## TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS ( TENORM )

STUDY REPORT

Rev. 0

January 2015

Prepared for:

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101

Prepared by:

Perma

- Fix Environmental Services, Inc. 325 Beaver Street, Suite 3 Beaver, PA 15009TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (TENORM) STUDY REPORT

Rev. 0

January 2015

Prepared for:

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101

Prepared by:

Perma

- Fix Environmental Services, Inc. 325 Beaver Street, Suite 3 Beaver, PA 15009PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Table of Contents Rev. 0

January 2015 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ v i LIST OF FIGURES

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... v i i LIST OF TABLES

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... v ii i ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS

................................ ................................ xi GLOSSARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ xi v

0.0 SYNOPSIS

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... .0

- 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1

- 1 1.1 Purpose and Ob

j ectives of the Study

................................ ................................ ... 1

- 1 1. 2 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1

- 1 1. 3 Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Operations (Conventional and Unconventional)

....... 1

- 3 1. 4 Subject Media

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 5 1. 4 .1 Media Sampled

................................ ................................ ........................ 1

- 5 1. 5 Facility Selection

................................ ................................ ................................ . 1

- 8 1. 5 .1 Well Site Selection

................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 8 1. 5 .2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Selection

................................ .................... 1

- 8 1. 5 .3 Landfill Facility Selection Criteria

................................ .......................... 1

- 8 1. 5

. 4 Gas Distribution and End Use Operations Selection Criteria

.................. 1

- 8 1. 5

. 5 Road Sites Selection Criteria

................................ ................................ ... 1

- 9 1. 5

. 6 Well Component Reconditioning Selection Criteria

............................... 1

- 9 1. 5

. 7 Centralized Impoundments

................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 9

2 .0 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

- 1 2.1 Sampling and Survey Methods

................................ ................................ ............ 2

- 1 2.1.1 Field Surveys

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 1 2.1.2 Field Sampling Activities

................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 3 2.2 Laboratory Methods

................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 5 2.2.1 Solid Matrix

................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 5 2.2.2 Liquid Matrix

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 6 2.2.3 Gas Matrix

................................ ................................ ............................... 2

- 8 2.2.4 Filter Matrix

– Smears

................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 8 2. 3 Survey and Sample Analyses Data Management

................................ ................ 2

- 8 2. 3 .1 Limitations on Gamma Spectroscopy Results

................................ ......... 2

- 9 2. 3 .2 Ra dium

- 226 Quantification by Gamma Spectroscopy

............................ 2

- 9 2. 3

. 3 Criteria for Comparison to Analytical Analyses Results

....................... 2

- 10 2. 3

. 4 Normal Background Radioactivity Values

................................ ............ 2

- 10 2. 3

. 5 Data Presentation

................................ ................................ ................... 2

- 10

3.0 WELL SITES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 3

- 1 3.1 Radiological Survey Results

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 1 3.1.1 Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

..... 3

- 1 3.1.2 Total Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

............... 3

- 2 3.1. 3 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

................................ .................... 3

- 2 3.1. 4 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results

................................ ............... 3

- 2PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Table of Contents Rev. 0

January 2015 iv 3.2 Solid Sample Results

................................ ................................ ........................... 3

- 3 3. 2 .1 Vertical Phase Drill Cuttings

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 3 3. 2 .2 Horizontal Phase Drill Cuttings

................................ ............................... 3

- 4 3. 2

. 3 Drilling Mud

................................ ................................ ............................ 3

- 6 3. 2

. 4 Hydraulic Fracturing Proppant Sand

................................ ....................... 3

- 6 3. 2

. 5 Flowback Solids

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 7 3.3 Liquid Sample Results

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

- 7 3.3.1 Drilling Liquid (Mud)

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 7 3.3.2 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 7 3.3.3 Flowback Fluid

................................ ................................ ........................ 3

- 7 3.3.4 Produced Water

................................ ................................ ........................ 3

- 8 3.4 Ra d on Sample Results

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

- 8 3.4.1 Ambient Air Samples During Flowback

................................ .................. 3

- 8 3.4.2 Production Gas Radon

................................ ................................ ............. 3

- 8 3. 5 Well Site Worker Exposure Assessment

................................ ............................. 3

- 8 3. 5 .1 External Gamma Exposure

................................ ................................ .... 3

- 10 3. 5

. 2 Internal Alpha/Beta Exposure

................................ ................................ 3

- 10 3. 5

. 3 Internal Radon Exposure

................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 10 3. 6 Well Site Data Assessments

................................ ................................ ............... 3

- 10 3. 6 .1 Comparison of Different Geological Formations Based on X

- Ray Fluorescence Data

................................ ................................ .................. 3

- 10 3. 6

. 2 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

.............................. 3

- 1 1 3. 6

. 3 Conventional Versus Unconventional Produced Water Data Evaluation

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 1 1 3. 7 Potential Off

- s ite Envir o nmental Impact

................................ ........................... 3

- 11

4.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

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

- 1 4 .1 Publicly Owned Treatment Works

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

- 1 4

. 1 .1 Radiological Survey Results

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

- 1 4. 1 .2 Solid Sample Results

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

- 2 4.1.3 Liquid Sample Results

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

- 3 4.1.4 Indoor Radon Sampling Results

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

- 3 4.1.5 POTW Data Comparisons

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

- 3 4.1.6 POTW Worker Exposure Assessment

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

- 4 4.1.7 POTW Radiological Environmental Impacts

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

- 5 4

. 2 Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants

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

- 5 4

. 2 .1 Survey Results

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

- 5 4

. 2

. 2 Solid Sample Results

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

- 6 4

. 2

. 3 Liquid Samples

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

- 7 4

. 2

. 4 Indoor Radon Sampling Results

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

- 7 4

. 2

. 5 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

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

- 8 4

. 2

. 6 CWT Exposure Assessment

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

- 8 4

. 2

. 7 CWT Radiological Environmen t al Impacts

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

- 9 4

. 3 Zero Liquid Discharge Plants

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

- 9 4

. 3 .1 Survey Results

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

- 9 4

. 3

. 2 Solid Sample Results

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

- 10 4

. 3

. 3 Liquid Samples

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

- 10 4

. 3.4 Indoor Radon Sampling Results

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

- 1 1PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Table of Contents Rev. 0

January 2015 v

4

. 3

. 5 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

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

- 1 1 4

. 3

. 6 ZLD Worker Exposure Assessment

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

- 1 1 4

. 3

. 7 Alpha Spectroscopy Analysis of Filter Cake

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

- 1 4

5.0 LANDFILLS

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 1 5 .1 Leachate

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5

- 1 5.2 Nine Selected Landfills

................................ ................................ ........................ 5

- 1 5.2.1 Influent and Effluent Leachate

................................ ................................ . 5

- 1 5.2.2 Leachate Filter Cake

................................ ................................ ................ 5

- 2 5.2.3 Effluent Discharge Sediment

- Impacted Soil

................................ ........... 5

- 2 5.2.4 Ambient Air

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 2 5.2.5 Surveys

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5

- 2 5. 3 Radon Ingrowth Within Filter Cake From WWTP to Landfills

.......................... 5

- 3 5. 4 Landfill Worker Exposure Assessment

................................ ............................... 5

- 5 5. 4 .1 Landfill External Radiation Exposure

................................ ..................... 5

- 5

6.0 GAS DISTRIBUTION AND END USE

................................ ................................ ......... 6

- 1 6 .1 Natural Gas in Underground Storage

................................ ................................ ... 6

- 1 6.2 Natural Gas

- Fired Power Plants

................................ ................................ ........... 6

- 1 6.3 Compressor Stations

................................ ................................ ............................ 6

- 2 6.4 Natural Gas Processing Plant

................................ ................................ ............... 6

- 2 6.5 Potential Exposure from Gas Scale Inside Pipes and Equipment

........................ 6

- 3 6.6 Radon Dosimetry

................................ ................................ ................................ . 6

- 4

7.0 OIL AND GAS BRINE

- TREATED ROADS

................................ ................................ . 7

- 1 7 .1 Gamma Radioactivity Survey Results

................................ ................................ . 7

- 1 7

. 1 .1 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

................................ .................... 7

- 1 7

. 1

. 2 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results Summary

............................... 7

- 2 7

. 2 Soil Sample Results

................................ ................................ ............................. 7

- 2 7

. 2 .1 Road Surface Soils Biased Sample Results

................................ ............. 7

- 2 7

. 2

. 2 Road Surface So ils

– Reference Background Roads Soils

...................... 7

- 3 7

. 3 Public Exposure to Oil and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads

................................ ......... 7

- 4

8 .0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

................................ ............... 8

- 1 8 .1 Data Quality Levels (DQLs)

................................ ................................ ................ 8

- 1 8 .2 Quality Control Parameters

................................ ................................ .................. 8

- 1 8 .3 Field Screening

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8

- 1 8 .4 Sample Identification

................................ ................................ ........................... 8

- 2 8 .5 Sample Custody

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8

- 2 8 .6 Analytical Procedures

................................ ................................ .......................... 8

- 2 8 .7 Instrument Calibrations

................................ ................................ ........................ 8

- 2 8 .8 Data Evaluation and Validation

................................ ................................ ........... 8

- 2 8

. 8 .1 Validation of Field Data

................................ ................................ ........... 8

- 3 8 .8.2 Validation of Laboratory Data

................................ ................................ . 8

- 3 8 .9 Data Reporting

– Analytical Laboratory

................................ .............................. 8

- 3 8

. 9 .1 DQL III Reporting

................................ ................................ ................... 8

- 4PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Table of Contents Rev. 0

January 2015 vi 8 .10 Quality Control Procedures

................................ ................................ .................. 8

- 4 8

. 10 .1 Field QC Checks

................................ ................................ ...................... 8

- 4 8 .10.2 Internal Laboratory QC Checks

................................ ............................... 8

- 5 8 .11 Laboratory Performance Audits

................................ ................................ ........... 8

- 5 8 .12 Laboratory System Audits

................................ ................................ ................... 8

- 6 8 .13 Assessment Procedures for Data Acceptability

................................ ................... 8

- 6 8

. 13 .1 Precision

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8

- 6 8 .13.2 Accuracy

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8

- 6 8 .13.3 Completeness

................................ ................................ ........................... 8

- 6 8 .13.4 Quality Control Charts

................................ ................................ ............. 8

- 7 8 .14 Preventative Maintenance

................................ ................................ .................... 8

- 7 8

. 14 .1 Field Equipment

................................ ................................ ....................... 8

- 7 8 .14.2 Laboratory Instruments

................................ ................................ ............ 8

- 7 8 .15 QA Reports to Management

................................ ................................ ................ 8

- 8 8 .16 Third

- Party Quality Control

................................ ................................ ................. 8

- 8

9.0 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

................................ ........................ 9

- 1 9.1 Observations

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9

- 1 9.1.1 Well Sites (Section 3.0)

................................ ................................ ........... 9

- 1 9.1.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants (Section 4.0)

................................ ............. 9

- 3 9.1.3 Landfills (Section 5.0)

................................ ................................ ............. 9

- 8 9.1.4 Gas Distribution and End Use (Section 6.0)

................................ ............ 9

- 9 9.1.5 Oil and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads (Section 7.0)

................................ .... 9

- 11 9. 2 Recommendations for Future Actions

................................ ............................... 9

- 1 2 9.2.1 Well Sites

................................ ................................ ............................... 9

- 12 9.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants

................................ ................................ 9

- 1 3 9.2.3 Landfills

................................ ................................ ................................ . 9

- 13 9.2.4 Gas Distribution and End Use

................................ ................................ 9

- 13 9.2.5 Oil and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads

................................ .......................... 9

- 13

10 .0 REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 10

- 1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Additional Geological Information Appendix B: Field Instrumentation QC Documentation Appendix C: Gamma Spectroscopy Analytical Results Appendix D: Total and Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Results Appendix E: Gross Gamma Radiation Survey Figures Appendix F: XRF Analytical Analyses Results Appendix G: T

- test Output Files Appendix H: Radon Monitor/Sample Analytical Analyses Reports A ppendix I : Filtered Versus Unfiltered Liquid Sample Comparison Appendix J: MicroShield ® Output Files Appendix K: Laboratory Data Reports Appendix L: Peer Review Comment and Resolution DocumentPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– List of Figures Rev. 0

January 2015 vii LIST OF FIGURES

1

- 1. Marcellus Shale Formation in Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ .... 1

- 2 1

- 2. Marcellus Shale Formation “Wet” and “Dry” Areas

................................ ....................... 1

- 2 1

- 3. Uranium

- 238 Decay Chain

................................ ................................ .............................. 1

- 4 1

- 4

. Thorium

- 232 Decay Chain

................................ ................................ .............................. 1

- 4 1

- 5

. Natural Gas Operations

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1

- 7 3

- 1. Comparison of Ra

- 226 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to U

- 238 XRF Results in Vertical Drill Cuttings

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 4 3

- 2. Comparison of Ra

- 228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th

- 232 XRF Results in Vertical Drill Cuttings

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 4 3

- 3. Comparison of Analytical Analyses Results for Horizontal and Vertical Drill Cutting Samples

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 3

- 5 3

- 4

. Comparison of Ra

- 226 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to U

- 238 XRF Results in Horizontal Drill Cuttings

................................ ................................ ................................ . 3

- 5 3

- 5

. Comparison of Ra

- 228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th

- 232 XRF Results in Horizontal Drill Cuttings

................................ ................................ ................................ . 3

- 6 3

- 6

. Natural Gas Radon Sampling Location

................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 9 3

- 7. Conventional vs Unconventional Produced Water Radium Concentrations

................. 3

- 11 4

- 1. CWT Influent and Effluent Liquid Ra

- 226 Min imum

, Max imum, and Average

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

- 7 4

- 2. ZLD Influent and Effluent Liquid Ra

- 226 Minimum, Maximum, and Average

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

- 11 4

- 3. MicroShield ® External Exposure Scenarios Input/Output

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

- 13 5

- 1. Ra

- 226 Progeny Ingrowth (Days Post Removal) versus Exposure Rate from 13.34 pCi/g Ra

- 226

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 4 5

- 2. Ra

- 226 Progeny Ingrowth versus Days (Days Post Removal)

................................ ........ 5

- 5PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– List of Tables Rev. 0

January 2015 viii LIST OF TABLES

2

- 1. Theoretical Over e stimation of Ra

- 226 Activity in Solid Samples with Natural

Uranium Analyzed by Gamma Spectroscopy

................................ ........................... 2

- 1 1 2

- 2. Criteria for Comparison

................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 1 2 2

- 3. Natural Background Radioactivity Values for U.S. Soil

................................ ........... 2

- 1 4 3

- 1

. Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 3

- 1 3 3

- 2. Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary

......... 3

- 1 6 3

- 3. Gross Gamma Scan Results Summary

................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 1 9 3

- 4. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

................ 3

- 20 3

- 5. Vertical Solids, Drill Cuttings

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

............................... 3

- 2 1 3

- 6. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Vertical Cuttings

................................ .................... 3

- 2 2 3

- 7. Horizontal Solids, Drill Cuttings

– Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 2 4 3

- 8. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Horizontal Cuttings

................................ ................ 3

- 2 5 3

- 9. Drilling Solids, Mud

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

................................ .............. 3

- 2 6 3

- 10. Proppant Sand

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

................................ ........................ 3

- 2 6 3

- 11. Flowback Solids, Sand

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

................................ .......... 3

- 2 7 3

- 12. Drilling Fluids

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

........................ 3

- 2 7 3

- 13. Fracturing Fluids

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

.................... 3

- 2 8 3

- 14. Flowback Fluids

– Gamma S pectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

..................... 3

- 2 8 3

- 15. Unfiltered Produced W aters

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

... 3

- 2 9 3

- 16. Filtered Produced W aters

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

....... 3

- 2 9 3

- 17. Ambient Radon at Well Sites During Flow back

................................ ....................... 3

- 30 3

- 18. Natural Gas Samples from Production Sites

................................ ............................. 3

- 31 3

- 19. Thorium and Uranium XRF Data for Drill Cuttings By Formation

.......................... 3

- 3 2 4

- 1. POTW

- I Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Summary

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

- 1 5 4

- 2

. POTW

- I Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Summary

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

- 1 7 4

- 3

. POTW

- I Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary

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

- 1 9 4

- 4

. POTW

- I Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure

Rates

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

- 1 9 4

- 5

. POTW

- I Filter Cake Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

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

- 20 4

- 6

. POTW

- N Filter Cake Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

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

- 21 4

- 7

. POTW

- I Sediment Sample Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

....... 4

- 2 1 4

- 8

. POTW

- I Filtered Effluent Resul ts Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 2 4

- 9

. POTW

- I Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 3 4

- 10

. POTW

- N Filtered Effluent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 4 4

- 1 1

. POTW

- N Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 4 4

- 1 2

. POTW

- I Filtered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 5PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– List of Tables Rev. 0

January 2015 ix 4

- 1 3

. POTW

- I Unfiltered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 6 4

- 1 4

. POTW

- N Filtered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 7 4

- 1 5

. POTW

- N Unfiltered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and

Miscellaneous Results

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

- 2 7 4

- 1 6

. POTW

- I Ambient Radon

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

- 2 8 4

- 1 7

. POTW

- I vs POTW

- N Average Concentrations Comparison for Filtered

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

- 2 8 4

- 1 8

. POTW

- I vs POTW

- N Average Concentrations Comparison for Unfiltered

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

- 2 8 4

- 1 9

. Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for Filtered

Influent and Effluent POTW Samples

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

- 2 9 4

- 20

. Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for Unfiltered

Influent and Effluent POTW Samples

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

- 29 4

- 2 1. POTW

- I Sediment and Effluent Results for Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228

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

- 30 4

- 22

. POTW Sediment and Effluent Ratios for Ra

- 226/Ra

- 228

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

- 3 1 4

- 23

. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT

Plants

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

- 3 2 4

- 24

. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT

Plants

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

- 3 4 4

- 25

. Summary of NaI Count Rat e Data at CWTs

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

- 3 6 4

- 26

. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

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

- 3 7 4

- 27

. CWT Solids, Filter Cake

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

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

- 3 8 4

- 28

. CWT Solids, Sediment

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

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

- 3 9 4

- 29

. CWT Solids, Biased Soil

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

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

- 3 9 4

- 30

. CWT Filtered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

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

- 40 4

- 31

. CWT Unfiltered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

........ 4

- 4 1 4

- 32

. CWT Filtered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

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

- 4 2 4

- 33

. CWT Unfiltered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

........ 4

- 4 3 4

- 34

. CWT Radon Sample Results

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

- 4 4 4

- 35

. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at

ZL Ds

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

- 4 5 4

- 36

. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs

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

- 4 7 4

- 37

. Summary of NaI Count Rate Data at ZLDs

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

- 49 4

- 38

. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

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

- 5 0 4

- 39

. ZLD Solids, Filter Cake

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

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

- 5 1 4

- 40

. ZLD Solids, Biased Soil

– Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

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

- 5 1 4

- 41

. ZLD Filtered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

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

- 5 2 4

- 42

. ZLD Unfiltered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellan eous Results

......... 4

- 5 3 4

- 43

. ZLD Filtered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

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

- 5 4 4

- 44

. ZLD Unfiltered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

......... 4

- 5 5 4

- 45

. ZLD Radon in Ambient Air Results

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

- 56 4

- 46

. ZLD and CWT Filter Cake Sample Alpha Spectroscopy Results

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

- 56 5

- 1. Landfill Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

...................... 5

- 7 5

- 2

. Selected Landfill Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

....... 5

- 8 5

- 3. Landfill Leachate Original and Aqueous Sample Analysis Results

............................ 5

- 9 5

- 4. Selected Landfill Effluent Leachate

 Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 5

- 10PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– List of Tables Rev. 0

January 2015 x 5

- 5. Selected Landfill I nfluent Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 5

- 10 5

- 6. Selected Landfill Solids, Filter Cake

 Gamma Spectroscopy Results

.................... 5

- 11 5

- 7. Selected Landfill Solids, Sediment

 Gamma Spectroscopy Results

....................... 5

- 11 5

- 8

. Selected Landfill Radon Concentrations

................................ ................................ ... 5

- 1 2 5

- 9

. Selected Landfill Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Results

S ummary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 5

- 1 3 5

- 10

. Selected Landfill Total Alpha and Beta Surfa ce Radioactivity Results Summar y

... 5

- 1 4 5

- 11

. Selected Landfill Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary

......................... 5

- 1 5 5

- 1 2

. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

................ 5

- 1 5 5

- 1 3

. Gamma Spectroscopy Results (pCi/g) of Sealed Wastewater Treatment Sludge

Sample Over 24 Days

................................ ................................ ................................ 5

- 1 6 6

- 1. Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations, Injection

......................... 6

- 6 6

- 2

. Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations, Withdrawal

..................... 6

- 6 6

- 3

. Natural Gas

- Fired Power Plant Samples Analyzed for Radon Content

...................... 6

- 6 6

- 4

. Natural Gas

- Fired Power Plants Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (PP 02)

........ 6

- 7 6

- 5

. Compressor Station Radon Samples

................................ ................................ ........... 6

- 7 6

- 6

. Compressor Station Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (CS 01)

........................... 6

- 7 6

- 7

. Natural Gas Processing Plant Radon Samples

................................ ............................ 6

- 7 6

- 8

. Compressor Station and Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Case Removable

Radioactivity Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6

- 8 6

- 9

. Compressor and Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Media, Gamma

Spectroscopy

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6

- 8 6

- 10

. Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Media, Gross Alpha/Gross Beta

........................ 6

- 8 6

- 1 1

. Radon Dosimetry Values for a Typical Home

................................ ............................ 6

- 9 7

- 1. Gamma Scan Survey Summary

................................ ................................ ................... 7

- 5 7

- 2. Summary of NaI Gamma Count Rate Data Converted to Exposu re Rate

................... 7

- 7 7

- 3. Road

- Biased Soil

– Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

......................... 7

- 1 0 7

- 4. Road

- Biased Soil

– Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

......................... 7

- 1 1 7

- 5. Road

- Biased Soil

– Actinium Series and Miscellaneous Gamma Spectroscopy

Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 7

- 1 2 7

- 6. Reference Background Road

– Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

....... 7

- 1 3 7

- 7. Reference Background Road

– Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

....... 7

- 1 4 7

- 8. Reference Background Road

– Actinium Series and Miscellaneous Gamma

Spectroscopy Results

................................ ................................ ................................ . 7

- 1 5 7

- 9. Dose Assessment Results for Oil and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads

.............................. 7

- 1 5 8

- 1. Summary of Analytical Procedures

................................ ................................ ........... 8

- 1 0 8

- 2. Bi

- 214 Split Solid Sample Comparison Results

................................ ........................ 8

- 1 1 8

- 3. Pb

- 212 Split Solid Sample Comparison Results

................................ ....................... 8

- 1 2 8

- 4. Pb

- 214 Split Soil Sample Comparison Results

................................ ......................... 8

- 1 2 8

- 5. Ra

- 226 Split Soil Sample Comparison Results

................................ ......................... 8

- 1 3 8

- 6. Bi

- 214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

................................ ..................... 8

- 1 3 8

- 7. Pb

- 214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

................................ ..................... 8

- 1 4 8

- 8. Ra

- 226 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

................................ ..................... 8

- 1 4 8

- 9. Ra

- 228 Split Liquid Sample Compari son Results

................................ ..................... 8

- 1 5PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Abbreviations, Acronyms, a nd Symbols Rev. 0

January 2015 xi

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS

Ac Actinium ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

 Alpha ANSI American National Standards Institute API American Petroleum Institute ATD Alpha Track Detector Ba Barium Bcf billion cubic feet  Beta Bi Bismuth BRP Bureau of Radiation Protection CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLP Contract Laboratory Program

cm centimeter
cpm counts per minute CWT Centralized Wastewater Treatment DAC Derived Air Concentration DCNR Department of Conservation and Natural Resources DEP Department of Environmental Protection DEP Laboratory DEP Bureau of Laboratories DER D uplicate E rror R atio DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOT U.S. Department of Transportation dpm disintegrations per minute DQL Data Quality Level EIC Electret Ion Chamber EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fe Iron FSP Field Sampling Plan ft foot/feet ft 2 square foot ft 3 cubic foot
g gram GIS Geographic Information System GM Geiger

- Muller GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System HASL Health and Safety Laboratory HCl Hydrochloric Acid HDPE High Density Polyethylene HNO 3 Nitric Acid HPS Health Physics Society hr hour K Potassium keV kilo

- electron voltPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Abbreviations, Acronyms, a nd Symbols Rev. 0

January 2015 xii L liter LLD Lower Level of Detection μR/hr microroentgens per hour μrem/hr microroentgen equivalent man per hour mcf thousand cubic feet MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration mph miles per hour

mrem millirem MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate NaI Sodium Iodide NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NORM N aturally Occurring Radioactive Material NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O&G Oil and Gas OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration %R Percent Recovery

± plus or min u s Pa Protactinium PA Pennsylvania Pa

. C.S. Consolidated Statutes PASDA Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access Pb Lead pCi/g picocuries per gram Perma

- Fix Perma

- Fix Environmental Services, Inc. pH Potential Hydrogen Po Polonium POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PPE Personal Protective Equipment
ppm parts per million PSIA pounds per square inch absolute QA Quality Assurance QAM Quality Assurance Manual QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control Ra Radium RESRAD Residual Radiation RG Regulatory Guide Rn Radon RPD R elative P ercent D ifference SOP Standard Operating Procedure Sv Sievert TDS Total Dissolved Solid s TENORM Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materia l s Th ThoriumPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Abbreviations, Acronyms, a nd Symbols Rev. 0

January 2015 xiii Tl Thallium U Uranium UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation U.S. United State s USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code USGS U.S. Geological Survey WL Working Level WWTP Waste w ater Treatment Plan t XRF X

- ray Fluorescence
yr year ZLD Zero Liquid DischargePA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Glossary Rev. 0

January 2015 xiv GLOSSARY*

Alpha

– A positively charged particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons, emitted in radioactive decay or nuclear fission. They are generally produced in th e process of alpha decay but may also be produced in other ways. They are designated by the Greek letter α.

Basic Sediment

– Oil and gas production storage impurities/sediment from produced oil at storage tank battery.

Beta

– High

- energy, high

- speed electrons or positrons emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei. The beta particles emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays. The production of beta particles is termed beta decay. They are design ated by the Greek letter β.

Brine

– Water that is produced with oil and gas when a well is in production, typically water containing more dissolved inorganic salt than seawater.

Condensate

– A low density, high American Petroleum Institute ( API ) gravity, mixture of hydrocarbons that is present in a gaseous state at formation temperatures and pressures but condenses out of the raw gas to a liquid form at standard temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure 14.7 pounds per square inch ( PSIA )

.

Conven tional F ormation

– A formation that is not an unconventional formation.

Conventional W ell

– A bore hole drilled or being drilled for the purpose of or to be used for construction of a well regulated under 58 Pa

. C. S. § § 3201

— 3274 (relating to development) that is not an unconventional well, irresp ective of technology or design. The term i ncludes, but is not limited to:

 Wells drilled to produce oil.

 Wells drilled to produce natural gas from formations other than shale formations.

 Wells drilled to produce natural gas from shale formations located above the base of the Elk Group o r its stratigraphic equivalent.

 Wells drilled to produce natural gas from shale formations located below the base of the Elk Group where natural gas can be produced at ec onomic flow rates or in economic volumes without the use of vertical or nonvertical well bores stimulated by hydraulic fracture treatments or multilateral well bores or other techniques to expose more of the formation to the well bore.

 Irrespective of form ation, wells drilled for collateral purposes, such as monitoring, geologic logging, secondary and tertiary recovery, or disposal injection.

Drill Cuttings

– Rock cuttings and related mineral residues generated during the drilling of an oil or gas well.

Drilling Fluid Waste

– Oil and gas drilling mud and other drilling fluids (other than fracturing fluid and spent lubricant).

Drilling Mud

– A chemical, water

- based, or oil

- based mixture pumped into an oil well during drilling in order to seal off porous rock layers, equalize the pressure, cool the bit, and flush outPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Glossary Rev. 0

January 2015 xv the cuttings. The mud is circulated down the drill pipe, out through the drill bit, across the rock face being drilled, then back to the surface carrying debris from the bottom of the well.

Flowback

– The return flow of water and formation fluids recovered from the well bore of an oil or gas well following the release of pressures induced as part of the hydraulic fracture stimulation of a target geologic formation until the well is placed int o production.

Flowback Fluid

– Flowback fluid is a water based solution that flows back to the surface during and after the completion of hydraulic fracturing. It consists of the fluid used to fracture the target formation

. The fluid contains clays, che mical additives, dissolved metal ions, and total dissolved solids (TDS).

Flowback Fracturing Sand

– Oil and gas drilling flowback fracturing sand.

Fracturing Fluid Waste

– Oil and gas fracturing/stimulation fluid waste and/or flowback.

Gamma

– Electromagnetic radiation of an extremely high frequency and high energy. Gamma rays are ionizing radiation, and are thus biologically hazardous. They are classically produced by the decay of atomic nuclei as they transition from a high energy state to a lower state known as gamma decay, but may also be produced by other processes. Natural sources of gamma rays include gamma decay from naturally oc curring radioisotopes, and secondary radiation from atmospheric interactions with cosmic ray particles. They are designated by the Greek letter 

.

Gas

– A fluid, combustible or noncombustible, which is produced in a natural state from the earth and maint ains a gaseous or rarified state at standard temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure of 14.7 PSIA. This product type must be reported in Mcf (1,000 cubic feet) at a standard temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure of 14.7 PSIA.

Horiz ontal Drill Cuttings

– Drill cuttings from the horizontal portion of an oil or gas well

. Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

– Hydraulically pressurized liquid used to fracture rock in the hydraulic fracturing process. Hydraulic fracturing fluids are used to initiate and/or expand fractures, as well as to transport proppant into fractures. The U.S. O&G industry has used fluids for fracturing geologic formations since the early 1940s.

Leachate

– A solution resulting fr om water that has percolated through solid, e.g.

, waste in landfill, and potentially leached out some of the soluble constituents.

Marinelli

– A lightweight polypropylene sample container with snap

- on lid used for g amma

s pectroscopy analysis.

Natural Gas

– A fossil fuel consisting of a mixture of hydrocarbon gases, primarily methane, and possibly including ethane, propane, butane, pentane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen

, and hydrogen sulfide and other gas species. The term includes natural gas from oil fields known as associated gas or casing head gas, natural gas fields known as nonassociated gas, coal beds, shale beds

, and other formations. The term does not include coal bed methane

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Glossary Rev. 0

January 2015 xvi NORM

– Naturally occurring radioactive material. It is a nuclide that is radioactive in its natural physical state, not man

- made, but does not include source or special nuclear material.

Oil

– Hydrocarbons in liquid form at formation temperatures and pressures that remain in liquid form at standard temperature of 60 de grees Fahrenheit and pressure 14.7 PSIA.

Produced Water

– Water that is produced with oil and gas when the well is in production.

Proppant Sand

– Solid treated sand suspended in water or other fluid designed to keep an induced hydraulic fracture open during or following a fracturing treatment.

Radiological Environmental Impact

– Impact to the environment from the release and subsequent spreading of radionuclides and from the direct emission of radiation from facilities.

Removable Contamination

– The fraction of total surface alpha/beta radioactive contamination easily removed by pressing a 47

- mm diameter filter paper to the surface with moderate pressure

, i.e.

, smear sampling. Usually expressed in units of dpm/100 cm 2 of surface area sampled.

Secular Equilibrium

– A type of radioactive equilibrium in which the half

- life of the precursor (parent) radion u clide is so much longer than that of the product (progeny) radionuclide(s) that the radioactivity of the progeny become equal to the parent ove r time equal to approximately 10 half

- life’s of the progeny.

Servicing Fluid

– Oil and gas production well maintenance and work

- over fluids and/or oil/water

- based mud and foam.

Smear Sample

– A sample of removable alpha and beta surface radioactivity collected by pressing a 47

- mm diameter filter paper to 100 cm 2 of surface are a sampled to obtain an assumed fraction of removable material

. The filter paper is counted for alpha and beta radioactivity without any preparation.

Spent Lubricant

– Oil and ga s drilling and/or plug drilling lubricants that have exceeded their useful life.

Student t

- test

– A test for determining whether or not an observed sample mean differs significantly from a hypothetical normal population mean.

TENORM

– Technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials. It is naturally occurring radioactive material not specifically subject to regulation under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. §2011 e t seq.), but whose radionuclide concentrations or potential for human exposure have been increased above levels encountered in the undisturbed natural environment by human activities.

Total Contamination

– The surface alpha/beta radioactive contamination comprised of fixed and removable components. Total contamination is measured by placing an appropriate alpha/beta detector on the surface to be surveyed so that both the fixed and removable fractions are counted together. Usually expressed in units of dpm /100 cm 2 of surface area s urveyed

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Glossary Rev. 0

January 2015 xvii Unconventional F ormation

– A geological shale formation existing below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its geologic equivalent stratigraphic interval where natural gas generally cannot be produced at economic flow rates or in economic volumes except by vertical or horizontal well bores stimulated by hydraulic fracture treatments or by using multilateral wellbores or other techniques to expose more of the formation to the well bore.

Unconventional W ell

– A bore hole dril led or being drilled for the purpose of or to be used for the produc tion of natural gas from an unconventional formation.

Vertical Drill Cuttings

– Drill c uttings from the vertical portion of an oil or gas well

.

Well Site

– The area occupied by the equipment or facilities necessary for or incidental to the drilling, production, or plugging of a well.

*These definitions are for the purposes of this report only and are not necessarily regulatory definitions.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Synopsis Rev. 0

January 201 5 0

- 1 0.0 SYNOPSIS

In 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) initiated a study to collect data relating to technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) associated with oil and gas (O&G) operations in Pennsylvania. This study included the assessment of potential worker and public radiation exposure, TENORM disposal

, and other possible environmental impacts. The study encompassed radiological surveys at well sites, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, gas distribu tion and end use, and O&G brine

- treated roads. The media sampled included solids, liquids

, natural gas

, ambient air , and surface radioactivity.

The observations and recommendations for future actions based on this peer

- reviewed study are:

1. There is little potential for additional radon exposure to the public due to the use of natural gas extracted from geologic formations located in Pennsylvania.

2. There is little or limited potential for r adiation exposure to workers and the public from the development, completion, production, transmission, processing, storage

, and end use of natural gas. There are, however, potential radiological environmental impacts from O&G fluids if spilled. Radium should be added to the Pennsylvania spill protocol to ensure cleanups are adequately characterized. There are also site

- specific circumstances and situations where the use of personal protective equipment by workers or othe r controls should be evaluated.

3. There is little potential for radiation exposure to wo rkers and the public at facilities that treat O&G wastes. However, there are potential radiological environmental impacts that should be studied at all facilities in Pennsylvania that treat O&G wastes to determine if any areas require remediation. If ele vated radiological impacts are found, the development of radiological discharge limitations and spill policies should be considered

.

4. There is little potential for radiation exposure to workers and the public from landfills receiving waste from the O& G industry. However, filter cake from facilities treating O&G wastes are a potential radiological environmental impact if spilled, and there is also a potential long

- term disposal issue. TENORM disposal protocols should be reviewed to ensure the safety o f long

- term disposal of waste containing TENORM.

5. While limited potential was found for radiation exposure to recreationists using roads treated with brine from conventional natural gas wells, further study of radiological environmental impacts from the us e of brine from the O&G industry for dust suppression and road stabilization should be conducted.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Objective s of the Study

During the expansion of the Marcellus Shale Gas industry the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff observ ed a st eady increase in the volume of waste containing technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM), generated by the oil and gas (O&G) industry, being disposed in Pennsylvania landfills. TENORM is naturally occurring r adioactive material whose radionuclide concentrations or potential for human exposure have been increased above levels encountered in the undisturbed natural environment by human activities.

In 2013

, DEP initiated a study to collect information and data n e eded to e ffectively manage TENORM from O&G operations for environmental and health protection. This study included the assessment of potential worker and public radiation exposure

, evaluation of potential impact s from TENORM waste disposal

, and the investigat ion of possible radiological environmental effects

. The survey and sample data will be used to address potential radiological concerns from O&G operations, disposal of waste, and product use.

This study report includes recommendations for future actions to be taken to address issues of concern identified by the study, including additional investigations and surveys.

1.2 Background

The Marcellus Shale formation underlies much of P ennsylvania , with the exception of southeastern P ennsylvania

. The organic

- rich portion reaches its maximum thickness in the northeastern part of the state. The northwestern borders of Franklin, Cumberland, Lebanon, Berks, Lehigh, and Northampton counties provide the southeastern margin of the Marcellus Shale formation. Between this border and the approximate corridor with US 220/I 99, the Marcellus Shale formation crops out in the folded Ridge and Valley physiographic province where it may be a concern for indoor Radon ( Rn )

. The type of gas found in most are as of the Marcellus Shale throughout P ennsylvania is geologically mature and consists of mostly methane that requires little processing prior to use

. This gas is commonly called “dry gas.” Marcellus Shale gas found along the westernmost border of Pennsyl vania is less geologically mature; therefore, in addition to methane, the gas contains additional hydrocarbons such as ethane,
propane , and butane. This gas is commonly called “wet gas” and can be used to produce plastics and other high

- value petroleum

- ba sed products. Figure 1

- 1 depic ts the extent of the Marcellus Shale formation within Pennsylvania

. Figure 1

- 2 shows the approximate dividing line between the wet and dry gas zones in the state

.

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has documented that Marcellus S hale can contain from 10 to 100 parts per million (ppm) uranium (U)

. Typical crustal U concentrations in the United States (U.S.) average 3 ppm.

See Appendix A for add itional geologic information on other natural gas

- producing formations and on heavy metal content.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 2 Figure 1

- 1 . Marcellus Shale Formation in Pennsylvania

Figure 1

- 2 . Marcellus Shale Formation “Wet” and “Dry” Areas

Source: PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR), www.marcellus.psu.eduPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 3 Marcellus Shale and other geologic formations rich in O&G resources may contain naturally occurring radioactive material (NO RM)

, specifically U , U

- 238 parent and thorium (Th), Th

- 232 parent, and their decay progeny , as well as Potassium

- 40 (K

- 40)

. These series occur naturally and are the most prevalent of the three natural decay series

, the third being the actinium (Ac), U

- 235 parent

. The decay series of U and Th are illustrated in Figure s 1

- 3 and 1

- 4 , respectively. Surface soil typically contains approximately 1 to 2 p icocuries p er g ram ( pCi/g ) of both the U and Th series radionuclides with all of the series members at approximately equal activity

, i.e.

, s ecular equilibrium. The radioactive materials, including TENORM, are brought to the land surface by O&G activities.

Each of the natural decay series includes a Rn gas member. Radon and its progeny are the primary issue of concern associated with natural gas distribution and its end uses.

1.3 Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Operations (Conventional and Unconventional)

Natural gas wells are classified as either conventional or unconventional

. Related statutory and regulatory definitions include the following:

Pennsylvania’s 2012 Oil and Gas Act (58 Pa. C. S. § 2301)

“Unconventional formation." A geological shale formation existing below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its geologic equivalent stratigraphic interval where natural gas generally cannot be produced at economic flow rates or in economic volumes except by vertical or horizontal well bores stimulated by hydraulic fracture treatments or by using multilateral wellbores or other techniques to expose more of the formation to the well bore.

"Unconventional gas well." A bore hole drilled or being drilled for the purpose of or to be used fo r the production of natural gas from an unconventional formation.

25 P a. Code § 78 .1

“Conventional formation.” A formation that is not an unconventional formation.

“Conventional well.”

(i) A bore hole drilled or being drilled for the purpose of or to be used for construction of a well regulated under 58 Pa. C. S. §§ 3201

— 3274 (relating to development) that is not an unconventional well, irrespective of technology or design.

(ii) The term includes, but is not limited to:

(A) Wells drilled to produce oil.

(B) Wells d rilled to produce natural gas from formations other than shale formations.

(C) Wells drilled to produce natural gas from shale formations located above the base of the Elk Group or its stratigraphic equivalent.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 4 Figure 1

- 3 . Uranium

- 238 Decay Chain

Note: y = years, d= days, h = hours

, and m = minutes

Figure 1

- 4 . Thorium

- 232 Decay Chain

Note: y = years, d= days, h = hours

, and m = minutesPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 5

(D) Wells drilled to produce natural gas from shale formations located below the base of the Elk Group where natural gas can be produced at economic flow rates or in economic volumes without the use of vertical or nonvertical well bores stimulated by hydraulic fracture treatments or multilateral well bores or other techniques to expose more of the formation to the well bore.

(E) I rrespective of formation, wells drilled for collateral purposes, such as monitoring, geologic logging, secondary and tertiary recovery, or disposal injection.

1.4 Subject Media

The types of media evaluated as part of this study result from the product media that either contain TENORM or may be impacted by TENORM due to O&G operations

. The product
stream s evaluated are natural gas and natural gas liquids

, i.e.

, condensates

. Other media evaluated includes solid and liquid wastes , soils

, ambient air, and gaseous emission products associated with O&G operations

.
1.4.1 Media Sampled

1. 4 .1.1 Solid s
Natural gas exploration, extraction and production result in various types of solid s that may contain TENORM or may b e impacted by TENORM

. These materials i nclude drill cuttings, filter sock residual s, impoundment sludge, tank bottom sludge, pipe scale, wastewater treatment plant ( WWTP ) sludge

, and soils. Drill cuttings are wastes brought to the surface during the drilling process

. Filter sock residual s and WWTP sludge are generated during the processing of wastewaters generated by O&G activities

. Impoundment and tank bottom sludge accumulate s as a result of solid material settling out of well site wastewater.

Other solids potentially impacted by radioactive isotopes include soils at WWTP discharge outfalls , soils in the proximity of dirt roads where brines from conventional O&G operations are used for dust suppression

, and pip e scale on natural gas transmission infrastructure

.

1. 4. 1.2 Liquids

There are various types of liquid s generated during the development and operating life of a gas well including drilling muds, used hydr aulic fracturing fluid , brine

, and other wastewaters. Liquid wastes are processed at WWTPs for reuse on well sites or to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria prior to discharge to waters of the Commonwealth

. The study classified WWTPs into three categories :

1) Publicly O wned T reatment W orks (POTWs) are the most common type of WWTPs. These facilities are designed to process sewage and wastewater from residences and businesses and may take industrial wastewater under specific circumstances

. After the wastewater isPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 6 processed and meets specified chemical criteria, the processed water may be di scharged to
streams under a n NPDES permit

.
2) Centralized W aste T reatment (CWT) facilities are designed to process commercial and industrial liquid wastes prior to discharge to receiving streams under an NPDES permit

. Additionally

, there are some industrial facilities that process wastewater prior to discharge to POTWs for final processing and discharge (pre

- treatment)

.
3) Z ero L iquid D ischarge (ZLD) facilities are the most modern and utilize distillation and chemical technologies to remove solids from the wastewater. The processed wast e water is returned for reuse at natural gas well sites for hydraulic fracturing of new wells. All
cent ralized ZLD facilities that recycle water to be used for hydraulic fracturing must be permitted by DEP

. Landfill leachate is liquid waste generated by the movement of precipitation through the disposed waste and by the compaction and decomposition of the waste itself. As liquid moves through the waste, contamina nt s are leached from the disposed material. Landfills are designed to ensure leachate does not enter the groundwater and is collected for treatment. Up on meeting NPDES water quality standards

, the treated leachate may be discharged to surface waters. Some landfills operate o n site treatment systems while others are connected to local POTW s , which
treat landfill leachate prior to discharge

. Because landf ills accept natural gas industry wastes such as drill cuttings and treatment sludge that may contain TENORM, there is a potential for leachate from those fac ilities to also contain TENORM.

1. 4 .1.3 Natural Gas

Many facilities , structures , and systems are utilized during the exploration, extraction

, and production of natural gas before the product is distributed to the residential, industrial

, and commercial end user s

. Natural gas samples were collected and evaluated for Rn at compressor stations, nat ural gas processing plants

, and underground storage facilities. Ambient air samples were also collected and evaluated for Rn at well sites, WWTPs, gathering compressor stations, natural gas

- fired power plants

, and landfills.

Natural gas passes through gathering line s, compressor stations, transmission line s , natural gas processing plants, underground storage facilities, and a network of pipes and valves (see Figure 1

- 5 )

. Gathering Compressor Stations : Gathering compressor stations compress the natural gas from the well sites to transport the product to the transmission line network. These facilities include large internal combustion engines and may also include dewatering equipment such as glycol dehydrators and liquid storage tanks. Geographically

, t hey are typically located at a nexus of piping from well sites

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 7 F igure 1

- 5 . Natural Gas Operations

Source: US EPA

, http://www.epa.gov/methane/gasstar/basic

- information/index.html

Natural Gas Processing : N atural gas and condensate are also used as feedstock for the synthesis of other products. Natural gas enters a processing facility and undergoes a dehydration process, is refrigerated to remove condensable liquids, then goes through a series of other processes including de

ethanizing/de

- propinizing and fractionation. These facilities can be quite large with very

e xtensive pi ping networks. They also have several intermediate and final product storage tanks and vessels. The operations at th e s e facilit ies necessitate opening of the product conveyance network for periodic cleaning and maintenance.

Transmission Line Compressor Stations : These facilities are larger than their gathering station counterparts. Power to the compressors is supplied by natural gas turbine engines, similar to those found on jet aircraft. These facilities normally do not have dehydrating equipment or l iquid storage tanks

. Dehydrat ion and condensate removal take place further upstream at the well sites and gathering compressor stations. The origin of the natural gas passing through these facilities can be difficult to ascertain

. Transmission line compressor stations may be handling natural gas from Pennsylvania , other parts of the U

. S

. , or international sources

. Underground Storage Facilities : Some deep sandstone formations , such as the Oriskany Sandstone formation, are use d for storing natural gas. The se underground reservoirs are used to address fluctuations in demand for natural
gas

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 8 End Users : The primary radionuclide of concern in natural gas is Rn

- 222

. Radon is a noble gas and is not destroyed by combustion, nor is i t removed by an air emission source control device. Consequently, Rn present in the fuel gas will remain after combustion. However, the process of combustion dilutes the concentration of Rn in the exhaust gas stream by a ratio of 10:1 of ambient air to n atural gas when perfect combustion is achieved.

1.5 Facility Selection

C ategory

- specific criteria were used to select specific facilities for inclusion in the study. The criteria differed based on the type of facility. The following lists the various selection s

.
1.5.1 Well Site Selection

1) A Marcellus S hale formation well site from the dry gas areas predominantly in the northern and central parts of the state. 2) A Marcellus S hale formation well site from the wet gas area found predominantly in the

s outhwestern part of the state. 3) A Utica formation well site and other non

- Marcellus S hale formations

, e.g., Geneseo, Burket

, and Rhinestreet that bec a me available. 4) A conventional O&G well site.

1.5.2 Waste water Treatment Plant Selection

1) T he three types of WWTPs

, including POTW facilities , CWT facilities, ZLD facilities

. 2) WWTPs that accept wastewater from conventional and unconventional types of well site s. 3) WWTPs tha t accept waste material from unconventional well sites in the wet gas

- producing

are a rather than the dry gas

- producing area

. 4) WWTPs where elevated radioactivity readings have been measured from the intake wastewater, produced sludge, effluent discharge, or discharge point stream/river sediments,
etc. 5) WWTPs that DEP regional offices have indicated are of particular interest.

1.5.3 Landfill Facility Selection Criteria

1) A ll Pennsylvania landfills. 2) N ine landfills that accepted the larg est amount of TENORM

- containing waste during the past
yea r. 3) L arge

- volume TENORM

- containing waste disposal sites where onsite worker exposure
measurements c ould be obtained and representative samp les of solids c ould be collected.

1.5.4 Gas Distribution and End Use Operations Selection Criteria

1) F acilities that compress, carry

, and distribute natural gas from th e wet gas

- producing area of the state. 2) F acilities that compress, carry

, and distribute natural gas from the dry gas

- producing area of the state.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 1.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 1

- 9 3) F acilities that distribute or process natural gas produced in Pennsylvania rather than those that distribute or process natural gas from out of state. 4) M ajor natural gas user s , e.g., electrical generator, processing

, and storage facilities.

1.5.5 Road Sites Selection Criteria

1) Multiple l ocations in the southw estern, northwestern, and north

- central regions of the state. 2) Roads where liquids from wells in the wet and dr y gas

- producing areas were applied for dust suppression and road stabilization

. 3) Roads where liquids from wells in the wet and dry gas

- producing areas were not applied for dust suppression and r oad stabilization

.
1.5.6 Well Component Reconditioning Selection Criteria

Well casing/pipe reconditioning or de

- scaling facilities in the state.

1.5.7 Centralized Impoundments

1) A facility in the w e t gas

- producing area

. 2) A facility in the dry gas

- producing area

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 1 2.0 STUDY IMPLEMENTATION

2.1 Sampling and Survey Methods

The primary data for this study were gathered using radiological screening surveys and through the sampling and an alysis of solid and liquid waste s , soils, ambient air, and gaseous emission products associated with O&G operations

.
2.1.1 Field Surveys

2.1.1.1 Scope

Radiological surveys were performed to identify the possible presence and abundance of NORM and TENORM in location s that include the following:

 Well Site s (Section 3.0)

 Offices and living quarters

 Storage and m aintenance a reas

 Drill rigs and associated equipment

 Temporary waste water storage tanks

 Waste water impoundments

 Production equipment

 Drill c utting pits (closed)

 Wastewater T reatment Plants (Section 4.0)

 Wastew ater off

- load areas

 Influent wastewater storage areas ( un treated)

 Effluent wastewater storage areas (treated)

 Processing tanks and equipment

 Offices, break rooms, laboratories

 Discharge points where applicable

 Landfills ( n ine study landfills

– details provided in Section 5.0)

 Offices and other occupied spaces

 Storage and maintenance areas

 Natural g as processing facilities

 Leachate processing facilities

 Earthmoving equipment

 Gas D istribution and E nd U se (Section 6.0)

 Compressor stations

 Natural g as

- fired power plants

 Natural g as processing facilities

 Oil and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads (Section 7.0)

2.1.1.2 Instrumentation and Documentation

Radiological instrumentation used for field surveys included portable scalers/ratemeters with various scintillators for detection of alpha (  

, beta (  
 and/or gamma radiation ; portable gammaPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 2 dose rate meters ; portable gamma exposure rate meters ; general purpose Geiger

- Muller (GM) detectors ; and field counters for low

- level  and  radiation detection.

