ML20135D825
| ML20135D825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1996 |
| From: | Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612100170 | |
| Download: ML20135D825 (14) | |
Text
i Station Support Department A
10 CFR 20.2002 PECO NUCLEAR mom. m A Unit of PECO Energy hay P
i December 2,1S96 Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 j
License Nos. NPF-39 I
NPF-85 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Umerick Generating Station SupplementalInformation to Application for Approval of Disposal Procedures per 10 CFR 20.2002.
References:
- 1) Application Letter from PECO Energy, dated April 6,1995
- 2) Respo'
- to Request for Additional Information Letter, 1
from FhCO Energy, dated November 15,1995.
- 3) NRC Approval Letter, dated July 10,1996.
- 4) Clarification and Implementation Date Letter, from PECO Energy, dated October 21,1996.
l i
Gentlemen, i
PECO Energy received NRC approval for an application pursuant to 10 CFR 20, Subpart K, Section 2002, for Limerick Generating Station (LGS) as described in the above reference 3 letter. During a current NRC Region I Inspection, questions were raised regarding the application's level of detail and the description of the disposal site. to this letter provides a response to these questions. The attachment also provides an enhanced level of detail to the original application request.
The information contained in Attachment 1 substantiates the application approved by the NRC on July 10,1996, and this information supplements the original request.
A coi i
9612100170 961202 PDR ADOCK 0500o352 P
pon.
December 2,1996 i
Page 2 1
4' If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
/
,CAA, G. A. Hunger, Jr., U Director - Licensing Section i
Attachment cc:
H. J. Miller, Administrator Region 1, USNRC N. S. Perry, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, LGS R. R. Janati, PA Bureau of Radiological Protection j
i 4
i
r ATTACHMENT 1 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-352 50-353 LICENSE NOS.
NPF-39 NPF-85
" Supplemental Information Pertaining to 10 CFR 20.2002 Application"
-(11pages)
1 During a current NRC Region i Inspection (Inspection No. 50-352/353,96-09/09), questions regarding the 10 CFR 20.2002 application submitted on April 2
6,1995 were raised. Specifically, it was observed that the application did not reference that an existing cable lay-down area foundation was concrete, and i
this was not included under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.2002 (b) which states each application shall include "An analysis and evaluation of pertinent l
information on the nature of the environment."
l The 10 CFR 50.59 Review that PECO Energy prepared in support of a related j
Updated Finial Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) change stated that the foundation of the once used cable lay-down area is concrete. The disposal l
area was chosen, in part, because of the concrete base, which would act as a
{
barrier to ground water infiltration. PECO Energy made a decision not to include this barrier benefit offered by the concrete foundation in the supporting dose calculation. It was judged that including the benefit would complicate the dose calculation, and not to assume its presence would result in a more
]
conservative bounding analysis. The foundation's size and geometric shape l
were generally quantified; however, since it was deemed conservati' a not to j
assume its presence for the bounding dose analysis, its exact mecsurements were not sought.
t f
The application stated that "The area was a cable lay-down area during plant construction, and is currently covered with soil." The level of detail described f
in section ( c ) of the discussion " Nature of the Environment and Other l
Potentially Affected Facilities" in the April 6,1995 application was accurate and pertinent to the bounding dose analysis performed. The NRC approved the application based on the analysis since the doses calculated appeared reasonable, were a small percentage of 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limits, and conformed to the requirements set forth on 10 CFR 20.2002. In order to reassure that the bounding analysis was conservative and the current analysis remains valid, an ac ditional analysis has been performed which examines the adverse impact the concrete foundation has on doses (i.e., any leachate concentration caused by pooling). The results of this analysis reassure that the bounding analysis provided in the April 6,1995 application was valid, and conse, ceive. This new analysis is included as Appendix A of this letter and will be added as an appendix to the original dose calculation (LM 526).
In addition, PECO Energy has taken this opportunity to examine the entire application and supporting documentation for other areas where a greater level of detail may be necessary to prevent future concerns. The following are the results of that examination.
Page 1 l
~ _ _
l The April 6,1995 application, and the November 15,1995 request for additional information response included LGS Calculation LM-526. Calculation Section 5.4 ' Releases Through Erosion," contains the provision that the fill j
area is expected to be graded and seeded to minimize erosion. The calculation j
further describes that erosion control fencing will s!so be used as appropriate.
