-
leniediation
Industrial.
                                 t 'nre.slricled.
                                  Prevent access to sites
                                  except by authorized
                                  workers.
                                  NA- to be remediated.
Visible access restrictions
(warning signs,  provide
copies of surveyed maps)
                                                                                                                          Section I20(h)(4),743
                                                                                                                          CI:R2372.I,"43(TR
                                                                                                                          2374.2,"41 C.FR 10|-
                                                                                                                          47.202-l,-2,-7."'
                                                                                                                          l)OI-:-ll) directive
                                                                                                                          limiting access to prevent
                                                                                                                          groundwater use while
                                                                                                                          INTI-C' operations
                                                                                                                          continue, and to restrict
                                                                                                                          future groundwater use
                                                                                                                          (through noticing Ihis
                                                                                                                          restriction to local county
                                                                                                                          governments, ShoBan
                                                                                                                          Tribal council, (iSA,
                                                                                                                          BLM, etc.) including site
                                                                                                                          access restrictions, and
                                                                                                                          drilling restrictions.
I-TA/CO, HKTRX35
"Worker Protection"
Periodic inspection until
remediation is complete.
-------
Table 11-1.  (continued),,
    (mini) in
   Suiilie Aiea
  I line I i.inic
( inn-ill !)()!•
npci.ilioiis .illci
                  uiiiianiinalinn
                  left in place
                  Dot- contiol
                  post OpeiallOII
     I. mil
   Restriction
                                      (()('«. Jiiil
IllllllSlll.ll
Ijiitll'ill  mi
uii.inllioii/eil
intrusion inlo
capped aiea.
FFA/CO
approved
O&M activities
aulluiri/ed.
                 I Ulllllill  III)
                 iinatilhoii/cd
                 intrusion inln
                 capped area.
                 I I-A CO
                 approved
                 OKM activities
                 autlu>ri/ed.
                                                                               Obiociivu
Limit water recharge
aciiviiie.s adjacent to
(iroup 2 buildings.
Maintain integrity of
cap.
                                   Maintain integrity of
                                   cap
	   <'ontrt)l.s	
  Visible access re.stnctitins
  (\\uinnig .signs, provide
  copies of surveyed map.s).
  C'untrol of activities
  (drilling or excavating).
  Publish .surveyed
  boundaries and description
  of controls in INI-.I-I. Land
  Use Plan.
  Nonce to affected
  stakeholders (e.g.. 1)1.M,
  I-'&W, ShoHan Tribal
  Council, local county
  government;.; Slate and
  H'A). including notice of
  any change in land use
  designation, restriction,
  land users iir activities.
  Visible access restrictions
  (warning signs).
  Control of activities
  (drilling or excavating)
  Notice to affected
  stakeholders (e.g., Dl.M,
  I-'&W, ShoHan Tribal
  Council, local county
  governments; State and
  I-I'A). including notice of
 any change in land use
 designation, restriction.
 land users or activities.
 Property lease requirements
 including requirements for
 control of land-use
 consistent with the ROD.
                                                             Regulatory
                                                                                                                              H'A'CO. IOCI-RX.15.
                                                                                                                              "Worker Protection "
                                                      n;A/U),CI-RCI.A
                                                      Section  12<)(h)(.">),' ||u||
                                                      Amendment Section
                                                      3154 of the National
                                                      Defense Aulhori/aiion
                                                      Acl,J DOM order 5400.5,
                                                      "Property Release
                                                      Restrictions."
                                                           Smveillaiiceto Assme
 Periodic inspections ami
 reviews,  l;iet|iienev tii
 be deiermined in (lie
 Remedial Action \Voik
 Plan.
5-year rev lew until
determined In not be
needed.
-------
 Table 11-1. (continued).
    Source Area
                  I'osl l)(
                  control
                     I imc l-rame
                   DOI- control
                   POM operations
                        Land
                     Restriction
7   I lot Waste
lank System
Prior lo
I-\cu\ation"
Current DOI:
operations
                   l.aridllll  no
                   unauthon/eil
                   intrusion into
                   capped area.
                   !• FA/CO
                   approved
                   O&M activities
                   auihori/cd.
                  Landfill  no
                  unaulliori/cd
                  intrusion into
                  capped area.
                  II A CO
                  approved
                  O&M activities
                  aullion/cd.
Industrial.
                                   Maintain integrity of
                                   cap.
           C'onlrol.s
  Visible access restrictions
  (warning signs).
  Control of activities
  (drilling or excavating)
  Notice lo affected
  stakeholders (e.g., HLM,
  I-'&W, SluiUan Tribal
  C'ouncil, local county
  governments; State and
  HI'A), including notice of
  any change in land use
  designation, restriction,
  land users or activities.
  Property lease requirements
  including requirements for
 control of land-use
 consistent with the ROD.
 Notice lo affected
 stakeholders (e.g., Hl.M,
 F&W, ShoUan Tribal
 Council, local county
 governments; State and
 I:PA), including notice of
 any change in land use
 designation, restriction,
 land users or activities.
 Property transfer
 requirements including
 Finding of suitability to
 transfer and requirements
 for control of land-use
consistent with the ROD.
                                                                                                Regulatory
                                                                                             Basis/Aulliorily
                                                                                         H-A/CO.CHKCl.A
                                                                                         Section I20(h)(5),'l|all
                                                                                         Amendment Section
                                                                                         3154 of the National
                                                                                         Defense Authori/aiion
                                                                                         Act.'' DOI: order 5-400.5,
                                                                                         "Property Release
                                                                                         Restrictions."
                                                                                                                         I'FA/CO, CHRC1.A
                                                                                                                         Section 1 20(h )(.}),'
                                                                                                                         CKRCLA Section
                                                                                                                         120
-------
Table 11-1.  (continued).
( lump III
SIIIIKC \ic.i I line l-rame
"No I uillia DOI control
Action" (M A I post opci.ilmns
Slk-s

I'usl DOI-
lonliol

land COl'vaild
Restriction l-xpuMirc I hreat
Industrial
radiological
controlled

Industrial ID
2IW5,
residential
following
2(W5.

Objective
Control land Ube as Prope
protective and melw]
consistem with NI-A cmiirt
determination. con.sis
( 'onirol land use a.s I'rnpei
protective and requin
consisteiil with NI;A l:iiulin
determination. transit
I'nr mi
                                                                                                                 C'tinlmls
                                                                                                       Property lease requirements
                                                                                                       including requirements Im
                                                                                                       control of hind-use
                                                                                                       consistent with the ROD.
                                                                                                                                             Regulatory
                                                                                                       requirements including
                                                                                                       Finding «>!'suitability to
                                                                                                       transfer and requirements
                                                                                                       for control of land-use
                                                                                                       consistent with the KOI)
 I     \tilllu .llh in hi -.l.lli's til ILMM/S HlUtlwilL! OHtl.llllin.il It 111

 .*     Ki'i|in-,l KilU-IIIICIkC "I I l'.\ 111! IC.IM.-. Ill MM  SIIC>

 '     M.iiviin-ni in ilcctl lli.H  iciiii.-ili.il .H-linii is conipli-lc

 •I     II iciiicili.il .iclinii i> mil coiiiplclc. icMiicliiiii-.. rcspiHiM-. yu.ii.iiilcc, uml schalulc. budget a.ssiiranccs lo be melwlcil in deed

 s     ( l.imc .illiiumi! I S .n.-i-ess in |)ii>pcil\ ti> he niciiidfd indeed

 (i     Nonce nl iiiliinn.iliiiii mi lia/jnlou-, Mihslance In be incliidctl in deed

      lili-nnh uikiiiilninnuled parcels ol hind

 s     Viiiee nl nilciil In ichni|iiibli In DOI wilh anilaminulion inlbniKilinii and pruleetiiui needs.

 '»     I i.mslei In  IM)I should mdicaie L-onliniiuliiin ol DOI- responsibility

 In   Kcpmi mi coiilainiiiiiiuin iiiliiniuilum uml alloued land-use

 II    ' >i' is iiiiicsliiclcil allci icnicdi.ilioil aclu Hies, and iiislilulmiial conlroLs do nnl apply
ll-A.CO.t'KKCI A
Scelion 12(1(10(5).'
Amendment Section
3 1 54 of ihe National
Defense Auihori/aliini
Ael.-'DOl-; Order 5400.5.
"I'roperty Release
Restriction!,."
ri;A'C()CI-IU-|.A
Section 120(h)(.1),'
fliRl'I.ASeetion
CI-iRfl.A Sectio
                                                                                                                                     fl-RCI.A Section
                                                                                                                                     l20(h)(|).(3),"CI-RCI.A
                                                                                                                                     Section I2()(h)(4),;43
                                                                                                                                     (•|;R2372.I."4.U'I-R
                                                                                                                                     2374.2," 4 1 CI-R  101-
                                                                                                                                     Order 5400.5, "Property
                                                                                                                                     Release Resirictuins."
  Sun eillancelo Assure
    roniHils m-]ilace	
Syeai renew iiniil
determined to not he
needed.
5 year review until
determined to not he
needed
-------
                                   en     f bc prred K pm of the RD'RA
    Facilities.  The firs, Lni.ormg report wm feZifnS ^h" f USe°fl"s'it'''i<™' Control, a, Federal
    monitoring reports will be subLted annually the™ to  Ah" f       °f R°° Si8I""Ure The
    cor,ro,s is  a,so prov.ded ,„ ,he
                                                             K H
   OU 3-13 RD/RA activities and  DW w I be ,emDor  T       *   f"0^ in 'he ICDF'  WaslM
   disposition of these wastes wil  be       lTS"?^ ™? *f ^^ l° LDRs' The final
   -ter, personnel protects ^n^™       ™                      ^ *"*
   CERCLA remedies are Jlv implemented  The e con±naL  T ^'.T dUdn8 the PCri°d before the
   remediation waste, as the removal and "subse^m Ct°ntamina'ed soils Wlil be considered CERCLA
   progress toward cleanup             ^equent storage or d.sposal of any contaminated soil represents
  area *m*GT          ^ ^ 3 A°C
  CERCLA AOC. The AOC .lIoT^fl^^in' "       !f   ^ NIO) ^ be C°nsidered a
  implementing selected remedial alternatives               8 "^ Stagm8 nonconlig"°^ soils while
  11.1.1   Tank Farm Soils Interim Action (Group 1)
                            S                           Ta"k Fa™ Soils «*« sites has been


