ML17290A686

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

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

Text

EVALUATION OF THE SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE MATTXHAL FOU16)IN COOLING TOVAER SEDIMENTS AT WASHINGTON NVCLEAR PLANT 2 REVISION 1 Prepared for: Washington Public Power Supply System By: Joseph W.Moon, CHP and J.Stewart Bland, CHP J.Stewart Bland Associates, Inc.September 27, 1993 qsi019 qSi013 FDp ADDCK ,>DR P 0 I' EVALUATION OF THE SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FOUND IN COOLING TOWER SEDIMIATS AT%NP-2 REVISION 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

A comprehensive evaluation has been performed to determine the most likely source of the radioactive material in the Cooling Tower sediments.

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

The sediment of the Columbia River is known to contain low levels of naturally occurring radioactive material.Fallout from the atmospheric testing of nuclear devices and radioactive material originating from upstream Department of Energy operations oa the Hanford Reservation contribute additional components of river sediment activity (ref.11).Relatively short half-lived activation products have been measured in the Cooling Tower sediments at concentrations that are several orders of magnitude below the concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides.

Even though these levels are low and do not present a radiological safety issue, there was a concern that the appearance of these radionuclides in the Cooling Tower sediments constituted a potential unanticipated pathway for the release of plant generated activity.The Tower Make Up system (TMU)intake draws solid material from the Columbia River into the Cooling Tower basins as suspended solids.Estimates of the quantity of this material approach 2 tons per month of tower operations.

It is unlikely that WNP-2 liquid effiuents are being recirculated from the river as the TMU intake is upstream of the release point.The Columbia River has a relatively high linear velocity in the reach along the WNP-2 TMU.intake aiding in the resuspension of river sediments and effectively preventing the upstream migration of plant generated radionuclides (ref.10).TMU intake samples containing measurable quantities of cesium-137 (Cs-137)as well as the activation products zinc-65 (Zn-65), manganese-54 (Mn-54), and cobalt-60 (Co-60)demonstrate a direct riverborne source of these activation products.A substantiation of a riverborne source of the radioactive material was obtained by the further evaluation of environmental data.Samples of Cooling Tower sediments taken from the start of commercial operations through the present were compared to samples of river sediment.The comparison of these data sets demonstrate that there is no WPPSS/COOLSED.RVt September 27, l993 0

~'s statistically significant difference between the means of the two sample populations for~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~concentrations of Cs-137 and Co-60.There were not a sufficient number of samples indicating positive results for other radionuclides to establish a meaningful population for statistical comparisons.

A meaningful population is considered tobe composed ofat least 30 samples.Evaluations of the potential for radionuclides to be introduced to the Cooling Tower sediments by leakage from plant systems has been performed (ref.3).The conclusions have discounted the possibility that the activity had originated from any leakage at plant piping system interfaces from operational events to date.In addition, other pathways for the introduction of radionuclides of plant origin into both the river and the Cooling Towers have been evaluated in this report and were found to be insignificant.

'he conclusion of this study is that the most likely source of the radioactive material.found in the Cooling Tower sediments is the Columbia River sediments.

1.1 athw nal is An evaluation of measurements of environmental samples has been performed to identify the most likely source of radioactive material identified in the WNP-2 Cooling Tower sediments.

The radionuclides found in the Cooling Tower sediments are primarily cesium-137 (Cs-137)and cobalt-50 (Co-60)which.have appeared consistently in~~samples of the sediment with the sporadic appearance of other fission and activation products.Possible sources of plant generated radioactive material being introduced to the Cooling Towers from interconnecting liquid inventory systems have been evaluated by the plant staff These liquid inventory sources, primarily the heat exchangers for the reactor building closed cooling water system (RBCCW), have been discounted since no fission products have been identified in any samples from these systems and the amounts of identified leakage in!hese systems was not sufficient to account for the quantity of activation products found in the Cooling Tower sediments (ref.3).These findings led to a search for other possible sources of radioactive material.Other pathways by which plant generated radionuclides can be introduced into the Cooling Towers are by atmospheric dispersion and re-entrainment of the particulate fraction of the plant gaseous effluent stream, Radionuclides released to the atmosphere will deposit on the ground and other surfaces where they may be washed into the river upstream of the plant, or they may be drawn along with the air mass passing through the Cooling Tower where they are entrained into the water volume.In order to evaluate the feasibility of these two pathways, a conservative assessment was performed using annual average dispersion parameters for the nearest approach of the river.(East sector, 3,5 miles)and to the Cooling Towers (Southeast sector, 0.25 miles).J%PPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993

1 a!i'd the total particulate fraction of gaseous effiuents.

Even assuming 100%efficienc this process the predicted concentrations in both the river and the Cooling Towers woul be several orders of magnitude lower than the amount of activity actually m~<<the Cooling Tower sediment.For these reasons, the re-entrainment of P~icu gaseous effluent.is not considered to be the pathway resultmg m the identified radionuclides in the Cooling Tower sediment."I The possibility that plant generated liquid effluents are being recirculated into the TMU intake was examined from the perspective of positioning of the effluent discharg~into the river and the average flow velocity of the Columbia River at the TMU intake-This pathway was discounted since the liquid effluent is discharged into the river downstream of the TMU intake.The rapid linear velocity of the reach of the Columbia River in front of WNP-2 (between 0.8 and 4.5 fps)is sufficient to prevent any liquid effluents from being drawn upstream and into the TMU intake (ref.10).Columbia River sediments are known to contain low levels of various radionuclides from upstream Department of Energy operations (ref.11).The velocity of the Columbi~River in front of WNP-2 is sufficient to suspend sediments being washed downstream causing them to be drawn into the TMU intake as suspended solids.W'ith these resuspended sediments containing low levels of radioactive material, this pathway would be a'ource of radionuclides with a direct introduction pathway to the WNP-2 Cooling Towers.Water is drawn directly from the Columbia River by the Tower Make Up system EMU)to supply the make-up volume for evaporative and aerosol spray losses from the Cooling Towers.Water sample analysis data from the TMU intake and samples of Qocculator sediment from auxiliary water systems that draw from the TMU system were examined and found to contain Cs-137 and various activation products at concentrations comparable to those identified in the Cooling Tower sediments.

These samples were taken during the period when Zn-65 and Mn-54 vere being detected in Cooling Tower sediments and indicate that measurable quantities of these two activation products were also present in the make-up water being drawn from the river.The location where these samples were obtained is not subject to any significant particulate entrainment

'effects from the atmosphere.

For this reason this source has been identified as the most likely pathway for the introduction of radioactive material into the Cooling Towers.1.2 rl f Coolin Tower BHnent Resuspended river sediment and suspended solids constitute the largest source of the solid material that builds up in the Cooling Towers.A factor that may influence the mass (quantity) of solids collecting in the Cooling Tower is the liquid volume tliroughput.

The tower operation cycle requires additions to the liquid inventory to make up for evaporative and windborne aerosol liquid inventory losses..The suspended solids content of the water drawn into the intake to make up for these losses may influence the amount wppss/cooLsED.Rvl Sep[embej'7, 1993 of fine sediment that collects in the tower flow basins.USGS water quality data from the Columbia River at the reach along the WNP-2 Site shows a maximum loading of 13 mg/1.This is a significant amount of solids considering the amount of water processed by the TMU system.Estimates of the amount of solid material introduced into the Cooling Towers by this method approach 2 tons per month.Additions to the bulk solid content of the Cooling Tower sediment occurs within the tower structure as accumulations of dead or fractionated portions of algae colonies{biological material).

The addition of this tower generated solids bulk to accumulations of sludge must be considered in any attempt to correlate radionuclide concentrations in river sediments with those in the tower sludges.Supply System studies of the organic carbon content of the sludges have been performed on sediment samples indicating up to a 30%organic content with some seasonal variation.

This information has been used to convert Cooling Tower sediment concentrations to river equivalent values (corrected for organic mass ingrowth).

The contribution of windborne dust to the mass of the cooling tower sludges is presently unknown.Such a determination would involve a review of available dust loading factors for various wind velocities and directions, and compensation for factors such as building wake effects.Models describing these processes have been developed; however, most require some custom accommodation to onsite structure physical dimensions.

In addition, incorporation of site meteorology would present a formidable task and would have little value without known dust loading parameters.

2.0 The A arance of Zn-65 and Mn-54 in oolin Tower edim nts The appearance of Zn-65 and Mn-54 in the Cooling Tower sediments raised particular concerns since this could represent a potentially unanticipated source of activity from the plant.As there is no indication of the appearance of Mn-54 or Zn-65 in the river sediment or river water above detectable levels, the appearince of Zn-65 in the Cooling Tower sediment presents an apparent paradox.Zinc commonly occurs as a dissociated salt having a soluble chemical characteristic.

In this chemical form it is subject to concentrating effects from evaporative processes such as Cooling Tower operations.

If the river water/sediment concentrations of Zn-65 were below detectable limits and then concentrated by Cooling Tower evaporation effects, it would be feasible to have measurable quantities of Zn-65 in the Cooling Tower sediments.

Another possibility is that Zn-65 is adsorbed onto suspended solids in the river and is not otherwise associated with river"water" or sediments.

Since the river intake for tower make up water is suspended above the bottom of the river, primarily only suspended'olids would be expected to be drawn into the make up water treatment system.The river fiow velocity in the Hanford Reservation reach is of sufficiently high velocity that only relatively large particles would be subject to sedimentation effects.Adsorption/desorption effects have been shown to be more pronounced on smaller WPPSS/COOLS ED.RV1 September 27, l993 t y

~~I'~~~~~~l~~I~~I~~~~~~1 I~.I I~I~~I'I~~~~V.~~II~~~.~~v~~I~~~~~~~~~~~v~.~~~~~~~~~~e~'~~~~~1~~I:~sl~~I~~o~a~'ll I 1~~~~0~~~~~ol~I~I~'~~~~~~~I~~I~~ol~~~I~~~~~~~II~~~

The sample taken on July 23", 1986 was noted to have been left to settle for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to counting.The possibility that suspended solids had settled on the bottom of this sample causing activity in the sediments to be oriented closer to the detector may explain the relatively high concentrations reported for this sample.Quantitatively this situation would invalidate this sample result.Qualitatively, the appearance of Zn-65 in this sample is undeniable.

f An additional sample was sent to an offsite laboratory for analysis.The result as shown below confirms a detectable Zn-65 component in the incoming river water during this time period.18-Jun-86 Teledyne Sample¹68233 Wa m'ver In ke Radionuclide Co-60 Zn-65 Concentration (pCi/cc)1.5 E-08 2.5E-08%Error (1 Sigma)44.85 50.55 The Zn-65 identified in the river water samples taken on June 18, 1986 (Teledyne Sample¹68233)and again in the sample taken on July 23, 1986 (Sample¹86-5371).appeared at the same time this radionuclide was being identified in the Cooling Tower sediments.

