ML20205E412
| ML20205E412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1987 |
| From: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205E393 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810270384 | |
| Download: ML20205E412 (57) | |
Text
~
r .
b SAXTON NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL CORPORATION RADIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL f10NITORING PROGRAMS 1982 THROUGH 1987 Prepared by GPU Nuclear Corporation Environmental Controls - TMI August 9,1988 D Ddb $$$$$f46 PDC
l i I
f I
l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page l
i TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 ;
! LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF FIGURES EXECUTIVE SUtNARY l
2 i INTRODUCTION i
2 Characteristics of Radiation 3 Sources of Radiation 6 Radiation - Research and Regulation ,
i Historical Perspective of Saxton Nuclear Experiment 11 Corp. (SNEC) Facility 8 !
10 Present Activities l 12 l ENVIRONMENTAL AND RADIOLOGICAL SUP.VEYS 12 !
Introduction Environmental Exposure Pathwayf. 12 , [*
Survey Methods 12 Measurement of Low Level Radioactivity 18 19 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS TLDs 19 21 Sediment Gama Results 25 Gross Alpha and Beta Results 26 Strontium Results 26 i
27 f Soil Results 34 Ve9etation Results 34
[
Water Results j 45 l RADIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
\
i Introduction 45 .
l High Efficiency Air Filter Dose Rate Results 45 l
Fixed Survey Point Results 45 Fixed Survey Smear Results 49 51 CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES 52 i
E____
_- . - = .- ._ -- .
LIST OF TABLES Table # Title ,Pam 4
1 Sources and Doses of Radiation 1
2 Sampling Locations 13 3
4 Average Yearly TLD Data 20 4
- 4 Average Value of Fission Products Found in 22 j Offsite Sediment Samples 5 Average Value of Fission Products Found in 24 4
Onsite Sediment Samples I
i 6 1981 SNEC Contaminated Soil Profile 28 7 Gamma Scan on Soil Samples in Each of the 32
- 16 Meteorological Sectors 4th Quarter 1982 1
8 Annual Average Concentration of Radionuclides 41 in the CV Sump 9 Yearly Average Concentration of Radionuclides 42 in RWDF and CV Pipe Tunnel
, 10 Annual Average Concentration of Radionuclides 44
! in Yard Orains Inside EA
)
, 11 Annual Average Dose Rates for CY High Efficiency 46 Air Filter l
l . 12 Annual Average Dose Rate for CV Fixed Point Survey 47 13 Annual Average Smear Results from Fixed Point Survey 50 11
LIST OF FIGURES Figure # Ti tle Page 1 Location liap Saxton Nuclear Facility 9 2 SNEC Soil Sam)1e locations 4th Quarter 1982 30 3 Grid Survey Sail - 1982 - Cs-137 31 4 Grid Survey legetation - 1982 - Cs-137 35 5 1983 Grid Survey - Yegetation - Cs-137 36 6 1984 Vegetation - Cs-137 37 7 1985 Grid Vegetation - Cs-137 38 8 Permanent Survey Points SNEC Reactor Containment 48 f
111
b EXECUTIVE SU' NARY I
i A radiological monitoring program a9a an envirm mental monitoring program Mvo ,
been conducted at the Saxt,n tjuelear Factitty (SNra) s';ce 1975 and 1982, :
respectively. (Radiologica survey results have previot sly been reported for the years 1975 to 1982.) Retuit.s of the surveys from 1902 - 1997 indicate the ;
following' o Except for natural radioactive decay, raciolagical status within the ;
Containment Yessel (CV) remains ecsentially unchanged since j monitoring began. {
f ,
o Currently there is no movement of any rddtological cont a kerts !
contained within tne CV to the outside environment.
4 o The exclusion area soil, contained within the SNEC security fence, ,
and the fenced area south of the Filled Drum Storage Bunker UDSS),
j are nonuniformly contaminated with low levels of reactor produceo
{ fission products, principally Cs-137, Cs 13t and Co-60. [
i i
l I j o There has been no evidence of migration of radioactivity beyand the ;
} site boundary since the 1979 discovery of contamination south of sne j i e 4 FOSB, with the possible exception of one yard drain outfall. )
i i
l o There have been no adverse effects on the environment or public [
health and safety as a result of the SNEC facittty.
o Work activities related to the uecontamination of the SNEr f acility have had no adverse ef fect on the environment or public health and I safety, f i
. I e
4
?
l 7527f/ , _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ __
IrTRODUCTION 3
iteracteristics of Radiation J
I Instability within the nuclete, of radioactive atoms results in the release of I j energy ln the form of radiatio... 3adiation is classified according to its l
nature - particulate and electromagrm.ic, Particulate radiation consists of enrepette sebatomi,* particles s tic h as alpha particles and beta particles ;
d (ebctro'is). Alpha and beta particles have electric charges which limit their [
- M;1t/ to penetrate the humac cody. Theste particulate radiations in the
~
anvivor. ment contribute primarily to internal rae tation exposure resulting from l fnhalaticn .M ingestion of re m activity, i
f lect romrqnet t r: radiations, in the form of x-rays and gamma rays, have charar.teristics sirilar tc visitile light but are n.oie energetic and, hence, J
more penetratino. AltMugh x-rays anti gamma rays err. r*netrating and can pass j
~
tiirough vaeying thicknesses of material;, once ti eu are absorbed in the material they produce er.ergetic elee.t *ons which releat.s their energy in a !
) manaer that is ident' cal to oeta particles. The princiru concern for gamma l
) raatition from raatofuelides in the environment is t h a t .' contribution to f i
etterna? r6diation exposure.
I j ine ute sith which attas undergo dist.itegration (radioactive cacay) varies '
i amono rmdioactive eicaent<, but is untcuely coris t ant far each spec.t fic l l eadionuclide. The terui ' half-life" oefines the time it tr.nes for half of any
( amount or an alement to decay and can vary from a fra: tion of a second for snoe radionuctices to mil'. tony ef years far others. In fact, the natural ;
f background radiation to *dirh all people are exposed is largely due to the f
+ :
radtonuclides td uranius, tmetum, and potassium. These radioactive elements i
(
, vere fomad with the creatiJa of tne universe and, cwing to their l long half-lives, will cor.tir.ue to ba present for millions of years to come.
l i vor :xagle. potassvum-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years and exists 1 04tura'ty e t *Ji n n our bodies. As a result approximately 4000 atoms of l ontasctu'n efait radiation internally within each of us every second of ou- life, i
l I
l l
l jCf/ , . . - . . . ,, -_.__.- _ - - _ - . - ._.- , -
- - - . _ - . . -.~~
l
ij 4 l l The comon unit of ra doactivity is the curie. It represents the l radioactivity in one gram of viatum1 radium which is also equal to a decay rate of 37 billion radiation emitsions every second. Because of the extremely ;
- small amounts of radioactive ma;.erial in the environment, it is more l l convenient to uo f rac tions of a curie. Subunits like picocurie (one l trillionth of a curie) are frequently used to express the radioactivity l l
- present in environnental and biological samples. t i
i The biological effects of a specific dose of radiation are the same whether i the radiation source is external or internal to the body. The important factor is ho.1 much radiation energy or dose was deposited. The unit of radiation dose is the rem, which also incorporates the variable effectiveness >
j o' different forms of radiation to produm biological change. For l
environmentti radiation exposures, it is (.onvenient to use the smaller unit of l l millirem to express dose (1000 millf rems equs1s 1 rem). When radiation '
l exposure occurs over periods of time, it is appropriate to refer to the dose !
, rate. Dose rates, therefore, define the total dose for a fixed interval of '
time and for environmental exposures are usually measured with reference to !
one year of time (millirems per year). !
l Sources of Radiation I
i.ife on earth has evolved amid the constant exposure to natural radiation. In j 1 fact, the single major source of radiation to which the general population is '
) exposed comes from natural sources. Al though everyone on the planet is exposed to natural radiation, some people receive more than others. Radiation j exposure from natural background has three components (i.e., cosmic, terrestrial, and internal) and varies with altitude and geographic location, as well as with living habits.
f For example, ccsmic radiation originating from deep interstellar space and the I sun increases with altitude, since there is less air which acts as a shield.
Similarly, terrestrial radiation resulting from the presence of naturally occurring radionuclides 6 the soti varies and may be significaatly higher in f i
i
- , . . _ , ~ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ -__ , _ _ _ _ _ . . - , . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _
some areas of the country than in others. Even the use of particular building materials for houses, cooking with gas, and home insulation affect exposure to natural radiation.
The presence of radioactivity in the human body results from the inhalation and ingestion of air, food, and water containing naturally occurring radionuclides. For example, drinking water contains trace amounts of uranium and radium and milk contains radioactive potassium. Table I summartres the common sources of radiation and their average annual doses.
TABLE I (Ref. 1)
Sources and Doses of Radiation Natural (82%) fian-made (18%)
Source (mil li rems / year) Source (mt i li rems / yea r)
Radon 200 (55%) tiedical X-rays 39 (11%)
Cosmic rays 27 (8%) Nuclear Medicine 14 (4%)
Terrestrial 28 (8%) Consumer products 10 (3%)
Internal 40 (11%) Other Less tnan I ( 1%)
(Releases from nat. gas, phosphate mining, Nrning of coal, weapons fallout,
& nuclear fuel cycle)
APPROXIllATE APPROX!!iATE
) TOTAL 300 TOTAL 63 l
l NOTE: Percentage contribution of the total dose is shown in parentheses.
I The average person in the United Stat 65 receives about 300 millirems (0.1 rem) 1^
per year f rom natural background radiation sources. In some regions of the i
country, the amount of natural radiation is significantly higher Residents of Colorado, for er. ample, receive an additional 80 millirems (0.08 rem) per year due to the increase in cosmic and terrestrial radiation 16vels. I- fact, s
for every 100 feet above sea level, a person will receive an additional I millirem (0.001 rem) per year f rom cosmic radiation. In several regions of !
