ML19343A825

Letter from Erika Bailey, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, to John Hickman, NRC, Forwarding Independent Confirmatory Survey Summary and Results for the 3,854-Acre Area Partial Site Release at the Crystal River Energy Complex

ML19343A825
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/06/2019
From:	Bailey E Oak Ridge Institute for Science & Education
To:	John Hickman Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs
Hickman J
References
DCN 5336-SR-01-0, DE-SC0014664, RFTA 19-004
Download: ML19343A825 (121)

Text

December 6, 2019 Mr. John Hickman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Materials Decommissioning Branch TWFN Mail Stop: T-8F5 Rockville, MD 20852

SUBJECT:

DOE Contract No. DE-SC0014664 INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY SURVEY

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS FOR THE 3,854-ACRE AREA PARTIAL SITE RELEASE AT THE CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX, CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA DOCKET NO. 50-302; RFTA NO.19-004; DCN 5336-SR-01-0

Dear Mr. Hickman:

The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) is pleased to provide the enclosed final report, which describes the procedures and results of the confirmatory survey of the 3,854-acre area that is the subject of the partial site request at the Crystal River Energy Complex in Crystal River, Florida. The U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs comments have been addressed in this final version.

You may contact me at 865.576.6659 or Kaitlin Engel at 865.574.7008 if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely, Erika N. Bailey Survey and Technical Projects Group Manager ORISE KME:jc electronic distribution: K. Conway, NRC T. Vitkus, ORISE A. Huffert, NRC D. Hagemeyer, ORISE K. Warner, NRC N. Altic, ORISE File/5336 100 ORAU Way

• Oak Ridge

• TN 37830

• orise.orau.gov

INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY SURVEY

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS FOR THE 3,854-ACRE AREA PARTIAL SITE RELEASE AT THE CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA K. M. Engel ORISE FINAL REPORT Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DECEMBER 2019 Further dissemination authorized to the NRC only; other requests shall be approved by the originating facility or higher NRC programmatic authority.

ORAU provides innovative scientific and technical solutions to advance research and education, protect public health and the environment and strengthen national security. Through specialized teams of experts, unique laboratory capabilities and access to a consortium of more than 100 major Ph.D.-granting institutions, ORAU works with federal, state, local and commercial customers to advance national priorities and serve the public interest. A 501(c) (3) nonprofit corporation and federal contractor, ORAU manages the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Learn more about ORAU at www.orau.org.

NOTICES The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the sponsoring institutions of Oak Ridge Associated Universities.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government.

Neither the United States Government nor the U.S. Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe on privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation, or favor by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.

INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY SURVEY

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS FOR THE 3,854-ACRE AREA PARTIAL SITE RELEASE AT THE CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA FINAL REPORT Prepared by K. M. Engel ORISE DECEMBER 2019 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission This document was prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through interagency agreement number 31310018N0014 with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). ORISE is managed by Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) under DOE contract number DE-SC0014664.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 5336-SR-01-0

INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY SURVEY

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS FOR THE 3,854-ACRE AREA PARTIAL SITE RELEASE AT THE CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX, CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA Prepared by: Date: 12/6/2019 K. M. Engel, Health Physicist ORISE Reviewed by: Date: 12/6/2019 P. H. Benton, Quality Manager ORISE Reviewed by: Date: 12/6/2019 N. A. Altic, CHP, Health Physicist ORISE Reviewed by: Date: 12/6/2019 W. F. Smith, Senior Chemist ORISE Reviewed and approved for release by: Date: 12/6/2019 E. N. Bailey, Survey and Technical Projects Group Manager ORISE FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2019 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report i 5336-SR-01-0

CONTENTS FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................... iii TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................. iii ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.............................................................................................................................. v

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

3. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 6 3.1 State the Problem .............................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Identify the Decision ........................................................................................................................ 7 3.3 Identify Inputs to the Decision ....................................................................................................... 8 3.3.1 Radionuclides of Interest ......................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Define the Study Boundaries ........................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Develop a Decision Rule................................................................................................................10 3.6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors ...............................................................................................11 3.7 Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data....................................................................................13

4. PROCEDURES ..........................................................................................................................................13 4.1 Reference System ............................................................................................................................14 4.2 Surface Scans....................................................................................................................................14 4.3 Gamma Radiation Measurements and Soil Sampling ................................................................14 4.4 Surface Activity Measurements .....................................................................................................15

5. SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND DATA INTERPRETATION ...............................................................16

6. FINDINGS AND RESULTS ...................................................................................................................16 6.1 Surface Scans....................................................................................................................................17 6.2 Gamma Radiation Levels and Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil .......................................18 6.3 Total and Removable Surface Activity Levels ............................................................................25

7.

SUMMARY

..................................................................................................................................................26

8. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................28 APPENDIX A: FIGURES APPENDIX B: DATA TABLES APPENDIX C: MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION APPENDIX D: SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report ii 5336-SR-01-0

FIGURES Figure 2.1. Aerial View of the CREC.............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2.2. Tidal Flats SUs ................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2.3. Non-Industrialized SUs................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2.4. Reference Areas .............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 6.1. Q-Q Plot of Scan Data ................................................................................................................18 Figure 6.2. Gross Beta Airborne Concentration from RadNet Station in Tampa, FL ..........................20 Figure 6.3. Comparison of Cs-137 Concentrations for RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) and CU1 ......21 Figure 6.4. Retrospective Power Analysis ....................................................................................................22 Figure 6.5. Comparison of Cs-137 Concentrations for All Areas ............................................................23 Figure 6.6. Comparison of NORM Concentrations ...................................................................................25 TABLES Table 2.1. Non-Impacted SUs ......................................................................................................................... 3 Table 3.1. Crystal River Confirmatory Survey Decision Process................................................................ 8 Table 6.1. Summary of Scanning Results for Land Areas..........................................................................17 Table 6.2. Summary of Scanning Results for Mariculture Center.............................................................17 Table 6.3. Summary of Soil Sampling Direct Measurements ....................................................................18 Table 6.4. Summary of Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil Samples ....................................................19 Table 6.5. Summary of Mariculture Center Survey Results .......................................................................25 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report iii 5336-SR-01-0

ACRONYMS AA alternative action BTV background threshold value cm centimeter cpm counts per minute CR3 Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant CREC Crystal River Energy Complex CU confirmatory unit DEF Duke Energy Florida dpm disintegrations per minute DQO data quality objective DS decision statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GPS global positioning system HTD hard-to-detect m2 square meter MDC minimum detectable concentration MDD minimal detectable difference NaI sodium iodide NI non-industrialized NORM naturally occurring radioactive material NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education pCi/g picocurie per gram PSQs principal study questions PSR partial site release Q-Q quantile-quantile RA reference area REMP radiological environmental monitoring program ROI radionuclide of interest SU survey unit TAP total absorption peak TF tidal flat UBGR upper bound of the gray region UPL95 95% upper prediction limit VSP Visual Sample Plan WMW Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report iv 5336-SR-01-0

INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY SURVEY

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS FOR THE 3,854-ACRE AREA PARTIAL SITE RELEASE AT THE CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

In 2019, Duke Energy Florida (DEF) submitted a partial site release request (PSR) to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for approval to release for unrestricted use approximately 3,854 acres (1,600 hectare) of the Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) from the Crystal River Nuclear Plant license. The NRC staff requested that the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) perform an independent confirmatory survey of the PSR area located in Crystal River, Florida.

ORISE performed independent assessment activities during the period of April 8-12, 2019.

Confirmatory survey activities included gamma walkover scanning, gamma direct measurements, beta direct measurements, smear sampling, and soil sampling in the site-established reference areas, confirmatory unit (CU), and the Mariculture Center, as applicable. The site was segregated into two primary confirmatory units: CU1 was representative of inland conditions (forested areas and pastures) and CU2 was representative of coastal conditions.

Gamma scan results varied depending on the land area. In general, gamma levels were lower in forested areas where thick amounts of decayed plant matter were present than on packed dirt roadways and pastures. During field activities, no areas were identified distinguishable from the local ambient backgrounds.

Forty-five random soil samples were collected from the background reference areas (RAs) and CU1:

10 samples from RA-03, 10 samples from RA-04, and 25 from CU1. ORISE collected confirmatory samples from RA-03 and RA-04 for independent evaluation of the CU samples. In addition, 16 soil samples were collected from the sites locations within RA-02 at the request of the NRC staff. Three areas within CU1 were judgmentally investigated for hard-to-detect (HTD) radionuclides, H-3 and Ni-63, based on the results of the sites survey. Twelve samples were collected from these HTD areas.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report v 5336-SR-01-0

Cs-137 results from CU1 were compared to the results from RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) via the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test. The test result failed to reject the null hypothesis; that is, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the CU1 median Cs-137 concentration is greater than the RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) median concentration. A retrospective analysis of the test performance was performed to evaluate the achieved sensitivity of the test, and the minimum detectable difference (MDD) was approximately 0.28 picocurie per gram (pCi/g) for Cs-137. This means a median CU1 Cs-137 concentration greater than 0.28 pCi/g would be needed before concluding that the CU1 Cs-137 concentration is greater than the RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) Cs-137 concentration. Since non-parametric tests, such as the WMW test, are not sensitive to the magnitude of individual results, the individual Cs-137 concentrations were compared to a background threshold value (BTV) in order to evaluate the presence of data points that statistically exceeded the upper bound of the background distribution. Two random samples from CU1 with concentrations of 0.82 pCi/g and 0.682 pCi/g exceeded the BTV of 0.332 pCi/g that was calculated using random confirmatory survey background data. A comparison of the Cs-137 concentrations between the RA and CU1 indicates that the RA samples potentially underestimate the Cs-137 variability. Since the BTV for Cs-137 is calculated based on the RA sample set, an underestimate of the Cs-137 variability would bias the BTV low. Underestimation of the variability may be attributed to a number of factors, including differing fractions of organic content between the RA and CU1 samples. Further study would be required to definitively determine the local area background variability both spatially and physio-chemically for differing soil types and organic content.

The confirmatory soil samples collected from RA-02 were collected to support the NRC staffs evaluation of the costal land areas associated with the PSR. The NRC staff selected RA-02 for confirmatory sampling as a surrogate for the land areas associated with CU2, as ORISE could not physically access a significant portion CU2 because of high water and the temporal boundaries of the study. Confirmatory sample locations in RA-02 were as close to the sites sampling locations as possible. The results of the confirmatory samples agree with the sites PSR data in that both sample sets are at or near the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for Cs-137. The confirmatory Cs-137 concentrations are lower, in general, than the other survey areas and within the range of typical national background.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report vi 5336-SR-01-0

Eight of the soil samples were analyzed for the HTDs, H-3 and Ni-63: one sample from RA-03, two samples from CU1, four samples from the HTD areas, and one sample from RA-02. These samples had the highest Cs-137 concentrations from those areas; however, these results are within the range of national background. All concentrations for the HTDs were less than the respective analytical MDCs.

Total and removable activity results from the limited survey of the Mariculture Center did not indicate the presence of contamination. All results were less than their respective MDCs, except for one static measurement collected from the concrete floor outside of the entry. Material-specific backgrounds were not collected; a nominal measurement system background was used for correcting gross surface activity measurement results. The greater-than-MDC activity is likely the result of higher naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) concentrations within the concrete.

The limited survey of the Mariculture Center did not identify any radiological anomalies distinguishable from background.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report vii 5336-SR-01-0

INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY SURVEY

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS FOR THE 3,854-ACRE AREA PARTIAL SITE RELEASE AT THE CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA

1. INTRODUCTION The Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC), owned by Duke Energy Florida (DEF), is located in Crystal River, Florida. The Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant (CR3) was a 2,609-megawatt, single-unit pressurized light-water reactor that was licensed to operate from December 1976 to February 2013. The facility is currently in a SAFSTOR (SAFeSTORage) condition. In 2019, DEF submitted a partial site release (PSR) request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for approval to release for unrestricted use 3,854 acres (1,600 hectares) of the site from the Crystal River Nuclear Plant license (DEF 2019).

The NRC staff requested that the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) perform confirmatory survey activities within the PSR area. ORISE performed the confirmatory survey on April 8-12, 2019.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION The CREC is located on the Gulf of Mexico coast in Citrus County, Florida, approximately 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) northwest of the city of Crystal River and 70 miles (110 kilometers) north of Tampa.

