ML20236N838

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Aerial Radiological Survey of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant & Surrounding Area. Date of Survey:Dec 1979
ML20236N838
Person / Time
Site: Farley  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 03/31/1982
From: Maguire T, Shipman G
EG&G, INC.
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20236N805 List:
References
FOIA-98-219 EGG-1183-1812, NUDOCS 9807150277
Download: ML20236N838 (15)
v • d • e


Text

_ . _ - - _ - - - - - --- -- - - ---- ---

~"

THE

$E MEASUREMENTS GROUP l{ll((

SENSING

~

E

<TT83-1812 C-41 ] ,

/ OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 1982 DEPARTMENT 0F ENERGY w.

YT.%lu;Tigig.fpwM ' ~ ~ ~

)~ -- ...q;;?L ".7 i '

~1'e;, .

,_ ~ < :;. 4 p  ! .' i j

fyi;$NYd )f?

~

s.rt~ .

' MEM' i. -

=

f$@d$s.g h r. __m L

_ . , s

+ .

  • b. N

,. *I

__ . 1. . .

- +

v>

AN AERIAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND SURROUNDING AREA DOTHAN, ALABAMA DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER 1979 9807150277 980706

_ 800CKE -219 PDR N

'I THE

', AEZi%avuessuneuzursenoup REN01E r

SENSING E 1812 C-41 0F THE UNITED STATES MARCH 1982 ) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

~

. n#,. g ., g u m m - . , .

. . . . w ~. .py : + :: .-~ ,. , . . ~

$$ $r '

,&YN  ; -

5 .f.

. ;. v. .

4> .

...y -

- ~R-hdVk

._  :~ c -

..m % .

jQpIg

,=

--A

'if*g* + i

%. ~~.

  • ~

S.'; ,;

~

.._ '*l . ,,

_ Q , ; %,;; ~.+ g-;3Q W

. ,~e ;. .._

' [~

l. ? b -

~'. ,

AN AERIAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND SURROUNDING AREA DOTHAN, ALABAMA DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER 1979 9807150277 980706 PDR FOIA 4; _ BLOCKEY_98-219 PDR glj

l- s l

r dEseg EGG-1183-1812 ENERGYMEASUREMENTS GROUP MARCH 1982 l

AN AERIAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE l JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT I

AND SURROUNDING AREA DOTHAN, ALABAMA j DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER 1979 l

T. C. MAGUIRE G. R. SHIPMAN Project Scientists ,

l REVIEWED BY W f-W. J. Tipton, Head Nuclear Radiation Physics Section This Document is UNCLASSIFIED l G. P. Stobie Classification Officer This work was performed by EG&G for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission through an EAO transfer of funds to Contract Number DE-AC08-76NV01183 with the United States Department of Energy.

l i

I

-' l r

!' ABSTRACT l

An aerial radiological survey was performed during the period 8 to 19 December 1979 over a 2000 square kilometer area centered on the two unit Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant near Dothan, Alabama. f Radiological data were collected by flying north-south lines spaced 900 meters apart at an altitude of 150 l meters above ground level. Processed data showed that all gamma rays detected within the survey area were those expected from naturally occurring radionuclides. Count rates obtained f rom the aerial platform were c'nverted to exposure rates at 1 meter above the ground and are presented in the form of a radiation contour map. The observed exposure rates were between 4 and 12 microroentgens per hour ( R/h), with j

. most of the area ranging between 4 and 10 R/h. These values include an estimated cosmic ray contribution ]

of 4.0 R/h but do not include any contribution from airborne radionuclides,i.e., radon. Exposure rates obtained from ground measurements taken within the survey area were in close agreement with the aerial i data.

The data were also in close agreement with those obtained from a similar survey conducted during March 1977. Comparison of the results from both surveys indicated that no detectable change in the radiological characteristics of the survey area has occurred due to the operation of unit number 1 during the intervening l l period. The same equipment and procedures were utilized for both surveys.

