ML20210K230
| ML20210K230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1994 |
| From: | Mccann G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Wiedeman D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210J835 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-218 NUDOCS 9708190191 | |
| Download: ML20210K230 (1) | |
Text
- _.
l.
1
.i i
From: Darrel G. Wiedeman W"
To:
Mike McCann M [< -
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 1994 8:33 am subject:
Telecon w/ alleger-Uniontown Landfill On June 21, 1994, called me to find out if we received our copy b
of the U.S. EPA's cience Advisory Board (SAB) draft report of their findings at the Uniontown Landfill, Uniontown Ohio.
I informed her that we received the report on 6/20/94 and you are cur,rently reviewing the report to determine what further actions the NRC will take. She adamantly claims that the SAB report is a " whitewash" by EPA and contains " watered-down" conclusions. As an example the report did not mention the plutonium found in a 92' bore sample, they disregarded and minimized the significance of the high tritium concentrations in certain water samples and the high gross beta counts found in certain water samples collected by the State of Ohio. She stated that we have a moral, legal and ethical obligation to immediately write a rebuttal to the SAB report and we should conduct our own independent analyses of the environmental radiation levels including a com$ ete field study at Uniontown.
l
- 1. informed her that yet ld be the individua that makes the final decision b
regarding this matter, also wants you to advise the proper channels that y.qu want Uniontowo xc u e from the draft Commission paper on exempting l
NRC involvement to EPA Superfund sites.
l t
--End of HESSAGE--
CC:
Allegation file i
M"~. 1 c; tt 3 m j 1.,,y g j.,
a n; $ge ggg
\\
a.
e
,977_/7 i
9708190191 970812 PDR FOIA COLERID97-218 PDR b
o
g 3
1 March 3, 1994 3
g MEMORANDUM FOR: Mike Mc Cann, Chief, fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Sites Secti(>n FROM:
Darrel tedeman, Senior Health Physicist
SUBJECT:
Allegation AMS No. RIII-94-A-0026, Possible Dumping of Radioactive Materials in Landfills On March 2,1994 I contacted the alleger to discuss the allegations made to the NRC Region ill office on February 22, 1994 (See Memo to D. Funk from S. Mc Duffie, dated February 23,1994). The purpose of the call was to have the alleger clarify the allegations.
I was it. formed by the alleger that this site is on the U.S. EPA Superfund List. The former landfill was a 30 acre industrial waste disposal site during the period 1960-1978. The alleger l
stated that a lot of the disposed material was fly-ash from fossil fuel
. plants. The alleger acknowledged that the U.S. EPA is the cognizant agency to oversee the remediation of the site; however, the alleger stated that she is no longer confident that the U.S. EPA has the technical expertise to do an acceptable job of remediation of the Uniontown Landfill.
The alleger also stated that their organization feels that the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency are inept and corrupt along with the U.S.
EPA.
The alleger further stated that their organization has asked for a congressional investigation into this matter.
The alleger continued that the former landfill owner / operator was Mr. Hyman Budoff; however, the landfill property is now listed on the county road maps as "0wned and controlled by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency". The alleger stated that a U.S. EPA mobile van was on site doing some sampling ??
several months ago. The alleger provided me the name of an individual that could confirm that during the 1969-70 time frame this person saw dump trucks with Georgia license plates, radioactive tri-foil symbols on the back of the vehicles, dumping truck loads of material during the night time hours.
Attached to this memo is a copy of an announcement to a public meeting held July 20-21, 1993 from U.S. EPA. This notice indicates that U.S. EPA has.
placed the Uniontown Ohio landfill on their Superfund list and plan to conduct further investigation into illegal dumping of radioactive material during past operations.
The alleger is no longer confident in the State and Federal agencies involved in the characterization and remediation of this site and would like to see the NRC intercede.
In my review of the various documents I received regarding this site, I could not find any direct connection that ~a former or current NRC licensee dumped radioactive material in the Uniontown landfill.
To ensure that I nad properly interpreted the allegers concerns, I called the alleger on March 3,1994 and summarized the contents of this memo. The alleger concurred on it's content and stated that their concerns were properly characterized.
cc: D. Funk, RIII G. Shear, RIII
$l r
,~,4 a
m n
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency it Science Advison Board ad hoc Industrial Excess Landfill Advison Panel Public Meeting July 20-21,1993 Pursuant to the Federal Adviscry Committee Act, P.L.92-463 noti that the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) aihes Industri l E e s ereby given a
Panel will meet on July 20-21,1993 xcess Landfill (IEL) Advisory Akron, Ohio 44333.
at the Akron West Hilton Inn 3180 W est Market Street, The Hilton Inn telephone number is (216) 867 5000.
the meeting will begin at 9:00 am and will recess'at appro i On July 20th, public comment period will be held from 7:00 pm until approximate 21st, the meeting will begin at 9:00 am and will end no later than 2 00 pm. On July open to the public and seating is on a first-come basis. pm. He meeting is At the meeting, the Panel will receive briefings from various parties on the background of the IEL Site date. Based on these presentations and discussion at the meeting th P i
n t e work done to j
what other information is needed and how they will carry out their h anel will determine e
c arge (as outlined below).
Backeroun_d_
The Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (O that the Science Advisory Board (SAB) form an d has d i requested issues related to screening criteria and procedures for radioactiva v sory panel e waste materials at a specific superfund site. De ad hoc IEL Advisory Panel was organized by the Sci Board for the purpose of addressing this issue, he charge outlined b l ence Advisory wording of the request u agreed to by the SAB.
e ow contains the To address the charge, the d has Panel will review a specific site whe radioactive contamination may be present, the Industrial Excess Land
-surface in Uniontown, Ohio. Citizens residing near the IEL i uperfund site s te are concemed that radioactive wastes had been illegally disposed at the site. Former EPA Administrator Rei Incorporated to perform an independent evaluation of the Agency's asked Clean Sites, site, with ernphasis on the radiation sampling being conducted managernent of the IEL
. Clean Sites' March 1992 v
m
. ~ _
J,'...
m 1
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING NOTICE i
- report to the Administrator contained several recommendations, including one radiation sampling issue,iWith respect to radiation sampling, Clean Sites recomm I
the Agency request that the Science Advisory Board (SAB) perform specific task F
data analysis issues at the IEL site.. Although these issues arose from this on i
of concern to other Superfund sites at which radioactive contamination is suspected be used to develop generic guidelines for dealing with such sites. Past, present, and anticipated activities and data collected at the this location'will be used as source mater the ad has Panel in its deliberations.
