ML20236E498

Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1988

ML20236E498
Person / Time
Site:	07000025
Issue date:	05/12/1989
From:	Tuttle R ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML19311A788	List: ML19311A787 ML19311A789 ML20236E479 ML20236E482 ML20236E487 ML20236E492 ML20236E495 ML20236E498 ML20236E502 ML20236E505 ML20236E510
References
N001TI000301, N1TI301, NUDOCS 8906050291
Download: ML20236E498 (71)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _.

.g

./ 4

[

SUPPORTING 'OCUMENT GONO.

3/ A NO.

PAGE 1 oF TOTAL PAGES REV LTR CH NO NUMBER 96110 l

71 71 NC N00lTI00030l k

PROGRAM TITLE PE D

Health, Safety and Environment DOCUMENT TITLE

~

Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1988 OOCUMENT TYPE KEY NOUNS Technical Information ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE REL.DATE APPROVALS DATE 5-lM9 cd PREPARED BY/DATE DEPT MAIL ADDR

.j Q'

b I% CT R. J Tuttle 641 T100 tI C. J.

as perg IR&D lOGRAM) YEsO NO IF YES FNTER TPA NO DISTRIBUTION AB STR ACT Data on employee exposures, bioassay results, effluent M All U

NAME ADDR releases, in-plant airborne radioactivities, and environ-

• F. H. Badger T020 mental monitoring for Rocketdyne operations during 1988

• R. Bulthuis BA61 are reviewed.

This review is prepared, as required by-

• J.

A. Chapman T100 Special huelear Materials License No. SNM-21, to deter-(

• V. Keshishian HB23 mine (1) if there are any upward trends developing in-

• M. Marko HB03 personnel exposures for identifiable categories of

• J. O. Moore T100 workers or types of operations or effluent releases,

• W. E. Nagel' LB03 (2) if exposures and effluents might be lowered under

• R. Lancet (7)

HA02 the concept of as low as reasonably achievable, and

• R. D. Rogers HB07 (3) if equipment for effluent and exposure control is

• J. A. Rowles T100 being properly used, maintained, and inspected.

• C. J. Rozas CB01 Personnel exposures have been further reduced.

• I. N. Stein EA08 Effluent releases are at insignificant levels com-

• V. A. Swanson T006 pared to regulatory staridards, do not show any upward

• R. J. Tuttle (3)

T100 trends, and do not appear to be reducible by reason-

• J. H. Wallace T034 able means.

• F. E. Begley T001 One filter plenum did not pass the required effi-M. R. Davis AA47 ciency test; however, continued operation was permitted D. C. Gibbs HB13 after reviewing the materials involved.

• R&Nb Library T100 To the extent covered by this review, all other equip-

• DOE / SAN - NSQA T100 ment for ef fluent an( exposure control was properly

• NRC Licensing (11)

HA02 used, maintained, es inspected.

513'i Y/sj h RE5L RV ED FOR PROPRIET ARY/ LEG AL NOTICES 9906050291 890525 PDR ADOCK 07000025

[

PDC

% COMPLETE DOCUMENT NO ASTERISK. TITLE PAGE

SUMMARY

FORM 606-A-31 NEW 4 73 OF CHANGE PAGE ONLY FORM 734 C REV %4

- ? *:

p hfl 1 :

No.:

N001TIOOO301 4

i o.-

h Page:

'2 Se-^i CONTENTS j

t V

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

4 I,

Pe r s o re n e l D o s i me t ry.............................................

7

. ~ -

A.

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

4...................

T 8.

81oassays...................................................

-11 II.

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

22 A.

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

22 8.

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

24 III.

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

26 IV. ' Envi ronmental Moni toring Prog ram...............................

30' f

V.

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

40 A.

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

40 B..Nonreportable Incidents.....................................

40 V I., Summa ry/ Trends - Expos u re, E f f l uents............................

~44

'A.

Personnel Exposures.........................................

44 B.

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

50 C.

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

51-D.

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

54

.w VII.

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

69 References.............................................................

70 TABLES 1.

S u mma ry o f B i oa s s a y s - 19 8 8......................................

12 i

2.

Pos i t ive Bioassay Resul t Summa ry - 1988.........................

13 3.

Location Badge Radiation Exposure - 1988........................

23 4.

I nt e ri o r Ai r Sampl e S umma ry - 19 88..............................

25 5.

Atmospheric Emissions to Unrestricted Areas -

1988..............

27 6.

Soil Radioactivity Data -

1988.................................

31 7.

Soil Plutonium Radioactivity Data - 1988........................

31

.8.

Supply Water Radioactive ty Data - 1988..........................

32 o

l.

l 1

1 -j b No.:

N001TIO00301 Pa9e:

3 TABLES

. f.

./

(

Page v

9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Rad i oa c t i v i t y Da ta - 19 88........................................

33 10.-

Ambient Air Radioactivity Data -

1988............................

37.

.11.

De Soto.and SSFL Sites - Ambient Radiation Dosimetry Data - 1988.

39 12.

Soil Radioactivity Summary, 1975-1988............................

59 13.

Plutonium in Soil Summary, 1978-1988.............................

61 14.

Sumn.a ry o f. P l u t o n i um. i n S0 i 1....................................

61 15.

-Supply Water Radioactivity Summary, 19 7 5 -19 8 8....................

64 16A.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary ( Alpha), 1975-1988.....

65 168.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary (Beta), 1975-1988......

66 17A. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary (Alpha),

1975-1988.............

67 17B. ' Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary (Beta),

1975-1988..............

68 FIGURES 1.

Whol e Bod y Dos es f o r 19 8 8........................................

8 2.

Cumulative Weekl.y broup Dose f or Nuclear Operations..............

10 v

3.

1988 Bioassay Ccipa ri sons, UF Varsus UR..........................

16-4.

1988 Bioassay Comparisons, FP3B Versus FP3A.................

17 5.

Cumulative Probability Plot of FP3A Results......................

18 6.

Cumulative Probability Plot of FP3B Results......................

19 7.

Cumulative Probability Plot of UR Results........................

20 8.

Cumulative Probability Plot of UF Results........................

21 9.

RMDF Pond Water Activity.........................................

29 10.

Average Long-Lived Airborne Radioactivity at the De Soto and Santa Susana Field Laboratories Sites - 1988.....................

38 11.

Lifetime Accumulated Doses - 1988................................

46 12.

Lifetime Annual Dose Rate - 1988.................................

47 13.

Averaged Quarterly Dose Recorded by Environmental TLDs...........

56 OO-L

)

No.:

N001T1000301L W-Page: 4 INTRODUCTION y

\\

The Rocketdyne special nuclear materials license {j) requires that an dnnual report be made to the Radiation Safety Committee of the Nuclear Safe-guards Review Panel reviewing personnel exposure and effluent release data.

The format and content of this report have been well established in prior

' issues.(2-14)- While this report is prepared primarily to satisfy a require-ment of the NRC license, all operations with radioactive naterial and radia-tion-producing devices have been included.

These reports for the years 1975 through 1987I2~I4) 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 C

same building.

In these cases, certain measurerrents (e.g., ventilation air exhaust radioactivity and workplace radiation exposure) have not been made separately for each type of activity.

c Additionally, it is not practical to separate the personnel doses to

'(

those attributable' to nonlicensed activities-for the D00 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.

Radioactive Material Disposal Facility (RMDF) - Buildings 021, 022, and related f acilities at Santa Susana Field Laboratories (DOE jur-isdiction) 3.

Applied Nuclear Technology _(ANTJ - The Gamma Irradiation Facility and Laboratories in Building 104 at De Soto.

r u#

No.:

N001T1000301

.n Page:

5

/j Work at various facilities during 1988 is briefly described below:

't i

v RIHL--Development of D&D techniques and procedures for the Hot Lab e

continued. These included honing, electropolishing, and sandblast-ing for through-tubes, and the development of a special radiation detector for determination of residual radioactivity inside througL-tubes and drain lines. The SEFOR filter plenum was disposec' of, and some TRU waste was repackaged for disposal. Decontamination work included cleanup of all four cells and decon rooms 1, 3, and 4.

Surveys show that more cleanup is needed in #

, 3, and 4.

Some floor scabbling was done, and some overhead structures were removed.

A gamma irradiator was moved from the Rockwell Internat'onal Science Center, unloaded, and prepared for shipment to Washingtoa State University, i

RMDF--Waste characterization, repackaging, and shipping v.cupied a e

major pdrt of the year.

Most of the disassembled Fermi fuel assem-blies were shipped to INEL for reprocessing, but this was halted when the trailer carrying an empty shipping cask back to RMDi tipped over just before entering the RM0f.

A DOE investigation fourtd that weld areas had cracked and weakened the trailer f rame.

During the earlier fuel shipping operations, a canister was dropped. Subse-quent leak testing showed that there was no damage'to the integrity of the canister. Water f rom decontamination operations was evapora-ted and the sludge, packaged for disposal.

()

Decontamination and Decommissioning--The decontamination of the ground. floor of DS104 was completed, and demolition was done to per-mit renovation of the area. Most of the drainlines that had served radioactive labs were removed.

At Building T059, the remaining sand and-the vacuum dust were removed from the Pipe Chase Room and dis-posed of as radioactive waste.

Building T028 was decontaminated to permit conventional demolition of the above-grade portion, with the basement vault left in place.

Gif--Electronic equipment from the Rockwell Science Center was irra-e diated to test for radiation hardness, using the Co-60 sources Following the restriction by DOE to not use the WESF Cs-137 sources, these sources were kept in the storage cask.

A leak test was per-formed by smearing the exits of the cooling air channels (no actis-ity was found).

Applied Nuclear Technology--lhe mass-spectrometer lab performed mea-surements on fusion materials, on tritium " tricked" samples for tri-tium storage, irradiated reactor pressure vessel materials. Some research work was also done on fusion neutron dosimetry.

f~^

1,-

I l.

a.-' ' e ~ '-

L No.:

N001T1000301' N

'i

.Page:

6 l

Industrial Radiography--All' X-ray machine operations at Canoga and y

De Soto were inspected by'L.A. County, for the State of"Ca?ifornia.

'k y '

In response.to the findings of this inspection, improvements in the in '

shielding of six X-ray booths at CA we.e developed and approved.

Warning lights were installed on portable X-ray' heads.

Requirements for X-ray operations 'at Stennis Space Center (in Mississippi) were Investigated, end a cooperative arrangement with the operating con-tractor was formalized.

There were five film badge problems (lost, or accidentally exposed).

Industrial' radiography managers were pro -

9 vided with radiation safety training.

D, Miscellaneous,-No ISI operations were' performed this year. General-e t

ly routine work was performed in other operattoris.

.\\

n

(

O

f'

"_ f ;.

C L

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

7

/'

1.

PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY

\\A_

Personnel dosimetry techniques generally consist of two types:

those which measure radiation incident on the body from external sources (film badges) and those which measure internal deposition of radioactivity via inhalation, 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 Monitorino

. Personnel external-radiation exposures for the pertinent activities for p

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 5 rem for DOE operations.