)

i I

f i-  ;

1

a CONTENTS 2 Abstract Sections 4 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Natural Background Radiation 4 3.0 Survey Site Description 4 4.0 Survey Description 4 4.1 Aerial Measurements 6 4.2 Ground-Based Measurements 7 5. 0 Data Analysis 7 6.0 Results 7 6.1 Results of 1979 Survey 7 6.2 Comparison of 1977 and 1979 Survey Results 9 7.0 Conclusions Figures 5 1 Aerial Survey Flight Lines and Survey Area Boundaries 6 2 Aerial Measurement Platform: Beechcraft King Air A-100 6 3 Interior of the Mobil Computer Processing Laboratory 8 4 Exposure Rate Contour Map Superimposed on a USGS Topographic Map of the Area Surrounding the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (December 1979 Survey) 9 5 Gamma Ray Energy Spectrum Typical of the Natural Terrestrial Background Radiation in the Area Surrounding the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (December 1979 Survey) 10 6 Exposure Rate Contour Map Superimposed on a USGS Topographic Map of the Area Surrounding the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (March 1977 Survey) 11 7 Gamma Ray Energy Spectrum Typical of the Naturai Terrestrial Background Radiation in the Area Surrounding the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (March 1977 Survey)

Table 9 1 Comparison of Results from Ground-Based and Aerial Data (December 1979 Survey) 12 References

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

decay chains is radon, a noble gas, which can diffuse through soil and be transported through The United States Department of Energy (DOE) the air to other locations. Therefore, the level of maintains the Remote Sensing Laboratories airborne radiation depends on the (RSL) in Las Vegas, Nevada and in Washington, meteorological conditions, the mineral content of D.C. The RSL is operated for the DOE by the soil, the soil permeability, etc., existing at each Energy Measurements Group of EG&G. One of location at a particular time. The airborne the major functions of the RSL is to manage an radiation typically contributes from 1 to 10% of aerial surveillance program called the Aerial the natural background radiation levels.

Measuring System (AMS).

Cosmic rays, the space component, interact in a Since its inception in 1958, the AMS has complicated manner with the elements of the continued a nationwide effort to document earth's atmosphere and the soil. These baseline radiological conditions surrounding interactions produce an additional natural source energy-related sites of interest, including: of gamma radiation. Radiation levels due to nuclear power plants, manufacturing and cosmic rays vary with altitude and geomagnetic processing plants and research laboratories latitude. Typicalvalues range from 3.3 R/h at sea employing nuclear materials.1 At the request of level in Florida to 12 R/h at an altitude of 3 km federal or state agencies, and by direction of the (10,000 ft) in Colorado.

DOE, the AMS is deployed for various aerial survey operations. The natural terrestrial radiation levels generally depend upon the type of soil and bedrock The aerial radiological survey of the Joseph M. immediately below and surrounding the point of Farley Nuclear Plant and surrounding area near measurement. Within cities, the levels are also Dothan, Alabama, was requested by the U.S. nfluenced by the nature of street and building Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Its purpose materials.

was to characterize the natural background radiation in the survey area prier to the start-up of unit number 2, an 860 MW pressurized water reactor (PWR). Unit number 1, also an 860 MW 3.0 SURVEY SITE DESCRIPTION pressurized water reactor, has teen in operation since December 1977. A similar survey utilizing in order to characterize the natural background the same equipment and procedures was radiation in the area surrounding the Joseph M.

conducted in March 1977 prior to the start-up of Farley Nuclear Plant,the AMS was utilized during unit number 1.2 the period 8 to 19 December 1979 to survey a 2000 square kilometer area near Dothan, Alabama.

