ML19260D396
| ML19260D396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1979 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17174A427 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002080688 | |
| Download: ML19260D396 (51) | |
Text
j/
/t ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE PATlWAY STUDY DRESDEN STATION Spring 1978 through Su=:ner 1979 DECEMBER 1979 70o1060656 I942 002
Table of Contents Page Section I External Dose Study 1
Section II Source Term Study 22 Section III Iodine-131 in Milk 29 Section IV Aquatic Pathway Study 36 Appendix 41 e
1942 003
Sb3 DIARY In 1978-1979, the Commonwealth Edison Company continued their Environ-mental Dose Pathway Studies at Dresden Station.
This study was designed to add knowledge in the following areas:
(1). The exposure from airborne noble gases at levels below 10mR/yr; (2). The concentration of I-131 in milk relative to the predictive model of Regulatory Guide 1.109; (3). The concentration of certain radic..aclides in fish relative to the RG 1.109 predictive model; and (4).
The source term of the lesser radionuclides such as the transuranics.
The results of this study are believed to provide useful information in all four areas and indicate that the RG 1.109 models for noble gas exposure and I-131 in milk are accurate within a factor of two or better.
1942 004
Section I DRESDEN EDPS - EXTERAAL DOSE STUDY (1978-1979)
I.
Introduction The main source of population exposure near nuclear power stations has been gamma radiation from radioactive noble gases. The doses, which are calculated from effluent measurements on the basis of dispersion models (RG 1.109), decrease rapidly as a function of distance from the p int of release. Doses have been measured at several installations in the course of special studies, but routine er inmental monitoring programs usually report "less than" values because the doses are exceeded by the natural background radiation.
Even fluctuations in the natural radiation background can be of the same magnitude as the dose from air-borne effluents.
The purpose of the study was to test a procedure for determining external radiation exposure from airborne effluent throughout the area around the station with reasonable effort and cost at levels of 10 mR/ year and less.
The system consisted of TLD's placed at 16 locations near the station perimeter for measuring the total exposure for 3-month periods, two pressurized argon ionization chambers (PIC's) for distinguishing between the natural radiation background and radiation exposure from air-borne effluent, and periodic survey meter readings with a detector sensitive at the pR/hr level at the 16 locations to determine radiation background differences among them.
Comparison of measured with computed exposures from airborne effluent at these locations can then be used to calibrare the computational model for predicting exposures at more distant locations.
II.
Study Plan In the 1978-1979 period, Dresden Station was ringed by 16 dosimetric measurement locations at or near the site boundary in the directions used for dispersion calculations (Figure 1 and Table 1).
Two of the locations (H and 0), in approximately opposite directions, had Pressurized Ioniza-tion Chambers (PIC's) for continuously reading (by 10-second integrations) the gamma-ray exposure rate. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (5 per station) were placed at all stations for 3-month exposure integrations. A field technician measured the instantaneous background radiation exposure with a scintillation survey meter calibrated relative to the PICS, at each location, at 2-week intervals, and serviced the PICS.
Thus the natural radiation background was recorded continuously (except when the noble gas plume was nearby) by the PICS at two locations, and fortnightly at the other 14 locations.
Interpolations based on these two sets of measure-ments will yield the background exposure of the TLDs.
A.
PIC Program Pressurized Ionization Chambers manufactured by Reuter-Stokes, model RSS-lll, were used in this progrtm.
The RSS-lll Environmental Radiation Monitor is a complete ultra-sensitive gamma exposure monitoring system designed to measure and record the low level exposure rates such as those due to fallout and natural background 10A? 005
TABLE 1 DRESDEN E.D.Pd
.41TORING LOCATIONS Site Sector Direction Range Location A
NNW 340 4500' Fence by small tree 60 ft.
from end of driveway.
E N
0 4720' Fence behind tree by telephone service terminal.
P NNE 220 6370' On telephone service terminal.
C NE 450 5440' Small tree 50 yds. west of fork.
D ENE 740 4630' Air sampling station at Bennett Farm.
E E
116 5130' On fir tree by intersection of driveway.
F SE 152 5250' Pheasant Trail Air Monitoring Station G
SSE 164 3750' On tree by driveway of house.
H*
S 1790 2370' Onsite No, 3 Air Sampling Station behind shack.
I S
187 3220' On fence by Culvert behind "No Trespassing" sign.
J SW 2110 3250' On fence behind "No Trespassing" sign - corner of Met. Tower Road.
K SW 230o 3830' L-fence by telephone pole, 5th pole past railroad tracks.
L W
260 4810' on fence post by large tree 50 yards before railroad tracks.
M W
279 4900' On small tree 0.4 miles past railroad tracke.
M WNW 295 5380' On small shrub by end of fence post.
0*
NW 302 4030' On site No. 1 M.W. corner.
Attached to PIC.
- Pressurized argon ion chamber location.
2
D-
- g
[h-
/
m 6
f w
o
/
--5 w.
~
/
O cx
/
/
d l
'N
/
u
't
?
N
\\
7 qll aT W6C w
)n, W'
3.
m f
N y
k
. = - ~ =
j a
2 s
.?
Z*
J'
?
/
s
/
i; y
- =
I Os J
{$
f I
'd E
k y# -'--
3_;
\\
s i
\\
l o
R i a
c; u
\\
E5
\\
i 8 07-j S8 n$~b i
I
.! SU
\\
j a> +, n,
c
< i' vvv u;
- n L._
fyn uuwiu 28 ".:
3 :g e,a" gi 5
ge E
z p
gg 5
3
I,!,,
g 5
e n
iL h
h y
re tneC N
re b
ma hC n
o itaz in I"
o l
da P
eg U
Hin y
s T
r u
o E
o snH S
e S
TUO DA E
R D
g lon N
NA ri t s nu N
R oo CH O
\\
TC E
TE D
x re td
\\
r r
a o
h c Ce R
\\
\\
2OCh "
0 o2N OC0 O
A.
PIC Program (continued) radiat*on. The RSS-111 is housed in two cable-connected weather-proof enclosures (Figure 2).
The sensor housing contains a high pressure spherical ionization chamber with direct mounting to a solid state electrometer.
The control housing contains the read-out device. The spherical ionization chamber is filled to a pressure of 25 atmospheres (absolute) with ultra-purity argon. When radiation in incident upon the chamber, the ion pairs produced in the active volume are swept to the electrodes by a collecting potential.
The resulting current is measured by an electrometer and can be related directly to the free air exposure rate.
The PICS provide numerous data points to record the exposure rate, so that precise distinctions can be made between the natural background continuum and periodic increases due to station effluents.
The background varies gradually at a given location because of the changing accumulation of radon daughters in the ground near the surface and in the ground level air, and because of changes in shielding by snow, rain, and vegetation against radiation emitted by radionuclides in the soil and rock.
Changes in the background value observed with the PICS provides adjustments for the background values determined fortnightly with the survey instrument.
The survey meter consists of a 2" y 2" NaI (Tl) crystal shielded with cadmium to minimize response to energies below about 80 kev. The system yields a count rate of about 4000 counts per minute when the pressur-ized ion chamber indicates a dose rate of about 8 pR/hr.
The gamma readings, with adequate intercalibration with the PIC, will provide additional information on the natural background dose rate at the TLD stations and may therefore enable measurement of doses due to station releases at these locations to be calculated.
The computer-processed PIC data consisted of, on an hour-by-hour basis, the average total exposure rate (gR/hr), the standard deviation of the average, the measured (or assumed) background, and the estim-ated plume contributions to the total exposure rate (the difference between the total and background).
(An " assumed" background rate is the last total exposur e rate measured without a plume present.
A plume was considered present if the total exposure rate exceeded the background by 3a.)
The hourly plume contributions were summed to give the monthly measured total.
This total was then compared to calculated exposure rates computed with accepted sector-averaged dispersivo odels (RG 1 109) and station reported gross radioactivity levels.
(The gross radioactivity was arsumed to have a 0.8 MeV average energy because the predominant source was Dresden 1 steam jet air ejector offgas, with a nominal one-b ur holdup for decay. Table 2.)
In addition, at all 16 locations, the sector-averaged dispersion model, averaged monthly release rates, and joint frequency wind roses were used to determine exposures.
The PIC readings are based on calibration by the manufacturer.
The calibration is in terms of Ra-226.
The radiation exposure response is energy dependent : it is within 3 percent of the Ra-226 value f rom 0. 5 to 2. 5 MeV, but the respons? factor is higher above 2.5 and below 0.5 McV, especially at 0.1 MeV.
The PIC does not detect external alpha and beta particles or gamma rays below 0.06 MeV.
1942 009 5
'\\
B.
Therrco l uminiscent D, sin.eter Readin g Lithium Fluoride thermoluminiscent dosimeters (TLDs) were emplaced at 16 locations surrounding the plant, approxi-mately one location per sector used for dose calculations.
Locations are given in Table 1 and Figure 1.
TLD badges remained on station for three months.
Exposure rates were measured anu compared with those calculated f rom release and meteorological data, gamma survey data (see Section C), and where possible, from PIC data (see Section A).
Several different TLD packagings were used in the program. They are:
(a) Al Shield in PVC holder (-325 mg/cm )2 (b) Al Shield in Polyethylene Vial holder (-325 mg/ctd)
(c)
Polyethylene Shield in PVC holder (- 56 mg/cm2 )
(d) Polyethylene Shield in Polyethylene Vial holder (-56 mg/cr2)
(c)
PVC Sphere Isotropic holder (-1 gm/cm ),
2 The comparative data for various packaging holders are summarized in Section III-B.
The Polyethylene Shield in Polyethylene Vial
(-56 mg/cf2) and PVC sphere isotropic holders (~1 gm/cm ) were chosen 2
for the pe _od of August 23, 1978, through March 14, 1979.
The TLDs are calibrated at frequent intervals and are found to be accurate within a standard deviation of 110%.
C.