All instruments used were calibrated and their operation verified prior to use on each day they were used

. The instruments were maintained and operated in accordance with Perma

- Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (Perma

- Fix) operating procedures by qualified health physics technicians

. Records of calibration, daily quality control ( QC ) checks for the days used , s urvey results, logbooks, and various other records generated during field screening survey activities are includ ed in Appendix B

.
2.1.1.3 Activities

General descriptions of the various field surveys performed as part of this study are provided below.

2.1.1.3.1 Radiological Surveys of Facilities and Reference Background Areas

G amma radiation exposure rates and gross gamma radioactivity surveys were performed at each facility included in the study

. The gamma radiation exposure rates were measured using a Bicron Micro

- Rem Meter recorded in micro

- R oentgen equivalent man per hour (μ rem /hr) or a Ludlum Model 19 Micro

- R Meter recorded in units of micro

- R oentgen per hour (μ R /hr)

. The
gross gamma radioactivity surveys were recorded in counts per minute (cpm) using a Ludlum Model 44

- 10 Sodium Iodide (NaI) detector. T o properly evaluate survey data , surveys were also performed in areas outside the influence of the facility to establish natural background.

2.1.1. 3.2 Radiological Surveys of Liquid Sample s and Tanks

Liquid samples were collected at each of the three types of WWT P s and included influent, effluent, and in

- stream discharge points where POTWs, and in limited cases CWTs, are permitted to discharge directly to a receiving stream

. During liquid sampling

, gamma radiation exposure surveys were performed. In addition, g amma radiation exposure rates were performed on contact with tank s w hen possible

. Otherwise, measurements were collected in the general proximity of the point of sample collection or tank

. T o properly evaluate survey data, surveys were also performed in areas outside the influence of the facility to establish natural background.

2.1.1.3.3 Radiological S urveys of Equipment and Structures

Equipment such as drill rigs

, well development equipment , etc. , was subject to field s creening surveys includ ing :

 Gamma radiation exposure rate surveys using a Bicron MicroRem Meter or Ludlum Model 19

.

 Gross gamma radioactivity surveys using a Ludlum Model 44

- 10 NaI detector

.

 Total  and  surface radioactivity using a direct frisk Ludlum Model 43

- 89 detector and/or a Ludlum Model 44

- 93 and cpm results converted to units of disintegr ations per minute per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm 2 ) of surface area surveyed

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 3  Removable  and  surface radioactivity by sample collection with smears. Smears were counted on a Ludlum 2929 with a Model 43

- 10

- 1 portable scaler/ratemeter and detector

. Count results were converted to units of dpm/100 cm 2 of surface area smeared

.

T o properly evaluate survey data, surveys were also performed in areas outside the influence of the facility to establish natural background.

2.1.1.3.4 Radiological Surveys of Samples

All samples collected were surveyed prior to transportation to the laboratory. The surveys were performed on contact with the sample container and includ ed :

 Gamma radiation exposure rate surveys using a Bicron MicroRem Meter or Ludlum Model 19

.

 Gross gamma radioactivity surveys using a Ludlum Model 44

- 10 NaI detector

.

 Total  and  surface radioactivity using a direct frisk Ludlum Model 43

- 89 detector or a Ludlum Model 44

- 93 detector

.

 Removable  and  surface radioactivity by sample collection with smears. Smears were counted on a Ludlum 2929 with a Model 43

- 10

- 1 portable scaler/ratemeter and detector.

T o properly evaluate survey data, surveys were also performed in areas outside the influence of the facility to determine na tural background.

2.1.2 Field Sampling Activities

2.1.2.1 Scope

DEP sampled solids, liquids

, and gas during th e study to understand the movement and potential exposure pathways of TENORM from O&G operations

. The sampling and analysis of environmental media provides data that are informative in determining radio nuclides of concern as well as their potential mobility. T he media sampled during this study included:

 Solid samples:

− Drill cuttings

− Wastewater treatment sludge /filter cake

− Wastewater treatment d ischarge sediment

− Soil samples

− Filter sock residuals

 Liquid samples:

− Flowback and produced water

− Accumulated liquids from production equipment

− Waste water treatment influent and effluent

− Landfill leachate influent and effluent

 Gas samples:

− Natural g as (for Rn

- 222 con centration )

− Ambient a ir (for Rn

- 222 con centration )

 Removable 

/  radioactivity surface samples:

− Removable  radioactivity by smear sampl ingPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 4 − Removable  radi oactivity by smear sampl ing

Collected samples , with the exception of smear samples, were transported to the DEP Bureau of Laboratories (DEP Laboratory) under chain

- of

- custody control. Five percent of samples were split by Perma

- Fix and forwarded by the DEP Laboratory to the independ ent QC labo ratory (GEL Laboratory of Charleston, SC) for filtration

, as needed, and analyses. Smear samples were transported to the Perma

- Fix laboratory, and 10 percent of the smear samples were forwarded to the DEP Laboratory for duplicate analysis.

2.1.2.2 Solid Sampl e Method s
Solid samples were collected using clean sampling equipment. S amples were collected using stainless steel trowels and bowls, then promptly transferred into laboratory

- approved containers and immediately labeled to maintain id enti fication

.
2.1.2.3 Liquid Sample Methods

When sampling tanks through a valve

, samples were collected directly into the clean sample container. Otherwise, r epresentative tank samples were collected using a clean high

- density polyethylene ( HDPE ) dipper. The sampled liquids were transferred to clean, laboratory

approved containers. Two consecutive 4

- liter (L) samples were obtained at each sample location.

When the sample s w ere received at the DEP L aboratory, they were preserved. Sample preservation is the measure or measures taken to prevent reduction or loss of target analytes. Analyte loss can occur between sample collection and laboratory analysis because of physical, chemical, and biological processes that result in chemical precipi tation, adsorption, oxidation, reduction, ion exchange, degassing, or degradation. Preservation stabilizes analyte concentrations for a limited period of time. The first sample was analyzed after preservation without filtration

. The second sample was pres erved and subsequently filtered in the l aboratory using a 0.45

- micron mixed cellulose ester filter. The filtered sample was placed into a clean container. The filtrate s w ere maintained for analysis.

2.1.2.4 Gas Sample Methods

Radon concentration in a mbient air was measured by various techn ologies

. T he techn ology used was dependent on several factors

, including the location , the collection period/detector deployment period, and atmospheric conditions such as relative humidity. Sampling technologies used for this study included:

 Electret ion chambers (E ICs )

 Alpha track detectors (ATDs)

N atural gas grab samples were also collected to measure Rn concentration s

. Natural gas was collected directly into scintillation cells, referred to as Lucas c ells

. Two Lucas cells were connected in sequence , which provided a duplicate sample at each sample location. An in

- line Millipore ® Type HA, 0.45

- micron glass fiber filter was used prior to natural gas entering the first cell. This filter prevents sample contam ination by Rn particulate progeny

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 5 T he natural gas was flowed through the cells for 10 minutes. This provided for purging of the gas lines and the scintillation cells

, resulting in the collection of new discrete samples for analysis

.
2.1.2. 5 Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Smear Sample Method

Smear samples of removable  and  surface radioactivity were collected by pressing a 47

- m illimeter diameter filter paper to the sampling surface and smearing with moderate pressure approximately 100 cm 2 of surface area.

2.2 Laboratory Methods

2.2.1 Solid Matrix

The following sample types were classified as solid matrices: surface soil impacted by sediments , filter cakes, soils, sludge, drill cuttings, drill ing muds, proppant sand

, and filter socks

, including the materials inside the socks

. Upon arrival at the DEP Laboratory , the samples were scanned for radiological activity using a G M p ancake p robe

. The samples were logged with the appropriate standard analysis code that designated the requested radiological analyses.

2.2.1.1 Gamma Spectroscopy

The samples were dried in a Presier Scientific Model 91

- 2290

- 83 100°C oven, ground to a fine powder (~80 mesh), weighed into a new 0.5

- L Marinelli

, sealed with general purpose polyeth ylene tape , and analyzed by high purity germanium gamma spectroscopy. The following radionuclides were identified or i nferred using gamma spectroscopy:

Ra

- 226 Direct Energy Line 186 keV Ra

- 228 Inferred Energy Line 911 keV (Ac

- 228) U

- 235 Direct Energy Line 143 keV Ac

- 228 Direct Energy Line 911 keV Th

- 232 Inferred Energy Line 911 keV (Ac

- 228) U

- 238 Inferred Energy Line 63.3 keV ( Th

- 234 ) Pb

- 212 Direct Energy Line 238 keV Pb

- 214 Direct Energy Line 351 keV Bi

- 212 Direct Energy Line 727 keV Bi

- 214 Direct Energy Line 609 keV K

- 40 Direct Energy Line 1

, 460 keV

The sample was counted again using gamma spectroscopy after a minimum of 21 days from the first analysis date. The same radionuclides were identified or inferred. Prior to the start of analysis, a daily background and instrument QC check was completed

, reviewed

, and validated

. The gamma spectroscopy reference method is U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) 4.5.2.3.

2.2.1.2 X

- ray Fluorescence

After gamma spectroscopy ana lys e s w ere complete, the dried solid samples were analyzed for various elements using X

- ray f luorescence (XRF)

. The samples were weighed into XRF samplePA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 6 cups, covered with a Prolene ® film

, and analyzed using a n X

- ray spectrometer. Forty

- eight elements were analyzed using XRF

. The XRF analys e s w ere conducted using a DEP Laboratory

- developed method

. Standard QC calibration verification instrument checks were performed using National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) primary traceable standards

.
2.2.1.3 Alpha Spectroscopy

One percent of solid samples analyzed by gamma spectroscopy were selected and analyzed using alpha spectroscopy for U

- 238, U

- 235, U

- 234, Th

- 232, Th

- 230

, and Th

- 228. Prior to analysis, the samples were digested using Health and Environmental Chemistry: Analytical Techniques, Data Management, and Quality Assurance ER200 and ER230 sample preparation methods. A 10

- gram ( g ) al iquot of the original solid sample matrix was digested and diluted to a final volume of 4 L, res ulting in a concentration of 2.5 g/L. The isotopes and iron (Fe) carrier added were precipitated from the liquid as hydroxides, re

- solubilized in h ydrochloric a cid ( HCl ) , and then passed over a column of anion exchange resin, which removed the Fe and other interfering isotopes. Each isotopic fraction was concentrated, converted to the nitrate salt, and applied to a second anion exchange column. After washing the resin, the isotope was eluted, electrodeposited, and analyzed for isotopic U and Th. Inst rument background, secondary, and pulser counts were obtained at the beginning and end of every sample batch. The alpha spectroscopy reference metho d is Standard Methods 7500

- U C.

2.2.2 Liquid Matrix

The following sample types received at the DEP Laborat ory were classified as liquid matrices:

 WWTP influent and effluent liquids

 L andfill leachates

 W ell site liquids/ fluids including :

 H ydraulic fracturing fluid

 F lowback fluid

 P roduc ed water

Based on solid content

, a portion of the drilling mud samples were analyzed as liquids. Upon arrival at the DEP Laboratory , the samples were scanned for radiological activity using a G M pancake probe. The samples were preserved with n itric a cid ( HNO 3 ) to a potential h ydrogen ( pH ) less than 2 and logged with the appropriate standard analysis code that designate s the requested radiological analyses. After being a cidified

, samples were maintained a minimum of 16 hours prior to analysis. S amples were vacuum filtered using a 0.45

- micron mixed cellulose
ester filter. The filtrate was collected and transferred into a clean gallon cubitainer. The filtered solids were analyzed for gamma

- emitting radionuclides using gamma spectro scopy (see solid matrix). The liquid samples were counted for gross 

- , gross 

- , and gamma

- emitting radionuclides

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 7 2.2.2.1 Gamma Spectroscopy

The liquid samples were measured to 3 L, placed into a clean 4

- L Marinelli

, sealed with general purpose polyethylene tape , and analyzed. The following radionuclides were identified or inferred using gamma spectroscopy:

Ra

- 226 Direct Energy Line 186 keV Ra

- 228 Inferred Energy Line 911 keV (Ac

- 228) U

- 235 Direct Energy Line 143 keV Ac

- 228 Direct Energy Line 911 keV Th

- 232 Inferred Energy Line 911 keV (Ac

- 228) U

- 238 Inferred Energy Line 63.3 keV (Th

- 234) Pb

- 212 Direct Energy Line 238 keV Pb

- 214 Direct Energy Line 351 keV Bi

- 212 Direct Energy Line 727 keV Bi

- 214 Direct Energy Line 609 keV K

- 40 Direct Energy Line 1

, 460 keV

The sample s were counted again using gamma spectroscopy after a minimum of 2 1 days from the date of their first analysis. The same radionuclides were identified or inferred each day analyses were performed. Prior to the start of analysis, a background and standard QC calibration verification ch eck w as completed, reviewed, and validated.

2.2.2.2 Gross Alpha Gross Beta Analys e s
An aliquot of sample was evaporated to less than 5 milliliters. The evaporated volume was transferred to a 2

- inch diameter planchet using 10 percent HNO 3 and dried. The dried s ample was placed in a desiccator for 72 hours. The samples were flamed to convert the hydroscopic salts to oxides. The samples were counted for gross 

- and gross 

- emitting radionuclides using a gas proportional counter. Standard QC calibration verification and daily background check s were completed

, reviewed, and validated at the beginning and end of analysis. The gross  and
gross  reference method is EPA 900.0.

2.2.2.3 X

- Ray Fluorescence

The liquid samples were analyzed for vari ous metals using X RF

. The samples were weighed into XRF sample cups, covered with a Prolene ® film

, and analyzed using a n X

- r ay spectrometer. Forty

- eight elements were identified using XRF

. The XRF analys e s w ere conducted using a DEP Laboratory

- developed method. Standard QC calibration verification instrument checks were performed using NIST primary traceable standards.

2.2.2. 4 Inorganic Analyses

During the third round of sampling, additional analyses including basic inorganic analyses were included as part of the study

. The samples were received by the DEP L aboratory and logged with the appropriate standard analysis code that designated the requested inorganic analyses. The analyses included hardness (SM2340 B), pH (SM4500H

- B), specific conductance at 25.0°CPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 8 (SM2510B), total chloride (SM4500

- CL E), total sulfate (EPA 375.2), total dissolved solids at 180°C (USGS I

- 1750), and total suspended solids (USGS I

- 3765).

2.2.3 Gas Matrix

Natural gas samples were collected at various locations using scintillation cells with photomultiplier tubes and analyzed for Rn concentration. The s cintillation cells were counted in

one of two counters : the Pylon AB

- 5 Portable Radiation Monitor or the Ludlum Model 2200 Scaler

- Ratemeter

. The counter used was depend ent upon the type of scintillation cell used to collect the sample

. All samples were allowed to equilibrate for a minimum of four hours before being counted. In all cases

, the first count wa s not used in the calculations to allow for “dark adap ta tion” of the instruments. The next three counts we re each individually calculated and the average and standard deviation calculated. The average result

, plus or minus (±) two standard deviations

, and the minimum det e c t able activity are reported in the data tables.

N atural gas is composed mostly of methane

, which is lighter and less dense than air. Alpha counting efficiency is directly proportional to the density of the gas counted. Because the scintillation cells were calibrated using a known concentration of Rn in ambient air , density correction was applied to all Rn in natural gas results. A correction factor ( Jenkins et al., 201 4 ) was used for this effect to prevent biasing the results

. T he final calculated Rn concentration s

were divided by 1.054. This reduce d all results by five percent to correct for the bias

.
2.2.4 Filter Matrix

– Smears

All smear samples were collected by Perma

- Fix technicians and trans ported to the Perma

- Fix Laboratory for analysis

. All smear samples were counted for gross  and gross  radioactivity

. Ten percent of th ose smear samples were then forwarded to t he DEP Laboratory for duplicate analysis as a QC measure

. Upon arrival at the Perma

- Fix laboratory, the samples were logged

. T he smear samples were placed on a 2

- inch diameter planchet and analyzed for gross  and gross  particles using a Ludlum Model 2929 Meter equipped with a Ludlum Model 43

- 10

- 1 Smear Counter (z inc

- sulfide scintillation detector )

. A standard QC background and calibration verification count w as performed each day the smear counter was used.

Upon receipt at the DEP Laboratory, the samples were logged

. T he smear samples were placed

on a 2

- inch diameter planchet and analyzed for gross  and gross  particles using a gas proportional counter. Prior to the start of analysis, an instrument source check and background check were completed, reviewed, and validated. The gross  and gross  filter analys e s w ere conducted using the DEP Laboratory

- developed method

. A standard QC calibration verification instrument check w as performed with NIST traceable sources

.
2.3 Survey and Sample Analyses Data Management

All of the solid and liquid samples were analyzed by the DEP Laboratory using gamma spectr oscopy. The result, the standard two

- sigma error (95 percent confidence level ) and the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) w ere reviewed for each of the following radionuclides as reported :PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 9  Natural Uranium Decay Series Results (U

- 238, Ra

- 226, Pb

- 214

, and Bi

- 214)

 Natural Thorium Decay Series Results (Th

- 232, Ra

- 228, Ac

- 228, Pb

- 212

, and Bi

- 212)

 Natural Actinium Decay Series Results (U

- 235)

 Miscellaneous (K

- 40)

2.3.1 Limitations on Gamma Spectroscopy Results

The following li mitations on gamma spectrosco py of radioactive samples were considered when reviewing the analytical results for solid and liquid samples :

 G amma spectroscopy cannot directly measure radium ( Ra )

- 228

. Rather

, Ra

- 228 is inferred from a short

- lived progeny of Ra

- 228 , Ac

- 228

, which is readily detected by gamma spectroscopy when the radionuclides are in secular equil i brium. Due to the relative half

- lives of Ra

- 228 ( 5.8 years ) and Ac

- 228 ( 6.1 hours ) after 24 hours

, this is always the case for the samples collected as part of the study.

 G amma spectroscopy cannot directly measure Th

- 232

. Consequently , Th

- 232 is inferred from the short

- lived progeny of Th

- 232

, Ra

- 228

, when the radionuclides are in secular equilibrium. Due to the difference in solubility between Th and Ra, this is not the c ase in liquid samples or in solid samples of wastewater residue

, sludge and filter cake

. Only the soluble Ra and progeny of Ra are present in those samples

. Consequently

, knowledge of the status of the secular equilibrium of the Th decay series within the sample matrix is necessary to properly evaluate gamma spectroscopy results.

 U ranium

- 238 can be detected by gamma spectroscopy , b ut the gamma emission used is of low energy and low yield, resulting in a high MDC and high standard err or compared to the other radionuclides in the environment

. Consequently , the U

- 238 result is not used as positive identification of U

- 238 without knowledge of the status of U series secular equilibrium and the identification of additional, more statistically robust U progeny.

 U ranium is in soluble in water while Ra is water soluble

. Therefore

, wastewater, produc ed and flowback fluids

, and wastewater treatment solids (sludge and filter cake) contain Ra and its progeny but do not include U.

Only the radionuclides present in a given sample are reported in the following sections. The average, median, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum value s are also provided at the botto m of each table for each set of results. Please note:

 When the reported result is less than the MDC, a value equal to 1⁄2 the MDC is used in the derivation of average, median, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum values.

 When “<” precedes the reported result, the value is the MDC.

Appendix C contains the gamma spectroscopy analytical analysis results for each radionuclide identified along with their associated standard two

- sigma counting error (error) and the MDC for the analyses.

2.3.2 R a dium

- 226 Quantification by Gamma Spectroscopy

Ra dium

- 226 may be measured directly by detection of its 186.2 kilo

- electron volt (keV) energy line

, 3.28 percent yield

. For liquid samples and sludge/filter cake samples that do not contain U

,PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 10 this yields an accurate Ra

- 226 result. However, in soil and drill cutting samples, the presence of U

- 235 cause s interference with direct Ra

- 226 detection because one of it s gamma line s is of similar energy

, 18 5 .7 keV at 54 percent yield

. In solid samples where natural U including U

- 238 and Ra

- 226 are at equal activity and U

- 235 is at 1/22 the activity of U

- 238, the theoretical

over estimati on of Ra

- 226 was quantified assuming the gamma peaks for Ra

- 226 and U

- 235 completely overlap. The theoretical overest imation of Ra

- 226 is present ed in Table 2

- 1

.

The short

- lived equilibrium progeny of Ra , Pb

- 214 and Bi

- 214

, may be used to infer Ra

- 226 concentrations in soil or drill cuttings when U

- 235 is present in the sample

. The parent of these
progeny , Rn

- 222, is a gas and has a half

- life of 3.8 days

. When the s oil or drill cuttings sample is collected

, some of the Rn gas escapes the solid matrix. T herefore

, sample s are sealed to allow the Rn gas to develop for three weeks of progeny ingrowth to reestablish eq uilibrium after the sample has been sealed

.
2.3.3 Criteria for Comparison to Analytical Analyses Results

Table 2

- 2 presents criteria against which the analytical results and assessments of this study

were evaluated

.
2.3.4 Normal Background Radioactivity Values

Table 2

- 3 presents average, minimum

, and maximum background radioactivity values for soil in the U.S. used as a reference point when reviewing analytical results of solid samples.

2.3.5 Data Presentation

A large volume of survey and sample analytic al analyses data w ere generated. The next five sections present the survey and sampling data for Well Sites, WWTPs, Landfills, G as Distribution and End Use

, and Brine

- Treated Roads

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 11 Table 2

- 1

. Theoretical Over e stimation of Ra

- 226 Activity in Solid Samples with

Natural Uranium Analyzed by Gamma Spectroscopy

Radio n uclide (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
U

- 238 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 10.0 20.0 U

- 235 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.23 0.45 0.91 Ra

- 226 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 10.0 20.0 Excess Ra

- 226 a 0.75 1.51 2.26 3.02 3.77 7.54 15.1 Reported Ra

- 226 1.75 3.51 5.26 7.02 8.77 17.5 35.1 Excess U

- 235 b 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.60 1.21 Reported U

- 235 0.11 0.21 0.32 0.42 0.53 1.06 2.11

a Excess Ra

- 226 is calculated by converting the U

- 235 value to Ra

- 226 activity by a factor equal to the ratio of the gamma yields

, i.e., 50.4/3.28.
b Excess U

- 235 is calculated by converting the Ra

- 226 value to Ra

- 226 activity by a factor equal to the ratio of the gamma yields

, i.e., 3.28/50.4.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 12 Table 2

- 2. Criteria for Comparison

Parameter Criteria Reference Potentially Apply to: Volumetric Solids 3 pCi/g Total Radium (Ra

- 226 + Ra

- 228) above background American National

Standards Institute ( ANSI ) / Health Physics Society ( HPS ) N13.53

- 2009, Control and Release of Technologically Enhanced NORM ( TENORM ) (2009) Sediment, Beneficial

Use Surface Soil, Surface Soil on Well Sites

Volumetric Solids 5 pCi/g Total Radium (Ra

- 226 + Ra

- 228) above background EPA Directive No.

9200.4

- 35, Remediation Goals for Radioactively Contaminated CERCLA Sites (2000) Sediment, Beneficial

Use Surface Soil, Surface Soil on Well Sites

Volumetric Solids 270 pCi/g Total

Radium (Ra

- 226 + Ra

- 228) U.S. Department of

Transportation ( DOT )

, 49 CFR 173.4 36

, Radioactive Material (in regards to transportation) Sludge, Filter Cake,

Filter Socks, Scale, Cuttings

Volumetric Liquids 5 pCi/L Total Radium (Ra

- 226 + Ra

- 228) in drinking water EPA Drinking Water

Standard

, 40 CFR 141.66 Effluent Water from

Well Sites

V olumetric Liquids 60 pCi/L Total

Radium (Ra

- 226 + Ra

- 228) direct discharge U

. S

. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission ( NRC )

, 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B, Table 2, Liquid Effluent Effluent Water from

Well Sites and Wastewater Facilities

Volumetric Liquids 600 pCi/L Total

Radium (Ra

- 226 + Ra

- 228) discharge to sanitary sewer U

. S

. NRC

, 10 CFR

Part 20 Appendix B, Table 2, Liquid Effluent (assumes dilution and solubility of Ra ) Effluent Water from

Well Sites and Wastewater Facilities

Total Alpha Surface Contamination 100 dpm/100 cm 2 U.S. NRC , Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria for Ra

- 226 Structural surfaces on

well sites and within wastewater facilities, and equipment released from sitesPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 13 Table 2

- 2. Criteria for Comparison

Parameter Criteria Reference Potentially Apply to: Total Beta Surface Contamination 1,000 dpm/100 cm 2 U.S. NRC , Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria for natural Th including Ra

- 228 Structural surfaces on

well sites and within wastewater facilities, and equipment releas ed from sites

Removable Alpha Surface Contamination 20 dpm/100 cm 2 (of

surface area smear sampled) U.S. NRC , Regulatory

Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria for Ra

- 226 Structural surfaces on

well sites and within wastewater facilities, and equipment released from sites

Removable Beta Surface Contamination 200 dpm/100 cm 2 (of

surface area smear sampled) U.S. NRC , Regulatory

Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criter ia for natural Th including Ra

- 228 Structural surfaces on

well sites and within wastewater facilities, and equipment released from sites

Volumetric Gas 4 pCi/L EPA , 402/K

- 12/002, A Citizen’s Guide to Radon (2012) Buildings, General

P ublic

Volumetric Gas 30 pCi/L Derived Air

Concentration (DAC) U

. S

. NRC

, 10 CFR

Part 20 Appendix B, Table 1, Col 3 Occupational

Exposure

Volumetric Gas 100 pCi/L Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) 29 CFR 1910.1096 General P ublic W orkforce

Annual Exposure 25 mrem/year plus as

low as reasonably achievable ( ALARA ) U

. S

. NRC

, 10 CFR

20.1402

- 20.1403

, Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use General Public

Annual Exposure 100 mrem/year U

. S

. NRC

, 10 CFR 20.1301 , Radiation Dose Limits for Members of the Public General Public

Workers not trained as Radiation Workers, i.e.

, well site and water facilities workersPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 2 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 2

- 14 Table 2

- 2. Criteria for Comparison

Parameter Criteria Reference Potentially Apply to: Annual Exposure 5,000 mrem/year U

. S

. NRC

, 10 CFR 20.1201

, Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Radiation Workers

Table 2

- 3

. Natural Background Radioactivity Values for U.S. Soil

Material U

- 238 (pCi/g) Ra

- 226 (pCi/g) Th

- 232 (pCi/g) K

- 40 (pCi/g) Soil (Average) a 0.95 1. 1 0.95 10 Soil (Minimum) a 0.1 1 0.2 2 0.1 1 2.7 Soil (Maximum) a 3.8 4.3 3.5 19

a UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation (UNSCEAR 2000).PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 1 3

. 0 WELL SITES

Thirty

- eight well sites

, includ ing four conventional wells and 3 4 unconventional wells, were sample d from June 2013 through July 2014. Data from five phases of well development and completion were collected : vertical drilling, horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, flowback

, and production. A listing of the well t ypes, formations, phases

, and geographic regions is provided below.

 4 Conventional Well s

 Formation s

 1 in the Lower Devonian/Oriskany

 3 in the Upper Devonian

 Phase

 Production Phase

 3 4 Unconventional Wells

 Formations

 29 in the Lower Devonian/ Marcellus

 2 in the Lower Devonian/Marcellus Sandstone

 1 in the Upper Devonian / Burket

 2 in the Middle Ordovician/ Utica

 Phases

 1 0 sampled during the vertical drilling phase

 1 0 sampled during the horizontal drilling phase

 10 sampled during the hydraulic fracturing phase

 9 sampled during the flowback phase

 1 9 sampled during the production phase

 9 sampled for fluids and Rn

 10 sample d for just Rn

 Regions

 1 in the Northeast Region

 17 i n the North

- c entral Region

 4 in the Northwest Region

 1 6 in the Southwest Region

3 .1 Radiological Survey Results

R adiological survey s were conducted at each well site resulting in four data sets:

 Removable 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Total 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorde d in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm

 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate m easurements recorded in units of μ R /hr

3 .1.1 Removable Alpha / Beta Surface Radi oactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of removable  /  surface radioactivity were performed to assess potential internal radiation worker exposure through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated usingPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 2 the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 (RG 1.86) guidelines

. RG 1.86 Table 1 requires that  and  levels be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226 with a re movable criterion of 20 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a removable criterion of 200 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The average removable  and  levels at each well site were below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum removable  and  levels were 15 dpm/100 cm 2 and 76 dpm/100 cm 2 , also below the RG 1.86 criteria. The
summary results of removable  /  radioactivity for each of the well sites surveyed are presented in Table 3

- 1

. Individual smear sample removable  /  results are presented in Appendix D

.

3 .1.2 Total Alpha / Beta

 Surface Radi oactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of total  /  surface radioactivity were performed to assess potential worker internal radiation exposure through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 Table 1 guidelines. RG 1.86 requires that  and  activity be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226 with a total cri terion of 100 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a total criterion of 1,000 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The maximum average total  and  levels measured at any single well site were 93.0 dpm/100 cm 2 and 1

, 630 dpm/100 cm 2

. The maximum total  and  levels measured were 754 dpm/100 cm 2 and 2,503 dpm/100 cm 2

. The summary results of total  and  surface radioactivity for each of the well sites surveyed are pr esented in Table 3

- 2

. Individual total  /  measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.

3 .1.3 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

Gross gamma radiation scans recorded in cpm were performed on well sites to identify areas of radioactivity above local background levels

. Summary results for each of the well sites surveyed and each phase surveyed are presented in Table 3

- 3

. The highest average gross gamma radiation count rate was 14,519 cpm (approximately 18 μR/h)

, and the maximum gamma radiation scan result measured was 30,823 cpm (appro ximately 39 μR/h)

. A graphic display of the gamma radiation scan results (figures) at each facility was prepared using g eographic i nformation s ystem ( GIS ) software

. Figures are presented in Appendix E

.
3 .1.4 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results

Gross gamma radiation scan results in units of cpm presented in Table 3

- 3 were converted to
 R/hr using the 800 cpm per  R/hr conversion factor appropriate for Ra

- 226 gamma energy as detected with 2

- inch by 2

- inch NaI detectors , rounded to one significant figure ( Table 6. 4 , NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contamina n ts , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998 )

. T he expo sure rate results for each well site are presented in Table 3

- 4

. The highest average exposure rate measured at any single site was 18.1  R/hr

, and the maximum gamma exposure rate measured was 38.5  R/hr

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 3 3 .2 Solid Sample Results

3 .2.1 Vertical Phase Drill Cuttings

Vertical cuttings were sampled at 1 1 unconventional well sites and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy to identify gamma

- emitting members of the natural U

, Th

, and Ac decay series

. The g amma spectroscopy results are pr esented in T able 3

- 5

. XRF analysis was also performed on the vertical drill cuttings to identify non

- gamma

- emitting isotopes of U

- 238 and Th

- 232

. XRF ppm concentration data for Th was converted to pCi/g of Th

- 232 using the specific activity of 0.110 pCi/g Th

- 232 per ppm of Th. XRF ppm concentration data for U was converted to pCi/g of U

- 238 using the specific activity of 0.334 pCi/g U

- 238 per ppm of U

. Both the ppm and the pCi/g results for 10 well sites are presented in Table 3

- 6

. All of the XRF analytical results are presented in Appendix F

.

There were two methods for managing drill cuttings at the well site s

. T he first method , called a

“ half round

, ” accumulates cuttings in a large mixing container wher e the materials were stabilized prior to shipment to the landfill

. This method does not provide an opportunity to collect samples at discrete depths ; consequently

, a composite d sample was collected during vertical drilling

. This method was used at nine of the 10 well sites

.

The second method l oad s the cuttings in to roll

- off containers from the shaker tables . This method enables sampling of cuttings from discrete depths

. E ach container was labeled with the start and end depth of the collected material

. The formations sample d are presented in Table 3

- 6 for these vertical drill cuttings. This method was used at one well site.

The U series activit ies are variable because the vertical cuttings represent different geologic formations lying above the target natural gas

- containing shale. T hese vertical drill cuttings are mostly siltstones and sandstones. Potassium

- 40 ( K

- 40 ) concentrations provide an indication of the type of formation

. Shale has higher levels of K

- 40 than sandstone. S hale is typically in the range of 25

- 30 pCi/g of K

- 40 while sandstone typically contains approximately 5 pCi/ g of K

- 40

.

The U

- 238 measured using XRF and the Ra

- 226 measured using gamma spectroscopy were compared to confirm secular equilibrium of the U decay series within drill cuttings. Figure 3

- 1 provides a graphic representation of this comparison and shows agreement between the two U series radionuclides

, indicating secular equilibrium. Although the gamma spectroscopy results for Ra

- 226 are consistently higher than the X RF results for U

- 238, both values trend together, i.e.

, increase and decrease together. The high bias of the Ra

- 226 gamma spectroscopy results is due in part from the U

- 235 interference when identifyin g Ra

- 226 using gamma spectroscopy of the 186 keV gamma line. (Refer to Section 2.3.2 for a complete d iscussion of Ra

- 226 detection using gamma spectroscopy.) U

- 235

, which is also present in drill cuttings

, also emits gamma at 186 keV

, causing a consistent positive bias of Ra

- 226 results.

Th

- 232 and Ra

- 228 do not emit gamma rays identifiable by gamma spectroscopy ; consequently, the levels were inferred from the Ac

- 228 gamma rays. The Th

- 232 series radionuclide activity levels all typify natural background for soil (reference Table 2

- 3).PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 4 Figure 3

- 1

. Comparison of Ra

- 22 6 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to U

- 238 XRF Results in Vertical Drill Cuttings

The Th

- 232 identi fied using XRF and the Ra

- 228 inferred using gamma spectroscopy were compared to confirm secular equilibrium of the Th decay series within drill cuttings. Figure 3

- 2 provides a graphic representation of this comparison and shows agreement between the two Th series radionuclides

. Figure 3

- 2

. Comparison of Ra

- 228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th

- 232 XRF Results in Vertical Drill Cuttings

The Th

- 232 to Ra

- 2 28 values for most samples trend together

, i.e.

, when the activity concentration of one increase s , there is a comparable increase in the other

.
3 .2.2 Horizontal Phase Drill Cuttings

The same two cuttings management method s described for vertical drill cuttings were also used for horizontal drill cuttings

. A total of 18 samples were collected from the horizontal well bore target formations on 10 well sites

. The gamma spectroscopy and XRF results are presented in Table s 3

- 7 and 3

- 8

. Figure 3

- 3 presents the analytical results for vertical and horizontal cutting samples. The horizontal d rill cuttings had higher concentrations of Ra

- 226 than the vertical drill cuttings as 0.0 pCi/g 2.0 pCi/g 4.0 pCi/g 6.0 pCi/g 8.0 pCi/g 10.0 pCi/g 12.0 pCi/g 14.0 pCi/g 16.0 pCi/g 18.0 pCi/g 20.0 pCi/g Ra-226 (Gamma Spec) U-238 (XRF)

0.00 pCi/g 1.00 pCi/g 2.00 pCi/g 3.00 pCi/g 4.00 pCi/g 5.00 pCi/g Ra-228 (Gamma Spec) Th-232 (XRF)PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 5 Figure 3

- 3

. Comparison of Analytical Analyses Results for Horizontal and Vertical Drill Cutting Sample s

determined using a student t

- test. The two

- sample student t

- test was used to compare the horizontal drill cuttings Ra

- 226 results with the vertical drill cuttings Ra

- 226 results. ProUCL version 5.0 was used to perform the student t

- test on the data. The Null Hypothesis tested is that the mean value of the vertical drill cuttings Ra

- 226 results and the mean value of the horizontal drill cuttings Ra

- 226 results are statistically different at the 95 percent confidence le vel. The Null Hypothesis was accepted; mean values are statistically different at the 95 percent confidence level. The same t

- test was run on the U

- 238 results for vertical and horizontal drill cuttings. Again, the difference between the mean values of U

- 238 for vertical and horizontal drill cuttings is statistically different at the 95 percent confidence level. Appendix G presents the t

- test output files.

The U concentration (ppm) measured using XRF was converted to pCi/g of U

- 238 using the specific activity of 0.3 34 pCi/g U

- 238 per ppm of U

. The U

- 238 measured using XRF and the Ra

- 226 measured using gamma spectroscopy were compared to confirm secular equilibrium of the U decay series within drill cuttings. Figure 3

- 4 provides a graphic representatio n of this comparison and shows agreement between the two U series radionuclides

, indicating secular equilibrium.

Figure 3

- 4

. Comparison of Ra

- 226 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to U

- 238 XRF Results in Horizontal Drill Cuttings pCi/g 1 pCi/g 2 pCi/g 3 pCi/g 4 pCi/g 5 pCi/g 6 pCi/g 7 pCi/g 8 pCi/g 9 pCi/g

U-238 Ra-226 Th-232 Ra-228 Radionuclide Vertical Cuttings Horizontal Cuttings

0.0 pCi/g 5.0 pCi/g 10.0 pCi/g 15.0 pCi/g 20.0 pCi/g 25.0 pCi/g 30.0 pCi/g Ra-226 (Gamma Spec) U-238 (XRF)PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 6 The Th concentration (ppm) measured using XRF was converted to pCi/g of Th

- 232 using the specific activity of 0.110 pCi/g Th

- 232 per ppm of Th. The Th

- 232 measured using XRF and the Ra

- 228 inferred using gamma spectroscopy were compared to confirm secular equilibrium of the T h decay series within drill cuttings. Figure 3

- 5 provides a graphic representation of this comparison.

Figure 3

- 5. Comparison of Ra

- 228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th

- 232 XRF Results in Horizontal Drill Cuttings

The Th

- 232 to Ra

- 228 values trend together

, i.e., when the activity concentration of one increases, there is a comparable increase in the other.

3.2.3 Drilling Mud

In addition to drill cuttings, drill ing mud was also collected when in use on the sites

. A total of 14 drilling mud samples were collected during both the vertical and horizontal phases of drilling. The drilling mud was evaluated as a drilling solid or a drilling liquid as determined when received by the laboratory. Nine of those samples were analyzed as solids and the other five as liquids. The gamma spectroscopy results for solids are presented in Table 3

- 9

. Analytical results for the drilling mud demonstrate secular equilibrium within the U and Th natural decay series, i.e.

, the activity concentrations with in the natural series radionuclides identified are approximately equal. All results were within the range of typical natural background found in surface soils (reference Table 2

- 3) , given the overestimation of Ra

- 226 in the presence of U

- 235 as discussed i n Section 2.3.2

.
3.2.4 Hydraulic Fracturing Proppant Sand

During hydraulic fracturing

, 10 well sites were surveyed and sampled. The proppant sand was collected from the sand hoppers prior to being mixed with fluids and inject ed into the well. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in Table 3

- 10

.

The sand contained nominal concentrations of U and Th series. The sand d id not contain radioactivity exceeding that of natural background levels found in surface soil (reference Table 2

- 3)

. 0.00 pCi/g 1.00 pCi/g 2.00 pCi/g 3.00 pCi/g 4.00 pCi/g 5.00 pCi/g Ra-228 (Gamma Spec) Th-232 (XRF)PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 7 3.2.5 Flowback Solids

A total of eight well sites were surveyed and sampled during the flowback phase

. From the eight well sites

, sufficient volumes to perform analytical analysis of s olids were only present at four of the eight well sites

. The gamma spectro scopy results are presented in Table 3

- 11

.

U ranium and Th are at or below background activity levels

. Ra dium

- 226 was elevated above background levels for soil (reference Table 2

- 3) ranging from 0.77 to 7.7 pCi/g.

3 .3 Liquid Sample Results

Liquid sampling included drilling mud, hydraulic fracturing fluids, flowback fluids

, and produced water

.
3 .3. 1 Drilling Liquid ( Mud )

A total of 14 drilling mud samples were collected from both vertical and horizontal phases. Th e drilling mud was evaluated as a drilling solid or a drilling liquid as determined when received by the laboratory. Five of the samples were analyzed as liquids. B ecause of the large concentrations of solids in the samples, gross  and gross  analyses w ere performed on only one sample. The results for Ra

- 226, Ra

- 228, K

- 40, g ross  and g ross  are presented in Table 3

- 12

.
3.3. 2 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

Hydraulic fracturing fluid was sampled prior to injection into the well. T he well site s sampled during the study utilized hydraulic fracturing fluid made up of either fresh water

, reused flowback liquid, produc ed water , or a combination of the three to perform the hydraulic fracturing phase. If a combination of fluids was used for fracturing, only the produced water was collected as a sample because i t was not possible to collect a sample after the hydraulic fracturing fluid had been mixed for injection. The results for Ra

- 226, Ra

- 228, K

- 40, gross  and
gross  are presented in Table 3

- 1 3

.

Ra dium

- 226 was detected within the hydraulic fracturing fluid ranging from 64.0 to 21,000 pCi/L

. Ra

- 228 was also detected ranging from 4.5 to 1,640 pCi/L

. Table 2

- 2 contains several volumetric liquids criteria for relative comparison: 5 pCi/L total Ra EPA drinking water

, 60 pCi /L total Ra USNRC direct discharge

, and 600 pCi/L total Ra USNRC discharge to sanitary

sewer.

3.3. 3 Flowback Fluid

Flowback fluid is the injected hydraulic fracturing fluid and other fluids returning to the surface of the well prior to the well entering production

. The results for Ra

- 226, Ra

- 228, K

- 40, gross  and gross  are presented in Tab le 3

- 1 4

.

Ra dium

- 226 concentrations w ere elevated

, ranging from 551 to 25,500 pCi/L

. Ra dium

- 228 was also elevated

, ranging from 248 to 1,740 pCi/L

. Table 2

- 2 contains several volumetric liquids criteria for relative comparison: 5 pCi/L total Ra EPA drinking water

, 60 pCi/L total Ra USNRC direct discharge

, and 600 pCi/L total Ra USNRC discharge to sanitary sewer.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 8 3.3. 4 Produced Water

Twelve wells were sampled for produced water

, including four conventional and eight unconventional wells. The results for unfiltered and filtered Ra

- 226, Ra

- 228, K

- 40, gross  and
gross  are presented in Table s 3

- 1 5 and 3

- 16

.

Ra dium

- 226 concentrations in unfiltered samples were elevated

, ranging from 40.5 to 26,600 pCi/L

. Ra dium

- 228 concentrations were also elevated

, ranging from 26.0 to 1,900 pCi/L

.

Ra dium

- 226 concentrations were also elevated in filtered samples, ranging from 87.0 to 2 4

, 1 00 pCi/L

. Ra dium

- 228 concentrations were also elevated, ranging from 44.0 to 1, 86 0 pCi/L

.
3 .4 Radon Sample Results

3.4.1 Ambient Air Samples During Flowback

Seventeen ambient air samples for evaluation of Rn concentration were collected during flowback at four different well sites. The E IC s were distributed around the well site

a pproximately 3 feet ( ft ) above grade and at available locations as close as 6 ft and as far as 40 ft from the well head. The EIC s collected data from four to seven days. The results are presented in Table 3

- 1 7

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.

The Rn measurement result s are with in the range of typical ambient background Rn concentrations ( 0.2 to 0.7 pCi/L in outdoor ambient air in the U.S.)

.
3.4.2 Production Gas Radon

Twenty

- two production site natural gas samples were collected in eight counties (Washington, Tioga, Lycoming, McKean, Forest, Sullivan, Bradford and Jefferson). S eventeen of the natural gas samples were collected from Marcellus S hale, and f ive natural gas samples were collected from other geologic formations.

The pro duction site natural gas samples for Rn were collected between the well head and the separator unit(s). A typical sampling location is shown in Figure 3

- 6

. All natural gas samples were collected directly into scintillation cells, referred to as Lucas Cells. Section 2 .0 describes the sample collection in detail.

The sample results are presented in Table 3

- 18. The results ranged from 3.0 to 147.5 pCi/L

. The median Rn concentration in natural gas is 40.8 pCi/ L. The Rn analysis analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.
3.5 Well Site Worker Exposure Assessment

The study included radiation measurements collected on 21 well sites to provide a comprehensive evaluation of potential personnel radiation exposure f rom working on well sites

. The measurements included:PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 9 Figure 3

- 6 . Natural Gas Radon Sampling Location

 Gamma radiation count rate using a NaI detector (gross cpm), converted to exposure rate potential, to estimate potential external gamma exposure.

 Total 

/  surface radioactivity measurements using a scintillation detector to evaluate potential  external exposure as well as  /  surface activity having the potential to become removable and, therefore, becoming a potential internal exposure.

 Removable  /  surface radioactivity measurements (dpm/100 cm 2 ) by smear samples counted on an  /  counter to estimate potential  and  internal exposure.

 Ambient air samples analyzed for Rn concentration to estimate Rn inhalation exposure.

The measurements were taken during four work phases on natural gas well sites to ensure appropriate evaluation of potential exposure to TENORM present on well sites

. The phases are:

 Vertical /Horizontal D rilling

– personnel are potentially exposed to drill cuttings while working on the site

.

 Hydraulic Fracturing

– personnel are potentially exposed to radioactivity in hydraulic fracturing fluid while working on the site

.

 Flowback

– personnel are potentially exposed to radioactivity in f lowback water while working on the site

.

 Production

– personnel are potentially exposed to radioactivity in produc ed water while working on the site

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 10 3 .5.1 External Gamma Exposure

Gross gamma scan results in units of cpm presented in Table 3

- 3 were converted to  R/hr using the 800 cpm per  R/hr conversion factor appropriate for Ra

- 226 gamma energy as detected with 2

- inch by 2

- inch NaI detectors [ Table 6.3, NaI Scintillation Detector Count Rate Versus Exposure Rate (cpm/  R /hr), NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998 ]

. The local background gamma ex posure rate across all well sites surveyed was measured
at 5 μ R /hr. The exposure rate results are presented in Table 3

- 4

.

The lowest exposure rates measured and the maximum exposure time were during drilling

. The highest exposure rates measured were in the proximity of holding tanks for produced water. The gamma dose rates during drilling range d from background (measured at 5 μR /hr) to a maximum of 3 8 .5 μ R /hr

, and the highest average exposure rate at any of the well sites was 18.1 μ R /hr

. Assuming the time period of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the average well site external gamma exposure was estimated as follows:

Maximum Average Well Site External Gamma Exposure Estimate

( 1 8

. 1

– 5) μ R /hr x 2000 hr/yr x (1 m rem /1

, 000 μ R gamma ) = 26 m rem /yr

The result is less than the 100 m rem /yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is dependent up on the actual exposure rates and occupan cy time for individual workers.

3 .5. 2 Internal Alpha/Beta Exposure

Results for 

/  surface radioactivity measurements are provided in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. Ten of the 491  measurements and 69 of the 491  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Only one of 493  removabl e surface activity measurements and

one of 493  surface radioactivity measurements exceeded RG 1.86 criteria, indicating the total

 /  surface radioactivity measured is fixed to the surface and not readily available for inhalation or ingestion.

3 .5. 3 Inte rnal Radon Exposure

The Rn in ambient air measurement result s during flowback are with in the range of typical ambient background Rn concentrations ( 0.2 to 0.7 pCi/L in outdoor ambient air in the U.S.).

3.6 Well Site Data Assessments

3.6.1 Comparison of Different Geological Formations Based on X

- Ray Fluorescence Data

Eighteen drill cutting samples were collected and analyzed for Th and U using XRF. The samples were collected from the Lower Devonian/ Marcellus, Upper Devonian/Burket

, and the Middle Ordovi cian/ Utica geologic formations

. The data for the three geologic formations

, including the average, median, standard deviation

, and ratios of Th to U are presented in Table 3

- 19

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 11 XRF ppm concentration data for Th was converted to pCi/g of Th

- 232 using the specific activity value of 0.110 pCi/g Th

- 232 per ppm of Th. XRF ppm concentration data for U was converted to pCi/g of U

- 238 using the specific activity value of 0.334 pCi/g of U

- 238 per ppm of U. Ratios of U/Th are also presented in Table 3

- 19

.
3.6.2 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

Appendix I contains the assessment of filtered and unfiltered liquid sample result s for the entire TENORM study. The conclusion from this evaluation is that there is no apparent trend or bias that filtering produces. There were some subsets of data where either the unfiltered results or the filtered results appear to be significantly higher

. T here was no statistically significant correlation found within any sample group. Because the liquid samples were preserved by addition of acid prior to filtering, the radioactive particulates may have entered solution and were therefore not removed by filtering.

3.6.3 Conventional Versus Unc onventional Produc ed Water Data Evaluation

There was a significant difference observed in the produc ed water from conventional and unconventional O&G well sites

. Tables 3

- 15 and 3

- 16 present gamma spectroscopy results for conventional and unconventional produc ed water for both filtered and unfiltered samples. T wo distinct differences in magnitude of activity and in the ratio of Ra

- 226 to Ra

- 228 are summarized in Figure 3

- 7

. Figure 3

- 7

. Conventional vs Unconventional Produced Water Radium Concentrations

O&G Production Filtered

Samples No. of

Samples Average

Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Average

Ra

- 228 (pCi/L) Ratio of

Ra

- 226/Ra

- 228 Conventional No 4 336 295 1.1 Unconventional No 9 8,340 986 8.5 Conventional Yes 4 334 288 1.2 Unconventional Yes 9 8,220 985 8.3

The Ra

- 226 activity in unconventional well site produced water is approximately 20 times greater than that observed in conventional well site produced water

. The ratio of Ra

- 226 to Ra

- 228 in unconventional well site produced water is approximately eight times greater than that found in conventional well site produced water

. The higher ratio of Ra

- 226 to Ra

- 228 for unconventional well site produced water reflects the higher ratio of U to Th observed in Marcellus S hale horizontal cuttings sample result s

. The U to Th ratio is approximately six

. Filtering of the samples does not appreciably change the activity concentration or the relationship between Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228.

