ML20236E495

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1987
ML20236E495
Person / Time
Site: 07000025
Issue date: 07/28/1988
From: Tuttle R
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML19311A788 List:
References
N001TI000287, N1TI287, NUDOCS 8906050289
Download: ML20236E495 (57)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:I ,40, RockwellInternation.f SUPPORTlNG DOCUMENT p a.. % GONO. S ' A N O. PACE 1 CF TOTAL P AGES REV LTRiCHG NO. N UM B E F. sEi sumuy cr esc 96110 57 57 NC U N001TI0002S7 n p u:. D a Health. Safety and Environment APPENDIX D DOCUMENT TITLE 1987 ANNUAL REVIEW Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1987 DOCUMENT TYPE RE LATED DOCUMENTS Technical Information Radiation Exposures, Effluents, NRC-Licensed Facilities ORIGtNAL ISSUE DATE REL.DATE APPROVALS DATE 7-2247 v%- PREP ABED BY/ DATER.I.J. Tuttle % / n na , w e DEPT Mall ADOR I rA 641 T100 U i j C. J. Rozas IR&D PROGRAM? YES O NO V IF YES. ENTER AUTHORIZATION NO. DISTRIBUTION ABSTRACT NAME

  1. A Data on emplCyee exposures, bioassay results, ef flu-0 ent releases, in-plant airborne radioactivities, and
  • F. H. Badger T0E0 environmental monitoring for Rocketdyne operations
  • R. Bulthuis BA61 during 1987 are reviewed. This review is prepared,

(

  • J.

A. Chapman T100 as required by 3pecial Nuclear Materials License

  • V. Keshishian LB34 No. SNM-21, to determine (1) if there are any upward
  • M. Marko HB03 trends developing in personnel exposures for identi-
  • J. D. Moore T100 fiable categories of workers or types of operations
  • W. E. Nagel LB03 or effluent releases, (2) if exposures and effluents
  • M. E. Remley LA06 might be lowered under the concept of as low as rea-
  • R. D. Rogers HB07 sonably achievable, and (3) if equipment for ef fluent
  • J. A. Rowles T006 and exposure control is being properly used, main-
  • C. J. Rozas CB01 tained, and inspected.
  • I. N. Stein EA0B
  • V. A. Swansnn T006 Personnel exposures have been'further reduced.
  • R. J. Tuttle (2)

T100

  • 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 T100 trends, and do not appear to be reducible by reason-able means.

To the extent covered by this revicw, equipment for effluent and exposure control was properly used, maintained, and inspected. RESERVED FOR PROPRIETARY / LEGAL NQTlCES 89060'50289 890525 PDR ADOCK 07'00025 B PDC d Sil1Y/rmr % COMPLETE DOCUMENT NO ASTERISK. TITLE PAGE/

SUMMARY

OF CHANGE PAGE ONLY

6 } No.: N00lTI000287 Page: 2 g i .( COM1ENTS x.- Page Introduction........................................................... 4 I. Personnel Dosimetry............................................. 6 A. Film /TLD Data............................................... 6 Bioassays................................................... B. 9 II. Radiation / Radioactivity Measurements............................ 13 A. Area Radiation Levels....................................... 13 B. Interior Air Samples - Working Areas........................ 13 III. Effluent Monitoring............................................. 16 IV. Environmental Monitoring Program................................ 18 V. Unusual Events.................................................. 28 A. Reportable Incidents........................................ 28 B. Nonreportable Incidents..................................... 29 VI. Summary / Trends - Exposure, Effluents............................ 33 A. Personnel Exposures......................................... 33 B. 7< ')l Work Place Radiation and Radioactivity...................... 37 ( C. Atmospheric Effluent Releases............................... ~~J 38 D. Ambient (Environmental) Radiation Exposure.................. 42 VII. Anticipated Activities During Next Reporting Period............. 55 References............................................................. 56 TABLES 1. Summary of Bioassays............................................ 11 2. Positive Bioassay Result Summary - 1987......................... 12 3. Location Badge Radiation Exposure - 1987........................ 14 4. Inte ri o r Ai r Sampl e Summa ry - 19 87........................... 15 5. Atmospheric Emissions to Unrestri:ted Areas - 1987.............. 17 6. Soil Radioactivity Data - 1987... 19 7. Soil Plutonium Radioactivity Data - 1987........................ 19 8. Supply Water Radioac t ivi ty Data - 1987.......................... 20 C\\. \\v

No.: N001TI000287 Page: 3 i ) .y/ TABLES 1 Page 9. SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data............................................... 21 3 10. Ambient Air Radioactivity Data - 1987............................ 25 11. De Soto and SSFL Sites - Ambient Radiation Dosimetry Data - 1987. 27 12. Soil Radioactivity Summary. 1975-1987............................ 46 13. Plutonium in Soil Summary, 1978-1987............................. 48 14. Summary of Plutonium in 5011..................................... 48 15. Supply k'ater Radioactivity Summary, 1975-1987.................... 50 16A. Environmental Water Radioat.civity Summary ( Alpha), 1975-1987..... 51 16B. Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary (Beta), 1975-1987...... 52 17A. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary (Alpha), 19 7 5-19 8 7............. 53 178. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary (Beta), 1975-1987.............. 54 FIGURES ~ [v) 1. Cumulative Log-Normal Distribution for Whole-Body Radiation Exposures of Occupationally Exposed Individuals in 1987.......... 7 2. Hand Exposure Values (higher exposed hand from each individual) for RIHL During 1987............................................. 8 3. Average Long-Lived Airborne Radioactivity at the De Soto and Santa Susana Field Laboratories Si tes - 1987..................... 26 4. Averaged Quarterly Dose Recorded by Environmental TLDs........... 43 (O) r\\s

~ No.: N00lTI000287 Page: 4 p. I INTRODUCTION The Rocketdyne special nuclear materials licenseU) requires that an annual report be made to the Radiation Safety Committee of the Nuclear Safe-

5 guards Review Panel reviewing personnel exposure and effluent release data.

The format and content of this report have been well established in prior ~ issues.(2-13) While this report is prepared primarily to satisfy a require-ment of the NRC license, all operations with radioactive material and radiation-producing devices have been included. These reports for the years 1975 through 1986 - 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. In these cases, certain measurements (e.g., ventilation air exhaust radioactivity) have not been made separately for each type of activity. - \\ I. additionally, it is not possible to separate the integrated personnel O !( / radiological doses to that attributable to either nonlicensed activities for the DOE or the activities licensed by NRC or the State of California. ^ The following Rocketdyne facilities and operations 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 facilities at Santa Susana Field Laboratories l (DOE jurisdiction) ~ 4) Applied Nuclear Research ( ANR) .The Gamma Irradiation. Facility ~ ~ ~' and Laboratories in Building 104 at De Soto. 4W ( @= e O /. T.. ahmee

7,+ x,.. E ~ No.: N00lTI000287 p Page: 5 L.A. '-fork at varloi:s facilitias duri:g 1997 is briefly described belo':: RTHL--The FermiL fuel disassembly project was completed in May. e-Waste cans were welded, and cell cleanup was begun. Some pre-liminary D&D work was started. The SEFOR glove box was disas-sembled, size-reduced, and packaged for disposal. An improved breathing air supply system was installed. L RMDF_--Declad EBR-II fuel was-shipped to SRP. Fermi fuel was. e transferred to/from RIHL. Fermi waste was shipped for dis-posal. Radioactive water was evaporated and slude-packaged for disposal. The neutron modulator, ethylene glycol, was drained from some NLI casks, and the casks were installed in ISO ship-ping containers. The ethylene glycol was decontaminated of sr'all amounts of radioactivity to' permit disposal of this mate-rial as a hazardous waste. Some ethylene glycol was reserved for recharging two casks. NMDF--A confirmatory survey was performed by ORAU for NRC in February, and the license was terminated in October. GJF--Research continued on food irradiation, with work being ~ done on pork shelf-life improvements for Iowa State Univer-p sity. Radiation hardness testing of. inf rared sensors was per-t . formed for the Science Center.- Applied Nuclear Research--fhe mass-spectrometer lab performed measurements.on fusion materials, on tritium " tricked" samples for tritium storage, irradiated reactor pressure vessel mate-rials. Some research work was also done on-fusion neutron dosimetry. Industrial Radiography--Continued production radiography for rocket engine fabrication. A special bare film inspection of a cracked SSME flow channel was performed that allowed repair and acceptance of the engine. Two X-ray tubes were dropped due to failure of the support systems. One radiographer was recorded as having an exposure in excess of the regulatory limits since adequate information did not exist to refute the film badge report. A lead glass viewing window was installed in Cell 6 at C001. Miscellaneous--ISI operations were performed at Atucha, River Bend, Chin Shan, and Fort Calhoun nuclear power plants. Con-sultant services were also provided to TMI-1 regarding ISI by one of our competitors. Generally, routine work was performed in other operations. k ____.__.____.m_______-