) the world, high concentrations of uranium and radium deposits result in doses !
l of several thousand millirems (several rems) each year to their residents. l t i
! I j l
\
l J
l i
i j .
Recently, public attention has focused on radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced from uranium and radium decay. These elements are widely distributed in trace amounts in the earth's crust. Unusually high concentrations have been found in certain parts of eastern Pennsylvania and l northern New Jersey. Radon levels in some homes in these areas are hundreds of times greater than levels found elsewhere in the United States. The ,
National Council on Radiation Protection and !!easuremer.ts (NCRP) estimates that the average individual in the United Statas receives an annual dose of about 3,000 millirems (3 rems) to the lung from natural radon (Ref. 2), e j
Because radon and its radioactive daughters emit alpha radiation, this dose is a limited to the surf ace cells of the respiratory tract.
When radioactive sub tances are inhaled or swallowed, they are distributed
< within the body in a nonuniform fashion. For example, radioactive 1odine selectively concentrates in the thyroid gland, radioactive cesium is i distributed throughout the body water and muscles, and radioactive strontium concentrates in bone. The total dose to organs by a given radionuclide is al o influenced by the quantity and the duration of time that the radionuclide remains in the body, inclyding its physical, biological and chemical characteristics. Depending on their rate of radioactive decay and biological elimination f rom the body, some radionuclides stay in the body f or very short j j times while others remain for years. ,
I In addittoa to natural radiation, we are exposed to radiation from a number of '
man-made sources, TM single largest of these sources comes from diagnostic l I medical x-rays, fluorosecote examinations and radioactive pharmac eutic als, t I Some 160 million Americans receive medical or dental x-rays each year. The i
annual dose to an individual from such radiation averages about 90 millireo j (0.09 rem), about the same as that f rom natural radiation, liuch smaller doses ,
come from censumer products such as televisions, smoke detectors, fertilizers, and nuclear weapons fallout. Production of nucidar power and its associated f
4 fuel cycle contributes less than 1 milltrem (0.00! rem) to the annual dose of !
j about 200 millirecas (0.2 rem) for the ave, age individual living in the United ;
States. ;
i t
I a ,
l t
7527f/ !
1 1
1 Fallout comonly refers to the radioactive debris that settles to the surf ace l l of the earth following the detcoation of nuclear weapons. It can be washed l down to the earth's surf ace by rain or snow and is dispersed th.oughout the environment. There are approx'mately 200 radionuclides produced in the i nuclear weapon detonation process; a number of these are detected in f allout, i
i The radionuclides found in f allnut which produce tiost of t'ie f allout radiation ;
1
! exposures to humans are iodine-13i (I-131), strontium-89 (Sr-89), cesium-137 l
l (Cs-137), and strontium-90 (Sr-90).
I i
Radiation Desearch and Regulation ;
Almost f rom the outset of the discovery of x-rays in 1895 by Wilhelm Roentgen -
the pctential hazard of ionizing radiation was recognized and ef forts were made to establish radiation protection standards. The International l Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Council on !
Radiation Protecticn and Measurements (NCRP) were established in 1928 and 1929. respectively, and have the longest continuous experience in the review of radiation health effects and with recommendations on guldelines for radiological protection and radiation exposure limits. In 1955, the United Nations created a Scientific Committee on the Effects cf Atomic Radiction (UNSCEAR) to summarize reports recetved on radiation levels and the effects on ;
man and his environment. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) formed a I comittee in 1956 to review the biological effetts of atomic radiation (BEAR). A series of repor*s have been issued by this and succeeding NAS '
committees on the biological ef fects of 1c.11 ring radiation (BEIR), the most j recent be t.19 1980 (known at BEIR !!!). The Federal Radiation Council (FRC) l was formed in 1959 to provide a federal policy on human radiat.on exposures.
These federal policies are approved by the Dresident of the United States. >
These committees and commtssions of nationally and internationally recognized j l scientific experts have been dedicated to the understanding of the health effects of radiation by investigating all sources of relevant knowledge and scientific data and by providing guidance for radiological prote: tion. Their l i
i i
-C.
7527f/
~ ___ ... _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __m_
nembers are selected from universities, scientific research centers and other national and international research organizations. The comittee reports contain scientific data obtained from physical , biological, and epidemiological studies on radiation health effects and serve as scientific references for information presented in this report. Since its inception, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission (USNRC) has depended upon the recomendations of the ICRP. the NCRP. and the FRC for basic radiation protection standards and guidance in establishing regulations for tne nuclear industry (Ref. 3 through 6).
I i
i i
?
l l
l
. - _ - _ ~ - . . _ . . - - - - - - ._ - . _ - .
. i l
. 1 Historical Perspective on the Saxton fluclear Experimental Corp. (SflEC) Facility l The Saxton Nuclear Facility was a pioneer in the development of the nuclear energy program for the United States. The plant is located in Bedford County, near Sexton, Pennsylvania - See Figure 1. Primarily a research and training reactor, Saxton operated for ten years, from 1962 to 1972, and provided -
valuable information on operations and training to General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU) and the domestic nuclear energy industry. !
l Tne plant is owned by the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation (SNEC),
which is owned by the three GPU operating companies: Jersey Central Power &
Light Company (44%), Metropolitan Edison Company (32%), and Pennsylvania l Electric Company (24%). The plant is currently under the administration of (
GPU Nuclear Corporation, GPU's nuclear operations subsidiary.
Although Saxton was used for research and training, the electricity produced by the nuclear reactor was used by the GPU system. In the ten year 3 it ;
operated, Saxton produced more than 96,000 megawatt hours of electricity. Its maximum electrical generating capab111ty was 7 megawatts. By comparison, some (
of today's nuclear power plants nave generating capacities of 1,000 megawatts [
nr more. 21any of GPU Nuclear's operations and management personnel recetved !
their training at the Saxton plant.
f i
Currently, tne plant is in a mothballed status. The fuel was removed from the Containment Vessel (CV) in 1972 and shipped to the federal facility at j Savannah River, South Carolina. Other systems in the Containment Yessel were i drained of liquid and de-energized. The structures that supported reactor L operations included: the Control and Auxiliary Building (C&A), the Radioactive -
Waste Disposal Su11 ding (RWDF), the Filled Drum Storage Bunker (FOSB), a yard ,
t I pipe tunnel, the CV pipe tunnel and the Refueling Water S:orage Tank (RWST).
[
f i
i i
l r
f i
-S- l 7527f/ . _ _ - - .
4 FIGUEE 1 LOCATION MAP SAXTON NUCLEAR FACILITY
- % Qt / / 'w*' ,, \
\
q* ,
,p 'l -$_ %s % ~ ,s$'
g, ys ' **-
,,.,,,vi s i s
,' . .;w. 6 +
cd>[t/c ,
,,) ' q' . -
i , .
et # '- fd Nu 9 .e*g's, '
, gf s ,. -
. n.s. w y , ,
0/ $'-' 'l .
'b,b),,-I h, v n ./ . ?=rN4%w&$ll mm/yf '/f :.Y
/ .
-f,....v..,
, d -
-f)Y L ( ' & .' 4, w W i %. $.(. y( h h h, ~%
x y,~'~O;M toc m os o Smos m.un l.-J'.N?[M;;Q.h,its'%
- g. me . ..e 4 -
=
ed5 M i r4
. : ?
% g-f]f:
^""
rs%;g;Qg #[
~,r p[Fg -m.
Y %
gc.~
i wl}EN. +f f v v..wr &r_s.n,.x,,
s
.ja
~
z: -
\, .
./ '\
s . .
a ,
, b,
, , . 5 .' ! / ..* ns i,a , v.,
c , -.," s n.a i,{ j/p p?, ..
p,1 j/i f-t ..., *-
.'. , ., t SCALE 124000 1 aptg 1 5 0 5 J' TT3 *de-CZ"3rwd.__.__ mee s mi!._~3h5FE?~:HI3' EMU tra.+-Mete 72--2lSPERLw C 61Y 7tc t1T < %YC em11C >]LT f((f mm. .-- 2
' 1.Tm rs t_...
i .c ete
- . o t r yss z=1_r - - Mp e r- - r---w LKm
' 70VR INT E RV AL, M F E ET c arvu is utas sta ttsts.
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute series, Saxton quadvangla.
Photo revised 1973.
et s.1,. .
0.a."d AW t L XA'%
. 9
Present Activities 4 I Decontamination of the C&A, RWDF, yard pipe tunnel, and R95T was begun during 1987. The work is being performed in accordance with the plant's license and NRC regulations. None of the work performed at the Saxton site poses a hazard to the public or the environment, i
)
3 yorkers perform the decontamination using standard industrial tools, such as !
l small jackhammee like concrete chipping macntnet. Larger, industrial machines i are used as necessary, yorkers wear standard industrial protective clothing j (coveralls, shoe coverings, and gloves) to keep potential contamination off 1 their skin. Air sampling eauipment is installed to monitor work areas. !
1 1 The decontamination work involves wiping down interior surfaces, sandblasting i I
j and chipping away contaminated concrete, removing contaminated materials and ,
packaging the material as low level radioactive waste. Approximately 10,000 i
- cutsic f eet of radioactive waste have been packaged in metal boxes and drums and shipped by truck to a federally regulated disposal site and to companies t that decontaminate eauipment and materials for reclamation. Currently, the l l federally regulated disposal sites are Richland, Washington, Barnwell, South I l Carolina, and Beatty, Nevada, i The amoui.t of radioactivity in the four structures is too small to produce a
radiation exposura significantly above natural background levels but f sufficient tn be measured 45 contamination on surfaces by sensitive l Instruments.