The highest exposure shown,1170 mrem, resulted f rom an X-ray industrial radi-ographer, 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 accepted. Otherwise, the data show good implementation of the goal of I rem per year maximum.

For comparison, the distributions of exposures reported f or NRC licen-and DOE contractors (16) for 1983 are shown as solid curves.

sees The Rocketdyne dose distribution is well below the NRC distribution and 1

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 1988 amounted to 18.47 person-rem. This is the lowest group

No.:

N001T1000301 i-i-

Page: 8

{

f 19999

!!HOLH0DY DOSES FOR 1983 l r

\\u.

/

/

/

1000a E

NRC 1983

?

a

.i DOE 1983 100 g

/ERS

~

/

10

- :-==-

('] -

0 1%

10xCUMULATIVEPROBABILIIV90%

99X 100 L

Figure 1.

Whole Body Doses for 1988 exposure yet experienced.

If the distribution of doses had been the average reported for NRC licensees in 1985, the group dose would have been 70.1 person-rem.

If the doses had been those averaged for DOE in 1985, the group dose would have been 30.4 person-rem. 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 operations.

2.

Extremity Monitorina No specific extremity monitoring was required in 1988.

OL)

t No.:

N001T1000301 m

~

Page: 9 3.

. Nuclear Operations Dose Monitoring i-.

/

= The radiation workers in Nuclear Operations are closely monitored for

. dose by use of direct-reading pocket dosimeters, with the cumulative dose recorded on a weekly basis. The readings are corrected by use of a calibra-tion f actor f or each dosimeter.

fhese recorded doses are adjusted following-reporting of the results of the film badge dosimetry.

The dosimeter results are compared with the film doses for group doses (person-millirem) in each

- qua rte r:

Overestimate Quarter Dosimeter film

(%)

First 1947 1590 22.5 Second 1429 990 44.3 Third 9975

-9010 10.7 fourth 2761 2010 37.4 This discrepancy seems most likely to be caused by electrical leakage of.the 4

dosimeter, as it would be accounted for by a leakage rate of approximately 2-3 mR/ week, based on the number of dosimeters used to estimate doses. The

.i dVerage leakdge for dosimeters is approximately 5-7 mR/ week, so-it appears-that the dosimeter calibration f actors are slightly low.

,The weekly :;umulative group dose for Nuclear Operations is shown in figure 2.

The rapid increase during the third calendar querter is from the expo-sures received during removal of the attivated sand and vacuum dust in Build-ing T059. Since this project dealt with relatively high-activity material in close, unshielded proximity to the. corkers, considerable effort was made to control doses to levels that were n low as reasonably achievable. Especially effective ventilation, portable shielding, and long tool handles were used to i

reduce exposures.

The total group dose for the project in 1988 was 9.55 per-son-rem, while the planning estimate had been 5.0 person-rem.

The actual i

)

q.

No.:

N00lTI000301 Page:

10 ya 14EEXLV PERS0H;EL DOSES kl.Q o

(4'

,,st 4

I t

n B

Y 8-C ca.

8.

4 3

8 g-e e-4 w

s 6

V i t G

f#f

,te'49ti g

6 k

0 0

Calendar Year 1988 (weeks) 52 Figure 2.

Cumulative Weekly Group Dose for Nuclear Operations group dose exceeded the predicted value due primarily to the increased person-nel and time spent in the Pipe Chase Room (PCR):

shoveling sand (we had over-estimated the efficiency of sand removal by a vacuum cleaner), difficulty in cutting and separating duct segments due to the presence of closely spaced I

cooling coils and Thermon, and removal of the heavy wall vertical duct sup-port. The high radiation level within the PCR during planning stages pre-vented an accurate determination of the sand volume and a close examination of the duct covered by sand.

I l

I Y.

'No.:

N001T1000301 T.

Page:

11 B.

B10 ASSAYS V

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

Personnel whose work assignments potentially expose them to radioac-Live aerosols are routinely evaluated in.this manner. Normally, urinalyses die performed quarterly and fecal analysis only when gross internal contamina-tion is suspected. A statistical summary of the results for 1988 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 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 radionuclides, such as Co-60, may also be detected.

Further analysis could specifically quantify Sr-90, and identify interfering radionuclides, if significant-activities were found. The UR analysis is radiometrically selective for uranium, and is ef fective for enriched uranium (EU).

Followup results are shown, where available (even into 1989), to indicate the decrease.of detected activity to negligible levels. Many of the positive results appear to be the result of laboratory contamination..This appears to be true for three of the highest FP3A results, which were not confirmed by repeat analyses of the same samples.

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

Radionuclides Standard Excretion Rate MDA Sr-90 400 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 ar tually exists.

O A

..?

N,

-,:: r

No.:

N001T1000301-:

'Page:

12

[ -

(

. lable '1.

Summary of. Dioassays. - 1988 Total Total: Individuals Measurement Total Positive With Positive Type

• Tests Results Results UF 238 5

-4

-UR 238 1

-1 32 0

0 PUA Am-241

-4 0-0 FF3A 305 11**

9

./ i -

k

-FP38 305 0

_0 Total 1122 17 14

• Uf J Uranium - fluorometric

'UR 4 Uranium - Radiometric PUA =' Gross Plutonium-alpha FP.:, Tission-Products (for a discussion of' specific' analytical techniques employed, as' identified by " TYPE," See Appendix-B in Reference 9)

• • Plus three positive results that were not confirmed by repeat analysis.

.f IA m :--_ __

'No.:

N001T1000301 1*

.Page:

13

.D Table'2.

Positive Bioassay Result Summary 1988 (Sheet 1 of 2)

Assumed' Critical Results

'Nuclide-Assumed Equivalent Per Per Specific MP8B L

. H&S Sample Analysis Number Date Type

• Vol. Anal.

1500 mi-day Radionuclides

(%)

723 081588 FP3A 4.3838 32.88 Sr-90.

6.85

~723

_101888-

-FP3A 1.511 Sr-90 3207 042988 FP3A 7.036 52.77

.Sr-90 10.99 3207.

REPEAT FP3A.

1.257 Sr-90 3207 061988 FP3A 1.327 Sr-90 Sr-90' 3207 07'388 FP3A 1.1659 3742 080988

.fP3A 4.4782

-33.54 Sr-90 6.99-3742 091288 FP3A 2.336 Sr-90 Sr-90 3742 101088 FP3A-1.978 Sr-90

'3742

-120488

.fP3A 0.5252 3914 111088 FP3A 6.563 32.81 Sr-90 6.84 (p)

Sr-90

-3914 011789 FP3A 1.941 3983 081988 UR.

0.6428 4.82 EU

-2.19

.3983 081988 Uf 0.0015 2.25 0

2.25 3983 110388 UR' 0

EU

'3983.

110388' UF 0.0002 U

4137 101188-FP3A 4.616' 34.62-Sr-90 7.21 4137-110688 FP3A 2.101 Sr-90 4162' 041988 FP3A 16.2 121.5 Sr-90 25.31 4162 REPEAT FP3A 2.328' Sr-90 4162 052688 FP3A 3.296 Sr-90 Sr-90 4162 071188 FP3A 1.209 4162 100888 FP3A 1.85 1.85 Sr-90 4241 092688 FP3A 5.307 39.8 Sr-90 8.29-4241 111688 FP3A 10.84 54.2 Sr-90 11.29 Sr-90 4241 011689 FP3A 3.441 L

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

14 l _

Table 2.

Positive Bioassay Result Summary - 1988 js.

(Sheet 2 of 2)

/

I'

(_,,/

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

• Vol. Anal.

1500 ml-day Radionuclides

(%)

4404 080588 Uf 0.0004 0.6 0

0.60 4404 080888 Ur 0

U 4404 081588 Ur 0.0004 0.6 U

0.60 4404 101088 FP3A 4.118 30.89 Sr-90 6.44 4404 110708 FP3A 1.04 Sr-90 4404 110788 UF 0.0004 0.6 0

0.60 4404 011589 FP3A 6.43 32.16 Sr-90 6.70 4530 071088 FP3A 7.436 55.77 Sr-90 11.62 4530 REPEAT FP3A 1.409 Sr-90 4530 080388 FP3A-0.5022 Sr-90 4530 101488 FP3A 1.54 Sr-90 4883 081588 FP3A 4.52 33.9 Sr-90 7.06 4883 082188 FP3A 1.409 Sr-90 4883 091188 FP3A 1.726 Sr-90 4883 101288 FP3A 2.421 Sr-90 4883 120588 FP3A 4.254 Sr-90

[ '}

4893 011488 FP3A 4.491 33.68 Sr-90 7.02 A,/

4893 031988 FP3A 0.9493 Sr-90 4907 041988 Uf 0.0005 0.75 U

0.75 4907 062488 Uf 0.0001 U

4907 071188 Uf 0

U 4912 011288 UF 0.0004 0.6 U

0.60 4912 031588 Ur 0.0001 U

4912 042088 Ur 0

U 4912 071188 Ur 0

U 4912 080488 UF 0.0001 U

4912 080888 UF 0

U 4912 081788 Ur 0.0001 U

4912 120188 UF 0

U 6087 091288 FP3A 4.447 33.35 Sr-90 6.9 6087 110788 FP3A 7.695 38.47 Sr-90 8.0 UT:

fluorometric Uranium (f or a brief description of the specific l

FP: fission Products onelytical techniques, see Ar9endix 8 of UR:

Radiometric Uranium Reference 9)

(fP3A is presumptively Sr-90; IP38 is specifically Cs-137)

/v) t

No.:

N001TI000301 I.

Page:

15

-,ew.

Comparisons of results from the FP3A and FP3B analyses and the UR and UF-analyses are shown in Figures'3 and_4.

The laboratory lower limit of detec-tion (LLD, that activity that is considered, with reasonable certainty, to represent true radic!ctivity) is also. indicated for each of the analyses.

Results from the individual analyses are also shown as cumulative probability distribution in Figures 5 through 8.

These show that very few of the results (the elevated values that appear as outliers at the right side of the figures)

' depart significantly from the random distribution of results, which closely approximates a Gaussian distribution.

(Actually, the distributions are trun-cated at zero, as is most clearly shown in Figures'6 and 7, where the linear representation of the Gaussian abruptly intersects the baseline, with only zero values being reported for cumulative probabilities less than about 30%.)

t't(

i A

=

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

16 1

\\

1988B10ASSAYCOMPARISONS 3,00 s

u t

t I

4

-, ::mw u:: a een c a s e:: <

t 1:

@,63 iamenwarAsesaw.e+esawa:+<-etw :

0,00 UR 5,00 Figure 3.

1988 Bioassay Comparisons, UF vs. UR (Standardized Excretion Rates, Microgram Per Day for UF, dpm Per Day for UR)

\\

= _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No.:

N001T1000301-1 Page:

17 v

i'_

A.;

i 1988 B10ASSA'l C0liPARIS0liS 50,00 1

n 3

3 i f-p.-,9,,, ?

+.

