Text

Environ Survey of Engineered Products Dept,Monsanto Research Corp,Dayton,Oh, Final Rept
	ML20058A870
Person / Time
Site:	07000572
Issue date:	12/31/1981
From:	Berger J, Cole L, Condra R; OAK RIDGE ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
	CON-FIN-A-9090 NUDOCS 8207220133
	Download: ML20058A870 (43)
	v • d • e

_. - - -

(

l f

(

l Oak R dg Associated ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY Universities l

OF THE

) Prepared for Division of Fuel ENGINEERED PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT Cycle and Material Safety MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory DAYTON, OHIO Commission J. D. BERGER Radiological Site Assessment Program Manpower Education, Research, and Training Division FINAL REPORT December 1981 g

i A

9207220133 811231 PDR ADOCK 07000572 C

PDR

ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY OF THE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT I

MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORTION DAYTON, OHIO I

Prepared for I

Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

J.D. Berger I

Project Staff L.W. Cole C.W. Kuechle R.D. Condra J.C. Mann G.R. Foltz C.F. Weaver I

Prepared by I

Radiological Site Asses ment Program Manpower Education, Research, and Training Division Oak Ridge Associated Universities Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 I

I FINAL REPORT

~

December 1981 I

I I

This report is based on work performed under Interagency Agreement DOE No. 40-770-80 NRC Fin. No. A-9090 between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S.

Department of Energy.

Oak Ridge Associated Universities performs complementary work under contract number DE-AC05-760R00033 with the U.S. Department of Energy.

I TABLE OF C0!! TENTS Page List of Figures..

11 iii List of Tables.

Introduction.

1 Site Description.

2 Survey Procedures.

5 Results.

9 Conclusions.

12 References.

14 Appendices Appendix A: Major Sampling and Analytical Equipment Appendix B:

Analytical Procedures I

I lI I

'I I

t I

lI LIST OF FIGURES Page I

FIGURE 1: Map of South Dayton, Ohio, Area Indicating the Location of the Monsanto Research Corporation Facility.

15 FIGURE 2:

Plan View of the Monsanto Research Corporation Facility.

16 I

FIGURE 3:

Plot Plan of the Monsanto Engineered Products Department.

17 I

FIGURE 4: Locations of Exhaust Stacks, Holding Tank, and Sanitary Drain Access Point.

18 FIGURE 5:

EPA Standard Method 1 Criteria for I

Performing Air Velocity Measurements in Ducts.

19 FIGURE 6:

Example of a Stack Sampling Probe, Showing the Sampling Nozzle, Positioning Plate, and In-line Particulate Filter Holder.

20 FIGURE 7: Diagram of Stack Sampling System for Particulate Monitoring.

21 FIGURE 8:

Photograph of Apparatus Used for Sampling the Sanitary Drain..

22 I

FIGURE 9: Locations of Soil Sediment, and Storm Runoff Samples Collected in the Vicinity I

of the Engineered Products Department Facility.

23 FIGURE 10: Locations of Off-site Soil Samples, I

at 0.5 km and 1 km Distances from the EPD Exhaust Stacks.

24 FIGURE 11: Exposure Rates (pR/h) in the Vicinity of the Engineered Products Department Facility.

25 9

I I

I ii

'I LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1:

Velocity Profiles In Exhaust Ducts..

26 TABLE 2:

Stack Sampling Flow Rates and Volumes.

27 TABLE 3:

Radionuclide Concentrations in Baseline Soil and Water Samples.

28 TABLE 4:

Results of Stack Monitoring.

29 TABLE 5:

Results of Liquid Effluent Monitoring.

30 I

TABLE 6:

Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil.

31 I

I I

"1

I ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY 0F THE ENGINEEED PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION DAYTON, OHIO INTRODUCTION I

Facilities licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct operations involving radioactive materials must ensure that exposures to personnel and releases of radioactive substances to the enviroment as a result of their activities are within the established radiation protection guidelines.

To meet this requirement, a licensed facility develops and conducts a program for

.I controling and monitoring radiation and radioactivity levels.

Such programs are periodically reviewed by the NRC as part of the continuing regulatory and inspection process.

With only a few exceptions, the licensee's data regarding the monitoring and control j

program is accepted as complete and accurate.

For further evaluation of such data, the NRC has contracted with Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to perform independent short duration enviromental radiation surveys at selected facilities. These surveys include the collection of effluent and enviromental samples and measurement of direct radiation levels.

The findings are used to verify the accuracy of measurements being routinely performed by the licensee and to evaluate the adequacy of the envirorraental control and monitoring program.

'I During the period of July 14-16, 1981, five members of the Radiological Site Assesment Program of ORAU conducted a survey of Monsanto Research Corporation's Engineered Products Department (EPD) in Dayton, Ohio.

I I

j 1

lI I

SITE DESCRIPTION General Monsanto Research Corporation's Dayton, Ohio, facility is located on Nicholas Road, approximately 3 kilometers (km) southwest of the city's business district (see Figure 1).

The facility is situated in an area of light industrial and commercial development.

Nearest concentrations of residential housing are approximately 0.5 I

km north and northwest of the facility.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad borders the property on the northwest; the Miami River passes approximately 0.3 km southeast of the facility.

Prevailing winds are towards the northeast.

A chain link security fence surrounds the facility and access to the Monsanto property is restricted.

)I The EPD is only one of the activites conducted at this site.

All or part of four major buildings at the southwest corner of the I

site are occupied by EPD operations.

An inner security fence prevents access to the processing areas of the EPD. Figures 2 and 3 are plot plans of the site and the EPD area respectively.

Ooerations The EPD designs, fabricates, and distributes radioactive sources and devices under NRC license SNM-567. This license authorizes the following possession limits:

Rad ionucl id e Ouantity Comments I

Americium-241 6000 C1 Californium-252 10 mg Plutonium 199 gms all isotopes Polo nium-210 3000 C1 I

Curium 600 Ci isotopes 242, 243, and 244 Cesium-137 200 Ci Promethium-147 70 Ci Cobalt-60 50 Ci I

I 2

I Strontium-90 50 Ci l

Thallium-20 4 50 Ci Antimony-124 50 Ci Bismuth-210 50 Ci Others Small quantities Major products include neutron sources (Cf-252, AmBe-241, and PuBe-238), smoke detector foils ( Am-241) and heat sources for power generation (Pu-238).

There are presently no production operations involving Po-210.

All fabrication activities, involving the handling of radionuclides, are conducted in the northern wing of Building 2.

This wing and the small fenced area outside the building are I

controlled access areas for radiation protection purposes.

Building 7 is a below-grade bunker storage area for radioactive wastes.

Machining, container manufacture, and other support activities are housed in Buildings 4 and 5.

I Effluents I

Airborne I

Room air from the processing wing of Building 2 is filtered through local prefilters, through HEPA filters (single stage), and I

discharged through a common stack, approximately 64 centimeters (cm) in diameter and 6 meters (m) high.

The exhaust rate from this system varies to maintain proper pressure differentials and to adjust for changes in facility use.