Survey (gamma) Meter Readings Camma survey readings were made at each of the TLD stations on alternate weeks using a survey meter with a 2" x 2" Na1 (Tl) crystal shielded with cadmium to minimize response to energies below about 80 kev. The results are summarized in Section III-C.
The following equation was used to relate counts per minute to pR/hr:
pR/hr = 8.4x10-4 (cpm)+4.1.
III.
Results A.
PIC Data
- Because of the operational difficulties with the PICS, useful data were not collected until August, 1978.
Good data collection continued through the fall when, in November, Dresden 1 was shut do.
for an extended outage.
The PICS continued to gather data through
- The PICS were calibrated by the manufacturer and as discussed later in the text, may measure high by a factor of 1.2 when compared to TLDs.
1942 010
III-A.
PIC Data (continued)
February, 1979, but during this period the Station release rates were so low (Table 2) that the measured plume axposures wetc.
considered to be in the error range of background (with the standard deviation of background averaging, between 0.1 - 0.2 pR/hr, 2a over a month's time is 140 - 200 pR).
For this reason, most data analyses were performed only on the August - October data sets.
Table 3 presents the calculated sector averaged exposures for the May, 1978 - February, 1979 period. For the August - October 1978, period, the following measured vs. sector-averaged calculated exposures were found-.
Dose (pR)
Site O Site H Measured Calculated Measured Calculated August 2548 1419 3723 3285 September 1130 1062 2947 1283 October 514 615 3465 1660 In five of these six cases, the measured data exceeded the value calculated using the joint frequency wind roses.
Using the hourly data summed to give the monthly total at loca-tion 0, the computed values were 1487, 821, and 7.49; at H, 2983, 1307, and 1651 pR per month for August - October.
In all six of these cases, the measured exceeded the model value.
The effect, the measured exceeding the model dose, is believed due to three factors:
Table 2 Gross Radioactivity Release Rates (mci /sec)*
Dresden 1 Dresden 2/3 Month Chimney Chimney Reactor Bldg. Vent 1978 May 21.4 3.5 0.06 June 34.3 1.3 0.04 July 37.1 2.3 0.01 August 45.2 0.5 0.01 September 42.3 1.4 0.05 October 49.3 0.9 0.01 November 0.02 0.7 0.01 1942 011 December 0.004 0.5 0.02 1979 January O.
0.1 0.02 February 0.003 0.6 0.02
- An assumed average gamma energy of 0.8 MeV and no radiological decay were used in the calculation.
7
s b
?
20 ?g
,3REEE 000O0011 011 1 1 1 1 0 2233222222232222 000C000000000000 0000000000000000 8
9 7 e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 7e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
/ s 431 8854636460252
/s 5387787571 005433 9 o 61 43582080585966 2o 2361 40371 5074043 0D 7 956906227954260 0D 1 7 8 3 0 7.~4 9 0 2 8 3 1 1 5 0 1 2 2421 1 21 8888881 32672211 321 42212 00000000000001 00 4433323344334433 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 8
9 7 e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 7e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
/ s 001 627845281 0169
/s 7900557050531968 8 o 9444672081 281 1 01 1 o 31 0401 9507272504 0D 3226787324320914 0D 83405052461 86403 453321 12321 1 1 911 6311 31 1 264228811 0000001 000000000 2222233333333332 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
)
8 8
R 7 e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 7 e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE m
/ s 980621 1 31 3346311
/s 870821861 2545821
(
7 o 4005740226327406 2o 2656906030366258 0D 3963505069227760 1D 61 248691 099321 72 3
F 222221 7121 1 1 1 2 222426244221 7' 91 m
t
)
sl 0 e Pd X o EM 000001 001 1 001 1 1 1 2222222222223333 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 Ed 8
8 e 3
Me 7 e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 7 s EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE U g
/s 8766506893251 956
/o 6400955407894526 E
L a 6 o 06361 1 67341 1 6881 1D 2557001 01 6557352 I
P r 0D 6965721 52951 1 931 1
2722233838163298 B
e A
Yv 21 1 11 711 961 1 9868 112232115331 7757 T
LA HTr N o O t Mc e 01 0001 1 1 01101 1 1 1 000000000001 1 1 1 1 DS 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 E(
8 8
T 7 e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 7 e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE A
/s 81 371 4421 2589563
/s 7690799603344889 L
5 o 7599263391 71 8032 0 o 64167538671 99094 U
0D 631 3387708007622 1 D 1 532963762785571 C
L 1 61 11 3571 781 9979 1 2331 111 11 164446 AC r
c o
o t
W EEE EE WWW WWW t
W EEE EE WWW WWW c
NNNNNESSSS SSWNNN c
NNNNNESSSS SSWNNN e
N N
E S
S W
WW e
N N
E S
S W
WW C
S S
I P
a da M
M h
0000000000000000 0000000000000000 e
e 0
g 1 81 7039221 075398 g
1 81 7039221 075398 E
7345169428966932 n
73451 69428966932 d
h 34964551 79914462 a
34964551 7991 4462 n
- R 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R
1 111 1 111 1 111 1 a
H se t
e e
i t
t S
i ABPCDEFGHIJKLMN0 i
ABPCDEFGHIJKLMN0 S
S
- >)
p J
- #(
N
[
cr 3o
III-A.
PIC Data (continued)
(1) plume transfer from the metro tower - indicated sector into another sector as the plume travels downwind, (2) > th.e f ailure of the model to account for measured radiation which priginated in adjacent ecctors, and (3) the sector averaging cdacept itself which creates a " plume" of con:entration lower than that.actually found. The long relaxation length of gamma radiation in the air means that radiation can travel across sectors to impact on the PICS.
c The first factor, plume transfer into and out. of sectors, is not thought to be as important as.the other factors because in an area such'as Illinois, with a'rathur. uniform vind pattern, the probability of transfer out of one sector is nearly the same as the probability of transfer into a sector.
Two modeling attempts were then tried in order to adjustithe data of sectors 0 and H to account for radiation _ originating in other sectors. The first model was a simple one, it assumed that all radia-tion from plumes in a PIC sector was detected along with a portion of radiation from plumes in adjacent sectors. The second model was more complicated, it involved a computer-calculated exposure bas on the actual direction of the plume and its relationship to the direction and range of the PICS.
Model 1 In the simple model, two cases were envisioned: Case A placed the'PIC in the center.of a three sector system.
In case B, the PIC was placed in the center of a four sector system on the boundary between the two inner sectors.
Case A Case B PIC PIC Do Do D1 D2 D,1 Da Da For case A (Table 4), the most commonly used Lector arranged model, Dm, the PIC measured exposure,is represented by:
an = f(C) Do + f(1)(D1 + Di) with f(4) 2 1; and f(1) is a fraction
<l.
(The value in the parenthesis is the number of sector widths between the PIC and each sector's centerline.)
Dm = Do + (0.34!0.76)(D$ + DI)
For Case B (Table 5):
1942 013 Da = f(l)(Do + DI) + f(li)(D2 + D3)
= (0.6710.56) (Do + D1)+(0.13!0.36) (D2 + D 3) 9
III-A.
PIC Dat_a (continued)
Table 4 Case A Model (pR)
Dm D$
Do D$
f(o) f(1)
Site 0 A' gust 2548 619 1487 2809 1.0 0.29 u
September 1132 1081 821 748 1.0 0.17 October 519 722 249 826 1.0 0.08 Site 11 August 3723 1935 2983 3374 1.0 0.14 1.0 0.96 September 2947 1187 1307 393 1.0 0.41 October 3465 1942 1651 2587 Dm = f (0) Do + f(1)(D2 F DI)
= Db + (0.34!0.76)(D$ + D$) where the error is 2.520.
Table 5 Case B Model (pR)
Dm D2 Do D1 Da*
ffj_)
f(1})
Site O August 2548 959 905 2432 1432 0.68 0.09 September 1130 921 1033 634 863 0.66 0.00 October 514 488 645 620 584 0.32 0.11 Site II August 3723 1174 2166 3921 2426 0.53 0.14 September 2947 1271 1161 801 1078 1.00 0.42 October 3465 1442 1835 2478 1918 0.80 0.00
- Computed from (D2 + Do + n'i
.3 Dm = f(l)(Do + D1) + f(1))(D s)
= (0. 67 0. 56) (Do + D1) + (u.1310. 36) (D2 + DC where th, tror is
+2.570.
,e i
1942 014 10
III-A.
PIC Data (continoed)
Because there were so tew data points - six cases for deter-mining each fraction - the errcr at the 95% confidence level is quite large.
Nevertheless, both cases A and B show that the most commonly used finite plume model, with no radiation contributions considered from adjacent sectors, underestimates the actual plume exposure by approximately 60%.
Tables 6-A and 6-B summarize the PIC dcta on a weekly basis for the period August 1978 - March 1979.
Tabic 7 summarizes the PIC background data for the same period of time.
Model 2 In the more complicated,<ff-axis model, the plume model from Eq.7.43 of Meteorology and Atomic Energy was used. Hourly emissions, determined by assuming the daily reported emissions were uniform throughout the day, and off-axis distances from the monitor to the plume center line were accounted for in the model.
The. plume center line was considered to be the down wind direction determined from the wind measured at 90m above ground.
The cumulative hourly doses for the three months are sumaarized in Table 8.
As reported previously, the sector model consistenti; under-calculated the doses indicated in Column (5).
The off-axis plume model, on the other hand, over-calculated on four out of the six cases (Table 8, Column 7).
The high doses modeled at Site "H" in August were due largely to four days (the 3rd, 4th, 29th and 31st).
These were days when the downwind direction was close to the monitor bearing and differential temperatures were in the " extremely unstable" class.
Without these days, the measured and modeled doses for C'c month were 1735 and2565 urad, which gives a calculated to measureu ratio of 1.48.
The average ca'culated to measured ratio is 1.2 for the six measurements listed in Column 7 of Table 8 when the data for August at station "H" are adjusted."
It is concluded that application of an off-axis plume model to compute gamma air dosea can be realistic and useful.
However, the model can give unrealistically high values under conditions of strong temperature lapse rates.