• ' s,,8 3

5 3

d5d$s,,,,

ngse

1. $5, *,

c

.[, Y8 I,*,$,,

8

,fg in e

tj 5

3

%f t *

-' fs s>y**h.g s ' '

.l t

4 S

st g

Q, gg. _lh,,* *** s

___ +- -

0,00 FP3A 150.00 Figure 4.

1988 Bioassay. Comparisons, FP3B vs. FP3A (Standardized Excretion Rates, dpm/ Day)

.{

\\

L________________________.___

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

18

(

\\

1988BI0ASSAYCOMPARISONS 150,00 F

F 3

A

~

0,00 ':

0 IX 10xCUHULAllYEPROBABILIIY90%

99% 100 Figure 5.

Cumulative Probability Plot of TP3A Results 9

1

~%

%)

J

No.:

N001 TIO00301 Page:

19 188BI0ASSAYCOMPARISONS 000 1

g 35 y

ar*,

p B

/

i O

I 0,00 :

0 1x 10XCUMULATIVEPROBABILITY90%

99x 100 figure 6.

Cumulative Probability Plot of FP3B Results O

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

20 0

1988BI0ASSAYC0HPARISONS 5,00 U

R II sr

?

E 0,00:

. : : : :=-

0 1X 10xCUMULATIVEPROBABILIIV90X 99X 100 i

rigure 7.

Cumulative Probability Plot of UR Results O

L.

I..

No.:

N001TIOOO301 Page: 21

(

O 1988B10ASSAYCOMPARISONS 3,99

}

Ui O

Etil 0,00:

9 1x 10%CUMULATIVEPROBABILIIY90%

99X 100 Figure 8.

Cumulative Probability Plot of UF Results O

~

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

22 II. RADIATION /RADI0 ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS

\\

The measurements and surveillance performed to determine local radiation levels in the working areas where radio.ictive materials are used are described below.

A.

AREA RAFIATION 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-expnsure (but low-occupancy) areas.

7he average and maximum exposure ra+es determined for each quarter are shown in Table 3.

The maximum exposure rates for the RIlil are associated with the radioac-tive water holdup Lank, in an area that is rarely occupied.

At the RMDF, the highest exposure rates are at the evaporator.

The maxic.um rates at the GIF are due to storage of mass spectrometer samples h; a shielded location aiong (O

the east wall.

The stadblaste: sant catcher in Room 4130-75 is the source for the maximum exposure rates in the ANT laboratories.

The X-ray exposures at 1172 are very variable f rom quarter to quarter and cannot be localized.

The highest exposure in the Instrument Laboratory is associated with the high-range calibrator, which contal.'.s 37 Ci of Cs-137.

Other location badges, such as those at the Canoga and De Soto X-ray booths, shou tio exposure, except for a badge located near the entry to the darkroom for the medical radiology facility at Canoga which showed 60 mR for the year.

Building T024 contains two below-gradt reactor test cells with residual l

rdd.loactiVity resulting f rom neutron dctIVation of the concrete and re-bar.

S!nce 1984, location film badges have been placed in the test cells.

Analysis of the exposures recorded by those badges, with the assumption that the only 8b

m..

7 h

No.:

N001T1000301

" i Page:

23 Table 3.

Location Badge _ Radiation Exposure - 1988 Calendar Quarter

'W?

.Q1 02 Q3 Q4 Average Exposure Rate (mR/h) ~

facility Maximum Exposure Rate (r\\R/h)

RIlil 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.09-0.62 0.42 0.60 0.89 fenceline' O.003 0.002 (1.016 0.01i 0.02 0.014 0.027 0.023 RMDF 0.86 0.51 0.37*

0.74 2465 1.52 1.19 2.88 Fenceline 0.040 0.024 0.025 0.020 f

0.13 0.088 0.082 0.096 GIF 0.018 0.01 3 0.010 0.023 0.064 0.046 0.041 0.092-ANTL 0.15 0.14

~0.20 0.12 1.71 0.71 0.73-0.63.

O

'3 g

T172 0.039 0.001 0.007 0.005 G

.(X-ray) 0.192 0.005 0.018 0.027 Instrument 0.030 0.026 0.027 0.026 Laboratory 0.078' O.064 0.064 0.060

• Two badges were damaged by heat, estimated values-significant sources of radiation are the induced activities of Co-60 and su-152, yields the f ollowing formula for exposure rate:

X(t) = (0.62 e-0.1315 t + 0.22 e-0.0525 t) mR/hr for t in years after January 1, 1980.

The first term represents Co-60 activ-

-ity;: the second term represents EU-152. As further data are obtained, this analysis will be followed to improve the estimate.

y

(

u

No.;

N001TI000301

.I ~

Page:

24 As a Corollary to this analysis, the standard deviation of individual j.'\\

(

film badge measurements is estimated to be about !20%.

+

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 dirborne radioactivity, periodic local air sampling is performed.

A summary of these results for 1988 is given in Table 4.

7s i

\\

r

g

- f, "E [g, No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

25

^

f%

, e.

CD C

r. t,V N

N.

N i

i l

e cn. r-m r=

cp C C 1

i l-f

'U C

C-O C C C

- cL e=

c-r=

m r=

r=

x x E

x x x x x x io.

i N e N r-N e M M e m C

N-CD

^

C C e C N m U

.O O

O O M C L

6L W

C C *

• O O 6 O O

.E O

O C C C C O W

C.

C.

C.

C.

C.

C.

v v

v C

C C C C C C C.

.O CO '

m C

CD

. M" e

m r=

toL t

u (D -

m C M e C

C C e -

CD -

C h

e

.L C C N-C O -

O L

v M

O C 4 W O O C C C

O C C C O C C tm C.

C.

C.

C.

C.

C.

G O

k cg y

eg 3

3 C C C C C C M

M O

O M

UC ae=

L Z

80 C1 T

C E

4 C

M.- m - M m air e ets eu u

o O C C O O

@.O M

4 e

O O O O O O

. C '-

w-N O O O O O C C O O

L r)

U C

C4 O O O C O C O C

C C.

C C O O C

O.

.c=

C 8

O aC L

O C O C C C C C C e

L 4

O t.

v

.e=

.e G

L asC L

l O

• =

M N N - M C CD U

C tm o C C C m -

m CO to O O O O O O O O O

L O O O.O O O C O E

W O

O O O O O O O O W

O.

O.

C.

C.. O.

C.

C.

C, 4

g g

C C O C C C o o e

w V

3 44 G

l en H

6-D E re -

tm 3

C

{

1. 5 c5 f5 r0 2

• =

E t

J.

<e

.C e c to 6

-e-61 W CL W C2.

W W

x

.r=

i 0

O 0

> re fC D m @

r0 a 4 E O

k V

h h 0

m o

E L

l M

W U

3

.c=

.c=

0 e

3 M

O E

O es

• e=

or=

CL e

x v v m

i' C

O "J

fU f5 f5 l

D A

E 6 6 O

L 2

40

.O s

80 i

V +=

a m

J W

G %

l e

O s >=

i E

e -

L e=

euC CE E

O M a

A c-i Y

l J

a i

/

a

Page:

26 l'

III. CFFLUENT MONITORING it g

i: ^

Effluents which may contain radioactive material are generated at certain Rocketdyne facilities as d result of operations performed either under con-tract to DOC, or under, he NRC Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-21, or under the State of CalliOrnld Radioactive Material License 0015-70.

The-spe-

'I, cific facility identif'ad with the NRC licenst is Building 020 at the SSFL at Santa Susdna'.

An annual report of effluent releases, prepared by Radiation & Nuclear Safety in the Healih, Safety, and environment Department, describes in detail the monitoring program at Rocketdyne for gaseous effluents from the Rocketdyne facilities. The data reported in the 1988 edition of that-report ") for I

atmospherically discharged' effluents for the facilities identified i Nve is presented in Table 5.

(No releases of radioactively contaminated l_iquids were made, either to the sewer or to the environment.)

Sanitary fdcilities at the buildings in SSFL Area IV drain to a sewage treatment pient (Building 600) where the effluent is digested, filtered, and chlorinated before the liquid stream is discharged to surface drainage for collection in Pond R2A.

The sludge is periodically removed for disposal at an off-site commercial sewage sludge disposal facility. Starting in June 1988, sdmples of the sludge have been analyzed by gamma spectroscopy each time the sludge has been removed.

Eight samples were analyzed and no unnatural radio-dClivily was found.

The liquid stream is monitored for radioactivity by a submerged detector prior to release to surface drainage.

If the alarm setpoint on this detector is exceeded, the effluent is diverted to a holding pond for sampling and anal-ysis. This diversion occurred once in 1988, on August 3, as a result of a malfunction of the detection instrument. No activity was found in the water sample, and the diverted effluent was released to surface drainage.

J 000 00000

(\\

FD 0

m 4

M 0

8 0 R

/

627 7 4 1 0 0 3 0,

i 2

0 C

6 8 8 3 2 0 000 2

0 0

(

026 060 00000 0

9, 0

0 0

01 2,

9 2 3

7 0 L

0 3 3

2. 7 9 8

/

7 7 7 0

1 i

1 r

F 4

4 0 0 0 1 1 5

5 2

00 3

O1 2 2 04.

D a

4 7 8 4 7 00 0 00 0 C

L e

5 L pY 5 2 0000000 00 01 000000000 es 1

b a/ r 2

2 08 ei a 4 4 1 3 60 0 0 0 l

C e 8

e pY G.625 00 00 0 R

001 01 000000 8

9 1

6 1

6 d

8 0 0

0 C

00 0

0 P

0 0 0

0 M

00 s

3 0

0 a

000 0 0000 er L

4 A

H 0

I m

0 2

I 0

/

8 8 4 8 9 0 0

d R

0,

" ' i 9 0 2 23 0 0 - 0 e

C 0

0 f

61 000000000 t

2 0

0 c

0 7,

0 01 3,

8 1 1 1 6 0 ir L

8 33 3 3

0. 5 1

8

/ r 3 1 1 1 3 3 F

0 0

Oi a 2 3 15 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 t

5 4

0 0 3

09 1 3

0. 3 L C e 0 4 01 000000 s

5 e

L pY r

200O000000 1

n e -

U s /

ai r 2

7 0

0 o

eC a 5 4 02 160 0

t p e 84 le Y

1

.. 0 0

1 R

20000000 0 00 sn o

4 a

6 0 28 5 i

C 0 0 9 00 s

P 0 0 1

0 0 s

M 00 000 i

m h

000 00000 E

cr a

c e

0 7

m i

s 0

/

2 18 267 3 1 r

e 0,

2 2 57 00 i

R e

C 0

h 4

0 0

0200000003 d f

p 0

1 0

s 1

01 4,

91 2

o o

3 3 3 6 1

6 3 4 8 8 8

/

7 2 9 r

2 0 002 2 t

o 16 1

. 2 i

O a

91 95 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 m

t 00 2

1 5 8 3 0 0 L

e C

L pY 5 4 00 0000000 A

S 01 00000 U000 e

D e

s 1

5 a/ r 5 2 ei a 7

3 3 4 3 0 0 0

l C e e pl 3

0 091. 00 0

e l

H 00000000000 ba s

t r

e l

r n

a d

e e

e t

u y

i l

e n c

l

/

c mo i

f s

u i

b f

e ict u

e i

n c

c d

r y

b e n

e u

b u t d

v c

c e e

i r

o d

- d l

n e

r e

e p

o s

u o a

t o

ic s

mf m

b a

i n

e l

s a

a l

ot r

m d

e vi e

t u

e r

0 m

m n

m s

9 t i 3

u e3 i

3 a

y m

nl

/Ml cm3 x mi e t

m l

e o

n/ mu / sl i

u 0

u r i / v oi/ a iCi r

/ e v

i 4

f w f C r f C d f c i

r

/

e Ci cCi l

p t

t 8 9 I o f i e

f o f

y c

• 0 t

0 3 3 el a

a ga i na t

a a7 4 Y

1 4 5 8 2 2 h a ah a roh aih a

7 2 3 3 3 - -

/. 3 e e pt e rpt eipt v p t f mm0 r

- 2 2 2 mm et el e pt l eil e o u t t l

m mmii mm m

a gr c

eliiu6 iu1 u u a a ab a v ab aab t ab u m s t t miu u u n n i i s si s s nt s s a s s t

l sl n u niii o o x x s s xsl s s ins s s s a y a a oi o n n n t t o o) o o

o. er ao ol eool o o p pL G G pt nG G n nG G t G G imr t b r sl a a a u u AmA S c T

