ML20236E492

Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1986

ML20236E492
Person / Time
Site:	07000025
Issue date:	07/05/1988
From:	Tuttle R ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML19311A788	List: ML19311A787 ML19311A789 ML20236E479 ML20236E482 ML20236E487 ML20236E492 ML20236E495 ML20236E498 ML20236E502 ML20236E505 ML20236E510
References
N001TI000285, N1TI285, NUDOCS 8906050286
Download: ML20236E492 (56)

Text

r so.

w j ' h mckworiintenuwai SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

GONO, S/A NO.

PAGE 1 OF TOTAL PAGES EV LTR/CHG NO NUMBER 4611n EA 6A Nf%)

NnniTinnn?AR PROGR AM TITLE Health. Safetv and Fnvirnnment APPENDIX D DOCUMENT TITLE 1986 ANNUAL REVIEW

~

Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 19B6 DOCUMENT TYPE KEY NOUNS Radiation Exposures, Effluents, Technical Information NRC-Licensed Facilities ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE R E L. D AT E APPROVALS DATL 7-5-W &

PREPkc ED {1Y/ DATER. b. m V u/as q

'J DEPT MAIL ADDR

(<Mfqq J. Tuttle 641 T100 C.

Ro as IR&D PROGRAM 7 YEs O NO IF YES ENTER TPA NO DISTRIBUTION ABSTRACT MA u

NAME Data On employee exposures, bioassay results, efflu-AD ent releases, in-plant airborne radioactivities, and

• F. H. Badger T02(

environmental monitoring for Rocketdyne operations

• R. Bulthuis BA61 during 19B6 are reviewed. This review is prepared,

~)

• J.

A. Chapman T10(

as required by Special Nuclear Materials License

• V. Keshishian LB32 No. SNM-21, to determine (1) if there are any upward

• M. Marko HB0:

trends developing in personnel exposures for identi-

• J.

D. Moore T10(

fiable categories of workers or types of operations

• W. E. Nagel LB0:

or effluent releases, (2) if exposures and effluents

• M. E. Remley LA0E might be lowered under the concept of as low as rea-

• R. D. Rcger:

11807 sonably achievable, and (3) if equipment for effluent

• J. A. Rowles T00E and exposure control is being properly used, main-

• C. J. Rozas CB01 tained, and inspected.

• I. N. Stein EA0E

• V. A. Swanson T00E Personnel exposures have been carefully controlled.

• R. J. Tuttle (2)

T10C

• J. H. Wallace T034 Ef fluent releases are at insignificant levels com-

• F. E. Begley T001 pared to regulatory standards, do not show any upward

• R&NS Library T10C trends, and do not appear to be reducible by reason-able means.

To the extent covered by this review, equipment for x

ef fluent and exposure control was properly used, J

maintained, and inspected.

RESERVED FOR PROPRIETARY / LEGAL NOTICES 6050286 890525 g

ADOCK 07000025 PDC D

SO46Y/mjs

@ COMPLETE DOCUMENT NO ASTERISK, TITLE PAGE/

SUMMARY

OF CHANGE PAGE ONLY FORM 734-C REV 12-64

f.

s~

L i

.+

l'

'No.:

N00lT1000285 Page:

2

11. !n

\\'- '

CONTENTS a

Page Introduction...........................................................

4 1.

Personnel Dosimetry.............................................

6 A.

Film /TLD Data...............................................

6 B.

Bioassays...................................................

8 II.

Radiation / Radioactivity Measurements............................

15 A.

Area Radiation Levels.......................................

15 B.

Interior Air Samples - Working Areas.......................

15 III.

Effluent Monitoring.............................................

18 IV.

Environmental Monitoring Program................................

20 V.

Unusual Events..................................................

30 A.

Reportable Incidents........................................

30 B

Nonreportable Incidents.....................................

31 VI.

Summary / Trends - Exposure, Effluents............................

35 A.

Personnei Exposures.........................................

35 O

B.

Work Place Radiation and Radioactivity......................

38

('

C.

Atmospheric Effluent Releases...............................

39 D.

Ambient (Environmental) Radiation Exposure..................

43 VII.

Anticipated Activities During Next Reporting Period.............

55 References..............................................................

56 TABLES 1.

Summary of Bioassays............................................

10 2.

Po s i t i ve Bi oa s s a y Re s ul t S umma ry - 19 8 0.........................

11 3.

Location Badge Radiation Exposure - 1986........................

16 4.

Inte ri o r Ai r Sampl e Summa ry - 198 6..............................

17 5.

Atmospheric Emissions to Unrestricted Areas - 1986..............

19 6.

Soil Radioactivity Data -

1986..................................

21 7.

Soil Plutonium Radioactiv ity Data - 1986........................

21 8.

Supply Water Radioactive ty Data - 1986..........................

22 r\\

t%

w..

No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

3

/9 l

TABLES Page 9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data...............................................

23 10.

Ambient Air Radioactivity Data - 1986............................

27 11.

De Soto and SSFL Sites - Ambient Radiation Dosimetry Data - 1986, 29 1

12.

Soil Radioactivity Summary, 1975-1986............................

47 j

13.

Plutonium in Soil Summary, 1978-1986.............................

48 f

14.

Summa ry o f P l u t on i um i n 5o i 1.....................................

48 1

15.

Supply Water Radioactivity Summary, 1975-1986....................

50

{

16A.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary (Alpha), 1975-1986.....

51

)

168.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary (Beta), 1975-1986......

52 I

17A.

Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary ( Alpha), 19 7 5-19 8 6.............

53 178.

Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary (8 eta), 1975-1986..............

54 FIGURES tV 1.

Cumulative Log-Normal Distribution for Whole-Body Radiation Exposures of Occupationally Exposed Individuals in 1986..........

7 2.

Hand Exposure Values (higher exposed hand f rom each individual) for RIHL During 1986.............................................

9 3.

Average Long-Lived Airborne Radioactivity at the De Soto and Santa Susana Field Laboratories Sites - 1986.....................

28 4.

Averaged Quarterly Dose Recorded by Envi ronmental TLDs...........

44 i

f%

(

(w

, y-

.No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

4 r

f(.

INTRODUCTION

. The Rocketdyne special nuclear taaterials licenseII). requires that 'an annual' report be made to the Radiation. Safety Committee of-the Nuclear Safe-guards Review -Panel reviewing personnel exposure and ef fluent release data.

The format and content of this report have been well established in prior i s s ues. (2-12) While this report i _ prepared primarily to satisfy a require-ment of, the NRC license, all operations with radioactive material and radia-tion-producing devices-have been included.

These reports for the years 1975 through 1985(2-12) provide a histori-cal basis _ for the identification of trends.

It should be noted that, in some instances, both NRC-licensed and non-NRC-licensed activities take place in the same ' building.

Ir. these cases, certain measurements (e.g., wntilation air exhaust radioactivity) have not been made separately for each type of activity.

/

Additionally - it is not possible to separate the integrated personnel N

radiological doses-to that attributable to either nonlicensed activities for the DOE or th? activities licensed by NRC or the State of California.

The following Rocketdyne f acilities and operatic % are specifically cov-ered in this report:

1)

Rockwell International Hot Laboratory (RIHL) - Building 020, Santa Susana Field Laboratories 2)

Nuclear Material Development Facility (NMDF) - Building 055, Santa Susana Field Laboratories 3)

. Radioactive Material Disposal _ Facility (RMDF) - Buildings 021, 022, and related f acilities at Santa Susana Field Laboratories (DOE jurisdiction) 4)

A_pplied Nuclear Research ( ANR) - The Gamma Irradiation Facility and Laboratories in Building 104 at De Soto.

s-No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

5 7

i

)

's _ /

Work at various facilities during 1986 is briefly described below:

RIHL--Considerable cleaning and modifications were done during e

the first half of the year in preparation for the Fermi fuel decladding project.

The work performed in this project was changed from grinding the zirconium cladding off the fuel to simply disassembling the fuel and repackaging the rods. This change was due to a redirection of the fuel reprocessing from SRP to ICF.', where the process is not sensitive to the presence of UZr -

x Improvements and repairs were made to the ventilation exhaust system.

NMDF - The residual NaK in the NaK bubblers was reacted.

Final

=

decontamination was completed, and a survey report was sub-mitted to NRC requesting termination of the license.

(The license for NMDF was terminated by NRC on October 7, 1987.)

RMDF--Storage, transfer, and shipping of EBR-II fuel and scrap and Fermi fuel occupied most of the year.

Radioactively con-taminated water was evaporated.

Shielding was added to the waste storage building to reduce the exposure rate outside the

/

i facility.

t Operations were halted by direction of 00E-SAN because of the lack of an approved Safety Analysis Report.

The SAR was approved 1 week later, and operations were resumed.

GIF--The window was refurbished to improve visibility.

Several R&D irradiations were performed with Co-60 sources.

The 12 WESF cesium-137 capsules were received and installed in the new cask.

Leak tests were successfully performed on all capsules.

Industrial Radiographs--A pair of X-ray booths was constructed in CA001. A new pair of booths was also constructed in CA009.

Miscellaneous--Generally, routine work was performed in all other operations.

In-service inspection (ISI) at Chin Shan (Taiwan) resulted in exposures of RD personnel up to 1.2 rem and amounted to 7.2 person-rem group dose.

l t _-

1 5--

.,1 -

6 k ':

No.:

N001TI000285 Page:

6-l(

\\

q' ')

1 I.

PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY

Personnel dosimetry techniques generally consist of two types:

those 4

which measure radiation incident on the body from exterr.a1 sources (film

' badges) and those which measure internal deposition of radioactivity via inha-

'lation, ingestion, skin absorption, or through wounds (bioassays). These

- measurement methods provide a natural separation of the exposure modes to (1) permit an evaluation of the more significant exposure routes and (2) to-allow a differentiation between those exposure sources which are external and controllable in the future and those which may continue to irradiate the body for some time period (i.e., internal deposits).

~

A.

FILM /TLD DATA

-1.

Whole Body Monitoring I

[

Personnel external radiation exposures for the pertinent activities for

\\'

'the year are shown in Figure 1 as a cumulative. log-normal distribution.

It I

should be noted (see Summary,Section VI) that all whole-body exposures were less than 2 rem and were well below the allowable annual occupational total of 12 rem for NRC and State-licensed operations and S' rem for DOE-operations.

The highest exposure shown,1.31 rem, resulted f rom.l.2 rem received 'during an in-service inspection operation at Chin Shan, Taiwan.

For comparison, the distributions of exposures reported for NRC licen-O3) and DOE contractors (I4) for 1983 are shown as solid curves.

sees The Rocketdyne dose distribution is well below the NRC dist.-ibution and generally below the DOE distribution.

A more significant comparison can be made in terms of the group dose. The group dose received by Rocketdyne employees in 1986 amounted to 22.7 person-rem.

Of this total, 7.2 person-rem were receivad at the Chin Shan reactor.

If the distribution of doses had been that shown for NRC licensees, the group dose would have been 108.2 person-ks rem.

If the doses had been those shown for DOE, the group dose would have i

4

~ ~.,

5

..g No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

7 7,.