Charee to the Panel In general, at hazardous waste sites where radioactive contamination is suspected, E first perfonns a screening round of sampling. If the screening round' data indicate that there i a problem, the Agency perfonns more extensive investigations, if the screening round data indicate no contamination, further sampling is eliminated. What kind of sampling and analytic protocol is adequate to determine the presence / extent of soil and groundwater' contamination at a site which may incorporate radioactive wastes? Specific questions for the Panel include:
For screening purposes, what types of temporal and spatial sampling and analyses are a.
sufficient to' test a hypothesis that radioactive contamination is present?
- b. -.
' What radiological parameters, e.g., gross alpha plus ' alpha spectrometry, gross bets, gamma spectrometry, tritium, and carbon 14, are sufficient to determine the possible existence / extent of potential sub-surface radiological contamination? Are the methods ernployed by EPA for analpis of radioactive contamination adequate and appropriate for analyses of samples from hazardous waste sites?
2
-~
e a
i SCENCE ADVISORY BOARD S1EETING NOTICE There are generic guidelines for sampling and analytic methods and ch c.
protocoli to ensure that cross contamination or tampering with s custody when dealing with radioactive contaminants. If appropriate, these guidel cur ruodified on a site specific basis depending on the characteristics of the may be question. What rnodifications are seientificallyjustified while still assuri precise and valid data?
d.
What factors need to be considered in the development and application validation criteria for evaluation of radioactive contamin I
The ad has Panel may address other issues as they deem appropriate e.
For Further Information n
For details conceming this review, including a draft meeting agenda a or the overall activities of the Science Advisory Board, please contact th Officer for this review:
e eral Mr. Robert Flaak, Assistant Staff Director, Science Advisory Board (A-101F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,401 M Street SW Wa
. Telephone: (202) 260-6552 and FAX: (202) 260-7118.
Onnertunity for Providine Comment y
All oral presentations or written statements should be limited to scientific i concerning the above charge, related issues, and the specific site identified abov e.
Members of the public who wish to make a brief formal oral presentation t Cornmittee must contact Mr. Flaak no later than Friday, July 16,1993 in order to be includ d on the Agenda.
e Written statements of any length (at least 30 copies) may be provided to o
4 SCIENCE ADVISORY 110ARD MEETING NOTICE i
4 Committee up until the meeting. Pleue send these cornments to Mr. Flaak given above. The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements pre j
meetings will not be repetitive of previously submined oral or written statem i
cach individual or group making an oral presenation will be limited to a total time i
minutes, ne fortial public comment period will take place beginning at 9:00 Individual members of the public who cannot attend the daytime session of the P meeting and who wish to provide a brief oral statement to the Panel will have r
to do so from 7:00 to 9:00 pm on July 20th nis period on the meeting agenda has bee up to accommodate walk in speakers who will be able to persons" be given five minutes each and will speak in the order they tv ter.
s Future Activliles g[lbl. hail t
t ne ad hos IEL Advisory Panel expects to have," leas; one additional public mee
{
to continue discussions and to prepare their witten report. Dis meeting is planned for September 1993 in Washington DC. A specific date has not been set. De Paral e have a dt:ft written report publically available in October 1993. His written report of t Panel will undergo final review and approval at a public meeting of the SAB Executive Committee before the repert is finalized and forwarded to the EPA Administrator. The Executive Committee meets quarterly in Washington DC; it's next scheduled meeting October 26 27,1993. A Federal Register Notice will annoence Ikth of these meetings. the i
above schedule is subject to change.
Date:
> / /Yb
'r. Donald G. Barnes f
/
Staff Director i
^
Science Advisory Board Billing Code: 6560-50-P 4
4 a
a v
e, yg-,
g y,,--.w------,,.
r,
,,,,-,,,g,--
,wp
,,n.-
--y,,-
-y,,
._=,
,w,-
n
,,,,~-,,,rc,
--y-,-
}
?
7 January 31, 1994 HEMORANDUM FOR:
Donald E. Funk, Jr.
Off.co JA le ion Coordinator
/ld
- .[.
/
THRUt tiear, Chief Puel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch FROM:
George M. McCann, Chief Fuel Facilities & Decommissioning Section GUBJECT!
INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED ABOUT POSSIBLE EXPOSURE TO URANIUH-235 on January 31, 1994, approximately 9:40 a.m.,
I received a telephone call from an individual concerned about potential exposure to radioactive materials which is believed to be causing detrimental health effects on the family.
Names and addresses are being provided under separato cover.
The individual lived near the Goodyear Aerospace Company, Akron, OH.
It was indicated that the children and adult family members have been suff9 ring a number of detrimental effects, e.g.,
neurological disorders (primarily the children) and severe blood I
and biceding disorders (children and adults).
The caller indicated that these effects have significantly decreased or disappeared after moving away from the former residenco.
Furthermore, it was indicated other residents in the area have been suffering similar effects.
The individual indicated that a salvage company was also located behind their residence.
This company supposedly had received large amounts of old military hardware.
It was believed that his materials could have been bro'en down causing problem, as far as, chemical releases.
The types of release were not known.
The caller indicated they had sent a FOIA to RIII, Attention": Don Sreniawski, ten days earlier and no response from the Region had been received.
I checked with Kathy Clayton and it was indicated that RIII had received the FOIA January 28, 1994.
The FOIA was sent to the HQ coordinator and we should be receiving it back within a few days.
I advised the concerned individual during a followup call the same day, that we had received the FOIA and that someone would be getting back to the caller.
The caller indicated that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) had been contacted for help.
It was indicated that the OEPA had conducted test on the individual's water supply (shallow well).
According to the concerned individual, the OEPA found an unknown substance in their drinking water, however, it was alleged that the OEPA won't advice them what the substance was or if could have caused the problems.
The caller indicated the individual contacted at the OEPA was Mike Bolas, (800) 686-6330.
The caller requested if we had any contacts with the l
o 1
gos w2cg
am s
D. E.
Funk 2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
I also gave the concerned individual the telephone number for Dr. Milton clark, Senior Health & Science Advisor, Waste Management Division, USEPA.
