ML20206U468

Informs That Environmental Samples Can Now Be Shipped Directly to Orise or Office Using NRC Account with Federal Express

ML20206U468
Person / Time
Site:	07001489
Issue date:	05/11/1994
From:	Mccann G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20206U346	List: ML20206U341 ML20206U386 ML20206U391 ML20206U402 ML20206U407 ML20206U414 ML20206U426 ML20206U444 ML20206U468 ML20206U643 ML20206U650
References
FOIA-98-341 NUDOCS 9902160035
Download: ML20206U468 (33)

Text

2 reco UNITED STATES Ov g q%,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

y 2, t REGION lli

%, 801 WARRENVILLE ROAD f USLE. ILUNOIS 60532-4351 EY 1 1 1994 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Fuel facilities and Decommissioning Section Staff FROM:

George M. McCann, Chief, Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Section

SUBJECT:

SHIPPING ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES FROM SITE TO ORISE OR OFFICE i

If you know samples ahead (water, of time that you will be collecting numerous environmental soil sediment or sludge, etc.) at the site during your inspection, we can now, ship them directly to ORISE or the office using our NRC account with Federal Express.

You only need one Federal Express shipping paper filled out even if you are shipping more than one box of samples; however, you i muit prepare your own address labels for each box shipped. Attached is an example of the shipping paper which indicates (circles) the boxes that must be completed.

As a reminder,Blank Federal Express shipping forms are available in the Mail Room.

if your environmental samples contain biohazards, organic solvents, etc., refer to my memo dated February 11, 1994, for guidance.

(

t

(, ' 4.,

George M. McCann, Chief Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Section

Attachment:

As stated i

cc w/ attachment:

W. L. Axelson G. L. Shear l

l l

i l

9902160035 990209 s

^o PDR FOIA A b POST 98-341

/ PDR

[7 l

( er [# @* = = = = ,r QUESTIONS? QALL 800 238A.., (OLL FREE.

mati=n m,- 'AIRP" '

=

'"#0'~~"#'" 0502'60370 <c 3r an mnaus umu accomi.umen 0502060370 o.

O S O 2 O E O 3 F 0

.r2 IF 001 -0,..0ba A n -, . _ , ,

a

,__ _ , . . ~ . , . ~ , , -

DarTel Wiedmen

%, (708 3829-980 Eric Abelquist y o .~ , =. w ., '615 )576-3740 oro.~m , wo

"%.Sunu tOclear Regulatory Camission Oak Ridge Institute for Sci e,w s,. , ,u us c-w. .ro o~,aence _

ro ze c.,m >

& Ed. - ESSAP 4 801 Warrenville Road 1299 Bethel Valley Road c=v sm ww.o c, ~

sw. ww,.o li h IL 60532 z Oak Ri@e, TN 376.31 roup urL%At eriima atustuct wronuA rnon factionn!)Ilerst24 ctwactres wutt appear os manoct I Q_L4KWD16= aoe=:=- >a :..:::== hn'N0LOATHNxLOCAT10N.frunFEDEXAMres

.y : .. .omga-.

s- ~~ ' gs

$ERnCES m ,. u (Checa onry one com) (' DEllVERYANDSPECIAL fiANQUth 'h *GG~~  %

ree ai, o.v agm

\

(Checa sorwes . :A \V .C 'm*f,y0 SERVICECONDITIONS DECLARED VALUE ,.:<.e tnwm uu % Q swuareo.w W weencuy:;u. + ANDllMITOfilABILITY

• ==54*aa.* e vo 88'a=,*

,, =*gs

, *g7 10 NOLD AT rDfJ t0CAWTKar N.' U" ** '**"* va..,.cn u m ee w ain,swir. --Osse C*arge . . .-.- Q ~

4 tiOE si O WL, e ' utaen arenar Oc.",~

,,,g, "D'

,, k

,sOnxnwar sr>0 nu1a v ~ "i r&&;;. . c" 12 O nor1,.<- s2 uus, ,- =;.~ ;*':=' 2 7;;'.~' 'L*:" s ,, -

si Oaatoarrior><ocer.x.*.3drimoar - . _ . . .0 .*a ,, , . . ~ "...c'" ," .-,' T.

. c,.

13 O rtorison 53 rr*1aos 'a 'a _'a'a'

_-,e. .

utar.*seroaa s

% s O stees senas wns s=r - ~ *- < ' <D ' - - .pnesu" ",'

H M2TL82 bn FEMXiLGE 9 SAI** !W **

• aw' *;eunns.n.nnseepsca'.ge. ions.lumea men. . <

.~.n.s,'n.-.. **

• 'm*et ea"w'n'i.' **' ***-- *r or**W*

• *8****

g,, %y ma an.wae=.e, e nam

. . . . o -

. spea' m.'*wne'ses foi.eC*.arges se p'uenn'*e' (

I'U ' ** **'****8

• SA8C48t h.ric$nig DON 7.T C 4 3* ' M s'"o asamamewa,nas

, cr.arim. '

' O

• 5'*ousaaos - - .e.sco"e.s' a chas"e- **'u**

. .n u.a

.nw an'usn'a's.ms.'s'm"n"O"sca's.t.

i i sum"'s'y'

=~O-rcoarr- - - 1 771, O _w,

=ta- ,

. %.i. =. ,

mcuy , O .0.,.,.,,. - ..

e, yyy,,,,.~~c..

.1

-1... 4 1 o.. < ec . i: 0 o  ?,%~'"' .'o 0 ,g,r .... _ . .. 3 * ;,y'. " H -

t:~ m'"*ap".,1~.:':::r"'*  :,,*::: 158

- O  : - , . .. = c o- ~

~

~ ~

. .- = :~

s,. --

$ 2 0 '**'""*' " .:em u " ". :'s . se"

m;?

. ..~. -.... - -. ~~ ~ ~.~ .. . .-- . . . . - -

, d';bM e 6

I i

I l .

I;

$ I 1

eI

! i

.e (NY 1

'i '

1

f

\ FORTAGE COUNTY COMBINED GENERAL HEALTH DISTRICT t

P. Cu, A4-~4,- BA, R .O L 44766 4co % L M.-,. 34 C=-

PL., A,. C J. 2i6.?o6.coio K. F. RUPP, M.D., F.A.A.F.P. l Hacith Commissioner ~"

August 21, 1987 Field Central Elementary School Attn: Mr. Thomas Shoup, Superintendent 1473 Saxe Road Mogadore, Ohio 44260

Dear Mr. Shoup:

Enclosed are the results of samples taken on July 1, 1987. These results indicate that there is no radio-logical contamination of your well water. The standard for gross alpha activity is 15 pCi/1 and is 50 pci/1 for gross beta activity. All samples taken were well within these limits.

If you have any questions concerning these results please feel free to contact me.

l Sincerely, OM4 uhayde o. tv orter, R.S.,M.P.H.,

Director of Environmental Health DOP/cb Enclosure TL. v, - .s ,,..a. J .~ 4 t .h e, , -A - CJ Re. Act io6a (CRA)

Q

w te 4

~ //F % / 'l y '

Ohio' 'epartment of Health A  !

.r indusd[a Chemist'y-Section r' Environmental Sample Subm.SSion Report Agsncy - Od// Laboratory

Oq Central O SE O NE O SW D NW 4gMg5 Division Program:

Analysis Reported To: pfCO O CDO Sample Number:

Analyst: & - I C' Supervisor: @-%% I,/' &2 O SE O NE OSW DNW Date Received: 7 -lo- @

Date Reported: '" 'k- E5~ U Sample Identification T .r g Station:

ID Number: SC, F. inn & moi f.mn. Gom.

b S**a'* oa *' S*Sma'as. . a' ca=ao$' Sama'.-use uiiit.,y Time Year Month Day . Hour Minute .

l i

Addrsss:_L4Y1 $AQ SnAO gg 7 p' t

gi'j q# -

ig City:  % m C'tLL0 Zip:_M2 6 O Endang Date of Composite Sample-Use Military Time l County: ]MR Tar F Phone: O 3 '1 hSg Year M nth Day Hour Manute CVT S/T TYP Coliscted By: Mh NAMObJ  ! l Fuld Treatment:

Additionallnformation-Analyst Remarks-NorgRoutine Analyt,calRequests O Filt: red . O cusp 4 + Ha,PO . . # -[M4Nd'6 <@ . 3.Jr/ M-O/(SJ(/; * **

e.' 7 - *

, I@lced, O HasO4 "U NaOH.- , O HNOs *, yy j ,.!

.i O Other (Explain) jyL g 73

+

7() l pyg ,, }* i s

fyf l g g,,,,,,/ . 7 l R-di: Isotopes - ,.

Pes ides i kMph3. Total pc/l

-% P1501 g _ 'T ' . O Aidnn.WniSampf ug/l P39330. $.

O Alpha, oiss pcli P1503. e* . O 00o. Whl Sampi ug/l M ' "

P39360 1M .

O upha suspa oc/t s. pts 05. / ,

pooE. Whi Sampt ug/l Y' P39365. I QBet.3, Total pc/l .

P3501 Y h ,7 i ~

O 001 Whl sampie vgli h P39370.

O Bet 2 Diss pc/l O etta. Suspd pc/l (

P3503.

P3505l E'

9 O o idnn.Whl Sampi ug/l Oniordane.WhlSampf ug/l P39380. .

P39350. .

O etrium 140. Totai oc/l , ..

T75030. /' . O Endon. Whl Sampi up

' P39390.

O cwum-134. Totsi pc/i P26414.,.. d ' ,, , , o flectachloc. WL sampt opt-

• P39410.

O Cesium 137. Total pc/1 P280( '

. O Hcher-Epoxide. Wht Sampf up P39420. .

O lo.%131. Total pc/l P28301, . / .

O Lindane. Whl Sampf wg/l y . .P39782. '

bt* saium 40. Total pc/l

• P75n38.' .

O Methorychlor, W6lSampi og/l \ 'P.39480. .

O Radium.226.Toisi pc/l P9501 . O Maiathion. Wht$ampt ug/i ' I s' P39530. .

O Radium-22t Total pc/t (- P11501 m .I

. O Paratheon. Whl'Sampi up '

P39540. . . .

t O strontevm.60. Total pet: "

Pt3501 O uethyl Parathn. Whl Sampi uff  ! P39600.' .

f

O Strontium.89. Total pc/1

• 1

. P15501.

m

'~ m. .

O Tosephene, yvhl Sampi ug/i g

~- - ~.

- P39f00. .

I

a. c . l P7000.

[ l O Tntium'ocli .lm,,O 2. 4 o, Whl Sampi ugli .

l P39730

,9 V:1:tth obganic3 O S.iwa. whi samps op P39760,

)

O chloroforniTotat ug/t P32106 O BHC. Whl Sampt up l. P39340 O u.thysene (nionde, totas up.t P34423. O uwea.Wh Sampf ug/t ,'

. P39755 O cermon Tetrachionde. Total og/t P32102 . O Diszinon. Whi Sampi 99/1 / P39570 O eremotorm. Total up P32iO4 . Speciel Parameteta O stomodichioromethane. Tota: up P32101 O PCB.Whlsampf ug/l

. P39516.

