IR 07100001/2012009
| ML20205P144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07100001, 04007604 |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1988 |
| From: | Mallett B, Mullauer J, Wiedeman D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205P083 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-404 40-7604-87-01, 40-7604-87-1, NUDOCS 8811070381 | |
| Download: ML20205P144 (45) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - - O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY ComISSION .
REGION III
Report No. 040-07604/87001(DRSS) Docket No. 040-07604 License No. 508-908 Licensee: Standard 011 Chemical Co., a.k.a,SOHIO Yistron Corporation Ft. Amanda Road P. 0. Box 628 Lima, OH 4S802-9983 Inspection Conduc
tob rough December 9, 1987
Inspectors: D.h.Wleeman, Chief b /g Nuclear Materials Safety Date Section 1 L S' .- Jh R. Mulla er, N.H.S.l ifj r,[y, Radiation Specia Date( I '
==h.. Approved By: B. S. Mallett, Ph.D.
hief
i Nuclear Materials Safety Date and Safeguards Branch
Inspection Sue.mcry L Inspection on October 1 through December 9.1987 (Report No. 040-07604/87001(ORSS)) Areas Inspected: This unannounced special safety inspection was initiated in i response to allegations received in a letter to Region III on September 23, 1987.
The alleger was contacted by telephone on September 30, 1987, to help clarify l ' statements contained in the letter.
Af ter review by the NRC Region III staff.
' 13 allegations were determined fro.n the information provided.
The specific l allegations and NRC findings are cortained in Section 4 of this report.
(At ' l the time information was being obtained, the alleger was informed that his l name would need to be used in pursuing certain allegations such as exposure history. He agreed the NRC could use his name.) The inspection also included ' a review of procedures, records, decontamination effort and interviews with ! personnel.
l Results: Of the areas inspected, two of the allegations were substantiated; however, no health and safety issues were determined from these allegations.
No violat 'ons of NRC requirements were identified.
I 8811070381 001014 ! PDR FOIA ' FRENCHB8-404 PDR . _ _ _ - _. _. - -_ _. _ _ -. --
. DETAILS - 1.
Persons Contacted Karl Dawson, Former Decon Technician, Advanced Building Systems (ABS) Robert Cotsell, Security Guard Tom Freeman, Lieutenant, Burns Security
- Jerry LaRoche, NRC Headquarters
- Stephen Simon, Manager Environmental Quality, Standard 011 Co. (50HIO)
- Daniel Isaacson, Process En, ineer, Standard Oil Co.
( Howard Larson, Senior Vice i resident, Nuclear Energy Services (NES) Francisco Trejo, Marketing and Sales Manager, (NES)
- Ed Doubleday, Manager, (NES)
- Jim May, Site Supervisor, (NES)
Tim Meister, Foreman, Advance Building Systems (ABS) Gail Mayfield, University of Cincinnatti Tony Ball, Supe:' visor, (ABS)
Alan Koontz, Decon Technician, (ABS) ' Jeff Smith, Decon Technician, (ABS) 2.
Purpose of Special Inspectior! This was an unannounced special safety inspection initiated by allegations l received 3eptember 23, 1987, concerning the decontamination operations at Vistron Corporation (t.k.a. SOHIO) located near Lima, Ohio. Due to the lack of specific details in this letter, the NRC inspectors contac'.ed the alleger on October 1,1987 to further clarify his allegations and concerns.
The specific allegations were: h a.
Security guards were told the decontaminattor. work involved asbestos removal so as not to alarm the guards that radioactive materials were involved.
fb.
The test given after training to certify radiation workers for the i decontamination operations was to easy and test scores were changed to a passing grade to get workers certified.
h c.
Many employees leave controlled areas without frisking properly and other times the frisker did not work, d.
Emplo,ees of ten do not wear anticontamination clothing in controlled , areas and employees contaminate their faces with their contaminated r hands, t The foreman for the site, Mr. Tony Ball, caused a fire in the ' y e.
controlled area as an example of his disregarri for controlled areas, i . ff.
Employees chew gun and tobacco while wearing respirators.
l h . Employees frequently tore open their anti-c suits and removed their 4g ' face mask while in the controlled area with no regard for safety
Practices.
,
,' i
_ - -- - - - - - - - . .
_ _ _ - _ h ' 9 h.
A sandblasting hose was removed from a controlled area to a clean - area without regard for it possibly being contaminated.
b.
Pocket dostmeters were not issued and employees were told to put a
zero in the daily log as if they would have used pocket dosimeters and had readings of zero (meaning no measured exposure to radiation).
fJ.
Employees take home contaminated items from the work site.
k.
Exposure data fo.' the alleger was requested; however, the alleger has > not been provided with this data to date. Whole body counting was supposed to be provided for the allege after leaving the job site, permanently, and this has not been done to date.
6p1.
Soil and water samples showed more contamination than the radiation survey of 1985. When the alleger brought this to the attention of NES they covered it up.
The alleger was told by an NES health physicir.t. of high activity levels.
The survey instrument would read of f scale with an HP-210 probe.
) m.
DNI was hired to end various problems with radiation protection < practices.
3.
Licensed Program Vistron Corporation, a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio (SOHIO), was formerly licensed for the manufacture and storage of depleted uranium (U238) catalyst.
The catalyst was subsequently used for acrylonitrile production, a component of various plastics. This was discontinued in 1971 and any remaining catalyst was stored onsite until 1979 when it was transferred of fsite for disposal. Two licenses were issued authorizing possession of this eaterial.
The 5U3-908 License authorized catalyst production using depleted uranium and was modified to authorize decorenissioning activities on July 12, 1979.
The SUB-756 License authorized the use of this catalyst product in a manufacturing process of various plastics. The SUB-756 License was terminated and the residue catalyst was combined with material under the 5U9-908 License.
' A Itcensee contractor conducted a site survey in 1977 anil identified several contaminated areas. Af ter initial decontaminatten efforts, the licensee requested termination of License No. SUB-908 in 1980, and again in 1982, however, no termination amendment was issuej pending the ' submittal and approva. of adequate closeout survey resuhs.
In July 1982, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) was centracte.s by NRC to determine the radiologic status of the Mte. The final evaluation by ORAU showed contamination levels above NRC limits for release and again no termination amendment was granted.
In July 1985, Sohto contracted with Nuclear Energy Services (NES) for final decontamination of the factitty.
Final approval of the decor te -* ton plan was granted in Amendment No. 2 dated May 22,1987; and ( ntamination by NES began in June 1987.
Currently 53 individuals are wployed at the decomissioning , I i '
_ .. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ site including secretaries, health physics support group and general . labor personnel. At the btginning of the decontamination project, NES hired Advance Building Sys tas, Incorporated (ABS) to supply general labor personnel on an as-needed basis.
Since these individuals hve no prior experience in or knowledge of Laith physics, they are giveh training in general health physics and radiation protection prior to receiving their work assignments. As the decontamination project progressed, NES found many of the ABS personnel unreliable and difficult to work with.
By August 1987, NES started replacing) ABS personnel with l personnel from Diversified Nucleat incorporated (DNI. DN! employees are l health physics technicians who have prior knowledge in health physics and l experience in radiation decontamination. Currently, there are 30 DNI personnel,10 ABS personnel and 13 NES personnel working at the site.
4.
Specific Allegations and NRC Findings a.
Allegation No. 1: It was alleged that security guards were told the work, involved arbestos removal so as not to alarm the guards that radioactive materials were involved.
NRC Findings: The NPC inspectors interviewed security guards employed by 50HIO.
None of the guards that were interviewed could rettember being told by NES personnel that the decon project only involved asbestos removal.
In addition, the guards that were ' interviewed stated that they have been informed and are fully aware of the radioactive decontamination project.
The NES site supervisor stated that normally SOH10 employees have not been allowed in areas where decon work is bting performed (Restricted Areas) since the beginning of the project in June 1987. The supervisor added that as a precaution, six SOHIO equipmer.t operators were given the 40 hour radiation safety training course in the event 50H10 representatives would need access to the restricted areas.
The inspectors also learned that asbestos was scheduled so be removed from certain areas in the building once those areas were clean from radioactive contamination. On November 5,1987, the NRC inspectors were informed by the NES supervisor that the arbestos removal project began on October 24, 1987 and concluded on November 2,1987.
The asbestos war.
removed by an independent contractor, Environmental Technology located in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Document No. 83A2970 of the approved NES decontamination plan discussed removal and handling of asbe'stos material.
Conclusion: The allegation that security' guards were informed that the project only involved asbestos removal so as to not alars the guards that radioactive materials were involved was not substantiated.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
b.
Allegation No. 2: It was alleged that employees receive general radiation protection training consisting of classroom training, instruction and testing and that testing covered the lesson plans, however; the test was to easy.
In addition, test scores were changed from a failing grade to a passing grade in order to get workers certified.
'
. _ _n
. . i NRC Findinos: Thedecontamination(decon)plandatedOctober1, - ' 3986, requires all radiation decon personnel be trained prior to any ! hands on work in restricted areas. The training for workers brought into the job from outside contractors receive a five day, 40 hour
training course in basic definitions, terms, and responsibilities in ' radiation work.
Ites No. 83A2959 of the decon plae specifies that the training course is intended to convey the minimum necessary information needed by personnel who work around radioactive materials including all contractor personnel performing radiologic decon work.
It was learned through interviews with licensee personnel and record review that the training course is given and the level of training is appropriate for the type of work being performed.
In addition to the 40 hour training course, workers receive 24 hours of practical training i in the field.
The training program submitted to the NRC for approval , did not include a testing requirement, however, it was learned that ! all workers completing the 40 hour course are given a written exam
consisting of 47 questions of a mixed variety su:h as fill in the blank, essay and True/ False type questions. A grade of 80% is . considered passing. Those who pass the written test then take the i 24 hour practical field training course. Upon completion, each I worker is required to take a practical exam which includes a "hands on" dress up and dress-out in decon suits, how to tape-up decon , clothing and an independent laboratory (Hydro-Nuclear) performs a ! quantitative respirator test on each worker. This test consists of I proper masking and demasking techniques and adjusting equipment [ for proper fit.
