Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site,

D.7.0 INTRUDER RISK

This section describes the potential risk to human health from inadvertent intrusion into the post-remediation contamination sources for each of the TWRS alternatives. The intruder scenarios used for this analysis were taken from prior Hanford Site evaluations, which estimated the risk from intrusion into a Hanford Site solid waste burial ground (Aaberg-Kennedy 1990, as modified in Rittmann 1994). The prior evaluations used 10 intruder scenarios summarized as follows.

Well Driller - A 30-cm (1-ft) diameter well is drilled through the waste. Dose to the intruder is from the 40-hour drilling activities.
Post-Drilling Resident - A resident has a vegetable garden in the soil exhumed by the well-drilling operation. This garden supplies 25 percent of the resident's vegetable intake each year.
Excavation - 100 m³ (3,500 ft³) of waste is exhumed in the course of constructing a house with a basement. Dose to the intruder is from the 80 hours excavation activity.
Post Excavation - A resident has a vegetable garden in the soil exhumed by the excavation operation.
Residential Garden, Shallow Waste - The waste is not disturbed but 30 percent of garden plant roots reach into the waste.
Residential Garden, Deep Waste - The waste is not disturbed but 1 percent of garden plant roots reach into the waste.
Residential Garden, Deep Waste, Biotic Transport - 1 percent of garden plants' roots reach into the waste and animals burrowing into the waste have been bringing contamination to the surface.
Farming - A farm over the waste site has 1 percent of plant roots in the waste. The farmer's intake is 25 percent of the vegetables and 100 percent of the meat and milk that are produced from this farm.
Irrigated Garden - A well near the waste site is used to irrigate a vegetable garden.
Drinking Water - Well water is consumed by the resident directly.

Of these 10 scenarios, the well driller and post-drilling resident were selected to represent inadvertent intrusion for this analysis. These two scenarios were selected based on their applicability to the deep contamination sources (i.e., tank residuals, LAW vaults, and capsules) involved in this analysis. The underground depth of both the tank residuals and LAW vaults would make them inaccessible to the shallow intrusion of the other scenarios.

The human health risk for the two intruder scenarios is calculated as the carcinogenic effect resulting from exposure to the radionuclides contained in the waste exhumed during well drilling. Risk is expressed in terms of cancer fatalities and cancer incidence. The carcinogenic effects from chemical carcinogens and the toxic effects from chemical noncarcinogens are not included in the analysis.

The source was calculated as the total activity in curies of each constituent exhumed and made available at the surface. The source is calculated from a representative tank, LAW vault, or capsule canister corresponding to each alternative. The source activity (Ci) is then multiplied by a unit dose factor (mrem/yr/Ci) for each receptor (well driller and post-drilling resident) to produce the dose (mrem/yr). Unit dose factors are calculated for a unit activity (Ci) for each constituent based on the exposure conditions defined for each receptor. The well driller dose is from 40 hours of external exposure to the exhumed contaminants. The post-drilling resident is assumed to spread the exhumed contaminants uniformly over an area of 2,500 m² (0.62 acre), and the contaminated surface soil becomes the basis for the dose received. This receptor supplies 25 percent of his vegetable intake each year from this contaminated land. The resultant risk for each receptor is the product of the total dose and the dose to risk conversion factor.

D.7.1 SOURCE

The source refers to the total inventory exhumed and brought to surface. The source for the intruder scenario is alternative dependent. The methodology used for estimating the source for each alternative is different and specific to the alternative.

D.7.1.1 No Action Alternative (Tank Waste)

Table D.7.1.1 shows the source term for this alternative for each of the eight aggregated source areas described in Volume Two, Appendix A. The source term is the inventory of each radionuclide (Ci_exh) in the volume of waste exhumed (v_exh) from a representative tank with a waste volume of V_avg. The inventory of each radionuclide in a representative tank (Ci_avg) within each of the eight source areas is calculated by dividing the radionuclide inventory for SST farms (Tables A.2.1.1 and A.2.1.2) and DST farms (Tables A.2.1.4 and A.2.1.5) by the number of tanks within each of the source areas. The exhumed activity (Ci_exh) from the average tank in each source area is calculated as follows:

Ci_exh = Ci_avg · (v_exh/V_avg)

V_avg = R²_avgh_avg

v_exh = r²_exhh_exh

h_exh = h_avg

Ci_exh = Ci_avg · [(r²_exhh_exh)/(R²_avgh_avg)]

Therefore:

Ci_exh = Ci_avg · [r_exh/R_avg]²

Where:

R_avg is the radius of the average tank or 11.4 m (37.5 ft)

r_exh is the radius of the exhumed waste or 0.15 m (0.49 ft), and

h_avg represents the thickness or height of the waste in a representative tank.

h_exh represents the thickness or height of the waste exhumed.

