SAVANNAH RIVER SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR 2010

The Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2004 (WSRC-TR-2005-00005) is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) according to requirements of DOE Order 231.1A, ''Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,'' and DOE Order 5400.5, ''Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment''. The report's purpose is to present summary environmental data that characterize site environmental management performance; confirm compliance with environmental standards and requirements; highlight significant programs and efforts; and assess the impact of SRS operations on the public and the environment.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the closure of 51 high-level radioactive waste tanks and tank farm ancillary equipment (including transfer lines, evaporators, filters, pumps, etc) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) located near Aiken, South Carolina. The waste tanks are located in the F- and H-Areas of SRS and vary in capacity from 2,839,059 liters (750,000 gallons) to 4,921,035 liters (1,300,000 gallons). These in-ground tanks are surrounded by soil to provide shielding. The F- and H-Area High-Level Waste Tanks are operated under the authority of Industrial Wastewater Permits No.17,424-IW; No.14520, and No.14338 issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). In accordance with the Permit requirements, DOE has prepared a Closure Plan (DOE, 1996) and submitted it to SCDHEC for approval. The Closure Plan identifies all applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations, statutes, and DOE Orders for closing systems operated under the Industrial Wastewater Permits. When approved by SCDHEC, the Closure Plan will present the regulatory process for closing all of the F- and H-Area High Level Waste Tanks. The Closure Plan establishes performance objectives or criteria to be met prior to closing any tank, group of tanks, or ancillary tank farm equipment. The proposed action is to remove the residual wastes from the tanks and to fill the tanks with a material to prevent future collapse and bind up residual waste, to lower human health risks, and to increase safety in and around the tanks. If required, an engineered cap consisting of clay, backfill (soil), and vegetation as the final layer to prevent erosion would be applied over the tanks. The selection of tank system closure method will be evaluated against the following Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) criteria described in 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9): ( 1) overall protection of human health and the environment; (2) compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriated requirement: (ARARs); (3) long-term effectiveness and permanence; (4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; (5) short-term effectiveness; (6) implementability; (7) cost; (8) state acceptable; and (9) community acceptance. Closure of each tank involves two separate operations after bulk waste removal has been accomplished: (1) cleaning of the tank (i.e., removing the residual contaminants), and (2) the actual closure or filling of the tank with an inert material, (e.g., grout). This process would continue until all the tanks and ancillary equipment and systems have been closed. This is expected to be about year 2028 for Type I, II, and IV tanks and associated systems. Subsequent to that, Type III tanks and systems will be closed.