Personnel interviewed concerning the adequacy and - level of training indicated that the subject matter was appropriate for the type, of work they are required to d: and the examination was
adequate tre test their knowledge of the subject matter, i Accordinr, to the NES Site Supervisor and in reviewing initial training
and testing records, 25 ABS personnel completed the required training i course as well as six SOHIO employees. All six SOHIO employees passed ' the er. amination and of the 25 ABS personnel, 21 passed. Of the four ABS personnel who failed the exam, only one was retrained, retested . ! and passed the exam on the second try. Although retraining and retesting personnel is not company policy, they :iade 49 except'on in ! this ca 1 due to f amily hardship.
(See Attachment A for the 7adiation [ Worker Examination).
l Conclusion: The allegation that the test was too easy anc' failing ! grades are changed to passing grades to get workers cert',fied was
not substantiated. No violations of NRC requirements were t identified.
' i c.
Allegation No. 3: It was alleged that cany espicyees leave the h Controlled Surface Contamination Area (CSCA) without frisking l properly. Other times the CSCA frisker was not working and i employees did not frisk at all.
l l l !
!
I ! - - - . - - - - - - -. - -. - --
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l NRC Findings: The inspectors learned that six workers' frisking . technique was under suspicion. According to the NES Site Supervisor it was noted that these workers were not frisking properly when they were in a hurry at lunch time. He further added that when it became obvious that practical factors and good radiological work practices were being compromised, all six workers were retrained in the practical factors and company policy. A couple of weeks later, one individual was caught again violating this policy and was given three days off without pay (see Attachment B, Employee Disciplinary Report).
Portable friskers are available in the dress area and according to the ABS workers interviewed, there has never been a time when all friskers were not working.
They added if an instrument is found not to be functioning properly, there are approximately 50 other instruments available for use. According to the Supervisor, the whole body friskter (PCM-1A) was calibrated on July 13,1987 (see Attachment C Calibration Report) The NES Site Supervisor stated that during this calibration, the whole body frisker was not available for use; however, workers were required to use the portable friskers.
He added that it is possible for a worker to sneak out of a control area without frisking; however, all workers are well aware that if they are caught they would be fired on the spot. The NRC inspectors' interviews with ABS personnel confirmed this policy.
Conclusion: The allegation that employees have left the CSCA without f risking properly was substantiated; however, the licensee identified the problem and initiated corre:tive action.
The allegation that the frisker did not work at all was substantiated for
only one day July 13, 1987, the day of instrume'nt calib/ation; however, portable friskers were available. No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
d.
Allegation No. 4: It was alleged that eepicyees of ten go into the Controlled Surface Contamination Area (CSCA) without wearing anticontamination (Anti-C) clothing. Also employees scratch their faces and their hands were contaminated froe working inside the CSCA.
NRC Findings: Licensee personnel inforced the inspectors that areas of contamination are divided into two categories, fixed and loose contamination areas. While both are considered restricted areas, they require dif ferent dress codes. Areas of fixed contamination may require boots and gloves and areas of loose contamination require full Anti-C clothing.
These areas are posted and roped off. The licensee stated that the alleger may have seen radiation personnel in areas of fixed contamination which would require boots and gloves only.
Interviews with several radiation workers indicated that these areas are well controlled by NES personnel and that no individual was ever seen by them in controlled areas without the required clothing. The workers added that in order to enter a controlled area, each person needs a Radiation Work Permit (L'P). (See Attachment D). The RWP is given to the health physicist (HP) in charge of the area prior to entering the controlled area and the RWP specifies what dress is required.
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J
._ _ __ __ . During the interviews with various radiation workers, it was learned . that there were two cases where personnel were found to have contamination on their clothing prior to leaving the work area. One worker had contaminated pants and the other had contaminated shoes.
, ' It was learned that the licensee confiscates contaminated articles, decontaminates the articles and/or places them in Rad Waste.
According to licensee personnel, their have been no known cases of workers with known contaminated faces. The inspector observed the frisking procedure used by the Itcensee. When leaving controlled areas, the workers use a portable HP-210 probe to ch(ck for gross , contamination on their face, hands and clothing.
If no contamination l is detected, they are allowed to leave the building where they ' immediately walk into a small building which houses an Eberline Whole Body Contamination Monitor, Model PCM-14. When the monitor gives the worker a green light, the RWp is turned in and the worker is allowed to leave the controlled area.
Conclusion: Based on statements by licensee personnel who perform work in controlled areas, the inspectors were unable to substantiate.
i the allegation that employees often go into the CSCA without wearing Anti-C clothing or that workers contaminate their faces with their hands.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
e.
Allegation No. 5: It was alleged that Tony Ball caused a fire in the CSCA when his cutting torch ignited the "Herculite" in the area.
, NRC Findings: The inspectors were advised that herculite is a plastic type material which is essentially fire proof although the material ! will melt at extremely high temperature. The NES Site Supervisor l stated that occasionally a fire ball will drop from the material being ' cut with a welding torch and land on the plastic material causing it te melt.
The licensee stated there was one instance (exact time unknown) when Mr. Ball was using a cutting tc9h and caught the torch ! hose on fire which resulted in melting some herculite.- The fire lasted about ten seconds.
The licensee added that no radioactive material was involved and there was no personnel injuries.
! l Conclusion: This allegation was substantiated. No violations of ! NRC requirements were identified, I i , f.
Allegation No. 6: It was alleged that employees chew tobacco and gum while wearing respirators in the CSCA and employees remove their respirators to expectorate.
NRC Findings: It was learned that respirators are used in certain work areas to satisfy OSHA requirements to sintsize employee ' exposure to airborne toxic materials. Respirators at this facility are mainly used during sandblasting operations in the catalyst I vessel.
The NES Site Supervisor stated there are people who chew gun occasionally in areas where gum and tobacco chewing are not i , allowed.
However, he could not recall any instance where an employee was caught chewing while wearing a respirator.
Persons who normally wear respirators during sandblasting operations were interviewed and
! , l
.-- - .. . - .- _ _ _ .... - . -.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . no instance could be recalled where an individual was seen chewing . with a respirator on. Mr. May added that when employees are caught chewing in controlled areas, they are reprimanded; however, gum and tobacco chewing is not a common practice at the work site.
Conclusion: The inspectors were unable to substantiate this allegation.
While employees have been reprimanded for chewing gum in prohibited areas, it is rare that this standard rule is violated.
No cases of chewing while wearing respirators were recalled by any of the employees interviewed. No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
- Allegation No. 7: It was alleged that employees frequently tear open their Anti-C suits and pulled off their face masks because they were uncomfortable.
It was also alleged that NES told employees not to rip open these suits while in the CSCA, however, it continued and no action was taken and as a result, many employees were contaminated.
NRC Findings: The inspectors learned that the Anti-C suits are made of paper and since areas on the suit are taped to form a seal, the only way to remove the suit is to rip the suit off.
It was also learned that employees remove their masks and suits in a designated declothing area where the suits are discarded in a barrel. Before entering unrestricted areas, the workers are checked for contamination.
The workers that were interviewed could not recall ever seeing any individual demask or rip suits open in controlled areas with the exception of the declothing area. The workers felt that if this frequently occurred, there would be a high rate of personnel contamination detected by the whole body frisker.
The NRC inspectors confirmed these statements by observing workers perform personnel surveys and declothing in the control area prior to entering unrestricted areas.
The inspectors also observed that these suits do tear easily during declothing. According to these workers, there are only two cases where contamination was detected on workers prior to leaving the job site (see Item (d) Allegation No. 4).
According to NES personnel, workers are instructed in the training course on proper clothing and declothing technique and must deconstrate proficiency by practical examinattan in these procedures l befoie being allowed in restricted areas. The workers interviewed by the NRC inspectors concurred that they received this training and felt the training was adequate for the type of work performed. NES personnel could not recall any reports of dress code violations by ,
workers while working in the CSCA.
Conclusion: This allegation was not substantiated. No violations of NRC requirements were identified, h.
Allegation No. 8: It was alleged that sandblasting equipment was covered with a red powder and was not surveyed prior to leaving the CSCA.
l [ l
. NRC Findings: During interviews with NES personnel and radiation . workers, the inspectors learned that sandblasting equipment is not removed from the CSCA.
The Site Supervisor stated that the sandblasting equipment will be removed in the future when blasting operations are completed.
The NRC inspectors confirmed this statement during a walk through of the facility. The sand blasting equipment was located in the CSCA. Other equipment used in the decontamination ef fort (i.e., hamers, cutting tools, etc.) are brought into an area called the air lock, and a technician wipes the tools and checks the wipes with a portable G.M. using a HP-210 pancake probe.
If no activity is detected, the equipment is released.
The individuals that were interviewed stated that they know of no instance where equipment was removed without being checked for contamination.
Conclusion: This allegation was not substantiated. No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
1.
Allegation No. 9: It was alleged that employees were issued TLDs but were not given pocket dostmeters.
Employees were irained m the use of pocket dosimeters (PD) and told to fill out the daily PD log even though pDs were not used.
Employees were told to make an entry of zero in tne daily PD log.
The instruction was given by NES technicians.
NRC Findings: A review of the Radiation W:rker Handbook and Training Manual shows that Item 7.1 specifi: ally discusses the use of TLDs and self reading pocket dosimeters (SRPD). This section defines each device, the specific use of each device and the difference between them.
The section also explains hev to determine your dose when the SRpD is read. According to the Site Supervisor, since ths course is a basic radiation course, SRPDs are discussed for the , purpose of information only and introduces the student to alternate ways of monitoring personnel exposure. Question No. 27 in the written examination taken by all workers addresses the fact that TLDs will be used to measure radiation exposure. While onsite, the inspectors confirmed that all radiation workers are issued TLDs and are turn.d in monthly for processing. When workers were questioned about SRPD's, the inspectors were informed that SRPDs are not required for this decon effort since the SRPD is not sensitive enough to measure the lower energy gamma emitted by depleted uranium.
