ML20072E362

Environ Radiation Surveillance Program Summary Rept, Third & Fourth Quarters 1982

ML20072E362
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	02/23/1983
From:	Borst F, Johns J, Jerrica Johnson COLORADO STATE UNIV., FORT COLLINS, CO
To:
Shared Package
ML20072E327	List: ML20072E326 ML20072E362
References
NUDOCS 8303210651
Download: ML20072E362 (135)

Text

- - . -

7,-- -

1 gADIATION N' l. .

'y[

/'.'_-

, \

f x i FORT ST. VRAIN 's' 's Y, /

NUCLEAR '

', f, Rf / GENERATING STATION i' 'O la f l ,

.=

-)@

f )

\

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO I \

/ \

k '

V -

x -

PROGRAM

SUMMARY

REPORT THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS 1982 PURCllASE ORDER No. 96239 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 8303210651 830228 DR ADOCK 05000

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO- Attach. P-3F

g. FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION e 1 of 1 ERSP

SUMMARY

REPORT COVER SHEET ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM l

Summary Report I for the period July throuch December 1982 f

Prepared by: O 2.!!8!83' Jases E. JohnQn 3 Professor, Dat%

Colbdo State Miversity

)

Reviewed by: d4kc/2 /Wa Gi56 z/2 3/f3

l. Ra'diation F rotei-f. ion Manager Date l

Reviewed by:

$k 1 ,13'63 Date St. t d'orf'huclear' L wg ,

)

i Approved by: _

/ . [j 3 Station Ma" nager / Da te'

)

IEEuU*byI _ib,_

M ///h

[ Manager,'Nu'eledIEngineeringDNision 70s-r3 Date l

. Acknowledgements

.Many persons have contributed to this' project during 1982 and it-is important to acknowledge their effort. We also wish to thank the citizens from whose farms, homes, and ranches we collect the

. environmental samples. Without their cooperation the project would not be possible.

The persons working directly on the project have been:

Gordon Carstens John Combs Sheri Chambers Sharon Clow Charly Domingue Mac Ennis.

Diane Higgins Elizabeth Mattern Marion Mcdonald Hildy Morgan Jim Satterfield Alan Solo Neill Stanford June Vando-Gugluzza

)

Marilyn Watkins Greg White Donna Wooding

)

I I

1

)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

List of Tables iii List of Figures vi 1

I. INTRODUCTION 6

II. SURVEILLANCE DATA FOR JULY THROUGH DECEt1BER AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS A. External Gsmma Exposure Rates 6 B. Air Sampling Data g C. Water, Sediment, and Precipitation 26 Sampling Data D. Food Chain Data 61 E. Aquatic Biota 86 F. Beef 'Cattl e 96 G. Sample Cross Check Dats 99 H. Conclusion and Summary 103 III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE

. A. Collection and Analysis Schedule 120 Sampling Locations 122 B.

11

LIST OF TABLES Page No. i Gama Exposure Rates Measured by the TLD' Technique. 8 II.A.1 II.B.1 Concentration of Long-lived Gross Alpha ,

Activity in Airborne Particles.

Third Quarter,.1982 10 a.

11

b. Fourth Quarter, 1982 II.B.2 Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta

! Activity in Airborne' Particles.

12

a. Third Quarter,'1982 13

b. Fourth' Quarter,: 1982 II.B.3 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water Vapor.

l

a. Third Quarter, 1982 17 l

l b. Fourth Quarter, 1982 18 f II.B.3a Tritium Cencentrations in Air.

I 19

a. Third Quarter,1982

{ b. Fourth Quarter,1982 20 i

II.B.3b Tritium Releasec in Reactor Effluents, 21 II.B.4 Iodine-131 Concentrations in Air (Composite). 24 II.B.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Air (Composite).

a. Third Quarter,1982 25 p

b. Fourth Quarter,1982 25 f

~ Gross Beta Activity in Water. 30 II.C.1 II.C.la Gross Beta Activity in Effluent Water, Goosequill 31

( (E-38).

32 II.C.2 Tritium Concentrations in Surface Waters.

33 I

II.C.3 Strontium-90 Concentrations in Surface Waters.

) II.C.4 Strontium-89 Concentrations in Surface Waters. 34 iii

g ,- 3 p, h

i LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

.Page No.

II.C.4a- Tritium, Strontium-89-90 in Effluent Water, Goosequill,

- (.E-38 ) .

a. -Third Quarter, 1982~ 35

b. Fourth Quarter, 1982 36 II.C.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Water. 37 s II.C.Sa Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 43

( Effluent Water, Goosequill (E-38).

II.C.6 Gross Beta Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 46 II.C.7 . Strontium-90 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 47 II.C.8 ' Strontium-89. Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 48

-II.C.9 Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 49 i Bottom Sediment.

.; II.C.10 Grnss Eeta and Tritium Deposition from Precipitation. 57 II.C.11 Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from 58 Precipitation at Location F1.

I L C.12 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from 59

) Precipitation at Location F4.

II.C.13 Radiostrontium Deposition from Precipitation. 60 I I.. D.1 Tritium Concentrations in Water Extracted from Milk. 63

) .II.D.2 Strontium-90 Activity in Milk. 64 II.D.3 Strontium-89 Activity in Milk. 65

. II.D.4 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 66

! Composite Milk Samples.

) Tritium, Strontium-89, and Strontium-90 Concentrations II.D.5 70  ;

in Forage.

)

iv

i LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

Page No.

II.D.6 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 73 Forage.

I II.D.7 Gross Beta Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) and 76 Soil (pCi/kg).

II.D.8 Gross Beta in Soil (uCi/m2 ), 79 II.D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 80 l Soil (nCi/m2),

II.D.10 Tritium, Strontium-89 and Strontium-90 Concentrations 83 in Soil.

II.E.1 Gross Beta dna Radiostrontium Concentrations in 88 Aquatic Biota Samples.

II.E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 92 Aquatic Biota Samples.

II.F.1 Radionuclides in Facility Area Beef Cattle. 98 II.F.2 Radionuclides in Beef Sample from Local Herd 98 -

i II.G.1 EPA Cross-Check Data Summary. 101 '\

II.G.2 Fort St. Vrain-Colorado Department of Health 102 I

Cross-Check Data Summary. -

II.H.1 Data Summary. 108 III.A.1 Envirormental Radiation Surveillance Program. 121 I

III.B.1 Facility Area and Effluent Sampling Locations for 122 Environmental Media.

III .B. 2 Adjacent Area and Downstream Sampling Locations for 123 Environmental Media III.B.3 Reference Area and Upstream Sampling Locations for 124 Environmental Media.

v I. .

.y-

-1 LIST OF FIGURES Page No.

III.B.1 On-site Sampling Locations 126 III.B.2 Off-site Sampling Locations 127 I

i 1

i

) l

)

I vi

m a'

-1 ~  ;

[

~

t S 4

[

v I. n

~

I' troduction ito : Radiation Surveillance' Data 'for 'the Second Hal f iof.-1982.

.During the second half of 1982 the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear

. Generating Station produced power as follows:

. Month' Dates With Electrical

( # of. Days-Without; Gross Electrical Energy (1982) Generation Generation Generation (MWH)

July- 1-31 0 145,313

( August 1-31 0 155,067 September 'l-30 0 149,021 October 31 0 November-30 0' December 31 0 The energy generation was'2.4 x-that in the previous 6 month i

reporting period. The reactor did not operate during the first 3.5 montns of 1982.

Radioactivity released by normal _ effluent routes, however, was

.not negligible during the shut down period (see Table II.B.3b). This is due to scheduled clean up and maintenance operations. A complete and i

detailed listing of radioactivity released by all effluent routes may be found in the Public Service Company of Colorado semi-annual Effluent L Release Report to the U.S.N.R.C. When possible in this report we have t

, discussed any correlation of radioactivity in environmental samples with the' effluent release data.

This analysis is found in each sample type section and in the summary section, II.H.

The most.recent Chinese atmospheric nuclear weapon test was

'. conducted in October of 1980. The influx of tropospheric fallout from t

1

'this test was'noted during all of 1981 but' air concentrations during all of 1982 were at pretes't background levels. l Significant tropospheric fallout from Chinese weapo.n tests has been observed during the entire preoperational and operational period of the reactor. The fallout has been extremely variable and does not allow direct comparison of preoperational and post operational data.

~

Fallout deposition and natural background must be subtracted before any such comparisons are made.

The environmental sampling and analysis program was essentially

( . identical to that used in the most recent reporting periods.

Essentially all radioactivity data measured on this project are

{ near background levels and, more importantly, near the minimum detectable activi.ty (MDA) levels for each radionuclide and sample type. It has i

been well documented that even independent of the above reasons, environ-

).

( mental data exhibit great inherent variability. This is due to sampling and analysis variatility but most importantly due to true environmental or biological variability. As a result, the overall variability of the k

l surveillance data is quite large, and it is necessary to use mean ,

values from a rather large sample size to make any conclusions about the absolute radioactivity concentrations in any environmental pathway.

k Environmental radiation surveillance data commonly exhibit f

nonnormal frequency distributions. Usually the data can be satisfactorily treated using log-normal statistics. However, when the number of l- observations is small, i.e., less than 10, log-normal treatment is

. tentati ve.

When, a high percentage of data points is less than MDA or MDC, (the minimum detectable concentrations of activity in that sample type),

I ,

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

9' -

[

calculation of true mean values is. impossible. Therefore in these *

A . reports /we.have chosen not to-include mean values:with each data table.

lAt the-~end of this report in Section II.H., Conclusions'and Summary, we

'have listed the calculated arithmetic means and confidence intervals for

~ the' reporting period as well as for the last 12 months. We also list

~

the geometric ~ means and ge'ometric standard deviations for the last year of data reporting. 'If any data points measured resulted in negative E.. values, these values were used in calculating the.true mean values in zTable:II.H.1.-(negative values are possible due to the statistical nature o.f radioactivity counting). This is the current accepted practice by Jthe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It should be noted that we

'have not'used any_ footnote for values less than MDC. Rather we list the measured value as less than the actual MDC value. -Because tne MDC is i . dependent upon variables such as the background count time and sample

,. size, the value will be different for each sample type and even'within sample type. ~

i- Many sets of data were compared in this report. The statistical L test used was either a "t"-test or a paired "t"-test. If data sets are noted to be significantly different or not significantly different, the

(. confidence for the statement is at the 95% level (a = 0.05).

>~

t

~

In this report we have added to appropriate tables the maximum l

permissible concentration applicable to that radionuclide. We have chosen to list the maximum permissible concentrations as found in Appendix B Table lII of.10 CFR 20. This is- the concentration of any radionuclide-which if ingested or inhaled continuously, would singularly

. produce the maximum permissible. dose rate to a member of the general public. That value is 170 millirem / year, but must include the dose from

~

k ,

l

r;

);

all sources and routes excluding background radiation and medical radiation. The MPC values are given only for comparison of the measured b -effluent values. As stated in 10 CFR 20 they are the maximum concentrations above natural background that a licensee may release to an unrestricted area. It is generally assumed that no direct ingestion or inhalation of I effluent concentration can occur right at the restricted area boundary and that dilution and dispersion decreases the concentration before it reaches nearby residents. This is certainly the case for the Fort St. Vrain environs.

There is no specified maximum permissible dose rate or dose commitment for residents near the Fort St. Vrain reactor. Such limits for water cooled reactors are found in 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1. These are judged the "As Low as Reasonably Achievable" dose rates from such reactor types and are not directly applicable to the Fort St. Vrain gas cooled reactor.

A limit that does apply is the independent maximum permissible dose commitment rate set by the E.P. A. (40 CFR 190) for any specified

) member of the general public from any part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

This value is 25 mrem / year as the dose to the whole body from all contributing radionuclides. As will be noted in this report, dose commitments are calculated for any concentrations noted in unrestricted areas that are significantly above control values.

)

l

)

) ,

1

r .

R .

-j _

[.. ,

The.following is the footnote system used in this report.

i :-

a- Sample lost prior to analysis..

b. Sample missing at site.

l!

i c. . Instrument malfunction.

?

Sample lost during analysis, d.

e. Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

L.

f. Sample unavailable.

b g. Analysis in progress, y

L h. Sample not collected (actual reason given).

l. ..

N.A. Not applicable.

L y

!'.. c-.... .. . , , , _ _ _ _ ,, . _ , . . . . . . . . , _ , - . _ . _ . . , , . _ _ , , _ , _ , _ _ _ _ , . . , _ , , . . . , _ _ _ _ . , , , , _ , _ , _ , , , _ . , _ _ . _ , , _ , , _ , ,

w II.

Surveillance Data for July through December 1982 and Interpretation of Results.

A. External Gamma-ray Exposure Rates The average gamma-ray exposure rates expressed in~ mR/ day are given in Table II.A.I. The values were determined by CaF :Dy (TLD-200) 2 dosimeters at each of 37 locations (see Table III.B.1-III.B.3). Two TLD chips per package are installed at'each site and the mean value is reported for that site if neither value is aberrant. The mean calculated total exposure is then divided by the number of days that elapsed between pre-exposure and post-exposure annealing to obtain the average daily exposure rate. The TLD devices are' changed monthly at each location.

The data are grouped for Facility (F), Adjacent (A) and Peference (R) zones. See Figures II.B.1 and II.B.2 and Tables III.B.1, III.B.2 and III.B.3 for the exact TLD locations.

The TLD data indicate that the mean measured exposure rate in the Facility area was 0.47 mR/ day. The mean exposure rate was 0.46.mR/ day for the Adjacent area and 0.45 mR/ day for the Reference area. There were no significant differences between the values for the Facility, Adjacent and Reference areas. There was also no significant difference from the values measured during the first half of 1982.

The exposure rate measured at all sites is due to a combination of exposure from cosmic rays, from natural gamma-ray emitters in the ear,th's crust and from surfact rieposition of fission products from world-wide fallout. The variation in measured values is due to true variation of the above sources plus the variation due to the measurement method. The purpose of the TLD ring around the reactor is not to e

) -

)Y measure gamma-rays generated from the reactor facility itself but to document the presence.or absence of gamma-ray emitters deposited upon the ground from the reactor effluents. Since the inception of power production by .the reactor there has been no detectable increase

) in the external ~ exposure rate due to reactor releases.

I l' '

e l

)

)

);

1 l

- , - . , - , - , , - - . , ,,,,.,,,,.~,,,,,,r,

. -- ,--,,,--,-,rr,- -

-,n e-, -,n,,-n,n,---,. .. , - -.--,~g-,-,,,,m.,,,---,+,

M .

Table II. A.1 Ganna Exposure Rates Measured by the TLD Technique (mR/ day).

Lb) Seconi half 1982.

Facility Area' Average Daily Camma Exposure Rates LD. cations _ Julv Auaust SeDtember October November Decomhor F 1 .47 .44 .43 .48 .48 .46 F. 3 .48 .41 .45 .48 . 48 .46

-F 4 .79 .40 .46 .47 '.42 .41 F 7 .45 .39 .43 .47 .42 .45

)- F 8 .50 .43 .44 .47 .47 .45 F 9 .48 .40 .44 .49 .48 47 F 11 .43 .38 .43 .46 .47 .42 F 12 .51 .42 .49 .49 .50 .50 F 13 .49 .36 b .47 .44 .46

.48 .37 .45 .44 .45 .40

) F 14 F 46 .50 .41 .47 .48 .46 .45 F 47 .45 .36 .45 .48 .43 .43 F 51 .50 .42 .51 .51 .48 .47 i .48 .40 .45 .48 .46 .45 Mjacent Area Locations A 5 .48 .40 .47 .51 .48 .44 A 6 .41 .36 .42 .42 .43 .39 A 27 .44 b .44 b .39 .43 A 28 .43 .36 .43 .45 .39 .37

) A 29 .45

.47

.40

.42

.45

.47

.48 .42 .43

.44 A 30 .50 .46 A 31 .43 .38 .40 .42 .43 .42 A 32 .44 .39 .42 .44 .44 .41 A 33 .46 .43 .45 .47 , .48 .47 A 34 .52 .45 .49 .50 .47 .52 I A 35 .49 .45 .46 .50 .50 .48 A 36 .45 .41 .44 .46 .46 .44 i .46 .40 .45 .47 .45 .44 Reference Area Locations-I R 15 .45 .38 .38 .43 .41 .39 R 16 .51 .44 .42 .51 .44 .43 R 17 .42 .36 .35 .38 .38 .36 R 18 .43 .38 .38 .40 .40 .38 R 19 .42 .38 .37 .39 .42 .40 R 20 .45 .41 .41 .46 .46 .44

) R 21 .42

.48

.40

.49

.41

.44

.44

.44

.46

.45

.42

.42 R 22 R 23 .46 .40 .42 .40 .41 .44 R 24 .51 .50 .50 .52 .50 .48 R 25 .46 .39 .42 .45 .45 .43 R 26 .43 .38 .42 .44 .46 .40

) i .45 .41 .41 .44 , .44 .42 b Sample missing at site.

)

D -

_g..

)

II.B. Air Sampling Data

1. Gross alpha ard beta activity.

The concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta activity measured weekly on air particulatts for the Facility and Adjacent sampling sites are listed.in Tables II.B.1 and II.B.2. Although the activity is due to a mixture of radionuclides, the concentrations are listed in units of femtocuries per cubic meter of air.  ;

l It was observed that the concentration of gross alpha emitting  !

radionuclides 'at all sites was statistically the same as for the first -

half of 1982. Although not significantly different, the mean values for all sites were lower during the third quarter than during the 4th quarter. It should be noted that the reactor operated during the third quarter but not during the fourth quarter of 1982.

Gross beta concentrations were essentially identical to those ,

measured during the first half of the year and lower than those observed 1

-in 1981. This indicates that the contribution due to fallout from the Chinese weapon test of December 1980 has decreased to insignificant levels.

l There was no statistically significant difference between facility and adjacent sites for either gross alpha or gross beta concentrations

'during either quarter. There has never been a significant difference

. observed between the facility and adjacent sites. Thus it can be concluded that gaseoas effluents of particulate fission products or activation products'is not a pathway of concern for the fort St.

Vrain reactor.

)-

v v v q;

Table II. B.1 Concentraticns of Long-Lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborna Particics '(fCi/z 3 ),.

a) Third Quarter,1982. 1 Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 5 6 35 7-4-82 4.6 (1.2)

• 2.5 (0.7) 3.4 (0.9) 3.7 (1.0) c1

4.6 (1.1) 5.6 (1.2) 7-10-82 4.0 (1.1) 4.6 (1.3) 1.6 (0.8) 3.6 (1.0) 3.2 (1.0) l 5.7 (1.6) 5.8 (1.5) 7-17-82 3.5 (0.9) 2.2 (0.6) c 4.1 (1.1) 4.7 (1.2) 6.7 (1.5) 5.5 (1.4) 2 7-25-82 7.3 (1.5) 7.1 (1.3) 8.0 (1.6) 12.6 (2.2) 4.6 (1.6) { **

9.6 (2.3) 7-31-82 3.5 (1.0) 1.6 (0.6) c 3.3 (1.1) 3.4 (1.1) 2.2 (1.0) 1.1 (2.1) 2 8-7-82 5.9 (1.4) 4.0 (1.0) 2.8 (1.3) 6.4 (1.5) 1.4 (0.7) c 3.9 (1.3) 2 8-14-82 3.0 (0.8) 1.8 (0.6) 1.4 (0.5) 2.5 (0.9) 3.7 (1.0) j 4.7 (1.1) 4.6 (1.8) 8-21-82 3.5 (1.0) z.8 (0.8) 2.6 (0.8) 4.5 (1.1) 3.8 (1.1) ,

4.1 (1.3) 1.3 (1.6) g 8-28-82 ** '

6.9 (1.4) 4.4 (1.2) 4.5 (1.3) 9.7 (2.0) 6.0 (1.4) l h 9-4-82 8.5 (1.9) 7.1 (1.7) 2.0 (0.6) 9.5 (2.0) 4.4 (1.4) ,

h 9-12-82 6.9 (1.5) 0.8 (0.5) 3.4 (1.0) c 5 5.9 (1.4) f 9.4 (1.9) 6.3 (1.4) 9-18-82 0.6 (0.3) c . c 0.6 (0.5) .

1.0 (0.5) c 5 3 4 9-25-82 5.2 (1.2) c 6

• ('} * (* *

(*} ,

8.0 (1.7) 4.2 (1.0)

Average 4.9 3.8 2.9 5.4 4.1 I 83 4.7 Quarterly Quarterly (49 Samples) minimum : 0.6 (32 Sameles) minimum: 0.6 maximum : 12.6 maximum: 9.6 7  : 4.2 X . 4.5 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10 -15 Ci/ml.

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( 1.96 S.O.)

Weight exceeded for alpha counting.

c Filter separator left in.

c Pump down. Taken in for repair.

c Pump unplugged.

c Filter damaged due to weather.

c Flow rate on pump had stopped due to wet cartridge, time uncertain.

c Fuse blown on pump.

h Sample collection not possible. Site owners requested removal of air sampling s u-ion.

U U U' U U ~U U U U U U"

]

l l Table II. B.1 Concentrations of Long-Lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m3 ),

b) Fourth Quarter, 1982.

I Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas l Collected I l 2 l 3 l 4 5 6 35 10-2-82 7.5 (1.5) cy 4.3 (1.0) 2.9 (0.9) 4.6 (1.1) 4.3 (1.3) 4.3 (1.1) 10-9-82 2.7 (0.7) c 4.9 (1.1) 4.3 (1.0) 6.0 (1.4) 4.2 (1.2) 1.7 (0.6) 1 10-16-82 3.6 (0.7) cy 3.0 (0.7) 2.5 (0.5) 3.4 (0.8) 4.2 (1.0) 2.3 (0.7) 10-23-82 4.4 (0.9) 3.4 (0.9) 5.1 (1.0) 7.9 (1.4) 5.3 (1.1) 4.7 (1.2) 3.7 (0.8) 10-30-82 9.1 (1.4) 6.4 (1.2) c 4.9 (1.0) 6.7 (1.4) 11.0 (2.3) 6.1 (1.2)

, 2 l

11-6-82 12.6 (1.8) 11.1 (1.7) 7.5 (1.2) 9.0 (1.3) 14.8 (2.4) 5.4 (1.2) 10.5 (1.6) 11-13-82 4.8 (1.0) 6.3 (1.1) 11.2 (1.8) 8.2 (1.3) c 5.8 (1.2) 2.1 (0.6) i 11-20-82 4.1 (0.9) 3.7 (0.8) 6.0 (1.1) 3.8 (0.9) c 13.2 (2.7) 4.5 (0.9) L 3.8 (0.8) 4.6 (0.9) 5.5 (1.0) 4.5fl.1) 5.1 (1.8) 3.0 (0.7) 7 l 11-27-82 4.6 (0.9) 12-4-82 4.5 (1.2) c 4.4 (1.1) 5.4 (1.2) 5.4 (1.5) c. 5.3 (1.3) 7

! 12-11-82 2.8 (0.7) 3.0 (0.8) 1.9 (0.7) 2.6 (0.7) 2.8 (1.0) 1.2 50.4) 5.2 (1.4) 12-19-82 5.2 (1.0) 4.7 (1.0) 5.0 (1.0) 4.7 (1.0) 7.1 (1.4) 4.6 (1.2) 5.8 (1.2) 12-26-82 cy 2.5 (0.7) 2.7 (0.7) 2.8 (0.9) 3.6 (1.2) 2.8 (1.0) 5.1 (1.3) l Average 5.5 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.5 4.6-Quarterly Quarterly (46 Samples) minimum : 1.9 ( 36 Samples) minimum: 1.2 maximum : 12.6 maximum: 14.8 7  : 5.2 i  : 5.2 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 15 Ci/ml.

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( 1.96 S.D.)

c1 Pump stopped, brought in for repair.

c 2

Filter damaged due to weather.

v m -v v -y u y v _ m- -

__ g Table II.B.2 Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m3),

a) Third Quarter,1982.

Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 2 3 l 4 5 I 6  ! 35 7-4-82 23 (2)* 19 (1) 23 (2) 18 (2) cj 18 (2) 18 (2) 7-10-82 17 (2) 17 (2) 12 (2) 11 (2) 12 (2) 19 (2) 15 (2) 7-17-82 23 (2) 16 (1) 21 (2) 21 (2) 2' (2) 22 (2) c2 7-25-82 27 (2) 24 (2) 25 (2) 32 (2) 26 (2) 37 (3) 27 (3) 7-31-82 15 (2) 5 (1) c2 14 (2) 16 (2) 9 (1) 14 (7) 8-7-82 22 (2) 22 (2) 26 (3) 22 (2) 11 (2) c 21 (2) 2 8-14-82 15 (2) 13 (1) 8 (1) 14 (1) 23 (2) 21 (1) 22 (4) 8-21-82 11 (2) 18 (1) 20 (2) 20 (2) 17 (2) 12 (2) 28 (6) ,L 8-28-82 25 (2) 23 (2) 21 (2) 31 (2) 28 (2) 39 (3) h Y 9-4-82 30(2) 28 (2) 18 (2) 29 (2) 26 (2) 42 (3) h 9-12-82 23 (2) c (

5 9-18-82 8 (1) c 9() 6 (1) 6 (1) c 5 3 4 9-25-82 29 (2) c 6

Average 21 19 19 22 20 24 21 Quarterly Quarterly

( 46 samples) minimum : 5 ( 34 samples) minimum : 6 maximum : 32 maximum : 42 X  : 20 X  : 22 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 , 1g 5 Ci/ml.

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( 1.96 S.D.)

c Filter separator left in.

c Pump down. Taken in for repair, c Pump unplugged.

c Filter damaged due to weather, c Flow rate on pump stopped due to wet cartridge, time uncertain.

c Fuse blown on pump.

h Sample collection not possible. Site owners requested removal of air sampling statice.

, Table II.B.2 Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m3 ),

b) Fourth Quarter, 1982. .

-Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas

. Collected 1 2 3 l 4 5 [ 6 1 35 ,

10-2-82 '20 (2) .c 20 (2) 19 (1) 16 (2) 25-(2) 20 (2) 10-9 16 (1) c 18 (2) 20 (2)_ 19 (2) 20 (2) 10 (1) 1 10-16-82 13 (1) c 13 (1) 12 (1). 10 (1) _12 (1)- 10 (1) 4 1 1' 10-23-82 21 (1) 22 (2) 27 (2) 25 (2) 21 (1) 21 (2) 25 (2) 10-30-82 17 (2) 16 (2) c 15 (1) _14-(2) 19 (2) 16 (1) l 2 g 11-6-82 25 (2) 27 (2) 20 (1) 19 (1) 15 (2) 20 (2) 24-(2) l 11-13-82 10 (1) 23 (2) 29 (2) 21 (2) c 18 (2) -9 (1) j 11-20-82 27 (2) 30 (2) 27 (2) 25 (2) c 23 (4) 17 (1) 4 11-27-82 21 (1) 19 (1) 22 (1) 22 (1) 23 (2) 13 (3) 18 (1) Y j 12-4-82 26 (2) c 20 (2)~ 20 (2) 31 (2) c 14 (2)

{ 12-11-82 46 (2) 45 (2) 46 (2) 46 (2) 43 (2) 21 (1) 39 (2) 12-19-82 20 (1) 23 (2) 21 (1) 20 (1) 28 (2) 16 (2) 20 (2) f 12-26-82 cy 11 (1) 13 (1) 9 (1) 11 (2) 9 (1) 14 (2)

I Average 22 24 23 21 21 18 18 l Quarterly Quarterly 4

(46 samples) minimum: 9 ( 36 samples) minimum: 9

maximum

46 max _imum : 43

X

22 -

X  : 19 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10 -15 Ci/ml.

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( 1.96 S.D.)

c1Pump stopped, brought in for repair.

c2Filter damaged due to weather.

I l , - .

m u

l i

2. . Tritium Activity. Tropospheric water vapor samples are collected continuously by absorption on silica gel at all seven air sampling stations (four in the Facility area and three in the Adjacent area).

.The specific activity of tritium in water in weekly samples from these stations is listed in Table II.B.3. From the measured relative humidity the corresponding air concentration of tritium can be calculated and these values are given in Table II.B.3a.

The influence of plant liquid effluent tritium can be observed from the tables. The values at sites F1 and F2 during July, October, November and December are significantly greater than those at either of the other two Facility sites or at any of the Adjacent sites. F1 and F2 are closest to the Gooseouill ditch effluent pathway. The tritium measured at those sites has always been greater than at the other sites during reactor release periods. The elevated values are assumed to be

-due to evaporation of tritiated water from the discharge ditch. The reactor effluent release of tritium is given by release mode in Table I II.B.3b. There is a high correlation with peak values observed at F1 and F2 during the months noted and the total activity released via the batch liquid mode. There is of course, variability in the measured tropospheric air concentrations due to variations in temperature, humidity, ditch flow rate, wind direction, and the fact that the release time is short compared to the sample collection period.

In spite of the high values measured at F1 and F2 and occasionally at other sites, the mean for all facility sites was low (only slightly greater than the minimum detectable concentration) and not significantly

) different from the three adjacent sites.

)

pp 1 A.hygrothermograph is. located at site F4 only. Using the temp-

-erature and relative humidity data from the hygrothermograph it is possible.to convert specific activity of tritiated water collected on 3

silica' gel .(pCi/ liter) to activity per unit volume of air (pCi/m ),

This is used if calculation of immersion dose from tritiated water vapor were ever necessary.

Two equations are used in the conversion of pCi/ liter of water to 3

pCi/m of air. The first equation is used to determine the vapor pressure of water (1):

log 10P = A-B (C+t), where: P = vapor pressure (mm Hg) t = temperature (C)

A = 9.10765 B = 1750.286 C = 235.0 The temperature used is the integrated weekly value taken from the hygrothermograph. The conversion is completed in the second

~

equation which is the " Ideal Gas Equation":

PV = nRT, where: P = vapor pressure (atmosphere)

V = volume (liters) n = number of moles of gas R = 0.08206 liter-atmospheres / mole- K T = temperature in K The number of grams of water per cubic meter of air is then determined.

The value of "n" obtained is for saturated air. The relative humidity is therefore integrated over the week and this percentage of 3

the saturated air value is taken. The final value is reported in pCi/m ,

This procedure has been applied to data collected for the second half of 1982 and listed in Table II.B.3a. The weekly integrated relative humidity

at'the F4 site is relatively constant, and the correlation of measured tritium specific activity in atmospheric water vapor and air concentration is very.high. It is for this reason that a hygrothermograph S located at only.one-site. Inspection of Table II.B.3a shows the same site dependence on-reactor effluent discussed above.

I I

i i

?

Table II. B.3

' ' Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water Vapor (pC1/1).

a) Third Guarter, 1982.

Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Date 4 5 l 6 1 35 Collected 1 l 2 1 3 l i

7-4-82 1,130 , 2,420 < 289 490 < 289 < 289 < 289 (264) (276) (258) 7-10-82 1,010 1,220 < 277 < 277 < 277 < 277 341 (251) (253) (244) 7-17-82 < 283 1,660 < 283 337 314 479 < 283 '

(263) (250) (250) (252) 7-25-82 < 295 905 < 295 < 295 e < 295 < 295 (268) 7-31-82 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 i O.

8-6-82 < 285 < 285 < 285 < 285 < 285 < 285 < 285 8-14-82 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 427 < 300 8-21-82 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 8-28-82 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 9-4-82 < 298 < 476 < 298 < 298 < 298 < 298 e 9-11-82 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 9-18-82 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 9-25-82 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 458 526

~(250) (251) 4

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval , ( 1.96 S.D.).

e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

y y

a Table II. B.3 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water vapor (pCi/1).

b) Fourth Quarter, 1982 t'acility Areas Adjacent Areas-Date -35 3 l 4 5 l 6 l Collected 1 l 2 l 10-2-82 < 282 443 386 < 282 < 282 564 315 (250)* (250) (252) (249) 10-9-82 e 769 438 330 < 282 402 < 282 (254) (250) (249) (250) 10-16-82 339 823 < 284 < 284 < 284 e 348 (251) (256) (251) 10-23-82 987 955 389 625 827 775 e (245) (244)' (239) (241) (243) (243) 10-30-82 741 1,050 < 289 < 289 < 289 349 442 (260) (263) (256) (257) 11-6-82 848 1,210 302 2,920 < 289 e e (261) (265) (259) (281) 11-13-82 933 1,340 e < 284 < 284 357 < 284 (257) (261) (252) 11-20-82 1,010 2,740 < 296 < 296. 387 < 296 < 296 (270) (287) (264) 11-27-82 351 995 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 286 (264) (270) 12-4-82 357 499 < 290 < 290 < 290 3$1 < 295

(258) (259) (263) 12-11-82 297 768 < 285 < 285 < 285 319 333 (252) (256) (252) (252) 12-19-82 578 777 564 < 288 584 632 714 (258) (260) (258) (258) (258) (259) 12-26-82 382 476 712 2,340 396 461 < 288 (256) (257) (259) (275) (256) (257) i

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval , ( 1.96 S.D.).

)

e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

Table II.B.3a Tritium Concentrations in Air (pCi/m )

a) Third quarter, 1982.

Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 2 3 4 5 6 35 7-4-82 11.4 24.3 < 2.90 4.92 < 2.90 < 2.90 < 2.90 7-10-82 8.99 10.9 < 2.47 < 2.47 < 2.47 < 2.47 3.04.

7-17-82 < 2.34 13.7 < 2.34 2.79. 2.60 3.96 < 2.34 7-25-82 < 3.20 9.83 < 3.20 < 3.20 e. < 3.20 < 3.20 7-31-82 < 2.74 < 2.74 < 2.74 < 2.74 < 2.74 < 2.74 < 2.74 e, 8-7-82 < 3.18 < 3.18 < 3.18 < 3.18 < 3.18 < 3.18 < 3.18 1' 8-14-82 < 3.56 < 3.56 < 3.56 < 3.56 < 3.56 < 5.06 < 3.56 8-21-82 < 3.52 < 3.52 < 3.52 < 3.52 < 3.52

< 3.52 <.3.52 8-28-82 < 9.87 < 9.87 < 9.87 < 9.87 < 9.87 < 9.87 < 9.87 9-4-82 < 2.68 4.28 < 2.68 < 2.68 < 2.68 < 2.68 e

< 2.62 < 2.62 < 2.62 < 2.62 < 2.62 < 2.62 .< 2.62 9-12-82 9-18-82 < 2.63 < 2.63 < 2.63 < 2.63 < 2.63 < 2.63 < 2.63 9-25-82 < 2.37 < 2.37 < 2.37 < 2.37 < 2.37 3.61 4.15 i

I 3

11 MPC = 2x10 5 a

pCi/m3 . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).

e Insufficient volume for analysis.

d

, .y- -

. y -. _ . - - - _ -

i j

Table II.B.3a Tritium Concentrations in Air (pCi/m )

b) Fourth Quarter, 1982. F Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 2 3 4 5- 6 35-10-2-82 < 1.69 2.66 2.32 < 1.69 < 1.69- 3.39' 1.89 9-82 e 3.23 1.87 1.41 < 1.20 1.71. < 1.20.

10-16-82 1.16 2.82 < 0.974 < 0.974 < 0.974 6- '1.19 10-23-82 3.35 3.24 1.32 2.12 2.80 2.63 e 10-30-82 1.06 4.12 < 1.13- < 1.13- < 1.13 1.37 1.74 g 11-6-82 2.28 3.26 0.813 7.86 < 0.778- e -e -F 11-13-82 2.98 4.28 e < 0.908 < 0.908 < 0.908 < 0.908 11-20-82 2.54 6.88 < 0.743 < 0.743 0.972 < 0.743 < 0.743 11-27-82 < 0.674 < 0.674 < 0.674 < 0.674 < 0.674 < 0.674- < 0.674

< 0.619 < 0.619 < O.619 0.749 ~< 0.630 12-4-82 0.762 1.07 12-11-82 0.750 1.94 < 0.719 < 0.719 < 0.719 0.805 0.841-12-19-82 1.18 1.59 1.15- < 0.589 1.19 1.29 1.46 12-26-82 0.791 0.985 1.47 4.84 0.820 0.950 0.596-3 H MPC a

= 2x10 pCi/m3 . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).

e Insufficient volume for analysis.

^

~

l-h: _

Table II.B.3b

~

~

{ Tritium Released in Reactor Effluents (Ci) in 1982

Mode July Au9 Sept Oct Nov. Dec Total Continuous 0.57 0.59 0.47 3.1 1.8 0.86 7.3 Liquid Effluent' (Turbine building

,. sump and reactor sump)

) .

Batch Liquid 13.1 0.30 0.02 30.8 54.0 8.4 106.6 Gaseous Stack 1.32 0.09 0.29 0.15 0.14 0.21 2.2

) Total 15.0 0.98 0.78 34.1 55.9 9.5 116.3

)-

)

i j 3.. A_ctivity of camma-ray emittino radionuclides in air.

. -Table II.B.4 lists the-concentrations of I-131 observed in air

.by activated' charcoal sampling and gamma-ray spectrum analysis. The sample counted is a composite from all seven air sampling stations.

All charco'al samples.are counted on the Ge(Li) detector approximately 20 days post collection to allow Rn-222 decay and minimize decay of I-131.

Background is determined from counts of unused charcoal. The I-131 concentrations presented are the result of decay correction back to the

): midpoint of the sampling perio'd. Decay correction to the midpoint i of the sampling period is appropriate as any I-131 in air does not arrive at the sampling station at a constant rate, but rather in pulses short O compared to the collection period. This is the case whether the I-131 source term would be weapons testing fallout or reactor stack effluent.

The composite air concentrations of I-131 measured during the

) second half of 1982 were less than during 1981. The mean value for this l reporting period was not significantly different from zero. The Effluent Release Report data indicated negligible reactor release of

) I-131 during the period. The few calculated values above MDC therefore are the result of method variability. There was no known source term for I-131 during the period as that from the Chinese test of December 3 1980 has decayed to essentially zero values. The method currently in use is active absorption on charcoal. Radon-222 is trapped at the same time and, as pointed out above, a decay time of 20 days is allowed.

However, in periods when ambient radon is extremely high, e.g. during prolonged inversion periods, it is likely that sufficient decay of radon J~

l a

has not occurred. In addition, even a decay time of 20 days produces an I-131 decay correction factor of 5.6. Thus for this case any positive i

uncertainty in the calculated I-131 air concentration is magnified by 5.6. For comparison purposes it can be noted that the maximum permissible air concentration' of I-131 for the general public is 100,000 fCi/m 3 (10 CFR 20, Appendix B Table II).

l Table II.B.5 lists the results of the gamma-ray spectrum analysis of weekly composites of the membrane air filters from each of the

l. seven samplers. Mean values of Ru-106, Zr-Nb-95 and Cs-137 were

! essentially the same as during the first half of 1982 and lower than l

during 1981 when fission product debris from the most recent Chinese l

weapon test was apparent. All samples are counted after decay of Radon and Thoron daughters, several of which are gamma-ray emitters.

The radioruthenium data is listed in the tables as Ru-106.

l However, it is true that the activity measured is often a mixture of Ru-103 and Ru-106. Both isotopes have gamma-rays at essentially the same energy, and they cannot be separated by NaI(Tl) spectral analysis.

I No separation by half-life determination was attempted on the data.

Since the half-life of Ru-103 is 40 days and that of Ru-106 is one year, in periods soon after an atmospheric weapon test, a high proportion is expected to be Ru-103, and at later times predominately Ru-106. Since the element ruthenium and its compounds have negligible biological availability, neither isotope have any consequence in calculation of population dose, and etforts to separate them are not warranted.

f l

p

).;-

Table ~II..B.4

. Iodine-131 Concentrations in Air (Taken From Composites of Activated Charcoal' at all Air Sampling Stations and Determined

.. by Gamma Spectrometry).

}

l Sample Ending Dates I (fCi/m )

.. 7-4-82 < 7.12

) 7-10-82 < 8.55 7-17-82 < 7.24 7-25-82 8.84 (2.81)*

7-31-82 22.8 (7.17) 8-7-82 11.8 (3.91) 8-14-82 18.3 (6.26) 8-21-82 12.5 (5.17) 8-28-82 < 7.90 9-4-82 38.0 (10.8) 9-12-82 26.5 (5.16) 9-18 82 21.2 (5.30) 9-25-82 6.59 (4.07)

) 10-2-82 7.54 (3.06) 10-9-82 < 6.40 10-16-82 < 6.40 10-23-82 12.0 (2.59) 10-30-82 19.4 (2.41) 11-6-82 < 6.74

< 11-13-82 < 6.74.

11-20-82 20.1 (3.21)

) 11-27-82 21.4 (3.57) 12-4-82 < 7.82 12-11-82 < 5.91 12-18-82 < 5.14 12-26-82 < 6.36 All concentrations are 3expres gd in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: 1 fCi/m = 10~ pCi/ml.

)!

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96.S.D.)

1 I MPC, = 10 fCi/m . (10CF20, Appendix B, Table II)

)-

-w. -

r Table II. B.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Air (Taken from Composites of all Air Sampling Stations) (fCi/m3),

b) Second' Half, 1982.

106

"'f[,fding ,

Ru 137 Cs Zr & Nb 7-4-82 < 2.07 '< 0.463 < 0.201 7-10-82 '< 2.69 < 0.603 < 0.261 7-17-82 65.2 (8.85)* < 1.68 < 0.728 7-25-82 < 2.38 1.92 (0.570) < 0.226 7-31-82 < 10.7 < 2.35 8.48 (0.999) 8-7-82 < 2.56 0.911 (0.673) < 0.242 8-14-82 < 1.47 3.40 (0.435) 0.165 (0.192) 8-21-82 < 2.02 1.82 (0.541) < 0.191 8-28-82 < 8.29 < 1.82 < 0.788 9-4-82 < 8.31 2.21 (1.61) < 0.791 9-12-82 < 5.85 1.66 (1.14) < 0.557

'9-18-82 < 7.54 4.01 (1.50) 1.50 (0.697) 9-25-82 2.39(3.46) 3.30 (0.582) 1.26 (0.248) 10-2-82 < 6.73 8.82 (1.39) 0.792 (0.730) 10-9-82 < 6.61 ~ < 1.46 < 0.631 10-16-82 < 2.14 2.25 (0.531) 1.70 (0.315) 10-23-82 < 5.71 1.51 (1.15) 1.36 (0.623) 10-30-82 < 1.97 1.78 (0.513) 0.570 (0.202) 11-6-82 < 2.44 2.05 (0.647) 1.05 (0.307) 11-13-82 < 6.94 2.07 (1.40) 1.78 (0.612) t 11-20-82 5.56(3.07) 2.36 (0.523) 1.25 (0.208) 11-27-82 3.30(2.49) 1.94 (0.400) 0.214 (0.239) 12-4-82 < 8.08 4.52 (1.03) 0.953 (0.887) 12-11-82 < 6.05 1.59 (1.19) < 0.580 12-18-82 < 5.32 0.861 (1.02) < 0.510 12-26-82 < 1.86 0.806 (0.474) 0.554 (0.195)

Allcongentratgnsareexpressedinfemtocuriespercubicmeterofair: )

1 fCi/m = 10 pCi/ml.

j

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, )

(:t 1.96 S.D.)

106 6 6 95 Ru MPC,= 3x10 fCi/m . Cs MPC = 2x10 fCi/m . Zr MPC,= 4x10 fCi/m .

.. (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

Y l

1

p II.C.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water.

Table II.C.1-lists the gross beta activity in surface water and potable water supplies in the study area.

Values of gross beta concentrations in surface water fluctuated at upstream, downstream and effluent sites by approximately a factor

)<

of 2, but the mean upstream and the mean downstream values were essentially identical. The mean upstream value was 10.2 pCi/L, and the mean downstream value was 10.6 pCi/L, There was no significant difference between these mean values. Mean values.were slightly greater than those measured during the first half of 1982 but the increase was not statistically significant. The gross beta concentrations in the two potable water sources were lower than, but as variable as surface water. The concentrations in potable water should be lower due to any water purification which removes suspended solids. The variation is

.probably due to mixing of different reservoir or well water sources which vary due to different runoff areas or aquifers.

Weekly samples were collected at E-38, at the farm pond on the l effluent pathway. This is the principal route for liquid discharge from the reactor, and a monthly sample is not adequate to reflect discharges of tritium.