The concerned individual also indicated that the physicians who had cared for the caller's children have declined to centinue caring for them.
It-is inferred that since the children are no longer exhibiting the severe health effects, that it is possible that these physicians were aware that a chemical agent was causing the problems.
During the followup telephone call, the individual indicated that a letter dated January 26, 1994, from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) had just been received.
The letter stated that DOE had been directed by the President to check out any research relating to the use of radioactive materials on humans.
It indicated that it would take several months to check out everything.
It did not indicate anything specific to them and the caller was concerned about what the letter meant to them and
%hy they received it.
I advised the caller that I could not tell anything about the intent of the letter.
I advised the caller that since the letter was addressed, to write DOE.
Should you have any further questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me.
George M. McCann, chief Fuel Facilities & Decommissioning Section cc R. caniano 4
4 e
e i
e s.. - -. -.,
_m.
.,,.,,,...,_,-,,,m..m.
,.g
.. -,. -, -.. _ _ _ _. - _, _. - -,. -. -. - - - - - - -.. - -. ~ -.. -
MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. W. DeFayette, Director, EICS FROM:
Gary L. Shear, Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION FOLLOWUP RADI0 ACTIVITY AT UNIONT0WN LANDFILL, UNIONTOWN, OHIO AMS No. RIII-94-A-0026 On February 22, 1994 we received an allegation that uranium-238, cobalt-60, manganese-54, tritium (H-3), americium-241 and plutonium had been found in groundwater samples taken from the area around the Uniontown landfill.
This landfill is currently on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) superfund list of contaminated sites. The alleger further alleged corruption within the ranks of the EPA along with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio Department of Health.
Due to the serious nature of these allegations, D. G. Wiedeman of my staff contacted the alleger on March 2, 1994 to have her clarify her allegations and to gather additional specific information to support the allegations, see memorandum dated March 3, 1994.
The alleger acknowledged that they were aware that the EPA is the cognizant l
agency to oversee the characterization and remediation of this site; however, l
the alleger's organization was no longer confident in the State and Federal l
agencies involved, due to the alleged corruption and they wanted the NRC to
}
intercede and take over r7gulatory jurisdiction of the landfill.
On March 9, 1994 we held an Allegation Review Board and the board decided to refer this matter to the U.S. EPA's Office of Ins)ector General (OlG). On May 18, 1994 this matter was officially referred to tie EPA OlG, see Attachment A.
Followup to the remaining allegations associated with possible dumping of radioactive material was put in abeyance pending a release of a report by the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) regarding this matter. On June 16, 1994 we received a copy of the SAB report. Our followup to the allegations are as follows:
Allegation 1:
The allegers organization is concerned about possible corruption in both State and Federal agencies in charge of characterization and remediation of the site.
NRC Followup:
This matter was officially referred to the U. S. EPA's Office of Inspector General on May 18, 1994, see attachment A.
==
Conclusion:==
This matter is not within the NRC jurisdiction and is now considered closed.
1 4
R. W. DeFayette 2
Allegation 2:
Possible dumping of radioactive material at the Uniontown
- Landfill, i
NRC Followup:
The alleger provided the staff numerous copies of laboratory 1
data regarding radiological analysis of water and soil taken 1
from various EPA contractors and State agencies; however, most of the data with exceptionally high results were marked
" INVALIDATED", were statistically insignificant or were the results of naturally occurring nuclides, e.g. radon-222.
The staff did not find any indication of byproduct, source 1
or special nuclear material nuclides that exceed the NRC release criteria.
Further, a file seat ch of expired and terminated licenses for the period of 1970-1985 did not disclose any former AEC/NRC licensee in the Uniontown, Ohio area that lost or disposed of material in the landfill.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), which is made up of eight members from the science, engineering and academic communities, issued their " draft" reaort on June 14, 1994.
This report concludes on page 5 of tie Executive Summary that disposal records and a search of the records of the identified landfill users did not indicate the probability of disposal of radioactive materials.
In addition, the
. report states that the available analytical data did not indicate that radioactive contamination was present at the site as a result of disposals at the site.
The SAB also indicated that based on all the evidence presented to the ad hoc Panel, they judged it to be highly unlikely that radioactive contamination is, or was, present, 3
On June 21, 1994, DRSS was informed by AE00 that a recently l
pubitshed (December 1993) draft Federal Radiological j'
Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) identifies the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) for different types of incidents.
Page 11-4 of the FRERP indicates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the LFA for radioloaical emeraencies at sites not licensed, owned or operated by a Federal Agency or an Agreement State, Attachment B. -This would include scrap
+
e yards, railroad sites and landfills.
Therefore, the 1
allegations that radioactive material was buried in the t
Uniontown landfill which is a non-licensed site, is the responsibility of U.S. EPA for followup and resolution. We provided the EPA copies of all data that we have regarding 4
this matter.
==
Conclusion:==
The allegation that radioactive material was dumped at the Uniontown Landfili was not substantiated.
Further, the staff determined that the U.S. EPA is the " Lead Federal Agency" for followup to these allegations.
4 s
e R. W. DeFayette 3
There will be no further action on our part regarding this matter and as such consider the allegation closed.
Gary L. Shear, Chief.
Fuel Cycle and Deconnissioning Branch
Attachment:
As Stated cc: W. L. Axelson D. Funk l
l 1
Wiedeman McCann F. Combs,NMSS Shear
l HEHORAQJH FOR:
R. W. Defayette, Director, EICS FROM:
Gary L. Shear, Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION FOLLOWUP RADI0 ACTIVITY AT UNIONT0WN LANDFILL, UNIONTOWN, OHIO, AMS No. Rill-94-A-0026 On February 22, 1994 we received an allegation that uranium-238, cobalt-60, manganese-54, tritium (H-3), americium-241 and plutonium have been found in the groundwater samples taken from the area around the Uniontown landfill.
This landfill is currently on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) superfund list of contaminated sites.
The alleger further alleged corruption within the ranks of the EPA long with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio Department of Health.
Due to the serious nature of these allegations, D. G. Wiedeman of my staff contacted the alleger on March 2, 1994 to have her clarify her allegations and to gather additional specific infJrmation to support the allegations, see memorandum dated March 3, 1994.