The two unit Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (operated by the Alabama Power Company) was 2.0 NATURAL BACKGROUND at the center of the survey area. The plant is RADIATION l cated near the west bank of the Chattahoochee River,24 km east of Dothan. The community of Natural background radiation originates from Columbia is 7 km north and Ashford is 13 km radioactive elements present in the earth, southwest of the plant, airborne radon, and cosmic rays entering the earth's atmosphere from space. The terrestrial gamma radiation originates primarily from the uranium decay chain, the thorium decay chain, 4.0 SURVEY DESCRIPTION and radioactive potassium. Local concentrations of these nuclides produce radiation levels at the 4.1 Aerial Measurements surface of the earth typically ranging from 1 to 15 Measurements were made along 46 flight lines R/h.3 Some areas with high uranium and approximately 50 kilometers long and spaced thorium concentrations in surface minerals approximately 900 meters apart (Figure 1).

exhibit even higher radiation levels, such as the T fenty-eight thallium activated sodium iodide, Colorado Plateau area of the United States. One Nal(Tl), crystals mounted in a Beechcraft King member of each of the uranium and thorium Air A-100 fixed-wing aircraft (Figure 2) detected

  • - ,4 A .,. '

5 l' .

, l .

'k I

,,  ! l .

t s.I l,'..~.. .'.r,,. < \

,/ , (. g / '%,., *4 . V L.

.. d". ~

l l. .

.'k [4J ,' & ' .p ' '8,,,

7,p'4,.p*

~

t.Av

\ ,. y '

. -~ - - -

i

_,, . . y . - jg , g. f - eaW-  ;-. , -

4 0 .- -5 ', / .. '. -

l 10 MILES l ' _ t f -/, . -

- 1 I il 4 I I i 1 1 3 g- 'AER A LOCATION OF GROUND-BASED / *~

)

1 1

( SURV Y l

.[ o . .

4

. J.. ., ,..

yo is xit

  • BOUPDARY <

'O' MEASUREMENTS I

........ , . . . .... ... .. . . . 'oMET ERS ,

.\

.........y..},.......,i

~

_ . . . -s -

- v

, . ..  ? .e. .<.;..... /.m 2.

- .g , \ .q 7 '

s

. (~ >

\/

~

L . .

3

/ l 5 .~ -

r e i

t / \ a -

j

\

, _ \

\ \ ~ **

4, l' *

.y

,, ~

=

x

< /. -~ .

' ' ' ' h, '

1 .

< .., 2 /-  %

.~ n

, /, /<

T- c. - .. '

Y

's -

. i I . '.

s ,,

/~ .na nb ,  ; . '

5 ,s) .#, ,;, , # i,

,, r a >.

r ,

y/

- u% 0:

3, .w.; \

s -

a  % '

> ~. ->

' - . i

\

5%v

, ,w

.sg m s;; j V

, A. _ r e. - -:- -

7 y...L

- g r 3 .

5 g

A
, e
> m-v r gj .

b

.e e r

~

I } '. '

a ,

i

.c n

, .;.b(;. J

/- -

9 3./

j 4

.A h f 'i b Q-- :a i

' l - '

Q- W r '

. Q;_ ) ]  %

. y9 i

r[ -

- , x a

. 9 .._

/ q

'-s.

~.:

f

}j %' 5 q ~;1 -

-l n ,

.AO~ b~

/ '

} ! ',IJf a ..

l

~

i

(' ,Q

. . -1 - / \, ,- h :$ Q l

Q,,;t c

-m 3~.'.!

../ce. .,c x p. e y

j .

'> ,- / v ' 3~

!+ - '

[f.

.'T'" ./ - , 7;: .-

l .

9 _ + S 6 3

,, ' l J/ y ~'

, ] -1 g j

r -

) \ EaC"CR

  • 1

/ / 9 ' '  :

33 ,.

N

.J l .

g j 4-

$' giy : .

/ '-

I l A. , .

<, 'T N (I ,M' 1

/ y 2 , ,

i

.g  %

18 l ,

j.

J s % / h -

s p j n ' ,

M.M .r - 4 g ,:

<~a" -1 .

, , ..c. , , , 7 -

./.. .!.. , .,

, s t y- .

