ML20134D166

Rev 1,Vol 6 to Final Survey Rept,Final Survey of Group E (Book 2A of 2)

ML20134D166
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	01/30/1997
From:	SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY GROUP, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20134D159	List: ML20134D155 ML20134D166
References
NUDOCS 9702050011
Download: ML20134D166 (467)

Text

. - . .___ _ _ _ ___ - - - _____-

i I

l Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Station

! Deconunissioning Project i

l l

Final Survey Report i

! VOLUME 6 i

j

FINAL SURVEY OF GROUP E (BOOK 2A OF 2)

REVISION 1 1

i l

j Prepared by:

Scientific Ecology Group, Inc.

j Field Services Division i

1 1 9702050011 970131 i

{DR ADOCK 05000267 PDR 1'

)

i i

1

[

1 i

j l

1 4

i d

5

THIS BINDER IS ATTACHMENT 3

TO PSCo LETTER P-97007 i

THIS INCLUDES i

CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY RESULTS i

FOR THE FSV i

LIQUID EITLUENT PATHWAY -

THE BINDER IS TO BE ADDED TO THE FSV FINAL SURVEY REPORT l ,

AS BOOK 2A OF VOLUME 6 1 i

I k

i 1

. I i i l

i l

i i

Public Service Company of Colorado

)O l Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Station

! Decommissioning Project i

i

{ Final Survey Report - Volume 6 i

i

! Group E - Effluent Discharge Flow Path l Revision 1 i

?

APPROVED BY:

Project w /C /-a 7.-f7 Date

] lon' Protection %hager l APPROVED BY: d Vke president SEGA.k M MF/f7 pate'

Field Services and Transportat n APPROVED BY

( EP /[50/1 7 PSCO Deconunissi6ning Program Director Date osse 10 5 JAN 3 01997 Decomnussioning Safety Review Committee Prepared by:

Scientific Ecology Group, Inc.

Field Services Division

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

, (

l G 1

l RADIOLOGICAL CIIARACTERIZATION OF THE LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY:

SUMMARY

ASSESSMENT i INCLUDING 1994 SCOPING SURVEY 1995 CIIARACTERIZATION SURVEY l 1996 FOLLOW-UP SURVEY l

This report is provided as part of the Final Survey Report, Volume 6 for Survey Group E.

Effluent Discharge Flow Path i

O Table of Contents j Report Summary 1.0 Introduction i

2.0 Assessment of Elevated Measurements from Characterization Surveys Appendix A Scoping Survey Maps Appendix B Characterization Survey Maps Appendix C Follow-Up Survey Maps Appendix D Liquid Effluent Pathway Scoping Survey Report Appendix E Liquid Effluent Pathway Characterization Survey Report Appendix F Liquid Effluent Pathway Follow-Up Survey Report j U 1

-.sm,umn--s e a m m a,xw an, as sam.sih m 6maa"r..enL- a- e-wa- ~D.s--- m4_.,;:OSA2ad_smw,i-MA. s A Ao-nMaad4e-6 6-- k6, __wa-m_,n ss__,,,,.ws_m+-h.a-~w e 6 o b _4 _ A na ,, dam I

I i

i 1 -

i I

i 1

i i THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY i

l I

LEFT BLANK $

}

I i

4 l

l I

l 4

i .

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

SUMMARY

This report summarizes three separate surveys performed at Fort St. Vrain to characterize the l l ' liquid effluent pathway prior to the Final Survey. A complete report of each survey is provided, i

including all individual sample results, and discussions ofinstrumentation and procedures used.  ;

These survey reports are provided in the following Appendices i

1994 Scoping Survey Report Appendix D 1995 Characterization Survey Report Appendix E l 1996 Follow-Up Survey Report Appendix F ,

Soil, sediment, and water samples in these surveys were evaluated and results were expressed as an annual dose contribution, or TEDE. The Fort St. Vrain Final Survey Plan limits doses from residual nuclides in soil and water to 10 mrem /yr.

Section 2.0 below provides an assessment of each sample location with an elevated survey result of 10 mrem /yr or greater. These locations are described and the associated survey results are tracked until the dose decreases below 10 mrem /yr, as a minimum.

This report demonstrates that the Liquid Effluent Pathway area was well-characterized prior to the Final survey, with over 1170 samples taken from ditches, ditch banks, adjacent pasture lands, the sediment storage area, and the farm pond. This comprehensive characterization effort was a significant factor in the design of the Final survey, so that survey resources could be focused on those areas with the greatest potential for contamination. i O

rsv wRc arsmNSFSENAL, SURVmVOL WGROUP FMOF3 1 REVISION I

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the elevated results of samples and measurements taken during the 1994 Scoping survey, the 1995 Characterization survey, and the 1996 Follow-Up survey of the liquid effluent pathway. Elevated results are for survey locations with a result of 10 mrem /yr or greater.

A result identified as elevated during various surveys performed prior to the Final survey is tracked until the point in time where the result of a sample taken in proximity to the original 4

sample was less than the guideline value. The elevated results identified during the Final survey are discussed in the Final report.

The Scoping survey consists of samples designated as D1 through D58. Preliminary surveys prior to the Scoping survey (9/93 through 8/94) were designated as A and B. The samples collected during A and B surveys were not taken according to the sampling protocol established for subsequent surveys. Thus, the results of the samples from Survey A and B are not applied to the established dose conversion factors for evaluation. The information obtained from these samples, however, was used in designing the subsequent Characterization surveys. The results of the A and B surveys are listed in Appendix A of the " Liquid Effluent Pathway Characterization Report", which is Appendix E to this report. The locations identified as elevated during surveys A and B were included in one or more of the subsequent Characterization surveys and, therefore, are not included in the listing of elevated samples which are tracked in section 2.0 of this report.

The chronology of the surveys of the effluent pathway is as follows: O Survey Dates Number of Samples Scoping Survey 11/94 - 1/95 129' Characterization Survey 2/95 - 3/95 753 Follow-up Survey 5/96 - 6/96 288 Final Release Survey 8/96 - 10/96 837 Total 2007

• total includes surveys A and B.

The Scoping survey was intended to determine the necessity of further follow-up. Scoping survey data provided information used in the design of the Characterization survey. Several additional elevated areas were subsequently identified in the Characterization survey.

Information from each of the surveys prior to the Final survey was used to support and justify the classifications of areas evaluated during the Final survey.

O rsv une ntsrossrsnxat suavevivoL 6eonour toon 2 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT .  !

l

.- The tables in this report track the effects of decay, weathering ar.d migration on the radionuclide i concentrations which were initially or subsequently identified in the liquid effluent pathway. The - l reduction in subsequent sample activity observed in some areas may also have been caused by the sampling process. This is especially true for bank sediment samples where the sampling of I the sediment deposited on the soil surface essentially decontaminated that area. )

i l It may appear that certain localized Characterization survey samples, e.g., Goosequill Ditch l Sediment, exhibited an increase in annual dose contribution since the Scoping survey. A review l

} of the entire data set for that location indicates that an overall increase was not evident. A  :

i discussion of this evaluation can be found in the " Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway l l Characterization Report", Section 5 (Appendix E to this report). The localized increase in i j

~

individual sample points can be attributed to the dynamic nature of the sediment deposition and the liquid releases made during the time between the Scoping and Characterization surveys. ' The Scoping survey results initiated the implementation of additional controls on the liquid effluent.

During the period between surveys, these controls were being defined and fully implemented,

! - and they contributed to the eventual reduction of nuclide concentrations in this area.

Ditch sediment samples often represented a composite of available material along the length of the ditch rather than a depth of 0 - 6". Sediment samples on the banks of the Goosequill Ditch represented sediment which was clearly visible and in most cases the deposited sediment was significantly less than 6" deep. A 6" depth of the sediment in the various areas of the ditches was frequently not available. Applying the dose conversion factors to these samples results in a conservative estimate of the annual dose.

Subsurface samples were taken in selected areas during the characterization and follow-up i

surveys to define the extent of the migration of the radionuclide concentrations into the soil. The results of several of these samples are listed in this report. The doses for the subsurface samples l

do not consider the shielding afforded by the uppermost 6 inches of soil, and therefore, could be

! reduced by multiplying the result by a factor of 0.165. The 0.165 dose reduction was obtained l by running RESRAD for each nuclide of interest (those listed in FSV-TBD-209) at the 10 mrem /yr SGLV concentration with a 0.15 m cover to simulate the shielding that a subsurface soil sample receives from the surface soil. (The details of the development of the 0.165 factor are discussed in the response to Question 2 of the NRC Comments on Public Service Company of Colorado Submittal, " Proposed Sampling and Survey Plan for Effluent Pathway. Fort St. Vrain Final Survey Program.")

i 1

! i rsv wac assrowsrsrmt suavswvot ucaour roor' 3 REVISION 1 i

r i

~ - , . - - - - . .

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Sample identification numbers referenced in this report are listed on maps found in the appendices to this report. These maps have been extracted from the original survey reports, and reflect the original figure number designation. Applicable maps from each survey are found in the appendices listed below.

Survey Map Appendix Scoping survey A Characterization survey B Follow-up survey C Final Release survey see Final Survey Report O

4 FSV NRC RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 4 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT m 2.0 ASSESSMENT OF ELEVATED MEASUREMENTS FROM Iv ) CIIARACTERIZATION SURVEYS As noted above, survey reports for the 1994 Scoping survey, the 1995 Characterization survey, and the 1996 Follow-up survey are provided in Appendices D, E, and F, respectively. Survey location maps for elevated sample locations from these three survey efforts are provided in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively.

In each survey effort, samples were analyzed for their nuclide constituents, and the results were expressed in terms of annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE). The Fort St. Vrain RESRAD model had not been developed at the time these surveys were performed, so different dose conversion factors (mrem /yr/pCi/g) were used. Both the Scoping survey and the Follow-up survey used dose conversion factors in Draft NUREG/CR-1500 to estimate the annual TEDE.

The 1995 Characterization survey used a draft site-specific pathway model to estimate the annual TEDE.

This assessment describes each sample location with an elevated sample result (TEDE) greater than 10 mrem / year, and tracks the survey results for those locations through subsequent surveys, at least until the TEDE is less than 10 mrem /yr. In many cases, Scoping survey results are tracked through subsequent Characterization and Follow 'sp surveys to the Final Survey. Survey results identified in this assessment section have all been converted to FSV-TBD-209 dose conversion factors for comparison purposes, and will therefore not be the same as the TEDE

, values identified in Appendices D, E, or F for the same sample numbers.

i For information and comparison purposes, selected survey results that are less than 10 mrem /yr are also identified and tracked through to the Final Survey.

C'\

V 1

rSV NRC RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL UCROUP r" "

5 REVISION 1

i LIQUID EFFLUFET PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT l l

Scoping Survey Result D5 ,

Scoping survey sample D5, shown on map pages A-1 and A-2 resulted in an estimate of the annual dose of 29.453 mrem /yr. This sample was collected within Irrigation Ditch 2, slightly '

south of the input from the Goosequill Ditch. Irrigation Ditch 2 is located at the eastern boundary of the North Marsh. As shown in the table below, this location was subsequently sampled during the Characterization survey and identified as location DTCH.2.001.0-6 (shown on map page B-12). The resultant estimate of the annual dose was 55.733 mrem /yr.

During the Follow-up survey, surface and subsurface samples were collected at this location, and were identified as samples DTCH.2.001.XX and DTCH.2.001.XX.SUB, and are shown on map pages C-3 and C-4. The estimate of the annual doses for these surface and subsurface samples was 1.546 and 1.139 mrem /yr, respectively.

During the Final survey, surface samples were collected at the original location, and several other downstream locations within Irrigation Ditch 2. Final survey location 10 was designated i at the original sampling location, and the estimate of the annual dose was 1.975 mrem /yr. The balance of the samples from the downstream locations within Irrigation Ditch 2 were identified  ;

as Final survey locations 11 through 19 and ranged from 7.889 to 0.258 mrem /yr; and as 44 i through 54 and ranged from i1.003 to 1.603 mrem /yr.  ;

I The Final survey sample collected at location 47 which resulted in an estimate of the annual dose '

in excess of 10 mrem /yr was investigated and dispositioned as described in the Final Report. i 9

1 rsv unc atsrOwsrsnNAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP FAOD 6 REVISION 1 l

l

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

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT (r) m SCOPlNG CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW-UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples Result Samples Result Survey Area Samples Result tweavvo envenevo - 7 trr6gation Ditch 2 D1 0 899 D2 0.395 D3 0.171

. D4 3.723 D5 29.453 DTCH.2.001.04 $5.733 DTCH.2.001.XX 1.546 E0008L2001G1T01 10

' 1.975 TCH.2.001.XX.SUB 1.139 11 7.889 12 2.368 13 2.053 14 4.479 l 15 1.835 16 2.285 j 17 2.544 18 0.258 e

19 0.388 i E0008L2001G1T02 44 1.603 45 2.618 l j 46 2.917

! 47 11.003 l 48 6 639 52 1 875 53 1.975 ,

54 1.975 l

] E0008LZ001G1G01 58 0.674 4

59 6.750  !

60 4.650 61 6.838 62 6.393

. (ditch bank) 63 0.106 (dech bank) 64 0.121 (dtch bank) 65 0.105 1

(dtch bank) 66 0.144 4

l

. 1 F

[

C FSV NRC RESPONSFSTINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP WM 7 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D6:

Scoping survey sample D6, shown on map pages A-1 and A-2, resulted in an estimate of the annual dose of 10.408 mrem /yr. This sample was collected within Irrigation Ditch 2, slightly north of the input from the Goosequill Ditch. This portion ofIrrigation Ditch 2 is located at the northeastern boundary of the North Marsh. Two locations in close proximity to Scoping sample D6 were subsequently sampled during the Characterization survey and identified as DTCH.2.003.0-6 and DTCH.2.002.0-6, shown in map page B-13. The resultant estimate of the annual doses was 2.922 and 15.756 mrem /yr, respectively.

During the Follow-up survey, surface and subsurface samples were collected at a location slightly to the northwest, and were identified as samples DTCH.2.002.XX and DTCH.2.002.XX.SUB, shown on map pages C-3 and C-4. The estimate of the annual dose for these surface and subsurface samples was 4.650 and 2.030 mrem /yr, respectively.

During the Final survey, surface samples were collected at the original location, and several other downstream locations within Irrigation Ditch 2. Final survey location 8 was designated at the original sampling location, and the estimate of the annual dose was 1.930 mrem /yr. The balance of the samples from the downstream locations within Irrigation Ditch 2 were identified as Final survey locations 1 through 7 and ranged from 7.914 to 0.690 mrem /yr; and as 49 and 50, and 55 through 57, which ranged from 8.595 to 3.777 mrem /yr.

SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW 4fP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY GURVEY Samples Resun Samples ResuN Samples Result Samples Number Result eau.mw ,.

Irrigation Ditch 2 _

D6 10 408 DTCH.2 003 0-6 2 922 E0008L2001G1T01 a 1.930 DTCH.2 002 0-6 15.756 DTCH 2 002.XX 4650 7 4.077 DTCH.2.002.XX.SUB 2.030 6 3.694 5 7.914 4 4 947 3 4 020 2 1.501 1 0 690 E0008LZ001G1702 49 6.595 50 7.545 55 3.777 56 8 583 57 6.992 FSV NRC RESPON5ES/ FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP F/30F3 8 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERI7ATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D15:

[A Scoping survey sample D15, shown on map page A-1 resulted in an estimate of the annual dose of 16.432 mrem /yr. This sample was collected within the Jay Thomas, which is a stream bed.

The sample was collected slightly north of the confluence with the Goosequill Ditch. Two locations within close proximity to the Scoping survey location were subsequently sampled during the Characterization survey and identified as location JT. SED.004 and JT. SED.005 shown on map page B-9. The resultant estimate of the annual doses was 1.451 and 8.295 mrem /yr, d

respectively, During the Follow-up survey, a sediment sample was collected slightly downstream of the

, previous samples and was identified as sample JT. SED.005.XX shown on map page C-1. The estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.967 mrem /yr.

During the Final survey, several samples were collected within close proximity, and other downstream locations. These samples were identified as Final survey locations 2 through 5, and ranged from 1.095 to 0.0 mrem /yr.

i l

l SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW-UP FINAL i

, (

SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samp6es Result Samples Result Samples Number Result

1. wumys t===wt - ,

i Jay Thomas Ditch D7 8.185

D8 1.853 D9 (2) 8 528

D10 (2) 7.932 011 (2) 2.753 D12 0.198 D13 0.368 D14 0.053 D15 16 432 JT. SED.004 1 451 JT. SED.005.XX 0.967 E0004LZ001GZT01 2 0 050 JT. SED.005 8.295 3 0.262 4 1.095 5 0 000 (2) Sediment deposited 'A the banks of the Goosequill Ditch from ditch dredging. Sample depth was usually less than 15 cm.

.V' rSV NRC RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 9 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT 1

Scoping Survey Result D21: l Scoping survey sample D21, shown on map page A-1 was collected from the uppermost 2 inches of soil along the Goosequill Ditch and was composed primarily of '.ediment dredged from the .

interior of the ditch. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 99.377  ;

mrem /yr. This sample was collected immediately adjacent to the Goosequill Ditch east of Weld '

County Road 19%, between the North and South Marshes.

During the Characterization survey, four samples were collected in close proximity to Scoping sample D21 and identified as GQDB.uR.016 - 018 (map page B-5), and GQDB. SOIL.030 (map  !

page B-4). The samples designated with ".uR." were biased to locations of relatively elevated exposure rate. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for the above samples was 0.337, 1.491,1.133, and 0.0 mrem /yr, respectively. In addition to the soil sample, a sample was collected from the ditch, and was identified as GQDB. SED.011 (map page B-6). This sample {

was composed primarily of sediment. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample I was 6.141 mrem /yr.

During the Follow-up survey, a surface soil sample was collected at the original Scoping survey I

location, and was identified as sample GQDB.SOILO30.XX shown on map page C-1. The estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.0.

During the Final survey, several surface soil samples were collected within close proximity to l the original Scoping survey location. The Final survey sampling locations were designated as 29 through 33. (Samples 32 and 33 were collected from the opposite side of the ditch bank.)

The estimate of the annual doses ranged from 2.713 to 0.537 mrem /yr.

SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples Result Samples Result Samples Number Result (m=wm twowm wwwwm twowe Gooseguill Ditch Banks D16 (2) 7.120 D17 (2) 0.746 D18 (2) 3.064 D19 (2) 6 M3 l D20 (2) 4 253

! D21 (2) 99 377 GODB.SOILO3D 0 000 GODB SOtLC30.XX 0000 E0002LZ001GZT01 29 2 622 l GODB SED.011 6 141 30 2.713 l GODB uR.016 0.33' 31 1.159 l GODB uR.017 1 491 (opposite bank) 32 0.711 GODB uR 018 1.133 (opposite bank) 33 0.537 (2) Sediment deposited on the banks of the Goosequill Ditch from ditch dredging. Sample depth was usualty less than 15 cm.

rsv une nesroNsestr1NAL suavEYtvot 6/onour o/3or) 10 REVISION 1 l

l

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D23:

Scoping survey sample D23, shown on map page A-1 was collected from a depth ofless than 15 cm, and was composed primarily of sediment dredged from the interior of the ditch. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 52.303 mrem /yr. This sample was collected immediately adjacent to the Goosequill Ditch east of Weld County Road 19%, between the North and South Marshes. During the Characterization survey, two samples were collected 1 within close proximity to Scoping sample D23 and identified as GQDB. SOIL.024 and GQDB. SOIL.026 (shown on page B-4). The resultant estimate of the annual dose for these samples was 0.031 and 0.0 mrem /yr. An additional soil sample was taken in the vicinity of l Scoping sample D23 in an area of elevated exposure rate. This sample was identified as GQDB.uR.014 (shown on page B-5). The estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.658 l mrem /yr.  !

During the Follow-up survey, a surface soil sample was collected at the location of the Scoping survey sample, and was identified as sample, GQDB. SOIL.024.XX (shown on map page C-1).

The estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.398 mrem /yr.

During the Final survey, surface samples were collected in close proximity to the original location. Final survey locations 27 and 28. The estimate of the annual doses for these samples was 0.633 and 1.392 mrem /yr, respectively.

SCOPING CHARACTER!ZATION FOt t ')W-UP FINAL  ;

SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples , Result Samples Result Samples Number Result tw -

Goosequill Ditch Banks D22 (2) 4.758 D23 (2) 52.303 GODB SOILO24 0 031 GQDB SOILO24.XX 0.396 E0002LZ001GZT01 27 0.633 GODB.SOILO26 0.000 28 1.392 GODB uR 014 0 658 (2) Sediment deposited on the banks of the Goosequill Ditch from ditch dredging. Sample depth was usually less than 15 cm.

l n

PSV NRC IU:SPONSES/FNL SURVEY /VOL WOROUP MOD 11 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT ,

Scoping Survey Result D25:  !

Scoping survey sample D25, shown on map page A-1 was collected from a depth of less than l 15 cm, and was composed primarily of sediment dredged from the interior of the ditch. The  !

resultant estimate of the ann"d dase for this sample was 10.041 mrem /yr. This sample was )

collected immediately adjacent to the Goosequill Ditch east of Weld County Road 19%, and slightly east of the South Marsh. During the Characterization survey, two samples were collected within close proximity to Scoping sample D25 and identified as GQDB. SOIL.021 and GQDB. SOIL.023 (shown on map page B-4). The resultant estimate of the annual dose was 0.249 and 0.0 mrem /yr, respectively.

No additional samples were collected in this location during the Follow-up survey.

]

During the Final survey, one surface sample was collected at the original Scoping survey location, and two additional samples were collected within close proximity and downgrade on the opposite side of the ditch. These Final survey locations were identified as 24, 23 and 25, respectively. The estimate of the annual dose for these samples was 0.0, 0.0 and 1.954 mrem /yr, respectively.

SCOPING CHARACTER 1ZATION I ' FOLLOW-UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples Result Samples Result Sample # Number Resutt mwomw cwomw *==mW 1 Goosequill Ditch Banks 024 (2) 8.154 D25 (2) 10.041 GQDB.SolL021 0.249 E0002LZ001GZT01 23 0.000 GQDB.SolLC23 0 000 24 0 000 25 1 954 (2) Sediment deposited on the banks of the Goosequill Dtich from ditch dredging. Sample depth was usualty less than 15 cm.

4 FSV NRC RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 12 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT  !

Scoping Survey Result D26:

Scoping survey sample D26, shown on map page A-1, resulted in an estimate of the annual dose of 32.249 mrem /yr. This sample was collected from the north bank of the Goosequill Ditch, immediately east of County Road 19%. This location was also adjacent to the southern boundary of the South Marsh. .

r During the Characterization survey, two surface and three subsurface soil samples were collected  ;

at locations identified as GQDB. SOIL.018, GQDB. SOIL.020 (map page B-4), and j GQDB.SUB.004 - 006 (map page B-8). The estimate of the dose for samples GQDB. SOIL.018 r and GQDB. SOIL.020 was 0.0 mrem /yr for the surface soil and ranged from 0.469 to 0.0 mrem /yr for the subsurface samples. Also,10 additional investigative surface soil samples were  ;

collected within proximity of subsurface sampling locations GQDB.SUB.004, GQDB.SUB.005, i and GQDB.SUB.006. These samples were identified as Characterization survey locations  !

GQDB.INV.004.1 through GQDB.INV.006.2 (map pages B-7), and ranged from 2.655 to ,

i 0.0 mrem /yr. '

Additional samples, GQDB.uR.0ll - 013 (map page B-5), were collected at locations of relatively elevated exposure rate. The resultant estimate of the annual doses for these samples was 4.082,12.642 and 4.119 mrem /yr, respectively.

i Sediment samples were also collected at locations identified as GQDB. SED.008 -

GQDB. SED.010 (map page B-6). These samples were composed primarily of sediment from  ;

the interior of the ditch, and the resultant estimate of the annual doses was 18.640, 8.205 and )

67.485 mrem /yr, respectively. The material from the interior of the ditch was removed prior  ;

to Final survey, and deposited in the Sediment Storage Area for further evaluation. All of the  ;

Characterization samples were collected in close proximity to Scoping survey sample location  ;

D26.

l l

During the Follow-up survey, one surface and one subsurface sediment sample were collected from the ditch bank within close proximity to Scoping survey sample D26, and were identified as GQDB. SED.008.XX and GQDB. SED.008.XX.SUB (map pages C-1 and C-2). The estimate of the annual doses for these samples was 4.118 and 0.249 mrem /yr, respectively. Also, a sediment sample was collected slightly downstream and identified as GQDB. SED.010.XX. The estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.0 mrem /yr.

Additionally, one surface soil sample was collected from the ditch bank within close proximity to Scoping survey sample D26, and was identified as GQDB. SOIL.018.XX (map page C-1). The estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.112 mrem /yr.

During the Final survey, four surface soil samples were collected within close proximity to Scoping survey location D26, and were identified as Final survey locations 19 through 22. The estimate of the annual dose for these samples ranged from 4.094 to 0.047 mrem /yr.

l i l

l l

4 i

rsv NRc asseOwses/nNAL $URVEY/VOL 6/OROUP E/30" 13 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT 4

SCOPING CHARACTER 12ATION FOLLOW UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Sample # Result Sample # Result Samp6es Result Sample # Number Result t= wyn (===v6 tw Goosequlil Ditch Banks D26 34.249 GQDB. SED.008 18.640 GQDB. SED.008.XX 4.118 E0002LZ001GZT01 19 0 047 GQDB. SED.009 8.205 GODB. SED.006.XX.SUB 0.249 20 0.396 GQDB. SED.010 67.465 GQDB SED.010.XX 0.000 21 0.000 GQDB uR.011 4.082 GQDB. SOIL 018.XX 0.112 22 4 094 GQDB.uR 012 12.642 GODB.uR.013 4.119 GQDB.SUB.004 0.000 GQDB.SUB 005 0469 GODB.SUB.006 0.000 GQDE.INV.004.1 0.000 GQDB INV.004.2 0.000 GQDB.lNV 004.3 0.000 GODB.lNV.004 4 0 000 GQDB.tNV.005.1 0.000 GQDB.lNV.005.2 0.034 GQDB.lNV.005.3 0.000 GODB.INV.005 4 2 655 GQDB.lNV.006.1 0 000 GQDB.INV.006.2 0.000 GQDB. SOIL 016 0.000 GQDB SOIL 020 0 000 4

FSV NRC RESPONSESTINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/3OF3 14 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D43:

Scoping survey sample D43 (map page A-1) was composed of sediment, and was collected from V

within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch. This sample was collected from the confluence of Irrigation Ditch I and the Goosequill Ditch, west of County Road 19%. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 15.421 mrem /yr.

One additional sediment sample was collected from this location during the Characterization survey and was identified as GQD. SED.044 (map page B-1). The estimate of the dose for this sample was 0.308 mrem /yr. No additional samples were collected during the subsequent Follow-up survey.

Prior to Final survey all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch, and Scoping survey ,

location D44 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch was surveyed as a non-suspect affected l surface. In addition to the surface activity measurements, concrete samples were collected from l

several locations and analyzed by spectral analysis. These results are discussed in the Final Report.

SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW 4AP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples j Result 3amples Result Sample #

onwwwe, Number Result tnwe,wes Goosequill Ditch -,

1. y D27 (4) 0.016 D28 (4) 2.394 D29 (4) 1.991 D30 (4) 1.106 D31 (4) 0.700 D32 1.356 033 1.728 D34 3 482 D35 0.026 D36 0.070 D37 (2) 9.393 D38 1.120 D39 0 720 D40 (2) 0409 D41 0 920 D42 0.374 D43 (3) 15421 GOD SED 044 0 308 l (2) Sediment deposited on the banks of the Goosequit! Ditch from ditch dredging. Sample depth was usually less than 15 cm.

(3) Sediment samples taken from within the Goosequiti Ditch (4) Samples taken from Sourth Marsh area contained large amounts of swamp grass and roots and may not be representativeof soilactivity O

FSV NRC RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 15 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT l

Scoping Survey Result D44:

Scoping survey sample D44, shown on map page A-1 was composed of sediment, and was  !

collected from within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch. This sample was collected from the  !

Gonequill Ditch, immediately north of the effluent discharge point which is located west of I County Road 19%. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 28,801 mrem /yr.

During the Characterization survey seven sediment samples were collected from the interior of the ditch within the immediate proximity to the D44 location. These samples were identified I as GQD. SED.004 through GQD. SED.010 (shown on map page B-1). The estimate of the dose for these samples ranged from 16.062 to 2.146 mrem /yr. Additionally, sediment samples were l collected from the banks adjacent to this location and identified as GQDB. SED.001 (map page B-6), and GQD. SED.039 through GQD. SED.043 (map page B-6). The estimate of the dose for l

these samples ranged from 2.874 to 0.0 mrem /yr. l l

During the Fcilow-Up survey one sediment sample was collected from the interior of the ditch within proximity to the Scoping sample D44, and was identified as GQD. SED.006.XX. The estimate of the dose for these samples was 3.819 mrem /yr. Additionally,4 sediment samples

{

were collected from the surface of the soil on the ditch banks adjacent to, and slightly ,

downstream of Scoping survey location D44. The sediment samples from the banks were identified as GQDB. SED.001.XX and GQDB. SED.003.XX through 005.XX. The estimate of -

the dose for these samples ranged from 0.139 to 0.0 mrem /yr. All Follow-Up sample points are  !

shown on map page C-1.

Prior to Final survey all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch, and Scoping survey 9'

location D44 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch was surveyed as a non-suspect affected surface. In addition to the surface activity measurements, concrete samples were collected from ,

several locations and analyzed by spectral analysis. These results are discussed in the Final Report. l i

l l

SCOPING CHARACTER 12ATION FOLLOW UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Sample # Result Samples Result Samp6e# Result Samples Number Result tawwwm eve =vn anwomy) -

Goosequill Ditch D44 (3) 28801 GOD. SED 004 2 146 GQD. SED.006.XX 3819 GQD. SED.005 6 460 GQDB SED 001.XX 0 000 GQD. SED 006 16 062 GQDB SED.003.XX 0.139 GOD. SED 007 5 027 GODB SED.004.XX 0.000 GOD. SED 008 11 508 GODB. SED 005 XX 0.101 GQD. SED 009 9 521 GOD. SED 010 13 202 l GQD SED.039 0.000 GOD SED.040 0 053 GOD. SED.041 0.223 GQD. SED.042 0 032 GOD. SED 043 0 000 GODB SED 001 2 874 (3) Sediment samples taken from within the Goosequill Ditch FSV NRC RESPONSESMNAL SURVEY /VOL 6mOUP FAOF3 16 REVISION 1

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

~

4 i

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D45: *

^[ Scoping survey sample D45, shown on map page A-1 was composed of sediment, and was collected from within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch. This sample was collected from the l

Goosequill Ditch, between the effluent discha ge point and the Goosequill Stub, which is located west of County Road 19%. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 48.800

mrem /yr.

During the Characterization survey samples were collected at the location of Scoping survey l sample D45, and the surrounding areas within the ditch. These samples were identified as GQD. SED.008 - 012, and GQD. SED.042 (map page B-1). The estimate of the dose for these -

. samples ranged from 13.202 to 0.032 mrem /yr. Additionally, sediment.was collected from the  !

surface of the soil adjacent to the Goosequill Ditch Banks at this location. This sample was not {

representative of the concentration within the 0 - 6" region and resulted in a conservative estimate ,

of the potential dose. These samples were identified as GQDB. SED.003 - 005 (map page B-6). j The estimate of the dose for these samples ranged from 13.384 to 5.949 mrem /yr.  ;

During the Follow-Up survey, I additional sediment sample was collected from the interior of  ;

the ditch within close proximity to Scoping survey sample D45. This sample was identified as l

GQD. SED.010.XX, and the estimate of the dose for this sample was 2.190 mrem /yr. Also, two j additional sediment samples from the surface of the soil adjacent to the ditch were collected and i identified as GQDB. SED.004.XX and GQDB. SED.005.XX. The estimate of the dose for these l samples was 0.0 and 0.101 mrem /yr, respectively. Follow-up sample points are shown on page 1 C- 1.

Prior to Final survey all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch, and Scoping survey location D44 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch was surveyed as a non-suspect affected surface. In addition to the surface activity measurements, cucrete samples were collected from several locations and analyzed by spectral analysis. These results are discussed in the Final Report. Additionally, during Final survey of the Goosequill Ditch Banks,5 surface soil samples were collected from adjacent locations and identified as locations 4 through 8. The estimate of i

the dose for these samples ranged from.1.447 to 0.744 mrem /yr.

SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW.UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples Result Samples Heeult Samples Number Result

1. ==wyn (===W <=emw 4==avvo Goosequill Ditch -

D45 (3) . 48 800 GOD SED 008 11.508 GQD. SED.010.XX 2.190 GQD SED.009 9.521 GQD. SED.006.XX 3.819 GQD. SED.010 13.202 (See GOD. SED 010.XX)

GOD. SED 011 10.123 (See GQD. SED.010.XX)

GQD. SED 012 8.033 GOD. SED 042 0.032 GQOB. SED.003 5.949 GODB. SED.004 13.384 GQD. SED.010.XX 2.190 E00021.Z001GZT01 4 0.744 GODB. SED.005 9.760 GQDB SED.004.XX 0.000 5 1.085 GQDB. SED.005.XX 0101 6 0.939 7 1.442 )

8 1.447 (3) Sediment semples taken from within the Gooseguill Ditch FSV NRC RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/3Ol'3 17 REVISION 1

)

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D46:

Scoping survey sample D46 (map page A-1) was composed of sediment, and was collected from I within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch. This sample was collected immediately south of the confluence of the Goosequill Ditch and the Goosequill Stub, which is located west of County l Road 19%. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 14.504 mrem /yr.

During the Characterization survey,5 samples were collected downstream of Scoping survey sample D46, and were identified as GQD. SED.014 through GQD. SED.018 (map page B-1). The estimate of the dose for these samples ranged from 28.586 to 0.690 mrem /yr. Additionally, one soil sample was collected adjacent to, and beneath the Goosequill Ditch Banks at the location of Scoping survey sample D46 and was identified as GQD. SED.043. The estimate of the dose for this sample was 0.0 mrem /yr. Additionally,2 sediment samples from the ditch banks were collected, one adjacent to the location and one slightly upstream of Scoping survey sample D46, ,

and identified as GQDB. SED.007 and 006, shown on map page B-6. The estimate of the dose for these samples was 16.557 and 3.614 mrem /yr, respectively. Additionally, a biased surface soil sample was collected at a location of relatively elevated exposure rate and was identified as l Characterization sample number GQDB.uR.006, shown on map page B-5. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 14.080 mrem /yr.

During the Follow-Up survey, I follow-up surface soil sample was collected from Characterization survey sample location GQDB. SED.007 and identified as GQDB. SED.007.XX shown on map page C-1. The estimate of the dose for this sample was 0.0 mrem /yr. l Additionally, two follow-up sedimeat samples were collected at Characterization sample locations .

GQD. SED.015 and GQD. SED.018. The estimate of the dose for the Follow-Up samples at these locations were 3.221 and 3.125 mrem /yr, respectively. The location of the biased surface soil l sample collected at an area of relatively elevated exposure rate and identified as Characterization sample number GQDB.uR.006 was not sampled at this time.

Prior to Final survey, all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch. Scoping survey location D46 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch was surveyed as a non-suspect affected surface. Concrete samples were also collected from several locations and analyzed by spectral analysis. These results are discussed in the Final Report.

During Final survey of the Goosequill Ditch,5 sediment samples were collected from Section B in the vicinity of Scoping survey sample D46, and were identified as locations 1 through 5.

The estimate of the dose for these samples was in the range of 0.177 to 0.0 mrem /yr.

Additionally, during Final survey of the Goosequill Ditch Banks, 5 surface soil samples were collected from adjacent ditch bank locations and were identified as locations 9 through 13. The estimate of the dose for all these samples was 0.0 mrem /yr.

The location of the biased surface soil sample collected at an area of relatively elevated exposure rate and identified as Characterization sample number GQDB.uR.006 was sampled and identified as sample location 11. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.0 mrem /yr.

FSV NRC RTSPONSES.TINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP ESOf1 18 REVISION 1

- - - - . -. .~ . ..

j LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT l l l h

J l

l SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW 4fP FINAL SURVEY

)

SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Semples Result Semple #

{

Result Sempler Result Samples Number Result l tmmmo (memys sneewyo c==mmi i

Goosegulil D6tch D46 (3) 14 504 GQD. SED.014 16.855 GOD. SED.015 26.819 GOD. SED.015.XX 3.221 GOD. SED 016 12.344 GQDB. SED.007.XX 0.000 E0001LZ001BZT02 1 0.000 GOD. SED.017 0.690 GOD. SED.018.XX 3.125 (GQ Stub. Sect B) 2 0.000 GOD. SED.018 28.586 (GQ Stub, Sect. 8) 3 0.177  !

GQD. SED.043 0 000 (GQ Stub. Sect B) 4 0 000 l GQDB. SED.006 3.614 (GQ Stub, Sect B) 5 0.000 GQDB. SED.007 16.557 E0002LZ001GZT01 9 0.000 (W suse of chtch) 10 0.000 GQDB uR 006 14.080 (W sade of ditch) 11 0.000 12 0.000 13 0 000 (3) Sediment semples taken from within the Goosequill Ditch l

3 J

r' PSV tmC RESMNSWFWAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 19 REVISION I

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D47:

Scoping survey . sample D47 (map page A-1) was composed of sediment, and was collected from within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch. This sample was collected immediately north of the confluence of the Goosequill Ditch and the Goosequill Stub, and immediately west of County Road 19%. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 18.333 mrem /yr.

During the Characterization survey, one sediment sample was collected at the location of Scoping

. survey sample D47, and was identified as GQD. SED.015 (map page B-1). The estimate of the dose for this sample was 26.819 mrem /yr.

During the Follow-Up survey,1 follow-up surface soil sample was collected from Characterization survey sample location GQD. SED.015 and was identified as GQD. SED.015.XX (map page C-1). The estimate of the dose for this sample was 3.221 mrem /yr.

Prior to Final survey all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch, and Scoping survey location D47 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch was surveyed as a non-suspect affected surface. In addition to the surface activity measurements, concrete samples were collected from several locations and analyzed by spectral analysis. These results are discussed in the Final Report. Additionally, during Final survey of the Goosequill Ditch Banks, I surface soil sample was collected from the adjacent bank and was identified as location 16. The estimate of the dose 1

for all this sample was 0.0 mrem /yr.

SCOPING CHARACTER 1ZATION FOLLOW UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY j

Samples Result Samples Result Samples Result Samples Narnber Result m wwyn m emvi I c.oosequill Ditch I D47 (3) 18 333 GOD. SED 015 26 819 GOD. SED 015.XX 3.221 E0002LZ001GZT01 16 0 000 j

{

m sedlment samples taken from within the Goosequill Ditch i

I 1

1 1

l l

l l

I FSV NRC RESPONSES /FD4AL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/3OF3 20 REVISION 1

l LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Scoping Survey Result D48:

/

l []m t

Scoping survey sample D48 (map page A-1) was composed of sediment, and was collected from within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch. This sample was co!!ected immediately west of County Road 19% near the bridge. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 34.592 mrem /yr.

During the Characterization survey, one sediment sample was collected at the location of Scoping survey sample D47, and was identified as GQD. SED.018 (shown on map page B-1). The estimate of the dose for this sample was 28.586 mrem /yr.

During the Follow-Up survey, I follow-up surface soil sample was collected from Characterization survey sample location GQD. SED.018 and was identified as GQD. SED.018.XX (shown on map page C-1). The estimate of the dose for this sample was 3.125 mrem /yr.

Prior to Final survey all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch, and Scoping survey location D48 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch was surveyed as a non-suspect affected surface. In addition to the surface activity measurements, concrete samples were collected from  !

several locations and analyzed by spectral analysis. These results are discussed in the Final Report. Additionally, during Final survey of the Goosequill Ditch Banks, I surface soil sample was collected from the adjacent bank and were identified as locations 17 and 18. Sample 18 was i nearest to the location of interest. The estimate of the dose for all these samples was 0.0 and l 1.382 mrem /yr, respectively.

l

/'

v) i 1

SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW-UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples Result Samples Result Samples Number Result

(==wro twowwo <==wro twowvo Goosequill Ditch D48 (3) 34 592 GOD SED.018 28 586 GOD SED.018 XX 3 125 E0002LZ001GZT01 17 0 000 (Bank samples) 18 1.382 D49 0 246 D50 0.579 D51 0 530 D52 0 025 D53 0 456 D54 1.716 D55 0 000 D56 2.992 D57 0 662 D58 1.185 (3) Sediment semples taken from within the Goosequill Ditch f

rsv uRc RESPONSrSFINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 21 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Characterization Survey Result GQD. SED.019:

Characterization survey sample GQD. SED.019 (shown on map page B-1) was composed of sediment, and was not previously identified as being elevated. This sample was collected from within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch, immediately east of County Road 19% near the bridge. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 13.306 mrem /yr.

During the Follow-Up survey, I follow-up sediment sample was collected from Characterization survey sample location GQD. SED.019 and was identified as GQD. SED.019.XX (shown on map page C-1). The estimate of the dose for this sample was 0.875 mrem /yr.

Prior to Final survey all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch, and Characterization survey location GQD. SED.019 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch was surveyed as a non-suspect affected surface.

Additionally, during Final survey of the Goosequill Ditch Banks, 2 surface soil samples were collected from the adjacent bank and were identified as locations 19 and 20. Sample 19 was nearest to the location of interest. The estimate of the dose for all these samples was 0.047 and 0.396 mrem /yr, respectively.

Characterization Samples not previously identifed.

SCOPING CHARACTER!ZATION FOLLOW UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Sample # Result Sampio# Result Sample # Number Result

,, wn wwwwn #w M=W6 Goosequill Ditch GOD SED 019 13 306 GQD. SED 019 XX 0.875 E0002LZ001GZT01 19 0.047 (Bank samples) 20 0 396 4 1 FSV NRC RESPONSES.TINAL SURVEY /VOL WOROUP E/30F3 22 REVISION 1 l

I LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSR%'T Characterization Survey Result GQD. SED.031 and GQD. SED.032:

n Characterization survey samples GQD. SED.031 and GQD. SED.032 (shon on map page B-1) were composed of sediment, and were not previously identified as beir;, devated. These samples were collected from within the interior of the Goosequill Ditch, and were located east of the North Marsh. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for these samples was 31.918 and 63.104 mrem /yr, respectively.

l During the Follow-Up survey,1 follow-up sediment sample was collected from Characterization survey sample location GQD. SED.031 and was identified as GQD. SED.031.XX (map page C-1).

The estimate of the dose for this sample was 0.652 mrem /yr.

Prior to Final survey all sediment and debris was removed from the ditch, and Characterization survey location GQD. SED.031 and GQD. SED.032 on the interior of the Goosequill ditch were surveyed as a non-suspect affected surface.

Additionally, durmg Final survey of the Goosequill Ditch Banks, 2 surface soil samples were collected from the adjacent bank and were identified as locations 46 and 47. The estimate of the dose for these samples was 1.272 and 0.046 mrem /yr, respectively.

,% Characterization Samnies not previously identifed.

I ) SCOPING CHARACTER!ZATION FOLLOW-UP FINAL d SURVEY

)

SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Sample # Result Samp6es Result Samples Result Sample # Number Result mwomy) (awenWo taveaWo Goosequill Ditch GOD. SED.031 31 918 GQD. SED 031.XX 0 652 E0002LZ001GZT01 46 1.272 GOD SED 032 63.104 (See GOD SED 031.XX) (Bank samples) 47 0.046 l

l l

l v) rsv uRc aEspoNsESMNAL SURVEY /VOL WGROUP ESO" 23 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Characterization Survey Result GQDB. SED.016: 1 1

Characterization survey sample GQDB. SED.016 (shown on map page B-6) was composed of sediment removed from the surface of the ditch bank, and was not previously identified as being i elevated. This sample was located between the Goosequill Ditch and Irrigation Ditch 2 adjacent  ;

to the North Marsh. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 15.325 l mrem /yr.

]

Additional Characterization samples were taken in the areas of GQDB. SED.016. These are identified as GQDB. SOIL.038, GQDB. SOIL.036, GQDB. SED.015, and GQDB. SED.017. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for these sample was 0.044, 2.744, 3.901 and 9.428 mrem /yr, respectively.

I During the Follow-Up survey, I follow-up sediment sample was collected from Characterization survey sample location GQDB. SED.016 and was identified as GQDB. SED.016.XX. The estimate of the dose for this sample was 4.107 mrem /yr. Additionally, a surface soil sample was collected slightly to the southwest of Characterization survey sample location GQDB. SED.016  ;

and was identified as GQDB. SOIL.036.XX. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 2.357 mrem /yr. Follow-up samples are found on map page C-1.

During Final survey surface soil samples were collected at the location of Characterization survey samples GQDB. SED.016, and were identified as 38 through 41. The estimate of the dose for these samples ranged from 5.049 to 0.234 mrem /yr.

O Charactertration Samples not prev 60usly identified.

SCOPING CMARACTERIZATION FOLLOW.UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVE'Y SURVEY Samples Resun Samples Resun Sampief Resus Samples Number Resub Goosequill DNch Bank GODB. SED.016 15.325 GODB. SED.016M 4.107 E0002LZ001GZT01 38 0.000 GODB. SOIL.038 0.044 GODB.SOILO36M 2.357 Bank samples 39 0.000 GODB.SolLO36 2.744 40 0 000 GQDO. SED.015 3.901 41 0.000 GODB SED 017 9 428 S side of dMeh 42 0 000 4

rsv unc atSPONSES/ FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 24 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Characterization Survey Result GQDB. SED.017:  !

Characterization survey sample GQDB. SED.017 (map page B-6) was composed of saliment j removed from the surface of the soil and was selected for investigation to determine the areal '

extent of the contamination. The resultant estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 9.428  ;

mrem /yr.  ;

i Subsequently, this location was selected as one of 10 locations on which a series ofinvestigative  ;

surface and subsurface samples were taken. The investigation consisted of selecting 10 locations i from those showing the highest activity, and was designed to evaluate the distribution of l contamination below 6 inches, and the areal extent of the contamination in surface soil. This area l

corresponds to the samples identified as surface samples GQDB.INV.010.1 .4 (map page B-7) _  !

and subsurface sample GQDB.SUB.010 (map page B-8). The four additional surface samples ,

were collected radially from the initial sample location. The estimate of the dose for these_ >

samples ranged from 23.65 to 0.0 mrem /yr. i No additional samples were collected during the subsequent Follow-up surveys at this location.

I During the Final survey, one surface sample was collected at the Characterization survey location  ;

and was identified as location 42. The estimate of the annual dose for this sample was 0.0 ,

mrem /yr.  !

t O

i Characterization Samples not pmviously 6dentined SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION j

FOLLOW UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples Result Samples Result Samples Number Result Goosequill Ditch Banks GQDS lNV.010.1 23.650 E0002L2001GZT01 42 0.000 GODB INV.010.2 0.000 GODB INV 010.3 0.000 GQDB.lNV.010 4 1.016 GODB SED 017 9 428 i

rsv wac assrousesrmL suaveYivoL vanour Enor' 25 REVISION 1 i

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Special Samples for Vegetation:

Ten vegetation samples were taken during the Characterization survey. Five were taken from the Jay Thomas Ditch at intervals between the confluence with the Goosequill Ditch and the input to the Farm Pond. These samples were identified as JT.VEG.001 through JT.VEG.005 (map page B-11). Five samples were taken from the Goosequill Ditch with general locations shown on map B-2. Three samples; GQD.VEG.002, .003, .005, were taken from area of the Goosequill Ditch designated as Section A in the Final survey, one sample, GQD.VEG.001, was taken from Final survey Section C and one sample, GQD.VEG.004, from Final survey Section F.

The analysis results of these samples are listed. The standard dose conversion factors are not applicable and, therefore, have not been applied to these samples. All areas of elevated vegetation were removed from the ditch, prior to the final survey, and taken to the Sediment Storage Area. The results of samples taken from the Sediment Storage Area are discussed in the section titled " Samples Collected from the Balance of the Liquid Effluent Pathway."

The Follow-up survey collected four vegetation samples from the Goosequill Ditch in the area designated as Section D in the Final survey. These samples are identified as GQD.VEG.001.XX through GQD.VEG.004.XX (map page C-1).

Further uptake of radionuclides by subsequent growths of vegetation would cease with the removal of the source term from the water.

Special Samples . Vegetation Mass Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 woms) (eevo) totes) tocsai toevo) toevoi <pcso>

Characterintion Survey Jay Thomas Ditch JT.VEG.001 228 0.277 5.085 15.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 I JT.VEG.002 32 0.000 6.620 33.638 0.000 0.000 0.000 JT.VEG.003 185 0.000 2.861 18.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 JT.VEG.004 102 0.000 1.251 4.983 0.000 0.000 0.000 JT.VEG.005 664 0.000 0 485 2.643 0.000 0.000 0.000 Goosequill Ditch GOD VEG.001 48 0 000 2.793 35.200 0,000 0.000 0 000 GOD.VEG.002 42 0.000 2.758 20.644 0.000 0.000 0.000 GOD.VEG 003 164 0.000 3 612 17.988 1.011 0.514 0.000 GOD.VEG.004 30 0.000 4.755 15.407 0.000 0.000 0.000 GQD.VEG.005 226 0.000 4.994 9.733 1.921 0.000 0.000 Follow up Survey Goosequill Ditch GOD.VEG.001.XX 378 0.000 2.280 1.150 0.000 0.000 0.000 GOD.VEG.002.XX 355 0 000 2.190 1.240 0 000 0.000 0.000 GQD.VEG.003.XX 207 0.000 3.070 1.650 0.000 0.000 0.000 GOD VEG.004.XX 1178 0.000 0.251 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.000 I

FSV NRC RESPONSWFINR SURVmVOL. & GROUP FAO" 26 REVISION 1

4 LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT Samples Collected From the Balance of the Liquid Effluent Pathway:

[rm\] The results for selected samples from the surveys of the balance of the effluent pathway have been correlated. None of these samples exhibited annual doses above the 10 mrem /yr. The results are being provided for comparison.

The selection of the samples was biased towards those samples with the most elevated results.

' i

.)

Selected Samples from the Balance of the Characterization Survey SCOPING CHARACTER!ZATION FOLLOW-UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Sample # Result Samples Result Samp6es Result Samp6e# Number Result mwommt mwomv1 muswr1 Goosequill Ditch Banka GCDB,uR.013 0-2 4 119 GQDB.uR.013.24 GODB.uR.013 44 GODB.uR.014 0-2 0 658 GODB.uR 014.24 GQDB.uR 014 44 GODB.uR 016.0-2 0.337 g GQDB.uR.016.2 4

/

GODB.uR.016 44 GODBuR 017.0-2 1 491 GODB uR.017.24 GODB.uR 017.44 GODB uR.018 0-2 1.133 GODB uR.018.24 GODB uR.018 44 o

FSV NRC RESPONSES /T'INAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 27 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT 4

Selected Samples from the Balance of the Charactenzation Survey Pasture Land SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW.UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Sampies Resut Samples Resun Samp6e# Numt* Resun

! tw taweawn twemms sammy) l Pasture Land PAST. SOIL 0010-2 3.584 PAST.SOILo01.XX 0.121 E0013LZ001GZT01 6 0 850 PAST. SOIL 001.24 PAST. SOIL 00144 PAST.SOILD02 0-2 1.314 PAST. SOIL OO2.XX 0.055 E0013L2001GZT01 3 0.377 PAST.SolLD02.24 PAST.SOILD02 44 PAST.SOILOO9 0-2 1.095 PAST SOILOO9.XX 0 54 E0013LZ001GZT01 15 0.959 PAST. SOIL 009.24 PAST. SOIL 009 44 PAST.SOILO22 0-2 1.710 PAST.SOfL.022.XX 0.255 E0012LZ001GZT01 40 0 851 PAST. SOIL.022.24 PAST.SOILC22 44 9

PAST.SUB 010 0 336 PAST SUB 049 0 514 FSV NRC RESPONSFSMNAL SURVEY /v0L 6/OROUP F130" 28 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT C

Selected Samples from the Balance of the Characterization Survey SCOPING CHARACTER!ZATION FOLLOW UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Semple # Result Sampics Result Samples Samples Result Number Result tw twemys ,

Farm Pond Sediment FP. SED.001.0 6 0 558 E0003LZ001GZT01 29 0.809 FP. SED.001.6-9 0.297 FP. SED.002.0 6 0.517 FP. SED.002.XX E0003LZ001GZT01 26 1.046 FP. SED.002.6-9 0 452 FP. SED.003.04 0.982 E0003LZ001GZT01 27 0.813

/%

\

FP. SED.003 6 9 0 428 Farm Pond Outfall OF. SED.001 0.811 OF. SED.001.XX 0.035 E0003L2001GZT01 33 0.198 OF. SED 004 0.780 OF. SED.004.XX 0 E0003LZ001GZT01 34 0.034 OF. SED.007 0.616 OF. SED.007.XX 0.253 E0003LZ001GZT01 41 0.140 OF.SOILSUR 001 0.093 OF SOILSUB 002 0 072

/m

[ )

g-rsv nac ansrousrmmAL suavEYnot wonour reor' 29 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT S . . - - S. - e - - - " " ~

SCOPING CHARACTER 1ZATION FOLLOW 4JP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Sample # Result Sampie# Rasult SampW Resut SampW NumDer Resuit twowro twomw twwww Jay Thomas Ottch JT. SED 005 6.235 JT. SED 005.XX 0.967 E0004LZ001GZT01 8 0 065 JT. SED 013 $.292 JT. SED 013.XX 0.719 E0004LZ001GZT01 18 0.593 JT. SED.017 4.751 JT. SED.017.XX 1.897 E0004LZ001GZT01 32 0667 JT. SED.019 2.556 JT. SED.019 XX 6.376 E0004LZ001GZT01 35 0.767 JT. SED.024 4.329 JT. SED.C24.XX 0 376 E0004LZ001GZT01 47 0.212 JT.SOILSUR 001 0 054 JT.SOfLSUR.001.XX 0.266 JT.SOtLSUR.003 0 073 JT.SOILSUR.003.XX 0.077 JT.SOILSUR.009 0.000 JT.SOILSUR 009.XX 6.773 JT.SOILSUB 003 0 069 4

g savEwvo' **

4 REVis10N 1

l LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT  ;

i O

l Selected Samples from the Balance of the Chareciertzstion Survey SCOPING CHARACTER!ZATION FOLLOW UP FINAL [

SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY Samples Result Samples Result Samples Result Samplee Number Result twemvo tawowvn towwvo em=wvn j i

trrigation Ditch 1 i

DTCH.1.001 0 124 DTCH.1.001.XX 0.353 E0010L2001GZT01 53 0.073 l

)

Irrigation Ditch 3 ]

DTCH.3.001 1.180 DTCH.3.001.XX 0 841 E0010LZ001GZT01 68 0 685

]

l DTCH 3 002 1.685 DTCH 3 002.XX 1.119 E0010LZ001GZT01 70 1.538 Irrigation Ditch 4

\. DTCH 4.002 0.158 DTCH 4.002.XX 0.747 E0010LZ001GZT01 1 0.715 (N

trrigation Ditch 5 DTCH S 004.XX 0393 E0010L2N1GZT01 30 1.005 DTCH.5.005.XX 0572 E0010LZ001GZT01 28 2.766 DTCH 5 014.XX 1.132 E0010L2001 GIT 01 29 2 426 i

O PSV NRC RESPONSESENAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 31 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT 9

Selected Samples from the Balance of the Follow-up Surve't SCOPING CHARACTERIZATION FOLLOW-UP FINAL SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SURVEY SampW Result Sample # Result Sample # Result SampW Number Result en wwyn tavemy)

.. invwwyn SSASUR.001.XX 0.245 E0014LZ001G1T01 37 3 002 SedimentStorage Area SSASUB 001.XX 0000 37 2 409 SSA SUR.002.XX 0031 39 3 023 SSA SUB 002.XX 0000 39 5 061 SSASUR.003.XX 1.718 31 3 989 SSA SUB 003.XX 4425 31 3330 SSASUR.004.XX 0.000 32 3 734 SSASUB 004.XX 0.000 32 2.194 SSA.SUR.005.XX 0.247 33 3.372 SSA SUB 005 XX 0000 33 3 060 O

l 1

i I

I l

l l

l l

h FSV NRC RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/OROUP E/30F3 32 REVISION 1

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT i

I O l 1

l l

l 1

l l

r APPENDIX A

! SCOPING SURVEY MAPS l

l 1

i i

I 1

lO i

PSV NRO RESPONSES / FINAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E/30F3 REVISION I l

I I

l l

4 i

4 i

t ,

l l

i

! l

' I

! l l

1 i

a l

i THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY i

LEFT BLANK $

e i

1

- l

MEASUREMENT RESULTS O

4 i

\

."J n

~g,. - owwva .

Gme+d 96 4

oos v ,

e~ n 3, i0 i

PRAWING A

~ ,e.,i ,

i 1

fort SL Vran i EfhntPathwk N February 14.1999 y

' NathMarA A R NES j P% g Fde Nane:  ;

PRAWA.PWG ] _

i Figure 3-4 l

Emuent Pathway Soil Samples omwrramocsrsvsuavascomcascomo.3 A-2 REVISION 8

)

c~ ~ ,

i j

i  :

j (. f

( ,

l 4

i

.__=_

i

{ .

ra M '

p,.

i / '

'j

-s 1

N' -

g--j\

/ / ~~ ,

i

• --S- %'?!

5,

._s v. e- /

m ._

'[

s ..

N s

i /

i t

i FO Emuent Path; 0:\ DATA \TECHDOCS\FSYSURVE\SCOPINO\SCOPINO.3 i

I

MEASUREMENT RESULTS ANSTEC 3g APERTURE CARD

's

"' \

Fat St. Vram Also Available on

\

Aperture Card Efht Pathm N xj ) March 19,1999 SOL 5/MPLE5 pm pp) .

" f .~..I l Fde Nane: Plf0iPNG l j~~, _a w o j ..

'l^ j 0c g;. ..;;

c=,s m jc --N[s3Rg[g[J[1

- l Ca.um

' c.

e r-v _ ,.s

• b." "=i; = l .ll y,, = t.1+

< J k ,

I y, # ---+ . _. . . _ . . . .. _.

- = = * -

% & ,m ,j_n =% :.*.',,y

= - ~ ~ - ~

ColHYROM191/7 y' Q

" _ \\*.152z.L'%gg k D[ /\ 5 h

- _7 I':M!!

f g m

'A '

re 3-3 ay S:il S:mples i

9702050011 -

1 REVISION 0 _ _ _ _.

.- . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . _ = _ - - - . - _ . - . - . . - . . . ~ . _ - - _ - - - . - . . - _ .

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT O

l APPENDIX B CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY MAPS O

l l

I I

l O

rsv nac ansronswnNAL SURVEMOL WOROUP f* " REVISION 1

dA .2 .a_na_ ___._a_m.. ,

m-44 %m,_ d e -A.a.4 ,,44$_._.wg,- m4m4 J-w.-ei.,-. ,me- -.4 .=, a w Asm-> . a.4..cem _ wmsea _m m._..-ea .s.maa. g,.

l 1

) l 4

i i

f i

e i

i l

1 i

THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK h 9

. _ . . _ . . - , . - , . . . . . ~ . - __-c_...- . - _ . . ~ _ . , ~ _ - _ . ~ , _ .. _,-,.___. --

p ==

EFFLlfNf PAnfNAY#6 S i 3

,/ PNM POPO g

/ \

, ClMM m / h j I

a i o v?\ //

.\

- JAf fMDMAS

) $s j l,

~

f}

satenm ar

/ /w/x //

ll /

l \

l

,' / /

/  !

i d

/

/ / I l '

l '

$fVr* Mr / t

(

! \

i i '

o. 900- Iooo-i SCM: b====t--s ,

i t

SAMPLE MCFJM00N:

i 600TOlR1 pifOi-SEplMENT 60p.5 Epm

, teate em -- wwarem erruememmy . me em Figure 4-1 Goosequill Ditch Sediment !

o sn4Tamrinmessrsvsuavi'sna4:24 4 y

.-- ~

EFFLUENT PATilWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS

& POINf5 KCORGNG f0 GPS SYS2M ANSTEC

" APERTURE CARD f'~.',~ Also Available on Aperture Card t

\

.4

,,i N -g

. c~'  ; n ;# u

- 1 t

i

- g,y&S r

. ,a .,.;

gg xm R s

,, - .~ .

cr .- -1._,:..::a s.7. ,w n -

.. . ~ . .

/.- -

. ~

/ -

t i

1 tcT 20#119 I/ 2 N

Tp' ,W ;4Y CL/s! H0p25  ;'Af! MAY t 1999 6 \;tAe4\9WNOi

, ample Locations 0 1 1 -~

REVISION 0 __

._ w i

EFFLlfNT PAMNAY AND SAMPLE f- ..

l rwurav \-\

a, ,

/ b

,u l[ \

- swws ww

' NN j

)~'N}

, j ,[wx \ l=- J \

/

,/ ( l/ /

wumum ur / /'O ,/\  !/

j

~ .

i

! ,i / , _ ,'

( /

, / i i

/ / /

,/ j' l N ~i l /i xNmue i I.

\

/

f &;

\

/

i o soo- 1000-ScrE: L , l avcaw 5N/ftE MORMAnCR 600TOULL WCH - W2fAflON ccpW6m Lt2m eos - - - - --- w wnwen EffLLEM PARAY

• 5WFLf POPK Figure 4-8 Goosequill Ditch Vegetation:

o snarastecunoessr svsiinvesonti ra 4 y

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS  !

l'

'OINf5 KCORplNHO &5 SY52M ANSTEC I

APERTURE CARD  !

~w' i i

Also Available on Aperture Card i

\

/

i j

~ ~

x;  !

. - Q '

y e- 0

.-_ ,n

, < , - n.

g' a), . p .g 9 -,

3 \

j

\ _

\ ,

- 6. . _ 12 , : r' '**M w g --- \

l l

'ON09tii I

l NW CM ttM5 cam. m oggg gsmugggggopgg lample Locations 9702050011 ,

t REVISION 0 I

. .. . ._. .. .. . . . . . - = . - . . . .

i EffLLENTPATHWAY AND SAMPL3 l

l i

-- s

/, _,_

x\

yy l

-(

\+

/

U-C. \,h ,

- ,r - 4 i

I sountrLArre ur l s

/

/ ("%fl /

l f /

j l l

/

l  %

v /

/ /

l f.

( '

/

i sr wmar / l j f

/ 1

{

i o- soo- icoo-I A E: ! Avd ., g 5 AMPLE INFORMAflOtt MOSEOLLL DifCH - WATER

@p.WAT.X)0(

LEco s com -- srf MHNFENCE ---

UfMENTPAMAY

• WfLE POM

( Figure 4-J Goosequill Ditch Water S

_ , , , o so4rastecanoessrsvsuavmonarra.4 B-3

l EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS

'OINf5 KCORplNG TO GP5 SY5 FEM ANSTEC APERTURE .

CARD I Also Available on Aperture Card l

i q- - - -

- u. .

D = =, 0

~~

Il I h!!,kd 3J 1

- -m j hi

, .j n , .g.

i os j

T 4 g ?_t f "" ~ *" "

l i

r t0@ 69 t/ 2 IF EVAWNDY CLAR hop (25 PAL MAV4,1999 &\pEAWiNGN9ff\4WDif0t i/

mple Locations 011 ,

r' REVISION 0

a--

l EFFLLENT PAnfNAY AND SAMPLE

[ 'N

/' rwar \

cWM 1 f _ _s

/. , 1 ,

,f'  ;.

fi

. - s wwsu j' N  !

N

/ 'N'N I 1

-uQ-j l.

,/

< )'NG) /,

)!  %, &, J'

/

/ '

/

il

! 1

/

soum pter estr

/ m js /i l i / ,/' m '

/ f j

I.

/ '

/ '

'N

(

/ / j '

. i

/ / I i

/

/ -.

\  : ..

sr vtw e4r j

/

\ / ,/

i O' 900' 1000' M E: h:r=3 -6 mpcc SAMPLE INF2 MAR G%F.COULL pifGi MK - SOL G M 50L.XXX t##1ASCP 0" - 6" teriND ROC -- --

Sitt wnw FENc! EffLifMfPAD* W

• 9Mtf PCNT OgUTC M Goosequill Ditch Bank Soil

_ o in4TastecunocswsvsuavenaarTA.4

l

- = _ . _

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS POINf5 KCORDING TO GPS SYSTEM l

i ANSTEC APERTURE CARD

-. Also Available on l Aperture Card

- i,

-. - - ~ ~ ~ -

l

! I N

_-- f l.

m ,, .

E n" LJ

[ -- h(o)$;(If.hiigi

%sq,-,_. . .

r r.r y ii!(a).

_ P. . .i . ,

s n.

. e a r t_...a:,m

.. :.- ~ ~ ~

7

/ i fi QoQ tQ ll1 n 4lF gr Masy Cuf!H0X25 CA2. MM 4.1999 6 \CTAM4G\92\tf @O sample Locations 9 02050011 -

REVISION 0

. . - ~ . - - . _ = - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . -. .- - . _.

i 1

4

{ EFFLlENTPATHWAY AND SAMPLE

)

l / rarcw s

D j

A -

,1 a

f '

j'

(\ - a m w:

)  %,\ i \ \ g l / %3-[

7 ,/

i; scortm ut j' jW  %

/

l' l

f / '

1 / /  % 1 I

'[ j / / j l

( .

/

j

/

(' / / ,

l j i /

/ j j / / N i

i s

4 i

i i

2 l

SOLE: ==a utocp 4 1

. SMftE lhr0PJM110N: l 3

6002OulLL piroiMK, LE >29 1 i

60PDIR.)00(.0-2 pia %g i

Les me --- - -- m wm rem errts m rA w Ay . m em j 4 i l  : I

' Figure &

Goosequill Dkch Bank Biased

__ O \ DATA \TPCHDOCs\rsystinyctDRAFTA.4 B-5

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS

'OINf5 KCORDW; TO CPS SYSTEM l

ANSTEC APERTURE CARD Also Available on Aperture Card i

i

\

r' N i

/ \ .

v

, \.

n E I.3 F """' -

x g$Ciddlfkd15]j y -) p .g- i x; . .

.. .. . .. m

l l

l

.... p ,; Z cirt 5 3 6 w.2rcwr y+,

.. g g

Y RCT 4 l/ 7 4F II W 4DY O M HCUG 5 PAfE MAY 4 1999 0 \ITMNG\'#E VIMMCH l oil Sample Locations .

REVISION 0 ~

I l

EFFLLENT PMHWAYNC SAM

(_' I i

I

[ -

rarao N anu ,

/

rs l! \ 1

/ (( -**d

/ Y [ ,/

/ t s ,

N

/

' /

/ / '

/ x.

i

/./  ?

< l J

l I

wwww i <

( -e

\\

l l

I o' 900- Iooo.

SCAE: L- .- -- 3 og SMRE INFCEMAflON:

i C0020lLL ptrCH MK - 2DIMENT casom Leaw em - - - -- w wmrem erruimram^y . me em i I

Figure)

Goosequill Ditch Bank Sed.

)

a mATAmninoessrsystinvesonarTA.4 Q 1 1

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS i

POINf5 MCORPlNG 70 6pg SYSTEM l

l ANSTEC APERTURE v

CARD s

Ave.di.on aiAperture Card f

~ -

I /

D 7 m ,

- ama n hi D a T, l

}]. -g 4(o .g !:

l b gI

%.N n._ : N s g

1 I

l

\

• • * *" WYW2 Pctq(

s-

~~

'~k i -f t f * ,.

[A '~Nh\ l r.

O tCCI9 t/

=~r- -, m m . ., .

4 nent Sample Locations 9702050011 -

REVISION 0 ---

.~

EFFLlENTPATHWAY AND SAMN l

rarav

/

mru, / nl(

_snoms b ( (

) ,i w ,

/ / /

/ q~. / /

{ / '

f

/

l i

/  :

I '

i.

\

• wmur /

i i

__J

\ / /

\

I i

l o- 900' 1000' '

I  !

SCAE:  !

mad SNVtE Itf0RMADON:

G00%0%L WCH ORK NVE5%ACVE 500 0" - 6" G000.NV.XXX.H LEmv tom -

Sift untN rENcg -

EfPLIENTPNHWAY e 5mg PONr i Figure d

(' Goosequill Ditch Bank Investiga0 l

1 0 \ DATA \Tl!CHDOC5\rSYSilRVE\DRAFTA 4

- - - , B-7 1

EFFLUENT PATilWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS l PCNf5 KCOBING TO 6P5 SYSTEM l

l l

ANSTEC

- APERTURE QN .s#

CARD Also Available on

\ et Aperture Card i

Af CD a M POINTS CN Df WP. 4 F# SWtES.

V'N.tD CGALY AFC Af 2 4ftRS FEDM EO POPE I

M@ W1Att9 LCttf06 Afl MD 2.MD Af 6 MD l

i 7.4 m swieS ue rmeCe nwDece n  ;

re rem to umamfy - - - - - - - -

g]/ f 4

l

n 7E? O i F E l D

~

n Cl w-m ha $'

Gs v iQ R '

l , , ' . ,g'