DEF will keep under license an 884 acre (360 hectare) area that includes the CR3 nuclear facility as well as other industrialized portions of the CREC, which includes four fossil-fuel power plants, two natural draft cooling towers, coal delivery and storage areas, ash storage areas, office buildings, warehouses, barge handling docks, and a railroad (RSCS 2016). Figure 2.1 provides an aerial view of the CREC.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 1 5336-SR-01-0

Figure 2.1. Aerial View of the CREC (Adapted from RSCS 2016)

The 3,854-acre PSR area consists of 2,190 acres (890 hectares) of uninhabitable tidal flats and 1,664 acres (670 hectares) of non-industrialized forests, creeks, and wetlands as well as the site access road. The area has been subdivided into 21 survey units (SUs) classified as non-impacted. SUs are identified as either tidal flats (TFs) or non-industrialized (NI) SUs (Energy Solutions 2019).

Table 2.1 provides a list of all SUs. Figures 2.2 and 2.3 provide aerial overviews of the TFs and NI SUs, respectively.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 2 5336-SR-01-0

Table 2.1. Non-Impacted SUs a SU ID SU Description Acres TF-01 Little Rocky Creek 483 TF-02 Inner Rocky Cove 146 Tidal Flats TF-03 Double Barrel Creek 639 TF-04 Salt Creek 636 TF-05 Cedar Creek 286 NI-01 Access Road East 99 NI-02 Access Road Mid-East 99 NI-03 Access Road Mid-West 100 Access Road West 122 NI-04 Mariculture Center NA NI-05 West of Units 4 and 5 114 NI-06 West Discharge Canal 41 NI-07 West Intake Canal 121 Non-Industrialized NI-08 Mid-West Intake Canal 121 NI-09 South of Rail Loop 116 NI-10 Southeast of Rail Loop 108 NI-11 West Wetlands 102 NI-12 Mid-West Wetlands 107 NI-13 West Central Wetlands 108 NI-14 East Central Wetlands 108 NI-15 Mid-East Wetlands 100 NI-16 East Wetlands 98 a Energy Solutions 2019 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 3 5336-SR-01-0

Figure 2.2. Tidal Flats SUs (Energy Solutions 2019)

Figure 2.3. Non-Industrialized SUs (Energy Solutions 2019)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 4 5336-SR-01-0

Although roadways are present in the TF SUs and abandoned piping was identified along the roadways, the vast majority of the TF SUs are inaccessible or difficult to access. The NI SUs included the site access road, fenced-in pastures for livestock, power lines, forests, ponds, creeks, and hunting grounds (Energy Solutions 2019).

The site identified reference areas (RAs) from which representative reference measurements were performed for comparison with measurements from a specific SU. The distribution and concentration of an RA should be the same as what would be expected on site if that site had never been contaminated. Four RAs were established in order to capture the radionuclide variability present within the land area associated with the request for PSR. Figure 2.4 provides an overview of the RAs with the sites judgmental sample locations.

Figure 2.4. Reference Areas (Energy Solutions 2019)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 5 5336-SR-01-0

RA-01: Open land area approximately 4.6 miles (7.4 km) north of the site and west of Yankee Town, Florida. RA-01 features beachy areas, creeks, and TFs. The area is adjacent to the Withlacoochee River and Grassy Creek.

RA-02: Open land area approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 km) south of the site. RA-02 features beachy areas, creeks, and TFs. The area is adjacent to Crystal River and Salt River.

RA-03: Open land area approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 km) east of the CR3 Containment Building and is bounded by the site to the west, Florida State property to the east, West Power Line Street to the north, and a TFs area to the south. RA-03 is the location of the Dixie Hollins hunting grounds. The area features wetlands, woodlands, and unpaved access roads.

RA-04: Open land area approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 km) northeast of the CR3 Containment Building. The area borders the in-construction Citrus County Combined Cycle Plant to the west.

West Power Line Street runs along the southern border of the area. The area features wetlands, woodlands, and unpaved access roads. RA-04 is located in an area where fertilizer could have been used (Energy Solutions 2019).

3. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES The data quality objectives (DQOs) described herein are consistent with the Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA 2006) and provide a formalized method for planning radiation surveys, improving survey efficiency and effectiveness, and ensuring that the type, quality, and quantity of data collected are adequate for the intended decision applications. The seven steps in the DQO process are as follows:

1. State the problem

2. Identify the decision/objective

3. Identify inputs to the decision/objective

4. Define the study boundaries

5. Develop a decision rule

6. Specify limits on decision errors

7. Optimize the design for obtaining data CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 6 5336-SR-01-0

3.1 STATE THE PROBLEM The first step in the DQO process defines the problem that necessitates the study. The CREC requested approval from the NRC to remove 3,854 acres of non-impacted land from its license. The NRC staff requested that ORISE perform confirmatory surveys to assist in evaluation of the sites PSR request. These data are for the NRC staffs assessment of the site radionuclides of interest (ROIs) and the required analytical suite for the samples collected from the survey area. Therefore, the problem statement was formulated as follows:

Confirmatory surveys must be performed to generate independent radiological data to assist the NRC staff with their assessment that the PSR land area in the sites request is non-impacted.

3.2 IDENTIFY THE DECISION The second step in the DQO process identifies the principal study questions (PSQs) and alternative actions (AAs), develops decision statements (DSs), and organizes multiple decisions, as appropriate.

This was done by specifying AAs that could result from a Yes response to the PSQs and combining the PSQs and AAs into DSs. Table 3.1 presents the PSQs, AAs, and DSs.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 7 5336-SR-01-0

Table 3.1. Crystal River Confirmatory Survey Decision Process Principal Study Questions Alternative Actions Yes:

Compile confirmatory data and report results to the NRC staff for their decision making. Provide independent interpretation that confirmatory field surveys did not identify anomalous areas of residual radioactivity and quantitative laboratory data are consistent with background values, and/or that statistical sample population PSQ1: Are radionuclide concentrations in the non- examination/assessment conditions were met.

impacted land area consistent with those found in the RAs? No:

Compile confirmatory data and report results to the NRC staff for their decision making. Provide independent interpretation of confirmatory survey results identifying any anomalous field or laboratory data and/or when statistical sample population examination/assessment conditions were not satisfied for the NRC staffs determination of the adequacy of the sites survey.

Yes:

Provide analytical minimum detectable PSQ2: Do analytical results confirm the absence of concentrations (MDCs) and the less-than-MDC plant-related, gamma-emitting and/or non-gamma results to the NRC staff.

emitting hard-to-detect (HTD) ROIs within select confirmatory samples? No:

Provide analytical results to the NRC staff that include identified radionuclides, including HTDs.

Decision Statements Confirmatory survey results did/did not identify anomalous results or other conditions that refute the non-impacted classification of the subject land area.

Independent confirmatory survey results did/did not identify plant-related gamma-emitting ROIs in samples and include/do not include additional HTD radionuclides in confirmatory samples collected from the non-impacted land area.

3.3 IDENTIFY INPUTS TO THE DECISION The third step in the DQO process identifies both the information needed and the sources of this information, determines the basis for action levels, and identifies sampling and analytical methods to meet data requirements. For this effort, information inputs included the following:

• CREC background assessment and soil sample analytical results

• CREC SU assessment and soil sample analytical results

• ORISE gamma walkover surveys CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 8 5336-SR-01-0

• ORISE volumetric sample analysis results

• ORISE total and removable activity results

• Anticipated radionuclides (Energy Solutions 2019), as discussed in Section 3.3.1 3.3.1 Radionuclides of Interest The primary ROIs for the CREC were beta-gamma emittersfission and activation products resulting from reactor operation. The site had reviewed the operating history of the facility, historical events, and the results of radiological surveys. As a result of the review, the site has classified the subject land area as non-impacted, meaning any of the plant-derived ROIs should not be present in excess of background.

Based on historical radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) samples, cesium-137 (Cs-137), cobalt-60 (Co-60), and tritium (H-3) were expected to be present within the CR3 impacted areas, which are located within the industrialized area close to the CR3 plant. The only radionuclide expected in the non-impacted land areas was Cs-137 as a result of atmospheric falloutbased on historical REMP samples. However, the site initially identified Cs-137, H-3, and nickel-63 (Ni-63) above analytical MDCs. H-3 was identified in a sample from SU NI-09 and in a sample from SU NI-15. Ni-63 was identified in a sample from SU NI-10 (Energy Solutions 2019). Upon further investigation by the site, it was determined that H-3 and Ni-63 were not present in those soil samples.

For this survey effort, therefore, the primary ROI was Cs-137; the secondary ROIs were H-3 and Ni-63.

3.4 DEFINE THE STUDY BOUNDARIES The fourth step in the DQO process defines target populations and spatial boundaries, determines the timeframe for collecting data and making decisions, addresses practical constraints, and determines the smallest subpopulations, area, volume, and time for which separate decisions must be made. The NI and TF SUs were combined into two separate confirmatory units (CUs), CU1 and CU2, for evaluation. RA-03 and RA-04 were combined into one RA for confirmatory sampling.

These RAs were upwind from the predominant wind direction, with the only known anthropogenic impact potentially affecting radiological backgrounds being fertilizer applications within RA-04.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 9 5336-SR-01-0

Fertilizers commonly contain higher concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Additionally, ORISE performed confirmatory surveys in RA-02, which were limited to judgmental soil sampling. Temporal boundaries included the 5-day confirmatory survey duration with a start date of April 8, 2019. Boundaries for radiological surface scans were the contiguous areas of each planned random location and paths traversed between random locations. Alternate random locations were to be selected for inaccessible areas expected to be encountered, notably within the TF SUs.

3.5 DEVELOP A DECISION RULE The fifth step in the DQO process specifies appropriate parameters (e.g., mean, median), confirms action levels were above detection limits, and develops an "ifthen" decision rule statement.

Because multiple PSQs were introduced in Section 3.2, multiple decision rules were formulated. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, Cs-137 is the primary ROI expected in concentrations above the analytical MDC. For assessing ROI concentrations in the CU relative to the RAs, the parameter of interest was the median and general range of Cs-137 concentrations in the non-impacted land areas.

The median Cs-137 concentration in the land areas was compared against the median Cs-137 concentration established in the RAs via a two-sample statistical hypothesis test, the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test. Hypothesis testing adopts a scientific approach where the survey data were used to select between the baseline condition (the null hypothesis, H0) and an alternative condition.

The null and alternative hypothesis were stated as:

H0: The non-impacted land area Cs-137 concentration population median (xCU) is less than or equal to the RA median concentration (B). Mathematically, the null hypothesis is stated as xCU - B 0.

HA: The non-impacted land area Cs-137 concentration population median is greater than the RA median concentration. Mathematically, the alternative hypothesis is stated as xCU > B or xCU - B > 0.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 10 5336-SR-01-0

As stated earlier, the non-parametric WMW statistical test was used. This test, because it is a comparison of population medians rather than means, is not sensitive to the magnitude of individual results. Therefore, individual results also were evaluated against an elevated measurement action level threshold. The 95% upper prediction limit (UPL95), based on the Chebyshev inequality, of the mean RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) Cs-137 concentration data set was set as the background threshold value (BTV). The UPL95 based on the Chebyshev inequality was chosen because it does not require any assumptions regarding data distribution. The UPL95 was determined to be equal to 0.332 pCi/g by using ProUCL, version 5.1.

The decision rule was stated as follows:

If the null hypothesis is not rejected and each individual sample result is below the UPL95, then conclude CU1 Cs-137 concentrations are consistent with RA-03 and RA-04 (combined)

Cs-137 concentrations; otherwise, perform further evaluation(s) and provide technical comments/recommendations to the NRC staff for their evaluation and decision making.

For the secondary ROIsH-3 and Ni-63and gamma-emitters other than Cs-137, the parameters of interest were individual concentrations of HTDs in confirmatory soil samples and the associated analytical MDCs. The decision rule was stated as follows:

If secondary ROIs and other gamma-emitters are not positively identified in confirmatory samples, then provide the NRC staff with the analytical MDCs along with the less-than values. Detectable concentrations are evidence of radiological impact; therefore, summarize results and present them to the NRC staff along with technical recommendations, as necessary.

3.6 SPECIFY LIMITS ON DECISION ERRORS The sixth step in the DQO process specifies the decision makers limits on decision errors, which are then used to establish performance goals for the survey. There are two decision errors to consider for hypothesis testing: Type I (typically designated as alpha or ) and Type II (typically designated as beta or ). A Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it should not be, also known as a false positive, and reflects the confidence level in the decision. A Type II error is incorrectly failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is false, also known as a false negative.

