ML17290A686

Rev 1 to Evaluation of Sources of Radioactive Matl Found in Cooling Tower Sediments at Washington Nuclear Plant 2.

ML17290A686
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	09/27/1993
From:	Bland J, Moon J J. STEWART BLAND CONSULTING
To:
Shared Package
ML17290A685	List: ML17290A684 ML17290A686
References
NUDOCS 9310190192
Download: ML17290A686 (76)

Text

EVALUATIONOF THE SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVEMATTXHAL FOU16) IN COOLING TOVAER SEDIMENTS AT WASHINGTON NVCLEAR PLANT 2 REVISION 1 Prepared for:

Washington Public Power Supply System By:

Joseph W. Moon, CHP and J. Stewart Bland, CHP J. Stewart Bland Associates, Inc.

September 27, 1993 qsi019ADDCK qSi013 FDp ,

>DR P

0 I' EVALUATIONOF THE SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVEMATERIAL FOUND IN COOLING TOWER SEDIMIATS AT %NP-2 REVISION 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

A comprehensive evaluation has been performed to determine the most likely source of the radioactive material in the Cooling Tower sediments. This evaluation was undertaken to resolve the question of whether the radionuclides detected in the Cooling Tower sediments are radioactive material originating from the plant or sediment residue drawn into Cooling Towers directly from the Columbia River. The evaluation included an a'ssessment of potential pathways for the introduction of activity originating from the plant entailing the examination of previous work by Supply System personnel and historical plant sample data. This evaluation constitutes a body of evidence substantiating the most likely source of the radioactive material in the Cooling Tower sediments is the Columbia River sediments.

The sediment of the Columbia River is known to contain low levels of naturally occurring radioactive material. Fallout from the atmospheric testing of nuclear devices and radioactive material originating from upstream Department of Energy operations oa the Hanford Reservation contribute additional components of river sediment activity (ref.

11). Relatively short half-lived activation products have been measured in the Cooling Tower sediments at concentrations that are several orders of magnitude below the concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides. Even though these levels are low and do not present a radiological safety issue, there was a concern that the appearance of these radionuclides in the Cooling Tower sediments constituted a potential unanticipated pathway for the release of plant generated activity.

The Tower Make Up system (TMU) intake draws solid material from the Columbia River into the Cooling Tower basins as suspended solids. Estimates of the quantity of this material approach 2 tons per month of tower operations. It is unlikely that WNP-2 liquid effiuents are being recirculated from the river as the TMU intake is upstream of the release point. The Columbia River has a relatively high linear velocity in the reach along the WNP-2 TMU.intake aiding in the resuspension of river sediments and effectively preventing the upstream migration of plant generated radionuclides (ref. 10).

TMU intake samples containing measurable quantities of cesium-137 (Cs-137) as well as the activation products zinc-65 (Zn-65), manganese-54 (Mn-54), and cobalt-60 (Co-60) demonstrate a direct riverborne source of these activation products.

A substantiation of a riverborne source of the radioactive material was obtained by the further evaluation of environmental data. Samples of Cooling Tower sediments taken from the start of commercial operations through the present were compared to samples of river sediment. The comparison of these data sets demonstrate that there is no WPPSS/COOLSED.RVt September 27, l993

0

~'s ~

statistically significant difference between the means of the two sample populations for

~

concentrations of Cs-137 and Co-60. There were not a sufficient number of samples

~

~ ~

indicating positive results for other radionuclides to establish a meaningful population for

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

A meaningful population is considered tobe composed ofat

~ ~ ~

statistical comparisons. ~

least 30 samples.

Evaluations of the potential for radionuclides to be introduced to the Cooling Tower sediments by leakage from plant systems has been performed (ref. 3). The conclusions have discounted the possibility that the activity had originated from any leakage at plant piping system interfaces from operational events to date. In addition, other pathways for the introduction of radionuclides of plant origin into both the river and the Cooling Towers have been evaluated in this report and were found to be insignificant.

'he conclusion of this study is that the most likely source of the radioactive material

.found in the Cooling Tower sediments is the Columbia River sediments.

1.1 athw nal is An evaluation of measurements of environmental samples has been performed to identify the most likely source of radioactive material identified in the WNP-2 Cooling Tower sediments. The radionuclides found in the Cooling Tower sediments are primarily cesium-137 (Cs-137) and cobalt-50 (Co-60) which. have appeared consistently in samples of the sediment with the sporadic appearance of other fission and activation products. ~

Possible sources of plant generated radioactive material being introduced to the Cooling

~

Towers from interconnecting liquid inventory systems have been evaluated by the plant staff These liquid inventory sources, primarily the heat exchangers for the reactor building closed cooling water system (RBCCW), have been discounted since no fission products have been identified in any samples from these systems and the amounts of identified leakage in!hese systems was not sufficient to account for the quantity of activation products found in the Cooling Tower sediments (ref.3). These findings led to a search for other possible sources of radioactive material.

Other pathways by which plant generated radionuclides can be introduced into the Cooling Towers are by atmospheric dispersion and re-entrainment of the particulate fraction of the plant gaseous effluent stream, Radionuclides released to the atmosphere will deposit on the ground and other surfaces where they may be washed into the river upstream of the plant, or they may be drawn along with the air mass passing through the Cooling Tower where they are entrained into the water volume.

In order to evaluate the feasibility of these two pathways, a conservative assessment was performed using annual average dispersion parameters for the nearest approach of the river. (East sector, 3,5 miles) and to the Cooling Towers (Southeast sector, 0.25 miles).

J

%PPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993

1 a!i'd the total particulate fraction of gaseous effiuents. Even assuming 100% efficienc Towers woul this process the predicted concentrations in both the river and the Cooling be several orders of magnitude lower than the amount of activity actually m~<<

the Cooling Tower sediment. For these reasons, the re-entrainment of P~icu gaseous effluent. is not considered to be the pathway resultmg m the identified radionuclides in the Cooling Tower sediment.

"I The possibility that plant generated liquid effluents are being recirculated into the TMU intake was examined from the perspective of positioning of the effluent discharg~ into the river and the average flow velocity of the Columbia River at the TMU intake- This pathway was discounted since the liquid effluent is discharged into the river downstream of the TMU intake. The rapid linear velocity of the reach of the Columbia River in front of WNP-2 (between 0.8 and 4.5 fps) is sufficient to prevent any liquid effluents from being drawn upstream and into the TMU intake (ref. 10).

Columbia River sediments are known to contain low levels of various radionuclides from upstream Department of Energy operations (ref. 11). The velocity of the Columbi~

River in front of WNP-2 is sufficient to suspend sediments being washed downstream causing them to be drawn into the TMU intake as suspended solids. W'ith these resuspended sediments containing low levels of radioactive material, this pathway would be a'ource of radionuclides with a direct introduction pathway to the WNP-2 Cooling Towers.

Water is drawn directly from the Columbia River by the Tower Make Up system EMU) to supply the make-up volume for evaporative and aerosol spray losses from the Cooling Towers . Water sample analysis data from the TMU intake and samples of Qocculator sediment from auxiliary water systems that draw from the TMU system were examined and found to contain Cs-137 and various activation products at concentrations comparable to those identified in the Cooling Tower sediments. These samples were taken during the period when Zn-65 and Mn-54 vere being detected in Cooling Tower sediments and indicate that measurable quantities of these two activation products were also present in the make-up water being drawn from the river. The location where these samples were obtained is not subject to any significant particulate entrainment 'effects from the atmosphere. For this reason this source has been identified as the most likely pathway for the introduction of radioactive material into the Cooling Towers.

1.2 rl f Coolin Tower BHnent Resuspended river sediment and suspended solids constitute the largest source of the solid material that builds up in the Cooling Towers. A factor that may influence the mass (quantity) of solids collecting in the Cooling Tower is the liquid volume tliroughput.

The tower operation cycle requires additions to the liquid inventory to make up for evaporative and windborne aerosol liquid inventory losses.. The suspended solids content of the water drawn into the intake to make up for these losses may influence the amount wppss/cooLsED.Rvl Sep[embej'7, 1993

of fine sediment that collects in the tower flow basins. USGS water quality data from the Columbia River at the reach along the WNP-2 Site shows a maximum loading of 13 mg/1. This is a significant amount of solids considering the amount of water processed by the TMU system. Estimates of the amount of solid material introduced into the Cooling Towers by this method approach 2 tons per month.

Additions to the bulk solid content of the Cooling Tower sediment occurs within the tower structure as accumulations of dead or fractionated portions of algae colonies

{biological material). The addition of this tower generated solids bulk to accumulations of sludge must be considered in any attempt to correlate radionuclide concentrations in river sediments with those in the tower sludges. Supply System studies of the organic carbon content of the sludges have been performed on sediment samples indicating up to a 30% organic content with some seasonal variation. This information has been used to convert Cooling Tower sediment concentrations to river equivalent values (corrected for organic mass ingrowth).

The contribution of windborne dust to the mass of the cooling tower sludges is presently unknown. Such a determination would involve a review of available dust loading factors for various wind velocities and directions, and compensation for factors such as building wake effects. Models describing these processes have been developed; however, most require some custom accommodation to onsite structure physical dimensions. In addition, incorporation of site meteorology would present a formidable task and would have little value without known dust loading parameters.

2.0 The A arance of Zn-65 and Mn-54 in oolin Tower edim nts The appearance of Zn-65 and Mn-54 in the Cooling Tower sediments raised particular concerns since this could represent a potentially unanticipated source of activity from the plant. As there is no indication of the appearance of Mn-54 or Zn-65 in the river sediment or river water above detectable levels, the appearince of Zn-65 in the Cooling Tower sediment presents an apparent paradox. Zinc commonly occurs as a dissociated salt having a soluble chemical characteristic. In this chemical form it is subject to concentrating effects from evaporative processes such as Cooling Tower operations. If the river water/sediment concentrations of Zn-65 were below detectable limits and then concentrated by Cooling Tower evaporation effects, it would be feasible to have measurable quantities of Zn-65 in the Cooling Tower sediments.

Another possibility is that Zn-65 is adsorbed onto suspended solids in the river and is not otherwise associated with river "water" or sediments. Since the river intake for tower make up water is suspended above the bottom of the river, primarily only suspended would be expected to be drawn into the make up water treatment system. The 'olids river fiow velocity in the Hanford Reservation reach is of sufficiently high velocity that only relatively large particles would be subject to sedimentation effects.