 at the Tank Farm until a final decision is made bv the Aafn,    ri      ,'   " Intenin actlon is sdected
 Soils Interim Action is Alternative 3- nsTiSona Co^frl Sih .  f'^ w" ^ f°r the Tank Farm
 will assure that public exposure to the contam^H °"i    .^    J^ W*ST C°ntro1- This alternative
 control to reduc'e water infiltratlngttoThe CO  an latd Ta  k FarT  T' T" ^ ^ ^^
 warning signs: administrative controls to resect accent     f   • fnstltutlonal controls include:

contaminated areas so that moure infilt  t on ,„     "TT""'5 (° dirCCt Water 3Way from the
diverted run-on water will be mSa » d a ^ "no f ,h e""™    '  ^"^mants are not mobilized. The
Run-off uaier from the sealed ITnl F,m  SI  be' ',',""' T^ ^^ ^'"^ ™™Z™™ sys^
-th leak detecnon. The .n-aponttn    d        o s  Sd and us^^t " " ^ ^^^
reduce infiltration in the INTEC are-i Ir u ,11 ,    conMrL"-t^ and used as a best management practice to
unplanned N,,ll or release                     C°nlam thc Ta"k Fami run-°ff in the event of an
                                             1-13
-------
        The goal of this action is to significantly reduce surface water infiltration into Tank Farm soils
  Reducing surface water infiltration into these contaminated soils is expected to limit leaching and
  transport of soil contaminants to the perched water and reduce available water in the perched zone
  INTEC-wide monitoring will be performed during the interim action period to evaluate potential changes
  in water content and quality in the perched water and SRPA. if they occur.

        The selected remedy provides an interim solution that reduces the potential for further soil
  contaminant leaching and transport to the perched water, reduces the available water in the perched zone
  beneath the  Tank Farm, and potentially minimizes further water quality impacts.  The Agencies believe
  this interim  action will  be protective of human health and the environment while the OU 3-14 Tank Farm
  RI/FS is being performed. Further, this action will comply with  ARARs, be cost effective  and be
  consistent with the final Tank Farm remedy and the Idaho High Level Waste and Facility Disposition
  Environmental  Impact Statement (HLW &  FD EIS) currently being conducted.

  11.1.2  Soils Under Buildings and Structures  (Group 2)

       The selected remedy for the Soil Under Buildings and Structures is Alternative 2—Institutional
 Controls with Containment. Alternative 2 is a deferred action and consists of implementing institutional
 controls and soil excavation or capping. The institutional controls include: warning signs and
 administrative controls to restrict access to the contaminated soils. For those areas capped in place
 additional institutional controls will  be instituted to prevent future disturbance of the caps. This action
 assumes that the contaminated soils  are currently contained in place due to the presence of the existing
 buildings and structures. The operation and subsequent demolition of these buildings and structures are
 outside the scope of this action. However, upon completion of D&D, an evaluation will be performed by
 the Agencies to determine if the soils, to a minimum depth of 10 ft bgs, contain contaminants exceeding
 the action levels specified in Table 8-1 of this ROD. If these action levels are exceeded then the
 Agencies will either cap these soils in place  in compliance with the substantive requirements of the
 hazardous waste landfill closure requirements or excavate and manage the soils as a Group 3 soil  as
 described below. If the buildings are demolished and closed in-place as a landfill under the D&D
 program, an assessment  will be performed by the CERCLA program to evaluate the effectiveness of
 D&D containment to meet the Group 2 RAOs and remediation goals, specified in Section  8  The  D&D
 containment structure would be augmented, as necessary, to meet these goals.

      Prior to D&D. and in addition  to the institutional  controls described above, a process will be
established as part of the Group 2 Remedial Design Work Plan, to review the effectiveness of the
buildmg(s) as aids in limiting infiltration through the underlying contaminated soils. This  evaluation will
consist of the following periodic steps being taken:

      I.   Review Operations maintenance of each building to be sure the buildings are  kept in a
           protective configuration.

      2.   Examine roof drains/surface drainage system to determine if water is percolating into the
           contaminated soils or is  being diverted somewhere else.

      3.   Monitor building or structure perimeter to determine  if (based on drainage patterns) there is
           enough moisture to exceed the field capacity of the soils. Determine how much seepage into
           the soil poses a problem.

     4.    If there is a seepage problem, upgrade drainage patterns and perform surface modifications
           .is necessarv.
                                             H-14
-------
        The final buildmg or .tructure and release sue conjuration u ,]] be assessed under the Group, ">
         -
  11.1.3   Other Surface Soils (Group 3)


        The selected remedy for Group 3. Other Surface Soils ,s Alternative 4A -Removal and On Sir -

  Disposal  Alternate 4A consists of excavating contarmnated surface so,ls and bacS^th s

  clean soils to reduce the risk from external exposure to < 1 x 10^  Sites will be backfilled ™H
       The excavated material will be disposed on-Site or off-Site. On-Site disposal will be an on S.r,.

 engmeered landfill, the ICDF.  The ICDF will be constructed under this aitenTi  O T sL d,s±  u-

 bem accordance w,th the Off-Site Rule (40 CFR 300.440). Prior to excavation, the micvcle cost
                                                                                 to
 rox
 the purpose of final placement of WAG 3 CERCLA soils The ICDF wi n,l  'SC.f/RCRA-co.mPl'™ for
 ,n ,NEEL-w,de d,sposa, fac.i.ty to accom^X*, o^cSL"    ^dtSol'r '°" "
                                      ™"""5,"1 FaC"1Iy (SSST) WI" al» te «cSand orL.ed
                                    ^^
                                                             ^
                             for long-term protection of human health and the e^Tnment
In.t.umonal controls w,ll be maintained at the ICDF as long as necessary- to ensure .on£e ™ protccuon.
 ,11 , .ht>      UI" redUCf Uie mtfral1 area' extenl of SO|J ^n^mmation at 1NTEC and the INtEL and
 ,11 ach exe cost sav.ngs relauve to off-INEEL disposal, or on-sue management because the oils vv'.H h •

        1                             '                                                   '1'
                  n                                                and const  cn
           t the ICDF sufficient to contain the Group 3 soils.
           T'cn?n Vf ' Pr°VldeS a f.hemalic cross-s^t.on of the ICDF facility. A conceptual cross

           Bamon  h« m 8"T    ^' ^,™ ****'** L00°-year deS'gn llfe (i'e- Hantbrd
           Bamo ). that may be used to cap the ICDF at closure is presented in Figure 1 1-2  ICD1-


           SLTTT;0"' OPCraI'°"- T^ Cl°SUIV °bjCCtlVCS lndudc: C°nstruct the 1C"DF ^'"'"

              V\  V i( HUtsanheTinr   , taC,  " mCetmS Wah° HaZard°US WaSte Manaucmen. Ac,
           (H\V MA), RC RA Subtitle C . and polvchlonnated h.pheml (PCB) landfill des,»n and
                                           11-15
-------
     I eachate Colleclion
     and Removal System

    l.oachate Detection,
    Collection, and
    Momoval System (LOCRS)
   Snurce: EMCON, 1988
                                             Double Liners and Leachate Colleclion Sysd

                                                        Components
                                      !em
                                    Protective Soil or
                                    Cover (Optional)
                                                                                                 |- Top Liner (FML)
Compacted Low-Permeability Soil
              	    y
                                                                               3' — 5' Minimum
                                                                               Depth to Bedrock
Bottom
Composite Liner
Upper Component
(FML)
Lower Component
(compacted soil)
                                                        Leachate Colleclion
                                                        System Sump
                                                        (Monitoring Compliance
                                                        Point)
Figure 11-1.  Schematic cross-section of the ICDF facility.
-------
     Notes:
        The ICDF will be closed with
        a final cap that will meet or
        exceed the performance of the
        RCRA Subtitle C MTG design
        and will meet all ARARs,
        RAOs, and RGs designed for
        the ICDF.

        This design is presented for
        discussion purposes. The
        actual barrier implemented will
        be developed during remedial
        design (RD).
   Water
  Storage
Component
 Capillary
   Break
Component

  Barrier
Component

   Fill
                                   Contaminated
                                       Soil
                                                                                                                      Contaminated Soil
 Cover Vegetation: Mixed perennial grasses.

 Layer 1: Silt loam topsoil with pea gravel admixture.
 Layer 2: Silt loam topsoil without pea gravel.
 Layer 3: Geotextile filter fabric.
 Layer 4: Sand filter layer.

 Layer 5: Gravel filter layer.
 Layer 6: Coarse, fractured basalt.

 Layer 7: Lateral drainage layer.

 Layer 8: Low-permeability asphalt.
Layer 9: Asphalt base course.
Layer 10: Grading fill.
Figure 11.2. (-onc,ptual CI,)Ss.sectmrl of |hc
-------
    construction requirements. The ICDF will be located within the WAG * area or
    contamination (AOC)  Design, construction, operational, and closure requirement 'bi •'-
    ICDF include:                                                            ......