Examination of the data indicates that the model can give more accurate results if atmospheric stability classes are constrained to the neutral and stable categories.
Furthermore, the analysis indicates that wind direction measured at an intermediate height (46m in this case) may better represent the plume center line during extremely unstable atmospheric conditions.
B.
Thermoluminiscent Dosimeter and Gamma Survey Data Table 9 summarizes the data, on comparison of dose with TLDa in various packing materials.
- See ** footnote to Table 8.
The actual difference may be 1.4.
1942 015 n
III-A.
PIC Data (continued)
Table 6-A Summary of PIC Data from August 1978 - Mareb 1979 ON-SITE #1 LOCATION - 0 (weekly average)
EpR Ave. pR/hr
~
Dates Hourn Gross Ekgd Total Ekgd Nec 1978 07/24-07/31 170 1704 l'.91 10.0 8.8 1.2 07/31-08/09 216 2292 1941 10.6 9.0 0.4 08/09-08/16 169 3170 1567 18.9 9.3 9.6 08/16-08/23 170 1692 1547 10.0 9.1 0.9 08/23-09/04 285 3045 2597 10.7 9.1 1.6 09/04-09/10 147 1539 1398 10.5 9.5 1.0 09/10-09/16 144 1704 1435 11.2 9.4 1.8 09/16-09/24 192 2087 1670 10.9 8.7 2.2 09/24-10/01 169 1844 1500 10.9 8.9 2.0 10/01-10/10 211 2019 1849 9.6 8.8 0.8 10/10-10/15 121 1093 1036 9.0 9.0 0.0 10/15-10/22 169 1557 1520 9.2 9.0 0.2 10/22-10/29 167 1755 1468 10.5 8.8 1.7 10/29-11/05 165 1508 1495 9.1 9.1 0.0 11/05-11/12 166 1490 1467 9.0 8.8 0.2 11/12-11/19 170 1522 1488 9.0 8.8 0.2 11/19-11/26 169 1489 1467 8.8 8.7 0.1 11/26-12/03 168 1466 1422 8.7 8.5 0.2 l' '03-12/10 167 1421 1380 8.5 8.3 0.2 12/im 12/17 169 1350 1350 8.0 8.0 0.0 12/17-12/24 165 1355 1339 8.2 8.1 0.1 12/24-12/30 145 1207 1189 8.3 8.2 0.1 1979 12/30-01/06 170 1255 1235 7.4 7.3 0.1 01/06-01/20 323 2264 2260 7.0 7.0 0.0 01/21-01/28 171 1099 1092 6.4 6.4 0.0 01/28-02/04 168 1064 1065 6.3 6.3 0.0 02/04-02/11 167 1019 1019 6.1 6.1 0.0 02/11-02/18 165 970 966 5.9 5.9 0.0 02/18-02/25 171 1029 1014 6.0 5.9 0.1 02/25-03/03 144 874 862 6.1 6.0 0.1 03/03-03/10 170 1199 1192 7.1 7.0 0.1 1942 016 i -
~*
12
III-A.
PIC Data (continued)
Table 6-B Summary of PIC Data from August 1978 - March 1979 ON-SITE #3 IOCATION - H (weekly Average)
Euk Ave. pR/hr Dates llou_rsL Gross Bkgd Total Bkgd Net 1978 s7/24-07/31 170 2132 1484 12.5 8.7 3.8 07/31-08/09 216 4040 1923 13.7 8.9 9.8 08/09-08/16 169 1786 1526
'0.6 9.0 1.6 08/16-08/23 170 1645 1510 9.7 9.0 0.7 08/23-09/04 285
'673 2576 16.4 9.0 7.4 09/04-09/10 147 1510 1389 10.3 9.4 0.9 09/10-09/16 144 1572 1323 10.9 9.2 1.7 09/16-09/24 192 2864 1638 14.9 8.5 6.4 09/24-10/01 169 2203 1468 13.0 8.7 4.3 10/01-10/10 211 1871 1803 8.9 3.5 0.4 10/10-10/15 121 1782 1083 14.7 9.0 5.7 10/15-10/22 169 1970 1508 11.7 8.9 2.8 10/22-10/29 168 3480 1446 20.7 8.6 12.1 10/29-11/05 168 1676 1473 10.0 8.8 1.2 11/05-11/12 166 1448 1421 8.7 8.6 0.1 11/12-11/19 170 1473 1450 8.7 8.5 0.2 11/19-11/26 169 1472 1444 8.7 8.5 0.2 11/26-12/03 168 1456 1408 8.7 8.4 0.3 12/03-12/10 167 1363 1354 8.2 8.1 0.1 12/10-12/17 170 137'.
1370 8.1 8.1 0.0 12/17-12/24 165 1397 1379 8.5 8.4 0.1 12/24-12/30 145 1218 1197 8.4 8.3 0.1 1979 12/30-01/06 172 1300 1280 7.6 7.4 0.2 01/06-01/13 Missing - Due to tape problems 01/13-01/20 167 1148 1141 6.9 6.8 0.1 01/20-01/28 170 1108 1089 6.5 6.4 0.1 01/28-02/04 170 1104 1104 6.5 6.5 0.0 02/04-02/11 166 1056 1053 6.4 6.3 0.1 02/11-02/18 167 1010 295 6.0 6.0 0.0 02/18-02/25 170 1038 1033 6.1 6.1 0.0 02/25-03/03 144 888 883 6.1 6.1 0.0 03/03-03/10 167 1220 1222 7.3 7.3 0.0 03/10-03/14 96 695 695 7.2 7.2 0.0 0 Y' 9 gg Q) *J a
13
III-A. PIC Data (continued)
Table 7 Summary of PIC Background Date pR/hr (integrated over 4-week intervals)
Site O Site il 1978 August 9.08 8.99 September 9.22 9.02 October 8.88 8.75 November 8.86 8.62 December 8.35 8.27 1979 January 6.9 6.9 February 6.0 6.1 March 6.
')
6.37 Table 8 Cumulative Hourly Gamma Dose (Microrads) - Dresden Nuclear Power Station August - September 1978 (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)A (5)
(6)
(7)**
Sector-Ave'd Off-axis Plume Month Site Measured Model (4) ( (3)
Model (6) 1 (3)
August "0"
2548 1487 0.58 3776 1.48 "11" 3723 2983 0.80 7219 1.94*
September "O"
1130 821 0.73 1659 1.47 "H"
2947 1307 0.44 2198 0.75 October "0"
514 249 0.48 553 1.08 "11" 3465 1651 0.48 3429 0.99 1
A Same as Do in Table 4.
- 1.48 after adjustment for periodc of extremely unstable weather con-ditions with downwind direction close to the monitor bearing.
See text.
If this factor is correct, the difference between the measured and computer-ralculated exposures is 40%.
1942 018 1
14
III-B.
Thermoluminiscent Dosimeter and Gamma Survey Data (continued)
Table 9 Dose Rates in pF/hr (April 26 - May 19, 1978)
Packaging Material Locations (ilo)
A D
F H
Al Shield, PVC holder 8.40 0.43 7.2710.24 7.37 0.34 7.8410.17 Al Shield, Polyethylene holder 8.67!0.35' 7.00!0.44 7.3910.26 8.19!0.67 Polyethylene Shield, PVC holder 9.8810.17 9.36!0.35 9.4010.29 Polyethylene Shield, Polyethylene Vial holder 9.45!0.75 Isotropic PVC Sphere 7.6920.26 6.24!0.29 6.27!0.22 6.67!O.61 The TLD packings Pciyethylene Shield in polyethylene vial
(-56 mg/cm2 thickness), and Isotropic PVC holder (~1 g/cm 2 thickness) were chosen for the study.
Tables 10 and 11 summarize the Gamma Dose Rates measured using TLDs from May 17, 1378, to March 14, 1979.
Comparison of TLD data with PIC data is presented in Tabic 12.
From this the correction factors are obtained to correlate TLD and PIC data.
Table 13 presents the background data obtained from PIC and y-survey measurements. The y-survey readings were converted to pR/hr, using a calibration curve between y cpm and PIC pR/hr.
Table 14 presents the average background from y-survey readings for all locations except locations H and 0 (which are the PIC locations - see Table 13).
The differences between the measured background exposure rates and the avenage of the values at H and 0 were calculated.
Values on 09/10 were omitted because of the apparent error in SM measurements indicated for Table 13.
The following valses were also omitted because the plume from the chimney may have been at the location:
C, 08/16,,10/22, 11/19; D, 10/08; L, 02/18, 03/03; M, 02/18, 03/03.
The averages of the accept-able difference values were all within the standard deviations except the following:
Location Difference from H and 0 jgf} {jg E
-1.1 1.0 pR/hr F
-1.4 0.8 pR/hr s
bt, Fj G
-1.1 1.0 pR/hr 15
III-B.
Thermoluminiscent Dosiweter and Gamma Survey Data (continued)
Table 10 Average Environmental Gamma Dose Rates using TLD's in pR/hr,(110)
(Polyethylene shiald in Polyethylene vial holder - 56 mg/cm e thickness).
Station 17 May-22 Aug.
23 Aug.-15 Nov.
15 Nov.-14 Mar.
A 11.920.2 11.8 0.9 7.40.5 B
15.3 0.5 20.3il.1 9.90.7 C
14.311.1 18.4t0.7 7.40.8 D
12.1 0.2 16.4 1.1 9.4 0.5 E
8.310.3 11.4 0.2 6.9 0.4 F
9.5!0.4 14.3 1.8 5.8 0.3 G
9.320.3 Missing Missing H
10.9 0.5 14.8 0.7 9.3!0.5 I
9.6!0.0 14.8 0.7 (1) 8.8!0.5 J
10.5 0.1 Missing 8.0 0.4 K
10.5 0.1 18.4 0.5 8.3 0.6 L
9.8 0.0 13.4 0.7 9.60.6 M
8.2 0.2 10.9 0.2 8.1 0.4 N
8.2 0.2 9.8 0.2 7.50.7 0
8.8 0.2 10.9 0.7 7.2 0.4 P
11.810.7 16.6 0.2 8.1 0.7 (1) Second badge =15.St0.5 Table 11 Average Environmental Gamma Dose Rates using TLD's in uR/hr (tlo)
(Isotropic PVC Sphere holder - 1 g/cm2 thickness).