Mn-54 was identified consistently in the Intake/Flocculator samples.This data was not substantiated by other agencies conducting environmental surveillance programs in the area.The data recorded above for the Flocculator and the river water intake are consistent with trends in the Cooling Tower sediment samples.During this same period of time Cooling Tower data indicate that Mn-54 was appearing consistently since August of 1985 (Sample¹85-08-02).

Mn-54 had not been detected after June 27, 1986 (Sample¹86-06-26)and then reappeared in the Cooling Tower sediments in January of 1987 (Sample¹87-01-15).

Zinc-65 first appeared in the Cooling Tower sediments on January 16, 1986 (Sample¹86-01-16)but then did not reappear until March 20, 1986 (Sample¹86-03-12).Consideration of these sample data provides evidence that the Columbia River sediments were a source of activation products during this.period of time.The Cooling Tower support systems were examined to identify sample points from which sediment samples could be drawn to substantiate the Columbia River water as the source of the activity.The sample line from the TMU intake was identified as the only point not influenced by additions of flocculent or gaseous effluent entrainment effects.External influences on the appearance of Zn-65 seem evident (see figure 1).A notable WPPSS/COOLSED.RVt September 27, 1993 FIGURE 1 MEASUREMENTS OF ZN45 IN COOuNG TOWER SEDIMENTS Wrrm THE PROJECTED DECAY OF ZN45 SUPDGIUIPOSED

't E-06 1E-07 E 1E-08 1E-09 0 Zn-65 Decay Projection 500 1000 1500 2000 Time after Commercial Operations

{days)2500 WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993 L'l 0 trend evidenced by this data is the steady decline of the concentration of Zn-65 from the fourth quarter of 1988 to the end of 1989.Zn-65 was not identified in samples taken from July 1986 through July 1987.Sporadic appearances of Zn-65 were noted through mid-1991 but not to the previously recorded levels.Although a decline in the Zn-65 with the characteristic half life would be anticipated from a single contaminating event originating from the plant, this behavior would not be manifest since the Cooling Towers are cleaned at least twice a year.If an assumption is made that the source of Zn-65 was an external (upstream river borne)'source, the samples of Cooling Tower sediment would exhibit the observed behavior independent of the Cooling Tower clean-out schedule.A step increase in the level of Zn-65 appears to have occurred in Cooling Tower samples collected after July of 1987.The concentrations in these samples appear to follow the 245 day half life of Zn-65 (see Figure 1).Increases in the level of Zn-65 over the projected decay line correspond to both the first cold weather (November and October samples)and the hottest months (August and July samples).The evaporative effect of the Cooling Towers could be concentrating soluble Zn-65 in the sediments.

A possibility that can lead to elevated levels of Zn-65 during both the hot months and the first freeze is that bioaccumulation of Zn-65 in the green algae growing in the Cooling Towers is occurring.

This phenomenon is documented to occur with a bioaccumulation factor of 1.4E+05 (ref.9, Table 5.41).Death of the algae stringers with the first cold weather may release accumulated Zn-65 to the Cooling Tower sediments..

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

An upstream source of Zinc-65 is known to exist from past"N" reactor discharges to the ground.Although the Hanford Reservation reports characterize the Zn-65 discharges as non-transportable through the soil, the reported releases identif'y an upstream source of Zn-65 production (See Attachment I).3.0 herno I ciden in rint on olin Tower edim n Beginning in June of 1986 measurable quantities of fission products (cesium-134, ruthenium-103, and rhodium-106) appeared in the Cooling Tower sediments.

These additional radionuclides are the fingerprint of the Chernobyl accident.The appearance of the Chernobyl fingerprint in the sample database shortly after the 1986 accident is an indication of a water borne source of this activity, The majority of the residue from this accident appearing in the Cooling Tower sediments is more likely to have been drawn from the river than from the air.The collection medium for this activity is the surface of the entire Columbia River Basin.Rainwater runoff from this large collection area carries fallout deposited on soil surfaces into the river and then downstream.

~This activity exhibited a steady decline throughout 1987 and did not reappear in the samples after August of 1988.WPPSS/COOLSED.RV i September 27, 1993 Environmental monitoring samples of river sediments taken by the Supply System for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)were drawn before the Chernobyl fallout arrived and would not have shown an increase in sediment activity.4.0 ATI L ALY I F LIN T WKR A RIVKR KD D T The persistent appearance of Cs-137 and Co-60 in Cooling Tower sediments at comparable concentrations to those exhibited in the Flocculent samples and Columbia River sediment samples point to the river as a potential source of these radionuclides.

The presence of the relatively long half lived radionuclides Cs-137 and Co-60 in the river and Cooling Tower sediments makes tracking and trending feasible over longer periods of time.Statistical methods are applied to compare the Cooling Tower sediments with the river sediments in order to substantiate the theory that the river is the primary source of the radioactive material found in the Cooling Tower sediments.

4.1~g rosh Since only a few samples of river water from the TMU intake were analyzed, and Sere are no samples of suspended solids at this location (routine suspended solids sampling is not a component of any existing sample program), a statistical comparison of the results of Cooling Tower sediment samples and Columbia River sediment samples taken upstream of the plant was performed.

Numerous samples of both of these sediment types have been taken and analyzed since the beginning of commercial operations at WNP-2.These sample results were segregated into two sample populations for the purpose of statistical testing.These two populations were comprised of all samples taken of the Cooling Tower sediments, and all samples taken of Columbia River Sediments upstream of WNP-2.The purpose of the testing was to establish whether there was a statistically significant difference in the radionuclide content of the two populations of samples.Only Cs-137 and Co-60 occurred in both sample populations with sufficient frequency to provide a database large enough for reliable statistical comparison.

Generally at least twenty samples and preferably at least thirty samples from each population being compared are necessary to ensure a reasonable degree of reliability in any such assessment.

The testing methods and acceptance criteria are described in the body of this document and were primarily of two types, the r statistic test for unpaired summary data, and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for independent data sets.WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993 4.2 n ta i in eth Yh I f ygi'M i k U*~d.Th value for any statistical test X is named X~.The criteria applied to determine whether FRi"'p F'I i g*Uyl U~I.hU case of the our hypothetical X test, the critical value is named X,~.The values of the critical values of any statistical test are based on the number of samples in the data set and the Level of Significance (0)that is selected by the tester.The level of significance or Confidence Interval determines the level of confidence (Confidence Level)we can have in the result of any test and as such sets the Confidence Limit for acceptance or rejection of the test results.Generally, the 95%Confidence Level is felt to be appropriate for environmental type population comparisons.

The critical value is usually read from a table of values specifically prepared for the given test.When two data sets are being compared, the determining factors in selecting a critical value are the degrees of freedom (a fraction of the number of samples in a data set)and the selected level of confidence one wishes to have in the test result.When a test is conducted to determine if there is a significant (u)difference between two data sets, a"two tailed test" is used.In a two tailed test, one would use a/2 to define the confidence limits on either side of the distribution.

A null hypothesis (HQ is then established as the basis of the test.For example, in the comparison of two populations (two tailed test), the null hypothesis is generally stated as,"There is no statistically significant difference between the means of-the two populations (xi=xg".The test is then performed and~is compared to the X, obtained from table"X".If the calculated value is less than the critical value we accept the null hypothesis as being substantiated by the test.If the calculated value of the test is greater than the critical value, then the null hypothesis must be rejected and an alternate hypothesis (HQ must be accepted.The alternate hypothesis in this type of test can only be that the means of the two populations are significantly different (x, A xi).The selected Confidence Level is the area of the bell shaped curve between the established Confidence Limits.For a 95%Confidence Level this area is 95%of the total area under the curve with 2.5%being located in each of the tails beyond the Confidence Limits.The test then is essentially.

a target with its edges defined as the confidence limits.Both the calculated and critical values of the test are expressed as multiples of the standard deviation.

If the calculated value falls between the confidence limits (within the 95%area)the null hypothesis is accepted (test passes).It can now be clearly seen why a test at the 99%confidence level is less restrictive than a test at the 95%confidence level.The target is larger and the confidence limits defined allow the acceptance of a wider range of the calculated value.These general principles of statistical testing are applied for both the r statistic test and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.4.3 Data Acce tance The results of gamma isotopic analyses of samples of Cooling Tower sediments and Columbia River sediments from various sampling programs were reviewed from the start of commercial operations to present.These samples compose two distinct sample WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 10 September 27, 1993 populations (x, and x2)which may be compared to determine if there is a difference in the concentrations of radionuclides found in the samples.Databases were prepared directly from the spectral analysis reports with all data containing less than 66%standard error included in the database.This criteria was selected as there has been found to be a stable relationship between the critical level (Cg as defined by Currie, and the 66%standard error of counting (ref.2 and ref.6).The referenced study shows that a fractional standard error (1 sigma counting error)of 66%is a reasonable approximation of the critical level for (non-systematic) low level counting measurements with gamma spectroscopy instrumentation.

Those samples exhibiting greater than 66%error did not comprise a significant contribution to the data set (less than five data points over several radionuclides in the Cooling Tower sample population).

None of these data points were in the Cs-137 or Co-60 population sets (see Table-A2).4.4 m 1 onditi nin Prior to conducting the tests the data sets must be adjusted so as to be comparable.