U y., ,._ t -

3 ,

'l'

~~~

~;

... _ , ,. :irui&5sezro,e l yy-.-

.4 i x f54 RCPC f9 \/ 2 N

00AMIDY CL4!;0P25 Daft MAY 4.1909 6 \DEAMt&\9ft \4WXCH r

ve Soil Sample Locations REVISION 0 -

n-1

! EFFLlfNTPMHWAY AN9 5 1

l I

f M'M POC 0\MM 3 (l ,

p\.

\ -"*9

/ 1 marum ar s K

i

/ l l

/

/ / N l l

% Wm err j

i e

i .

i R E: f -Lma YY

.,4 I

l See waMAncu l

, 600SECULL ptTCH DNK I 5(PStHKE SOL 6" -12"

Copp.5lDEX 1

Leam eos --

wwmne mureranway a watecu i I l 7 Figt

i Goosequill Ditch Bank Sub l

0 \DATAWTHIMS\f%V5URVmDRANA.4 e-- . - - , ~-

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS FOINf5KCOPPING TO GPS SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE 3_- i CARD

\\ AW Available on Aperture Card

/

awa EQl hdl$dri{-

2 .gJ N{. = -

m II(F-

1] * . 1

\ N\

'.', ' ~

~ ::.~:inm mA ex

. - - ,. . r 9

-q N

f l

(,rm e v 2 N

PrMN py. Q M! 025 PAfg MAy 4.1999 6 \prp g gstit ytvarcH t 4-8 erface Soil Sample Locations 9702050011 -

I

-8 REVISION 0 - -

EFFLLENT PAnfNAY AND SAMPLE

/ N j 'N

/ rarav 's

/ \

cwu , 7

/

h3, Ie/ ==

[' ,'_E.

('.=. r- * * **

J r j' n  ; - j' I

) [s:< .Mial:_:y--*.-

l .

/

j j ,_ ,

,, y ---

/

( ,-

,/

l

/ s-

/  ?

ll l, 50um P.Artt es ,/.

' / j/ /.\

j j I

,/ l 'N j

/)

/

i

,/ /

/ l l

i l

l ~~

/ /

j i /

j  !

I <

f srwwee / '

/ ,/

F' I u

o' 900' lo00' M E; k=:= ~ uwcon 5N#tE woRMAf10N:

JAY THCMAS OfOi- SEGMEt#

J79 SE9M team eow - - - - -- n mwews errtwemmn e swu row Figi Jay Thomas Ditch Sei 0 \ DATA \ TECH!X)CS'JSYSURVEiDRAFTA 4 e om

---

.- 1 EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS l

'OINf5 ECORplNG f0 GPS SYSfEM ANSTEC APERTURE w CARD Also Available on Aperture Card

)

i x-l [

J \

C50 r-""2" "

p))kIf, bgg s _- . _ e s N 's

, [tht. b h50W2 PONr

-~__s-~w','

,---- m,

../i

/

' RON >9 l/ 2 vewer amwas om. wy om o smweswvemte ire 4-9 ilment Sample Locations -

M 0 2 0 5 0 011 L9 REVISION 0 -

w ~.

'l EFFLLENTPMHWAY AND SAMPLE

(?

\

ouru , L I

( qy ----

/,

I J

__/_ //

/

y x

/

-( /

w.

~7-  ; /

l o' 900' lo00' SAMPLE INFORMA1%M JAY fHOMAS PlfCH SlHKE SOL JIP.5CL.SlR.XXX tearv typ - - - -

m wmrua entry r3mAy . mg pm NgU

(' Jay Thomas Ditch Surface and;

_ 1 _ ,. _ m .

q

EITLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS OlNf5 KCORplNG TO GPS SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE CARD

'~~

Also Available on Aperture Card I

P I I_)

~ " ~ ~ ~

4 _-. - - -

N ,

fl(u.5d!p!:

ij o) -

t-

,, . , i bin N. s

\

\,_ #

}K's r^i" *' ' "

[!

RON t1i/ 2 N

ETA #4 DY. CLM5 HOpG$ PAT. MAY 4.1999 (, \CTN#4(\$lt \M V/ moi e 4-10 subsurfc.ce Soll Sample Locations 9702050011 '

10 REVISION 0 __

EFFLlfNT PMHWAY#U 5AMPL2 1

,/ rarav N

/ \

anu / ..

l /faj-

/

.r Ni x

/ ':

y, .- s w a wc

- x'

/ 'N ,,

[,u .' I;-~

g 7, i l

(

a 7,

/

ww wtue

/ /

/

'm/

ll '

/

'I ' !

/ l j

/

,/

t'

/ %~. '

i J

f ,/ l , ~%

V /

/ /

l l

/

{

I u m ne i

\

l r~~ S

/

\

0- soo- Iooo 50tE: L==M-d y.,

5AAftE INFORMAfKM JAY frOWS RTG - WC2fA110N KW5m Lemo com ---

wt unw reta - - - - - - e m 2 9trAnwAr . wrte Pors Figure Jay Thomas Ditch Vegeta O.\ DATA \TECHDOCSiFSYSURVEDRAFTA 4 p,

EFFLUENT PATIlWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS POINf5 MCORP!Nd f06PS SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE

~ .s CARD

\ Alto Avaldble on i APerture Card

}

nNO l

=""""""

J].

HIE v \

, p;. a. r m{.

\

~

~ , ,_- thdNT P5GWR.2 POb#

s,

/I x ' .

e i i

l r ROAC I9 Il 2 l

5%WMY G W.HODCl5 PAff. MAY 41999 6 \;UMd\M Vf WlfCH

-11 ion Sample Locations 9702050011 - ,

REVISION 0 _

EFFLLENT PAMVAY AND SN#

l F O OO 'N 0\M M - l

/b

/ 'j D, h s f' 0 f/ l ,; swm

/ xx "*

nn,

/ 'N , '"[O*Q

! < ,x  ;- '.m: w ._;

/ i l [.

'j i

,, .< l .

/

I

/

I

/

W h l, l

50t.W PLAf't MR / / /

, l' l j I

/

'~

/ / / ,' ,,

I J' f I N

\( / /,/ /

/

i I

i / l

> I I

i sr amme '

\ ,

/ c,

\ /

\

o' 900' 1000' SCAE: k.._.1,_j ,

SAARE IffOEVAf1CM PtfCH I SEDIAff#

0" - 6" 5/ ARES PTCHX.XXX.O-6 ofco r com - --

n w HNffNCE --- EffMINf fAMM

• Y.Wlf PCNI I

Figure 4 Irrigation Ditch Sediment (i

_ .. o maramnnwsu svsuavennanu B-U

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS 1 POINTS KCOONG TO GPS SYSTEM ANSTEC

, APERTURE CARD p_\

/ \ '

Also Availablo on Aperture Card l

l 7 _..__ ___ _ _____,

- cc c.,

i a g IJ I

l). ,. k ~

j . -

m f([~l)

jUJ f=

x 'x

~ ~T cAud ecn

~

{ .

1

. - - m .._ - m ;.

-,3 g,/ \

WM 20A719 I/ 2 N N N/MY: C M HOpc25 P4 Wy a r999 6N N M E\94 VEverO1 12 W) Sample Locations 9702050011 -

REVISION 0

n -.

EffLLENTPA11fNAY## $AW b,u rwas cwn.t

/ \%

g .

\

I -

)

) Q ~'j ,)( % .

//

i

/

7- -K

• Np i, -

,/- @

,/ ~j .1 =

~~_.

j/ /

U

/ -n

,l l,

,A. i /

\

\

/ ("

O' 900' l000' 50tE: e.m - ,,,,,,,,,,;

SN#tE INFORA%flON PlfCH I SEPIMENT 0" 2" fAMFtE5 Pf0K.XXX.O-2 teaw rom - - - - - -

n u m rew, erruumemn , wne pone Mgust 413

( Irrigation Ditch Sedhnent (0 2",2-4", <

l asommer-msvimmoom..

3 j

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS E POINTS KCORplNd f0 CPS SYSTEM ANSTEC

,o APERTURE v

CARD

\

Also Available on

! Aperture Card i

l l

, =n!

7-__ _ _ _ _

(E]i

=p/

.1

/ CC '

W a" r-l L

L

- - (QL_j]hl?h,5 ~ib jd!'

Q, ,

- . .g t ..

's I L--

\

-. = 3-.g .;. : v u n -

/' / 7 \

,,,, / ik x

Ut?> RO90 f4 (/ 2 N

ETA #4 PY. (1/72 HT25 PAZ WY 4.1999 C \CTAWIN6\M \4WAf01 C) Sample Imations 2050011 -

REVISION 0 _ _

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

. 1

.1 i

EFFLlENf PMHWAY,W SAMPLE F F

}

j i i  !

i 4

,/ -- \

i a,c , \. t i

f

. \ f \ f-anewsnI N ,.

l'  :

4 1

[ -

/

su

~1

.i j *;r rr:

4

(-." w. wm m 1

i 4

]

\

j l

O' Ktx7 9

j SCAE: 6.=--

-- I mocare SAMPLE IffCRMNIGM PA51\TE RD FM%LMD - SOL on . 2n l PA5f.500.XXX.0-2 time com -

- - 92 ww vera - - e m antea m sy . m ecu j i'

i Figure; f.

Pasture and Fanniand '

I

a. \D A T A \T ECH DOCS \FSYSUR VE\DRA FTA .4

- a

r EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS r .

DINf5 KCORplNd f0 GPS SYSTEM i

ANSTEC  ;

APERTURE  ;

CARD

./

Also Availabio on

, i, Aperture card

: ..i

• 7

.4 e *1 - -

I *,* )

L/

/

7 l

cc r3 Q 6" l.J l

((i  !

k wm)p .e.:

x i v.,

\

mN  ; .....

: '\ l

~

"'. '.". \ ~. hu mdea os

. .: - ~-pri ' -

y n- ..

l i

l Wl91/ 7 j

i i

(TMN DY. GM5 hop 25 PAT Wy4 l@?9 &\Wyggggg gtgwntcH L14 i

>il Sample Locations 9702050011 -

REVISION 0

a ~r .

EFFL.lENTPATHWAY M 5AW'is

,s l

l r

i

/ rarav i

. I anc -

g

, l 1*

'[ f4; _ w oows h

7%j samnant ear

/

/

/' H  ;

l

( l

' /

l l

/

/ i

(' l l {

' sr.wm ewr

/ /

\ / 0

\

i l

i o' 900' 1000' SOLE: hd I aq l

SAMPLE INF0FMf10N: I FMM POND - SEplMENT On , y = 11tff POINf5NOTODfMEDDYG'S FF.5ED.)00(

l uaw com - - - - - srew wee erruewrr^nway . we.e row Figure d Farm Pond Sediment; O TDATAtTECHTXX'S\f5V50RYmDRAFTA 4 y

s

EFFLUENT PATIlWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS ,

POiNf5 KCORDING f0 GPS SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE CARD

~'

Also Avellab!o on Aperture Card

\

l J  ! ~ -

j l 5" LJ

\

j-"*" M[ "

a

> .i._ - - ;a R .

p e. - ..

\

.. isu&nn

~.- -G~

- - Qs i N-x Y RO& l91/ 2 N

,,. a_e s e, . -, n-- v-l5 ample Locations 9702050011 -

REVISION 0 _,_.

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

_.- - - ~ _ -__ _

1 l

EFFLlfNTPATHWAY AND SAMP i

j l

/

fftM PH OtMAL q g L

h *4 { t y - - s wws I

/ '

i j~

/

/

souv.mt ut

/ N

./

l >

l

's

• wm ar *

/

/ i

, \

\

/

i 5CAE: m e.p' l

l SAMPLE PfCRMAflON:

i l Ol#FAL FROM FMM POtv l OF.'Ep.)00(

l j

naw com - _ _ _ _ _ , , ,,g e ag g,,, , ,

,- Figuy Fann Pond Outfall Sed 1

0- \DA TA\TECHDOC5\FS VStf R V E\D RA FT A .4 i

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS E PONTS KCORplNG f0 GPS SYSTEM ANSTEC o APERTURE CARD s Also Avallch'c on i Aperturo Ccrd

\

l l

l, ,_ _ _ _

w-

- c. ,

( I c50 r

~""* "

[ sl f,Cd!$

>N

-- 1 l.l]

0 !)F l ] A" T p .g '~

\

\

~

~ . iGFAaa,x

\ y ~ ~ _ _ . _ -

y--

fi x CWY 205191/ 2 N

-m e, mees m .,e n_msm_e 4-16 rnent Sample Locations 9702050011-

=

L6 REVISION 0

EFFLLENTPA1MVAY ANP SAMPLE O )

l 1

l

/,.. N '

-e,

/ \,

, /

p& \ l 1  :  !

Q crwwsno l

I

/ f Nv )

, D% 7

/

soum a ur / )

l f y

. ) l /s

/

/ /

_x

' I t l /\

l f .

! l l l

sim ut

/

l l

[ \j 4

l l

1 f Yf M E: r - - i- _ ....

mpcotir; i SAMPLE INFORMAR i OU7AL FROM fMM PONt?

0F.5LEnx i

team eow -- - -- we umwie emtewemmu . me row Figure!

Farm Pond Outfall Surface and S:

,1

0. \DAT A \TFWDOCS\F5 YSUR VET D RA FTA .4 B-1;

- - l

~

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS 2Nf5 KCOUNG TO &5 SYS4M 1

1 l

i i

ANSTEC APERTURE  !

s CARD i i

,,\ Also Available on

\

Aperture Cerd I i i

i l l l

~;

m

O []

I F I! s .

E

+ .'

s , . . .!

3~ '

- - ~.

,d d, P P. v -

1

\

~ :, :Wa&~A wa ecu i

~, .-

p#

1. ~~~~' *

/ ~' L

/ \ s i

mig 1/ 2  !

N wyney am was e n a v4 i995 GNme\"VNG L-17 bsurf:ce Soll Sample Locations REVISION 0 ___

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT O

1 APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP SURVEY MAPS O

l O

rsv nac ansronsturmAt suavewvot vanour mon REVISION I

,,pu,,_ y mea-- ,,m-.- -mm.ame,aaaam2.-am-*+K-Aue a. 6lm m.mn.a.m 4-au+ au n p Le a-am* a -a ,0M --m A4 MMS-"AdM-R>'49L*me-E AMM'~ b M- M*'4'Amm-b4.*A4 Mak-=.wo-~-"Ad M-----4.----a6 h

t i ,

1 4

l 1

i i l

! 1 l 1 i

l l

i

! THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEF,T BLANK $

1

\

k [

ff Emuent Pathway Follow-Up Surface (0 tc Figure 4-1 rnm Pai

,ma==

,, sen ansm , AfG DIOLLSDtX 9

wmotooim - ,,maa.,

s i AJaLeata

-- J "~

s i

, wmn.ae> =

MbPO

~ N A, __a ornassa 7c ,_ .__ 3, mas = *

• • • 'g',, " amana.anam 3

,, arm,nm

^^**'*"

rassan.ana

,,,,,, , . ,,aams m 0t044142 ,yr, PA57JCE 0342 8 .ngrJnL.sT7Ja 8

.-5. ne. %,

=

. , = - ~

==>

a, u.

(

mast

.- 5LVrmbr , , _ N

~

= ==== P

,N ._

/ \

\

\\ sw

\

/s ,

a l

J 4

4 l

3 1

J 0.\DATAiTECHDOC3\PSYSURVmFOLLOWUP\SDC4.0 C-1

EFFLUENT PAT 11WAY FOLIAW-UP RESULTS 6 inches) Sampling Locations ANSTEC APERTURE CARD

{ Also Available on Aperture Card 1

- . - - , - FRf St.VPMN t -n-- EffllERfPANAY N s DE 6,1996

,--,a n .n FOLLOWlf SWPLES SlRFKE SAMPLES

- } .

l .,t F1 B NAME: Plf01.PNd 1 l -

I

~===

I t

t >. O l. .l i,b

= a .- -- \

mRilla :qU I L, ij U,\] c ..!i.

llII e.. .,

- - . - - - - M q! i!!a'3!ii

/"n,_ .

.g .

- =yt

" " " * " 95 ll tl Ta l u

%""m. '

,,m,,. ..>..., . . . . .

]= .

"h.. 3 ,,

.=na== - ,_g.g Sah " ,, .--

w====. _ _ , , , , - - ==i=

brds '

= = = = g ***"

,! ggggl91/2

./ . m 3 ,e A

J*** ' /V mem _

q ~

.=s~ .;:

====-

. 6m> ,

_2%

=:i

.__n_.

rN j- 3

( -

REVISION 0 9702050011 " -

Q*** #

Emuent Pathway Follow- Su

~~"" g%

OfDt.$.054J3LSWE pasfJcLe31JILas e

• -5. Platie Rw w

""* e

'r' s-SL%mRw h

/

x N

"/

0:\ DATA \TBCHDOC3\P5VSURVE\lVLLOWUPiSEC4.0 C n ..

9 EFFLUENT PATIIWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS E

arface Sampling Locations ANSTEC APERTURE g p CARD Also Available on

= F2f 9r.WMN Aperture Card EffLIENTPA1HWAy w JM 6, \996 FCLLOMP 5AMPLES SlD5lMKE SMft.ES PLE NAME: Plf0tPWG

== ll Ir l.,j ' , l .

.. ! 'i : ; !

7

~,=.m.

_, ll

!f jU25k ::::T :j

~

-- = d Q -

ll 1 ii  ; tu ai. 1 l?a,,.,,g,

^

/rwps g b

g  ;

!) J

.p_.

J 8:1 si ,

• • '*J'**

a

- m

. - = _

_) - 5

%h na - ..

f w .- - 7===: -

COLNtYwmt9 t/ 2

./ O,y -

i ~ST,= .n .

l

~87J0lL .IIL3u. .

=

==

7 ""lll1:

(' s 3

( -

f r

l 970205001 ------- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

'Y

_m.. ___ _ m _ _ _. ..

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS

,f3 V

v i

DTCH.2.002.xx

~ NM Eltcl1

<-, a va

' DTCH.2.001.XX if DTCHJ.004.XX-

\

Y 0%

Smd htyta pedes %

FORf5f.WMN l

EffLIENTPANAY N l

JM 6,1996 Nd M J FOLLOWiF 5AMPLES SlFRE SAMPLES fLE NAME: PRAWA.CWd l

)

l Figure 4-5 Irrigation Ditch 2 Surface Soil Sample Locations

'q V l amamtramoar.rsysuaverou.owunsec' C-3 REVISION 0

I EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS O

j DTCH1002.XX.SUB

-9muutenpu

} \

(*= sed PM creszooi.xx.sve __

\f

" v o / Smd %pede,9 FORT 5f.VRAN .

EffLIENTPNHWAy N DE 6,1996 MM#

fOLLOWlF MMPLES ,

SlD5tRFkZSMPLES fLE NAME: DRAWAPWG Figure 4-6 Irrigation Ditch 2 Subsurface Soil Sample Locations O

'%Y a:maratrecnoocsrsvsuavuouowunsses REVISION 0 C-4

1 4

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT i

i O

i b i

i i

i j APPENDIX D

! LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY l SCOPING SURVEY REPORT i

1 2

i 1

1 i

J l

i i

i

1 J i i

i i

1 l

1 i,

4 i

rsv nac arsronsesirNA1, SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP LOOM REVISION 1

d l

t ,

l l

i i

l 1

i .

1 i

i l

i l

1 i

l 4

THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY i

4 l

LEFT BLANK h 1 i

l 1

i I

1 i

l i

i

! 1 i

i i i l

I s 1

O V

FORT ST. VRAIN LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY SCOPING SURVEY REPORT Prepared by: j Scientific Ecology Group, Inc.

1560 Bear Creek Road Oak Ridge, TN 37831 ,

Prepared by: M b Date f 3!97 Eliz!6eth A. Langi66, CHP Senior Radiological Engineer Prepared by: - Date If su!Ian L. Carr Radiological / Environmental Engineer Reviewed by: M A/ Date % Ot#C ~

Harvey Stg /

Radiation Protection Manager, SEG Fort St. Vrain Approved by: ~

euIIA bk '

Date f 9f D. R. Neely (/

Vice President Radiological Engineering

& Decommissioning Services REVISION 0 MARCH 1995

- , . , . ,,---w-- - w-,e e_.- ..- --_a- w___.as.4wa.- -meaw , emuii.ai4 sgm,,,,,Nh.-4.umad- eam a w. J a_4m,e_.hahAs.A,a .h w a m mmwAJr M .K uA4.4.4,4..bhu.sda-S e gea. ham A me M4h.w 4 m.4 MaJ.44*,muu,

'l THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK h O

. -,. . - . . - . . - . . - . _ . - - - . . _ - . - . _ - - .. . ~ . . - ._

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

i i

l i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 1 l 1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 l 1.2 S cope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -3 l 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 1 2.1 Survey and Sampling . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Instrumentation, Equipment and Sample Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 i 2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Centrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 3.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Exposure Rate Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Soil and Sediment Sample.s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 ,

3.3 In Situ Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 '

4.0

SUMMARY

AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 1 1

i APPENDIX A Derivation of Equation to Convert Inspector Results (pC1/100cm ) to 2 Soil Concentration (pCi/g)

APPENDIX B Microshield Runs to Estimate the Possible Error in Inspector O Measurement Results i

/

ommrecanocsesysuavesscormasscorso. Toc REVISION 8 i

a 6m an--ash _.4_ -s-*A- Fe L 4 4*e maw. ea a m J-a dL W-Ala 84---..xa_m.__ah.ua. hew me.m ar 4 %Aumee m. m e - 6 4, A .,

.s._3w.4% .,m_ p m 4 A u _@ ,a,%.AA.-4mma dw p 44._ 4 $,_a.,,.a._u.. . ,,,,_,

9 I

J i

i THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY j

LEFT BLANK h i

I j

4 4

l 1

1 9

! INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

b e 1.1 Purpose This scoping survey report has been prepared to document the initial radiological evaluation of the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Efflucr.t Pathway performed between i November 1994 and January 1995. Additienal measurements in and adjacent to i

the liquid effluent pathway are currently bein; performed in accordance with a specific characterization plan. The characterization plan is based, in part, on the preliminary results of this scoping survey.

The discovery of elevated levels of radioactive material in and adjacent to the l Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway was made in November of 1994.  !

Elevated soil concentrations were idendfied in two samples which were taken to define the nuclide mix expected during the final survey of open land areas.

Figure 1-1 is a map of the liquid effluent pathway which consists of the following:

i

• The Goosequill Ditch which is a concrete ditch that begins upstream of the discharge pipe and terminates at the Jay Thomas Ditch.

• The banks of the Goosequill Ditch where sediment removed from the ditch has been deposited.

• The Jay Thomas Ditch which is a stream bed beginning upstream of the intersection of the Goosequill Ditch and terminating at the Farm Pond.

• Various irrigation ditches that distribute water obtained from the Goosequill Ditch and the Jay Thomas Ditch to adjacent pastures and farm land.

• The pastures and farm land adjacent to the liquid effluent pathways.

• The Farm Pond which is the terminating point of the Jay Thomas Ditch.

• The outfall of the Farm Pond which is primarily a stream bed that terminates at the South Platte River.

Measurements and sampling were initiated to identify areas containing radioactive materials and to estimate approximate activity concentrations. The efforts to identify the boundaries of the problem included exposure rate measurements, gamma spectral analyses of soil and sediment samples and in situ measurements with a high-purity germanium system.

O 02^ recnocswsysummscoreanscorma.:

1-1 REVISION 9

5 z e g

a

g. _ . ,=s n g

o i,CY; b

t 1 ii u E dC -s,

(

n

) d"'*

• i e

Y a

+_, \\

{ 3 J

id{- [

W a

\ l ri >.  ;

!e Y

3yr s ns t

p.gg 9 i

.1 E

)

i

/^SN )>

f

\

e s

1 s

1 S

l INTRODUCTION I

[

1.2 Scope

{ )

This scoping survey report docements the measurements, samples and analyses l which were performed along the liquid effluent pathway between November 1994 and the start of the characterization survey in January 1995.

j j 'Ihe scoping sutvey was performed by Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., and j consisted of :

i e Direct exposure rate measurements at the surface of the ground and at I meter from the surface.

l

• Sediment and soil samples from within the Goosequill ditch and the Jay Thomas ditch and along the banks where sediment had been deposited from the ditches.

• Soil samples along the liquid effluent pathway, and from an agricultural area where the effluent path had been diverted in the past for irrigation.

• In situ gamma spectral analysis, along the effluent pathway extending beyond and around the farm pond, and in the agricultural dispersion areas.

Measurement results are tabulated and summarized in Section 3.0.

O The results presented in this report are PRELIMINARY. Better results and conclusions will be found in the characterization report. The assumptions used

{

to manipulate the scoping survey data will either be changed or validated in the characterization report. The specific changes will be:

1) Analysis of Inspector (in situ gamma spectral) measurements. When the vertical depth distribution of activity is known, the data may be reanalyzed. Additional adjustments in the data may be made based on the characterization survey.

2) The Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) values presented in this report are based on the generic tables from NUREG-1500 and have only been used here to normalize the data. A site specific model is under development which will predict the actual situation at Fort St. Vrain.

ommnomocswsysummcommwee.

1-3 REVISION 9

- _ . _ .m .Aa_sm..a..ma- e-e..s.-.esmes-ma --. - *= a-4=- *- -h.d.ma.- M.*aA-M +a-S:soneem AA.Ja A .0.h-Ad.h8 4 .-*haa m*8.=.hm M a sh.4& ma.A4-. m.,A. shah __AA.._amj mMA 26AA.ud 4 e.-..u d .e d AA.

4

=

THrs PAGE INTENTIONA'.LY LEFT. BLANK h 9

1

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

', 2.1 Survey and Sampling

(

The scoping survey initially consisted of exposure rate measurements and soil sampling. Exposure rate measurements were taken along the Goosequill ditch at the surface and I meter from the surface at various points, and at 30 of the first 33 soil sample locations. In situ measurements were later initiated to obtain spectral information in the field to identify areas containing radioactive materials and to estimate approximate activity concentrations.

Biased soil and sediment samples were taken:

• Within the Goosequill ditch,

• Along the banks of the Goosequill ditch,

• In the agricultural dispersion areas adjacent to the Goosequill ditch, where the effluent path had been diverted in the past, and

• At various locations along the Jay Thomas ditch and the banks of the Farm Pond.

Sample biasing was based on locations which were thought to be logical collection O points for contamination. Specifically, samples from the banks of the Goosequill ditch were selected where the removed sediment could easily be distinguished and therefore suspect. Points along the flow path into the distribution ditches were chosen as probable locations for contamination. Likewise, points where the effluent flow changed direction or velocity were also selected as likely collection poin~ts. Soil samples were collected from the top 15 cm of soil. At 30 sample locations, exposure rate measurements were taken at the surface and at one meter from the surface in an attempt to correlate the soil activity with exposure rate.

In situ gamma spectroscopy measurements were initiated in December to identify areas containing radioactive materials. Locations for in situ measurements were generally focused in areas where soil sampling had not been performed. In situ measurements provide nuclide identification and estimated average concentrations over a large area. This is accomplished in a relatively short period of time, and eliminates the time needed for sample collection, preparation, and analysis that is necessary for soil samples. Areas investigated included:

• The North Marsh,

• An area to the west of county road 19%,

• The Jay Thomas ditch to the Farm Pond, ammucanocswsvsuavmscorscnscorso.2 2-1 REVISION 6

i l

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

• The branches off the Jay Thomas ditch which are used for irrigation, and

• The outflow from the Farm Pond extending to the South Platte River.

l 2.2 Instrumentation, Equipment and Sample Analysis l l l Exposure rate measurements were taken with a Ludlum Model 2350 data logger l coupled to a Ludlum Model 44-2 detector. The Ludlum Model 44-2 is a 1" x 1" l Nal(TI) detector calibrated to exposure rate from Cs-137. No correction was made for the detector's energy dependence for energies other than Cs-137. The instrument was operated in a scaler mode with a count time of 30 seconds. The a priori Minimum Detectable Exposure Rate in a 25 R/hr background is j approximately 3 pR/hr. l I

Soil and sediment samples were dried in convection / microwave ovens, and analyzed using a Canberra high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector, MCA (Multi Channel Analyzer) with Spectran F software. A 1 liter marinelli geometry and j a 1000 second count time was used for counting the samples. Approximate Minimum Detectable Activities (MDAs) are shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Canberra HPGe Detector MDAs for 1000 s Marinelli Geometry ,

1 Nuclide MDA (uCi/g)

Cs-137 4E-8 Cs-134 5E-8 Co-60 6E-8 Eu-152 iE-7 Eu-154 2E-7 Eu-155 2E-7 Mn-54 4E-8 It should be noted that the actual sample MDAs vary with sample mass and activity.

In situ measurements were taken with Canberra's Inspector System which consists of a Reverse-Electrode HPGe detector, MCA and the Genie PC software.

Measurements were made with the detector face 1 meter from the ground counting for 1200 seconds (background measurements were counted for 3600 seconds). All measurements were analyzed using an exponential vertical distribution efficiency curve and a relaxation length (the distance to reduce the source by a factor of 1/e) of 0.1 cm. Analysis results were reported in total ommecnoocswsysvavascomoscomo.2 4

2-2 REVISION 9

SURVEY METHODOLOGY activity per unit area, and later converted in a spreadsheet to activity per unit mass. Both the activity per unit area and activity per unit mass are dependent on I the assumed efficiency curve and relaxation length. As these factors are not well known, the activity values should only be considered rough approximations.

Approximate MDAs are shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Inspector MDAs for 1200 s count

.1. , _ i MDM , IMDMi 1Nuclidet f(pCi/100cm 2)2 %Cilg)?

Mn-54 2.66E-05 5.3E-07 Co-60 2.73E-05 5.4E-07 Cs-134 3.04E-05 6.0E-7 Cs-137 3.03E-05 6.0E-07 Eu-152 8.93E-05 1.8E-6 Eu-154 7.54E-05 1.5E-6 _

Eu-155 1.92E-04 3.8E-6 2.3 Quality Assurnace and Quality Control The Quality Assurance and Quality Control program for scoping activities was implemented through the use of approved procedures that addressed calibration and operation of instruments, sample analysis, documentation and evaluation.

Instrumentation, calibration, testing and maintenance schedules were established.

Field instruments were calibrated at a six-month frequency. All calibration sources were traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Calibration and maintenance records were maintained for each instrument.

A summary of the detectors and the associated calibration sources is provided in Table 2-3. The type of measurement (or analyses) performed with each detector is also indicated.

O O2AhmOOOCSPSYSURVmSCONCASCOMO.2 2-3 REVISION 8 i

i SURVEY METHODOLOGY Table 2-3 Detector Summary and Calibration Sources and Use DetectorL g

iCalibration Source: Use -

Ludlum Model 2350 Exposure Rate Calibrated Exposure Rate data wgger with Cs-137 Measurments, a Model 44-2 NaI(TI) detector l

i Canberra HPGe 1 Liter Mixed Gamma Gamma Spectral Gamma Spectroscopy (88 kev to 1836 kev) Analysis of Soil and System Sediment Canberra Inspector Vendor supplied Monte In Situ Gamma HPGe, In situ Carlo N-Particle Spectral Analysis for Gamma Spectroscopy Transport Determined Soil Activity System Efficiency Verified by a l Mixed Gamma Point i Source All instrumentatbn was response tested prior to initial use and following any maintenance or modifications that might affect the instrument's perfromance and calibration. Unsatisfactory instrument responses were investigated. This includes evaluations of the hardware and checks for the presence of radioactive materials on the detector.

A baseline efficiency was determined for each detector used to quantify radioactivity. The Canberra HPGe gamma spectroscopy system and the Canberra Inspector gamma spectroscopy system are response checked daily. The 2350 datalogger/44-2 detector configuration was response checked before and after use on a daily basis.

l All samples wer: labeled and identified with unique sample identification numbers assigned from a chemistry logbook. Samples were appropriately packaged to prevent any sample loss. Samples have been stored for future analysis if necessary.

OC Soil and Sediment Soli! Samples Three soil and sediment samples were split and analyzed seperately to verify the results of Canberra HPGe gamma spectroscopy system. Each of these samples were collected, dried, mixed and then split into two samples. The two samples were analyzed seperately using the same protocol and then compared.

l l _.

mourrmocsesvsuavascomasscom" 2-4 REVISION 6 l

4 MEASUREMENT RESULTS l

3.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS 3.1 Exposure Rate Measurements 3.1.1 Background Exposum Rate A series of twelve repetitive measurements were made on contact and one meter for background exposure rate. A 60 second count time was used ,

for each background measurement. Measurements were made at a single location adjacent to the South Marsh area. The results are shown in Table 3-1.

i Table 3-1 Background Exposure Rate Measumments l

IShtistici <

' ton Contaati VAf 1 Meter 1!

Mean ( R/hr) 23.19 22.37 Standard Deviation ( R/hr) 0.31 0.42 Range ( R/hr) 22.75 - 23.72 21.70 - 23.75 Coefficient of Variation (%) 1.34 1.89 O These background measurements are not representative of the variation in the background since they were all made at a single location.

The variation in the background exposure rate from soil can be seen in the evaluation of 40 measurements which were made off site in the vicinity of the FSV facility. These measurements were taken as part of the Final Survey Program. The measurements were taken at a distance of 1 meter from the ground for a 15 second count time. The results are shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Variation in 1 Meter Background Exposure Rate (Final Survey Background Data)

/Statisticl::

1 Meter Exposure e Rate Mean (uR/hr) 24.9 Standard Deviation 2*0 (uR/hr)

Range (uR/hr) 22.2 - 29.0 Coefficient of 8.03 Variation (%)

O 0:WATAMCHDOCNSVSWWCOMNCOMGJ 3-1 REVISION 8

MEASUREMENT RESULTS 3.1.2 Exposure Rate Results Fifty two exposure rate measurement locations are shown on Figures 3-1 and 3-2 along the Goosequill ditch and the Nonh Marsh irrigation area off the Goosequill ditch. A summary of the results are presented in Table 3-3 below and the individual measurements are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-3 Summary of Exposurt Rate Measurements iExposure Rats.Rahgel ' Exposurc ' Rate Range -

7 on Contact - f at 1T mete'rJ (gR/hr)? L( R/hi),

i 20.8 - 43.3 21.14 - 29.67

The difference in the exposure rates between contact and 1 meter indicate that the activity is localized. Very little difference in exposure rate with height would be expected if the activity was distributed over an infinitely large area. The highest contact reading location was also the highest 1 meter reading location. The range of 1 meter exposure rate readings is no different than the range observed in the off site background measurements.

ommncanocswsysumsscormasscormaa O

3-2 REVISION 9

n~

/  !

yl..~

/

A b P6 -- W ~

h a(  : .  ::

,' i~

N, h-5-

F1 Effluent Pat!5 0:\ DATA \TEC}{IXX3WSYSilRVIMCOrlNGSCOrlNO.3

^%

MEASUREMENT RESULTS I

l 4

1 I

i ANSTEC APERTURE CARD Also Availan . n Aperture Cerd Fat St. Vran Efileti'athvay N March 19,1999 EXPOSLIE RATE E  !

l'. E ,'I

. p lfieNaw: P1101.PW6 l '

c, C3 l l.

j' l Cl .

( _. _ _ _ O - - ' l (.) , l

{}a .. .I) -

_ b+8 Pa B

h.- .

l e ..... ..',,in

'D '" t .. .. , I:;l::lL

,m 6 b }C .. .

1 i * ,s n y( j H0 na

.#*p lll 9

/

m a ,

, "Q_ ___ . 7

~ ~ -

. as

.k W X .; ._. ? " ~ '"

c- . Ryt.

O N

gure 3-1 ray Exposure Rates 9702050011 -

3-3 REVISION 0 I

MEASUREMENT RESULTS i

r l

1 l

m l aQ.

• 05 *04 -p e pg

,[$ig a

a2 .g,g pg

.or 08 . y 0poos

.as ao.

e s ow .

i,

- cos . .

,, a s -- g, s

006 cos.

C04' voot' .

var i i

I cm.  !

(3 m

\)

muy w wevac,y ec2 ca .

Fat 5L Vran *-

N ,,,

Effluent Pathway "m2 F% s. iggs -,. n M ersh M w .. U EyPN RATE lEXXX O4 Fde Name: PRAWA.PWC -

.==-- I l

1 I

i.

I l

! Figure 3-2 1 Effluent Pathway Exposure Rates

[

v l 1

o;m4mucnoocswsvsunvascomoucorm '

3-4 REVISION e

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-4 Exposure Rate Measurements

!! somy tu.uo. coa. . Expo ro Raw a Coman WUhr) Expoem k.g I rmat WUhr)

IRR001 22.25 21.86 IRR002 23.60 21.45 IRR003 20.80 23.01 IRR004 21.20 22.62 IRR005 23.84 23.30 IRR006 22.30 22.18 IRR007 24.20 24.42 IRR008 23.42 24.19 IRR009 22.81 22.84 IRR010 24.60 22.09 IRR011 24.14 22.81 IRR012 28.08 26.32 IRR013 26.63 25.65 IRR014 31.96 25.35 IRR015 43.03 29.67 IRR016 38.12 27.57 IRR017 39.00 29.42 IRR018 32.28 27.50 IRR019 25.64 24.40 IRR020 24.88 22.82

, IRR021 24.22 22.57 IRR022 25.26 22.82 IRR023 24.28 22.75 IRR024 21.68 22.16 IRR025 22.16 21.59 IRR026 22.27 21.59 IRR027 22.11 22.71 IRR028 23.08 24.08 IRR029 22.48 21.52 1

IRR030 23.18 21.82 IRR031 25.37 23.92 IRR032 29.79 24.28 IRR033 32.37 22.95 IRR034 29.89 23.78 IRR03s 25.72 23.49 IRR036 31.48 23.53 IRR037 30.66 23.04 O

omwrecuoocsesvsuavesscommscomo.3 3-5 REVISION 0

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

l MEASUREMENT RESULTS ,

i Q Table 3-4 .

C/ Exposure Rate Measumnents (cont.) l

Survey Imcassan Code - Exposuus Raes at Contact GaIUhr) Exposure Res at I useer (pR/br)

IRR038 28,15 23.63

( IRR039 27.46 24.38 IRR040 27J2 23.17 l

IRR041 24.65 23.02 IItA042 29.34 23.89 IRR043 26.24 23.95 IRR044 28.44 24.77 1

1 IRR045 26.03 23.60 IRR046 25.97 23.79 StR047 32.26 24.28 IRR048 31.07 24.42 IRR049 31.97 23.48 IRR050 27.75 22.04 IRR051 29.59 23.27 IRR052 27.56 21.14 3.2 Soll and Sediment Samples 3.2.1 Results and Analyses Six sediment samples (numbers D43, D44, D45, D46, D47 and D48) were taken at various points in the Goosequill ditch. Fifty two soil samples were taken within the top 15 cm of soil at various points along the discharge pathway, predominantly along the banks of the Goosequill ditch, and are shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4.

Contact and 1 meter exposure rate measurements were taken at 30 of the initial 33 soil sample locations on the banks of the Goosequill ditch.

Exposure rate measurements were not taken at the other three locations because the area was swampy. Table 3-5 presents a summary of the exposure rate measurements and soil sample activities. The reported activities are the sum of the man made gamma emitting nuclides. Table 3-6 shows each exposure rate measurement and the corresponding soil sample activity.

l O

G@ATAUTCMXX:SV5VSURVBSFOMCASCOMO.3 3-6 REVISION 8

._.___..24.---me_m a._ - ~ .- m - _ .a &_.-o~- -...~..u_.m .._..,4.- -,,,#. . .-_.+:. 4.__.e*,..a-4 . .r_..m.m.a _o6.a_..w.m... _ ai o. _2 4_ ..s......__.a.

! O i

THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK $

1 I

l l

i t

i r rir_--

1 t== rd

' mw . f J r) Jagtbam pta '

                                                                                                   \

I

                                                                     ..                                              El
                                      /                        ,           ' /\                            ,
                                                                                                                     ~"

[.D3.. Q/y A

                                                                                                              's     H N      l s

l Emuent [R ( i 0.U)ATA\TI!CitlXX 3\l%VSilR VIW D11NOMU11NU.3 w.n= we

MEASUREMENT RESULTS ANSTEC i, APERTURE CARD 1 Also Available on Aperture Card l g .; 8 l fat % %n l a EffletPathm u f Maa19.1999 kl,j . 5015%PLES ' P.)00( ll f ,"l ,, f' l fieName: Afoi.pwg l Ll n o l'

                                              - c - - .s          [l           ,,@ og .                                .

II. IlzSh g8}~S "'.?: ::1 '

                               %gpu                       ,

e 4-.s,' . ,...a.~. m .:"-- I ( k m

                        /         2        8
                                                       ~
                                                                        ~~ ~ , ( Tj];          y .."

N f, ep m u =. 7 gr s

                                                                                      *"0" ' ' ?

lt .

                                        '""K.l.[;~              * ; _~              -

V' ' .

                                               =

mg.~ . . i = __..: .= g .,y ..f :=

                                  '==/                                        w tire 3-3 way S:ll Samples 9702050011                                       -

3-7 REVISION 8 n

MEASUREMENT RESULTS O (I am.

             .-                                            - Pw6uta FM N'                         $                      -(= meed 96
    **                                                        v V

a6 O O w ww ga,,

                                                                                            .aa mum 3 fort St. be N                                                              '

Effluent Pathway

• m2 february 14,1999 Nath brsh d 50L SAMPLES m P.XXX pb Fde Naw: WAWApwg Figure 3-4 j

Effluent Pathway Soil Samples 'o O WATA\TECHDOCSTSYSURVEUCOP!NOGCOPINGJ ~ REVISION 9 ,

                                                                                                \

i I

l MEASUREMENT RESULTS l Table 3-5 Summary Exposure Rate Measurements Corresponding to Soll Sample Locations )

        ' Eiposwe. Rite RSoge             Exposwa Rate RAnhi
                                                ~

Sample Total Activity [ ion Contad (gR/hr) . ' at 1 meter ( R/hr)j '~ i Range (pCi/g)  ; 1 20.34 - 36.07 21.08 - 27.49 0.03 - 84  : The higher contact measurements are indicative of localized contamination.  ; 3.2.2 Comparison with Exposure Rate Measurements l I Reviewing the exposure rate measurements against the soil sample I activities shows the following: I

• The soil activity was actually very low at the point where the highest exposure rate was observed (D8). The next highest exposure rate (36 R/hr on contact) at location D21 showed the highest activity, with a total activity of 83.94 pCi/g.
• Contact readings were higher than the 1 meter readings for many of the samples showing high activity. However, this relationship did not always hold true since two (D005 and D015) of the seven g samples where the activity exceeded 10 pCi/g did not show contact W readings which exceeded the 1 meter readings.
• A correlation between the exposure rate and relative soil activity could not be made. However elevated exposure rates are indicative of elevated soil activity concentrations.

O O2ATAmnDOCSWYSURVBSCONG3CONO3 3-9 REVISION 0

MEASUREMENT RESULTS

Table 3-6 q Exposure Rate Measurements V Corresponding to Soll Sample Iacations

(( M. 1mateos Co4ek angosuse R5es at Causact M Rate'at Ml [Saagid ThNActivity D001 20.34 2130 0.992 D002 22.99 ._ 22.56 0.478 D003 28.71 24.42 0321 D004 22.41 22.03 3.987 D005 '26.10 26.18 24.929 D006 26.96 24.53 9.424 D007 31.05 27.49 11.237 D008 36.07 26.93 2.563 D009 2837 24.01 8.108 D010 28.20 22.12 7.888 D011 24.20 23.42 2.185 D012 23.29 22.24 0.369 DOI 3 22.62 22.01 0.555 Dold 22.95 23.10 0.099 D015 21.80 2239 13.379 D016 25.65 24.05 6.483 S D017 23.11 ,.2.27 0.62 Dolt 25.37 22.75 3.65 D019 27.40 22.80 6.205 D020 30.24 24.28 3.836  ! D021 35.82 24.66 83.94 j D022 27.63 23.45 4.96i D023 30.60 24.50 45.002 D024 33.77 25.74 7.419 D025 29.50 24.24 11.89 D026 32.20 22.41 31.177 D027 21.64 21.08 0.03 D028 22.86 20.72 2.631 D029 No measuremera possible - swampy area 2.08 D030 No measurements possible - swampy area 1.4 D031 No measurement possible - swampy area 1.047 D032 24.84 2038 1.138 nm, ,,<< ,, o, ,w O omisscunocsmsysamcomacomo3 REVISION 8 3-10

MEASUREMENT RESULTS 3.2.3 Evaluation of Activity Concentrations Table 3-7 is a summary of the soil sample nuclide analyses, for Co-Cs-137, and total activity. Table 3-7 Soll Sample Analyds Summary Co-60 Activity R$$kU LCs-U7 Activity RangeM ~ kToElA$tivity* RaSjef . ((pCilg)! (pCi/g)T ~' ' , L(pci/g)T 0.06 - 41 0.03 - 27 0.03 - 84 m n. 6 s. 6-es -- .mu,,. CD The ennel esdvity sumes b the sine of an una made seems. emMsg musimb esNiiss Mamiraud no emah semph. 1 i Table 3 8 shows the individual sample result nuclide activities. Only fission and activation product' nuclides are shown. The Cs-137 activities were not corrected for background. Table 3-8 also shows a column of Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in mrem /yr. The soil activity (pCi/g) for each licensed material nuclide (Cs-134, Cs-137, Co-60, Eu-152, Eu-154, Eu-155, and Mn-54) was multiplied by the NUREG-1500 Table A-1 conversion constant (Table 3-9) to calculate the TEDE per year. These total effective dose equivalent values are provided for illustrative purposes only. A site specific model is being developed for the actual situation at Fort St. Vrain. Table 3-9 Conversion Constants

NUREo 1500. Table A-l' rwm/yr Nuclide pCi/g Co40 5.06E+00 Cs-134 3.06E+00 Cs-137 1.40E +00 Eu-152 23 t E+00 Eu-154 2.50E + 00 Eu-155 7.00E 02 Ma-54 1.23E +00 Sediment samples taken within the Goosequill ditch (D43-D48) showed consistently elevated activities ranging from 13 pCi/g to 43 pCi/g.

O omwrecunocarsvsuavascomammo3 3-11 REVISION 0

i

MEASUREMENT RESULTS 3 No activity pattern could be discerned from the samples taken j along the banks of the Goosequill and Jay Thomas ditches. The j highest activities appeared to show up in a hit or miss fashion.

Activity gradients could not be defined. The highest sample D21 4 showed 84 pCi/g and was taken from the banks of the Goosequill i

J ditch. d j

• Along the agricultural irrigation area (Figure 3-4) the highest j activity samples were from locations where the effluent enters the

trngation area.

4 i I i i } 4 i ( i i 1 } i I i I i l i l

i.  !

( l I i 1 l ' l j omrarecunocswsysummcomme

• 3 3-12 REVISION 8 I

l

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-8 Soil and Sediment Sample Gamma Spectral Analysis Results SAMPLE ID DAE Co-137 Co-134 - Co 60 ' . En 152 .  : Em154 -  : Es-155

• sTaed HDES (pcl/s) - (pCi/g) - (pci/g) (pCI/s) (pCi/s) L Wg) - J (pCl/s) .' Onroevyr)

D1 1I/26/94 7. I E-01 2.9E-01 9.9E-01 2.4 D2 11/26/94 3.7E-01 1.1E.01 4.8E41 1.1 D3 11/26/94 3.2 E-01 3.2E41 0.4 D4 11/26194 2.2 E + 00 1.8E-01 1.1 E + 00 4 6E-01 4.0E + 00 10.4 D5 11/26/94 9 0E+00 5.0E-01 1.2E + 01 2.0E+ 00 1.2E + 00 6.5E 01 2.5 E + 01 80.4 D6 11/26/94 3.6E + 00 2.0E-01 4.0E + 00 8IE4l 5.4E-01 3.2E41 9.4E + 00 29.0 D7 11/'6/94 8.8E + 00 5.0E-01 1.3 E + 00 6.3E41 1.1E + 01 21.9 D8 11/26/94 2.1 E + 00 9.5 E-02 3.4 E-Ol 2.6E + 00 5.0

                   *D9           II/26/94  3.5 E + 00      2.3E-0I       3.1 E + 00          7.2E41          3.2E41       1.9E41       8.1 E + 00        23.9
                  *DIO           11/26/94  3.7E + 00       2.7E-01       2.7E + 00           7.CE-01         2.9E-01      2.7E41       7.9E + 00         21.8
                  *Di t          11/26/94    7.9E-Ol                     1.2E 4 00           2.4E-01                                   2.2E + 00          7.5 D12           11/26/94    3.7E-01                                                                                     3.7E41           0.5 D12 QCC          11/26/94    3.7E-01                                                                                    3.7E.41           0.5 D13           11/26/94    5.0E-01                      5.6E 02                                                        5.6E41            1.0 Di4           11/26/94    9.9E-02                                                                                    9.9E42            0.1 Di$          11/26/94  3.4E + 00       2.4E-01       7.0E + 00        1.6E + 00          6.7E-01      5.1E41       1.3E + 01         46.3 "DI6           11/26/94  2.6E + 00       1.8E-01       2.9E + 00           4.0E-01                      2.6E41       6.5E + 00         20.1
                  *Dl7           11/26/94    2.9E41                       3.3 E.01                                                      6.2E-01           2.1

• DIS 11/26194 2.7E + 00 1.9E-01 7.7E-01 3.7E + 00 8.2 "Dl9 11/26/94 2.7E + 00 1.6E41 2.7E + 00 6.lE-01 6.2E + 00 19.5

                  *D20           11/26/94   1.9E + 00      1.5 E-01      1.6E + 00           2.4E-01                                   3.8E + 00         11.7
                  *D21           11/26/94   2.7E + 01      1.4E + 00     4.l E + 01       7.9E + 00         4.5 E + 00   2.4E + 00     8.4E + 01        277.4
                  *D22           11/26/94   2.9E + 00       1.9E-01      1.5 E + 00          3.7E41                                    5.0E + 00         13.2
               *D22 QCC          11/26/94   2.7E + 00      1.4E-01       ! .7E + 00          3.1 E-O f                                 4.8E+00           13.3 mo47mtcunocssrsysca vE scormascurmo.'

3-13 REVISION S O O O

O

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      --- -sms i

Table 3-8 Soil and Sediment Sample Gamma Spectral Analysis Results (cont.)

                              - SAMI'I E ID '                      . DATE .                                               - Co-137 :          ~ Co-134 -     ?Ce40L         [Bs-152 9   ' [N154I     ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                       / SISU                             [T5eh              115 DES                                  r (yCilg) :       i @Ci/ 3) '.-   @Ci/g)'i      /@Cilg)        @Ci/s) '    S $CilgN                          I$Gg)             Y demuhr) I -
                                     *D23                                 11/26/94                                                 1.4E + 01     9.0E-01       2.1E+ 01       4.7E + 00    3.0E + 00     1.6E+00                            4.5E+01                  146.9 "D24                                 11/26/94                                                3.2E + 00      2.lE-01       3.2E + 00        5.8E-01                   3.0E-01                           7.4E + 00                 22.4
                                     *D25                                 11/26/94                                                7.0E +00       5. l E-Ol ' ' 2.5E + 00       9.7E-01       5.2E-01      3.7E41                            1.2E+ 01                  27.6 l

D26 11/26/94 1.2E + 01 7.9E-01 1.3E + 01 2.8E + 00 1.7E + 00 1.2E+ 00 3.1E +01 94.4 t

                                     *D27                                 1I/26/94                                                    3.0E-02                                                                                                 3.0E42                   0.0                           !
                                     "D28                                 11/26/94                                                1.6E + 00       1.2E-01        6.6E-01       2.7E-01                                                      2.6E + 00                  6. 5
                                     *D29                                 11/26/94                                                1. lE + 00                     6.4E-01       3.3E-01                                                      2. lE + 00                 5.5 "D30                                11/26/94                                                     9.lE-01                    2.4E41        2.5E-01                                                      1.4E+ 00                   3.1                           i i
                                     "D31                                 II/26/94                                                    9.4F 01                    1.lE-01                                                                    1.0E + 00                  1.9                           .

D32 11/26/94 4.2E-01 5.6E-01 1.7F 01 1.lE+ 00 3.8 , D33 11/26/94 1. l E + 00 8.0E-02 5.8B.01 1.7E+ 00 4.7~ D34 11/26/94 4.2E + 00 2.9E-01 2.6E-01 5.3F 01 5.3E+00 9.3 D35 11/26/94 4.8F 02 4.8F-02 0.1 t D36 11/26/94 1.3E-01 1.3E41 0.2  !

                                     "D37                                11/26/94                                                5.6E+ 00        3.2E-01       2.7E+ 00        8.7F 01      5.9E41        4.3F 01                           1.1E+01                  26.0 D38                                11/26/94                                                    9.3E-01     6.7E-02        3.0F 01                                                                     1.3E+00                    3.0 D39                                11/26/94                                                    7.lE-01                     1.9E-01                                                                     9.0E-01                  2.0                            [

l D39 QCC 11/26/94 9.2E-01 4.0E-01 1.3E+ 00 3.3 i i

                                     *D40                                11/26/94                                                    3.4E-01                                   3.0F 01                                                       6.5E-01                   1.2 D41                                11/26/94                                                    6.8E-01     4.3E-02        2.8E.OI                                                                    1.0E + 00                  2.5 D42                                11/26/94                                                    3.0E-01                    6.0E42         1.4E-01                                                       5.0E41                   1.0
                                     *D43                               11/30/94                                                 4.8E + 00       2.7E-01       6.4E + 00       8.9E41       4.5E-01      3.3E41                            1.3E+01                   43.2 i
                                     *D44                               11/30/94                                                 1.4E+ 01        7.6F 01       1.0E+ 01      1.9E + 00     1.2E+ 00      5.9E41                            2.9E+ 01                  82.0                            ;

om7meomocsesysumnscoreanscorino.3 I 3-14 REVISION S I _ _ - - - - . _ - ..- __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - - -_ - - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . - - - - . ~ . _ . - . .- --

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-8 Soil and Sediment Sample Gamma SpcCtral Analysis Results (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE ' Cs-137 Cs-134 ~ Co-60 Eu-l'52 Euil54' 'En-155 Total ' 11: DES : (pci/g) (pCi/g) (pCilg) (pCvg) (pci/g) (pCi/g) ' .(pCvg) (mremfyr)

                *D45                 11/30/94          1.8E + 01      1.2E + 00         1.9E + 01        2.8E + 00      1.8E + 00        1. lE + 00                                               4.3E + 0!        132.9
                *D46                 11/30/94          4.4E + 00       2.6E-01          5.9E + 00        1. lE + 00      5.0F,01               4.9E-01                                            1.3E + 01         41.0
                *D47                 11/30/44          6.0E + 00       3.7FAI           7.3E + 00        1.3E + 00       7.lE-Ol               6.0F,01                                            1.6E + 01         51.4
                *D48                 11/30/94          8.2E + 00       4.0E-01          1.5E + 01        2.2E + 00      1.4E+ 00               9.3E-01                                            2.8E+ 01          95.8 D49                 12/08/94           4.6E-01                                                                                                                                    4.6F,01           0.6 D50                 12/08/94           3.9E-01        1.0E-03           7.5E-02           3.lE41                                                                                  7.7E-01            1.6 D51                 12/08/94           6.8E-01                          9.3E42                                                                                                    7.7FAI             1.4 D52                 12/08/94           4.7F,02                                                                                                                                    4.7F,02           0.1 D53                 12/08/94           3.7E-01                           1.4P 01_                                                                                                 5.0 pal            1.2 D54                 12/08/94           3.3E-01                          8.6E-01                                                                                                  1.2E + 00          4.8 D55                 12/08/94                                                                                                                                                           0.0          0.0 D56                 12/08/94          2.2E + 00                         6.6E-01          5.3F,01        2.8 pal                                                                  3.7E +00           8.3 D57                 12/08/94           4.0 pal                          2.5E-01                                                                                                   6.5 pal           I8 nu                  I ? mo.t           a tr.nl                          .s 7F_n1                                                                                                 1 ?P 4 m           i?

(1) 'ITDE is for illustrative purpose only. TEDE values were generated using the generic tables from NUREG-1500. A site specific modelis under development which will predict the actual situation at Fort St. Vrain. (2) Sediment deposited on the banks c!the Goosequill ditch from ditch dredging. Sample depth was usually less than 15 cm. (3) Sediment samples taken from within the Goosequill ditch. (4) Samples taken from South Marsh area contained large amounts of swamp grass and roots and may not be representative of soil activity. G.WATA DOCSTSVSURVBSCUNGSCONG.3 5 ISION 9

l MEASUREMENT RESULTS 3.2.4 QC Soil and Sediment Samples

    /~3 Q

Three soil samples were dried, mixed, split and analyzed separately. The results and a comparison are provided in Table 3-10. This comparison t was performed in accordance with the criteria for environmental split

sample comparison contained in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750. The

! QC splits were analyzed using the same protocal as the samples. The 1 } resolution is equal to the QC result divided by it's lo uncertainty. The ratio is the sample result divided by the QC result. The resolution and l ratio are then compared to the values in Table 3-10a. l Table 3-10 QC Sample Analysis jN4clides RdsysP ,l Mspljd M [Mipindi ', [4sampidS} LResolutiod kR$ti$ ( E...,

                          '"             %# ' , <1.(pCi/g)!

O -~ , ' 'ff. ; , i(pCi/g)2 Qncertainty( l(pCi/g)i ' O i D12 Cs-137 3.7E-01 3.7E-01 3.2E 02 .11.6 1.0

             ~

D22 Cs-137 2.9E + 00 2.7E + 00 8.5E-02 31.8 1.1 Cs-134 1.9E-01 1.4E 01 1.9E-02 7.4 1.4 Co-60 1.5E-00 1.7E + 00 7.1E-02 23.9 0.9 Eu-152 3.7E-01 3. lE-01 5.7E-02 5.4 1.2 D39 Cs-137 7.1E-01 9.2E-01 7.2E-02 12.8 0.8 Co-60 1.9E-01 4.0E-01 7.1E-02 5.6 0.5 Table 3-10a NRC Criteria for Accepting Sample Measurements  ! d Resolud$n f Ratio

                                                                                                                         ,                             I
                                                                                             <4                                                        i 4-7             0.5-2.0 8-15              0.6-1.66 16-50            0.75-1.33                                  i I

51-200 0.80-1.25 '

                                                                                          > 200             0.85-1.18 Each nuclide identified in the sample was also identified in it's QC split.                 ;

The sample ratio was within the acceptable range in Table 3-10a for all i nuclides. O  ! l camacanoeswsysummscomcwomca 3-16 REVISION 6 '

MEASUREMENT RESULTS l 3.2.5 Independent Samples Taken by Colorado State University The Public Service Company of Colorado requested Colorado State University, CSU (their contractor for the FSV Radiological Environmental l Monitoring Program) to obtain samples in a few of the locations where l SEG had taken samples. The results are shown in Table 3-11. I Table 3-11 Colorado State University Sample Results l Samp1d f M* aa 5 lCs-137 Concentr$tioni Co 60f-+ ati$n  !'Ih-232 Concedtration i f(1D)' E (pCilg) ' f(pCi/g)$ m (pCilg) 2 - D-4 1.3 0.16 2.2 D-5 0.62 0.10 1.5 D-7 7.0 0.99 1.6 D-9 3.2 1.8 1.2 D-17 <0.053 0.031 <0.14 ) D-25 3.3 3.5 1.1 D-27 0.42 0.20 1.4 D-33 0.059 <0.033 0.93 D-40 0.21 <0.016 1.4 D41 0.174 0.025 0.95 Note: All samples collected 11-30-94 A comparison of the CSU data with SEG's data is difficult since CSU's sampling methods and analysis procedures are not known. In addition, results of the SEG sample analyses have shown the activity concentrations to be very spotty which would prevent any one-for-one comparison of the data. However, the range of Cs-137 and Co-60 activity concentrations is within the range observed by SEG. O cmxruncunocsusvstamscomcucomes 3-17 REVISION 8 l

l MEASUREMENT RESULTS l 3.3 In Situ Measurements - 3.3.1 Measurements, Results and Analyses Two hundred thirteen in situ measurements were taken along the liquid effluent pathway, in agricultural dispersion areas, and in areas around and ; beyond the farm pond. Two background measurements (IPS013 and 1 IPS015) were taken off site. 'Ihe Inspector measurement locations are j shown in Figures 3-5 and 3-6. Points denoted with a box around the dot indicate that the results show either Cs-137- greater than twice that measured in the background or the detection of Co-60. It should be noted that the Cs-137 background activity concentrations are reported to vary by  ; more than a factor of 2 it: Coloracc. Therefore, Cs-137 results in excess

                                                                                               ]

of twice the assumed background may not by themselves indicate the presence oflicensed radioactive materials.  ; i 1 i l i i i i O  ! i l 5 l 1 l l O commcarxswsvammscorscworac' ~ 3-18 REVISION 0

A1 am asAAAM--w e: --,Jniv M.Ihim. A MM4-MA+M-^'m u M-smaE &-M*--a M em M e"M=M M= M meMMAmW" "MM 'W ' "Am-O THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY ,

l. EFT BLANK $

I 1 O

    \

fam Pad

                                                                                                       *l        "                               i ll 2                                               a 37                       om
                                           ~~f ~'g/\h                                             i
                                                                                                                                         - a
                                   ~~
                                         ,2.f      -- "\

n %m ": u,.dlm . 1 ,

._ - '"o

                        //f      ...

wo

                                                      /w m: -

r, -

                                                                                 -4
                                                                                                          .             e
                                                                                                 ;W:"::
                       'l                           W.                 '%                                              Ilm       .

iill ~

                      //
                    /         "                a#//= =E. .
                                                                         *~ %      5-}                               .

nii ., l'. S '-%'?!/ / *

                                                                              # ~~ '

5 y q m\.s 'sb s" 1

.o y//. ,,

                                                 ?~**      , ... : ;                        *-

N.'y... .. , .

                                                                                                                              ?
                                                          =~'

• st ba re E2 -

                                                                                                             ,                             1 h\

s=h s Figur

                                                                                                       ,                    Efduent Pathway In
 .             o.warmncmmessrsyson vmscorunscorma.)

3-l {P% a 884 n

MEASUREMENT RESULTS _ ANSTEC APERTURE i CARD Also Available on Aperture Card Pat St. Vrah Efhnt PathWag N Apri10.1999 N5PECf0RPONf5 PS.XXX n % % ern w a.,*a - - l Fie Name: Plf0iDWG ri

                                                                                                                 ,il     ,,l -
                                .r=w .o,e
                                                                                          '{ 'l'            u           !..J l e -rm                     aml
                                                                  ^

(' ' ~ - 3 , ll l 88 f

                                                                                                           , h E e=-

llCllll: (cose+d Pkh , , C, _. ,, s . n . h a l m ,, , i

                                                                                                                                 ,=            .

N /N aLc , (; li"

                     %th N           "

xo y  ;(O r\\ 2 g- , . . . , - - - - - - - -

                                                            ; ,~ ~ ~ ~

T 7b - - C COMY RON7191/ 2

                                          -"        "      'a
                       ;;                                                       /,.,i
                                                                                            ;,, N, .
                                          <                               . u ,., ..

s- [i'"', x.

     -                         % ,,                                       ::   7,.

\\ - I ,,,.,, .

m =  ; I l a

= = .

i 3-5 iltu Measurements 9702050011 - I I REVISION 0

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

MEASUREMENT RESULTS 1 b d w, om ., Fs . ,*- *- * " _ pgw pa ,

                                       ,/ 5
                                                                             .c.,,,e pa
                                    ~                 s-                    y 1                  ..                      s.
  .                                                         E **        V.,
      .-               ..-                                                      =

y.y -

          ==                                    ,           ..               .o.

C . .- Smd irrepedesY ** PRAWING A Fat St. Vran Ebnt Patkay N Februany 14.1999 [~ INSPECf0RPONf5 IPS.XXX Fde Naw: PRAWA.PW5 [ [.3 .r ,.r m u u s e Figure 3-6 Effluent Pathway In Situ Measurements O G@AMECM)OCSMVSL*mSCOMGWComCJ 3-20 REVISION 0

MEASUREMENT RESULTS The inspector allows the efficiency to be selected for uniform activity with I depth, or exponential vertical distribution with a selected relaxation length (0.1 cm,1.25 cm, or 12.5 cm) depending on how far (vertically)into the soil the deposited activity has migrated. All measurements taken were  ; analyzed using the exponential vertical distribution calibration with a ' relaxation length of 0.1 cm. The Inspector reported activities are in units of Ci/100cm', which defines the total inventory of activity integrated from 0 depth to infm' ity per unit I area. The reported results must therefore be converted, using an  ! appropriate equation, to activity per unit mass. The calibration report (with a correction in the definition of terms) provides an equation to  ! define the activity per unit volume at a depth z in the soil as: S(z) = b e ~#' L Where: S(z) = activity per em at depth z. i Io = total inventory integrated to infinite depth, (the results as reported by the inspector software [ Ci/100cm2 j), L = vertical relaxation length [cm]. The Inspector results are equated to a concentration in the soil, where the , soil sample would be an average of the activity from depth 0 to depth z, l by integrating the above equation from the soil surface to depth z. The l integration is provided in Appendix A with the resulting equation of: l I Am = ,(1 -e ~#') where: A = activity per unit mass in soil. I, = total inventory, (the results as reported by the inspector software [ Ci/100cm2 ]). z = soil depth [cm], the activity is integrated from the surface to depth z to calculate the average soil concentration over the depth. A z of 0.3 cm is assumed. 0.3 cm represents 3 relaxation lengths and the distance where 95% of the activity will be deposited. L = relaxation length [cm], for the efficiency used L = 0.1 cm. p = soil density [g/cm'], for the efficiency used p = 1.6 g/cm'. camucapocsavstamscomcucomc' 3-21 REVISION 9 l l l l

                 ~ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

MEASUREMENT RESULTS t This equation was used to convert the Inspector reported activities to an activity per unit mass so that a correlation to typical limits could be made. O These calculations of activity per unit mass are preliminary. There is evidence that shows the relaxation length is grcater than 0.1 cm and may be approximately 2-4 cm. Until the relaxation leagth is better defined, these results can only be considered preliminary.  ; i The two backgmund measurements IPS0013 and IPS0015 were also analyzed using the efficiency curve for uniform sctivity with depth. The quantified activities (using the efficiency for uniform activity with depth) are reponed in units of Ci/100cm' and the conversion to Ci/g is easily made by using the 1.6g/cm' soil density. The K-40 soil concentrations  ! after conversion are 17.5 pCi/g and 20.0 pCi/g, respectively which compare reasonably with the known K-40 concentrations. Table 3-12 is a tabulation of the Inspector results. All activities, both positive and negative, are reported for fission and activation products and for K-40. Cs-137 and K-40 results were put into a ratio with the background measurements. These ratios were used for reference:

• To see how the natural K-40 changed from location to location, and
• To determine when the Cs-137 measurement exceeded twice  :

background and if possibly due to an influence other than global 0 fallout. It is interesting that the K-40 ratio (measurement to background) is noted to decrease significantly in areas around the farm pond where the terrestrial component is effectively shielded by the water. This K-40 ratio l' may be used later to correct each nuclide's activity if a correlation can be established during the characterization. It is possible that some of the reported Mn-54 is due to naturally occurring Ac-228 since Mn-54 has an 834.83 kev energy photon and Ac-228 has an j 835.5 kev energy photon. j i Table 3-13 shows the Inspector measurements converted to activity per  ! unit mass. The soil activity (pCi/g) for each nuclide (Cs-134, Cs-137, ] Co-60, Eu-152, Eu-154, Eu-155, and Mn-54) was then multiplied by the i NUREG-1500 Table A-1 value to calculate a preliminary estimate of the total effective dose equivalent, TEDE per year. The resulting TEDE values are also contained in Table 3-13. j O CADCAMCEDOCsW5VsURESCOFMCWCOMCJ 3-22 REVISION 8

MEASUREMENT RESULTS O Elevated Inspector measurements ue observed: l

• In the irrigation area off the Goosequill ditch primarily along the &

major flow path, W In the North Marsh irrigation area to the west of county road 19%,

• Along the Jay Thomas ditch and the branches off the Jay Thomas which are used for irrigation, and
• At points beyond the farm pond.

3.3.2 Discussion ofIn Situ Errors l In situ measurements with the Inspector allow for relatively quick analysis of the nuclides in the field, however the design and calibration bring a few l limitations which cannot be overlooked when evaluating and quantifying i the data. The calculated soil concentrations (pCi/g), and dose equivalent rates (mrem /yr), carry a great deal of uncertainty due to the inherent limitations l of the Inspector system. The wide view of the detector and the l assumptions about the soil contamination geometry are the major source of uncertainty. The soil concentrations as determined by soil sampling and analysis could easily be different by a factor of 10 to 20 or more. The assumptions used in the Inspector's efficiency calibration which produce uncertainty in the results, listed in order of significance, are. l

• Uniform distribution of activity across the horizon. Microshield runs (provided in Appendix B) were performed to calculate the expected energy fluence rate from various contaminated areas.

The Microshield" results show that for localized activity the Inspector measurements could be low by a factor of 10 to 20 or more. l

• A uniform planar source with the detector located 1 meter from the surface. While the detector is positioned 1 meter from the ground, the ground is irregular and in some cases measurements .

I have been taken on banks, in ditches or beside the farm pond. In addition, some measurements were taken on top of several inches  ! of snow or over ditches covered with ice. O camucupocsavstamscomcscomca 3-23 REVISION 9

MEASUREMENT RESULTS o Deposition of activity in the top 0.1 cm of soil. The inspector measurements have been initially analyzed using an exponential O vertical distribution of activity with a relaxation length of 0.1 cm. Soil sampling results may provide a better estimate of the depth distribution in the soil.

• Soil density of 1.6 g/cm'. ,

1 Assumed uniform distribution is by far the most significant source of  : uncertainty. He soil samples which have been analyzed indicate that the contamination is likely leti=3 and the activity is not uniform. Leli=i contamination will be underestimated by the inspector with the largest underestimation occurring if the contamination is Imli=i in an area on the outside edge of the detector view. It should be noted that if the area and depth distribution of the activity become available, some correction in the data (i.e., use of other efficiency curves) can be made to arrive at "better" estimates. It should also be noted that the calibration curves provided with the Inspector do not allow for density correction; this however, is not considered to be a major source of error. 3.3.3 Comparison of In Situ Concentrations with Soil Sample Activity Soil activity concentrations (pCi/g) for K-40 and Cs-137 calculated from background measurements using a 0.1 cm relaxation length do not g compare well with the expected background concentrations. This is likely due to the distribution of activity with depth. K-40 is uniform with depth and Cs-137 due to global fallout is deeper than 0.1 cm. When the , background measurements were reanalyzed using the uniform with depth  ; efficiency the quantified K-40 activity concentrations were within the expected range. Understanding all the room for error in equating in situ measurements to soil sample concentration, a comparison was made between the soil sample results and the in situ measurements from the North Marsh irrigation area. See Figure 3-4 for soil sample locations and Figure 3-6 ' for inspector in situ locations. The distribution is assumed to be extended l in the horizontal dimension (although probably not uniform and infinite), and therefore a comparison was made for points where sampl- 1d in situ measurements were in close proximity. The compaten is for information only because of the following reasons:

• Soil samples were taken in the top 15 cm.

O commcsoocswsysummscoccacomca 3-24 REVISION 9

i MEASUREMENT RESULTS l o Inspector measurements were evaluated for the top 0.3 cm of soil (assumed to contain 95% of the activity). If the evaluation was performed over the top 15 cm, the inspector values would be a g factor of 50 lower (15cm/0.3cm). T l

• Soil samples were taken in November. i
• Inspector measurements were made in mid December.

The comparison is shown in Table 3-14. The surprisingly good agreement I may be coincidental. Using the soil sample as the true measure of the soil activity, the table shows that the Inspector values for Co-60 ranged from "under-reported" by a factor of 0.48 to "over-reported" by a factor of 2.88. Cs-137 values were generally "over-reported," with the range being l 0.94 to 4.38, potentially due to the background variability to the Cs-137  ! concentrations. More accurate correlations may be made following I analysis of the characterization data, when the depth of burial (and the resulting relaxation length) will be known and soil samples will be taken at exact inspector measurement points. i O O G@AMECHDOCSWYSUREScomG3COMGJ 3-25 REVISION 0

O O O MEASUREMENT RESUI,TS t Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm')  ;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ','    t:    yest37'. (r.40Ratial
                .1 SAMPLE -

DATE- Comment 1 > i: K-40 Co-60 Cs-1377 TCs-134 $ - Ma-54 b 5:Es-152 / YRatio'to ! l to i I I

                                                                                                                                                             .              d:                                                      Backgroum!    Background        !

i IPS00013 12/14/94 Background 8.4E 03 7.8E-05 -5.4E46 i IPS00015 12/14/94 Background 9.6E-03 6.8E-05 s.8E-06 i IPS00003 12/13/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.8E43 4.9E-05 4.7E-04 6.4E +00 1. lE + 00 IPS00004 12/13/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 3.9E-05 3.lE-04 -1.3E-05 4.3E+ 00 1. lE +00 IPS00005 12/13/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.1E-02 5.5E-05 4.2E-04 2.2E-05 -2.3E-06 5.8E+00 1.2E +00 IPS00006 12/13/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.6E-03 4.7E-05 4.0E-04 2.4E 05 5.5E +00 1. lE +00 IPS00007 12/13/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.lE42 6.3E-05 5.4E-04 l 4.7E-05 7.4E + 00 1.2E + 00 i IPS00008 12/13/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1. lE-02 5.5E-05 3.8E-Od 1.8E-05 5.2E+00 1.3E +00  ! IP500009 12/13/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 9.6E-05 3.1E-04 2.3E 05 4.2E +00 1.2E + 00 IPS00019 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9. lE-03 1.4E-04 1.9E + 00 1.0E +00 I IPS00020 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.4E-03 1.2E-04 1.6E+00 1.lE+00 t I IPS00021 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch 8.4E-03 8. lE-06 1. lE-01 9.4E-01 IPS00022 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.5E-03 1.lE 04 3.8E-06 1.5E +00 1.lE + 00  ; IPS00023 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.9E-03 1.3E-04 3.4E-04 2.4E-05 4.7E + 00 1.lE + 00 IPS00024 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch S.lE-03 8.5E-05 2.3E-04 1.9E-04 3.2E + 00 1.0E + 00 . IPS00025 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch 8.4EM 6?E G3 2. lE-04 1.2E-05 7.8E-06 2.8E + 00 9.4E-01 IPS00026 12/16/94 N. Marsh Ditch 8.2E-03 C.8E 05 2.3E-04 1.4E-05 3.lE + 00 9.2E-01  ! camucupocswsystemsconscssconsc3 3-26 REVISION 9 i

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.) Cs-137 ' K-40 Ratio DATE Comment K-40 Co-60 Cs-137 - Cs-134 ' Mn-54 -':- Eu-152 ' Ratio to to

                                                                                                                - Background  Background IPS00027       12/16/94    N. Marsh Ditch  8.8E-03     5.lE-05      1.3E-04                                       1.7E + 00    9.8E-01 IPS00028       12/16/94    N. Marsh Ditch  8.4E-03      3.6E-05     1.lE-04                                        1.5E + 00   9.4E-01 IP500029       12/16/94    N. Marsh Ditch  9.2E-03     5.3E-05      1.2E-04                                       1.6E +00    1.0E +00 IPS00030       12/16/94    N. Marsh Ditch  8.4E-03     2.8E-05      1.2E-04                                       1.7E + 00    9.4E-01 IPS00032       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  8.6E-03     7.4E-05      1.3E-04                                       1.8E +00     9.6E-01 IPS00033       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  8.3E-03                  4.5E-05                                         6.2E-01    9.3E-01 IPS00034       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  1.0E-02                  7.lE-05                                         9.7E-01   1.1 E + 00 IPS00035       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  9.7E-03     3.3E-05      9.4E-05                7.4E-07                1.3E + 00   1. lE +00 IPS00036       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  9.7E-03                  1.2E-04                                       1.6E + 00   1.lE + 00 IPS00037       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  8.0E-03     5.lE-05      3.2E-04     2. lE-05                          4.4E + 00    8.9E-01 IPS00038       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  9.lE-03     3.3E-05      3.7E-04     3. lE-05   2.9E-06                5. lE + 00  1.0E +00 IPS00039       12/19/94    N. Marsh Ditch  9.4E-03                  1.6E-05              -6.8E-06                   2.2E-01   1.lE + 00 IPS00040       12/19/94    JT DITCH        7.8E-03                  4.9E-06                8.0E-06                  6.7E-02    8.7E-01 IPS00041       12/19/94    JT DITCH        1.2E-02                  5.8E-05                                         8.0E-01   1.3 E + 00 IPS00042       12/19/94    JT DITCH        9.2E-03     3.9E-05      6.2E-05                                         8.5E-01   1.0E + 00 IPS00043       12/19/94    JT DITCH        6.5E-03      1.5E-04     2.2E-04     2.2E-05    5.5E-06                3.0E + 00    7.3E-01 IPS00044       12/20/94    N. Marsh Ditch  1.0E-02                  6.7E-05                                         9. lE-01  1. I E +00 cmAT       mocswsyst'avnscometscomca
                                                                 -27                                                           VISION 8

                                                                                                                                                                                                             ~ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . .

t O O O MEASUREMENT RESULTS , Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measumnents (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.) F

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  / Cs-137:!             : K-40 Ratio :
                      - SAMPLE.-                                                        ~

DATE Comment K 40 '~ Co-60  : Col ~'-l372 Csi1341 LMa-54i 4EE152i ' Ratio' sol ;la :

lD . -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~         '                 -

g  ; IPS00045 12/20/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.5E-03 6.9E-05 9.4E-01 1.lE + 00  ; IPS00046 12/20/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.7E-03 1.4E-04 2.4E-05 1.9E + 00 1.lE +00 t IPS00047 12/20/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.8E-03 8.5E-05 1.4E-06 1.2E +00 1.lE + 00 i IPS00048 12/20/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 1.6E-05 2.2E-04 7.3E46 3.0E + 00 1. lE + 00 IPS00049 12/20/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.0E-03 1.8E 05 1.4E-04 1.9E +00 1.0E + 00 IPS00050 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.5E-03 1.3E-04 1.8E + 00 1.lE +00 f IPS00051 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.8E-03 9.6E-05 1.3E+ 00 1. lE + 00 l 3 IPS00052 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 1.3E-04 -3.4E-06 1.7E +00 1.lE + 00  : IPS00053 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.2E-03 1.3E-05 1.6E-04 2.2E +00 1.0E + 00 l IPS00054 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.7E-03 1.lE44 1.5E +00 1. lE +00 i IPS00055 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 1.5E-05 1.3E-04 3.1E-06 1.8E + 00 1.lE + 00 i IPS00056 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 7.lE-05 8.2E-06 9.7E-01 1.tE + 00 IPS00057 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.2E-03 1.lE-04 1.5E +00 1.03 + 00 IPS00058 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.0E-03 2.lE-05 1. lE-04 1.0E-05 1.5E +00 1.0E + 00 IPS00059 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 8.4E-03 1.3E-04 1.8E + 00 9.4E-01

IPS00060 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 8.4E-03 8.5E-05 1.2E + 00 9.4E-01 IPS00061 12/21/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.7E-03 9.4E-05 1.3E +00 1.lE + 00 l camvrtcimocswsysvavescomcsscomca 3-28 REVISION 6 I

I

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.) b

                                                                                                                 ' Csil37)    K-40 Ratio' DATE               Comment ' K-40        Co-60       .. Cs-137  . Cs-134 '  Mn-54[  ) E$-152 '-  1 Ratio tol        to ;

D' ' Background Background IPS00062 12/22/94 N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 1.2E-04 9.lE46 1.7E + 00 I . lE +00 IPS00063 12/22/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.0E-03 1.0E-04 8.lE-06 1.4E + 00 1.0E + 00 IPS00064 12/22/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.7E-03 7.9E-05 1. l E +00 1. l E + 00 IPS00065 12/22/94 N. Marsh Ditch 8.5E-03 6.6E-05 -9.8E-07 9.lE-01 9.5E-01 IPS00066 12/22/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.4E-03 9.lE-05 1.3E +00 1.0E + 00 IPS00067 12/22/94 N. Marsh Ditch 9.8E-03 9.5E-05 5.7E-06 1.3E + 00 1. lE + 00 IPS00068 12/22/of N. Marsh Ditch 1.0E-02 6.1E-05 8.3E-01 1.2E + 00 IPS00069 12/22/94 JT DITCH 6.5E-03 1.3E-04 2.2E-04 1.4E-05 3.0E +00 7.3E 01 IPS00070 12/22/94 F.P. OVER-1 5.4E 03 8.2E-05 5.3E-05 7.3E-01 6.1E-01 IPS00071 12/22/94 F.P. OVER-2 7.1E-03 4.2E-05 5.7E-01 7.9E-01 IPS00072 12/22/94 F.P. INLET-1 6.5E-03 5.2E-05 1.1E-04 1.5E + 00 7.3E-01 IPS00074 01/05/95 F.P. EXTEND 6.0E-03 4.2E-05 3.3E-05 4.5E-01 6.7E-01 IPS00076 01/05/95 F.P. EXTEND 5.0E-03 3.lE-05 4.3E-01 5.6E-01 IPS00077 01/05/95 F.P. EXTEND 5.8E-03 4.9E-05 5.6E-05 7.6E-01 6.5E-01 IPS00078 01/05/95 F.P. EXTEND 6.0E-03 2.6E-05 -5.8E-06 3.6E-01 6.7E-01 IPS00079 01/06/95 F.P. EXTEND 6.0E-03 2.3E-05 3.9E-05 5.3E-01 6.7E-01 IPS00080 01/06/95 F.P. EXTEND 6.4E-03 4.6E-05 5.8E-05 8.0E-01 7. l E-01 carr imocswsysvavnsconsessconsca