Station 17 May-22 Aug.
23 Aug.-15 Nov.
15 Nov.-14 Mar.
A 8.9 0.5 5.610.3 B
13.9 1.0 6.6 0,9 C
12.4 1.0 5.9 0.3 D
8.3 0.2 11.4 0.5 7.0 0.5 E
9.320.4 5.3 0.3 F
9.3 0.4 4.6i0.5 G
Missing 5.6 0.3 H
10.9!1.0 6.1 0.7 1
11.4 0.0 6.9 0.4 J
10.4 1.0 6.6 0.4 K
10.9 1.0 6.4 0.3 L
10.4 1.0
- 7. 4r0. 4 M'
8.4tl.0 6.1 0.3 N
7.4 0.0 5.310.3 0
6.9 0.2 8.4 0.5 6.1 0.4 P
1?.4 1.0 6.1 0.5 1
1942 020 16
III-B.
Thermoluminiscent Dosimeter and Gamma Survey Data (continued)
Even these are highly uncertain, but this result suggests that there is a consistently lower background toward the southeast.
On this basis, the background at all stations except these three was taken to be identical to *.he averages at 0 and H, whilc the background at E, F, and G was taken to be lower by the average value of 1.2 pR/hr.
The typical standard deviation in the differences between the SM measurement at a location and the value at H and O was 0.9 pR/hr, which is larger than desirable in a correction factor. More work needs to be done on this aspect of the project, so that a more consistent correction factor can be applied to the background measurement.
The radiation exposure from airborne effluent given in Table 15 was calculated as follows: Exposure rate values were converted to TLD from PIC values, based on the belief that the TLDs are reliably calibrated but that the PIC calibration is only approximate.
In the future, the two systems should be cross-calibrated.
Hence, background values from the PIC (see footnote 1 to Table 15) were divided by 1.22, the average ratio from Table 12.
Only data from Table 11 were used because these TLDs resemble the PIC in responding mostly to gamma rays.
The higher values in Table 10 presumably are due to beta particles and weak gamma rays.
These TLDs are a useful indicator of this additional component but cannot be compared to PICS.
The PIC background for TLDs was used at all locations where the SM values agree within lo.
Only at locations E, F, and G was a different background used. This latter background was an average value for the three locations because of their proximity and the large uncertainty of each set of values.
The measured exposure rates due to airborne effluents in the period November 15 - March 14, average 0.3 0.5 pR/hr (la). The average value is consistent with the dispersion calculation for that period of <0.1 pR/hr in Table 3 and the measured values of 0 - 0.2 pR/hr in Tables 6A and 6B at locations H and O.
This yields a 3o minimum detectable level of 1.5 pR/hr nr 3 mR per quarter. The stand-ard deviation of 0.6 pR/hr can be inferred to result from the uncert-ainty of the total measurement, which averages 0.4 pR/hr in Table 11 and of the background value subtracted from it, which appears to have a similar average standard deviation.
Based on the above discussion, the standard deviation of the Acgust 23 - November 15 measured exposure rates due to airborne effluents in Table 15, is somewhat larger than 1 mR, and the MDL is somewhat larger than 3 mR.
That suggests that values at all locations except A, M, N, and 0 can be compared to values computed from dis-persion calculations. At an estimate, it appears that the dispersion calculations yield <3mR for A, M, N, and 0 also, and are within 2 mR of measured values at C, D, and F.
Other calculated values appear to be significantly less than the measured average.
The minimum detectable annual exposure by this procedute for four quarterly TLD measurements is 3(4)3.5 - 6mR/ year.
The following were taken from Table 15 for the TLD in 1 -g/cm2 1942 021
III-B.
Thermoluminiscent Dosimeter and Gamma Survey Data (continued)
Table 12 Comparison of TLD and PIC Data (uR/hr)
(!1a)
Correction Factors TLD Data PIC Data (Compared to Pfi3~~
1 g/cm2 56 mg/cm 2 I g/cm 2 Dace Site
_56 mg/cm 2 08/23/78-H 14.810.3 10.920.3 13.6 0.92 1.25 11/15/78 08/23/78-0 10.910.1 8.410.3 10.4 0.95 1.24 11/15/78 11/15/78-H 9.310.5 6.120.7 7.32 0.79 1.20 03/14/79 11/15/78-0 7.210.4 6.110.4 7.24 1.01 1.19 03/14/79 Table 13 Comparisons of Data Stained (instantaneous readings) from PICS and Na1 (Tl) y Survey pR/hr Site H Site O Date y
PIC y
PIC 08/23/78 9.2 -
9.4 9.4 9.3 09/10/78 10.8 8.5 12.0 9.6 09/24/78 9.0 9.5 9.1 8.9 10/08/78 9.5 8.8 8.8 8.5 10/22/78 8.8 8.8 9.2 8.8 11/05/78 8.4 9.4 8.7 9.0 11/19/78 8.4 8.7 8.9 8.8 12/03/78 8.4 8.0 8.4 8.6 02/04/79 7.0 7.1 6.5 6.2 02/18/79 6.8 6.3 7.1 6.5 Average' 8.611.2 8.5 1.1 8.811.5 8.411.1 (ilo) 1942 022
+
18
Table 14 2,7 Average Background Dose from y-Survey
[
T Wind UR/hr
?
Date Direction A
B C
D E
F G
I J
K L
M N
P El 07/24/78 ESE 8.8 9.6 8.8 9.6 8.4 8.0 8.0 9*
10.2 9.6 8.6 9.2 P
9.6 g
07/31/78 W
9.0 9.4 9.2 9.6 8.6 8.4 8.6 9.4 10.6 10.0 9.6 8.4 8.0 9.8 g
08/16/78 SW 8.6 9.6 9.4 P
9.2 8.4 8.4 9.4 11.4 9.2 9.4 8.6 8.0 10.0 g;
08/23/78 S
9.2 10.8(P) P P
9.4 8.8 9.2 10.2 11.8 11.6 11.3 9.8 9.6 11.6 g
09/10/78 Calm 10.2(P)
P P
P?
8.4 8.8 8.4 P!
P?
9.0 9.4 9.6 9.8 12.2 g
09/24/78 WSW 8.4 8.4 9.3 P
9.0 8.0 8.4 8.4 11.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.8 8.4 g
10/08/78 WSW 9.2 8.4 10.8 6.8 7.6 7.6 7.7 9.2 8.4 9.6 9.2 8.6 8.4 8.5 g
10/22/78 SW 6.8 6.8 8.7 8.0 8.1 7.7 7.2 7.9
~7.9 10.0 8.3 8.3 8.4 6.9 n
11/05/78 SSW 9.6 8.3 P
8.4 8.3 7.9 8.1 7.9 11.6 9.3 8.3 8.3 8.0 P
g 11/19/78 SW 7.9 7.8 8.3 9.7 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.1 10.2 8.2 8.0 7.7 7.6 7.7 g
g 12/03/78 W
7.9 7.9 8.1 8.3 7.2 7.4 9.2 7.5 12.7 7.4 8.5 8.3 7.2 9.2 g
02/04/79 NW 6.9 7.3 6.2 5.9 5.0 4.7 5.9 6.4 9.2 7.3 6.6 7.1 6.4 7.8 g
02/18/79 E
6.8 6.5 5.9 6.1 4.5 4.5 4.7 6.3 8.1 6.5 7.9 8.8 8.1 6.5 03/03/79 E
6.3 5.7 5.1 5.5 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.1 8.7 6.9 5.7 5.1 5.1 5.5
?
8u P = Plume Q
O
?
n 4
w
^
4 o
N E
E O
8 N
c.
u
III-B.
Thermoluminiscent Dosimeter and Camma Survey Data (continued)
Table 15 Radiation Exposure from Airborne Effluent Aug. 23 - Nov. 15 Subjective Nov. 15 - Mar. 14
_ Location Net UR/hr Net mR Model, mR Comparison Net pR/hr Net mR A
1.6 3.2 4.2 G
-0.4
-1.1 B
6.6 13.3 6.0 B
0.6 1.7 C
5.1 10.3 9.0 G
-0.1
-0.3 D
4.1 8.3 5.8 F
1.0 2.8 E
3.0 6.0 5.0 G
0.3 0.8 F
3.0 6.0 2.0 B
-0.4
-1.1 G
2.7 0.6 1.7 H
3.6 7.2 3.9 B
0.1 0.3 I
4.1 8.3 2.8 B
0.9 2.5 J
3.1 6.2 3.0 F
0.6 1.7 K
3.6 7.2 1.9 B
0.4 1.1 L
3.1 6.2 1.6 B
1.4 3.9 M
1.1 2.2 1.6 0.1 0.3 N
0.1 0.2 1.7
-0.7
-0.2 0
1.1 2.2 2.1 0.1 0.3 F
5.1 10.3 6.8 G
0.1 0.3 Average 0.310.5(1a)
Notes:
1.
Net pR/hr is TLD average exposure rate (in g/cm2 shield) without background.
This value was calculated by subtracting from the values in Table 11, 7.3 pR/hr and 6.0 pR/hr during the August 23 -
November 15 and November 15 - March 14 periods, respectively, except that at locations E, F, and G, the values subtracted were 1.0 pR/hr less, i.e. 6.3 and 5.0 pR/hr, respectively.
These values are the PIC average background exposure rates of 8.9 and 7.3 pR/hr, respectively, divided by 1.22 (see Table 12) to convert to TLD values.
The lower background value at locations E, F, and G was similarly adjusted.
2.
Exposure periods were 2013 hr during August 23 - November 15, and 2820 during November 15 - March 14.
3.
For t',e model value, monthly exposures were obtained; the exposures were taken to be proportional to the fraction of the month for parts of months.
4.