Lt 10" 1986 WHOLE-BODY EXPOSURES

/

/

/

NRC 1983 DOE 1983

/

10"

/

/

/.c so

/

/

/

f"

/

)W M

s

/

/

1

/

b

,O l

'5 i

/

/ o

/@

0 us D

O q

10

/

I, I

f I

/

T l

41 10 lo so 9a 9s 2,

Cumulative Distribution, Percent Figure 1.

Cumulative Log-Normal Distribution for Whole-Body Radiation j -(

Exposures of Occupationally Exposed Individuals in 1986 f

L

s

.g No.:

'N001T1000285 Page:

8

,\\/

..been 34.2' person-rem. Comparisons such as these should be viewed with caution T

' because of differences in the type of work between the Rocketdyne workforce

- and both the NRC licensees and the DOE contractors.

- 2.

Extremity Monitorino

' Operations with radioactive material that may involve locally high expo--

sures'are conducted with additional " extremity" monitoring, usually for the hands.

"Whole-body" doses received when explicit extremity monitoring'is not

- performed are assumed to represent the extremity doses and shnuld be cdded to the recorded extremity doses.

This is difficult to do, so for the purpose of monitoring extremity exposures, it is noted that neither extremity nor whole-body doses are high, and that even the sum of the maximum quarterly hand dose

. (674 mrem) and the maximum whole-body dose (1310 mrem) is approximately 10% of the NRC and State of California limits of 18.75. rem per quarter.

< B.

BI0 ASSAYS

\\w Bioassays normally consist of analysis of urine and occasionally fecal samples.

Personnel whose work assignments potentially expose them to respir-able-sized radioactive aerosols are routinely evaluated in this manner. Nor-mally,- urinalyses are performed quarterly and fecal analysis only when gross internal contamination is suspected. A statistical summary of the results for i

1986 appears in Table 1, while a detailed listing of the positive results are shown in Table 2. -Only three types of analyses showed positive results this j

year: FP3A, FP3B, and UF, The UF analysis is chemically selective for uranium. The FP3A analysis is assumed to be indicative of Sr-90, although other radionuclides, such as Co-60, may also be detected.

Further analysis could specifically quantify Sr-90, and identify interfering radionuclides, if I

significant activities were found. The FP3B analys;s is radiometrically I

selective for Cs-137, using gamma-ray spectrometry to meapire this radionuclides.

1<

l f

\\.

L l

l E

t l

l No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

9 I,,

')

V 10 1988 MONITORED HAND EXPOSURES 1

l m

=

tue

+P

=10 m.

1;j J

cn 3

O n

O O

e p

rM i

2 00

\\.

e

,3 c

<o e,

o ow*

+2 30

-.10 o

f

=

r j

1 0 I

J xr l

,,e eev-I

)

e ed l

c

+:

1 L

IP fo ej p

$g Cumulative Distribution, Percent

{

.ex

,'s,j Figure 2.

Cumulative Log-Normal Distribution for Quarterly Hand Exposures in 1986

_ _ _ _ u___._

No.:

N00lTIO00285 Page:

10

-i

\\

. kj Table 1.

Summary of Bioassays - 1986 Total Total Individuals Measurement Total Positive With Positive Type

• Tests Results Results Am241 4

0 0

UF 59 6

6 UR 55 0

0 PDA 35 0

0 FP3A 255 25 20 FP3B 255 8

8

(

Total 663 39 31

• UF = Uranium - Fluorometric UR = Uranium - Radiometric PUA = Gross Plutonium-alpha FP - Fission Products (For a discussion of specific analytical techniques employed, as identified by " TYPE," see Appendix B in Reference 9)

I

./~N

No.:

N001T1000285 Page:

11 73 l

}

Table 2.

Positive Bioassay Result Summary - 1986

'L/

(Sheet 1 of 3)

Assumed Critical Results Nuclide Assumed Equivalent H&S Sample Analysis Per Per Specific MPBB Number Oate Type

• Vol. Anal.

1500 ml-day Radionuclides

(%)

4303 100686 FP3A 5.40 40.49 Sr-90 8.40 4303 113086 FP3A

1. 7 t, Sr-90 0

4853 071386 FP3A 4.28 32.10 Sr-90 6.70 4932

-61686 FP3A 6.10 45.78 Sr-90 9.50 4160 082586 FP3A 12.90 96.75 Sr-90 20.20 4160 101486 FP3A 2.46 Sr-90 0

3983 082886 FP3A 6.45 48.40 Sr-90 10.10 3983 100886 FP3A 1.41 Sr-90 0

3499 031986 FP3A 4.76 35.68 Sr-90 7.40 3499 052186 FP3A 1.76 Sr-90 0

f,3

/

i 3499 060386 FP3B 10.39 77.93 Cs-137 0.01 V

3499 082 FP3B 4.13 Cs-137 0

1495 120386 UF 0.0003 0.45 U

0.40 4937 011386 FP3A 8.17 61.28 Sr-90 12.80 4390 030786 FP3A 6.19 46.39 Sr-90 9.70 4390 061686 FP3A 0

0 Sr-90 0

4390 061686 FP3B 13.57 101.78 Cs-137 0.02 4390 120986 FP3B 0

0 Cs-137 0

4893 071486 UF 0.0003 0.45 0

0.40 4893 110686 UF 0

0 0

0 4409 061786 UF 0.0002 0.30 0

0.30 3459 120886 UF 0.0003 0.45 0

0.40 3459 120886 UF 0.0001 U

0 3771 031086 FP3B 17.16 128.20 Cs-137 0.02 3771 051986 FP3B 0

0 Cs-137 0

4912 011286 FP3B 12.20 91.50 Cs-137 0.01 m

A-No.:

N001TI000285 Page:

12

/

)

Table 2.

Positive Bioassay Result Summary - 1986 V

(Sheet 2 of 3)

Assumed Critical Results Nuclide Assumed Equivalent H&S Sample Analysis Per Per Specific MPBB Number Date Type

• Vol. Anal.

1500 ml-day Radionuclides

(%)

3914 020386 FP3A 11.40 85.50 Sr-90 17.80 3914 091586 FP3A 5.28 43.33 Sr-90 9.00 3914 102886 FP3A 0

0 Sr-90 0

3922 031286 FP3B 8.09 60.68 Cs-13' O.01 3922 062486 FP3B 0

0 Cs-137 0

2041 063086 FP3A 5.24 39.28 Sr-90 8.20 3726 030986 FP3B 9.72 72.93 Cs-137 0.01 3726 051886 FP3B 6.75 Cs-137 0

4566 061786 FP3B 8.98 67.35 Cs-137 0.01 4566 111086 FP3B 0

0 Cs-137 0

/

4965 061786 FP3A 9.10 68.26 Sr-90 14.20 Sh 4965 091586 FP3A 3.71 Sr-90 0

l 2302 062586 FP3A 5.29 39.65 Sr-90 8.30 2302 091986 FP3A 1.38 Sr-90 0

4530 081486 FP3A 13.10 98.18 Sr-90 20.05 4530 100886 FP3A 5.00 37.50 Sr-90 7.80 4404 112686 UF 0.0003 0.45 0

0.40 4162 090886 FP3A 5.30 38.72 Sr-90 8.30 4162 101486 FP3A 2.44 Sr-90 0

3897 061586 FP3A 5.74 43.05 Sr-90 9.00 1

3897 082586 FP3A 6.02 45.13 Sr-90 9.40 3897 101086 FP3A 1.40 Sr-90 0

3912 072886 FP3A 5.47 41.02 Sr-90 8.50 3912 112486 FP3A 0.19 Sr-90 0

3702 061686 FP3A 6.37 47.77 Sr-90 10.00 3702 092186 FP3A 4.70 38.17 Sr-90 7.30 i

3702 112486 FP3A 2.56 Sr-90 0

1 I

No.:

H00lT1000285' p

Page:

13

_ ym;

(

[_

Table 2.

Positive Bioassay Result Summary - 1986

[

%/

(Sheet 3 of 3) l l

Assumed i

l Critical Results Nuclide Assumed Equivalent H&S Sample Analysis Per Per Specific MPBB Number Oate Type

• Vol. Anal. 1500 ml-day Radionuclides

(%)

3703 041486 FP3A 4.05 30.38 Sr-90 6.30 3703 061686 FP3A 1.05 Sr-90 0

3703 082586 FP3A 13.33 99.97 Sr-90 20.80 3703 101086 FP3A 2.83 Sr-90 0

1254 041386 FP3A 4.60 34.49 Sr-90 2.20 1254 061686 FP3A 2.50 Sr-90 0

l-4971 112886 UF 0.0003 0.45 U

0.40 4971 112886 FP3B 8.37 62.79 Cs-137 0.01 4960 040386 FP3A 4.92 36.91 Sr-90 7.70 4960 091786 FP3A 1.89 Sr-90 0

-UF:

Fluorometric Uranium (For a brief description of the specific fm l

i-FP: Fission Products analytical techniques, see Appendix B of C/

Reference 9)

(FP3A is presumptively Sr-90; FP3B is specifically Cs-137) 5046Y/rmr

.iV

1 I

1 No.:

N00lTI000285 i

l Page:

14

-s Followup results are shown, where available, to indicate the decrease of s_,

detected activity to negligible levels.

The excretion rates assumed to be indicative of 1 MP8B for various radio-nuclides and the minimum detectable activities (MDA) are:

Radionuclides Standard Excretion Rate MDA Sr-90 480 dpm/ day 30 dpm/ day C s-137 660,000 dpm/ day 60 dpm/ day U

100 ug/ day 0.30 ug/ day These excretion rates are based on an assumption of equilibrium between intake and elimination. Transient elimination following an acute exposure will generally indicate a much higher body burden than actually exists.

The highest result shown for Sr-90, 20.8%, was essentially gone 46 days

('~'

later, and may have resulted from an anomaly at the laboratory, or may have

\\,_,

represented some other beta-emitting radionuclides, such as Co-60, which has a relatively short biological half-life (9.5 days).

The apparent half-life of 18 pairs of measurable Sr-90 excretion ranges from 21 days to 223 days, with a mean of 58 days, and a standard deviatiun of 52 days.

Some of the longer half-lives observed may have resulted from uptake between the times of the two samples used for this analysis. The reference ef fective half-life for Sr-90 (16) is 5700 days.

The magnitude of the maximum % MPBB shown results from the relatively low value of MPBB for Sr-90.

The analytical results suggest that the activity detected may not be Sr-90.

j

/g i

^

No.:

N001TI000285 Page:

15 t

)

'%)

II.

RADIATION /RADI0 ACTIVITY. MEASUREMENTS The measurements'and surveillance performed to determine local radiation

)

levels in the working areas where radioactive materials are used are described below.

A.

AREA RADIATION LEVELS Film badges (" location badges") are placed throughout the facilities, and are kept in place during the entire calendar quarter. Some of these are in nominally low-exposure areas while some are in relatively high-exposure (but low-occupancy) areas. The average and maximum exposure rates determined for each quarter are shown in Table 3.

The maximum values for the RMDF are associated with the evaporator and are in an unoccupied area. The reduction during this year reflects a gener-

[

ally more effective control of facility exposure rates. The high-exposure

'A s rate for the fourth quarter in the Applied Nuclear Research Laboratories is associated with the sandblaster.