          Designed to have a total capacity of approximately 466.000 in3 (5 10,000 yd:'»

          Engineered to meet IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR §264.301) hazardous  waste
          40 CFR $761.75 PCB. and DOE Order 435.1 radioactive waste landfill desim 'and
          operating substantive requirements                                     ~

   -  .    Double leachate collection/detection liner system

         Minimum of 3 feet of compacted clay soils and flexible membrane liner (FML) will
         serve as the bottom liner

         The cap will be designed to minimize infiltration and run-on and maximize run-off

         Cover designed to protect against inadvertent intrusion for > 1,000 years

         Void spaces will be filled to minimize future subsidence.

   Only INEEL on-Site CERCLA wastes meeting the agency-approved ICDF Waste
   ;tCCrrn?Ceu?iteria (^C)' * be devel°Ped durinS the remed.al design, will be disposed :n
   the ICDF.  Wastes will be limited to low level radioactive, PCB  solids, hazardous and
   mixed low level waste.  An important objective of the WAC w,ll be  to assure that'hazardous
   subsrances disposed in the ICDF will not result in exceeding groundwater quality standards
   in the underlying groundwater aquifer, even if the ICDF ieachate collection system were to
   tail atter closure.

   Located in an area meeting hazardous waste, PCB waste and low-level waste (LLW) landfill
  siting requirements. Through a preliminary evaluation of all relevant decision criteria the
  Agencies have determined the Study Area for siting the ICDF to be the CPP-67 Perco'lation
  Ponds and adjacent areas to the west. However, the specific ICDF cell locations will be
  determined through the completion of a comprehensive geotechnical  evaluation of the ent-r-
  btudy Area, which shall be reviewed and approved by  the Agencies.  Siting criteria for the
  location of the ICDF included:

       Outside the 100-year flood plain

       Outside of wetland areas

       Not in active seismic zones

       Not in high surface erosion areas

       Not in an area of high historic groundwater table.

• The construction and operation of an ICDF supporting complex including a facility waste
 storage, sizing staging, and treatment (SSST) facility in accordance with the substantive
 requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264 Subparts I, J, and  DD). Operations at
 the facility will include chemical/physical treatment to prepare ICDF wastes to meet
 applicable Waste Acceptance Criteria and RCRA land disposal restrictions.

 One or more remedial waste staging and storage areas will be utilized  to stage and hand's
 remediation waste.  The storage area be operated in accordance with the substantive
 requirements of IDAPA 16.0105.006.01 and 16.01.05.006.02 (40 CFR 26~> 34[u'f!',
                                  11-18
-------
       •     \Ionuormg uell construction and Campling wastes generated prior to construction of the
             1CDI- and SSST facility (i.e.. purge \\aierand drill catlings) may be managed and treated
             using remediation waste staging piles and temporary treatment units  in accordance with the
             substantive requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.00$ (40 CFR 264.553 and 40 CFR 264.554).

       •     Treatment will be accomplished using mobile tankage and physical/chemical treatment and
             will comply with the substantive requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR ?64 Suboart
             J. BB. and CO.                                                          ~      F

       •     An evaporation pond will be constructed and designated as a corrective action management
             unit (CAMU) in accordance with the substantive requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40
             CFR 264.552 and 40 CFR 264 Subpart K and CC) for purpose of managing ICDF leachate
             and other aqueous wastes generated as a result of operating the ICDF complex.

             Operate, close, and post-close the ICDF Complex in accordance with the substantive
             requirements of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264 Subparts G, F, and N) Maintain site
             access restrictions and institutional controls throughout the post-closure period.

 Closure requirements will include:

      •      Access restrictions to prevent intrusions into the closed area, including the creation of a
             buffer zone surrounding the capped ICDF and supporting structures

      •     Access controls, monitoring and maintenance will remain in place for as long as the contents
            of the landfill remain a threat to human health or the environment if uncontrolled.

      The best  location to site the ICDF was evaluated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
decision analysis technique.  Figure 11-3 shows the AHP decision evaluation criteria used in the
preliminary ICDF siting evaluation.  Based on this evaluation,  it was determined that locating the facilitv
within the AOC was the most cost effective and ARAR-compliant location for siting the ICDF. The   '
Agencies have determined the Study  Area for siting the ICDF to be the CPP-67 Percolation Ponds and
.Kljacent areas to the west as depicted in Figure 11-4 based on the preliminary geotechnical information.
I lowever. the specific 1CDF cell locations will be determined through the completion of a comprehend e
ueoteehmcal evaluation of the entire Study Area, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Agencies.

      The preliminary suing evaluation criteria included:

      •     Public health and safety  (e.g.. effects on surface water, effects on groundwater, floodplam)

      •     Natural environment (e.g.. effects on the habitat of rare, threatened or endangered species i

      •      I echntcal (e.g.. depth to bedrock, underlying soil properties, perched aquifer protection i

      •     Social Economic em ironment (e.g.. effects on future land use)

      •     Cultural Environment (e.g.. effects on archaeological or heritage sites)

      •     Community acceptance (e.g.. public comments. Citizens Advisory Board comments)

      •     Cost.
                                            11-19
-------
                                     I r'lil.ln  III..,)!!, \ ;

                                     ! •  .11.           If
     .jetfeus on hurtle Dusigii L




     | b Heels o,, Soffit t.w.,iui




     I HIcU:, (in < ,IUUMI;





      A5!»HiH|i^JllCiiH.ja«rH.y jk^i
              —— •—™. ..    -ni  U,-
                                                                             1
                                    I  N.ilni.il        }

                              -      !Ci""'"	".'   r






L''.a,,!al"'   ^                    !S...u.»'F,.,,„„,„,I
               t_                   ;  LiiviiiiMlnniil    I
                                     t M
                                     - ............
                                     Comnlullily  I

                                     Com ernv,    r"
                                                                               EIIc.'c.ts mi Aii.hiiul(ii|ii.,(|

                                                                               Resources
                                                                                                                                     m*  INCLLWA. 5J..1 A,,.'.,
                                                                             PuithedAquitu, P,un,,uty



                                                                             Easeof Moniiimnu
                                                                             Soil Suitability lor

                                                                             fcnguiecred Slruciuios'
                                                                                                                                            INI I I (BXlJurlllKJ »J)
             rtv"sory Co


-J Public Commenls,
                                                                                             ,0>K si,i
-------
                                                                                                                                             INTEC
                                                                                                                                         Depth to Basalt Map
Figure 11-4. Proposed Stud; Area :br the ICDF.
-------
         Figure 1 1-4 shows the proposed Study Area that the ICDF is to be sited m.

         In special circumstances (e.g.. Sue CPP-37b). where a source area is located so as to become part
   protection standards applicable to the
                                               e met.
         Although more costly than Alternative 3. which requires capping each Group 3 sue m place  the
  health and the environment, complies with ARARs. is a permanent solut.on. and is cost-effective

  1 1 .1 .4   Perched Water (Group 4)


  Rechar^Commf ^'^ ?" ^'^ Water 1S Alternant 2-Insututional Controls wuh Aqu.fer
  RcJurge Control  Alternative 2 is comprised of institutional controls in the form of administrative
  actions to restrict future use of perched water and implementation of remedies to control infiltration
  and m,nim.ze perched water releases to the SRPA. The institutional controls include         Inl'"™,on

        •     Site access restrictions

        •     Warning signs on wells screened in the perched water

        •     Locked and labeled wells screened in the perched water

       •     Well drilling/water usage restrictions

       •     Radiation surveys

       •     Environmental monitoring

       •     General maintenance and upkeep.

       The DOE will periodically inspect and repa.r the waminjj siuns. conduct environmental
 monuormg and perform routine mamtenance and upkeep, as necesW  Land use contm "v II renrun m
 place mdehnuely  to prevent unauthorized drilling through the contaminated perched zone

      Perched water monitoring will include sampling and analysis of existine and new perched uat,-r
 uells to determme changes in the area, extent of perched water (water levels and hvdau'c head )  n

 m^tiSe^ d   f ^ COnteiYnd C0mammant °f C0ncera (C°C) concentration* w it
  .;     "I th_6 Pen*ed ""tor zones to determine if water contents and contaminant fluxes are decrcasm-

               °           *      "***      ' "   °
       hmna   n    SR     n       -
       l  ,mpaa.> to the SRPA.  I he spec i tic mon.ionnjj to determme perched water dram-out u ,|| ho
dcMrnbcd ,n the «0l 3-13 (iroup 4 Post-ROI) Monuonnu Plan. The momtorm, w,l! be pe tb ,      r ,
m mmum o, 20 >-ears after the percolat.on ponds are removed from service. The perched water, n
r ate,  ,o the existing percolat.on ponds are calculated to dram out m approximately 14 vears from the

      '     "                          '
b
N.
                                r                  '            -                  -on
                      prov.de addu.onal perched water mon.tormi! locations. If after s vears  the
                                            ! 1-22
-------
        Additional controls may include:

        '
            Curta.ling steam condensate discharges to the subsurface
                  .   . »«»,SSppS±lT.'i!!nr ga.!lCT1K: Subs'"- *=.	«<"« •"• •«
            need to be sued and constructed
                                   in
 reduce the water content
 SRPA. Computer simulations
 ' 70«i of the
                                                                       -P^ to the
                                                                    ™S ""^ 'S
                                                                     "« M«, to be
                                      r tructed at a
 perched water beneath INTEC    e bcatns W the ^ re";ain ' ^^ S°UrCe tO the ^ntam'mated
 P-vsence of perched water at the cu^enn ^  , ^ ^oondf ^H  ""^ T"'5 "'^ "^ O" the measured
 "spread" of water from new percoiaTi on nonds in h P    andsround water modeling.  The amount of
 mterbed parameters from the ^U   3 v^ i^dose zo^J^0^^1^ W3S modded usin= lh^
 are located so that perched wafer from the^r^s^ T   '' FS' Appmdix F)' llie new
 INTEC. F.gure 1 1-5 shows the proposed ^bcatfon ?f rhP    ,     °Ontamin;ited Perc"^ water beneath
evaluated ,n selectmu a new locaZ tbr th      1     replacement percolanon ponds. Other factors
rare, threatened, or ^^^S ^^ 1™™S ^ P°^ ^ °f
cultural and historic artifacts.
                                              " '" areas that have been surveyed for
per:
:o asMiivIhat 'tins conungencVo^rauon undc^          '""K " PI"°Vlded Pri°r tO the rtfmoval ^