The inspectors were also informed that there are no daily records kept for personnel exposure since pocket dostaieters are not used.
According to the workers that were interviewed, there are no logs that indicate numbers. According to the Site Supervisor, the only record or log which contains numbers concerning personnel exposure , ' are the monthly report sheets supplied by R. S. Landauer. The NRC inspectors' review of these reports show that all personnel l exposures were below the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.101 (see Attachment No. E).
' I l l l - ,
'
_-. - _. - - - . . Conclusion: The statement is true that workers are trained in the , use of pocket dosimeters and how to fill out a dostmeter log;
however, workers were told by NES that 3RPDs would not be issued since the $RPD is inappropriate for the radionuclide involved in the decon effort.
Since there are no daily records for personnel exposure, workers stated they were never told to make an entry of i zero in a daily log, this allegation was not substantiated. No violation of WRC requirements were identified.
J.
Allenation 10: It was alleged that several employees take home smal' pieces of metal or bolts from structures holding motors in the CSCA.
In addition employees have also taken home radiation border tape used in the C5CA.
! NRC Findinos: Radiation decon personnel informed the inspectors that tools used in the project are required to be "signed out" by the person using the tools at the beginning of each work shift and "signed in" at the end of the shift. According to the Site Supervisor, , there have been no discrepancies in tool inventory and no known cases ! of reported thef t.
The decen workers also informed the inspectors ( , ! that objects removed from the CSCA, such as cut pieces of metal, nuts.
l and bolts etc, are dirty and rusty pieces of worthless funk.
In addition, these articles are normally placed in Rad waste barrels , i since most of these objects are contaminated. The workers added that j it is possible to slip small objects in their pockets; however, if i ! the objects were contaminated, the whole body detector at the entrance !
l of the building would detect the objects. According to the $tte ! Supervisor, if an individual was caught trying to steal tools or ! ,
objects from the facility, they would be fired on the spot. Mr. May l j added that this has not happened to date.
- >
! Workers also stated that there are no knowr. cases of individuals taking home radiation boarder tape used in the CSCA. They indicated that once the tape is used, it is impossible to roll it up and is i considered worthless like any other Lind of tape. According to the i ' Site Supervisor, unused rolls of tape are readily available at the job l I site and there h really no way to control inventory of tape due to ) ! the volume used. Again, he added, an individual would be fired on ! ! the spot if caught trying to take tape off site.
The inspectors asked - radiation workers what would happen if they were caught trying to i
I take objects off site and they responded they would be fired on the j spot.
They added that NES has made it very clear what company policy is concerning such matters.
[ '
Conclusion: The allegation was not substantiated. After interviews I with personnel and observation of the job site decon work by the inspectors, it appears that NE5 has adequate control of objectr. and i tools brought in and out of restricted areas. No violations of NRC l requirements were identified.
!, !
i
l l ! - - - - - _.. - - __ _
. k.
Allegation 11: It was alleged that exposure records were requested; ' however, they were never received and ABS has "put off" his whole body counting.
The alleger added that he was told the whole body counter at the University of Cincinnati (UC) was broken and was told a whole body count could not be scheduled.
NRC Findings: (At the time the allegations were received, the alleger was informed that his name would have to be used in order to pursue his concern over exposure history. He agreed the NRC could use hisname.) NES personnel informed the inspectors that the alleger never submitted a written request for his exposure data while he worked at the decontamination site.
10 CFR 19.13(a) requires such Notifications and reports be in writing. When NES informed by the inspectors of the allegers concern, personnel were the exposure information for the three months the alleger worked at the facility was immediately mailed to the alleger.
The inspectors were contacted by the alleger on October 8,1987, to irform the inspectors that he , ' received his exposure information in the mail. Section 4.1 of the , Decontamination plan requires the contractors and visitors qu1Hi-J as radiation workers be evaluated by in-vivo counting at the start of their employment and upon termination of employment at the Vistron ' site. A review of in vivo counting records and interviews with personnel indicated that personnel receive their in-vivo whole body count as required.
It was learned that employees receive this in-vivo test at the University of Cincinnati (UC). The inspectors contacted Gail Mayfield from UC and learned that the whole body counter was out of service from September 17, 1987, through September 29, 1987.
The alleger's employment with NES was tereinated on September 17, 1987 On October 2,1987, the inspectors again contacted Gail Mayfield and learned that seven ABS employees were scheduled for whole body counts on September 30th; however, only two employees i showed up for their appointments and three ABS employees were scheduled on October 'nd: however, only one showed. The alleger did not keep his api N nt on either date. On October 5, 1987, i Gail Mayfield conta th Region !!! of fice to inform the t inspectors that the seger kept his October 5th appointment and received the in-vivo test.
Cone _lusioa: According to the NES supervisors, the alleger may have verbally requested iets exposure records, however. NES was not aware of this request and did not receive written notifiestion. When the ' inspectors made NES personnel aware of the allegers concern on October 1,1987, the exposure data was mailed to the alleger. Since the alleger contacted the inspectors on October 8,1987, and l stated he received his exposure data, we consider this matter closed.
l Concerning the in-vivo testing, it does not appear thst NES unnecessarily i
delayed any whole body counting. According to Univer.tity of Cincinnati t personnel, the whole body counter was out of service between September 17
through September 29. Af ter the equipment was fixed, the alleger failed to keep two appointments for a whole body count, however, on October 5,1987, the alleger received his in-vivo test.
,
I L l ! ! '
, l __.
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _, _ _ _.. _, _, . _. - -. _. ___ ... _ _, _., _ _ _. _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
_- _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ . This allegation was not substantiated. No violations of NRC
requirements were identified.
1.
A11eastion 12: It was alleged that Bowser-Moner Company had taken samples from the soil and ponds and the readings from the soil samples were extremely high, much higher than the survey in the summer of 1985. The results of their readings were 40,000 to 100,000 counts using an HP-210 pancake probe.
NRC Findings: The alleger was contacted on October 5,1987, for additional information concerning this allegation, however, additional information was not provided. A review of the licensee's file shows that in July 1985, a full site survey was contracted by 50H10/Vistron and conducted by Nuclear Energy Services to quantify the type, locations and amounts of radioactive materials remaining onsite.
This information is currently being used to decontaminate the site for unrestricted use and license termination.
The scope of the survey undertaken in July of 1985 is outlined below: 1.
Survey of buildings and pathways throughout the Vistron site for alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.
2.
Soil sampling at selected locations and depths throughout the site.
3.
Removable contamination swipes inside all plant structures.
4.
Sediment and water sampling of all open ponds and selected enclosed storage tanks, sumps, and drainage pits.
5.
A review of data from the Oak Ridge study to ensure a comprehensive investigation of the site radiological condition is achieved.
! The soil samples taken in 1985 were analyzed for uranium ' , " concentrations.
These samples showed contamination levels from 0.30 picoeuries per gram (pC1/gm) to 230.42 pCi/gs. The water samples taken in 1985 showed contamination levels from 3.34x10 8' microcuries per milliliter (vC1/mL) to 2.34x10 ' SC1/mt. Sediment samples taken i in 1985 showed uranium contamination levels from 0.30 pCi/gm to 6.39 pCi/ge. Radiation surveys performed in 1985 using a HP-210 , probe ranged from 1000 cisintegrations per minute (DPM) to 1,200,000 dpe.
The inspectors learned that Bowser-Moner is a company that performs ' chemical analysis of environmental samples.
In July 1987, this company took various samples from the water pond areas, areas known to be contaminated with depleted uranite. In order to take these l samples off site, NES had the samples analyzed to assure that the
samples were releasable.
On August 3,1987, these samples were ' analyzed by a company called Controls for Environmental Pollution.
i
12 .. . .__ -- - - - - - -, - - -
- - - - - - - _ - - -. - - _ _ - - - - - - - -, - _ _ _ . (The results of the analysis are shown in Attachment F) The samples . showed all concentrattons below the release criteria of 10 pCi/ge with the exception of five samples which were not released. As of the date of this inspection, the pond areas have not been decontaminated and according to the Site Supervisor it is very likely that samples would read 40,000 to 100,000 counts using an HP-210 probe; however, the counts would only indicate the presence of radioactivity.
Analysis of these samples to quantify the amount of contamination present can only be determined under controlled laboratory conditions.
Conclusion: 1he statement that Bowser-Moner took samples from the soil and ponds and that they were contaminated, was substantiated.
The statement that the readings were extremely high cannot be defined although in reviewing the 1985 survey results, a reading of 40,000 to 100,000 counts in a sludge sample using an HP-210 probe is not unreasonable. The allegation that the readings were much higher, than the survey of 1985 was not substantiated based on the NRC review of the 1985 survey.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified, m.
Allegation 13: It was alleged that DN! (Diversified Nuclear, Inc) of Shippingsport, Pennsylvania was hired to do the decontamination work in order to bring more experienced people to the site and end various problems with radiation protection practices.
l NRC Findir n: The inspectors learned that DN! located in the state of New York supplies health physics technicians world wide to conpanies performing decontamiaation work. The Site Supervisor for NES stated that when he took charge of the job site on August 17, 1987, he needed HP experienced technicians at the site to eliminate problems they were having with ABS personnel.
He added that the ABS personnel caused the project to fall behind schedule.
His objective was to pair up DN! personnel with ABS personnel. At the time of the onsite inspection, a total of 53 people wece working at the site on two 12 hour shifts. Thirteen Individuals are employed by NES, 30 are employed by DN! and ten are employed by ABS. According to the site Supervisor, this improved the quality of work being performed and helped get the decon effort back on schedule.
Conclusion: The allegation,that DN! was hired to bring more experienced people to the site was substantiated.
The allegation that this was done to end various problems with radiation protection practices was not substantiated.
He violations of NRC requirements were identified.
'
-
_________________ ___ _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . 5.
Exit Meetino An exit meeting was held on December 9,1987, with the individuals denoted in Section 1 of this report.
