ML20087D411: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML20087D411 | | number = ML20087D411 | ||
| issue date = 12/31/1983 | | issue date = 12/31/1983 | ||
| title = Environ Radiation Surveillance Program Summary Rept for Third & Fourth Quarters 1983. | | title = Environ Radiation Surveillance Program Summary Rept for Third & Fourth Quarters 1983. | ||
| author name = Brey H, Johnson J | | author name = Brey H, Johnson J | ||
| author affiliation = COLORADO STATE UNIV., FORT COLLINS, CO, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO | | author affiliation = COLORADO STATE UNIV., FORT COLLINS, CO, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO | ||
Revision as of 01:58, 16 April 2020
| ML20087D411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1983 |
| From: | Brey H, Jerrica Johnson COLORADO STATE UNIV., FORT COLLINS, CO, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| P-84061, NUDOCS 8403130396 | |
| Download: ML20087D411 (143) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:7
'g ADI ATIO/V R~~
- -S
//
\
v m: l '%9
. ,r 'n \'
FORT ST. VRAIN 's ' if ,/ NUCLEAR ., '$ g;' / GENERATING STATION i' 10 lu '
/ . IN 7
i '
\
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
/ \
H
/ \\
N/ ~
~ -
s'
\
PROGRAM l l
SUMMARY
REPORT I THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS 1983 l PURCHASE ORDER lb. 21362 l COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 8403130396 840229 PDR ADOCK 05 COO 267 _ R PDR g
w j PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO Attach. P-3F gi FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GEN'ERATING STATION 1 of 1 i(3 f Pa P ERSP
SUMMARY
REPORT COVER SHEET ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANrE PROGRAM Summary Report for the period July through December, 1983 -
' 2!/7!8f Prepared by: !
Jampt E. Johns @n, Professor, Dhte ColoTado StateWversity Reviewed by: Md d' M9I 5fD Radialtion ProtectYon Manager Date Reviewed by: 0/29/BY SupeWisor, Nuclear Licensing Date ' Approved by: Station Manager j (/ ~' h J Date h/
/
,/'
s d by W dM4[Y Dfte f Manager, Nuclear Engineerincl Division
y c - Acknowledgements , Many persons have contributed to this project during 1983 and it is important to acknowledge their_ effort. We also wish to thank ' i tne citizens from whose farms, homes, and ranches we collect the environmental samples. Without their cooperation the project would not be possible. The persons working directly on the project have been: William Carl, Jr. Sheri Chambers Sharon Clow . Wendy Johnson Steven Maheras Marion Mcdonald James C. Murray i Mark Salasky Marilyn Watkins T 4 4 i j' ->
, ,.:a TABLE OF-CONTENTS -
Page No. List of Tables ii W ,y;,
-List of Figures I. INTRODUCTION .
1 II. SURVEILLANCE DATA FOR JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 1983 AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS A. External Gamma Exposure Rates ~7 B. Air Sampling Data 10 , C. Water, Sediment, and Precipitation 28 Sampling Data D. Food Chain Data 63 E. Aquatic Biota 89 F. Beef' Cattle. 99
' G. Sample-Cross Check Data 101 H. Conclusion and' Summary 107
~III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE A. Collection and Analysis Schedule 128 t.
B. Sampling Locations 130 4 O 4 9 9 p
LIST OF TABLES Page No. II.A.1 Gansna Exposu 2 Rates Measured by the TLD Technique. 9 II.B.1 Concentration of Long-lived Gross Alpha
- Activity in Airborne Particles.
- a. Third Quarter,' 1983 12
- b. Fourth Quarter. 1983 13 ,
II.B.2 Concentrations of long-lived Gross Beta Activity in Airborne Particles. .
- a. Third Quarter,1983 14
- b. Fourth Quarter,1983 15 II.B.3 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water Vapor.
-a. Third Quarter,'1983 19
- b. Fourth Quarter,1983 20 II.B.3a Tritium Concentrations in Air.
- a. Third Quarter,1983 21
- b. Fourth Quarter,1983 22 II.B.3b . Tritium Released in Reactor Effluents- 23 II.B.4 Iodine-131 Concentrations in Air (Composite). 26 II.B.5- Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations '
27
. in Air (Composite).
II.C.1 Gross Beta Activity in Water. 32 II.C.la
~
Gross Beta Activity in Effluent Water, Goosequill 33 (E-38). , II.C.2- Tritium Concentrations in Surface Waters. 34 It.C.3 'itrontium-90 Concentrations in Surface Waters. 35 II.C.4 Strontium-89 Concentrations in Surface Waters. 36 iii
? ,
L a
a LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Page No. II.C.4a Tritium, Strontium-89-90 in Effluent Water, Goosequill, (E-38).
- a. Third Quarter,1983 37
- b. Fourth Quarter, 1983 38 II.C.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Water. .
39 II.C.5a Gamma-ra~y Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 45 Effluent Water, Goosequill (E-38). II.C 6 Gross Beta Ac.tivity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 48 II.C.7 Stront'ium-90 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 49 <. II.C.8- Strontium-89 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 50 II.C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 51 Bottom Sediment. II.C.10 Gross Beta and Tritium Deposit' ion from Precipitation. 59 II.C.11 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from 60 . Precipitation at Location F1. II.C.12 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from 61 Precipitation at Location F4. II.C.13 Radiostrontium Deposition from Precipitation. 62
.II.D.1 Tritium Concentrations in Water Extracted from Milk. 66 II.D.2 Strontium-90 Activity in Milk. 67 II.D.3 Strontium-89 Activity in Milk. 68
.II.D.4 Ganna-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 69 Composite Milk Samples.
II.D.S. Tritium, Strontium-89, and Strontium-90 Concentrations 73
-in Forage.
iv s^ I' .J
L'IST OF TABLES (CONT.) Page No. II.D.6 Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 76 Forage. II.D.7 Gross Beta Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) and 79 Soil (pC1/kg).
' Gross Beta in Soil (pCi/m2 ),
II.D.8 . 82 II.D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 83 Soil (nC1/m2), II.D.10 Tritium, Strontium-89, and Strontium-90 Concentrations 86 in Soil. II.E.1 -Gross Beta and Radiostrontium Concentrations in 91 Aquatic Biota Samples. II.E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 95 Aquatic Biota Samples. II.F.1 Radionuclides in Facility Area Beef Cattle. 100 II.G.1 EPA cross-Check Data Su'snary. 104 II.G.2 Fort St. Vrain-Colorado Department of Health 106 Cross-Check Data Summary. II.H.1 Mea'n values for all Sample Types. 115
- !I.H.2 Dates of Announced Atmospheric Nuclear Weapon 127 Tests and FSV Reactor Operation.
III.A.1 Environmental Radiation Surveillance Program. 129 III.D.1 Facility Area and Effluent Sampling Locations for
. 130 Environmental Media.
III.B.2 Adjacent Area and Downstream Sampling Locations for 131 Environmental Media. III.B.3 Reference Area and Upstream Sampling Locations for 132
. Environmental Media.
v d
LIST OF FIGURES Page No.
~ II.H.1.. Gross Beta Concentrations in Air,,1974-1983. 112 II.H.2. Tritium Concentrations in Water.1974-1983. 113 l
II.H.3. Milk-Concentrations of Tritium.1974-1983. 114 III.B.1. On-site Sampling Locations. 133 III.B.2.' Off-site Sampling Locations. 134
.,i..
J 8 9 s a vi L- i
71 I. ' Introduction to Radiation Surveillance Data for the Second Half of 1983. t During the second half of 1983' the Fort St.' Vrain Nuclear Generating Station produced electrical energy as follows: R
-.'l Month Dates with Electrical # of Days Without Gross Electrical Generation Generation .Ener y Generation MWH)
July- 16-31 15 34,331 August 1-31 0 140,498 le , September 1-30 0 144,116
-October. 1-29 2 135,325
- November 8-30 7 100,999 130,463 December 1-8, 11-31 2 The total-energy generated was 4.9 times that generated during the -
first half 'of 1983, the previous reporting period. The radioactivity released in reactor effluents, however, did not increase by that
~
proportion. The effluent release of tritium, the major radionuclide released that is measured in this project,actuclly was less during the
.last half of 1983 than during the' first half of 1983. This is due to several rtasons,but principally a result of the plant shutdown
- during_ April, May, and June of 1983. A complete and detailed listing of r
radioactivity released by all effluent routes may be found in the Public Service Company of Colorado semi-annual Effluent Release Report to the
- U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When possible in this report any t
C_
^ '
, 2- ;
correlation of radioactivity in environmaatal samples with the effluent release data is discussed. . This analysis is found in each sample type section and .in the summary section, II.H. This report covers the last period of operation under the original environmental technical specifications. Since January 1, 1984 a revised set of technical specifications (8.0) has been in effect.
~Although the intent and major components of the new specifications are very similar tc the previous set, there are some changes in sample numbers, types and collection frequencies. As a result this will be the last report in this identical format and that can be compared p :directly to previous reporting periods. Therefore,in this report, some analysis of pre-and post-operational data is provided for the major sample types.
Tropospheric fallout was a minor, but not a negligible contributor to radionuclide activities measured during this period. The most recent Chinese atmospheric nuclear weapon test was conducted in December of 1980. Air concentrations were at pretest background levels, but the resulting surface deposition of the fallout from that test was still observed. Significant tropospheric fallout from Chinese weapon tests has been observed during the entire preoperational and operational period of the reactor. The fallout measured has been extremely
. Variable and does not allow direct comparison of preoperational and post operational data. Fallout deposition and more importantly natural background must be subtracted before any such comparisons are made.
[ ,
3 The environmental sampling and analysis program was essentially identical to that used in the most -ecent reporting periods. No changes occurred during the last half of 1983. The radioactivity concentrations measured in this project are very close to baseline concentraticns and, more importantly, near the minimum detectable concentratforc (MDC) levels for each radionuclide and sample, type. It has been well documented that even independent of the above reasons, environmental data exhibit great inherent variability. This is due to sampling and analysis variability, but principally due to true environmental er biological variability. As a result, the overall variability of the surveillance data is quite large, and it is necessary to use mean values from a large sample size to make any corclusions 1 about the ab:olute radioactivity concentrations in any environmental pathway. The resulting frequency distributions of the environmental radiation surveillance data is generally non-normal. Usually the data can be satisfactorily treated using log-normal statistics. However, when the number of observations is small, i.e., less than 10, log-normal treatment is tentative. When a high percentage of data points is less than MDC, (the minimum detectable concentrations of activity in that sample type),
~
calculation of true arithmetic mean values is impossible. Therefore in these reports we have chosen not to include mean values with each data table. At the end of this report in Section II.H., Conclusions and Summary, we have listed the calculated arithmetic means and confidence intervals
4 for the reporting period as well as for the last 12 months. We also list the geometric means and geometric standard deviations for the last year of data reporting. If any data points measured resulted in negative values, these values were used in calculating the true mean values in Table II.H.1. (negative values are possible due to the statistical nature of radioactivity counting, i.e. the observed gross sample count rate can be statistically less than the observed background count rate). This is the current accepted practice by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. It should be noted that we have not used any footnote for values less than MDC. Rather we list the measured value as less than the actual MDC value. Because the MDC is dependent upon variables such as the sample and the background count time and sample size, the value will be different for each sample type and even within cample type. Many sets of data were compared in this report. The statistical test used was either a "t-test" or a paired "t-test". If data sets are noted to be significantly different or not significantly different, the confidence for the statement is at the 95% level (a = 0.05). c In this report we have added to appropriate tables the maximum permissible concentration applicable to that radionuclide. We have chosen to list the maximum permissible concentrations as found in Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR 20. This is the concentration of any radionuclide which if ingested or inhaled continuously, would singularly produce the maximum permissible dose rate to a member of the general public. That value is 170 millirem / year, but must include the dose from all sources and routes,but excludes background radiation dose and medical radiation doses. The MPC values are given only for comparison of the S u - a
5 measured environmental values. As stated in 10 CFR 20 these are the maximum concentrations above natural background that a licensee may release to an unrestricted area. It is generally assumed that no direct ingestion or inhalation of effluent concentration can occur right at the restricted area boundary and that dilution and dispersion decreases the concentration before it reaches nearby residents. This is certainly the case for the Fort St. Vrain environs. There is no specified maximum permissible dose rate or dose commitment for residents near the Fort St. Vrain reactor. Such limits for water cooled reactors are found in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I. These are judged the "As low as Reasonably Achievable" dose rates from such reactor types
- and although not directly applicable to the Fort St. Vrain gas cooled reactor, can be used for comparison purposes.
A limit that.does apply is the independent maximum permissible dose commitment rate set by the E.P.A. (40 CFR 190) for any specified member of the general public from any part of the nuclear fuel cycle. This value is 25 mrem / year as the dose to the whole body from all contributing radionuclides. As will be noted in this report, dose commitments are calculated for any mean concentrations noted in unrestricted areas that are significantly above control mean values. w...
=
6 The following is the footnote system used in this report.
- a. Sample lost prior to analysis.
- b. Sample missing at site.
- c. Instrument malfunction.
- d. Sample lost during analysis,
- e. Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.
- r. Sample unavailable.
- g. Analysis in progress.
- h. Sample not collected (actual reason given).
- i. Analytical error (actual reason given).