Subjective comparison made only for those data sets where the measured net exposure is greater than 3 mR.
C= Good, F= Fair, B= Bad.
20
III-B.
Thermoluminiscent Dosimeter and Cammc Survey Data (continued) holders E, in mR per period:
Location Date TLD PIC PIC + 1.22 0
Aug. 23 - Nov. 15 2.2 2.2 1.8 H
7.2 7.9 6.5 O
Nov.'15 - Mar. 14 0.3 0.2 0.2 H
0.3 0.2 0.2 Ali values are consistent within the uncertainties of measurement.
IV.
Conclusion In this part of the Dresden EDPS, two hypotheses were tested:
(1) that the sector-averaged finite plume model accurately reflected the meas.tred exposure at or near the site boundary, and (2) that LiF TLDs could accurately measure the station-contributed dose when the current period background was subtracted; the current period background being determined by a survey meter standardized against a PIC-measured exposure rate.
The first hypothesis was found to be incorrect.
The sector-averaged model underestimated the measured exposure by approximately 60%, for all practical purposes, a factor of two.
Correction factors were determined using two types of multiple sector models (Tables 4 and 5).
The most accurate model appears to be the off-axis finite plume model.
This model provides realistic and useful estimates of the measured exposures so long as appropriate corrections are made for periods of extremely unstable atmospheric conditions with the monitor bearing close to the downwind wind direction.
The procedure utilizing two PICS and sets of 16 TLDs yields exposure results that permit measurements as low as 6 mR per year, based on a standard deviation of 0.5 pR/hr when the exposure rate from airborne effluent is near 0.1 pR/hr. Determinat.on of differences in the back-ground values at the 14 non-PIC locations should be improved by perform-ing more precise measurements with survey meters and also making PIC measurements at each location, possibly twice each year.
1942 025 c,.
g 21
)
Section II DRESDEN EDPS - SOURCE TERM STUDY Spring 1978 - Spring 1979 I.
Introductior The objective of the source term study was to measure the amounts of radioactivity released from the station under a variety of operating conditions.
II.
Study Plan A.
Photon Emitting Noble Gases in Chimney Gas Chimney gas was to be sampled during routine operation; use of vacuum pump at startup, power level increase, and refueling. The samp-ling point was the chimney particulate sampling station (isokinetic sampler) after filtration. One liter of gas was collected in a gas Marinelli beaker by pumping gas through the Marinelli for coout five minutes.
The samples were analyzed for radioactive noble gases by gamma spectrometry shortly after collection and about one day later.
B.
H-3 and Kr-85 in Chimney Gas Collection of a sample on 12/13/78 was made by drawing chimney gas into an evacuated container (> 10 1).
The oas was analyzed for C-14, H-3 in non-water forms, and Kr-85.
C.
Collection and Analysis of Radioactive Xenon in Reactor Building Vent Gas The sample collecting system is shown in Figure 3.
The sample gas passes from the sar.pling port through the flow meter. Pressure in the flow meter is within one cm of ambient and therefore no sig-nificant volume correction need be made.
From the flow meter the sample passes through a 13X molecular sieve columm which removes CO2 and H 0.
A precooler consisting of a three-meter copper coil 2
immersed in dry ice slurry (~76 c) chills the gas prior to entry into the sample trap (activated charcoal) which is also immersed in dry ice slurry.
The remaining gas then passes through a heat exchanger and into the air mover.
The charcoal containing the xenon is transferred to a scaled container and counted on a gamma spectro-meter about one hour and one day after collection.
Between counting periods, the sample is stored at --760c to minimize migration of xenon off the charcoal.
D.
Alpha Emitters in Chimney and Reactor Building Vent Cases These samples were collected at the usual sampling locations for particulates by station staff. The filters were analyzed for trans-1942 026 22
II-D.
Alpha Emitters in Chimney and Reactor Building Vent Gases (continued) uranics :f gross alpha measurements indicate the presence of signif-icant amounts of activity.
E.
Alpha Emttting Radionuclides in Reactor-System Liquid Wastes On PJ/24/78, a. sample from the waste sample tank was analyzed for alpha emitters.
The sample was collected by station staff prior to releases from the tank and analyzed by standard procedures.
F.
Radioactivity in Minor Unmonitored Plant Effluents Samples of the following effluents were collected:
(1) Discharge service water (2) Discharged treated sanitary sewer water (3) Storm sewer discharges (4) Intake service water (background).
The samples were analyzed first for gross beta concentrations and tritium.
If sample gross beta activity exceeded background or reference location levels, they were analyzed for gamma emitters by gamma spectrometry.
III.
Results The results of this phase of the study are presented in Tabics 18 -
23A*
The most definitive information concerns alpha-emitting radionuc-lides in effluents.
In airborne effluents, the alpha emitters are approx-imately 0.01 pCi/m, for a nominal 100 pCi total release. The data also 3
indicate that the D 2/3 vent releases noble gases on the order of a few percent of the D 2/3 chimney releases.
IV.
Conclusion Due to limitations of personnel, time, and equipmeat, few of the planned samples were collected in this part of the EDPS program.
- However, the data do indicate that the transuranic radionuclides constitute a very, very small fraction of the total effluents, and that the vent noble gas releases are very small compared to the chimney.
1942 027
- There are no tables 16 or 17.
w 23
V h)ToAir
- G--
_A g
Hover g
D a
A Sample
,\\
intet l
r A
B A = flowmater Column (13X, 20 thsh' 8 = Molecular 5: C' C = llcat Exchanger (Pre coolcr)
D = Sample Trap (Activated Charcoal, 20 Mesh)
E m Heat Exchanger V, Vacuum Gages Figure 3 - Xenon Extraction System Dresden EDPS Program 24
Table 18 Photon Emitting Noble Cases in Chimney and Vent Gas (pCi/1 !20 @ of collection time and date)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Chimney 2/3 Rx Bldg Vent 2 Rx Bldg Vent 3 Ar-41 (40
<1
<1 Kr-85
<1000
<10
<10 Kr-85m
<5
<0.1
<0.1 Kr-87
< ?. 0
<1
<1 Xe-133 400!40 25!3 11 1 Xe-133m
<~0
<0.3
<0.3 2
Xc-133 100t10 17 2 6!1
".e-135m
<2000
<40
<5000 (a) Collected 12/13/78 at 1400 hrs and counted -3 hours after collection.
s ) Collected 12/13/78 at 1205 hrs and counted ~3 hours after collection.
o (c) Collected 12/13/78 at 1250 1rs and counted ~3 hours after collection.
Table 19 Photon Emitting Noble Gases in Chimney and Vent Gas (pCi/1 !20 @ 6f collection time and date)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Chimney 2/3 Rx Bldg Vent 2 Rx Bldg Vent 3 4
3 3
Ar-41
<10
<10
<10 Kc-85
<1000
<1000
<1000 K4-85m (200
<1
<1 Kr-87
<8000
<1000
<1000 Kr-88
<5000
<40 (40 Xe-133 400!41 24 2 18 2 Xe-133m (40
<0.3
<0.3 Xe-135 120!10 1412 8!1 Xe-135m
<5000
<1000
<1000 (a) Co11ceted 12/13/78 at 1400 hrs and counted 1 day af ter collection.
(b) Collected 12/13/78 at 1205 hrs and counted 1 day after collection.
(c) Collected 12/13/78 at 1250 hrs and counted 1 day after collection.
- u, 1942 029 25
Table 20 H-3 in Chimney Gas (collected 12/13/78 at 1400 hrs)
(!2a) pCi/1 of Sample llTO 6.4!0.1 HT
<2 CH T
<1 3
Tabic 21 Alpha Emitters in Chinney and Reactor Vent Gases 10-3 pCi/m3 ( 2a)
Collection Pu-239-Date Gross a Pu-238 240 Am-241 Cm-242 cm-244
_ Chimney - D 2/3 08/18/78 8.2!0.8
<0.3
<0.2 1.3!0.9
<0.3 1.4!1.3 09/12/78 8.8!0.9
<0.4 0.710.6 1.6!1.4
<0.5 16!6 10/15/78 4.3!O.4 1.5!1.2 4.612.1
<0.1 3.3!1.7 23!5 11/16/78 1.0!0.3
<0.4 0.6i0.4 1.810.9 1.3!1.1
<0.7 Rx Vent - D2 08/26/78 7.7!0.8 1.410.7 2.020.9
<0.1
<0.1 0.7!0.6 09/09/78 9.7!1.0 0.6!0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3!0.2
<0.2 1.920.9 10/14/78 7.5 0.8 0.320.2 0.620.3 0.610.4
<0.6
<0.1 11/18/78 3.3!0.3 0.2!0.2 0.9!0.4 0.3!0.3 0.6!0.5
<0.1 Rx Vent - D3 08/26/78 1011 0.4!0.3 0.720.3
<0.2 3.6!1.5 3.6!1.5 C3/09/78 12!1 0.510.3 0.3i0.2 0.310.3 2.311.2 0.8!0.6 10/14/78 11 1 1.0!0.6 1.0!0.6
<0.7 3.6!1.4 5.4 1.8 11/18/78 27!3 0.6!0.3 0.710.3 0.3!0.2 18!4 0.910.6 Table 22
~
Alpha Emitters in Reactor I,iquid Effluent (collected prior to dilution in circulating water) pC1/1 (12a)
Collection Collection Pu-239
__ Dat3 Site Pu-238
-240 Am-241 Cm-242 Cm-244 10/24/78 B WST 22 3 1312 9.4 1.3 140 30 28!6 1942 030 26
Table 23 Radioactivity in Minor Unmonitored Plant Effluents Collection Ccilection pCi/1 (12a)
Date Site Gross 8 11 - 3 y Emitter _s 10/16/78 Storm Sewer 2624 7000 700
<10 Discharge 10/16/78 Discharged 29 4 6300!600
<10 Treated San-itary Sewers 10/16/78 Discharged 52
<600
<10 Service 11/03/78 Discharged 52 5001300 Co-60=9.0!2.4 Service D2 Cs-134=6!4 Cs-137=<4
'. c..