O o.t,romochloromethane. Total ug/l '

P32105 ~ . ' O diordphylt A' ug/t - NM O t. 2 oichloroethane. Total ug/l P32103. O Phenots ug/l P32730.

O

. O Samp4 Purpose P71999.

O O

,, . AC

, _ . O Sampie code 4 F"5-D D & '

O D N I. \

O $

h Distrcution: 1-Data Processing 2-Central Of fice 3-District Of fice 4 -Owner 5-Laboratory (4989 32) Ohio Department of Health

~

Exhibit I REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (RFTA)

INSPECTOR'S NAME //g/2 *(<//&dLEPHONE # [*7df)[M9-f8[

FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION _ oc/W/// MdJ////

DOCKET [A DATE OF REQUEST [7

/ '

/ RFTA #

(LEAVE BLANK) f E OR NON-FEE REC 0VERABLE Ald#-///

VIDE APPLICATION DATE (FROM LICENSEE) 2/I.

PLEASE CHECK NEW LICENSE AMENDMENT RENEWAL

• DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED (INCLUDING SCHEDULE) (USE SEPARATE SHEET I NEEDED) gg gg /j ,p ggf g gg pgg, YY & /0 [AA(//f/ -f/ .GfM//// )~$*A >l@f k

/2f'**(p+/f ax y so/&;4 -}- do fr#( /</e+ 4.ce d a

$1f***/*,f"Y#(;2)%ar'fJMer+t p*nf 6ex{} $1 rdss.om .  ;

, # FOR CONFIRMATORY SURVEY REQUESTS, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:

1. HAS PRELIMINARY INFORMATION BEEN RECEIVED FROM LICENSEE? YES NO 1A. HAS THIS INFORMATION BEEN REVIEWED BY NRC AND IS IT ACCEPTABLET-YES NO .

(NOTE: ORAU SHOULD BE PROVIDED 30 CALENDAR DAYS TO REVIEW INFORMATION AND PREPARE FOR SURVEY). l

% 2. IS A PRELIMINARY SITE VISIT NEEDED?

3. DATE SURVEY PLAN NEEDED WHEN?

l

4. DATE SURVEY HEEDED

% 4 "";?"-

x is., i ,PEC10R D1 em, A eRANC8C, ie

%G %

m, ,

7 oA1e EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION (SEE INSPECTION CHAPTER 0312 FOR DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE EMERGENCY REQUESTS). EXPLAIN, ON SEPARATE SHEET, THE 6 N JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EMERGENCY REQUEST.

• BE PROCESSED WITHOUT THIS JUSTIFICATION.

• NOTE THAT THE REQUEST CANNOT

~ g .

DIVISION DATE f N s

y $ APPROVAL x (( 80 mM Dm e2 m om 4 I_ _ 1E,31,,1 E1 1 0319p

SPklNGFIELD LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION I 2960 Sanitarium Road Akron, Ohio 44312 (216) 784-0421 Fax:(216) 784-5838 )

I Dr. Tucker L. Self, Superinterxlent Roy B. Swartz, Tre: surer Daniel E. Laskos, Business Maruger February 24,1994

Dear Parent:

The Springfield Local Schools currently monitors all water supplies to our buil dings as {

required by the Ohio E.P.A. The results of a regular quarterly test recently revealed that i a bacteria known as Coliform was present in small amounts in the water supply at l Roosevelt Elementary School.

Upon discovery of the bacteria, we were required by the Ohio E.P.A. to retest the water

-by taking five additional samples. Four of these samples indicated that bacteria was still present in the water. The fifth sample, which was taken at the point where the water enters the building, was negative. Therefore, we know the bacteria is in the water system in the building and not in the well.

We have taken measures to assure that the bacteria does not cause anyone to become ill by turning off all drinking fountains and boiling any water that is used in cooking. ,

Bottled water is being used for drinking purposes. We have treated the water system and  !

expect the next test results to indicate that the wateris safe. Until we receive results that l

indicate the water is safe, we will not allow anyone to drink the water or use it in cooking. l Be assured that bottled water will continue to be available for drinking, and we will continue to boil any water used in cooking. We anticipate the problem to be corrected and the water safe by early next week.

A statement conceming our water testing policy and a statement about any iUness that may be related to this bacteria is included on the back of this letter.

If you h any qu ions, please do not hesitate to call the superintendent's office.

c ely, i ucker L. S If h.D.,

Superintend t

)

)

SCOPING SURVEY PLAN Licensee: Goodyear Aerospace Corporation j Advanced Technology Center Akron, Ohio License No.: SNN-1461, Docket No. 070-01489 (terminated) i Inspection Dates: 4/25-29 199 Insoector(s): D. G. Wiedem Accompaniment: Ohio Departs of Health and OEPA were notified of the inspection, however, informed that due to circumstances were not invited to accompany the inspectors.

Puroose of Insoection: To perform a scoping survey to determine the identity of potential radioactive contaminants and the general extent of residual activity present on building surfaces, grounds and off-site residential areas.

I. Determine radionuclides used at the facility DONE 4/11/94 Licensee was authorized for 349 grams of uranium-235 i:ontained in a maximum of 46.00 kg of total uranium (includes normal, depleted and enriched uranium in any form). The last two inspection reports indicate that material was UF. in 50 Lb. containers which were received from D0E.

Backaround Information AEC issued License No. SW-1461 to Goodyear on January 14, 1974 (Part 2 of the application contained DOE " Secret-RD" information) for research and development of uranium enrichment equipment (gas centrifuge). Handling of radioactive materials involved the use of uranium hexafluoride (UF.) in 50 lb. l cylinders, which would be piped into experimental centrifuges used to test different rotor designs. The centrifuges were located in a pit area in a blimp hanger (No.91), buildings 85 and 90 were kiso associated with the operations. The centrifuge process produced both depletd and enriched l

uranium (U-235). The licensee monitored air and water effluents from the Wingfoot facility during this research from 1974-1985. Previous NRC inspections in 1979 and 1982 indicated that the licensee did not have a defined survey program for contamination control. The licensee's air sampling results within the Wingfoot facility were at background levels except for two l incidents in 1980 and 1981 where high readings were noted as a result of l spills in the " cut up" and mass spectrometer areas of the facility. The l licensee's air sampling and lie,uid effluent data for areas outside the l Wingfoot facility showed no abnormal levels from 1974 to 1985. The licensee performed a close-out survey of the facility and requested termination of the  !

license on January 16, 1985. The NRC requested ORAU to perform a confirmatory survey which was conducted Nay through August 1986. The first two surveys identified areas contaminated above the NRC release criteria, the third and final survey concluded that all areas of contamination have been identified and ORAU performed a confirmatory survey in June and August, 1986, however, l

the NRC did not confirm that these areas were properly remediated. The areas in question are the following: (1) elevated floor activity in the decontamination area and UF, storage area, { alpha / beta / gamma levels of 16K and 113K dpe/100ca' near a support beam and alpha levels of 13-196K dpm/100cm' near a sink} (2) isolated and general areas of contamination found in the main process area and high-bay, (water collected from the sink drain (grid block K54) contained gross alpha 94 pCi/1 and gross beta 81 pCi/1, and the sewer line was contaminated with uranium.

Inspection Ob.iectives confirm that the following areas were decontaminated to a residual radiation level consistent with current NRC release criteria: See Attachment B, Grid Blocks E50, E52, G50, F48, H54, 154, J52, J54, E48, F50, 152, K53 and K54, (2) determine the termination point of floor drains in Building 91, e.g.,

municipal sewerage system, leach field, holding tanks, dump directly into Wingfoot lake etc., (3) using EPA and ORISE collection protocols, sample three on-site monitoring wells to determine gross alpha and beta levels to determine if sub surface contamination exists, (4) collect and analyze four shore line sediment samples around Wingfoot lake to determine deposition of uranium in the lake, (5) using EPA and ORISE collection protocols sample 6 off-site residential wells to determine if possibility exists that drinking water is contaminated with uranium from former licensed activities, (5) on a sampling basis, perform direct radiation survey of off-site homes and/or yards if the property owner requests a survey, take soil sample of any area that exceeds 3X background.

A. Review file to determine use areas DONE 4/11/94 B. Interview previous or current employees II. Determine affected and unaffected areas DONE 4/11/94 A. Affected areas DONE 4/11/94

1. Areas that have the potential for contamination based on a review of the license and interviews DONE 4/11/94 B. PoMtial Areas Done 4/12/94

1. Areas immediately adjacent to affected areas DONE 4/11/94 C. Unaffected areas

1. All remaining areas not classified as affected or potentially affected areas DONE 4/11/94

9 III. Determine survey instruments and efficiency DONE, See Attachment C A. If only a few nuclides used, determine efficiency for all nuclides B. If numerous nuclides used NA

1. Determine efficiency of predominately used radionuclides or i

2. Determine efficiency based on nuclide present in analyzed samples. DONE, Victoreen Model 190 w/15cm" pancake probe used for beta +gama measurements, Ludlum Model 19 microR meter used for gamma measurements, Eberline ESP alpha meter with 59cm* probe used for alpha measurements, Attachment C.

IV. Survey A. Survey will include floors, drains, pipes, ducts, cracks, lower l walls, and outside areas adjacent to buildings 1.(b) Determine if sewer or building drains exist (maps or

. pictures and/or discussion with Goodyear employees.

1. Affected areas, conduct a 100 % walk-over using 2 meter wide lanes

2. Potential areas, conduct a 50 % walk-over using 2 meter wide g

lanes

2. Unaffected areas, conduct a 25 % walk-over using 2 meter s

wide lanes B. Collect smears at each location of elevated measurement or randomly, if no elevated measurements - /

C. Collect samples of residues or surfaces with elevated measurements

1. If samples potentially contaminated with biological or chemical hazardous materials, contact RIII office for instructions on sampling a shipping

s T

D. Document survey results and locations of elevated readings with enough detail to be able to relocate -

W EfZN7 g

1. Reference to predominant landmarkr V. Contamination Identified A. Collect appropriate information to determine area of elevated measurements B. Analyze samples collected in RIII lab to identify radionuclides

1. Determine instrument efficiency - ed

2. Determine activity of elevated ir.2asurements

a. Greater than maximum guideline criteria, remediation required.

b. Greater than average, but less than maximum guideline criteria, need to determine contamination level averaged over one square meter. Use NUREG/CR 5849 area weighted formula to determine average level.

c. Area weighted average greater than average guideline criteria, remediation required NOTE- During this S

inspection soil / sediment samples from around Wingfoo Lake will be taken and/or at any discharge point to determine Uranium soil concentrations. This inspection will include a review of other potential for liquid run-off, standing water or potential collection points, old sewers, septic areas. Soil samples will be collected if direct radiation levels exceed 3Xbackground.~gp/ w/

1 l

VI. Burial Sites A. Determine if facility had onsite burials DONE 4/11/94 ,

1. Review files to determine if onsite burials authorized DONE 4/11/94 (none)

Interview previous or present employees -

1. 1. g l 7("N 9f 2.

B. Conduct a 100 % walk-over exposure rate surveys sing 2 meter wide l

l lanes C. Generally, if the possibility of subsurface contamination or burials exist, additional sampling and surveying will be required.

This is generally performed during the characterization survey.