N. A. 'Not applicable. m .
7 II. Surveillance Data for July through December 1983 and Interpretation s Of Results. A. External Gamma-ray Exposure Rates _ The average measured gamma-ray exposure rates expressed in mR/ day are given in Table II.A.1. The values were determined by CaF :Dy 2 (TLD-200) dosimeters at each of 37 locations (see Tables III.B;1, III.B.2, III.B.3). Two TLD chips per package are installed at each site and the mean value is reported for that site. The mean calculated total exposure is then divided by the number of days that elapsed between pre-exposure and post-exposure annealing to obtain the average daily exposure rate. The TLD devices are changed monthly at each location. The 1LD data indicate that the arithmetic mean measured exposure rate in the Facility area for the last half of 1983 was 0.45 mR/ day. The mean exposure rate was 0.45 ra/ day for the Adjacent area and 0.42 mR/ day for the Reference area. There were no significant differences between the values for the Facility, Adjacent and Reference areas. There was also no significant difference from the values measured during the first half of 1983. The exposure rate reasured for October 1983 at A-35 is concluded to be a true value. The two TLD chips in the packet indicated nearly identical readout values. See past reports for discussion of anomalies at A-35. The exposure rate measured at all sites is due to a combination of exposure from cosmic rays, from natural gamma-ray emitters in the earth's crust and from ground surface deposition of fission products from previous world-wide fallout. The variation in measured values is due
8 to true variation of the above sources p1'us the variation due to l the measurement method. The purpose of the TLD ring around the reactor ; is not to measure-gamma-rays generated from the reactor facility itself, but to-document the presence or absence of gamma-ray emitters deposited upon the ground.from the reactor effluents. Since the inception of power production by the reactor there has been no detectable increase in the external exposure rate due to reactor releases. The TLD system is calibrated by exposing chips to a scattered , gamma-ray fluxLin a cavity surrounded by Uranium mill tailings. This produces a ganna-ray spectrum nearly identical to that measured
.in the reactor environs.
i l l J
N-9 m- s , Table'II. A.1 Gamma
- Expostire' Rates Mu:sured by the TLD Technique (mR/ day).
w ._. Second Half,1983. 4 -; Facility Area. Avarage Daily Camma Exposure Rates . Locations July August September October ' November December F 1: 0.44 .0.42 0.45 0.50 0.42 0.39 FC3 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.50 0.47 0.39 F-4 0.41 0.43 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.39 c F 7 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.47 0.44 0.40 F 8 0.46 0.44 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.42 i F 9 0.44 0.47 , - 0.' 16 0.52 0.54 0.43 F.11 0.43 _0.41 ' . O.42 0.50 0.50 0.38 F-12y 0.46 0.42 0.48 0.51 0.48 0.42 F 13 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.41 F 14 0.40 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.34 F 4C 0.47 0.46' O.46 0.51 0.52 0.42 F 47 0.42 0.45 0.44 0.49 0.44 0.39
- F 51 0.47 0.48' O.50 0.52 0.49 0.41 i 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.50 0.48 0.40
~ '
Adjacent-Ares Locati m 'k 1
'A 5.- 'O.45 -
0.46- '
- 0.47 - 0.52 0.45
' 0.40 6 0.40 --0.41 0.41 0.48 0.40 0.38 A 27 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.46 0.41 0.34 c
L A 28 e. 0.41 0.40 0.45 0.39 0.35 A 29 0.42 0.45 0.41 0.49 0.43 0.32 A 30 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.53 0.45 0.41 A '31 ' , 0.38: 0.40 0.42 0.47 0.40 0.38 A'32 i 0.41 ~ V 0.42 0.43 0.48 0.41 0.36 A 33 0.41 0.44 0.40 0.51 0.42 0.40 1 A'341 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.53 0.46 0.41 A 35 + e 0.44 0.46 1.72 0.49 0.39 A 36 '
'0.40 0.42 0.45 0.51 0.44 0.39
. I 0.42- 0.43 0.43 0.60 0.43 0.38 Reference Area
_ Location-R 15 'd.32 0.44 0.37 0.46 0.41 0.36 R 16 '0.44- . 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.44 0.42 R 17 0.36':: 0.35 0.33 0.43 0.38
- 0.33 R 18 - 0.39 10.40- 0.36 0.45 0.39 0.34
^
R 19I 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.35 2' R 20, 0.44 -0.44 s 0.45- 0.49 0.46 0.36
- R.E21 ' ,0.42 0.43 0.42 0.49 0.40 0.36 4 R 22- 0.42 0.43s 0.44 0.51 0.43 0.37 R'33 3 , 0.41 0.42 0.40 5.47 0.44 0.35
'R 24- 0.51 0.46 0.50 0.58 0.47 0.40
" R 25-O.46 s'0 43
. 0.44 0.48 0.43 0.38 R_26' 0.43 0.40 0.43 0.47 0.43 0.37 n 0.43 0.42 - ! 0.42 0.48 0.42 0.37
* - w
- s. , .
, ~
- s. x s s .. .
s '
.e - Sampic missing at site'l -
Q.7 L v
10 II.B. Air Sampling Data
- 1. Gross alpha and beta activity.
T .The measured air concentrations of particulate gross alpha and
. gross beta activity for the' Facility and Adjacent sampling sites are listed in Tables II.B.1 and II.B.2. The concentrations are listed in units of femtocuries per cubic meter of air, although the activity T is due to a mixture of radionuclides.
The arithmetic mean of the values of gross alpha activity for all the Facility stations was statistically the same as the mean for the' values meas'ured at the Adjacent stations for both the third and fourth quarters. The gross ajpha mean was greater during the fourth quarter than during the . third quarter and this difference was statistically
-significant. A_ slight peak in gross alpha concentrations can be noted for the two week period ending 11/5/83. There was a corresponding peak in gross beta concentrations during the same period. There wasin earlier a'dditional peak-in gross beta concentrations for the . week'ending 7/2/83. No corresponding gross alpha peak was apparent.
The gross beta' means for the fourth quarter were also slightly, 5ut i significantly, greater than during the third quarter.
~There was'no significant difference between Facility stations and Adjacent stations during the entire sampling period. There has never been a -significant difference observed between the Facility
_and Adjacent sites. Thus it can be concluded that stack effluents of particulate fission products or activation products is not a pathway
." ' of concern for. the Fort St. Vrain reactor environs.
Station F-2 is in the' flood plain of the Platte river and during m
~
l: ,; a
. ,< 11.
s
. : July and August'the late snow run-off in the mountains caused local l flooding of the site.and electricity was not available. On 10 of the
'189-air filter samples collected during the period, excessive dust loading occur' red and gross alpha measurement was unreliable. These occurrences were only 'at stations A-5 and A-35, both of which are l dusty locations, particularly during' fall and early winter months.
'N .M' --> e -
~
1 he n I
,- +
_ <- y t 4 & Y l . t =
Table II. 8.1 3 Concentrations of Long-Lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m ).
- a. Third Quarter,1983.
Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Date 6 35 2 3 4 5 Collected 1 I l 7-2-83 2.3 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6) 4.4 (1.0) 4.1 (0.8) 2.3 (0.7) 1.4 (0.5) 3.7 (0.8) 7-9-83 7.0 (1.2) Cy 6.1 (1.1) 7.5 (1.2) 8.4 (1.6) 3.7 (1.2) 4.4 (0.9) 7-16-83 2.7 (0.5) Cy 3.1 (0.6) 4.7 (1.0) 6.7 (1.2) 4.5 (1.1) 3.1 (1.5) 7-23-83 2.4 (0.5) 2.0 (0.4) 1.9 (0.5) 2.2 (0.5) 5.2 (1.0) C 2 C 2 7-30-83 5.3 (1.0) 4.1 (0.7) 5.9 (1.1) 7.1 (1.2) 3.8 (0.7) C 3 3.6 (0.6) 8-7-83 7.7 (1.3) C 7.0 (1.2) 2.7 (0.5) 5.9 (1.1) 3.7 (0.5) 11.6 (2 0) p 8-12-83 7.7 (1.8) C 7.5 (1.5) 5.0 (1.4) 6.2 (1.6) 6.5(1.4) 6.3 (1.2) 2 0-20-83 C C 6.4 (1.1) 0.6 (0.4) 6.7 (1.4) 3.6 (0.8) 8.0 (1.2) 2 3 8-27-83 C 7.2 (1.5) 6.8 (1.3) 0.6 (1.7) 7.9 (1.5) 10.7 (1.8) 8.9 (1.6) 2 ** 9.3 (1.8) 11.6 (2.0) U 9-3-83 8.9 (1.7) 7.9 (1.4) 11.0 (2.1) 8.1 (1.7) 9-10-83 4.9 (1.1) 4.5 (1.2) 7.0 (1.6) 5.6 (1.3) 6.8 (1.5-) 6.8 (1.4) 9-17-83 8.5 (1.7) 8.2 (1.4)- 10.2 (1.8) 9.8 (1.9) ** 8.9 (1.6) 9-24-83 9.3 (1.7) 7.7 (1.4) 7.9 (1.6) 10.7 (1.8) 9.6 (2.0) 7.5 (1.5) 11.7 (2.2) Average 6.1 (1.1) 5.6 (1.1) 6.1 (1.3) 5.9 (1.2) 6.3 (1.3) 6.1 (1.2) 7.3 (1.4) Quarterly Quarterly ( 32 Samples) 3.6 -mi nimum (45 Samples) 0.6 -minimum 11.6 -maximum 11.0 -maximum 6.1 X_ 6.4 - X 3 -15 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m = 10 uCi/ml.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( 1.96 S.D.)
** Excessive dust load on filter prevented valid alpha counting.
C1 Electricity out at site due to flood. C2 Pump stopped, fuse blown. C3 Pump in for repair.
Tablo II. 8.1 Concentrations of Long-Lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m3 ),
- b. Fourth Quarter, 1983.
Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 l 2 3 1 4 5 6 35
** 8.3 (1.7) 10-1-83 11'.2 ' (1. 9) 6.5(1.1) 11.4 (1.9) 11.1 (2.0) 10-8-83 6.8 (1.3) 9.0 (1.5) 7.0 (1.5) 11.2 (2.0) 8.3 (1.9) 8.4 (1.4) 8.2 (1.6) 10-15-83 7.8 (1.3) 6.8 (1.2) 5.8 (1.0) 7.3 (1.3) 9.3 (1.8) 4.5 (0.9) 8.8 (1.5) 10-22-83 9.0(1.2) 16.9 (1.9) 15.6 (2.0) 17.8 (2.2) 14.9.(2.3) 16.1 (2.2) 11.0(1.5)
** 22.7 (3.1) 10-29-83 18.6 (2.5) 16.0 (2.2) 16.3 (2.2) 19.7 (2.6) 13.1 (2.0) 11-5-83 21.5 (2.9) 22.0 (2.6) 20.4 (2.8) 22.9 (3.3) 21.3 (3.2) 11-12-83 10.9 (1.8) 14.4 (1.9) 8.5(1.7) 11.4~(1.8) 14.2 (2.2) 8.5 (1.6) 16.5 (2.4) 11-19-83 1.7 (0.4) 4.8 (1.0) 5.6 (1.2) 5.5 (1.2) 7.7 (1.7) 7.5 (1.5) 11-26-83 3.6 (0.9) 3.5 (0.8) C y 2.2 (0.7) 3.8 (1.0) 1.2 (0.4) 4.6 (1.2) 12-3-83 6.3 (1.5) 6.5 (1.3) C1 17.9 (2.6) C 2
9.0 (1.6) C 2 G 12-10-83 6.9 (1.4) 2.0 (0.6) 5.2 (1.3) 6.8 (1.0) C1 3.0 (0.9) C 1 12-17-83 4.0 (1.0) 4.1 (0.8) 3.7 (0.8) 3.6 (0.9) 3.2 (C.8) 3.9 (0.8) C 3 12-23-83 12.1 (1.8) 11.3 (1.4) 12.0 (1.5) 13.4 (1.8) 15.3 (1.8) 6.5 (1.1) 15.5 (0.7) 12-31-83 14.3 (2.2) 5.1 (1.0) 8.9 (1.7) 8.0 (1.5) 8.0 (1.3) 5.2 (1.0) 2.6 (0.7) Average 9.6 9.2 10.0 11.3 9.4 8.3 11.3 Quarterly Quarterly (54 Samples) 1.7-minimum ( 31 Samples) 1.2 -minimum 22.7 -maximum 22.0-maximum 10.0 I 94-5 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10-15 uCi/ml.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( 1.96'S.D.)
