Rev. 1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

May 2016

V.
1.
1

TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED
NATURALLY OCCURRING
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (TENORM)
STUDY REPORT

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 15009

 Rev. 1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

May 2016

V.
1.
1

TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED
NATURALLY OCCURRING
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (TENORM)
STUDY REPORT

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 15009

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Table of Contents

Rev. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS ................................................................ xi
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................ xiv
SYNOPSIS ...................................................................................................................... .0-1

1.0

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Purpose and Objectives 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

3.0

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

2.0

V.
1.
1

0.0

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 ............................................................................................... 2-7
2.2.4 Filter Matrix – Smears ............................................................................. 2-8
Survey and Sample Analyses Data Management ................................................ 2-8
2.3
2.3.1 Limitations on Gamma Spectroscopy Results ......................................... 2-9
2.3.2 Radium-226 Quantification by Gamma Spectroscopy .......................... 2-11
2.3.3 Criteria for Comparison to Analytical Analyses Results ....................... 2-12
2.3.4 Normal Background Radioactivity Values ............................................ 2-12
2.3.5 Data Presentation ................................................................................... 2-12
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 ............................................... 3-2

May 2016

iii

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Table of Contents

3.3

3.4

3.5

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

3.6

3.7

4.0

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
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
Radon Sample Results ......................................................................................... 3-8
3.4.1 Ambient Air Samples During Flowback.................................................. 3-8
3.4.2 Production Gas Radon ............................................................................. 3-8
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
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 .............................. 3-11
3.6.3 Conventional Versus Unconventional Produced Water Data
Evaluation .............................................................................................. 3-11
Potential Offsite Environmental Impact ............................................................ 3-11

V.
1.
1

3.2

Rev. 1

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 Environmental 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 ............................................................ 4-11

May 2016

iv

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Table of Contents

4.3.5
4.3.6
4.3.7

Rev. 1

Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation .............................. 4-11
ZLD Worker Exposure Assessment....................................................... 4-11
Alpha Spectroscopy Analysis of Filter Cake ......................................... 4-14

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 ................................................................................ 5-1
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
Natural Gas Processing Plant ............................................................................... 6-2
6.4
6.5
Potential Exposure from Gas Scale Inside Pipes and Equipment ........................ 6-3
6.6
Radon Dosimetry ................................................................................................. 6-4

8.0

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

7.0

V.
1.
1

5.0

OIL AND GAS BRINE-TREATED ROADS ................................................................. 7-1
Gamma Radioactivity Survey Results ................................................................. 7-1
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 Soils – Reference Background Roads Soils ...................... 7-3
7.3
Public Exposure to Oil and Gas Brine-Treated Roads......................................... 7-4
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ............................................... 8-1
Data Quality Levels (DQLs) ................................................................................ 8-1
8.1
8.2
Quality Control Parameters.................................................................................. 8-1
Field Screening .................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3
8.4
Sample Identification ........................................................................................... 8-2
8.5
Sample Custody ................................................................................................... 8-2
Analytical Procedures .......................................................................................... 8-2
8.6
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 ................................................................................... 8-4

May 2016

v

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Table of Contents

8.11
8.12
8.13

8.14

8.15
8.16

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) ............................................................................. 9-7
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
Recommendations for Future Actions ............................................................... 9-12
9.2
9.2.1 Well Sites ............................................................................................... 9-12
9.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants ................................................................ 9-12
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

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

9.0

Quality Control Procedures.................................................................................. 8-4
8.10.1 Field QC Checks ...................................................................................... 8-4
8.10.2 Internal Laboratory QC Checks ............................................................... 8-5
Laboratory Performance Audits ........................................................................... 8-5
Laboratory System Audits ................................................................................... 8-6
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
Preventative Maintenance .................................................................................... 8-7
8.14.1 Field Equipment ....................................................................................... 8-7
8.14.2 Laboratory Instruments ............................................................................ 8-7
QA Reports to Management ................................................................................ 8-7
Third-Party Quality Control ................................................................................. 8-8

V.
1.
1

8.10

Rev. 1

10.0

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 10-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Appendix K:
Appendix L:
Appendix M:
May 2016

Additional Geological Information
Field Instrumentation QC Documentation
Gamma Spectroscopy Analytical Results
Total and Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Results
Gross Gamma Radiation Survey Figures
XRF Analytical Analyses Results
T-test Output Files
Radon Monitor/Sample Analytical Analyses Reports
Filtered Versus Unfiltered Liquid Sample Comparison
MicroShield® Output Files
Laboratory Data Reports
Peer Review Comment and Resolution Document
Non-Radiological Parameters
vi

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – List of Figures

Rev. 1

LIST OF FIGURES

3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
3-5.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

3-6.
3-7.
4-1.
4-2.
4-3.
5-1.

Marcellus Shale Formation in Pennsylvania.................................................................... 1-2
Marcellus Shale Formation “Wet” and “Dry” Areas ....................................................... 1-2
Uranium-238 Decay Chain .............................................................................................. 1-4
Thorium-232 Decay Chain .............................................................................................. 1-4
Natural Gas Operations .................................................................................................... 1-7
Solubility of the Uranium Series in Oil and Gas Produced Water ................................ 2-10
Solubility of the Thorium Series in Oil and Gas Produced Water ................................. 2-11
Comparison of Ra-226 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to U-238 XRF Results in
Vertical Drill Cuttings...................................................................................................... 3-4
Comparison of Ra-228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th-232 XRF Results in
Vertical Drill Cuttings...................................................................................................... 3-4
Comparison of Analytical Analyses Results for Horizontal and Vertical Drill Cutting
Samples ............................................................................................................................ 3-5
Comparison of Ra-226 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to U-238 XRF Results in
Horizontal Drill Cuttings ................................................................................................. 3-5
Comparison of Ra-228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th-232 XRF Results in
Horizontal Drill Cuttings ................................................................................................. 3-6
Natural Gas Radon Sampling Location ........................................................................... 3-9
Conventional vs Unconventional Produced Water Radium Concentrations ................. 3-11
CWT Influent and Effluent Liquid Ra-226 Minimum, Maximum, and Average ............ 4-7
ZLD Influent and Effluent Liquid Ra-226 Minimum, Maximum, and Average ........... 4-11
MicroShield® External Exposure Scenarios Input/Output ............................................. 4-13
Ra-226 Progeny Ingrowth (Days Post Removal) versus Exposure Rate from
13.34 pCi/g Ra-226 .......................................................................................................... 5-4
Ra-226 Progeny Ingrowth versus Days (Days Post Removal) ........................................ 5-5

V.
1.
1

1-1.
1-2.
1-3.
1-4.
1-5.
2-1.
2-2.
3-1.

5-2.

May 2016

vii

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – List of Tables

Rev. 1

LIST OF TABLES

2-2.
2-3.
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
3-5.
3-6.
3-7.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

3-8.
3-9.
3-10.
3-11.
3-12.
3-13.
3-14.
3-15.
3-16.
3-17.
3-18.
3-19.
4-1.

Theoretical Overestimation of Ra-226 Activity in Solid Samples with Natural
Uranium Analyzed by Gamma Spectroscopy ........................................................... 2-13
Criteria for Comparison............................................................................................. 2-14
Natural Background Radioactivity Values for U.S. Soil........................................... 2-16
Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results
Summary ................................................................................................................... 3-13
Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary ......... 3-15
Gross Gamma Scan Results Summary ...................................................................... 3-17
Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates ................ 3-18
Vertical Solids, Drill Cuttings – Gamma Spectroscopy Results ............................... 3-19
XRF Uranium and Thorium for Vertical Cuttings .................................................... 3-21
Horizontal Solids, Drill Cuttings – Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy
Results ....................................................................................................................... 3-22
XRF Uranium and Thorium for Horizontal Cuttings ................................................ 3-23
Drilling Solids, Mud – Gamma Spectroscopy Results .............................................. 3-24
Proppant Sand – Gamma Spectroscopy Results........................................................ 3-24
Flowback Solids, Sand – Gamma Spectroscopy Results .......................................... 3-25
Drilling Fluids – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ........................ 3-25
Fracturing Fluids – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results .................... 3-26
Flowback Fluids – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ..................... 3-26
Unfiltered Produced Waters – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ... 3-27
Filtered Produced Waters – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ....... 3-27
Ambient Radon at Well Sites During Flowback ....................................................... 3-28
Natural Gas Samples from Production Sites ............................................................. 3-29
Thorium and Uranium XRF Data for Drill Cuttings By Formation.......................... 3-30
POTW-I Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results
Summary ................................................................................................................... 4-15
POTW-I Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results
Summary ................................................................................................................... 4-16
POTW-I Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary ...................................... 4-17
POTW-I Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure
Rates .......................................................................................................................... 4-17
POTW-I Filter Cake Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy Results ................. 4-18
POTW-N Filter Cake Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy Results ............... 4-19
POTW-I Sediment Sample Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy Results....... 4-19
POTW-I Filtered Effluent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-20
POTW-I Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-21
POTW-N Filtered Effluent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-22
POTW-N Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-22
POTW-I Filtered Influent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-23

V.
1.
1

2-1.

4-2.
4-3.
4-4.
4-5.
4-6.
4-7.
4-8.
4-9.

4-10.
4-11.
4-12.

May 2016

viii

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – List of Tables

4-14.
4-15.
4-16.
4-17.
4-18.
4-19.
4-20.
4-21.
4-22.
4-23.
4-24.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

4-25.
4-26.
4-27.
4-28.
4-29.
4-30.
4-31.
4-32.
4-33.
4-34.
4-35.

POTW-I Unfiltered Influent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-24
POTW-N Filtered Influent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-25
POTW-N Unfiltered Influent Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy and
Miscellaneous Results ............................................................................................... 4-25
POTW-I Ambient Radon........................................................................................... 4-26
POTW-I vs POTW-N Average Concentrations Comparison for Filtered ................ 4-26
POTW-I vs POTW-N Average Concentrations Comparison for Unfiltered ............ 4-26
Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for Filtered
Influent and Effluent POTW Samples....................................................................... 4-27
Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for Unfiltered
Influent and Effluent POTW Samples....................................................................... 4-27
POTW-I Sediment and Effluent Results for Ra-226 and Ra-228 ............................. 4-28
POTW Sediment and Effluent Ratios for Ra-226/Ra-228 ........................................ 4-29
Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT
Plants ......................................................................................................................... 4-30
Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT
Plants ......................................................................................................................... 4-32
Summary of NaI Count Rate Data at CWTs ............................................................. 4-34
Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates ................ 4-35
CWT Solids, Filter Cake – Gamma Spectroscopy Results ....................................... 4-36
CWT Solids, Sediment – Gamma Spectroscopy Results .......................................... 4-37
CWT Solids, Biased Soil – Gamma Spectroscopy Results ....................................... 4-37
CWT Filtered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ............ 4-38
CWT Unfiltered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ........ 4-39
CWT Filtered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ............ 4-40
CWT Unfiltered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ........ 4-41
CWT Radon Sample Results ..................................................................................... 4-42
Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at
ZLDs .......................................................................................................................... 4-43
Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs ........... 4-45
Summary of NaI Count Rate Data at ZLDs .............................................................. 4-47
Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates ................ 4-48
ZLD Solids, Filter Cake – Gamma Spectroscopy Results ........................................ 4-49
ZLD Solids, Biased Soil – Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results .............. 4-49
ZLD Filtered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ............. 4-50
ZLD Unfiltered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ......... 4-51
ZLD Filtered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ............. 4-52
ZLD Unfiltered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ......... 4-53
ZLD Radon in Ambient Air Results.......................................................................... 4-54
ZLD and CWT Filter Cake Sample Alpha Spectroscopy Results ............................. 4-54
Landfill Leachate – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ...................... 5-7
Selected Landfill Leachate – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results ....... 5-8
Landfill Leachate Original and Aqueous Sample Analysis Results ............................ 5-9
Selected Landfill Effluent Leachate  Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous
Results ....................................................................................................................... 5-10

V.
1.
1

4-13.

Rev. 1

4-36.
4-37.
4-38.
4-39.
4-40.
4-41.
4-42.
4-43.
4-44.
4-45.
4-46.
5-1.
5-2.
5-3.
5-4.

May 2016

ix

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – List of Tables

5-6.
5-7.
5-8.
5-9.
5-10.
5-11.
5-12.
5-13.
6-1.
6-2.
6-3.
6-4.
6-5.
6-6.
6-7.
6-8.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

6-9.

Selected Landfill Influent Leachate – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous
Results ....................................................................................................................... 5-10
Selected Landfill Solids, Filter Cake  Gamma Spectroscopy Results .................... 5-11
Selected Landfill Solids, Sediment  Gamma Spectroscopy Results ....................... 5-11
Selected Landfill Radon Concentrations ................................................................... 5-12
Selected Landfill Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Results
Summary ................................................................................................................... 5-13
Selected Landfill Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Results Summary ... 5-14
Selected Landfill Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary ......................... 5-15
Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates ................ 5-15
Gamma Spectroscopy Results (pCi/g) of Sealed Wastewater Treatment Sludge
Sample Over 24 Days ................................................................................................ 5-16
Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations, Injection ......................... 6-6
Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations, Withdrawal ..................... 6-6
Natural Gas-Fired Power Plant Samples Analyzed for Radon Content ...................... 6-6
Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (PP 02) ........ 6-7
Compressor Station Radon Samples ........................................................................... 6-7
Compressor Station Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (CS 01) ........................... 6-7
Natural Gas Processing Plant Radon Samples ............................................................ 6-8
Compressor Station and Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Case Removable
Radioactivity Results ................................................................................................... 6-8
Compressor and Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Media, Gamma
Spectroscopy ............................................................................................................... 6-8
Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Media, Gross Alpha/Gross Beta ........................ 6-9
Radon Dosimetry Values for a Typical Home ............................................................ 6-9
Gamma Scan Survey Summary ................................................................................... 7-5
Summary of NaI Gamma Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rate................... 7-7
Road-Biased Soil – Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results ........................... 7-9
Road-Biased Soil – Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results ......................... 7-10
Road-Biased Soil – Actinium Series and Miscellaneous Gamma Spectroscopy
Results ....................................................................................................................... 7-11
Reference Background Road – Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results ....... 7-12
Reference Background Road – Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results ....... 7-13
Reference Background Road – Actinium Series and Miscellaneous Gamma
Spectroscopy Results ................................................................................................. 7-14
Dose Assessment Results for Oil and Gas Brine-Treated Roads .............................. 7-14
Summary of Analytical Procedures ........................................................................... 8-11
Bi-214 Split Solid Sample Comparison Results........................................................ 8-12
Pb-212 Split Solid Sample Comparison Results ....................................................... 8-13
Pb-214 Split Soil Sample Comparison Results ......................................................... 8-13
Ra-226 Split Soil Sample Comparison Results ......................................................... 8-14
Bi-214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results ..................................................... 8-14
Pb-214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results ..................................................... 8-15
Ra-226 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results ..................................................... 8-15
Ra-228 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results ..................................................... 8-16
Bi-214 Duplicate Sample Comparison Results……………………………………..8-17
Pb-212 Duplicated Sample Comparison Results…………………………..……….8-17
Pb-214 Duplicate Sample Comparison Results ……………………………………8-18
Ra-226 Duplicate Sample Comparison Results…………………………………….8-18

V.
1.
1

5-5.

Rev. 1

6-10.
6-11.
7-1.
7-2.
7-3.
7-4.
7-5.
7-6.
7-7.
7-8.

7-9.
8-1.
8-2.
8-3.
8-4.
8-5.
8-6.
8-7.
8-8.
8-9.
8-10.
8-11.
8-12.
8-13.

May 2016

x

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols

Rev. 1

Ac
ALARA

ANSI
API
ATD
Ba

Actinium
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
Alpha
American National Standards Institute
American Petroleum Institute
Alpha Track Detector
Barium

BaCO3

Barium Carbonate

Barium Sulfate
billion cubic feet

Beta
Bi
Bismuth
BRP
Bureau of Radiation Protection
Ca
Calcium
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
Duplicate Error Ratio
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
dpm
disintegrations per minute
Data Quality Level
DQL
EIC
Electret Ion Chamber
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fe
Iron
FSP
Field Sampling Plan
ft
foot/feet
2
ft
square foot
ft3
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
HNO3
Nitric Acid
HPS
Health Physics Society

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BaSO4
Bcf

V.
1.
1

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS

May 2016

xi

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols

hr
IAEA
ICP
K
keV
l
LLD
µR/hr

Rev. 1

hour
International Atomic Energy Agency
Inductively Coupled Plasma
Potassium
kilo-electron volt
liter
Lower Level of Detection
microroentgens per hour
microroentgen equivalent man per hour

mcf
MDC
Mg
Mn
mph
mrem
MS
MSD
Na
NaCl
NaI
NELAP
NIST
NJDEP
NORM
NPDES
NRC
O&G
OSHA
%R
±
Pa
PA
Pa. C.S.
PASDA
Pb
pCi
Perma-Fix
pH
Po
POTW
PPE
ppm
PSIA
QA
QAM
QAPP
QC
Ra

thousand cubic feet
Minimum Detectable Concentration
Magnesium
Manganese
miles per hour
millirem
Matrix Spike or Mass Spectrometry
Matrix Spike Duplicate
Sodium
Sodium Chloride
Sodium Iodide
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
National Institute of Standards and Technology
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Oil and Gas
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Percent Recovery
plus or minus
Protactinium
Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access
Lead
picocuries
Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc.
Potential Hydrogen
Polonium
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Personal Protective Equipment
parts per million
pounds per square inch absolute
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Manual
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Control
Radium

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

μrem/hr

May 2016

xii

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols

V.
1.
1

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Residual Radiation
Regulatory Guide
Radon
Relative Percent Difference
Standard Operating Procedure
Strontium
Sievert
Total Dissolved Solids
Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
Thorium
Thallium
Total Propagated Uncertainty
Uranium
microhm
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
United States
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
United States Code
U.S. Geological Survey
Working Level
Wastewater Treatment Plant
X-ray Fluorescence
year
Zero Liquid Discharge

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

RCRA
RESRAD
RG
Rn
RPD
SOP
Sr
Sv
TDS
TENORM
Th
Tl
TPU
U
µohm
UNSCEAR
U.S.
USACE
U.S.C.
USGS
WL
WWTP
XRF
yr
ZLD

Rev. 1

May 2016

xiii

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Glossary

Rev. 1

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 the 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.

V.
1.
1

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 designated 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).

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Conventional Formation – A formation that is not an unconventional formation.
Conventional Well – 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. The term includes, 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 or 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 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.
Irrespective of formation, 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 out the

May 2016

xiv

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Glossary

Rev. 1

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 into production.

V.
1.
1

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, chemical 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 occurring 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 maintains 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.
Horizontal 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 from 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 gamma
spectroscopy 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.

May 2016

xv

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Glossary

Rev. 1

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 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure 14.7 PSIA.
Produced Water – Water that is produced with oil and gas when the well is in production.

V.
1.
1

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 cm2 of surface area sampled.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Secular Equilibrium – A type of radioactive equilibrium in which the half-life of the precursor
(parent) radionuclide is so much longer than that of the product (progeny) radionuclide(s) that the
radioactivity of the progeny become equal to the parent over time equal to approximately 10 halflife’s of the progeny.

Servicing Fluid – Oil and gas production well maintenance and work-over fluids and/or oil/waterbased 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 cm2 of surface area 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 gas 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 et 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 cm2 of surface area surveyed.
May 2016

xvi

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Glossary

Rev. 1

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 Well – A bore hole drilled or being drilled for the purpose of or to be used for
the production of natural gas from an unconventional formation.

V.
1.
1

Vertical Drill Cuttings – Drill cuttings 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

*These definitions are for the purposes of this report only and are not necessarily regulatory definitions.

May 2016

xvii

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Synopsis

0.0

Rev. 1

SYNOPSIS

V.
1.
1

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 distribution 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

2. There is little or limited potential for radiation 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 other controls should be evaluated.
3. There is little potential for radiation exposure to workers 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 elevated 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 of longterm 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 use of brine from the O&G industry for dust suppression and road
stabilization should be conducted.

May 2016

0-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

Rev. 1

V.
1.
1

During the expansion of the Marcellus Shale Gas industry the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) staff observed a steady 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 radioactive 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 needed to effectively 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 impacts
from TENORM waste disposal, and the investigation 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.
Background

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

1.2

The Marcellus Shale formation underlies much of Pennsylvania, with the exception of southeastern
Pennsylvania. 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 areas of the Marcellus Shale throughout Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania 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-based products.
Figure 1-1 depicts 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 Shale 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 additional geologic information on other natural gas-producing formations
and on heavy metal content.

May 2016

1-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

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.edu

May 2016

1-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

V.
1.
1

Marcellus Shale and other geologic formations rich in O&G resources may contain naturally
occurring radioactive material (NORM), 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 Figures 1-3 and 1-4, respectively. Surface
soil typically contains approximately 1 to 2 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of both the U and Th series
radionuclides with all of the series members at approximately equal activity, i.e., secular
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)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

“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
for the production of natural gas from an unconventional formation.
25 Pa. 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 drilled 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.

May 2016

1-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

V.
1.
1

Figure 1-3. Uranium-238 Decay Chain

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 = minutes
May 2016

1-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

(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.

1.4

Subject Media

V.
1.
1

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

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 streams
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 Solids

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Natural gas exploration, extraction and production result in various types of solids that may contain
TENORM or may be impacted by TENORM. These materials include drill cuttings, filter sock
residuals, 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 residuals and WWTP sludge are generated during the processing of
wastewaters generated by O&G activities. Impoundment and tank bottom sludge accumulates 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 pipe scale on natural gas transmission infrastructure.
1.4.1.2 Liquids

There are various types of liquids generated during the development and operating life of a gas
well including drilling muds, used hydraulic 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 Owned Treatment Works (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 is
processed and meets specified chemical criteria, the processed water may be discharged to
streams under an NPDES permit.

May 2016

1-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

2) Centralized Waste Treatment (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).

V.
1.
1

3) Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) facilities are the most modern and utilize distillation and
chemical technologies to remove solids from the wastewater. The processed wastewater is
returned for reuse at natural gas well sites for hydraulic fracturing of new wells. All centralized
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, contaminants are leached from the disposed material. Landfills are designed to ensure
leachate does not enter the groundwater and is collected for treatment. Upon meeting NPDES
water quality standards, the treated leachate may be discharged to surface waters. Some landfills
operate onsite treatment systems while others are connected to local POTWs, which treat landfill
leachate prior to discharge. Because landfills accept natural gas industry wastes such as drill
cuttings and treatment sludge that may contain TENORM, there is a potential for leachate from
those facilities to also contain TENORM.
1.4.1.3 Natural Gas

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 users.
Natural gas samples were collected and evaluated for Rn at compressor stations, natural 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 lines, compressor stations, transmission lines, 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, they are typically located at a nexus of piping from well sites.

May 2016

1-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Figure 1-5. Natural Gas Operations

Source: US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/methane/gasstar/basic-information/index.html

Natural Gas Processing:
Natural 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/depropanizing and fractionation. These facilities can be quite large with very extensive piping
networks. They also have several intermediate and final product storage tanks and vessels. The
operations at these facilities 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 liquid storage tanks. Dehydration 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 used for storing
natural gas. These underground reservoirs are used to address fluctuations in demand for natural
gas.

May 2016

1-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

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 it 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 natural gas when perfect combustion is achieved.
1.5

Facility Selection

1.5.1 Well Site Selection

V.
1.
1

Category-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 selections.

1) A Marcellus Shale formation well site from the dry gas areas predominantly in the northern
and central parts of the state.
2) A Marcellus Shale formation well site from the wet gas area found predominantly in the
southwestern part of the state.
3) A Utica formation well site and other non-Marcellus Shale formations, e.g., Geneseo, Burket,
and Rhinestreet that became available.
4) A conventional O&G well site.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

1.5.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Selection

1) The three types of WWTPs, including POTW facilities, CWT facilities, ZLD facilities.
2) WWTPs that accept wastewater from conventional and unconventional types of well sites.
3) WWTPs that accept waste material from unconventional well sites in the wet gas-producing
area 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) All Pennsylvania landfills.
2) Nine landfills that accepted the largest amount of TENORM-containing waste during the past
year.
3) Large-volume TENORM-containing waste disposal sites where onsite worker exposure
measurements could be obtained and representative samples of solids could be collected.
1.5.4 Gas Distribution and End Use Operations Selection Criteria

1) Facilities that compress, carry, and distribute natural gas from the wet gas-producing area of
the state.
2) Facilities that compress, carry, and distribute natural gas from the dry gas-producing area of
the state.

May 2016

1-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 1.0

Rev. 1

3) Facilities that distribute or process natural gas produced in Pennsylvania rather than those that
distribute or process natural gas from out of state.
4) Major natural gas users, e.g., electrical generator, processing, and storage facilities.
1.5.5 Road Sites Selection Criteria

1.5.6 Well Component Reconditioning Selection Criteria

V.
1.
1

1) Multiple locations in the southwestern, northwestern, and north-central regions of the state.
2) Roads where liquids from wells in the wet and dry 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 road stabilization.

Well casing/pipe reconditioning or de-scaling facilities in the state.
1.5.7 Centralized Impoundments

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

1) A facility in the wet gas-producing area.
2) A facility in the dry gas-producing area.

May 2016

1-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

2.0

STUDY IMPLEMENTATION

2.1

Sampling and Survey Methods

Rev. 1

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

2.1.1.1 Scope

V.
1.
1

2.1.1 Field Surveys

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









Well Sites (Section 3.0)
 Offices and living quarters
 Storage and maintenance areas
 Drill rigs and associated equipment
 Temporary wastewater storage tanks
 Wastewater impoundments
 Production equipment
 Drill cutting pits (closed)
Wastewater Treatment Plants (Section 4.0)
 Wastewater off-load areas
 Influent wastewater storage areas (untreated)
 Effluent wastewater storage areas (treated)
 Processing tanks and equipment
 Offices, break rooms, laboratories
 Discharge points where applicable
Landfills (nine study landfills – details provided in Section 5.0)
 Offices and other occupied spaces
 Storage and maintenance areas
 Natural gas processing facilities
 Leachate processing facilities
 Earthmoving equipment
Gas Distribution and End Use (Section 6.0)
 Compressor stations
 Natural gas-fired power plants
 Natural gas processing facilities
Oil and Gas Brine-Treated Roads (Section 7.0)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



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 gamma
May 2016

2-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

dose rate meters; portable gamma exposure rate meters; general purpose Geiger-Muller (GM)
detectors; and field counters for low-level  and  radiation detection.

2.1.1.3 Activities

V.
1.
1

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, survey
results, logbooks, and various other records generated during field screening survey activities are
included in Appendix B.

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

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Gamma 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-Roentgen equivalent man per hour (μrem/hr) or a Ludlum
Model 19 Micro-R Meter recorded in units of micro-Roentgen per hour (μR/hr). The gross gamma
radioactivity surveys were recorded in counts per minute (cpm) using a Ludlum Model 44-10
Sodium Iodide (NaI) detector. To 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 Samples and Tanks

Liquid samples were collected at each of the three types of WWTPs 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, gamma
radiation exposure rates were performed on contact with tanks when possible. Otherwise,
measurements were collected in the general proximity of the point of sample collection or tank.
To 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 Surveys of Equipment and Structures

Equipment such as drill rigs, well development equipment, etc., was subject to field screening
surveys including:




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 disintegrations per minute per 100
square centimeters (dpm/100 cm2) of surface area surveyed.

May 2016

2-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0



Rev. 1

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 cm2 of surface area smeared.

To 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






V.
1.
1

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

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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

To properly evaluate survey data, surveys were also performed in areas outside the influence of
the facility to determine natural background.
2.1.2 Field Sampling Activities
2.1.2.1 Scope

DEP sampled solids, liquids, and gas during the 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 radionuclides of concern
as well as their potential mobility. The media sampled during this study included:







Solid samples:
− Drill cuttings
− Wastewater treatment sludge/filter cake
− Wastewater treatment discharge sediment
− Soil samples
− Filter sock residuals
Liquid samples:
− Flowback and produced water
− Accumulated liquids from production equipment
− Wastewater treatment influent and effluent
− Landfill leachate influent and effluent
Gas samples:
− Natural gas (for Rn-222 concentration)
− Ambient air (for Rn-222 concentration)
Removable / radioactivity surface samples:
− Removable  radioactivity by smear sampling

May 2016

2-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

− Removable  radioactivity by smear sampling

2.1.2.2 Solid Sample Methods

V.
1.
1

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 independent QC laboratory (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.

Solid samples were collected using clean sampling equipment. Samples were collected using
stainless steel trowels and bowls, then promptly transferred into laboratory-approved containers
and immediately labeled to maintain identification.
2.1.2.3 Liquid Sample Methods

When sampling tanks through a valve, samples were collected directly into the clean sample
container. Otherwise, representative 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

When the samples were received at the DEP Laboratory, 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 precipitation, 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 preserved and subsequently filtered in the laboratory using a 0.45-micron mixed
cellulose ester filter. The filtered sample was placed into a clean container. The filtrates were
maintained for analysis.
2.1.2.4 Gas Sample Methods

Radon concentration in ambient air was measured by various technologies. The technology 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 (EICs)
Alpha track detectors (ATDs)

Natural gas grab samples were also collected to measure Rn concentrations. Natural gas was
collected directly into scintillation cells, referred to as Lucas cells. 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 contamination by Rn particulate progeny.
May 2016

2-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

The 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-millimeter diameter filter paper to the sampling surface and smearing with moderate pressure
approximately 100 cm2 of surface area.
Laboratory Methods

V.
1.
1

2.2

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, drilling 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 GM pancake probe. The samples were logged with the appropriate
standard analysis code that designated the requested radiological analyses.
2.2.1.1 Gamma Spectroscopy

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 polyethylene
tape, and analyzed by high purity germanium gamma spectroscopy. The following radionuclides
were identified or inferred using gamma spectroscopy:
Ra-226
Ra-228
U-235
Ac-228
Th-232
U-238
Pb-212
Pb-214
Bi-212
Bi-214
K-40

Direct Energy Line
Inferred Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Inferred Energy Line
Inferred Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line

186 keV
911 keV (Ac-228)
143 keV
911 keV
911 keV (Ac-228)
63.3 keV (Th-234)
238 keV
351 keV
727 keV
609 keV
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 analyses were complete, the dried solid samples were analyzed for
various elements using X-ray fluorescence (XRF). The samples were weighed into XRF sample
cups, covered with a Prolene® film, and analyzed using an X-ray spectrometer. Forty-eight
May 2016

2-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

elements were analyzed using XRF. The XRF analyses were conducted using a DEP Laboratorydeveloped 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

2.2.2 Liquid Matrix

V.
1.
1

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) aliquot of the original solid sample matrix was digested and diluted to a final volume of 4 L,
resulting 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 hydrochloric acid (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. Instrument background, secondary, and pulser counts were obtained at the
beginning and end of every sample batch. The alpha spectroscopy reference method is Standard
Methods 7500-U C.





OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The following sample types received at the DEP Laboratory were classified as liquid matrices:
WWTP influent and effluent liquids
Landfill leachates
Well site liquids/fluids including:
 Hydraulic fracturing fluid
 Flowback fluid
 Produced 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 GM
pancake probe. The samples were preserved with nitric acid (HNO3) to a potential hydrogen (pH)
less than 2 and logged with the appropriate standard analysis code that designates the requested
radiological analyses. After being acidified, samples were maintained a minimum of 16 hours
prior to analysis. Samples 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 spectroscopy (see solid matrix). The
liquid samples were counted for gross -, gross -, and gamma-emitting radionuclides.
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:

May 2016

2-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Direct Energy Line
Inferred Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Inferred Energy Line
Inferred Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line
Direct Energy Line

186 keV
911 keV (Ac-228)
143 keV
911 keV
911 keV (Ac-228)
63.3 keV (Th-234)
238 keV
351 keV
727 keV
609 keV
1,460 keV

V.
1.
1

Ra-226
Ra-228
U-235
Ac-228
Th-232
U-238
Pb-212
Pb-214
Bi-212
Bi-214
K-40

Rev. 1

The samples were counted again using gamma spectroscopy after a minimum of 21 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 check was completed, reviewed, and validated.
2.2.2.2 Gross Alpha Gross Beta Analyses

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 HNO3 and dried. The dried sample 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 checks 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 various metals using XRF. The samples were weighed into
XRF sample cups, covered with a Prolene® film, and analyzed using an X-ray spectrometer. Fortyeight elements were identified using XRF. The XRF analyses were 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 Laboratory 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°C
(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 and analyzed for
Rn concentration. The scintillation cells were counted in one of two counters: the Pylon AB-5
May 2016

2-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

Portable Radiation Monitor or the Ludlum Model 2200 Scaler-Ratemeter. The counter used was
dependent 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 was
not used in the calculations to allow for “dark adaptation” of the instruments. The next three counts
were each individually calculated and the average and standard deviation calculated. The average
result, plus or minus (±) two standard deviations, and the minimum detectable activity are reported
in the data tables.

2.2.4 Filter Matrix – Smears

V.
1.
1

Natural 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., 2014)
was used for this effect to prevent biasing the results. The final calculated Rn concentrations were
divided by 1.054. This reduced all results by five percent to correct for the bias.