Adsorption/desorption effects have been shown to be more pronounced on smaller WPPSS/COOLS ED.RV1 September 27, l993

ty

~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ l ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1 I

~ I ~ ~ . I I ~ ~ I '

~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ V. ~ ~ . ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

II ~ ~ ~ v~ ~

~ ~ v~ . ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ e~ '

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~

~

I:

~ sl

~ ~

I~

~ o ~ a ~ 'll I 1 ~ ~ ~

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ol

~

I ~

I~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ I~

~

I~

~ ol ~ ~

~

I~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ II ~

~ ~

The sample taken on July 23", 1986 was noted to have been left to settle for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to counting. The possibility that suspended solids had settled on the bottom of this sample causing activity in the sediments to be oriented closer to the detector may explain the relatively high concentrations reported for this sample.

Quantitatively this situation would invalidate this sample result. Qualitatively, the appearance of Zn-65 in this sample is undeniable.

f An additional sample was sent to an offsite laboratory for analysis. The result as shown below confirms a detectable Zn-65 component in the incoming river water during this time period.

18-Jun-86 Teledyne Sample ¹ 68233 Wa m 'ver In ke Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/cc)  % Error (1 Sigma)

Co-60 1.5 E-08 44.85 Zn-65 2.5E-08 50.55 The Zn-65 identified in the river water samples taken on June 18, 1986 (Teledyne Sample ¹ 68233) and again in the sample taken on July 23, 1986 (Sample ¹ 86-5371) .

appeared at the same time this radionuclide was being identified in the Cooling Tower sediments. Mn-54 was identified consistently in the Intake/Flocculator samples. This data was not substantiated by other agencies conducting environmental surveillance programs in the area.

The data recorded above for the Flocculator and the river water intake are consistent with trends in the Cooling Tower sediment samples. During this same period of time Cooling Tower data indicate that Mn-54 was appearing consistently since August of 1985 (Sample ¹ 85-08-02). Mn-54 had not been detected after June 27, 1986 (Sample ¹ 86-06-26) and then reappeared in the Cooling Tower sediments in January of 1987 (Sample

¹ 87-01-15). Zinc-65 first appeared in the Cooling Tower sediments on January 16, 1986 (Sample ¹ 86-01-16) but then did not reappear until March 20, 1986 (Sample ¹ 86 12).

Consideration of these sample data provides evidence that the Columbia River sediments were a source of activation products during this. period of time.

The Cooling Tower support systems were examined to identify sample points from which sediment samples could be drawn to substantiate the Columbia River water as the source of the activity. The sample line from the TMU intake was identified as the only point not influenced by additions of flocculent or gaseous effluent entrainment effects.

External influences on the appearance of Zn-65 seem evident (see figure 1). A notable WPPSS/COOLSED.RVt September 27, 1993

FIGURE 1 MEASUREMENTS OF ZN45 IN COOuNG TOWER SEDIMENTS Wrrm THE PROJECTED DECAY OF ZN45 SUPDGIUIPOSED

't E-06 1E-07 E

1E-08 Zn-65 Decay Projection 1E-09 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time after Commercial Operations {days)

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993

L

'l 0

trend evidenced by this data is the steady decline of the concentration of Zn-65 from the fourth quarter of 1988 to the end of 1989. Zn-65 was not identified in samples taken from July 1986 through July 1987. Sporadic appearances of Zn-65 were noted through mid-1991 but not to the previously recorded levels. Although a decline in the Zn-65 with the characteristic half life would be anticipated from a single contaminating event originating from the plant, this behavior would not be manifest since the Cooling Towers are cleaned at least twice a year. If an assumption is made that the source of Zn-65 was an external (upstream river borne) 'source, the samples of Cooling Tower sediment would exhibit the observed behavior independent of the Cooling Tower clean-out schedule. A step increase in the level of Zn-65 appears to have occurred in Cooling Tower samples collected after July of 1987. The concentrations in these samples appear to follow the 245 day half life of Zn-65 (see Figure 1). Increases in the level of Zn-65 over the projected decay line correspond to both the first cold weather (November and October samples) and the hottest months (August and July samples). The evaporative effect of the Cooling Towers could be concentrating soluble Zn-65 in the sediments.

A possibility that can lead to elevated levels of Zn-65 during both the hot months and the first freeze is that bioaccumulation of Zn-65 in the green algae growing in the Cooling Towers is occurring. This phenomenon is documented to occur with a bioaccumulation factor of 1.4E+05 (ref. 9, Table 5.41). Death of the algae stringers with the first cold weather may release accumulated Zn-65 to the Cooling Tower sediments..

The highest biomass of algae occurs during the summer months coinciding with peak Zn-65 measurements.

An upstream source of Zinc-65 is known to exist from past "N"reactor discharges to the ground. Although the Hanford Reservation reports characterize the Zn-65 discharges as non-transportable through the soil, the reported releases identif'y an upstream source of Zn-65 production (See Attachment I).

3.0 herno I ciden in rint on olin Tower edim n Beginning in June of 1986 measurable quantities of fission products (cesium-134, ruthenium-103, and rhodium-106) appeared in the Cooling Tower sediments. These additional radionuclides are the fingerprint of the Chernobyl accident. The appearance of the Chernobyl fingerprint in the sample database shortly after the 1986 accident is an indication of a water borne source of this activity, The majority of the residue from this accident appearing in the Cooling Tower sediments is more likely to have been drawn from the river than from the air. The collection medium for this activity is the surface of the entire Columbia River Basin. Rainwater runoff from this large collection area carries fallout deposited on soil surfaces into the river and then downstream. This ~

activity exhibited a steady decline throughout 1987 and did not reappear in the samples after August of 1988.

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV i September 27, 1993

Environmental monitoring samples of river sediments taken by the Supply System for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) were drawn before the Chernobyl fallout arrived and would not have shown an increase in sediment activity.

4.0 ATI L ALY I F LIN T WKR A RIVKR KD D T The persistent appearance of Cs-137 and Co-60 in Cooling Tower sediments at comparable concentrations to those exhibited in the Flocculent samples and Columbia River sediment samples point to the river as a potential source of these radionuclides.

The presence of the relatively long half lived radionuclides Cs-137 and Co-60 in the river and Cooling Tower sediments makes tracking and trending feasible over longer periods of time.

Statistical methods are applied to compare the Cooling Tower sediments with the river sediments in order to substantiate the theory that the river is the primary source of the radioactive material found in the Cooling Tower sediments.

4.1 ~g rosh Since only a few samples of river water from the TMU intake were analyzed, and Sere are no samples of suspended solids at this location (routine suspended solids sampling is not a component of any existing sample program), a statistical comparison of the results of Cooling Tower sediment samples and Columbia River sediment samples taken upstream of the plant was performed. Numerous samples of both of these sediment types have been taken and analyzed since the beginning of commercial operations at WNP-2. These sample results were segregated into two sample populations for the purpose of statistical testing. These two populations were comprised of all samples taken of the Cooling Tower sediments, and all samples taken of Columbia River Sediments upstream of WNP-2. The purpose of the testing was to establish whether there was a statistically significant difference in the radionuclide content of the two populations of samples.

Only Cs-137 and Co-60 occurred in both sample populations with sufficient frequency to provide a database large enough for reliable statistical comparison. Generally at least twenty samples and preferably at least thirty samples from each population being compared are necessary to ensure a reasonable degree of reliability in any such assessment. The testing methods and acceptance criteria are described in the body of this document and were primarily of two types, the r statistic test for unpaired summary data, and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for independent data sets.

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993

4.2 n ta i in eth

'M U*~d.

Yh FRi" I f ygi p

i k F'I i g* Uyl U ~I. Th value for any statistical test X is named X~. The criteria applied to determine whether case of the our hypothetical X test, the critical value is named X,~. The values of the hU critical values of any statistical test are based on the number of samples in the data set and the Level of Significance (0) that is selected by the tester. The level of significance or Confidence Interval determines the level of confidence (Confidence Level) we can have in the result of any test and as such sets the Confidence Limit for acceptance or rejection of the test results. Generally, the 95% Confidence Level is felt to be appropriate for environmental type population comparisons. The critical value is usually read from a table of values specifically prepared for the given test. When two data sets are being compared, the determining factors in selecting a critical value are the degrees of freedom (a fraction of the number of samples in a data set) and the selected level of confidence one wishes to have in the test result. When a test is conducted to determine if there is a significant (u) difference between two data sets, a "two tailed test" is used.

In a two tailed test, one would use a/2 to define the confidence limits on either side of the distribution. A null hypothesis (HQ is then established as the basis of the test. For example, in the comparison of two populations (two tailed test), the null hypothesis is generally stated as, "There is no statistically significant difference between the means of-the two populations (xi = xg". The test is then performed and ~ is compared to the X, obtained from table "X". If the calculated value is less than the critical value we accept the null hypothesis as being substantiated by the test. If the calculated value of the test is greater than the critical value, then the null hypothesis must be rejected and an alternate hypothesis (HQ must be accepted. The alternate hypothesis in this type of test can only be that the means of the two populations are significantly different (x, A xi). The selected Confidence Level is the area of the bell shaped curve between the established Confidence Limits. For a 95% Confidence Level this area is 95% of the total area under the curve with 2.5% being located in each of the tails beyond the Confidence Limits. The test then is essentially. a target with its edges defined as the confidence limits. Both the calculated and critical values of the test are expressed as multiples of the standard deviation. If the calculated value falls between the confidence limits (within the 95% area) the null hypothesis is accepted (test passes). It can now be clearly seen why a test at the 99% confidence level is less restrictive than a test at the 95% confidence level. The target is larger and the confidence limits defined allow the acceptance of a wider range of the calculated value. These general principles of statistical testing are applied for both the r statistic test and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.

4.3 Data Acce tance The results of gamma isotopic analyses of samples of Cooling Tower sediments and Columbia River sediments from various sampling programs were reviewed from the start of commercial operations to present. These samples compose two distinct sample WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 10 September 27, 1993

populations (x, and x2) which may be compared to determine if there is a difference in the concentrations of radionuclides found in the samples. Databases were prepared directly from the spectral analysis reports with all data containing less than 66% standard error included in the database. This criteria was selected as there has been found to be a stable relationship between the critical level (Cg as defined by Currie, and the 66%

standard error of counting (ref. 2 and ref.6). The referenced study shows that a fractional standard error (1 sigma counting error) of 66% is a reasonable approximation of the critical level for (non-systematic) low level counting measurements with gamma spectroscopy instrumentation. Those samples exhibiting greater than 66% error did not comprise a significant contribution to the data set (less than five data points over several radionuclides in the Cooling Tower sample population). None of these data points were in the Cs-137 or Co-60 population sets (see Table - A2).