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) funded Technology Development and Deployment (TDD) to solve technical problems associated with waste tank closure for sites such as Hanford Site and Savannah River Site (SRS). One of the tasks supported by this funding at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) and Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNNL) was In-Tank Elutriation. Elutriation is the process whereby physical separation occurs based on particle size and density. This report satisfies the first phase of Task WP_1.3.1.1 In-Tank Elutriation, which is to assess the feasibility of this method of separation in waste tanks at Hanford Site and SRS. This report includes an analysis of scoping tests performed in the Engineering Development Laboratory of SRNL, analysis of Hanford's inadvertent elutriation, the viability of separation methods such as elutriation and hydrocyclones and recommendations for a path forward. This report will demonstrate that the retrieval of Hanford salt waste tank S-112 very successfully decreased the tank's inventories of radionuclides. Analyses of samples collected from the tank showed that concentrations of the major radionuclides Cs-136 and Sr-90 were decreased by factors of 250 and 6 and their total curie tank inventories decreased by factors of 60,000 and 2000. The total tank curie loading decreased from 300,000 Ci to 55 Ci. The remaining heel was nearly all innocuous gibbsite, Al(OH){sub 3}. However, in the process of tank retrieval approximately 85% of the tank gibbsite was also removed. Significant amounts of money and processing time could be saved if more gibbsite could be left in tanks while still removing nearly all of the radionuclides. There were factors which helped to make the elutriation of Tank S-112 successful which would not necessarily be present in all salt tanks. 1. The gibbsite particles in the tank were surprisingly large, as much as 200 {micro}m. The gibbsite crystals had probably grown in size over a period of decades. 2. The radionuclides were apparently either in the form of soluble compounds, like cesium, or micrometer sized particles of actinide oxides or hydroxides. 3. After the initial tank retrieval the tank contained cobble which is not conducive to elutriation. Only after the tank contents were treated with thousands of gallons of 50 wt% caustic, were the solids converted to sand which is compatible with elutriation. Discussions between SRNL and PNNL resulted in plans to test elutriation in two phases; in Phase 1 particles would be separated by differences in settling velocity in an existing scaled tank with its associated hardware and in Phase 2 additional hardware, such as a hydrocyclone, would be added downstream to separate slow settling partciels from liquid. Phase 1 of in-tank elutriation was tested for Proof of Principle in theEngineering Development Laboratory of SRNL in a 41" diameter, 87 gallon tank. The tank had been previously used as a 1/22 scale model of Hanford Waste Tank AY-102. The objective of the testing was to determine which tank operating parameters achieved the best separation between fast- and slow-settling particles. For Phase 1 testing a simulated waste tank supernatant, slow-settling particles and fast-settling particles were loaded to the scaled tank. Because this was a Proof of Principle test, readily available solids particles were used that represented fast-settling and slow-settling particles. The tank contents were agitated using rotating mixer jet pumps (MJP) which suspended solids while liquids and solids were drawn out of the tank with a suction tube. The goal was to determine the optimum hydraulic operating conditions to achieve clean separation in which the residual solids in the tank were nearly all fast-settling particles and the solids transferred out of the tank were nearly all slow-settling particles. Tests were conducted at different pump jet velocities, suction tube diameters and suction tube elevations. Testing revealed that the most important variable was jet velocity which translates to a downstream fluid velocity in the vicinity of the suction tube which can suspend particles and potentially allow their removal from the tank. The optimum jet velocity in the vicinity of the sucti9on tube was between 1.5 and 2 ft/s (4-5 gpm). During testing at lower velocities a significant amount of slow-settling particles remained in the tank. At higher velocities a significant amount of fast-settling particles were elutriated from the tank. It should be noted that this range of velocities is appropriate for this particular geometry and particles. However, the principle of In-Tank Elutriation was proved. In-tank elutriation has the potential to save much money in tank closure. However, more work, both analytical and experimental, must be done before an improved version of the process could be applied to actual waste tanks. It is recommended that testing with more prototypic simulants be conducted. Also, scale-up criteria for elutriation and the resulting size of pilot scale test equipment require investigation during future research. In addition, it is recommended that the use of hydrocyclones be pursued in Phase 2 testing. Hydrocyclones are a precise and efficient separation tool that are frequently used in industry.

The Savannah River Site (SRS), one of the facilities in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex, was constructed during the early 1950s to produce basic materials (such as plutonium-239 and tritium) used in nuclear weapons. The site covers approximately 310 square miles in South Carolina and borders the Savannah River. Various industrial, manufacturing, medical, and farming operations are conducted near the site. Several major industrial and manufacturing facilities are located in the area, and a variety of crops is produced on local farms. SRS is bounded on its southwestern border by the Savannah River for about 35 river miles and is approximately 160 river miles from the Atlantic Ocean. The SRS region is part of the Southern Bottomland Hardwood Swamp region, which extends south from Virginia to Florida and west along the Gulf of Mexico to the Mississippi River drainage basin. Originally, site facilities generated materials for nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War in 199 1, however, their purpose has shifted to the stabilization of nuclear materials from onsite and offsite sources to ensure safe long-term storage or disposal. SRS has always been concerned about the safety of the public. The site is committed to protecting human health and reducing the risks associated with past, current, and future operations. Sampling locations, sample media, sampling frequency, and types of analysis are selected based on environmental regulations, exposure pathways, public concerns, and measurement capabilities.