.^^:r^°^r^±:£ r^^"1*Howew-duc lu lhc
    Agency, pursuant to this ROD dunnu the interim oeru
                              ~  ». imcnm periou uuu u^fjinraDie permits are souizht.
     1'he Ciroup 4 remedy will include:

         Remox ,ng the c.Mstmg percolation ponds from >er\ ,ce

                  ig lavxn irrigation at the INTW where necessarv!
-------
o
«tmt
Kim
tMJXO
tnm-
MUOO-
tum-
4UAOO-





f


                                                                                                                      New Percolation
                                                                                                                         Pond Area
                                                                       I   '	1	'	1	•	1	•	1	•	1
      Figure 11-5. Location of replacement percolation pondi.
                                                                                                                                    11-24
-------
                                        aS* "*« «***• «« Big Los, River, reding

     -moving UK existing STP lagoos and      afiotS,S"f "c? "'^ '° the s*surfL ,"f

                                      ^
                                                                   ,„,„ ,he AgenCies detem,,ne
    con,ro,s „„, _>„ to res(r|c,                  c
                                                                           proving ov
   11.1.5  Snake River Plain Aquifer Interim Action (Group 5)

             aqU,fer is expect ,o    aabo« MCL°       "^ srou"dwaK' """ng ,he ,ime ,he


                            ..
             •han 0.5 gpm. which is consideredhe m°n mum dr f"" '! Cap>b'e of !«*«*'« more
             aquifer ,o serve as a drinking w™r sup™"           8 WaMr yie'd neCMSary forthe
                     a«er 2095 in
         ,hey are no longer necessah  five ,\ S^'T "",' ^ CO°dllCted UWil *e

          and ,he need for i,s con.inua.ion A'^^.''*''''™
                                                                                  «-..
con,amma,ed SRPA „„,„ ,he vear
     •     Area access restrictions



     •     Land use res,ric,ions ,o preven, ,he .ns.aiia.ion of.a.er supplv ,e,,s ,„ ,he SRPA pr,or ,„




     •     A X«.« or A.™™ „,„ afreet fedora, and toe., Soveramen, stakeho,de,>
                                         11-25
-------
        •     Warning signs on wells screened in the SRPA contaminant plume

        •     Locked and labeled wells screened in the SRPA contaminant plume.

  nfm JLaddili0n,!° ^^ Tr*' environmental monitoring and general maintenance and upkeep
  ot momtonng wells will be conducted for as long as it is determined that monitoring is required.

  11-1-5.2   Groundwater Monitoring. Groundwater monitoring activities will be conducted
  throughout the institutional control period to evaluate  the concentration and extent of contaminants in the
  SRPA. Monitoring will cease tf the regulators determine there is no unacceptable risk in the aquifer
  Monitoring will include sampling of the SRPA using new and existing wells to determine the SRPA'
  aquifer intervals with the highest  concentrations of groundwater COCs. The specific groundwater
  monitoring acuons will be described in the OU 3-13 Post-ROD Monitoring Plan that will be developed
  frSr,?^-   8T    SUmmary °f thC gr°undwater monitoring actions that would trigger subsequent
  treatability studies and contingent remediation is shown on the decision How chart in Figure 1 1 -6
  Groundwater modeling presented in Appendix B of the FS Supplement (DOE-ID I998a) suggests that the
  h,ghest I- 1 29 concentrations occur in the H-I interbed of the SRPA. The modeling accounts for
 auenuanon and dispersion  The H-I interbed is a sedimentary interbed that is located approximately 38 m
 (125 ft) below the top of the SRPA water table. The water table at INTEC occurs at an approximate
 depth of 40 m (460 ft) beneath the INTEC. The H-I interbed is about 7.6 m (25 ft) th^k and  hSa ,ow
 penneabiUty (4 ; mDarcy).  The mode! also assumed that potential releases of contaminated perched
 to the SRPA will be controlled by removing the existing percolation ponds from service.
 COP hoi        *?UndpWater TlfT, 3nd Samp'ing WiU be conducted to determine the location of
 £??, ? T  r £   m J-I8T     >- Monitohn8 wells wil] be insta''<* at the predicted hot spots alone
 the centerlme of the predicted plume. Packer tests will be used to determine the zone(s) of highest

 wirbToTtanTed^r^1'11 * T^"** the action levels <™e 8-2). Groundwater quality data
 will be obtained from the SRPA intervals containing the highest COC concentrations to determine if these
 concentrations exceed the action level(s) (Step 2 in Figure 1 1-6). The action levels are based on the
 modeled maximum concentration of the COCs measured in calendar year 2000 that are expected to yield
 individual contaminant concentrations above the MCLs in the SRPA outside the current INTEC security
 fence m  09>. Contaminant transport studies, and refinements to the contaminant transport model will "
 continue during the institutional control and monitoring period. The action levels will be reviewed at
 each 5-year review and adjusted as necessary to insure that RAOs are being met.

      If the action levels are exceeded (Step 3 in Figure 1 1-6), isopleth maps will be developed using the

hot^rr1",'" I'V'lr  ThC iS?leth mapS Wi" be deVe'°ped (Step 4 in Figure ' !-6> <° determine'f the
 f« m  M      of sa fic.ent volume to provide an unacceptable risk to a hypothetical wtmndwater user
 lor more han one year (Step 5m F.gure 11-6).  The isopleth maps will be prepared to determine if the

ulrrtn.nhiT0-!133,? I T™ "*?"* ^ "*' ** ^P^UK dural]on would be to° short to P«senfan
unacceptable mk. If the hot spot is small, or if it moves too quickly to present an unacceptable risk then
no further active measure would be pursued, but monitoring would continue and the data and model'in»
\\ould bo rex lewed at the 5-year review  period.                                                 °

            If the contaminated aquifer interval exceeds the COC action level(s) and is of sufficient
            \olume to potentially expose a hypothetical groundwater user to an unacceptable risk
            representative wells will be selected to determine if the affected portion of the SRPA is
           capable ot producing a sustainable yield (for at least 24 hours continuous pumping of more
           than .)..-> sprn (Step 6 in Figure 1 1 -6). The 0.5 gpm pumping rate is based on the minimum
           amount ot drinking water necessary to sustain an axeraue household. The wells that are
           >elected to determine these limits »il| he screened oxer the aquifer interval exhibiting the
                                             1-26
-------
                      Step I
        Perform modeling and sampling of the
             SRPA contaminant plume.
                     Step 2
        Identify vertical and lateral location of
                    hot spots.
                    Step 3
                   Does COC
                           Does not exceed
              concentration exceed
                action levels (I )•'
                    Step 4

      Develop isopleth map of SRPA I-129
                concentration.
                                               PERIODIC MONITORING
                                                 Does riot exceed
                   Step 6
     Determine potential sustainable yield
             of hot spot zones.
                                            No
                 Steps
    Prepare RD work plan pursuant to the
       '•FA CO to include necessary
        tritttubility study work plan
                                                                     Notes
                                              (1)  Action level for COC determined by
                                                  computer simulation

                                              (2)  Action level for volume determined by
                                                  field mapping of extent of secondary
                                                  source exceeding COC action level and
                                                  computer simulation of potential impact
                                                  on restoration timeframe to meet RAOs
                                                 and RGs.
                                             The RD work plan will contain the schedule
                                             and process for implementing the continent
                                             remedial action.
Figure 11-6.  SRPA
contingent remediation decision flou chart.
-------
  highest concentrations of COCs. If the water yield is greater than 0.5 gpm on a sustained basis  and the
  action level(s) is exceeded (Step 7 in  Figure 11-6). then active remedial action will be pursued  If
  monitoring does not support the need for remedial action, periodic groundwater monitoring will be
  continued and the data reviewed during each 5-year reviews until restoration is achieved.

             Treatability Studies and Contingent Remediation.  If all of the above described
             criteria (Steps  1 through 7 in Figure 11 -6) are met for a well screened in the SRPA.
             treatability studies will be performed (Step 8 in Figure 11-6). The treatability studies may
             include analytical calculations and/or numerical modeling, pumping tests, and bench- or"
             pilot-scale treatment testing. The treatability studies will determine if long-term pumping
             from the affected interbed is feasible and whether the COCs exceeding the action level(s)
             can be cost-effectively removed from groundwater.  In addition to [-129 and other COCs the
             treatability studies will also evaluate the presence of mercury, Sr-90, chromium. Tc-99, and
             tritium, all of which are known or are predicted to be present in the groundwater plume at
             significant concentrations. While these contaminants are not long-term risk drivers, they
             may foul the groundwater treatment system or pose radiological exposure concerns if
             brought to the surface for treatment. Further monitoring will be performed to define the
             optimum path forward. The treatability study will be developed during RD  if needed.  If the
             treatability studies determine that selectively pumping and treating contaminated
             groundwater from the affected portions of the SRPA will meet the MCL(s) in 2095, and
             treatment and recharge or evaporation of treated groundwater is implementable and cost-
            effective, then Remedial Design and active remediation will be implemented.

       Prior to installing a pump and treat system, the COC action limits will be verified or reestablished
 by additional modeling using the data obtained from the new monitoring wells, the packer tests and
 pump/yield/concentration data.  The duration of pumping  and treatment will also be estimated using  the
 model. If treatability studies determine that pumping the affected SRPA interbed is not technically
 feasible, then a technical impracticability waiver will be sought through a ROD Amendment.