For example, most of the Cooling Tower sediment samples were analyzed in a liquid sample geometry having units of pCi/cc.Some other Cooling Tower samples were dried and analyzed in a soil geometry having units of pCi/gm.The various monitoring programs from which the river sediment samples were obtained also had dissimilar measurement units (pCi/kg, pCi/gm dry, and pCi/25 cc wet).Most but not all of the units were able.to be converted to units of pCi/gm using known sample densities and standard conversions.

If data discrepancies could not be resolved, a common basis for comparison could not be established and the data excluded from the analysis.4.5 am I election Attempts were made to ensure that the selected data were representative of the populations being evaluated.

In the case of duplicate samples, only one of the samples was included for the purpose of the analysis.The sample selected was that having the result with the least%error.Most of the samples selected were counted for at least 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.Disparate analysis parameters caused a sample to be rejected.For example, any sample with questionable units or liquid samples analyzed on a soil geometry (or vice versa)were rejected.WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 September 27, 1993 0'

I'I~~~~~w~~~I~.~I-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~'~~I I~~~~~~I~I'~~I~~~~~~~~~~I~~'~~~I.I I...I~'~~~~~I~~~~~I~~~~~'ir~~~I~'I~~~~'~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~I v I~~~~~~I~~~~~~I~~I~I~~~~~~~~I~~~~I I, I~~~~~~,~~~~~I~~~~~~I'I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~'~~~I'~I~~,~I~I e I I~~~I~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~'0 e 0 l,i t k'0 results are a testament to the very low levels of activity being monitored by th<<<<r programs.Results of the Qualitative Sample Selection Process Population Cooling Tower (Liquid Geometry)Cooling Tower{Soil Geometry)River Sediment g of Samples accepted 53 18 4.6 Once the sample populations had been screened for qualitative discrepancies that resulted in some data rejection, the populations were examined quantitatively

<<<<<<c'he presence of"outliers" Outliers are samples so incongruous with the rest of the population that the data points may be rejected as not being part of the s~mple population.

For example, the river sediment population ls known to cont in samples~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~taken in close proximity to shoreline"seeps" just downstream of N reactor and the old Hanford town site.Seeps are locations along the Columbia River that exhibit a spring like behavior at times of low river level (fiow rate).The seeps represent points where the groundwater table (phreatic surface)intersects the river bed.Groundwater contaminated with radionuclides from old burial yards or reactor effiuent discharges to the ground enters the river at these points.The concentrations of radionuclides in the soils around these seeps is usually at least an order of magnitude higher than the general river sediment samples.Leaving these samples in the population would bias the outcome of the analysis.lf these samples are truly incongruous, they should be able to be detected by application of quantitative criteria.This quantitative sample population conditioning was performed using Chauvenet's criterion.

As expected, when Chauvenet's Criterion was applied to the selected population of river sediment samples, some of the samples taken in the proximity of"N"reactor and the old Hanford townsite were rejected.These samples typically exhibited a concentration more than one order of magnitude above the=mean value.Some samples taken below shoreline seeps were rejected, but many were retained since the rejection criterion was not met even though the samples exhibited elevated levels.%PPSS/COOLSED.RV1 13 September 27, 1993 IiJ 1 Number of Samples Rejected by Chauvenet's Criterion to Sample Populations Popuhtion Cooling Tower River Sediment Cs-137 Some of the data for the Cooling Tower data set did not meet the rejection criteria.In the case of Cs-137, the rejected samples were within the time frame of the Cheinobyl accident and represent elevated levels of Cs-137 in the sediments.

There does not appear to be any obvious reason that the Cooling Tower Samples should have been rejected by Chauvenet's Criterion except that the values were uncharacteristically high for the population.

4.7 An l of Varianc AN VA After the data are conditioned and assembled, and after outlier rejection criteria are applied, the general population comparisons can be performed.

The two populations were evaluated for various statistical test parameters with the following results: Results of Statistical Parameter Determinations Population Cooling Tower Sediments River Sediments Radionuclide Sample Size Variance Std.Dev.Median Cs-137 n,=63 2.36 E-07 2.04 E-14 1.43 E-07 2.01 E-07 n,=57 1.39 E-07 7.96 E-15 8,92 E-08 1.15 E-07 Cs-137 n,=65 2.03 E-07 2.37 E-14 1.54 E-07 1.51 E-07 Co-60 n2=36 9.58 E-08 9.37 E-15 9.68 E-08 6.70 E-08 The first test that must be performed is test for homogeneous variance in the data sets being compared.This testing technique is generally known as ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA)or the"F test".This is important because different testing methods are applied to data sets with non-homogeneous variance and some tests are not even valid if the data sets exhibit non-homogeneous variance (e.g.Wilcoxon's Rank Sum test).In the case of ANOVA or the"F test", the calculated value is named F,~and the critical value is named F,, The null hypothesis (H,)is selected as"the variance of these two WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 14 September 27, 1993 I populations are homogeneous".

When the variance (0")of the two populations are compared and the calculated value is less than the critical value, the data are substantiated as being of homogeneous variance.The population homogeneity test (ANOVA)is conducted as follows: F(~n,(u=Large a/Small 0=F~Results of the F test for Homogeneous Data Sets Radio nuclide Cs-137 Co-60 1.16 1.175%Level of Significance 1.53 1.59 F~1%Level of Significance 1.84 1.94 Result Ho Accepted+Accepted Both populations have homogeneous variance at both levels of significance; therefore, both the t statistic test, for unpaired summary data with homogeneous variance and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for independent sample populations with homogeneous variance are appropriate for the evaluation of these populations.

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

The test is performed for both radionuclides independently.

cd (N-2)((n,+p-2)n, n~(n-1)a+(n-1)az I+)Where: Zi 2 a, 2 Og ni=the mean value of the Cooling Tower samples=the mean value of the River Sediment samples=the=the=the=the variance of the Cooling Tower samples variance of the River Sediment samples number of data points in the Cooling Tower population number of data points in the River Sediment population WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 15 September 27, i993 i t" i Results of the t Statistic Test Radionuclide

<an95%Confidence Level~ah99%Confidence Level Result Ho Accepted Cs-137 Co-60 1.21 2.21 1.96 1.96 2.58 2.58 Both 95%8c 99%99%Only The results of the t statistic test are that there is no statistically significant difference between the means of the Cooling Tower and river sediment: sample populations at either the 99%confidence level or the 95%confidence level for Cs-137 data.There was found to be a statistically significant, difference between, the mean of the Cooling Tower sediment sample population and the river sediment sample population at the 95%confidence level for Co-60 data.This difference was not found to be statistically significant at the 99%confidence level.The mean Co-60 data for the Cooling Tower sediment sample population appears to be slightly larger than the mean of the river sediment sample population.

Because this result for Co-60 may have been influenced by the removal of data by any<<.~~~~~~~~~~~the criteria listed above, another t-statistic test was performed using all of the raw (uncorrected) data for both populations.

This procedure is acceptable because the Chernobyl accident did not transport globally significant quantities of Co-60, and there is not a significant concentrating effect in the Cooling Towers for insoluble Co-60 species.The reinstatement of the sample results from the shoreline seeps in the river sediment population at concentrations in excess of IE-6 pCi/gm more than offset the influence of the Cooling Tower data points deleted by Chauvenet's Criterion at concentrations near 5E-7.The F-test was performed for the total Co-60 uncorrected data set.The number of data points considered in the Cooling Tower data set was 83 and the number of data points in the river sediment data set was 81 with all non-detectable results included.F~for this number of data points was 1.7 for the 1%level of significance, and 1.4for the 5%level of significance.

The value of F,<, for these data sets was 4.64.The result of this test indicated that the two populations have non-homogeneous variance.The r-statistic test for unpaired summary data with non-homogeneous variance was then applied to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the data sets at both the 99%and the 95%confidence level.The parameters for the raw Co-60 data set are listed on the table below.wppss/cooLsED.Rvl 16 September 27, 1993 0

Results of Statistical Parameter Determinations for the Raw Co-60 Data Radionu elide Sample Size Mean Variance Std.Dev.Median Cooling Tower n,=83 1.23 E-07 2.24 E-14 1.5 E-07 7.77 E-8 River Sediment n,=81 1.2 E-07 1.04 E-13 3.22 E-07 6;98 E-9 The results of the t-statistic test for non-homogeneous unpaired summary data performed for the Co-60 raw data are shown on the table below: Results of the t Statistic Two-tailed Test t,, Degrees of Freedom (n,-1)=82 (n,-1)=80 0.08 0.08<cnt I 95%Confidence Level 1.96 1~96~ca I 99%Confidence Level 2.58 2,58 Result H, Accepted Pass Pass Since t,is less than both values of t,, at both the 99%and 95%confidence levels, then H, is accepted.There is no statistically significant difference between the means of the two populations of samples.4.9 Wilcox n Rank um Te The purpose of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test is the same as.,the r statistic test.The data sets are combined and sorted in ascending numerical order.Each data point is then assigned a rank as its position in the database.When two data points have the same value, they are tied and assigned the average rank value.The sum of the ranks of the smallest of the two populations (gn,)is used as the basis for the test.WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 17 September 27, 1993 0V I The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is then performed for both radionuclides independently.

cue TS R'~-nl(m+1)/2 Where:=the number of tied groups t=the number of tied data in the j~group=g of the ranks in the ni sample population

=the number of data points in the smaller population

=the number of data points in the larger population ni=the sum of n, and n, The null hypothesis (Ho)is set as"there is not a statistically significant difference in the two populations".

If~~-Z, or~Z,~, then Ho is accepted.The alternative hypothesis (HJ is'adopted when Z,~falls outside the defined confidence limits.The alternative hypothesis can only be that"there is a statistically significant difference in the two sample populations".