{
j Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation has filed a request with the NRC to ,
delete the decontaminated structures from the plant's Technical Spectf1 cations i I
once the NRC's decontamination criteria are met.
i i f f
7527f/ !
~-
The work currently being accomplished does not include the Containment Yessel. A study completed by GPU Nuclear in 1984 showed that pitting of the steel surfaces below ground level could occur between 1993 and 2006. To verify the early study, GPU Nuclear repeated the analysis in May,1987. The data have been reviewed by metallurgical engineers and they conclude that the structure will remain sound though 1997 l
t ENVIRONitENTAL AND RADIOLOGICAL SURVEYS !
.I 4
1 Introduction I <
J !
) The Saxton Nuclear Facility had all of its radioactive fuel removed from the i site in 1972. In addition, removal of fixed contamination from within the l C&A, RWOF, pipe tunnel, and RWST was accomplished in 1987 and 1988. The [
r Santon station does not produce and therefore does not release radioactivity i t
to the air and water in the Conventional manner of nuclear plants. However, i GPU Nuclear maintains a series of radtological and environmental surveys in .
i l and around the plant. A Itst of the enytronmental sampling locations is found l 1 in Table 2. Radiological survey locations are Itsted in Table 12. Performing l f these surveys assures that the public health and safety will be safeguarded i during the decontamination and decommissioning activities at the site.
j f Environmental Exposure Pathways j i
+
1 There are virtvAly no environmental radiation exposure pathways from the Saxton Nuclear Facility. The plant does not actively produce any gaseous !
waste or 11ould wastes. The primary potenttal exposure pathway is oirect j I radiation from the plant facility. The absence of strong sources of radtation l t
- at the plant make the potential risk from this pathway minimal. Secondly, and !
also of low potential risk to the public. 15 the possibility that I contamination may migrate off site. These potential pathways pose no f measurable risk to the public because of the general absence of large cuantities of radioactive materials at the site.
Survey tiethods j j The environnental and radiological survey program exasines radiation and I contamination levels in plant facilities, as well as in and around the l excluston area. Thermolustnescent Dosinetry (TLO's), as well as sediment, water, soil and vegetation sampling have been used.
.l 1
i i
12 nmi __ _
Table 2 Saxton !
SAMPLING LOCATIONS Station :
Code Description Sanple Type '
Al -1 N, drain outfall, outside Sediment TLD perimeter fence Al-2 N Containment sump Water l Al-3 N, outside perimeter fence Soil -
B1 -1 NNE, utility pole, outside TLD perimeter fence 4 meters up B1 2 NNE, yard drain, between Water Containment and BWST B1-3** NNE, outside perimeter fence Soil C1 1** NE, yard drain, inside perimeter Water f fence '
C1-2* NE, N-BWST sump Water Cl-3* NE, S-BWST sump Water 7
Cl-4** NE, Outside perimeter fence Soil C1-5 NE, utility pole four meters up TLD Cl-6 NE, drain outfall, outside Sediment, Water perimeter fence Cl-7 NE, utility pole between BWST TLD, Soil and Containment t C1 -8" BWST Air Particulate (AP) !
D1 -1 ENE, tree, far outside TLD perimeter fence 01-2 ENE, perimeter fence TLD j
D1-4 ENE, RWUF tank TLD !
01-5** ENE, BW$i Soil 01-6** ENE, outside perimeter fence Soil 01-7 " ENE, northeast of RWDF Water
a Table 2
! (Cont'd)
! Saxton SA'4PLING LOCATIONS Station l Code Description Sample Type l El -1 (C) E. Penelec Line Office Drinking Water (DW)
El-2* E, yard drain, E of RWDF Water El-3* E, RWDF, lower level Water El-38** E, RWDF roof TLD El-4** E, yard drain, central compound Water El -5 *
- E, utility pole four meters up TLD El-7 RWDF sump Water El-8** Exclusion Area Pipe Tunnel (EA P.T.) Water El-BA** EA P.T. Fissure Water El-9** RWDF, elevator room Water El -10 *
- Office trailer holding tank Water El -11 *
- RWDF, evaporator room vent pipe Water El -12 *
- RWDF, control point AP -
El -13 *
- Office Trailer $1nk Water .
El-14 Honitoring well; north of Water Office Trailer l El-15 Monitoring well; east of FDSB Water outside exclusion area ,
t El-16" Outside office tratier Soti ;
E3-1 (C) E, of Site (Control Station) TLD 5 km east of RB in State Game Land #67 r
F1-2 ESE, perimeter fence TLD l F1-3** ESE, inside perineter feNe Soil l
i
! F1-4A ESE, roped-of f area, south of TLD !
l FDSB l
Tablo 2 (Cont'd) ,
Saxton SAMPLING LOCAT!ONS Station Code Description Sanple Type ,
F1 -4B ESE, roped-off area, south of TLD FOSB F1-5 ESE, utility pole adj, to TLD FOSB F1 -6" Charging room vestibule, C&A Bldg. Soil F1 -6 A" Charging room pump pad Soil
) G1-1 (C) SE, Jack Weaver residence OW, TLD G1-2 SE, perimeter fence TLD i
1 l
G1-4** SE, roped-off area Soil G1 - 5" SE, C&A Bldg., E room sump Water
! G1-6 SE, pipe tunnel around Water Containment Bldg. l G1-7** SE, inside perimeter fence Soil l j GI-8** Area smear, Decon & Sample Room Smear wall, C&A Bldg.
4 G1 -9" Area Smear, Aux. Equip. room. Smear C&A Bldg.
l G1 -10" Area Smear, Aux. Equip. & decon Smear l room wall, C&A Bldg. I G1 -11 " Aux. Equip. room south C&A Bldg. Soil G1 -12" Decon room, CAA Bldg. Soil l
G1 -13" Aux. Equip, room north C&A Bldg. Soil G1 -14 *
- Monitor room, C&A Bldg. Soil
,?
G1 -15 A*
- NV Charging room floor, C&A Bldg. Soil l t
G1-158" SE Charging room floor, C&A Bldg. Soil
i -
l t
Table 2 4
(Cont'd)- '
i Saxton [
t SAMPLING LOCATIONS
[
l Station i i Code Description Sample Type !
l L j H1-2 SSE, ash tree along road TLD H1-3** SSE, inside perimeter fence Soil {
H1-4 SSE, utility pole north of TLD l j storage building j j J1 -1 S, pole adjacent to gas pumps TLD j i J1-2** 5, inside perimeter fence Soil I i \
{" J1-3** S. outside of perimeter fence Soil i J1-4** Manhole west of C&A Bldg. Water l
! K1-1** SSW, sump west of CAA Bldg. Water l
[
] Ki-2 SSW, 50 meters SSW of perimeter TLD '
l fence on small locust tree l Ki-3** SSW, inside perimeter fence Soil i 1
! K1-4 SSW, utility pole north of garage TLD 1 l 4
K1-5 SSW outside Borough Hall, Saxton TLD !
l I
1 L1-2** SW, inside perimeter fence Soil i 1 i
- M1 -1 (C) WSW, station intake structure SW, Sediment I Mi-2 WSW, drain outfall. TLD approx. 3 Water, TLD l meters up in small locust tree Sediment ;
M1-3** WSW, inside perimeter fence Soil l M1-4 WSW, utility pole outside RB main TLD i personnel hatch i N1-1** W, inside perimeter fence Soil 4
I N1-2 W, five meters west of perimeter TLD i fence 5
O-Table 2 (Cont'd)
Saxton SAMPLING LOCATIONS Station Code Description $3mp1,e Type N1-3 W, large oak tree TLD PI-1 WNW, 75 meters WNW of perimeter TLD fence PI-2** WNW, inside perimeter fence Soil Q1-1 NW, station discharge SW, Sediment Q1-3 NW, perimeter fence TLD R1 -1 NNW, perimeter fence TLD RB-1** Op. Deck /RB dome condensate Water RB-2 HEPA Filter AP RB-3** RB equipment hatch sump Water SEl-B** SE side bunker Soil
- Sampling points no longer present.
- Additional sampling points included for decontamination and characterization work.
C - Control Station TLD - Thermoluminescent Dosimeter AP - Airborne Particulate (work area air samples)
SW - Surface Water (river)
DW - Drinking Water GW - Ground Water l l
! l t'
[
Measurement of low level Radioactivity I
4 l,
- Measurement of low radionuclide concentrations in environmental media requires l i
- special analysis techniques. Analytical laboratories use equipment designed !
i i
- to measure the types of radiation emitted (alpha, beta, and garvna) and to i I measure very small quantities of radioactivity. Examples of laboratory !
l equipment used are germanium detectors with multichannel analyzers for
! specific gamma emitting radionuclides, liquid scintillation detectors for .
I i tritium, and low level alpha and beta counters. The TLDs are processed in a state-of-the art calibrated reading system. Computer hardware and sof tware I used in conjunction with the counting equipment perfonn calculations and (
provide data management. The analytical results are reviewed routinely by GPU f Nuclear environmental scientists for accuracy and trends. Investigations are f conducted if results indicate nonroutine data exist from sampling Ic:ations. l The data from ti,e Saxton environmental monitoring program have shown levels of radiation and radionuclides attributable to both the natural background of the region and to residual contamination from the operation of the facility itself. ;
I i
i i !
l i
i s
)
l 1, !