The preltatnary findings of the inspection were discussed at that time.
, Attachments: A.
Radiation Worker Examination B.
Employee Disciplinary Report C.
Calibration Report D.
Radiation Work Permit
E.
Film Badge Report F.
Environmental Sample Report P , P f i l l i t '
! I i
!
- i !
t'
i I l k ! < '
, .
i .-. ._ _. - - ._. _. -._ -. _.
-. _ ____- - -_ _ _____- - _.-____ -_ _._ -_- -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ >
' j.p p7 .. 'k Mt f j j RADIATION WORXER EXAMINATION j HUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES - PRINT: Name Date _ Answer all questions by filling in the blanks where appropriate.
Each blank represent.s one word.
Attempt to answer all questions, as partial credit will be given where the exact term is unknown, but the idea is correctly expressed.
[ Radiation emitted from an atom raav be in one of several different forms; the three forms or types of radiation ,/ i
- t SOCC arc D Ap y a//f
_ _ 4 A ff-d , and 2.He$. , fn e.Mq / 2 MR- ' ' C %,.,.g-
- -
External radiation exposure hazards are presented by radiation capable of penetrating into the body"gfog4 from the outsides this includes Mry4-and A . ( he greatest internal radiation hazard is from [AZ/f/fk ' radiation, due to its relatively large mass and cr(ange.
Beta radiation primarily presents an external hazard to the C no f . ( o decrease risk, the planned and received doses sre kept as far below the l imits as practi able.
T,,his phil jg-losophy is called gag 2 which means / / /J 85 4 # A , p&blY [,7fpre ' - ' ,
( "Stay Time" isggount of O:L,f-an indi-l vidual may , __. J _.
7 a yadiation area or high radiation without C . m eEkea3 ot predetermined s f dose.
Prior to this occGrfd.791 an individual will leave n area when his self-reading pocket dosimeters SRPD as _ / s' n e,- 2/ 9 s ti&c. j(pp A Your stav time in an area of 50 (hr when your allow-7' ble dose is.250 mrem = 9'
. ( The Federal Government allows a maximum lifetime dose of l 5x(N-18) where N= your age.
The allowable dose of a 20 ye : olr*. man, with no previous exposure, = /4 ' . ( Three methods employed by radiation workers to reduce ! their expos,upe $re 7~/snd f)/f 7-A ar d, a l 8 HIMtb V . All radiation workers must wear a M and a f/ M for measurement of whole body radiation en inside any e of radiation or contamination controlled area.
( A Aadiological Work Permit (PWP) is recuired for all _ k' A /) / A17'ff3g work performed by NES.
_ .- l l l
. _ . . . . . - ege . , I ( 11 areas using radiation wo permits ocedures, . and work packages will be BA /$ with yellow and magenta signs, which state the radiolo-g cal controls required for entry.
( Insnediately upon discovering radioactive material is lost, the individual /trans y rting the material wills a) contact _ $f Ts r- $/*.5 . b) began an _ 3 d A re_// for the material after completing item a above.
[ The acronym (initials) for actions to be tak vent of a spill of radioactive material is Jn i pe g.
s,. ( The actions to be taken in the event of a spill of radioactive matenal are: 57of the spill. - t_,.A f A> others in the area by shouting ' SPILL *. - ~ 2 sc//rethe area; access to the immediate area - must be restricted.
g u em e r/oexposure to yourself and other person- - nel.
~ Se c urt. ventillation and all unfiltered air a - systems, t ( ~ All personnel e,*iti e n ro d areas will perform a g M ' whole body f r.'.sk fo . 6-FMs-J,r; re! _ r,At contamination using a HPv210' prdce held within h is.
' in h from the body.
The duration of the frisk should approximately _7.. minutes.
_ (g The Airborne contamination limits 'used by NES for de-termining the need for wearing a respirator are ) for alpha uCi/ml 12, /, for beta / gamma uCi/ml /g/p 8gg,,/ #fI I , ( The amount of loose surface contamination that re-quires one to wear protectiv clothing is //Md M Alpha, Beta, Garma/100cm loose.
~ , ( [,/ A/A 7~/h) verkers are protected by certain anda~rds of the Federal Government.
(1 F,a employee has the ri ht to know what his yearly , # B M f a rr* to rad ation has been.
- ( shall keep account of a persons lifetima dose.
_
_ _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ' - . .
The following questions are true/ false.
If the statement is true mark the question "true".
If the question is false line out that word or phrase that makes it false and replace it with he correct word or phrase.
( Some isotopes are naturally unstable and'become more stable by emitting radiation. [ ( y amount of radiation, no matter how small, poses risk to the human body.-7~ so ( A radiation worker cannot frisk in an area wher, yoo than Ses46. F s 'Y b ckground is gM*/ f*Mnoakkicfa-t $ 8/et7's ted 10! Y .r ' ( R loactive waste receptacles are for 44 tan trash only.
Fj}lfd' Le urAm o aweler A.1 tools and equipment removed from contaminated areas ( must be surveyed b Radiological Control personnel pr or to removal.
( While the Government limit for whole body exposure is - SREM/yr and 3 REM /OTR, NES limits its personnel to /yr, 1. 25 REM /OTR, and.10 REM / day. 7-l ( NES shall use the to measure personnel radiation ' . exposure for permanent record purposes, f i O To prevent off-scale reading SRPD's shall be recharged r / whenever the reading exceeds zero.*7~, C*N i 50 5 ( Anv time a TLD or SRPD is lost it should be reported "Radiological Control personnel immediately."[~ t ( A Bioassay will be performed when a lung count indi-cates internal contamination. 7 ' 7'( pon exiting a controlled area, personnel are required to do a - i-iwi body frisk. f:' ( trance t SCA's shall ha ad enn=picuously with statino, ution-controlled surface con-m ination area.
.
- 3)
Areas accessible toyersonn i be posted as Air / 4 - o _ m o,.g, f/. L h_ acload4ir prefs,. -.. _ n- - ( open wounds will 5: d:;nt:1y pretected fre caa- /p-inti;r. ;SC f rela p/i Yczrersonyrking in a CSCA. [ -der to w s/l / (33V Surveying for personnel contamination is the respon- - si ility of and shall be performed by individuals who - e trained and oualified as 91y.fi ^=rs. F ' R A O v>0r ^ 1' - (3 Anti-contamination clothin is rn bv t t g >per enn bMd t* ep-t=in t; th: M y.
.,o wru,.ar- __ __ ____ A
contiduhd
. (3 three methods of decontamination that will be used NES are vac ing, sand blasting, and scabbling.. ' Rubber gloves are reouired to be worn any time hisburne . mad 6-etivi;.y 4evc1;; : e = Mum the limit f f y' A W r-e m us Afk - Using t attached RWP, answer the following questions.
' ( w long can you work under RWP i87 7[iff6 - are tge,suitigfpoupremegs ggy? g,,f/ r,.j/g% (M g , (4FT W at are d Tet$)'#r d$dnints[[ftk##[o?
-
- # #
e f./- A A-0 6 C be? W A AN Is an ene oHd con (ainment required?)f UO Strrte W '- ( t/d d* f .... Define t e following: r #'7'l p ggf
- [ A" (
Radiation i,o rwen ca.4p A'7"pi oi-w A f,ni.rsioa 4a~t**Aw5.,M,<cdto",,e,e, 7g y (4 controlled Areas tc. o ru,~ 3 4dera <u r
- p' se. + a.
a'J' " '#",* o p,n c,, o,- J s a a r < o o l \\ ' "l5iN$ie,y" ' "'Yl"S'A E TWa 7 C# N A ' A'7" ' sg,s- / e ins. r$> c/ pu a s,<<ref s'e w4-
pp,,; r,o a uvo e x'pe ee < r
- rnt re s
/eraeem em,de Aree e,o rAffg/? d-Coor-Ao,$ ; N f8 P 77 / Wt* hAd'4 kV/
/ - .
i l
\\ / / Q b i ' , i i { l
I s _ --- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - - _ _. _ _ - _ - . - _ - - _ - _ - _. . . -. _
p om - .sm 6 0 a..'-~.~.%... ^.. w w^d a s.^ .. WA. .,. 5 m.
a, . .
Isreerer test' . . O ele eso seet c.s.s. ttsa.ee es t
. Aff hqC8l ) , . . .
, i
WUOLAM WWWIsif WWMim
- i IMPLOYBE DISCIPLINARY REPORT , Name:2.
h ! Date I"17"II I , ' . l The following (Warning) (Suspension) (Dismissal) was issued today, and it is to be made part of the official record of the above mentioned
employee.
i !
1.
( ) Unreported absence 10.' ( ) Improper conduct ' 2.
( ) Drinking on duty 11.- ( ) Reporting under the , j i influence of alcohol i j 3.
( ) Tardiness 12.- ( ) Violation of safety l ' rules l 4.
( ) Insubordination 13.- ( ) Carelessness ! 5.
( ) Dishonesty 14.
( ) Destruction of Compan) Property l 6.
( X) Failure to follow instructions 15.
( ) Defective 8. improper work j 7.
( ) Fighting on Company premises 16.
( ) Theft (stealing) 8.
( ) Leaving without permission 17.
(X) Other Poor radiological [
_ worx practices.
- l 9.
( ) Housekeeping ' ' l Remarksa , t Repeatly violated unsultifig procedures during unsulting. Poor i i ! radiological work _ practices which could bossibley_ lead to I , l ' a spread of contamination to uncontrolleh areas.
! '
l ! ! ! t
. j I have read this reports l ! ! ! i -- l Ai - DA O L/T)& i i
8 ture of~8upervisor ~ Fignal.ure of implopet { ! i, u a mma s s ee s - ' TME ABOYE OFFENSE OF OFFENSES MAVE BEEN NOTED AND ARE MADE A PART OF l THE ABOVE EMPLOYEE'S PERSONNEL FILE AS OF THJS DATE.