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

Radionuclide n, ng Cs-137 63 65 128 4332 Co-60 36 57 93 1336 WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 18 September 27, 1993 0 0 Results of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Radionuclide ZCah XCtrt95%Confidence Level Ctlt99%Confidence Level Result Ho Accepted Cs-137 1.28-2.81 1.96 1.96 2.58 2.58 Both 95%&99%No Hadopted The results of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test are that there is no statistically significant difference between the means of the Cooling Tower and river sediment sample populations at either the 99%confidence level or the 95%confidence level for Cs-137 data.There was found to be a statistically significant difference between the mean of the Cooling Tower sludge sample population and the river sediment sample population at both the 95%and the 99%confidence levels for Co-60 data.The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is supposedly less sensitive to the presence of outliers and Not Detected results.Not detected results are included as tied values.The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test can not be performed on populations with non-homogeneous variances so the confirmatory test using raw Co-60 data could not be performed in this case.Since the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test utilized the same data set as the r-statistic test for homogeneous data it is reasonable to expect the same result.Since there is the possibility that deletion of the higher concentration Co-60 data by Chauvenet's criterion may have influenced the result of this test as well, we conclude that the case presented by the.result of raw data comparison using the t-test for unpaired summary data and non-homogeneous variance overrides the borderline result of this test.4.10 Multi le Linear Re i While there appear to be many variables that effect the appearance of Zn-65 in the Cooling Tower sludges the number of positive-sample, results in the accepted population

{18)is too small to perform any meaningful correlation analyses.Even simple linear regression correlations are difficult due to the many variables involved.Although many comparisons were attempted, none resulted in the display of any meaningful pattern of behavior that was clearly amen'able to correlation techniques.

Such a task might be accomplished with a much larger database and if any of the variables could be characterized in common units of expression.

It does seem apparent from informal qualitative observations'hat some of the variables are important from a source resolution standpoint.

These obseivations are included in the discussion section of this document.WPPSSICOoLSED.RV1 Septembet 27, l993 5.1~~i m t The frequency distributions of both data sets are asymmetrical (see Figures 2 and 3).Any shift of the peak frequency to one side or the other of the range of the data is considered to represent non-normal (non-symmetrical) conditions.

A normal distribution pattern is represented by the classical bell shaped curve (symmetrical).

A test for data normalcy is to plot the concentration values against cumulative frequency using a linear-probability plot.Normally distributed data would have the appeirance of a straight line.When the data were plotted in this manner a straight line was not observed.The non-normal character of these particular data sets might be attributed to log-normal frequency distributions exhibited by these sample populations.

This can be tested by plotting the data on log-probability paper.A straight line plot indicates a log-normal distribution.

When the data were plotted on log-probability scales straight lines were not observed.The indication is that these data are neither normally distributed or log-normally distributed.

The confidence limits of the t statistic test are slightly altered by the presence of non-normal data distributions but the extent of these changes can be determined.

The error in the use of Normal distribution assumptions on asymmetrical data sets does not exceed 10%(ref.4).When measurements are made at levels very close to the lower limit of detection of the counting systems, it is inevitable that many of the results wiH be reported as being below the lower limit of detection of the instrument.

In this case, the lower tail of an otherwise normal distribution (bell shaped)will be clipped.This circumstance results in what are known as censored data sets.Only the Co-60 data set from the river population had a significant number of"not detected" results.The majority of the sample populations are free of from censorship.

When the raw Co-60 data (including non-detectable results)*were analyzed by the t-statistic test for unpaired summary data with non-homogeneous variance, the result indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the means of the two sample populations.

5.2 Unknown Facto Which ma Tnfluen e T in~R ul The concentrating effect of the Cooling Tower could not be estimated with the data available due to the absence of Tower throughput data.Examination of the sample populations does not provide any indication that there is a significant tower concentration effect for Cs-137 and Co-60.This is believable if activity is only introduced to the tower adsorbed onto sediment.A concentrating effect would be more likely if radionuclides were drawn into the towers in as a soluble chemical species.'Another effect of unknown magnitude is the difference in partition coefficients for radionuclides between the suspended solids in the river and the river sediment.The WPPSS/COOLSED.RVt 20 September 27, 1993 swiftness of flow in the Columbia River at the TMU intake suspends all but the largest of particles.

It is a physical principle that smaller particles have a larger surface area for adsorption gram for gram than do larger particles.

This suggests that there may be slight differences in the quantity of radioactive material adsorbed onto suspended solids than is found in the river sediment.A slight elevation in the activity per gram of suspended solids over that of normal river sediment is predicted based on the inclusion of smaller particles in this material that would not be large enough to settle out in the river.The very small mass of this excess small diameter material would predict only a slight increase even though the difference in partition could be quite large.A monitoring program based on paired samples of suspended solids from the TMU intake and Cooling tower sediments may be more appropriate to characterize the amount of river borne radioactivity being introduced to on-site water systems.6.0 NL I N The result of this evaluation indicates that the activity in the Cooling Tower sediments is~n of plant origin but is being brought onsite from the suspended solids content of the Columbia River.70 RE ATI N If it is desirable to monitor the introduction of riverborne radionuclides into the plant Cooling Towers, a program based on the sampling of suspended solids at the TMU intake is recommended.

WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 21 September 27, 1993 FIGURE 2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CESIUM'-137 CONTENT OF RIVER SEDIMENT vs.COOLING TOWER SEDBIENT Cesium-1 37 10 b 0 E1 h 0 0.5'j.5 01 1 2.5 3.5 4.5 2 3 4 hficrccuries jgram (z l.OE-07)5.5 Cooling Tower River Sediment WPPSS/COOLSED.RVl 22 September Z7.1993 0 Il'I!t FIGURE 3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE COBALT-60 CONTENT OF RIVFN SEDIMENT vs.COOLING TOWER SEDINDPIT 40 35 30 t~A Cobalt-60~25 Ozo>>t~>>>>10>>h>>+C>>K~>>>>>>>>0 0'1.5 3.5 Cooling Tower River Sediment 5.5 7.5 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 Microcuries/gram (x 1.0E-07)WPPSSICOOLSED.RV1 23 September 27, 1993 8.0 REFEREN Buske, Norm and Josephson, Linda, W d i e R nn i e f he~RI d h*Ii, 0 f d R h 0 3,~R*P 4,ISSR0-032973-03-8, Spring 1989.2.Currie, L.A., wer Limi f D ti'niti an El r P ition for adi I'E un vironmen NUREG/CR 4007, (September 1984)of ur men 3.Davis, A.I.,"Tower Sludge Contamination Pathways from the Plant", Washington Public Power Supply System Interoffice Memorandum to D.J.Pisarcik (9 November, 1989)4, Gilbert, Richard O.and Kinnison, Robert R.,"Statistical Methods for Estimating the Mean and Variance from Radionuclide Data Sets Containing Negative, Unreported or Less-than Values", Health Physics Vol.40 (1981), pp 377-390.5.Hornung, Richard W.and Reed, Laurence D.,"Estimation of Average Concentration in the Presence of Nondetectable Values", Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Vol.5 No.1, (January 1990), pp 46-51 6.Moon, J.W.,Bland, J.S,,"Peak Rejection Crit ria Based on Counting Error for Low Level Gamma Spectroscopy Measurements", Internal Report, J.Stewart Bland Associates, Inc.(September 1992)7.Oresegun, Modupe O., Decker, Karin M.and Sanderson, Colin G.,"Determination of Self-Absorption Corrections by Computation in Routine Gamma-Ray Spectrometry for Typical Environmental Samples", Radioactivity and Radiochemistry, Vol.4 No.1, 1993, pp 38-45 S G, G..d 0 h, WG.,~ii h d.8 SII', I 8 University Press, 1989.9.Till, J.E.and Meyer, H.R., R i I i A men, NUREG/CR 3332 (September 1983), Table 5.41 10.Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 Envir nmental Pre-operational Evaluation of Site Environmental Characteristics Amendment 2 October, 1978.Re (ER), and Parameters, Woodruff, R.K., et al, Hanford i e Environmental Re 1 Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, NTIS, U.S.Department Springfield, VA.-1 91, of Commerce, WPPSS/COOLSED.RV 1 24 September Z7, 1993 9.0 H T Qrtl 3880 3.0 LIQUID RELEASES TQ THE ENVIROftMEÃf FROM THK 100 AREAS I 1.,'3.1 Radioactive Llquld Releases From 100-Nkea I~>>~3.1.1'Activity Discharged to the LWDFs and via Seepage to tha'.'~.'.'"...;,~': Columbia River'" P Rndlonuc!Ide To the 1301 N and 1325 N LWDFs Reiense, Avg.Conc., Peak Conc., Ci pCI/L'CI/L Seepage to river via N.Springs Release, Avg.Cone., Penk Conc.~CI pCI/L pC'JL M3'P 32.Cr5I.',.Mn54.Co 58 Fe.59 Co 60 Zn 65 Sr.89 Sr.90 Z/Nb 95.MoTc 99m'RU I03.',: r Ru I06.:".-'Sb-i24"'b l25 I l31 Xe.I33 Cs l34 Cs l37 BaLa l40~Ce.141'cPr l44 Sm 153 Pu 238 Pu 239/240 rtp 239 SLR 2.7E2.22E1'" 7.5E1 q 7.1E2 2.8E1 2.6E2 5.9E2 1.5E1 3.9E2 2.4E2.3.2E2 7.8E2 5.4EI 8.0E1 6.1EO 1.2E1 3.7E2 2.9E2 5.7EO 8.8E1 4.1K3 7.4EI 2.8E2 7.2Kl 5.CE 1.3.4EO'3.2'.6K4 7.4E4 5.9E3 2.0E4 1.9E5 7.6E3.'7.1E4 1.6E5 4.0E3 1.1E5 6.5E4~8.7E4.2.1K5.1.5K4.2.2E4'.'!1.7E3 3.4E3 1.OE5 8.0E4~1.6E3.24E4 1.1Eo 2.0E4 7.6K4 2.0E4 1.4E2 9.4E2 8.7E4 7.1E5 3.9E5'.2K4.8.5K4.7.2E5 2.3E4 2.2E5 6.8E5 6.0E3 8aE5 6.5K5 2.9E5 1.7E5~7.1E4~7.0E4.'"43K3 i'.7E3: "'4.6E5 2.7E5 4.3E3 2.1E5 4.4E6 8.0E4 7.2E5 7.7E4 9.7E2.6.5E3 6.6E5 4.3E7 2.7E2+1.1E 2.'/IDE 1 3.0E 1 12EO 8.4EO ,.1.6K 1.37E I 3.0E 1 13K 2.33K I 5.4EO 1.9KO 1.9E 2 3.8E 6 1.7E 5 5.6E4 5.9KO 7.0EI 1.6E2 7.2K2 42E3 8.6El 2.0E2 1.6K2 8.1EO 1.8K2 2.9E3 1.0E3 1.0EI 2.0K 3 9.1E 3 3.0E5 5.9E1 1.7E2 6.0E3 6.1E3 , 4.4E2'3E2.2.5E2" 1DEl 2.4K2." 1.1E4'2.9E3 1.7K2 1.2K 2 5.5E I SLR Short lived radlonuclides (Tt<<48 hours)~'Indicates radlonuclldes in particulate form or with a high Ionic exchange potential which nre trapped within the LWDFs'oil columns, and removed.beyond detection limits.'Indicates short half life rndlonuclldes which have decayed beyond detec.ion limits before reaching In the riverbank springs.'.+This Is the same value as for tritium to the LWDFs, since nil t.it!urn released to ,'he LWDFs ls assumed to<<ventunlly.