Then:

Ci_exh = Ci_avg x 1.73E-04.

D.7.1.2 Long-Term Management Alternative

The source term for the Long-Term Management alternative would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Table D.7.1.1 shows the amount of activity that is exhumed for the No Action alternative for the eight source areas.

Table D.7.1.1 Exhumed Inventory by Source Area for the No Action Alternative, Total Curies

D.7.1.3 In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative

The source term for the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Table D.7.1.1 shows the amount of activity that is exhumed for the No Action alternative for the eight source areas.

D.7.1.4 In Situ Vitrification Alternative

Table D.7.1.2 shows the source term for the In Situ Vitrification alternative. The source term (Ci_avg) is estimated from the average concentration (C_avg) in Ci/m³ of each radionuclide in the final waste form for this alternative as given in Table 7.1 of WHC (1995f). This concentration assumes that the entire tank farm is vitrified to an 18-m (59-ft) depth, including the areas between the tanks. The total activity of the exhumed waste (Ci_exh) is calculated by multiplying this average concentration by the volume of exhumed waste (v_exh) as follows.

Ci_exh = C_avg · v_exh

v_exh = r²_exhh_exh

= x (0.15 m)² · 18 m

= 1.27 m³

Therefore:

Ci_exh = C_avg · 1.27 m³

Where:
	r_exh is the radius of the exhumed waste or 0.15 m (0.49 ft), and h_exh is the thickness or height of the waste or 18 m (59 ft).

Table D.7.1.2 Exhumed Inventory for the In Situ Vitrification Alternative, Total Curies

D.7.1.5 Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative

Table D.7.1.3 shows the source term for tank residuals for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. Table D.7.1.4 shows the source term for the LAW vaults for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative.

Table D.7.1.3 Exhumed Inventory by Source Area for Tank Residuals from the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, Ex Situ No Separations, Ex Situ Extensive Separations, and Phased Implementation Alternatives, Total Curies

Table D.7.1.4 Exhumed Inventory for LAW Vaults for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1, Ex Situ/In Situ Combinaton 2 , and Phased Implementation Alternatives, Total Curies

The source term for the tank residuals (Table D.7.1.3) is calculated using the same methodology as for the No Action alternative. However, the source term is estimated from 1 percent of the tank inventory in each of the eight source areas described in Volume Two, Appendix A because only 1 percent of the inventory is assumed to remain as residuals in the tanks after remediation.

The source term for LAW vaults (Table D.7.1.4) is estimated from data in Table 9.1 of WHC (WHC 1995j) and Jacobs (Jacobs 1996). The average concentration of each radionuclide in the vitrified waste form is multiplied by the volume exhumed. The volume exhumed is estimated to be 1.06 m³ (37.4 ft³) for a well with a diameter of 30 cm (1 ft) and a depth of 15 m (49 ft).

D.7.1.6 Ex Situ No Separations Alternative

Table D.7.1.3 shows the source term for tank residuals for the Ex Situ No Separations alternative. The source term for the tank residuals is the same as for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. As stated previously, it is calculated using the same methodology as for the No Action alternative. However, the source term is estimated from 1 percent of the tank inventory in each of the eight source areas described in Volume Two, Appendix A.

D.7.1.7 Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative

Table D.7.1.3 shows the source term for tank residuals for the Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative. Table D.7.1.4 shows the source term for the LAW vaults for the Ex Situ Extensive Separations alternative.

The source term for LAW vaults (Table D.7.1.4) is estimated from data in Table 9.1B of WHC (WHC 1995e) and Jacobs (Jacobs 1996). The average concentration of each radionuclide in the vitrified waste form is multiplied by the volume exhumed. The volume exhumed is estimated to be 1.06 m³ (37.4 ft³) for a well with a diameter of 30 cm (1 ft) and a depth of 15 m (49 ft).