       Active remediation would consist of:

       •     Contingent pump and treat remedial action will be implemented if groundwater monitoring
            determines  that combined COCs in groundwater exceed their respective action levels in the
            year 2000 or during subsequent monitoring. The action levels are based on modeling that
            predicts that individual or combined contaminants will exceed MCLs in the year 2095 for
            portions of the aquifer that is capable of sustaining a production of rate 0.5 gpm.Components
            of the pump and treat action include:

                  Installation of extraction wells to remove the zone of maximum contamination or hot
                  spot

                  Above ground, on-site physical chemical treatment of the extracted water in
                  compliance with ARARs

                  On-site recharge to  the SRPA or e\ aporation of the treated effluent in compliance
                  witliARARs.

      The treambiliu  studies u ill consider the presence of all contaminants. Mercury, Sr-90, chromium.
Tc-W. H-3. are  known or are predicted  to be present  in the SRPA at signiilcant concentrations.  Although
the.-.e additional  contaminants are not necessarily long-term risk-drivers, they become problematic once"
brought to the surface  for treatment because they may foul  the treatment system or may pose radiological
                                             11-2S
-------
                              °f TC'"  '" addi"0n' a" C°maminan ts mus< be removed ^ below
                     u                ,          '
            treated groundwater is injected into the aquifer.
      Although Alternative 2A is less costly than the selected alternative 2B, it does not provide anv
reduction ,n tox.ary, mob.Iity or volume through treatment and may not mee the RemedfaTIctLn

S5rAXS??B^?± l° drinking7ater ^y b>' '  linder
                                           1-29
-------
        •     Treatment of cylinders containing acetylene or hydrofluoric acid having inoperable valves
              following vaKe replacement or recontainerization and subsequent disposal or recycling of
              the cylinder.

        A contractor specializing in gas cylinder removal, treatment, and disposal will perform the
  activities associated with this alternative.

        After removal of the cylinders from the burial sites, a post remediation survey of each burial site
  will be performed to determine earthwork requirements for the final grading. The burial sites will be
  graded to blend with the surrounding topography. Clean fills for thermal grading will be obtained from
  an onsite borrow source if necessary.

       The Agencies may elect to pursue a contingent remedy of capping in place pursuant to the
 substantive requirements of IDAPA  16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264.310) if safety concerns with excavation
 and removal prevent implementation of the selected remedy.

       Alternative 2 is selected because it best meets the five balancing criteria while providing overall
 protection of human health and the environment. The Agencies believe the selected alternative is
 protective of human health and the environment, complies with ARARs. uses a permanent solution and is
 cost effective.

 11.1.7   SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System (Group 7)

       The selected  remedy for the SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System is Alternative 4—Removal,
 Treatment, and Disposal.  Alternative 4 consists of:

       •     Institutional controls (i.e.. warning signs') until the removal of the tank liquid and sludge

       •     Sampling the tank contents

       •     Removal and ex situ treatment of the tank liquid and sludge

       •     Excavation and removal of the tank, tank vault, pump pit enclosures and other associated
            structures

       •     On-.site disposal of the tank and associated structures.

       Following characterization, the tank liquid will be removed and treated at the PEW evaporator if it
meets the specified waste criteria. The tank sludge will be removed and treated (ex situ) using a suitable
grout to solidify and stabilize the contaminants in the sludge. The stabilized sludge will then be drummed
and disposed either on-Site or off-site at a suitable engineered disposal  facility. Depending on waste
characteristics, the remaining components of the tank sy-»tem will be exca\ ated. removed, and disposed in
the ICDF or off-site, depending on whether they  meet the ICDF waste acceptance criteria.  The
cxcasation will be backfilled.to grade with clean soils.

      it i* assumed  that the liquid within the SFE-20 tank w ill meet the PEW  WAC. The liquid contents
of the tank are consistent with previous INTEC waste processed through the tank system and discharged
to the PEW.  However, if the PEW is unable to accept the liquid wa>te or is unavailable at the time the
respond action is conducted, a small portable evaporator um. would be utilized on-Site: or the waste
would  be disposed off-site in accordance with the Off Site Rule (40 CFR 300.440).
                                               I -30
-------
   11.1.8   Future Site Closures Under RCRA and D&D

   wil, h f" ^diti0n t0 !he l0' CERCLA SiteS addressed in this ROD< approximately 79 INTEC facilities
   w.il be undergo,ng closure under RCRA/HWMA and D&D in the future, after this ROD becomes final.
        To minimize duplication of resources and in keeping with the RCRA/CERCL A PaHtv pniin

  determme that the closure plans include an approach that ensures the foUowing
       •     Both RCRA/HWMA and D&D closures of INTEC facilities will satisfy RAOs and will not
             add s.gmficantly to human health or environmental risks.
       •     Risks to human health and the environment resulting from any residual contamination
                                ated and mmimized in °rder to be c°nsistent with the RA"°
  11.1.9   Five-Year Reviews


 11.1.10  Post-Closure Care and Monitoring



                11.2  Estimated Costs of Selected Remedies
cos, - rJ"b'C;S '» ' "2 Lhr°UghM! ' '* Pr°VideS the CStimated CaPital and °Peration c^^ for each group  The
                                          I-3 I
-------
                11 .3  Expected Outcome of Selected Remedy

            f>UPS- exT the Tank Fami and SRPA interim actions, the expected outcome of the

                                                   i these sites J b

 grade ,f necessary), backfilled with clean fill, and revegetated where appropST Where Tcap is n

 ±n' HerarUP t0 the,edge °f thC C3P WHI b£ aV3ilabIe for indus'ri" ^- Where soils have been
 removed, the former soil site will be available for industrial use.


  ,r . G;°UP 3' Other Surface Soils, will have been excavated and disposed in the ICDF or suitable

                               iwil1 be fi"5d """ dean
         d^^^^
potentially will contain CERCLA wastes from other parts of the INEEL The can of L f  r?'   n u









    e SRPA. will meet MCLs oulsidc of the current INTEC security fence bv '
            lro  w  ' be implemeniMi io prev=m the use °r ^u"d— tai
                                                               « >* -ailable for


                     Ho' Wastt ™k System- >vi
                                       1-32
-------
   !    n      Es'ima'ed CaPjtal and Operations Costs (6 years) for Tank Farm Soils Interim Action
 Selected Alternative 3.  Costs are in  1997 dollars except as noted.	
                      Elements	Estimated Costs in S
  Capital Costs
  FFA/CO Management and Oversight3                                   1 574 000
  Remedial Design*                                                      235 000
  Remedial Action Construction"                                        j Q -786 000
  Total Capital Cost in FY97 dollars                                     12 Q96 000
  Operation Costs
  Remedial Action OperationsJ                                            49, QQQ
  D& DofFacilities                                                          NT.
                                                                             NA
 Surveillance and Monitoring                                           3 679 QQQ
 Total Operation  Cost in FY97 dollars                                   4,170,000
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN FY97 $'.                              16,266,000
 Total Capital  Cost  in NPV                                             11,428,000
 Total Operation Cost in NPV                                           3 ?25 Q()0
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN NPV                                 15,153,000
 a. Includes Program Management. RA documentation preparation. RD RA SOW RA Work Plan  Packaei™ Shmn.no
   TranSportat,on documentation. RA Report. WAG-wide RA 5-yr review. RD documemauon preparation lafetSvsis
   documemat.on. Samplmg and  Analys.s Plan, and Pre-Final Inspection Report.                         V    '
b. Includes added institutional controls and title design construction document package.
c.  Includes sue charactenzat.on. construction subcontract, and project construction management.
                         it. continued and new construction caretaker maintenance, operations, maintenance, matenals.
                                              1-33
-------
  Table 11-3.  Estimated Capital and Operations Costs (100 years) tor Soils Under Buildings and
  Structures Selected Alternative 2.  Costs are in 1997 dollars except as noted.	

 —	Cost Elements	   Estimated Costs in S	
  Capital Costs

  FFA. CO Management and Oversight4                                   6.748,000
  Remedial Design"                                                       910 000
  Remedial Action Construction''"                                           524 000
  Total Capital Cost in FY97 dollars  ,                                     g, \ 82,000


 Operation Costs

 Remedial Action OperationsJ                                           9.032,000
 D&Dof Facilities                                                          NA

 Surveillance and Monitoring                                             676,000
 Total Operation Cost in FY97 dollars                                   9.708,000
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN FY'97 S's                             17,890,000


 Total Capital  Cost in NPV                                              5 ] 93 QOO

 Total Operation Cost in NPV                                           4.076.000

 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN NPV	                         9,179,000
a. Includes Program Management. RA documentation preparation. RD RA SOW. RA Workplan. Packaging Shipping
   Transportation documentation. RA Report. VVAG-wide RA 5->r review. RD documentation preparation. Safety Ana'lvsi-,
   documentation. Sampling and Analysis Plan, and Pre-Kmal Inspection Report.                         '     "
h  Includes  added institutional controls and title design construction document package.
c  Includes  Mte characterization, construction subcontract, and project.construction management.
d  Includes  Program Management, continued and new construction caretaker maintenance, operations, maintenance material-,
   Jiid disposal.	____	
                                               I ! -34
-------
  Table 11-4  Estimated Capital and Operations Costs (100 years) for Other Surface Soils Selected
  Alternative 4A.  Costs are in 1997 dollars except as noted.  	_'      ieiected
  	Cost Elements	Estimated Costs in S
  Capital Costs
  FFA/CO Management and Oversight3                                 5 j 99 000
  Remedial Design"                                                   , 699 000
  Remedial Action Construction0                                     85 056 000
  Total Capital Cost in FY97 dollars                                  9, <955 000

  Operation Costs
  Remedial Action Operations'1                                       11 514 000
  D&D of Facilities                                                        MA
                                                                          NA
 Surveillance and Monitoring                                        8 213 000
 Total Operation Cost in FY97 dollars                                 19727000
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN FY97$'s                           111,682,000