'i No.: N001T1000287 ] Page: 6 i ,3 .+ \\ \\ 1. PERSONNFL 005U4ElRY Personnel dosimetry techniques generally consist of two types: those which measure radiation incident on the body f rom external sources (film ~ badges) and those which measure internal deposition of radioactivity via inha- ~ ' lation, ingestion, skin absorption, or through wounds (biaassays). These mea-surement 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 dif ferentiation 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 Q . Personnel external radiation exposures for the pertinent activities for () the year are shown '.n Figure 1 as a cumulative log-normal distribution. It should be noted (see Summary, Section VI) that, with one notable exception, all whole-body exposures were less than 2 rem and were well below the allow-able annual occupational total of 12 rem for NRC and State-licensed operations and 5 rem for DOE operations. The highest expo ;ure shown, 7.36 rem, resulted from an X-ray industrial radiographer, whose film badge showed this during the first calendar of the year. While the exposure seemed unlikely, there was no data available to refute the film badge, and so the exposure had to be ac-cepted. Otherwise, the data show good implementation of the goal of 1 rem per year maximum. For comparison, the distributions of exposures reported for NRC licens-ees(13) and DOE contractorsII4) for 1983 are shown as solid curves. The Rocketdyne dose distribution is well below the NRC distribution and generally below the DOE distribution. A more significant comparison can be i made in terms of the group dose. The group dose received by Rocketdyne __J

t No.: N001TI000287 Page: 7 -s 't 198/ l' H O L E - E O D Y EXPOSURES 1 ' (.- -; ----l l l l l I i I b I I i l / 8 If f s v r / NRC 1983 00E 1983 +3 10 / fo 1 t t / / l l 1 i / /. I / di l i I A 4 / J E / J = / ^ / {v\\ %j} tu { \\ u, +2 10 i i / A I I f f I / I _t i I, I _,l I l - L' l +1 10 2 : e 'c 2 2= =-- L so 53 So 'j B Cumulative Distribution, Percent Figure 1. Cumulative Log-Normal Distribution for Whole-Body Radiation t Exposures of 0.c.cupationally Exposed Individuals in 1987 I e ;s t 'w' u_______,-._

7-- g 1-No.: N001TI000287 l' Page: 8 n I/\\,

1 g" 1987 MONITORED H AN1) EXP0sURES t

I i s n .r W g 43 r10 v. W v1 I e D j a: D-e e J g . W l 'F-e n i e D 3 n e ,1D D 2 r m x r a l i <1 10 to to g, gg C u d u b 4j,+ b ig.4 /s b isVi &, 'P m. d j i Figure 2. Cumulative Log-Normal Distribution for Quarterly Hand n Exposures in 1987 (,

j ? No.: N00lT1000287 Page: 9 Qk employe2s in 1937 amounted to 21.4 persan-rem. Of this total, 7.4 person-rem resulted f rom the industrial radiographer exposure. Of f-site ISI operations accounted f or 5.6 person-rem. Thus, routine operations resulted in approxi-mately 14.4 person-rem. This is the lowest group exposure yet experienced. If the distribution of doses had been that shown for NRC licensees in 1983, the group dose would have been 107.6 person-rem. If the doses had been those shown for DOE for 1983, the group dose would have been 34.0 person-rem, for DOE exposures in 1985, the group dose would have been 32.6. Comparisons such as these should be viewed with caution because of differences in the type of work between the Rocketdyne workforce and both the NRC licensees and the DOE contractors, but generally show a much better level of control in our opera-tions. Adjusted for the suspect industrial radiographer exposure, and without further qualification, the comparisons show that our external exposures are controlled by a factor of 5 better than the average NRC licensee and a factor of 1.7 better than the average DOE operation. 2. Extremity Monitoring 'v 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 should be added 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 (1,010 mrem) and the maximum routine whole-body dose (1,010 mrem) is approxi-mately 11% of the NRC and State of California limits of 18.75 rem per quarter. B. B10 ASSAYS Bioassays normally consist of analysis of urine and occasionally fecal samples. Personnel whose work assignments potentially expose them to radio- ,m active aerosols are rautinely evaluated in this manner. Normally, urinalyses t i i i l V l 1

No.: N00lT1000287 Page: 10 are perforaud quarterly and fetal analysis cnly when ross internal contamira-tion is suspected. A statistical summary of the results for 1987 appears in Table 1, while a detailed listing of the positive results are shown in Table 2. Onl; three types of analyses showed positive results this year: FP3A, UR, and UF. The UF analysis is chemically selective for uranium. The } FP3A analysis is assumed to be indicative of Sr-90, although other radionu-clides, such as Co-60, may also be detected. Further analysis could specifi-cally quantify Sr-90, and identify interfering radionuclides, if significant activities were found. The UR analysis is radiometrically selective for ura-nium, and is ef fective for enriched uranium (EU). Followup results are shown, where available (even into 1988), to indicate the decrease of detected activity to negligible levels. Many of the positive results appear to be the result of laboratory contamination. The excretion rates assumed to be indicative of 1 MPBB for various radio-A nuclides and the minimum detectable activities (MDA) are: Radionuclides Standard Excretion Rate MDA Sr-90 480 dpm/ day 30 dpm/ day U 100 ug/ day 0.30 ug/ day EU 220 dpm/ day 3.75 dpm/ 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-90,14.0%, was essentially gone 49 days 1 later, and may have resulted f rom an unomaly 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). A U l f

r ff No.: N00lT1000287 Page: 11 (h. Q) l

  • . j Table 1.

Summary of Bioassays - 1987 Total Total Individuals Measurement Total Positive .With Positive Type *- Tests Results Results UF 189 7 6 UR 190 2 1 PUA 36 0 0 A FP3A 227 5 4 FP3B 227 0 0 Totai 869 14 11

  • 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) ay peM GI

No'. : N001TI000287 Page: 12 [%-T Table 2. Positive Bioassay Result S = mary - 1987 L) Assumed Critical Results Nuclide Assumed Equivalent ~ ~ H&S Sample Analysis Per Per Specific MPBB ~ " ~ Number Date Type

  • Vol. Anal.

1500 ml-day Radionuclides (%) T ir> 5 102787 UF 0.0003 0.45 0 0.45 1495 102759 UR 2.42 18.17 EU 8.25 1d95 Repeat UF 0.0003 0.45 0 0.45 1495 Repeat UR 0.22 EU 0 1495 120287 UR 0.87 6.50 EU 2.95 1495 Repeat UR 0 0.00 EU 0 1495 011288 UR 0.1198 EU 0 2312 070887 FP3A 8.97 67.27 Sr-90 14.0 2312 082687 FP3A 1.53 Sr-90 0 3078 100587 FP3A 4.04 30.32 Sr-90 6.3-3078 111387 FP3A 3.02 Sr-90 0 2506 100587 UF 0.0015 2.25 U 2.25 3506 111887 UF 0.0000 0.00 0 0 f'N (v) 3914 110187 UF 0.0005 0.75 U 0.75 3914 122287 UF 0.0000 0.00 0 0 -4162 040987 FP3A 6.25 46.85 Sr-90 9.8 4162 072087 FP3A 0.65 Sr-90 0 4162 100587 FP3A 4.04 34.81 Sr-90 7.3 4162 111687 FP3A 2.86 Sr-90 0 4303 072087 UF 0.0014 2.10 0 0 4303 100587 UF 0.000 0.00 0 0 4404 070687 UF 0.0019 2.85 U 2.85 4404 032488 UF 0.0002 U 0 4912 100787 UF 0.0010 1.50 0 1.50 491'2 112087 UF 0.0001 U 0 4948 040687 FP3A 4.66 34.94 Sr-90 7.3 4948 051987 FP3A 0.0000 0.00 Sr-90 0 UF: Fluorometric Uranium (For a brief description of the specific I FP: Fission Products analytical techniques, see Appendix B of UR: Radiometric Uranium Reference 9) 1 g (FP3A is presumptively Sr-90; FP3B is specifically Cs-137) - o 1 l

~n ,,k '. No.: N001TI000287 Page: 13 <~'s 1

M

\\ I!. 3.',C I A T I O.'!/ RAD I C AC l l'/ ! 1 Y lG00 ',I:12ll~ 5 The measurements and surveillance performed to determine local radiation levels in the working areas where radioactive materials are used are described - -- e

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-('"'N ally more effective. control of facility exposure rates. The high-exposure i 1 \\_ ' rate for the fourth quarter in the Applied Nuclear Research Laboratories is associated with the sandblaster. This source should be controlled more ca ref tilly. B. INTERIOR AIR SAMPLES - WORKING AREAS i 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 1987 is given in Table 4. J

s;