All smear samples were collected by Perma-Fix technicians and transported to the Perma-Fix
Laboratory for analysis. All smear samples were counted for gross  and gross  radioactivity.
Ten percent of those smear samples were then forwarded to the DEP Laboratory for duplicate
analysis as a QC measure.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Upon arrival at the Perma-Fix laboratory, the samples were logged. The 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 (zinc-sulfide
scintillation detector). A standard QC background and calibration verification count was
performed each day the smear counter was used.
Upon receipt at the DEP Laboratory, the samples were logged. The 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 analyses were
conducted using the DEP Laboratory-developed method. A standard QC calibration verification
instrument check was 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
spectroscopy. The result, the standard two-sigma error (95 percent confidence level) and the
minimum detectable concentration (MDC) were reviewed for each of the following radionuclides
as reported:





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)

May 2016

2-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

2.3.1 Limitations on Gamma Spectroscopy Results
The following limitations on gamma spectroscopy of radioactive samples were considered when
reviewing the analytical results for solid and liquid samples:





V.
1.
1



Gamma 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 equilibrium. 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.
Gamma spectroscopy cannot directly measure Th-232. Consequently, Th-232 is inferred from
the short-lived progeny of Th-232, Ac-228, when the radionuclides are in secular equilibrium.
Due to the difference in solubility between Th and Ra, this is not the case 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. Figures 2-1 and Figure 2-2 present the solubility of the Uranium
and Thorium Series.
Uranium-238 can be detected by gamma spectroscopy, but the gamma emission used is of low
energy and low yield, resulting in a high MDC and high standard error 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.
Uranium is insoluble in water while Ra is water soluble. Therefore, wastewater, produced and
flowback fluids, and wastewater treatment solids (sludge and filter cake) contain Ra and its
progeny but do not include U.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



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

When the reported result is less than the MDC, a value equal to ½ 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.

May 2016

2-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Figure 2-1. Solubility of the Uranium Series in Oil and Gas Produced Water

Source: IAEA 2010.

May 2016

2-10

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Figure 2-2. Solubility of the Thorium Series in Oil and Gas Produced Water

Source: IAEA 2010.

2.3.2 Radium-226 Quantification by Gamma Spectroscopy

Radium-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,
this yields an accurate Ra-226 result. However, in soil and drill cutting samples, the presence of
U-235 causes interference with direct Ra-226 detection because one of its gamma lines is of similar
energy, 185.7 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
overestimation of Ra-226 was quantified assuming the gamma peaks for Ra-226 and U-235
completely overlap. The theoretical overestimation of Ra-226 is presented in Table 2-1.

May 2016

2-11

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 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 soil or drill cuttings sample is
collected, some of the Rn gas escapes the solid matrix. Therefore, samples are sealed to allow the
Rn gas to in-grow to reestablish equilibrium after the sample has been sealed.
2.3.3 Criteria for Comparison to Analytical Analyses Results

2.3.4 Normal Background Radioactivity Values

V.
1.
1

Table 2-2 presents criteria against which the analytical results and assessments of this study were
evaluated.

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 analytical analyses data were generated. The next five
sections present the survey and sampling data for Well Sites, WWTPs, Landfills, Gas Distribution
and End Use, and Brine-Treated Roads.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

All numbers in this report have been rounded to three significant figures. Actual significant figures
for each reported value can be found in Appendix C, Gamma Spectroscopy Analytical Results.

May 2016

2-12

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

Table 2-1. Theoretical Overestimation of Ra-226 Activity in Solid Samples with
Natural Uranium Analyzed by Gamma Spectroscopy

a

(pCi/g)
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.75
1.75
0.06
0.11

(pCi/g)
2.00
0.09
2.00
1.51
3.51
0.12
0.21

(pCi/g)
3.00
0.14
3.00
2.26
5.26
0.18
0.32

(pCi/g)
4.00
0.18
4.00
3.02
7.02
0.24
0.42

(pCi/g)
5.00
0.23
5.00
3.77
8.77
0.30
0.53

(pCi/g)
10.0
0.45
10.0
7.54
17.5
0.60
1.06

(pCi/g)
20.0
0.91
20.0
15.1
35.1
1.21
2.11

V.
1.
1

Radionuclide
U-238
U-235
Ra-226
Excess Ra-226a
Reported Ra-226
Excess U-235b
Reported U-235

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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.

May 2016

2-13

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

Table 2-2. Criteria for Comparison

Volumetric Solids

Volumetric Solids

Reference

3 pCi/g Total Radium American National
(Ra-226 + Ra-228)
Standards Institute
above background
(ANSI)/Health
Physics Society (HPS)
N13.53-2009, Control
and Release of
Technologically
Enhanced NORM
(TENORM) (2009)
5 pCi/g Total Radium EPA Directive No.
(Ra-226 + Ra-228)
9200.4-35,
above background
Remediation Goals for
Radioactively
Contaminated
CERCLA Sites (2000)
270 pCi/g Total
U.S. Department of
Radium (Ra-226 +
Transportation (DOT),
Ra-228)
49 CFR 173.436,
Radioactive Material
(in regards to
transportation)
5 pCi/L Total
EPA Drinking Water
Radium (Ra-226 +
Standard, 40 CFR
Ra-228) in drinking
141.66
water
60 pCi/L Total
U.S. Nuclear
Radium (Ra-226 +
Regulatory
Ra-228) direct
Commission (NRC),
discharge
10 CFR Part 20
Appendix B, Table 2,
Liquid Effluent
600 pCi/L Total
U.S. NRC, 10 CFR
Radium (Ra-226 +
Part 20 Appendix B,
Ra-228) discharge to Table 2, Liquid
sanitary sewer
Effluent (assumes
dilution and solubility
of Ra)
2
100 dpm/100 cm
U.S. NRC, Regulatory
Guide 1.86,
Termination of
Operating Licenses for
Nuclear Reactors
(1974)—Criteria for
Ra-226

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Volumetric Solids

Criteria

Volumetric Liquids

Volumetric Liquids

Volumetric Liquids

Total Alpha Surface
Contamination

May 2016

Potentially Apply
to:
Sediment, Beneficial
Use Surface Soil,
Surface Soil on Well
Sites

V.
1.
1

Parameter

Sediment, Beneficial
Use Surface Soil,
Surface Soil on Well
Sites

Sludge, Filter Cake,
Filter Socks, Scale,
Cuttings

Effluent Water from
Well Sites

Effluent Water from
Well Sites and
Wastewater
Facilities

Effluent Water from
Well Sites and
Wastewater
Facilities

Structural surfaces
on well sites and
within wastewater
facilities, and
equipment released
from sites
2-14

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

Table 2-2. Criteria for Comparison
Criteria
1,000 dpm/100 cm2

Removable Alpha
Surface
Contamination

20 dpm/100 cm2 (of
surface area smear
sampled)

Removable Beta
Surface
Contamination

200 dpm/100 cm2 (of
surface area smear
sampled)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Total Beta Surface
Contamination

Potentially Apply
to:
U.S. NRC, Regulatory Structural surfaces
Guide 1.86,
on well sites and
Termination of
within wastewater
Operating Licenses for facilities, and
Nuclear Reactors
equipment released
(1974)—Criteria for
from sites
natural Th including
Ra-228
U.S. NRC, Regulatory Structural surfaces
Guide 1.86,
on well sites and
Termination of
within wastewater
Operating Licenses for facilities, and
Nuclear Reactors
equipment released
(1974)—Criteria for
from sites
Ra-226
U.S. NRC, Regulatory Structural surfaces
Guide 1.86,
on well sites and
Termination of
within wastewater
Operating Licenses for facilities, and
Nuclear Reactors
equipment released
(1974)—Criteria for
from sites
natural Th including
Ra-228
EPA, 402/K-12/002, A Buildings, General
Citizen’s Guide to
Public
Radon (2012)
U.S. NRC, 10 CFR
Occupational
Part 20 Appendix B,
Exposure
Table 1, Col 3
Reference

V.
1.
1

Parameter

Volumetric Gas

4 pCi/L

Volumetric Gas

30 pCi/L Derived Air
Concentration (DAC)

Volumetric Gas

100 pCi/L

Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
(OSHA) 29 CFR
1910.1096

General Public
Workforce

Annual Exposure

25 mrem/year plus as
low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA)

General Public

Annual Exposure

100 mrem/year

U.S. NRC, 10 CFR
20.1402-20.1403,
Radiological Criteria
for Unrestricted Use
U.S. NRC, 10 CFR
20.1301, Radiation
Dose Limits for
Members of the Public

May 2016

General Public
Workers not trained
as Radiation
Workers, i.e., well
site and water
facilities workers

2-15

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 2.0

Rev. 1

Table 2-2. Criteria for Comparison

Annual Exposure

Criteria

Reference

5,000 mrem/year

U.S. NRC, 10 CFR
20.1201, Occupational
Dose Limits for
Adults

Potentially Apply
to:
Radiation Workers

V.
1.
1

Parameter

Table 2-3. Natural Background Radioactivity Values for U.S. Soil
Material

Soil (Average)a
Soil (Minimum)a
Soil (Maximum) a

Ra-226 (pCi/g)

Th-232 (pCi/g)

K-40 (pCi/g)

0.95
0.11
3.8

1.1
0.22
4.3

0.95
0.11
3.5

10
2.7
19

UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation (UNSCEAR 2000).

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

a

U-238 (pCi/g)

May 2016

2-16

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

3.0

Rev. 1

WELL SITES



3.1

4 Conventional Wells
 Formations
 1 in the Lower Devonian/Oriskany
 3 in the Upper Devonian
 Phase
 Production Phase
34 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
 10 sampled during the vertical drilling phase
 10 sampled during the horizontal drilling phase
 10 sampled during the hydraulic fracturing phase
 9 sampled during the flowback phase
 19 sampled during the production phase
 9 sampled for fluids and Rn
 10 sampled for just Rn
 Regions
 1 in the Northeast Region
 17 in the North-central Region
 4 in the Northwest Region
 16 in the Southwest Region

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



V.
1.
1

Thirty-eight well sites, including four conventional wells and 34 unconventional wells, were
sampled 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 types, formations, phases, and geographic regions is provided
below.

Radiological Survey Results

Radiological surveys were conducted at each well site resulting in four data sets:





Removable / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Total /surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm
Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of µR/hr

3.1.1 Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity 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 using
May 2016

3-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

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 removable
criterion of 20 dpm /100 cm2. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra-228 of the natural Th
decay series with a removable criterion of 200 dpm /100 cm2. The average removable  and 
levels at each well site were below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum removable  and  levels
were 14.9 dpm/100 cm2 and 123 dpm/100 cm2, respectively, 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.

V.
1.
1

3.1.2 Total Alpha/BetaSurface Radioactivity Measurement Results

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 criterion of 100 dpm /100 cm2. The primary
 emitter of concern is Ra-228 of the natural Th decay series with a total criterion of 1,000 dpm
/100 cm2. The maximum average total andlevels measured at any single well site were
93.0 dpm/100 cm2 and 1,630 dpm/100 cm2. The maximum total andlevels measured were
754 dpm/100 cm2 and 2,503 dpm/100 cm2. The summary results of total and surface
radioactivity for each of the well sites surveyed are presented 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 (approximately 39 µR/h). 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.
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 Contaminants, NUREG-1507, Minimum
Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants
and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998). The exposure 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.

May 2016

3-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

3.2

Rev. 1

Solid Sample Results

3.2.1 Vertical Phase Drill Cuttings

V.
1.
1

Vertical cuttings were sampled at 11 unconventional well sites and analyzed using gamma
spectroscopy to identify gamma-emitting members of the natural U, Th, and Ac decay series. The
gamma spectroscopy results are presented in Table 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 sites. The first method, called a
“half round,” accumulates cuttings in a large mixing container where 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 composited sample was collected during vertical drilling. This
method was used at nine of the 10 well sites.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The second method loads the cuttings into roll-off containers from the shaker tables. This method
enables sampling of cuttings from discrete depths. Each container was labeled with the start and
end depth of the collected material. The formations sampled are presented in Table 3-6 for these
vertical drill cuttings. This method was used at one well site.

The U series activities are variable because the vertical cuttings represent different geologic
formations lying above the target natural gas-containing shale. These 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. Shale 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 XRF 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 identifying Ra-226 using gamma spectroscopy of the
186 keV gamma line. (Refer to Section 2.3.2 for a complete discussion 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).

May 2016

3-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Figure 3-1. Comparison of Ra-226 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to U-238 XRF Results in
Vertical Drill Cuttings

Ra-226 (Gamma Spec)

V.
1.
1

U-238 (XRF)

WP-03-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-07-SL-…
WP-07-SL-…
WP-07-SL-…
WP-10-SL-…
WP-11-SL-…
WP-12-SL-…
WP-12-SL-…
WP-13-SL-…
WP-14-SL-…
WP-14-SL-…
WP-15-SL-…

20 pCi/g
18 pCi/g
16 pCi/g
14 pCi/g
12 pCi/g
10 pCi/g
8 pCi/g
6 pCi/g
4 pCi/g
2 pCi/g
0 pCi/g

The Th-232 identified 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Figure 3-2. Comparison of Ra-228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th-232 XRF Results in
Vertical Drill Cuttings
5 pCi/g
4 pCi/g
3 pCi/g

Ra-228 (Gamma Spec)
Th-232 (XRF)

2 pCi/g
0 pCi/g

WP-03-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-04-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-05-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-06-SL-…
WP-07-SL-…
WP-07-SL-…
WP-07-SL-…
WP-10-SL-…
WP-11-SL-…
WP-12-SL-…
WP-12-SL-…
WP-13-SL-…
WP-14-SL-…
WP-14-SL-…
WP-15-SL-…

1 pCi/g

The Th-232 to Ra-228 values for most samples trend together, i.e., when the activity concentration
of one increases, there is a comparable increase in the other.
3.2.2 Horizontal Phase Drill Cuttings

The same two cuttings management methods 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
Tables 3-7 and 3-8.
Figure 3-3 presents the analytical results for vertical and horizontal cutting samples. The
horizontal drill cuttings had higher concentrations of Ra-226 than the vertical drill cuttings as
May 2016

3-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

V.
1.
1

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 level. 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.
Figure 3-3. Comparison of Analytical Analyses Results for Horizontal and Vertical Drill
Cutting Samples
9 pCi/g
8 pCi/g
7 pCi/g
6 pCi/g
5 pCi/g
4 pCi/g
3 pCi/g
2 pCi/g
1 pCi/g
pCi/g

Vertical Cuttings
Horizontal Cuttings

Ra-226

Th-232
Radionuclide

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

U-238

Ra-228

The U concentration (ppm) measured using XRF was converted to pCi/g of U-238 using the
specific activity of 0.334 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 representation 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
30 pCi/g
25 pCi/g
20 pCi/g
15 pCi/g
10 pCi/g
5 pCi/g
0 pCi/g

Ra-226 (Gamma Spec)

May 2016

WP-14-SL-079

WP-14-SL-078

WP-14-SL-077

WP-13-SL-062

WP-12-SL-056

WP-12-SL-055

WP-11-SL-068

WP-10-SL-048

WP-06-SL-037

WP-05-SL-034

WP-05-SL-032

WP-05-SL-027

WP-04-SL-012

WP-04-SL-011

WP-04-SL-010

WP-04-SL-009

WP-03-SL-065

WP-02-SL-036

U-238 (XRF)

3-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

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
Th decay series within drill cuttings. Figure 3-5 provides a graphic representation of this
comparison.

WP-14-SL-079

WP-14-SL-078

WP-14-SL-077

WP-13-SL-062

WP-12-SL-056

WP-12-SL-055

WP-10-SL-048

WP-06-SL-037

WP-05-SL-034

WP-05-SL-032

WP-05-SL-027

WP-04-SL-012

WP-04-SL-011

WP-04-SL-010

WP-04-SL-009

WP-03-SL-065

WP-02-SL-036

Ra-228 (Gamma Spec)
Th-232 (XRF)

WP-11-SL-068

5 pCi/g
4 pCi/g
3 pCi/g
2 pCi/g
1 pCi/g
0 pCi/g

V.
1.
1

Figure 3-5. Comparison of Ra-228 Gamma Spectroscopy Results to Th-232 XRF Results in
Horizontal Drill Cuttings

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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, drilling 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 within 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 in 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 injected 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 did not contain
radioactivity exceeding that of natural background levels found in surface soil (reference
Table 2-3).
May 2016

3-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

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 solids were only present at four of
the eight well sites. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in Table 3-11.

3.3

Liquid Sample Results

V.
1.
1

Uranium and Th are at or below background activity levels. Radium-226 was elevated above
background levels for soil (reference Table 2-3) ranging from 0.763 to 7.73 pCi/g.

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. The
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. Because of the large concentrations
of solids in the samples, gross  and gross  analyses were performed on only two samples. The
results for Ra-226, Ra-228, K-40, gross  and gross  are presented in Table 3-12.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

3.3.2 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

Hydraulic fracturing fluid was sampled prior to injection into the well. The well sites sampled
during the study utilized hydraulic fracturing fluid made up of either fresh water, reused flowback
liquid, produced 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 it 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 3-13.
Radium-226 was detected within the hydraulic fracturing fluid ranging from 64.0 to 21,000 pCi/L.
Ra-228 was also detected ranging from 4.50 to 1,640 pCi/L. Table 2-2 contains several volumetric
liquids criteria for relative comparison: 5 pCi/L total Ra EPA maximum contaminant level for
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 Table 3-14.
Radium-226 concentrations were elevated, ranging from 551 to 25,500 pCi/L. Radium-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.
May 2016

3-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

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 Tables 3-15 and 3-16.

V.
1.
1

Radium-226 concentrations in unfiltered samples were elevated, ranging from 40.5 to
26,600 pCi/L. Radium-228 concentrations were also elevated, ranging from 26.0 to 1,900 pCi/L.
Radium-226 concentrations were also elevated in filtered samples, ranging from 87.0 to
24,100 pCi/L. Radium-228 concentrations were also elevated, ranging from 44.0 to 1,860 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 EICs were distributed around the well site approximately 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
EICs collected data from four to seven days. The results are presented in Table 3-17. The Rn
analytical reports are presented in Appendix H.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The Rn measurement results during flowback in ambient air range from 0.200 to 1.70 pCi/L while
typical ambient background Rn concentrations range from 0.00 to 1.11 pCi/L (with a median value
of 0.39 pCi/L) in outdoor ambient air in the U.S., as reported by EPA.
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). Seventeen of the natural
gas samples were collected from Marcellus Shale, and five natural gas samples were collected
from other geologic formations.
The production 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 3.00 to 148 pCi/L. The
median Rn concentration in natural gas is 41.8 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 from working on well sites. The
measurements included:

May 2016

3-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1






OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

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 cm2) 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 Drilling – 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 flowback water while working
on the site.
Production – personnel are potentially exposed to radioactivity in produced water while
working on the site.

May 2016

3-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

3.5.1 External Gamma Exposure

V.
1.
1

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 exposure rate across all well sites surveyed was measured at 5 µR/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 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.
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

(18.1 – 5) µR/hr x 2000 hr/yr x (1 mrem/1,000 µR gamma) = 26.2 mrem/yr

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The result is less than the 100 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual
exposure is dependent upon the actual exposure rates and occupancy 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 removable surface activity measurements and
one of 493  removable 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 Internal Radon Exposure

The Rn measurement results in ambient air during flowback range from 0.200 to 1.70 pCi/L, while
typical ambient background Rn concentrations range from 0.00 to 1.11 pCi/L, with a median of
0.39 pCi/L in outdoor ambient air in the U.S., as reported by EPA.
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
Ordovician/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.
May 2016

3-10

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

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

V.
1.
1

Appendix I contains the assessment of filtered and unfiltered liquid sample results 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. There 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 Unconventional Produced Water Data Evaluation

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

There was a significant difference observed in the produced water from conventional and
unconventional O&G well sites. Tables 3-15 and 3-16 present gamma spectroscopy results for
conventional and unconventional produced water for both filtered and unfiltered samples. Two
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
Conventional
Unconventional
Conventional
Unconventional

Filtered
Samples
No
No
Yes
Yes

No. of
Samples
4
9
4
9

Average
Ra-226 (pCi/L)
336
8,340
334
8,220

Average
Ra-228 (pCi/L)
295
986
288
985

Ratio of
Ra-226/Ra-228
1.14
8.46
1.16
8.35

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 Shale horizontal
cuttings sample results. 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 Offsite Environmental Impact

A potential offsite environmental impact could result from the removal of materials and/or
equipment with total and/or removable / surface radioactivity above applicable guidelines. The
highest total  surface radioactivity measurement was 754 dpm/100 cm2. Additional
measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 Ra-226 total surface contamination guideline of
100 dpm/100 cm2. The highest total  measurement was 2,503 dpm/100 cm2. This and several
other measurements exceeded the RG 1.86 Th-232 total surface contamination guideline of
May 2016

3-11

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

1,000 dpm/100 cm2. These readings were on equipment associated with wastewater
handling/storage, and this equipment is likely to be reused.

May 2016

3-12

 OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

May 2016
4.15
4.15
4.15

15

WP-11-FS-023

WP-11-FS-037

4.14

21

WP-10-FS-004
8

4.24

21

WP-10-FS-003

17

4.24

3

WP-09-FS-098

WP-10-FS-009

4.15

WP-06-FS-092

7

4.24

23

WP-06-FS-091

WP-09-FS-097

4.24

29

WP-06-FS-026

4.24

4.14

3

WP-05-FS-089

5

4.15

26

WP-05-FS-077

WP-08-FS-095

4.15

3

WP-04-FS-085

4.24

4.24

29

WP-04-FS-084

5

4.24

22

WP-04-FS-014

WP-08-FS-010

4.24

10

WP-03-FS-082

WP-07-FS-094

4.24

14

WP-03-FS-029

4.24

4.15

15

WP-02-FS-083

4.15

4.24

27

WP-01-FS-128

4

4.24

3

WP-01-FS-081

12

4.24

7

WP-01-FS-045

WP-06-FS-093

4.24

12

Study ID

4.15

4.15

4.15

4.15

4.24

4.24

4.15

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.15

4.24

4.24

4.14

4.15

4.15

4.24

4.24

7.24

4.24

4.15

4.24

12.4

4.24

12.4

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.18

1.07

0.00

0.78

0.00

4.79

0.00

2.36

4.15

4.15

4.15

4.15

4.24

113

109

113

93.7

93.7

113

102

102

123

102

111

95.5

102

112

98.9

113

108

95.7

93.7

86.7

109

102

118

102

93.7

113

109

113

93.7

93.7

113

102

102

123

102

111

95.5

102

112

98.9

113

108

95.7

93.7

86.7

109

102

118

102

93.7

V.
1.
1
4.24

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.15

4.24

4.24

4.14

4.15

4.15

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.15

4.24

6.96

4.24

4.92

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

No. of Data
Points

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

113

109

113

93.7

93.7

113

102

102

123

102

111

95.5

102

112

98.9

113

108

95.7

93.7

86.7

109

102

118

102

93.7

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 3-1. Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summarya,b

PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0
Rev. 1

3-13

 May 2016
4.15

4.24

4.14

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.15

4.15

4.15

4.15

17

23

4

19

17

18

20

23

4

7

WP-11-FS-102

WP-12-FS-017

WP-12-FS-018

WP-12-FS-019

WP-13-FS-041

WP-13-FS-042

WP-14-FS-035

WP-14-FS-036

WP-14-FS-107

WP-15-FS-028

4.15

4.15

14.9

12.2

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.14

4.24

4.15

0.00

0.00

2.36

2.47

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.15

4.15

4.62

4.96

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.14

4.24

4.15

114

114

114

114

123

123

93.7

113

93.7

109

114

114

114

114

123

123

93.7

113

93.7

109

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

114

114

114

114

123

123

93.7

113

93.7

109

b

V.
1.
1

Smear samples were performed on facility, system, and structure surfaces.
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.

a

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

No. of Data
Points

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 3-1. Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summarya,b

PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0
Rev. 1

3-14

 12

7

27

16

14

10

22

29

3

26

30.5

29

23

4

12

5

5

7

3
21
21
8
17
15
17

Study ID

WP-01-FS-045

May 2016

WP-01-FS-081

WP-02-FS-083

WP-03-FS-029

WP-03-FS-082

WP-04-FS-014

WP-04-FS-084

WP-04-FS-085

WP-05-FS-077

WP-05-FS-089

WP-06-FS-026

WP-06-FS-091

WP-06-FS-092

WP-06-FS-093

WP-07-FS-094

WP-08-FS-010

WP-08-FS-095

WP-09-FS-097

WP-09-FS-098

WP-10-FS-003

WP-10-FS-004

WP-10-FS-009

WP-11-FS-023

WP-11-FS-037

WP-11-FS-102

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

7.44

19.0

30.5

7.44

30.5

7.44

7.46

30.5

7.46

30.5

7.46

7.46

30.5

7.44

30.5

7.44

19.0

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

258

754

30.5

29.8

19.0

30.5

19.8

30.5

44.6

24.9

30.5

164

30.5

29.8

69.6

30.5

79.0

30.5

14.9

19.0

30.5

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

69.4

167

0.00

8.69

0.00

0.00

4.16

0.00

8.00

4.00

0.00

46.6

0.00

7.06

16.4

0.00

19.2

0.00

2.84

0.00

0.00

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

60.0

268

268

364

1,390

268

268

268

285

279

557

291

268

278

297

646

280

513

317

325

364

266

357

288

279

364

Minimum

1,410

1,020

1,410

1,890

1,580

1,580

268

285

279

721

988

268

527

297

1,920

542

698

651

325

2,220

364

884

676

1,710

2,503

V.
1.
1
93.0

30.5

13.5

19.0

30.5

9.71

30.5

9.38

8.92

30.5

26.0

30.5

11.3

13.7

30.5

16.0

30.5

8.82

19.0

30.5

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

No. of Data
Points

294

223

294

145

410

417

0.00

0.00

0.00

65.0

201

0.00

54.0

0.00

652

59.0

96.0

69.6

0.00

812

28.6

137

75.5

460

618

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Maximum
Deviation

Table 3-2. Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summarya,b

960

583

966

1,630

709

676

268

285

279

624

349

268

292

297

1,200

299

592

337

325

1,170

282

587

305

777

1,190

Average

PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0
Rev. 1

3-15

 a

May 2016
4

19

17

18

20

23

4

6

WP-12-FS-017

WP-12-FS-018

WP-12-FS-019

WP-13-FS-041

WP-13-FS-042

WP-14-FS-035

WP-14-FS-036

WP-14-FS-107

WP-15-FS-028

30.5

27.8

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

27.8

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

30.5

27.8

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

30.5

268

69.3

268

268

275

371

268

839

268

Minimum

268

69.3

483

721

1,380

1,430

1,550

951

884

0.00

0.00

55.0

130

273

303

378

51.0

145

268

69.3

284

315

799

1,010

513

910

374

Average

b

V.
1.
1

Static measurements were performed on facility, system, and structure surfaces.
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.

23

Study ID

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

No. of Data
Points

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Maximum
Deviation

Table 3-2. Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summarya,b

PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0
Rev. 1

3-16

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-3. Gross Gamma Scan Results Summarya
Scan Maxb
(cpm)

Scan Minb
(cpm)

WP-01
WP-01
WP-01
WP-02
WP-03
WP-04
WP-04
WP-04
WP-04
WP-04
WP-05
WP-05
WP-06
WP-06
WP-06
WP-06
WP-07
WP-08
WP-09
WP-10
WP-10
WP-10
WP-11
WP-11
WP-11
WP-12
WP-12
WP-13
WP-13
WP-14
WP-14
WP-14
WP-15
WP-16
WP-17
WP-19
WP-20

Fracturing
Flowback
Production
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Horizontal
Fracturing
Flowback
Production
Horizontal
Fracturing
Vertical
Horizontal
Flowback
Fracturing
Vertical
Fracturing
Fracturing
Horizontal
Flowback
Production
Vertical
Horizontal
Production
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
Flowback
Vertical
Production
Production
Production
Production

16,608
17,299
16,641
9,363
13,650
15,961
16,099
22,724
17,057
17,031
9,394
8,293
8,906
8,280
8,231
10,803
8,437
7,454
30,823
15,258
16,013
16,528
15,603
14,781
13,505
11,479
11,360
15,088
15,357
6,772
5,891
7,421
8,557
10,833
8,797
7,046
5,422

7,209
6,653
9,019
4,262
4,758
7,249
7,210
8,055
10,982
8,545
3,181
3,925
4,424
4,756
4,722
3,049
4,675
3,710
2,686
8,924
8,508
10,447
10,050
4,368
9,914
5,543
5,328
8,068
8,119
1,992
2,302
3,181
4,398
4,623
4,183
2,494
2,790

Scan
Averageb
(cpm)
13,028
14,519
13,787
5,371
7,254
13,378
13,260
14,322
13,938
13,019
7,236
6,668
6,357
6,097
6,014
8,033
6,318
5,387
5,380
12,916
13,817
13,257
12,412
12,075
12,281
8,005
8,034
13,096
12,916
3,854
3,449
4,421
6,093
7,753
6,179
4,314
4,166

Scan
Std Dev (cpm)

No. Data
Points

1,349
1,246
1,075
1,041
1,531
902
1,139
1,234
750
895
724
825
560
356
464
692
483
470
1,146
970
790
835
771
1,252
503
1,144
1,073
628
966
684
468
648
573
1,361
907
1,013
537

4,857
4,474
4,891
8,318
7,438
7,083
6,470
4,554
5,411
3,624
5,552
3,033
8,518
8,562
5,037
2,532
12,519
4,602
4,354
3,440
1,856
2,946
3,091
2,960
1,168
3,204
3,525
2,924
3,234
2,840
1,821
3,273
2,230
290
277
238
366

V.
1.
1

Phase

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Site

May 2016

3-17

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-3. Gross Gamma Scan Results Summarya
Site

Phase

Scan Maxb
(cpm)

Scan Minb
(cpm)

WP-21

Production

5,307

2,677

Scan
Averageb
(cpm)
3,870

Scan
Std Dev (cpm)

No. Data
Points

572

182

a

V.
1.
1

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 µR/hr.

Table 3-4. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates
Phase

WP-01
WP-01
WP-01
WP-02
WP-03
WP-04
WP-04
WP-04
WP-04
WP-04
WP-05
WP-05
WP-06
WP-06
WP-06
WP-06
WP-07
WP-08
WP-09
WP-10
WP-10
WP-10
WP-11
WP-11
WP-11
WP-12
WP-12
WP-13
WP-13
WP-14

Fracturing
Flowback
Production
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Horizontal
Fracturing
Flowback
Production
Horizontal
Fracturing
Vertical
Horizontal
Flowback
Fracturing
Vertical
Fracturing
Fracturing
Horizontal
Flowback
Production
Vertical
Horizontal
Production
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical

Scan Max
(µR/hr)
20.8
21.6
20.8
11.7
17.1
20.0
20.1
28.4
21.3
21.3
11.7
10.4
11.1
10.4
10.3
13.5
10.5
9.30
38.5
19.1
20.0
20.7
19.5
18.5
16.9
14.3
14.2
18.9
19.2
8.50

Scan Min
(µR/hr)
9.00
8.30
11.3
5.30
5.90
9.10
9.00
10.1
13.7
10.7
4.00
4.90
5.50
5.90
5.90
3.80
5.80
4.60
3.40
11.2
10.6
13.1
12.6
5.50
12.4
6.90
6.70
10.1
10.1
2.50

Scan Average
(µR/hr)
16.3
18.1
17.2
6.70
9.10
16.7
16.6
17.9
17.4
16.3
9.00
8.30
7.90
7.60
7.50
10.0
7.90
6.70
6.70
16.1
17.3
16.6
15.5
15.1
15.4
10.0
10.0
16.4
16.1
4.80

Scan Std Dev
(µR/hr)
1.70
1.60
1.30
1.30
1.90
1.10
1.40
1.50
0.900
1.10
0.900
1.00
0.700
0.400
0.600
0.900
0.600
0.600
1.40
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.60
0.600
1.40
1.30
0.800
1.20
0.900

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Site

May 2016

No. Data
Points
4,857
4,474
4,891
8,318
7,438
7,083
6,470
4,554
5,411
3,624
5,552
3,033
8,518
8,562
5,037
2,532
12,519
4,602
4,354
3,440
1,856
2,946
3,091
2,960
1,168
3,204
3,525
2,924
3,234
2,840

3-18

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-4. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates
Phase

WP-14
WP-14
WP-15
WP-16
WP-17
WP-19
WP-20
WP-21

Horizontal
Flowback
Vertical
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production

Scan Max
(µR/hr)
7.40
9.30
10.7
13.5
11.0
8.80
6.80
6.60

Scan Min
(µR/hr)
2.90
4.00
5.50
5.80
5.20
3.10
3.50
3.30

Scan Average
(µR/hr)
4.30
5.50
7.60
9.70
7.70
5.40
5.20
4.80

Scan Std Dev
(µR/hr)
0.600
0.800
0.700
1.70
1.10
1.30
0.700
0.700

No. Data
Points
1,821
3,273
2,230
290
277
238
366
182

V.
1.
1

Site

Table 3-5. Vertical Solids, Drill Cuttings – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
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
WP-04-SL-001
WP-04-SL-002
WP-04-SL-003
WP-04-SL-004
WP-04-SL-005
WP-04-SL-006
WP-04-SL-007
WP-04-SL-008
WP-05-SL-028
WP-05-SL-029
WP-05-SL-030
WP-05-SL-031
WP-05-SL-033
WP-06-SL-014
WP-06-SL-015
WP-06-SL-016
WP-06-SL-017
WP-06-SL-018
WP-06-SL-019
WP-06-SL-020
WP-06-SL-021
WP-06-SL-022
WP-06-SL-023
WP-06-SL-024

2.09
1.99
2.09
2.04
2.34
2.39
2.11
2.05
2.75
2.13
1.75
1.61
1.81
1.84
2.93
2.22
3.21
2.73
0.900
1.19
5.15
0.698
2.96
0.899
1.79

1.21
1.06
1.09
1.16
1.10
1.20
1.23
0.994
1.19
1.08
1.07
0.939
1.05
0.701
1.06
1.04
0.885
0.991
0.181
0.242
0.654
0.107
0.802
0.208
0.416

23.4
9.01
20.2
20.3
18.1
20.2
24.4
22.5
23.6
21.6
17.3
15.9
21.7
12.6
22.7
21.0
26.9
24.0
3.26
6.81
8.90
18.8
18.4
4.97
12.3

< 1.27
< 1.50
1.86
< 1.43
1.85
1.67
0.827
< 0.934
1.30
1.56
< 1.31
< 0.565
0.835
< 1.62
1.27
1.52
2.07
1.64
< 1.13
0.469
< 0.923
0.164
1.29
< 1.29
< 0.790

0.127
< 0.173
< 0.149
< 0.146
< 0.181
< 0.158
< 0.061
< 0.070
0.097
< 0.138
0.198
< 0.092
< 0.107
< 0.136
0.178
< 0.165
< 0.140
0.166
< 0.081
< 0.058
< 0.096
0.016
< 0.121
< 0.097
< 0.067

1.18
1.06
1.07
1.14
1.08
1.18
1.20
0.971
1.16
1.05
1.05
0.920
1.03
0.687
1.05
1.03
0.871
0.976
0.177
0.238
0.642
0.110
0.782
0.197
0.407

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

May 2016

3-19

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-5. Vertical Solids, Drill Cuttings – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-228
(pCi/g)

K-40
(pCi/g)

U-238
(pCi/g)

U-235
(pCi/g)

Th-232
(pCi/g)

WP-06-SL-025
WP-06-SL-026
WP-07-SL-039
WP-07-SL-040
WP-07-SL-041
WP-10-SL-045
WP-11-SL-047
WP-12-SL-052
WP-12-SL-053
WP-13-SL-059
WP-14-SL-073
WP-14-SL-074
WP-15-SL-075
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

2.94
2.24
2.03
2.43
1.33
1.94
2.32
17.2
1.39
1.83
6.97
2.88
7.82
2.82
2.79
2.10
0.698
17.2

0.769
0.592
1.09
1.32
1.33
0.885
0.472
2.80
1.39
1.09
2.23
0.140
2.48
1.01
0.572
1.06
0.107
2.80

18.4
14.2
20.1
23.6
20.8
16.5
12.7
17.6
16.6
20.4
20.9
22.2
19.5
18.0
5.64
19.8
3.26
26.9

0.987
< 1.21
< 1.45
0.788
< 0.869
0.959
< 0.949
< 3.01
< 2.25
< 1.75
< 1.54
1.41
< 1.39
0.960
0.484
0.819
0.164
2.07

< 0.169
< 0.171
< 0.194
0.147
< 0.172
< 0.106
< 0.082
< 0.311
< 0.302
< 0.231
< 0.210
0.104
< 0.126
0.085
0.046
0.074
0.016
0.198

0.751
0.578
1.07
1.29
1.30
0.866
0.191
2.74
1.37
1.07
2.18
1.37
2.45
1.01
0.555
1.05
0.110
2.74

V.
1.
1

Ra-226
(pCi/g)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

a

Study ID

Values reported as < are the method MDC.