 Total Capital Cost in NPV
                                                                  76,626,000
 Total Operation Cost in NPV                                        8 283 OOQ
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN NPV                                84,909,000

 °
b. Includes added institutional controls and title design construction document package.
c.  Includes site characterization, construction subcontract, and project.construction management.
                                      eW eonslnjctl™ «T ™>ntenance. operations, maintenance.
                                             11-35
-------
  Table 11-5.  Estimated Capital and Operations Costs (100 years) for Perched Water Selected
  Alternative 2. Costs are in i 997 dollars except as noted.
                  Cost Elements
  Capital Costs


  FFA CO Management and Oversight"1


  Remedial Design1*


  Remedial Action Construction"


  Total Capital Cost in FY97 dollars
Estimated Costs in S





     5,036,000


     3,774,000


     9.445,000


    18.256.000
 Operation Costs


 Remedial Action Operations'1


 D& D of Facilities


 Surveillance and Monitoring


 Total Operation Cost in FY97 dollars


 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN FY97 S's
    8.171.000


          NA


    2,892,000


   11,063,000


   29,319,000
Total Capital Cost in NPV                                            , 5 j20.000


Total Operation Cost in NPV                                         4 645 000


TOTAL PROJECT COST IN NPV                                  19,965,000


            ogram Management. RA documentation preparation. RD RA SOW. RA Workplan. Packaging Shipping
            :,on documentation RA Report. WAG-wule RA 5-yrrex.ew. RD documentat.on preparation. Satetv Analvs.s
              i. Sampling and Analysis Plan, and Pre-Fmal Inspection Report.

h  includes added institutional controls and title design construction document package.

c  Includes site characterization, construction subcontract, and project construction management.

                i Management, continued and ne« construction caretaker maintenance, operations, maintenance, material;,.
                                               1 1 -36
-------
                                                                           *
                                                                                              ""•*"
                  Cost Elements
   Capital Costs
   FFA/CO Management and Oversight"1
   Remedial Designb
   Remedial Action Construction0
  Total Capital Cost in FY97 dollars

  Operation Costs
  Remedial Action Operations'1
  D&Dof Facilities
  Surveillance and Monitoring
 Total Operation Cost in FY97 dollars
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN FY97 $'s

 Total Capital Cost in N'PV
 Total Operation Cost in NPV
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN NPV
Estimated Costs jn S

      5,300,000
      4,302,000
     14.855,000
     24,457,000
    16,141,000
     1,647,000
    16,911,000
    34,699,000
    59,156,000

   20,701,000
    19,149,000
   39,850,000
a.  Includes Program Management. RA documentation preparation, RD/RA SOW RA Workolan  Parkin. «ih'
   Transportation documentation. RA Report WAG-wide RA S vr rev.euT nni     WorkPlan- Packag"ig, Shipp.ng.
   documentanon. Sampling and Analysis^, an?^Sinai In^on R^^^^ mt™~ S*fe*
b.  Includes added mstitutional controls and t.tle design construction document package.
c.  Includes s.te charactenzat.on. construction subcontract, and project construction management.
                          t' C°m'nued and "- —'- canker maintenance, operat.ons. ma.ntenance. mater.als.
                                               1-37
-------
  Table 11-7.  Estimated Capital and Operations Costs {100 years) for Buried Gas Cylinder Sites Selected
  Alternative 2. Costs are in 1997 dollars except as noted.	

 	Cost Elements	;	;	Estimated Costs in S	
  Capital Costs

  FFA=CO Management and Oversight11                                    92"> 000
  Remedial Designh                                                       48 QQQ

  Remedial Action Construction"                                          955 000

  Total Capital Cost in FY97 dollars                                     1.926.000


  Operation Costs

  Remedial Action Operations'1                                                 ^ *
 D&D of Facilities                                                          N(SL

 Surveillance and  Monitoring

 Total Operation Cost in FY97 dollars
 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN FY97 S's                              1,926,000


 Total Capital Cost in NPV                                             I  ^34
 Total Operation Cost in NPV

 TOTAL PROJECT COST IN NPV	                        1.834,000
 a, Includes Program Management. RA documentation preparation. RD. RA SOW, RA Workplan. Packaitinii Sh.pnlnlJ
   Transponation documentation. RA Repon. \VAU-w ide RA 5-vr reu^v. RD documen.at.on preparatmn. Safen An'alvM,
   documentation. Sampling and Analysis Plan, and Pre-Fmal Inspection Repon.
 b  Includes added institutional controls and title design construction document package.
C  Includes site characterization, construction subcontract, and project construction management.
J. Include;, Program  Management, continued and ne* cons.ruct.on caretaker maintenance, operations, maintenance, matenak
   jnu uisposal.	
-------
               .  Estimated Capital and Operations Costs (100 years) for SFE-20 Hot Waste Tank System
               emat.ve 4.  Costs are in 1997 dollars except as noted.                             *
                                                                        —
  	-C°st Elements	.	Estimated Costs in S
   Capital Costs

   FFA/CO Management and Oversight3                                     862 OQO
   Remedial Designb
   Remedial Action Construction1-                                         3 oog
   Total Capital Cost in FY97 dollars                                      4 ?63

  Operation Costs
  Remedial Action Operations'3
                                                                             NA
  D&Dof Facilities
                                                                             NA
  Surveillance and Monitoring                                                 NA
  Total Operation Cost in FY97 dollars
                                                                             IN A
  TOTAL PROJECT COST IN FY97$'s                               4,763,000

  Total Capital Cost in NPV                                             4 639 OQO
 Total Operation Cost in NPV
                                                                            NA
_TOTAL PROJECT COST IN NPV                                    4,639,000
                                                                RA *«**"• ^^ Shipping
    documentat.cn. Sampling and AnalysiSL and Pr^ Fina" Se^nReor; J—at.on P«P««ion. Safety Analvs.s
 b.  Includes added institutional controls and t.tle desiun constructs document package.
 c.  Includes site characterization, construct.on subcontract, and project construction management.
                           - C°minut-'d «« «»• "-«»«™:,,on caretaker ma.ntenancl opera,,ons. maintenance, matena.,
                                               ! -39
-------
-------
                           12.  STATUTORY DETERMINATION
    requirements of the FFA-CO for the INEEL  Reu a o  ^"l01* COntained '" the NCR. and the
    group is summarized in the follortn**^^^"1*11™? fT Cach selected remedy for each
    NCR (i.e.. protection of human health ^tewf^^JT ^lhKShold criteria ""Wished in the
    requ-res that the remedy use permanent so uhon"  nd aTernaTilT' '^ *'? ARARS)" CERCLA also
    extent practicable, and that the implemented act "on 1  hTT £    "' technol°g'es <° the maximum
    preference for remedies that employ trea"mentTat pe^anenT    ^% ^^ the Statute indud«a
    tox,c,ty, or mobility of hazardous wastesmt^pnSeS^ ^^ «"«ces the volume,
    with rad.onuclides, effective treatment technologies are c^lnT   ^."""y of the sites contaminated
                                             ^^



             12.1  Protection of Human Health and the Environment
                                                                  rhe
                                 this

   12.1.1   "No Action" Sites
          lo be ~No Ac,ion" si.es
s,,es are ,hose si.es ,hat have no
                                            or
                                                    FFA/CO' An
                                                                        24 sites were

                                                                        "alySIS- "N° A«'°""
si.es
dec,s,on
               s for Overall

 12.1.2  "No Further Action" Sites
                                    es                                      a. si, s,.es.
 source or a potential contaminant source present that doT™, h   "  ^ 'S 3 *'* Ihat has a c°ntaminant
 greater than I  * ,0- for the risk scenario e a ua ed under the    ' "I eXP°SUrC r°Ute rCSUltin= in "**
 determined to be "No Further Action" Ls mroul Trt  ^  T"^ '"" C°ntr°ls-  These sites **«
 The -No Further Action" sites are sL  he e ™£eJ,T   Or2'nvest^t.ons and RJ/BRA analysis.
 action is Institutional Controls.                 d'a' actl0n 'S bein^' take"- However, the only 'remedial
                                                    "No Funher Action" sites usm,
detennine that access or land ™  * ™£c ™± no    ^^ " lhese silcs Until the Agencies
perceived r,sk ,s considered accept,"  "Se n  t  utS"" "^ '° P^6"1 P°tentiai exposures or the
- '•« '"elude proper^ lease requireme ms. he!     " "   "  ™     " '** ^ °f °°E
          co-nro, a«cr DOE operanons                                                 a
-------
  tindmg ol .suitability to transfer and requirements for control of land use consistent with this ROD The
  institutional controls will be tracked using the 1NEEL Land Use Plan. The "No Further Action" sites will
  be rev iewed during the CERCLA 5-year review process to verify the effectiveness of the "No Further
  Action  decisions-

        The Agencies believe that these controls will provide overall protection of human health and the
  environment tor the "No Further Action" sites. The institutional controls will be maintained at these sites
  until an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment no longer exists .

  12.1.3   Tank Farm  Soils Interim Action Selected Remedy: Alternative 3—Institutional
           Controls with Surface Water Controls

       An interim action was selected for the Tank Farm Soils release sites. A final remedial action will
  be developed under OU 3-14 following additional site characterization, risk analysis, and remedial
  alternative evaluation.  The interim action  will be performed to minimize contaminant exposures to the
  public and to limit further impacts to soil and groundwater until a final remedy is implemented under
  OU 3-14.  A final remedy decision is anticipated prior to 2008.  Based on currently available information
  the interim action is not inconsistent with the expected  final remedy for the Tank Farm Soils The
  selected interim action is designed to prevent short-term exposure to contaminants present at the site and
  to minimize moisture infiltration that may occur and leach and transport contaminants to the perched
 water or SRPA.