4.4 m 1 onditi nin Prior to conducting the tests the data sets must be adjusted so as to be comparable. For example, most of the Cooling Tower sediment samples were analyzed in a liquid sample geometry having units of pCi/cc. Some other Cooling Tower samples were dried and analyzed in a soil geometry having units of pCi/gm. The various monitoring programs from which the river sediment samples were obtained also had dissimilar measurement units (pCi/kg, pCi/gm dry, and pCi/25 cc wet). Most but not all of the units were able.

to be converted to units of pCi/gm using known sample densities and standard conversions. If data discrepancies could not be resolved, a common basis for comparison could not be established and the data excluded from the analysis.

4.5 am I election Attempts were made to ensure that the selected data were representative of the populations being evaluated. In the case of duplicate samples, only one of the samples was included for the purpose of the analysis. The sample selected was that having the result with the least % error. Most of the samples selected were counted for at least 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Disparate analysis parameters caused a sample to be rejected. For example, any sample with questionable units or liquid samples analyzed on a soil geometry (or vice versa) were rejected.

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993

0' I

I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~

~ I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I

~ . ~ I -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~

~ ' ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I ' I ~ ~ ~

I...I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I ' ~ ~ I . I ~ ~ ~ ' ir ~

~ ~ I ~

' I ~ ~ ~

~

' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

~ I ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ I v ~ ~

I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I ~

I, ~ ~ ~

~ ~

I ~

~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~

~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~~ I '

I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~

' ~ I ~ ~, ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ' ~ I ~ I e I I

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ 0

e 0

l,it k'

0

results are a testament to the very low levels of activity being monitored by th<<<<r programs.

Results of the Qualitative Sample Selection Process Population g of Samples accepted Cooling Tower 53 (Liquid Geometry)

Cooling Tower 18

{Soil Geometry)

River Sediment 4.6 Once the sample populations had been screened for qualitative discrepancies that resulted in some data rejection, the populations were examined quantitatively <<<<<<c'he presence of "outliers" Outliers are samples so incongruous with the rest of the population that the data points may be rejected as not being part of the s~mple ~

~ ~ ~

population. For example, the river sediment population ls known to cont in samples

~ ~

taken in close proximity to shoreline "seeps" just downstream of N reactor and the old

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

Hanford town site. Seeps are locations along the Columbia River that exhibit a spring

~

~ ~

like behavior at times of low river level (fiow rate). The seeps represent points where

~ ~

the groundwater table (phreatic surface) intersects the river bed. Groundwater contaminated with radionuclides from old burial yards or reactor effiuent discharges to the ground enters the river at these points. The concentrations of radionuclides in the soils around these seeps is usually at least an order of magnitude higher than the general river sediment samples. Leaving these samples in the population would bias the outcome of the analysis. lf these samples are truly incongruous, they should be able to be detected by application of quantitative criteria. This quantitative sample population conditioning was performed using Chauvenet's criterion. As expected, when Chauvenet's Criterion was applied to the selected population of river sediment samples, some of the samples taken in the proximity of "N"reactor and the old Hanford townsite were rejected. These samples typically exhibited a concentration more than one order of magnitude above the=mean value. Some samples taken below shoreline seeps were rejected, but many were retained since the rejection criterion was not met even though the samples exhibited elevated levels.

%PPSS/COOLSED.RV1 13 September 27, 1993

I i

J 1

Number of Samples Rejected by Chauvenet's Criterion to Sample Populations Popuhtion Cs-137 Cooling Tower River Sediment Some of the data for the Cooling Tower data set did not meet the rejection criteria. In the case of Cs-137, the rejected samples were within the time frame of the Cheinobyl accident and represent elevated levels of Cs-137 in the sediments. There does not appear to be any obvious reason that the Cooling Tower Samples should have been rejected by Chauvenet's Criterion except that the values were uncharacteristically high for the population.

4.7 An l of Varianc AN VA After the data are conditioned and assembled, and after outlier rejection criteria are applied, the general population comparisons can be performed. The two populations were evaluated for various statistical test parameters with the following results:

Results of Statistical Parameter Determinations Population Cooling Tower Sediments River Sediments Radionuclide Cs-137 Cs-137 Co-60 Sample Size n, =63 n, =57 n,=65 n2 =36 2.36 E-07 1.39 E-07 2.03 E-07 9.58 E-08 Variance 2.04 E-14 7.96 E-15 2.37 E-14 9.37 E-15 Std. Dev. 1.43 E-07 8,92 E-08 1.54 E-07 9.68 E-08 Median 2.01 E-07 1.15 E-07 1.51 E-07 6.70 E-08 The first test that must be performed is test for homogeneous variance in the data sets being compared. This testing technique is generally known as ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA) or the "F test". This is important because different testing methods are applied to data sets with non-homogeneous variance and some tests are not even valid if the data sets exhibit non-homogeneous variance (e.g. Wilcoxon's Rank Sum test).

In the case of ANOVA or the "F test", the calculated value is named F,~ and the critical value is named F,, The null hypothesis (H,) is selected as "the variance of these two WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 14 September 27, 1993

I populations are homogeneous". When the variance (0") of the two populations are compared and the calculated value is less than the critical value, the data are substantiated as being of homogeneous variance.

The population homogeneity test (ANOVA) is conducted as follows:

F(~n,(u = Large a /Small 0 = F~

Results of the F test for Homogeneous Data Sets Radio nuclide F~ Result 5% Level 1% Level of Significance of Significance Cs-137 1.16 1.53 1.84 Ho Accepted Co-60 1. 17 1.59 1.94 + Accepted Both populations have homogeneous variance at both levels of significance; therefore, both the t statistic test, for unpaired summary data with homogeneous variance and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for independent sample populations with homogeneous variance are appropriate for the evaluation of these populations.

4.8 ~Th The purpose of the t statistic test is to determine if the difference in the mean concentrations from the two sample populations is statistically significant. The test is performed for both radionuclides independently.

cd (N-2)

(n -1)a I +(n -1)az

( + )

(n, +p-2) n, n~

Where:

Zi = the mean value of the Cooling Tower samples

= the mean value of the River Sediment samples 2

a, =

2 the variance of the Cooling Tower samples Og = the variance of the River Sediment samples ni = the number of data points in the Cooling Tower population

= the number of data points in the River Sediment population WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 15 September 27, i993

i t"

i

Results of the t Statistic Test Radionuclide <an ~ah Result 95% 99% Ho Accepted Confidence Confidence Level Level Cs-137 1.21 1.96 2.58 Both 95% 8c 99%

Co-60 2.21 1.96 2.58 99% Only The results of the t statistic test are that there is no statistically significant difference between the means of the Cooling Tower and river sediment: sample populations at either the 99% confidence level or the 95% confidence level for Cs-137 data. There was found to be a statistically significant, difference between, the mean of the Cooling Tower sediment sample population and the river sediment sample population at the 95%

confidence level for Co-60 data. This difference was not found to be statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. The mean Co-60 data for the Cooling Tower sediment sample population appears to be slightly larger than the mean of the river sediment sample population.

~

Because this result for Co-60 may have been influenced by the removal of data by any

~

~

~

the criteria listed above, another t-statistic test was performed using all of the raw

~

(uncorrected) data for both populations. This procedure is acceptable because the

~

~

~ ~

Chernobyl accident did not transport globally significant quantities of Co-60, and there is

~

~

not a significant concentrating effect in the Cooling Towers for insoluble Co-60 species.

The reinstatement of the sample results from the shoreline seeps in the river sediment population at concentrations in excess of IE-6 pCi/gm more than offset the influence of the Cooling Tower data points deleted by Chauvenet's Criterion at concentrations near 5E-7.

The F-test was performed for the total Co-60 uncorrected data set. The number of data points considered in the Cooling Tower data set was 83 and the number of data points in the river sediment data set was 81 with all non-detectable results included. F~ for this number of data points was 1.7 for the 1% level of significance, and 1.4for the 5% level of significance. The value of F,<, for these data sets was 4.64. The result of this test indicated that the two populations have non-homogeneous variance.

The r-statistic test for unpaired summary data with non-homogeneous variance was then applied to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the data sets at both the 99% and the 95% confidence level. The parameters for the raw Co-60 data set are listed on the table below.

wppss/cooLsED.Rvl 16 September 27, 1993

0 Results of Statistical Parameter Determinations for the Raw Co-60 Data Radionu elide Cooling Tower River Sediment Sample Size n, =83 n,=81 Mean 1.23 E-07 1.2 E-07 Variance 2.24 E-14 1.04 E-13 Std. Dev. 1.5 E-07 3.22 E-07 Median 7.77 E-8 6;98 E-9 The results of the t-statistic test for non-homogeneous unpaired summary data performed for the Co-60 raw data are shown on the table below:

Results of the t Statistic Two-tailed Test t,, Degrees Freedom of I <cnt 95%

Confidence I ~ca 99%

Confidence Result H, Accepted Level Level (n, - 1) = 82 0.08 1.96 2.58 Pass (n,-1) =80 0.08 1 ~ 96 2,58 Pass Since t, is less than both values of t,, at both the 99% and 95% confidence levels, then H, is accepted. There is no statistically significant difference between the means of the two populations of samples.

4.9 Wilcox n Rank um Te The purpose of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test is the same as.,the r statistic test. The data sets are combined and sorted in ascending numerical order. Each data point is then assigned a rank as its position in the database. When two data points have the same value, they are tied and assigned the average rank value. The sum of the ranks of the smallest of the two populations (gn,) is used as the basis for the test.

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 17 September 27, 1993

0 V

I The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is then performed for both radionuclides independently.

R'~ nl(m + 1)/2 cue TS Where:

= the number of tied groups t = the number of tied data in the j~ group

= g of the ranks in the ni sample population

= the number of data points in the smaller population

= the number of data points in the larger population ni = the sum of n, and n, The null hypothesis (Ho) is set as "there is not a statistically significant difference in the two populations". If ~ ~ -Z, or ~ Z,~, then Ho is accepted. The alternative hypothesis (HJ is'adopted when Z,~ falls outside the defined confidence limits. The alternative hypothesis can only be that "there is a statistically significant difference in the two sample populations".

The following statistical parameters were determined for the two populations for each radionuclide.