                                                                  -29                                                          VISION 9

t

;                        O                                                                                               O                                                                                                         O MEASUREMENT RESUI!IS Table 3-12                                                                                                                      :

Inspector In-Site Mcasumnents (pCl/100 an') (cont.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                     ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                           .x  m .               ~  .....f               !

l. 9 DATE Comment . K Co-60 /Csil3'7 e 3 Cs-134} TNaiS43 s

sed-1521

Cs-137 t l' Ratio tS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    'K-40 Ratio J i l to; ID;                                                         ' -                                                                                                         -   -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .g IP%0081                   01/06/95 F.P. Ditch               7.0E-03                                                          3.9E-05                                                                            5.3E-01            7.8E 01          :

1PS00082 01/06/95 F.P. Field 6.2E-03 4.5E-05 6.IE-01 ti.9E-01  ! , IPS00083 01/06/95 JT Ditch 8.3E-03 2.4E-05 7.0E-05 9.6E-01 9.3E-01 . ! IPS00084 01/06/95 JT Ditch 7.0E-03 8.7E-05 7.7E-05 1. lE + 00 7.8E-01 i IPS00085 01/06/95 JT Ditch 8.6E-03 7.6E-05 8.lE-05 1. lE + 00 9.7E-01  ! IPS00086 01/06/95 JT Ditch 8.8E43 2.8E-05 4.2EM 5.7E-01 9.8E-01 t IPS00087 01/06/95 JT Ditch 8.2E-03 7.2E46 9.8E-02 9.lE-01 i IPS00088 01/06/95 JT Ditch 8.7E-03 6.6E-05 9.0E-01 9.7E-01 r IPS00089 01/07/95 FP Field Ditch 8.2E-03 1.0E-04 1.4E 05 1.4E +00 9.lE41 IPS00090 01/07/95 FP Field Ditch 9.6E-03 7.2E-05 9.9E-01 1. lE +00 l l IPS00091 01/07/95 FP Field Ditch 9.9E43 7.lE-05 9.7E-01 1. lE + 00 IPS00092 01/07/95 FP Field Ditch 9.3E-03 7.7E-05 7.9E-06 1.lE +00 1.0E +00 I i IPS00093 01/07/95 FP Field Ditch 9.4E-03 7.9E-05 1.9E-06 1.lE + 00 1.lE + 00 l IPS00094 01/07/95 JT Ditch Branch 6.6E-03 4.0E-05 1.6E-04 2.2E +00 7.3E-01 IPS00095 01/07/95 JT Ditch Branch 8. lE-03 2.0E 05 8.6E45 1.2E +00 9.lE-01 [ t IPS00096 01/07/95 JT Ditch Branch 9.lE-03 2.lE-05 8.5E-05 1.2E+00 1.0E +00 - IPS00097 01/07/95 JT Ditch Branch 7.lE-03 8.3E-05 1.4E-05 1.2E-05 2.0E41 7.9E-01

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ?

i camucnnocsesysvamscormciscoreca 3-30 REVISION 9 [ 4-i

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.)

                                                                                                       ' Cs-137 :  ' K-40 Ratio SAMPLE DATE             Comment  K-40        Co-60 '      Cs-137 ' Cs-134   Mn-54 '   Eu-152   . Ratio to          to Background       Backgrmnxi IPS00098     01/07/95 JT Ditch Branch  7.4E-03                  4. lE-05                                 5.6E-01       8.3E-01 IPS00099     01/07/95 JT Ditch Branch  6.6E-03      4.2E-05     1.5E-04  1.0E-05 -2. lE-06             2. lE +00       7.4E-01
 !PS00100     01/07/95 JT Ditch Branch  1.0E-02      1.9E-05     1.lE-04                    -3.0E-05     1.6E +00      1.lE + 00 IPS00101     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  7.3E-03      5.3E-05     2.3E-04           1.6E-06              3.2E + 00       8. lE-01 IPS00102     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  5.9E-03      5.4E-05     2.4E-04  2.2E-05            1.4E-05    3.3E+ 00        6.6E-01 IPS00103     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  9.lE-03                  1.2E-04                                1.7E + 00      1.0E + 00 IPS00104     01/09/95  JT Ditch Branch 8.9E-03      3.2E-05     2.8E-04  1.5E-05                       3.8E +00        9.9E-01 IP500105     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  9.3E-03      2.4E-05     1.8E-04                                2.5E +00       1.0E + 00 IPS00106     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  1.0E-02                  8.2E-05                                1.I E + 00     1.2E + 00 IPS00107     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  9.3E-03                  6.3E-05                                  8.6E41       1.0E + 00 IPS00108     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  7.3E-03      5.3E-05     3.7E-04  2.4E-05                       5.0E + 00       8.2E-01 IPS00109     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  6.6E-03      4.8E-05     2.8E 04  2.7E-05 -3.0E-06  -1.5E-05    3.8E +00        7.4 E-01 IPS00110     01/09/95  JT Ditch Branch 8.5E-03      4.5E-05     3.3 E-04 2.2E-05                       4.5E + 00       9.6E-01 IPS00111     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  6.8E-03      3.0E-05     1.5E-04                                2. lE + 00      7.6E-01 IPS00112     0I/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  6.6E-03                  1.2E-04                                1.6E + 00       7.3E-01 IPS00113     01/09/95 JT Ditch Branch  7.3E-03      8.7E-06     1.0E-04                                1.4E +00        8.2E-01 IPS00114     01/11/95  F.P. Field      7.9E-03                  5.9E-05                                  1.1E-01       8.8E-01  ,

G:WAT mOCSTSYSURVDSConNGLSCOMNGJ

                                                             -31                                                       VISION 6    l

t O O O  ! MEASUREMENT RESUL'IS t Table 3-12 i Inspector In-Site Measumnents  ; (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.)  !

                                                                                                                                                 +               9         ,

3g o j SAMPLE - DATE Connnent K Co40 Cs-137?  : Cs-134 ~ L Ma-54i iEd 52/; [ Ratio % j to : Be& ground Background IPS00ll5 01/11/95 F.P. Field 8. lE-03 5.lE-05 4.4E-04 3.4E-05 -7.5E-06 3.4E-05 6.0E + 00 9. lE-01 , IPS00116 01/11/95 F.P. Field 8.0E-03 8.7E-05 1.2E +00 8.9E-01 i IPS00117 01/11/95 F.P. Field 8.6E-03 9.7E-05 1.3E +00 9.6E-01 IPS00118 01/11/95 F.P. Field 8.lE-03 1.6E-04 2.lE +00 9.lE-01 IPS00119 01/11/95 F.P. Field 7.5E-03 9.0E 4 1.2E +00 8.4E-01 i IPS00120 01Il1/95 F.P. Field 7.4E-03 1.0E44 1.4E + 00 8.3E-01 IPS00121 01/11/95 F.P. Field 8.2E-03 6.4E-05 8.8E-01 9.2E-01 IPS00122 01/11/95 F.P. Field 8.6E-03 5.9E-05 8.0E-01 9.6E-01 IPS00123 01Ill/95 F.P. Field 9. lE-03 3.lE-05 4.3E-01 1.0E + 00  ! ! t

IPS00124 01/11/95 F.P. Field 7.7E-03 5.9E-05 8.0E-01 8.6E-01

• IPS00125 01Il1/95 F.P. Field 7.7E-03 5.6E-05 7.2E-06 7.7E-01 8.7E-01 IPS00126 01Ill/95 F.P. Field 8.0E-03 4.9E 05 6.8E-01 9.0E-01 i IPS00127 01/11/95 F.P. Field 9.2E-03 6.5E-05 -8.0E-07 8.9E-01 1.0E + 00

~ IPS00128 01/11/95 F.P. Field 7.9E-03 5.5E-05 7.6E-01 8.8E-01 1PS00129 0I/I1/95 F.P. Field 7.5E-03 1.1E-04 5.5E-06 1.5E + 00 8.4E-01 . IPS00130 01112/95 F.P. Field 7.7E-03 6.6E-05 1.8E-05 9.1E-01 8.6E-01 i IPS00131 01/12/95 F.P. Field 7.5E-03 8.5E-05 1.2E + 00 8.4E-01 i canuncimocswsvsvavsscomcsscomca 3-32 REVISION 0 . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . . . _ _ _ ~ _ - _. _ - - , _ _

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.) S E Cs-137 ' ' K-40 Ratio DATE Comment K-40 Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 - Mn-54 L Eu-152 - ' Ratio to to Background Background IP500132 01/12/95 F.P. Field 7.8E-03 1.2E-04 1.6E + 00 8.7E-01 IPS00133 01/12/95 F.P. Field 6.3E-03 6.8E-05 9.3E-01 7.lE-01 IPS00134 01/12/95 F.P. Field 5.9E-03 9.8E-06 2.lE-04 2.8E + 00 6.6E-01 IPS00135 01/12/95 F.P. Field 6.0E-03 1.2E-04 1.6E +00 6.7E-01 IPS00136 01/12/95 F.P. Field 6.7E-03 7.7E-05 1. lE + 00 7.5E-01 IPS00137 01/12/95 F.P. Field 7.2E-03 1.9E-05 1.1 E-04 6.6E-06 1.4E + 00 8.0E-01 IPS00138 01/12/95 F.P. Field 7.7E-03 7.8E-05 1.1 E +00 8.6E-01 IPS00139 01/12/95 F.P. Field 7.8E-03 4.0E-05 5.4E-01 8.7E-01 IPS00140 01/12/95 F.P. Field 7.8E-03 3.8E-05 -7.6E-06 5.2E-01 8.7E-01 IPS00141 01/12/95 F.P. Ditch 8.0E-03 6.3E 05 8.6E-01 8.9E-01 IPS00142 01/13/95 F.P. Ditch 7.2E-03 1.2E 04 1.6E +00 8.0E-01 IPS00143 01/13/95 F.P. Field 8.5E-03 7.4E-05 1.0E + 00 9.5E-01 IPS00144 01/13/95 F.P. Field 8.5E-03 6.5E-05 8.9E-01 9.5E-01 IPS00145 01/13/95 F.P. Field 7.1E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E + 00 7.9E-01 IPS00146 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1. lE-02 7.2E-05 9.8E-01 1.2E + 00 IPS00147 01/13/95 F.P. Field 8.9E-03 6.3E-05 8.6E-01 1.0E + 00 IPS00148 01/13/95 F.P. Field 6.8E-03 6.2E-05 -1.4E-05 ! 8.5E-01 7.6E-01 GADAT. WOCS\FSYSURVDSCOMNG\SCOMNGJ 33 VISION 8

O O O MEASUREMENT RESUL'IS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 can') (cont.)

                                                                                             ^

s ~ 7Cs2137) I K-40 R d 8 2 D DATE Co====# 1K-40[ Co40 iCo.137} J Cs-134 [Ma-54) (En-1521: IRetio toi " to j Background Background IPS00149 01/13/95 F.P. Field 6.4E-03 4.7E-05 5.1E-06 6.4E-01 7.2E-01 IPS00150 01/13/95 F.P. Field 7.8E-03 6.8E-05 2 2E-06 9.3E-01 8.7E-01 IPS00151 01/13/95 F.P. Field 7.6E-03 6.lE-05 -1 4E-05 8.3E-01 8.5E-01 IPS00152 01/13/95 JT Ditch 9.9E-03 5.3E-05 7.2E-01 1. lE +00 IPS00153 01/13/95 F.P. Extended 2.4E-03 1.9E-04 9.6E-05 -8.4E-06 1.3E+00 2.6E-01 . IPS00154 01/13/95 F.P. Extended 5.7E-03 7.9E-05 2. lE-05 2.9E-01 6.4E-01 IPS00155 01/14/95 JT Field 6.3E-03 4.2E45 2.0E-04 2.7E +00 7.lE-01 IPS00156 01/14/95 JT Field 6.6E-03 1.7E45 1.5E-04 2.lE+00 7.4E-01 .i IPS00157 01/14/95 JT Field 6.7E-03 1.3E-04 -1.0E-05 1.8E + 00 7.5E-01 IPS00158 ' 01/14/95 JT Field 6.3E-03 3.4E-05 1.8E-04 2.5E + 00 7.0E-01 . IPS00159 01/14/95 JT Field 7.3E-03 1.7E-05 1.3E-04 1.8E +00 8.2E-01 t IPS00160 01/14/95 JT Field 7.4E-03 1.lE-04 -1.7E-05 1.5E +00 8.3E-01 IPS00161 01/14/95 JT Field 8. lE-03 7.7E-05 1.0E+00 9.lE-01 IPS00162 01/14/95 JT Field 7.5E-03 7.6E-05 1.0E+00 8.4E-01 i IPS00163 01/14/95 JT Field 7. lE-03 1.8E-05 1.lE-04 1.5E + 00 7.9E-01 IPS00164 01/14/95 JT Field 7.3E-03 1.lE-04 1.5E + 00 8. lE-01 t IPS00165 01/14/95 JT Field 7.9E-03 1.2E-04 1.7E + 00 8.8E-0! [ a i commamocswsysvavesconmnsconnca REVISION 9 3-34 i i

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.) SAMPLE Cs-1371 K-40 Ratio ID A 1 14 e4 el 2 " Mo to - to

                                                                                                             . Background                    Backgramd IPS00166     01/14/95 JT Field      7. lE-03     2.4E-05      8. lE-05                                        1.1E+ 00                            8.0E-01 IPS00167     01114/95 JT Field      6.9E-03                   6.9E-05                                          9.5E-Ol                            7.7E-01 IPS00168     01/14/95 JT Field      7.8E-03                   7.2E-05             1.3E-05                      9.9E-Ol                            8.7E-01 IPS00169     01/14/95 JT Field      7.2E-03                   7.1E-05                                          9.8E-01                            8.1E-01 IPS00170     01/16/95 JT Field      7.8E-03                   4.6E-05             6.0E-06                      6.3 E-01                           8.8E-01 IPS00171     01/16/95 JT Field      7.5E-03                   5.6E-05            -2.2E-06                      7.6E Ol                            8.4E-01 IPS00172     01/16/95 JT Field      7.5E-03                   9.8E-05                                         1.3E + 00                           8.4E-01 IPS00173     01/16/95 JT Field      7.0E-03                   9.3E-05                                         1.3E + 00                           7.8E-01 IPS00174     01/16/95 JT Field      7.3E-03                   5.2E-05             7.3E-06                      7.lE-01                            8.2E-01 IPS00175     01/16/95 JT Field      7.0E-03                   6.5E-05                                          8.9E-01                            7.8E-01 IPS00176     01/16/95 F.P. Extended 5.9E-03       1.8E-04     3.7E-05                                          5.0E-01                            6.6E-01 IPS00177     01/16/95 F.P. Extended 7.6E-03      5.3E-05      2.7E-05            -3.3E-06                      3.7E-01                            8.5E-01 IPS00178     01/16/95 F.P. Extended 7.7E-03                                                                                      0.0              8.7E-01 IPS00179     01/17/95 GQ Field      4.4E-03                   3.6E-05                                          4.9E-01                            5.0E-01 IPS00180     01/17/95 GQ Field      4.0E-03                   5.4E-05                                          7.4E-01                            4.5E-01 IPS00181     01/17/95 GQ Field      5.3E-03      5.9E-05      1.5E-04  1.2E-05                                2.0E + 00                           5.9E-01 IPS00182     01/17/95 GQ Field      6.3 E-03                  1.3E-04                                         1.7E + 00                           7.0E-01 c: OAT      WOCSWVSURVDSCOMNG\SCONNGJ
                                                            -35                                                                               VISION 6

O O O MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.) Cs-137 l K-40 Ratio DATE Comment . K-40 Co-60 -Cs-137 . J Cs-134 ; Mn-54  ? Eu-152 : ' Ratio toL to

    '                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Background       Background           !

IPS00183 01/17/95 GQ Field 5. lE-03 8.3 E-05 2.6E-04 1.4E-05 3.6E +00 5.7E-01 IPS00184 01/17/95 GQ Field 3.7E-03 5.7E-05 1.8E-04 2.4E +00 4.lE-01 IPS00185 01/17/95 GQ Field 7.8E-03 1.0E-04 1.4E + 00 8.7E-01 IPS00186 01/17/95 GQ Field 3.6E-03 4.5E-05 1.8E-04 2.3E-05 2.5E + 00 4.0E-01 IPS00187 01/17/95 GQ Field 5.2E-03 3.9E-05 2.2E-04 3.0E +00 5.8E41 IPS00188 01/17/95 GQ Field 5.0E-03 3.4E-05 2.0E-04 2.7E + 00 5.6E-01 IPS00189 01/17/95 GQ Field 7.8E-03 1.2E-04 1.7E +00 8.7E-01 , IPS00190 01/17/95 GQ Field 5.4E-03 8.7E-05 -1.6E-06 1.2E +00 6.0E-01 IPS00191 01/17/95 GQ Field 6.2E-03 1.lE-04 1.5E + 00 6.9E-OI l IPS00192 01/18/95 GQ Field 6.5E-03 6.5E-05 8.9E-01 7.3E-01 IPS00193 01/18/95 GQ Field 6.7E-03 4.8E-05 6.6E-01 7.5E-01 IPS00194 01/18/95 GQ Field 6.8E-03 6.4E-05 8.8E-01 7.6E-01 IP500195 01/18/95 GQ Field 6.0E-03 6.3E-05 8.6E-01 6.7E-01 IPS001% 01/18/95 GQ Field 5.0E-03 2.8E-05 6. lE-05 8.3E-01 5.6E-01 IPS00197 01/18/95 GQ Field 6. lE-03 1.7E-05 5.7E-05 7.8E-01 6.8E-01 IPS00198 01/18/95 GQ Field 5.6E-03 2.?E-05 6.5E-05 8.9E-01 6.3E-01 IPS00199 01/18/95 GQ Field 8.5E-03 2.2E-05 3.0E-01 9.5E-Ol I CADATAMCHDOCSWYSMGSComG\SComG3 3-36 REVISION 9

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measurements (pCi/100 cm2 ) (cont.) SWPLE Cs-137 ' K-40 Ratio DATE Comment K-40 Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 . Mn-54 . Eu-152 Ratio to to - ID Background Background IPS00200 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.0E-02 1.6E-05 2.2E-01 1. I E +00 IPS00201 01/18/95 GQ Field 9.7E-03 2.?E-05 3.7E-01 1. l E + 00 IPS00202 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.2E-02 1. lE-05 1.3 E-05 1.4E-01 1.4E + 00 IPS00203 01/19/95 GQ Field 7.6E-03 8.4E-05 4.5E-04 3.3E-05 6.2E + 00 8.5E-01 IPS00204 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.0E-02 6.6E-05 9.lE-01 1. lE + 00 IPS00205 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.0E-02 3.0E-05 1.3E-04 5.9E-06 1.8E+00 1. lE + 00 IPS00206 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.0E-02 2.4E-05 1.7E-04 2.3E + 00 1.l E + 00 IPS00207 01/19/95 GQ Field 6.lE-03 5.4 E-05 3.2E-04 2.2E-05 4.4E +00 6.8E-Ol IPS00208 01/19/95 GQ Field 5.6E-03 2.3E-05 1.9E-04 2.7E + 00 6.3E-01 IPS00209 01/19/95 GQ Field 5.8E-03 1.3E-04 -3.2E-06 1.8E+00 6.5E-01 IPS00210 01/19/95 GQ Field 5.7E-03 3.3E-05 2.4E-04 3.3E + 00 6.3E-01 IPS00211 01/19/95 GQ Field 6.7E-03 1.6E-04 2.2E +00 7.5E-01 IPS00212 01/19/95 GQ Field 7.6E-03 1.5E-04 9.5E-06 2.0E + 00 8.5E-01 IPS00213 01/19/95 GQ Field 8.6E-03 1.9E-04 2.6E+ 00 9.7E-01 IPS00214 01/19/95 GQ Field 8.7E-03 9.lE-05 1.2E + 00 9.8 E-OI IPS00215 01/19/95 GQ Field 6.8E-03 1.9E-04 2.6E +00 7.6E-01 IPS00216 01/19/95 GQ Field 6.7E-03 1.7E-04 8. lE-06 2.3 E + 00 7.5E-01 G: MAT unocstrsyst:RVDSCOrtNG\SCOITNGJ

                                                                                                                               -37                                                                                                                                                       VISION 8

MEASUREMENT RESUI!IS Table 3-12 Inspector In-Situ Measumnents (pCi/100 cm') (cont.) SAMPLE I ID ' ' - Background Background IPS00217 01/19/95 GQ Field 6.4E-03 1.6E-04 8.lE-06 2.2E +00 7.2E-01 IPS00218 01/20/95 GQ Field 6.7E-03 1.4E-04 1.9E + 00 7.5E-01 IPS00219 01/20/95 GQ Field 6.7E-03 1.7E-04 2.3E + 00 7.4E-01 IPS00221 01/20/95 GQ Field 7.9E-03 1.3E-04 1.7E + 00 8.9E-01 IPS00222 01/20/95 GQ Field 7.9E-03 1.5E-04 2.0E + 00 8.9E-01 IPS00223 0l/20/95 GQ Field 8.8E-03 1.6E-04 2.3E + 00 9.9E-01 IPS00224 01/20/95 GQ Field 9.0E-03 1.5E-04 2.lE + 00 1.0E +00

IPS00225 01/20/95 GQ Field 9.lE-03 1.3E-04 1.7E + 00 1.0E +00 IPS00226 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.lE-02 1.2E-04 1.6E + 00 1.2E + 00 i.s sSe.e m

d .

2. AE sesehn eso unmarisend and ammans a huge dt.1 esa met a esE esemby d 1.6 gfeun3.

3. AB mese eeudend at I sament Imigle usuosimment.

4. IPSeetM eus salue et to end d en einussa gM at to S. Phan River. Mueh d em Heti d elee was esme. IPNBtM and iM had Said d wbus due ese gumssuBy eenesed by en aflhest ymemey tus mess 6y at en thus dasumptug.

f i c:m4mucnoocswsrsvavnscomcwomca REVISION 9 3-38 i 1  ;

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soll Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measurements SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 - Cs-134 Mn-54 ~ Eu-152 ' TEDES (uCilg) (uCilg) (uCi/g) (uCi/g) (uci/g) (mrem /yr) IPS00013 12/14/94 1.6E-06 -1.lE-07 2.2 IPS00015 12/14/94 1.3E-06 1.7E-07 1.9 IPS00003 12/13/94 9.8E-07 9.2E-06 17.9 IPS00004 12/13/94 7.8E-07 6.2E-06 -2.6E-07 12.7 IPS00005 12/13/94 1.lE-06 8.3 E-06 4.3 E-07 -4.5E-08 18.5 IPS00006 12/13/94 9.2E-07 8.0E-06 4.8E-07 17.3 IPS00007 12/13/94 1.2E-06 1. l E-05 9.4E-07 24.2 IPS00008 12/13/94 1.lE-06 7.5E-06 3.6E-07 17.1 IPS00009 12/13/94 1.9E-06 6.0E-06 4.5E-07 19.5 IPS00019 12/16/94 2.7E-06 3.8 IPS00020 12/16/94 2.3E-06 3.2 IPS00021 12/16/94 1.6E-07 0.2 IPS00022 12/16/94 2.lE-06 7.5E48 3.0 IPS00023 12/16/94 2.6E-06 6.8E-06 4.7E-07 24.2 IPS00024 12/16/94 1.7E-06 4.6E-06 3.7E-06 14.9 IPS00025 12/16/94 1.4E-06 4.lE-06 2.4E 07 1.5E-07 13.4 IPS00026 12/16/94 1.3E-06 4.5E-06 2.9E-07 13.9 IPS00027 12/16/94 1.0E-06 2.5E-06 8.6 coort nocstrsysvavasconNcisconNGJ 39 VISION 6

O O O MEASUREMENT RESUUIS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Site Measumnents (cont.) i C'

                                                                                                         ~
                               ~

SAMPLE ID ' DATE Co Cs-137 < s-1342 '.IMa-54! < U Eu-152T STEDEM

                                       /(uci/g):      (ucils)"          (uciig)       (acils)I    deci/s):   f(aveni/yr) :

IPS00028 12/16/94 7. lE-07 2.2E-06 6.7 IPS00029 12/16/94 1.1E 06 2.3E-06 8.6 IPS00030 12/16/94 5.5E-07 2.4E-06 6.2 IPS00032 12/19/94 1.5E-06 2.6E-06 11.1 IPS00033 12/19/94 8.9E-07 1.2 IPS00034 12/19/94 1.4E-06 2.0 IPS00035 12/19/94 6.5E-07 1.9E-06 1.5E-08 5.9 IPS00036 12/19/94 2.4E-06 3.3 IPS00037 12/19/94 1.0E-06 6.3E-06 4. lE-07 15.3 IPS00038 12/19/94 6.4E-07 7.4E-06 6.lE-07 5.7E-08 15.5 IPS00039 12/19/94 3. lE-07 -1.3E-07 0.4 IPS00040 12/19/94 9.6E-08 1.6E-07 0.1 IPS00041 12/19/94 1.2E-06 1.6 IPS00042 12/19/94 7.8E-07 1.2E-06 5.7 IPS00043 12/19/94 3.0E-06 4.4E-06 4.3E-07 1. lE-07 22.7 IPS00044 12/20/94 1.3E-06 1.9 IPS00045 12/20/94 1.4E-06 1.9 IPS00046 12/20/94 2.7E-06 4.7E-07 3.8 cawnumocswsysenvesconmasconsca 3-40 REVISION 9

MEASUREMENT RESUL'IS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measurements (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Mn-54 Eu-152 TEDEm

                                       - (uCilg)      (uCilg) -       (uCilg)-    (uCilg) --     " (uCilg) i (mremlyr)

IPS00047 12/20/94 1.7E-06 2.7E48 2.4 IPS00048 12/20/94 3. IE-07 4.3 E-06 1.4E-07 7.6 IPS00049 12/20/94 3.6E-07 2.7E-06 5.6 IPS00050 12/21/94 2.6E-06 3.6 IPS00051 12/21/94 1.9E-06 2.7 IPS00052 12/21/94 2.5E-06 -6.7E-08 3.5 IPS00053 12/21/94 2.5E-07 3.2E-06 5.7 IPS00054 12/21/94 2.2E-06 3.0 IPS00055 12/21/94 3.0E-07 2.6E-06 6.0E-08 5.1 IPS00056 12/21/94 1.4E-06 1.6E-07 2.0 IPS00057 12/21/94 2.2E-06 3.1 IPS00058 12/21/94 4.2E-07 2.2E-06 2.0E-07 5.2 IPS00059 12/21/94 2.6E-06 3.6 IPS00060 12/21/94 1.7E-06 2.3 IPS00061 12/21/94 1.9E-06 2.6 IPS00062 12/22/94 2.5E-06 1.8E-07 3.4 IPS00063 12/22/94 2.0E-06 1.6E-07 3.3 IPS00064 12/22/94 1.6E-06 2.2 GADAT UM)CSW3VSURVDSCOMNG\SCOMNGJ

                                                                 -41                                                     VISION 8

      ~                                                                               10 v

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measurements (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 :  ? Cs-134i i MaiS41 h Eu-152 - '?TEDES' (uCi/g) ' -. (uCi/g) . (uCi/g) : - (uCi/g) 2  ;(uC g) - (mremlyr) . IPS00065 12/22/94 1.3E-06 -1.9E-08 1.8 IPS00066 12/22/94 1.8E-06 2.5 IPS00067 12/22/94 1.9E-06 1.lE-07 2.6 IPS00068 12/22/94 1.2E-06 1.7 IPS00069 12/22/94 2.5E-06 4.3E-06 2.7E-07 19.4 IPS000?0 12/22/94 1.6E-06 1.lE-06 9.7 IPS00071 12/22/94 8.3E-07 1.2 i IPS00072 12/22/94 1.0E-06 2. lE-06 8.3 IPS00074 01/05/95 8.3E-07 6.4E-07 5.1 IPS00076 01/05/95 6.2E-07 0.9 IPS00077 0I/05/95 9.6E-07 1.1E-06 6.4 IPS00078 01/05/95 5.2E-07 -1. l E-07 0.7 IPS00079 01/06/95 4.5E-07 7.7E-07 3.4 IPS00080 01/06/95 9.1E-07 1.2E-06 6.2 IPS00081 01/06/95 7.7E-07 1.1 IPS00082 01/06/95 8.9E-07 1.2  ; IPS00083 01/06/95 4.8E-07 1.4E-06 4.4 IPS00084 01/06/95 1.7E-06 1.5E-06 10.9 C:W AMHCHDOCSMVSLRVDSCOMNGSCO MNGJ 3-42 REVISION 6

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measurunents (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 -  : Mn-54 Eu-152 TEDEE (uCilg) (uCilg)- (uCilg) - - (uCilg) - (uCilg) (mrem /yr) IPS00085 01/06/95 1.5E-06 1.6E-06 9.8 IPS00086 01/06/95 5.6E-07 8.3E-07 4.0 IPS00087 01/06/95 1.4E-07 0.2 1PS00088 01/06/95 1.3E4 1.8 IPS00089 01/07/95 2.lEM 2.7E-07 3.7 IPS00090 01/07/95 1.4E-06 2.0 IPS00091 01/07/95 1.4E4 2.0 IP500092 01/07/95 1.5E-06 1.6E-07 2.1 IPS00093 01/07/95 1.6E-06 3.7E-08 2.2 1PS00094 0I/07/95 7.9E-07 3.IE-06 8.4 IPS00095 0I/07/95 4.1E-07 1.7E-06 4.4 IPS00096 01/07/95 4.2E-07 1.7E-06 4.5 IPS00097 01/07/95 1.7E-06 2.8E-07 2.4E47 9.5 IPS00098 01/07/95 8.l E-07 1.1 IP500099 01/07/95 8.2E-07 3.0E-06 2.0E-07 -4. l E-08 9.0 IPS00100 0I/07/95 3.7E-07 2.3E-06 -6.0E-07 5.0 IPS00101 01/09/95 1.0E-06 4.6E4 3. lE-08 11.7 IPS00102 01/09/95 1. lE-06 4.7E-06 4.3E-07 2.8E-07 13.3 conAT nx>cstrsyst'avasconsc\sconNGJ

                                                                      -43                                                                                               VISION S

O O O MEASUREMENT RESUI!IS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measumnents (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137. -- Cs-134 Ma-54 i En-152 iTEDES (uCilg) . (uCilg) '(uCi/g) '(uCi/g) : 1 (uCilg) - (mrem /yr) IPS00103 01/09/95 2.4E-06 3.4 IPS00104 01/09/95 6.4E-07 5.5E4 2.9E-07 11.8 IPS00105 01/09/95 4.8E-07 3.6E-06 7.5 IPS00106 0I/09/95 1.6E-06 2.3 IPS00107 01/09/95 1.2E-06 1.7 IPS00108 01/09/95 1.0E-06 7.3E-06 4.8E-07 16.9 IPS00109 01/09/95 9.5E-07 5.5E-06 5.3E-07 -6.0E-08 -3.0E-07 14.1 IPS00llo 01/09/95 9.0E-07 6.5E-06 4.3E-07 15.0 IPS00111 01/09/95 6.0E-07 3.1E-06 7.3 IPS00112 01/09/95 2.3E-06 3.2 IPS00ll3 01/09/95 1.7E-07 2.0E-06 3.7 IPSO 9114 01/11/95 1.2E-06 1.6 IPS00ll5 01/11/95 1.0E-06 8.6E-06 6.7E-07 -1.5 E-07 6.7E-07 19.2 IPS00116 01IlI/95 1.7E-06 2.4 IPS00117 01/11/95 I .9E-06 2.7 IPS00118 0I/I1/95 3.1E-06 4.3 IPS00119 0I/II/95 1.8E-06 2.5 IPS00120 01III/95 2. lE-06 2.9 cm4mucimocsnysvamsconscssconsca 3-44 REVISION 9

MEASUREMENT RESUUIS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total EITective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measumnents.(cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 ~ Cs-134 Mn En-152 "IliDES (uCilg) (uCi/g) - (uCilg) (uci/g) (uCilg) (mremfyr) IPS00121 01/11/95 1.3E4 1.8 IPS00122 01/11/95 1.2E-06 1.6 iPS00123 0I/I1/95 6.2E-07 0.9 IPS00124 01/11/95 1.2EE 0.0 1.6 IPS00125 0I/I1/95 1. IE-06 1.4E-07 1.6 IPS00126 01/11/95 9.8E-07 1.4 IPS00127 01/11/95 1.3 E-06 -1.6E-08 1.8 IPS00128 01/1I/95 1.1E-06 1.5 IPS00129 0I/1I/95 2.2E-06 1.1E-07 3.1 IPS00130 01/12/95 1.3 E-06 3.7E-07 1.8 , IP500131 01/12/95 1.7E-06 2.4 IPS00132 01/12/95 2.4E-06 3.3 IPS00133 01/12/95 1.3E-06 1.9 IPS00134 01/12/95 1.9E-07 4. l E-06 6.7 IPS00135 01/12/95 2.3E-06 3.3 IPS00136 01/12/95 1.5E-06 2.I IPS00137 01/12/95 3.8E-07 2.1E-06 1.3E-07 5.3 IPS00138 01/12/95 1.5E-06 2.2 cart mocswsysutvesconNcisconsca

                                                                       -45                                                    VISION S

O O O MEASUREMENT RESUL'IS Table 3-13 PRELIM.INARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measumnents (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Mn-54 ' Eu-152 :TEDES

                                                                                     - (uCilg)                 (uCilg)         (uCilg)                             (uCilg)                                       (uCilg) '                                             ' (nueen/yr)

IPS00139 01/12/95 7.8E-07 1.1 IPS00140 01/12/95 7.6E-07 -1.5E-07 1.1 IPS00141 01/12/95 1.2E-06 1.7 iPS00142 01/13/95 2.3E-06 3.2 IPS00143 01/13/95 1.5E-06 2.1 iPS00144 01/13/95 1.3E-06 1.8 iPS00145 01/13/95 1.5E-06 2.1 IPS00146 01/13/95 1.4E-06 2.0 IPS00147 01/13/95 1.2E-06 1.7 IPS00148 01/13/95 1.2E-06 -2.8E-07 1.7 IPS00149 01/13/95 9.3E-07 1.0E-07 1.3 IPS00150 01/13/95 1.3E-06 4.4E-08 1.9 IPS00151 01/13/95 1.2E-06 -2.8E-07 1.7 IPS00152 01/13/95 1.0E-06 1.5 IPS00153 01/13/95 3.7E-06 1.9E-06 -1.7E-07 21.2 IPS00154 01/13/95 1.6E-06 4.2E-07 8.5 IPS00155 01/14/95 8.3E-07 3.9E-06 9.7 IPS00156 01/14/95 3.4E-07 3.0E-06 5.9 carmtennocsevstuvosconsctsconsca 3-46 REVISION 9

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-13 PREIIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measurements (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co 60 Cs-137 Cs-134 . Mn ' Eu-152 TEDES (uCilg) (uCilg) (uCilg) (uCi/g) ' (uCilg) * (mrun/yr) IPS00157 01/14/95 2.6E-06 -2.0E-07 3.6 IPS00158 01/14/95 6.8E-07 3.6E-06 8.5 iPS00159 0I/I4/95 3.3E-07 2.5E-06 5.2 IPS00160 01/14/95 2.2E-06 -3.5E-07 3.1 , IPS00161 01/14/95 1.5E-06 2.1 IPS00162 0I/I4/95 1.5E-06 2.1 IPS00163 01/14/95 3.5E-07 2.2E-06 4.8 IPS00164 0I/I4/95 _ giE-06 3.0 IPS00165 01/14/95 2.4E-06 3.4 iPS00166 01/14/95 4.7E-07 1.6E-06 4.6 IPS00167 01/I4/95 1.4E-06 1.9 IPS00168 01/14/95 1.4E-06 2.5E-07 2.0 IPS00169 0I/14/95 1.4E-06 2.0 IPS00170 01/15/95 9. lE-07 1.2E-07 1.3 IPS00171 01/16/95 1. l E-06 -4.4E-08 1.5 IPS00172 01/16/95 1.9E-06 2.7 IPS00173 01/16/95 1.8E-06 2.6 IPS00174 01/16/95 1.0E-06 1.4E-07 1.4 caDATA pocstrsystavesconNGSConNGJ 47 VISION 6

o o MEASUREMENT RESUL'IS o Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measurements (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 L Cs-134 Mn En-152 L TEDEm-(uCi/g) '(uCilg) . (uCilg): -(uCilg) -  :(uCilg) - (mmn/yr) IPS00175 01/16/95 1.3E-06 1.8 IPS00176 01/16/95 3.5E-06 7.2E-07 18.8 IPS00177 01/16/95 1.0E-06 5.3 E-07 -6.5E-08 6.0 IPS00178 01/16/95 IPS00179 01/17/95 7.0E-07 1.0 IPS00180 0I/17/95 1.1E-06 1.5 IPS00181 01/17/95 1.2E-06 2.9E-06 2.4E-07 10.8 IPS00182 01/17/95 2.5E-06 3.5 IPS00183 01/17/95 1.6E-06 5.lE-06 2.7E-07 16.3 IPS00184 01/17/95 1.1E-06 - 3.5E-06 10.6 IPS00185 01/17/95 2.1E-06 2.9 IPS00186 01/17/95 8.8E-07 3.6E-06 4.5E-07 9.5 IPS00187 01/17/95 7.7E-07 4.4E-06 10.1 IPS00188 01/17/95 6.8E-07 3.9E-06 8.9 IPS00189 01/17/95 2.4E-06 3.4 IPS00190 01/17/95 1.7E-06 -3.2E-08 2.4 IPS00191 01/17/95 2.2E-06 3.1 IPS00192 01/18/95 1.3E-06 1.8 G6DATAGTDWOCSMVSURVDSCOMG\SCOMGJ 3-48 REVISION 9 _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __________.___s _

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measurements (cont.) SAMPLE ID DATE Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Mn-54 ' Eu-152 - TEDEm (uCilg) (uCilg) - (uCilg) (uCi/g) (uCilg) (mrem /yr) ' IPS00193 01/I8/95 9.5E-07 1.3 IPS00194 0I/I8/95 1.3 E-06 1.8 iPS00195 01/I8/95 1.2E-06 1.7 IPS001% 0I/18/95 5.5E-07 1.2E-06 4.5 IPS00197 01/I8/95 3.3E-07 1.1E-06 3.2 IPS00198 01/18/95 5.4E-07 1.3E-06 4.5 IPS00199 01/18/95 4.3E-07 0.6 iPS00200 0I/I8/95 3.2E-07 0.4 IPS00201 01/18/95 5.3E-07 0.7 IPS00202 0I/18/95 2. IE-07 2.5E-07 0.3 IPS00203 01/19/95 1.7E-06 8.9E-06 6.4E-07 22.9 IPS00204 01/19/95 1.3E-06 1.8 IPS00205 01/19/95 6.0E-07 2.6E-06 1.2E-07 6.6 IPS00206 0I/19/95 4.8E 07 3.4 E-06 7.I IPS00207 01/19/95 1. lE-06 6.4E-06 4.4E-07 15.6 IPS00208 01/19/95 4.6E-07 3.8E-06 7.7 IPS00209 01/19/95 2.6E-06 -6.4E-08 3.7 IPS00210 01/19/95 6.5E-07 4.8E-06 I c: mar ocswsystavnsconNGSCOMNGJ 9 VISION 6

O O O MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-13 PRELIMINARY Estimates of Calculated Soil Concentration and Total Effective Dose Equivalent From In-Situ Measumnents (cont.) SAMPLE ID - DATE Co-60 Cs-137  ! Cs-134 - Mn-54 I En-152i TEDEm (uCi/g) : (uCilg) - - (uCi/g) (uCilg) 5 (ki/g) . (mresi/yr) . IPS00211 01/19/95 3.1E-06 4.4 IPS00212 01/19/95 2.9E-06 1.9E-07 4.6 IPS00213 01/19/95 3.7E-06 5.2 IPS00214 01/19/95 1.8E-06 2.5 IPS00215 01/19/95 3.8E-06 5.3 IPS00216 01/19/95 3.3E-06 1.6E-07 4.6 IPS00217 01/19/95 3.2E-06 1.6E-07 4.5 IPS00218 01/20/95 2.8E-06 3.9 iPS00219 01/20/95 3.3E-06 4.7 IPS00221 01/20/95 2.5E-06 ' 3.5 IPS00222 01/20/95 2.9E-06 4.1 IPS00223 01/20/95 3.3E-06 4.6 IPS00224 01/20/95 3.lE-06 4.3 iPS00225 0I/20/95 2.5E-06 3.5 IPS00226 01/20/95 2.3E-06 3.2 m TfDE le for Bhutestive pspose ady. TEDE wiuse === senevend whsen s'avie abhe fan NLitEGl580. A she eyedfie suuhl b under dewehyeum m%dk wB pode te seemt slam 6e et Fan k. Ymie. c:m4mucimocssrsysvamsconscisconsca 3-50 REVISION 9

MEASUREMENT RESULTS Table 3-14 Soll Sample Comparison with In Situ Results Soil Segle Inspector In Sies (demed) i Ratio hweetr. Soil Seq!e ID Co-60 (pCilg) - Cs-137(pCi/g) Segle ID : Ce40(pCifs) . Cs-137 (pC1/s)  : Co 60 ' Co.137 D001 2.9E41 7.lE.01 IP5030 5.5541 2.4E + 00 1.90 3.38 D004 I .lE + 00 2.2E +00 IPS028 7.lE41 2.2E +00 0.65 1.0 D006 4.0E+ 00 3.6E + 00 U5009 1.9E + 00 6.0E+ 00 0.48 1.67 D007 1.3 E + 00 8.8E+00 IPS005 1.lE + 00 8.3 E + 00 0 85 0.94 D008 3.45-01 2.1E+ 00 IPS003 9.8E-01 9.2E + 00 2.88 4.38 D009 3.lE+ 00 3.5 E + 00 IPS009 1.9E + 00 6.0E + 00 0.61 1,71 e 4 car mocswsysvamScomosSconsca

                                                                         -51                                                                         VISION 9

SUMMARY

AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

   '4.0    

SUMMARY

AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Saimmary Measurements and sample analyses performed on the Fort St. Vrain liquid Effluent pathway show elevated activity.

• Exposure rate measurements are generally higher on contact than at 1 meter above the ground in areas where elevated soil sample activity has been identified. This is indicative of localized elevated soil activity.
• The high ambient background makes it difficult to obtain meaningful data with an exposure rate meter.
• Soil samples show elevated activity concentrations in the sediment taken from the Goose Quill ditch, the sediment located on the banks of the Goose Quill ditch which had been dredged from the ditch, and the agricultural amas off the Goose Quill ditch predominantly along the major flow path.
• No pattern to the activity or activity gradients could be established from the soil samples.
• Inspector Measurements show elevated activity along the Jay Thomas ditch, along the flow path of the agricultural dispersion areas from the Goose Quill and Jay Thomas ditches, and at the outflow to the farm pond.

4.2 Future Considerations i i It is expected that some of the data obtained during the scoping survey will be used in the characterization report. The characterization data which is currently being obtained may provide information which can be used to refine the scoping data. Characterization data may provide estimates of the activity depth of burial which would indicate changing the Inspector efficiency relaxation length and reanalyzing the Inspector data. I The characterization data will provide a comprehensive profile of the effluent pathway activity concentrations which will include areas which have rot been previously investigated such as the farm pond sediments. If an estimate of the activity area and the position of the inspector detector, relative to the activity, can be established, a correction factor to the data might be applied to obtain a "better" estimate of the soil activity. O  ! 02ATAYTBCHDOCSWVSURVmSCONKASCOMNO,4 REVISION 8 4-1

Lama- w -dui- - - a ' s An- un + ma.F m-u - r-.2 Ae - - -^------2<u-<ImALkAa---.*m-As~o-6.\-mm-.aw s eo46=Aah auen-e-^-6~A""Ada-amA-Aa44 a4 A-n u4bm-m=- Amb---,MW m 2 I umM. O l l l I l I 1 THzs PAGE INTENTIONALLY l LEFT BLANK g 1 O

I REFERENCES

5.0 REFERENCES

l l 5.1 Nuclear Regulatory Documents l 5.1.1 Regulatory Guide 1.86, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors," June 1974. t 5.1.2 Draft NUREG/CR-5849, ORAU-92/C57 Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in support of License Termination, June 1992 5.1.3 Draft NUREG-1500, " Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning: NRC staff's Draft for Comment," August 1994. 5.1.4' NRC Inspection Procedure 84750, " Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring," March 1994. 5.2 Site Specific Documents 5.2.1 FSV-OPS-TBD-107, " Validation of Preliminary Environmental Evaluation Soil and Sediment Samples" 5.2.2 FSV-RP-INST-I-221, " Operation of the Ludlum Model 2350 Data Logger" 5.2.3 FSV-RP-INST-1-414, " Operation of Inspector Field Gamma Spectroscopy System" 5.2.4 FSV-RP-INST-I-415, " Calibration of Inspector Field Gamma Spectroscopy System" 5.2.5 FSV-RP-INST-1-416, "In-Situ Operation of Inspector Field Gamma Spectroscopy System" 5.2.6 FSV-RC-ADM-A-100, " Radiochemistry Program Administration" 5.2.7 FSV-RC-ADM-I-121, "QA Program for the Radiochemistry laboratory" i 5.2.8 FSV-RC-ADM-I-134, " Sample Handling and Log-in" 5.2.9 FSV-RC-ANLY-A-200, " Radiochemistry Analysis Program"

5.2.10 FSV-RC-ANLY-I-209, " Sample Preparation for Gamma Spectral Analysis" 5.2.11 FSV-RC-INST-A-300, " Radiochemistry Instrument Program" l

omwrecupocsesysuavacormoucormos 5-1 REVISION 9

REFERENCES 5.2.12 FSV-RC-INST-I-325, " Operation and Calibration Procedure for Laboratory Balances" 5.2.13 FSV-RC-INST-I-338, " Operation and Calibration of the REX-M Computer Based Gamma Analysis System" 5.2.14 Draft " Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Station Decommissioning Project Final Survey Report, Repower Area" 2/95. 5.2.15 FSV-SC-FRS-I-101, " Background level Determination for Final Survey" 5.3 Additional Documents 5.3.1 Efficiency Calibration Report for the Canberra inspector Based Soil Assay System for the Scientific Ecology Group, Kingston, TN, ACK# 47829, Written by: Ling Wang, Approved by: Frazier Bronson, August 2,1994. 5.3.2 Fax from Ling Wang to Betsy Langille,1-17-95, Calibration Report with parameter corrections. 5.3.3 " Characterization Plan for the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway," January 26,1995. 5.3.4 Microshield, Version 3.13, Grove Engineering, Inc. 1987, 1988. g O omiurecupocsesysunvascomoucomo.s 5-2 REVISION 9

APPENDIX A , O i l l l I l Appendix A l Derivation of Equation to Convert Inspector Results ( Ci/100cm2) to Soil Concentration (pCi/g) t] l l lO i ammvrocanocsrsysvavescomoemaan REVISION 8 A-1

APPENDIX A Derivation of Equation to Convert Inspector Results (pCU100cm2 ) to Soll Concentration (pC1/g) For an exponential vertical distribution,the activity per unit volume at depth z is given by: O' 1 S(z) = B e -" , L ' Where: S(z) = activity per em' at depth z. 1 Io = total inventory integrated to infinite depth, (the results as reported by the inspector software [pCi/100cm2 j), L = vertical relaxation length [cm]. To equate the inspector results to a concentration in the soil, where the soil sample would be an average of the activity from depth 0 to depth z, the total activity from the the soil surface to depth z is obtained by integrating the above equation. I(z) = [,*S(z)dz = I* [,*e **dz , l Where: I(z) = the inventory of activity integrated from the soil surface to depth z (uCi/100cm2), The integral form was found in the CRC tables as: le"dx = ? a Let a=bL I(z) = b I e-*x(-L) Lo I(z) =Lb xL(-e-#+1)* I(z) = lo(1 -c-8) O O ADATAMODOCSP5YSURVDSCONG\SCONO *" A-2 REVISION 0

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

APPENDIX A The soil activity concentration is then calculated by dividing the I(z) (activity from the surface l to depth z) by z and the the soil density, so that the final equation used to convert from the l inspector results ( Ci/100cm2 ) to pCi/g is: O_ . I,(1 -e *) Ap ,3 = where: A = activity per unit mass in soil. I, = total inventory, (the results as reported by the inspector - software [pci/100cm2 j), z = soil depth [cm], the activity is integrated from the surface to depth z to calculate the average soil concentration over the depth. A z of 0.3 cm is assumed. 0.3 cm represents 3 relaxation lengths and the distance where 95% of the activity will be deposited. While the NRC allowsfor soil , k concentrations to be awraged owr the top 15 cm, 0.3 cm l was chosen to be conservarin and to accountfor thefact

that using a longer relaxation length would result in a

, higher activity.  ; 2 L = relaxation length [cm], for the efficiency used L = 0.1 cm. l p = soil density [g/cm'), for the efficiency used p = 1.6 g/cm'. 1 i

O I

l l l l l 4 ^ l ommrrcunoesesvsuavmscormcnscormour A-3 REVISION 9

 . . - . . - . . . . . . . . - . ~ ..- - . . . - - . . . - . - . .       - - . - . - . . . - . . - - - . - - . . - - . ~ _ - . - . - . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . - _ - . ~ - ~ . ,   -

I O l l l l l 1 l l THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK g l O l

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

i l APPENDIX B  ; j , 1 l LO i i i i i b i Appendix B Microshield Runs to Estimate the Possible Error in Inspector Measurement Results i O c:mawrecapocsavsuavmscormasscormo.ArP B-1 REVISION 8

APPENDIX B i Microshield* Runs to Esthnate the Possible Error in Inspector Measurement Results I Since the Inspector views an aree approximately 100 m 2 and is calibrated for uniform O l deposition in the horizontal distance, the error in the measurement (quantified activity) when I the activity is confined to a smaller area is estimated by a comparison of the Buence rate i reaching the detector from various areas of contamination. j Microshield 3.13 was used to calculate the energy fluence rate (MeV/cm2 *s)from the disc activity areas and assumed source terms in Table B-1. To approximate the error in activity l when the contamination is located on the outer edge of the detector's view, a disc source 1 l m2 n area is then placed on the edge of the inspectors field of view (100 m). 2 This determines the worst case for underestimating the activity. This localized activity (1 m2) on the edge of the inspectors field of view is modeled as a point source with a total activity of: , (1m2)(1Bq/cm2 ) = 10,000Bq In each case the distance from the surface (disc) to the dose point is I meter. Table B-1 Disc Source Area . Radius ' Nuclide Activity . Energy Fluencei  !. Normalized to 2 (m ) - _ _ Rate 1000m2 I (cm) (Bq/cm ) l (Mev/cmis) 100 564 Co-60 = 0.5 1.418 1.000 Cs-137 - 0.5 i 10 178 Co-60 = 0.5 0.550 2.578 Cs-137 = 0.5 1 56.4 Co40 = 0.5 0.107 13.25 Cs-137 = 0.5 1 564 Co40 = 0.5 3.617E-03 392.0

    =+d=='=                                Cs-137 = 0.5 The energy fluence rate for each geometry normalized to the 100 m2dise energy fluence rate provides an estimate of the factor by which the Inspector might underestimate the activity.

The microshield runs are shown on the pages which follow. O ammiramoeswsvsuavascomosscomo. APP B-2 REVISION 8

Y APPENDIX B Microshletd 3.13 (SEG - #296.001) Pape :1 File Reft File a ft9Vt90&rMf4 f N'so .@' Dates,,/_/d/I am date: January 26, 1995 By: 544( km times 1:48 p.m. Checked: bM CASE: 1 meter from conter of 100 scpare seter disc  ; 1 I GEOMETRY 6: Disk source stab shletds Distence to detector......................... X 100. ca. 564.

• Disk source radius........................... R Micrashletd inserted air sap................. air 100. "

source Area: 999328. sgare contienters MATERIAL DENSITIES (g/cc): - 1 i katerlat Air sep j Air .001220

   .                Alustrus Carbon                                                                                                    ]

V Concrete j Hydrogen 1 fron to.d Lithiun Nicket Tin i Titenlun  ! T mesten urani. Uranlue Water Zirconjun 1 omarmscnoocsesvsuavesscomoscomaar B-3 REVISION 8

APPENDIX B O Page 2 " ' ' File Fs5V1000sMSN (~f - *4 - CASE: 1 meter from center of 100 sg 2re meter disc BUILDUP FACTOR: 1.0 (no buildup) INTEGkATION PARAMETERS: None

• Integrated with $1spson's rule with a convergence of .001 SOURCE NUCLIOES:

Nuctide curies Nuclide Curies Nuclide Curles Be.137m 1.3504e-05 Co-60 1.4585e-05 Cs 137 1.3504e 05 N 16 0.0000e+00 - RESULTS: Group Energy Activity Dose point flim Dose rate

                 #        (MeV)      (photons /sec)         MeV/(sq cm)/see              (ar/hr) 1        1.3359        5.396e+05               6.181e-01              1.115e-03 2        1.1797        5.396e+05               5.452e 01              1.013e 03 3          .6953       8.803e+01               5.213e-05              1.074e-07 4          .6641       4.496e+05               2.542e-01             5.270e-04 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TOTALS: 1.529e+06 1.418e+00 2.656e-03 O o.mAmncanoesevsuavescorscr scorma.^P' B-4 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B l l I b Microshield 3.13 (SEC - #296.001) Page :1 file Reft Fi1e  : -f $7TDOESir fd /0.** i t- Date: ,,f,,J.L

                                                                                                        / d                                   {

Run date .fanuary 26, 1995 By: # 84s j tm time 1:52 p.m. Checked: (M CASE: 1 meter from center of 10 square meter disc GEQMETRY 6: Disk source - stab shletds Distance to detector......................... X 100. ca. 178. " Disk source radius........................... R Microshletd inserted air sap................. air 100. = Source Area 99538.2 square centimeters MATERIAL DENSITIES (g/cc): - , I Materiet Air sep Air .001220 A Aluminum i Carbon Concrete Hydrogen Iron Lead I Lithius Nicket fin Titanium T mesten urania I uranium Water Zirconium l l l 1 a i o m4mncxoocsesvsuavescormoucormo.An B-5 REVISION 0 l

l 1 APPENDIX B l l l 1 l

                                                                           .                                            l l

Page 2 File: FGY M &;MSH "

                                                                                                   .JI.) #*'.,-        l CASE: 1 met r free center of 10 square o.eter dise                                              l 1

l BUILDUP FACTOR: 1.0 (no builde) INTEGRATIDW PARAMETERS: . None - Integrated with Elspson's rule with a convergence of .001 SN2 NUCLIDES: j i i Nuclide Curles Nuclide Curles Nuctide Curles

                                                                                                                       ]

Be 137m 1.3451e 06 Co-60 1.3451e-06 Cs 137 1.3451e 06 N 16 0.0000e+00 - l RESULTS: I

t. row Energy Activity Dose point flux Dose rate f (MeV) (photons /sec) MeV/(sq cm)/sec (ar/hr) 1 1.3359 4.977e+04 2.360e 01 4.259e-04 2 1.1797 4.977e+04 2.083e-01 3.870e 04 3 .6953 8.118e+00 1.997e 05 4.112e-08  !

4 .6641 4.476e+04 1.052e 01 2.181e 04 5 { 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i 17 l 18 19 20 TOTALS: 1.443e+05 5.495e-01 1.;131e 03 1 _ O ow4mrecanocsu sysuavmcormo'.scoPso.A" B-6 REVISION 0 1

• 1 APPENDIX B 4

d Microshield 3.13 ) assassessessssses (SEG - #296.001) $ Pope :1 File Rets file  : FSV1.MSN Date 1 //,jg/ [ i Run date: Jarwaary 26, 1995 sy: f3 K Run times 1:55 p.m. Checked _ OP CASE: 1 meter from conter of 1 square seter disc a GEOMETRY 6: Disk source - stab shields j Distance to detector......................... X 100. ca. j Disk source radius........................... R 56.4

• Micrashield inserted air sep................. air 100.
• i l

j Source Area 9993.28 v re centimeters NATERIAL DENSITIES (g/cc): , 4 Materiet Air pap ,, Air .001220 Alumirma l } Carbon j s Concrete l Hydrogen Iron i te.d Lithius Nicket Tin Titanium $ Tungsten l Urania uranian

Water Zirconlue i

1 l i o:mArcrecmxics.rsvsuavmscormoscorso.Arr B-7 REVISION S , l

APPENT)IX B O'

                                                                                                               )

Page 2 File: FSV1.MSM l CASE: 1 meter from center of 1 square meter disc l l BUILDUP FACTOR: 1.0 (no build @) l i INTEGRATION PARAMETER $:  ; None - integrated with Simpson's rule with a convergence of .001 SOURCE NUCLIDES: i Nuctide Curies Nuctide Curies Nuclide Curies l Ba 137m 1.3504e 07 Co-60 1.3504e 07 Cs 137 1.3504e 07 l N 16 0.0000e+00 i RESULTS: Grow Energy Activity Dose point flux Dose rate

                 #       (MeV)      (photons /sec)         MeV/(sq cm)/sec              (ar/hr) lI 1       1.3359       4.997e+03                4.579e-02              8.262e-05 2       1.1797       4.997e+03                4.041e-02              7.509e 05 3        .6953       8.151e 01                3.877e 06              7.984e-09 4        .6641       4.496e+03                2.042e-02              4.234e 05 5                                                                                             i 6

7 8 1 9 ' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TOTALS: 1.449e+04 1.066e 01 2.001e 04 O ommrecmmesnvsuavetscormatscorso.ArP B-8 REVISION 0

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

!. . = I l~ APPENDIX B t l I O

Microshield 3.13 l .................

(SEG - #296.001) Page :1 File Reft ! File  : Dates ],) $ $ Rm date: January 26, 1995 By: ih k Rm times 2:12 p.m. Checked: & CASE: 1 square meter disc on edge of 100 sq meter disc GECMETRY 1: Point source stab shields Distance to detector......................... X 564 ca. Lateral displacement of dose point........... Y 100.

• Microshletd inserted air esp................. air 564
• MATERIAL DENSITIES (g/cc):

Materiet Air pap - Air .001220 Atuntrun , c.rbon concrete Hydrogen Iron Lead Lithium Nickel fin Titenlun T mesten Urania uranium Water Zirconfun l l i omwncapocsesvsuava.scormascorso.Ar" B-9 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B O Page 2 file: Cast: 1 square meter disc on edge of 100 sq meter dise BUILDUP FACTOR: 1.0 (no bulld.9) INTEGRATION PARAMETERS: None analytically integrated. SOURCE NUCLIDES: Nuclide Curles Nuclide Curles Nuclide Curles Be 137s 1.3514e 07 Co-60 1.3514e-07 Cs 137 1.3514e-07 N 16 0.0000e+00 RESULT.'s Gro@ Energy Activity Dose point flux Dose rate 8 (kev) (photons /sec) MeV/(sq cm)/sec (nr/hr)

                  .....      ...... .............               ................             .........                  1 1       1.3359        5.000e+03                 1.558e-03               2.812e-06 2       1.1797        5.000e+03                 1.373e-03               2.550e-06                  l 3         .6953       8.156e-01                 1.304e-07               2.686e 10 4         .6641      4.499e+03 -               6.865e-04                1.423e-06 5

6 , 7 j 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TOTALS: 1.450e+04 3.617e-03 6.786e-06 O a:mmvrramocstrsvsuavascorma.scorma.ArP B-10 REVISION 0

 .- -         ..-. _ ._ = - . - - . - . - -           . _. _ -      _ ._ - _.. . - -       _-  . -

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT l l APPENDIX E LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIRVAY CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY REPORT e 1 4o rsv wuc arsrosswrmt. SURVEYNOL. & GROUP FAO" REVISION 1 l l l __

1 Os THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK $w 04

i 1 s ! i !O

l I

! FORT ST. VRAIN l LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY I 1 l CHARACTERIZATION REPORT  ; l l O 1 l i l i l REVISION 0 MAY 1995 O

  ._p-.m

• h_*_aAJ as __wma a._ 2 _.gg.,- .,..h,__-,,.__4t__,a -

p wm ,_ _a.4._ __.a,_.,,4_m-_aq_,p gs__a.m-w-ea,w_..m .ah.,. .a_amm.u_.h.2..._-m.W. -wam.4-.m4.m..u._,m4J*mA Ae4i.m O I THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK $ l l l O J l

i O FORT ST. VRAIN LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIEVAY CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY REPORT 1 l Prepared by: Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. I 1560 Bear Creek Road Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Prepared by: [I% <J/b C## [Y " Date 4// f g i i < ,

                                                                                ~

Reviewed by: 4w Date [ -i' 93 Harvey SJ6ry [ SEG Fort St. Vrain Radiation Protection Manager Approved by: wI[ 7 tid- Date 4 M/9.5~

                        'D.' R. Niely '            /

Vice President Radiological Engineering

                         & Decommissioning Services REVISION 0 O May 1995

 .m   A4 . u.---Am. - d WeJd .xw. 4.'ed..-_.a- 5 4ae_e. 4_h '

A-44J, mad +_-._ F ---AA. _ -_..m AAweee .%._a _4_- .A u A, i 1 THzs PAGE INTENTIONALLY  : I LEFT BLANK $  : l l / 1 l O

l i TABLE OF CONTENTS l Table of Contents  ! s I List o f Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ) List of Tables ..............................................iii i i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 l 1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1 { l.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 ' 1

2.0 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 1 2.1 Pathway Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 History of Liquid Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.3 Summary of Previous Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 l i 3.0 CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 1 1 3.1 Characterization Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 1 3.2 Instrumentation and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 l 3.3 Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 i 3.4 Methods of Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 4.0 EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 l 4.1 Goosequill Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 3 4.3 Jay Thomas Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

   )           4.4     Irrigation Ditches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25 4.5     Pastures and Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29 4.6     Farm Pon d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 3 4.7     Farm Pond Outfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35 4.8     QC Samples ....................................4-39 5.0       

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 6.0 REFERENC ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6- 1 4 Appendix A SEG Investigations Between September 1993 and November 1994 l Appendix B Nuclide Analysis Results Appendix C Inspector" Measurements and a Comparison with the Soil Sample Results 0:\ DATA \TECHDOCS\FSYSURVDCHARACT\ TOC.R0 i REVISION 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Figure 2-1 Fort St. Vrain Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Figure 4-1 Goosequill Ditch Sediment Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Figure 4-2 Goosequill Ditch Vegetation Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Figure 4-3 Goosequill Ditch Water Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Figure 4-4 Goosequill Ditch Bank Soil Sample IAcations ................ 4-10 Figure 4-5 Goosequill Ditch Bank Biased Soil Sample I.ocations . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 Figure 4-6 Goosequill Ditch Bank Sediment Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 Figure 4-7 Goosequill Ditch Bank Investigative Soil Sample locations . . . .. . . 4-13 Figure 4-8 Goosequill Ditch Bank Subsurface Soil Sample locations ..... . . 4-14 Figure 4-9 Jay Thomas Ditch Sediment Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 Figure 4-10 Jay Thomas Ditch Surface and Subsurface Soil Sample Locations . . . . 4-22 Figure 4-11 Jay Thomas Ditch Vegetation Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23 Figure 4-12 Irrigation Ditch Sediment (0-6") Sample locations ............. 4-26 Figure 4-13 Irrigation Ditch Sediment (0-2",2-4",4-6") Sample locations . . . . . 4-27 Figure 4-14 Pasture and Farmland Soil Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31 Figure 4-15 Farm Pond Sediment Sample locations .................... 4-34 Figure 4-16 Farm Pond Outfall Sediment Sample locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37 Figure 4-17 Farm Pond Outfall Surface and Subsurface Soil Sample locations . . . 4-38 Figure 5-1 Contour Plot for Goosequill Ditch and Irrigation Ditch Dose Equivalent Rams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 Figure C-1 Inspector" Measurement Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 O O o $^ramennocasvsuavecuanacTsroc.no ii REVISION 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Table 2-1 Summary of Liquid Releases from June 1993 and Remaining PCRV Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Table 2-2 Samples Taken Between 12/93 and 8/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 Table 2-3 11/16/94 Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 Table 3-1 Inspector" MDAs for 1200 Second Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 Table 3-2 Canberra Genie PC MDAs for 1 Liter Marinelli Geometry . . . . . . . . 3-6 Table 3-3 Beta Analysis MDAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Table 3-4 Detectors, Calibration Sources and Use .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Table 3-5 Variation in 1 meter Background Exposure Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 i Table 3-6 Background Cs-137 Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Table 3-7 Dose Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 Table 4-1 Summary of Goosequill Ditch Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Table 4-2 Summary of Goosequill Ditch Bank Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 Table 4-3 Goosequill Ditch Bank Subsurface and Areal Samples . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18 Table 4-4 Summary of Jay Thomas Ditch Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 Table 4-5 Summary of Irrigation Ditch Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 8 Table 4-6 Summary of Pastures and Farmland Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32 Table 4-7 Summary of Farm Pond Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35 Table 4-8 Summary of Farm Pond Outfall Samples ... .. ... . . . .. . .. .. 4-39 Table 4-9 Characterization Sample QC Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40 Table 4-9a NRC Criteria for Accepting Sample Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43 Table B-1 Goosequill Ditch Sample Results .........................B-1 1 Table B-2 Goosequill Ditch Bank Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6 Table B-3 Jay Thomas Ditch Sauple Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16 Table B-4 Irrigation Ditch Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-20 Table B-5 Pasture Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26 Table B-6 Farm Pond Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-42 l Table B-7 Farm Pond Outfall Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-44 l Table C-1 Inspector" In Situ Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 Table C-2 Calculated Estimate of Soil Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-17 Table C-3 Inspector" Calculated Soil Activity Comparison with Soil i Samples Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-26 l l I l a$^mucmocswsysvavacmuenroc.no ii REVISION 0

ss A .s .x ,xm., 4 A.4o-s 4_ - . ,, -L-e - --ua_sw_4,,Lwa,--- mMm& --<-ose- --2an1 -aw-, a----n-Am- - -am m-m--m a m a__-p ga .o -m,a- ..,,am-m - - ,,_m_uxmam-, O1 Turs PAGE INTENTIONALLY l LEFT BLANK $ l 9

i INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE l 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE j 1.1 Purpose j This characterization survey report has been prepared to document the radiological characterization of the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway

performed between February and March 1995. Elevated soil concentrations were j identified in two samples which were taken in November 1994 to define the i nuclide mix for the final survey of open land areas. A scoping survey was j performed between November 1994 and January 1995. Information obtained

during the scoping survey was used to develop a characterization plan. All l releases during plant operations and during decommissioning activities have been

j. made in accordance with the requirements of the Off-Site Dose Calculation

Manual.

t I The characterization data will be used elsewhere to: i j

• Determine the acceptability of continued discharges via the liquid effluent

. pathway. l

• Determine the acceptability of diverting water from the liquid effluent pathway for irrigation purposes.

j

• Determine if remediation is required in and/or along the effluent pathway,

the level of effort required and the appropriate priority of any remediation efforts.

l l

• Determine appropriate follow-up actions necessary to monitor for potential

changes in the results of the initial characterization.

i l

• Determine the potential impact on the final survey.

i ! The report is organized to present the characterization of the FSV Liquid Effluent Pathway as follows: i j

• Section 2.0, Background Information, provides a brief description of the l pathway, the history of releases and a summary of previous investigations.

J

• Section 3.0, Approach to Characterization, discusses the organization, and

the survey analysis techniques used to characterized the pathway.

2-

• Section _4.0, Effluent Pathway Characterization Results, presents the characterization results segregated by the various pathway sections. It also includes a comparison of the results with scoping survey _ results

;                                                      where applicable.

LO nmAmnCHDOCStFhVWHVr3CHARArBSEm 11 REVISION 0 j 4

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE Section 5.0, Summary and Conclusions provides a summary of the characterization results and an interpretation of the data. Section 6.0, References, identifies documents used to support the characterization activities. Supporting information and data are provided in appendices for further reference. 1.2 Scope The characterization survey was performed by Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., in accordance with an approved characterization plan (Reference 6.4.1) and consisted of the following samples and measurements. Direct exposure rate measurements at the surface of the ground and at 1 meter from the surface along the banks of the Goosequill ditch. Exposure rate measurements were also taken one meter from the ground at each soil sample location. Soil samples along the liquid effluent pathway and from agricultural areas where the effluent path had been diverted in the past for irrigation. Sediment samples from the Goosequill Ditch, the Jay Thomas Ditch, the Farm Pond and the Farm Pond Outfall. In situ gamma spectral analysis, along the effluent pathway extending beyond and around the Farm Pond, and in the agricultural areas. Vegetation samples from within and around the Goosequill and Jay Thomas Ditches. Water samples from the Goosequill Ditch. Concrete samples from the Goosequill Ditch were identified in the characterization plan, however their collection has been deferred until maintenance activities on the ditch allow for easy sampling and measurement. O morrmtenoocsrsvsuaverx4x4(Tar.c' " l-2 REVISION 0

BACKGROUND INFORMATION  ; i

2.0 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION ' 2.1 Pathway Description Figure 2-1 shows a map of the liquid effluent pathway which consists of the l following areas: r

• The Goosequill Ditch which is a concrete ditch that begins upstream of the  ;

discharge pipe and terminates at the Jay Thomas Ditch.

• The banks of the Goosequill Ditch where sediment removed from the ditch has been deposited. l l
• The Jay Thomas Ditch which is a stream bed beginning upstream of the  :

intersection of the Goosequill Ditch and terminating at the Farm Pond. I e Various irrigation ditches that distribute water obtained . from the Goosequill Ditch and the Jay Thomas Ditch to adjacent pastures and farm land. The irrigation ditches and areas to which they drain have been i numbered I through 6 beginning upstream of where the plant effluent  ; discharge pipe connects to the Goosequill Ditch.

• The pastures and farm land adjacent to the liquid effluent pathways. ,
• The Farm Pond which is the terminating point of the Jay Thomas Ditch.
• The Outfall of the Farm Pond which is primarily a stream bed that eventually terminates at the South Platte River.

Plant releases entered the Goosequill Ditch at the discharge pipe. The release then i flowed through the Goosequill Ditch to the Jay Thomas Ditch. From the Jay , Thomas Ditch the release flowed into the Farm Pond then to the Outfall where , it flowed to the South Platte River. Flows from the Goosequilt and Jay Thomas Ditches were periodically diverted along irrigation ditches to distribute water to the pastures and farm land adjacent to the pathway. The Goosequill Ditch was l also noted to have points where there were breaks and/or where overflow had l occurred. All of these areas have been considered as part of the pathway for the  ! characterization survey. l l l l i amumocuocsunnmemucn"2" 2-1 REVISION 0

N O I T A g g M y g R O o v g F N I

                                            -         +.

u e v w s_ D N U .f ~ - C gg ,- l O . e w s R )',+- T e B4 e G . m K t a B __ s C . l s A ., _ B m e m _ a n r - e v o c l a y a a w m o t u s

                                                 .                    5 A

m 1 e n ht P t a o - s) e r . p - u r e 1 0

                                                 ..                   m 2l  f m

n M 1 6 0 w f r i s a ef rE u u 9 W y - gn ii J - w s Fa r - n V a w _;9-s$ _ r e w e t S

                                   /<

a n r a t m r u r u r r o u t F m G - 6 y e 2 M t r a p e e s S n 2 c t s

                                                                          .          n e
                                                                          -          x a

x n _, e t c a c e f v i _. a _( _\

                                                                          -          u v

s s _ J. .. l ei r t s a r c t m m c c u g

. _ _ .._~ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. .. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ - _ . _ _ __. _ _ ._-- _._._ _ _ ._ l , BACKGROUND INFORMATION  : l l 2.2 History of Liquid Releases l Liquid releases made before 1993 can be found in the Public Service Company , of Colorado Annual Effluent Release Reports. All liquid releases made during the decommissioning were in accordance with the Off Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and within the MPC limits of 10CFR20.1068 The total nuclide activities released in liquid effluent between June of 1993 and December of 1994 are summarized below with an estimate of the remaining activity (reference 6.3.3). Releases were made from the following sources: System 62 (Radioactive Liquid Waste System) monitor tank releases,  ; bladder releases via the reactor building sump (RBS), and RBS releases. Bladder j ! releases included activity from monitoring tanks and drain down from PCRV , j shield water. l Table 2-1 Sununary of Liquid Releases from June 1993 and Remaining PCRV Inventory l } Nuclide.' LReleased Between 6/93d LikNy PCRV InventoryL; ~ f and 12/941  : to Be Released , (mci) ~ (mci):  ; H-3 1534 3179 ' t Cl-36 7.59 90.84 Cs-137 12.58 0.18 Cs-134 1.26 0.01 Co-60 7.59 0.05 Sr-90 0.13 0.02 Eu-152 1.14 - Eu-154 0.74 - Eu-155 0.34 - Mn-54 0.% - l a 8 Fort St. Vrain licensed activities are being conducted under an exemption to the revision to 10CFR20 which required implementation by 1/1/94. 1 . O WATAMCHDOCS\FSYSURVDCHARACBSEC2.0 2-3 , REVISION 0 -

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.3 Summnry of Previous Investigations 2.3.1 Previous investigations along the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent pathway include

• The Radiological Environmental Program implemented by Colorado State University for the Public Service Company of Colorado, PSC.
• Investigations performed by SEG between September 1993 and November 1994, and
• A Scoping Survey performed by SEG between November 1994 and January 1995.

Information from these investigations was, in part used to develop the characterizarinn plan. 2.3.2 Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program An annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report is submitted by PSC to the NRC in accordance with the Fort St. Vrain Decommissioning Technical Speci0 cations. Colorado State University implements the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) performing the following surveillances: external exposure rates, ambient air concentrations, radionuclide concentrations in water, milk, food products, and aquatic pathways. Liquid release pathway surveillance is focused on sediments, fish and water in the St. Vrain Creek and the South Platte River. No sample analysis results could be found between the effluent  ! discharge point and the South Platte River. Measurements of fish and sediment in the South Platte River did not show detectable concentrations of man-made nuclides with the exception of Cs-137 which was attributable to global fallout. On November 30,1994 Colorado State University, CSU, sampled soil in l the general area of 10 of the locations where SEG had sampled. Samples i were taken at the request of the PSC following concerns raised by SEG. l The results are reproduced in the SEG " Liquid Ef0uent Pathway Scoping l Survey Report"(reference 6.4.3). Quantified Cs-137 and Co-60 activity I concentrations identified by CSU are within the range observed by SEG during the scoping survey. O O TDATA\ TECH 1XHTISVNUiWF.4HARMTsir? u 2-4 REVISION 0

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.3.3 SEG Investigations Between September 1993 and November 1994 ,i (m), After the Prestressed Concrete Reactor Vessel (PCRV) was filled with shield water, SEG personnel began sampling soil and sediment at various points along the discharge path. The data is provided in Appendix A. Areas sampled include:

• Goosequill Ditch sediment, Banks of the Goosequilt and Jay Thomas Ditet.es concentrating on points where the flow had overflowed or leaked through breaks in the ditches and where sediment had been dredged and deposited on the ditch banks, and
• Farm Pond sediment.

While the samples were not collected using an approved procedure, the sampling methods and sample points were documented at the time of collection and an evaluation was later performed to validate the methods (reference 6.3.2). The first sample (N-1) taken on 9/23/93 at the Farm Pond inlet identified 3.05 pCi/g of Cs-137, 0.38 pCi/g of Cs-134 and 0.31 pCi/g of Co-60. Sixty-eight additional samples taken between December 1993 and August 1994 showed low concentrations of man-made o nuclides. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 2-2. (V ) Table 2-2 Samples Taken Between 12/93 and 8/94 Nuclide No. of Measurements Concentration Range Showing Detectable (pCi/g) Activity Cs-137 57 0.06 - 4.2 Cs-134 15 0.06 - 0.43 Co-60 32 0.04 - 0.92 Eu-152 1 0.35 Eu-154 1 0.I1 i Eu-155 0 - On 11/16/94 two samples were taken to determine the nuclide mix for the final survey of open land areas. Sample A-39, taken in the irrigation ditch near the North Marsh in an area previously sampled, showed activities which were more than eight times greater than any previous results. p kj a mumrrmxxyrsvsouvtcarnu r. sin " 2-5 REVISION 0

i BACKGROUND INFORMATION The second sample, A-40, taken at a biased location near the discharge point, showed activity concentrations within the range previously observed. The sample analysis results are shown in Table 2-3. The activity concentrations observed in Sample A-39 initiated additional measurements and sampling which are documented in the " Liquid Effluent Pathway Scoping Survey Report". Table 2-3 11/16/94 Sample Results l Nuclide A-39 A-40 1 (pCi/g) (pCi/g) j i Cs-137 6.6 0.91 Cs-134 0.49 0.1 I Co-60 7.7 0.76 i Eu-152 1.5 0.17 l 1 Eu-154 0.81 0.06 Eu-155 0.53 0.09 2.3.4 SEG Liquid Effluent Pathway Scoping Survey l As a result of the high concentrations observed in sample A-39, a scoping survey of the Liquid Effluent Pathway was performed beginning in November 1994 (reference 6.4.3). The scoping survey initially consisted of exposure rate measurements and soil sampling. Exposure rate measurements were taken along the Goosequill Ditch at the surface and 1 meter from the surface at various points, and at 30 soil sample locations. In sim measurements were later initiated to obtain spectral information in the field to identify areas containing radioactive materials and to estimate approximate activity concentrations. Biased soil and sediment samples were taken:

• Within the Goosequill Ditch,
• Along the banks of the Goosequili Ditch,
• In the agricultural areas off the Goosequill Ditch where the ef0uent path had been diverted in the past, and
• At various locations along the Jay Thomas Ditch and the banks of the Farm Pond.

O o matamrnoocersysuaversawnscr2" 2-6 REVISION 0

BACKGROUND INFOlC.IATION Sample biasing was based on locations which were thought to be logical  ; collection points for contamination. Specifically, samples from the banks  ; of the Goosequill Ditch were selected where the removed sediment could l easily be distinguished and therefore suspect. Points along the flow path ) into the distribution ditches were chosen as probable locations for I contamination. Likewise, points where the effluent flow changed direction or velocity were also selected as likely collection points. i In situ gamma spectroscopy measurements were initiated in December. l l Locations for in situ measurements were generally focused in areas where l soil sampling had not been performed. Areas investigated included: l l l !

• The North Marsh, i' l
• An area to the west of County Road 19%, l
• The Jay Thomas Ditch to the Farm Pond, i
• The branches off the Jay Thomas Ditch which are-used for <

irrigation, and l

• The outflow from the Farm Pond to the South Platte River.

l Measurements and sample analyses performed on the Fort St. Vrain liquid l effluent pathway showed elevated activity. Exposure rate measurements I were generally higher on contact than at I meter above the ground in I areas where elevated soil sample activity had been identified. Soil  ! samples showed elevated activity concentrations: in the sediment taken  ! from the Goosequill Ditch, the sediment located on the banks of the l Goosequill ditch which had been dredged from the ditch, and the agricultural areas off the Goosequill Ditch predominantly along the major flow path. In situ measurements showed elevated activity: along the Jay  ; Thomas Ditch, along the flow path of the agricultural dispersion areas j from the Goosequill and Jay Thomas Ditches, and at the outflow to the i Farm Pond. Some of the data obtained during the scoping survey has been used to supplement the characterization data in this report. In those cases, it is noted that the data was collected during the scoping survey. 1 l lO i mo4Tercenuocssrsv.wavmcH4:w,wrr2 " 2-7 REVISION 0

_A.a_4_ . ,4_4 J._ _Aea-. .h_.e . . -m a. A. g..-z_u, Jm,4asM_.A A,4kg,4;-e m .w-c. 4..-+M a 5--dm-m+-- -E-.'- A.*w m h a.4-a+s ;S msp 4 Aa ai amamaete-,,y- .g.mawe,Aa.4- -AA-a.r.m--.w-,= 4.w--E-amsq a 4 l t I

                                                                                                                                                                                                                \

l b 1 i

l

1 i

1 i i f THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK g O

l CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH i 3.0 CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH l 3.1 Characterization Methodology 3.1.1 Survey Methods and Package Development The liquid effluent pathway areas described in Section 2.1 were characterized separately and in accordance with a specific survey package i j and approved procedures. All individuals involved in sampling were knowledgeable of the contents of the characterization plan and received specific training on the applicable procedures. The types of measurements and samples collected from the pathway areas included the following:

• Exposure rate measurements,
• In siru gamma spectroscopy measurements,
• Sediment samples,
• Vegetation samples,
• Water samples, r.nd
• Surface (within 15 cm) and subsurface (15 to 30 cm) soil samples.

In many cases the surface samples were collected as 0 - 2 inch, 2 - 4 inch and 4 - 6 inch samples. Both biased and unbiased readings and samples were taken. The specific samplirg protocol for each area is described in Section 4. All samples were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. Select samples were analyzed for Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90. Preparation varied with the type of sample media. Soil and sediment samples were dried, sifted and weighed prior to analysis. Vegetation samples were dried and weighed. I To facilitate data collection and review, survey packages were developed for each portion of the liquid effluent pathway to be characterized. The survey packages were prepared by the Characterization Coordinator and l approved by the Project Radiation Protection Manager (PRPM). Each I survey package contained the following as applicable: 1

• Safety concerns, j
• The number and types of measurements and/or samples required, O

amwrocanocsesvsuave camensec3. 3-1 REVISION 0 , l

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH

                         +       The measurement and/or sample locations,

• Special instructions and/or sampling protocols to follow,  ;
• Quality Control requirements, i l
• Types of sample analyses required, j
• Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) requirements, i I
• Copies of associated maps, and
• Downloaded survey reports and analysis reports. I 3.1.2 Sample Locations and Mapping Over 1000 samples and measurements were collected along the Fort St. i Vrain liquid effluent pathway. Each location was marked at the time of I collection with a stake labeled with the sample identification with the exception of the Farm Pond sediment samples. The SEG global j positioning system (GPS) was used to determine the position for each of these staked locations. A base station was set up over a survey marker j located on the south side of the Training Building. The roving GPS was

carried to each sampb location where the position was logged with the sample type and identification number. These positions were downloaded and corrected by following approved procedurer and using the base station data. The sample location positions were experted to AutoCAD for mapping.

The GPS is a system which determines the position in global units of any given location. The system uses satellite: in continuous orbit to inangulate the position (longitude, latitude and altitude). A base station, set up at a known location, collects data to correct survey data collected by a roving GPS. This correction provides position data accurate to within one meter. Position data can be mapped or used for future reference points; this system can navigate to a desired, input position. The GPS position data was used for two purposes. The first purpose was to have verifiable data on file in the event that a sample would have to be retaken or a location justified. The near exact positions could be revisited using the GPS's navigation functicns. Also, the GPS positions were used to verify and change, as necessary, the approximate scale of CAD maps used to depict the sample locations. O o m4mrocanoestsysuavtscara4 nsecs. 3-2 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH j i Different maps were made for each sample type (e.g., Goosequill Ditch i sediment, Jay Thomas Ditch sediment, etc.). These maps can be overlaid, (

  )                            depending on the combination of sample types desired to be reviewed.                 l' For those sample locations which were not collected by the GPS (e.g.,

Farm Pond sediment), the sample locations were drawn based on field i notes compiled by the survey teams. The GPS position results are on file with the other liquid effluent pathway results. i

3.1.3 Evaluation of Results  ;

All sample analysis results were reviewed by the Sample Analysis [ Coordinator who then forwarded the results to the Characterization , j Coordinator for inclusion into the survey packages. All survey packages - y were approved by the Characterization Coordinator or designee, prior to  ; being submitted to the PRPM for closure.  !

!                                                                                                                   i
;                              The soil / sediment results were reported in terms of pCi/g, and were                  l

] evaluated using the draft site specific conceptual model (reference 6.3.1) '

;                              to estimate the annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to a j                               hypothetical individual considering all applicable pathways. The criterion 4                               of 10 mrem /yr total effective dose equivalent as approved by the NRC in
!                              the FSV Final Survey Plan was used to evaluate the soil sample results obtained during this characterization survey.

3.2 Instrunnentation and Equipment 3.2.1 Instrumentation l

Exposure rate measurements were taken with a Ludlum Model 2350 data

logger coupled to a Ludlum Model 44-2 detector. The Ludlum Model 44-4 2 is a 1" x 1" NaI(TI) detector calibrated to Cs-137. No correction was made for the detector's energy dependence for energies other than Cs-137.

,                              The- need for such a correction was not required.                      Exposure rate measurements were used to identify areas with exposure rates differeid i                               from the expected background.                All measurements were relative

measurements. The instrument was operated in a scaler mode with a count time of 15 seconds. The a priori Minimum Detectable Exposure Rate in a 25 R/hr background is approximately 4 R/hr.

Data loggers and associate detectors were calibrated by Ludlum- , Measurements, Inc. Calibrations were performed on a semi-annual basis using National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable sources and calibration equipment. 4 4-i O omwrrmoes-svsuavecuuensecu 3-3 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH The data logger calibration included:

• High Voltage calibration
• Discriminator / threshold calibration
• Alarm operation verification
• Scaler calibration verification The detector calibration included:
• Operating voltage determination
• Calibration constant determination (Counts per second/ roentgen per hour)
• Dead time correction determination Calibration labels showing instrument identification number, calibration date and calibration due date were attached to all field instrumentation.