D.7.1.8 Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 Alternative

Table D.7.1.5 shows the source term for tank residuals for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative. Table D.7.1.4 shows the source term for the LAW vaults for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 alternative.

Table D.7.1.5 Exhumed Inventory for Tank Residuals for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 Alternative, Total Curies

The source term for the tank residuals (Table D.7.1.5) is calculated using the same methodology as for the No Action alternative for the 70 tanks retrieved. However, the source areas include the tank inventory for the 107 tanks not retrieved, and the residuals remaining in the tank inventory for the tanks that were retrieved (1 percent of tank inventory).

The source term for LAW vaults (Table D.7.1.4) is estimated from Jacobs (Jacobs 1996). The average concentration of each radionuclide in the vitrified waste form is multiplied by the volume exhumed. The volume exhumed is estimated to be 1.06 m³ (37.4 ft³) for a well with a diameter of 30 cm (1 ft) and a depth of 15 m (49 ft).

D.7.1.9 Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 Alternative

Table D.7.1.6 shows the source term for tank residuals for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative. Table D.7.1.4 shows the source term for the LAW vaults for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative.

Table D.7.1.6 Exhumed Inventory for Tank Residuals for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 Alternative, Total Curies

The source term for the tank residuals (Table D.7.1.6) is calculated using the same methodology as for the No Action alternative for the 25 tanks retrieved. However, the source areas include the tank inventory for the 152 tanks not retrieved and the residuals remaining in the tank inventory for the tanks that were retrieved (1 percent of tank inventory).

D.7.1. 10 Phased Implementation Alternative

Table D.7.1.3 shows the source term for tank residuals for the Phased Implementation alternative. Table D.7.1.4 shows the source term for the LAW vaults for the Phased Implementation alternative.

The source term for the tank residuals (Table D.7.1.3) is calculated using the same methodology as for the No Action alternative. However, the source term is estimated from 1 percent of the tank inventory in each of the eight source areas described in Volume Two, Appendix A because only 1 percent of the inventory assumed to remain as residuals in the tanks after remediation.

D.7.1. 11 No Action Alternative (Capsules)

There is no source term for the No Action (Capsules) alternative. This is because the alternative does not involve disposal of the waste. The waste would be stored elsewhere within 10 years or put to productive uses.

D.7.1. 12 Onsite Disposal Alternative

Table D.7.1. 7 shows the source term for the Onsite Disposal alternative. The source term for this alternative is the amount of activity resulting from exhuming the entire inventory of one drywell. A drywell contains one canister with a 30-cm (1-ft) diameter and a height of 3 m (10 ft). The canister contains three Sr-90 capsules and four Cs-137 capsules. Because the activity of the capsules varies, two cases are analyzed: an average case (38,470 Ci/capsule for Sr-90 and 40,100 Ci/capsule for Cs-137) and a maximum case (93,270 Ci/capsule for Sr-90 and 54,380 Ci/capsule for Cs-137) (Jacobs 1996).

Table D.7.1.7 Exhumed Inventory for the Onsite Disposal Alternative

D.7.1. 13 Overpack and Ship Alternative

There is no source term for the Overpack and Ship alternative because the capsules are shipped offsite to a geologic repository.

D.7.1. 14 Vitrify with Tank Waste Alternative

There is no source term for the Vitrify with Tank Waste alternative because the capsules are vitrified to HLW glass and shipped offsite to a geologic repository.

D.7.2 TRANSPORT

Contaminant transport is not considered for this analysis. The waste is assumed to be exhumed and spread over the surface of certain land areas. The intruders receive radiation exposures because of their proximity to and use of these contaminated surface areas.

D.7.3 EXPOSURE

To calculate exposures, the exhumed inventory in the source is multiplied by a unit dose factor to produce a dose to each receptor from each constituent. The exposure parameters and unit dose factors used for this analysis are consistent with those used by prior Hanford Site studies for estimating the dose from intrusion into a Hanford Site solid waste burial ground (Aaberg-Kennedy 1990, as modified in Rittmann 1994).

The dose to the well driller is from the inhalation and external pathways and is calculated in Rittmann (Rittman 1994). This intruder is assumed to inhale the exhumed waste for 1 hour. The well driller spreads the waste on the soil surface and works in this area for 40 hours with direct contact with the waste.