though not necessarily ln one year's time,.reach the Columbia River vin the t{Springs.Average nnd peak concentrations

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

RVl 25 September 27, 1993 0'l I 4 0i 10.II~AP ENOIX List of Tables: Table-A1 Cooling Tower Sample Parameters

-Basis for Counting Data Rejection Table-A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results-All Data Table-A3 Selected Population of Cooling Tower Samples-River Equivalent Data (c)Table-A4 River Sediment Sample Population Table-AS Zn-65 Sample Data and Averaging for Figure 1 Table-A6 Raw Co-60 Data for Cooling Tower Population Table-A7 Raw Co-60 Data for River Sediment Population WPPSS/COOLSED.RV1 26 September 27, 1993 1 1"l jl Table A1 Cooling Tower Sludge Samples 1985 through 1993 Date Sample¹Cuantity Geometry Comment Selection Time 01.Aug4$5 22 Aug45 22.Aug%5 22-Aug@5 28 Aug'8.Aug4$

5 28.Aug4$5 28.Aug4$5 29-Aug'0 Aug%5 30 Aug%5 OMep85 048ep4$5 054e~5 054ep4$5 2~ep4$5 03-Oct%5 03-Oct4$5 16-Oct4$5 17-Oct45 18.Oct@5 1 fR3ct45 18-Oct@5 1&Oct45~0$-Nov45 18.Dec%5$8-Dec@5 1&Jan@6 1&Jan4$6 14-Feb'4-Feb4$

6 20-Mar4$6 20-Mar4$8 274un4$6 27<un4$6$84u$4$6 1 fklul4$6 8546-25 854842 8S4M4 854844 8SOM4 85484S 854848 854848 854M7 854&41 8548-49 854849 854943 854943 854942 854942 85494$85$044 85.1044 85-1 0-24 85-1 04$85-1032 85-1'5.1044 85.1045 85-11%3 85-9356 85.9356 864$-$6 860$-$7 860243 860243 8643-$2 8603-$3 8646-25 8&Pi-26 8647-$4 8647-$5 971 cc 1380 cc 234 cc 234 cc 1536 cc 1536 cc 1279 cc 1408 cc 1403 cc$403 cc 560 gm 560 cc 1263 cc 1263 cc 1119 cc 1030 cc 1030 cc 1200 gm 1220 gm 1141 gm 1040 gm 1250 gm 1060 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc 500 cc (700 gm)500 cc (700 gm)630 gm (500 cc)620 gm (500 cc)L0012 L0012 L0012 L0012 L0012 L0012 L00$2 LO012 L00$2 L0014 L0014 LO012 L0012 L0012 L0012 L0012 LO012 Shel$0 (PGT2)Shell 0 (PGT2)Shell 0{PGT2)LO014 L0014 L0014 L0014 LO014 L0014, L0014 L00$4 LOO14 0.5 hrs 12 hrs 0.5 hrs 4 hrs 12 hrs$2 hrs 0.5 hrs 12 hrs 0.5 hrs 12 hrs 0.5 hrs 12 hrs 2 hrs 12 hrs 0.5 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 0.5 hrs 12 hrs 2B 12 hrs 2A 12 hrs 2B 12 hrs 1A 12 hrs 1C 12 hrs 1B 12 hrs 2C 12 hrs 12 hrs 2B 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs YUq No duplicate No duplicate No VoVgeom Y Uq No duplicate YUq No time YUq No duplicate YUq No units No units No duplicate YUq YUq No duplicate YUq No Special No Special No Special No Special No Special No Special No Geometry YUq No Duplicate YUq YUq No Duplicate Y Liq Y Liq Y Liq YUq YUq Y Uq{c)Y Uq (c)17 99$00 0 100 115 128 128 141 142 143 143 282 395 395 416 416 It!0'.