EPD estimates the average flow rate to be 3

approximately 100 m / min.

Operations using unencapsulated radionuclides are performed in hot cells and glove boxes.

Air exhausted from these operations passes through double stage HEPA filters and is combined for I

discharge through a single stack.

This stack located on the roof of Building 2 is approximately 14 m high and 31 cm in diameter.

The 3

capacity as provided by EPD is approximately 10m / min.

The stack diameter is reduced to approximately 7 5 cm at the discharge to increase the exit velocity.

Outside air is introduced into this I

I system at a controlled rate to maintain a constant negative pressure I

differential between the processing boxes or cells and other areas of the facility.

The locations of these two systems are shown in Figure 4.

Exhaust from a small commercial waste compactor in Building 2 is operated on an as-needed basis.

I Filter systems undergo in-place testing for leakage and penetration.

The cell and roca exhaust stacks are continuously monitored by isokinetic sampling.

A single-nozzle probe is used to sample the cell exhaust system.

This probe is located approximately I

3 m above the blower, in an undisturbed section of duct.

(At the time of the survey, it was noted that this probe was not secured in position within the ductwork.

The licensee took immediate steps to correct this deficiency.)

I The room air exhaust stack sampler consists of a five nozzle probe, located approximately 1.5 m above the blower-stack transition.

The five intakes are combined to provide a single sample stream.

Visual inspection of this probe indicated that it was in good I

condition. Sampled air is drawn through metal tubing to the facility interior, where particulates are collected on 0.8 um membrane filters using commercially available fixed-filter continuous air monitoring instruments.

I Collecting media are replaced late af ternoon each work day.

The filters are analyzed by gross alpha counting immediately af ter replacement for indications of possible accidential or excessive release s.

Filters are retained for one week to permit decay of the naturally occurring radon and thoron daughter products, and recounted to determine the actual stack discharge concentrations.

The waste I

compactor exhaust is monitored only during its operation.

The licensee has identified the controlling radionuclide in the exhaust stream to be Pu-238.

Routine monitoring data, indicates that discharges at the stack release points are being controlled to less than 10% of the unrestricted area parmissible concentration for insoluble Pu-238 which is 7 x 10-14 uCi/ml.

I 4

I Liouids Process liquids are collected at the point of operations solidified, and disposed of as radioactive solid waste.

No drains l

l exist in the processing faciities.

An emergency shower, decontamination sink and laundry facility are serviced by a 3

I 2.3 x 10 liter hold-up tank, located below ground, adjacent to the controlled area (see Figure 4).

When full, the tank contents are agitated, sampled, and, if levels permit, released to the sanitary I

drain. Should the level exceed the applicable permissible concentration, dilution with other facility liquid wastes may be utilized; however, dilution has not been required during previous operations.

The remainder of the liquid waste from the facility is sanitary waste and is released to the Dayton sanitary sewage system without treatment or monitoring.

I SURVEY PROCEDURES i

Obiectives The objectives of this survey were to:

1.

measure direct radiation levels in unrestricted areas around the facility, I

2.

monitor routine releases of radionuclides in air and liquid ef fluents, and I

3 detect possible accumulation of radionuclides in the I

envirornent as a result of present and previous operations.

The data obtained would be used to confirm measurements performed by the licensee and to evaluate the adequacy and accuracy of envirornental controls and monitoring procedures.

I I

e

I Measurement of Direct Radiation Prior to performing measurements of direct radiation levels, a walk-around scan was conducted at the perimeter of the restricted area, using a gamma scintillation ratemeter. ' The purpose of this scan was to identify specific locations of elevated gamma radiation.

Exposure rates were then measured at locations of elevated intensity and systematically at approximately 3 m intervals around the perimeter.

Measurements were conducted with an energy-compensated Geiger-Mueller detector and scaler /ratemeter.

Count rates were I

determined with the probe in the open-and closed-shield con-figurations to differentiate between penetrating and non-penetrating or low energy photon radiations.

Count rates were converted to exposure rates microRoentgens per hour (p R/h) using factors determined by cross calibration of the G-M detector with a pressurized ionization chamber.

Similar surveys were also conducted at the fenci along the northwest boundary of the facility - the nearest area accessible by the general public.

I Stack Effluent Monitorinst Locations selected for stack monitoring were to be at least seven duct diameters downstream of the nearest transition, bend, or other disturbance, thus minimizing the possibility of significant variations in airflow patterns at the sampling points.

For the 64 cm diameter duct from the roca air exhaust, this location was 3 6 m above the blower / stack transition; for the 31 cm diameter processing area exhaust duct, the monitoring was performed 2.1 m above the blower / stack transition.

In each stack two - 3 cm diameter access holes were drilled at 900 angles to each other.

Air velocity I

measurements were performed at these locations in accordance with EPA Standard Method #1 using a pitot tube and swinging vane anemometer.

Figure 5 summarizes the criteria for selection of velocity measurement locations in ductwork.

Measurements in the process area were performed on an 8-point traverse; lack of a pitot tube longer

Appendi: A includes a listina of major ecuirment used for this aurvey.

Analytical procedurea arc described in Appendi: B.

i I

e

I than 30 cm and a desire to avoid drilling excessive holes in the ductwork, limited velocity measurements in the larger stack to a partial traverse and centerline measurements.

The velocity profiles obtained are presented in Table 1.

Two locations in each duct were selected for positioning of stack sampling probes.

These locations (see Table 1) represented equal cross sectional areas of the stack and were in regions where air velocities were demonstrated to be relatively constant over distances of several centimeters.

For each stack, the nominal I

sampling rates were to be approximately 10 liters / minute (1/ min) through one probe and 201/ min through the other probe. The higher flow rate was selected to provide a duplicate sample for the licensee.

Probe nozzles were selected to achieve isokinetic sampling at these desired sampling rates.

The nozzles were connected to tubes, supported b, metal plates.

These plates were secured in

=

position on the stack by flexible straps.

In-line filter holders containing 47 mm diameter membrane filters (0.8 um) were attached to the probes.

Vacuum for each sampling system was provided by an 851/ min capacity pump. Flow rates were controlled by needle valves and monitored using rotameters (0-301/ min range). A photograph of a I

stack probe and filter holder assembly is shown in Figure 6 and a diagram of the sampling train is shown in Figure 7 Af ter installaticn of the probe assemblies and connection of the vacuum, control, and measurement equipment, air flows in each probe were adjusted to the desired isokinetic sampling rate.

Times and flow rates were noted. Samples were collected over a 24-hour period.

Several checks of flow rates were made during this period to assure that the desired flow was being maintained (no significant changes I

were noted over the 24-hour period). The filters were replaced at the end of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and a second series of 24-hour samples obtained.

Flow rates and sample volumes are summarized in Table 2.

Following sampling, the probes were removed and holes in the duct were patched.

Filter papers (except those samples split with I

7 I

I the licensee) were returned to the laboratory in Oak Ridge, I

Tennessee.for analysis.