3. 7 Potential Off

- s ite Environmental Impact

A potential off

- site environmental impact could result from the re moval of materials and/or equipment with t otal and/or removable  /  surface radioactivity above applicable guidelines. The highest total  surface radioactivity measurement was 754 dpm/100 cm 2

. Additional measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 Ra

- 226 total surface contamination guideline of 10 0 dpm/100 cm 2

. The highest total  measurement was 2,503 dpm/100 cm 2

. This and several other measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 Th

- 232 total surface contamination guideline ofPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 12 1,000 dpm/100 cm 2

. These readings were on equipment associated with wastewater handling/storage

, and th is equipment is likely to be reused.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

3 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

3
- 13 Table 3

- 1. Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary a,b

Facility ID No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Min imum Max imum Standard Deviation Average Min imum Max imum Standard Deviation Average

WP

- 01

- FS

- 045 12 4 .24 12 .4 2.36 4.92 9 3.7 93.7 0.00 93.7

WP

- 01

- FS

- 081 7 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4 .24 102 102 0.00 102

WP

- 01

- FS

- 128 3 4 .24 12 .4 4.79 6.96 118 118 0.00 118

WP

- 02

- FS

- 083 27 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4 .24 102 102 0.00 102

WP

- 03

- FS

- 029 15 4 .15 4.15 0.78 4 .15 109 109 0.00 109

WP

- 03

- FS

- 082 14 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4 .24 86.7 86.7 0.00 86.7

WP

- 04

- FS

- 014 10 4 .24 7 .24 1.07 4.24 9 3.7 93.7 0.00 93.7

WP

- 04

- FS

- 084 22 4 .24 4.24 0.18 4 .24 9 5.7 95.7 0.00 95.7

WP

- 04

- FS

- 085 29 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4 .24 108 108 0.00 108

WP

- 05

- FS

- 077 3 4 .15 4 .15 0.00 4 .15 113 113 0.00 113

WP

- 05

- FS

- 089 26 4 .15 4 .15 0.00 4 .15 9 8.9 98.9 0.00 98.9

WP

- 06

- FS

- 026 3 4 .14 4 .14 0.00 4 .14 112 112 0.00 112

WP

- 06

- FS

- 091 29 4 .24 4 .24 0 .00 4 .24 102 102 0 .00 102

WP

- 06

- FS

- 092 23 4 .24 4 .24 0 .00 4 .24 95 .5 95 .5 0 .00 95 .5

WP

- 06

- FS

- 093 4 4 .15 4 .15 0 .00 4 .15 111 111 0 .00 111

WP

- 07

- FS

- 094 12 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4 .24 102 102 0.00 102PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

3 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

3
- 14 Table 3

- 1. Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary a,b

Facility ID No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Min imum Max imum Standard Deviation Average Min imum Max imum Standard Deviation Average

WP

- 08

- FS

- 010 5 4 .24 4.24 0.00 4.24 123 123 0.00 123

WP

- 08

- FS

- 095 5 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4 .24 102 102 0.00 102

WP

- 09

- FS

- 097 7 4 .15 4 .15 0.00 4 .24 102 102 0.00 102

WP

- 09

- FS

- 098 3 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4 .24 113 113 0.00 113

WP

- 10

- FS

- 003 21 4 .24 4.24 0.00 4 .24 93.7 93.7 0.00 93.7

WP

- 10

- FS

- 004 21 4 .14 4.15 0.00 4.15 93.7 93.7 0.00 93.7

WP

- 10

- FS

- 009 8 4 .15 4.15 0.00 4.15 113 113 0.00 113

WP

- 11

- FS

- 023 17 4 .15 4.15 0.00 4.15 109 109 0.00 109

WP

- 11

- FS

- 037 15 4 .15 4.15 0.00 4.15 113 113 0.00 113

WP

- 11

- FS

- 102 17 4 .15 4.15 0.00 4.15 109 109 0.00 109

WP

- 12

- FS

- 017 23 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4.24 93.7 93.7 0.00 93.7

WP

- 12

- FS

- 018 4 4 .14 4 .14 0.00 4.14 113 113 0.00 113

WP

- 12

- FS

- 019 19 4 .24 4.24 0.00 4.24 93.7 93.7 0.00 93.7

WP

- 13

- FS

- 041 17 4 .24 4.24 0.00 4 .24 123 123 0.00 123

WP

- 13

- FS

- 042 18 4 .24 4 .24 0.00 4.24 123 123 0.00 123

WP

- 14

- FS

- 035 20 4 .15 12 .2 2.47 4.96 114 114 0.00 114PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

3 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

3
- 15 Table 3

- 1. Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary a,b

Facility ID No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Min imum Max imum Standard Deviation Average Min imum Max imum Standard Deviation Average

WP

- 14

- FS

- 036 23 4 .15 14.9 2.36 4.62 114 114 0.00 114

WP

- 14

- FS

- 107 4 4 .15 4 .15 0.00 4.15 114 114 0.00 114

WP

- 15

- FS

- 028 7 4 .15 4 .15 0.00 4.15 114 114 0.00 114

a Smear samples were performed on facility, system, and structure surfaces.
b During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC . If the value was below this number

, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the s tandard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximum, and average are the

same , then all measurements were below half of the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

3 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

3
- 16 Table 3

- 2. Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary a,b

Facility ID No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WP

- 01

- FS

045 12 3 0.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 364 2500 618 1190

WP

- 01

- FS

081 7 19.0 19.0 0.00 19.0 279 1710 460 777

WP

- 02

- FS

083 27 7.44 14.9 2.84 8.82 288 676 75.5 305

WP

- 03

- FS

029 16 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 357 884 137 587

WP

- 03

- FS

082 14 7.44 79.0 19.2 16.0 266 364 28.6 282

WP

- 04

- FS

014 10 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 364 2220 812 1170

WP

- 04

- FS

084 22 7 .46 69.6 16.4 13.7 325 325 0.00 325

WP

- 04

- FS

085 29 7.46 29.8 7.06 11.3 317 651 69.6 337

WP

- 05

- FS

077 3 30.5 30.5 0.00 3 0.5 513 698 96.0 592

WP

- 05

- FS

089 26 7.46 164 46.6 26.0 280 542 59.0 299

WP

- 06

- FS

026 30.5 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 646 1920 652 1200

WP

- 06

- FS

091 29 7.46 2 4.9 4.00 8.92 297 297 0 .00 297

WP

- 06

- FS

092 23 7.44 44.6 8.00 9.38 278 527 54 .0 292

WP

- 06

- FS

093 4 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 268 0.00 268

WP

- 07

- FS

094 12 7.44 19.8 4.16 9.71 291 988 201 349

WP

- 08

- FS

010 5 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 557 721 65 .0 624PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

3 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

3
- 17 Table 3

- 2. Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary a,b

Facility ID No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WP

- 08

- FS

095 5 19 .0 19.0 0.00 19.0 279 279 0.00 279

WP

- 09

- FS

097 7 7.44 29.8 8.69 13.5 285 285 0.00 285

WP

- 09

- FS

098 3 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 268 0.00 268

WP

- 10

- FS

003 21 30.5 754 167 93.0 268 1580 417 676

WP

- 10

- FS

004 21 30.5 258 69.4 60.0 268 1580 410 709

WP

- 10

- FS

009 8 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 1390 1890 145 1630

WP

- 11

- FS

023 17 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 364 1410 294 966

WP

- 11

- FS

037 15 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 1020 223 583

WP

- 11

- FS

102 17 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 1410 294 960

WP

- 12

- FS

017 23 3 0.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 884 145 374

WP

- 12

- FS

018 4 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 839 951 51 910

WP

- 12

- FS

019 19 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 1550 378 513

WP

- 13

- FS

041 17 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 371 1430 303 1010

WP

- 13

- FS

042 18 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 275 1380 273 799

WP

- 14

- FS

035 20 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 721 130 315

WP

- 14

- FS

036 23 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 483 55 284PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

3 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

3
- 18 Table 3

- 2. Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary a,b

Facility ID No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WP

- 14

- FS

107 4 2 7.8 27.8 0.00 27.8 69 .3 69 .3 0.00 69 .3

WP

- 15

- FS

028 6 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 268 268 0.00 268

a Static measurements were performed on facility, system, and structure surfaces.
b During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maxim um, and average are the same, then all measurements were below half of the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 19

Table 3

- 3 . Gross Gamma Scan Results Summary a

Site Phase Scan Max b

(cpm) Scan Min b

(cpm) Scan

Average b (cpm) Scan

Std Dev (cpm) No. Data

Points

WP

- 01 Fracturing 16,608 7,209 13,028 1,349 4,857 WP

- 01 Flowback 17,299 6,653 14,519 1,246 4,474 WP

- 01 Production 16,641 9,019 13,787 1,075 4,891 WP

- 02 Horizontal 9,363 4,262 5,371 1,041 8,318 WP

- 03 Vertical 13,650 4,758 7,254 1,531 7,438 WP

- 04 Vertical 15,961 7,249 13,378 902 7,083 WP

- 04 Horizontal 16,099 7,210 13,260 1,139 6,470 WP

- 04 Fracturing 22,724 8,055 14,322 1,234 4,554 WP

- 04 Flowback 17,057 10,982 13,938 750 5,411 WP

- 04 Production 17,031 8,545 13,019 895 3,624 WP

- 05 Horizontal 9,394 3,181 7,236 724 5,552 WP

- 05 Fracturing 8,293 3,925 6,668 825 3,033 WP

- 06 Vertical 8,906 4,424 6,357 560 8,518 WP

- 06 Horizontal 8,280 4,756 6,097 356 8,562 WP

- 06 Flowback 8,231 4,722 6,014 464 5,037 WP

- 06 Fracturing 10,803 3,049 8,033 692 2,532 WP

- 07 Vertical 8,437 4,675 6,318 483 12,519 WP

- 08 Fracturing 7,454 3,710 5,387 470 4,602 WP

- 09 Fracturing 30,823 2,686 5,380 1,146 4,354 WP

- 10 Horizontal 15,258 8,924 12,916 970 3,440 WP

- 10 Flowback 16,013 8,508 13,817 790 1,856 WP

- 10 Production 16,528 10,447 13,257 835 2,946 WP

- 11 Vertical 15,603 10,050 12,412 771 3,091 WP

- 11 Horizontal 14,781 4,368 12,075 1,252 2,960 WP

- 11 Production 13,505 9,914 12,281 503 1,168 WP

- 12 Vertical 11,479 5,543 8,005 1,144 3,204 WP

- 12 Horizontal 11,360 5,328 8,034 1,073 3,525 WP

- 13 Vertical 15,088 8,068 13,096 628 2,924 WP

- 13 Horizontal 15,357 8,119 12,916 966 3,234 WP

- 14 Vertical 6,772 1,992 3,854 684 2,840 WP

- 14 Horizontal 5,891 2,302 3,449 468 1,821 WP

- 14 Flowback 7,421 3,181 4,421 648 3,273 WP

- 15 Vertical 8,557 4,398 6,093 573 2,230 WP

- 16 Production 10,833 4,623 7,753 1,361 290 WP

- 17 Production 8,797 4,183 6,179 907 277 WP

- 19 Production 7,046 2,494 4,314 1,013 238 WP

- 20 Production 5,422 2,790 4,166 537 366PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 20

Table 3

- 3. Gross Gamma Scan Results Summary a

Site Phase Scan Max b

(cpm) Scan Min b

(cpm) Scan

Average b (cpm) Scan

Std Dev (cpm) No. Data

Points

WP

- 21 Production 5,307 2,677 3,870 572 182

a Gross gamma scans were performed on site ground surfaces outside facilities, structures

, and systems

, and include soil, asphalt, gravel, and concrete matrices.
b Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield μ R /hr.

Table 3

- 4. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

Site Phase Scan Max

(μ R /hr) Scan Min

(μ R /hr) Scan Average

(μ R /hr) Scan Std Dev

(μ R /hr) No. Data

Points WP

- 01 Fracturing 20.8 9.00 16.3 1.70 4,857 WP

- 01 Flowback 21.6 8.30 18.1 1.60 4,474 WP

- 01 Production 20.8 11.3 17.2 1.30 4,891 WP

- 02 Horizontal 11.7 5.30 6.70 1.30 8,318 WP

- 03 Vertical 17.1 5.90 9.10 1.90 7,438 WP

- 04 Vertical 20.0 9.10 16.7 1.10 7,083 WP

- 04 Horizontal 20.1 9.00 16.6 1.40 6,470 WP

- 04 Fracturing 28.4 10.1 17.9 1.50 4,554 WP

- 04 Flowback 21.3 13.7 17.4 0.900 5,411 WP

- 04 Production 21.3 10.7 16.3 1.10 3,624 WP

- 05 Horizontal 11.7 4.00 9.00 0.900 5,552 WP

- 05 Fracturing 10.4 4.90 8.30 1.00 3,033 WP

- 06 Vertical 11.1 5.50 7.90 0.700 8,518 WP

- 06 Horizontal 10.4 5.90 7.60 0.400 8,562 WP

- 06 Flowback 10.3 5.90 7.50 0.600 5,037 WP

- 06 Fracturing 13.5 3.80 10.0 0.900 2,532 WP

- 07 Vertical 10.5 5.80 7.90 0.600 12,519 WP

- 08 Fracturing 9.30 4.60 6.70 0.600 4,602 WP

- 09 Fracturing 38.5 3.40 6.70 1.40 4,354 WP

- 10 Horizontal 19.1 11.2 16.1 1.20 3,440 WP

- 10 Flowback 20.0 10.6 17.3 1.00 1,856 WP

- 10 Production 20.7 13.1 16.6 1.00 2,946 WP

- 11 Vertical 19.5 12.6 15.5 1.00 3,091 WP

- 11 Horizontal 18.5 5.50 15.1 1.60 2,960 WP

- 11 Production 16.9 12.4 15.4 0.600 1,168 WP

- 12 Vertical 14.3 6.90 10.0 1.40 3,204 WP

- 12 Horizontal 14.2 6.70 10.0 1.30 3,525 WP

- 13 Vertical 18.9 10.1 16.4 0.800 2,924 WP

- 13 Horizontal 19.2 10.1 16.1 1.20 3,234PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 21 Table 3

- 4. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

Site Phase Scan Max

(μ R /hr) Scan Min

(μ R /hr) Scan Average

(μ R /hr) Scan Std Dev

(μ R /hr) No. Data

Points WP

- 14 Vertical 8.5 2.50 4.80 0.900 2,840 WP

- 14 Horizontal 7.4 2.90 4.30 0.600 1,821 WP

- 14 Flowback 9.3 4.00 5.50 0.800 3,273 WP

- 15 Vertical 10.7 5.50 7.60 0.700 2,230 WP

- 16 Production 13.5 5.80 9.70 1.70 290 WP

- 17 Production 11.0 5.20 7.70 1.10 277 WP

- 19 Production 8.8 3.10 5.40 1.30 238 WP

- 20 Production 6.8 3.50 5.20 0.700 366 WP

- 21 Production 6.6 3.30 4.80 0.700 182

Table 3

- 5. Vertical Solids, Drill Cuttings

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) Th

- 232

(pCi/g)
WP

- 03

- SL

- 038 2.09 1.21 23.4 < 0.370 0.127 1.18
WP

- 04

- SL

- 001 1.99 < 0.181 9.01 < 0.900 < 0.037 < 0.181
WP

- 04

- SL

- 002 2.09 1.09 20.2 < 0.617 < 0. 149 1.07
WP

- 04

- SL

- 003 2.04 1.16 20.3 < 0.616 < 0.033 1.14
WP

- 04

- SL

- 004 2.34 1.10 18.1 < 0.553 < 0. 181 1.08
WP

- 04

- SL

- 005 2.39 1.20 20.2 1.67 < 0.029 1.18
WP

- 04

- SL

- 006 2.11 1.23 24.4 0.827 < 0.061 1.20 WP

- 04

- SL

- 007 2.05 0.994 22.5 < 0.934 < 0.070 0.971 WP

- 04

- SL

- 008 2.75 1.19 23.6 1.30 0.097 1.16 WP

- 05

- SL

- 028 2.13 1.08 21.6 1.56 < 0. 138 1.05 WP

- 05

- SL

- 029 1.75 1.07 17.3 < 1.31 0.198 1.05 WP

- 05

- SL

- 030 1.61 0.939 15.9 < 0.565 < 0. 092 0.920 WP

- 05

- SL

- 031 1.81 1.05 21.7 0.835 < 0. 107 1.03 WP

- 05

- SL

- 033 1.84 0.701 12.6 < 1.62 < 0. 136 0.687 WP

- 06

- SL

- 014 2.93 1.06 22.7 1.27 0.178 1.05
WP

- 06

- SL

- 015 2.22 1.04 21.0 < 0.749 < 0. 165 1.03
WP

- 06

- SL

- 016 3.21 0.885 26.9 2.07 < 0.031 0.871
WP

- 06

- SL

- 017 2.73 0.991 24.0 < 0.571 0.166 0.976
WP

- 06

- SL

- 018 0.900 0.181 3.26 < 1.13 < 0.081 0.177 WP

- 06

- SL

- 019 1.19 0.242 6.81 0.469 < 0.058 0.238 WP

- 06

- SL

- 020 5.15 0.654 8.90 < 0.923 < 0.096 0.642 WP

- 06

- SL

- 021 0.698 0.107 18.8 0.164 0.016 < 0.006
WP

- 06

- SL

- 022 2.96 0.802 18.4 1.29 < 0. 121 0.782PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 22

Table 3

- 5. Vertical Solids, Drill Cuttings

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) Th

- 232

(pCi/g)
WP

- 06

- SL

- 023 0.899 0.208 4.97 < 1.29 < 0. 097 0.197 WP

- 06

- SL

- 024 1.79 0.416 12.3 < 0.790 < 0. 067 0.407 WP

- 06

- SL

- 025 2.94 0.769 18.4 0.987 < 0.025 0.751 WP

- 06

- SL

- 026 2.24 0.592 14.2 < 1.21 < 0. 171 0.578 WP

- 07

- SL

- 039 2.03 1.09 20.1 < 1.45 < 0. 194 1.07
WP

- 07

- SL

- 040 2.43 1.32 23.6 0.788 0. 025 1.29
WP

- 07

- SL

- 041 1.33 1.33 20.8 < 0.869 < 0. 172 1.30
WP

- 10

- SL

- 045 1.94 0.885 16.5 0.959 < 0. 106 0.866
WP

- 11

- SL

- 047 2.32 0.472 12.7 < 0.949 < 0. 082 0.191
WP

- 12

- SL

- 052 17.2 2.80 17.6 < 3.01 < 0. 311 2.74
WP

- 12

- SL

- 053 1.39 1.39 16.6 < 2.25 < 0. 302 1.37
WP

- 13

- SL

- 059 1.83 1.09 20.4 < 1.75 < 0.231 1.07
WP

- 14

- SL

- 073 6.97 2.23 20.9 < 1.54 < 0.210 2.18
WP

- 14

- SL

- 074 2.88 0.140 22.2 1.41 0.104 1.37
WP

- 15

- SL

- 075 7.82 2.48 19.5 < 1.39 < 0.126 2.45 Average 2.82 1.01 18.0 0.960 0.085 1.01 Std. Dev. 2.79 0.572 5.64 0.484 0.046 0.555 Median 2.10 1.06 19.8 0.819 0.074 1.05 Minimum 0.698 0.107 3.26 0.164 0.016 0.110 Maximum 17.2 2.80 26.9 2.07 0.198 2.74

a Values reported as < are the method MDC.
b During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximum, and average are the same, then all measurements were below half of the MDC.

Table 3

- 6. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Vertical Cuttings

Sample ID Date Formation Thorium Result (ppm) Thorium

Error (ppm) Th

- 232

(pCi/g) Uranium

Result (ppm) Uranium

Error (ppm) U

- 238

(pCi/g)

WP

- 03

- SL

- 038 07/26/13 Varies 20.1 0.400 2.21 2.90 0.200 0.969
WP

- 04

- SL

- 001 06/17/13 Varies 17.9 0.400 1.97 5.30 0.300 1.77
WP

- 04

- SL

- 002 06/17/13 Varies 16.4 0.400 1.80 3.00 0.200 1.00
WP

- 04

- SL

- 003 06/17/13 Varies 17.5 0.400 1.93 4.00 0.300 1.34
WP

- 04

- SL

- 004 06/17/13 Varies 15.5 0.400 1.71 3.60 0.200 1.20
WP

- 04

- SL

- 005 06/17/13 Varies 16.0 0.400 1.76 2.60 0.200 0.868
WP

- 04

- SL

- 006 06/17/13 Varies 18.3 0.400 2.01 4.20 0.300 1.40PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 23

Table 3

- 6. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Vertical Cuttings

Sample ID Date Formation Thorium Result (ppm) Thorium

Error (ppm) Th

- 232

(pCi/g) Uranium

Result (ppm) Uranium

Error (ppm) U

- 238

(pCi/g)

WP

- 04

- SL

- 007 06/17/13 Varies 14.5 0.400 1.60 3.00 0.200 1.00
WP

- 04

- SL

- 008 06/17/13 Varies 16.8 0.400 1.85 5.30 0.300 1.77
WP

- 05

- SL

- 028 07/08/13 Varies 17.4 0.400 1.91 4.50 0.300 1.50
WP

- 05

- SL

- 029 07/08/13 Varies 15.5 0.400 1.71 3.70 0.200 1.24
WP

- 05

- SL

- 030 07/08/13 Varies 14.5 0.400 1.60 3.50 0.200 1.17

WP

- 05

- SL

- 031 07/08/13 Varies 16.5 0.400 1.82 2.60 0.200 0.868
WP

- 05

- SL

- 033 07/08/13 Varies 11.2 0.400 1.23 2.30 0.200 0.768
WP

- 06

- SL

- 014 07/01/13 Varies 16.5 0.400 1.82 6.40 0.300 2.14
WP

- 06

- SL

- 015 07/01/13 Varies 17.8 0.400 1.96 3.80 0.300 1.27
WP

- 06

- SL

- 016 07/01/13 Varies 15.2 0.400 1.67 7.10 0.300 2.37
WP

- 06

- SL

- 017 07/01/13 Varies 16.3 0.400 1.79 6.10 0.300 2.04

WP

- 06

- SL

- 018 07/01/13 Varies 6.50 0.400 0.715 3.00 0.200 1.00
WP

- 06

- SL

- 019 07/01/13 Varies 8.60 0.400 0.946 2.80 0.200 0.935
WP

- 06

- SL

- 020 07/01/13 Varies 10.9 0.400 1.20 13.4 0.500 4.48
WP

- 06

- SL

- 021 07/01/13 Varies 8.50 0.400 0.935 4.40 0.200 1.47
WP

- 06

- SL

- 022 07/01/13 Varies 15.6 0.400 1.72 5.80 0.300 1.94
WP

- 06

- SL

- 023 07/01/13 Oriskany 6.30 0.300 0.693 1.50 0.100 0.501

WP

- 06

- SL

- 024 07/08/13 Varies 11.5 0.400 1.27 4.80 0.300 1.60
WP

- 06

- SL

- 025 07/08/13 Varies 16.0 0.400 1.76 5.40 0.300 1.80
WP

- 06

- SL

- 026 07/08/13 Varies 17.7 0.500 1.95 8.80 0.500 2.94
WP

- 07

- SL

- 039 08/05/13 Varies 17.3 0.400 1.90 2.50 0.200 0.835
WP

- 07

- SL

- 040 08/05/13 Varies 17.8 0.400 1.96 1.50 0.100 0.501
WP

- 07

- SL

- 041 08/05/13 Varies 17.7 0.400 1.95 2.30 0.200 0.768

WP

- 10

- SL

- 045 08/26/13 Varies 11.8 0.400 1.30 3.00 0.200 1.00
WP

- 11

- SL

- 047 08/27/13 Varies 7.00 0.400 0.770 2.40 0.100 0.802
WP

- 12

- SL

- 052 09/05/13 Varies 17.7 0.500 1.95 12.4 0.500 4.14
WP

- 12

- SL

- 053 09/05/13 Varies 17.9 0.400 1.97 6.30 0.300 2.10
WP

- 13

- SL

- 059 10/15/13 Varies 16.2 0.400 1.78 2.00 0.200 0.668
WP

- 14

- SL

- 073 01/31/14 Varies 17.1 0.400 1.88 3.10 0.200 1.04

WP

- 14

- SL

- 074 01/31/14 Varies 17.3 0.400 1.90 3.20 0.200 1.07 Average 15.0 1.64 4.39 1.47
Std. Dev. 3.66 0.403 2.64 0.881
Median 16.3 1.79 3.60 1.20
Minimum 6.30 0.693 1.50 0.501
Maximum 20.1 2.21 13.4 4.48PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 24 Table 3

- 7

. Horizontal Solids, Drill Cuttings

– Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) Th

- 232

(pCi/g)

WP

- 02

- SL

- 036 13.0 0.621 18.3 4.96 0.789 0.608

WP

- 03

- SL

- 065 9.76 0.797 26.2 4.19 0.265 0.786

WP

- 04

- SL

- 009 3.69 0.581 12.6 0.803 0.130 0.568

WP

- 04

- SL

- 010 3.96 0.535 12.6 0.917 0.240 0.524

WP

- 04

- SL

- 011 2.37 0.668 16.8 0.575 0.144 0.654

WP

- 04

- SL

- 012 5.43 0.727 15.3 < 0.684 < 0.046 0.712

WP

- 05

- SL

- 027 3.31 0.772 18.3 1.88 0.201 0.755

WP

- 05

- SL

- 032 1.50 0.711 14.2 < 2.09 < 0.036 0.696

WP

- 05

- SL

- 034 3.17 0.861 20.1 < 1.32 < 0. 085 0.841

WP

- 06

- SL

- 037 1.17 0.346 6.33 < 0.731 < 0.085 0.339

WP

- 10

- SL

- 048 4.92 0.694 13.9 < 0.968 < 0.038 0.680

WP

- 11

- SL

- 068 1.06 0.241 7.41 < 0.835 < 0.091 0.237

WP

- 12

- SL

- 055 < 0.183 < 0.031 1.47 < 0.485 < 0. 058 < 0.031

WP

- 12

- SL

- 056 3.56 0.535 11.7 < 0.600 < 0.026 0.527

WP

- 13

- SL

- 062 10.3 0.487 8.70 3.11 0.391 0.478

WP

- 14

- SL

- 077 8.09 0.702 17.5 2.78 0.384 0.689

WP

- 14

- SL

- 078 9.60 0.828 20.4 3.09 0.302 0.813

WP

- 14

- SL

- 079 8.97 1.16 16.7 2.24 0.277 1.14 Average 5.22 0.627 15.3 1.76 0.223 0.615

Std. Dev. 3.80 0.254 7.13 1.36 0.180 0.249

Median 3.83 0.681 16.0 1.21 0.211 0.667

Minimum 0.092 0.016 1.47 0.243 0.029 0.016

Maximum 13.0 1.16 31.5 4.96 0.789 1.14PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 25

Table 3

- 8

. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Horizontal Cuttings

Sample ID Date Target Formation / Gas Type Thorium

Result (ppm) Thorium

Error (ppm) Th

- 232

(pCi/g) Uranium

Result (ppm) Uranium

Error (ppm) U

- 238

(pCi/g)

WP

- 02

- SL

036 07/24/13 Marcellus / Wet 12.2 0.400 1.34 28.6 0.500 9.55

WP

- 03

- SL

065 11/08/13 Marcellus / Wet 11.8 0.400 1.30 20.1 0.600 6.71

WP

- 04

- SL

009 06/20/13 Marcellus / Dry 12.0 0.500 1.32 8.70 0.400 2.91

WP

- 04

- SL

010 06/20/13 Marcellus / Dry 10.8 0.500 1.19 9.90 0.400 3.31

WP

- 04

- SL

011 06/20/13 Marcellus / Dry 12.5 0.400 1.38 5.90 0.300 1.97

WP

- 04

- SL

012 06/20/13 Marcellus / Dry 12.4 0.400 1.36 14.6 0.500 4.88

WP

- 05

- SL

027 07/08/13 Burkett / Wet 16.2 0.400 1.78 9.70 0.400 3.24

WP

- 05

- SL

032 07/08/13 Burkett / Wet 11.1 0.400 1.22 5.20 0.300 1.74

WP

- 05

- SL

034 07/08/13 Burkett / Wet 16.4 0.500 1.80 6.60 0.400 2.20

WP

- 06

- SL

037 07/25/13 Utica / Wet 17.4 1.30 1.91 80.8 1.30 27.0

WP

- 10

- SL

048 08/30/13 Marcellus / Dry 13.8 0.800 1.52 49.4 1.00 16.5

WP

- 11

- SL

068 11/14/13 Utica / Dry 7.70 0.500 0.847 17.6 0.500 5.88

WP

- 12

- SL

055 09/11/13 Marcellus / Dry 13.0 0.800 1.43 11.3 0.500 3.77

WP

- 12

- SL

056 09/11/13 Marcellus / Dry 20.3 1.20 2.23 36.6 1.20 12.2

WP

- 13

- S L

062 10 /21/13 Marcellus / Dry 9.40 0.500 1.03 33.1 0.6 11.1

WP

- 14

- SL

077 02/07/14 Marcellus / Dry 11.0 0.500 1.21 31.4 0.700 10.5

WP

- 14

- SL

078 02/07/14 Marcellus / Dry 13.3 0.500 1.46 33.8 0.700 11.3

WP

- 14

- SL

079 02/07/14 Marcellus / Dry 11.7 0.700 1.29 49.4 0.900 16.5
Average 12.9 1.4 2 2 5.2 8. 40
Std. Dev. 3.01 0.3 31 20. 0 6. 70
Median 12. 3 1.3 5 18.9 6.30
Minimum 7.70 0.847 5.20 1.74
Maximum 20.3 2.23 80.8 27.0PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 26

Table 3

- 9 . Drilling Solids, Mud

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) Th

- 232

(pCi/g)

WP

- 03

- SL

- 066 1.51 0.178 4.93 < 0.436 < 0.085 0.176

WP

- 04

- SL

- 013 1.58 0.221 4.31 < 0.866 < 0.073 0.216

WP

- 05

- SL

- 035 0.675 0.182 3.54 < 0.375 < 0.054 0.179

WP

- 10

- SL

- 046 3.66 0.266 6.91 < 0.640 < 0.034 0.261

WP

- 10

- SL

- 049 3.35 0.335 7.32 < 0.732 < 0.035 < 0.870

WP

- 11

- SL

- 069 1.04 0.195 3.84 < 0.673 < 0.058 0.191

WP

- 12

- SL

- 054 1.28 0.122 1.47 1. 10 < 0. 081 0.120

WP

- 13

- SL

- 060 2.78 0.296 5.96 < 0.692 0.086 0.290

WP

- 13

- SL

- 063 3.72 0.328 6.53 0.700 0.143 0.322 Average 2.18 0.236 4.98 0.651 0.063 0.243

Std. Dev. 1.20 0.074 1.89 0.504 0.038 0.095

Median 1.58 0.221 4.93 0.433 0.043 0.216

Minimum 0.675 0.122 1.47 0.188 0.027 0.120

Maximum 3.72 0.335 7.32 1.73 0.143 0.435

Table 3

- 10 . Proppant Sand

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) Th

- 232

(pCi/g)
WP

- 04

- SL

- 050 0.180 0.053 0.733 0. 139 < 0. 025 0.047
WP

- 05

- SL

- 058 0.225 0.135 7.25 < 0.200 < 0.037 0.115
WP

- 06

- SL

- 070 0.170 0.026 0.069 0.323 < 0.018 0.025
WP

- 08

- SL

- 044 0.246 0.065 0.162 < 0.020 < 0.00 4 0.045
WP

- 09

- SL

- 043 0.301 0.045 0.199 < 0.426 < 0. 050 0.044
WP

- 10

- SL

- 067 0.218 0.018 0.136 < 0.369 < 0.036 0.018
WP

- 11

- SL

- 072 0.275 0.025 0.070 < 0.203 < 0.033 0.025
WP

- 12

- SL

- 064 0.358 0.038 0.386 < 0.426 < 0.042 0.037
WP

- 14

- SL

- 081 0.266 < 0.026 4.99 < 0.442 < 0.035 0.102
WP

- 25

- SL

- 042 0.188 0.018 < 0. 061 < 0. 267 < 0. 029 < 0.013 Average 0.243 0.044 1.40 0.157 0.015 0.046 Std. Dev. 0.059 0.036 2.55 0.091 0.006 0.035 Median 0.236 0.032 0.181 0.159 0.017 0.041 Minimum 0.170 0.013 0.031 0.010 0.002 0.007 Maximum 0.358 0.135 7.25 0.323 0.025 0.115PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 27

Table 3

- 11 . Flowback Solids, Sand

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) Th

- 232

(pCi/g)
WP

- 04

- SL

- 061 7.73 0.619 0.659 < 1.86 < 0.199 0.609
WP

- 09

- SL

- 057 0.763 0.194 0.457 < 0. 711 < 0. 083 0.191
WP

- 11

- SL

- 080 2.76 0.611 1.68 < 0.783 < 0.091 0.603
WP

- 12

- SL

- 071 2.58 0.353 0.597 < 0.985 < 0.080 0.343 Average 3.46 0.444 0.848 0.542 0.057 0.437 Std. Dev. 2.99 0.208 0.561 0.265 0.029 0.205 Median 2.67 0.482 0.628 0.442 0.044 0.473 Minimum 0.763 0.194 0.457 0.356 0.040 0.191 Maximum 7.73 0.619 1.68 0.930 0.100 0.609

Table 3

- 12 . Drill ing Fluids

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha a

(pCi/L) Gross Beta a

(pCi/L)
WP

- 02

- LQ

- 002 4,690 372 9,910 ND ND WP

- 06

- LQ

- 001 1,510 162 4,340 1,580 3,940
WP

- 06

- LQ

- 003 2,010 216 5,220 ND ND
WP

- 12

- LQ

- 009 1,800 184 420 3,820 1,250
WP

- 14

- LQ

- 026 4,940 466 11,400 ND ND Average 2,990 280 5,530 2,420 2,677 Std. Dev. 1,680 133 3,550 992 1,163 Median 2,010 216 5,220 2,142 2,595 Minimum 1,510 162 420 1,580 1,250 Maximum 4,940 466 11,400 3,820 3,940

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 28 Table 3

- 1 3 . Frac turing Fluids

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) WP

- 04

- LQ

- 008 21,000 1,640 < 565 37,000 11,200 WT

- 05

- LQ

- 013 872 78.0 195 1,870 398 WP

- 06

- LQ

- 016 64.0 < 9.00 < 21.0 < 1.39 4.41 WP

- 08

- LQ

- 007 3,080 723 444 5,020 1,610 WP

- 09

- LQ

- 006 2,000 442 338 3,400 < 879 WP

- 10

- LQ

- 015 10,300 600 < 298 13,500 2,310 WP

- 11

- LQ

- 023 115 14.0 44.0 < 3.76 < 1.63 WP

- 14

- LQ

- 046 2,270 189 456 5,760 1,200 WP

- 14

- LQ

- 047 2,160 218 423 5,650 1,010 WP

- 19

- LQ

- 004 16,200 1,250 435 54,100 14,900 WP

- 19

- LQ

- 005 105 < 9.00 25.0 < 113 < 186 Average 5,290 469 255 11,500 3,020 Std. Dev. 7,250 547 178 17,700 5,080 Median 2,160 218 283 5,020 1,010 Minimum 64.0 4.50 10.5 0.695 0.815 Maximum 21,000 1,640 456 54,100 14,900

Table 3

- 1 4 . Flowback Fluids

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) WP

- 01

- LQ

- 010 7,310 589 151 15,300 4,070
WP

- 04

- LQ

- 014 25,500 1,740 500 71,000 21,300
WP

- 06

- LQ

- 017 551 248 416 < 576 742
WP

- 08

- LQ

- 012 4,280 1,140 500 7,270 1,820
WP

- 09

- LQ

- 011 2,880 863 448 10,700 4,380
WP

- 10

- LQ

- 045 8,690 633 2,630 11,100 1,960
WP

- 11

- LQ

- 035 1,540 564 927 2,250 1,320
WP

- 12

- LQ

- 022 4,550 507 < 177 10,100 2,440
WP

- 14

- LQ

- 052 21,100 1,430 461 32,000 5,400 Average 8,490 857 680 17,800 4,830 Std. Dev. 8,840 486 769 21,900 6,370 Median 4,550 633 461 10,700 2,440 Minimum 551 248 88.5 288 742 Maximum 25,500 1,740 2,630 71,000 21,300PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 29 Table 3

- 15 . Unfiltered Produced W ater s

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WP

- 01

- LQ

- 048 Unconventional 2,050 366 132 3,890 < 225
WP

- 04

- LQ

- 039 Unconventional 26,600 1,900 328 30,000 7,600
WP

- 08

- LQ

- 021 Unconventional 5,020 1,280 592 11,300 3,270
WP

- 09

- LQ

- 019 Unconventional 4,490 1,140 571 9,760 2,570
WP

- 10

- LQ

- 050 Unconventional 7,730 434 191 14,000 3,620
WP

- 10

- LQ

- 055 Unconventional 6,710 470 149 41,700 4,560
WP

- 11

- LQ

- 043 Unconventional 1,700 636 852 2,420 1,500
WP

- 12

- LQ

- 041 Unconventional 14,500 1,710 408 21,800 6,810
WP

- 16

- LQ

- 027 Conventional 819 896 220 < 2570 1,140
WP

- 19

- LQ

- 029 Conventional < 81.0 26.0 103 < 465 < 402
WP

- 20

- LQ

- 031 Conventional 145 42.0 129 < 2440 < 987
WP

- 21

- LQ

- 033 Conventional 340 214 < 31.0 < 1230 < 830
WP

- 05

- LQ

- 037 Unconventional 6,300 941 667 10,700 2,300 Average 5,880 773 335 11,500 2,660 Std. Dev. 7,450 604 260 12,800 2,460 Median 4,490 636 220 9,760 2,300 Minimum 40.5 26.0 15.5 233 113 Maximum 26,600 1,900 852 41,700 7,600

Table 3

- 16. Filtered Produced Waters

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WP

- 01

- LQ

- 049 Unconventional 1,930 373 129 2,750 933
WP

- 04

- LQ

- 040 Unconventional 24,100 1,860 323 33,000 7,180
WP

- 08

- LQ

- 020 Unconventional 4,940 1,350 518 11,200 4,050
WP

- 09

- LQ

- 018 Unconventional 4,470 1,240 560 8,780 3,040
WP

- 10

- LQ

- 051 Unconventional 8,060 466 164 19,900 4,050
WP

- 10

- LQ

- 054 Unconventional 7,130 479 3,950 10,900 3,530
WP

- 11

- LQ

- 044 Unconventional 1,520 602 751 2,440 1,500
WP

- 12

- LQ

- 042 Unconventional 15,100 1,610 389 18,000 4,050
WP

- 16

- LQ

- 028 Conventional 849 851 < 34.0 1,440 1,610
WP

- 19

- LQ

- 030 Conventional 87.0 44.0 71.0 < 608 < 420
WP

- 20

- LQ

- 032 Conventional 106 48.0 129 < 1,040 < 857
WP

- 21

- LQ

- 034 Conventional 292 210 144 < 1,860 < 863
WP

- 05

- LQ

- 038 Unconventional 6,720 883 485 11,400 3,370PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 30 Table 3

- 16. Filtered Produced Waters

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) Average 5,970 770 587 9,900 2,790 Std. Dev. 6,980 591 1,030 9,970 2,040 Median 4,470 602 323 9,840 3,210 Minimum 87.0 44.0 17.0 304 210 Maximum 24,100 1,860 3,950 33,000 7,180

Table 3

- 17

. Ambient Radon at Well Sites D uring F lowback

Sample ID County Date Radon Conc. +/

- 2 S.D. (pCi/L) MDC (pCi/L)

WP

- 01

- RA Sullivan 9/2013 <0.300 +/

- 0.000 0.300 0.800 +/

- 0.000 0.300 0.500 +/

- 0.400 0.300 <0.300 +/

- 0.000 0.300 <0.300 +/

- 0.000 0.300

WP

- 09

- RA Washington 9/2013 0.700 +/

- 0.600 0.300 0.600 +/

- 0.200 0.300 0.600 +/

- 0.200 0.300 1.70 +/

- 1.60 0.300

WP

- 08

- RA Washington 9/2013 0.500 +/

- 0.800 0.300 0.200 +/

- 0.200 0.300 0.600 +/

- 0.600 0.300 0.700 +/

- 0.400 0.300

WP

- 04

- RA Tioga 10/2013 0.500 +/

- 0.200 0.300 0.200 +/

- 0.200 0.300 0.500 +/

- 0.600 0.300 0.700 +/

- 0.200 0.300

E

- PERM samples with short

- term electrets were deployed. MDC for a four

- day exposure at 50 percent error is 0.300 pCi/L.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 31

Table 3

- 18

. Natural Gas Samples from Production Sites

Sample ID County Gas Source Radon Conc. +/

- 2 S.D. (pCi/L) MDA

(pCi/L) WP 08 RG Washington Marcellus Shale 79.6 +/

- 0.800 0.300 WP 09 RG Washington Marcellus Shale 78.8 +/

- 4.20 0.300 WP 22 RG Tioga Marcellus Shale 42.8 +/

- 0.200 0.100 WP 23 RG Tioga Marcellus Shale 39.6 +/

- 0.800 0.200 WP 24 RG Tioga Marcellus Shale 73.8 +/

- 0.400 0.200 WP 25 RG Tioga Marcellus Shale 44.4 +/

- 2.60 0.200 WP 26 RG Lycoming Oriskany Sandstone 19.9 +/

- 0.200 0.200 WP 27 RG Tioga Marcellus Shale 38.4 +/

- 3.40 0.300 WP 28 RG Tioga Marcellus Shale 40.8 +/

- 5.20 0.400 WP 16 RG Washington Marcellus Shale 50.0 +/

- 5.20 0.300 WP 17 RG Washington Marcellus Shale 49.5 +/

- 5.80 0.500 WP 19 RG McKean Upper Devonian Shale 18.3 +/

- 4.40 0.400 WP 20 RG McKean Upper Devonian Shale 88.2 +/

- 10.6 0.700 WP 21 RG Forest Upper Devonian Shale 92.2 +/

- 6.40 0.400 WP 04 RG Tioga Marcellus Shale 49.6 +/

- 29.6 1.20 WP 05 RG McKean Marcellus Shale 148 +/

- 15.6 1.50 WP 12 RG Lycoming Marcellus Shale 37.6 +/

- 33.4 2.20 WP 11 RG Tioga Utica 5.70 +/

- 1.20 0.500 WP 29 RG Sullivan Marcellus Shale 23.4 +/

- 4.00 0.240 WP 30 RG Bradford Marcellus Shale 25.5 +/

- 2.70 0.200 WP 31 RG Bradford Marcellus Shale 3.00 +/

- 1.20 0.300 WP 14 RG Jefferson Marcellus Shale 5.60 +/

- 0.100 0.140 Average 47.9 Median = 4 1 .8 Standard Deviation 34.5 Note: All results adjusted to account for the fact that Rn was counted in methane, but the scintillation cells were calibrated for Rn in air. Range of  particles is greater in methane than in air. All results divided by 1.054, according to Jenkins et. al., Health Physics, Vol. 106, No. 3, March 2014.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 3.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 3

- 32 Table 3

- 19

. Thorium and Uranium XRF Data for Drill Cuttings By Formation

Formation Thorium

Result (ppm) Th

- 232

Concentration (pCi/g) Uranium

Result (ppm) U

- 238

Concentration (pCi/g) U/Th U

- 238/

Th

- 232

Marcellus 13.8 1.52 49.4 16.5 3.58 10.9 Marcellus 13.0 1.43 11.3 3.77 0.870 2.64 Marcellus 20.3 2.23 36.6 12.2 1.80 5.48 Marcellus 9.40 1.03 33.1 11.1 3.52 10.7 Marcellus 11.8 1.30 20.1 6.71 1.70 5.16 Marcellus 12.0 1.32 8.70 2.91 0.730 2.20 Marcellus 10.8 1.19 9.90 3.31 0.920 2.78 Marcellus 12.5 1.38 5.90 1.97 0.470 1.43 Marcellus 12.4 1.36 14.6 4.88 1.18 3.59 Marcellus 11.7 1.29 49.4 16.5 4.22 12.8 Marcellus 13.3 1.46 33.8 11.3 2.54 7.73 Marcellus 11.0 1.21 31.4 10.5 2.85 8.67 Marcellus 12.2 1.34 28.6 9.55 2.34 7.13 Average 12.6 1.40 25.6 8.60 2.10 6.20 Median 12.2 1.30 28.6 9.60 1.80 5.50 Standard Deviation 2.57 0.280 15.0 5.01 1.23 3.72

Burket 16.2 1.78 9.70 3.24 0.600 1.82 Burket 16.4 1.80 6.60 2.20 0.400 1.22 Burket 11.1 1.22 5.20 1.74 0.470 1.42 Average 14.6 1.60 7.17 2.39 0.490 1.49 Median 16.2 1.78 6.60 2.20 0.470 1.42 Standard Deviation 3.00 0.330 2.30 0.770 0.100 0.300

Utica 7.70 0.850 17.6 5.88 2.29 6.92 Utica 17.4 1.91 80.8 27.0 4.64 14.1 Average 12.6 1.38 49.2 16.4 3.46 10.5 Median 12.6 1.38 49.2 16.4 3.46 10.5 Standard Deviation 6.86 0.750 44.7 14.9 1.67 5.10PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 1 4. 0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

A total of 29 WWT P s were surveyed and /or sampled. This included 10 POTWs, 1 0 CWTs and nine ZLDs. The results, by waste water facility

, are presented in this section

.
4.1 Publicly Owned Treatment Works

A total of 10 POTWs were surveyed and /or sampled. There were three rounds of survey s conducted over a seven

- month period (April 2013 through October 2013) ; however, not all POTWs were sampled in all three rounds. Six of the 10 POTWs are considered i nfluenced (POTW

- I) by having received waste water from the O&G industry , mainly the effluent of CWTs

. Four POTW s are considered non - i nfluenced ( POTW

- N ) by having never received
waste water from the O&G industry. As such, surveying was conducted for the 10 POTW s as follows:

 5 POTW

- I ’ s were survey ed in all three rounds

,

 1 POTW

- I was surveyed in two rounds

, and

 4 POTW

- N ’ s were surveyed one time

.
4.1 .1 Radiological Survey Results

R adiological survey s were conducted at each POTW

- I , resulting in four data sets:

 Removable 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Total 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm

 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of μR/hr

4.1.1 .1 Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of removable radioactivity were performed to ass ess potential internal radiation exposures of workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 guidelines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  surface radioactivity levels be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a removable criterion of 20 dpm 

/100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a removable criterion of 200 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The average removable  and  surface radioactivity levels at each WWTP were below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum removable

 and  surface radioactivity levels were 22 dpm/100 cm 2 and 1 6 1 dpm/100 cm 2

. The results of removable  and  surface radioactivity for the POTW

- I plants are presented in Table 4

- 1

. Individual removable  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.
4.1. 1. 2 Total Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of total radioactivity were performed to assess potential internal radiation exposures of workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 guidelines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  surface radioactivity levels bePA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 2 evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a total surface radioactivity criterion of 100 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a total surface radioactivity criterion of 1,000 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The maximum average total  and  surface radioactivity measured at any single facility were 313 dpm/100 cm 2 and 10, 0 00 dpm/100 cm 2

, respectively. The maximum total  and  concentrations measured at any single facility were 1

, 190 dpm/100 cm 2 and 38,0 0 0 dpm/ 100 cm 2

. The summary results of total  and  surface radioactivity for the POTW

- I plants surveyed are presented in Table 4

- 2

. Individual total  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.
4.1. 1. 3 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

Gross gamma radiation scans recorded in cpm were performed on open land areas and accessible areas of the WWTP s to identify areas with elevated gross gamma radiation levels

. Summary results for the POTW

- I are presented in Table 4

- 3

. The highest average count rate for the plants

was 29

, 034 cpm , and the maximum count rate recorded was 205,446 cpm. A graphic display of the gamma radiation scan results (figures) at each facility was prepared using geographic information system ( GIS ) software. Figures are presented in Appendix E

.
4.1. 1. 4 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results Summary

Gross gamma radiation scan results in units of cpm presented in Table 4

- 3 were converted to
 R/hr using 800 cpm per  R/hr , a conversion factor appropriate for Ra

- 226 gamma energy as detected with 2

- inch by 2

- inch NaI detectors , rounded to one significant figure ( Table 6. 4 , NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contamina nts , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Dete ctable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998 )

. Table 4

- 4 presents statistical results for each POTW

- I

. The highest average gamma radiation exposure rate was 36.3  R/hr

, and the maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 257  R/hr.

4. 1. 2 Solid Sample Results

4. 1. 2.1 Filter Cake Samples

Filter cakes were sampled at POTW

- I and POTW

- N plants and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy for U, Th

, and Ac series decay chains. The g amma spectroscopy results are presented in T ables 4

- 5 and 4

- 6

. The analytical results for POTW

- I plants presented in Table 4

- 5 show Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 are present above typical background concentrations in soil

. The average Ra

- 226 result was 20. 1 pCi/g with a large variance in the distribution

, and the maximum result was 55.6 pCi/g. The
average Ra

- 228 result was 8.32 pCi/g

, and the maximum result was 32.0 pCi/g Ra

- 228.

The radioactivity levels at POTW

- N plants presented in Table 4

- 6 were also above typical background concentrations in soil with Ra

- 226 average and maximum results of 8.89 pCi/g and 35.4 pCi/g

. The average and maximum Ra

- 228 resul ts were 2.13 pCi/g and 7.26 pCi/g.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 3 4. 1. 2.2 Sediment

- Impacted Soil Samples

S ampling was performed at only three of the POTW

- I plants due to limited accessibility at the other plants

. A total of seven samples were collected at the effluent discharge points and analyzed for U, Th

, and Ac series decay chains by gamma spectroscopy. The g amma spectroscopy results are presented in T able 4

- 7

. The analytical results for POTW

- I sediment

- impacted soil samples indicate Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 are present at concentrations above typical background in soil. The average Ra

- 226 result was 9.0 0 pCi/g

, and the maximum result was 18.2 pCi/g. The average Ra

- 228 result was 3.52 pCi/g

, and the maximum result was 6.25 pCi/g.