B.

INTERIOR AIR SAMPLES - WORKING AREAS In those working areas where the nature of the tasks being performed and the materials in use might lead to the potential for generation of respirable airborne radioactivity, periodic local air sampling is performed.

A summary of these results for 1986 is given in Table 4.

I 1

A I

e

?

(

j

.__._______________.__m

_._.___j

.. ~ ' '~.

.e No.:

N00lTIO00285 Page:

16

, m.

/

i'

'\\,)

Table 3.

Location Badge Radiation Exposure - 1986 Calendar Quarter

- Q1 Q2 03 Q4 Average Exposure Rate (mR/h)

Facility Maximum Exposure Rate (mR/h)

RIHL 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.52 0.49-0.58 0.70 Fenceline 0.02 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.03 0.014 0.009 0.014 RMDF 5.30 3.20 1.60 1.60 23.00 11.90 5.20 5.10 Fenceline 0.15 0.0_7_

0.10 0.08 0.52 0.16 0.43 0.31 (h

/'~

s--)

GIF 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.37 0.16 0.11 ANRL 0.21 0.08 0.20 0.43 0.81 0.42 0.82 2.19 i

i f

l 1

,o

(

)

l g S n 8 8 !"n d

3.

J..

2 2

2 1

9 1

9

~

~

~

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 C

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 P

M x

x x

x x

x x

x x

)

l 2

1 2

1 2

1 1

1 1

m

/

i t

5 4

5 4

2 u

1 I

i' I

I 1

(

~

~

~

~

~

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 n

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 o

i 4

x x

x x

x x

x x

x t

0 a

5 2

5 2

1 1

1 1

3 r

tn e

6 c

4 5

4 2

8 n

I I

1 I

I 9

o

~

~

~

1 C

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

y r3 t

eQ x

x x

x x

x x

x x

y i

t r

v r

8 5

8 5

8 1

4 1

6 a

i a

m t

u m

c Q

u A

S r

5 3

5 3

I e

a 1

1 1

1 I

e n

d

~

~

'0 l

r n

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

p o

e 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

m b

l 2 a

r aQ x

x x

x x

x x

x x

S i

C 3

A 2

1 6

5 2

4 3

3 4

r i

e A

ga r

r 5

4 4

3 I

I o

e 1

I I

I I

I i

v

~

~

~

'0 r

A 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 e

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 t

1 n

0 x

x x

x x

x x

x x

I 1

1 2

1 2

3 2

1 1

4 e

l a

a a

b t

t t

a e

e e

T b

b b

a a

a m

e h

a h

a h

a y

o l

p t

p t

p t

a o

p l

e l

e l

e B

R m

a b

a b

a b

m a

h o

g S

d g

o n

e m

i R

i t

d u

H g

s e

m n

a o

t i

2 o

k p

s x

2 c

c n

o a

0 e

a U

P M

T D

P rm a

L F

r s.

e H

D

/

r I

M Y

A R

R 6

4 0

5 p

l

No.:

N00lTIO00285 Page:

18

[y III. EFFLUENT MONITORING

~

Ef fluents which may contain radioactive material are generated at certain

.Rocketdyne' facilities as a result o_f operations performed either under con-tract to 00E, or under the NRC Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-21, or under the State of California Radioactive Material License 0015-70.

The spe-cific facility identified with the NRC license is Building 020 at the SSFL at Santa Susana.

4 An annual report of ef fluent releases, prepared by Radiation & Nuclear Safety in the Health, Safety, and Environment Department, describes in detail the monitoring program at Rocketdyne for-gaseous effluents from the Rocketdyne facilities.

The data reported in the 1986 edition of that report for atmospherically discharged effluents for the facilities identified above is

. resented in Table 5.

(No releases of radioactively contaminated liquids were p

made, either to the sewer or to the environment.)

[\\

' Effluent releases are extremely low as a result of a combination of fac-tors. Much of the radioactive. material processed is in relatively undispers-ible form, many of the operations are conducted in glove boxes and sealed hot cells, and the effluent is filtered by pre-filters and HEPA filters. The HEPA-filter systems are tested annually by use of a polydisperse DOS aerosol.

The test dates and filtration ef ficiencies for several exhaust systems, and the required efficiencies, are shown below:

L Neasured Required NMDF 3/20/86 99.96%

99.95%

RMDF (Vault 14884) 4/11/86 99.93%

99%

RMDF (Vault 14885) 4/11/86 99.93%

99%

RMDF (Decon 14886) 4/14/86 99.87%

99%

l RMDF (Decon 14887) 4/14/86 99.88%

99%

RIHL 11/5/86 99.99%

99.95%

ANR (EF-405) 3/3/86 99.97%

99%

GIF 4/23/86 99.91%

99%

All filter systems satisfied their requirements.

\\

l 1

1l' l1l

,i!

2o "

2oS4~8O$m o

,e

~g*.

NV y

t' s

t n e i L e

lhvD 0 5 2

4 2

0 5 0 cf pti M 3

1 8

9 6

romit e.awc<

N S-A t

a n

e 2

e d

2 0

3 5

3 3

0 c

r 0 0 4

1 2

1 6 2 e

i rf u t

eoG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 f

6 P

I a

8 X

9 s

r m 1

- e e 8

7 7

5 8 5 8 6 5

5 t

t

.a yd 8tep s te 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 xba y

l oi s )

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

h s

s aivai i

a tdieC x x x x x x x x x

x diC oatl t

n /m1.~

e TRce(

r aR 6 8 3 2 6

3 1

0 0

3 pi s

e u

A 7

7 1

2 4

1 4

4 4

8 A p8 h

pC0 a

4 x

d g5 e

)

e nl y

r h

l t

om e

g u c

i /

4 0

6 6 7

6 9

4 C

R0 dt d

u J g

meaC 8

5 5 9 4

8 0 0 i

t F1 i

r o n

.C O

r n r

nduvr p

0 5 2 0 0

9 1

4 l

e s

x t

iomrt 2

4 7

6 a

t l

n E

t 0

h i s

lii en 4

2 3

t n a o13O n

e prxse5 meabc1 o

e v i

D d w

r aPMO n 0 t ;a a,d T

i i e o o

b u a

g d n

S' tt U

C (1 n

q r

n r ee A

e e

a a

t pbb h

u o

o

, c h ii t

n) 7

.s s

a /m /m 1 ol r

ri

/m ii ed m s

i e

Cl e

et 6 6 6

9 4

0 6

3 CC n

A pr t

l l ga l

o aar c 4

7 2

0 1

9 3

9 3

0 cppCni s

i urt p 0

4 0 6 0

9 0

4 2 3 gI

,a a y u

s nen 4

3 3

7 lI s

s e

nve5 8

f s

i

- AAc1 e00riro t

m nc r

s o

y11iae u

E CI d

d m a.

txxnsu h

(

e eul x

c

)

k33poo E

i l

c puv

/m o,.An t

r e

Raa it

.i t

n e

hh0tn 6x amo i

h muil C 8

0 8

0 8 0 8

0 oll ol 9

m p p2 n e 8e p

i mte p s

xi c v 3

4 3

4 3

4 3

4 raaRca 1k f

F v

c o

onee5 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 ritL1 liCLi ga m

pMe i /m /m s

Fu nt t

p D 0

05q is li A

A 1

15e r

(

dCC ue e p p*} n dh t

l#i t

d gI y

d 4

5 ye d

et l

t-

- n0e na t r a

a a

a a

e00 o0 n o i o h

a h

a h

a h

a h

a d11 2i ie e

vt p

t p

t p

t p

t p

t 5( a sr l

i i l

e l

e l

e l

e l

e yxx5 t

sa b

t n A

B A B A 8 A 8 A B t

0 yn a

c o i

T AM i36(ao ms v

dc nt i

on e

t:

7y ci t s ce t

eo an 8

8 8

8 9

6 oi : ov at ri dp moe 0

0 0

0 0

o 8

ise fi se iim) 1 1

1 1

1 xsud i9 d

t t

as dn1 aoi tc wa osl n x

x x

x x

eae rts ri o (

l a e

pmV grc-o uo yl pE 7

0 3

1 a n lSL si te 1

rrg l

F ed.i r A

1 5

3 1

1 ei c n ae5 ranl va o D5 roil a

yi g

d icl o

2 ttt n

eltaA t

2 l nia i:

gaaf o

0 l

aevr me arr S

L L

dL a

uiit ud ruts:

4 0F 1f 5F t

nbtn si etli e 0e 2

1D 0M 25 55 o

nmce su vaiht 05 05 T

Aaac AG ANfT o 8

bc dN il lli l!

,ll

I No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

20 IV.

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM i

The basic policy for control of radiological and toxicological hazards at Rocketdyne requires that adequate containment of such materials be provided through engineering controls and, through rigid operational controls, that 1

facility effluent releases and external radiation levels are reduced to a min-l imum.

The environmental monitoring program provides a measure of the effec-l 4

tiveness of the Rocketdyne safety procedures and uf the engineering safeguards l

incorporated into facility designs. Specific radionuclides in facility efflu-ent or environmental samples are not routinely identified due to the extremely low radioactivity levels normally detected, but may be identified by analyti-cal or radiochemistry techniques if significantly increased radioactivity lev-els are observed.

The annual report of environmental monitoring, prepared by Radiation &

Nuclear Safety in the HS&E Department, describes in detail the Rocketdyne environmental monitoring program.

Some of the data reported in the 1986 edition of that report are presented here.

It is important to remember that the radiological activity levels reported can be attributed not only to operations at NRC licensed, 00E-sponsored, and State of California-licensed facilities, but also to external influences such as naturally occurring radioactive materials, the Chernobyl reactor accident, and fallout from nuclear weapon testing.

These data are:

Soil gross radioactivity data presented in Table 6 Soil plutonium radioactivity data presented in Table 7 De Soto and SSFL Sites - Domestic water radioactivity data presented in Table 8 Bell Creek and Rocketdyne site retention pond radioactivity data presented in Table 9 Ambient air radioactivity data presented in Table 10 (and shown graphically in Figure 3)

Ambient radiation data presented in Table 11.

,?.

No.:

N001TIO00285

_Page:

21 L g

+

\\

Table 6.

Soil Radioactivity Data - 1986 i

Gross Radioactivity (pci/g)

Number Maximum Observed of Annual Averaga Value Valuea and Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Month Observed On-site-Alpha-48 26.7 + 6.6 40.1 (quarterly)

(April)

~

Beta 48 26.1 g 2.2 32.2 (April)-,

Off-site-dipha 46 25.1 + 5.9 39.0 (quarterly)

-(July)

~

Beta 48 24.2 + 1.3 30.4 (April)

Pond R-2A Alpha 4

24.9 t 1.9 26.7, mud No. 55 (Apr/Oct)

Beta 4

24.8 + 0.5 25.4

~

(April).

Bell Creek Alpha

'4 15.4 + 4.4 21.8

(/

~

upper stream (April) bed soll Beta 4

24.2 + 1.2 26.0 No. 62 (April)

~

1. Maximum value observed for single sample.

Table 7.