~"d [ ) *~ -l \\, _,i ~

No.: N001TI000287 Page: 14 ,r 3 \\~ ) Table 3. Lccation Badge Radiation Exposure - 1937 Calendar Quarter Q1 02 Q3 04 Average Exposure Rate (mR/h) .i ~ ~ ~ ~ Facility Maximum Exposure Rate (mR/h) RIHL 0.06 0.06 0.06* 0.11** 0.58 0.54 0.55 1.43 Fenceline 0.002 0.01 0.016 0.007 0.01 0.023 0.027 0.023 RMDF 1.11 1.14 1.60 1.24 3.77 3.63 5.65 3.83 Fenceline 0.060 0.036 0.028 0.059 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.32 r' [ } GIF 0.024 0.032 0.021 0.016 \\s.,/ 0.096 0.11 0.073 0.064 ANRL 0.26 0.14 0.17 0.17 1.47 0.39 0.49 0.79 "Two badges were damaged by heat, estimated values

    • Additional badges were installed in high exposure areas.

no e s__-

7, (/ t 2 I 9 I 1 9 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 1 1 1 1 1 1 M x x x x x x .i ) 2 1 2 1 2 1 lm 1 / i C 4 2 C C p I 1 P P ( M M 0 0 n 4 1 1 1 0 o Q 4 7 d i x x 0 0 e t t a 6 3 0 0 a 7 r 8 t l 9 n u 1 e c c l 3 C C a n 1 P P c o ~ M M y C r 0 0 t r e 3 1 1 7 1 o a y t Q m t r 0 1 n x x 0 0 m i a e u v u 1 6 S i Q 0 0 r t e e c r w l A a p d s 4 4 m e n e I I C C g a n e ~ ~ P P a S r l 0 0 M M r o a 2 1 1 r b C Q e i r 3 6 v r/ x x 2 4 a A i v A r 1 6 0 0 o e y i g t ,( r a iv e r 5 4 4 4 2 t e i 1 I I I 1 C C t n v P P c I A 0 0 0 0 0 0 H M a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q 5 1 e x x x x x x 3 6 n 4 r 0 3 0 3 4 1 0 0 o e l b b r a i T a e m g u w a a a a m o h a h a h a r i l p t p t p t e x e l e l e l e v a y l a b a b a b A M l p m d l y y a a e m t t r S t d u i i e s e m l l n o t i i i e p s x c c g n o a a a U P M F F fo r e m s r a L F u / e H D a Y r I M c 9 A R R e 1 D 1 5 3}(- (

i 2 No,: N001TIO00287-Page: 16 p. i L x j' m. Ent?.:ii MO:4 '. ! c ?. us Ef fluents which may contain radioactive material are generated at certain l Rocketdyne f acilities as a result of operations performed either under con-tract to DOE, or under the NRC Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-21, or under the State of California Radioactive Material License 0015-70. The spe-l cific facility identified with the NRC license is Building 020 at the SSFL at Santa Susana. An annual report of ef fluent relenes, prepared by Radiation & Nuclear Safety in the Health, Safety, and Environment Department, describes in detail the monitoring program at Rocketdyne for gaseous ef fluents from the Rocketdyne facilities. The data reported in the 1987 edition of that report (16) for atmospherically discharged ef fluents for the f acilities identified above is presented in Tcble 5. (No releases of radioactively contaminated liquids were made, either to the sewer or to the environment.) g V 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 ef fluent 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: Measured Recuired RMDF (Vault 14884) 4/15/87 99.98% 99% RMDF (Vault 14885) 4/15/87 99.95% 99% RMDF (Decon 14886) 4/15/87 99.95% 99% RMDF (Decon 14887) 4/15/87 99.98% S9% RIHL 11/17/87 99.99% 99.95% ANR (EF-405) 6/1/87 99.90% 99% GIF 5/15/87 99.98% 99% All filter systems satisfied their requirements. Y% (v)

O y t s t n chid efit vL 0 0 6 0 1 0 c o piiL 2 r mwt< 5 3 r e a c e P S A dr n O o t a it E n e 1 O e efd 5 0 7 2 7 7 D r coi 0 0 5 0 1 1 t r u d i i. e - G 0 0 0 0 0 0 n l P a f 7 r 0 7 7 7 6 7 5 5 5 7 e 9 ' yd /t 1 te 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 l ois) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ai v ai C a t di eC x x x x x x x x CA s oatl( m TRce s aR 9 7 8 7 5 2 7 8 B e t a 2 6 1 3 2 1 1 s e 2 y x r i s ) A nl d t om n s i/ e d g mdti e p u 5 1 1 0 p a e nd ueaC 4 t t io mvrp 3 2 3 9 7 h l t n A x a n e rt 1 1 1 9 9 6 t e l c liixen5 1 1 1 8 o 0 e T.er i 2 h ase1 i a r aP Mbc-4 T v g t S On0 b iu r 7R r 1F u s o1 A e C( q C o .C r r e s h nA0 t n C1 ) o . ^ U nl it ;a a d om e i/ a g o eti 2 3 4 6 0 1 ee r tt r t l gaC 7 e a aarp 0 3 9 1 9 5 9 pbb h s urt 1 4 0 6 0 0 o ,c nen5 1 8 il n nve3 5 2 r mm s ri o AAc-a// ed i n0 e ii l CC 0 s o1 l C( cpp pr ni s u aa i iu 1 r s m ) l1 f E nl e-ro e om n00 iae t i/ y1 1 1 c a ti d m sh m rtcC 0 1 0 1 0 1 t xx i ei e p 3 e r i x wmt 3 3 3 3 3 k33 oo u e o oie5 0 0 0 0 0 0 c uv. h rl L D8 o,, n t p p Raa iti p f0 hh t nx s A m o1 mpp nee o ( oll ol raa . cak t f I vc A d ii XLia ye smm Fut i// r5 qs tr a a a a ii io h a h a h a h a dCC e5 e vt p t p t p t t e ii l e l e l e lp t epp p) nh S tn A B A D A B e t a3 i t e AM A B c2 4 hm co i1 C dt l t - - 0ea b e 0 010 n e d11 . 2ie a t s 8 8 8 8 0( ar T an 0 0 0 0 t 4yn yxx8 t a moe 1 1 1 ii m) i365aos 1 x s u9 x x x x v d..ct osl n i n r i o( t: 7 yi pmV 7 4 4 '5 ce t o pE 1 5 2 9 oi : ov at ri p A ise fie d t t s ao: t ca e b rt l ae g yn o uol n a to lSL si e o r r'1i l F edr eivt ae5 ra i vaia D5 rl t a tr g d l a o 2 c t t ct n el A 2 o o l nan i: ga 0 l aeoe me ar l S L - L a uiic ud ru: 4 0F 1 F t nbdn si et e 0e 25 25 o n nao su vat 1 D 05 05 T Aarc AG ANo .IJ 1 a bcN CIi' ,!u. 1 i ii i ,l' (- Li

No.: N001TI000287 Page: 18 g k ) IV. F Wi DT!:e!W. :C!! ! O. D!i rmm! xs 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 f acility effluent releases and external radiation levels are reduced to a min-imum. The environmental monitoring program provides a measure of the ef fec-tiveness of the Rocketdyne safety procedures and of the engineering safeguards incorporated into facility designs. Specific radionuclides in f acility ef flu-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 levels are observed. The annual report of environmental monitoring, prepared by Radiation & Nuclear Safety.in the liS&E Department, describes in detail the Rocketdyne p environmental monitoring program. \\v) Some of the data reported in the 1987 edition of that reportO6) are presented here. It is important to remember that the radiological activity levels reported can be attributed not only to operations at Nkr. licensed. 00E-sponsored, and State of California-licensed facilities, but also to external influences such as naturally occurring adioactive materials, the Chernobyl reactor accident, and f allout f rom nuclear weapon testing. These data are: Soil gross radioactivity data presented in Table 6 Soil plutonium radioactivity data presented in Table 7 e De Soto and SSFL Sites - Domestic water radioactivity data pre-sented 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. e ~ 's a____________.__.__.-.-

No.: N001TI000287 l Page: 19 l 73 i \\ (,,/ 1813 E, Soil Radicacti'/ity C2t! - 19P Gross Radioactivity (pci/g) Number Maximumgbserved ~ of Annual Average Value Yalue and Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Month Observed On-site Alpha 48 27 ) 1 7.7 40.1 (quarterly) (Decenter) Beta 48 25.4 + 2.1 30.7 ~ (April) Off-site Alpha 48 25.7 + 7.7 55.1 (quarterly) ~ (April) Beta 48 23.9 + 3.5 29.1 ~ (April) Pond R-2A Alpha 4 24.1 + 6.4 mud No. 55 ~ 33.1 (April) Beta 4 23.6 + 1.2 25.0 ~ (April) Bell Creek Alpha 4 24.9 + 7.7 f upper stream ~ 34.0 (January) (,,/ bed soil Beta 4 24.0 t 0.8 25.2 No. 62 (April) aMaximum value observed for sirgie sample. Table 7. Soil Plutonium Radioactivity Dat_a - 1987 22 June 1987 Survey Results 7 December 1987 Survey Results 238 239Pu + 240p Pu 238 239Pu + 240Pu Sample Pu Location (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pti/g) S-56 0 1 0.0001 0.0006 + 0.0002 0.0006 1 0.0002 0.0018 1 0.0003 5-57 0.0001 0.0001 0.0012 1 0.0003 0.0006 1 0.0002 0.0031 0.0004 _. _g 5-58 0.0002 1 0.0001 0.0022 ! 0.0003 0.0032 1 0.0007 0.0071 ! 0.0010 5-59 0.0001 0.0001 0.0033 1 0.0005 0.0012 1 0.0003 0.0032 t 0.0006 S-60 0 0.0001 0.0017 1 0.0004 0.~ 's 1 0.0007 0.0024 1 0.0005 S-61" 0.0002 + 0.0002 0 + 0.0002 0.00,/ + 0.0001 0.0001 + 0.000k f ti a0ff-site location +e ee-- ut e -___-m__ ______-______-____-______-_______-m.-_______--.____r. _..__________m__

