IR 05000213/1982008
| ML20028F128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1983 |
| From: | Dan Collins, Plumlee K, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028F124 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-82-08, 50-213-82-8, NUDOCS 8301310174 | |
| Download: ML20028F128 (14) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-213/82-08 Docket No. 50-213 Category C
License No. DPR-61 Priority
-
Licensee: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant Inspection At: Haddam, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: April 19-23, 1982 Inspectors:
'
L(,
-
[
tu v
K. E. Plur lee, Radiation Specialist date l $h
,
D. J. Collihs, Radiation Specialist dati Approved by:
M*
MN
/!///!f3 M.'Shanbaky, Chief,F(cilities Radiation
/~dite Protection Section, RPB Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 19 - 23 April, 1982 (Report No. 50-213/82-08)
Routine, unannounced safety inspection of radiation protection and radioactive waste management including: outstanding items; allegation; site survey; organization and qualifications of personnel; audits; training; procedures; instruments and equipment; exposure control; posting and control of areas; control of radioactive materials; and testing of air cleaning systems.
The inspection involved 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> on-site by two NRC Region-based Inspectors.
Results:
No violations were identified.
8301310174 830118 PDR ADOCK 05000213 O
.
c DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Connecticut Yankee Personnel E. Allan, Assistant Radiation Protection Supervisor-Services R. Booth, Technician
- H. Clow, Health Physics Supervisor B. Dionne, ALARA Supervisor R. Graves, Station Superintendent R. Mulligan, Senior Instructor for General Employee Training B. Nevelos, Radiation Protection Supervisor R. Sachatello, Health Physicist
- R. Test, Station Services Superintendent
- denotes those present at the exit interview on April 23, 1982.
2.
Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items:
(Closed) Violation (77-23-01): Overexposure to skin of whole body, October 22, 1977.
Correspondence from NRC Region I dated February 6, 1979, December 26, 1978, and January 6,1978, and licensee dated January 22, 1979, November 27, 1978, March 9, 1978 and February 2, 1978 discussed evaluations of exposure data. The inspector reviewed the dosimetry records and reports.
All the data agreed with the Region I evaluation (letter dated February 6,1979).
(Closed) Violation (77-23-02):
Failure to use a dose rate instrument required by Technical Specifications Section 6.13.
The licensee's corrective actions were stated in NRC Region I letter dated December 26, 1978.
Review of the administrative procedures, interviews with workers, and observations during tours of the facility did not identify any violations.
(Closed) Violation (78-19-01):
Form NRC-5 errors (understated lifetime accumulated exposures). As noted in NRC letter dated July, 21, 1978, the'
licensee corrected these errors.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed a sample of 52 personnel exposure records.
No violations were identified (paragraph 12.1).
3.
Site Soil Contamination Investigation 3.1 References LR
" Investigation of the Radioactive Contamination Found on the Connecticut Yankee Site, March 10-30, 1980", Report dated April 1980, NEE-80-RA-298 SR Shipment No. W-80-10, April 16, 1980, 60 drums of RCA soil shipped to Barnwell, South Carolina burial site
.
.
.
EN EN-M0-153 " Contamination of Nonradioactive Systems and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release to Environment, IE Bulletin No. 80-10, CRP 80- 342", May 27, 1980 NRC reviews of control over releases of radioactive materials from the facility are contained in Reports Nos. 79-06, 80-12 (Health Physics Appraisal) and in reviews of Licensee Event Reports in several subsequent reports.
3.2 Allegation of Soil Contamination During 1981, an individual stated his concern that the licensee as not maintaining proper control of site soil contamination, and requested that NRC verify proper control. The alleged contaminated area was the East side (back) of the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) yard (Figure 1)
and along the drainage system to the discharge canal.
It was alleged that a contact survey would identify numerous spots of surface contamina-tion. The dose rate over a culvert was given as five mrem / hour (see Details 4).
3.4 Licensee Control of Site Soil Contamination A licensee report (reference LR) listed about 30 discrete contamination spots on soil, roofs and parking areas that the licensee identified and cleaned up during March 1980. The resulting 64 drums of contaminated soil were shipped to a burial site (reference SR). The report identified up to 2E-5 microcuries/ gram (uCi/g) concentration in soil.