Soil Plutonium Radioactivity Data - 1986 25 June 1986 Survey Results 8 December 1986 Survey Results 238 239Pu + 240Pu Pu 23B 239Pu + 2 OPu Sample Pu Location (pCi/g)

(pCi/g)

(pCi/g)

(pCi/g) 5-56 0

t 0.0001 0.0007 0.0004 0

'i 0.0002 0.0002 1 0.0002 S-57 0.0004 1 0.0003 0.0005 1 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0010 1 0.0004 5-58 0.0003 1 0.0003 0.0031 0.0009 0.0003 1 0.0002 0.0032 1 0.0006 5-59 0.0002 1 0.0002 0.0038 1 0.0009 0.0003 1 0.0002 0.0020 1 0.0004 5-60 0.0003 0.0002 0.0028 1 0.0008 0

1 0.0003 0.0006 1 0.0003 8

5-51 0

1 0.0002 0.0005 ! 0.0004 0

0.0002 0.0019 1 0.0005

./

a

_(

0ff-site location l

~'

No.:

N00111000285

(

Page:

22 jrh4 Table 8.

Supply Water Radioactivity Data - 1986 1

Gross Radioactivity (10-9 vCi/ml)

Number Maximum Value" of Average Value and Month Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed De Soto Alpha 12 4.41 1 2.53 8.70 (monthly)

-(January)

Beta 12 3.75 1 0.62 4.69 (March)

SSFL Alpha 24 6.55 1 9.09 45.77 (monthly)

(October)

Beta 24

'3.58 0.95 6.75 (October) a Maximum value observed for single sample.

.rs L(..)

o)

!v

No.:

N001TI000285 Page:

23 Table 9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data - 1986 (Sheet 1 of 4)

GrossRadioactgv Concentration (x 10-

/ml)

Percent of Sar.ples Number Annual. Average R timum Valuea With of Value and Month Activity Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed

<MDLD Pend No. 6 Alpha 12 2.51 + 2.88 9.51 92 (Monthly)

~

(December)

Beta 12 2.92 + 0.94 4.57 0

(January)

Pond No. 12 Alpha 12 4.18 + 2.70 8.7 92 (R-2A) (Monthly)

~

(Decenter)

Beta 12 3.58 2 1.14 5.93 0

(October) 9 Upper Bell Creek Alpha 6

2.02 + 2.08 5.90 100 No. 17 (Seasonal)

~

(March)

Beta 6

2.60 1 0.52 3.66 0

(March)

Well WS 4A Alpha 2

9.94 + 1.90 11.83 100 (Seasonal)

~

(October)

Beta 2

4.43 + 0 4.43 0

~

(Oct/Dec)

Well WS-5 Alpha 2

11.34 + 1.84 13.18 50 (Seasonal)

(October)

Beta 2

4.53 2 0.38 4.91 0

(December)

Well WS-6 Alpha 2

12.98 + 1.66 14.65 50 (Seasonal)

(October)

Beta 2

5.80 + 0.07 5.87 0

(October)

Well WS-7 Alpha 2

10.71 + 4.44 15.15 50 (Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 2

5.32 2 0.01 5.32 0

(December)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ --_

No.:

N001TI0002B5 r

Page:

24 l

i, Table 9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data. - 1986 (Sheet 2 of 4)

Gross Radioactiv ty/ml)

Concentration (x 10-5 C1 Percent of Samples Number

' Annual Average Maximum Valuea With F

of Value and Month Activhy Area Activity Samples

'and Dispersion Observed

<MDLb Well WS-8 Alpha-2 9.40 + 4.68 14.08.

50 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 2

3.64 + 0.06 3.70 O

~

.(December)

Well WS-9 Alpha

?

22.86 + 9.32 32.14 0

(Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 2

5.86 + 0.62 6.48 0

~

(December) 1 Alpha 2

5.04 2 0.96 100 Beta 2

3.60 + 0.24 3.84 0

~

(October)

Well W5-98 Alpha 2

14.64

• 0.08 14.72-50 (Seasonal)

(October)

Beta 2

6.88 + 0.28 7.16 0

(October)

Well WS-11.

Alpha 2

13.78 + 8.16 21.94 50 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 2

4.84 + 0.15 4.99 0

~

(December)

.Well WS-12 Alpha 2

7.79 + 0.25

~ (Seasonal)

~

8.04 100 (December)

Beta 2

4.93 + 0.07 5,00 0

~

(Dece4er)

Well WS-13 Alpha 2

9.72 + 0 9.72 100 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

' Beta 2

4.34 + 0 4.34 0

~

(December) h u_

-1

No.:

N001T1000285 l

Page:

25 t

A

(/

Table 9.

SSrL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data - 1986 (Sheet 3 of 4)

Gross Radioactgv ty/ml)

Concentration (x 10-Ci Percent of Samples Number Annual Average Maximum Valuaa With of Value and Month Activity Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed

<hDLb Well WS-14 Alpha 2

10.77 + 2.19 12.96 50 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 2

4.68 + 0.23 4.91 0

~

(October)

Well 05-1 Alpha 2

4.05 + 3.66 6.64 100 (Seasonal)

'~

(December)

Beta 2

3.20 + 0.58 3.7B 0

~

(December) 7 i

Well 05-2 Alpha 3

5.17 + 5.38 11.30 100

\\,,

(Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 3

1.75 + 0.22 1.96 0

~

(December)

Well 05-3 Alpha 3

6.66 + 2.97 10.19 66 (Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 3

3.47 + 0.25 3.69 0

~

(June)

Well 05-4 Alpha 3

4.16 + 1.39 6.09 100 1

(Seasonal)

(Aprii)

Beta 3

3.64 + 0.07 3.72 0

~

(December)

Well 05-5 Alpha 3

6.76 + 2.72 10.48 l

100 (Seasonal)

(June)

Beta 3

3.69 + 0.52 4.23 0

~

(December)

)

Well 05-8 Alpha 3

2.04 + 3.91 6.05 100 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 3

2.77 + 0.46 3.26 0

~

(June) 1

.lL)

f. !

.z No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

26-

{b Table 9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data - 1986

.(Sheet 4 of 4)

Gross Ra o vit C centration Percent i of Sanples Number Annual Average '

and Month Activjty Maximum Valuea With of Value

' Area Activity Samples and Olspersion Observed

<MDLD i.

Well 05-10 Alpha 3

1.89 + 0.94 2.80 100 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 3

0.71 + 0.46 1.09 100

~

(June)

Well 05-13 Alpha 4

2.06 + 2.56 4.68 100 (Seasonal)

~

(June)

Beta 4

3.38 + 0.49 3.77 0

~

(June)

Og Well 05-15 Alpha 4

19.68 + 10.3'1 i

(Seasonal)

~

35.11 75 (December)

Beta 4

6.54 + 3.30 12.08 0

~

(Decenter)

Well 05-16 Alpha 4

19.19 + 5.46 25.98 25 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 4

5.21 + 0.67 6.16 0

~

(December) l Well RS-20 Alpha 2

-0.02 + 0.38 0.36 100 (Seasonal)

~

(September)

Beta 2

1.34 + 0.44 1.78 50

~

(September)

Well R"S-21 Alpha 2

42.54 + 22.96 65.50 0

(Seasonal)

~

(September)

Beta 2

3.59 + 1.30

~

4.89 0

(September)

Well RS-22 Alpha 2

2.60 + 1.94 4.54 100 (Seasonal)

~

(December)

Beta 2

1.46 + 0.26 1.72 50

~

'. December) aMaximum value observed for single sample.

bMinimum detection level: Approximately 0.4 x 10-9 pCi/ml alpha; 1.40 x 10-9 pCl/ml beta for water: approximately 3.1 pCi/g alpha; 0.42 pcl/g for soil.

'1

t4.-

No-:

H001TI000285 g

Page:

27 f )-

Table 10. Ambient Air Radioactivity Data - 1986 Gross Radioactivity C egra 3

of s Femtocuries per m Percent of

Number Annual Average Maximum Valuea Percent Area of value and Month of Activity (monthly)

Activity

. Samples and Dispersior.

Observed Guideb

<MDLc De Soto on-site Alpha 687 2.9 + 3.4 22.0 (05/15) 0.10 79 (2 locations)

Beta 57.5i103 1236.4 (05/14).

0.02 34 SSFL on-site Alpha-1755 2.8 + 3.3 37.0 (05/14) 4.7 90

'(5 locations).

Beta 60.4i93.5 1578.6 (05/12) 0.20 28 SSFL sewage Alpha-336

.3.2 + 3.1 33.3 (05/12) 5.3 86 trettment plant Beta 63.8E.89.8 1233.2 (05/12) 0.20 22 SSFL contro)

Alpha 324 2.7 + 2.9 27.1 (05/13) 4.5 91 center Beta 58.7i89.2 1153.5 (05/13) 0.20 29 All locations:

Alpha 3102 2.8 + 3.3 Beta 60.0i15.2

.I b uide De Soto site:eMaximumvalueobservedfors{gglesample.

\\

C 3 x 10 I4. pCi/ml alpha, 3 x 10-11c pCi/ml alpha, 3 x 10 O pCl/ml beta; 10 CFR 20 A CAC 17. SSFL site:

6 x 10-pCi/ml beta; 10 CFR 20 Ap',endix B, CAC 17 5

cMDL = 8. DOE Ord4 x 10 N 480.1A.pCi/ml alpha; 1.3 x 10-14 pCi/mi beta.

m___________.._

.._.-_____..__.m m_.. _ _ _.. _ _... _

-.._._._.mm

.-..._m._'_..

N0*:

NOOL1I000285 H

i dP6a:

28

./,N

% [('

i-

/

8~

8~ af

{

g>

es mr g>

t i

t i

t t

i i

a,,,,,s, t

' s 7,,,,,,,

8 i,,,,,, h>,

o i,,,,,,,,

?

a, x

t s

q q

- a-i-

>7 4

z 5

>{

8

.A g.

N N

5 a b$

m m

E-8

)

a.2 a

O 8

E h

p

>k 34 E E -E (3

w!

m 9

A...........

p-

L a

g q

j s2'

)'v h

)

c 3

o r[

05 c o m

g r m RSSU TNEDICC A' l

ROTC AEP LYBONREHC_

l

$,s

% $[

%,N )%

,g I,

IP D'%

D~

~

2E 3<

i 9c

, 2 '8 3

a e

J a it i a i i

e qais a gis s ii i jsi i e i i..

i 1

1..

1...

1

)3m/lCp( RETE M CIBUC REP SEIRUCOCIP t

sw

No.:

N001TI000285 Page:

29 x_,)

Table 11.

De Soto and SSFL Sites - Ambient Radiation Dosimetry Data - 1986 Equivalent Quarterly Exposure Exposure at (mrem)

Annual 1000 f t ASL TLD Exposure Location Q-1 Q-2 0-3 Q-4 (mrem)

(mrem)

(prem/h)

De Soto 05-1 21 29 28 26 104 106 12 05-2 19 25 25 b

92 94 11 DS-3 19 28 26 27 100 102 12 DS-4 25 30 29 29 113 115 13 DS-5 20 25 26 b

95 97 11 05-6 21 27 27 28 103 105 12 05-7 19 23 24 25 91 93 11 DS-8 18 23 26 26 93 95 11 i

Mean value 20 26 26 27 99 101 12 SSFL SS-1 22 29 32 24 107 95 11 SS-2 20 31 35 31 117 105 12 55-3 25 30 34 29 118 106 12 55-4 24 32 36 33 125 112 13

]'~.