May 2016

3-20

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-6. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Vertical Cuttings
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

1.40

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

1.64

4.39

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Average
May 2016

15.0

1.47
3-21

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-6. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Vertical Cuttings
Date

Formation

Thorium
Result
(ppm)

Thorium
Error
(ppm)

Th-232
(pCi/g)

Uranium
Result
(ppm)

Uranium
Error
(ppm)

U-238
(pCi/g)

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

4.48

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 3-7. Horizontal Solids, Drill Cuttings – Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results
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

< 2.53

0.220

0.712

WP-05-SL-027

3.31

0.772

18.3

1.88

0.201

0.755

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

WP-05-SL-032

1.50

0.711

14.2

< 2.09

< 0.158

0.696

WP-05-SL-034

3.17

0.861

20.1

< 1.32

< 0.152

0.841

WP-06-SL-037

1.17

0.346

6.33

0.830

< 0.085

0.339

WP-10-SL-048

4.92

0.694

31.5

< 2.30

< 0.250

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

1.57

0.153

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

1.14

May 2016

3-22

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Thorium
Result
(ppm)

Thorium
Error
(ppm)

Th-232
(pCi/g)

Uranium
Result
(ppm)

Uranium
Error
(ppm)

U-238
(pCi/g)

12.2

0.400

1.34

28.6

0.500

9.55

11.8

0.400

1.30

20.1

0.600

6.71

12.0

0.500

1.32

8.70

0.400

2.91

10.8

0.500

12.5

0.400

12.4

0.400

07/08/13

Target
Formation /
Gas Type
Marcellus /
Wet
Marcellus /
Wet
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Burkett / Wet

16.2

0.400

WP-05-SL-032

07/08/13

Burkett / Wet

11.1

0.400

WP-05-SL-034

07/08/13

Burkett / Wet

16.4

0.500

WP-06-SL-037

07/25/13

17.4

1.30

WP-10-SL-048

08/30/13

13.8

0.800

WP-11-SL-068

11/14/13

7.70

WP-12-SL-055

09/11/13

WP-12-SL-056

09/11/13

WP-13-SL-062

10/21/13

WP-14-SL-077

02/07/14

WP-14-SL-078

02/07/14

WP-14-SL-079

02/07/14

Utica / Wet
Marcellus /
Dry
Utica / Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Marcellus /
Dry
Average

V.
1.
1

Table 3-8. XRF Uranium and Thorium for Horizontal Cuttings
Date

WP-02-SL-036

07/24/13

WP-03-SL-065

11/08/13

WP-04-SL-009

06/20/13

WP-04-SL-010

06/20/13

WP-04-SL-011

06/20/13

WP-04-SL-012

06/20/13

WP-05-SL-027

1.19

9.90

0.400

3.31

1.38

5.90

0.300

1.97

1.36

14.6

0.500

4.88

1.78

9.70

0.400

3.24

1.22

5.20

0.300

1.74

1.80

6.60

0.400

2.20

1.91

80.8

1.30

27.0

1.52

49.4

1.00

16.5

0.500

0.847

17.6

0.500

5.88

13.0

0.800

1.43

11.3

0.500

3.77

20.3

1.20

2.23

36.6

1.20

12.2

9.40

0.500

1.03

33.1

0.600

11.1

11.0

0.500

1.21

31.4

0.700

10.5

13.3

0.500

1.46

33.8

0.700

11.3

11.7

0.700

1.29

49.4

0.900

16.5

12.9

1.42

25.2

8.40

Std. Dev.

3.01

0.331

20.0

6.70

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

May 2016

Median

12.3

1.35

18.9

6.30

Minimum

7.70

0.847

5.20

1.74

Maximum

20.3

2.23

80.8

27.0

3-23

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-9. Drilling Solids, Mud – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
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

< 1.61

< 0.034

0.261

WP-10-SL-049

3.35

0.335

7.32

1.73

< 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

0.017

0.120

Maximum

3.72

0.335

7.32

1.73

0.143

0.435

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 3-10. Proppant Sand – Gamma Spectroscopy Results

Study ID

WP-04-SL-050
WP-05-SL-058
WP-06-SL-070
WP-08-SL-044
WP-09-SL-043
WP-10-SL-067
WP-11-SL-072
WP-12-SL-064
WP-14-SL-081
WP-25-SL-042
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

May 2016

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
0.180
0.225
0.170
0.246
0.301
0.218
0.275
0.358
0.266
0.188
0.243
0.059
0.236
0.170
0.358

Ra-228
(pCi/g)
0.053
0.135
0.026
0.065
0.045
0.018
0.025
0.038
< 0.026
0.018
0.044
0.036
0.032
0.013
0.135

K-40
(pCi/g)
0.733
7.25
0.069
0.162
0.199
0.136
0.070
0.386
4.99
< 0.061
1.40
2.55
0.181
0.031
7.25

U-238
(pCi/g)
0.139
< 0.200
0.323
< 0.020
< 0.426
< 0.369
< 0.203
< 0.426
< 0.442
< 0.267
0.157
0.091
0.159
0.010
0.323

U-235
(pCi/g)
< 0.025
< 0.037
< 0.018
< 0.004
< 0.050
< 0.036
< 0.033
< 0.042
< 0.035
< 0.029
0.015
0.006
0.017
0.002
0.025

Th-232
(pCi/g)
0.047
0.115
0.025
0.045
0.044
0.018
0.025
0.037
0.102
< 0.013
0.046
0.035
0.041
0.007
0.115

3-24

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-11. Flowback Solids, Sand – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
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
WP-09-SL-057
WP-11-SL-080
WP-12-SL-071
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

7.73
0.763
2.76
2.58
3.46
2.99
2.67
0.763
7.73

0.619
0.194
0.611
0.353
0.444
0.208
0.482
0.194
0.619

0.659
0.457
1.68
0.597
0.848
0.561
0.628
0.457
1.68

< 1.86
< 0.711
< 0.783
< 0.985
0.542
0.265
0.442
0.356
0.930

< 0.199
< 0.083
< 0.091
< 0.080
0.057
0.029
0.044
0.040
0.100

0.609
0.191
0.603
0.343
0.437
0.205
0.473
0.191
0.609

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 3-12. Drilling Fluids – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Study ID

a

Ra-228
(pCi/L)
372
162
216
184
466
280
133
216
162
466

K-40
(pCi/L)
9,910
4,340
5,220
420
11,400
6,260
4,430
5,220
420
11,400

Gross Alphaa
(pCi/L)
ND
1,580
ND
3,820
ND
2,700
1,580
2,700
1,580
3,820

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WP-02-LQ-002
WP-06-LQ-001
WP-06-LQ-003
WP-12-LQ-009
WP-14-LQ-026
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
4,690
1,510
2,010
1,800
4,940
2,990
1,678
2,010
1,510
4,940

Gross Betaa
(pCi/L)
ND
3,940
ND
1,250
ND
2,600
1,900
2,600
1,250
3,940

ND – Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.

May 2016

3-25

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-13. Fracturing Fluids – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)
1,640
78.0
< 9.00
723
442
600
14.0
189
218
1,250
< 9.00
469
547
218
4.50
1,640

K-40
(pCi/L)
< 565
195
< 21.0
444
338
< 298
44.0
456
423
435
25.0
255
178
283
10.5
456

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
37,000
1,870
< 1.39
5,020
3,400
13,500
< 3.76
5,760
5,650
54,100
< 113
11,500
17,700
5,020
0.695
54,100

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WP-04-LQ-008
WT-05-LQ-013
WP-06-LQ-016
WP-08-LQ-007
WP-09-LQ-006
WP-10-LQ-015
WP-11-LQ-023
WP-14-LQ-046
WP-14-LQ-047
WP-19-LQ-004
WP-19-LQ-005
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
21,000
872
64.0
3,080
2,000
10,300
115
2,270
2,160
16,200
105
5,290
7,250
2,160
64.0
21,000

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
11,200
398
4.41
1,610
< 879
2,310
< 1.63
1,200
1,010
14,900
< 186
3,020
5,080
1,010
0.815
14,900

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 3-14. Flowback Fluids – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Study ID

WP-01-LQ-010
WP-04-LQ-014
WP-06-LQ-017
WP-08-LQ-012
WP-09-LQ-011
WP-10-LQ-045
WP-11-LQ-035
WP-12-LQ-022
WP-14-LQ-052
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

May 2016

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
7,310
25,500
551
4,280
2,880
8,690
1,540
4,550
21,100
8,490
8,840
4,550
551
25,500

Ra-228
(pCi/L)
589
1,740
248
1,140
863
633
564
507
1,430
857
486
633
248
1,740

K-40
(pCi/L)
151
500
416
500
448
2,630
927
< 177
461
680
769
461
88.5
2,630

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
15,300
71,000
< 576
7,270
10,700
11,100
2,250
10,100
32,000
17,800
21,900
10,700
288
71,000

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
4,070
21,300
742
1,820
4,380
1,960
1,320
2,440
5,400
4,830
6,370
2,440
742
21,300

3-26

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-15. Unfiltered Produced Waters – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

WP-01-LQ-048
WP-04-LQ-039
WP-08-LQ-021
WP-09-LQ-019
WP-10-LQ-050
WP-10-LQ-055
WP-11-LQ-043
WP-12-LQ-041
WP-16-LQ-027
WP-19-LQ-029
WP-20-LQ-031
WP-21-LQ-033
WP-05-LQ-037

Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Unconventional
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

2,050
26,600
5,020
4,490
7,730
6,710
1,700
14,500
819
< 81.0
145
340
6,300
5,880
7,450
4,490
40.5
26,600

K-40
(pCi/L)

366
1,900
1,280
1,140
434
470
636
1,710
896
26.0
42.0
214
941
773
604
636
26.0
1,900

132
328
592
571
191
149
852
408
220
103
129
< 31.0
667
335
260
220
15.5
852

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
3,890
30,000
11,300
9,760
14,000
41,700
2,420
21,800
< 2,570
< 465
< 2,440
< 1,230
10,700
11,500
12,800
9,760
233
41,700

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
< 225
7,600
3,270
2,570
3,620
4,560
1,500
6,810
1,140
< 402
< 987
< 830
2,300
2,660
2,460
2,300
113
7,600

V.
1.
1

Well Type

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Table 3-16. Filtered Produced Waters – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Study ID

Well Type

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

WP-01-LQ-049
WP-04-LQ-040
WP-08-LQ-020
WP-09-LQ-018
WP-10-LQ-051
WP-10-LQ-054
WP-11-LQ-044
WP-12-LQ-042
WP-16-LQ-028
WP-19-LQ-030
WP-20-LQ-032
WP-21-LQ-034
WP-05-LQ-038

Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Unconventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Unconventional

1,930
24,100
4,940
4,470
8,060
7,130
1,520
15,100
849
87.0
106
292
6,720

May 2016

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

373
1,860
1,350
1,240
466
479
602
1,610
851
44.0
48.0
210
883

129
323
518
560
164
3,950
751
389
< 34.0
71.0
129
144
485

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
2,750
33,000
11,200
8,780
19,900
10,900
2,440
18,000
1,440
< 608
< 1,040
< 1,860
11,400

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
933
7,180
4,050
3,040
4,050
3,530
1,500
4,050
1,610
< 420
< 857
< 863
3,370
3-27

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-16. Filtered Produced Waters – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Well Type

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

5,790
6,980
4,470
87.0
24,100

770
591
602
44.0
1,860

587
1,030
323
17.0
3,950

Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
9,350
9,750
8,780
304
33,000

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
2,650
2,020
3,040
210
7,180

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Table 3-17. Ambient Radon at Well Sites During Flowback
Study ID

Sullivan

Date

9/2013

Radon
Concentration
(pCi/L)
< 0.300
0.800
0.500
< 0.300
< 0.300
0.700
0.600
0.600
1.70
0.500
0.200
0.600
0.700
0.500
0.200
0.500
0.700

Error
(± Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)
0.000
0.000
0.400
0.000
0.000
0.600
0.200
0.200
1.60
0.800
0.200
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.200
0.600
0.200

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WP-01-RA

County

WP-09-RA

Washington

9/2013

WP-08-RA

Washington

9/2013

WP-04-RA

Tioga

10/2013

MDC
(pCi/L)
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
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.

May 2016

3-28

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-18. Natural Gas Samples from Production Sites
Gas Source

WP-08-RG
WP-09-RG
WP-22-RG
WP-23-RG
WP-24-RG
WP-25-RG
WP-26-RG
WP-27-RG
WP-28-RG
WP-16-RG
WP-17-RG
WP-19-RG
WP-20-RG
WP-21-RG
WP-04-RG
WP-05-RG
WP-12-RG
WP-11-RG
WP-29-RG
WP-30-RG
WP-31-RG
WP-14-RG

Washington
Washington
Tioga
Tioga
Tioga
Tioga
Lycoming
Tioga
Tioga
Washington
Washington
McKean
McKean
Forest
Tioga
McKean
Lycoming
Tioga
Sullivan
Bradford
Bradford
Jefferson

Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Oriskany Sandstone
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Upper Devonian Shale
Upper Devonian Shale
Upper Devonian Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Utica
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale
Average
Median
Standard Deviation
Minimum
Maximum

Radon
Concentration
(pCi/L)
79.6
78.8
42.8
39.6
73.8
44.4
19.9
38.4
40.8
50.0
49.5
18.3
88.2
92.2
49.6
148
37.6
5.70
23.4
25.5
3.00
5.60
47.9
41.8
34.5
3.00
148

Error
(±2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)
0.800
4.20
0.200
0.800
0.400
2.60
0.200
3.40
5.20
5.20
5.80
4.40
10.6
6.40
29.6
15.6
33.4
1.20
4.00
2.70
1.20
0.100

MDA
(pCi/L)
0.300
0.300
0.100
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.300
0.500
0.400
0.700
0.400
1.20
1.50
2.20
0.500
0.240
0.200
0.300
0.140

V.
1.
1

County

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

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.

May 2016

3-29

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 3.0

Rev. 1

Table 3-19. Thorium and Uranium XRF Data for Drill Cuttings By Formation
Th-232
Concentration
(pCi/g)
1.52
1.43
2.23
1.03
1.30
1.32
1.19
1.38
1.36
1.29
1.46
1.21
1.34
1.40
1.30
0.280
1.03
2.23

Uranium
Result
(ppm)
49.4
11.3
36.6
33.1
20.1
8.70
9.90
5.90
14.6
49.4
33.8
31.4
28.6
25.6
28.6
15.0
5.90
49.4

U-238
Concentration
(pCi/g)
16.5
3.77
12.2
11.1
6.71
2.91
3.31
1.97
4.88
16.5
11.3
10.5
9.55
8.60
9.60
5.01
1.97
16.5

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Marcellus
Average
Median
Standard Deviation
Minimum
Maximum

Thorium
Result
(ppm)
13.8
13.0
20.3
9.40
11.8
12.0
10.8
12.5
12.4
11.7
13.3
11.0
12.2
12.6
12.2
2.57
9.40
20.3

U/Th

U-238/
Th-232

3.58
0.870
1.80
3.52
1.70
0.730
0.920
0.470
1.18
4.22
2.54
2.85
2.34
2.10
1.80
1.23
0.470
4.22

10.9
2.64
5.48
10.7
5.16
2.20
2.78
1.43
3.59
12.8
7.73
8.67
7.13
6.20
5.50
3.72
1.43
12.8

V.
1.
1

Formation

Burket
Burket
Burket
Average
Median
Standard Deviation
Minimum
Maximum

16.2
16.4
11.1
14.6
16.2
3.00
11.1
16.4

1.78
1.80
1.22
1.60
1.78
0.330
1.22
1.80

9.70
6.60
5.20
7.17
6.60
2.30
5.20
9.70

3.24
2.20
1.74
2.39
2.20
0.770
1.74
3.24

0.600
0.400
0.470
0.490
0.470
0.100
0.400
0.600

1.82
1.22
1.42
1.49
1.42
0.300
1.22
1.82

Utica
Utica
Average
Median
Standard Deviation
Minimum
Maximum

7.70
17.4
12.6
12.6
6.86
7.70
17.4

0.850
1.91
1.38
1.38
0.750
0.850
1.91

17.6
80.8
49.2
49.2
44.7
17.6
80.8

5.88
27.0
16.4
16.4
14.9
5.88
27.0

2.29
4.64
3.46
3.46
1.67
2.29
4.64

6.92
14.1
10.5
10.5
5.10
6.92
14.1

May 2016

3-30

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

4.0

Rev. 1

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

A total of 29 WWTPs were surveyed and/or sampled. This included 10 POTWs, 10 CWTs and
nine ZLDs. The results, by wastewater facility, are presented in this section.
4.1

Publicly Owned Treatment Works





5 POTW-I’s were surveyed 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

V.
1.
1

A total of 10 POTWs were surveyed and/or sampled. There were three rounds of surveys
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 influenced
(POTW-I) by having received wastewater from the O&G industry, mainly the effluent of CWTs.
Four POTWs are considered non-influenced (POTW-N) by having never received wastewater
from the O&G industry. As such, surveying was conducted for the 10 POTWs as follows:

Radiological surveys were conducted at each POTW-I, resulting in four data sets:

Removable / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Total / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm
Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of µR/hr

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E






4.1.1.1 Removable Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results
Measurements of removable 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 be
evaluated separately. The primary emitter of concern is Ra-226, with a removable criterion of
20 dpm /100 cm2. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra-228 of the natural Th decay series
with a removable criterion of 200 dpm /100 cm2. 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 cm2 and 161 dpm/100 cm2. 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 be evaluated
separately. The primary emitter of concern is Ra-226, with a total surface radioactivity criterion
May 2016

4-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

of 100 dpm /100 cm2. 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 cm2. The maximum average total
 and  surface radioactivity measured at any single facility were 313 dpm/100 cm2 and
10,000 dpm/100 cm2, respectively. The maximum total  and  concentrations measured at any
single facility were 1,190 dpm/100 cm2 and 38,000 dpm/ 100 cm2. 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.

V.
1.
1

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 WWTPs 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

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 Contaminants, NUREG-1507, Minimum
Detectable 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 gamma spectroscopy results are presented
in Tables 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 7.63 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 9.72 pCi/g and
35.4 pCi/g. The average and maximum Ra-228 results were 2.26 pCi/g and 7.26 pCi/g.

May 2016

4-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

4.1.2.2 Sediment-Impacted Soil Samples
Sampling 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 gamma spectroscopy results
are presented in Table 4-7.

4.1.3 Liquid Sample Results

V.
1.
1

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.

Influent and effluent 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 Tables 4-8
through 4-15 for both influenced and non-influenced 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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. The results were evaluated using the EPA action level
of 4 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 0.200 to 8.70 pCi/L. One result exceeded
the action level. The 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 Radium-226/Radium-228 Sediment-Impacted Soil and Effluent Results Comparison
The sediment-impacted soil radioactivity levels were compared to filtered and unfiltered 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.
May 2016

4-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

The sediment-impacted soil sample results are above typical background for soil. However, there
is no readily apparent relationship between the sediment-impacted soil sample and effluent sample
results. The 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.

4.1.6 POTW Worker Exposure Assessment
4.1.6.1 External Gamma Radiation Exposure

V.
1.
1

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.

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

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

(36.3 – 5) µR/hr x 2,000 hr/yr x (1 mrem/1,000 µR gamma) = 62.6 mrem/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 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a
member of the public. Actual exposure is dependent upon 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 wastewater tank. Consequently, the public dose limit of 100 mrem per year
could potentially be reached by a person working 400 hours within the immediate proximity of the
tank. Actual annual exposure for a POTW worker is dependent upon 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 results 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.

May 2016

4-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

4.1.6.3 Internal Radon Exposure
The Rn measured in indoor air averaged 1.74 pCi/L. This average is below the EPA action level
of 4 pCi/L, and very near the U.S. average indoor Rn level of 1.3 pCi/L, as reported by EPA.
4.1.7 POTW Radiological Environmental Impacts

V.
1.
1

Seven sediment-impacted soil samples were collected at the effluent discharge points of three of
the POTW-I’s. Radium-226 activity concentrations above typical soil background activity
concentrations were identified in all sediment samples, with 18.2 pCi/g being the maximum
reported result.

The presence of Ra in sediment-impacted soil at effluent discharge points indicates effluent
wastewater contained Ra. Radium and gross  and  radioactivity were identified in effluent
samples. Table 4-21 presents filtered and unfiltered effluent average sample results and sedimentimpacted 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

4.2.1 Survey Results

Radiological surveys were conducted at each CWT resulting in four data sets:





Removable / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Total / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
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 cm2. The primary  emitter of concern
is Ra-228 of the natural Th decay series with a removable surface radioactivity criterion of
200 dpm /100 cm2.
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 cm2 and
133 dpm/100 cm2. 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.

May 2016

4-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

4.2.1.2 Total Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

V.
1.
1

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 separately. The primary emitter of concern is Ra-226, with a
total surface radioactivity criterion of 100 dpm /100 cm2. 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 cm2.
Eighteen of the 28 average total  surface radioactivity measurements were below the RG 1.86
surface radioactivity criterion. Three of the 28 average total  surface radioactivity measurements
were below the RG 1.86 surface radioactivity criterion. The maximum total  and  surface
radioactivity levels were 3,220 dpm/100 cm2 and 50,400 dpm/100 cm2. 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

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Gross gamma radiation scans recorded in cpm were performed on open land areas and accessible
areas of the CWT facilities to identify any areas with levels above local background. The summary
results of the gross 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 Contaminants, NUREG-1507,
Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various
Contaminants and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998). Table 4-26 presents statistical 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 Filter Cake Samples

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. Also, the 10th
facility is a primary treatment facility, so it does not produce a filter cake. A total of 25 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 and Ra-228

May 2016

4-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

above typical background levels for soil. The maximum results were 294 pCi/g of Ra-226 and
177 pCi/g of Ra-228.
4.2.2.2 Solids/Sediment Samples

V.
1.
1

Four of the CWTs surveyed and sampled as part of the study are permitted to discharge effluent
wastewater to the environment. If 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 pCi/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

Gamma radiation walkover scans 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 444 pCi/g Ra-226 and 83.1 pCi/g Ra-228 was
identified in biased soil samples.
4.2.3 Liquid Samples

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Samples of influent and effluent, both filtered and unfiltered, were analyzed. 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. Also, the 10th facility is only a
primary treatment facility, with the influent and the effluent essentially the same. Consequently,
only the influent was sampled at the 10th facility. A total of 31 effluent and 26 influent samples
were collected for filtered and unfiltered analysis. The filtered and unfiltered analyses 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
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent

Filtered or Not

Filtered
Unfiltered
Filtered
Unfiltered

Min (pCi/L)

Max (pCi/L)

Ave (pCi/L)

18.0
42.0
57.0
17.5

14,900
15,500
14,100
13,400

2,100
1,840
1,550
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 0.900 to 5.00 pCi/L. Two results exceeded the action level. The results of the
analyses are presented in Table 4-34. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H.
May 2016

4-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

4.2.5 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

4.2.6 CWT Exposure Assessment
4.2.6.1 CWT External Radiation Exposure

V.
1.
1

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. There 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.

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

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

(24.1 – 5) µR/hr x 2,000 hr/yr x (1 mrem/1,000 µR gamma) = 38 mrem/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 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public.
Actual exposure is dependent upon 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 200 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 upon actual exposure
rates and actual time worked in the proximity of the tank.
4.2.6.2 CWT Potential Internal Alpha/Beta Radioactivity Exposure

The total and removable / surface radioactivity survey results are discussed in Sections 4.2.1.1
and 4.2.1.2. 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 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 facilities 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. Fixed  and  surface radioactivity may present a potential
inhalation or ingestion hazard if disturbed during routine system maintenance.
May 2016

4-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

4.2.6.3 Internal Radon Exposure
The Rn in indoor area air averaged 2.00 pCi/L. This average is below the EPA action level of
4 pCi/L and only slightly above the U.S. average indoor level of 1.3 pCi/L, as reported by EPA.
4.2.7 CWT Radiological Environmental Impacts

4.3

Zero Liquid Discharge Plants

4.3.1 Survey Results

V.
1.
1

Sediment-impacted soil was collected at the accessible effluent discharge points at the CWTs. 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.

Radiological surveys were conducted at each ZLD facility resulting in four data sets:

Removable / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Total / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm
Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of µR/hr

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E






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 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 cm2. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra-228 of the
natural Th decay series with a removable surface radioactivity criterion of 200 dpm /100 cm2.
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 cm2 and 342 dpm/100
cm2. 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 /100 cm2. 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 cm2. The
highest average total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 239 dpm/100 cm2 and
May 2016

4-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

4,740 dpm/100 cm2. The maximum total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 1,410 dpm/100
cm2 and 49,700 dpm/100 cm2. 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

4.3.1.4 Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate Results Summary

V.
1.
1

Gross gamma radiation scans recorded in cpm were performed on open land areas and accessible
areas of the plant to identify levels of elevated gross gamma radiation. The results of the gross
gamma radiation scans are presented in Table 4-37. 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 Contaminants, 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 Filter Cake Samples

Three survey rounds were conducted at each of the nine ZLD plants and a total of 31 filter cake
samples were collected from the nine plants. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented in
Table 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 0.580 to 67.3 pCi/g.
4.3.2.2 Solids/Biased Samples

A single biased surface soil sample was collected. The gamma spectroscopy results are presented
in Table 4-40. The Ra-226 and Ra-228 were measured in concentrations 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 series, Th Series, and Ac series with
K-40, gross , and gross  are presented in Tables 4-41 through 4-44. Radium (Ra-226 and
May 2016

4-10

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

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.
Figure 4-2. ZLD Influent and Effluent Liquid Ra-226 Minimum, Maximum, and Average
Filtered or Not

Min (pCi/L)

Max (pCi/L)

Ave (pCi/L)

29.0
33.0
38.5
134

12,500
11,900
20,900
17,100

2,780
2,610
4,660
4,710

Filtered
Unfiltered
Filtered
Unfiltered

4.3.4 Indoor Radon Sampling Results

V.
1.
1

Wastewater
Source
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Influent

ATDs were deployed in the ZLD plants at various indoor locations such as break rooms,
laboratories, offices, etc., and the results were evaluated using the EPA action level of 4 pCi/L.
The results ranged from 0.500 to 4.90 pCi/L. Two results exceeded the action level. The results
of the analyses are presented in Table 4-45. The Rn analytical reports are presented in
Appendix H.
4.3.5 Filtered Versus Unfiltered Sample Data Evaluation

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 unfiltered results or the
filtered results appear to be significantly higher. There 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 ZLD 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 average 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 mrem/1,000 µR gamma) = 76 mrem/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 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public.
Actual exposure is dependent upon the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual
workers.
May 2016

4-11

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

The maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was 445 rem/hr on contact with the
outside of a wastewater tank. Work performed in the immediate proximity to the 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 upon actual exposure rates and actual time worked in the proximity of the tank.
4.3.6.2 ZLD Worker Potential Internal Alpha/Beta Exposure

4.3.6.3 ZLD Worker Potential Internal Radon Exposure

V.
1.
1

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 levels were 239 dpm/100 cm2 and
4,740 dpm/100 cm2. The maximum total  and  surface radioactivity levels were 1,410 dpm/100
cm2 and 49,700 dpm/100 cm2. 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 hazard if disturbed during
routine system maintenance.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The Rn in ambient indoor area air averaged 2.29 pCi/L. The average is above the average typical
background indoor level of 1.30 pCi/L in the U.S. as reported by EPA.
4.3.6.4 Gamma Radiation Exposure during Transport of Wastewater and Wastewater
Sludge
Gamma radiation exposure was estimated for the transport of wastewater from well sites to
WWTPs, and sludge from WWTPs to landfills. This was done for the driver of the transport truck.
The truck driver spends the most time near the TENORM-influenced 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 wastewater or
sludge. Therefore, the total exposure time was assumed to be 200 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 10 wks/yr = 200 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:
1. Exposure rate to a driver hauling wastewater based on the maximum measured concentrations
of Ra-226 and Ra-228 in wastewater.
May 2016

4-12

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

2. Exposure 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 MicroShield® based on the two scenarios are summarized in Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3. MicroShield® External Exposure Scenarios Input/Output

Volume
Shielding Material
Ra-226 and Progeny Input
Concentration
Ra-228 and Progeny Input
Concentration
Resulting Driver Exposure
Rate (µrem/hr)
Exposure Rate per Radium
Concentration

Scenario
Sludge/Filter Cake Roll-off

Maximum Measured
Concentration, Scenario 1

3,800 gallons
Stainless steel, 0.5 cm thick
18,400 pCi/L
1,440 pCi/L

14.7
0.000741 rem/hr / pCi/L of
total Ra

Maximum Measured
Concentration, Scenario 2

V.
1.
1

Parameter

Wastewater Truck

20 cubic yards
Iron, 0.3 cm thick
480 pCi/g
183 pCi/g

1,340

2.02 rem/hr / pCi/g of total Ra

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 mrem/1,000 µrem gamma) =
0.35 mrem/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 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual
exposure is dependent upon 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 mrem/1,000 µrem gamma) = 52 mrem/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 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is
dependent upon the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.
The sludge truck driver assessment is conservative due to the following: solid samples 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
wastewater within the sludge sample. In addition, the MicroShield® activity input includes 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.
May 2016

4-13

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

4.3.7 Alpha Spectroscopy Analysis of Filter Cake

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

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 were 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 analysis to
measure U (U-238, U-234, and U-235) and Th (Th-232, Th-230, and Th-228), isotope activity
levels was performed on 10 filter cake samples. The results are presented in Table 4-46. 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 of typical background activity in soil. Uranium-235 is only
identified once > MDC. Th-232, a member of the natural Th decay series above Ra-228, was
measured at approximately ¼ of typical background 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.

May 2016

4-14

 May 2016

WT-12-FS-024
WT-12-FS-074
WT-12-FS-075
WT-13-FS-034
WT-13-FS-119
WT-13-FS-120
WT-14-FS-027
WT-14-FS-121
WT-14-FS-122
WT-15-FS-031
WT-15-FS-032
WT-15-FS-033
WT-16-FS-043
WT-16-FS-123
WT-16-FS-124
WT-17-FS-051
WT-17-FS-125

8.15
6.90
9.15
9.15
6.40
9.10
9.10
4.25
8.85
8.85
6.40
9.15
9.10
7.30
9.10
8.00
8.70

8.15
6.90
9.15
9.15
16.4
9.10
9.10
4.25
8.85
8.85
22.0
9.15
9.10
7.30
9.10
8.00
8.70

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.76
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.93
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

38.0
60.5
34.8
38.5
56.0
34.8
41.5
65.0
30.0
30.0
56.0
38.5
41.5
65.5
35.0
30.8
38.3

38.0
60.5
34.8
38.5
56.0
34.8
41.5
65.0
30.0
30.0
161
38.5
41.5
65.5
35.0
30.8
38.3

V.
1.
1

8.15
6.90
9.15
9.15
6.71
9.10
9.10
4.25
8.85
8.85
6.00
9.15
9.10
7.30
9.10
8.00
8.70

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
27.9
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

38.0
60.5
34.8
38.5
56.0
34.8
41.5
65.0
30.0
30.0
63.5
38.5
41.5
65.5
35.0
30.8
38.3

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

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.