The report stated that all contamination had been cleaned up by March 30, 1980.
Although the 1980 licensee evaluation effort was documented, no positive identification was made of the source of the contamination or the release path.
The licensee had noted, based on the concentration ratios of various radioisotopes, that some contamination spots had occurred recently ~
and others could have occurred a few years earlier.
Report LR listed actions to monitor, detect and correct these releases.
These included a plant stack water detector, weekly drain sediment samling, and periodic site surveys.
3.5 Soil Sampling, April 19 and 20, 1982 The inspector surveyed to determine points with contact dose rates greater than 0.5 mrem / hour above background. On April 19, sample A; and on April 20, samples B through F and a paint chip were obtained (Figure 1). The licensee analyzed the samples (Table I).
Six duplicate samples, and the paint chip, were analyzed by the Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory for comparison (Tables II and III). The ratios of isotopes were in general agreemen.
.
The inspector noted that points A through F had up to 250 times the specific activity identified in report LR.
The licensee sampled points 1 through 21 on April 20,1982 (Figure 1 locations, Table I results). The licensee removed the spots of con-tamination.
3.6 Conclusions regarding soil contamination Evaluation of the analyses of six soil samples taken by the inspector, and 19 taken by the licensee on April 19 and 20, 1982, indicated that at least three of the 25 contamination spots occurred after the March 1980 cleanup (B, F and 17). This conclusion was based on the sample activity ratios of about 3:1, for Cs-137/Cs-134, and the presence in B and F, of radioisotopes with half-lives of 64 and 71 days (Zr-95 and Co-58).
The ratio of Nb-95 to Zr-95 activities, of about 1.2, is the long-term limit calculated from the decay constants. There is little indication that these three samples originated at the same time from a common source.
4.
Site Survey The inspector conducted a site survey on April 22, 1982, to verify the results of the licensee's clean-up activities. The inspector identified 0.5 mrem / hour over the drain culvert on the South protected area boundary.
The licensee subsequently rotified the inspector that the culvert area was cleaned up. This area will be reviewed in a future inspection.
(82-08_-01)
Excepting the culvert and the areas where samples were taken on April 19 and 20, 1982, no evidence of soil contamination was identified during this inspection. As explained above, these areas have been cleaned up.
7.
Radiation Protection Organization and Qualifications The inspector verified there were no reductions in the number and the
'
qualification of personnel in the Radiation Protection Organization. The l
supervisors and the Health Physicist were the same individuals with the
!
same general assignments as dt.1ng Inspection No. 81-11.
No violations were identified.
8.
Licensee Audits The inspector interviewed personnel and reviewed audit records to verify that the Nuclear Review Board (NRB), pursuant to Technical Specification Section 6.5.2.8, audited the Radiation Protection Program at least once during the last two years, and the licensee procedural requirements were met.
.
_
.
.
The INPO annual audits were performed under NRB cognizance March 23 -
April 3,1981 (report dated July 1981), and during April 1982 (report not available during the inspection). The 1981 audit recommendations were carried out by the licensee (increase maintenance and operations manage-ment involvement in radiological controls).
The inspector reviewed the quarterly summaries of audit results, and the monthly audit reports of the facility by the Radiological Assessment Branch of Northeast Utilities Service Company for the period October 1981 through March 1982. These audits appeared to cover 15 inspection areas and appeared effective.
No violations of audit requirements were identified.
9.
Training The inspector observed General Employee Training, reviewed the traini1g manuals, observed the facilities available for training, and interviewed a Senior Instructor to verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 19.12 and the Technical Specifications.
The inspector noted that a tickler system was used to schedule retraining and requalifications when due. Written examinations and passing grades were required, and qualifications records were maintained.
The Training Department is staffed by seven site employees, and five contractor employees pending the selection of seven additional site employees.
The Director of Training was stated to be a licensed Senior Reactor Operator, engineering degreed with about ten years of experience.
No violations were identified.
10.