~

55-5 22 29 34 29 114 101 12 i

\\

SS-6 23 32 36 31 122 111 13 SS-7 22 29 33 33 117 105 12 SS-8 25 33 38 28 124 112 13 SS-9 28 37 46 32 143 131 15 55-10 23 30 34 25 112 1 01 12 Mean value 23 31 36 30 120 108 13 Off-site 05-1 23 30 31 32 116 118 14 05-2 20 25 25 b

93 91 10 05-3 20 25 25 26 96 98 11 05-4 21 29 30 b

107 105 12 05-5 22 30 31 32 115 116 13 Mean value 21 28 28 30 105 106 12

" Missing dosimeter; annual exposure estimated f rom data for three quarters.

No data.

X= "S" i

m r

f'W.

L No.:-

N00lTI0002851 49 Page: '30 l,

(

~t V.

UNUSUAL EVENTS There were.several. unusual events at facilities-involving radiation or radioactive materials. 'hese events are summarized below.

i A..

REPORTABLE. INCIDENTS g

i on April 24 it was determined, as a' result of a1 review of our. radioactive materials inventory, that a Giannini Controls thickness gauge containing a 25-mci americium-241Lsource was missing. This loss had actually been identi-fied earlier, but no report had been filed with the State.

The State was L

informed on April 28.

Further investigation showed leak test records 'f rom January 1968 through. January 1977. No later records could be found. The source is-presumed to be lost.

0n' August 7, notification _was received that a personally assigned TLD had 5 (m.

shown 4950 mrem for the second calendar quarter, exceeding the allowable limit of 1250 mrem. This TLD was assigned to an X-ray machine operator who gener-ally-read film and only occasionally performed any machine radiography during the quarter. She stated that she always wore the-TLD and a direct-reading

- pocket dosimeter during that work and read and recorded the dosimeter exposure res ul ts.' Investigation showed that her dosimeter log sheet had been removed ifrom the' book and could not be found.

Based upon employee interviews, it'was judged that the TLD exposure was a deliberate act by an unknown person, per-formed to create trouble..The State accepted this judgment and approved ex-pungement of this exposure and substitution of the' average exposure of 20 mR i

for i;l the machine operators.

Tighter control of the TLDs was instituted to prevent this f rom recurring.

On April 14, it was determined that a 1.57 mci Sr-90 source, assigned to the RIHL, was missing. ' Investigation showed that it was probably disposed of

,in a container of radioactive waste generated during cleanup of the hot stor-I I

age' room. This was reported to-the State.

E_.__z.____.____

e.

No.:

N001T1000285-Page: 31 I

/~'x

{ i

\\

B.

NONREPORTABLE INCIDENTS l

The Radiation and Nuclear Safety group provides radiological monitoring 4

and safety guidance for operations with radioactive material (including Spec-ial Nuclear Material) and radiation-producing devices. As part of this func-tion, " Radiological Safety Incident Reports" are wr,tten and distributed. The purpose of these reports is to record incidents that were not significant enough to require formal reporting to any regulatory agency (AEC, NRC, ERDA, DOE, State of California), assure communication among the R&NS personnel, and enhance hazard awareness within the operations groups.

Reporting of this sort has been done throughout the operations of Atomics International and Energy Systems Group (California) and is continuing as part of the Rocketdyne safety i

p rog ram.

To promote the purpuse of these reports, the reporting criteria have been deliberately lef t vague and general.

Generally, a report is written for c,y (n}

injury occurring in a radioactively contaminated area, abnormal release of

\\-

contamination, fire involving radioactive material, or exposure of personnel to radiation or abnormal radioactive contamination. These criteria are well below the regulatory agency reporting requirements.

Judgment is required in determining when to write a report, and the goal has been both to inform work-ers and management and to record those events that might be questioned in the future but because of lack of consequence would not be otherwise recorded.

The reports are distributed to all members of Radiation and Nuclear Safety and generally to the individuals personally involved, their managers, and any related management.

Each incident is reviewed at the time of report-ing, and case-by-case corrective actions are implemented as appropriate.

1.

February 4, 1986 The breathing air supply compressor at RIHL shut down due to an electrical failure.

A worker in an airline respirator in Cell 4 was instructed to exit. A sur-vey and nasal smears showed no contamination.

Uri-fw nalysis showed "less than detectable" for FP3A and

(

"zero" for FP38.

N

n, s.

- =,

No.:

N00lTIO00285 Page:

32 yy i

j.

)*- /

2.

February 12, 1986 A sharp piece of contaminated metal (in Cell.2, RIHL)'

l cut through two plastic and one canvas shoe covers when stepped on.

Shoe was contaminated and was con-fiscated. F~71oyee was reimbursed.

3 February 20, 1986 While gamma radiography was being performed on the H2 heater at SCTI, a barrier was removed'by other workers and the exclusion area was entered by three workers.

Exposures-to the three workers were less

than 1 mrem.

4.

March 7, '1986 A licensed device, the Kevex X-site 9000, was taken to an unlicensed location in a private auto.

Corrective action: A license amendment was requested.

to permit use of this device at off-site locations.

ROP M-503 was revised to clearly prohibit transport

~

of-radioactive materials in personal autos.

5.

March 4,1986 A worker splashed potentially contaminated wash solu-tion into his left eye.

He was wearing safety glass-es and no detectable activity was found. He was sent to Medical to have his eye flushed.

['~'\\

6.

June'S, 1986 During washdown of the west high bay at T009, a smoke

\\_,)

detector became flooded-with water.

This water spilled on the hands of an electrician, resulting in contamination f rom the Am-241 source in the detec-tor.

His hands were decontaminated.

Corrective action: An authorization was established to monitor the routine preventive maintenance of the large number (approximately 300) of smoke detectors at RD that contain Am-241.

Those coataining Ra-226 were disposed of as radioactive waste.

7.

June 11, 1986 A direct-readin[ pocket dosimeter (200 mR range) was off scale during unloading of a Fermi fuel eierent at the RMDF. The worker was restricted until hi'

1m badge reading was determined. This was 20 mrew, indicating an accidental discharge or malfunction of the dosimeter.

8.

June 13,1986 A worker contaminated his right hand while attaching a clean fixture to a contaminated cask.

His hand Nas decontaminated.

t

___[

u_.-_

- - - - ~ - - ~

.z

[y h't eu:

i 'n..

No.:

N001TI000285 p

Page:

33

,l(

4 9.

June 25, 1986

.After work decontaminating the NAC/NLI cask, an extremely high activity (150,000 cpm with pancake GM) speck was detected on a worker's shoe. Attempts to I:

decontaminate the shoe were unsuccusful and it.was confiscated. The worker was reimbursed. This was our first encounter with " hot particles" from commt cial power reactors.

10. July 14,1986

'A worker was exposed to estimated airborne concentra-tion of radioactively exceeding the maximum permis-sible concentration while surveying inside the SEFOR glove box-in the RIHL. This resulted in an' estimated exposure of about 8 MPC-hours. All bioassay results were below the minimum detection level. The expected airborne' concentration had been 0.3 MPC (adjusted for respirator protection factor).

.11.

August 15, 1986' A sink drain line being cut by a plumber-in DS104-had mercury in it and was also contaminated.

The area was cleaned and the contaminated material was dis-posed as radioactive waste.

12. August 29, 1986 A small. amount of water overflowed from the RHDF transfer tank when it was being filled with water from the NaK bubbler cleanout at NMDF.

Due to the

(

circumstances of the filling, no significant contami-

~

nation was in the water.

13.

September 15, 1986 While bagging out radioactive material from Decon Roi < 1 at the RIHL, a worker contaminated his pants.

The sants could not be decontaminated and were con-fiscated. The worker was reimbursed.

14.

October 28, 1986 Zirconium saw chips f rom the fermi fuel disassembly work in Cell 4 at the RIHL ignited. The fire was immediately put oct by inerting the cell atmosphere with nitro',en. Since the saw chips are too large to be pyrophr.ric, it is assumed that the saw strut % some of the uraniuni fuel and the sparks ignited the zi rc onium.

Corrective action:

During saw cutting, the cutting area and the saw chips will be kept wet with a water drip system. Special limits were imposed for criti-cality control.

15.

December 22, 1986 Contaminated water sprayed from the lid cavity of a fuel shipping cask as the lid was removed at the 0,

RMDF. The worker involved was successfully decontaminated.

No.:

N00lT1000285 Page:

34 b

16.

December 22, 1986 While transferring a f uel element f rom the shipping cask involved in the incident noted above, contami-nated water dripped f rom the transfer task. The worker involved was successfully decontaminated.

'17.

December 22, 1986 Following the above two incidents, a worker contami-nated his pants and shoes. Walking away from the cask, he contaminated the nearby floor.

The last three incidents, and two related ones occurring early in 1987, were reviewed in detail by an ad hoc committee. The 17 incidents are cate-n gorized as:

Personal contamination (9 incidents) 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17 Release of contamination (6 incidents) 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16

[V Respiratory protection (2 incidents) 1, 10 Loss of control of source / radiation area (2 incidents) 3, 4 Fire (1 incident) 14 Potential exposure (1 incident) 7 Some incidents :ra categorized twice (6, 9,15,16).

As in the previous annual review, the most prevalent reported incidents are those involving per-sonal contamination.

In most of these cases, the protective clothing was appropriate for the normally encountered conditit,ns of the job.

Therefore, no changes in the protective clothing policies or practices are recommended.

None of the other categories suggests any trends or general problems requiring

,\\

correction.

L__

4 No.:

N001TI000285 Page: -35

(

VI.

SUMMARY

/ TRENDS - EXPOSURE, EFFLUENTS A.

PERSONNEL EXPOSURES Personnel exposdres due to external radiation are summarized by year in the following table:

i Number of Persons in Exposure Range (rem)

Group Total Dose Average

>0 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Exposed (Person Dose Year 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Persons rems)

(rems) 1986 134 20 11 7

5 3

180 23 0.126 I

1985 134 10 4

9 12 25 194 58 0.301 1984.178 16 14 5

8 14 235 45 0.192 1983 281 9

5 4

5 13 8

2 17 344 138 0.402 1982 349 29 8

3 6

15 4

7 8

429 116 0.271 g

i 1981 192 55 13 4

6 4

274 33 0.121 1980 357 39 10 3

5 9

3 426 56*

0.131*

1979 347 39 19 10 4

15 8

2 444 91*

0.204*

i 1978 432 60 18 16 4

18 9

1 1

559 110*

0.197*

1977 340 31 29 7

5 11 13 436 91*

0.209*

1976 295 38 17 14 5

9 2

380 59*

0.156*

1975 170 24 12 4

5 6

1 1

223 39*

0.175*

• Determined by use of mid-point of range Data shown for 1960 and prior years include visitors.

Visitor exposures rarely exceed 0.25 rem.