.tY<
1942 031 27
Table 23A Estimated Annual Releases of Airborne Transuranic Radionuclides Chimney D 2/3 Vent D 2/3 Total ;Ci/yr Avg discharge uC1/m 3 Avg discharge uCi/yr Avg f Ci/m 3 Radionuclide Avg f Ci/m3 Pu-238 0.4 2.4 0.6 2.0 4
Pu-233 + 240 1.5 9.0 0.8 2.6 12 Am-241 1.2 7.2 0.2 0.7 8
Cm-242 1.2 7.2 3.5 12.0 19 Cc-244 10.0 60.0 1.7 5.6 66 3
7 9
3 189 m /see x 3.17 x 10 sec/yr = 6.0 x 10 m /yr.
Notes:
1.
Chimney flow 3
7 9
104 m /sec x 3.17 x 10 sec/yr = 3.3 x 10.
Vent flow 2.
Concentration in vents from D2 and D3 are averaged.
4 N
O U
N
Section III DRESDEN EDPS - 10 DINE-131 in MILK 1.
Introduction The thyroid dose rate of 15 mrem /yr per reactor given in POCFR50 Appendix I as the numerical guide for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive effluents indicates that airborne I-131 may be among the radionuclides that cause the highest organ dose near nuclear power stations. The critical pathway is usually airborne effluent-to-air-to-pasture grass-to-cows' milk-to-infants. Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Revision 1, Octeber 1977) gives a dose / ingestion factor of 0.0139 mrem to the infant thyroid per pCi ingested. At the consumption rate of 330 liters /yr given in the same guide, an average concentration of 1 pCi/ liter milk leads to an annual dose to the infants thyroid of 4.6 mrem due to I-131.
Hence to reach the 15 mrem /yr per reactor design objective, an annual average concentration of 3 pCi/1 is required.
Because of the critical role played by I-131 in the sf*ing and oper-ation of nuclear reactors this study was designed to evaluat. the accuracy of the calculational model used to demonstrate compliance with the design of objectives.
In this study, the levels of I-131 in milk from two farms near Dresden Station were measured and compared to concentrations predicted by the mathematical model of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Revision 1, October 1977). However, only the direct transfer of I-131 onto plant foliage was considered after an evaluation of the model showed that the root uptake and stored feed pathways contributed little to the iodine intake of the dairy animals relative to that from foliage.
It was further assumed that only one-half ~of the iodine was in the elemental form, the form most likely to deposit onto vegetation. {or purposes of computing atmosphere dispersion, the Dresden Units 1 and t/a chimneys were considered elevated release points and the 2/3 ventilation stack a " mixed-mode" or
" split H" source in accordance with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.111 (Revision 1, July 1977).
The predicted concentrations were prepared by Murray and Trettel, Inc., the Commonwealth Edison meteorological contractor, using current period site meteorology and station-reported effluents via the two chimneys and the Dresden 2/3 ventilation stack.
II.
Study Plan A.
Calculation Model As previously stated, the environmental transfer mode) of Regula-tory Guides 1.109 and 1.111 was used weekly to predict I ~.31 concentra-tions in milk. StatJen I-131 effluents measured daily sad site meteor-ology measured hourly were used in the predictions.
Th.. principal parameters of the model are givet in Table 24.
B.
Sampling Program - Description Samples of about 1.5 liters of milk were obtained from the morning
'l and evening milkings of two farms, one located six miles NNW, the other P
1942 033 29
TABLE,2,4,4 Principal Constants Used in I-131 Milk Pathway Model Parameter Descr!; tion Value F
Fraction of daily intake which appears in milk 6x10
- d/1 m
Qg Amount of seed (grass + stored seed) consumed per day 50 kg/d
,A Radiological decay constant of I-131 3.61x10- hr-1 f
Fraction of time animala are in pasture 1.0 p
f Fraction of daily seed that is pasture g-.ss 1/2 3
A Effective decay constant = Au + 1 5.67x10- hr-1 E
J Environmental weathering removal constant 2.1x10 ' hr-1 u
r Fraction of released activity retained on pasture grass 0.5 te Period of pasture grass exposure 720 hr Yv Agricultural productivity percent area 0.7 kg/m2 T
Release period 720 hr E
Qo
, Release rate A Ci/wk Dr Relative Deposition AA mI R
Range: Station to dairy farm NNW 9654 m NE 25744 um o as reported by the station.
AA From USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.111 (Revision, July e977) 1942 034 i
30
II-B.
Sampling Program - Description (continued) 16 miles NE, until the weekly collection was made. The milk collected on each day was kept frozen and sent to tne laboratory at the end of each week for stable iodide and I-131 analyses.
C.
Analytical Procedure - Methodology Stable iodide concentrations of the samples were measured using a specific ion electrode. Concentratians of stable iodide in milk have been shown in this and other studies to be quite variable and often quite high, making knowledge of the total iodide present, not only carrier, important to chemical yield determinations.
Radiciodine-131 is isolated from milk with stable iodine carrier (corrective also for the presence of stable iodide content) and anion exchange resin.
The iodine is aluted from the resin with Na0Cl which also oxidizes it to the iodate.
The iodate is reduced to iodine with hydroxylamine in 3N nitric acid solution.
Th2 iodine is extracted into carbon tetrachloride, then reduced to iodide with sodium bisul-fite, extracted into water and precipitated as AgI from an acidified solution, filtered and washed with NH 0H to remove any AgC1. Sample 4
is dried, weighed to determine the gravimetric yield of iodide and counted in low level beta counters for about 1000 minutes and the measured I-131 concentrations were decay corrected to the mid-time of sample collection.
III.
Results Analytical result.s are summarized in Tables 25 and 26 for Davidson Farm (six miles NNW) and Tables 27 and 28 for Mather Farm (16 miles NE).
Tables 25 and 27 summarize the result from each week.
Tables 26 and 28 summarize the computed average value for each month with a comparison of m.asured (Cm) vs. the calculated (C ) by model.
c IV.
Conclusion The comparisons of measured and computed I-131 concentration indicate aggreement by better than a factor of two over a period of half a year.
More exact comparison is probably not warranted. The magnitude of negative values in Table 27 suggests that the standard deviation value is larger than indicated by the counting statistics of 0.01 pC1/1.
From measurements at Zion, where no detectable I-131 in milk was computed from source terms and a dispersion model, a standard deviation of 0.02 pCi/l was calculated.
For a seasonal total based on 27 measurements (omitting the period of fall-the beginning and the questioned measurement near the end), the out at standard deviation of the sum is 0.02 (27)0.5 = 0.1.
Hence, the values for the grazing season were 2.58io.1/27 = 0.076!0.004 pC1/1 nearby and 0.46!0.1/27 = 0.017t0.004 pCi/l at a distance.
These are probably the most sensitive measurements made at a nuclear power station at the usual monitor-ing location for an entire season.
o
~,
1942 035 31
TABLE 25 D-30 Davidson Farm 6 al NNW Collection Vol(1) 1-127 Grav.
Net I-131 Mid Date e-At Proc e_g/1_,
Yield cpm pCL/1 ! lo 04/26/78 0.65 20.0 2.0
.35 1.07.05
- 0. 27!.02 (b) 05/03/78 0.71 25.9 2.5
.34 2.26.06 0.49!.07 (b) 05/10/78 0.65 22.3 2.5
.45 0.94!.05 0.21!.01(b) 05/17/78 0.68 22.2 0.91
.47 0.34!.04 0.07!.01 05/24/78 0.63 19.7 0.45
.46 0.40.05 0.09!.01 05/31/78 0.60 23.0 0.38
.48 0.41.03 0.10!.01 06/07/78 0.65 20.9 0.32
.94 0.37.04 0.04.01 06/14/78 0.68 20.4 0.24
.69 0.52!.04 0.07.01 06/21/78 0.68 9.0 0.21
.49 0.18.04 0.07.02 06/27/78 0.50 20.8 0.14
.67 0.341.04 0.06!.01 07/06/78 0.68 20.9 0.16
.61 0.49.04 0.071.01 07/13/78 0.68 20.9 0.20
.58 0.85.04 0.13!.01 07/20/78 0.68 19.4 0.16
.57 0.73!.04 0.12!.01 07/27/78 0 68 19.9 0.15
.47 0.50!.04 0.10!.01 08/03/78 0.71 19.4 0.17
.53 0.30.04 0.051.01 08/09/78 0.65 17.9 0.35
.64 0.42!.04 0.07k.01 08/17/78 0.71 21.0 0.29
.63 0.84t.04 0.111.01 08/24/78 0.71 21.0 0.37
.60 2.68!.07 0.37!.02 08/31/78 0.65 13.0 0.78
.66 0.32!.06 0.06!.01 09/07/78 0.71 18.0 2.00
.70 0.87!.07 0.14t.02 09/14/78 0.71 21.1 1.03
.60 1.152.07 0.151.02 09/21/78 0.68 18.0 3.20
.40 0.502.04 0.15t.01 09/28/78 0.68 20.0 1.69
.48 0.44!.04 0.10!.01 10/05/78 0.71 19.7 0.97
.51 0.15.04 0.03!.01 10/12/78 0.60 21.0 1.80
.33 0.18!.04 0.06.02 10/18/78 0.65 21.0 1.06
.50 0.671.04 0.14!.01 10/26/78 0.60 10.5 0.89
.62 0.46!.07 0.111.03 11/02/78 0.63 7.0 0.74
.57 0.56!.07
- 0. 28!.03 (a) 11/09/78 0.63 21.0 1.27
.53 (a) 11/16/78 0.65 21.0 1.91
.53 0.82.04 0.17.01 11/23/78 0.65 21.0 1.34
.41 0.12.05 0.03t.01 11/30/78 0.63 20.1 1.09
.45 0.00!.05 0.00.01 12/06/78 0.57 21.0 1.37
.44
-0.02!.05
-0.01!.02 (a) Data doubtfyl.
Radiological decay pattern was not consistant with that of I-131.