Soil limits taken from Branch Technical Position 35 pCi/g (1.3Bq)

Depleted Uranium, 30 pCi/g (1.118q) enriched uranium. Water samples will be analyzed by ORISE and the results will be compared to the EPA drinking water standards, Attachment D..

1 Use " Checklist for Conducting Assessment of Site Radiological Status", page 1 3.6 NUREG/CR 5849, Attachment A.

Additional Inspection activities which will be considered if applicable:

1.Take photographs of site and off-site sampling locations. -MOM l

f jg }

w un7 V', p g opea O/)7I gg,,-gw af &rA*'y N"#

l l

l

3 Checklist for Conducting Assessment of Site Radiological Status DONE 1. Review license operating records, documentation supporting license amendment applications, and other pertinent documents.

[ / 2. Discuss site history with senior and former employees and others

(/ who may have information on past operations.

DONE 3. Identify radionuclides used.

DONE 4. Determine which radionuclides could be site contaminants.

DONE 5. Identify locations of likely residual activity.

Perform scoping survey.

DONE 7. Identify specific radionuclides at site.

DONE 8. Establish guideline values; develop site-specific values.

At [i. Compare scoping survey findings with guideline values.

10. Prepare Inspection report identifying locations of contamination (if any).

REVIEWED BY: Y k C-

/

/

datne 9

G M.'Facilities Fuel McCarpi, and Chief, Decommissioning Set: tion APPROVED BY: 4/[t i e/ B/fr Bary ll. Shear, Chief / tlate Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch

y. *~..,, A TTACHMENT A

,. . , . s ,....

(g3 F * ._

1 l.-

Checklist for Conducting Assessment of Site Radiological Status

, DONE 1. Review license operating records, documentation supporting license amendment applications, and other pertinent documents.

2. Discuss site history with senior and former employees and others who may have information on past operations.

DONE 3. Identify radionuclides used.

DONE 4. Determine which radionuclides could be site contaminants.

DONE 5. Identify locations of likely residual activity.

I

6. Perform scoping survey.

l DONE 7. Identify specific radionuclides at site.

DONE 8. Establish guideline values; develop site-specific values.

9. Compare scoping survey findings with guideline values.

10. Prepare Inspection report identifying locations of contamination (if any).

l REVIEWED BY:

6 M. McCann, Chief, date l

! Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Section l

APPROVED BY:

Gary L. Shear, Chief date Fuel Cycle and Decomnissioning Branch l

l l

ATTACHMENT A l l ~ ~~.. ?.

I Page / of Pages t

I

)

/: 80

- 76

!' 72 j 7m 68

'~ 64

-- 60

_ //> ./l. = s,.,s e

.a_

56

,JJ 52

,, 48

-1 wl l 44 40

~

) ,

36 l

INDICATES AREA 32

. NOT SURVEYED

.. 28 24

~

l 20 l

16  ;

M> l 0 5 -

8 bEnRs H> 4 7

0

-.4---<. i i lI PONMLKJIHGFEDCBA FIGURE 5: Grid System Established for Survey Reference A TTACHMENT B

/~. .s 15

'"'l " "