> i ! l t j i .. - _ _. _ - _ _ ____ _. _ __.. _ ___________ _.___.., _ _ _ _ __.____ _ _ ________ . .. . . . . _
._.
- . . _- _. - _ - - - - - - _ _. - -. - _ _ ' l.betIsne Instruttu rnt Colp >totnots . . . , . ' krpo,1 Road t$0$14713i4 . ' 9.O.Bou1I00 1WX:910 9854670 EICSTE Sannie.NM91504 2100 Teles:664430EICSTE ' h th4.
4.
b october 8, 1987 i i , h: lear Energy Services l , l C/O Stardard Oil O>ernical ! ! Fort Anarda/Adgate hoed Litta, Ohio 45805
l Attention: Lorda Achtemeier
Dear Ms. Achteneier,
I < l We PCM-1A Serial ntraber.116 was calibrated July 13, 1987,
on site in the operating location using the calibration i procedure outlined in the Iberline PCN-1A Technical Manual, , ' Section 4.C.
his procedure was perforned by Albert C. Briggs Af ter the operating point for one detector was deteunined , i all recaining detectors were optimised to this point.
I i Detector efficiencies were then checked for all detectors l ' and doctamented on plateau sheet.
. , Please attach this letter to the plateau sheet that was lef t with you when I was on site performing the calibration.
i . ' ?
Respectfu11y2 !
.4, Albert C. Briggs ' Iberline Field Service lh3 neer.
!
! . copy to customer file i ! h05 i ! c i t ! l . .
A subedaryof l ' m m s.e - . . .
- ge e
.4 e e HEE aff va+ 6 - NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES RADIATION WORK PERMIT ! l sutR sen ' fkf$$YY lkW? f f$ $$$ m, -- s w e.e c e n NSc,.,., Mo.w.,.m m e e= g,j, .. a encarros see recro
- ' % h /2 5endAtf* Acon sy Ersr snh est my.
- f Md* B44&*&Md'
- ' *****'2* 2 V RAceoloccAL CONDmONS een coronae.aros Levst enAs. cc>einam.aros Lawk etat asma naowros Law.
to amor mapwros tegL <d' WO mose e d V.f*o actes e d Ob / nasoc.
A/4 4/E' new anneoie< aumcuvrt act aassous acT*.,rv naco c o. 4 ac w Tv om6 suo e nues ef/ W $ d' t//0 Wk 'O**
/W' , ,v no,, mxn.u - ps,m 8tADtAT10N PROTICTON SUPPORT
- esTW cwe c.ata
- pertAmatitwt
,g c;wreexus me:nacTvve ctone.O ocessTm 6Ao Coat l C N O(041 l Au natC4 i contaas.
eyK tw-savose m Gums i. 3 a er : (cw LueGa ocsagna PLASTC S.Jr? *CP l SU8CCat OLCarts e sacee ausGt Ocssm4 Tim ptAS'C Surt portou
} cess Eart ngTta , pasta cost naus
mesasurrom caLa 7ts sacca secco T PULA naASn %714 'W w,fTuose msgTta ~ anc4 saagt3 + Sve*ut'3 as taAsse i arJTmese saccq aut44 a ogmSpec41
- M WD am.aCOO e
te.a,.rb &aoG4 P(agTC SMD( i *eGae K parta i trTusarTV cen,t =s
- Leme scan e
vere c. L a ?L.*st 40 8tre owe uo **ecttCT7v4 CLOpenO Nu bacm/fta. w men CCrTom Lastms } K l _ _ SUAJose CAP l.
R w hatC& M.abre aus SMCLAL Dd5TMUCDONS I A art eLoss we accrMan m ccwwks
- emJven tows? vesvTi. sos ascusep
- weam % cui seen ecwnaus
- .ca at.aa asume r ser a soc 46 ccwr=ot me ma
. e-. y a-coa ev amavano .; O e4AA 00em4 Terr Om *ELae - O CUT 12Pengo.at acnessop W = acuse l
g as m = = m oias vie,ito e.a u aros u
- u ro,aos =
gsnoa - cc.oro.==ser.weso.,nn acan W . f - RCs f f_ $ D h {t AAA RCs . . -,
- '
a scurse s r ecnet
- umart.
t asetatse a mesoves & SSAC?tsfoe)F m m pqqcgggg,q m m . . - , . - . = musen - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ - _ _ _ -. - _ __ . _ _ _. -..
- _.. - - N g j. . ......... .... .. %.g4j4g, h gg) gg p 2(ggggg.
. ,, .. .., - - - ,_ , . - 4 gg.
- g i,.
- ... on,,,,ne,
. Ij" jg J i' T3 '.
- ll j
.
" "...:I_ - .y f'
- T
' . . ., - . . , .3 . , - ... ...
L.
- \\
[{ - . .. .3 r . , -- 'l .'...... ......r l . '... s... '9,'.. li, , .- - j j.
j ,
' , la -- - ,r., j .. o ., .. ....crrrrrcri l x n > - ., . v.5 . .
- .
. ' '.... si. s. 's .,4 ,'g l ..' r, is.......... a - b 3 "l , ~ ' t' ;..' l-t ' ' e Ia 1, i' :. ll ' o ,. !R- : .rrrrr'ir d,: .' crrrrrrrrrrn , i I! l
y n <lj' !). ' v i
, ,l l %. :'. -
- ....
- .......;i
.,$............. .
g n ,ll ! ( I l;
. o 3.f , r y., . q...;s..,iy ,u..........., n . . , ! g ,- 3:
- > ' -h
th . ! . .p.......... r., l !t ,y1 i.:...x...y'..,j ' % go t.e l d i' '" 'i h . 3' l s !! - 3., r; y
! .o li q is; I ao I g-d!)
- h lj R rr3. rc re rrr. g;l'
- 1 r +...-.. r
S : a
C
l2 M ,,A ecceeeee: eneesenetweeet j , M4 'E
r w
'O .__ ]. . _ _. _, '
.!>
?.. i P$
- ; '.
j i'*
S i u )in! - J.
i . ae
- ii
.. +>
! , !$ g
- 8'
' " '
' 's !
!
. . l
8 l j [.< d.. j llT a ll .
8
I
a - ji - .. . . i }lg ' \\ t aE d.ih
'.; - ll
' .
ip,. i .- - .,, . si at.f ' :. ;'" ? ,: c '~ - .li 'y;b ,. .. . .-
it' .. I.
u.
- ,.; p...:..'... * N. : :. :......... - 3,j
3.... : . . . . ?
- 24:s: :
a a:A::: 1::::::::: y >l <- .- e n , n e , , .
...... ...... . . . . .
- _ . . __ _ . - -- . . bw . i,.n. e.ss eris..i. s.::.e.. n.:. u. s. t..s. s. e, :::::.
, .y.,..,. ....... . . . , 3....,,, g ,.: 7.-- ,---,-------....--.. . g.... g -.............., .
~' s
- i.
> i
- g
- g 31 ;4
. f I: a ' . .
., p - - d j:Nl ' ' e
,a,t to, j ' t,.
. !.
S e ,.. - ..i . _ ,t _t_, -..... 5' S ' i. c s e a s *s. : : a 6 s. : s c g e a s a. e : e. e e s 6 .I 1 .ss .. ; ; a . , -
iq... . - . , [g qlj'fl]y'(i"i"p''==" l . I f i :. q i.
-4 - (
. 'e. o i
. -7 i . e.
.
. cec sas F. a s s. t. iis s s e; a c c.: s < c.. s - r ..t, g, 11 r .
. , i * Op j I.l
h i.. I2 . '- Ie-,:, s a.ases.. ...re.. ...<,., , i . 1 l f .' ' , \\ I I l ,k.' f
o .r ,- m s-lg qi . s < s. s s n.,.. s y........... .. . .. _ I.. .....,H r . "l) . ,......,s ..,, . ,.,. ,, , , , 4, g 3jr a '- < lit I l ' ]cc.
i - ' A , -:s c s.t f c e s f u e x,s '. ,c ..c d! i;l l c
- 1 i < ls._Il l<l...l...h.
r..h h " '!
1.. Ih ., , . =.j,... afl ! lil H i lj <, i . .: i- .
.=.3
- .
- .:::::::::::::;:: n : w - - - g
-
,q$ E
u ' - ij 'i p ia 1 _. 3 . i:.4 - -
-l l- h :: 4 f ..,: t i:. 3: Ll f, 0 g !?. 9 R.'!
- =
$ si t i h 1
m ! l ! A .? -
u, z I i.J : . :.0 , F,' Ik l = ! . .. C'. jW Ll ii %. ~
- dp.
, e.i i , p- - h
- ., ]
i
o s i j '
.i.3 ,i a . , -p-
, l ., .. ,
- .. - i s j
- '
.i i d [: h
- li:i
.: 6,
- <
i . . .
- i.
r ' 3g' l' d a .$'.: :m%., "::e.: F.e,y. :.. e. :::.; :. - . si .a . .... ,..
- :E set to a n,
- s t.
- s a 0f
- , -..m . I.- , . . . , ,...._
)h. _ _. _ _.. - . _.,._. _,.... ...o. we ew es onmesnsess kaollution. Inc.
e.unw 505/eaa.es4s . - __ .. _ - - - -. - _ h, w. P O. DOx b* S1 o S .La Fu. twww Mua.co EA 7502 ' i J
eure,svare soo/e4 3 3g og I;PAGE1
CEPe Inc.
REPORT LAS e 87-00-006 MEEIVED3 08/o3/87 08/11/87 14:56:51
REPORT Muclear_Enessw_Sezwices______ PREFARED Controls _'for_Eowizoomental___ t i g TO 3 Goo _Shelton_ Rock _Soad_______ BY ______Eo11utioca_Inc.________
Isachurwa_CI__04810_ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ d' 1225_Rosloa_Sizest___________ Santa _Ema Mt1__81502_.________ f,EITIf}ED BY P CTTEN Ezaostaco_Ize.io______________ ATTEN _____________________________ - 8.. PHONE 15051_282=2841_______________ CONTACT gen _ y CLIENT MES_________ SAMPLES 20 I V- _ ConPANY Muclear_Enezaw Sezwices______ l* FACILITY 2000_She1Lon_Reck_Soad_______ Renalodez_of saneleis1_for_zoutine_aoalv. sis _will he_dA==== mas. < oI_thema weeks _Ecom_floal_zeeazi_date.__Sameleas1_foa_han&eal.