! I l
. .. _ . _ = -
e ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS Results of Thermoluminescent Oosimeter (TLD) Honitoring ;
f Quarterly monitoring for direct radiation exposure duo to gamma radiation has [
been conducted at the SNEC f acility since 1982. The initial program was ;
implemented af ter preliminary results were obtaired f rom readings obtained in ,
i 1981. The program expanded f rom the initial 10 locations to its present 28 !
stat 10n Jesign in 1984. The TLDs used at the SNEC f acility are qualif ted for environmental monitoring under the American National Standard Institute's (ANS!) pubitcation N545-1975 and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Regulatory Guide 4.13.
s ,
Over the six year monitoring period (1982-1987), there has been no discernable j difference between indicator and control stations. The indicator stations are l the 26 monitoring points which are located closest to the f acility. The)r ;
proximity to the SNEC plant is designed to detect any direct radiation ,
) exposure tn the surrounding environment, due to the radiological status of the l factitty. Two control, or natural background, monitoring points are situated l I so as to be unaffected by the radiological conditions on or within the plant's (
onstte structures. !
i 1
! Natural background exposures for ambient g am.14 radiation in the environment
) have been well documented. An annual estimate of 95 mrem from naturally ;
occurring terrestrial and cosmic sources wcs proposed by yhicker and Schultz l (Ref. 7). tiore specifically, an annual estimato of 100 mrem per year in l Pennsylvania f rom combined cosmic and terrestrial sources in Pennsylvania has I a been pub)tshed by Klement (Ref. 8). l
'I a l i
Reviewing the data in Table 3 reveals that the ann o certge indicator vs I control stations has remained relatively Consistent ( we time. Indicator .
1 i j stations averaged 75.8 mrem per standard year while background stations averagej 78.8 mrem over the same monitoring period. In 1984, two indicator j stations were tocated within the area south of the radioactive waste storage 1
1 I
1 1
I.
I .-..-__.._7527ff__ ._ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ ,__ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
~
E l]
.j TABLE 3
, Average Yearly TLD Data (mrem /stnd year)
- Station 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Al-1 77.7 74.8 74.4 76.3 74.2 81 -1 74.2 74.2 **56.5 71.2 72.5 69.1 Cl-5
- 78.1 **62.0 89.2 87.0 85.1 <
C1-7 *
- 125.0 133.0 132.9 116.3 '
01 -1 101.1 90.9 83.4 87.9 88.2 61,3 01-2 88.8 84.5 * *
- 01-4
- 80.3 90.0 89.6 85.0 El-3 *
- 113.7 113.6 113.7 **74.7 El-5
- 83.0 **C2.1 86.3 004 81.6 E3-1 (C) 69.0 63.6 69.2 66.9 65.6 F1-2
- 83.2 79.0 83.5 85.5 82.b F1-4A *
- 539.1 540.2 559.0 485.0 F1-4B *
- 477.8 4 e . '- 464.0 41 8.8 F1-5 *
- 183.6 189 a 1 81.8 137.2 G1-1 (C) 71.2 68.4 62.0 72.3 13.9 64.7 G1-2 78.3 74.8 76.2 77.9 77.8 74.7 H1-2
- 73.0 *
- 51. 0 71.6 69.6 67.9 H1-4 *
- 50.4 70. ', 75.9 73.9 70.0 J1 -1 83.2 75.2 ** 51. 6 **64.0 69.5 60.9 X1-2
- 67.6 **53.6 78.6 76.1 75.7 Ki-4 *
- 68.6 82.7 92.3 89.9 88.6 L1 -1 177.8 69.6 **44.9 71.6 67.7 66.8 M1-2 76.6 71 .8 **47.9 70.0 71.1 68.1 M1-4 **S7.3 67.2 83.2 71.6 70.5 N1 -2 72.1 **46.4 66.0 67.5 65.1 k 3 **50.2 58.5 67.6 65.5 66.7 P1 -1 73.1 69.6 **42.6 60.0 58.6 60.7 01-3 61.9 55.4 50.9 60.5 59.8 R1 -1 **53.4 69.4 67. 71 . 0 71.6 72.7 i
i Y Indicator 88.9 73.8 70.5 75.5 74.1 72.0 Y Background 86.2 79.6 72.7 80.1 81.0 73.0
- Not sampled during this year.
- - Results calculated without all data due to vandalism. Annual aver &ges i calculated without these stations.
Y = Average C = Control Station L_- ._ _ - - - _ _ . _ _
, - _ . - _ _ , _ , _ - _ . _ , . . _ . , - m- . _ _ _ - . - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - . - . - - ,
bunker that was known to have contaminated soil. Data obtained from these monitoring points averaged 498.2 mrem / year over the 1984-1987 monitoring period. Four monitoring points were established within the SNEC yard in~
1984. The average exposure recorded at these sites was 86.2, 126.8, and 173.0
' ~
mrem per Standard year, respectively, for the four year monitoring ~ period 1984-1987.
- These data indicate that outtide the exclusion area, comprised of the SNEC site, radiation levels are consistent with natural background. Areas. within the SP.EC fenced controlled areas are influenced by residual contamination vemaining onsite. is believed that the predominant sour:e of these It elevated readinqs is the exclusion area yard where . contamination levels are greater than background out c,onsistent with the as-lef t conditions during the 1972-1974 initiil decommissioni.ig period.
1 Sediment Sampling Results i
q Sediments have been collected at various outf alls and yard drains throughout the current monitoring program. The dats are evaluated for the presence of j reactor produced radionuclides to determine if there has been any migration of contamination from the SNEC facility to tne surrounding environment.
Samples are collected on a quarterly basis from five offsite and three onsite
- locations. The samples are subjected to radiological analysis to determine
, the extent. if any, of contamination in the sample, i
l Gamma ray spectrometry 15 utilized to detect the presence of natural as well
! as man-made radionuclides in the sample. Naturally occurring gama ray emitters appear in all samples. These include the elements potassium-40 l (X-40), radium-226 (Ra-226), hismuth-214 (81-214), lead-214 (9b-214), etc.
) llan-made gamma emitters include cesium-137 (Cs-137), cesium-134 (Cs-134),
! cobalt-60 (Co-60), etc. These may be produced either by nuclear weapons detonation or through the controlled fission process as in electric power i
i i 7527f/
TABLE 4 Average Yalue of Fission Products Found in Offsite 5ediment Samples (pC1/9)
Isotope / 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 i Station Cs-137 l Ki -1 3.611.9 4.6 1 0.46 3.3110.33 3.63 + 0.36 S.6 ; 0.4 2.1 1 0.2 i C1-6 0.67 1 0.32 0.80 + 0.08 0.65 1 0.09 0.93 + 0.09 0.86 1 0.03- 1.1 + 0.1 ;
, G1-1 0.36 1 0.01 No Sample --- --- ---
No Sample M1-1 (C) 0.14 + 0.06 0.36 + 0.05 0.1510.05 0.15 + 0.05 0.25,+ 0.06 0.07 + 0.03 4
M1-2 0.22 + 0.1 0.29 1 0.07 0.33 1 0.05 0.09 1 0.04 0.32 1 0.08 1.910.2
, Q1 -1 0.14 + 0.07 0.12 + 0.04 0.18 + 0.06 0.1*c + 0.04 0.2 + 0.03 0.12 + 0.03 i
Cs-134 Al -1 0.0610.01 LLO LLO LLO LLO LLD C1-6 0.03 + 0.01 LLD LLD LLO LLO LLO 5 G1-1 0.05 + 0.05 LLO LLO LLO LLO LLD M1-1 (C) 0.02 + 0.01 LLD LLO LLO LLO LLO l M1 -2 0.03 1 0.01 LLO LLO LLO LLO 0.2 1 0.09
, 01.1 U.03 1 0.01 LLO LLO LLO LLO LLO l Co-60 Al-1 0.25 1 0.2 0.19 + 0.09 0.24 1 0.06 0.23 + 0.06 0.3 + 0.05 LLO l l C1-6 LLD LLO LLO LLO LLD LLO f G1-1 0.08 + 0.004 --- --- --- ---
f i ,
Q1-1 0.0210.01 LLD LLO LLO LLD LLO I y ,
e' TABLE 4 (Cont'd)
Averap Value of Fission Products Found ',, Offsite Sediment Samples JpC1/g)
Station / 1982 1983 1.984 1985 1986 1987 Isotope i
Sr '
Al -1 ---
0.08 + 0.03 0.07 + 0.03 Ci 05 + O.02 0.04 + 0.02 0.08 + 0.02 '
C1 -1 ---
0.05 1 0.02 0.0410.01 0.05 1 0.02 0,05'1 0.02 ---
G1 -1 --- --- --- --- --- ---
M1-1 (C) --- LLD 0.03 1 0.01 0.07 1 0.03 0.03 1 0.02 LLD Mi-2 ---
0.01 + 0.07 LLD 0.08 1 0.03 LLD- LLD Q1 -1 ---
0.02 + 0.01 0.03 + 0.02 LLO 0.04 + 0.02 0.03 + 0.02 Cs-137 Y = 0.93 l
Cs-134 Y= 0.098 Co-60 Y = 0.19 Sr-90 Y = 0.047 C = Control Station I
l l
l 1
l l
TABLE 5 Average Value of Fission Products Found in Onsite Sediment Samples *
(PC1/9)
Isotope /
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Station 1982 Cs-137 81-2 293 + 83.3 370 + 37 217. 7 + 21. 3 281.3 + 28.1 241 + 26 ---
01 -5 2.5 + 0.99 --- --- ---
El-2 2.4 + 0.24 1.83 + 0.18 4.2 + 0.42 3.9 + 0.39 6.0 + 0.25 5.1 + 0.5 El A 75 + 36.6 1.08 > 11 77.3 + 7.7 103.7 + 10.3 58.6 + 5.9 ---
Cs-134 81-2 2.67 + 0.83 2.85 1 0.37 1.12 + 0.25 1.2 + 0.22 0.3 1 0.2 ---
01 -5 0.08 1 0.02 ---
El-2 LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD LLu El-4 0.5210.10 LLD ---
0.9 1 0.28 1.02 1 0.34 0.43 1 0.08 Co-60 B1-2 1.8 1 0.17 27.1 1 2.7 21.2 1 2.8 12.811.29 6.0 1 0.6 ---
01-5 0.1110.02 --- --- --- ---
El-2 LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD El-4 8.7 3 0 42 1.28 1 0.35 0. 7 5 + 0. 01 1.010.11 0.8 1 0.25 ---
Sr-90 81-2 No Anal. 0.08 + 0.008 0.03 + 0.02 0.05 + 0.02 0.06 + 0.03 ---
01-5 No Anal. --- --- --- --- ---
El-2 No Anal. 0.05 1 0.02 LLD 0.05 1 0.03 LLD 0.05 1 0.02 El-4 No Anal. LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD l
Cs-137 Y= 108.9 1 1
Cs-134 Y= 1.1 Co-60 Y= 7.4 Sr-90 Y = 0.053
- Control Station is M1-1
reactors. The predominant radioactive elements identified at and within the SNEC f acility are Cs-137, Cs-134, Co-60, and strontium-90 (Sr-90).