Radionuclide Cs-137 Co-60 n, 63 36 ng 65 57 128 93 4332 1336 WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 18 September 27, 1993

0 0

Results of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Radionuclide ZCah XCtrt Ctlt Result 95% 99% Ho Accepted Confidence Confidence Level Level Cs-137 1.28 1.96 2.58 Both 95% & 99%

-2.81 1.96 2.58 No Hadopted The results of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test are that there is no statistically significant difference between the means of the Cooling Tower and river sediment sample populations at either the 99% confidence level or the 95% confidence level for Cs-137 data. There was found to be a statistically significant difference between the mean of the Cooling Tower sludge sample population and the river sediment sample population at both the 95% and the 99% confidence levels for Co-60 data.

The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is supposedly less sensitive to the presence of outliers and Not Detected results. Not detected results are included as tied values.

The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test can not be performed on populations with non-homogeneous variances so the confirmatory test using raw Co-60 data could not be performed in this case. Since the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test utilized the same data set as the r-statistic test for homogeneous data it is reasonable to expect the same result. Since there is the possibility that deletion of the higher concentration Co-60 data by Chauvenet's criterion may have influenced the result of this test as well, we conclude that the case presented by the. result of raw data comparison using the t-test for unpaired summary data and non-homogeneous variance overrides the borderline result of this test.

4.10 Multi le Linear Re i While there appear to be many variables that effect the appearance of Zn-65 in the Cooling Tower sludges the number of positive- sample, results in the accepted population

{18) is too small to perform any meaningful correlation analyses. Even simple linear regression correlations are difficult due to the many variables involved. Although many comparisons were attempted, none resulted in the display of any meaningful pattern of behavior that was clearly amen'able to correlation techniques. Such a task might be accomplished with a much larger database and if any of the variables could be characterized in common units of expression. It does seem apparent from informal qualitative observations'hat some of the variables are important from a source resolution standpoint. These obseivations are included in the discussion section of this document.

WPPSSICOoLSED.RV1 Septembet 27, l993

m t

~ ~

5.1 i The frequency distributions of both data sets are asymmetrical (see Figures 2 and 3).

Any shift of the peak frequency to one side or the other of the range of the data is considered to represent non-normal (non-symmetrical) conditions. A normal distribution pattern is represented by the classical bell shaped curve (symmetrical). A test for data normalcy is to plot the concentration values against cumulative frequency using a linear-probability plot. Normally distributed data would have the appeirance of a straight line.

When the data were plotted in this manner a straight line was not observed.

The non-normal character of these particular data sets might be attributed to log-normal frequency distributions exhibited by these sample populations. This can be tested by plotting the data on log-probability paper. A straight line plot indicates a log-normal distribution. When the data were plotted on log-probability scales straight lines were not observed. The indication is that these data are neither normally distributed or log-normally distributed. The confidence limits of the t statistic test are slightly altered by the presence of non-normal data distributions but the extent of these changes can be determined. The error in the use of Normal distribution assumptions on asymmetrical data sets does not exceed 10% (ref. 4).

When measurements are made at levels very close to the lower limit of detection of the counting systems, it is inevitable that many of the results wiH be reported as being below the lower limit of detection of the instrument. In this case, the lower tail of an otherwise normal distribution (bell shaped) will be clipped. This circumstance results in what are known as censored data sets. Only the Co-60 data set from the river population had a significant number of "not detected" results. The majority of the sample populations are free of from censorship. When the raw Co-60 data (including non-detectable results) were analyzed by the t-statistic test for unpaired summary data with non-homogeneous variance, the result indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the means of the two sample populations.

5.2 Unknown Facto Which ma Tnfluen e T in~ R ul The concentrating effect of the Cooling Tower could not be estimated with the data available due to the absence of Tower throughput data. Examination of the sample populations does not provide any indication that there is a significant tower concentration effect for Cs-137 and Co-60. This is believable if activity is only introduced to the tower adsorbed onto sediment. A concentrating effect would be more likely if radionuclides were drawn into the towers in as a soluble chemical species.

'Another effect of unknown magnitude is the difference in partition coefficients for radionuclides between the suspended solids in the river and the river sediment. The WPPSS/COOLSED.RVt 20 September 27, 1993

swiftness of flow in the Columbia River at the TMU intake suspends all but the largest of particles. It is a physical principle that smaller particles have a larger surface area for adsorption gram for gram than do larger particles. This suggests that there may be slight differences in the quantity of radioactive material adsorbed onto suspended solids than is found in the river sediment. A slight elevation in the activity per gram of suspended solids over that of normal river sediment is predicted based on the inclusion of smaller particles in this material that would not be large enough to settle out in the river. The very small mass of this excess small diameter material would predict only a slight increase even though the difference in partition could be quite large. A monitoring program based on paired samples of suspended solids from the TMU intake and Cooling tower sediments may be more appropriate to characterize the amount of river borne radioactivity being introduced to on-site water systems.

6.0 NL I N The result of this evaluation indicates that the activity in the Cooling Tower sediments is

~n of plant origin but is being brought onsite from the suspended solids content of the Columbia River.

70 RE ATI N If it is desirable to monitor the introduction of riverborne radionuclides into the plant Cooling Towers, a program based on the sampling of suspended solids at the TMU intake is recommended.

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 21 September 27, 1993

FIGURE 2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CESIUM'-137 CONTENT OF RIVER SEDIMENT vs. COOLING TOWER SEDBIENT Cesium-1 37 b

10 E1 h

Cooling Tower 0 River Sediment 0 0.5 'j.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 01 1 2 3 4 hficrccuries jgram (z l.OE-07)

WPPSS/COOLSED.RVl 22 September Z7. 1993

0 I

l' I

t

FIGURE 3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE COBALT-60 CONTENT OF RIVFN SEDIMENT vs. COOLING TOWER SEDINDPIT 40 Cobalt-60 35 t

~A 30

~

O 25

>>t

~ >>

zo >>

>>h ~ >>

>>+

10 >>K C

Cooling Tower 0 River Sediment 0 '1.5 3.5 5.5 7.5 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 Microcuries/gram (x 1.0E-07)

WPPSSICOOLSED.RV1 23 September 27, 1993

8.0 REFEREN Buske, Norm and Josephson, Linda, W d i e R nn i e f he

~RI d h *Ii, 0 f d R h 0 3, ~ R*P 4,ISSR0-032973-03-8, Spring 1989.

2. Currie, L. A., wer Limi f D ti ' niti an El of r P ition for adi I' E un vironmen ur men NUREG/CR 4007, (September 1984)

3. Davis, A.I., "Tower Sludge Contamination Pathways from the Plant", Washington Public Power Supply System Interoffice Memorandum to D. J. Pisarcik (9 November, 1989) 4, Gilbert, Richard O. and Kinnison, Robert R., "Statistical Methods for Estimating the Mean and Variance from Radionuclide Data Sets Containing Negative, Unreported or Less-than Values", Health Physics Vol. 40 (1981), pp 377-390.

5. Hornung, Richard W. and Reed, Laurence D., "Estimation of Average Concentration in the Presence of Nondetectable Values", Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Vol. 5 No. 1, (January 1990), pp 46-51

6. Moon, J. W.,Bland, J. S,,"Peak Rejection Crit ria Based on Counting Error for Low Level Gamma Spectroscopy Measurements", Internal Report, J. Stewart Bland Associates, Inc. (September 1992)

7. Oresegun, Modupe O., Decker, Karin M. and Sanderson, Colin G.,

"Determination of Self-Absorption Corrections by Computation in Routine Gamma-Ray Spectrometry for Typical Environmental Samples", Radioactivity and Radiochemistry, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1993, pp 38-45 S G, G.. d University Press, 1989.

0 h, WG.,~ii h d . 8 SII', I 8

9. Till, J. E. and Meyer, H. R., R i I i A men, NUREG/CR 3332 (September 1983), Table 5.41

10. Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 Envir nmental Re (ER),

Pre-operational Evaluation of Site Environmental Characteristics and Parameters, Amendment 2 October, 1978.

Woodruff, R.K., et al, Hanford i e Environmental Re 1 -1 91, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA.

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV 1 24 September Z7, 1993

9.0 H T Qrtl 3880 3.0 LIQUID RELEASES TQ THE ENVIROftMEÃfFROM THK 100 AREAS I

., 1

'3.1 Radioactive Llquld Releases From I

100-Nkea

~ >> ~

3.1.1 'Activity Discharged to the LWDFs and via Seepage to tha

'.'~.'.' "...;, ~ ': Columbia River'"

P To the 1301 N and 1325 N LWDFs Seepage to river via N.Springs Rndlonuc! Ide Reiense, Avg. Conc., Peak Conc., Release, Avg. Cone., Penk Conc. ~

Ci pCI/L 'CI/L CI pCI/L pC'JL M3 2.7E2 7.4E4 3.9E5 2.7E2+ 5.6E4 3.0E5

'P 32 22E1 5.9E3 '.2K4 . 1.1E 2 5.9KO 5.9E1

.Cr5I .',. 7.5E1 2.0E4 8.5K4 . '/IDE 1 7.0EI 1.7E2 Mn54 . q 7.1E2 1.9E5 .7.2E5 Co 58 2.8E1 7.6E3 2.3E4 Fe.59 2.6E2 . '7.1E4 2.2E5 Co 60 5.9E2 1.6E5 6.8E5 3.0E 1 1.6E2 Zn 65 1.5E1 4.0E3 6.0E3 Sr.89 3.9E2 1.1E5 8aE5 12EO 7.2K2 6.0E3 Sr.90 2.4E2 6.5E4 6.5K5 8.4EO 42E3 6.1E3 Z/Nb 95 .3.2E2 ~ 8.7E4 2.9E5

.MoTc 99m 7.8E2 . 2.1K5 1.7E5 ~ .1.6K 8.6El , 4.4E2

'RU I03 .',: 5.4EI .1.5K4 7.1E4

.37E 1

I 2.0E2 '3E2 r Ru I06.:". 8.0E1 .2.2E4 ~ 7.0E4. 3.0E 1 1.6K2 .2.5E2

'.'! 1.7E3 ' "43K3 " 1DEl

-'Sb-i24 6.1EO 13K 2 8.1EO l25

"'b 1.2E1 3.4E3 i'.7E3: "' . 33K I 1.8K2 2.4K2 ." '

I l31 3.7E2 1.OE5 4.6E5 5.4EO 2.9E3 1.1E4 Xe.I33 2.9E2 8.0E4 2.7E5 1.9KO 1.0E3 2.9E3 Cs l34 5.7EO ~ 1.6E3 4.3E3 Cs l37 8.8E1 . 24E4 2.1E5 1.9E 2 1.0EI 1.7K2 BaLa l40 ~ 4.1K3 1.1Eo 4.4E6 Ce.141 7.4EI 2.0E4 8.0E4 l44

'cPr 2.8E2 7.6K4 7.2E5 Sm 153 7.2Kl 2.0E4 7.7E4 Pu 238 5.CE 1 1.4E2 9.7E2 3.8E 6 2.0K 3 1.2K 2 Pu 239/240 .3.4EO 9.4E2 . 6.5E3 1.7E 5 9.1E 3 5.5E I rtp 239 8.7E4 6.6E5

'3.2'.6K4 SLR 7.1E5 4.3E7 SLR Short lived radlonuclides (Tt< <48 hours)

~ 'Indicates radlonuclldes in particulate form or with a high Ionic exchange potential which nre trapped within the LWDFs'oil columns, and removed

.beyond detection limits.

short half life rndlonuclldes which have decayed beyond detec.ion

'Indicates limits before reaching In the riverbank springs.