' Dachumua_CI__04810___________ analwsia_oolwa_will_be diseased of_com_daa ;2tes_ final _meseat.
}h.
Ibis _is cot _an=11 cable _if_othem_azzan====nts_haue_hman ' F MDRK ID EnwiscomeoLal_ ______ _____-_ =mada - 'k TAKEN __________________________ Sant_bw_1eleconw_on_08:10=82._____1.________- t I TRANS Eaderal_Euezess____________ l j ', TvPE sludse_______________________ 7.
P.O. 4 N52332_________- ___________
INWOICE under semarate_ cower _________ t
) *~ SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION CEPe Inc.
TEST CODES and NAMES used or. this report y 61 CR=oi? ue____ Eamost____________ _ ______ -__ - --________ j 82 CR=o11___________________ , u as Ca= a u_________________ __ .. i on Ca=a us___________________ i. as nea=no6____________- __ !. a6 - -noas =________ _____
t az ne==oo1S__________________ i on ace =oo2___________________
- as nes,oas___________-------
k.
RECElvED - is nee =oass__________________ s u nes=oo4___________________ -% vi , 12 - -oolS_______________ p - Aus n m + is ues=oo2s__________________ F u vee =ooss__________________ d J ts ve==oo2___________________ C' MW 6 u ues=oos_____________- - -_ c-4 sfavicts ' , 12 n=co1___________ ,
g- ______ , f s ne=no6s___________________ i p in na=oons__ ________________ . p 2e na=nos____________________ f.. - W i-N i _ _ _ _ _ -. _ - - _ -..,, - -.. -. - _., -. - . - . . --- .. . . .- - - - -
- . __ _ _. _ _ _ _--__ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h" FD e S' GOMCf*OSE.1Of* EnVit'Ontnetntiel PollLAtion Inc.
W aud.
e are u As - 505/982 9641 P O. DOX $351 o S.= >t.a F u. N.w Mom.co 8 7502 ' our os cvAve SOO/545.mi se
PAGE 1 Ros CEPe Inc.
REPORT AECEIVED: o8/o3/87 LAB e 87-08-008 08/11/87 14:56:51 REPO8tT Muclear_Enersw_ Services ______ TC loco _Shelton_EocLEoad_____. - PREPARED Controls _'for_Eowiroomental___ Dantarum_CI__o681o___________ PY ______eollutiona_ loc.________ 1225_kosica_ Street __________ Santa _Esa WH__825o2____ ______ - . _. ATTEN Eransisco Ire.io______________ ATTEN _____________________________ TI IED BY
______ PHONc 15o51_282=28 1______________ CONTACT GAIL_______.
CLIENT WES_________ SAMPLES 2o ConPANY Muclear_Ecersw_ Services ______ FACILITY lono_Shelton_RocLEnad_______ Eematoder of saa.alais1_for routine _aoalwais_will_be_dimma==ad Daoburws_CI__o&8lo___________ of_three week.s_from_ final _ resort _date.__Samelais1_for_t;aciazia analwsis_oolwa_will_be_ diseased _of_oce_ daw _atter_tinal_mmeom WORK ID Eowironmental_______________ Ibis _is_not_aanlicable_if_other_arransasients_bawe_been made.__ TAKEN ____________________________ l TRANS Eederal_Exeress______________ Sant_bw telecoaw_on_o8=1o=82._____1._____________________- j , TYPE Sludse________________ _____ i P.O. 4 W52332______________________ } INVOICE under semarate.cowar__. ____ i SAMPLE IDENTIFICATIoM CEP, Inc.
, TEST CODES and NAMES used on this report l 01 C4=o12____________________ W?____ Eamort____________________ !. 02 Ct=o11____________________ 03 CR=o16-______________ ___ . l Od CR=o16S___________________ Os e==oo6_____________ _ __
04 Bek=oo8S_________________ 02 BER=oolS__________________ -
as nee =oo2_________________ \\ as Dee=oo ---------------- \\ 1a une=oo1S________ _______ h . RECEIVED u De== oo.________________ ~% m
12 ne==oo1S______________ p is vee =oo2S_________________ mc a, to ves=oo3S___________ _______ d , is vea=oo2___________________ c' g u ves=oos__________________ _ e~'<,, samers
12 c=ool______ ______________
.t o==oo6S____________ ____ $ Q . - -
13 oe=oo.s__________________ i 2e naroos_____________________
- .-
W . _ -_- -- __ e.- _ _ ,. -, - -. -, , -- , - _ _ - ~ _ _ -, - - _, - - -, ,
__. .- - rg y GentroIS for Cnvironmental Pollution, Inc.
are cianc SOS /982 90-11 W W.
P.O. DOx S351 o Sant. Fw. Neve Mum.co 87502 j our or svare 500/545 31 se ' PAGE 3 CFP, I r.c. REPORT LAS 9 87-08-008 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Sample . . SAMPLE ID Ck:012____________________ FRACTION 018 TEST CODE WE____ NAME kamort____ - ________ ____ , I Date 1 Time Collect-ed not_sencified_.,__ Catesorw SLUDGE _.
_ l l . i ANALYSIS RESULT j .l Total Uranium 212 us/ gram ' ( 7(.;. 3 ~1 pf.:[3 ). ~ i _ . _.. --- - . i i . All results reec rted in eCi/sram.
.
. .. -- _ --- g,g-ww.sw. w.= cue s: ewer urameens ese Feesusson, enc.
- et.saet bob /982 9011
,, , w w. pn uox axssi o s.v.t Fo. rv.. mo..e.o a7soa m y.,,,,,,, saaf .asse PAGE 4 CEP, Ie.. REPORT LAB 4 87-08-008 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Samele - - i SAMPLE ID CR=011____________________ FRACTION 024 TEST CODE UE____ NAME Remort____________________ Date 1 Time Collected not_saecified____ Cateso:w SLUDGE _____ \\
AdALYSIS RESULT Gamma Spec.
Potassium-40 1.496+/-0.033 E+01 Lead-212 5.039+/-0.336 E-01 Radium-226 9.849+/-0.628 E-01 i Thallium-208 5.298+/-0.564 E-01 Uranium-235 9.795+/-0.209 E+00 Niobium-95 2 225+/-0.042 E+00 Zirconium-97 8.951+/-0.506 E-01 Cadmium-109 4 580+/-0.174 E+01 Tellerien-132 1.145+/-0.205 E-01 - Cesium-137 6.514+/-1.830 E-02 I
i Cerium-141 2.143+/-0.046 E+00
i , ! Bismuth-214 2.238+/-0.325 E+00 , . Lead-214 9.494+/-0.795 E-01 )! /TotalUranium 216 us/sram ,- ( 7 7.76 g C,/ )
All results repo.'ted in PCi/ dram.
. j ___ __-__.
. ___ _.
_ _. . .. __ __.
__ _ __- - - - .- , g .. . e mas muewee we esseesJet.ase Fuseussoeh enc.
ee s s a ta. 505/992 9841 h w. P O. GOx 5351 o seau f =. Neww u==co t:s 7502 ourmenvava soo/:a4s-mise PAGE 5 CEP, Inc.
REPORT LAB e 87-08-008 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Samele . - SAMPLE ID CR=Ol6____________________ FRACTION 33a TEST CODE We____ NAME Eamort_____________ ______ Date & Time Col lected c.ot_saecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ______ . ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Seec.
Potassium-40 2.285+/-0.027 E+01 Euroetua-155 2.238+/-1.099 E-02 i Lead-212 2.372+/-0 211 E-01 l Radium-226 6.582+/-0.345 E-01
Thallium-208 5.466+/-0.456 E-01 i ! Uranium-235 3.668+/-0 115 E+00 t I Niobium-95 8.894+/-0.236 E-01 I
l Zirconium-97 4.140+/-0.307 E-01 ) Cadatum-109 0.077+/-0.051 E+01 l ' i Bismuth-214 1.752+/-0 199 E+00 i i ! Lead-214 4.733+/-0.513 E-01 [ Total Uranium 148 um/sram (s na r o/y) l l.- All results reported in PCi/sram.
. e l l ! ._ __ _ -. _ - - - - _ -.. _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ - . . - - _ - - .-. _ _. . - -
_ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ M E*. p onsroom ror a-nwaronmensas >*ossusson, anc.
e . s
- ^u bus,' sea so<s1
.o asox sasi o sait.. t... nuw Mu..co 07502 our vara moo /ses-as sa PAGE 6 CEP, I r.e. REPORT LAB e 87-08-006 RECEIVED: 08/02*87 Results bw Samele > - - ) SAMPLE ID CR:016S___________________ FRACTION Oda TEST CODE WE____ NAME Reaort____________ _______ Date 1 Time Collected not_sencified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ______
l ANALYSIS RESULT ! Gamma Spec.
, Potassium-40 3.452+/-0.034 E+01 ~ Lead-212 6.083t/-0.230 E-01 ! Radium-226 1.285+/-0.040 E+00 ? Thallium-208 7.671+/-0.489 E-01 Cadmium-109 1.605+/-0.364 E+00 Bismut.h-214 3.888+/-0.347 E+00 .I
Lead-214 2.221+/-0.552 E-01 !TotalUrantum 1.5 us/sram ioSHPC/A)
! l.
,
All results reported in PCi/ dram.
. _. _ _ _.--, - _ _ _. __,,---. .... - _ -, _,. _ _ - - , _ _. _ -.
_.
._ ....... -... ..... :. .. w.. .w a s, c e e v.
