1 Potential Sources of Groundwater Contamination at Nuclear Power Plants RETS-REMP Workshop Nine Mile Point- Constellation Energy June 28-30 th , 2004 Eric Darois, CHP Robert Litman, Ph.D. Radiation Safety & Control Services, Inc. Stratham, NH
Dec 16, 2015
1
Potential Sources of Groundwater Contamination at Nuclear Power
Plants RETS-REMP Workshop
Nine Mile Point- Constellation EnergyJune 28-30th, 2004Eric Darois, CHP
Robert Litman, Ph.D.
Radiation Safety & Control Services, Inc.Stratham, NH
2
Experiences
• Decommissioning Sites– Connecticut Yankee– Yankee Rowe
• Groundwater Dose Contribution to License Termination (LT) Criteria
• NRC LT Criteria (10CFR20 Sub E, 10CFR50.82)– 25 mrem/year + ALARA
• All Pathways• Resident Farmer Typically Used
– GW Contamination Requires Site Specific Dose Modeling (NUREGS)
3
Hydrogeological Terms
• Packer Testing• Hydraulic Conductivity• Pieziometric Surface• Slug Test• Pump Test• Mud and Wash Drilling• Rotosonic Drilling• Glaciolacustrine• Transmissivity• Overburden
4
Connecticut Yankee
5
CY Operating History
• 582-Mwe Pressurized Water Reactor• Construction Period 1963 - 1967• Commercial Operation Jan 1, 1968• Permanently Shut Down December 4, 1996
6
CY Decommissioning Update
• Shutdown 12/96• Large Components Removed Complete• Final Survey of 400 Wooded Acres Complete• 1st GTCC Canister Located on ISFSI 4/04• Start Secondary Side Building Removal 5/04• Start Tank Farm Soil Removal 5/04• Start RCA Building Removals 7/04• Complete Fuel Transfer 4/05• Complete Physical Decommissioning 12/06 • Release Non-ISFSI Areas From License Mid-2007
7
CY Public Interest(Circa 1998)
8
CY Groundwater Investigation History
• Evidence of GW Contamination During Operation– Potable Wells– CTMT Mat Sump – H-3 (~24,000,000 pCi/L)– Confirmed RWST Leak– Possible SFP Leak – Not Confirmed
• 1997/1998 – 1st Monitoring Wells Installed– Initial Sampling H-3 and Gamma Only– 143,000 pCi/L H-3
• Formal Hydrogeological Investigation Plan– CT DEP – 2 Phases – Includes Quarterly Sampling– Sr-90 Identified
• GW Dose Model Developed for LTP• 2004 – Commitment to DEP
– All Contaminants < EPA’s MCLs• 20,000 pCi/L H-3• 8 pCi/L Sr-90
9
114
= Well Location - No Detectable Plant Related Radioactivity over 1 mRem/yr
= Well Location - Detectable Tritium over 0.015 mRem/yr (400pCi/L)
= Well Location - New Well
= Shallow and Deep Well Location
100( )
506
505
503
504 507
111
112
113
Pennisula(3 Wells)
Rifle Range(9 Wells Total, 8 P revious and
1 New Well)
EOF(1 Well)
108
AST
101( )
CONNECTICUT RIVER
105( ) 106( ) 107 ( )
110( )
115
102( )
104
123
103( )
502
501
508
124
120
118
119 121
125
122
109( )
= Well Location - Detectable Tritium over 0.015 mRem/yr and Strontium over 0.2 mRem/yr (2 pCi/L for Sr-90)
Note: 1) Samples analyzed to a Minimum Detection Sensitivity of 1 mRem/yr for Individual Nuclides 2 ) Cs-137 in Well #103S was at 0.8 mRem/yr (13.5 pCi/l)
Status as of December 2003 Sample Round Rev 3 3/8/04
GROUNDWATER MONITORING Summaryas of December 2003
10
Tritium TrendNRC Criteria (25 mrem/yr) = 652,000 pCi/LEPA Drinking Water Standard = 20,000 pCi/l
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n in
pC
i/L
MW-105S
MW-109D
MW-102D
11
Strontium-90 TrendNRC Criteria (25 mrem/yr) = 251 pCi/lEPA Drinking Water Standard = 8 pCi/l
0
50
100
150
200
250
6/01 8/01 10/01 12/01 2/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 10/02 12/02 2/03 4/03 6/03 8/03 10/03 12/03
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n in
pC
i/L
MW-105SMW-103SMW-106S
12
Bias Detection
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 10 20 30 40
Rank Order
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
pC
i/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
-6.18 -4.64 -3.09 -1.55 -0.01 1.53 3.08 4.62 6.16
Concentration (pCi/L)
Fre
qu
ency
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Standard Normal Quantile
Observed Distribution
Normal Distribution
Case 1: No Bias, Mn-54March 2002 Data Set
13
Bias DetectionCase 2: + Bias, Tc-99March 2002 Data Set
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Rank Order
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
pC
i/L)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-6.54 -3.64 -0.74 2.16 5.06 7.96 10.86 13.76 16.66
Concentration (pCi/L)
Freq
uen
cy
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Sigma
Observed Distribution
Normal Distribution
14
Bias Detection
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0 5 10 15 20
Rank Order
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
pC
i/L)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-27.01 -21.46 -15.91 -10.36 -4.80 0.75 6.30 11.85 17.40
Concentration (pCi/L)
Freq
uen
cy
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Sigma
Observed Distribution
Normal Distribution
Case 3: - Bias, Pu-241March 2002 Data Set
15
GW Source Identification
16
Soil Remediation Plans
• Remove Soil from Areas Containing Elevated Contamination to Bedrock – Target Area is Groundwater Source:– Tank Farm Area including Structures– East of Resin Storage Facility– Area between Containment and PAB