.i 3

, > s. l . l A% r I

j w, ,, s. . -

.. 4 i .

/

)' l h .,

12 .\ (

I

(],

3 l  : f  % - -

m ,..a

/-

r l ht; *

\ g I

, ,I i g"

l - g a

M- l ...

f I \

T; t ' '

w '

d ' "I I! / I k3,.. # ' . .

\J <

/ f 1

g i i .  %.  : J 3 . < . '

,l

?.,, W

,s , j N l- - / $

- h. \-c p-( r

.,,, .1 y 1 - 4 %i

. / / -

- - *% j l

/ ,g

> 3

. 5 - -- - l p g (

- -~ '

s i i +- .

, l - F ..

\s s 3

/ -

s

% g .g'W 6 . , , , , ' ' '

g ,

110

{ *~% IX*aol***

./ ,

5 *

N N

l th i

f3 e

x 4

a

+

g , ,., . . . .,

t c -

( . 4, .

~.

v. >> . . .

. . ~., >\

l f ,

cun...o . n ,4 s

i ( --

g i u t(a'l 'A

,<f, *b . .

> ua .

I M...,,,,,.. i JF A

W.% f. ,A N. W ] $; U I - - -

6 used the transit time of a microwave pulse to obtain the distance from the aircraft to each 4 m ,. . k r, I ' ' M .5 ; ^ .. .

remote unit. Position uncertainty varied over the df c C. g. g ' ' i 4 survey area, but was typically 115 meters. The

... i ..

+ff .1, . . g [" y( y' position information was also processed in real '

..T a,4 ' fi m . ., . i ; . ;- "

time on-board the aircraft to provide steering

. [.j. . } [.Aff,i H G . ~

information to the pilot for flying the

[. N 'Th;i&[ $ N .. / predetermined flight lines.

7. A de oeee,

, M, Magnetic tapes with recorded data f rom the aerial  !

radiological survey were processed after each

-3g[: ,,

'? flight with the Radiation and Environmental Data

).y Analyzer and Computer (REDAC) system. This

~

y_k.

computerized data analysis system was built into i sv+g..w, # ,.,. 7 g-

' w "Y~'e Y -wr y a five-ton step van. The interior of this van is l

.g.g.

  • 1 [, Y M ] W h % h shown in Figure 3. The REDAC system consisted l

primarily of a Data General NOVA 840 computer ,

Figure 2. A E RI A L ME A S URE ME N T PL A TFO R M:

BEECHCRAFT KING AIR A-100 and peripherals. An extensive inventory of  !

processing.

the gamma rays while flying at an altitude of 150 meters and at a ground speed of 80 meters per  !" 'T ,  % g second. Each Nal(TI) crystal was 10 cm in diameter and 10 cm thick. The instrumentation

' gg *

{

and equipment used on this survey are described -

g "i briefly here. A more detalied description of AMS I systems and procedures can be found in a g .

{ } g) previous report.d e

, _g g . .

Scintillation pulses from each detector were e

..  ;. " M summed and input to the Radiation and ^

Environmental Data Acquisition and Recorder (REDAR) system on-board the aircraft. These ~._- '" *

.7 pulses were first fed to an analog-to-digital ,

converter and fanned out to: (1) a 300-channel multichannel analyzer for energy spectral Figure 3. INTERIOR OF THE MOBILE COMPUTER j information (0.05 to 3.0 MeV), (2) a gross count PROCESSING LABORA TORY i register for determining the rate of gamma ray i

l detection integrated over energy, and (3) five j l single channel analyzers set up to monitor 4.2 Ground-Based Measurements

! gamma rays with energies of particularinterests.