{ It must be noted, however, that tritium is lost during the evaporation step for gross beta activity determination, and therefore-the gross beta does not include tritium. Gross beta concen-trations in these samples are shown in Table II.C.la. The mean concen-tration was 11.3 pCi/L. During the first half of 1982, the mean concentration was 11.0 pCi/L. The values observed were quite constant and presumably correlate to the effluent release patterns and to runoff f

)

)

from fallout deposition as well as naturally occurring radioactivity.

It is again important to note that the effluent mean concentration observed during this period was not statistically different from the upstream mean value. This implies that the major source of beta product activity was not due to the reactor effluent. The effluent

! does have high tritium concentrations, which is discussed below.

Table II.C.2 lists tritium in surface water and potable water supplies for each monthly collection for the second half of 1982.

As observed during all of 1981 and 1982, the downstream tritium con-centration exceeded the upstream value. The upstream mean value during 1982 was less than the lower limit of detection and the downstream arithmetic mean value was 1,070 pCi/L. The highest concentrations during this period were observed at site D-45. The mean measured i

value for the period at this site was 1,396 pCi/L and this can be taken

)

l for the worst credible case. If this increase was indeed due only to l reactor effluents, radiation dose commitment calculations can be performed for possible dose pathways in the immediate reactor environs.

j Using U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 parameters and methodology the dose commitment calculation would proceed as follows:

1. Assume the " maximum" infant to be the critical individual.

l 2. The annual water intake of an infant is 330L/ year and the tritium ingestion dose factor is 3.08 x 10-7 mrem /pCi.

3. The measured downstream concentration of tritium was highest at sampling location D-45. The mean value for the second

) half of 1982 at this location was 1,396 pCi/L. Taking the mean value to be 328 pCi/L (the geometric mean value for all of 1982) the net concentration that can be attributed to reactor effluent would be 1,068 pCi/L.

)

)

4. - Assuming an infant -ingested water at this concentration for a period of one year, the 50 year dose commitment rate for the maximum infant would be:

.1,068 pCi/L x 330L/ year x 3.08 x 10-7 mrem /pC1.x 1 yea'r = 0.11 mrem This would'be a whole-body dose. These values were all close to the MDC values and mean values for each category were not significantly different. For comparison purposes the limit in 10 CFR.50 Appendix I is 3 mrem / year for light water power _ reactors. Background whole-body dose rates in the reactor vicinity are.approximately 200 mrem / year. The EPA independently has set an upper limit total dose rate of 25 mrem / year (40 CFR 190) to any individual from any part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

No dose calculations were performed for the farm pond water.

Although this is considered an unrestricted area, it is lwowd on company property and as such there is no credible occurrence for the t pond water to be ingested.

The tritium concentrations in the potable water supplies again j showed no-significant variation. No reason for the high value observed at D-39 on 10/16/82 can be given. Evidently these sources are comprised partly from tributary water and partly from well water. True well water F should have essentially no tritium activity. A study of tritium concentrations in a large number of wells around the reactor has recently been completed and will be discussed in the next report.

Table II.C.3 and II.C.4 lists Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations in I

surface water at the same sampling locations. These values were all close to the MDC values and mean values for each category were not i significantly different. Table II.C.4a lists the same radionuclides as well as tritium.in reactor effluent water samples collected weekly at E-38.

o Significantly high tri' tium values have always been observed at f

1

(.

IL effluent sampling sites, and this was true for the first half-of 1982

~(See' Table II.C.4a). ' This is directly attributed to -liquid effluent releases by Fort St. Vrain.

'The concentrations of Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95 in' surface

j. and potable water are given in Table II.C.S. The same radionuclides

, were measured in the weekly samples collected at E-38. This data is

-shown in Table II.C.5a. The concentrations of all of the fission j- products measured in water _are similar to those previously measured.

)

)

)-

)-

?

)

~

Table II.C.1 Gross Beta Activity in Surface Water (pCi/L) i Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 7-10-82 8-28-82 9-18-82 10-16-82 11-27-82 12-11-82 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond 17 2 *. 10.6 11.6 11.0 8.39 ** 7. 37. . ,

(coosequill) (2.59) (2.36) (2.43) (2.39) (2.33) (2.29)- '

11.3 16.9 13.2 7.57 7.96 3.48 E 41: Coosequill Ditch (2.42) (2.59) (2.51) (2.30) (2.32) (2.14)

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham 11.8 14.5 13.1 9.72 9.78 15.1 neservoir (2.42) (2.48) (2.54) (2.39) (3.88) (2.55) [e 10.6 10.4 8 01 17.3 8.62 9.n5 D 40: S. Platte River nelow Confluence (2.39) (2.37) (2.23) (2.58) (2.33) (2.35) 5.08 8.37 7.92 7.17 10.'6 7.17 D 45: St. Vrain Creek (2.21) (2.32) (2.30) (2.32) (2.76) (2.26)

Upstream 13.5 9.38 9.56 9.06 4.14 6.05 0 42 st. Vrain (2.28)

Creek (2.49) (2.35) (2.35) (2.37) (2.15)

U 43: S. Platte 15.6 11.2 14.1 13.5 10.0 11.2 River (2.48) (2.42) (2.47) (2.47) -(2.37) (2.40)

Potable F 49: Visitor's 1.26 4.82 5.73 6.25 6.29 9.24 Center (0.503) (2.00) (5.26) (5.29) (4.33) (4.40)

D 39: Gilcrest City 16.3 6.29 11.3 9.65 12.1 19.3 water (2.66 (2.14) (5.53) (5.46) (4.57) (4.69)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)

MPC w = 30 pC1/L Table II, Appendix B limit 10 CFR20 for an unidentified mixture of radionuclides in water 'if either the identity or the' concentration of any radionuclide is not known.'

• • Sample collected 11-30-82

Table II. C.I.A.

Gross Beta Activity in Effluent Water, Goosequill Pond, E-38. (pCi/L)

Collection Date Total Water Concentrations 7-4-82 19.4 (2.58) 7-10-82 17.2 (2.59) 7-17-82 15.2 (2.55) 7-25-82 10.7 (2.38) 7-31-82 15.1 (2.51) 8-6-82 11.7 (2.40) 8-14-82 15.0 (2.51) 8-21-82 14.5 (2.49) 8-28-82 10.6 (2.36) 9-4-82 8.10 (2.30) 9-12-82 10.5 (2.41) 9-18-82 11.6 (2.43) 10-2-82 13.0 (2.44) 10-9-82 8.78 (2.33) 10-16-82 11.0 (2.39) 10-23-82 12.7 (2.45) 10-30-82 10.7 (2.30)

11-30-82 8.39 (2.33) 12-4-82 10.6 (2.39) 12-11-82 7.37 (2.29) 12-19-82 8.92 (2.34) 12-26-82 7.03 (2.30) l MPC = 30 pCi/L Table II, Appendix B limit 10 CFR20 for an unidenti-fieU mixture of radionuclides in water 'if either the identity or the concentration of any radionuclide is not known . '

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

( 1.96 S.D.)

y v- u - v -- v- y- y y ,

Table II. C.2 Tritium Concentrations in Surface Waters (pCi/1).

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 7-10-82 8-28-82 9-18-82 10-16-82 11-27-82 12-11-82 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 287 < 295 1,580

• 353,000 1,290 ** 993

,Coosequill) (264) (3,800) (273) (271)

(

E 41: Coosequill Ditch 1,250 < 295 2,290 2,080 1,100 360 (263)* (268) (281) (271) (265)

Downstream

< 287 < 295 831 303 357 < 296 ,

D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir (254) (238) (264) y D 40: S. Platte River 717 < 295 521 717 577 418 Below confluence (258) (251) (267) (266) (265)

< 287 < 295 < 282 1,130 5,700 1,180 D 45: St. Vrain creek (271) (316) (273)

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 287 < 295 377 389 332 < 296 creek (250) (264) (264)

U 43: S. Platte < 287 < 295 368 < 296 447 < 296 River (250) (265)

Potable F 49: Visitor's < 287 < 295 < 282 423 < 296 < 296 center (265)

D 39: Gilcrest city < 287 < 295 < 282 3,490 519 < 296 Water (300) (265)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)

3 6 fl MPC g = 3x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

• • Sample collected 11-30-82.

_y_____ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

Table II. C.3 Strontium 90 Concentrations in Surface Waters (pci/1).

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates L cations 7-10-82 8-28-82 9-18-82 10-16-82 11-27-82 12-11-82 Effluent **

E 38: Farm Pond < 0.833 < 0.846 < 0.761 < 0.768 < 1.19 < 1.24 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 0.893 < 1.02 < 0.875 < 1.22 < 1.17 < 0.842 Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 0.834 1.96 < 0.807 < 0.781 < 0.959 < 0.790 Reservoir (1.10) w D 40: S. Platte River < 0.789 < 1.03 < 0.964 < 1.20 < 1.08 < 1.39 't' Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 0.816 < 0.859 < 0.819 < 1.27 < 0.945 < 1.03 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 0.869 < 0.856 < 0.735 < 1.18 < 1.02 < 0.705 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 0.979 < 0.884 < 0.876 < 1.23 < 1.06 < 1.35 River ,

a Potable F 49: Visitor's < 0.815 < 0.780 0.957 < 1.08 < 0.887 < 1.26 Center (0.978)

D 39: Gilcrest City < 0.785 < 1.14 < 0.911 < 0.752 1.13 < 0.681 water (0.939)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)

Sr MPC

• 300 pCi/L. (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).

• • Sample collected 11-30-82.

Table.II. C.4 '

Strontium 89' Concentrations in Surface Waters (pci/1). 7 Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 7-10-82 8-28-82 18-82 ^ 10-16-82' 11-27-82 12-11-82 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 0.703 0.925 < 0.650 <.0.637 -< 0.729 <-0.984-(Goosequill) (1.25)*

E 41:' Goosequill Ditch < 0.738 < 0.956 < 0.740 2.94 < 0.938 -< 0.696'

- (1.99) .

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham 0.793 < 0.697 < 0.715 < 0.654 1.08- < 0.667 ' .

, Reservoir (0.989) (1.02) YI

D 40

S. Platte River < 0.687 < 0.911 < 0.817 7.63 < 0.900 < 1.04 i Below Confluence (2.07)

< 0.712 < 0.758 < 0.697 2.38 < 0'.763 < 0.847,

)i D 45: St. Vrain Creek (2.17) l Upstream

< 0.755 < 0.753 < 0.655 < 0.881 < 0.845' < 0.617' i U 42: St. Vrain .

Creek U 43: S. Platte 0.881 < 0.752 < 0.748 2.98 < 0.864 < 1.08 -

River (1.18) (2.04)

Potable

! < 0.704 0.858 < 0.752 1.79 < 0.770 < 1.05 F 49: Visitor's Center (* }

• 1.04 < 0.991 1.22- < 0.642 < 0.719 < 0.605 j D 39: Gilcrest City i Water (0.989) (1.37)

I

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( l.96 S.D.)

{ 89 Sr MPC = 3x103 pCi/L . (10CFR20, Apper4Jx B, Table II) .

w

• • Collected 11-30-82.

i I

-35*

s

! Table lII.C.4.A~

Tritium, Strontita 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Effluent

=. Water, Goosequill - Pond , E-38.

a) Third Quarter, 1982.

Collection. Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Date (pCi/1) (pCi/1-) (pCi/1) 7-4-82 .'4,740(297) < 0.818 < 0.973-7-10-82 '< 287 < 0.703 < 0.833 7-17-82 3,060 (277) . < 0.732 < 0.827

~

7-25-82 2,790 (287) < 0.815 < 0.939 l 7-31-82 '488(254) < 0.712 < 0.840

.8-6-82 638 (269) < 0.726 < 0.842 8-14-82 1,950 (282) 1.03 < 0.871 (1.21) 8-21-82 786 (270) 1.66 < 0.866 l

(1.14) 8-28-82 < 295 0.925 < 0.846 l (1.25) l 9-4-82 < 298 < 0.786 < 0.960 9-12-82 < 300 < 1.01 < 1.27

[ 9-18-82 1,580 (264) < 0.650 < 0.761 l

l i

i

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95S. confidence interval,

( 1. 9.6. S . D. )

6 H MPC = 3x10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II).

y 89 Sr MPC =.3x10 'pci/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II).

90 Sr MPC = 300 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II).

7~

)-

Table II.C.4.A Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Effluent Water, Goosequill Pond , E-38. Fourth Quarter, 1982.

Collection Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90

)~ Dite- (pCi/1) (pCi/1) (pCi/1) 10-2-82 840 (256) < 0.620 < 0.697 10-9-82 1,590 (284) < 0.692 < 0.784

)

10-16-82 353,000 (3,800) < 0.637 < 0.768 10-23-82 2,260 (283) < 0.718 1.55(1.08)

) 10-30-82 7,900 (338) < 0.785 < 0.974 11-30-82 1,290 (273) < 0.729 < 1.19 12-4-82 364 (265) < 0.824 < 0.945

) 12-11-82 993 (271) < 0.984 < 1.24 12-19-82 < 296 0.631(0.835) < 0.654 12-26-82 544 (266) < 0.683 1.06 (1.02)

)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

( 1.9.6 S.D.)

6

) H MPC = 3x10 pCi/L (10 CFR:20, Appendix B, Table II).

Sr MPC = 3x10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, appendix B, Table II) .

90 Sr MPC = 300 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II) .

)

. Table II. C.5.

Gamma-ray . Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pci/L)

Coliected I July 10.1982 .

j .

106 137 l , Sample Location Ru C s". 95h & Nb n Effluent '

)

E 38: 'Fara Pond (Gooseouill)

< 2.18 1.76 (0.827),

< 0.290 L E 41:' Goosequill Ditch <'O.684 < 0.214 < 0.0912 h pwnstream l D 37: Lower ~Lathan 2.92 0.999 < 0.290 l ,

Reservoir (3.08) (0.821)

D 40: S. Platte River < 2.18 <.0.680 < 0.290 Below Confluence b

D 45

St. Vrain 5.17 .l.00 < 0.290 l Creek (3.09) (0.821)

Upstream

j. U 42: St. Vrain < 2.18 < 0.680 < 0.290 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 2.18 < 0.680 < 0.290 River (3.04) g Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.81 < 0.870 < 0.372 Center D 39: Cilerest < 2.59 0.806 < 0.343 City Water (0.631)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95: confidence interval,

( 1.96 S.D.)

06 Ru MPC =1x10' pCi/L 137 4 Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L

' Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L

! (10CFR20, Appendix B Table II) 3

Table II.- C.5,

~

Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in, Surface . Water. (pCi/L)

Collected August 28, 1982 .

106 95

, Sample Location . ,

Ru I3.7.Cs . r & NL Effluent-E 38: Farm Pond < 2.20 * < 0.675 < 0.288 (Gooseouill)

E 41: Goosequill' Ditch' < 1.55 2.93 , 0.358 (0.733) (0.352)

Downstream D 37: . Lower Latham < 0.665 0.794 -

< 0.087 Reservoir >

(0.323)

D 40: S. Platte River < 2.20 < 0.675 < 0.288

)

t Below confluence l D 45: St. Vrain < 0.696 < D.213 < 0.091 Creek Upstream

)

U 42: St. Vrain- < 2.20 < 0.675 < 0.288

! Creek i U 43: S. Platte < 2.35 < 0.719 < 0.307 River

) Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.55 < 0.781 < 0.334 Center D 39: Gilerest < 0.906 < 0.277 < 0.118

) City Water i

i .

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

( 1.96 1 D.)

106

)-

j 137 Ru MPC,=1x10' pC1/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L

i. 95Zr-Nb MPC =6x10' pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table' 11) l

y 1

<~ -Table - II . C.S.

Gamma-ray Emitting.Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. ~(pCi/L)

Collected SeDtember 18, 1982-f .

is 106Ru-' 95

- Sample Location 1.37' Cs'. 2r & Nb

[. Effluent E 38: -Farm Pond < 0.795 7.00 , 5.79 (Gooseouill) .(0.570) (0.306)

E~41: Goosequill Ditch' 2.57. < 0.265 2.63

~ ~

k. - (2.25) (0.314)

Downstream

< 2.33 1.54 0.495 D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir (0.873) (0.503)

< 0.607 5.20 0.428 D 40: S. Platte River (0.315) (0.179)

Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain 38.'6 ;3.39 5.14 Creek (4. 52 ). , (0.509) (0.335)

Upstream

< 0.834 1.85 0.595

( U 42: St..Vrain (0.316)

Creek (0.553)

U 43: S. Platte < 2.20 3.44 1.63 River (0.843) (0.588) j.

Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.56 0.947 0.681 Center (0.634) (0.490)

) D 39: Gilerest < 2.57 1.55 0.654 i City Water (0.637) (0.442)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

)- .( 1.96 S.D.)

106 Ru MPC =1x10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L f 95Zr-Nb MFC =6x10' pCi/L

) -(10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) l

) --

R h Tab'le II. C.5.-

.Gama-ray Emitting. Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L)

-Collected ' October'16, 1982 .

Sample 1.ocationi 106R y 1.37' Cs, 95 Zr & Nb

~ Effluent c- E 38: Farm Pond < 2.20 2.42 1.13 (Gooseouill) (0.835), (0.416)

E-41: Goosequil.1 pitch' < 0.727 1.09 0.423 9

(0.538) (0.221) l Downstream D'37: Lower Latham < 0.823- 3.20 0.643 Reservoir (0.574) (0.252)

D 40: S. Platte River < 0.621 <.0.192 < 0.081 y

Below Confluence D 4S: St. Vrain < 2.17 2.06 0.610 Creek . (0.826) (0.710)

Upstream 0.425-U 42: St. Vrain < 2.17 1.75 r Creek (0.816) (0.463)

U.43: S. Platte < 0.692 2.10 O.691 River (0.604) (0.311)

Potable

.F 49: Visitor's < 0.759 < 0.235 < 0.999 Center D 39: Gilerest < 2.57 1.44 - 0.966

)-

City Water (0.642) (0.395)

~

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

( 1.96 S.D.) ,

06  !

Ru MPC =lx10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 95Zr-Nb MFC =6x10' pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

)

[-

- Table II. C.5; Gamma-ray -Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations ~ in Surface Water. -(pCi/L)

--Collected November 27, 1982 .

Sample Location 106 137 95 Ru .Cs Zr & Nb

): Effluent.

• • 3.00- 7.16 2.99 E 38: -Farm Pond -(4.12), .(0.486)

. (0.878)

(Gooseouill)'

L E 41: Goosequill Ditch- < 2.17 2.41 0.942

' ~

(0.837) (0.451)

j. .

Downstream 2.63 0.911 D 37: Lower Latham < 0.825 Reservoir (1.14) (0.522)

D 40:

. S. Platte River . < 0.811 Below confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 2.17 2.41 .0.942 Creek . (0.830) (0.666)

Upstream

< 2.17 1.34 0.926

- U 42: St. Vrain Creek (1.01) (0.538)

U 43: S. Platte < 2.17 2.97 0.728 River (0.837) (0.363)

Potable L F 49: visitor's < 2.57 < 0.796 < 0.339

' . Center i

j. D 39: Cilcrest < 0.690 0.985 0.971

City Water (0.238) (0.147)

~

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

( 1.96 S.D.) ,

106Ru MPC =lx10' pCi/L 1

Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 95 Zr-Nb MFC =6x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

) ** Sample collected 11/30/82  !

i p iea-rrr --y w e.9 -----r--g 7p y*--e, es%- --+ 3.-r. -4 . yv-y---- --TT'""T'7----*"-C"*"e*'' " " ' ' 8"'"9****' *'"t

e- _; ,

~

< Table II . ' C.S. .

. Gamma-ray Emitting. Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L)

Collected December 11, 1982 .

,; Sample. Location 106Ru 137 95 7 Cs-r.& Nb

)f Ef fluent'-

E-38: Farm Pond < 0.759 1.71 , 0.849 (Gooseouill) (0.547) (0.295)

E_41: Goosequill pitch' '

< 2.17 1.39 0.651

-(0.822) (0.437)

Downstream

!=

~D 37: Lower Latham- < 0.687 1.23 . 0.486 Reservoir ~ (0.610) (0.330)

D 40: S. Platte River < 2.17- 1.58 0.825

)_ .

Below -- Confluence (0.822) (0.426)

D 45: St. Vrain < 2.57 2.05 1.58

-Creek .

,0.900)

( (0.496)

Upstream

- U 42

St. Vrain < 0.693 2.11 1.10 Creek (0.601) (0.317)

U 43: S. Platte 3.13 3.14 0.853 Pdver (3.25) -(0.792) (0.439)

)

! Potable F 49: Visitor's 3.19 1.92 < 0.368 center- (2.66) (0.671) j .D 39: Gilerest < 0.882 < 0.273 '< 0.116 City k'ater i .

l

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

( -1.96 S..D.)

106 Ru MPC =lx10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 p'Ci/L 952r-Nb MPC =6x10' pC1/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) l

[

p  := ;-

~

Table II.C.5iAl Gamma-ray'fmitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Effluent Water; Goosequill Pond, E-38. (pCi/L). ' -

Coll'ection _Date ~106 137 95 Ru Cs. Zr & Nb 7-4 < 0.912 < 0.283 < 0.121 7-10-82. < 2.18 -1.76 -(0.830) ~ < 0.290

.7-17-82 7.63 (3.09) 2.88 (0.844) 0.410 (0.355) 7-25-82 < 0.679 l0.302 (0.323) '< 0.0883 7231-82 4.35 (1.36) -4.03 (0.335) . 3.02 (1.201) 6-82 < 2.13 -2.38-(0.806) < 0.279 l- 8-14-82 < 0.733 0.271 (0.335) '0.449 (0.250)

~8-21-82 < 2.20 4.31 (0.822)- < 0.288 8-28-82 <-- 2. 20 < 0.675 < 0.288 L

9-4-82 6.71 -(1.34) 5.49 (0.350) 3.19 (0.156)'

9-12-82 < 2.20. 1.09 -(0.813) < 0.288 9-18-82 < 0.795 7.00 (0.570) 5.79-(0.306)-

~ 10-2-82 < 2.20 5.28 -(1.01) 0.749 (0.407) -

9-82 21.39 (2.62) < 0.551- 0.636 (0.336) 10-16-82 < 2.20 2.42 (0.835) 1.13 (0.416) 10-23-82 9.34 (2.60) 2.24 (0.579)' 2.77 (1.05)

. 10-30-82 < 2.17 0.566 (0.815) 1.11 (0.600) 11-30-82 3.00 (4.12) 7.16 (0.878) 2.99 (0.486) 12-4-82 < 2.17 2.36 (0.831) 1.59 (0.425)

l. 12-11-82 < 0.759 1.71 -(0.547) 0.849 (0.295) l 12-19-82 6.50 (2.67) 3.01 (0.695) 0.938 (0.664) 12-26-82 5.62 (3.25) 5.28 (0.859) 1.12 (0.421) i l-I 106 Cs MPC +2x10 pCi/L Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L Ru MPC =1x10 pCi/L y (10CFR20, Appendia, TableII).