'.+ This Is the same value as for tritium to the LWDFs, since nil t.it!urn released to

, 'he LWDFs ls assumed to <<ventunlly. though not necessarily ln one year's time,

.reach the Columbia River vin the t{ Springs. Average nnd peak concentrations

'epresent the.analyses of CY 1985 M Spr!ngs seepage.

WPPSS/COOLSED. RVl 25 September 27, 1993

0

'l I

4 0

' 'i

10.II ~AP ENOIX List of Tables:

Table - A1 Cooling Tower Sample Parameters - Basis for Counting Data Rejection Table - A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results - All Data Table - A3 Selected Population of Cooling Tower Samples - River Equivalent Data (c)

Table - A4 River Sediment Sample Population Table - AS Zn-65 Sample Data and Averaging for Figure 1 Table - A6 Raw Co-60 Data for Cooling Tower Population Table - A7 Raw Co-60 Data for River Sediment Population WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 26 September 27, 1993

1 1

"l jl

Table A1 Cooling Tower Sludge Samples 1985 through 1993 Date Sample ¹ Cuantity Geometry Comment Selection Time 8546-25 971 cc L0012 0.5 hrs 17 01.Aug4$ 5 854842 1380 cc L0012 12 hrs YUq 22 Aug45 8S4M4 234 cc L0012 0.5 hrs No duplicate 22.Aug%5 854844 234 cc 4 hrs No duplicate 22-Aug@5 8SOM4 L0012 12 hrs No VoVgeom 28 85484S $ 2 hrs Y Uq Aug'8.Aug4$

5 854848 1536 cc L0012 0.5 hrs No duplicate 28.Aug4$ 5 854848 1536 cc L0012 12 hrs YUq 28.Aug4$ 5 854M7 1279 cc L00$ 2 0.5 hrs No time 29-Aug'0 854&41 1408 cc 12 hrs YUq Aug%5 8548-49 1403 cc LO012 0.5 hrs No duplicate 30 Aug%5 854849 $ 403 cc L00 $ 2 12 hrs YUq OMep85 854943 560 gm L0014 2 hrs No units 048ep4$ 5 854943 560 cc L0014 12 hrs No units 99 054e~5 854942 1263 cc 0.5 hrs No duplicate $ 00 0

054ep4$ 5 854942 1263 cc LO012 12 hrs YUq 100 2~ep4$ 5 85494$ 1119 cc L0012 12 hrs YUq 115 03-Oct%5 85 $ 044 1030 cc 0.5 hrs No duplicate 128 03-Oct4$ 5 85.1044 1030 cc 12 hrs 2B YUq 128 16-Oct4$ 5 85-1 0-24 1200 gm 12 hrs 2A No Special 141 17-Oct45 85-1 04$ 1220 gm L0012 12 hrs 2B No Special 142 18.Oct@5 85-1032 1141 gm 12 hrs 1A No Special 143 1 fR3ct45 1040 gm L0012 12 hrs 1C No Special 85-1'5.1044 18-Oct@5 1250 gm L0012 12 hrs 1B No Special 1&Oct45 ~ 85.1045 1060 cc LO012 12 hrs 2C No Special 143 0$ -Nov45 85-11%3 500 cc Shel$ 0 (PGT2) 12 hrs No Geometry 18.Dec%5 85-9356 500 cc Shell 0 (PGT2) 12 hrs 2B YUq

$ 8-Dec@5 85.9356 500 cc Shell 0 {PGT2) 12 hrs No Duplicate 1&Jan@6 864$ -$ 6 500 cc LO014 12 hrs YUq 1&Jan4$ 6 860$ -$ 7 500 cc L0014 12 hrs YUq 860243 500 cc L0014 12 hrs No Duplicate 14-Feb'4-Feb4$

6 860243 500 cc L0014 12 hrs Y Liq 282 20-Mar4$ 6 8643-$ 2 500 cc LO014 12 hrs Y Liq 20-Mar4$ 8 8603-$ 3 500 cc L0014, 12 hrs Y Liq 274un4$ 6 8646-25 500 cc (700 gm) L0014 12 hrs YUq 395 27<un4$ 6 8&Pi-26 500 cc (700 gm) 12 hrs YUq 395

$ 84u$ 4$ 6 8647-$ 4 630 gm (500 cc) L00$ 4 12 hrs Y Uq {c) 416 1 fklul4$6 8647-$ 5 620 gm (500 cc) LOO14 Y Uq (c) 416

I t

0'.

Tabb A1 Cooling Tower Slucfge Samples 1985 through 1 993 Oats Quantity Time 15.Aug%6 880842 690 gm (500 cc) L0014 12 hre YUq (c) 2$ Sep88 864$ -16 545 gm (500 cc) UX14 12 hrs Y Uq (c) 19-Nov416 86-11-19 500 cc L0014 12 hrs YUq 30.Dec%6 86-12 18 570 gm (500 cc) L0014 12 hrs Y Uq (c) 274an4)7 8741-15 500 cc LM14 12 hrs YUq 03-Mar417 874341 L0014 12 hrs YUq 03-April7 874442 L0014 12 hrs YUq 675 314ul417 8747-25 L0014 12 hie YUq 01~7 874$ 41 L0014 12 hrs YUq 26.Aug418 884845 L0014 12 hrs Y Liq 1188 2~ep4t8 884946 783 gm (diy) S0012 12 hrs Y Soil 29$ ep48 884947 734 gm (dry) 12 hra 2&Sep418 RA&48 707 gm (dry) 12 hns 29$ ep418 8&(&49 709 gm (dry) 12 hre 294ep48 884$ 40 774 gm (dry) S0012 12 hre Y Soil 1220 ~

2~ep4)8 8849@I 762 gm (dry) S0012 12 hre 304ep88 884942 L0014 12 hrs YUq 1221 04-Nov48 88-1146 250 ml 12 hre No Vol/Geom 88-11M 450 cc L0014 12 hrs YUq '1281 89414)3 450 cc L0014 12 hre YUq 1317 8S4340 450 cc 12 hre N Units/geom 30-Apr49 894542 450 cc 12 hrs YUq 10.May%9 894549 881 gm (dry) 12 hrs Y Soil 10-May@9 8945-10 879 gm (diy) S0012 12 hre 10.May%9 8945-11 945 gm (dry) SO012 12 hre Y Scil 03-May4$ 8S45-15 139 gm (dry) LO014 12 hrs No Vol/Geom 24.May@9 8945.25 234 gm (dry) S0012 12 hrs Y Soil 24-May@9 8945-26 223 gm (diy) 12 hre 10Juh89 894743 450 cc SO014 12 hre N Units/Geom 2$ Jul49 8907-12 60014 12 hre N Units/geom 30-Aught 9 894843 LD014 12 hrs YUq 27~419 89.10.25 518 gm S0014 12 hre Y Soil 1613 01.0eo419 89-12%1 450 ml LO014 24 hre Y (count Time) 024 an-90 9041%1 450 ml L0014 12 hrs Y Liq 02.Fob-90 904244 450 ml L0014 24 hre Y (count time) 1711 02.Mar-90 904341 450 ml NLO014 12 hre No Nal Oet 1739 224un-90 9046.11 247 gm (diy) S0014 12 hre 1851 01-Aug-90 904841 450 '? S0014 24 hre No Units? 1891

0 l(

I, 0'j 1

o~'

l t

Table A1 Cooling Tower Sludge Samples 1985 through 1993 Geometry Comment Selection Flme 29.Aug-90 9048-28 LO014 24 hrs YUq 1919 29-Aug-90 904941 450 ml L0014 12 hrs No Possibkr Dup 1919 28@op-90 SR&f7 450 ml S001 4 12 hrs 1949 QOOc!.90 90-10 19 450 ml L0014 12 hrs YUq 1981 03-Dec.90 90.1241 450 ml LO014 12 hrs YUq 2015 1 SJan-91 914145 UfOf4 12 hrs YUq 294an-91 9141-11 L0014 12 hrs YUq Ot Mar-9f 91434t LOOf 4 12 hrs YUq 2103 02-Apr-91 914441 SO014 12 hrs No Units/Geom 2135 22-Apr.91 9144 12 450 ml LO014 12 hrs Y Llq 2155 2$ AugNf 9148.10 450 ml LO014 12 hrs YUq 034ct-91 91-1042 450 ml SO014 12 hrs No Units/Geom 2319 294ct-91 91-1048 450 ml LO014 12 hrs YUq (Xnan-92 924142 450 ml L0014 12 hrs YUq 2411 04-Feb-92 924241 L0014 12 hrs YUq 2443 28.Feb-92 9243 13 450 ml LQOf 4 12 hrs YUq 2467 07-Apr-92 924442 450 ml L0014 12 hrs YUq 02-Oct-92 92-1048 500 ml LO014 12 hrs YUq 304ct-92 92-10-22 450 ml 12 hrs YUq 27t2 30.Nov-92 92-1241 LO014 12 hrs YUq 2743 28.Dec-92 92-12-13 450 ml L0014 12 hrs YUq 2771 28-Dec-92 934143 450 ml LO014 YUq 2771 28.Dec-92 934143 450 ml L0014 BS Enabled 12 hrs No Bkg Subtract 2771 28.Dec-92 934144 LO014 No Count Time 2771 28.Dec-92 9341 44 450 ml LO014 BS Enabled 3 hrs No Bkg Subtract 2771 29.Dec-92 934142 450 ml LO014 1hr No Count Time 2772 2Man-93 934146 450 ml LO014 12 hrs YUq 16-Mar-93 9343-27 510 gm SCO14 4 hrs Y Soil 2849 16-Mar-93 9343-26 456 gm Y Soil 2849 16-Mar-93 9343-25 460 gm 4 hrs Y Soil 2849 E