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), under the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM), is modifying and testing the SpinTek{trademark} rotary microfilter (RMF) for radioactive filtration service in the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. The RMF has been shown to improve filtration throughput when compared to other conventional methods such as cross-flow filtration. A concern with the RMF was that backpressure, or reverse flow through the disk, would damage the filter membranes. Reverse flow might happen as a result of an inadvertent valve alignment during flushing. Testing was completed in the Engineering Development Laboratory (EDL) located in SRNL to study the physical effects of backpressure as well as to determine the maximum allowable back-pressure for RMF disks. The RMF disks tested at the EDL were manufactured by SpinTek{trademark} Filtration and used a Pall Corporation PMM050 filter membrane (0.5 micron nominal pore size) made from 316L stainless steel. Early versions of the RMF disks were made from synthetic materials that were incompatible with caustic solutions and radioactive service as well as being susceptible to delaminating when subjected to backpressure. Figure 1-1 shows the essential components of the RMF; 3 rotating disks and 3 stationary turbulence promoters (or shear elements) are shown. Figure 1-2 show the assembly view of a 25 disk RMF proposed for use at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and at the Hanford Facility. The purpose of the testing discussed in this report was to determine the allowable backpressure for RMF disks as well as study the physical effects of backpressure on RMF disks made with the Pall PMM050 membrane. This was accomplished by pressurizing the disks in the reverse flow direction (backpressure) until the test limit was reached or until membrane failure occurred. Backpressure was applied to the disks with air while submerged in deionized (DI) water. This method provided a visual representation of membrane integrity via bubble flow patterns. Membrane failure was defined as the inability to filter effectively at the nominal filter pore size. Effective filtration was determined by turbidity measurements of filtrate that was produced by applying forward-pressure to the disks while submerged in a representative simulant. The representative simulant was Tank 8F simulated sludge produced for SRNL by Optima Chemical. Two disks were tested. Disk 1 was tested primarily to determine approximate levels of backpressure where membrane failure occurred. These levels were then used to define the strategy for testing the Disk 2; a strategy that would better define and quantify the mode of failure.

The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed interim measures for the Mixed Waste Management Facility (MW) groundwater at the Burial Ground Complex (BGC) at the Savannah River Site (SRS), located near Aiken, South Carolina. DOE proposes to install a small metal sheet pile dam to impound water around and over the BGC groundwater seepline. In addition, a drip irrigation system would be installed. Interim measures will also address the reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCS) from ''hot-spot'' regions associated with the Southwest Plume Area (SWPA). This action is taken as an interim measure for the MWMF in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to reduce the amount of tritium seeping from the BGC southwest groundwater plume. The proposed action of this EA is being planned and would be implemented concurrent with a groundwater corrective action program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). On September 30, 1999, SCDHEC issued a modification to the SRS RCRA Part B permit that adds corrective action requirements for four plumes that are currently emanating from the BGC. One of those plumes is the southwest plume. The RCRA permit requires SRS to submit a corrective action plan (CAP) for the southwest plume by March 2000. The permit requires that the initial phase of the CAP prescribe a remedy that achieves a 70-percent reduction in the annual amount of tritium being released from the southwest plume area to Fourmile Branch, a nearby stream. Approval and actual implementation of the corrective measure in that CAP may take several years. As an interim measure, the actions described in this EA would manage the release of tritium from the southwest plume area until the final actions under the CAP can be implemented. This proposed action is expected to reduce the release of tritium from the southwest plume area to Fourmile Branch between 25 to 35 percent. If this proposed action is undertaken and its effectiveness is demonstrated, it may become a component of the final action in the CAP. This document was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508); and the DOE Regulations for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR 1021). NEPA requires the assessment of environmental consequences of Federal actions that may affect the quality of the human environment. Based on the potential for impacts described herein, DOE will either publish a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or prepare an environmental impact statement (EM).

Operations at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites, such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Savannah River Site (SRS), have generated a variety of waste streams that have resulted in releases to the environment. These releases have created areas or suspected areas of contamination and contaminated facilities that could contain hazardous, radioactive, and/or mixed wastes. As a result, these areas or facilities are subject to environmental assessments and possible restoration, primarily under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To reduce risks to human health and the environment and to comply with the requirements of the various environmental laws and regulations, multidisciplinary environmental restoration (ER) programs [which include remedial actions and decontamination and decommissioning and waste management programs] have been established to identify, characterize, and remediate sites and facilities at both ORNL and SRS. To coordinate and ensure compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions, and the respective state environmental agencies have entered into Federal Facilities Compliance Agreements (FFCA) and/or Consent Agreements. The Environmental Management, Office of Technology Development, and other agencies provide needed technology development and demonstration support for ER programs. The work described in this report is an illustration of the cooperation between and among the DOE, Lockheed Martin Energy Research (LMER)--ORNL, Westinghouse--SRS, Bechtel Jacobs Company, and Ground Environmental Services, Inc., (GES), a small business technology provider.