The ability to reject the null hypothesis when it is false is known as the power of the test (power is CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 11 5336-SR-01-0

defined as 1-). Three orders of control were implemented to minimize decision errors regarding the decision statements introduced in Table 3.1.

The first order of control was to select decision error rates that were conservative yet still allowed for the project to be completed within the study boundaries. The Type I error rate was set to 0.05, meaning there was a 5% chance of concluding the CU was not representative of background when it actually was. The Type II error rate and subsequent power achieved was dependent on the number of samples collected and the concentration variability in the sample set. The number of required samples was calculated using Visual Sample Plan (VSP), version 7.11b. VSP inputs required for the size calculation were the width of the gray regionwhere decision errors become significant, the desired Type I and Type II error rates, and the expected radionuclide variation. For this study, the lower bound of the gray region (LGBR) and the upper bound of the gray region (UBGR) were specified at CU concentration of 0.085 pCi/g and 0.17 pCi/g, respectively, resulting in a gray region width of 0.085 pCi/g. The UBGR also is known as the minimum detectable difference (MDD) of the WMW test, which is the median concentration that would result in rejecting the null hypothesis.

The radionuclide variability assumed for survey planning was 0.06 pCi/g, based on Cs-137 variability in the sites SU data set. Both Type I and Type II errors were selected as 0.05. Because the Type II error rate is specified at the UBGR at the time of survey planning, a difference of 0.085 pCi/g between the CU and RA would be an indication that the CU is impacted. Based on the previously described inputs, 20 soil samples were required from each CU and the RA. A discussion of the prospective [planned] sensitivity and MDD of the statistical test relative to retrospective [actual]

sensitivity is provided in Section 6.2.

A second order of control was to limit false positive results for the BTV. The UPL95, based on the Chebyshev inequality, was chosen for the BTV. The UPL95 is a numeric value calculated from the sample data in a manner such that it will exceed a specified number of future observations from the population from which the sample was selected with a specified level of confidence. The specified level of confidence was 0.95. The Chebyshev inequality guarantees that, for a wide class of probability distributions, no more than 1 2 of the distributions values can be more than k standard deviations away from the mean. Chebyshevs inequality states that a minimum of 75% of values must lie within two standard deviations of the mean and 89% within three standard deviations compared to 95% and 99.7% for a normal distribution.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 12 5336-SR-01-0

A third order of control was applied to the confirmatory field measurement and laboratory analytical MDCs. Field scanning and analytical MDCs were minimized by following the procedures referenced in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Typical laboratory MDCs were sufficient for decision making.

3.7 OPTIMIZE THE DESIGN FOR OBTAINING DATA The seventh step in the DQO process reviews the DQO outputs, develops data collection design alternatives, formulates mathematical expressions for each design, selects the sample size to satisfy DQOs, decides on the most resource-effective design of agreed alternatives, and documents requisite details. Confirmatory survey activities were prioritized as follows (from highest to lowest priority):

1. Random sample collection and scans in the RAs. Judgmental sample collection in the RAs based on scan results (if applicable).

2. Random sample collection and scans in CU1. Judgmental sample collection in CU1 based on scan results (if applicable).

3. Judgmental scans and sample collection in locations where HTDs were previously identified by the site.

4. Judgmental scans and sample collection (if applicable) in the intake and discharge canal roadways where pipes and soil were present and drainage areas along the roadways in the TF.

5. Judgmental scans and sample collection (if applicable) in areas with the potential for run-off accumulation, migration pathways, indication of anthropogenic disturbance, or as directed by the NRC staff in CUs 1 and 2.

6. Judgmental scans and sample collection in or around the Mariculture Center.

7. Random scans and sample collection in CU2.

Specified survey procedures are presented in Section 4.

4. PROCEDURES The ORISE survey team performed visual inspections, measurements, and sampling activities within the accessible portions of the land areas or as specifically requested by the NRC staff during the CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 13 5336-SR-01-0

period of April 8-12, 2019. Survey activities were in accordance with the project-specific confirmatory survey plan, the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Radiological and Environmental Survey Procedures Manual, and the ORAU Environmental Services and Radiation Training Quality Program Manual (ORISE 2019, ORAU 2016a, 2018). Appendices B and C provide additional information regarding survey instrumentation and related processes discussed within this section.

4.1 REFERENCE SYSTEM ORISE referenced confirmatory measurement/sampling locations to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, specifically NAD 1983 (CORS96) State Plane Florida. Other prominent site features also were referenced. Measurement and sampling locations were documented on detailed survey maps.

4.2 SURFACE SCANS Surface scans of land areas and structural surfaces were performed with Ludlum Model 44-10 5 centimeter (cm) by 5 cm sodium iodide (NaI) scintillation detectors coupled to Ludlum Model 2221 ratemeter-scalers with audible indicators. Detectors also were coupled to GPS data logging systems that enabled real-time gamma count rate and spatial data capture. A 50 square meter (m2) area was delineated, if possible, around each random soil sample location in RA-03, RA-04, and CU1. Low-to medium-density surface scans were performed within each area. Total scan coverage was dependent on the temporal boundaries of the survey, accessibility, and the safety of ORISE personnel. Scans also were performed along the pathway to and from most sample locations. Scans were not performed in RA-02 because of temporal constraints and physical access limitations.

In addition to gamma surface scans, beta scans were performed on structural surfaces of the Mariculture Center with a Ludlum Model 44-142 scintillation detector coupled to Ludlum Model 2221 ratemeter-scalers. Scanning within the Mariculture Center was limited to the upper level because access was prohibited to the other levels.

4.3 GAMMA RADIATION MEASUREMENTS AND SOIL SAMPLING Surface soil sampling locations were randomly selected from 20 locations within CU1. Five additional random samples were collected within CU1 as directed by the NRC staff for a total of 25 samples collected from CU1.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 14 5336-SR-01-0

Originally, RA-01 and RA-03 were selected by the NRC staff for sampling; however, because of accessibility issues in RA-01, RA-04 was sampled instead. The 20 random samples in the RAs were split equally between RA-03 and RA-04.

Four judgmental samples were collected around each of the three locations where HTDs were previously identified for a total of 12 samples. The sample locations were 10 meters in each cardinal direction from the sites original sampling location.

Although RA-02 was not selected for confirmatory scans and random sampling, the NRC staff requested that 16 soil samples be collected from the sites RA-02 sampling locations. Sample locations were as close to the sites sampling locations as could be determined with a map. These samples were collected for the NRC staffs evaluation of the sites data representative of the CU2 land areas. Note that the sampling locations supporting the PSR were judgmentally selected. The NRC staff selected RA-02 for confirmatory sampling as a surrogate for the land areas associated with CU2, as ORISE could not physically access a significant portion CU2 because of high water and the temporal constraints of the study.

Soil samples were collected at a depth of 0-15 cm from the surface of the native soil using hand trowels. Sampling equipment was decontaminated in the field after each sample to minimize the potential for cross-contamination. One-minute static NaI counts were performed at each sample location pre- and post-sample collection to the potential for contamination at depths greater than 15 cm.

4.4 SURFACE ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS Seven locations were selected for direct measurements and smear sampling, including wet smears on structural surfaces of the Mariculture Center. Locations were selected to represent the areas with the highest potential for contamination inside the building and on the north, south, east, and west building exteriors. As mentioned before, only the upper level interior of the building was accessible.

Measurements were made with Ludlum Model 44-10 (gamma) and Ludlum Model 44-142 scintillation detectors coupled to Ludlum Model 2221 ratemeter-scalers.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 15 5336-SR-01-0

5. SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND DATA INTERPRETATION Samples and data collected on site were transferred to the ORISE facility for analysis and interpretation. Sample custody was transferred to the Radiological and Environmental Analytical Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Sample analyses were performed in accordance with the ORAU Radiological and Environmental Analytical Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORAU 2017). Soil samples were crushed and homogenized and a portion was set aside prior to drying for future analyses before being analyzed by gamma spectrometry for gamma-emitting fission and activation products. For all samples, analytical results were reported for Cs-137, Co-60 and other gamma-emitting NORM (e.g., uranium, radium) for completeness. Eight soil samples were analyzed for the HTDs, H-3 and Ni-63. Soil sample results were reported in units of pCi/g. Smears were analyzed for removable gross alpha and beta activity. Smear sample and direct surface activity measurement results were reported in units of disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm2). Wet smears for the HTDs, H-3, Ni-63 and C-14, were analyzed by liquid scintillation counting and reported in dpm/100 cm2 or pCi/sample. Gamma radiation scan and direct measurement results were presented as gross counts per minute (cpm).

Scan data sets and radionuclide concentrations were graphed in quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots for assessment. The Q-Q plot is a graphical tool for assessing the statistical distribution of a data set.

For the scan data, the Y-axis represents gross gamma radiation levels in units of cpm. For the soil samples, the Y-axis represents the radionuclide concentration in units of pCi/g. The X-axis represents the data quantiles about the median value. Values less than the median are represented in negative quantiles; values greater than the median are represented in the positive quantiles. A normal distribution that is not skewed by outliers will appear as a straight line with the slope of the line subject to the degree of variability among the data population. More than one distribution, such as background plus contamination or other outliers, will appear as a step function. Q-Q plots for the data are presented in Section 6.

6. FINDINGS AND RESULTS The results of the confirmatory survey are discussed in the following subsections.

Appendix A provides the gamma walkover and sample location figures. Appendix B provides the data tables. Appendices C and D provide additional details regarding field and laboratory CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 16 5336-SR-01-0

instrumentation as well as additional information on calibration, quality assurance, survey and analytical procedures, and detection sensitivities.

6.1 SURFACE SCANS Tables 6.1 and 6.2 provide summaries of the scanning survey data.

Table 6.1. Summary of Scanning Results for Land Areas Area NaI Scan Range (cpm)

RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) 920 to 11,000 CU1 1,600 to 12,000 HTDs 1,200 to 7,900 Land Area Around Mariculture Center 2,300 to 8,300 Table 6.2. Summary of Scanning Results for Mariculture Center NaI Scan Range Beta Scan Range Area (cpm) (cpm)

Building Surfaces 3,600 to 5,000 140 to 400 No areas were marked for further investigation based on results of the gamma surface scans of the land areas during field activities. Overall, scan ranges varied greatly depending on the area. In general, in the wooded and marshy area where there was significant decaying matter (leaves) and high soil moisture content, gamma ranges were lower than in open fields, dirt roadways, or over concrete structures (e.g., concrete built to form a pad or a tunnel for a drain). Gamma scans from the land area around the Mariculture Center increased as a function of proximity to the building brick and concrete entry. No areas were marked for further investigation based on results of the surface scans of the Mariculture Center.

Figure 6.1 provides the Q-Q plots for the CU1, HTD, Mariculture Center, and RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) scan data sets. The Q-Q plots for CU1 and Mariculture Center both indicate more than one data population. For the Mariculture Center, elevated counts were encountered over the sidewalk and near the cinder block walls of the building. In CU1, elevated counts are shown in a cattle pasture east of CR3 (see Figure A.48, sample 5336S0071). During the survey, this area was not discernable from localized background; gamma radiation levels in that area ranged from 4,000 to 7,000 cpm, with the elevated area having 9,600 cpm. Therefore, this area was not further investigated during the survey. Upon processing the data, the elevated count rates are shown along one distinct pathway that CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 17 5336-SR-01-0

overlays another pathway that covers the same location, but where the recorded count rates remained within the measurement system background. It would be expected that both pathways near the area would show elevated count rates if the gamma radiation levels were elevated. The difference between the two scan paths indicates a false positive occurred in the data logging, likely because of a minor electronic spike, as the surveyor monitoring the audio output did not identify any gamma radiation anomalies.

Figure 6.1. Q-Q Plot of Scan Data 6.2 GAMMA RADIATION LEVELS AND RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL Table 6.3 provides a summary of the gamma direct measurements collected pre- and post-sample.

Table 6.3. Summary of Soil Sampling Direct Measurements NaI Measurement (cpm)

Area No. of Samples Pre-Sample Post-Sample RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) 20 1,700 to 6,900 1,700 to 7,700 CU1 25 2,300 to 5,800 2,300 to 6,800 HTDs 12 3,000 to 6,200 3,200 to 8,200 RA-02 16 1,800 to 3,900 2,000 to 5,100 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 18 5336-SR-01-0

The gamma direct measurements corresponded to the levels observed during surface scans, with no elevated count rates noted at sampling locations. Additionally, the post-sample measurements did not identify any subsurface anomalies.