4. 1. 3 Liquid Sample Results

Influent and e ffluent liquid sampling was performed at six POTW

- I plants and four POTW

- N plants

. Filtered and unfiltered samples were analyzed for U, Th

, and Ac decay series , and for
gross  /  radioactivity levels

. The filtered and unfiltered analyses are presented separately in T ables 4

- 8 through 4

- 15 for both i nfluenced and non

- i nfluenced POTWs

. A comparison of the influenced and non

- influenced POTW results and the filtered and unfiltered sample results is presented in Section 4.1.5.1.

4. 1. 4 Indoor Radon Sampling Results

ATDs were deployed in the POTW

- I plants at various indoor locations such as break rooms, labs, offices, etc.

, to measure Rn concentrations. T he results were evaluated using the EPA Action Level of 4.0 pCi/L. The ATDs were deployed in late July or early August 2013 and were all recovered from the field in February 2014. The results ranged from 0.2 to 8.7 pCi/L

. One result exceeded the action level

. T he results are presented in Table 4

- 16

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.
4. 1. 5 POTW Data Comparisons

4. 1. 5.1 POTW

- I / POTW

- N Comparison

Thirty

- two influent and effluent sample radionuclide and gross  /  concentration results from POTW

- I ’ s and POTW

- N ’ s were compared to determine if there was a difference in the radionuclide activity content. Tables 4

- 17 through 4

- 20 present and compare the average Ra concentration results and gross  /  concentration results from all influent and effluent filtered and unfiltered samples for all POTW

- I and POTW

- N plants. Twenty

- nine of the 32 average concentration results for both filtered and unfiltered influent and effluent samples were higher for POTW

- I plants than the POTW

- N plants.

4. 1. 5.2 Ra dium

- 226/Ra dium

- 228 Sediment

- Impacted Soil and Effluent Results Comparison

The sediment

- impacted soil radioactivity levels were compared to filtered and unf iltered effluent results for Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 and are presented in Table 4

- 21

. In cases where no results were reported for a member of the data pair (sediment

- effluent pair), or when a result was reported as less than MDC , the data pair comparison was not evaluated

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 4 The sediment

- impacted soil sample results are above typical background for soil. However,
t he re is no readily apparent relationship between the sediment

- impacted soil sample and effluent sample results

. T he effluent wastewater discharged over time may contribute to the activity in the sediment

- impacted soil , but a correlation between the sediment

- impacted soil activity and the effluent samples could not be made from the study as performed

.

The ratio of Ra

- 226 to Ra

- 228 was also calculated for a variety of sample types including sediments, filtered effluents

, and unfiltered effluents from POTWs and CWTs. The results are presented in Table 4

- 22

. The average ratio ranged from 2.4 to 11.4.

4. 1. 6 POTW Worker Exposure Assessment

4. 1. 6 .1 External Gamma Radiation Exposure

The gamma radiation exposure rate survey results are provided in Section 4.1.1.4. The maximum average gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the POTW plants was 36.3  R /hr. The lowest background gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the sites was 5  R/hr. Assuming the time period of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the maximum average POTW annual external gamma radiation exposure was estimated as follows:

Maximum Average POTW External Gamma Radiation Exposure Estimate

( 36.3

– 5) μR /hr x 2

, 000 hr/yr x (1 m rem /1

, 000 μR gamma ) = 62.6 m rem /yr

This is an estimate of the maximum average gamma radiation exposure at a single facility based on 2,000 hours in one year. The result is less than the 100 m rem /yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is dependent up on the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.

The maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured at the POTWs was 257  R /hr on contact with the outside of a waste water tank. Consequently, t he public dose limit of 100 mrem per year could potentially be reached by a person working 400 hours with in the immediate proximity of the tank

. Actual annual exposure for a POTW worker is dependent up on the exposure rates and time worked in proximity to the tank

.
4. 1.6

. 2 Internal Alpha/Beta Radiation Exposure

The total and removable  /  survey surface radioactivity summary result s are provided in Sections 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2. Nine of the 566  measurements and 68 of the 566  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. One of the 286 removable  measurements and none of the 286 removable  measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Fixed or removable  and  surface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard if disturbed during routine system maintenance.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 5 4. 1.6

. 3 Internal Radon Exposure

The Rn measured in indoor air averaged 1.7 pCi/L. The average is above the average indoor level of 1.3 pCi/L in the U.S. as reported by EPA

.
4. 1. 7 POTW Radiological Environmental Impacts

Seven s ediment

- impacted soil samples were collected at the effluent discharge points of three of the POTW

- I ’ s

. Ra dium

- 226 activity concentrations above typical soil background activity concentrations were identified in all sediment samples

, with 1 56 pCi/g the maximum reported result

. The presence of Ra in sediment

- impacted soil at effluent discharge points indicates effluent
wastewater contained Ra

. Ra dium and gross  and  radioactivity were identified in effluent samples. Table 4

- 21 present s filtered and unfiltered effluent average sample results and sediment

- impacted soil results for POTWs sampled during the study.

4.2 Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants

Three survey rounds were conducted at nine of the 10 CWTs. The 10th facility was added after the first survey round was completed, resulting in only two surveys at that facility.

4.2.1 Survey Results

R adiological survey s were conducted at each CWT resulting in four data sets:

 Removable 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Total 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm

 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of μR/hr

4.2.1.1 Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of removable radioactivity were performed to evaluate potential internal radiation exposures of workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 surface radioactivity guidelines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  surface radioactivity levels be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a removable surface radioactivity criterion of 20 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a removable surface radioactivity criterion of 200 dpm  /100 cm 2

.
The average removable  and  surface radioactivity levels were all below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum removable  and  surface radioactivity levels were 38 .1 dpm/100 cm 2 and 1 33 dpm/100 cm 2

. The summary results of removable  and  surface radioactivity are presented in Table 4

- 23

. Individual removable  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 6 4. 2. 1.2 Total Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of total  and  surface radioactivity were performed to evaluate potential internal radiation exposures of workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 surface radioactivity guidelines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  surface radioactivity levels be evaluated separa tely. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a total surface radioactivity criterion of 100 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a total surface radioactivity criterion of 1,000 dpm  /100 cm 2

.
Eighteen of the 31 average total  surface radioactivity measurements were below the RG 1.86 surface radioactivity criterion. Three of the 31 average total  surface radioactivity
measurements were below the RG 1.86 surface radioactivity criterion. The maximum total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 3,22 0 dpm/100 cm 2 and 50, 400 dpm/100 cm 2

. The
summary results of total  and  surface radioactivity measurements are presented in Table 4

- 24

. Individual total  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.
4. 2. 1.3 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

Gross gamma radiation scans recorded in cpm were performed on open land areas and accessible areas of the CWT facilities to identify any area s with levels above local background. The
summary results of the g ross gamma radiation scans for each plant are presented in Table 4

- 25

. The highest average count rate for the plants was 19,281 cpm , and the maximum count rate recorded was 401,688 cpm. A graphic display of the gamma radiation scan results at each facility was prepared using GIS software. The resulting figures are in Appendix E

.
4. 2. 1.4 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results Summary

Gross gamma radiation scan results in units of cpm presented in Table 4

- 25 were converted to
 R/hr by dividing by 800 cpm per  R/hr , a conversion factor appropriate for Ra

- 226 gamma energy as detected with 2

- inch by 2

- inch NaI detectors rounded to one significant figure ( Table 6. 4 , NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contamina nts , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998 )

. Table 4

- 26 presents

s tatistical results for each CWT facility. The highest average gamma radiation exposure rate was 24 .1  R/hr

, and the maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 502  R/hr.

4.2.2 Solid Sample Results

4.2.2.1 F ilter Cake Samples

Three survey rounds were conducted at nine of the 1 0 CWTs. The 1 0 th facility was added after the first survey round was completed, resulting in only two surveys at that facility

. Also, the 1 0 th facility is a primary treatment facility, so it does not produce a filter cake. A total of 2 5 filter cake samples were collected from the nine plants

. The results are presented in Table 4

- 27

. The analytical results indicate all the CWT filter cake samples contain elevated Ra

- 226 andPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 7 Ra

- 228 above typical backg round levels for soil. The maximum results were 305 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 and 177 pCi/g of Ra

- 228.

4.2.2.2 Solids/Sediment Samples

Four of the CWTs surveyed and sampled as part of the study are permitted to discharge effluent
wastewater to the environment. I f the discharge point was accessible, surface soil impacted by sediment was sampled

. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in Table 4

- 28

. The Ra

- 226 results ranged from 2.50 to 421 pCi/g

. The Ra

- 228 results ranged from 0.978 to 86.9 p Ci/g

. Uranium and Th were also detected at surface soil typical background levels in some of the samples because of natural soil collected along with the sediment

.
4.2.2.3 Solids/Biased Samples

G amma radiation walkover s cans identified areas with radioactivity above local background

. At three of these locations , a biased soil sample was collected to determine the amount of activity at or near the surface. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in Table 4

- 29

. Radium above soil typical background levels to a maximum of 117 pCi/g Ra

- 226 and 83.1 pCi/g Ra

- 228 was identified in biased soil sample s.

4.2.3 Liquid Samples

Samples of influent and effluent, both filtered and unfiltered

, were analyzed. Three survey rounds were conducted at nin e of the 1 0 CWTs

. T he 1 0 th facility was added after the first
survey round was completed, resulting in only two surveys at that facility. Also, the 10th facility is only a primary treatment facility, with the influent and the effluent essentially the same. Consequentl y , only the influent was sampled at the 10 th facility

. A total of 31 effluent and 26 influent samples were collected for filtered and unfiltered analysis. The filtered and unfiltered analyse s are presented separately. The gamma spectroscopy results, gross  , and gross  are presented in Tables 4

- 30 through 4

- 33

. Radium (Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228) was routinely detected in all sample types with little difference between influent and effluent or between filtered and unfiltered results as presented for Ra

- 226 in Figure 4

- 1

. Figure 4

- 1

. CWT Influent and Effluent Liquid Ra

- 226 Minimum, Maximum, and Average

Wastewater Source Filtered or Not Min (pCi/L) Max (pCi/L) Ave (pCi/L)

Effluent Filtered 18.0 14,900 2,100 Effluent Unfiltered 42.0 15,500 1, 840 Influent Filtered 57.0 14,10 0 2,350 Influent Unfiltered 17.5 13,400 1,870

4.2.4 Indoor Radon Sampling Results

ATDs were deployed in the CWT plants at various indoor locations such as break rooms, labs, offices, etc., and the results were evaluated using the EPA Action Level of 4.0 pCi/L. The results ranged from 0.9 to 5.0 pCi/L. One result exceed ed the action level. The results of the analyses are p resented in Table 4

- 34

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 8 4.2.5 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

Appendix I presents a complete evaluation of filtered versus unfiltered liquid samples for the entire study. The conclusion from this evaluation is that there is no apparent trend or bias that filtering produces. There were some subsets of data where either the unfiltered results or the filtered results appear to be significantly higher

. T here was no statistically significant correlation found within any sample group. Because the liquid samples were preserved by addition of acid prior to filtering, the radioactive particulates may have entered solution and were therefore not removed by filtering.

4.2.6 CWT Exposure Assessment

4.2.6.1 CWT External Radiation Exposure

The maximum average gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the CWT plants was 24 .1  R/hr. The lowest background gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the sites was 5  R/hr. Assuming the time period of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the maximum average CWT annual external gamma radiation exposure was estimated as follows:

Maximum Average CWT External Gamma Radiation Exposure Estimate

( 24

. 1

– 5) μR /hr x 2

, 000 hr/yr x (1 m rem /1

, 000 μR gamma ) = 38 m rem /yr

This is an estimate of the maximum average gamma radiation exposure based on 2,000 hours in
one year. The result is less than the 100 m rem /yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exp osure is dependent up on the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.

The maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 502  rem/hr on contact with the outside of a wastewater tank. Work in proximity of the tank could potentially result in an exposure of 100 mrem in 2 00 hours of annual exposure or 10 percent of an employee’s 2,000

- hour occupational year. Actual annual exposure for a CWT worker is dependent up on actual exposure rates and actual time worked in the proximity of the tank

.
4.2.6. 2 CWT Potential Internal Alpha/Beta Radi oactivity Exposure

The total and removable  /  surface radioactivity survey result s are discussed in Sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2. One hund red eight y

- six of the 777  measurements and 461 of the 777  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Seven of the 805 removable  measurements and 6 of the 805 removable  measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. The average of the  total surface radioactivity measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria in 10 of the 11 CWT facilities surveyed

. The average of the  total surface radioactivity measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria in four of the 11 CWT faciliti es surveyed. The corresponding removable radioactivity measurements are mostly less than the RG 1.86 criteria, indicating the total radioactive contamination measured is fixed to the surface and not immediately available for inhalation or ingestion. Fixe d  and  surface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard if disturbed during routine system maintenance.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 9 4. 2.6

. 3 Internal Radon Exposure

The Rn in ambient indoor area air averaged 2.0 pCi/L. The average is above the average typical background indoor level of 1.3 pCi/L in the U

. S

. as reported by EPA.

4.2.7 CWT Radiological Environmental Impacts

Sediment

- impacted soil was collected at the accessible effluent discharge points at the C W Ts. A total of nine samples were collected

. Radium above typical soil background levels to a maximum of 508 pCi/g of total Ra was identified in the sediment

- impacted soil samples. Effluent wastewater also contained Ra and is the likely source of the Ra in sediment

- impacted soil above soil typical background levels

.
4.3 Zero Liquid Discharge Plants

4.3.1 Survey Results

R adiological survey s were conducted at each ZLD facility resulting in four data sets:

 Removable 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Total 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm

 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of μR/hr

4. 3. 1.1 Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of removable surface radioactivity were performed to evaluate potential internal radiation exposures of workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 guide lines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  surface radioactivity levels be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a removable surface radioactivity criterion of 20 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a removable surface radioactivity criterion of 200 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The average removable  and  surface radioactivity levels were below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum removable  and  surface radioactivity levels were 294 dpm/100 cm 2 and 342 dpm/100 cm 2

. The summary results of removable  and  surface radioactivity are presented in Table 4

- 35. Individual removable  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.
4. 3. 1.2 Total Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of total  and  surface radioactivity were performed to evaluate potential internal radiation exposures of workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 guidelines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  surface radioactivity levels be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a total surface radioactivity criterion of 100 dpm  /10 0 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series with a total surface radioactivity criterion of 1,000 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The highest average total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 239 dpm/100 cm 2PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 10 and 3

, 080 dpm/100 cm 2

. The maximum total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 1,4 10 dpm/100 cm 2 and 17, 900 dpm/100 cm 2

. The summary results of total  and  surface radioactivity measurements are presented in Table 4

- 36

. Individual total  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.
4. 3. 1.3 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

Gross gamma radiation scans recorded in cpm were performed on open land areas and accessible areas of the plant to identify levels of elevate d gross gamma radiation. The results of the g ross gamma radiation scans are presented in Table 4

- 3 7

. The highest average count rate for the plants was 34,513 cpm

, and the maximum count rate recorded was 356,274 cpm. A graphic display of the gamma radiation scan results (figures) at each facility was prepared using GIS software. The resulting figures are in Appendix E

.
4. 3. 1.4 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results Summary

Gross gamma radiation scan results in units of cpm presented in Table 4

- 37 were converted to
 R/hr by dividing by 800 cpm per  R/hr , a conversion factor appropriate for Ra

- 226 gamma energy as detected with 2

- inch by 2

- inch NaI detectors rounded to one significant figure ( Table 6. 4 , NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contamina nts , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998 )

. Table 4

- 38 presents statistical results for each ZLD facility. The highest average gamma radiation exposure rate was 43.1  R/hr

, and the maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 445  R/hr.

4. 3.2 Solid Sample Results

4.3.2.1 F ilter Cake Samples

Three survey rounds were conducted at each of the nine ZLD plants and a t otal of 31 filter cake samples were collected from the nine plants

. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in T able 4

- 39 . Radium

- 226 and Ra

- 228 were measured in ZLD filter cake samples at concentrations above typical background levels for surface soils. Radium

- 226 concentrations ranged from 3.08 to 480 pCi/ g , and Ra

- 228 concentrations ranged from 0.58 to 67.3 pCi/g.

4.3.2.2 S olids/Biased Samples

A single biased surface soil sample was collected

. The gamma spectroscopy results are present ed in T able 4

- 4 0

. The Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 were measured in concentration s above typical background levels. The Ra

- 226 concentration was 37.1 pCi/g

, and the Ra

- 228 concentration was 7.47 pCi/g

.
4.3.3 Liquid Samples

Three survey and sample events were conducted at each of the nine ZLD plants. A total of 30 effluent samples and 26 influent samples were collected. The filtered and unfiltered sample analyses results are presented separately. The results of the U serie s, Th Series

, and Ac series with K

- 40, gross  , and gross  are presented in Tables 4

- 4 1 through 4

- 4 4

. Radium (Ra

- 226PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 11 and Ra

- 228) was routinely detected in all sample types with an approximate 50 percent difference between influent and effluent

, but little difference between filtered and unfiltered results

, as presented for Ra

- 226 results below in Figure 4

- 2

.

F igure 4

- 2

. ZLD Influent and Effluent Liquid Ra

- 226 Minimum, Maximum, and Average

Wastewater Source Filtered or Not Min (pCi/L) Max (pCi/L) Ave (pCi/L)

Effluent Filtered 29.0 12,500 2,780 Effluent Unfiltered 33.0 11,900 2,610 Influent Filtered 38.5 20,900 4,660 Influent Unfiltered 134 17,100 4,400

4.3.4 Indoor Radon Sampling Results

ATDs were deployed in the ZLD plants at various indoor locations such as break rooms, lab oratories

, offices, etc., and the results were evaluated using the EPA Action Level of 4.0 pCi/L. The results ranged from 0. 5 to 4.9 pCi/L. Two result s exceeded the action level. The results of the an alyses are presented in Table 4

- 45

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.
4.3.5 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

Appendix I contains a complete evaluation of filtered versus unfiltered liquid samples for the entire study. The conclusion from this evaluation is that there is no apparent trend or bias that filtering produces. There were some subsets of data where either the un filtered results or the filtered results appear to be significantly higher

. T here was no statistically significant correlation found within any sample group. Since the liquid samples were preserved by addition of acid prior to filtering, the radioactive particulates may have entered solution and were therefore not removed by filtering.

4.3.6 ZLD Worker Exposure Assessment

4. 3 .6.1 Z LD Worker Potential External Gamma Radiation Exposure

The maximum average gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the ZLD plants was 43.1  R/hr. The lowest background gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the sites was 5  R/hr. Assuming the time period of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the maximum av erage ZLD annual external gamma radiation exposure was estimated as follows:

Maximum Average ZLD External Gamma Radiation Exposure Estimate

(43.1

– 5) μR /hr x 2

, 000 hr/yr x (1 m rem /1

, 000 μR gamma ) = 76 m rem /yr

This is an estimate of the maximum average gamma radiation exposure based on 2,000 hours in
one year. The result is less than the 100 m rem /yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is dependent up on the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 12 The maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 445  rem/hr o n contact with the outside of a wastewater tank. Work performed in the immediate proximity to th e tank could potentially result in an exposure of 100 mrem in 225 hours of annual exposure

, or about 10 percent of an employee’s 2,000

- hour occupational year. Actual annual exposure for a ZLD worker is dependent up on actual exposure rates and actual time worked in the proximity of the tank

.
4. 3 .6.2 ZLD Worker Potential Internal Alpha/Beta Expos ure

The total and removable  /  survey surface radioactivity results are discussed in Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2. One hundred fifty

- nine of the 566  measurements and 175 of the 566  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Fourteen of the 589 removable  measurements and two of the 589 removable  measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. The highest average total  and  surface radioactivity le vels were 239 dpm/100

cm 2 and 4,740 dpm/100 cm 2

. The maximum total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 1,4 10 dpm/100 cm 2 and 49,7 00 dpm/100 cm 2

. The corresponding removable surface radioactivity measurements are mostly less than the RG 1.86 criteria, indicating the total surface radioactivity measured is fixed to the surface and not immediately available for inhalation or ingestion. Fixed  and  surface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation or ingestion haza rd if disturbed during routine system maintenance.

4. 3.6

. 3 ZLD Worker Potential Internal Radon Exposure

The Rn in ambient indoor area air averaged 2.3 pCi/L. The average is above the average typical background indoor level of 1.3 pCi/L in the U

. S

. as reported by EPA

.
4.3.6.4 Gamma R adiation Exposure during Transport of Wastewater and Wastewater Sludge

Gamma r adiation exposure was estimated for the transport of wastewater from well sites to WWT P s, and sludge from WWT P s to landfills. This was done for the driver of the transport truck. The truck driver spend s the most time near the TENORM

- i nfluenced wastewater during transport.

It was assumed a truck driver hauled full containers with either wastewater or sludge/filter cake for four hours per day and made return trips with empty containers for four hours per day. The driver was assumed to work 40 hours per week for 10 weeks per year hauling O&G waste water or sludge. Therefore, the total exposure time was assumed to be 2 00 hours per year as calculated below :

Estimated Duration of Gamma Radiation Exposure for Truck Driver per Year 4 hr/day x 5 days/wk x 1 0 wks/yr = 2 00 hrs/yr

Radiation exposure rates to the driver were not measured; they were modeled using the computer
program MicroShield ®

. The MicroShield ® output files are presented in Appendix J

. Two external exposure scenarios were evaluated :PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 13 1. E xposure rate to a driver hauling wastewater based on the maximum measured concentrations of Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 in waste water

. 2. E xposur e rate to a driver hauling sludge or filter cake based on the maximum measured concentrations of Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 in sludge

. The input and output of Micro S hield ® based on the two scenarios are summarized in Figure 4

- 3

.

Figure 4

- 3. MicroShield ® External Exposure Scenarios Input/Output

Parameter Scenario

Wastewater Truck Maximum Measured Concentration, Scenario 1 Sludge/Filter Cake Roll

- off Maximum Measured Concentration, Scenario 2 Volume 3,800 gallons 20 cubic yards Shielding Material Stainless steel, 0.5 cm thick Iron, 0.3 cm thick Ra

- 226 and Progeny Input Concentration 18,400 pCi/L 480 pCi/g

Ra

- 228 and Progeny Input Concentration 1,440 pCi/L 183 pCi/g

Resulting Driver Exposure Rate (μrem/hr) 14.7 1

, 340 Exposure Rate per Radium Concentration 0.000741  rem/hr / pCi/L of total Ra 2.02  rem/hr / pCi/g of total Ra

Maximum Wastewater Truck Driver External Gamma Radiation Exposure Estimate

0.000741 μrem

/hr / pCi/L x 2,380 pCi/L x 200 hr/yr x (1 m rem /1

, 000 μ rem gamma ) = 0.35 m rem

/yr

This is an estimate of the maximum annual gamma radiation exposure based on the maximum total Ra activity concentration of influent wastewater measured and 200 hours exposure in one
year. The result is less than the 100 m rem /yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is dependent up on the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.

Maximum Sludge Truck Driver External Gamma Radiation Exposure Estimate

2.02 μrem

/hr / pCi/g x 129 pCi/g x 200 hr/yr x (1 m rem /1

, 000 μrem gamma ) = 52 m rem /yr

This is an estimate of the maximum annual gamma radiation exposure based on the maximum total Ra activity concentration in sludge measured and 200 hours of exposure in one year. The result is less than the 100 m rem /yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is dependent up on the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.

The sludge truck driver assessment is conservative due to the following : s olid sample s were dried prior to gamma spectroscopy analysis, artificially increasing the activity concentration results in direct proportion to the moisture content of the sample

, i.e., after removal of the weight of the waste water within the sludge sample. In addition, the MicroShield ® activity input includesPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 14 all of the Ra progeny in secular equilibrium. Often the sludge is “fresh

, ” i.e.

, progeny ingrowth has not progressed to secular equilibrium and the progeny activity is only a fraction of the Ra activity.

4.3.7 Alpha Spect roscopy Analysis of Filter Cake

Elevated Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 and progeny activity were detected in CWT and ZLD filter cake samples analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. Due to the low solubility in water of U and Th, relative to Ra, U and Th wer e not present in wastewater and resulting filter cake at the elevated levels observed for Ra. Because gamma spectroscopy analysis of solid and liquid samples is limited in regards to the quantification of U and Th isotopes (Section 2.3),  spectroscopy

ana lysis to measure U (U

- 238, U

- 234

, and U

- 235) and Th (Th

- 232, Th

- 230

, and Th

- 228)

, isotope activity level s was performed on 10 filter cake samples. The results are presented in Table 4

- 4 6

. The U

- 238, U

- 234

, and Th

- 230, all members of the natural U decay series above Ra

- 226, were measured at approximately 1/3 o f typical background activity in soil

. U ranium

- 235 is only identified once > MDC. Th

- 232, a member of the natural Th decay series above Ra

- 228, was measured at approximately 1⁄4 of typical bac kground activity in soil

. Only Th

- 228, a progeny of Ra

- 228, was measured at activity concentrations comparable to Ra

- 228 identified by gamma spectroscopy. The  spectroscopy results confirm the low solubility of U and Th

, resulting in low activity levels in wastewater and sludge/filter cake.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

4
- 15 Table 4

- 1. POTW

- I Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary

Type No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 12

- FS

- 024 10 8.15 8.15 0.00 8.15 38.0 38.0 0.00 38.0

WT

- 12

- FS

- 074 19 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 60.5 60.5 0.00 60.5

WT

- 12

- FS

- 075 17 9.15 9.15 0.00 9.15 34.8 34.8 0.00 34.8

WT

- 13

- FS

- 034 17 9.15 9.15 0.00 9.15 38.5 38.5 0.00 38.5

WT

- 13

- FS

- 119 32 6.40 16.4 1.76 6.71 56.0 56.0 0.00 56.0

WT

- 13

- FS

- 120 20 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 34.8 34.8 0.00 34.8

WT

- 14

- FS

- 027 12 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 41.5 41.5 0.00 41.5

WT

- 14

- FS

- 121 20 4.25 4.25 0.00 4.25 65.0 65.0 0.00 65.0

WT

- 14

- FS

- 122 20 8.85 8.85 0.00 8.85 30.0 30.0 0.00 30.0

WT

- 15

- FS

- 031 8 8.85 8.85 0.00 8.85 30.0 30.0 0.00 30.0

WT

- 15

- FS

- 032 14 6.40 22.0 4.93 6.00 56.0 161 27.9 63.5

WT

- 15

- FS

- 033 5 9.15 9.15 0.00 9.15 38.5 38.5 0.00 38.5

WT

- 16

- FS

- 043 16 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 41.5 41.5 0.00 41.5

WT

- 16

- FS

- 123 19 7.30 7.30 0.00 7.30 65.5 65.5 0.00 65.5

WT

- 16

- FS

- 124 22 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 35.0 35.0 0.00 35.0PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

4
- 16 Table 4

- 1. POTW

- I Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary

Type No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 17

- FS

- 051 20 8.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 30.8 30.8 0.00 30.8

WT

- 17

- FS

- 125 15 8.70 8.70 0.00 8.70 38.3 38.3 0.00 38.3

Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximum, and average are the same, then all measurements were below half of the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

4
- 17 Table 4

- 2. POTW

- I Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioacti vity Measurement Results Summary

Type No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 12

- FS

- 024 10 29.4 29.4 0.00 29.4 100 563 144 413

WT

- 12

- FS

- 074 19 7.30 43.7 10.1 19.7 308 308 0.00 308

WT

- 12

- FS

- 075 17 7.45 54.5 14.2 18.27 269 1

, 550 268 870

WT

- 13

- FS

- 034 17 30.5 74.4 13.7 37 847 2

, 130 325 1

, 290

WT

- 13

- FS

- 119 15 18.6 875 220 88.8 305 728 117 337

WT

- 13

- FS

- 120 20 19.0 164 33.9 30.2 280 1

, 530 391 811

WT

- 14

- FS

- 027 13 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 773 1

, 540 197 1

, 130

WT

- 14

- FS

- 121 20 18.6 112 26.1 37.0 254 1

, 490 352 515

WT

- 14

- FS

- 122 20 30.5 89.3 20.3 38.8 268 1

, 630 359 784

WT

- 15

- FS

- 031 8 30.5 1

, 190 437 313 268 38

, 000 14

, 800 10

, 000

WT

- 15

- FS

- 032 4 18.6 18.6 0.00 18.6 263 466 102 313

WT

- 15

- FS

- 033 5 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 735 1

, 360 259 1

, 070

WT

- 16

- FS

- 043 16 30.5 30.5 0.00 30.5 676 29

, 800 7

, 170 2

, 930

WT

- 16

- FS

- 123 19 7.45 24.9 6.39 11.4 276 1

, 140 272 498

WT

- 16

- FS

- 124 22 7.45 34.7 10.2 12.7 273 1

, 200 295 593

WT

- 17

- FS

- 051 20 7.45 54.5 13.4 16.0 313 929 159 363PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 January 2015

4
- 18 Table 4

- 2. POTW

- I Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary

Type No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 17

- FS

- 125 15 29.8 134 32.8 61 313 2

, 760 704 773

Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, ma ximum, and average are the same then all measurements were below half of the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 19

Table 4

- 3. POTW

- I Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary

Site GWS Max a

(cpm) GWS Min a

(cpm) GWS

Average a (cpm) GWS Std

Dev (cpm) No. Data

Points

12 9,514 4,966 7,184 633 7,129 13 9,362 3,404 5,072 829 4,408 13 20,761 3,608 6,019 2,694 8,553 13 18,203 3,486 5,418 2,082 5,474 14 33,141 3,112 5,582 2,517 7,638 14 29,220 3,867 6,110 2,272 7,302 14 32,253 3,680 6,435 3,812 3,275 15 131,626 3,804 20,392 14,569 3,508 15 162,535 5,684 18,319 16,130 7,334 15 205,446 5,452 29,034 36,865 3,052 16 10,005 3,463 5,671 870 9,390 16 13,915 3,723 5,628 1,050 9,520 16 13,597 3,473 6,871 1,722 2,026 17 150,649 3,305 9,194 10,116 4,509 17 156,738 3,478 11,137 17,801 3,003

a Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield μR/hr.

Table 4

- 4

. POTW

- I Results Summary of NaI Count Rate D ata

Converted to Exposure Rates

Site GWS Max

(μR/hr) GWS Min

(μR/hr) GWS

Average (μR/hr) GWS Std

Dev (μR/hr) No. Data

Points

12 11.9 6.21 8.98 0.791 7,129 13 11.7 4.26 6.34 1.04 4,408 13 26.0 4.51 7.52 3.37 8,553 13 22.8 4.36 6.77 2.60 5,474 14 41.4 3.89 6.98 3.15 7,638 14 36.5 4.83 7.64 2.84 7,302 14 40.3 4.60 8.04 4.77 3,275 15 165 4.76 25.5 18.2 3,508 15 203 7.11 22.9 20.2 7,334 15 257 6.82 36.3 46.1 3,052 16 12.5 4.33 7.09 1.09 9,390 16 17.4 4.65 7.04 1.31 9,520 16 17.0 4.34 8.59 2.15 2,026 17 188 4.13 11.5 12.6 4,509 17 196 4.35 13.9 22.3 3,003PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 20 Table 4

- 5

. POTW

- I Filter Cake Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g)
WT

- 12

- SL

- 030 6.37 1.56 4.04
WT

- 12

- SL

- 048 9.75 1.87 6.94
WT

- 12

- SL

- 085 5.16 0.854 2.69
WT

- 13

- SL

- 021 6.50 3.08 3.96
WT

- 13

- SL

- 060 21.3 2.99 9.38
WT

- 13

- SL

- 065 17.4 8.69 3.93
WT

- 14

- SL

- 017 55.6 32.0 7.77 WT

- 14

- SL

- 052 9.27 2.80 14.3
WT

- 14

- SL

- 068 13.1 6.73 6.71
WT

- 15

- SL

- 057 41.9 19.7 12.9
WT

- 16

- SL

- 026 5.01 1.29 6.95
WT

- 16

- SL

- 044 52.6 5.21 7.78
WT

- 16

- SL

- 073 2.71 0.894 0.822
WT

- 17

- SL

- 059 35.1 19.2 6.14 Average 20.1 7.63 6.74 Std. Dev. 18.5 9.40 3.71 Median 11.4 3.04 6.83 Minimum 2.71 0.854 0.822 Maximum 55.6 32.0 14.3PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 21 Table 4

- 6

. POTW

- N Filter Cake Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g)
WT

- 26

- SL

- 094 3.97 1.31 5.47
WT

- 26

- SL

- 095 3.61 1.46 5.41
WT

- 27

- SL

- 096 2.33 0.817 6.51
WT

- 27

- SL

- 097 5.76 1.12 4.31
WT

- 28

- SL

- 098 7.36 1.84 6.57
WT

- 28

- SL

- 099 3.78 1.07 6.55
WT

- 29

- SL

- 100 35

. 4 7.26 7.66 WT

- 29

- SL

- 101 15.6 3.28 7.34 Average 8.89 2.13 6.07 Std. Dev. 11.8 2.29 1.09 Median 3.97 1.31 6.51 Minimum 2.33 0.817 4.31 Maximum 35.4 7.26 7.66

Table 4

- 7

. POTW

- I Sediment Sample Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g)
WT

- 14

- SL

- 018 4.25 1.96 10.3
WT

- 14

- SL

- 053 1.83 0.799 8.71
WT

- 14

- SL

- 069 3.94 1.96 5.53
WT

- 15

- SL

- 020 16.6 6.25 15.7
WT

- 15

- SL

- 056 18.2 6.19 13.0
WT

- 15

- SL

- 067 15.3 5.77 24.5
WT

- 17

- SL

- 058 2.91 1.69 6.20 Average 9.00 3.52 12.0 Std. Dev. 7.29 2.42 6.58 Median 4.25 1.96 10.3 Minimum 1.83 0.799 5.53 Maximum 18.2 6.25 24.5PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 22

Table 4

- 8

. POTW

- I Filtered Effluent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 12

- LQ

- 098 < 118 < 18.0 < 66.0 < 196 < 392 WT

- 12

- LQ

- 159 < 127 < 25.0 81.0 < 5.77 10.6 WT

- 12

- LQ

- 295 77.0 < 13.0 42.0 195 365 WT

- 13

- LQ

- 054 < 126 < 22.0 73.0 < 29.6 < 18.9 WT

- 13

- LQ

- 193 < 79.0 < 16.0 46.0 < 114 < 198 WT

- 13

- LQ

- 209 363 < 10.0 53.0 < 123 < 203 WT

- 14

- LQ

- 044 < 130 < 24.0 56.0 < 25.8 < 163 WT

- 14

- LQ

- 171 87.0 < 12.0 60.0 < 111 < 186 WT

- 14

- LQ

- 215 104 < 13.0 71.0 < 118 < 202 WT

- 15

- LQ

- 052 < 139 < 24.0 < 81.0 < 21.3 < 16.2 WT

- 15

- LQ

- 185 < 139 < 25 < 98.0 < 5.67 8.70 WT

- 15

- LQ

- 223 120 25.0 52.0 < 161 < 198 WT

- 16

- LQ

- 079 101 < 8.00 34.0 < 2.26 5.77 WT

- 16

- LQ

- 145 < 43.0 < 6.00 55.0 < 6.96 11.3 WT

- 16

- LQ

- 241 335 < 9.00 < 32.0 4.64 10.7 WT

- 17

- LQ

- 191 154 < 18.0 < 48.0 < 121 < 187 WT

- 17

- LQ

- 217 116 12.0 < 33.0 < 127 < 203 Average 129 9.34 48.1 42.9 75.0 Std. Dev. 93.1 5.35 19.0 49.6 88.8 Median 101 8.50 50.5 35.12 87.3 Minimum 57.0 3.00 16.0 1.13 5.77 Maximum 363 25.0 81 195 365

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 23

Table 4

- 9

. POTW

- I Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 12

- LQ

- 097 < 67.0 < 10.0 51.1 < 284 < 396
WT

- 12

- LQ

- 160 < 58 < 11.0 41.0 9.63 10.9
WT

- 12

- LQ

- 296 59.0 < 5.00 40.0 < 192 < 207
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 053 113 < 8.00 37.0 < 36.5 < 135
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 194 82.0 < 5.00 55.0 < 117 < 187
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 210 < 35.0 < 23.0 < 11.0 < 144 < 194
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 043 < 101 < 18.0 80.0 < 84.2 < 158
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 172 340 < 15.0 < 58.0 < 464 < 218
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 216 < 128 < 27.0 < 106 < 136 < 193
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 051 80.0 < 9.00 53.0 < 177 < 163
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 186 < 50.0 < 9.00 < 27.0 11.0 9.60
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 224 < 79.0 27.0 64.0 < 235 < 209
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 080 100 < 9.00 33.0 < 3.13 7.16
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 146 < 67.0 < 11.0 < 41.0 < 2.16 7.71
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 242 107 < 9.00 44.0 < 2.51 10.5
WT

- 17

- LQ

- 192 100 < 9.00 < 51.0 1,110 337
WT

- 17

- LQ

- 218 156 35.0 31.0 < 152 < 197 Average 103 9.57 42.6 125 82.0 Std. Dev. 73.7 9.32 21.5 269 79.3 Median 97.0 5.50 40.5 63.3 87.5 Minimum 17.5 2.50 5.50 1.08 7.16 Maximum 340 35.0 82.0 1,110 337

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 24

Table 4

- 1 0

. POTW

- N Filtered Effluent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 26

- LQ

- 300 < 74.0 15.0 60.0 < 7.65 5.29 WT

- 27

- LQ

- 304 < 44.0 < 5.00 42.0 < 10.8 5.72 WT

- 28

- LQ

- 308 < 23.0 < 5.00 53.0 < 4.78 7.64 WT

- 29

- LQ

- 312 116 17.0 56.0 < 4.83 14.6 Average 46.6 9.25 52.8 3.51 8.31 Std. Dev. 47.4 7.84 7.72 1.43 4.31 Median 29.5 8.75 54.5 3.12 6.68 Minimum 11.5 2.50 42.0 2.39 5.29 Maximum 116 17.0 60.0 5.40 14.6

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

Table 4

- 1 1

. POTW

- N Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 26

- LQ

- 299 328 < 9.00 < 34.0 < 6.46 5.75
WT

- 27

- LQ

- 303 115 < 7.00 57.0 < 7.48 7.48
WT

- 28

- LQ

- 307 78.0 < 14.0 49.0 < 5.18 7.15
WT

- 29

- LQ

- 311 59.0 5.00 66.0 < 191 < 209 Average 145 5.00 47.3 26.3 31.2 Std. Dev. 124 1.47 21.3 46.2 48.9 Median 96.5 4.75 53.0 3.49 7.32 Minimum 59.0 3.50 17.0 2.59 5.75 Maximum 328 7.00 66.0 95.5 105

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 25

Table 4

- 1 2

. POTW

- I Filtered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 12

- LQ

- 096 66.0 < 7.00 49.0 < 5.64 < 7.91
WT

- 12

- LQ

- 157 109 466 164 < 13.2 < 5.01 a
WT

- 12

- LQ

- 293 100 8.00 63.0 < 290 < 230
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 056 < 154 < 29.0 137 < 207 < 394
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 195 115 < 20.0 < 68.0 < 183 < 201
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 211 58.0 6.00 53.0 < 13.2 < 8.48
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 042 < 246 < 48.0 <171 < 16.8 < 15.5
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 169 < 77.0 < 12.0 < 41 489 < 199
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 213 82.0 10.0 63 < 323 < 230
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 050 498 < 28.0 < 82 < 17.3 < 16.1
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 183 < 236 103 < 141 11.0 9.60
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 225 255 91.0 31.0 490 < 207
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 077 < 84.0 < 17.0 119 < 2.63 6.24
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 143 5,910 878 44.0 11,400 11,300
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 243 66.0 5.00 43.0 < 3.31 6.75
WT

- 17

- LQ

- 189 < 121 12.0 33.0 < 117 < 198
WT

- 17

- LQ

- 219 < 74.0 20.0 49.0 < 154 < 196 Average 497 76.8 56.9 768 734 Std. Dev. 1,450 216 31.4 274 2,720 Median 91.0 12.0 49 58.5 99.0 Minimum 37.0 5.00 20.5 1.32 2.51 a
Maximum 5,910 878 137 11,400 11,300

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 26

Table 4

- 13

. POTW

- I Unf iltered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 12

- LQ

- 095 < 113 < 19.0 < 59.0 < 220 < 392
WT

- 12

- LQ

- 158 < 78.0 < 15.0 < 54.0 6.28 10.1
WT

- 12

- LQ

- 294 345 < 7.00 < 21.0 < 110 < 201
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 055 < 71.0 < 16.0 69.0 < 14.4 76.4
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 196 < 78.0 < 15.0 < 56.0 < 287 < 224
WT

- 13

- LQ

- 212 96.0 < 9.00 54.0 < 13.4 14.5
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 041 259 < 48.0 < 171 < 14.8 17.2
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 170 57.0 < 13 65.0 < 118 < 199
WT

- 14

- LQ

- 214 120 9.00 47.0 < 301 < 227
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 049 < 73.0 < 15.0 < 50.0 < 4.32 4.89
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 184 514 48.0 < 67.0 240 < 196
WT

- 15

- LQ

- 226 479 227 < 102 1,190 493
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 078 343 < 9.00 < 5.00 < 1.85 7.50
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 144 < 49.0 < 9.00 30.0 < 3.91 9.94
WT

- 16

- LQ

- 244 131 41.0 65.0 < 7.48 9.64
WT

- 17

- LQ

- 190 100 14.0 56.0 < 120 < 200
WT

- 17

- LQ

- 220 178 20.0 45.0 < 125 < 203 Average 190 28.1 46.1 125 85.9 Std. Dev. 146 52.9 22.4 283 114 Median 120 9.00 47.0 55.0 92.0 Minimum 36.5 3.50 2.50 0.925 4.89 Maximum 514 227 85.5 1,190 493

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 27

Table 4

- 14

. POTW

- N Filtered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 26

- LQ

- 298 134 10.0 30.0 13.0 6.62
WT

- 27

- LQ

- 302 64.0 < 5.00 38.0 15.2 11.6
WT

- 28

- LQ

- 306 84.0 < 14.0 62.0 4.57 12.4
WT

- 29

- LQ

- 310 58.0 < 4.00 52.0 < 5.29 8.38 Average 85.0 5.38 45.5 8.85 9.75 Std. Dev. 34.5 3.82 14.3 6.17 2.71 Median 74.0 4.75 45.0 8.79 9.99 Minimum 58.0 2.00 30.0 2.645 6.62 Maximum 134 10.0 62.0 15.2 12.4

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

Table 4

- 15

. POTW

- N Unf iltered Influent Results Summary

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha (pCi/L) Gross

Beta (pCi/L) WT

- 26

- LQ

- 297 113 < 10.0 < 33.0 < 173 < 207
WT

- 27

- LQ

- 301 92.0 32.0 44.0 < 192 < 209
WT

- 28

- LQ

- 305 91.0 < 10.0 43.0 < 169 < 207
WT

- 29

- LQ

- 309 114 < 9.00 < 29.0 < 4.21 8.63 Average 103 11.6 29.5 67.3 80.0 Std. Dev. 12.7 13.6 16.2 43.7 47.6 Median 103 5.00 29.8 85.5 104 Minimum 91.0 4.50 14.5 2.11 8.63 Maximum 114 32.0 44.0 96.0 105

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 28 Table 4

- 16

. POTW

- I Ambient Radon
Facility Location Radon (pCi/L) % error WT

- 17

- RA

- 001 Lab 2.2 4% WT

- 17

- RA

- 002 Filter Press Room 3.1 3% WT

- 17

- RA

- 003 Not G iven 0.2 12% WT

- 15

- RA

- 001 Old Lab 0.7 7% WT

- 12

- RA

- 001 Filter Press Room 0.5 8% WT

- 12

- RA

- 002 Break Room 0.5 8% WT

- 14

- RA

- 001 Press R oom Shelf 0.7 7% WT

- 14

- RA

- 002 Break Room 8.7 2% WT

- 16

- RA

- 001 Filter Press Room 0.6 9% WT

- 16

- RA

- 002 Break Room 1.2 7% WT

- 13

- RA

- 001 Load and Filter 0.9 6% WT

- 13

- RA

- 002 Lab 1.6 5%

Note : ATDs

. Lower l evel of d etection ( LLD ) for 10 pCi/ L

- day is 0.1 pCi/L for 90

- day test, 0.3 pCi/L for 30

- day test.