• Uncertainties ( B'in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,

( 1.96 S.D.)~

L

. . , - _ , , . . _ . . . ,_......r . , , - , . ,,m. _._,.m___ ._,,. -. ,, ._m..,e,.-m,..., .,_.,..r.. . ,,_,.

p p;

I k II.C.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment Sediment is the major compartment for radionuclide contaminants in a fresh water ecosystem due to the high concentration factors for fission products in the sediment mineral matrices. Although the samples are always collected at the same point, it is impossible to collect a sample with a known surface area to volume ratio as can be done for soils. Therefore, activity is reported as concentration values in pCi/kg rather than as deposition in uCi/m 2. The values cannot be used to. predict environmental transport of activity and serve only as monitoring information. The sample itself is a result of sediment movement downstream and is therefore a function of water flowrate which fluctuates greatly during the year.

Table II.C.6 lists gross beta activity in sediment samples from the sampling sites in the water courses. The mean values for effluent, upstream, and downstream samples were, as always, nearly identical.

) they were not significantly different (see Table II.H.1) and indicate that the sediment samples are very homogeneous. The mean values were in fact slightly less than during the first half of 1982 even though the

) power generation was higher during the last Mlf. This further substantiates the point that the gross beta ~ activity is predominately from naturally occurring radionuclides from the uranium and thorium

) decay series and K-40.

Table II.C.7 and II.C.8 list the Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations in the same sediment samples respectively. The mean concentrations l

)

)

^

of ~both radionuclides were not'significantly different between the three sampling areas, e.g. , effluent, downstream and upstream. Table II.C.9 shows the concentration in sediment of the fission products Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zr-Nb-95. Although occasional high_ values appear,

'the mean values for these samples types (Table II.H.1) indicate no significant difference for any of the fission products in each of the sampling locations. Sediment samples are subject to leaching and solubility differences between the three radionuclides, which should

~

.be expected.

) -It should be noted that the sand fraction of the sediment samples l- is removed and only-the silt plus clay mineral fraction is analyzed.

These two particle. size fractions should contain essentially all of

)- the radioactivity, both natural and that due to reactor effluents.

Tritium of course is lost in the heat drying of the sample.

The high minimum detectable concentrations are due to the fact that sediment samples are counted by Ge(Li) gamma-ray spectrometry.

High resolution gamma-ray spectrum analysis is necessary due to the l presence of members of the Ra-226 and Th-232 decay series.

)

?

i

?

Table II. C.6 Gross Beta Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg).

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates locations 7-17-82 8-28-82 9-18-82 10-16-82 11-27 12-11-82

• Effluent .

E 38: Farm Pond 32,700

• 32,600 32,100 30,800 30,700**. 35,200' (coosequill) (1,520) (1,350)' (1,470) (1,440) -(1,490) (1,540)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch 31,500 33,300 29,400 23,900 -29,200 -23,900 (1,490) (1,470) (1,450) (1,270) (1,460) (1,370)~

j Downstream .

D 37: Lower Latham 8,400 700 44,600 36,800~ 30,300 1'800) 1 460 1,470) f9,420) l, (1,600) (1,620) (1,510)

Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River 33,700 31,100 31,700 32,200. 33,900 33,300 Below Confluence (1,510) (1,410) (1,430) (1,470) (1,5P.0) (1,550)

D 45: St. Vrain 34,500 34,300 29,000 34,000 34,200 26,000 Creek (l,490) (1,430) (1,400) (1,470) (1,460) (1,370)

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain 23,400 28,400 31,800 33,800 41,300 32,200 Creek (1,370) (1,380) (1,490) (1,480) (1,740) (1,360).

U 43: S. Platte 38,500 40,300 36,400 29,700 37,200 30,400 River (1,650) (1,660) (1,560) (1,340) (1,580) (1,380)~

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.)

• • Sample collected 11-30-82

y .y y -y p'- .y- y- y . y  :-g , =w Table II. C.7 Strontium 90 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg).

Sampling Monthly. Collection Dates Locations 7-17-82 8-28-82 9-18-82 10-16-82 11-27-82 12-11-82 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 272 < 270 < 370 68.9 * < 177 ***' < 280' (Goosequill) (201)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 168 < 193 < 265 < 164 < 142 < 163.

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 217 < 172 < 173 < 143 < 173 38.3 Reservoir (2081 D 40: S. Platte River < 219 ** < 205 < 257 < 173 < 200- < 211 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 274 < 348 < 198 < 176 < 220 < 168 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 197 < 370 < 215 < 162 < 184 < 172 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 305 < 382 < 210 248 < 206 < 155 River (202)

Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( l.96 S.D.)

• • Sample collected 7-10-82.

) *** Sample collected 11-10-82 1

1_____ _ _ _- _ _-- -

~

,M

S Q

,4 Table.II. C.8 Strontium 89 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg).

I Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 9-18-82 10-16-82 11-27-82' 12-11-82 7-1 -82 8-28-82

~ Effluent '

E 38

Farm Pond < 231 308 - < 307 < 137 < 15 2 * * * ' .< 226-

-(coosequill) (363),

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 145 < 168 -224 < 138 .<-122 < 134 (409)

, Downstream

--h ..

$ D 37: Lower Latham < 188 ** < 155 < 159  :< 125 .< 149- <.151 Reservoir D 40: S.Platte River < 186 ** <.175 < 220 < 141 .< 173 < 179 Below Confluence

~

D 45: St. Vrain < 229 < 299 216 < 149 < 181 ~ < 138' 1 Creek (293) l Upstream i U 42: St. Vrain < 170 393 3 01 < 134 243 < 144 Creek (494) (348) (249)

}

U 43: S. Platte < 253 < 327 < 181 < 146 < 172' ~ < 130 River

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (

1.96 S.D.)

• • Collected 7-10 -82

• • • Collected 11-30-82 i

.. m . - - . .. -

A Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected July 17,1982 .

' Sampling 106 Cs Zr'&.Nb Ru Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond . < 2,910 < 502 < 184 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosequill DiEch < 2,770 < 479 < 175 -

Downstream ,

• • 3,420 , 760 < 188 D 37i Lower Latham ~h '

Reservoir (4.860) (6RR)

D 40: S. Platte River ** < 3,190 < 551 < 202 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 3,350 596 < 212 4

Creek (743)

Upstream u 42: St. Vrain < 3,390 1,400 < 214 Creek (829)

U 43: S. Platte < 3,220 < 557 < 204-River ,

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( l'.96 S.D.)

i

• • Collected 7-10-82 a

f +

Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment.'(PCi/kg) for Samples Collected August 28. 1982 .

Sampling 106 Cs Zr & Nb. ,

Ru Locations

' Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 2,960 < 512 < 186 (Goosequill) ,

~

E 41: Goosequill' Ditch . < 2,190 < 378 < 137 j Downstream ,,

, D 37i Lower Latham < 3,990 < 689 < 251 h Reservoir j

D 40: S. Platte River < 3,120 < 540 < 196 :

Below Confluence i

D 45: St. Vrain < 2,290 < 395 .< 143 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 2,920 < 505 < 183 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 2,770 < 479 < 174 River r

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)

f 9

I 1 - _ . _ .

I!

o ,

Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting.Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples-Collected September 18, 1982 .

106 95 Sampling Ru Cs Zr & Nb Locations.

Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 3,120 < 539 < 196 (Goosequill)

~

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 3,660 < 633 < 230 Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 3,740 '< 646 < 235 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 7,760 2,890 1,310 Below Confluence (1,800)* (1,070)

D 45: St. Vrain < 3,320 < 573 < 208 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 4,910 2,290 749 Creek (1.140) (513)

U 43: S. Platte < 5,100 < 882 < 321 River

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)

v a.

t Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg).

for Samples Collected October 16, 1982 .

Sampling 106 95 Ru La Zr &'Nb Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond 3,610 < 566 < 205 (Coosequill) (5,820)*

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 5,680 < 986 < 358.

Downstream

< 2,980 < 515 < 187 D 37i Lower Latham Reservoir

< 6,370 < 1,110 < 402 D 40: S. Platte River Below Confluence

< 3,120 < 541 < 196 D 45: St. Vrain Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain

< 3,150 < 545 < 198 Creek U 43: S. Platte

< 3,600 < 623 < 226 River

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.)

- s.

Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide ' Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg)L for Samples Collected November 27, 1982- . 1 Sampling 106 Cs Zr & Nb Ru Locations Effluent

~

E 38: Farm Pond .

• • < 4,230 < 733 ' < 266 (Coosequill)

E 41: Goosequill DiEch < 3,150 < 545 < 198 Downstream '

D 37i Lower Latham < 2,830 < 489

'< 177 h:

Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 2,900 < 502 < 182 Below Confluence

< 2,840 < 491 < 178 D 45: Sr. Vrain

' reek Upstream

< 3,120 < 540 < 196 U 42: St. Vrain Creek U 43: S. Platte < 3,090 < 534 < 194 River for the 95% confidence interval,-( 1.96'S.D.)

• • • Uncertainties I

Collected 11-3(in 0-82parentheses) art.

4 i

A ._A

y. .y ._ _ _ .

a Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for. Samples Collected December 11, 1982 .

't Sampling 106 Ru Cs' ' Zr'& Nb Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 5,200 < 901 < 327 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 3,670 < 635 < 231 Downstream ,

D 37i Lower Latham 3,850 , < 341 340 'Er' Reservoir (4,290) (258)

~

D 40: S. Platte River < 5,430 < 942 < 342 Below Confluence s D 45: St. Vrain < 3,150 < 545 < 198 Creek Upstream i U 42: St. Vrain < 6,550 < 1,140 < 413 Creek U 43: S. Platte 4,150 < 619 < 225 River (5,430)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)

i lII.C.3' Precipitation Gross beta and tritium deposition values are given in Table

'II.C.10. Precipitation funnel collectors of size sufficient to produce c significant sample are located at two locations, F-1 and 2

F-4. Values are expressed as deposition (i.e. pCi/m ) as this value can be.used'to-predict food chain transport. Studies of world-wide fallout'have produced models that predict forage and subsequent milk

.or meat concentrations from deposition values. The deposition measured is actually the sum of dry and precipitation deposition as the collectors are washed down at sample collection monthly or after a large rain or snowfall. The tritium deposition is' calculated as

)

< the product of the concentration measured in the water and the total volume collected. -(The wash water is subtracted).

From Table II.C.10 and Table II.H.1 it can be observed that

) there is essentially no difference in gross beta deposition at the two collection sites and the tritium deposition was less than l

the minimum detectable value at both sites. The mean values were j

again significantly lower than during 1981. The decrease was due l to the lower air concentrations of Chinese weapon test fallout l- - .

I and resuspension of previously deposited fallout.

L 7 Since the F1 collector is near the liquid effluent pathway it would be expected to collect some increased trititim deposition ,

from the evaporation as discussed in II.B.3.

~

This, however, is b- apparently not the case. During all of 1982 the mean values were less than MDC at both locations. In fact, the tritium deposition at 1

3

1

~

~

1 l

l F1 has-.never been;significantly greater than at.F4. :These collection l

~

sites' are at oppo' site directions from'the reactorL and in the predominant wind directions.

t-  : Tables 'II.C.11 and II.C.~12 = list the precipitation deposition

' of.Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95. The only source of these radionuclides 3

has been world wide ~ fallout. The mean values at F-1 and F-4 were not hignificantly'different due to the -high standard deviation

- values. Cs-137 values are higher than the other radionuclides 3

measured because it has _a much longer half-life and_ it is held strongly by ion exchange to the~ clay minerals in soil. Therefore the Cs-137 deposition is trapped on the surface of the soil. These 3 :_

surface. soil particles are resuspended by wind and deposited in the collection. funnel.

. Table II.C.13 lists the deposition of the strontium radioisotopes.

3-L l These as well have their origin in world wide fallout. The values are extremely _ variable as the concentration in water is extremely j low. Due to the large water volume collected, small uncertainties in the concentrations produce large variations in the total deposition estimate. Sr-90 penetrates deeper into the soil profile than Cs-137 3 and therefore the values are somewhat lower. Sr-89 has a short half-life and.it cannot be detected above counter background.

O .

O l

l

)

Table II. C.10 Gross Beta'and Tritium Deposition from Precipitation at Locations F1 and F4.

- Sample . Cumulative Total Gross Beta Tritium Ending Volume

• Dates- (liters) Deposition (pCi/m2 ) Deposition (pCi/m2 )

F1 F4 F1 F4 F1 F4 3' 7-31-82 164 139 264 , 172 < 297 < 297 (47.4) , (36.9) l 8-28-82 57 55 67.7 258 < 300 < 300 l

(15.1) (18.2)

h. 9-25-82 t 92 102 67.9 104 < 284 < 284 (24.6) (26.5) 10-30-82 120 120 74.1 75.9 < 296 < 296 l (31.8) (29.9)

D 11-27-82 50 50 36.5 28.2 l- < 296 < 296 l (13.4) (13.2)

! 12-25-82 23.5 28 103 41.7 377 485 l (13.4) (13.2) (256) (257)

)

i

• Samples are analyzed at the end of each month.

• • Uncertainties ( in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.)

h

• i D -

l D .

. - - --. __~-_ -

'T,h 1,,

~

Y I

Table II. C.11 1

Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from Precipitation at Location'F1.-

Sample Total Total Deposition (pCi/m2)

Ending g, y ,

Date 106 Ru 137 95 Zr & Nb.

Cs 7-31-82 164 < 31.7 < 9.70 < 4.14 l 8-28-82 57 < 10.8 < 9.10 < 1.20. &

y 9-25-82 92 < 10.4 36.9 8.72.

i

.(7.50),,. (6.60) 10-30-82 102 < 58.7- 61.9 20.8 (29.1) '(15.3) 1 11-27-82 50 4.63 5.35 1.74 (4.33) (1.10) (0.572)~

! 12-25-82 23.5 27.5 40.4 8.64 (16.3) . ( 4.19) ' (2.21) 4 a

)

• Samples are analyzed at the end of each month.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,-( 1.96 S.D.). 4 h

i

o#p V A

, p 4'

'.;[L i ' 2 Ic?

-Table II.'C.12

~

l Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Deposition from Precipitation at. Location'F4. ,

t I  :

Total Deposition (pCi/m 2)J 1'

Sample- Total Ending !L i

Date. I.

V I"S** 106 nu 137 Cs. 95Zr &'Nb- I 1 . . .

7-31-82 -

139 < 41.1 25.1 '.j < 5.37. j'.

;(27.6)**  ; ,

i 8-28-82 55

< 34.0 30.1 . '6.03 .

2

- ~(12.3) ..( 10.8) 0,

; e..

, . i.

i 9-25-82 102 - < 20.3 117 -22.9 <

l , (14.8). (9.47) x.

i 10-30-82 120 .< 59.5 33.6 . 16.2 I

(22.6) (17.2) j' 11-27-82 I 50 97.0 47.3 16.7

.(15.8)  :(3.77) . (2.94) i i

j 12-25-82 28 43.2 38.1 13.9

-(21.0) (5.62) (2.73) i  !

l l 1

}

• Samples are analyzed at the end of.each month. ^

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96).

l-

.i i

I 1

7 I

4

_____.____.______j

4 ':M i ,J

'/

l . ,

- 1.

.g-

• . i.

Table II; C.13 .

Radiostrontium' Deposition from Precipitation at Locations F1 and F4 ~.(pCi/m ), _

a '

4

"" * ""* ' Strontium 90-Sample Ending Strontium 89 .

Dates 77

._ p4 F1 F4 F1 F4 t

7-31-82 164 139 < 45.8

. -< 40.8 < 54.6: L<f48.4 - -

< 13.9-28-82 57 55 < 11.5 < 8.49 < x 10. 3 --

9-25-82 92 102 26.9 (38.5)** < 14.0 l< 20.8 < 17.2' E

10-30-82 120 ^120 '< 26.3 < 22.2 < 33.9 .< 27.8-  ?-

< 11.4 - < 12.0 < 13.8 <:14.3-11-27-82 50 50 23.5 ' < 6.16 < .7.94' i 12-26-82 28 9.68 (10.9) < 9.96:

i i

i i

i *-Samples are analyzed at the end of each month.. ..

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.).

4 l

i .g I

I 4

g -_._ _ .

~

y II.D Food Chain Data

>1.- Milk. - Milk is: the~most important radiation dose commitment pathway for H-3, I-131, Cs-137 and Sr-89,90. Tritium concentrations in milk are' summarized in Table II.D.1. There was no significant_ difference in mean tritium values in water extracted

~

from milk at the-only dairy in the Facility area (F-44), and the Adjacent Composite'and the Reference Composite mean values for-the second half

' of 1982 (see Table II.H.1). In fact, none of the values or the arithmetic means were significantly different from MDC. Since the mean tritium values for all three sampling zones-were not significantly different, this implies the tritium in the plant effluents is not contributing dose via the milk pathway.

Tritium concentrations in milk should respond rapidly to changes in tritium concentrations of the forage water intake or drinking water intake to the cow due to the short biological half-life for water in the cow (about three days for the lactating cow).

< As noted in previous reports, tritium activity per liter I- reflects the tritium in the water extracted from the milk and not the activity per liter of milk. Whole milk is approximately 87%

water (+ 3-4%, depending on the cow breed, pasture, and feed).

Skim milk accordingly has a higher water content. It may be assumed though that the remaining solids in milk (proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids) also contain some tritium due to exchange of tritium with

) hydrogen on these large molecular structures. This tritium concentration will be very much lower than in the water fraction and is not

)

7 .

b - 62 .

b significant for dose considerations.

Tables II.D.2 and II.D.3 list the Sr-90 and.Sr-89. concentrations in milk. The mean of the facility milk. samples was not significantly different than:the- means- for the other two areas. . Variations noted during this reporting period are typical 'of past' periods and attributed to differences in feeding practices and not to reactor; effluents.

The mean values for Sr-89 were also not significantly different.

~

The. concentrations of I-131, Cs-137 and K-nat in. milk are given in Table II.D.4. The arithmetic mean values of :I-131 and Cs-137 (Table II.G.1) for the reporting period were not significantly different from each other as they were during the last reporting period.

)

K-natural, as measured by K-40 is very constant in milk. The mean

~

literature value is 1.5 g/L. K-nat is measured and reported therefore only for a quality control measure of Cs-137 and I-131 determined in the same sample by gamma-ray spectrometry.

A close relationship between forage deposition and milk y concentrations should be expected for tritium, the strontium radioisotopes, for Cs-137 and for I-131 only if the cows are on pasture or fed green cut grass or alfalfa. This, unfortunately is not the general feeding practice at the dairies around the reactor. Nearly all f

cattle feed is hay grown either locally, from Nebraska or the North Park region of Colorado. At times it can even be cuttings from the y previous year. This makes correlation of milk concentrations with air concentrations very difficult. On the other hand, if elevated I-131 or tritium concentrations in milk are noted, the surface depositions must y have been reasonably related in time and location due to the short effective half lives of these radionuclides.

?

l

x 7

. ,9 j.

Table II. D.1' ~

Tritium Concentrations in Water Extracted -from Milk (pCi/1).

• '"8 Facility Area 44 . Adjacent Composite *- Reference Composite'*

D Pasture Season 7-4-82 < 289 < 289 < 289 7-10-82 < 287 < 287 342 (254)*,

7-17 652 (253) 393 -(251) 647 (253) 7-25-82 < 295 < 295 < 295 7-31-82 . < 285 < 285 < 285 8-6-82 < 285. < 285 < 285 ,

8-14 < 295 < 295 < 295 0' 8-21-82 < 295 < 295 < 295 8-28-82 < 298 < 298 < 298 4 9-4 < 298 < 298

< 298 9-11-82 < 300 < 300 < 300 9-18-82 < 300 < 300 < 300 9-25-82 515 (251) 326 (249) 598 (252)

Post Pasture Season 10-9-82 < 284 < 284 < 284 11-13-82 < 296 < 296 < 296 12-11-82 < 296 369 (265) < 296

• Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A 36, A48.

f Reference Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96.S.D.)

1

e

' Y s -

-s ,

~

• r'

[ Table II. D.2'

. Stron' tium 90 Activity in !! ilk (pCi/l).

. 4 j t Sam Ending . Facility Area 44 Adjacent Composite

• Reference. Composite,*

Pasture Season ~ ~

.7-3-82' < 1.19 < 3.08 .

1.50.(1.31)**- ,..

7-10-82' < 1.34 2.76-(1.35) .1.58L(1.41) 7-17-82 < 1.02 < 1.26- 2.02 (1.27).

7-25-82 < 3.96 - < 2.08 < 2.42-7-31-82 < 3.14 3.03 (1.57) 2.30 (3.11)'

p-8-6-82 1.93 (1.50) < 2.19 1.97 -(1.46)-

8-14-82 < 2.59

'2.36.(2.23) '< 2.64 8-21-82 < 1.64 .

< 1.77 ~ < 3.31

8-28-82 2.59'(1.89) < 2.00 .< 1.75 9-4-82 1.32 (1.38) < 1.43 ~ < 2.18 9-12-82. < 3.93 < 4.61 j 9-18-82 2.02 (1.24) <.2.60 1.95-(2.68).

9-25-82 1.69 (1.40) < 5.31 '< 2.16 Post-Pasture l Season 10-9-82 < 1.23 < 1.33' 2.55 (1.52)-

11-13-82 -< 1.35 1.17 (1.34) 1.55 (1.46).

12-11-82 1.08 (1.34) < 1.71 < 1.17.

i

)

• Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48.

j Reference Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23,.R25.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.).

i.

r

_ _ . _ . _ m

y .. --

y. . _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ . . _ .- _

-3 I

4 ,

Table II. D.3-Strontium 89 Activity in Milk (pC1/1).