Table 6.4 provides a summary of the Cs-137, Co-60, and HTD concentrations. Review of the gamma spectra did not identify additional fission/activation products or gamma-emitting transuranics greater than the analytical MDCs. The only other radionuclides identified were NORM.

Summary data for the primary NORM radionuclides also are provided in Table 6.4. Appendix B provides the individual sample data.

Table 6.4. Summary of Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil Samples (pCi/g)

Ra-226 U-238 Th-232 Area Statistic Cs-137 Co-60 H-3 Ni-63 K-40 (by Pb-214) (by Th-234) (by Ac-228)

Min -0.009 -0.007 -- -- -0.27 0.189 0.06 0.091 RA-03 and RA-04 Max 0.201 0.022 1.5 0.17 2.81 1.6 0.97 0.485 (combined) Mean 0.084 0.003 -- -- 0.22 0.80 0.38 0.25 Median 0.082 0.002 -- -- 0.11 0.90 0.33 0.24 Min -0.005 -0.011 -0.10 0.20 -0.14 0.017 -0.034 0.061 CU1 Max 0.82 0.024 0.00 0.55 1.63 1.45 1.64 0.44 Mean 0.15 0.0001 -0.05 0.38 0.27 0.81 0.44 0.27 Median 0.08 -0.001 -0.05 0.38 0.19 0.69 0.33 0.28 Min 0.242 -0.028 -1.3 0.37 0.47 0.643 0.43 0.21 HTDs Max 0.923 0.011 -0.7 0.82 1.34 2.75 1.95 0.85 Mean 0.412 -0.003 -0.9 0.51 0.79 1.19 0.79 0.39 Median 0.385 -0.001 -0.9 0.43 0.72 1.00 0.65 0.34 Min -0.0104 -0.0121 -- -- 0.053 0.133 0.047 0.076 RA-02 Max 0.287 0.011 0.8 0.53 0.76 0.54 0.78 0.24 Mean 0.03 0.002 -- -- 0.32 0.33 0.38 0.14 Median 0.01 0.004 -- -- 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.13 Cs-137 occurs in background soil as the result of atmospheric fallout deposition and is typically present within the first few centimeters of soil. Therefore, comparison of the RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) and CU1 populations is necessary to evaluate whether the Cs-137 identified in the CU1 samples is due to site operations. Fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident potentially impacted the Crystal River site. Air parcels originating from Japan, or mixed with air parcels originating back to Japan, made passes over the Florida Gulf coast region (Wetherbee 2012). A CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 19 5336-SR-01-0

notable increase in airborne gross beta activity concentration was noted by U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Nation Wide Environmental Monitoring network (RadNet) station in Tampa, FLas indicated in Figure 6.2 (EPA 2019). Deposition of Cs-137 would occur because of washout from a rain event, which occurred during the timeframe of the increased airborne concentration (Wetherbee 2012). Actual Cs-137 deposition values for the Tampa Bay area were not reported. The site noted detectable radioiodine and cesium in citrus and broad leaf vegetation, which was attributable to the Fukushima event, in their annual radiological effluent and environmental monitoring report (DEF 2012).

Figure 6.2. Gross Beta Airborne Concentration from RadNet Station in Tampa, FL (EPA 2019)

Figure 6.3 provides the Q-Q plot comparing the Cs-137 concentrations for RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) and CU1.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 20 5336-SR-01-0

Figure 6.3. Comparison of Cs-137 Concentrations for RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) and CU1 Evaluation of Figure 6.3 illustrates that the CU1 random sample Cs-137 concentration distribution is similar to the RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) distribution, although the CU1 population begins to diverge, possibly a result of selective atmospheric fallout concentration, and then there are two distinct outliers.

The two-sample WMW test was used to compare the difference between the medians of the two random sample populations for Cs-137: CU1 and RA-03 and RA-04 (combined). The RA-02 soil samples were judgmental and, therefore, were not included in statistical assessments. The null and alternative hypotheses, H0 and HA, respectively, are stated in Section 3.5. The results of the test are presented in Appendix B from ProUCL 5.1.002.

Because the p-value calculated by ProUCL (p-value = 0.219, presented in Table B.14) is greater than 0.05, there is not enough evidence to reject H0 (the null hypothesis). Therefore, it can be concluded that the CU1 Cs-137 median concentration is less than or equal to the RA-03 and RA-04 (combined)

Cs-137 concentration median. Because of the manner in which the hypotheses were statedCU1 is less than RA-03 and RA-04 (combined), a retrospective analysis of the test performance was evaluated. The retrospective power was estimated using the approach outlined in NUREG-1505 (NRC 1998). Figure 6.4 illustrates the resulting retrospective power curve for the WMW test, with the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis plotted against the CU median concentration. As stated in Section 3.6, the prospective MDD was specified at the 95% significance level. As indicated CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 21 5336-SR-01-0

in Figure 6.4, a median concentration of approximately 0.28 pCi/g results in a 95% probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. This means a median CU1 Cs-137 concentration greater than 0.28 pCi/g would be needed before concluding that the CU1 Cs-137 concentration is greater than the RA Cs-137 concentration. A comparison of the retrospective MDD (0.28 pCi/g) to the prospective MDD (0.17 pCi/g) indicates that the statistical test had less power than planned, because of a higher Cs-137 variability within the CU than expected. As noted earlier in this report, the assumed standard deviationbased on the sites datawas 0.06 pCi/g. In comparison, the standard deviation of the ORISE data was 0.195 pC/g. Based on the actual CU variability, a sample size of approximately 124 would be required to achieve the planned MDD at the 0.95 significance level.

Figure 6.4. Retrospective Power Analysis Since the WMW test does not consider the magnitude of individual results, the individual Cs-137 concentrations were compared to a BTV in order to evaluate the presence of Cs-137 concentrations statistically greater than the upper limit of the confirmatory background data distribution. Two random samples from CU1 exceeded the BTV of 0.332 pCi/g. Sample 5336S0025 had a Cs-137 concentration of 0.82 pCi/g and 5336S0030 had a concentration of 0.682 pCi/g. The BTV used was calculated using the confirmatory survey random RA data. Underestimation of the variability in the RA would result in an underestimation of the BTV, which would increase the potential for false positives. The ORISE laboratory staff noted a higher number of samples with organic content in the CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 22 5336-SR-01-0

CU soil sample than the RA-03 and RA-04 soil samples. Organic content is known to concentrate Cs-137, thus, under sampling the organic content in the RA relative to the CU would yield a low BTV.

Figure 6.5 provides box plots for the Cs-137 concentrations for all the land areas investigated (i.e.,

RA-03 and RA-04 [combined], CU1, HTDs, and RA-02).

Figure 6.5. Comparison of Cs-137 Concentrations for All Areas The box plots show the difference in populations between the RAs. RA-02 is representative of coastal conditions, consisting of primarily inorganic media [sand] while RA-03 and RA-04 are representative of inland conditions (forested areas and pastures, in which the collected samples contained more organic content). RA-02 has lower Cs-137 concentrations than RA-03 and RA-04.

The median Cs-137 concentration in RA-02 is less than the median Cs-137 concentration of all the other areas. The maximum Cs-137 concentration in RA-02 is just slightly above the maximum Cs-137 concentration in RA-03 and RA-04 (combined), 0.287 and 0.201 pCi/g, respectively, but below the maximums in the other two areas. The results of the confirmatory samples agree with the CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 23 5336-SR-01-0

sites PSR data, in that both sample sets are at or near the MDC for Cs-137.

The HTD areas have higher Cs-137 concentrations than the other RAs. The mean Cs-137 concentration in the HTD areas is almost five times higher than the mean Cs-137 concentration in RA-03 and RA-04 (combined). The minimum Cs-137 concentration in the HTD areas is higher than the maximum Cs-137 concentration in RA-03 and RA-04 (combined), 0.242 and 0.201, respectively.

However, the range of Cs-137 concentrations in the HTD areas does overlap the range of Cs-137 concentration in CU1 and RA-02. A direct comparison of the HTD sample results to the BTV is not appropriate, as the HTD samples were judgmental and not randomly selected. However, Cs-137 results from the HTD areas were within the range of national background concentrations. Eight samples with the highest Cs-137 concentrations from each area were analyzed for HTDs, H-3 and Ni-63. All concentrations for the HTDs were less than the respective MDCs.

In addition to Cs-137 and HTDs, NORM concentrations were compared between the land area sample populations. Figure 6.6 provides the Q-Q plots for the four datasets of K-40, Ra-226, Th-232, and U-238 concentrations. Generally, the HTD NORM data set is slightly higher than the other three data sets, similar to the Cs-137 results. The difference in the NORM concentrations could indicate that the HTD areas are of a different soil composition than the other land areas.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 24 5336-SR-01-0

Figure 6.6. Comparison of NORM Concentrations 6.3 TOTAL AND REMOVABLE SURFACE ACTIVITY LEVELS Table 6.5 provides a summary of the results of the survey of the Mariculture Center. Appendix B provides the full data.

Table 6.5. Summary of Mariculture Center Survey Results Removable Activity Total Beta Activity pCi/sample (dpm/100 cm2)

(dpm/100 cm2)

Alpha Beta H-3 Ni-63 C-14

-84 to 460 0 (all results) -0.93 to 3.97 -4.0 to 1.8 0.2 to 0.5 -0.4 to 5.8 One static direct measurement exceeded the static MDC. This measurement was taken outside on the concrete floor of the entry. The greater-than-MDC measurement could be due to different NORM concentrations in different materials. Material-specific backgrounds were not collected; ambient beta background values were used for correcting gross surface activity measurement results.

The greater-than-MDC activity is likely the result of higher NORM concentrations within the concrete for which the nominal background value did not account. The removable alpha, beta, and HTD (H-3, Ni-63, C-14) activities were all less than the respective analytical MDCs.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 25 5336-SR-01-0

7.

SUMMARY

At the NRC staff's request, ORISE conducted confirmatory survey activities of the 3,854-acre non-impacted land area at the CREC in Crystal River, Florida, during the period of April 8-12, 2019.

Confirmatory survey activities included gamma walkover scanning, gamma direct measurements, beta direct measurements, smear sampling, and soil sampling in the site-established reference areas, CU, and the Mariculture Center, as applicable.

Gamma scan results varied depending on the land area. In general, gamma levels were lower in forested areas where thick amounts of decayed plant matter and high soil moisture content was present than on packed dirt roadways and pastures. During field activities, no areas were identified distinguishable from background.

Forty-five random soil samples were collected from the RAs and CU: 10 samples from RA-03, 10 samples from RA-04, and 25 from CU1. Three areas were judgmentally investigated for HTD nuclides, H-3 and Ni-63, based on the results of the sites survey. Twelve samples were collected from the HTD areas. Sixteen soil samples were collected from the sites locations within RA-02 at the NRC staffs request.

The median CU1 Cs-137 concentration of 0.08 pCi/g was compared to the 0.082 pCi/g median result from RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) via the WMW test. The test failed to reject the null hypothesis, thus concluding that there is insufficient evidence to decide that CU1 has a median Cs-137 concentration statistically greater than the RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) median concentration. A retrospective analysis of the test performance was evaluated, and the MDD of Cs-137 was approximately 0.28 pCi/g at the 0.95 significance level, based on the sample population size and observed variability. This means that, before the statistical test would conclude that the CU1 Cs-137 concentration is greater than the RA-03 and RA-04 (combined) Cs-137 concentration at the stated confidence, the median CU1 Cs-137 concentration would need to exceed 0.28 pCi/g.

Since the selected statistical test did not consider the magnitude of individual results, the individual Cs-137 concentrations were compared to a BTV in order to identify individual samples with the potential to contain Cs-137 concentrations outside of the confirmatory survey background population distribution. The BTV of 0.332 pCi/g was calculated using the confirmatory survey RA-03 and RA-04 sample population. Two confirmatory samples from CU1 exceeded this BTV CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 26 5336-SR-01-0

with concentrations of 0.82 pCi/g and 0.682 pCi/g. Because of the difference in organic content of the CU soil sample relative to the RA samples, the BTV exceedances may be false positives. The confirmatory survey results cannot conclude whether the BTV exceedance is due to plant-related activities or a result of fallout-derived Cs-137 variability.

Eight of the soil samples were analyzed for the HTDs, H-3 and Ni-63: one sample from RA-03 and RA-04, two samples from CU1, four samples from the HTD areas, and one sample from RA-02.

These samples had the highest Cs-137 concentrations for those areas. A formal evaluation against the BTV was not performed because these samples were collected judgmentally; however, the Cs-137 concentrations are within the range of national background. All concentrations for the HTDs were less than their respective analytical MDCs.