16-Mar.93 9343-24 490 gm SO014 4 hrs Y Soil 2849 16-Mar-93 9343-29 537 gm SO014 4 hrs Y Soil 2849

Table - A2 CooHng Tower Sample Results All Data Date Sample P Cs-137 Cs96Err Co40 Co%Err Mn-54 Mn% Zn-65 ZnXErr Co58 Co%Err Cs-134 Ca%Err Ru-103 RuXErr Rh.106 Rh%Err 14 dun-85 8546-25 5.6E47 8.98 1.3E-07 4.35 2.6E48 13.23 01-Aug 85 85-0842 3.7E47 1.86 22-Aug45 8~44 ND 22-Aug 45 8548-34 2.6E47 13.39 22-Aug-85 654834 1.9E-07 10.84 28-Aug-BS 854845 7.3E-OB 6.88 B.OE-OB 6.09 1.5E48 22.14 28.Aug.85 85-0846 3.7E47 9.14 28-Aug 85 854846 3.5E-07 1.8 1.1E47 5.33 2.9E48 10.39 28-Aug-85 854837 1.2E47 20.26 29-Aug 85 854541 1.2E-OT 3.74 6.8E-OB 6.6S 1.3E48 21.94 30-Aug-85 85-I&49 2.3E47 12.38 30-Aug.85 854849 2.5E47 2.38 1.1 E47 S.42 2.2E48 16.48 04.Sep.85 854943 6.1E48 17.85 04-Sep-85 854943 1.9E48 ~ 22.9 05-Sep45 854942 2.2E-07 13.65 05-Sep45 854942 2.4E47 2.42 9.6E48 5.37 2.0E48 18.51 20-Sep45 8549-31 1.SE47 4.31 8.7E-OB 6.86 12E48 23.62 03-Oct45 85-1044 1.2E-OT 29.42 03-Oct-85 85-1 044 1.2E47 5.23 9.8E-OB 7.5 16.0ct.85 BS-10.24 1.4E.07 4.32 1.2E47 5.05 3.1E48 12.29 17-Oct-85 85-1 Hf 1.5E-OT 3.48 7.8E-OB 7.56 2.0E48 16.68 18-Oct45 85-1 042 1.4E47 3.87 9.6E-OB 6.01 1.6E48 22.63 18.0ct.85 85-10.33 8.5E.OB 6.69 5.7E48 8.58 1.7E48 18.46

Table - A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results All Data Dato Sample I Cs-137 Ca%Err Co60 Co%En Mn-54 Mn%E Zn85 Zn@Err Co-58 Co'II En Cs-134 CsXErr Ru-103 RuXErr Rh-106 ~

RhAErr 18-Oct4IS 85-IM4 3.4E4IT 2.11 1.2E4IT 4.95 T.TE49 42.87 18-0ct.SS SS.1045 2.2E4)7 3.17 9.1E4IS 6.99 01-Nov 85 85-1 1-03 2.5E-OB 16.96 I B.Doc-85 85.9356 1.BEFIT 4.53 18-Doc-SS 85-93S6 1.7E47 4.39 16-Jan.86 86-01-16 1.1E4IT 6.9 1.5E-07 5.2 T.SEES 62.06 1.3E4IT 8.32 7.0E-OS 8.04 16-Jan-86 86.01-17 9.SECS 5.9 4.5E-OS 13.53 4.3E4I9 85.99 (<CL) 14.Fob-SB 86024I3 T.SE4NI 10.77 14-Feb.86 8642-03 8.7EZS 8.73 8.4E48 9.91 1.BEATS 28.5 20-Mar.86 8643-12 1.TENT 4.99 1.2E4IT 8.98 I.TE4NI 38.88 S.TE4IS 22.75 T.SEMIS 45.34 20-Mar~ 8603-13 1.5E-07 5.48 1.SE47 6.42 2.6E48 22.98 3.SEMIS 28.41 274 un-86 8MIS-25 6.1E4IT 2.02 1.4E4IT 8.34 1.2E48 54.29 I.0E47 14.15 1.2E4IS 46.06 2.1E47 3.45 9.7E48 7.52 1.8E-07 32.26 274un4IB 86-06-26 S.SEAT 2.14 1.1 E4IT 8.45 2.0E48 31.72 1.1E4IT 12.34 2.4E48 27.03 2.2E47 3.37 8.3E-OS 10.02 184ul-86 8607-14 1.SEAT ~ 3.47 2.9E48 22.03 2.7E-OS 39.99 6.0E4IS 6.09 3.4E48 13.3 2.6E-OB 66.05 (<CL) 184ul4IB 8647-15 1.1 E47 5.16 1.9E48 26.4 2.3E4)8 32.55 4.3E48 11.99 3.1E-OS 16.18 15.Aug.86 86-08-02 1.6 EAT 3.58 2.1E48 22.11 5.8E48 6.47 2.7E-OS 14.04 1.9E4IT 20.58 26-Sop4IS 86-09-16 1.1E4IT 6.72 3.BEES 20.55 I.0E48 41.56 5.6E-OB BS.82 19.Nov-86 86-1 'I-19 T.SEES 8.74 3.4E48 2I.4 2.6E48 22.14 30-Doc-86 88-'12-18 1.6E-07 4.17 1.6E47 5.88 4.2E-OB 10.03 27-Jan4IT 8741-15 1.1E-07 S.98 4.1 EAS 17.71 5.2E4IS 86.33 (<CL) 2.3E4IS 17.49 03.Mar@7 874I3-01 1.4E4IT 3.6 4.SEAS 16.24 3.1E~ 14.81 03-Apr47 87444)2 6.6E~ 9.53 I.TE4IS 22.78 3IMI4IT 874I7-25 1.6E4IT 5.17 2.3EWT 4.41 8.9E48 7.6 2 4E4IT 5.83 9.2E4IS 6.5 3.0E48 16.02 1.4E47 3S.29

,I; I

t 0

Tabte - A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results All Data Date Sample f Cs-137 Cs'}6Err Co60 Co%Err Mn-54 Mn9f Zn65 Zn'll Err Co-58 Co%En Cs-134 CsXErr Ru-103 RuXErr Rh-108. RhXErr 01-Sep417 87~-Ot 3.5E48 15.62 2.6E48 19.91 26-Aug 88 8$ 4845 2.9E48 18.96 2.8E-OB 2323 29-Sep-88 BMS-46 3.1E4)7 2.91 4.0E47 7.0E4)8 1.5 EAT 1.2E-07 29-Sap.88 88-0947 5.1')7 2.99 4.9 EAT T.BE48 1.7 EAT 9.0E48 29-Sep-88 8841948 4.1 &)7 3.76 3.7E47 4.69 5.0E~ 18.65 1.4E47 16.02 8.9 EBB 13.03 29.Se p418 88-09-49 4.3&)7 3.73 2.9E4)7 4.77 3.1E<8 3.24 1.7E47 12.74 7.3E-OB 17.19 29.Sep.88 88-09-50 4.2E4)7 3.18 3.3E-07 4.32 4.8 EBB 18.57 1.BENT 20.13 T.BE418 19.42 29-Sep-88 BtWt9-51 3.1 EAT 4.43 3.1')7 5.03 4.1E4N 18.3 1.9E47 10.21 7.4E4tB 17.12 30-Sep-88 88-09-52 T.BE48 8.62 T.BE-OB 10.3 1.3 EBB 39.49 04-Nov418 88-11-06 4.TENT 12.52 7.4E4)7 8.94 8.2E4)8 13.02 29.Nov.88 88-11 40 7.9E48 10.34 1.2E-07 7.56 1.1E-07 16.28 044 an-89 89-01413 1.1')7 7.14 3.2E-OB 19.83 2.1E-07 7.7 30-Mar%9 8%0330 2.5E4)7 6.59

¹Apr-89 8945412 1.3E47 . 6.31 1.3E48 12.96 4.4HS 32.4 ,1.1 EAT 7.7 10.May.89 89415.09 3.6E47 3.34 2.4E4)7 4.73 3.4E418 18.67 1.4 EAT 13.5 1.5E-OT 7.8 10-May419 89415 3.6E47 3.11 2.3E-07 5.2 3.4E4)8 19.25 8.3E48 20.6 1.5E47 8.5 10-May%9 89-05-11 3.2E4)7 3.99 1.5EWT 6.62 2.8E4)8 24.48 8.4E48 14.79 1.2 EAT 7.28 03-May419 89%5-15 S.SE47 6.33 2.2E-07 12.15 3.9E-07 8.81 24 May%9 89415-25 1.4E4l6 2.7 5.3ECT 10.08 1.2E-07 21.87 1.5E47 42.95 2.9E-07 11.97 24 May@9 89%5-26 1.4E46 2.93 6.BE417 7.06 1.4E<7 17.44 9.9E48 69.82 2.BE-07 13.21 104 ul.89 89%7~ 1.2E47 6.15 9.9E48 8.21 8.9E~ 30.81 4.7E418 38.19 4.6E4S 20.73 2$ JuÃ9, 89-07-12 3.2E4)8 12.05 30.Aug-89 89%633 1.1')7 7.49 B.BE418 11.28 9.4E48 34.93 32E48 26.32

ll o j

Table - A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results All Data Date Sample 0 Cs-137 Cs96En Co60 Co%Err Mn-54 Mn%E Zn45 ZnXErr Co-58 Co%Err Cs-134 CsXErr Ru.103 RuXEn Rh-106 Rh%Err 27-Oct%9 89-10-25 6.2E48 10.09 6.9E48 1.3E48 3.2E48 01-Dec49 89-124 I 8.6E48 5.96 8.9E48 8.14 2.0E48 40.53 2.5E48 20.51 02-Jan.90 904141 1.2E47 7.32 9.4E48 10.68 2.3E48 51.9 02-Feb-90 90.0244 9.9E48 6.27 7.8E48 7.46 02-Mar-90 9043-01 3.8E48 40.09 224un-90 90-06-11 5.4E47 4.93 2.3E47 1.1E48 01-Aug 90 90-08-01 1.9E47 4.1 4 29.Aug-90 9048-28 1.SE47 4.51 1.4E47 5.46 1.0E-08 45.75 1.8E48 64.27 29.Aug 90 904941 1.5E47 7.34 28-Sep-90 9049-17 2.0E47 7.07 30-0ct.90 90-10-19 1.2E47 7.55 5.1E47 3.37 5.4E48 40 03-Dec-90 90-1241 1.0E47 8.42 2.4E48 28.33 1$ Jan-91 914145 1.3E47 7.59 ND 29-Jan-91 9141-11 1.2E47 . 6.61 2.1E48 38.92 01-Mar-91 914341 1.4E47 6.85 3.9E48 20.55 02-Apr.91 91~ I 1.6E47 7.21 22-Apr-91 9144-12 2.6E47 4.11 1.8E47 7.72 28.Aug-91 9148-10 1.1E-07 7.66 1.5E47 7.75 1.9E48 76.96 ((CL) 03-Oct-91 91-10-02 1.2E47 9.11 29.0ct-91 91-1048 6.3E48 11.1 4.2E48 27.4 2.2E48 28.51 034an-92 924142 9.8E-08 9.72 5.1E48 19.49 04-Feb-92 924241 1.1E47 10.01 1.8E47 8.06 28.Feb-92 9243-13 9.0E48 8.95 8.2E48 13.82