Gamma Scan Results: Cesium-137 in the environment occurs globally and is normally detected in sediment samples. A variety of estimates cf its environmental concentration exist in the literatore. For examp e, one reference (NCRP 58) lists a typical cesium-137 concentration in soil from nuclear weapons fallout as 1 pCi/gm (Ref 9). Another reference cites cesium-137 f rom past nuclear weapon tests as the major source of long lived external gamma radiation from fallout (Ref. 10). Whicker and Schultz note that cesium-137 from weapons testing fallout is universally distributed in the biosphere and exists in detectable concentrations in all life forms (Ref 11).
Eisenbud has calculated the human uptake of fallout related Ceslum-137 at 12,300 pCi per year based upon dietary intake of most normal foods (Ref. 12).
In addition to the cesium-137 f rom past nuclear weapon tests, the Chernobyl nuclear accident that occurred in the Soviet Union in April, 1986, added to the global inventory of this and other radionuclides. Environmental monitoring stations around the world detected sharp increases in ces tum-137, cesium-134 and other reactor isotopes in the weeks following the accident (Ref. 13).
The offsite sediment sampling loca: ions all contained Cs-137 at or below the background concentration expected ir, the environment (Table 4). One exception 5s a surface water drain northeast of the exclusion area. This station contained Cs-137 slightly above background averaging 3.2 pC1/ gram over the six year monitoring period. This, coupled with the presence of Co-60 in the samples, suggests th3t this material had migrated f rom the SNEC site through the drain line. This is consistent with samples obtained from the three onsite sampling locations which werl unifccmly contaminated with Cs-134 and 1
Co-60. "Dilution" within the pipe can account for the absence of Cs-134 at !
this location since the o'isite Cs-134 concentrations are sufficiently low that co-mingling with other sediments would tend to d1minish the detectable concentration.
l 1
- 2s -
)
7527f/
Onsite sediment samples were almost uniformly contaminated with Cs-137, Cs-134 and Co-60 (Table 5). These data are reflected in the EA TLD data which indicate yard contamination. Onsite Cs-137, Cs-134 and Co-60 concentrations averaged 108.9, 1.1, and 7.4 pC1/g, respectively. Offsite locations revealed Cs-137 contamination that is consistent with fallout activity. The only exception being the drain outf all discussed above.
Gross Alpha and Beta Results: Although not radionuclide specific, gross alpha and beta analysis can be used to trend activity in the environment. Several of the naturally occurring radionuclides contribute to gross alpha and beta activity found in environmental samples. Gross' alpha activity was consistent with background activity and demonstrated wide variability between samples and location. Variations in these samples are expected sinca they are particularly sensitive to environmental variations due to the geochemistry and mineralogy of the parent sediment, as well as grain size and water content of the sample.
The average gross alpha activity for onsite and offsite samples was 11.5 and 9.7 pC1/g, respectively, over the six year monitoring period. The average gross beta activity was 132.1 and 22.6 pC1/g for onsite and offsite monitoring points, respectively. The larger gross beta activity for ensite sediment samples is attributed to the above background cesium and cobalt activity onsite versus offsite sampling points. Both cesium and cobalt decay, (i.e.,
releass of energy by an atom to achieve a nonradioactive state) with the release of both a gamma and beta (electron) component. Thus, with the presence of these two radionuclides at higher values onsite than offsite, it is expected that the gross beta activity would be greater onsite than at offsite sampling points.
Results of Sr-90 fionitoring: Strontium-90 is ubiquitous in the environment as a result of nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950's and 1960's.
Strontium-90 has a 30-year half life. Its presence in environmental samples is relatively perststent. Almost all samples collected on and around the SNEC facility have contained environmental levels of Sr-90 contamination.
7527f/
The average level of Sr-90 activity found in sediment samples onsite and offsite was 0.053 and 0.047 pCi/g, respectively. These results are consistent with environmental background concentrations.
Soil fionitoring Results A variety of soil monitoring and sampling efforts have been accomplished at the SNEC f acility since 1982. Soil is a complex medium to sample and monitor because of the presence of significant auantities of naturally occurring radionuclides, nuclear weapons test f allout, and fertilizer related activity.
Fallout f rom the 1986 accident at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union has further complicated environmental sampling as a whole. Durrance hat discussed these .
problems in some detail (Ref. 14, pgs 233-241). Klement has compiled estimates of the concentration of a variety of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil (Ref. 8, pgs 8-11) . Soil monitoring at SNEC has been conducted through 1985 and has included both onsite and offsite sampling points.*
In September of 1979, an fulC inspection noted the presence of low level concentrations of reactor produced radionuclides outside the SNEC exclusion area security fence. As a result of this inspection, soil was included as part of the environmental monitoring prograr for the f acility. Particular attention has been focused on the area south of the filled drum storage bunker (FDSB) which was noticed to have the highest concentration of reactor fission products in the soil. ,
i In July of 1981, a soil profile of contamination was attempted in the area ,
south of the FDSB. Results of this profile (Table 6) indicated that contamination was relatively consistent through the profile but did diminish ;
i l
l i
- Note that offsite points may be outsiae of SNEC's security fence but within !
I the Pa. Electric Company's security fence, i f
7527f/ _. _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _. _ _ _ .
j
TABLE 6 1931 SNEC Contaminated Soil Profile (G1-3)*
Depth !in.) Collection Date H-3** Sr-90 Cs-137 C2-134 Co-60 1.0 July 22,1981 250 f; 80 0.22 j; 0.05 2780f;280 54.3 f; 5.4 14.7 j;1.5 2.0 July 22,1981 140 0.06 12.4 f; 1.2 0.36 j; 0.04 0.06 2.5 July 22,1981 190 f;70 0.06 9.96 f 1.00 0.25 j; 0,04 0,077 j; 0.031 3.5 J;1y 22,1981 150 + 70 0.08 8.84 + 0.88 0.23
- 0.01 0.057 + 0.029
, 4.2 July 22,1981 110 0.08 12.0 j; 1.2 0.28 j;0.05 0.085 f; 0.032 D: -
Glass (surface)a July 22,1981 ---
0.G5 253 + 25 5.7 > 0.6 1.74 + 0.28 Glass (buried)b July 22,1981 ---
0.05 6.28 j; 0.63 0.3 0.2
- 3ampled in contaminated area south of the FDSB.
- pCi/ liter - extracted water a Gross alpha - 0.93 + 0.51 pCi/gm Grass beta - 710 f;TO b Gross alpha - 0.46 + 0.28 pCi/gm Grossbeta-28.0f[1.0
l with depth. The highest concentration was at the surface where Cs.137, Cs-134, and Co-60 concentrations were 2780, 54.3, and 14.7 pC1/g respectively. These levels of contamination are consistent with TLD data obtained from this area given the inherent variabilities of both sampling and analysis techniques.
flonitoring around the site in 1982 included soil sampling in each of the 16 meteorological sectors (Figure 2) surrounding the plant. The area south of the FDSB was divided into grids approximately 9m 2 blocks (Figure 3) and sampled, r Results from the analyses of soil samples obtained within the 16 sectors and the grids are presented in Table 7 and Figure 5, respectively.
Samples obtained from the 16 sectors around the SflEC site revealed only background levels of Cs-137 contamination, consistent with fallout. The gridded area south of the bunker contains reactor fission products at concentrations above those found within the exclusion area. This is consistent with the results of a field survey for radiation conducted by GPUti personnel in June of 1986. The 1986 survey was conducted by walking the entire security area within the Penelec and SilEC properties while taking radiation measurements with very sensitive detectors (i.e., fial connected to a
- ount rate meter). These results were verified with another radiat ton detection instrument (E-140fi) and a contamination isopleth was drawn. The data revealed that the contamination area is restricted almost exclusively to the SflEC f acility and the area adjacent to the south side of the FDSB. Three small areas (i.e., size of a shovel full of dirt) of contamination were noted in the Penelec yard and were removed. Within the SNEC exclusion area fence, the area of highest contamination appears to be the sides of the FDSB and diminishes as one proceeds north into the exclusion area (EA) yard proper.
This was also verified by obtaining soil sampies from within the EA and from the FDSB.
7527f/ _ _ _ _ _ _
FIGURE 2 '
" Soil Sample tocations -l 4th Quirter 1982 l
\ ' '\ ' , "
e i" '_
- s. .,
l ,
i l
. Intake i', \ 'N / ,
PA Elect. Co. Tunnel,(i\ ,/ )
{
rence 7
s it . ..