10
19
17
17
32
20
12
20
20
8
14
5
16
19
22
20
15

Study ID

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

No. of Data
Points

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-1. POTW-I Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-15

 May 2016

29.4
7.30
7.45
30.5
18.6
19.0
30.5
18.6
30.5
30.5
18.6
30.5
30.5
7.45
7.45
7.45
29.8

29.4
43.7
54.5
74.4
875
164
30.5
112
89.3
1,190
18.6
30.5
30.5
24.9
34.7
54.5
134

0.000
10.1
14.2
13.7
220
33.9
0.000
26.1
20.3
437
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.39
10.2
13.4
32.8

100
308
269
847
305
280
773
254
268
268
263
735
676
276
273
313
313

563
308
1,550
2,130
728
1,530
1,540
1,490
1,630
38,000
466
1,360
29,800
1,140
1,200
929
2,760

V.
1.
1

29.4
19.7
18.27
37.0
88.8
30.2
30.5
37.0
38.8
313
18.6
30.5
30.5
11.4
12.7
16.0
61.0

Average

144
0.000
268
325
117
391
197
352
359
14,800
102
259
7,170
272
295
159
704

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Deviation

773

413
308
870
1,290
337
811
1,130
515
784
10,000
313
1,070
2,930
498
593
363

Average

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.

WT-17-FS-051
WT-17-FS-125

10
19
17
17
15
20
13
20
20
8
4
5
16
19
22
20
15

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum
Maximum
Deviation

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-12-FS-024
WT-12-FS-074
WT-12-FS-075
WT-13-FS-034
WT-13-FS-119
WT-13-FS-120
WT-14-FS-027
WT-14-FS-121
WT-14-FS-122
WT-15-FS-031
WT-15-FS-032
WT-15-FS-033
WT-16-FS-043
WT-16-FS-123
WT-16-FS-124

Study ID

No. of Data
Points

Table 4-2. POTW-I Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results Summary
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-16

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-3. POTW-I Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary

12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17

9,514
9,362
20,761
18,203
33,141
29,220
32,253
131,626
162,535
205,446
10,005
13,915
13,597
150,649
156,738

4,966
3,404
3,608
3,486
3,112
3,867
3,680
3,804
5,684
5,452
3,463
3,723
3,473
3,305
3,478

GWS
Averagea
(cpm)
7,184
5,072
6,019
5,418
5,582
6,110
6,435
20,392
18,319
29,034
5,671
5,628
6,871
9,194
11,137

GWS Std
Dev (cpm)

No. Data
Points

633
829
2,694
2,082
2,517
2,272
3,812
14,569
16,130
36,865
870
1,050
1,722
10,116
17,801

7,129
4,408
8,553
5,474
7,638
7,302
3,275
3,508
7,334
3,052
9,390
9,520
2,026
4,509
3,003

V.
1.
1

GWS Mina
(cpm)

Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield µR/hr.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

a

Site

GWS Maxa
(cpm)

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

Site

GWS Max
(µR/hr)

GWS Min
(µR/hr)

12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17

11.9
11.7
26.0
22.8
41.4
36.5
40.3
165
203
257
12.5
17.4
17.0
188
196

6.21
4.26
4.51
4.36
3.89
4.83
4.60
4.76
7.11
6.82
4.33
4.65
4.34
4.13
4.35

May 2016

GWS
Average
(µR/hr)
8.98
6.34
7.52
6.77
6.98
7.64
8.04
25.5
22.9
36.3
7.09
7.04
8.59
11.5
13.9

GWS Std
Dev (µR/hr)

No. Data
Points

0.791
1.04
3.37
2.60
3.15
2.84
4.77
18.2
20.2
46.1
1.09
1.31
2.15
12.6
22.3

7,129
4,408
8,553
5,474
7,638
7,302
3,275
3,508
7,334
3,052
9,390
9,520
2,026
4,509
3,003

4-17

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-5. POTW-I Filter Cake Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-228
(pCi/g)
1.56
1.87
0.854
3.08
2.99
8.69
32.0
2.80
6.73
19.7
1.29
5.21
0.894
19.2
7.63
9.40
3.04
0.854
32.0

K-40
(pCi/g)
4.04
6.94
2.69
3.96
9.38
3.93
7.77
14.3
6.71
12.9
6.95
7.78
0.822
6.14
6.74
3.71
6.83
0.822
14.3

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-12-SL-030
WT-12-SL-048
WT-12-SL-085
WT-13-SL-021
WT-13-SL-060
WT-13-SL-065
WT-14-SL-017
WT-14-SL-052
WT-14-SL-068
WT-15-SL-057
WT-16-SL-026
WT-16-SL-044
WT-16-SL-073
WT-17-SL-059
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
6.37
9.75
5.16
6.50
21.3
17.4
55.6
9.27
13.1
41.9
5.01
52.6
2.71
35.1
20.1
18.5
11.4
2.71
55.6

V.
1.
1

Study ID

May 2016

4-18

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-6. POTW-N Filter Cake Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy Results

WT-26-SL-094
WT-26-SL-095
WT-27-SL-096
WT-27-SL-097
WT-28-SL-098
WT-28-SL-099
WT-29-SL-100
WT-29-SL-101
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
3.97
3.61
2.33
5.76
7.36
3.78
35.4
15.6
9.72
11.2
4.87
2.33
35.4

Ra-228
(pCi/g)
1.31
1.46
0.817
1.12
1.84
1.07
7.26
3.28
2.26
2.16
1.39
0.817
7.26

K-40
(pCi/g)
5.47
5.41
6.51
4.31
6.57
6.55
7.66
7.34
6.23
1.10
6.53
4.31
7.66

V.
1.
1

Study ID

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Table 4-7. POTW-I Sediment Sample Results Summary – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Study ID

WT-14-SL-018
WT-14-SL-053
WT-14-SL-069
WT-15-SL-020
WT-15-SL-056
WT-15-SL-067
WT-17-SL-058
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

May 2016

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
4.25
1.83
3.94
16.6
18.2
15.3
2.91
9.00
7.29
4.25
1.83
18.2

Ra-228
(pCi/g)
1.96
0.799
1.96
6.25
6.19
5.77
1.69
3.52
2.42
1.96
0.799
6.25

K-40
(pCi/g)
10.3
8.71
5.53
15.7
13.0
24.5
6.20
12.0
6.58
10.3
5.53
24.5

4-19

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-8. POTW-I Filtered Effluent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-12-LQ-098
WT-12-LQ-159
WT-12-LQ-295
WT-13-LQ-054
WT-13-LQ-193
WT-13-LQ-209
WT-14-LQ-044
WT-14-LQ-171
WT-14-LQ-215
WT-15-LQ-052
WT-15-LQ-185
WT-15-LQ-223
WT-16-LQ-079
WT-16-LQ-145
WT-16-LQ-241
WT-17-LQ-191
WT-17-LQ-217
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

134
< 127
77.0
< 126
101
363
< 130
87.0
104
191
< 139
120
101
57.0
335
154
116
129
93.1
101
57.0
363

< 18.0
< 25.0
< 13.0
< 22.0
< 16.0
< 10.0
< 24.0
< 12.0
< 13.0
< 24.0
< 25.0
25.0
< 8.00
< 6.00
< 9.00
< 18.0
12.0
9.34
5.35
8.50
3.00
25.0

< 66.0
81.0
42.0
73.0
46.0
53.0
56.0
60.0
71.0
< 81.0
< 98.0
52.0
34.0
55.0
< 32.0
< 48.0
< 33.0
48.1
19.0
50.5
16.0
81.0

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 196
< 5.77
195
< 29.6
< 114
< 123
< 25.8
< 111
< 118
< 21.3
< 5.67
< 161
< 2.26
< 6.96
4.64
< 121
< 127
42.9
49.6
35.1
1.13
195

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
< 392
10.6
365
< 18.9
< 198
< 203
< 163
< 186
< 202
< 16.2
8.70
< 198
5.77
11.3
10.7
< 187
< 203
75.0
88.8
87.3
5.77
365

V.
1.
1

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-20

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-9. POTW-I Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-12-LQ-097
WT-12-LQ-160
WT-12-LQ-296
WT-13-LQ-053
WT-13-LQ-194
WT-13-LQ-210
WT-14-LQ-043
WT-14-LQ-172
WT-14-LQ-216
WT-15-LQ-051
WT-15-LQ-186
WT-15-LQ-224
WT-16-LQ-080
WT-16-LQ-146
WT-16-LQ-242
WT-17-LQ-192
WT-17-LQ-218
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

< 67.0
94.0
59.0
113
82.0
< 35.0
122
340
< 128
80.0
135
< 79.0
100
< 67.0
107
100
156
103
73.7
97.0
17.5
340

< 10.0
< 11.0
< 5.00
< 8.00
< 5.00
< 23.0
< 18.0
< 15.0
< 27.0
< 9.00
< 9.00
27.0
< 9.00
< 11.0
< 9.00
21.0
35.0
10.4
9.40
5.75
2.50
35.0

51.1
41.0
40.0
37.0
55.0
< 11.0
80.0
< 58.0
< 106
53.0
< 27.0
64.0
33.0
< 41.0
44.0
82.0
31.0
42.6
21.5
40.5
5.50
82.0

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 284
9.63
< 192
< 36.5
< 117
< 144
< 84.2
< 464
< 136
< 177
11.0
< 235
< 3.13
< 2.16
< 2.51
1,110
< 152
125
269
63.3
1.08
1,110

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
< 396
10.9
< 207
< 135
< 187
< 194
< 158
< 218
< 193
< 163
9.60
< 209
7.16
7.71
10.5
337
< 197
82.1
79.3
87.5
7.16
337

V.
1.
1

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-21

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-10. POTW-N Filtered Effluent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-26-LQ-300
WT-27-LQ-304
WT-28-LQ-308
WT-29-LQ-312
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

< 74.0
< 44.0
< 23.0
116
46.6
47.4
29.5
11.5
116

15.0
< 5.00
< 5.00
17.0
9.25
7.84
8.75
2.50
17.0

60.0
42.0
53.0
56.0
52.8
7.72
54.5
42.0
60.0

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 7.65
< 10.8
< 4.78
< 4.83
3.51
1.43
3.12
2.39
5.40

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
5.29
5.72
7.64
14.6
8.31
4.31
6.68
5.29
14.6

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

Table 4-11. POTW-N Unfiltered Effluent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 6.46
< 7.48
< 5.18
< 191
26.3
46.2
3.49
2.59
95.5

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E
Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-26-LQ-299
WT-27-LQ-303
WT-28-LQ-307
WT-29-LQ-311
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

328
115
78.0
59.0
145
124
96.5
59.0
328

< 9.00
< 7.00
< 14.0
5.00
5.00
1.47
4.75
3.50
7.00

< 34.0
57.0
49.0
66.0
47.3
21.3
53.0
17.0
66.0

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
5.75
7.48
7.15
< 209
31.2
48.9
7.32
5.75
105

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-22

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-12. POTW-I Filtered Influent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-12-LQ-096
WT-12-LQ-157
WT-12-LQ-293
WT-13-LQ-056
WT-13-LQ-195
WT-13-LQ-211
WT-14-LQ-042
WT-14-LQ-169
WT-14-LQ-213
WT-15-LQ-050
WT-15-LQ-183
WT-15-LQ-225
WT-16-LQ-077
WT-16-LQ-143
WT-16-LQ-243
WT-17-LQ-189
WT-17-LQ-219
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

66.0
109
100
< 154
115
58.0
260
< 77.0
82.0
498
245
255
< 84.0
5,910
66.0
< 121
< 74.0
497
1,450
91.0
37.0
5,910

8.00
< 14.0
8.00
< 29.0
< 20.0
6.00
< 48.0
< 12.0
10.0
< 28.0
103
91.0
< 17.0
878
5.00
23.0
20.0
76.8
216
12.0
5.00
878

49.0
32.0
63.0
137
< 68.0
53.0
< 171
< 41.0
63.0
< 82.0
< 141
31.0
119
44.0
43.0
33.0
49.0
56.9
31.4
49.0
20.5
137

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 5.64
< 13.2
< 290
< 207
< 183
< 13.2
< 16.8
489
< 323
< 17.3
11.0
490
< 2.63
11,400
< 3.31
< 117
< 154
768
2,740
58.5
1.32
11,400

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
< 7.91
< 5.01
< 230
< 394
< 201
< 8.48
< 15.5
< 199
< 230
< 16.1
9.60
< 207
6.24
11,300
6.75
< 198
< 196
722
2,730
98.0
2.51
11,300

V.
1.
1

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-23

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-13. POTW-I Unfiltered Influent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-12-LQ-095
WT-12-LQ-158
WT-12-LQ-294
WT-13-LQ-055
WT-13-LQ-196
WT-13-LQ-212
WT-14-LQ-041
WT-14-LQ-170
WT-14-LQ-214
WT-15-LQ-049
WT-15-LQ-184
WT-15-LQ-226
WT-16-LQ-078
WT-16-LQ-144
WT-16-LQ-244
WT-17-LQ-190
WT-17-LQ-220
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

< 113
90.0
345
91.0
95.0
96.0
259
57.0
120
< 73.0
514
479
343
106
131
100
178
190
146
120
36.5
514

< 19.0
< 15.0
< 7.00
< 16.0
< 15.0
< 9.00
< 48.0
20.0
9.00
< 15.0
48.0
227
< 9.00
< 9.00
41.0
14.0
20.0
28.1
52.9
9.00
3.50
227

< 59.0
< 54.0
< 21.0
69.0
72.0
54.0
< 171
65.0
47.0
< 50.0
< 67.0
< 102
< 5.00
30.0
65.0
56.0
45.0
46.1
22.4
47.0
2.50
85.5

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 220
6.28
< 110
< 14.4
< 287
< 13.4
< 14.8
< 118
< 301
< 4.32
240
1,190
< 1.85
< 3.91
< 7.48
< 120
< 125
125
283
55.0
0.925
1,190

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
< 392
10.1
< 201
76.4
< 224
14.5
17.2
< 199
< 227
4.89
< 196
493
7.50
9.94
9.64
< 200
< 203
85.9
114
92.0
4.89
493

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-24

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-14. POTW-N Filtered Influent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-26-LQ-298
WT-27-LQ-302
WT-28-LQ-306
WT-29-LQ-310
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

134
64.0
84.0
58.0
85.0
34.5
74.0
58.0
134

10.0
< 5.00
< 14.0
< 4.00
5.38
3.82
4.75
2.00
10.0

30.0
38.0
62.0
52.0
45.5
14.3
45.0
30.0
62.0

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
13.0
15.2
4.57
< 5.29
8.85
6.17
8.79
2.65
15.2

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
6.62
11.6
12.4
8.38
9.75
2.71
9.99
6.62
12.4

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Table 4-15. POTW-N Unfiltered Influent Results Summary –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-26-LQ-297
WT-27-LQ-301
WT-28-LQ-305
WT-29-LQ-309
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

113
92.0
91.0
114
103
12.7
103
91.0
114

< 10.0
32.0
< 10.0
< 9.00
11.6
13.6
5.00
4.50
32.0

< 33.0
44.0
43.0
< 29.0
29.5
16.2
29.8
14.5
44.0

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 173
< 192
< 169
< 4.21
67.3
43.7
85.5
2.11
96.0

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
< 207
< 209
< 207
8.63
80.0
47.6
104
8.63
105

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-25

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-16. POTW-I Ambient Radon
Location
Lab
Filter Press Room
Not Given
Old Lab
Filter Press Room
Break Room
Press Room Shelf
Break Room
Filter Press Room
Break Room
Load and Filter
Lab
Average
Median
St. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum

Radon (pCi/L)
2.20
3.10
0.200
0.700
0.500
0.500
0.700
8.70
0.600
1.20
0.900
1.60
1.74
0.800
2.34
0.200
8.70

Percent Error
4%
3%
12%
7%
8%
8%
7%
2%
9%
7%
6%
5%

V.
1.
1

Facility
WT-17-RA-001
WT-17-RA-002
WT-17-RA-003
WT-15-RA-001
WT-12-RA-001
WT-12-RA-002
WT-14-RA-001
WT-14-RA-002
WT-16-RA-001
WT-16-RA-002
WT-13-RA-001
WT-13-RA-002

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Note: ATDs. Lower level of detection (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 Filtered

Filtered Sample Set
Averages for:
POTW-I Effluent
POTW-N Effluent
POTW-I Influent
POTW-N Influent

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
129
46.6
497
85.0

Ra-228
(pCi/L)
9.34
9.25
76.8
5.38

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
42.9
3.51
768
8.85

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
75.0
8.31
722
9.75

Table 4-18. POTW-I vs POTW-N Average Concentrations Comparison for Unfiltered
Unfiltered Sample Set
Averages for:
POTW-I Effluent
POTW-N Effluent
POTW-I Influent
POTW-N Influent
a

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
103
145
190
103

Ra-228
(pCi/L)
10.4
5.00
28.1
11.6

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
125
26.3
125
67.3a

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
82.1
31.2
85.9
80.0

All sample results were < MDC value reported.

May 2016

4-26

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-19. Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for
Filtered Influent and Effluent POTW Samples
Ra-226
(pCi/L)
497
129
85.0
46.6

Ra-228
(pCi/L)
76.8
9.34
5.38
9.25

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
768
42.9
8.85
3.51

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
722
75.0
9.75
8.31

V.
1.
1

Filtered Sample Set
Averages for:
POTW-I Influent
POTW-I Effluent
POTW-N Influent
POTW-N Effluent

Table 4-20. Average Radium, Gross Alpha, and Gross Beta Concentrations for
Unfiltered Influent and Effluent POTW Samples
Unfiltered Sample Set
Averages for:
POTW-I Influent
POTW-I Effluent
POTW-N Influent
POTW-N Effluent

Ra-228
(pCi/L)
28.1
10.4
11.6
5.00

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
125
125
67.3a
26.3

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
85.9
82.1
80.0
31.2

All sample results were < MDC value reported.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

a

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
190
103
103
145

May 2016

4-27

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-21. POTW-I Sediment and Effluent Results for Ra-226 and Ra-228

POTW 1
Round 2

Study ID

Sample Type

Ra-226

Units

Ra-228

Units

WT-17-SL-058

Sediment
Effluent Unfiltered
Effluent Filtered
Sediment
Effluent Unfiltered
Effluent Filtered
Sediment
Effluent Unfiltered
Effluent Filtered
Sediment
Effluent Unfiltered
Effluent Filtered
Sediment
Effluent Unfiltered
Effluent Filtered
Sediment
Effluent Unfiltered
Effluent Filtered
Sediment
Effluent Unfiltered
Effluent Filtered

2.91

pCi/g

1.69

pCi/g

Ra-226/
Ra-228
Ratio
1.72

156

pCi/L

35.0

pCi/L

4.46

116

pCi/L

12.0

pCi/L

9.67

4.25

pCi/g

1.96

pCi/g

2.17

122

pCi/L

9.00

pCi/L

13.6

65.0

pCi/L

12.0

pCi/L

5.42

1.83

pCi/g

0.799

pCi/g

2.29

340

pCi/L

7.50

pCi/L

45.3

87.0

pCi/L

6.00

pCi/L

14.5

3.94

pCi/g

1.96

pCi/g

2.01

64.0

pCi/L

13.5

pCi/L

4.74

104

pCi/L

6.50

pCi/L

16.0

16.6

pCi/g

6.25

pCi/g

2.66

80.0

pCi/L

4.50

pCi/L

17.8

191

pCi/L

12.0

pCi/L

15.9

18.2

pCi/g

6.19

pCi/g

2.94

135

pCi/L

4.50

pCi/L

30.0

69.5

pCi/L

12.5

pCi/L

5.56

15.3

pCi/g

5.77

pCi/g

2.65

39.5

pCi/L

27.0

pCi/L

1.46

120

pCi/L

25.0

pCi/L

4.80

WT-17-LQ-218
WT-17-LQ-217
WT-14-SL-018

POTW 2
Round 1

WT-14-LQ-043a
WT-14-LQ-044a
WT-14-SL-053

POTW 2
Round 2

WT-14-LQ-172a
WT-14-LQ-171
WT-14-SL-069
WT-14-LQ-216

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

POTW 2
Round 3

WT-14-LQ-215
WT-15-SL-020

POTW 3
Round 1

WT-15-LQ-051

WT-15-LQ-052a
WT-15-SL-056

POTW 3
Round 2

WT-15-LQ-186a
WT-15-LQ-185a
WT-15-SL-067

POTW 3
Round 3

WT-15-LQ-224
WT-15-LQ-223

a

V.
1.
1

Sample
Set

Result was not detected, ½ of the reported MDC was presented.

May 2016

4-28

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-22. POTW Sediment and Effluent Ratios for Ra-226/Ra-228
Sediments
(CWT +
POTW)

Sediments
(CWT)

Sediments
(POTW)

Unfiltered
(CWT +
POTW)

Unfiltered
(CWT)

Unfiltered
(POTW)

Filtered
(CWT +
POTW)

Filtered
(CWT)

Filtered
(POTW)

Average

3.00

3.40

2.40

8.40

11.4

5.30

5.70

3.80

8.30

Std Dev

0.900

0.900

0.400

6.70

8.30

3.40

3.90

3.60

3.00

Max

4.80

4.80

2.90

21.3

21.3

10.0

10.4

9.20

10.4

Min

1.70

2.30

1.70

1.00

1.00

2.00

1.10

1.10

4.80

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Ratio
Statistic

May 2016

4-29

 22
38
25
20
41
29
5
10
16
19
37
25
25
45
23
14
35
15
25
46
32
17
27
20
22
34

Study ID

WT-01-FS-021
WT-01-FS-108
WT-01-FS-109
WT-02-FS-012
WT-02-FS-066
WT-02-FS-067
WT-03-FS-040
WT-03-FS-110
WT-03-FS-111
WT-04-FS-025
WT-04-FS-112
WT-04-FS-113
WT-05-FS-044
WT-05-FS-114
WT-05-FS-115
WT-07-FS-022
WT-07-FS-071
WT-07-FS-072
WT-08-FS-015
WT-08-FS-062
WT-08-FS-063
WT-09-FS-013
WT-09-FS-060
WT-09-FS-061
WT-10-FS-002
WT-10-FS-046

May 2016

7.30
8.00
8.00
7.30
8.15
8.00
6.90
8.00
6.90
9.15
7.70
9.10
9.11
6.40
9.10
9.15
7.30
8.00
9.10
7.70
9.10
9.10
4.25
8.85
8.15
6.90

18.6
18.6
18.1
15.8
8.15
29.4
6.90
8.00
6.90
9.15
38.1
9.10
9.11
13.6
9.10
9.15
7.30
8.00
9.10
7.70
9.10
9.10
31.1
8.85
8.15
6.90

2.90
2.61
2.02
1.33
0.000
4.56
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.94
0.000
0.000
1.07
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.40
0.000
0.000
0.000

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

No. of
Data
Points

62.5
62.5
30.8
62.5
38.0
30.8
60.5
31.0
60.5
113
62.0
69.6
41.5
56.0
32.5
23.3
62.5
36.6
41.5
62.0
41.5
41.5
65.0
30.0
38.0
60.5

62.5
62.5
30.8
62.5
38.0
30.8
60.5
31.0
60.5
113
62.0
69.6
41.5
56.0
32.5
23.3
62.5
36.6
41.5
62.0
41.5
41.5
133
30.0
38.0
60.5

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
13.1
0.000
0.000
0.000

62.5
62.5
30.8
62.5
38.0
30.8
60.5
31.0
60.5
113
62.0
69.6
41.5
56.0
32.5
23.3
62.5
36.6
41.5
62.0
41.5
41.5
67.5
30.0
38.0
60.5

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Deviation

V.
1.
1

8.27
8.05
8.40
7.51
8.15
9.18
6.90
8.00
6.90
9.15
8.50
9.10
9.11
6.56
9.10
9.15
7.30
8.00
9.10
7.70
9.10
9.10
5.77
8.85
8.15
6.90

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-23. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-30

 May 2016

WT-10-FS-047
WT-11-FS-005

9.10
8.15

9.10
8.15

0.000
0.000

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

20
15

Study ID

9.10
8.15

32.5
36.0

32.5
36.0

0.000
0.000

32.5
36.0

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Deviation

V.
1.
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, maximum, and average are the same,
then all measurements were below half of the MDC.

No. of
Data
Points

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-23. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-31

 22
30
25
20
41
29
5
10
13
20
38
25
25
32
23
14
36
13
25
46
32
18
26
20
22
34

Study ID

WT-01-FS-021
WT-01-FS-108
WT-01-FS-109
WT-02-FS-012
WT-02-FS-066
WT-02-FS-067
WT-03-FS-040
WT-03-FS-110
WT-03-FS-111
WT-04-FS-025
WT-04-FS-112
WT-04-FS-113
WT-05-FS-044
WT-05-FS-114
WT-05-FS-115
WT-07-FS-022
WT-07-FS-071
WT-07-FS-072
WT-08-FS-015
WT-08-FS-062
WT-08-FS-063
WT-09-FS-013
WT-09-FS-060
WT-09-FS-061
WT-10-FS-002
WT-10-FS-046

May 2016

30.5
7.30
14.9
30.5
7.30
19.1
19.0
7.45
18.6
30.5
18.6
7.45
7.44
7.30
19.0
30.5
18.6
19.0
30.5
19.1
7.45
30.5
18.6
35.7
29.4
18.6

1,540
476
448
332
403
473
347
487
3,220
565
540
1,600
179
180
243
922
1,000
1,390
208
194
94.2
258
117
35.7
224
476

315
133
113
77.9
120
114
144
204
877
157
137
310
44.6
45.1
82.2
250
206
399
43.9
39.5
27.5
56.0
27.3
0.000
54.9
81.9

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

No. of
Data
Points

929
283
287
268
240
286
334
288
249
268
297
291
325
257
306
891
249
310
572
284
290
728
354
286
121
288

Minimum

50,400
32,700
13,200
8,220
8,260
9,040
6,310
7,120
30,200
8,560
14,600
14,200
3,370
3,060
7,380
6,650
5,330
6,620
3,270
3,880
2,580
11,900
7,120
6,640
2,730
5,770

10,900
7,030
3,870
1,710
2,060
1,900
2,710
2,070
8,170
2,290
3,720
3,940
771
829
1,480
1,490
1,210
1,990
780
1,010
696
2,540
1,600
1,540
623
972

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Maximum
Deviation

V.
1.
1

211
172
152
58.9
92.6
74.5
115
194
348
123
142
144
61.5
53.2
71.9
132
130
213
50.9
56.0
40.8
51.0
35.3
35.7
53.1
44.0

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-24. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants

8,780
5,310
4,090
1,690
1,590
1,140
2,410
1,940
3,150
3,210
3,200
3,480
1,230
1,340
1,290
2,480
1,140
1,740
1,920
1,370
1,050
2,260
1,280
1,690
395
623

Average

PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-32

 May 2016

WT-10-FS-047
WT-11-FS-005

7.45
30.5

174
114

37.6
26.6

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

21
15

Study ID

24.0
49.0

297
617

Minimum

1,760
3,380

366
746

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Maximum
Deviation

482
1,350

Average

V.
1.
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, maximum, and average are the same,
then all measurements were below half of the MDC.

No. of
Data
Points

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-24. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at CWT Plants
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-33

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-25. Summary of NaI Count Rate Data at CWTs

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11

152,322
252,693
178,291
69,545
33,174
203,895
12,172
13,983
111,523
288,000
401,688
20,932
20,666
10,640
10,369
9,397
27,735
9,915
24,840
33,141
29,220
12,455
13,200
150,649
156,738

4,717
3,273
4,843
4,844
3,850
4,909
5,208
4,579
5,120
5,448
5,445
7,065
4,751
5,766
5,805
5,124
2,611
2,718
2,723
3,112
3,867
4,175
7,756
3,305
3,478

GWS
Averagea
(cpm)
18,543
12,750
17,806
13,849
8,141
19,281
8,375
7,790
13,819
11,725
15,883
9,310
7,273
7,532
7,414
6,742
6,927
5,223
7,302
5,582
6,110
5,880
5,708
9,194
11,137

GWS Std Dev
(cpm)

No. Data
Points

19,037
24,179
23,505
10,904
2,490
29,028
916
1,655
14,182
24,058
38,194
1,114
752
650
625
796
3,495
975
3,383
2,517
2,272
1,093
1,398
10,116
17,801

2,192
9,513
2,077
2,360
4,743
2,057
1,162
3,741
2,950
6,492
6,720
3,015
12,166
7,274
5,977
825
2,924
6,552
1,812
7,638
7,302
5,790
7,756
4,509
3,003

V.
1.
1

GWS Mina
(cpm)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

a

Site

GWS Maxa
(cpm)

Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield µrem/hr.