E r rO r r u r r pcr r a r r e oet e o r r rl l

t B P C S C P U U U P P p pL pe n ao o

s A A(

No.:

N001T1000301-D Page:

28 Surf ace runof f. f rom the R' MDF, as a result of rainf all, is' collected in a o-

g small retention pond and automatically pumped to surf ace drainage for collec-tion in Pond R2A. A floating radiation' detector is used to monitor for radio-activity in the water in this pond. Water samples are taken and analyzed by

-gamma spectroscopy and gross alpha and beta counting, frequently during the rainy season, less often the rest of the year.

In two samples, gamma spectro-metry showed measurable amounts of Cs-137, at about 6 x 10-8. Ci/ml.

The p

maximum permissible concentration (MPC) for Cs-137 in water released.to an unrestricted area is 2 x 10-5 C1/ml. All other samples showed no detect-able activity or only naturally occurring radionuclides.

The gross alpha and gross beta results are shown in Figure 9-The scales (30 pC1/L for alpha and 300 pC1/L for beta)' correspond to the MPCL for the most restrictive radionuc-lides that have been present at the hM0F.

The observed activity includes natural radionuclides such as Be-7, K-40, and U and Th daughters.

The observed results have beer. ell below the limits.

For 1988, the stack sampler fillers were accumulated for each of. the three stacks with a potential for release of radioactive materials.

The three m.

sets were sent to U.S. Testing (Richland, WA) for a detailed analyses. These analyses showed significant amounts of the naturally occurring radionuclides Be-7, K-40, and Po-210. At the RillL, these enter the effluent ~1n the bypass air.

At De Soto (EF-405), they entered through.a hole in the flexible coup-ling. connecting the filter plenum to the exhaust blower.

This hole wa2 re-paired early in the year, so all Be-7 (half-life 52 days) had decayed before analysis.

Effluent releases are extremely low as a result of a combination of fac-tors. Much of the radioactive material processed is in relatively undisperst-ble form, many of the operations are conducted in glove boxes and sealed hot cells, and the effluent is filtered by cre-filters and llEPA filters.

The HEPA-filter systems are tested annudily by use of a polydisperse DOS aerosol. The I

C 4

x-_____-__-

lT s-

}

No.:

N001T1000301 Page: 29 17 t TMFPondWaterActivity V

3000 A

L

'P H

A b

i

/

L g

1

('

0,00M' E.00 BETA'pCi/L 300,00 Figure 9.

RMDF Pond Water Activity test dates and' filtration efficiencies for several exhaust systems, and the required efficiencies, are shown below:

Measured Reauired RMDF (Vault.14884)-

05/12/88 99.99%

99%

'RMDr (Vault 14885) 05/12/88 99.99%

99%:

RM0f (Decon.14886) 05/12/88 99.99%

99%

RMDF (Decon.14887) 04/06/88 99.99%

99%

RIllL 11/17/88 99.99%

99.95%

ANT (EF-405) 06/09/88 98.0%

99%

GIF 06/09/88 99.99%

99%

The EF-405. filter system did not satisfy its requirement. 0perations were allowed:to continue after review.of the material involved and determination

[:

that there was no significant risk of release of radioactivity.

v Cx_______1__________________._________

2 '

t No.:

N001T1000301' E

Page:

30 p

=IV.

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM

\\

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 ef fluent releases and external radiation levels are reduced to a min-imum.

The environmental monit.orina program 'provides a measure of the ef fec-tiveness of the.Rocketdyne safety orocedures and of the engineering safeguards incorporated into facility designs.

Specific radionuc'lldes in facility efflu-ent or environmental samples are not routinely identified due to the extremely low ratiloactivity levels normally detected, but may be identified by analyti-cal'or rad *ocimmistry techniques if signifIcantly increased radioactivity levels are observed.

The annual report of environmental monitoring, prepared by Radiation &

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

Some of the data reported in the 1988 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, DOE-sponsored, and State of California-licensed facilities, but also to external l

Influences such as naturally occurring radioactive materials, and residual activity f rom the Chernobyl reactor accident and nuclear weapon testing.

1; 1

These data are:

1' m

5011 gross radioactivity data presented in Table 6 a

Soll plutonium radioactivity data presented in Table 7 L

De Soto and SSFL Sites - Domestic water radioactivity data presented in Table 8 Dell Creek and Rocketdyne site retention pond radioactivity data presented in lable 9 Ambient air radioactivity data presented in Table 10 (and shown l:

graphically in figure 10)

Ambient radiation data presented in lable 11.

(

(.

l l

I f

I L__--_ __. -

n., '

.No.:

N001T1000301

'I Page:

31 V

Table 6.

Soil Radioactivity Data - 1988 Gross Radioactivity.

(pCi/g)

Eumber Maximum Observed of Annual Average Value Value" and Arka.

Activity. Samples and Dispersion Month Observed -

On-site Alpha

'48 29.1 6.2 53.6 (quarterly)

-(October)

Beta-48 -

26.0 2 2.8 31.4 '

(October)

Off-site Alpha 48 25.6 2 6.2 39.6 (quarterly)

(October)

Beta 48 24.4 2 2.7 29.6

( April)

~ Pond R-2A Alpha-4 28'7 2 3.6 33.6' mud No. 55 25.4 (January)

Beta-4 24.7 2 0.8 (January)

Bell Creek Alpha 4

22.0 2 7.5 33.2 upper stream (October) y

-bed soil Beta 4

23.9 1 1.5 25.1 3

No. 62 :

(December)

[s

' Maximum value rbserved for single sample.

1 Table 7.

Soll Plutonium Radioactivity Data - 1988 29 June 1988' Survey Results 1 December 1988 Survey Results 1

i Sample 238 239Pu + 240Pu Pu 238 239Pu, 240Pu Pu Location (pCi/g)

(pCi/g)

(pCi/g)

(pCi/g)

S-56 0.0004 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0

1 0.0001 0.0012 1 0.0002.

l S-57 0

0.0001 0.0039 0.0005 0-

=

0.0001 0.0032' O.0005 I

S-58 0.0004 1 0.0001 0.0022 z 0.0003 0-0.0001 0.0033 t " 0004~

S-59 0.0001 0.0001 0.0031 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0069-0.0008 I

'S-60 0.0001 1 0.0001 0.0029 0.0004 0

2 0.0001 0.0032 0.0004-J S-61*

0.0004 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002-0 1 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

• 0ff-site location

)

r qa r.___-____-._.

1. .E

3..

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

32

-p q Table 8. : Supply Water Radioactivity Data - 1988 1

Gross Radioactivity (10-9 pCi/ml) e Number Maximum Value*

~f Average Value.

and Month:

o Area

, Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed-De Soto.

' Alpha 12 3.80 i 1.42 6.57 (monthly)

(April)

Beta 12

.4.10 0.43 5.16 W

(March).

SSFL Alpha 24 5.40 i 3.34 13.81 (monthly)

(June)

Beta 24 3.93 1 0.84 5.80 (June)

• Maximum value observed for single sample.

Further investigation was made into the problem of self-dosing of the TLD bulb-type dosimeter.

This will continue.

x)

During the third quarter, the TLD reader behaved erratically,' due to what was finally determined to be an intermittently stuck shutter in front of the photomultiplier tube. This shutter must open fully for reading, which it apparently did, but must close when the read-head is removed, to prevent the i

PM tube from being " light-struck." The shutter was not always closing fully, resulting in some erroneously high readings. This was corrected in October 1988.

s i

v No.:

N001T1000301 j.] S Page: 33 S

AA j

k Table 9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data - 1988' (Sheet 1 of 4)

GrossRadioactsbityConcentration (x 10- pC1/ml)

' Percent of

" Samples i'

Number Annual Average Maximum Valuaa

' ;With of.

Value and Month Activ{ty

-Area Activity.

Samples' and Dispersion, 0bserved

<LLO Pond No. 6-Alpha 12 2.04 t 1.63 4.48 100

'n (Monthly)

.(September)

Beta 12 -

4.18 0.70-5.56 0

(October)~

Pond No. I2 Alpha >

12 4.47 2 2.11 8.47 92 (R-2A) (Monthly)

(September)

Beta 12 4.51 2 0.91 6.49 0

.(September)

Upper Bell Creek Alpha 8

3.67 2 2.36 8.92 75 g

No..'17 (Seasonal)

(December) b Beta 0

4.31 2 0.85 5.59

.0 (December)

W Well WS-4A Alpha 3

5.54 2 2.33 6.89 100 (Seasonal)

(March)

Beta 3

4.35 2 0.12 4.48 0

(June)

Well WS-5' Alpha 12 3.47 1 3.07 8.95 83 (Seasonal)

(August)

Beta 12 4.27 0.93 6.21 0

(August)

Well WS-6 Alpha 3

6.78 2 1.48 7.83 50

-(Seasonal)

(March)

Beta 3

5.02 2 0.56 5.63 0

(December)

Well WS-7

' Alpha 2

9.16 6.84 14.00 50 (Seasonal)

(June)

Beta 2

5.75 1.15 6.56 0

(June)

O t

l 1

i

4

.s y

No.:

N001T1000301.

%.I Page: 34

~

Table'9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water Radioactivity Data - 1988 q

-\\

-(Sheet 2 of.4)

Gross Radioactivity Concentration -

(x.10- pCi/ml) b Percent-of.