Table 4

- 17

. POTW

- I vs POTW

- N Average Concentrations Comparison for F iltered
Filtered Sample Set Averages for: Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) POTW

- I Effluent 129 9.34 42.9 75.0 POTW

- N Effluent 46.6 9.25 52.8 8.31 POTW

- I Influent 497 76.8 768 722 POTW

- N Influent 85.0 5.38 8.85 9.75

Table 4

- 18

. POTW

- I vs POTW

- N Average Concentrations Comparison for Unf iltered
Unfiltered Sample Set Averages for: Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) POTW

- I Effluent 103 10.4 125 82.1 POTW

- N Effluent 145 5.00 26.3 31.2 POTW

- I Influent 190 28.1 125 85.9 POTW

- N Influent 103 11.6 67.3 a 80.0

a All sample results were < MDC value reported.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 29 Table 4

- 19

. Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for

Filtered Influent and Effluent POTW Samples
Filtered Sample Set Averages for: Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) POTW

- I Influent 497 76.8 768 722 POTW

- I Effluent 129 9.34 42.9 75.0 POTW

- N Influent 85.0 5.38 8.85 9.75 POTW

- N Effluent 46.6 9.25 52.8 8.31

Table 4

- 20

. Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for

Unfiltered Influent and Effluent POTW Samples
Unfiltered Sample Set Averages for: Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) POTW

- I Influent 190 28.1 125 85.9 POTW

- I Effluent 103 10.4 125 82.1 POTW

- N Influent 103 11.6 67.3 a 80.0 POTW

- N Effluent 145 5.00 26.3 31.2

a All sample results were < MDC value reported.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 30 Table 4

- 21

. POTW

- I Sediment and Effluent Results for Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228

Sample Set Sample ID Sample Type Ra

- 226 Units Ra

- 228 Units Ra

- 226/ Ra

- 228 Ratio

POTW 1 Round 2 WT

- 17

- SL

- 058 Sediment 2.91 pCi/g 1.69 pCi/g 1.72

WT

- 17

- LQ

- 218 Effluent

-

Unfiltered 156 pCi/L 35 pCi/L 4.46

WT

- 17

- LQ

- 217 Effluent

-

Filtered 116 pCi/L 12 pCi/L 9.67

POTW 2 Round 1 WT

- 14

- SL

- 018 Sediment 4.25 pCi/g 1.96 pCi/g 2.17

WT

- 14

- LQ

- 043 a Effluent

-

Unfiltered 50.5 pCi/L 9.00 pCi/L 5.61

WT

- 14

- LQ

- 044 a Effluent

-

Filtered 65.0 pCi/L 12.0 pCi/L 5.42

POTW 2 Round 2 WT

- 14

- SL

- 053 Sediment 1.83 pCi/g 0.799 pCi/g 2.29

WT

- 14

- LQ

- 172 a Effluent

-

Unfiltered 51.5 pCi/L 7.50 pCi/L 6.86

WT

- 14

- LQ

- 171 Effluent

-

Filtered 87 pCi/L 8.00 pCi/L 10.90

POTW 2 Round 3 WT

- 14

- SL

- 069 Sediment 3.94 pCi/g 1.96 pCi/g 2.01

WT

- 14

- LQ

- 216 Effluent

-

Unfiltered 106 pCi/L 23 pCi/L 4.61

WT

- 14

- LQ

- 215 Effluent

-

Filtered 104 pCi/L 10 pCi/L 10.40

POTW 3 Round 1 WT

- 15

- SL

- 020 Sediment 16.6 pCi/g 6.25 pCi/g 2.66

WT

- 15

- LQ

- 051 Effluent

-

Unfiltered 80 pCi/L 8 pCi/L 10.00

WT

- 15

- LQ

- 052 a Effluent

-

Filtered 69.5 pCi/L 12.0 pCi/L 5.79

POTW 3 Round 2 WT

- 15

- SL

- 056 Sediment 18.2 pCi/g 6.19 pCi/g 2.94

WT

- 15

- LQ

- 186 a Effluent

-

Unfiltered 25.0 pCi/L 4.50 pCi/L 5.56

WT

- 15

- LQ

- 185 a Effluent

-

Filtered 118 pCi/L 18.0 pCi/L 6.56

POTW 3 Round 3 WT

- 15

- SL

- 067 Sediment 15.3 pCi/g 5.77 pCi/g 2.65

WT

- 15

- LQ

- 224 Effluent

-

Unfiltered 53 pCi/L 27 pCi/L 1.96

WT

- 15

- LQ

- 223 Effluent

-

Filtered 120 pCi/L 25 pCi/L 4.80

a Result was not detected, 1⁄2 of the reported MDC was presented.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 31

Table 4

- 22

. POTW Sediment and Effluent Ratios for Ra

- 226 /R a - 228

Ratio Statistic Sediments

(CWT + POTW) Sediments

(CWT) Sediments

(POTW) Unfiltered

(CWT + POTW) Unfiltered

(CWT) Unfiltered

(POTW) Filtered

(CWT + POTW) Filtered

(CWT) Filtered

(POTW)
Average 3.0 3.4 2.4 8.4 11.4 5.3 5.7 3.8 8.3

Std Dev 0.9 0.9 0.4 6.7 8.3 3.4 3.9 3.6 3.0

Max 4.8 4.8 2.9 21.3 21.3 10.0 10.4 9.2 10.4

Min 1.7 2.3 1.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 4.8January 2015

4
- 32 PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 Table 4

- 23. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants

Type No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 01

- FS

- 021 22 7.30 18.6 2.90 8.27 62.5 62.5 0.00 62.5 WT

- 01

- FS

- 108 38 8.00 18.6 2.61 8.05 62.5 62.5 0.00 62.5 WT

- 01

- FS

- 109 25 8.00 18.1 2.02 8.40 30.8 30.8 0.00 30.8 WT

- 02

- FS

- 012 20 7.30 15.8 1.33 7.51 62.5 62.5 0.00 62.5 WT

- 02

- FS

- 066 41 8.15 8.15 0.00 8.15 38.0 38.0 0.00 38.0 WT

- 02

- FS

- 067 29 8.00 29.4 4.56 9.18 30.8 30.8 0.00 30.8 WT

- 03

- FS

- 040 5 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 60.5 60.5 0.00 60.5 WT

- 03

- FS

- 110 10 8.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 31.0 31.0 0.00 31.0 WT

- 03

- FS

- 111 16 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 60.5 60.5 0.00 60.5 WT

- 04

- FS

- 025 19 9.15 9.15 0.00 9.15 113 113 0.00 113 WT

- 04

- FS

- 112 37 7.70 38.1 4.94 8.50 62.0 62.0 0.00 62.0 WT

- 04

- FS

- 113 25 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 69.6 69.6 0.00 69.6 WT

- 05

- FS

- 044 25 9.11 9.11 0.00 9.11 41.5 41.5 0.00 41.5 WT

- 05

- FS

- 114 45 6.40 13.6 1.07 6.56 56.0 56.0 0.00 56.0 WT

- 05

- FS

- 115 23 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 32.5 32.5 0.00 32.5 WT

- 07

- FS

- 022 14 9.15 9.15 0.00 9.15 23.3 23.3 0.00 23.3 WT

- 07

- FS

- 071 35 7.30 7.30 0.00 7.30 62.5 62.5 0.00 62.5 WT

- 07

- FS

- 072 15 8.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 36.6 36.6 0.00 36.6 WT

- 08

- FS

- 015 25 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 41.5 41.5 0.00 41.5 WT

- 08

- FS

- 062 46 7.70 7.70 0.00 7.70 62.0 62.0 0.00 62.0 WT

- 08

- FS

- 063 32 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 41.5 41.5 0.00 41.5 WT

- 09

- FS

- 013 17 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 41.5 41.5 0.00 41.5 WT

- 09

- FS

- 060 27 4.25 31.1 5.40 5.77 65.0 133 13.1 67.5 WT

- 09

- FS

- 061 20 8.85 8.85 0.00 8.85 30.0 30.0 0.00 30.0 WT

- 10

- FS

- 002 22 8.15 8.15 0.00 8.15 38.0 38.0 0.00 38.0 WT

- 10

- FS

- 046 34 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 60.5 60.5 0.00 60.5January 2015

4
- 33 PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 Table 4

- 23. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants

Type No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 10

- FS

- 047 20 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 32.5 32.5 0.00 32.5 WT

- 11

- FS

- 005 15 8.15 8.15 0.00 8.15 36.0 36.0 0.00 36.0
Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximum, and aver age are the same

, then all measure ments were below half of the MDC.January 2015

4
- 34 PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 Table 4

- 24 . Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants

Type No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 01

- FS

- 021 22 30.5 1

, 540 315 211 929 50

, 400 10

, 900 8

, 780 WT

- 01

- FS

- 108 30 7.30 476 133 172 283 32

, 700 7

, 030 5

, 310 WT

- 01

- FS

- 109 25 14.9 448 113 152 287 13

, 200 3

, 870 4

, 090 WT

- 02

- FS

- 012 20 30.5 332 77.9 58.9 268 8

, 220 1

, 710 1

, 690 WT

- 02

- FS

- 066 41 7.30 403 120 92.6 240 8

, 260 2

, 060 1

, 590 WT

- 02

- FS

- 067 29 19.1 473 114 74.5 286 9

, 040 1

, 900 1

, 140 WT

- 03

- FS

- 040 5 19.0 347 144 115 334 6
, 310 2

, 710 2

, 410 WT

- 03

- FS

- 110 10 7.45 487 204 194 288 7

, 120 2

, 070 1

, 940 WT

- 03

- FS

- 111 13 18.6 3

, 220 877 348 249 30

, 200 8

, 170 3

, 150 WT

- 04

- FS

- 025 20 30.5 565 157 123 268 8

, 560 2

, 290 3

, 210 WT

- 04

- FS

- 112 38 18.6 540 137 142 297 14

, 600 3

, 720 3

, 200 WT

- 04

- FS

- 113 25 7.45 1

, 600 310 144 291 14

, 200 3

, 940 3

, 480 WT

- 05

- FS

- 044 25 7.44 179 44.6 61.5 325 3

, 370 771 1

, 230 WT

- 05

- FS

- 114 32 7.30 180 45.1 53.2 257 3

, 060 829 1

, 340 WT

- 05

- FS

- 115 23 19.0 243 82.2 71.9 306 7

, 380 1

, 480 1

, 290 WT

- 07

- FS

- 022 14 30.5 922 250 132 891 6
, 650 1

, 490 2

, 480 WT

- 07

- FS

- 071 36 18.6 1

, 000 206 130 249 5

, 330 1

, 210 1

, 140 WT

- 07

- FS

- 072 13 19.0 1

, 390 399 213 310 6
, 620 1

, 990 1

, 740 WT

- 08

- FS

- 015 25 30.5 208 43.9 50.9 572 3

, 270 780 1

, 920 WT

- 08

- FS

- 062 46 19.1 194 39.5 56.0 284 3

, 880 1

, 010 1

, 370 WT

- 08

- FS

- 063 32 7.45 94.2 27.5 40.8 290 2

, 580 696 1

, 050 WT

- 09

- FS

- 013 18 30.5 258 56.0 51.0 728 11

, 900 2

, 540 2

, 260 WT

- 09

- FS

- 060 26 18.6 117 27.3 35.3 354 7

, 120 1

, 600 1

, 280 WT

- 09

- FS

- 061 20 35.7 35.7 0.00 35.7 286 6
, 640 1

, 540 1

, 690 WT

- 10

- FS

- 002 22 29.4 224 54.9 53.1 121 2

, 730 623 395 WT

- 10

- FS

- 046 34 18.6 476 81.9 44.0 288 5

, 770 972 623January 2015

4
- 35 PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section

4 .0

Rev. 0 Table 4

- 24 . Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants

Type No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 10

- FS

- 047 21 7.45 174 37.6 24.0 297 1

, 760 366 482 WT

- 11

- FS

- 005 15 30.5 114 26.6 49.0 617 3

, 380 746 1

, 350
Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximum, and aver age are the same

, then all measurements were bel ow half of the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 36

Table 4

- 25. Summary of NaI Count Rate Data at CWTs

Site GWS Max a

(cpm) GWS Min a

(cpm) GWS

Average a (cpm) GWS Std Dev

(cpm) No. Data

Points

1 152,322 4,717 18,543 19,037 2,192 1 252,693 3,273 12,750 24,179 9,513 1 178,291 4,843 17,806 23,505 2,077 2 69,545 4,844 13,849 10,904 2,360 2 33,174 3,850 8,141 2,490 4,743 2 203,895 4,909 19,281 29,028 2,057 3 12,172 5,208 8,375 916 1,162 3 13,983 4,579 7,790 1,655 3,741 3 111,523 5,120 13,819 14,182 2,950 4 288,000 5,448 11,725 24,058 6,492 4 401,688 5,445 15,883 38,194 6,720 4 20,932 7,065 9,310 1,114 3,015 5 20,666 4,751 7,273 752 12,166 5 10,640 5,766 7,532 650 7,274 5 10,369 5,805 7,414 625 5,977 7 9,397 5,124 6,742 796 825 8 27,735 2,611 6,927 3,495 2,924 8 9,915 2,718 5,223 975 6,552 8 24,840 2,723 7,302 3,383 1,812 9 33,141 3,112 5,582 2,517 7,638 9 29,220 3,867 6,110 2,272 7,302 10 12,455 4,175 5,880 1,093 5,790 10 13,200 7,756 5,708 1,398 7,756 11 150,649 3,305 9,194 10,116 4,509 11 156,738 3,478 11,137 17,801 3,003

a Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield μrem/hr.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 37 Table 4

- 26. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

Site GWS Max

(μR/hr) GWS Min

(μR/hr) GWS Average

(μR/hr) GWS Std Dev

(μR/hr) No. Data

Points 1 190 5.90 23.2 23.8 2,192 1 316 4.09 15.9 30.2 9,513 1 223 6.05 22.3 29.4 2,077 2 86.9 6.06 17.3 13.6 2,360 2 41.5 4.81 10.2 3.11 4,743 2 255 6.14 24.1 36.3 2,057 3 15.2 6.51 10.5 1.15 1,162 3 17.5 5.72 9.74 2.07 3,741 3 139 6.40 17.3 17.7 2,950 4 360 6.81 14.7 30.1 6,492 4 502 6.81 19.9 47.7 6,720 4 26.2 8.83 11.6 1.39 3,015 5 25.8 5.94 9.09 0.940 12,166 5 13.3 7.21 9.42 0.813 7,274 5 13.0 7.26 9.27 0.781 5,977 7 11.7 6.41 8.43 1.00 825 8 34.7 3.26 8.66 4.37 2,924 8 12.4 3.40 6.53 1.22 6,552 8 31.1 3.40 9.13 4.23 1,812 9 41.4 3.89 6.98 3.15 7,638 9 36.5 4.83 7.64 2.84 7,302 10 15.6 5.22 7.35 1.37 5,790 10 16.5 9.70 7.14 1.75 7,756 11 188 4.13 11.5 12.6 4,509 11 196 4.35 13.9 22.3 3,003PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 38

Table 4

- 27. CWT Solids, Filter Cake

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226 (pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g)

WT

- 01

- SL

- 009 208 106 < 1.33 WT

- 01

- SL

- 037 261 137 < 2.01 WT

- 01

- SL

- 084 297 158 < 2.00 WT

- 02

- SL

- 006 120 75.0 15.7 WT

- 02

- SL

- 036 118 66.0 12.8 WT

- 02

- SL

- 081 164 97.2 13.0 WT

- 03

- SL

- 012 56.6 13.5 10.7 WT

- 04

- SL

- 013 59.9 57.3 7.65 WT

- 04

- SL

- 050 35.1 36.0 5.04 WT

- 04

- SL

- 062 70.1 59.4 5.22 WT

- 04

- SL

- 063 165 91.7 8.74 WT

- 05

- SL

- 022 82.1 49.8 9.91 WT

- 05

- SL

- 061 10.1 5.03 6.06 WT

- 05

- SL

- 064 104 52.4 9.13 WT

- 08

- SL

- 027 67.5 3.48 7.47 WT

- 08

- SL

- 047 35.7 6.46 10.5 WT

- 08

- SL

- 072 52.1 4.46 4.13 WT

- 08

- SL

- 088 41.1 4.46 < 0.553 WT

- 08

- SL

- 089 15.7 3.45 17.4 WT

- 09

- SL

- 019 174 2.44 9.05 WT

- 09

- SL

- 054 269 108 13.7 WT

- 09

- SL

- 066 294 164 16.1 WT

- 10

- SL

- 029 3.88 177 0 .969 WT

- 10

- SL

- 049 5.97 0.363 2.89 WT

- 06

- SL

- 045 24.7 2.74 11.1 Average 126 65.3 8.34 Std. Dev. 102 59.6 5.13 Median 93.1 57.3 9.05 Minimum 3.88 0.363 0.277 Maximum 305 177 17.4

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 39

Table 4

- 28. CWT Solids, Sediment

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226 (pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g)
WT

- 01

- SL

- 010 105 29.7 8.44 WT

- 01

- SL

- 038 37.2 12.4 7.17 WT

- 01

- SL

- 083 76.8 20.0 8.31 WT

- 02

- SL

- 007 5.86 2.59 4.55 WT

- 02

- SL

- 035 3.60 1.37 4.67 WT

- 02

- SL

- 082 2.50 0.978 9.26
WT

- 03

- SL

- 011 4.72 1.54 6.34 WT

- 04

- SL

- 014 101 22.7 10.1 WT

- 04

- SL

- 051 421 86.9 10.0 Average 84.2 19.8 7.65 Std. Dev. 133 27.4 2.11 Median 37.2 12.4 8.31 Minimum 2.50 0.978 4.55 Maximum 421 86.9 10.1

Table 4

- 29. CWT Solids, Biased Soil

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g)
WT

- 01

- SL

- 008 117 30.6 17.0 < 2.46 1.83 WT

- 02

- SL

- 034 13.3 4.26 5.06 < 3.14 < 0.331 WT

- 04

- SL

- 015 < 3.42 83.1 10.5 < 3.37 < 0.774 Average 44.0 39.3 10.9 1.50 0.794 Std. Dev. 63.5 40.1 5.98 0.24 0.904 Median 13.3 30.6 10.5 1.57 0.387 Minimum 1.71 4.26 5.06 1.23 0.166 Maximum 117 83.1 17.0 1.69 1.83

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 40 Table 4

- 30. CWT Filtered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha a

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L)
WT

- 01

- LQ

- 023 110 < 19.0 334 < 1,270 < 847 WT

- 01

- LQ

- 115 < 169 55.0 406 < 1,040 < 909 WT

- 01

- LQ

- 281 287 < 18.0 235 < 2,040 < 879 WT

- 02

- LQ

- 021 113 < 15.0 116 13.1 < 263 WT

- 02

- LQ

- 111 86 < 16.0 140 < 1,340 < 872 WT

- 02

- LQ

- 279 55 6.00 174 < 1,950 < 870 WT

- 03

- LQ

- 029 23 < 5.00 52 25.1 45.7

WT

- 03

- LQ

- 121 91 < 11.0 52 < 104 < 190

WT

- 03

- LQ

- 287 86 < 9.00 62.0 < 192 < 208 WT

- 04

- LQ

- 031 76 37.0 403 < 692 < 422 WT

- 04

- LQ

- 165 104 94.0 618 < 2,200 < 940 WT

- 04

- LQ

- 201 320 68.0 339 < 1,040 < 802 WT

- 05

- LQ

- 058 215 118 595 < 762 504 WT

- 05

- LQ

- 197 150 < 9.00 282 < 950 608 WT

- 05

- LQ

- 207 181 80.0 607 < 1,810 < 938 WT

- 07

- LQ

- 015 5,510 849 888 ND 7,660 WT

- 07

- LQ

- 109 1,630 324 586 2,330 1,080 WT

- 07

- LQ

- 273 8,810 1,740 360 21,400 8,700 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 081 84 < 9.00 < 30 1.13 < 0.998 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 085 12,700 110 304 22,800 5,810 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 151 < 79 < 15.0 49.0 8.25 1.98 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 153 14,900 1,300 598 22,700 4,570 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 237 12,400 1,220 388 40,700 12,100 WT

- 09

- LQ

- 046 < 73 < 12.0 148 < 2,830 < 1,040 WT

- 09

- LQ

- 175 503 319 181 < 1,120 < 895 WT

- 09

- LQ

- 227 273 164 188 < 2,550 < 989 WT

- 10

- LQ

- 094 < 92 < 17.0 < 96 < 204 < 393 WT

- 10

- LQ

- 161 363 10.0 203 < 126 < 187 WT

- 10

- LQ

- 291 77 < 13.0 55.0 < 161 < 196 WT

- 11

- LQ

- 187 1,700 943 238 5,520 1,670 WT

- 11

- LQ

- 221 2,090 976 228 4,160 1,730 Average 2,100 316 285 4,460 1,410 Std. Dev. 4,250 510 221 9,700 2,800 Median 166 37.0 232 560 438 Minimum 18.0 2.50 15.0 1.13 0.499 Maximum 14,900 1,740 888 40,700 12,100

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 41 Table 4

- 31. CWT Unfiltered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228 a

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L)
WT

- 01

- LQ

- 024 104 < 18.0 296 < 1,340 < 871 WT

- 01

- LQ

- 116 < 196 < 22.0 381 < 1,130 < 844 WT

- 01

- LQ

- 282 114 < 15.0 270 < 2,650 < 1,000 WT

- 02

- LQ

- 022 64.0 < 5.00 113 < 689 < 444 WT

- 02

- LQ

- 112 < 116 < 18.0 140 < 1,250 < 804 WT

- 02

- LQ

- 280 108 < 10.0 162 < 2,600 < 994 WT

- 03

- LQ

- 030 61.0 < 8.00 29 < 260 < 181 WT

- 03

- LQ

- 122 126 < 13.0 36 < 142 < 191 WT

- 03

- LQ

- 288 362 11.0 < 30.0 < 213 < 211 WT

- 04

- LQ

- 032 < 82.0 84.0 406

- 10.3 480 WT

- 04

- LQ

- 166 117 112 568 < 1,030 1,280 WT

- 04

- LQ

- 202 < 131 < 27.0 361 < 1,450 < 846 WT

- 05

- LQ

- 057 357 133 565 < 595 < 453 WT

- 05

- LQ

- 198 < 202 89.0 688 < 1,320 < 500 WT

- 05

- LQ

- 208 240 92.0 648 < 912 < 845 WT

- 07

- LQ

- 110 1,670 318 571 2,370 1,060 WT

- 07

- LQ

- 274 8,050 1,740 1,450 33.6 5,380 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 082 87.0 < 4.00 37 < 1.66 < 1.17 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 086 10,300 912 371 18,900 4,900 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 152 < 34.0 < 4.00 42.0 4.68 < 2.01 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 154 15,500 1,250 414 17,100 4,440 WT

- 08

- LQ

- 238 12,700 1,200 355 42,300 12,900 WT

- 09

- LQ

- 045 161 28.0 118 0.260 < 341 WT

- 09

- LQ

- 176 367 229 200 1,810 1,540 WT

- 09

- LQ

- 228 404 166 233 1,410 < 869 WT

- 10

- LQ

- 093 42.0 < 4.00 80.0 < 294 < 397 WT

- 10

- LQ

- 162 < 138 < 27.0 217 < 205 202 WT

- 10

- LQ

- 292 < 95 < 10.0 69.0 < 224 < 209 WT

- 11

- LQ

- 188 1,840 ND 264 3,460 1,410 WT

- 11

- LQ

- 222 1,470 1,100 252 3,880 1,320 Average 1,840 289 312 3,430 1,330 Std. Dev. 4,070 486 291 8,750 2,610 Median 121 27.0 258 565 423 Minimum 42.0 2.00 15.0 0.260 0.585 Maximum 15,500 1,740 1,450 42,300 12,900

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 42 Table 4

- 32. CWT Filtered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha a

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) WT

- 01

- LQ

- 025 1,760 711 345 ND 3,040
WT

- 01

- LQ

- 117 2,810 1,120 603 10,500 2,970
WT

- 01

- LQ

- 283 1,900 961 304 3,940 1,950
WT

- 02

- LQ

- 019 1,650 747 272 ND 141
WT

- 02

- LQ

- 113 1,660 913 247 2,360 1,900
WT

- 02

- LQ

- 277 1,770 962 300 3,930 2,760
WT

- 03

- LQ

- 027 < 83.0 < 16 .0 < 63.0 < 129 < 149
WT

- 03

- LQ

- 119 121 < 19 .0 < 54.0 < 205 < 202
WT

- 03

- LQ

- 285 126 < 5.00 36.0 < 227 < 212
WT

- 04

- LQ

- 033 175 172 419 < 369 276
WT

- 04

- LQ

- 167 445 392 626 660 1,510
WT

- 04

- LQ

- 203 216 173 394 < 1450 < 846
WT

- 05

- LQ

- 060 57.0 56.0 < 111 < 2550 < 998
WT

- 05

- LQ

- 199 118 48.0 547 < 579 587
WT

- 05

- LQ

- 205 242 78.0 514 < 1040 < 802
WT

- 07

- LQ

- 013 1,390 203 163 2,290 1,310
WT

- 07

- LQ

- 107 1,930 322 505 3,420 893
WT

- 07

- LQ

- 275 1,410 203 219 1,920 853
WT

- 08

- LQ

- 083 87.0 411 37 .0 6,110 1,570
WT

- 08

- LQ

- 155 14,100 1,520 526 22,200 4,640
WT

- 08

- LQ

- 239 7,080 615 203 28,400 7,820
WT

- 09

- LQ

- 047 469 247 121 1,310 < 811
WT

- 09

- LQ

- 173 300 238 176 1,950 1,360
WT

- 10

- LQ

- 092 97.0 < 15.0 95 < 220 < 392
WT

- 10

- LQ

- 163 132 < 10.0 345 < 294 276
WT

- 10

- LQ

- 289 102 8.00 55.0 < 312 < 231 Average 2,350 361 276 3,862 1,430 Std. Dev. 3

, 015 431 188 7,086 1,760 Median 300 203 260 1,293 853 Minimum 57.0 2.50 27.0 64.5 74.5 Maximum 14,100 1,520 626 28,400 7,820

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 43 Table 4

- 33. CWT Unfiltered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha a

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L)
WT

- 01

- LQ

- 026 1,430 740 333 4,830 1,780
WT

- 01

- LQ

- 118 362 11.0 592 8,400 3,440
WT

- 01

- LQ

- 284 1,820 984 243 2,940 1,420
WT

- 02

- LQ

- 020 1,740 835 245 3,220 1,890
WT

- 02

- LQ

- 114 3,630 1,920 < 373 47,100 12,800
WT

- 02

- LQ

- 278 1,790 1,010 279 4,220 1,650
WT

- 03

- LQ

- 028 100 < 8.00 33.0 < 188 < 163
WT

- 03

- LQ

- 120 327 < 17.0 < 55.0 < 116 < 199
WT

- 03

- LQ

- 286 66.0 6.00 48.0 < 158 < 212
WT

- 04

- LQ

- 034 214 229 459 ND 1,030
WT

- 04

- LQ

- 168 453 467 < 69.0 < 1,700 1,130
WT

- 04

- LQ

- 204 286 228 433 < 883 < 842
WT

- 05

- LQ

- 059 146 77.0 493 < 910 < 430
WT

- 05

- LQ

- 200 492 86.0 550 < 575 591
WT

- 05

- LQ

- 206 238 126 526 < 2,040 1,200
WT

- 07

- LQ

- 014 1,360 184 171 1,890 485
WT

- 07

- LQ

- 108 2,330 366 468 3,490 1,180
WT

- 07

- LQ

- 276 1,030 203 227 1,740 638
WT

- 08

- LQ

- 084 5,920 367 159 7,960 2,550
WT

- 08

- LQ

- 156 13,400 1,520 544 27,700 6,870
WT

- 08

- LQ

- 240 6,940 623 184 27,600 10,200
WT

- 09

- LQ

- 048 950 328 < 99 < 746 343
WT

- 09

- LQ

- 174 458 222 151 2,050 1,040
WT

- 10

- LQ

- 091 < 37.0 < 6.00 67 < 198 < 393
WT

- 10

- LQ

- 164 < 98.0 < 9.00 328 < 117 375
WT

- 10

- LQ

- 290 < 35.0 < 6.00 59.0 < 123 < 203 Average 1,870 393 262 5,920 2,000 Std. Dev. 3,010 503 192 11,600 3,220 Median 458 222 227 1,380 1,030 Minimum 17.5 3.00 27.5 58.0 81.5 Maximum 13,400 1,920 592 47,100 12,800

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 44 Table 4

- 34. CWT Radon Sample Results
Facility Location Radon (pCi/L) Percent E rror WT

- 05

- RA

- 001 Conference Room 3.1 3 WT

- 05

- RA

- 002 Near Filter Press 0.9 6 WT

- 04

- RA

- 001 Filter Press 2 1.9 4 WT

- 04

- RA

- 002 2nd Fl. Office 1.6 5 WT

- 04

- RA

- 003 Break Room 1.6 5 WT

- 08

- RA

- 001 On fuse panel 4.0 4 WT

- 08

- RA

- 002 Lab 1.5 6 WT

- 09

- RA

- 001 Office 2.0 4 WT

- 09

- RA

- 002 Filter Press Area 3.0 3 WT

- 10

- RA

- 001 Under Filter Press 1.2 5 WT

- 07

- RA

- 001 Lab Fridge 1.4 7 WT

- 07

- RA

- 002 Clarifier Elec. Panel 0.9 8 WT

- 03

- RA

- 001 Influent Wastewater Pump 1.3 7 WT

- 03

- RA

- 002 Wastewater Receiving Office 1.2 8 WT

- 02

- RA

- 001 Office 1.2 7 WT

- 02

- RA

- 002 Filter Press 1.3 7 WT

- 01

- RA

- 001 Wastewater Receiving Off. 5.0 4 WT

- 01

- RA

- 002 Top of Filter Press 2.9 5

ATDs . LLD for 10 pCi/L

- day is 0.1 pCi/L for 90

- day test, 0.3 pCi/L for 30

- day test.January 2015

4
- 45 Rev. 0 January 8, 2015 PA DEP TENORM Study Report Section

4 – PREDECISIONAL DRAFT Table 4

- 35. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs

Study Id No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 06

- FS

- 039 24 7.30 7.30 0.00 7.30 61.5 61.5 0.00 61.5 WT

- 06

- FS

- 116 46 7.70 18.4 1.57 7.92 62.0 62.0 0.00 34.0 WT

- 06

- FS

- 117 33 9.35 25.1 3.22 10.1 34.0 34.0 0.00 34.0 WT

- 18

- FS

- 011 15 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 123 123 0.00 123

WT

- 18

- FS

- 058 31 7.30 7.30 0.00 7.30 65.5 193 22.8 69.6

WT

- 18

- FS

- 059 20 6.4 22.0 3.77 7.54 32.8 32.8 0.00 32.8

WT

- 19

- FS

- 078 13 9.15 9.15 0.00 9.15 38.5 38.5 0.00 38.5

WT

- 19

- FS

- 079 17 6.40 6.40 0.00 6.40 56.0 56.0 0.00 56.0

WT

- 19

- FS

- 080 18 6.40 6.40 0.00 6.40 32.8 32.8 0.00 32.8

WT

- 20

- FS

- 020 16 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 41.6 41.6 0.00 41.6

WT

- 20

- FS

- 068 39 6.40 30.5 4.91 7.93 56.0 56.0 0.00 56.0

WT

- 20

- FS

- 069 32 6.40 22.0 3.07 7.25 33.0 33.0 0.00 33.0

WT

- 21

- FS

- 030 4 7.85 17.7 2.05 8.28 36.4 36.4 0.00 36.4

WT

- 21

- FS

- 126 45 7.30 35.6 5.45 8.68 62.5 62.5 0.00 62.5

WT

- 21

- FS

- 127 39 8.00 294 3.42 8.55 36.6 36.6 0.00 36.6January 2015

4
- 46 Rev. 0 January 8, 2015 PA DEP TENORM Study Report Section

4 – PREDECISIONAL DRAFT Table 4

- 35. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs

Study Id No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 22

- FS

- 001 10 7.15 7.15 0.00 7.15 37.5 37.5 0.00 37.5

WT

- 22

- FS

- 048 28 7.30 38.4 5.88 8.41 63.0 342 52.8 72.5

WT

- 22

- FS

- 049 18 8.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 30.8 30.8 0.00 30.8

WT

- 23

- FS

- 007 23 8.70 30.4 4.53 9.64 76.5 76.5 0.00 76.5

WT

- 23

- FS

- 054 33 4.24 4.24 0.00 4.24 65.0 65.0 0.00 65.0

WT

- 23

- FS

- 055 25 9.10 9.10 0.00 9.10 32.5 32.5 0.00 32.5

WT

- 24

- FS

- 016 20 7.85 7.85 7.85 0.00 36.5 36.5 0.00 36.5

WT

- 24

- FS

- 064 21 8.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 30.8 30.8 0.00 30.8

WT

- 24

- FS

- 065 41 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 60.5 307 39.5 68.0

WT

- 25

- FS

- 006 23 7.15 70.7 17.6 12.7 37.5 37.5 0.00 37.5

WT

- 25

- FS

- 052 25 8.85 22.9 2.81 9.41 60.0 60.0 0.00 60.0

WT

- 25

- FS

- 053 25 6.40 36.2 8.18 9.58 32.8 65.9 6.61 34.1

Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximu m, and average are the same

, then all measurements were bel ow half of the MDC.January 2015

4
- 47 Rev. 0 January 8, 2015 PA DEP TENORM Study Report Section

4 – PREDECISIONAL DRAFT Table 4

- 36. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs

Study ID No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 06

- FS

- 039 23 30.5 139 32.2 47.3 1

, 950 49

, 700 9

, 810 4

, 740 WT

- 06

- FS

- 116 46 19.1 691 134 103 474 7

, 760 1

, 420 2

, 540 WT

- 06

- FS

- 117 33 7.45 248 53.0 81.5 1

, 210 8

, 710 1

, 540 2

, 440 WT

- 18

- FS

- 011 15 18.6 194 44.4 75 415 4

, 200 1

, 131 2

, 100

WT

- 18

- FS

- 058 20 730 199 57.1 78.9 211 7

, 190 1

, 610 2

, 360

WT

- 18

- FS

- 059 20 19.1 249 60.3 69.1 277 4

, 670 1

, 080 1

, 720

WT

- 19

- FS

- 078 13 30.5 114 23.2 36.9 943 2

, 370 411 1

, 550

WT

- 19

- FS

- 079 17 7.30 72.9 22.2 27.3 277 1

, 490 369 553

WT

- 19

- FS

- 080 18 19.1 54.7 10.1 22.5 318 705 91.2 339

WT

- 20

- FS

- 020 16 30.5 719 215 222 268 6
, 990 2

, 230 3

, 080

WT

- 20

- FS

- 068 27 7.30 554 154 150 249 8

, 830 2

, 240 2

, 030

WT

- 20

- FS

- 069 32 19.1 741 165 174 321 8

, 800 1

, 840 1

, 550

WT

- 21

- FS

- 030 23 30.5 645 159 111 780 13

, 400 2

, 730 2

, 440

WT

- 21

- FS

- 126 44 18.6 452 127 127 264 17

, 900 3

, 420 2

, 540

WT

- 21

- FS

- 127 39 7.45 537 111 49.8 283 3

, 090 713 960January 2015

4
- 48 Rev. 0 January 8, 2015 PA DEP TENORM Study Report Section

4 – PREDECISIONAL DRAFT Table 4

- 36. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs

Study ID No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

WT

- 22

- FS

- 001 10 30.5 273 87.0 85.2 269 3

, 180 1

, 050 1

, 620

WT

- 22

- FS

- 048 28 7.30 836 226 133 249 15

, 500 3

, 290 2

, 080

WT

- 22

- FS

- 049 18 19.1 1

, 410 350 239 265 6
, 380 1

, 640 1

, 730

WT

- 23

- FS

- 007 25 7.45 273 73.1 83.5 313 6
, 230 1

, 380 1

, 550

WT

- 23

- FS

- 054 32 18.6 72.9 14.6 25.1 250 2

, 660 537 920

WT

- 23

- FS

- 055 25 7.45 193 43.3 43.1 313 4

, 520 905 927

WT

- 24

- FS

- 016 20 305 466 123 107 268 4

, 420 977 2

, 150

WT

- 24

- FS

- 064 21 7.45 711 187 125 288 4

, 380 980 1

, 060

WT

- 24

- FS

- 065 41 18.6 476 90.8 69.2 260 9

, 410 1

, 530 985

WT

- 25

- FS

- 006 13 30.5 213 55.4 89.5 802 3

, 980 921 1

, 660

WT

- 25

- FS

- 052 25 7.45 373 109 97.3 307 3

, 820 1

, 040 1

, 120

WT

- 25

- FS

- 053 24 19.1 433 97.9 81.7 321 4

, 900 1

, 140 893

Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximu m, and average are the same

, then all measurements were bel ow half of the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 49

Table 4

- 37. Summary of NaI Count Rate Data at ZLDs

Site GWS Max a

(cpm) GWS Min a

(cpm) GWS

Average a (cpm) GWS Std Dev

(cpm) No. Data

Points

6 11,264 3,689 6,618 1,435 1,077 6 11,273 4,157 6,315 1,037 4,716 18 7,446 2,692 4,507 714 3,570 18 34,596 2,748 7,432 5,069 2,032 19 15,542 10,665 13,449 573 3,379 19 15,603 11,347 13,667 560 4,098 19 52,815 4,506 13,153 3,995 2,813 20 11,574 3,266 5,966 1,814 7,086 20 73,475 3,771 8,426 8,110 9,495 21 66,958 4,752 12,383 7,293 1,911 21 34,908 4,335 6,912 2,613 15,435 21 46,611 4,351 7,797 4,423 8,792 22 42,518 4,857 10,358 5,297 1,544 22 39,712 4,065 6,937 4,905 5,063 23 12,198 5,546 8,585 1,250 6,265 23 13,938 5,662 9,014 1,348 7,512 24 12,234 5,164 7,419 1,279 1,712 24 11,844 6,541 8,985 1,211 2,959 25 28,597 7,558 12,955 2,243 5,371 25 31,290 2,819 12,524 2,352 8,019 25 356,274 4,464 34,513 63,202 2,006

a Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield μ R /hr.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 50 Table 4

- 38. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

Site GWS Max

(μR/hr) GWS Min

(μR/hr) GWS Average

(μR/hr) GWS Std

Dev (μR/hr) No. Data

Points 6 14.1 4.61 8.27 1.79 1,077 6 14.1 5.20 7.89 1.30 4,716 18 9.31 3.37 5.63 0.893 3,570 18 43.2 3.44 9.29 6.34 2,032 19 19.4 13.3 16.8 0.716 3,379 19 19.5 14.2 17.1 0.700 4,098 19 66.0 5.63 16.4 4.99 2,813 20 14.5 4.08 7.46 2.27 7,086 20 91.8 4.71 10.5 10.1 9,495 21 83.7 5.94 15.5 9.12 1,911 21 43.6 5.42 8.64 3.27 15,435 21 58.3 5.44 9.75 5.53 8,792 22 53.1 6.07 12.9 6.62 1,544 22 49.6 5.08 8.67 6.13 5,063 23 15.2 6.93 10.7 1.56 6,265 23 17.4 7.08 11.3 1.69 7,512 24 15.3 6.46 9.27 1.60 1,712 24 14.8 8.18 11.2 1.51 2,959 25 35.7 9.45 16.2 2.80 5,371 25 39.1 3.52 15.7 2.94 8,019 25 445 5.58 43.1 79.0 2,006PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 51

Table 4

- 39. ZLD Solids, Filter Cake

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) WT

- 06

- SL

- 046 159 14.2 7.67 WT

- 06

- SL

- 074 31.7 3.48 14.9 WT

- 18

- SL

- 025 8.02 2.01 26.3 WT

- 18

- SL

- 043 6.14 1.63 21.7 WT

- 18

- SL

- 076 19.1 1.95 5.95 WT

- 19

- SL

- 023 4.62 1.44 17.5 WT

- 19

- SL

- 041 127 11.0 16.6 WT

- 19

- SL

- 070 3.08 0.580 7.46 WT

- 20

- SL

- 024 26.9 2.62 11.2 WT

- 20

- SL

- 042 20.0 2.24 10 WT

- 20

- SL

- 075 22.7 2.21 13.4 WT

- 20

- SL

- 086 11.1 1.40 6.51 WT

- 20

- SL

- 087 10.2 1.41 6.55 WT

- 21

- SL

- 004 6.46 1.54 21.1 WT

- 21

- SL

- 039 29.3 9.34 10.8 WT

- 21

- SL

- 078 25.8 7.09 25.4 WT

- 21

- SL

- 092 214 43.6 12.5 WT

- 21

- SL

- 093 212 40.5 10.3 WT

- 22

- SL

- 003 281 17.8 14.1 WT

- 22

- SL

- 032 145 19.2 15.9 WT

- 22

- SL

- 079 134 13.1 2.75 WT

- 23

- SL

- 016 78.9 18.1 8.62 WT

- 23

- SL

- 055 33.6 6.87 4.28 WT

- 23

- SL

- 077 26.0 3.39 1.61 WT

- 24

- SL

- 001 420 58.7 5.25 WT

- 24

- SL

- 002 41.6 5.26 3.02 WT

- 24

- SL

- 031 480 67.3 5.16 WT

- 24

- SL

- 080 289 46.3 5.26 WT

- 25

- SL

- 028 221 25.1 2.76 WT

- 25

- SL

- 040 185 24.2 3.27 WT

- 25

- SL

- 071 206 32.4 3.47 Average 112 15.7 8.53 Std. Dev. 128 18.6 6.09 Median 33.6 6.98 6.55 Minimum 3.08 0.580 1.61 Maximum 480 67.3 25.4

Table 4

- 40. ZLD Solids, Biased Soil

– Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) WT

- 21

- SL

- 005 37.1 7.47 16.6 3.81 <2.84

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 52 Table 4

- 41. ZLD Filtered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L)
WT

- 06

- LQ

- 076 12,100 953 < 552 19,600 4,840
WT

- 06

- LQ

- 149 11,200 806 385 13,300 3,340
WT

- 06

- LQ

- 245 8,360 571 273 13,700 2,100
WT

- 18

- LQ

- 070 < 117 < 16.0 159 < 485 < 413
WT

- 18

- LQ

- 139 86.0 < 10.0 648 < 383 435
WT

- 18

- LQ

- 253 94.0 < 10.0 149 701 < 832
WT

- 19

- LQ

- 062 < 127 < 21.0 56 0.097 135
WT

- 19

- LQ

- 133 < 58.0 < 8 55 < 293 < 225
WT

- 19

- LQ

- 229 126 < 11.0 338 < 412 < 234
WT

- 20

- LQ

- 066 8,930 1,090 < 339 11,800 2,440
WT

- 20

- LQ

- 135 12,500 941 206 31,100 6,190
WT

- 20

- LQ

- 251 11,100 910 316 14,400 4,110
WT

- 21

- LQ

- 011 3,470 503 807 6,830 2,160
WT

- 21

- LQ

- 123 5,050 750 646 10,900 2,650
WT

- 21

- LQ

- 261 4,690 725 885 10,200 2,890
WT

- 22

- LQ

- 007 418 < 17.0 487 < 542 284
WT

- 22

- LQ

- 105 3,280 241 738 5,040 1,530
WT

- 22

- LQ

- 269 2,310 163 183 2,690 515
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 038 580 111 186 1,660 602
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 040 < 82.0 < 14.0 < 30 5.05 3.1
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 177 110 12.0 54.0 < 145 < 191
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 179 587 96.0 670 < 1,340 < 504
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 257 < 69.0 < 7.00 < 41.0 23.6 < 4.03
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 259 2,540 280 < 64.0 9,610 3,210
WT

- 24

- LQ

- 001 1,830 277 429 2,540 655
WT

- 24

- LQ

- 101 2,260 204 339 3,660 1,520
WT

- 24

- LQ

- 265 292 120 799 < 2090 < 967 WT

- 25

- LQ

- 088 173 < 12.0 190 < 1140 < 827
WT

- 25

- LQ

- 127 163 < 8.00 113 < 1100 < 475
WT

- 25

- LQ

- 235 59.0 < 10.0 134 < 479 < 424 Average 2,780 271 327 5,250 1,370 Std. Dev. 3,890 348 270 7,220 1,560 Median 580 111 206 1,660 515 Minimum 29.0 3.50 15.0 0.097 2.02 Maximum 12,500 1,090 885 31,100 6,190

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 53 Table 4

- 42. ZLD Unfiltered Effluent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L)
WT

- 06

- LQ

- 075 12,100 914 275 13,700 3,770
WT

- 06

- LQ

- 150 11,300 866 326 27,300 6,530
WT

- 06

- LQ

- 246 7,950 523 256 37,600 12,600
WT

- 18

- LQ

- 069 < 166 < 35.0 982 < 403 < 401
WT

- 18

- LQ

- 140 < 80.0 < 20.0 674 < 140 573
WT

- 18

- LQ

- 254 106 < 10.0 143 < 641 < 780
WT

- 19

- LQ

- 061 130 < 19.0 102 < 314 < 189
WT

- 19

- LQ

- 134 104 < 16.0 111 < 108 < 198
WT

- 19

- LQ

- 230 < 66.0 < 11.0 333 < 280 231
WT

- 20

- LQ

- 065 8,830 1,090 400 14,500 3,540
WT

- 20

- LQ

- 136 1,580 221 4,310 40,900 8,340
WT

- 20

- LQ

- 252 11,900 862 299 42,800 13,900
WT

- 21

- LQ

- 012 3,770 552 821 5,540 1,850
WT

- 21

- LQ

- 124 5,120 785 612 16,000 5,530
WT

- 21

- LQ

- 262 4,370 721 926 13,100 4,020
WT

- 22

- LQ

- 008 165 19.0 439 < 275 322
WT

- 22

- LQ

- 106 2,730 250 723 8,940 1,630
WT

- 22

- LQ

- 270 2,240 178 190 5,100 1,260
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 037 531 121 160 1,570 358
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 039 116 < 12.0 31.0 4.94 < 1.78
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 178 < 85.0 < 16.0 < 60.0 < 217 < 203
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 180 800 109 497 1,220 871
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 258 87.0 < 12.0 < 42.0 5.12 26.1
WT

- 23

- LQ

- 260 2,640 308 340 13,300 4,030
WT

- 24

- LQ

- 002 2,040 269 431 2,750 < 424
WT

- 24

- LQ

- 102 2,480 301 358 4,440 1,300
WT

- 24

- LQ

- 266 293 102 748 < 810 < 836
WT

- 25

- LQ

- 087 < 147 < 31.0 158 < 917 < 831
WT

- 25

- LQ

- 128 601 305 4,840 < 448 < 417
WT

- 25

- LQ

- 236 < 126 < 25.0 158 < 1030 < 475 Average 2,610 295 670 8,990 2,590 Std. Dev. 3,470 337 1120 13,000 3,740 Median 800 178 340 2160 722 Minimum 33.0 5.00 21.0 4.94 0.890 Maximum 11,900 1,090 4840 42,800 13,900

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 54 Table 4

- 43. ZLD Filtered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L)
WT

- 06

- LQ

- 073 12, 1 00 1,100 393 21,400 4,530 WT

- 06

- LQ

- 147 11,300 1,290 302 23,500 5,630 WT

- 06

- LQ

- 247 3,910 230 215 13,100 4,340 WT

- 18

- LQ

- 072 278 < 24.0 234 < 427 < 412 WT

- 18

- LQ

- 141 < 77.0 < 14.0 848 < 175 592 WT

- 19

- LQ

- 064 950 901 16,600 ND ND WT

- 19

- LQ

- 131 131 13.0 281 < 175 < 190 WT

- 19

- LQ

- 231 1,140 91.0 718 4,770 1,860 WT

- 20

- LQ

- 068 13,200 1,390 399 18,700 4,740 WT

- 20

- LQ

- 137 20,900 < 85.0 < 187 59,400 10,700 WT

- 20

- LQ

- 249 18,400 1,410 491 36,000 7,680 WT

- 21

- LQ

- 009 2,580 338 517 ND 2,403 WT

- 21

- LQ

- 125 3,360 515 584 4,750 1,340 WT

- 21

- LQ

- 263 6,190 687 350 17,100 4,460 WT

- 22

- LQ

- 005 106 10.0 299 < 257 2,400 WT

- 22

- LQ

- 103 16,300 847 < 371 30,800 3,730 WT

- 22

- LQ

- 271 590 51.0 105 754 < 198 WT

- 23

- LQ

- 035 1,300 413 421 828 425 WT

- 23

- LQ

- 181 564 94.0 135 2,080 492 WT

- 23

- LQ

- 255 226 28.0 158 497 < 207 WT

- 24

- LQ

- 003 2,580 332 552 3,630 1,530 WT

- 24

- LQ

- 099 1,920 153 341 2,300 395 WT

- 24

- LQ

- 267 832 380 568 < 1330 < 838 WT

- 25

- LQ

- 090 6,650 660 202 8,920 1,030 WT

- 25

- LQ

- 129 2,100 181 187 2,290 396 WT

- 25

- LQ

- 233 903 127 169 3,220 1,320 Average 4, 660 408 998 10,200 2,350 Std. Dev. 6250 448 3,260 15,000 2,730 Median 1,920 230 302 3,220 1,330 Minimum 38.5 7.00 93.5 87.5 95.0 Maximum 20,900 1,410 16,600 59,400 10,700

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 55 Table 4

- 44. ZLD Unfiltered Influent

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha a

(pCi/L) Gross Beta a

(pCi/L)

WT

- 06

- LQ

- 074 12,200 1,090 7,210 17,700 5,920 WT

- 06

- LQ

- 148 11,100 1,240 350 25,500 5,950 WT

- 06

- LQ

- 248 4,300 250 243 7,700 1,570 WT

- 18

- LQ

- 071 1,310 142 318 ND ND WT

- 18

- LQ

- 142 < 76.0 < 21.0 761 497 806 WT

- 19

- LQ

- 063 1,470 777 13,300 ND ND WT

- 19

- LQ

- 132 11,700 1000 < 247 2,230 2,080 WT

- 19

- LQ

- 232 1,600 81.0 701 2,800 1,180 WT

- 20

- LQ

- 067 13,600 1,390 288 16,200 6,060 WT

- 20

- LQ

- 138 210 < 17.0 123 49,200 10,600 WT

- 20

- LQ

- 250 16,500 1,310 529 88,000 23,400 WT

- 21

- LQ

- 010 3,030 429 605 6,590 1,610 WT

- 21

- LQ

- 126 2,620 421 528 6,920 2,400 WT

- 21

- LQ

- 264 6,560 727 415 18,900 4,530 WT

- 22

- LQ

- 006 216 14.0 136 110 105 WT

- 22

- LQ

- 104 17,100 903 332 52,400 11,500 WT

- 22

- LQ

- 272 750 43.0 234 1,240 231 WT

- 23

- LQ

- 036 1,280 437 410 ND 2,240 WT

- 23

- LQ

- 182 665 95.0 160 1,300 535 WT

- 23

- LQ

- 256 221 41.0 153 1,120 423 WT

- 24

- LQ

- 004 2,700 457 651 3,640 1,320 WT

- 24

- LQ

- 100 2,100 181 220 3,380 782 WT

- 24

- LQ

- 268 632 388 558 < 1470 1,060 WT

- 25

- LQ

- 089 6,870 628 269 9,270 977 WT

- 25

- LQ

- 130 1,560 140 114 1,810 466 WT

- 25

- LQ

- 234 1,930 199 161 4,470 1,400 Average 4,400 453 867 13,800 3,530 Std. Dev. 5,310 433 2,600 22,100 5,340 Median 1,930 388 318 4,060 1,400 Minimum 134 10.5 114 110 105 Maximum 17,100 1,390 13,300 88,000 23,400

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 4 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 4

- 56

Table 4

- 45. ZLD Radon in Ambient Air Results
Facility Location Radon (pCi/L) Percent E rror WT

- 06

- RA

- 001 Filter Press 2.2 5 WT

- 06

- RA

- 002 Lab 2.4 5 WT

- 18

- RA

- 001 Centrifuge 0.9 8 WT

- 18

- RA

- 002 Lab 4.3 4 WT

- 20

- RA

- 001 Transfer Panel 1.9 5 WT

- 20

- RA

- 002 Break Area 2.6 5 WT

- 23

- RA

- 001 Break Room 0.5 8 WT

- 23

- RA

- 002 Ctrl Panel/Boiler Room 1.7 6 WT

- 23

- RA

- 003 First Floor 0.9 8 WT

- 21

- RA

- 001 Locker Room Shelf 3.7 4 WT

- 21

- RA

- 002 Back of Filter Cake R oo m 2.6 5 WT

- 24

- RA

- 001 Filter Press 2.9 5 WT

- 24

- RA

- 002 Office 1.9 6 WT

- 22

- RA

- 001 Filter Press Room 4.9 4 WT

- 22

- RA

- 002 Wastewater Receiving Office 0.9 8

Note: ATDs . LLD for 10 pCi/L

- day is 0.1 pCi/L for 90

- day test, 0.3 pCi/L for 30

- day test.

Table 4

- 46. ZLD and CWT Filter Cake Sample Alpha Spectroscopy Results

Study ID U238

(pCi/g) U234

(pCi/g) Th230

(pCi/g) Th232

(pCi/g) Th228

(pCi/g) U235

(pCi/g) WT

- 04

- SL

- 063 0.306 0.361 0.307 < 0.205 76.2 < 0.134 WT

- 25

- SL

- 028 < 0.0681 < 0.084 < 0.05 < 0.0406 9.87 < 0.0844 WT

- 22

- SL

- 079 0.225 0.281 0.431 < 0.198 8.07 < 0.031 WT

- 19

- SL

- 041 0.683 0.83 0.502 0.401 8.55 0.163 WT

- 01

- SL

- 084 < 0.265 < 0.266 < 0.686 < 0.685 1.81 < 0.403 WT

- 08

- SL

- 047 0.922 0.91 0.525 0.428 7.18 < 0.116 WT

- 06

- SL

- 046 0.708 0.746 0.473 0.157 8.76 < 0.0787 WT

- 04

- SL

- 050 < 0.246 < 0.248 < 0.237 < 0.145 6.03 < 0.25 WT

- 09

- SL

- 054 < 0.0643 < 0.0526 < 0.16 < 0.159 48.3 < 0.0649 WT

- 23

- SL

- 055 0.268 0.291 < 0.173 < 0.111 5.52 < 0.0524 Average 0.343 0.374 0.289 0.176 18.0 0.0770 St. Dev 0.314 0.334 0.195 0.154 24.319 0.0638 Median 0.247 0.286 0.325 0.101 8.31 0.0501 Min 0.0322 0.0263 0.0250 0.0203 1.81 0.0155 Max 0.922 0.910 0.525 0.428 76.2 0.202PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 1 5 .0 LANDFILLS

L eachate sample s w ere collected at 51 PA landfills

. N ine of the 51 landfills w ere selected to be surveyed a nd sampled in more detail due to the volume of waste accepted from the O&G industry. Surveys at the nine selected landfills included scans of g amma radiation and measurements of total and removable  /  surface radioactivity. Ambient air at the fence line of the se landfills was sampled for Rn analysis , and filter cake was sampled from t hree of the se landfills

.
5.1 Leachate

Samples of leachate were collected from 51 landfills and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy for Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228. The gamma spectroscopy resul ts are presented in Table 5

- 1 for the 42 landfills not selected based on volume of O&G waste accepted and Table 5

- 2 for the nine landfills selected based on the volume O&G waste accepted

. Radium was detected above the MDC value in 34 of 51 samples. Sample results from the 42 unselected landfills showed Ra

- 226 results that ranged from 54.0 to 416 pCi/L with an average of 11 2 pCi/ L. Ra dium

- 226 results from the nine selected landfills ranged from 85 pCi/L to 378 pCi/L with an average of 106 pCi/L

. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 2.5 to 5 5.0 pCi/L with an average of 11.9 pCi/L in the 42 unselected landfills

. Ra dium

- 228 results from the nine selected landfills ranged from 10 .0 pCi/L
to 1,100 pCi/L with an average of 139 pCi/L.