Liould Effluent Monitoring Hold-Up Tank Contents of the liquid waste hold-up tank were agitated for 15 minutes.

Three and one-half liters of liquid was withdrawn and split with the licensee.

The liquid was filtered through a 0.45 um I

membrane filter and 10 ml of concentrated nitric acid added.

Both the filtered water and the suspended (filtered) solids were analyzed.

Sanitary Drain System I

A hose equipped with a screen strainer to remove solids, was inserted through a cleanout access into the sanitary sewage drain from Building 2 (see Figure 4).

This hose was connected to a low flow-rate " metering" pump (Figure 8).

A sample was collected at a I

rate of approximately 3 ml/ min over a 24-hour period, split with the licensee, and filtered, acidified, and analyzed in the same manner as r

the hold-up tank sample.

Soil Samoline 1

On-Site l

Surface (0-5 cm) soil samples of approximately 2 kg each were collected from seven locations in the immediate vicinity of the EPD facility.

The locations of these samples are indicated on Figure 9 lI Samples were split with the licensee.

Off-Site To identify off-site accumulation of radionuclides attributable to Monsanto operations, surface soil was collected at four locations, I

L I

l approximately 0.5 km and four locations approximately 1 km frce the f acility (see Figure 10).

Samples were split with the licensee.

l 0ther On-site Samoline A sample of sediment and a sample of water were collected from storm drain catch-basins in the vicinity of the EPD facility.

Locations are indicated on Figure 9 Samples were split with the licensee.

I Baseline Soil and Water Samoles Two surface soil samples and one water sample were collected approximately 5 km south and southeast of the facility.

A sample of water from the Miami River (approximately 0.5 km south of the facility) was also collected.

These samples served as baselines for comparison with other samples collected in the area of the Monsanto facility.

I RESULTS Backcround Radiation and Baseline Concentrations I

Background radiation levels measured on the Monsanto property ranged between 9 and 13 uR/h. Table 3 presents the baseline surface soil and water concentrations of the principal radionuclides used by the EPD. The Po-210 and Cs-137 levels identified in these samples are in the range of those normally present in soil and water and can be attributed to naturally occurring materials and fallout from I

nuclear weapons testing.

The other radionuclides are either present in very low concentrations or their presence is statistically questionable.

I I

9 e

I Direct Radiation Levels Radiation levels measured at the perimeter of the EPD restricted area and at the northwest fenceline of the Monsanto property are presented on Figure 11.

The maximum radiation level measured at the Monsanto fenceline, in an area accessible by the general public, was 26 uR/h; the maximum level at the EPD perimeter was 0.475 mR/h I

(milliRoentgens per hour). These levels are well within the NRC guideline which limits the exposure in unrestricted areas to a maximum of 2 mR/h with less than 100 mR possible exposure accumulation during any seven consecutive days.1 It should be noted that the EPD perimeter is not a true " unrestricted" area since only authorized personnel have access to that location.

I Stack Effluent Concentrations I

Stack monitoring results are summarized in Table 4.

On the basis of gross alpha analysis, the maximum concentrations measured in

~I the room air and process area exhausts were 3 9 2 5.2 x 10-15 pCi/cc and 1.1 10.7 x 10-14 pCi/cc respectively.

These are in agreement with the licensee's reported levels of <4 x 10-14 pCi/cc for all stack sample measurements.

The gross beta concentrations ranged up to approximately 10 times the gross alpha levels. There were no gamma photopeaks identifiable by an 800 minute count on a composite of all filters.

Qualitative alpha spectroscopy on the membrane filters indicated separate energy peaks at approximately 5.5 MeV (probably Pu-238 and/or Am-241) and 5.2 MeV (probably Pu-239 and/or Po-210).

I Of these likely contaminants, Pu-238 has the lowest maximum permissible concentrations for release to unrestricted areas.

This information substantiates the licensee's assumption that Pu-238 is the controlling radionuclide in the EPD air effluents. Fractions of the permissible concentrations measured by this study were:

rom air exhaust <0.31% to 0.57% and process area exhaust, 0.65% to 1.1%.

I I

10 I

I Liauid Effluent Concentrations Table 5 presents the results of the hold-up tank and sanitary and storm drain effluent analyses.

Gross alpha analyses were performed for insoluble and soluble radionuclides.

The soluble fractions were also analyzed by gamma spectrometry for any identifiable photopeaks and alpha spectrometry for Pu-238, Pu-239, Po-210, and Am-241.

The hold-up tank had a gross alpha corcentration of 1.710.1 x 10-7 uCi/ml of suspended solids (insoluble fraction) and 6.9 1 2.6 x 10-9 uci/ml of soluble radionuclides.

The total I

concentration is approximately 3 4 times the total gross alpha determined by the licensee.

This difference is due to the higher concentration measured in the insoluble fraction.

Lack of homogeniety on the filter papers could explain a disagreement of this magnitude.

Qualitative alpha spectroscopy of the filter solids from the hold-up tank sample indicated that the major contributors are in the energy region of approximately 5 5 Mev--probably Pu-238 or Am-241.

Alpha spectrometry for soluble radionuclides indicated low concentrations of Pu-239 (4.013.6 x 10-10 u Ci/ml) and Po-210

( 8.6 I

1 2.4 x 10-11 uCi/ml). Concentrations of Pu-238 and Am-241 were comparable to baseline levels. Cs-137 and Co-60 concentrations of I

soluble radionuclides were 1.0 1.0 x 10-8 p Ci/ml and 6.01 3 0 x 10-8 uCi/ml respectively.

No other photopeaks other than those from naturally occurring radionuclides were detected in either the soluble or the insoluble fractions.

All levels measured were well within the allowable limits for release to unrestricted areas.

Concentrations of Po-210 in the sanitary drain and storm drain ef fluents were slightly higher than baseline levels.

Gross alpha, Pu-238, Pu-239, Am-241, Cs-137, and Co-60 concentrations were all comparable to the baseline concentrations and were well within allowable levels for unrestricted areas.

The licensee did not perform analyses on these samples and thus no comparison was possible.

1 I

11

I Soil and Sediment Concentrations Results of soil and sediment sample analyses are summarized in Table 6.

All soil samples were analyzed by gamma spectrometry and no significant photopeaks, other than those present in the baseline samples, were noted.

The Cs-137 concentration (2.0010.09 pCi/g) in the on-site sample from location S2 was approximately twice the l

l baseline concentrations.

On-site samples from locations S1, S2, and l

SS, the on-site sediment sample SD1, and off-site samples S9 and S13 from locations in the prevailing downwind direction were also I

analyzed by alpha spectrometry for Pu-238, Pu-239, and Po-210, and Am-241.

Concentrations of these radionuclides in the six samples were low and generally comparable to baseline sample levels.

Sample S2 indicated eome, d concentrations of Pu-239 and Am-241; however, the levels were ormy 0.073 A 0.007 pCi/g and 0.080 0.011 pC1/g respectively.

These results indicate that significant radionuclide concentrations have not accumulated in soils in the vicinity of the EPD from spills, accidental or routine airborne releases.