       The selected interim action will provide short-term protection of human health and the environment
 white the final remedy is developed and selected.  Short-term protection will be provided by this
 alternative through existing and additional institutional controls, including radiological engineering
 controls and health and safety procedures, which will limit current worker and non-worker access or
 exposure to contaminated soils.  Engineering controls will be used to minimize fugitive dust or toxic-
 emissions during construction activities and provide short-term protection during implementation of the
 interim action.  Additional short-term protection will be provided by surface water controls  which will
 facilitate management of an unplanned spill or release and significantly reduce surface water infiltration
 into the Tank Farm soils. Some measure of long-term protection is provided by the reduction of surface
 water infiltration into the Tank Farm soils which will limit expected leaching and transport of
 contaminants to the perched water and minimally reduce available water in The perched zone  These
 actions will provide overall protection of human health and the environment by minimizing the potential
 tor environmental releases and future groundwater quality impacts to the SRPA.

      The Agencies believe that this interim action best satisfies the 5 balancing criteria and will be
 protective of human health and the environment while the OU  3-14 Tank Farm RI/FS is performed
 Further, this action will satisfy RAOs and will not be inconsistent with the expected final Tank Farm
 remedy and the HLW &  FD E1S currently being conducted.

 12.1.4  Soils Under Buildings or Structures  Selected Remedy:  Alternative 2—Existing
         and Additional Institutional Controls and Containment

      The selected alternative for the Soils Under Buildings .and Structures is a deferred action that
 consists ofexistmg and additional institutional controls and soil capping or excavation. The selected   •
 remedy will provide short-term protection of human  health and the environment throuuh tbe
 implementation of existing and additional institutional controls that reduce the  potential for current
 worker, non-worker, or community access or exposure to contaminated soils. Implementing the remedv
 will not po^e unacceptable Miort-term ri*ks to the community, workers, or the environment" En<>ineerin»
control, radiological engineering controls, and health and vitou procedures will be u*ed to minimi/e anv
-------
 construction activities          P       '" be used C0 mmim'ze P^sonnel injury during
                               S:^^^^^^
allowable levels for up to  M™^ct^ ? C-TT '°   ^ 8'°U"dwaKr 1"ali'X above
concentrates to leve^ that are nou 'rilTSn                   """ "*"





                                 12-3
-------
   footprint will cover no more than 80 acres. Short-term protection of human health and the environment
   will be provided through the implementation of institutional and engineering controls, radiological
   °??iro r/!?       safety procedures, and safe work practices during construction, operation and closure
   of the ICDF to protect workers, non-workers, and the community from exposure to the disposed
   contaminated soils. Long-term protection of human health and the environment will be provided by the
   «nL*J   Jr     ^'C  ' constructed< °Pera*d. and closed to inhibit intrusion by humans and biota
   o prov.de sufficient shielding to mmimize external exposure to radionuclide-contamfnated soils, and to
   ™i£! -f H ?        Prrec'pltatlon infiltrvion through the contaminated soils to reduce the potential for
   leaching and transport of soil contaminants to the perched water or SRPA.  The final cover on the ICDF
   win oe designed to provide human and biotic intrusion protection for at least 1,000 years.

        Construction of the ICDF will disturb the environment. Environmental disturbances will be
  minimized by performing the construction activities in compliance with ARARs, the INEEL Storm Water
  PO ut,on Prevention Plan, and performing a cultural resource evaluation. Ail soil disturbance Si ies
  w inriOT itiv     C°mpll'anCe Wkh the INEEL St0rm Water Po""tion Prevention Plan, including re
               rH   cultural reso"rce evaluation has been conducted for the areas that might be disturbed
  be, a         dur'ngn    *««*»«* activities, unusual materials such as arrowheads, obsidian, or
  bones are discovered, all work w,|| cease and the INEEL Cultural Resources Office will be contacted for
  ass,stance. The land that will be disturbed during ICDF construction has been evaluated for biologica
  -n^^A    ! ate n°,knOWn We,tla"dS- UniqUe habitatS' °r areas occuPied by Threatened or Endangered
  bpec.es.  As such, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Sen-ice will not be necessary.        naan§erea

       Although more costly than Alternative 3, which requires capping each Group 3 site in place the
 selected Alternative 4A. reduces the footprint of the WAG 3 restricted area allowing for tluT
                  r fXPandable to address INEEL-wide CERCLA contaminated media and debris
            CA°nSohdat'°" m an ^"leered landfill with leachate collection will safeguard the underlying
            AgenCie?believe eeC ed remedy w.Il be provided by the implementation of institutional and engineering controls
 radiological engineering controls, health and safety procedures, and safe work practices  These actions

         CUrrent       '     n°n-U°rker CXpOSUres to perched "ater durin^ dri"i^ ^ll installation, and
      Long-term protection of human health and the environment will be achieved bv institutional
controls, including land and grounduater use restrictions, to eliminate future use of perched water as Jong
as an unacceptable nsk remains. The estimated yield of u ells completed in the perched water further  "
precludes demesne use and prox ides a measure of long-term protection.  Additional lona-term protection
innnifn     ,  M  m^^Mn of a*'uifcr recha'S" Controls, to reduce leaching and transport of soil
contaminants to the perched /one. to limit the available uat,-r content m the perched zone and reduce tho
                                              12-4
-------
                                             SRPA-
                   ,„
 with similar earth work projects These
                                                                 USU3' shorMemi r'sks involved

.he INEEL Stem,
                                                                             Env,ronmental


                                                               . '" ~"""i"1« Wlth ARARs
                                           so                ror ih




  wetlands, unique habitats, or areas occupS^«S3 S E^08"  H1*80"^'  TherC "* "° k"°Wn
  with the Fish and Wildlife Service will not be necessaw     Endangered sPec'es' ^ such, consultation
                                                     bat rg cr ia while providin^ °vera"

the current INTEC security fence w llLTeve lopS undc^ Sb /U° r   , ^ P°rti°n °f ^ SR?A in










These controls * j]| also protect currem u ^     ,         "stallat.on. and groundwater monitorinu.
-------
  from ingesting SRPA groundwater using institutional and engineering controls, such as locked wells or
  groundwater use restrictions.

        Long-term protection of human health and the environment will be achieved by maintaining
  existing and additional institutional controls, such as land and groundwater use restrictions, over the area
  ot the contaminant plume.  These restrictions will prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater during
  the time that the aquifer is expected to remain above the applicable State of Idaho groundwater quality "
  CDD  ™ Long'term Protection w>" also be provided by groundwater monitoring to determine if the
   *£.. COCs exceed their actlon levels and if the impacted portion of the aquifer is capable of providing
  sufficient yield to serve as a water source. If these two conditions are met, contingent pump and treat
  remediation will be implemented to reduce the contaminant concentrations in the impacted portion of the
  bRPA so that the unacceptable risk is reduced by meeting the applicable State of Idaho groundwater
  quality standards and federal MCLs.

       SRPA groundwater does not pose either short- or long-term risks to environmental receptors as it is
  not accessible to biota.

       Although Alternative 2A is less costly than the selected alternative 2B. it does not provide any
  reduction in toxicny. mobility or volume through treatment  and may not meet the Remedial Action
  Objective ot restoring the aquifer to drinking water quality by the Year 2095.  Therefore, the contingency
  remedy. Alternative 2B best addresses groundwater modeling concerns regarding aquifer restoration  The
  Agencies believe that the selected remedy will provide overall protection of human health and the
 environment and satisfy RAOs by restricting potential SRPA groundwater use outside the current INTEC
 security fence and implementing contingent pump and treat  remediation if contaminant action levels are
 exceeded and the aquifer is capable of producing a sustainable yield.  This remedy will reduce potential
 risks to human health to less than  1 x  IO"4 or an HI less than I.

 12.1.8   Buried Gas Cylinders Selected Remedy: Alternative 2-Removal, Treatment and
          Disposal

       The selected alternative for the Buried Gas Cylinders  is removal, treatment, and disposal
 Implementation of this remedy does not pose any additional  significant risk to the community or the
 environment.  Short-term risks to the workers implementing  the remedy will be minimized using
 mstitutional and engineering controls, health and safety plans, and safe'work practices.  These actions will
 reduce physical hazards and exposures to workers to allowable levels during cylinder removal
 transportation, treatment and disposal.

       Long-term protection of human health and the environment will be achieved by removing all of the
cylinders, treating the cylinder contents as necessary, venting non-hazardous contents' directly to the
atmosphere, and disposing the empty cylinders.

      The Agencies may elect to pursue a contingent remedy of capping in place pursuant to the
substantive requirement of IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR 264.310) if safety concerns with excavation
and removal ol the cylinders prevent implementation of the selected remedy.