}

Q l l lI l 1

80 l

! cm I 76 72

- m a 68

• ""- 64

-- 60

- 56

- 'u s .i -

52 MANHOLE / ~

g 4g

1 J  :

44

= 40 "l m e-- -

. , 36

~

-- DRAIN UNE 32 PORTION OF # a

~~~~

DRAIN REMOVED =

l

28 24 20 16 I g,

O 5 12 I I METERS 8

HP 4

0

--e t - ~ :  :

II PONMLKJIHGFEDCBA FIGURE 12: Location of Contaminated Droin Line Which was Removed 22

l l i .

80 sm 76

! 72

- l m 68 1 -

,, 64

-- 60 56

_ =L .

l 0 Y/llll ,

52 l 48

1 -. J  :

+'

f l - 40 l -- -

1 CONTAMINATED ,

I

[ AREAS O. 2

. .. 28 l

24

~

20 16 0 5 12 I f METERS 0 H>

4 w >- - e : - 0 g

1 1I PONMLKJ1HGFEDCBA FIGURE 9: Areas of Contamination Identified By the Walkover Surface Scan 19

I :

80 ca 76 l '. 72

] , 68 64 l ., ,

-- 60 56

-

• L.J L .i-

.J J e 52 48 i

I k

-.e d '

l =

44 l

40 "I m e-. -  ;

- 36 l

_' e i

MEASUREMENT 32

• LOCATIONS e ..

- l -

28

+ e 24 20 ;

16 w>

0 5 , , 12 I I l

METERS 8 l 89 4

ep%: 0 l

• l 1I PONMLKJlHGFEDC8A FIGURE 6: Locations of Exposure Rote Measurements 16

l.

1 CALIBRATION SOURCES Sr-Y-90 93,600 dpm Th-230 8,860'dpr.

INSTRUMENT CHECK Eberline ESP Alpha (Th-230 source shows 1,200 cpm (14% eff) (Bkg.1-7 cpm) 2,100 cpm = -15,000 dpm.' { alpha)

(Sr-Y-90 source shows =10 cpm NRC Tag No. 033845, Calibrated 6/27/93 Probe 59 cm*

l Victoreen 190 (Sr-Y-90 source shows 30,000 cpm (32% eff) (Bkg.40 cpm)

~5,000 cpm = 15,000 dpm { beta} {uraniure max. limit)

-1,666 cpm = 3,000 dpm' ~{ beta} { thorium max limit}

NRC Tag No. 040520,* Calibrated 7/28/93 Probe pancake 15 cm l

l l

Ludlum Model 19 micro-R meter  ;

NRC Tag No. 015522  !

Calibrated 7/93 7-10 pR/ hour- background l

, . ~ s.,, A TTACHMENT C (g) ,... z.,4,

l l

'e EPA Prnnnsed Drinkino Water Standards In a notice of proposed rules dated 7/18/91, EPA is proposing Maximum contaminant tevel Goals (MCLG's) and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Rn-222, Ra-226, Ra-228, uranium, alpha emitters, beta and photon emitters. The MCLG's are intended to be non- '

enforceable health goals based upon health effects and exposure information. Proposed Maximum Contaminant 1 ovel s (MCL's) are enforceable standards which the Safety Drinking Water Act directs the EPA to set as close to the MCLG's (zero) as is feasible. The proposal also describes monitoring, reporting and public notification requirements for the radioactive contaminants.

The following are the proposed MCL's for each source; the estimated numbers of people exposed to the levels above each MCL appear in parentheses:

Radium-226, 20 pCi/1 (890,000)

Radium-228, 20 pCi/1 (246,000)

Uranium, 30 pCi/1 (875,000)

Gross Alpha 15 pCi/1 (500.000)

Beta / Photon 4 mrem ede/ year [5D The EPA proposes that the MCL for Radon be set at 300 pCi/1, based upon an estimated transfer factor of radon from water to air of 10,000 to 1.

Reverse osmosis is considered to be'the overall best method for reducing contaminant levels of the nuclides addressed in this proposed rulemaking. Other technologies include ion exchange, lime softening, coagulation / filtration, and mixed ion exchange.

l l

l i

i n A TD1CHMENTD j

m. 1 PAGED of I pages l 1

v O POTABLE (DRINKING) WATER tt is very important that extreme care be taken when collecting potable water. By definition, the public will be involved in the collection of such samples and a poorly collected sample can affect the public's perception of the entire environmental monitoring program.

j When collecting from wells the latter must be purged of 3 - 5 volumes of the '

standing water in the well. As a rule, this may take 30 minutes. At a minimum, the nearest domestically used well downgradient from the surf ace discharge point should be sampled. The NRC recommends sampling 1 to 3 of the nearest water supplies likely to be affected. One background sample from a control (upgradi9nt) location is all that is required. 1 When collecting water from the tap: the tap should be directly connected to a l j

main water line, it should not be connected to a storage tank; the tap should not be too '

close to the sink bottom or the ground (this reduces the possibility of contamination from the outside of the tap of the ground from getting into the sample); avoid leaking taps; only sample taps with steady flow; remove aerators and strainers pr!or to sampling; and allow the cold water tap to run at least 2 - 3 minutes prior to sampling. Note: the majority of these suggestions are primarily of importance when the bacterial content of the water is being analyzed.

i d

4 0

2e A 77A CHMENTD PAGFj_ or f pages

i l

1 h SAMPLE FILTRATION AND PRESERVATION

1. Filtration 1

i in order to evaluate the risk associated with contaminants in the water supply. it l is necessary to distinguish between the soluble and suspended contaminants. Water samples are generally filtered as soon after collection as possible. This willinvariably be done eag'oying vacuum filtration or pressure driven filtration. This requires a hand l ,

I operated pump, a battery operated pump or a pump with generator.

The most widely used filter is perhaps the 0.45 um pore size membrane filter. Very i

,j  ;

small particulates do pass through such a filter so the distinction between suspended and  !

dissolved contaminants is arbitrary. These filters can quickly clog but they are not as bad as polycarbonate filters which should be avoided. With extremely dirty water it may be necessary to prefilter with a cellulose filter.

When filters are handled, wear gloves. Filter holders and sample lines should be i

cleaned between samples. When possible, the filtration system should first be rinsed with an aliquot of the sample.  ;

') l The use of disposable filter cartridges is convenient but it is possible these filters may remove some dissolved solutes by adsorption.

h ll

2. Preservation  !'

The purpose of preservation is to prevent changes in the sample between the time l

of collection and analysis. While these preservatives can be quite effective, sample l analysis should proceed as soon as possible. l The major things to be achieved by preservation are: the prevention of bacterial, algal or fungal growth (these organisms can selectively remove various materials from solution); the prevention of metals from precipitating out of solution; and preventing material from volatilizing. Obviously, the preservation technique will depend on the material of interest.

Perhaps the best way to prevent bacterial, algal or fungal growth is to keep the sample in the dark and refrigerate to 4 *C. Other methods include the addition of Hg Cl, or H, SO. ,

To keep metals (most radionuclides) in solution and prevent precipitation, .

acidification is used. Samples are acidified to a pH<2 with HNO, or HCL This can l' usually be accomplished by the addition of 10 mis of concentrated acid to one gallon of sample.

The addition of NaOH to the sample to increase the pH to 9-12 can help prevent volatilization of certain compounds. Note, for some common radionuclides eg. H-3 and 29 ii

t 3

h I-131 no chemical preservation will be employed.

performed within a few days of collection. For 1-131 analysis needs to be t

3. Samole Containers For most samples either glass or plastic containers may be used. However, for the analysis of radionuclides, plastic (polyethylene) containers are generally preferred. ,

l They are certainly more convenient; they are cheaper, lighter, and not prone to bre or required.

be slippage. Plastic containers should not, however, be used when tritium analysis will

! \

The following tables provide the EPA recommendations, as well as those other organizations, for sample preservation. I l

1 Preservation of Radionuclidea (Thatcher and others,1977)

Analvte Method of Pre serva tion Holdina Time Gros s Alpha, Be t a, Acidify to 0.5N EC1.

i and Gamma 1 Year i

Aa, NP , Pu .

Acidify to 0.5N EC1. 2 Tear j I Ba-140, Cs-137 Acidify to 0.5N EC1. Decay

• Ce-141, Co-144 Acidify to 0.5N ENO, Decays or 0.5N BC1.

Co-58, Co-60 Acidify to 0.5N Ecl.

i Decay * (Co-58) 1 Tsar (Co-60)

I-151 None. 7 Days Fe-55 Acidify to 0.5N EC1. 2 Year Fe-54 Acidify to 0.5N EC1 Decey*

or 0.5N EN0s.  !

Pb-210, Ma-54, Acidify to 0.5N hcl 1s-105, to-106 1 Year i l or 0.5N ENO,.

j Po-210 Acidify to 0.5N ENO,. Decay

• Ha-226' None. 1 Year la-228 Add ICI to pH (1.5. 1 Year Sr-89, Sr-90 Acidify to 0.5N hcl 1 Year or 0.5N ENO., j j

• 1apid decay and/or daughter in growth is the limitation on holding time.

3o

e l

3 k

l Preservation of Me tal and Nutrient Tons (U. S. Geological Survey,1977)

Ansivte _M;tthod of Pre s e rvs ti on Holdine Time i A1, Sb, As , Ba, Be, Add HNO: to pH (2.

Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, 6 Months Fe, Pb, Li, Ng, Mn, ,

Mo, Ni, I, Se, Ag, 't Na, Sr, 50, {

i B', Br, C1, F, S10s None.

6 Mon:hs Hg Add HNO: to pH (2. Analyze As Soon As Possible N Species i 1 (N0s , N0s , NH )

Be st - Store a t 4 *C. 24 Hours l Acceptsble - Add 40 mg/l 7 Days HgC1s, then cool to 4*C.

P Species Best - Store at 4*C. 24 Hours (PO. , orga nics , Acceptable - Add ESSO to etc.) 7 Days '

pH (2 and cool to 4*C, or add l 40 mg/l EgC1s and cool to 4*C.

Snifide Add 2 al of 2N zine acetate Analyze As per liter of sample; Soon As I.

neutralize with alkali if Possible needed.

Ti Add HNO: to pH <2, then add 6 Months 1

I 3 al ESSO4 . ,

T1, U Acidify to 0.5N HC1. 1 Year sH** None. Indefinite  !

• Store in polyethyTene or boron-free glass.

• • Samples for 8H analysis must be stored in glass with a trition seal cap.' ,

l' l

l l

l l'i 31 l

l e-~- --

O i

SECTION 8.4 WATER SAMPLING 1.0 PURPOSE To describe the procedure for collecting samples of water from surface and subsurface I sources 2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 The site coordinrdor is responsible for assuring that this procedure is implemented.

2.2 Survey team personnel are responsible for following this procedure.

l 3.0 EOUIPMENT j 3.1 Balling implement: Borehole bailer - ORISE design, cup, can, pail, or other appropriate device.

3.2 Submersible, vacuum, or peristaltic pump with power source.

3.3 Four liter plastic container, storage boxes and tags, or other container type as applicable.

3.4 Funnel.

3.5 Large Erlenmeyer Flask with two-hole stopper. i l

t 3.6 Tygon tubing.

3.7 Labels and security seals.

3.8 Indelible pen.

l 3.9 Record forms and/or logbook.

3.10 Cleaning supplies, as appropriate (see Section 10).

1 Survey Procedures Manual Revision No. 8 ORISE/ESSAP Date: December 31,1993 App ved: l Page 11 of 27 Sec.1 '

i .

Project hiariager

~~h 0b

o 4.0 PROCEDURE 4.1 Surface Sample 4.1.1 Dip water carefully from the selected location, being careful to avoid collection of bottom sediment or vegetation.

4.1.2 Using a funnel, transfer the water into a container.

4.1.3 Collect a total of 3.8 liters of sample.

4.1.4 Cap the container tightly. Ngo ME5stvFf2 45 [l"'*D'

• WCEBWLI 4.1.5 Label and secure the sample in accordance with Section 8.9 and the chain-of-custody procedure in the Quality Assurance Manual. Record pertinent information on the Chain-of-Custody Form (Figure B-19, or equivalent).

4.1.6 The container should be placed in a cardboard box (also properly labeled) for better storage.

4.1.7 Record pertinent data on the Miscellaneous Sample Record Form (Figure B-15, or equivalent) and/or site logbook.

4.1.8 Clean collecting equipment, as appropriate before proceeding with additional sampling (see Section 10).

4.2 Subsurface (well or borehole) Sample (Option 1) 4.2.1 Lower the bailer apparatus into the borehole or other sub-surface source' of water.

4.2.2 Allow water to flow into the baller (use care to avoid buildup of sediments on the baller diaphragm, which could prevent the diaphragm from sealing).

I Survey Procedures Manual Revision No. 8  !

ORISE/ESSAP Date: December 31,1993 '

Approved:

Page _12. of 27 Sec. jL.

P1A" R

Project M'inager

w s

4.2.3 Retrieve the baller and empty contents through a funnel into a container.

4.2.4 Repeat procedure until 3.8 liters of sample has been collected.

4.2.5 Repeat steps 4.1.4 through 4.1.8.

4.3 Subsurface Sample (Option 2) 4.3.1 Lower the inlet end of tubing until it contacts the water surface.

4.3.2 Stan pump and collect water in large flask.

4.3.3 Empty flask into container as necessary.

4.3.4 Repeat until 3.8 liters of sample has been collected.

4.3.5 Repeat steps 4.1.4 through 4.1.8. I i

l l

l l

l lL .

l l

t i

Survey Procedures Manual -

Revision No. 8 ORISE/ESSAP Date: December 31,1993  :

Appr ved: Page _13,. of 27 Sec. .J_ l

>l Project Mdnager ' ~ ~