Due to high solids conten t, the samples were not filtered in the field or at the laboratory. The aqueous portion was decanted from 10 of the 51 samples after they had been allowed to settle

. T he aqueous portion was analyzed for Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228. These results are presented in Table 5

- 3 along with the original gamma spectroscopy result s for the entire sample

. T he entire sample results include dissolved and undissolved Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 and are generally one to
two orders of magnitude higher than analyses of only the aqueous phase

, indicating that t he Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 in these samples were mostly in the form of undissolved solids.

5.2 Nine Selected Landfills

5.2.1 Influent and Effluent Leachate

N ine influent and seven effluent leachate samples were collected at t he nine selected landfills

. All nine landfills treat leachate onsite. T he samples were analyzed using gamma spectroscopy. The results of the Ra

- 226, Ra

- 228, K

- 40

, as well as gross  and gross  activity levels are presented in Table 5

- 4 for effluent samples and in Table 5

- 5 for influent samples

. Radium was detected in all of the leachate samples. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 67.0 to 378 pCi/L with an average of 142 pCi/L for effluent samples

. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 3.00 to 1,1 00 pCi/L with an average of 178.0 pCi/L for effluent samples

. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 48 .5 to 116 pCi/L with an average of 83.4 pCi/L for influent samples. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 4 .00 to 1 5

. 0 pCi/L with an average of 7.94 pCi/L for influent samples. The influent and effluent samples from the same facility do not represent the same leachate at different times in treatment.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 2 5.2. 2 Leachate Filter Cake

F ilter cake from three of the nine landfills was sampled and analyzed using gamma spectr o scopy

. The results of the Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 analyses are presented in Table 5

- 6

. Radium was detected in all of the filter cake samples. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 8.73 to 53.0 pCi/g

, with an average of 24.3 pCi/g. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 1.5 3 to 5.03 pCi/g

, with an average of 3. 85 pCi/g.

5.2. 3 Effluent Discharge Sediment

- Impacted Soil

At three landfills that discharged effluent water to the environment , a sediment

- impacted soil sample was collected at each of the three effluent outfalls

. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in Table 5

- 7

. Radium was detected in all of the samples. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 2.8 2 to 4.46 pCi/g with an average of 3.57 pCi/g. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged fr om 0.979 to 2.53 pCi/g with an average of 1.65 pCi/g.

5.2. 4 Ambient Air

Ambient air was sampled at the fence line of each of the nine selected landfills and analyzed for R n concentration. A combination of E IC and ATD monitors were used. Because it was impractical to place monitors on the actual working face of the landfill

, monitors were deployed at the fence line around the landfill in roughly the four cardinal directions. The exact locations of the monitors are depicted in Appendix E

. Duplicate monitors were placed at each location

, inside a single Tyvek ® bag

. The Tyvek ® bag is permeable to Rn gas, but impermeable to particulate matter. The monitors were hung on the fence line approximately 5 ft above grade

. Deployment of the Rn monitors ranged from 74 to 103 days. Monitor d evice selection was based up on availability at the time of deployment. The results are presented in T able 5

- 8

. Radon activity ranged from 0. 2 to 0.9 pCi/L. The R n monitor analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.
5.2. 5 Surveys

R adiological survey s were conducted at each of the nine selected landfill s , resulting in four data
sets:

 Removable 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100cm 2

 Total 

/  surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm 2

 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm

 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of μ R /hr

5.2. 5

. 1 R e movable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of removable  /  surface radioactivity were performed to assess potential internal radiation exposures to workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 guidelines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  radioactivity levels be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a removable criterion of 20 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The primary  emitt er of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series

, with a removable criterion of 200 dpm  /100 cm 2

. The average removable  and  levels at eachPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 3 landfill were below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum removable  and  levels were also below the RG 1.86 criteria. The results of removable  and  surface radioactivity for the subject landfills surveyed are presented in Table 5

- 9

. Individual removable  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Ap pendix D

.
5.2. 5 .2 Total Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

Measurements of total  /  surface radioactivity were performed to assess potential internal radiation exposures to workers through ingestion and/or inhalation. The results were evaluated using the RG 1.86 guidelines, Table 1. RG 1.86 requires that  and  levels be evaluated separately. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 226, with a total criterion of 100 dpm  / 100 cm 2

. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra

- 228 of the natural Th decay series

, with a total criterion of 1,000 dpm  /100 cm 2

. All average total  and  surface radioactivity levels were below the RG 1.86 criteria

. The maximum total  and  concentrations were 84.6 dpm/100 cm 2
and 3

, 6 30 dpm/100 cm 2

. The summary results of total  and  surface radioactivity for the nine selected lan d fills surveyed are presented in Table 5

- 10

. Individual total  and  surface radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D

.
5.2. 5 .3 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

Gross gamma radiation scans , recorded in cpm

, were performed on open land areas and accessible areas of the nine selected landfills to identify areas with gamma radiation levels above local background

. Summary results for the selected landfills are presented in Table 5

- 11

. The highest average count rate at any of the nine selected landfills was 10,816 cpm

, and the maximum count rate recorded at any of the nine selected landfills was 74,928 cpm. A graphic display of th e gamma scan results at each facility was prepared using GIS software and is presented in Appendix E

.
5.2. 5

. 4 Gamma Exposure Rate Results Summary

Gross gamma scan results in units of cpm presented in Table 5

- 11 were converted to  R/hr by using 800 cpm per  R/hr , a conversion factor appropriate for Ra

- 226 gamma energy as detected with 2

- inch by 2

- inch NaI detectors

, rounded to one significant figure ( Table 6. 4 , NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contamina nts , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998 )

. Table 5

- 1 2 presents statistical results for each of the nine selected landfill s

. The highest average exposure rat e was 13.5  R/hr

, and the maximum gamma exposure rate measured was 93.7  R/hr.

5. 3 Radon Ingrowth W ithin Filter Cake From WWTP to Landfills

Radon in filter cake is the result of the decay of Ra, which is referred to as ingrowth. Ra dium

- 226 from the U series and Ra

- 228 from the Th series are present in f lowback and produced water

. Radioactive precursors to Ra (U

- 238 and Th

- 232) are not present due to their relative insolubility. W hen the se wastewater s are processed at WWTPs

, the Ra is removed and concentrated in the r esulting filter cake or sludge.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 4 During handling and/or transport, the sludge or filter cake may be disturbed and some of the Rn
gas may escape , greatly reducing the gamma

- emitting progeny that follow Rn

- 222 in the natural decay series. U sing the software program MicroShield ®

, the following source terms were evaluated to determine the resulting gamma exposure rate measured 6 inches from the outside of a standa rd roll

- off container filled with sludge at a concentration of 13.4 pCi/g of Ra

- 226

. The
source terms a ssum e that all of the Rn and progeny are removed at day zero

. Ingrowth of Rn and progeny was calculated for each time period in accordance with half

- lives to determine the subsequent source terms

, as follows :

a. 0

- day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 only) b. 1

- day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 + 16 percent progeny)

c. 3

- day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 + 41 percent progeny) d. 10

- day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 + 86 percent progeny)

e. 21

- day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 + 100 percent progeny)

The results of the MicroShield ® modeling are presented in Figure 5

- 1

. The exposure rate increase d rapidly to approximately 21 days post ingrowth

, at which time the maximum exposure
rate wa s achieved. Starting from zero Rn progeny to full equilibrium after 21 days

, the exposure
rate measured 6 inches from the outside of the roll

- off container increased six

- fold

. Based on the MicroShield ® modeling results, there may be an increase of six times the gamma exposure rate measured 6 inches from the surface of the roll

- off container during the first 21 days after a wastewater treatment sludge is generated

. This is a theoretical curve and assumes all of the Rn is removed when the sludge is formed at time zero.

Figure 5

- 1. Ra

- 226 Prog eny Ingrowth (Days P ost Removal) versus

Exposure Rate from 13.34 pCi/g Ra

- 226PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 5 To further evaluate the Rn and short

- lived progeny ingrowth in wastewater sludge, a series of recently generated sludge samples were collected at six WWTPs and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy

. The samples were analyzed when received and then 15 additional times over the next 24 days

. The activity results versus time

, post sample

, were plotted

. R ado n ingrowth is demonstrated in each set of sample results

. Figure 5

- 2 and Table 5

- 1 3 present the data from one of the sludge samples. The following was observed:

 The Pb

- 214 and B i

- 214, short

- lived progeny of Rn

- 222

, increased from approximately 50 percent of the Ra

- 226 activity in the sample to 85 percent of the Ra

- 226 activit y. Ra dium

- 226 was identified directly from the 186 keV gamma line. The average of the Pb

- 214 and Bi

- 214 results wa s 70 pCi/g at d ay zero and 120 pCi/g at d ay 24 compared to the Ra

- 226 activity of 142 pCi/g e ach day

.

 R ado n gas progeny were present at 50 percent of the Ra

- 226 activity in the recently generated sludge. Only 50 percent of the Rn gas escapes the sludge during processing.

 T he Rn gas only increased to 85 percent of the Ra

- 226 parent activity in three weeks

. This could be due to leakage of Rn through the sample container seal.

 The reported U

- 235 activity (185.7 keV gamma line) was consistently measured at 8.6 pCi/g, matching the theoretical overestimation of 8.7 pCi/g of U

- 235 based on 142 pCi/g of Ra

- 226. See Section 2.3.2 and Table 2

- 1 for a detailed discussion of Ra

- 226 and U

- 235 identification and potential overestimation using gamma spectroscopy. The U

- 235 identified by the 205 keV line was consistently 0 pCi/g.

Figure 5

- 2. Ra

- 226 Progeny Ingrowth versus Days (Days P ost Removal)

5. 4 La ndfill Worker Exposure Assessment

5. 4 .1 Landfill External Radiation Exposure

The maximum average gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the nine selected landfill s was 13.5  R/hr. The minimum, limiting local background measured was 5  R/hr. Assuming the duration of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the external
gamma radiation exposure at the landfill was estimated as follows: 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 pCi/g

Days



## Wastewater Treatment Filter Cake

Pb-212 (238 keV)
Pb-214 (351 keV)
Bi-214 (609 keV)
Ra-226 (186 keV)
Ac-228 (911 keV)
Ac-228 (969 keV)
U-235 (185 keV)
U-235 (205 keV)PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 6

Maximum Average Landfill External Gamma Exposure Estimate

( 13.5

– 5) μR /hr x 2

, 000 hr/yr x (1 m rem /1

, 000 μR gamma ) = 17 m rem /yr

This is an estimate of the maximum average exposure based on 2,000 hours in one year. The result is less than the 1 00 m rem /yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is dependent up on the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.

The maximum exposure rate measured at any of the nine selected landfills was 93.7  R /hr

. W ork i n this area would result in an exposure of 100 mrem in 1

, 13 0 hours of annual exposure of an employee’s 2,000

- hour occupational year. Actual annual exposure for a landfill worker is dependent up on actual exposure rates and actual time worked in th e proximity of the tank.

5

. 4

. 1

. 1 Landfill Worker Potential Internal Alpha/B eta Radi oactivity Exposure

The total and removable  /  survey results are presented in Sections 5 .2. 5 .1 and 5 .2. 5 .2. None of the 195  measurements and 17 of the 195  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. None of the 205 removable  or  surface radioactivity measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. The average values for total and removable  and  surface radioactivity are below the RG 1.86 criteria , indicating that t here is little potential for inter nal  and  exposure to landfill workers

.
5

. 4

. 1

. 2 Landfill Worker Internal Radon Exposure

The results of the landfill ambient air Rn samples are presented in Section 5.2.4. The Rn in ambient air at the fence line of the landfill s ranged from 0. 2 to 0.9 pCi/L consistent with U.S. background levels of 0.2

– 0.7 pCi/L in outdoor ambient air. Consequently, t he potential for internal Rn exposure is low.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 7 Table 5

- 1. Landfill Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/l) Ra

- 228

(pCi/l) K

- 40

(pCi/l) Gross Alpha

(pCi/l) Gross Beta

(pCi/l) LF

- 10

- LQ

- 024 322 < 20 201 < 140 < 192 LF

- 11

- LQ

- 025 109 13 485 < 145 491 LF

- 12

- LQ

- 026 102 < 6 558 < 129 440 LF

- 13

- LQ

- 027 81.0 < 11 369 < 155 284 LF

- 14

- LQ

- 028 101 19 1,110 < 167 1,110 LF

- 15

- LQ

- 029 121 < 10 1,060 < 163 1,020 LF

- 16

- LQ

- 030 114 < 7 122 < 136 < 191 LF

- 17

- LQ

- 031 342 < 21.0 524 < 126 489 LF

- 18

- LQ

- 032 120 < 25.0 764 < 161 703 LF

- 19

- LQ

- 033 159 < 105 1,040 < 193 1,200 LF

- 20

- LQ

- 034 < 130 < 110 615 182 806 LF

- 21

- LQ

- 035 < 87.0 < 10.0 670 < 162 850 LF

- 22

- LQ

- 036 < 77.0 < 13.0 332 < 156 531 LF

- 23

- LQ

- 037 < 148 < 26.0 268 < 306 489 LF

- 24

- LQ

- 038 145 < 15.0 477 < 134 489 LF

- 25

- LQ

- 039 79.0 < 12.0 175 < 118 < 199 LF

- 26

- LQ

- 040 < 146 < 31.0 268 < 134 < 190 LF

- 27

- LQ

- 041 < 108 < 22.0 148 < 205 < 203 LF

- 28

- LQ

- 042 < 89.0 < 16.0 64.0 < 277 < 221 LF

- 29

- LQ

- 043 416 < 19.0 181 < 119 < 200 LF

- 30

- LQ

- 044 84.0 < 6.00 551 < 342 412 LF

- 31

- LQ

- 045 150 < 9.00 282 < 206 < 203 LF

- 32

- LQ

- 046 < 78.0 < 21.0 < 41.0 < 125 < 189 LF

- 33

- LQ

- 047 < 153 < 37.0 573 < 146 667 LF

- 34

- LQ

- 048 < 111 < 21.0 423 < 157 401 LF

- 35

- LQ

- 049 136 < 19.0 758 < 254 728 LF

- 36

- LQ

- 050 106 22.0 471 < 353 466 LF

- 37

- LQ

- 051 73.0 19.0 503 < 341 845 LF

- 38

- LQ

- 052 54.0 < 5.00 249 < 152 550 LF

- 39

- LQ

- 053 < 82.0 < 18.0 222 < 149 < 194 LF

- 40

- LQ

- 054 91.0 35.0 505 < 143 239 LF

- 41

- LQ

- 055 65.0 9.00 383 < 164 286 LF

- 42

- LQ

- 056 < 72.0 < 16.0 < 54.0 < 137 384 LF

- 43

- LQ

- 057 371 < 8.00 110 < 128 < 199 LF

- 44

- LQ

- 058 101 < 12.0 629 < 206 365 LF

- 45

- LQ

- 059 < 73.0 < 14.0 480 < 111 < 208 LF

- 46

- LQ

- 060 140 15.0 354 < 486 < 416 LF

- 47

- LQ

- 061 70.0 13.0 131 < 121 < 202 LF

- 48

- LQ

- 062 57.0 < 5.00 354 < 181 284 LF

- 49

- LQ

- 063 126 < 9.00 209 < 316 < 232 LF

- 50

- LQ

- 064 85.0 < 10.0 128 < 112 < 201 LF

- 51

- LQ

- 065 106 9.00 49.0 < 113 < 202PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 8 Table 5

- 1. Landfill Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/l) Ra

- 228

(pCi/l) K

- 40

(pCi/l) Gross Alpha

(pCi/l) Gross Beta

(pCi/l) Average 112 11.9 401 94.4 389 Std. Dev. 89.5 11.4 275 43.6 311 Median 84.5 9.00 362 77.8 326 Minimum 54.0 2.50 20.5 56.0 95.0 Maximum 416 55 1,110 243 1,200

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC

.

Table 5

- 2

. Selected Landfill Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/l) Ra

- 228

(pCi/l) K

- 40

(pCi/l) Gross Alpha

(pCi/l) Gross Beta

(pCi/l) LF

- 01

- LQ

- 002 378 < 20.0 < 72.0 < 3.46 < 2.07 LF

- 02

- LQ

- 003 136 84.0 637 < 110 295 LF

- 03

- LQ

- 008 < 74.0 < 13.0 221 < 275 < 202 LF

- 04

- LQ

- 009 118 < 6.00 64.0 < 253 < 395 LF

- 05

- LQ

- 023 < 101 < 20.0 182 < 323 < 233 LF

- 06

- LQ

- 010 85.0 < 8.00 351 < 160 259 LF

- 07

- LQ

- 004 < 134 < 35.0 353 < 121 221 LF

- 08

- LQ

- 017 70.0 9.00 743 < 357 280 LF

- 09

- LQ

- 005 105 1,100 18,100 < 314 < 233 Average 106 139 2,299 106 176 Std. Dev. 107 361 5,930 59.8 98.5 Median 70.0 10.0 351 127 198 Minimum 85.0 3.00 36.0 1.73 1.04 Maximum 378 1,100 18,100 179 295

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 9 Table 5

- 3. Landfill Leachate Original and Aqueous Sample A nalysis Results

Sample ID Original Gamma Spec

–

Unfiltered Sample Re

- Analysis U sing EPA 903.1/904.0 Technique

– Aqueous Phase Sample Only
Ra226 Result (pCi/L) Ra226

Error (pCi/L) Ra226

MDC (pCi/L) Ra226

Result (pCi/L) Ra226

Error (pCi/L) Ra226

MDC (pCi/L) Ra228

Result (pCi/L) Ra228

Error (pCi/L) Ra228

MDC (pCi/L)
LF

- 17

- LQ

031 342 92 .0 131 10. 3 0.294 0.063 7.821 1.02 0.956

LF

- 24

- LQ

038 145 60 .0 91 .0 1.9 1 0.107 0.032 4.274 1.063 1.329

LF

- 13

- LQ

027 81 .0 33 .0 51 .0 1. 70 0.103 0.021 2.195 0.806 1.083

LF

- 45

- LQ

059 47 .0 45 .0 73 .0 0.472 0.085 0.09 0.896 0.662 0.998

LF

- 18

- LQ

032 120 73 .0 115 6.01 0.218 0.073 5.768 0.946 0.966

LF

- 10

- LQ

024 322 85 .0 121 1.22 0.089 0.057 1.413 0.77 1.125

LF

- 08

- LQ

017 54 .0 26 .0 41 .0 0.414 0.067 0.068 1.058 0.732 1.093

LF

- 12

- LQ

026 102 40 .0 62 .0 0.842 0.086 0.069 2.546 ’s 0.771 1.004

LF

- 01

- LQ

002 378 96 .0 132 0.066 0.027 0.03 0.643 0.664 1.037

LF

- 04

- LQ

009 118 34.6 53.0 0.124 0.031 0.017 0.976 0.717 1.079PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 10

Table 5

- 4

. S elected Landfill Effluent Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Source of Sample Sample ID Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross

Alpha a (pCi/L) Gross

Beta a (pCi/L) Effluent LF

- 01

- LQ

- 002 378 < 20 < 72.0 < 3.46 < 2.07 Effluent LF

- 02

- LQ

- 003 136 84.0 637 < 110 304 Effluent LF

- 03

- LQ

- 008 < 140 16 221 < 275 < 202 Effluent LF

- 04

- LQ

- 009 118 < 6 64.0 < 253 < 395 Effluent LF

- 07

- LQ

- 004 < 134 < 35 353 < 121 221 Effluent LF

- 09

- LQ

- 005 105 1,100 18,100 < 314 < 233 Effluent LF

- 09

- LQ

- 021 117 15.0 165 ND ND

Average 142 178 2,800 89.7 157 Std. Dev. 107 408 6,750 59.9 106 Median 117 16.0 221 93.5 157 Minimum 67.0 3.00 36.0 1.73 1.04 Maximum 378 1,100 18,100 157 304

a ND

– Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

Table 5

- 5

. Selected Landfill Influent Leachate

– Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Source of Sample Sample ID Ra

- 226 (pCi/L) Ra

- 228

(pCi/L) K

- 40

(pCi/L) Gross Alpha

(pCi/L) Gross Beta

(pCi/L) Influent LF

- 01

- LQ

- 019 < 139 < 21 236 < 18.3 117 Influent LF

- 02

- LQ

- 020 < 120 15 755 < 201 524 Influent LF

- 03

- LQ

- 015 116 < 14 246 < 168 < 203 Influent LF

- 04

- LQ

- 016 92.0 < 15 571 < 134 416 Influent LF

- 05

- LQ

- 023 115 < 20.0 182 < 323 < 233 Influent LF

- 06

- LQ

- 010 85.0 < 8.00 351 < 160 259 Influent LF

- 07

- LQ

- 011 < 97 < 8.00 278 < 200 < 200 Influent LF

- 08

- LQ

- 017 70 9 743 < 357 280 Influent LF

- 09

- LQ

- 012 95 < 9 242 < 195 < 200

Average 83.4 7.94 400 97.6 224 Std. Dev. 23.5 3.64 227 49.9 158 Median 85.0 7.50 278 97.5 117 Minimum 48.5 4.00 182 9.15 100 Maximum 116 15.0 755 179 524

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 11 Table 5

- 6

. S elected Landfill Solids, Filter Cake

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) LF

- 02

- SL

- 002 8.73 4.98 4.83 LF

- 03

- SL

- 004 53.0 5.03 2.72 LF

- 04

- SL

- 005 11.1 1.53 2.73 Average 24.3 3.85 3.43 Std. Dev. 24.9 2.01 1.22 Median 11.1 4.98 2.73 Minimum 8.73 1.53 2.72 Maximum 53.0 5.03 4.83

Table 5

- 7

. S elected Landfill Solids, Sediment

– Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g) U

- 238

(pCi/g) U

- 235

(pCi/g) Th

- 232

(pCi/g)

LF

- 01

- SL

- 001 4.46 2.53 15.2 < 2.51 0.177 2.48 LF

- 02

- SL

- 003 2.82 1.44 12.8 < 0.671 < 0.069 1.41
LF

- 04

- SL

- 006 3.44 0.979 10 < 0.868 < 0.128 0.960 Average 3.57 1.65 12.67 0.675 0.092 1.62 Std. Dev. 0.828 0 .796 2.60 0.505 0.075 0.781 Median 3.44 1.44 12.80 0.434 0.064 1,41 Minimum 2.82 0.979 10.00 0.336 0.035 0.96 Maximum 4.46 2.53 15.20 1.26 0.177 2.48

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 12

Table 5

- 8

. S elected Landfill Radon Concentrations

Sample ID County Location Exp. End Date Radon Conc. +/

- 2 S.D.

(pCi/L) MDC

(pCi/L) LF

- 01

- RA McKean 01 1/2014 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 02 1/2014 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 03 1/2014 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 04 1/2014 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 LF

- 02

- RA Elk 01 6/2014 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 02 6/2014 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 03 6/2014 Missing 04 6/2014 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 LF

- 03

- RA Butler 01 6/2014 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 02 6/2014 0.5 ± 0.2 0.2 03 6/2014 0.9 ± 0.2 0.2 04 6/2014 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 LF

- 04

- RA Butler 01 6/2014 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 02 6/2014 0.7 ± 0.2 0.2 03 6/2014 0.5 ± 0.2 0.2 04 6/2014 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 LF

- 05

- RA Fayette a 01 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 02 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 03 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 04 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 LF

- 06

- RA Fayette a 01 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 02 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 03 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 04 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 LF

- 07

- RA Washington a 01 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 02 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 03 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 04 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 LF

- 08

- RA Somerset a 01 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 02 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 03 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 04 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 LF

- 09

- RA Cambria a 01 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 02 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 03 7/2014 <0.4 0.4 04 7/2014 <0.4 0.4
The ATD laboratory does not report an error term on devices with results below their MDA.

a R epresents landfills with ATDs deployed.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5.0

Rev. 0 January 2015

5
- 13 Table 5

- 9

. S elected Landfill Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Results Summary

Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was be low this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximum, and average are the same, then all measurements were below half of the MDC. S ite ID No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

LF

- 01

- FS

- 073 31 4.2 5 11.3 1.27 4.48 65.0 65.0 0 .00 65.0 LF

- 03

- FS

- 076 27 5.80 5.80 0.00 5.80 63.0 63.0 0 .00 63.0 LF

- 05

- FS

- 050 27 8.30 8.30 0.00 8.30 64.0 64.0 0.00 64.0 LF

- 08

- FS

- 070 19 5.80 5.80 0.00 5.80 63.0 63.0 0.00 63.0 LF

- 02

- FS

- 135 30 4.25 4.25 0.00 4.25 65.0 65.0 0.00 65.0 LF

- 04

- FS

- 132 23 7.30 7.30 0.00 7.30 63.0 63.0 0.00 63.0 LF

- 06

- FS

- 131 10 5.80 5.80 0.00 5.80 63.0 63.0 0.00 63.0 LF

- 09

- FS

- 133 30 7.30 7.30 0.00 7.30 63.0 63.0 0.00 63.0 LF

- 07

- FS

- 134 10 7.30 7.30 0.00 7.30 63.0 63.0 0.00 63.0PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5.0

Rev. 0 January 2015

5
- 14 Table 5

- 10

. S elected Landfill Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Results Summary

Site ID No. of

Data Points Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Total Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average

LF

- 01

- FS

- 073 26 7. 4 5 39.8 9.42 13. 0 30 1 779 112 332 LF

- 03

- FS

- 076 28 7.45 84.6 21. 7 18. 1 288 3

, 6 30 642 682 LF

- 05

- FS

- 050 27 7.45 29.8 6. 84 1 1.4 285 942 221 410 LF

- 08

- FS

- 070 19 7.45 24.9 5.08 9.81 268 1

, 900 524 580 LF

- 02

- FS

- 135 22 18.6 38.9 4.6 1 20.3 288 1

, 27 0 356 692 LF

- 04

- FS

- 132 22 7.50 69.6 17. 5 1 3.3 274 1

, 559 371 646 LF

- 06

- FS

- 131 10 7.45 49.7 13. 5 1 4.9 289 766 194 381 LF

- 09

- FS

- 133 30 7.45 19.9 5.00 10. 8 272 1

, 360 250 401 LF

- 07

- FS

- 134 11 7.45 19.9 4.4 5 9.94 468 1

, 9 60 578 730
Note: During the calculations to convert from raw counts to dpm

, the calculated value was compared to half of the MDC. If the value was below this number, half of the MDC was inserted into the tables. Where the standard deviation is zero and the minimum, maximum, and average are the

same , then all measurements were bel ow half of the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 15 Table 5

- 11

. S elected Landfill Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary

Site GWS Max a

(cpm) GWS Min a

(cpm) GWS

Average a (cpm) GWS Std

Dev (cpm) No. Data

Points

LF

- 01 74,928 3,837 9,250 1,656 9,210 LF

- 02 16,737 3,299 9,097 2,954 13,977 LF

- 03 13,900 5,141 8,022 1,713 11,484 LF

- 04 16,545 5,272 10,742 2,807 8,691 LF

- 05 14,730 3,783 8,190 2,658 8,942 LF

- 06 10,994 5,118 7,649 902 9,129 LF

- 07 11,620 4,530 7,190 1,260 5,432 LF

- 08 18,894 3,466 6,573 1,909 10,977 LF

- 09 27,144 4,304 10,816 2,914 9,779

a Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield μ R /hr.

Table 5

- 1 2

. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

Site GWS Max

(μrem/hr) GWS Min

(μrem/hr) GWS

Average (μrem/hr) GWS Std

Dev (μrem/hr) No. Data

Points

LF

- 01 93.7 4.80 11.6 2.07 9,210 LF

- 02 20.9 4.12 11.4 3.69 13,977 LF

- 03 17.4 6.43 10.0 2.14 11,484 LF

- 04 20.7 6.59 13.4 3.51 8,691 LF

- 05 18.4 4.73 10.2 3.32 8,942 LF

- 06 13.7 6.40 9.56 1.13 9,129 LF

- 07 14.5 5.66 8.99 1.58 5,432 LF

- 08 23.6 4.33 8.22 2.39 10,977 LF

- 09 33.9 5.38 13.5 3.64 9,779PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 5.0 Rev. 0

January 2015 5

- 16

Table 5

- 1 3

. Gamma Spectroscopy Results (pCi/g) of Sealed Wastewater Treatment Sludge Sample Over 24 D ays

U - 235 184 KeV 8.58 8.09 8.67 8.64 8.71 8.73 8.44 8.68 8.78 8.72 8.68 8.64 8.69 8.60 8.75 8.72 8.71

Ac - 228 969 KeV 15.0 15.1 15.3 15.1 15.6 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.4 16.3 15.2 15.1 15.1 15.4 15.4 15.3

Ac - 228 911 keV 14.9 14.8 14.9 14.8 14.8 15.1 14.9 14.5 15.0 14.9 14.8 14.8 14.7 15.0 14.8 14.7 14.8

Ra - 226 186 keV 141 133 143 142 143 144 139 143 145 144 143 142 143 142 144 144 143

Bi - 214

1 , 764 keV 77.8 90.1 78.3 95.5 98.5 100 102 102 105 106 106 106 108 108 108 108 109

Bi - 214

1 , 120 keV 70.4 81 91.7 114 117 119 120 120 124 125 124 125 126 126 128 128 127

Bi - 214 609 keV 63 72.5 86.5 105 110 109 111 111 116 115 116 116 119 117 119 120 118

Pb - 214 351 keV 68.8 78.6 88.8 110 112 114 115 116 119 120 120 121 126 122 123 122 123

Pb - 214 295 keV 68.1 77.3 87.7 108 110 112 113 114 117 119 118 119 119 120 120 120 121

Pb - 212 300 keV 2.11

2.52 2.21 1.96 2.38 1.99 2.21 2.01 #NA 1.58 2.45 2.03 1.82 1.59 2.02 1.76

Pb - 212 238 keV 2.4 1.55 2.38 2.07 2.01 2.04 1.99 1.99 2 1.98 2.01 1.98 1.98 1.98 2.05 2.04 2.07 Time (days) T00 T01 T02 T07 T08 T09 T10 T11 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T21 T22 T23 T24

N/A

– indicates the analyte was not requested and subsequently not reported by the laboratory.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 1 6.0 GAS DISTRIBUTION AND END USE

U ranium

- 238 is distributed throughout the crust of the earth

, typical ly at concentrations of 0.33 to 1.0 pCi/g

. However, concentrations can be much higher in certain rock types or formations

. The U

- 238 decay series consists of 18 decay progeny , including Rn

. Radon is the only member of the decay series that is a gas at typical ambient conditions

. All of the other decay series members are solids

. Because Rn is a gas, it is high ly mobil e within the soil and rock matrix and it easily enters into structures

. There are two additional potential pathways for Rn entry into structures : well water and natural gas combustion

, e

. g ., cooking and unvented heating

. N atural gas samples were collected at underground storage sites, natural gas

- fired power plants, gas compression and transmission facilities

, a nd natural gas processing plant s

.
6.1 Natural Gas in Underground Storage

Natural gas samples were collected at four underground storage sites in P ennsylvania

. Duplicate samples were collected at each site during injection into the storage formation and during withdrawal from the storage formation. S ampling during injection was conducted during the
pe riod of May to August 2013

. S ampling during withdrawal was conducted during the period of January to early February 2014. At three of the sites the samples were obtained from the exhaust of the gas chromatograph

, which con tinuously analyzes the natural g as

. A t the fourth site

, the sample was collected from the injection flow dehydration unit. The results for injection sampling are presented in Table 6

- 1

. The results for withdrawal sampling are presented in Table 6

- 2

. The results indicate Rn concentration s are lower after underground storage. T he Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.
6.2 Natural Gas

- Fired Power Plants

T wo natural gas

- fired power plants (PP

- 01 and PP

- 02) were surveyed for gamma radiation exposure rates

. N atural gas samples were collected at both plants

, and ambient Rn
measurements were performed at the PP

- 02 fence line

. The natural gas Rn concentration results are presented in Table 6

- 3

, and the ambient Rn concentrations measured at the plant fence line are presented in Table 6

- 4

. All of the Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.

The gamma radiation exposure rate survey at the PP

- 02 power plant was conducted using a Ludlum Model 19 Micro

- R Meter

. With the exception of one area, the range of measurement results observed were 5

- 10 μR/hr

, which is within the range of natural background of gamma radiation for P ennsylvania

. The exception occurred on the external surface of a pipe elbow where the range of measurement results observed were 15

- 17 μR/hr

. During a subsequent
survey event , th e measurement results observed at the surface of th at pipe elbow w ere 5

- 10 μR/hr

, which is with in the range of natural background of gamma radiation lev els.

Ambient air was sampled at the PP

- 02 power plant site fence line

. Eight EIC passive Rn monitors were used. The monitors were deployed at the fence line around the power plant in roughly the four cardinal directions. See figures in Appendix E for exact locations. The monitors were placed

, in duplicate, inside a single Tyvek ® bag

. The Tyvek ® bag is permeable to Rn gas but impermeable to particulate matter. The monitors were hung on the fence line approximately 5 ft above grade

. Deployment of the Rn monitors was for 64 days. The fence linePA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 2 Rn monitor results were all at or below the MDC value for the analysis. The results are presented in Table 6

- 4

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.
6.3 Compressor Stations

Duplicate n atural gas samples were collected at intake flow lines of both facility CS

- 01 and CS

- 03

. Duplicate s am ples were collected at the compressor station discharge at facility CS

- 04. The CS

- 04 compressor station is associated with the n atural g as p rocessing p lant (CP

- 01) d iscussed below. Because of high pressure in the intake flow lines, duplicate natural gas samples

were collected at the continuous natural gas quality analyzer at CS

- 02

. This sample point is a small line off of a main exhaust for CS

- 02

. All compressor stations were receiving predominately Marcellus S hale unconventional natural gas at the time of sampl e collection

. Radon

- measured concentration s are presented in Table 6

- 5

. The compressor station natural gas Rn results are consistent with the production site Rn sample results

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

. Ambient air was sampled at the CS

- 01 compressor station fence line for the measurement of Rn concentrations

. Eight EIC passive Rn monitors were used. The monitors were deployed at the fence line around the power plant in roughly the four cardinal directions. See figures in Appendix E for exact locations. The monitors were placed

, in duplicate, inside a single Tyvek ® bag

. The Tyvek ® bag is per meable to Rn gas but impermeable to particulate matter. The monitors were hung on the fence line approximately 5 ft above grade

. Deployment of the Rn monitors was for 6 2 days. The fence line Rn monitor results ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 pCi/L. The
average concentration at each fence line location was with in the range of typical ambient background Rn concentrations in outdoor ambient air in the U.S. The results are presented in Table 6

- 6

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.
6.4 Natural Gas Processing Plan t

Two n atural gas samples were collected at the processing plant (CP

- 01) on two separate occasions : March 12, 2014 and September 11, 2014

. The results are presented in Table 6

- 7

. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.

G amma radiation exposure rate survey s w ere performed during the two site visits

. The exposure rate survey s w ere performed using a Ludlum Model 19 Micro

- R Meter. The first survey was performed on a rainy, windy day, limiting the outdoor areas surveyed

. The results include:

 Background in areas not impacted by the plant

– 5

- 10  R/hr

.

 General areas of the plant

– 5

- 10  R/hr

.

 Filter housing s (exposure rate measured on the outside surface) :

 C ontact readings measured on contact with filter housing s ranged fro m background to 75  R/hr , with two exceptions ; one measured 350  R/hr and the other measured 900  R/hr

.

 Propane processing

– radiation exposure rates measured up to 380  R/hr on contact with h eat

ex c hangers, reboilers, pipelines

, and pumps

.

 Propane storage area:

 Pipeline exposure rates measured from local background to 400  R/hr on contact

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 3  Ladder to decking area measured 80  R/hr general area

.

 Decking above ladder measured 50  R/hr general area

.

 Propane storage tank measured 210  R/hr on contact

.

 Propane tank trailer being filled

– 100  R/hr on contact with the tank

.

 Rail yard:

 Tank filling area

– local background to 20  R/hr general area

.

 Racks of filling pipes

– local background to 100  R/hr on contact

.

 Propane rail car tank

– 30  R/hr on contact

.

R ado n in natural gas sample results are presented in Table 6

- 7

. The highest concentration of Rn, 71.1 pCi/L, was measured in natural gas entering the processing plant

. The lowest concentration of Rn, 8.6 pCi/L , was measured in natural gas at the processing plant outflow. T he Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H

.

A second visit to the facility was made to survey and sample filter media. The filter housing with the highest exposure rate measured was selected for sampling and gamma spectroscopy analysis

. The outside of the filter housing measured 50  R/hr. The general radiation exposure
rate in the area of the filters was 15  R/hr. The filter housing on the facility propenizer equipment was opened during a filter change

- out and a sample of the cardboard filter media was collected

. The filter media sample was smeared for removable  and  surface radioactivity. Smear samples of removable  and  surface radioactivity were taken on each of the individual filter case s housing the filter media within the filter bank. The gross  and  removable surface radioactivity results summary statistics of the 11 smear sample counts from the filter case are presented in Table 6

- 8

. T he average  and  surface radioactivity levels are below the RG 1.86

 and  removable surface radioactivity criterion.

The results of the filter gamma spectrometry analysis are presented in Table 6

- 9

. A Pb

- 210 activity result of 3,580 pCi/g was identified, but no other gamma

- emitting NORM radionuclide results were above 1 pCi/g. The gross  and  removable surface radioactivity results for the filter media sample are presented in Table 6

- 10

. T he results are elevated relative to the RG 1.86
gross  and  removable surfa ce radioactivity criterion

.
6.5 Potential Exposure from Gas Scale Inside Pipes and Equipment

Materials deposited on interior surfaces of natural g as plant pipes and equipment are different from conventional oil industry Ra

- based pipe scale

. Natural gas plant scale typically consist s of Rn decay progeny that accumulate on the interior surfaces of plant pipes and equipment without the long

- lived Ra parent

. As a result, the only radionuclides that remain and adhere to the interior surfaces of machinery/pipes are the Rn decay progeny Po

- 210 and Pb

- 210. T hese longer

- lived decay
progeny are not readily detected on the outside of pipes

. H owever, Pb

- 210 and Po

- 210 emit  and  radioactive particles that may be a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard when pipes and machinery are opened for maintenance and/or cleaning.

A ccess to the internal surfaces of pipes and equipment for surveys of surface  and  activity was not available

. However, the facility propenizer equipment opened and sampled during filterPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 4 change

- out is representative of interior conditions and was described in Section 6.4. The results are presented in Table 6

- 9

. A Pb

- 210 activity result of 3,580 pCi/g was identified. N o other
gamma

- emitting NORM radionuclides above 1 pCi/g w ere identified

. The results confirm the build

- up of the longer

- lived Rn decay progeny in equipment and pipes

. The concentration of P b

- 210 identified may present a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard during routine system maintenance.

6.6 Radon Dosimetry

R ado n exposure in homes due to the use of natural gas appliances is presented in this section. Radon is transport ed with natural gas into structures ( homes, apartments

, and buildings ) that use natural gas for purposes such as heating and cooking.

T he incremental increase of Rn

- 222 for a typical home was estimated using the values and assumptions presented in Table 6

- 1 1 and as follows:

1. Well S ite Rn

- 222 Concentration in Natural Gas

 For the Rn gas concentration, only producti on site samples from Marcellus S hale well sites were used (n=16)

. The median value was 43.6 pCi/L

, and the maximum value was 148 pCi/L. Both of these values are used in the estimations of potential Rn exposure

.

2. Natural Gas/R n

- 222 Transit Time and Decay

 Assumed there is no Rn decay during transit.

3. R adon

- 222 Influx Rate

 The American Gas Association average natural gas use per day value of 5,465 L

/day was used

. The value does not consider the type s of appliance s used. The amount of Rn liberated into the home per hour is calculated using the estimated natural gas use per day (5,465 L /day) and the Rn concentration in that natural gas ( 43.6 and 148 pCi/L). The resulting value s are 238,274 pCi/day for the median concentr ation and 808,820 pCi/day for the maximum concentration. Dividing each value by 24 hours per day results in 9,928 pCi/hr and 33,700 pCi/hr, respectively. These estimates assume that none of the appliances are vented

. C onsequently, all of the R n in the natural gas is assumed to be liberated into the residence.

Rn

- 222 Influx Rate = (5,465 L/day x 43.64 pCi/L) / 24 hrs/day = 9,928 pCi/hr

Rn

- 222 Influx Rate = (5,465 L/day x 148 pCi/L)/ 24 hrs/day = 33,700 pCi/hr

4. Air Exchange Rate

 Using a resid ence volume of 385,152 L and an air ex change rate of 0.68 air changes per hour, 261,903 L / hr of home air is exchanged with outdoor air.

5. Consistent with EPA Rn assessments, an equilibrium factor of 40 percent is assumed.

6. Indoor Rn

- 222 Activity Concentration

 The Rn

- 222 influx per hour divided by the home air exchange rate per hour, 9,928 pCi/hr / 261,90 3 L /hr = 0.04 pCi/L for the median v alue

. The Rn

- 222 influx per hour divided by the home air exchange rate per hour, 33, 700 pCi/hr / 261,90 3 L/hr = 0.13 pCi/L for the maximum value. This is the increase in Rn

- 222 in the home resulting from natural gas use containing both a median value of 43.6 pCi/L and a maximum value of 148 pCi/L of Rn

- 222.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 5 The increase in Rn concentration of 0.0 4 and 0.13 pCi/L along with the standard values presented in Table 6

- 1 1 are used to estimate potential additional annual radiation dose to an exposed individual

.
Therefore,

0

. 04 pCi L ⁄ ∗ 0

. 4
100 = 0

. 00016 WL

The cumulative exposure is then WL multiplied by the number of hours exposed divided by 170 hrs/working month.

0

. 00016 WL ∗ 6
, 136 h rs / yr 170 h rs working mont h ⁄ =

. 006 WLM / yr

T his value was converted to a radiation dose by multiplying by the dose conversion factor, the tissue weighting factor

, and the radiation weighting factor:

0

. 08 ∗ 0

. 006 WLM

yr ∗ 0

. 54 rad

WLM ∗ 20 rem

rad ∗ 1000 mrem

rem = 5

. 2 mrem yr

⁄

The result is 5

. 2 mrem/yr for the median dose and 17.8 mrem/yr for the maximum whole bod y effective dose

.

B ased on the Rn and natural gas data collected as part of this study and the conservative assumptions made

, the incremental Rn increase in a home using natural gas appliances is estimated to be very small and would not be detectable by commercially available Rn testing devices. T he radiation dose received by home residents is a small fraction of the allowable general public dose limit of 100 mrem/yr

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 6 Table 6

- 1

. Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations , Injection

Sample ID County Formation Geology Sample Results, pCi/L Injection Ave.

Conc. ± 2 S.D (pCi/L) MD C

(pCi/L)

US 01 Potter Oriskany Sandstone 32.6 and 26.7 29.6 ± 8.2 0.2

US 02 Tioga Oriskany Sandstone 25.7 and 21.2 23.5 ± 6.4 0.2

US 03 Armstrong Sandstone 20.4 and 20.4 20.4 ± 0.0 0.2

US 04 Fayette Limestone 20.3 and 21.2 20.8 ± 1.2 0.2

Scintillation Cells Note: All results adjusted to ambient air by divid ing by 1.054, according to Jenkins et. al., Health Physics, Vol. 106, No. 3, March 2014.

Table 6

- 2

. Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations, Withdrawal

Sample ID County Formation Geology Sample Results, pCi/L Withdrawal Ave.

Conc. ± 2 S.D. (pCi/L) MD C

(pCi/L)

US 01 Potter Oriskany Sandstone 4.9 and 5.3 5.1 ± 0.6 0.3

US 02 Tioga Oriskany Sandstone 10.9 and 9.3 10.1 ± 2.2 0.2

US 03 Armstrong Sandstone 5.6 and 5.9 5.8 ± 0.4 0.2

US 04 Fayette Limestone 10.8 and 11.7 11.3 ± 1.2 0.4

Scintillation Cells Note: All results adjusted to ambient air by dividing by 1.054, according to Jenkins et. al., Health Physics, Vol. 106, No. 3, March 2014.

Table 6

- 3

. Natural Gas

- Fired Power Plant Sample s Analyzed for Radon Content

ID # County Gas Source Radon Conc. ± 2 Std. S.D. (pCi/L) MD C (pCi/L)

PP 01 Fayette Marcellus Shale 33.7 ± 1.8 1.5 PP 02 Berks Marcellus Shale 35.7 ± 11.0 0.2PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 7 Table 6

- 4

. Natural Gas

- Fired Power Plants Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (PP 02)

Location Radon Conc. ± 2 S.D. (pCi/L) MD C (pCi/L) West Fence 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 North Fence 0.1 ± 0.2 0.2 0.1 ± 0.2 0.2 East Fence 0.0 ± 0.2 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 South Fence 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2

Table 6

- 5

. Compressor Station Radon Samples
Sample ID County Gas Source Radon Conc. ± 2 S.D. (pCi/L) MDC

(pCi/L) CS

- 01

- RG Berks Marcellus Shale 28.8 ± 1.4 0.2 CS

- 02

- RG Fayette Mostly Marcellus Shale 39.8 ± 4.4 0.2 CS

- 03

- RG Clinton 98% Marcellus Shale 34.0 ± 0.2 0.2 CS

- 04

- RG Washington Marcellus Shale 58.1 ± 1.1 0.2

Table 6

- 6

. Compressor Station Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (CS 01)

Location Radon Conc. ± 2 S.D. (pCi/L) MD C (pCi/L)

Northeast Fence 0.5 ± 0.2 0.2 0.8 ± 0.2 0.2

Southeast Fence 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2

Northwest Fence 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 0.1 ± 0.2 0.2

Southwest Fence 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2

Table 6

- 7

. Natural Gas Processing Plant Radon Samples

ID # County Gas Source Radon Conc. ± 2 S.D. (pCi/L) MDC

(pCi/L) CP

- 01 Washington Processing Plant Inflow 1 67.7 ± 1.5 0.2 CP

- 01 Washington Processing Plant Inflow 2 71.1 ± 1.6 1.6 CP

- 01 Washington Processing Plant Outflow
to Transmission Line 1 8.6 ± 0.4 0.3

CP

- 01 Washington Processing Plant Outflow to Transmission Line 1 9.3 ± 0.4 0.3PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 8

Table 6

- 8

. Compressor Station and Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Case Removable Radioactivity Results

Facility ID No. of

Data Points Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average CP

- 01

- FS

- 136 11 4.70 29.6 8.78 15.5
Facility ID No. of Data

Points Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm 2 )

Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation Average CP

- 01

- FS

- 136 11 8 .25 96 .0 23. 9 32 .2

Table 6

- 9

. Compressor and Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Media , Gamma Spectroscopy

Nuclide Result Error MDC Units
A c

- 228 0.141 0.053 0.077 pCi/g
B i

- 212 0.287 0.000 0.373 pCi/g
B i

- 214 0.564 0.082 0.054 pCi/g
K

- 40 1.30 0.216 0.225 pCi/g
P b

- 210 3,580 552 14.2 pCi/g
P b

- 212 0.066 0.044 0.071 pCi/g
P b

- 214 0.629 0.070 0.076 pCi/g
R a

- 226 0.585 0.566 0.926 pCi/g
R a

- 228 0.141 0.053 0.077 pCi/g
T h

- 232 0.125 0.047 0.077 pCi/g
U

- 235

- 0.105 0.000 0.382 pCi/g
U

- 238

- 14.7 0.000 3.15 pCi/g

Table 6

- 10 . Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Media, Gross Alpha/Gross Beta

Sample Gross Alpha Gross Beta Filter Media 708 ± 15.2 dpm/cm 2 1,914 ± 11.9 dpm/cm 2PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 6 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 6

- 9

Table 6

- 1 1

. Radon Dosimetry Values for a T ypical H ome

Parameter Value Reference Median Sq. Feet of House 1,700 ft 2 1 Ceiling Height 8 ft Air Change Rate 0.68 2 Home Occupancy Factor 70% (6,136 hrs/yr) 3 Average Daily Nat. Gas Use 193 ft 3 /day (5,465 L/day) 4 Pipeline Distance 260 miles 5 Avg. pipeline speed (gas) 5 mph 6 Dose Conversion Factor 0.54 rad/WLM 7 Tissue W eighting F actor (Bronchial region) 0.08 7 Rad. Weighting Factor, alpha 20 r em /r ad 7 Equilibrium Factor 0.4 3 Lung Cancer Risk per U nit Exposure 5.38E

- 4 per WLM 3

Table References : 1. U.S. Census, American Housing Survey, 2011, Table C

- 02

- AH

. 2. Nazaroff, W.W. and Nero, A.V. Radon and its Decay Products in Indoor Air. John Wiley & Sons, 1988. 3. Pawal, D.J. and Puskin, J.S. EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes. U.S. EPA, June 2003. 4. American Gas Association, Washington, D

. C. 5. National Pipeline Mapping System, User Guide, U.S. DOT, 2011. 6. Spectra Energy Transmission, Personal Communication, May 2014. 7. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), Annex E, 2006

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 1 7

. 0 O IL AND GAS BRINE

- TREATED ROADS

Brine produced from O& G wells and other sources such as brine treatment plants and brine wells is used as a dust suppressant and road stabilizer on unpaved secondary road s in P ennsylvania

. Th e O&G brine used is from conventional formations only

. DEP has developed a f act sheet, Roadspreading of Brine for Dust Control and Road Stabilization

, for use as a guide when utilizing brine on unpaved roads. The f act sheet was developed under the authority of the Clean Streams Law, the Solid Waste Management Act, and Chapters 78 and 101 of DEP’s Rules and Regulations (DEP 2013)

. For this study, roads in the southwest, northwest, and north

- central regions were surveyed and sampled. M ost O&G operations occur in these regions

. The surveys and sampling includ ed :

 Thirty

- two O&G brine

- treated roads were surveyed

. Thirty

- one biased surface s amples were

c ollected from the O&G brine

- treated roads

. The biased locations were selected based on increased instrument audio response monitored by the technician during scan surveys

.