In preparing the area a berm was established by moving the existing soil off the concrete foundation to its borders. This activity does not adversely affect the analysis as stated in Appendix A. The application also' states in section ( a ) of
)
the discussion that the material will be worked, graded and seeded with grass l
to ensure seed growth and to reduce mounding in order to meet the i
surrounding ground level. It is PECO Energy's intent to use conventional erosion control measures which include landscaping existing soil, adding clean l
fill, and using temporary measures such as sand bags. The physical appearance of the area may change slightly over the life of the facility to i
accomplish erosion control; however, these controls will not adversely impact i
the bounding analysis.
The November 15,1995 letter response, a telephone conversation with the NRC l
NRR to support that response, and a clarification letter from PECO Energy dated October 21,1996, described the location of the designated area as being outside the 10 CFR Part 73 defined protected area. However, its location is within the site boundary (defined by 10 CFR 20 as a controlled area) where PECO Energy has the ability to exercise positive control over individuals' activities, in addition, the intruder dose analysis describes that the location is not in a frequently traveled area, and conservatively assumes that an individual is subjected to dose on three separate occasions in one year, and for eight hours during each occasion. In the November 15,1995 letter response to question 1.b., PECO Energy stated that the intruder dose was calculated by assuming an individual circumvents the security fence, cameras and patrols a total of three times. Not in all cases must an individual circumvent a fence to reach the disposal area. The security fence referenced is the remains of a perimeter fence used during construction and does impede access to the area in some cases. Access roads patrolled by camera and security forces are not fenced, and the fence no longer provides complete site perimeter coverage.
l The bounding intruder analysis is unaffected by this, and the descriptions of barriers were intended to provide a written description of the typos of existing barriers discussed during the NRC teleconference.
Lastly, the application, letter responses to requests for additional information and NRC approval, limit the disposal material to that originating from the LGS site settling basin, emergency spray pond, and cooling tower basin. These l
origins are wet processes, and the material removed from them will be wet.
l The activities and volumes used in the bounding analysis were based upon dry l
Page 2 i
i
weight. All analyses of radioactive content and solids volume for future disposal will be made based upon a dry weight mass. A sample of wet material would measure less activity per volume if based upon dry volume criteria, although the total activity would be the same. Placing wet material in the area would be the same as placing dried material in the area which becomes wet following rainfall.
The dried material which is wet due to rain would have a lower activity per volume, but the total radiological activity would be the same. Therefore, placing wet material in the area would have no adverse affect on the original analysis. However, samples will be dried to ensure bounding analysis compliance.
Page 3
l APPENDlX A EVALUATION OF THE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THE CONCRETE SLAB UNDERLYING THE 2002 STORAGE SITE 1.0 Description of 2002 Storage Site The 2002 storage area is designed to store solids taken from the LGS site settling pond, cooling tower basins, and spray pond. For placement on the storage site, the radioactivity concentrations in these solids is limited to about 10 times the Effluent Lower Limits of Detectability for expected isotopes.
This material is to be placed over a maximum of 70,000 sq. ft. A conservatively derived maximum amount of material is 1.12 million cubic feet.
Portions of this site include a concrete pad lay 4own area that was used as a cable lay-down area during plant construction. This approximately 4 foot thick concrete pad is 95 feet wide by about 420 feet long (40,000 sq. ft.) This pad is in two segments, as shown on Figure 1. This figure also shows relative elevations along the pad. These pads have a general slope toward the northwest edge.
The concrete pad was covered with a thin layer of dirt. When preparing this area, the dirt on this pad was scraped off to form a berm for erosion control before the first material was placed on the pad. Our intent is to use this concrete covered area first, and then to proceed to areas overlying dirt only.
For purposes of the original analyses, the presence of the concrete lay-down pad was considered to have no adverse consequence, and to be potentially of minor benefit in delaying / preventing groundwater transport. However, these benefits would be difficult to quantify and, therefore, no credit was taken. The thin layer of soil was expected to receive leachate from the overlying solids, which would make their way to the edge of the pad and to groundwater. This area was well drained and there were no indications of standing water in this area.
The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the assumptions disregarding the pad in the analyses in the main body of this calculation are conservative.
2.0 Previous Analysis of Radiologicalimpacts This calculation determines radiological impacts of this material. The impacts considered are:
(a)
Airborne concentrations and doses due to wind borne erosion of the solids pile.
(b)
Groundwater transport of activity to the Schuylkill River. No consideration of groundwater transport to well locations is necessary, since all offsite and onsite welle are upgradient from the locations where these flowable solids may be placed.