l J

1 II J

l l

Tabb - A2 CooHng Tower Sample Results All Data Oats Sampb l Cs-137 Cs9f Err Co40 Co'%Err Mn-54 Mn@ Zn45 ZngEn Co.58 Co%Err Cs-134 CsXErr Ru-103 RuXErr Rh-106 RhXErr 07.Apr-92 92-0442 1.2E47 7.87 6.6E48 14.81 02.0ct.92 92-10.08 2.0E48 30.09 1.9E48 29.77 30-Oct-92 92-10-22 2.3E48 31.47 4.2E48 27.71 1.4E48 50.34 30-Nov-92 92-1241 2.9E4S 23.01 2.5E48 36.94 28-Oec-92 92-12-13 4.7E4S 16.5 2.5E4S 36.94 28-Dec-92 93-0143 4.0E-OS 18.73 2.2E48 41.79 28-Dec-92 934143 4.0E-OS 18.73 28.Dec-92 934144 4.5E48 29.11 28-Dec-92 93-Ot~ 4.5E48 29.11 29-Dec-92 934142 5.0E-OS 44.6 2Man-93 934146 7.4E48 9.15 2.3E48 16-Mar-93 9343-27 2.3E47 7.31 6.8E48 3.1E48 16.Mar-93 93.03-26 1.6E47 13.61 1.6E47 16-Mar-93 9343-25 1.6E-07 ~ 13.17 1.1E47 16-Mar-93 9343-24 1.9E47 8.86 6.8E48 16-Mar-93 93-03-29 S.OE48 29.87

J I

e h I

Table A3 Cooling Tower Samples for t Statistic Test Samplers Note: (c) Mass Corrected River Equivalence Cs-137 Cs-137(c) Co40 Co%0(c)

'.KEOT 224E47 8&&35 1.KEOT &04EOB 1.35EOT 85836 1.05EOT 1.7?EOT 85&41 1.2CE47 202EOT 6KECS 1.1 5E47 85&49 247E47 4.15E47 1.CBEOT 1.8IE47 245E47 4.12E47 RBl EOB 1.KEOT 1.47EOT 247E47 669EOB 1.46E47 85-1O4 1.2CEOT 201 EOT R77EOB 1.64E47 86.1-1 6 1.14E47 1.91 EOT 1.51EOT 254E47 86.1-1 7 R84E48 1.65E47 4.47EOB 7.51E48 668E48 1A6E47 64CEOB 1.41E47 8&3-12 1.'TROT 2.91EOT 1.19EOT 20CE47 8&3-1 3 1.GROT 25?E47 1.46EOT 245E47 8&6.25 1.39E4T 2KEOT 866-26 1.12E47 1.8GE47 86 7-1 4 . 231 E47 3.88E47 3.71EOB 6KEOB 86-7-1 5 1.34E47 2ZKOT 236E48 a96EOB 221 E47 3.71EOT 288E48 '.85E48 8&9-1 6 1.16E47 1.95E47 aGBEOB 669E48 86-11-1 9 T.KEOB 1.28E47 34%48 6??EOB 86.1 2-1 8 1.86E47 3.1%47 1.77EO7 2GBEOT 87-1-1 5 1.11EO7 1.86E47 4.08EOB 687EOB 1A5E47 24%47 4.51 E48 7.57E48 65EEOB 1.10E47 1. PE~ 29CEOB 87-7-25 1.57E47 264E47 a46EOB 5.82EOB 2EKOB 4.42E48 884835 292E48 4.%648 2KEOB 4.75E48 8849-52 7.56E48 1.27E47 7.7GEOB 1.31E47 88.1 1 ~ 7.87E48 1.32EOT 1.18E47 1.9BE47 894l O3 1.10E47 1.EKOT 3.1GEOB 634E48 894542 1.29E47 217E47 894tt43 1.09E47 1.84E47 1.15E47 1.2CEOT 202E47 1.8KOT R86EOB 1.66E47 1.3lEOT 1.%647 256E47 1.3BE47 231 E47

0' 0

Table A3 Cooing Tower Samples for t Statlstlc Test Note: (c) Mass Corrected River Equlvalenca Samplers Cs-137 Cs-13r(c) Co40 Co%0(c) 90-10-19 1.1EEO? 1.95EOT 901241 1.03EO? 1.~4?

914146 1.2%47 214EOT BIOI-I1 1.KE47 202EOT 212EOB aaZ48 914341 1.4cE47 238EOT a9CEOB 656EOB 9I44-12 2%647 4.34EOT 1.75E47 295E47 91~10 1.06E47 1.7BEOT 1.47EO7 247E47 BM 048 635EOB 1.07EOT 4.17EOB 7.01EOB

&BIEOB 1.NEO? 607EOB &52E48 92424l 1.06EOT 1.8cE47 I.BIEor 30647 9243-13 ROIE48 1.51EOT &2lEOB 1.3BE47 924442 1.18EOT 1.99E47 662EOB 1.11E47 92-1048 1.95EOB a2BEm 1.94EOB 3.25EOB 92-10-22 231 E48 3.8GE48 4.2QEOB 7.06EOB 92-1141 2%EOB 4.KE~ 249E48 4.19E48 92-12-13 4.6?E48 7.EK48 32QE48 63BE48 9OOI 43 a99EOB 671 E48 224EOB 67?EOB RH3l 46 7.35E48 1.24E47 232E48 39QE48 BIH&48 3,05E47 4.36EO?

8H&47 8M&48 4.12E47 689E47 8H&49 4.25E47 60BEOT 8H&50 4.17EOT 695EOT 8H&51 aQBEOT 4.42E47 894549 3,NEO? 618E47 2.4%47 348E47 8945-1 0 3.64E47 5.2QE47 23QEOT as%Or 8945-11 32BT 4.64E47 1.5QEO? 214E47 8945-25 8945.26 89-1 O25 9M&11 2ZKO? G,ZKO?

9343.27 22BEO? a25E47 6&cE48 &74EOB RH33-26 1.61E47 23QE47 1.REOT 221 E47 RH33-25 1.6cE47 231 E47 1.12E4? 1.6QEO7 RH33-24 1.86E47 26EEO? G.BQEOB R7KOB

0't 0

I

)

0

f

Table A3 . Cooling Tower Samples tor t Statlstlc Test Samplers Note:

Cs-137, (c)

Cs-137(c) 'o&

Mass Corrected River Equivalence Co%0(c)

RR33-29 SGK~ 7.19E~

2 reJect 7 reJect Mean 1.49E%7 236E%7 &61 &X 1.39E@7 Ye/lance 1.0QE-1 4 204E-1 4 a39E-tS 7.966-1 5 Std Oev 1.0QE<7 1.4%%7 S92EM &92E~

0

i jJ I

Table - A4 River Sodlfhent All Data 2S.May45 WHBLUFF 2.78E48 2.41 E48 1.06E48 28.May@5 MKR-19 1.09E47 8.46E48 28 MayM HNFRD1 3.66E47 1.82E47 1.42E48 28.May~ HNFRD2 2.19E47 1.3E47 02Jun45 HNFRDW 3ME47 5.91E47 4.15E48 16-Apr48 WP43 12E47 4.6E48 25Jun46 WP43 1.9E47 8.9E47 254un68 WP43 2.3E47 2'n@6 WP43 1.35E47 2.45E48 2E49 1.65E48 2&J un'AS 1.4E47 4.4E48 6.5E48 2.6E48 10-Doc46 WH BLUFF 5.2E47 7.1E48 1.5E48 10.Dec46 WH BLUFF 3.1E47 2.6E47 3.8E48 10.Dec%8 WHBLUFF 5.5E47 2.8E47 3.4E48 10-Dec%6 WHBLUFF 7E47 2.9E47 9.7E48 10-Doc@6 WHBLUFF 8E47 1E47 5.7E48 10-Dec@6 OLDHNFD 4.8E47 1.3E47 1.7E48 10.Doc%8 OLDHNFD 4.6E47 1.1E46 8.3E48 09-Apr%7 WP43 1.3E47 2.6E48 21-APTS WA4341 2E47 3.6E48 1.7E48 17-May48 WA-21 3E48 17.May48 WA-23 3.2E47 17-May@8 WA41 3.3E47 1&dun@8 GP4.1 7.51E48 1Mun48 GP4.3 2&Jun@8 GP-14.6 5.52E48 GP-14.7 5.6E47 2,98E47 2&Jun48 GP-15.1 8.7E4S GP-15.1 8.33E49 2&Jun68 GP-17.8 2.87E47 2.S7E49 2&Jun@8 GP-18.5 1.74E47 6.11E48 10Jul48 GP.7.1 1.01E47 1.05E48 1(@Jul@8 GP-7.9 1.76E48 1lhlul48 GP4.2 1E47 3.17E48 1(Llu(4$ GP4.3 6.62E48 1(hJul48 GP4.6 2.32E48 1Mul4S GP-9.0 1.81E47 1.6E46 1(Wuf48 GP-9.3 5.SBE47 3.24E47 1lhduh88 ~ GP-9.9 1.2E47 4.87E48 1(hJul48 GP-10.2 1.47E47