I CONCLUSIONS Monitoring performed by ORAU at the Engineered Products Department of Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, indicates that the direct radiation levels and concentrations of radionuclides in air and water discharges are within the federal guidelines for unrestricted areas. Stack monitoring and holding tank analyses performed by the licensee during the same time period were comparable I

to the ORAU results.

There was no evidence of accummulation of radionuclides attributable to EPD operations in the immediate envirornent of the site.

It is therefore concluded that the licensee's envirormental monitoring and control program is adequate and accurate data is being generated by the licensee for confirming compliance with applicable regulations.

I I

12

a

/

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS y

i 1

The authors wish to express their appreiciation to the staff of

~

Engineered Products Department for their cooperation during this project, and in particular to Mr. Steve Hoadley of the Health, Physics Department, without whose assistance this survey could not have been f

oerformed.

~

r'

,w 9'

f

,s 4

t f

J f

f T

4 J

k rT 9

s.

t

]

13

/

J x

I REFERDICES 1.

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Standards for Protection Acainst Radiation (19 81).

2.

Title 40, Code Federal Regulations, Part 60, Standards of W

Performance for New Stationary Sources (1977).

I I

.I I

I I

l tI

!I I

l l

!I 1

'I

,I i' __

I I Wm' W.9%m $m%fE W F@m.iF E

I

.\\

. Feo M M t?2A1.t"W M7Ir > w &nd)J M ie u.

& x m

sHa s.g.c pgag=g.qgm.

$m x r w a g M '_

w MWWy.s q s.

D'@gs',s

y. s -

aiep 1

4-m

%\\

ys@r %g g -s W 4. N:p&g l

E

p. w pa. i Q g r, p

v 1 \\5. r.

plj vi

~

\\

\\ <

3,.:.8 3

m M kir Q;- M. W..a

" wf [,.5 p; g.,.

9

' @ i+ J'. C h g

' ' Np.

I I

y,)-* %W 4 y.g.,

2 ta - 4 eM1!.

g.

.,,g g.,3

.,\\.e p

=f c

w.c,,

p.,,

,,ur ;

a I

- , P ~ ~ ( T._ N

.L.,

. / $ I **

_. -,_ d h"4 W d'$ M$"_d 4't

e a, u.

u MM 7 s

' ' s

\\

r5

',, C. _

u

, :-i i.e. W.'J M,;.gasd i

fi lW,.,. ~ (i

n a

\\

x8p

,as

,s.-a r\\ w~, -

33,

e

./.g'T

/

.A -

o

=g I' ".. -

gTet' \\a ia.g=. co

=

w

.s

=.

s I

m(;., g

c. s

]

O

.-)%

K a.e "F,

44

.C >

r M

b

.' ll Az m

.. ~t s.

si

, s,.

s

,?sf 8 f?,. 9*1 -

e.-

. - g a W.. P'h

,a1f* -

.:,I

.,. - anL;;~

N I

g..s m

-u

. '\\ s, e -

a w,aj w

a su =

u a 5 g 1 't,rv : N ',

= _

3g w :

r i

Q , %.! 3,;E s'

ex 9" 4. T.tg1 g.

1' "E'

ff

.9 =

ei e{ ge M

. 'M C i

I w.n.w[y, -l,

kx.u.i?. ~,_p=Y, J

-w mo i.s v ~

=

,. m

\\

s.:

c-

=

k L

..I I

i 4

m - a,

. n c. u. %.

m,, s eg h--

i[

N

's 8

6._i f I

,a

.e w..

fif.95'.J! p"'**'f {h., *..$$}Tij$.'9y j$ [

s._

=

~.

rI.

m. s

=

p"" r i,*i w.TT'iltik,s' l N-'" :

3 g

Q

@I Sj C

r.

L L69 cRry ~>%

%, m. [_, d

.D l

3.m.. _M.._ i H

s u

n

. s,.,-. s.,m

'f.

t.

o 8

3 cU Yd[. kNi.P [ U i~ t _

[r.N 5h c.. ar.,

5'"

"'"E8Eks I

M...;,.IO ii

,, =b ~-N IA

",,.Y_IE 'i r

= -:

a ni's... 4 'T 17%

if..s.. g "-t.j-p;;;4 y n;-7 s,

}

j -* %%

1 s

.u.

$j f

-. g..

.. +

- p /f, W ? m.

n

<3 : -.i

<,s..,

~ w,.4 x-I

.s'

.p* d::/g.g e

s e

w<

r

% o e pey

.m__-

@ We'i,s., j., wa mz p

.p o.=

-}.*.d, ""{ m -

7,.J-

%Y.D $=

j W.. 9

,'.,[1,

, M.g si

c. "

.,.g.. :,q'7

. i, f

r o

=-

- I

,P.._ j-m y;. % it P "'

4.*,, PJ 7

7T a

a !

t"*'*

i - -"

-.'"T pf=

-4 i;

O **

Z O

.LvR.*

'. ~ r 9.. g.*s q%e w~** ;Q<a.,t..

, H gy a _ ; h.cf I

,,. /*,

i w

. f t..i.r. -

g or :

s.

s 4f,-#-Pi"dd'a.im a.,g

. m o.,

.g y

8<

' t =h :g-,

m -s*-

t sj e

r e,,

u s

d

."",,,2 "*'.,', D : tm 9:g.r.. M [ //t.'?1Q;.dP_g[@$j Ag M

8"'-

~

z :..,

.h s

%! L e

/

I r

u

=

.5! b d $*.',7 h,N*~5*i Gi 7

-j 3

Mi A.'"

/

++ e w [p g w e cw p 3i= g ;s.t AlNbT C

.: a......

5 r

i ;

.e.7'N I

'.[.j ikh b

i E

s. u...u i m

,a,).d_. l.., s,.,'a Q'Q p

(,g gg

{;3

{

. ",,.aty g T

a

~

g o

w M, "" $

M @Ji.P2 E t._{

i

-,.. ! h, 3

'O M

s C.,,)s y ;

yl rify:-

d eirs

!t v.

s = """

p

?

4 is!*~ t..g a53=

1

['

.c-(.

[3 "O

l

-L

- jgy

, '.g. r, 7.t. m.,

,.,5 t,.

L...c.,t, e.g.=

i. 4.r,m L'w,y4M i I b, p, u,, o_n a

'. x=

a I

.w-,.c. 2 v.,

a 1

i i

i p

e. _:

1

=

4a

_ ~

i :.<

..: W a

J ir,=,R : W gi y_.i<i c.;--

' wjui 3.x3 3

.! y, n 15

m

.- ]=.

)

M

(

r.

jpx e

M 51,:

- J- _

n

i

i.

M

_':ih i

i

1 M

, d

_l

/_

n.

~~

)

~

j

~

I

~-

y l

~

t

~

a :: g p-i 0

l

~

M r

~

1 i

c a

=TO

. a,,,e f.l F

a n

b _

'=2 o

M d __._ =Qn' i

- g=

t a

_f r

o

=9 x

M k5 r

r 1

p l

o

$f" i

(

C

",,. ~ &f: 4.E.