Radiation Protection Procedures In order to determine compliance with the Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements involving procedures, the inspector toured the facility and observed the issuance of radiation work permits, sur-veys, use of respirators, wearing of protective clothing, posting and control of access, effluent sampling and monitoring, and control of radioactive materials.
The inspector verified that selected forms and records required by these procedures were being maintained.
No failures to adhere to procedures were identified.
11.
Instruments, Equipment and Facilities The inspector observed survey instruments, area radiation monitors, and effluent monitors to verify operability, alarm setpoints, and current calibration status. The inspector reviewed selected instrument cali-bration procedures, records of calibrations, and service records to
.
.
verify adherence to requirements contained in the procedures and in the Technical Specifications.
Since the previous inspection, the licensee Health Physics Organization has occupied remodeled quarters within the Control Building.
The arrange-ment enhanced the control and observation of personnel entering and leaving the RCA. Adequate space is available to prevent overcrowding of technician and supervisory work stations.
This access control point is the major entry point to the RCA.
No violations were identified.
12. Exposure Control 12.1 External Exposure Control The inspector reviewed the licensee's controls maintained to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.101, " Radiation dose standards...", 10 CFR 20.102, " Determination of prior dose"; 10 CFR 20.202, " Personnel Monitor-ing"; 10 CFR 20.401, " Records of surveys, radiation monitoring, and disposal"; 10 CFR 20.408, " Reports of personnel monitoring on termina-tion..."; 10 CFR 20.409, " Notifications and reports to individuals"; and 10 CFR 19.13(a), " Notification and reports to individuals." This review included:
Tours of the reactor building, primary-auxiliary building (PAB),
service building, radwaste facilities, turbine building, and the grounds within the inner security fence, to evaluate the dosimetry
'
,
practices on several maintenance activities, and waste handling-operations.
Examination of 20 RWPs to review the instructions for dosimetry; Examination of the printout of dosimetry records to identify any unusual personnel exposures; Examination of the record files of 20 individuals to verify that their Form NRC-4s and Form NRC-5s were completed; Examination of the record files of 32 previously terminated indivi-duals to verify that dosimetry records, including Form NRC-5s had been completed and reports were routinely provided to the terminated workers and to the NRC; and Verification that written dosimetry estimates were routinely pro-vided on termination.
No violations were identified.
-
.
.
12.2 Respiratory Protection 12.2.1 Internal Exposure Limits Observation of working conditions during this inspection, and review of records of work permits, air samples, contamination surveys, nasal swipes, skin contamination, and whole body counts did not identify any exposure to airborne radioactive materials in excess of 10 CFR 20.103 limits.
12.2.2 Engineering Controls The inspector verified that exposures to airborne radioactive materials were controlled in compliance with 10 CFR 20.103 by decontamination of the surfaces, use of plastic covers and tents to prevent spreading of contamination, and use of controlled ventila-tion systems to prevent exposures to unacceptable concentrations of airborne radioactive materials.
12.2.3 Licensee Evaluations of Control The inspector noted that the RWP records and the licensee evalua-tions indicated the selection of acceptable equipment, the use of authorized protection factors, and the application of preventive measures.
The inspector verified that internal exposures were evaluated in accordance with a written, approved procedure.
12.2.4 Respiratory Protection Training and Respirator Fitting and Testing The inspector verified that the physical ability determination, fitting, and training of personnel using respirators was documented and the respiratory protection program fully implemented.
Observation of training and fitting did not identify any problems in the qualification of users of respirators.
12.2.5 Respirator Use, Cleaning and Disinfection and Maintenance The inspector observed the conduct of each of the following activ-ities to verify it was conducted in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.103(c)(2).
Issue of respirators, User's check of the respirator on receipt, User's fit test of the respirator when donned, Wearing of respirators on the job, Removal of respirators on leaving the job,
.-
. _
.
.
'
Collection of respirators to be cleaned and reissued, Cleaning, disinfection, and maintenance of respirators, and Storage of respirators.