Samples-Maximum Valuaa Number Annual Average With of Value' and Month Activgty

~

Area Activity Samples

.and Dispersion Observed'~

-<LLD Well WS-8 Alpha 4

,7.95 2 2.66,

10.60 25' (Seasonal)

(March)-

' Beta '

4 3.68 1.65 6.10 0-(December)

Well WS-9

. Alpha 3

9.67 g 1.56 10.82 0

(Seasonal)

(June)

Beta 3

4.60 2'O.22 4.76 0

(December)

Well WS-9A Alpha; 1-4.40

'4.40 100 (Seasonal)

(December)

'" f x

Beta l'

3.37 3.37 0

~

(December)

Well WS-11 Alpha

- (Seasonal)

Well out of service 1

Beta 1

~

Well WS-12 Alpha-2 6.38 2 5.62

.10.35 50 i

(Seasonal)

(June)

{

l Beta 2

5.42 2 0.19 5.53 0

(Jure)

Well WS-13 Alpha 12 4.62 2 3.21 8.54 B3 ~

(Seasonal)

(October)-

Beta 12 4.09 1 0.75 5.iJ 0

(June) b

?-

t I

u

No.:

N001 T1000301 Page:

35 Table 9.

SSfL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water (n)

Radioactivity Data - 1988

/

(Sheet 3 of 4)

Gross Radioacti ity Concentration l

(x10-U pCi/mi)

Percent of Samples Number Annual Average Maximum Value" With of Value and Month Activgty Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed

<LLO Well WS-14 Alpha 2

10. <s4 2 0.01 10.45 0

(Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 2

4.61 2 0.30 4.82 0

(December)

Well 05-1 Alpha 3

5.50 3.23 7.77 33 (Seasonal)

(March)

Beta 3

4.20 0.95 5.19 0

(September)

Well 05-2 Alpha 3

6.40 ; 2.29 9.01 66 (Seasonai)

(December)

Beta 3

s'.96 1 23 4.23 0

/x (September)

\\

h Well '45-5 Alpha 3

7.53 7.39 15.11 66 (Seasonal)

(September)

Beta 3

4.20 2 C'. 41 4.46 0

(September)

Well 05-8 Alpha 2

3.52.t 3.31 5.86 100

( Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 2

3.60 2 1.39 4.59 0

(December)

Well 05-10 Alpha 1

4.87 4.87 100 (Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 1

1.55 1.55 0

(De: ember) l'h A>

4

2 No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

36 p

k Table 9.

SSFL Site Retention Pond, Site Runoff, and Well Water U

Radioactivity Data - 1988 (Sheet 4 of 4)

GrossRadioactigityConcentration (x 10- pCi/ml)

Percent of Sampl es Number Annual Average Maximum Valuea With of Value and Month Activity Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed (LL0b Well 05-13 Alpha (Seasonal)

Dry well--not sampled Beta Well 05-15 Alpha 1

11.87 11.87 100 (Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 1

6.63 6.63 0

(December)

Well 05-16 Alpha 2

11.06 2 7.18 16.13 50 p

(Swasonal)

(June)

( s )f f

Beta 2

4.90 0.88 5.52 0

(March) s Well RS-20 Alpha 1

2.29 2.29 100 (Seasonal)

(December)

Beta 1

0.50 0.50 100 (December)

Well RS-21 Alpha l

14.60 14.60 0

(Seasonal)

(March)

Beta 1

1.75 1.75 0

(March)

Well RS-22 Alpha 2

11.56 2 8.32 17.45 50

( Sea s onal)

(March)

Beta 2

2.01 0.53 2.38 0

(September) aMaximum value observed for single sample.

blower 1imit of detection: Approximately 0.4 x 10-9 pCi/ml alpha; 1.10 x 10-9 pC1/ml beta for water,

,v

No.:

N001T1000301 I

Page:

37 m

Table 10. Ambient Air Radioactivity Data - 1588

._)

3 GrossRadioactivityConcegrations--Femtocuriesperm (10*

pCi/ml)

Number Annual Average Maximum Valuaa p,, cent Percent of Value and Date of Less Than i

Area Activity Samples and Dispersion Observed Guided LLO De Soto Alpha 680 2.4 2 2.6 15.0 (04/03) 0.08 96 (2 locations)

Beta 34.1 2 21.8 108.6 (10/24) 0.01 48 SSFL Area IV Alpha 1696 1.9 2 2.7 17.3 (08/10) 3.2 98 (5 locations)

Beta 31.0 1 20.4 134.4 (01/04) 0.10 55

$$FL sewage Alpha 355 2.2 2.7 11.2 (09/07) 3.7 99 treatment plant Beta 31.5 2 19.0 94.6 (12/14) 0.11 50 SSFL control Alpha 346 1.9 2 2.7 10.9 (09/07) 3.2 98 center Beta 31.1 2 19.3 99.8 (10/16) 0.10 56 All locations Alpha 3077 2.1 2 2.7 Beta 31.7 2 20.4 aMaximum value observed for single sample, bGuide De Soto site:143 x 10-12 pCl/mi alpha 3 x 10-10 pCi/ml beta; 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, CAC 17.

$$FL site: 6x 10-pCi/ml alpha, 3 x 10-11 pCi/ml beta; 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, CAC 17, DOE Order 5430.1A.

cLLO - 9.1 x 10-15 pCi/m1 alpha; 3.8 x 10-14 pCi/ml beta.

t

(

i l

No..

N001TI000301

,I Page:

38 5

g o%

=o OE

E

/n.

\\

T y

f 2

8, <[ >

-(2:>

o m

- w e

l

- 5

=

3 l

7 g

i i

2

~~

.C l

O dW

~

l o

e g

- g a en w

l-

>i a

' 1 u

a g

m 2=

d w

y s.-

l

=

g

,.o 4

Y

_- c g L w

4,,

y g y E

4

,y eu o

-L o

D Om a

.c 5 y:

s, b'

4=

'7

,I s.

g sC t

5 42

.f~

=

g

~

wt

(

5E sm

<y

>7 wm z

w-3 25

.f yw 4e 5

m

E s2

-g

)

@m b E o

u

=

m 5

3

~

~

)

2 3 (4

<($

)

?

E a L

w "6

?

Y 2

2 2

(twed) W313W Otan0 W3d S31 WAD 00ld r

/v)

No.-

~N001TI000301 Page:

39-fs

' Table 11.

De Soto, SSFL,. and Canoga Sites - Ambient Radiation

(

)

Dosimetry Data - 1988

%)

Equivalent Quarterly Exposure Exposure at (mR)

Annual 1000-ft ASL TLD Exposure Location

.0-1 0-2 Q-3 Q-4 (mR)

(mR)

(pR/h)

De Soto DS-1 20 23 27 20 90 91 10 DS-2 21 21 22 16-80 82 9

DS-3 20 23 27 17 87 90 10 DS-4 19 18 27 20 84 85 10 05-5 20 15 20 15

-70 71 8

DS-6 23 16 33 15 87 88 10 DS-7 23 16 37 19 95 96 11 05-8 19 10 31 15 75 78 9

Mean value 21 18 28 17 84-85 10 SSFL SS-1 21 22 31 20 94 82 9

SS-2 26' 22 30 23 101 89 10 SS-3 21 20 27 18 86 74 8.

SS-4 18 29 29 22 98 85 10 SS-5' 21 21 29 27 98 84 10 SS-6 25 19 29 21 94 82 9

SS-7 27 14

'31 14 86 73 8

n-SS-8 26 12 41 18 97 84 10 t,

J SS-9 29 20 32 21 102 90 10 Nu SS-10 24 18 31 20 93 81 9

SS-11 33 26 39 39 137 126 14 SS-12 32 25 41 31 129 118 13 SS-13 25 19 32 29 105 94 11 Hean value 25 21 32 23

.102 89 10 Canoga CA 22 11 24 12 69 72 8

~

CA-2 19 13 31 13 76 78 9

CA-3 23 14 24 13 74 75 9

CA-4 24 13 25 15 77 79 9

CA-5 19 7

43 8

77 79 9

CA-6 17 14 34 13 78 79 9

Hean value 21 12 30 12 75 77 9

Off-site OS-1 29 18 25 13 85 88 10 05-2 18 12 21 13 64 62 7

0S-3 18 21 25 18 82 84 10 05-4 21 16 25 13 75 73 8

0S-5 22 16 27 16 81 81 9

Mean value 22 17 25 15 77 78 9

O

____.__m_m_ _. _. _ _ _ _m..___.

_____m

~

No.:

N001TIO00301 Page: 40 V.

UNUSUAL EVENTS There were several unusual events at facilities involving radiation or radioactive materials.

These events are summarized below.

A.

REPORTABLE INCIDENTS On March 11, 1988, during return of an empty fuel shipping cask, used for transporting disassembled Fermi fuel from the RMDF to INEL, the trailer tipped onto its side while rounding the last turn at the approach to the RMDF.

The trailer was severely damaged, the ISO shipboard container enclosing the cask was moderately damaged, and the cask impact limiters were damaged.

The cask was not damaged and there'was no release of radioactive contamination.

The

' incident'was investigated and the results reported in SAN 88-1.0 }

The conclusion of the investigation was that the trailer was unstable and structurally inadequate for the service it had seen and progressive cracking C

of the front side beams had weakened the structure so that it could not with-

.k stand the cornering forces encountered at moderate speed.

-B.

NONREPORTABLE INCIDENTS The Radiation and Nuclear Safety group provides radiological monitoring and safety guidance for operations With radioactive material (including Spe-cial Nuclear Material) 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 are not significant enough to require formal reporting to any regulatory agency (NRC, DOE, State of California), assure communication among the R&NS personnel, and enhance hazard awareness within the operations groups.

To promote the purpose of these reports, the reporting criteria have been deliberately left vague and general.

Generally, a report is written for'any injury occurring in a radioactively contaminated area, abnormal release of

d No.:

N001T1000301 h

Page: 41

~gg contamination, fire involving radioactive material, or exposure of personnel to radiation or abnormal radioactive contamination.

These criteria are well i-

.below tha' 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 l

future but because of lack of consequence would not be otherwise recorded.

i

'{

.The reports are distr.ibuted to all members of Radiation and Nuclear Safe-ty'and generally to the individuals personally involved, their managers, and any related management.

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

'f 1.

January 26, 1988 When exiting the' Building T059 Pipe Chase Room, a photographer was found to have contamination on one pants leg.

This contamination was successfully removed.

Proper safety procedures had not been fol-lowed.

The photographer was not trained for entry.

into a confined space, he did not have a film badge and pocket dosimeter, as required for a High Radia-tion Area, and a Controlled Work Permit was not pre-Ox N

pared.

Protective staffitig was inadequate.

Respon-sible management was reminded of these requirements.

2.

February 25, 1988 During transfer of Fermi fuel canister No. OP4 from Vault 1 to Vault 3 at the RM0F, the canister was dropped about 12 f t to the bottom of Vault 1.

This apparently.resulted from incomplete engagement of the lifting grapple hook with the' canister bale, and the canister being dislodged when the cask bottom plate was put in place.

Visual inspection showed some deformation on the bottom of the canister. A hot-water bubble leak test confirmed that no damage had been done to the canister.

3.

August 12, 1988 Two mechanics were found to have skin and hair con-temination (10000-20000 dpm/100 cm2) on exiting the Pipe Chase Room at Building T059 after doing some torch cutting of the vacuum duct. All activity was removed by showering and wet wiping at the RIHL.

Estimated dose to the skin was less than 1 mrem.