The presence of the instrument calibration label was verified by the user before each use. Daily response checks were conducted at the beginning and end of the work day. In situ measurements were taken with Canberra's InSpectof" system which consists of a Reverse-Electrode intrinsic germanium detector, MCA and the Genie PC software. Measurements were made with the detector face 1 meter from the ground counting for 1200 seconds. All measurements were analyzed using an exponential vertical distribution efficiency curve and a relaxation length, L (the distance to reduce the source by a factor of 1/e), which was based on the observed activity depth  ; distribution in the field. Analysis results were reported in total activity i per area, and later converted in a spreadsheet to activity per unit mass. Both the activity per unit area and activity per unit mass are dependent on the assumed efficiency curve and relaxation length. Approximate MDAs are shown in Table 3-1. Many of the Inspector" measurements were taken during the scoping phase of the liquid effluent pathway investigation. Inspector" measurements frequently formed the basis for sample collection points. O awwronmesrsvsuaveseninacrsoc3. 3-4 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH Table 3-1 Inspector" MDAs for 1200 Second Count O (L = 1.25cm, assumed sample depth = 15cm)

                                                                                          'MDA                            : MDA'-

2

                                                             . Nuclide -              ( Ci/100cm)                        - (pCi/g)                                                 ,

Co-60 4.8E-05 2.0E-02 Cs-134 5.1E-05 2.1E-02 Cs-137 5.8E-05 2.4E-02 Eu-152 1.8E-04 7.4E-02 l

                                                           *The u              fsem pC1/100 emi' to PCVs is psewsdad a Appenda C.
                                                           'Ine afraisney asumens underms horiasmani activhy in an inreies pisme.

l 3.2.2 Laboratory Equipment l Soil, sediment and vegetation samples were dried in microwave / convection ovens, and analyzed using a Canberra high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector or a lithium drifted germanium (GeLi) detector and Genie PC software. A 1 liter marinelli geometry and a 1200 second count time for the HPGe or a 3600 second count time for the GeLi were used for counting the samples. Approximate MDAs are shown in Table 3-2. K-40 is ncted to be quantified slightly high due to the coincidence summing of the nuclides used to establish the efficiency curve. K-40 analyses have not been corrected for laboratory background or coincidence summing. The overestimation is estimated to be 15% (reference 6.4.10), but will be dependent on the sample activity, detector and counting geometry. K-40 was used mainly as a QC marker in the spectrum. Selected samples were analyzed for non-gamma emitting nuclides, Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90. Cl-36 was analyzed using a Beckman LS3801 liquid scintillation counter. Fe-55 and Sr-90 analyses were performed by an off-site vendor. MDAs for non-gamma emitting nuclide analysis are shown in Table 3-3. I O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 35 ,Ev,S,os 0

                                                                                                                                               .                                   l

l l CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH l Table 3-2 Canberra Genie PC MDAs for 1 Liter Marinelli Geometry i Nuclide MDA'(pCi/g)* 1 Mn-54 1.0E-01 Co-60 1.0E-01 Cs-134 6.4E-02 Cs-137 1.0E-01 Eu-152 2.4E-01 l l Eu-154 3.0E-01 i Eu-155 3.0E-01 K-40 9.0E-01

• Actaal sample MDAs very web nampic mass and actrvity.

Table 3-3 ' Approximate Non-Ganuna Analysis MDAs

                                   - Nuclide                                     ;MDA-                        '
                                                                                ' (pCilg) '

Cl-36 0.5 g Fe-55 2.0 Sr-90 0.13 3.3 Quality Assurance The Quality Assurance and Quality Control program for characterization activities was implemented through the use of approved procedures that addressed calibration and operation of instruments, sample collection, sample analysis, documentation and evaluation. Instrumentation, calibration, testing and maintenance schedules were established. Field instruments were calibrated at a six-month frequency. All calibration sources were traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Calibration and maintenance records were maintained for each instrument. A summary of the detectors and the associated calibration sources is provided in Table 3-4. The type of measurement (or analyses) performed with each detector is also indicated. l O

      *^ "CS) CS'.rSYSURVDCHARACTiSEC3.0 3-6                               REVISION 0

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

, CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH Table 3-4

Detectors, Calibration Sources and Use

Detector -

                                                                             ' Calibration Source !                  Use i

! Imdlum Model 2350 data Exposure Rate Exposure Rate i logger with Calibrated Cs-137 Measurements a Model 44-2 Nal(TI) i detector Canberra HPGe Gamma 1 Liter Mixed Gamma Gamma Spectral Spectroscopy System (88 kev to 1836 kev) Analysis of Soil and Sediment, vegetation, water, etc. Canberra Inspector" Vendor supplied In situ Gamma HPGe, In situ Gamma Monte Carlo N- Spectral Analysis for Spectroscopy System Particle Transport Soil Activity Determined Efficiency Verified by a Mixed Gamma Point Source Beckman LS3801 Liquid Cl-36 Standard Cl-36 Analysis Scintillation Counter i O The 2350 data logger /44-2 detector configuration was response tested daily prior to and following use, and following any maintenance or modifications that might , affect the instmment's performance and calibration. Unsatisfactory instrument j responses were investigated. This includes evaluations of the hardware and  ! checks for the presence of radioactive materials on the detector. An efficiency was determined for each detector used to quantify radioactivity. The Canberra gamma spectroscopy systems were quality control checked daily. All samples were labeled and identified with unique sample identification numbers assigned from a radiochemistry sample logbook. Samples were appropriately packaged to prevent any sample loss. Following analysis, samples were stored for future analysis if necessary. Quality control requirements were specified in the survey packages. Select soil and sediment samples were split and analyzed separately to verify the results of the Canberra gamma spectroscopy systems. Each of these samples was collected, 4 dried, mixed and then split into two samples. The two samples were analyzed  ! separately using the same protocol and then compared using the criteria for environmental split samples contained in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750 (reference 6.1.3). O mn4mnewoocswsvwavecxAnacnsec' 3-7 REVISION 0

1 CHARACTERIZATION APPROACII l i 1 3.4 Methods of Data Analysis 3.4.1 Exposure Rate Measurements Backcround Exoosure Rate Background exposure rate is used for comparison with the exposure measurement results. The variation in the background exposure rate from I soil can be seen in the evaluation of 40 measurements which were made off-site in the vicinity of the FSV facility. These measurements were taken as part of the Final Survey Program. The measurements were taken I at a distance of 1 meter from the ground for a 15 second count time. The j results, which are not corrected for energy dependence, are shown in l Table 3-5.  ! Table 3-5 I Variation in 1 Meter Background Exposure Rate l (Final Survey Background Data) l l

                                    . Statistic                   1 Meter Exposum Rate ~          l Mean (uR/hr)                                         24.9 Standard Deviation (gR/hr)                           2.o Range (pR/hr)                                    22.2 - 29.0 Coefficient of Variation (%)                         8.03 Exoosure Rate Measurements Exposure rate measurements were taken at each soil sample location at a distance of 1 meter from the ground prior to obtaining the soil sample. Exposure rate measurements were also taken approximately 6 inches from the ground every 3 - 4 feet along the banks of the Goosequill Ditch to establish biased locations for sampling. All              ;

exposure rate measurements were taken operating the Ludlum Model l 2350/44-2 in the scaler mode for a 15 second count time. 3.4.2 Soil and Sediment Data Analysis Backeround Soil Activity Because Cs-137 is present in background due to global fallout, this report will occasionally compare the quantified Cs-137 activity to the observed background Cs-137 activity. Background soil concentrations were determined as pan of the Final Survey Program (reference 6.4.4). GWAWrrDOOCSTSYSURVDCHARACBSEC" 3-8 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH Cs-137 was the only nuclide identified in the 40 surface and 40 subsurface samples which were collected off-site in the vicinity of the O FSV facility. Four groundwater samples were also collected and analyzed during the Final Survey background study. A summary of the I background values for Cs-137 in soil and water is presented in Table i 3-6. Cs-137 was detected in 31 of the 40 samples for both surface and i subsurface soil. The mean result presented was calculated by assuming l 0 for the measurements which did not show activity in excess of MDA. I The mean result is therefore a low estimate of the true background Cs-137 concentration. Table 3-6 Background Cs-137 Concentrations Matenal  ? Number ofi  ! Meani "MEiinum,1 ' Minimum ' Standard Type 3 . Measurements ' ; Resulti. JResulti ' Result i Deviation (s) Surface Soil 40 0.12 0.37 0 0.09 (PCi/g) Subsurface 40 0.10 0.32 0 0.08 Soil (pCi/g) Groundwater 4 0 0 0 0 (pCilg) Soil and Sediment Samole Analysis The following statistical analyses were used as aporopriate in evaluating l the data.

• Data for each sample type in each area were reviewed for j trends. hwi on the review, the areas were occasionally further divided into like sets.
• The range of activities was determined and documented. The ,

range of activities extends from approximately MDA to the maximum.

• The mean of the sample results was determined. When the samples from a specific area did not show any activity gradient and the results were similar, the mean was considered a good estimate of the area concentrations. The mean activity concentrations are from the analysis results which exceed the MDA. The average is therefore conservatively high.

O amumrnmocswsvsuavecmuenseca. 3-9 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH

• The sample set standard deviation was also calculated whenever a set of measurements was averaged.
• The % Coefficient of Variation, %CV, the standard deviation expressed as a percentage of the mean is occasionally used.
• Many soil samples were collected from 0 - 2 inches, 2 - 4 inches, and 4 - 6 inches. These samples were analyzed individually, and averaged together to obtain the 0 - 6 inch average sample activity. When averaging the three depths together to obtain the 0 - 6 inch sample activity the total activity of the three samples was divided by the total mass of the three samples to obtain the best estimate of the 0 - 6 inch activity concentration.
• The two-sample t test statistic was used to compare the mean results from data obtained during the scoping survey with the data obtained during the characterization survey. Two-sample refers to a comparison two sets of sample data. This test was used to determine if activity concentrations were decreasing, increasing or not changing. The two-sample t test was only used when the sample locations could be acceptably compared.

Assumptions for using the two-sample t test are:

1. The sample populations are approximately normally O

distributed.

2. Population variances are equal.

A two-tailed test was performed using the 95% confidence interval.

• The F test statistic was used to determine if two population variances were the same. The F test was used in conjunction with the two-sample t test to determine if the activity concentrations in a given area were changing. The F test was performed using the 95% confidence interval.

Each sample was evaluated using a dose conversion factor (mrem /yr per pCi/g) appropriate for the area surveyed. These dose conversion factors (DCFs) were developed using a site specific conceptual model which considered all credible pathways (reference 6.3.3). The resulting dose conversion constants for the various effluent pathway environments are shown in Table 3-7. O amrwrwoocsrsvsuavescnarensec' 3-10 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH l The listed dose conversion factors include all reasonable site-specific ' l pathways to man; the predominant dose pathways are noted in O parentheses. Each nuclide in each sample was multiplied by the appropriate DCF to obtain the dose equivalent rate (mrem /yr). A i background Cs-137 concentration was not subtracted from any of the  ! results. The slight overestimation in dose equivalent is assumed to be ' minimal.- Using the average background concentration (Table 3-6) of 0.12 pCi/g equates to a 0.1 mrem /yr dose equivalent rate. The highest dose equivalent rate for each pathway environment was then summed to obtain the annual total effective dose equivalent. Individual samples  ; could not be judged as meeting the 10 mrem /yr limit until all pathway ) environments were evaluated and summed using the DCF appropriate to l the environment, j Table 3-7 Dose Conversion Factors (mrem /yr per pCi/g)

         ' Nuclide -          Goosequill Ditchi             Pastures:             _

Pond Sediment . f(external): .E(internal & external)i (internal)i Co-60 2.2E-1 9.5E-1 4.4E-2 Cs-134 1.3E-1 5.5E-1 1.6E0 Cs-137 4.5E-2 2.7E-1 1.1E0 Eu-152 9.2E-2 5.5E-1 - Eu-154 1.1E-1 6.6E-1 - Eu-155 2.7E-3 3.5E-2 - 3 l 3.4.3 Inspector"In Situ Measurements j Background Measurements l Two background measurements (IPS013 and IPS015) were taken off-site. The average background results for Cs-137 and K-40 were put in a ratio with each measurement location. The ratios were used to determine how the natural K-40 changed from location to location, and to flag Cs-137 measurement points which exceeded background by more than a factor of 2, and therefore possibly due to activity other than global fallout. It is noted that the Cs-137 background activity concentrations are reponed to vary by more than a factor of 2 and therefore by themselves do not indicate the presence of licensed material. O ommiramocs.rsysuavocmarensrn 3-11 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACil InSoector" Measurements alone the Liauid Effluent Pathway The data from each Inspector measurement was evaluated using an efficiency with a relaxation length of 1.25 cm. The Inspector" h software allows the efficiency to be selected for uniform activity with depth, or exponential vertical distribution with a selected relaxation length, L, (0.1 cm,1.25 cm, or 12.5 cm) depending on how far vertically into the soil the deposited activity has migrated. Based on a review of the soil samples which were taken at 0 - 2 inches, 2 - 4 inches, and 4 - 6 inches, a relaxation length of 1.25 cm was determined to be the most appropriate value for the activity depth of burial observed along the liquid effluent pathway at Fort St. Vrain for the nuclides of interest. Inspector" measurements were used to evaluate various environments. All Inspector" results and maps of measurement locations are contained in Appendix C. O O mn4wrrcanoCssr$VSURVDCHARACUSFC 0 3-12 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS' 4.0 EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS

                                      ' 4.1  Goosequill Ditch 4.1.1 Survey Techniques The Goosequill Ditch is a concrete ditch over - 6,000 feet long, approximately 3 feet wide and 3 feet deep. Sediment, vegetation and concrete samples were obtained from the ditch in accordance with the characterization plan and supplemental instructions.

Sediment samples were collected upstream of the discharge pipe, downstream of the discharge pipe every 50 feet for the first 500 feet then every 200 feet. Figure 4-1 shows the sediment sample locations. If available, approximately 2 liters of sample were collected at each sampling location. Samples were collected such that the amount of vegetation and water was minimized. All vegetation was removed from the sediment samples. Samples were dried and weighed prior to gamma analysis. The two samples showing the highest activity were analyzed for Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 following gamma spectral analysis. Soil / sediment samples were also collected in locations immediately adjacent to the Goosequill Ditch where the ditch is breaking down or known to have leaked. These biased samples were taken from the locations most likely affected. Locations are shown on Figure 4-1. Additional sediment samples were taken from the concrete ditch that intersects the Goosequill Ditch west of County Road 19%.14 cations are shown in Figure 4-1. Vegetation samples were obtained from the two aquatic plant species growing within the Goosequill Ditch, one from the bottom sediment, the other along the concrete sides of the' ditch. Since the vegetation samples are composite samples, the locations shown on Figure 4-2 are general locations. Samples were dried and in most cases chopped and weighed prior to gamma analysis. Water samples were obtained from the ditch to determine if sediment was being resuspended. Figure 4-3 shows the locations where water samples were collected. O

                          =^T^memmsvsuavescurancTsscc4 no                    4-1                                 REVISION 0    {

l l l 1

a_ ,M-. min.dmA4._a.d _4J.A-_-e.m 4._wa us-ed.-e.AJL,-_. = Ah m a ed---M a ,i ehat4 ha 2---ea-Xeh-,e im' ha 4,mhw.an-+h,g.61%_,- &.pW.--.am a ar. A4-,.mu& _e ....w_m .a,,se, seseJe 4 -we,_e444 gis,.-#,_,,i.Au4_ i I t i 4 1 } ! l i I i d a i i 1 , THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY 4 l i LEFT BLANK $ i e a i k i l l i i a j i i 1 1 h~ 4 i l

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         --l

l EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS 4.1.2 Results - Goosequill Ditch A summary of the Goosequill Ditch samples is provided in Table 4-1. Individual sample results are tabulated in Appendix B, Table B-1. Table 4-1 Summary of Goosequill Ditch Samples 4 . No.of Sample Type Nuclide Number _ rheation Mean ( 1s)i Samples ->MDA Range (pCi/g)? "(pCi/g) . l Sediment from GQ Ditch 5 Cs-134 2 0.12 - 0.13 0.12 (i 0.005) i Upstream from Discharge Pipe Cs-137 5 0.13 - 2.17 1.29 (i 0.90) Co40 3 1.51 - 2.45 1.98 (t 0.47) Sediment from GQ Ditch 31 Cs-134 25 0.09 - 1.33 0.37 (t 0.30) p, Cs-137 31 0.60 - 18.07 4.42 (i 3.80) Co40 31 0.18 - 26.29 4.17 (i 5.29) _ Eu-152 12 0.39 - 4.24 1.30 (i 1.06) ) Eu-154 7 0.40 - 2.21 0.89 (i 0.63) Eu-155 9 0.23 - 1.33 0.59 (i 0.33) , Soil / Sed. at Ditch Breekdown 5 Cs-137 3 0.06 - 0.12 0.09 ( 0.03) Points Co40 1 0.88 0.88 Concrete Ditch that Intersects 5 Cs-134 3 0.13 - 0.35 0.23 (i 0.11)

• I * ')

0.29 - 6.31 Cs-137 5 2.99 (i 2.29) Co-60 5 0.15 - 2.50 1.37 (i 0.86) Vegetation 3 Cs-137 3 2.80 - 3.61* 3.05 (i 0.48)  ;

• long strands from bottom '

, Vegetation 2 Cs-137 2 4.76 - 4.99* 4.87 ( 0.17)

• bushy from sides Co-60 2 9.73 - 15.41* 12.57 (i 4.01)

Water Samples 10 No man-made nuclides identified Sediment Non-Gamma Analysis 2 Cl-36 No activity detected s Fe-55 2 9.39 -26.8 18.1 (il2.3) Sr-90 No activity detected

• Vegetation was asned pnor to countmg.

O 02^T^mmoCs'rsysURvDCHARACT\SEC4 RO 4-5 , REVISION 0

i EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS Gooseouill Ditch Sediment Uostream from Discharge Five samples were collected south (upstream of the normal flow path) of  ! the effluent discharge pipe: sample numbers GQD. SED.001,002,003, l 044 and 045. Sample numbers 001, 002, and 003 showed Cs-137 and l Co-60 in low (1 to 2.5 pCi/g) concentrations. Samples 002 and 003 also l showed approximately 0.1 pCi/g of Cs-134 The activity in these l samples is not surprising since the effluent flow can be diverted to flow south by opening the gate valve which is approximately 30 feet upstream from the discharge pipe. Sample 044 was taken in front of the gate at the I beginning of the Goosequill Ditch, and 045 was taken just below the gate valve at the point where the effluent would enter the irrigation area. Neither sample 044 nor 045 showed activity above background. 1 The nuclide results for each sample were evaluated using the Fort St. Vrain site-specific model dose conversion constants. The resulting maximum dose equivalent rate from a sirgle sample was 0.6 mrem /yr from GQD. SED.001. Gooseouill Ditch Sediment Downstream from Discharce Thirty-one sediment samples were collected from the bottom of the Goosequill Ditch at locations between the discharge pipe and the intersection of the Jay Thomas Ditch. Sample numbers GQD. SED.003 through 038 were measured locations where samples were to be collected. At 4 sample locations there was not sufficient sediment in the ditch for a sample. All of the samples showed Co-60 and Cs-137. Cs-134, Eu-152, Eu-154, and Eu-155 was also detected in many of the sediment samples. The activity in the sediment did not decrease along the flow path. In fact, no pattern to the sample activity concentrations was noted. Since no pattern to the activity was observed, an average of the measurable sediment samples was determined to be appropriate and useful. The highest activity sample, number GQD. SED.032, showing 1 pCi/g Cs-134, 18 pCi/g Cs-137,26 pCi/g Co-60, and 8 pCi/g of Eu isotopes, was taken approximately 4300 feet downstream from the discharge pipe. Evaluating the sample results using the Fort St. Vrain site-specific model dose conversion constants shows the resulting maximum dose equivalent rate from a single sample of 7.4 mrem /yr from GQD. SED.032. All other sample dose equivalent rates were significantly lower with the next highest sample, GQD. SED.030, showing only 3.6 mrem /yr. O am^wnenoocssrsysuavocarnacTssoc4 a 4-6 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 analyses were performed on GQD. SED.018 and O GQD. SED.032. Results of the analyses showed no detectable Cl-36 or Sr-90. Fe-55 was quantified at 68.2 pCi/g GQD. SED.018. These' activity concentrations are not expected to contribute significantly Oess than 0.10 mrem /yr) to the dose equivalent rate due to the low X ray energies associated with Fe-55's electron capture decay mode. A comparison was made of the Goosequill Ditch sediment samples collected during this characterization survey with the samples collected during the scoping survey. Thirty-one characterization samples were compared with six scoping survey samples (D43 - D48, see reicience 6.4.3). The following observations were made comparing the data sets:

• The range of activities increased for the characterization' data.

This was due to the larger number of samples collected during the characterization, which increased the probability of finding higher values in the range.

• The mean activities for the characterization data were noted to decrease by approximately 50%. To determine if the mean activity concentrations were significantly different, a two-sample t test, and an F test were performed on the data. The conclusion was that the sample sets provide evidence that the mean activities have decreased since the scoping survey. That is, the mean O activity of the nuclides for the characterization survey are significantly different Oess) than mean activity in the scoping survey.

Soil and Sediment at Breakdown Points in the Gooseauill Ditch Five soil and sediment samples (GQD. SED.039 through 043) were taken from points adjacent to the Goosequill Ditch where the ditch was breaking down or known to have leaked. Three samples showed low levels of Cs-137 in the range observed in background. One sample, GQD. SED.041, showed Co-60 at 0.9 pCi/g with a resulting maximum dose equivalent rate of 0.03 mrem /yr. Sediment Samoles from the Ditch that Intersects the Goosequill Ditch Five sediment samples (GQD. SED.046 through 050) were taken from the concrete dch which is located approximately 700 feet downstream from the effluent oischarge point. All samples showed Cs-137 and Co-60. Three samples showed Cs-134. The resulting maximum dose equivalent rate from a single sample was 0.88 mrem /yr from GQD. SED.048. A U o sopimrnoocssrsvsuavemarcr. son no 4-7 REVISION 0 <

l EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS Veeetation Samoles from within the Gooseouill Ditch The five vegetation samples (GQD.VEG.001 through 005) showed significant Cs-137 and Co-60 activity. Interestingly, both plant types showed a higher affinity for Co-60 than Cs-137. The long strands from the bottom of the ditch showed the highest activity with a preference for Co-60 which was approximately 10 times that of Cs-137. The bushy type i of plant collected from the sides of the ditch did not show quite as much preference to Co-60; however, the observed Co-60 concentrations were still approximately 2 - 3 times greater than Cs-137. Water Samoles I Ten water samples were obtained from the Goosequill Ditch and analyzed l for 1000 seconds for gamma emitting nuclides. No man-made nuclide:; were identified, indicating that the sediment is not being resuspended during normal flow within the ditch. There is still a concern that ' sediment could be resuspended during irrigation, dredging, or maintenance on the ditch. I 4.2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch 4.2.1 Survey Techniques Both unbiased and biased soil sampling was performed along the banks of the Goosequill Ditch. All samples were collected such that there was minimal vegetation in the sample. Each sample location was staked and later located with GPS. Gooseouill Ditch Bank Unbiased Surface Soil Samoles Unbiased surface soil samples were collected from the banks alternating from one side of the ditch to the other at intervals of 100 feet beginning 100 feet upstream of the discharge pipe and continuing to the end of the ditch. Figure 4-4 shows the unbiased soil sample locations. Each sample was taken 2 to 3 feet from the side of the ditch and consisted of approximately 2 liters of soil avoiding sediment which had been deposited on the banks. Gooseouill Ditch Bank Biased Soil Samples Initially a surface scan was performed along both banks of the ditch with an exposure rate meter held 6 inches above the ground in an attempt to determine locations for biased samples. Two attempts were made

scanning the entire ditch. Due to the high ambient background, the scan was ineffective in locating elevated areas. Finally a survey was performed a to4TartwoocstrsvsuavocuanAcr.sec' " 4-8 REVISION 0

l EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS  ! ! with the Ludlum Model 2350/44-2 detector operated in the scaler mode taking 15 second measurements, 6 inches off the ground, every 3 - 4 feet I (based on the surveyor's stride). The micro-R survey covered 100% of ! both sides of the Goosequill Ditch banks from the discharge' point to the farm road. The results from the.15 second scaler measurements were + i used to determine locations for the biased sample locations. Locations I which showed exposure rates greater than 25 R/hr were marked with- , l paint and surface samples taken. Figure 4-5 shows the soil sample l 4 locations where exposure rates exceeded 25 R/hr. Three one-liter i' samples were taken at each biased location: samples representing the top 2 inches, middle 2 inches and bottom 2 inches. t

Sediment Samnies from the Banks of the Gooseauill Ditch Samples were collected from locations where sediment dredged from the i i ditch had been deposited. The deposited sediments were clearly visible along the banks. Each sample consisted of approximately 2 liters of l sediment. Figure 4-6 shows the Goosequill Ditch bank sediment sample

! locations. i I Gooseauill Ditch Bank Biased Subsurface and Areal Samoles l Additional soil samples were collected at the 10 locations (based on j previous sempling of the Goosequill Ditch banks; unbiased surface soil, i

biased surface soil and sediment locations) showing the highest activity.

Figures 4-7 and 8 show the locations for these samples.

• One subsurface sample was collected at the same location as the imtial sample, and

,I l d i

• Up to 4 surface samples equally spaced at a distance of 6 feet from i the original locations were collected to investigate the extent of j areal contaminati on along the banks of the Goosequill Ditch.

O a$^T^mmoc5'.rsvsua vecHA RA CTiSEC4 .R0 4-9 REVISION 0 l

_..a, a ,.m_.. w a d.iiAde. m- m. * - - - - 4.i #*-+mn- 3 A*-J.e.u.4..e. Ja- m _.-5 a .aph.. mmA4.a J am M m. .m .,D r..&%wa2 .J %d, 4,_J.ams._A#_1. - ia -m 4. m, I O: , I l l l l i i l l IHrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY  !

l. EFT BLANK h l i

O , I l l

  - , . - - _     _ ._-.. . ..-                        -       ..- . . . - . - _ . - .    . . = - - . . . - - - - - . . . . . . - - . . . - ..- .-. _                                  = ~ . . .
                  .                                                                                                                                                                                   i
      .- -                                                                                                                                                                                          J f

i EFFLLENf PMHWAYMP SM (. 1

                                                                                                                              ,                 +                                                   ,
                                                                                                                            .                     x
                                                                                                                      /'          f 4'M POP                                                         j i                                      t tw ns
                                                                                                                                                                                                    }

b

                                                                                                                                                               \ \
                                                                                                                                            /g:y.J(.,   -
                                                                                                                                                                                            .MY TH0n t
                                                                                                                                                                \ -

I j' s -

                                                                                                                /
                                                                                                                                ^

j '/wot Ant n,tr ,/ j. ) ' a r

!                                                                                                                         /                              _ _

i o N ) , 3 [ , i ' i t / i t -~ .s us nnu v i i i r Ir 'O r g< x xy vi

                                                  'Alli'l F. NYX'?MiloN flXfkfM I (170l 'tpithflf (IJPffp.XXX teritv                       rap                             W W a*4ff Mf                              --- EfrutwrAnWAY

• 9me rm Figure Goosequill Ditch Sedime p (3 \llA IA\ll't'litM W'Mi systlicylaigns A g l A 3 4-2 u."

EFFLUENT PATilWAY CllAltACTEltlZATION RESULTS U POINTS KCORDING TO GPS SYSTEM ANSTEC , APERTURE CARD

         ~~

/ .1 Also Available on Aperture Card

            .\,
          -,/

l ~ 7~

       /                                                      l

, u :

(= LE. [ 0 ~$ b$ El[; Nr _.-.,._,.- . . ,.s.

                                                            ,m   ))
                                                                 -         8 N      gru  l

h. x: .

I l

                                      \, ~                             .         una w ma nn
                                             ,.      .,- : . : g';:l iii.,;,'
                                               ,/      a A

l I I i i i 9 Cowtom te s/ 2 i

                                                                                                                          +

N b , f 1 i (TMWY. GMT lWfl5 PAlt W 4 10)9 6 \fEAVM\9ft\ftWT(}i L1 it S:mple Locations 9702050011 - ltEVISION 0

l EffLlENTPAfHWAYR@ sat # [ N

                                                                                   /     rwas          \
                                                                                 /
                                                             <wn t      ,
                                                                               /

j/ 'b r .

                                                                                                            \                  _wm s                         ,

s N! xg

                                                                            /

i

                        #/ AMIN AllL EMI'
                                                               /
                                                           /                                                                  N I
                                                                                                       /

k,.- l

                        ..u munur F

o- ~x x r scx u ate: . ud 5hMitE ltf(EMN1(Al celan raiat - wcr rAnm USW6 XXX l LfTC 19# SIE EltNffNCf -- -- EMLEMPAfHWAY e M gP@g Figure Goosequill Ditch Vegeta' o uirr4u renno,w sv..i,aveun,4:14 4

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS ,

                                                       '                                                          i POINTSKCORDING f0 GPS SYS1EM i

l ANSTEC APERTURE 4 CARD Also Available on v Aperture Card

                                             '-                                  i 1
                                           ,      _       l.~ * . l    ,

I i O l. . I 1  ; N, . j[] ~;1p .g, tfftitNTLVasTilPlhMT g,

                                 /

f'\..l

                                                         -a
                               /

m20$191/ 2 rom pr. GnI Hopas PAE MAy4 W M A\rTMtNC.\MW@lfOt 2 i Simple Locations 9702050011 -

                                                                                    =

REVISION 0 - J

E i 1 l s EFFLlENTPA11fNAY AND sat; C;4- f i i l 4 s N rarao l l unnt , l 7 {\ l -am s\ > i

;                                                                                      q                                                     l
                                                                                         'N i                                          1       ,
                                                                                         /N

(  ;

                                       .n. u,,t - ,.
                                                                                      /                                                     ;
                                                                                  /                                                         1 l

i K 7-/  ; ( u ni e I l l l i l 1 l l u s< x t icia

                                 ' OLE:      ,       :.                                                                                     '

t

                                     'M actfDeMArm (BZEGILL Pllill WAlf T'

(.09.WAT.XXX te m o com a umrem . .. . ._ ermyrmy ,,,,,i Figu$ Goosequill Ditch Wa1 i i W ^ si \llATA\TirillM N 'N\l svhtikvi'\l) mal'g A A 44

EFFLUENT PATilWAY CilARACTERIZATION RESULTS i M POINf5 KCOL' DING TO GPS SYSTEM 1 i ANSTEC

• • APERTURE

                                                                    ,      CARD P'

/ \ Also Available on Aperture Card

              \

N I  ; f. m ;;d n \

                  -- mnau ve n .Fn'-                                              '
                                                    .lO .1) Dd !,r$$ jiE['

v_- ,- g.g :yn ,p ...

                                                                          ,,,u, - , -
                                                          . , s;3 f- ~, ,

s

                                         /
                                      /

p C0tt#Y E0@191/ 2 00AWNDY G/#Y @fl5 PA2 MAY4.1999 0\EEAE\9IYIU O 4-3 r S:mple Locations 9702050011 - ' REVISION 0

          ,             -        . . . -         .  - - - - - ,         .                         . - , - .      ..,.+-r i

EFFLlfNTPAnfNAY AND 5AMF e i l t fM'M f00

m,m ,/ N ... i

                                                                                                               .1:

i< l' / -,4

                                                                                                                       \
                                                                               ,.          -                             C%<
                                                                                 /                                                                   ,
                          '4 Anle M #ifL H A l-                             ,~

s I

                                                                                               %~...                                                ,

6

                                                                                        '                                                            \
                                                                                      /                                                      NI i
                                                                                    /                       I s
    ~ '
                            ,1 vl'Ailtidr b

i i i I I i 1 1 1 1 tr un uw

'utf: . i  ;

snac lt.tcnAwn UXHotti.lAtattwIf 'in uns.'tA rn uwav cr u' , 1 4 amo irn we umnw.e - - - - errutmen a e meecu j Figu ' Goosequill Ditch Bank , { 4

  - -~      in uia rau t s issuww.s wwuvi'opat ia e 4.}' .

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIAllACTEllIZATION RESULTS f 2 POINTS KCOWING TO GPS SYSTEM 1 l i ANSTEC ao APERTURE CARD xs is Also Available on Aperturo Card i I" l'

        ~{_

N) 7.. - --

                                                                        'i'd ; e l

'f_' - uman ma .Lh.l)L._y" 7. I

                                                                         !pf-- j flu
                                                                                  // x::=cif-l

• 1* . ..

Ttg 'v . - tJ. J g 8 .- 7f i

                                                                       'f..t fu        -

13 i

                                " 't . ,             I
                                                                                 " m mwn waran                            l
                                *'y-J 0 CatnYROM? t9I/ g N   L b
                                                   *^* am na5                  pm m wn.       nn..an<,ne,m 4-4 oil Sample Locations 9702050011                                  -

R EVISION-y -s EFFLLENTPA1MVAY#JD SAM

                                                                      ,/
                                                                          /      WWM POD N,

um u , / 1 lb .y . ,\ ' l c, ),/. saw j

                                                                                  /                          VJ                  m
                                                                 /             )                                                   I
                    #.4 Affit ti #fi( it.18'                                  ,N
                                                                            /             . ~
                                                                          /                                                        j 1
                                                                   /

m .,,,,,,,,...

                              <r             .n r nu
               'cn t .         ,

g

                  '/MtE Uf(TMAllMJ (iXNout L pitai191f.. II' > ?',

cammmn y owtv narv son > we wwva - emawrawn . swat row ( FiguX Goosequill Ditch Bank Blu __ o snaun ennu n w svsnuvi snaai n a 4 4,3

EFFLUENT PATilWAY CilARACTEltlZATION RESULTS

                                                                                                                                 ~

LE POINTS MCOWING TO CF5 SYSTEM i ANSTEC  ! APERTURE l na CARD I Also Available on Aperture Card l 1 l d l e I l-UG I i

                    - = =taa
                                                                 .l}Q t      l]bd [353
                                                                                .l.     . u J:E:  imt-l 8
                         .,. . . , , .                                                         *(L3 i

5

                                               .l                                   . ttruf M tralmf f0Nf
                                               **\                             _s
                                                          >Y
                                                   /

' COLNfY CVO $ 1/ 2 "7sdc i i, remin amtwas em m 4 vm astmuswvanrai 4-5 l rd S:ll S:mple Locations 9702050011 - ItEVISION 0~ ,

l 1 1 l EFFLlENTPATHWAY## SAM i l I i 1 l raurav 1 anu , i e _. x m f /

                                                                   /                                                          o j
                                                               /                                                                   s-
                                                             /

l

                                                          /                           -

u n menar

                                 /                      /
                                                         /                                                                             l N        :
                                ,s' i

t , i Srwmrur  !

                                \
                                 \

l I o- soo- Iooo-

                        - t_ u                                                                                                        ,

SAMPLE INFORMAG I 1 G%7.f0l1L DifCHDM TAMENT l G20.2 PBX l l l team com ~ snt wwreuce uruzwemw . wserow : 1 [ ~'

           .                                                                                                                      Fig Goosequill Ditch Bank (

I  ! 4 1 l

EFFLUENT PATIlWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS U FOINf5KCORplNG TO 6P5 SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE CARD f" Also Available on 1 Aperturo Card /

                                            ,             Ci]

R n ,- L -l

   =~

O , a e, n. 4 aman m t A .%-- b,gif. q

                                            ,=

h '[8, , , ' . " . " (( i

                               '.            ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ T.~ ~ em&G'm nn seg J

.P C0lf#Y 00191/ 2 N Y wwow am wras em: mom awmusnvano ire 4-6 lediment Sample Locations 9702050011 '

-12                                                                                   REVISIONE

             '-                                                                                                                    l
   ,~ --

i EFFllENTPAfifNAY AND SAM (4

   %,}

l l i 1 j . . _ i I rmac l l anAt  ;

                                                              /'
                                                                    \

_ .n

                                                            /
                                                          '                                                                        \

i

                                                      /                                                                  o W        4
                                                                                                                              ~:

I i i sammus ewr f  ! l l

                                  .-                                                                                               l l

l . ix i i sr.wm eer ' s 8

                                                                                                                                 .l
                                   \

i l

                                                                                                                                   )

I

o. soo. nooo.

SCAE: haa={uyy:,c) g 1 SAMPLE FfOPJM110N i (MiOULL DifCH DNK tM511CA1M SOL 0" - 6" (GB.t#.X)00 4 1 temo com - -- sat unmren trrttturrNHwAY *SmrteroNrl 4 j (. - Figug Goosequill Ditch Bank Invest 4 1

       ._ ,,    o snAmtmHMCSUWSURVBDRAM'A 4 4,j l

i

EFFLUENT PATIlWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS 1 LE POINf5 MCORDING TO GP5 SYSGM ANSTEC APERTURE  : ao . CARD v Also Available on / Aperture Card M Af LO G H FONf50N M WP A tN MtS. TNIP COLMY #Mr Af 2 WTEES f RCM 20 PONf. i 4PN 5 %C35' Catt. Cit 'O O D e r f%CPhr5Dlf f0MEftOCMifY. , C R es=) (] i l$j' lk)),h ,H u P...F.

                                                                         ..           . . _ . . . . . .         .)
                                               [e
                                                ,                                          , . - tPfl.LtNIPMeR,2 PONf
                                                                  ~~        '

'CQJJfY 20$ t9 t/ 2 CTN#4 Pv. (1MT HOPCES DAfE. MAY 4.1999 6\ETAv#6\9ft\tf%CifG 6-7 itiva S:ll Sample Locations 9702050011 - REVISIOff0

EFFLlENTPAnfNAY#JD 5 AMP twoo '\ CuffM i

                                                                                                                ~#"

i j

                                                         /         NNlN-                                                I maAN ne                       i l                     l l

1 l sr. wm ue i O' sw 1000-M E: I""" "hm m::1 ua 5 AMPLE INFOEMAflON: 60020UILL DifCH PNY, SlD5tifME SOL 6" - 12" 60DD.5LD.XXX Lem0 COM M WM FENCE EtrufNfPADWM

• W M PONT Fi Goosequill Ditch Bank Si (I \ DATA)TI'('ll!H K'S\l'sVhtikvi'\lut Al l'A 4 m .

EFFLUENT PATI!WAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS'~~~ B POINf5 KCORplNd f0 CPS SYSTEM I, ANSTEC APERTURE

"                                                                            CARD Also Availabio on Aperture Card e

i C1.] i.. 6" l. .

                                                ))             ,,

J(o),  ! pp .. . .

                                                         ~~,. - trrtitNfP b Vfd PONT

EfY 20419 U 2 (TNN PY. CLMY HOD (f 5 DAff. MAY 4,1999 6.\CTAntE\9fE\ttWlfOi i

ure 4-8 psurfaca Soll Sample Locations 9702050011 - U i 4-14 REVISION 0 ._ _ i

 ..   .--,e EfFLlENTFATHWAYNU SN#

I f ADA POP MM&L l

                                                                    )

L x

                                                                                                          //W* ..'n.   %=,,
                                                                                   'o>             -                           N .. y{, -
                                                                ,                   /
                                                              ,                     \                                                          l
                                 'M#H ftMIE ST4F                                                 \
                                                                            /

f

                                                                          /                                                            N
                                                                      /                                                                        )

I

                                  'A WNJ 674f l

1 1 (T 9(X)' l(X10' [$ b; e  ! LN#ttItf(#MAH(A

                             . LAY UCMAG Plfa t '4 PIM f H
                                        .lTV'EVKYY Sit WlHN ffFd           EffttfNfPAfHWAY

• 9MM PONT ;

Lfato LU/O Jay Thomas Di] h  %* tl \DAl A\ll 4 *lilM M'N'.8 %VM14tVl4llH Al'l A 4 m

w _ EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIAllACTERIZATION RESULTS , E PONf5 MCORplN6 f0 CF5 SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE no CARD 6-RJJ' Also Available cn APerture Card / \

           \

a

                                               /

il l. .

                   - == a=

df! K Y ;i".fd llj(L1)

                                                               . t. .
                                                                         !E' Y

_ ,. _. . unuwome me

                                         ~
                                           ],               \
                                   /

VO COMY *D@l9 l/ 2 N pre amwas om. w o90s osvrmexwvevco Figure 4-9 h Sediment Sample Locations 9702050011 - 4-21 ItEVISIOW

j EFFL.LENTPATHWAY#U SAMM l l I l retrac QJffAL - } 2 .w1 Howe

                                                            /                                       #4 21 '.

l

                                                                                                                 ~(
                                 /

scumune ear , ( ) s l

                            >..-                          l l

( i sr.wm nar

                              \i f ..     !

i j l l

                                                                                                                        ]

0' 900' 1000' M E: h""""""desemw , i 5AhfLE MNCON:

                          .MY THOMAS PlfCH                                                                              ;

SLR KL50L R.foll. 5lf.XXX waw row -- w wmrun uruzwemw o wrarow , C Jay Thomas Ditch Surface (

                                                                                                   - ~ ~ .

s a s i i

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS ~ 5 PONf5 KCORDNMO &5 SYSTEM l l l I l ANSTEC APERTURE , i CARD sv Also Available on Aperture Card i {]

              -mmo                                    i lEf' cm      . 0 ,,, e ,    .
                                                             .Jihun[wa os
                                    - /

N un 0019 t/8 m ay. am was om m 4. i995 asnutsusmo m-a pire 4-10 d Subsurface Soll Sample Locations 9702050011 - 4-22 REVISION 0__,__

ow EFFLLENT PA1HNAY AND SN/PL

                                                                           /'            'N f AWM 70iD

( All!4 L -'

l. \

                                                             's                                                                   .w we s'
                                                                        .N                                                      *N (

s'

              </mittrot na r                                                   'N
                                                                       /                                                       x
                                                                      /
                                                                     /
                                                                  /                           /
                                                                                               /
              ',,f Wetili'd P                                                                                                            ,
                                                                                            /                                      /
                                                                                                                                    \

cy s.< x r uxxr

           'IS 6:                                                                                                                      gg SMN%C \tf(RlMhtllAL
          .1AY 1110t/N> Vifn1 - Vf(2 iA11(A1 11U Vf /4 XXX ttafC                         FU$                      W! WutN ffPLE              -- -- EffLl N IPA!W W

• 9 M M PCV#

Fip Jay Thomas Ditch Ver o m ixoinn,wvisvsouvi nuaiisi

EFFLUENT PATilWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS POINf5 KCORplN6 f0 GPS SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE

                                                                           ) CARD W                                                                           Also Available on Aperture Card I                                                                                                                -

i r . :i , . n" I ! i. .!

                -umanno 9h })                 rb }$[;

jjg '

jr,n .p i . -

                                                                     ,     tift if NT LYNIl POINT s~                    3
                                           ,                           x
                                   ,/

unY TOW 191/ 2 N cena'4y. , nnt }10p(25 PAft. WY t 19h 6\fG M VJIfVI E O 9 e4-11 titi:n Simple Locations 9702050011 - 3 IREVISION u ._,

^

I  ! EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS l 4.3.2 Results - Jay Thomas Ditch O A summary of the Jay Thomas Ditch samples is provided in Table 4-4. I Individual sample results are tabulated in Appendix B, Table B-3. Table 4-4 Summary of Jay 'Ihomas Ditch Samples Sample Type No.of . Nuclide Number' . hecation Mean ( 1s) : Samples ' >MDA: - Range (pCi/g) (pCi/g) l l Sediment Samples 25 Cs-134 13 0.08 - 1.09 0.20 (i 0.27) Cs-137 24 0.17 - 3.87 1.46 (i 1.04) Co-60 24 0.17 - 3.85 1.05 (t 0.84) Eu-152 1 0.36 0.36 Surface Soit 10 Cs-137 7 0.10 - 0.27 0.158 (i 0.07) 1 i Subsurface Soit 10 Cs-137 8 0.06 - 0.13 0.09 (i 0.24) l Vegetation 5 Cs-134 1 0.28 0.28 Cs-137 5 0.49 - 6.62 3.26 (i 2.57) l Co-60 5 2.64 - 33.64 14.94 (il2.35) Sediment Non-Gamma 2 Cl-36 No activity detected O Analysis Fe-55 2 10.7 - 24.7 17.7 ( 9.90) Sr-90 1 0.13 0.13 Jay Thomas Ditch Sediment Samoles

                                                                                                                                                                                                 )

Twenty-five samples were collected from sediment within the Jay Thomas Ditch beginning approximately 100 feet upstream of the intersection of the Goosequill Ditch extending to the Farm Pond. Sample numbers JT. SED.001 through 025 were collected at 100 foot intervals. The upstream sample (JT. SED.001) did not show detectable activity. All 24 samples taken downstream from the intersection of the Goosequill Ditch showed Cs-137 and Co-60 in concentrations to approximately 3.8 pCi/g. There was no pattern to the activity observed for sample results along the  ; Jay Thomas Ditch. Sample JT. SED.005, located approximately 300 feet downstream of the Goosequill intersection, showed the highest total specific activity: 0.12 pCi/g of Cs-134, 2.35 pCi/g of Cs-137 and 3.85 pCi/g of Co-60. i l O cao4mrecunoessrsysuavtscuuensec4.ao 4-24 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS l I Each of the sediment samples nuclide results were evaluated using the Fort St. Vrain site-specific model dose conversion constants. The  ! resulting maximum dose equivalent rate from a single sample was 0.74 mrem /yr from JT. SED.003. Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 analyses were performed on JT. SED.005 and  : JT. SED.017. Results of the analyses showed no detectable Cl-36.  ! Sample JT. SED.005 showed 24.7 pCi/g of Fe-55 and 0.13 pCi/g of Sr-90. The Fe-55 is not expected to contribute significantly to the dose equivalent I rate. The Sr-90 is expected to account for less than 0.2 mrem /yr even . without subtracting any Sr-90 background due to global fallout. I Jay Thomas Ditch Surface and Subsurface Soil Samples Surface and subsurface soil samples did not show activity above the concentrations observed in background. ' Jay Thomas Ditch Vecetation Samoles All vegetation samples taken from the Jay Thomas Ditch showed Cs-137 and Co-60. The samples showed an affinity for Co-60 which was 3 to 6 times greater than Cs-137. 4.4 Irrigation Ditches 4.4.1 Survey Techniques O There are 6 irrigation tiistrAudon ditches which are used to divert water from either the Goosequiy ('Jitches 1, 2, and 3) or Jay Thomas Ditch (Ditches 4,5, and 6). In situ gamma spectroscopy measurements were performed te .'dentify affected ditches followed by confirmatory soil samples. In situ gamma spectroscopy measurements were taken along the distribution ditches at approximately 50 foot intervals. The gamma spectroscopy system was centered over the ditch or as close as possible to the ditch. In situ results and location maps are contained in Appendix C. Surface soil / sediment samples were obtained from the center of each ditch at the highest gamma spectroscopy measurement location and from the center of each ditch 10 feet downstream of the Goosequill or Jay Thomas Ditch. The samples were split into three separate samples representing the top 2 inches, middle 2 inches and bottom 2 inches. Soil samples were also collected at specific in situ measurement locations identified in the supplemental instructions. Figures 4-12 and 4-13 show the ditch sample locations. O "^wunwemrsvsuavocupacrssoc' " REVISION 0 4-25

        -   . . - . -      - - . -               . _ - - , . - . . . . . - . . -.       _      - _ , _ ~ . .      . , _ . .     .-._.._.x                  ~~...s-,,
          ~ . .

ef *! ) i EffLlENTPATHWAY ANr> SAME r, 1

                                                                                                             /---

1 I ,_ _ l OLM M q l I l

                                                                                    /'
                                                                                          /'                                  - f::L        =                            a
                                                                                                                                                                          --9 p
                                                         /                        /                                                                              {             a-
                                                /
                                       $GMIFtNS Nf l
                                           ./                                                                                                                         -.
                                                                                          /
                                                                                                                            /

1 l j w .,, bf. WM4 Nt l l 1 50tE: ,xnsu 9 1 i ' 5 AMPLE M&MADON- I r nrail 2nMENT 0" - 6" 5 AMPLE 5 - Pf0iX.XXX.O-6

                                   ""                                  N                     - -- sie wmena                         emurAnMAY                        e m pg f j                                                                                                                                          .

Figure! l Irrigation Ditch Sediment ! (3:\llATA\Tiril!NX*MrsvMigvtggggg A 4 4-3 s _

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS % i LE f'OiNf5 KCORplNG TO CPS SYSTEM ANSTEC . APERTURE

p. CARD Also Available on 1 Aperturo Card l l

a 1

                                             ,                        ril I            n     ,.

L-l l

                ~"*"                         -
                                                       ),'                [        !Nf' n
  /         -        -
                                             ,' n .p .g                       ,,,     .
                                              ~~~                 ~
                                                                            .uwin$waeonc m-                             -
                                                           /'
                                          }

CORY ON191/ 7 CTN#J DY: G.MY HOP (25 PATE: WY4,1999 &\WWVl(4\9fE\tfwtf01 l-12 # ()-6') Szmple Locations 9702050011 - REVISION 0-

EFFLLENf PAWAY AND SAN I t i i 3

                                                                             -                                              )

i rnavae l l anu , .

                                                                                                                      - .nm lN -.
                                                                                                                      ~l
                                                                          \__ /

1 wumR Afft NE s

                           /                                                             ,2, A. v I                                                                                               tg R
                                                                                    ./

C-- 1 g

                                                                       /.            =

w.am me l

                              \
                               \

[ t  ! I I I o- soo- nooo-SOLE: b:mx:rwk,,,,,,,,,,,

                                                   , )

5 AMPLE INFORMAflOR MfGil 5EAMENf O" - 2" SNn%ES { l Pf0KXXX.0-2  ! Lecao m - - - - - - se w m rew2 errumrfAWAY

• Wnt PCNrj

      >                                                                                                          Figure 4-1:

Irrigation Ditch Sediment (0 2",2 l c- nu>xramscinxxw svsinavit"^ ^ ' 4-27

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CII ARACTERIZATION RESULTS E PONf5 KCORPNG f0 6P5 SY51EM i ANSTEC ' k CA Also Available on Aperture Card _% ~

                                                               \:Y    e-n a3 u
                                                                                                                   \

1 o#dini' _ ]g-g)n$.ni.D . ,rn .g-

                                                                                           $*                      l
 ,,,/          -                           ,
                                                  . .. , . uruturomwavorx l

Ay P CCLNt1 ROM i91/ 2 l l

                                                                                           "h ITAWN eY. GMT HOP 25       PAft: MAY 4, lW9  G\0T/WW.e\5111\MWP!fG 4-62) S:mple Locations 9702050011 REVISION 0- __.-,

                                              . ___ _._ ___ _.___. _ . _ _ _.-...                                 _..~. _ - .

I j EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS l Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from 5% of the in situ l i measurement locations corresponding to the highest activity { l concentrations. The surface samples were split into three separate samples  ! ! representing the top 2 inches, middle 2 inches and bottom 2 inches. Soil samples were also collected at specific in situ measurement locations

,                                          identified in the supplemental instructions. The two samples showing the j                                           highest activity were analyzed for non-gamma emitting radionuclides: Cl-1 36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 following gamma spectral analysis. Figure 4-14                 ;

j shows the pasture and farmland sample locations. J

i l

l 0 l l O l t l l O o mar 4rrr.cm>ocssrsvsuavocuanacrisec4 no 4 30 REVISION 0

                                                                                                      ,                        )

1

A..-a_aa--.4-4-M a4 .& sw m. uWad - m+Am F+AmMA4-m---4.Jnh-amE -+.-.-.i-.---4--.4 an e 4e4M4 -ha J- ..h_=A-4 erata+ ema.m--4 Ah-44v-mer-.ea.a7T.aarm_.y =m_m ah wve-A.i-r-.--*- .m mge.4, I i O, l 4 - THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK g e l j ._ 4

! l l 3

• EFFLlENTPAnf#AY AND 5 AMPLE!

l A 1 3 1 I i

                                                                                                                                                                 .                                    I i                                                                                                                                                                                                      )

2 [ s, N rwxrav \ \ . \

                                                                                                                                               ~

(An1st , i

                                                                                                                                      '.. ~        i
                                                                                                .       r I                                       .wnews s .

x , h i

                                                                                                                                                                               .:                       i l

l' / .. a

                                                                                                                                                                                                        \

j 'JAnH n Mt M r / w.

                                                                                                                                                                             ;                       9 r

.~

                                                                                                   !                        m "                                  'i                      ,

l i , F I =:; l  ::el

                                                                                                                                         /                                                     :; '

i

                                                                                                                                       /                                                      rn
                                                 'A wmmr i

l l 1' l j 1 4 5 u- pur gxxy

                                             'l)Lt:                   :. { .

ma c SMM \tfCT!!/A11(M PA5nff NT) f/CL#lr> - 5(A 0" 2" PA5f.'1A.XXXD-7 tfam mm wgwnmpa - UrtifNf PA&WAY?

• SMPL.E PONr 3

Fig 1 Pasture and Farmt (l'.llA 1 AVll t 'lllH H'.%il hV%ilHVl'-lik Al l A 4

I EFFLUENT PATIlWAY CilARACTERIZATION RESULTS OlNf5 KCOPSING TO 6P5 SYS2M ANSTEC APERTURE l i" CARD l '~j M AvaIlable on Aperture Card 1..\ v.

; * .y 4
    .. .*1.                                                   - .,

j M  ! l E; E I I r., , G" i. I

                 - uma no
                                                            .ft0 0 U M.chift.'in!

Q ~;)rn .p

              '~:       :     ..

j

                          .                                                                  6
                          ~
                                                                              . emu m escura w
                                                                    ~
                                                                        ',' (
                                                                       ,. .:.. s
                                     ,              ,--                          ~
                                               ;, /

Lf4tY OM191/ 2

                                                                                                     " 7 .-

una aw.axas om wsvon G \ m s \'n w w o ire 4-14 id S:ll Sample Locations _ REVISION 0

i

] EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS  ; i o

4.5.2 Results - Pastures and Farmlands j

Samples were collected from eighty-one sample locations in the pastures and farmlands. At each location four samples were collected: a0-2

inch sample, a 2 - 4 inch sample, a 4 - 6 inch sample, and a subsurface - i i 6 - 12 inch sample. A summary of the results is presented in Table 4-6.

Individual sample results are tabulated in Appendix B, Table B-5. ' i Table 4-6 j Summary of Pastures and Farmland Samples Sample Type No. of..' Nuclide Number . . raacaatration Mean (i Is)

Samples - . > MDA ' Range (pCi/g) (pCi/g)

Surface Samples (0-6" average) 81 Cs-134 9 0.02 - 0.12 0.05 ( i 0.03)

Cs 137 79 0.11 - 3.20 0.49 ( i 0.46) f 1 Co-60 17 0.03 - 1.02 0.20 (i 0.30) i Subsurface Samples (6-12") 81 Cs-137 52 0.05 - 0.96 0.17 (t 0.16) l Surface Non-Gamma Analysis 2 Cl-36 No activity detected. Fe-55 1 16.9 16.9 Sr-90 2 0.19 - 0.23 0.21 (t 0.03) Activity concentrations greater than background were observed in approximately 20% of the sample locations.

• The activities were very low.
• The 0 - 2 inch samples contained the most activity.

i

• All samples showing activity above background were collected j from locations close to the irrigation ditches or marsh areas where .j the Goosequill Ditch had overflowed, indicating that the activity i drops off with distance.

Subsurface soil samples showed only Cs-137, generally at activity concentrations observed in background. The nuclide results (averaged from 0 to 6 inch sample depth) from each location were evaluated using the Fort St. Vrain site-specific model dose conversion constants. The maximum dose equivalent rate from a single sample was 1.8 mrem /yr, from PAST. SOIL.001, which was taken very close to Ditch 1. i O . om^wrcemocstrsvsuavescarnacr.stc4 ao REVISION 0 4 32

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 analyses were performed on PAST. SOIL.001.0-2, and PAST. SOIL.002.0-2. Results of the analyses showed no detectable Cl-36. Both samples showed Sr-90. Sample PAST. SOIL.001.0-2 showed 16.9 pCi/g of Fe-55 which is not expected to contribute to the dose equivalent rate. The Sr-90 may add approximately 0.3 mrem /yr to the dose equivalent rate. 4.6 Farm Pond 4.6.1 Survey Techniques Characterization of the Farm Pond consisted of obtaining sediment samples from the bottom of the pond. Samples from ten locations evenly spaced along a line between the inlet and outlet of the pond were collected minimizing water and vegetation. At each location, a core 12 inches deep was collected and sectioned into 3-inch increments for separate analysis. , The two samples showing the highest activity were analyzed for non-gamma emitting radionuclides Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 following gamma spectral analysis. Figure 4-15 shows the Farm Pond sample locations. O, l l l 1 e O WAMTEDOOCS'ISYSURVDCHARACBSEC4 RO 4- , REVISION 0

EFFLlENTPA1MVAYMlp SAM rwac anu i ,

                                                                                              ;I s      ,
                                                                             , ; ; I
                                                                     , :. .                                                 -- n o
                                                           /

I , 1

                                                     ;                                                                         y
                                  /                /
                                /                !

wannwt mte l I

                                            /

i M. we rtvtr

                             \

s o' 900' 1000' SCRE: p- ad;::xn , x:l SAMPLE ItfCEMAf10N: FK'M PON9 'E0;t&NT 0" - 3" fif'E POINT 5 NOf OpfAlttD BY CI'5 FP.'EP.XXX trato oce we wnN FENCE EffttfNf rADWAf a WRf PCWf Figui Farm Pond Sedim(- (MDATARMHWKW5VMIRVl!\DHAlTA 4

   -~

                                                                                                          ~

EFFLUENT PATilWAY CilARACTERIZATION RESULT E POINf5 KCOPSING TO 6P5 SYSTEM i ANSTEC APERTURE CARD um Also Available on i j Aperture Card I a

                                            /                              I N                                                                           I l
                                          ,                 Ei-I       n "J
                                                               '    ,-l L.

u i

                                            '][o),(.,,O.e               .. '
                                                ~
                                                      ~ ' . . ftfutwis vcitP0nt
                               -    ~-cmQ                        ~

ra.t#V tr#19I/ 2 (TAWN pY: Op! HOP (t5 PAfE Wy4,1999 ( \ ETA M m gSTE\tt witoi 4-15 t Scmple Locations 9702050011' ' 4 REVISION 0-

l ) . \ EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS i- , 4.6.2 Results - Farm Pond iO l A summary of the results is presented in Table 4-7. Individual sample j results are tabulated in Appendix B, Table B-6. i i Table 4-7 Summary of Farm Pond Samples j Sample Type . No. of Nuclide ' Number e-e,ation - Mean ( 1s)'

Samples > MDA Range (pCi/g) (pci/g)-

i Pond Sediment (04" average) 10 Cs-137 10 0.22 - 0.97 0.59 ( i 0.23) I Co40 10 0.06 - 0.26 0.14 ( i 0.08) l Pond Sediment (6-9*) 10 Cs-137 9 0.08 - 0.85 0.51 (i 0.24) } Pond Sediment 2 Cl-36 No activity detected Fe-55 1 4.35 4.35 ! St-90 No activity detected i

Co-60 and Cs-137 were identified in each sample up to 6 inches in depth. The .

! activity concentrations are relatively low and only a slight decrease in activity l l with depth was noted.  ;

I j The nuclide results (averaged from 0 to 6 inch sample depth) from each location t

were evaluated using the Fort St. Vrain site specific model dose conversion

constants. The resulting maximum dose equivalent rate from a single sample was 1.1 mrem /yr, from FP. SED.003.

I Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 analyses were performed on FP. SED.005.0-3, and 1 FP. SED.010.0-3. Results of the analyses showed no detectable Sr-90 or Cl-36 4 activity and 4.35 pCi/g of Fe-55.  ; i i 4.7 Farm Pond Outfall  ! l 4.7.1 Survey Techniques The Farm Pond Outfall follows a stream to the South Platte River. In situ gamma spectroscopy measurements were performed to identify affected areas followed by confirmatory sediment and soil samples. In situ measurements taken during the scoping survey were performed 20 to 50 meters apart downstream of the Outfall following the path to the river. Sediment samples were obtained from the stream adjacent to each in situ measurement. In-situ measurement locations and results are contained in Appendix C. cao4mTrenocessrsvsuavn'carnacristc4 a 4-35 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS l I Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from 5% of the in situ  ; measurements corresponding to the highest activity concentrations, and from 5 % of the in situ measurement locations corresponding to the lowest  ! activity concentrations. These samples were taken to determine if  ! overDow from the stream had affected the banks. The two samples f showing the highest activity were analyzed for non-gamma emitting ) l radionuclides Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 following gamma spectral analysis. l Figures 4-16 and 4-17 show the locations where the Farm Pond Outfall samples were collected. g 1 i l l 9 l c.m4wreceocs'rsvsuavocarnacrsrn a REVISION 0 4-36

          ~

o-EFFLlENT PAf}fNAY AND SA N

                                                                                    /
                                                                                      /PVMPOP
                                                                  <w n t ,
                                                                                ,/                NT

: jj j'47

                                                                             \                                            -ag

(

                                                                                 /
                                                                                        ~
                                                                                           ..-                \ a!              !

um.,unt nu /

                                                                           /              /g ~.;
                                                                     /
                                                       ~

l M

                                                                                  /

I er axr ncx u WVic Itr(rMAnaa OUffMt FL'OM FN!M ra v Of 'IC/.XXX

                                                      =                       we =w reta          uruzwrana l'E"'"                                                                                       . m ras 4

( Fi Farm Pond Outfall$ fi \llA IA\TirlitH H'Mi svMIR vP,j sW Al [ A . e- .= %

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS

1. LE FOINf5 KCORplNd f0 CP5 SYSTEM ANSTEC APERTURE pao CARD p~s Also Available on l g

Aperture Card l i i j  :  !

                                               '                s,         ..!       l bh,-))':',,.td!.P!i' .
                                                                                .=-l s             --

s v[}. is 0 fa y ,

                                                                                   ~
                                                                  ,     ttfLilN19'fh*C t PLM
                                       ..,                  N s                        ,
                                  ,s' i

i $19 An OM191/ 2

                                                                    /'

N -.h L

                                                                                                     "?

PPAWN UY CL/K! HCU(25 PArt MAY 4 IGM 6 \CTAAV4\91t \PtWOf0i are 4-16

d'unent Sample Locations 9702050011 -

4-37 REVISION 0

a~ ~ EFFLifNTPAniWAY#JP SNAPL Ca:, [ \ twoo tant , l l t

                                                               ,                         2 /~ ,

i .. , -..n tmws g y

                                                ..                   s
                                                                                               \                              '

s . ~ () - I vomAnt n4r

                                                                  /                                                           j
                                                             ,/
                                                           /                    *...,,,,_

j q i /

                                                                                      /                                       !
                                                                                     /
                      .i wm na r                                                                                             ;

I a sxx r Kx u

                  %AE: ix        :m. .

uto 9MftE rf(NMA11(R OtW/tt. FROM f#'M PCFD l Orzmm j tems w we wwrence -- -- errtwramn e smettrow \ l Fij Farm Pond Outfall Surface an: I monamrmu wwsvsonvnnaanu  !

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS PONTS KCORplNCdC(#5 SYSTEM ANSTEC " APERTURE CARD '~ . 2 Also Available on k Aperture Cani 1 i l

        \                                     ,-                                                                     l l !     SU O h O jiEf N             e -.       -

Ilyt _sU )1 3  : p . e ;i ,, l

                                                              . IfIllf NIWs'JtTil PCWI
                                /
                                          )                       ,

1 rn? t0919 il2 ' ETAWN DY. an! H@(45 PArt. my 4. ph (< \rTAME\9TE Vf WOLF 0. e 4-17 Subsurface Soil Sample Locations 9702050011 38 REVISION 0

i EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS i 4.7.2 Results - Farm Pond Outfall Thirteen sediment samples, two surface soil and two subsurface soil j samples were collected from the Farm Pond Outfall. A summary of the i results is presented in Table 4-8. Individual sample results are tabulated in Appendix B, Table B-7. f I ! Table 4-8 ! Summary of Fann Pond Outfall Samples l l Sample Type No. of ' Nuclide; ' Number caarmatration .Mean (t 1s) i Samples " >MDA  : Range'(pCi/g) (pCilg) Sediment 13 Cs-137 9 0.04 - 0.38 0.20 (i 0.10) J i Co40 7 0.08 - 0.39 0.21 (i 0.13) Surface soil 2 Cs-137 2 0.08 - 0.17 0.13 (i 0.06) { ! Subsurface soil 2 Cs-137 2' O.05 - 0.13 0.09 (i 0.06) j Sediment 2 Cl-36 No activity detected  ! i ' Non-Gamma Analyses  ! Fe-55 1 5.71 5.71 i i Sr-90 No activity detected

Activity concentrations are relatively low. The nuclide results from each 1 4

sample were evaluated using the Fort St. Vrain site-specific model dose , conversion constants for the pasture environment. The resulting maximum dose equivalent rate from a single sample was 0.43 mrem /yr, from j OF. SED.001. i - Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-90 analyses were performed on OF. SED.004, and

OF. SED.007. Results of the analyses showed no detectable Cl-36 or i

Sr-90 activity. Sample OF. SED.007 showed 5.71 pCi/g of Fe-55. 4.8 QC Samples i Several quality control samples were split and analyzed separately from the . corresponding sample. The results and a comparison are provided in Table 4-9. This comparison was performed in accordance with the criteria for environmental split sample comparison contained in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750. The QC splits were analyzed using the same protocol as the samples. The resolution is j equal to the QC result divided by it's la uncertainty. The ratio is the sample result divided by the QC result. The resolution and ratio are then compared to

the values in Table 4-9a. The " Remarks" column provides the comparison results.

            )

W amAWECHMCSiFSYSUR VE\CHA RACT\SEC4.R0 4-39 REVISION 0 4

1 1 EFFLUENT PATIfWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS Table 4-9 Characterization Sample QC Comparison Sample ' Sample ID Nuclide Activity QC Split Uncertainty Resolution Ratio Remarks (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCilg) GQDSED001 Co-60 2.454 2.458 0.142 17.3 1.0

                                                                                                        )

Cs-134 0.106 0.027 3.9 0.0 l Cs-137 1.486 1.484 0.138 10.8 1.0 K-40 22.325 21.865 2.114 10.3 1.0 GQDSED020 Co-60 2.523 2.411 0.149 16.2 1.0 Cs-134 0.153 0.167 0.038 4.4 0.9 Cs-137 2.959 2.904 0.242 12.0 1.0 K-40 28.801 30.201 2.871 10.5 1.0 GQDSED033 Co-60 0.762 0.784 0.068 11.5 1.0 Cs-137 0.730 0.760 0.091 8.4 1.0 i K-40 28.040 27.486 2.561 10.7 1.0 ) GQDWAT001 No activity detected GQDBSED020 Co-60 1.245 1.282 0.110 11.7 1.0 1 Cs-134 0.064 0.076 0.034 2.2 0.8 ' Cs-137 1.055 1.456 0.155 9.4 0.7 Eu-152 0.594 0.113 5.3 0.0 Note 1 E-40 19.908 20.974 2.308 9.1 0.9 GQDBSED020 Co-60 2.310 1.356 0.072 18.8 1.7 Not acceptable Cs-134 0.111 0.079 0.016 4.9 1.4 Cs-137 1.961 1.305 0.108 12.1 1.5 Eu-152 0.290 0.064 4.5 0.0 Note 1 Eu-154 0.158 0.092 1.7 0.0 Note 1 K-40 29.774 30.482 2.603 11.7 1.0 GQDBSOILOO1 K-40 30.886 30.136 2.849 10.6 1.0 GQDBSOILO20 K-40 28.997 27.588 2.624 10.5 1.1 GQDBSOILO33 Cs-137 0.188 0.111 0.050 2.2 1.7

                                                                                                        ]

K-40 27.212 27.030 2.682 10.1 1.0 GQDBSOILO39 Cs-137 0.048 0.067 0.041 1.6 0.7 l K-40 31.633 30.452 2.853 10.7- 1.0 GQDBSOILO57 Cs-137 0.295 0.322 0.065 5.0 0.9 K-40 29.065 27.323 2.743 10.0 1.1 GQDBSUB001 Co-60 0.073 Note 1 Cs-137 0.387 0.222 0.057 3.9 1.7 K-40 31.409 31.733 2.970 10.7 1.0 GQDBSUB005 Co-60 0.158 0.166 0.047 3.5 1.0 Cs-137 0.349 0.263 0.065 4.0 1.3 e K-40 27.756 l 29.183 2.877 10.1 1.0 o . torr 411tenoocstrsysua veena nAcassec' " 4-40 REVISION 0

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

EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS

                                                                      .u Sample 1  O        Sample ID         Nuclide Activity QC Split Uncertainty Resolution Ratio               Remarks (pCi/g) (pCilg)         (pCi/g)

GQDBSUB009 Co40 0.135 0.090 0.047 1.9 1.5 Cs-137 0.121 0.109 0.046 2.4 1.1 K-40 32.025 30.961 2.916 10.6 1.0 GQDBINV008.4 K-40 31.937 34.330 3.254 10.6 0.9 I GQDBUR001.0-2 Co40 2.809 2.469 0.153 16.1 1.1 Cs-134 0.546 0.496 0.061 16.1 1.1 Cs-137 8.392 7.526 0.540 8.1 1.1 Eu-152 0.889 j Eu-154 0.633 0.865 0.117 7.4 0.7 Eu-155 0.578 0.360 0.224 1.6 1.6 i K-40 28.849 27.684 2.718 10.2 1.0 GQDBUR005.0-2 Co40 1.415 1.500 1.000 1.5 0.9 Cs-134 0.599 0.593 0.058 10.2 1.0 Cs-137 9.307 9.400 0.651 14.4 1.0 Eu-152 0.442 0.418 0.071 5.9 1.1 4 Eu-154 0.339 0.279 0.063 4.4 1.2 i K-40 23.842 24.361 2.338 10.4 1.0 GQDBUR011.0-2 Co40 4.605 3.828 0.212 18.1 1.2 Cs-134 0.250 0.229 0.048 4.8 1.1 ~ Cs-137 4.808 3.933 0.309 12.7 1.2 Eu-152 0.948 0.729 0.103 7.1 1.3 Eu-154 0.587 0.530 0.095 5.6 1.1 Eu-155 0.754 Note 1 ! K-40 27.613 28.710 2.841 10.1 1.0 GQDBUR016.4-6 Co-60 0.116 0.071 1.6 0.7 l Cs-137 0.083 0.066 0.045 1.5 1.3 l K-40 33.321 32.07 3.083 0.0 1.0 JTDSED001 K-40 28.321 28.321 2.718 10.4 1.0 l JTDSED023 Co40 1.333 0.969 0.070 13.8 1.4

Cs-134 0.080 0.061 0.016 3.8 1.3 Cs-137 1.475 1.146 0.103 11.1 1.3 Eu-152 0.362 Note 1 K-40 29.423 28.461 2.561 11.1 1.0 JTDSOILSUR001 Cs-137 0.100 0.100 0.043 2.3 1.0 K-40 29.894 29.894 2.845 10.5 1.0 lDTCH3002.0-2 Co-60 0.496 0.643 1.033 0.6 0.8 Cs-134 0.171 0.074 2.3 0.0 Cs-137 2.470 2.6t 2 0.027 99.3 0.9 K-40 31.749 35.180 3.826 9.2 0.9 o ,orwnennocsrsysuavoca^arensec4 no 4-41 REVISION 0

l l EFFLUENT PATIIWAY CIIARACTERIZATION RESULTS l Sample Sample ID Nuclide Activity QC Split Uncertainty Resolution Ratio Remarks (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCilg) DTCH3006.0-2 Cs-137 0.735 0.804 0.110 7.3 0.9 K-40 31.655 30.690 2.590 11.8 1.0 DTCH4002.0-2 Co-60 0.183 0.082 2.2 0.0 Cs-137 0.434 0.476 0.081 5.9 0.9 K-40 32.968 33.012 3.270 10.1 1.0 DTCH5007.2-4 K-40 31.787 29.208 2.883 10.1 1.1 DTCH5015.0-2 Cs-137 1.676 1.514 0.252 6.0 1.1 K-40 76.418 85.074 8.563 9.9 0.9 DTCH6001.4-6 K-40 27.174 27.273 2.696 10.1 1.0 PASTSOILOO3.2-4 Cs-137 1.294 0.898 0.146 6.2 1.4 K40 34.034 25.564 3.083 8.3 1.3 PASTSOILOO7.0-2 Cs-137 0.425 0.401 0.111 3.6 1.1 K-40 22.365 23.435 3.026 7.7 1.0 PASTSOILO11.0-2 Cs-137 0.872 1.182 0.146 8.1 0.7 K-40 25.457 30.534 3.247 9.4 0.8 PASTSolL016.0-2 Cs-137 0.746 1.096 0.156 7.0 0.7 K-40 14.626 25.986 2.859 9.1 0.6 PASTSOILO20.4-6 Cs-137 0.147 0.362 0.147 2.5 0.4 K-40 28.221 25.267 2.561 9.9 1.1 PASTSOILO28.4-6 K-40 23.025 30.3 5 2.566 11.8 0.8 PASTSOILO37.4-6 Cs-137 0.239 0.183 0.067 2.7 1.3 K-40 30.295 30.559 2.658 11.5 1.0 PASTSOILO43.4-6 Cs-137 0.122 0.216 0.077 2.8 0.6 K-40 30.268 35.023 3.576 9.8 0.9 PASTSOiO55.4-6 Cs-137 0.199 0.285 0.070 4.1 0.7 K-40 31.148 33.803 3.301 10.2 0.9 PASTSOILO60.0-2 Cs-137 0.860 0.642 0.105 6.1 1.3 K-40 24.955 20.202 2.344 8.6 1.2 PASTSOILO69.4-6 Cs-137 0.125 0.125 0.048 2.6 1.0 K-40 28.874 28.874 2.873 10.1 1.0 PASTSOILO74.2-4 Cs-137 0.250 0.132 0.069 1.9 1.9 K-40 27.349 32.530 2.930 11.1 0.8 PASTSOILO79.0-2 Cs-137 0.331 0.331 0.072 4.6 1.0 K-40 26.837 26.837 2.785 9.6 1.0 PASTSUB024 K-40 28.914 27.556 2.796 9.9 1.0 PASTSUB034 Cs-137 0.361 0.357 0.116 3.1 1.0 K-40 27.643 30.532 3.136 9.7 0.9 : PASTSUB039 Cs-137 0.152 0.176 0.083 2.1 0.9 f i K-40 31.210 30.541 2.822 10.8 1.0 0 GTDATA\TECMDOCS'.*SYSURVDCHARACT40C4 R0 4-42 REVISION 0 i l

EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS

                                                                                                                   ~

Sample O Sample ID PASTSUB049 Nuclide Cs-137 Activity QC Split Uncertainty Resolution Ratio (pCilg) (pCi/g) 0.951 0.181 (pCi/g) 0.062 2.9 5.3 Remarks j K-40 30.135 34.207 3.470 9.9 0.9

                                                                                                               ~

PASTSUB051 Cs-137 0.111 0.113 0.050 2.3 1.0

                                                                                                                 ~

K-40 31.882 30.755 2.941 10.5 1.0 , PASTSUB065 Cs-137 0.152 0.285 0.084 3.4 0.5 I K-40 29.650 30,833 2.763 11.2 1.0 I FPSED003.6-9 Cs-137 0.801 0.782 0.168 4.7 1.0 7

                                                                                                                       )

K-40 24.083 22.672 3.389 6.7 1.1 FPSED006.0-3 Co-60 0.527 0.532 0.184 2.9 1.0  ! Cs-137 0.921 0.785 0.195 4.0 1.2 j K-40 25.398 32.188 3.671 8.8 0.8 FPSED008.6-9 Cs-137 0.662 0.593 0.108 5.5 1.1 K-40 35.567 29.447 2.771 10.6 1.2 OFSED001 Co-60 0.385 0.419 0.061 6.9 0.9 Cs-137 0.228 0.321 0.067 4.8 0.7 K-40 17.834 19.s45 2.063 9.3 0.9 OFSOILSUB002 Cs-137 0.134 0.086 0.055 1.6 1.6 K-40 26.941 26.408 2.743 9.6 1.0 l O Note 1 Nuclide was not identified in both samples. The identified nuclide activity was near the MDA explaining why it was not detected in the corresponfing sample. Table 4-9a NRC Criteria for Accepting Sample Measurements  ! Resolution Ratio I

                                                   <4 4-7                0.5-2.0                                           i 8-15              0.6-1.66 16-50              0.75-1.33 51-200              0.80-1.25 l       > 200              0.85-1.18 One sample (GQDBSED020) did not meet the acceptance criteria since the Co-60 activity in the two samples differed by more than 70%. Six samples identified nuclide(s) in one sample but not the other. In all six samples the nuclide activities were near the MDA which might explain it's absence in the corresponding sample. The ratio for all other samples were within the acceptable range in Table 4-9a.

O ., o mATAvrtcuoocsrsvsuRvincHARACT\SEC4.R0 4-43 REVISION 0

s.1. a .--. - - - -a-n + - x . a u -..._un,a a.--- ...s.-na.--.a.-s, a... ..s.. a 2_.-e. . - aa r n - a x ..+a...a.-.s..a ..sn,a x .a .n.ss.a.-----. . _ . n...n=..._. i s i O 4 i I i l i ? l 1 i i I i THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY ' i l l 4 1 LEFT. BLANK $ l i j i } I 4 i } i 1 1 0 0

i l

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS I

i l 5.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS l C A Characterization Survey Plan for the Fon St. Vrain liquid effluent pathway was i , 1 developed and implemented. Soil samples, exposure rate measurements and in situ j gamma spectroscopy measurements were taken in accordance with the approved plan and supplemental instructions. Approximately 700 soil samples were collected at various locations along the FSV liquid effluent pathway. The soil activities were converted to

dose equivalent and compared to the 10 mrem /yr annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) limit. Derived dose conversion factors were based on a draft Fort St. Vrain i site-specific conceptual model that predicts the dose to an individual considering all i credible pathways. The dose equivalent rates and TEDE could change if changes to the i conceptual model are made.  !

l Using the draft conceptual model, the three highest results from each of the three environments to which an individual could be exposed (Goosequill Ditch banks, pastures,  ; and Farm Pond sediment) are shown in the table below. The maximum single sample results are summed together to obtain the highest predicted annual TEDE. The predicted TEDE is only shown for the highest samples since depending on how those areas are , remediated and/or averaged will determine the resulting TEDE. l Goosequill Ditch  : Pastures Farm Pond Predicted TEDE I Sediment ~ (sum)X Sample Number GQDB. SED.010 DTCH.2.001 FP. SED.003 Dose Equivalent 7.9 mrem /yr 30.2 mrem /yr 1.1 mrem /yr 39.2 mrem /yr Sample Number GQD. SED.032 DTCH.5.005 FP. SED.005 Dose Equivalent 7.4 mrem /yr 2.6 mrem /yr 0.9 mrem /yr Sample Number GQD. SED.031 DTCH.2.002 FP. SED.002 Dose Equivalent 3.7 mrem /yr 2.3 mremlyr 0.8 mrem /yr

                              .iote: The dose contribution due to non-gamma emitting nuclides has not been added to these values. Non-gamroa emitters are estimated to contri*oute less than 0.3 mrem /yr.

Sample DTCH.2.001 showed soil activity which results in a dose equivalent rate of 30.2 mrem /yr exceeding the " hot spot" criterion (i.e., three times the average limit). Since three times the hmit is the maximum possible allowed, remediation may be necessary in this area. An estimate of required remediation will be provided in a Project Impact Report. The table shows that of the many samples taken thre are only a few areas which present a problem. Figure 5-1 is a contour plot of the dose equivalent rate from the two areas which contribute the most to the TEDE; the Goosequill Ditch and Irrigation Ditch 2. The contour plot is an estimate of the area dose equivalent rates based on the soil sample results. The contour plot for Irrigation Ditch 2 area was generated using soil samples taken during the scoping survey as well as the characterization survey. O caormtrranocs.rsysuavecnanac rssors.o 5-1 REVISION 0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS ( 1 Twelve samples from the various pathway environments were analyzed for Cl-36, Fe-55, and Sr-90. None of the samples showed detectable Cl-36. Most samples showed Fe-55. The dose contribution from Fe-55 is insignificant due to the low X ray energies and low

                                                                                                        ]

yields associated with Fe-55's electron capture decay mode. Three samples showed I measurable Sr-90: the highest activity was 0.23 pCi/g in the pasture close to irrigation I Ditch 1. The observed Sr-90 activities are not expected to contribute significantly to the j dose equivalent rate. The Liquid Effluent Pathway areas which have been demonstrated to be below regulatory I limits by sampling and evaluation are: J

• Ditches 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6,
• Jay Thomas Ditch,
• Farm Pond Outfall,
• Farm Pond, and
• The pastures and farmlands.

The Inspector

• measurements taken during the scoping survey identified elevated activity along the Jay Thomas Ditch, along the flow path of the agricultural dispersion areas from the Goosequill and Jay Thomas ditches and along the stream that connects the Farm Pond to the Son Platte River. Soil samples taken during this characterization survey show the concentrations in most of these areas to be very low in activity. The Inspector's wide field of view provides a good first estimate of areas where there might be activity, but will also detect activity in surrounding areas.

A comparison of the characterization survey soil samples with the scoping survey samples was made for two sample types: Goosequill Ditch sediment, and Goosequill Ditch Bank sediment. There is no evidence that concentrations along the effluent pathway and in adjacent areas is increasing. In fact, a statistically significant decrease (50%) in the mean activity concentrations in the Goosequill Ditch was observed during the characterization. The mean activity of the sediment deposited along the banks of the Goosequill Ditch also appears to have decreased (20 - 30%) since the scoping survey although the decrease could not be proven at the 95% confidence interval using the t statistic and F test. The data collected during this characterization was collected such that it can be used to supplement the data to be collected during the final survey. O o maratrrrnoocstrsvwavnenan4ctsstr5 o 5-2 REVISION 0

O O

SUMMARY

AND CONCLU 1,

                                                                                                       , - - ~ '
                                                                                         /                                                                                     \

t 20.00 cam n

                                                                                                                                    '                                          i U
                                                                                                ,5 b\
                                                                                            \   \,
                                                                                                                 \   . 'h*-'

s.00 M"~ i 3.00 \ \ \

     /

o.10 i myemiY' ,

                      ,,-~<

\ \ Figure 5-1 Contour Plot for Goosequill Ditch and Irrigation Ditch 2 Dose Equivalent Rates I umarmtcimocswsysvavecmarcrsecs o REVISION 0 j 5-3 i

seps e-ea- ,---.ma.a a,a'm- me waus-aAa--4a s'ea A.se+ea -,. me4 na a- A.m6-AJ-Mn e-Me-,,-eD.A- An.-m-5 .At.m &--4,,,--1-e.ma.nm.,JdA5+4nik,a.O. a mM emuun . A- 4 ..-Me-Assea,,,A m m ekoama A n4-A-sm--uAmemAM1 2 l i I O 4 l i 4 1 1 i 4 i THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY i l LEFT BLANK $ i i I T i 4 e s O

REFERENCES

6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 Nuclear Regulatory Documents i 6.1.1 Regulatory Guide 1.86, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear ! Reactors," June 1974. 4 6.1.2 Draft NUREG/CR-5849, ORAU-92/C57 Manual for Conducting

Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination, June 1992 .

l

6.1.3 NRC Inspection Procedure 84750, " Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring," March 1994.

6.2 Site Specific Procedums  ! a 6.2.1 FSV-RP-INST-I-221, " Operation of the Ludlum Model 2350 Data Imgger" 6.2.2 FSV-RP-INST-1-414, " Operation of Inspector Field Gamma Spectroscopy System" i 6.2.3 FSV-RP-INST-I-234, " Download of the Ludlum Model 2350 Data legger" 6.2.4 FSV-RP-INST-I-416, "In Situ Operation of Inspector Field Gamma Spectroscopy System" 6.2.5 FSV-RP-OPS-I-213, " Subsurface Soil and Sediment Sampling" 6.2.6 FSV-RP-OPS-I-214, " Surface Soil and Sediment Sampling" 6.2.7 FSV-RP-INST-I-209, " Operation of the Ludlum Model 19 Micro R Meter" 6.2.8 FSV-RP-INST-I-417, " Operation of the Trimble GPS Base" 6.2.9 FSV-RP-INST-I-418, " Operation of the Trimble GPS Rover" 6.2.10 FSV-RP-INST-I-419, "Trimble System Downloading" 6.2. I 1 FSV-RC-ADM-I-121, "QA Program for the Radiochemistry Laboratory" 6.2.12 FSV-RC-ADM-I-134, " Sample Handling and Log-in" O 0:WATAMDOOCWSYSURVDCHARACBSECMON.6 6-1 , RFVISION 0

REFERENCES 6.2.13 FSV-RC-ANLY-I-209, " Sample Preparation for Gamma Spectral Analysis" 6.2.14 FSV-RC-ANLY-I-210, " Sample Preparation for Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Analysis" 6.2.15 FSV-RC-ANLY-I-211, " Sample Preparation for Strontium-89 and Strontium-90 Analysis" 6.2.16 FSV-RC-INST-I-303, " Operation of the Tennelec LB-5100 Gas Flow Proportional Counter" 6.2.17 FSV-RC-INST-I-305, " Operation and Calibration of the Packard 2550 T/A Liquid Scintillation Counter" 6.2.18 FSV-RC-INST-I-325, " Operation and Calibration Procedure for I.aboratory Balances" 6.2.19 FSV-RC-INST-I-338, " Operation and Calibration of the REX-M Computer Based Gamma Analysis System" 6.2.20 FSV-RC-INST-I-339, " Operation of Genie-PC Gamma Spectroscopy System" 6.2.21 FSV-RC-INST-I-341, " Operation and Calibration Procedure for the Beckman LS3801" 6.2.22 FSC-SC-FRS-I-101, " Background Level Determination for Final Survey" 6.3 Site Technical Basis Documents 6.3.1 FSV-FRS-TBD-205, " External and Internal Dose Conversion Factors for FSV Liquid Effluent Environmental Pathways" 6.3.2 FSV-OPS-TBD-107, " Validation of Preliminary Environmental Evaluation, Soil and Sediment Samples" 6.3.3 FSV-OPS-TBD-108, "Radionuclide Concentration Guideline Values for Effluent Releases" 9 l aWAWTfDOOCSTSYSURVEGIARACBSECDON 6 6-2 REVISION 0 1

                                                                                                                              \

REFERENCES  ! 6.4 Additional Documents 6.4.1. " Characterization Plan for the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway," January 26,1995. } 1 6.4.2 Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual, Public Service Company of Colorado  ! i , 6.4.3 " Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway Scoping Survey Report", i i February 1995.

                                                                                                                              ]

I 6.4.4 " Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Station Decommissioning Project Final Survey . Report, Repower Area"

6.4.5 Efficiency Calibration Report for the Canberra Inspector Based Soil Assay System for the Scientific Ecology Group, Kingston, TN, ACK# 47829,

, Written by: Ling Wang, Approved by: Frazier Bronson, August 2,1994. I 6.4.6 Fax from Ling Wang to Betsy I2ngille,1-17-95, Calibration Report with parameter corrections.  ! ) 6.4.7 Memo from Chuck Burtoff to Doug Schult, " Conversion of Fort St. 'Vrain In Situ Activity Results Calculated with a Relaxation Length of 0.1 cm to l Results Based on a Relaxation length of 1.25 cm", March 15, 1995. f 6.4.8 Memo from Chuck Burtoff to BetsyI2ngille, "Re-evaluation ofInSpector j Gamma Analysis Results with Respect to the Mn-54 Peak", March 27,

1995.

I 6.4.9 Fort St. Vrain Final Survey Plan. 1 i 6.4.10 Memo from Rowena Argall to Chuck Burtoff, " Adjustment of the Soil 4 Sample K-40 Concentrations," May 5,1995. 4 1 P O RWATAmDOOC57SYSURVDCHARACnSIfMON.6 6-3 , REVISION 0

ar. m- .. 4.m._- .w - -. - .m. ,,.a Aam'Aw--e am4m.A-sem J -**Le.. mmAs==*A.Ah4hMm dr D e-h.42%5m_.lu..a_Ju '"'_.w.ed.4a.m..-AA s 4ddaAs~.us - M. Ja.a4 w.re4 J eMahweh.ac.s m_w.a b ) e 4 4 G i 4 l l i } i i THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY i LEF,7 BLANK $ l i i i i 4 O

i a APPENDIX A ! l !O APPENDIX A. 4 SEG INVESTIGATIONS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1993 and NOVEMBER 1994 4 4 1 1 ) O 04m5-DATTT2C\PSYSURCiA\APPA REVISION 0 j 4

APPENDIX A SOIL SAMPLE GAMMA MEASURMENTS 88mple depth: 15cm- bl88ed 88mple8 W h PW 8m Y. LAB SAMFLE Gerwne Enocoure innte F.AuPLE ID WuSEst l CS-13 7 l CS-tJ l ".040 I EU-152 I EU-154 I EU-155 I h54 I IOIAL I f4EMARKS 9 t Meter. iAte 34 Oct l nt l 20-sep-93 l 3051 0.3e2 l 0.305 l l l l l 3.737 I GEO.27 8D4778 Farm Pond het 34 002 A-t OCC 21-Dee43 1.700 0 239 0 332 2.2 71 GEO.27 SD5002 to S 34 0C0 A- t 2 9 -Dee-93 0 7ee 0 091 0.158 1.019 OEO.27 SD5003 20.5 34 004 A-2 f t-Dec 03 0 GEO.27 SD5004 23 0 34 005 A3 21-Dee43 0 084 0 084 OEO.27 8D5005 22 0 34 00s A4 29-Dee 43 0

• OEO.27 805010 22 0 34 007 A-S St-Dec-93 0 GEO.27 805015 21.7 34 008 A4 21-Dee 93 1.200 0.001 0.143 1.$14 OEO.27 80502e 24.0 34 009 A-7 21-Dec-93 0 OEO.01 805020 22.7 34 010 A4 St-Dee43 c e32 0 832 OEO.26 8050e2 te d 34 011 A9 21-Dec43 2 730 0 359 0.ses 3777 OEO.01 805034 22 t.

34 012 A-10 21-Doo-93 0332 0 332 GEO.01 8 05030 22.0 34 013 A 10 0CC 21-Dec43 0 31s 0 061 0 38 OEO.01 8 05040 22 0 34 014 A-t e 21-Dee43 0 229 00et 0 28 OEO.01 SD9041 25.2 Se cts A-12 21-Dec-83 0 442 0 442 GEO.27 SD5042 24 2 34 010 A-13 21-Dee-93 1.940 0 177 0.100 2.288 OEO.27 SD504e 25 0 34 047 Art e 29-Dee-93 0.100 0. t OEO 00 8D5057 22 0 , Se cts A-tS tl-Dec43 0.180 0 19 OEO.01 SD5058 22.5 34 0tg A-te St-Dec e3 0.13e 0.13e OEO.01 SDS.ise 22 0 34 020 Ar17 21-Dee 93 0 998 0.101 O 13e t.238 OEO.01 8D5081 23 0 34 021 A-t e 21-Dee-93 O tes 0.tes OEO 27 SD5084 22 0 34 022 A-19 21-Dec-93 0 255 0.255 GEO.27 805005 20.0 34 023 A.20 21-Dec43 0 486 0 4e6 OEO.27 8050ne 22 0 34 024 A-23 0CC St-Dec43 0 501 0 e01 GEO.27 8D5073 '23 0 34 025 A-2 t 2t-Dee s3 O et t 0 099 0.087 1.0s2 GEO.27 805074 22.0 34 028 A 22 21-Dec43 0.190 0.135 0.325_. GEO.Os 8D5075 NOSSOIL 22 0 l 34 001 A-23 10-Mey 94 3eso e est o SI7 4 808 OEO.01 8 05606 l 34 002 A24 14May p4 4 900 0 422 Cats 0.352 0 113 S.492 GEO.27 805823 34004 A25 11 Jut?-os 0 0e0 0042 0.122 GEO.01 SD5e77 ! Se005 A2e 08-Aug44 0 ett o. eft OEO.Pt 805e2e TOPr SLT 34 Ote A27 08-Aug44 0 995 0 885 OEO.01 8D5029 r 70 r CLAY 34 007 A2s 08-Aug 94 0403 0403 OEO.01 SD$e30 TOP r SLT 34 Oce A29 08 Aug44 _ 0430 0.43 GEO.01 SD5est r TO r CLAY 34 009 A2eOCC OS-Aug 94 0 44S 0.445 GEO 01 SD$e32 Y Tor CLAY 34 010 A.10 De-Aug o4 f.140 f.te OEO ct 8D$e37 TCP r SLT 4 34 0t t A3s 08- Aug44 c oes o see OEO.01 803est r To e* CLAY l 34 012 A32 04Au0e4 O See O Ces O ees OEO.01 SD5827 TOPr StLT (

• 34 093 A33 DeAug94 0 0 OEO.27 80582e F TO e" 8ANO

 ,      34 0:4     A34                14Aug-94         1.250     0 099          0 243                                                    1.5e2     GEO.09 805853 TOP Y      81LT l

34 OtS A3S 14Aug44 0.321 0 321 GEO.01 SD5ede r fo r SILY 34 ose A3e 22-Aug.e4 o 53e o t3e OE3.27 805070 l 34 017 A3eOCC 22-Aug-94 0.tes 0.tes OEO27 8D5071 1 34 01e A3r 22Ag e4 0 0 GE0 01 8D5072 - 34 019 A3s 22Jasg 94 1 210 0 958 c.239 f .000 OEO.01 8D5078 9 34 i2e A3s* is.No e4 e se0 o des 7.720 1.500 G oo? 0 532 o ces 17.715 OE0 01 808372 100.000 0ee.mt j 34 927 A40* te-Nov 84 0 00e 0.109 0,782 0.t F4 0 0e0 0 000 0.029 2.129 OEO.27 808307 100,000 8ee cre

• OCC SAMPLES SENT TO LOCKHEED.

l WS4 reeurte pretable cerveibuscrt hem As 22e Di the sempse, centeufen not subtocted Dmi 9 eee emmeses I 5-DATTTEC\FSV3URTHA\AFFA R ION 0 A-1

 ._m__ - . _ _.._-,__ _                  ..m_.           . . _       . _ . .        ,mm._       ~._          _ .       <_mm_ _ . _ _ . .       m_-   . . _ _ . , _ , . . _ . .           -_m.__ . . ,

4 > a APPENDIX A 1 4 svaracz soII, saurz.nm l j mammas ar==--r

                                                                    --M,.
                          -         M-                                                                                                                                                                 l, pe3pr pmg.33)                                                                                                                                                                1 I                i M     M.402 tects as feet susw of shareetestastaan semple patat GaA.

j

• M S4.943 18 feet amar of Mestarientaan semple peast SRA.

AS S4.DC4 28 feet pu et aw.ose Westa/ Ems efflismat &miet te gone ae A s. A3 34.008 30 feet w of geesegaL11 sepa&s and 8 es flesse gepe. i M 34.M4 28 feet W et eL1 herraer, S8 &eet 8 et y flee t'netween y and d 21tansel. AS 34.D01 25 feat 7 of 12 & ash pipe gatag &sts the gusand. A6 34.cos sa feet u et suustase en the w e&de of seed se 1/s and the . '" headee. 33.6 feet 3 et d&teta ammak em p s&de of femme. em 5 side et seed 191/2 and . -'"were.

• AT 84.M9 M S4.010 See feet 5 of esmple peast 34.009, and De foot E. (13 feet up of steal poeta &a marshy ases.

AS 34.011 14 feet p af dansk, a W e&de of fann ts&dge. (break &a e&de of d&tah). ? MS S4.012 6 feet p of homet as ditah shese the ones emaak. 85 et fama s&&ol. MS 34.013 feet) 6 feet p of humak sa ts. tab shase the sees draak. fu of Samm e61e1. ALL S4.014 it feet p af d&teh && dumaa essa fer $3r19st&am, em 8 o&de eN the RN &arigataan d&tah. A12 84.018 8 feet 5 of d&tah as p6% ehese ese&a base ese placed swer o&de of ditsh fer &artget&am. A13 34.016 ff kest p af sammat sweestem ham &m &aricat&en ditmh summamp serth. M4 84.817 9 feet y of datah am y ends of a sement arrepetaan divere&am has. MS 34.018 28 foot sw of sement d&weesten hem, an a pLie af se&& semoved tse gemeepaL11 datah. M8 S4.819 19 feet m of ommmat dLiesmesa ham, p o&de af f====fai11, &a a p&1e of seal removed from the . 13 foot y af sammat dawese&an ham.&a betten af &aragatien datah, (W s&ds of . ."'*. ALT 34.920 etwese&am Me H.981 en west o&de af r=== ==i",and as tap of the h&11 islastada pump used te pump enter w)&e a sement has,ssmple 9 feet y of ham. MS S4.e82 27 feet WW of toe Aaragetaan ytpos shag undne the seed at salet te the team pend as a pLie of peti removed tr e the y==== Tai 15 at the Salet. A29, S4.933 10 feet u of d&wees&en kom as he'aten of datah. Ate 34.024 Iget3 it feet u of d&were&am tem &a battaa es ditah. Ata M.ets 3 feet y of Amet payne Sa bette of Salat ektsh. ARE S4.486 15 feet p af fiume'&a battaa et d&tah. teetiet af Fans pued). EstEs ALL ansets portr38 *M m Me* paarge es A tmerr 336. amar5s f*A19 supieum Aff* M# seer ammuus. ARS 34.041 6 feet y of sample pe&at A9 &a battan of Arssget&en d&tah. A34 S4.002 18 feet su et sia&wert ta battaa of gemeeguk11 shaeb one dry, s A28 34.964 30 feet y of flemas &a battam et ditadh.*teutlet of feman peed) . A38 84.608 100 feet s of opt 11eer na bettan of fama pand. Top # Amah esmple. ART 84.966 100 feet a et aptileey &a bottaa of faan pend. asLd.2 ta 6 saan semple. MS S4.001 400 feet su et apL11eey/ 75 feet frem seet bank as beste af team pound. Tap 3 Amehee. M. u. 4 0 feet 8. of s,m y/ ,5 feet fra. seet kana a battaa of Saan ,and. ind.2 to 6 ash.e. Att 84.999 (Ocun 400 feet sw et ap&11oey/ 75 feet from seet haak Aa bottan of faan pend. asLd.2 to 6 &ashee. A30 H. 010 TS feet W of beak sa bottan of fama peed. Top 3 & ara emmple. l A31 34.011 TS feet W of henk As bette of faan pend. DELd. 3*a( & ash semp&e. A32 34.012 50 feet p of &alet at aseth of Salet serrader and saam pend. Sep 3 &aek semple. ASS 34.012 Se feet y of &alet at asuta of inlet eerrador and f ama pund. asLd.3 to 4 En.sh. A34 24.014 See feet a of opt 11oey, appesa& meta 1y the seater of the fans pund. Top 2 & ash semple. A35 34.015 SS9 feet s of spillsey, y,_

                                                                                            -taly the seater of the f amn pend. and.2 to 6 & ash easele.

A34 34.016 34 feet sw of arrigataan selwert sa marsh area. A34 S4.011 Occ 30 feet SW of Irrigatama eulvert &m marsh area. A31 36.915 and of Arrigataan datah an E etee of oattle guard. A30 34.019 13 feet p of eulwort divere&m has. A39 34.128 6 feet p of eample peLat AS &a betten af irrigataan datah. heems se A22). A40 34.131 4 feet 5 af &alet papee &a 'wttam of datah. 040795-DARTECISYSUR\CHA\APPA A-2 REVISION 0

i APPENDIX A

           !".5.;
                                  ,                                                                                                      suples 19-l

• 9-90 i  !

i

                                                                                                     . f@ g                                .

f l

                                                                               -~u                                      .

jl t

                                             /                s,E
                                 ,/                                                    ,                      ,

5 N

                   /                                                                                                       '..                   a:
                                                                                                                                                 ~       \.

7 .. e9 . 1 .e

                                                                                                                                                               \

j .

                                                                                                                                                                   \
            /               t
                            .%a                  .

a -

                                                                                                                                   .                                   \

l u e a PONOSurreme eM i I sf v8pd  :  ; cootine roktn a

                                                                                                                                 -         w l

1Ano , ., I uqc . j (

             \                                         '
                                                                    \
                                                                          \

J

                                                                                                                                               ~

p g ,, j w

                 \                                                    L                                                                                       /
                   \                                                                                                     ..
                                                                                                                                                        /
                         \                                        ,   .
                                                                                                                                                      /                     -
                            %,                                    o
                                                                                                                                                    /                          ..

W - - - b___. 0*

                                                   %                                                            %                                                                         i O

040795-DAT\TTCESVSUR\CI'A\APPA A-3 REVISION 0

y m _.m.~ _ . . . . . . - . _ . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . _ . - _ _ . . _ , _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . i r A KA l i

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     +

SOIL SAMPLE GAMMA MEASURMENTS semple depth:15cm - ble00d semples 19e4 SAMPLES .  ; RA8 Aceuty bipCWWI AMPLE l REMARKS UAPLEID R E. I C5-137 I C5-134 E C040 E EU-152 E EU-154 I EU-155 E TotW I t 34.020 81 25 Auge4 < 0005 0 GEO.27 808085 04 McH M FIELD 34.021 82 25-Aug 98 0.427 0.110 0.537 GEO.01 S05000 0-4 M MFED [ 34.022 83 25-Aug44 0.820 0.078 0.see - GEO.01 805087 04 W4CH M FIELD l 34.023 84 ' 25-Auge4 0.831 0.198 0.089 GEO.01 000002 04 MCH IN FIELD 34.024 85 25-Aug44 0.838 9.920 1.558 GEO.01 800003 04 WCH ' W FIELD [ 34.025 Se . 25-Aug44 8.e29 0.071 0.7 GEO.01 800004 04 MCH M FIELD ' 34 020 87 25-Aug 94 0.507 0.153 0.se GEO.01 800000 04 NCH MFELD ! , 34.027 Se 25 Aug44 0.soe 0.12 O.e3 GEO.27 Sossee 04 INCH W FIELD 34 02e So 25-Aug 94 0.71s 0.71s GEO.01 Soo007 04 INCH IN FIELD I 34.029 810 25-Aug44 0 72: 0.171 0.892 GEO.01 800000 04 WICH W FICU)  ; j 34.030 810QCC ' 2$-Auge4 0 972 0.132 1.104 GEO.01 900027 04 McH W FELD ' 2s-Aug44 S ete 0.ast 0.ts: GEO.01 SOoose 041NcH pf FIELD 34.03: Sti 34 012 812 25-Aug 94 0.704 0.190 0.974 GEO.91 500010 04 INCH IN FIELD j 34.033 813 25-Aug44 0.503 0.201 0.784 GEO.01 800011 04 W8CH M FIELD - i 34.034 814 25-Aug44 < 0.006 0- GEO.27 805908 e-12 Plc M FELD 34 035 BIS 25-Augee < 0.0ee O GEO.27 S00012 e-12 MC M FIELD 34 030 810 25-Augee < 0.000 0 GTO.27 SO9013 941NCH M FIELD 34.037 8Ie OCC 25-Aug 94 < 0.0e4 0

• GEO.01 S00020 04 INCH M FIELD

34 U38 817- 25-Aug44 0 981 0.203 1.194 GEO.01 900014 04 MCH M IRR. DITCH l 34.039 Ste 25-Auge4 0.703 0.002 0.785 GEO.01 8086s5 041NCH M FIELD 34.040 Ste 25-Auge4 0.175 S.175 GEO'.01 800010 041NCH M FIELD 34 041 820 25-Aug 94 0.330 0.338 GEO.01 800010 04 INCH M FIELD  !

34.042 821 25-Aug e4 0.414 0.414 GEO.01 800016 041NCH M FIELD  ! 34 043 822 25-Aug44 0.191 0.191 GEO.27 805000 04 MCH M FIELD [ 34 044 823 25-Aug 94 0.cee 0.8882 - GEO.01 800020 04 MCH M FIELD - 34 045 824 25-Aug44 0.241 0.241 GEO.27 300001 041NCH IN FIELD  ; 34.049 825 25-Auge4 0.143 - 0.143 GEO.01 800022 041NCH M FIELD  ! 34.047 825 0CC Auge4 0.11e 0.110 GEO.27 SOo023 04 90CH M FIELD . [ 34 04e Saa 25-Augia 0.173 . o.173 GEO.27 Sco021 04 INCH M FIELD 1 34 04. 827 as-Aug44 2.000 0.273 0.3e9 2.703 GEO.01 Soe02e 04 MCH H NWL DITCH I 34 oso Bro 25-Aus44 0.1ss 0.tss GEO.01 80o024 041NCH IN FED  ! 34 051 829 25 Aug44 < 0.0e7 0 GEO.27 50002S e-121NC M FIELD f 25-Augee 0.122 0.122 GEO.01 SpeOro e-121NC M FIELD  ; 34 052 830 r

S ,1.Gew et 81 v ugn 81s j

S-ii,1.G,w et 8ie ugh 830  ;

h i { omm-nAmncisysunrHAwiv^ A_4 REVISION 0  ; t r _ - . . . _ _ - _ - - - _ _ , . - . . . - . - _ - - - . . - . - . . - . _ - - - _ = _ - - _ ~ . _ _ _ . - . = -

APPENDIX A mwanu.s PRuths*T1u.% nt.RVE) FORM

                                                                                                   - pan                                               ,,,, y ,g
        - M R Mt/R/WC-                                                                             ~ ~'~ M&t;;- JJ - 8 /.1syy,<
                                            -~

A-= 2 4 - m e & L tem /,R gg N# W# We D J w m z:.

• s .,g.gg,,

                                                                                                                                                                  ,uu 1                     I                                          i                      f.t: 1 . st , p. .t py                               ,,

4, b '

                              &                                         J
                                                                                               ' A -4 fat::.J. . r.                                     -

m.

                                                                                                                                                             ,      a.-

f .

                                  ,                                                                           ~

b" i i N \ I '

                                                                                                           .                             y;
                                                                                                                                                                      \

t Jr Av s  !

                                                        .-l -                           _                                                 R            _
                                     /v :r.t
                        -                                                                1                                                   .
                                                                                                                                                         ,                g 4                                                                                          g Db'                                                            * ,\

E ! \. l f nll4-l \ ,.

                                               -- :-                                m                                                                     **
            /              t
                            .sw                       s                              a         -
                                                                                                        ..,s.
                                                                                                                ,             \                                               i
           /                                                      1 Pase                                s II f         d  Alfd                         -

caou4 , tl. 1 a

                                                                  '            ataerna                   ,.,                          g l st                              .

saweca u

                                                                                                 . . %e                               I,                                          {
                                                                                         .                    y                 l            .
            \

g '/ u

               \                                     .
                                                                                                                          /                                 "
                    \                                                                                                                                                                \
                                                                                                                        /
                      \                                                                            ...

f . N '

                                                                                                                  /                      .
                                                                                                                                                                                      \

5 ,

                                                                                                         /

N

                                                                                                                                                                                        \

h  % .,4, .,,. . /

                                                  .- .                                           r                                                          ,

ss ~ mas same eviewed by DgIc: . ,,,, .. 1rs.nu.{,e s nc'* S ,,r!n 9

                                   -,'-4-N --,'4'/N                                                            11 Oj'W S*n'

, -% ' .e. i iNss ,4&s "Vt 'in 't 4t* g q ---.g --- g \ #---y s /

                                                              /                              s Y--p u .gy;g
                                   - ,9 --- g% /g/ / -e-       -           -
                                                                                    \            N l                                   /         \         /         \

Mt(' Np / X L M )b-

/

                                                        \                  N       /  N g                 4'_/                               V--

t Q jf / Ns / '\

                                                                           -4'
                                                                           /

s / # \ . p c4---y-- Niz./ ' NU /

                                                                     'y---g--

Ni ' '

                                                                                               '.y
                                                                                               /

gg / l'A /t.N / A N / /*s--/A-

                                                                                   \             \-'
     -                          - </           vs                    s<                w "            vp '

hlo Is 61 /S* .g , O ldif

                              /I~/Z "                                 / f,, /7,,l'                            ,,

{ l 9 SYSTEMATIC.SAMPUNG LOCATIONS ADDmONAL SAMPUNG LOCATIONS TD PROVIDE 1 O ctost-seActo Tatm:utxa cao eATTcaNs l l l umsaAmecesvstrMCHAMPPA A-6 REVISION 0

APPENDIX A O

s. ,,i., a- ~ a '

                      .            t'j Y
                                  \ #/

ll /

c-a wa a #

w/p- . O

p. e\ b l

                                                      $pp es    G lt n B 30
               / $      '/
                                                   /,
           / \      s      ,, &.      -      -
                                    'N m 6Cn- @ e

& - M L c~l - Y O mm95-ormwisvstmouwrr^ A-7 REVISION 0

! APPENDIX B l I i  ! 4 i . 1 1 l i 1 2

APPENDIX B.

i NUCLIDE ANALYSIS RESULTS i i i 3 l

• Ganuna Spectroscopy Results  :

4 1 4 j

• Cl-36, Fe-55, and Sr-90 Results  !

i i l i , I I 9 l i l 1 ' 1 s i I l l-1  ; $ i f J { > 1 l O l 040795-DAT\TEC\FSYSUR CHA\A PPD . R 0 REVISION 0 l

APPENDIX B Table B-1 Goosequill Ditch Sample Results i Sediment Samples From Bottom Of Ditch Sample Number Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQD. SED.001 GP00220 1784 1.486 2.454 22.325 0.607 GQD. SED.002 GP00221 1265 0.120 2.061 1.507 26.654 0.440 GQD. SED.003 GP00222 1075 0.127 2.172 1.973 35.932 0.548 GQD. SED.004 GP00207 1716 0.602 1.019 20.986 0.251 GQD. SED.005 GP00205 1116 0.153 2.997 2.602 0.229 19.158 0.728 GQD. SED.006 GP00224 1428 0.581 8.326 5.710 0.856 22.558 1.785 GQD. SED.007 GP00206 998 0.I64 3.077 1.608 0.389 21.6I8 0.549 GQD. SED.008 GP00225 1054 0.310 4.419 4.577 0.736 20.022 1.314 GQD. SED.009 GP00211 920 0.402 7.416 2.629 0.408 18.084 1.009 GQD. SED.010 GP00226 1068 0.454 7.435 4.486 0.803 0.411 23.335 1.455 GQD. SED.011 GP00200 1306 0.397 6.386 3.032 0.581 0.397 0.271 22.239 1.104 GQD. SED.012 GP00214 924 0.499 6.697 2.131 22.632 0.835 GQD. SED.013 GP00227 1300 0.I34 2.304 1.655 27.534 0.485 GQD. SED.014 GP00228 1377 0.327 5.731 7.128 0.793 0.605 26.603 1.943 GQD. SED.015 GP00229 1214 0.429 6.791 11.512 1.469 1.100 0.474 26.768 3.151 GQD. SED.016 GP00201 1210 0.229 3.010 5.055 1.107 0.654 0.634 27.058 1.453 GQD. SED.017 GP00210 1593 0.698 0.177 31.402 0.070 GQD. SED.018 GP00208 883 0.505 8.359 11.997 1.834 0.713 0.803 24.000 3.330 GQD. SED.019 GP00192 1211 0.401 7.329 4.654 0.720 28.350 1.472 GQD. SED.020 GP00193 1423 0.153 2.959 2.523 28.801 0.708 GQD. SED.021 GP00195 1484 0.151 2.446 1.461 29.486 0.451

     "'""'"""'""                                          -2                                                                  ONO

t APP IX B-i Table B-1

                                      . Goosequill Ditch Sample Results                                                                                          t (Continued)                                                                                                     ,

Sample Number Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE . Number Weight Activity - Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQD. SED.022 - GP00194 1715 . 1.275 0.743 29.726 0.221-GQD. SED.023 GP00209 1107 1.331 2.201 1.858 40.729 0.681 GQD. SED.024 GP00230 1751 0.086 1.227 0.892 28.170 0.263 GQD. SED.025 GP00231 826 1.425 1.173 58.317 0.322 GQD. SED.026 GP00216 1684 0.962 0.637 27.814 0.I84 GQD. SED.027 GP00232 1461 0.127 2.043 1.371 29.946 0.410 . GQD. SED.028 GP00233 1641 0.106 1.741 1.384 2.879 0.397 0.000 GQD. SED.029 t GQD. SED.030 GP00196 1486 0.167 3.007 2.024 32.814 0.602 GQD. SED.031 GP00234 715 0.655 10.783 12.891 2.094 0.778 0.525 45.794 3.686 , GQD. SED.032 GP00235 525 1.028 18.071 26.292 4.237 2.208 1.330 58.I35 7.367 GQD. SED.033 GP00197 1752 0.730 0.762 28.040 0.201 GQD. SED.034 GP00198 1291 0.262 3.770 3.259 30.764 0.921 GQD. SED.035 GP00199 1681 0.176 2.727 1.901 27.949 0.564

                     *

• 0.000 GQD. SED.036 i GQD. SED.037 0.000 GQD. SED.038 0.000 i GQD. SED.044 - GP00426 1203 0.577 30.431 0.026 GQD. SED.045 GP00429 1049 0.133 27.712 0.006 l GQD. SED.046 GP00431 1662 0.291 ' O.14~' 30.782 0.045 l GQD. SED.047 GP00463 702 0.214 4.086' l.715 15.318 0.589 [ !

I mmmrenm m""" REVSION O B-3 j

APPENDIX B Table B-1 Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Number Spectrum Sample bs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCilg pCilg mrem /yr GQD. SED.048 GP00488 633 0.353 6.305 2.499 19.128 0.879 GQD. SED.049 GP00493 704 0.133 2.036 1.081 17.078 0.347 GQD. SED.050 GP00465 628 2.222 1.392 19.259 0.406 Non-Gamma Analysis Results Cl-36 Fe-55 Sr-90 PCi/g pCi/g pCi/g GQD. SED.018 68.2 GQD. SED.032 20.1

• Sample could not be collected.

Vegetation Samples Frem Ditch Sample Sample ID Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 Number # Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g GQD.VEG.001 GP00223 48 2.793 35.200 59.447 GQD.VEG.002 GP00202 42 2.758 20.644 60.943 GQD.VEG.003 GP00575 164 3.612 17.988 1.011 0.514 25.204 GQD.VEG.004 GP00703 30 4.755 15.407 95.335 GQD.VEG.005 GP00702 226 4.994 9.733 1.921 35.182 gmuommmm 4 ion o

f3 K.) '"- APP IX B Table B-1 Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Samples Adjacent To And Beneath Ditch Sample Sample ID Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number # Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQD. SED.039 GP00236 1425 29.841 0.000 GQD. SED.040 GP00287 1374 0.099 28.125 0.004 GQD. SED.04i GP00251 1303 0.122 0.088 29.575 0.025 GQD. SED.042 GP00253 1409 0.061 27.314 0.003 GQD. SED.043 GP00254 1300 28.844 0.000 Water Samples Sample Sampic ID Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 Number # Volume Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity milliliters uCi/mi uCi/ml uCi/mi uCi/ml uCi/ml uCi/ml uCi/ml GQD.WAT.001 GP01274 800 1.847E-% GQD.WAT.002 GP01270 1000 5.078E-06 GQD.WAT.003 GP01264 1000 5.902E-06 GQD.WAT.004 GP01267 1000 GQD.WAT.005 GP01268 1000 1.341E-06 GQD.WAT.006 GP00841 1000 5.019E-06 GQDWAT.007 GP01266 1000 5.739E-06 GQD.WAT.008 GP01273 1000 5.659E-06 GQD.WAT.009 GP01269 1000 1.194E-06 GQD.WAT.010 GP01264 1000 5.902E-06

             =mm nwwnrn mrr" B-5                                           REVSION O

APPENDIX D Tabic B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results Soil From The Banks Of The Ditch Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDB. SOIL.001 GP00255 1266 30.886 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.002 GP00307 1552 28.439 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.003 GP00291 1407 0.062 26.864 0.003 GQDB.SO1L.004 GP00239 1257 0.077 27.662 0.003 GQDB. SOIL.005 GP00240 1533 30.204 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.006 GP00241 1387 26.492 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.007 GP00256 1492 0.141 30.575 0.006 GQDB. SOIL.008 GP00272 1370 29.044 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.009 GP00273 1109 26.958 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.010 GP00282 1450 28.316 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.01 I GP00237 1176 27.332 0.000 GQDB.SOlL.012 GP00242 1367 29.594 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.013 GP00243 1462 31.041 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.014 GP00244 1513 0.064 31.967 0.003 GQDB. SOIL.015 GP00245 1176 29.373 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.016 GP00246 943 25.333 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.017 GP00259 1262 27.111 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.018 GP00264 1377 27.177 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.019 GP00257 1435 28.262 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.020 GP00260 1565 28.977 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.021 GP00261 1532 0.466 31.298 0.021 GQDB. SOIL.022 GP00258 1344 0.224 0.253 28.176 0.066 h*o" " ~ " " h-6 h0N O

I Cs' ' APPRIX B Table B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) ,

                                                                           ~~'

Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDB. SOIL.023 GP00262 1378 27.825 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.024 GP00247 1200 0.058 30.361 0.003 GQDB. SOIL.025 GP00248 1235 30.189 0.000 I GQDB. SOIL.026 GP00249 1298 29.212 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.027 GP00263 1285 28.622 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.028 GP00265 1261 0.202 0.115 30.959 0.034 . GQDB. SOIL.029 GP00266 1392 28.562 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.030 GP00267 1395 28.295 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.031 GP00268 1644 0.089 25.871 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.032 GP00293 1357 28.278 0.000 ' GQDB. SOIL.033 GP00289 1167 0.188 27.212 0.008 GQDB. SOIL.034 GP00269 1348 29.053 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.035 GP00270 1353 29.728 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.036 GP00271 -1397 0.971 1.243 29.424 0.317 GQDB. SOIL.037 QP00274 1471 30.868 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.038 GP00275 1325 0.082 28.715 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.039 GP00278 1443 0.048 31.633 0.002 l GQDB. SOIL.040 GP00292 1562 0.092 29.603 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.041 GP00739 1133 0.141 0.170 32.607 0.044 GQDB.50ll.042 GP00707 1142 0.116 32.051 0.005 i B-7 REVSION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDB. SOIL.043 GP00705 1141 33.684 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.044 GP00250 1251 29.009 0.000 GQDB. SOIL 045 GP00320 1291 0.122 32.307 0.005 GQDB. SOIL.046 GP00310 1518 0.063 28.468 0.003 GQDB. SOIL.047 GP00290 1223 28.725 0.000 GQDil. SOIL.048 GP00279 1649 26.172 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.049 GP00294 1117 0.090 29.944 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.050 GP00267 1300 0.100 30.527 0.005 GQDB. SOIL.051 GP00280 1439 29.124 0.000 GQDB. SOIL.052 GP00281 1732 0.604 26.832 0.027 GQDB.501L.053 GP00277 1141 0.078 29.958 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.054 GP00295 1387 0.C91 29.456 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.055 GP00297 1538 0.082 29.438 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.056 GP00311 1321 0.085 28.006 0.004 GQDB. SOIL.057 GP00296 1067 0.295 29.065 0.013 k

f~) (_./ \d APP i IX B Table B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) l Sediment From The Banks Of The Ditch Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDB. SED.001 GP00331 933 0.064 1.055 1.245 19.908 0.330 GQDB SED 002 GP00327 1285 0.126 1.850 0.478 26.982 0.205 GQDB. SED.003 GP00349 908 0.211 3.317 1.828 0.479 0.321 0.277 22.550 0.659 GQDB. SED.004 GP00330 879 0.642 9.558 3.427 0.972 0.693 0.446 19.945 1.434 GQDB. SED.005 GP00308 873 0.455 6.174 2.745 0.807 0.430 19.452 1.062 GQDB. SED.006 GP00306 1410 0.218 3.409 0.845 26.930 0.368 GQDB. SED.007 GP00381 1149 0.284 4.823 7.607 25.007 1.927 GQDB. SED.008 GP00345 1281 0.435 7.065 7.176 1.096 0.753 0.374 25.944 2.138 GQDB. SED.009 GP00303 1336 0.259 4.279 2.766 0.547 0.752 0.212 24.200 0.914 GQDB. SED.010 GP00309 843 1.295 18.902 27.676 4.892 2.943 2.003 22.552 7.887 GQDB. SED.0ll GP00372 1366 0.139 3.041 2.244 0.423 29.570 0.688 GQDB. SED.012 GP00305 1736 0.116 1.835 1.452 27.424 0.417 GQDB. SED.013 GP00379 1881 0.094 1.447 1.128 28.262 0.326 GQDB. SED.014 GP00314 1643 0.240 0.166 31.888 0.047 GQDB. SED.015 GP00304 1759 0.125 2.256 1.345 0.170 30.423 0.429 ~ GQDB. SED.016 GP00317 1473 0.335 4.920 6.379 0.812 0.268 0.513 27.717 1.774 GQDB. SED.017 GP00346 1155 0.372 5.821 2.862 0.544 0.362 0.310 27.753 1.031 GQDB. SED.018 GP00315 1482 0.258 3.794 1.345 0.237 0.121 30.204 0.535 GQDB. SED.019 GP00318 1562 0.281 4.037 3.406 0.396 0.149 29.317 1.020 B-9 REVSION O

APPENDIX B Table B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDB. SED.020 GP00316 1464 0.079 1.305 1.356 0.290 0.158 30.482 0.411 Non-Gamma Analysis Cl-36 Fe-55 Sr-90 pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g GQDB. SED.010 141 Biased Samples From The Banks Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDB.uR.001.0-2 GP00370 771 0.546 8.392 2.809 0.889 0.633 0.578 28.849 GQDB.uR.001.2-4 GP00352 1539 0.037 31.271 GQDB.uR.001.4-6 GP00358 1412 0.564 0.128 29.935 0.274 GQDB.uR.002.0-2 GP00353 1191 0.761 12.462 1.951 0.647 0.543 24.553 GQDB.uR.002.2-4 GP00354 1638 0.120 1.922 0.299 27.625 GQDB.uR.002.4-6 GP00382 1719 0.363 29.368 0.383 GQBD.uR.003.0-2 GP00357 1125 0.546 8.471 1.298 0.410 0.350 26.369 GQDB.uR.003.2-4 GP00383 1593 0.525 0.084 29.867 GQDB.uR.003.4-6 GP00355 1618 0.113 29.905 0.229 GQDB.uR.004.0-2 GP00393 1446 0.122 2.017 2.3 % 0.464 27.521 GQDB.uR.004.2-4 GP00380 1526 0.181 0.123 29.805 GQDB.uR.004.4-6 '3P00391 1472 0.155 29.667 0.228

                                                                                                         ' * " " " " " "                                                               -10                                                                                                                                                                                         ION 0

APP DIX B Table B-2 Banks of the Goowquill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mremlyr GQDB.uR.005.0-2 GP00359 1031 0.599 9.307 1.415 0.442 0.339 23.842 GQDB.uR.005.2-4 GP00385 1674 0.607 0.064 27.415 GQDB.uR.005.4-6 GP00384 1632 0.128 29.604 0.229 GQDB.uR.006.0-2 GP00363 1025 0.504 8.437 19.088 2.228 1.44 0.657 28.186 GQDil.uR.006.2-4 GP00342 1248 1.246 2.036 0.287 31.665 GQDil.uR.006.4-6 GP00348 1278 0.420 0.383 29.367 1.666 GQDil.uR.007.0-2 GP00392 1482 0.839 1.773 29.860 GQDil.uR.007.2-4 GP00364 1278 0.224 0.255 31.536 GQDB.uR.007.4-6 GP00365 1376 0.082 0.068 30.422 0.I80 GQDB.uR.008.0-2 GP00339 1375 29.847 GQDB.uR.008.2-4 GP00394 1516 29.221 GQDB.uR.008.a-6 GP00396 1470 30.485 0.000 GQDB.uR.009.0-2 GP00395 1482 28.654 GQDB.uR.009.2-4 GP00390 1383 30.862 GQDB.uR.009.4-6 GP00362 1372 28.687 0.000 , GQDB.uR.010.0-2 GP00361 1248 0.041 30.118 GQDB.uR.010.2-4 GP00343 1331 0,031 30.355 GQDB.uR.010.4-6 GP00397 1410 0.069 29.679 0.002 GQDB.uR.011.0-2 GP00486 1158 0.250 4.808 4.605 0.948 0.587 0.754 27.613 GQDB.uR.011.2-4 GP00491 1285 0.207 0.233 28.I12 B-l I REVSION O

APPENDIX D Table B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDB.uR.011.4-6 GP00489 1228 33.201 0.468 GQDB.uR.012.0-2 GP00509 E07 1.109 18.476 14.878 2.926 1.943 1.107 23.896 GQDB.uR.012.2-4 GP00453 1003 0.111 2.231 2.146 31.717 GQDB.uR.012.4-6 GP00454 1295 0.175 0.098 32.010 1.432 GQDB.uR.013.0-2 GP00455 1123 0.229 3.073 4.407 0.757 0.526 0.320 28.478 GQDB.uR.013.2-4 GP00457 1184 0.604 0.684 32.232 GQDB.uR.013.4-6 GP00485 1174 0.092 0.131 31.062 0.480 GQDB.uR.014.0-2 GP00450 1081 0.738 0.883 29.300 GQD13.uR.014.2-4 GP00456 1107 0.I12 33.216 GQDB.uR.014.4-6 GP00459 1160 30.924 0.075 GQDB.uR.015.0-2 GP00445 1337 0.725 0.792 29.937 GQDB.uR.015.2-4 GP00497 1201 0.128 30.971 GQDB.uR.015.4-6 GP00458 1221 33.342 0.075 GQDB.uR.016.0-2 GP00461 1343 0.252 0.250 30.654 GQDB.uR.016.2-4 GP00447 1401 0.158 0.148 29.157 GQDB.uR.016.4-6 GP00462 119.1 0.083 33.321 0.038 ~ GQDB.uR.017.0-2 GP00449 1198 0.100 1.695 1.578 30.709 GQDB.uR.017.2-4 GP00448 120.1 0.567 0.202 32.596 GQDB.uR.017.4-6 GP00446 1450 0.152 0.078 31.315 0.167 GQDB.uR.018.0-2 GP00436 1261 0.975 1.409 29.789

                                                                      -12                                                    ION O

AP IX B Table B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE , grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrcm/yr - GQDB.uR.018.2-4 GP00492 1063 0.058 31.198  ; GQDB.uR.018.4-6 GP00480 1093 30.515 0.131 GQDB.uR.019.0-2 GP00435 1262 0.535 0.477 30.405 GQDB.uR.019.2-4 GP00496 Ii19 0.084 32.800 GQDB.uR.019.4-6 GP00481 1171 31.238 0.047 GQDB.uR.020.0-2 GP00495 1286 0.484 0.520 29.880 GQDB.uR.020.2-4 GP00490 1248 0.165 0.111 31.385 GQDB.uR.020.4-6 GP00494 1274 0.150 28.836 0.065 Subsurface Samples From The Ban'a Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr j GQDB.SUB.001 GP00684 1439 0.387 0.073 31.409 0.034 l GQDB.SUB.002 GP00671 1513 0.180 30.212 0.008 GQDB.SUB.003 GP00587 1193 0.073 29.527 0.016 GQDB.SUB.004 GP00605 1199 30.696 0.000 GQDB.SUB.005 GP00607 1158 0.349 0.158 27.756 0.050 GQDB.SUB.006 GP00615 1235 31.452 0.000 GQDB.SUB.007 GP00589 1340 0.441 0.678 28.889 0.169 GQDB.SUB.008 GP00619 1367 2c.598 0.000 memn nm-mn wmurr" REVSION O B-13

APPENDIX B Table B-2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr GQDll.SUB.009 GP00644 Ii41 0.121 0.I35 32.025 0.035 GQDil.SUB.010 GIW754 868 0.694 0.430 31.272 0.126 investigative Sampics From The Banks Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 ThkDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrcm/yr GQDil.INV.001.1 GP00728 1410 1.496 0.335 28.121 0.141 GQDB.INV.001.2 GP00643 1422 0.248 31.306 0.011 GQDil.INV.002.1 GP00600 1452 0.095 1.109 0.168 30.585 0.099 GQDil.INV.002.2 GP00602 1278 0.137 2.340 0.444 27.510 0.221 GQDB.INV.003.1 GP00622 1355 31.533 0.000 GQDB.INV.003.2 GP00670 1307 0.147 0.100 29.894 0.029 GQDB.INV.003.3 GP00618 1257 0.116 1.846 0.267 29.141 0.157 GQDB.INV.003.4 GP00659 1194 0.138 31.431 0.006 GQDB.INV.004.1 GP00712 1266 29.517 0.000 GQDB.INV.004.2 GP00709 1130 28.381 0.000 GQDB.INV.004.3 GP00673 1433 27.294 0.000 GQDB.INV.004.4 GP00608 1392 30.727 0.000 GQDB.INV.005.I GP00672 1632 30.295 0.000 GQDB.INV.005.2 GP00598 1306 0.063 29.946 0.003

                                                                   -14                                               10N o

A IX B , Table B-2  ! Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Sample Results (Continued)  ! Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 TEDE ' 1 Number Number Weight Activity Activity ' Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams - pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg mrem /yr l GQDB.INV.005.3 GP00604 1273 31.154 0.000 GQDB.INV.005.4 GP00616 1233 0.933 1.210 29.054 0.308 i ,l GQDB.INV.006.I GP00617 1247 32.032 0.000 GQDB.INV.006.2 GP00603 1210 31.017 0.000  ! 1 GQDB.INV.007.1 GP00596 1259 31.293 0.000 l GQDB.INV.007.2 GP00613 1316 29.686 0.000 [ GQDB.INV.008.1 GP00610 1326 31.760 0.000  ; GQDB.INV.008.2 GP00606 1303 30.441 0.000  ! GQDB.INV.008.3 GP00592 1330 31.689 0.000  : GQDB.INV.008.4 GP00595 1241 31.937 0.000  ! f GQDB.INV.009.I GP00654 1348 0.300 0.233 32.025 0.%5 GQDB.INV.009.2 GP00639 1612 31.814 0.000 i GQDB.INV.009.3 GP00716 1204 31.466 0.000 , i GQDB.INV.009.4 GP00714 1218 0.084 30.708 0.004 [ GQDB.INV 010.1 GP00762 789 0.438- .7.160 9.625 1.628 0.942 0.904 29.172 2.753  ; GQDB.INV.010.2 GP00752 1188 28.931 0.000 l

                                     ~

GQDB.INV.010.3 GP00751 1070 30.I12 0.000 l GQDB.INV.010.4 GP00755 1050 0.916 0.295 30.237 0.106  ! t

                                                               .ammm mmmmimer"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        REVSION O B-15

__._.m __.m._ _. . . _ _ _m._.__-____.___.-._m._m___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ ______.__._.__.________________._.m__ - _. ___.__4__m_ . _ _ .__e.__-._,___ _ mm.m_ _ ___--_m-- _ .

APPENDIX B Table B-3 Jay Thomas Ditch Sample Results Sediment Sample From Bottom Of Ditch Sampic Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr JT. SED.001 GP00415 1410 28.321 0.000 JT. SED.002 GP00386 1398 0.452 0.396 28.560 0.107 JT. SED.003 GP00373 908 1.087 1.903 2.320 29.265 0.737 JT. SED.004 GP00377 1586 0.388 0.695 28.343 0.170 JT. SED.005 GP00387 918 0.117 2.352 3.848 29.710 0.968 JT. SED.006 GP00374 1508 0.375 0.179 30.432 0.056 JT. SED.007 GP004II I834 0.165 0.223 26.517 0.056 JT. SED.008 GP00410 1738 0.520 0.498 28.729 0.133 JT. SED.009 GP00406 1871 0.329 0.297 30.432 0.080 JT. SED.010 GP00403 1513 0.612 0.392 28.622 0.114 JT. SED.011 GP00376 1318 0.076 1.054 1.126 29.339 0.305 JT. SED.012 GP00378 1668 0.587 0.169 29.903 0.064 JT. SED.013 GP00398 995 0.201 3.498 1.768 25.668 0.573 JT. SED.014 GP00399 1177 0.138 2.595 0.855 29.171 0.323 JT. SED.015 GP00420 985 0.132 2.541 1.854 - 27.545 0.539 JT. SED.016 GP00350 1141 0.085 1.401 0.775 29.707 0.245 JT. SED.017 GP00389 993 0.227 3.874 1.335 24.726 0.498 JT. SED.018 GP00347 1098 0.I37 2.489 0.979 23.289 0.345 JT. SED.019 GP00401 1125 0.060 1.057 1.069 25.545 0.291 JT. SED.020 GP00484 1221 0.645 0.645 28.972 0.171 JT. SED.02 i GP00502 954 0.I32 2.122 0.922 25.192 0.316 JT. SED.022 GP00402 1256 1.511 1.191 27.500 0.330 m m ,. " * " * "

                                                                             -16                                             ION O

O s APP IX D Table B-3 Jay Thomas Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCilg pCi/g mrem /yr JT. SED.023 GP00367 1346 0.080 1.475 1.333 0.362 29.423 0.370 JT. SED.024 GP00400 1226 0.138 1.789 1.786 30.113 0.491 JT. SED.025 GP00407 1260 1.256 0.491 28.964 0.165 Non-Gamma Analysis Cl-36 Fe-55 Sr-90 pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g JT. SED.005 24.7 0.130 JT. SED.017 10.7 Surface Soil Samples East Of Ditch Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 K-40 TEDE ,

                                                                                                                                                                            ' Number    Number  Weight      Activity         Activity                                  Activity                                          Activity                       Activity                                                                 -

grams pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr JT. SOIL.SUR.001 GP00419 1393 0.100 29.894 0.005 JT. SOIL.SUR.002 GP00408 1293 0.178 27.870 0.008 JT. SOIL.SUR.003 GP00437 1370 0.136 29.248 0.006 JT. SOIL.SUR.004 GP00409 1373 0.267 27.792 0.012 , JT. SOIL.SUR.005 GP00421 1516 0.073 29.984 0.003 JT. SOIL.SUR.006 GP00425 1113 25.810 0.000 JT. SOIL.SUR.007 GP00434 1179 0.135 27.383 0.006 JT. SOIL.SUR.008 GP00418 1473 30.772 0.000 JT. SOIL.SUR.009 GP00452 1173 29.976 0.000 JT. SOIL.SUR.010 GP00417 1566 0.219 30.360 0.010

                                                                                                                                   " " " " " " " ' " * "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      REVSION 0 B-17

APPENDIX B Table B-3 Jay Thomas Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Subsurface Soil Sampics East Of Ditch Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCilg pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr JT. SOIL.SU B.001 GP00432 1550 0.079 29.834 0.004 JT. SOIL.SUB.002 GP00444 1237 0.064 27.798 0.003 JT. SOIL.SUB.003 GP00433 1381 0.130 28.228 0.006 JT. SOIL.SUB.004 GP00422 1328 0.I17 29.612 0.005 JT.S01L.SU B.005 GP00439 1531 0.076 30.711 0.003 JT. SOIL.SU B.006 Gl'00440 1422 0.072 29.621 0.003 JT. SOIL.SU B.007 GP00451 1233 0.107 28.577 0.005 JT. SOIL.SUB.008 GI'0044 I I456 0.080 32.409 0.004 JT. SOIL.SUB.009 GP00442 1362 28.152 0.000 JT. SOIL.SUB.010 GP00413 1513 29.415 0.000 k k

o o RIX R APPE! , Table B-3 Jay Thomas Ditch Sample Results (Continued) i Vegetation From Bottom Of Ditch Sample Number Spectrum Sample Weight Cs-134 Activity Cs-137 Activity Co-00 Eu-152 Activity K-40  ! Number Acti vity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g JT.VEG.001 GP00507 228 0.277 5.085 15.258 18.833 JT.VEG.002 GP00487 32 6.620 33.638 87.554 JT.VEG.003 GP00430 185 2.861 18.168 15.256 JT.VEG.004 GP00351 102 1.251 4.983 19.753 JT.VEG.005 GP00571 644 0.485 2.643 3.2265 4 t e e t M N II%I%Ih(7ITU%IIII%UITO F

APPENDIX D Tab"e B-4 Irrigation Ditch Sample Results Ditch Number One Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g mrem /yr DTCH.1.001.0-2 GP00472 1728 0.211 0.086 29.132 DTCH. I .001.2-4 GP00471 1764 28.717 DTCH. I.001.4-6 GP00474 1597 0.196 30.42R 0.064 Ditch Number Two Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr DTCH.2.001.0-6 GP00510 792 1.059 17.901 22.616 3.549 1.981 1.418 26.010 30.2 DTCH.2.002.0-2 GP00500 834 1.027 15.970 1.999 0.660 0.469 26.843 DTCH.2.002.2-4 GP00476 1262 0.131 1.897 0.275 31.597 DTCH.2.002.4-6 GP00466 1173 0.205 31.981 2.258 DTCH.2.003.0-2 GP00501 1178 0.120 1.964 0.461 30.364 DTCH.2.003.2-4 GP00469 1315 0.843 0.205 28.153 DTCH.2.003.4-6 GP00503 1409 0.140 28.620 0.468 DTCH.2.004.0-2 GP00423 1376 0.150 2.251 0.812 29.717 DTCH.2.004.2-4 GP00505 1188 1.080 0.211 29.909 DTCH.2.004.4-6 GP00427 1299 0.483 0.195 27.454 0.778 Non-Gamma Analysis Cl-36 Fe-55 Sr-90 pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g DTCH.2.001. 73.8 mmmmomm _20 ON O

APP IX B , Table B-4 Irrigation Ditch Sample Results (Continued)  ; Ditch Number Three l Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE , grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr DTCII.3.001.0-2 GP00470 1503 0.153 2.068 0.429 30.690 i DTCII.3.001.2-4 GP00460 1435 1.227 0.252 29.I16 , DTCli.3.001.4-6 GP00468 1160 0.218 31.I86 0.602 DTCil.3.002.0-2 GP00849 651 2.470 0.496 31.749 DTCli.3.002.2-4 GP01087 1178 0.I19 2.508 0.458 31.454  ; DTCII.3.002.4-6 GP00977 1377 0.061 0.978 0.'67 31.030 0.860 DTCli.3.003.0-2 GP00976 1204 0.161 0.258 0.441 29.109 DTCil.3.003.2-4 GP01099 1364 1.227 0.122 28.644 DTC11.3.003.4-6 GP00978 1212 0.549 30.571 0.554 DTCII.3.004.0-2 GP00860 1271 0.210 3.007 0.568 29.237 DTCli.3.004.2-4 GP00969 1231 0.565 0.019 '30.480 DTCil.3.004.4-6 GP00847 1328 0.134 30.648 0.164 . DTCil.3.005.0-2 GP00968 1461 0.727 0.221 33.327 DTCII.3.005.2-4 GP01088 1329 0.146 31.603 DTCil.3.005.4-6 GP00873 1298 0.069 33.294 0.164 DTCII.3.006.0-2 GP00861 1418 0.735 31.655 DTCH.3.006.2-4 GP00970 1407 0.188 30.887 . DTCII.3.006.4-6 GP00864 1382 28.511 0.084 l DTCil.3.007.0-2 GP00979 1317 0.808 0.075 31.728 DTCli.3.007.2-4 GP00886 1375 28.141

                                     .e n un rnmenumrr"                                                                                                                                                                                                 REVSION 0 B-21                                                                                                          -

APPENDIX B Table B-4 Irrigation Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr DTCil.3.007.4-6 GP00966 1442 30.210 0.092 DTCil.3.008.0-2 GP00846 1295 0.097 1.372 29.012 DTCil.3.008.2-4 GP01095 1318 0.514 30.303 DTC11.3.008.4-6 GP00848 1297 0.I13 .52.162 0.I80 DTCil.3.009.0-2 GP00850 1412 1.128 0.150 30.718 DTCil.3.009.2-4 GP01096 1276 0.180 30.696 DTCil.3.009.4-6 GP00859 1486 0.074 31.101 0.173 DTCil.3.010.0-2 GP00967 1423 0.738 30.727 DTC11.3.010.2-4 GP00828 1314 0.215 32.095 DTCil.3.010.4-6 G19833 1304 0.089 28.62 0.I15 Ditch Number Four Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" l Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr DTCil.4.001.0-6 GP00512 1297 0.410 28.332 DTCII.4.002.0-2 GP00556 1006 0.434 32.968 DTCil.4.002.2-4 GP00541 956 0.119 32.455 DTCil.4.002.4-6 GP00561 1409 26.28 0.044 DTCil.4.003.0-6 GP00520 1270 27.882

                                                               -22                                                      ION 0

                   .g%g kJ                                                                                                      V APPENDIX B Table B-4 Irrigation Ditch Sample Results (Continued)

Ditch Number Five Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCilg mrem /yr DTCII.5.001.0-6 GP00506 1253 0.145 0.101 27.957 0.135 DTCH.5.002.0-6 GP00529 1088 1.183 0.189 26.727 0.499 DTCil.5.003.0-6 GP00533 1391 0.438 0.285 29.135 0.389 DTCH.5.004.0-6 GP00526 1129 0.132 2.144 0.595 29.336 1.216 DTCH.5.005.0-6 GP00572 662 0.236 4.247 1.439 27.113 2.644 DTCli.5.006.0-2 GP00559 1326 0.295 0.098 29.915 DTCil.5.006.2-4 GP00536 1438 0.153 30.901 DTCil.5.006.4-6 GP00544 1377 0.126 29.459 0.081 DTCil.5.007.0-2 GP00543 1247 0.095 29.527 DTCil.5.007.2-4 GP00522 1030 31.787 DTCH.5.007.4-6 GP00527 1414 30.509 0.009 DTCil.5.008.0-2 GP00569 682 0.550 22.95 DTCH.5.008.2-4 GP00546 828 0.365 22.628 DTCH.5.008.4-6 GP00562 1076 0.252 21.621 0.099 DTCil.5.009.0-2 GP00535 897 0.143 2.125 0.361 23.565 DTCH.5.009.2-4 GP00528 IIIi 0.950 0.102 27.041 DTCH.5.009.4-6 GP00563 1231 0.141 28.162 0.412 DTCH.5.010.0-2 GP00548 903 0.301 24.416 DTCH.5.010.2-4 GP00557 1052 0.115 24.108 DTCH.5.010.4-6 GP00540 1118 23.09 0.035 B-23 REVSION O

APPENDIX 0 Table B-4 Irrigation Ditch Sample Results (Continued) Sampic Spectrum Sampic Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" , Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCilg pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr DTCH.5.011.0-2 GP00567 1078 0.095 1.751 0.676 25.151 DTCH.5.011.2-4 GP00531 1382 0.236 27.367 DTCII.5.011.4-6 GP00560 1072 0.856 0.130 28.92 0.489 DTCH.5.012.0-2 GP00532 1059 0.859 26.452 DTCII.5.012.2-4 GP00555 761 0.635 27.812 DTCH.5.012.4-6 GP00530 1114 0.368 26.41 0.I66 DTCH.5.013.0-2 GP00550 1209 0.319 28.959 , DTClI.5.013.2-4 GP00547 1193 0.308 27.763 I DTCH.5.013.4-6 GP00542 1236 0.153 29.703 0.070 DTCII.5.014.0-2 GP00570 M4 0.296 3.855 0.476 27.854 DTCH.5.014.2-4 GP00545 939 1.083 0.158 23.423 DTCH.5.014.4-6 GP00534 985 0.630 26.292 0.642 DTCH.5.015.0-2 GP00566 304 1.676 76.418 DTCH.5.015.2-4 GP00554 774 1.I16 30.895 DTCH.5.015.4-6 GP00573 735 0.579 30.519 0.268 Ditch Number Six . Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr DTCH.6.001.0-2 GP00467 1075 0.080 28.067 DTCH.6.001.2-4 GP00428 1231 0.085 25.925

                                                                   -24                                               ION 0

o O APPAIX D Table B-4 Irrigation Ditch Sample Results I (Continued) 3 Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 K-40 0-6" Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mrcm/yr DTCH.6.001.4-6 GP00477 1176 27.174 0.015 DTCil.6.002.0-2 GP00551 1383 0.061 28.036 DTCH.6.002.2-4 GP00524 1287 30.535 i DTCH.6.002.4-6 GP00549 1157 29.646 0.006 DTCII.6.003.0-2 GP00558 923 0.708 27.204 DTCII.6.003.2-4 GP00523 917 0.222 28.544 DTCll.6.003.4-6 GP00564 1159 0.142 27.883 0.092 I r r F

 .=m o mm mm mimer"                                                                                                                                                                      REVSION O B-25

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results Surface Soil Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.001.0-2 GP00694 378 0.606 10.481 3.729 26.266 PAST. SOIL.001.2-4 GP00733 641 2.477 0.694 18.524 PAST. SOIL.001.4-6 GP00687 9.'2 0.699 27.644 1.843 PAST. SOIL.002.0-2 GP00688 39.i 4.615 1.087 26.181 PAST. SOIL.002.2-4 GP00696 599 1.195 15.964 PAST. SOIL.002.4-6 GP00743 853 0.656 24.261 0.674 PAST. SOIL.003.0-2 GP00725 357 4.048 0.803 19.258 PAST. SOIL.003.2-4 GP00851 793 1.294 34.034 PAST. SOIL.003.4-6 GP00797 1231 0.124 25.777 0.412 PAST. SOIL.004.0-2 GP00726 474 1.101 15.997 PAST. SOIL.004.2-4 GP00744 825 0.893 24.444 PAST. SOIL.004.4-6 GP00745 744 0.592 19.933 0.225 PAST. SOIL.005.0-2 GP00731 671 0.781 28.336 PAST.S01L.005.2-4 GP00781 906 0.118 29.143 PAST. SOIL.005.4-6 GP00756 1192 31.907 0.061 PAST. SOIL.006.0-2 GP00768 485 1.662 0.605 20.547 PAST. SOIL.006.2-4 GP00787 738 0.477 0.111 23.106 PAST. SOIL.006.4-6 GP00649 1048 0.409 0.106 27.167 0.392 PAST. SOIL.007.0-2 GP01079 465 0.425 22.365 PAST. SOIL.007.2-4 GP00734 849 0.233 31.763 PAST. SOIL.007.4-6 GP00808 1179 0.166 26.566 0.064 PAST. SOIL.008.0-2 GP00685 703 0.160 2.487 0.454 19.694

                                                         . n m.'"' "' ""                                                                                   ONO 26

APP IX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results ' (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weigitt Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.008.2-4 GP00758 761 1.396 23.970 PAST. SOIL.008.4-6 GP00767 983 0.587 27.842 0.523 PAST. SOIL.009.0-2 GP00727 510 2.903 0.334 24.997 PAST. SOIL.009.2-4 GP00773 494 0.092 1.668 0.162 25.192 PAST. SOIL.009.4-6 GP00798 1094 0.954 22.283 0.556 PAST. SOIL.010.0-2 GP00729 678 0.102 1.795 0.275 23.463 PAST. SOIL.010.2-4 GP00796 1028 1.014 0.132 20.842 PAST. SOIL.010.4-6 GP00737 778 1.220 27.638 0.487  ! PAST. SOIL.011.0-2 GP0069I 638 0.872 25.457 - PAST. SOIL.0l l.2-4 GP00682 893 0.452 31.618 PAST. SOIL.011.4-6 GP00675 926 0.204 29.877 0.126 PAST. SOIL.012.0-2 GP00701 661 1.209 24.854 PAST. SOIL.012.2-4 GP00680 857 0.564 23.483 PAST. SOIL.012.4-6 GP00677 921 0.220 25.170 0.164 PAST. SOIL.013.0-2 GP00711 797 1.179 25.810 PAST. SOIL.013.2-4 GP00722 1036 0.090 25.415 , PAST. SOIL.013.4-6 GP00717 1018 25.945 0.098 PAST. SOIL.014.0-2 GP00741 758 0.924 0.164 30.304 , PAST. SOIL.014.2-4 GP00721 1083 0.373 24.519 PAST. SOIL.014.4-6 GP00679 940 0.288 28.413 0.176 PAST. SOIL.015.0-2 GP00732 693 0.331 21.022 B-27 REVSION O

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results (Continued) Sampic Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.015.2-4 GP00683 915 0.158 24.200 PAST. SOIL.015.4-6 GP00681 943 0.142 23.185 0.054 PAST. SOIL.016.0-2 GP00771 591 0.746 14.626 PAST. SOIL.016.2-4 GP00757 761 0.373 30.078 PAST. SOIL.016.4-6 GP00753 971 0.178 25.289 0.104 PAST. SOIL.017.0-2 GP00690 528 0.983 0.141 26.242 PAST. SOIL.017.2-4 GP00723 706 0.097 40.265 PAST. SOIL.017.4-6 GP00656 1087 0.159 29.146 0.119 PAST. SOIL.018.0-2 GP00748 802 0.582 27.369 PAST. SOIL.018.2-4 GP00740 1077 0.203 30.561 PAST. SOIL.018.4-6 GP00747 1151 26.377 0.061 PAST. SOIL.019.0-2 GP00700 407 0.687 29.618 PAST. SOIL.019.2-4 GP00704 695 0.335 27.189 PAST. SOIL.019.4-6 GP00662 1038 0.189 28.346 0.089 PAST. SOIL.020.0-2 GP00724 453 0.945 21.441 PAST. SOIL.020.2-4 GP00692 844 0.266 30.874 PAST. SOIL.020.4-6 GP00653 1200 0.147 28.221 0.090 PAST. SOIL.021.0-2 GP00693 543 1.450 18.511 PAST. SOIL.021.24 GP00686 592 0.529 25.304 PAST. SOIL.021.4-6 GP00645 860 0.382 25.778 0.193 PAST. SOIL.022.0-2 GP00788 863 0.100 2.108 2.221 27.368 mmm""'*" 28 ONO

 ,                                                                                                        ,/

V (._/ APP IX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sampic Results (Continued) Sampic Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.022.2-4 GP00713 981 0.468 26.350 PAST. SOIL.022.4-6 GP00749 1013 0.235 32.023 0.892 PAST. SOIL.023.0-2 GP00623 916 0.099 1.938 0.313 27.531 PAST. SOIL.023.2-4 GP00667 999 0.110 1.455 0.172 24.454 PAST. SOIL.023.4-6 GP00666 1089 0.925 24.321 0.562 PAST. SOIL.024.0-2 GP00799 1024 0.157 30.101 PAST. SOIL.024.2-4 GP00795 1108 0.096 29.065 PAST. SOIL.024.4-6 GP00783 1207 29.287 0.022 PAST.SOlL.025.0-2 GP00782 1177 0.243 23.793 PAST. SOIL.025.2-4 GP00838 125? 0.281 22.423 PAST. SOIL.025.4-6 GP00806 1 ! 12 0.188 24.943 0.064 PAST. SOIL.026.0-2 GP00803 429 0.975 18.645 PAST. SOIL.026.2-4 GP00786 1061 0.237 24.650 PAST. SOIL.026.4-6 GP00790 1092 22.385 0.096 PAST. SOIL.027.0-2 GP00824 780 1.380 18.667 PAST. SOIL.027.2-4 GP01101 1106 0.401 19.994 PAST. SOIL.027.4-6 GP00820 1061 21.809 0.139 ~ PAST. SOIL.028.0-2 GP00830 957 0.912 21.107 PAST. SOIL.028.2-4 GP00822 1064 0.166 23.713 PAST. SOIL.028.4-6 GP00837 1205 23.025 0.088 PAST. SOIL.029.0-2 GP00854 761 1.704 21.391 m m e st a vsui m' """ B-29 REVSION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL .029.2-4 GP08255 9I4 0.474 24.94i PAST. SOIL.029.4-6 GP00853 1048 23.381 0.171 PAST. SOIL.030.0-2 GP00971 869 1.065 21.170 PAST. SOIL.030.2-4 GP00832 1032 0.552 20.855 PAST. SOIL.030.4-6 GP00852 1124 0.100 18.878 0.143 PAST.SOll.031.0-2 GP00804 836 0.512 27.747 l'AST. SOIL.031.2-4 GP00802 869 0.524 31.293 PAST. SOIL.031.4-6 GP00855 1244 0.264 26.493 0.111 PAST. SOIL.032.0-2 GP00769 448 1.077 20.617 PAST. SOIL.032.2-4 GP00835 1037 0.520 23.149 PAST. SOIL.032.4-6 GP00975 1140 0.128 21.844 0.120 PAST. SOIL.033.0-2 GP00858 914 1.134 17.'409 PAST. SOIL.033.2-4 GP00819 1022 0.481 19.658 PAST. SOIL.033.4-6 GP00829 1040 0.062 22.254 0.144 PAST. SOIL.034.0-2 GP00823 883 0.396 20.278 PAST. SOIL.034.2-4 GP00827 1031 0.531 21.041 PAST. SOIL.034.4-6 GP00856 1060 0.372 23.750 0.177 PAST. SOIL.035.0-2 GP00831 901 1.206 27.170 PAST. SOIL.035.2-4 GP00809 975 0.396 26.676 PAST. SOIL.035.4-6 GP00857 1016 0.595 23.977 0.194 PAST. SOIL.036.0-2 GP00794 1200 31.321 uw.umr"" -30 ON 0

c' -. O APPRIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity , grams pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCilg mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.036.2-4 GP00766 1276 29.554 PAST. SOIL.036.4-6 GP00761 1251 29.108 0.000 PAST. SOIL.037.0-2 GP00763 963 0.356 33.200 i PAST. SOIL.037.2-4 GP00764 1104 0.233 31.956 PAST. SOIL.037.4-6 GP00760 1273 0.239 30. 295 0.073 PAST. SOIL.038.0-2 GP00772 1376 30.614 PAST. SOIL.038.2-4 GP00776 1381 28.197 PAST.SUIL.038.4-6 GP00770 1390 30.332 0.000 PAST. SOIL.039.0 2 GP01103 741 0.558 36.313 PAST. SOIL.039.2-4 GP01052 1042 0.178 29.128 PAST. SOIL.039.4-6 GP00994 1103 0.140 30.438 0.070

                                                                                                                                                              ~

PAST. SOIL.040.0-2 GP01047 911 0.896 31.631 1 PAST. SOIL.040.2-4 GP01051 1116 0.152 30.140 PAST. SOIL.040.4-6 GP01048 1084 0.070 33.402 0.092 PAST. SOIL.041.0-2 GP0lll6 831 1.632 0.146 29.745 PAST. SOIL.041.2-4 GP01030 1112 0.491 31.258  ; PAST. SOIL.041.4-6 GP01107 1097 0.111 30.404 0.218 , PAST. SOIL.042.0-2 GP01050 881 0.842 27.495 PAST. SOIL.042.2-4 GP01119 1201 0.341 27.884 , PAST. Soil.042.4-6 GP01105 1122 0.269 28.343 0.122 PAST. SOIL.043.0-2 GP01068 584 0.754 30.517  ! m o umnemenru mr'" B-31 REVSION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results l (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE i Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.043.2-4 GP01072 1066 0.237 29.732 PAST. SOIL.043.4-6 GP0lll3 959 0.122 30.268 0.084 PAST.S01L.044.0-2 GP01121 918 1.385 27.022 PAST. SOIL.044.2-4 GP01117 1045 0.268 27.073 PAST. SOIL.044.4-6 GP01027 1232 0.199 26.171 0.152 PAST. SOIL.045.0-2 GP01073 443 1.231 28.276 PAST. SOIL.045.2-4 GP01118 1039 0.198 30.381 PAST. SOIL.045.4-6 GP01067 1067 0.129 31.171 0.094 PAST. SOIL.046.0-2 GP0103I Ii81 0.794 28.818 PAST. SOIL.046.2-4 GP01046 1105 0.244 30.488 PAST. SOIL.046.4-6 GP0ll14 1130 0.137 28.289 0.108 PAST. SOIL.047.0-2 GP01020 1116 0.564 30.755 PAST. SOIL.047.2-4 GP01026 1281 0.177 31.382 PAST. SOIL.047.4-6 GP01023 1053 0.190 32.035 0.083 PAST. SOIL.048.0-2 GP01115 891 0.231 29.848 PAST. SOIL.048.2-4 GP01021 1122 0.193 30.329 PAST. SOIL.048.4-6 GP01028 1196 0.120 30.592 0.048 PAST. SOIL.049.0-2 GP01029 943 0.972 0.173 30.044 PAST. SOIL.049.2-4 GP01109 1312 0.120 27.523 PAST. SOIL.049.4-6 GP01112 1063 0.215 29.778 0.153 PAST. SOIL.050.0-2 GP01018 856 0.970 0.194 31.100 n i n ,."" """

                                                -32                                            ON0