Tabb A1 Cooling Tower Slucfge Samples 1985 through 1 993 Oats Quantity Time 15.Aug%6 2$Sep88 19-Nov416 30.Dec%6 274an4)7 03-Mar417 03-April 7 314ul417 01~7 26.Aug418 2~ep4t8 29$ep48 2&Sep418 29$ep418 294ep48 2~ep4)8 304ep88 04-Nov48 30-Apr49 10.May%9 10-May@9 10.May%9 03-May4$24.May@9 24-May@9 10Juh89 2$Jul49 30-Aught 9 27~419 01.0eo419 024 an-90 02.Fob-90 02.Mar-90 224un-90 01-Aug-90 880842 864$-16 86-11-19 86-12 18 8741-15 874341 874442 8747-25 874$41 884845 884946 884947 RA&48 8&(&49 884$40 8849@I 884942 88-1146 88-11M 89414)3 8S4340 894542 894549 8945-10 8945-11 8S45-15 8945.25 8945-26 894743 8907-12 894843 89.10.25 89-12%1 9041%1 904244 904341 9046.11 904841 690 gm (500 cc)545 gm (500 cc)500 cc 570 gm (500 cc)500 cc 783 gm (diy)734 gm (dry)707 gm (dry)709 gm (dry)774 gm (dry)762 gm (dry)250 ml 450 cc 450 cc 450 cc 450 cc 881 gm (dry)879 gm (diy)945 gm (dry)139 gm (dry)234 gm (dry)223 gm (diy)450 cc 518 gm 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 247 gm (diy)450'?L0014 UX14 L0014 L0014 LM14 L0014 L0014 L0014 L0014 L0014 S0012 S0012 S0012 L0014 L0014 L0014 S0012 SO012 LO014 S0012 SO014 60014 LD014 S0014 LO014 L0014 L0014 NLO014 S0014 S0014 12 hre 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hie 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hra 12 hns 12 hre 12 hre 12 hre 12 hrs 12 hre 12 hrs 12 hre 12 hre 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hre 12 hre 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hre 12 hre 12 hre 12 hrs 12 hre 24 hre 12 hrs 24 hre 12 hre 12 hre 24 hre YUq (c)Y Uq (c)YUq Y Uq (c)YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq Y Liq Y Soil Y Soil YUq No Vol/Geom YUq YUq N Units/geom YUq Y Soil Y Scil No Vol/Geom Y Soil N Units/Geom N Units/geom YUq Y Soil Y (count Time)Y Liq Y (count time)No Nal Oet No Units?675 1188 1220~1221'1281 1317 1613 1711 1739 1851 1891 0 l(I, 0'j 1 o~'l t Table A1 Cooling Tower Sludge Samples 1985 through 1993 Geometry Comment Selection Flme 29.Aug-90 29-Aug-90 28@op-90 QOOc!.90 03-Dec.90 1 SJan-91 294an-91 Ot Mar-9f 02-Apr-91 22-Apr.91 2$AugNf 034ct-91 294ct-91 (Xnan-92 04-Feb-92 28.Feb-92 07-Apr-92 02-Oct-92 304ct-92 30.Nov-92 28.Dec-92 28-Dec-92 28.Dec-92 28.Dec-92 28.Dec-92 29.Dec-92 2Man-93 16-Mar-93 16-Mar-93 16-Mar-93 16-Mar.93 16-Mar-93 9048-28 904941 SR&f 7 90-10 19 90.1241 914145 9141-11 91434t 914441 9144 12 9148.10 91-1042 91-1048 924142 924241 9243 13 924442 92-1048 92-10-22 92-1241 92-12-13 934143 934143 934144 9341 44 934142 934146 9343-27 9343-26 9343-25 9343-24 9343-29 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 500 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 450 ml 510 gm 456 gm 460 gm E 490 gm 537 gm LO014 L0014 S001 4 L0014 LO014 UfOf 4 L0014 LOOf 4 SO014 LO014 LO014 SO014 LO014 L0014 L0014 LQOf 4 L0014 LO014 LO014 L0014 LO014 24 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs LO014 BS Enabled LO014 LO014 SCO14 3 hrs 1hr 12 hrs 4 hrs SO014 SO014 4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs L0014 BS Enabled 12 hrs LO014 YUq No Possibkr Dup YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq No Units/Geom Y Llq YUq No Units/Geom YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq YUq No Bkg Subtract No Count Time No Bkg Subtract No Count Time YUq Y Soil Y Soil Y Soil Y Soil Y Soil 1919 1919 1949 1981 2015 2103 2135 2155 2319 2411 2443 2467 27t2 2743 2771 2771 2771 2771 2771 2772 2849 2849 2849 2849 2849 Table-A2 CooHng Tower Sample Results All Data Date Sample P Cs-137 Cs96Err Co40 Co%Err Mn-54 Mn%Zn-65 ZnXErr Co58 Co%Err Cs-134 Ca%Err Ru-103 RuXErr Rh.106 Rh%Err 14 dun-85 8546-25 5.6E47 8.98 1.3E-07 4.35 2.6E48 13.23 01-Aug 85 85-0842 3.7E47 1.86 22-Aug45 22-Aug 45 22-Aug-85 28-Aug-BS 28.Aug.85 28-Aug 85 28-Aug-85 29-Aug 85 30-Aug-85 30-Aug.85 04.Sep.85 04-Sep-85 05-Sep45 05-Sep45 20-Sep45 03-Oct45 8~44 ND 8548-34 2.6E47 13.39 654834 1.9E-07 10.84 854845 7.3E-OB 6.88 B.OE-OB 6.09 1.5E48 22.14 85-0846 3.7E47 9.14 854846 3.5E-07 1.8 1.1E47 5.33 2.9E48 10.39 854837 1.2E47 20.26 854541 1.2E-OT 3.74 6.8E-OB 6.6S 1.3E48 21.94 85-I&49 2.3E47 12.38 854849 2.5E47 2.38 1.1 E47 S.42 2.2E48 16.48 854943 6.1E48 17.85 854943 1.9E48~22.9 854942 2.2E-07 13.65 854942 2.4E47 2.42 9.6E48 5.37 2.0E48 18.51 8549-31 1.SE47 4.31 8.7E-OB 6.86 12E48 23.62 85-1044 1.2E-OT 29.42 03-Oct-85 85-1 044 1.2E47 5.23 9.8E-OB 7.5 16.0ct.85 BS-10.24 1.4E.07 4.32 1.2E47 5.05 3.1E48 12.29 17-Oct-85 85-1 Hf 1.5E-OT 3.48 7.8E-OB 7.56 2.0E48 16.68 18-Oct45 85-1 042 1.4E47 3.87 9.6E-OB 6.01 1.6E48 22.63 18.0ct.85 85-10.33 8.5E.OB 6.69 5.7E48 8.58 1.7E48 18.46 Table-A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results All Data Dato Sample I Cs-137 Ca%Err Co60 Co%En Mn-54 Mn%E Zn85 Zn@Err Co-58 Co'II En Cs-134 CsXErr Ru-103 RuXErr Rh-106~RhAErr 18-Oct4IS 85-IM4 3.4E4IT 2.11 1.2E4IT 4.95 T.TE49 42.87 18-0ct.SS SS.1045 2.2E4)7 3.17 9.1E4IS 6.99 01-Nov 85 85-1 1-03 2.5E-OB 16.96 I B.Doc-85 85.9356 1.BEFIT 4.53 18-Doc-SS 85-93S6 1.7E47 4.39 16-Jan.86 86-01-16 1.1E4IT 6.9 1.5E-07 5.2 T.SEES 62.06 1.3E4IT 8.32 7.0E-OS 8.04 16-Jan-86 86.01-17 9.SECS 5.9 4.5E-OS 13.53 4.3E4I9 85.99 (<CL)14.Fob-SB 86024I3 T.SE4NI 10.77 14-Feb.86 8642-03 8.7EZS 8.73 8.4E48 9.91 1.BEATS 28.5 20-Mar.86 8643-12 1.TENT 4.99 1.2E4IT 8.98 I.TE4NI 38.88 S.TE4IS 22.75 T.SEMIS 45.34 20-Mar~8603-13 1.5E-07 5.48 1.SE47 6.42 2.6E48 22.98 3.SEMIS 28.41 274 un-86 8MIS-25 6.1E4IT 2.02 1.4E4IT 8.34 1.2E48 54.29 I.0E47 14.15 1.2E4IS 46.06 2.1E47 3.45 9.7E48 7.52 1.8E-07 274un4IB 86-06-26 S.SEAT 2.14 1.1 E4IT 8.45 2.0E48 31.72 1.1E4IT 12.34 2.4E48 27.03 2.2E47 3.37 8.3E-OS 10.02 32.26 2.7E-OS 39.99 2.3E4)8 32.55 15.Aug.86 26-Sop4IS 19.Nov-86 86-08-02 1.6 EAT 3.58 2.1E48 22.11 86-09-16 1.1E4IT 6.72 3.BEES 20.55 86-1'I-19 T.SEES 8.74 3.4E48 2I.4 30-Doc-86 88-'12-18 1.6E-07 4.17 1.6E47 5.88 27-Jan4IT 8741-15 1.1E-07 S.98 4.1 EAS 03.Mar@7 874I3-01 1.4E4IT 3.6 4.SEAS 17.71 5.2E4IS 86.33 (<CL)16.24 184ul-86 8607-14 1.SEAT~3.47 2.9E48 22.03 184ul4IB 8647-15 1.1 E47 5.16 1.9E48 26.4 4.3E48 11.99 3.1E-OS 16.18 5.8E48 6.47 2.7E-OS 14.04 1.9E4IT 20.58 2.6E48 22.14 4.2E-OB 10.03 2.3E4IS 17.49 3.1E~14.81 I.0E48 41.56 5.6E-OB BS.82 6.0E4IS 6.09 3.4E48 13.3 2.6E-OB 66.05 (<CL)03-Apr47 3IMI4IT 87444)2 6.6E~9.53 I.TE4IS 22.78 874I7-25 1.6E4IT 5.17 2.3EWT 4.41 8.9E48 7.6 2 4E4IT 5.83 9.2E4IS 6.5 3.0E48 16.02 1.4E47 3S.29