** Excessive dust load on filter prevented valid alpha counting.
C Pump in for repair. C Electricity out at pump.
m
.a
- .- Table'II.B.2 3 Concentrations-of Long-lived Gross Beta Activity-in~ Airborne Particles:(fCi/m )'..
at Third Quarter,1983-s . Date Facility Areas . Adjacent Areas 4 5- r 6 35 Collected 1 2 3 l
)
1 , 7-2-83 51-(3)*' 24 (1)- 37 (2). 281(2). 21,(1) .32-(2) 33-(2) 9-83 17. '( 1) C y 14 (1) 12 (1) 19 (2) 16 (2) 11 (1) 7-16-83 13.(1) C 12 (1) 13(1) 8 (1): 7 (1) 9 (3) 3 7-23-83 13 (1) 12 (1) 9-(1) 11 (1) 15 (1) C 2 , C
- 2. ;
7-30-83 13 (1) 12'(1) 14 (1)- 14 (1) 10 (1)~ C 3 10 (1) -l 8-7 17 (1) C 14 (1) 10 (1) 18 (1) 5 (1) 14 (2) l 2 8-12-83 19 (2) C 17 (2) 19 (2) 20(2) 14 (1) 14 (1) 2 8-20-83 C C? ' ( ( 2 3 8-27-83 C 20 (2) 17 (1) 22 (2) 17 (2) 21 (2) 19 (2) 7 2 9-3-83 23 (2) 19 (2)- 27.-(2) 14-(2) 37 (3). 32 (2) 14 (2)~ 9-10-83 17 (1) 20 (2) 19 (2) 16 (1) 21 (2) 17 (2) 23 (2) 9-17-83 23 (2) 20 (2)' 24 (2) 23 (2) 35(3) 12 (1) 42(3) 9-24-83 19 (2) 18 (2) 16 (2) 15 (2) 24 (2) 15 (1) 16-(2) l Average 20 (1) 18 (2) 18 (2) 15-(2) 21 (2) 16 (1) 19 (2) Quarterly Quarte rly (45 samples) 4.0 -minimum (35 samples) 3.0'-minimum 51.0 -maximum 42.0 -maximum l 17.6 - Y 18.6 X l All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10-15 Ci/ml. Uncertainties (in parentheses) hre for the 95%. confidence interval (i 1.96 S.D.) C1 Electricity out at site due to flood. C2 Pump stopped, fuse blown. C3 Pump in for repair.
= _ _ = .
. ji q[= b ~
~
. : Table-II.B.2 .
,.3
' C ncentrati::ns of Leng-lived' Gross Bataj Activity Lin:Airbirno ParticlisT(fCi/a ),
-b. Fourth-Quarter,11983.
- Fccility Areas- Adjacent Areas Date -
35 2 3 4 5 l 6 Collected- 1 l l , 10-1-83' 22 ('2)* 16 (1). '17-(2) 19-(2)- 31 (2): .13'(2)_ 31 (2) 10-8-83 14.(1)- 15;(1) l14 (2) L15(2) -19 (2) ' 15-(1)- '15-(2)
.10-15-83 16 (1). '18 (2) 16 (1) 17 (2)- 19 (2)- '10(1)' <17 (1) 10-22-83 27 (2) -22 (2) 17-(2). 18'(2)- 44-(3) 44 (2) 17 (1) 10-29-83 25 (2). _23(2) 19 (2) 21 (2) 53 (4) 14 (2) 26 (2)-
11-5-83 35L(3) '36(2) 30 (2)- 45 (3). 64 (4) 2 44 (3) 46 (3)- 11-12-83 28(2) 25 (2). 23 (2) 28 (2) 32 (2) 17 (2) 33 (2) 11-19-83 9(1) 18 (2) 16 (1) 13 (2) 31(3) 14 (2) -22(2)- l 10 (1) ' 11-26-83 12 (1) 14 (1)~ -C 12 (1) 18 (2) 16 (2) 1 12-3-83 23(2.) 25 (2) C ;29 (3)- C 2 12-(2) C 2 3 12-10-83. 24 (2) 9 (1)- 18 (2) 22(2) C 3 12 (1)_ C 1 12-17-83 15 (2) 7 (1) 15 (1) 14 (1) 14 (1) 15(1) C 3 j 12-23-83 29-(2) :21.(2) 20-(2) - 28 (2) 18 (2) 25 (2) 22 (2)- l ! 12-31-83 44 (2) 22 (2) 29 (2) 28 (2) 25 (2) 24 (2) 8 (1) 19 20 22 31 19 23 Average 23 Quarterly Quarterly ( 54 samples) 7.0 -minimum ( 37 samples) 8.0 -minimum 45.0 -maximum 64.0 -maximum 2 4 .1, . -- X 20.9 - X All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per. cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10-15 Ci/ml.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for -the 95% confidence interval ('i 1.96 S.D.)
C Pump in for repair. C Electricity out at pump. ry
16-
- 2. Tritium Activity.
Tropospheric water vapor samples are collected continuously by passive absorption on silica gel at all seven Tir sampling stations (four in the racility area and three in the Adjacent area). The specific activity of tritium in water extracted from these weekly samples is listed in Table II.B.3. From measured relative humidity at F-4, the corresponding air concentration of tritium is calculated for all samples gg , and these values are given in Table II.B.3a. The principle release mode of tritium from the reactor is batch
-liquid releases-from holding-tanks. The tank water is first analyzed and then released with sufficient dilution in order to not exceed 10 CFR 20 concentration limits. The summary of tritium released by all modes-is given in Table II.B.3b. Approximately 72% of all tritium released by.the batch technique occurred during the month of August.
Inspection of Table II.B.3 reveals an increase in observed tritium concentrations at F-1 and F-2 during August and the week ending 9/3/83.
.F-1 and F-2 stations are along the principal water. effluent route and respond to tritium contaminated water evaporating from the effluent ditch. .The high values at F-4 for the week ending 7/9/83 and at F-2 for
~
the week ending 10/15/83 cannot be explained at this time. Inspection of Table II.H.1 reveals that the mean concentration for all Facility sites was greater than the mean of the Adjacent sites. This difference however, was not statistically significant. A hygrothermograph is located at site F-4 only. During an intense cold spell in December the instrument malfunctioned and humidity and temperature data was collected from the FSV meteorological station.
i 17 An additional hygrothermograph has recently been purchased and will be installed at the F-1 station. Using the temperature and relative humidity data from'the hygrothermograph it is possible to convert specific activity of tritiated water collected on silica gel (pCi/ liter) to activity per unit' volume of air (pCi/m3 ). This is used if calculation of immersion dose from tritiated water-vapor were ever necessary.
- x Two equations are used in the conversion of pCi/ liter of water to 3
. pCi/m of air. -The first equation is used to determine the vapor pressure of_ water (1):
log 10 P = A-B/(C+t), where: P=vaporpressure(mmHg) t = temperature (C)
^
A = 9.10765 B = 1750.286 C = 235.0
~ . The temperature' used is the integrated weekly value taken from the hygrothermograph. - The conversion is completed in the second equation which'is the " Ideal Gas Equation":
PV = nRT, where: P = vapor pressure (atmosphere) V = volume (liters) n =. number of moles of gas R = 0.08206 liter-atmospheres / mole-K s T = temperature in K
- The number of-grams of water per cubic meter of air is then determined.
The value'of "n" obtained -is for saturated air. The relative humidity isJtherefore integrated over the week and this percentage of the saturated air value is taken. The final value is reported in pCi/m 3, t
.This -procedure lhas been applied to data collected for the second half 97-of 1983 and listed in Table II.B.3a. The weekly integrated relative
18 humidity at the F-4 site is relatively constant, and the correlation of measured tritium specific activity in atmospheric water vapor and e air concentration is very high. For this reason inspection of Table II.B.3a shows the same site dependence on reactor effluent discussed above.
+
)
TJ:ble II. B.3 Tritium Conccatratiens in .itmorphtric Wdter V1por (pC1/1). a) Third Quarter, 1983. Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Date 35 3 l 4 5 l 6 l Collected 1 1 2 l
< 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 7-2-83
< 300 < 300 < 300 5,770 , < 300 < 300 < 300 7-9-83 (353)
< 297 < 297 < 297 < 297 < 297 < 297 < 297 7-16-83
< 297 620 382 < 302 < 302 < 302 < 302 7-23-83 (304) (301)
< 324 < 324 < 324 < 324 < 324 < 324 7-30-83 355 (318) < 324 8-7-83 620 458 < 324 < 324 328 < 324 (321) (313) (318)
< 304 < 304' < 304 < 304 < 304 < 304 < 304 8-12-83 735 < 304 < 304 < 304 < 304 < 304 Us 8-20-83 454 (300) (303) 8-27-83 420 816 < 304 < 304 411 321 < 304 (299) (304) (299) l298)
< 328 1,850 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 9-3-83 (309)
< 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 9-10-83
< 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 < 328 9-17-83 9-24-83 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 < 295 319 (289)
I_ -- ,
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval , ( 1.96 S.D.).
,. :)
Tabid II.'B.3 Tritium Concentrctirn3 in Atmo::ph:ric W: tar V;por (pC1/1).
- b. Fourth: Quarter; 1983.
'Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas j~ Collected 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 5 l 6 1 35 10-1-83 449 456 < 295 398 375 < 295 575 (291), (291) (290)- (290) (292) 10-8-83 432 <-312- < 312 < 312 < 312 < 312 < 312 (301) 10-15-83 375 5,750 e < 312 < 312 e 312 371 (303) (359) (303) 10-22-83 568 461 < 314 < 314 436 321 < 314 (305) (305) (306) (335) 10-29-83 . 721 < 295 < 295 490 < 295 < 235 < 295 (294) _(292) 11-5-83 < 299 573 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 (296) g 11-12-83 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 11-19-83 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 324 < 299 (293) 11-26-83 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 12-3-83 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 12-10-83 < 299 < 299 < 299- < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 12-17-83 575 503 692 508 834 < 285 894 (283) (282) (285) (282) (286) (287) i 12-23-83 < 305 < 305 < 305 < 305 < 305 369 < 305 l (297) 12-31-83 < 303 < 303 < 303 < 303 < 303 < 303 < 303 l
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval , ( 1.96 S.D.).
e insufficient weicht or volume for analysis.
y q ;. p Table II.B.3a Tritium Concentrations in Air (pCi/m ) a) - Third Quarter, .1983 - ' , Date: . Facility Areas Adjacent Areas . Collected' 1 2- 3 4 5 6 35 2-83 'i 3.26 < 3.26 < 3.26 < 3.26
< 3.-26 < 2.26 < 3.26 7- 9-83 < 3.25 < 3.25 < 3.25 62.5 < 3.25 < 5.25 < 3.25 7-16-83. < 3.31 < 3.31 < 3.31 < 3.31 (3.31 <'5.31 < 3.31 7 .':3-83 < 4.31 11.7 8.24 6.66 < 4.38 s.25 6.56 7-30-83 4.30 < 3.93 < 3.93 < 3.93 < 3.93 < 3.93 < 3.93
'8-7-83 8.46 .6.25 < 4.48 < 4.48 < 4.54 < L.48 < 4.48 8-12-83 2.77- < 3.74 < 3.74 < 3.74 < 3.74 < 2.74 < 3.74 8-20-83 3.14' 5.09 '< 2.10 < 2.10- < 2.10 < 2.10 < 2.10 0 8-27-83 5.21 10.1 < 3.77 < 3.77
. 5.10 3.98 < 3.77 9 3-83 < 4.71 26.6 < 4.71 < 4.71 < 4.71 < 4 . 71 < 4.71 9-10-83 < 1.95 < 1.95 <-1.95 < 1.95 < 1.95
< 3.95 < 1.05 9-17-83 < 2.79 < 2.79 < 2.79 < 2.79 i
< 2'.79 < - 2.79 < T.79 9-24-83 < 2.40 < 2.40 < 2.40 < 2.40 < 2.40 < E.40 2.89 11 MPC = 2x10 E pCi/m . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).
3 3 a 1 i
- d
t r n . Tabic II.B.3a
. Tritium Concentrations in Air (pCi/m )
b) Fourth Quarter,1983 Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas . Collected 1 2 3 4 5 .6 35 10-1-83 3.83 3.89 .-< 2.52 3.40 3.20 <:2.52 4.91 10-7-83 2.71 < 1;96 < 1. 96 - < l.96 < l.96 < l.96 < l.96 10-15-83 2.14 32.9 e < l.78 < 1.78
< l'.78 2.12 10-22-83 2.15 1.75 <l.19. < l.19 1.65 1;.22 < l.19 '
10-29-83 3.28 < 1.34- < 1,34 < 2.23 < 1.34 < 1.34 - 1.34 11-5-83 < 0.835 < 0.835 < 0.835 < 0.835
< 0.835 1.58 < 0.835 11-12-83 < 1.01 < 1.01 < 1.01 < 1.01 < 1.01 < 1.01 < 1.01 11-19-83 <'0.957 < 0.957 < 0.957 < 0.957~ < 0.957 1.04 ' < 0.957 Es 11-26-83 < 0.701 < 0.701 < 0.701 < 0.701 < 0.701 < 0.701 < 0.701 12-3-83 < 0.796 < 0.796 < 0.796 < 0.796 < 0.796 < 0.796 < 0.796 12-10-83 < 1.25 < 1.25 < 1.25 < 1.25 < 1.25 < 1.25 < 1.25 12-17-83 1.74 1.52 2.09 1.53 2.52 < 0.861 2.70 12-23-83 < 0.366 < 0.366 < 0.366 < 0.366 < 0.366 0.443 < 0.366 l 12-31-83 < l.75 < l.75 < 1.75 < l.75 < l.75 < l.75 < l.75 l .