Sample Ending Fac'ility Area 44 Adjacent Composite

• Reference Composite'*

Dates Pasture Season 7-4-82 1.53 (1.19) ** 2.85-(3.67) < 1.03 7-10-82 < 1.26 '< 1.02 < 0.969

'7-17-82 < 0.990 < 1.21 < 0.994 7-25-82 < 3.47 < 1.91' < 2.12

< 2.03 . < 1.58 7-31-82 4.45 (4.05) ~

8-6-82 < 1.22 < 2.39 < l'.15-8-14-82 4.87 (3.42) 2.67 (2.79) . 5.84 (3.98) 8-21-82 2.43 (1.80) 9.31 (2.06) 9.85.- (4. 41 ) &

8-28-82 2.24 (1.90)- 4.16 (2.46) 2.42 (2.10) T 9-4-82 .< 1.23 < 1.35 < 1.98 9-12-82 < 3.47 < 2.04 4.92 (6.13) 9-18-82 < 1.10 < 2.31

< 9.79

< l.06 < 4.52 1.99 (2.73) 9-25-82 Post-Pasture i Season 10-9-82 < 1.23 < 1.32 < 1.27 I 11-13-82 < 1.42 < 1.30 < 1,29 12-11-82 < 0.988 < 1.55

< 1.17 I ...

i

• Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48. ,

Refereoce Composite Locations: R16, R17 R20, R22, R23, R25.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( . 1.96 S.D.)

y

. Table 11.'D.4 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite Milk-Sampies.

I (PCi/1) Cs (pCi/1) Nat. K (g/1)

s .

Co ec ed 7-4-82' .' Facility < 0.129 6.30 (0.909)** 1.54 (0.0151)

Adjacent < 0.124 6.70 (0.897) 1.50 (0.0148)

Reference < 0.133 < 0.136 1.37(0.0152) 7-10-82. ' Facility < 0.126 < 0.129 1.39 (0.0148)

Adjacent < 0.142 < 0.145 1.37 (0.0157)

[ Reference < 0.123 < 0.125 1.31(0.0145) 7-17-82 Facility' < 0.155 < 0.158 1.56 (0.0168)

Adjacent < 0.146. < 0.149 1.36 (0.0159)

, Reference < 0.115 < 0.118 1.37 (0.0141) 7-25-82 Facility < 0.131 < 0.134. 1.41 (0.0151)

.. Adjacent 6.92 (3.00) 0.310 (1.04) 1.51 (0.0180)

Reference < 0.124 < 0.126 1.34 (0.0154) 7-31-82 Facility < 0.152 < 0.154 1.49 (0.0205

) Adjacent Reference

< 0.150 9.35 (2.18)

< 0.153 0.158 1.54 (0.0205 1.50 (0.0248 8-7-82 Facility 9.94 (1.43) < 0.160 1.40(0.0169)

Adjacent < 0.134 < 0.138 1. .

Reference < 0.123 < 0.127 1. .

): < 0.197 8-14-82 < 0.191 1.49 (0.0231)

Facility Adjacent < 0.153 < 0.158 1.50(0.0201)

Reference < 0.127 < 0.130 1.34 (0.0152 8-21-82 . Faci 1ity < 0.121 < 0.131 1.68(0.0150)

) Adjacent Reference

< 0.123

< 0.118

< 0.132

< 0.127 1.38 (0.0148) 1.47 (0.0146) 8-28-82 Facility < 0.126 < 0.129 1.39 (0.0148)

Adjacent < 0.142 < 0.145 1.37 (0.0157)

Reference < 0.120 < 0.124 1.47 (0.0179) 9-4-82 Facility < 0.117 < 0.121 1.40 (0.0147)

Adjacent c c c Reference < 0.189 < 0.195 1.50 (0.0231) 1

• Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48.

Reference Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.

• • ~ Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95*; confidence interval, (: 1.96 S.D.),

c Instrument malfunction, Nal scintillation malfunction.

}

rr Table II. D.4 Gann.a-ray Emitting Radionuclide' Concentrations in Composite Milk Samples.

C1e ed I (PC1/1) Cs (pCi/l) Nat. K (g/1) 9-11-82 Facility 6.69-(3.52)** < 0.609 c

Adjacent

< 0.143 < 0.147 1.28 (0.0160)

Reference 8.70 (2.57) < 0.185 1.58 (0.0185) 9-18-82 Facility 2.77 (2.32)** 2.18 (0.973) 1.61(0.0166)

Adjacent < 0.187 2.01 (1.07) 1.40 (0.0186)

Reference < 0.175 < 0.180 1.51 (0.0185) 9-25-82 Facility < 0.140 0.816 (0.923) 1.52 (0.0156)

Adjacent < 0.123 < 0.127 1.38 (0.0197)

Reference 2.62 (1.55) < 0.132 1,48 (0.0183) 10-2-82 Facility 0.345 (1.29) < 0.159 1.71 (0.0173)

Adjacent < 0.131 < 0.134 1.44(0.0153)

Reference < 0.177' < 0.121 1.52 (0.0146) 11-9-82 Facility < 0.133 < 0.136 1.54 (0.0154)

Adjacent < 0.126 < 0.129 1.50(0.0150)

Reference < 0.171 < 0.175 1.37 (0.0176) 12-11-82 Facility < 0.132 < 0.134 1.60 (0.0149)

Adjacent < 0.115 < 0.117 1.34 (0.0135)

Reference < 0.130 < 0.132 1.42(0.0145)

• Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48 Reference Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (: 1.96 s.D.),

c Instrument malfunction, Nal scintillation malfunction.

. II.D. Food Chain _ Data Forage._ Table II.D.5 lists the tritium specific activity in water extracted from forage samples as well as Sr-89 and Sr-90 concentraticns in the forage dry matter. Tritium values were essentially the same as during the first half of 1982. There were no significant differences in mean tritium values between Facility, Adjacent and Reference locations. The tritium in forage water was as expected, similar to the concentration observed in milk.

) Strontium-89 and Sr-90 concentrations were also not significantly different for the three sampling zones. Sr-89 mean values were less than MDC. Although the Sr-90 facility mean was higher than that for the other two areas, due to the high standard deviation, the mean values were not statistically different (a = 0.05).

Table II.D.6 lists Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95 activities in forage samples for the first half of 1982. No significant differences were observed.

Gross beta concentrations in soil and forage collected at the same locations are given in Table II.D.7. No statistically significant differences were observed. The forage concentrations are of course lower than soil as all of the radionuclides in the soil are not biologically available for plant uptake. Also it is true that a major fraction of the forage activity is due to soil particles trapped on the plant surface from resuspension.

A cattle forage sample, i.e. fresh cut grass or alfalfa hay, is the sample of choice for several reasons. Forage integrates atmospheric wet and dry deposition over a large surface area per unit

}l t.

. weight and also-is a direct link in the dairy and beef food chain F transport of H-3, Cs-137, and the strontium radioisotopes. Such samples are collected when possible. However, due to feeding practices, vagaries of weather and other factors, often silage or I cut samples must be collected. These samples may or may not be harvested locally and may represent different fallout periods.

This presents obvious difficulties in data interpretation.

}

)

)

)

I

)

)

)

Table II. D.5 Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in

) Forage for Samples Collected July 17'; 1982 .

Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Areas (pCi/1) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)

)

Facility 4 e < 37.5 241 (63.2) 44 753 (254) < 19.9 146 (35.3)

)

Adjacent 6 441 (251) < 17.7 124 (20.3)

) 28 470 (252) 15.2 (17.6) 35.6 (13.3) 31 508 (252) 28.8 (22.3) 66.7 (16.0) 36 < 283 < 18.3 167 (31.2)

'48 418 (251) < 8.76 122 (15.6)

~. 50 1,250 (259) < 6.92 69.5 (11.7)

Reference

}

16 470 (252) < 29.2 66.0 (33.6) 17 791 (255) < 16.7 82.0 (20.0)

) 20 < 283 < 11.2 76.6 (14.4) 22 314 (250) < 10.4 76.9 (13.1) 23 e < 5.15 73.1 ( 9.17) e < 15.6 134 (27.8)

) 25

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence intervali ( 1.96 S.D.).

) e Insufficient deichti or volume for analysis.

)

~

f? _yy Table II. D.5' Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Forage for Samples Collected August 6, 1982

) .

Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90

• • • • (pCi/kg)

(pCi/1) (pCi/kg) k Facility 4 < 285 38.1 (33.2)* 215 (41.7)

44. 387 (253) < 5.11 26.6 (6.74)

-Adjacent 6 < 285 < 14.3 58.1 (18.2) k , 28 661 (255) < 13.7 50.0 (16.9) 31 < 285 < 15.3 55.5 (17.3) 36 452 (253) < 8.72 45.7 (10.2)

{ 48 .e 15.4 (16.8) 61.6 (10.1)

". 50 < 285 17.8 53.4 (18.7)

Reference 16 < 285 < 10.2 34.4 (13.0) 17 290 (252) < 16.2 65.5 (17.9) 20 < 285 < 19.7 63.9 (18.0)

)-

22 580 (254) < 11.4 76.9 (15.7) 23 431 (253) < 12.6 91.5 (15.5) y .

25 e 20.7 (22.7) 107 (18.1 )

1

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.) .

) e Insufficient weicht or volume for analysis.

.-c s.

Table'II. D.5 Tritium,' Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in-Forage for Samples Collected September 18, 1982 Tritium- Strontium 89 Strontium 90

. Areas. (pCi/1) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)

Facility 4 e 28.9 (28.8)* 58.5 (14.0)

) 44_ 'e ' 84.6 (47.7) 36.7 (24.9)

Adjacent 6 < 300 14.6 (40.3) 18.9 (18.5) 28 < 300 17.9 (24.1) 29.2 (15.2) 31 < 300 18.1 (18.7) 85.9 (12.9)

'36 < 300 < 22.8 50.3 (30.4) 48 < 300 < 13.8 122 (16.3)

'. 50 < 300 < 32.8 132 (30.4)

Reference 16 < 300 < 8.71 77.6 (12.2) 17 < 300 < 12.5 80.0 (16.7) 20 < 300 17.6 (20.5) 120 (14.2) 22 < 300 < 10.5 94.5(15.1) 23 < 300 119 (40.3) 97.7 (17.5) 25 < 300 125 (47.1) 182- (29.0)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (! 1.96 S.D.).

e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

l

,J

4 Table II. D.6 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage  !

e (pci/kg) f6r samples collected July 17,1982 .

Areas Ru Cs Zr & Nb Facility 4 < 105 296 (30.1) 84.4 (15.7) 44 < 81.9 54.5 (22.4) 50.7 (12.0) 9 Adjacent 6 < 57.6 33.6 (15.8) 14.3 (8.52) g 28. < 6.94 10.6 (2.27) 4.54 (1.18)

'3L 147 (61.5) 65.5 (15.2) 15.1 (7.52)

-36 < 95.1 32.5 (24.7) 26.4 (13.1 )

e 48 < 64.6 < 19.8 < 8.46 50 < 28.8 19.0 (8.39) 31.2 (3.65)

Reference 16 < 18.7 21.4 (6.17) 16.0 (3.13) 17 < 70.2 49.2 (18.3) < 9.21 20 < 42.1 111 (13.6) < 5.62

/

22 < 67.7 33.8 (18.0) 12.9 (9.88) 23 < 59.3 32.0 (17.0) 15.3 (8.26)

25 < 17.4 43.2 (5.79) 7.84 (2.79)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (2 1.96 S.D.).

~

7-+ .

74-

}

Table II. D.6~

Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected August 6, 1982 .

' Areas Ra' Cs Zr & Nb Facility 4 '< 73.3 125 (23.5)* 70.2 (13.9) 44 < 9.76 < 2.99 10.8 (2.57)

Adjacent 6 < 196 < 59.9 245 (44.3) 28- < 12.8 20.8 (4.92) 17.1 (3.39)

'31 < 68.7 39.5 (18.6) 45.9 (14.1)

I 36 < 40.9 < 12.5 6.05 (8.04) 48 < 48.8 < 15.0 25.3 (10.1) 50 < 10.7 169 (3.67) 13.8 (2.52)

Reference 16 < 78.5 < 24.0 10.5 (14.7) 17 < 86.8 58.4 (23.0) 31.7 (16.5) 20 < 64.5 66.6 (18.2) 32.0 (12.9) 22 < 43.0 < 13.4 < 5.70 23 < 24.0 < 7.35 < 3.14 25 324 (47.0) 132 (11.9) 29.4 (6.37)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (! 1.96 S.D.).

l

-r , , . --n.- ,, . - , ,-- ~ - , , . - , . . - - - - - - - - - , .

e Table II. D.6 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage

) (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected September 18, 1982 .

Areas Ru Cs Zr & Nb

) Facility 4 185 (14.6) 85.3 (3.48) 52.5 (3.86) 44 < 342 < 106 104 (98.8)

Adjacent 6 < 129 70.1 (34.0) 79.8 (38.6)

) 28 < 44.8 34.9 (12.3) 27.4 (7.92)

'31 < 687 869 (181) < 89.9 36 176 (140) 56.3 (31.6) 52.6 (35.4)

) 48 < 31.0 36.9 (10.0) 13.9 (5.61) 50 < 40.5 195 (13.1) 61.0 (7.58)

Reference

}

16 < 73.7 59.4 (21.0) 78.6 (24.1) 17 < 63.0 32.6 (16.7) < 8.25

) 20 63.1 (24, 3) 45.8 (5.49) 50.3 (6.24) 22 < 66.3 32.4 (17.5) 39.1 (11.3) 23 < 60.5 56.2 (17.5) 78.7 (15.2) 25 79.9 (80.9) 103 (19.3) 75.6 (17.3)

)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (! 1.96 S.D.). ,

)

)

Table II. D.7 Gross Beta Concentrations in Soil and Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collee.ted Third Quarter, 1982 Sampling July 17, 1982 August 6,1982 September 18, 1982 cation Forage Soil Forage Soil Forage Soil Facility 4 31,300 17,400 30,300 16,800 30,800 10,500 (1,520)* (561) (1,420) (968) (1,430) (221) 44 27,000 19,800 31,300 9,990 30,100 26,700 (1,300) (378) (1,420) (154) (1,450) (474)

Adjacent 6 30,100 18,500 26,900 16,300 25,900 18,100 (1,440) (392) (l,300) (241) (l,340) (373) 28 24,100 10,900 21,100 15,400 24,400 14,100 (1,280) (231) (1,180) (266) (1,390) (300) 31 26,000 8,940 25,200 15,900 27,500 11,500 (1,310) (200) (1,210) (259) (1,370) (352) 36 23,600 2,330 22,600 15,800 23,400 9,560 (1,270) (389) (1,240) (256) (1,300) (182) 4c 26,9T 15,900 24,900 12,100 30,600 15,500 (1,320) (272) (1,280) (199) (1,500) (257) 50 30,300 11,800 25,400 16,300 31,300 16,400 (1,410) (245) (1,270) (261) (1,470) (392)

Reference 16 27,300 28,800 24,500 17,700 21,200 24,000 (1,340) (458) (1,290) (240) (1,220) (375) 17 17,700 15,700 18,200 18.800 20,900 15,500 (1,150) (270) (1,220) (279) (1,250) (247) 20 28,100 9,620 25,500 20,800 24,300 15,500 (1,430) (197) (1,270) (330) (1,270) (271) 22 28,800 16,800 26,800 20,800 23,800 11.500 (1,390) (301) (1,330) (292) (1,260) (233) 23 26,200 19,700 19,400 19,900 27,200 24,100 (1,200) (355) (1,170) (313) (1,450) (442) 25 20,100 14,600 23,000 16,100 24,300 11,600 (1,180) (284) (1,220) (281) (1,300) (324)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 957. confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).

y - -

II.D. Food Chain Data

3. Soil. Soil samples are collected at the same time and location as forage samples. A core borer is used to collect the sample.

The sample depth is 10.2 cm and the area is 102 cm2 , Bulk soil density 3

is approximate 1,y 1 g/cm . Table II.D.8 presents gross beta activity of soil per unit surface area for the second half of 1982. This parameter is calculated from the gross beta concentration in soil (Table II.D.7) multiplied by the mass per unit surface area of the sample core. Since reactor effluents or fallout will result in deposition on the soil surface, activity per unit surface area is the parameter of choice to document environmental contamination. The i

mean value for the facility area was significantly greater than that measured for the adjacent or reference areas (Table II.H.1). This difference is most certainly due to a higher concentration of the I

natural Uranium and Thorium decay series and natural K-40. The difference is not due to fission product activity. Table II.D.9 and the calculated mean values indicate that there is no significant

)

difference for Ru-106, Cs-137 or Zr-Nb-95 between the facility, adjacent or reference sampling zones.

Tritium, Sr-89, and Sr-90 in soil are shown in Table II.D.10.

I Tritium specific activity in soil water is statistically the same as that in other environmental samples, e.g. water, forage and milk.

The activity per unit surface area of the strontium radioisotopes I

were again quite variable. Due to the large standard deviations there was no statistical difference in the mean values between the three sampling zones. It should be noted that the Sr-90 values are

)

i

I' -

78-t considerably. lower than measured for Cs-137. This is because the C's-137-is trapped near the soil surface by ion exchange and the Sr-90 is leached down the soil profile to depths greater than collected  !

- , by our coring method.

l' i

t 6

l' l

l I

).  ;

4

,---,.n..;v-, - -

nn.-vac -- -.m ,. - - - - ,n-, vn---,, --nw. -,n . c-r-,1, , , - - -< , , - . w~.. ,,-l

m '

-79_ ~

. Table II; D.8 Gross Beta Activity in Soil per Unit Surface Area'(pCi/m ) for Third Quarter, 1982.

Samples Collected Sampling Locations July 17, .1982 August-6, 1982 -September 18, 1982 Facility 4 4.04 (0.-196)* -3.91 (0.183) 3.98 (0.185) 44 3.49 (0.167) 4.02 (0.183) 3.89 (0.187)

Adjacent 6 3.88 (0.185) 3.47 (0.168) 3.34 (0.173) 28 3.12.(0.165) 2.72 (0.153) 3.15 (0.179)

! 31 3.36 (0.168) 3.25 (0.156) 3.55 (0.177) l 36 3.04 (0.163) 2.92 (0.160) 3.02 (0.167) 48 3.47 (0.171) 3.22 (0.165) 3.95 (0.193, 50 3.91-(0.182) 3.28 (0.163) 4.04 (0.190)

Reference 16 3.52 (0.173) 3.16 (0.166) 2.74 (0.158) l 17 2.28.(0.148) 2.35 (0.157) 2.70 (0.162) 20 3.63 (0.184) 3.29 (0.164) 3.14 (0.164) 22 3.72 (0.179) 3.45 (0.171) 3.07 (0.162) 23 3.38 (0.158) 2.50 (0.151) 3.50(0.187)

.25 2.59 (0.153) 2.97 (0.157) 3.13 (0.167)

• - Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the- 95% conficience interval, (1 1.96 S.D.).

e

,-80 '

Y ,

Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray'EmittingpdionuclideActivi,ty.perUnitSurface b Area of- Soil (nCi/m ) for Samples Collected July 17,1982 .

Sampling 106 137 95 u s Zr & E

). . Location Facility 4- ~< 240 < 41.4 < 15.1 44 < 273 < 47.1 < 17.2

)

Adjacent 6 < 274 < 47.2 < 17.2 24 < 311 < 53.6 < 19.5 31 < 268 < 46.2 < 16.9 36  : 441 < 76.1 32.2 (46.6)

) '

48. < 4,530 < 781 < 286 30 < 465 < 80.5 < 29.3 Reference 16 < 366

< 63.2 < 23.2 17 < 267 < 46.0 < 16.8

) 20 233 (407) < 40.1 < 14.6 22 < 270

< 46.5 < 16.9 23 < 616 125 (108) < 39.0

)I 25 314 (472) < 54.3 < 19.9

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1 1.96 S.D.).

y

iJ.

d Table II. D.91 .

~

yc.

3 Gamma-ray Area of Soil Emitting (nCi/m p)dionuclide for Samples4e_tivity.per.

Collected Unit August Surface 6, 1982 .

V-

>s'

.. *.7 Sampling 106 95 Ru. Cs Zr & Nb Location Facility 4 < 263 126. (59.2)* < 16 5 44 < 203 84.1 (53.9) < 12.7 Adjacent 6 < 255 < 44.1 < 16.0

.;24 < 477 < 82.5 30.0 31 < 268 < 46.2 < 16.8 36 < 341 172 (75.9) 21.4 (39.5) 48 < 313 < 54.1 < 19.7 fiSO s 265 < 45.8 < 16.6 6

Reference 16 < 293 < 50.7 < 18.4 17 < 274 < 47.3 < 17.2

20. < 290 < 50.1 < 18.2 22 < 308 < 53.2 < 19.4 23 < 185 < 31.8 < 11.6 25 < 336 150 (78.4) 49.7 (42.2)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1 1.96 S.D.).

4 t

n '

Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Activity per Unit Surface

}" Area of Soil (nCi/m )2 for Samples Collected Sentember 18, 1982 .

Sampling 106 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb

) Location

-Facility 4 '< 441 < 76.4 < 27.7

) 44 < 258 < 44.7 18.9 (38.3)

Mjacent 6 < 168 89.1 ~(50.0) 17.7 (33.4) k

. 23 < 259 80.1 (58.2) < 16.3 31 < 327 < 56.7 < 20.6 j 36 < 226 73.3 (58.3) < 16.7 i 48 < 221 < 38.2 < 13.9 50  ;< 313 < 54.2 81.2 (48.8)

)

Reference 16 < 244 83.0 (56.1) < 15.3 17 < 259 < 44.9 < 16.3 20 < 474 92.6 (86.5) 30.5 (62.9) 22 < 262 < 45.2 < 16.4

! 23 < 475 < 82.5 36.5 (53.7)

) < 260 < 45.0 25 69.3 (44.5)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 957. confidence interval, ( : 1.96 S.D.).

)

j; .-.

o ,

Table II. D.10 Tritium, concentration in soil. water and Strontium 69, Strdntium 90 Activity per unit surface of Soil for Samples Collected July 17, 1982 .