(c)
Evaluation of water caused erosion impacts.
Page 4
l l
t-j (d)' Worst case dose rate to workers directly over the flowable solids, due to direct shine and inhalation.
(e)- Dose to an unauthorized intruder onto the solids flN area.
{
i j
(f)
Worst case dose rate for a hypothetical residential use of the flowable solids placement j
area. This data wHl provide an indication of the potential for free release of the areas l
where these flowable solids are used, after plant decc.Tiainsioning.
l (g)
Offske doses due to airbome releases for pathways other than inhalation.
4 i
4 These analyses were generally performed in a very conservative manner, in order to clearly j
demonstrate the minimal radiological impact potential, and to minimize operational constraints.
1 3.0 Impact of Stora0e Pad on Ori0inal Analysis 3.1 Airbome Release Impacts Doses due to airbome releases were based on this material, placed at the limiting concentrations and over the entire maximum permissible area. The presence or lack thereof of the lay < lown pad beneath the solids would not impact this very conservatively estimated release, i
since the correlations are based on concentrations and surface areas only and because erosion I
controls wHl be utuized.
t i
i
?
3.2 Groundwater Release impacts l
Doses due to groundwater pathways used UFSAR methodology, and are not credited with holdup due to the presence of the lay-down area concrete. It is expected, pasticularly with the initial bermed pad configuration, that flow to Groundwater wHl be reduced and evaporative losses L
of rainwater wHl increase. Thus, groundwater releases without crediting the pad are conservative.
3.3 Doses to Workers and inadvertent intruders 1
i Dose rates directly above the material for worker and intruder were also based on this material in the as-placed, upper limit condition. The material was assumed to be infinitely thick, infinite in areal extent, without credit for decay or any other depletion mechanism such as leaching.
{
One assumption in this analysis is that leached activity has no impact on surface doses because J
the associated radioactivity is inherently buried. This conclusion was relatively obvious when the layer of sou over the pad existed to accept the postulated leachate. This is somewhat less i
obvious with this soil layer removed, and thus the assessment in Section 4.0 is performed to determine whether worker and intruder doses remain conservative.
l 1
3.4 Hypothetical Residential Use Dose Evaluations Doses evaluated under these scenarios would not be impacted by the presence of the storage pad, which would be well covered by the solids, as originally postulated. It is anticipated that residential use will also be evaluated at the time of site decommissioning and final site i
dispositioning based on actual activity placements and conditions.
1 Page 5 1
4
4.0 Evaluation of Scenarios for Lay down Pad Concrete impacting Worker and intruder Doses The principal concern is whether solids placed above the pad could be impacted in a manner
)
which would redistribute radioactivity into a configuration that would result in higher postulated surface doses in localized areas. The only possible mechanism identified was if the bermed lay-down area could hold rainwater (pond) in a manner that would concentrate leachate in a low area on the concrete pad.
The lay <$own area was surveyed, as shown in Figure 1, in general, runoff is to the northwest, because of the pad slope. A visual survey of the bare concrete pad was conducted follovAng a rainfall, and some puddles were observed in low lying areas. The entire pad perimeter has a berm, which has slowed runoff in addition, two very shallow puddles formed in relatively flat areas.
To determine the potential impacts, two scenerlos were developed to simulate early material placement conditions. These are:
Scenario (1): The nad is fully covered bv solids to a one foot thickness: leachate enkts in low area.-
These solids are assumed to be initially at the licensed concentration limits. More conservative leach rates consistent with sand are used, although this material has
)
characteristics more consistent with soll/ clay. The leachate over one year is collected from a semi-circular area with a radius equal to the width of the lay-down pad (95 feet).
Leachate from more distant areas are assumed to find other pad boundaries and leave the pad.. The leached activity concentrates in a disk with only a 1 meter radius. This area appeared reasonably conservative from the visual survey. Figure 1 Illustrates this geometry. Given the one year leachate accumulation, the dose to the person above this waste is consistently analyzed assuming 1 year of decay of the overlying material as well as of the collected leachate. Shielding is assumed to be provided by 1 ft of dry sulids.
Table 1 shows the bas!s for determined leached activity. The dose rates from the overiying material are determined by decaying the dose rates calculated in Table 3 of the main calculation for one year. The dose from the collected leachate underlying these solids is determined using the computer program MICROSHIELD.