      Alternative 2 is selected because it best meets the five  balancing criteria while providing overall
protection ot human health and the environment. The  Agencies believe that the selected remedy will
pro% ide overall protection of human health and the environment and satisfy RAOs because the reactive
lymtabie. and potentially hazardous gases uill be removed, treated (if necessary), and disposed  This
remedy u ill eliminate the >atety hazard posed b\ the cylinders.
                                             12-6
-------
      The selected alternative for the SFF ">n Hot \u  ,  T  i  o
controls, and removal, treatment ° an  disposf, o  he £ nk Hn  H ^7Y"clud«' ex'^ing institutional
and structures.  This remedy can be imp^men e  * th"u ±               "*'    aSS°C'ated pipi"«
           ,            ,       n  an   spos, o  he   nk Hn  H
    and structures.  This remedy can be imp^men e  * th"u ±^±1^ I"*' ^ aSS°C'
    community or the environment. Short-term risks to the ^  addltl°nal sh°™rm nsks to the
    minimized using institutional and enginS^t ^^Pf ^T* *' ^^ Wl"
    These actions will reduce physical hazard^ "aid «,Wr~?    I *   * P    ' and Safe W°rk Practices'
    liquid and sludge removal and treadS^d^S^lT         * '° albwabie '«*'* during tank
    and associated structures.             '      m°Va'' decontam'"at,on. and disposal of the tank, piping,
   structure. Any contaminated soifs that may ex!?, beneaS^ ^ h   ?     geS' ta"k' Pipi"8' a"d associated
   RGs will be excavated and disposed ," Z ICDF to eTminlr, fT"!* at,COncentrations exceeding the
   contaminants to the perched water or SRPA        elim'™te future leaching and transport of the soil
  the selected remedy will provide ov^l^^^of'Z^ S* H^  ThC AgendeS bdieve that
  RAOs because the SFE-20 tank system 7i 1 be n^J ,    T      3   the environment and satisfy
      reduce potential risks to l«£^                                         ™S
  12.1.10 Sites Under Other Regulatory Authority
       .
  investigated and evaluated during the RI/FS incbde  CPP « ?ERCLA" These SItes' which were
  65 (Sewage Treatment Plant lagoons) CPP ootteam plnff,^ f^ T™ INTEC buijdi"^)- C
  transformervard)  CPP-8I (abandnneHn   r   r    / lant % ash p.ts), CPP-61 (area within CPP-7 1
  from ruptured p> ^ ^^ ^"^ ^T\ ™°r "T ^ ^^ <™*»
 evaluation.  These sues will be included under *e1E^
 necessary- actions by the other OUs, WAGs or r^^           " ^ *"
 documem       -                        ^1 f ^^ " INTEC
 Therefore, the Agenc.es decSS ^  ai S?s st u-o ? ^ " "^"^f0™ a"d -presents a low risk.
 (if necessary) under the INEEL Asbestos Aba temJnt P     aPP™P"«e|y administered and remediated
 implemented in accordance with , NESh LAPs           gram"  INEEL 3SbeSt°S management is
3 = INTO Sties'                              am '-^-^ <™ -itary waste from
iagoons indude four ^r^^™^^ ^^ "n'984 '1 « CUrre"tly USed'
u-astewater. The ,agoons were investigated in the R BR^TrJol "SlwT^ ' '^f "^
determined that site CPP-65 is not a significant s™^   r  
-------
             m      £  a  ed UndCr the 'dah° Was'ew«er Land Application Permit Rules
           16 01.07). This decision was based on the low concentration of contaminants in the plant
  effluent and the continued use of the lagoons. However, if additional perched water actions are deemed
  necessary by the Agenc.es to further reduce recharge to the perched zone, then the closure and relocation
  ofthe Sewage Treatment Plant lagoons will be managed under CERCLA.

  TU    Su e (LPP"66 'VJ* coa|-|lred steam generation facility fly ash pit located southeast ofthe INTEC
  The plt has been  used for the disposal of fly ash produced by the INTEC steam generation facility since
  rPP J,      '?   fl C0nta'nsrnatural radionuclides and metals derived from coal and limestone.  Site
  CPP-66 was evaluated usmg the Track I process in 1 993 and recommended for "No Further Action"
  durin,°tnhea5ULmri ?? PRP? ^'f'011- Subsequently, an ecological risk screening was performed
  during the OL 3-13 RI/BRA. which suggested that a risk to environmental receptors may exist from the

  rTrtht P/Tm, '"    HaSh' T,he AgCnCieS haVC dCtemiined that the Site wi» be transferred^ OU 10 04 for
  further evaluation and remediation, if necessary.
                   'S a" ^f ^,tbe CPP'7 ' 8 transformer yard w^re a PCB oil spill occurred in the
       79 nnm  vT Th' * ii      (4°° ^ ? PCB "" ^ SpHIed'  The PCB concentration in the oil
  o    In K rh   -n     SP  TS C°"tamed- however< some sP«'ed oil contaminated the surrounding
 ±1: ,    r       5   arCa W3S °leaned Up: aPProximateiy 40 drums of soil and debris were removed  A
 new transformer and concrete pad have been installed over the site. Three soil borings were drilled and'
 soil samples analyzed for radionuclides. The radionuclides found were below risk-bfsed soil
 concentrations.  The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-61 will be transferred to OU 3-14 for
 further evaluation. • This decision is based upon the uncertain amount of PCB contamination that mav
 remain under the concrete pad ( WINCO 1 992a).                                "«««»un mat may

       Site CPP-81 is an abandoned line from the 30-cm ( 12-in.) Cafciner Pilot Plant.  The line located
 approximately 0.6- to 0.9-m (2- to 3-ft)  bis. contained simulated calcine that became plugged Mn hetne
 fo  ow,ng a test run. During the fall of 1993, the ,ine was cleaned as part of a time-criS emo a
 action. The Ime was flushed with hot acid to remove the simulated calcine.  No leaks were observed
 during the removal action indicating that no previous release to the environment had occurred  The final
 p^Sdu^-Sm ^  ^ fTd l° n°,! ''"IT con'amina"'s 'bove toxicity characteristic leaching
 for furthS S-aluation              °'eS     determined that Site CPp-81 wili be transferred to OU 3-14


       Site CPP-82 is the location of three waste water spills (designated Sites A. B, and C) caused bv
 rupturing o  prev.ous y abandoned underground lines. The lines were ruptured durmg excavation   "

 ^VnlHS;h   K" ?" !,S?OCiated Wkh  SitC A' a" CStimated 9'4 L (2-5 ^ of low-level  radioactive waste
 ^;"PR  th.erabandoned  hn^ and Contaminated soil associated with the  leak were removed and disposed
 Sues B and C are associated with spills of nonradioactive. nonhazardous waste water; these spills
 ^^."""V   ';epa:riact,ivitiers associated *ith Site A. The Agencies have determined that Site CPP-
 S2 will be transferred to Ob 3-14 for further evaluation.

 12.1.11  Five-Year Reviews

      The remedial actions taken under this ROD will be reviewed  under the CERCLA 5-vear review
process to ensure their protectiveness.  Five-year reviews  w.il  also ensure that any chanees'in the physical
conhgurauon ot any INTEC facility or site (such as D&D, where there is suspicion of a release otP
h^ardou.s or radioactive substances will  be managed to achieve remediation goals established in the
ROD.  The >>car rev icws u ,|| continue  as long as contaminants exist at levels which result in restricted
or limited Mte usaue.
                                              I2-S
-------
                                                                                                            1
                             12.2   Compliance with ARARs

  th«Uph ^TT* r^" Ch£TiCak 3nd loca'i<>n-sPecific ARARs is described in Sections 12.2.1
  through 12.2.7 for the selected remedy for each group. Chemical-specific ARARs are generally health- or
  rTd n   rHreqUirementS,that CStabliSh nUmedCal 'imitS °n the amounts or concentrations of a panicuar
   ad,onuchdeA compound or material that may be discharged to or present in the environment. Location-
  specie ARARs restrict specific activities occurring in particular locations. Action-specific ARARs
  restrict specific types of remedy activities or technologies.
oresento   t      R                     " ' 3 ^ is Whether °r "Ot RCRA-hazardous materials are
SFF £ Hn, w  ,  T   u      8S S'teS' °ther SUrfaC£ S°iIS SiteS' the Buned Gas cinders. a"d in the
           Waste Tank c
         Hn, w  ,  T  u                                  '                  ners. a"   n te
     t   «P Waste Tank contents and system; as well as in residuals produced while treating SRPA water
                                                fr°m these Sites wi!1 be characterized toMtate
  df          H              -            IDAPA ARARs that Wlfl aPP'y if th«e materials are
  determined to be hazardous are cited in the ARARs tables for the selected remedy for each group with
  quahfymg statements, and are discussed in the following sections.                           P'
       Investigation derived waste (IDW) from OU 3-13 RD/RA  activities and OU 3-14 investigations
                          purge      - penel protective
                                     -                            <     n          «
        wastes generated during sampling and inspection/maintenance activities will be temporarily
 40c2-«54-     w    c                  substantive P°rtions of IDAPA 16.01.05.008
 40 CFR 264.544 Remed.at.on Waste Staging Piles). By managing the wastes in this area, placement will
        rT      !.heSe W3SteS 3re trCated ln temp0rar* Units under IDAPA 16.01.05.008 (40 CFR
         , they may be subject to LDRs. The final disposition of these wastes will be in the ICDF.
       This ROD recognizes that INTEC is an operating facility, it is possible that changes in physical
                                                                             8SdCre Led
              ^  p  u                 at a Slte for which action is required under this ROD
                                         institutional c°ntrols) will be preceded by appropriate
                       v                nCUITed °n by thC AgenC1"eS Pri°r to ^P'e-entation.
                            S  JCCt t0 rCmedial aCti°" PUrSUant t0 the tenns and conditions of the
         WanterFContrSofS 'nterim ACtiOn'' AItemative institutional Controls with Surface

                          ?'' chemicaK and 'ocation-specific ARARs for the selected remedy for the
r^'.f 1 'L  Acti°"'Sf3ecific ARARs-  Site security, inspections, and personnel training will be
reqmred during the interim act.on period. These requirements will be met by institutional and
                             l SafCty meaSUreS' and health and safety P^  implemented or planned
      State of Idaho Fugitive Dust Emission Rules will apply to any activities that generate fugitive dust
            qre     rea:Tabie Precaut'°ns be taken to P^nt the generation of fugitive dust'from
   uhe            ^      ^      8 3CtiVe °Perati0nS:  En*ineerin» Controls wi" ^ Implemented to
                                            12-9
-------
  Table 12-1.  c«
                                                          JTank Parni Soils Interim Anton Selected Remedy.
            Altcinalivc ARARs

        I Tank Kami Si
                                                       	Description
 IDAI'A  Id (l| OSOOSI40CI-R264 14)


 IDAI'A  ld(i|.i)Si)i)X(40r|-K 264.15)


 IDAI'A  ldO|.(iSoi)X(40