The alleger acknowledged that they were aware that the EPA is the cognizant agency to oversee the characterization and remediation of this site; however, the alleger's organization were no longer confident in the State and Federal agencies involved due to the alleged corruption and wanted the NRC to intercede and take over regulatory jurisdiction of the landfill.
On March 9,1994 we held an Allegation Review Board and the board decided to refer this matter to the U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG). On May 18, 1994 this matter was officially referred to tie EPA OlG, see Attachment A.
Followup to the remaining allegations associated with possible dumping of radioactive material was put in abeyance pending a release of a report by the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) regarding this matter. On June 16, 1994 we received a copy of the SAB report. Our followup to the allegations are as follows:
Allegation 1:
The allegers organization is concerned about possible corruption in both State and Federal agencies in charge of characterization and remediation of the site.
NRC Followup:
1his matter was officially referred to the U. S. EPA's Office of Inspector General on May 18, 1994, see attachment A.
==
Conclusion:==
This matter in not within the NRC jurisdiction and is now considered closed.
Allegation 2:
Possible dumping of radioactive material at the Uniontown Landfill.
NRC Followup:
The alleger provided the staff numerous copies of laboratory data regarding radiological analysis of water and soil taken from various EPA contractors and State agencies; however, most of the data with exceptionally high results were marked "INVAllDATE0", were statistically insignificant or were the results of naturally occurring nuclides, e.g. radon-222.
The staff did not find any indication of byproduct, source or special nuclear material nuclides that exceed the NRC release criteria.
Further, our review of a file search of expired and terminated licenses for the period of 1970-1985 did not disclose any former AEC/NRC licensee in the Uniontown, Ohio area that lost or disposed of material in the landfill.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (which is made up of eight members from the science, engineering and academic communities) issued their " draft" report on June 14, 1994.
This report (Executive Summary, page 5), see Attachment 8, states
" Disposal records and a search of the records of the identified landfill users have not indicated the probability of disposal of radioactive materials.
In addition, the available analytical data do not indicate that radioactive contamination is present at the site as a result of disposal at the site.
Based on all the evidence presented to the ad hoc Panel, we judge it to be highly unlikely that radioactive contamination is, or was, present."
==
Conclusion:==
The allegation that radioactive material was dumped at the Uniontown Landfill was not substantiated.
There will be no further action on our part regarding this matter and as such consider the allegation closed.
~
Gary L. Shear, Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch
Attachment:
As Stated cc: W. L. Axelson D. Funk Wiedeman McCann Shear
Vg JUL 151994 c~
EAG Dea b
In a letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 3,1994, you expressed concerns that the'past use of radioactive material at the Goodyear Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center may be related to health problems experienced by you and your family.
As a result of your concerns we conducted a special inspection of activities conducted at the Goodyear's Wingfoot facility authorized under an NRC license between 1974 and 1985. The results of our inspection are attached (Attachment 1).
I In letters dated June 9 and June 17, 1994, you raised additional concerns in regard to our inspection activities at the Goodyear facility. We have addressed each of the concerns in Attachments 2 and 3.
In addition, during an April 29, 1994 meeting, you provided a petition to NRC representatives in attendance which requested we conduct comprehensive testing for radiation in your comunities.
Our recent inspection activities, conducted between April and July 1994, included a review of past NRC inspection reports, a review of confirmatory surveys conducted for the NRC in 1986 by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU), and the collection and analysis of numerous environmental sam)les.
Our selection of environmental samples focused on those areas where tie likelihood of finding radioactive contamination existed.
Based on the results of our inspection and the results of the sample analyses, we found no evidence that radioactive contamination in excess of the NRC unrestricted release limits exists at the Goodyear Wingfoot facility or in the nearsite environment. As a result of this finding, we are concluding our investigations of this matter.
In your June 17 letter, you requested that someone from the NRC travel to Akron to help you interpret NRC material obtained through your Freedom of Infomation Act (FOIA) request.
If,you have questions regarding documents you obtained from the NRC, or questions related to our policies or regulations, you may submit your questions to us in writing and we will provide you a written response as soon as possible.
! Ih 4! e
- I 6
[3 *6#'
I i I
in., nni y e.~ilh 19 hr. M i. 'o hi 4
\\
- p qs _ k I
C
,b1 e v, i TNA
- 7./ h
)q a
I*
I h i s im M
If you have any questions regarding the report or our response to your t
concerns, please contact Nr. Mike McCann at (708) 829-9856.
Sincerely, Original Signed by Gary D. Shea, Gary L. Shear, Chief Fuel Cycle and Deconsnissioning Branch Attachments: As stated bec w/ attachments:
D. Funk, Rill RI RIII d
RIII Snilfdp McCa n ear 07/i+/94 07/ /94 07//.(/94 6
M 1 B 94 i
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
License No. SNH-1461(terminated)
A1TH: Joe L. Holtshouser, Manager Docket No. 070-01489(terminated)
)
Industrial Health Management Services 1144 East Market Street Akron, OH 44316
Dear Hr. Holtshouser:
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION OF FORMER NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) LICENSED SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONS (NRC REPORT NO. 999-90003/94040(DRSS This refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs. D. G. Wiedeman, W. Snell and K. Andre of this office from April 25 through July 8,1994, of Building 91 at the Goodyear Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center, Portage County, Ohio and the surrounding environment. This inspection was in response to concerns from local residents in Suffield and Portage Counties and the NRC's review of the terminated NRC License files. Licensed activities were previously authorized by NRC Special Nuclear Material License No. SNH-1461.
The results of our preliminary findings were discussed with members of your staff at the conclusion of the on-site inspections on April 26, June 22, and July 8,1994.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection.
The inspection consisted of a selective examination of representative records from the former license file, observations, independent measurements, and interviews with employees of Goodyear, Goodyear's contractor, Loral, concerned citizens residing in Portage and Suffield counties and local school officials from Springfield and Field School Districts.
Based upon this inspection, we concluded that licensed material covered under NRC Special Nuclear Material License No. SNH-1461 was properly transferred during the period 1975-1985 to the U. S. Department of Energy and all non-recoverable materials were transferred to Teledyne Isotopes for disposal.
The facilities in Building 91 (blimp hanger) were decontaminated to a residual radiation icvel consistent with current NRC guidelines. The NRC criteria are described in a document titled " Guidelines for Decontamination of facilities and Equipment prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated August 1987. This inspection also included an assessment of off-site areas to determine the potential for radiological environmental contamination.