Data for 1981 through 1985 represent occupationally exposed Rocketdyne employees excluding certain workers in Rocketdyne opera-l tions predating the merger, while 1986 shows all occupational exposures. The group dose was calculated exactly for the last six years. This results in values that are approximately 10% lower than those calculated by use of the mid point of the exposure ranges.

p)

{

\\

\\

w l

u-

5.

No.:

N001TI000285 Page:

36 i

i

\\

/

\\>

Exposures during 1986 showed a significant reduction in group dose and average dose from prior years.

This reflects changes in work load, inclusion of certain groups of workers with typically low exposures, and continuing improvement in the effectiveness of the ALARA program.

Internal dosimetry for the estimation of organ doses or dose commitments that have been received f rom internally deposited radioactive material has not been generally done.

It is complicated and time consuming, and the detected amounts of radioactive material have been so small as to not war rant it. '

Internt.1 depositions of radioactive material, as monitored by the bioas-say program, are shown in the table below.

Number of Number of Tests Percent Year Tests Performed with Positive Results Positive

[m) 1986 663 39 5.9 1985 644 69 10.7 1984 373 48 12.9 1983 527 30 5.7 1982 742 66 8.9 1981 768 66 8.6 1980 864 44 5.1 1979 1099 79 7.2 1978 1022 80 8.7 1977 1272 158 12.4 1976 1481 67 4.5 1975 1483 57 3.8 i

RJ

7_ - _- _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

37

\\s_-)

This table shows, for the past 12 years, all the tests performed and the number of tests that were considered to be " positive." A " positive" result is one that exceeds the minimum detectable activity (MDA) for the particular analysis.

During the time covered by this series of reports, the number of bioassays has generally declined as the number of people working with unencap-sul6t_.

Jicactive material has decreased.

Tests were increased in 1985 and 1986 to t, we more detailed information for the purpose of future dose eval-uations.

The reduction in percentage of positive results for 1986 appears to be significant compared to 1985.

Following tables show the distribution for the two major radionuclides tested during this time period:

Cs-173 (FP3B) and Sr-90 (FP3A). While the FP3A analysis is not specifically selective for Sr-90, that is the most restrictive radionuclides likely to be present and detected.

Cs-137 Fraction of Positive

/

\\

Number of Number with Results with Maximum

(,/

Year FP3B Tests Positive Results less than 0.01% MPBB

% MPBB 1986 255 8

0.250 0.02 1985 256 49 0.082 0.03 1984 136 30 0.656 0.72 1983 76 6

0.833 0.02 1982 171 4

0.667 0.03 1981 141 3

0 0.02 1980 116 4

0 0.04 1979 233 27 0

1.2 1978 271 22 Incomplete data 1977 298 43 Incomplete data 1976 171 6

0 0.02 1975 190 1

1.0 0.01 0

~ ~.

No.:

N00lTiO00285 l

Page: 38

[

jx

!- ? j Sr-90 Fraction of Positive Number of Number.with Results with Maximum Year FP3A Tests Positive Results

-less than 10% MPBB

% MPBB 1986 255 25 0.720 20.8 1985 256 19 0.842-14.5 1984 136 15 0.800 45.0 1983 74 0

None 1982 174 32 0.407 59.8 1981 141 31 0.485 61.9 1980 116 7

0.286 58.8 1979 233 14 Incomplete data 1978 271 45 Incomplete data 1977 298 62 Incomplete data 1976 169 10 0

21.7 1975 194 4

0.333 14.4 B.

WORK PLACE RADIATION AND RADI0 ACTIVITY The general radiation levels in the work place, as determined by readings

(

from location badges averaged over the calendar year, are summarized in the V

table below:

Facility Average Exposure Rate (mR/h)

Maximum Exposure Rate (mR/h)

Year

.GIF RIHL ANR RMDF 1986 0.08 0.06 0.23 2.92 0.22 0.57 1.06 11.3 1985 0.16 0.13 0.97 2.74 0.23 0.87 4.00 29.42 0.49 0.13 1.72 1984 0.80 1.15 7.06 0.001 0.47 0.82 1983 0.004 6.42 4.15 0.02 0.10 4.24 1982 0.06 0.21 42.4

_]

.~

No.:

N00lTI000285 Page:

39

,_s

.?

4 Variations reflect changes in workload, with a significant problem at the RMDF in 1985 having been reduced in 1986, due to processing of radioactive water and the accumulation of the resultant sludge.

Airborne radioactivity, in terms of the average percentage of the maximum permissible (occupational) concentration (MPC) is shown for monitored areas below:

Percent of MPC Year RIHL RMDF 1986 0.2 6.3 1985 0.5 4.4 1984 0.5 1983 0.5

/^\\

1982 0.06

\\, -

1981 0.05 1980 0.20 C.

ATMOSPHERIC EFFLUENT RELEASES Atmospheric effluent releases are monitored by use of stack samplers at the major f acilities.

The results are shown below in terms of the total activity released.

In some cases, the releases were at concentrations less than the ambient (natural) airborne radioactivity; in others, much of the activity is f rom natural sources, resulting f rom the use of unfiltered bypass air in the exhaust system.

A significant change has been made in the manner in which those reltases are calculated from the effluent sampling measurements.

Prior to 198?, all concentration values less than the minimum detection level (MDL) were set

[

equal to the MDL in calculating the average concentration release.

This was

\\s_-

done on the basis of DOE requirements.

It was recognized that this practice

... ~

No.:

N001TI000285 I

Page:

40 I r}

r

/

I \\

/

j biased the reported results upwards by a considerable amount, and DOE changed its guidance.

Now, all measured values, even zorv. and negative ("less than background") values, are used in the calculatir,n.

l The major fluctuation observed in the beta activity released f rom the I

RIHL is due primarily to changes in the work in the hot cells.

The increase in beta activity released from the RIHL this year is mainly due to work being performed on the ventilation exhaust system. With these exceptions, a major f raction of'the activity reported as discharged f rom the RIHL and the NMDF actually came from natural radioactivity in the unfiltered bypass air taken into the exhaust systems near the blowers to prevent excessive suction.

,s O

; ~.

No.:

N001T1000285 Page: 41 RADI0 ACTIVITY DISCHARGED 70 ATMOSPHERE (microcuries)

(Sheet 1 of 2)

De Soto Santa Susana 101 104 RIHL RMDF NMDF l

1986 Alpha 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.04 Beta 0.78 22.0 13.0 4.0 1985 Alpha 0.15 0.45 0.04 0.05 Beta 0.45 9.0 9.0 1.5 1984 Alpha 0.44 0.10 0.074 0.04 Beta 0.59 4.5 3.7 0.98 1983 Alpha 52.0 1.1 0.024 0.047 0.08 n

Beta 19.0 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 l

1982 Alpha 1.2 0.24 0.03 0.024 0.023 Beta 0.94 1.1 14.0 0.61 1.0 1981 Alpha 2.8 0.39 0.069 0.087 0.059 Beta 2.7 4.1 14.0 4.0 2.0 1980 Alpha 5.3 1.0 0.17 0.061 0.082 Beta 4.3 4.9 17.0 1.7 1.1 1979 Alpha 2.1 1.1 0.18 0.085 0.053 Beta 5.8 5.7 44.0 2.7 0.21 1978 Alpha 16.0 0.65 0.13 0.1 0.081 Beta 5.0 4.3 59.0 11.0 1977 Alpha 10.0 0.88 0.1 0.11 0.15 l

Beta 4.1 7.5 13.0 3.0

1. ,_,h r

i

\\m.)

L l.L__-____--_-_o--___

s l

l No.:

N001TI000285 l:

Page: 42 s yng k

RADI0 ACTIVITY DISCHARGED TO ATMOSPHERE l

(microcuries)

(Sheet 2 of 2) 1 i

De Soto Santa Susana 101 104 RIHL RMDF NMDF 1976 Alpha 64.0 8.1 0.15 0.23 0.15 Beta 17.0 8.9 5.8 1.1 1975 Alpha 3.7 5.4 0.15 0.45 0.19 Beta 2.6 12.0 6700.0*

10.0

• Released f rom burned fuel slug.

5046Y/jbv G

I 1

^'

No.:

N00lTI000285 1-Page: 43 p

k'w D.

AM8IENT (ENVIRONMENTAL) RADIATION EXPOSURE Ambient (environmental) radiation exposure rates as measured by CaF :Mn 2

TLDs' and averaged for all locations are shown below.

Quarterly Dose (mrem)

Annual Dose Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec (mrem) 1986 21.8 28.7 30.9 28.7 110.1 1985 21.8 32.2 26.6 29.0 109.6 1984 29.9 30.1 25.6 19.6 105.2 1983 30.1 28.9 30.2 27.4 116.6 1982 29.1 30.8 31.8 31.9 123.8 1981 38.2 33.5 35.2 43.9 150.8 1980 35.0 34.4 37.7 49.1 157.3 1979 32.1 38.1 38.0 39.4 147.8 1978 27.3 35.5 33.4 36.6 133.1 1977 24.2 29.2 32.9 30.9 117.5 1976 21.6 24.8 22.5 25.0 93.9 1975 21.3 24.6 26.2 25.4 97.6 The quarterly doses are plotted as a histogra. in Figure 4.

This graph, and the tabulated annual doses, show a clear increase f rom 1976.to 1980, fol-lowed by a decrease for 1981,1982,1983, and 1984. The data for 1985 anc 1986 suggest a leveling off of this decline.

All data prior to 1982 were obtained using an EG&G TL-3 reader.

Data for 1982 and later were obtained using a Victoreen Model 2810. This is a new reader, built on the basic design of the 7L-3 reader, but with modern electronics and digital adjustments and i

readout.

O The increasing trend (f rom 1976 to 1980) was also observed in data for

/

g i

the Rocky Flats Plant, the only other DOE facility where the same type i

1 No.:

N001TIO002BS Page:

44

/

~'

fJ_!1?k@i'xiPeisiiniisWsETEERnT

_ W m 2rJ 3 M E m m M M M F # N F. m M NEN[thNEMdN[M[#

C txw%na.x:nn !Myhi&pnerstmk Emisues

~sztscwsstra:mm

"-"ynnMmv.Netaht gb

,fpt!L F F W l O Y3 5E$

E Fd p ; Jhestq E ef Eq!L -

M. 4 Th?Et '

4 nter.an wtat 5.

- hM1PJW

[C ittittpa ~ *IIaWVtW. IW!ral y utter n;ry*Ne no W

W OERw 4-me i.

pg munga&y*#/I$a 44r,. im a

- E ct:

r ar 5 -

ittWt3W t

siM*ttt 5hEMSN QM$4.ttin errmar,d':.arengsmWJm.;

jE Fifrci tr e

o

• 4*fdJ z:

s m

ww by m

4 utWJ k]p..

~.M M

'I,j i

% ydf";T- - 'g

$f7' co m

eg T

c.,

r_-c K

e a.

SFJCP

_ s L=. w=171w:nns tcs mdDWr.6 _

,.o 9

p.:,

c o

d -

5 Ett R% (D m

e u

rm 15.

W id o x

p.

E rm=mA ; ;

g

=M" =tfmer

=

mmmh kyiwh. tri ItT!NstrTr:tv z-tarric t

im oa o

e HK}4th

'^N y

myM ret tp n

.. 1!!