I'N ?'. \ ,N / / '
f l
i N N
> N\ -
\<;
- ,/ni-1
/n o f bi3cne ,
/ -
,)hg
-s..
< .. , + e j_ * # _ . 1 e s t _ .j-, ----s
-1
_K1-,1 'I~2 in_3 {_ / CI 2 .
j
, y , /' g LD
///v
/ ~/ '>g N ya .g &u,8%.. c
\ag//Q. w~
,;.2
<i I
I i
,f' l(fN'""n[ "
xN
~, 1
,1 - \.l, A~. i t /3
- ;-// ,
c1 2 o
f
/7 F1-1 3utp l
1-3
'. .. , --hD~T-
. F B1-3 E
4 i
i "b
C N ,l g-4 l
' ,I1 ;
0:-6 s
N g ji 4
/ r/ s
'\ i i IBBE
- g. a '. .n x7 .: t f L N. : -
s-
[\ .,
.j 7.8520.37 14.120.5 10.0820.06 . .
29.2910.8 l'd.311.4 261.312.0 5.6 0.3 1.11 0.10 0
- 2.1220.19 -
.s 10.320.4 .
FIGURE 3 SNEC y .
'0.6420.84
- Grid Survey l
Soil - 1982 2.56:0.23 0
)
'i .41? O J pCi/g (wec)
Cs-137 5.s213.31 6.10?6.41 ,,
1 p*.5 0,4 4.e:0.40 ---------- n,,. .KER ,. 1. 82 2 0.16
- - - - - - - - - - - u 0.0910.05 2 z.68 o.no 16.5220.59 7.22:0.37 9.21tc.49 15 . S t 0._6 _ - _ - -- 1.03. 0.09 si s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 su se sio l/
m - % _
- I A2 k42B 'A3 A6 A7B A9
'A4 A5 A7{AB Al - 36 3+ t 3J 'll 1 i 12.47 1.9 + 1 3,g/ 6. I'.L [
i 7ence Fence \69.98tl. J to.6037.633.3 {1^ 81.Et8.2 109111 _
191!!9 / 2') .3! !10.h 7 0. 5 $ 4. 5 M O . 3/{
'0SL f B9 1 31 o B2 L a 113 Inca DO B$s 450 368 870 l i' 1 l B8
- B3
- L 1 1.13110.15 j4.66?O.22 . !, *d 0 .11
. 27.19'O. 56 28.69 0.b?l 9. 5010.11:14.4!J.6 'h!.77 ? 0.35l C3 C4 C$ C6 I-C 7 'c8 jc9 C1 C2
, i i O.180 1 10.46 0.325 l 2. 3820.19'2.?920.22 i ? 0.03 1.50rO.19 1.2810.02 10.44 0.3610.09 20.104 f. 2.00 ? 0.1/
8 L_
-_Q 04 105 06 07 ,DJ
- 02 !D3 I i I
6 1 '
/
' l 0.92 /
0.239 I 0,343 O.?20 0.242 2.32 0.72 1 I
, 20.061 lt0.G74 l70.035 20.063 20.19 30.09 l 10.04 {
Et E6 E7 fE3 lE5 4
isch grist is %9m2 I 0.26 0,4]4 0.12 0.44 1.92
+ 1982 A3 s.m.pic 47.9:4,8 ce recour.t. {20.054 l10.027 20.09 { 10.03 20.13 /
flJ8 80AD l*C : S*'i l U '708
- 0.0 7 3
=
i TABLE 7 Gamma Scan on Soil Samples in Each of the 16 Meteorological Sectors ,
4th Quarter 1982 (pC1/g) !
Station and 4th Quarter Isotopes 12-16-82 Al-3 Cs-137 1.2 + .2 Cs-134 <709 Co-60 <.09 81-3 Cs-137 1.5 + .2 Cs-134 <T2 Co-60 <.1 Cl-4 Cs-137 .44 + .09 i j Cs-134 <T1 Co-60 <.09 01-6 Cs-137 1.7 + .17 l Cs-134 <T1 Co-60 <.1 El-3 Cs-137 .6 + .09 '
! Cs-134 <T07 !
Co-60 <.06 l i
F1-1 '
1.2 + .14 4
Cs-137 Cs-134 <T1 (
i Co-60 <.1 i
G1-2 a Cs-137 .5 + .08 ;
i Cs-134 <T06 l
Co-60 <.07 l
i H1-1 Cs-137 2.5 + .25 !
l Cs-134 <T1 Co-60 <.1 ;
I l
1 l l l
~
i
TABLE 7 (Cont'd) t Gamma Scan on Soil Samples in Each of the 15 Meteorological Sectors 4th Quarter 1982 (Cont'd)
(pCi/g)
Station and 4th Quarter Isotopes 12-16-82 J1-2 Cs-137 <.1 Cs-134 <.2 Co-60 <.1 K1-1 Cs-13? .26 + .13 Cs-134 <T1 l Co-60 <.09 ,
L1-2 ,
Cs-137 <.1 l Cs-134 <.1 j Co-60 <.06 i
M1-3 Cs-137 <.1
t P1-2 Cs-137 1.5 + .2 l Cs-134 <T2 l Co-60 4.1
- Q1-2 4
Cs-137 .24 + .1 Cs-134 <709 Co-60 <.06 l R1-2 '
Cs-137 0.3 + .06 '
Cs-134 <T09 Co-60 <.07 i
.. .o i
Vegetation lionitoring Results Vegetation monitoring and sampling was . conducted at the SNEC f acility between the years 1982 and 1985. Based on the soil data, vegetation monitoring concentrated around the area south of the FDSB. The data obtained indicated some uptake of cesium-137 by thc vegetation in this area. The results !
(Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7) are inconclusive because of' the high variability inherent in this type of monitoring. The uptake of radionuclides by plants has been examiaed in the literature. For example Coughtrey and ThLrne (Ref.
15, Volume 1, r.,g es 330-346) have described the soil-to-plant uptake and i distribution estios for restum-137. They ccnclude th.t. "The data co,cerning plant-soil t,ansfer ratios for' cesium isotopes are extremely variable and show l a range r,0vering four orders of magnitude" (Re?. la, nage 345). Tr e date [
obtained from thic monitoring effort was of little value in further j understanding the nature and extent of contamination in and around the site. -!
This, coupled with the f act that the vegetation is neither consumed by humans i or used as a forage, led to this sampling effort being discontinued. The area is fenced to exclude access and the area adjacent the fence is mowt,d and I subjected to contro led herbicide application.
Water Sampling Results ;
1 i Water samples have been taken at the SNEC facility f ram both inside tne I
! exclusion area and offsite. The samples are obtaine'J for the determination of !
radinactive content and to determine if contamination is being transported offsite. Although SNEC does not generate any liau sd waste, virtually all of ,
the onsite structures are subjected to intrusion by precipitation, ground ;
f water, and condensation due to atmospheric temperature changes. The sampling >
points within the exclusion area include: 1) the Containment Vessel sump; l
- 5) sumps within the Refueling Water Storage Tank. Offsite monitoring points !
include: 1) outf alls, 2) two drinking water locations, and 3) the Raystown i l
Branch of the Joniata River at points coincident with the intake and discharge j of the dismantled Saxton Steam Electric Plant, j i
7U7f// l
Wi on _nr . -. _
\ NI N? NT 1.820.18 N r.
0.2210.05 C.8110.08 0.8310.08 0.65t0.07 1.8310.18 1.8110.18 1.284 .17
' 8: 1.2 1 0.12
~
["'
- FIGURE 4 { -
1- ,
SNEC Grid Survey J .
i Vegetation - 1982 comp.
-3 0.5 ! 0.05 pCi/9 0.09 1 0.041 0, g
Cs-137 j S 0.49 1 0.05 i .
Comp.
Comp. U
.05 ] g 0.35 0.04 _7 '
0.4 ! 0.08
^
1 3 0.19 1 0.02 - <0.1 0.191 0,03 0.4610.09 o.3 0.03 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 58 59 S10 S1 , ,
A6 A7B A8 A9 28 A3 A4 A5 Al
- AI e
lA2 3.78 i 1.181 0.12I <0.08 0.624 10.218 0.02 0.02 -
Tenc3 7ence 20.098 l20.089 0.38 9.29 20.32 Pcat B1 B2 (* B4B
- B5B ,
. B6B . BB B9 g
2.54 i0.92t 0.6%* 0.6t ;
l'off at '[B6
<0.08 0.8+- 0.06+
C.04 0.06 0.06 B4 19.29 :0.55 4.9220.28 0.08 20.10 i0.09 C6 C7 C8 C9 C3 C4 C5 Cl iC2 1
0.235 0.111 0.lt 0.12t <0.05 <0.03 0.07t .
0.21 . 0.104 0.03 0.07 3 20.017 20.057 0.03 0.03 0,03 ,
D6 D7 DB D2 D3 04 D5
<0.04 <9.03 0.057 I<0.05 <0.04 <0.03 t 20.055 i-Each grid is s9m2 E5 E6 E7 E3 E4 Vcgetation not available.
<0.C5 <0.03 0.06 0.02 0.06+-0.01'O.17 i 0.02 TLD e--
eget.stion nig: <> .10 3 + .nen
~
B(na f)
4 m2 El m4 Ni h6 NF as MS hl c.-
G FIGURE 5 SNEC 1983 Grid Survey a Vegetation Cs-137 c PCi/g (Wet) e . ..
3 FDS
-SUNKEk -
b w SIA 51 52 51 54 si 36 SF 58 59 510 A) A4 A5 A4m A7d *1 Ag Al 42
.6u + As A. 33 , ars
.98 + .50 I
{ ,gy ,*' 3.31 + .3) <.2 1.14 1 31 4.84 + .48
.09 69 .4% + .ov .27 1 09
- ~+ .1%
8 .II w
a si s2 ( s) 2 34
- ses tic F.40 1 74 .09 f .04
, e6B 1.01 + .