The resulting dose rate is 2.8E-02 mrem /hr, (1.6E-02 from solids and 1.2E-02 from collected leachate). This dose rate is less than the bounding main calculation dose rate (above the solids) of 3.1E-02 mrem /hr. This bounding dose rate was used to calculate worker doses and unauthorized intruder doses.
Subsequent layers will provide additional leaching but impacts are mitigated by more-than-compensating shielding by the overlying material.
Page 6
9 Scenario (2): The nad not vet fully covered bv solids to a one foot thickness: Leachate collects in low area on a concrete nad outcroo from the solids.
This is considered unlikely given the pad slope, and the current placement plan of starting on the southwest end of the pad. Uquids would tend to flow toward the northwest boundary where the solids us against a slight berm.
Nevertheless, the scenario described in item 1 is used with the following exceptions: (a) No shielding credit is taken; (b) more realistic clay /soll leachate rates are used rather than sand.
The resulting dose rate is 1.6E-02 mrem /hr, using MICROSHiELD. This dose rate is also less that the current value which is used for worker and irdruder dose determinstions.
The above scenarios, are extremely conservative given pad slopes and edge proximity to the most potentially pooled area. These results demonstrate that the original analysis remains conservative for the present facility operation.
The current presence of a berm surrounding the concrete pad portion of the 2002 Storage Area, to some extent, may increase the duration that these solids remain damp after a rainfall. Given that these solids were removed from onsite ponds, and samples will be measured properly, this issue is of little concern.
Page 7
. - _ ~ _.
[::
- j Represents F,rst Flowoble Solicis Plocenent 9[ _jllQS__t[Q _jO__n _ pO_ t_ j_O _S_C O[e_'
t QF_03ipQ _e_ ST_2_ h_._ef 2 d _3_t [Og_ ht ]-51 _ _I t
9 t
I l
\\
l I
i I
I i
At ce to which I
l Leochste Collects l
/
i 1
416 f t
/
l I __ '
I l
)
. i j.,,,
-15
- s25
,/
+223
- uo l
t_)
o i
to i
m Z
O I
ii E
I
#5 I
- *dElf:,
l I
l
\\
l
[
~
I
[
'N i 'OEli:
7zs
+ 7 75
+6.5 te N
[7_______________________________________y________=_l 424 ft I
Areo f ron which Leochote Collects 4
Figure 1:
CDHCRETE PAD UNDER LGS 2002 STORAGE AREA 77 Relo tive Elevo tions (inches)
P.
/
Assurwcl Vors t Case Leocho te Collection 4
- -,.~-..
~
Table 1 SCENARIOS 1 and 2 14176,44 Area of 95 ft. radius semi-circle (sq. ft.)
0.202521 Fraction of 70,000 sq. ft. load within semi-circle Contribution from 1 year decayed solids Source Term Determination for Leachate
[ sand leach rates]
[soilleach rates)
Extemal Table 2B Leached Activity Leached Activity Table 3 Dose Rate Activity Table 2A after 1 year from Table 2A after 1 year from Extemal after 1 yr at
[ sand]
a 95' semi-circle
[ soil / clay]
a 95' semi-circle Nuclide Dose Rate Half-Life of decay Placement Leach Rate
[with decay]
Leach Rate
[with decay]
(mrem /hr)
(yrs)
(mrem /hr)
(uCi)
(yr^-1)
(Ci)
(yr^-1)
(Ci)
Fe-55 0.0E+00 2.7 0.0E+00 3.9E+04 6.5E-03 3.9E-05 6.5E-04 3.9E-06 Mn-54 3,0E-03 0.856 1.3E-03 1.9E+ 04 3.3E-02 5.7E-05 3.3E-03 5.7E-06 Co-58 3.5E-03 0.194 9.7E-05 1.9E+ 04 6.5E-03 7.1 E-07 6.5E-04 7.1 E-08 Fe-59 4.4E-03 0.122 1.5E-05 1.9E+04 6.5E-03 8.7E-08 6.5E-04 8.7E-09 Co-60 9.4E-03 5.27 8.2E-03 1.9E+04 6.5E-03 2.2E-05 6.5E-04 2.2E-06 Zn-65 2.1 E-03 0.688 7.8E-04 1.9E+04 3.1E-01 4.4E-04 3.2E-02 4.6E-05 g
Sr-89 5.3E-07 0.138 3.5E-09 1.9E+03 2.1 E-01 5.4E-07 2.2E-02 5.7E-08 g
g Sr-90 4.1E-08 29.12 4.0E-08 1.9E+03 2.1E-01 8.0E-05 2.2E-02 8.4E-06 m Mo-99 5.1 E-04 0.0075 (Note 1) 1.9E+04 (Note 1)
(Note 1)
(Note 1)
(Note 1) 9 X
W Cs-134 5.5E-03 2.06 3.9E-03 1.9E+04 82E-03 2.3E-05 1.3E-03 3.7E-06 Cs-137 2.0E-03 30 1.9E-03 1.9E+04 8.2E-03 3.1 E-05 1.3E-03 5.0E-06 Ce-141 1.8E-04 0.089 7.6E-08 1.9E+ 04 6.5E-03 1.1 E-08 6.5E-04 1.1 E-09 Ce-144 4.2E-05 0.778 1.7E-05 1.9E+04 6.5E-03 1.0E-05 6.5E-04 1.0E-06 Total 3.1 E-02 1.6E-02 Note that solids are expected to be less than one Note that very conservative sand leach rates are used for the solids-foot thick but infinite thickness dose conversion shielded case, but the lower soil / clay leach rates are used for the case factors were used in Table 3 of calc. Therefore, of Icaching onto a small outcrop of concrete.