The post-drilling resident is assumed to live on a 2,500-m² (0.62-acre) parcel of land over which the exhumed waste has been spread (Rittmann 1994), grow different vegetables on this land, and obtain 25 percent of his vegetables from this garden. He ingests small amounts of contaminated soil each day and his total ingestion is 445 mg/yr. He inhales radionuclides suspended in the air by gardening activity and by wind for 4,380 hr/yr and is exposed externally to the contaminated soil while working in the garden or residing in the house built on top of the waste for 3,260 hr/yr.

Table D.7.3.1 presents the unit dose factors for each radionuclide in the exhumed waste under the previously listed exposure conditions for the well driller and post-drilling resident scenarios. These dose factors are calculated using the GENII computer code. The calculation methodology and assumptions are described in greater detail in Rittmann (Rittman 1994). Constituents listed in the source inventory tables that do not appear in Table D.7.3.1 are progeny in equilibrium with their parent, and the unit dose factor for the parent includes the dose from the progeny. Thus, all constituents in the source inventory are addressed. The unit dose factors shown in Table D.7.3.1 are calculated for a time 100 years from the present, corresponding to the time of assumed loss of institutional control. Time periods greater than 100 years are not evaluated because radioactive decay would cause the doses and corresponding risk at the later periods to be less than at 100 years.

Table D.7.3.1 Intruder Scenario Dose Factors at 100 Years from Present

Table D.7.3.2 presents the estimated doses to each receptor from intrusion into the eight tank sources and the LAW vaults under each alternative at 100 years from the present. These doses represent the total dose from all constituents in each source area. Of the eight tank source areas, Area 3EDS produces the greatest doses to both receptors under all the alternatives except the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative and is therefore carried forward to the risk calculation along with the LAW vaults. For the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative, the greatest doses are produced by Area 5EDS; therefore, area 5EDS, along with the LAW vaults, is carried forward to the risk calculation for the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 alternative.

Table D.7.3.2 Dose to Receptor for the Eight Tank Source Areas and LAW Vaults for Each Alternative

The capsule alternative would involve the same drilling scenario, but it represents the dose from exhuming a canister from the drywell disposal facility. The dose from exhuming a canister is shown in Table D.7.3.3.

Table D.7.3.3 Dose to Receptor for the Onsite Disposal, Capsules Alternative

D.7.4 RISK

Risk is expressed in terms of the increased probability of the exposed receptor contracting a cancer (incidence) or dying from a cancer (fatality). The risk is calculated for each intruder as the product of the total dose times the dose-to-risk conversion factor. The dose for the driller is based on the annual doses provided in Tables D.7.3.2 and D.7.3.3. The risk for the post-driller resident is based on the annual doses provided in Tables D.7.3.2 and D.7.3.3 multiplied by an expected lifetime of 70 years. The dose-to-risk conversion factors used for the well driller are 4.00E-04 for cancer fatality and 4.80E-04 for cancer incidence. The dose-to-risk conversion factors used for the post-driller resident are 5.00E-04 for cancer fatality and 6.00E-04 for cancer incidence (ICRP 1991).

Table D.7.4.1 presents the estimated cancer incidence for the well driller and post-drilling resident from intrusion into tank source Area 3EDS or 5EDS and the LAW vaults under each alternative at 100 years from the present.

Table D.7.4.1 Cancer Incidence for TWRS Alternatives from Intrusion into Tanks and Vaults at 100 Years from 1995

Table D.7.4.2 presents the estimated cancer fatalities for the well driller and post-drilling resident from intrusion into tank source Area 3EDS or 5EDS and the LAW vaults under each alternative at 100 years from the present.

Table D.7.4.2 Latent Cancer Fatalities for TWRS Alternatives from Intrusion into Tanks and Vaults at 100 Years from 1995

D.7.5 UNCERTAINTY

The greatest uncertainty in calculating the intruder risk is associated with the source data. Source terms are based on the estimated inventory and an average tank within the eight aggregated tank farms of the 200 Areas. The uncertainties associated with the source term, as well as with the intrusion frequency and exposure parameters, are discussed in detail in Volume Five, Appendix K.

REFERENCES

40 CFR 191. EPA Radiation Protection Standards for Managing and Disposing of Spent Nuclear Fuels, High-Level and Transuranic Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations, as amended. 1995.

