DOE/ORO/2327 Oak Ridge Reservation Annual Site Environmental ...

Annual Site Environmental Report
drains, which caused the cementitious material to break apart and fall into the storm drain inlet. This
created the potential for storm water to enter the storm drain inlet by bypassing the damaged seal. It
also created the opportunity for the storm water to contact the broken cementitious material as it
entered into the storm drain, which could raise the pH of the water.
A corrective action plan was developed shortly after the elevated pH measurement was taken. The
corrective actions included:
1. Identification of all storm water inlets that might have defective seals;
2. Removal of as much of the building debris and sealing material from the storm water inlets where the
seals had failed as possible;
3. Plugging the risers and damaged storm water inlets with 4000 PSI concrete instead of flowable fill to
provide additional strength and to prevent future damage;
4. Placement of jersey bouncers over the storm drain inlets to prevent future damage due to truck and
heavy construction equipment traffic;
5. Continued routine inspections of the storm drain inlets for damage or undesired entry of storm water
into them; and,
6. Modification of the SWPPP and changing of storm water control measures as dictated by changing
conditions as demolition of the K-25 Building progresses.
All of these corrective actions were implemented as soon as possible after this incident occurred.
No threat to human health or the environment occurred as a result of this event. No fish kills or other
adverse impacts to the biota were observed.
3.5.2 Surface Water Monitoring
The ETTP environmental monitoring program personnel conduct environmental surveillance
activities at eleven surface water locations (Fig. 3.41). These stations monitor groundwater and storm
water runoff (K-1700, K-1007-B, and K-901-A) or ambient stream conditions (CRK-16; CRK-23;
K-1710; K-716; and MIK 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 1.4). Depending on the location, samples may be collected
and analyzed for radionuclides quarterly (K-1700 and MIK 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 1.4) or semiannually
(remainder of locations). Results of radiological monitoring are compared with the DCGs. Radiological
data are reported as fractions of DCGs for reported radionuclides. If the sum of DCG fractions for a
location exceeds 100% for the year, a source investigation would be required. Sources exceeding DCG
requirements would need an analysis of the best available technology to reduce the sum of the fractions of
the radionuclide concentrations to their respective DCGs to less than 100%. Comparisons with DCGs are
updated regularly to maintain an annual average. The monitoring results at all of the surveillance
locations generally have remained less than 1% of the allowable DCG (Fig. 3.42). The exceptions are
K-1700 and three of the downstream locations on Mitchell Branch as indicated by the sums of the
fractions of the DCGs for these locations as follows:
• K-1700: 2.7%,
• MIK 0.5: 2.3%,
• MIK 0.6: 1.9% , and
• MIK 0.7: 1.6%.
The percentage of the DCGs at K-1700 (2.7%) was slightly below the percentage of the 2008
monitoring results (3.4%).
Depending on the monitoring location, water samples may be analyzed for pH, selected metals, and
VOCs. Analytical results were well within the appropriate water quality standards.
East Tennessee Technology Park 3-63