Exposure rate values were measured with an The information from each of these subsystems, ionization chamber placed one meter above the l along with the position and altitude at which the ground at selected locations within the survey i measurement was made, was stored on a 9.-track area (see Figure 1). Ground sampling was done at magnetic tape for later analysis. The altitude the same time the aerial survey was conducted, in information was obtained from an on-board radar addition to the ion chamber measurements, ten altimeter which gives the actual height above the soil samples were taken from each of two sites j ground with an uncertainty of approximately 13 (Numbers 1 and 6). The soil samples were meters at a normal survey altitude of 150 meters. analyzed and results tabulated for this report by a Positional information was derived from a team of scientists at EG&G's Santa Barbara l microwave ranging system (MRS) consisting of Laboratory. Systems and procedures for soil two remotely located transponders and an on- sample data collection and analysis are outlined board interrogator. The on-board interrogator in a separate publication.5 1

=.

7 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS presence of water in the rivers and low lying areas can lead to the lower levels of gamma ray activity Aerial radiation data were analyzed and as shown in Figure 4. Values above the nominal processed to produce a gross count contour map range (level E) were found in regions with higher and to determine the particular radioisotopes than average concentrations of naturally giving rise to the radiation levels within the survey occurring potassium and thorium. For example, area. T he gross count contour map describes the the E levels along the Chattahoochee River banks radiation distribution of terrestrial radioisotopes. n the southern portion of the survey area were The airborne and cosmic ray contributions to found to be due to these radioisotopes. Regions these radiation levels were removed by such as these are commonly encountered subtracting the count rate measured over a body throughout the U.S. A gamma ray energy of water near the site from those measured over spectrum typical of the natural terrestrial the survey area. The water line utilized for this background radiation in the survey area is shown survey was over the Walter F. George Reservoir n Figure 5. Noted on the figure are the approximately 16 kilometers north of the survey radioisotopes which emit gamma rays with area. energies corresponding to peaks in the spectra.

The resulting net count rate of terrestrial origin Results of the ground measurements are given in was converted to an approximate exposure rate Table 1 along with the corresponding results at one meter above the ground by applying a from the aerial survey. As shown, there is good conversion factor of 680 counts per second per agreement between the two types of microroentgen per hour ( R/h). This factor was measurements. A major contribution to any derived from many measurements made over discrepancy between ground and aerial survey areas with known concentrations of naturally results is due to the fact that each aerial occurring radionuclides.d An estimated cosmic measurement represents an average exposure ray contribution of 4 R/h was then added to rate over a much broader area than does a ground produce the total exposure rate at one meter measurement.

minus any airborne radon contribution.

Analysis of the spectral data allows the determination of the specific radioisotopes 6.2 Comparison of responsible for the exposure rates in the area. 1977 and 1979 Survey Results Man-made radioisotopes, if present, can be identified by determining the energies of the The results of the survey conducted in March 1977 are surnmarized in Figures 6 and 7.2 detected gamma rays. Similarly, gamma-emitters typical of natural!y occurring radioisotopes will Comparison of the exposure rate contour maps yield characteristic energy spectra. from each survey (Figures 4 and 6) shows good agreement betwew the significant features of each. Tne exposure rate over the majority of the 6.0 RESULTS survey area in each case was between 6 and 8 R/h (level C in both Figures 4 and 6).

6.1 Results of 1979 Survey Deviations in the boundaries of areas with low An exposure rate contour map (derived from values of exposure rates are to be expected, gamma ray gross count rates) of the area especially in low lying areas where the standing surrounding the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant water and soll moisture content can vary is shown in Figure 4. The expcsure rates shown in significantly over the year.' However. the general microroentgens per hour ( R/h) were normalized locations with low exposure rates (level B in to a distance of one meter above the ground level Figures 4 and 6) in the eastern and southern and include a contribution from cosmic rays of 4 regions of the survey area were the samein both R/h. These nominal values of exposure rates surveys. Locations with exposure rate values resulted from gamma rays emitted by naturally occurring radioisotopes within the energy range ,

from 0.05 to 3.0 MeV. Deviations of the exposure location (number 7) dunng the 1979 survey and hence, rates from the nominal range over the survey area signmcant quantitatwe sod moisture cornparisons between (6 to 10 R/h) were evident in several spots. The the two surveys could not be made.