Some radioactivity was detected in nasal wipes.

Bio-assay results were less than the 1 Moratory minimum detectable activity.

O

.4-No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

42 w

4.

August'13,'1988 A glass jar containing activated. sand from T059 broke i..I while it was'being centrifuged in the Chemistry Lab-L D) oratory at Building S300.

The sand was cleaned up and the centrifuge was decontaminated. No personnel were exposed,-

5.

August 15, 1988 Two 55-gal waste disposal' drums containing activated sand from T059 were punctured by a lift truck forks while being prepared for. shipment. Approximately 40 grams of sand leaked out.

The sand was cleaned up and the holes in the drums were' sealed with tape.

The sand in the drums was then transferred to new drums for disposal.

-6.

August 19, 1988 While working in the Pipe Chase. Room'at T059, a mechanic felt his airline respirator filter. cartridge pod disconnect'from his face piece. After an attempt at' reconnecting it, he exited the room to a clean area.

He had apparently loosened the pod while untangling his airline hose on entering the room.

Othe H eline users were notified of this problem.

Bioassay results were less than the. laboratory mini-mum detectcole activity.

7.

. September 30, 1988 On exiting Cell 1 at the RIHL, a mechanic-found his right knee was contaminated to about 3500 dpm. He 1]

wac successfully decontaminated by use of dry and wet.

Q wipet.

The contamination may have been caused by some hydraulic fluid on some material that he had picked up.

No significant exposure resulted from this incident..

8.

October 10, 1988 A mechanic found contamination on his left knee, right forearm, and lef t forearm af ter working in Cell 1 at the RIHL.

The maximum contamination was 10,000 dpm on his left forearm.

He was successfully decontaminated by use of wet and dry wipes.

The con-tamination apparently worked through his protective clothing while he handled a heavy piece of contami-noted metal.

No significant exposure resulted from this contamination.

9.

Novenber 14,1988 A mechanic cut his left index finger on some wire mesh while working in the Hot Storage Room at the RIHL.

No contamination of the wound was found and no activity was detected in a blood smear.

He was sent to the nurse for further treatment.

O

No.:

NUO1TIO00301' l

Page:

43 7N The number of incidents, 9, is a considerable reduction from prior years.

I k.

They are categorized m Personal contamination (4 incidents) 1, 3, 7, 8 Release of contamination (2 incidents) 4, 5 Potential exposure /contannnation (2 incidents) 6, 9 Potential equipment damage (1 incident) 2 It is indicative of the low level of problems experienced during this year that the last two categories refer simply to " potential" problems, V) s

)

I 1

I (Vm

~.

No.:

N001TIO00301 Page: 44

[T VI.

SUMMARY

/ TRENDS - EXPOSURE, EFFLUENTS I

\\

/

v 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 rams)

(rems) 1988 129 19 9

4 3

3 167 18

'O.III 1981 130 -22 15 8

2 1

1 179 27 0.153**

1986 134 20 11 7

5 3

100 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 1982 '349 29 8

3 6

15 4

7 8

429 116 0.271 1981 192' 55 13 4

6 4

274 33 0.121' 1980 '357 39 -

10 3

5 9

3 426 56*

0.131*

A 1979 347 39 19 10 4

15 8

2 444 91*

0.204*

f 1918 432 60 18 16 4

18 9

1 1

559 110* '

O.197*

~\\

1917 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*

0.115*

• Determined by use of mid-peint of range

• • 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.

Data shown for 1980 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-tions predating the merger, while all occupational exposures are shown after r

1985.

The group dose was calculated exactly for the last eight years.

This results in values that are approximately 10% lower than those calculated by use of the mid point of the exposure ranges.

Exposures during 1988 showed a slight reduction in group dose'and average c'

dose f rom prior years.

This reflects both the continuing effectiveness of the I

Al ARA program and a reduction in radioactive work load.

No.:

N00lTI000301 0:

Page:

45

[

. Additional aspects of the external dose control program have been re-

'k viewed.

For those programs included in the external dosimetry program in 1988, their accumulated (" lifetime") doses have been plotted against age for comparison with the guideline for an accumulated dose to not exceed 5 X (N-18) rem, where N is the age in years. This comparison is shown in Figure 11.

It is clear that all doses are far below the guideline.

This was further re-viewed by calculating the average annual dose rate for these individuals.

This is shown as a log-normal probability plot in Figure 12. Only six indi-viduals (out of 427 on the program in 1988) exceed an average rate of 1 rem /

year, with the highest at about 2 rem / year..

These findings are particularly significant, in that no active control has been placed on lifetime doses, and many of the individuals have worked for many years under regulations that would permit up to 5 rem per year, and up to 12 rem per year with prior review

-(not to exceed 5.X (N-18)).

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.

l l

l

)

i

4 No.:

' N001T1000301 Page:

46

f LIFEilHEDOSIS-1988 M0.00 D

0 5

E

(

r e

M O

)

s-

$ 'll 1

8 t

li e e te 2,

e s 0,05

..:.!::e!!!!:!:.g.:

.e:

.:!::!:?!:I

, !1 9

18.00 AGE 68.00 Figure 11.

Lifetirne Accumulated Doses - 1988 O

No.:

N001TI000301 Page:

47

[v LIFEIINEDOSES-1988 Jg T

....: 1 2 f

.1

/

s

.a i

/

~

0-s',

.cos

~

-~

W uz

,q

.0091 IX 1BX CUHJLnTIVE PRODf1BILIly 9Bx 99g g.n Figure 12.

Lifetime Annual Dose Rates - 1988 O

N001TI000301 q

No.:

Page: 48 itored by the bioas-Internal depositions of radioactive material, as mon f

' t

)

say program, are shown in the table below, Percent l

Number of Tests Positive Number of with Positive Results l

l Tests Perf ormed 1.4 Year 15 1086 1.6 1988 14 869 5.9 1987 39 663 10.7 1986 69 644 12.9 1985 48 373 5.7 1984 30 527 8.9 1983 66 f

742 8.6 1982 66 768 5.1 f

1981 44 864 7.2 1980 79 1099 8.7 1979 80 1022 12.4

,/ m 1978 158

\\

/

1272 4.5

\\

]

1977 67 x-1481 3.8 1976 57 1483 1975 tests performed and the This table shows, f or the past 14 years, all the A " positive" result is

" positive."

number of tests that were considered to be i ity (MDA) for the particular one that exceeds the minimum detectable act vD the number of analysis.

bioassays has generally declined as the number oTests were increased sulated radioactive material has decreased.

rpose of future dose evalua-to provide more detailed information for the puTh f or 1986 appears to be tions significant compared to immediately prior years.

d during this time period:

distribution for the two major radionuclides testeWhile the FP dionuclide likely to be Cs-173 (FP3B) and Sr-90 (FP3A).

selective f or Sr-90, that is the most restrictive ra O

j present and detected.

\\

% ~_

No.:

N001TI000301 Page: 49 Cs-137 (Assumed Nuclide)

.y

(/

Fraction of Positive Number of Number with Results with Maximum

. Year FP38 Tests-Positive Results less than 0.01% MPB8

% MPB8 1988 287 0

all 0

1987 227 0

all 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 0.02 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

all 0.01 Sr-90 (Assumed Nuclide)

Fraction of Positive

. Number.of

-Number with Results with Maximum Year FP3A Tests Positive Results less than 10% MP88

% MP8B 1988-287 9

0.89 11.3 1987 222 5

0.80 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

all

-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 1

v

)

g fl.'.

,'s

, 4 c

No.:.

N001TI000301~

["I Page:

50'

? rN.

i B.1 WORK PLACE RADIATION AND RADI0 ACTIVITY

,,. f The general. radiation levels in the work place, as determined by readings

- f rom lo*ition baoges ' averaged over the calendar ysar, are summarized in the table below:

g.,

Facility.-

jverace Exposure Rate'(mR/h).

Maximum Exposure Rate (mR/h)

Year GIF RIHL ANTL RMDF 1988 0.016' O.078 0.15 0.62 0.061 0.61 0.70 2.08

.1987 0.023 0.07 0.18 1.27 0.11 1.43 1.47' 5.65' 1986

'0.08

-0.06 0.23 2.92

-0.22 0.57 1.06 11.3

'1985 0.16' O.13 0.97 2.~ 74

(

0.23 0.87 4.00 29.42 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 1982 0.02 0.10 4.24 0.06 0.21 42.4 Variations reflect changes in workload, 2.ith a significant problem at the RMDF in 1985, due to processing of radioactive water and the accumulation of the resultant sludge, showing continuing mprovement in subsequent years.

p If

_~

_ _______ _ __ _ _ _ a

Q...

no.:

N00lTI000301-

',.T'

_f

Page:

51

< 1[^

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 1988 0.0006 0.0006 1987 0.4 15.7 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 e

Aj '

Major' improvements in reducing airborne radioactivity at the EMDF were achieved this year.

C.

ATMOSPHERIC EFFLUENT RELEASES Atmospheric effluent rele.ases are monitored by use of stack samplers r!

the major facilities.

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

In some caset, the releases were.. co ce.; rations less than the ambient (natural) atrborne radioactivity; in others, much of the activity is from natural sources, resulting f rom the use of unfiltered bypass air in the exhaust system.

'A significant changelhas 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 detection level (MDL) were set l

equal to the MDL in calculating the average concentration release.

This was e

p.

No.:

N001TI000301 Page:

52-

done o.Y 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. f4ow, all measured values, even zeroes and negative ("less than background") values, are used in the calculation.

The major fluctuation observed in the beta activity released from the RIHL is due primarily to changes'in the work in the hot cells. With these exceptions, a major fraction of the activity reported as discharged from the RIHL and the NMDF actually came f rom natural radioactivity in the unfiltered bypass air taken into the exhaust systems near the blowers to prevent exces-sive suction.

During the early part of 1988, considerable outside (unfil-tered) air was also exhausted (and sampled) through the ventilation system of De Soto 104 due to a torn flexible coupling between the filter plenum and the exhaust blower.

Considerable natural activity (Be-7, K-90, Po-210) was also found in'the ef fluent for the RIHL, where unfiltered bypass air is used to limit the suc-tion provided by the exhaust blower.

Inclusion of this natural radioactivity c

I in the gross alpha and beta activities discharged to the atmosphere results in A^

a significant overestimate of the releases of regulated radioactivity.

mU L

F '..

2

No.:

N001TIO00301 T'

Page:

53 sn d

-RADIOACTIVITY DISCHARGED TO ATMOSPHERE (microcuries)

'De Soto Santa Susana 101 104 RIHL RMDF NMDF 1988 0.23 0.16 0.07 Alpha 0.94 3.86 4.100 8 eta 1987 10.29 0.18 0.25' Alpha

+

0.67.

3.7 12.0 Beta 1986 X

Alpha 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.78 22.0 13.0 4.0 Beta 1985 0.15 0.45 0.04.

0.05-Alpha 0.45 9.0 9.0 1.5 Beta-1984' 0.44 0.10 0.074 0.04 Alpha 0.59 4.5.