3 H MPC = 2x105' pCi/m . (10CFR20, Appendix B Table II). a e Insufficient sample volume for analysis. I
' ' - ~ ~ ' ' ' ' '
.23
-Table II.B.3b Tritium Released (Ci)-in Reactor Effluents, 1983 Mode: ' July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total s
Continucus ' O.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.9 0.9 4.3
- (Turbine building -
, sump and reactor-
-building sump)
P.t -Batch Liquid 2.1 13.9 0.7 1 0.1 0.3 2.1 .19.2 Gaseous Stack 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0
- -TOTAL . 2.'5 14.6- '1.3 0.7 2.3 3.1 24.5 b
s-4
24
- 3. Activity of gamma-ray emitting radionuclides in air.
Table II.B.4 lists the concentrations of I-131 observed in air by activated charcoal sampling and gamma-ray spectrum analysis. The sample counted is a composite from all seven air sampling stations. All charcoal samples are counted for at least 1000 minutes on the Ge(Li) detector essentially immediately after collection to minimize decay of I-131. All radon and thoron daughters are trapped on the particulate filter and radon daughter ingrowth on the charcoal can be corrected by Ge(LI) high resolution spectrometry. Background is determined from counts of unused charcoal. The I-131 concentrations presented are the result of decay correction back to the midpoint of the sampling period. Decay correction to the midpoint of the sampling period is appropriate as any I-131 in air would not arrive at the sampling station at a constant rate, but rather in pulses of short duration compared to the collection period. This is the case whether the 1-131 source term would be weapons testing fallout or reactor stack effluent. The composite air concentrations of I-131 measured during the second half of 1983 were all less than the lower limit of detection. 3 The mean value for this reporting period was C.069 fCi/m but not significantly different from zero. The Effluent Release Report data indicated negligible reactor release of I-131 during the period. Table II.B.5 lists the results of the gamma-ray spectrum analysis of weekly composites of the membrane air filters from each of the seven samplers. The mean values for Ru-106, Cs-137 and
25
-Zr-Nb-95 were essentially identical to those measured during the first 4 half of 1983. All fission product mean concentrations were lower than during 1981 when fission product debris from the most recent
- Chinese weapon test was readily apparent.
- All. samples are counted after decay of Radon and Thoron daughters, several of which are gamma-ray emitters.
The radioruthenium data is listed in the tables as Ru-106. en _ -
; However.-it is true that_ the activity measured can be a mixture of
. Ru-103 and Ru-106. Both isotopes have gamma-rays at essentially the same energy, and they cannot be separated by NaI(T1) spectral analysis.
- No' separation by half-life determination was attempted on the data.
Since.the half-life.of Ru-103 is 40 days and that of Ru-106 is one year, in periods soon after.an ' atmospheric weapon test, a high proportion is expected to be Ru-103, and at-later-times predominately Ru-106. Since the element Ruthenium and its compounds have negligible biological availability, neither isotope have any consequence in calculation of population dose, and efforts to separate them are not warranted. The naturally occurring radionuclide Be-7, which is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ra.ys also has a gamma-ray very close to the two -
- Ruthenium isotopes. Air concentrations of Be-7 are apparently very constant'over the U.S. The mean concentration recently measured from
. air filters collected on the project was 87 fCi/m3 , [y)
We correct for Be-7.in our spectrum stripping program, but likely
- small errors due .to gain shift, etc., often produce significant
~
variation in the Ru-106 estimate. (1) ' Personal Communication, Dr. Owen Hoffman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
26 Table II. B.4 Iodine-131 Concentrations in Air (Taken From Composites of Activated Charcoal. at all Air Sampling Stations and Determined by Gamma Spectrom'etry). Sample Ending Dates I (fCi/m ) 7-2-83 < 6.18 7-9-83 < 5.96 ,
,7-16-83 < 5.94 7-23-83 < 6.52 7-30-83 < 5.45 8-7-83 < 4.33 _
8-12-83 < 7.38 8-20-83 < 6.16 8-27-83 < 6.24 9-3-83 < 6.01 9-10-83 < 5.74 9-17-83 , < 5.76 9-24 < 5.73 10-1-83 < 5.77 . 10-8-83 < 5.52 10-15-83 < 5.62 10-22-83 < 5.34 10-29-83 < 6.26 11-5-83 < 6.99 ' 11-12-83 < 7.05 11-19-83 < 7.03 11-26-83 < 7.12 12-3-83 < 14.3 12-10-83 < 9.74 12-17-83 C 12-23-83 < 6.40 12-30-83 < 6.50 All concentrations are 3expresygd in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: 'l fCi/m = 10' PCi/ml. 131 5 3 1 MPC,= 10 fCi/m . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) C. Instrument malfunction.
e . . . .. ..
.c. 27 Tabic II. B.5 Cam :a-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Air (Taken from 3
Co:.posites of all Air Sampling Stations) (fC1/m ), 6 Sample Ending 106 95 Zr & Nb Ru Cs Dates 7-2-83 < 2.05 < 1.43 < 0.618 9-83. < 5.52 2.99 (1.07) 1.06 (0.722) 7-16-83 11.2 (7.78) 2.45 (1.22) 1.44 (0.759) 7-23-83 18.9 (8.49) 4.61 (1.37) 1.90 (0.782) 7-30-83 l < 5.64 < 1.26 1.10 (0.613) 8-7-83 6.18(5.36) 1.37 (0.879) 0.770(0.440) 8-12-83 12.2 (9.19) < 1.71 1.56 (0.716) 20-83 < 6.37 4.96 (1.29) 1.61 (0.562) 8-27-83 < 2.00 < 0.452 0.504(0.278) 9-3-83 < 6.13 < 1.38 < 0.598 9-10-83 <5.86 < 1.32 < 0.572 9-17-83 < 1.87 1.09 (0.421) 1.33 (0.281) 9-24-83 < 5.84 < 1.32 1.02 (0.649) 10-1-83 11.0 (3.02) 1.67 (0.464) 1.24 (0.345) 10-8-83 < 5.66 2.15 (1.12) 1.12 (0.815) 10-15-83 4.72 (2.88) 1.66 (0.455) < 0.185 10-22-83 < 5.53 < 1.24 1.19 (1.07) 10-29-83 < 6 12 < 1.38 < 0.598 11-5-83 < 7.24 3.41 (1.45) 1.35 (1.07) 11-12-83 < 7.25 < 1.63 < 0.708 11-19-83 < 7.23 < 1.63 1.58 (0.896) 11-26-83 < 2.44 0.861 (0.571) < 0.238 12-3-83 < 14.8 < 3.33 2.96 (1.84) 12-10-83 < 10.0 < 2.26 < 0.979 3 12-17-83 < 6.60 < 1.49 < 0.645 12-23-83 < 6.69 < 1.51 < 0.654 12-31-83 12.6 (8.48) 5.31 (1.43) 3.47 (0.672) Allcongentratgnsareexpressedinfemtocuriespercubicmeterofair: 1 fC1/m = 10 pCi/ml.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)
106 6 5 6 Ru MPC,= 3x10 fCi/m . Cs MPC,= 2x10 fC1/m . 2r MPC,= 4x10 fCi/m . (10CFR20 Appendix B Table II)
e 28 II.C.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. Table 'II.C.1 lists the gross beta activity in surface water and potable water supplies in the study area. Values of gross beta concentrations in surface water fluctuated at upstream, effluent and downstream sites by approximately a factor of 4, but the mean values were very close to those measured in the last reporting period. The mean upstream value was 7.8 pCi/L, the mean effluent value was 11.5 pCi/L and the mean downstream value was 8.3 pCi/L. The mean value for the two potable water stations was 6.9 pCi/L. The mean for the effluent samples was significantly greater
-than the other three mean values. None of the others were statistically different from each otiier. The gross beta concentrations in the two potable water sources were lower. but nearly as variable as surface water. The concentrations in potable water should be lower due to water purification which removes suspended solids. Any variation is probably due to mixing of different reservoir or well water sources which vary due to different runoff areas or aquifers.
-Weekly samples were collected at E-38, at the farm pond on the effluent pathway. This is the principal route for liquid discharge from the reactor, and a monthly sample is not uoequate to reflect discharges of tritium. It must be noted, however, that tritium is
' lost during the evaporation step for gross beta activity determination, and therefore. the gross beta value does not include tritium. Gross beta concentrations in these samples are shown in Taole II.C.la.
Note that these values include the monthly samples shown in Table II.C.1.
- The values observed presumably only reflect leaching and runoff
t 29 from fallout deposition as well as naturally occurring radioactivity. Table II.C.2 lists tritium in surface water and potable water supplies for each monthly collection for the second half of 1983. In several cases, the downstream tritium concentration exceeded the upstream value. The upstream mean value during the period was 266 pC1/L and the downstream arithmetic mean value was 279 pLi/L. Both of them are less than the lower limit of detection. These mean values are
- not significantly cifferent, even though downstream values, particularly at D-40 and D-45,were high during the peak tritium discharge periods (see Table II.B.3b). A record high spring runoff this year occurred late in the spring and early summer and overall produced greater than normal dilution of the tritium effluent.
Significantly more tritium was released in the liquid effluent routes from the reactor during the first half of 1983 as compared to this reporting period and the mean downstream tritium concentration was
-less during the last half of 1983.
No radiation dose commitment calculations are warranted as the mean concentrations in possible drinking water sources were not statistically greater than upstream concentrations. The mean effluent tritium concentrations (which include the weekly values shown in Table II.C.4a) was 1,450 pCi/L. This is significantly greater than upstream, downstream and potable mean values. These values correspond reasonably well with the effluent release of tritium, but grab samples even on a weekly basis have obvious limitations to document a changing release pattern. Beginning l- _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
30
'1/1/84 a continuo'us water sampler was installed at the outlet of the EGoosequill Pond to the Platte River.
The tritium concentrations in the potable water supplies were more constant than in previous reporting periods. On a few occasions in the past, elevated tritium concentrations
^ -
were noted in the sample collected from the Gilcrest city water well
'(D-39). Since~this is a shallow well into an aquifer' recharged by e" tributary water, there ws: Oc=c pc::ibility that the cicvated tritium -
concentrations were the result of FSV effluent. Early in 1983 weekly water samples were collected at D-39 and this collection schedule was continued throughout the year. A correlation study was conducted
' between paired weekly values measured at D-39, the Gilcrest city water well, at E-38, the input of the water effluent route to the Goosequill
. pond, and at the two upstream locations, U-42 and U-43. The resulting correlation coefficients for essentially all of 1983 are as follows:
Locations Compared R_ D-39 vs E-38 - 0.083 0-39 vs U 43 0.11 D-39 v. U 0.13 U-42 vs U-43 0.51 The above; data indicate that the correlation of the down gradient
.well water tritium concentrations (D-39) have a very low correlaticn coefficient'with the effluent release concentrations. In fact the correlation coefficient was negative. The correlation of D-39 with the upstream values was_also low but positive and as would be expected
31
~
the correlation between.the two upstream . locations was respectable. Since the distance from E-38 to D-39 is considerable and the volume of the underground aquifer, while unknown, must be very large, it seems logical to expect sufficient dilution that the tritium released at the Goosequill pond outlet should not be observed at LD-39. The statistical analysis.of this data during 1983 confirms . this conclusion. Beginning ' January 1,1984 a-shallow well used for E"? '
. drinking. water at the farm near F-1 has been included in the normal sampling prcgram. Since.this well is at one of the closest residences to the reactor it will be an excellent site to document
.any effluent tritium seepage into ground water. The Gilcrest city water well will continue to be monitored, but at the 1984 technical specification frequency. Weekly samples are composited and analyzed every two weeks.
Table II.C.3 and II.C.4 list Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations in I surface water at~the same sampling locations. These values were all close to the MDC values and mean values.for_ each category were not significantly different. . Table.II.C.4a111sts the same radionuclides as well~ as tritium in . reactor effluent water samples collected weekly at E-38. The concentrations of Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zr-Nb-95 in surface and potable water are given -in Table II.C.5. The same radionuclides were measured in the weekly samples collected at E-38. This data is shown in Tablo II.C.S. The concentrations of all of the fission products measured in water are similar to those previously measured.
^
_J g
~
Table II.C.1 - Gross Beta Activity in' Surface Water (pCi/L) Sampling. Monthly Collection Dates Locations 7-16-83 8-20-83 9-10-83 '10-8-83 11-12-83 12-10-83
. Effluent
~ 8.07 5.92 9.53 18.1 8.57 9.56 E 38: . Farm Pond l(2.15)*' (2.09)' (2.21) (2.44)' ~(2.13); (2.19)
-(Goosequill)
E 41: Goosequill Ditch 6.98 18.5 .14.0 15.6~ 12.0. 8.85 (2.12) .(2.50) (2.40) (2.38) (2.27)- (1.40)- 9.70 8.24 10.8' D 37: Lower Latham -(4.32) (8.77) 2.19 ~(2.18) 10.4 (2.20 )- 16.2 (2.38 ) (2.22) Reservoir 5.79 7.47 4.47 9.26 9.42 8.90 D 40: S. Platte River M nelow confluence (2.07) (2.13) (2.05) (2.15) (2.15) (2.38) 5.15 4.98 7.56 8.00 7.62 7.05 D 45: St. Vrain creek (2.06) (2.06) (2.18) (2.11) (2.10) (2.76) 4 Upstream 8.13 6.34- 6.23 7.64 12.9 6.27 U 42: St. Vrain i
.(2.16) (1.22) (2.11) (2.09) (2.26) (2.05)
Creek I U 43: S. Platte 4.90 5.77 8.94 8.62 8.83 8.98 River (2.04) (2.06) (2.17) (2.11) (2.12) (9 19) Potable 6.48 5.23 3.62 4.91 4.94 4.22 1 F 49: Visitor's (4.28) (4.23) (4.26) (4.26) (4.24) center (4.31) i o 39: cilcrest city 8.32 11.0 8.17 8.42 11.9 5.33 water (4.38) (4.51) (4.44) (4.43) (4.50) (4.30)
- Uncertainties'(in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.;
MPC w = 30 pCi/L Table II, Appendix B limit 10 CFR20 for an unidentified mixture of radionuclides in water 'if either the identity or the* concentration of any radionuclide is not known.'