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) is currently transitioning its emphasis from a design and construction phase toward start-up and commissioning. With this transition, the WTP Project has initiated more detailed assessments of the requirements related to actual processing of the Hanford Site tank waste. One particular area of interest is the waste qualification program to be implemented to support the WTP. Given the successful implementation of similar waste qualification efforts at the Savannah River Site (SRS), based on critical technical support and guidance from the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), WTP requested the utilization of subject matter experts from SRNL to support a technology exchange to perform a review of the WTP waste qualification program, discuss the general qualification approach at SRS, and to identify critical lessons learned through the support of DWPF's sludge batch qualification efforts. As part of Phase 1, SRNL subject matter experts in critical technical and/or process areas reviewed specific WTP waste qualification information. The Phase 1 review was a collaborative, interactive, and iterative process between the two organizations. WTP provided specific analytical procedures, descriptions of equipment, and general documentation as baseline review material. SRNL subject matter experts reviewed the information and, as appropriate, requested follow-up information or clarification to specific areas of interest. This process resulted in multiple teleconferences with key technical contacts from both organizations resolving technical issues that lead to the results presented in this report. This report provides the results of SRNL's Phase 1 review of the WAC-DQO waste acceptance criteria and processability parameters, and the specific unit operations which are required to support WTP waste qualification efforts. The review resulted in SRNL providing concurrence, alternative methods, or gap identification for the proposed WTP analytical methods or approaches. For the unit operations, the SRNL subject matter experts reviewed WTP concepts compared to what is used at SRS and provided thoughts on the outlined tasks with respect to waste qualification. Also documented in this report are recommendations and an outline on what would be required for the next phase to further mature the WTP waste qualification program.

Evaporation of High Level and Low Activity (HLW & LAW) radioactive wastes for the purposes of radionuclide separation and volume reduction has been conducted at the Savannah River and Hanford Sites for more than forty years. Additionally, the Savannah River Site (SRS) has used evaporators in preparing HLW for immobilization into a borosilicate glass matrix. The Hanford River Protection Project (RPP) is in the process of building the world’s largest radioactive waste treatment facility, Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), which will use evaporators to concentrate the liquid waste and plant recycles prior to immobilization into a borosilicate glass matrix. Radioactive waste is evaporated at each site using various evaporator designs (e.g., forced circulation, horizontal bent tube). While the equipment used to evaporate radioactive waste is relatively simple in design, the complexity in the evaporator processes in current service and in those currently in the design stages stems from the heterogeneous nature of the waste and the effects of seemingly minor components (e.g., Si) on the process. Aqueous electrolyte thermodynamic modeling and experiments have been conducted by the SRS Savannah River Technology Center (SRTC) in support of the SRS HLW and Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Evaporators and the Hanford RPP WTP. After 40 years of successful operation, accumulation of two solid phases (a nitrated aluminosilicate, Na8AL6Si6O24(NO3)2•4H2O and sodium diuranate, Na2U2O7) developed as an insoluble phase in the Savannah River Site (SRS) 2H evaporator in 1996. The aluminosilicate scale deposit caused the SRS 2-H evaporator to become completely inoperable by October 1999. Accumulation of the sodium diuranate phase on the aluminosilicate scale has caused criticality concerns. Modeling and experiments were conducted to develop a method to control the process chemistry in order to prevent the formation of aluminosilicate deposits in the future. The lessons learned from the development, design, and operation of the SRS waste treatment facilities and the currently operating 242-A Hanford HLW evaporators were applied by SRTC in support of the development and design of the Hanford WTP evaporators. Thermodynamic equilibrium modeling along with solubility and physical property experiments are being conducted to develop process control and flow sheet models. Additionally, lessons learned from the development of an advanced antifoam agent for the SRS vitrification process evaporators are being applied to the testing and development of an antifoam agent for the Hanford WTP evaporators. This paper will discuss the methodologies, results, and achievements of the SRTC evaporator development program that was conducted in support of the SRS and Hanford WTP evaporator processes. The “cross-pollination” and application of waste treatment technologies and methods between the Savannah River and Hanford Sites will be highlighted. The “cross-pollination” of technologies and methods is expected to benefit the Department of Energy’s Mission Acceleration efforts by reducing the overall cost and time for the development of the baseline waste treatment processes.