Sampling ' Tritium' Strontium 89 Location (pC1/1) (pCi/m2) Strontiug)90

'(pci/m Facility

.4. < 283 < 14.3 < 16.6 44 602'(253)* < 12.4 < 14.7 Adjacent, *

6 < 283 17.9 (23.1) < 17.3 28 521 (252) < 11.0 < 12.5 31 < 295 < 9.48 < 11.1 l ^ 36 515 (252) < 10.4 16.2 (13.7) i 43 < 295 < 12.9 < 15.4 l 50 396 (251) < 14.1 < 16.9

' keference 16 < 283 -

< 11.1 15.3 (15.0) l-j 17- 560 (252) < 13.9 < 15.7 20 < 283 < 12.3 < 14.3

, 22 e < 11.0 < 13.1 23* * < 295 < 13.9 20.7 (29.8) ,

'25' ,

598 (253) < 9.45 97.8 (14.3) i i {

!

• Uncertaintie's (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence

) interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).

• • Collected 7-25-82.

e . Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

[.

fl Table II. D.10 Tritium, concentration in soil water and Strontium 89, g

Strontium 90 Activity per unit surface area of Soil for Samples Collected- August 6. 1982 .

Sampling Tritium Strontiug)89 S:rontiug)90 Location. (pCi/1) (pci/m4 (pc ./m Facility 4 < 297 < 9.61 96.3 (15.1)*

44 < 297 74.9 (39.6) < 19.8 Adjacent

6. < 297 12.2-(21.4) < 14.0

. 28 e < 11.6 < 13.0 31 < 297 48.8 (27.6) < 14.5 36 < 297 < 11.9 21.4 (15.6) 43 < 297 74.0 (30.5) < 15.2 50- e 34.4 (24.5) < 12.5 Reference 16 < 297 14.6 (22.0) < 14.3 17 < 297 45.2 (23.9) < 15.2 20 < 297 25.3 (20.4) 12.6 (14.2) 22 < 297 18.5 (29.6) < 16.9 23 < 297 40.1 (15.9) < 10.7 25 < 297 28.5 (18.0) 36.6 (14.0)

• Uncertaintiec (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (: 1.96 S.D.).

e Insufficent volume for analysis.

n l

i 3

~

Table II. D.10 Tritium, concentration in soil water and Strontium 89',

-Strontium 90 Activity per unit surface of-Soil for  ;

Samples Collected! September 18, 1982 .

b Sampling Tritium Strontium 89

. Location (pC1/1) (pCi/m2) Stronting)90 (pC1/m

>~

Facility.

4 d -

9.70 P4.0 (13. !. ) ^

44 d -

8.61 10.6 3-Adjacent 6 d < 12.8 < 15.6 28 d < 7.99 18.3 (12.6) 31 d < 8.56 14.8 (13.6) 36 d < 8.08 13.3 (12.7)

)

43 d 11.4 (24.4) < 11.9 50 d < 13.2 < 16.4 Reference 16 d < 8.40 55.9 (13.1) 17 d 10.2 (15.6) < 11.0

) 20 d < 8.62 < 10.3 22 d < 8.44 15.6 (12.6) 23 d < 8.44 < 10. 3

) 25 d < 8.16 25.4 (13.1)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( + 1.,9 6 S. D'.

)' ~ .

d Sample lost during anal)ysis.

)-

' 86-k II.E. Aquatic Biota ~

~

Table II.E.1 shows gross beta and strontium concentrations observed in aquatic biota collected during the second half of 1982. Gross beta concentrations in the sample types are higher than any particular y fallout fission product because of the presence of the naturally occurriny radionuclisles, e.g. K-40. ihe Stront.ium-H9, Sr-90, aml

-gross beta concentrations observed were essentially the 'same, but D in many cases-less than observed during the last half of 1981. There was no indication that downstream values were higher than upstream.

~

Concentrations measured in aquatic biota in the effluent streams were

)

not.different than upstream. This further supports the contention that particulate fission product release from the reactor is negligible.

Due to the low number of samples collected for each report period, statistical analyses are tentative at best.

Table II.E.2 lists Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zn-Nb-95 concentrations measured in the same samples. These concentrations appear to be similar to those measured during the first half of 1982. The input of fallout from the 1980 Chinese Nuclear Weapon Test appears to be

! at undetectable levels presently.

O The high MDC values for seston are due to the fact that such samples are counted by a Ge(Li) spectrometer system rather than the NaI used for most other sample types. This is because seston, which is O

principally algae, collects and concentrates particulate radioactivity, and high resolution is necessary for radionuclide measurement of fission product activity in the presence of Ra-226 and Th-232 natural O

o

ym -x

^

jj - >

g, .

p-h

- radioactivity. Sestonlradionuclide concentrations are generally )

)1

. higher than for the other sample types. I

, Th'e-presence .of Corb.icula fluminea, a species of freshwater clam,~.is being monitored at several sites around the Fort St. Vrain

}.L Nucl' ear Generating Station in Platteville. Corbicula have been introduced ,

l

< to North America'from Asia. -The freshwater clams are now found in large riv'e'r systems in the U.S. from coast to coast. The Colorado l

Division of Wildlife has stated that Corbicula have been found in Northern Colorado, Boyd Lake, some.30 miles from the Ft. St. Vrain I

l. Nuclear Generating Station. To this date, our samplings'have

)' indicated no evidence of Corbicula 'in any of the sampling sites l- . immediately upstream of the reactor.

l l

l o

l I

y p- ^

lL L' .

l l

g_

c,

, .A; Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite 4 Aquatic Biota '

d For Samples collected July, 1982 .**

. Gross Beta Strontium gg Strontium 90- -

Sampling locations pCi/Kg- pCi/Kg. pCi/Kg Fish Upstream 7-7-82 8,650 (347) < 25.8 44.6 (26.0)

Downstream 7-7-82 7,590 (258) < 26.6 < 28.9 Effluent 7-7-82 7,480..(288) < 14.6 17.5 (23.0)

Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream f f' f f

?

Effluent 7- 7-82 3,930 (326) < 38.4 72.6 (34.6)'

Vascular Plants Upstream 7-10-82 30,000 (671) < 6C.3 < 74.5 Downstream 7-10-82 24,500 (501) < 33.8 57.5 (43.3)

Effluent 7-10-82 33,800 (590) < 27.9 77.3 (54.8) .

Seaton Upstream f f f Downstream 7- 7-82 24,700 (1,070) 307 (367) < 226 Effluent f f f

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence intervals.

f Sample unavailable.

i Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite 2 Aquatic Biota For Samples collected August 31, 1982 .

q Sampling locations Gross Beta Strontium 89 Strontium 90 pCi/Kg pCi/Kg PCi/Kg Fish Upstream 8-31-82 10,900 (382)* < 33.0 < 28.6 Downstream f f f Effluent 8-31-82 8,850 (267) < 38. 7 < 22.0 Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream 8-31-82 6,280 (457) < 85.0 107 (76.0) .

co 8-31-82 7,670 (396) < 59.6 Effluent 61.0 (49.8) P Vascular Plants Upstream 8-28-82 17,400 (299) < 15.3 43.9 (14.8)

Downstream 8-28-82 13,300 (205) < 11.7 24.4 (11.1)

Effluent 8-28-82 22,000 (371) 24.0 (23.4) 83.4 (19.0)

Seston Upstream 8-31-82 23,600 (867) 329 (91.3) < 89.0 Downstream 8-31-82 1,100 (581) 177 (141.) < 121 Effluent 8-31-82 23,900 (1,120) < 103 < 97.7

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence intervals.

• • • Collected 8-28-82 f Sample Unavailable

.y. .y. -

y._. --_-_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

y- __ - . _ _ .- y -_- _ _ _ . _ ___ _ -- _ _._--

.1 - ,

Table.II. E.1 Analysis of Composite

• Aquatic Biota For Samples collected September 24, 1982 .**: 1 Cross Beta Strontium gg Strontium 90-3 Sampling locations pCi/Kg pCi/Kg PCi/Kg-Fish Upstream 9-24-82 6,770 (273)* < 21.9 82.3 (19.0)'

Downstream 9-24-82 7,910 (291) < 31.7. 93.6.(24.6)

Effluent 9-24-82 7,790 (288) < 26.8 50.9'(19.3)

Benthic Organisms -

Upstream 9-24-82 8,880 (469) < 30.2 136. (33.9)

Downstream 9-24-82 10,700 (543) < 131 159- (97.3)s .

i

.e Effluent 9-24-82 8,840 (439) < 76.8 185 (74.4)  ?

i 4 Vascular Plants ***

1 i Upstream 9-12-82 615 (59.0) < 12.5 44.1' (9.39)

Downstream 9-12-82 14,400 (233) < 13.4 '40.5 (12.2) 4 l Effluent 9-12-82 21,700 (353) < 40.5 55.3 (30.8)

I j Seston Upstream 9-24-82 28,500 (1,080) < 47.7 < 54.9 l

Downstream 9-24-82 29,800 (1,230) <.66.3 < 80.9

_ Effluent 9-24-82 41,300 (760) < 55.0 55.0 (60.1)

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

j Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).

] ,

j

• • • Sample collected 9-12-82. >

i 4

y- y v- y u -y --

-y- _-

y. .

Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite

• Aquatic Biota for Sa::ples collected Fourth Quarter, 82.**

Sampling locations Gross Beta Strontium gg Strontium 90 pCi/Kg pCi/Kg pCi/Kg Fish Upstream 12-22-82 17,100 (695) * < 34.7 75.3 (32.2)

Downstream 12-22-82 10,400 (404) < 38.4 73.9 (29.3)

Effluent 12-22-82 7,790 (408) < 30.8 78.9 (19.4)

Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream f f f ,

Effluent 12-10-82 7,420 (562) < 152 67.4 (99.7) y Vascular Plants Upstream 10-16-82 4,950 (139) 70.6 (34.0) 48.1 (19.7)

Downstream 10-16-82 7,770 (204) 126 (51.4) 88.5 (30.7)

Effluent 10-16-82 12,400 (237) < 10.9 36.6 (10.6)

Seston Upstream 12-10-82 26,200 (1,040) 155 (139) < 95.8 Downstream f f- f Effluent 12-10-82 16,700 (829) < 31.1 < 27.0

• Upstrenm Composite: U 42. U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.),

f Sample unavailable.

.m- -

y-..._. - _ _

$ s ~ - y A

Table II. E.2-Gamma-ray- Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in' Aquatic Biota Samples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected .**

Jul y. 1982 Sampling Locations

• Ru Cs Zr & Nb

Fish

. Upstream 7-7-82 < 250 < 78.2 < 33.4 Downstream 7-7-82 1,230 (112) 493 (29.9) 308 (12.5)

Effluent 7-7-82 < 250 < 78.2 < 33.4 4

Benthic Organisms

, Upstream f f f Downstream f f f 7-7-82

.o.

Effluent < 511 < 160 < 68.2 '?

Vascular Plants 1

Upstream 7-10-82 275 (77.2) 286 (19.8) 269 (11.6), J Downstream 7-10-82 < 12.4 94.3 ( 4.88) 70.4 (2.60)

Effluent 7-10-82 < 61.2 81.4 (18.2)

54.5 (10.8) j Seston Upstream f f f Downstream 7-7-82 e e e Effluent f f f.

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

Effluent: E 38.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( t 1.96 S.D.) .

e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

f Sample unavailable.

i

y -

---

.--.---.y-. y- , - - - - .-

_, -' \

i Table II. E.2 i

Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples--

(pci/kg) for Samples Collected August,1982 . **

106 Sampling Locations

• Ru Cs- Zr & Nb i

Fish Upstream 8-31-82 < 255 < 77.7 .< 33.2

Downstream f f f l Effluent 8-31-82 < 255 < 77.7 < 33.2' r

I .

Benthic Organisms

Upstream f f f Downstream 8-31-82 < 255 126. (62.4) 33.6 (25.4) 4-w

) 8-31-82

~

Effluent < 255 122. (62.5) < 33.2

i Vdscular Plants Upstream B-28-82 < 484 773. (115) 1,090. (128)

Downstream 8-28-82 < 477 < 146 < 62.5 4

Effluent 8-28-82 < 192 < 58.8 27.6 (36.5) j Seston-Upstream 8-31-82 < 5,710 < 984 < 358.

f

< 4,320 < 745

) Downstream 8-31-82 < 271 l Effluent 8-31-82 < 6,130 < 1,060 < 385 i

l!

i

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

i Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

i Effluent: E 38.

! ** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.) .

) ;

f Sample unavailable.

)

U' U V U L/ U U U V V_ %r Table II. E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected September,1982 .**

Sampling Locations

• Ru Cs Zr & Nb Fish Upstream 9-24-82 < 253 < 77.2 < 33.0 Downstream 9-24-82 < 253 103 (60.8) * < 33.0 Effluent 9-24-82 < 94.9 < 28.9 14.6 (13.4)

Benthic Organisms Upstream 9-24-82 < 144 75.8 (37.5) 75.1 (18.7)

Downstream 9-24-82 615 (191) < 57.9 83.2. (23.8) .

e Effluent 9-24-82 < 79.8 104 (24.9) 60.3 (12.1)  ?

Vascular Plants '

Upstream 9-12-82 < 589 < 179 < 76.7 Downstream 9-12-82 < 165 171 (51.1) 34.5 (28.4)

Effluent 9-12-82 < 202 209 (62.3) 42.5 (35.0)

Seston Upstream 9-24-82 < 7,320 2,250 (1,620) 602 (725)

Downstream 9-24-82 952 (235) 565 (559)  ; 785 (61.0)

Effluent 9-24-82 < 21,000 < 3,620 < 1,310

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

Effluent: E 38.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (- 1.96 S.D.).

• • • Counted on Ge(li) .

y. -

Table II. E.2 -

Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aqua'ticjBiota Samples:

(pCi/kg).for Samples Collected Fourth Quarter, 1982 ..**'

6

-Sampling Locations

• Ru Cs Zr'& Nb.

Fish Upstream- 12-22-82 .< 259 -103 -(64.9)** < 34.2 .

Downstream ??-22-82 352 ~(87.9) 72.6 (24.5) .16.9 (10.2)

.< 31.4

~

-Effluent s 82 < 238 79.8 (58.9)

Benthi  :, . cras

', Upstrean f f f-Downstream f f f. &

Effluent 12-10-82 < 999 < 309 1,46 (117)

Vascular Plants j Upstream 10-16-82' < 640 396 (160) 132 (137)

Downstream 10-16-82 < 499 239 (124) 164 (72.8) j Effluent 10-16-82 < 315 305 ~(86.5) < 41.2 Seston ***

Upstream < 26,300 < 4,560 < 1,650 12-10-82 Downstream f f f i Effluent 12-10-82 < 23,700 < 4,110 ' < 1,490 -

• Upstream Composite: U 42,'U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

, Effluent: E 38.

** Uncertainties (In parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.).

• • • Counted on Ge(li) detector.

f Sample unavailable.

I l

l l

II.F. Beef Cattle. Two head of beef cattle that graze the Facility

)

~

area are counted each quarter in the CSU whole-body-counter. The animals are washed carefully and counted for 20 minutes each. This method is far more sensitive than counting meat samples and is the method of choice for detecting Cs-137 in the meat food chain of humans.

If thyroid I-131 contamination were significant this would be detected

. from the whole body count. Detectable I-131 activity has never been observed.

Table II.F.1 gives values for whole body counting of beef cattle for the second half of 1982. The animals are selected at random; however, the animal number is recorded and the animal may be retrieved and recounted if necessary. The Cs-137 body burdens are greater than during the first half of 1982, but similar to those observed during the last several years. Variation in Cs-137 concentration reflects a different cutting and/or source of hay and pasture for the animals.

The Cs-137 concentration is expressed as pCi per gram of K in the whole animal. This is done to more easily compare the counts between different size animals. K and Cs are both intracellular cations and by normalizing the Cs-137 activity to K, differences due to fat percentage in the animals are eliminated because the K concentration of fat free muscle is very constant.

Table II.F.2 lists Cs-137, tritium and radiostrontium in muscle and bone samples from an animal slaughtered out of the facility herd.

Note that this animal shows a Cs-137 concentration, normalized to potassium, of 1.45 pCi/gK. This is considerably lower than the fourth

)

fr, i.

'i quarter whole body counting' values above. The difference is probably.

because the animal was on a different fattening ration just prior

.to slaughter. - The tritium concentration in muscle water was low and

~

-the Sr-90 concentration in bone was easily detectable.

) -

h' y

\

t I.-

t . .-. . ._ .- - .._ -._ . _ _ -.-... - ..--.-.- _ _ - _ _ - -

V ~ , -

98.

h$ .

r

{ F Table II. F.1 -' Radionuclides,in Facility Area Beef Cattle.

In-vivo Ganna-ray activity in : Fort St. Vrain Area beef cattle.

Jc y Quarter Values - t 9-18-82 131 7

137 Cs pCi/g K Cow-I .None detected 5.45 Cow 2 None detected 5.49

)

11-27-82 Quarter %1ues Cow 1_ None detected -l 5.86 Cow 2 t None. detected [ 5.72 j.

?

F Table II. F.2.

Radionuclides in Beef Sample from Lccal flerd.

Animal-Slaughtered, Fourth Quarter,1982 *'

Hamburger 137 Cs pCi/Kg- K g/kg Tritium pCi/l

.4.48(0.956)* 3.10(0.0199) 436 (265)

Bone 89 90 5r pCi/Kg Sr pCi/Kg

< 118 913 (150) 1

)

l

• Uncertainties (shown in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence '

y interval (: 1.96 S.D.'). l I

1

f- -

II.G.1 Sample Cross Check' Data.

,. , , To assure the precision and accuracy of the environmental data

).-

obtained from the-radiation surveillance' program provided for the Fort St. Vrain reactor, Colorado . State _ University participates in the

~

~

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored laboratory intercomparison studies program. This involves the analysis of a

. variety of environmental media 'containing various levels of radioactivity. The media, type of analysis and frequency of analysis J'~

are ' summarized below.

The media, type of analysis and frequency of analysis

)~

~

. Medium. Analysis (radionuclide) Frequency l

3 Water H bimonthly

[

Water gross a, gross 8 bimonthly

( jWater 51Cr, 60Co, 65Zn,106Ru,134Cs, triannually l 137 Cs

[ Water 89Sr, 90Sr triannually 131 l Water . I triannually Air particulate 90Sr,137Cs, gross a, gross 8 triannually filters y

89Sr, 9037, 131 7, l Milk. 137Cs, 40K triannually i

?

l For each radionuclide analysis of a particular medium, three

) independent determinations are performed and the mean value is then calculated. The percentage deviation of our determined mean value from the EPA specified value is then calculated.

).

^~.

g- 1

-100-h LTable:II.G.1 gives the EPA cross check data for the.last half of'1982. The EPA has chosen to use the term Estimated Laboratory Precision (ELP), calculated as 3c/N, as the control parameter where N = the number of analyses. Whenever our.mean value falls outside this limit, the sample calculations are rechecked and the sample-reanalyzed if possible. Of the 26 cross check results reported for this' period, only 4 fall outside the ELP. These values are footnoted

'in Table II.G.1'. The recheck process and conclusion is given below for each of.these individual samples.

1. September Air filter, Sr-90. This sample resul.t was only marginally outside the ELP. The sample was recounted but no reason for the discrepancy was discovered.

! 2. October Water Sample, Cr-51. The sample result was outside the ELP even after several recounts. It was concluded that the primary calibration is in error and the ratio between measured and expected values was taken as a correction factor for future Cr-51 EPA sample analyses.

l 3. October Water Sample, Cs-134. The sample as noted in (2) l was recounted several times and the result was outside the ELP.

l- It was concluded that the error was in the spectrum stripping L program. This is being corrected.

I 4. October Water Sample, Cs-137. As discussed in (3), it was concluded that the error was in the spectrum stripping program.

Table II.G.2' lists the results of a cross-check study between this program, the Colorado Department of Health and the Public l

Service Company counting laboratory at the reactor. Water samples l are now collected monthly by personnel at the Colorado Department of

-Health and then split between the three groups. The results for the study for the second half of 1982 were acceptable.

k t

+ ' -

-101-

Tgble'IIiG.I. EPA' Cross-Ch2ck~ Data. Summary Radio .CSU ~ . EPA standdrd

Estimated Labor- ** deviation

[,

L Date nuclide Value ' Value Deviation 'o atory Precision

• from known Water,' fritium pCi/l 8-13-82' . 3H' [2,423' 2,890 360 619 - 16 10-8-82 -3H 2,810 2,560 '350 607 + 10

);, 12-10-82. ~ 3H ._ 2,043 1,990 345 .598 + 2.7 I'

Water, Alpha & Beta- pCi/l

.7-16-82 gross a 15' 16 5- 8. 7 - - 6.3 gross 8 20 15 5 8.7 + 33

) ~

9-16-82 . gross a 18' 29 7.5 13 - 38

. gross 6 . 37 40 5 8.7 - 7.5

. ~11-16-82 gross a 13 19 5 8.7 - 32 l gross S 23 24 5 . 8.7 - 4.2 Water, 5trontium 89 4k 90, pCi/1 li '9-3-82 89Sr 20 25 5 8.7 - 20 9%r 14 15 1.5 -2.6 - 6.7 i

)l e-Air Fil ters, pCi/l 9-24-82 gross a 23 32 8 13.8 - 28 gross 8 ..

60 67 5 8.7 - 10

'3 0S r (1) 17 20 1.5 2.6 - 15 l

137Cs 22 27 5 8.7 - 19 Gamma M ilk, pCi/l i 10-22-82 89Sr 3 - - - -

l 9 0Sr - 19 19 1.5 2.6 0 1311 43 42 5.8 10 + 2.4 137 Cs 27 34 5 8.7 - 21

)'- K 1,581 1,560 79 135 + 1.3 Water, Iodine-131, pCi/l 8-6-82 1311. 82 87 8.7 15 - 5.7 j Gamma kater, pCi/l

~

10-1-82. 51Cr (2) 67 51 5 8.7 + 31

'60Co 28 20 5 8.7 + 25 65Zn .

17 24 5 8.7 - 29 134Cs (3) 58 19, 5 8.7 +178 137 Cs ~(4)33 20 5 8.7 + 65

)

• 30/6

<- ,,  :,,-.,. ..-,--,..n ,-.,--,-.,-.,-,,,..-,..--_-,,,,,,-.,-,,_.-,-,..-,,n.- ,.,-~,,....-,,.,,n,.x

-102-Table II.G.2 Crosscheck Analyses on Split Water Samples Determined k by Colorado State University, Colorado Deoartment of Health and Public Service Company of Colorado.