Table II. C.I.A. Gross Beta Activity in Ef fluent Water, Goosequill Pond, E-38. (pci/L) L - - Collection Date Total Water Concentrations 7-2 i 7-9-83 i 7-16-83 8.07 (2.15) 7-23-83 5.50 (2.07) 7-30-83 8.18 (2.15) u 8-7-83 10.7 (2.23) 8-12-83 14.5 (2.34) 8-20-83 5.92 (2.09) 8-27-83 6.68 (2.12) 9-3-83 6.95 (2.13) 9-10-83 9.53 (3.21) 9-17-83 12.3 (10.7) 9-24-83 7.80 (2.11) 10-1-83 11.7 (2.24) 10-8-83 18.1 (2.44) 10-15-83 14.8 (2.34) 10-22-83 10.8 (2.20) 29-83 12.0 (2.26) 11-5-83 9.40 (2.16) 11-12-83 8.57 (2.13) 11-19-83 18.8 (2.46)
.11-26-83 14.6 (2.32) 12-3-83 16.0 (2.37) 12-10-83 9.56 (2.19) 12-17-83 12.1 (2.40) 12-23-83 18.1 (2.46) 12-31-83 11.8 (^.26)
MPC = 30.pCi/L. Table II, Appendix B limit 10 CFR20 for an unidenti-fie! mixture of radionuclides in water 'if either the identity or the concentration of any radionuclide is not known.'
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (t 1.96 S.D.)
.i Sample data unreliable due to cross contamination.
.]
' Table II. C.2.-
Tritium Concentrations in Surface Waters (pCi/1). Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 7-9-83 8-20-83 9-17-83 10-8-83 11-12-83 12-10-83 Ef fluent 634 1,840 324 3,270 1,300 667 E 38: Farm Pond (Coosequill) (287) (309) (296) '(330) (301) (300) 407 2,750 668 1,540 1,900 668 E 41: Coosequill Ditch (285) (319) (298) (309) (308) (300) Downstream
< 289 < 297 < 299 < 301 321 < 301 D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir (295)
< 289 953 429 463 < 301 < 301 w D 40: S. Platte River
- Below Confluence (299) (295) (297) 402 < 297 339 519 503 < 301 D 45: St. Vrain Creek (297) (292)
(285) (294) Uystream
< 289 < 297 395 < 301 323 303 u 42: St. Vrain (294) (290) (294)
Creek 463 < 297 < 299 < 301 < 301 505 U 43: S. Platte (285) (296) River Potable 465 < 297 < 302 339 < 301 569 F 49: Visitor's (295) (297) Center (285)
< 289 < 297 < 302 < 301 613 604 D 39: Cilcrest City (293) (297) waeer
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (f 1.96 S.D.)
3 6 H f4PC g
= 3x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix 8 Table II)
Table II. C.3 , Strontium 90 concentraticns in Surfaca W;t ra (pci/1). Monthly Collection Dates Sampling L cations 8-20-83 9-17-83 10-8-83 11-12-83 12-10-83 7-16-83 Effluent
< 1.35 < 1.01 < 1.25 1.39 < 1.25 l
< 0.927 E 38: Farm Pond '(1.16) _
l (consequill) 1.29 < 1.00 -2.25 1.45 1.23 E 41: Goosc<p Ill Ditch < 0.940 (1.07) (2.00) (0.699) -(1.16) Downstream < 1.43
< 1.11 < 0.770 3.77 1.49 < 0.740 D 37: Lower Latham (l*44) (1*47)
Reservoir
< 0.751 < 1.44 < 0.936 < 0.801 1.44 D 40: S. Platte River < l.15 (1.04)
Below Confluence
< 1.03 1.54 < 1.19 0.828 < 1.31 D 45: St. Vrain 1.14 (1.06) (0.899)
Creek (1.25) Upstream
< 1.50 < 1.40 1.84 < 0.896 < 1.73 u 42: St. Vrain < 1.21 (1.82) creek
< 1.38 < 1.10 < 0.969 < 0.794 < 1.88 U 43: S. Platte < 1.3%
River _ Potable
< 0.829 < 2.06 < 0.585 1.00
< 1.14 < 0.872 F 49: Visitor's (1.14)
Center < 1.17
< 0.860 < 0.988 0.987 < 1.68 0.936 D 39: Gilcrest City (0.988) (1.04) water
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (d 1.96 S.D.)
O Sr NPC e 300 pCi/L. (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) . w u
q 5 b. Table;II. C.4' 4 Strontium 89 Co'ncentrations'in: Surface Waters.(pCf/1).
' Sampi liig - 'Honthly Collection Dates _
! Locations ;7-16-83 8-20-83 9-17-83 11-12 10 __10-8-83
. Effluent:
< 1.17 < 0.852 < 1.08' E 38: Fa rm Pond < 1:10 ~3.123_ . < O.816~
,ConseqnI11)
( (1.56). E 41: f:ooseq'uill' Ditch < 1.12
<'0.716' - < 0.805
< 1.57 < 0.558-
. < 0.833 l '1 Downstream
'n 37: Lower Latham
< 1.31
< 0.735- < 1.03 < 0.845 < 0.642 < 1.23 Reservoir D 40: s. Platte River < 1.36 < 0.656 < 1.22 < 0.936 < 0.636 < 0.757 w Below Confluence n 45: St. Vrain < 1.26 -< 0.965 < 0.743 < 0.990 < 0.691 < 1.08 Creek Uystream
< 1.16 < 1.19 < 0.805 < 1.43 u 42: sr. Vrain - < 1.43 .< 1.30 Creek u 43: s. Platt" < 1.57 < 1.17 < 0.946 < 0.815 < 0.650 < 1.51 River Potable ...
F 49: visitor's 1.45 < 0.810 < 0.687 < 1.61 < 0.550 < 0.725 Center (3.14) n 39: cilcrest City < 1.03 < 0.936 < 0.'799 < 1.68 < 0.701 < 1.00 Water .
- Uncertainties '(In parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ' ( i 1.96 s.o.) -
09 st MPC = 3x10 pC1/L . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table I T) .
~
x.
-^J, , ' " ' '
37 5, Table II.C.4.A- , Tritium, Strontium ap,' ond Strontida 90 Concentrations in Effluent Water, Goosequill Pond E-38.
- a. Third Quarter,1983
"~.
Collection Strontium 90 Tritium Strontium 89 Date. (pCi/1) (pCi/1) (pCi/1) 7-2-83 < 300' < 0.708 0.994(0.946)* 7-9-83 634,(287) < 1.21 < 1.04 7-16-83 * < 319
< 1.10 < 0.927
'
- 11,200s(394) < 1.71 < 1.45 7-23b3 7-30-83 , 818(590) < 2.23 < 1.90 8-7 ,', 470 (285) ,
< 1.29 < 1.09 8-12-83 695 (285) < 1.41 < 1.18 Q-20-83 1,840(309) < 1.17
< 1.35 8-$7-83 e302 < 0.905 1.15 (1.69)
.9-3-83 ' < 302 < 0.842 < 0.962 9-10-83 333(296) < 1.15 1.53 (1.69) 9-17-83 D 324 (296)' 3.12 (1.56) < 1.01 9-24-83 ,-584 (301) ' ' - '< 0.836 1.95 (1.38) u
-,y 6 m
).g, ~
s
~
s
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.9.6 S.D.)
6 It'MPC,= 3r10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II). 9
, , Sk MPC,= 3x10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II) .
. Sr'MPC W
= 300 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II).
XN ,. . s , t , t , b _ ___.__.-_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ . _ . _
38 Table II.C.4.A Tritiu:n, Strontiu:n 89, and Strontiu:n 90 Concentrations in Effluent Water, Goosequill Pond , E-38.
- b. Fourth Quarter, 1983.
Collection Tritiu:n Strontiu:n 89 Strontiu:n 90 Date (pCi/1) (PCi/1.) (pCi/1) 10-1-83 1,040(306)* < 0.803 < 1.08 10-8-83 3,270 (330) < 0.816 < 1.25 10-15-83 1,230 (308) < 0.851 < 0.975 10-22-83 < 302 < 0.764 < 0.919 1C-29-93 823 (302) < 0.715 < 0.832 11-5-83 < 300 < 1.31 2.35 (2.22) 11-12-83 1,300(301) < 0.852 1.39 (1.16) 11-19-83 2,560 (319) < 0.900 2.68 (1.13) 11-26-83 2,330 (317) < 0.931 2.67 (2.00) 12-3-83 1,730 (311) < 0.754 1.63 (0.971) 12-10-83 667 (300) < 1.08 < 1.25 12-17-83 3,170 (319) < 1.01 1.64 (1.30) 12-23-83 1,670(314) < 0.693 < 0.846 12-31-83 3,690 (336) 5.28 (6.86) < 1.57
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence i'.terval,
( 1. 9.6 . S. . D . ) '
- 6
! H F.PC g = Sx10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix. B, Table II) . b 3 S Moc,,- 3x10 pC1/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix E, Table II) . , 0:5 Y.PC = 300 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II) .
l . 39 , Table II. C.S. Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L) Collected July 16, 1983 .
'106 l3p.Cs 95
; Sample Location Ru -
r & Nb jfluent E 38::'Fara Pond y < 2.15 1.78 l. 1.76
+. (Gooseouill) ;
-(0.832), (0.762)
E 41:f ;Goosequill pitch * - ^
< 2.15 < 0.671 0.926 .
. (0.700)
' Downstream D 37:. Lower Lathaa ** < 2.17- < 0.677 < 0.289 Reservoir D'40: : S. Platte River 1.82 < 0.248 0.869 Below Confluence (2.31) (0.464)
.D 45: St. Vrain <-2.19 4.685 1.31
- Creek .
. (0.837) (0.738)
'. Ups trsaa e U 42: .St. Vrain 3.29 < 0.674 0.774 (3.55) (0.735)
~'
creek
-U 43: S. Pla, ; < 2.15 < 0.671 < 0.286 River i
' Potable F 49: Vis'itor's 4.84 . < 0.799 0.617
;;. Center (2.79) (0.588) ,
;D 39: Gilerest < 2.58 < 0.803 < 0.342 City Water q~ .
- Uncertainties -(in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence intmal,
(' 1.96 S.D.) j Ru HPC =1x10 pCi/L CsMPb=2x10 y pCi/L Zr-NbMPC=6x10kpCi/L y (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
** ' Analysis on disso;ved solids only.
~
N. I- ., g e p. s_ - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - . - _
t , O 40
- Table II. C.S.-
Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pC1/L) Collacted August 20, 1983 .
, Sample Location 106Ru" I37 95
, - %s r & Nb Effluent E-38: -Fara Pond 7.25 0.771 1.43 (Goosequin)= (2.31).. '(0.572) (0.368)
?
- E 4,,:L Goosequill Ditch'* '
7.06 < 0.674 0.584 ' (3.36) (0.545) Downstream 5.20
- D 37:- Lower Latham- 1.27- . 1.50 Reservoir (3.29) (0.830) (0.500)
D 40: 'S. Platte River. 5.36 < 0.674 0.810
; Below confluence (3.30) (0.479)
D ' 45:- St. Vrain 8.27 < 0.674 < 0.288 creek (3.32)., Upstrema
..U 42:. St. Vrain 5.07- < 0.232 0.248 i creek. .(2.42) (0.365) I
. 1 U 43: S. Platte ~
6.79 < 0.224 0.089
' River (2.41)- (0.340) l j Potable'
..F 49: -visitor's 3.42 .