1 NRC FORM 303(Rill) U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nem LABORATORY USE ONLY REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS CONBOL NUMBER REGION lli LABORATORY LICENSE NO_ DOCKET NO.

SJ.MPLE LOCATION (UCENSEE$)*'&ffU!d*"

8 TOTAL , TYPE sordW eo-a/FrP DATE SAMPLES SUBMrrTED PRIORITY 3 Ju/are:"& _ s/%/ WSAMPLE COLLE 1 N INTERVAL "T ... ,

/ ggup 4 gjpww//sr $ /J g , O D START [

"Xa""G"Lw/ad J~Mn'/ -

"Ts7f s,oe fzs TY ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED OTHER TYPE OF ANALYSIS (Spedfy)

(0 0 GROSS ALPHA (GA) g)[j GROSS BETA (GB) /dD h GAMMA SPEC (GS) ,

p<n>> / s;,;z-ra c n P ey d<eu> lmau/aAoAlemd&

4 .) { cweuasa.m gyowe n g s,,a .Aa g s - a ~ ~(dynZJ) & &<)e~ R i.

n i

. os/Soundnf MeF w Q.er't~e*/

Y $h YU /N f 9@

fa .444/wl 9 /o s&;/lm',.i Y d?lZl/>v/

/ e< - ) ss 4 A t' 4 - 3 fi e s /g m iv M AnuP

.,w "t# & & -sdd, L ,y 69 Aw #

A M Ak M aw M SM & $5/'f15 Ab H- '

NOTE: SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED AFTER ANALYSIS UNLESS REASONS ARE NOTED IN REMARKS ABOVE.

"* FOR URGENT USE ONLY - Signature blocks below must be completed by the inspector's appropriate Secten Chief and by the Chief. Effluents Radiaton Protecten Section BEFORE subrrutting thrs form to the Region lli Laboratory.

DATE SGNATURE - APPROPRIATE NUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFETY SECTION CHIEF DATE SaGMATURE - FUEL F ACIUTIES AND CONT AMINATED SITES SECTON

n -

) 06.31,6. 14:11 tf alt, 7bb boJP btu k DV D r.t.h1.w %9ul.vub

's s , -

v.

' "'R&Clia.*s45fQ$;C ::^l..,., '

' . G. :c.nb-

,~

, {y s?

M ~ .. w::-M'% . T. -x. . ' ' *

>xg,7X.,;

.?,- ,, : ps,g. ;. ..s.i

. .. . . .1.

...~h_. .

7 p.s...n .

T.*f. . ,

..-f .?j: ,.. RWi?' ' '

% "'I.'i ~ -

~ '

Y&L.;%e.'; ' El '.::~' ,

_ ggy .. . ; ;.*. . w. .,

" ?*

2

l uflnGi17  ; -

f . ...,

w. . '.:

n.C, i hM'R...

~

% o gSSI yggs /

poca7(j' This Is A TelecopictTrasmission Froca PLANT CHEMICAL, EXnMKHNG, AUIOCAD, FNVIRONMENTALud SUPPORTSERVICES - AKRON. OHIO. -

(216)796 6459 446 4459 TO; G:n C' N c i L.

FROM: 3oE. L 6 & C. ' 5.S. .. ._

DEPARTMENT: 1' O F DATE: R 3099 i

~

NUMBEROF PAG $S TRANSMITTED. INCLUDING THIS COVER :

SUBTECT: r.- /-/ A s, < //- __

REFERENCE:

We3f v=t tn t ,_, __.

!c.SS AGE: ~% n w h 4 _

G) o w e.

/

__ (t) P e-s > u so ,

e-r cw un u s e I

_- - - - - - .s

' 6 ' '. 4 l ' s ' :jc

' . ,,Ai ' T- j , ,,c . 1 '

. \* I } ' e 'l ,13, ! i( .3.Ni ise g l % s. ; *, ).N

{ /.}{ /.l .!

[ 716) 7 06 7 3'/'y fe .' ##6./3/$

06/31e94 13:12 y2167W66459 Wik E.%1M.1.h119 %on,ouc s N*\ / M 'l Iti }

%% / lil

% I f [

/

\' -  %,.

s i l .

,\ n

/c /

){ J I!  ;

p.  ; i '

,g . . . . . .it

.f, L w i f. f

. '/  :$ m

!// .)6 '

t-

':/ ,

i{

,f /

1 31;

)

n .

J F 3

.1 , :a f:

.n ,

s. -

1n *

/\ '

,,.c; {j ,

l kI i{]

1 1; i.

t g.', si s

--.---' l ,

'I q 1 t(o -

lt i j

LL l-li-- n i

7. is .

U Il i rhr [

.t y i.

! {

.t 3 (

i r. . :sp , __

,g i m, ,

ii i m.

txl 6 .

m l

..r- - -- '

+ n 1

-. un i/ l/g /

9g / '

I ,. Q.y

,E,t 4

,, I L 1 1

t

.g l , / / I .

) I

-L.

N

,/,,/Y \~*})l(al?,",:.{f L ' \

q g- , ' wb-- L \

i . .z . = = - .

1. , t gsr.. . g.,g e ..> #_... # -$.- %

~ '

i  !. ,/

i i;

1 A. ,__ [ .2 7 d "'r

'O.-f_ TM

! o j! ,,, , , , /i # - --

i

-La .- ,

~. ,5 .yg'".s , 1 . .

u i

b=g \ .,!

9 1 p s;.:.t r ;a -"

u.

/h- N 1

.m l ro 7o i

'. L [,

-._ r ,..

o,

- / --

ds: -f.

i h" '*

ffV ',\ ,/,, /

~~

" wib. E ~ J' '

.~ [

6  ;!! ., ,

O f

' ~

/\ A; [ @\ i

\ $y ., ,, . ,

+

{ ,

$~JY" s.

h..pp f pr o.p

~/-

~

.-+.- s W -- .. t: a g

.[ , , a.-

UA

.m. - .

,/ ' I;l, ,,,. .} .

s... q />s. tk - ~ 1 i  :

i:

1 1:

,} '

c 11 3p .a

~" 4 .. .

e.. g,-l ; gp5" S ,

,. m . ..a g, ,

1_

< u. . u . ,. ,

u n, t

., s.. ,w. s w

..ph!" d s . c , ,. ,_ _ &. me t / h4 t- -s - " '"'* 1.y.,4_. o - .s "N

13:13 S216 796 6659 6DIR ENGl.NEER1hb  %.uus vuu

08/31/94 i

(!!

WINGFOOT LAKE FACILITY L 8-9-94 i FUEL CELL TEST FACILITY

'

• DURING TESTING,20 MILUMETER AND SMALLER AMMO WAS FIRED AT FUEL TANKS TO TEST THEIR CAPACITY TO MINIMIZE FIRE / EXPLOSIONS.

THE TANKS -- USED ON AIRCRAFT DURING THE VIETNAM WAR - WERE DESIGNED TO SELF-SEAL, IN ORDER TO SAVE LIVES.

UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK - 10.QQQ GA1 i ON REUSABLE FUEL l

• FUEL USED IN TESTS OF PORTABLE MILITARY FUEL TANKS FOR

! DESIGN / SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

!

• AFTER USE - FUEL WAS SOLD FOR ENERGY VALUE.

• THREE MONITORING WELLS MEET DRINKING WATER ST.WDARDS.

• THE FOURTH WELL, MW-3, INDICATES A LEVEL OF 120 PARTS PER BILLION OF BENZENE.

• MINUTE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER.

• SITUATION BEUEVED TO BE LOCALIZED - GROUNDWATER FLOWS SOUTHEAST.

• CONTAMINATION IS BEUEVED TO DE LOCAUZED.

• GOODYEAR WORKING WITH THF. OMO FPA TO ASSFSS AND Cf. FAN UP THE SITE.

• SIGNIFICANT DATES 1986 - TANK REMOVAL 1989 - FACILITY CLOSED 1990, FEB. - OHIO EPA CLOSURE SUBMITTAL 1990, set'I'. - UH10 EPA COMMENTS 1991, MAY - GOODYEAR MODIFICATIONS 1991, JUNE - SITE ASSESSMENT STARTED 1991. JULY - INTERIM REPORT SUBMITTED 1992, JAN. - EXPANDED SITE INVESTIGATION 1992, MAY - OHIO EPA REQUEST FOR SAMPLING 1992, JULY - AMENDED CLOSURE SUBMITTED 1993, JAN. - AMENDED PLAN PUDUC NOTICE 1994, AUGUST - OHIO EPA COMMENTS-PENDING AMMUNITION DUMP THE " AMMUNITION DUMP" WAS A TEMPORARY STORAGE SHED FOR AMMO. AT THE TIME, THE WORD " DUMP" WAS A MIUTARY TERM USFD TO DEFINE A TEMPORARY STORAGE AREA.

• NO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE EMPTY STORAGE SHED.

• ALL AMMUNITION WAS REMOVED FROM TEMPORARY STORAGE IN 1980.

IN 1993, PROPOSALS WERE OBTAINED TO REMOVE THE BUILDING

{

IN THE NEAR FUTURE. l

• THE BUILDING REMAINS EMPTY AND ENCLOSED BY AN EIGHT FOOT i HIGH SECURITY FENCE.

• EXISTING SHED I.OCATED 1000 YARDS FROM THE FUEL TEST AREA. l l

I

i bMK k.SGIM.t.hanb svuo.uuu j 08/31/94 13:13 S 216 796 6659 ,

}

l UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC TEST FACIllTY L

• SYSTEM WAS OPERATIONAL IN THE SPRING OF 1982.

• DISH SHAPED EXCAVATION - 35 FEET DEEP - 100 FEET DIAMETER

• DREDGE & FILL PERMITS OBTAINED FROM CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHICH REQUIRED PROCEDURES THAT PREVENTED SOIL PARTICLES FROM ENTERING THE MAIN LAKE.

• 'IEE PRODUCT - A NAVY TRAINING AID -- WAS A 20 FOOT LONG/ 21 INCH l DIAMETER DEVICE, WHICH CREATED SONAR SIONALS USING ITS INTERNAL ELECTRONICS TO SIMULATED A FULL SIZE ENEMY

! SUBMARINE.

• DURING TESTS. THE PRODUCT NEVER WAS DETACHED FROM THE HOIST.

WHICH TETHERED THE PRODUCT IN THE WATER UNDER THE FACILITY.

• @ EXPLOSIVES, CHEMICALS OR RADIATION ASSOCIATED WITH TRSTS.

• @ CONTAMINATION - ONLY SONAR (SOUND WAVES) EMPLOYED.

THE CENTRIFUGE PIT

• THE CENTRIFUGE PIT WAS 30 FEET IN DIAMETER AND 53 FEET DEEP.

• FOLLOWING CANCELLATION OF THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT AND A SITE STUDY, THE NRC INDICATED IN 1986 THAT THE AREA COULD l

BE UTILIZED FOR UNRESTRICTED USE.

• THE ATRSHIP PROGRAM REQUIRED ADDITIONAL FLOOR SPACE.

DETERIORATING GRATING OVER THE PIT PRESENTED A QUALITY-CONTROL ISSUE / SAFETY HAZARD. FLOOR REPLACEMENT OVER THE PIT WAS SCHEDULED.

= PROPOSALS WERE OBTAINED AND A CONTRACT SIGNED. IIOWEVER, THE PROJECT WAS DELAYED UNTIL THE NRC COMPLETED ITS STUDY AND GAVE VERBAL ASSURANCE THAT NO PROBLEMS EXISTED. THE NRC FOLLOWED WITH A WRI'ITEN REPORT.

7 FACH FIELD l e THE LEACH FIELD - LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE HANGAR  !

BUILDING -- IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. l

• THE SEWAGE TREAT! DENT PLANT HAS AN OHIO EPA WASTEWATER i DISCHARGE PERMIT. REGULAR MONITORING IS PERFORMED IN

! ACCORDANCE WITH OHIO EPA REQUIREMENTS.

• THE LEACH FIELD SEPARATES SOLIDS FROM THE WASTEWATER. THE l SOLIDS WERE SAMPLED BY THE NRC.

l l

U

+

, 08/31,94 13:Ao TF316 796 6409 buiK t %aht.t.Kaoh vuo.ovu i a j 4

l I

t /

LAKE MANAGEMENT e WINGFOOT LAKE IS A SHAT If)W LAKE - AROTIND 6 8 FRET IN DEPTH.

• IT IS VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO AGING OR EUTROPHICATION UNLESS PROPERLY MANAGED TO MAINTAIN OXYGEN LEVELS AND WEED / ALGAE GROWTH. i

• OOODYEAR HAS EMPLOYED A LAKE MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

• A FISH KILL OCCURRED CIRCA 1984 IN THE BACK LAKE FEEDING THE MAIN LAKE DUE TO A HEAVY-SNOW COVER THAT PREVENTED l . SUNLIGHT FROM PENETRATING AND PROVIDING PLANT GROWTH. THE MAIN T.AKE WASN'T AS ADVERSELY EFFECTED AS THE BACK LAKE.

• THE LAKE IS PERIODICALLY RESTOCKED WITH SELECTIVE FISH (SUCH AS NORTHERN PIKE) INTRODUCED TO HELP BALANCE THE BLUEGILL FISH POPULATION.

IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES, T:IE LAKE WAER LEVEL WAS LOWERED TO HELP RESTORE THE LAKE BALANCE BY REMOVING SEDIMENT AND ROTTING VEGETATION,

• THE CURRENT PROGRAM TO MAINTAIN THE LIFE OF THE LAKE INCLUDES AERATORS AND AMUR FISH. I

- GOODYEAR INSTAT I FD 12 COMPRESSORS TO PROVIDE OXYGEN l

- GOODYEAR INTRODUCED OVER 4000 AMUR FISH INTO THE LAKE TO CONTROL PLANT AND ALGAE GROWTH I

I 1

l l

l l

( U5/31eU4 10:14 'O'i.10 7Dti 0459 Gulx L%1htEKl.% 4000,Uub s .

)

f.. .. l 1

_ Q 7 .

-,g:- i 4l> s .

(% n o

~

. //. . . Y// /,. ,z..

m

< .s>. . &. . .

/ -

. . . . ~.c. >y y .

. /<:-

W., ? _,,

c ,,

-Q f

l W

, / /  %

/ / .-

ff ,

/.n

s

..~/

n $. .d N: ~*? ,4 - %

r; . - <r 7$

"> i '

1

(.,g*;T .:~?

, ".c..'. ..:.c.; &s .e f...

. 5 : .e ?. -

.e

. . ? .:. )* ?

.a nsa f.

• - 6**

~

.hsisw-wk .  ! .;ggsggwagre-- - - C N,

• f}.;3.'..~.

' & {! <: *

~

dw., .-;

l L _

l I

1 i

l i

a

\

,e'

• N l ORISE OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION l E NE RGY/t NVIRONME NT SYSit MS DavissON l

l May 19,1994 Mr. Darrel Wiedeman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 l

SUBJECT:

DATA RESULTS FOR SAMPLES FROM VICINITY PROPERTIES TO GOODYEAR AEROSPACE, AKRON, OIIIO (RFTA 94-018) l

Dear Mr. Wiedeman:

1 Attached are the results of gross alpha / beta analyses, performed on nine water samples from f vicinity properties to the Goodyear Aerospace facility in Akron, Ohio. Gross alpha and gross beta activities were less than 15 pCi/l and 50 pCi/1, respectively, for each water sample.

Uranium concentrations in the fish sample from Wingfoot Lake were < 0.6 pCi/g for U-238 and

<0.1 pCi/g for U-235 (wet weight).

l If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact me at (615) 576-3740 or Michele Landis at (615) 576-2908.

Sincerely,

~

l~

Eric W. Abelquist Project Leader Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program l EWA:tte Attachment '

cc: T. Mo, NRC/NMSS,4E4 D. Tiktinsky, NRC/NMSS, 6E6 J. Beck, ESSAP J. Berger, ESSAP M. Landis, ESSAP PMDA, NRC/6E6 File /253 P O. BOX 117. OAK RIDGE TENNES5fE 37831-0117 l Monoged and operated by Ook bd My g7

[+[fMCdM.i h --~.. ge Associated Universities for the U S Department of Ernegy

n n 's

~

GROSS ALPIIA/ BETA ACTIVITIES IN WATER GOODYEAR AEROSPACE AKRON, OIIIO Dissolved Solids Filtered Solids Sample Number Gross Alpha Gross Beta Gross Alpha Gross Beta (pCill) (pCill) (pCi/l) (pCi/I)

NRC 37001 < l .7 < 1. 8 2.8 i 0.5* 5.1 i 0.6 NRC 37002 < 6.4 <6.8 < 0.5 1.0 0.5 NRC 37003 < 4.2 < 5.0 < 0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37004 < 2.4 6.8 1.4 < 0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37077 < 4.2 < 3.7 < 0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37078 1.6 3.1 I 1.1 < 0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37079 < 2. I < 2.4 <0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37080 < 6.5 <6.9 < 0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37081 < 3.4 < 2.9 < 0.5 < 0.7

' Uncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.

h;kssap\kuersiwiedeman 006

%/10 '04 08:20 ID GIE/c.e# FM: h. h 2 i

/

N OR.1SE CAK 8tlDC,f SNf>181Lf1C 70. EClFNC f AND LouCATON 1 Nt kClY/8 NViktWIMI NI SV ill A4. t Hvew DN May 19,1994 Mr. Darrel Wiedeman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351

SUBJECT:

DATA RESULTS FOR SAMPLFS FROM VICINITY PROPERTHS TO GOODYEAR AEROSPACE, AKRON, OHIO (RFTA 94-018)

Dear Mr. Wiedeman:

Attached are the results of gross alpha / beta analyses, performed on nine water sample; from vicinity properties to the Goodyear Aerospace facility in Akron, Ohio. Gross alpha and gross beta activities were less than 15 pCill and 50 pCi/1, respectively, for each water sample.

lu co i

.. Win t La .0. ~g for -94 d If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact me at (615) 576-3740 or N ichele Luidis at (613) 576 2906.

Sincerely, bf yp b#g Eric W. Abelquist Project Imder Environmental Survey and I" / g[A ,