== =.a.a suoe totw tots 41 M ". P.O GOx das 1 o 6 e et a Fu. Now Me..co 07502 w oure, ,.g.
goo /g43.e1 em PAGE S CEP. I r.c. REPORT LAis e 87 08-006 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Sample - , . SAMPLE ID B22:006 __________________ FRACTION 05W TEST CODE ve____..AME a.e,t___________________ Date & Time Collected not_saecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE _ ___
ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Secc. (cor.t. ) Lead-214 6.051+/-0.709 E-01 ! otal Urar.ium T 306 us/sram f ff ( IlO.IL D i l - . l .' i All results reported ir.
PCi/sram.
.
eg , wens.cosa for unwsronmental Pollut6cn, Inc.
w 6 Ast 505/982 98<81
- *
W w, P O 130X 5351 o S sica Fw. Nuw Mwn.co u?502 . ouvoceware soo/ses.eS ee PAGE 9 CEP. Inc.
REPORT LAB e 87-08-008 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 %sults bw Samele . . SAMPLE ID Bea=008S__________________ rRaCriou 060 iESr CODE ue____ NAnE ae.o,1._________________ __ Date 1 Time Collected not_saecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ____.._ ' . ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Secc.
~ Potassium-40 8.5451/-0.079 E+01 Lead-212 1.430+/-0.055 E+00 Radium-226 2.561+/-0.090 E+00 Actintua-228 1.952+/-0.549 Ef00 Thallium-208 1.625+/-0.108 Ef00 Uranium-235 1.3686/-0.220 Ef00 Miobius-95 4.195+/-0.401 E-01 Cadmium-109 3.277+/-0.920 E+00 Cerium-141 3.063+/-0.493 E-01 Bise.uth-214 7.448+/-0.627 E+00 . Lead-214 1.775+/-0.142 Ef00 / Total Uranium 8.8 us/m a= (3,87.OC/g) . . . All results reeorted in PCi/sram.
i
. _. _ _ _ _ . -.. _ <
Q Controls for Environmental PolluGion, Inc.
- uan. SOS / sea se-is w w.9ouox535 e hans e Fw. New Mwa.caa t.s /sO2
, our op erava 300/s45.e1 se PAJE 10 CEP, Inc.
REPORT LA9 4 87-08-008 RECEIVED 08/03/87 Results bw Samele . - SAMPLE I D IsE k:001S_________ ________ FRACTION 02a TEST CODE We____ NAME Eamort______________.___ _ Date 1 Time Collected not_sencified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ______ z ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Spec.
Potassium-40 1.606+/-0.032 E+01 Lead-212 6.871+/-0.232 E-01 Radium-226 9. 62+/-0.391 E-01 , Actiniua-228 7.832+/-0.634 E-01 Thallium-200 7.136+/-0.478 E-01 Uranium-235 3.561+/-0.805 E-01 Niobium-95 5.440+/-1.444 E-02 Zirconium-97 1.178+/-0.430 E-01 Cadmium-109 1.721+/-0.448 E+00 Cerium-141 7.960+/-1.800 E-02 Hereurw-203 3.2371/-0.975 E-02 Bismuth-214 2.4794 /-0.248 E+00 Lead-214 7.63Or /-0.546 E-01 . / Total Uranium 27 us/sram ,~ (9 72 PC/f) All results re>9t*ed in eC1/arem.
. - - - - _.w , -. _ _ - - - -., . M
.. -... - - - -. _ .-. . . _. . -------.. 7@ Controls for Environmental Pollut4urg Inc.
a s..... bode usa uu.t i W W. tJ.O DOX b351 O S.m et.e Fu. N.,* Muaco O 7hO2 ouv er,e evava moo /ses m a se PAGE 11 CEP, Ir.c. REPORT LAB e 87-08-008 RECE1VED: 08/03/87 Results bw Sae. ele - SAMPLE ID BER=002___________________ FRACTION 08a TEST COnr ye____ NAME Resort----- .==_____________ Date & Taev Collecterf not_smecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE __ ___ a ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Spec.
Fotassium-40 4.444+/-0.054 E+01 Euroeium-155 1 483+/-0.346 E-01 Lead-212 3.797+/-0.504 E-01 Radium-226 1.051+/-0.069 E+00 Thallium-20E 9.639+/-1.087 E-01 U rarsium-235 1.366+/-0.029 E+01 Niobium-95 . 3.148+/- 0.056 E+00 Zi rcor.ium-97 3.095+/-0.207 E+00 Cadmium-109 6.924+/-0.204 E+01 Dismuth-214 3.533+/-0.484 E+00 Lead-214 8.105+/-1.223 E-01 / Total Urarsium 325 us/sram - ( 157 P/f) C . J
All results reeorted are PCi/sram.
. f
_ _ _. - - rg-7 Controla for Environer: ental Pollution. Inc.
o e i.s a e s ">O5/inM.>.utosi _ w w. p o oux ti.:.sd i o s.
.t.. e... r%. uu..c., u /dcx.* . ., ,.,.y.
.aof ..asse PAGE 12 CEP. I r.c. REPORT LAB 4 87-08-008 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Samete . . SAMPLE ID LER=003___________________ FRACTION 024 TEST CODE LI2____ NAME Eamort____________________ Date & Time Collected not_smecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ______ . ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Sewc.
Potassium-40 7.884f/-0.077 Ef01 Lead-212 1.410+/-0.063 E+00 Radium.26 2.526+/-0.089 Ef00 Actirsium-228 1.148+/-0.510 Ef00 Thallium-208 1.571+/-0.112 E+00 Cadmium-109 7.108t/-0.966 E+00 Basmuth-214 9 160+/-0.818 E+00 Lead-214 2.046+/-0.153 E+00 / Total Uranium 2.6 us/sra lo.'i4 P C/ . . . All results repor*.ed t re eCa/sram.
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ., ,- -.e . . o w. e s cw ee us esseesxe.e e-weeue.eurs, cnc.
e. c rat e. 505/982-9811 , W W. P C1 DOX XAb1 O Eas st.a Fu. Nuw Mw=.co O 7502 our ce svare S O O / Sans-ai s e PAGE 13 CEP. Inc.
REPORT LAB e 87-08-006 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 eesults bw Sample - , , SAMPLE ID DGE=003S__________---- ___ FRACTION 104 TEST CODE WE____ NAetE.Remoet_____-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date & Ttme Collected not_seecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ______ t ANALYSIS RESULT . Gamma Seec.
Potassium-ro 4.686+/-0.050 Ef01 Leed-212 7.786t/-0.443 E-01 , I ' Radium-226 1.476+/-0.053 E+00 , s.ctinium-228 1.491t/-0 101 Ef00
1 . l Tha111um-200 1.015+/-0.064 E+00 Urarium-235 9.914+/-1.566 E-01 Niobium-95 3.196+/-0.327 E-01 Cadmium-109 8.342+/-0.629 E+00 Cerium-let 2.216+/-0.350 E-01 Bismuth-214 4.459+/-0.380 E+00~ . Lead-214 9.868+/-0.871 E-01 / Total Uranium 26 us/sram Uf.3C p C/g ) . All results reeorted in eC1/sram.
. % //
_ _ . _ _ _ -_ -... - e g -,' wnsrosa. For knwaronmental Pollution, Inc.
v. a.s a s e: 50s/uu29H41 , w w. seo uox dasi o s ca.sv. rvu. Mo..va o /602 .,.,, ,.y.
moo /ses-as se PAGE 14 CEP, I r.c. REPORT LAB 6 87-08-006 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Sasele
' SAMPLE ID Deu=00 __________________ rRAcrion 11.
TESr CooE ue____ u AnE e.. o m t_ ______ __________ Date & Tame Collected not_saecified____ Catesora SLUDGE __- -
ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Seec.
Potassium-40 3.330+/-0.034 E+01 Lead-212 3.427+/-0.235 E-01 Radium-226 7.626+/-0.363'E-01 Actinium-228 9.6284/-0.729 E-01 Tha11iun-208 6.711i/-0.551 E-01 U rarsium-235 3.868t/-0.876 E-01 Cadmium-109 2.812+/-0.414 E+00 Cerium-141 8.741+/-1.979 E-02 Bismuth-214 2.084+/-0.233 E+00 l Lead-214 4.311+/-0.532 E-01 !TotalUrar.ium i 12 us/srom M.52 e C/g ) * . . All results reported irs eC1/sram.
. . . - _ _,,.. _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -.. - - _ - - _ _ - - _. _ _ ~., - - - _ _ _.-. - - -. _ _ -. - - - . - - -
__ _ P Controis for Environmental pollution, Inc.
weasa 505/982 9641 " $. P O. LDK 3*J51 O Use esa Fu. Now Mua.co U7bO2 ous or esase 8o0/646-81 no
PAGE 15 CEP. Inc.
REPORT LAB e 87-08-006 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Samele -
SAMPLE ID DER =001S_________________ FRACTION 12e TEST CODE ue____ uA E seco,t____________________ Date 1 Time Collected not_saecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ___ __ J ANALYSIS - RESULT Gamma Seec.
Potassium-40 7.606+/-0.067 E+01 Lead-212 1.218+/-0.054 E+00 Radium-224 2.349+/-0,.069 E+00 I Thallium-208 1.759+/-0.099 E+00 Uranium-235 1.674+/-0.217 E+00 Niobium-95 4.552+/-0.380 E-01
Cadmium-109 9.068+/-0.911 E+00 Cerium-141 3.830+/-0.496 E-01 bismuth-214 7.453+/-0.590 E+00 Lead-214 2.036+/-0.125 E+00 / Total Urareium 11 us/sram (s.n g c/p ) . . . All results reported in PCi/aram.
- .
_ _ _.. _. - - -._- - - . . . _ @ I811t.MJX*.x3S1oS..t: Controls for Cnvironmental Pollution, Inc.
- . w.u s tos/9en w ei W g.
F.s. tv... M..- ss 0 7502 . w,,.y.,. mf ung gg PAGE 16 CEP. Inc.
REPORT LAB e 87-08-008 RECEIVED * 08/03/87 r<esults bw Sample - - SAMPLE ID utR=002S__________________ FRACTION 13A TEST CODE WE____ NAetC Eamort_________________ _ _ Date 1 Tame Collected not_saecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE _ ____ .
ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Spec.
Potassium-40 3.344+/-0.057 E+01 Lead-212 7.156+/-0.343 E-01 Radium-226 1.378+/-0.089 E+00 Thallium-208 8.143+/-0.702 E-01 Nicbium-95 1.043+/-0.276 E-01 Ced=1um-109 2.8:(5+/-0.396 E+00 31seuth-214 4.006+/-0.605 E+00 Lead-214 1.168+/-0.087 Ef00 i / Total Uranium 0.5 us/srem
(0.IB p C/7 ) I . '
- *
\\ . ' All results recorted in PC1/d ram.
, -, _. - - _.,- -.- __ _ - n-c,- w, .-...,.a - - - - - - - , -, a , , .-, - -. - ,,
, -.e . w.
owe aw.nwee ursessmene.ee e-weeusson. anc.
e.
sas: 505/982 9011 h,.w. 62 0. uox *1sS t o Soc.te Fw. Nww Mum.cu C7502 ouv er evars SOO/545-es se , PAGE 17 CEP. I r.c. REPGRT LAS e 87-08-008 REEEIVEDI 08/03/87 Results bw Samele , . SAMPLE ID Ut2:003S__________________ FRACTION Ida TEST CODE WE____ NAME Remoet._______________ _ Date E Tnme Collected not saecified____ .Catesorw SLUDGE ______ Z ANALYSIS RESULT Gemme Seec.
Potassium-40 6.600+/-0.068 E+01 Lead-212 1 1001/-0.046 E+00 Radium-226 2.139+/-0.079 E+00 Thallium-208 1.477t/-0.089 E+00 Cadmium-109 1.905+/-0.579 E100 Bismuth-214 7.166+/-0.555 Ef00 Lead-214 1.445+/-0.126 E+00 / Total Ursreium 4.1 us/sram . (2.2e /p) c . f . - All results reeo'ted in eCi/sram.
" .
_ . -- - _ _.
.- __ Q Controls for Cnvironmental pollution, Inc.
-. uca n sos /oua suoi w w. eu uox d_ sui o u... eu. N..w .u. u /bua w, ,c,.,. maaf m 3as PAGE 18 CEP, I r.c. REPORT LAS 4 87-08-006 RECEIVED. 08/03/87 Results bw Samele
SAMPLE ID WER:003 __________________ FRACTION 15e TEST CODE WE____ NAME kaaort___________________ Date & Time Collected rat _saecified Catesorw rd inhGF ___ a ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Spec.
Potassium-40 1.131+/-0.020 E+01 Lead-212 4.086+/-0.142 E-01 Radium-226 7.316f/-0.245 E-01 A-tirsium-228 5.284+/-1.175 E-01 Thallium-208 4.075+/-0.257 E-01 Uranium-225 1.841+/-0.506 E-01 Miobium-95 7.688t/-0.182 E-02 Cadmium-109 9.700+/-2.81'6 E-01 Cesium-137 3.609+/-0.900 E-02 Cerium-141 4.200f/-1.153 E-02 Sismuth-214 1.875+/-0.197 Ef00 Leed-214 6.229t/-0 352 E-01 , / Total Uranium 1 1 us/sram i0*lOPC/$.) . , All results reported ir.
eC1/sram.
. % _... _, _ _. - - -. - ,- _ -. -... -.. -.. _ _ _.
.- _ _.
l .._. -............ -. - -.. .....cc.
a.:ans sua/went-9841 ..._.
- '
W, __ a,nd. PD EsOX S351 O Soarew Fw. Nw.w Me=.co C7bO2 , our se ovare eco/ses.as se i l l PAGE 19 CEP. I r.c. REPORT LAS 4 87-06-006 l RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Results bw Samele . . SAMPLE ID UeR=005.__________________ FRACTION 16A TEST CODE We____ uAnE a...et____________________ Date 1 Time Collected c.ot_seecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE ______ i a ANALYSIS RESULT ~ Gamma Seec.
Potassium-40 2.003+/-0.036 E+01 Lead-212 7.244+/-0.237 E-01 Radium-226 1.194+/-0.046 E+00 Actirit ua-228 4.698+/-2.034 E-01 Thallium-208 7.192+/-0.453 E-01 Cadmium-109 1.906+/-0.341 Ef00 . Bismuth-214 2.810+/-0.298 Ef00 Lead-214 9.956+/-0.638 E-01 . / Total Urarsium 11 us/ gram 9 /]) (o % C . ~ ~ All results reported a re PC1/sram.
. - - - - - - - - ~, -, - - - - +, - - ,c -- - - - - - -,wn-, -,,,. - - - -, - -. , -- - - - .n--
,--.7
- - -,,. - -,., .
_ - - _. . - - - .,g-w.. w.= owe e.o;w ee we sessess;n,me e=weeus.aors Snc.
- ** :^ H DU3/M 98ib11
w w.
5* O tJox d' di o G .t., F=. ru uv.co 07502 , l a ewe op erare esass/ses.es se \\ . PAGE 20 CEP. I r.c. REPORT LAS 9 87-08-006 RECEIVED 1 08/03/C7 Results bw Saeele
, SAMPt.E ID 0:001_ __________________ FRACTION 12A TE ST CODE W2_ __ NAME Reaort_______________ ____ Date 1 Time Collected c.at_seecified____ Catesorw SLUDGE _ ____ .
l l ANALYSIS RESULT I Gamma Spec.
Potassium-40 4 154t/-0.040 E+01 Lead-212 7.500+/-0 290 E-01 Radium-226 1.529+/-0.044 E+00 Actirsium-228 6.529+/-2.319'E-01 l ' Thallium-208 1.100+/-0.055 E+00 Bismuth-214 3.910+/-0.406 E+00 Lead-214 1.197+/-0.058 E+00 / Total Urar ium 7.9 us/sram (2.84pCfg) . ' , .
. All results reported ir.
eCi/sram.
- .- . . . ......_,,_-. ___ _-.. _ - - - - _ . - _ - .- - -- .-.- - _ - -__ -. - - - - . - -- - -
- , . -,* t onsroom for tanweronmental PO48ut6066, Inc.
e craie SOS / 9eis=7-9641
h W. PU (JOX b'JS 1 O S.a.it., Fu. Nww M.,.c.u O */SO2 muropevave 400 /545-31 se
- AGE 21 CEP. I r.c.
REPORT LAB e 87-08-008 RECEIVE 3: 08/03/87 Results bv,Samele . . 3 AMPLE ID OR 006S_________ FRACTION 18e TEST COIC We____ NAME Resort ______________ _____ ______ Date 1 Time Collected not_saecified____ Catesorw einnr.r______ . ANALYSIS RESULT . Gamma Seec.
Potassiue-40 5.036f/-0.047 E+01 Leed-212 9 208+/-0.341 E-01 . Radium-226 2.044t/-0.053 E+00 Actinium-228 1.C38+/-0.275 E+00 Thallium-208 1.129+/-0.064 E+00 Cadmium-109 3.340+/-0.526 Ef00 Sismuth-214 .s.595+/-0.441 E+00 Lead-214 1.556t/-0.076 E+00 / Total Urantm 1.0 us/sram (o.3c gc/g) . . ~ - All r6sults reported in eCi/sram.
. - - .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ rg -A, Controls for Environmencal Pollution, Inc.
- sian 505/982-98-11 W w PC tJOX 5351 o S....4. Fw. New Mome.u 4:1/5CXf our er svava 300/S45 31 Se PAGE 22 CEPe I r.c.
REPORT LAB 4 87-08-008 isECEIVEDI 08/03/87 Results bw Sample v . SAMPLE ID OS:00aS___________________ FRACTION 19A TEST CODE WE____ NAME Resort _____________ _ ___ , Date 1 Time Collected c.ot_seecified ___ Catesorv SLuisGEN -___ . ANALYSIS RESULT
Gamma Seec.
Potassium-40 6.152+/-0.063 E+01 Lead-212 1.038+/-0.043 E'.00 Radium-224 2.323+/-0.070 E300 Actinium-228 1.988+/-0.123 Et00 Thallium-208 1.375+/-0.098 E+M Niobium-95 9.160+/-2.497 E-02
Dismuth-214 6.245+/-0.546 E+00 Lead-214 1.717+/-0.108 E+00 / Total Uranium 1.6 um/sram l (0. 58 p (;/3 ) Ol . l .
' . - s All results reeorted tre eCt/ gram.
.'
v
. - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _. - ._ rg, N5f*OGS fer asnwerenenentaa 9dO88uG4On Inc.
enttasa 505/942 9841 e W W. P.O EBOX S:sS 1 e t> it.s Fe Nwww M a.co U'/SO2 our me evava 300/ses.a1 em PAGE 23 CEP, I r.c. REPORT LAs 3 87-08-000 RECEIVED: 08/03/87 Resul'.s bw Samele a - ' SAMPLE ID OR:003___________________ FRACTION 20e TEST CODE WE____ NAME Emaart_____ _ ___- - , Date 1 Time Collected not_saecified ___ Cateeorw SLUSSE A ___ ! ANALYSIS RESULT Gamma Spec.
Potassium-40 6.421+/-0.066 E+01 Lead-212 9 167+/-0.545 E-01 Radium-226 1.818+/-0.078 Ef00 Actireium-228 1.014f/-0.122 Ef00 Thallium-208 1.393f/-0.497 Ef00 Cadmium-109 5.192+/-0.905 E+00 Cesium-137 5.392+/-2.717 E-02 Bismuth-214 5.810+/-0 537 E+00 Leed-214 1.278f/-0.108 Ei00 l / Total Uranium 3.9 us/sraai i s.40 9 0/3) - . . - < ' All results reported an PCi/sram.
. - . .
d --- -- - - - - -,.. - ---..,-,,.n- -,.- -,,,,- --- - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - . -. - .- - - - - -., - - - - - - - -, - - - -,. -. ,, - - - -. }}