Aaberg-Kennedy 1990. Aaberg, R.L. and W.E. Kennedy, Jr. Definition of Intrusion Scenarios and Example Concentration Ranges for the Disposal of Near-Surface Waste at the Hanford Site. PNL-6312. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. October 1990.

Arthur-Alldredge 1979. Arthur, W. J. and A.W. Alldredge. Soil Ingestion by Mule Deer in Northcentral Colorado. Journal of Range Management. 32:67-71. 1979.

Baker-Soldat 1992. Baker, D.A. and J.K. Soldat. Methods for Estimating Doses to Organisms from Radioactive Materials Released Into the Aquatic Environment. PNL-8150. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1992.

Beck et al. 1991. Beck, D.M. Hanford Area 1990 Population and 50-Year Projections. PNL-7803. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1991.

CTUIR 1995. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Kwayni Nata Chana Anakwinata. Comprehensive Plan of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Preliminary Draft. Pendleton, Oregon. 1995.

DOE 1995c. U.S. Department of Energy. Hanford Site Risk Assessment Methodology. DOE/RL-91-45, Rev. 3. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. 1995.

DOE 1994. U.S. Department of Energy. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Report for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. DOE/RL-93-99, Decisional Draft. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. March 1994.

DOE 1993d. U.S. Department of Energy. Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. May 1993.

DOE 1987. U.S. Department of Energy. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes Hanford Site Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0113. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. December 1987.

Driver 1994. Driver, C.J. Ecotoxicity Literature Review of Selected Hanford Site Contaminants. PNL-9394. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1994.

Droppo et al. 1989. Droppo, J.A. Jr., G. Whelan, J.W. Buck, D.L. Strenge, B.L. Hoopes, B.V. Walter, R.L. Knight, and S.M. Brown. Supplemental Mathematical Formulations: The Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment Systems (MEPAS). PNL-7201. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1989.

Eisler 1990. Eisler, R. Boron Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.20). 1990.

Eisler 1989. Eisler, R. Molybdenum Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.19). 1989.

EPA 1993a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Vol. I of II. EPA/600/R-93/187a. EPA Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. 1993.

EPA 1993b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. EPA 540-R-93-058. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 1993.

EPA 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. EPA Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, D.C. 1992.

EPA 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. 1989.

EPA 1989b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Factor handbook. EPA/600/8-89/043. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C. 1989.

EPA 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recommendations for and Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment. EPA/600/6-87/008. EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1988.

Fitzner-Rickard 1975. Fitzner, R.E. and W.H. Rickard. Avifauna of Waste Ponds ERDA Hanford Reservation Benton County, Washington. BNWL-1885. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1975.

Green 1995. Green, J.R. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Alternatives. WHC-SD-RPT-016, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. January 1995.

Hey 1994. Hey, B.E. Program Users Guide. WHC-SD-GN-SWD-3002, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1994.

Hey 1993. Hey, B.E. GXQ Program Validation and Verification. WHC-SD-GN-SWD-3003, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1994.

IAEA 1992. International Atomic Energy Agency. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Reports Series No. 332, IAEA. Vienna, Austria. 1992.

ICRP 1991. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication No. 60 . New York. 1991.

ICRP 1989. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Age-Dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 1. ICRP Publication 56. Pergamon Press. 1989.

Jacobs 1996. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Engineering Calculations for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Kennewick, Washington. April 1996

Kochner 1981. Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure to Photons and Electrons. NUREG/CR-1918, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 1981.

Murray 1995a. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Murray, D.) Data Request for Risk Assessment Modeling. 95-DM-003. Memorandum to J. Young, Advanced Sciences, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Kennewick, Washington. February 9, 1995.

Napier et al. 1996. Napier, B.A., B.L. Harper, N.K. Lane, D.L. Strenge, and R.B. Spivey. Human Scenarios for the Screening Assessment, Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment. DOE/RL-96-16-a, Rev. 0. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. March 1996.

Napier et al. 1988. Napier, B.A., R.A. Peloquin, D.L. Strenge, and J.B. Ramsdell. Hanford Environmental Dosimetry Upgrade Project, GENII - The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584, Vol. 1-3. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1988.

Neuhauser-Kanipe 1986. Neuhauser, K.S. and F.L. Kanipe. Radtran 4: Volume 3 -- User Guide. SAND89-2370. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1986.