Collection Sample Gross Beta pCi/L Tritium pCi/L y Date Location CSU CDH PSC CSU CDH PSC 7-9-82 E38 8 13 < 57 23,200 22,400 27,000 E41 9 15 < 57 638 456 < 624

) U42 6 15 < 57 503 < 350 < 624 8-14-82 E38 10 21 < 61 2,320 2,950 2,270 E41 14 21 < 61 < 297 1,350 < 623 U42 7 15 < 61 < 297 477 < 623

) 9-27-82 E38 8 26 < 59 1,540 1,010 1,830 E41 14 55 < 53 1,430 1,210 1,810 U42 6 18 < 50 602 522 1,010 10-29-82 E38 11 17 99 89,200 95,700 76,400

) 23,500 21,700 23,900

. E41 7 18 < 54 U42 9 27 < 54 213 < 350 < 604 11-26-82 E38 10 19 < 57 19,900 20,500 18,200 E41 9 21 < 57 < 296 < 350 809

) 8 < 57 U42 22 < 296 < 350 634 12-23-82 E38 8 16 < 53 6,360 7,480 6,600 E41 7 14 < 53 4,400 6,020 4,940 V42 7 15 < 53 614 450 < 625 i

)

)

n -

t- y7 --103- 1 i

w-

- 1

'l II .H. -  ! Summary and Conclusions  !

Table II.H.1 pres ~ents the primary summary and analysis of data collected during the second half of 1982.- The tabular data may be used for comparison tofprevious reactor operational periods and for comparison to other. operating power reactors. The number of samples aqalyzed in~the' reporting period and the maximum and minimum values for each' sample type-are given. From log-normal analysis of each data set for the last 12 month period the geometric-mean and geometric standard deviations are presented. The arithmetic mean is also calculated back

-for the entire year and for the reporting period.. It should be noted that the tabular: data presented in the body of this report contain only positive calcolated values. Any calculated values less than zero or less~than the minimum detectable concentration (llDC) are listed as less than the-actual MDC for that sample analysis. However, the actual result in all cases was used in the calculation for the arithmetic mean

. values for the last six months. Therefore all values, negative as well as' positive, were included. This procedure is now generally accepted and gives 11 better estimate of the true mean value. Because of this procedure, however, the values listed in Table II.H.1 cannot be calculated directly from the tabular values in the report. It must be emphasized that while it is true that no sample can contain less than t

zero radioactivity, due to the random nature of radioactive decay it is statistically possible to obtain sample count rates less than background and hence a negative result.

l-D e

b

~

.~

{<

_104 Tritium also produces the smallest dose commitment per unit activity y-

intake of any of the radionuclides'that might possibly be released by the reactor. During the current reporting period slightly less tritium

.. 'was released than during the previous period and the downstream tritium-

[ concentrations were correspondingly lower.. It must be noted, however,

~that the resulting " worst case" dose commitment calculation produced essentially negligible dose. The calculated dose commitment was

_0.11 mrem compared to the limit of 3 mrem /yearl and a background rate of approximately 200 mrem / year.

2. The fallout from the October 17, 1980, Chinese Nuclear Weapon

) test was essentially undetectable during this reporting period. Only

, the previous deposition as observed in soil samples was still noted but l

I air concentrations and precipitation deposition values were at present

?

levels. . Nuclear weapon test fallout, however, has since the inception i of the project been noted to be the predominant contribution to background. It is the variation in fallout deposition that requires so many environmental samples to detect any possible increase due to reactor effluents. A simple comparison of preoperational and post operational values is of little value for most sample types because the fallout deposition was considerably greater during the preoperational period.

):

j I NCR (10CFR50) Appendix I, LWR design criteria.

._ _ ~ -

s ,

-105-' .i w

1  !

( ..

The' log-normal probability treatment is to plot all data for each sample type over'the last full year,on log-probit coor.dinates. 'The samples are ranked by. increasing activity concentration and the cumulative _ percentage'of rankings are plotted on the probit abcissa versus the activity concentration on the log ordinate. The geom'etric

.mean value gi 'is determined directly from the 50th percentile point.

The geometric standard deviation is simply the slope of the line which can be calculated from the ratio between the 84.1 percentile and the~

J ~50th percentile. -In a normal distribution the arithmetic standard deviation is an additive parameter to the arithmetic mean; i.e.,

'(i t o), whereas:in the log-normal distribution the geometric standard

, , deviation ogis a multiplicative parameter to the geometric mean (ij.o).

g The-area g between i g divided by og , and ig multiplied by o

g should contain 68% of'the frequency values. The log normal

!. statistical treatment-is tentative when the number of samples in the group-is small. For this reason only the last full year of data points

.is treated by this method. With the log-normal analysis, no bias

! results from using either actual values or less than MDC values.

'From the values presented in Table II.H.1 and the tabular data'of

) the report the following observations and conclusions may be drawn:

.1. ~ Tritium was again the predominant radionuclide observed in the effluent pathways from the reactor. In fact it is the only radionuclide that can be attributed to reactor operation, that can be measured above background in any of the san.ple types. Since the tritium is released as

-tritiated' water, the dilution by the surrounding hydrosphere is great.

Pa u*

l

I

-106-I

3. A comparison of Table II.H.1 with the same table in previous

) reports implies that except for. tritium as noted above, there is no evidence that effluents from reactor op'eration have produced any statistically significant off-site concentrations of radionuclides in I

any sample type.

4. The log-normal treatment of all the data revealed that for most of the data such analysis is appropriate. However, sigmoid distributions were quite often observed.

Sigmoid distributions can be resolved into bimodal or even trimodal log-normal distributions. This is generally interpreted to mean that there is more than one significant

)

activity source term. For all of the data analyzed over the past year by the log-normal treatment, those sample types that are reservoirs or

, sinks for activity, e.g., soil, sediment and TLD, tended to be described

)

by a single distribution. Those sample types which are less stable and fluctuate due to outside sources, e.g., air and precipitation, tended to be bimodal or trimodally distributed, particularly when weapon fallout

)

is present.

5. As in every previous report, it was again apparent that for mo;t sample types the variability observed around the mean values was great. This variability is due to counting statistics and methodological error, but principally due to true environmental variation. It must be recognized and accounted for in analysis of any set of environmental data before meaningful-conclusions can be drawn.

l

)

)

n3 . .

-107-

. - _-;q; y: -n.:r m

i

6. It:can also be concluded againtthat the radiation dose

)l l - connitments lcalculatedifor nea' r by inhabitants orLother parts of the

[ . nearby ecosystems from current reactor effluents is negligible compared to natural ~ background radiation dose and the dose.from atmospheric

)

i

-weapon. testing fallout.

Y h

l l

( i ..

)

y

n >

g k

. Tabic I I .11.1. Maan Vaines for all' Sample Types.

fiumber of Miniminn !h imum Samples .Value Observed o Analyzed 6 Months

.Value. Observed 6 Months i* 8

' i'- -

ri Sample Type. Area 6 Months 1 Year- 1 Year .6 Months.

TI.li Facility '77 0.36 0.79 0.47 1.10 '0.47 0'. 46 '

lix t e rua 1 Adjaeent 70- 0.36 0.52 0.46 .1.11 0.46 0.44:

- t mil / slay ) Re fe rence 72 0.35- 0.52 0.45 1.11 0.45 0.43-Air 1

acility 93 0.60 12.6 4.21 1.75 4;85 4.73-cross a Ailjacent 60 0.60 14.8 4.77 1.75' .5.43 1

'4.911

(fci/m 3)

Alr- Faci 1ity 92 5 '46 19.4 1.48' 20.8 21.1 .

i

ross 6 Adjacent 70 6 43 18.7 1.46. '20.0 . 20. 3 , IE;

. (fCi/m3)  ?'

I

\i r Facility 102 < 277 '2,740 -316 2.81. 157 252 i Tri t ium Adjacent 73 < 277 827 259 1.78 < 277 43.4-

(pci/I) i .

< 5.14 38.0 7.42 .2.37 0.577. .< '5.14 Air composite 26 lat i

{ ((Ci/m3)

~

Air composite 26 < 1.47 65.2 3.66- 2.95 < 1.47 ' <.1.47 106lzg (fCi/m3) a l _ _ .

i a

4 4

7

• x Table 11.11.1, Mean Values for all . Sample Types. (Co,it 'd.)

Number of Minimum Maximum Samples' _Value Observed Value Observed- 2 o N' E Analyzed 6 Months- 6 Months E i' Sample Type' Area 6 Months 1 Year- ~1 Year! 6 Months-Air compositc~ 26 '< 0.463 8.82- ~1.31 2.47 1.24 1.97 4 13"gg ,

(fCi /m3)

Ai r- Composite 26 < 0.191 8.48 0.413- 3.37- 0.375- 0.737.

Rr

((Ci/m3)

Water Effluent 28 3.48 19.4 10.6 1.37- 11.1 - 11,4 Gross a Downstream 18 5.08 17.3 9.80 1.28 10.1 10.2-(pci/1) Upstream 12 4.14 15.6 9.70 1.36' 10.1 '10.6- 4 Potable 12 1.26 19.3 6.11 1.91 7.32 9.04 iS Water Effluent 28 < 287 353,000 1,030 6.37 - 14,000 20,200 Tri t itua Downstream 18 < 282 5,700 471 3.06 1,070 6311 l

(pci/1) ups t ream 12 < 287 447 281 1.54 .15.0 101 Potabie 12 < 282 3,490- 273 2.95~ 186 326 Water lif fluen t 28 < 0.654 1.55 0.490 2.90 0.0959 0.183

'30Sr Downstteam 18 < 0.781 1.96 0.453 2.97 0.111 0.0982 (pci/1) Upstream 12 < 0.735 < 1.35 0.444- 2.81 0.i38 0.102 Potable 12 < 0.681 1.13 0.703. 4.08 < 0.6f'1 < 0.681-6 -- __ _ __

s t

Table II.!!.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)

{

Number of - Minimum- Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Obscryed E o 1 Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months 8 'E E. E' Sainple Type . Area 6 Months ~1 Year . 1 Year '6 Monthsu water ' Effluent 28 < 0.629 2'.94 0.552 2.44 0.240 0.135" 89sr Down st rea m 18- < 0.654 7.63 -0.589 3.11 0.462 0.564 (pci/t) Upstream 12 < 0.617 2.98 0.534' 3.18 0.369 0.291 Potable 12 < 0.605 1.79 0.609 2.29 0.458 0.405 Mater Effluent 34 < 0.679 20.4 1.79 -2.64 <-0.679 <T0.679 1061tu Downstrean. 18 < 0.607 38.6 1.51 2.34 < 0.607 < 0.607.

(pci/1) Upstream 12 < 0.692 3.13 1.44 1.73 < 0.692 < 0.692 Potahle 12 < 0.690 3.19 0.955 3.28 , ,,

water liffIuent 34 < 0.214 7.16 0.981 3.21 1.32 2.37 137Cs Downstream 18 < 0.192 5.20 0.908 2.77 0.115 .1.58 (pci/1) Upstream 12 < 0.675 3.44 0.676' 3.61 0.356' 1.35 PotahIe 12 < 0.235 1.92 'O.545- 2.58 0.162 0.623.

Water lif fl uen t 34 s 0.121 5.79 0.462 3.59. 0.674- 1.16-95Zr Downs t ream 18 < 0.081 5.14 0.382 3.07 0.0586 0.523 (pci/1) Upstre'.m 12 < 0.288 1.63 0.278 2.98 0.139 0.374 PotahIe 12 < 0.116 0.971 0.284 2.46 < 0.116 < 0.116-seJiment lif fI uen t 12 23,900 33,300 32,100 1.12 32,200' 30,400 r,ross c liownstream 18 26,000 44,700 32,900 1.14 33,200 32,800 (pci/kg) Ups t ream 12 23,400 41,300 34,700 1.14 35,000 33,600

.y 4

. - r. .

Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for nll Sample Types-(Cont'd.)

' Number of Minimum Maximum Sampics .Value Observed Value Observed i o -

N '8 Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months i i

Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year- 1. Year. 6 Months 4

sediment I!ffluent 12 < 142 68.9 105 2.56 53. 9 ~' . 30.6-90sr Downstream 18 < 143 38.3 '103 3.11 < 143

.< 143 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 . < 155 '248 130 2.70 < 155 ' < 155 sediment tiffluen t - '12 < 122 308 88.6 3.07 30.3 33.6 l 89sr Downstream 18 < 125 216 129 2.56 79.8L l26.5 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 < 130- 393 162 2.14 63.5 ;51.4 4

, sediment .liffluent 12 .< 2,190 3,610- 2,990 1.52 < 2,190 < 2,190 t W Ru Downstream 18 < 2,290 3,850- 2,640 2.66 < 2,290 < 2,290' y (pci/kg) . Upstream 12 < 2,770 4,150 2,820 2.24 < 2,770 < 2,770 i

sediment fifftuent 12 < 378 < 986 284 3.64 < 378 s 378 137C t. Downstream 18 < 341 2,890 315 3.84 141 .-44.5 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 < 479 2,290 459. 2.15 172 282 sediment liffluent 12 < 137 < 358 154 2.09 < 137 < 137

9tr Downstream 18 < 143 1,310 151 2.67 26.4 < 143 I

(pci/kg) Upstream 12 < 174 749 153 2.66 16.5 29.8 Precipitation F-1 6 36.5 264 73.5 1.85 88.9 102-t;ross 6 F-4 6 28.2 258 71.4 2.13 93'0-. 113 i

(pci/m ) 2 i

.m - --

~

4

1. h

. 'N" Table 11.!!.'1. Mean Values for all' Sample Types.(Cont'd.) m Number of Minimum . Maximuin , y

-Samples Value.0bserved Value Observed x Analyzed 6 Ekinths- 8' S x '-

6 Months , .

Sample Type- Area- 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year ._6 Months Precipitation F-1 6 < 284 377 159 3.22 .5 284 .< 284 Tritium F-4 6 ' < 284 485 325' 1.23 '-< 284. < 284 (pCi/m2)

Precipitation F-1 6 < 10.4 27.5. 12.7 : t 1.96 < 10.4 . < 10.4.

10%u F-4' 6 < 20.3 97.0 17.4 2.75 < 20.3. < 20.3 (pCi/m2 )

Precipitation F-1 6 < 9.70 .61.9 13.5 3.85 20.4 26.8.

137Cs F-4 6 25.1 117 17.1 3.80 .29.3 48.5 , .

(pCi/m2) g y'

Precipitation F-1 6 < 1.20 20.8 3.19 3.02 < 1.20 2.94 9tr F-4 6 < 5.37 22.9 5.45. .3.19 4.46 9.02 (pCi/m2) 1 Precipitation F-1 6 < 9.96 < 54.6 9.59 3.43 1.08 7.37 "S r F-4 6 < 7.94 < 48.4 6.17 3.41 2.08 5.12 i

'tpCi/m 2).

rreeipitation F-1 6 <-11.4 26.9 8.77 3.21 2.68 . <.11.4-i- 03Sr F-4 6 < 6.10 40.8 5.10 4.60 6.10 < 6.10 2

(pCi/m )

1.90- < 287

~

! Milk Facility 16 < 284 652 235 < 287 I

Tritium Adjacent 16 < 284 393 170 4.36- < 284- < 284 (pci/1) Re ference 16 < 284 647 259 1.78 - < 284- < 284 f

'l

• • . wa -

m Table 11.!!.1. - Mean Values for all Samp!a Types. (Cont'd.)

Number of- Minimum Maximuni Samples Value Observed Value Observed 2 o 8

Analyzed 6 Months 631onths i i Samt,1c Type 'Arca 6 Months 'I Year- 1-Year. 6 Months-Milk Facility 16 < 1.02 2.59 1,54 1.90- 1.48' 1.06'

'30Sr Adjacent 16 < 1.26 4.77. l.47 1.98~ 0.963. 0.825' (pci/1) Reference 16 -< 1.17 2.55 1.63 1.63 0.796 0.664 Mi1k Faci 1ity 16 < 0.990 4.87 1.26 1.99 0.253 0.818 8'3Sr Adjacent 16 < 1.02 9.31 1. 16 3.01 ,0.905 1.65-(pci/1) Reference 16 < 0.969' 9.85 1.12 3.19- 0.525 -1.41 Mi1k Facility 16 < 0.117 6.69- 0.279 4.35 < 0.117 < 0.117 0' 131 I Adjacent 15 < 0.115 6.92 0.243 4.21 < 0.115 < 0.115 'Y~

< 0.117 9.35 0.262 '4.29 < 0.117 < 0.117 (pCi/1) Reference 16 6.30 0.310 3.96 < 0.121' Mill Facility 16 < 0.121 < 0'.121-137CS Adjacent 15 < 0.117 6.70 0.285' 4.29 < 0.117 . < 0.117.4 (pci/1) Re ference 16 < 0.121 < 0.195 0.168 2.13 . < 0.101' < 0.121:

MiIk Facility 16 1.39 1.71 1.52 1.07 1.52 1.52 1.42

~

Nat. K Adjacent 15 1.28 .1.54 1.44 1.06- 1.44 (g/1) Re fe rence 16 1.31 1.58 1.42 1.07 1~. 4 3 1.44 32.3 Fo rage Facility 3 285 753 395 1.57 269 Tritium Adjacent 17 < 283 1,250 277 2.24 64.4 78.8' (pci/1) Reference 15 < 283 791 267 2.33 108 '143

- +

. 2 Table II.II.1. Mean Values for a11' Sample Types. (Cont'd.)

. Number of 41inimum Maximurg Samples Value Observed Value.0bserved xg' o

, Analyzed 6' Months 6 Months '8 ,

x x

Sample Type' Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year: 6 )lonths Forage Facility 6 < 5.11 84.6 '16.1 2.43 < 5.11' < 5.11'-

89S r Adjacent 18 < 6.92 28.8 8.96 2.35 -< 6.92 < 6.924

'(pci/kg)

Re fe rence' 18 < 5.15 125 12.8 2.22 -< 5.15 < 5.05 Forage Facility 6 26.6 241 86.6 ~2.04 107 120

'J ust Adjacent 18 18.9 167 60.3 '1.78 70.0 174.9' (pci/kg) Reference 18 34.4- 182 81.4 1.41 86.0 88.9-Forage Facility 6 < 9.76 185 64.2 3.72 8.90 L9.76 .

W 106Ru Adjacent 18 < 6.94 176' 42.2 2.74 < 6.94 <-6.94L 'i (pCi/kg) Re ference 18 < 17.4 324 56.1 1.83 < 17.4 < 17.4 Forage Facility 6 < 2.99 296 61.2 3.84 98.7' 99.'1 137Cs Adjacent 18 < 12.5 869 26.7 3.51 48.0 68.7 (pCi/kg) Re fe rence 18 < 7.35 132- 28.9 2.95 40.7 48.7 Forage Facility 6 10.8 104 31.7 2.74 43.0 62.1 95Zr Adjacent 18 < 8.46 245 18.6' 2.82 25.4 3 2.1..

(pci/kg) Re ference 18 < 3.14 78.7 16.6 3.46 24.6 24.2 Forage Facility 6 9,990 26,700 14,500 '1.61 15,900 '16,900 i Gross 6 Adjacent 18 2,330 18,500 14,200 1.55 15,200 .13,600 (pci/kg) Reference 18 9,620 28,800' 16,700 1.49 17,800 17,900 i

i b

N f y

, Table II .II.I . Mean Values - for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.):

Number of ' Minimum Maximum- -

. Samples Value Observed' ~Value.0bscryed' :o Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months- - h' I E- i' Sample Type Area 6 Months 1.. Yea r 1 Year' ~6 Menths ,-

Soil- Facility 6 127,000 31,300 30,000: 1.04L 30,000? 30,100 Gross S Adjaccnt 18 21,100 31,300 26,000 1.11 26,200 26,100.' ,

(pci/kg) Re ference - 18 17,700 28,800 23,900- 1.16 24,100: 23,700-Soii Facility 6 3.49 4.04- 3.86' 1.04 3.87  ; 3.8'3 -

Gross S Adjacent 18 2.72 4.04 3.26 1.11 3.38 3.37: '

(uci/m )2 Iteference 18 2.28 3.72 3.08 1.16 3.11 3.06 Soil Fae11ity 6 < 203 < 441 210 :2.25 '< 203 '< 203-10 f'Ru Adjacent 18 < 168 < 4530. 220 4.01. -< 168 .< 168- Y' (nci/m )2 iteference 18 < 185 314 206 1.99) .< 185 <.185 Soil Facility 6 < 41.4 126: 63.1 2.16 53.9- 30.01 137CS Adjacent 18 < 38.2 172 45.9 2.72 3.92 < 38,'2 (nci/m2) Itcference 18 < 31.8- 150 37.0 2.03 29.6- 32.1 ~

Soil Facili ty 6 < 12.7 18.9 14.8- 2.25' < 12.7 ' < 12.7.. I'

'5 Zr Adjacent 18 < 13.9- .81.2- 16.0 3.76 < 13.9 < 13.9 (nci/m2 ) lie ference 18 < 11.6 69.3 12.8 2.85 0.548 5.39 1

I Soii Facility 4 < 283 602 328- l'.31 - < 283'

. < 283 Tritinm Adjacent 10 < 283 3521 283 '1.64 < 283 283 i (pci/1) oc fercuce 11 < 283 598 283 1.62 < 283 .3.66'

)

3 i '

1

p Tabic.II.ll.1. Mean Values'for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)' 4 a

Number of Minimum hktximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed 2 o N 8 i i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months '

Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year- 1 Year' 6 Months' Soii Facility 6 < 8.61 74.9 12.1 1.92 .4.41 ~ 10.0 89Sr Adjacent 18 < 7.99 74.0 9.36- 3.61 8.40 .11.2 2

Re ference 18 < 8.16 45.2 9.22- 2.24 3.97 .8.42

(. pct /m )

Soil Facility 6 < 10.6 96.3 13.9 4.81 27.6 22.7-00sr Adjacent 18 < 11.1 21.4 8.27 2.55 5.36 5.63

( pci/m2) Re ference 18 < 10.3 97.8 11.2 .3.00 14.4 16.4 Aquatic Biota Upst ream 4 6,770 17,100 9,450 1.41 9,970 10,900 b:-

7,590 10,400 8,060 1.16 8,310 8,630 T Fish Downstream 3 4 7,480 8,850 7,920 1.26 8,090 7,980 Gross n Iiffluent (pci/kg)

NA NA 8,880 NA 8,880 8,880 Aquatic Biota Upstream 1 10,700 8,150 8,310 -8,490 Benthic Downstream 2 6,280 1.25 4 3,930 8,840 7,140 -1.42 7,450 6,970 Gross 6 liffluent (pci/kg).