I. r CONVERSION SCALE '

LETTER GAMMA EXPOSURE RATE AT ENE LABEL ga E METER ABOVE GROUND (ulW)* i a j *'t c' r, +

j

/  ;

A m ,. ,

k'l <4 2 's ',, B l',

N 7

-' :.p f_.

  • l: <

'; C 4- 6 s- e

(

. i e,, %~.-

r,

- s. ..-,,'g,e- =. h, j

.2v"[#Ishlf O s . io

.'. .s

/ - , p- ~

E io .12

,f o e i #a n. so urLEs l 't . p. l J

3 1 I iI i 6 3-

. , y. i ,. 'AEal 4 (cSUR inferred from aerial data obtained at an sititude

'of 150 rneters. Exposure rates include an /< estimI 0 .

. r,$ r, .,- 10 cosmic contnbution of 4 pR/h but do not include

/.

,., . 1TKIL'O. METERS 7....=.g. a~..y. . ,.,, ,,

j .

130U, .. ..

,.AR. any Y contnbution from airborne redon.  %

~'

? \*

.y n- D i ' f.C' :*

  • Blr,. ,. -

BI./ '\

' ;:Q giL

~ 7 'l y

'+-

o hfC

~#~

i.

Ns "

" . 'f B

r- .L / - C,

. \- ,,

1 pj,_

_, -e g;_ B ,,,, Q .

' <,..cf[,'(fg 7 5, . 8]s I ~'

C  ;

~

,- 3 '~

- t -

,D

,,,,,, ;y .

D p . l.J,d'. %y,J B g<

,, . B f .;. ~ r.. m 8, _ ' O s ' ',- . _+ 'r q s a; '- \

g- s

.' g. p .w+. '. .' f ../, e

/C 4-

\ 43 - (.. .: ; B s.: e;;

l <

of.'j'"' .Cs 1[ - ij y[ $@ *~ 7"o' ,, *

--~g'~ '

8 ~ / p' y - @ -

C " ~

4 j~.y +Q, 7' yF ,g P 7

,s

'. O B- %C i, \ D*! ! . -

, , l C %, ; ,, ,

j T p _ . [ ~'~ . - -

g

.f i. ,- ,

,7

~

p~ .

C;~ g , ,

4 p^/ ' t. @yC

~

's D '

. M. .

,, y - ...

. i .

..' .4 -

gjB [4,2c ,y '. '.~ .

S if d . X $ - \  ?'* ' , B -

w,p- . - ~B

,F 't */ - P

- . .h.; .o.4% ,t i CO

( ., . ; /- ' . #'

<B - 18 A - [=,., e.  : '

C\

- ~-

,g. p ,. 3~~ . j s

  • f EACTCh

'C

- 7-~ """

i C g I, C /

p g u) ,* 4 B y,,

y <e>

,e +. . I. ;r . ,- , ,, ~. ~

B .

s..

~ g / 2;.'.; ' ; ; y ,i :i a r 3

,_,e

~

c

.A c.,4.

t M.N,fr B ,

. 3 ,, + '

.< . C ,. o C

i 13 B

I;,P } ' ,,, B j 3 -.

4 / ., y sC. ,;f ,c

% ,, r1D

%v' J. c. t, J

~ s,9.s(*y e.,>

1 qi N '6' B

,, u

.w, . .

3  ; ,

C a,-9 7 @.

'^

c. -

i

', i1 D

~

gi ...,,,,,a, daCJ s-..%,

ib ci..& ./ i.

i B- ,-dh,x,e '

Cr p \ , C cl 9 a s. ,

l,

^@,

B B "' { .CD'B g.c g

~

g- -

St t. .

, hg.7, .

g . ,

r.<".,_

e

,A\,

+

c

. . f-W; . y L

y.* 1.8 -j, ,g.

C

  • f p .q j . '

g ,

g N. .,, ,

B.