May 2016

4-34

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-26. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates
GWS Min
(µR/hr)
5.90
4.09
6.05
6.06
4.81
6.14
6.51
5.72
6.40
6.81
6.81
8.83
5.94
7.21
7.26
6.41
3.26
3.40
3.40
3.89
4.83
5.22
9.70
4.13
4.35

GWS Average
(µR/hr)
23.2
15.9
22.3
17.3
10.2
24.1
10.5
9.74
17.3
14.7
19.9
11.6
9.09
9.42
9.27
8.43
8.66
6.53
9.13
6.98
7.64
7.35
7.14
11.5
13.9

GWS Std Dev
(µR/hr)
23.8
30.2
29.4
13.6
3.11
36.3
1.15
2.07
17.7
30.1
47.7
1.39
0.940
0.813
0.781
1.00
4.37
1.22
4.23
3.15
2.84
1.37
1.75
12.6
22.3

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11

GWS Max
(µR/hr)
190
316
223
86.9
41.5
255
15.2
17.5
139
360
502
26.2
25.8
13.3
13.0
11.7
34.7
12.4
31.1
41.4
36.5
15.6
16.5
188
196

May 2016

No. Data
Points
2,192
9,513
2,077
2,360
4,743
2,057
1,162
3,741
2,950
6,492
6,720
3,015
12,166
7,274
5,977
825
2,924
6,552
1,812
7,638
7,302
5,790
7,756
4,509
3,003

V.
1.
1

Site

4-35

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-27. CWT Solids, Filter Cake – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-226
(pCi/g)

Ra-228
(pCi/g)

K-40
(pCi/g)

WT-01-SL-009
WT-01-SL-037
WT-01-SL-084
WT-02-SL-006
WT-02-SL-036
WT-02-SL-081
WT-03-SL-012
WT-04-SL-013
WT-04-SL-050
WT-04-SL-062
WT-04-SL-063
WT-05-SL-022
WT-05-SL-061
WT-05-SL-064
WT-08-SL-027
WT-08-SL-047
WT-08-SL-072
WT-08-SL-088
WT-08-SL-089
WT-09-SL-019
WT-09-SL-054
WT-09-SL-066
WT-10-SL-029
WT-10-SL-049
WT-06-SL-045
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

208
261
256
120
118
164
56.6
59.9
35.1
70.1
165
82.1
10.1
104
67.5
35.7
52.1
41.1
15.7
174
269
294
3.88
5.97
24.7
108
91.0
70.1
3.88
294

106
137
132
75.0
66.0
97.2
13.5
57.3
36.0
59.4
91.7
49.8
5.03
52.4
6.46
3.59
4.46
3.45
2.44
108
164
177
0.363
0.687
2.74
58.1
55.7
52.4
0.363
177

< 1.33
< 2.01
12.0
15.7
12.8
13.0
10.7
7.65
5.04
5.22
8.74
9.91
6.06
9.13
7.47
10.5
4.13
< 0.553
17.4
9.05
13.7
16.1
0.969
2.89
11.1
8.45
5.03
9.05
0.277
17.4

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-36

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-28. CWT Solids, Sediment – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-228
(pCi/g)
29.7
12.4
20.0
2.59
1.37
0.978
1.54
22.7
86.9
19.8
27.4
12.4
0.978
86.9

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-01-SL-010
WT-01-SL-038
WT-01-SL-083
WT-02-SL-007
WT-02-SL-035
WT-02-SL-082
WT-03-SL-011
WT-04-SL-014
WT-04-SL-051
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
105
37.2
76.8
5.86
3.60
2.50
4.72
101
421
84.2
133
37.2
2.50
421

K-40
(pCi/g)
8.44
7.17
8.31
4.55
4.67
9.26
6.34
10.1
10.0
7.65
2.11
8.31
4.55
10.1

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 4-29. CWT Solids, Biased Soil – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Study ID

WT-01-SL-008
WT-02-SL-034
WT-04-SL-015
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
117
13.3
444
191
225
117
13.3
444

Ra-228
(pCi/g)
30.6
4.26
83.1
39.3
40.1
30.6
4.26
83.1

K-40
(pCi/g)
17.0
5.06
10.5
10.9
5.98
10.5
5.06
17.0

U-238
(pCi/g)
< 2.46
< 3.14
< 3.37
1.50
0.240
1.57
1.23
1.69

U-235
(pCi/g)
1.83
< 0.331
< 0.774
0.794
0.904
0.387
0.166
1.83

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-37

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-30. CWT Filtered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
K-40
(pCi/L)

WT-01-LQ-023
WT-01-LQ-115
WT-01-LQ-281
WT-02-LQ-021
WT-02-LQ-111
WT-02-LQ-279
WT-03-LQ-029
WT-03-LQ-121
WT-03-LQ-287
WT-04-LQ-031
WT-04-LQ-165
WT-04-LQ-201
WT-05-LQ-058
WT-05-LQ-197
WT-05-LQ-207
WT-07-LQ-015
WT-07-LQ-109
WT-07-LQ-273
WT-08-LQ-081
WT-08-LQ-085
WT-08-LQ-151
WT-08-LQ-153
WT-08-LQ-237
WT-09-LQ-046
WT-09-LQ-175
WT-09-LQ-227
WT-10-LQ-094
WT-10-LQ-161
WT-10-LQ-291
WT-11-LQ-187
WT-11-LQ-221
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

110
< 169
287
113
86.0
55.0
< 36.0
91.0
86.0
76.0
104
320
215
150
181
5,510
1,630
8,810
84.0
12,700
< 79.0
14,900
12,400
< 73.0
503
273
150
363
77.0
1,700
2,090
2,100
4,250
166
18.0
14,900

< 19.0
55.0
< 18.0
< 15.0
< 16.0
6.00
< 5.00
< 11.0
< 9.00
37.0
94.0
68.0
118
< 9.00
80.0
849
324
1,740
< 9.00
1,110
< 15.0
1,300
1,220
< 12.0
319
164
< 17.0
10.0
< 13.0
943
976
316
510
37.0
2.50
1,740

334
406
235
116
140
174
52.0
52.0
62.0
403
618
339
595
282
607
888
586
360
< 30.0
304
49.0
598
388
148
181
188
< 96.0
203
55.0
238
228
285
221
232
15.0
888

Gross
Alphaa
(pCi/L)
< 1,270
< 1,040
< 2,040
13.1
< 1,340
< 1,950
< 50.1
< 104
< 192
< 692
< 2,200
< 1,040
< 762
< 950
< 1,810
ND
2,330
21,400
1.13
22,800
8.25
22,700
40,700
ND
< 1,120
< 2,550
< 204
< 126
< 161
5,520
4,160
4,460
9,847
540
1.13
40,700

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
< 847
< 909
< 879
< 263
< 872
< 870
45.7
< 190
< 208
< 422
< 940
< 802
504
608
< 938
7,660
1,080
8,700
< 0.998
5,810
1.98
4,570
12,100
69.4
< 895
< 989
< 393
< 187
< 196
1,670
1,730
1,650
3,013
444
0.499
12,100

V.
1.
1

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

ND – Non-detectable; sample matrix was not suitable for analysis.
< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

a

May 2016

4-38

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-31. CWT Unfiltered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228a
(pCi/L)
< 18.0
26.0
< 15.0
< 5.00
< 18.0
< 10.0
< 8.00
< 13.0
11.0
84.0
112
< 27.0
133
89.0
92.0
318
1,740
< 4.00
912
6.00
1,250
1,200
28.0
331
166
6.00
< 27.0
< 10.0
996
1,100
289
486
27.0
2.00
1,740

K-40
(pCi/L)
296
381
270
113
140
162
29.0
36.0
< 30.0
406
568
361
565
688
648
571
1,450
37.0
371
42.0
414
355
118
200
233
80.0
217
69.0
264
252
312
291
258
15.0
1,450

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 1,340
< 1,130
< 2,650
< 689
< 1,250
< 2,600
< 260
< 142
< 213
ND
< 1,030
< 1,450
< 595
< 1,320
< 912
2,370
33.6
< 1.66
18,900
4.68
17,100
42,300
0.260
1,810
1,410
< 294
< 205
< 224
3,460
3,880
3,430
8,750
565
0.260
42,300

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-01-LQ-024
WT-01-LQ-116
WT-01-LQ-282
WT-02-LQ-022
WT-02-LQ-112
WT-02-LQ-280
WT-03-LQ-030
WT-03-LQ-122
WT-03-LQ-288
WT-04-LQ-032
WT-04-LQ-166
WT-04-LQ-202
WT-05-LQ-057
WT-05-LQ-198
WT-05-LQ-208
WT-07-LQ-110
WT-07-LQ-274
WT-08-LQ-082
WT-08-LQ-086
WT-08-LQ-152
WT-08-LQ-154
WT-08-LQ-238
WT-09-LQ-045
WT-09-LQ-176
WT-09-LQ-228
WT-10-LQ-093
WT-10-LQ-162
WT-10-LQ-292
WT-11-LQ-188
WT-11-LQ-222
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
104
< 196
114
64.0
< 116
108
61.0
126
362
124
117
< 131
357
< 202
240
1,670
8,050
87.0
10,300
85.0
15,500
12,700
161
594
404
42.0
< 138
< 95.0
1,840
1,470
1,840
4,070
121
42.0
15,500

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
< 871
< 844
< 1,000
< 444
< 804
< 994
< 181
< 191
< 211
480
1,280
< 846
< 453
< 500
< 845
1,060
5,380
< 1.17
4,900
< 2.01
4,440
12,900
< 341
1,540
< 869
< 397
202
< 209
1,410
1,320
1,330
2,610
423
0.585
12,900

V.
1.
1

Study ID

ND – Non-detectable; sample matrix was not suitable for analysis.
< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.
a

May 2016

4-39

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-32. CWT Filtered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)
711
1,120
961
747
913
962
< 16.0
< 19.0
< 5.00
172
392
173
56.0
48.0
78.0
203
322
203
6.00
1,520
615
247
238
< 15.0
< 10.0
8.00
361
431
203
2.50
1,520

K-40
(pCi/L)
345
603
304
272
247
300
< 63.0
< 54.0
36.0
419
626
394
< 111
547
514
163
505
219
37.0
526
203
121
176
95.0
345
55.0
273
198
247
27.0
626

Gross Alphaa
(pCi/L)
ND
10,500
3,940
ND
2,360
3,930
< 129
< 205
< 227
< 369
660
< 1,450
< 2,550
< 579
< 1,040
2,290
3,420
1,920
6,110
22,200
28,400
1,310
1,950
< 220
< 294
< 312
3,862
7,086
1,293
64.5
28,400

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-01-LQ-025
WT-01-LQ-117
WT-01-LQ-283
WT-02-LQ-019
WT-02-LQ-113
WT-02-LQ-277
WT-03-LQ-027
WT-03-LQ-119
WT-03-LQ-285
WT-04-LQ-033
WT-04-LQ-167
WT-04-LQ-203
WT-05-LQ-060
WT-05-LQ-199
WT-05-LQ-205
WT-07-LQ-013
WT-07-LQ-107
WT-07-LQ-275
WT-08-LQ-083
WT-08-LQ-155
WT-08-LQ-239
WT-09-LQ-047
WT-09-LQ-173
WT-10-LQ-092
WT-10-LQ-163
WT-10-LQ-289
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
1,760
2,810
1,900
1,650
1,660
1,770
116
121
126
175
445
216
57.0
118
242
1,390
1,930
1,410
87.0
14,100
7,080
469
300
97.0
132
102
1,550
3,015
300
57.0
14,100

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
3,040
2,970
1,950
2,810
1,900
2,760
< 149
< 202
< 212
276
1,510
< 846
< 998
587
< 802
1,310
893
853
1,570
4,640
7,820
< 811
1,360
< 392
276
< 231
1,430
1,760
853
74.5
7,820

V.
1.
1

Study ID

ND – Non-detectable; sample matrix was not suitable for analysis.
< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.
a

May 2016

4-40

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-33. CWT Unfiltered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)
740
1,110
984
835
1,920
1,010
< 8.00
< 17.0
6.00
229
467
228
77.0
86.0
126
188
366
203
367
1,520
623
328
222
< 6.00
< 8.00
< 6.00
436
515
228
3.00
1,920

K-40
(pCi/L)
333
592
243
245
< 373
279
33.0
< 55.0
48.0
459
< 69.0
433
493
550
526
171
468
227
159
544
184
< 99.0
151
67.0
328
59.0
262
192
227
27.5
592

Gross Alphaa
(pCi/L)
4,830
8,400
2,940
3,220
47,100
4,220
< 188
< 116
< 158
ND
< 1,700
< 883
< 910
< 575
< 2,040
1,890
3,490
1,740
7,960
27,700
27,600
< 746
2,050
< 198
< 117
< 123
5,920
11,600
1,380
58.0
47,100

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-01-LQ-026
WT-01-LQ-118
WT-01-LQ-284
WT-02-LQ-020
WT-02-LQ-114
WT-02-LQ-278
WT-03-LQ-028
WT-03-LQ-120
WT-03-LQ-286
WT-04-LQ-034
WT-04-LQ-168
WT-04-LQ-204
WT-05-LQ-059
WT-05-LQ-200
WT-05-LQ-206
WT-07-LQ-014
WT-07-LQ-108
WT-07-LQ-276
WT-08-LQ-084
WT-08-LQ-156
WT-08-LQ-240
WT-09-LQ-048
WT-09-LQ-174
WT-10-LQ-091
WT-10-LQ-164
WT-10-LQ-290
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
1,430
2,870
1,820
1,740
3,630
1,790
100
327
66.0
214
453
286
146
492
238
1,330
2,330
1,030
5,920
13,400
6,940
950
458
< 37.0
< 98.0
< 35.0
1,870
3,010
492
17.5
13,400

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
1,780
3,440
1,420
1,890
12,800
1,650
< 163
< 199
< 212
1,030
1,130
< 842
< 430
591
1,200
485
1,180
638
2,550
6,870
10,200
343
1,040
< 393
375
< 203
2,000
3,220
1,030
81.5
12,800

V.
1.
1

Study ID

ND – Non-detectable; sample matrix was not suitable for analysis.
< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.
a

May 2016

4-41

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-34. CWT Radon Sample Results
Radon (pCi/L)
3.10
0.900
1.90
1.60
1.60
4.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
1.20
1.40
0.900
1.30
1.20
1.20
1.30
5.00
2.90
2.00
1.55
1.14
0.900
5.00

Percent Error
3%
6%
4%
5%
5%
4%
6%
4%
3%
5%
7%
8%
7%
8%
7%
7%
4%
5%

V.
1.
1

Location
Conference Room
Near Filter Press
Filter Press 2
2nd Fl. Office
Break Room
On fuse panel
Lab
Office
Filter Press Area
Under Filter Press
Lab Fridge
Clarifier Elec. Panel
Influent Wastewater Pump
Wastewater Receiving Office
Office
Filter Press
Wastewater Receiving Off.
Top of Filter Press
Average
Median
St. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Facility
WT-05-RA-001
WT-05-RA-002
WT-04-RA-001
WT-04-RA-002
WT-04-RA-003
WT-08-RA-001
WT-08-RA-002
WT-09-RA-001
WT-09-RA-002
WT-10-RA-001
WT-07-RA-001
WT-07-RA-002
WT-03-RA-001
WT-03-RA-002
WT-02-RA-001
WT-02-RA-002
WT-01-RA-001
WT-01-RA-002

ATDs. LLD for 10 pCi/L-day is 0.1 pCi/L for 90-day test, 0.3 pCi/L for 30-day test.

May 2016

4-42

 24
46
33
15
31
20
13
17
18
16
39
32
4
45
39
10
28
18
23
33
25
20
21
41
23

Study ID

WT-06-FS-039
WT-06-FS-116
WT-06-FS-117
WT-18-FS-011
WT-18-FS-058
WT-18-FS-059
WT-19-FS-078
WT-19-FS-079
WT-19-FS-080
WT-20-FS-020
WT-20-FS-068
WT-20-FS-069
WT-21-FS-030
WT-21-FS-126
WT-21-FS-127
WT-22-FS-001
WT-22-FS-048
WT-22-FS-049
WT-23-FS-007
WT-23-FS-054
WT-23-FS-055
WT-24-FS-016
WT-24-FS-064
WT-24-FS-065
WT-25-FS-006

May 2016

7.30
7.70
9.35
6.90
7.30
6.40
9.15
6.40
6.40
9.10
6.40
6.40
7.85
7.30
8.00
7.15
7.30
8.00
8.70
4.24
9.10
7.85
8.00
6.90
7.15

7.30
18.4
25.1
6.90
7.30
22.0
9.15
6.40
6.40
9.10
30.5
22.0
17.7
35.6
294
7.15
38.4
8.00
30.4
4.24
9.10
7.85
8.00
6.90
70.7

0.000
1.57
3.22
0.000
0.000
3.77
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.91
3.07
2.05
5.45
3.42
0.000
5.88
0.000
4.53
0.000
0.000
7.85
0.000
0.000
17.6

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

No. of
Data
Points

61.5
62.0
34.0
123
65.5
32.8
38.5
56.0
32.8
41.6
56.0
33.0
36.4
62.5
36.6
37.5
63.0
30.8
76.5
65.0
32.5
36.5
30.8
60.5
37.5

61.5
62.0
34.0
123
193
32.8
38.5
56.0
32.8
41.6
56.0
33.0
36.4
62.5
36.6
37.5
342
30.8
76.5
65.0
32.5
36.5
30.8
307
37.5

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.8
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
52.8
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
39.5
0.000

61.5
34.0
34.0
123
69.6
32.8
38.5
56.0
32.8
41.6
56.0
33.0
36.4
62.5
36.6
37.5
72.5
30.8
76.5
65.0
32.5
36.5
30.8
68.0
37.5

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

V.
1.
1

7.30
7.92
10.1
6.90
7.30
7.54
9.15
6.40
6.40
9.10
7.93
7.25
8.28
8.68
8.55
7.15
8.41
8.00
9.64
4.24
9.10
0.000
8.00
6.90
12.7

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-35. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-43

 May 2016

WT-25-FS-052
WT-25-FS-053

8.85
6.40

22.9
36.2

2.81
8.18

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

25
25

Study ID

9.41
9.58

60.0
32.8

60.0
65.9

0.000
6.61

60.0
34.1

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

V.
1.
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, maximum, and average are
the same, then all measurements were below half of the MDC.

No. of
Data
Points

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-35. Summary of Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-44

 23
46
33
15
20
20
13
17
18
16
27
32
23
44
39
10
28
18
25
32
25
20
21
41
13

Study ID

WT-06-FS-039
WT-06-FS-116
WT-06-FS-117
WT-18-FS-011
WT-18-FS-058
WT-18-FS-059
WT-19-FS-078
WT-19-FS-079
WT-19-FS-080
WT-20-FS-020
WT-20-FS-068
WT-20-FS-069
WT-21-FS-030
WT-21-FS-126
WT-21-FS-127
WT-22-FS-001
WT-22-FS-048
WT-22-FS-049
WT-23-FS-007
WT-23-FS-054
WT-23-FS-055
WT-24-FS-016
WT-24-FS-064
WT-24-FS-065
WT-25-FS-006

May 2016

30.5
19.1
7.45
18.6
730
19.1
30.5
7.30
19.1
30.5
7.30
19.1
30.5
18.6
7.45
30.5
7.30
19.1
7.45
18.6
7.45
305
7.45
18.6
30.5

139
691
248
194
199
249
114
72.9
54.7
719
554
741
645
452
537
273
836
1,410
273
72.9
193
466
711
476
213

32.2
134
53.0
44.4
57.1
60.3
23.2
22.2
10.1
215
154
165
159
127
111
87.0
226
350
73.1
14.6
43.3
123
187
90.8
55.4

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

No. of
Data
Points

1,950
474
1,210
415
211
277
943
277
318
268
249
321
780
264
283
269
249
265
313
250
313
268
288
260
802

49,700
7,760
8,710
4,200
7,190
4,670
2,370
1,490
705
6,990
8,830
8,800
13,400
17,900
3,090
3,180
15,500
6,380
6,230
2,660
4,520
4,420
4,380
9,410
3,980

9,810
1,420
1,540
1,131
1,610
1,080
411
369
91.2
2,230
2,240
1,840
2,730
3,420
713
1,050
3,290
1,640
1,380
537
905
977
980
1,530
921

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Deviation

V.
1.
1

47.3
103
81.5
75.0
78.9
69.1
36.9
27.3
22.5
222
150
174
111
127
49.8
85.2
133
239
83.5
25.1
43.1
107
125
69.2
89.5

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-36. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs

4,740
2,540
2,440
2,100
2,360
1,720
1,550
553
339
3,080
2,030
1,550
2,440
2,540
960
1,620
2,080
1,730
1,550
920
927
2,150
1,060
985
1,660

Average

PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-45

 May 2016

WT-25-FS-052
WT-25-FS-053

7.45
19.1

373
433

109
97.9

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

25
24

Study ID

97.3
81.7

307
321

3,820
4,900

1,040
1,140

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Deviation

1,120
893

Average

V.
1.
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, maximum, and average are
the same, then all measurements were below half of the MDC.

No. of
Data
Points

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation

Table 4-36. Summary of Total Alpha and Beta Surface Contamination Results at ZLDs
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0
Rev. 1

4-46

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-37. Summary of NaI Count Rate Data at ZLDs

6
6
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
25

11,264
11,273
7,446
34,596
15,542
15,603
52,815
11,574
73,475
66,958
34,908
46,611
42,518
39,712
12,198
13,938
12,234
11,844
28,597
31,290
356,274

3,689
4,157
2,692
2,748
10,665
11,347
4,506
3,266
3,771
4,752
4,335
4,351
4,857
4,065
5,546
5,662
5,164
6,541
7,558
2,819
4,464

GWS
Averagea
(cpm)
6,618
6,315
4,507
7,432
13,449
13,667
13,153
5,966
8,426
12,383
6,912
7,797
10,358
6,937
8,585
9,014
7,419
8,985
12,955
12,524
34,513

GWS Std Dev
(cpm)

No. Data
Points

1,435
1,037
714
5,069
573
560
3,995
1,814
8,110
7,293
2,613
4,423
5,297
4,905
1,250
1,348
1,279
1,211
2,243
2,352
63,202

1,077
4,716
3,570
2,032
3,379
4,098
2,813
7,086
9,495
1,911
15,435
8,792
1,544
5,063
6,265
7,512
1,712
2,959
5,371
8,019
2,006

V.
1.
1

GWS Mina
(cpm)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

a

Site

GWS Maxa
(cpm)

Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield µR/hr.

May 2016

4-47

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-38. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates

6
6
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
25

14.1
14.1
9.31
43.2
19.4
19.5
66.0
14.5
91.8
83.7
43.6
58.3
53.1
49.6
15.2
17.4
15.3
14.8
35.7
39.1
445

4.61
5.20
3.37
3.44
13.3
14.2
5.63
4.08
4.71
5.94
5.42
5.44
6.07
5.08
6.93
7.08
6.46
8.18
9.45
3.52
5.58

GWS
Average
(µR/hr)
8.27
7.89
5.63
9.29
16.8
17.1
16.4
7.46
10.5
15.5
8.64
9.75
12.9
8.67
10.7
11.3
9.27
11.2
16.2
15.7
43.1

GWS Std
Dev
(µR/hr)
1.79
1.30
0.893
6.34
0.716
0.700
4.99
2.27
10.1
9.12
3.27
5.53
6.62
6.13
1.56
1.69
1.60
1.51
2.80
2.94
79.0

May 2016

No. Data
Points
1,077
4,716
3,570
2,032
3,379
4,098
2,813
7,086
9,495
1,911
15,435
8,792
1,544
5,063
6,265
7,512
1,712
2,959
5,371
8,019
2,006

V.
1.
1

GWS Min
(µR/hr)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Site

GWS Max
(µR/hr)

4-48

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-39. ZLD Solids, Filter Cake – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-228
(pCi/g)
14.2
3.48
2.01
1.63
1.95
1.44
11.0
0.580
2.62
2.24
2.21
1.40
1.41
1.54
9.34
7.09
43.6
40.5
17.8
19.2
13.1
18.1
6.87
3.39
58.7
5.26
67.3
46.3
25.1
24.2
32.4
15.7
18.6
6.98
0.580
67.3

K-40
(pCi/g)
7.67
14.9
26.3
21.7
5.95
17.5
16.6
7.46
11.2
10.0
13.4
6.51
6.55
21.1
10.8
25.4
12.5
10.3
14.1
15.9
2.75
8.62
4.28
1.61
5.25
3.02
5.16
5.26
2.76
3.27
3.47
8.53
6.09
6.55
1.61
25.4

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-06-SL-046
WT-06-SL-074
WT-18-SL-025
WT-18-SL-043
WT-18-SL-076
WT-19-SL-023
WT-19-SL-041
WT-19-SL-070
WT-20-SL-024
WT-20-SL-042
WT-20-SL-075
WT-20-SL-086
WT-20-SL-087
WT-21-SL-004
WT-21-SL-039
WT-21-SL-078
WT-21-SL-092
WT-21-SL-093
WT-22-SL-003
WT-22-SL-032
WT-22-SL-079
WT-23-SL-016
WT-23-SL-055
WT-23-SL-077
WT-24-SL-001
WT-24-SL-002
WT-24-SL-031
WT-24-SL-080
WT-25-SL-028
WT-25-SL-040
WT-25-SL-071
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
159
31.7
8.02
6.14
19.1
4.62
127
3.08
26.9
20.0
22.7
11.1
10.2
6.46
29.3
25.8
214
212
281
145
134
78.9
33.6
26.0
420
41.6
480
289
221
185
206
112
128
33.6
3.08
480

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 4-40. ZLD Solids, Biased Soil – Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Study ID

WT-21-SL-005

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
37.1

Ra-228
(pCi/g)
7.47

K-40
(pCi/g)
16.6

U-238
(pCi/g)
3.81

U-235
(pCi/g)
< 0.201

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-49

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-41. ZLD Filtered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)
908
806
571
< 16.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 21.0
< 8.00
< 11.0
1,090
941
910
503
750
725
< 17.0
241
163
111
< 14.0
12.0
96.0
< 7.00
280
277
204
120
< 12.0
15.0
< 10.0
272
348
111
3.50
1,090

K-40
(pCi/L)
< 552
385
273
159
648
149
56.0
55.0
338
< 339
206
316
807
646
885
487
738
183
186
< 30.0
54.0
670
< 41.0
< 64.0
429
339
799
190
113
134
327
270
206
15.0
885

Gross Alpha
(pCi/L)
19,600
13,300
13,700
< 485
< 383
701
0.0970
< 293
< 412
11,800
31,100
14,400
6,830
10,900
10,200
< 542
5,040
2,690
1,660
5.05
< 145
< 1,340
23.6
9,610
2,540
3,660
< 2,090
< 1,140
< 1,100
< 479
5,250
7,220
1,660
0.0970
31,100

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-06-LQ-076
WT-06-LQ-149
WT-06-LQ-245
WT-18-LQ-070
WT-18-LQ-139
WT-18-LQ-253
WT-19-LQ-062
WT-19-LQ-133
WT-19-LQ-229
WT-20-LQ-066
WT-20-LQ-135
WT-20-LQ-251
WT-21-LQ-011
WT-21-LQ-123
WT-21-LQ-261
WT-22-LQ-007
WT-22-LQ-105
WT-22-LQ-269
WT-23-LQ-038
WT-23-LQ-040
WT-23-LQ-177
WT-23-LQ-179
WT-23-LQ-257
WT-23-LQ-259
WT-24-LQ-001
WT-24-LQ-101
WT-24-LQ-265
WT-25-LQ-088
WT-25-LQ-127
WT-25-LQ-235
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
12,000
11,200
8,360
335
86.0
94.0
< 127
< 58.0
126
8,930
12,500
11,100
3,470
5,050
4,690
418
3,280
2,310
580
< 82.0
110
587
< 69.0
2,540
1,830
2,260
292
173
163
59.0
2,780
3,880
580
29.0
12,500

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)
4,840
3,340
2,100
< 413
435
< 832
135
< 225
< 234
2,440
6,190
4,110
2,160
2,650
2,890
284
1,530
515
602
3.10
< 191
< 504
< 4.03
3,210
655
1,520
< 967
< 827
< 475
< 424
1,370
1,560
515
2.02
6,190

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

4-50

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-42. ZLD Unfiltered Effluent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

Gross Alphaa
(pCi/L)

Gross Beta
(pCi/L)

WT-06-LQ-075
WT-06-LQ-150
WT-06-LQ-246
WT-18-LQ-069
WT-18-LQ-140
WT-18-LQ-254
WT-19-LQ-061
WT-19-LQ-134
WT-19-LQ-230
WT-20-LQ-065
WT-20-LQ-136
WT-20-LQ-252
WT-21-LQ-012
WT-21-LQ-124
WT-21-LQ-262
WT-22-LQ-008
WT-22-LQ-106
WT-22-LQ-270
WT-23-LQ-037
WT-23-LQ-039
WT-23-LQ-178
WT-23-LQ-180
WT-23-LQ-258
WT-23-LQ-260
WT-24-LQ-002
WT-24-LQ-102
WT-24-LQ-266
WT-25-LQ-087
WT-25-LQ-128
WT-25-LQ-236
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

12,100
11,300
7,950
5,490
< 80.0
106
130
104
< 66.0
8,830
1,580
11,900
3,770
5,120
4,370
165
2,730
2,240
531
116
< 85.0
800
87.0
2,640
2,040
2,480
293
< 146
601
< 126
2,610
3,470
800
33.0
12,100

914
866
523
875
< 20.0
< 10.0
< 19.0
< 16.0
< 11.0
1,090
221
862
552
785
721
19.0
250
178
121
< 12.0
< 16.0
109
< 12.0
308
269
301
102
< 31.0
305
< 25.0
295
337
178
5.00
1,090

275
326
256

13,700
27,300
37,600
14,100
< 140
< 641
ND
< 108
< 280
14,500
40,900
42,800
5,540
16,000
13,100
< 275
8,940
5,100
1,570
4.94
< 217
1,220
5.12
13,300
2,750
4,440
< 810
< 917
< 448
< 1,030
8,990
13,000
2,160
4.94
42,800

3,770
6,530
12,600
3,820
573
< 780
92.6
< 198
231
3,540
8,340
13,900
1,850
5,530
4,020
< 460
1,630
1,260
358
< 1.78
< 203
871
26.1
4,030
< 424
1,300
< 836
< 831
< 417
< 475
2,510
3,697
573
0.890
13,900

982
674
143
102
111
333

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

400
4,310
299
821
612
926
439
723
190
160
31.0
< 60.0
497
< 42.0
340

V.
1.
1

Study ID

431
358
748

158
4,840
158

670
1,120
340
21.0
4,840

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.
a
ND – Non-detectable; sample matrix was not suitable for analysis.
May 2016

4-51

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-43. ZLD Filtered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/L)
1,100
1,290
230
< 24.0
< 14.0
901
13.0
91.0
1,390
603
1,410
338
515
687
10.0
847
51.0
413
94.0
28.0
332
153
380
660
181
127
431
443
332
7.00
1,410

K-40
(pCi/L)
393
302
215
234
848
16,600
281
718
399
< 187
491
517
584
350
299
< 371
105
421
135
158
552
341
568
202
187
169
998
3,260
302
93.5
16,600

Gross Alphaa
(pCi/L)
21,400
23,500
13,100
< 427
< 175
ND
< 175
4,770
18,700
59,400
36,000
ND
4,750
17,100
< 257
30,800
754
828
2,080
497
3,630
2,300
< 1,330
8,920
2,290
3,220
10,200
15,000
3,220
87.5
59,400

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WT-06-LQ-073
WT-06-LQ-147
WT-06-LQ-247
WT-18-LQ-072
WT-18-LQ-141
WT-19-LQ-064
WT-19-LQ-131
WT-19-LQ-231
WT-20-LQ-068
WT-20-LQ-137
WT-20-LQ-249
WT-21-LQ-009
WT-21-LQ-125
WT-21-LQ-263
WT-22-LQ-005
WT-22-LQ-103
WT-22-LQ-271
WT-23-LQ-035
WT-23-LQ-181
WT-23-LQ-255
WT-24-LQ-003
WT-24-LQ-099
WT-24-LQ-267
WT-25-LQ-090
WT-25-LQ-129
WT-25-LQ-233
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/L)
12,100
11,300
3,910
278
< 77.0
950
131
1,140
13,200
20,900
18,400
2,580
3,360
6,190
106
16,300
590
1,300
564
226
2,580
1,920
832
6,650
2,100
903
4,660
6250
1,920
38.5
20,900

Gross Betaa
(pCi/L)
4,530
5,630
4,340
< 412
592
ND
< 190
1,860
4,740
10,700
7,680
2,403
1,340
4,460
2,400
3,730
< 198
425
492
< 207
1,530
395
< 838
1,030
396
1,320
2,350
2,730
1,330
95.0
10,700

V.
1.
1

Study ID

ND – Non-detectable; sample matrix was not suitable for analysis.
< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

a

May 2016

4-52

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-44. ZLD Unfiltered Influent – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

Gross Alphaa
(pCi/L)

Gross Betaa
(pCi/L)

WT-06-LQ-074
WT-06-LQ-148
WT-06-LQ-248
WT-18-LQ-071
WT-18-LQ-142
WT-19-LQ-063
WT-19-LQ-132
WT-19-LQ-232
WT-20-LQ-067
WT-20-LQ-138
WT-20-LQ-250
WT-21-LQ-010
WT-21-LQ-126
WT-21-LQ-264
WT-22-LQ-006
WT-22-LQ-104
WT-22-LQ-272
WT-23-LQ-036
WT-23-LQ-182
WT-23-LQ-256
WT-24-LQ-004
WT-24-LQ-100
WT-24-LQ-268
WT-25-LQ-089
WT-25-LQ-130
WT-25-LQ-234
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

12,200
11,100
4,300
1,310
134
1,470
11,700
1,600
13,600
210
16,500
3,030
2,620
6,560
216
17,100
750
1,280
665
221
2,700
2,100
632
6,870
1,560
1,930
4,710
5,310
1,930
134
17,100

1,090
1,240
250
142
< 21.0
777
1000
81.0
1,390
19.0
1,310
429
421
727
14.0
903
43.0
437
95.0
41.0
457
181
388
628
140
199
453
433
388
10.5
1,390

7,210
350
243
318
761
13,300
< 247
701
288
123
529
605
528
415
136
332
234
410
160
153
651
220
558
269
114
161
867
2,600
318
114
13,300

17,700
25,500
7,700
ND
497
ND
2,230
2,800
16,200
49,200
88,000
6,590
6,920
18,900
110
52,400
1,240
ND
1,300
1,120
3,640
3,380
< 1,470
9,270
1,810
4,470
13,800
22,100
4,060
110
88,000

5,920
5,950
1,570
ND
806
ND
2,080
1,180
6,060
10,600
23,400
1,610
2,400
4,530
105
11,500
231
2,240
535
423
1,320
782
1,060
977
466
1,400
3,530
5,340
1,400
105
23,400

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Study ID

ND – Non-detectable; sample matrix was not suitable for analysis.
< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

a

May 2016

4-53

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 4.0

Rev. 1

Table 4-45. ZLD Radon in Ambient Air Results
Radon (pCi/L)
2.20
2.40
0.900
4.30
1.90
2.60
0.500
1.70
0.900
3.70
2.60
2.90
1.90
4.90
0.900
2.29
2.20
1.28
0.500
4.90

Percent Error
5%
5%
8%
4%
5%
5%
8%
6%
8%
4%
5%
5%
6%
4%
8%

V.
1.
1

Location
Filter Press
Lab
Centrifuge
Lab
Transfer Panel
Break Area
Break Room
Ctrl Panel/Boiler Room
First Floor
Locker Room Shelf
Back of Filter Cake Room
Filter Press
Office
Filter Press Room
Wastewater Receiving Office
Average
Median
St. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Facility
WT-06-RA-001
WT-06-RA-002
WT-18-RA-001
WT-18-RA-002
WT-20-RA-001
WT-20-RA-002
WT-23-RA-001
WT-23-RA-002
WT-23-RA-003
WT-21-RA-001
WT-21-RA-002
WT-24-RA-001
WT-24-RA-002
WT-22-RA-001
WT-22-RA-002

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

WT-04-SL-063
WT-25-SL-028
WT-22-SL-079
WT-19-SL-041
WT-01-SL-084
WT-08-SL-047
WT-06-SL-046
WT-04-SL-050
WT-09-SL-054
WT-23-SL-055
Average
St. Dev
Median
Minimum
Maximum

May 2016

U-238
(pCi/g)
0.306
< 0.068
0.225
0.683
< 0.265
0.922
0.708
< 0.246
< 0.064
0.268
0.343
0.314
0.247
0.032
0.922

U-234
(pCi/g)
0.361
< 0.084
0.281
0.830
< 0.266
0.910
0.746
< 0.248
< 0.053
0.291
0.374
0.334
0.286
0.027
0.910

Th-230
(pCi/g)
0.307
< 0.050
0.431
0.502
< 0.686
0.525
0.473
< 0.237
< 0.160
< 0.173
0.289
0.195
0.325
0.025
0.525

Th-232
(pCi/g)
< 0.205
< 0.041
< 0.198
0.401
< 0.685
0.428
0.157
< 0.145
< 0.159
< 0.111
0.176
0.154
0.101
0.021
0.428

Th-228
(pCi/g)
76.2
9.87
8.07
8.55
1.81
7.18
8.76
6.03
48.3
5.52
18.0
24.3
8.31
1.81
76.2

U-235
(pCi/g)
< 0.134
< 0.084
< 0.031
0.163
< 0.403
< 0.116
< 0.079
< 0.250
< 0.065
< 0.052
0.077
0.064
0.050
0.016
0.202

4-54

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

5.0

Rev. 1

LANDFILLS

Leachate samples were collected at 51 PA landfills. Nine of the 51 landfills were selected to be
surveyed and 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 gamma radiation and measurements of total
and removable / surface radioactivity. Ambient air at the fence line of these landfills was
sampled for Rn analysis, and filter cake was sampled from three of these landfills.
Leachate

V.
1.
1

5.1

Samples of leachate were collected from 51 landfills and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy for
Ra-226 and Ra-228. The gamma spectroscopy results 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 38 of 51 samples. Sample results from the 42 unselected landfills showed Ra-226 results that
ranged from 36.5 to 416 pCi/L with an average of 116 pCi/L. Radium-226 results from the nine
selected landfills ranged from 67.0 pCi/L to 378 pCi/L with an average of 125 pCi/L. Radium-228
results ranged from 2.50 to 55.0 pCi/L with an average of 11.9 pCi/L in the 42 unselected landfills.
Radium-228 results from the nine selected landfills ranged from 3.00 pCi/L to 84.0 pCi/L with an
average of 18.0 pCi/L.