< 0.799 < 0.341 l Center. (2.47)' l D 39: Gilerest < 2.54
~
< 0.799 0.556 city Water (0.399)
- klacertainties lin parentheses)' are for the 95% confidence interval,
.( 1.96-S.D.)' l 106Ru.MPC =1x10' pCi/L ,
Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 952r-Nb MPC =6x10' pC1/L (10CFR20, Appendix B. Table II) Q l u=
41 Table II. C.S.
- Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide C ncer.trations in Surface Water. (pCi/L)
Collected September 17, 1983 , Sample Location 106 137 95 Cs Zr & Nb Ef fluent _ E 38: Farm Pond 11.1 , 7.79 1.58 (Gooseeuill) (2.34) (0.658) (0.303) E 41: Goosequil.1 Ditch' * < 2.14 < 0.674 0.379 (0.407) Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 2.14 < 0.674 0.416 Reservoir (0.388) D 40: S. Platte River 2.80 < 0.674 < 0.288 Below Confluence .(3.17) D 4S: St. Vrain 6.23 4.40 1.20 creek (2.11). (0.578) (0.381) Upstream U 42: St. Vrain 7.10 2.41 0.599 Creek (3.20) (0.840) (0.412) U 43: S. Platte 4.25 0.343 0.776 River (1.28) (0.332) (0.165) Potable F 49: Visitor's 2.76 1.16 0.892 Center (2.69) (0.697) (0.363) D 39: Gilerest 9.77 < 0.799 0.561 City Water (2.56) (0.331)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
(: 1.96 S.D.) 106 Ru MPC =1x10 pCi/L b Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L k 95Zr-Nb MPC =6x10' pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B. Table II)
42 Table II. C.S. Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L) Collected October 8, 1983 . Sample Location 106E I3 9593g R - Csr Effluene 6.69 6.13 1.80 E 38: Farm Pond (3.42), (0.600) (Gooseouill) '(0.862) E 41: Goosequil1 Ditch' 5.52 3.32 1.36 (3.37) (0.838) (0.571) Downstream 11.2 5.39 1.33 D 37: Lover Latham Reservoir (3.40 ) (0.994) (0.556) 5.73 0.866 0.711 D 40: S. Platte River (0.825) (0.423) Below confluence (3.24) D 45: St. Vrain 3.74 Q.340 0.633 Creek (2.21), (0.561) (0.319) Upstream 8.99 3.35 2.67 U 42: St. Vrain (0.851) Creek (3.64) (0.868) U 43: S. Platte 7.94 3.07 1.29 River (3.37) (0.837) (0.665) Potable,_ 8.91 5.15 1.17 F 49: Visitor's Center (2.97) (0.734) (0.590) D 39: Gilerest 6.88 2.31 0.732 City Water (1.08) (0.257) (0.214)
~
- k)ncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95t confidence interval,
( t 1. 96 S.D. ) Ru MPC =1x10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 952r-Nb M C =6x10' pCi/L (10C7R20, Appendix B, Table II)
43 Table II. C.S. Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L) Collected November 12, 1983 . Sample Location 106R "' l37' C's; 95 r & Nb Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 0.823 < 0.258 < 0.111 (Gooseouill) E 41: Goosequill .Ditch' * < 2.15 2.39 0.811 (0.825) (0.496) Downstream D 37: Lower Latham 12.9 4.32 1.03 Reservoir (3.34) (0.848) (0.503) 9.67 4.18 1.07 D 40: S. Platte River Below Confluence (2.19) (0.560) (0.317) D 45: St. Vrain 7.77 3.61 0.636 Creek (2.17).. (0.557) (0.315) Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 0.822 3.00 0.188 Creek ' (0.889) (0.742) U 43: S. Platte 8.23 A.80 1.56 River (3.23) (0.853) (0.428) Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.77. 1.27 < 0.373 center (0.685) D %: Gucrest 7.09 3.22 0.559 City Water (2.78) (0.712) (0.408)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
( 1.96 S.D.) 6 4 Ru MFCy lx10 Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 95 4 Zr-Nb hTCf6 x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
44 Table- II. C.5. Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L) Collected December 10, 1983 . 106R
, Sample Location 137' Cs 95Er & %
Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 0.685 1.21 , 0.114 (Goosecuill) (0.313) (0.172) s E 41: Goosequill Ditch' < 2.58 1.17 0.764 (0.596) (0.348) Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 2.17 1.50 < 0.292 Reservoir (0.825)
< 2 17 1.22 < 0.292 D 40: S. Platte River Below confluenea (O.816)
D 45: St. Vrain 2.11 3.14 0.229 Creek (1.11) (0.288) (0.060) Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 2.17 < 0.683 < 0.292 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 2.17 < 0.683 < 0.292 River Potable r 49: Visitor's < 2.77 2.32 0.568 center (0.698) (0.334) D 39: Gilerest < 2.58 0.809 0.353 City Water (0.372)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
( ~1.96 S.D.) 106 Ru MPC =1x10 pCi/L CsHPC=2x10IpCi/L Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
45 7able 11.C.S. A. Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Effluent Wateri Goosequill Pond, L-38. (pCi/L) - Collection.Date 1063 , 137 95 cs zr & Nb
~
7-2-83 < 2.19 < 0.686 3.67 (0.885) 7-9-83 < 2.19 < 0.686 < 0.293 7-16-83 < 2.15 1.78 (0.832) 1.76 (0.700) ) 7-23-33 4.41 (3.35) 2.27 (G.831) 1.46 (0.768) 7-30-83 < 2.17 2.77 (0.835) 1.47 (0.470) 8-3-83 3.77 (3.37) 2.37 (0.832) 1.20 (0.530) 8-12-83 2.54 (3.32) 0.831(0.825) 0.821(0.526) 8-20-83 7.25 (2.31) 0.771 (0.572) 1.43 (0.368) 8-27-83 < 0.823 < 0.259 < 0.110 9-3-83 1.91 (2.18) < 0.674 0.544(0.496) 9-10-83 3.18 (2.31) < 0.212 0.469(0.298) 9-17-83 11.1 (2.34) 7.79 (0.658) 1.58 (0.303) 9-24-83 8.26 (2.64) 3.69 (0.600) 1.15 (0.634) 10-1-83 8.59 (3.19) 3.53 (0.856) 1.81 (0.392) 10-8-83 6.69 (3.42) 6.13 (0.862) 1.80 (0.600) 10-15-83 5.21 (2.17) 1.44 (0.552) 0.664 (0.317) 10-22-83 < 2.15' 2.43 (0.822) 0.600 (0.646) 10-29-83 ' < 2.15 1.80 (0.821) 1.34 (0.612) 11-5-83 < 2.16 1.93 (0.822) 0.833(0.615) 11-12-83 < 0.823 < 0.258 2 0.111 11-19-83 < 2.10 2.16 (0.823) 0.765(0.534) 11-26-83 < 0.680 0.715(0.582) 0.707 (0.358) j 12-3-83 < 2.56 3.87 (0.E93) 0.670 (0.532) 12-10-83 < 0.685 1.21 (0.313) 0.114 (0.172) 12-17-83 < 2.16 0.846 (0.811) < 0.290 12-23-83 < 0.941 1.91 (0.631) 0.279 (0.323) 12-31-83 < 2.17 1.78 (0.827) 0.396 (0.390) 106 Ru MPC y
=1x10 pCi/L Cs MPCj2x10 pCi/L Zr-Nb MPCg 6x10 pCi/L L ccr 1[t s in par nthcscs) are for the 95% confidence interval,
(! 1.96 S.D.)
46 II.C.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment Sediment is the major compartment' for radionuclide contaminants in a fresh water ecosystem due to the high concentration factors for fission products in the sediment mineral matrices. Although the samples are always collected at the same point, it is . impossible to collect a sample with a known surface area to volume ratio as can be done for soils. Therefore, activity is reported as concentration
- values in pCi/kg rather than as deposition as is done for soil. The values cannot be used to predict environmental transport of activity and serve only as monitoring infonnation. The sample itself is a result of sediment transport downstream and is therefore a function of water flowrate'which fluctuates greatly during the year.
Table II.C.6 lists gross beta activity in sediment samples from the sampling sites in the water courses for the second half of 1983. The mean values for effluent, upstream, and downstream samples were, as always, nearly identical . They were not significantly different from each other (see Table II.H.1) and inoicate that the sediment samples are very homogeneous. The gross beta activity is predominately from naturally occurring radionuclides i.n the uranium and thorium decay series, and K-40. Table II.C.7 and-II.C.8 list the Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations in the same sediment samples respectively. The mean concentrations of both radionuclides were not significantly different between the three sampling areas, e.g., effluent, downstream and upstream, although there were occasional high values. Table II.C.9 shows the concentration in sedinent of.the fission products Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zr-Nb-95. h-- - i- - - ' - - .. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ - --)
47 Although again occasional high values appear, the mean values for these sample types (Table 'II.H.1) indicate no significant difference for any of.the fission products in each of the sampling locations. Sediment samples are subject to leaching. Solubility differences between the three radionuclides should be expected. It should be noted thet the. sand fraction of the sediment samples is! removed and only the silt plus the clay mineral fraction is analyzed. These two particle size fractions should contain essentially all of the radioactivity, both natural and any due to reactor effluents. Tritium of course is lost in the heat drying of the sample. The high-minimum detectable concentrations are due to the fact that sediment samples are counted by Ge(Li) gamma-ray spectrometry. High resolution gamma-ray spectrum analysis is necessary due to the presence of members of the Ra-226 and Th-232 decay series. ~
w g 3 3 ) ) ) ) ) ) )
- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 01 05 00 01 04 09 07 1
- 2, 4, 5, 4, 8, 3, 4, 4, 8, 3, 2, 4, 1, 4, 2 31 21 61 21 81 81 51 1 3( '3( 2( 3( 2( 2( 3(
)
3 D. 8 ) ) .) ) ) ) ) S
- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2 01 00 00 03 07 04 03 6 1
- 6, 4, 0, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 3, 1, 6, 9 1 21 01 71 11 81 71 61 1 1 3( 3( 2( 3( 2( 2( 3(
i ( l s a e 3 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) vr
. t 8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
) a - 06 02 02 06 06 05 08 e g D t k
8 0, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 1, 3, 0, 7, 1, 4, n
/ n 0 41 01 61 21 91 81 51 i i o 1 3( 3( 2( 3( 2( 4( 3(
C i e p t c ( c n e e t l d n l i e o f m C n i 3 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) o d y 8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c e l - 07 08 08 03 04 01 04 S h 0 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 0, 4, 1, 6, 5, 7, 1, 6, % t 1 5 m n - 31 11 91 41 41 11 41 9 o o 9 3( 3( 2( 3( 3( 3( 3( t M e t h o t B r n o i f 3 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) s 8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e n - 09 05 05 03 00 02 08 r o 0 0, 8, 6, 6, 0, 6, 2, 7, 5, 3, 3, 5, 2, 6, a i 2 t - 01 11 91 51 81 91 61 ) a 8 4( 3( 2( 3( 2( 2( 3( s r e t s n e e h c t n n o ,
) )
e C 3 ) ) ) ) ) r 8 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 00 09 a p y - 02 03 07 09 06 i t 6 1 1, 9, 9, 7, 1, 4, 8, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3, 0, n v - 61 91 91 41 11 91 52 i i 7 3( 2( 2( 3( 3( 2( 3( ( t c s
- 6. A e C h e i a c rc t
.t t en n I e i ve i a
IB ) D m i u l m a Rl t es s l l a h f r l s g n t di l e t r en n m n e e b o n o n nu i r ai t o i a i t c ar i i e oq u t Lo tC a e a t n TG l t u P e q s v a r r r a U p a l s e n rr l w Vk t Vk l r m c mo , _ ee e s e P e
- _w f s Po a f ro o o ws .e l .e p .e v S L E ac o D oe t r U t r .i F( C LR SB SC SC SR 8 1 7 0 5 2 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 E E D D D U U
- m. --
Table II. C.7 Strontium 90 Activity Concentrations-in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg). Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 7-16-83 8-20-83 9-10-83 10-8-83 11-12-83 12-10-83 Effluent E 38: Farm Pend < 177 298 , < 200 <198 533 < 211 (coosequill) (292) (429) E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 169 < 183 < 189 462 < 161 216 (265) (229) Downstream D 37: Lower Latham 181 < E58 < 191 < 180 259 163 Reservoir (159) (239) (136) $l D 40: S. Platte River < 176 < 211 237 271 477 270 Below Confluence (210) (200) (718) (325) D 45: St. Vrain < 316 < 169 < 198 < 435 < 171 376 creek (347) Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 160 < 295 < 165 354 253 328 creek (341) (381) (274) U 43: S. Platte < 182 < 257 < 215 < 305 368 < 171 River (420) Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.)
,p.. ., . .
- i 1
'L
.I Table II. C.8 Strontium 89 Activity Concentrations in: Bottom' Sediment (pC1/kg).
Sampiing Monthly Collection Dates I.ocations ' - - 8-20'-83 9-10-83 10-8 11-12-83 12-10-83 7-16-83 Effluent 337 ' < 205 .< 170 < 165 < 244 < 172 E 38: Farm Pond (316)g (Coosequill) 892 603 .< 171 < 198 < 139 < 148 E 41: Goosequill Ditch (361) -(481) . 1 , Downstream D 37: Lower fatham 281 ' < 225 .131 : 146 < 149 < 119 Reservoir . (278) (384)' , i D 40: $.Platte River < 153 513 <-157 < 146 < 280 < 210-Below Confluence (505) D 45: St. Vrain < 369 170 <-171 < 348 < 150 < 260 Creek (273) ! Upstream- _ U 42: < 139 < 211 494 < 266 < 151 < 165 ) St. Vrain Creek (343) 250 < 219 < 179 < 246 < 179 < 149 U 43: S. Platte (368) - River
- Ifncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval. ( 1 -1.96 S.D.)
i i ,i
- -- r _.- -- - -- w
!, ~
Table II. C.9 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment TpCi/kg) for Samples Collected July 16, 1983 _. Sampling" 106 137 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 3,640 < 632 < 227 (Coosequill) E 41: Coosaquill Ditch < 10,400 < 1,810 2,510 , (1,330) Downstream D 37i Lower Latham < 5,140 < 888 < 320 Reservoir . u, D 40: S. Platte River < 9,870 < 1,720 < 619 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain - < 8,690 < 1,500 < 540 Creek - Upstrean U 42: St. Vrain . < 3,740 < 650 < 234 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 3,690 < 640 < 230 River I
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)
L-c..____.__. _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected August 20, 1983 -
~
Sampling 106 137 95 u Cs Zr & 2 Locations Effluent 8,430 , < 1,070 < 385 E 38: Farm Pond (8,160) (Goosequill) E 41: Goosequill Dibch < 2,440 < 423 < 152' Downstream D 37i Lower 1,atham < 4,360 < 742 < 269 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River. < 3,680 < 639 < 230 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 5,770 < 997 < 360 creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 3,710 < 645 250 Creek (379) U 43: S. Platte < 5,070 < 881 728 River (445)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)
4 "Ta61e'II. C.9 Caimma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Botcom Sediment' (pC1/kg) for Samples Collected - September 10. 1983- . Sampling '105 Zr & Nb Ru Cs Locations Effluent'
. E 38: Farm. Pond. .< 3,630 ~ < 630 < 226
-(Coosequill)
E 41: ' Goose, quill Ditch- < 3,570 < 620 < 223 , Downstream D 37i Lower Latham < . 3,850 < 669 < 241 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < '6,980 < 1,220 < 438 , Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 3,210
< 557 < 200 Creek Upstream .