E Il No.: N001TI000287 l Page: 2': I J'qj Table 9. h??ly B2 tar hdic2ctivity 02ta - MS7 Gross F.adicactivity (10-9 pCi/ml) .5 a Number Maximum Value of Average Value and Month Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed De Soto Alpha 12 5.14 i 6.62 25.12 (monthly). (November) Beta 12 3,40 1 0.72 4.52 (November) SSFL Alpha 24 5.1013.81 14.98 (monthly) (April) Beta 24 3.59 1 1.03 6.04 (November) aMaximum value observed for single sample.' O ( -y xo.___.____._---

l l 7 No.: N001T1000287 Page: 21 j--% i l Ta'le 9. ' '\\.s' SSFL Site Retentien Pond. Site Runoff, and Wall Water / a Radioactivity Data - 1987 (Sheet i of 4) cect: ".d'.;,.tG

  • i,y )Luncentr ation

. (x 10-5 pC /mi) -c Fercent of Sar:ples Nurrber Annual Average Maximum Valuea With of Value and Month Activity Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed <LL0b Pond No. 6 Alpha 12 1.75 + 1.65 3.87 100 (Monthly) (October) Beta 12 4.66 + 0.98 5.76 0 (October) Pond No. 12 Alpha 12 2.78 + 1.98 5.35 100 (R-2A) (Monthly) (October) Beta 12 4.38 + 0.61 5.67 0 (October) Upper Eell Creek Alpha 3 2.03 + 0.69 ,r No. 17 (Seasonal) 2.76 100 (March) '\\ Beta 3 3.28 1 0.93 3.85 0 (Novecter) Well WS-4A Alpha c (Seasonal) Beta Well WS-5 Alpha 12 4.06 + 3.50 10.52 75 (Seasonal) (December) Beta 12 3.96 + 0.63 4.91 0 (December) Well WS-6 Alpha c (Seasonal) Beta Well WS-7 Alpha c (Seasonal) Beta l j i ~m L. _m_______-

i 1 I No.: N00lTIO00287 Page: 22 ',N ) Table 9. SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water l' ,'v' Radioactivity Data - 1987 (Sheet 2 of 4) Gross Radioacti ity concentration (x 10 pci/ml) Percent of Samples Nurrber Annual Average Maximum Valuea With of Value and Month Activgty Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed <LLO Well k3-8 Alpha 2 6.86 + 0.28 7.06 0 (Seasonal) (Septecher) Beta 2 3.12 + 0.36 3.37 0 (Septenter) Well W5-9 Alpha c (Seasonal) Beta Wall b3-9A Alpha 1 1.09 + 0 1.09 100 fg (Seasonal) (January) -( ) Beta 1 3.55 2 0 3.55 0 (January) Well WS-SB Alpha c (Seasonal) Beta Well W3-11 Alpha 1 4.43 1 0 4.4D 100 (Seasonal) (Deceeber) Deta 1 4.49 + 0 4.49 0 (September) Well WS-12 Alpha 2 12.97 + 5.19 16.64 0 (Seasonal) (Septeeber) Leta 2 3.70 + 1.21 4.56 0 (June) Well W5-13 Alpha 12 3.99 + 2.08 8.63 92 (Seasonal) (Septenter) Beta 12 4.01 + 0.32 4.62 0 (May) \\v i w m A_-2D--___--._.._--_

l No.: N001TI000287 Page: 23 ( Table 9. SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well '/ater V Radioactivity Data - 1987 (Sheet 3 of 4) Gross Radioacti ity Concentratica (x 10- pci/ml) - ~ - i I Percent of Sanples Number Annual Average Maximum Valuea With of Value and Month Activity Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed <LLDb Well W5-14 Alpha 2 4.82 + 0.93 5.48 '.00 (Seasent?) ~ (Septerrber) Beta 2 4.07 + 0.92 4.71 0 ~ (Septenter) Uell 05-1 Alpha 4 5.49 + 3.20 9.46 75 (Seasonal) ~ (March) Beta 4 4.23 + 0.57 4.88 0 (March) Well 05-2 Alpha 4 7.50 + 4.87 A 15easonal) ~ 14.24 25 / \\ (March) \\ / 8 eta 4 2.88 + 0.78 3.37 0 'd ~ (March) L.ll 05 3 Alpha 2 8.89 + 1.75 10.13 0 (Seasonal) (June) i Beta 2 3.90 + 0.12 3.99 0 ~ (March) Well 05-4 Alpha 2 4.50 + 5.70 8.54 50 (Seasonal) (March) Beta 2 4.50 + 1.10 5.28 0 ~ (March) Well 05-5 Alpha 4 2.44 + 1.97 3.76 100 (Seasonal) (December) Beta 4 4.44 + 0.27 4.85 0 ~ (December) Well 05-8 Alpha 4 3.88 + 2.38 6.44 100 (Seasonal) ~ (December) Beta 4 3.18 + 1.04 4.73 0 - ~ ~ (September) /~3 t

4 No.: N00lTIO00287 Page: 24 7 - ~3 ). (,N/ Table 9. SSFL Site Retention Pcad. Site Runoff, and Well Mater Radioactivity Dat'. - 1937 (Sheet 4 of 4) l '/ toss Radioactivity Concentration ~~ (x 104 pCl/ml) Percent of Samples Number Annual Average Maximum Valuea With of value and Month Activgty Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed <LLD Well 05-10 Alpha 4 1.84 + 1.65 3.78 100 (Seasonal) ~ (March) Beta 4 1.32 + 0.10 1.48 0 ~~ (March) Well 05-13 Alpha 3 3.32 + 3.86 7.24 100 (Seasonal) ~ (March) Beta 3 3.18 + 0.45 3.64 0 ~ (Septenber) Well 05-15 Alpha 3 14.32 + 2.89 16.12 33 . fx (Seasonal) ~ (June) (d Beta 3 5.49 + 1.13 6.64 0 ~ (March) Well 05 Alpha 3 10.32 + 7.65 15.74 33 (Seasonal) ~ (March) Beta 3 4.71 + 0.63 5.09 0 (June) Well RS-20 Alpha 2 1.37 + 1.16 2.19 100 (Seasonal) (DecaTher) Beta 2 1.28 + 0.50 1.63 50 ~ (Septeaber) Well RS-21 Alpha 2 7.73 + 9.67 14.57 50 (Seasonal) ~ (June) Beta 2 2.06 + 0.07 2.11 0 ~ (June) Well RS-22 Alpha 2 -0.88 + 0.005 -0.88 100 (Seasonal) ~ (June) Beta 2 0.93 + 0.35 1.18 50 ~ (June) aMaximum value observed for single sample. b Cs approxirrately 3.2 pCi/g alpfa;.4 x 10-9 lower limit of detection: Approximately 0 pCl/ml alphal 1.10 x'10-9 pCl/mi beta l [ \\ for water: 0.37 pCi/g beta for soil. Q/- CNot sanpled during year due to well seing out of service. t_

No.: N00lTI000287 Page: 25 i s \\v/ Table 10. A.T.b ien t Ai r R+d io2 c t i"i ty 0-2 t 2 - 1927 3 Cross Radioactivity Concegrations--Femtocuries per m ( 10-pCi/ml) Percent of Samples Nurrber Annual Aver.ge Maximum Valuea Percent With Area of Value and Month of (monthly) Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed Guideb Activigy <LLO De Soto on-site Alpha 690 1.9, 2.6 15.3 (05/16) 0.06 99 (2 locations) Beta 26.9 ~ 20.4 111.9 (08/03) <0.01 66 i 55FL on-site Alpha 1770 1.9 + 2.4 36.1 (10/25) 3.2 99 (5 locations) Beta 26.8 ~ 18.1 106.7 (11/13) 0.09 64 z 55FL sewage Alpha 353 2.1 + 2.4 17.1 (10/02) 3.5 99 treatment plant Beta 27.6 ~ 18.6 111.8 (11/13) 0.09 .65 55FL control Alph 338 1.9 1 2.1 9.0 (09/19) 3.2 99 center Beta 27.9 1 20.1 104.1 (11/13) 0.09 64 i All locations Alpha 3151 1.9 1 2.4 Beta 27.0 + 19.0 /} ~ i aMaximum value cbserved for sggle sample. (,/ bCuide De Soto site: pCl/ml alpha, 3 x 10g3 x 10-10 3 x 10-pCi/mi alph pCi/ml beta; 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, CAC 17, 55FL site: 6 x 10-I4 pc'./ml beta; 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, CAC 17, 00E Order 5480 1A. cLLO = 8.5 x 10'I5 pCi/mi alpha; 3.1 x 10-I4 pCi/mi beta. } .l 8 i A l i