12.2.6 Procedural Controls on Nonconforming Uses of Respirators The inspector verified that the procedures, in order to comply with 10 CFR 20, Appendix A, prohibit the following misuses of respirators:
Wearing of air purifying respirators in oxygen-deficient atmospheres, Use of cannisters in atmosphercs for which the cannisters are not approved, Wearing of respirators over glasses, beards or articles or clothing that could interfere with the respirator seal, No violations were identified.
13.
Posting and Control of Radiation Areas, Airborne Radioactivity Areas, and Contaminated Areas The inspector toured the facility to verify compliance with the require-ments of 10 CFR 20.203, " Caution signs, labels, signals, and controls."
This tour involved the following:
Confirmatory surveys to verify the adequacy of the posted informa-tion, container labels, and barricades, at several locations about the facility; Checks of ten locked entrances to High Radiation Areas; Review of the facility radiation monitors and ventilation monitors having remote readouts in the control room; and Verification that the chemistry and radiation hood ventilation provided at least a face flow velocity of 100 fpm.
The inspector surveyed the outdoor areas, where radioactive materials were present.
The inspector noted that anyone standing outside the security fence could not reach any area where the radiation exposure rate exceeded 0.1 mrem /hr. The security fence and the barriers around tanks were properly posted.
No violations were identified.
_
.
.
14.
Radioactive and Contaminated Material Control During the tours described above, the inspector verified by surveys and observation that:
Radioactive and contaminated material was collected in properly labelled containers; Used protective clothing, respirators, tools, parts and radioactive waste were systematically collected and routed to the appropriate disposition such as laundry, respirator cleaning and maintenance, decontamination, storage, or preparation for shipment offsite; Radioactive waste reduction program was implemented; and Noncontaminated waste was maintained in separate receptacles from contaminated materials and was surveyed to verify its proper dispo-sition upon release from the site.
No violations were identified.
15. Tests of Air Cleaning Systems The inspector observed the status of the ventilation systems, surveyed the filter enclosures, and reviewed the records of several filter effi-ciency tests completed during late 1981, to determine comp 1'ance with the Technical Specifications and conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.52 Section C.5, In-Place Testing Criteria.
System operation appeared normal, based on filter pressure drops, noise levels, and the general state of upkeep of each system. Excepting the PAB ventilation-containment purge system, no filter enclosure had detectable contact dose rates.
The licensee representative stated the background from the floor below caused the 50 mrem /hr contact dose rate at the filter enclosure for the PAB ventilation-containmeat purge system.
He stated the filters were rountinely surveyed when changed, and typically none were contaminated.
Review of records of tests performed during October and December, 1981, showed; the HEPA and Charcoal filters met the test criteria, or correc-tive actions were taken to obtain satisfactory retests.
No violations were identified.
16.
Exit Interview The Inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Detail, 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 23, 1982. The inspector presented the inspection purpose, scope, discussed abov.
.
17.
Enclosures Table I Sample Analyses Table II Confirmatory Sample Analyses Table III Comparisons of Six Duplicate Soil Sample Analyses Figure 1 Locations Sampled at Haddam Neck Facility
.
--
.
.