Results of the confirmatory samples for RA-02 agree with the sites PSR data in that both sample sets are at or near the MDC for Cs-137. The confirmatory Cs-137 concentrations from this reference area are lower, in general, than the other survey areas and are within the range of typical national background. The difference in Cs-137 concentrations between RA-02 and other survey areas is attributed to the predominantly inorganic content in the RA-02 samples whereas the confirmatory samples from other areas contained higher levels of organic content.

Total and removable activity results from the limited survey of the Mariculture Center did not indicate the presence of contamination. All results were less than their respective MDCs, except for one static measurement collected from the concrete floor outside of the entry. Material-specific backgrounds were not collected; a nominal measurement system background was used for correcting gross surface activity measurement results. The greater-than-MDC activity is likely the result of higher NORM concentrations within the concrete. The limited survey of the Mariculture Center did not identify any radiological anomalies distinguishable from background.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 27 5336-SR-01-0

8. REFERENCES DEF 2012. Crustal River Unit 3 - 2012 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.

Duke Energy Florida. April 25.

DEF 2019. Crystal River Unit 3 - Partial Site Release Request. Duke Energy Florida. Crystal River, Florida. January.

Energy Solutions 2019. Partial Site Release of the Crystal River Energy Complex Radiological Survey Final Report. CR-SC-RPT-001 Rev. 1. Energy Solutions. Charlotte, North Carolina. March.

EPA 2019. EPA RadNet Reference. https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-air-data-tampa-fl#grossbetaair.

EPA 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. February.

NRC 1997. Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions. NUREG-1507. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C. December.

NRC 1998. A Nonparametric Statistical Methodology for the Design and Analysis of Final Status Decommissioning Surveys. NUREG-1505, Rev. 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, D.C. June.

ORAU 2014. ORAU Radiation Protection Manual. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. October.

ORAU 2016a. ORAU Radiological and Environmental Survey Procedures Manual. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. November.

ORAU 2016b. ORAU Health and Safety Manual. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. January.

ORAU 2017. ORAU Radiological and Environmental Analytical Laboratory Procedures Manual.

Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. August.

ORAU 2018. ORAU Environmental Services and Radiation Training Quality Program Manual. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. July.

ORISE 2019. Project-Specific Plan for Confirmatory Survey Activities for the Partial Site Release of 3,854 Acres of The Crystal River Energy Complex, Crystal River, Florida. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. April.

RSCS 2016. Historical Site Assessment for Crystal River 3. Technical Support Document No.16-015 Rev 00. Radiation Safety & Control Services, Inc. Stratham, New Hampshire. June 28.

Wetherbee 2012. Wet Deposition of Fission-Product Isotopes to North America from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident, March 2011. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 46, pp 2574-2582. February 22.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 28 5336-SR-01-0

APPENDIX A: FIGURES CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.1. Overview of All Samples from RA-03 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-1 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.2. Overview of All Samples from RA-04 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-2 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.3. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (1 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-3 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.4. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (2 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-4 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.5. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (3 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-5 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.6. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (4 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-6 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.7. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (5 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-7 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.8. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (6 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-8 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.9. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (7 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-9 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.10. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (8 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-10 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.11. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (9 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-11 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.12. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (10 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-12 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.13. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (11 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-13 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.14. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (12 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-14 5336-SR-01-0

Note: Background image is from February 10, 2017. No equipment present during survey.

Figure A.15. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (13 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-15 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.16. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (14 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-16 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.17. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (15 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-17 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.18. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (16 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-18 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.19. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (17 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-19 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.20. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (18 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-20 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.21. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (19 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-21 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.22. Reference Area Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (20 of 20)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-22 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.23. Overview of All Samples from CU1 (1 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-23 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.24. Overview of All Samples from CU1 (2 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-24 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.25. Overview of All Samples from CU1 (3 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-25 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.26. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (1 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-26 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.27. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (2 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-27 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.28. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (3 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-28 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.29. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (4 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-29 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.30. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (5 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-30 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.31. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (6 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-31 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.32. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (7 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-32 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.33. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (8 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-33 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.34. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (9 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-34 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.35. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (10 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-35 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.36. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (11 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-36 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.37. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (12 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-37 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.38. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (13 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-38 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.39. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (14 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-39 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.40. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (15 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-40 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.41. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (16 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-41 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.42. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (17 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-42 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.43. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (18 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-43 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.44. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (19 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-44 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.45. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (20 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-45 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.46. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (21 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-46 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.47. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (22 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-47 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.48. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (23 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-48 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.49. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (24 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-49 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.50. CU1 Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (25 of 25)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-50 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.51. HTD Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (1 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-51 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.52. HTD Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (2 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-52 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.53. HTD Gamma Walkover Data and Sample Locations (3 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-53 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.54. RA-02 Sample Locations (1 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-54 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.55. RA-02 Sample Locations (2 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-55 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.56. RA-02 Sample Locations (3 of 3)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-56 5336-SR-01-0

Figure A.57. Mariculture Center Gamma Walkover Data CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report A-57 5336-SR-01-0

APPENDIX B: DATA TABLES CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.1. RA-03 and RA-04 Soil Sample Locations and Direct Measurements Coordinates (m) Gamma (cpm)

Area Sample ID Easting Northing Pre Post RA-03 5336S0001 135092.7419 512608.7067 4,500 5,300 RA-03 5336S0002 134773.8612 512463.2399 3,300 3,500 RA-03 5336S0003 134454.9806 512366.2621 1,800 2,000 RA-03 5336S0004 134348.6871 511590.4393 1,700 1,700 RA-03 5336S0005 135199.0354 512026.8396 4,300 4,700 RA-03 5336S0006 135243.8780 512180.0885 3,900 3,800 RA-03 5336S0007 134978.1441 512244.7404 2,600 2,900 RA-03 5336S0008 135292.01 511652.41 1,800 2,000 RA-03 5336S0009 135403.3183 511953.8069 2,200 2,200 RA-03 5336S0010 135190.7312 511662.8734 2,100 2,800 RA-04 5336S0039 134959.2752 514206.5368 3,400 3,500 RA-04 5336S0040 135077.1580 513648.0196 5,800 6,300 RA-04 5336S0041 135195.0407 513151.5597 5,700 6,000 RA-04 5336S0042 135430.8063 513430.8184 6,700 7,700 RA-04 5336S0043 135548.6890 513368.7609 6,900 7,500 RA-04 5336S0044 136255.9856 513229.1316 5,300 6,600 RA-04 5336S0045 136491.7511 513787.6489 5,800 6,800 RA-04 5336S0046 136373.8684 513849.7064 4,800 5,200 RA-04 5336S0047 136020.2201 514066.9075 3,600 3,800 RA-04 5336S0048 135902.3373 513011.9304 5,500 6,700 Mean 4,100 4,600 Minimum 1,700 1,700 Maximum 6,900 7,700 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-1 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.2. CU1 Soil Sample Locations and Direct Measurements Coordinates (m) Gamma (cpm)

Area Sample ID Easting Northing Pre Post CU1 5336S0011 135918.6766 512811.4552 3,500 3,700 CU1 5336S0012 137499.6986 512778.9236 4,800 6,100 CU1 5336S0013 138174.0431 512884.5692 2,900 3,100 CU1 5336S0014 136541.1206 512705.6179 5,000 5,000 CU1 5336S0015 133253.4419 512923.5923 3,800 5,300 CU1 5336S0016 131538.6703 513442.7704 3,700 4,100 CU1 5336S0017 131380.0596 513810.8573 4,500 6,700 CU1 5336S0018 135013.6553 512773.8898 4,500 5,200 CU1 5336S0019 136417.3773 512974.2497 5,500 6,800 CU1 5336S0020 138040.5396 512867.6299 2,300 2,300 CU1 5336S0021 137042.4219 512668.5839 4,100 4,700 CU1 5336S0022 133886.4142 512552.0184 3,600 4,000 CU1 5336S0023 133185.1639 512356.6251 3,500 4,200 CU1 5336S0024 132973.0707 512137.8953 4,200 4,800 CU1 5336S0025 132895.9867 512010.9907 2,700 2,800 CU1 5336S0026 133628.0992 511746.4211 3,700 4,200 CU1 5336S0027 133472.8387 510988.4412 4,800 5,300 CU1 5336S0028 134310.5703 512885.2686 4,800 5,800 CU1 5336S0029 133923.209 512700.4123 5,800 6,200 CU1 5336S0030 133814.28 511310.20 5,000 6,500 CU1 5336S0069 135053.78 512973.51 4,700 5,400 CU1 5336S0070 136610.43 512865.28 3,700 4,000 CU1 5336S0071 137238.32 512760.87 4,500 5,100 CU1 5336S0072 134357.82 512697.76 5,600 6,700 CU1 5336S0073 133395.71 512789.28 4,500 5,000 Mean 4,200 4,900 Minimum 2,300 2,300 Maximum 5,800 6,800 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-2 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.3. HTD Soil Sample Locations and Direct Measurements Coordinates (m) Gamma (cpm)

Area Sample ID Easting Northing Pre Post HTD 5336S0031 133883.90 511254.06 4,700 5,400 HTD 5336S0032 133890.13 511233.27 3,000 3,200 HTD 5336S0033 133876.43 511239.43 6,200 7,600 HTD 5336S0034 133893.16 511251.07 3,700 4,200 HTD 5336S0035 132649.95 512634.50 5,600 7,800 HTD 5336S0036 132652.59 512630.41 5,000 6,500 HTD 5336S0037 132640.23 512622.04 4,000 4,900 HTD 5336S0038 132638.33 512632.77 4,600 5,600 HTD 5336S0049 132404.70 512215.03 5,700 8,200 HTD 5336S0050 132402.68 512234.63 4,400 4,400 HTD 5336S0051 132412.45 512222.80 4,400 4,700 HTD 5336S0052 132396.82 512224.68 5,200 6,100 Mean 4,700 5,700 Minimum 3,000 3,200 Maximum 6,200 8,200 Table B.4. RA-02 Soil Sample Locations and Direct Measurements Coordinates (m) Gamma (cpm)

Area Sample ID Easting Northing Pre Post RA-02 5336S0053 132429.60 507320.98 3,200 3,700 RA-02 5336S0054 132465.80 507360.32 2,300 2,700 RA-02 5336S0055 132504.73 507383.67 3,900 5,100 RA-02 5336S0056 132520.07 507320.48 2,700 3,200 RA-02 5336S0057 132504.22 507310.05 2,800 3,100 RA-02 5336S0058 132573.64 507323.26 2,600 3,200 RA-02 5336S0059 132532.59 507285.01 2,500 2,700 RA-02 5336S0060 132486.62 507248.33 2,200 2,100 RA-02 5336S0061 132512.92 507202.73 2,100 2,200 RA-02 5336S0062 132584.19 507088.91 2,400 2,700 RA-02 5336S0063 132519.71 507082.47 1,900 2,400 RA-02 5336S0064 132654.95 506898.60 1,800 2,000 RA-02 5336S0065 132737.30 506965.45 2,000 2,000 RA-02 5336S0066 133196.23 506986.13 2,800 2,900 RA-02 5336S0067 134111.42 507587.63 2,800 2,900 RA-02 5336S0068 134103.14 507596.77 2,700 2,900 Mean 2,600 2,900 Minimum 1,800 2,000 Maximum 3,900 5,100 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-3 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.5. Mariculture Center Sample Locations and Direct Measurements Removable Activity Gamma Total Beta Activity Sample ID Area Material Alpha Beta H-3 Ni-63 C-14 cpm dpm/100 cm2 dpm/100 cm2 pCi/sample 5336R0001 Near Rear Door Tile 3,300 16 -0.37 2.75 -- -- --

5336R0002 Near Rear Door Tile -- -- -- -- -0.6 -- -0.4 5336R0003 Floor Near Sink Tile 3,600 -72 -0.37 0.29 -- -- --

5336R0004 Floor Near Sink Tile -- -- -- -- -2.7 -- 0.1 5336R0005 Metal Front Door Frame Metal 3,800 -68 -0.37 2.75 -- -- --

5336R0006 Metal Front Door Frame Metal -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 --

5336R0007 Outside Floor at Entry Concrete 4,700 460 -0.37 2.75 -- -- --

5336R0008 Outside Floor at Entry Concrete -- -- -- -- 1.8 -- 2.0 5336R0009 East Side of Building Wall Molded Concrete 4,500 -84 -0.37 3.97 -- -- --