. ._g . C- a;u ,....-,.

o, t

in.n.a ..

1

-e 1

9 0

'd

[ 3 above the nominal range (levels D and E in I A

(/, Figures 4 and 6) also appear to be the same in y.,,, ,

L..o, both surveys. Again, slight variation in the ap lI boundaries can be expected due to changes in yM l soil moisture and standing water.

E *.6- I

$g .

The gamma ray energy spectra typical of the e' -

,,,y survey area from both surveys (Figures 5 and 7)

E y ** ' ,,, show that the same gamma ray emitters are gg a present in approximately the same relative 3 v .,, =,g v.s. abundance, in each case, all detected C, g l

\ "U radioisotopes were ories that are typical of

^

natural background, i.e., uranium and thorium

'd l daughter products and potassium-40.

  • .? *.S t.t I.5 2t 2.5 8.8 F6gure s. GAMMA RA YEN 2RG S RUM TYPICAL OF

{

THE NATURAL TERRESTRIAL BAC/(GROUND RADIATIONIN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE An aerial radiological survey, conducted durin9

.IOSEPH M. FA RLE Y NUCLEAR PLANT December 1979, over a 2000 square kilometer (DECEMBER 1979 SURVEY) area Centered on the two unit Joseph M. Farley Table 1. Comparison of Results from Ground-Based and Aerial Data (December 1979 Survey).

Site Soil Ground Survey inferred Exposure Rate ( R/h)

Number Moisture (%) Gamma Exposure Rate ( R/h) from Aerial Measurement (2) lon Soil Analysis Chamber (1) Estimate (2) 1 7.5 7.5 7.0 6- 8 2 10.3 (3) 6- 8 ,

3 7.9 (3) 6- 8  !

4 7.9 (3) 6- 8 5 8.7 (3) 6- 8 6 6.0 9.1 7.3 6-8  ;

7 8.7 (3) 6- 8 I 8 8.3 (3) 6- 8 9 8.5 (3) 6- 8 10 8.1 (3) 6- 8 11 8.7 (3) 6- 8 I 12 7.3(4) (3) 6-8 13 7.9 (3) 6- 8 14 7.9 (3) 6- 8 15 7.2 (3) 4- 6 16 6.8 (3) 4- 6 17 7.9 (3) 6- 8 18 8.3 (3) 6- 8 19 9.9 (3) 8 - 10 20 9.3 (3) 6- 8 Notes: (1) Measurement made with Reuter Stokes Model RSS-111, Serial No. R 574 (2) includes cosmic ray contribution of 4.0 R/h (3) No soil samples taken (4) This value is the average of nine measurements made in a square array of 90 meters on a side,45 meters between measurement points

_._____m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . - - - --

f

e. .

!w . . ,x m m 4 p

,.g .

g, ig ' 'l

( f a

\ _ , F ,d  !

4} _.  % -

?' N U

f _ , .k .

_l y r *- .

f e3 x .,- k w.a v , -- ,,, ., . ye Nbg 1

. .g

( >

o  ?.

-g m

.4, it 's, . ' ,OI l k

lh' 'h TN j' d i t W : M

.' qi

--hey, gari:l g e. , = d -y. 4

,~

if; ,, 6',Q ' E ,- h '

' '['$ '; . ' '. ,

, g: G si

. _$ p- .. i' ' "

_.y...y 9.: w~.. -%b-

  • 4 .

! gg,;.Jw .g <

$ ( f7 g,,g .g ; . o '* * -

-y 9

, ;p I. .

h ' , :, lI ; . , .,

W 7 ;.~)=,' . -.s.,*

TT k. *

. g.3. . '(._- i i _

,. e' v..$ _' ? ss._,, . 1

.. . . .$x, _,. .