these results are conservative.
Column 4 = Column 2 * @exp(-@ln(2)/ Column 3)
Column 7 = Column 5
- Area Fraction * @exp(-@ln(2)/ Column 3) /10^6 uCi/Ci Column 9 :- Column 7
- Column 8 / Column 6 Note 1: Mo-99, after a year has virtually all decayed to Tc-99, which is an insignificant dose contributor m
APPENDIX A Microshield 4.10 - Serial #4.10-00640 Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
Page
- 1 File Ref:
DOS File: DISK 3.MS4 Date: a f.13. / 94 Run Date: November 22, 1996 By: 3EG Run Time: 8:58 a.m. Friday Checkec: ch A.,
Duration: 0:00:09
/
3 Case
Title:
SOURCE Collected Leachate Lnder 1 Foot Thick Solids Load GEOMETRY 3 Disk centimeters feet and inches Dose point coordinate x:
100.0 3.0 3.4 Dose point coordinate Y:
0.0 0.0
.0 Dose point coordinate 2:
0.0 0.0
.0
~
Disk radius:
100.0 3.0 3.4 r
Shield 1:
30.48 1.0
.0 Air Gap:
69.52 2.0 3.4 i
Source Area: 31415.9 sq cm 33.8158 sq ft.
4869.48 sa in.
MATERIAL DENSITIES (g/cm'3)
Material Shield 1 Air Cap Slab A i r_
0.00122 Concrete ( 1.95 Closesf maktefek W. roe'l t'Me 4 ne&c( N N @ !d l
'i BUILDUP Method: Buildup Factor Tables The material reference is Shield 1 i
lhTEGRATION PARAMETERS Quadrature Order Radial 100 circumferential 8
t SOURCE NUCLIOES Nuclide curies gCl/cma Nuclide curies gCl/cma i
Ba 137m 2.9326e 005 9.3347e-004 Ce 141 1.0990e 008 3.4983e 007' Ce 144 9.9990e-006 3.1828e 004 Co-58 7.0971e-007 2.2591e-005 Co-60 2.2000e 005 7.0027e-004 Cs 134 2.2999e 005 7.3208e 004 Cs 137 3.1000e-005 9.8676e-004 Fe 55 3.8999e-005 1.2414e 003 Fe-59 8.6944e 008 2.7675e-006 Mn 54 5.6995e-005 1.8142e-003 Pr 144 9.0893e 006 2.8932e 004 Pr 144m 1.4254e 007 4.5373e 006 Sr 89 5.3969e-007 1.7179e-005 Sr 90 8.0000e-005 2.5465e-003 Y 90 8.6042e-007 2.7388e 005 Zn 65 4.3995e-004 1.4004e-002 5
========================= RESULTS=========================
Energy Activity Energy Fluence Rate Exposure Rate In Air (MeV)
(photons /sec )
(MeV/sq cm/sec)
(mR/hr)
No Buildup With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup 0.15 4.019e+004 2.488e-006 9.199e 005 4.095e 009 1.515e-007 0.2 1.000e+002 2.168e 008 7.656e-007 3.826e-011 1.351e-009 0.3 3.096e+002 3.244e-007 8.623e-006 6.154e-010 1.636e-008 0.5 4.809e+005 3.188e-003 4.929e-002 6.258e-006 9.675e-005 0.6 2.016e+006 2.495e-002 3.126e-001 4.870e-005 6.101e-004 0.8 2.936e+006 9.443e-002 8.530e-001 1.796e-004 1.622e-003 1.0 9.101e+006 5.953e-001 4.207e+000 1.097e 003 7.755e 003 1.5 8.424e+005 1.852e 001 8.704e-001 3.116e 004 1.464e-003 2.0 2.603e+003 1.246e 003 4.599e-003 1.927e-006 7.113e-006 r
TOTAL:
1.542e+007 9.043e-001 6.297e+000 1.645e-00 1.156e-002
- th -
olu/St D" 8 Page 10
/.i E -1 d/4r.