Site Assessment Program dMg(fl g , O gD pto EWA:tte d ID Attachment f Al.lW g cc: T. Mo, NRC/NMSS,4E4 pb p@ g,b['

D. Tiktinsky, NRC/NMSS, 6E6 J. Beck, ESSAP 4g( 8 e

gG w bij J. Berger. ESS AP t/t' { M ,

M. IAndis, ESSAP PMDA, NRC/6E6 6F ^g [< -

File /253 , . Y gc .

P O ICX lir. OAK ROOE,TENNf35tt 37010187 hr f *- pod ope.eted by O.L Rdo. Associoied Univer Wes I., d. U S. Deporrena c4 te.evy j

FAX:616-241-3F27 PAG 4 h 05 10 '04 08:10 ID:0RISF CSSAP o

I GROSS AI.PHA/ BETA ACTIVITIES IN WATER GOODYEAR AEROSPACE AKRON, 01110 Dissolved Solids Filtered Solids Sampic Number Gross Alpha Gross Beta Cross Alpha Gross Beta (pCl/I) (pCl/l) (pCl/l) (pCl/l)

NRC 37001 < 1.7 < 1. B 2.8 i 0.5' 5.1 1 0.6 NRC 37002 <6.4 < 6. 8 < 0.5 1.0 i 0.9 NRC 37003 < 4.2 <5.0 < 0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37004 < 2.4 6.8 1.4 <0.5 <0.7 NRC 37077 < 4.2 < 3.7 <0.5 <0.7 NRC 37078 < 1.6 3.I t 1.1 (0.5 <0.7 NRC 37079 < 2.1 < 2.4 <0.5 <0.7 NRC 37080 <. 6.5 <6.9 <0.5 < 0.7 NRC 37081 <3.4 < 2.9 <0.5 < 0.7

' Uncertainties represent the 9596 confidence level, boed unty un counting statistics.

ss pu.e. - u

A v6,10 04 vs:vu II; ux.w um > Em:clo-dC oAi N 1

~( .

f.

t hVd k 0 N, -

OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION P.O. DOX 117 OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37831-0117 F A C S I M I L E S_E R V I C E S ORAU FAX T7T FPHONE NO.

COMM: 615.2413497 VERIFY: 615-576-9585

• *

• UNCLASSIFIED * *

• Please Type Or Use Black Pen FROM: b Elb Div. OR At*/EuSD T;T v: ,bI .

O TCh

• N\EWb^4M ORGANIZATION. M h OFFICE / LOCATION TELE: EN NOE TEL hO M N~IM

~ ' VER.7Y: 5 _. .

TELEPHONE #

APPROVAL .

SENT BY: ---

/

b3 TDE:

THIS TRANSMITTAL CONSISTS OF 1 PAGE(S), EXCLUDING COVER SM-l .

• * * (NUMBER PAGES E 4 OR MORE) * *

• COMMENTS

s R l '8 94 The Goodyear Tire and Rubber'Co. License No. SNM-1461(terminated)

ATTN: Joe L. Holtshouser, Manager Docket No. 070-01489(terminated)

Industrial Health Management Services 1144 East Market Street Akron, OH 44316

SUBJECT:

INSPECTION OF FORMER NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ttilSSION (NRC) LICENSED SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONS (NRC REPORT NO. 999-90003/94040(DRSS))

This refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs. D. G. Wiedeman, W. Snell and K. Andre of this office from April 25 through July 8,1994, of i Building 91 at the Goodyear Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center, Portage County, Ohio and the surrounding environment. This inspection was in response to concerns from local residents in Suffield and Portage Counties and the NRC's review of the terminated NRC License files. Licensed activities were previously authorized by NRC Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1461.

The results of our preliminary findings were discussed with members of your j

staff at the conclusion of the on-site inspections on April 26, June 22, and July 8,1994.

The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. The inspection consisted of a selective examination of representative records from the former license file, observations, independent measurements, and interviews with employees of Goodyear, Goodyear's contractor, Loral, concerned citizens residing in Portage and Suffield counties and local school officials from Springfield and Field School Districts.

Based upon this inspection, we concluded that licensed material covered under NRC Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1461 was properly transferred during the period 1975-1985 to the U. S. Department of Energy and all non-recoverable materials were transferred to Teledyne Isotopes for disposal.

The facilities in Building 91 (blimp hanger) were decontaminated to a residual radiation level consistent with' current NRC guidelines. The NRC criteria are described in a document titled " Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated August 1987. This inspection also included an assessment of off-site areas to determine the potential for radiological environmental contamination. Based on that assessment, we concluded that there was no uranium in the areas surrounding the Goodyear Wingfoot Facility in excess of the NRC unrestricted release l

limits. Consequently, we have no further questions regarding this matter.

1

' ' PLEMERETURNTO:

f ".

(N....t) g:nl3~:

. u--n jl&I urziomo ce$r 4

The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. 2

,!n. 1 5 594 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning the inspection.

Sincerely, l ,at signed by Gary P. Shear Gary L. Shear, Chief Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch

Enclosure:

Inspection Report l No. 999-90003/94040(DRSS)

cc w/ enclosure

R. Owen, Ohio Department of Health M. Nelson, M.D.

Summit Co. Health District R. Beals, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency J. Wentz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RV J. McCourt, Senator Metzenbaum's Office bec w/ enclosure:

PUBLIC (IE07)

D. Funk, RIII

& RIII 4

m RIII RIII Ng RIII b@pD[ A 6 65 Shear Wiedeman Snell McCann 07/d /94 07/sr/94 7/16/94 07//.f/94

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 999-90003/94040(DRSS)

License No. SNM-1461 (terminated)

Docket No. 070-01489 (terminated)-

Licensee.- Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Akron, Ohio 44315 Inspection At: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center Blimp Hangar No. 91 Portage County, Ohio

--and--

residential homes, churches and schools located in Portage, Springfield and Summit Counties, Ohio Inspection Conducted: April 25-July 8,1994 Inspectors: b D WC /

I e Datt

/6/ !9 h D.G.Widdemar/ysicist Senior Health Ph w .G. L OO >k/>+Date W. G. Snell Senior Health Physicist Approved By: b h. D C- 07!/6( 9L/

G. M. McCannl, Chief / Da(e Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Section Inspection Summary Inspection on April 25-July 8.1994 (Report No. 999-90003/94040(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: This was a special inspection to review the former licensee's activities and to determine if licensed materials were properly transferred to an authorized recipient and buildings used under the former NRC license were properly decontaminated prior to the termination of the license.

The inspectors conducted an independent review of transfer records and performed radiation surveys in the licensee's building that was used for research and testing. This inspection also included an assessment of the off-site (unrestricted) areas to determine the potential for radiological environmental contamination.

G ko4(V9&fOCXq4

Results: All licensed materials possessed under NRC License No. SNM-1461 were properly transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy during the period 1975-1985 and all unrecoverable material was transferred to Teledyne Isotopes for disposal. All buildings and facilities formerly covered under the license were free of residual contamination. The results of all off-site water, soil, sediment and fish sample analyses showed that levels of uranium (U-238, U-235, and U-234) were below the NRC unrestricted release criteria.

I i

)

I 2

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

• Harry Weaver, Maintenance, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (GT&RC)

• Joseph Smerglia, Principal Engineer, GT&RC

• Edward Puhala, Industrial Hygiene Consultant, GT&RC

• Thomas Riley, Manager of Airship Operations, Wingfoot Facility, GT&RC

• =25 employees from Loral, Goodyear contractor, Wingfoot Facility, GT&RC

1. Joe Holtshouser, Manager, Industrial Health Management Services Daniel Laskos, Business Manager, Springfield Local Schools, Akron, Ohio Tucker Self, Superintendent of Schools, Springfield Local Schools C. Maurice Oatley, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Field Local School District 9 Michael Bolas, Project Coordinator, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 9 Rodney Beals, Environmental Manager, OEPA 9 Louise Fabeniski, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (-

9 J. Wentz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V j 9 Janice McCourt, Office of Senator Metzenbaum, Ohio (

9 Tammy Proctor, Photojournalist, Hartville News, Hartv111e, Ohio 9 Concerned citizens from Summit and Portage Counties, Ohio 8 Martha Nelson, M.D., Health Commissioner, Summit County Health District

& Robert Hofer, Industrial Hygienist, Goodyear .

& Todd Struttmann, Sharp and Associates, (Goodyear Contractor, Fuel Test Facility)

• Attended the exit meeting conducted on April 26, 1994.

1. Telephone conversation on May 19, 1994, regarding the results of laboratory analysis of samples collected at the time of the inspection.

9 Attended meeting at Sumit County Health District Office on April 29, 1994.

& Attended the exit meeting conducted on June 22, 1994.

2. Backaround The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued License No. SNM-1461 to Goodyear Aerospace on January 14, 1974, (Part 2 of the application contained DOE " Secret-RD" information) for research and development of uranium enrichment equipment (gas centrifuge). Handling of radioactive materials involved the use of uranium hexafluoride (UF.) in 50 lb.

cylinders, which would be piped into experimental centrifuges used to test different rotor designs. The centrifuges were located in a pit area in a blimp hanger (No. 91). Buildings 85 and 90 were also associated with the operations. The centrifuge process produced both 3

e depleted and enriched uranium (U-235). All licensed material was procured from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and upon completion of the experiment, the enriched and depleted uranium was transferred back to D0E. The licensee monitored air and water effluents from the Wingfoot facility during this research from 1974-1985.

Previous NRL inspections in 1979 and 1982 verified that no effluent or airborne releases of radioactive materials either on-site or off-site exceeded the NRC limits. The licensee performed a close-out survey of the facility and requested termination of the license on January 16, 1985. The NRC requested its contractor, Oak elidge Associated Universities (0RAU), to perform a confirmatory survey which was )

conducted from May through August 1986. The first two surveys identified areas within the facility which were contaminated above the NRC release criteria, the third and final survey concluded that all areas of contamination had been identified. ORAU performed final confirmatory surveys in June and August 1986. The areas identified as exceeding the release criteria during the first two surveys were found to have been remediated to below the NRC release limits.

3. Indeoendent Measurements Independent radiation surveys were perfonned with a Victoreen Model 190 portable survey instrument with a Model RP-1 pancake probe, NRC Tag No. 040608, and Ludlum Model 19, NRC Tag No. 015522, calibrated on February 14, 1994 and July 28, 1993, respectively. Prior to the surveys all instruments were checkeo for accuracy and constancy with dedicated and traceable check sources. All instruments responded as expected.

Comparative background radiation measurements were taken in the downtown area of Akron, Ohio with the Victoreen Model 190 and Ludlum Model 19 portable survey instruments. Background measured 45-55 counts per minute (cpm) with the Victoreen and 7-15 microroentgens per hour ( R/h)

{1.8-3.8 nanocoulomb per kilogram per hour (nC/kg/h)} with the Ludlum.

The inspectors conducted radiation surveys in and around selected areas in blimp hanger No. 91 which included: Grid blocks B-80 through P-80+. l (See Attachment A for grid block locations.) All five floors of the l underground shielded structure that once housed the centrifuge unit were l also surveyed. The areas surveyed included hallways, offices, former l research and storage areas, former research laboratories and areas outside the building. The NRC inspectors' survey of the above referenced rooms, buildings and adjacent property did not identify any radiation levels that exceeded the NRC release criteria. Three areas of fixed contamination were identified in Grid Blocks G-52, H-56 and P-28.

All of these areas of contamination were below the NRC unrestricted release criteria of 15,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm), with the highest reading at 400 cpm (1200 dpm). The NRC release criteria is contained in the NRC Guidance Directive FC 83-23, " Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material", revised August 1987.