Aquatic Biota upstream 4 615 30,000' 11,100 4.10. 17,700 13,200 vasenlar Plants Downstream 4 7,770 24,500 14,400 1.44 15,300 15,000 4 12,400 33,800 18,800 1.46 .20,000 22,500 Gross a liffluent (pci/kg)

Aquatic niota Upstream 3 23,600 28,500 27,600 1.12 27,800 26,100 Downst ream 3 1,100 29,800 15,500 3.66 22,200 18,500 seston 3 16,700 31,300 ~21,700 1.33 22,500 2,400 Gross a lif fluent (PCi/kg)

'~" ,-.s, - , . . . , . . _ , .

Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)

Table'II.ll.1.

Number of Minimum . Maximum Samples value observed Value.0bserved i o E 8 'E i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months ,

Sample' Type Area 6 Months 1 Year l' Year 6 Months __

Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 < 21.9 < 34.7 20.6 1.45 < 21.9 6.74-

< 26.6 < 26.6

~

Fish Downstream 3 < 26.6 < 38.4 10.3 3.92 "Sr Effluent 4 < 14.6 < 38.7 24.4 1.62 < 14,6 < 14.6:

(pci/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 1 N/A N/A 30.2 N/A < 30.2_ < 30.2 Benthic Downstream 2 < 85.9 < 131 69.5 1.75 < 85.9 < 85.9 "Sr Effluent 4 < 38.4 < 152 67.9 1.67 < 38.4 .< 38.4 (pCi/kg) ,.

Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 < 12.5 70.6 15.3 2.42. 20.4 27.0 C

< 11.7 24.6 4 < 11.7 126 20.5 2.65 7' l vascular l'1 ants Downstream "S r I!ffluen t 4 < 10.9 24.0 17.6 2.15 < 10.9 < 10.9 l (pCi/kg) .

Aquatic Biota IIpst ream 3 < 47.7 329 63.8 4.03 119 172 Seston Downstream 3 < 66.3 307 69.5 5.06 126 162 soSr Effluent 3 < 31.1 .<'103- 19.3 3.45 29.9 29.9 (pCi/kg)

Aquatic niota Upstream 4 < 28.6 82.3 37.8 1.97 45.0 .57.4 Fish Downstream 3 < 28.9 93.6 39.5 1.79 39.5 52.2:

j 90Sr liffluent 4 < 22.0 78.9 30.2 1.82 '30.4 33.2 (pci/kg)

Aquatic niota Upstream N/A N/A 136 N/A 136 136-

) Benthic Downstream 2 1

107 159 127 1.19 129 '133 l

'30Sr Effluent 4 < 84.1 '185 86.0 1.59 94.3 96.5 (pCi/kg)

Aquatic niota tips t ream 4 < 74.5 48.1 23.2 1.93 27.7 37.9 vascular plants Downstream 4 24.4 88.5 45.0 1.52 48.6 52.7 90Sr Effluent 4 36.6 83.4 54.2 ~1.81 63.0 63.2 l (pCi/kg)

~

4 j Table II .II. I . Mean Values ' for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)

Number of 'linimum Maximum

.Sampics .Value Observed .Vrdue . Obscryed i c E

Analyze <1 6 Months o Months- E 'i- 5: -

Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year .1 Year- 6 Months 4 '

) Upstream Aquatic Biota -3 < 54.9 < 95.8'

-30.7 8.45 '< 54.9- .<-54.9-seston Downstream 3 < o0.9 .< 226 115.. 2.12 3 90Sr ' Effluent < 80.9 .<:80.9.

3 < 27.0 55.0 21.9 3.32' 31.6 31!6' (PCi/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 < 250 <.259- 170 2.39 ~< 250 < 250'

' Fish Downstream 3 < 253 1,230 271 2.67 .< 253 106 Ru ~ 259 Effluent 4 < 94.9 < 255 107 2.47 (pci/kg) -< 94.9 .

' 94.9 i

Aquatic. Biota Upstream

,.1 1 < 144 < 144 < 144. N/A < 144 . < 144 ~E nenthic Downstream' 2 < 255 615 541-' 2.01 < 255 '

'198 10Nu Effluent 4 < 79.8 < 999 179 2.23 17.4 (pci/kg) 2.50-i Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 < 589 275 456 1.80- < 589. < 589-vascular plant Downst ream 4 < 12.4 < 499 3.73. < 12.4 201 < 12.4 to%u Erfluent 4 < 61.2 < 315 242 2.12 < 61.2 < 61.2 (pci/kg).

Aquatic niota Upstream 3 < 5,710 < 26,300 7,730- 2.80 < 5,710 < 5,710'

, seston Downstream 2 < 4,320 952 3,590 3.97 5,150 < 4,320 j 10Nu Effluent 3 < 6,130 < 23,700 6,890 4.99 < 6,130 < 6,130

(pCi/kg) j Aquatic niota Upstream 4 < 77.2 103 '56.8 - 2.91 43.3' ' 23.6 .

Fish Downstream 3 72.6 493 64.6 3.90 117 223-137Cs 4 < 28.9 j Effluent 79.8 61.4 2.63 69.8 8.48 i (pci/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 75.8 Henthic Downstream 1 75.8 ~ 75.8 N/A 75.8 75.8

137Cs Effluent 2 < 57.9 126 100' 3.61 < 57.9 75.6 4 < 160 122 205 2.47 263 82.9

, (pci/kg)

m-- - . _ - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _

.-_y- __

_m__ .

_s d

~ -

4 f &

Table II .!I.I'.; Mean Values.for all Sample, Types.(Cont'd.) , ,

Number of Minimum Maximum

. Samples Value Observed .Value.0bserved'

i. o- '

Analyzed

'S I 6 Months'

^

6 Months .i -i Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year '6 Months.

Aquatic. Biota- Upstream -4

< 179 773 155 5 '. 25 - 236 358 vascular Plant Downstream 4 < 146 239 97.4 2.15~ < 146 132' 137 Cs Effluent 4' < 58.8 305 119 1.91 47. 5.- .109 (pCi/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 3

< 984. 2,250 :2,090- .1.74 .573 <.984

~gton ' Downstream 2 <-745 565 681 2.15 300 .. 459' Cs . EffIuent 3' <-1,060 < 4,110 735 6.81' .< 1,060 < 1,060-(pt;Og)

I Aquatic Biota Fish Upstream Downstream 4

3

< 33.0

< 33.0

< 34.2 308 33.0 32.0 1.09 3.45

< 33.0

.46.2

.< 33;0-106 ty.

95Zr Effluent 4 < 31.'4' 14.6 12.0 -3.95 < 31.4 < 31.4 ~

i (pCi/kg)

Aquatie Biota lipstream 1 75.1 75.1. 75.1. N/A 75.1' =75.1 centhic Downstream 2 33.6 83.2' 72.4 2.03: <-136 58.4' 9Zr liffluent 4 < 33.2 146 86.3- 2'18

. 88.9 50.8 (pCi/kg)

Aquatic Biota tipst ream 4 < 76.7- 1,090 178 2.44 220 355 vascular Plants Downstream 4 < 62.5 164 55.7 1.86 < 62.5 23.5 952r Effluent 4 < 41.2 54.5' 49.5 -1.41 < 41.2' < 41.2 (pCi/kg) '

Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 < 358 602 730- 1.75 ' < 358 < 358 Seston Downstream 2 < 271 785 209 2.30 243 526 95Zr Effinent 3 < 385 < 1,490 659 2.49 < 385 < 385-(pci/kg)

Beef F-41 4 5.45 5.86 3.85 1.70 4.27 5.63- .

137gg .l pci/g Nat K 1

r. ,

-120-III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM SCHEDULE III.A. Environmental Radiation Surveillance- Schedule Table III.A.1 outlines the collection and analysis schedule for -

the radiation surveillance program. This is identical to Table 5.9.1 in the Technical Specification.

The surveillance program provides for collection and analysis of environmental samples within an area extending to a twenty-mile radius from the reactor site. A concentrated area of sampling within a one-mile radius is designated the " Facility" zone; the area from one to ten miles, the "Ad.iacent" zone; while the " Reference" zone extends from ten to twenty miles. The data obtained from the Facility zone are statistically compared to those from the Adjacent and Reference zones to test for any significant differences in values. A similar rationale

) is used for surface waters and sediments. These are partitioned into

" Effluent" (Fann Pond and Slough), " Downstream" and " Upstream" locations for statistical analysis.

) The sampling locations are shown in Figures III.B.1 and III.B.2.

Tables III.B.1, III.B.2, and III.B.3 give some detail of the sampling

. sites in the Facility, Adjacent and Reference zones respectively.

) Sanpling location A35 was relocated 1/4 mile east of the previou!,

location, due to fann owner's request.

No other changes in sampling sites were necessary during the

) current reporting period.

)

TABLE DI. A.1. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM SCllEDULE

• E=posure Routes o, SAMPLING FREQUENCIES AND ANALYSES - by Action Levels, Media & Sample Types based upon actual emissions as percentages of release rates authorized by 10 CF R 20 (No of Locations / zone)' Action Levet 1: Less than 3% l Action Level 2: 3% to 10% Action Level 3* Greater than 10%

EXTERNAL EXPOSURE TLD Cheps Average mR/ day determined by OUARTERLY cumulative exposures; Average mR/ day determined by (F-13. A-12. R-12) collection and arealysis in rotation of 1/3 of att TLDs MONTHLY. MONTHLY analysis of all TLDs.

ATMOSPH E R E Membrane felters for Gross beta, every fitter, WEE KLY; Same as for Level 1, plus gross Gross alpha and beta, every filter; particulatn charcoal gamma spectrum of filter and alpha on c'e weekly set of gamma spectrum of filter and cartridget for iod.ne. cartridge composites, MONTH LY, filters, MONTH LY. cartridge composites, all WE E KLY.

(F 4. A-3)

Tritium oud? Specific activity of tritium in atmospheric water vapor by passive absorption and liquid scinnflation countmg.

(F-2) OUARTERLY MONTHLY g WEEKLY l

WATE R I

Potable water Gross beta, tritium and gamma spectrum analyses; Facility area and nearest of f site supply (F-1, A-1) (shallow walls at town of Gilcrest,6 miles northeast).

OUARTERLY MONTHLY MONT HLY, plus Sr 89 & 90 analyses

recipitation No co!!ection or analyses of Gross beta, MONTH LY Gross beta, tritium and Sr 89 & 90 (F 21 precipitation at Level 1. MONTHLY; gamma spectrum of composite,00 AR TE R LY, e ea Surf ace water & sitt Gross beta. tntiumi and gamma Same as for Level 1, but Same as for Levet 2, plus N (F-3. A-.1) spectrum OUARTERLY. MONTHLY. Sr 89 & 90 analyses, MONTHLY. 7 FOOD CHAlNS Soil, foraga & crops Tritium and gamma spectrurn analyses of forage and crops in the most probabte routes to man.

(F -2. A-6. R-6) OU A R TE R LY, as avaitalde MON TH LY during growing season Same as Level 2, plus Sr 80 & 90, (i.e., spring, summer and f all). (i.e., approw. April to October). plus concurrent soil samples analyred for the same nuctides, MONTHLY during growing season, Geef cattle No analysis of beef at Level 1. Gamma spectrum, tritium and Same as for Level 2, plus total (F-t) Sr 89 & 90 analyses on one meat body count of 2 to 4 animals sample from tv ef raised in Faality from Facility Area QUARTERLY, Area; ANNUALLY,at end of grazing season (i.e., late fati).

Milk Tritium, gamma spectrum and Sr 89 & 90 analyses on composite: Same as for Level 2, but (F-2, A-6 R-6) Facility Area only, OUARTE ALY. Facility Adjacent and Reference Areas; WEEKLY during pasture season, MONTHLY durmg pasture season, otherwise, MON TH LY, otherwise QUARTERLY,

, AQUATIC BIOT A (2 streams. above Gross beta and gamma spectrum analyses of composites of each of 4 categories: Same as for Levet 2,plus and below (1) suspended organesms, (2) benthic organisms (3) wascular plants arwt (4) fish. Sr 89 & 90 analyses.

discharge points) OU ARTE RLY, as availatWe. g MONTHLY during summer; (F.2. A-2) otherwise OUAR TE RLY, as available.

l

' Table 5 9-1. sn Technical Specolocations.

1 Legend F - Facehty Zone A - Adjacent Zone R - Reference Zone 2 Tritium Analysis of Surface Water Only

.: 4 7 s

I LTable 111.B.1. Facility area and effluent-sampling locations for environmental media.

Loc. Media Sampled at Location' Location and Description (see Fig. II.B.1)

No. TLD AIR M S H90 AQB Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments F l' * ** 0.8 mi. N; ' potato cellar; TLD on pole at NE corner barn;' precipitation on hill E of barn F. 2

• 1.1 mi. NNE; cabin.

F 3 *

• 0.7 mi. SE; old dairy barn : TLD on-1st pole N of' drive.

F 4 * **

• 0.8 mi. S; first shed along drive; precipitation in corral; forage and soil S of shed. '

F- 7

• 0.8 mi. NNE; pole by gate at corner of-Goosequill Rd.

F 8

• u0.6 mi. NE; 2nd pole S of cattle-guard on hill.

~F 9-

• 0.8 mi. SSE; 2nd pole W of pump house. -i F 11

• 0.9 mi. SSW; 0.3 mi. W of intersection of 191s and 34.. R! '

• 0.8 mi. SW; ~7th pole N of intersection.

~F 12 F 13

• 0.6 mi. WSW; pole nearest intersection.

F 14

• 1.0 mi. NW; pole nearest corner.

F 44 *

• 1.1 mi. E; Leroy Odenbaugh dairy.

F 51

• 0.3 mi. N; Ted Horst farm, pole SW of house.

F 46

• 1.0 mi. SW; 2nd pole N of intersection, near Aristocrat Angus office.

F 47

• 0.4 mi. E; pole near driveway to pump house.

F 49

• 0.1 mi. W; tap outside Visitors Center E 38 *

• 1.3 mi. NNE; Goosequill pond. _ .

E 41

• 0.2 mi. NW; Concrete slough above and below point of entry of plant water.

Codes: F =. Facility area (within one mile). ,

E = Effluent surface streams.

TLD = Thermoluminescent Dosimeter for measuring external gamna exposure.

AIR = Air sampling location; ** = atmospheric precipitation collected.

M' = Milk sampling locations.-

HO 2

= Water sampling locations; silt also sampled from surface sources.

AQB = Aquatic biota sampling locations.

S = Soil and Forage sampling locations.

E

- -_a_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _

- - ~ - - - - - ~ .~ n Table 111.B.2 Adjacent area sampling locations for environmental media.

Lot. Media Sampled at Location '

No. TLD AIR H S Location Descriptionjsee Figs.11.B.1 and II.B.2)

H2O AQB Oistance and UTFection from Reactor; Comments A5 *

• 4.5 mi. NNE; A6 * * *

• Lloyd Rumsey farm; 2 mi. N,1.5 mi. W of Peckham.

5.5 mi. S; Clifton Wissler farm; 2 mi. W, 2.5 mi. S of Platteville; TLD on pole 30 ft. N of parlor.

A 27

• 5.0 mi. NW; A 28 * *

• 1 mi. S 'of Colo. 56, I mi. E of I-25, pole on NE corner.

6.0,mi. NW; Virgil Podtburg dairy; Colo. 60, 2 mi. W of Johnstown; TLD A 29

• on last pole on NE corner.

3.5 mi. NNW; 3 mi. S; 1.6 mi. E of Johnstown TLD on pole by the stand A 30

• of trees.

3.5 mi. NE; I mi. S of Colo. 256 on Colo. 60, pole on NE corner.

K-31 * *

• 6.0 mi. ENE; A 32

• 1.5 mi. E of Peckham; TLD on pole in front of house.

4.0 mi. E; A 33

• 5.0 mi. SE; 3 mi. N of Platteville; 1.2 mi. E of US 85; NW pole.

A 34

• 6.5 mi. SW; Niles Miller Dairy; 0.2 mi. S, 0.5 mi. E of Platteville.

A 35 *

• I mi. E of I-25 at Colo. 254; pole on SW corner. ,

3.5 mi. SSW; Ritchf e Pyeatt,;9526 Hwy 66. l'/4 mi w of Jt Co. 66 & Rd 21 E$

U A 36 *

• 8.0 mi. W; p

Dave Gruber dairy; 2 mi. W of I-25 on Colo. 56, then 1.5  :

mi. 5 TLD 0.5 mi. W.

A 48 *

• y A 50

• 9.5 mi. NW ._Bil l ay dair 5.0 mi . S E;; 0.8 m . E~of'y Platteville.

2 mi. E and 1. mi N of Peckham.

0 37

• 12.5 mi. ENE; 0 39

• Lower Lathan Res. ; 2.5 mi. E of LaSalle.

5.0 mi. ENE; Gilcrest water from U.S. Post Office 0 40 *

• 5.5 mi. ENE; 0 45 *

• 1.0 ml. N; South Platte River at Colo. 60.

St. Vrain Creek at Jct. Rd.19h, 0.2 mi from discharge.

Codes: A =

Adjacent area (one to ten miles from reactor).  !

0 =

Downstream potable or surface waters.

All other synbols same as for Table III.B'1. .

W

~ ~ a ~ ~ - - - _

Tablo III. B.3. Reference area and upstream sampling locations for environmental media Loc. Media Sampled at Location Location Description (see Figs. II. B.l. and II. B.2.)

• TLD AIR H S H30 AQB Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments.

No.

R 15

• 11.5 mi. NW; 4.2 mi. W of I-25 on Colo. 60; TLD on pole W of f arm

. driveway.

R 16 * *

• 11.8 mi. NNW; Hountain View Farms; N sido of Colo. 402 W of I-25.

• R 17 * *

• 11.8 mi. NNE; Bob Schneider Dairy; 1 mi. S of US 34 on RD 25; on polo 0.5. mi. N of pario'r on RD 25. ,;.

10.0 mi. NNE; on pole on SE corner of intersection of 65th Ave. and i

R 18

• 37th Street (Greeley).

R 19

• 13.3 mi. NNE; US 34 at 47th Ave. (Greeley); pole on SW corner, opposite golf course.

R 20 * *

• 11.1 mi ENE;. Dick Stroh dairy: 2.mi. E;,1.6 mi. S of LaSalle; TLn on. nnle W narlor R 21

• 11.9 mi. E; 5 mi. E of US 85 on Colo. 256; then 1 mi. S; TLD on pole on C SW corner.  ?

Ucgans. Dros. Dairy; 4.2 mi. S of Platteville; 4.2 mi. E of R 22 * *

• 11.1 mi. SE; US 85; TLD on 1st pole E of drive.

R 23 * *

• 11.5 mi . S ; , Dick Silver; 3.5 mi. W of Ft. Luoton,TLD on 1st pole W. on drive

• 12.2 mi. SSW; I-25 at Colo. 52; pole '.W. of the f rontage road; R 24

. NW corner.

R 25 * * * ~ 11.7 mi. WSW; Angelo Vendegna Dairy; 4 mi. N of Cclo. 52 on RD 1.

R 26

• 12.2 mi. WNW; On US 287, 2.5 mi. of Colo. 56, 2nd pole S on RD 2E.

• 1.5 mi. WSW; St. Vrain Creek at bridge, RD 34.

U 42 U 43 *

• 0.6 mi. E Couth Platte River, at dam and inlet ponds.

1 I

Codes: R = Reference area (greater than 10 mileo from reactor).

U = Upstream from effluent diccharge points.

~

All other symbols as in '2'able II.I B.1.

-125-

)'

III.B. Sampling Location Maps.

)

I

)

)

)

)

)

)

?

)

-126-

)

Figure III.B.1. On-site Sampling Locations

)

) <x N.

'/ ' - l) 3 ( JL N @ , ~ ,- ] p u.y '

- - . Id

~

l\

,/

/ N' ' y "-' g .7

] l F-l s

/ l I ' '

/

J

/

/ .

• E fl--D r-'

00 $ $"*----

8 t

l

\

\

J

% \

/ ,, v aa '" ImW  %  ;

D '

l C 0 s u,a 4 w

\ g g

l f--- . J

\ wcg l

I

- -- \

. l l

0 c

j.o

\ l

'\\Yi f

\

\

l*

l .

/

/ ,

l l

F-4 /

x _ ., -

) On- site and close-in sampling locations.

F = facility area, E effluent stream.  !

U = upstream, D = down'tream. l l

J =

-127-

) Figure III.B.II. Off-site Sampling Locations l  ! s, E4 I I C' Ii \l

> I _ l ,* O s _

p >

_j__ g h_@.l_ __-9g1Pc 's i T"4%

o,

. . 4 f Lovetano l l/ / ll

) pf l '

. I l l f I

, y i j y gj-ieij "^ ~ 5 l / 1

- > Jf le .g

_o

• _

msTOw n

% dt.g%g n M , l

)m oL c ,  ;

l .

st*Twouog 9 9 _

l l lPtc Mau! 1 l I

I . ILc st- f

~

- - - - - - O - _; -_.L._ __ . . _ _ _

__ i _ _____p  % r__

Q- ,

my grao ],

I '

WIL ON.RES

.- a d

- ~

lM ,fi i i 4J w u gl 'l f; O PLaTT E , t kI# gr ""'" P ' i9

[

I"J Le i ~1!

to. ', .T pp ,,

--t r ; y 3 \ [ (([4_m e h I__ j q' _ .l i ~1 I r '._ 4 __1_ _. _ _

of U '

i [

' d - - - f-l T- - '

b 3(

l i -- -- ~ ~ - b -M I

l

[ j k ----

'fb! g

'S

-- /

i

}

. __j

] -

g j - .i l g T. I l _l_ ' '

j[f FT.LUPTON I 2 l 6

l

/ t L '

'V A g I l l .

l l l

) O S miles 10 miles SCALE D

P

.