Table- A4 River Sediment Reeutts All Sample 0 Cs-137 t ?dul48 GP-22.6 3A4E47 t?dul48 GP.22.6 3.53E47 t 74ul48 GP-24.8 1.76E47 2.87E49 t?Jul%8 GP-24.8 1.84E47 t?dul48 GP-28 921E48 1.16E47 14 GP%.5 7.87E48 Aug'4-Aug%8 GP4.5 9.68E48 14-Aug@8 GP4.1 7.4E48 GPA.t 8.93E48 14-Aug'4-Aug@8 GP-9.0 4.19E47 2.04E46 14.Aug%8 GP-10.2 1.7E47 t.56E47 14Aug48 GP-10.2 2.09E47 2.73E47 14-Aug%8 GP-10.8 2.8?E47 14-Aug%8 GP-11.1 2.02E47 2.76E48 1 4-Aug%8 GP-t 1.4 1.04E47 14-Aug%8 GP-18.8 5.91E48 14-Aug' GP-21.5 GP-28 1At E47 1.02E47 4-Aug'64ep48 GP-9.3 7.73E47 064ep48 WA-tOOF 2.57E47 6.7E48 06$ ep48 GP-22.6 1.03E47 06$ op88 GP.26.5 1.51E47 7.14E48 064ep88 GP-28.05 1.02E47 1.57E48 11-Apr49 WA4341 9.6E48 Ot ~May%9 HRPRDAM 2.5E47 1E48 19-Apr-90 WA4341 1.2E47 1.7E48 01 May-90 HRPRDAM 5.5E47 1E48 1 &act-90 WP43-90 9.08E48 8.59E48 10.Apr-91 WP4344 1.18E47 3.76E48 01-May-91 HRPRDAM 5E47 1E48 31~-91 WP43-10 9.61E48 5.61E48 Mean 2.20E47 2.33E47 1.19E47 2.4?E48 Variance 3.1?E-14 1.79E-f3 5.4?E-t 4 t.23E-16 Sld Dev 1.78E47 4.23E47 234 E47 1.11E48

0 I

1 I

fl

'P

' t

'l 0

Zn45 Parameters Used in Figure 1 Oate Sample 0 1&Jan@8 8641-'lS 146$ E47 20.Mar%6 8643-12 22.75 20.Mar@6 8643-13 3.641 E48 28.41 274un46 864&25>26 Ave. 1.06E47 1&Jul@6 8647-14>15 Ave. 25E48 314ul47 8747-25 2.419E47 2&&~8 884946>51 Ave. 1.62E47 29.Nov4$ 88.11~ 1.087 E47 1628 30-Apr%9 894542 4.439 E48 10.May%9 894549>11 Ave. 1.01 E47 1210 24-May49 8945-25>26 Ave. 5.67E48 1224 30-Aug@9 894M3 9.417E4$ 1322 27-Oct%9 $ 9-1 0-25 518 gm 3.15E4$

01-Dec%9 89-1241 450 ml 1415 024an-90 904141 450 ml 2.313E48 51.9 1447 29-Aug-90 9048-28 450 ml 64.27 30.Oct.90 90-10-19 450 ml 5.431 E48 1748 28.Aug-91 9148-10 450 ml 1.862E4S 76.96(cCU

t I

0

Table-A6 Cooling Tower Data Date Ord 24-May%9 8945.25 ND 294ep4l8 884&48 16-Mar-93 S343-29 ND 294 el~ 884941 ND 2&Sep48 884940 ND 294ep48 884949 ND 29.Sap@8 884&47 ND 294ep48 884946 ND 154an41 914145 ND

~.90 90-10.19 ND 10 30.Apr49 894542 314ul417 87-7-25 ND 12 03-Apr47 87W2 1.73E48 13 15.7 02~-92 92-1 048 1.94E48 14 16.9 29Jan41 9141-11 2.12E48 15 18.1 28-Dec.92 934143 2.24E48 16 19.3 2%Jan-93 S34146 17 1 8Jul46 86.7-15 18 21.7 03.Dec-90 90.1241 2.43E48 19 30-Nov-92 92-1141 2.49E48 24.1 01~7 87-9-1 263 E48 21 25.3 26.Aug@8 884845 2.83E48 26.5 1 5-Aug%6 2.88E48 04Jan4tS 8S4'I43 3.18E48 24 28.9 28-Dec-92 92-1 2-1 3 3.20E48 25 19-Nov46 86-1 1-19 3.43E48 26 31.3 1Mul46 86-7-14 3.71E48 27 01.Mar-91 914341 3.90E48 28 26~p46 , 86-9.16 3.98E48 274an47 87-1-15 4.08E48 2%et-91 91-1048 4.17E48 31 37.3 30.Oct-92 92-10-22 4.20E48 1EWan46 86-1-17 4.47E48 39.8 03-Mar47 874-1 4.51E48 (Lan-92 924142 5.07E48 42.2 07'Apr-92 924442 6.62E48 16.Mar-93 S343-24 6.80E48 37 16-Mar-93 6.82E48 29-Aug'58-41 6.82E48 47

0 t

t N

0, I1

Table.A6 Cooling Tower Oata 6.85E4S 6.85E48 4f 49.4 02-Feb.90 904244 7.77E48 304ep48 8S4942 7.78E48 28-Aug@5 85845 8.04E48 28.Feb-92 9243-13 8.21E48 f 4-Feb88 8.40E48 204 ep4I5 85-941 8.69E48 47 024an-90 904141 9 40E48 9.61E48 85.104 9.77E48 28-Aug%5 854I48 1.05E47 51 61.4 30-Aug%5 88849 1.08E47 16.Mar-93 9343.25 1.12E47 274wH36 864-26 1.12E47 65.1 29.Novae 88.1 fM 1.'I SE47 88.3 20-Mar%6 8&3-1 2 1.19E47 OI.Aug45 1.33E47 29-Aug.90 9048-28 1.38E47 69.9 16.0ct45 85-10.24 1.39E47 71.1 274 un%6 864.25 1.39E47 72.3 20.Mar%6 864 13 1A6E47 61 73.5 28-Aug-91 9148-10 1.47E47 74.7 10 May%9 8945.11 1.5OE47 75.9 1&dan%6 86 1-fe 1.51 E47 77.1 16.Mar-93 9343.26 1.55E47 78.3 22-Apr-91 9144-f2 t.75E47 79.5 30-Oec48 86-'t 2- I 8 1.77E47 80.7 04-Feb-92 92424 I 1.8t E47 81.9 03-May@9 8945.15 2.15E47 f 0-May%9 8945-10 2.30E47 70 224 un-90 9046-11 2.33E47 71 314ut4I7 8747-25 2.34E47 72 I 0-May%9 2A3E47 73 87.9 29.Sep4IS 2.S7E47 74 2~epee 3.08E47 75 29@epee 3.27E47 76 91.6 294ep4IS 3.65E47 294ep4IS 4.OOE47 78

Cooling Tower Gate Ord Cum%

884947 4.92E47 95.2 9049-17 S.O7E47 24.May49 8945.25 527E47 81 97.6 2444y49 8945-26 6.84E47 88.1148 7.44E47 143E47 Variance 224 E-14 Standard Deviation 1.50E47

0 !

Table.A7 FNer Population 194un88 OPS.1 NO 1&Jun%8 Gal.3 174 ul418 ep.22.8 ND 8Wun@8 GP-14.8 174d4S GP-22.6 17-May@8 WA43 ND 17-May48 WA41 ND 14A vga GPA.1 ND 1Mun48 GP4.2 ND 14Aug48 el ~.1 10 174ul48 GP-24.8 1&Jul%8 GP-10.2 ND 12 2&Jun%8 GP-15.75 ND 1(hlul48 GP-7.9 14 1OJuHMl GP4.6 NO 15 8LJun48 GP-1 5.1 ND 16 1Mul48 GPW.5 17 10J WAS GP-14.7 ND 18 1Muh88 GP4.3 ND 19 14Aug48 GPA.S NO 17-May@8 WA-21 NO 21 2&Jun%6 WP43 ND OWep418 GP-26.5 064ep88 GP-22.6 ND 24 2&Jun%6 WP43 ND 25 11-Apr49 WA4341 ND 26 10-A pr-91 WP4344 27 314ct-91 WP43-10 28 16.Apr46 WP43 16-Oct-90 WP43-90 ND GP-10.8 ND 31 14.Aug'4Aug48 GP4.5 ND 14Aug~ GP4.1 33 14Aug418 GP-18.8 ND 14Aug48 GP-21.5 ND 14Aug48 GP4.5 ND 14Aug~ GP.11.4 NO 37 GP4.1 2.58E49 46.9 14-Aug'&Jun%8 GP-17.8 2.87E49 48.1

Table-A7 Data Populathn 174uk38 GP-24.8 2.87E49 1 74ul4t8 6P45.5 3.9E49 41 01-May-91 HRP ROAM 1E48 51.8 01.May%9 HRP ROAM 01-May-90 HRP ROAM 1E4S 10Jut418 GP-7.1 1.05 f48 OB4ap48 GP.2S.05 1.57E48 19 Apr40 WA4341 1.7E48 47 14-Aug@8 GP-21.5 229 E48 28.May%5 WHBLUFF 2.41E48 09.Apr47 WP43 2.6E48 61.73 14Aug48 GP-11.1 2.76E48 51 tlklut48 GP4.2 3.17E48 21-APTS WA4341 3.6E48 1 MuH38 GP-9.9 4.87E48 2&Jun4t6 WP43 4.9E48 26Jun48 GP 18.5 6.11 f48 WA-100F 6.7E48 70.4 WH BLUFF 7.1E48 71.6 O~ep88 GP-226 7.54E48 72.8 25Jun46 WP43 8.3E48 74.1 28 May45 MKR-19 8.46E48 61 75.3 2&Jun%8 GP-15.1 8.7E48 76.5 2&Jun%6 WP43 8.8E48 77.8 10 Dec%6 WHBLUFF 1E47 79 14-Aug%8 GP-28 1.02E47 174uh88 GP-28 1.16E47 8'I.5 28.May415 HNFRD2 1.3E47 82.7 10 Oec46 OLDHNFD 1.3E47 14-Aug%8 GP-10.2 1.56 f47 28-May45 HNFRO1 1.82E47 70 10 Dec%6 WHBLUFF 2.6 f47 71 87.6 14.Aug'0 GP-10.2 273 E47 Dec46 WHBLUFF 2.8E47 73 lO Dec416 WHBLUFF 2.9E47 74 91.4 2&J GP-14.7 2.98E47 un'(LJul48 GP-9.3 3.24E47 76 024un45 HNF ROW 5.91 f47 95.1 06-Soph GP-9.3 7.73E47 78

C E I

>l 4

Table-A7 Population 10-Decl OLOHNFO 1.1E46 97.5 t(hlul48 GP-9.0 1.6E48 GP-9.0 2.04E46 14-Aug'ariance 1.20E47 1.04E-13 Standard Oeviabon 322E47