4

Radiation surveys were conducted along the roadways of Waterloo Road to Summit to Sanitarium to Route 224. No radiation levels above natural background were identified. Additional radiation surveys were conducted in a residential home on Hutchison Drive in Suffield, Ohio. The surveys included the basement, living room, bedroom and kitchen. These surveys did not identify any radiation levels above natural background. The inspectors also conducted a radiation. survey in the garden of the property owner and did not identify any radiation levels above natural background.

4. Environmental Samolina Winafoot Lake Water A four liter sample of lake water was collected following EPA collection protocols. This sample was analyzed by an NRC contractor, Oak Ridge Institute for Science ud Education (0 RISE). See Table 1 for laboratory results. l Monitorina Well A four liter sample of water was collected following EPA and ORISE collection protocols from a 16 foot monitoring well on the south side of Wingfoot Lake Road on the Goodyear Fuel Test Facility site. This sample  !

was analyzed by ORISE. See Table 1 for laboratory results.

Well Water Ten four-liter samples were collected from deep and shallow wells in and around the Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center following EPA and ORISE collection protocols. One of these samples was from a 160 foot well at the Goodyear facility and the other nine were from residential drinking water wells. These samples were analyzed by ORISE. See

- Table 1 for laboratory results. l lill Six soil samples were collected. Two samples identified as "Outfall" were taken from the discharge point of all stom water from blimp hanger No. 91 where it empties into Wingfoot Lake. Two samples identified as

" Leach Field" were taken at the lowest discharge point for all sewerage discharges from blimp hanger No. 91. Two samples identified as

" Spillway" were collected at the Wingfoot Lake discharge point near Waterloo Road as it enters the Fox ditch. See Table 2 for laboratory results.

5

Fish from Winafoot Lake On April 26, 1994 a fish was captured in a net in Wingfoot Lake to be used as an indicator of the levels of uranium in the sediment and water in the lake. The fish was split with Goodyear for independent analysis, with the NRC's portion of the fish shipped to ORISE for analysis.

However, due to problems during laboratory preparation, the final quality assurance check showed the results to be unacceptable.

Therefore, on June 22, 1994, two additional fish were captured in a net in Wingfoot Lake and shipped to ORISE for analysis. The results of the fish analysis indicated uranium levels of 3.84 0.27 picocuries per kilogram (pci/kg) {142 10 millibecquerels per kilogram (mBq/kg)} U-234, 0.42 0.01 pCi/kg (15.5 0.4 mBq/kg) U-235, and 8.76 0.41 pCi/kg (324 15 mBq/kg) U-238.

Sediment Five sediment samples were collected from Wingfoot Lake. Three samples were collected offshore from where the soil samples were collected. The other two samples were collected from locations in the middle of the lake. See Table.2 for laboratory results.

5. Laboratory Analysis Smear Tests Smear tests for removable activity were taken at one location where direct readings indicated levels of radiation below the NRC release criteria but in excess of background measurements. This smear test was analyzed in the Region III laboratory. The smear test was analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activity. Results of the laboratory analysis for the smear test indicated that the contamination was not removable.

Conclusion:

The contamination identified was below the NRC release levels for fixed contamination.

Water Samoles Twelve (12) water samples were collected during the inspections, which included the following: Wingfoot Lake, a 160 foot well and a 16 foot monitoring well locat.ed at the Wingfoot facility, and nine (9) residential drinking water samples from local homes which included both municipal water and private shallow wells. Table 1 below provides the

~

results of the laboratory analysis of those samples.

6

TABLE 1: Water Analysis Gross alpha / beta ")

Control pCi per liter No. Location Observations alpha beta 37078 Wingf t Lake cloudy, contained

<1.6 3.lil.1 biological material Deep clear, no odors <4.2 <3.7 .

37077 well,160' deep Wingfoot Residential clear, no odors <6.5 <6.9 -

37080 Well,Hutchinson  !

Rd. Suffield j Residential 35' deep well,ciear, <2.1 2.4 I 37079 Well, Wingfoot sulfur odor I Rd., Suffield Residential municipal water, <3.4 <2.9 municipal clear, no odors 37081 water, Cuyahoga Falls Church Well, clear, sulfur odor <1.7 <1.8 37001 State Route 43, Suffield Residential clear, sulfur odor, <6.4 <6.8 Well, G dyear evidence of high 37002 Park Blvd., iron content Suffield Residential = 50' deep well,. <4.2 <5.0 Well, Mishler clear, sulfur odor, 37003 Rd., Suffield treated with softener Residential = 35' deep well, <2.4 6.8tl.4 37004 Well, Bey Road, clear, no odor Akron 7

. l

\

Gross

' alpha / beta '"

Control pCi per liter No. Location Observations alpha beta l

I Residential clear, no odor <2.2 19.7 2.0 00001 Well, Glenview ,

Dr., Suffield 1 l

l Residential clear, no odor <2.6 5.9il.8 l 00002 Well, Glenview l Dr., Suffield I

l Monitoring Well = 16' monitoring <3.3 <4.0 l 7734 MW-3 well, cloudy, benzene odor The U.S. EPA (National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations) timit is l 15 pcl/ liter gross alpha and 50 pcl/ liter eroes bete and total uranium should not exceed 30 picoeuries per titer.

l

Conclusion:

The NRC concle. des that t.ecause none of the above water samples exceeded the U.S. EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the shallow and deep aquifers in and around the Goodyear Wingfoot Advanced Technology Center are not l

contaminated with radioactive material as a result of former i NRC licensed activities at the Goodyear Wingfoot facility.

M i Six soil samples were collected and analyzed. The results of )

those analyses are shown in Table 2. The NRC release criteria for soil / sludge is described in the October 23, 1981 Federal

- Register, Branch Technical Position " Disposal or Onsite Storage l of Thorium and Uranium Wastes from Past Operations". These j l limits are:

l E natural uranium (U-238 plus U-234): 10 pCi/g E depleted uranium: 35 pCi/g E enriched uranium: 30 pCi/g

Conclusion:

The NRC concludes that the soil samples do not exceed the NRC release criteria and the uranium concentrations found in the samples are within the range normally found in environmental soil samples.

l l

8 i

Table 2: Soil / Sediment Analysis ("

Sample Sample uranium-234 uranium-235 uranium-238 I No. Identification pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g 001 Outfall #1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 002 Outfall #2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 003 Leach Field #1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 004 Leach Field #2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 005 Spillway #1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 006 Spillway #2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 007 Sediment #1 <1.0 ND(*) <1.0 008 Sediment #2 <1.2 ND(*) <1.2 009 Sediment #3 <1.0 ND(*) <1.0 010 Sediment #4 <1.0 ND(*) <1.0 011 Sediment #5 <1.0 ND(*) <1.0 The average uranitsu concentration in U.S. softs is approximately 1.0 pC1/g (1.5 parts per sittion (ppm)). Nigher levels of uranitas are fourus in the surface solts of such areas as the Colorado Plateau, Lands affected by phosphate tellings in Florida, and the Reading Prong In northeastern Pennsylvania. The world everage concentration . of urantua ranges from 0.2 to 2.0 pcl/s (0.3-3.0 ppm). (National Cour.(L on Radiation Protection, NCRP Report No. 94, 1987)

'None Detected Fish and Sediment Samoles Two fish were prepared and analyzed for uranium. Because of the very low levels of uranium normally found in fish, a three day alpha spectrometry count was conducted. In reviewing the results of the fish sample, two issues were raised. The first was that based on our search of available scientific literature, we were unable to find acceptable data with which to compare our results. This resulted in our inability to reasonably assess the significance of the results. The second issue was when we compared the activities from U-238, U-235, and U-234 rith each other, the contribution from U-234 appeared low.. Because we could not explain the apparently low level of U-234, and due to the lack of comparable data, it was decided that the fish sample alone provided inconclusive evidence as to the level of uranium in Wingfoot Lake. Therefore, to provide a better assessment of the levels of uranium in the lake, on July 8, 1994, five sediment samples were taken from Wingfoot Lake. The results of the sediment samples are shown in Table 2.

9

C:nclusion: The NRC concludes that the sediment samples do not '

s exceed the NRC release criteria and the uranium concentrations found in the samples are within the range normally found in environmental soil samples.

6. Overall Conclusion Based on our review of documentation and sample results, it is our conclusion that there is no uranium in excess of NRC release limits in the Goodyear Wingfoot Facility or the nearsite environment from the previously licensed activities conducted at that facility.

7. Exit Meetino The NRC inspectors conducted exit meetings at the conclusion of the inspections with the individuals identified in Section 1 of this report and summarized the findings of the inspection. The inspectors informed the former licensee that it appeared that all licensed material formerly licensed under NRC Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1461 had been properly transferred prior to the termination of the license, and all remaining buildings used for licensed activities had been properly deconmissioned. During the exit meetings, none of the participants indicated to the inspectors that any of the inspection findings or documents provided to the inspectors were considered proprietary.

10

R9<q k -

y m.

, k JUL 1 S y Concerned Citizens Against Illegal Contamination 6

GWuu!M usu munummune Dear N In a letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 3,1994, you expressed concerns that the past use of radioactive material at the Goodyear Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Center may be related to health problems experienced by you and your family. As a result of your concerns we conducted a special inspection of activities conducted at the Goodyear's Wingfoot facility authorized under an NRC license between 1974 and 1985. The results of our inspection are attached (Attachment 1).

In letters dated June 9 and June 17, 1994, you raised additional concerns in i regard to our inspection activities at the Goodyear facility. We have addresse6 each of the concerns in Attachments 2 and 3. In addition, during an April 29, 1994 meeting, you provided a petition to NRC representatives in attendance which requested we conduct comprehensive testing for radiation in your comunities.

Our recent inspection activities, conducted between April and July 1994, included a review of past NRC inspection reports, a review of confirmatory surveys conducted for the NRC in 1986 by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU), and the collection and analysis of numerous environmental samples.

Our selection of environmental samples focused on those areas where the likelihood of finding radioactive contamination existed.

Based on the results of our inspection and the results of the sample analyses, we found no evidence that radioactive contamination in excess of the NRC unrestricted release limits exists at the Goodyear Wingfoot facility or in the nearsite environment. As a result of this finding, we are concluding our investigations of this matter.

In your June 17 letter, you requested that someone from the NRC travel to Akron to help you interpret NRC material obtained through your Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request. If you have questions regarding documents you obtained from the NRC, or questions related to our policies or regulations, you may submit your questions to us in writing and we will provide you a written response as soon as possible.

ObO3youD

l

~

l 2

U A 1 S 1994 l 1

If you have any questions regarding the report or our response to your concerns, please contact Mr. Mike McCann at (708) 829-9856.

Sincerely, Origi6al : Signed by Gary C. Shsa:

Gary L. Shear, Chief Fuel Cycle and Deconunissioning Branch Attachments: As stated bcc w/ attachments:

D. Funk, RIII l

l l

RI RIII g RIII Snil dp McCa n ar 07/s4-/94 07/ /94 07//f/94

i l I l

f ATTACHMENT 2 Response to June 9. 1994 letter i

The monitoring wells at the Wingfoot facility should be sampled.

One monitoring well was sampled on June 22, 1994. Only one of four -

l wells was sampled due to their close proximity to one another. A monitoring well sample was not obtained during our April 1994 inspection because we were not aware that any monitoring wells existed.

Based on our inspectica findings, the NRC has no basis to believe that l licensable materials were used in such a manner as to contaminate the l soil or groundwater. However, in light of citizens concerns, we l collected several types of environmental samples from a variety of locations. These samples were collected to detemine if any indication of licensable material existed in the environment. Results of sample analysis have indicated that no licensable material has been found that a exceeds the NRC release limits. If indications were found that such I i materials existed, then further analysis would be considered.  ;

We performed the following sampling:

a. Nine water samples randomly selected from residences around the Goodyear facility. '

b. One water sample from Wingfoot Lake.

c. One water sample from a 160 foot well located at the i Goodyear facility. '

d. One water sample from a 16 foot monitoring well at the l , Goodyear facility. l l

e. Two soil samples from the discharge point of Wingfoot Lake' l into the Fox ditch. l

f. Two soil samples from the Goodyear facility sanitary sewage l system leach field. ,

g. Two soil samples from the outfall into Wingfoot Lake of the Goodyear facilities Blimp Hanger No. 91 storm water drain.

l '

h. Three fish from Wingfoot Lake. One fish was originally caught and sent for analysis, but the sample was  !

inadvertently cross-contaminated during laboratory sample  ;

r preparation rendering it unusable.  !

i. Five sediment samples from various locations in Wingfoot  !

Lake. I

(

t page 1 of 3

,odyear personnel aisled the NRC when they indicated there were no ,'

sanitoring wells at the Wingfoot facility. ,

We do not believe there was any intent to mislead the NRC. We believe the Goodyear personnel questioned at the time of the inspection were either unaware of the monitoring wells or misunderstood the question.

The existing four monitoring wells that were later identified by the EPA  :

were specifically installed to monitor contamination from jet fuel and i were not associated with monitoring for radioactive contamination.

• Soil sampics were taken from an area that had been remediated.

The area that was remediated by removing two feet of soil and replacing i it with clean fill was where the jet fuel contamination occurred. We l l

took no soil samples there because no activities involving the licensed material took place at that location. l

[

• The leach bed that was sampled was 1/2 mile away.

The leach field was where the old sewer line drained. Because this area had never been remediated, it was an excellent area to sample for radioactive contamination from potential liquid discharges.

• Request that the NRC test where the old sewer line was located.

The old sewer line was located under the concrete floor of Blimp Hanger No. 91. The concrete floor was cut out above the line, the old sewer removed, the hole filled in and the concrete floor replaced during remediation of the facility. In June and August of 1986, the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU), under contract with the NRC, conducted confirmatory surveys for the NRC of the remediation efforts by Goodyear at the Wingfoot facility. ORAU's final report, issued in September 1986, stated that followup scans, including soil samples from the area i I

excavated in conjunction with reraoval of the sewer line, indicated no  !

residual areas of contamination. Since surveys conducted at that time l

indicated that there was no contamination that exceeded the NRC release '

limits, there is no basis to conduct further sampling of this area. 1

• Request that the safety of workers be considered because 400 counts per minute was found in Hanger No. 91.

This area does not constitute a radiological hazard since the material is below the NRC unrestricted use guideline value of a maximum of 15,000  !

disintegrations per minute (dpm). The contamination identified at 400 counts' per minute (cpm) when corrected is about 1200 dpm, which is well ,

below the 15,000 dpm limit.

page 2 of 3

\

l

\

tested at several depths.ihe soils should be better evaluated and the m Our review of past NRC inspection reports and the confirmatory curvey conducted by ORAU for the NRC did not indicate any environmental contamination in excess of HRC release limits.

of sampling finding locations contamination focused on the areas where the likelihood ofTherefore, o existed.

If our inspection activities find little then it would not be expected to be found Ifathigher other locations than expected levels of contamination are found, then the scope of our sampling would be expanded as appropriate.

Wingfoot Lake, we have not found levels of contamination that wouldAt the G warrant an increase in the scope of our sampling.  :

Akron to interpret the F0IA naterial sent to Ms. Grimmett.

If you or have related questions questions regarding the documents you obtained from the NRC to our questions to us in writing. policies or regulations, please provide your response as soon as possible. We will then provide you with a written i

I i

I page 3 of 3

P ATTACHMENT 3 Response to June 17. 1994 Letter Mr. Snell from the Regional Office had already made a verbal judgement that no more testing was needed.

Mr. Snell candidly discussed the facts involved in determining the extent of future sampling that would be needed and how we could best obtain those samples. When you discussed this issue with Mr. Snell, a decision had not been made as to what additional sampling, if any, would be conducted. Our subsequent decision was to send Mr. Darrel Wiedeman back to the Goodyear facility to obtain additional fish samples and to obtain a water sample from one of the monitoring wells. This was completed on June 22, 1994. Based on uncertainties regarding the results of the fish analysis, we made the additional decision to send another inspector to Wingfoot Lake to collect five lake sediment samples. While there, the inspector also collected two additional residential well water samples at the request of another concerned citizen. This was completed on July 7,1994.

Request hard data confirwing the residential wells showed background radiation levels.

The attached inspection report provides the results of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity present. in the residential wells sampled. In all cases, the levels were belcw the U.S. EPA's limits (National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations) for gross alpha, gross beta, and total uranium in drinking water.

When the NRC requested the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (0 RISE) to count the samples, the request was to determine whether the samples exceeded the EPA drinking water criteria. As a result, sample counting times were selected to provide statistically acceptable results to a level of confidence to show whether the sample was above or below the EPA criteria. The levels of radiation were in all likelihood well .!

below the level shown, which is why the "less than" sign (<) proceeds l' most of the values. It indicates that there is a high level of '

confidence that the value is no higher than the value shown. This is typically referred to as "below the minimally detectable level" when discussing the results of samples. Since we were interested in the i level of radiation in the wells versus the EPA drinking water criteria, a rigorous determination of actual background was not necessary.

NRC missed the opportunity to test monitoring wells.

A water sample was collected from one of the monitoring wells on June 22, 1994.

page 1 of 2

t -

The NRC should install additional monitoring wells to sample for radiation.

It has been our mission to conduct environmental sampling in a manner that would indicate the potential for radioactive contamination to exist as a result of NRC licensed activities that had previously occurred at the Goodyear Wingfoot site. Our inspection and sampling results have not provided any evidence of the existence of radioactive contamination at a level that would justify the installation of monitoring wells.

• NRC report of July 1986 indicated there was contamination at unacceptable levels and that the NRC did not come in to confirm the contamination.

Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU) was under contract to the NRC in 1986 to conduct confirmatory surveys at Goodyear's Wingfoot facility.

As a result of conducting those surveys, ORAU identified several areas where the NRC release level was exceeded. As a result of those survey results, Goodyear either decontaminated or removed those areas that were contaminated in excess of the release limits. Followup surveys by ORAU confirmed that efforts to decontaminate the site were effective, and the site had been remediated to the NRC guidelines.

• Migration of contamination from the sewer line could have taken place before decontamination was conducted.

l

! A review of documentation from 1986 indicated that soil samples analyzed by ORAU and survey and sample results provided by Goodycar identified no contamination of the soil surrounding the sewer line. Survey results indicated that contamination was only found within the sewer, which was removed.

l l

I page 2 of 2

,\

! r TELEPHONE LOG Call -Taleen By: /t / [Ecc Date: Bb/9+

Time:

Called Name: R MA RP %,

b,6

.. +f,- +

Title:

Organization: '

Phone No.:

SUBJECT:

WA tA d >,- % . o L L s Discussion:

AS rl p,- ca L/h Yo -fo Cf2s4 A was as- rus was et ak p n h<Ly a af ex d a g ad <<y (A w. 14 s e s : F w , c.a u t 1 re A%fd l l

l

///6N

(%.

4

?

Name

. Address City, State Zip

SUBJECT:

ANALYSIS OF DRINKING WATER FROM RESIDENTIAL WELLS AROUND WINGFOOT LAKE, PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

Dear During the period from April 25 through July 8,

1994, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a special inspection at the Goodyear Wingfoot Lake Advanced Technology Conter in Portage County, Ohio. Included in this inspection was the collection of residential drinking water in and around the Goodyear Wingfoot Lake facility. Your residence was selected as a sample location and you voluntarily allowed our inspectors to collect a sample of your drinking water. These samples were analyzed for gross alpha and beta radiation by an NRC contractor, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Technology (ORISE) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The results were then compared to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for drinking water.

The EPA National Primary Water Regulations were promulgated on December 24, f)Eb 1975, in accordance with the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Public

,JaF"J dg Law 93-523). Additional Interim Primary Regulations for radioactivity in kE" < drinking water were promulgated on July 9,1976. These regulations became 6# effective on June 24, 1977, and became the standard by which all public i drinkina water supplies are evaluated. Although the above referenced drinking water regulations do not apply to private residential water wells, it is our practice to use the EPA criteria to determine the acceptability of the levels of radioactivity in private residential well water.

Based on our review of the analysis of the sample of well water taken from your residence, the levels of gross alpha and beta radiation in the sample did not exceed the EPA National Primary Water Regulations.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any question regarding the above, please contact Mr. William Snell at (708) 829-9871.

Sincerely, l

George M. McCann, Chief, Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Section I

l Snell McCann

Copyrighted Document Addressed Under FOIA For hard copy, -

i refer to PDR Folder:FOIA f# - e4 /

......e.............................

. FOIA Name & Number b ' bA os

~

'k $~ 3 h I sup p: Rus p encg # / bc d:

h e A c t A - lo B