].-

d r; r

l p

a h

i-c s

c

}-

n[.g r

f M

5 "

]c g u

Q]a.fgsg, a

r g

e s

d e

rJ a

R M

3,_

D {ps

{O " _ -.=_g,ig

~

t o

l 1

R o

g; s'

s t

l.

l~

n a

a l

s o

n

/

/. h o

~

M l

c M

/~

i

/

b N

e g ~

~

h

~

t m[I M

f

';i-

/

o r

d w

e l a

~

e 1_,* ",

2 i

l e a

.w V

o

' or M

/,/

rA n

A Wy t

s, ns 4

a A

os l

d P

0I p'/

A1Gy C e t

c M

D c 1

1 I' f

/

l mg,leQ A' m

l P A I"

2 E

0

/,f 0e0 E/.

E

~

I_

2 6

Y, R

l"

/

gl.

U k -

I"' 4E_

M G

/

ig 4_ t

/

'a I

?

F p7 p%j s/o 4

,,~

I

.~

i-E.

il N

[

E r

0

.g a~fM M

l 0

0 A

3 C

1

,,p l'/

S

b. "',

_,s h_ f* r.

[

u O

/

f

.ll 1

.C M

p s.

s

/

dL c-b.

tis s'

o:O j7 j/

l'/

f 3]

M

[l

,, /p/

j f, /

-/

M

-2

I I

I

/

,/

o,

//

,/

r k

/

a'

,/

^

H f

i

,i j

L-

]

BLEG 3 i

/r,, /'

/

BLDG 4 l

Q

]

I

/

// /j/

,..........x-........-..,

l

,/

l f/

I

,/

l BP j

I

./

?

M, EPD CONTROLLED l

e' BLDG 5 ACCESS AREA l

I

/

i

(')

C l

l l

/

)

/

L f

BLDG 2 1,

i a

\\------

NICHOLAS RD.

I I

FIGURE 3.

Plot Plan of the Monsanto Engineered Products Department.

g u

I I

/

s' I

/

j

/

f L

i

(

l

,/

f n

\\

'j i

I

/-

1 BLDG 3 i.

/

f' BLDG 4 l

J I

l,

,/

./b

.l I

', / -

A2 BLDG

/

{

7

,i e

/

IW1 I

7 hu EPD CONTROLLED l

/

BLDG 5 ACCESS AREA l

' l i

c-cj I/

3 e

n ll

/

l BLDG 2 1

1 i

I i

I-e W2 j

I---.--

..]---------.--.--------------------.--------~~------------=

NICHOLAS RD.

Al - Room Air Exhaust Stack I

A2 - Processing Area U.xhaust Stack W1 - Holding Tank W2 - Sanitary Drain Access I

I FIGURE 4.

Loca tions of Exhaus t Stacks, Holding Tank, and Sanitary Drain Access Point.

18

M M

M OA' eB' eC' eD' e

e o

e A

B C

D E

F G

11 e E' e F' 5

oc' e gg' 1

Duct

of DISTANCES OF POINTS FROM DifCT WALL Diameter Points (fraction of duct diameter)

(cm)

Per Traverse A

B C

D E

F G

11 I

J K

1.

<61 8

.032

.105

.194

.323

.677

.806

.895

.968

>61 12

.021

.067

.118

.177

.250

.356

.644

.750

.823

.882

.933

.979 FIGtlRE 5.

EPA Standard Method 1 Criteria for Performing Air Velocity Measurements in Ducts.

a

E E

E M

i 3

k.

I

.i t

i l

Particulate Filter Holder Sampling Intake Nozzle I

(

~

p%ggy a

gw l

}

.z j

Securing Plate,f;/

i

=

fy f.

< j

+

l' ::.p..

4 1

i

)

FIGURE 6.

Example of a Stack Sampling Probe, Showing the Sainpling Nozzle, Positioning l

Plate, and In-Line Particulate Filter lloider.

(For this photograph the nozzle has been rotated 90" from its usual position relative to the positioning plate.)

4 I

I TO VACUUM PUMP i

=

ROTAMETER

-O j

J)

PROBE PARTICULATE FILTER FIGURE 7.

Diagram of Stack Sampling System for Particulate Monitoring.

t

?.,\\\\l!

,i,

,.It l

ll

.6 i

t.

!i l.

,I

.~.

>mqaw.

.,..q.Q.'

. :. V n.m;. s

x. u. g'%

n,v%.

n r

i e

n ar ia t

D z,

n o

y it i

C r

s n

a o

t c

n i.

lo S

e l

a C

e h

,/

t g

. 4 l

n i

)9 4

p h

? 'l m

a t

p

.;g',3Y nt S

. ;gI,

.i r

A, ^~

f. Dr

.t o

f

. ~.y*

cb

~.~

d e

.,. ; x.

s s

.;w(my c

re U

se c

s A

tu

&u p

ia a

n i

r rD a

. g,<i% ~ ~'

t p

y p

f a

A r

.,4, f l

i

~:

pPw;~?y n

f

+,

a

, v k.*i.?" s:4.i ~

S o

a>.

h

. si. i '~

~

.u y,,.$+. i p

L.

a E d:

r 4;.e$.y*.$:.5,l'.My~Y'@p*=Wm

^

g o

F-

/~

t 7:

p

-.l o

m h

u z,

.Q 4

P

,29;3%p,.

.f l4m...

g6:X'-

P g

n

, ;&HMd.4%?:;.,

. M

?

< r',

f

1 5 =:

i k,

r 8

e t

., Q v. T. ? $

e E

,if R

.M d

lx,.r.Q;.i2~.%

{

U

.d 5

.i G

u 1

?

j%

xi

y7;e0 k' m,4 I

q 1

e:u:. u F

x'y-E

, =. y::<sQ::ci$' r. e 'E;2m. Z > %"> c-.&

+ - y$ e. L

7

. $h,3 F

f~

Lpa s R.p

.m $pl5;m,dDl,s.gl.,

y, p

)z, t

.c.~

3 m+7:

3$.,y.. ~

~,

y '

.s% ' -

'yt.$,*c:.:4'gc%Whg%"t h{.,.<

eQ c

' i U.iG~

M07 j

_u i

<l

I I

/-

/

S1

\\

k l

f L

,/

U t

/

I j

f l

I

'.3 BLDG 3 i

,i BLDG 4 l

]

i' I

l

,.........m........--.,

l e

e S3 i

, ' S2 l

BLDG l

I/

/

7

[

l

/

l I

EPD CONTROLLED S$

f BLDG 5 ACCESS AREA l

i l

/

j wol' i

,f r

i S4

/

)

/

L_

l BLDG 2 1

j 7

I l

i S7 o

I SD1 l

--C---eS6 NICHOLAS RD.

Sl-S7 - Surface Soil I

SD1 - Storm Drain Sediment WD1 - Storm Drain Water I

FIGURE 9.