  • k i

} i

v t/ a 'jt W4 a L L 7G D D 3 M J 9V 1A 4 4 T ~) O t D. eo Y , C B , E 4 E , D D. T , i

f A

C I D , V N , O I S. , N Y. A. D / \\ N e O T h D , C t 7 E , O 8 R R t 9 U a1 C C y-t O w , P s , S v e i , E LL t A i i / tcS ..- j ; W a s H o e A , G i i E , U d r r , A a R R o A t L e a A r )v V J rL C n O r o b L L o U ba A A '( H b T ,~ P iA d E Y , J B L l A e d , N vF ei , U iLa a ga-n s n u ocS , Y b' , M e a M , R A d , A t g n ar a eS v n , P a , A ,, i' 3o ,f t e o rS a 1 , A ge , R u t D , n i ( F 1 W3 ^- , B ^ E . F

!i

,l n , N 'G;1j !j 4 , A .f, 3 J \\ A 1 2 'e '0 3 0 4 '0 1 1 -o t i3 w2EE $ ! 8'it 1 2 ,? .l l'

k L No.: N001TI000287 Page: 27 m 1 $ E \\s,,,/. -Table 11. De Soto and SSFL Site: - Ambient Radiatien Dosimetry-Data - 1987 Equivalent Quarterly Exposure Exposure at. (mrem) Annual 1000-ft ASL TLD Exposure ' - ~ ex Location Q-1 0-2 Q-3 Q-4 (mrem) (mrem) (prem/h) De Soto 05-1 27 30 36 28 121 122 14 DS-I-27 29 47 26 129 131 15 DS-3 26 30 49 27 132 133 15 DS-4 28 31 39 31 129 130 15 05-5 26 29 38 28 121 122 14 05-6' 28 32 55 30 145 147 17 DS-7 23 37 31 31 122 124 14 DS-8 25 28 28 27 108 109 12 Mean value 26 31 40 28 126 127 14 SSFL SS-1 26 30 54 41 ,151 139 16 SS-2 34 35 57 42 168 155 18 SS-3 29 51 47 40 167 155 18 SS-4 31 56 57 44 188 175 20 <p 55-5 -23 a 31 30 112 99 14 \\, SS-6 30 54 38 32 154 143 16 SS-7 22 41 58 30 1 51 139 16 SS-8 32 65 36 30 163 150 17 SS-9 35 58 42 37 172 160 18 55-10 28 54 37 32 151 141 16 Mean value 29 49 46 36 158 146 17 Off-site 05-1 23 24 34 24 105 108 12 05-2 24 .46 48 25 143 140 16 0S-3 24 48 39 10 141 143 16 05-4 25 49 51 27 152 150 17 05-5 29 42 44 33 148 149 17 Mean value 25 42 43 28 138 138 16 a, sit 1 dosimeter; annual exposure estimated from data for three g3 nuarters. j f O* m a ,, ol s I

1 No.: 'N001T1000287 Page: 26 j (v) v. c:;u=L v:w.a There were several unusual events at f acilities involving radiation or radioactive materials. These events are summarized below. A. REPORTABLE INCIDENTS The film badge processor, R. S. Landauer Jr. and Co., reported that a film badge assigned to a Rocketdyne employee had indicated an exposure of 7,360 mrem for the first calendar quarter of 1987. This exceeds the allowable limit of 1,250 mrem. The individual is an industrial radiographer and occas-sionally performed X-ray machine field radiography in the Peacekeeper assembly room at Canoga and sometimes at the Peacekeeper load facility (PLF) at SSFL. - He had not made entries to the pocket dosimeter record sheets and so no refut-ing evidence could be provided. The radiographer was restricted f rom radio-graphic work for five quarters, until July 1988. Radiographer managers were [^ advised of the need to properly control access to film badges when not in use \\ and to assure that pocket dosimeter readings are properly recorded. A concurrent overexposure of a film badge to 4,570 mrem to another indus-trial radiographer was refuted on the basis of sharp filter lines on the film, indicative of a single, stationary exposure, and proper recording of pocket dosimeter readings. l l I~( 5119Y/bjb i l L_________---__------------------_--

No.: N00lT1000287 Page: 29 t ) 'd S. iiC: C OR!A3LE INCIDENIS The Radiation and Nuclear Safety group provides radiological monitoring and safety guidance for operations with radioactive material (including Spe-cial Nuclear Muterial) and radiation-producing devices. As part of this func-tion, " Radiological Safety Incident Reports" are written 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 program. To promote the purpose of these reports, the reporting criteria have been deliberately lef t vague and general. Generally, a report is written for any / injury occurring in a radioactively contaminated area, abnormal release of t\\s 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 ell 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. January 6, 1987 When doing an exit survey when leaving the high-bay } at RMDF, a worker found contamination on the soles of his shoes. Spotty contamination was found on the floor around the NAC cask being decontaminated, from /'~' spill reported in the "Nonreportable Incidents" sec- { tion of the Annual Review for 1986.13 More exten-sive floor surveys and cleanup were instituted. l i

No.: N00lTI000287 Page: 30 ( '/ 2. Ja"uary 7. 195/ A health physic is t became ccata..inated <;hile survey-ing tools and equipment form the decontamination of the NAC cask (see above). Nasal contamination was detected and bioassay samples were submitted (resui.s were less than detectable). Decontamination was suc-cessful. This was another case of contamination resulting from the extremely concentrated activity found in casks used for LWR fuel shipments. 3. January 16, 1987 A worker at the RMDF, who had suffered a severe burn on one arm due to a grease fire at home, had been restricted from any work with potential for contami-nation. On three occasions, we was assigned to work on or near the NAC cask (see above). A management meeting resolved these improper assignments. 4 March 12,1987 A worker collapsed from heat exhaustion while exist-ing Cell 4 at the RIHL. While no contamination or radiation exposure resulted from this incident, a major effort was made to improve working conditions by cooling the breathing air supply, obtaining " Blue Ice" vests, and also providing training on recogniz-ing the early symptoms of heat strei f-s 5. July 10,1987 A personal survey done on a worker leaving Cell 2 at ( \\ \\s.s the RIHL showed beta contamination up to 20,000 rpm on his right wrist. This was removed by use of dry wipes. It appeared to have resulted from the taped coveralls-to-glove joint opening slightly. Workers were reminded to tape joints carefully. 6. July 14,1987 Contamination was found on a worker's neck while exiting Cell 2 at the RIHL. He was decontaminated by use of dry and wet wipes. This appears to have resulted from tape coming loose from the clothing due to excessive sweating. Workers were cautioned to watch for this. 7. July 19,1987 A water leak on the second floor of DS104 resulted in flooding of several of the Applied Nuclear Research laboratories on the first floor. Surveys of the area and cleanup equipment and analysis of the water showed no radioactive contamination. B. July 20,1987 A worker found contamination on his neck when exiting Cell 2 at the RIHL. He was successfully decontami-nated. This appears to be a repeat of Incident No. 6 (see above). \\ __-__z-1

No.: N00lT1000287 Page: 31 ym () 9. Sepic%r 30,1g'31 'c.'h e n a shieled shioping c en t.11 ner lid '.:3.s bainq reinstalled, the boom of the mobile trane swung to the side, independent of the operator's control. The crane tipped to the side, and the lid hit the ground. The lid was heat damaged. Investigation showed that the boom swing brake was not operative. Improvements in the inspectica and operation practices of the crane were inst w ?ed. 10. November 9, 1987 A large piece of contaminated material was dropped into a waste box in the Decontamination Room at RMDF, .eleasing significant ai rb )rne radioactivity. The worker showed minor nasal contamination and submitted three bioassay samples. All showed less-than-detectable activity. A management conf erence was held regarding work instruction. Material is sup-posed to be wrapped and gently placed in the waste boxes. 11. November 18, 1987 A Maintenance employee entered a contaminated area before he could be stopped. His shoes were contami-nated, but were cleaned satisf actorily. This inci-dent apparently resulted from "English as a Second Language." The entry area was painted yellow with p} red lettering " Caution--Contaminated Flcor" to help 1 prevent recurrente. v 12. December 1,1987 While removing a shield plug f rom Cell 1 at the RIHL, a worker pinched his thumb, releasing blood inside his rubber surgeon's glove. The glove was not broken and no contamination was detected on his thumb. The first two contamination incidents and the last three reported for 1986 had common causes involving a wet contaminated shipping cask. These were reviewed in detail by an ad hoc committee. The number of incidents,12, is a considerable reduction f rom prior years. They are categorized as: Personal contamination (6 incidents) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11 Release of contamination (1 incident) 10 [ \\ I L m ___ .._ _ j