5.2

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Due to high solids content, 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. The
aqueous portion was analyzed for Ra-226 and Ra-228. These results are presented in Table 5-3
along with the original gamma spectroscopy results for the entire sample. The 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 the Ra-226 and Ra-228
in these samples were mostly in the form of undissolved solids.
Nine Selected Landfills

5.2.1 Influent and Effluent Leachate

Nine influent and seven effluent leachate samples were collected at the nine selected landfills. All
nine landfills treat leachate onsite. The 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
but 3 of the leachate samples. Radium-226 results ranged from 67.0 to 378 pCi/L with an average
of 142 pCi/L for effluent samples. Radium-228 results ranged from 3.00 to 1,100 pCi/L with an
average of 178 pCi/L for effluent samples. Radium-226 results ranged from 48.5 to 116 pCi/L
with an average of 83.4 pCi/L for influent samples. Radium-228 results ranged from 4.00 to
15.0 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.
5.2.2 Leachate Filter Cake

Filter cake from three of the nine landfills was sampled and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy.
The results of the Ra-226 and Ra-228 analyses are presented in Table 5-6. Radium was detected
May 2016

5-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

in all of the filter cake samples. Radium-226 results ranged from 8.73 to 53.0 pCi/g, with an
average of 24.3 pCi/g. Radium-228 results ranged from 1.53 to 5.03 pCi/g, with an average of
3.85 pCi/g.
5.2.3 Effluent Discharge Sediment-Impacted Soil

5.2.4 Ambient Air

V.
1.
1

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. Radium-226 results ranged
from 2.82 to 4.46 pCi/g with an average of 3.57 pCi/g. Radium-228 results ranged from 0.979 to
2.53 pCi/g with an average of 1.65 pCi/g.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Ambient air was sampled at the fence line of each of the nine selected landfills and analyzed for
Rn concentration. A combination of EIC 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 device selection was based upon
availability at the time of deployment. The results are presented in Table 5-8. Radon activity
ranged from 0.200 to 0.900 pCi/L. The Rn monitor analytical reports are presented in
Appendix H.
5.2.5 Surveys

Radiological surveys were conducted at each of the nine selected landfills, resulting in four data
sets:





Removable / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Total / surface radioactivity measurements recorded in units of dpm/100 cm2
Gross Gamma Radiation Scan measurements recorded in units of cpm
Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate measurements recorded in units of µR/hr

5.2.5.1 Removable 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 cm2. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra-228 of the natural Th decay series,
with a removable criterion of 200 dpm /100 cm2. The average removable  and  levels at each
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 Appendix D.
May 2016

5-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

5.2.5.2 Total Alpha/Beta Surface Radioactivity Measurement Results

5.2.5.3 Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results

V.
1.
1

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 cm2. The primary  emitter of concern is Ra-228 of the natural Th decay series, with a total
criterion of 1,000 dpm /100 cm2. All average total  and  surface radioactivity levels were
below the RG 1.86 criteria. The maximum total  and  concentrations were 84.6 dpm/100 cm2
and 3,630 dpm/100 cm2. The summary results of total  and  surface radioactivity for the nine
selected landfills surveyed are presented in Table 5-10. Individual total  and  surface
radioactivity measurement results are presented in Appendix D.

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 the gamma
scan results at each facility was prepared using GIS software and is presented in Appendix E.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
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 Contaminants, NUREG-1507, Minimum
Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants
and Field Conditions, USNRC June 1998). Table 5-12 presents statistical results for each of the
nine selected landfills. The highest average exposure rate was 13.5 R/hr, and the maximum
gamma exposure rate measured was 93.7 R/hr.
5.3

Radon Ingrowth Within Filter Cake From WWTP to Landfills

Radon in filter cake is the result of the decay of Ra, which is referred to as ingrowth. Radium-226
from the U series and Ra-228 from the Th series are present in flowback and produced water.
Radioactive precursors to Ra (U-238 and Th-232) are not present due to their relative insolubility.
When these wastewaters are processed at WWTPs, the Ra is removed and concentrated in the
resulting filter cake or sludge.
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. Using 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 standard roll-off container filled with sludge at a concentration of 13.4 pCi/g of Ra-226. The
source terms assume that all of the Rn and progeny are removed at day zero. Ingrowth of Rn and
May 2016

5-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

progeny was calculated for each time period in accordance with half-lives to determine the
subsequent source terms, as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

0-day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra-226 only)
1-day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra-226 + 16 percent progeny)
3-day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra-226 + 41 percent progeny)
10-day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra-226 + 86 percent progeny)
21-day ingrowth (13.4 pCi/g of Ra-226 + 100 percent progeny)

V.
1.
1

The results of the MicroShield® modeling are presented in Figure 5-1. The exposure rate increased
rapidly to approximately 21 days post ingrowth, at which time the maximum exposure rate was
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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Figure 5-1. Ra-226 Progeny Ingrowth (Days Post Removal) versus
Exposure Rate from 13.34 pCi/g Ra-226

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. Radon ingrowth is
demonstrated in each set of sample results. Figure 5-2 and Table 5-13 present the data from one
of the sludge samples. The following was observed:

May 2016

5-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0



Rev. 1





V.
1.
1

The Pb-214 and Bi-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 activity.
Radium-226 was identified directly from the 186 keV gamma line. The average of the Pb-214
and Bi-214 results was 69.6 pCi/g at day zero and 120 pCi/g at day 24 compared to the Ra-226
activity of 142 pCi/g each day.
Radon 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.
The 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 8.64 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 Post Removal)

Wastewater Treatment Sludge
150

Pb-212 (238 keV)

125

Pb-214 (351 keV)

pCi/g

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

100
75
50
25

0

0

5

10

15

Days

5.4

20

25

Bi-214 (609 keV)
Ra-226 (186 keV)
Ac-228 (911 keV)
Ac-228 (969 keV)
U-235 (185 keV)
U-235 (205 keV)

Landfill Worker Exposure Assessment

5.4.1 Landfill External Radiation Exposure

The maximum average gamma radiation exposure rate measured at any of the nine selected
landfills was 13.5 R/hr. The minimum, limiting local background 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:
Maximum Average Landfill External Gamma Exposure Estimate

(13.5 – 5) µR/hr x 2,000 hr/yr x (1 mrem/1,000 µR gamma) = 17 mrem/yr

This is an estimate of the maximum average exposure based on 2,000 hours in one year. The result
is less than the 100 mrem/yr dose equivalent limit for a member of the public. Actual exposure is
dependent upon the actual exposure rates and occupancy time for individual workers.
May 2016

5-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

The maximum exposure rate measured at any of the nine selected landfills was 93.7 R/hr. Work
in this area would result in an exposure of 100 mrem in 1,130 hours of annual exposure of an
employee’s 2,000-hour occupational year. Actual annual exposure for a landfill worker is
dependent upon actual exposure rates and actual time worked in the proximity of the tank.
5.4.1.1 Landfill Worker Potential Internal Alpha/Beta Radioactivity Exposure

5.4.1.2 Landfill Worker Internal Radon Exposure

V.
1.
1

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 there is little potential for internal 
and  exposure to landfill workers.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 landfills ranged from 0.200 to 0.900 pCi/L consistent with U.S.
background levels of 0.00 – 1.11 pCi/L in outdoor ambient air. Consequently, the potential for
internal Rn exposure is low.

May 2016

5-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

Table 5-1. Landfill Leachate – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
K-40
(pCi/l)

322
109
102
81.0
101
121
114
342
120
159
< 130
< 87.0
< 77.0
< 148
145
79.0
< 146
< 108
< 89.0
416
84.0
150
112
< 153
< 111
136
106
73.0
54.0
< 82.0
91.0
65.0
148
371
101
< 73.0
140
70.0
57.0
126
85.0
106

< 20.0
13.0
< 6.00
< 11.0
19.0
< 10.0
< 7.00
< 21.0
< 25.0
< 105
< 110
< 10.0
< 13.0
< 26.0
< 15.0
< 12.0
< 31.0
< 22.0
< 16.0
< 19.0
< 6.00
< 9.00
< 21.0
< 37.0
< 21.0
< 19.0
22.0
19.0
< 5.00
< 18.0
35.0
9.00
< 16.0
< 8.00
< 12.0
< 14.0
15.0
13.0
< 5.00
< 9.00
< 10.0
9.00

201
485
558
369
1,110
1,060
122
524
764
1,040
615
670
332
268
477
175
268
148
64.0
181
551
282
127
573
423
758
471
503
249
222
505
383
< 54.0
110
629
480
354
131
354
209
128
49.0

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/l)
< 140
< 145
< 129
< 155
< 167
< 163
< 136
< 126
< 161
< 193
182
< 162
< 156
< 306
< 134
< 118
< 134
< 205
< 277
< 119
< 342
< 206
< 125
< 146
< 157
< 254
< 353
< 341
< 152
< 149
< 143
< 164
< 137
< 128
< 206
< 111
< 486
< 121
< 181
< 316
< 112
< 113

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

LF-10-LQ-024
LF-11-LQ-025
LF-12-LQ-026
LF-13-LQ-027
LF-14-LQ-028
LF-15-LQ-029
LF-16-LQ-030
LF-17-LQ-031
LF-18-LQ-032
LF-19-LQ-033
LF-20-LQ-034
LF-21-LQ-035
LF-22-LQ-036
LF-23-LQ-037
LF-24-LQ-038
LF-25-LQ-039
LF-26-LQ-040
LF-27-LQ-041
LF-28-LQ-042
LF-29-LQ-043
LF-30-LQ-044
LF-31-LQ-045
LF-32-LQ-046
LF-33-LQ-047
LF-34-LQ-048
LF-35-LQ-049
LF-36-LQ-050
LF-37-LQ-051
LF-38-LQ-052
LF-39-LQ-053
LF-40-LQ-054
LF-41-LQ-055
LF-42-LQ-056
LF-43-LQ-057
LF-44-LQ-058
LF-45-LQ-059
LF-46-LQ-060
LF-47-LQ-061
LF-48-LQ-062
LF-49-LQ-063
LF-50-LQ-064
LF-51-LQ-065

Ra-228
(pCi/l)

May 2016

Gross Beta
(pCi/l)
< 192
491
440
284
1,110
1,020
< 191
489
703
1,200
806
850
531
489
489
< 199
< 190
< 203
< 221
< 200
412
< 203
< 189
667
401
728
466
845
550
< 194
239
286
384
< 199
365
< 208
< 416
< 202
284
< 232
< 201
< 202

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/l)

5-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

Table 5-1. Landfill Leachate – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results
Ra-228
(pCi/l)

K-40
(pCi/l)

Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

116
88.0
96.0
36.5
416

11.9
11.4
9.00
2.50
55.0

404
272
362
27.0
1,110

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/l)
94.4
43.6
77.8
112
243

Gross Beta
(pCi/l)
389
311
326
94.5
1,200

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/l)

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

Table 5-2. Selected Landfill Leachate – Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Study ID

Ra-228
(pCi/l)

K-40
(pCi/l)

378
136
140
118
115
85.0
< 134
70.0
105
125
98.1
85.0
67.0
378

< 20.0
84.0
16.0
< 6.00
< 20.0
< 8.00
< 35.0
9.00
< 8.00
18.0
25.0
10.0
3.00
84.0

< 72.0
637
221
64.0
182
351
353
743
155
305
245
221
36.0
743

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/l)
< 3.46
< 110
< 275
< 253
< 323
< 160
< 121
< 357
< 314
106
59.8
127
1.73
357

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

LF-01-LQ-002
LF-02-LQ-003
LF-03-LQ-008
LF-04-LQ-009
LF-05-LQ-023
LF-06-LQ-010
LF-07-LQ-004
LF-08-LQ-017
LF-09-LQ-005
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/l)

Gross Beta
(pCi/l)
< 2.07
295
< 202
< 395
< 233
259
221
280
< 233
176
98.5
198
1.04
395

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

5-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

Table 5-3. Landfill Leachate Original and Aqueous Sample Analysis Results

342

92.0

131

10.3

0.294

145

60.0

91.0

1.91

0.107

81.0

33.0

51.0

1.70

0.103

47.0

45.0

73.0

0.472

0.085

120

73.0

115

6.01

0.218

322

85.0

121

1.22

0.089

70.0

29.0

47.0

0.414

0.067

102

40.0

62.0

0.842

378

96.0

132

118

35.0

53.0

0.063

May 2016

7.82

1.02

0.956

0.032

4.27

1.06

1.33

0.021

2.20

0.806

1.08

0.090

0.896

0.662

0.998

0.073

5.77

0.946

0.966

0.057

1.41

0.770

1.13

0.068

1.06

0.732

1.09

0.086

0.069

2.55

0.771

1.00

0.066

0.027

0.030

0.643

0.664

1.04

0.124

0.031

0.017

0.976

0.717

1.08

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

LF-17-LQ031
LF-24-LQ038
LF-13-LQ027
LF-45-LQ059
LF-18-LQ032
LF-10-LQ024
LF-08-LQ017
LF-12-LQ026
LF-01-LQ002
LF-04-LQ009

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Original Gamma Spec –
Re-Analysis Using EPA 903.1/904.0 Technique –
Unfiltered Sample
Aqueous Phase Sample Only
Ra226 Ra226 Ra226 Ra226 Ra226 Ra226 Ra228 Ra228 Ra228
Result Error
MDC
Result Error
MDC
Result Error
MDC
(pCi/L) (pCi/L) (pCi/L) (pCi/L) (pCi/L) (pCi/L) (pCi/L) (pCi/L) (pCi/L)

5-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

Table 5-4. Selected Landfill Effluent Leachate –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent

Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

LF-01-LQ-002
LF-02-LQ-003
LF-03-LQ-008
LF-04-LQ-009
LF-07-LQ-004
LF-09-LQ-005
LF-09-LQ-021
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

378
136
< 140
118
< 134
105
117
142
107
117
67.0
378

< 20.0
84.0
16.0
< 6.00
< 35.0
1,100
15.0
178
408
16.0
3.00
1,100

< 72.0
637
221
64.0
353
18,100
165
2,800
6,750
221
36.0
18,100

ND – Sample Matrix was not suitable for analysis.
< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

Gross
Alphaa
(pCi/L)
< 3.46
< 110
< 275
< 253
< 121
< 314
ND
89.7
59.9
93.5
1.73
157

Gross
Betaa
(pCi/L)
< 2.07
304
< 202
< 395
221
< 233
ND
157
106
157
1.04
304

V.
1.
1

Source of
Sample

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

a

Table 5-5. Selected Landfill Influent Leachate –
Gamma Spectroscopy and Miscellaneous Results

Source of
Sample
Influent
Influent
Influent
Influent
Influent
Influent
Influent
Influent
Influent

Study ID

Ra-226
(pCi/L)

Ra-228
(pCi/L)

K-40
(pCi/L)

LF-01-LQ-019
LF-02-LQ-020
LF-03-LQ-015
LF-04-LQ-016
LF-05-LQ-023
LF-06-LQ-010
LF-07-LQ-011
LF-08-LQ-017
LF-09-LQ-012
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

< 139
< 120
116
92.0
115
85.0
< 97
70
95
83.4
23.5
85.0
48.5
116

< 21.0
15.0
< 14.0
< 15.0
< 20.0
< 8.00
< 8.00
9.00
< 9.00
7.94
3.64
7.50
4.00
15.0

236
755
246
571
182
351
278
743
242
400
227
278
182
755

Gross
Alpha
(pCi/L)
< 18.3
< 201
< 168
< 134
< 323
< 160
< 200
< 357
< 195
97.6
49.9
97.5
9.15
179

Gross
Beta
(pCi/L)
117
524
< 203
416
< 233
259
< 200
280
< 200
224
158
117
100
524

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.
May 2016

5-10

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

Table 5-6. Selected Landfill Solids, Filter Cake – Gamma Spectroscopy Results

LF-02-SL-002
LF-03-SL-004
LF-04-SL-005
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Ra-226
(pCi/g)
8.73
53.0
11.1
24.3
24.9
11.1
8.73
53.0

Ra-228
(pCi/g)
4.98
5.03
1.53
3.85
2.01
4.98
1.53
5.03

K-40
(pCi/g)
4.83
2.72
2.73
3.43
1.22
2.73
2.72
4.83

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 5-7. Selected Landfill Solids, Sediment – Gamma Spectroscopy Results
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
LF-02-SL-003
LF-04-SL-006
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

4.46
2.82
3.44
3.57
0.828
3.44
2.82
4.46

2.53
1.44
0.979
1.65
0.796
1.44
0.979
2.53

15.2
12.8
10.0
12.7
2.60
12.8
10.0
15.2

< 2.51
< 0.671
< 0.868
0.675
0.505
0.434
0.336
1.26

0.177
< 0.069
< 0.128
0.092
0.075
0.064
0.035
0.177

2.48
1.41
0.960
1.62
0.781
1.41
0.960
2.48

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

5-11

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

Table 5-8. Selected Landfill Radon Concentrations
Location

LF-01-RA

McKean

LF-02-RA

Elk

LF-03-RA

Butler

LF-04-RA

Butler

LF-05-RA

Fayettea

01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04

1/2014
1/2014
1/2014
1/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
6/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014
7/2014

LF-06-RA

Fayettea

LF-07-RA

Washingtona

LF-08-RA

Somerseta

LF-09-RA

Cambriaa

Error
(+/- 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)b
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Missing
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

MDC
(pCi/L)
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200

V.
1.
1

County

Radon
Concentration
S.D. (pCi/L)
0.200
0.400
0.300
0.400
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.300
0.500
0.900
0.400
0.300
0.700
0.500
0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400
< 0.400

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

Exp. End
Date

0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400

The ATD laboratory does not report an error term on devices with results below their MDC.
a
Represents landfills with ATDs deployed.
b
An error presented as NA represents a result that was less than the reported MDC.

May 2016

5-12

 May 2016

Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation
65.0
65.0
0.000
65.0
63.0
63.0
0.000
63.0
64.0
64.0
0.000
64.0
63.0
63.0
0.000
63.0
65.0
65.0
0.000
65.0
63.0
63.0
0.000
63.0
63.0
63.0
0.000
63.0
63.0
63.0
0.000
63.0
63.0
63.0
0.000
63.0

V.
1.
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, maximum, and average are the
same, then all measurements were below half of the MDC.

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation
4.25
11.3
1.27
4.48
5.80
5.80
0.000
5.80
8.30
8.30
0.000
8.30
5.80
5.80
0.000
5.80
4.25
4.25
0.000
4.25
7.30
7.30
0.000
7.30
5.80
5.80
0.000
5.80
7.30
7.30
0.000
7.30
7.30
7.30
0.000
7.30

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

LF-01-FS-073
LF-03-FS-076
LF-05-FS-050
LF-08-FS-070
LF-02-FS-135
LF-04-FS-132
LF-06-FS-131
LF-09-FS-133
LF-07-FS-134

Study ID

No. of
Data
Points
31
27
27
19
30
23
10
30
10

Table 5-9. Selected Landfill Removable Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Results Summary
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0
Rev. 1

5-13

 May 2016

13.0
18.1
11.4
9.81
20.3
13.3
14.9
10.8
9.94

Average

Total Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Average
Deviation
301
779
112
332
288
3,630
642
682
285
942
221
410
268
1,900
524
580
288
1,270
356
692
274
1,560
371
646
289
766
194
381
272
1,360
250
401
468
1,960
578
730

V.
1.
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, maximum, and average are the same,
then all measurements were below half of the MDC.

Total Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Standard
Minimum Maximum
Deviation
7.45
39.8
9.42
7.45
84.6
21.7
7.45
29.8
6.84
7.45
24.9
5.08
18.6
38.9
4.61
7.50
69.6
17.5
7.45
49.7
13.5
7.45
19.9
5.00
7.45
19.9
4.45

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

LF-01-FS-073
LF-03-FS-076
LF-05-FS-050
LF-08-FS-070
LF-02-FS-135
LF-04-FS-132
LF-06-FS-131
LF-09-FS-133
LF-07-FS-134

Study ID

No. of
Data
Points
26
28
27
19
22
22
10
30
11

Table 5-10. Selected Landfill Total Alpha and Beta Surface Radioactivity Results Summary
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0
Rev. 1

5-14

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0

Rev. 1

Table 5-11. Selected Landfill Gross Gamma Radiation Scan Results Summary
GWS Mina
(cpm)

LF-01
LF-02
LF-03
LF-04
LF-05
LF-06
LF-07
LF-08
LF-09

74,928
16,737
13,900
16,545
14,730
10,994
11,620
18,894
27,144

3,837
3,299
5,141
5,272
3,783
5,118
4,530
3,466
4,304

GWS
Averagea
(cpm)
9,250
9,097
8,022
10,742
8,190
7,649
7,190
6,573
10,816

GWS Std
Dev (cpm)

No. Data
Points

1,656
2,954
1,713
2,807
2,658
902
1,260
1,909
2,914

9,210
13,977
11,484
8,691
8,942
9,129
5,432
10,977
9,779

V.
1.
1

a

Site

GWS Maxa
(cpm)

Convert count rate data to exposure rate by dividing count rate by 800 to yield µR/hr.

Table 5-12. Results Summary of NaI Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rates
GWS Max
(µrem/hr)

GWS Min
(µrem/hr)

LF-01
LF-02
LF-03
LF-04
LF-05
LF-06
LF-07
LF-08
LF-09

93.7
20.9
17.4
20.7
18.4
13.7
14.5
23.6
33.9

4.80
4.12
6.43
6.59
4.73
6.40
5.66
4.33
5.38

GWS
Average
(µrem/hr)
11.6
11.4
10.0
13.4
10.2
9.56
8.99
8.22
13.5

GWS Std
Dev
(µrem/hr)
2.07
3.69
2.14
3.51
3.32
1.13
1.58
2.39
3.64

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Site

May 2016

No. Data
Points
9,210
13,977
11,484
8,691
8,942
9,129
5,432
10,977
9,779

5-15

 May 2016

2.07

2.01

2.04

1.99

1.99

2.00

1.98

2.01

1.98

1.98

1.98

2.05

2.04

T07

T08

T09

T10

T11

T14

T15

T16

T17

T18

T21

T22

T23

2.07

2.38

T02

T24

1.55

T01

1.76

2.02

1.59

1.82

2.03

2.45

1.58

NA

2.01

2.21

1.99

2.38

1.96

2.21

2.52

#NA

2.11

121

120

120

120

119

119

118

119

117

114

113

112

110

108

87.7

77.3

68.1

123

122

123

122

126

121

120

120

119

116

115

114

112

110

88.8

78.6

68.8

118

120

119

117

119

116

116

115

116

111

111

109

110

105

86.5

72.5

63.0

127

128

128

126

126

125

124

125

124

120

120

119

117

114

91.7

81.0

70.4

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

2.40

T00

143

144

145

143

139

144

143

142

143

133

141

14.8

14.9

15.0

14.5

14.9

15.1

14.8

14.8

14.9

14.8

14.9

16.3

15.4

15.3

15.3

15.3

15.3

15.6

15.1

15.3

15.1

15.0

109

108

108

108

108

106

143

144

144

142

143

142

14.8

14.7

14.8

15.0

14.7

14.8

15.3

15.4

15.4

15.1

15.1

15.2

V.
1.
1

106

106

105

102

102

100

98.5

95.5

78.3

90.1

77.8

8.71

8.72

8.75

8.60

8.69

8.64

8.68

8.72

8.78

8.68

8.44

8.73

8.71

8.64

8.67

8.09

8.58

Time Pb-212 Pb-212 Pb-214 Pb-214 Bi-214
Bi-214
Bi-214
Ra-226 Ac-228
Ac-228
U-235
(days) 238 keV 300 keV 295 keV 351 keV 609 keV 1,120 keV 1,764 keV 186 keV 911 keV 969 KeV 184 KeV

PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 5.0
Rev. 1

Table 5-13. Gamma Spectroscopy Results (pCi/g) of
Sealed Wastewater Treatment Sludge Sample Over 24 Days

#NA – indicates the analyte was not requested and subsequently not reported by the laboratory.

5-16

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

6.0

Rev. 1

GAS DISTRIBUTION AND END USE

6.1

Natural Gas in Underground Storage

V.
1.
1

Uranium-238 is distributed throughout the crust of the earth, typically 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 highly mobile 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. Natural gas samples were
collected at underground storage sites, natural gas-fired power plants, gas compression and
transmission facilities, and natural gas processing plants.

6.2

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Natural gas samples were collected at four underground storage sites in Pennsylvania. Duplicate
samples were collected at each site during injection into the storage formation and during
withdrawal from the storage formation. Sampling during injection was conducted during the
period of May to August 2013. Sampling 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 continuously analyzes the natural gas. At 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 concentrations are lower after underground storage. The Rn analytical reports
are presented in Appendix H.
Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants

Two natural gas-fired power plants (PP-01 and PP-02) were surveyed for gamma radiation
exposure rates. Natural 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 Pennsylvania. 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, the
measurement results observed at the surface of that pipe elbow were 5-10 µR/hr, which is within
the range of natural background of gamma radiation levels.
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 line Rn monitor results were all at or

May 2016

6-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

Rev. 1

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

V.
1.
1

Duplicate natural gas samples were collected at intake flow lines of both facility CS-01 and CS-03.
Duplicate samples were collected at the compressor station discharge at facility CS-04. The CS-04
compressor station is associated with the natural gas processing plant (CP-01) discussed 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 Shale
unconventional natural gas at the time of sample collection. Radon-measured concentrations 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.

6.4

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 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 62 days. The fence line Rn monitor results ranged from 0.100 to 0.800 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., i.e., 0.00 to 1.11 pCi/L. The results are presented
in Table 6-6. The Rn analytical reports are presented in Appendix H.
Natural Gas Processing Plant

Two natural 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.
Gamma radiation exposure rate surveys were performed during the two site visits. The exposure
rate surveys were 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 housings (exposure rate measured on the outside surface):
 Contact readings measured on contact 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.
Propane processing – radiation exposure rates measured up to 380 R/hr on contact with heat
exchangers, reboilers, pipelines, and pumps.
Propane storage area:
 Pipeline exposure rates measured from local background to 400 R/hr on contact.
 Ladder to decking area measured 80 R/hr general area.
 Decking above ladder measured 50 R/hr general area.

May 2016

6-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0




Rev. 1

 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.

V.
1.
1

Radon 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, 8.60 pCi/L, was measured in natural gas at the processing plant outflow. The Rn analytical
reports are presented in Appendix H.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 propanizer 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 cases 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.
The 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. The results are elevated relative to the RG 1.86 gross
 and  removable surface radioactivity criterion.
6.5

Potential Exposure from Gas Scale Inside Pipes and Equipment

Materials deposited on interior surfaces of natural gas plant pipes and equipment are different from
conventional oil industry Ra-based pipe scale. Natural gas plant scale typically consists 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. These longer-lived decay progeny
are not readily detected on the outside of pipes. However, 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.
Access to the internal surfaces of pipes and equipment for surveys of surface  and  activity was
not available. However, the facility propanizer equipment opened and sampled during filter
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. No other
May 2016

6-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

Rev. 1

gamma-emitting NORM radionuclides above 1 pCi/g were identified. The results confirm the
build-up of the longer-lived Rn decay progeny in equipment and pipes. The concentration of
Pb-210 identified may present a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard during routine system
maintenance.
6.6

Radon Dosimetry

V.
1.
1

Radon exposure in homes due to the use of natural gas appliances is presented in this section.
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 Rn-222 for a typical home was estimated using the values and
assumptions presented in Table 6-11 and as follows:

1. Well Site Rn-222 Concentration in Natural Gas  For the Rn gas concentration, only
production site samples from Marcellus Shale 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/Rn-222 Transit Time and Decay  Assumed there is no Rn decay during transit.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

3. Radon-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 types of appliances 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 values are 238,274 pCi/day for the median concentration 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.
Consequently, all of the Rn 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 residence volume of 385,152 L and an air exchange 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 / 261,903 L/hr = 0.04 pCi/L for the median value. The
Rn-222 influx per hour divided by the home air exchange rate per hour, 33,700 pCi/hr / 261,903
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.

May 2016

6-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

Rev. 1

The increase in Rn concentration of 0.04 and 0.13 pCi/L along with the standard values presented
in Table 6-11 are used to estimate potential additional annual radiation dose to an exposed
individual.
Therefore,
0.04 𝑝𝐶𝑖⁄𝐿 ∗ 0.4
= 0.00016 𝑊𝐿
100

V.
1.
1

The cumulative exposure is then WL multiplied by the number of hours exposed divided by
170 hrs/working month.
0.00016 𝑊𝐿 ∗ 6,136 ℎ𝑟𝑠/𝑦𝑟
= .006 𝑊𝐿𝑀/𝑦𝑟
170 ℎ𝑟𝑠⁄𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ

This 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 0.54 𝑟𝑎𝑑 20 𝑟𝑒𝑚 1000 𝑚𝑟𝑒𝑚
∗
∗
∗
= 5.2 𝑚𝑟𝑒𝑚⁄𝑦𝑟
𝑦𝑟
𝑊𝐿𝑀
𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝑟𝑒𝑚

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The result is 5.2 mrem/yr for the median dose and 17.8 mrem/yr for the maximum whole
body effective dose.
Based 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. The
radiation dose received by home residents is a small fraction of the allowable general public dose
limit of 100 mrem/yr.

May 2016

6-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

Rev. 1

Table 6-1. Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations, Injection
Site

County

US 01

Potter

US 02

Tioga

US 03

Armstrong

Sandstone

US 04

Fayette

Limestone

Oriskany
Sandstone
Oriskany
Sandstone

Sample
Results,
pCi/L
32.6 and
26.7
25.7 and
21.2
20.4 and
20.4
20.3 and
21.2

Injection Average
Concentration
(pCi/L)

Error
(± 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)

MDC
(pCi/L)

29.6

8.20

0.200

23.5

6.40

0.200

20.4
20.8

V.
1.
1

Formation
Geology

0.000

0.200

1.20

0.200

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 6-2. Natural Gas Underground Storage Radon Concentrations, Withdrawal

County

Formation
Geology

Withdrawal
Average
Concentration
(pCi/L)

Error
(± 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)

MDC
(pCi/L)

5.10

0.600

0.300

10.1

2.20

0.200

5.80

0.400

0.200

11.3

1.20

0.400

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Site

Sample
Results,
pCi/L

Oriskany
Sandstone
Oriskany
Sandstone

US 01

Potter

US 02

Tioga

US 03

Armstrong

Sandstone

US 04

Fayette

Limestone

4.90 and
5.30
10.9 and
9.30
5.60 and
5.90
10.8 and
11.7

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 Samples Analyzed for Radon Content

Site

County

Gas Source

PP 01
PP 02

Fayette
Berks

Marcellus Shale
Marcellus Shale

May 2016

Radon
Concentration
(pCi/L)
33.7
35.7

Error
(± 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)
1.80
110

MDC
(pCi/L)
1.50
0.200

6-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

Rev. 1

Table 6-4. Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (PP 02)

West Fence
North Fence
East Fence
South Fence

Radon Concentration
(pCi/L)
0.300
0.400
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.200
0.200
0.200

Error (± 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200

MDC
(pCi/L)
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200

V.
1.
1

Location

Table 6-5. Compressor Station Radon Samples
County

Gas Source

CS-01-RG

Berks

CS-02-RG

Fayette

Marcellus Shale
Mostly Marcellus
Shale
98% Marcellus
Shale
Marcellus Shale

Error
(± 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)
1.40

39.8

4.40

0.200

34.0

0.200

0.200

58.1

1.10

0.200

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Site

Radon
Concentration
(pCi/L)
28.8

CS-03-RG

Clinton

CS-04-RG

Washington

MDC
(pCi/L)
0.200

Table 6-6. Compressor Station Ambient Fence Line Radon Monitors (CS 01)

Radon Concentration
(pCi/L)
0.500
Northeast Fence
0.800
0.300
Southeast Fence
0.300
0.300
Northwest Fence
0.100
0.300
Southwest Fence
0.200
Location

May 2016

Error (± 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200

MDC
(pCi/L)
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200

6-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

Rev. 1

Table 6-7. Natural Gas Processing Plant Radon Samples
County

CP-01

Washington

CP-01

Washington

CP-01

Washington

CP-01

Washington

Gas Source
Processing Plant
Inflow 1
Processing Plant
Inflow 2
Processing Plant
Outflow to
Transmission Line 1
Processing Plant
Outflow to
Transmission Line 1

Error
(± 2 Std. Dev.)
(pCi/L)

MDC
(pCi/L)

67.7

1.50

0.200

71.1

1.60

1.60

8.60

9.30

V.
1.
1

Site

Radon
Concentration
(pCi/L)

0.400

0.300

0.400

0.300

Table 6-8. Compressor Station and Natural Gas
Processing Plant Filter Case Removable Radioactivity Results
Study ID

Minimum
4.70

Removable Alpha (dpm/100 cm2)
Maximum Standard Deviation
29.6
8.78
Removable Beta (dpm/100 cm2)
Maximum Standard Deviation
96.0
23.9

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

CP-01-FS-136

No. of
Data Points
11
No. of Data
Points
11

Study ID

CP-01-FS-136

Minimum
8.25

Average
15.5
Average
32.2

Table 6-9. Compressor and Natural Gas
Processing Plant Filter Media, Gamma Spectroscopy

Nuclide

Ac-228
Bi-212
Bi-214
K-40
Pb-210
Pb-212
Pb-214
Ra-226
Ra-228
Th-232
U-235
U-238

May 2016

Result
(pCi/g)
0.141
0.287
0.564
1.30
3,580
0.066
0.629
0.585
0.141
0.125
-0.105
-14.7

Error
(pCi/g)
0.053
0.000
0.082
0.216
552
0.044
0.070
0.566
0.053
0.047
0.000
0.000

MDC
(pCi/g)
0.077
0.373
0.054
0.225
14.2
0.071
0.076
0.926
0.077
0.077
0.382
3.15

6-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 6.0

Rev. 1

Table 6-10. Natural Gas Processing Plant Filter Media, Gross Alpha/Gross Beta
Sample
Filter Media

Gross Alpha
708 ± 15.2 dpm/cm2

Gross Beta
1,910 ± 11.9 dpm/cm2

Table 6-11. Radon Dosimetry Values for a Typical Home
Value
1,700 ft2
8 ft
0.68
70% (6,136 hrs/yr)
193 ft3/day (5,465 L/day)
260 miles
5 mph
0.54 rad/WLM
0.08
20 rem/rad
0.4
5.38E-4 per WLM

Reference
1
NA
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
3
3

V.
1.
1

Parameter
Median Sq. Feet of House
Ceiling Height
Air Change Rate
Home Occupancy Factor
Average Daily Nat. Gas Use
Pipeline Distance
Avg. pipeline speed (gas)
Dose Conversion Factor
Tissue Weighting Factor (Bronchial region)
Rad. Weighting Factor, alpha
Equilibrium Factor
Lung Cancer Risk per Unit Exposure

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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.