Locations of Soil Sediment, and Storm Runoff Samples Collected in the Vicinity of the Engineered Products Department Facility.

23

I

. * -%,- f:. A~~,.

'l

~ A.

-,~ ~.,;

.s p.

a.r..

5

~l

.i q8, g -~. 5

%,. 4 y.*:'_ --- -"'" "

~

- o l

I wp%. s,.)' b WD c giqe p-*

e..,

g -

e

'l

\\^'

^

a&*

Y

%~g _

g--.--

.,,a_ y _

" ', : ~~~- - m - 'k -. =. : - nKo aj s,.

Q 1rms-

'- (

g3,, w --

sej -

w f

a;,:

w n a

.:, p r-I-w7^..

?

.. :_ ~. s-I_

a ea

. io, h-=

[

j

..s 4

s

y. f., 722%

'n""""," f -

9'f".'."1.045

$?

7, - 4 =S

,4

,/ -

., e

,== '.

J,,, L s sg "Y

-C

-w", -

Zf<="*' ; j 4 R ~~ g&'" -- $3* *'**' """"" "f"% %^.:

=M

' ( a yg_ '

A)E!!.L-?.

-W / si ur..."./

- !. Ch.

,c'. 'r Q %

W'J:'y&

a a ?

3 LcL* :. p.

-.Q ;

7 hMGV y

b_

S 13 l

J} d,

K.

& f,.

-i

--g-----~

2.

Q

~

9

.:.:s=

--,y d'.rg-~""J 7--

y"--

sp

,'...n.,,,,,,,,,,,

+

~--,/ bs _-

I

- u,w ery (.

W.suman

- Q*

i.

p ~-,

2 g ---

g

^#7c

,N maM.~ ape av i

fr rii i 30

..-A S

a

~>. w. S 12

.m-m 5 ff

s*M"';

9 g

Dk=9}u e.-

Is 'Aw/

, gym./

- kY[,1 ane st,g g*

ag

.. n

-+

S9 rur 9

I

- s(,..

I o

S8 lR)'

.- 3 m-l,y, jyr "$j fA.

noc.,(

a H.gn 3ch 4,,,

an_m

.ve

.,c f.s'..S.

'm. y fps y x

,leepenu, c

~.

w

,W

_4

~ ce f.~ ~ y '

Engineered Products l

kl, pQ EFnjg?d '.

~-

s Department Q4-.

1 -4' f---------

/y

,7.

. %).N ca.

C'"" 9 6 S 10

L -

'f '

so

/

g gg k -[4

i

[jQ

' b -. c - g.p.q, coLFj COURSE -

,-~?p. ]h.. ~ -~,.4.G#

1' ' C an no n' A se n 7*

/

/ /""i

+ g. %-

I N

/

'~-- Q,)" %.[ n

"*Q l

s' 4lM

.-c

/

,1 c:

.].j

%'h'!.K*.y AQ

= +% ;, x. "", z' f

,i j

y-- HighvteF Sch Ig ' J'/

a 3 JGef' ' 4'%- - -

~~ "&=-u'~

jr s S M J'

i

~ r&N..,

g-7

.e S 15 1.4

)? -c

?},

.'4

/

-7..,~~[ll

.. %., = L _

2f -. =.

- -a / ;I-ts, -:,/s.

o,,p e

om y

,.T 7 g,5 +is.y. v,. ;c:,fzstyrm ji 6. A( 1

~

k, E *\\f V *M ky' ;:;\\ :.

?- r

+

s sena&; y ! '(j

_s/

}., ~

CENETER} jMllT f*

I

+

/J

'd Jb

,l i oisposdf q

+ q ~ ;J' '(,,./-= W b y' g y '

_g3@.,l lW8

... _... _...k.i g

l s-

_-m

.. 3

../,

I es l{

~

rk-f

f.-ry.

I s' q??

y?',** j

', & 21t4 Q.y_" j..y,.?g. :j.

t 4

3

%V - " :

t_, f

$ f,l j

^

-li

'md<

ll ' I 5.a' h.

,: w}.fa?!

{

$'i p/~'%

TQ

*/ l- -- [ _

l\\l n.

e j,,-'

'Y g r,a,,e *q" " 'al.

L.jy w

t._.c 3,

b )1 mas y

~

2 4 g; Q.. re.:, 8 ~ r r I

. an. n

- m, pam a.:

ve<f Lf-

._ 7 f4

_m-e5 l

1

~'

s,b. 5

~A-

"E ForwI

==I *

i.'""- -- W----

l ) a"ig a g a s 5 n 7,'

^.b b ~

'C"

?/i,'

y l

1 N

.. - r ~~J l lt T c//

,ir,

!:!I o

~

,4~. uoes.-;;- 5* D l."-

-.'g,

J.

c o N,-

-:E I /s ~.

q d?p

-u 1m ll

. n.: t:.fr. - -,.

l:

c-- y'~3 g me

%j*,Q vg r

e i ' 5lj'/

ij.!i{lz

3. 510RAINE 4/ s 1 Er

'~

it i l

l M.

i N

/

a ::;: va g

' b. #

h?

.?eQ

\\

g j

t g '- ~-

3

.;I.il'. C i::. to

,a A

4 g;*,,;gy i. a y\\f /

l s

. '. ~,

f i

\\

il a I

. i,-

lI

-2 1 ME l

T _

__0 M

M m

4x:

5.y mo m im s

l

O d(TER FIGURE 10.

Locations of Off-site Soil Samples, at 0.5 km and 1 km Distances f rom the EPD Exhaust Stacks.

'I

(

24

N m

8 11 9

9 1

26 13 13 194 275 90 39 23 25 475 It 51 55 BLUG 2 BLDG 69 4

5 19' 3

8" 69

- i b 19 40 9

r 9'

84 46 BLDG 0

5,0 100 FT 20 7

21 5

1S 3O M 28 18 SCALE 16 18 31 56 FIGURE 11.

Exposure Rates (pR/h) in the Vicinity of the Engineered Products Department Facility.

I TABLE 1 VELOCITY PROFILES IN EXHAUST DUCTS Diameter Measurement' Velocity Stack Use (cm)

Position m/ min I

1 Room air 64 A

470 B

6%

i C

630 D

630 E

600 F

590 centerline 620 A'

5 80 B'

610 C'

620 D'

630 E'

650 F'

650 centerline 660 2

Process '.ine 31 A

390 B

460 C

460 D

450 I

E 420 F

440 0

450 H

370 A'

310 B'

400

'I C'

420 D'

420 E'

4 80 F'

460 G'

460 H'

460 eSee Figure 5 26 I

J

m M

TABLE 2 STACK SAMPLING FLOW RATES AND VOLUMES Sampling Point and Velocity at Sampling Sampling Sample Stack Use Location Sampling Point Rate Date Time Volume fem from duct wall)

(m/ min)

(1/ min)

(min)

(1) 1 Room Air A-4.3 6 40 21.4 7/14-15/81 1412 1.51 x 10"*

0 B - 16 6 50 18.2 7/14-15/81 1412 2.57 x 10 A-4.3 6 40 21.4 7/15-16/81 1362 1.46 x 10"*

B - 16 6 50 18.2 7/15-16/81 1362 2.4 8 x 10" 2

Process Line A - 29 400 20.0 7/14-15/81 1390 139 x 60"*

B-7.8 460 15.6 7/14-15/81 1390 2.17 x 10" A - 29 400 20.0 7/15-16/81 1382 1.3 8 x 10"*

B-7.8 460 15.5 7/15-16/81 1382 2.14 x 10" OSample split with licensee; volume listed is one-half of total sampled.