~** Ho,: N001T1000267 Page: 32 O ~' Poten t ial exposure /cor * "'b"' hn (-l inc Men ts) 3, 4, 7,'12 Potential equipment damage (1 incident) 9 ~ It is indicative of the low level of problems experienced durir.g this year that the last two categories refer simply to " potential" problems. Two of the RMDF contamination incidents involved a common cause: the NAC cask, while three of the RIHL incidents involved apparent failure of taped seals on protective clothing. e t t

  • H

__.m___. _u_-----------

a No.: N00lT1000287 Page: 33 I \\ (,/ VI. SU:iMA:P//iREN05 - E,W SURL, EttLUcNIS A. PERSONNEL EXPOSURES Personnel exposures due to external radiation are summarized by year in the following table: 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 >5.0 Persons rems) (rems) 1987' 130 22 15 8 2 1 1 179 27 0.153** 1986 134 20 11 7 5 3 180 23 0.126 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 Os 1982 349 29 8 3 6 15 4 7 8 429 116 0.271 i .) (/ 1981 192 55 13 4 6 4 274 33 0.123 1980 357 39 10 3 5 9 3 426 56* 0.131* 1979 347 39 19 10 4 15 9 2 444 91* 0.204* 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* I

  • Determined by use of mid-point of.nge
    • Includes presumptive exposure of 7.36 rem to industrial radiographer. Omitting this exposure yields a group dose of 20 person-rem and an average dose of 0.112.

l l Data shown t'w i980 anc prior years include visitors. Visitor exposures rerely exceed 0.25 rem. Data for 1981 through 1985 represent occupationally exposed Rocketdyne employees excluding certain workers in Rocketdyne opera-p 'tions predating the merger,'while 1986 and 1987 show all occupational (\\ n

t s No.: - N00lTI000287 Page: 34 [x \\,_- exposuras. The group dose was calculated exactly for the last seven years. This results i:. values that are approximately 10% lower than those calculated b, use of the mid point of the exposure. ranges Exposures during 1987 showed a slight reduction in group dose and average 4 dose f rom prior years. When the presumptive industrial radiographer exposure is excluded, this reflects changes in the continuing effectiveness of the i AL/AA program. Internal dosimetry for the estimation of organ doses or dose commitments that have been received from 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 warrant it. Internal depositions of radioactive material, as monitored by the bio- - assay program, are shown in the table below. Number of Number of Tests Percent Year Tests Performed with Positive Results Positive 1987 869 14 1.6 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 f-1975 1483 ' l 57 3,8 N L___

i No.: N00lT1000287 Pz.g e : 35 [h k lhis table shows, for the past 12 years, all tne tests perf ormed 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-sulated radioactive raterial has decreased. Tests were increased in 1985 and 1986 to provide 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 fo. the two major radionuclides tested during this time period: Cs-173 (FP3B) a d Sr-90 (FP3A). While the FP3A analysis is not specifically selective for Sr-90, that is the most restrictive radionuclides likely to be present end detected. Cs-137 Fraction of Positive Number of Number with Results with Maximum Year FP3B Tests Positive Results less than 0.01% MPBB % MPBB N 1987 227 0 1.0 0 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.Di 1982 171 4 0.667 0.03 1981 141 3 0 0.02 1980 116 4 0 0.04 1913 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 h G

,a. 1 No.: N001TI000287 L Page: 36 gy L ( ) '\\ J <.90 Fraction of Positive Number of Number with Results with Maximum Year FP3A Tests Positive Results less than 10% MP88 % MPBB 1987 222 5 0.60 14.0 ~ 1986 255 25 0.720 20.8 1985 256 19 0.842 14.5 1984 136 15 0.800 45.0 1983 74 0 1.000 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 m i ____.____m_____.

  • 1 No.:

N001TI000287 Page: 37 g3 i \\ '\\s/ B. '4CM PLACE RA01A11CN AMo RADiOAC TIV1H The general radiation levels in the work place, as determined by readings from location badges averaged over the calendar year, are summarized in the .s L* table below: Facility Average Exposure Rate (mR/h) Maximum Exposure Rate (mR/h) Year GIF RIllL ANR RM0F 1987 0.023 0.07 0.18 1.27 0.11 1.43 1.47 5.65 I 1986 0.08 0.06 0.23 2.92 0.22 0.57 1.06 11.3 q 1985 0.16 0.13 0.97 2.74 7sg 0.23 0.87 4.00 29.42 s,/ 1984 0.49 0.13 1.72 0.80 1.15 7.06 1983 0.001 0.47 0.82 0.004 6.42 4.15 l, 1982 0 02 0.10 4.24 j 0.06 0.21 42.4 1 1 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. I ep g g l l l l

..i No.: N001TI000287 Page: 38 p3 l } (,/ Airborne radioactivity.y. in terms of the average percentage of the maximum permissible (occupational) concentration.(MPC) is shown for monitored areas i below: H 4 i Percent of'MPC Year RIHL RMDF 1987 0.4 15.7 1986 0.2 6.3 1985 0.5 4.4 1984 0.5 { 1983 0.5 i 1982 0.06 1981 0.05 1980 0.20 p \\ C. ATMOSPHERIC EFFLUENT RELEASES Atmospheric effluent releases are monitored by use of stack samplers at the major facilities. 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 from natural sources, resulting from the use of unfiltered bypass air in the exhaust system. 1 l A significant change has been made in the manner in which those releases are calculated from the effluent sampling measurements. Prior to 1982, all, concentration values less than the minimum deter ;on level (MDL) were set equal to the MDL in calculating the average concentration release. This was done on the basis of DOE requirements. It was recognized that this practice biased the reported results upwards by a considerable amount, and DOE changed its guidance. Now, all measured values, even zeroes and negative ("less than _) backgrourd") values, are used in the calculation. '( I

i 1 No.: N001T1000287 Page: 39 l 'n s-l 1he major fluctuatica ouserved in the beta activity released from the 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 fraction of the activity reported as discharged f rom the RIHL and the NMDF actually came from natural radioactivity in the unfiltered bypass air taken l into the exhaust systems near the blowers to prevent excessive suction. l l OO i

No.: H001TI000287 Page: 40 . - ~ ~ g - (,/ RAD 10ACllVilY CISCHARGED 10 AliiO5PiiERE i (microcuries) (Sheet 1 of 2) De Soto Santa Susana 101 104 RIHL RMDF NMDF 1987 Alpha 0.29 0.18 0.25 Beta 0.67 3.7 12.0 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 Beta 19.0 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 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 ,m

.c No.: N001TI000287 Page: 41 7-~ RA910ACll'!11Y DISCFARGE9 TO Ai>!OS? HIRE (microcuries) (Sheet 2 of 2) De Soto Santa Susana 101 101 RIHL RMDF NMDF 1977 Alpha 10.0 0.88 0.1 0.11 0.15 Beta 4.1 7.5 13.0 3.0 1976 i 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 from burned fuel slug.

/% l \\s 'I'%

No.: N001T1000287 Page: 42 !n) (/ D. AE WH (ElP!IRCNMNI AL) RA0i AllCN EXPOSJki Ambient (environmental) radiation exposure rates as measured by CaF H" 2 TLDs and averaged for all locations are shown below. Quarterly Dose (mrem) Annual Dose Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec (mrem) 1987 27.2 40.9 43.3 31.5 142.9 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 r ./ 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 Considerable erratic behavior and responses with the TLD reader and the dosimeters were experienced this year and are believed responsible for the relatively higher values shown. Further review and possible editing of these I data is planned. The quarterly doses are plotted as a histogram in Figure 4. This

aph, l

and the tabulated annual doses, show a clear increase from 1976 to 1980,,91-lowed by a decrease for 1981,1982,1983, and 1984. The data for 1985 and 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 )

g o t No.: N001T1000287 7 Page: 43 l',,.- f \\ J p"~ @m m_e_s_m_._ J E M E55Tl BisfS T E ld3?i M E ner.7.wnwwm rerergwwm i e .?'HWN222:s2Kg XgLgyitgigg-gli ? ,nceef, % - m.. - _ L kdi. M.N Mf ) ~ t. mm&M wI _y o 4 m r w n m a m _g _. p_gMgfvME y .t, w u -~e.Ts 2rw Ebgpe.PdBhm g Figg i %4 2 n onm u m % n n.1m m mum eR5 .mo megacer.Lc:me e ierms <= h.g. .i,i.t v a w M n-. Ia. 5.:. L 4_ $bu V' N.a c mm sep1-men c, N ea m E{gEatW_ 7#ffr y s== a l; t x SI4Ts311! n. 1.mit 3" L y g2dTFr fer:nzirS.to . gu-I NTia /^'\\ y, o ec 9_MNPHMf@ &- lh.5 lG5; nee:,,ystwz;.cd{j!rn . a c.s -m = 454Wb9%MMN , N5 . _ hara, 5 [ IINb agug7pmnw hYahh g = e