Based on that assessment, we concluded that there was no uranium in the areas surrounding the Goodyear Wingfoot facility in excess of the NRC unrestricted release limits. Consequently, we have no further questions regarding this matter.
Y gy &' @ N
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
2
{
3 in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Comission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.-
4 We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning the inspection.
Sincerely,
,31 Signed by Gary P. Shear Gary L. Shear, Chief i
fuel Cyc1* and Decomissioning Branch
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 999-90003/94040(DRSS) cc w/ enclosure:
R. Owen, Ohio Department of Health H. Nelson, M.D.
Sumit Co. Health District R. Beals, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency J. Wentz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RV J. McCourt, Senator Metzenbaum's Office bec w/ enclosure:
i PUBLIC (IE07)
D. Funk, RIII e
Q H0 RIllu
- RIII RIII e
Rill R
!g Wiedemn)
(K5 Snell McCann Shear 07/0 /94 07/ir/94 7/l6/94 07//f/94
,.,~.-
n
4 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N REGION 111 Report No. 999-90003/94040(DRSS)
License l'o. SNM-1461 (terinated)
Docket No. 070-01489(terminated)
't Licensee: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Akron, Ohio 44315 Inspection Att Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center Blimp !!angar No. 91 Portage County, Ohio
--and--
residential hoses, churches and schools located in Portage, Springfield and Sumit Counties, Ohio Inspection Conducted:
April 25-July 8, 1994 Inspectors: k#/ DC.
I e'7!/6 /9 h D. G. Widdema
/
Date'
/
Senior Health hysicist Lo.L $JO
~Date W. G. Snell
,Arb4 Senior Health Physicist Approved By:
M4..h..
7 c.-
C'? //6 9t/
G. M. NcCann( Chief /
Da(e
(
Fuel facilities and Decomissioning Section Insoection Summary Inspection on April 23-July 8.1994 (Recort No. 999-90003/94040(DRSSil Areas insoected: This was a special inspection to review the former licensee's activities and to determine if licensed materials were properly transferred to an authorized recipient and butidings used under the former NRC license were properly decontaminated prior to the termination of the license.
The inspectors conducted an indeundent review of transfer records and performed radiation surveys in tae licensee's building thht was used for research and testing. This inspection also included an assessment of the off-site (unrestricted) areas to determine the potential for radiological environmental contamination.
Wn 1 /r,lY/,,
,, v pm
flesults:
All licensed materials possessed under NRC License No. SNM-1461 were properly transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy during the period 1975-1985 and all unrecoverable material was transferred to Teledyne isotopes for disposal. All buildings and facilities formerly covered under the license were free of residual contamination.
The results of all off-site water, soil, sediment and fish sample analyses showed that levels of uranium (U-238, U-235, and U-234) were below the NRC unrestricted release criteria.
t 2
e
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contydsd liarry Weaver, Maintenance, Goodyear fire and Rubber Company (GT&RC)
Joseph Smerglia, Principal Engineer, GT&RC Edward Puhala, Industrial Hygiene Consultant, GT&RC Thomas Riley, Manager of Airship Operations, Wingfoot facility, GT&RC a25 employees from Loral, Goodyear contractor, Wingfoot facility, GT&RC f Joe lloitshouser, Manager, Industrial llealth Management Services Daniel Laskos, Business Manager, Springfield Local Schools, Akron, Ohio Tucker Self, Superintendent of Schools, Springfield Local Schools C. Maurice Oatley, Assistant Superintendent of Schools. Field Local School District 9 Michael Bolas, Projtet Coordinator, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 9 Rodney Beals, Envircamental Manager, OEPA 9 Louise Fabeniski, ').S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 9 J. Wentz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V 9 Janice McCourt, Office of Senator Hetzenbaum, Ohio 9 Tamy Proctor, Photojournalist, Hartville News, Hartville, Ohio 9 Concerned citizens from Sumit and Portage Counties, Ohio B Martha Nelson, M.D., Health Comissioner, Sumit County Health District
& Robert Hofer, Industrial flygienist, Goodyear
& Todd struttmann, Sharp and Associates, (Goodyear contractor, Fuel TestFacility)
- Attended the exit meeting conducted or. April 26, 1994.
- Telephone conversation on May 19, 1994, regarding the results of laboratory analysis of samples collected at the time of the inspection.
9 Attended meeting at Sumit County llealth District Office on April 29, 1994.
& Attended the exit meeting conducted on June 22, 1994.
2.
Backaround The Atoric Energy Comission (AEC) issued License No, SNM-1461 to Goodyear Aerospace on January 14,1974, (Part 2 of the application contained DOE ' Secret-R0" information) for research and development of uraniumenrichmentequipment(gascentrifuge). Handling of radioactive materials involved the use of uranium hexafluoride (UF,) in 50 lb.
cylinders, which would be piped into experimental centrifuges used to test different rotor designs. The centrifuges were located in a pit area in a blimp hangar (No. 91).
Buildings 85 and 90 were also associated with the operations.
The centrifuge process produced both 3
4 depleted and enriched uranium (0-235). All licensed material was procured from the U.S. Deaartment of Energy (DOE) and upon completion of the experiment, the enricted and depleted uranium was transferred back to DOE. The licensee monitored air and water effluents from the Wingfoot facility during this research from 1974-1985.
Previous NRC inspections in 1979 and 1982 verified that no effluent or airborne releasee of radioactive materials either on-site or off-site exceeded the NRC limits. The licensee performed a close-out survey of the facility and requested termination of the license on January 16, 1985.
The NRC requested its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU), to perform a confirmatory survey which was conducted from Hay through August 1986. The first two surveys identified areas within the facility which were contaminated above the NRC release criteria, the third and final survey concluded that all areas of contamination had been identified. ORAU performed final confirmatory surveys in June and August 1996.
The areas identified as exceeding the release criteria during the first two surveys were found to have been remediated to below the NRC release limits.
3.
Independent Neasurements Independent radiation surveys were performed with a Victoreen Model 190 portable survey instrument with a Model RP-1 pancake probe, NRC Tag No. 040608, and Ludlum Model 19, NRC Tag No. 015522, calibrated on February 14, 1994 and July 28, 1993, respectively. Prior to the surveys l
all instruments were checked for accuracy and constancy with dedicated
(
and traceable check sources. All instruments responded as expected.