88 s's 511 06 1.! + .12 7,gg + ,yg _,, _,, ,
- 1.06 +_ . le 3,43 , ,gg V ,45 , ,g3 y ,al 54 - sil .lS+ .12 s4 - Si
) e4 c5 C6 07 L8 C4 c3 C2
.)! 1 50 *.! 4.2 .33 1 10 <.2 .24 + .10 <.1 *.2 .46 1 01 l
02 pl b4 e6 96 07 De 4.2 4.2 c.1 4.3 *.2 *.! *.!
- tanderlined wal.ne la SSS El E4 [$ E6 E1 le Co-5 34 4.2 4.4 4.2 .231 12 .26 + .I
. s, !
ska o-1 ( ) .:
EAST) 4.3
- __ f ._. -_ -.
.s
.s a ur n ,,
ma m2 un .4 e . e .-
.u -
FIGURE 6 SNEC o
1984 Vegetation Cs-137 PCi/g (Wet) ..
_ M a
em
- . u u a s' . -
. U a w sa sw sao
.a n s 52 ss u w si Aid As A4 A2 A) As As A G.
'28 . son. "#
.62 70 .ne
~
.52e 06 . ale.os
.6 ,+.07 .o,- ',3 S.Sa*.ss is.6 t.s 17.3+1.7 7.04 ,,o
.ns~
in
- n. ..
., .2 L . _,,,_,,
4 s.42+.34
%.s+1.6 4.53+.45 0*'"'
081 *' 3*' 06 U .,Je.no a.,3- .ar t.32+.as 8.ts*
g*,.m
- ,, ,g ,is v,g ,,,43 ,,, .,
a 06 4. 7 (8 e9 e8 e2 e3 e4 4s
. 04 < oS . 0%
.3)..c4 .353.o3 . 30_* .02 .10_+ .01 .201 04 .nsi.03 .
- e. . . na se.
set ae i.4
.1t+.03 .0 7 + .01 .0641 015 .09. 0m
) .o i..cos <.ca * . 02 2
88 44 8s 06 0.7 s.cs 4.01 .ts+.01 .2s+.o6 .44 .osij t,9-1 (sh g, " I al . Last 4 .464
/
/
/ /
/ /
/ / /
/ / / -
/ / /.
n 7
i t
t o
a e
)
t W
e
\
J =. /
E R
U G
I F
d i
G r C g
p
/ / / /
/ 'l. " /// /
5 8 :.
9 . .
1 N. ///. .
EE. / / '-
/ /
~
/x /
" i. .
?
/
4 i
In the immediate vicinity of the Saxton site, two drinking water sources are ,
d samplea. The first, station El-1, is ' a well, 190 feet deep, at the Penelec Line Office adjacent to the Saxton C&A Building. The water samples from this well have never displayed any radionuclides related to Saxton operations. r Naturally occurring levels of gross beta and tritium have been detected and ,
are to be expected in future analyses. The second drinking water station is l the kleaver residence,. station GI-1. Station Gl-1 has never shown any 't i
i radioactivity related to Saxton operations. Naturally occurring levels of l gross beta radioactivity and tritium have also been encountered at this l station.
4 /
I Three other offsite environmental water stations have been sampled at Saxton. ;
- These surface water locations are located at the nearby river and not known t.m .
! be used as potable water. These are station Ql-1 (site of the former station :
I discharge), station M1-1 (site of the stetton intake structure), ano station j t
Mi-2 (a drain outfall southwest of the plant). i i
I Station Ql-1 has never displayed any radionuclides related *o Saxton . ;
, operations. Norraal ly expected levels of gross alpha and gross beta t radioactivity as well as tritium have been detected. It is expected that
- these levels will continue to he found. !
l never displayed any !
l Station til-1, the station intake structure has f radionuclides related to Saxton operations. A single occurrence of low level j j cesium-137 (6.1 f. 3.3 pC1/L) occurred on April 2, 1982 but was most likely '
i fallout related radionuclides adsorbed on fine sediment suspended in the water l Sample. Subsequent samples have not contained detectable levels of Gs-137.
l The existence of cesium-137 in surf ace waters has been documented by Coughtrey i
) and Thorne (Ref. 15, pages 389-390) as betr.g attributable to adsorption en fine sediment particles suspended in the water sample. llormally expected l levels of gross alpha radioactiv'.ty, gross beta radioactivity and tritium have l been detected. It is expected that these forms of naturally occurring l radioactivity will continue to be detected. Tritium in surf ace waters occurs globally and is primarily the result of natural and weapons testing sources.
j A review of tritium in the environment is found in NCRP 62 (Ref. 16).
I 1
i
_ _ ~527.f/-.
7 ___
Station Hi-2 has not displayed concentrations of radionuclides attributable to Saxton operations. On two occasions, April 2, 1982 and August 18, 1986, cesium-137 was detected. The 1982 occurrence was 6.813.5 pC1/L. The 1986 occurrence was 1.551 74 pC1/L. These levels are attributable to f allout from nuclear weapons testing and are most likely due to radionuclide adsorption on fine sediment particles suspended in the water.
Onsite monitoring points generally reflect the surf ace contamination located within the EA. At quarterly intervals, entries. are made into the CV for monitoring purposes. Water collects in the CV Sump as a result of condensation within the building due to atmospheric temperature changes.
Historical analysis of water samples collected.from the CV Sump reveal them to be greater than 10 CFR 20 limits for release to onrestrir. tad areas.
Consequently the water from the sump is periodically removed, solidified as dry waste, appropriately packaged, and sent to a . low level radioactive waste disposal site. Analysis results from the CV Sump for the time period of 1982 through 1987 are presented in Table 8.
The RWDF and CV pipe tunnel are also sampled en a quarterly basis. Historical data to January 1987 are presented in Table 9. The accumulation of water in these structures is due to groundwater intrusion. The radiological and non-radiological chemistry of samples from these structures are consistent with uackground end uturally occurring constituents. In fact, with the exception of bacterial content, these waters generally meet the EPA drinting water standard for potable water systems that serve the public. The RWOF, yard pipe tunnel and CV pipe tunnel were dewatered in 1986-1987. Groundwater intrusion continues to pose a problem with keeping the buildings dry. A sump system was established in the RWDF and yard pipe tunnels to maintain these structures as water f ree as possible. Samples are periodically collected from these sumps and analyzed for radiological and non radiological constituents. The quality of the water remains essentially unchanged.
Three yard drains have been periodically sampled over the period of the current environmental monitoring program. Samples are taken each Quarter when 7527f/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
r
. . . i t
TABLE 8 Annual Average Concentration of l Radionuclides in the CV Sump (uti /ml )
Radionuclide 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 7
Cs-127 1.3E-3 4.1E-3 5.3E-3 2.3E-3 1.8E-3 2.8E-3 l
ts-134 2.2E-5 1.4E-3 5.0E-5 2.6E-5 1.2E-5 8.5E-6 l
I Co-60 5.6E-7 2.3E-6 1.4E-5 LLD 4.8E-6 9. 2E-6 H-3 2.1E-5 1.2E-3 8.3E-4 8.9E-4 3.7 E-4 7.2E-4 !
Gr-Alpha LLD LLD 2.0E-6 LLD LLD 3.2E-7 Gr-Beta 1.1E-3 1.4E-3 1.1E-2 2.8E-3 2.3E-3 2.3E-3 i Sr-90 1.3E-5 5.CE-6 4.3E-4 1.6E-5 5.6E-6 6.8E-6 .
I l
t 1
I I
l l
i
t TABLE 9 Yearly Average Concentration of Radionuclides in RWDF and CV Pipe Tunnel (pC1/1)
Radionuclide
, and Location 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 I
Cs-137 El-3 337 195 234 17 4 106 23 G1-6 29 4 28 0 252 207 284 138
^
Cs-134 El-3 LLD LLD LLD 1.9 LLD -
LLD G1-6 LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD Co-60 -
El-3 LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD j G1-6 LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD H-3 El-3 360 378 328 408 338 135 G1-6 LLD 133 125 210 295 LLD Gr-Alpha El-3 LLD 4.4 10.7 4.8 9.6 15 G1-6 LLD 1.8 8.3 6.4 7.0 LLD 4
Gr-Beta El-3 426 342 342 27 2 223 17 4 G1-6 194 232 305 287 2 38 103 '
4 I
l
5 .
- I
~
water is present. Data from within the compound (Table 10) reflect yard contamination washed into the drains during episodes of precipitation. One yard drain located east of the RWDF, but instae the Exclusion Area (El-2), has been observed to be relatively free of reactor produced radionuclides in the water column. Sediments from this monitoring point however demonstrate the sporadic presence of Cs-137 indicative of low level contamination by yard sediments in the area. A review of the radiation survey conducted in June of 1986 indicates that the area in which this monitoring point is located is only slightly above background. It appears that this is reflected in the sediment samples from the area.
Both the Central yard drain (El-4) and the drain located between the CV and Refueling Tank (81-2), are located in areas of higher contamination than El-2. Consequently, samples obtained from these two areas are found to reflect higher levels of cont 3mination than does El-2 (Table 10).
, __7527f/ _ ___ _
. . . i TABLE 10 Annual Average Concentration of Radionuclides in
~
Yard Drains Inside EA f (pC1/l) !