The Department of Energy (DOE) identified the caustic side solvent extraction (CSSX) process as the preferred technology to remove cesium from radioactive waste solutions at the Savannah River Site (SRS). As a result, Washington Savannah River Company (WSRC) began designing and building a Modular CSSX Unit (MCU) in the SRS tank farm to process liquid waste for an interim period until the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) begins operations. Both the solvent and the strip effluent streams could contain high concentrations of cesium which must be removed from the contactors, process tanks, and piping prior to performing contactor maintenance. When these vessels are drained, thin films or drops will remain on the equipment walls. Following draining, the vessels will be flushed with water and drained to remove the flush water. The draining reduces the cesium concentration in the vessels by reducing the volume of cesium-containing material. The flushing, and subsequent draining, reduces the cesium in the vessels by diluting the cesium that remains in the film or drops on the vessel walls. MCU personnel requested that Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) researchers conduct a literature search to identify models to calculate the thickness of the liquid films remaining in the contactors, process tanks, and piping following draining of salt solution, solvent, and strip solution. The conclusions from this work are: (1) The predicted film thickness of the strip effluent is 0.010 mm on vertical walls, 0.57 mm on horizontal walls and 0.081 mm in horizontal pipes. (2) The predicted film thickness of the salt solution is 0.015 mm on vertical walls, 0.74 mm on horizontal walls, and 0.106 mm in horizontal pipes. (3) The predicted film thickness of the solvent is 0.022 mm on vertical walls, 0.91 mm on horizontal walls, and 0.13 mm in horizontal pipes. (4) The calculated film volume following draining is: (a) Salt solution receipt tank--1.6 gallons; (b) Salt solution feed tank--1.6 gallons; (c) Decontaminated salt solution hold tank--1.6 gallons; (d) Contactor drain tank--0.40 gallons; (e) Strip effluent hold tank--0.33 gallons; (f) Decontaminated salt solution decanter--0.37 gallons; (g) Strip effluent decanter--0.14 gallons; (h) Solvent hold tank--0.30 gallon; and (i) Corrugated piping between contactors--16-21 mL. (5) After the initial vessel draining, flushing the vessels with 100 gallons of water using a spray nozzle that produces complete vessel coverage and draining the flush water reduces the source term by the following amounts: (i) Salt solution receipt tank--63X; (ii) Salt solution feed tank--63X; (iii) Decontaminated salt solution hold tank--63X; (iv) Contactor drain tank--250X; (v) Strip effluent hold tank--300X; (vi) Decontaminated salt solution decanter--270X; (vii) Strip effluent decanter--710X; (viii) Solvent hold tank--330X. Understand that these estimates of film thickness are based on laboratory testing and fluid mechanics theory. The calculations assume drainage occurs by film flow. Much of the data used to develop the models came from tests with very ''clean'' fluids. Impurities in the fluids and contaminants on the vessels walls could increase liquid holdup. The application of film thickness models and source term reduction calculations should be considered along with operational conditions and H-Tank Farm/Liquid Waste operating experience. These calculations exclude the PVV/HVAC duct work and piping, as well as other areas that area outside the scope of this report.