Comparative background radiation measurements were taken in the downtown area of Akron Onio with the Victoreen Model 190 and Ludlum Model 19 portable surve,y instruments.
Background measured 45-55 counts per minute (cpm) with the Victoreen and 7-15 microroentgens per hour ( R/h)
(1.8-3.8 nanocoulomb per kilogram per hour (nC/kg/h)} with the Ludlum.
The inspectors conducted radiation surveys in and around selected areas in blimp hanger No. 91 which included: Grid blocks B-80 through P-80+,
(See Attachment A for grid block locations.
All five floors of the underground shielded structure that once hou) sed the centrifuge unit were also surveyed. The areas surveyed included hallways, offices, former research and storage areas former research laboratories and areas 3
outside the building. The NRC inspectors' survey of the above referenced rooms, buildings and adjacent property did not identify any radiation levels that exceeded the NRC release criteria. Three areas of fixed contamination were identified in Grid Blocks G-52. H-56 and-P-28.
All of these areas of contamination were below the NRC unrestricted release criteria of 15,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm), with the highest reading at 400 cpm (1200 dpm). The NRC release criteria is contained in the NRC Guidance Directive FC 83-23, ' Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material", revised August 1987.
4
Radiation surveys were conducted along t.he roadways of Waterloo Road to Summit to Sanitarium to Route 224. No radiation levels above natural background were identified. Additional radiation surveys were conducted in a residential home on llutchison Drive in Suffleid. Ohio. The surveys included the basement, Ifving room, bedroom and kitchen. These surveys did not identify at.y radiation levels above natural background.
The inspectors also conducted a radiation; survey in the garden of the aro)erty owner and did not identify any radiation levels above natural sac (ground.
4.
Environmental Samolina Winafoot Lake Water A four liter sample of lake water was collected following EPA collection protocols. This sample was analyzed by an NRC contractor, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE). See Table I for laboratory results.
Monitorina Well A four liter sample of water was collected following EPA and ORISE collection protocols from a 16 foot monitoring well on the south side of Wingfoot Lake Road on the Goodyear fuel Test facility site. This sample 4
was analyzed by ORISE. See Table I for laboratory results.
Mell Water Ten four-liter samples were collected from deep and shallow wells in and i
around the Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center following EPA and ORISE collection protocols. One of these samples was from a 160 foot well at the Goodyear facility and the other nine were from residential drinking water wells. These samples were analyzed by ORISE. See Table 1 for laboratory results.
1911 Six soll samples were collected. Two samples identified as *0utfa11' were taken from the discharge point of all stom water from blimp hanger No. 91 where it empties into Wingfoot Lake. Two samples identified as
- Leach Field' were taken at the lowest discharge point for all sewerage discharges from bilmp hanger No. 91. Two samples identified as
' Spillway
- were collected at the Wingfoot Lake discharge point near Waterloo Road as it enters the Fox ditch. See Table 2 for laboratory resul ts.
5
Eish from Winofoot Lake On April 26, 1994 a fish was captured in a not in Wingfoot Lake to be used as an indicator of the levels of uranium in the sediment and water in the lake. The fish was split with Goodyear for independent analysis, with the NRC's portion of the fish shipped to ORISE for analysis, flowever, due to problems during laboratory pre)aration, the final quality assurance check showed the results to se unacceptable, lherefore, on June 22, 1994, two additional fish were captured in a net in Wingfoot Lake and shipped to ORISE for analysis. The results of the fish analysis indicated uranium levels of 3.84
- 0.27 picoeuries per Hlogram(pci/kg)(142 10 millibecquerels 0.42
- 0.01 pCi/kg (15.5 i 0.4 mBq/kg)per kilogram (mBq/kg)) U-
- 244, U-235, and 8.76
- 0.41 pC1/kg (324 i 15 mBq/kg) U-238.
Sediment five sediment samples were collected from Wingfoot Lake. Three samples were collected offshore from where the soil samples were collected. The other two samples were collected from locations in the middle of the lake.
See Table 2 for laboratory results.
5.
Laboratory Analysis 4
Smear Tests Smear tests for removable activity were taken at one location where direct readings indicated levels of radiation below the NRC release criteria but in excess of background measurements. This smear test was analyzed in the Region III laboratory. The smear test was analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activity. Results of the laboratory analysis for the smear test indicated that the contamination was not removable.
==
Conclusion:==
The contamination identified was below the NRC release levels for fixed contamination.
Water Samples Twelve (12) water samples were collected during the inspections, which included the following: Wingfoot Lake, a 160 foot well and a 16 foot monitoring well located at the Wingfoot facility, and nine (9) residential drinking water samples from local homes which included both municipal watcr and private shallow wells. Table 1 below provides the results of the laboratory analysis of those samples.
6
~f TABLE 1: Water Analysis Gross alpha / beta N Control pCi per liter No.
Location Observations alpha beta 37078 Wingfoot Lake cloudy. contained biological material
<l.6 3.111.1 Deep clear, no odors
<4.2
<3.7 37077 well,160' deep g-Wingfoot Residential clear, no odors
<6.5
<6.9 37080 Well,Hutchinson Rd. Suffield Residential 35' deep well. clear,
<2.1
<2.4 37079 Well, Wingfoot sulfur odor Rd., Suffield Residential municipal water,
<3.4
<2.9 37081 municipal clear, no odors water, Cuyahoga rails Church Well, clear, sulfur odor
<l.7
<l.8 37001 State Route 43, Suffield Residential clear, sulfur odor,
<6.4
<6.8 37002 Well, Goodyear evidence of high Park Blvd.,
iron content 1
Suffield Residential
= 50' deep well,
<4.2
<5.0 37003 Well, Mishler clear, sulfur odor, Rd., Suffleid treated with softener Residential
= 35' deep well,
<2.4 6.8tl.4 37904 Well, Bey Road, clear, no odor Akron 7
Cross alpha / beta'"
Control pCi por liter No.