 Eighteen reference background roads were surveyed , consisting of roads geographically close to a n O&G brine

- treated road that ha d not been identified as O&G brine

- treated

. Fourteen surface s amples were c o llected from reference background roads

.

7 .1 Gamma Radioactivity Survey Results

The survey s include d gross gamma radiation scans performed using 2

- inch x 2

- inch NaI detectors and a Ludlum M odel 2221 scaler/ratemeter instrument

. Two detectors were attached to the hitch of a standard sport utility vehicle (SUV) approximately 3 ft apart

. This detector array

was offset to provide as much edge/shoulder coverage as possible. Each detector was mounted approximately 6 inches above the road surface. Every road had a complete scan on both sides

. A total of four detector passes on each road were conducted

. The instrument data w ere recorded along with the location information usi ng a pair of TrimbleTM ProXT g lobal p ositioning s ystem ( GPS ) units.

7 .1.1 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

Gross gamma radiation scans , recorded in cpm

, were performed on 32 road surfaces treated with O&G brine for dust suppression and r oad stabilization

. The gamma radiation count rate data and GPS data w ere downloaded and placed on maps using the most recent aerial maps available from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA). GIS software was used to develop a graphic display of the gamma scan results. The resulting gamma radiation count rate intensity images

are presented in Appendix E

. The minimum, maximum, median, mean

, and standard deviations for each data set are presented in Table 7

- 1

. In addition to calculating the file statistics, a two

sampl e student t

- test was performed.

The two

- sample student t

- test was used to compare the subject road ( O&G brine

- treated) results with a reference background road

. ProUCL version 5.0 was used to perform the student t

- test on the data. The Null Hypothesis tested is that the mean value of the treated road gamma radiation count rate data is statistically different from the mean value of the reference background road gamma radiation count rate data at the 95 percent confidence level. The results of the t

- test forPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 2 each pair of road results are included in Table 7

- 1

. Sixteen of 28 comparisons of O&G brine

treated and reference background roads are statistically different at the 95 percent confidence level

. The t

- test output files are included in Appendix G

.

7 .1.2 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results Summary

Gross gamma radiation scan results in units of cpm were converted to  R/hr using 800 cpm per  R/hr, a conversion factor appropriate for Ra

- 226 gamma energy as detected with 2

- inch by 2

- inch NaI detectors rounded to one significant figure ( Table 6. 4 , NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contamina nts , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field C onditions, USNRC June 1998 )

. Table 7

- 2 presents the results for each road

.

7 .2 Soil Sample Results

Biased surface soil s amples were collected based on the audio response of the gamma scan survey instrument ratemeter on 31 of the 32 O&G brine

- treated roads

. When an area with elevated radioactivity was detected

, surface soil sample s were collected at that area

.

7 .2.1 Road S urface Soils Biased S ample Results

The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in Tables 7

- 3 through 7

- 5 for the U, Th

, and Ac series radionuclides. A review of the U series radionuclides indicates excess Ra

- 226 activity in 19 of 33 surface soil samples. For the purposes of this study, e xcess Ra

- 226 activity is defined

as Ra

- 226 activity greater than the natural backgrou nd U decay series activity in surface soil. The excess Ra

- 226 activity was determined as follow s :

 The O&G brine applied to road surfaces contains Ra

- 226 and its progeny

. It does not contain U

, which is insoluble. Therefore

, the U

- 238 activity identified in the gamma spectroscopy analysis results represents the natural background U series activity in surface soil for the

area. The average U

- 238 activity of the 31 samples is 0. 882 pCi/g

.

 U

- 235 makes up 0.7 percent by weight of natural U

, which equates to 1/22 of the U

- 238 activity. Therefore, 0.04 0 pCi/g of U

- 235 is present in the surface soil samples.

 Ra dium

- 226 is measured directly by detection of its 186.2 keV energy line (3.28 percent yield). However, the presence of U

- 235 can cause interference with direct Ra

- 226 detection because it has a gamma line of similar energy (18 5 .7 keV at 54 percent yield). In solid samples where natural U including U

- 238 and Ra

- 226 are at equal activity and U

- 235 is at 1/22 the activity of U

- 238, over estimation of Ra

- 226 is quantified by multiplying the U

- 235 activity by the ratio of the yields of the similar gamma radiation emissions, i.e.

, 54/3.28. Therefore

, the Ra

- 226 overestimation in the surface soil samples is equal to 0. 660 pCi/g [ 0.04 0 pCi/g x (54/3.28) = 0. 660 pCi/g ]

.

 After correcting the reported Ra

- 226 activity by 0. 882 pCi/g of natural background activity and 0. 662 pCi/g of U

- 235 bias, 1 9 of 3 1 samples have excess Ra ranging from 0. 108 to 5. 42 pCi/g above natural background

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 3 See Section 2.3 for a complete discussion of the identification of NORM radio nuclides by gamma spectroscopy.

The gamma spectroscopy results for the Th series radionuclides indicate the Th series is in secular equilibrium

. The T h

- 232 mean and median value s are essentially equal and the standard deviation is a fraction of the mean value

, indicating the data is normally distribute d

. A normal distribution of radioactivity measurements is indicat ive of natural background radioactivity

, which is more homogeneous than contaminated soil. The mean Ra

- 228 activity of the 3 1 surface soil samples is 0.97 7 + 0.3 5 1 pCi/g. The range of the results is from 0.455 to 1.85 pCi/g.

7 .2. 2 Road Surface Soils

– Refer ence Background Roads Soils

As a point of reference and for comparison, 18 roads in the geographic vicinity of the subject roads that have n o t been identified as O&G brine

- treated were selected for survey ing

, and 14 biased soil samples were collected

. The gamma spectroscopy results of the background samples are presented in Tables 7

- 6 through 7

- 8 for the U, Th

, and Ac series radionuclides. A review of the U series radionuclides indicates excess Ra

- 226 activity in 14 surface soil samples. Excess Ra

- 226 activity is greater than the natural background U decay series activity in surface soil. The excess Ra

- 226 activity was determined as follows:

 The O&G brine applied to road surfaces contains Ra

- 226 and its progeny. It does not contain U

, which is in soluble. Therefore

, the U

- 238 activity identified in the gamma spectroscopy analysis results represents the natural background U series activity in surface soil for the

area. The average U

- 238 activity of the 14 samples is 0.819 pCi/g.

 U

- 235 makes up 0.7 percent by weight of natural U

, which equates to 1/22 of the U

- 238 activity. Therefore, there is 0.0 37 pCi/g of U

- 235 present in the surface soil samples.

 Ra dium

- 226 is measured directly by detection of its 18 6

. 2 keV energy line (3.28 percent yield). However, the presence of U

- 235 can cause interference with direct Ra

- 226 detection since it has a gamma line of similar energy ( 18 5 .7 keV at 54 percent yield ). In solid samples where natural U including U

- 238 and Ra

- 226 at equal activity a nd U

- 235 at 1/22 the activity of U

- 238, over estimation of Ra

- 226 is quantified by multiplying the U

- 235 activity by the ratio of the yields of the similar gamma emissions, i.e.

, 54/3.28. Therefore

, the Ra

- 226 overestimation in the surface soil samples is equal to 0.0 37 pCi/g x (54/3.28) = 0.61 pCi/g.

 After correcting the reported Ra

- 226 activity by 0. 819 pCi/g of natural background activity and 0.71 pCi/g of U

- 235 bias, 1 1 of 14 samples have excess Ra ranging from 0. 118 to 6 1.5 pCi/g above natural background

. See Section 2.3 for a complete discussion of the identification of NORM radionuclides by gamma spectroscopy

.

The gamma spectroscopy results for the Th decay series are not normally distributed nor indicative of natural Th background radioactivity. Thorium

- 232 mean and median value s are not equal and the standard deviation is large relative to the mean value

, indicating the data are not normally distributed and heterogen eous

. A normal distribution of radioactivity measurements is indicative of natural background radioactivity

, which is more homogeneous than contaminatedPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 4 soil. The mean Ra

- 228 activity of the 14 surface soil samples is 1.93 + 2.81 pCi/g. The range of the results is from 0. 396 to 11.2 pCi/g.

The background reference road soil sample results are positive for excess Ra

- 226 at 11 of 14 roads sampled

. Three of the Ra

- 228 results are greater than 2.98 pCi/g

, which is approximately three times natural backgrou nd for the Th series

. The excess Ra is higher than for the identified O&G brine

- treated roads. The average excess Ra

- 226 for roads identified as having been O&G brine

- treated is 1.1 3 pCi/g compared to an average of 8. 2 3 pCi/g on the background reference roads. One possible explanation is that all of the roads have been treated with O&G brine. After the 32 roads had been identified as O&G brine

- treated, the reference background roads were selected by proximity to the 32 roads. Nothing precluded the selected background roads from having been treated with O&G brine.

7

. 3 P ublic E xposure to Oil and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads

A total of 3 1 samples were collected from roads treated with O&G brine. An additional 1 4 surface soil samples were taken in reference background areas not expected to be impacted by O&G brine treatment. Both the treated and the reference background roads were positive for

excess Ra

. To evaluate potential exposure to the public from the O&G brine

- treated roads

, a source term of 1 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 and 0.5 pCi/g of Ra

- 228 was assumed within a 6

- inch layer of surface material (treated road s urface).

The Argonne National Laboratory RESidual RADioactivity ( RESRAD ) Version 7.0 code for modeling exposure from residual radioactivity was used to evaluate potential exposure from the O&G brine

- treated roads. RESRAD is a computer model designed to estimate radiation doses and risks from res idual rad ioactive materials. RESRAD has bee n used widely by DOE, its operations and area offices, and its contractors for deriving limits for radionuclides in soil. RESRAD has also been used by EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) , NRC, industrial firms, universities, and foreign government a gencies and institutions. The recreationist is an appropriate exposure scenario based on the remote location of the roads. A recreationist, such as

a jogger or hunter, usually spends less time on the impacted area

, e.g., two hours a day, three days a week

, th a n a resident. However, a recreationist may have a higher inhalation rate than a resident. Recreational land use addresses exposure to people who spend a limited amount of time at or near a site while playing, fishing, hunting, hiking, or engagin g in other outdoor activities. Environmental exposure pathways included in the recreationist scenario include ground external gamma, inhalation, Rn, plant consumption, meat consumption, milk consumption, and soil ingestion.

The estimated total dose from 1 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 and 0.5 pCi/g of Ra

- 228 above natural background in surface soil, to a recreationist, in the year of max imum exposure (year 1) is 0.441 mrem

/yr

, which is below the 100 mrem/yr public exposure criteria based on assumed activity concentrati ons

. T he results of the environmental pathways for year 1, the year of maximum dose, are presented in Table 7

- 9

. The a ctual dose received is dependent up on both the

excess Ra radioactivity in surface soil and the time spent exposed to the soil surface.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 5 Table 7

- 1

. Gamma Scan Survey Summary

Study ID GWS

Max (cpm) GWS

Min (cpm) GWS

Median (cpm) GWS

Mean (cpm) GWS

Std Dev (cpm) No.

Data Points NaI

BKG (cpm) T

- Test

Results (Sample to BKG)

BR

- 04

- SL

- 011 16,512 7,892 13,022 12,655 1,588 2,906 12,511 Accept
BR

- 04

- SL

- 010 Part of same road as BR

- 04

- SL

- 011
BR

- 05

- SL

- 009 16,067 10,936 13,431 13,411 732 1,387 12,511 A ccept BR

- 06

- SL

- 004 15,757 9,875 13,430 13,363 799 1,452 12,511 Accept
BR

- 07

- SL

- 008 15,641 7,975 12,843 12,511 1,449 2,389 NA NA
BR

- 01

- SL

- 001 17,778 4,106 11,456 11,759 1,564 11,536 11,135 Accept
BR

- 02

- SL

- 002 13,268 9,766 11,050 11,135 615 850 NA NA
BR

- 08

- SL

- 003 14,234 9,771 11,988 11,990 693 5,590 11,960 Reject
BR

- 09 13,565 10,313 11,998 11,960 736 222 NA NA
BR

- 10

- SL

- 012 15,179 5,888 11,977 11,968 996 9,253 10,898 Accept
BR

- 11 12,762 9,449 10,882 10,898 591 596 NA NA
BR

- 13

- SL

- 006 13,180 9,526 11,311 11,273 646 961 NA NA
BR

- 12

- SL

- 005 12,050 6,114 9,121 9,136 895 4,644 11,273 Accept
BR

- 15

- SL

- 014 14,509 7,695 10,816 10,873 1,128 1,359 NA NA
BR

- 14

- SL

- 013 14,053 2,032 10,861 10,759 1,053 5,395 10,873 Reject
BR

- 16

- SL

- 015 12,360 9,470 10,587 10,614 461 592 NA NA
BR

- 17

- SL

- 016 13,870 9,100 11,586 11,555 761 4,388 10,614 Accept
BR

- 18

- SL

- 017 9,949 6,066 7,479 7,524 616 727 NA NA
BR

- 19

- SL

- 018 16,990 6,821 9,395 9,510 921 5,231 7,524 Accept
BR

- 20

- SL

- 019 13,511 5,404 8,747 8,825 1,317 3,944 NA NA
BR

- 21

- SL

- 020 12,463 6,232 8,560 8,611 899 877 8,825 Accept
BR

- 22

- SL

- 021 13,126 5,947 9,019 9,317 1,646 704 NA NA
BR

- 23

- SL

- 022 13,740 5,491 9,335 9,376 1,352 3,605 9,317 Reject
BR

- 24

- SL

- 023 13,217 5,349 8,498 8,590 1,182 3,375 9,317 Reject
BR

- 25

- SL

- 024 13,248 5,069 7,436 7,781 1,487 1,984 8,226 Reject
BR

- 26

- SL

- 025 11,208 5,882 8,254 8,226 893 343 NA NA
BR

- 27

- SL

- 026 11,333 5,708 8,281 8,267 955 579 NA NA
BR

- 28

- SL

- 027 12,475 4,597 7,678 7,785 1,234 3,376 8,267 Reject
BR

- 29

- SL

- 028 14,465 5,309 9,041 9,490 1,924 2,556 7,925 Accept
BR

- 30

- SL

- 029 10,360 5,687 7,965 7,925 703 759 NA NA
BR

- 31

- SL

- 030 14,415 6,200 9,744 9,801 1,172 7,245 10,093 Reject
BR

- 32

- SL

- 031 14,117 6,527 10,057 10,093 1,118 1,958 NA NA
BR

- 33

- SL

- 032 10,975 6,030 8,442 8,406 658 2,603 10,093 Reject
BR

- 34

- SL

- 033 11,448 5,340 8,276 8,211 790 3,347 10,093 Reject
BR

- 35

- SL

- 034 12,056 5,972 9,036 9,076 925 2,186 10,093 RejectPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 6 Table 7

- 1. Gamma Scan Survey Summary

Study ID GWS

Max (cpm) GWS

Min (cpm) GWS

Median (cpm) GWS

Mean (cpm) GWS

Std Dev (cpm) No.

Data Points NaI

BKG (cpm) T

- Test

Results (Sample to BKG)

BR

- 36

- SL

- 035 10,981 5,693 8,566 8,502 748 975 NA NA
BR

- 37

- SL

- 036 11,617 5,591 8,069 8,059 699 10,257 8,502 Reject
BR

- 38

- SL

- 037 10,668 6,105 8,006 7,979 662 406 NA NA
BR

- 39

- SL

- 038 10,535 6,124 7,942 7,920 649 1,124 7,979 Reject
BR

- 40

- SL

- 039 11,617 5,684 7,883 7,866 653 3,712 7,979 NA
BR

- 41 10,227 5,868 8,001 7,974 679 510 NA NA
BR

- 42

- SL

- 040 10,859 5,774 7,951 7,950 722 1,560 7,974 NA
BR

- 43

- SL

- 041 12,789 5,048 7,978 7,954 1,036 3,399 7,974 NA
BR

- 44

- SL

- 042 15,498 5,710 9,911 9,995 1,759 5,223 6,260 Accept
BR

- 45

- SL

- 043 15,390 6,376 11,268 11,015 1,531 1,399 6,260 Accept
BR

- 46

- SL

- 044 8,437 5,017 6,195 6,260 578 917 NA NA
BR

- 47

- SL

- 045 10,560 5,177 7,252 7,258 822 3,434 6,260 Accept
BR

- 48

- SL

- 046 12,338 5,208 7,868 7,991 1,239 3,152 6,260 Accept
BR

- 49

- SL

- 047 14,314 5,523 8,906 9,124 1,418 2,928 6,260 Accept
BR

- 50

- SL

- 048 12,933 6,066 9,315 9,292 1,067 2,293 6,260 Accept

Notes: 1. Each group of O&G brine

- treated and associated background road(s) are shaded the same. 2. Bold

– represents the background population for each shaded or unshaded group

, respectively

. 3. NA

– indicates reference background road. 4. Accept (the Null Hypothesis) indicates there is a statistical difference in the data at the 95 percent confidence level. Reject (the Null Hypothesis) ind icates the resulting surveys are statistically the same at the 95 percent confidence level.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 7 Table 7

- 2. Summary of NaI Gamma Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rate

Site GWS Max

(μ R /hr) GWS Min

(μ R /hr) GWS

Median (μ R /hr) GWS

Mean (μ R /hr) GWS Std

.

Dev

. (μ R /hr) No. Data

Points

BR

- 04

- SL

- 011 20.6 9.9 0 16.3 15.8 2 .00 2,906

BR

- 04

- SL

- 010 Part of same road as BR

- 04

- SL

- 011

– file statistics are same

. BR

- 05

- SL

- 009 20.1 13.7 16.8 16.8 0.9 0 1,387

BR

- 06

- SL

- 004 19.7 12.3 16.8 16.7 1 .00 1,452

BR

- 07

- SL

- 008 19.6 10 .0 16.1 15.6 1.8 0 2,389

BR

- 01

- SL

- 001 22.2 5.1 0 14.3 14.7 2 .00 11,536

BR

- 02

- SL

- 002 16.6 12.2 13.8 13.9 0.8 00 850

BR

- 08

- SL

- 003 17.8 12.2 15 .0 15 .0 0.9 00 5,590

BR

- 09 17 .0 12.9 15 .0 15 .0 0.9 0 222 BR

- 10

- SL

- 012 19 .0 7.4 0 15 .0 15 .0 1.2 0 9,253

BR

- 11 16 .0 11.8 13.6 13.6 0.7 0 596 BR

- 13

- SL

- 006 16.5 11.9 14.1 14.1 0.8 0 961

BR

- 12

- SL

- 005 15.1 7.6 0 11.4 11.4 1.1 0 4,644

BR

- 15

- SL

- 014 18.1 9.6 0 13.5 13.6 1.4 0 1,359

BR

- 14

- SL

- 013 17.6 2.5 0 13.6 13.4 1.3 0 5,395

BR

- 16

- SL

- 015 15.5 11.8 13.2 13.3 0.6 00 592

BR

- 17

- SL

- 016 17.3 11.4 14.5 14.4 1 .00 4,388

BR

- 18

- SL

- 017 12.4 7.6 0 9.3 0 9.4 0 0.8 00 727

BR

- 19

- SL

- 018 21.2 8.5 0 11.7 11.9 1.2 0 5,231

BR

- 20

- SL

- 019 16.9 6.8 0 10.9 11 .0 1.6 0 3,944

BR

- 21

- SL

- 020 15.6 7.8 0 10.7 10.8 1.1 0 877

BR

- 22

- SL

- 021 16.4 7.4 0 11.3 11.6 2.1 0 704PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 8 Table 7

- 2. Summary of NaI Gamma Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rate

Site GWS Max

(μ R /hr) GWS Min

(μ R /hr) GWS

Median (μ R /hr) GWS

Mean (μ R /hr) GWS Std

.

Dev

. (μ R /hr) No. Data

Points

BR

- 23

- SL

- 022 17.2 6.9 0 11.7 11.7 1.7 0 3,605

BR

- 24

- SL

- 023 16.5 6.7 0 10.6 10.7 1.5 0 3,375

BR

- 25

- SL

- 024 16.6 6.3 0 9.3 0 9.7 0 1.9 0 1,984

BR

- 26

- SL

- 025 14 .0 7.4 0 10.3 10.3 1.1 0 343

BR

- 27

- SL

- 026 14.2 7.1 0 10.4 10.3 1.2 0 579

BR

- 28

- SL

- 027 15.6 5.7 0 9.6 0 9.7 0 1.5 0 3,376

BR

- 29

- SL

- 028 18.1 6.6 0 11.3 11.9 2.4 0 2,556

BR

- 30

- SL

- 029 13 .0 7.1 0 10 .0 9.9 0.9 0 759

BR

- 31

- SL

- 030 18 .0 7.8 0 12.2 12.3 1.5 0 7,245

BR

- 32

- SL

- 031 17.6 8.2 0 12.6 12.6 1.4 0 1,958

BR

- 33

- SL

- 032 13.7 7.5 0 10.6 10.5 0.8 00 2,603

BR

- 34

- SL

- 033 14.3 6.7 0 10.3 10.3 1 .00 3,347

BR

- 35

- SL

- 034 15.1 7.5 0 11.3 11.3 1.2 0 2,186

BR

- 36

- SL

- 035 13.7 7.1 0 10.7 10.6 0.9 00 975

BR

- 37

- SL

- 036 14.5 7 .00 10.1 10.1 0.9 00 10,257

BR

- 38

- SL

- 037 13.3 7.6 0 10 .0 10 .0 0.8 00 406

BR

- 39

- SL

- 038 13.2 7.7 0 9.9 0 9.9 0 0.8 00 1,124

BR

- 40

- SL

- 039 14.5 7.1 0 9.9 0 9.8 0 0.8 00 3,712

BR

- 41 12.8 7.3 0 10 .0 10 .0 0.8 00 510 BR

- 42

- SL

- 040 13.6 7.2 0 9.9 0 9.9 0 0.9 00 1,560

BR

- 43

- SL

- 041 16 6.3 0 10 .0 9.9 0 1.3 0 3,399PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 9 Table 7

- 2. Summary of NaI Gamma Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rate

Site GWS Max

(μ R /hr) GWS Min

(μ R /hr) GWS

Median (μ R /hr) GWS

Mean (μ R /hr) GWS Std

.

Dev

. (μ R /hr) No. Data

Points

BR

- 44

- SL

- 042 19.4 7.14 12.4 12.5 2.20 5,223

BR

- 45

- SL

- 043 19.2 7.97 14.1 13.8 1.91 1,399

BR

- 46

- SL

- 044 10.5 6.27 7.74 7.82 0.722 917

BR

- 47

- SL

- 045 13.2 6.47 9.06 9.07 1.03 3,434

BR

- 48

- SL

- 046 15.4 6.51 9.84 9.99 1.55 3,152

BR

- 49

- SL

- 047 17.9 6.90 11.1 11.4 1.77 2,928

BR

- 50

- SL

- 048 16.2 7.58 11.6 11.6 1.33 2,293PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 10 Table 7

- 3

. Road

- Biased Soil

– Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID U

- 238

(pCi/g) Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Pb

- 214

(pCi/g) Bi

- 214

(pCi/g)
BR

- 01

- SL

- 001 0.905 2.57 1.36 1.30 BR

- 04

- SL

- 010 1.08 2.03 0.959 0.872 BR

- 04

- SL

- 011 < 2.75 1.51 0.991 0.985 BR

- 05

- SL

- 009 0.792 2.12 1.03 0.932 BR

- 06

- SL

- 004 < 1.54 2.05 0.891 0.858 BR

- 12

- SL

- 005 < 1.96 1.81 1.02 1.03 BR

- 14

- SL

- 013 < 1.45 2.98 1.90 1.82 BR

- 15

- SL

- 014 1.63 2.55 1.31 1.22 BR

- 17

- SL

- 016 < 0.901 2.22 1.17 1.07 BR

- 19

- SL

- 018 < 1.19 1.44 0.598 0.587 BR

- 21

- SL

- 020 1.27 4.57 2.86 2.69 BR

- 23

- SL

- 022 1.81 4.38 2.32 2.18 BR

- 24

- SL

- 023 < 1.03 4.22 2.85 2.67 BR

- 25

- SL

- 024 1.19 6.96 4.89 4.48 BR

- 28

- SL

- 027 1.50 3.07 2.02 1.74 BR

- 29

- SL

- 028 1.52 2.50 1.20 1.15 BR

- 31

- SL

- 030 < 0.599 1.93 0.840 0.822 BR

- 33

- SL

- 032 0.624 1.53 0.820 0.751 BR

- 34

- SL

- 033 0.605 1.22 0.648 0.564 BR

- 35

- SL

- 034 0.949 1.65 0.867 0.811 BR

- 37

- SL

- 036 0.790 1.75 0.842 0.771 BR

- 39

- SL

- 038 < 0.912 1.14 0.638 0.625 BR

- 40

- SL

- 039 0.930 < 0.057 0.458 0.507 BR

- 42

- SL

- 040 0.562 1.35 0.626 0.561 BR

- 43

- SL

- 041 < 0.563 1.18 0.635 0.613 BR

- 44

- SL

- 042 0.931 1.95 0.909 0.830 BR

- 45

- SL

- 043 < 0.72 < 0.070 0.590 0.763 BR

- 47

- SL

- 045 1.39 0.970 0.481 0.443 BR

- 48

- SL

- 046 < 1.02 1.45 0.716 0.725 BR

- 49

- SL

- 047 0.696 1.30 0.595 0.547 BR

- 50

- SL

- 048 0.865 1.99 1.02 0.949 Average 0.882 2.14 1.23 1.16 Std. Dev. 0.410 1.38 0.932 0.852 Median 0.792 1.93 0.909 0.858 Minimum 0.282 0.029 0.458 0.443 Maximum 1.81 6.96 4.89 4.48

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 11 Table 7

- 4

. Road

- Biased Soil

 Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Th

- 232

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) Ac

- 228

(pCi/g) Pb

- 212

(pCi/g) Bi

- 212

(pCi/g)
BR

- 01

- SL

- 001 1.08 1.09 1.13 1.40 0.626 BR

- 04

- SL

- 010 1.31 1.33 1.37 1.62 0.809 BR

- 04

- SL

- 011 1.49 1.51 1.56 1.56 0.912 BR

- 05

- SL

- 009 1.43 1.43 1.50 1.73 0.857 BR

- 06

- SL

- 004 1.16 1.18 1.22 1.22 0.720 BR

- 12

- SL

- 005 1.14 1.16 1.19 0.987 0.605 BR

- 14

- SL

- 013 1.15 1.17 1.21 1.57 0.708 BR

- 15

- SL

- 014 1.16 1.18 1.22 1.51 0.651 BR

- 17

- SL

- 016 1.29 1.45 1.35 1.59 0.763 BR

- 19

- SL

- 018 0.746 0.760 0.781 0.926 0.565 BR

- 21

- SL

- 020 0.882 0.901 0.923 1.16 0.463 BR

- 23

- SL

- 022 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.60 0.737 BR

- 24

- SL

- 023 1.48 1.51 1.55 1.79 0.748 BR

- 25

- SL

- 024 1.81 1.85 1.89 2.07 0.760 BR

- 28

- SL

- 027 0.711 0.727 0.744 0.675 0.426 BR

- 29

- SL

- 028 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.37 0.762 BR

- 31

- SL

- 030 0.771 0.789 0.807 0.971 0.492 BR

- 33

- SL

- 032 0.701 0.717 0.734 0.846 0.412 BR

- 34

- SL

- 033 0.581 0.595 0.609 0.764 0.405 BR

- 35

- SL

- 034 0.798 0.817 0.835 0.909 0.484 BR

- 37

- SL

- 036 0.768 0.787 0.804 0.917 0.471 BR

- 39

- SL

- 038 0.670 0.687 0.701 0.704 0.370 BR

- 40

- SL

- 039 0.616 0.632 0.645 0.213 0.386 BR

- 42

- SL

- 040 0.664 0.681 0.695 0.782 0.386 BR

- 43

- SL

- 041 0.684 0.702 0.717 0.875 0.423 BR

- 44

- SL

- 042 1.11 1.12 1.16 1.38 0.714 BR

- 45

- SL

- 043 0.863 0.872 0.904 0.210 0.586 BR

- 47

- SL

- 045 0.45 0.455 0.471 0.559 0.277 BR

- 48

- SL

- 046 0.773 0.780 0.809 0.864 0.479 BR

- 49

- SL

- 047 0.577 0.582 0.604 0.685 0.376 BR

- 50

- SL

- 048 0.515 0.520 0.539 0.688 0.259 Average 0.972 0.979 1.00 1.10 0.569 Std. Dev. 0.334 0.349 0.355 0.465 0.179 Median 0.873 0.872 0.904 0.971 0.565 Minimum 0.450 0.455 0.471 0.210 0.259 Maximum 1.81 1.85 1.89 2.07 0.912PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 12

Table 7

- 5

. Road

- Biased Soil

 Actinium Series and Miscellaneous Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID U

- 235

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g)
BR

- 01

- SL

- 001 < 0.075 10.6 BR

- 04

- SL

- 010 < 0.107 21.4 BR

- 04

- SL

- 011 < 0.212 29.4 BR

- 05

- SL

- 009 0.117 24.8 BR

- 06

- SL

- 004 < 0.152 21.7 BR

- 12

- SL

- 005 < 0.157 7.01 BR

- 14

- SL

- 013 < 0.183 13.2 BR

- 15

- SL

- 014 < 0.150 12.5 BR

- 17

- SL

- 016 < 0.083 17.6 BR

- 19

- SL

- 018 < 0.114 10.9 BR

- 21

- SL

- 020 < 0.127 5.61 BR

- 23

- SL

- 022 < 0.110 13.0 BR

- 24

- SL

- 023 < 0.103 16.9 BR

- 25

- SL

- 024 < 0.093 16.3 BR

- 28

- SL

- 027 0.074 11.4 BR

- 29

- SL

- 028 < 0.209 20.1 BR

- 31

- SL

- 030 0.094 8.84 BR

- 33

- SL

- 032 < 0.045 7.35 BR

- 34

- SL

- 033 < 0.051 11.3 BR

- 35

- SL

- 034 0.071 7.21 BR

- 37

- SL

- 036 < 0.048 8.92 BR

- 39

- SL

- 038 < 0.007 6.85 BR

- 40

- SL

- 039 < 0.044 7.22 BR

- 42

- SL

- 040 < 0.042 7.49 BR

- 43

- SL

- 041 0.100 8.39 BR

- 44

- SL

- 042 < 0.055 19.1 BR

- 45

- SL

- 043 < 0.051 15.0 BR

- 47

- SL

- 045 < 0.035 6.10 BR

- 48

- SL

- 046 < 0.071 12.3 BR

- 49

- SL

- 047 0.102 7.96 BR

- 50

- SL

- 048 < 0.091 5.40 Average 0.056 12.6 Std. Dev. 0.029 6.19 Median 0.052 11.3 Minimum 0.018 5.40 Maximum < 0.091 29.4

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 13 Table 7

- 6

. Reference Background Road

 Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID U

- 238

(pCi/g) Ra

- 226

(pCi/g) Pb

- 214

(pCi/g) Bi

- 214

(pCi/g)

BR

- 02

- SL

- 002 < 1.64 3.07 1.69 1.69
BR

- 07

- SL

- 008 < 1.58 2.38 1.05 0.965
BR

- 13

- SL

- 006 < 1.08 6.09 3.81 3.59
BR

- 16

- SL

- 015 < 1.55 2.24 1.09 0.967
BR

- 18

- SL

- 017 < 0.753 0.828 0.479 0.445
BR

- 20

- SL

- 019 < 3.14 63.0 51.0 48.4
BR

- 22

- SL

- 021 < 1.99 16.1 14.2 12.7
BR

- 26

- SL

- 025 < 0.919 4.25 3.01 2.85
BR

- 27

- SL

- 026 0.643 4.10 2.83 2.70
BR

- 30

- SL

- 029 1.61 2.86 1.55 1.45
BR

- 32

- SL

- 031 < 0.854 1.69 1.11 0.940
BR

- 36

- SL

- 035 0.825 1.41 0.640 0.609
BR

- 38

- SL

- 037 12.7 1.55 0.784 0.711
BR

- 46

- SL

- 044 8.04 1.13 0.523 0.468 Average 2.184 7.91 5.98 5.61 Std. Dev. 3.606 16.3 13.4 12.7 Median 0.805 2.62 1.33 1.21 Minimum 0.377 0.828 0.479 0.445 Maximum 12.7 63.0 51.0 48.4

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 14 Table 7

- 7

. Reference Background Road

 Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID Th

- 232

(pCi/g) Ra

- 228

(pCi/g) Ac

- 228

(pCi/g) Pb

- 212

(pCi/g) Bi

- 212

(pCi/g)
BR

- 02

- SL

- 002 1.38 1.41 1.45 1.70 0.826
BR

- 07

- SL

- 008 1.28 1.30 1.34 1.66 0.874
BR

- 13

- SL

- 006 3.26 3.32 3.43 2.03 0.885
BR

- 16

- SL

- 015 1.28 1.30 1.34 1.58 0.778
BR

- 18

- SL

- 017 0.392 0.399 0.410 0.509 0.244
BR

- 20

- SL

- 019 11.0 11.2 11.5 10.5 1.53
BR

- 22

- SL

- 021 2.93 2.99 3.06 3.47 0.765
BR

- 26

- SL

- 025 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.12 0.414
BR

- 27

- SL

- 026 0.838 0.857 0.877 0.982 0.331
BR

- 30

- SL

- 029 0.543 0.556 0.568 0.778 0.307
BR

- 32

- SL

- 031 0.709 0.725 0.742 1.07 0.433
BR

- 36

- SL

- 035 0.637 0.653 0.667 0.788 0.376
BR

- 38

- SL

- 037 0.752 0.772 0.788 0.890 0.441
BR

- 46

- SL

- 044 0.392 0.396 0.410 0.513 0.249 Average 1.889 1.93 1.98 1.97 0.604 Std. Dev. 2.764 2.81 2.89 2.57 0.359 Median 0.944 0.969 0.989 1.10 0.437 Minimum 0.752 0.396 0.410 0.509 0.244 Maximum 11.0 11.2 11.5 10.5 1.53PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 7 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 7

- 15

Table 7

- 8

. Reference Background Road

 Actinium Series and Miscellaneous Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Sample ID U

- 235

(pCi/g) K

- 40

(pCi/g)
BR

- 02

- SL

- 002 < 0.223 13.6
BR

- 07

- SL

- 008 < 0.149 23.1
BR

- 13

- SL

- 006 < 0.165 18.1
BR

- 16

- SL

- 015 < 0.161 12.0
BR

- 18

- SL

- 017 < 0.131 6.14
BR

- 20

- SL

- 019 < 0.322 9.32
BR

- 22

- SL

- 021 < 0.197 20.7
BR

- 26

- SL

- 025 < 0.085 6.07
BR

- 27

- SL

- 026 < 0.069 4.87
BR

- 30

- SL

- 029 < 0.058 6.68
BR

- 32

- SL

- 031 < 0.050 13.0
BR

- 36

- SL

- 035 < 0.050 7.18
BR

- 38

- SL

- 037 < 0.044 8.73
BR

- 46

- SL

- 044 0.077 4.44 Average 0.066 11.0 Std. Dev. 0.040 6.03
Median 0.071 9.03
Minimum 0.022 4.44 Maximum 0.161 23.1

<

– indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

Table 7

- 9. Dose Assessment Results for Oil and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads

Nuclide Ground

(mrem) Inhalation

(mrem) Radon

(mrem) Plant

(mrem) Meat

(mrem) Milk

(mrem) Soil

(mrem) Ra

- 226 5.458E

- 02 1.253E

- 05 1.221E

- 05 0.000E+00 8.301E

- 02 0.000E+00 3.089E

- 04 Pb

- 210 3.402E

- 05 3.213E

- 05 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.201E

- 01 0.000E+00 1.552E

- 03 Ra

- 228 1.772E

- 02 4.096E

- 05 6.173E

- 05 0.000E+00 4.118E

- 02 0.000E+00 1.601E

- 04 Th

- 228 2.024E

- 02 2.060E

- 04 3.381E

- 04 0.000E+00 1.093E

- 03 0.000E+00 7.426E

- 05 Total 9.256E

- 02 2.916E

- 04 4.120E

- 04 0.000E+00 3.453E

- 01 0.000E+00 2.095E

- 03PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 1 8 .0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

The quality assurance ( QA ) and QC objectives and criteria for this study were established in the study

- specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) which

, along with the FSP

, is available on the DEP website.

The purpose of the QAPP is to provide procedures and metrics for evaluating and ensuring that all data are technically sound and legally defensible. This is accomplished by establishing sample collection and preservation procedures, data collection procedures, analytical requirements and data evaluation processes , which result in accurate, precise, representative and complete data.

All s ampling and analyses performed for this study were conducted in accordance with the QAPP standard s.

8 .1 Data Quality Levels (DQL s )

T he requirements for this study were based on DQL I for field screening methods and DQL III for Non

- Contract Laboratory Progra m (non

- CLP) laboratory methods.

8 .2 Quality Control Parameters

The established QC parameters for evaluating dat a in this study were precision [ duplicates,

m atrix s pikes (MS)

, matrix spike d uplicates (MSD)]

, a ccuracy (spiked samples, laboratory control samples), and c ompletene ss (percentage of valid data).

Precision and accurac y obtained during this study met QC parameters unless otherwise noted

. Completeness is determined by calculating the percentage of valid data. Approximately eight percent of the gross  /  analys e s were invalid ated due to excessive concentrations of t otal d issolved s olid s ( TDS )

. The TDS remaining after the water was evaporated were in excess of the allowable mass

. Attempts to dilute the samples to allow valid analyses to be performed were unsuccessful.

8 .3 Field Screening

Field surveys were performed by P erma

- Fix personnel trained in the use of the survey instrumentation required. DQL I criteria were used to collect the following types of data :

 Gamma radiation e xposure rate measurements

 Gross gamma radiation measurements

 Total  and  surface radioactivity

 Removable  and  surface radioactivity

 Background gamma radiation exposure rate and gross gamma radioactivity measure ments ( outside the influence of sampling areas )

 Liquid and soli d samples for off

- site analysisPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 2 8 .4 Sample Identification

Field samples were assigned a unique number to identify information such as the sampling technician , the sequential number corresponding to the sample type, and the order in which it was collected in accordance with the FSP

.

8 .5 Sample Custody

A field chain

- of

- custody form or sample submission form was used to record the custody of all samples collected. This chain

- of

- custody form documented the transfer of the custody from the sampling personnel to another person, to the laboratory, or another party, such as a courier delivery service.

F ield samples were packaged and shipped to the laboratory on the day of collection in accordance with chain

- of

- custody protocols

. All samples were transported to the laboratory by the quick courier service or hand delivered to the laboratory. The original chain

- of

- custody form

was sent with the samples. The remaining copy was stored in the field team files.

Furt her details pertaining to chain

- of

- custody may be found in the FSP.

8 .6 Analytical Procedures

A nalytical methods and procedures were established before the study began based on preliminary assumptions and are listed in Table 8

- 1

. A dditional analytical methods were subsequently added and/or modified when preliminary assumptions were found to be different due to the amount of TDS in the samples

. Additional analytical m ethod selection wa s b ased on the following:

 Original specified methodologies for radiochemistry failed due to elevated dissolved solids and Barium ( Ba ) concentrations.

 Alternate EPA methods

, which were used as necessary

. All procedures for environmental sample handling, storage, and documentation while in the laboratory ’ s custody and deliverable requirements upon delivery of the data to the user are documented in the laboratory’s quality assurance manual (QAM)

.

8 .7 Instrument Calibrations

All field and laboratory equipment w ere calibrated to NIST traceable standards before use to ensure proper operating accuracy

. Laboratory instrument calibration procedures are presented in the laboratory QAMs. Field calibration s were performed in accordance with specified procedures

. Prior to the use of field equipment, d aily o perational QC checks were completed. All d aily QC instrumentation check s are presented in Appendix B

.

8 .8 Data Evaluation and Validation

The following subsections describe the field and laboratory data validation processes used for the study.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 3 8 .8 .1 Validation of Field Data

D uring the field operations, field measurements were validated at the time of collection by the field sampler through the use of standard operating procedures (SOPs) and field QC checks. F ield

- obtained data, as well as ongoing QA/QC checks of e nvi ronmental samples collected, were validated by trained Perma

- F ix and DEP f ield t echnicians

. All field data w ere reviewed at the time of sample col lection

.

8 .8 .2 Validation of Lab oratory Data

Prior to reporting laboratory data, the analyst validated the sample results based on the QC criteria specified in the analytical methods. The data validation process included verification of the following steps :

 Ensure t he standard regression coefficient is within the acceptable range

.

 Ensure s tanda r d reference materials were analyzed at the proper frequencies and acceptable results were obtained

.

 Ensure t he reagent blanks were analyzed at the proper frequency

.

 Ensure p recisi on requirements of th e plan were met

.

 Ensure a ccura cy requirements of th e plan were met

.

 Ensure c ompleteness requirements of th e plan were met

.

 Ensure s amples were analyzed within the proper sample holding times

.

 Verify a ll calculations were correct

.

 Ensure p roper units were reported

.

 Ensure t he proper methodologies were used

.

In addition to the review of analytical results and project

- specific precision, accuracy

, and completeness requirements, the l aboratory d epartment m anager or senior chemist perform ed internal audits of report forms and other data sheets as well as regular reviews of instrument logs, performance test results, and analysts’ performance. W here review of analytical results or internal QA/QC checks indicate d discrepancies , immedi ate corrective actions were taken and all data results collected since the previ ous approved QC audits were reviewed for validity. Specific laboratory procedures for validation of the analytical data generated are described in the laboratory QAMs.

8 .9 Data Reporting

 Analytical Laboratory

After the data were validated internally by the laboratory, the results were entered into the laboratory ’ s data management system

. The laboratory data management system contains the final data results. When data entries were completed, the l aboratory d irector (or his/her designee) issued a final d ata report. The d irector then issu ed the final data report to the data user.

The data reports prepared for this project contain all pertinent information for the data user in determining the applicability and validity of the data. A specified and uniform data reporting format was implemente d to facilitate this effort

. For this project, DQ L III data packages were reported as a DQL IV (CLP

- like) deliverable to facilitate data validation and are presented inPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 4 Appendix K

. The following cri teria and in formation were supplied, a s a minimum, for data reports generated for this project:

 A descriptive case narrative describing the internal data validation

.

 Completed and legible chains

- of

- custody for all analyses contained within each submitted data package

.

 A lab oratory sample record documenting which analyses were performed for the samples contained in the data package is presented in Table 8

- 1

.

 A ll of the laboratory sample identifications and the correlating field sample identifications

.

 A ll applicable analytical results, counting errors, and MDCs reported in the correct number of significant figures and reporting units

.

 Included in the individual sample reporting results are the complete sample identifications, the sample dilutions (if nec essary)

, and the ind ividual sample analysis dates.

8 .9

. 1 DQL III R eporting

The following summary forms and raw dat a deliverable requirements apply for DQL III.

The following forms are required for all analyses using g amma s pectroscopy ; isotopic U and Th ; and gross  , gross  and Ra methods

, and were provided by the DEP Laboratory in various forms :

 Narrative and sample identification cross reference

 Copies of chain

- of

- custody documentation

 Laboratory chronicle

 Method summaries and references

 MS / MSD summary or any lab oratory duplicate

 M ethod blank summary and results

 Instrument performance check summary

 Initial calibration summary f or all constituents of interest

8 .10 Quality Control Procedures

QC procedures and checks ensure the accuracy of the da ta.

For a ny l aboratory QC result that was outside of the acceptance criteria , the sample s were reanalyzed and/or the results were qualified i n the final report.

8

. 10 .1 Field QC C hecks

D uplicate samples were collected and analyzed to assess the quality of field sampling techniques

. These samples were treated as separate and discrete samples and analyzed by the selected offsite laboratory

. The results are provided in Section 8.16

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 5 8

. 10 .2 Internal Laboratory QC Checks

The laborator y follow ed the interna l QC checks specified in the QA PP for each ana lysis type employed. In addition, these QC checks have m et t he requirements specified in the respective EPA analytical methods.

8 .10

. 2.1 Initial and C ontinuing Calibration

Each instrument and measurement system was calibrated prior to use to verify the instrument
met performance criteria throu ghout the course of the analytical cycle

. Continuing calibra tion check s were performed at a minimum frequency in accordance with the DEP Laboratory QAM. For instruments used f

or radiological analysis

, performance checks are conducted each day samples are analyzed

. For instruments used for non

- radiological analysis, performance checks

are conducted for each batch of 20 samples or less

.
8 .10

. 2.2 Reagent Blanks

A reagent blank was analyzed with each set of samples received for analysis. No responses above th e reportable detection limit were observed in any of the blanks

, indicating no possible laboratory contamination

. The exact frequency and method of use is presented in the laboratory QAM.

8 .10

. 2.3 Matrix Spike and Duplicate (Matrix Spike Duplicate) Analysis

One in 20 samples were analyzed as MS s and MSD s or one per day, whichever was greater

. MS/MSD QC is not required for g amma s pectroscopy analysis because no sample preparation is involved. The MS/MSD QC measures the effects of the sample matrix on method performance. The percent recovery for spiked samples wa s calculated using the equations documented in Section 1 1 .0 of the QA PP and compared to the accuracy criteria specified in the QAM for the associated analytical method. The relative percent difference (RPD) of replicate spikes or replicate analytical results was calculated using the equations documented in Section 1 1 .0 of the QAPP and compared to the precision criteria for the associated analytical method.

8 .10

. 2.4 Calibration Standards

Calibration standards were analyzed as required in the reference method s throughout the course of the analysis

. The exact frequencies and methods of use are presented in the laboratory QAM.

8 .11 Laboratory Performance Audits

Laboratory performance audits are conducted by the DEP L aboratory QA o fficer three times per
year

. Each laboratory analyst is provided a performance evaluation or proficiency test sample containing analytes for the parameters which he/she usually performs. These proficiency test sample results are used to identify issues in sample preparation

, analysis techniques

, or methodologies

. Any issues are identified, i nvestigated, documented on the proper form, resolved with a corrective action plan to eliminate the issues and prevent reoccurrence

, and then shared with the accreditation bodies.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 6 The DEP L aboratory internal audits include verification of each analyst ’ s record keeping, proper use and understanding of procedures, and performance documentation. D eficiencies/findings are discussed with the analyst, documented, and resolved through the implementation of a corrective action.

8 .12 Laboratory System Audits

La boratory system audits are conducted by an external third

- party assessor once every two years

. These audits are used to ensure that all aspects of the DEP L aboratory ’ s QAM are operative and within compliance

. This involve s a thorough review of all laboratory methods performed and documentation to confirm that all analytical procedures are performed according to the DEP L aboratory ’s QAM

. An external third

- party assessment was not conducted during the time period that samples from the TENORM study were received, processed, analyzed, and reported.

8 .13 Assessment Procedures for Data Acceptability

The following subsections describe the data validation procedures that were used to evaluate the precision, accuracy, and c ompleteness of the data generated

.

8 .13 .1 Precision

Precision is the evaluation of agreement among individual measurements of the same property under prescribed similar conditions. Precision is assessed by calculating the RPD of replicate spike samples or replicate sample analyses according to the following equation:

Relative Percent Difference: RPD = R 1 − R 2 ( R 1 + R 2 ) 2 ⁄ × 100

Where: R 1 = result 1 R 2 = result 2

8 .13 .2 Accuracy

Accuracy is the evaluation of closeness of an individual measurement to the true value. Accuracy is measured by calculating the percent recovery (%R) of known levels of spike compounds as follows:

Percent Recovery:

% R = [ spike sample ]

− [ unspiked sample ] [ spi k e added ] × 100

8 .13 .3 Completeness

Completeness is the quantification of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system, expressed as a percentage of the number of valid measurements that could have been accomplished

. M ore than one completeness check can be evaluated. It is calculated as follows:PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 7

Completeness ( % ) = number of valid samples reported

total number of samples analyzed × 100

8 .13 .4 Quality Control Charts

Va lid QC charts can be prepared after the initial 20 analytical determinations to graphically evaluate precision and accuracy criteria. The charts are prepared by calculating the mean value of the determinations and setting control limits at + 3 standard de viations from that mean. The following equations are used:

Mean:

X ̅ = 1
N ∑ x i N

i = 1 Where: N = number of samples X i = sample value

Standard Deviation:

σ = √ ∑ ( x i − X

̅ ) 2 N i = 1 N

− 1

The control limits must be within acceptance limits or ranges pr esented in the DEP L aboratory ’ s SOPs. If t he values are found to be outside these limits or ranges, the measurement system is examined to determine if possible problems exist. Most of the values were found inside the limits ; however

, those values which exceeded the control limits were reported with an appropriate data qualifier.

8 .14 Prevent at ive Maintenance

Performance of pr event at ive maintenance was completed on equipment to ensure operability

. Instrument manuals are kept on file and used for reference whenever eq uipment required repair or maintenance

.

8 .14 .1 Field Equipment

Field sampling personnel were responsible for prevent at ive maintenance of all field instruments. The field sampling personnel ensured field instrumentation was protected from extreme weather conditions as well as physical hazards.

8 .14 .2 Laboratory Instruments

P revent at ive maintenance schedules and/or procedures for laboratory equipment are presented in the DEP L aboratory QAM. No major preventative maintenance was performed on the DEP L aboratory equipment during the time period that samples from the TENORM study were received, processed, analyzed and reported.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 8 8 .15 QA Reports to Management

Audit reports have been provided by the DEP L aboratory d irector (or his/her designee) as a means of tracking program performance. An a nnual m ethod internal audit w as performed covering the period of January 1, 2013

, to present

. In addition, the s tate of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) performed an audit of the DEP Laboratory management system, QA program , and analytical testing procedures performe d by the DEP Laboratory

. The NJDEP submitted a February 11, 2013

, report to the DEP Laboratory that concluded no findings for the Radiation Measurement Section

. Field QA reports were not ne cessary due to the size and length of individual sample collection activities. Any proble ms noted during sampling were immediately communicated to the project

c ertified h ealth p hysicist.