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Project is currently transitioning its emphasis from an engineering design and construction phase toward facility completion, start-up and commissioning. With this transition, the WTP Project has initiated more detailed assessments of the requirements that must be met during the actual processing of the Hanford Site tank waste. One particular area of interest is the waste qualification program. In general, the waste qualification program involves testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with waste acceptance criteria, determine waste processability, and demonstrate laboratory-scale unit operations to support WTP operations. The testing and analysis are driven by data quality objectives (DQO) requirements necessary for meeting waste acceptance criteria for transfer of high-level wastes from the tank farms to the WTP, and for ensuring waste processability including proper glass formulations during processing within the WTP complex. Given the successful implementation of similar waste qualification efforts at the Savannah River Site (SRS) which were based on critical technical support and guidance from the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), WTP requested subject matter experts (SMEs) from SRNL to support a technology exchange with respect to waste qualification programs in which a critical review of the WTP program could be initiated and lessons learned could be shared. The technology exchange was held on July 18-20, 2011 in Richland, Washington, and was the initial step in a multi-phased approach to support development and implementation of a successful waste qualification program at the WTP. The 3-day workshop was hosted by WTP with representatives from the Tank Operations Contractor (TOC) and SRNL in attendance as well as representatives from the US DOE Office of River Protection (ORP) and the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) Site Representative office. The purpose of the workshop was to share lessons learned and provide a technology exchange to support development of a technically defensible waste qualification program. The objective of this report is to provide a review, from SRNL's perspective, of the WTP waste qualification program as presented during the workshop. In addition to SRNL's perspective on the general approach to the waste qualification program, more detailed insight into the specific unit operations presented by WTP during the workshop is provided. This report also provides a general overview of the SRS qualification program which serves as a basis for a comparison between the two programs. Recommendations regarding specific steps are made based on the review and SRNL's lessons learned from qualification of SRS low-activity waste (LAW) and high-level waste (HLW) to support maturation of the waste qualification program leading to WTP implementation.

Tonopah Test Range (TTR) in Nevada and Kauai Test Facility (KTF) in Hawaii are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities operated by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through the Sandia Site Office (SSO), in Albuquerque, NM, oversees TTR and KTF's operations. Sandia Corporation conducts operations at TTR in support of DOE/NNSA's Weapons Ordnance Program and has operated the site since 1957. Westinghouse Government Services subcontracts to Sandia Corporation in administering most of the environmental programs at TTR. Sandia Corporation operates KTF as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility. This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes data and the compliance status of the environmental protection and monitoring program at TTR and KTF through Calendar Year (CY) 2002. The compliance status of environmental regulations applicable at these sites include state and federal regulations governing air emissions, wastewater effluent, waste management, terrestrial surveillance, and Environmental Restoration (ER) cleanup activities. Sandia Corporation is responsible only for those environmental program activities related to its operations. The DOE/NNSA, Nevada Site Office (NSO) retains responsibility for the cleanup and management of ER TTR sites. Currently, there are no ER Sites at KTF. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program (DOE 1990) and DOE Order 231.1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting (DOE 1996).

This document presents work conducted in support of technical needs expressed, in part, by the Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Contractor for the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). The Department of Energy (DOE) requested that Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) analyze and characterize supernate waste from seven selected High Level Waste (HLW) tanks to allow: classification of feed to be sent to the SWPF; verification that SWPF processes will be able to meet Saltstone Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC); and updating of the Waste Characterization System (WCS) database. This document provides characterization data of samples obtained from Tanks 13H, 30H, 37H, 39H, 45F, 46F, and 49H and discusses results. Characterization of the waste tank samples involved several treatments and analysis at various stages of sample processing. These analytical stages included as-received liquid, post-dilution to 6.44 M sodium (target), post-acid digestion, post-filtration (at 3 filtration pore sizes), and after cesium removal using ammonium molybdophosphate (AMP). All tanks will require cesium removal as well as treatment with Monosodium Titanate (MST) for {sup 90}Sr (Strontium) decontamination. A small filtration effect for 90Sr was observed for six of the seven tank wastes. No filtration effects were observed for Pu (Plutonium), Np (Neptunium), U (Uranium), or Tc (Technetium); {sup 137}Cs (Cesium) concentration is ~E+09 pCi/mL for all the tank wastes. Tank 37H is significantly higher in {sup 90}Sr than the other six tanks. {sup 237}Np in the F-area tanks (45F and 46F) are at least 1 order of magnitude less than the H-Area tank wastes. The data indicate a constant ratio of {sup 99}Tc to Cs in the seven tank wastes. This indicates the Tc remains largely soluble in Savannah River Site (SRS) waste and partitions similarly with Cs. {sup 241}Am (Americium) concentration was low in the seven tank wastes. The majority of data were detection limit values, the largest being < 1.0E+04 pCi/mL. Measured values for Pu and U were generally well below solubility model predictions.