Location Observations alpha beta Residential clear, no odor
<2.2
- 19. 7d2.0 00001 Well, Glenview Dr., Suffield Residential clear, no odor
<2.6 5.911.8 00002 Well, Glenview Dr., Suffleid i
Monitoring Well
= 16' monitoring
<3.3
<4.0 7734 MW-3 well, cloudy, benzene odor the U.S. IPA (Netienet Interia Primary Drinktg Water Reputettens) tielt is il pct /titor prese alphe and 50 pCI/titor scoes bote and tetet uranlus should ret exceed 30 pleeeuries per liter.
==
Conclusion:==
The NRC concludes that because none of the above water samples exceeded the U.S. EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the shallow and deep aquifers in and around the Goodyear Wingfoot Advanced Technology Center are not contaminated with radioactive material as a result of fomer NRC licensed activities at the Goodyear Wingfoot facility.
.Stil Six soil samples were collected and analyzed. The results of those analyses are shown in Table 2.
The NRC release criteria for soil / sludge is described in the October 23, 1981 Federal Register, Branch Technical Position ' Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium and Uranium Wastes from Past Operations". These limits are:
E natural uranium (U-238 plus U-234):
10pC1/g E depleted uranium: 35 pC1/g E enriched uranium: 30 pC1/g
==
Conclusion:==
The NRC concludes that the soil samples do not exceed the NRC release criteria and the uranium concentrations found in the samples are within the range normally found in environmental soil samples.
t e
8
Table 2: Soil / Sediment Analysis'"
Sample Sample uranium-234 uranium-235 uranium-238 No.
Identification pCi/9 pCi/g pC1/g.
001 Outfall #1
<l.0
<l.0
<1.0 002 Outfall #2
<1.0
<l.0
<l.0 003 leach field #1
<l.0
<l.0
<l.0
(
004 Leach field #2
<l.0
<l.0
<l.0 095 Spillway #1
<l.0
<l.0
<l.0 006 Spillway #2
<l.0
<l.0
<l.0 007 Sediment #1
<l.0 NDJ')
<l.0 008 Sediment #2
<1.2 N0")
<l.2 009 Sediment #3
<1.0 ND")
<l.0 010 Sediment #4
<l.0
,ND")
<l.0 011 Sediment #5
<1.0 ND")
<l.0 the eversee urentum concentration in U.S. solts is approximately 1.0 pcl/s d.5 parts per alttlan (ppm)).
Nigher levels of uranim are found in the surface solls of such areas es the Colorado Pieteau. tende ef fected by i
phosphate tellites in Florida, and the needing Prong in northoestern Pennsylvania.
The world oversee concentration, of urentum renees from 0.2 to 2.0 pCl/s (0.3 3.0 sym). (National totncil on Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 94, 1967) i None Detec ted F1sh and Sagtment Samples Two fish were prepared and analyzed for uranium.
Because of the very low levels of uranium normally found in fish, a three i
day alpha spectrometry count was conducted.
in reviewing the results of the fish sample two issues were raised. The first was that based on our searc,h of available scientific literature, we were unable to find acceptable data with which to compare our results.
This resulted in our inability to reasonably assess the significance of the results. The second issue was when we compared the activities from U-238. U-235, and U-234 with each other, the contribution from U-234 appeared low. Because we could not explain the apparently low level of U-234, and due to the lack of comparable data, it was decided that the fish sample alone provided inconc usive evidence as to the level of uranium in Wingfoot Lake. Therefore, to provide a better assessment of the levels of uranium in the lake, on
.'uly 8,1994, five sediment samples were taken from Wingfoot Lake. The results of the sediment samples are shown in Table 2.
9
Cenclusicn: lhe NRC cencludes that the sediment samples do not exceed the NRC release criteria and the uranium concentrations found in the samples are within the range normally found in environmental soil samples.
6.
Overall Conclusion Based on our review of documentation and sample results, it is our conclusion that there is no uranium in excess of NRC release limits in the Goodyear Wingfoot Facility or the nearsite environment from the previously licensed activities conducted at that facility.
7.
Exit Meetina The NRC inspectors conducted exit meetings at the conclusion of the inspections with the individuals identified in Section 1 of this report and summarized the findings of the inspection.
The inspectors informed the former licensee that it appeared that all licensed material formerly licensed under NRC Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1461 had been properly transferred prior to the termination of the license, and all remaining buildings used for licensed activities had been properly decommissioned. During the exit meetings, none of the participants indicated to the inspectors that any of the inspection findings or documents provided to the inspectors were considered proprietary.
9 i
10
ATTACHMENT 2 Resnonse to June 9.1994 Letter The nonitoring wells at the Wingfoot factitty should be saepled.
- One monitoring well was sampled on June 22, 1994. Only one of four wells was sampled due to their close proximity to one another. A monitoring well sample was not obtained during our April 1994 inspection because we were not aware that any monitoring wells existed.
l' Based on our inspection findings, the NRC has no basis to believe that licensable materials were used in such a manner as to contaminate the t
soil or groundwater. However,. in light of citizens concerns, we collected several types of environmental samples from a variety of locations. -These samples were collected to determine if any indication of licensable material existed in the environment. Results of sample -
analysis have indicated that no licensable material.has been found that exceeds the NRC release limits.
If indications were found that'such materials existed, then further analysis would be considered.
We performed the following sampling:
Nine water samples randomly selected from residences around a.
the Goodyear facility.
b.
One water sample from Wingfoot Lake.
c.
One water sample from a 160 foot well located at the Goodyear facility.
d.
One water sample from a 16 foot monitoring well at the Goodyear facility, Two soil samples from the discharge point-of Wingfoot Lake e.
into the Fox ditch, f.
Two soil samples from the Goodyear facility sanitary sewage system leach field.
g.
Two soll samples from the outfall into Wingfoot Lake of the Goodyear facilities Dlimp Hanger No. gl stom water drain.
h.
Three fish from Wingfoot Lake. One fish was originally _
caught and sent-for analysis, but the sample was inadvertently cross-contaminated during laboratory sample preparation rendering it unusable, i.
Five sediment samples from various locations in Wingfoot Lake.
page 1 of 3
~' ' - - -
1 I
Goodyear personne1 alsied the NRC when they indicated there were no nonitoring wells at the Wingfoot facility.
i We do not believe there was any intent to mislead the NRC.
We believe the Goodyear personnel questioned at the time of the inspection were either unaware of the monitorinq wells or misunderstood the question.