,I;I t0 Tabte-A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results All Data Date Sample f Cs-137 Cs'}6Err Co60 Co%Err Mn-54 Mn9f Zn65 Zn'll Err Co-58 Co%En Cs-134 CsXErr Ru-103 RuXErr Rh-108.RhXErr 01-Sep417 87~-Ot 26-Aug 88 8$4845 3.5E48 15.62 2.6E48 19.91 2.9E48 18.96 2.8E-OB 2323 29-Sep-88 29-Sap.88 29-Sep-88 29.Se p418 29.Sep.88 29-Sep-88 30-Sep-88 04-Nov418 BMS-46 3.1E4)7 2.91 4.0E47 88-0947 5.1')7 2.99 4.9 EAT 7.0E4)8 T.BE48 1.5 EAT 1.7 EAT 88-09-52 T.BE48 8.62 T.BE-OB 10.3 1.3 EBB 39.49 88-11-06 4.TENT 12.52 7.4E4)7 8.94 8.2E4)8 13.02 8841948 4.1&)7 3.76 3.7E47 4.69 5.0E~18.65 1.4E47 16.02 88-09-49 4.3&)7 3.73 2.9E4)7 4.77 3.1E<8 3.24 1.7E47 12.74 88-09-50 4.2E4)7 3.18 3.3E-07 4.32 4.8 EBB 18.57 1.BENT 20.13 BtWt9-51 3.1 EAT 4.43 3.1')7 5.03 4.1E4N 18.3 1.9E47 10.21 1.2E-07 9.0E48 8.9 EBB 13.03 7.3E-OB 17.19 T.BE418 19.42 7.4E4tB 17.12 29.Nov.88 88-11 40 7.9E48 10.34 1.2E-07 7.56 044 an-89 89-01413 1.1')7 7.14 3.2E-OB 19.83 30-Mar%9 8%0330 2.5E4)7 6.59 1.1E-07 16.28 2.1E-07 7.7¹Apr-89 10.May.89 10-May419 10-May%9 03-May419 24 May%9 24 May@9 104 ul.89 8945412 1.3E47.6.31 1.3E48 12.96 4.4HS 32.4 89415.09 3.6E47 3.34 2.4E4)7 4.73 3.4E418 18.67 1.4 EAT 13.5 89415-10-3.6E47 3.11 2.3E-07 5.2 3.4E4)8 19.25 8.3E48 20.6 89-05-11 3.2E4)7 3.99 1.5EWT 6.62 2.8E4)8 24.48 8.4E48 14.79 89%5-15 S.SE47 6.33 2.2E-07 12.15 89415-25 1.4E4l6 2.7 5.3ECT 10.08 1.2E-07 21.87 1.5E47 42.95 89%5-26 1.4E46 2.93 6.BE417 7.06 1.4E<7 17.44 9.9E48 69.82 89%7~1.2E47 6.15 9.9E48 8.21 8.9E~30.81 4.7E418 38.19 ,1.1 EAT 7.7 1.5E-OT 7.8 1.5E47 8.5 1.2 EAT 7.28 3.9E-07 8.81 2.9E-07 11.97 2.BE-07 13.21 4.6E4S 20.73 2$JuÃ9, 89-07-12 3.2E4)8 12.05 30.Aug-89 89%633 1.1')7 7.49 B.BE418 11.28 9.4E48 34.93 32E48 26.32 llo j Table-A2 Cooling Tower Sample Results All Data Date Sample 0 Cs-137 Cs96En Co60 Co%Err Mn-54 Mn%E Zn45 ZnXErr Co-58 Co%Err Cs-134 CsXErr Ru.103 RuXEn Rh-106 Rh%Err 27-Oct%9 89-10-25 6.2E48 10.09 6.9E48 01-Dec49 89-124 I 8.6E48 5.96 8.9E48 8.14 02-Jan.90 904141 1.2E47 7.32 9.4E48 10.68 02-Feb-90 90.0244 9.9E48 6.27 7.8E48 7.46 02-Mar-90 9043-01 3.8E48 40.09 224un-90 90-06-11 5.4E47 4.93 2.3E47 1.3E48 1.1E48 3.2E48 2.0E48 40.53 2.3E48 51.9 2.5E48 20.51 01-Aug 90 29.Aug-90 29.Aug 90 28-Sep-90 30-0ct.90 904941 1.5E47 7.34 9049-17 2.0E47 7.07 90-10-19 1.2E47 7.55 5.1E47 3.37 5.4E48 40 90-08-01 1.9E47 4.1 4 9048-28 1.SE47 4.51 1.4E47 5.46 1.0E-08 45.75 1.8E48 64.27 03-Dec-90 90-1241 1.0E47 8.42 1$Jan-91 914145 1.3E47 7.59 2.4E48 ND 28.33 29-Jan-91 9141-11 1.2E47.6.61 2.1E48 38.92 01-Mar-91 914341 1.4E47 6.85 3.9E48 20.55 02-Apr.91 22-Apr-91 28.Aug-91 03-Oct-91 91~I 1.6E47 7.21 9144-12 2.6E47 4.11 1.8E47 7.72 9148-10 1.1E-07 7.66 1.5E47 7.75 91-10-02 1.2E47 9.11 1.9E48 76.96 ((CL)29.0ct-91 91-1048 6.3E48 11.1 4.2E48 27.4 2.2E48 28.51 034an-92 924142 9.8E-08 9.72 5.1E48 19.49 04-Feb-92 924241 1.1E47 10.01 1.8E47 8.06 28.Feb-92 9243-13 9.0E48 8.95 8.2E48 13.82 l J'1 l l II J Tabb-A2 CooHng Tower Sample Results All Data Oats Sampb l Cs-137 Cs9f Err Co40 Co'%Err Mn-54 Mn@Zn45 ZngEn Co.58 Co%Err Cs-134 CsXErr Ru-103 RuXErr Rh-106 RhXErr 07.Apr-92 92-0442 02.0ct.92 92-10.08 1.2E47 7.87 6.6E48 14.81 2.0E48 30.09 1.9E48 29.77 30-Oct-92 92-10-22 2.3E48 31.47 4.2E48 27.71 1.4E48 50.34 30-Nov-92 92-1241 2.9E4S 23.01 2.5E48 36.94 28-Oec-92 92-12-13 4.7E4S 16.5 2.5E4S 36.94 28-Dec-92 93-0143 4.0E-OS 18.73 2.2E48 41.79 28-Dec-92 934143 4.0E-OS 18.73 28.Dec-92 934144 4.5E48 29.11 28-Dec-92 93-Ot~4.5E48 29.11 29-Dec-92 934142 5.0E-OS 44.6 2Man-93 934146 7.4E48 9.15 16-Mar-93 9343-27 2.3E47 7.31 2.3E48 6.8E48 3.1E48 16.Mar-93 93.03-26 1.6E47 13.61 1.6E47 16-Mar-93 9343-25 1.6E-07~13.17 1.1E47 16-Mar-93 9343-24 1.9E47 8.86 6.8E48 16-Mar-93 93-03-29 S.OE48 29.87 J I e.h I' Table A3 Cooling Tower Samples for t Statistic Test Note: (c)Mass Corrected River Equivalence Samplers Cs-137 Cs-137(c)Co40 Co%0(c)8&&35 85836 85&41 85&49 85-1O4 86.1-1 6 86.1-1 7 8&3-12 8&3-1 3 1.2CE47 247E47 245E47 1.47EOT 1.2CEOT 1.14E47 R84E48 668E48 1.'TROT 1.GROT 86-7-1 5 8&9-1 6 86-11-1 9 86.1 2-1 8 87-1-1 5 87-7-25 884835 8849-52 88.1 1~1.34E47 221 E47 1.16E47 T.KEOB 1.86E47 1.11EO7 1A5E47 65EEOB 1.57E47 a46EOB 292E48 7.56E48 7.87E48 894l O3 1.10E47 894542 894tt43 1.29E47 1.09E47 1.2CEOT R86EOB 1.%647 8&6.25 866-26 86 7-1 4.231 E47 1.KEOT 202EOT 4.15E47 4.12E47 247E47 201 EOT 1.91 EOT 1.65E47 1A6E47 2.91EOT 25?E47 3.88E47 2ZKOT 3.71EOT 1.95E47 1.28E47 3.1%47 1.86E47 24%47 1.10E47 264E47 5.82EOB 4.%648 1.27E47 1.32EOT 1.EKOT 217E47 1.84E47 202E47 1.66E47 256E47'.KEOT&04EOB 1.05EOT 6KECS 1.CBEOT RBl EOB 669EOB R77EOB 1.51EOT 4.47EOB 64CEOB 1.19EOT 1.46EOT 1.39E4T 1.12E47 3.71EOB 236E48 288E48 aGBEOB 34%48 1.77EO7 4.08EOB 4.51 E48 1.PE~224E47 1.35EOT 1.7?EOT 1.1 5E47 1.8IE47 1.KEOT 1.46E47 1.64E47 254E47 7.51E48 1.41E47 20CE47 245E47 2KEOT 1.8GE47 6KEOB a96EOB'.85E48 669E48 6??EOB 2GBEOT 687EOB 7.57E48 29CEOB 2EKOB 2KEOB 7.7GEOB 1.18E47 3.1GEOB 4.42E48 4.75E48 1.31E47 1.9BE47 634E48 1.15E47 1.8KOT 1.3lEOT 1.3BE47 231 E47 0'0 Table A3 Cooing Tower Samples for t Statlstlc Test Note: (c)Mass Corrected River Equlvalenca Samplers Cs-137 Cs-13r(c)Co40 Co%0(c)90-10-19 901241 914146 BIOI-I 1 914341 9I44-12 91~10 BM 048 92424l 9243-13 924442 92-1048 92-10-22 92-1141 92-12-13 9OOI 43 RH3l 46 BIH&48 8H&47 8M&48 8H&49 8H&50 8H&51 894549 1.1EEO?1.03EO?1.2%47 1.KE47 1.4cE47 2%647 1.06E47 635EOB&BI EOB 1.06EOT ROIE48 1.18EOT 1.95EOB 231 E48 2%EOB 4.6?E48 a99EOB 7.35E48 3,05E47 4.12E47 4.25E47 4.17EOT aQBEOT 3,NEO?8945-11 8945-25 8945.26 89-1 O25 9M&1 1 9343.27 RH33-26 RH33-25 RH33-24 32BT 22BEO?1.61E47 1.6cE47 1.86E47 8945-1 0 3.64E47 1.95EOT 1.~4?214EOT 202EOT 238EOT 4.34EOT 1.7BEOT 1.07EOT 1.NEO?1.8cE47 1.51EOT 1.99E47 a2BEm 3.8GE48 4.KE~7.EK48 671 E48 1.24E47 4.36EO?689E47 60BEOT 695EOT 4.42E47 618E47 5.2QE47 4.64E47 a25E47 23QE47 231 E47 26EEO?212EOB a9CEOB 1.75E47 1.47EO7 4.17EOB 607EOB I.BIEor&2l EOB 662EOB 1.94EOB 4.2QEOB 249E48 32QE48 224EOB 232E48 2.4%47 23QEOT 1.5QEO?2ZKO?6&cE48 1.REOT 1.12E4?G.BQEOB aaZ48 656EOB 295E47 247E47 7.01EOB&52E48 30647 1.3BE47 1.11E47 3.25EOB 7.06EOB 4.19E48 63BE48 67?EOB 39QE48 348E47 as%Or 214E47 G,ZKO?&74EOB 221 E47 1.6QEO7 R7KOB 0't 0 I)0f Table A3.Cooling Tower Samples tor t Statlstlc Test Note: (c)Mass Corrected River Equivalence Samplers Cs-137, Cs-137(c)'o&Co%0(c)RR33-29 SGK~7.19E~Mean Ye/lance Std Oev 1.49E%7 1.0QE-1 4 1.0QE<7 2 reJect 236E%7 204E-1 4 1.4%%7&61&X a39E-tS S92EM 7 reJect 1.39E@7 7.966-1 5&92E~