Q W.

l o.- -e

.. T%T M ?

e-J3 E ite.turmts Ernst::

e. rA@m_.

/

Ns)'

L

-c::

@E sem Miramitywews*?twWitn e tc r A. s r a n,

$pgrgepipWixt!4%tgyttns*j

• c.:a Ut!$TKT*r** hiWA1rw ;tur4 ts#J smrt2sfutSiit bifiK Nf f 2"M $

n nnart swatammpurre:wwunecx u se m e t::rw;cWtmrt

.c-m intrm15Ealcutcamityi:3ramtre' rrelm!stma,

ger3FrmRD1Tauttt!DLrr.t.12stalME!rMPhit-E-.

g @T E %C%f4 S MIFItT i??F W I{E F f W 9 2 5t#16 C M I d Z-M%TA::nrrauttatyfahrggts$terstely.n$txt ';

N gly.utA?gni:#me:grmExtent

.amcAuneau _

~

rm#micsscotermd :ttror#emistmes ir.Atw$4sh e

stwitMWmmet..

r.:A r

RI'A:;f,23 Pc -#$3tenttahmittentrash il e

r

.c::

ezwn %ourave66Tf3tatimewWhsaisi scit r-swfMMMK45t*1MHTM@W9M3D.ts-2tt5 e

"" trytmM.hWSPtJMAM!aMC#dM@.MTMW%j -

mpar2W4t!.t s

g.nytwqmmrt unpati;fittF' EEp.MM r-n.itergree ys o 1fts ruttRWttf.M!i ge: Maw w

" ggt:Wgt%p;w!W% $p.:m v.

1r w

6 rg'tge; bah

+ - tn. 4 li:c:r.ir=wc tra sveum

..W civW63H MRWwn#W 4

hi3E-tfi f4%4.W@EWCA WW Mi D

I S K2tT'vit462%T W!MM@l -

W4.EWW;MF*it

tetsitla CD cm CDIC A:::: M:UC-A-. N r:::

c y:::: 2 c::c:E--.r.:4 A:;

co CD tr a G

,3

/

N l

Figure 4.

Averaged Quarterly Dose Recorded v'

by Environmental TLDs

o l

No.:

N001T1000285 Page:

45 p

1\\s_ f i

dosimeters are used, but not at any other facility. The cause has not been identified, but since tie trend exists equally for the De Soto, Santa Susana, and of f-site TLDs, at this time it is assumed to be either a true envircn-mental ef fect, or an artifact of the TLD reading or calibration.

The annual ambient exposure rates (mrem / year) measured at De Soto, SSFL, and the several offsite locations are shown below:

De Soto SSFL Offsite Year Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum 1986 99 113 120 143 105 116 1985 100 107 124 152 105 112 1984 98 106 117 126 100 108 1983 110 123 126 136 115 123 1982 118 135 132 144 124 128

{\\,,

1981 144 159 162 188 148 162 1980 164 193 166 184 163 166 1979 138 149 161 193 131 140 1978 128 140 143 149 126 131 1977 116 125 121 138 106 108 1976 89 99 1 01 124 91 101 1975 96 105 104 123 94 105 Comparison of the average values and the maximum location values for the three types of sites shows the same increase from 1976 to 1980 and then a decrease to 1984. The cause of this behavior is under continuing study with no definite conclusions produced as yet.

The values at SSFL are all somewhat greater than De Soto and the offsite locations due to the significantly great-er elevation of the SSFL site, and possibly also due to the greater outcrop-ping of uranium-mineral-bearing sandstone. There is no indication of signifi-

/'~'

cant exposure resulting from operations with radioactive material.

k

No.:

N00lT1000285 Page:

46 r-~s N--

Average and maximum values for soil radioactivity are shown in Table 12.

This table shows the change in reported alpha activity resulting from adoption of a calibration factor for thick soil samples.

Prior to 1984, only relative values were reported, which served the function of monitoring for changes quite well but produced values that did not reflect the correlation of alpha and beta activity from naturally present radioactive elements (potassium, 0 alphas,1 beta per decay; uranium chain, 8 alphas, 6 betas; thorium chain, 6 alphas, 4 betas).

Four high values of soil beta activity have been detected onsite (out of 1440 samples):

those are shown as maximum values for the years 1978-1981.

The maximum values for 1979 and 1980 were along the southwest side of the RMDF and may have resulted from a cleanup of the so-called " West Bank" near the RMDF just prior to these years. The 1978 and 1981 values were f rom samples taken near the SS Vault (T064).

Follow-up surveys failed to locate addi-tional, significant contamination.

(It should be noted that only the 1980 (O) value exceeds the working limit of 100 pci/g gross detectable beta activity

's adopted for our decontamination work.)

Results for the semiannual plutonium soil enalyses are shown in Tables 13 and 14.

The onsite averages are generally higher than of fsite but not greatly This may represent differences between the set of five onsite locations so.

and the single offsite location. While plutonium is found in low concentra-tions everywhere as a result of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests at several different locations around the world, the concentration at a given location is affected by meteorological conditions following the test explosion and after deposition.

Comparison of the onsite values shows no systematic variation with location relative to the NMDF.

After review of the results of vegetation sampling conducted over the prior 28 years, it was determined that this sample class did not provide sig-nificantly useful data.

Fallout is more accurately assessed by measurement of

. /'~

airborne radioactivity and soil radioactivity.

Therefore, the vegetation sam-k pling was discontinued.

l

, ~.

e a

No.:

N001T1000285 Page:

47

,/ m

{

h

\\v/

Table 12. Soil Radioactivity Sur: mary 1975-1986 (pci/g)

Onsite Offsite Alpha Beta Alpha Beta ic.erage Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum T

Year 2 Olspersion Value 2 Dispersion Value 2 Olspersion Value i Dispersion Value 1986 26.7 i 6.6 40.1 26.1 2 2.2 32.2 28.1 2 5.9 39.0 24.2 2 1.3 30.4 1985 25.2 2 7.3 48.4 24.2 2 1.9 32.7 26.3 2 7.8 46,0 23.9 2 3.3 30.2 1984 25.8 6.0 43.4 24.2 2 2.0 30.1 26.2 2 7.2 51.3 23.3 2 2.9 28.2 a

1983 0.6 2 0.2 1.1 24.2 2 2.0 29.7 0.6 2 0.2 1.1 23.0 2 2.8 27.8 l

1982 0.7 2 0.2 1.2 24.6 2.3 30.1 0.7 2 0.2 1.2 23.3 ! 3.7 32.9 3

1981 0.7 2 0.2 1.3 25.4 3.5 38.2 0.6 2 0.2 1.3 22.8 4.5 33.2 j

b 1980-0.6 0.2 1.1 24.0 2 1.0 110.0 0.6 2 0.2 1.0 23.0 1.0 30.0 1979 0.6 0.2 1.1 25.0 2 1.0 97.0 0.5 2 0.1 0.8 23.0 r 1.0 29.0 1978 0.6 f 0.2 1.0 24.0 2 0.9 48.0 0.5 0.1 1.0 24.0 2 0.9 34.0

(

1977 0.6 2 0.2 1.1 24.0 2 0.9 31.0 0.5 0.2 0.8 23.0 2 0.8 27.0 1976 0.6 0.2 0.8 25.0 2 1.0 32.0 0.6 0.2 1.0 24.0 2 1.0 30.0 1975 0.6 f 0.1 1.0 25.0 2 1.0 35.0 0.6 2 0.2 1.0 24.0 1.0 27.0 avalues reported for alpha activity in soll before 1984 are relative values only.

I The 1984 values reflect correction for self absorption of alpha particles by the thick soll sam b rior to 1981,ples. data less than the MDL were treated as equal to the MDL. For 1981 and P

later, actual measured values were used.

5046Y/ kip i

i l

l

(%

l l

)

I

+

1; i

No.:

N001T1000285

.,/..

Page: 48 Table 13.

Plutonium in Soil Summary l

1978-1986 l

(Pu-239 + Pu-240, fCi/g)

Onsite Offsite Average Maximum Average Year i Dispersion

.Value i Dispersion 1986 1.811.3 3.8 1.211.0 1985 2.611.5 5.1 0.4 1 0.2

,1984 3.111.3 5.2 0.4 1 0.2 1983 5.2 1 4.4 14.4 7.0 1 0.2 1982 4.0 1 2.4 7.3 2.7 i 3.3 1982 4.2 i 4.5 15.9 1.211.0 1980 8.4 8.5 29.5 1.3 1 0.9 1979 7.0 1 6.7 18.9 2.611.3 1978 4.5 1 2.9 9.0 4.411.6 Grand Average 4.5 1 4.7 2.4 1 2.8

((-

Table 14.

Summary of Plutonium in Soil (Pu-239 + Pu-240, fCi/g)

Average Maximum Location i Dispersion Value Date S-56 1100 ft NW NMDF 4.1 1 4.5 14.4 December 1983 5-57 900 ft SE NMDF 3.6 1 2.3 9.5 June 1980 S-58 500 ft SE NMDF 5.2 1 4.4 18.9 December 1979 S-59 900 ft ESE NMDF 4.6 1 4.1 18.6 December 1979 S-60 2000 ft SE NMDF 5.2 1 7.0 29.5 December 1980 5-61 2.7 mi. NE NMDF 2.4 1 2.8 7.1 June 1983

(/

5046Y/sjh

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

f a-No.:

N00lT1000285 Page: 49 t'

i Alpha and beta radioactivity in the supply water at the De Soto and SSFL sites are shown in Table 15. Water for the De Soto site is supplied by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power from the Metropolitan Water Dis-trict. Water for the SSFL site is supplied by Ventura County Water District No.17, with varying amounts of supplemental water (up to 100%) f rom onsite wells operated by Rocketdyne. The water at De Soto is consistently, but not significantly, more radioactive than that at SSFL.

A change in the method of correcting for alpha attenuation in the mineral deposit f rom the water samples permits more accurate reporting of the alpha activity since 1983.

Alpha and beta radioactivity in environmental waters is shown in Tables 16A and 16B. The radioactivity concentrations in all three water sources sampled are quite similar.

(Pond R-2A receives runo?f and effluent f rom the Sahta Susana nuclear f acilities, while Pond 6 receives runof f and effluent from the other facilities. The Bell Creek sample, from the location 7

\\~

sampled prior to 1986, appears to be mostly seepage f rom the Bell Canyon com-munity. Af ter 1985, water was automatically sampled at the head of Bell Creek.) The results for the pond water are very nearly the same as the supply water f or 1986.

No radionuclides present at the nuclear facilities have been found.

Tables 17A and 178 show the results of alpha and beta radioactivity mea-surements on ambient air samples. An apparent extreme decrease in alpha radi-oactivity af ter 1981 is due simply to a change in the method of treating the very low-level values.

Until the end of 1981, each value that was less than the MDL for a single measurement was set equal to the MDL before inclusion in the average.

This artificially elevated the average value.

This effect was not nearly. so great for the beta activity measurements.

The beta values for l

De Soto, SSFL, and of f site samples are essentially identical.

(The "offsite" samples are located at SSFL but at a considerable distance f rom the nuclear

('~'

facilities.)