  1. ggM_2 aat g..h T41 sa Ag lm e.--.

uw b_i~_,,, ~... m w nnu= = m m w s:=a

  • ':sqtymmwn,Jr2Fi911t'i r

h c AbNrN.Ihdhih*ad ff..f?3 gLmL cLw M ~o ..:cr%. INN wmen e = :m,sehy=raam~ pe p" l M O,$l535 E YO ..,.N.. -.Q.; x a=:imiassmmssammmemzunFh{3.s7 IE7 N WA dlJ b '#? m Co r::::: ~ ~ - ~ ~ p J.$r-: J^ 4 47 TJGr&fC# rFim h

c 414;52.} 0it'"
  • C l' *"

WJ2 D$ 'a-E, q

s31,

~ =. 2 3 'i<. ,p, J K ' .M E o c:UI _C E Mf p 1 - c e

  • tnit k bwM4Af.%l Sin.Oke$h

? N E!GibG? 1% C5:a C:3EZNZ A N 5":::: c::e:=s cz:: 5:c:" E--e E=a 5 :::: m m tr:: G g tiY ________._______.m_-

2 No.: H00lTIO00287 Page: 44 (' '-) using a Victoreen Model 2810. lhls is a new reader, built on the basic design of the TL-3 reader, but with modern electronics and digital adjustments and idout. The increasing trend (from 1976 to 1980) was also observed in data for the Rocky Flats Plant, the only other DOE facility where the same type dosi-meters are used, but not at any other facility. The cause has not been iden-tified, but since the 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 environmental effect-, or an artif act of the TLD reading or calibration. ,m $N m =$ L i

No.: N00lT1000287' Page: 45 -~s -{ V \\ The annual ambient exposure rates (mrem / year) measured at ce Soto, SSFL, and the several of fsite locations are shown below: De Soto SSFL Offsite Year Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum 1987 126 145 158 172 138 152 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 7s 1978 128 140 143 149 126 131 ( j 1977 116 125 121 138 106 108 1976 89 99 101 124 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 greater elevation of the SSFL site, and possibly also due to the greater out-cropping of Uranium-mineral-bearing sandstone. There is no indication of sig-nificant exposure resulting from operations with radioactive material. Average and maximum values for soil radioactivity are shown in Table 12. This table shows the change in reported alpha activity resulting from adoption j~ of a calibration factor for" thick soil samples. Prior to 1984, only relative I ' ( l

No.: N001TI000287 Page: 46 7/ 1 V lable 12. Soli Radioactivity demury 1975-1987 Onsite Offsite Alpha Beta Alpha Beta Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year 2 Dispersion Value i Olspersion value 2 Dispersion Value 2 Dispersion Value 1987 27.1 2 7.1 40.1 25.4 2 2.1 30.9 25.7 i 7.7 55.1 23.9 f 3.5 29.1 1986 26.7 6.6 40.1 26.1 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 1.9 32.7 26.3 2 7.6 45.0 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 1 2.9 28.2 a 1983 0.6 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 1982 0.7 2 0.2 1.2 24.6 r 2.3 30.1 0.7 0.2 1.2 23.3 2 3.7 32.9 1981 0.7 0.2 1.3 25.4 1 3.5 38.2 0.6 0.2 1.3 22.8 4.5 33.2 b 1980 0.6 2 0.2 1.1 24.0 2 1.0 110.0 0.6 2 0.2 1.0 23.0 2 1.0 30.0 1979 0.6 2 0.2 1.1 25.0 2 1.0 97.0 0.5 2 0.1 0.8 23.0 1.0 29.0 ( 1978 0.6 0.2 1.0 24.0 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 0.8 27.0 1976 0.6 2 0.2 0.8 25.0 1.0 32.0 0.6 2 0.2 1.0 24.0 1.0 30.0 1975 0.6 2 0.1 1.0 25.0 2 1.0 35.0 0.6 0.2 1.0 24.0 1.0 27.0 a Values reported for alpha activity in soil before 1984 are relative values only. The 1984 values reflect correction for self absorption of alpha particles by the thick soil sam b rlor to 1981,plesdata less than the MDL were treated as equal to the MOL. For 1981 and P later, actual measured values were used. 5119Y/rmr O) 1%./

_ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - = - - - - 1 No.: N00lT1000287 Page: 47 p valuas '..are reported,.;hkh scrud tha f unc tica of c.:ailcring for chanus quite well but produced values that did not reflect the correlation of alpha and beta activity f rom 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 1680 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 f rom a cleanup of the so-called " West Bank" near the RMDF just prior to these years. The 1978 and 1981 values were from 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 value exceeds the working limit of 100 pCi/g gross detectable beta activity adopted for our decontamination work.) ,/ " Results for the semiannual plutonium soil analyses are shown in Tables 13 ( and 14. The onsite averages are generally higher than offsite 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 dif ferent locations around the world, the concentration at a given location is af fected by meteorological conditions following the test explosion and af ter deposition. Comparison of the onsite values shows no systematic variation with location relative to the NMDF. Af ter 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-pling was discontinued.

No.: N001T1000287 Page: 43 Table 13. Plutonium in Soil Summary 1978-1987 (Pu-239 + Pu-240,.fCi/g) Onsite Offsite ~ Average Maximum-Average Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion 1987 2.7 - 1.8 7.1 0.1 1 0.1 1986 1.8 1 1.3 3.8 1.211.0 1985 2.6 1.5 5.1 0.4 1 0.2 1984 3.1 1.3 5.2 0.4 i 0.2 1983 5.2 4.4 14.4 .7.0 1 0.2 1982 4.0 2.4 7.3 2.7 1 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 6.7 18.9 2.611.3 1978 4.5 1 2.9 9.0 4.4 1 1.6 \\v Grand Average 4.3 4.5 7.1 2.0 1 2.7 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 3.8 4.4 14.4 December 1983 S-57 900 ft SE NMDF 3.5 1 2.3 9.5 June 1980 S-58 500 ft SE NMDF 5.1 1 4.3 18.9 December 1979 S 900 ft ESE NMDF 4.4 1 3.9 18.6 December 1979 S-60 2000 ft SE NMDF 4.9 i 6.7 29.5 December 1980 S-61 2.7 mi. NE NMDF 7.1 June 1983 /7 5119Y/rmr $v)

l No.: N001T1000287 l Page: 49 f~ 1 /- Alpha ard beta radioactivity in tha supply..eler et the De Sole and $5FL 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 suoplied by Ventura County Water District I No.17, with varying amounts of supplemental water (up to 100%) from 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 from 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 168. The radioactivity concentrations in all three water sources sampled are quite similar. (Pond R-2A receives runoff and effluent from the Santa Susana nuclear facilities, while Pond 6 receives runoff and [' ef fluent from the other f acilities. The Bell Creek sample, from the location i sampled prior to 1986, appears to be mostly seepage from 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 for 1986. No radionuclides present at the nuclear facilities have been found. Tables llA and 17B show the results of alpha and beta radioactivity mea-surements on ambient air samples. An apparent extreme decrease in alpha radioactivity after 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 inclu-sion in the average. This artificially elevated the average value. This ef fect was not nearly so great for the beta activity measurements. The beta values for De Soto, SSFL, and of fsite samples are essentially identical. (The "offsite" samples are located at SSFL but at a considerable distance from the nuclear facilities.)

No.: N001T1000287 y Page: 50 ( ) \\l Tabla 15. Supp ly *..'a le r Ra d i ve i. i v i ty Sun:r.u ry, 1915-1957 l De Soto SSFL Alpha Beta -Alpha Beta Average Maxinun Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year t Dispersion Value 2 Dispersion Value Dispersion Value Olspersion Value 1987 5.14 6.62 25.12 3.40 2 0.72 4.52 5.10 1 3.81 14.98 3.59 1.03 6.04 1986 4.41 2 2.53 8.70 3.75 0.62 4.69 6.55 i 9.09 45.77 3.58 g 0.95 6.75 1985 2.76 3 1.82 5.73 3.17 0.78 4.6 2.45 2.61 8.6 2.80 t 0.52 3.95 1984 3.82 3 0.93 5.87 3.40 2 0.45 4.3 3.53 2 3.94 13.3 2.93 0.60 4.01 a 1983 0.34 0.23 0.88 3.53 2 0.97 5.1 0.12 ! 0.13 0.41 3.00 3 0.60 4.45 1982 0.36 2 0.23 0.79 3.97 1 1.19 6.6 0.14 0.12 0.38 3.01 g 0.67 4.91 1981 0.36 2 0.20 0.77 3.78 0.68 4.7 0.11 0.12 0.44 2.79 2 0.55 3.65 b 1980 not analyzed 0.22 t 0.27 0.22 2.4 i 0.7 3.4 1979 not analyzed 0.23 3 0.27 0.23 1.8 0.7 3.9 1978 not analyzed 0.26 2 0.28 0.44 3.0 g 0.8 3.6 g ( ) 1977 not analyzed 0.25 + 0.29 0.30 2.5 + 0.7 3.6 \\J ~ ~ 1976 not analyzed 0.25 0.29 0.42 2.0 0.7 2.5 1975 not analyzed 0.24 2 0.27 0.55 2.3 g 0.7 3.2 a values reported for alpha activity in water before 1984 are relative values only. Subsequent values reflect correction for self absorption of alpha pa: titles by the thick mineral (leposit of the counting sample. bPrior to 1981, data less than the MDL were treated equal to the POL. later, actual neasured values were used. For 1981 and 5119Y/rmr i I J \\ O L =