0;i jJ I Table-A4 River Sodlfhent All Data 2S.May45 28.May@5 28 MayM 28.May~02Jun45 MKR-19 HNFRD1 HNFRD2 HNFRDW 1.09E47 3.66E47 2.19E47 3ME47 12E47 1.9E47 2.3E47 1.35E47 1.4E47 5.2E47 3.1E47 5.5E47 16-Apr48 25Jun46 WP43 WP43 254un68 WP43 2'n@6 WP43 2&J un'AS 10-Doc46 WH BLUFF 10.Dec46 WH BLUFF 10.Dec%8 WH BLUFF 10-Dec%6 WHBLUFF 10-Doc@6 WHBLUFF 10-Dec@6 OLD HNFD 10.Doc%8 OLD HNFD 7E47 8E47 4.8E47 4.6E47 1.3E47 WP43 09-Apr%7 21-APTS 17-May48 17.May48 17-May@8 1&dun@8 2E47 3E48 WA4341 WA-21 3.2E47 3.3E47 7.51E48 WA-23 WA41 GP4.1 WHBLUFF 2.78E48 2.41 E48 8.46E48 1.82E47 1.3E47 5.91E47 2.45E48 4.4E48 7.1E48 2.6E47 2.8E47 2.9E47 1E47 1.3E47 1.1E46 2.6E48 3.6E48 4.6E48 8.9E47 2E49 6.5E48 1.5E48 9.7E48 5.7E48 8.3E48 1.7E48 1.06E48 1.42E48 4.15E48 1.65E48 2.6E48 3.8E48 3.4E48 1.7E48 2&Jun@8 10Jul48 1(@Jul@8 GP-18.5 GP.7.1 GP-7.9 1lhlul48 GP4.2 1(Llu(4$1(hJul48 1Mul4S 1(Wuf48 GP4.3 GP4.6 GP-9.0 GP-9.3 1lhduh88~GP-9.9 1(hJul48 GP-10.2 1Mun48 GP4.3 2&Jun@8 GP-14.6 GP-14.7 2&Jun48 GP-15.1 GP-15.1 2&Jun68 GP-17.8 5.52E48 5.6E47 8.33E49 2.87E47 1.74E47 1.01E47 1.76E48 1E47 6.62E48 2.32E48 1.81E47 5.SBE47 1.2E47 1.47E47 2,98E47 8.7E4S 2.S7E49 6.11E48 1.05E48 3.17E48 1.6E46 3.24E47 4.87E48 Table-A4 River Sediment Sample 0 Cs-137 Reeutts All t?dul48 GP-22.6 t?dul48 GP.22.6 t 74ul48 GP-24.8 t?Jul%8 GP-24.8 t?dul48 14 Aug'4-Aug%8 14-Aug@8 14-Aug'4-Aug@8 14.Aug%8 14Aug48 14-Aug%8 14-Aug%8 1 4-Aug%8 14-Aug%8 14-Aug'4-Aug'64ep48 064ep48 06$ep48 06$op88 GP-28 GP%.5 GP4.5 GP4.1 GPA.t GP-9.0 GP-10.2 GP-10.2 GP-10.8 GP-11.1 GP-t 1.4 GP-18.8 GP-21.5 GP-28 GP-9.3 WA-tOOF GP-22.6 GP.26.5 Ot~May%9 19-Apr-90 01 May-90 HRPRDAM WA4341 HRPRDAM 1&act-90 WP43-90 10.Apr-91 WP4344 064ep88 GP-28.05 11-Apr49 WA4341 3A4E47 3.53E47 1.76E47 1.84E47 921E48 7.87E48 9.68E48 7.4E48 8.93E48 4.19E47 1.7E47 2.09E47 2.8?E47 2.02E47 1.04E47 5.91E48 1At E47 2.57E47 1.03E47 1.51E47 1.02E47 9.6E48 2.5E47 1.2E47 5.5E47 9.08E48 1.18E47 2.87E49 1.16E47 2.04E46 t.56E47 2.73E47 2.76E48 1.02E47 7.73E47 6.7E48 7.14E48 1.57E48 1E48 1.7E48 1E48 8.59E48 3.76E48 01-May-91 31~-91 HRPRDAM WP43-10 5E47 9.61E48 1E48 5.61E48 Mean Variance Sld Dev 2.20E47 3.1?E-14 1.78E47 2.33E47 1.79E-f3 4.23E47 5.4?E-t 4 234 E47 t.23E-16 1.11E48 1.19E47 2.4?E48 0 I 1 I fl'P tl 0 Zn45 Parameters Used in Figure 1 Oate Sample 0 1&Jan@8 8641-'lS 146$E47 20.Mar%6 8643-12 22.75 20.Mar@6 8643-13 3.641 E48 28.41 274un46 864&25>26 Ave.1.06E47 1&Jul@6 8647-14>15 Ave.25E48 314ul47 8747-25 2.419E47 2&&~8 884946>51 Ave.1.62E47 29.Nov4$88.11~1.087 E47 1628 30-Apr%9 894542 4.439 E48 10.May%9 894549>11 Ave.1.01 E47 1210 24-May49 8945-25>26 Ave.5.67E48 1224 30-Aug@9 894M3 9.417E4$1322 27-Oct%9$9-1 0-25 518 gm 3.15E4$01-Dec%9 89-1241 450 ml 1415 024an-90 904141 450 ml 2.313E48 51.9 1447 29-Aug-90 9048-28 450 ml 64.27 30.Oct.90 90-10-19 450 ml 5.431 E48 1748 28.Aug-91 9148-10 450 ml 1.862E4S 76.96(cCU tI 0 Table-A6 Date Cooling Tower Data Ord 24-May%9 294ep4l8 16-Mar-93 294 el~2&Sep48 294ep48 29.Sap@8 294ep48 154an41~.90 30.Apr49 314ul417 8945.25 884&48 S343-29 884941 884940 884949 884&47 884946 914145 90-10.19 894542 87-7-25 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10 12 03-Apr47 02~-92 87W2 92-1 048 29Jan41 9141-11 28-Dec.92 934143 2%Jan-93 S34146 1.73E48 1.94E48 2.12E48 2.24E48 13 14 15 16 17 15.7 16.9 18.1 19.3 1 8Jul46 86.7-15 18 21.7 01~7 26.Aug@8 1 5-Aug%6 04Jan4tS 28-Dec-92 87-9-1 884845 8S4'I43 92-1 2-1 3 19-Nov46 86-1 1-19 03.Dec-90 90.1241 30-Nov-92 92-1141 2.43E48 2.49E48 263 E48 2.83E48 2.88E48 3.18E48 3.20E48 3.43E48 19 21 24 25 26 24.1 25.3 26.5 28.9 31.3 1Mul46 01.Mar-91 26~p46 274an47 2%et-91 86-7-14 914341 , 86-9.16 87-1-15 91-1048 3.71E48 3.90E48 3.98E48 4.08E48 4.17E48 27 28 31 37.3 30.Oct-92 92-10-22 1EWan46 03-Mar47 86-1-17 874-1 (Lan-92 924142 07'Apr-92 924442 16.Mar-93 S343-24 16-Mar-93 29-Aug'58-41 4.20E48 4.47E48 4.51E48 5.07E48 6.62E48 6.80E48 6.82E48 6.82E48 37 39.8 42.2 47 0 t t N 0, I1 Table.A6 Cooling Tower Oata 304ep48 28-Aug@5 28.Feb-92 f 4-Feb88 8S4942 85845 9243-13 02-Feb.90 904244 6.85E4S 6.85E48 7.77E48 7.78E48 8.04E48 8.21E48 8.40E48 4f 49.4 204 ep4I5 024an-90 85-941 904141 8.69E48 9 40E48 47 28-Aug%5 30-Aug%5 16.Mar-93 85.104 854I48 88849 9343.25 OI.Aug45 29-Aug.90 16.0ct45 9048-28 85-10.24 274 un%6 864.25 20.Mar%6 864 13 28-Aug-91 10 May%9 1&dan%6 9148-10 8945.11 86 1-fe 16.Mar-93 9343.26 22-Apr-91 30-Oec48 9144-f2 86-'t 2-I 8 04-Feb-92 92424 I 03-May@9 f 0-May%9 224 un-90 8945.15 8945-10 9046-11 314ut4I7 8747-25 I 0-May%9 29.Sep4IS 2~epee 29@epee 294ep4IS 294ep4IS 274wH36 864-26 29.Novae 88.1 f M 20-Mar%6 8&3-1 2 9.61E48 9.77E48 1.05E47 1.08E47 1.12E47 1.12E47 1.'I SE47 1.19E47 1.33E47 1.38E47 1.39E47 1.39E47 1A6E47 1.47E47 1.5OE47 1.51 E47 1.55E47 t.75E47 1.77E47 1.8t E47 2.15E47 2.30E47 2.33E47 2.34E47 2A3E47 2.S7E47 3.08E47 3.27E47 3.65E47 4.OOE47 51 61 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 61.4 65.1 88.3 69.9 71.1 72.3 73.5 74.7 75.9 77.1 78.3 79.5 80.7 81.9 87.9 91.6 Gate Cooling Tower Ord Cum%24.May49 2444y49 Variance Standard Deviation 884947 9049-17 8945.25 8945-26 88.1148 4.92E47 S.O7E47 527E47 6.84E47 7.44E47 143E47 224 E-14 1.50E47 81 95.2 97.6 0!

Table.A7 FNer Population 194un88 1&Jun%8 174 ul418 8W un@8 174d4S 17-May@8 17-May48 14A vga 1Mun48 14Aug48 174ul48 1&Jul%8 2&Jun%8 1(hlul48 1OJuHMl 8LJun48 1Mul48 10J WAS 1Muh88 14Aug48 17-May@8 2&Jun%6 OWep418 064ep88 2&Jun%6 11-Apr49 10-A pr-91 314ct-91 16.Apr46 16-Oct-90 14.Aug'4Aug48 14Aug~14Aug418 14Aug48 14Aug48 14Aug~14-Aug'&Jun%8 OPS.1 Gal.3 ep.22.8 GP-14.8 GP-22.6 WA43 WA41 GPA.1 GP4.2 el~.1 GP-24.8 GP-10.2 GP-15.75 GP-7.9 GP4.6 GP-1 5.1 GPW.5 GP-14.7 GP4.3 GPA.S WA-21 WP43 GP-26.5 GP-22.6 WP43 WA4341 WP4344 WP43-10 WP43 WP43-90 GP-10.8 GP4.5 GP4.1 GP-18.8 GP-21.5 GP4.5 GP.11.4 GP4.1 GP-17.8 NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND NO NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO 2.58E49 2.87E49 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 24 25 26 27 28 31 33 37 46.9 48.1 Table-A7 Data Populathn 174uk38 1 74ul4t8 01-May-91 01.May%9 01-May-90 10Jut418 OB4ap48 19 Apr40 14-Aug@8 28.May%5 09.Apr47 14Aug48 tlklut48 21-APTS 1 MuH38 2&Jun4t6 26Jun48 O~ep88 25Jun46 28 May45 2&Jun%8 2&Jun%6 10 Dec%6 14-Aug%8 174uh88 28.May415 10 Oec46 14-Aug%8 28-May45 10 Dec%6 14.Aug'0 Dec46 lO Dec4162&J un'(LJul48 024un45 06-Soph GP-24.8 6P45.5 HRP ROAM HRP ROAM HRP ROAM GP-7.1 GP.2S.05 WA4341 GP-21.5 WH BLUFF WP43 GP-11.1 GP4.2 WA4341 GP-9.9 WP43 GP 18.5 WA-100F WH BLUFF GP-226 WP43 MKR-19 GP-15.1 WP43 WHBLUFF GP-28 GP-28 HNFRD2 OLDHNFD GP-10.2 HNFRO1 WHBLUFF GP-10.2 WH BLUFF WH BLUFF GP-14.7 GP-9.3 HNF ROW GP-9.3 2.87E49 3.9E49 1E48 1E4S 1.05 f48 1.57E48 1.7E48 229 E48 2.41E48 2.6E48 2.76E48 3.17E48 3.6E48 4.87E48 4.9E48 6.11 f48 6.7E48 7.1E48 7.54E48 8.3E48 8.46E48 8.7E48 8.8E48 1E47 1.02E47 1.16E47 1.3E47 1.3E47 1.56 f47 1.82E47 2.6 f47 273 E47 2.8E47 2.9E47 2.98E47 3.24E47 5.91 f 47 7.73E47 41 47 51 61 70 71 73 74 76 78 51.8 61.73 70.4 71.6 72.8 74.1 75.3 76.5 77.8 79 8'I.5 82.7 87.6 91.4 95.1 C E I>l 4 Table-A7 Population 10-Decl t(hlul48 14-Aug'ariance Standard Oeviabon OLOHNFO 1.1E46 GP-9.0 1.6E48 GP-9.0 2.04E46 1.20E47 1.04E-13 322E47 97.5