J
e APPENDIX A l
Microshield 4.10 - Serial #4.10-00640 Raytheon Engineers & Constructors. Inc.
Page 1
File Ref:
l 1
DOS File: 0!SK5.MS4 Date: #8 /as/'6 Run Date: November 22, 1996 By: W E'M Run Time: B:53 a.m. Friday Checked: b A Curati:n: 0:00:08
' /^
~
i i
Case
Title:
SOURCE - Collected Leachate on Concrete Outcrcp SC.e#6R/ 0
@)
CEOMETRY 3 - Olsk centimeters feet and inches Dose point coordinate X:
100.0 3.0 3.4 Dose point coordinate Y:
0.0 0.0
.0 Cose point coordinate Z:
0.0 0.0
.0 Disk radius:
100.0 3.0 3.4 Shield 1:
30.48 1.0
.0 Air Gap:
69.52 2.0 3.4 J
Source Area: 31415.9 sq cm 33.8158 sq f t.
4869.48 sq in.
MATERIAL DENSITIES (g/cm'3)
Material Shield 1 Air Gap Stab Air 0.00122 0.00122 BUILOUP Method: Buildup Factor Tables The material reference is Air Gap INTEGRATION PARAMETERS Quadrature Order Radial 100 circumferential 8
SOURCE NUCLIOES Nuclide curies gCl/cm8 Nuclide curies ECi/cm a
Ba-137m 4.7300e 006 1.5056e-004 Ce-141 1.0990e-009 3.4983e-008 Ce-144 9.9990e 007 3.1828e 005 Co-58 7.0971e 008 2.2591e 006 Co-60 2.2000e 006 7.0027e 005 Cs 134 3.6999e 006 1.1777e-004 Cs 137 5.0000e 006 1.5915e 004 Fe-55 3.8999e-006 1.2414e-004 Fe-59 8.6944e 009 2.7675e 007 Mn-54 5.6995e 006 1.8142e 004 Pr 144 9.0893e-007 2.8932e 005 Pr 144m 1.4255e 008 4.5373e-007 Sr 89 5.6967e-008 1.8133e 006 Sr 90 8.4000e-006 2.6738e-004 y-90 9.0344e-008 2.8757e-006 Zn-65 4.5995e-005 1.4641e-003 1
========================= RESULTS=========================
Energy Activity Energy Fluence Rate Exposure Rate In Air (Mev) (photons /sec )
(MeV/sq cm/sec)
(mR/hr)
No Builduo With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup 0.15 4.019e+003 3.261e 003 3.360e-003 5.369e-006 5.533e-006 0.2 1.000e+001 1.084e 005 1.109e-005 1.913e 008 1.95o M 08 0.3 4.930e+001 8.032e-005 8.173e 005 1.524e-007 1.550e-007 0.5 5.094e+004 1.387e-001 1.404e 001 2.723e-004 2.756e 004 0.6 3.243e+005 1.061e+000 1.072e+000 2.070e-003 2.092e-003 0.8 3.423e+005 1.495e+000 1.508e+000 2.844e 003 2.868e-003 1.0 9.491e+005 5.187e+000 5.224e+000 9.561e-003 9.629e 003 1.5 8.581e+004 7.047e-001 7.084e 001 1.186e-003 1.192e-003 2.0 2.603e+002 2.853e 003 2.865e-003 4.412e 006 4.431e 006 r
TOTAL:
1.757e+006 8.592e+000 8.659e+000 1.594e-C 1.607e-002 D i'w~ e /u l
@poG D l
Page 11 t
-