3.7 0.98 Beta 1983 Alpha 52.0 1.1 0.024 0.047' O.08 Beta 19,0 1.1 1.3.

1.1 1.1 1902 Alpha

1. 2 0.24 0.03 0.024 0.023 Betc 0.94 1.1 14.0 0.61 1.01 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 8 eta 4.1 7.5 13.0 3.0 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 6100.0*

10.0

• Released from burned fuel slug.

1-o l

l?

3

-m---.mi__.._______.___._-m_b

[.

No.:

N001TI000301' Page:

54 l

L f D.

AMBIENT-(ENVIRONMENTAL) RADIATION EXPOSURE l

.s lg. ';

Ambient (environmental) radiation exposure rates as measured by CaF M"

2 TL0s and averaged for all locations are.shown below.

Quarterly Dose (mrem)

Annual Dose Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec (mrem) 1988 22.7 17.6 29.7 18.3 88.3 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 h

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.i, 117.5 1976 21.6 24.8 22.5 25.0 93.9 1975 21.3 24.6 26.2 25.4 97.6

{\\

,e No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

55 i

(~N The quarterly doses are plotted as a histogram in Figure 13.

This graph, i

I.

)

l

'(,/

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 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 using a Victoreen Model 2810.

This is a new reader, built on the basic design of the TL-3 reader, but with modern electronics and digital adjustments and readout.

'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 dosime-ters are used, but not at any other facility.

The cause has not been identi-fied, but since the trend exists equally for the De Soto, Santa Susana, and off-site TLDs, at this time it is assumed to be either a true environmental ef fect, or an artif act of the TLD reading or calibration.

Results from the State of California monitoring program are compared in

["N the table below:

(

)

v i

I b

I

l No.:

N001 TI000301 Page:

56 i

)

AMBIDli RADIAIION EXPOSURE l

50.00 M

H E

li h

E R

Q U

\\

A i

R I

E R

l 0:00 nt i

m i. nn nw on ns.

sw. nw 49u itsa is er esas iter #9es Figure 13.

Averaged Quarterly Dose Recorded by Environmental TLDs I

l O

No.:

N00111000301 Pa9e:

57 Comparison of State and Rockwell TLDs

(

)

mR/Q w,'

1987 1988 10 20 30 40 1Q 20 30 40 DS-6 CA 28.2 25.5 23.4 21.7 22.2 22.1 22.2 23.0 RI 28 32 55 30 23 16 33 15 05-2 CA 20.1 21.1 21.7 23.7 20.4 19.3 18.8 19.1 RI 27 29 47 26 21 21 22 16 SS-3 CA 28.5 25.5 26.8 25.4 23.9 23.2 22.2 23.8 RI 29 51 47 40 21 20 27 18 SS-6 CA 25.6 30.5 25.7 27.6 25.4 24.8 24.7 25.7 RI 30 54 38 32 25 19 29 21 05-1 CA 27.0 18.6 20.0 20.2 18.7 18.3 16.3 19.5 RI 23 24 34 24 29 18 25 13 05-5 CA 25.9 28.6 24.0 25.7 24.1 24.7 21.8 24.9 RI 29 42 44 33 22 16 27 16 05-8 CA 20.9 17.8 20.4 21.9 20.0 19.0 18.8 21.0 RI 25 28 28 27 19 10 31 15 55-7 CA 23.6 23.6 24.9 25.0 22.9 22.2 21.5 24.2 cx RI 22 41 58 30 27 14 31 14

(

)

SS-11 CA 36.0 37.9 41.3 37.9

\\/

RI 33 26 39 39 1

s l

While the results are generally similar, the Rockwell measurements show l

considerably greater variability.

4

[\\

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

58

[]

The annual ambient exposure rates (mrem / year) measured at De Soto, SSFL,

(,,)

and the several off-site locations are shown below:

De Soto SSFL Canoga Off-site Year Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum 1988 84 95 102 137 75 78 77 85 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 1993 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 99 101 124 91 101 1975 96 105 104 123 94 105 l

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 beht.vior is under continuing study with no definite conclusions produced as yet.

The vilues at SSFL are all somewhat l

greater than De Soto and the off-site locations due to the significantly j

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 of a calibration f actor for thick soil samples.

Prior to 1984, only relative cs I

I l

\\

)

J No.:

N001TI000301 Page:

59

-- v Table 12. Soll' Radioactivity Sumary y

1975-1988

]

[

(pCl/g)-

D' s

Onsite Offsite I

Alpha Beta Alpha Beta

.{

i Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximtr.n -

Average Maximum Year i Olspersion Value ! Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion value 4

.1988 29.1 6.2 53.6 26.0 2.8 31.4 25.6 6.2 39.6 24.9 2.7 29.6-

]

1987 27.1 r 7.7 40.1 25.4 3 2.1 30.9 25.7 f 7.7 55.1 23.9 f 3.5 29.1 I

1986 26.7 2 6.6 40.1 26.1 1 2.2 32.2 28.1 ; 5.9 39.0 24.2 1.3' 30.4

-1985 25.2 2 7.3 48.4 24.2 ! 1.9 32.7 26.3 2 7.8 46.0 23.9 ! 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 2.9 28.2' a

1983 0.6 2 0.2 1.1 24.2 1 2.0 29.7 0.6 i 0.2 1.1 23.0 1 2.8 2).8 1982 0.7 f 0.2 1.2 24.6 3 2.3 30.1.

0.7 0.2 1.2 23.3 3.7 32.9 1981 0.7 ! 0.2 1.3 25.4 3 3.5 38.2 0.6 ! 0.2 1.3 22.8 2 4.5 33.2 b

1980 0.6 3 0.2 1.1

'24.0 2 1.0 110.0 0.6 3 0.2 1.0 23.0 2 1.0 30.0 1979 0.6

'O.2 1.1 25.0 1.0 97.0 0.5 1 0.1 0.8 23.0 i 1.0 29.0 p

1978 0.6 i 0.1 1.0 24.0 2 0.9 48.0 0.5 t 0.1 1.0 24.0 2 0.9 34.0 f

1977 0.6 r.0.2

.1.1

'24.0 0.9 31.0 0.5 t 0.2 0.8 23.0 0.8 27.0

'1976 0.6 0.2-0.8 25.0 2 1.0,

32.0 0.6 3 0.2 1.0 24.0 1.0 30.0 1975

. 0.6 2 0.1 1.0 25.0 1.0 35.0 0.6 2 0.2 1.0 24.0 1.0 27.0 8Values reported for alpha activity in soll before 1984 are relative values only.

The 1984 values reflect correction for self absorption of alpha particles by the bhlof[o 9kNtalessthantheMOLweretreatedasequaltotheMDL.

for 1981 and later, actual measured values were used.

5131Y/ tab ku) i

No.:

N001T1000201 Page:

60

.(~N values were reported, which served the function of monitoring for changes

.Q quite well but produced va i that did not reflect the correlation of alpha and beta activity f rom natt.

ily present radioactive elements (potassium, O J

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 on-site (out of 1728 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 th?

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 addition-al, 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 i

C and 14.

The on-site averages are generally higher than off-site but not i

(

greatly so.

This may represent differences between the set of five on-site locations and the single off-site location. While plutonium is found in low concentrations everywhere as e result of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests at several dif ferent 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 on-site values shows no systematic variation with location relative to the NNDF a.d the RIHL.

As reported at the July 1988 annual meeting of the Health Physics Soci-ety, plutonium in soil, sampled in areas distant from thes Hanford (Washington)

I site and determined to not be f rom Hanford operations by the isotopic ratios observed, showed values in the range of 3 to 16 fCi/g.

This is essentially what is observed for the SSFL measurements.

s i

[ I No.:

N001T1000301

JX Page: 61 5:

fy 3,

Table-13.

Plutonium.in Soil Summary 1978-1988

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

On-site Off-site Average Maximum Average Year i Dispersion

.Value i Dispersion

• 1988 3.1 1 1.7 6.9 0.2 t 0.2 1987 2.7't 1.8 7.1 0.1 1 0.1 1986 1.8 i 1.3 3.8

.1.2 t 1.0 1985~

2.6 1 1.5 5.1 0.4 1 0.2 1984~

3.1 1 1.3 5.2 0.4 1 0. 2.

1983 5.2.1 4.4 14.4 7.0 t 0.2 1982 4.0 1 2.4 7.3' 2.7 i 3.3 e

1982:

4.2 4.5 15.9 1.2 1 1.0

!1980-8.4 8.5 29.5 1.3 1 0.9 1979 7.0 6.7 18.9 2.6.t 1.3 l]j j,

1978 4.5 1 2.9 9.0 4.4't 1.6 Grand Average l4.2 lt 4.3 11.2-1.7 1 2.6 1

Table 14.- - Summary.of: Plutonium in Soil (Pu-239 + Pu-240, fCi/g) 1 l

Average'-

Maximum i

Location i Dispersion Value Date S-56 1100 ft NW NMDF 3.5 1 4.3 14.4 December 1983

's-57 900 ft SE NMDF 3.5 1 2.2 9.5 June 1980 S-58 500 ft SE NMDF 4.9 t 4.1

'18.9 December 1979 S-59 900 ft ESE NMDF 4.5 1 3.7 18.6 December 1979 S-60 2000 ft SE NMDF 4.7 1 2.6 29.5 December 1980 S-61 2.7 mi.'NE NMDF 1.1 1 2.6 7.1 June 1983 5131Y/ tab

\\'

VN_____-__-____-_---_----

No.:

N001TI000301 Page:

62 77 In 1986, ofter review of the results of vegetation sampling conducted i

U/

over the prior 28 years, it was determined that this sample class did not pro-vide significantly ureful data.

Fallout is more accurately assessed by mea-

.surement of airborne radioactivity and soil radioactivity.

Therefore, the vegetation sampling was discontinued.

Alpha ard beta radioactivity in the supp'. ' 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 District.

Water for the SSFL site is supplied by Ventura County Water District No. 17, with varying amounts of supplemental water top to 100%) f,om on-site wells operated by Rocketdyne.

The water at De Soto is consistently, but not signif-icantly, 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 :nore accurate reporting of the alpha activity since 1983.

A

{

\\

(/

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 runoff and effluent from the Santa Susana nuclear facilities, while Pond 6 receives runoft and effluent from the other facilities.

The Bell Creek sample, from the location 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 that are present at the nuclear facilities have been found.

Tables 17/. and 173 show the results of alpha and beta radioactivity mea-sur,ements on ambient air samples.

An apparent extreme decrease in alpha radi-oactivity 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 measuretcent was set equal to the MDL before inclusion in l

)

\\J l

i

t

.(,

No.:

N001T1000301 I,

Page:

63 l

1

(

75 the average'.

This artificially elevated the average value.

This effect was

)

not nearly so great for the beta activity measurements.

The beta values for i

v De Soto, SSFL, and off-site $ anales are essentially' identical.

(The "ofF-site' samples ~are located at SSFL but at a considerable distance from the nuc-lear facilities.)

l l

x n

x.-

b 9

\\

l l

No.:

N001TI000301 k

a p -*

Page:

64 Table 15. Supply Water Radioactivity Sunmary, 1975-1988 f3 De Soto

$5FL

[

Alpha Beta

.pha.