AP IX B i Table B-5  : Pastunts and Fannland Sample Results (Continued) I Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.050.2-4 GP01019 1068 0.485 27.639 PAST. SOIL.050.4-6 GP01075 1007 0.139 34.250 0.191 PAST. SOIL.051.0-2 GP01139 1066 0.090 1.777 0.162 30.092 PAST. SOIL.051.2-4 GP01161 1089 0.421 27.000  ; PAST. SOIL.051.4-6 GP0ll49 1070 0.197 31.076 0.282 '[ PAST.S01L.052.0-2 GP01122 906 1.030 28.054 PAST. SOIL.052.2-4 GP0ll38 1008 0.311 33.138 PAST. SOIL.052.4-6 GP0ll34 1172 0.087 31.188 0.118 PAST. SOIL.053.0-2 GP01037 897 2.082 0.150 30.929 PAST. SOIL.053.2-4 GP01160 1062 0.619 31.330 PAST.S01L.053.4-6 GP01136 1066 0.304 30.870 0.297 i PAST. SOIL.054.0-2 GP0ll42 831 1.687 0.164 29.693 i PAST. SOIL.054.2-4 GP01192 893 0.391 33.613 PAST. SOIL.054.4-6 GP01193 1060 0.198 28.134 0.237 PAST. SOIL.055.0-2 GP01227 814. 0.061 0.873 34.988 i PAST. SOIL.055.2-4 GP01200 898 0.246 33.613 4 PAST. SOIL.055.4-6 GP01197 1170 0.199 31.148 0.119 I PAST. SOIL.056.0-2 GP0ll86 794 0.104 1.439 36.379 PAST. SOIL.056.2-4 GP01235 901 0.312 32.552 I PAST. SOIL.056.4-6 GP0ll% 1073 0.236 33.268 0.180 PAST. SOIL.057.0-2 GP0ll79 1143 0.445 28.128 B-33 REVSION O j t

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sampic Results (Continued)

                                                                        ~

Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.057.2-4 GP01178 1136 0.326 30.049 PAST. SOIL.057.4-6 GP0ll87 1108 0.333 29.264 0.100 PAST. SOIL.058.0-2 GP01222 683 0.593 25.592 PAST. SOIL.058.2-4 GP01225 1073 0.157 26.402 PAST. SOIL.058.4-6 GP01234 1173 0.205 25.630 0.075 PAST. SOIL.059.0-2 GPO1146 773 0.663 26.479 PAST. SOIL.059.2-4 GP01128 1027 0.134 28.315 PAST.S01L.059.4-6 GP01148 1142 0.167 26.124 0.077 PAST. SOIL.060.0-2 GP01181 685 0.860 24.955 PAST.S01L.060.2-4 GP01182 878 0.355 32.265 PAST. SOIL.060.4-6 GP01180 1098 0.106 26.703 0.103

                                                                                            ~

PAST. SOIL.061.0-2 GP01183 756 0.408 26.592 PAST. SOIL.061.2-4 GP0ll84 1053 0.224 26.736 PAST. SOIL.061.4-6 GPO1194 1068 31.038 0.05i PAST. SOIL.062.0-2 GP01173 755 1.073 29.368 PAST. SOIL.062.2-4 GP01198 1063 0.370 28.469 PAST. SOIL.062.4-6 GP01240 1003 0.135 31.453 0.128 PAST. SOIL.063.0-2 GP01150 845 0.361 26.245 PAST. SOIL.063.2-4 GP01123 1101 0.150 25.410 PAST. SOIL.063.4-6 GP0ll30 1109 0.128 28.315 0.054 PAST. SOIL.064.0-2 GP01154 798 0.722 33.097 h34 ONO

APP IX B Table B-5 Pastunts and Fariniand Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g mrem /yr PAST. SOIL.064.2 4 GP01156 1028 0.356 29.491 PAST. SOIL.064.4-6 GP01125 1105 0.201 26.847 0.107 PAST. SOIL.065.0-2 GP01040 883 0.468 25.265 PAST. SOIL.065.2-4 GP01038 1076 0.175 30.165 PAST. SOIL.%5.4-6 GP0ll31 1123 0.189 26.387 0.071 PAST. SOIL.066.0-2 GP01065 881 0.982 28.470  ; PAST.S01L 066.2-4 GP01062 1%2 0.284 28.169 PAST. SOIL.066.4-6 GP01044 1216 0.130 29.568 0.113 , PAST. SOIL.067.0-2 GP0ll51 1113 0.170 30.114 PAST. SOIL.%7.2-4 GP01041 1163 0.089 29.932  ! PAST. SOIL.067.4-6 GP0ll33 1184 0.089 30.946 0.031 PAST. SOIL.068.0-2 GP0ll58 703 0.416 21.931 PAST. SOIL.068.2-4 GP0ll53 937 0.210 26.964 PAST. SOIL.068.4-6 GP0ll45 1083 0.128 29.004 0.062 PAST. SOIL.069.0-2 GP01071 557 0.549 27.996 PAST. SOIL.069.2-4 GP0ll37 917 0.171 29.992 l PAST. SOIL.069.4-6 GP01108 1144 0.125 28.874 0.039 PAST. SOIL.070.0-2 GP01208 938 0.399 30.814 PAST. SOIL.070.2-4 GP01217 1103 0.301 28.202 PAST. SOIL.070.4-6 GP01207 1147 0.204 29.406 0.080 i PAST. SOIL.071.0-2 GP01191 921 0.324 31.025 i

                      " " " " " " " " " " ' "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               REVSION O B-35                                                                                                                                                     i

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST.S01L.07I .2-4 GP01236 1103 0.157 30.832 PAST. SOIL.071.4-6 GP01066 1059 0.143 28.444 0.055 PAST.SOlL.072.0-2 GP01199 873 0.229 28.051 PAST. SOIL.072.2-4 GP01244 1128 0.124 30.769 PAST. SOIL.072.4-6 GP01230 1065 31.326 0.030 PAST. SOIL.073.0-2 GP01220 663 0.529 22.646 PAST. SOIL.073.2-4 GP01221 1058 0.I35 28.878 PAST. SOIL.073.4-6 GP01258 1087 0.160 28.730 0.064 PAST.SOlL.074.0-2 GP01219 935 0.384 29.226 PAST. SOIL.074.2-4 GP01262 1230 0.250 27.349 PAST. SOIL.074.4-6 GP01034 1204 0.192 30.273 0.072 PAST. SOIL.075.0-2 GP01237 853 0.303 31.356 PAST. SOIL.075.2-4 GP01245 1113 29.918 PAST. SOIL.075.4-6 GP01223 1178 0.128 28.596 0.035 PAST. SOIL.076.0-2 GP01104 909 0.265 29.009 PAST. SOIL.076.2-4 GP01260 1156 0.114 29.138 PAST. SOIL.076.4-6 GP01247 1052 0.149 31.354 0.046 ~ PAST. SOIL.077.0-2 GP01205 963 0.392 31.349 PAST. SOIL.077.2-4 GP01241 1141 0.292 28.066 PAST. SOIL.077.4-6 GP01204 1188 0.214 29.510 0.079 PAST. SOIL.078.0-2 GP01209 1073 0.359 29.765 36 ONO

1 "1 o o AAIXB Tatde B-5 Pastures and Farndand Sample Results (continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" TEDE Number Number Weight Activity. Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr l PAST. SOIL.078.2-4 GP01242 1133 0.178 31.859 PAST. SOIL.078.4-6 GP01243 1158 0.190 30.891 0.065 PAST. SOIL.079.0-2 GP01238 %1 0.331 26.837 PAST. SOIL.079.2-4 GP0ll89 1093 31.574

PAST.SOILO79.4-6 GP01246 1123 0.106 30.113 0.037 PAST. SOIL.080.0-2 GP01210 1157 0.521 30.253 l

PAST. SOIL.080.2-4 GP01218 1324 0.296 31.012 , PAST. SOIL.080.4-6 GP01216 1290 0.139 32.920 0.084 PAST.SOILO81.0-2 GP01224 732 0.467 30.186 PAST. SOIL.081.2-4 GP01249 1098 0.240 31.112 l PAST. SOIL.081.4-6 GP01259 1162 30.858 0.055 Non-Gamma Analysis Cl-36 Fe-55 Sr-90 PCi/g pCi/g pCi/g PAST. SOIL.001.0-2 16.9 0.225 PAST. SOIL.002.0-2 0.186 Subsurface Soil

  . Sample        Spectrum      Sample         Cs-134                            Cs-137                                                     Co-60             K-40                TEDE Number         Number       Weight         Activity                          Activity                                                 Activity           Activity grams          pCi/g                             pCi/g                                                         pCi/g         pCi/g              mrem /yr PAST.SUB.001     GP00641        1420                                            0.222                                                                       31.773               0.060 PAST.SUB.002     GP00742        1066                                                                                                                        25.773               0.000
    = = = = = = = = =                                                                                                                                                                    REVSION 0 B-37 t

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results (Continu.cd) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST.SUB.003 GP00750 1013 25.837 0.000 PAST.SU B.004 GP00779 1036 0.114 14.895 0.031 PAST.SU B.005 GP00780 1296 27.755 0.000 PAST.SUB.006 GP00836 1248 0.215 23.96 0.058 PAST.SU13.007 GP00708 1100 0.078 28.761 0.021 PAST.SUll.008 GP00808 1179 0.167 26.566 0.045 PAST.SUB.009 GP00746 959 0.326 33.005 0.088 PAST.SUll.010 GP00785 1Ii3 0.629 23.036 0.170 PAST.SUll.011 GP00676 969 25.61 0.000 PAST.SU B.012 GP00695 850 24.456 0.000 PAST.SUB.013 GPuG710 1178 25.749 0.000 PAST.SUB.014 GP00689 837 0.119 32.962 0.032 PAST.SUB.015 GP00658 1008 0.143 25.356 0.039 PAST.SUB.016 GP00765 957 0.138 24.673 0.037 PAST.SUB.017 GP0065I i146 0.087 27.988 0.024 PAST.SUB.018 GP00730 1269 0.087 27.431 0.024 PAST.SUB.019 GP00664 1111 0.109 27.417 0.030 PAST.SUB.020 GP00663 1063 0.133 26.851 0.036 PAST.SUB.02i GP00647 1105 0.170 25.742 0.046 PAST.SUB.022 GP007I8 1132 29.709 0.000 PAST.SUB.023 GP00669 1305 0.064 27.109 0.017 ION 0 g mu.s.mm m" -38

APP )IX D Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg mrem /yr PAST.SUB.024 GP0793 1211 28.914 0.000  ; PAST.SUB.025 GP00784 1204 20.993 0.000 , PAST.SUB.026 GP01100 1261 25.345 0.000 PAST.SUB.027 GP00810 1198 22.458 0.000 PAST.SUB.028 GP00816 1383 27.217 0.000 PAST.SUll.029 GP00826 1167 21.459 0.000 ' PAST.SU B.030 GP00800 1144 23.810 0.000 PAST.SUB.031 GP00801 1092 0.121 27.329 0.033  ! PAST.SUB.032 GP00814 1196 19.569 0.000 PAST.SUB.033 GP00807 961 22.452 0.000 PAST.SUB.034 GP00974 778 0.361 27.643 0.098 PAST.SUB.035 GP00834 1196 0.079 22.915 0.021 PAST.SUB.036 GP00789 1343 0.057 29.432 0.015 PAST.SUB.037 GP00792 1238 0.588 31.748 0.159 PAST.SUB.038 GP00777 1213 30.430 0.000 PAST.SUB.039 GP00990 1079 0.152 31.210 0.041 PAST.SUB.040 GP01049 1140 32.565 0.000 PAST.SUB.04 i GP00991 1122 29.942 0.000 PAST.SUB.042 GP0ll20 1405 0.115 25.007 0.031 PAST.SUB.043 GP00992 957 0.255 30.138 0.069 PAST.SUB.044 GP01017 1251 0.122 30.167' O.033 l B-39 REVSION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST.SUB.045 GP00996 928 34.073 0.000 PAST.SU B.046 GP00982 1300 0.052 30.888 0.014 PAST.SU B.047 GP01024 945 0.059 36.460 0.016 PAST.SUB.048 GP01022 1228 29.393 0.000 PAST.SUB.049 GP01102 1167 0.961 30.135 0.259 PAST.SU B.050 GP01036 1257 0.118 30.508 0.032 PAST.SUB.051 GP01126 1274 0.Ii1 31.882 0.030 PAST.SUB.052 GP0ll41 1393 31.002 0.000 PAST.SUB.053 GP01032 1222 0.031 32.257 0.008 PAST.SUB.054 GP01155 1153 0.132 30.670 0.036 PAST.SUB.055 GP0ll75 1175 0.092 28.271 0.025 PAST.SUB.056 GP01177 1097 0.225 30.490 0.061 PAST.SUB.057 GP01188 1166 0.106 28.277 0.029 PAST.SUB.058 GP01226 1168 0.129 27.734 0.035 PAST.SUB.059 GP01143 1116 30.246 0.000 PAST.SUB.060 GP01174 1083 0.167 29.917 0.045 PAST.SUB.061 GP0ll52 1129 0.156 26.412 0.042 PAST.SUB.062 GP0ll85 1135 29.720 0.000 PAST.SUB.063 GP0ll40 1140 28.685 0.000 PAST.SUB.064 GP01144 1098 0.276 32.294 0.075 PAST.SUB.065 GP01039 1213 0.152 29.650 0.041

     " " " " ' " " "                                                                              ON0
                                                    -40

       .'                                            O                                              h APPiRDiX C Table B-5 Pastures and Farmland Sample Rescits (Continued)

Sampic Spectrum Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity Activity - grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr PAST.SUB.066 GP01147 1210 31.596 0.000 PAST.SUB.067 GP01063 Ii17 0.I16 27.480 0.031 PAST.SUB.068 GP01127 1183 0.137 29.726 0.037 PAST.SUB.069 GP01135 1080 0.112 30.455 0.030 PAST.SUB.070 GP01206 1148 0.168 31.907 0.045 PAST.SUB.071 Gitl239 1020 0.172 33.662 0.047 PAST.SUB.072 GIMI176 1163 0.081 30.640 0.022 PAST.SUB.073 GP01043 1170 0.080 30.852 0.022 PAST.SUB.074 GPO!263 1037 0.155 28.961 0.042 PAST. SUI 3.075 GP01233 1196 30.286 0.000 PAST.SUB.076 GP01228 1135 0.129 31.063 0.035 PAST.SUB.077 GP01231 1228 0.245 31.853 0.066 PAST.SUB.078 GP01233 1196 30.286 0.000 PAST.SUB.079 GP01190 1253 27.747 0.000 PAST.SUB.080 GP01033 1382 0.039 34.844 0.011 PAST.SUB.081 GP01248 1049 0.059 29.620 0.016 mmmmemmmum B-4I REVSION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-6 Fann Pond Sample Results Farm Pond Sampic Spectrum Number Sample Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" or 6-9" Number Weight Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr FP. SED.001.0-3 GP00870 9I4 0.641 0.217 21.822 FP. SED.001.3-6 GP01093 758 0.615 18.840 0.698 FP. SED.001.6-9 GP00842 896 0.556 18.228 0.611 FP. SED.002.0-3 GP00867 1075 0.679 18.097 FP. SED.002.3-6 GP00957 930 0.859 0.I31 19.I66 0.842 FP. SED.002.6-9 GP01085 752 0.845 27.283 0.930 FP. Slid.003.0-3 GP01092 938 0.976 0.285 20.728 FP. SED.003.3-6 GP01084 742 0.967 0.224 23.998 1.081 FP. SED.003.6-9 GP01074 384 0.801 24.083 0.881 F.'.S ED.004.0-3 GPOI091 1074 0.307 0.I47 31.331 FP. SED.004.3-6 GP00985 1111 0.I32 27.393 0.243 FP. SED.004.6-9 GP00983 1231 25.857 0.000 FP.S ED.005.0-3 GP01076 433 1.360 0.766 27.541 FP. SED.005.3-6 GP00962 922 0.512 23.272 0.872 FP. SED.005.6-9 GP01053 1050 0.430 21.201 0.473 FP. SED.006.0-3 GP00845 365 0.921 0.527 25.398 FP. SED.006.3-6 GP00964 838 0.623 0.129 26.364 0.769 FP. SED.006.6-9 GP00844 998 0.432 22.476 0.475 FP. SED.007.0-3 GP01097 968 0.515 0.276 24.585 FP. SED.007.3-6 GP00843 1022 0.4I8 25.778 0.517 FP. SED.007.6-9 GP00961 1065 0.492 23.636 0.541 FP. SED.008.0-3 GP00981 1091 0.620 0.191 26.320 nu r."* " "'"" -42 ON0

APP IX D Table B-6 Farm Pond Sample Results (Continued) Sample Spectrum Number Sample Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 0-6" or 6-9" Number Weight Activity Activity Activity TEDE grams pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr FP. SED.008.3-6 GP01098 1193 0.579 28.189 0.662 FP. SED.008.6-9 GP01086 748 0.662 35.567 0.729 FP. SED.009.0-3 GP01124 647 1.239 0.269 27.710 , FP. SED.009.3-6 GP00959 1063 0.248 27.397 0.690 FP. SED.009.6-9 GP00980 1266 0.087 30.274 0.096 FP. SED.010.0-3 GP00960 1182 0.302 0.165 27.995 FP. SED.010.3-6 GP00984 1132 0.211 25.972 0.287 FP. SED.010.6-9 GP00965 1105 0.313 27.429 0.344 Non-Gamma Analysis Cl-36 Fe-55 Sr-90 pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g FP. SED.005.0-3 FP. SED.010.0-3 4.35 meamcvsrstumurr" REVSION O B-43

APPENDIX B Table B-7 Farm Pond Outfall Sample Results Sediment Samples From Out Fall Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr OF. SED.001 GOOO538 1129 0.228 0.385 17.834 0.427 OF. SED.002 GP00513 1145 0.174 26.830 0.N7 OF. SED.003 GP00518 1040 0.121 0.103 29.468 0.130 OF. SED.ON GP00516 837 0.191 0.379 22.621 0.411 OF. SED.005 GP00428 1673 0.043 26.217 0.012 OF. SED.006 GP00511 842 0.320 0.201 17.633 0.277 , OF. SED.007 GP00514 609 0.382 0.230 26.761 0.322 OF. SED.008 GP00517 976 0.153 30.238 0.041 OF. SED.009 GP00475 993 0.209 0.079 23.398 0.132 OF. SED.010 GP00515 1810 27.181 0.000 OF. SED.011 GP00473 1583 0.108 28.758 0.103 OF. SED.012 GP00537 1685 30.833 0.000 OF. SED.013 GP00521 1566 28.869 0.000 Non-Gamma Analysis Cl-36 Fe-55 Sr-90 pCi/g pCi/g pCilg OF. SED.004 OF. SED.007 5.71

fh ) d d APP IX B Table B-7 Farm Pond Outfall Sample Restilts (Continued) Surface Soil Samples From Out Fall Sample Spectrum Sample Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity grams pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr OF. SOIL.SU R.001 GP00483 1334 0.174 31.321 0.047 OF. SOIL.SUR.002 GP00519 891 0.084 26.889 0.023 Sub Surfacc Scil Samples From Out Fall Sampic Spectrum Sample Cs-137 Co-60 K-40 TEDE Number Number Weight Activity Activity Activity grams pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr OF. SOIL.SUB.001 GP00498 1341 0.051 31.216 0.014 OF. SOIL.SUB.002 GP00504 940 0.134 26.941 0.036 mmnunnmumure" B-45 REVSION O

 .-* *e 4 a ,A.--._ __ uw._ aMa- -a.4 -aea *u  ma as..yah,a4-mes.es e-.e--mm-.3.ada.4.4.--r-We4-a d.-pa a
                                                                                                                 -emA. 4+-mA+.a WA.-*~mJ-h.--d--4-#-A-Aw...--_a-, m-sJ..a---4 _-A.Ad.-.-_u-0           1 1

l l l l l i l i 1 THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK $ i i i ) i O

1

                                                                                         \

l APPENDIX C I 4 j APPENDIX C - INSPECTOR" MEASUREMENTS AND A COMPARISON WITH THE i SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS l

                                                                                         \

i I l

                                                                                         \

j i 1 1 l 1 i 1 ,' o.om-DATAMCHDOCSTSYSURVE\CHARACnAMC.R0 REVISION 0

1 1 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C INSPECTOR" MEASUREMENTS All in situ spectra collected by the Inspector" were initially analyzed using a relaxation length, L, of 0.1 cm. These results were put in a spreadsheet. It was later determined that, of the relaxation lengths available in Canberra's software (0. lcm,1.25cm, and 12.5 cm),1.25 cm was more representative of the activity depth along the FSV liquid effluent pathway. To avoid l reanalyzing the 300 spectra using the efficiency for L=1.25 cm, a calculation was performed to determine nuclide specific conversion ratios (results from L=0.1 cm : results from L=1.25 cm) (reference 6.4.7). These ratios were then used to convert all the activities previously analyzed j using an L = 0.1 cm, to activities based on an L = 1.25 cm. The resulting spreadsheets are l contained in Table C-1. l The Inspector" reported activities for an efficiency using an exponential vertical distribution are l in units of Ci/100cm .2 The reported activity defines the total of activity integrated from 0 depth to infinity per unit area. The reported results must therefore be converted, using an , appropriate equation, to activity per unit mass. The calibration report (with a correction in the definition of terms (reference 6.4.6)) provides an equation to define the activity per unit volume at a depth z in the soil as: 1 S(z) = e ~d' Where: S(z) = activity per cmS at depth z. O Ic = total activity integrated to infinite depth, (the results as reported by the Inspector" software for each radionuclide [ Ci/100cm2 j), L = vertical relaxation length [cm]. The Inspector" results are equated to a concentration in the soil, where the soil sample would be an average of the activity from depth 0 to depth z, by integrating the above equation from the soil surface to depth z. The integration can be found in the " Liquid Effluent Pathway Scoping Survey Report" (reference 6.4.3) with the resulting equation of: I,(1-e-#L) Ag= x IE6 zp Where: A = activity per unit mass in soil. I. = total inventory, (the results as reported by the Inspector" software [ Ci/100cm2 ]). z = soil depth [cm], the activity is integrated from the surface to depth z to calculate the avenge soil concentration over the depth. A z of 15 cm is assumeu. 15 cm represents the sample collection 04(T795-DATA \TECHDOCS'JSYSURVE\CHARACT\APPC.R0 C1 REVISION 0

APPENDIX C depth (as required by the NRC) that will be used during final release survey. O. L = relaxation length [cm], L = 1.25 cm. p = soil density [g/cm'], p = 1.6 g/cm'. 1E6 = conversion from Ci to pCi. 1 This equation was used to convert the Inspector" reported activities to an activity per unit mass so that a comparison to typical limits could be made.  ; In addition to the analysis using an exponential vertical distribution ef&ciency, the two background measurements IPS0013 and IPS0015 were also analyzed using the efficiency curve for uniform activity with depth. The quantified activities (using the efficiency for imiform 4 activity with depth) are reported in units of Ci/100cm' and the conversion to Ci/g is easily made by using the 1.6g/cm' soil density. The results are 2.8E-3 Ci/100cm' for IPS0013 and

3.2E-3 Ci/100cm' for IPS0014. The K-40 soil concentrations after conversion are 17.5 pCi/g and 20.0 pCi/g, respectively which compare reasonably with the K-40 concentrations in soil.

Figure C-1 shows all the Inspector" measurement locations. Table C-1 is a tabulation of the Inspector" results. All activities , both positive and negative, 8 are reported for fission and activation products and for K-40. Cs-137 and K-40 results were put into a ratio with the background measurements. These ratios were used for reference:

• To see how the natural K-40 changed from location to location, and O'
• To determine when the Cs-137 measurement exceeha twice background and if possibly due to an influence other than global fallout. It is we at the Cs-137 background soil activity concentrations are reported to vary by m: .-#, factor of 2 and therefore by themselves do not indicate the presence of licensed material.

4 It is interesting that the K-40 ratio (measurement to background) is noted to decrease i significantly in areas around the Farm Pond where the terrestrial component is effectively shielded by the water. Initially it was thought that the K-40 ratio might be useful to adjust other sample nuclide activities to account for geometry effects. Upon careful review of the K-40 i values with the locations it was determined that the K-40 activity was influenced by factors in addition to geometry (such as soil composition and gravel roads) and therefore no adjustment to the results was attempted. Table C-2 shows the Inspector" measurements converted to activity per unit mass. i

Table C-3 provides a comparison of Inspector" quantified activities and soil sample activities.

          'Mn-54 listed in previous Inspector measurement evaluations (FSV Liquid Effluent Pathway Scoping Survey                    i Report) has been removed. Based on a re-evaluation of the inspector spectra, soil semple analysis, and Mn-54                    l p)

{

     - 300 day half life, it has been determined that the 835 kev peak is Ac-228. [Mn-54 has an 834.83 kev energy photon, Ac-228 has an 835.5 kev photon].
                                                                                                                                     )

l 04(T795-DATA \TECHDOCSTSYSURVE\CHARACT\APPC.R0 C-2 , REVISION 0

APPENDIX C Inspector vs Soil Analysis The comparison provided in Table C-3 between 122 Inspector measurements and soil samples was made for sample locations in the pastures and irrigation ditches. Activity along the effluent pathway and in adjacent areas is known to be non-uniform in it's distribution. The pastures and irrigation ditches contain depressions where the water has been channeled, with resulting higher activity concentrations. The Inspector calibration assumes uniform activity which is infinite in the horizontal direction. The activity concentrations measured with both the Inspector and by soil sample analysis in some cases approaches the lower detection capabilities and therefore will have a higher uncertainty. Soil sample results are dry soil activities. No correction was made for the effect of the soil moisture conter.t on the Inspector results. Two general observations were made in co.nparing the results:

1. The Inspector will identify nuclides more frequently than soil sampling due to it's wide field of view.

2. Soil sampling activities are higher than Inspector results in part because localized contamination gets averaged over the Inspector's field of view.

Specific observations in comparing the two measurements are: When a nuclide was identified in both the soil sample analysis and by the Inspector, the inspector results were generally lower than the soil sample results. Comparing the Co-60 activity concentrations the Inspector results are noted to be under-reported on an average of 68%. This means that the soil sample activities were, on average, a factor of approximately 3 times higher than the Inspector. This underestimation is expected in the presence of hot spots, where activity distributions are not uniform across the horizon. If fact, in an evaluation done in the scoping survey report (Appendix B of reference 6.4.3) it was estimated that activity concentrations (for a 50-50 Co-60 Cs-137 mixture) for areas of 10 m2 would be underestimated by a factor of 2.6; and for activity areas of I m 2would be underestimated by a factor of 13.3.

• The Inspector results for Co-60 were greater than the soil samples in only 3 locations.
• The Inspector identified Co-60 at 49 measurement locations where soil sample analysis did not show activity. The detection of Co-60 is due to the Inspector's peripheral vision.
• The Inspector identified Cs-134 at 24 measurement locations where soil sample analysis did not show activity. The detection of Cs-134 is again due to the Inspector's peripheral vision.
• Cs-134 was identified in 6 soil samples where the Inspector did not identify it.

Co-60 was identified in 3 soil samples where the Inspector did not identify it.

• A comparison of the Cs-137 data was not made because some of the Cs-137 is due to global fall out which has a depth distribution which is greater than the 1.25 cm relaxation length used to evaluate the Inspector measurements, o om.ormncunoes.rsvsuavocarnacrec.a REVISION 0 C-3 ,

EFFLLENTPATMVAY AW SN#tE ! fr rnarav anu -

                                                   . .p. ~
                                                                                  /

W

                                                   ..                                                                          -mcwena 4                                                                                            g.

f .j

                                                                                                         -s : a       .
                                                                                                                     ~ 13.?-            --
                                                                                                                                           ArmTronxxyrsysuavecuanAcnArre.no
                                                                           -8                                                        RE     N0

Od O APP 3IX C . Table C-1 Inspector" In Sita Messmanents, Relaxation IAngth = 1.25 cm (pCi/100cm') (Continued) SAMPLE ID DATE Comment K-40. Co Cs.137 . Cs-134 Eu-152' Cs-137 ratio K-40 ' ratio IPS00ll5 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.4E-02 9.0E-05 8.4E-04 5.7E-05 6.7E-05 6.0E + 00 8.7E-01 IPS00116 01111/95 F.P.1921d 1.4E-02 1.7E-04 1.2E + 00 8.6E-01 IPS00117 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.5E-02 1.9E-04 1.3E + 00 9.2E-01 IPS00118 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.4E-02 3.0E-04 2. lE + 00 8.8E-Ol IPS00119 01IlI/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 1.7E-04 1.2E + 00 8.1E-01 IPS00120 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 2.0E-04 1.4E + 00 8.0E-01 IPS00121 01Il1/95 F.P. Field 1.4E-02 1.2E-04 8.8E-01 8.9E-01 IPS00122 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.5E-02 1.lE-04 8.0E-01 9.3E-01 IPS00123 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.6E-02 6.0E-05 4.3E-01 9.8E-01 IPS00124 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 1. lE-04 S. lE-01 8.3E-01  ; IPS00125 01/11/95 F.P. Field I .3E-02 1.lE-04 7.7E-01 8.3E-01 IPS00126 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.4E-02 9.5E-05 6.8E-01 8.6E-01 IPS00127 01/11/95 F.P. Field 1.6E-02 1.2E 04 8.9E-01 9.9E-01 1PS00128 0I/II/95 F.P. Field 1.4E-02 1.IE-04 7.6E-01 8.5E-01 IPS00129 01/1I/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 2.2E-04 1.6E + 00 8.1E-01 IPS00130 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 1.3E-04 9. lE-01 8.3 E-01 IPS00131 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 1.6E-04 1.2E + 00 8.lE 01 IPS00132 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 2.3E-04 1.7E + 00 8.4E-01  ! IPS00133 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1. lE-02 1.3E-04 9.3E-01 6.8E-01 IPS00134 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.0E-02 1.7E-05 4.0E 04 2.8E+00 6.3 E-01 IPS00135 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.0E-02 2.3E-04 1.6E +00 6.4E-01 ' IPS00136 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.2E-02 1.5E-04 1.l E + 00 7.3 E-01 IPS00137 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.2E-02 3.4E-05 2.0E-04 1.lE-05 1.4E + 00 7.7E-01 IPS00138 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 1.5E-04 1.1 E +00 8.3E-01  ! IPS00139 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 7.6E-05 5.4E-01 8.4E-01 i mom.nawrremmesuvsvavecnanacnanc.no REVISION 0 C-9 l l l

APPENDIX C Table C-1 Inspector" In Sita Measurements, Relaxation Length = 1.25 an (pCi/100cm') (Continued) SAMPLE ID DATE Comment K-40 Co40 Cs-137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Cs-137 ratio K-40 ratio IPS00140 01/12/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 7.4E-05 5.3E-01 8.4E-01 3PS00141 01/12/95 F.P. Ditch 1.4E-02 1.2E-04 F.6E-01 8.6E-01 IPS00142 01/13/95 F.P. Ditch 1.2E-02 2.3E 04 1.6E +00 7.7E-01 IPS00143 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1.5E-02 1.4E-04 1.0E +00 9. lE-01 IPS00144 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1.5F-02 1.3E-04 8.9E-01 9.lE-01 IPS00145 01113/95 F.P. Field 1.2E-02 1.5E-04 1.0E +00 7.6E 01 IPS00146 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1.8E-02 1.4E-04 9.9E 01 1.1 E + 00 IPS00147 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1.5E-02 1.2E-04 8.6E-01 9.6E-01 IPS00148 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1.2E-02 1.2E-04 8.5E-01 7.3E-01 IPS00149 01/13/95 F.P. Field I. lE-02 9.0E-05 6.4E-01 6.9E-01 IPS00150 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 1.3E-04 9.3 E-01 8.4E-CI IPS00151 01/13/95 F.P. Field 1.3E-02 1.2E-04 8.3 E-01 8.2E-01 IPS00152 01/13/95 JT Ditch 1.7E-02 1.0E-04 7.2E-01 1. l E + 00 IPS00153 01/13/95 F.P. Extended 4. lE-03 3.3E-04 1.8E-04 -1.7E-05 1.3E +00 2.5E-01 IPS00154 01/13/95 F.P. Extended 9.9E-03 1.4E-04 4.lE-05 2.9E-01 6.2E-01 IPS00155 01/14/95 JT Field 1. lE-02 7.4E-05 3.8E-04 2.7E +00 6.8E-01 IPS00156 01/14/95 JT Field 1. lE-02 3.0E-05 2.9E-04 2. l E +00 7.2E-01 IPS00157 01/14/95 JT Field 1.2E-02 2.5E-04 1.8E +00 7.2E-01 IPS00158 01/14/95 JT Field 1.1E-02 6.0E-05 3.5E-04 2.5E +00 6.8E-01 IPS00159 01/14/95 JT Field 1.3E-02 2.9E-05 2.5E-04 1.8E +00 7.9E-01 IPS00160 01/14/95 JT Field 1.3 E-02 2.1 E-04 1.5E+00 8.0E-01 IPS00161 01114/95 JT Field 1.4E-02 1.5E-04 1.1E + 00 8.7E-01 IPS00162 01/14/95 JT Field 1.3 E-02 1.5E-04 1.0E + 00 8.lE 01 IPS00163 01/14/95 JT Field 1.2E-02 3.lE-05 2.lE-04 1.5E +00 7.6E-01 IPS00164 01/14/95 JT Field i .3E-02 1 2.lE-04 1.5E +00 7.8E-01 DAT AtTrcnooCssrSVSUR VDCHA RACnA PPC.R0 10 R ON0

                                                                                                                . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . = _ _ _                                      ._

A IX C~ Table C-1 f Inspector" In Site Measurements, Relaxation Imsth = 1.25 au , (pCi/100an')

                                                                                                      - (Continued) l SAMPLE ID              DATE-     Conunent       .K-40      Co 44     Cs.137           Cs-134          . Eu-152           Co-137 ratio K-40 ratio                   j IPS00165             01/14/95    JT Field     1.4E-02             2.3E-04                                                1.7E +00     8.5E-01                    !

IPS00166 01/14/95 JT Field 1.2E-02 4.2E-05 1.6E-04 1.1E + 00 7.7E-01 IPS00167 01/14/95 JT Field 1.2E-02 1.3E-04 9.5E-01 7.5E-01 j IPS00168 01/14/95 JT Field 1.3E-02 1.4E-04 9.9E-01 8.4E-01 l IPS00169 01/14/95 JT Field 1.2E-02 1.4E-04 9.8E-01 7.8E-01 [ IPS00170 01/16/95 JT Field 1.4E-02 8.9E-05 6.3E-01 8.5E-01 IPS00171 01/16/95 JT Field 1.3E-02 1.lE-04 7.6E-01 8.lE-01 .; IPS00172 01/16/95 JT Field - 1.3E 02 1.9E-04 1.3E + 00 8. lE-01 i IPS00173 01/16/95 JT Field 1.2E-02 1.8E-04 1.3E +00 7.5E-01  ; IPS00174 01/16/95 JT Field 1.3E-02 9.9E-05 7.lE41 7.9E-01 IPS00175 01/16/95 JT Field 1.2E-02 1.2E-04 8.9E-01 7.5E-01 IPS00176 01/16/95 F.P. Extended 1.0E-02 3. lE-04 7.0E-05 5.0E-01 6.3E-01 IPS00177 01/16/95 F.P. Extended 1.3E-02 9.2E-05 5.2E-05 3.7E-01 8.2E-01 l IPS00178 01/16/95 F.P. Extended 1.3E-02 0.0E +00 8.3E-01 [ IPS00179 01/17/95 GQ Field 7.7E-03 6.8E-05 4.9E-01 4.8E-01 l IPS00180 01/17/95 GQ Field 6.9E-03 1.0E-04 7.4E-01 4.3E-01 l IPS00181 01/17/95 GQ Field 9.lE-03 1.0E-04 2.8E-04 2.0E-05 2.0E +00 5.7E-01 IPS00182 01/17/95 GQ Field - 1. I E-02 2.4E-04 1.7E +00 6.8E-01 [ IPS00183 01/17/95 GQ Field 8.8E-03 1.5E-04 5.0E-04 2.3E-05 3.6E + 00 5.5E-01 IPS00184 01/17/95 GQ Field 6.3E-03 1.0E-04 3.4E-04 2.4E+ 00 4.0E-01 IPS00185 01/17/95 GQ Field 1.3E-02 2.0E-04 1.4E+ 00 8.4E-01 IPS00186 01/17/95 GQ Field 6.2E-03 7.8E-05 3.5E-04 4.6E-05 2.5E+00 3.9E-01 IPS00187 01/17/95 GQ Field 9.0E-03 6.8E-05 4.3E-04 3. lE+00 5.6E-01 [ IPS00188 01/17/95 GQ Field 8.6E 03 6.0E-05 3.8E-04 2 7E+00 5.4E-01  ! IPS00189 01/17/95 GQ Field 1.3E-02 2.3E-04 1.7E + 00 8.4E-01 f MMWATANHMCSTSVSURVDCHARACUA PPC.R0 C - 11 REVISION 0

APPENDIX C Table C-1 Inspector" In Situ Measuranents, Relaxation Length = 1.25 cm (pCi/100cm2) (Continued) SAMPLE ID DATE Comment K-40 Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Cs-137 ratio K-40 ratio IPS00150 01/17/95 GQ Field 9.3E-03 1.7E-04 1.2E + 00 5.8E-01 IPS00lSI 01/17/95 GQ Field 1. lE-02 2. l E-04 1.5E + 00 6.7E-01 1PS00r>2 0I/18/95 GQ Field 1. I E-02 1.3E-04 8.9E-01 7.0E-01 IPS00193 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.2E42 9.2E-05 6.6E-01 7.2E41 IPS00194 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.2E-02 1.2E-04 8.8E-01 7.3E-01 IPS00195 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.0E-02 1.2E-04 8.6E-01 6.5E-01 IPS00196 01/18/95 GQ Field 8.6E-03 4.9E-05 1.2E-04 8.4E-01 5.3E-Ol IPS00197 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.0E-02 2.9E-05 1. lE-04 7.9E-01 6.6E-01 IPS00198 01/18/95 GQ Field 9.7E-03 4.8E-05 1.3E-04 9.0E-01 6.lE-Ol IPS00199 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 4.2E-05 3.0E-01 9. lE-01 IPS00200 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 3.1 E-05 2.2E-01 1.1 E + 00

                                                                                                                              ~

IPS00201 01/18/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 5.2E-05 3.7E-01 1.0E + 00 IPS00202 01/18/95 GQ Field 2.lE-02 2.0E-05 1.5E-01 1.3 E + 00 IPS00203 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.3E-02 1.5E-04 8.7E44 5.4 E-05 6.2E + 00 8.2E-01 IPS00204 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 1.3E-04 9. lE-01 1. l E + 00 IPS00205 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 5.3E-05 2.5E-04 1.8E + 00 1. lE +00 IPS00206 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 4.3E-05 3.3 E-04 2.3E+ 90 1. lE + 00 IPS00207 01/19/95 GQ Field 1. lE-02 9.4E-05 6.2E-04 3.7E-05 4.4E + 00 6.6E-01 IPS00208 01/19/95 GQ Field 9.7E-03 4.lE-05 3.7E-04 2.7E +00 6. l E-01 IPS00209 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.0E-02 2.6E-04 1.8E + 00 6.3E-01 IPS00210 01/19/95 GQ Field 9.8E-03 5.8E-05 4.7E-04 3.3E + 00 6.lE-01 IPS00211 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.2E-C2 3.0E-04 2.2E +00 7.3E-01 IPS00212 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.3 E-02 2.8E-04 1.6E-05 2.0E + 00 8.2E-01 IPS00213 0;/19/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 3.6E-04 2.6E + 00 9.3E-01 IPS00214 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 1.7E-04 1.2E + 00 9.4 E-01 DATAtTrDHXX3rSYSUR VDOtA RACDA PPC.R0

                                                                       - 12                                                     RE      N0

I o O APPRIX C Tabk C-1 Inspector" In Site Measurements, Relaxation Imgth = 1.25 cm (pCi/100an') (Continued) I SAMPLE ID DATE Comment K-40 Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Cs-137 ratio K-40 ratio IPS00215 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.2E-02 3.7E-04 2.6E + 00 7.3E-01 IPS00216 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.2E-02 3.2E-04 2.3E + 00 7.2E-01 i IPS00217 01/19/95 GQ Field 1.lE-02 3.2E-04 2.3E + 00 6.9E-01 IPS00218 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.2E-02 2.7E-04 2.0E + 00 7.3E-01 IPS00219 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.1 E-02 3.2E-04 2.3E + 00 7.2E-01 IPS00221 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 2.5E-04 1.8E + 00 8.6E-01 IPS00222 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 2.8E-04 2.0E +00 8.6E-01 IPS00223 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 3.2E-04 2.3E + 00 9.5E-01 IPS00224 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 3.0E-04 2.lE + 00 9.7E-01 IPS00225 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 2.4E-04 1.7E + 00 9.8E-01 - IPS00226 01/20/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 2.2E-04 1.6E +00 1.2E + 00 IPS00228 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 5.8E-05 4. lE-01 9.8E-01 IPS00229 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.3 E-02 2. l E-04 1.5E +00 8.2E-01 IPS00230 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.3 E-02 2.9E-04 2.0E + 00 8.lE-01 IPS00231 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.2E-02 2.3E-04 1.7E + 00 7.7E-01 IPS00232 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 3.6E-04 2.6E + 00 8.6E-01 IPS00233 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 1.3E-04 9.2E-01 1.lE +00 IPS00234 01/23/95 GQ Fie.id 1.5E-02 2.3E-04 1.6E + 00 9.2E-01 IPS00235 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.3E42 1.7E-04 1.2E+ 00 8.3E-01  ! IPS00236 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.3E-02 1.5E-04 4.0E-05 1.lE+00 7.9E-01  ! IPS00237 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 2. lE-04 1.5E +00 9.4E-01 IPS00238 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 2.5E-04 1.8E + 00 1.0E +00 IPS00239 01/23/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 3.0E-04 2.lE +00 1.0E+ 00 IPS00242 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 1.4E-02 1.lE-04 2.5E-04 1.8E +00 9.0E-01  ! IPS00243 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 1.3E-02 7. lE-05 2.0E-04 1.4E +00 8.0E-01 080MDAWTECHDOCSiTSYSURVDCHARACT\AITC.R0 REVISION 0 C - 13

                                                                                       ' ' '-__- - - - -   .     -1r _  - .        _  -- - , _., , _ _ , , . , , . _    -

APPENDIX C Table C-1 Inspector" In Situ Measurements, Relaxation I.ength = 1.25 on (pCi/100an2) (Continued) SAMPLE ID DATE Comment K-40 Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Cs-137 ratio K-40 ratio IPS00244 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field I.lE-02 2.8E-04 2.0E + 00 6.7E-01 IPS00245 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 7.7E-03 3.7E-05 2.4E-04 1.7E + 00 4.8E-01 IPS00246 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 1.0E-02 2.7E-04 1.9E + 00 6.2E-01 IPS00247 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 7.7E-03 5.lE-05 2.8E-04 2.0E + 00 4.8E-01 IPS00248 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 8.4E O' 2.5E-04 1.8E + 00 5.2E-01 IPS00249 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 1.2E-02 5.0E-05 2.4E-04 1.7E + 00 7.4E-01 IPS00250 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 8.9E-03 8.lE-05 4.4E-04 2.7E-05 3.2E + 00 5.6E-01 IPS00251 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 7.7E-03 2.8E-04 2.0E + 00 4.8E-01 IPS00252 02/21/95 S. Marsh Field 8.6E-03 1.5E-04 1. lE +00 5.4E-01 IPS00253 02/22/95 S. Marsh Field 9.5E-03 4.6E-05 2.5E-04 1.8E + 00 6.0E-01 IPS00254 02/22/95 S. Marsh Field 2.1 E-02 1.2E-04 8.3E-01 1.3E + 00 IPS00255 02/22/95 S. Marsh Field 2. lE-02 1.7E-04 1.2E + 00 1.3E + 00 IPS00256 02/22/95 S. Marsh Field 2.0E-02 8.6E-05 6. !E-01 1.3E + 00 IPS00257 02/22/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 5.9E-05 4.3 E-04 3. lE + 00 1.0E + 00 IPS00258 02/22/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 1.8E-04 8.9E-04 5.2E-05 6.3E +00 1. IE + 00 IPS00259 02/22/95 GQ Field 2.0E-02 1.3E-04 7.4E-04 3.8E-05 5.3E + 00 1.2E + 00 IPS00260 02/22/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 4.7E-05 5.2E-04 2.8E-05 3.7E +00 1.2E +00 IPS00261 02/22/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 8.9E-05 7.8E-04 5.2E-05 5.6E + 00 1.2E + 00 IPS00262 02/22/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 5.5E-05 5.0E-04 3.2E-05 3.5E + 00 1.2E + 00 IPS00263 02/22/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 3.9E-05 4.8E-04 2.6E-05 3.5E + 00 1.2E + 00 IPS00264 02/22/95 GQ Field 2.0E-02 1.8E-05 2.7E-04 1.9E + 00 1.3E + 00 IPS00265 02/22/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 2.5E-04 1.8E +00 1.2E &00 IPS00266 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 6.9E-05 6.0E-04 3.0E-05 4.3E +00 9.8E-01 IPS00267 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 1.0E-04 1.2E-03 8.5E-05 1.7E-04 8.8E +00 9.3 E-01 IPS00268 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 9.lE-05 1.0E-03 5.6E-05

• 7.3E+00 9.0E-OI nAT Amcmxx'nrSVSUR VDC11A RACTTA FTC R0 14 RE N0

o o APPa< IX C Table C-1 Inspector" In Sirm Measurements, Relaxation Length = 1.25 on (pCi/100an') (Continued) SAMPLE ID DATE Comment K-40 Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 En-152 Cs-137 ratio K-40 ratio IPS00269 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.3 E-02 7.7E-05 4.9E-04 3.5E+ 00 7.9E-01 IPS00270 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.3E-02 8.lE-05 6.8E-04 2.9E-05 4.8E+ 00 7.9E-01 IPS00271 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 8.4E-04 4.5E-05 6.0E + 00 8.6E-01 IPS00272 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 4.5E-05 5.8E-04 2.9E-05 2.4E-05 4. lE + 00 8.5E-01 IPS00273 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 6.6E-05 4.lE-04 3.0E +00 8.9E-Ol IPS00274 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 1.0E-04 6.7E-04 3.4E-05 4.8E +00 9.3 E-01 IPS00275 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 5.8E-05 4.7E-04 2.5E-05 3.3E + 00 1. lE + 00 IPS00276 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 1.4E-04 9.9E-01 1.2E + 00 IPS00277 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 4.6E-05 3.2E-04 2.3E +00 1.0E + 00 IPS00278 02/23/95 GQ Field 1.6E 02 4.3E-05 2.8E-04 2.0E-05 2.0E + 00 9.8E-01 IPS00279 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 9.6E-05 1.lE-03 7.7E-05 8. lE +00 1. lE + 00 IPS00280 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 5.3E-05 6.9E-04 5.7E-05 4.9E + 00 1.lE+ 00 IPS00281 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 8.3E-05 9.9E-04 8.0E-05 7. lE + 00 1. lE +00 IPS00282 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 1.3 E-04 1.lE-03 6.4E-05 8.0E + 00 1. lE +00 IPS00283 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 1.0E-04 8.7E-04 5.8E-05 6.2E + 00 1.0E +CC IPS00284 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 8.0E-05 7.6E-04 4.3E-05 5.4E + 00 1.l E +00 IPS00285 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 3.4E-04 2.5E +00 1.0E + 00  : IPS00286 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 5.4E-05 5.6E-04 3.8E-05 4.0E + 00 9.0E-0 *= IPS00287 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 5.7E-05 3.9E-04 2.8E+00 9.7E-01 IPS00288 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 9.0E-05 9.2E-04 4.7E-05 6.6E +00 8.9E-01 IPS00289 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 7.lE-05 4.4E-04 2.4E-05 3. lE +00 9.3E 01 IPS00290 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 5.9E-05 8.8E-04 4.7E-05 6.3E+00 9.0E-01 IPS00291 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 2.9E-05 3.4E-04 2.4E + 00 9.5E-01 IPS00292 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.9E-02 2.2E-05 2.9E-04 2.lE-05 2.l E +00 1.2E + 00 IPS00293 02/27/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 4.9E-05 3.9E-04 2.8E + 00 9.4E-01 onms.orwrtenoocsnvsuavecnanacrurre.m C - 15 REVISION 0

APPENDIX C Table C-1 Inspector" In Situ Measurements, Relaxation Length = 1.25 cm i (pCi/100cm2) l (Continued) SAMPLE ID DATE Comment K-40 Co Cs-137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Cs-137 ratio K-40 ratio IPS00294 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 1.5E-04 7.3E-04 5.8E-05 5.2E + 00 9.7E-01 IPS00295 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 3.lE-05 4.2E-04 3.0E + 00 8.7E-01 IPS00296 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 3.9E-05 2.7E-04 1.5E-04 1.9E +00 8.5E-01 IPS00297 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 3.0E-04 2.2E + 00 9.8E-01 IPS00299 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 4.5E-05 4.lE-04 2.9E + 00 9.2E-01 IPS00300 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 1.6E-04 1.2E + 00 8.9E-01 IPS00301 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 1.6E-04 1. lE + 00 8.6E-01 IPS00302 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 1.8E-04 1.3E + 00 9.5E-01 IPS00303 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 3.5E-04 2.5E + 00 9.3 E-01 IPS00304 02/28/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 2.5E-04 1.8E + 00 8.8E-01 IPS00305 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 1.6E-04 1. lE + 00 8.6E-01 IPS00306 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 1.4 E-04 9.8E-01 8.7E-01 IPS00307 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.7E-02 I.6E-04 1.lE + 00 1. l E + 00 IPS00308 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 1.9E-04 1.3E +00 8.5E-01 IPS00309 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.3E-02 2.5E-04 1.8E + 00 8.2E-01 IPS00310 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 6.0E-05 5.7E-04 2.5E-05 4.lE + 00 9.9E-01 IPS00311 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.6E-02 3. lE-04 2.2E +00 9.7E-OI IPS00312 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.5E-02 2.7E-05 2.3E-04 1.6E +00 9.2E-01 IPS00313 03/02/95 GQ Field 1.8E-02 1.9E-04 1.4E +00 1.lE + 00 IPS00314 03/0'2/95 GQ Field 1.4E-02 1.4E-04 1.0E+ 00 9.0E-01

1. Measurements taken Jan. 5-9, Feb. 28 and March I-2 were done m 2" of snow.

2. All measurements were conducted at I meter height uncollimated.

3. Measurements on 2/21 were on soggy grounds.

4. IPS00257 was covered with approximately %* of water.

DATA \TECHDOCS\rSVsURVDCHARACIMPit.R0 16 RE N0

APPENDIX C Table C-2 Calculated Estimate of Soil Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements O. (Relaxation 12ngth = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) SAMPLE DATE- Co-60 Cs 137  : Cs-134 Eu-152 Total ID ~ (pCl/g) (pCilg) ' (pCi/g) (pCilg) (pCilg) , IPS00013 12/14/94 6.3E-02 0.06 IPS00015 12/14/94 5.4E-02 0.05 IPS00003 12/13/94 3.6E-02 3.7E-01 0.41 I IPS00004 12/13/94 2.9E-02 2.5E 01 0.28 IPS00005 12/13/94 4.0E 02 3.4E-01 1.5E-02 0.39 IPS00006 12/13/94 3.4E-02 3.2E-01 1.7E-02 0.37 IPS00007 12/13/94 4.6E-02 4.3E-01 3.3E-02 0.51 i IPS00008 12/13/94 4.1E-02 3.0E41 1.3E-02 0.35 I IPS00009 12/13/94 7.0E-02 2.4E-01 1.6E-02 0.33 ) IPS00019 12/16/94 1. lE-01 0.11 I IPS00020 12/16/94 9.2E-02 0.09 IPS00021 12/16/94 6.5E-03 0.01 ! IPS00022 12/16/94 8.7E-02 0.09 IPS00023 12/16/94 9.7E-02 2.7E 01 1.6E-02 0.39 IPS00024 12/16/94 6.2E-02 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 0.40 IPS00025 12/16/94 5.1E-02 1.7E-01 8.6E-03 0.23 IPS00026 12/16/94 4.9E-02 1.8E-01 1.0E-02 0.24 IPS00027 12/16/94 3.7E-02 1.0E-01 0.14

IPS00028 12/16/94 2.6E-02 8.9E-02 0.12 IPS00029 12/16/94 3.9E 02 9.4E-02 0.13 j IPS00030 12/16/94 2.0E-02 9.8E-02 0.12 IPS00032 12/19/94 5.4E-02 1. lE-01 0.16 IPS00033 12/19/94 3.6E-02 0.04 IPS00034 12/19/94 5.7E 02 0.06 IPS00035 12/19/94 2.4E-02 7.6E-02 0.10 IPS00036 12/19/94 9.6E-02 0.10 IPS00037 12/19/94 3.8E-02 2.6E-01 1.4E-02 0.31 l

IPS00038 12/19/94 2.4 E-02 3.0E-01 2.2E-02 0.35 l IPS00039 12/19/94 1.3E-02 0.01 ) IPS00040 12/19/94 3.9E-03 0.00 IPS00041 12/19/94 4.7E-02 0.05

                                       ^

IPS00N2 12/19/94 2.9E-02 5.0E-02 0.08 IPS0000 11'/19/94 1.lE-01 1.8E-01 1.5E-02 0.30 IPS00044 12/20/94 5.4E-02 0.05 IPS00045 12/20/94 5.5E-02 0.06 IPS00046 12/20/94 1. lE-01 0.11 IPS00047 12/20/94 6.8E-02 0.07 De0795DAT AtTECHDOC3 ffv50k VDCRML ACTAPPC.ko C - 17 REVISION 0

APPENDIX C 1 Table C-2 Calculated Esthnate of Soil Activity Concentration from Ir Situ Measurements (Relaxation Length = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) g (continued) SAMPLE DATE Co-60 Cs-137 Co-134 Eu-152 Total ID . . (pCilg) ' (pC1/g) (pCilg) (pC1/g) (pC1/g) , IPS00048 12/20/94 1.2E-02 1.7E-01 0.18 {' IPS00049 12/20/94 1.3E-02 1.1E-01 0.12 IPS00050 12/21/94 1.0E-01 0.10 IPS00051 12/21/94 7.7E 02 0.08 IPS00052 12/21/94 1.0E-01 0.10 l IPS00053 12/21/94 9.2E-03 1.3E 01 0.14 IPS00054 12/21/94 8.8E-02 0.09 IPS0005% 12/21/94 1.1E-02 1.0E-01 0.12 IPS00056 12/21/94 5.7E-02 0.06 IPS00057 12/21/94 9.0E-02 0.09 IPSf0058 12/21/94 1.6E42 8.9E-02 0.10 IPS00059 12/21/94 1.1E-01 0.11 IPS00060 12/21/94 6.8E-02 0.07 IPS00061 12/21/94 7.5E 02 0.08 IPS00062 12/22/94 1.0E-01 0.10 IPS00063 12/22/94 8.2E 02 5.6E-03 0.09 IPS00064 12/22/94 6.4 E-02 0.06

                                                                                                     )

IPS00065 12/22/94 5.3E-02 0.05

                                                                                                     )

IPS00066 12/22/94 7.3E 02 0.07 IPS00067 12/22/94 7.6E-02 0.08 IPS00068 12/22/94 4.9E-02 0.05 IPS00069 12/22/94 9.2E-02 1.7E-01 9.4E-03 0.27 IPS00070 12/22/94 6.0E-02 4.3E-02 0.10 IPS00071 12/22/94 3.3E-02 0.03 l IPS00072 12/22/94 3.8E-02 8.7E-02 0.13 IPS00074 01/05/95 3.1E-02 2.6E-02 0.06 IPS00076 01/05/95 2.5E-02 0.03 - IPS00077 01/05/95 3.6E-02 4.5E-02 0.08 IPS00078 01/05/95 2.1E-02 0.02 l IPS00079 '01/06/95 1.7E-02 3.1E-02 0.05 IPS00080 01/06/95 3.4E-02 4.7E-02 0.08 IPS00081 01/06/95 3.1E-02 0.03 IPS00082 01/06/95 3.6E-02 0.04 l IPS00083 01/06/95 1.8E-02 5.6E 02 0.07 IPS00084 01/06/95 6.4E-02 6.2E-02 0.13 oesnumtemnesnvsuavramcTec.no REVISION 0 C - 18

l l l APPENDIX C Table C-2 Calculated Esthnate of Soil Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements (Relaxation length = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) (continued) SAMPLE DATE- Co-60 Cs-137 > Cs-134 ' Eu-152 Total

                      ~ID.                  . (pCi/g)   - (pCilg)   ' (pCilg)  : (pCilg)'  -(pCi/g)

IPS00085 01/06/95 5.5E-02 6.5E-02 0.12 IPS00086 01/06/95 2.1E-02 3.4E42 0.05 IPS00087 01/06/95 5.8E-03 0.01 l IPS00088 01/06/95 5.3E-02 0.05 l IPS00089 01/07/95 8.3E-02 9.6E 03 0.09 IPS00090 01/07/95 5.8E-02 0.06 l IPS00091 01/07/95 5.7E-02 0.06 l IPS00092 01/07/95 6.2E 02 0.06 IPS00093 01/07/95 6.3E42 0.06 IPS00094 01/07/95 2.9E-02 1.3E-01 0.16 IPS00095 01/07/95 1.5E-02 6.9E-02 0.08 IPS00096 01/07/95 1.5E-02 6.8E-02 0.OR

                                                                                                   ~

IPS00097 01/07/95 6.1E-02 1.lE-02 8.5E-03 0.08 IPS00098 01/07/95 3.3E 02 0.03 IPS00099 01/07/95 3.0E 02 1.2E-01 7.1E-03 0.16 IPS00100 01/07/95 1.4E-02 9.1E-02 -2.5E-02 0.08 IPS00101 01/09/95 3.9E-02 1.9E-01 0.22 IPS00102 01/09/95 3.9E-02 1.9E-01 1.5E-02 1.2E42 0.26 IPS00103 01/09/95 9.8E-02 0.10 IPS00104 01/09/95 2.4E-02 2.2E-01 1.0E-02 0.26 IPS00105 01/09/95 1.8E-02 1.5E-01 0.16 IPS00106 01/09/95 6.6E-02 0.07 IPS00107 01/09/95 5.1E-02 0.05 IPS00108 01/09/95 3.8E42 2.9E-01 1.7E-02 0.35 IPS00109 01/09/95 3.5E-02 2.2E-01 1.9E-02 -1.3E-02 0.26 IPS00110 01/09/95 3.3E-02 2.6E-01 1.5E-02 0.31 IPS00111 01/09/95 2.2E-02 1.2E-01 0.15 IPS00ll2 01/09/95 9.3E-02 0.09 IPS00113 01/09/95 6.4E-03 8.1E 02 0.09 IPS00ll4 01/11/95 4.8E 02 0.05 IPS00ll5 01/11/95 3.7E-02 3.5E-01 2.4E-02 2.8E-02 0.44 IPS00ll6 01/11/95 6.9E-02 0.07 IPS00117 01/11/95 7.8E-02 0.08 IPS00118 01/11/95 1.2E-01 0.12 IPS00119 01/11/95 7.2E-02 l 0.07 WMSDAT AiTECHDOC$ Erv$tMOCHARACT\APPC.R0 C - 19 REVISION 0

APPENDIX C Table C-2 Calculated Estimate of Soil Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements (Relaxation Length = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) g (continued) SAMPLE 'DATE Co-60 Cs-137 - Cs-134 Eu-152 Total ID (pCilg) (pCi/g) (pCilg) (pCi/g) ' (pC1/g) IPS00120 01/11/95 8.4E-02 0.08 IPS00121 01/11/95 5.1E-02 0.05 IPS00122 01/11/95 4.7E-02 0.05 IPS00123 01/11/95 2.5E-02 0.03 IPS00124 01/11/95 4.7E-02 0.05 IPS00125 01/11/95 4.5E-02 0.05 IPS00126 01/11/95 4.0E 02 0.04 IPS00127 01/11/95 5.2E42 0.05 IPS00128 01/11/95 4.4E-02 0.04 IPS00129 01/11/95 9.0E 02 0.09 IPS00130 01/12/95 5.3E-02 0.05 IPS00131 01/12/95 6.8E-02 0.07 IPS00132 01/12/95 9.6E-02 0.10 IPS00133 01/12/95 5.5E42 0.05 IPS00134 01/12/95 7.2E-03 1.7E-01 0.17 IPS00135 01/12/95 9.4E-02 0.09 IPS00136 01/12/95 6.2E-02 0.06 IPS00137 01/12/95 1.4E-02 S.4E-02 4.6E-03 0.10 IPS00138 01/12/95 6.2E-02 0.06 IPS00139 01/12/95 3.2E-02 0.03 IPS00140 01/12/95 3.lE 02 0.03 IPS00141 01/12/95 5.0E-02 0.05 IPS00142 01/13/95 9.4E-02 0.09 IPS00143 01/13/95 5.9E-02 0.06 IPS00144 01/13/95 5.2E-02 0.05 IPS00145 01/13/95 6.0E-02 0.06 IPS00146 01/13/95 5.7E-02 0.06 IPS00147 01/13/95 5.0E-02 0.05 IPS00148 01/13/95 4.9E-02 0.05 IPS00149 01/13/95 3.7E-02 0.04 IPS00150 01/13/95 5.4E-02 0.05 IPS00151 01/13/95 4.9E-02 0.05 IPS00152 01/13/95 ~

2E-02 0.04 IPS00153 01/13/95 1.4E-01 7.7E-02 -7.0E-03 0.21 IPS00154 01/13/95 5.BE-02 1.7E-02 0.07 wm ommem;csnvsavremuenmcio C - 20 REVISION 0

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

APPENDIX C Table C-2 Calculated Esthnate of Soil Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements

(Relaxation Length = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm)

(continued) SAMPLE DATE Co-60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Total

                                .ID                      (pCilg)         (pC1/g)  ' (pCilg) '  (pC1/g)    (pCilg)

IPS00155 01/14/95 3.1E-02 1.6E-01 0.19 IPS00156 01/14/95 1.3E-02 1.2E-01 0.13 f IPS00157 01/14/95 1.0E-01 0.10 IPS00158 01/14/95 2.5E-02 1.5E-01 0.17 IPS00159 01/14/95 1.2E-02 1.0E-01 0.11 IPS00160 01/14/95 8.9E-02 0.09 4 IPS00161 01/14/95 6.1E-02 0.06 IPS00162 01/14/95 6.1E-02 0.06 IPS00163 01/14/95 1.3E-02 8.8E-02 0.10 IPS00164 01/14/95 8.6E-02 0.09 IPS00165 01/14/95 9.7E-02 0.10

                                                                                    ~

IPS00166 01/14/95 1.7E 02 6.5E-02 0.08 , IPS00167 01/14/95 5.5E-02 0.06 I IPS00168 01/14/95 5.8E-02 0.06 IPS00169 01/14/95 5.7E-02 0.06 s s IPS00170 01/16/95 3.7E-02 0.04 IPS00171 01/16/95 4.5E-02 0.04 IPS00172 01/16/95 7.9E-02 0.08 IPS00173 01/16/95 7.5E-02 0.07

IPS00174 01/16/95 4.1E-02 0.04 IPS00175 01/16/95 5.2E-02 0.05 IPS00176 01/16/95 1.3E 01 2.9E-02 0.16 IPS00177 01/16/95 3.8E-02 2.2E-02 0.06 IPS00178 01/16/95 0.00 IPS00179 01/17/95 2.8E 02 0.03 IPS00180 01/17/95 4.3E-02 0.04

IPS00181 01/17/95 4.3E 02 1.2E-01 8.4E-03 0.17

! IPS00182 01/17/95 1.0E-01 0.10 IPS00183 01/17/95 6.1E-02 2.1E-01 9.6E43 0.28 IPS00184 01/17/95 4.2E-02 1.4E-01 0.18 IPS00185 01/17/95 8.4E-02 0.08

IPS00186 01/17/95 3.3E-02 1.5E-01 1.9E-02 0.20 IPS00187 01/17/95 2.8E-02 1.8E-01 0.21 IPS00188 01/17/95 2.5E-02 1.6E-01 0.18 IPS00189 01/17/95 9.8E-02 0.10 m o4TatTrennocs#sysue vreHAR.ACTMPPC.R0 C - 21 EVISION 0

APPENDIX C Table C-2 Calculated Estimate of Soll Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements (Relaxation I2ngth = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) (continued) SAMPLE DATE Co-60 Cs 137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Total - ID ' (pCilg) (pCilg) ._(pCilg) (pCilg) '(pCilg) IPS00190 01/17/95 7.0E-02 0.07 IPS00191 01/17/95 8.9E-02 0.09 IPS00192 01/18/95 5.2E-02 0.05 IPS00193 01/18/95 3.8E-02 0.04 IPS00194 01/18/95 5.2E-02 0.05 IPS00195 01/18/95 5.0E-02 0.05 IPS001% 01/18/95 2.0E-02 4.9E-02 0.07 IPS00197 01/18/95 1.2E-02 4.6E-02 0.06 IPS00198 01/18/95 2.0E-02 5.2E 02 0.07 IPS00199 01/18/95 1.7E-02 0.02 IPS00200 01/18/95 1.3E-02 0.01 IPS00201 01/18/95 2.2E-02 0.02 IPS00202 01/18/95 8.5E-03 0.01 IPS00203 01/19/95 6.2E 02 3.6E-01 2.3E 02 0.45 IPS00204 01/19/95 5.3E-02 0.05 IPS00205 01/19/95 2.2E-02 1.0E-01 0.13 IPS00206 01/19/95 1.8E-02 1.4E-01 0.15 IPS00207 01/19/95 3.9E-02 2.6E-01 1.5E-02 0.31 IPS00208 01/19/95 1.7E-02 1.6E-01 0.17 IPS00209 01/19/95 1.lE 01 0.11 IPS00210 01/19/95 2.4E-02 1.9E-01 0.22 IPS00211 01/19/95 1.3E-01 0.13 IPS00212 01/19/95 1.2E-01 6.6E-03 0.12 IPS00213 01/19/95 1.5E 01 0.15 IPS00214 01/19/95 7.3E 02 0.07 IPS00215 01/19/95 1.5E-01 0.15 IPS00216 01/19/95 1.3E-01 0.13 IPS00217 01/19/95 1.3E 01 0.13 IPS00218 01/20/95 1. I E-01 0.I1 IPS00219 01/20/95 1.4E-01 0.14 IPS00221 01/20/95 1.0E-01 0.10 IPS00222 01/20/95 1.2E-01 0.12 IPS00223 01/20/95 1.3 E-01 0.13 IPS00224 01/20/95 1.2E-01 0.12 1PS00225 01/20/95 1.0E-01 0.10

• • • ^t^====="^^^=**

C - 22 , REVISION 0

[ APPENDIX C 1 i. Table C-2 Calculated Estimate of Soll Activity Concentration from In Sits Measurements (Relaxation Length = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) l (continued)- 1 1 i SAMPLE DATE: Co-60 Co-137 - Cs-134 : En-152

• Total:

ID : (pCilg)~ ~(pCilg) L (pCilg)4 f(pCilg) (pCilg)-

IPS00226 01/20/95 9.4E-02 0.09 l- ) IPS00228 01/23/95 2.4E 02 0.02  ! IPS00229 01/23/95 8.5E 02 0.09 ? t l IPS00230 01/23/95 1.2E-01 0.12 IPS00231 01/23/95 9.7E-02 0.10 { i IPS00232 01/23/95 1.5E 01 0.15 f IPS00233 01/23/95 5.4E-02 0.05 i IPS00234 01/23/95 9.5E-02 0.10 ! IPS00235 01/23/95 7.0E 02 0.07 l IPS00236 01/23/95 6.2E-02 1.7E-02 0.08 I IPS00237 01/23/95 8.7E-02 0.09 1 IPS00238 01/23/95 1.0E-01 0.10 t

IPS00239 01/23/95 1.2E 01 0.12 l IPS00242 02/21/95 4.5E-02 1.0E-01 0.15 k

IPS00243 02/21/95 3.0E-02 8.4E-02 0.11 IPS00244 02/21/95 1.2E-01 0.12 i IPS00245 02/21/95 1.6E-02 1.0E 01 0.12 ! IPS00246 02/21/95 1.1E 01 0.11 IPS00247 02/21/95 2.1E-02 1.2E 01 0.14 ) IPS00248 02/21/95 1.0E-01 0.10 l IPS00249 02/21/95 2.1E-02 9.8E-02 0.12 ) IPS00250 02/21/95 3.4E 02 1.8E-01 1.1E-02 0.23 l IPS00251 02/21/95 1.2E-01 0.12 l IPS00252 02/21/95 6.4E-02 0.06 l IPS00253 02/22/95 1.9E-02 1.1E-01 0.12 I l IPS00254 02/22/95 4.8E42 0.05 IPS00255 02/22/95 7.1E-02 0.07 l IPS00256 02/22/95 3.6E-02 0.04 IPS00257 02/22/95 2.5E-02 1.8E-01 0.20 l l IPS00258 02/22/95 7.6E-02 3.7E 01 2.2E-02 0.47 IPS00259 02/22/95 5.6E-02 3.1E-01 1.6E-02 0.38 f } IPS00260 02/22/95 3.6E-02 2.2E-01 1.2E-02 0.26 } IPS00261 02/22/95 3.7E 02 3.3E-01 2.2E-02 0.38 IPS00262 02/22/95 2.3E-02 2.1E-01 1.3 E-02 0.24 l IPS00263 02/22/95 1.6E-02 2.0E-01 1.1E-02 0.23 l 7 i o own4 Taur.cnnocssivsvavnen4macnarec.no C-U EWSION 0 s . l

APPENDIX C Table C-2 Calculated Estimate of Soil Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements (Relaxation I.ength = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) (continued) SAMPf,E DATE- Co 60 Cs-137 Cs-134 Eu-152 Total ID (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCilg) (pCi/g) '(pCl/g) IPS00264 02/22/95 7.3E-03 1.1E-01 0.12 IPS00265 02/22/95 1.0E 01 0.10 IPS00266 02/23/95 2.9E-02 2.5E-01 1.3E-02 0.29 IPS00267 02/23/95 4.3E-02 5. lE-01 3.6E-02 6.9E-02 0.66 IPS00268 02/23/95 3.8E-02 4.2E-01 2.3E-02 0.49 IPS00269 02/23/95 3.2E-02 2.1E-01 0.24 IPS00270 02/23/95 3.4E-02 2.8E-01 1.2E 02 0.33 IPS00271 02/23/95 3.5E-01 1.9E-02 0.37 IPS00272 02/23/95 1.9E-02 2.4E-01 1.2E-02 1.0E-02 0.28 IPS00273 02/23/95 2.8E-02 1.7E-01 0.20 IPS00274 02/23/95 4.3E-02 2.8E-01 1.4E-02 0.34 IPS00275 02/23/95 2.4E-02 2.0E-01 1.0E-02 0.23 IPS00276 02/23/95 5.8E-02 0.06 IPS00277 02/23/95 1.9E 02 1.3E-01 0.15 IPS00278 02/23/95 1.8E 02 1.2E-01 8.4E 03 0.14 IPS00279 02/27/95 4.0E-02 4.7E-01 3.2E-02 0.54 IPS00280 02/27/95 2.2E-02 2.9E-01 2.4E-02 0.33 IPS00281 02/27/95 3.5E-02 4. !E-01 3.3E-02 0.48 IPS00282 02/27/95 5.5E-02 4.7E-01 2.7E-02 0.55 IPS00283 02/27/95 4.2E-02 3.6E-01 2.4E-02 0.43 IPS00234 02/27/95 3.3E-02 3.2E-01 1.8E-02 0.37 IPS00285 02/27/95 1.4E-01 0.14 IPS00286 02/27/95 2.3E-02 2.3E-01 1.6E-02 0.27 IPS00287 02/27/95 2.4E-02 1.6E-01 0.18 IPS00288 02/27/95 3.7E-02 3.8E-01 1.9E-02 0.44 IPS00289 02/27/95 3.0E-02 1.8E-01 1.0E-02 0.22 IPS00290 02/27/95 2.4E-02 3.7E-01 2.0E-02 0.41 IPS00291 02/27/95 1.2E-02 1.4E-01 0.15 IPS00292 02/27/95 9.1E-03 1.2E-01 8.7E-03 0.14 IPS00293 02/27/95 2.0E 02 1.6E-01 0.18 IPS00294 02/28/95 6.1 E-02 3.0E-01 2.4E-02 0.39 IPS00295 02/28/95 1.3E-02 1.8E 01 0.19 IPS00296 02/28/95 1.6E-02 1.1E-01 6.3E-02 0.19 IPS00297 02/28/95 1.3E-01 0.13 IPS00299 02/28/95 1.9E-02 1.7E-01 0.19 OCMDAMTFUEOCIWV$l% VEGWCDMC" REVISION 0 C-24

i APPENDIX C Table C-2 Calculated Estimate of Soil Activity Concentration from In Situ Measurements [ (Relaxation length = 1.25 cm, assumed sample depth = 15 cm) (continued) SAMPLE DATE Co-60 Cs-137. . Co-134' Eu 152 Total ID ' (pCi/g) - ~ (pCi/g) - (pCi/g) ' (pCi/g)' .'(pCilg)' IPS00300 02/28/95 6.7E-02 0.07 IPS00301 02/28/95 6.5E-02 0.07 IPS00302 02/28/95 7.4E-02 0.07 IPS03303 02/28/95 1.4E 01 0.14 IPSCO304 02/28/95 1.0E 01 0.10 IP300305 03/02/95 6.6E-02 0.07 TPS00306 03/02/95 5.7E-02 0.06 6.6E 02 0.07

                                              ).PS0030703/02/95 IPS00308  03/02/95                     7.8E-02                                                  0.08 IPS00309  03/02/95                      1.0E-01                                                 0.10 IPS00310  03/02/95   2.5E-02           2.4E-01                 1.0E-02                          0.27 IPS00311  03/02/95                      1.3E-01                                                 0.13 IPS00312  03/02/95    1.1E-02           9.6E-02                                                 0.11 IPS00313  03/02/95                      8.1E-02                                                 0.08 IPS00314  03/02/95                      5.9E-02                                                 0.06 O

O o monaminoensysenvenam4crec.no C - 25 REVISION 0

APPENDIX C Table C-3 Inspector Calculated Soll Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soil Sample Analysis SAMPLE ID . Cs-134 Cs-137 Co40 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu 155 (pCilg) (pCilg) (pCilg) (pCi/g) (pCilg) (pCi/g) IPS00007 3.28E-02 4.33E-01 4.60E-02 DTCH.2.002.0-6 3.13E-01 4.88E + 00 6.16E 01 2.71E-01 1.20E-01

                % Difference       -89.52    -91.12       -92.53 IPS00009        1.58E-02  2.44E-01     7.0$E-02 DTCH.2_003.0-6       3.60E-02  9.28E-01     2.08E-01
                % Difference       -56.04    -73.66       -66.11 IPS00024                  1.85E-01     6.21E 02 1.56E-01 DTCH.2.004.04        5.30E-02 1.30E +00     4.19E-01
                % Difference                 -85.72       -85.17 IPS00041                  4.67E-02 DTCH.6.001.0-6                 5.50E 02
                % Difference                 -15.18 DTCH.6.002.04                  2.20E-02
                % Difference                 112.05 IPS00042                  4.97E-02     2.88E-02 DTCH.5.003.04                  4.38E-01     2.85E-01
                % Difference                 -88.66       -89.88 IPS00043        1.51E-02  1.78E-01     1.11E-01 DTCH.5.004.04        1.32E 01 2.14E + 00    5.95E-01
                % Difference       -88.53    -91.70       -81.32 l

IPS00070 4.28E-02 5.99E-02 OF. SED.001 2.28E-01 3.85E-01

                % Difference                 -81.25       -84.43 IPS00071                  3.34E-02 OF. SED.002                 1.74E-01                                                    :
                % Difference                 -80.85 IPS00074                  2.61E-02     3.07E-02                                       l OF. SED.003                 1.21E-01     1.03E-01
                % Difference                 -78.44       -70.08 IPS00076                  2.51E-02 OF. SED.004                 1.91E-01     3.79E-01
                % Difference                 -86.82 IPS00077                  4.47E-02     3.56E-02 OF. SED.005                 4.28E-02
                % Difference                   4.41 IPS00078                  2.09E-02 onmo4mncunocs isvsen vrCH AR ACrMC.R0                                                       REVISION 0 C - 26

4 APPENDIX C l l Table C-3 l Inspector Calculated Soil Activity (pCi/g) Connparison with Soil Sample Analysis { (continued) i ! . SAMPLE ID Cs-134 L Cs-137 . Co40 Eu-152 - Eu-154 Eu-155 (pCl/g) - (pCi/g)  ?(pCi/g) .! - f(pCi/g) I(pCilg) i(pC1/g) , l OF. SED.006 3.20E-01 2.01E-01 i

                                                      % Difference                                         -93.47 I                                                         IPS00079                                         3.12E 02     1.68E-02 i                                                      OF. SED.007                                        3.82E-01     2.30E-01 f                                                      % Difference                                         -91.83       -92.70 IPS00080                                        4.67E-02     3.37E-02 f                                                                                                                                                                             ;

OF. SED.008 1.53E-01 f  % Difference -69.44 l OF. SOIL.SUR.001 1.74E-01

                                                      % Difference                                         -73.18 i                                                         IPS00085                                        6.46E-02     5.53E-02 l                                                  DTCH.4.002.04                                           1.63E-01
                                                      % Difference                                         4 0.39 l

l IPS00086 3.35E-02 2.06E-02 I DTCH.4.003.04

                                                      % Difference l

j IPS00090 5.77E-02 DTCH.5.012.04 6.14E-01

                                                      % Difference                                         -90.60 IPS00091                                         5.66E-02 DTCH.5.013.04                                           2.59E-01                                                           *
                                                      % Difference                                          -78.16                                                           t IPS00094                                         1.27E-01    2.91E-02 DTCH.5.005.04                         2.36E-01         4.25E + 00   1.44E + 00
                                                      % Difference                                          -97.02      -97.98 IPS00095                                         6.88E-02     1.50E-02 DTCH.5.006.04                                           1.89E-01    3.10E-02
                                                      % Difference                                          -63.61      -51.71 IPS00096                                        6.79E 02     1.54E-02 DTCH.S.007.04                                           3.20E-02
                                                       % Difference                                         112.10 IPS00097                       8.47E-03         1.14E-02     6.10E-02 DTCH.5.009                         4.00E-02         9.68E-01     1.35E-01
                                                       % Difference                        -78.82           -98.82      -54.83 IPS00101                                        1.86E-01     3.86E-02 O

w%DAT A'.TECHDOC3f5V8URVECLARACTWPPC.R0 REVISION 0 C-27 ,

APPENDIX C Table C-3 Inspector Calculated Soll Activity (pC1/g) Comparison with Soll Sample Analysis l (continued) SAMPLE ID Cs-134= Cs-137 Co40 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155

                              ' (PCilg)   (pCilg)         (pCilg)  - (pCilg) - (pCl/g)   (pCilg)

DTCH.5.0ll.04 2.90E-02 8.87E-01 2.46E-01

             % Difference                 -79.02          -84.29 IPS00109      1.87E-02   2.22E-01       3.49E-02  -1.27E-02 DTCH.5.014.04      7.40E-02  1.60E + 00      1.77E-01
             % Difference       -74.71    -86.19          -80.26 IPS00113                  8.09E-02       6.36E-03 DTCH.5.015.0-6               9.92E-01
             % Difference                 -91.84                                                          I l

IPS00ll5 2.36E-02 3.49E-01 3.75E-02 2.80E-02 PAST. SOIL.022.0-6 3.02E 02 8.81E-01 6.71E-01

             % Difference       -22.11    4 0.40         -94.42 IPS00134                  1.66E-01       7.16E 03 DTCH.5.008.04                3.67E41                                                           )
             % Difference                 -54.87 PAST. SOIL.021.04             7.16E-01
             % Difference                 -76.88                                                          !

IPS00141 5.04E-02 DTCH.5.010.04 1.28E-01

             % Difference                 4 0.60 IPS00142                 9.38E-02 PAST. SOIL.023.04 6.67E-02    1.41E + 00      1.53E-01
             % Difference                 -93.35 IPS00152                 4.22E-02                                                          l DTCH.6.003.04                3.41E-01
             % Difference                 -87.61 IPS00153                 7.66E 02        1.36E-01  -7.00E-03 OF. SED.009                2.09E-01        7.92E-02
             % Difference                 -63.41          71.30 l

IPS00154 1.70E-02 5.75E-02 OF. SED.010

             % Differcoce IPS00155                   1.58E-01       3.08E-02 PAST. SOIL.014.04             4.95E-01        4.48E-02
             % Difference                 4 8.13         -31.20 IPS00156                   1.20E-01       1.27E-02 ommn4mrrnmoesuvsvavmunacree.no C - 28                                        REVISION 0

1 l APPENDIX C l Table C-3 j Inspector Calculated Soll Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soil Sample Analysis l (continued) t

' SAMPLE ID Co-134 - Cs-137 - Co40 . Eu-152 ' Eu-154 Eu-155 l ' (pC1/g): ' (pCilg) (pCi/g) L (pCi/g) (pCi/g) 'gi/g)

I PAST.SOILO15.04 1.99E 01 l  % Difference -39.54 I IPS00158 1.47E 01 2.50E-02 j PAST. SOIL 016.04 3.86E 01

                                                        % Dibrance                                           4 2.01 IPS00159                                         1.03E-01      1.21E-02 i                                                 PAST. SOIL 017.04                                         3.27E-01     3.20E-02 4
                                                        % Diffenece                                          4 8.59       4 2.21

! IPS00163 8.76E-02 1.31E-02 { PAST. SOIL 018.04 2.26E-01 i  % Difference 4 1.30 1

IPS00165 9.70E 02 PAST. SOIL 019.04 3.31E-01 l

                                                        % Difference                                         -70.68 IPS00166                                        6.50E-02      1.75E-02 PAST. SOIL.020.b4                                         3.32E-01 O                                                % Difference IPS00176
                                                                                                             -80.42 2.93E-02      1.30E-01 OF.SOILSUR.002                                           8.37E-02
                                                        % Difference                                         4 5.06 OF. SED.011                                                      1.08E 01
                                                        % Difference                                                       20.14 IPS00177                                        2.15E-02      3.85E-02 OF. SED.012
                                                        % Difference IPS00178 OF. SED.013
                                                        % Difference IPS00183                   9.63E-03             2.08E-01      6.07E-02 PAST. SOIL 001.04 1.19E-01                              3.20E +00      9.60E-01
                                                        % Difference                    -91.88               -93.51       -93.68 IPS00184                                         1.42E-01     4.15E-02 PAST. SOIL.002.04                                        1.68E + 00    2.33E-01
                                                        % Difference                                         -91.52       -82.14                                             l IPS00187                                         1.78E-01     2.84E42 O
                              ** D^' ^**c8"*"^^^*"C"                                                                 C - 29                                       REVISION 0 j

i

APPENDIX C Table C-3 hiSpector Calculated Soil Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soll Semple Analysis (continued) SAMPLE ID Cs-134 Cs-137 Co40 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 (pCilg) (pCi/g) (pCilg) (pCl/g) (pCilg) (pCilg) PAST.SOILOO3.04 1.10E + 00 1.20E-01

           % Difference               -83.84       -76.43 IPS00188                 1.57E-01    2.51E-02 PAST. SOIL.004.04           8.32E 01
           % Difference               -81.15 IPS00194                5.16E 02 PAST. SOIL 005.04           2.28E-01
           % Difference               -77.35 IPS00196                4.88E-02     2.04E-02 PAST. SOIL.006.04           6.99E-01     2.14E 01
           % Difference               -93.02       -90.47 IPS00198                5.22E 02     2.00E-02 PAST. SOIL.007.04           2.37E-01
           % Difference               -77.99 IPS00203       2.26E 02 3.61E-01     6.15E-02 PAST. SOIL.008.04 4.60E-02  1.38E + 00    1.31E-01
           % Difference     -50.82    -73.93       -52.85 IPS00207       1.54E-02  2.58E-01     3.93E 02 PAST. SOIL.009.0-6 2.16E-02 1.60E + 00    1.19E-01
           % Difference     -28.59    -8.1.84      -67.08 r-IPS00210                 1.94E-01     2.40E-02 PAST. SOIL.010.0-6 2.77E-02 1.29E + 00    1.30E-01
           % Difference               -84.98       -81.50 IPS00213                 1.51E-01 PAST. SOIL.011.04            4.68E-01
           % Difference               -67.76 IPS00219                 1.35E-01 PAST. SOIL.012.0-6           6.09E-01                                                      l
           % Difference               -77.80 IPS00223                 1.32E-01 PAST. SOIL.013.0-6           3.62E-01
           % Difference                -63.54 IPS00242                 1.03E-01     4.55E-02 I

PAST. SOIL.024.0-6 8.00E-02

           % Difference                 28.23 i

• • • ^T^""""""^""C" C - 30 REVISION 0

l l l 4 APPENDIX C l i 4 Table C-3 Inspector Calculated Soil Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soil Sample Analysis (continued) i f SAMPLE ID r . Co-134 Cs 137 Co-60 , Eu-152 - l Eu-154 ~ .Eu 155 i f(pCilg) -(pCi/g) '(pCilg)" : (pCi/g) . (pCilg) - (pCi/g) 1

IPS00243 8.36E 02 2.98E-02 l PAST. SOIL.025.04 2.38E-01 4

                                             % Difference                            -64.92

}

IPS00244 1.17E 01 l PAST. SOIL.026.04 3.55E-01

}  % Difference 4 7.15 I IPS00245 1.01E-01 1.55E-02 PAST.SOILO27.04 5.16E41

                                             % Difference                            -80.49 IPS00246                             1.11E-01 PAST.SOILO28.04                           3.25E-01
                                             % Difference                            4 5.88 IPS00247                             1.16E-01    2.13E-02 PAST SOILO29.04                           6.35E-01
                                             % Diffwence                             -81.70 O                                    IPS00248 PAST.SOILO30.04 1.05E-01 5.31E-01
                                             % Difference                            -80.31 IPS00249                             9.82E-02     2.07E 02 PAST. SOIL.031.04                         4.11E-01
                                             % Difference                            -76.08 IPS00250                  1.14E-02   1.85E-01     3.39E 02 PAST. SOIL.032.04                         4.45E 01
                                             % Difference                            -58.51 IPS00251                             1.18E-01 PAST. SOIL.033.04                         5.35E-01
                                             % Difference                            -77.97 IPS00252                             6.42E.02 PAST. SOIL.034.04                         4.34E-01
                                             % Difference                             -85.21 IPS00253                             1.06E-01     1.91E-02 PAST.SOILO35.04                           7.18E-01
                                             % Difference                             -85.30 IPS00254                             4.83E-02 O                              PAST. SOIL.036.0-6 o<mo4t ancunocurvsue vocuraAcrec.no                                                                            REVISION 0 C - 31                                '

i l t t l l

i APPENDIX C l l Table C-3 l Inspector Calculated Soil Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soil Sample Analysis l (continued) SAMPLE ID Cs-134 Cs-137 Co40 Eu 152 T,u-154 Eu-155 (PCilg) (pCilg) (pCilg) (pCilg) (pCl/g) (pCilg)

                % Difference IPS00255               7.07E-02
                                                                        ~

PAST. SOIL.037.04 2.71E 01

               % Difference                -73.88 IPS00256                3.58E-02 PAST.SOILO38.04
               % Difference IPS00257                 1.79E-01     2.48E-02 DTCH.3.002.04     7.00E-02 1.84E + 00    3.41E-01
               % Difference                -90.29       -92.73 IPS00258       2.18E-02 3.70E-01      7.57E-02 DTCH.3.003.04      5.10E42  7.01E-01      1.85E 01
               % Difference      -57.22    -47.17        59.08 IPS00259       1.60E-02 3.07E-01      5.56E-02 DTCH.3.004.04      7.00E-02 1.23E + 00    1.95E-01
               % Difference      -77.18    -74.98       -71.50 1PS00260       1.17E-02 2.17E-01      3.63E-02 DTCH.3.005.04               3.29E-01      7.90E-02
               % Difference                -34.13       -54.11 IPS00261       2.17E-02 3.25E 01      3.69E-02 DTCH.3.006.0-6              3.11E.01
               % Difference                 4.55 IPS00262       1.34E-02 2.07E-01      2.28E-02 DTCH.3.007.04               2.57E-01      2.40E-02
               % Difference                -19.51        -5.11 IPS00263       1.07E-02 2.02E-01      1.64E-02 DTCH.3.008.04               6.65E-01
               % Difference                -69.64 IPS00264                 1.11E-01     7.29E-03 DTCH.3.009.04               4.63E-01      5.10E-02
               % Difference                -76.04       -85.70 IPS00265                 1.03E-01 DTCH.3.010.0-6              4.28E 01
               % Difference                -76.03 IPS00266       1.27E-02 2.50E-01      2.88E-02 l

l wmonwrwmocsisvsenvrcnarcrucc." REVISION 0 C - 32 ,

APPENDIX C Table C-3 4 O Inspector Calculated Soll Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soil Sample Analysis (continued) SAMPLE ID - . Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 . Eu-155 (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)' (pCilg) ' (pCilg) PAST. SOIL.039.04 2.61E-01

                             % Difference                       -4.24 IPS00267          3.56E-02     5.11E-01        4.30E-02        6.95E-02 PAST. SOIL.040.04                   3.42E-01
                             % Difference                       49.71 IPS00268          2.33E-02     4.24E-01        3.78E-02 PAST. SOIL.041.04                   6.66E-01        4.00E 02
                             % Difference                      -36.31              5.49 IPS00269                       2.06E-01        3.22E-02 PAST. SOIL.042.04                   4.54L-01
                             % Difference                      -54.66 IPS00270          1.22EE2      2.82E-01        3.39E-02                                                           l PAST. SOIL.043.04                   3.10E41
                             % Difference                       -9.14 IPS00271           1.87E 42     3.49E-01 PAST. SOIL.044.04                   5.62E 01 O                      .
                             % Difference                      -37.93 IPS00272           1.22E-02     2.42r - -        i 87E-02       1.00E-02 PAST.SOILO69.04                     2.31E41
                             % Difference                       4.,6 IPS00273                        1.72E-01        2.77E-02                                                           l PAST. SOIL.045.04                   3.48E-01
                             % Difference                      -50.49 IPS00274           1.42E-02     2.81E-01        4.32E-02
                                                  ~

PAST. SOIL.046.0-6 3.99E-01

                             % Difference                      -29.59 IPS00275           1.04E-02     1.95E-01        2.40E-02 PAST. SOIL.047.04                   3.06E-01
                             % Difference                      -36.30 E

IPS00276 5.79E-02 E ST. SOIL.048.0-6 1.76E-01 0 Difference -67.17 IP500277 1.33E-01 1.90E-02 PAST. SOIL.049.04 3.93E-01 4.93E-02

                             % Difference                      -66.11             -61.38
 \
             **"""   """**"*"c"                                                                                                REVISION 0 C - 33                                        ,

APPENDIX C

 .                                           Table C-3 l

Inspector Calculated Soil Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soil Sample Analysis (continued) l i l SAMPLE ID - Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 - Eu-154 Eu-155 l

                             - (pCi/g)  (pCilg)      (pCilg) (pCi/g)  (pCi/g)    (pCilg)          '

IPS00278 8.39E-03 1.16E-01 1.80E-02 PAST.SOILO50.0-6 5.08E-01 5.68E 02

              % Difference              -77.08       -68.24 IPS00279      3.21E 02  4.72E-01     4.01E-02 PAST.SOILO51.04 2.99E42     7.95E-01     5.34E-02 i
              % Difference      7.18    -40.66       -24.95 IPS00280      2.36E 02  2.87E-01     2.22E-02 PAST.SOILOS2.0-6            4.37E-01
              % Difference              -34.40 IPS00281      3.35E-02  4.11E-01     3.46E-02 PAST.SOILO53.0-6            9.42E-01     4.44E-02
              % Difference              -56.33       -22.15                                       !

IPS00282 2.66E-02 4.70E-01 5.47E-02 PAST. SOIL 054.04 7.05E-01 4.88E-02 l

              % Difference              -33.36        11.98 IPS00283      2.43E-02  3.63E-01     4.21E-02

, PAST.SOILO55.0-6 1.72E-02 4.04E 01

              % Difference     41.10    -10.11

IPS00284 1.78E-02 3.17E-01 3.35E-02 1 PAST.SOILOS6.0-6 2.97E-02 6.06E 01

              % Difference    -40.02    -47.68 IPS00285                1.43E-01 i           PAST. SOIL.057.04           3.69E-01 i              % Difference              -61.12 IPS00286      1.60E-02  2.32E-01     2.27E-02 PAST. SOIL.058.04           2.78E-01
              % Difference              -16.59 IPS00287                1.61E-01     2.39E-02 PAST. SOIL.059.04           2.86E-01