May 2016

6-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

7.0

Rev. 1

OIL AND GAS BRINE-TREATED ROADS

V.
1.
1

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 roads in Pennsylvania. The
O&G brine used is from conventional formations only. DEP has developed a fact sheet,
Roadspreading of Brine for Dust Control and Road Stabilization, for use as a guide when utilizing
brine on unpaved roads. The fact 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. Most O&G operations occur in these regions. The surveys and sampling included:


Thirty-two O&G brine-treated roads were surveyed. Thirty-one biased surface samples were
collected 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 an O&G brine-treated road that had not been identified as O&G brine-treated. Fourteen
surface samples were collected from reference background roads.
Gamma Radioactivity Survey Results

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

7.1

The surveys included gross gamma radiation scans performed using 2-inch x 2-inch NaI detectors
and a Ludlum Model 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 were recorded along with the
location information using a pair of Trimble™ ProXT global positioning system (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 road stabilization. The gamma radiation count rate data and
GPS data were 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-sample
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 for
each pair of road results are included in Table 7-1. Fourteen of 29 comparisons of O&G brineMay 2016

7-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

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

7.2

Soil Sample Results

V.
1.
1

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 Contaminants, NUREG-1507, Minimum Detectable Concentrations
With Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions,
USNRC June 1998). Table 7-2 presents the results for each road.

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 with elevated
radioactivity was detected, surface soil samples were collected at that area.
7.2.1 Road Surface Soils Biased Sample Results








OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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, excess Ra-226 activity is defined as
Ra-226 activity 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 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, 0.040 pCi/g of U-235 is present in the surface soil samples.

Radium-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 (185.7 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, overestimation 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 0.659 pCi/g [0.040 pCi/g x (54/3.28) =
0.659 pCi/g].

After correcting the reported Ra-226 activity by 0.882 pCi/g of natural background activity
and 0.659 pCi/g of U-235 bias, 19 of 31 samples have excess Ra ranging from 0.109 to
5.42 pCi/g above natural background.

May 2016

7-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

See Section 2.3 for a complete discussion of the identification of NORM radionuclides by gamma
spectroscopy.

V.
1.
1

The gamma spectroscopy results for the Th series radionuclides indicate the Th series is in secular
equilibrium. The Th-232 mean and median values are essentially equal and the standard deviation
is a fraction of the mean value, indicating the data is normally distributed. A normal distribution
of radioactivity measurements is indicative of natural background radioactivity, which is more
homogeneous than contaminated soil. The mean Ra-228 activity of the 31 surface soil samples is
0.977 + 0.351 pCi/g. The range of the results is from 0.455 to 1.85 pCi/g.
7.2.2 Road Surface Soils – Reference Background Roads Soils

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. 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 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 14 samples is 0.819 pCi/g.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



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 0.037 pCi/g of U-235 present in the surface soil samples.

Radium-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 since it
has a gamma line of similar energy (185.7 keV at 54 percent yield). In solid samples where
natural U including U-238 and Ra-226 at equal activity and U-235 at 1/22 the activity of U-238,
overestimation 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 0.037 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 0.609 pCi/g of U-235 bias, 11 of 14 samples have excess Ra ranging from 0.0210 to
61.6 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 values are not equal and
the standard deviation is large relative to the mean value, indicating the data are not normally
distributed and heterogeneous. A normal distribution of radioactivity measurements is indicative
of natural background radioactivity, which is more homogeneous than contaminated soil. The
May 2016

7-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

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.

7.3

Public Exposure to Oil and Gas Brine-Treated Roads

V.
1.
1

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 background 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 brinetreated is 1.13 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 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.

A total of 31 samples were collected from roads treated with O&G brine. An additional 14 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 surface).

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 residual radioactive materials. RESRAD has been 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 agencies 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, than 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 engaging 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 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 results of the environmental pathways for year 1, the year of
maximum dose, are presented in Table 7-9. The actual dose received is dependent upon both the
excess Ra radioactivity in surface soil and the time spent exposed to the soil surface.

May 2016

7-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-1. Gamma Scan Survey Summary

16,512
16,067
15,757
15,641
17,778
13,268
14,234
13,565
15,179
12,762
13,180
12,050
14,509
14,053
12,360
13,870
9,949
16,990
13,511
12,463
13,126
13,740
13,217
13,248
11,208
11,333
12,475
14,465
10,360
14,415
14,117
10,975
11,448
12,056

GWS
Median
(cpm)

GWS
Mean
(cpm)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-04-SL-011
BR-04-SL-010
BR-05-SL-009
BR-06-SL-004
BR-07-SL-008
BR-01-SL-001
BR-02-SL-002
BR-08-SL-003
BR-09
BR-10-SL-012
BR-11
BR-13-SL-006
BR-12-SL-005
BR-15-SL-014
BR-14-SL-013
BR-16-SL-015
BR-17-SL-016
BR-18-SL-017
BR-19-SL-018
BR-20-SL-019
BR-21-SL-020
BR-22-SL-021
BR-23-SL-022
BR-24-SL-023
BR-25-SL-024
BR-26-SL-025
BR-27-SL-026
BR-28-SL-027
BR-29-SL-028
BR-30-SL-029
BR-31-SL-030
BR-32-SL-031
BR-33-SL-032
BR-34-SL-033
BR-35-SL-034

GWS
No.
Std
Data
Dev
Points
(cpm)
7,892 13,022 12,655 1,588
2,906
Part of same road as BR-04-SL-011
10,936 13,431 13,411
732
1,387
9,875 13,430 13,363
799
1,452
7,975 12,843 12,511 1,449
2,389
4,106 11,456 11,759 1,564 11,536
9,766 11,050 11,135
615
850
9,771 11,988 11,990
693
5,590
10,313 11,998 11,960
736
222
5,888 11,977 11,968
996
9,253
9,449 10,882 10,898
591
596
9,526 11,311 11,273
646
961
6,114
9,121
9,136
895
4,644
7,695 10,816 10,873 1,128
1,359
2,032 10,861 10,759 1,053
5,395
9,470 10,587 10,614
461
592
9,100 11,586 11,555
761
4,388
6,066
7,479
7,524
616
727
6,821
9,395
9,510
921
5,231
5,404
8,747
8,825
1,317
3,944
6,232
8,560
8,611
899
877
5,947
9,019
9,317
1,646
704
5,491
9,335
9,376
1,352
3,605
5,349
8,498
8,590
1,182
3,375
5,069
7,436
7,781
1,487
1,984
5,882
8,254
8,226
893
343
5,708
8,281
8,267
955
579
4,597
7,678
7,785
1,234
3,376
5,309
9,041
9,490
1,924
2,556
5,687
7,965
7,925
703
759
6,200
9,744
9,801
1,172
7,245
6,527 10,057 10,093 1,118
1,958
6,030
8,442
8,406
658
2,603
5,340
8,276
8,211
790
3,347
5,972
9,036
9,076
925
2,186
GWS
Min
(cpm)

May 2016

12,511

T-Test
Results
(Sample
to BKG)
Reject

12,511
12,511
NA
11,135
NA
11,960
NA
10,898
NA
NA
11,273
NA
10,873
NA
10,614
NA
7,524
NA
8,825
NA
9,317
9,317
8,226
NA
NA
8,267
7,925
NA
10,093
NA
10,093
10,093
10,093

Reject
Reject
NA
Reject
NA
Accept
NA
Reject
NA
NA
Accept
NA
Accept
NA
Reject
NA
Reject
NA
Reject
NA
Accept
Accept
Accept
NA
NA
Accept
Reject
NA
Accept
NA
Accept
Accept
Accept

NaI
BKG
(cpm)

V.
1.
1

Study ID

GWS
Max
(cpm)

7-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-1. Gamma Scan Survey Summary
GWS
Median
(cpm)

GWS
Mean
(cpm)

BR-36-SL-035
BR-37-SL-036
BR-38-SL-037
BR-39-SL-038
BR-40-SL-039
BR-41
BR-42-SL-040
BR-43-SL-041
BR-44-SL-042
BR-45-SL-043
BR-46-SL-044
BR-47-SL-045
BR-48-SL-046
BR-49-SL-047
BR-50-SL-048

10,981
11,617
10,668
10,535
11,617
10,227
10,859
12,789
15,498
15,390
8,437
10,560
12,338
14,314
12,933

5,693
5,591
6,105
6,124
5,684
5,868
5,774
5,048
5,710
6,376
5,017
5,177
5,208
5,523
6,066

8,566
8,069
8,006
7,942
7,883
8,001
7,951
7,978
9,911
11,268
6,195
7,252
7,868
8,906
9,315

8,502
8,059
7,979
7,920
7,866
7,974
7,950
7,954
9,995
11,015
6,260
7,258
7,991
9,124
9,292

GWS
Std
Dev
(cpm)
748
699
662
649
653
679
722
1,036
1,759
1,531
578
822
1,239
1,418
1,067

No.
Data
Points

NaI
BKG
(cpm)

975
10,257
406
1,124
3,712
510
1,560
3,399
5,223
1,399
917
3,434
3,152
2,928
2,293

NA
8,502
NA
7,979
7,974
NA
NA
NA
6,260
6,260
NA
6,260
6,260
6,260
6,260

T-Test
Results
(Sample
to BKG)
NA
Accept
NA
Accept
Accept
NA
NA
NA
Reject
Reject
NA
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject

V.
1.
1

GWS
Min
(cpm)

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Study ID

GWS
Max
(cpm)

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) indicates the resulting surveys are statistically the same
at the 95 percent confidence level.

May 2016

7-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-2. Summary of NaI Gamma Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rate

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-04-SL-011
BR-04-SL-010
BR-05-SL-009
BR-06-SL-004
BR-07-SL-008
BR-01-SL-001
BR-02-SL-002
BR-08-SL-003
BR-09
BR-10-SL-012
BR-11
BR-13-SL-006
BR-12-SL-005
BR-15-SL-014
BR-14-SL-013
BR-16-SL-015
BR-17-SL-016
BR-18-SL-017
BR-19-SL-018
BR-20-SL-019
BR-21-SL-020
BR-22-SL-021
BR-23-SL-022
BR-24-SL-023
BR-25-SL-024
BR-26-SL-025
BR-27-SL-026
BR-28-SL-027
BR-29-SL-028
BR-30-SL-029
BR-31-SL-030
BR-32-SL-031
BR-33-SL-032
BR-34-SL-033
BR-35-SL-034
BR-36-SL-035
BR-37-SL-036
BR-38-SL-037

V.
1.
1

Study ID

GWS
GWS
GWS
GWS
GWS
No. Data
Max
Min
Median
Mean
Std. Dev.
Points
(µR/hr) (µR/hr) (µR/hr) (µR/hr) (µR/hr)
20.6
9.90
16.3
15.8
2.00
2,906
Part of same road as BR-04-SL-011 – file statistics are same.
20.1
13.7
16.8
16.8
0.90
1,387
19.7
12.3
16.8
16.7
1.00
1,452
19.6
10.0
16.1
15.6
1.80
2,389
22.2
5.10
14.3
14.7
2.00
11,536
16.6
12.2
13.8
13.9
0.800
850
17.8
12.2
15.0
15.0
0.900
5,590
17.0
12.9
15.0
15.0
0.900
222
19.0
7.40
15.0
15.0
1.20
9,253
16.0
11.8
13.6
13.6
0.700
596
16.5
11.9
14.1
14.1
0.800
961
15.1
7.60
11.4
11.4
1.10
4,644
18.1
9.60
13.5
13.6
1.40
1,359
17.6
2.50
13.6
13.4
1.30
5,395
15.5
11.8
13.2
13.3
0.600
592
17.3
11.4
14.5
14.4
1.00
4,388
12.4
7.60
9.30
9.40
0.800
727
21.2
8.50
11.7
11.9
1.20
5,231
16.9
6.80
10.9
11.0
1.60
3,944
15.6
7.80
10.7
10.8
1.10
877
16.4
7.40
11.3
11.6
2.10
704
17.2
6.90
11.7
11.7
1.70
3,605
16.5
6.70
10.6
10.7
1.50
3,375
16.6
6.30
9.30
9.70
1.90
1,984
14.0
7.40
10.3
10.3
1.10
343
14.2
7.10
10.4
10.3
1.20
579
15.6
5.70
9.60
9.70
1.50
3,376
18.1
6.60
11.3
11.9
2.40
2,556
13.0
7.10
10.0
9.90
0.900
759
18.0
7.80
12.2
12.3
1.50
7,245
17.6
8.20
12.6
12.6
1.40
1,958
13.7
7.50
10.6
10.5
0.800
2,603
14.3
6.70
10.3
10.3
1.00
3,347
15.1
7.50
11.3
11.3
1.20
2,186
13.7
7.10
10.7
10.6
0.900
975
14.5
7.00
10.1
10.1
0.900
10,257
13.3
7.60
10.0
10.0
0.800
406

May 2016

7-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-2. Summary of NaI Gamma Count Rate Data Converted to Exposure Rate
GWS
Median
(µR/hr)
9.90
9.90
10.0
9.90
10.0
12.4
14.1
7.74
9.06
9.84
11.1
11.6

GWS
Mean
(µR/hr)
9.90
9.80
10.0
9.90
9.90
12.5
13.8
7.82
9.07
9.99
11.4
11.6

GWS
Std. Dev.
(µR/hr)
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.900
1.30
2.20
1.91
0.722
1.03
1.55
1.77
1.33

No. Data
Points
1,124
3,712
510
1,560
3,399
5,223
1,399
917
3,434
3,152
2,928
2,293

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-39-SL-038
BR-40-SL-039
BR-41
BR-42-SL-040
BR-43-SL-041
BR-44-SL-042
BR-45-SL-043
BR-46-SL-044
BR-47-SL-045
BR-48-SL-046
BR-49-SL-047
BR-50-SL-048

GWS
Min
(µR/hr)
7.70
7.10
7.30
7.20
6.30
7.14
7.97
6.27
6.47
6.51
6.90
7.58

V.
1.
1

Study ID

GWS
Max
(µR/hr)
13.2
14.5
12.8
13.6
16.0
19.4
19.2
10.5
13.2
15.4
17.9
16.2

May 2016

7-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-3. Road-Biased Soil – Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-226
(pCi/g)
2.57
2.03
1.51
2.12
2.05
1.81
2.98
2.55
2.22
1.44
4.57
4.38
4.22
6.96
3.07
2.50
1.93
1.53
1.22
1.65
1.75
1.14
< 0.057
1.35
1.18
1.95
< 0.070
0.970
1.45
1.30
1.99
2.14
1.38
1.93
0.029
6.96

Pb-214
(pCi/g)
1.36
0.959
0.991
1.03
0.891
1.02
1.90
1.31
1.17
0.598
2.86
2.32
2.85
4.89
2.02
1.20
0.840
0.820
0.648
0.867
0.842
0.638
0.458
0.626
0.635
0.909
0.590
0.481
0.716
0.595
1.02
1.23
0.932
0.909
0.458
4.89

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-01-SL-001
BR-04-SL-010
BR-04-SL-011
BR-05-SL-009
BR-06-SL-004
BR-12-SL-005
BR-14-SL-013
BR-15-SL-014
BR-17-SL-016
BR-19-SL-018
BR-21-SL-020
BR-23-SL-022
BR-24-SL-023
BR-25-SL-024
BR-28-SL-027
BR-29-SL-028
BR-31-SL-030
BR-33-SL-032
BR-34-SL-033
BR-35-SL-034
BR-37-SL-036
BR-39-SL-038
BR-40-SL-039
BR-42-SL-040
BR-43-SL-041
BR-44-SL-042
BR-45-SL-043
BR-47-SL-045
BR-48-SL-046
BR-49-SL-047
BR-50-SL-048
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

U-238
(pCi/g)
0.905
1.08
< 2.75
0.792
< 1.54
< 1.96
< 1.45
1.63
< 0.901
< 1.19
1.27
1.81
< 1.03
1.19
1.50
1.52
< 0.599
0.624
0.605
0.949
0.790
< 0.912
0.930
0.562
< 0.563
0.931
< 0.720
1.39
< 1.02
0.696
0.865
0.882
0.410
0.792
0.282
1.81

Bi-214
(pCi/g)
1.30
0.872
0.985
0.932
0.858
1.03
1.82
1.22
1.07
0.587
2.69
2.18
2.67
4.48
1.74
1.15
0.822
0.751
0.564
0.811
0.771
0.625
0.507
0.561
0.613
0.830
0.763
0.443
0.725
0.547
0.949
1.16
0.852
0.858
0.443
4.48

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

7-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-4. Road-Biased Soil  Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-228
(pCi/g)
1.09
1.33
1.51
1.43
1.18
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.45
0.760
0.901
1.29
1.51
1.85
0.727
1.06
0.789
0.717
0.595
0.817
0.787
0.687
0.632
0.681
0.702
1.12
0.872
0.455
0.780
0.582
0.520
0.979
0.349
0.872
0.455
1.85

Ac-228
(pCi/g)
1.13
1.37
1.56
1.50
1.22
1.19
1.21
1.22
1.35
0.781
0.923
1.32
1.55
1.89
0.744
1.08
0.807
0.734
0.609
0.835
0.804
0.701
0.645
0.695
0.717
1.16
0.904
0.471
0.809
0.604
0.539
1.00
0.355
0.904
0.471
1.89

Pb-212
(pCi/g)
1.40
1.62
1.56
1.73
1.22
0.987
1.57
1.51
1.59
0.926
1.16
1.60
1.79
2.07
0.675
1.37
0.971
0.846
0.764
0.909
0.917
0.704
0.213
0.782
0.875
1.38
0.210
0.559
0.864
0.685
0.688
1.10
0.465
0.971
0.210
2.07

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-01-SL-001
BR-04-SL-010
BR-04-SL-011
BR-05-SL-009
BR-06-SL-004
BR-12-SL-005
BR-14-SL-013
BR-15-SL-014
BR-17-SL-016
BR-19-SL-018
BR-21-SL-020
BR-23-SL-022
BR-24-SL-023
BR-25-SL-024
BR-28-SL-027
BR-29-SL-028
BR-31-SL-030
BR-33-SL-032
BR-34-SL-033
BR-35-SL-034
BR-37-SL-036
BR-39-SL-038
BR-40-SL-039
BR-42-SL-040
BR-43-SL-041
BR-44-SL-042
BR-45-SL-043
BR-47-SL-045
BR-48-SL-046
BR-49-SL-047
BR-50-SL-048
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Th-232
(pCi/g)
1.08
1.31
1.49
1.43
1.16
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.29
0.746
0.882
1.26
1.48
1.81
0.711
1.04
0.771
0.701
0.581
0.798
0.768
0.670
0.616
0.664
0.684
1.11
0.863
0.450
0.773
0.577
0.515
0.972
0.334
0.873
0.450
1.81

May 2016

Bi-212
(pCi/g)
0.626
0.809
0.912
0.857
0.720
0.605
0.708
0.651
0.763
0.565
0.463
0.737
0.748
0.760
0.426
0.762
0.492
0.412
0.405
0.484
0.471
0.370
0.386
0.386
0.423
0.714
0.586
0.277
0.479
0.376
0.259
0.569
0.179
0.565
0.259
0.912

V.
1.
1

Study ID

7-10

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-5. Road-Biased Soil  Actinium Series and
Miscellaneous Gamma Spectroscopy Results
K-40
(pCi/g)
10.6
21.4
29.4
24.8
21.7
7.01
13.2
12.5
17.6
10.9
5.61
13.0
16.9
16.3
11.4
20.1
8.84
7.35
11.3
7.21
8.92
6.85
7.22
7.49
8.39
19.1
15.0
6.10
12.3
7.96
5.40
12.6
6.19
11.3
5.40
29.4

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-01-SL-001
BR-04-SL-010
BR-04-SL-011
BR-05-SL-009
BR-06-SL-004
BR-12-SL-005
BR-14-SL-013
BR-15-SL-014
BR-17-SL-016
BR-19-SL-018
BR-21-SL-020
BR-23-SL-022
BR-24-SL-023
BR-25-SL-024
BR-28-SL-027
BR-29-SL-028
BR-31-SL-030
BR-33-SL-032
BR-34-SL-033
BR-35-SL-034
BR-37-SL-036
BR-39-SL-038
BR-40-SL-039
BR-42-SL-040
BR-43-SL-041
BR-44-SL-042
BR-45-SL-043
BR-47-SL-045
BR-48-SL-046
BR-49-SL-047
BR-50-SL-048
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

U-235
(pCi/g)
< 0.075
< 0.107
< 0.212
0.117
< 0.152
< 0.157
< 0.183
< 0.150
< 0.083
< 0.114
< 0.127
< 0.110
< 0.103
< 0.093
0.074
< 0.209
0.094
< 0.045
< 0.051
0.071
< 0.048
< 0.007
< 0.044
< 0.042
0.100
< 0.055
< 0.051
< 0.035
< 0.071
0.102
< 0.091
0.056
0.029
0.052
0.018
< 0.091

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported
number which is the MDC.

May 2016

7-11

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-6. Reference Background Road  Uranium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results
U-238
(pCi/g)

Ra-226
(pCi/g)

Pb-214
(pCi/g)

Bi-214
(pCi/g)

BR-02-SL-002
BR-07-SL-008
BR-13-SL-006
BR-16-SL-015
BR-18-SL-017
BR-20-SL-019
BR-22-SL-021
BR-26-SL-025
BR-27-SL-026
BR-30-SL-029
BR-32-SL-031
BR-36-SL-035
BR-38-SL-037
BR-46-SL-044
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

< 1.64
< 1.58
< 1.08
< 1.55
< 0.753
< 3.14
< 1.99
< 0.919
0.643
1.61
< 0.854
0.825
12.7
8.04
2.18
3.61
0.805
0.377
12.7

3.07
2.38
6.09
2.24
0.828
63.0
16.1
4.25
4.10
2.86
1.69
1.41
1.55
1.13
7.91
16.3
2.62
0.828
63.0

1.69
1.05
3.81
1.09
0.479
51.0
14.2
3.01
2.83
1.55
1.11
0.640
0.784
0.523
5.98
13.4
1.33
0.479
51.0

1.69
0.965
3.59
0.967
0.445
48.4
12.7
2.85
2.70
1.45
0.940
0.609
0.711
0.468
5.61
12.7
1.21
0.445
48.4

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – indicates a value less than the reported number which is the MDC.

May 2016

7-12

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-7. Reference Background Road  Thorium Series Gamma Spectroscopy Results
Ra-228
(pCi/g)
1.41
1.30
3.32
1.30
0.399
11.2
2.99
1.08
0.857
0.556
0.725
0.653
0.772
0.396
1.93
2.81
0.969
0.396
11.2

Ac-228
(pCi/g)
1.45
1.34
3.43
1.34
0.410
11.5
3.06
1.10
0.877
0.568
0.742
0.667
0.788
0.410
1.98
2.89
0.989
0.410
11.5

Pb-212
(pCi/g)
1.70
1.66
2.03
1.58
0.509
10.5
3.47
1.12
0.982
0.778
1.07
0.788
0.890
0.513
1.97
2.57
1.10
0.509
10.5

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-02-SL-002
BR-07-SL-008
BR-13-SL-006
BR-16-SL-015
BR-18-SL-017
BR-20-SL-019
BR-22-SL-021
BR-26-SL-025
BR-27-SL-026
BR-30-SL-029
BR-32-SL-031
BR-36-SL-035
BR-38-SL-037
BR-46-SL-044
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

Th-232
(pCi/g)
1.38
1.28
3.26
1.28
0.392
11.0
2.93
1.05
0.838
0.543
0.709
0.637
0.752
0.392
1.89
2.76
0.944
0.752
11.0

May 2016

Bi-212
(pCi/g)
0.826
0.874
0.885
0.778
0.244
1.53
0.765
0.414
0.331
0.307
0.433
0.376
0.441
0.249
0.604
0.359
0.437
0.244
1.53

V.
1.
1

Study ID

7-13

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 7.0

Rev. 1

Table 7-8. Reference Background Road  Actinium Series and
Miscellaneous Gamma Spectroscopy Results
K-40
(pCi/g)
13.6
23.1
18.1
12.0
6.14
9.32
20.7
6.07
4.87
6.68
13.0
7.18
8.73
4.44
11.0
6.03
9.03
4.44
23.1

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

BR-02-SL-002
BR-07-SL-008
BR-13-SL-006
BR-16-SL-015
BR-18-SL-017
BR-20-SL-019
BR-22-SL-021
BR-26-SL-025
BR-27-SL-026
BR-30-SL-029
BR-32-SL-031
BR-36-SL-035
BR-38-SL-037
BR-46-SL-044
Average
Std. Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum

U-235
(pCi/g)
< 0.223
< 0.149
< 0.165
< 0.161
< 0.131
< 0.322
< 0.197
< 0.085
< 0.069
< 0.058
< 0.050
< 0.050
< 0.044
0.077
0.066
0.040
0.071
0.022
0.161

V.
1.
1

Study ID

< – 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
Ra-226
Pb-210
Ra-228
Th-228
Total

May 2016

Ground
(mrem)
5.46E-02
3.40E-05
1.77E-02
2.02E-02
9.26E-02

Inhalation
(mrem)
1.25E-05
3.21E-05
4.10E-05
2.06E-04
2.92E-04

Radon
(mrem)
1.22E-05
0.000E+00
6.17E-05
3.38E-04
4.12E-04

Plant
(mrem)
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00

Meat
(mrem)
8.30E-02
2.20E-01
4.12E-02
1.09E-03
3.45E-01

Milk
(mrem)
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00

Soil
(mrem)
3.09E-04
1.55E-03
1.60E-04
7.43E-05
2.10E-03

7-14

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

8.0

Rev. 1

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.

V.
1.
1

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 sampling and analyses performed for this study were conducted in accordance with the QAPP
standards.
8.1

Data Quality Levels (DQLs)

The requirements for this study were based on DQL I for field screening methods and DQL III for
Non-Contract Laboratory Program (non-CLP) laboratory methods.
8.2

Quality Control Parameters

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The established QC parameters for evaluating data in this study were precision [duplicates, matrix
spikes (MS), matrix spike duplicates (MSD)], accuracy (spiked samples, laboratory control
samples), and completeness (percentage of valid data).
Precision and accuracy 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 / analyses were invalidated due to excessive concentrations of total
dissolved solids (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 Perma-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 exposure rate measurements
Gross gamma radiation measurements
Total  and  surface radioactivity
Removable  and  surface radioactivity
Background gamma radiation exposure rate and gross gamma radioactivity measurements
(outside the influence of sampling areas)
Liquid and solid samples for off-site analysis

May 2016

8-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

8.4

Rev. 1

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

V.
1.
1

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.
Field 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.
Further details pertaining to chain-of-custody may be found in the FSP.
8.6

Analytical Procedures




OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Analytical methods and procedures were established before the study began based on preliminary
assumptions and are listed in Table 8-1. Additional 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 method selection was based 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 were calibrated to NIST traceable standards before use to
ensure proper operating accuracy. Laboratory instrument calibration procedures are presented in
the laboratory QAMs. Field calibrations were performed in accordance with specified procedures.
Prior to the use of field equipment, daily operational QC checks were completed. All daily QC
instrumentation checks 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.
May 2016

8-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

8.8.1 Validation of Field Data
During 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. Fieldobtained data, as well as ongoing QA/QC checks of environmental samples collected, were
validated by trained Perma-Fix and DEP field technicians. All field data were reviewed at the time
of sample collection.

V.
1.
1

8.8.2 Validation of Laboratory 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 the standard regression coefficient is within the acceptable range.
Ensure standard reference materials were analyzed at the proper frequencies and acceptable
results were obtained.
Ensure the reagent blanks were analyzed at the proper frequency.
Ensure precision requirements of the plan were met.
Ensure accuracy requirements of the plan were met.
Ensure completeness requirements of the plan were met.
Ensure samples were analyzed within the proper sample holding times.
Verify all calculations were correct.
Ensure proper units were reported.
Ensure the proper methodologies were used.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E




In addition to the review of analytical results and project-specific precision, accuracy, and
completeness requirements, the laboratory department manager or senior chemist performed
internal audits of report forms and other data sheets as well as regular reviews of instrument logs,
performance test results, and analysts’ performance. Where review of analytical results or internal
QA/QC checks indicated discrepancies, immediate corrective actions were taken and all data
results collected since the previous 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 laboratory director (or his/her designee) issued
a final data report. The director then issued 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 implemented to facilitate this effort. For this project, DQL III data packages were
reported as a DQL IV (CLP-like) deliverable to facilitate data validation and are presented in

May 2016

8-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Appendix K. The following criteria and information were supplied, as 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 laboratory sample record documenting which analyses were performed for the samples
contained in the data package is presented in Table 8-1.
All of the laboratory sample identifications and the correlating field sample identifications.
All 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 necessary), and the individual sample analysis dates.

8.9.1 DQL III Reporting

V.
1.
1




The following summary forms and raw data deliverable requirements apply for DQL III.

The following forms are required for all analyses using gamma spectroscopy; 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 laboratory duplicate
Method blank summary and results
Instrument performance check summary
Initial calibration summary for all constituents of interest

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E










8.10

Quality Control Procedures

QC procedures and checks ensure the accuracy of the data.

For any laboratory QC result that was outside of the acceptance criteria, the samples were
reanalyzed and/or the results were qualified in the final report.
8.10.1 Field QC Checks

Duplicate 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.

May 2016

8-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

8.10.2 Internal Laboratory QC Checks
The laboratory followed the internal QC checks specified in the QAPP for each analysis type
employed. In addition, these QC checks have met the requirements specified in the respective
EPA analytical methods.
8.10.2.1 Initial and Continuing Calibration

8.10.2.2 Reagent Blanks

V.
1.
1

Each instrument and measurement system was calibrated prior to use to verify the instrument met
performance criteria throughout the course of the analytical cycle. Continuing calibration checks
were performed at a minimum frequency in accordance with the DEP Laboratory QAM. For
instruments used for 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.

A reagent blank was analyzed with each set of samples received for analysis. No responses above
the 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

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

One in 20 samples were analyzed as MSs and MSDs or one per day, whichever was greater.
MS/MSD QC is not required for gamma spectroscopy 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 was calculated using the equations documented in
Section 11.0 of the QAPP 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 11.0 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 methods 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 Laboratory QA officer 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, investigated, 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.
The DEP Laboratory internal audits include verification of each analyst’s record keeping, proper
use and understanding of procedures, and performance documentation. Deficiencies/findings are
May 2016

8-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

discussed with the analyst, documented, and resolved through the implementation of a corrective
action.
8.12

Laboratory System Audits

8.13

Assessment Procedures for Data Acceptability

V.
1.
1

Laboratory 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 Laboratory’s QAM are operative and
within compliance. This involves a thorough review of all laboratory methods performed and
documentation to confirm that all analytical procedures are performed according to the DEP
Laboratory’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.

The following subsections describe the data validation procedures that were used to evaluate the
precision, accuracy, and completeness of the data generated.
8.13.1 Precision

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 =

𝑅1 −𝑅2
(𝑅1 +𝑅2 )⁄2

× 100

Where: R1 = result 1
R2 = 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]
× 100
[𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑]

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. More than one completeness check can be evaluated. It is calculated as follows:
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (%) =

May 2016

𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑
× 100
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑑
8-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

8.13.4 Quality Control Charts
Valid 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 deviations from that mean. The
following equations are used:
Mean:

𝑖=1

Where: N = number of samples
Xi = sample value
Standard Deviation:
𝜎=√

̅ 2
∑𝑁
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑋 )
𝑁−1

V.
1.
1

𝑁

1
𝑋̅ = ∑ 𝑥𝑖
𝑁

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The control limits must be within acceptance limits or ranges presented in the DEP Laboratory’s
SOPs. If the 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

Preventative Maintenance

Performance of preventative maintenance was completed on equipment to ensure operability.
Instrument manuals are kept on file and used for reference whenever equipment required repair or
maintenance.
8.14.1 Field Equipment

Field sampling personnel were responsible for preventative 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

Preventative maintenance schedules and/or procedures for laboratory equipment are presented in
the DEP Laboratory QAM. No major preventative maintenance was performed on the DEP
Laboratory equipment during the time period that samples from the TENORM study were
received, processed, analyzed and reported.
8.15

QA Reports to Management

Audit reports have been provided by the DEP Laboratory director (or his/her designee) as a means
of tracking program performance. An annual method internal audit was performed covering the
May 2016

8-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

period of January 1, 2013, to present. In addition, the state of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) performed an audit of the DEP Laboratory management
system, QA program, and analytical testing procedures performed 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.