• Install Well in Area to Monitor for any Residual Contamination
17
Groundwater Characterization Activities
• Conduct Routine Groundwater Monitoring
• Review and Document Existing Information - Phase II Plan, Task 1
• Characterize Site-specific Hydrogeologic Conditions – Phase II Plan, Task 2
• Develop Contaminant Fate and Transport Model – Phase II Plan, Task 3
18
Ongoing Groundwater Monitoring
• Continue Quarterly Groundwater Sampling
• Decommission Un-needed Wells
• Installed Water Level Monitoring System– 33 Monitoring Points, Including Shallow and
Deep Zones– Include Surface Water Points at Storm Water
Pond, River, and Canal
19
Phase II Hydrogeologic Work Plan: Task 1
• Conceptual Site Model Elements• Review of Existing Hydrographs/Water Level Data• Assessment of Apparent Contaminant Source Areas• Catalog of Well and Boring Logs• Description and Mapping of Bedrock Features• Hydrogeologic Cross Sections• Preliminary Groundwater Geochemistry Evaluation• Evaluation of Substances of Concern• Preliminary Hydrogeology Evaluation• Measurement Data QC Review• Inventory of Nearby Water Supply Wells
20
Phase II Hydrogeologic Work Plan: Task 2
• Implement Improved Bedrock Packer Tests• Install Bedrock Monitoring System Based On Packer
Test Results• Assess Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity
– Packer Test Measurements– Mat Sump Observations - Long-term Groundwater Extraction – Slug Test Measurements - Localized Measurements
• Assess Tidal Influence on Groundwater • Install Additional Monitoring Wells as Needed• Collect Other Supplemental Site-Specific Information to
Support Fate and Transport Modeling
21
3-D Fate and Transport Model: Task 3
• Select Appropriate Simulation Code based on Site Conditions
• Preliminary Conceptual Model Elements Include the Following:– Aquifer System Includes Shallow Unconsolidated
Formation Overlying Fractured Bedrock• Large variability in unconsolidated system thickness• Bedrock appears to be anisotropic fractured system
– Connecticut River is Ultimate Discharge Boundary• Paired wells near the river shore exhibit upward vertical
hydraulic gradient• Consistent with the regional concept of the river as a
discharge boundary.
22
CY Lessons Learned
• Radionuclides DO NOT Travel Together in Aquifers• Site may have Separate Aquifers• Contamination can Migrate to Depths >150 feet.• Long Term Trends Are Important
– Bias Detection– Seasonal Fluctuations– Rain Events
• Consider Level Monitoring– Correlate to RainFall
• Develop Conceptual Hydrogeologic Site Model– Well Placement– Bedrock Geophysics– Overburden Characteristics
23
24
YR Operational History
• PWR, Operated from 1960 to 1992• Initially 485 Mwt, Uprated to 600 Mwt in 1963• Fuel Clad for ~14 years was Stainless Steel• During the time period 1960-1980 the SFP did
not have an interior stainless liner• Significant IX Pit Leak - 1962• Built adjacent to Sherman Reservoir in the
northern Berkshires using a Vapor Containment Design (the BRT)
• Ceased Power Operation - 1992
25
26
27
Yankee Rowe Potential Groundwater Contaminating Events
• Unlined SFP• IX Pit Leak 1962• Outside Storage Of Contaminated Materials
– Refueling Equipment– Waste
• Redistribution of Soil Contamination– RCA Snow Removal– Rain – Storm Drains– Wind
• RX Head Impact – Outside Soil Contamination• Underground PVC Drain Pipe Leak
28
29
30
CB-7
CB-12
CB-3
B-3CB-8
CW-4
Sherman Spring
CW-7
CW-8CW-6
CB-2
CW-10
CB-6
CW-5
CW-1CW-9
MW-6
MW-3
CB-9
MW-5
CB-1
CB-11ACW-11
MW-2
B-1
CB-10
MW-1CW-2
CW-3
0 200 ft
YNPS 1999 Concentration of H-3 in Ground Water
Monitoring Wells(x are grouted)
Site StructuresFence line
Approximate Scale
Grid N
44.5 Deg.
N(True)
300-3000 pCi/L
3000-6000 pCi/L
6000-10000 pCi/L
>10,000 pCi/L
3131
CB-7
CB-12
CB-3
B-3CB-8
CW-4
Sherman Spring,
CW-7
CW-8CW-6
CW-10
CW-5
CW-1CW-9
MW-6
MW-3
CB-9 CB-1
CB-11A
CW-11
MW-2
B-1
CB-10
MW-1
CW-2CW-3
YNPS Fall 2001 Concentration of H-3 in
Ground Water
MW-5
CB-2
CB-6
0 200 ft
Approximate Scale
Grid N
44.5 Deg.
N(True)
32
33
Efforts Beginning in 2003
• Complete groundwater monitoring program established that included:– Suites of radionuclides to be analyzed and
relevant locations based on HSA– New locations for wells based on the site
geology• Intermediate Depths 60 -200 feet)• Bedrock (some as deep as 300 feet)• Multiple wells at same location for three depths
– Frequency for measurements which would adequately monitor changes in the GW
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Additional Investigations
• More Wells to Further Bound Plume
• Step Draw Down Test to Understand Aquifer Connections
• Install Network of Level Transducers
44
Yankee Rowe Lessons Learned
• EPA MCLs Selected for Criteria
• Prior Investigations Not Rigorous– Little Regulatory Involvement
• Involve All Stakeholders
• Analyze for Wide Suite of Radionuclides
• Include Non-Rad Constituents
• Long Term Trends Important
45
Major Lessons Learned
Don’t WaitMCL’s Count