(b) Chinese fallout.
1942 036 32
TABLE 26 Davidson Farm Monthly average concentration (pCi/1)
Measured (C ) vs. Calculated by Model (Cc)
M Calculated Collection Period Model Measured CM/Cc (Cc)
(CM) 04/26-05/24 0.01 0.21 21.0(b) 05/24-06/27 0.07 0.07 1.0 06/27-07/27 0.10 0.11 1.1 07/27-08/31 0.10 0.13 1.3 08/31-09/28 0.09 0.14 1.6 09/28-10/26 0.03 0.09 3.0 10/26-12/06 0.00 0.03 Period average (05/24-12/06) 0.07 0.1010.04 1.4
(!1a)
(b) Chinese fallout.
D ?. l Y{
1942 037 33
TABLE 27 D-53 Collection Vol(1) j atr rtrm 16 mi NE
- 127 Grav.
Net I-131 Mid Date e-At Proc ma
Yield
,_ cpm pCi/1 ! lo 04/26/78 0.65
.0.0 z.0
.38 3.08!.04 0.191.01(b) 05/03/78 0.71 25.9 1.3
.80 0.271.04 0.01.01 05/10/78 0.65 22.3 0.2
.48 0.16.05 0.03.01 05/17/78 0.68 22.2
<0.2
.68 0.00!.05 0.001.006 05/24/78 0.63 19.7 0.15
.48 0.17.05 0.04.01 05/31/78 0.65 23.0 0.17
.52
-0.13.05
-0.021.01 06/07/78 0.65 17.9 0.16
.51 0.01!.03 0.00!.01 06/14/78 0.68 20.9 0.13
.58 0.27!.04 0.04t.01 06/21/78 0.62 21.0 0.20
.55 0.121.04 0.02!.01 06/27/78 0.50 20.4 0.22
.63 0.04t.04 0.01!.01 07/06/78 0.68 20.7 0.08
.72
-0.16i.04
-0.021.01 07/13/78 0.68 20.9 0.15
.40 0.04!.04 0.011.01 07/20/78 0.68 20.9 0.14
.60 0.221.04 0.03.01 07/27/78 0.68 20.9 0.19
.58 0.26.04 0.04!.01 08/03/78 0.71 19.9 0.13
.48 0.04!.04 0.01!.01 08/09/78 0.65 20.9 0.24
.66 0.22.04 0.03t.01 08/17/78 0.71 21.0 0.29
.80 0.45.04 0.05!.01 08/24/78 0.71 21.0 0.13
.63 0.19.04 0.03!.01 08/31/78 0.65 21.0 0.43
.55 0.21!.06 0.03!.01 09/07/78 0.71 19.6 0.35
.52 0.41.06 0.06!.03 09/14/78 0.71 19.6 0.19
.68 0.44t.07 0.05.01 09/21/78 0.68 21.0 0.24
.58 0.34.04 0.05.01 09/28/78 0.68 21.0 0.35
.58 0.33!.06 0.05.01 10/05/78 0.71 21.0 0.10
.52 0.33!.04 0.06t.01 10/12/78 0.60 21.0 0.11
.64 0.181.04 0.03.01 10/18/78 0.65 21.0 0.12
.63 0.26!.04 0.05!.01 10/26/78 0.60 21.0 0.12
.52
-0.11.08
-0.111.02 11/02/78 0.63 21.0 0.15
.64 2.05.06 0.30.01(a) 11/09/78 0.63 21.0 0.17
.54 11/18/78 0.65 21.0 0.09
.50
-0.031.04
-0.011.01 11/23/78 0.65 21.0 0.16
.60 0.04.05 0.011.01 11/30/78 0.63 20.1 0.18
.44
-0.31!.07
-0.071.02 12/06/78 0.57 21.0 0.11
.61
-0.04.05
-0.01!.01 (a) Data doubtful.
Radiological decay was not consistent with that of I-131.
(b) Chinese fallout.
1942 038 s
34
TABLE 28 Mather Farm Monthly average concentrations (pCL/1)
Measured (CM) vs. Calculated by Model (Cc)
Calculated Collection Period Model Measured CM/Cc (Cc)
(CM) 04/26-05/24 0.00 0.05 05/24-06/27 0.01 0.01 1.0 06/27-07/27 0.02 0.02 1.0 07/27-08f31 0.02 0.03 1.5 08/31-09/28 0.07 0.05 0.7 09/28-10/26 0.01 0.02 2.0 10/26-12/06 0.00 0.00 Period average (05/24-12/06) 0.022 0.022 0.015 1.0 (ilo) 1942 039 35 i
Section TV DRESDEN EDPS - AQUATIC PAlllWAY STUDY (1978 - 1979)
I.
Introduction The aquatic pathway study at Dresden Station consists of measurements of radioactivity in edibic fish tissue. The major nuclides examined were 1-131, Cs-134, Cs-137, and P-32.
The area where the fish were collected is not a commercial fishing area.
Some sport fishermen frequent the area during the seasons. Nearly fifty species of fish have been identified in the bav, although many are not eaten by man.
In this report, the fish collected have been classified according to feeding habits and human consumption, both being important in consideration of the food chain.
II.
Study Plan Nearly 12 species of fisi were collected and are listed in Table 29 which indicates particulars rbout those species.
Samples were frozen immediately after collection, and returned to the laboratory on dry ice.
For analysis, the fish were thawed and weighed, and those of sufficient size were dissected to separate the edible portion.
Small fish were analyzed whole. Meast.4ed concentrations were then compared to calcu-lated concentrations using the model of Regulatory Guide 1.109.
III.
Results Table 30 summarizes the data on the radionuclide concentrations in fish collected during the period 08/78 - 08/79.
No detectable levels of I-131 or P-32 were measured, although more sensitive meas-urement of P-32 is recocmended for future studies. No detectable levels of Cs-134 were measured. Small amounts of Cs-137 (0.02 - 0.04 pCi/g wet) were detected in three fish samples that uay be attributable to atmos-pheric fallout.
Table 31 compares the measured concentrations of P-32, I-131 and Cs-137 to calculated concentrations based on the station's releases of these nuclides during the first six months of 1979, including an assumed value of 12 mci for P-32.
The results show that the computed Cs-137 con-centration is comparable to fallout contributions.
110weve r, the similarity in values of measured Cs-137 in upstream and downstream samples, and in previously reported data show that fallout is probably the principal con-tributor.
"or I-131 the predicted concentration is too small to measure.
P-3g was not measured in any fish sample, though could be presenc if our assumed source term is correct.
IV.
Conclusion The impact of station discharges to the aquatic environment as represented by fish were too small to be detected even with the sensitive 1942 040 36
IV.
Conclusion (continued) techniques herein. The model indicates that the dose via the aquatic pathway is very small, very much less than Imrem.
0 1942 041
- r,
x
- - - 3
+
37
Table 29 Fish Collected at Dresden Station Human Fish Name Food Habitat **
Consumption Carp Bottom feeder - opportunist
- Resident - Most abundant Yes Carpsuckers Bottom feeder Resident - Abundant Maybe Channel Catfish Bottom feeder Resident - Not very abundant Yes Drum Bottom feeder Resident - Minor Yes Gizzard Shad Plankton Resident - Abundant No Goldfish Opportunist Resident - Abundant No Longnose Gar Fish, animal foods Resident No Mooneye Plankton Migrant - Not very common No Quillback Carpsucker Bottom feeder Resident - Abandant Maybe Shorthead Redhorse Bottom feeder Resident - Not very abundant Maybe Smallmouth Buffalo Bottem feeder Resident Maybe Consumes any food available to him.
~
- Migrant - fish that enters the area during certain seasons of the year.
Resident - fish continuously present in the area.
o
.A N
Table 30 Gamma Emitters (I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137) and P-32 in Fish
( 20)
Type of Firh pCi/g wet Collection Site (if known)
I-131 P-32 y Emitters Collection period: May 1979 Station Intake Combined Sample
<0.030
<0.08
<0.006 Station Discharge Combined Sample
<0.028
<0.08
<0.005 Collection period:
June 1979 Above Discharge Combined Sample
<0.008
<0.04
<0.003 Shorthead Redhorse (a)
<1 (a)
Gizzard Shad (a)
<1 (a)
Quillback Carpsucker (a)
<1 (a)
Below Discharge Combined Sample
<0.014
<0.04
<0.005 Smallmouth Buit io (a)
<1 (a)
Collection period: August 1979 Station Intake Combined Sample
<0.005
<0.03
<0.005 Station Lischarge Combined Sample
<0.005
<0.08
<0.005 Upstream Mooneye
<0.02
<1
<0.01 Cs-137=0.0420.01 Gizzard Shad
<0.02
<1
<0.01 Cs-137=0.0210.01 Carp
<0.05
<1
<0.01 Goldfish
<0.06
<0.05
<0.01 Carpsuckers
<0.1
<0.3
<0.01 Downstream Shorthead Redhorse
<0.2
<0.3
<0.03 Channel Catfish
<0.2
<0.3
<0.02 Carp
<0.04
<0.4
<0.01 Longnose Gar
<0.02
<4
<0.01 Carpsuckers
<0.06
<0.3
<0.01 Drum
<0.07
<0.6
<0.01 Cs-137=0.02910.003 Gizzard Shad
<0.1
<0.8
<0.01 (a)
Insufficient sample for analysis.
s,e
- 1. t.
.I'
(
1942 043 39
Table 31 Comparison of Measured and Calculated Radionuclide Concentrations in Fish Measured Releases Calc. Avg.
Meas. Avg.
at Dresden 1 and 2/3 Conc. In fish Conc. in Fish Radionuclide mci /6.nos, pCi/g pCi/g (!2a)
P-32 12.0 0.25
<4
'_o <0. 03 (assumed)
I-131 4.8 1.5x10-5
<0.2 to <0.005 Cs-137 31.4 0.013 0.03!0.01 N tes:
1.
1.08x104 cfs = 4.83x1015 ml/6 months 2.
cf:
P-32 100,000 1-131 15 Cs-137 2,000 3.