8.16

Third-Party Quality Control

QC samples were collected as follows:



V.
1.
1

Field QA reports were not necessary due to the size and length of individual sample collection
activities. Any problems noted during sampling were immediately communicated to the project
certified health physicist.

Solid 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.
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.






OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The samples were sent offsite to an independent, third-party, accredited laboratory for gamma
spectroscopy analysis and compared to the DEP Laboratory 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 defined 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 Accepting the DEP Laboratory’s Measurements
Resolution
<4
4-7
8-15
16-50

Ratio
Statistics are too poor for comparison
0.5-2.0
0.6-1.66
0.75-1.33

Resolution
51-200
>200

Ratio
0.80-1.25
0.85-1.18

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.
May 2016

8-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

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 concentration. The performance has been determined to be acceptable based on the
following criteria: split 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 improbable 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 evenly 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.

V.
1.
1



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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

Of the 35 comparisons made on split liquid sample gamma spectroscopy analysis results, 30 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 split 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
radioactivity 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 pass 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 splitting) is a much better comparison of laboratory
performance and is recommended for any future sample and analysis study.
In addition, the 5% of the total solid samples selected for QC were re-analyzed by the DEP
Laboratory and then forwarded to an offsite laboratory for duplicate analysis. The samples were
sent offsite to an independent, third-party, accredited laboratory for gamma spectroscopy analysis
and compared to the DEP Laboratory gamma spectroscopy analysis of the same sample using two
methods: the duplicate error ratio (DER) in the equation below and RPD equation from
Section 8.13.1.
May 2016

8-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Duplicate Error Ratio:

Where:

S
D
TPUS
TPUD

=
=
=
=

𝐷𝐸𝑅 =

Rev. 1

 𝑆−𝐷 
√𝑇𝑃𝑈𝑆 2 +𝑇𝑃𝑈𝐷 2

Sample result
Duplicate result
Total propagated uncertainty of the sample
Total propagated uncertainty of the duplicate

V.
1.
1

A DER result less than 1.42 means the sample results may be identical, while a RPD of 35% means
that the sample results may be identical. A total of 40 evaluations were made between the DEP
Laboratory re-analysis results and the duplicates sent to the third-party laboratory. Table 8-10
through Table 8-13 provide the analytical results and the results of the DER and RPD calculations.
Evaluating the results with the DER demonstrated the two laboratories produced statistically
different results 49% of the time, while the RPD demonstrated a difference 32% of the time.
Overall, duplicate analysis provided only slightly better agreement between the two laboratories
as did split sample analyses.
The following actions and/or conclusions were made based on the duplicate solid sample analytical
results:

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

1. The activity reported for Bi-214 and Pb-214 were generally higher for the third-party
laboratory. This supports the conclusion of improperly sealed containers and the loss of some
activity below Rn-222 in the uranium series.
2. A majority of the time the Ra-226 activity was reported higher by the DEP Laboratory. A
difference in analytical technique may provide a bias. The DEP Laboratory counts Ra-226
directly while the third-party laboratory reports the Bi-214.
3. The activity reported for Pb-212 was generally higher for the DEP Laboratory than the thirdparty laboratory, although most of the difference can be attributed to the counting statistics of
low activity samples.

May 2016

8-10

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-1. Summary of Analytical Procedures

Cuttings as produced on a
drilling rig including cuttings
stored temporarily on site in
lined pits or containers

Media/
Sample
Type
Soil/soillike

Solid phase from flowback
and produced water
Solids accumulated in vessels
or on equipment

Analytical
Parameters
Gamma spectroscopy
to identify TENORM
radionuclides

USEPA 901.1

Alpha spectroscopy to
identify isotopic U
(233/234, 235, and
238) and isotopic Th
(228, 230, and 232)

Health and Safety
Laboratory
(HASL) 300

Gamma spectroscopy
to identify TENORM
radionuclides

USEPA 901.1

Scale from drilling rigs and
associated equipment
Soil/salt samples from
beneficial reuse areas
(Off-site Lab)
Soil/soillike

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

WWTP sludge

Analytical(a)
Methods

WWTP discharge sediments
(Off-site Lab)

Flowback and produced
waters

Aqueous
(Grab)

Accumulated liquids from
production equipment
(Off-site Lab)
Influent Marcellus Shale
industry water (as is and
filtered)

Aqueous
(Grab)

WWTP effluent discharge
water (as is and filtered)

Frequency(b)
Once per site

V.
1.
1

Sample Type

Alpha spectroscopy to
identify isotopic U
(U-233/234, 235, and
238) and isotopic Th
(Th-228, 230, and 232)
Gross  and 

HASL 300

Gamma spectroscopy
to identify TENORM
radionuclides

USEPA 901.1

Gross  and 

USEPA 900.0

Gamma spectroscopy
to identify TENORM
radionuclides

USEPA 901.1

Gross  and 

USEPA 900.0

Gamma spectroscopy
analysis

USEPA 901.1

Radium (Ra-226 and
Ra-228)

EPA 903.1 and
EPA 904.0
equivalent

USEPA 900.0

Three times per
facility

Once per site

Quarterly x3

(Off-site Lab)

Landfill Leachate

May 2016

Aqueous
(Grab)

Once per landfill

8-11

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-1. Summary of Analytical Procedures
Sample Type
Gas sampling as necessary
(Off-site Lab)

Media/
Sample
Type
Gaseous
(Grab)

Analytical
Parameters

Analytical(a)
Methods

Radon

Frequency(b)
As determined by
DEP

Radon
Ambient Radon

Charcoal
canister

V.
1.
1

(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 appropriate.
(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 onsite 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
Bi-214 Result
(pCi/g)

Bi-214 Err
(pCi/g)

Bi-214 MDC
(pCi/g)

0.001
0.556
26.5
12.1
0.638
4.19
0.000
1.14
3.77
2.63
0.780
0.969
370
589
24.0
21.6

0.000
0.158
4.16
4.77
0.106
1.58
0.269
0.185
0.317
0.250
0.073
0.133
25.3
3.06
1.97
0.726

0.016
0.120
0.217
0.857
0.057
0.461
1.05
0.109
0.056
0.079
0.048
0.074
1.11
0.973
0.156
0.241

Bi-214
Resolution /
Ratio
7.00
0.002
5.00
2.19
5.00
0.152
12.0
0.000
21.0
1.43
14.0
0.805
377
0.628
58.0
1.11

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E
Study ID

5942116
5942116GEL
5942130
5942130GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942188
5942188GEL

Bi-214
Criteria /
Pass-Fail

NA
NA
0.5-2.0
Fail
0.5-2.0
Fail
0.6-1.66
Fail
0.75-1.33
Fail
0.6-1.66
Pass
0.85-1.18
Fail
0.80-1.25
Pass

NA = one or both results were less than the reported MDC; no comparison performed.

May 2016

8-12

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-3. Pb-212 Split Solid Sample Comparison Results

5942116
5942116GEL
5942130
5942130GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942188
5942188GEL

Pb-212
Result
(pCi/g)
-0.008
0.533
6.31
11.4
1.19
1.54
0.909
1.57
1.47
1.51
0.832
0.898
154
146
8.40
2.29

Pb-212 Err
(pCi/g)

Pb-212 MDC
(pCi/g)

0.000
0.093
0.377
3.02
0.137
1.05
0.129
0.115
0.104
0.131
0.072
0.083
20.7
1.12
0.589
0.238

0.014
0.099
0.484
0.545
0.089
0.318
0.062
0.085
0.036
0.066
0.059
0.059
0.998
0.743
0.178
0.179

Pb-212
Resolution /
Ratio
NA
NA
7.00
0.554
3.00
0.773
27.0
0.579
23.0
0.974
21.0
0.927
256
1.06
19.0
3.67

Pb-212
Criteria /
Pass-Fail

NA
NA

0.5-2.0
Pass

NA

V.
1.
1

Study ID

NA

0.75-1.33
Fail

0.75-1.33
Pass

0.75-1.33
Pass

0.85-1.18
Pass

0.85-1.18
Fail

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

NA = one or both results were less than the reported MDC; no comparison performed.

Table 8-4. Pb-214 Split Soil Sample Comparison Results

Study ID

5942116
5942116GEL
5942130
5942130GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942188
5942188GEL

May 2016

Pb-214
Result
(pCi/g)
0.289
0.689
26.4
17.1
6.05
3.89
1.21
1.34
4.18
3.18
0.822
1.25
373
6.02
26.3
24.4

Pb-214 Err
(pCi/g)

Pb-214 MDC
(pCi/g)

0.033
0.132
1.93
4.43
0.527
1.39
0.213
0.140
0.283
0.271
0.072
0.155
62.5
3.13
1.73
0.724

0.034
0.120
0.217
0.812
0.061
0.418
0.066
0.104
0.054
0.086
0.059
0.082
1.03
4.47
0.152
0.240

Pb-214
Resolution /
Ratio
10.0
0.419
8.00
1.54
5.00
1.56
19.0
0.903
23.0
1.31
16.0
0.658
4.00
62.0
66.0
1.08

Pb-214
Criteria /
Pass-Fail

0.6-1.66
Fail

0.6-1.66
Pass

0.5-2.0
Pass

0.75-1.33
Pass

0.75-1.33
Pass

0.6-1.66
Pass

0.5-2.0
Fail

0.80-1.25
Pass

8-13

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-5. Ra-226 Split Soil Sample Comparison Results

5942116
5942116GEL
5942130
5942130GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942188
5942188GEL

Ra-226
Result
(pCi/g)
-0.060
0.556
31.7
12.1
7.73
4.19
1.99
1.14
6.14
2.63
1.50
0.969
421
589
35.1
21.6

Ra-226 Error
(pCi/g)

Ra-226 MDC
(pCi/g)

0.000
0.158
2.66
4.77
0.957
1.58
0.418
0.185
0.609
0.250
0.382
0.133
38.5
3.06
2.67
0.726

0.183
0.120
2.49
0.857
0.756
0.461
0.595
0.109
0.650
0.079
0.579
0.074
8.80
0.973
1.75
0.241

Ra-226
Resolution /
Ratio
NA
NA
5.00
2.62
5.00
1.85
12.0
1.75
21.0
2.34
14.0
1.55
377
0.715
58.0
1.63

Ra-226
Criteria /
Pass-Fail
NA
NA

0.5-2.0
Fail

0.5-2.0

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Pass

0.6-1.66
Fail

0.75-1.33
Fail

0.6-1.66
Pass

0.85-1.18
Fail

0.80-1.25
Fail

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

NA = one or both results were less than the reported MDC; no comparison performed.

Table 8-6. Bi-214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

Study ID

5942389
5942389GEL
5942390
5942390GEL
5942391
5942391GEL
5942392
5942392GEL
5942228
5942228GEL
5942275
5942275GEL
5942276
5942276GEL
5942277
5942277GEL
5942278
5942278GEL
5942291
5942291GEL
May 2016

Bi-214 Result
(pCi/L)

Bi-214 Error
(pCi/L)

Bi-214 MDC
(pCi/L)

41.0
32.8
57.0
29.3
181
187
229
251
458
669
4,660
4,450
4,320
4,860
2,020
2,370
2,150
2,230
15,300
16,400

7.00
11.5
6.00
9.13
24.0
24.6
19.0
25.0
35.0
43.5
377
92.9
38.0
90.8
245
62.2
33.0
61.2
1,340
165

7.00
10.6
5.00
9.10
22.0
20.4
8.00
13.6
8.00
22.4
37.0
38.8
11.0
34.7
14.0
26.0
22.0
26.0
44.0
62.2

Bi-214
Resolution /
Ratio
6.00
1.25
6.00
1.95
15.0
0.968
20.0
0.912
30.0
0.685
94.0
1.05
105
0.889
75.0
0.852
71.0
0.964
195
0.933

Bi-214
Criteria /
Pass-Fail
0.5-2.0
Pass
0.5-2.0
Pass
0.6-1.66
Pass
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.75-1.33
Fail
0.80-1.25
Pass
0.80-1.25
Pass
0.80-1.25
Pass
0.80-1.25
Pass
0.80-1.25
Pass
8-14

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-7. Pb-214 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results
Pb-214 Error
(pCi/L)

Pb-214 MDC
(pCi/L)

8.00
13.1
5.00
10.8
23.0
23.1
18.0
23.9
33.0
47.2
655
96.2
373
99.3
243
61.9
249
67.8
1,340
173

9.00
10.4
5.00
18.2
23.0
17.9
8.00
43.4
9.00
28.1
30.0
200
20.0
46.7
16.0
135
28.0
32.7
56.0
84.4

Pb-214
Resolution /
Ratio
8.00
0.864
3.00
3.52
17.0
0.886
4.00
5.88
33.0
0.646
97.0
0.987
106
0.807
81.0
0.848
72.0
0.864
205
0.845

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

5942389
5942389GEL
5942390
5942390GEL
5942391
5942391GEL
5942392
5942392GEL
5942228
5942228GEL
5942275
5942275GEL
5942276
5942276GEL
5942277
5942277GEL
5942278
5942278GEL
5942291
5942291GEL

Pb-214
Result
(pCi/L)
45.0
52.1
64.0
18.2
178
201
255
43.4
510
790
4,710
4,770
4,320
5,350
2,180
2,570
2,160
2,500
15,300
18,100

Pb-214
Criteria /
Pass-Fail
0.6-1.66
Pass
NA
NA
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.5-2.0
Fail
0.8-1.25
Fail
0.8-1.25
Pass
0.80-1.25
Pass
0.80-1.25
Pass
0.80-1.25
Pass
0.85-1.18
Fail

V.
1.
1

Study ID

NA = one or both results were less than the reported MDC; no comparison performed.

Table 8-8. Ra-226 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results

Study ID

5942389
5942389GEL
5942390
5942390GEL
5942391
5942391GEL
5942392
5942392GEL
5942228
5942228GEL
5942275
5942275GEL
5942276
5942276GEL
5942277
5942277GEL
5942278
May 2016

Ra-226
Result
(pCi/L)
104
119
117
135
445
218
453
221
2,000
1,200
8,360
5,690
7,950
6,740
3,910
3,120
4,300

Ra-226 Error
(pCi/L)

Ra-226 MDC
(pCi/L)

60.0
127
40.0
117
190
137
70.0
190
158
324
1,490
559
835
560
698
338
801

95.0
119
63.0
135
300
218
98.0
221
118
312
533
564
257
511
220
336
362

Ra-226
Resolution /
Ratio
2.00
0.874
2.00
0.867
3.00
2.04
2.00
2.05
7.00
1.67
20.0
1.47
24.0
1.18
18.0
1.25
15.0

Ra-226
Criteria /
Pass-Fail
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5-2.0
Pass
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.6-1.66
8-15

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-8. Ra-226 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results
Study ID
5942278GEL
5942291
5942291GEL

Ra-226
Result
(pCi/L)
3,100
25,500
22,000

Ra-226 Error
(pCi/L)

Ra-226 MDC
(pCi/L)

410
3,270
731

374
713
924

Ra-226
Resolution /
Ratio
1.39
59.0
1.16

Ra-226
Criteria /
Pass-Fail
Pass
0.8-1.18
Pass

V.
1.
1

NA = one or both results were less than the reported MDC; no comparison performed.

Table 8-9. Ra-228 Split Liquid Sample Comparison Results
Study ID

Ra-228 Error
(pCi/L)

Ra-228 MDC
(pCi/L)

15.0
21.8
12.0
28.7
46.0
49.0
36.0
47.3
31.0
54.9
79.0
86.3
39.0
98.9
25.0
57.2
30.0
52.3
164
151

14.0
19.8
12.0
19.4
32.0
36.2
13.0
26.0
18.0
40.0
67.0
81.7
21.0
64.2
22.0
49.2
42.0
55.4
56.0
124

Ra-228
Resolution /
Ratio
8.00
1.06
3.00
2.71
17.0
0.903
21.0
0.923
24.6
1.39
10.0
1.30
11.0
0.932
9.00
0.878
9.00
1.08
26.0
0.879

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

5942389
5942389GEL
5942390
5942390GEL
5942391
5942391GEL
5942392
5942392GEL
5942228
5942228GEL
5942275
5942275GEL
5942276
5942276GEL
5942277
5942277GEL
5942278
5942278GEL
5942291
5942291GEL

Ra-228
Result
(pCi/L)
94.0
88.4
112
41.4
392
434
467
506
442
318
571
439
523
561
230
262
250
231
1,740
1,980

May 2016

Ra-228
Criteria /
Pass-Fail
0.6-1.66
Pass
Poor Stats
Fail
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.75-1.33
Pass
0.6-1.66
Pass
0.6-1.66
Pass
0.6-1.66
Pass
0.6-1.66
Pass
0.75-1.33
Pass

8-16

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-10. Bi-214 Duplicate Sample Comparison Results
Bi-214 Error
(pCi/g)
0.013
0.106
7.37
1.81
0.058
0.153
0.714
0.396
0.144
0.140
0.485
0.412
0.133
0.191
4.67
1.06
81.2
3.76
0.268
0.287

Bi-214 MDC
(pCi/g)
0.012
0.181
0.076
0.799
0.029
0.123
0.030
0.171
0.025
0.120
0.030
0.246
0.033
0.148
0.046
0.420
0.567
1.51
0.028
0.176

DER

RPD

0.860

68.2

2.91

24.0

1.36

36.3

0.010

0.170

0.910

25.9

0.280

4.44

0.510

13.3

1.15

10.2

0.270

4.70

0.130

2.25

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

5942107
5942107GEL
5942111
5942111GEL
5942116
5942116GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942186
5942186GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942189
5942189GEL

Bi-214 Result
(pCi/g)
0.089
0.181
80.9
103
0.500
0.722
6.04
6.05
0.798
0.615
3.96
4.14
0.829
0.947
51.2
56.7
457
479
2.25
2.20

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 8-11. Pb-212 Duplicate Sample Comparison Results

Study ID

5942107
5942107GEL
5942111
5942111GEL
5942116
5942116GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942186
5942186GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
May 2016

Pb-212 Result
(pCi/g)

Pb-212 Error
(pCi/g)

0.071
0.104
52.3
36.5
0.563
0.635
1.45
0.475
0.784
0.629
2.52
2.07
0.865
0.837
13.2
4.91
184
120
1.71
1.53

0.009
0.052
9.39
0.851
0.113
0.115
0.154
0.161
0.112
0.103
0.182
0.200
0.063
0.151
0.862
0.334
25.9
1.62
0.180
0.175

Pb-212
MDC
(pCi/g)
0.008
0.104
0.179
0.730
0.021
0.095
0.050
0.165
0.030
0.085
0.039
0.193
0.034
0.133
0.115
0.351
0.569
1.37
0.042
0.156

DER

RPD

0.620

37.7

1.68

35.6

0.450

12.0

4.38

101

1.02

21.9

1.66

19.6

0.170

3.29

8.97

91.6

2.47

42.1

0.720

11.1
8-17

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 8.0

Rev. 1

Table 8-12. Pb-214 Duplicate Sample Comparison Results
Pb-214 Error
(pCi/g)
0.010
0.090
6.43
1.94
0.125
0.181
0.561
0.407
0.110
0.156
0.305
0.406
0.068
0.218
3.64
1.13
61.4
4.11
0.212
0.287

Pb-214
MDC
(pCi/g)
0.007
0.092
0.138
0.965
0.021
0.283
0.037
0.199
0.030
0.250
0.036
0.255
0.032
0.175
0.081
0.474
0.661
7.56
0.031
0.215

DER

RPD

3.09

123

2.98

17.9

1.00

32.0

1.88

18.2

0.310

7.40

1.24

13.2

1.32

29.8

2.89

17.5

2.02

23.2

1.15

15.6

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

5942107
5942107GEL
5942111
5942111GEL
5942116
5942116GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942186
5942186GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942189
5942189GEL

Pb-214
Result
(pCi/g)
0.087
0.367
102
122
0.581
0.802
6.50
7.80
0.827
0.768
4.46
5.09
0.859
1.16
57.4
68.4
472
596
2.43
2.84

V.
1.
1

Study ID

Table 8-13. Ra-226 Duplicate Sample Comparison Results

Study ID

5942107
5942107GEL
5942111
5942111GEL
5942116
5942116GEL
5942134
5942134GEL
5942145
5942145GEL
5942155
5942155GEL
5942180
5942180GEL
5942186
5942186GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
5942189
5942189GEL
May 2016

Ra-226
Result
(pCi/g)
0.250
0.181
114
103
0.820
0.722
7.27
6.05
1.49
0.615
6.14
4.14
1.56
0.947
59.2
56.7
450
479
3.92
2.20

Ra-226 Error
(pCi/g)
0.047
0.106
7.69
1.81
0.178
0.153
0.804
0.396
0.250
0.140
0.609
0.412
0.178
0.191
3.98
1.06
60.0
3.76
0.458
0.287

Ra-226
MDC
(pCi/g)
0.061
0.181
1.44
0.799
0.152
0.123
0.078
0.171
0.235
0.120
0.650
0.246
0.217
0.148
0.585
0.420
4.39
1.51
0.290
0.176

DER

RPD

0.600

32.0

1.39

10.1

0.420

12.7

1.36

18.3

3.05

83.1

2.72

38.9

2.35

48.9

0.610

4.31

0.480

6.24

3.18

56.2

8-18

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

9.0

Rev. 1

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1

Observations

9.1.1 Well Sites (Section 3.0)


V.
1.
1

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. Various
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 samples collected and surveys conducted as part of this study.

There is little potential for internal radiation exposure to workers and members of the public
from and  surface radioactivity from natural gas well site 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



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 concentrations (0.00 to 1.11 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 public from
the handling, hauling, and temporary storage of vertical drill cuttings on natural gas well sites.

Vertical drill cuttings 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 equilibrium. (Table 3-6)



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.

May 2016

9-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

Horizontal drill cuttings 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 sand.



V.
1.
1

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 members 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

However, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts from 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. Radium-228 was also detected ranging from 4.50 – 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, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts from spills of flowback
fluid on natural gas well sites and from spills that could occur from the transportation and
delivery of this fluid.
Radium-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.

However, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts 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.

May 2016

9-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

Radium-226 concentrations were detected in produced water samples ranging from 40.5 –
26,600 pCi/L. Radium-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 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. (Sections 3.3.4 and 3.6.3)
There were no statistically significant differences observed between filtered and unfiltered
liquid sample analytical results.

V.
1.
1



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. Geological Survey
(USGS) for Pennsylvania, which range from 1 to 79 pCi/L with an overall median of 37 pCi/L.
The Rn in natural gas measured ranged from 3.00 to 148 pCi/L, with a median Rn concentration
of 41.8 pCi/L. (Section 3.4.2)

There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to workers and members of the public on or
near natural gas well sites.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



With the exception of one outlier at 1.70 pCi/L, the Rn concentrations in ambient air sampled
at well sites during this study are consistent with the typical ambient background Rn
concentrations of 0.00 to 1.11 pCi/L. It should be noted that the outlier is still well below the
EPA guideline for indoor Rn concentration of 4 pCi/L.

9.1.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants (Section 4.0)
9.1.2.1 Publicly Owned Treatment Works




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  surface radioactivity may present a potential inhalation or ingestion hazard if disturbed
in the future. (Section 4.1.6.2)
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 annual external gamma

May 2016

9-3

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

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 from
handling and temporary storage of filter cake at POTW-I’s.
However, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts from spills and the longterm disposal of POTW-I filter cake.



V.
1.
1

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. The maximum result was 55.6 pCi/g. The average Ra-228
result was 7.63 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.

There is little potential for radiological environmental impacts from spills and the long-term
disposal of POTW-N filter cake.



OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 9.72 pCi/g
and 35.4 pCi/g. The average and maximum Ra-228 results were 2.26 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 from 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 additional Rn exposure to workers and the members of the public
inside POTW-I’s.

Indoor Rn results from POTW-I results ranges from 0.200 to 8.70 pCi/L. One result exceeds
the EPA action level of 4 pCi/L. The Rn measured in indoor air averaged 1.74 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 public from

and  surface radioactivity at CWTs that treat O&G wastewater. Fixed  and  surface

May 2016

9-4

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

radioactivity may present a potential inhalation and ingestion hazard if disturbed during
routine system maintenance.



V.
1.
1

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 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 facilities 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. (Section 4.2.6.2)
There is little potential for exceeding public dose limits from external gamma radiation for
workers and members of the public at CWTs that treat O&G wastewater.



OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 (24.1 R/hr less the background rate of
5 R/hr), the maximum average CWT annual external gamma radiation exposure was
estimated at 38 mrem/yr. The maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was
502 R/hr on contact with the 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, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts from spills and the longterm 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 soil. The maximum results were 294 pCi/g of
Ra-226 and 177 pCi/g of Ra-228. Five of 27 filter cake samples exceeded 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 wastewater.
However, there is a radiological environmental impact to soil from the sediments from CWTs
that treat O&G wastewater.

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.

May 2016

9-5

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

However, there 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 typical background levels to a maximum of
444 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.

V.
1.
1



Indoor air was sampled and analyzed for Rn concentration at various CWT indoor locations
such as break rooms, laboratories, offices, etc. The results ranged from 0.900 to 5.00 pCi/L.
Two results 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 ZLDs that treat O&G wastewater. Fixed  and  surface radioactivity may
present a potential inhalation and ingestion hazard if disturbed during future routine system
maintenance.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



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 levels were 239 dpm/100 cm2 and
4,740 dpm/100 cm2. The maximum total  and  surface radioactivity levels were
1,410 dpm/100 cm2 and 49,700 dpm/100 cm2. 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 immediately 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.

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. The maximum gamma radiation exposure rate measured was
445 R/hr. (Sections 4.3.1.4 and 4.3.6.1)

May 2016

9-6

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0



Rev. 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 treat O&G wastewater.
However, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts from spills and the longterm disposal of filter cake from ZLDs that treat O&G wastewater.



V.
1.
1

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 0.580 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, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts 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
difference 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



Indoor air was sampled and analyzed for Rn concentration at various indoor locations such as
break rooms, laboratories, offices, etc. The results ranged from 0.50 to 4.90 pCi/L. Two results
exceeded the EPA action level. The Rn measured in indoor air averaged 2.29 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)

9.1.3 Landfills (Section 5.0)



There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from
leachate at landfills.
There 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.

May 2016

9-7

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

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 using gamma spectroscopy for Ra-226 and
Ra-228. Radium was detected above the MDC value in 38 of 51 samples. Radium-226 results
ranged from 36.5 to 416 pCi/L with an average of 116 pCi/L in the 42 unselected landfills and
125 pCi/L in the nine selected landfills. Radium-228 results ranged from 2.50 to 55.0 pCi/L
with an average of 11.9 pCi/L in the 42 unselected landfills and 18.0 pCi/L in the nine selected
landfills. (Section 5.1)
There is limited potential for radiological environmental impacts from spills or discharges of
effluent or influent leachate at landfills that accept O&G waste for disposal.

V.
1.
1



Nine influent and seven effluent leachate samples were collected at the nine selected landfills.
Radium was detected in all of the leachate samples. Radium-226 results ranged from 48.5 to
378 pCi/L with an average of 138 pCi/L for effluent samples and 83.4 pCi/L for influent
samples. Radium-228 results ranged from 3.00 to 1,100 pCi/L with an average of 178 pCi/L
for effluent samples and 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.
(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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



However, there is a potential for radiological environmental impacts from spills and the longterm disposal of landfill 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. Radium-226 results
ranged from 8.73 to 53.0 pCi/g, with an average of 24.3 pCi/g. Radium-228 results ranged
from 1.53 to 5.03 pCi/g, with an average of 3.85 pCi/g. (Section 5.2.2)



There is little potential for radiological exposure to workers and members of the public from
sediment-impacted soil at landfills that accepted O&G waste for disposal.

However, there may be a radiological environmental impact to soil from the sediments from
landfill leachate treatment facilities that treat leachate from landfills that accept O&G waste
for disposal.
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. Radium-226 results ranged from 2.82
to 4.46 pCi/g with an average of 3.57 pCi/g. Radium-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.

May 2016

9-8

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

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
0.200 to 0.900 pCi/L consistent with U.S. background levels of 0.00 to 1.11 pCi/L in outdoor
ambient air.


There is little potential for internal and  surface radioactivity exposure to workers and
members of the public at landfills that accept O&G waste for disposal.



V.
1.
1

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 cm2 and 3,630 dpm/100 cm2. The average removable  and  levels at each
landfill were below the RG 1.86 criteria. 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

The highest average exposure rate was 13.5 R/hr, and the maximum gamma exposure 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. (Sections 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


Radon concentrations in natural gas are lower after underground storage.
Natural gas samples were collected at four underground storage sites in Pennsylvania.
Duplicate samples were collected at each site during injection into the storage formation, and
also during withdrawal from the storage formation. (Section 6.1)

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 ± 1.80 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.

May 2016

9-9

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

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.

9.1.4.3 Compressor Stations


V.
1.
1

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)

Radon concentrations in the natural gas sampled at compressor stations are consistent 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 ± 1.40 to 58.1 ± 1.10 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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E



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 0.100 to 0.800 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


Radon concentrations in natural gas entering the natural gas processing plant are consistent
with levels measured at well sites.

Radon in natural gas sampled entering the plant measured 67.7 pCi/L. The Rn in natural gas
sampled at the processing plant outflow measured 9.30 pCi/L. (Section 6.4 and Table 6.7)



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 were 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.

May 2016

9-10

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

9.1.4.5 Radon Dosimetry

V.
1.
1

The filter housing on the facility propanizer 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  surface radioactivity levels
are below the RG 1.86  and  removable surface radioactivity criterion. The results of
samples collected from the facility propanizer 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)



There is little potential for additional Rn exposure to members of the public in homes using
natural gas from Marcellus Shale wells.



The potential radiation dose received by home residents is a small fraction of the allowable
general public dose limit of 100 mrem/yr.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 typical 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 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. The
average and maximum calculated Rn concentration increase in homes were 0.04 and
0.13 pCi/L. (Section 6.6)

9.1.5 Oil 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 with
elevated radioactivity was detected, surface soil samples were collected at that area. After
correcting the reported Ra-226 activity by 0.882 pCi/g of natural background activity and
0.659 pCi/g of U-235 bias, 19 of 31 samples have excess Ra ranging from 0.109 to 5.42 pCi/g
above natural background. (Sections 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 Ra-226 activity by

May 2016

9-11

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

0.819 pCi/g of natural background activity and 0.710 pCi/g of U-235 bias, 11 of 14 samples
have excess Ra ranging from 0.0210 to 61.5 pCi/g above natural background. Three of the
Ra-228 results are greater than 2.98 pCi/g, which is approximately three times natural
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.



V.
1.
1

The average excess Ra-226 for roads identified as having been brine-treated is 1.13 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.

9.2

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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 background 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)
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 Pennsylvania spill response protocol for spills of
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 radiological sampling and analyses and radiological surveys at all WWTPs
accepting wastewater from O&G operations to determine if there are areas of contamination
that require remediation; if it is necessary to establish radiological effluent discharge
limitations; and if the development and implementation of a spill policy is necessary.

May 2016

9-12

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 9.0

Rev. 1

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 establish 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


V.
1.
1



Survey 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 exposed.



OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

9.2.5 Oil and Gas Brine-Treated Roads

Perform further study of O&G brine-treated roads. This study should evaluate produced water
radionuclide concentrations prior to treatment, resultant surface activity and radionuclide
concentration of road surfaces and future Ra migration.

May 2016

9-13

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 10.0

10.0

Rev. 1

REFERENCES

Section 1.0:

Section 2.0:

V.
1.
1

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.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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-VOL. 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. IAEA 2010. Radiation Protection and the Management of Radioactive Waste in the Oil and
Gas Industry, Training Course Series No. 40, Vienna, May.
10. NRC, 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table 1, Col 3.
11. NRC, 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Table 2, Liquid Effluent.
12. NRC, 10 CFR 20.1201, Occupational Dose Limits for Adults.
13. NRC, 10 CFR 20.1301, Radiation Dose Limits for Members of the Public.
14. NRC, 10 CFR 20.1402-20.1403, Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use.
15. NRC 1974a. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear
Reactors (1974)—Criteria for Natural Thorium Including Ra-228.
16. NRC 1974b. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear
Reactors (1974)—Criteria for Ra-226.
17. OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.1096.
18. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2000.
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation.

May 2016

10-1

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 10.0

Rev. 1

Section 3.0:

Section 4.0:

V.
1.
1

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
Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions, June.
4. NRC 1974. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors
(1974)—Criteria.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

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, Minimum 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. Regulatory 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 Assessment 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. Radon-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.
May 2016

10-2

 PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Section 10.0

Rev. 1

9. UNSCEAR 2006. Annex E.
10. U.S. Census, American Housing Survey, 2011, Table C-02-AH.

Section 7.0:

Section 8.0:

DEP 2013. Sample and Analysis Plan Part I, Field Sampling Plan (FSP), April.
DEP 2013. Sample and Analysis Plan Part II, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), April.
DEP. Laboratory QAM.
NRC 1994. NRC Inspection Manual Procedure 84750, March.

OP
EN
_S
OU
RC
E

1.
2.
3.
4.

V.
1.
1

1. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 2013.
Fact 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 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.

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.

May 2016

10-3