5336R0010 East Side of Building Wall Molded Concrete -- -- -- -- -2.6 -- 2.7 5336R0011 North Side of Building Ground Concrete 4,400 280 -0.37 3.97 -- -- --

5336R0012 North Side of Building Ground Concrete -- -- -- -- -- 0.5 --

5336R0013 West Side of Building Wall Molded Concrete 4,400 20 -0.37 -0.93 -- -- --

5336R0014 West Side of Building Wall Molded Concrete -- -- -- -- -4.0 -- 5.8 Mean 4,100 79 0 2 -1.6 0.4 2.0 Minimum 3,300 -84 0 -1 -4.0 0.2 -0.4 Maximum 4,700 460 0 4 1.8 0.5 5.8 CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-4 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.6. Select Radionuclide Concentrations in RA-03 and RA-04 Soil Samplesa Cs-137 (pCi/g) Co-60 (pCi/g) H-3 (pCi/g) Ni-63 (pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPUb MDCc Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0001 0.104 +/- 0.020 0.031 0.022 +/- 0.015 0.043 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0002 0.092 +/- 0.015 0.017 0.004 +/- 0.009 0.022 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0003 0.040 +/- 0.011 0.015 -0.005 +/- 0.011 0.019 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0004 0.195 +/- 0.042 0.049 0.002 +/- 0.033 0.075 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0005 0.044 +/- 0.010 0.020 0.002 +/- 0.014 0.028 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0006 0.201 +/- 0.026 0.032 -0.002 +/- 0.018 0.038 1.5 +/- 1.7 2.9 0.17 +/- 0.75 1.29 5336S0007 0.053 +/- 0.013 0.020 -0.007 +/- 0.011 0.020 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0008 0.039 +/- 0.010 0.017 -0.005 +/- 0.011 0.019 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0009 0.110 +/- 0.017 0.022 0.004 +/- 0.013 0.029 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0010 0.005 +/- 0.007 0.016 0.003 +/- 0.009 0.021 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0039 0.119 +/- 0.019 0.013 0.007 +/- 0.012 0.031 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0040 0.086 +/- 0.014 0.022 0.000 +/- 0.016 0.031 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0041 -0.009 +/- 0.015 0.037 0.011 +/- 0.013 0.033 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0042 0.122 +/- 0.017 0.023 0.003 +/- 0.015 0.032 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0043 0.150 +/- 0.021 0.026 -0.002 +/- 0.016 0.033 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0044 0.079 +/- 0.016 0.027 0.005 +/- 0.014 0.033 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0045 0.084 +/- 0.014 0.025 -0.002 +/- 0.015 0.030 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0046 0.058 +/- 0.013 0.023 0.015 +/- 0.014 0.034 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0047 0.048 +/- 0.011 0.019 -0.001 +/- 0.007 0.026 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0048 0.054 +/- 0.003 0.020 0.005 +/- 0.013 0.029 -- -- -- -- -- --

Mean 0.084 -- 0.003 -- -- -- -- --

Median 0.082 -- 0.002 -- -- -- -- --

Minimum -0.009 -- -0.007 -- -- -- -- --

Maximum 0.201 -- 0.022 -- 1.5 -- 0.17 --

a Analytical values are rounded to 2 significant figures at the uncertainty, not to exceed 3 decimal places.

b Uncertainties are based on total propagated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level.

c MDC = minimum detectable concentrations.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-5 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.7. NORM Radionuclide Concentrations in RA-03 and RA-04 Soil Samples K-40 (pCi/g) Ra-226 by Pb-214 (pCi/g) U-238 by Th-234 (pCi/g) Th-232 by Ac-228(pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0001 -0.27 +/- 0.24 0.59 1.006 +/- 0.084 0.058 0.27 +/- 0.26 0.58 0.390 +/- 0.086 0.110 5336S0002 0.08 +/- 0.13 0.30 0.454 +/- 0.041 0.038 0.26 +/- 0.15 0.29 0.200 +/- 0.045 0.058 5336S0003 0.15 +/- 0.19 0.45 0.211 +/- 0.031 0.041 0.38 +/- 0.31 0.68 0.115 +/- 0.040 0.077 5336S0004 0.22 +/- 0.44 1.06 0.391 +/- 0.089 0.157 0.51 +/- 0.44 0.97 0.16 +/- 0.13 0.35 5336S0005 2.81 +/- 0.34 0.33 0.999 +/- 0.069 0.041 0.69 +/- 0.23 0.36 0.389 +/- 0.063 0.078 5336S0006 0.36 +/- 0.33 0.76 1.091 +/- 0.085 0.076 0.97 +/- 0.55 1.15 0.485 +/- 0.088 0.122 5336S0007 -0.19 +/- 0.40 0.48 0.331 +/- 0.037 0.039 0.34 +/- 0.24 0.53 0.139 +/- 0.046 0.072 5336S0008 -0.07 +/- 0.22 0.36 0.189 +/- 0.031 0.036 0.06 +/- 0.15 0.36 0.096 +/- 0.044 0.075 5336S0009 0.10 +/- 0.20 0.49 0.264 +/- 0.033 0.045 0.33 +/- 0.15 0.26 0.091 +/- 0.047 0.096 5336S0010 0.12 +/- 0.13 0.30 0.245 +/- 0.029 0.029 0.2 +/- 0.11 0.23 0.107 +/- 0.035 0.056 5336S0039 -0.08 +/- 0.17 0.46 0.404 +/- 0.046 0.043 0.23 +/- 0.71 0.40 0.147 +/- 0.049 0.069 5336S0040 0.05 +/- 0.12 0.29 1.087 +/- 0.073 0.041 0.23 +/- 0.16 0.36 0.343 +/- 0.059 0.074 5336S0041 0.13 +/- 0.13 0.30 1.095 +/- 0.083 0.048 0.35 +/- 0.23 0.48 0.141 +/- 0.055 0.100 5336S0042 0.15 +/- 0.15 0.33 1.263 +/- 0.083 0.047 0.44 +/- 0.24 0.49 0.295 +/- 0.060 0.086 5336S0043 0.16 +/- 0.23 0.54 1.60 +/- 0.11 0.06 0.58 +/- 0.61 1.40 0.380 +/- 0.076 0.112 5336S0044 0.10 +/- 0.14 0.34 0.845 +/- 0.072 0.052 0.29 +/- 0.24 0.53 0.296 +/- 0.064 0.084 5336S0045 0.07 +/- 0.15 0.35 1.564 +/- 0.099 0.052 0.33 +/- 0.19 0.40 0.396 +/- 0.069 0.095 5336S0046 0.16 +/- 0.21 0.50 0.945 +/- 0.072 0.050 0.73 +/- 0.49 1.06 0.258 +/- 0.062 0.097 5336S0047 0.20 +/- 0.15 0.32 0.721 +/- 0.056 0.034 0.18 +/- 0.15 0.34 0.219 +/- 0.048 0.059 5336S0048 0.09 +/- 0.14 0.33 1.206 +/- 0.080 0.038 0.29 +/- 0.17 0.36 0.311 +/- 0.058 0.078 Mean 0.22 -- 0.80 -- 0.38 -- 0.25 --

Median 0.11 -- 0.90 -- 0.33 -- 0.24 --

Minimum -0.27 -- 0.189 -- 0.06 -- 0.091 --

Maximum 2.81 -- 1.60 -- 0.97 -- 0.485 --

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-6 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.8. Select Radionuclide Concentrations in CU1 Soil Samplesa Cs-137 (pCi/g) Co-60 (pCi/g) H-3 (pCi/g) Ni-63 (pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPUb MDCc Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0011 0.071 +/- 0.014 0.023 0.007 +/- 0.010 0.026 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0012 0.0182 +/- 0.0069 0.0172 -0.005 +/- 0.012 0.024 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0013 0.102 +/- 0.020 0.023 -0.001 +/- 0.013 0.027 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0014 0.022 +/- 0.007 0.020 0.002 +/- 0.016 0.033 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0015 0.071 +/- 0.014 0.024 -0.009 +/- 0.013 0.023 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0016 0.182 +/- 0.028 0.028 -0.006 +/- 0.020 0.034 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0017 0.274 +/- 0.030 0.025 -0.000 +/- 0.019 0.038 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0018 0.130 +/- 0.019 0.021 -0.003 +/- 0.010 0.021 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0019 0.043 +/- 0.012 0.027 -0.004 +/- 0.017 0.034 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0020 0.170 +/- 0.021 0.018 0.001 +/- 0.012 0.026 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0021 0.027 +/- 0.011 0.027 -0.007 +/- 0.017 0.033 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0022 0.228 +/- 0.045 0.058 0.006 +/- 0.037 0.082 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0023 0.240 +/- 0.025 0.028 0.001 +/- 0.017 0.035 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0024 0.061 +/- 0.013 0.026 -0.006 +/- 0.010 0.035 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0025 0.820 +/- 0.069 0.038 0.015 +/- 0.023 0.055 0.0 +/- 1.6 2.7 0.55 +/- 0.76 1.29 5336S0026 0.081 +/- 0.014 0.018 -0.003 +/- 0.016 0.030 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0027 -0.005 +/- 0.012 0.026 0.002 +/- 0.016 0.035 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0028 0.111 +/- 0.016 0.020 -0.011 +/- 0.015 0.024 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0029 0.041 +/- 0.011 0.025 0.004 +/- 0.014 0.032 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0030 0.682 +/- 0.064 0.066 0.024 +/- 0.037 0.083 -0.1 +/- 1.9 3.4 0.20 +/- 0.75 1.28 5336S0069 0.067 +/- 0.013 0.020 0.005 +/- 0.014 0.031 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0070 0.112 +/- 0.021 0.029 -0.006 +/- 0.019 0.037 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0071 0.104 +/- 0.015 0.017 -0.005 +/- 0.013 0.022 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0072 0.045 +/- 0.010 0.021 0.007 +/- 0.014 0.030 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0073 0.070 +/- 0.016 0.027 -0.006 +/- 0.014 0.027 -- -- -- -- -- --

Mean 0.15 -- 0.0001 -- -0.05 -- 0.38 --

Median 0.08 -- -0.001 -- -0.05 -- 0.38 --

Minimum -0.005 -- -0.011 -- -0.10 -- 0.20 --

Maximum 0.82 -- 0.024 -- 0.00 -- 0.55 --

a Analytical values are rounded to 2 significant figures at the uncertainty, not to exceed 3 decimal places.

b Uncertainties are based on total propagated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level.

