Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Old Rifle Title I Processing Site, Rifle, Colorado
What Are They Doing on My Site?
Richard Bush, Rifle Site ManagerNovember 16, 2010
2
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
U.S. Vanadium Company Mill—1924
3
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Union Carbide Mill—circa 1957
4
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Old Rifle Site—1967 After Umetco Cleanup
5
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Old Rifle Site—1999Post-UMTRA Cleanup
6
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Old Rifle Mill Site—Today
7
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Site Conceptual Model
Groundwater contamination from raffinate ponds and tailings
Surface cleanup standard Ra-226; metals left Inflow of water from the north via seeps and drainage
ditch contributes groundwater to site Colorado River contributes to flushing
8
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Site Conceptual Model Diagram
9
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Regulatory History
1996: Surface cleanup completed 1998: Licensed 1999: Final Site Observational Work Plan for the
UMTRA Project Old Rifle Site 2002: Ground Water Compliance Action Plan for the
Old Rifle, Colorado, UMTRA Project Site meets Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval
Compliance Natural flushing for uranium, maximum contaminant level
(MCL) 0.044 mg/L Alternate concentration limits for vanadium and selenium,
higher than MCL based on background
10
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Office of Science Investigations Two basic questions posed
Can we immobilize uranium in the groundwater? How long will it last after amendments cease?
Can we better predict uranium removal? Natural flushing relies on modeling
Approach – to support compliance strategy Enhance microbial reduction of soluble uranium(VI) to
precipitated or sorbed uranium(IV) Improved reactive transport simulations to predict removal
of uranium from groundwater
11
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Recent Developments, Plume Map
12
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Recent Developments, T/C Plots
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Ura
niu
m (
mg
/L)
Date
Rifle Old Processing Site (RFO01)Uranium Concentration
Loc 0304
Loc 0305
Loc 0309
Loc 0310
Loc 0655
Loc 0656
13
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Groundwater Surface Map—Spring 2007
14
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
20
10
Lon
g-T
erm
Su
rveilla
nce a
nd
Main
ten
an
ce
Con
fere
nce
Con
fere
nce
Conclusions
Site not flushing as predicted Site more complex than expected Additional characterization/new modeling effort? Revisit compliance strategy in light of low risk U.S. Department of Science adding insights to uranium
sequestration, cycling Integrated Field-Research Challenge provides an
outdoor lab Leveraged funding for science and technology Future to expand to floodplain-wide analysis?