U 42: St. Vrain < 433 < 75.2 < 27.0 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 3,670 < 637 < 229 River i e .-,,e , , ~ 4--~ ~ - a = . ~ ~- ,n-m. - - -. <p- - . m o.- - -
Table'II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Botton Sediment'(oci/kg) for Samples Collected October 8,-1983 . Sampling 105 g 137 95 3gg Cs Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond
~
< 3,020 < 523 < 188 (Coosequill)
~
E 41: Goosqquill Ditch < 2,830 < 491 < 176 Downstream , D 37i Lower Latham < 3,320 < 570 367 , Reservoir (510).
~
D 40: S. Platte River 3,560 < 502 -
< 180 Below Confluence (5,430)
D 45: St. Vrain < 6,430 < 1,120 < 402 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 6,180 < 1,070 1,090 creek (1.350) U 43: S. Platte < 5,540 < 964 < 346 River ,
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (t 1.96 S'.D.) .
t
T:blo II C.9 {; Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected November 12, 1983 . Sampling 106 137 95 Ru Cs , Zr & Nb . Locations ] Effluent E 38: Farm Pond
< 5,350 < 930 444 , 1:
(Coosequill) (589) E 41: . Goosqquill Ditch < 2,620 < 454 < 163 Downstream D 37! Lower Latham < 6,130 < 1,070 < 383 Reservoir . UI D 40: S. Platte River < 2,900 < 503 < 180 Below Confluence
< 3,790 < 658 347 D 45: St. Vrain (475)
Creet_. Upstream u 42: St. Vrain < 3,690 < 641 < 230 Creek u 43: S. Platte < 3,070 < 533 < 191 River
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S'.D.)
a e
Table II.~C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentratbus in Bottom Sediment TpCi/kg) for Samples Collected December 10.-1983 . I Sam'pling'- 106 Cs ' Zr & Nb Ru Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 3,080 657 * < 192 (Goosequill) (666)' E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 5,920 < 1,030 < 370 Downstream D 37i Lower Latham < 5,140 < 888 < 320 Reservoir m D 40: S. Platte River < 5,770 < 1,000 < 361 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain~ < 6,820 < 1,190 < 427 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 2,340 < 405 < 14E Creek U 43: S. Platte < 3,670 < 637 < 229 River
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)
57 II.C.3 Precipitation Gross beta deposition from precipitation and the tritium concentration in precipitation is given in Table II.C.10. Large funnel collectors (diameter = 2.4m) are located at locations F-1 and F-4. These large funnels prod'uce a significant sample per month for analysis. The gross beta deposition measured (expressed 2 as pC1/m ) is actually the sum of dry and precipitation deposition as the fu'nnels are washed down at sample collection or after a large rain or snowfall event. Values expressed as deposition can be used to predict food chain transport. Studies of world wide fallout in the 1960's have produced models that predict forage and subsequent a
. meat or milk concentrations from deposition values.
From Table II.C.10 and Table II.H.1 it can be observed that there is essentially no' difference in gross beta deposition at the two
- collection sites. The mean gross beta deposition at F-1 was 22.7 2 2 pC1/m and.30.9 pCi/m at F-4. These mean values have large standard deviations and are not statistically different from each other.
Tritium activity in precipitation is listed in Table II.C.10 as the concentration in the water collected by the funnel. Correction is.made for the wash water volume and the background tritium in the wash water.
'The monthly' observed concentrations of tritium were all less than.MDC. Tritium concentrations at F-1 have never been significantly greater than at F-4 even .though F-1 is nearer the principal effluent surface water pathway. These collection sites are at opposite directions from the reactor and in the predominant wind directions.
58
. Tables II.C.11 and II.C.12 list the precipitation deposition of Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95. The only source of these radionuclides has been world wide fallout. The mean values at F-1 and F-4 were not significantly different due to the high standard deviation values. Cs-137 values should be higher than the other radionuclides measured because it has a much longer half-life and it is held strongly by ion exchange to the clay minerals in soil. Therefore the Cs-137 deposition is trapped on the surface of the soil. These surface soil particles are resuspended by wind and deposited in the collection funnel and are evidenced in the suspended solids fraction.
Table II.C.13 lists the deposit 1on of the strontium radioisotopes. These as well have their origin in world wide fallout. The values are extremely variable. Due to the large water volume collected, small uncertainties in the concentrations produce large variations in the total deposition estimate. Sr-90 penetrates deeper into the soil profile than Cs-137 and therefore the values due to soil E ^^ resuspension are somewhat lower. Sr-89 has a short half-life and it cannot be detected above counter background. m- i
59 Table II. C.10 Gross Beta and Tritium Deposition from Precipitation at Locations F1 and F4. Sample Cumulative Total Gross Beta Tritium in Collected Ending Volume Dates (liters) Deposition (pC1/m2 ) Precipitation (pCi/L) F1 F4 F1 F4 F1 F4 _ 7-30-83 50 50 48.5(13.0}* 63.4 (12.7) < 303 < 303 8-27-83 80 75 40.4 (22.5) 32.5 (19.8) < 297 < 297 9-24-83 61 43 45.0(25.7) 56.9(20.8) < 292 < 292 10-1-83 12 12 6.44 (3.42) 20.7 (3.13) < 301 < 301 10-15-83 12 24 14.2 (5.79) 22.7 (7.39) < 295 < 295
.10-29-83 12 12 7.38 (2.91) 7.86(2.75) < 295 < 295 11-26-83 40 45 23.8 (9.62) 21.8 (10.2) < 295 < 295 12-10-83 16 41 5.57 (3.74) 7.14 (8.77) < 303 < 303 12-31-83 30 60 13.0 (7.06) 45.5 (11.8) e 303 < 303
** Uncertainties ( in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.)
y - Table-II. C.11 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from Precipitation at Location F1.' Sample Total Total Deposition (pCi/m2 ) Ending y97
""** 106g , 137 cs 95 Zr & Nb (Liters) 7-30-83 50 < 24.4 17.4 (9.87)* 16.6 (6.53) 8-27-83 80 < 45.0 < 14.2 6.06 (11.2) 9-24-83 61 86.9 (82.5) 67.8 (22.0) 37.2 (10.0) 10-1-83 12 39.4 (5.82) 15.5 (3.28) 3.56 (3.08) l 10-15-83 12 < 3.75 13.0 (1.92) 4.79 (1.76) g; 10-29-83 12 15.3 (6.29) 9.75 (1.52) 3.82 (1.14)
) 11-26-83 40 13.0 (12.1) 12.8 (3.01) 4.24 (1.80) 12-10-83 16 < 3.37 20.9 (3.32) < 2.00 12-31-83 30 18.1 (22.7) 22.8 (6.01) 3.16 (2.86) I I Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
Table II. C.12 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition f rom Precipitation at Location F4. . 2 Total Deposition (pCi/m )- Sample Total Ending Date
" 106 Ru I37 Cs 95Zr & Nb .j (t s) 7-30-83 50 < 29.5 43.52 (9.46)*' 3.30 (6.12) 8-27-83 75 22.0 (41.5) 13.4 (10,5) 11.9 (6.16) ; 9-24-83 43 338 (55.1) 54.5 (15.8) 8 7.70(9.59) 10-1-83 I? 29.3 (6.47) 13.5 (1.51) 6.74 (1.46) 10-15-83 24 49.9 (25.4) 26.9 (6.02) 11.7 (5.22) 0 10-29-83 12 29.0 (6.10) . 17.2 (1.49) 6.53 (1.11) 11-26-83 45 < 4.72 f 14.9 (5.90) 7.26 (3.b7) 12-10-83 41 < 19.1 30.2 (7.70) I 8.00 (4.60) 12-31-83 50 < 7.49 20.2 (3.66) 2.07 (1.77)
L [ [
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.)
l t .
j . Tahic II. C.13 2 Radiostroatium Deposition from Precipitation at 1,0 cations F1 and. F4 (pci/m ). , Sample Ending Strontium 89 Strontium 90 t s) l"" F4 F1 F4 F1 F4 F1 7-30-83 50 50 < 14.3 < 14.4 < 12.2 < 12.3 l 8-27-83 80 75 < 14.9 '< 14.0 < 17.4 < 16.4 9-24-83 61 43 < 20.9 < 19.3 25.5 (29.6) 28.7 (30.0) 10-1-83 12 12 < 1.97 < 1.73 < 2.33 < 2.07 10-15-83 12 24 < 5.18 < 5.42 7.76 (7.01) < 6.07 10-29-83 12 12 < 1.83 < 1.66 2.16 (2.35) 2.36(2.18) 11-26-83 40 45 < 7.08 < 7.39 < 8.47 < 8.70 g f 16 41 < 3.18 < 7.08 < 4.03 < 9.17 ! 12-10-83 30 50 < 9.55 < 13.6 < 12.3 54.4 (54.2) 12-31-83
- Uncertainties (in parenthesca) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.).
63 II.D. Food Chain Data
- 1. Milk. Milk is the most important radiation dose commitment pathway for H-3, I-131, Cs-137 and Sr-89,90. Tritium concentrations in milk are sumarized in Table II.D.1. There was no significant difference in mean tritium values in water extracted from milk at the only dairy in the Facility area.(F-44)', and the Adjacent Composite and the Reference Composite mean values for the second half of 1983 (see Table II.H.1) The arithmetic means were not significantly
. different from MDC. This was the case for all of 1983. This implies the tritium from reactor effluents is not contributing any radiation dose to humans via the milk pathway.
Tritium concentrations in milk should respond rapidly to changes in tritium concentrations of the forage water intake or drinking water intake ~to the cow. This is due-to the short biological half-life for water in the cow (about three' days for the lectating cow). As noted in previous reports, tritium activity per liter reflects the tritium in water extracted from the milk and not the activity
;per liter o.f milk. Whole milk is approximately 87% water (+ 3-4 %, ,_
~ depending'on the cow breed. pasture, and feed).
. Skim n11k accordingly has a higher water content. It may be assumed though that the remaining solids in milk (proteins,
- carbohydrates, and lipids) also contain wme tritium due to exchange of tritium with hydrogen on these large molecular sturctures. This tritium concentration will be very much lower than in the water fraction .and is not significant for dose considerations.
Tables II.D.2 and II.D.3 list'the Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations . 'rg-s e my-,
)
f .
. 64 I
l L in milk. The arithmetic mean for the Facility milk samples was not I significantly different than the means for the other two areas. l Variations'noted during this reporting period are typical of past periods and attributed 'to' differences in feeding practices and methodological variation, but not to reactor effluents. The mean
- values for Sr-89 appear to be greater for the Reference samples, but' were' not statistically different.
The concentrations of I-131, Cs-137 and K-nat in milk are givenHin Table II.D.4. The arithmetic mean values of I-131 and Cs-137
~ for the Facility-area (Table II.G.1) for the reporting period were e' not.significantly different from the means of the Adjacent and Reference areas. The means were less than MDC. The occasional I-131 concentrations
- in milk reported above MDC are assumed to be due to methodological
~
. variability. No I-131 peak was observed on the gamma-ray spectra
?of these samples and the variation is probably due to variation in Be-7-concentrations'and-therefore unexpected Compton counts in the I-131 absorption peak region. No I-101 was released from the reactor
- during the last half of 1983 and no other source of I-131 can be
. postulated. Inspection of Table II.B.4 'shows that no I-131 was F
detectable in ' air samples during the period. K-natural, as measured by K-40 is very constant in milk. The . mean' literature value is 1.5 g/L. K concentrations are homeostatically controlled and independent of K intake.
~
K-nat is measured and reported therefore,only as a quality control measure of Cs-137 and
- I-131 determined in the same sample by gamma-ray spectrometry.
; 7A close relationship between forage deposition and milk
/
--.----v wm e.
=
c
.c m
4.g i ~h. . 65
. ~. +
M - g concentrations should be., expected for' tritium, the strontium radioisotopes,
, lor Cs2137 and fo I-131 only if the cows are on pasture or fed green
- cut forage. 'This, unfortunately,,is not.the general feeding practice J
4
.at the dairies around the reactor.;*Ndsrly all' cattle feed is hay harvested
~
~I.w y .