c MDC = minimum detectable concentration.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-7 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.9. NORM Radionuclide Concentrations in CU1 Soil Samples K-40 (pCi/g) Ra-226 by Pb-214 (pCi/g) U-238 by Th-234 (pCi/g) Th-232 by Ac-228(pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0011 0.12 +/- 0.21 0.51 0.619 +/- 0.057 0.056 0.21 +/- 0.43 1.02 0.186 +/- 0.055 0.089 5336S0012 0.00 +/- 0.17 0.42 0.689 +/- 0.057 0.048 0.67 +/- 0.40 0.83 0.265 +/- 0.056 0.077 5336S0013 -0.13 +/- 0.29 0.51 0.397 +/- 0.046 0.043 0.32 +/- 0.18 0.41 0.168 +/- 0.051 0.063 5336S0014 0.17 +/- 0.15 0.34 1.317 +/- 0.086 0.043 0.19 +/- 0.19 0.43 0.318 +/- 0.061 0.088 5336S0015 0.24 +/- 0.20 0.45 0.531 +/- 0.050 0.047 0.26 +/- 0.37 0.86 0.239 +/- 0.058 0.088 5336S0016 -0.14 +/- 0.45 0.62 0.537 +/- 0.059 0.059 0.29 +/- 0.23 0.51 0.208 +/- 0.065 0.093 5336S0017 0.58 +/- 0.22 0.42 1.073 +/- 0.081 0.060 0.62 +/- 0.26 0.48 0.426 +/- 0.079 0.099 5336S0018 0.09 +/- 0.18 0.44 0.647 +/- 0.056 0.049 0.38 +/- 0.39 0.88 0.317 +/- 0.062 0.079 5336S0019 0.16 +/- 0.10 0.33 1.230 +/- 0.092 0.060 0.07 +/- 0.28 0.67 0.295 +/- 0.074 0.113 5336S0020 0.10 +/- 0.14 0.33 0.256 +/- 0.032 0.032 -0.034 +/- 0.087 0.459 0.108 +/- 0.039 0.063 5336S0021 0.19 +/- 0.14 0.32 0.810 +/- 0.070 0.049 0.39 +/- 0.24 0.50 0.278 +/- 0.070 0.093 5336S0022 0.44 +/- 0.43 0.98 1.43 +/- 0.14 0.12 0.90 +/- 0.50 1.03 0.30 +/- 0.13 0.23 5336S0023 0.38 +/- 0.22 0.48 0.676 +/- 0.050 0.053 0.33 +/- 0.18 0.36 0.272 +/- 0.062 0.096 5336S0024 0.28 +/- 0.27 0.62 1.187 +/- 0.083 0.061 0.55 +/- 0.41 0.90 0.352 +/- 0.069 0.104 5336S0025 1.27 +/- 0.49 1.04 1.035 +/- 0.093 0.100 1.14 +/- 0.68 1.44 0.44 +/- 0.10 0.17 5336S0026 0.29 +/- 0.16 0.32 0.398 +/- 0.039 0.032 0.30 +/- 0.18 0.37 0.187 +/- 0.046 0.080 5336S0027 -0.11 +/- 0.25 0.65 0.017 +/- 0.027 0.069 0.23 +/- 0.50 1.29 0.061 +/- 0.054 0.142 5336S0028 0.26 +/- 0.14 0.30 0.867 +/- 0.063 0.042 0.23 +/- 0.15 0.33 0.301 +/- 0.058 0.079 5336S0029 0.18 +/- 0.14 0.32 1.089 +/- 0.079 0.051 0.45 +/- 0.23 0.48 0.354 +/- 0.069 0.088 5336S0030 1.63 +/- 0.60 1.20 1.45 +/- 0.13 0.18 1.64 +/- 0.53 0.77 0.32 +/- 0.12 0.22 5336S0069 0.27 +/- 0.20 0.44 1.005 +/- 0.073 0.059 0.54 +/- 0.59 1.47 0.284 +/- 0.061 0.091 5336S0070 0.13 +/- 0.15 0.34 0.642 +/- 0.064 0.059 0.31 +/- 0.23 0.51 0.249 +/- 0.071 0.097 5336S0071 0.06 +/- 0.12 0.30 0.629 +/- 0.050 0.035 0.20 +/- 0.14 0.29 0.224 +/- 0.050 0.073 5336S0072 0.20 +/- 0.23 0.53 1.144 +/- 0.078 0.055 0.33 +/- 0.36 0.82 0.254 +/- 0.057 0.094 5336S0073 0.21 +/- 0.17 0.36 0.648 +/- 0.061 0.050 0.40 +/- 0.23 0.48 0.319 +/- 0.068 0.081 Mean 0.27 -- 0.81 -- 0.44 -- 0.27 --

Median 0.19 -- 0.69 -- 0.33 -- 0.28 --

Minimum -0.14 -- 0.017 -- -0.034 -- 0.061 --

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-8 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.9. NORM Radionuclide Concentrations in CU1 Soil Samples K-40 (pCi/g) Ra-226 by Pb-214 (pCi/g) U-238 by Th-234 (pCi/g) Th-232 by Ac-228(pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Maximum 1.63 -- 1.45 -- 1.64 -- 0.44 --

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-9 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.10. Select Radionuclide Concentrations in HTD Soil Samples a Cs-137 (pCi/g) Co-60 (pCi/g) H-3 (pCi/g) Ni-63 (pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPUb MDCc Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0031 0.376 +/- 0.038 0.026 -0.001 +/- 0.015 0.037 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0032 0.393 +/- 0.051 0.041 -0.028 +/- 0.033 0.056 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0033 0.242 +/- 0.024 0.030 0.011 +/- 0.018 0.038 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0034 0.284 +/- 0.033 0.034 -0.002 +/- 0.015 0.047 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0035 0.923 +/- 0.075 0.060 -0.011 +/- 0.035 0.071 -0.8 +/- 1.6 2.9 0.37 +/- 0.75 1.27 5336S0036 0.456 +/- 0.050 0.044 0.005 +/- 0.022 0.050 -0.9 +/- 1.5 2.7 0.44 +/- 0.75 1.28 5336S0037 0.421 +/- 0.039 0.026 0.008 +/- 0.016 0.035 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0038 0.455 +/- 0.049 0.060 -0.022 +/- 0.037 0.066 -1.3 +/- 1.9 3.3 0.82 +/- 0.76 1.27 5336S0049 0.244 +/- 0.028 0.032 0.000 +/- 0.020 0.041 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0050 0.369 +/- 0.040 0.031 -0.007 +/- 0.022 0.042 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0051 0.445 +/- 0.030 0.026 0.000 +/- 0.018 0.035 -0.7 +/- 1.8 3.3 0.42 +/- 0.76 1.29 5336S0052 0.333 +/- 0.034 0.027 0.006 +/- 0.016 0.036 -- -- -- -- -- --

Mean 0.412 -- -0.003 -- -0.9 -- 0.51 --

Median 0.385 -- -0.001 -- -0.9 -- 0.43 --

Minimum 0.242 -- -0.028 -- -1.3 -- 0.37 --

Maximum 0.923 -- 0.011 -- -0.7 -- 0.82 --

a Analytical values are rounded to 2 significant figures at the uncertainty, not to exceed 3 decimal places.

b Uncertainties are based on total propagated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level.

c MDC = minimum detectable concentration.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-10 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.11. NORM Radionuclide Concentrations in HTD Soil Samplesa K-40 (pCi/g) Ra-226 by Pb-214 (pCi/g) U-238 by Th-234 (pCi/g) Th-232 by Ac-228(pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPUb MDCc Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0031 0.62 +/- 0.36 0.80 0.773 +/- 0.071 0.076 0.47 +/- 0.49 1.12 0.265 +/- 0.049 0.141 5336S0032 1.06 +/- 0.42 0.78 0.644 +/- 0.080 0.096 0.59 +/- 0.38 0.80 0.228 +/- 0.099 0.181 5336S0033 0.47 +/- 0.23 0.50 0.980 +/- 0.060 0.057 0.49 +/- 0.22 0.43 0.231 +/- 0.063 0.110 5336S0034 0.78 +/- 0.39 0.86 0.720 +/- 0.071 0.084 0.67 +/- 0.53 1.18 0.21 +/- 0.077 0.151 5336S0035 1.34 +/- 0.44 0.81 2.75 +/- 0.18 0.12 1.95 +/- 0.63 0.99 0.85 +/- 0.15 0.20 5336S0036 0.56 +/- 0.25 0.47 1.61 +/- 0.12 0.08 0.68 +/- 0.37 0.77 0.52 +/- 0.11 0.14 5336S0037 0.52 +/- 0.20 0.39 1.010 +/- 0.078 0.068 0.62 +/- 0.26 0.48 0.404 +/- 0.078 0.106 5336S0038 1.28 +/- 0.50 1.02 1.46 +/- 0.11 0.11 1.53 +/- 0.48 0.68 0.58 +/- 0.13 0.21 5336S0049 0.59 +/- 0.12 0.55 1.57 +/- 0.11 0.07 0.75 +/- 0.62 1.39 0.493 +/- 0.085 0.110 5336S0050 0.78 +/- 0.26 0.43 0.643 +/- 0.062 0.060 0.43 +/- 0.25 0.53 0.239 +/- 0.078 0.136 5336S0051 0.81 +/- 0.24 0.46 1.112 +/- 0.063 0.071 0.56 +/- 0.24 0.46 0.407 +/- 0.063 0.098 5336S0052 0.65 +/- 0.32 0.70 0.997 +/- 0.077 0.067 0.79 +/- 0.66 1.49 0.275 +/- 0.073 0.129 Mean 0.79 -- 1.19 -- 0.79 -- 0.39 --

Median 0.72 -- 1.00 -- 0.65 -- 0.34 --

Minimum 0.47 -- 0.643 -- 0.43 -- 0.21 --

Maximum 1.34 -- 2.75 -- 1.95 -- 0.85 --

a Analytical values are rounded to 2 significant figures at the uncertainty, not to exceed 3 decimal places.

b Uncertainties are based on total propagated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level.

c MDC = minimum detectable concentration.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-11 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.12. Select Radionuclide Concentrations in RA-02 Soil Samplesa Cs-137 (pCi/g) Co-60 (pCi/g) H-3 (pCi/g) Ni-63 (pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPUb MDCc Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0053 0.002 +/- 0.017 0.037 -0.004 +/- 0.016 0.030 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0054 0.002 +/- 0.009 0.021 0.004 +/- 0.007 0.017 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0055 -0.007 +/- 0.009 0.023 0.011 +/- 0.011 0.027 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0056 0.027 +/- 0.010 0.020 0.006 +/- 0.008 0.023 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0057 0.026 +/- 0.008 0.020 0.001 +/- 0.013 0.027 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0058 0.027 +/- 0.009 0.015 -0.002 +/- 0.012 0.024 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0059 0.057 +/- 0.016 0.022 0.002 +/- 0.016 0.037 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0060 0.011 +/- 0.007 0.015 0.006 +/- 0.010 0.024 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0061 0.287 +/- 0.032 0.024 0.004 +/- 0.012 0.029 0.8 +/- 2.4 4.1 0.53 +/- 0.76 1.28 5336S0062 0.000 +/- 0.008 0.020 -0.006 +/- 0.008 0.019 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0063 0.006 +/- 0.004 0.015 0.005 +/- 0.009 0.023 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0064 -0.005 +/- 0.008 0.015 0.005 +/- 0.008 0.019 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0065 -0.010 +/- 0.009 0.017 0.005 +/- 0.009 0.021 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0066 0.035 +/- 0.009 0.018 0.003 +/- 0.014 0.029 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0067 0.008 +/- 0.009 0.020 -0.012 +/- 0.010 0.024 -- -- -- -- -- --

5336S0068 0.029 +/- 0.011 0.021 0.002 +/- 0.014 0.031 -- -- -- -- -- --

Mean 0.03 -- 0.002 -- -- -- -- --

Median 0.01 -- 0.004 -- -- -- -- --

Minimum -0.010 -- -0.012 -- -- -- -- --

Maximum 0.287 -- 0.011 -- 0.8 -- 0.53 --

a Analytical values are rounded to 2 significant figures at the uncertainty, not to exceed 3 decimal places.

b Uncertainties are based on total propagated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level.

c MDC = minimum detectable concentration.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-12 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.13. NORM Radionuclide Concentrations in RA-02 Soil Samplesa K-40 (pCi/g) Ra-226 by Pb-214 (pCi/g) U-238 by Th-234 (pCi/g) Th-232 by Ac-228(pCi/g)

Sample ID Conc. TPUb MDCc Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC Conc. TPU MDC 5336S0053 0.76 +/- 0.26 0.45 0.540 +/- 0.055 0.045 0.34 +/- 0.22 0.46 0.240 +/- 0.064 0.083 5336S0054 0.39 +/- 0.14 0.27 0.309 +/- 0.032 0.028 0.27 +/- 0.12 0.22 0.115 +/- 0.031 0.049 5336S0055 0.45 +/- 0.21 0.43 0.517 +/- 0.048 0.045 0.62 +/- 0.39 0.83 0.206 +/- 0.051 0.076 5336S0056 0.38 +/- 0.15 0.24 0.341 +/- 0.040 0.037 0.42 +/- 0.20 0.38 0.128 +/- 0.046 0.072 5336S0057 0.67 +/- 0.20 0.37 0.449 +/- 0.041 0.031 0.57 +/- 0.20 0.30 0.161 +/- 0.047 0.078 5336S0058 0.17 +/- 0.18 0.42 0.310 +/- 0.036 0.042 0.78 +/- 0.37 0.71 0.161 +/- 0.045 0.067 5336S0059 0.11 +/- 0.15 0.36 0.314 +/- 0.042 0.044 0.43 +/- 0.22 0.43 0.119 +/- 0.051 0.086 5336S0060 0.42 +/- 0.16 0.30 0.281 +/- 0.032 0.031 0.24 +/- 0.12 0.23 0.138 +/- 0.041 0.064 5336S0061 0.49 +/- 0.19 0.35 0.231 +/- 0.034 0.045 0.30 +/- 0.18 0.38 0.102 +/- 0.048 0.090 5336S0062 0.12 +/- 0.17 0.40 0.205 +/- 0.029 0.042 0.40 +/- 0.30 0.66 0.184 +/- 0.046 0.065 5336S0063 0.17 +/- 0.18 0.41 0.212 +/- 0.030 0.039 0.42 +/- 0.34 0.75 0.178 +/- 0.046 0.067 5336S0064 0.087 +/- 0.095 0.217 0.137 +/- 0.020 0.022 0.110 +/- 0.085 0.182 0.076 +/- 0.029 0.048 5336S0065 0.053 +/- 0.098 0.246 0.133 +/- 0.021 0.025 0.047 +/- 0.067 0.331 0.100 +/- 0.032 0.049 5336S0066 0.34 +/- 0.18 0.38 0.484 +/- 0.038 0.040 0.48 +/- 0.18 0.32 0.130 +/- 0.045 0.085 5336S0067 0.25 +/- 0.20 0.46 0.372 +/- 0.042 0.046 0.24 +/- 0.47 1.18 0.151 +/- 0.047 0.077 5336S0068 0.27 +/- 0.28 0.64 0.399 +/- 0.044 0.053 0.44 +/- 0.36 0.81 0.127 +/- 0.051 0.099 Mean 0.32 -- 0.33 -- 0.38 -- 0.14 --