The existing four monitoring we'Is that were later identified by the EPA were specifically installed to monitor contamination from jet fuel and were not associated with monitoring for radioactive contamination.
4 Soll samples were taken from an area that had been remediated.
The area that was remediated by removing two feet of soll and replacing it with clean fill was where the jet fuel contamination occurred. We
]
took no soil samples there because no activities involving the licensed material took place at that location.
-The leach bed that was saapled was 1/2 mile away.
i The leach fleid was where the old sewer line drained. Because this area l
had never been remediated, it was an excellent area to sample for j
radioactive contamination from potential liquid discharges.
Request that-the NRC test whe're the old sewer line was located.-
o The old sewer line was located under the concrete floor of Blimp Hanger No. 91.
The concrete floor was cut out above the line, the old sewer removed, the hole filled in and the concrete floor replaced during remediation of the facility.
In June and-August of 1986, the Oak R.dge Associated Universities (0RAU), under contract with the hRC, conducted confirmatory surveys for the NRC of the remediation efforts by Goodyear L
at the Wingfoot facility. ORAU's final report, issued in September 1986, stated that followup scans, including soll samples from the area excavated in conjunction with removal of the sewer _ line, indicated no residual areas of contamination. Since surveys conducted at that time
},.
indicated that there was no contamination that exceeded the NRC release limits,-there is no basis to conduct further sampling of this area.
Request that the safety of workers be considered because 400 counts per
(
ninute was found in Manger No. 91.
~
This area does not constitute a radiological hazard since the material l
is below the NRC unrestricted use ~ guideline value of a maximum of 15.000 disintegrations per minute (dpm). The contamination identified at 400 counts per minute (cpe) when corrected is about 1200 dpn., which is well l
below the 15,000 drq limit.
i i
i i'
page 2 of 3 h
t
--w-,>,-m,,...,.,, ~.,,
,,.,,w,-a w
.,..+-.,,,,,n.n.-.,,,,w u
.,,__,,-,,-,-,r,
,,,,._,.w---
,.,._n,,.,,,.,,,.ne,,,e-m
.-.v..e,n
,~v.-e,.-a,,---mv.,,s.,-
f.
The soils should be better evaluated and the nonitoring wells should be tested at several depths.
Our review of past NRC inspection reports and the confirmatory surveys conducted by ORAU for.the NRC did not indicate any environmental l
contamination in excess of NRC release limits. Therefore. our selection of sampling locations focused on the areas where the likelihood of 2
finding contamination existed, if our inspection activities find little or no contamination in those areas of highest likelihood of occurrence,-
then it would not be expected to be _found at other locations.
If higher.
a than expected levels of contamination are found, then the scope of our
-sampling would be expanded as appropriate. At the Goodyear facility at Wingfoot Lake, we have not found levels of contamination that would warrant an increase in the scope of our sampling.
l Request that Darrel Wiedenan (Region !!! Health Physics inspector) go to Akron. to interpret the F01A naterial sent to Ms. Grinnett.
If you have questions regarding the documents you obtained from the NRC j
or. questions related to our policies or regulations, please provide your questions to us in writing. We will then provide you with a written response as soon as possible.
s 1
e i
i h
r a
page 3 of 3 e
O ATTACHMENT 3 i
l Response to June 17. 1994 letter Hr. Snell from the Regional Office had already made a verbal judgement that no more testing was needed.
Hr. Snell candidly discussed the facts involved in determining the extent of future sampilng that would be needed and how we could best obtain those samples. When you discussed this issue with Mr. Snell, a decision had not been made as to what additional sampling, if any, would be conducted.
Our subsequent decision was to send Mr. Darrel Wiedeman back to the Goodyear facility to obtain additional fish samples and to obtain a water sample from one of the monitoring wells. This was completed on June 22, 1994. Based on uncertainties regarding the results of the fish analysis, we made the additional decision to send another inspector to Wingfoot Lake to collect five lake sediment samples. While there, the inspector also collected two additional residential well water samples at the request of another concerned citizen.
This was completed on July 7, 1994.
Request harti data confirming the residential wells showed background radiation levels.
The attached inspection report provides the results of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity present in the residential wells sampled.
In all cases, the levels were below the U.S. EPA's limits Primary Drinking Water Regulations) for gross alpha, gro(National Interim ss beta, and total uranium in drinking water.
When the NRC requested the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE) to count the samples, the request was to determine whether the samples exceeded the EPA drinking water criteria. As a result, sample counting times were selected to provide statistically acceptable results to a level of confidence to show whether the sample was above or below the EPA criteria. The levels of radiation were in all likelihood'well below the level shown, which is why the "1ers than" sign (<) proceeds most of the values.
It indicates that there is a high level of confidence that the value is no higher than the value shown. This is typically referred tJ as "below the minimally detectable level" when discussing the results of samples. Since we were interested in the level of radiation in the wells versus the EPA drinking water criteria, a rigorous determination of actual background was not necessary.
HRC alssed the opportunity to test nonitoring wells.
A water sample was collected from one of the monitoring wells on June 22, 1994.
page 1 of 2
The NRC should install additional nonitoring wells to sample for radiation.
It has been our mission to conduct environmental sampling in a manner that would indicate the potential for radioactive contamination to exist as a result of HRC licentad activities that had previously occurred at the Goodyear Wingfoot site.
Our inspection and sampling results have not provided any evidence of the existence of radioactive contamination at a level that would justify the installation of monitoring wells.
NRC report of July 1986 ino'icated there was contaafnation at unacceptable levels and that the NRC did not cone in to confira the contaminat fon.
Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU) was under contract to the NRC in 1986 to conduct confirmatory surveys at Goodyear's Wingfoot facility.
As a result of conducting those surveys, ORAU identified several areas 1
where the NRC release level was exceeded. As a result of those survey results, Goodyear either decontaminated or removed those areas that were contaminated in excess of the release limits.
Followup surveys by ORAU confirmed that efforts to decontaminate the site were effective, and the site had been remediated to the NRC guidelines.
Nigration of contamination from the sewer ilne could have taken place before decontamination was conducted.
A review of documentation from 1986 indicated that soll samples analyzed by ORAU and survey and sample results provided by Goodyear identified no contamination of the soil surrounding the sewer line.
Survey results indicated that contamination was only found within the sewer, which was removed.
page 2 of 2
,