TABLE 1 SAMPLE ANALYSES (uci/g)*
Sample Cs-137 Cs-134 (R 137/134 Co-60 (R137/601 Other$
Total A (4/19/82)
3.95E-4 2.57E-5 15.4 1 1.4 2.93E-4 1.35 i 0.03 7.14E-4
---
8 (4/20/82)
6.72F-5 1.76E-5 3.82 1 0.82 4.86E-5 1.38 1 0.23 1.33E-4
---
C 2.89E-4 3.09E-5 9.35 i 1.11 2.28E-4 1.27 i 0.05 5.48E-4
---
D 4.71E-4 8.45E-5 5.57 1 0.31 3.34E-4 1.41 1 0.04
---
8.8 E-4 E
3.03E-3 2.12E-4 14.29 1 0.78 2.00E-3 1.515 i O.026 5.2 E-3
---
F 3.72E-4 1.25E-4 2.98 1 0.13 2.22E-4 1.676 i O.065 (Mn-54)
5.6E-5 8.6 E-4 (Ru-106)
8.6E-5 1 (4/20/82)
2.98E-4 2.62E-5 11.4 1 0.9 1.34E-4 2.22 1 0.07 4.58E-4
---
4.42E-5
---
---
1.42E-5 1.7 i O.3 3.84E-5
---
3.45E-4 6.65E-5 5.2 1 0.3 2.19E-4 1.57 i 0.06 6.31E-4
---
3.97E-4 7.65E-5 5.2 1 0.4 2.61E-4 1.52 1 0.05 7.34E-4
---
2.53E-4 4.95E-5 5.1 1 0.6 1.82E-4 1.39 1 0.14
---
4.85E-4
3.55E-4 6.11E-5 5.8 i O.5 7.50E-5 4.7 1 0.3
---
4.91E-4
4.24E-6
---
---
---
---
---
4.24E-6.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.45E-5
---
---
1.14E-5 1.3 1 0.2 2.59E-5
---
7.76E-5 1.01E-5 7.7 i
'1.5 A
4.24E-5 1.83 1 0.16
---
1.30E-4
3.47E-6
---
---
---
---
---
3.47E-6
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.07E-5
---
---
---
---
---
1.07E-5
2.21E-5
---
---
7.50E-6 2.9 i 0.5 2.96E-5
---
15 ( G rave l )
3.91E-6
---
--- -
1.61E-4 0.85 0.08
---
3. 24 E '.
---
---
---
3.91E-6 15 ( So i l )
1.38E-4 2.54E-5 5.4 1 0.08
1.62E-4 3.17E-5 5.1 1 0.2 1.79E-4 0.91 1 0.02 3.73E-4
---
1.82E-4 3.46E-5 5.3 i O.6 1.43E-4 1.27 i O.07 3.60E-4
---
8.04E-5 2.40E-5 3.4 1 0.7 4.09E-5 1.97 1 0.38 (Mn-54)
5.9E-6 1.56E-4 (Co-58)
5.0E-6
1.68E-4 2.40E-5 7.0 1 0.8 1.10E-4 1.52 1 0.07 3.02E-4
---
2.13E-5 4.40E-6 4.8 1 1.5 1.83E-5 1.16 1 0.16 4.40E-5
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-~~
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Concentrations are only approximate due to nonuniformities within each sample. Er ro r
estimates, where listed, are based on counting statistics. Grouping of ratios such as R 137/134 may indicate the length of time the sample has decayed.
Example
. if sample F were recounted monthly, R 137/134 would increase 0.1/ month and double in about 25 months.
.
. _ _ _ _
_.. _.. _ - _..
.. -. _. _-.
. _. - _ _ _. - -.. _.... _ _
. _ _.
.. _. _.. _ _ _ _. _
.. _..
. _ _ _. -. _ _ _. _,m. _. - _ _ _
.
.
.I
.
r
.
'
.
i TABLE 11 CONFIRMATORY SAMPLE ANALYSES (uci/g)*
'
Samole Cs-137 Cs-134 (R 137/134 Co-60 fR137/601 Others Total A-(4/19/82)
1.32E-3 8.50E-5 15.5 0.55 8.63E-4 1.53 i O.05 (Mn-54)
3.24E-6 2.27E-3 8 (4/20/82)
7.53E-4 2.50E-4 3.05 1 0.10 5.56E-4 1.37 i O.04 (Mn-54)
1.41E-4 1.99E-3
.
(Ru-106)
1.80E-4 (Ce-144)
9.08E-5 (Co-57)
6.61E-6 (Eu-155)
5.52E-6 C
5.82E-4 7.12E-5 8.18 1 0.30 4.68E-4 1.24 1 0.04 ( K-40 )
2.09E-5***
1.12E-3
4.51E-4 1.03E-4 4.38 i 0.21 3.29E-4 1.37 1 0.05 8.83E-4 F
2.66E-4 8.54E-5 3.11 1 0.12 1.03E-3 0.258 1 0.008 (Mn-54)
1.67E-4 2.37E-3 (Ru-106)
2.74E-4 (Ce-144)
1.83E-4 i
,
(Co-57)
7.79E-6 L
(Co-58)-
2.50E-4
,
(Zr-95)
5.05E-5 (Nb-95)
5.94E-5
.
i
8.55E-4 1.63E-4 5.25 1 0.18 5.12E-4 1.67 1 0.06 (Ce-144)
2.48E-5 1.56E-3
Pa int chip (Co-57)
?.79E-6
- (11.69)
4.37E-4 6.30E-5 6.94 1 0.34 2. 70 E-4 1.62 1 0.06 7.7 E-4
I Concentrations are only approximate-due to nonuniformities within each sample.