I I

? ?

e e 2 2

'o

'o i

e O

O i

m M

M m

6 L

e I

2 1 &

J J 1

u u e.

e.

a a

m e,

a, n

-o o

er 9

o.

M M

m o

o E

o o

d V

W o.

m.

o.

- o N

e:

o<

V3 m e a

e g

e o

o w

e m

M o.

o M

M p

$-4 0

e o

o S %

4 %

a

=

m o.

o.

e.

o.

g I

o o m

m 7<

e - -

s s

m W

m en o

o U

o M

i a

o 2

- o O

N O

o I

M M

M C

c e

og m

o og Z

o o

+1

+1 m

o n

a o.

o.

g c

c A

c O

o o O

o W

.O.e w

m m

a e

v e

e m

6 6 - *=

W CQ E

w a ** -

e

~

c c s e

e e o o

CQ Z

N, o

N o *=

e H

a N

N c

M M

H 2

8 8 9 9 M

Z Q

N o

o Y

He<

M I

p Z

a m

N I

I cr o o o

o W

N o o Q

s e

e M

M c

o n

,, q u

g g o.

W o

o.

m N

Am J

e y

e N

N 0

8 O

o o o o Z

e o.

o.

a w

M M

S

~ ~

,9 Ma 5

o o

+1

+i 4

o o.

o.

o M

eo o e

oe 6

6

- 6 C

k I

0 c

c e

g W

E w

6 6

4 e

.m 4

e

=4 o

U a

a E

Q 6

M d

N e

o e

g W

F.

M I

w 4

L L

.e e

O 7

4 6

O 4

6 7

O 3

LaJ 2

I 8

M M

TABLE 4 RESULTS OF STACK MONITORING Stack Use Date Sample Analysis Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/cc)

Remarks By Gross a Gross 8

-IS"

<1.1x10-l" Gamma Spectrometry performed on 1

Room Air 7/14-15/81 A

ORAU

<5.1x10

-l" 7/14-15/81 B

ORAU 3 915.2x10-1.811.0g10 all filter samples indicated no 7/14-15/81 Monsanto

<4x10-NP statistically significant photopeaks.

Qualitative alpha

-15

-l" 7/15-16/81 A

ORAU

<5.3x10

<1.2x10 spectroscopy indicated peaks at

-l"

<31x10j5 1.132.ox10 approximately 5.5 MeV (Pu-238 7/15-16/81 B

ORAU 7/15-16/81 Monsanto

<4x10-NP and/or Am-241) and 5.2 MeV (Po-210 and/or Pu-239).

1.21 6x10-13 6.519.3x10]

2 Process Areas 7/14-15/81 A

ORAU 0

-13 7/14-15/81 B

ORAU 1.110.7x10-1.110.2x10

-lN 7/14-15/81 Monsanto

<4x10 NP w

7/15-16/81 A

ORAU 1.111.0x10-1 3 4.6x10-13 7/15-16/81 B

ORAU 1.110.7x10 0 310.2x10-13

-I

-l" 7/15-16/81 Monsanto

<4x10 NP

-12c Maximum Permissible Concentration 1x10 aError is 2o.

bHP - not performed cDased on assumption that controlling radionuclide is Pu-23 8.

I

_-_~

M M

M 4

i I

TABLE 5 l

1 1

RESULTS OF LIQUID EFFLUENT MONITORING 1

I i

1 Hadionue11de Concentrations (iC1/ml) i Source Date Analysis Fraction" Gross Pu-23 8 fw 239 Po-210 An-241 Ca-137 co-6n e

j

___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PY

-7b Holdire Tank 7/14/81 ORAU I

1.7 10.1 x10-9

-II l

S 6.9 12.6 x10 0.012.6x10-II 4.013. 6 x 10-10 8.612.4x10 2.0 3.2x10^ I

1. 0.tl.0x10-0 6.0t3.0x10-"

1 Monsanto T

5.2711.9Px10-g

-9 "anitary Orain 7/15-1f / 81 CH AU I

<1.2x10

-9

-II 1 9 x10 2.013.2x10 0.014.cx10~II

-II dI

-8 P

2.0 6.a 2.ex 10 6.c16.8xio 1.01i.ox10

< i.ox io '

0 s

i

-9 I

S torrn Drai n 7/15/ 81 ORAU I

(1.5x10 l

S 1.6 10. 8 x 10'9 2.011.8x10-II 0.0 4.0x10-II

4. 511. t!x 10 0.012.0x10-II (1.0x10-1.Os2.0v10-

-II 1

I

-5C

-5

-5 l',a x imma Permissible Concentration I

3x10 3x10-5 3x10-5 3,,g 3,39 hx10

,3xicI

-6c 5x10-6 5x10-6 7x10 4x10-6 2x10

-7

-5

,, j g S

5x10 I

. I - insoluble (suspended solids); S - soluble; T - total.

Errors are 2 a.

.ared on Pu.?38 as the controlling radionuclide.

P l

l

m M

M M

M TABLE 6 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

Sample No.

Location" Cs-137 Co-60 Pu-218 Pu-239 Po-210 Am-241 S1 on-site 0.4430.04

<0.02 0.005 p.002 0.01330 003 2 3639 24 0.00530.003 S2 on-site 2.0030.09 0.0330.03 0.00 Sip.002 0.073 +0.007 2.1539 25 0.0803.0.011 S3 on-site 0.1230.03

<0.02 S4 on-site 0.6439.06 0.0R30 03 35 on-site 0.7039 06 0.0330.03 0.00330 002 0.01230 003 2.64 0.26 0.00239 003 3

S6 on-site 0.8739 07 0.0430.03 S7 on-site 0.593.0.05 0.0430 03 bi SD1 storm drain sediment 0.2539.05 0.0539.04 0.00a30.002 0.00539 002 2.0Q10.21 0.00230.003 S8 off-site - 0.5 km NW 0.8539 07 0.04 0 04 3

39 off-site - 0.5 km NE 0.5230.06

<0.02 0.00239 002 0.01330.003 1 9630.24 0.00330.005 0.44 9 06 0.0R30 03 S10 off-site - 0.5 km SE 3

S11 off-site - 0 5 km SW 0 9239 07 0.0430.05 S12 off-site - 1 km NW 0.1630.04 0.0a30 03 0.24 0.07 0.0330.03 0.00330.001 0.01339 002 2.5730.26 0.02030.016 S13 off-site - 1 km NE 3

S14 off-site - 1 km SE 0.7539.06 0.0330.04 SIS off-site - I km SW 0.5S 0 06 0.04 0 04 3

fiefer to Figures 9 and 10.

bError is 2c.

