19.05.2013 Views

View Document Here - Hanford Site

View Document Here - Hanford Site

View Document Here - Hanford Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

11<br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

^20<br />

.r ..1<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

25<br />

26<br />

27<br />

28<br />

29<br />

30<br />

31<br />

32<br />

33<br />

34<br />

35<br />

36<br />

37<br />

38<br />

39<br />

40<br />

41<br />

42<br />

("^13<br />

44<br />

Appendix C - Risk Modeling of an Engineered DoFARlr2001-11<br />

Surface Barrier for the 221-U Facility Rev. ol raft Q<br />

Redlinc/Strikcout<br />

Cover-rclated inputs to RESRAD are predicated upon use of a Modified RCRA Subtitle C-type<br />

cover for the 221-U Facility or ERDF final cover, as mandated by the ERDF Record of Decision<br />

(EPA 1995). The Modified RCRA Subtitle C-typc cover includes a 0.6-m (2-ft)-thick<br />

compacted soil/bentonite admix with a geosynthetic membrane, a drainage layer, a vegetation<br />

layer, and a total thickness of 5 m(16.4 ft). The effect of the geosynthetic membrane to retard<br />

moisture penetration was ignored in the RESRAD evaluation. Two important cover modeling<br />

parameters are admix soil density and runoff coefficient. Runoff coefficient is related to<br />

drainage layer transmissivity, admix transmissivity, and annual inflow (precipitation). Values<br />

from the ERDF design analysis (Casbon 1995) for admixed soil density and the transmissivity<br />

(1 cmis) for 0.3 m(1 ft) of clean drainage gravel were used to model the cover. Drainage layer<br />

transmissivity is converted to a runoff coefficient value for different inflows as shown in<br />

Fi gure C- thc .-qhrrunoff coefficient increases as the transmissivity increases and as the<br />

precipitation increases.<br />

i u C- 1 shows coefficientc for 20.3 cm/yr and 127 cm/vr ( 8 in./vr and 50 in./yr1. The<br />

26 cm/vr and 53.3 cm/yr ('<br />

linearrelationship. Because<br />

transmissivitv of 10'° cm/vr was assumed. Runoff coefficients approach 100% as liner<br />

transmissivity decreases to the transmissivity value of a clay liner of 10'8 cm/yr. Therefore, a<br />

single runoff coefficient of 0.98 was used for all precipitation levels.<br />

C.1.3 Results of Modeling a Disposal Facility with Clay Admix Liner<br />

The RESRAD runs for determination of preliminary remediation goals did not model the effects<br />

of the cover and predicted that only radionuclides with a distribution coefficient of less than one<br />

(carbon-14, technetium-99, and tritium (H-3]) had the potential to reach groundwater within<br />

( 1,000 years. Uranium has a distribution coefficient.eRikreeereater than zem and was predicted<br />

not to reach groundwater within 1,000 years.<br />

With the clay admix cover included in the evaluation, RESRAD predicts that no radionuclides<br />

from the 221-U Facility or ERDF will reach groundwater within 1,000 years. ^As shown in<br />

Table C-2. this would hold true for current, double, and triple precipitation rates for the<br />

<strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong>.<br />

C.2 REFERENCES<br />

40 CFR 141, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;' Code of Federal Regulations,<br />

as amended.<br />

Final Feasibility Study for the Canyon Disposition Initiative (221-U Facility)<br />

June 100<br />

C-3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!