Beta

\\

Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Dispersion Value i Otspersion-Value-Dispersion Value i Dispersion-Value

}

~

1988 3.80 1 1.42 6.57-4.10 2 0.43 5.16 5.40 2 3.34 13.81 3.93 0.84 5.80

]

a B-1987 5.14 i 6.62 25.12 3.40 0.72 4.52 5.10 1 3.81 14.96 3.59 2 1.03 6.04

.h" 1986 4.41 2 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 1.82 S.73 3.17 2 0.78 4.6 2.45 r 2.61 8.6 2.80 ; 0.52 3.95'

-f 1984 3.82 1 0.93 5.87 3.40 t 0.45 4.3 3.53 2 3.94 '13.3 2.93 2 0.60 4.01 a: 1983 0.34 0.23 0.88 3.53 3 0.97 5.1 0.12 2 0.13 0 41 3.00 1 0.60 4.45 1982 0.36 f 0.23 0.79 3.97 i 1.19 6.6 0.14 0.12 0.38 3.01 0.67 4.91 l

1981 -0.36 0.20 0.17 3.78 0.68 6.7 0.11 2 0.12 0.44 2.79 2 0.55 3.65 b

1980 reot analyzed 0.22 3 0.27 0.22 2.4 2 0.7 3.4 i

1979:

not analyzed-0.23 1 0.27 0.23 1.8 i 0.7 3.9 1978 not analyzed-0.26 1 0.28 0.44 3.0 1 0.8 3.6' 9 -

1917 not analyzed 0.25 0.29 0.30 2.5 2 0.7 3.6 k

1916 not analyzed 0.25 t 0.29 0.42 2.0 t 0.7 2.5 R

1975 not analyzet!

0.24,t 0.27 0.55 2.3 2 0.7 3.2 aValues reported for alpha activlt) in water before 1984 are relative values only.

SuW equent values reflect correction for self absorption of alpha particles by the thick mineral deposit of the. counting sample.

bPrior to 1961. data less than the MOL were treated equal to the MDL. For 1981 and later, actual measured values were used.

5131Y/ tab

'l Units for Table 15 are pci/L.

s j

w

}

U i

I m

[.

1. w

/

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

65 I

p i

i

()

Table 16A.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary 1975-1988 (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 1988 4.47 1 2.11 8.47 2.04 1 1.63 4.48 3.67 1 2.36 8.92 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 t 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 1 4.44 13.6 1.38 i 7.09 19.7 1984 0.15 1.70 2.70 4.90 1 9.11 25.9 4.15 t 8.30 28.7 a 1983 0.13 ! 0.12 0.35 0.12 1 0.11 0.27 0.08 1 0.12 0.39 1982 0.11 0.13 0.28 0.17 1 0.08 0.35 0.03 1 0.05 0.14 1981 0.07 0.15 0.37 0.05 1 0.08 0.17 0.05 1 0.06 0.20 b-1980 0.23 1 0.27 0.23 0.23 i 0.27 0.23 0.23 1 0.27 0.23 1979 0.23 0.27 0.25 0.25 1 0.28 0.55 0.23 t 0.27 0.24 A

1978 0.25 1 0.28 0.27 0.25 1 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,e 0.29 0.24 1976 0.28 i 0.30 0.53 0.24 t 0.29 0.24 0.25 i 0.29 0.28 1975 0.31 1 0.29 1.2 0.24 i 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.

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

For 1981 and later, actual measured values are used.

cPrior to 1986, Bell Creek was sampled at the eastern boundary of the residential community of 8 ell Canyon.

In 1986, an automatic water sampler a

was installed that collects water only when water is present in the upper part of 8 ell Creek, immediately downstream f rorc the discharge of Pond R-2A.

l 5131Y/ tab L

1 l

I.,

I

, ~.

x g

l-l 2

1 h.'

,'l

No.:

N001T1000301 Page:

66

,m _

l Table 16B.

Environmental Water Radioactivity Summary 1975-1988 (Beta, pCi/L)

Pond R-2A Pond 6 8 ell Creek Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value 1

1988 4.51 1 0.91 6.49 4.18 1 0.70 5.56 4.31 1 0.85 5.59 1987 4.38 1 0.61 5.67 4.66 t 0.98 5.76 3.28 i 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 ! 0.79 5.56 3.58 1 0.96 4.92 2.49 1 0.75 3.79 4

1984 4.25 i 0.85 5.87 4.58 i 0.75 5.66 2.88 i 0.58 4.60 1983 4.44 1 1.84 9.15 3.57 0.92 4.80 3.30 0.60 4.20 1982 3.93 i 0.83 5.8) 3.91 1 1.08 5.34 3.29 0.70 4.40 1981 5.16 1.22 8.30 4.25 0.63 5.26 3.78 0.65 5.00 a 1980 3.9 i 0.8 5.70 2.9 i 0.7 4.7 2.9 1 0.8 5.2 1979 4.5 ! 0.8 10.0 3.1 i 0.8 4.7 3.2 1 0.9 8.2

)

1978 4.6 1 0.8 6.3 4.3 1 0.8 7.0 2.5 1 0.8 3.5 f)g 1977 5.2 i 0.9 13.0 4.3 1 0.8 6.4 1.8 i 0.8 2.6 1976 4.4 1 0.8 7.0 4.3 0.8 5.5 2.2 i 0.8 2.9 1975 4.5 1 0.9 5.4 4.2 1 0.8 5.5 2.4 1 0.8 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 1996 Bell Creek was sartpled at the eastern boundary of the 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 disctcrge of Pond R-2A, l

5131Y/ tab l

/*s l'

i 4

l l

t i

L l

- _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- [l,,

No.:

N001TIO00301 Page:

67 f]

L \\

Table 17A. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary 1975-1988 3

l (Alpha, fCi/m )

De Soto SSFL Off-site Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Dispersion Value

.t Dispersion-Value' t Dispersion Value 1988 2.4 1 2.6 15 1.9 1 2.7 17 2.012.7 11 1987 1.9 1 2.6 15 1.9-t 2.4 36 1.9 i 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 1 2.2 38 2.0 1 1.6 44 2.0 1 1.9 25

^

1984 1.9 i 9.3 32 1.4 1 3.4 29 1.4 1 3.0 16 1983 2.4 i 3.8 60 0.9 i 5.4 24 1.2 1 2.9 11 1982 1.7 1 3.1 39 1.1 1 2.6 30 1.7 i 2.9 16 a 1981 6.9 1 7.7 25 6.8 1 7.9 35 6.8 1 7.2 22 1980 6.5 7.7 45 6.4 1 7.8 25 6.3 1 7.8 20 1979 6.6 1 7.8 45 6.5 1 7.6 40 6.2 1 7.9 34 1978 8.4 i 8.1 95 7.2 1 7.9 21 7.2 1 7.3 44 1977 6.6 i 7.7 39 6.6 1 7.5 35 1976 6.7~1 8.4 140 6.5 1 7.2 53 1975 6.3 1 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.

5131Y/ tab m

m

';7 No.:

N001T1000301 i

Page:

68

-f

) \\. y ' [

Table 178. Ambient Air Radioactivity Summary

.1975-1988 3

(8 eta, fCi/m )

a-De Soto SSFL Off-site Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Year i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i Dispersion Value i

1988 34 1 22 109-31 1 20 134 31 1 19 100 1987 27 i 20 112 27 i 18 107 28 i 20 104 1986-

'58 1 103 1236 60194 1579 60 1 90 1233 1985 44.1 14 180 40113 170 40 14 240 1984 27 1 27 250 23114 200 24 1 20 200.

1983 26 1 21 130 23 ! 17 180 25 1 12 280

'1982 26 i 14 260 21 1 16 180

.22 12-88-a 11981 120 i-20 1100' 120 1 20 1100 120 1 20 1600 1980-39 1 14 380 36114 450 34 15 360 1979

'21 i 13 100

21 1 13 110 19 15 100 1978 91 + 17 1400 88 + 17 -

1500 86 + 16 1300 t

11977 130 i 20 3000 170 20 2800 1976 96 i 18 3700 110 20 3400-1975

-76 ! 16 460.-

73115 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.

5131Y/ tab 1

I I

nU

F(

+

.{. '*'j[~,

~

No.:

N001T1000301 o

Page 69 d'

)

VII. ANTICIPATED ACTIVITIES DURING NEXT. REPORTING PERIOD i4 d (1989)

Buildina 104 (GIF and' ANT)

Continuation of low-level research with activated materials and operation of the Gama' Irradiation Facility.

,"(.-

a-Buildina 020'(RIHL)

Continue cleanup of cells as part'of the' decontamination project.

Hyildinas 021/022 (RMDF)-

-Shipment of disassembled Fermi fuel, and support of on-site D&D projects.

.j 1

1 l

l l

d

)

5131Y/ tab J

---

.-_---__.-_-__-_a-

F I

h*f**

No.:

N001T1000301 l

r Page:

70 REFERENCES

1. \\

)

l 1.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-21, USNRC (June 28,1984) i 2.

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

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1976," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-1 tems Group, Rockwell International, N00lTI990003, April 2, 1980 f

I 4.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1977," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-tems Group, Rockwell International, N00lT!990098, May 27, 1980 5.

" Annual Review of Radiolos! cal Controls - 1978," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-tems Group, Rorb411 International, N001TI990104, August 6, 1980 6.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1979," R. S. Hart, Energy Sys-tems Group, Rockwell International, N001TI990ll3, September 15, 1980 7.

" Annual Review of Radiological Co.ntrols - 1980," R. R. Eggleston, Energy Systems Group, Rockwell International, N001TI990144, July 14, 1981 8.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1981," R. R. Eggleston, Energy Systems Group, Rockwell International, N00lTI990176, January 21, 1983

/3

(/)

9.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1982," R. J. Tuttle, Rocxetdyne N-Division, Rockwell Internationt.l. N00lTI000238, January 29, 1985 10.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1983," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne

,0ivision, Rockwell International, N00lTI000256, 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, N00lTI000260, July 4, 1986 13.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls 1986," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, N00lTIO028S, July 1987.

14.

" Annual Review of Radiological Controls - 1987," R. J. Tuttle, Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, ND0lTI000287, July 28, 1988.

15.

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1985 fg i

k LJ

• f'#*-

No.:

N001TI000301.

.s-Page: 71 j.

~

~16 ~.

" Sixteenth Annual Report - Radiation' Exposures for DOE and 00E Contractor l_

' Employees - 1983," 00E/PE-0072, October 1984

.%.I 17.

• Rocketdyne Environmental Monitoring and Facility Effluent Annual Report - 1988,",J.

D. Moore, Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division, RI/R089-139, March 1988 18.

" Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959)," ICRP Publication 2 1.

" Report of the Committee Investigating the Fuel-Cask-Trailer Accident at 9

the Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Laboratory March 11, 1988." May 13, 1988 (US00E San Francist.o Operations Office, Oakland, CA).

[)

Aj 5131Y/bes z.

_