              % Difference              -43.79 IPS00288      1.94E-02  3.85E-01     3.73E-02 PAST.SOILO60.04             3.82E-01
              % Difference               0.73 IPS00289      9.99E 03  1.83E-01     2.97E-02 PA5T. SOIL.061.04           1.89E-01 wmurmawncanvsumouucrancso                    C - 34                                 REVISION 0

! APPENDIX C i ! Table C-3 ! Inspector Calculated Soil Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soil Sample Analysis

(continued) i

( { SAMPLE ID - Co-134 _ - Cs-137 _Co40 . Eu-152 _ Eu-154 Eu-155 l - (pCi/s) (pCilg) .  : (pCi/g) ? (pCilg) (pCl/g) '(pCi/g)

                                                             % Difference               -3.53 i

j IPS00290 1.96E-02 3.69E-01 2.44E-02  ; i PAST.SOILO62.04 4.75E 01

                                                             % Difference              -22.39 l                                                                IPS00291             1.43E-01      1.23E-02 l

! PAST. SOIL.063.04 2.01E-01 j I  % Differsace -28.91 IPS00292 8.67E-03 1.21E-01 9.I1E 03 PAST. SOIL.064.04 3.97E-01 l  % Difference 69.57 ! IPS00293 1.61E-01 2.04E-02 f PAST.SOILO65.04 2.64E 01 !  % Difference -39.29 i i IPS00294 2.43E-02 3.05E-01 6.10E-02 l PAST.SOILO66.04 4.20E-01 j  % Difference -27.31 5 IPS00295 1.75E-01 1.28E 02 l PAST.SOILO67.04 1.15E-01 1

i.  % Difference 52.22

! IPS00296 1.12E-01 1.62E 02 6.32E 02 f PAST. SOIL.068.04 2.30E-01 j  % Difference -51.60 l IPS00297 1.26E-01 l PAST.SOILO70.04 2.95E 01 j i  % Difference -57.25 l i  ; IPS00299 1.70E 01 1.87E-02 ) PAST. SOIL.071.04 2.02E-01 l

                                                             % Difference              -16.23 IPS00305             6.56E-02                                                                                 )

PAST. SOIL.072.04 1.11E-01

                                                                                                                                                        ~  ~
                                                             % Difference              -40.63 IPS00306             5.71E-02 PAST. SOIL.073.04              2.38E-01                                                                                 ,

5 Difference -75.94 IPS00307 6.63E-02 eewomtrwunocsisvsuevocumcrec.no REVISION 0 C - 35 ,

APPENDIX C Table C-3 Inspector Calculated Soil Activity (pCi/g) Comparison with Soll Sample Analysis (continued) SAMPLE ID Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 (PCilg) (pCilg) (pCl/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) PAST. SOIL.074.04 2.66E-01

                 % Difference                -75.10 IPS00308                  7.81E-02 PAST.SOILO75.04               1.30E-01
                 % Difference                -39.91 IPS00309                  1.03E-01 PAST.SOILO76.04               1.70E-01
                 % Difference                -39.23 IPS00310        1.05E-02  2.39E-01      2.51E-02                                        j PAST.SOILO77.04               2.93E-01                                                      l
                 % Difference                -18.36 IPS00311                  1.28E-01 PAST. SOIL.078.0-6            2.39E-01
                 % Difference                -46.70 IPS00312                  9.56E-02      1.14E 02 PAST.SOILO79.04               1.3BE-01
                 % Difference                -30.59                                                       j IPS00313                  8.08E-02                                           ,          I PAST.SOILOSO.04               3.12E-01
                 % Difference                -74.06 IPS00314                  5.87E-02 PAST.SOILO81.0-2              2.02E-01
                 % D.fference                -70.95 9l l i

oemo4T4,TcunocsisystmTcu4macTarec.no C-% , E\'ISION 0

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT ) i d I l l l i i i 1 APPENDIX F LIQUID EFFLUENT PATIEVAY FOLLOW-UP SURVEY REPORT I I 1 1 I O FSV NRC RESPONSPST1NAL SURVEY /VOL 6/ GROUP E,*30D gqgg

 . . _ . - . . _ _ - . . . - - - ~ . . . . . . - - . - . . - - . - . - . . . . - . .       - - - . . ~ . . - - - . . - - . . . - -   _ . - . . . . . - - - -    ,

1 s O t i l 1 i 4 THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK G i l l

FORT ST. VRAIN , LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY ! FOLLOW-UP SURVEY REPORT i Prepared by: Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. 1560 Bear Creek Road Oak Ridge, TN 37831 4 Prepared by: N Date 7!//! 4

   ~                             ElizabetN Langille, CHP Douglas Schult, CHP Reviewed by:             ew                                Date 7- F - %

Harvey St (j SEG Fort t. Vrain Radiation Protection Manager Approved by: au/ Date 7 /9 d d.'k.'Neely 'N Vice President

                                                        /

Field Services i O REVISION 0 July 1996

_.g_aem . A A.I..-, m.m,.... .a 4a. .a_w_.. _._sm.ruw.a Aaa.m_,4e u.__...,_sm-w __,a..,. -,w a m. .e .4 . m.au a ss.g,w.wa..a,.sw .mam, a. m s._ wm a,e,s..,r,.e-__ :,4 mm w.g a J .aa,a-m,.m,.e_ rso Aamwe. 1 1 I I l l IHrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT. BLANK g l l O l

i i i O l ! FORT ST. VRAIN ! LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY i FOLLOW-UP SAMPLING REPORT i 1 i a l i ) i 1 ) i REVISION 9 i JULY 1996

 ! s

M.Ane-r.-A__ 24, r s. .4hsAse<,,__a __nsa ., 6. s__ s.__,-+_awg_,as,,,,4s. 4u,g , n w,.,_ _m,,, _,,,m,. y,a_, ,na.,, ya,_ ,,4 , ,,,m,,ap, , , , , _ _ ,

 .Aas.m.                        -

O THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK $ J

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1 Purpose ...................................... 1-1 1.2 Scope .... ........................ ...... .... ... . 1-1

2.0 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Pathway Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 1 2.2 History of Liquid Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.3 Summary of Previous Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 3.0 CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Characterization Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Instrumentation and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.3 Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.4 Methods of Data Analysis .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 4.0 EFFLUENT PATHWAY CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Goosequill Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4.3 Jay Thomas Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9 4.4 Irrigation Ditches . ....... ........ ..... . .. ... ..... 4-13 4.5 Pastures and Farmland ...'................ .......... 4-16 4.6 Farm Pond .. ....................... .... ....... 4-18 4.7 Farm Pond Outfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 19 4.8 Sedimeat Storage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20 { 4.9 QC Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 l 1 5.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            6- 1 6.1    Nuclear Regulatory Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                6-1   <

6.2 Site Specific Procedures . . . . .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 6-1 l 6.3 Site Technical Basis Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 6.4 Additional Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Appendix A Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway Follow-Up Sampling Plan Appendix B Statistical Analysis: Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Quantile test i O omAmrampomisvsvavecura^cntoc.no i REVISION 0

l TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Fort St. Vrain Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Figure 4-1 Effluent Pathway Follow-Up Surface (0 to 6 inches) Sampling Locations . 4-3 Figure 4-2 Effluent Pathway Follow-Up Subsurface Sampling Locations . . . . . . . 4-7 l Figure 4-3 Goosequill Ditch Bank Grid for Elevated Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 I Figure 4-4 Jay Thomas Ditch Grid for Elevated Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 Figure 4-5 Irrigation Ditch 2 Surface Soil Sample Locations ..... .. .. . ... 4-13 l Figure 4-6 Irrigation Ditch 2 subsurface Soil Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13 l l l

                                           .                                                           O' 1

1 1 l l l l O amarersomocrisysvavecxAarenroc.no ii REVISION 0 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables

    .        Table 2-1                             Selected Characterization Survey (Feb/ Mar 1995) Results . . . . . . . . .               2-5 Table 3-1                             Canberra Genie PC MDAs for 1 Liter Marinelli Geomettv . .. . . . ..                      3-3 l             Table 3-2                             Background Cs-137 Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . .          3-4 l             Table 3-3                             NUREG 1500, Table A-1, Dose Conversion Factors (mrem /yr per pCi/g) 3-6 Table 4-1                             Goosequill Ditch Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       4-1 Table 4-2                             Goosequill Ditch Bank Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          4-5 Table 4-3                              10 Meter by 10 Meter Grid Samples for Elevated Goosequill Ditch Bank . 4-6 Table 4-4                             Jay Thomas Ditch Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         4-9 Table 4-5                              10 Meter by 10 Meter Grid Samples for Elevated Jay Thomas Ditch Soil 4-11 Table 4-6                             Irrigation Ditch Surface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        4-14 i

Table 4-7 Irrigation Ditch Subsurface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 l Table 4-8 . Pastures and Farmland Surface Soil Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17 ! Table 4-9 Pastures and Farmland Subsurface Soil Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18 l Table 4-10 Farm Pond Sediment Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19 l Table 4-11 Farm Pond Outfall Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20 Table 4-12 Sediment Storage Area Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 Table 4-13 Follow-Up Characterization Sample QC Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22 1 Table 4-14 NRC Criteria for Accepting Sample Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22 Table 5-1 Pathway Comparisons with Previous Data and with Background Cs-137 Dati-2 Table 5-2 Follow-up Summary Results: Mean and Range (pCi/g), TEDE Range . 5-3 Goosequill Ditch Sediment Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2 Table B-1 Table B-2 Goosequill Ditch Sediment Co-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3 Table B-3 Goosequill Ditch Banks Cs-137 (Sediment Imcations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4 Table B-4 Goosequill Ditch Banks Co-60 (Sediment Locations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5 Table B-5 Jay Thomas Ditch Sediment Cs-137 ....................... B-6 Table B-6 Jay 'Ihomas Ditch Sediment Co-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7 , Table B-7 Jay Thomas Ditch Soil Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8 Table B-8 Jay Thomas Ditch Soil Cs-137 Comparison with Background . . . . . . . . B-9 Table B-9 Irrigation Ditch 2 Soil Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10 l Table B-10 Irrigation Ditch Soil Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10 Table B-11 Irrigation Ditch 4 Soil Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11  ; Table B-12 Irrigation Ditch 5 Soil Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11 i Table B-13 Irrigation Ditch 6 Soil Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-12 i Table B-14 Irrigation Ditch 4 Soil Cs-137 Comparison with Background . . . . . . . B-13 Table B-15 Irrigation Ditch 6 Soil Cs-137 Comparison with Background . . . . . . . B- 14 Table B-16 Irrigation Ditch 2 Soil Co-60 ... ... .... ... .. .. . .. .. .... B-15 Table B-17 Irrigation Ditch 3 Soil Co-60 ..... ..... ... ... .......... B-15 Table B-18 Irrigation Ditch 5 Soil Co-60 . . ... .... .... ... .. . ....... B-16 l Table B-19 Pature Soil Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17 Table B-20 Pasture Soil Cs-137 Comparison with Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19 Table B-21 Farm Pond Sediment Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-22 l Table B-22 Farm Pond Sediment Co-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-22 l Table B-23 Farm Pond Sediment Cs-137 Comparison with Background . . . . . . . . B-23 Table B-24 Farm Pond Outfall Sediment Cs-137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-24 > Table B-25 Farm Pond Outfall Sediment Cs-137 Comparison with Background . . . B-25 I I i l a:u)ATAYTBOUXXWSYSURVBCHARACDTOC.R0 iii REVISION 0 l

 .m.AA&aem-a..-.-AA___

mM e4a-m.Me.ha e .s ea.e * * * . =Wm.--L.=- ma .-aws.ah.d4a_...46. am a u Jemehm-w_WJA..ew,., ate e - ,,,,M4JAa sam _ c4A_m.s,a.,pm,__awaa.%;4., ,h__a,42_,s O THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEF7 BLANK , $ l I i O

4 . INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND SCOPE 1.1 Purpose 1 i This follow-up characterization survey report has been prepared to document the I radiological status of the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway in preparation

for the final survey of open land areas. The survey was performed between May l 28,1996, and June 6,1996 as a follow-up to the characterization of the pathway which was completed in March 1995.

! Elevated soil concentrations were identified in previous surveys along the effluent j pathway. This follow-up survey was designed using the information from the

previous studies. The area designations and sample identifications are consistent I with the characterization study which was completed in February of 1995.  !

i The report is organized to present the characterization of the FSV Liquid Effluent Pathway as follows: i 1 Section 2.0, Background Information, provides a brief description of the j i pathway, the history of releases and a summary of previous investigations.  ! l j i - Section 3.0, Approach, discusses the survey analysis techniques. f Section 4.0, Effluent Pathway Results, presents the analysis results

segregated by the various pathway sections. It also includes a comparison j of the results with previous investigations where applicable.

i j Section 5.0, Summary and Conclusions provides a summary of the results j and an interpretation of the data. Section 6.0, References, identifies documents used to support the survey activities. l Additional information and data are provided in appendices. 1.2 Scope l The follow-up characterization survey was performed by Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., in accordance with an approved sampling plan (Reference 6.4.1) and consisted of : Surface soil samples (0 to 6 inches) along the liquid effluent pathway and 4 from agricultural areas where the effluent path had been diverted in the past for irrigation. O . ommracupocwsvsvavwouowunsaci.o 1-1 REVISION 0

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE Subsurface soil samples (6 to 12 inches) below the soil with the highest surface activity. Sediment samples from the Goosequill Ditch, the Jay Thomas Ditch, the Farm Pond, the Farm Pond Outfall, and the sediment storage area. Vegetation samples from Goosequill Ditch. Soil samples in a grid surrounding sample locations which were elevated to investigate the use of averaging as allowed by the final survey plan. O O

• ^ "isvsuaverouowunsaci.o 1-2 REVISION 0

l BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.0 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Pathway Description Figure 2-1 shows a map of the liquid effluent pathway. Area designations are consistent with the Characterization survey (reference 6.4.1) designations and consist of: The Goosequill Ditch which is a concrete ditch that begins upstream of the discharge pipe and terminates at the Jay hmas Ditch. The banks of the Goosequill Ditch where sediment removed from the ditch has been deposited. The Jay Thomas Ditch which is a stream bed beginning upstream of the intersection of the Goosequill Ditch and terminating at the Farm Pond. Various irrigation ditches that distribute water obtained from the Goosequill Ditch and the Jay Thomas Ditch to adjacent pastures and farm land. The irrigation ditches and areas to which they drain have been numbered I through 6 beginning upstream of where the plant effluent discharge pipe connects to the Goosequill Ditch. The pastures and farm land adjacent to the liquid effluent pathways. The Farn: Pond which is the terminating point of the Jay Thomas Ditch. The Outfall of the Farm Pond which is primarily a stream bed that eventually terminates at the South Platte River. Plant releases entered the Goosequill Ditch at the discharge pipe. The release then flowed through the Goosequill Ditch to the Jay Thomas Ditch. From the Jay Thomas Ditch the release flowed into the Farm Por.d then to the Outfall where it flowed to the South Platte River. Flows from the Goosequill and Jay Thomas Ditches were periodically diverted along irrigation ditches to distribute water to the pastures and farm land adjacent to the pathway. The Goosequill Ditch was also noted to have points where there were breaks and/or where overflow had occurred (most of which occurred prior to August 1994). All of these areas were considered as part of the pathway for the characterization survey. One additional area, a sediment storage area, has been added to the pathway. Since the characterization survey was performed, sections of the Goosequill ditch have been dredged several times and the sediment staged in a storage area near to the Goosequill ditch. O onomuscupocusvsuavewouowvnsec2.0 2-1 REVISION 0

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

                                                                      - murwrmwwwnerc.cmammaserm emunne O

O m j ( e , . . . . f 2 11-e

                                           .A_
                                             \

B $.,5 l

                                                                                                                                                                                 ;.-. 6.
                                                                                                                                             ~~

7 , X . ,_ ... _~

                                            . . - _                                                                                                                                                                    t ua. l _ ., _.-             a  - inuo.._         - - --                             l-- .--. l -.                                                               kt-            .-w-Figure 2-1 Fort St. Vrain Emuent Pathway wrainoatrsysuaverottowuranc2.

REVIS 0

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.2 History of Liquid Releases Liquid releases made before 1993 can be found in the Public Service Company of Colorado Annual Effluent Release Reports. All liquid releases made during the decommissioning were in accordance with the Off Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and within the MPC limits .;f 10CFR20.106'. Releases were made from the following sources: System 62 (Radioactive Liquid Waste System) monitor tank releases, bladder releases via the reactor building sump (RBS), and RBS releases. Bladder releases included activity from monitoring tanks and drain down from PCRV shield water. Most of the activity (greater than 98% of the Cs-137 and Co-60) was released prior to December 1994. Based in part on the elevated activity concentrations identified during the scoping survey, stricter internal controls were implemented in December of 1994 to . minimize any additional impact on the environment. These controls included: 1 i i Requesting that no irrigation be permitted during FSV liquid discharges. Greater recirculation of the batches through the filters and demineralizes l l prior to discharge. J 1 I.ower concentrations targeted for discharge; Co-60 s 1E-7 pCi/ml, and l Cs-137 s 2E-7 Ci/ml, prior to dilution. A designated location for the sediment dredged from the pathway ditch was also l catablished :;o that it would not be scattered haphazardly along the Goosequill ditch banks. 2.3 Summary of Previous Investigations t 2.3.1 Previous investigations along the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent pathway include l The Radiological Environmental Program implemented by Colorado State University for the Public Service Company of l Colorado, PSC. Investigations performed by SEG between September 1993 and November 1994, and l l 8 Fort St. Vrain licensed activities are being conducted under an exemption to the revision to 10CFR20 which required implementation by 1/1/94. i OADAMTPOOOC5WV8URVmPOU4WUMSEC2. 2-3 REVISION 0 L

                                                      ,               ,.               .                          . - . - - ~

BACKGROUND INFORMATION A Scoping Survey performed by SEG between November 1994 and January 1995. A Characterization Survey performed by SEG between February 1995 and March 1995. Sample results from the Characterization survey which can be compared directly with the results obtained during the follow-up survey are contained in Table 2-1 below. Approximately 700 samples were collected, 300  ; direct exposure rate measurements made, and 300 In Situ gamma  !' spectroscopy measurements obtained during the Characterization survey. l i O O am4wrramocsrsvsuavarouowunse" 2-4 REVISION 0

i BACKGROUND INFORMATION Table 2-1 p Selected Characterization Survey (Feb/ Mar 1995) Results:Mean and Range (pCi/g)

  )

l.acation* Co-134 Co-137 Co40 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 Goosequill Ditch 0.37 4.42 4.17 1.30 0.89 0.59 sed' ment Ql) 0.9 - 1.33 0.6 - 18.07 0.18 - 26.29 0.39 - 4.24 0.40 2.21 0.23 - I.33 d Goosequill Ditch 3.78 19.79 Vegetation (5) 2.76 - 4.99 9.73 35.20 ., Banks of the 0.17 0.42 l I

Goosequill Ditch soil (51) 0.05 - 0.97 0.06 - 1.24 Banks of the 0.31 4.46 3.87 0.90 0.59 0.59 Goosequill Ditch mediment (20) 0.06 1.30 0.24 - 18.90 0.17 - 27.68 0.17 - 4.89 0.12 - 2.94 0.21 - 2.00 Jay Thomas Ditch 0.20 1.46 1.05 0.36 sediment (25) 0.08 - 1.09 0.17 - 3.87 0.17 - 3.85 0.36 Jay Thomas Ditch 0.158 Soil (10) 0.10 0.27 Inisation Ditch I (1) 0.13 0.03 Inigstion Ditch 2 (4) 0.37 6.25 5.97 3.55 1.13 0.77 0.04 - 1.06 0.93 - 17.90 0.21 - 22.62 3.55 0.27 - 1.98 0.12 - 1.42 Inisation Ditch 3 (10) 0.05 0.75 0.16 0.03 - 0.07 0.26 - 1.84 0.02 - 0.34 Inisation Ditch 4 Q) 0.23 0.16 - 0.41 Inigetion Ditch 5 (15) 0.10 0.95 0.36 0.03 - 0.24 0.03 4.25 0.03 - 1.44 Inigation Ditch 6 (3) 0.14 0.06 - 0.34 Pasture (81) 0.05 0.49 0.20 0.02 0.12 0.11 - 3.20 0.03 1.02 Farm Pond sediment 0.59 0.14 (10) 0.22 0.97 0.06 0.26 Farm Pond Outfall 0.20 0.21 eediment (13) 0.04 - 0.38 0.08 0.39

• The number of samples is noted in parenthesis.

O 0;WATA\TECHDOCnPSV5URVmPouhWUMSFD.0 2-5 REVISION 0

  - -s es-- -
              -w-- a, w .a 1.-ma m m .n aw a .-..wa.n,a W-a,-,. Jem LaK-,aaL.4, mJ.Ms.-e ma s k ase AAe n a ,__s,s.was   s.,_u_n.J4 6As - 2,g.- Lan,Ona-A-- -

au ,_,,1sa h a 4 4 O l. i I i i 4 I t i i J

THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY i

l 3 i LEFT BLANK $ 4 0 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH 3.0 APPROACH 3.1 Survey Methodology 3.1.1 Survey Methods The liquid effluent pathway areas described in Section 2.1 were sampled in accordance with the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway Follow-up Sampling Plan and approved procedures. The sampling plan is included as Appendix A. Allindividuals involved in sampling were knowledgeable of the contents of the plan and received specific training on the applicable procedures. The types of samples collected from the pathway areas included the following: Sediment samples, Surface (within 15 cm) and subsurface (15 to 30 cm) soil samples, Vegetation samples. Preparation varied with the type of sample media. Soil and sediment samples were dried, sifted and weighed prior to analysis. Vegetation samples were dried and weighed. The plan for each area contained: Number and types of samples required, Sample locations, Special instructions and/or sampling protocols to follow, Copies of associated maps. 3.1.2 Sample Imations and Mapping Each sample location was cross referenced to a sampling location established during the characterization. The sample location number is the sample number assigned during the characterization with the suffix .XX (example: GQDB. SOIL.006.XX is soil sample location 6 along the Goosequill ditch banks). The sampling locations established during the characterization had been marked in the field using stakes and documented on site maps. Wherever possible the stakes were used to locate the follow-up sampling locations. The applicable site map was used to locate O outerecunocusvsuavmouowurseo. 3-1 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH sampling points where the stakes are no longer available. Characterization survey sampling locations had been marked at the time of collection with a stake labeled with the sample identification with the exception of the Farm Pond sediment samples. The SEG global positioning system (GPS) was also used during characterization to determine the position for each of these staked locations. The GPS position data was obtained for two purposes. The first purpose was to have verifiable data on file in the event that a sample would have to be retaken or a location justified. The near exact positions could be revisited using the GPS's navigation functions. Second, the GPS positions were used to verify and change, as necessary, the approximate scale of CAD maps used to depict the sample locations. 3.1.3 Evaluation of Results All sample analysis results were reviewed by the Radiochemistry Manager who then forwarded the results to the Characterization Coordinator. )

                                                                                             )

The soil / sediment results were reported in terms of pCi/g, and were i evaluated using dose conversion constants from NUREG 1500, Table A-1 to estimate the annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to a hypothetical individual. The criterion of 10 mrem /yr total effective dose ! equivalent as approved by the NRC in the FSV Final Survey Plan was used to evaluate the soil sample results obtained during this follow-up characterization survey. 3.2 Instrumentation and Equipment 3.2.1 I2boratory Equipment Soil, sediment and vegetation samples were dried in microwave / convection ovens, and analyzed using a Canberra high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector or a lithium drifted germanium (GeLi) detector and Genie PC software. A 1 liter marinelli geometry and a 1000 second count time for the HPGe or a 4000 second count time for the GeLi were used for counting the samples. Approximate MDAs are shown in Table 3-1. K-40 is noted to be quantified slightly high due to the coincidence summing of the nuclides used to establish the efficiency curve. K-40 analyses have not been corrected for laboratory background or coincidence summing. The overestimation is estimated to be 15% (reference 6.4.10), but will be dependent on the sample activity, detector and counting geometry. K-40 was used mainly as a QC marker in the spectrum. amTurramocsavsuavarouowunsra o 3-2 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH i i The sample set standard deviation was also calculated whenever a j set of measurements was averaged. The % Coefficient of Variation, %CV, the standard deviation expressed as a percentage of the mean is occasionally used. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, the Mann-Whitney U test and the Quantile test are two-sample tests which were used to compare the data obtained during the characterization survey with the data obtained during this follow-up characterization survey 8

                                                                                                         . Two-         ,

sample refers to a comparison of two sets of sample data. These l tests were also used for the survey data in conjunction with the 40 i background surface soil measurements to determine if the survey  ! data is statistically different from the background data. Data sets I were also reviewed for high outliers (high activity samples). A  ; discussion of these tests is provided in Appendix B. The tests were two-tailed tests using the 95% confidence interval. Each sample was evaluated using a dose conversion factors (mrem /yr per pCi/g) from NUREG 1500. The nuclide specific dose conversion factors for a residential scenario are shown in Table 3-3. A background Cs-137 concentration was not subtracted from any of the results. The slight overestimation in dose equivalent is assumed to be minimal. Using the average background concentration (Table 3-2) of 0.12 pCi/g equates to a 0.17 mrem /yr TEDE. In accordance with the FSV final survey plan (reference 6.4.6), the sample TEDE values were evaluated using the 10 mrem /yr criterion in the final survey plan. Samples where the TEDE  ! exceeded 10 mrem /yr were evaluated to ensure the 30 mrem /yr maximum  ! was not exceeded. l Two of the individual samples that exceeded the 10 mrem /yr limit were investigated by gridding the surrounding areas into a 10 meter by 10 meter  ! grids and obtaining eight additional samples (for a total of 9 samples). Averaging protocols described in the FSV Final Survey Plan were then i applied to determine if the weighted mean is below the 10 mrem /yr limit.  ! i 8 l The nonparametric tests used are based on ranking the measurement data. The data are ordered from smallest to largest, and assigned ranks (1, 2, 3...). The analyses are then performed on the ranks rather than on the original measurement values. These tests alone will not determine when there are a few high outliers. Elevated measurement comparisons are also l recommended by draft NUREG 1505. omimecunoanesvsumvarouowunsro.o 3-5 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH Table 3-3 NUREG 1500, Table A-1, Dose Conversion Factors (mrem /yr per pC1/g) Nuclide mrem /yr per'pci/g Co-60 5.06 Cs-134 3.06 Cs-137 1.40 Eu-152 2.31 Eu-154 2.50 Eu-155 0.007 l l l O O am4Terecmaswsvsumvarouowunsea. 3-6 REVISION 0

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH Table 3-1 O Canberra Genie PC MDAs for 1 Liter Marinelli Geometry INuclidei IMDkdCi/g)* Mn-54 8.4E-2 Co-60 9.0E-2 Cs-134 9.2E-2 l l Cs-137 8.9E-2 Eu-152 1.8E-1 Eu-154 1.3E-1  ! Eu-155 2.9E-1 K-40 8.2E-1

• MDA based as amuple OQDB.80lL.006.XX, Actual sample MDAs very wie sample mass and activity.

3.3 Quality Assurance l The Quality Assurance and Quality Control program for characterization activities I was implemented through the use of approved procedures that addressed calibration and operation of instruments, sample collection, sample analysis, documentation and evaluation. All calibration sources were traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Calibration and maintenance records were maintained for each instrument. An efficiency was determined for each detector used to quantify radioactivity. The Canberra gamma spectroscopy systems were quality control checked daily. All samples were labeled and identified with unique sample identification numbers  ! assigned from a radiochemistry sample logbook. Samples were appropriately  ; packaged to prevent any sample loss. Following analysis, samples were stored for l future analysis if necessary.  ! Select soil and sediment samples were split and analyzed separately to verify the , results of the Canberra gamma spectroscopy systems. Each of these samples was  ! collected, dried, mixed and then split into two samples, with one sample labeled QC. The two samples were analyzed separately using the same protocol and then compared using the criteria for environmental split samples contained in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750 (reference 6.1.3). 02ATAmBCHDOCRPSYSURVmPOUhWUMSEC3.0 REVISION 0 3-3

CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH I 3.4 Methods of Data Analysis i 3.4.1 Soil and Sediment Data Analysis Background Soil Activity Because Cs-137 is present in background due to global fallout, this report , will occasionally compare the quantified Cs-137 activity to the observed l background Cs-137 activity. Background soil concentrations were j determined as part of the Final Survey Program (reference 6.4.4). Cs-137 was the only nuclide of concern identified in the 40 surface and 40 subsurface samples which were collected off-site in the vicinity of the FSV facility. A summary of the background values for Cs-137 in soil is presented in Table 3-2. Cs-137 was detected in 31 of the 40 samples for both surface and subsurface soil. The mean result presented was calculated by assuming 0 for the measurements which did not show activity in excess of MDA. The mean result is therefore a low estimate of the true background Cs-137 concentration. I I Table 3-2 Background Cs-137 Concentrations Material  : Number of L Mean Maximum - Minimum Standard Type Measurements - Result .  : Result - Result Deviation (s) Surface Soil 40 0.12 0.37 0 0.09 (pCilg) l Subsurface 40 0.10 0.32 0 0.08 Soil (pCi/g) Soil and Sediment Sample Analysis The following statistical analyses were used as appropriate in evaluating the data. l Data for each sample type in each area were reviewed for trends and compared with the area results from the Characterization survey (reference 6.4.1). The range of activities was determined and documented. The l range of activities extends from approximately MDA to the maximum. The mean of the sample results was determined. The mean activity concentrations are from the analysis results which exceed the MDA. The average is therefore conservatively high. 02ATAY!TCHDOCSPSYSURVWMMSECM 3-4 REVISION 0 l l l

1 i EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS l l 4.0 EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS l 4.1 Goosequill Ditch 1 Ten sediment samples were colluted from the Goosequill ditch. Figure 4-1 shows the sediment sample locations. If available, approximately 2 liters of sample were collected at each sampling location. Samples were collected such that the amount of vegetation and water was minimized. All vegetation was removed from the sediment samples. Samples were dried and weighed prior to gamma analysis. Vegetation samples were obtained from aquatic plant species growing within the

Goosequill Ditch. Since the vegetation samples are composite samples the locations shown on Figure 4-1 are general locations. Samples were dried and weighed prior to gamma analysis.

The Goosequill ditch sample results are provided in Table 4-1. Individual sample analysis reports are contained in Supplement 1 to this Report.

Table 4-1 Goosequill Ditch Samples l Sample Number Sample Sample Cs-134; Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 K-40 TEDE

                              'ID         :ge   E pCi/g ; ' pCi/g . pCilg .' pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrem /yr Sediment GQD. SED.006.XX 42.00748         463             2.120 1.500                     22.900        10.56 g,    GQD. SED.010.XX 42.00749         605              1.260 0.847                     15.300       6.05         !

GQD. SED.014.XX 42.00750 557 1.820 1.140 27.000 8.32 l GQD. SED.015.XX 42.00751 40 2.240 1.130 21.400 8.85 l GQD. SED.018.XX 42.00752 441 1.960 1.160 18.700 8.61 l , GQD. SED.019.XX 42.00753 361 0.512 0.336 8.820 2.42 GQD. SED.023.XX 42.00727 1049 0.693 0.500 12.400 3.50

                                                                                                                    )

GQD. SED.031.XX 42.00728 1140 0.422 0.238 29.300 1.80 GQD. SED.032.XX 42.00754 513 1.160 0.817 18.500 5.76 GQD. SED.048.XX 42.00755 848 0.057 1.470 0.861 25.300 6.59 l

Minimum 0.057 0.422 0.238 8.820 1.795 i

Maximum 0.057 2.240 1.500 29.300 10.558

! Average 0.057 1.366 0.853 19.962 Vegetation , GQD.VFC J.41.XX 42.00756 378 2.280 1.150 19.400 GQD VEG 002.XX_ 42.00757 355 2.190 1.240 23.600 GQD.VEG.003.XX 42.00758 207 3.070 1.650 36.100 GQD.VEG.004.XX 42.00726 1178 0.251 0.158 30.600 1 Minimum 0.251 0.158 19.400 Maximum 3.070 1.650 36.100 I Average 1.948 1.050 27.425 l O

ommreamocsrsysvavewouowunsees.o 4-1 REVISION 0 1

l

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Each sample's nuclide results were evaluated using NUREG 1500 dose conversion factors. The sample results were also combined with the characterization sample results and the Mann-Whitney U test performed. j i None of the individual sample results exceeded the 30 mrem /yr TEDE l criterion in the Final Survey Plan. One sample (GQD. SED.006.XX) showed a TEDE of 10.56 mrem /yr. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test shows that both the Cs-137 and  ! Co-60 activity in the Goosequill ditch has decreased since the l Characterization survey. The ranked data and associated statistics are l contained in Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2. l The Cs-137 activities are still significantly above background. All statistical tests were performed at the 95% confidence level. I An average TEDE for the Goosequill ditch was not calculated because the final survey plan contains specific criteria which must be satisfied when averaging areas. l l The vegetation sample results were not evaluated using dose conversion factors, since the dose conversion factors only apply to dry soil. The activities are noted to be relatively low and much lower than the activities observed during the Characterization. , l O ammiramocsesysvaveronowumea.o 4-2 REVISION 0

Figure Efiluent Pathway Follow-Up Surface (4 fann Pad

                                                                                                                                                       ]

u enam "n~- , e '= -- m

                                                            ,,,,,,m                              ' k, m__eme

_m

                                                   .SLD.00.

n *

                                                                                                / ._,_ e %g arma.oetm                                M N1GflAS hlldi
                                                         - ~ ^-

j'" i( enos. son.saam _,, .m

                                                                                                  -:                 b. -
                                                                                                                      --- =i= =

w.soumm .  % """7

                 <-S. Platte Rw                                                ,,aa_m
                                                                                                        -m ,s.m.             -moa m m ocu =.

MMD.013m , wn aum w.sas co.a .

           <-St % Rw                                                                                                     ~ ' " ~
                                                                                                                      """" P
                                                                                                                                 /
                                                                                                                               'l
                                                                                                                               \              f.a==.A N

N OADATA\TECHDOO\PSYSUR VE\POLLOWUNP.C4.0 O ettM

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS l to 6 inches) Sampling Locations

                                                                                                                                                                                  )

1 l 1 i ANSTEC APERTURE l 3g CARD i Also Available on

   .    \                      f0RT5f.WMN                                                                                    Aperture Card
          %.= nan
               . - - .         EffLLENTPAnfNAY N l

P r - _ _ , , JM 6,1996  ;

               ~ ~ ~ ' "

• I fOLLOWLP SAMPLES  :

 %                             SlFKE SAMPLES                    ,

l PLE NAME: Ptf01.PWd l' !l ~i i '. - [i ll l I t, i.I s ., l l ' * " " " j l U! .gli ,

       =

g ;mga ===== - i i ai . l lgi!. { 7r/m, ' ef2Elim I

                                                                            ,   [r.                  lIIl                                              fll==:2,
            - - . .                - = = = =
                                                                                ;;l                  iI                 -       iu ;t;r                ca,g caumwta,                          i,
                                                                                                                                         ~        "

wa-..: D'g 95 t- :o l4 1 '

                                                                                                                           !) l7.ll ;l am= = a = n                   m asm                                                                                                  -[ t:;
                                                ====                    9 lji,                                                                      .,/
                                                    . .. , e N.                         J

u. -

g c

                * * = = -
                             " R:::" f                     @:::=                                         " :""                                       "
             = = = -         faa                                                                   _C~.S
                 , - - . m
                             .an.w=r m
                                                           - - .        L.

connomto: 1 1 ~~ 4 ,_ , 4s- ,e,

                                       * ,mJoa.s                      </

/ _= l -

                                                                        \
                                                                                                                                               .- - _ mm..

m=== 0 -soaason osm 1$$N

                                                                                                     - ,. m .

susunmm

                                                                                                           .so      .                                         --- = = . _= =
                                                                                               - SQD. SED AD$R R
                                                                                                                                              )-

D f . r3 REVISION 0 9702050011- J __

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS 4.2 Banks of the Goosequill Ditch Samples were obtained from 10 locations where soil samples had been previously taken and at 10 locations where sediment samples had been obtained. There was very little sediment along the ditch banks and the locations marked as sediment are based on the characterization survey and the sample was likely soil. The absence of sediment is likely due to: previous sampling, weathering effects, the fact that dredges are no longer placed on the ditch banks. Subsurface soil samples were also obtained from 5 locations and QC samples were split from 4 of the samples. i Figure 4-1 shows the surface sample locations. Figure 4-2 shows the subsurface sample locations. The Goosequill ditch bank sample results are provided in Table 4-2. Individual sample analysis reports are contained in Supplement 1. l l l l, O 02AMTEOOOCRPSYSURVBPOMDWUNBCM.0 4-4 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4-2 Goosequill Ditch Bank Samples F ir.fde Neiiids -

       ~

Sample Sample . Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 K-40 12.UE

                             ' ID 1      g-    pC1/g pCilg . pCilg ~pCi/g ~ pCilg pCilg mrem /yr Soil GQDB.SOILOO6.XX            42.00649 1348                                             30.200 GQDB.SOILO12.XX            42.00650 1152                                             27.600 GQDB. SOIL 018.XX          42.00651 1282              0.209                          32.600  0.29 GQDB. SOIL.024.XX          42.00660 1081              0.188     0.166                33.600   1.10 GQDB.SOILO30.XX            42.00661 1124                                             32.700 GQDB.SOILO36.XX            42.00662 1230              0.826     1.070                33.400  6.57 GQDB.SOILO42.XX            42.00663 1020              0.115                          30.900  0.16 GQDB.SOILO48.XX            42.00664 1185                                             30.300 GQDB.SOILOS2.XX            42.00656 1116                                             32.800 GQDB.SOILO57.XX            42.00685 1060              0.433                          31.400  0.61 Maimum           0.115     0.166                27.600 0.160 Maximum          0.826     1.070                33.600 6.571 Average         0.354     0.618                31.550 QGDB. SOIL 052.XX.QC 42.00665 1109                    0.118                          30.300  0.17 GQDB.SOILO57.XX.QC 42.00686 1053                      0.558                          29.200  0.'io GQDB. SED.001.XX           42.00652 1254                                             13.800 GQDB. SED.003.XX           42.00659 1334              0.259                          29.900  0.36 GQDB. SED.004.XX           42.00654 1318                                             30.400 GQDB. SED.005.XX           42.00655 1401              0.189                          29.500  0.26 GQDB. SED.007.XX           42.00656 1150                                             27.400        ,

GQDB. SED.008.XX 42.00657 1132 1.180 1.750 0.287 0.165 30.400 11.58 GQDB. SED.010.XX 42.00658 1264 27.000 GQDB. SED.016.XX 42.00667 1251 1.470 1.710 0.214 0.118 31.200 11.50 GQDB. SED.018.XX 42.00668 1098 1.120 0.051 32.400 1.83 GQDB. SED.019.XX 42.00669 1244 0.010 33.900 0.01 Mmimum 0.010 0.051 0.214 0.118 13.800 0.01 Maximum 1.470 1.750 0.287 0.165 33.900 11.582 Average 0.705 1.170 0.251 0.142 28.590 GQDB. SED.003.XX.QC 42.00653 1322 0.257 31.300 0.36 GQDB. SOIL.024.XX.SUB 42.00777 1265 0.108 0.075 32.300 0.53 GQDB.SOILO36.XX.SUB 42.00778 1456 0.118 0.100 33.500 0.67 GQDB. SED.008.XX.SUB 42.00779 1274 0.128 0.101 31.400 0.69 GQDB. SED.016.XX.SUB 42.00780 1491 0.596 0.546 30.500 3.60 GQDB. SED.018.XX.SUB 42.00781 1396 0.183 0.055 29.100 0.54 Mmtmum 0.108 0.055 29.100 0.531 Maximum 0.596 0.546 33.500 3.597 Average 0.227 0.175 31.360 GQDB.$ED.018.XX.SUB.Qc 42.00782 1363 24.600 Each sample's nuclide results were evaluated using NUREG 1500 dose conversion factors. The sample results were also combined with the characterization sample results and the Mann-Whitney U test performed. GADAMECHDOC5'ESYSURVmPOUDWUP.SEC4.0 REVISION 0 4-5

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLIDW-UP RESULTS i -

None of the individual sample results exceeded the 30 mrem /yr TEDE criterion in the Final Survey Plan. l - Two samples (GQDB. SED.008.XX, and GQDB. SED.016.XX) showed TEDE values of 11.58 and 11.50 mrem /yr respectively. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test for the Goosequill ditch bank sediment locations, shows that both the Cs-137 and Co-60 activity along the Goosequill ditch banks has decreased since the Characterization survey. Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in appendix B, Tables 1 B-3 and B-4.

                                         'Ihe Mann-Whitney U test could not be performed for the soil sample locations from the banks of the Goosequill ditch because more than 40%

of the data from both the characterization and follow-up survey were less than detectable. (A criterion which precludes the use of the test.) The Cs-137 activities are still above background. The area surrounding GQDB. SED.06d. SED was gridded into a 10 meter by 10 meter grid and eight additional samples were obtained, each representing 11 m2 area. The results of the 9 samples were evaluated using the averaging protocols i from the final survey plan and draft NUREG/CR-5849. The resulting weighted  ; mean TEDE was 1.76 mrem /yr, satisfying the final survey plan 10 mrem /yr O criterion. This grid pattern shows that the activity is very " spotty" as noted previously and the eight additional samples showed very little activity. The grid pattern is shown in Figure 4-3. The results of the samples obtained from the gridded area are contained in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 10 Meter by 10 Meter Grid Samples for Elevated Goosequill Ditch Bank Location Sample Number hmph hmph Cs-134.. Cs-137 Co-60 n Eu-152 E.u-154 K-40.o TOTAL

ID :

                                             .       's? EpCUgi LpCUgl pCUgi "pCUg 1 pCUg pCUg: mrem /yr GQDB.5ED.008.XX.1 42.00783 1176                        0.661 0.593                                 28.500   3.93 GQDB. SED.008.XX.2 42.00784 1250                                                                   26.600   0.00 GQDB. SED.008.XX.3 42.00785 1319                                                                   27.800   0.00 GQDB. SED.008.XX.4 42.00786 1322                                                                   24.900   0.00 GQDB. SED.008.XX.5 42.00787 1393                       0.139                                       32.100   0.19 GQDB. SED.008.XX.6 42.00788 1380                                                                   29.000   0.00 GQDB. SED.008.XX.7 42.00789 1217                                                                   28.300   0.00 GQDB. SED.008.XX.8 42.00790 1154                       0.073                                       33.700   0.10 GQDB. SED.008.XX 42.00657 1132                        1.180 1.750       0.287             0.165 30.400 11.58 weighted mean    1.76 O

oannerscwooanesvsuavarouowunseco 4-6 REVISION 0

e.. a -um -_,.mm ---eaew-a.M,W-mus.-e.,aaa.. m *4m.a. A s

• CJa m- ermh6 *4-. -aeWM-saA .A.e.-am._.2_ w ,h 44.aes-4_.54-m h a w+. m.B.Me _3 asa_she . @_ha S_.uA_;_s,4&_A-e_am.4 mde as a2a es ,

                                                                                                     ?                                                                                O l

l l IHrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY l l l LEFT BLANK $ O

 .~ ~

l Figure) Effluent Pathway Follow-Up S3 f 6 fanl'ad l

                                                                                                      )
                                    )                        ~a   ~
                                                                    ~
                                                                                                      \
               /                                _
         *5. % b
                                                                /

J Q

       ~~

s_

                                                                                                \

! o.erTAsTcCHDOCP.PSYSURVEi"OLLOWUI"SP.C4.0 l i

                      !                               EFFLUENT PATIIWAY FO'. LOW-UP RESULTS 4

Nrface Sampling Locations ANSTEC APERTURE jb CARD fM 5f.WMN Also Available on

 "                                                                                          Aperture Card EFFLlfNTPAf}fNAY w JfE 6. l996 FOLLOMP 5AMPLES
=

NKE SAMPLES ' ' FLE NAME: Dif0i.pWG '  ! i , l p

                                                                            ,1      p           ..

errm asim._ t;  :!

 //

ema nu ..! i ud!i ! ' j 'N, *. ll:*=l : - amucanoa_ l] llii 7 "!"Mla5= u> ." =:::!

                                    %wu,                   j     ' '. p               n
                                                                                                                aya -
                                 /                    g   3 "r

C .I (u

    '                                                 Q            l u-                           9 exam.a nu_

• y M"

M - e= ==. nu 5"h"1"" COL!KY RON719I/ 2

,y ~~s

                                           =_.=

r = = =:

 /
                                                           = ...

f ss x

                                              /                                  '-
                                                                                                        =:=

7 *"::: rN J

                                                                                                       )

f . 7 ""*' " 9702050011 - ._ e

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Figure 4-3 . Goosequill Ditch Bank Grid for Elevated Sample l l t l l FORT ST. WAlH l ErrLUENT PATHWAY JUNE 5.1996 COOSEQUILL DITCH BANK - SEDIMENT C00SEQUtLL D!TCH FOLLOWUP SUREY CRIDDED POINT CQDB. SED.008.XX.1-8 l FILE NAME: FOLOWUP2 coSJ00on&Jou 908.El e e o

                                                              ,         00SJOLE 00RJOL4  00E2
                                                           <-                  e   o       e     see SOUTH MARSH          f'              eauuens.mi      saaJOLs e   e       o s                                 ind , '

l l III

                                              = =:.                                                                                    -

1  ;, : - l

     .                 i l
                                                                                                                  /

O aerwreamocsesysvavarouowunsra. 4-8 REVISION 0

i EFFLUENT PATIIWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS l i 4.3 Jay Thomas Ditch 1 Eight sediment samples, five surface soil samples and one subsurface soil sample I were taken along the Jay Thomas Ditch. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the sample locations. Table 4-4 shows the analysis results. Individual sample analysis reports are contained in Supplement 1 to this report. Table 4-4 l Jay Thomas Ditch Samples Sample Nenher Sample Sample Cs-134 ' Cs-137 ; Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 K TEDE IDi gL pCi/g1 ~'pCilg - pCilg - pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mrtm/yr Sediment l JT. SED.005.XX 42.00759 1262 0.392 0.423 32.600 2.69 JT. SED.013.XX 42.00760 1089 0.584 0.227 26.200 1.97 JT. SED.015.XX 42.00761 1258 0.584 0.364 29.900 2.66 JT. SED.017.XX 42.00762 868 1.880 0.498 27.900 5.15 JT. SED.019.XX 42.00763 968 3.110 3.750 32.500 23.33 JT. SED.023.XX 42.00764 1654 0.108 30.600 0.15 JT. SED.024.XX 42.00765 1382 0.187 0.154 26.900 1.04 JT. SED.025.XX 42.00766 1124 0.146 31.400 0.20 Minimum 0.108 0.154 26.200 0.151 Maximum 3.110 3.750 32.600 23.329 Average 0.874 0.903 29.750 JT. SED.017.XX.QC 42.00775 941 1.430 0.172 25.400 2.87 9I Soil JT.SOILSUR.001.XX 42.00670 1190 0.498 31.000 0.70 JT.SOILSUR.003.XX 42.00671 1227 0.144 29.600 0.20 JT.SOILSUR.005.XX 42.00672 1365 0.178 31.400 0.25 JT.SOILSUR.007.XX 42.00673 1304 0.050 30.700 0.07 JT.SOILSUR.009.XX 42.00674 1036 1.920 3.210 31.700 18.93 Minimum 0.050 3.210 29.600 0.070 Maximum 1.920 3.210 31.700 18.931 Average 0.558 3.210 30.880 l JT.50!L.5UR.009.XX.SUB 42.00791 1296 0.108 31.400 0.15 Each sample's nuclide results were evaluated using NUREG 1500 dose conversion factors. The sample results were also combined with the characterization sample , results and the Mann-Whitney U test performed. l l - None of the individual sample results exceeded the 30 mrem /yr TEDE l criterian in the Final Survey Plan. 1 omurmomoa.rsysuavtvouowunseno 49 REVISION 0 l l

       ~

1 EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS l 1 i Two samples (JT. SED.019.XX, and JT. SOIL.009.XX) showed TEDE l values of 23.33 and 18.93 mrem /yr respectively. i s I The results of the Mann-Whitney U, and Quantile tests showed: ) J

1. No statistical difference in the Cs-137 activity in the Jay Thomas i ditch sediment is observed between these samples and the  !

Characterization samples using both the Mann-Whitney and Quantile tests. Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, Table B-5.

2. The Co-60 sediment activity has decreased since the Characterization survey. Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, Table B-6.

I l

3. The Cs 137 activity in the Jay Thomas ditch soil has not increased from the Characterization survey using the Mann-Whitney U test.

The Quantile test could not be performed on the Jay Thomas soil because there were too few data points. Combining the Cs-137 Characterization data with these follow-up measurements and ranking the data with the background soil samples shows no statistical difference in the activities for the samples obtained in the Jay Thomas ditch soil and the background soil sample set (using s

   ,s                             both the Mann-Whitney U and Quantile tests). However, sample
 .                                JT. SOIL.SUR.009.XX with 1.92 pCi/g is clearly above background Cs-137 concentrations even though the test of the data sets does not indicate a statistical difference. Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, Tables B-7 and B-8.

4. The Mann-Whitney U test could not be performed for the Jay Thomas ditch soil Co-60 activities because more than 40% of the data were less than detectable. (A criterion which precludes the use of the test.)

The area surrounding JT. SOIL.009. SED was gridded into a 10 meter by 10 meter grid and eight additional samples were obtained, each representing 11 m2 area. The results of the 9 samples were evaluatea using the averaging protocols from the final survey plan and draft NUREG/CR-5849. The resulting weighted mean TEDE is 2.33 mrem /yr, satisfying the Final Survey Plan criterion of 10 mrem /yr. This grid pattern again shows that the activity is very " spotty" and the eight additional samples showed very little activity. The grid pattern is shown in Figure 4-4. The results of the samples obtained from the gridded area are contained in Table 4-5. O ammucamocswsysunwouowunsea.o 4-10 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATIIWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4-5 10 Meter by 10 Meter Grid Samples for Elevated Jay Thomas Ditch Soil Location Sample Number Sample Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co40 .Eu-152 Eu-IS4 K-40 TEDE

                            .ID      3  - pCilg - pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g mmnlyr JT. SOIL.SUR.009.XX.1 42.00792 1014            0.152                   29.600    0.21 JT.SOILSUR.009.XX.2 42.00794 986               0.431                   27.000    0.60 JT. SOIL.SUR.009.XX.3 42.00795 914             0.294                   28.300    0.41 JT.SOILSUR.009.XX.4 42,007% 1156               0.209                   28.800    0.29 JT.SOILSUR.009.XX.5 42.00797 992               0.168                   27.900    0.24 JT. SOIL.SUR.009.XX.6 42.00798 953             0.149                   25.900    0.21 JT. SOIL.SUR.009.XX.7 42.00799 1061            0.080                   28.700    0.11 JT. SOIL.SUR.009.XX.8 42.00800 1124                                    22.200    0.00 JT.SOILSUR.009.XX 42.00674 1036                1.920 3.210             31.700    18.93 weighted mean 2.33 Ji.soILsUR.009.XX.I.Qc 42.00793 1040           0.165                   31.700    0.23 1

1 0 l l

                                                                                            \

l l l l l l l 9 omwrecm>ocswsysvavewouowunsea o 4-11 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Figure 4-4 l Jay 'Ihomas Ditch Grid for Elevated Sample l l FORT ST. VRAIN EFFLUENT PATHWAY JUNE 5,1996 JAY THOMAS DITCH - SURFACE SOIL FOLLOWUP SURVEY GRIDDED POINT JT.SOILSUR.009.XX 1-8 l FILE NAME: FOLOWUP1 l 00eJULS 000.xx.7 00eJUL6 8 8 8 FARM POND 00s.xx.s 00s.xx 00s.xx.4 ) e e e a , 00sJOL3 00s.xx.2 00eJOL1 tow I I l s JAY THOMA3 DITCH N k l i l 0:WATAmDOOCWSVSURVBPOMOWUMSFD.0 4-12 REVISION 0  !

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS 4.4 Irrigation Ditches There are 6 irrigation ditches which are used to divert water from either the Goosequill (Ditches 1, 2, and 3) or Jay Thomas Ditch (Ditches 4, 5, and 6). j Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the sample locations for irrigation ditches 1,3,4,5,and

6. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 show surface and subsurface locations for irrigation ditch

2. The irrigation ditch surface sample results are provided in Table 4-6.

Subsurface sample results are provided in Table 4-7. Individual sample analysis reports are contained in Su plement I to this report.. ' _ . . . -\ --. l ammed M

                                            '/N                                                  '

_y

                          =
                          == - . +                                                               i eauw mn                        "'

nCmn f i ru m - 1 Figure 4-5 Irrigation Ditch 2 Surface Soll Sample Locations

                                               \

MM s

                                          /
                                             / ~

Par $f.WAN EPNBNfrADWF m e.m SMFC Mi$ g ru m m Figure 4-6 Irrigation Ditch 2 Subsurface Soll Sample Locations O RM)ATMECMXXWSystmVEVOUDWUMSEc'S 4-13 REVISION 0

1 EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4-6 Irrigation Ditch Surface Samples  ; i 1 ( Sample Number Sample Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 K 40 TOTAL i pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g pCi/g mremlyr l ID" ..g> DTCH.1.001.XX 42.00776 1505 0.334 0.097 29.700 0.96 DTCH.2.001.XX 42.00699 1486 0.923 0.588 30.100 4.27 DTCH.2.002.XX 42.00700 1263 0.230 5.760 0.713 28.500 12.38 DTCH.2.004.XX 42.00701 1427 1.530 0.375 31.800 4.04 Minimum 0.230 0.923 0.375 28.500 4.04 Muimum 0.230 5.760 0.713 31.800 12.37'6 l Average 0.230 2.738 0.559 30.133 l DTCH.3.001.XX 42.00703 1572 1.110 0.138 28.700 2.25 DTCH.3.002.XX 42.00704 1547 1.460 0.189 31.100 3.00 DTCH.3.005.XX 42.00705 1545 0.779 0.167 31.000 1.94 ) DTCH.3.006.XX 42.00706 1164 0.462 0.108 33.200 1.19 DTCH.1.009.XX 42.00707 1407 0.584 29.000 0.82 Minimum 0.462 0.108 28.700 0.818  ; Muimum 1.460 0.189 33.200 3.000 Average 0.879 0.151 30.600 DTCH.4.001.XX 42.00708 1064 0.423 0.259 25.500 1.90 DTCH.4.002.XX 42.00709 1289 0.352 0.312 31.000 2.07 Minimum 0.352 0.259 25.500 1.903 Muimum 0.423 0.312 31.000 2.072 U Average 0.388 0.286 28.250 DTCH.5.002.XX 42.00710 1095 0.501 0.229 27.000 1.86 DTCH.S.004.XX 42.00711 1313 0.349 0.115 28.400 1.07 DTCH.5.005.XX 42.00712 1178 0.483 0.175 26.400 1.56 DTCH.5.007.XX 42.00713 1418 0.115 22.300 0.16 DTCH.S.008.XX 42.00714 1140 0.686 0.183 26.800 1.89 DTCH.5.009.XX 42.00715 1116 1.090 0.200 27.400 2.54 DTCH.5.014.XX 42.00717 970 1.460 0.1% 23.400 3.04 Minimum 0.115 0.115 22.300 0.161 Muimum 1.460 0.229 28.400 3.036  ! Average 0.669 0.183 25.957 DTCH.6.001.XX 42.00718 1456 28.700 DTCH.6.002.XX 42.00719 1399 0.094 29.300 0.13 DTCH.6.003.XX 42.00720 1046 0.316 26.500 0.44 Minimum 0.094 26.500 0.13 Muimum 0.316 29.300 0.442 Average 0.205 28.167 l O oannammocsesysvavewouowunsea.o 4-14 REVISION 0

l EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4-7 Irrigation Ditch Subsurface Samples Sample Number

  ~

Sample Sample Cs-134. Cs-137 Co40 Eu-152 Eu-154 K-40 TEDE ID g pCUg pCUg pCUg- pCUg - pCUg pCUg mmulyr l DTCH.2.001.XX.SUB 42.00801 1421 0.680 0.433 29.900 3.14 DTCH.2.002.XX.SUB 42.00802 1240 0.124 2.400 0.329 33.000 5.40 DTCH.3.002.XX.SUB 42.00804 1403 0.636 31.500 0.89 DTCH.4.002.XX.SUB 42.00805 1412 0.212 0.149 33.300 1.05 DTCH.S.014.XX.SUB 42.00806 1119 0.337 29.100 0.47 DTCH.2.004.XX.QC 42.00702 1331 0.107 2.720 0.741 31.600 7.88 DTCH.6,002.XX.QC 42m19Qc 1555 30.300 DTCH.5.009.XX.QC 42.00716 1056 1.120 0.275 27.400 2.96 DrCH.2.002.XX.SUB.Qc 42.00803 1231 0.108 2.060 0.241 31.800 4.43 Each sample's nuclide results were evaluated using NUREG 1500 dose conversion factors. The sample results were combined with the characterization sample results and the Mann-Whitney U test, and Quantile tests were performed. None of the individual sample results exceeded the 30 mrem /yr TEDE criterion from the Final Survey Plan. One sample from irrigation ditch 2 (DTCH.2.002.XX) showed a TEDE of 12.38 mrem /yr. The results of the Mann-Whitney U, and Quantile tests showed:

1. No statistical difference in the Cs-137 activity in irrigation ditches 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is observed between these samples and the Characterization samples. There were too few samples from ditch 1 to perform the Mann-Whitney U test, and only ditch 5 had enough data points to perform the Quantile test. Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, Tables B-9 through B-13.

l Irrigation ditch 4 and Irrigation ditch 6, Cs-137 characterization data were combined with these follow-up measurements and ranked with the background soil sample set. Based on the limited number of measurements, both ditch 4 and ditch 6 Cs-137 activities were not l statistically different from background using the Mann-Whitney U test but were determined to be higher than background using the Quantile test. It l is noted, however that the Cs-137 activity range is very close to the range observed in the background measurements. Ranked data and associated l statistics are contained in Appendix B, Table B-14. l l l O 1 omwroomocsesvsuavewoumwsca.o 4-15 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS

2. No statistical difference in the Co-60 activity was observed for irrigation j ditches 2,3, and 5 using the Mann-Whitney U test. Ditch I had too few

samples, and ditch 4 had too few samples with measurable results to perform the tests. Irrigation ditch 6 showed no Co-60 activity during this survey or during the Characterization survey.

l The Quantile test was performed on irrigation ditch 5 Co-60 measurements and also showed no statistical difference in the data sets.

Ranked data and associated statistics for Co-60 in the irrigation ditches are

. contained in appendix B, Tables B-16 through B-18. ! 4.5 Pastures and Farmland 1 Thirty surface, ten subsurface, and one QC sample were taken from pastures and farmlands. Sample locations are contained in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Sample Results are contained in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9. I l 1 l

O i

h j 9 ) i i 4

; o omTmecunoesesvsuavewoumunsecx o             4 16                                  REVISION 0 4

l l EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4-8 Pastures and Farm Land Surface Soil Samples l Sample Number Sample Sample Cs-134' Cs-137 Co 60 Eu-IS2 Eu-154 K-40 TOTAL ID g pCUg pCUg pCi/g - pCi/g pCilg pCUg mrem /yr PAST. SOIL 001.XX 42.00678 1260 0.227 33.100 0.32 PAST. SOIL.002.XX 42.00688 949 0.102 25.400 0.14 PAST. SOIL.003.XX 42.00689 854 0.061 23.100 0.09 PAST.SOILOO4.XX 42.00690 1046 0.506 29.300 0.71 PAST. SOIL.006.XX 42.00691 1221 0.287 29.700 0.40 PAST. SOIL 008.XX 42.00692 1133 0.628 27.400 0.88 PAST.SOILOO9.XX 42.00693 990 1.010 25.700 1.41 PAST. SOIL.010.XX 42.00694 998 0.393 21.300 0.55 PAST. SOIL.017.XX 42.00729 1144 0.141 23.500 0.20 PAST.SOILO19.XX 42.00730 985 0.308 26.200 0.43 PAST. SOIL.021.XX 42.00731 995 0.711 21.800 1.00 PAST. SOIL.022.XX 42.00732 1080 0.477 27.800 0.67 PAST. SOIL.023.XX 42.00733 843 0.457 23.100 0.64 PAST.SOILO27.XX 42.00695 711 1.140 24.100 1.60 PAST. SOIL.029.XX 42.006 % 852 0.843 22.000 1.18 PAST. SOIL.035.XX 42.00697 732 0.3 % 18.500 0.55 PAST. SOIL.037.XX 42.00698 753 0.325 18.900 0.46 PAST.SOILO41.XX 42.00734 1325 0.215 28.800 0.30 PAST.SOILO44.XX 42.00735 1146 0.232 31.800 0.32 PAST.SOILO46.XX 42.00736 1116 0.527 29.500 0.74 PAST.SOILO51.XX 42.00737 988 0.607 28.600 0.85 PAST.SOILO53.XX 42.00738 1189 30.200 PAST.SOILO54.XX 42.00739 1082 0.054 1.360 0.095 27.400 2.55 PAST.SOILO58.XX 42.00740 1203 0.606 29.500 0.85 PAST. SOIL.062.XX 42.00741 967 0.039 1.420 0.128 27.600 2.75 PAST.SOILO66.XX 42.00743 1022 0.376 0.066 29.200 0.86 PAST. SOIL.068.XX 42.00744 1322 0.357 29.600 0.50 s PAST. SOIL 074.XX 42.00745 1306 0.388 28.700 0.54 s PAST. SOIL.077.XX 42.00746 1186 0.210 30.000 0.29 PAST. SOIL.080.XX 42.00747 1317 0.136 30.000 0.19 Minimum 0.039 0.061 0.066 18.500 0.09 Maximum 0.054 1.420 0.128 33.100 2.754 Average 0.046 0.498 0.096 26.727 PAST.SOILO62.XX.QC 42.00742 1231 1.020 0.099 28.800 1.93 O amrT4momocwsvsuavaroumw.sr.cs o 4-17 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATPWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4 9 Pastures and Farm Land Subsurface Soll Samples k Sample Number - Sample Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co40 Eu-152- Eu-154 K 40 TOTAL i

ID. 'g pCUg .pCUg 'pCUg: pCilg pCUg pCUg mrem /yr l PAST. SOIL.004.XX.SUB 42.00807 1060 32.000 PAST. SOIL.008.XX.SUB 42.00808 930 0.584 30.900 0.82 ,

PAST. SOIL.009.XX.SUB 42.00809 982 28.300 PAST. SOIL.010.XX.SUB 42.00810 913 25.100 PAST. SOIL.021.XX.SUB 42.00811 1147 0.228 28.500 0.32 PAST. SOIL.027.XX.SUB 42.00812 1078 25.200 PAST. SOIL.029.XX.SUB 42.00813 989 0.085 24.200 0.12 PAST. SOIL.051.XX.SUB 42.00814 1207 0.120 33.900 0.17 PAST. SOIL.054.XX.SUB 42.00815 1027 0.289 30.100 0.40 PAST. SOIL.062.XX.SUB 42.00816 994 0.145 29.800 0.20 Minimum 0.085 24.200 0.12 Maximum 0.584 33.900 0.818 Average 0.242 28.800 Each sample's nuclide results were evaluated using NUREG 1500 dose conversion factors. The sample results were also combined with the characterization sample results and the Mann-Whitney U, and Quantile tests performed. None of the samples exceeded 10 mrem /yr TEDE. O - The results of the Mann-Whitney U, and Quantile tests showed:

1. No statistical difference in the Cs-137 activity in pasture samples )

is observed between these samples and the Characterization samples. Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, Table B-19.

2. The pasture Cs-137 activity is statistically different from background samples. However, the pasture may be subdivided j such that some of the areas will be no different from background. l Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, l Table B-20.

I

3. Too few samples showed measurable Co-60 activity to perform the test.

4.6 Farm Pond Three sediment samples were taken from the farm pond. Sample locations are contained in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Sample Results are contained in Table 4-10. O  ; a:maramomocsesvsuavmouowunsecs.o 4-18 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4-10 Farm Pond Sediment Samples Sample Nu:nber Sample Sample Cs-134 Cs-137 Co-60 Eu-152 Eu-154 K-40 TEDE ID' g pCUg pCi/g pCUg pCUg pCi/g pCi/g mmnlyr i FP. SED.002.XX 42.00772 948 0.971 0.241 18.100 2.58 FP. SED.005.XX 42.00773 915 0.331 22.500 0.46 FP. SED.008.XX 42.00774 1098 0.425 27.600 0.60 Minimum 0.331 0.241 18.100 0.463 Maximum 0.971 0.241 27.600 2.579 Average 0.576 0.241 22.733 Each sample's nuclide results were evaluated NUREG 1500 dose conversion factors. The sample results were also combined with the characterization sample results and the Mann-Whitney U, and Quantile tests performed. None of the samples exceeded 10 mrem /yr TEDE. The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests showed no statistical difference in the Cs-137 or Co-60 activity in farm pond sediment samples is observed between these samples and the Characterization samples. There were too few measurements to perform the Quantile test. Ranked data and I associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, Tables B-21 and B-22. A comparison of the Cs-137 activities in the farm pond sediment was made l with background Cs-137. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test shows that the farm pond sediment Cs-137 activity is statistically higher than h l background soil. Ranked data and associated statistics are contained in l Appendix B, Table B-23. 4.7 Farm Pond Outfall Five samples were obtained from the farm pond outfall. Sample locations are contained in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Sample Results are contained in Table 4-11. O omTmmmocmesysuavarotwuur.sra.o 4-19 REVISION 0

] EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS l l Table 4-11  ! l Farm Pond Outfall Samples I Sample Nanber Sample Sample ' Cs 134 : Cs-137 i Co 60 = Eu-152 Eu-154 K-40 TEDE. '

J ID i gi pCUg pCug' pCugi pCUg. pCUg pCus mrem /yr l OF. SED.001.XX 42.00721 1206 0.066 30.500 0.09 [

l OF. SED.004.XX 42.00722 1175 20.800 , j OF. SED.007.XX 42.00723 1148 0.177 0.088 28.400 0.69 i OF. SED.009.XX 42.00724 1445 0.063 0.092 29.500 0.56 i OF. SED.012.XX 42.00725 1616 28.500  ? l Mim= = 0.063 0.088 20.800 0.09 j Mani== 0.177 0.092 30.500 0.695 l Average 0.102 0.090 27.540 l l Each sample's nuclide results were evaluated NUREG 1500 dose conversion j j constants. The sample results were also combined with the characterization  ; i sample results and the Mann-Whitney U, and Quantile tests performed. j - None of the samples exceeded 10 mrem /yr TEDE. 1 ) The results of both the Mann-Whitney U, and Quantile tests showed no  ; j statistical difference in the Cs-137 activity in farm pond outfall samples l

between these samples and the Characterization samples.

i l A comparison of the Cs-137 activities in the Farm Pond Outfall was made with background Cs-137. The results of both the Mann-Whitney U test , and the quantile test show no statistical difference between the Outfall Cs-137 concentrations and the background Cs-137 concentrations. Ranked l data and associated statistics are contained in Appendix B, Table B-25. There were too few measurements with detectable Co-60 to perform the Mann-Whitney U test or the Quantile test. 4.8 Sediment Storage Area Sample locations from the Goosequill ditch Sediment Storage area which has been established near the FSV effluent discharge point are contained in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Sample Results are contained in Table 4-12. O 05DAWTECHDOC5PSYSURVEWOROWUMSEC4,0 REVISION 0 4-20

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Table 4-12 Sediment Storage Area Samples Sample Number Sample I Sample . Cs-134 Cs-137 Co40 Eu-152 Eu-154 K-40 TOTAL D g pCi/g - pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCilg pCi/g mranlyr SSA.SUR.001.XX 42.00675 1384 0.458 33.800 0.64 SSA.SUB.001.XX 42.00680 1361 30.900 SSA.SUR.002.XX 42.00676 1371 0.058 32.800 0.08 SSA.SUB.002.XX 42.00681 1338 31.600 SSA.SUR.003.XX 42.00677 1204 1.190 0.604 30.100 4.72 SSA.SUB.003.XX 42.00682 1083 0.096 2.690 1.600 30.100 12.16 SSA.SUR.004.XX 42.00678 1384 31.000 SSA.SUB.004.XX 42.00683 1322 32.400 SSA.SUR.005.XX 42.00679 1383 0.223 0.071 31.400 0.67 SSA.SUB.005.XX 42.00684 1424 31.100 Minimum 0.096 0.058 0.071 30.100 0.08 Maximum 0.096 2.690 1.600 33.800 12.155 Average 0.096 0.924 0.758 31.520 Each samples nuclide results were evaluated NUREG 1500 dose conversion constants. The sample results were also combined with the characterization sample results and the Mann-Whitney U test performed. The evaluation shows: None of the samples exceeded the 30 mrem /yr TEDE criterion in the final survey plan. One sample, SSA.SUB.003.XX was 12.16 mrem /yr TEDE. Since this is a new area no comparison to previous data can be made. 4.9 QC Samples Several quality control samples were split and analyzed separately from the corresponding sample. The results and a comparison are provided in Table 4-13. This comparison was performed in accordance with the criteria for environmental split sample comparison contained in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750. The QC splits were analyzed using the same protocol as the samples. The resolution is equal to the QC result divided by it's lo uncertainty. The ratio is the sample result divided by the QC result. The resolution and ratio are then compared to the values in Table 4-14. The " Remarks" column of Table 4-13 provides the comparison results. O owwnnmocmrsvsuavmouowur.sm o 4 21 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP RESULTS 4 i Table 4-13 Follow-Up Characterization Sample QC Comparison Sample Numhar . Nuclide , Activity. QC Split .QC: Resolution Ratio Remarks (pCi/g)L '(pCi/g) ' sigma l GQDB. SOIL.052.XX Cs-137 <0.129 0.118 0.024 4.921 Note 1 GQDB. SOIL.057.XX Cs-137 U.433 0.558 0.047 11.953 0.776 GQDB. SED.003.XX Cs-137 0.259 0.257 0.034 7.485 1.008  ; j GQDB. SED.018.XX.SUB Cs-137 0.183 <0.068 Note 1 j Co 60 0.055 < 0.070 Note 1 JT. SED.017.XX Cs-137 1.880 1.430 0.080 17.967 1.315 j Co 60 0.498 0.172 0.025 6.783 2.895 Not Acceptable DTCH.2.004.XX Cs-134 <0.109 0.107 0.012 8.630 Note 1 j Cs 137 1.530 2.720 0.103 26.523 0.563 Not Acceptable l Co-60 0.375 0.741 0.040 18.620 0.506 Not Acceptable ! DTCH.6.002.XX Cs-137 0.094 <0.091 Note 1 DTCH.5.009.XX Cs-137 1.090 1.120 0.079 14.163 0.973 f { Co40 0.200 0.275 0.033 8.344 0.727 i DTCH.2.002.XX.SUB Cs-134 0.124 0.108 0.017 6.189 1.148 Cs-137 2.400 2.060 0.102 20.289 1.165 Co-60 0.329 0.241 0.031 7.860 1.365 PAST. SOIL.062.XX Cs-134 0.039 < 0.082 Note 1 Cs-137 1.420 1.020 0.060 16.94? 1.392 Not Acceptable l Co40 0.128 0.099 0.025 3.920 1.293 i JT.SOILSUR.009.XX.1 Cs-137 0.152 0.165 0.027 6.022 l 0.921

          < indicates nuclide MDA.

! Note 1 Nuclide was not identified in both samples. 'the MDA was frequently greats r than the quantified j activity in the corresponding sample. 1 1 i i Table 414 i NRC Criteria for Accepting Sample Measurements l .. j Resolution - Ratio i 4 <4

• j 4-7 0.5-2.0

! R-15 0.6-1.66 $ 16-50 0.75-1.33 i 51-200 0.80-1.25 i i > 200 0.85-1.18 j *Results cannot

• compared. Sample uncertamry is to high to provide a useful comparison.

1 ( oaomacupocwsysvavewounwunseos.o 4 22 REVISION 0

EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLIDW UP RESULTS I Three samples did not meet the acceptance criteria because the ratio of the activities I (sample /QC split) was beyond the acceptable range defined in NRC Inspection Procedure 84750. Differences in sample preparation: drying, mixing, splitting, etc. may have l introduced variability in the samples. Since the sample preparation does not include l pulverizing and thorough mixing, the sample is probably not homogeneous prior to l splitting. l Three additional samples identified nuclide(s) in one sample but not the other. The l MDA for nuclides which were not identified was frequently higher than the sample l activity measured in the corresponding sample, explaining the difference. 1

                                       .                                                       e!

e om^mrucupocsavsumvreu.owur. sea o 4-23 REVISION 0

i i SU.NDiARY AND CONCLUSIONS i 5.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS i One hundred sixty-four samples were taken along the FSV effluent pathway and adjacent l areas. Sample locations were biased to the sample areas, within each pathway segment, which previously showed the highest activities. None of the samples exceeded 30 , i mrem /yr TEDE (the final survey plan criterion for an individual sample assuming the i elevated area is less than I1.11 m2 ) using NUREG 1500 dose conversion factors. Seven , of the samples produced TEDEs between 10 mrem /yr and 23.33 mrem /yr. Two of these  ;

                       " elevated" areas were gridded into 10 meter by 10 meter grids and sampled in accordance 3                       with protocols in the final survey plan and draft NUREG 5849. The weighted average l                       for the 100 m2 contiguous areas surrounding the elevated points was less than l                       10 mrem /yr, satisfying the final survey plan release criteria.

. 1 It is interesting to note that the very high activity samples which were observed during I ' the characterization survey and the Scoping survey were not observed during this Follow- I up sampling effort. However, most of the areas have not decreased significantly as  !

observed by performing statistical comparisons at the 95% confidence level. The l activities along the pathway are still noted to be very " spotty". Two areas are noted to be statistically lower in activity: the Goosequill ditch sediment and the Goosequill ditch