Calculated concentration in fish = paprce term per 6 months g
River flow in 6 motiths 4.
Cs-137 values are similar upstream and downstream, attributable to fallout.
5.
Source terms for I-131 and Cs-137 are from 1979 Semi-Annual Report for January - June; source term for P-32 is an assumed value because P-32 was not measured in liquid waste.
1942 044 40
isummmim i
mammenmm i- -----
O G
ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE PATWAY STUDY DRESDEN STATION
- APPENDIX -
..I j
1942 045 41
The following procedures were used in the analyses of.ish:
I.
Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cs-137 Edible portions of fish were separated and digested carefully with 2.5 M NaOH containing -10 mg I Carrier on a hotplate to dry-nes..
The sample was then ashed in a muffle furnace at 600 c. and the ash was transferred to a suitable container for gamma isotopic analyses using a Ce(Li) detector.
II.
Phosphorus-32 (a) Weigh out -200g of fish fillet.
Record the wet weight.
(b)
Dry the sample at -110 c. and record the dry weight.
(c) Place the dry sample in a crucible and ash at -700 c.,
till it is completely ashed.
(d) Pulverize the ash and record the ash weight.
Transfer the ash to a 250 m1 beaker.
Add ~50 n1 of 8N HNO3 to the crucible and transfer to the beaker. Heat to boiling with stirring for -30 minutes and allow it to cool.
(e)
Filter though a 5.5 cm glass filter and rinse the filter with DI water.
(f)
Refilter the filtrate through a 47 mm M1111 pore filter.
i (g) Add 6N KOH until a precipitate is formed.
Add 8N HNO3 drop-wise until precipitate is dissolved. Adjust the pH to 2 with a pH paper.
(h)
Transfer to a 100 m1 volumetric flask and dilute to the mark with DI water.
(i)
Determine the stable phosphorus content by using the procedure on page 8-5.
(j)
Proceed to separation of phosphorus by using the procedure on page 8-/.
1942 046 42
.,,..--.g-.-----__------
C 1 rimetric Deterninati n f Stable Phosphorus page: __M subject:
Stable Phosphorus Determination date: _}0/20/78 O due.
approved:
REAGENTS:
1.
Standard Phosphorus Solutions:
(a) Standard 1:
(5g P/1) 21.32g (NH ) HPO, dried at -100 C is dissolved 4
4 in 1 liter of DI water in a volumetric flask.
(b) Standard 2:
(50 pg /ml) 10 nl of Std. #1 is diluted to 1' liter with DI water in a volumetric flask.
2.
Vanadate-Molybdate Solutions:
(a) Solution A:
Dissolve 25g of acconiun molybdate tetrahydrate in 400ml of DI water.
(b) Solution B:
Dissolve 1.25g annonium meta vanadate in 300 ml of DI water.
Heat to boil, cool, and add 300ml concentrated hcl.
Ic) Mix solutions A and B to give one liter of Vanadate-Molybdate reagent.
(This needs to be made fresh each month.)
EQUIPMENT 1.
Chemtrix 20 colorimeter 2.
Cuvettes for Coloriteter PROCEDURE 1.
For each sample take 70 ml of DI water in a 30 dram plastic vial.
2.
Knoun aliquots V (e g.
I ml from phosphate solutions prepared from fish and 4 m1 from sofutions prepared f rom urine samples) is transferred to the plastic vial.
3.
A series of standard phosphate solutions (blank, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 ug P/ml) are prepared as follous.
Measure in separate plastic vials 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, and 0 ml of DI wate and add 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 ml of phosphorus Std. h2 (50 ug/ml) respectively.
4.
Add 20 n1 of Vanadate-Molybdate reagent to each of the vials and dilute to 100 nl, or a known velune.
This can be done by volume or weight.
(V )
2 5.
Allo. the solutions to stand for s10 ninutes before reading their absorbances.
1942 047 3
s.,
43
quWed: C lorinetric Determination of Stable Phosphorus page:
O title: Stab 1 e Phosphorus Deternination da t.e: 10/20/78 approved:
6.
Set the wavelengths dial df the colorimeter to 420 ma and turn the power switch on.
Allow the instrument to stay on for %30 minutes before use.
7.
Place the blank cuvette in the holder and adjust the reading to 100%
transmission (zero absorbancy) with the zero adjust dial.
8.
Rinse the cuvette with the solution to be read and fill to the mark.
Wipe the outside of the tube with a tissue paper.
Place the cuvette in the holder ulth the etch rark facing the operator.
9.
Unknowns and standards are read on the linear scale (7. transmission).
Zero is reset between readings with the blank tube.
The % transmission readings of the unknouns should fall within the range of the standard values.
If the samplen read higher or lower than the standards, their approximate concentration can be estinated.
Based on this estimation, the sample or the stendard can he diluted appropriately.
10.
Absorbance (A) of the solution is calculated from the % transmission (%T) readings using the equation:
Aa2-log (%T) 11.
Concentration of phosphorus (pg P/ml) is deternined from the calibration curve.
The concentration of phosphorus P in the solution made in Step 4 is thus c
determined.
12.
The concentration of phosphorus (mg/nl) in the original solution is calculated from the equatlon:
P xV2 c
P1 ng/n1 =
(Or Px in general) 1000 x V i ubere V = mi sample aliquot used in Step 2 iV2a total volume from Step 4 P = colorimetric value of phosphorus in ug/ml c
Pi = initial or original concentration of the sample.
(to determine V2 by weight: specific grav'ity of colorimetrie solution (Step 4) in 1.016.)
1942 048 44
aubject: Radiophosphorus in Fish 0-7 page' 0 title: Radiochemical Separation of P-32 in Fish date: 10/20/78 approved:
REAGENTS:
1.
Cobalt Carrier:
1.010g CoCl *6H O in 50 ml e.,T D1 water (Smg Co +/ml).
2 2
2 2.
Zirconium Carrier:
2.3550g Zr(NO )4 5H O in 50 ml of DI water. (10 mg ZrO 3
2
/mt) 3.
Silver Carrier:
1.575g Ag NO3 in 50 ml of DI water (20 og Ag+/ml).
Store in dark or brown bottle.
4.
>baganese Carrier: 0.525g FbC03 in 50 ml of DI water containing 6N hcl just sufficient to dissolve any precipitate upon heating.
(5 og Mn +/ml) 2 5.' Magnesia Mixture:
Dissolve 200 g NH C1 and 230 g MgCl 6H O in DI water and 4
2 2
dilute to 1 liter.
PROCEDURE:
- 1. Transfer an aliquot (V, ml)) of the solution to be tested into a 250 ml beaker (solution from Step 8 of sample preparation for fish on page 8r4 and step'4 from urine samples on page
).
The size of the aliquot is calculated so that V = 33.8 Pi where P is the amount of phosnhorus in mg/ml determined from colorimetric i
determination on page 8-5 2.
hecord the aliquot volume used.
Dilute to 50 ml with DI water.
3.
Add 1 al of 8N IINO and 0.5 ml each of Cobalt, Zirconium, Silver, and 3
Manganese carriers.
4.
Add two drops of 30% H 0 2 2(and slowly add 6N KOH until the hydroxides have completely precipitated-pH s9.0).
11ea t to coagulate the precipitate and filter through two #41 filter prpers in a buchner funnel.
Refilter through a f42 filter paper.
5.
Transfer the filtrate to a beaker and add two drops of H 0 and two drops y2 cach of Cobalt and Zirconium carriers.
Heat to coagulate.
Refilter through two #41 filter papers.
If the filtrate is turbid, refilter through f42 filter paper followed by using a 47 mm millipore membrane filter, if necessary.
6.
Acidify the clear filtrate with concentrated hcl and boil for %5 minutes to remove H 0.
Cool in ice.
22 1942 049 45
~
nubject: Radioiihosphorus in Fish paga:
[] title: _ R.mitochenical Separation of P-32 in Fish date; 10/20/7&
approved:
7.
Add 20 ral of magnesia mixture and neutralize to methil red eud point with concetrated Nil 0ll.
Allow it to stand for 2 minutes and add 43 m1 more of 4
Mi 0ll.
4 8.
Filter through #42 filter paper in a Buchner funnel and wash the precipitate with IN Nil 0ll.
Discard the filtrate.
4 9.
Dissolve the precipi. ate in 6N 11C1 and collect the solution in a filtering flask.
10.
Transfer the solution to a 150 m1 beaker.
11.
Pepeat Steps 7-10 for second precipitation of !!g(NH )PO4 4
12.
Repeat Step 7 for third precipitation of lfg(M1 )PO.
4 4
13.
Filter precipitate through 47 nm tillipore filter and wash with IN Nil 0ll 4
folloued by alebhol.
14.
Slurry the precipitate on to a labelled SS planchet with small amount of D1 water.
13.
Dry the planchet at N100 C.
for N1 hour.
16.
Send the sample to the Counting room with a note to the Counting room personnel to return the sample to the lab af ter counting for colorinetric determination of the chemical yield.
17.
'.!h e n th e planchet is returned from the L)unting room, dissolve the precipitate in 5 ml of IN hcl and transs er to a 100 m1 volumetric flask with a few rinsings of Di water.
Diluto t.o 100 m1 with DI vater.
18.
Take a known aliquot V (5.0 ml) to determine the phosphorus concentration 3
by colorimetry from page 8-5 19.
Calculate the phosphorus content in the precipitate as follows:
100 P ag/ml = Px x g
there Px = amount of phosphorus in ag/ml calculated from Step 12 on page Vi = aliquot used in Step 18 on page 20.
Calculate the chenical yield by using the equation y=PtP_p where Pg = final concentration of phosphorus in ng/n1 after the chem' cal 1942 S 4s
Subject:
Raci t opho s plio ru n in Fish 8-9 page:
0 title: Radiochemical Separation of P-32 in Fish date: 10/20/78,
{',
approved:
separation; Pi = initial or original cone.entration of phosphorus in mg/nl.
4 1942 051 47