Median 0.31 -- 0.31 -- 0.41 -- 0.13 --

Minimum 0.05 -- 0.133 -- 0.047 -- 0.076 --

Maximum 0.76 -- 0.54 -- 0.78 -- 0.24 --

a Analytical values are rounded to 2 significant figures at the uncertainty, not to exceed 3 decimal places.

b Uncertainties are based on total propagated uncertainties at the 95% confidence level.

c MDC = minimum detectable concentration.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-13 5336-SR-01-0

Table B.14. Summary of ProUCL Test Results Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.17/9/2019 2:42:19 PM From File WorkSheet.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95%

Substantial Difference 0%

Sample 1 Mean/Median <= Sample 2 Mean/Median Selected Null Hypothesis (Form 1)

Alternative Hypothesis Sample 1 Mean/Median > Sample 2 Mean/Median Sample 1 Data: CU1 Sample 2 Data: RA-03 and RA-04 Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) Test H0: Mean/Median of Sample 1 <= Mean/Median of Sample 2 Sample 1 Rank Sum W-Stat 609.5 Standardized WMW U-Stat 0.777 Mean (U) 250 SD(U) - Adj ties 43.78 Approximate U-Stat Critical Value (0.05) 1.645 P-Value (Adjusted for Ties) 0.219 Conclusion with Alpha = 0.05 Do Not Reject H0, Conclude Sample 1 <= Sample 2 P-Value >= alpha (0.05)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report B-14 5336-SR-01-0

APPENDIX C: MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 5336-SR-01-0

The display of a specific product is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or its manufacturer by the author or his employer.

C.1. SCANNING AND MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT/

DETECTOR COMBINATIONS C.1.1 GAMMA Ludlum NaI Scintillation Detector Model 44-10, Crystal: 5.1 cm x 5.1 cm (Ludlum Measurements, Inc., Sweetwater, Texas) coupled to: Ludlum Ratemeter-scaler Model 2221 (Ludlum Measurements, Inc., Sweetwater, Texas) coupled to: Trimble Geo 7X (Trimble Navigation Limited, Sunnyvale, CA)

C.1.2 BETA Ludlum Plastic Scintillation Detector Model 44-142, 100 cm2 physical area, 1.2 mg/cm2 Mylar window (Ludlum Measurements, Inc., Sweetwater, Texas) coupled to: Ludlum Ratemeter-scaler Model 2221 (Ludlum Measurements, Inc., Sweetwater, Texas)

C.2. LABORATORY ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTATION Low-Background Gas Proportional Counter Series 5 XLB (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

Used in conjunction with:

Eclipse Software Dell Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

High-Purity, Extended Range Intrinsic Detector CANBERRA/Tennelec Model No: ERVDS30-25195 Canberra Lynx Multichannel Analyzer Canberra Gamma-Apex Software (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

Used in conjunction with:

Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, Tennessee) and Dell Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report C-1 5336-SR-01-0

High-Purity, Intrinsic Detector EG&G ORTEC Model No. GMX-45200-5 Canberra Lynx Multichannel Analyzer Canberra Gamma-Apex Software (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

Used in conjunction with:

Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, Tennessee) and Dell Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

High-Purity, Intrinsic Detector EG&G ORTEC Model No. GMX-30P4 Canberra Lynx Multichannel Analyzer Canberra Gamma-Apex Software (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

Used in conjunction with:

Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, Tennessee) and Dell Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

High-Purity, Intrinsic Detector EG&G ORTEC Model No. CDG-SV-76/GEM-MX5970-S Canberra Lynx Multichannel Analyzer Canberra Gamma-Apex Software (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

Used in conjunction with:

Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, Tennessee) and Dell Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, Connecticut)

Liquid Scintillation Counter Perkin Elmer Tricarb 5110TR (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, Massachusetts)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report C-2 5336-SR-01-0

APPENDIX D: SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report 5336-SR-01-0

D.1. PROJECT HEALTH AND SAFETY ORISE performed all survey activities in accordance with the ORAU Radiation Protection Manual, the ORAU Health and Safety Manual, and the ORAU Radiological and Environmental Survey Procedures Manual (ORAU 2014, ORAU 2016b, and ORAU 2016a). Prior to on-site activities, a Work-Specific Hazard Checklist was completed for the project and discussed with field personnel. The planned activities were thoroughly discussed with site personnel prior to implementation to identify hazards present.

Additionally, prior to performing work, a pre-job briefing and walk down of the survey areas were completed with field personnel to identify hazards present and discuss safety concerns. Should ORISE have identified a hazard not covered in the ORAU Radiological and Environmental Survey Procedures Manual (ORAU 2016a) or the projects Work-Specific Hazard Checklist for the planned survey and sampling procedures, work would not have been initiated or continued until the hazard was addressed by an appropriate job hazard analysis and hazard controls.

D.2. CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE Calibration of all field instrumentation was based on standards/sources, traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Field survey activities were conducted in accordance with procedures from the following documents:

• ORAU Radiological and Environmental Survey Procedures Manual (ORAU 2016a)

• ORAU Radiological and Environmental Analytical Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORAU 2017)

• ORAU Environmental Services and Radiation Training Quality Program Manual (ORAU 2018)

The procedures contained in these manuals were developed to meet the requirements of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 414.1D and the NRC Quality Assurance Manual for the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and contain measures to assess processes during their performance.

Quality control procedures include:

• Daily instrument background and check-source measurements to confirm that equipment operation is within acceptable statistical fluctuations CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report D-1 5336-SR-01-0

• Participation in Mixed-Analyte Performance Evaluation Program and Intercomparison Testing Program laboratory quality assurance programs

• Training and certification of all individuals performing procedures

• Periodic internal and external audits D.3. SURVEY PROCEDURES D.3.1 SURFACE SCANS Scans for elevated gamma radiation were performed by passing the detector slowly over the surface.

The distance between the detector and surface was maintained at a minimum. NUREG-1507, Table 6.4, provides NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contaminants. For Cs-137, the scan minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for the 2 x 2 sodium iodide (NaI) is 6.4 picocuries per gram (pCi/g). The NaI detectors were used solely as a qualitative means to identify elevated radiation levels in excess of background. Identifications of elevated radiation levels that could exceed the background were determined based on an increase in the audible signal from the indicating instrument.

Beta surface scans were performed using the plastic scintillation detector with a 1.2 mg/cm2 window and a physical area of 100 square centimeters (cm2). The distance between the detector and surface was maintained at a minimum. Surface scan MDC for the detector was estimated using the approach described in NUREG-1507 (NRC 1997). The scan MDC is a function of many variables, including a 2-second observation interval; a specified level of performance at the first scanning state of 90%

true positive and 25% false positive rate, which yields a d' value of 1.96 (NUREG-1507, Table 6.1);

and a surveyor efficiency of 0.75. The total weighted efficiency for beta was 0.25 based on Cs-137.

The scan MDC was calculated using the following equation:

x x (/60) x (60/)

=

x x 100 2 Where:

d' = index of sensitivity

= background (cpm)

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report D-2 5336-SR-01-0

= observation interval (sec) p = surveyor efficiency

= total efficiency The scan MDC for a nominal instrument background of 220 counts per minute (cpm) was 730 disintegrations per minute (dpm)/100 cm2 for the Ludlum Model 44-142.

D.3.2 SURFACE ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS Measurements of gross beta surface activity levels were performed using hand-held plastic scintillation detectors coupled to portable ratemeter-scalers. Count rates (cpm), which were integrated over 1 minute with the detector held in a static position, were converted to activity levels (dpm/100 cm2) by dividing the count rate by the total static efficiency ( x ) and correcting for the physical area of the detector plus background. The total beta efficiency for the Ludlum Model 44-142 was 0.25. The MDC for static surface activity measurements was calculated using the following equation:

3 + (4.65)

=

Where:

B = background in time interval, T (1 min)

T = count time (min) used for field instruments

= total efficiency = x (instrument efficiency x source efficiency)

G = geometry correction factor (1.0)

The result for the detector used was a beta static MDC of 290 dpm/100 cm2 (using a background of 220 cpm).

D.3.3 REMOVABLE ACTIVITY SAMPLING Smear samples for removable gross alpha and gross beta contamination were obtained from independent confirmatory measurement locations. Removable activity samples were collected using numbered filter paper disks. Moderate pressure was applied to the smear, and approximately 100 cm2 of the surface was wiped. Smears were placed in labeled envelopes. Locations and other CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report D-3 5336-SR-01-0

pertinent data were recorded. Wet smears for hard-to-detect (HTD) analysis were collected in the same manner described above, except the filter paper disk was first wetted with deionized water and the smear placed into a glass vial with deionized water. All samples were transferred under chain-of-custody to the ORISE Radiological and Environmental Analytical Laboratory.

D.3.4 SOIL SAMPLING Soil samples (approximately 0.5 kilogram each) were collected by ORISE personnel using a clean garden trowel to transfer soil into a new sample container. The container was then labeled and security sealed in accordance with ORISE procedures. ORISE shipped samples under chain-of-custody to the ORISE laboratory for analysis.

D.4. RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS D.4.1 GROSS ALPHA/BETA Smears were counted on a low-background proportional counter for gross alpha and beta activity.

The minimum detectable activity of the procedures is approximately 11 dpm/100 cm2 for alpha and 13 dpm/100 cm2 for beta.

D.4.2 GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY Samples were analyzed as received and mixed, crushed, and/or homogenized, as necessary, and a portion sealed in a 0.5-liter Marinelli beaker. The quantity placed in the beaker was chosen to reproduce the calibrated counting geometry. Net material weights were determined, and the samples were counted using intrinsic, high-purity, germanium detectors coupled to a pulse-height analyzer system. Background and Compton stripping, peak search, peak identification, and concentration calculations were performed using computer capabilities inherent in the analyzer system. All total absorption peaks (TAPs) associated with the radionuclides of interest (ROIs) were reviewed for consistency of activity. Spectra also were reviewed for other identifiable TAPs.

D.4.3 H-3 AND C-14 ANALYSIS H-3 analysis for the soil samples was performed using a material oxidizer and counted by liquid scintillation. The material oxidizer combusts samples in a stream of oxygen gas and passes the products, including H-3 as water vapor, through a series of catalysts. The H-3 is then captured by CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report D-4 5336-SR-01-0

trapping the scintillation cocktail specific to water. The typical MDC for a 60-minute count time using this procedure is approximately 3.5 pCi/g, depending on sample quantity.

Smear samples are placed into the scintillation cocktail without sample preparation and counted in a liquid scintillation analyzer. H-3 and C-14 values are calculated using the known efficiency in the appropriate energy region.

D.4.4 NI-63 ANALYSIS Ni-63 in environmental samples was precipitated as a nickel/dimethylglyoxime precipitate on an extraction chromatographic resin. Iron was removed from soil and smear samples prior to the nickel separation using anion exchange chromatography. Samples that contain sufficient amounts of radioactive cobalt were processed through an anion exchange column prior to passing the samples through the Ni resin. Other potential interfering elements were removed from the Ni column with a buffered ammonium citrate solution. Nickel was eluted off the column with dilute nitric acid. The Ni-63 activity was determined via liquid scintillation counting. The typical MDC is approximately 30 picocuries per liter for a 50 milliliter water sample using a 60-minute count.

D.4.5 DETECTION LIMITS Detection limits, referred to as MDCs, were based on 95% confidence level. Because of variations in background levels, measurement efficiencies, and contributions from other radionuclides in samples, the detection limits differ from sample to sample and instrument to instrument.

CREC Non-Impacted Land Areas Confirmatory Survey Report D-5 5336-SR-01-0