1 u______._______________________

No.:

N001TI0002B5 Page:

50 jp.

IQ Table 15. Supply Water Radioactivity Sunmary 1975-1986 (pci/L)

De Soto

$5FL Alpha Beta Alpha Beta Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Oispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Oispersion Value 1986 4.41 1 2.53 8.70 3.75 1 0.62 4.69 6.55 i 9.09 45.77 3.58 1 0.95 6.75 1985 '2.76 i 1.82 5.73 3.17 1 0.78 4.6 2.45 1 2.61 8.6 2.80 1 0.52 3.95 1984 3.82 1 0.93 5.87 3.40 2 0.45 4.3 3.53 1 3.94 13.3 2.93 z 0.60 4.01 a

1983 0.34 2 0.23 0.88 3.53 1 0.97 5.1 0.12 0.13 0.41 3.00 1 0.60 4.45 1982 0.36 1 0.23 0.79 3.97 1 1.19 6.6 0.14 i 0.12 0.38 3.01 1 0.67 4.91 1981 0.36 1 0.20 0.77 3.78 1 0.68 4.7 0.11 1 0.12 0.44 2.79 1 0.55 3.65 b

1980 not analyzed 0.22 1 0.27 0.22 2.4 1 0.7 3.4 1979 not analyzed 0.23 i 0.27 0.23 1.8 i 0.7 3.9 1978 not analyzed 0.26 1 0.28 0.44 3.0 i 0.8 3.6 (7,h 1977 v/

not analyzed 0.25 i 0.29 0.30 2.5 i 0.7 3.6 1976 not analyzed 0.25 2 0.29 0.42 2.0 1 0.7 2.5 1975 not analyzed 0.24 1 0.27 0.55 2.3 2 0.7 3.2 aValues reported for alpha activity in water before 1984 are relative values only.

Subsequent values reflect correction for self absorption of alpha particles by the thick mineral deposit of the counting sample, bPrior to 1981, data less than the MOL were treated equal to the MOL. For 1981 and later, actual measured values were used.

5046Y/jlm

,-~

t(

No.:

N00lTIO00285 Page:

51 Table 16A.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary 1975-1986 (Alpha, pCi/L)

Pond R-2A Pond 6 Bell Creek Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value c 1986 4.18 1 2.70 8.70 2.51 1 2.88 9.51 2.02 2.08 5.90 1985 3.07 i 1.94 6.61 1.06 1 4.44 13.6 1.38 7.09 19.7 1984 0.15 i 1.70 2.70 4.90 1 9.11 25.9 4.15 t 8.30 28.7 a 1983 0.1310.12 0.35 0.1210.11 0.2) 0.08 1 0.12 0.39 1982

0. M + 0.13 0.28 0.1710.08 0.35 0.03 0.06 0.14 1981 0.0710.15 0.37 0.05 1 0.08 0.17 0.05 0.06 0.20 b 1980 0.23 1 0.27 0.23 0.23 1 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.23 1979 0.23 1 0.27 0.25 0.25 1 0.28 0.55 0.23 t 0.27 0.24 1978 0.25 1 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.35 0.24 1 0.28 0.24 1977 0.25 1 0.29 0.28 0.24 1 0.29 0.25 0.24 1 0.29 0.24 1976 0.28 1 0.30 0.53 0.24 1 0.29 0.24 0.25 1 0.29 0.28 1975 0.31 1 0.29 1.2 0.24 1 0.27 0.55 0.22 1 0.27 0.28 aValues reported for alpha activity in water before 1984 are relative values only. Subsequent values reflect correction for self absorption of alpha activity by the thick mineral deposit of the counting sample.

b rior to 1981, data less than the MDL were treated as equal to the MDL.

P For 1981 and later, actual measured values are used.

cPrior to 1986, Bell Creek was sampled at the east.ern boundary of the resiriential community of Bell Canyon.

In 1986, an automatic water sampler was installed that collects water only when water is present in the upper part of Bell Creek, immediately downstream f rom the discharge of Pond R-2A.

5046Y/rmr

p:

...- o No.:

N001TI000285 l:

Page:

52

('v')

Table 16B.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary 1975-1986 (Beta, pCi/L)

Pond R-2A Pond 6 Bell Creek Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maxinsm Year i Dispersion Value Dis;nrsion Value i Dispersion Value b 1986 3.58 1 1.14 8.93 2.92 1 0.94 4.57 2.60 1 0.52 3.66 1985 3.49 1 0.79 5.56 3.58 1 0.96 4.92 2.49 1 0.75 3.79 1984 4.25 1 0.85 5.87 4.58

0. '

5.66 2.88 1 0.58 4.60 1983 4.4411.84 9.15 3.57 0.92 4.00 3.30 1 0.60 4.20 1982 3.93 i 0.83 5.81 3.91 1 1.00 5.34 3.29 1 0.70 4.40 1981 5.16.1'1.22 8.30 4.25 1 0.63 5.26 3.78 1 0.65 5.00 a 1980 3.9 1 0.8 5.70 2.9 1 0.7 4.7 2.9 1 0.8 5.2 1979 4.5 1 0.8 10.0 3.1 0.6 4.7 3.2 1 0.9 8.2 1978 4.6 1 0.8 6.3 4.3 0.8 7.0

?.5 1 0.8 3.5 1977 5.2 1 0.9 13.0 4.3 1 0.8 6.4 1.8 0.8 2.6 1976 4.4 1 0.8 7.0 4.3 1 0.8 5.5 2.2 1 0.8 2.9 1975 4.5 i 0.3 5.4 4.2 0.8 5.5 2.4 1 0.8 3.4 s

aPrior to 1981, data less than the MDL were treated as eaual to the MDL.

For 1981 and later, actual measured values are used.

b rior to 1986, Bell Creek was sampled at the eastern boundary of the P

residential community of Bell Canyon.

In 1986, an automatic water sampler was installed that collects water only when water is present in the upper part of Bell Creek,'immediately downstream from the discharge of Pond R-2A.

5046Y/rmr

,e

~$

3 L_

e No.:

N001T1000285 Page:

53

)

's

/.

Table 17A. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summarj a

1975-1986 3

(Alpha, fCi/m )

{

De Soto SSFL Offsite Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Valee 1986 2.9 1 3.4 22 2.8 1 3.3 37 2.9 1 3.3 33 1985 2.7 1 2.2 38 2.011.6 44 2.0 1 1.9 25 1

1984 1.9 i 9.3 32 1.4 1 3.4 29 1.4 1 3.0 16 1983 2.4 1 3.8 60 0.9 i 5.4 24 1.2 1 2.9 11 1982 1.7 1 3.1 39 1.1 2.6 30 1.7 1 2.9 10 a 1981 6.9 7.7 25 6.8 1 7.9 35 6.8 1 7.2 22 1980 6.5 1 7.7 45 6.4 1 7.8 25 6.3 1 7.8 20 1979 6.6 i 7.8 45 6.5 1 7.6 40 6.2 1 7.9 34 1978 8.4 1 8.1 95 7.2 1 7.9 21 7.2 1 7.3 44 1977 6.6 1 7.7 39 6.6 i 7.5 35 7

1976 6.7 i 8.4

.140 6.5 1 7.2 53

\\ /

1975 6.3 1 6.8 60 6.0 1 6.3 88 aPrior to 1982, data less than the MDL were treated as equal to the MDL.

For 1982 and later, actual measured values are used.

5046Y/ kip

/

kn l

L.--_-._--_

__ - - - _ = _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

~, -.

v,..

~~

No.:

N001T1000285 Page:

54 Table 178.

Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary 1975-1986 3 (Beta, fCi/m )

De Soto SSFL Offsite Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value 1986 58 1 103 1236 60 1 94 1579 60 90 1233 1985' 44114 180 40113 170 40114 240 1984 27 1 27 250 23114 200 24 1 20 200 1983 26 1 21 130 23 17 180 25 12 280 1982 26114 260 21 1 16 180 22112 88 a 1981 120 1 20 1100 120 1 20 1100 120 1 20 1600 1980 39 1 14 380 36114 450 34115 360 1979 21 1 13 100 21 1 13 110 19115 100 1978 91 17 1400 88117 1500 86116 1300 1977 170 1 20 3000 170 1 20 2800 fm 1976 96118 3700 110 1 20 2400 1975 76116 460 73 i15 730 aPrior to 1982, data less than the MDL were treated as equal to the MDL.

For 1982 and later, actual measured values are used.

5046Y/klp l

l l

4

e

(

3,. ?

No.:

N001TIO00285 Page:

55 (YM '

)

VII. ANTICIPATED ACTIVITIES DURING NEXT REPOP. TING PERIOD (1987)

Building 104 (GIF and ANR) continuation of low-level research with activated materials and operation of the Gamma Irradiation Facility.

Building 020 (RIHL).

Complete Fermi fuel disassembly project.

Cleanup cells in preparation for next project.

Buildings 021/022 (RMDF)

Shipment of declad EBR-II fuel and scrap.

Receive, store, and transfer Fermi fuel for disassembly. Storage and transfer of disassembled Fermi fuel

\\M and scrap.

Building 055 (NMDF)

A confirmatory survey of the decor,taminated facility by NRC and subse-quent termination of the SNM license and release for unrestricted use are expected.

k 5046Y/rmr

[#

pg

f.. y

-> D*

No.:

N001T1000285 Page:

56 O

REFERENCES-1.

U.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Special Nuclear Materials License

'ho. SNM-21, USNRC (June 28, 1984).

-; r.

2.-

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1975," R. S.; Hart, Atomics International, lockwell-International, N00lTI990002, July 2, 1979 3.

" Annual. Review.of Radiological Controls - 1976," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-tems Group,.Rockwell. International, N00lTI990003, April'2, 1980 4.

" Annual Peview of Radiological Controls - 1977," R. S. Hart, Energy.Sys-tems Group, Rockwe". International, N00lTI990098, May 27,1980 5.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1978," R. S. Hart',' Energy Sys-tems Group, Rockwell' International, N001TI990104, August 6, 1980 6.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1979," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-

'tems Group, Rockwell International, N00lTI990113, September 15, 1980 7.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1980," R. R. Eggleston, Energy Systems' Group, Rockwell International, N001TI990144, July 14,1981 O

.8.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1981," R. R. Eggleston, Energy

[

Systems Group, Rockwell International, N00lTI990176, January 21, 1983 9.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls 1982," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lTI000238, January 29, 1985 10.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1983," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lTIO00256, January 27, 1986 11.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1984," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lT1000257, March 30, 1986 12.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1985," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lTI000260, July 4, 1986 13.

" Occupational Radiation Exposure (1982 and 1983)," NUREG-0714, Vols. 4 and 5, B.-Brooks, S. Mcdonald, E. Richardson, Division of Radiation Pro-grams and Earth Sciences, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1985 14.

" Sixteenth Annual Report - Radiation Exposures for DOE and DOE Contractor Employees - 1983," DOE /PE-0072, October 1984 L-15.

"Rocketdyne Environmental Monitoring and Facility Effluent Annual L

Report - 1985," J. D. Moore, Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division,

'(

RI/RD86, March 1986 16.

" Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959)," ICRP Publication 2 5046Y/sjh

___-_=_- -

-