NCRP 1993. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. National Council on Radiation Protection. Bethesda, Maryland. 1993.

NCRP 1991. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109. National Council on Radiation Protection. Bethesda, Maryland. 1991.

NRC 1991. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Preamble to Standard for Protection Against Radiation. 56 Federal Register 23363. May 1991.

Opresko et al. 1994. Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W. Suter, II. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 1994.

ORNL 1981. RSIC Data Library Collection - DRALIST, Radioactive Decay Data for Application to Radiation Dosimetry and Radiological Assessments. DLC-80. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 1981.

Peterson 1985. Interline, A Railroad Routing Model: Program Description and User's Manual. ORNL/TM-8944 Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 1985.

PNL 1993. Schreckhise, R.G., K. Rhoads, J.S. Davis, B.A. Napier, and J.V. Ramsdell. Recommended Environmental Dose Calculation Methods and Hanford-Specific Parameters. PNL-3777, Rev. 2. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1993.

Rittman 1994. Rittman, P.D. Dose Estimates for the Solid Waste Performance Assessment. WHC-SD-WM-TI-616, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. August 1994.

Rosomer et. al. 1961. Rosomer, G.L., W.A. Dudley, I.J. Machlin, and I. Loveless. Toxicity of Vandium and Chromium for the Growing Chick. Poultry Science. 40:1171-1173. 1961.

Savino 1993. Savino, A.V. Estimated Offsite and Onsite Population Health Effects from Drum Explosion Out of Enclosure Accident for Project W-113. WHC-SD-W113-EV-001, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. August 1993.

Schreckhise 1993. Schreckhise, R.G., K. Rhoads, J.S. Davis, B.A. Napier, and J.V. Ramsdel. Recommended Environmental Dose Calculation Methods and Hanford-Specific Parameters. PNL-3777, Rev. 2. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1993.

Soldat et. al. 1974. Soldat, J.K., N.M. Robinson, and D.A. Baker. Models and Computer Codes for Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses. BNWL-1754. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1974.

Smith-Anders 1989. Smith, G.J. and V.P. Anders. Toxic Effects of Boron on Mallard Reproduction. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8: 943-950. 1989.

Strenge-Chamberlain 1995. Strenge, D.L. and P.J. Chamberlain II. Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS): Exposure Pathway and Human Health Impact Assessment Models. PNL-10523. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1995.

Strenge-Chamberlain 1994. Strenge, D.L. and P.J. Chamberlain II. Evaluation of Unit Risk Factors in Support of the Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement. PNL-10190. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1994.

Suter 1993. Suter, G.W. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida. 1993.

WHC 1995a. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Other Options Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-EV-106, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995b. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Historical Tank Content Estimate for the Northwest Quadrant of the Hanford 200-West Area. WHC-SD-WM-ER-351. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. March 1995.

WHC 1995c. Westinghouse Hanford Company. No Separations Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-103, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995d. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Single-Shell and Double-Shell Tank Waste Inventory Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-102, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995e. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Extensive Separations Pretreatment Alternative Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-EV-100, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. September 1995.

WHC 1995f. Westinghouse Hanford Company. In Situ Treatment and Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Hanford Site Underground Storage Tanks Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-EV-101, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995g. Westinghouse Hanford Company. No Disposal Action Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-099, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995h. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Disposition of Cesium and Strontium Capsules Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation Environmental Impact Statement. WHC SD-WM-DP-087, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995i. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Closure Technical Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-DP-107, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995j. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Tri-Party Agreement Alternative Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-104, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995n. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Waste Retrieval and Transfer Engineering Data Package for the TWRS EIS. WHC-SD-WM-EV-097, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1994a. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Engineering Study of 50 Miscellaneous Inactive Underground Radioactive Waste Tanks Located at the Hanford Site Washington. WHC-SD-EN-ES-040, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. May 1994.

Whelan et al. 1987. Whelan, G., D.L. Strenge, J.G. Droppo, Jr., B.L. Steelman, and J.W. Buck. The Remedial Action Priority System (RAPS): Mathematical Formulations. DOE/RL/87-09 (PNL-6200). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1987.

Will-Suter 1994. Will, M.E. and G.W. Suter. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-85/R1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 1994.

Zenz 1994. Zenz, Carl M.D., Sc.D. Occupational Medicine, Third Edition Mosby. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 1994.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)