! banks. The lower activity in these two areas may be due to better discharge control, ! better ditch dredging cont.ol, extensive sampling which served to remediate high spots, l and dispersion through we.athering. i j Table 5-1 below shows the results which were determined by comparison of the data using the nonparametric statistical tests. All tests results are contained in Appendix B. i Table 5-2 provides the activity concentration mean and range, and the TEDE range observed in surface samples, sediment samples and vegetation. Most subsurface soil I samples showed Cs-137 within the range of background soil. The resulting TEDEs from all subsurface soil were low. Only a few samples along the Goosequill ditch banks and i j in irrigation ditch 2 showed nuclides other than Cs-137. 3 l 1 i I i !O d omwismoocs#svsuavmouowmc" 5-1 REVISION 0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS Table 5-1 Pathway Comparisons with Previous Data and with Background Cs-137 Data location Cs-157 -- Co40 Congarison whh m;c.~.whb Background Comparison whh Characterizauon Characterization Goosequill Ditch sediment 4 i d Banks of the Goosequill see note I see note I see note 1 Ditch soi! Banks of the Goosequill 4 7 4 Ditch sediment Jay Thomas Ditch sediment n.s.d. T 4 Jay Thomas Diteb n.s.d. n.s.d. see note 1 Soil Irrigation Ditch I to few samples to few samples to few samples Irrigation Ditch 2 n.s.d. T n.s.d Irrigation Ditch 3 n.s.d. T n.s.d Irrigation Ditch 4 n.s.d. n.s.d. Mann-whhney see note 2 7 Quantis. Irrigation Ditch 5 n.s.d. T n.s.d. Irrigation Ditch 6 n.s.d. n.s.d. Mann-whitney no Co-60 detected Quantile Pasture n.s.d. T see note 1 Farm Pond sedirrent n.s.d. T n.s.d. Farm Pond Outfall sediment n.s.d. n.s.d. see note 1 l 7 Increased activity concentration in this segment of the pathway. When compared with the characterization data, the i indicates that the activity is noted to have increased since the characterization survey. When compared with background Cs-137, the i indicates that the area is statistically higher than background. 4 Decreased activity concentration in this segment of the pathway. n.s.d. Not statistically different (at the 95 % confidence level). Note 1: More than 40% of the samples were 'less than" detectable. The statistical test therefore could not performed. Note 2: Co40 was identified in the follow up sampling effort for ditch 4 tm; riot in the initial characterization. However since greater than 40% of the samples were 'less thar' detectable the test was not performed. O onwrramocswsvsuavarouowunsrao 5-2 REVISION 0

i

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS l Table 5-2 f _ Follow-Up Summary Resuks:Mean and Range (pC1/g), TEDE Range (mrem /yr) Imation* Co.134 - Co-137 'Co40' Eu-152 Eu-154 TEDE Goosequill Ditch 0.057 1.366 0.853 udiment (10) 1.80 - 10.56 0.057 0.422 - 2.240 0.238 - 1.500 Goosequill Ditch 1.948 1.050 0.251 - 3.070 0.158 - 1.650 f i Banks of the 0.354 0.618 i l Goosequill Ditch soil 0.16 - 6.57 l l (10) 0.155 - 0.826 0.166 - 1.070 Banks of the 0.705 1.170 0.251 0.142 Goosequill Ditch 0.26 - l1.58 sediment (10) 0.010 1.470 0.051 - 1.750 0.214 - 0.287 0.118 - 0.165 Jay homas Ditch 0.874 0.903 mediment (8) 0.15-2333 1 0.108 - 3.1to 0.154 3.750 ) Jay Domas Ditch 0.558 3.210 I Soil (5) 0.07 - 18.93 I 0.050 - 1.920 3.210 l Irrigation Ditch I (1) 0.334 0.097 0.96 l Irrigation Ditch 2 (3) 0.230 2.738 0.559 4.04 12.38 0.230 0.923 5.760 0.375 - 0.713 Irrigation Ditch 3 (4) 0.879 0.151

   )                                                                                                          0.82 - 3.00 v                                                0.462 - 1.460   0.108 - 0.189                                                 I Irrigation Ditch 4 Q)                           0.388          0.286 I.90 - 2.07 0.352 - 0.423   0.259 0.312 I

Irrigation Ditch 5 0) 0.669 0.183 0.16 - 3.04 0.115 - 1.460 0.!!5 - 0.229 Irrigation Ditch 6 Q) 0.205 0.13 - 0.44 0.094 - 0.316 Posture (30) 0.046 0.498 0.096 0.09 - 2.75 0.039 - 0.054 0.061 - 1.420 0.066 0.128 Far.n Pond sediment 0.576 0.241 0.331 - 0.971 0.241 Farm Pond Outfall 0.102 0.090 0.063 - 0.177 0.088 - 0.092 Sediment Storage Area 0.096 0.924 0.758 0.096 0.058 - 2.690 0.071

• De number of samples is noted in parenthesis.

De ranges are for samples with measurable results.

 \

oaormrecunocsesvsuitvcwouowunsecs.o 5-3 REVISION 0

as n. ,..--._mn-.- a +-.u.. som moa.s s.-.a.-s- a.e w . n e mm .. aw aa- an--x*-*ws.+w...e-.a m .-m..sma. am--amae-~um+.=,--s.m-maa -+aa.--- --- <---n.u,,*-~e-+<en O 4 THrs PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK $ O

                                 , _ _                                                                                                      .t .-- - ._ .                                   --

REFERENCES I

6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 Nuclear Regulatory Documents  ! 6.1.1 Regulatory Guide 1.86, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear

Reactors," June 1974.

6.1.2 Draft NUREG/CR-5S49, ORAU-92/C57 Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination, June 1992 i 4 6.1.3 NRC Inspection Procedure 84750, " Radioactive Waste Treatment, and ] Effluent and Environmental Monitoring," March 1994. 1 6.1.4 Draft NUREG/CR-1500, " Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release

Criteria for Decommissioning: NRC Staffs Draft for Comment", August

;                        1994.

i 6.1.5 Draft NUREG-1505, "A Nonparametric Statistical Methodology for the  ! Design and Analysis of Final Status Decommissioning Surveys", August l 1995. i

6.2 Site Specific Proceduits 4

6.2.1 FSV-RP-OPS-I-213, " Subsurface Soil and Sediment Sampling" l 4 6.2.2 FSV-RP-OPS-I-214, " Surface Soil and Sediment Sampling" i , 6.2.3 FSV-RC-ADM-I-121, "QA Program for the Radiochemistry Laboratory" ] { 6.2.4 FSV-RC-ADM-I-134, " Sample Handling and log-in" 1 6.2.5 FSV-RC-ANLY-I-209, " Sample Preparation for Gamma Spectral 4 Analysis" 6.2.6 FSV-RC-INST-I-325, " Operation and Calibration Procedure for Laboratory Balances" 1 6.2.7 FSV-RC-INST-I-338, " Operation and Calibration of the REX-M Computer Based Gamma Analysis System" j 6.2.8 FSV-RC-INST-I-339, " Operation of Genie-PC Gamma Spectroscopy System" 6.2.9 FSC-SC-FRS-I-101, " Background level Determination for Final S urvey" omwrecanomesvsuavewouowunsecnow.' 6-1 REVISION 0

l REFERENCES 6.3 Site Technical Basis Documents 6.3.1 FSV-FRS-TBD-205, Draft External and Internal Dose Conversion Factors for FSV Liquid Effluent Environmental Pathways" l 6.3.2 FSV-FRS-TBD-209, Draft " External and Internal Dose Conversion Factors for Soils in the FSV Restricted Area". 6.3.3 FSV-OPS-TBD-107, " Validation of Preliminary Environmental Evaluation, Soil and Sediment Samples" 6.3.4 FSV-OPS-TBD-108, "Radionuclide Concentration Guideline Values for Effluent Releases" 6.4 Additional Documents 6.4.1 " Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway Characterization Report", May 1995. 6.4.2 " Characterization Plan for the Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway", January 26,1995. 6.4.3 Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual, Public Service Company of Colorado 6.4.4 " Fort St. Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway Scoping Survey Report", O February 1995. 6.4.5 " Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Station Decommissioning Project Final Survey Report, Repower Area" 6.4.6 Fort St. Vrain Final Survey Plan. 6.4.7 " Mathematical Statistics with Applications second edition", Mendenhall, Scheaffer, Wackerly, C1981 Duxbury Press Wadsworth, Inc. I O ommnomocsavsuavarouowunsecnome 6-2 REVISION 0

  ,A._a_4, _,     --,m  -,uu-_a-_.34.22__-    _,s- 3 ,gaA_..4 A_mAa, m _ma,_y__g, ,4. .,m__g4g,,,,,,,mp.,m_.-2 34,. , _ , . ,_m,,_ __;,, . , , _ , , , , , _          _ , _ _ _

APPENDIX A O APPENDIX A FORT ST. VRAIN LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP SAMPLING PLAN r O O 0;\ DATA \11?CHDOGTSVSUR\POLIDWUP\APPA

 =n. --aa.#6,4mA_an

• wm m#-as.-ee -*4h--ed,-, -.44 reA--- --we d*-m m e e 4 As.4J - Ja A s-+4wA *-e4 Je er.44Ad---.ma--4m 34m- a-J4Ad-.ihd. 4--=4*SML-e--A--dim._-Je.si-m4 ahen a aAAsam O

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK $ 4 . f i i J i . O 9

Revision U May 1996  ; i s l FORT ST VRAIN j l

LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP SAMPLING PLAN 4

4 4 1 I ] 1 Prepared By: ~ h [. Date: d' /!F6 D. Shiiult I Approved By: Date: 2/ 8 f l H. Story' O O

Kevision u May 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS I i O INTROPUCTION Page1 SCOPE Page 2 REFERENCES Page 3 ATTACIBENT 1 Sampling Plan for the Goose Quill Ditch ATTACIBENT 2 Sampling Plan for the Banks of the Goose Quill Ditch ATTACIBENT 3 Sampling Plan for the Jay Thomas Ditch i ATTACIBENT 4 Sampling Plan for the Irrigation Ditches ATTACIBENT 5 Sampling Plan for the Pastures and Farm Land 1 ATTACIBENT 6 Sampling Plan for the Farm Pond i ATTACIBENT 7 Sampling Plan for the Out Fall Of The Farm Pond i ATTACIBIENT 8 Sampling Plan for the Sediment Storage Area 1 l l 9 l i

acs awa s May 1996 FORT ST VRAIN l LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY FOLLOW-UP SAMPLING PLAN INTRODUCTION l The Characterization Plan For The Fort St Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway was prepared and l implemented in the first two quarters of 1995. At that time elevated levels of radioactive contamination were identified in isolated areas along the liquid effluent pathway. The results of the characterization are documented in the Fort St Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway

Characterization Report. Since the time of the characterization, Fort St Vrain has continued releasing effluents by way of the liquid effluent pathway. This follow-up sampling plan will be used to determine the current condition of the liquid effluent pathway.

l The results of this follow-up sampling plan will be used to:

1) Prepare a report documenting the current condition of the liquid effluent pathway. This report should prove useful in predicting the condition of the pathway once releases from Fort l

St Vrain have ceased.

2) Determine if Technical Basis Document 205 and 209 should be submitted to the NRC for approval. If these TBDs are not submitted to the NRC it is expected that the default values it 1

NUREG 1500 will be used to demonstrate compliance with the free release criteria specified in the Fort St Vrain Fmal Survey Plan. The advantages of not submitting the TBDs include avoiding delays in implementing 1 the final survey while waiting for the NRC to review the TBDs and avoiding procedural changes and training required to implement the TBDs. The advantage of submitting the TBDs and obtaining concurrence from the NRC, that the TBDs may be , used to demonstrate compliance with the free release criteria, is that the scope of any potential remediation is minimized.

3) Develop a remediation plan if required.

The liquid effluent pathway was determined at the time the characterization plan was developed to consist of the following: The Goose Quill Ditch, consisting of a concrete ditch which begins upstream of the l discharge pipe and terminates at the Jay Thomas Ditch. l The banks of the Goose Quill Ditch where sediment removed from the ditch was l deposited. I The Jay Thomas Ditch which is a stream bed beginning upstream of the intersection of the Goose Quill Ditch and terminating in the farm pond. Page 1 of 3 l

l Revision U  ; l May 1996 Various irrigation ditches that distribute water obtained from the Goose Quill Ditch and the Jay Thomas Ditch to adjacent pastures and farm land. l The pastures and farm land adjacent to the liquid effluent pathway l The farm pond, which is the terminating point of the Jay Thomas Ditch. The out fall of the farm pond which is a stream bed that eventually terminates at the South Platte River. Since the time the characterization plan was developed, sections of the Goose Quill Ditch I have been dredged several times and the sediment staged in a storage area adjacent to the Goose Quill Ditch. This storage area will now be included as part of the liquid ef0uent pathway for the purpose of implementing this sampling plan. SCOPE This sampling plan will address each of the areas identified above. In general the same protocols used during the characterization of the liquid effluent pathway will be implemented. The primary difference between the two plans is the number of samples required. The follow-up sampling plan will be performed in two phases. The initial phase of the follow-up sampling plan will focus on those area identined during the characterizatior. of the liquid efnuent pathway as having the highest activity concentrations and will consist primarily of surface soil \ sediment samples. The second phase of the follow-up sampling plan will be based on the results of the Grst phase and will consist of subsurface samples collected at those sampling locations having the highest activity concentrations in the surface soil samples collected during the initial phase. Once the of the follow-up sampling plan has been completed, additional samples may be required. If this is the case, additional attachments will be prepared to document the sampling requirements. Additional samples may be required to investigate unexpected results, determine the size of a cor.taminated area, to ensure that activity has not redistributed and concentrated in other areas, or determine if compliance with the averaging protocols specified in the Final Survey Plan can be demonstrated. The following eight attachments are the sampling plans for the liquid efnuent pathway. They specify the number of samples and approximate sampling locations for each secdon of the liquid efnuent pathway and will serve as the survey package for the applicable section of the pathway. As stated above the sampling protocols used during the characterization of the liquid efnuent pathway will be used during the follow-up sampling. O Page 2 of 3

Revision 0 l May 1996 REFERENCES l i Characterization Plan For The Fort St Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway, January 1995. I Fort St Vrain Liquid Effluent Pathway Characterization Report, May 1995.  ! i Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Station Decommissioning Project Final Survey Plan For Site Release, i Revision 1, May 1995. l FSV-FRS-TBD-205, Rev 0, " External and Internal Dose Conversion Factors for FSV Liquid i ! Effluent Environment Pathways". i FSV-FRS-TBD-209, Rev 0, " External and Internal Dose Conversion Factors For Soils in the FSV Restricted Area". . Memo from Phil Garrett to Harvey Story, "Applicadon of TBDs 205 and 209", March 20, l 1996. < NUREG-1500, Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning: I NRC Staff's Draft for Comment. 1 I i O l 1 O Page 3 of 3

Kevision u May 1996 A'ITACHMENT 1 SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE GOOSE QUILL DITCH The follow-up sampling plan for the Goose Quill Ditch will consist of biased soil / sediment samples and vegetation samples (if available). Clearly mark each sample location using a stake or other suitable means. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. Each sample location will be cross referenced to a sampling location established during the characterization. The sampling locations established during the characterization have been marked in the field using stakes and documented on site maps. Where ever possible follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to a staked location. If the stakes are not available then the follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to an applicable site map. Ten surface (0 to 6 inches) soil / sediment samples should be taken from the Goose Quill Ditch at the following sample locations: GQD. SED.006 GQD. SED.010 GQD. SED.014 GQD. SED.015 GQD. SED.018 g GQD. SED.019 y GQD. SED.023 GQD. SED.031 GQD. SED.032 GQD. SED.048 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the sample location identifier, i.e., GQD.SEG.006.XX Two vegetation samples from each of the two aquatic plant species growing within the Goose Quill Ditch should be taken (if available). These samples should be identified as: GQD.VEG.001.XX GQD.VEG.002.XX l GQD.VEG.003.XX 1 GQD.VEG.004.XX l i PREPARED BY: DATE: d 3/!P4 APPROVED BY: / DATE: J/1//% Page 1 l l

i3ta2 .a.e4md+'

                                   -         - - " "                                               M-dA-I KeVISIOll U May 1996 ATTACHMENT 2                                       l SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE                                 !

BANKS OF THE GOOSE QUILL DITCH The follow-up sampling plan for the banks of the Goose Quill Ditch will consist of biased soil / sediment samples.  ; Clearly mark each sample location using a stake or other suitable means. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. Each sample location will be cross referenced to a sampling location established during the , characterization. The sampling locations established during the characterization have been , l marked in the field using stakes and documented on site maps. Where ever possible follow- l up sample locations should be crossed referenced to a staked location. If the stakes are not ! available then the follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to an applicable l site map. l Ten surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the banks of the I Goose Quill Ditch at the following sample locations: 1 \ GQDB. SOIL.006 GQDB. SOIL.012 l GQDB. SOIL.018 GQDB. SOIL.024 GQDB. SOIL.030 O GQDB. SOIL.036 GQDB. SOIL.042 GQDB. SOIL.048 GQDB. SOIL.052 GQDB. SOIL.057 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the sample location identifier, i.e., GQDB. SOIL.006.XX Ten surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the banks of the Goose Quill Ditch at the following sample locations: GQDB. SED.001 GQDB. SED.003 GQDB. SED.004 GQDB. SED.005 GQDB. SED.007 GQDB. SED.008 GQDB. SED.010 GQDB. SED.016 GQDB. SED.018 GQDB. SED.019 j I Page 1 of 2 l l

KCVib1On U May 1996 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the sample location identifier, i.e., GQDB. SED.001.XX Five subsurface (6 to 12 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken at the location of the O surface soil \ sediment samples collected above containing the highest activity concentrations. These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding "SUB" to the sample location identifier, i.e., GQDB. SED.001.XX.SUB. PREPARED BY: DATE: cIs/ P6 APPROVED BY: DATE: .f D O 1 l l i l I l l i l l O Page 2 of 2

McVISIOll U May 1996 ATTACHMENT 3 i SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE l (] V JAY THOMAS DITCH  ! The follow-up sampling plan for the Jay Thomas Ditch will consist of biased soil / sediment samples. Clearly mark each sample location using a stake or other suitable means. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. i Each sample location will be cross referenced to a sampling location established during the j characterization. The sampling locations established during the characterization have been i marked in the field using stakes and documented on site maps. Where ever possible follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to a staked location. If the stakes are not available then the follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to an applicable l site map. l Eight surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the Jay Thomas Ditch at the following sample locations: JT. SED.005 JT. SED.013 JT. SED.015 JT. SED.017 p JT. SED.019 V JT. SED.023 JT. SED.024 JT. SED.025 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the sample location identifier, i.e., JT. SED.005.XX. Five surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the banks of the Jay Thomas Ditch at the following sample locations. JT. SOIL.SUR.001 JT. SOIL.SUR.003  ; JT. SOIL.SUR.005  ! JT. SOIL.SUR.007 i JT. SOIL.SUR.009 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the sample location identifier, i.e., JT. SOIL.SUR.001.XX. PREPARED BY: @ DATE: 0 f( (~T U APPROVED BY: DATE: hN i Page 1

Kev 1SIOD U May 1996 ATTACHMENT 4 SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE IRRIGATION DITCHES The follow-up sampling plan for the irrigation ditches will consist of biased soil / sediment samples and vegetation samples. Clearly mark each sample location using a stake or other suitable means. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. Each sample location will be cross referenced to a sampling location established during the characterization. The sampling locations established during the characterization have been marked in the field using stakes and documented on site maps. Where ever possible follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to a staked location. If the stakes are not available then the follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to an applicable site map. Twenty one surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the irrigation ditches at the following sample locations: DTCH.1.001 DTCH.2.001 DTCH.2.002 DTCH.2.004 DTCH.3.001 g , DTCH.3.002 DTCH.3.005 W DTCH.3.006 DTCH.3.009 DTCH.4.001 DTCH.4.002 ' DTCH.5.002 DTCH.5.004 i DTCH.5.005 DTCH.5.007 l DTCH.5.008 DTCH.5.009 DTCH.5.014 . DTCH.6.001 l DTCH.6.002 DTCH.6,003 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the sample location identifier, i.e., DTCH.1.001.XX. Five subsurface (6 to 12 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken at the location of the surface soil \ sediment samples collected above containing the highest activity concentrations. Page 1 of 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . - . _..m.. .- . _ . . - ---- -

                                                                                            ------------.-----o I

Revision 0 , May 1996 j These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding "SUB" to the , sample location identifier, i.e., DTCH.1.001.XX.SUB. l O  ! PREPARED BY: / h DATE: 6- /!94 APPROVED BY: DATE: f[J 6 l l O 1 1 i l l 1 i l l l l l , O Page 2 of 2

Revision 0 May 1996 ATTACIBIEN"I' S SAMPLING PLAN FOR YHE PASTURES AND FARM LAND The follow-up sampling plan for the pastures and farm land will consist of biased soil / sediment samples. Clearly mark each sample location using a stake or other suitable means. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. Each sample location will be cross referenced to a sampling location established during the characterization. The sampling locations established during the characterization have been marked in the field using stakes and documented on site maps. Where ever possible follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to a staked location. If the stakes are not available then the follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to an applicable site map. Thirty surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the irrigation ditches at the following sample locations: PAST. SOIL.001 PAST. SOIL.002 PAST. SOIL.003 l PAST. SOIL.004 i PAST. SOIL.006 g ; PAST. SOIL.008 W PAST. SOIL.009 PAST. SOIL.010 PAST. SOIL.017 ) PAST. SOIL.019 PAST. SOIL.021 PAST. SOIL.022 PAST. SOIL.023 PAST. SOIL.027 l PAST. SOIL.029 PAST. SOIL.035 PAST. SOIL.037 PAST. SOIL.041 ' PAST. SOIL.044 PAST. SOIL.046 PAST. SOIL.051 PAST. SOIL.053 PAST. SOIL.054 PAST. SOIL.058 PAST. SOIL.062 PAST. SOIL.066 PAST. SOIL.068 PAST. SOIL.074 Page 1 of 2

j Revision O. l ] May 1996 i PAST. SOIL.077  !

PAST. SOIL.080 i i) These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the I sample location identifier, i.e., PAST. SOIL.001.XX.

Ten subsurface (6 to 12 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken at the location of the ! surface soil \ sediment samples collected above containing the highest activity concentrations. 2 i These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding "SUB" to the i sample location identifier, i.e., PAST. SOIL.001.XX.SUB. PREPARED BY: DATE: 6 3/ 94 APPROVED BY: DATE: r/3/gf i l a i O O Page 2 of 2 l l

Revision 0 May 1996 ATTACHMENT 6 SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE FARM POND The follow-up sampling plan for the farm pond will consist of biased sediment samples. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. Each sample location will be cross referenced to a sampling location established during the characterization. The sampling locations established during the characterization have been documented on site maps. Follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to an applicable site map. Three surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the bottom of the farm pond at the following sample locations: FP. SED.002 FP. SED.005 FP. SED.008 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the sample location identifier, i.e., FP. SED.002.XX. PREPARED BY: h DATE: J/ 94 APPROVED BY: DATE: f/f//f6 O Page 1

Revision 0 May 1996 ATTACHMENT 7 SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE OUT FALL OF FARM POND The follow-up sampling plan for the out fall of the farm pond will consist of biased soil / sediment samples. Clearly mark each sample location using a stake or other suitable means. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. Each sample location will be cross referenced to a sampling location established during the characterization. The sampling locations established during the characterization have been marked in the field using stakes and documented on site maps. Where ever possible follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to a staked location. If the stakes are not available then the follow-up sample locations should be crossed referenced to an applicable site map. Five surface (0 to 6 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken from the out fall of the farm pond at the following sample locations: l OF. SED.001 ' OF. SED.004 OF. SED.007 OF. SED.009 OF. SED.012 These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding ".XX" to the l sample location identifier, i.e., OF. SED.001.XX. Three subsurface (6 to 12 inches) soil \ sediment samples should be taken at the location of the l surface soil \ sediment samples collected above containing the highest activity concentrations. I These samples should be labeled using sample numbers derived by adding "SUB" to the sample location identifier, i.e., OF. SED.001.XX.SUB.  ! i l PREPARED BY: / DATE: d 3/ 4 APPROVED BY: DATE: [N O Page 1

Revision 0 May 1996 ATTACIBIENT 8 SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE SEDIMENT STORAGE AREA The follow-up sampling plan for the sediment storage area will consist of random soil / sediment samples and vegetation samples. Clearly mark each sample location using a stake or other suitable means. Record each sample location on a site map and record applicable information in a log book. Five surface (0 to 6 inches) and five subsurface (6 to 12 inches) should be taken on top of the sediment storage area. The five sampling locations should be evenly spaced over the surface of the pile. These samples should be labeled as follows: SSA.SUR.001.XX SSA.SUB.001.XX SSA.SUR.002.XX SSA.SUB.002.XX SSA.SUR.003.XX SSA.SUB.003.XX SSA.SUR.004.XX SSA.SUB.004.XX SSA.SUR.005.XX SSA.SUB.005.XX PREPARED BY: [ g DATE: 6 7/ ff APPROVED BY: DATE: [J//76 O Page1

APPENDIX B 1 O l APPENDIX B STATISTICAL ANALYSES: WILCOXON RANK SUM TEST l MANN-WIHTNEY U TEST QUANTILE TEST l O l i 1 I i I O 0;\ DATA \TECHDOC3\PSYSUR\POLLOWUP\APPB REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Three tests were used to determine if activities in the various segments of the pathway had decreased since the characterization. Comparisons were also made of the Cs-137 activities in the various pathway segments with the sample of 40 background measurements to determine if the Cs-137 activities were statistically different from background. In each test the null hypothesis is "There is no difference in the population distributions from the two sets of data". So that when comparing the data to the characterization data if the test fails to reject the null hypothesis then the conclusion that the activities measured in the follow-up survey are not statistically different than those obtained during characterization. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then the activities have either increased or decreased. When comparing the Cs-137 survey data to the set of background measurements, failure to reject the null hypothesis means that there is no statistical difference between the survey area and the background measurements. Determining that the Cs-137 activities in the survey area are not different from background may be useful for determining a classification for the area for final survey. The three tests performed are: the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, the Mann-Whitney U test and the Quantile Test. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and the Mann-Whitney U test are essentially the same test. Because of better tables for the Mann-Whitney U test, this one was usually used. Data from a reference area is denoted with an R, data from the survey area is denoted with an S. The data are then grouped together and ranked from lowest activity to highest activity and assigned numbers 1 through N (total data points). The ranks from S measurements are summed and the ranks from the R measurements are summed. Using the Mann-Whitney U test a value for US and a value for UR are calculated using formulas which can be found in reference 6.4.7. The smaller value of either US or UR is then used to compare to tabulated values of U (for a = 0.025, 95 % confidence level two tailed test) to determine if the null hypothesis can be rejected. If the null hypothesis is not rejected using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (or Mann-Whitney U test), NUREG 1505 (reference 6.1.5) recommends that the Quantile test be performed. The Quantile test was performec' in a few cases where the data was close to rejecting the null. The Quantile test looks only at the highest measurements. The number of the highest measurements, r, to look at is determined from tabulated values of the number of measurements in the survey unit S (or n) and the number of measurements in the reference area R (or m). The tables show how many of the highest measurements to review r, and how many of the measurements, k, can be from the survey unit. The tables used for the Quantile test are from NUREG 1505, Table A-4, Values of r and kfor the Quantile Test when a is approximately 0.025. The sample ID's in the following tables are used to identify the data set: l Background soil samples begin with "000F0UI...." Characterization survey samples begin with letters which describe the pathway segment Follow-up characterization survey samples have the same ID as the characterization samples with a ".XX" suffix. O anonavrecanocmPsystanPOROWUMPPB B-1 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-1 l Gooseguill Ditch Sediment Co-137 (M 4 l Wilcoxon Renk Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test l C Ca.137 Rank Sum of Sum of l Sample ID S or R (pCi/gl S R GOD.EEO.045 R 0.133 1.000 0.000 1.000 GOD. SED.046 R O.291 2.000 0.000 2.000 GOD. SED.031.XX S 0.422 3.000 3.000 0.000 GOD. SED.019.XX S 0.512 4.000 4.000 0.000 GQD. SED 044 R 0.577 5.000 0.000 5.000 GOD. SED.004 R 0.602 0.000 0.000 6.000 GQD. SED.023.XX S 0.693 7.000 7.000 0.000 GQD. SED.017 R O.698 8.000 0.000 8.000 GOD. SED.033 R 0.730 9.000 0.000 9.000 GQD. SED.026 R 0.962 10.000 0.000 10.000 GQD. SED.032.XX S 1.100 11.000 11.000 0.000 GQD. SED.024 R 1.227 12.000 0.000 12.000 GOD. SED.010.XX S 1.200 13.000 13.000 0.000 GQD. SED.022 R 1.275 14.000 0.000 14.000 GOD.EED.025 R 1.425 15.000 0.000 15.000 GOD. SED.048.XX S 1.470 16.000 16.000 0.000 GOD. SED.001 R 1.486 17.000 0.000 17.000 GOD. SED.028 R 1.741 18.000 0.000 18.000 GOD. SED.014.XX 5 1.820 19.000 19.000 0.000 GOD. SED.018.XX S 1.900 20.000 20.000 0.000 GOD. SED.049 R 2.036 21.000 0.000 21.000 GOD.EED.027 R 2.043 22.000 0.000 22.000 GOD. SED.002 R 2.001 23.000 0.000 23.000 GOD. SED.006.XX S 2.120 24.000 24.000 0.000 GOD. SED.003 R 2.172 25.000 0.000 25.000 GQD. SED.023 R 2.201 20.000 0.000 20.000 GQD. SED.050 R 2.222 27.000 0.000 27.000 GOD. SED.015.XX S 2.240 28.000 28.000 0.000 GOD. SED.013 R 2.304 29.000 0.000 29.000 GQD. SED.021 R 2.446 30.000 0.000 30.000 GOD. SED.035 R 2.727 31.000 0.000 31.000 GQD. SED.020 R 2.959 32.000 0.000 32.000 GOD.EED.005 R 2.997 33.000 0.000 33.000 C GOD. SED.030 R 3.007 34.000 0.000 34.000 ( GOD. SED.016 R 3.010 35.000 0.000 35.000 GCD. SED.007 R 3.077 36.000 0.000 36.000 GQD. SED.034 R 3.770 37.000 0.000 37.000 GOD. SED.047 R 4.086 38.000 0.000 38.000 GQD. SED.008 R 4.419 39.000 0.000 39.000 GQD. SED.014 R 5.731 40.000 0.000 40.000 GQD. SED.048 R 6.305 41.000 0.000 41.000  ; GOD. SED.011 R 6.386 42.000 0.000 42.000 GQD. SED.012 R 6.697 43.000 0.000 43.000 GQD. SED.015 R 6.791 44.000 0.000 44.000 i COD. SED.019 R 7.329 45.000 0.000 45.000 1 GQD. SED.000 R 7.416 40.000 0.000 40.000 ) GQD. SED.010 R 7.435 47.000 0.000 47.000 GCD. SED.006 R 8.326 48.000 0.000 48.000 j GOD. SED.018 R 8.359 49.000 0.000 49.000 j GOD. SED.031 R 10.783 50.000 0.000 50.000 ' GOD. SED.032 R 18 071 51 000 0 000 51.000 Sum 145 1181 S = 10 R = 31 Merm-Whitney U Test l US = 220 UR = 376

                            =    16.09 Null Hypotheets: no efference in population estributione lrl > 1.96 (alphe = 0.05) rer et the nuti hypothesis conaius .n: The c.137 eet,vity in in. 9.     ..uisi dich he. eee,.se.o m

l

   \

s B-2 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B 2 Goosequill Ditch Sediment Co-60 Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Co do Rank Sum of Sum of Sample 10 6 or R IpCi/g) S R GOD. SED.045 R 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.500 GQD. SED.044 R 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.500 GOD. SED.046 R 0.147 3.000 0.000 3.000 CQD. SED.017 R 0.177 4.000 0.000 4.000 GOD. SED.031.XX S 0.238 5.000 5.000 0.000 GOD. SED.019.XX S 0.336 6.000 6.000 0.000 GQD.EED.023.XX S 0.500 7.000 7.000 0.000 CQD.EED.026 R 0.037 8.000 0.000 8.000 GOD. SED.022 R 0.743 S.000 0.000 9.000 GQD. SED.033 R 0.762 10.000 0.000 10.000 CQD. SED.032.XX 8 0.817 11.000 11.000 0.000 GOD. SED.010.XX S 0.847 12.000 12.000 0.000 GQD. SED.048.XX 5 0.861 13.000 13.000 0.000 GQD.EED.024 R 0.892 14.000 0.000 14.000 GOD. SED.004 R 1.019 15.000 0.000 15.000 GOD. SED.049 R 1.001 10.000 0.000 16.000 GQD. SED.015.XX S 1.130 17.000 17.000 0.000 GOD. SED.014.XX S 1.140 18.000 18.000 0.000 GOD. SED.018.XX S 1.160 19.000 19.000 0.000 COD. SED.025 R 1.173 20.000 0.000 20.000 GOD. SED.027 R 1.371 21.000 0.000 21.000 GOD. SED.028 R 1.384 22.000 0.000 22.000 GOD. SED.050 R 1.392 23.000 0.000 23.000 GOD. SED.021 R 1.461 24.000 0.000 24.000 GQD.EED.006.XX S 1.500 25.000 25.000 0.000 GOD. SED.002 R 1.507 26.000 0.000 20.000 GQD. SED.007 R 1.600 27.000 0.000 27.000 GOD. SED.013 R 1.655 28.000 0.000 28.000 GQD. SED.04 7 R 1.715 29.000 0.000 29.000 GQD. SED.023 R 1.858 30.000 0.000 30.000 GQD. SED.035 R 1.901 31.000 0.000 31.000 GOD. SED.003 R 1.973 32.000 0.000 32.000 GOD. SED.030 R 2.024 33.000 0.000 33.000 GQD. SED.012 R 2.131 34.000 0.000 34.000 GQD. SED.001 R 2.454 35.000 0.000 35.000 GQD.EED.048 R 2.499 36.000 0.000 36.000 GQD.6ED.020 R 2.523 37.000 0.000 37.000 GOD. SED.005 R 2.602 30.000 0.000 38.000 GOD. SED.009 R 2.629 39.000 0.000 39.000 GOD. SED.011 R 3.032 40.000 0.000 40.000 GOD. SED.034 R 3.259 41.000 0.000 41.000 GOD. SED.010 R 4.480 42.000 0.000 42.000 GQD. SED.008 R 4.577 43.000 0.000 43.000 GQD.EED.019 R 4.654 44.000 0.000 44.000 GOD. SED.016 R 5.055 45.000 0.000 45.000 GQD. SED.000 R 5.710 46.000 0.000 46.000 GOD. SED.014 R 7.128 47.000 0.000 47.000 GOD. SED.015 R 11.512 48.000 0.000 48.000 GOD. SED.018 R 11.997 49.000 0.000 49.000 GOD. SED.031 R 12.891 50.000 0.000 50.000 GQD. SED.032 R 26 292 51 000 0 000 51.000 Sum 133 1193 S = 10 R = 31 Menn-Whitney U Test US = 232 UR = -387

= 16.454 Nun Hypothesis: no dNetence M population distributions lrl >1.96 (alphe = 0.05) re,ect the null hypothesis

== Conclusion:== The Co-60 actiwty in the gooseoudi 6tch hoe deceemoed O B-3 REVISION 0

g., .. 3 .e. m ,--ee . a- 4 -.__..-44.-4+-44*-h +6A4W,. J4 4,---~*.-.ad44 *(awh-4-J4J-b- h--.h hALa4 O4JaA-AA-.madAmm-w and* a- me..-Ju- ada ALAb__aJ2C4 m 4 4 q APPENDIX B ' i ] Table B 3 l Goosequill Ditch Banks Co-137 (Sediment Locations) 1 Wilcozon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Co137 Rank Sum of Sum of f I Sample ID lpci/gl S R [, {' GODS. SED.014 R 0.240 1 0 1 i GQD. SED.031.XX S 0.422 2 2 0 i GQD. SED.010.XX S 0.512 3 3 0 i GOD. SED.023.XX 5 0.693 4 4 0  ? j GQDB. SED.001 R 1.055 5 0 5 COD.EED.032.XX S 1.160 6 0 0 GQD. SED.010.XX S 1.200 7 7 0 ' i GODS. SED.020 R 1.305 8 0 8

GODS. SED.013 R 1.447 9 0 s 1 GQD. SED.048.XX S 1.470 10 10 0 j GOD. SED.014.XX S 1.820 11 11 0 2

GODS. SED.012 R 1.835 12 0 12

,                                        GODS SED 002                 R                         1.950                 13   0           13 I

GOD. SED.018.XX S 1.900 14 14 0

GOD. SED.006.XX S 2.120 15 il 0

. GOD. SED.015.XX S 2.240 16 16 0

) GODS. SED.015 R 2.256 17 0 17 1 GODS. SED.011 R 3.041 18 0 18 i GQDB.EED.003 R 3.317 19 0 19 GODS. SED.006 R 3.409 20 0 20 GODB. SED.018 R 3.794 21 0 21 GODS. SED.019 R 4.037 22 0 22 , GODS. SED.009 R 4.279 23 0 23 GQDS. SED.007 R 4.823 24 0 24 GODB. SED.018 R 4.920 25 0 25 GODS. SED.017 R 5.821 26 0 26 GQDS. SED.005 R 6.174 27 0 27 GQD8. SED.000 R 7.065 28 0 28 GODS. SED.004 R 9.558 29 0 29 GOD 8. SED.010 R 18 902 30 0 30 Sum 88 377 S = 10 R = 20 hWhitney U Test g US = 167 l UR = 33 l

                                                           = 2.9476 l

Null Hypothesis: no differenos in population distributione jrl >1.96 leiphe = 0.05) eeW the null hypothesis Conclueen: The Ca.137 octivity in the gooseguill ditch banke le decrossing I s 15 4 REVISION 0 l

APPENDIX B Table B-4 Goosequiu Ditch Banks Co-60 (Sediment Locational Wilcomon Rank Sum Test and Mann Whitney U Test Co-60 Rank Sum of Sum of Sample ID S er R {pCilg) S R GOD 8. SED.014 R 0.168 1 0 1 GQD. SED.031.XX S 0.238 2 2 0 GQD. SED 019.XX S 0.336 3 3 0 GODB SED 002 R 0.478 4 0 4 GOD. SED.023.XX S 0.500 5 5 0 GOD. SED.032.XX S 0.817 6 6 0 GOD 8. SED.000 R 0.845 7 0 7 GQD. SED.010.XX S 0.847 8 8 0 GQD. SED.048.XX S 0.861 9 9 0 GOD 8. SED.013 R 1.128 to 0 10 GOD. SED.015.XX 5 1.130 11 11 0 GOD. SED.014.XX S 1.140 12 12 O GQD. SED.018.XX S 1.160 13 13 0 GQDB. SED.001 R 1.245 14 0 14 GODB.6ED.015 R 1.345 15 0 15 GODB. SED 018 R 1.345 to 0 to GQD8. SED.020 R 1.356 17 0 17 GODB. SED.012 R 1.452 18 0 18 GOD. SED.006.XX $ 1.500 19 19 0 GODB. SED.003 R 1.828 20 0 20 GODB. SED.011 R 2.244 21 0 21 GOD 8. SED.005 R 2.745 22 0 22 GOD 8. SED.009 R 2.766 23 0 23 GODB. SED.017 R 2.862 24 0 24 GOD 8. SED.019 R 3.406 25 0 25 GOD 8. SED.004 R 3.427 26 0 26 GOD 8. SED.016 R 6.379 27 0 27 GQD8. SED.008 R 7.176 28 0 28 GOD 8. SED.007 R 7.607 29 0 29 GODB. SED.010 R 27 676 30 0 30 Sum 88 377 S = 10 R = 20 94enn-Whitney U Test US = 167 UR = 33

= .2.9476 Null Hypethese: no 6fference in populetson 6stributsene lal > 1.96 (etphe = 0.05) reject the null hypothese

Conclusion:

The Co.60 metivity in the gooseguill 6tch banks is decreeeing O 11- 5 REVISION 0

                  - ~ --.              .             -        .            -.             . - - .     -   .

APPENDIX B Table B-5

,                                  Jay Thomas Ditch Sediment Co-137 Wilcomon Rank Sum Test, Mann-Whitney U Test, and Quentile Test Semple ID          8 or R             Co.137     Rank      Sum of Sum of pCi/g                  6         R                          ;

JT. SED.001 R 0.000 1 0 1 JT. SED.023.XX S 0.108 2 2 0 , JT. SED.025.XX S 0.146 3 3 0 JT. SED.007 R O.185 4 0 4 d JT. SED.024.XX S 0.187 5 5 0 JT. SED.000 R 0.329 0 0 8 JT. SED.006 R 0.375 7 0 7 JT. SED.004 R 0.300 0 0 8 JT. SED.005.XX S 0.392 9 9 0 JT. SED.002 R 0.452 10 0 10 JT.EED.005 R 0.520 11 0 11 JT. SED.013.XX S 0.584 12 12 0 JT. SED.015.XX 5 0.584 12 12 0 JT. SED.012 R 0.587 14 0 14 JT. SED.010 R 0.012 15 0 15 I JT. SED.020 R 0.645 10 0 to JT. SED.011 R 1.054 17 0 17 . JT. SED.019 R 1.057 18 0 18 JT. SED.025 R 1.258 19 0 19 JT. SED.016 R 1.401 20 0 20 JY. SED.023 R 1.475 21 0 21 JT. SED.022 R 1.511 22 0 22 JT.EED.024 R 1.709 23 0 23 JT. SED.017.XX S 1.080 24 24 0 JT. SED.003 R 1.903 25 0 25 JT. SED.021 R 2.122 26 0 26 JT. SED.005 R 2.352 27 0 27 JT. SED.018 R 2.489 20 0 28 JT. SED.015 R 2.541 29 0 29 JT. SED.014 R 2.595 30 0 30 JT, SED.019.XX S 3.110 31 31 0 JT. SED.013 R 3.498 32 0 32 JT. SED.017 R 3 374 33 0 33

f. g bum 90 462 S=8

       } R = 25 Mann. Whitney U Test US =         138 UR =           63 Null Hypothesis: no diffeeence in population 6etributions
                              = 1.5543 lrj >1.96 (alphe = 0.05) se# the nu" hypothesis Conolusion: The Co.137 octivity in the Jay Thomme ditch sedement is not decreasing Quenelle Test          for n = 10 and m = 25, elphe = 0.027, t = 8, k = 5 Null hypothesis: no efference in population distributione.

looking et the eight highest eneseurements only one measurement is from the followgap ourvey... ifeit to remot null) Co 137 sonoontration hee not increened significantly. B-6 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-6 Jey Thomae Ditch Sediment Co-60 Wdcomon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Semple ID S se R Co-60 Rank Sum of Sum of pCUS S R JT. SED.025.XX S 0.000 2 2 0 JT. SED.023.XX S 0.000 2 2 0 JT. SED.001 R 0.000 2 0 2 JT. SED 024.XX S 0.154 4 4 0 i JT. SED.012 R 0.109 5 0 5 JT. SED.006 R 0.1 79 0 0 8 JT. SED.007 R 0.223 7 0 7 JT. SED.013.XX S 0.227 8 8 0 JT. SED.009 R 0.237 9 0 9 JT. SED.015.XX S 0.304 10 to 0 JT. SED.010 R 0.392 11 0 11 JT. SED.002 R 0.390 12 0 12 JT. SED.005.XX S 0.423 13 13 0 JT. SED.025 R 0.491 14 0 14 JT. SED.008 R 0.498 15 0 15 JT. SED.017.XX S 0.498 18 18 0 JT. SED.020 R 0.645 17 0 17 JT. SED.004 R 0.095 18 0 18 JT. SED.016 R 0.775 19 0 19 Jf . SED.014 R 0.855 20 0 20 JT. SED.021 R 0.922 21 0 21 JT.EED.018 R 0.979 22 0 22 JT.6ED.019 R 1.009 23 0 23 JT. SED.011 R 1.120 24 0 24 JT. SED.022 R 1.191 25 0 25 JT. SED 023 R 1.333 26 0 26 JT. SED.017 R 1.335 27 0 27 JT. SED.013 R 1.768 28 0 28 JT. SED.024 R 1.788 29 0 29 JT. SED.015 R 1.854 30 0 30 JT. SED.003 R 2.320 31 0 31 JT. SED.019.XX S 3.750 32 32 0 JT. SED.005 R 3948 33 0 33 Sum 07 474 S=8 R = 25 hWhitney U Test US = 149 UR = 51 Null Hypothesis: no efference in populaten 6stributsens

                    = -2.0584 lal > 1.96 letphe = 0.051 ra ract the null hypothesia

Conclusion:

The Co-60 activity in the Jay Themes dich sedement is decrosseng O B-7 REVISION 0

. . - . . -. . . ..__. _ - . . ~ . . . . ~ _ - . ~ . . - - - . . - . - . - . - . . . . . . - , _ . APPENDIX B Table B.7 Jay Thomas Ditch Sou Co-137 Wucozon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Sarnple10 S er R Co.137 Rank Sum of Sum of IpCa/0) S R JT.SOILSUR.008 R 0.000 2 0 2 JT.SOILSUR.008 R 0.000 2 0 2 JT.SOILSUR.000 R 0.000 2 0 2 JT.SOILSUR.007.XX S 0.050 4 4 0 JT.SOILSUR.006 R 0.073 5 0 6 JT.SOILSUR.001 R 0.100 0 0 6 JT.SOILSUR.007 R 0.135 7 0 7 JT.SOILSUR.003 R 0.138 8 0 0 JT.SOILSUR.003.XX S 0.144 s 3 0 JT.SOILSUR.005.XX $ 0.17e to 10 0 JT.SOILSUR.002 R 0.178 11 0 11 JT.SOILSUR.010 R 0.419 12 0 12 JT.SOILSUR.004 R 0.267 13 0 13 JT.SOILSUR.001.XX 5 0.498 14 14 0 JT.SOILSUR.009.XX S 1.920 16 15 0 Surn 62 68 S=5 R = 10 Menn-Wienney U Test US = 13 UR = 37 Null Hypothessia: no abfference in population distributione using tabulated values of eiphs for n1 = 5 and n2 = 10, Us would have to be < 9 to reject the null hypothesis et the 96% confidence. therefore feil to repect the null.

Conclusion:

The Cs-137 octwity eencontrations have not incrossed. Quentile test oennet be performed, too few date points. B-8 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-8 Jay Thomme Ditch Soil Co 137 Comparison with Background Wilcomon Rank Sum Test. Mann. Whitney U Test, and Quantile Test Sample ID 8 er R Co.137 Rank Sum of Sum of (pCi/gl S R 0001F0VL11 R 0.00 0.5 0 6.5 0001 FOUL 39 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 JT.SQLSUR.000 S 0.000 0.5 0.5 0 0001 FOUL 31 R 0.00 0.5 0 6.5 0001 FOUL 19 R 0.00 6.5 0 6.5 0001 FOUL 15 R 0 00 6.5 0 0.5 OOO1 FOUL 13 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 0001FOULD4 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 0001FOULO2 R 0.00 0.5 0 6.5 0001FOULO1 R 0.00 0.5 0 6.5 JT.SOILSUR.008 8 0.000 8.5 6.5 0 JT.SQLSUR.009 5 0.000 6.5 0.5 0 JT.SOILSUR.007.XX S 0.050 13 13 0 0001 FOUL 18 R 0.07 14 0 14 JT.SOILSUR.005 5 0.073 15 15 0 0001 FOUL 10 R O.08 to 0 16 0001 FOUL 28 R 0.09 17 0 17 0001FOULOS R 0.10 18 0 18 JT. SOIL.SUR.001 5 0.100 19 19 0 0001 FOUL 26 R 0.10 20 0 20  ! 0001FOULOS R O.? O 21 0 21 0001FOULOS R 0.11 22 0 22 0001FOULO7 R 0.1 % 23 0 23 0001 FOUL 33 R 0.12 24 0 24 0001FOULOS R 0.12 25 0 25 0001F00L25 R 0.13 26 0 26 0001 FOUL 17 R 0.13 27 0 27 0001 FOUL 23 R 0.13 29 0 28 0001FOULO3 R O.13 29 0 29 JT.SQLSUR.007 S 0.135 30 30 0 0001 FOUL 32 R 0.14 31 0 31 JT.SOILSUR.003 S 0.136 32 32 0 0001 FOUL 35 R 0.14 33 0 33 OC91 FOUL 40 R 0.14 34 0 34 JT.SOILSUR.003.XX S 0.144 35 35 0 0001 FOUL 2O R 0.14 36 0 36 0001F00L18 R 0.15 37 0 37 0001 FOUL 12 R 0.15 38 0 38 0001 FOUL 14 R 0.16 39 0 39 0001 FOUL 21 R O.16 40 0 40 0001 FOUL 36 R 0.17 41 0 41 0001F0VL37 R 0.17 42 0 42 JT.SOILSUR.005.XX S 0.178 43 43 0 JT.SOfLSUR.002 S 0.178 44 44 0 0001 FOUL 38 R 0.20 45 0 45 0001 FOUL 34 R 0.21 40 0 46 JT.SOILSUR.010 5 0.219 47 47 0 0001F00L27 R 0.22 48 0 48 0001 FOUL 24 R 0.24 49 0 49 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.26 50 0 En JT.SOfLSUR.004 S 0.267 51 51 0 0001 FOUL 29 R 0.28 52 0 52 0001 FOUL 22 R 0.37 53 0 53 1 JT.SOILSUR.001.XX $ 0.498 54 54 0 JT.SOtLSUR 009.XX S 1 920 55 55 0 SUM 1540 457.5 1082.5 R = 40 14enn. Whitney U Test i US = 262.5 = 1.2275 i UR = 337.5 = Null Hypothesis: no differonos m population d stributeene lsl>1.96 klphe = 0.05) reject the nuti hypothesis The null hypothesis is not resected

Conclusion:

The Co.137 octsvity in the Jay Thomme soil is not stetretically different from background Quentile Test der n = Il and m = 40. orphe = 0.028, r = 8. k = 5 I Null hypothesis: no difference in population distributsone. l iooking at the seght highest meesuremonte only 3 measurements are from the survey . (fell to re,ect null) Co.137 concentration hee not increceed significently from background. l l B-9 REVISION 0 l

           . . ._ .. .= .                 -      -             - .___.               _-                       .       .     .-.  ..

l

                                                                                                                                    ]

APPENDIX B 1 l Table B-9 trrigation Ditch 2 Sou Co-137 O

    !             Wucomon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test k                     Sample ID                  5 or R             Co.137      Rank    Sum of Sum of                           l (pCi/g)                 S         R                         1 i

i t'TCH.2.001.XX S 0.923 1 1 0

;                   DTCH.2.003.0-6                     R                0.925        2         0           2 DTCH.2.004.0 6                     R                 1.296       3         0           3 DTCH.2.004.XX                     S                 1.530       4          4         0 DTCH.2.002.0 6                     R                4.880        5         0          5 DTCH.2.002.XX                     S                5.760        0          0         0 DTCH.2.001.0-6                     R                17.901       7          0          7

$ Sum 11 17 S=3 R=4 a Mana-Whitney U Test US = 7 UR = 5 Null Hypothesis: no dffe,ense in population distributione Using tabulated waives of eiphe for n1 = 3 and n2 4, The null hypothesis et the 95% confidence I cannot be repeated.

Conclusion:

The Cs137 octivity concentratione are f,om the same population. and not dooraesin9 e To few enessuremente to perform the Quentile test Table B 10 Irrigation Ditch 3 Sou Co 137 Wucomon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Sample ID 6 or R Co-137 Rank Sum of Sum of (pCi/g) S R DTCH.3.007.0-6 R 0.257 1 0 1 [ i y DTCH.3.000.0-0 DTCH.3.005.0 6 R R 0.311 0.329 2 3 0 0 2 3 b' DTCH.3.010.0-6 R 0.359 4 0 4 DTCH.3.006.XX S 0.462 5 5 0

,                    DTCH.3.009.0 6                     R                0.463        6         0          6 J                     DTCH.3.009.XX                      S                0.584        7         7          0 i                     DTCH.3.008.0-6                     R                0.665        8         0          8                        i

) DTCH.3.003.0-6 R 0.701 9 0 9 4 DTCH.3.005.XX S 0.779 to 10 0 3 DTCH.3.001.XX S 1.110 11 11 0 4 DTCH.3.004.0-6 R 1.226 12 0 12 DTCH.3.001.0-6 R 1.250 13 0 13 DTCH.3.002.XX S 1.460 14 14 0 DTCH.3.002.0-6 R 1.843 15 0 15 ) i Sum 47 73 S=5 R =10 j Mann-Whitney U Test 1 j US = 16 UK = 32 Null Hypothesia: no dffe once in population datnbuteene 4 Using tabulated welues of eiphe for n1 = 5 and n2 = 10, The null hypothesis et the 95 % confedence connet be repected. C- ien: Th. Coi n souty cono.,t.eiw e,o f,o,,, the e.m. ,o,sei..n. and noi d.o,e-ng. To .o. _u. isets te ,e,4o,.n th. oventa. T., l (G 15-1 0 REVISION 0

1 1 I 1 APPENDIX B Table B-11 l Irrigetion Ditch 4 Soit Cs 137 I Wilcoms,n Renk Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U To t Sample ID R er & Co-137 Rank Sum of Sum of { I pCug 6 R l DTCH.4.003.0-6 R 0.000 1 0 1 DTCH.4.002.0-6 R 0.163 2 0 2 DTCH.4.002.XX S 0.352 3 3 0 DTCH.4.001.0-6 R 0.410 4 0 4 i DTCH.4.001.XX S 0423 5 5 0 l Sum e 7 S=2 R=3 Mann-Whitney U Test US = 1 UR = 5 Null Hypothesis: no efference in population 6stributione Using tabulated values of alphe for n1 2 and n2 = 3 The null hypothesie et the 95% confidence cannot be reseoted. ' Conoluesen: The Ce137 octivity oenoontretiene see from the some populeteen, and not dooreansng. To few me urements to perform ouentine test Teble 8-12 Irrigation Ditch 5 Sou Oe-137 Wacomon Renk Sum Test, Mann-Whitney U Test, and Quentile Test Co-137 Rank Sum of Sum of Semple ID 5 or R (pCVg) S R DTCH.5.007.04 R 0.032 1 0 1 DTCH.5.007.XX S 0.115 2 2 0 DTCH.5.010.0-0 R 0.120 3 0 3 DTCH.5.001.0-6 R 0.145 4 0 4 DTCH.5.000.0-6 R 0.189 5 0 5 DTCH.5.013.0-6 R 0.259 6 0 6 DTCH.5.004.XX S 0.349 7 7 0 DTCH.5.000.0-6 R 0.367 0 0 8 DTCH.5.003.0-6 R 0.438 9 0 9 DTCH.5.006.XX S 0.483 to 10 0 DTCH.5.002.XX S 0.501 11 11 0 DTCH.5.012.0-6 R 0.814 12 0 12 DTCH.5.008.XX S 0.666 13 13 0 DTCH.5.011.0 6 R 0.887 14 0 14 DTCH.S.009.0-0 R 0.968 15 0 15 DTCH.5.015.0-6 R 0.992 16 0 to DTCH.6.t>09.XX S 1.090 17 17 0 DTCH.5.002.0-6 R 1.183 18 0 18 DTCH.5.014.XX S 1.460 19 19 0 DTCH.5.014.0 6 R 1.604 20 0 20 DTCH.5.004.0-0 R 2.144 21 0 21 DTCH.5.005.0-0 R 4 247 22 0 22 SUM 79 174 S=7 R -15 Mann-Wheney U Test US = C4 UR = 51

= 0.1057 Null Hypotheses: no efference in populetson distributeens lal > 1.90 talphe = 0.05) rerect the null hypothesis Conclue on: The Co 137 octwity irrigateen 6tch 5 has not dooroesed Quentile Test for n = 5 and m = 15, eiphe = 0.03, e = II, k = 5 Null hypothesis: n efference in population estributions.

looking at the 11 higheet measuremente only 3 moseuromante are from the follow-up survey

 .. Ifeit to resect nui0 Co 137 esnoontration has not increened signifecently freer chorectorization 11- 1 1                                                  REVISION 0

. . _ _ _ . _ . . _ - _ - .. . . _ , _ . . . . - ... _               _ _ _ . _   . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . .               _.._,__.._m._.__                    _ . . ~ _ . . _ _ _ . _       m__ _ _ _._..

APPENDIX B Table 513 Irrigation Ditch 6 Soil Co 137 Wilcomon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Semple ID 5 or R Co137 Rer* Sum of Sum of (pCi/g) S R  ; DTCH.S.001.XX S 0.000 1 1 0 DTCH 8.002.0 8 R 0.022 2 0 2 i DTCH.8.001.0-8 R 0.065 3 0 3 i- DTCH.8.002.XX 5 0.094 4 4 0 DTCH.8.003.XX 'S 0.318 5 5 0 DTCH.8.003.0-8 R 0 341 8 0 8 j SUM 10 11 S=3 R=3 Mann-Whitney U Test US = 5 UR = 4 Null Hypothesis: no efference in population estributsene usine tabulated veduas of e6phe for n1 = 3 and n2 = 3, The null hypothesis et the 95% eenfidence eennet be rejected. Conotusion: The Ce137 estMty concentretiene are from the some population, and not dooreesing. Quan81e Test eennet be performed, to few measurements. 1 I I l l i j I i B 12 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B 14 , irr;gation Ditch 4 Soil Co-137 Comparison with Background l Wilcozon Rank Sum Test, Mann-Whitney U Test and Quantile Test I Sample ID R or S Co-137 Rank Sum of Sum of pCi/g S R l 0001 FOUL 11 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 0001FOULO4 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 0001FOULO2 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 ) 0001 FOUL 31 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 1 0001 FOUL 13 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5  ! 0001 FOUL 15 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 0001 FOUL 39 R 0.0000 5,5 0 5.5 0001 FOUL 19 R O.0000 5.5 0 5.5 DTCH.4 003.0-0 S 0.0000 5.5 5.5 0 0001 FOUL 01 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 0001 FOUL 16 R 0.0688 11 0 11 0001 FOUL 10 R 0.0842 12 0 12 0001 FOUL 28 R 0.0947 13 0 13 i 0001FOULOS R 0.0953 14 0 14 1 0001 FOUL 26 R 0.1041 15 0 15 0001FOULO5 R 0.1044 16 0 16 0001FOULOS R 0.1125 17 0 17 0001F0VLO7 R 0.1131 18 0 18 0001 FOUL 33 R 0.1164 19 0 19 0001FOULOS R 0.1222 20 0 20 0001 FOUL 25 R 0.1250 21 0 21 0001 FOUL 17 R 0.1277 22 0 22 0001 FOUL 23 R 0.1291 23 0 23 0001FOULO3 R 0.1310 24 0 24 0001 FOUL 32 R 0.1358 25 0 25 0001 FOUL 35 R 0.1307 20 0 26 0001 FOUL 40 R 0.1404 27 0 27 0001 FOUL 20 R 0.1445 28 0 28 0001 FOUL 18 R 0.1477 29 0 29 0001F00L12 R 0.1486 30 0 30 0001 FOUL 14 R 0.1574 31 0 31 0001 FOUL 21 R 0.1633 32.5 0 32.6 DTCH.4.002.0-6 6 0.1633 32 5 32.5 0 0001 FOUL 36 R 0.1689 34 0 34 0001 FOUL 37 R 0.1734 35 0 35 0001 FOUL 38 R 0.1997 36 0 36 0001 FOUL 34 R 0.2135 37 0 37 0001 FOUL 27 R 0.2229 38 0 38 0001F0VL24 R 0.2436 39 0 39 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.2586 40 0 40 0001 FOUL 29 R O.2803 41 0 41 DTCH.4.002.XX S 0.3520 42 42 0 0001 FOUL 22 R 0.3650 43 0 43 DTCH.4.001.0-0 S 0.4103 44 44 0 DTCH.4.001.XX $ 0 4230 45 45 0 Som 169 866 S-5 R= 40 Menn Whitney U Test US = 40 UR = 154

                  =      1.9503 Null Hypothesis: no dfierence in population distributions 1 l >1.96 telphe = 0.05) reject the null hypotheses The null hypothesis oennet be rejected

== Conclusion:== The Co-137 octivity in the irrigation 6tch 4 is not statisticaHy different from background But it"e damn close. Quentile Test for n = 5 and m = 40, alpha = 0.0 29, t = 3, k = 2 Null hypothesis: no d.fterence in population dratributeens. looking et the three hi 0heet measurements only 2 measuremente are from the survey... (REJECT NULL) Co 137 concentrations in ditch 4 ore statisticany higher then background. O B-13 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-15 l irrigation Ditch 6 Soil Co-137 Comparison with Background (. 1 Wilcomon Rank Sum Test, Mann Whitney U Test, and Quentile Test Co.137 Rank Sum of Sum of k Semple ID R er 5 PCi/9 S R R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 0001F00L15 5.5 R 0.0000 5.5 0 > 0001 FOUL 13 5.5 R 0.0000 5.5 0 0001 FOUL 11 0 S 0.0000 5.5 5.5 DTCH.O.001.XX 0 5.5 R 0.0000 5.5 0001F0VL31 0 5.5 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.0000 5.5 R 0.0000 5.5 0 5.5 0001F0VL19 5.5 R 0.0000 5.5 0 0001FOULO4 5.5 i R 0.0000 5.5 0

'                         0001FOULO2                                                                               5.5 R                  0.0000        5.5          0 0001FOULO1                                                                                  0 5                  0.0221         11          11 DTCH.6.002.0-0                                                                      12        0                            l 8                  0.0547         12 DTCH.6.001.04                                                           13           0        13 t

0001 FOUL 18 R 0.0698 R 0.0942 14 0 14 0001 FOUL 10 0 ( S 0.0943 15 il ' DTCH.S.002.XX 0 16 0001 FOUL 28 R 0.0947 to R 0.0953 17 0 17 0001FOULOS 0 18 R 0.1041 18 0001 FOUL 26 R 0.1044 19 0 19 0001FOULOS 0 20 R 0.1125 20 0001FOULOS 0 21 R 0.1131 21 0001FOULO7 0 22 R 0.1164 22 0001 FOUL 33 0 23 R 0.1222 23 0001FOULOS 0 24 R 0.1250 24 0001 FOUL 25 0 25 i R 0.1277 25 0001 FOUL 17 0 20

                                                                                                                                                  +

R 0.1291 26 1 0001 FOUL 23 27 R 0.1316 27 0 0001FOULO3 0 28 R 0.1358 28 0001 FOUL 32 0 29 R 0.1367 29 i 0001 FOUL 35 30 R 0.1404 30 0 ' 0001 FOUL 40 0 31 R 0.1445 31 0001 FOUL 20 0 32 R 0.1477 32 0001 FOUL 18 0 33 R 0.1486 33 0001 FOUL 12 0 34 R 0.1574 34 0001 FOUL 14 0 35 t f5 ' 0001 FOUL 21 R 0.1633 35 0 36 R 0.1699 36

  \                         0001 FOUL 36 R                  0.1734         37           0        37 0001 FOUL 37                                                                      0        38 R                  0.1997         38 0001 FOUL 38                                                                      0        39 R                  0.2135         39                                                )

0001 FOUL 34 0 40 R 0.2229 40 0001 FOUL 27 0 41 R 0.2436 41 0001F00L24 42 0 42 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.2596 i R 0.2903 43 0 43 0001 FOUL 29 44 0 l S 0.3100 44 DTCH.S.003.XX 45 45 0 DTCH.6.003.0-0 6 0.3409 R 03650 46 0 46 0001 FOUL 22 948.5 SUM 132.5

                                                                                                                                                   )

S=6 R = 40 04enn.Whitemy U Test US = 129 UR = 111.5 se -0.2772 Null Hypothesis: no efference in population 6stributions laj >1.96 telphe = 0.05) reiset the null hypothesis The null hypothesis omnnet be retected Cenolusion: The Co-137 octivity m *he 6eri 9 enen 6tch 6 is not statistically 6fferent from bookersund Quense Test for n = 5 and m = 40, elphe = 0.029, t = 3. k = 2 Null hypothesse: no 6fference 6n populetsam distributions,  ; looking et the three highest measuremente. 2 rnessueemente oro from the j survey. l'etect null) Co.137 octivities are statistically different from book 9round. l l

    \                                                                                                                                              i w

REVISION 0  ; B-14 i l

APPENDIX B Table B-16 Irrigation Ditch 2 Soit Co-60 Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Mann Whitney U Test Sample 3D 5 or R Co-60 Rank Sum of Sum of lpCi/g) S R DTCH.2.003.0-0 R 0.J08 1 0 1 DTCH.2.004.XX 5 0.3 ?5 2 2 0 DTCH.2.004.0-6 R 0.410 3 0 3 DTCH.2.001.XX S 0.568 4 4 0 DTCH.2.001.0-0 R 0.01 C 5 0 5 DTCH.2.002.XX S 0.713 0 0 0 DTCH.2.001.0 6 R 22Sie 7 0 7 Sum 12 to Sea R=4 hWhitney U Test US = 0 UR = 0 Null Hypothesis: ne difference in population destebutione using tabulated values of alphe for n1 = 3 and n2 =4, The null hypothesie et the 95 % senfidence cannot be venected. Conowletion: The Ce40 octnnty eencontretiene are from the same populatsen, and not doorememg. To few measurements to perform the Quentile test Table B.17 Irrigation Ditch 3 Soil Co 60 Wilcozon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Sample 40 5 or R Co-60 Rank Sum of Sum of tpCi/gl S R DTCH.3.000.0 0 R 0.000 2.5 0 2.5 - DTCH.3.006.0-6 R 0.000 2.5 0 2.5 l 0.000 0 DTCH.3.009.XX S 2.5 2.5 DTCH.3.010.0-6 R 0.000 2.5 0 2.5 DTCH.3.007.0-6 R 0.024 5 0 5 DTCH.3.009.0-0 R 0.051 0 0 0 DTCH.3.005.0-0 R 0.079 7 0 7 l DTCH.3. DOS.XX 5 0.100 0 8 0 ) 0 DTCH.3.001.XX S 0.138 9 0 DTCH.3.005.XX S 0.187 10 10 0 DTCH.3.003.0-0 R 0.185 11 0 11 DTCH.3.002.XX S 0.189 12 12 0 DTCH.3.004.0-8 R 0.195 13 0 13 DTCH.3.001.0-0 R 0.245 14 0 14 DTCH.3.002.0-6 R 0.341 15 0 15 Sum 41.5 78.5 S=5 R =10 Mann-Whitney U Test US = 23.5 UR = 28.5 Null Hypothesis: ne difference in populataan distributeens Using tabulated volves of alphe for n1 = 5 and n2 = 10, The null hypothesse et the 95 % confedence cannot be setected. Conclueeen: The Co-60 octnnty concentretene are from the some populetsen end not dooressmo. To few meneuremente to perform the Quentne test 9 11-1 5 REVISION 0

           -. . --          .. . - . . -                        ..            - ..               . - .     .      .-            --     , - =    . . -.-

l i I 1 i APPENDIX B Table B 18 ! Irrigation Ditch 5 Sou Co-60 j s l Wilcomon Rank Sum Test and Mann Whitney U Test l S e# R Co-60 Rank Sum of Sum of l l Sample ID (pCi/gl S R , DTCH.5.007.0-6 R 0.000 4 0 4 I OTCH.5.015.0-6 R 0.000 4 0 4 l DTCH.5.013.0-6 R 0.000 4 0 4 l DTCH.5.012.0-6 R 0.000 4 0 4 1 l DTCH.S.010.0-6 R 0.000 4 0 4 I

DTCH.5.008.0-6 R 0.000 4 0 4 i t DTCH.5.007.XX S 0.000 4 4 0 l DTCH.5.000.0-8 R 0.031 0 0 8 DTCH.E.001.04 R 0.101 s o e DTCH.5.004.XX S 0.115 to 10 0 DTCH.5.000.0-6 A 0.135 11 0 11 l DTCH.S.005.XX S 0.175 12 12 0 l' DTCH.5.014.0-6 R O.177 13 0 13 DTCH.5.005.XX S 0.183 14 14 0 ,

DTCH.5.002.0-6 R 0.189 15 0 15 i DTCH.5.014.XX S 0.196 to 16 0 DTCH.5.000.XX S 0.200 17 17 0 l DTCH 5.002.XX S 0.229 18 18 0 DTCH.5.011.0-6 R 0.246 19 0 19 DTCH.5.003.0-0 R 0.205 20 0 20 DTCH.5.004.0-6 R 0.595 21 0 21 i DTCH.5.005.0-6 R 1.439 22 0 22 ) EUM 91 102 ', S=7 ) R = 15 a I Menn-Vneeney U Test J US = 42 UR = 63 t= 4.7402 l NJi Hypothesis: ne dfierence in population siistributione i l l > 1.96 (alphe = 0.05) reject the null hypothesie n -

Conclusion:

The Co-60 octivity ireigetion etch 5 has not decreased [ QuantileTest for n = 5, m = 15, and alpha = 0 03, t = 11 and k e 5 loolang at the eleven Nghest measurements, two are from the survey area, therefore (tail to reject null) data sets are not statstcally deerent 1 l 1 l l l l i l i l i \ . i i B-16 REVISION 0 1 1 l 1

APPENDIX B Table B 19 Pasture Sou Co-137 WHcomon Rank Sum Test, Mann-Whitney U Test, and Quantile Test Sample ID Co137 (pci/gl Rank Sum of Sum of S R 9il PAST.SOfLO53.XX S 0.000 2 2 0  ! PAST.SOtLC38.0 0 R 0.000 2 0 2 PAST.60lLO36.0-0 R 0.000 2 0 2 PAST.SOILOQ3.XX S 0.001 4 4 0  ; PAST.SOILO24.0-0 R 0.000 5 0 5 1 PAST.SOILD02.XX 5 0.102 6 e O PAST.60lLO72.0-0 R 0.111 7 0 7 PAST.SQLO67.0-6 R 0.115 8 0 8 PAST.SOILO75.0-6 R 0.130 9 0 9 PAST.SQLOSO.XX S 0.136 10 10 0 PAST.SOILO79.0 8 R 0.138 11 0 11 PAST.60tLO17.XX S 0.141 12 12 0 l PAST.SOILO76.0-0 R 0.170 13 0 13 I PAST.SOiLO48.0-6 R 0.176 14 0 14 PAST.SOILO61.0-0 R 0.189 15 0 15 PAST. SOLO 15.0-6 R 0.199 16 0 16 PAST.SOILO63.0-0 R 0.201 17 0 17 PAST.SOILO81.0-6 R 0.202 18 0 18 PAST.SOILO71.0 0 R 0.202 19 0 19 PAST.SOILO77.XX S 0.210 20 20 0 PAST.SolLO41.XX S 0.215 21 21 0 PAST. SOIL.018.0-0 R O.226 22 0 22 PAST.SotLOO1.XX S 0.227 23 23 0 PAST. SOLD 05.0-6 R 0.228 24 0 24 PAST.SOILO68.0 0 R 0.230 25 0 25 PAST.SOILO69.0-6 R 0.231 26 0 20 i PAST.SOILO44.XX S 0.232 27 27 0 PAST.SOILOO7.0-0 R 0.237 28 0 28 PAST.SOILO73.0-0 R 0.238 29 0 29 PAST.SOfLO25.0-6 R 0.238 30 0 30 PAST.SOILO78.0-6 R 0.239 31 0 31 PAST.SOILO39.0-0 R 0.261 32 0 32 PAST.SOILO65.0-0 R 0.264 33 0 33 PAST.SOILO74.0-0 R 0.266 34 0 34 PAST.SOILO37.0-0 R 0.271 35 0 35 PAST.SOILO58.0-6 R 0.278 30 0 36 PAST.SOILD53.0 6 R 0.286 37 0 37 PAST.SOLOOS.XX & 0.287 38 38 0 PAST.SOILO77.0-0 R 0.293 39 0 39 PAST.60lLO70.0 6 R 0.295 40 0 40 PAST.SotLO47.0 6 R 0.300 41 0 41 PAST.SOILO19.XX $ 0.308 42 42 0 PAST.SOILO43.0-0 R 0.310 43 0 43 PAST.SOILC80.0-6 R 0.312 44 0 44 PAST.SOILO37.XX S 0.325 45 45 0 PAST.SOILO28.0-0 R 0.325 46 0 40 PAST.SOILO17.0-0 R 0.327 47 0 47 PAST.40lLO19.0-6 R 0.331 48 0 48 PAST.SotLO20.0-0 R 0.332 49 0 49 PAST.SOILO40.0 6 R 0.342 50 0 50 PAST.SOILO45.0-6 R 0.348 51 0 51 PAST.SOILO26.0-0 R 0.355 52 0 52 PAST.SotLO68.XX S 0.357 53 53 0 PAST.SOILO13.0-6 R 0.362 54 0 54 PAST.SOILO67.0-6 R 0.369 55 0 55 PAST. SOIL 006.XX S 0.376 56 SS 0 PAST.SOILO60.0-6 R 0.3t t 57 0 57 PAST.SOILO10.0 0 R 0.386 58 0 58 PAST.SOILC74.XX S 0.388 59 59 0 PAST.SOILO49.0 R 0.393 60 0 60 PAST.SOILO10.XX & 0.393 61 61 0 PAST. SOIL.035.XX S 0.396 62 62 O PAST.SOILO64.0 0 R O.397 63 0 63 PAST.SOILO46.0-6 0 0.399 64 0 64 PAST.SOILD55.0-0 R 0.404 65 0 65 O 15- 1 7 REVISION 0

l l APPENT)IX B Teble 819 continued Posture Soil Co-137 l ! Co137 Rank Sum of Sum of Gemple lo (pClig} S R PAST.SOILO31.0-6 R 0.411 66 0 66 PAST.SOILOS6.04 R 0.420 67 0 67 PAST.SOILOS4.0-6 R 0.434 68 0 68 PAST.SOILD5 2.0-0 R 0.437 69 0 69 PAST. SOIL 032.04 R 0.445 70 0 70 PAST.SOILO42.04 R 0.454 71 0 71 PAST. SOIL.023.XX S 0.457 72 72 0 PAST.SOILC11.0-6 R 0.40s 73 0 73 PAST.SOILO62.04 R 0.475 74 0 74 PAST.SOsLc22.XX S 0.477 75 75 0 PAST.SOILO14.0-0 R 0.495 76 0 76 PAST.SOILOO4.XX S 0.506 77 77 0 j PAST.SolLD50.04 R 0.50s 70 0 70 j PAST.SOILO48.XX S 0.527 79 79 0 , PAST.SOtLO30.04 R 0.531 80 0 50  ! PAST.SOILO33.04 R 0.535 81 0 81 PAST.SolLO44.04 R 0.562 82 0 82 PAST.SOLLO27.0 0 R 0.564 83 0 83 ! PAST.SOILO56.0-6 R 0.000 84 0 54 i PAST.SOILOSS.XX S 0.006 05 85 0 PAST.508LD51.XX 5 0.007 86 86 0 PAST.SOILO12.0-6 R 0.009 87 0 87 PAST.SOILoos.XX S 0.628 88 88 0 PAST.SOILO29.0-6 R 0.636 89 0 SD [ PAST. SOIL.041.0-6 R 0.666 90 0 90

PAST. SOIL 006.0-6 R 0.699 91 0 91 l PAST.SOILO54.04 R 0.705 92 0 92 PAST.80dLO21.XX S 0.711 93 93 0

( PAST.SOILO21.0-6 R 0.716 94 0 94 l t PAST.SOILO35.0-6 R 0.718 95 0 95 ! PAST.SOILD51.04 R 0.79' 96 0 96 PAST.SOILOO4.0-6 R 0.83s 97 0 97 PAST.SOILO29.XX 5 0.843 98 98 0 PAST.SOtLO22.04 R 0.880 99 0 99 i PAST.SOILO63.04 R 0.942 100 0 100 l l

            ]   PAST.SOILOOS.XX PAST.SOILOO3.04                R 5             1.010 1.102 101 102 101 0           102 0                        i I
         %,     PAST. SOIL 027.XX               S             1.140      103       103             0 PAST.60dLO10.0-0                R             1.292      104        0           104 PAST.SOILO54.XX                 S             1.360      105       105             0 PAST.SOILOOS.0-6               R              1.384      106        0           106 PAST.SOILO23.0 6                R             1.410      107        0           107 PAST.SOILO62.XX                 S             1.420      108       108             0 PAST.SOILOOS.0-6               R              1.596      109        0           109 PAST.SOILOO2.0-6                R             1.677      110        0           110                         i PAST. SOIL 001.0-6              R             3204       111        0           111                         I Sum                                  1711         4505                         I l                S 30 l                R = 81 teenn-Whitney U Test US =           1184 UR =           1246
                                     = 4.2050 Null Hypothesis: no difference in population distributione                                                  I l3l > 1.96 leiphe = 0.05) reject the null hypothesia                                                       l Quenelle Test           for n = 30 and m = 80, elphe = 0.024 e = 10. k = 6 l

Null hypothesis: no difference in population distributions. 1 lookin9 et the ten highest measurements only 3 measurements are from the follow-up 1 survey... (feit te resect null) Co.137 concentration hee not ehenced ei9 nificently. I i 1 . ~ B-18 REVISION O

APPENDIX B Table B-20 Posture Soil Co 137 Comparison with Background Wilcomon Rank Surn Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Sample 10 R er S Co.137 Ronk Sum of Sum of PCUg S R 0001FOULO2 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 0001 FOUL 31 R 0.00 6.5 0 0.5 0001 FOUL 19 R 0.00 0.5 0 6.5 0001 FOUL 11 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 0001 FOUL 39 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 0001 FOUL 15 R 0.00 6.5 0 0.5 0001 FOUL 13 R 0.00 0.5 0 6.5 0001FOULO1 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 0001FOULO4 R 0.00 0.5 0 0.5 PAST. SOIL.036.04 6 0.000 0.5 0.5 0 PAST.SOILO38.04 S 0.000 0.5 0.5 0 PAST.SOILD53.XX S 0.000 6.5 0.5 0 PAST.SOILOO3.XX S 0.061 13 13 0 0001 FOUL 16 R 0.07 14 0 14 PAST.SOILO24.04 8 0.000 15 15 0 0001 FOUL 10 R 0.08 to 0 to 0001 FOUL 28 R 0.09 17 0 17 0001FOULOS R 0.10 18 0 18 PAST.SOfLOO2.XX S 0.102 19 19 0 0001 FOUL 26 A 0.10 20 0 20 0001FOULOS R 0.10 21 0 21 PAST.SOILO72.0 6 S 0.111 22 22 0 0001FOULO6 R 0.11 23 0 i) 0001FOULO7 R 0.11 24 0 24 PAST. SOIL.007.0-0 S 0.115 25 25 0 0001 FOUL 33 R 0.12 20 0 20 0001FOULOS R 0.12 27 0 27 0001F00L25 R 0.13 28 0 28 0001 FOUL 17 R 0.13 29 0 29 0001 FOUL 23 R 0.13 30 0 30 PAST.SOILO75.0-0 5 0.130 31 31 0 0001FOULO3 R 0.13 32 0 32 0001 FOUL 32 R 0.14 33 0 33 PAST. SOIL.000.XX S 0.136 34 34 0 0001 FOUL 35 R 0.14 35 0 35 PAST. SOIL.079.0 6 S 0.138 36 36 0 0001 FOUL 40 R 0.14 37 0 37 PAST.SotLO17.XX G 0.141 38 38 0 0001 FOUL 20 R 0.14 39 0 39 0001 FOUL 18 R 0.15 40 0 40 0001 FOUL 12 R 0.15 41 0 41 0001 FOUL 14 R 0.16 42 0 42 000180UL21 R 0.16 43 0 43 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.17 44 0 44 PAST.SOILO76.04 6 0.170 45 45 0 0001 FOUL 37 R 0.17 46 0 46 PAST.SOILO45 0-0 S 0.176 47 47 0 PAST.SOILO61.04 S 0.189 48 48 0 PAST. SOIL.015.0-0 S 0.199 49 49 0 0001 FOUL 38 R 0.20 50 0 50 PAST.SOILO63.04 S 0.201 61 51 0 PAS 7.SOILO81.0-6 6 0.202 52 52 0 PAST.SolLO71.0-6 5 0.202 53 53 0 PAST.SOILO77.XX S 0.210 54 54 0 0001 FOUL 34 R 0.21 55 0 55 PAST. SOIL.041.XX S 0.215 to 56 0 0001 FOUL 27 R O.22 57 0 57 PAST. SOIL 018.0-0 S 0.226 58 58 0 PAST.SotLool.XX S 0.227 59 59 0 PAST.SOILOO5.0-6 5 0.228 60 60 0 PAST.SOILO68.0-0 S 0.230 61 61 0 PAST.SOILD69.0 0 5 0.231 62 62 0 PAST.SotLO44.XX S 0.232 63 63 0 PAST.EOIL.007.0 6 8- 0.237 64 64 0 PAST.SOILO73.04 S 0.238 65 65 0 PAST.SOILO25.0-0 S 0.238 66 60 0 PAST.SOILO78.0-6 6 0.239 67 67 0 I O 15- 1 9 REVISION 0

1 l l APPENDIX B Table B 20 continued Pasture Sou Co-137 Comparison with Background

 ,              Semple ID      R or S           Co137   Rank  Sum of Sum of                       i (N                                              pCi/g              8     R                       '

l 0001 FOUL 24 R 0.24 es O es l I 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.26 09 0 OS PAST. SOLO 39.08 6 0.201 70 70 0 PAST.SOILO65.0-8 8 0.264 71 71 0 PAST.SOILO74.04 S 0.266 72 72 0 i PAST.SQL.037.04 S 0.271 - 73 73 0 PAST.SolLD5s.o.e S 0.278 74 74 0 ] 1 0001 FOUL 29 R 0.20 75 0 75 ' I PAST.SOILD59.0-8 S 0.286 76 76 0 PAST. SOLD 06.XX S 0.287 77 77 0 PAST.SOfLO77.04 S 0.293 78 70 0 i PAST.SOILO70.0-8 8 0.295 79 79 0 j PAST.SOILO47.0-8 S 0.300 00 80 0 , PAST. SOIL 019.XX S 0.308 31 81 0 PAST.SQLO43.04 S 0.310 82 82 0 PAST.SOILO90.0-8 8 0.312 83 83 0 , PAST.SOILO37 XX 5 0.325 84 84 0  : PAST.SonLO2SJD-8 8 0.325 35 06 0 f PAST.SO6LO17.04 5 0.327 to se 0 . PAST.SOILO19.04 5 0.331 87 87 0 i PAST.SOILD20.04 5 0.332 OS 98 0 PAST.SQLO40.08 8 0.342 89 39 0 PAST.SOILO45.0-8 8 0.348 90 90 0 PAST. SOLO 20.0-0 S 0.355 91 91 0 PAST.SQLOSS.XX S 0.357 92 92 0  ! PASY. SOIL 013.0 4 S 0.362 93 93 0 l 0001 FOUL 22 R 0.37 94 0 94 PAST. SOLO 57.04 6 0.389 96 95 0 PAST. SOIL.006.XX S 0.376 96 96 0 PAST. SOLO 60.0-8 6 0.382 97 97 0 PAST.SOLL018.0-6 S 0.386 98 98 0 PAST.SOILO74.XX S 0.380 99 99 0 I PAST.SOILO49.0 0 5 0.393 100 100 0 l PAST.SQLO10.XX S 0.393 101 101 0 ) PAST.SOILO35.XX S 0.396 102 102 O l PAST.SQLO64.0 0 6 0.397 103 103 0 1 PAST.SOILO48.0-8 8 0.399 104 104 0 ( 1 PAST.SOfLO55.0-8 5 0.404 106 105 0 ' PAST.SOtLO31.0 0 6 0.411 106 100 0 PAST.SOILO60.0-8 8 0.420 -107 107 0 PAST.SOILO34.0-0 S 0.4 34 100 108 0 PAST.SOILD52.0-0 S 0.437 109 109 0 PAST.SOILO32.0 0 S 0.445 110 110 0 PAST.SOILO4 2.0-0 S 0.454 111 111 0  ! PAST.SOILO23.XX S 0457 112 112 0 i PAST.SOILC11.0-0 S 0.48e 113 113 0 l PAST.SOILO62.0-8 8 0.475 114 114 0 j PAST.SOILO22.XX S 0.477 115 115 0 1 PAST.SOILO14.0-0 S 0.495 110 110 0 PAST.SOILOO4.XX 5 0.506 117 117 0 PAST.SOILO50.0-0 S 0.500 115 118 0 PAST.SOILO48.XX S 0.527 119 119 0 PAST.SOILO30.0-8 5 0.531 120 120 0 PAST.SOILo33.0-6 8 0.535 121 121 0 PAST.SOILO44.0-6 5 0.502 122 122 0 PAST.SOILO27.0-8 5 0.584 123 123 0 PAST.SOILOSS.04 S 0.600 124 124 0 PAST.SOILO58.XX S 0.00ft 125 125 0 l PAST.SOILD51.XX S 0.00'1 120 126 0 PAST.SOILO12.04 0 ] 5 0.6C 9 127 127 PAST.SOILODB.XX S 0.028 128 128 0 PAST.SOILO29.0 0 S 0.635 129 129 0 PAST.SOtLO41.0-6 S 0.666 130 130 0 PAST.SOILOO6.0-6 5 0.699 131 131 0 PAST.SOILD54.0 8 5 0.705 132 132 0 PAST.SOILO21.XX S 0.711 133 133 0 PAST.SOILO21.0-6 5 0.716 134 134 0 1 l e 1 i ( O B-20 REVISION 0 . l l 1

APPENDIX B Table B 20 continued Posture Soil Co-137 Comparison with Background Sample 10 R er S Co137 RerA Sum of Sumof PCd8 6 R PAST. SOIL.035.0-6 8 0.718 135 135 0 PAST.SOILO51.0-0 8 0.795 136 138 o PAST.SOILOO4.0-0 8 0.832 137 137 0 PAST,5GLO29.XX S 0.843 139 138 0 PAST.SO4LO22.0-0 8 0.880 139 139 0 PAST.SoiLO63.0-6 5 0.942 140 140 0 PAST.60iLOO9.XX S 1.010 141 141 0 PAST. SOIL 003.0-0 S 1.102 142 142 0 PAST.SOILO27.XX S 1.140 143 143 0 PAST. SOIL 010.0-8 5 1.292 144 144 0 PAST.60iLO54.XX S 1.380 145 145 0 PAST.SOILODS.0-0 5 1.384 148 148 0 PAST.SOfLO23.0 6 6 1.410 147 147 0 PAST.SOILOS2.XX S 1.420 148 148 0 PAST. SOIL 000.0 8 5 1.598 149 149 0 PAST. SOIL 002.0-6 8 1.677 150 150 0 PAST. SOIL 001.0-e S 3204 151 151 0 SUM 10224.6 1261.6 8 = 111 R = 40 Mann Whitney U Test US = 431.5 UR = 4008.6

                 =     7.5430 Null Hypothesis: ne dfference in populetsen destributeene lal >1.98 (alphe = 0.05) esiast the null hypothemse The null hypothesis is reincted Cenolusion: The Co-137 octivity in the postures is statistically hi 9her then bookereund l

I I I O B-21 REVISION 0

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

APPENDIX B Table 8 21 i Farm Pond Sediment Co-137 L Wilcomon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Sample ID R of S Co137 Rank Sum of Sum of PCi/g S R t FP. SED.004.0 6 A 0.219 1 0 1 i ! FP. SED.010.04 R 0.258 2 0 2 . i FP. SED.005.XX 5 0.331 3 3 0 I FP. SED.000.XX S 0.425 4 4 0 ( FP. SED.007.0-6 R 0.405 5 0 5 FP. SED.000.0 0 R 0.599 0 0 8 FP. SED.000.0-6 R 0.023 7 0 7 FP. SED.001.04 R 0.829 0 0 8 , i FP. SED.000.0-0 R O.714 9 0 9 l FP. SED.002.04 R 0.763 10 0 to t i FP. SED.005.0-0 R 0.793 11 0 11 FP.EED.002.XX S 0.971 12 12 0 FP. SED.003.0-6 R 0 972 13 0 13 l Sum 19 72 i S=3 t R = 10 Mann-Whlesey U Test i US = 17 UR = 13 Null Hypothesis: no difference in pophistion distributions using tabulated values of alphe for n1 = 3 and n2 = 10, The null hypothesse et the 95% confidence cannot be repeoted. Concluseen: The Ce137 estivity eencontratione ese from the same populeteen, and not decreaseng, Quondio test mennet be performed to few measuremente i I i Table B-22 Farm Pond Sediment Co40  ; Wdoomon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test j Sample ID R or S Co-00 Renit Sum of Sum of i pCi/g S R I FP. SED.008.XX S 1.5 1.5 0 FP. SED.005.XX S 1.5 1.5 0 FP. SED.002.04 R 0.061 3 0 3 FP. SED.004.0-6 R 0072 4 0 4 FP. SED.010.0 6 R 0.084 5 0 5 FP. SED.008.0-8 R 0.091 8 0 8 FP. SED.000.0-6 R 0.102 7 0 7 FP. SED.001.0-0 R 0.119 8 0 9 FP. SED.007.04 R 0.134 9 0 9 FP. SED.002.XX S 0.241 10 10 0 FP. SED.005.0-0 R 0.245 11 0 11 FP. SED.000.0-6 R 0.250 12 0 12 FP. SED.003.0 6 R 0 258 13 0 13 Sum 13 79 S=3 R = 10 l i Menn-Whitney U Test US = 23 UR = 7  ! Nult Hypothesse: no difference in population destributsone Using tabulated valuse 6f eiphe for n1 = 3 and n2 = 10, The null hypothesis et the 95 % confidence cannot be relected.

Conclusion:

The Co40 sotivity concentrations are from the same population, and have not decrossed significently. Quentile Test connet be performed to few meneurements. l l. 15-2 2 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B 23 Form Pond Sediment Co-137 Comparison with Background Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Semple ID R er S Co137 Rank Sum of Sum of PCi/0 $ R 0001 FOUL 31 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001 FOUL 15 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001 FOUL 13 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001 FOUL 11 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001F0VLO4 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001 FOUL 39 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001FOULO2 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001FOULO1 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001 FOUL 19 R 0.00 5 0 5 0001 FOUL 18 R 0.07 10 0 10 0001 FOUL 10 R 0.08 11 0 11 0001F00L28 R 0.09 12 0 12 0001FOULOS R 0.10 13 0 13 0001 FOUL 26 R 0.10 14 0 14 0001FOULOS R 0.10 15 0 15 0001FOULOS R 0.11 16 0 16 0001FOULO7 R 0.11 17 0 17 0001 FOUL 33 R 0.12 18 0 18 0001FOULOS R 0.12 19 0 19 0001 FOUL 25 R 0.13 20 0 20 0001 FOUL 17 R O.13 21 0 21 0001F0UL23 R 0.13 22 0 22 0001FOULO3 R 0.13 23 0 23 0001 FOUL 32 R 0.14 24 0 24 0001 FOUL 35 R 0.14 25 0 25 0001 FOUL 40 R 0.14 26 0 26 0001 FOUL 20 R O.14 27 0 27 0001 FOUL 18 R 0.15 28 0 28 0001 FOUL 12 R 0.15 29 0 29 0001 FOUL 14 R 0.16 30 0 30 0001 FOUL 21 R 0.16 31 0 31 0001 FOUL 36 R 0.17 32 0 32 0001 FOUL 37 R 0.17 33 0 33 0001 FOUL 38 R 0.20 34 0 34 0001 FOUL 34 R 0.21 35 0 35 FP. SED.004.0-6 S 0.21834 36 36 0 ' 0001 FOUL 27 R 0.22 37 0 37 0001 FOUL 24 R 0.24 38 0 38 FP. SED.010.0-6 S 0.25759 39 39 0 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.26 40 0 40 0001 FOUL 29 R 0.28 41 0 41 FP. SED.005.XX S 0.331 42 42 0 0001F0VL22 R 0.37 43 0 43 FP. SED.008.XX S 0.425 44 44 0 FP. SED.007.0-6 S 0.4649 45 45 0 i FP. SED.000.0-0 S 0.59655 46 46 0 FP.EED.009.0 6 5 0.62277 47 47 0 FP. SED.001.0-6 S 0.62949 48 48 0 I FP. SED.006.0-6 S 0.71374 49 49 0 ) FP.EE0 002.0-0 8 0.7626 50 50 0 I FP. SED.005.0-6 6 0.78316 51 51 0 ) FP. SED.002.XX 5 0.971 52 52 0 i FP. SED.003.0-0 S 09722 53 53 0 Sum 602 a29 S = 13 R = 40 Mann-Whitney U Test US = 9 UR = 511

= 5.1888 Null Hypothesis: no difference in population distributione laj > 1.96 (eiphe = 0.05) repect the null hypothesis The nun hypothesis is mected Conotweion: The Co.137 octnrity in the feem pond sediment es statistecelly higher then background Co 137 in soil O

B-23 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B-24 Farm Pond Outfall Sediment Co 137 O Wilcomon Rank Sum Test, Mann Whitney U Test, and Quantile Test ( Sample ID R er S Co137 Rank Sum of Sum of pCug S R OF. SED.010 R 3.5 0 3.5 OF. SED.013 R 3.5 0 3.5 OF. SED.011 R 3.5 0 3.5 OF. SED.012 R 3.5 0 3.5 OF. SED.012.XX S 3.5 3.5 0 OF. SED.004.XX S 3.5 3.5 0 OF. SED.005 R 0.043 7 0 7 OF. SED.000.XX 5 0.063 e s 0 OF. SED.001.XX S 0.066 9 9 0 y OF. SED.003 R 0.121 10 0 10 OF. SED.000 R 0.153 11 0 11 OF. SED.002 R 0.174 12 0 12 OF. SED.007.XX S 0.177 13 13 0 i OF. SED.004 R 0.191 14 0 14  ! OF. SED.000 R 0.209 15 0 15 l OF. SED.001 R 0.220 to 0 18 OF. SED.006 R 0.320 17 0 17 OF. SED.007 R 0 382 is 0 10 Sum 37 134 l t S=5  ! R = 13 , Mann. Whitney U Test l US = 43 ) UR = 22 l Null Hypothesis: no dfference in population estributione Using tabulated welues of elphe for n1 = 5 and n2 = 10. The null hypothesie et the 95 % confidence connet be reimoted. Cenelusion: The Ce137 motivity concentretiens are from the some population, and not doorensing. I using e a score for the date l

= 1.035 Nult Hypothesis: no efference in population estributione I l l3l >1.88 (etphe = 0.05) repeat the null hypothesie Ceneousion: The Co.137 eativity in the form pond outfallis not doorensing.

Quanthe Test for n= 5 and m e 15, alphe = 0 03, r e 11, k e 5 loonang at the hghest 11 measurements only 3 are from the sunoy j Feil to repect null, data sets are not statstcally deerent.  ; I l I 15-2 4 REVISION 0

APPENDIX B Table B 25 Farm Pond Outfall Sediment Co-137 Comparison with Background Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test. Mann. Whitney U Test, m.d Quantile Test Sample ID R er S Co.137 Rank Sum of Sum of i pCi/g S R l OF. SED.012 S 8 8 0 OF. SED.011 5 8 0 0 OF. SED.004.XX S 8 8 0 OF.EED.012.XX S 8 8 0 OF. SED.010 S 8 8 0 l OF. SED.013 5 8 8 0 1 0001 FOUL 15 R 0.00 8 0 8 0001 FOUL 13 R 0.00 8 0 8 0001 FOUL 31 R 0.00 8 0 8 l 0001 FOUL 39 R 0.00 8 0 8 1 0001 FOUL 19 R 0.00 8 0 0 0001F0ULO1 R 0.00 8 0 8 0001FOULO4 R 0.00 8 0 8 0001FOULO2 R 0.00 8 0 8 0001F0VL11 R O.00 8 0 8 OF. SED.005 6 0.043 16 to 0 i OF.EED.009.XX S 0.063 17 17 0 l OF. SED.001.XX 5 0.000 18 18 0 0001 FOUL 18 R O.07 19 0 19 0001 FOUL 10 R 0.08 20 0 20 0001 FOUL 28 R 0.09 21 0 21 0001FOULOS R 0.10 22 0 22 0001 FOUL 26 R 0.10 23 0 23 0001FOULOS R 0.10 24 0 24 0001FOULO6 R 0.11 25 0 25 0001FOULD7 R 0.11 26 0 26 0001 FOUL 33 R 0.12 27 0 27 OF. SED.003 S 0.121 28 28 0 0001FOULOS R 0.12 29 0 29 0001 FOUL 25 R 0.13 30 0 30 0001 FOUL 17 R 0.13 31 0 31 l 0001F00L23 R 0.13 32 0 32 0001FOULO3 R 0.13 33 0 33 l 0001FOLL32 R 0.14 34 0 34 ' 0001 FOUL 35 R 0.14 35 0 35 1 0001 FOUL 40 R 0.14 36 0 36 0001 FOUL 20 R 0.14 37 0 37 0001 FOUL 18 R 0.15 38 0 38 0001 FOUL 12 R 0.15 39 0 39 OF. SED.008 6 0.153 40 40 0 1 0001 FOUL 14 R 0.16 41 0 41 0.16 42 0001 FOUL 21 R 42 0 0001 FOUL 36 R 0.17 43 0 43 0001 FOUL 37 R 0.17 44 0 44 OF. SED.002 S 0.174 45 45 0 l OF. SED.007.XX S 0.177 46 46 0 ' OF. SED.004 S 0.191 47 47 0 0001 FOUL 38 R 0.20 48 0 48 OF. SED.009 5 0.209 49 49 0 0001 FOUL 34 R 0.21 50 0 50 0001 FOUL 27 R 0.22 51 0 51 OF. SED.001 S 0.228 52 52 0 0001 FOUL 24 R 0.24 53 0 53 0001 FOUL 30 R 0.26 54 0 54 0001 FOUL 29 R 0.28 55 0 55 OF. SED 000 S 0.320 56 50 0 0001 FOUL 22 R 0.37 57 0 57 OF. SED.007 5 0 382 58 50 0 Sum 520 1t91 S = 18 R=40 BAenn.waitney U Test US = 371 UR = 349 a= 0.1849 Null Hypothesis: no efference in populateen destributeens lrl >1.96 telphe = 0.051 reiect the null hypothesis The null hypothesie cannot be repected

== Conclusion:== The Co.137 setivity in the form pond outfelt seeement IS NOT statistically different from background Co.137 Quanti 6e Test for n = 20 and m = 40. alphe = 0.025. t = 11. and k = 7 of the eleven highest data points only 4 ore from the survey sees, therefore fad to resed null, data sets are not statstmaly ddferent B-25 REVISION 0 l}}