Isotope and Station 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Cs-137 B1-2 840 167.0 115.7 305 110 No Water El-2 LLD LLD LLD LLO LLO LLO ,
El-4 46.6 12.0 50.1 9.0 4.9 24 :
Cs-134 i B1-2 LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD No Water El-2 LLO LLD LLD LLD LLO LLD El-4 LLO LLD LLO LLO LLD LLD Co-60 81-2 66 19 11 3.2 5.1 No Water El-2 LLO LLD LLD LLD LLD LLD El-4 LLD LLD LLD LLO LLD LLD H-3 81-2 560 140 90 160 LLD No Water El-2 --- 120 135 17 2 LLD LLD El-4 160 150 120 143 LLD 130 Gr-Alpha B1-2 LLO 11.0 6.2 28 4.0 No Water F1-2 LLD LLO 7.1 LLD 4.2 LLO El-4 LLO LLD 10.0 LLD LLD LLO Gr-Beta B1-2 250 214 115 340 150 No Water El-2 13 4.2 15.1 6.0 8.9 7.0 El-4 39 19.0 77.7 12.4 11.4 38.5
- ~ . _
RADIOLOGICAL SURVEYS Introduction in addition to the environmental surveys, radiological data are collected at the SNEC f acility. Radiological surveys are principally conducted within the Containment Vessel. The primary purpose is to monitor radiological contamination.
High Efficiency Air Filter Dose Rate Results A high efficiency air filter has been installed in a containment penetration near the air tight personnel access hatch entry to the Containment Vessel at Saxton. The air volume in the sealed Containment Vessel expands and contracts slightly witn changes in atmospheric temperature and pressure. To accommodate this e,hange, air is permitted to move into and out of the Containment Vessel through the high efficiency filter. Tne filter removes any contamination from the air leaving the Containment Vessel. A dose rate survey of the high efficiency filter is accomplished on a quarterly basis. The data from these surveys are presented in Table 11 The dose rates f rom the high efficiency filter have always been consistent with the low background radiation levels in that portion of the Containment Vessel. These low dose rates demonstrate the ICk of any Contamination build-up on the inside surface of the filter.
Fixed Survey Point Results Twenty permanently marked locations for instrument dose rate surveys are monitored in the Containment Vessel. These locations are monitored quarterly. Tne results of thase surveys are presented in Table 12. A map of the locations is presented as Figure 8. Dose rates were low and consistent for all points f rom 1982 - 1987. These data indicate that radiation dose rates have been stable in the Containment Vessel in the areas surveyed.
HMMA
l I
I e
[
v TABLE 11 r i
Annual Average of Dose Rates for l CV High Efficiency Air Filter (ar/hr) 1982 <0.2 L 1983 <0.05 1984 <0.1 !
1985 '<0.1 (
s 1986 <0.2 !
1 1987 <0.1 j 1
i.
t f
I i
i 46 - ;
i
TABLE 12 Annual Average Dose Rate for -
CV Fixed Point Survey * *
(mr/hr) lioni toring Point 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1 0.12 <0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 2 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 l 4 ;
i 3 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 j 4 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04 5 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 l
6 0.06 <0.05 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 :
- [
i ? 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.03 0.05 0.05 i 8 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.09
)
9 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 j 10 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 l 11 0.04 <0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 4
12 0.07 <0.07 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.06 l
t 13 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 l t t 14 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 !
15 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.05 i i
16 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04
)I 17 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
- 18 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 4
l 1 19 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.11 !
l '
! 20 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 !
i !
I
- Less than values not included unless all measurements for the year were LLO. l I
- t
- l l [
1 47 ;
1 f
rm N
N -
3 s pk 1 ,
] NN a i l L4 OL9
-- l ~
4-__.. 13 l r _ _ . _ - -
qu n.v e.:y3, .
qr,.. < _-.
gav.. _.
<--i-1-}.j p 3
22
, 8 h*
di i 2 ini t til ?
s, . . -
1 N -
7
, (h
, m ,
10 t
N.~ - , . ,
l FIGURE 8 SNEC Permanent Survey Points Reactor Containment i
43 _ _ _ _ _ .
This is to be expected since all fuel has been removed and 11auid handling systems are empty.
F1xed Survey Smear Resultc The twenty fixed radiological survey locations describea in the Fixed Survey Point Results are also used for standard smear surveys. These smear surveys have also been conducted on a cuarterly basis. This type of survey is acco1plished by wiping 100 sarare centimeter areas with standardized paper smears. Tne smears are then counted with a radiological counting instrument to determine the number of courits per minute in the fine layer of dust and debris on the smear paper. The resultant data are expressed in dpm/100 cm 2 (the number of disintegrations per minute per 100 sauare centimeters of smear area).
The results of these surveys since 1982 are presented in Table 13. Locations 8 and 12 have consistently displyed measurable levels of contamination. For example, in the most recent year (1987) of surveys, station 8 ranged between less than 1000 and 4000 dpm/100 cm 2. Tnese two stations are located in knawn contaminated areas. The recurrence of contesination at stations 8 and 12 is expected because these two locations are on the walkway to the lower levels of the Containment Vessel. At this loc atior:, contamination can be carried up from the lower levels of the CV on protective boots.
The walkway, however, 1s a controlled radiation work permit (RWP) checkpoint.
At this location protective clothing is removed prior to moving onto the radiologicatty clean Operations Deck. Therefore, it is expected that
{
contamination will not migrate further. l t
)
1 i
7527f/
.. _ _ . . . _ _ . . ~ . ._ .__-. _ . .___ _. -
. 'a .
. t TABLE 13 Annual Average Smear Results from t
Fixed Point Survey (dpm)" ,
Location 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 f t
1 1000 <1000 <1000 (1000 <1000 <1000 ;
-1 2 540 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 !
i 3 1000 <1000 <1000 1000 <1000 <1000 7 i
4 1516 3100 1200 1000 <1000 <1000
{
$ <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 !
6 <1000 <1000 <1000 (1000 <1000 <1000 7 1364 4000 <1000 1000 <1000 <1000 8 2948 2100 3500 2550 4150 3000 9 1010 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 l f
10 1138 1000 <1000 1000 <1000 <1000 !
t 11 1200 1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 l 12 3432 2200 3027 3950 7500 8750 l t
13 740 1200 <1000 1200 '<1000 <1000 ,
14 <1000 <1000 1100 <1000 <1000 <1000 i f
15 820 2600 <1000 1000 <1000 <1000 f
16 887 <1000 1000 1000 <1000 (1000 !
i 17 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 l 18 1200 1700 2600 <1000 <1000 <1000 l l
19 4830 1200 3100 1000 <1000 <1000 i 20 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 Less than values not included unless all measurements for the year were LLD. !
.4 .
1 I
CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are presented:
- 1. GPU Nuclear has been actively engaged in radiological and environmental surveys of the Saxton site and surrounding area since 1962.
- 2. All data collected to date indicate that areas of tallnlogical contamination significantly greater than background are confined to the Saxton site. -
- 3. No adverse impact on the environment or the health and saf6*Y' cf the public has occurred as a result of the presence of the SNEC facility or :
2 the current decontamination work on outbuildings assocf ats/d Hith the l l facility. !
i i
l j 4. TLD data indicate no impact from offshe doses. ;
t i
1 1I
}
?
l
! I l
i i
i l l
( ,
l l l I
e *L ,
REFERENCES 1, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No. 93, "lonizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States "
1967,
- 2. National Council on Radiation Protection and HeasurerMats, Report No. 77, "Exposures from the Uranium Series with Emphnis on Radon and Its Daughter," 1984
- 3. National Council on Radiatlod Fictection and Measurements, Report No. 22, "Maximum Permissible Body Burden; and Maxistm Peralssible Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and Water for Occupational Exposure," (Published as National Bureau of Standards Handbook, 69. Issued June 1959, superseding Handbook 62).
4 International Cormiission of Radiological Protection, Publication 2 "Report of Connittee II on Pemissible Dose for Internal Radiation" (1959), with 1962 supplement issued in ICRP Publication 6; Publication 9 "Recomendations on Radiation Exposure " (1965); ICRP Publication 7 (1965), amplifying specific recomendations of Publication 9 concerning environmental monitoring; and ICRP Publication 26 (1977).
- 5. Federal Radiation Council Report No. 1 "Background Material "or the Gcvelopment of Radiation Protection Standards," May 13, 1960.
- 6. Nettorial Council on Rddiation Protection and Measurements, Report No. 39, "Basic Radiation Protection Criteria," January 1971.
- 7. Whicker. F. kard and Schultz, Vincent, Radioecology: Nuclear Energy and the En";tonment - Volume I. CRC Press, Inc. , Boca Raton, Florida,1982,
]
'pTG.
S. Klement, Alfred W. CRC Handbook of Environmental Radiation. CRC Press, l Inc. , Boca Raton, Florida,1982, pp. 55 and 50.
1 9. Handbook of Radioactivity Measurements Procedures, NCRP Report No. 58, i lefond Edition, p. 251, 1985.
J
- 10. Klement, as previously cited p. 54
) 11. Whicker and Schultz, p.150.
- 12. Eisenbud, Herril, Environmental Radioactivi ty. 3rd Edition, Academic Press,1987. , p. 332.
l
- 13. Environmental Measurements Laboratory of the U.S.D.O.E., A Com)endium of i the Environmental Measurements Laboratory's Research Projects Related to !
the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident,1936. ;
i l l
1
o "g . ,
s !
REFERENCES
- 14. Durrance, E. M., Radioactivity in Geology - Principles and Aoplications. ;
John Wiley and Sons,1985.
- 15. Coughtrey, P. J. and Thorne. M. C., Radionuclide Distribution in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. A. A. Balkema. Rottendam, The Netherlands,1982.
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
l l
I i
i e
1 t
b h
f a
p f
l
{
1 I
I
- e -- n . ~ .e, . , w - , m - ,..,-...n-, ---.-----.-..--,.,....,-c,... . . , . . . . . , - , . _ , - , , - . - - - - - . - . - - . . - - - - - , , , - - .l