I I

I g

I I

APPENDIX A MAJOR SAMFLING AND ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT I

I l

I I

I APPENDIX A I

Major Sampling and Analytical Equipment I

The display or description of a specific product is not to be construed as an endorsement of that product or its manufacturer by the authors I

or their employers.

A.

Direct Radiation Measurements I

Eberline " RASCAL" Portable Ratemeter-Scaler I

Model PRS-1 Gamma Probe, Model HP-270 (Eberline Instrument, Santa Fe, NM)

I Victoreen THYAC III Portable Ratemeter I

Model 490 Scintillation Probe, Model 489-55 (Victoreen, Inc., Cleveland, OH)

Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC)

Model RSS-lli (Reuter-Stokes, Cleveland, OH)

B.

Air Sampling Aluminum in-line filter holders 47mm Cat. #996209 I

(Research Appliance, Co., Cambridge, MD)

Stack sampling nozzles (NuTech Corp., Durham, NC)

Rotameters, 0-30 1pm (Union Carbide Corp., Linde Air Products Div.,

Birmingham, AL)

I Gast Vacuum Pump ll5v/60Hz Cat. '/P8400 (American Scientific Products, Stone Mountain, GA)

Velometer - all purpose set Type 6000 a.p.

(Alnor Instrument Co., Niles, IL)

I A-1 I

I I

" Precision" Wet Test Meter Used to calibrate rotameters (Precision Scientific Co., Chicago, IL)

Additional supplies Plastic tubing, connectors, particulate filter paper (0.8 um)

C.

Water Sampling Liquid Metering Pump I

Series 100 I

(Chem / Tech International, Lawrence, MA)

D.

Laboratory Analysis Ge(L1) Detector Model LGCC2220SD, 23% efficiency (Princeton Gamma-Tech, Princeton, NJ)

Used in conjunction with:

Lead Shield, SPG-16 (Applied Physical Technology, Smyrna, GA)

Low Background Alpha-Beta Counter I

Model LB5100-2080 (Tennelec, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN)

'I Pulse Height Analyzer, ND66 Model 88-0629 (Nuclear Data, Inc., Schaumburg, IL)

Alpha Spectroscopy System Tracor Northern 1705 Pulcir PA-1 Alpha Module

,I I

I I

I A-2

1!I i

i i

1 lI

!I l

4I APPENDIX B l

l I

i i

Analytical Procedures I

I lI 1

i lI 1

4 I

i

.l

!I l

t'I i

I 5

lI i

lI

I APPENDIX B Analytical Procedures Gnmma Ercosure Rate Measurements Measurements were performed using Eberline " Rascal" Model PRS-1, portable ratemeter with Model HP-270 energy compensated G-M probe.

Exposure rates (pR/h) were determined using calibration factors determined by comparison of the G-M probe response to that of a Reuter-Stokes pressurized ionization chamber for gamma photons from I

Ra-226 and Am-241.

The Ra-226 calibration factors were applied to count rate measurements except in a few locations where a high ratio of the open to closed probe shield rates indicated a large contribution due to low energy photons.

I Soil and Sediment Samole Analysi_s I

Gamma Spectrometry I

Soil and sediment samples were dried at 120 C, finely ground, mixed and a portion placed in a one-liter Marinelli beaker.

The I

quantity placed in each beaker was chosen to reproduce the calibrated counting geccetry and ranged from 400 to 600 grams.

The beakers were capped but not sealed.

Net weights were determined and the samples counted using a 23% Ge(Li) detector (Princeton Gamma-Tech) coupled to a Nuclear Data Model ND66 pulse height analyzer.

Spectra were scanned for visually identifiable photopeaks.

Where photopeaks were noted and in other specific regions of interest the background and Compton continuum were subtracted and appropriate calibration and correction factors applied.

I Alpha Spectrometry Analyses of selected samples for Pu-238, Pu-239, Po-210, and Am-241 were performed by alpha spectrometry. These analyses were provided by an outside commercial analytical laboratory.

B-1

I Water Samole Analysis Preparation Water samples were rough filtered through Whatman No. 2 filter paper.

Remaining suspended solids were removed by a subsequent filtration through 0.45 p millipore filters.

The filtrate was acidified by the addition of 20 ml of concentrated nitric acid.

Gamma Spectrometry Papers containing suspended solids renoved from 2 liters of liquid were combined for each sample. Five hundred milliliters of filtrate was placed in a Marinelli beaker.

These samples were then analyzed by gamma spectrometry in the same general manner as the soil samples.

Gross Alpha Millipore filters and a portion of the Whatman roughing filters

,I were counted for gross alpha activity using a Tennelec Model LB5100 low background alpha and beta counter.

Total suspended solids were determined by combining the activity levels on the millipore filters with the activity on the section of roughing filter, corrected for f

the fractional filter area represented by this portion.

Fifty milliliters of the soluble fraction was evaporated to dryness:

the planchets were then weighed and counted on the same instrument as the filter papers.

Results were corrected for self-absorption.

lm Alpha Spectrometry Alpha spectra were obtained on filter papers which indicated significant activity levels by gross alpha analysis. Due to the poor resolution from such samples, these spectra were used only to obtain l

qualitative information concerning the approximate energy regions of lI

i E

the alpha emissions.

Aliquots of the filtrates were analyzed for Pu-238, Pu-239, Po-210, and Am-241 by a commercial outside analytical laboratory.

Stack Samole Filters I

Gross Alpha and Beta I

Particulate filters from stack monitoring were counted for gross alpha and gross beta activity approximately two weeks af ter sample I

collection.

This delay permitted naturally occurring radon and thoron and their daughter products to decay to negligible levels.

Counting was performed in a Tennelec Model LB5100 low background alpha and beta counter.

I Gam /a Spectrometry Because of the very low levels noted on the individual filters, all filters were combined for gamma spectrcuetry in the I

Ge(Li)/ Nuclear Data ND66 system.

No statistically indentifiable photopeaks were noted.

Alpha Spectrometry Spectra were obtained on filter papers to identify general alpha energy regions.

Quantitative analysis could not be performed from this data because of the low activity levels and poor resolution.

I Calibration and Ouality Assurance I

Laboratory instruments are calibrated using NBS - traceable standards.

Portable survey equipment for exposure rate measurement is calibrated by comparison of its response with that of a pressurized ionization chamber having NBS - certified calibration provided by the supplier.

Quality control procedures include daily background and source measurements to confirm lack of malfunctions I

B-3 I

1 I

and nonstatistical deviations in equipment.

The ORAU laboratory and the commercial analytical laboratory participate in the EPA Quality Assurance Program.

I

!I I

I 4

I i

I I

1I 1

l I

lI lI 1I B-4 V

,-.,__..-n.

n.._-,--.,-.__.-.-.

.n_

- - - -

ML20058A870

Text

Navigation menu

Search