Error estimates, where listed, are based on counting statistics.
,
t
,
Material adherent to the underside of a paint chip removed from track into
!
!
Containment.
Na tu ra l soil constituent but unusual concentration.
i
,
I t
!
'
_,
... _
-
_
_
_
,
_
,._
--
. - _ _ _. - _ - _.
- -. -
, -----
. - - - -. -. -
-.
. - - -. - - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~.. - ~. -
-
. -..
--.- - ~ -
-
-- -
+
'
i k
TABLE Ill COMPARISONS OF SIX DUPLICATE * Soll SAMPLE ANALYSES **
c i
Sa mp Le/La b cs-137*
Cs-13f*
IR 137/134)
(R137/60)
_
f A / CY 3.95E-4 2.57E-5 15.4 1.35
'
/ DOE 1.32E-3 8.50E-5 15.5 1.53
[
B / CY 6.72E-5 1.76E-5 3.82 1.38 DOE 7.63E-4 2.50E-4 3.05 1.37 C / CY 2.89E-4 3.09E-5 9.35 1.27 DOE 5.82E-4 7.12E-5 8.18 1.24 D / CY 4.71E-4 8.45E-5 5.57 1,41 DOE 4.51E-4 1.03E-4 4.38 1.37
F / CY 3.72E-4 1.25E-4 2.98 1.68 DOE 2.66E-4 8.54E-5 3.11 0.26 3 / CY 3.45E-4 6.65E-5 5.19 1.57
'
DOE 8.55E-4 1.63E-4 5.25 1.67
The duplicate samples were taken from the same locat. ion (but were not blended and
'
split).
Concentrations are only approximate due to nonuniformities within each samplo.
I
?
,
k
.
i e
i
..~
._
.-,y
-+,.
. - - -
.,
.
.
.........
C'"'"'""5"'
g......
60ca-' - *-
RADIATION CONTROL AREA
' 4/20[82
.CA-1 Oer o er
" " " ' a' ia a "'
vi i.,.. Gell
..
'. >o.
0800 our-......
O -eaa l
0 iP.C.A L......
00 1..
FR y'Q
$ACHATELL CAL.
CAL.
o.
-
0058 sate REApenC1 Att IN MEtMAlt AT.4017 LEVEL usettllofME 81%E SPEC 3Fet0.
SA.
$ R.
CseCL EO Nuuttel h supeCATE Smf As LOCAvicess.
CisCLeo smE Aa LOCAfl0NS AND NUMS(R NOtCATE CONIA aNAflON LtvILS aN OPuAge CH a-V e
e o
a
,
v'
',,&_
g,A -.
PwST h
g
-
$
-
-
=
'
ca
@
,
OO S
Y M
n
.....,
,
tf II
f O
[
' ' '
.."
n., e
@
--?
"
): v Self A
E, RWST
't
.
e,
..
...,
.
e
.
L
'
Co vaiwaeur s itCavano
,
O
-
O
_
walt E Ot1POSAL h
BLOG.
PAS Ill1 o'5'
U i
IIII 2r.
1.
,
y a
P lt
,
...
if
.
'
i SE RVICE BLDC. H ALLWAY
"
l J
" " ' "
DECOM OltstL CHEu
.
STORAGE TANKS O :-4'. S. OF H2
,
G.S.E... CORNER OF PROTECTED AREA g
-
O LC i Lisi v
> a oo. C ><
O ALL i < A i Lisi r i. o C 2 -'
T FIGURE 1 Locations Sampled at Haddam Neck Facility I
.
l I