EL METER ABOVE GROUN R *

' A <4 l B 4- 6 h C 6- 8 D 8 - 10 >

0 5 10 MILES E 10 - 12 ,

_I I iii I '

0 5 10 i

.. j h' ter E ure rat ncluce an es i at -

15 KILOMETERS cosmic contnbution of 4 pR/h but do not include -

L , , . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . - - -

- - .._ . ._. J any c ntnbuti n m and rne radon.

,,j Figure S. EXPOSURE RATE CONTOUR MAP SUPERIMPOSED ON A USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (March 1977 Survey) l

8, 11 d

Nuclear Plant revealed only those gamma ray that no change in the radiological characteristics ernitters expected from naturally occurring of the survey area was detected with the AMS l

radioisotopes. Exposure rates within the survey system. During this time period unit number 1, an area varied between 4 and 12 R/h. with most of 860 MW pressurized water reactor, had been the area ranging between 4 and 10 R/h. Further, operational. Supporting ground-based comparison of measurements made during the measurements made while the aerial survey was December 1979 survey with those from a similar being conducted (December 1979) were in good survey conducted during March 1977 showed agreement with the aerial measurements, s.e

-xoi l

g ... .

Jc ZN $

g g ..e < l vd a"

enAc l

wf H O u.se,

  • K

$ U ..e . \

l

      • s.

Om \, asil 3 '

..e

..e ..s i.e s.s e.e e.s s.s ENERGY (MEV)

Figure 7. GAMMA RA Y ENERG YSPECTRUM TYPICAL OF THE NATURAL TERRESTRIAL BACKGROUND RADIA TIONIN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE

.IOSEPH M. FARLE Y NUCLEAR PLAN T(MARCH 1977 SURVEY)

I I

l

12 REFERENCES

1. Jobst, J.E., "The Aerial Measuring Systems Program." Nuclear Safety, March-April 1979, 20:136-147.
2. Hilton, L.K., An Aerial Radiological Survey of the Area Surrounding the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (1978). Report No. EGG-1183-1734. Las Vegas, NV: EG&G.
3. Klement, A.W., et.al., Estimate of lonizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000, U.S. EPA Report ORP/CD 72-1, Washington, D.C., August 1972.
4. Boyns, P.K., The Aerial Radiological Measuring System (A RMS): Systems, Procedures,'and Sensitivity (1976). Report No. EGG-1183-1691. Las Vegas, NV: EG&G.
5. Mohr, R., Fritzsche, A., and Franks, L., Ground Survey Procedures (1976). Report No. EGG-1183-2339.

Santa Barbara, CA: EG&G.

I l

l 1

l l

DISTRIBUTION NRC LBL L. K. Cohen (15) H. A. Wollenberg (1) 1 EG&G DOE /ONS i H. M. Borella, SBO (2) i L. J. Deal (5) Z. G. Burson,LVAO (1)

J. F. Doyle, LVAO (1)

E. L. Feimster, WAMD (1)

L. A. Franks, SBO (1)

DOE /MA H. A. Lamonds, SBO (1)

R. E. Lounsbury, WAMD (4)

J. T. Weathers (1) R. L. Lynn, SBO (1)

T. C. Maguire (1)

' R. A. Mohr, SBO (1)

L. G. Sasso, LVAO (1)

DOE / TIC G. P. Stobie, LVAO (1) l T. P. Stuart, LVAO (1) 4 W. B. Matheny (2) W. J. Tipton, LVAO (1)

G. G. Widner, LVAO (1)  !

P. H. Zavattaro, LVAO (1)

DOE /NV l LIBRARIES

H. F Hahn, EMO (1)

J. A. Koch (1) AMO (10) l R. R. Loux (2) Las Vegas (1) l J. K. Magruder (1) Santa Barbara (1) i JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT l

AND SURROUNDING AREA DOTHAN. ALABAMA EGG-1183-1812 DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER 1979 DATE OF REPORT; MARCH 1982 l

l l

f L - - - - - _ - - _ . - _ - - _ - _ - - - - - - _ - - _ - _ - - - _ - - _ - _ _ - - - - - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236N838&oldid=3175594"