8 .16 Third

- Party Quality Control

QC samples were collected as follows:

 Solid Samples

– five percent (field repl icate/split) QC samples

, i.e., one every 20 samples collected to verify results of on site laboratory per total samples in a calendar year.

 Aqueous Samples

– five percent (field replicate/split) QC samples

, i.e., one every 20 samples collected to verify results of onsite laboratory per total samples in a calendar year.

The samples were sent offsite to an independent , third

- party , accredited laboratory for gamma spectroscopy analysis and compared to the DEP L aboratory gamma spectroscopy analysis of the split sample using NRC Inspection Manual Procedure 84750:

 Divide each offsite laboratory result by its associated uncertainty to obtain the resolution. For purposes of this procedure, the uncertainty is defin ed as the relative standard deviation, one sigma, of the offsite laboratory results as calculated from counting statistics, i.e., the 95 percent confidence level reported error divided by 1.96.

 Divide each DEP Laboratory result by the corresponding offsite laboratory result to obtain the ratio (DEP Laboratory/offsite laboratory).

 The DEP Laboratory’s measurement is in agreement if the value of the ratio falls within the limits shown in the following table for the corresponding resolution:

Criteria for Acce pting the DEP Laboratory’s Measurements

Resolution Ratio <4 Statistics are too poor for comparison 4

- 7 0.5

- 2.0 8

- 15 0.6

- 1.66 16

- 50 0.75

- 1.33

Resolution Ratio 51

- 200 0.80

- 1.25 >200 0.85

- 1.18PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 9 The results of the comparison for solid samples are presented in Tables 8

- 2 through 8

- 5 for four of the radionuclides identified using gamma spectroscopy. If either the DEP Laboratory or the third

- party laboratory (GEL) result was < MDC value reported

, the comparison was not made

. There were 28 comparisons of split solid samples made ; 14 passed and 14 failed. The pass/fail rate of 50 percent is likely due to the difficulty with splitting solid samples in regards to the total radioactivity concentratio n. The performance has been determined to be acceptable based on the following criteria : s plit sampling of solid samples, especially at low

- activity concentrations, rarely results in equal activity for both resulting samples

. Radioactive particulate contamination within solids is usually not homogenous, making split sampling imp robable to split activity evenly between the two aliquots.

 Mixing or blending of the solid sample prior to splitting into equal aliquots does not ensure the radioactivity is e venly divided.

 Duplicate analysis of the same solid sample is more appropriate as a third

- party QC comparison

, eliminating the large variability of split samples, but was not possible for this study.

 Liquid samples are much easier to mix prior to splitting and are a more appropriate measure of the agreement between the two laboratories.

The results of the comparison for liquid samples are presented in Tables 8

- 6 through 8

- 9 for four of the radionuclides identified using gamma spectroscopy. If either the DEP Laboratory or the independent laboratory (GEL) result was < MDC value reported

, the comparison was not made

.

Of the 33 comparisons made on split liquid sample gamma spectroscopy analysis results, 28 met acceptance criteria. The agreement between the DEP Laboratory and the independent laboratory (GEL) gamma spectroscopy results is acceptable

. The following actions and/or conclusions were made based on the sp lit solid sample analytical results:

1. Split sampling of radioactive solid samples does not result in equal radioactivity in the two resulting samples. Solid samples were mixed in the field prior to filling two sample containers (splitting the sample). Low

- activity solid sample media does not readily split into equal radioactiv ity concentration

.

2. All of the split solid samples failing the comparison acceptance criteria were reviewed by asking the question: “Would the result of one of the two splits result in a different conclusion?” For example, would the result of one split pas s a compliance test that may be applicable to the media and the result of the other split fail? Only one sample, with results of 363 versus 6.02 pCi/g, would result in a different action based on the result.

3. Duplicate analysis of the same sample (no split ting) is a much better comparison of laboratory performance and is recommended for any fu ture sample and analysis study.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 10

Table 8

- 1. Summary of Analytical Procedures

Sample Type Media/ Sample Type Analytical Parameters Analytical (a)
Methods Frequency (b)

Cuttings as produced on a drill ing rig including cuttings stored temporarily on site in lined pits or containers

Solid phase from flowback and produced water

Solids accumulated in vessels or on equipment

Scale from drill ing rigs and associated equipment

Soil/salt samples from beneficial reuse areas

(Off

- site Lab) Soil/soil

like Gamma spectroscopy to

identify TENORM radionuclides

Alpha spectroscopy to identify isotopic U (233/234, 235

, and 238) and isotopic Th (228, 230

, and 232) USEPA 901.1

Health and Safety Laboratory ( HASL ) 300 Once per site

W WTP sludge

W WTP discharge sediments

(Off

- site Lab) Soil/soil

like Gamma spectroscopy to

identify TENORM radionuclides

Alpha spectroscopy to identify isotopic U ( U

- 233/234, 235

, and 238) and isotopic Th ( Th

- 228, 230

, and 232) USEPA 901.1

HASL 300 Three times per

facility

Flowback and produced waters

Accumulated liquids from production equipment

(Off

- site Lab) Aqueous

(Grab) Gross  and 

Gamma spectroscopy to identify TENORM radionuclides USEPA 900.0

USEPA 901.1 Once per site

Influent Marcellus Shale industry water (as is and filtered)

W WTP effluent discharge water (as is and filtered)

(Off

- site Lab) Aqueous

(Grab) Gross  and 

Gamma spectroscopy to identify TENORM radionuclides USEPA 900.0

USEPA 901.1 Quarterly x3

Landfill Leachate Aqueous (Grab) Gross  and 

Gamma spectroscopy analysis

Radium (Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228) USEPA 900.0

USEPA 901.1

EPA 903.1 and EPA 904.0 equivalent Once per landfillPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 11

Table 8

- 1. Summary of Analytical Procedures

Sample Type Media/ Sample Type Analytical Parameters Analytical (a)
Methods Frequency (b)

Gas sampling as necessary (Off

- site Lab)

Ambient Radon Gaseous (Grab)

Charcoal canister Radon

Radon As determined by DEP

(a) Analytical methods are as follows:

 Up to 10 percent of the samples, based on the gross  and  and gamma spectroscopy results, are also analyzed by  spectroscopy for U (U

- 238, U

- 235

, and U

- 234), Th

- 232, Ra (Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228), and for any unsupported decay chain radionuclides

.

 Analytical method as specified or an equivalent method where appropriat e. (b) QC samples were collected as follows:

 Solid Samples

– five percent (field replicate/split) QC samples

, i.e., one every 20 samples collected to verify results of on site laboratory per total samples in a calendar year

.

 Aqueous Samples

– five percent ( field replicate/split) QC samples

, i.e., one every 20 samples collected to verify results of on

- site laboratory per total samples in a calendar year.

Table 8

- 2 . Bi

- 214 Split Solid Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Bi

- 214 Result

(pCi/g) Bi

- 214 Err

(pCi/g) Bi

- 214 MDC

(pCi/g) Bi

- 214

Resolution / Ratio Bi

- 214

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942116 0.001 0.000 0.016 7 5942116GEL 0.556 0.158 0.12 0.002 5942130 26.5 4.160 0.217 5 0.5

- 2.0 5942130GEL 12.1 4.77 0.857 2.190 Fail 5942134 0.638 0.106 0.057 5 0.5

- 2.0 5942134GEL 4.19 1.58 0.461 0.152 Fail 5942145 0.000 0.269 1.050 12 0.6

- 1.66 5942145GEL 1.14 0.185 0.109 0.000 Fail 5942155 3.77 0.317 0.056 21 0.75

- 1.33 5942155GEL 2.63 0.25 0.0787 1.433 Fail 5942180 0.780 0.073 0.048 14 0.6

- 1.66 5942180GEL 0.969 0.133 0.0741 0.805 Pass 5942189 370 25.300 1.108 377 0.85

- 1.18 5942189GEL 589 3.06 0.973 0.628 Fail 5942188 24.0 1.970 0.156 58 0.80

- 1.25 5942188GEL 21.6 0.726 0.241 1.111 PassPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 12

Table 8

- 3 . Pb

- 212 Split Solid Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Pb

- 212 Result

(pCi/g) Pb

- 212 Err

(pCi/g) Pb

- 212 MDC

(pCi/g) Pb

- 212

Resolution / Ratio Pb

- 212

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942116

- 0.008 0.000 0.014 5942116GEL 0.533 0.0928 0.0987 5942130 6.31 0.377 0.484 7 0.5

- 2.0 5942130GEL 11.4 3.02 0.545 0.554 Pass 5942134 1.19 0.137 0.089 3 5942134GEL 1.54 1.05 0.318 0.773 5942145 0.909 0.129 0.062 27 0.75

- 1.33 5942145GEL 1.57 0.115 0.0848 0.579 Fail 5942155 1.47 0.104 0.036 23 0.75

- 1.33 5942155GEL 1.51 0.131 0.0657 0.974 Pass 5942180 0.832 0.072 0.059 21 0.75

- 1.33 5942180GEL 0.898 0.083 0.0586 0.927 Pass 5942189 154 20.700 0.998 256 0.85

- 1.18 5942189GEL 146 1.12 0.743 1.055 Pass 5942188 8.40 0.589 0.178 19 0.85

- 1.18 5942188GEL 2.29 0.238 0.179 3.668 Fail

Table 8

- 4

. Pb

- 214 Split Soil Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Pb

- 214 Result

(pCi/g) Pb

- 214 Err

(pCi/g) Pb

- 214 MDC

(pCi/g) Pb

- 214

Resolution / Ratio Pb

- 214

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942116 0.289 0.033 0.034 10 0.6

- 1.66 5942116GEL 0.689 0.132 0.12 0.419 Fail 5942130 26.4 1.930 0.217 8 0.6

- 1.66 5942130GEL 17.1 4.43 0.812 1.544 Pass 5942134 6.05 0.527 0.061 5 0.5

- 2.0 5942134GEL 3.89 1.39 0.418 1.555 Pass 5942145 1.21 0.213 0.066 19 0.75

- 1.33 5942145GEL 1.34 0.14 0.104 0.903 Pass 5942155 4.18 0.283 0.054 23 0.75

- 1.33 5942155GEL 3.18 0.271 0.0858 1.314 Pass 5942180 0.822 0.072 0.059 16 0.6

- 1.66 5942180GEL 1.25 0.155 0.0816 0.658 Pass 5942189 373 62.500 1.030 4 0.5

- 2.0 5942189GEL 6.02 3.13 4.47 61.960 Fail 5942188 26.3 1.730 0.152 66 0.80

- 1.25 5942188GEL 24.4 0.724 0.24 1.078 PassPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 13

Table 8

- 5

. Ra

- 226 Split S oil Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

Result (pCi/g) Ra

- 226 Error

(pCi/g) Ra

- 226 MDC

(pCi/g) Ra

- 226

Resolution / Ratio Ra

- 226

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942116

- 0.060 0.000 0.183 5942116GEL 0.556 0.158 0.12 5942130 31.7 2.660 2.490 5 0.5

- 2.0 5942130GEL 12.1 4.77 0.857 2.620 Fail 5942134 7.73 0.957 0.756 5 0.5

- 2.0 5942134GEL 4.19 1.58 0.461 1.845 Pass 5942145 1.99 0.418 0.595 12 0.6

- 1.66 5942145GEL 1.14 0.185 0.109 1.746 Fail 5942155 6.14 0.609 0.650 21 0.75

- 1.33 5942155GEL 2.63 0.25 0.0787 2.335 Fail 5942180 1.500 0.382 0.579 14 0.6

- 1.66 5942180GEL 0.969 0.133 0.0741 1.548 Pass 5942189 421 38.5 8.796 377 0.85

- 1.18 5942189GEL 589 3.06 0.973 0.715 Fail 5942188 35.1 2.670 1.750 58 0.80

- 1.25 5942188GEL 21.6 0.726 0.241 1.625 Fail

Table 8

- 6 . Bi

- 214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Bi

- 214 Result

(pCi/L) Bi

- 214 Error

(pCi/L) Bi

- 214 MDC

(pCi/L) Bi

- 214

Resolution / Ratio Bi

- 214

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942389 41.0 7.00 7.00 6 0.5

- 2.0 5942389GEL 32.8 11.50 10.60 1.250 Pass 5942390 57.0 6.00 5.00 6 0.5

- 2.0 5942390GEL 29.3 9.13 9.10 1.945 Pass 5942391 181 24.00 22.00 15 0.6

- 1.66 5942391GEL 187 24.60 20.40 0.968 Pass 5942392 229 19.00 8.00 20 0.75

- 1.33 5942392GEL 251 25.00 13.60 0.912 Pass 5942228 458 35.00 8.00 30 0.75

- 1.33 5942228GEL 669 43.50 22.40 0.685 Fail 5942275 4,660 377.00 37.00 94 0.80

- 1.25 5942275GEL 4,450 92.90 38.80 1.047 Pass 5942276 4,320 38.00 11.00 105 0.80

- 1.25 5942276GEL 4,860 90.80 34.70 0.889 Pass 5942277 2,020 245.00 14.00 75 0.80

- 1.25 5942277GEL 2,370 62.20 26.00 0.852 Pass 5942278 2,150 33.00 22.00 71 0.80

- 1.25 5942278GEL 2,230 61.20 26.00 0.964 Pass 5942291 15,300 1,340.00 44.00 195 0.80

- 1.25 5942291GEL 16,400 165.00 62.20 0.933 PassPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 14

Table 8

- 7 . Pb

- 214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Pb

- 214 Result

(pCi/L) Pb

- 214 Error

(pCi/L) Pb

- 214 MDC

(pCi/L) Pb

- 214

Resolution / Ratio Pb

- 214

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942389 45.0 8.00 9.00 8 0.6

- 1.66 5942389GEL 52.1 13.10 10.40 0.864 Pass 5942390 64.0 5.00 5.00 3 5942390GEL 18.2 10.80 18.20 3.516 5942391 178 23.00 23.00 17 0.75

- 1.33 5942391GEL 201 23.10 17.90 0.886 Pass 5942392 255 18.00 8.00 4 0.5

- 2.0 5942392GEL 43.4 23.90 43.40 5.876 Fail 5942228 510 33.00 9.00 33 0.8

- 1.25 5942228GEL 790 47.20 28.10 0.646 Fail 5942275 4,710 655.00 30.00 97 0.8

- 1.25 5942275GEL 4,770 96.20 200.00 0.987 Pass 5942276 4,320 373.00 20.00 106 0.80

- 1.25 5942276GEL 5,350 99.30 46.70 0.807 Pass 5942277 2,180 243.00 16.00 81 0.80

- 1.25 5942277GEL 2,570 61.90 135.00 0.848 Pass 5942278 2,160 249.00 28.00 72 0.80

- 1.25 5942278GEL 2,500 67.80 32.70 0.864 Pass 5942291 15,300 1,340.00 56.00 205 0.85

- 1.18 5942291GEL 18,100 173.00 84.40 0.845 Fail

Table 8

- 8 . Ra

- 226 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Ra

- 226

Result (pCi/L) Ra

- 226 Error

(pCi/L) Ra

- 226 MDC

(pCi/L) Ra

- 226

Resolution / Ratio Ra

- 226

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942389 104 60.00 95.00 2 5942389GEL 119 127.00 119.00 0.874 5942390 117 40.00 63.00 2 5942390GEL 135 117.00 135.00 0.867 5942391 445 190.00 300.00 3 5942391GEL 218 137.00 218.00 2.041 5942392 453 70.00 98.00 2 5942392GEL 221 190.00 221.00 2.050 5942228 2,000 158.00 118.00 7 0.5

- 2.0 5942228GEL 1,200 324.00 312.00 1.667 Pass 5942275 8,360 1,490.00 533.00 20 0.75

- 1.33 5942275GEL 5,690 559.00 564.00 1.469 Pass 5942276 7,950 835.00 257.00 24 0.75

- 1.33 5942276GEL 6,740 560.00 511.00 1.180 Pass 5942277 3,910 698.00 220.00 18 0.75

- 1.33 5942277GEL 3,120 338.00 336.00 1.253 Pass 5942278 4,300 801.00 362.00 15 0.6

- 1.66 5942278GEL 3,100 410.00 374.00 1.387 Pass 5942291 25,500 3,270.00 713.00 59 0.8

- 1.18 5942291GEL 22,000 731.00 924.00 1.159 PassPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 8 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 8

- 15

Table 8

- 9

. Ra

- 228 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

Sample ID Ra

- 228

Result (pCi/L) Ra

- 228 Error

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228 MDC

(pCi/L) Ra

- 228

Resolution / Ratio Ra

- 228

Criteria / Pass

- Fail 5942389 94.0 15.00 14.00 8 0.6

- 1.66 5942389GEL 88.4 21.80 19.80 1.063 Pass 5942390 112 12.00 12.00 3 5942390GEL 41.4 28.70 19.40 2.705 5942391 392 46.00 32.00 17 0.75

- 1.33 5942391GEL 434 49.00 36.20 0.903 Pass 5942392 467 36.00 13.00 21 0.75

- 1.33 5942392GEL 506 47.30 26.00 0.923 Pass 5942228 442 31.00 18.00 5942228GEL 318 54.90 40.00 5942275 571 79.00 67.00 10 0.6

- 1.66 5942275GEL 439 86.30 81.70 1.301 Pass 5942276 523 39.00 21.00 11 0.6

- 1.66 5942276GEL 561 98.90 64.20 0.932 Pass 5942277 230 25.00 22.00 9 0.6

- 1.66 5942277GEL 262 57.20 49.20 0.878 Pass 5942278 250 30.00 42.00 9 0.6

- 1.66 5942278GEL 231 52.30 55.40 1.082 Pass 5942291 1,740 164.00 56.00 26 0.75

- 1.33 5942291GEL 1,980 151.00 124.00 0.879 PassPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 1 9 .0 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Radiological sampling and surveys were conducted at well sites, WWTPs, landfills, gas distribution facilities and facilities that use natural gas, and O&G brine

- treated roads

. V arious samples of solids, liquids

, natural gas

, and ambient air were collected and analyzed for radiological constituents and in some cases additional parameters. The data and various
assessments are presented in Sections 3

. 0 , 4 .0 , 5 .0 , 6 .0, and 7 .0

. The following observations were made based upon the data compiled from the sampl e s collected and surveys conducted as part of this study

.
9 .1 Observations

9.1.1 Well Sites (Section 3.0)

 There is little potential for internal radiation exposure to workers and members of t he public from  and  surface radioactivity from natural gas well s ite development drilling operations

.

Ten of the 491  measurements and 69 of the 491  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Only 1 of 493  removable surface activity measurements and 1 of 493  surface radioactivity measurements exceeded RG 1.86 criteria, indicating the total  /  surface radioactivity measured is fixed to the surface and not readily available for inhalation or ingestion

. ( Section 3.5.2)

 There is little potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation during the drilling phase of natural gas wells

. The gamma dose rates during the drilling phase ranged from background (measured at 5 μR/hr) to a maximum of 38.5 μR/hr, and the highest average exposure rate at any of the well sites was 18.1 μR/hr. ( Section 3.5.1)

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to workers and members of the public during the flowback phase of unconventional natural gas wells

. The Rn in ambient air measurement results during the flowback phase are within the range of typical ambient background Rn concentrat ions (0.2 to 0.7 pCi/L in outdoor ambient air in the U.S.). (Section 3.5.3)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the publi c from the handling, hauling

, and temporary storage of vertical drill cuttings on natural gas well sites

.

Vertical drill cutting s contain U, average of 1.47 + 0.881 pCi/g, and Th, average 1.64 + 0.403, slightly above typical background in surface soil. Both the U natural decay series and the Th natural decay series are identified in e quilibrium. (Table 3

- 6)PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 2  There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling

, hauling

, and temporary storage of horizontal drill cuttings on natural gas well sites

.

Horizontal drill cutting s contain U, average 8.40 + 6.70 pCi/g, and Th, average 1.42 + 0.331. The Th is slightly above typical background in surface soil. The U activity is higher than typical surface soil background U activity and statistically higher than vertical drill cuttings U activity

. Both the U natural decay series and the Th natural decay series are identified in equilibrium. (Table 3

- 8)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from hydraulic fracturing proppant s and

. Nominal U and Th activity was identified in hydraulic fracturing proppant sand samples. The U and Th activity was less than typical background for surface soil. (Section 3.2.4)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and mem bers of the public from drilling mud.

Nominal U and Th activity was identified in liquid and solid drilling mud samples. The U and Th activity was less than typical background for surface soil. (Section 3.2.3)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling and temporary storage of hydraulic fracturing fluid on natural gas well sites

.
However, t here is a potential for radiological environmental impact s fro m spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid on natural gas well sites and from spills that could occur from the transportation and delivery of this fluid

.

Radium

- 226 was detected within the hydraulic fracturing fluid ranging from 64.0

– 21,000 pCi/L. Ra dium

- 2 28 was also detected ranging from 4.5

– 1,640 pCi/L. The hydraulic fracturing fluid was made up of a combination of fresh water, produced water

, and reuse flowback fluid. (Section 3.3.2)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling and temporary storage of flowback fluid on natural gas well sites

.
However, t here is a potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills of flowback fluid on natural gas well sites and from spills that could occur from the transportation and delivery of this fluid.

Ra dium

- 226 concentrations were detected within flowback fluid samples ranging from 551

– 25,500 pCi/L. Radium

- 228 was also detected ranging from 248

– 1,740 pCi/L. (Section 3.3.3)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling and temporary storage of produced water on natural gas well sites

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 3 However, t here is a potenti al for radiological environmental impact s from spills of produced
water from unconventional natural gas well sites and from spills that could occur from the transportation and delivery of this fluid.

Radi u m

- 226 concentrations were detected in produced water samples ranging from 40.5

– 26,600 pCi/L. Ra dium

- 228 concentrations were also detected ranging from 26.0

– 1,900 pCi/L. The Ra

- 226 activity in unconventional well site produced water is approximately 20 times greater than that observed in conventiona l well site produced water. The ratio of Ra

- 226 to Ra

- 228 in unconventional well site produced water is approximately eight times greater than that found in conventional well site produced water. (Sections 3.3.4 and 3.6.3)

 There were no statistically sig nificant differences observed between filtered and unfiltered li quid sample analytical results.

Because the liquid samples were preserved by addition of acid prior to filtering, the radioactive particulates may have entered solution and were therefore not removed by filtering. ( Section 3.6.2)

 The Rn concentrations in natural gas sampled at Pennsylvania well sites during this study are consistent with the Rn concentrations in natural gas reported by the U.S. G eological Survey (USGS) for P ennsylvania

, which range from 1 to 79 pCi/L with an overall median of 37 pCi/L.

The Rn in natural gas measured ranged from 3.0 to 147.5 pCi/L , with a median Rn concentration of 40.8 pCi/L. (Section 3.4.2)

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to worke rs and members of the public on

or near natural gas well sites.

The Rn concentrations in ambient air sampled at well sites during this study are consistent with the typical ambient background Rn conc entrations of 0.2 to 0.7 pCi/L. (Section 3.4.1)

9. 1.2 Waste w ater Treatment Plants (Section 4.0)

9. 1. 2.1 P ublicl y O wned T reatment W ork s

 There is little potential for internal radiation exposure to workers and members of the public from  and  surface radioactivity at POTWs

.

Nine of the 566  measurements and 68 of the 566  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. One of the 286 removable  measurements and none of the 286 removable  measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Fixed or removable  and  su rface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard if disturbed in the future

. (Section 4.1.6.2)PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 4  There is little potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for workers and members of the public at POTWs

.
The highest average gamma radiation exposure rate was 36.3  R/hr, and the maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 257  R/hr. Assuming the time period of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the maximum average POTW annua l external gamma radiation exposure was estimated as 62.6 mrem/yr , which is less than the maximum public dose limit of 100 mrem/yr

. (Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.6.1)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public fr om handling and temporary storage of filter cake at POTW

- I ’ s

.
However, t here is a potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills and the long

- term disposal of POTW

- I filter cake.

The filter cake analytical results for POTW

- I plants show Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 are present above typical background concentrations in soil. The average Ra

- 226 result was 20.1 pCi/g with a large variance in the distribution

. T he maximum result was 55.6 pCi/g. The average Ra

- 228 result was 8.32 pCi/g, and the maximum result was 32.0 pCi/g Ra

- 228. (Section 4.1.2.1)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling and temporary storage of filter cake at POTW

- N ’ s.

T here is little potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills and the long

- term disposal of POTW

- N filter cake.

The radioactivity levels at POTW

- N plants presented in Table 4

- 6 were above typical background concentrations in soil with Ra

- 226 average and maximum results of 8.89 pCi/g and 35.4 pCi/g

. The average and maximum Ra

- 228 resul ts were 2.13 pCi/g and 7.26 pCi/g. (Section 4.1.2.1)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from sediment

- impacted soil at POTW

- I ’ s.

However, there is a radiological environmental impact to soil f rom the sediments from POTW

- I ’ s.
The analytical results for POTW

- I sediment

- impacted soil samples indicate Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 are present at concentrations above typical background in soil. The average Ra

- 226 result was 9.00 pCi/g, and the maximum result was 18.2 pCi/g. The average Ra

- 228 result was 3.52 pCi/g, and the maximum result was 6.25 pCi/g. (Section 4.1.2.2)

 There is little potential for additio nal Rn exposure to workers and the members of the public inside POTW

- I ’ s.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 5 Indoor Rn results from POTW

- I results ranges from 0.2 to 8.7 pCi/L. One result exceed s the EPA action level of 4.0 pCi/L. The Rn measured in indoor air averaged 1.7 pCi/L. The average is above the average indoor level of 1.3 pCi/L in the U.S. as reported by EPA. (Section 4.1.4)

9. 1. 2.2 Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants

 There is potential for internal radiation exposure to workers and members of the pub l ic from

 and  surface radioactivity at CWTs that treat O&G wastewater

. Fixed  and  surface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation and ingestion hazard if disturbed during routine system maintenance.

One hundred eighty

- six of the 777  measurements and 461 of the 777  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Seven of the 805 removable  measurements and 6 of the 805 removable  measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. The average of the  total su rface radioactivity measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria in 10 of the 11 CWT facilities surveyed. The average of the total  surface radioactivity measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria in four of the 11 CWT facilities surveyed. The correspondi ng removable radioactivity measurements are mostly less than the RG 1.86 criteria, indicating the total radioactive contamination measured is fixed to the surface and not immediately availab le for inhalation or ingestion. (Section 4.2.6.2)

 There is littl e potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for workers and members of the public at CWTs that treat O&G wastewater

. Assuming the time period of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, and the average maximum exposure rate of 19.1  R /hr

, the maximum average CWT annual external gamma radiation exposure was estimated as 38 mrem/yr. The maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 502  R /hr on contact with th e outside of a wastewater tank. (Section 4.2.6.1)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling and temporary storage of filter cake at CWTs that treat O&G wastewater

.
However, t here is a potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills and the long

- te rm disposal of CWT filter cake from CWTs that treat O&G wastewater

. The analytical results indicate all the CWT filter cake samples contain elevated Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228 above typical background levels for soi l. The maximum results were 307 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 and 177 pCi/g of Ra

- 228. Five of 27 filter cake sample s exceed ed the DOT Ra threshold for labeling as radioactive material. (Section 4.2.2.1)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from sediment

- impacted surface soil at CWTs that treat O&G waste wate r

.
However, t here is a radiological environmental impact to soil from the sediments from CWTs tha t treat O&G wastewater

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 6 Sediment

- impacted soil was collected at the accessible effluent discharge points at the CWTs. Radium above typical soil background levels to a maximum of 508 pCi/g of total Ra was identified in the sediment

- impacted soil samples. (Section 4.2.7)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from impacted soil at CWTs that treat O&G wastewater

.
However, t here is a radiological environmental impact to surface soil at CWTs that treat O& G wastewater

. Gamma radiation walkover surveys identified areas with radioactivity above local background. At three of these locations, a biased soil sample was collected to determine the amount of activity at or near the surface. Radium above soil typi cal background levels to a maximum of 117 pCi/g Ra

- 226 and 83.1 pCi/g Ra

- 228 was identified in biased soil samples. (Section 4.2.2.3)

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to workers and the members of the public inside CWTs that treat O&G wastewater

. Indoor air was sampled and analyzed for Rn concentration at various CWT indoor locations such as break rooms, lab oratories , offices, etc. The results ranged from 0.9 to 5.0 pCi/L. One result exceeded the EPA action level. The Rn measured in indoor air averaged 2.0 pCi/L. The average is above the average indoor level of 1.3 pCi/L in the U.S. as reported by EPA. (Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.6.3)

9. 1. 2.3 Zero Liquid Discharge Plants

 There is potential for internal  and  surface radioactivity exposure to workers and members of the public at ZLD s that treat O&G wastewater

. Fixed  and  surface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation and ingestion hazard if disturbed during future routine system maintenance.

One hundred fifty

- nine of the 566  measurements and 175 of the 566  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. Fourteen of the 589 removable  measurements and 2 of the 589 removable  measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 cr iteria. The highest average total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 239 dpm/100 cm 2 and 4,740 dpm/100 cm 2

. The maximum total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 1,410 dpm/100 cm 2 and 49,700 dpm/100 cm 2 . The corresponding removable surface radioactivity measurements are mostly less than the RG 1.86 criteria, only 14 of 589 measurements exceeded the applicable criteria, indicating the total surface radioactivity measured is fixed to the surface and not im mediately available for inhalation or ingestion. Fixed  and  surface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard if disturbed during routine system maintenance. (Section 4.3.6.2)

 There is little potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for workers and members of the public at ZLDs that treat O&G wastewater

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 7 The maximum average gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the ZLD plants was 43.1  R/hr. The lowest background gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the sites was 5  R/hr. Assuming the time period of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the maximum average ZLD annual external gamma radiation exposure was estimated as 76 mrem/yr. T he maximum gamma radia tion exposure rate measured was 445  R/hr. (Sections 4.3.1.4 and 4.3.6.1)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling and temporary storage of filter cake at ZLDs that t reat O&G wastewater

.
However, t here is a potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills and the long

- te rm disposal of filter cake from ZLDs that treat O&G wastewater

.

Radium

- 226 and Ra

- 228 were measured in ZLD filter cake samples at concentrations above typical background levels for surface soils. Radium

- 226 concentrations ranged from 3.08 to 480 pCi/g and Ra

- 228 concentrations ranged from 0.58 to 67.3 pCi/g. (Section 4.3.2.1)

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from influent and effluent water at ZLDs that treat O&G wastewater

.
However, t here is a potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills of influent and effluent water at ZLDs that treat O&G wastewater

.
Radium (Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228) was routinely detected in all liquid influent and effluent sample types with an approximate 50 percent difference between influent and effluent, but little differenc e between filtered and unfiltered results. Results ranged from 29.0 to 20,900 pCi/L. (Section 4.3.5)

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to workers and the members of the public

at ZLDs that treat O&G wastewater

. Indoor air was sampled and analyzed for Rn concentration at various indoor locations such as break rooms, lab oratories , offices, etc. The results ranged from 0.5 to 4.9 pCi/L. Two results exceeded the EPA action level. The Rn measured in indoor air aver aged 2.3 pCi/L. The average is above the average indoor level of 1.3 pCi/L in the U.S. as reported by EPA. (Sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.6.3)

 There is little potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for truck drivers from hauling O&G wastewater or sludge/filter cake from facilities that treated O&G wastewater

. It was assumed a truck driver hauled full containers with either wastewater or sludge/filter cake for four hours per day and made return trips with empty containers for four hours per day. The driver was assumed to work 40 hours per week for 10 weeks per year hauling O&G wastewater or sludge. The total estimated dose to the wastewater truck driver was 0.35 mrem/yr. The total estimated dose to the sludge truck driver was 52 mrem/yr. (Section 4.3.6.4 )PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 8 9. 1. 3 Landfills (Section 5.0)

 There is little potentia l for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from leachate at landfills

.

 T here is little difference in the radium detected in the leachate from the nine landfills selected based on the volume of O&G industry waste accepted and from the 42 other landfills

. Samples of leachate were collected from the nine landfills selected based on the volume of O&G industry waste received and from the 42 other landfills not selected based on the volume of O&G industry waste received and analyzed usi ng gamma spectroscopy for Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228. Radium was detected above the MDC value in 34 of 51 samples. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 26.5 to 416 pCi/L with an average of 112 pCi/L in the 42 unselected landfills and 106 pCi/L in the nine selected landfills

. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 2.50
to 84.0 pCi/L with an average of 12.6 pCi/L in the 42 unselected landfills and 16.5 pCi/L in the nine selected landfills. (Section 5.1 )

 T here is limited potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills or discharges of effluent or influent leachate at landfills that accept O&G waste for disposal

. Nine influent and seven effluent leachate samples were collected at the nine selected landfills. Radium was detected in all of the leachate samples. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 26.5 to 378 pCi/L with an average of 127 pCi/L for effluent samples and 64.7 pCi/L for influent samples

. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 3.00 to 84.0 pCi/L with an average of 19.9 pCi/L for effluent samples and 6.17 pCi/L for influent samples

. The influent and effluent samples from the same facility do not represent the same leachate at different times in treatment. (Section 5.2

. 1 )

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from handling and temporary storage of filter cake at landfills that accept O&G waste for disposal

.
However, t here is a potential for radiological environmental impact s from spills and the lon g

- term disposal of la ndfill filter cake from landfills that accept O&G waste for disposal

.

Filter cake from three of the nine selected landfills was sampled and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy. Radium was detected in all of the filter cake samples. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 8.73 to 53.0 pCi/g, with an average of 24.3 pCi/g. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 1.50 to 4.93 pCi/g, with an average of 3.77 pCi/g. (Section 5.2.2 )

 There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of t he public from sediment

- impacted soil at landfills that accepted O&G waste for disposal

.
However, t here may be a radiological environmental impact to soil from the sediments from landfill leachate treatment facilities that treat leachate from landfills t hat accept O&G waste for disposal

.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 9 The three landfills that had filter cake sampled also discharged effluent water to the environment. At each of the three effluent outfalls, a sediment

- impacted soil sample was collected. Radium was detected in all of the samples. Ra dium

- 226 results ranged from 2.82 to 4.46 pCi/g with an average of 3.57 pCi/g. Ra dium

- 228 results ranged from 0.979 to 2.53 pCi/g with an average of 1.65 pCi/g. (Section 5.2.3 )

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to workers and the members of the public
at or from landfills that accept O&G waste for disposal

. Ambient air was sampled at the fence line of each of the nine selected landfills and analyzed for Rn concentration. The Rn in ambient air at the fence line of the landfills ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 pCi/L consistent with U.S. background levels of 0.2 to 0.7 pCi/L in outdoor ambient air. (Section 5.2.4 )

 There is little potential for internal  and  surface radioactivity exposure to workers and members of the public at landfill s that accept O&G waste for disposal

.

None of the 195  measurements and 17 of the 195  measurements of total surface radioactivity exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. All average total  and  surface radioactivity levels were below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum total  and  concentrations were 84.6 dpm/100 cm 2 and 3,630 dpm/100 cm 2

. The average removable  and  levels at each landfill were below the RG 1.86 criteri a. The maximum removable  and  levels were also below the RG 1.86 criteria. None of the 205 removable  or  surface radioactivity
measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 criteria. (Section 5.4.1.1 )

 There is little potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for workers and members of the public at landfills that accept O&G waste for disposal

.
The highest average exposure rate was 13.5  R/hr, and the maximum gamma exposur e rate measured was 93.7  R/hr. The minimum, limiting local background measured was 5  R/hr. Assuming the duration of exposure is a full occupational year of 2,000 hours, the external gamma radiation exposure at the landfill was estimated as 17 mrem/yr , which is much less than the 100 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. (Section s 5.3 and 5.4.1 )

9. 1. 4 Gas Distribution and End Use (Section 6.0)

9. 1. 4.1 Natural Gas in Underground Storage

 R ado n concentrations in natural gas are lower after underground storage.

Natural gas samples were collected at four underground storage sites in P ennsylvania

. Duplicate samples were collected at each site during injection into the storage formation, and also during withdrawal from the storage forma tion. (Section 6.1 )PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 10 9. 1. 4.2 Natural Gas

- Fired Power Plants

 Radon concentrations in the natural gas sampled entering power plants are consistent with the Rn in natural gas concentrations in samples collected at well sites.

The two natural gas sample results from natural gas

- fired power plants were 33.7 ± 1.8 pCi/L and 35.7 ± 11.0 pCi/L. (Section 6.2 and Table 6.3 )

 There is little potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for workers and members of the public at natural gas

- fired power plants

. The gamma radiation exposure rate survey results at the PP

- 02 power plant were within the range of natural background of gamma radiation for PA. The exception occurred on the external surface of a pipe elbow where the range of measurement results observed was 15 to 17 μR/hr. (Section 6.2 )

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to workers and the members of the public
at or from natural gas

-

fired power plants.

Ambient air was sampled at the PP

- 02 power plant site fence line. The fence line Rn monitor results were all at or below the MDC value for the analysis. (Section 6.2 )

9. 1. 4.3 Compressor Stations

 Radon concentrations in the natural gas sampled at compressor stations are consi stent with the Rn in natural gas concentrations in samples collected at well sites

. All compressor stations were receiving predominately Marcellus Shale unconventional natural gas at the time of sample collection. The range of compressor station natural gas Rn results is 28.8 ± 1.4 to 58.1 ± 1.1 pCi/L, which is consistent with the production site Rn sample results. (Section 6.3 and Table 6.5 )

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to workers and the members of the public
at or from natural gas compressor stations.

Ambient air was sampled at the CS

- 01 compressor station fence line for the measurement of Rn concentrations. The fence line Rn monitors results ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 pCi/L. The
average concentration at each fence line location was within the range of typical ambient background Rn concentrations in outdoor ambient air in the U.S. (Section 6.3 )

9. 1. 4.4 Natural Gas Processing Plant

 R ado n concentrations in natural gas entering the natura l gas processing plant are consistent with levels measured at well sites

.

R ado n in natural gas sample d entering the plant measured 67.7 pCi/L. The Rn in natural gas sampled at the processing plant outflow measured 9.3 pCi/L. (Section 6.4 and Table 6.7 )PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 11  There is potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for workers at the natural gas processing plant

.
Contact readings measured with filter housings ranged from background to 75  R/hr, with two exceptions; one measured 350  R /hr and the other measured 900  R/hr. Radiation exposure rates with values ranging from 20 to 400  R/hr we re measured on additional system components. (Section 6.4 )

 There is potential for internal  and  surface radioactivity exposure to workers at the natural gas processing plant when a filter housing is opened.

The filter housing on the facility propenizer equipment was opened during a filter change

- out and a sample of the cardboard filter media was collected. The filter media sample was smeared for removable  and  surface radioactivity. The average  and  sur face radioactivity levels are below the RG 1.86  and  removable surface radioactivity criterion. The results of samples collected from the facility propenizer equipment filter had a Pb

- 210 activity result of 3,580 pCi/g, but no other gamma

- emitting NORM radionuclide results were above 1 pCi/g. The gross  and  removable surface radioactivity results for the filter media sample are elevated relative to the RG 1.86 gross  and  removable surface radioactivity criterion. (Section 6.5 )

9. 1. 4.5 Radon Dosimetry

 There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to members of the public in homes using natural gas from Marcellu s S hale wells.

 The p otential radiation dose received by home residents is a small fraction of the allowable general public dose limit of 100 mrem/yr.

Radon is transported with natural gas into structures (homes, apartments, and buildings) that use natural gas for purposes such as heating and cooking. The incremental increase of potential dose from Rn

- 222 to occupants of a ty pical home from use of natural gas was conservatively estimated as 5.2 mrem/yr for the median dose and 17.8 mrem/yr for the maximum dose. Based on the Rn and natural gas data collected as part of this study and the conservative assumptions made, the incre mental Rn increase in a home using natural gas appliances is estimated to be very small, and would not be detectable by commercially available Rn testing devices. The average and maximum calculated Rn concentration in homes were 0.04 and 0.13 pCi/L

, consi stent with the EPA estimated indoor average of 0.13 pCi/L. (Section 6.6 )

9. 1. 5 O il and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads (Section 7.0)

 Radium activity measured in O&G brine

- treated road samples is greater than typical surface soil concentrations.

Biased surface soil samples were collected based on the audio response of the gamma scan survey instrument ratemeter on 31 of the 32 O&G brine

- treated roads. When an area withPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 12 elevated radioactivity was detected, surface soil samples were collected at tha t area. After correcting the reported Ra

- 226 activity by 0.992 pCi/g of natural background activity and 0.741 pCi/g of U

- 235 bias, 1 8 of 31 samples have excess Ra ranging from 0.0 2 0 to 5. 2 3 pCi/g above natural background. (Section s 7.0 and 7.2.1 )

 Radium activity measured in reference background road samples is greater than typical surface soil concentrations

. The reference background roads were selected by geographical location to O&G brine

- treated roads selected for the study

. As a point of reference and for comparison, 18 roads in the geographic vicinity of the subject roads that have not been identified as O&G brine

- treated were selected for surveying, and 14 biased soil samples were collected. After correcting the reported R a

- 226 activity by 0. 819 pCi/g of natural background activity and 0.71 pCi/g of U

- 235 bias, 11 of 14 samples have excess Ra ranging from 0. 021 to 6 1.5 pCi/g above natural background. Three of the Ra

- 228 results are greater than 2.98 pCi/g, which is approximately three times natura l background for the Th series. (Section 7.2.2 )

 The excess Ra measured in reference background samples is higher than for the identified O&G brine

- treated roads.

The average excess Ra

- 226 for roads identified as having be en brine

- treated is 1.1 3 pCi/g compared to an average of 8. 23 pCi/g on the background reference roads. One possible explanation is that all of the roads have been treated with brine. After the 32 roads had been identified as brine

- treated, the reference background roads were selected by proximity to the 32 roads. (Section 7.2.2 )

 There is little potential for members of the public exceeding the public dose limit from exposure to Ra in O&G brine

- treated roads

. To evaluate potential exposure to the public from the brine

- treated roads, a source term of 1 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 and 0.5 pCi/g of Ra

- 228 was assumed within a 6

- inch layer of surface material (treated road surface). The estimated total dose from 1 pCi/g of Ra

- 226 and 0.5 pCi/g of Ra

- 228 above natural b ackground in surface soil, to a recreationist, in the year of maximum exposure (year 1) is 0.441 mrem/yr, which is below the 100 mrem/yr public exposure criteria based on assumed activity concentrations. The actual dose received is dependent upon both the excess Ra radioactivity in surface soil and the time spent exposed to the soil surface. (Section 7.3 )

9. 2 Recommendations for Future Actions

9. 2 .1 Well Sites

 Conduct research and investigation of vertical and horizontal drill cuttings for beneficial use, onsite disposal

, and future landfill disposal protocols.

 Add sampling and analyses for Ra

- 226

, Ra

- 228

, and additional man

- made radionuclides such as tracers used in the O&G industry to P ennsylvania spill response protocol for spills ofPA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 9 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 9

- 13 flowback fluid, hydraulic fracturing fluid

, or produced water. Field survey instrumentation should also be available for surveys of areas impacted by the spill.

9. 2 .2 Wastewater Treatment Plants

 Perform routine survey and assessment of areas impacted with surface radioactivity to determine personnel protective equipment ( PPE ) use and monitoring during future activity that may cause surface  and  radioactivity to become airborne.

 Conduct additional radi ological sampling and analyses and radiological surveys at all WWTP s accepting waste water from O&G operations to determine if there are areas of contamination that require remediation ; if it is necessary to establish radiological effluent discharge limitat ions; and if the development and implementation of a spill policy is
necessary.

9. 2 .3 Landfills

• Evaluate and

, if necessary

, modify the landfill disposal protocol for sludges/filter cakes and other solid waste

- containing TENORM.

 Conduct additional radiological sampling and analyses and radiological surveys at all facilities that treat leachate from landfills that accept waste from O&G operations to determine if there are areas of contamination that require remediation ; if it is necessary to establis h radiological effluent discharge limitations; and if the development and implementation of a spill policy is necessary.

 Add total Ra (Ra

- 226 and Ra

- 228) to the annual suite of contaminants of concern in leachate sample analyses.

9. 2 .4 Gas Distribution and End Use

 S urvey and sample internal surfaces of natural gas plant piping and filter housings for radiological contamination

. This effort should include evaluation of worker exposure and buildup of radioactivity in systems from natural gas processing and transmission. Evaluate monitoring and recommendation of PPE and other controls to be used during pipe clean

- out and other activities when internal surfaces are expose d.

9. 2 .5 O il and Gas Brine

- Treated Roads

 Perform further study of O&G brine

- treated roads

. This study should e valuate produced
water radionuclide concentration s prior to treatment , result ant surface activity and radionuclide concentration of road surface s and future Ra migration.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 10 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 10

- 1 10.0 REFERENCES

Section 1.0:

1. PSU Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR) 2014. www.marcellus.psu.edu

, August. 2. U.S. EPA 2014. > Climate Change > Natural Gas Star Program > Basic Info, www.epa.gov/methane/gasstar/basi

- information/index.html, August. 3. U.S. EPA 2003 . “EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes,” June.

Section 2.0:

1. ANSI/HPS 2009. N13.53

- 2009, Control and Release of Technologically Enhanced NORM (TENORM). 2. DOE 1990. DOE Procedure Gamma 4.5.2.3, EML Procedures Manual, 27th Edition, Vol

. I, DOE Report HASL

- 300

- ED. 27

- V OL. 1. 3. DOT, 49 CFR 173.436, Radioactive Material. 4. EPA 2012. U.S. EPA/OAR/IED (6609J), EPA 402

- K

- 12

- 002, A Citizen’s Guide to Radon

, May. Also: http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html 5. EPA 2000. Directive No. 9200.4

- 35, Remediation Goals for Radioactively Contaminated CERCLA Sites. 6. EPA 1980. EPA 900.0, “Prescribed Procedures for Measurement of Radioactivity in Drinking Water

, ” U.S. EPA

- 6000/4

- 80

- 032

, August. 7. EPA, Drinking Water Standard, 40 CFR 141.66. 8. Jenkins, P.H., Burkhart, J.F., and Camley, R.E. 2014. “Errors in Measurement of Radon

- 222 in Methane and Carbon Dioxide using Scintillation Cells Calibrated for Radon

- 222 in Air.” Health Physics, Vol. 106, No. 3, March. 9. NRC, 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table 1, Col 3. 10. NRC, 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table 2, Liquid Effluent. 11. NRC, 10 CFR 20.1201, Occupational Dose Limits for Adults. 12. NRC, 10 CFR 20.1301, Radiat ion Dose Limits for Members of the Public. 13. NRC, 10 CFR 20.1402

- 20.1403, Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use. 14. NRC 1974a. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria f or N atural Thorium I ncluding Ra

- 228. 15. NRC 1974b. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria for Ra

- 226. 16. OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.1096. 17. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation ( UNSCEAR ) 2000. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 10 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 10

- 2 Section 3 .0:

1. Jenkins et al., 2014. Health Physics, Vol. 106, No. 3, March. 2. NRC 1998a. Table 6.4, NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contaminants, NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, June. 3. NRC 1998b. Table 6.3, NaI Scintillation Detector Count Rate Versus Exposure Rate (cpm/μR/hr), NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Sur vey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, June. 4. NRC 1974. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria.

Section 4 .0:

1. EPA 2012. U.S. EPA/OAR/IED (6609J), EPA 402

- K

- 12

- 002, A Citizen’s Guide to Radon

, May. Also: http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html 2. NRC 1998a. Table 6.4, NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contaminants , NUREG

- 1507, Minim um Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, June. 3. NRC 1974. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria.

Section 5 .0:

1. NRC 1998a. Table 6.4, NaI Scintillation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contaminants , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, June. 2. NRC 1974. Regulat ory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria

.

Section 6.0:

1. American Gas Association, Washington, D.C. 2. DOT 2011. National Pipeline Mapping System , User Guide. 3. EPA 2003. Pawal, D.J. and Puskin, J.S. EPA Assessm ent of Risks from Radon in Homes

, June. 4. Jenkins et al., 2014. Health Physics, Vol. 106, No. 3, March. 5. Nazaroff, W.W. and Nero, A.V. , 1988. Radon and its Decay Products in Indoor Air. John Wiley & Sons. 6. NRC 1974. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria

. 7. Rowan, E.L. and Kraemer, T. F. U.S. Geological Survey . R adon

- 222 Content of Natural Gas Samples from Upper and Middle Devonian Sandstone and Shale Reservoirs in Pennsylvania: Preliminary Data, Open

- file Report Series 2012

- 1159. 8. Spectra Energy Transmission 2014, Personal Communication, May.PA DEP TENORM Study Report

– Section 10 .0 Rev. 0

January 2015 10

- 3 9. UNSCEAR 2006. Annex E. 10. U.S. Census, American Housing Survey, 2011, Table C

- 02

- AH.

Section 7.0:

1. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP ) 2013. F act sheet, Roadspreading of Brine for Dust Control and Road Stabilization , developed under the authority of the Clean Streams Law, the Solid Waste Management Act, and Chapters 78 and 101 of DEP’s Rules and Regulations. 2. NRC 1998a. Table 6.4, NaI Scintill ation Detector Scan MDCs for Common Radiological Contaminants , NUREG

- 1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, June.

Section 8.0:

1. DEP 2013. Sample and Analysis Plan Part I, Field Sampling Plan (FSP), April. 2. DEP 2013. Sample and Analysis Plan Part II, Q uality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

, April. 3. DEP. Laboratory QAM. 4. NRC 1994. NRC Inspection Manual Procedure 84750 , March.

Section 9.0:

1. EPA 2012. U.S. EPA/OAR/IED (6609J), EPA 402

- K

- 12

- 002, A Citizen’s Guide to Radon

, May. Also: http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html 2. NRC 1974. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors (1974)

— Criteria.