No.: N00lTI000287 Page: 51 i T 1 L) Table 16A. Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary 1975-1987 (Alpha, pCi/L) { Pond R-2A Pond 6 Bell Creek Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum i Year i Dispers hn Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value 1987 2.78 1 1.98 5.35 1.75 i 1.65 3.87 2.03 1 0.69 2.76 c 1986 4.18 i 2.70 8.70 2.51 1 2.88 9.51 2.02 1 2.08 5.90 1985 3.07 1 1.94 6 61 1.06 4.44 13.6 1.38 1 7.09 19.7 1984 0.15 1 1.70 2.70 4.90 1 9.11 25.9 4.15 i 8.30 28.7 a 1983 0.13 0.12 0.35 0.12 0.11 0.27 0.08 1 0.12 0.39 1982 0.1110.13 0.28 0.1710.08 0.35 0.03 1 0.06 0.14 1981 0.07 0.15 0.37 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.05 1 0.06 0.20 b 1980 0.M i 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.23 1 0.27 0.23 i 1979 C.23 0.27 0.25 0.25 1 0.28 0.55 0.23 0.27 0.24 (~N 1978 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.25 1 0.28 0.35 0.24 0.28 0.24 1977 0.25 i 0.29 0.23 0.24 0,29 0.25 0.24 1 0.29 0.24 1976 0.28 0.30 0.53 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.25 1 0.29 0.28 1975 0.31 1 0.29 1.2 0.24 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 tb MDL were treated as equal to the MDL. P For 1981 and later, actual measured values are used. cPrior to 1986, Bel'. Creek was sampled at the eastern boundary of the residential community of Bell Canyon. In 1986, an automatic water sampler was installed that collects water only wL n water is present in the upper part of Bell Creek, immediately downstream from the discharge of Pond R-2A. 5119Y/rmr Ob P \\

6 No.: N00lTI000287 A Pa9e: 52 t G Table 168. Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary 1975-1987 (Beta,pCi/L) Pona R-2A Pond 6 Bell Creek Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value 1987 4.38 1 0.61 5.67 4.66 1 0.98 5.76 3.28 1 0.93 3.85 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 i 0.96 4.92 2.49 1 0.75 3.79 1984 4.25 i 0.85 5.87 4.58 0.75 5.66 2.88 1 0.58 4.60 1983 4.44 i 1.84 9.15 3.57 0.92 4.80 3.30 1 0.60 4.20 1982 3.93 0.83 5.8i 3.9) i 1.08 5.34 3.29 1 0.70 4.40 1981 5.16 1.22 8.30 4.25 0.63 5.26 3.78 i.65 5.00 a 1980 3.9 0.8 5.70 2.9 0.7 4.7 2.9 1 0.8 5.2 1979 4.5 0.8' 10.0 3.1 1 0.8 4.7 3.2 1 0.9 8.2 1978 4.6 0.8 6.3 4.3 0.8 7.0 2.5 1 0.8 3.5 A 1977 5.2-0.9 13.0 4.3 :. 0.8 6.4 1.8 10.8 2.6 1976 4A 0.8 7.0 4.3 :: 0.8 5.5 2.2 i 0.8 2.9 1975 4.5 0.8 5.4 4.2 3 0.8 5.C 2.4 1 0,P 3.4 aPrior to 1981, data less than the MDL were treated as equal to the MDL. For 1981 and later, actual measured values are used. bPrior to 1986, Bell Creek was sampled at the eastern boundary of the residential community of 8 ell Canyon. In 1986, an automatic water sampier was installed that collects water only when water is present in the upper part of Bell Creek, immediately downstreain from the discharge of Pond R-2A. 5119Y/rmr (./ l

a g. A No.: M001T!000287 .Page: 53 ,r i \\ i Table 17A. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary l 1975-1987 3 t (Alpha, fC1/m ) De Soto SSFL Offsite i Average Maximum Average Maximum . Average Maximum j Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value 1987 1.9 1 2.6 15 1.9 1 2.4 36 1.9 1 2.1 9 1986 2.9 1 3.4 22 2.8 1 3.3 37 2.9 1 3.3 33 1985 2.7 i 2.2 38 2.0 i 1.6 44 2.0 i 1.9 25 1984 1.9 9.3 32 1.4 1 3.4 29 1.4 1 3.0 16 1983 2.4 3.8 60 0.9 5.4 24 1.2 1 2.9 11 1982 1.7 3.1 39 1.1 1 2.6 30 1.7 1 2.9 16 a 1981 6.9 7.7 25 6.8 i 7.9 35 6.8 1 7.2 22 1980 6.5 7.7 45 6.4 7.8 25 6.3 7.8 20 1979 6.6 7.8 45 6.5 7.6 40 6.2 1 7.9 34 1978 8.4 8.1 95 7.2 1 7.9 21 7.2 1 7.3 44 \\ 1977 6.6 7.7 39 6.6 1 7.5 35 1976 6.7 8.4 140 6.5 7.2 53 1975 6.3 6.8 60 6.0 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. 5119Y/rmr i I k L_____-_-_--_----_._

l No.: N001TIO00287 [ .p Page: 5.i [ () Table 178. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary 1975-1987 (Beta, fCi/m ) De Soto SSFL Offsite Ave age Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum i Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion .Value i Dispersion Value 1987 27 1 20 112 27 1 18 107 28 1 20 104 1986 58 103 1236 60 i 94 1579 60190 1233 1985 44 14 180 40 13 170 40 i 14 240 1984' 27 1 27 250 23 14 200 24 1 20 230 1983 26 1 21 130 23 17 180 25112 280 1982 26 14 260 21 1 16 180 22112 88 a 1981 120 20 1100 120 20 1100 120 1 20 1600 1980 39 14 380 36 14 450 34 i 15 360 1979 21 13 100 21 i 13 110 19 + 15 100 -[V} 1978 91 17 1400 88 17 1500 86 16 1300 1977 170 20 3000 170 1 20 2800 1976 96 18 3700 110 1 20 3400 1975 75 i16 460 73 15 730 aPrior to 1982, data less than the MOL were treated as equal to the MDL. For 1982 and later, actual measured values are used. 5119Y/rmr .lV.

~t k No.: N0?TTI000287 Page: SS -t \\ VII. N!!!CIPAlEC AC:1VI!ICS DURIllG in:ri REFGRiiNG FEiiiGO (1988) Byilding 104 (GIF and ANR). continuation of low-level research with activated materials and operation of the Gamma Irradiation Facility. Building 020 (RIHL) Continue cleanup of cells in preparation for next project. Perform dem-onstration of D&D techniques. Buildings 021/022 (RMDF) Shipment of disassembled Fermi fuel and scrap. i C ( Sil9Y/rmr

p p .y I No : N001TIO00287 Page: 56 . f~5 V) l' ( i REIERENCES 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Special Nuclear Haterials License No. SNM-21, USNRC (June 28, 1984) 2. " Annual Review' of Radiological Controls - 1975," R.

5. }lart, Atomics International, Rockwell International, N00lTI990002, July 2, 1979 3.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1976," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-tems Group, Rockwell International, M001TI990003, April 2,1980 4. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1977," R. S. Ilart, Energy Sys-tems Group, Rockwell International, N00lT1990098, May 27, 1980 5. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1978," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-tems Group, Rockwell International, N001T1990104, August 6, 1980 6. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1979," R. S. liart, 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, N00lT1990144, July 14, 1981 (N /~ 8. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1981," R. R. Eggleston, Energy ) Systems Group, Rockwell International, N00lTI990176, January 21, 1983 m) 9. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1982," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lTI000238, Jcnuary 29, 1985 10. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1983," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lT1000256, January 27, 1986 11. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1984," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lTI000257, March 30, 1986 12. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1985," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lT1000260, July 4, 1986 13. " Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1986," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lT100285, July 1987. 14. " 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, Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1985 15. " Sixteenth Annual Report - Radiation Exposures for DOE and DOE Contractor n Employees - 1983," 00E/PE-0072, October 1984 U l l

s .t' No.: N001T1000287 Page: 57 16. " Roc'. c tdyne Envi run.:mn tal Moni toring an;1 rac ili ty Ff fluon t Anm:.31 Report - 1987," J. D. Moore, Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division, RI/RDS8-144, March 1988 17. " Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959)," ICRP Publication 2 1 1 l l ~ 5119Y/bjb L )}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236E495&oldid=3940559"