Releases from the F and H Area Seepage Basins on the Savannah River Site (SRS) have caused groundwater plumes that contain a variety of contaminants. These plumes are releasing contaminants into Fourmile Branch, which is a small tributary of the Savannah River. The metallic contaminant releases to the branch are being controlled by base injection. The base injection targets cationic contaminants and was not intended to reduce the concentration of I-129 in groundwater. SRS and the regulatory agencies believe it is appropriate to investigate remedial alternatives that could reduce the I-129. The Savannah River Site Area Closures Projects (ACP) and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) are developing an innovative in situ treatment for I-129 using silver chloride (AgCl). The proposed AgCl amendment has a very small particle size and is designed to be injected into the contaminated aquifer to capture I-129. The solubility of AgI is several orders of magnitude lower than the solubility of AgCl. Thus, when I-129 comes in contact with AgCl it forms silver iodide (AgI), which is very stable and essentially insoluble in water. SRNL has been performing bench-scale column tests on the effectiveness of silver chloride to capture iodine in an aqueous solution. These initial tests evaluate silver chloride in four different particle sizes; 4-5 millimeters (standard reagent silver chloride), approximately 1 millimeters (sieved reagent silver chloride), approximately 2 micrometers (ultra fine grind without a grinding agent), and <1 micrometer (ultra fine grind with a grinding agent). The first two experiments with macro-sized particles were proof of principle tests. In these the AgCl was mechanically mixed into a portion of the soil filling the columns. The last two were to test the effectiveness of injecting particles suspended in an aqueous solution--the ability to inject the particles, their retention in the column and their effectiveness at removing dissolved iodide from solution. The amendments for these two columns were obtained from a private company specializing in ultra-fine grinding of materials. They were ground in propylene glycol because when ground in water silver metal electroplated onto the steel grinding equipment. Table 1 shows the list of columns and the amendment characteristics. The results of these column experiments demonstrate that solid silver chloride is highly effective at removing dissolved iodine from water and should be an effective amendment for removing I-129 from groundwater. Based on known groundwater chemistry and the reaction of AgCl with I- to produce AgI, the only interference will be natural dissolved stable iodine (I-127). Millings et al. (2002) reported a maximum I-127 concentration of 2.2 ug/L in groundwater from well P-27D, a background water table well near F-Area. The concentration of dissolved iodide used in these experiments is approximately 4500 times this natural concentration. Therefore, a AgCl amendment in the subsurface at the same concentration used in these experiments, might effectively remove I-129 for up to 4500 times the number of pore volumes of groundwater as observed here. This assumes homogeneous distribution of the amendment and no occlusion by other minerals in the subsurface. The only reliable way to evaluate these effects is by trial in the field. The column studies also suggest that the amendment is readily injectable into sediments, but will not be highly mobile. The fact that the effluent from Column 4 shows no iodide breakthrough after nearly 11 pore volumes indicates that some of the injected AgCl was trapped in the column. A mass balance on iodide reacted so far suggests that a minimum of 0.056 grams of silver chloride was trapped in the column to react with the iodide. This is 5.6% of the mass injected. Assume the 1-foot column represents the first foot of sediment in the subsurface into which the amendment is injected. If 5.6% of the AgCl particles are trapped in each subsequent foot of sediment through which the injectate moves, at 100 feet the concentration of particles will be 3% of the injection concentration. This is the maximum possible concentration indicated by these column studies, because far more AgCl may have been trapped in the column. Continued data collection will tell how much more. Dissolved silver concentrations from the silver chloride amendment will be low. Effluent from Column 1 was analyzed for dissolved silver and the concentrations were below the detection limit of 0.2 mg/L.

This Plan of Action (POA) provides a facility description and documents the breadth of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operational readiness review (ORR) of the remote-handled transuranic (RH TRU) waste disposal operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The ORR will be conducted by the DOE in early fiscal year (FY) 2007. The DOE ORR team will consist of independent DOE and contractor personnel, as defined in DOE Order 425.1 C. The RH waste disposal operations ORR will be conducted to the requirements of DOE Order 425.1 C, Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities. This POA was developed in accordance with DOE Order 425.1 C, and follows the implementing guidance of DOE-STD-3006-2000, Planning and Conduct of Operational Readiness Reviews. Washington TRU Solutions (WTS) will conduct a contractor ORR prior to the DOE ORR, using the Environmental Management (EM)-approved contractor POA as the authorizing and controlling document.