# -.,, locally or brought in from Nebraska:or from the North Park region cf E ' Colorado. At times it'can even be cuttings from the previous year.
m 3.
'This makes correlation of: milk concentrations with air concentrations very difficult.: On ' the oth'er hand, . if eleva,ted I-131 or tritium
.<, , concentrations ^in milk.are ,noted._.the surface depositions must have " '
A .
;h 9 been reasonably related in-time and location due to the short
'[s effectiOc, half lives of these radionuclides in the dairy ecosystems. '
O, - st ,. ,- A N g . t g *
. i '4 ,
. 1
, t c. ,
j * -- g _ _ . N .'f N. 3
\ ,
,;{-{ i
*^~ , ' ' ... ~
.v
% k(%; %.
.c E't . ,
ge : y
,A* -,
_y
.s 1 -
7 ,. - , e [ ' i ' e ~ o cs, e,4 : at , b g
;. ~
,1 sa m1 ./ . .
b v 8% a i 1.. ys
<r ... .
< 4
-Y 1
a , %( - k h, i t % th ,
? h. .* _
^
;_c_
-} i
e-. - A
'k Table II. D.1 Tritiui Concentrations in-Water, Extracted from Milk.(pci/1). . r 4
-sample Ending Facility Area 44- ' Adjacent Composite
- Reference Composite *'
Pasture Season 7-2-83' 395 (313)** < 300 < 300 7-9-83 < 300 .
< 300
-< 300 7-16-83 510- (303). '< 303 ~ < 303 7-23-83 *** < 303 < 303 < 303 7-30-83 '< 303 317 (297) < 303 8-7-83 < 303 492 (299) < 303 8-12-83 < 324 < 324 < 324 8-20-83 < 324 - < 324 < 324 8-27-83 < 328 < 328 < 328 9-3-83 < 328 < 328 < 328 E 9-10-83 < 328 < 328- < 328 9-17-83 459 (323) < 328 < 328 9-24 566 (305) < 308 < 308 Post Pasture-Season 10-8-83 314 (302) 479 (304) < 308 11-12-83 < 302 < 302 < 302 '
12-10-83 < 300 < 300 < 300
- Adjacent Composite Locationn: A6, A28, A31, A50, A 36, A48.
Reference Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20,'R22, R23, R25.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( i 1.96 5.D.)
*** F-44 Collected 7-27-83.
--. w +e-
m:r 7 r- - =
- g; ; g g...
m " ' ' c.p -
+
MN:6 * , , .,.,
~ '
; o ,w+
, :Q, 's -_
^
, r ..~
,g
- "W , ,
p ,. . F Table'II.ED.2' Strontium ~90: Activity in MiliI(pci/1). - j
; ,/~,,, -
a; 1;. N
"% ~ -.
'. Sa e Ending- Facility Area 44'- -Adjacent Composite
- Reference'Compoalte
- Pasture Season'
~
1-83' _ , '1.94 (1.68)** 1.98 l(1.56).- 1.64 (1.29)'
.7-9-83 3.00.; (1.40) - M1.36'(1.50). ' < 1. 7 7 - j
'7-16-83 .1.84 (1.22)- 1.86 (1.95) ' < 0.344'.
-< 8.63'..
7-23-83.*** 2.76'- ( 1. 47 ) < 5.41 _,
~ . ,
~7-30-83 -2.07 (1.60)n ;3.43(1.65)1 4.85(5.59) 8-7-83 l<' 1.03- 1.39 (1.33)' < 3.65 8-12-83 2;17 (2.17)
<'7.79- 2.23(1.59) I 8-20-83 2.00 (1.60) .
< 1.89
; < 1.43 -
.8-27-83 1.64 (1.28) < 1.59 < 1,17
,9-3-83 1.31 (1.07). ~< 4.58 3.04 (1.87) #
+- 9-10-83 2.75 (1.39) '< 6.57 3.45(2.66) 9-17 5.05 (2.37) 10.8 (6.00)- < 6.'39 9-26-83 3.02 (2.65) , , ,
5.39 (2.79) < 2.14 Post Pasture Season l 10-8-83 4.38'(2.68) L5.15 (3.07) 5.26 (2.91) 11-12-83 :< 2.58 < 3.58 3.68 (4.44) 12-10-33 < 3.60 < 1.71 2.28 (2.16) L
- Adjacent Composite Locations: A6,-A28,'A31, A50, A36, A48.
? Reference Composite. Locations: R16. R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
*** F-44 collected 7-27-83.
~
u
e, _ J x Table II. D.3 Strontium 89 Activity in Milk.(pci/1). Sample Ending Facility Area 44 Adjacent Composite
- Refer ence Composite
- Pasture Season 7-1-83 < 2.00 < 1.78 < 1.57 7-9-83 < 1.57 < 1.70 < 2.31 7-16-83' < 1.35 '< 1.98 < 0.311 7-23-83*** 3.44(2.21),, 40.9(12.5) 59.2 (20.0) 7-30-83 9.35 (2.32) 10.4 (2.44) 37.0 (8.94) 8-7-83 2.51 (1.92) < 1.43 4.57 (7.31) 8-12-83 2.76 (3.02 . 9.35 (17.4) 4.88 (2.26) f 8-20-83 < 1.52 < 1.90 < 1.45 l 8-27-83 < 1.20 < 1.65 < 1.27 9-3-83 < 0.792 < 4.16 < 1.57 82 l 9-10-83 < 1.10 13.9 (8.33) < 1.89 9-17-83 6.13 (3.34) < 5.99 10.4 (8.58) 9-26-83 < 1.95 < 2.38 < 1.97 Post Pasture Season 10-8-83 < 2.13 - 2.50 < 1.99 11-12-83 < 2.22 < 3.20 < 3.34 12-10-83 < 3.83 < 2.27 < 2.28
- Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48.
Referer.ce Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.)
*** F-44 collected 7-27-83.
~
69 Table II. D.4 Ga==a-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite Milk Samples. d I (PCi/1) Cs (pCi/1) Nat. K (g/l) 7-2-83 Facility < 0.186 < 0.194 1.78 (0.0180)** Adjacent < 0.181 < 0.189 1.60(0.0173) Reference < 0.193 < 0.201 1.45(0.0177) 7-9-83 Facility < 0.190 < 0.198 1.67(0.0181) Adjacent < 0.161. < 0.168 1.38(0.0184) Reference < 0.189 < 0.197 1.63 (0.0179) i 7-16-83 Facility 2.08 (1.02) < 0.182 1.63 (0.0169) Adjacent 1.92 (1.28) < 0.197 1.48 (0.0181) Reference 1.37 (1.63) < 0.285 1.53 (0.0239) 7-23-83 Facility < 0.190 < 0.197 1.49 (0.0181) < Adjacent 1.81 (1.96) < 0.197 1.50 (0.0181) Reference 6.88 (1.66) < 0.197 1.47 (0.0180) 7-30-83 Facility < 0.210 < 0.218 1.48 (0.0194) Adjacent < 0.200 < 0.207 1.58 (0.0190) Reference < 0.191 < 0.197 1.27 (0.0153) 8-7-83 Facility < 0.199 < 0.206 1.41 (0.0163) Adjacent 2.18 (0.213) < 0.221 1.45 (0.0195) Reference < 0.206 < 0.213 1.53 (0.0192) 8-12-83 Facility 3.44 (1.55) < 0.208 1.49 (0.0182) Adjacent 1.62 (1.84) < 0.205 1.44 (0.0185) Reference 0.779 (2.44) < 0.287 1.39 (0.0236) 8-20-83 Facility < 0.300 < 0.312 1.47 (0.0255) Adjacent 3.30 (2.09) < 0.256 1.51 (0.0220) Reference 4.69 (0.128) < 0.132 1.37 (0.0113) 8-27-83 Facility 4.51 (1.68) < 0.202 1.54 (0.0181) Adjacent 5.65 (2.03) < 0.207 1.55 (0.0189) Reference 2.44 (1.99) < 0.203 1.28 (0.0179) I
- Adjacent Comoosite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48 ReTerence Compcsite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95i confidence interval, ( 1.96 s.D.).
- Collected 7-27-83
70 Table II. D.4 Gac:na-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Cetnposite Milk Samples. C c ed I (pCi/1) Cs (pCi/1) Nat. K (g/1) 9-3-83 Facility 2.79 (1.44)** < 0.174 1.51 (0.0167) Adjacent 5.51 (1.77) < 0.190 1.41(0.0175) Reference 7.86 (1.93) < 0.186 1.43 (0.0173) 9-10-83 Facility 1.20) < 0.210 1.54(0.0170) Adjacent 4.03((1.57) 4.93 < 0.214 1.46(0.0170) Reference < 0.199 < 0.207 1.47(0.0181) 9-17-83 Facility 1.85(2.18) 0.248(1.08)~ 1.61(0.0128) Adjacent < 0.116 < 0.120 1.61 (0.0128) Reference < 0.252 < 0.262 1.53(0.0221) 9-24-83 Facility < 0.195 < 0.202 1.65(0.0182) Adjacent < 0.205 < 0.213 1.57(0.0188) Reference < 0.197 < 0.205 1.57(0.0182) 10-8-831 Facility < 0.141 < 0.146 1.3/(0.0122) i Adjacent 2.06 (2.19) < 0.206 1.66(0.0185) Reference < 0.195 < 0.203 1.67(0.0184) 11-12-8: Facility < 0.140 2.17 (0.992) 1.79 (0.0155) Adjacent < 0.186 < 0.193 1.44(0.0172) Reference < 0.141 < 0.145 1.55 (0.0125) 12-10-82 Facility < 0.225 < 0.234 1.54 (0.0202) Adjacent < 0.183 < 0.193 1.52 (0.0172) Reference < 0.198 < 0.205 1.55(0.0166)
- Adjacent Comoosite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48 Reference Composite Locations: R10, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.
"- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 955 confidence laterval, (: 1.96 s.D.).
h 71 II.D. Food Chain Data
- 2. . Forage. Table II.D.5 lists the tritium specific activity in water extracted from forage samples as well as Sr-89 and Sr-90 concentrations in the forage dry matter. Tritium mean values were
-less than the minimum detectable for the entire period.
In an effort to sample the feed given to the local dairy
~
herds, most of the forage' collected was hay fed to these dry-lot herds. In most of these samples the water content was too low to extract sufficient water for tritium analysis. In the water from those samples that could be extracted, the tritium concentrations were all less than MDC. Strontium-89 and Sr-90 concentrations were not significantly different for the three sampling zones. The Facility area mean for
. Sr-89 was higher than that for the other two areas, but due to the high standard deviation the mean values were not statistically
' different.
Table II.D.6 lists-Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95 activities in forage samples for the second half of 1983. No significant differences were observed.
~
Gross'. beta concentrations in soil and forage collected at the same locations are given in Table II.D.7. No statistically significant differences were observed. The forage concentrations are, of course, lower than soil as all of the radionuclides in the soil are not biologically available for plant uptake. However, it should be noted that a significant fraction of the forage activity is due to soil
-i l l . . .. i i - .- . .. . . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
72 particles trapped on the plant surface from resuspension. The high gross beta concentration measured in the sample collected at A-6 on September 17, 1983 is an example of this point. The sample count _ rate was nearly the average of the group, but the ash / dry ratio was approximately 2.5 times greater. This indicates considerable soil contamination and inflates the resulting concentration which is on a dry weight basis. A cattle forage sample, i.e. fresh cut grass or alfalfa hay, is the sample of choice for several reasons. Forage integrates atmospheric wet and dry deposition over a large surface area per unit weight and also is a direct link in the dairy and beef food chain transport of H-3, Cs-137, and the strontium radioisotopes. Such samples are collected when possible. However, due to feeding practices, vagaries of weather and other factors, often silage or cut samples must be collected. These samples may or may not be harvested locally and may represent different fallout periods as well as different soil areas.
l .. 73 4 , Table II. D.5- ~ Tritium,'Stroatium 89, and Strontium 90* Concentrations in Forage'for Samples Collected July 9, 1983 . Tritium Strontium.89 Strontium 90 (pCi/1) (pC1/kg) (pCi/kg) Facility 4** e < 7.70 90.3(14.1) - 44 < 299 24.6 (66.4) 44.0(28.6) Adjacent. - ib e- 18.2 (42.1) 81.0(22.1) l28- -s 299 < 17.8 82.1 (17.5)
'31 - < 299 < 13.4 93.8(16.2) 36 < 299 < 19.8 59.8 (18.2) 48 ' < 299
- 32.9 178 (47.5)
'50
; e < 13.5 74.7 (17.8) hference- <
~- 16 , e < 24.6 99.1(23.2) 17 e < 49.8 -94.7 (52.2) 20 e < 21.7 134 (21.5) 22- e < 31.4 144 (34.0) 23 e < 28.7- 72.2(21.4) 25 e < 22.9 103 (37.6)
* . Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, L (i 1.96 S.D. ) .
e Insufficient water in forage sample for analysis.
** Sample collected'7-16-83.
- - - - - - - - ---.__ ---_----_----.-- --- --__- --_---- - - - _ --J
74 Table II. D.5 ~ Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90' Concentrations in Forage for Samples Collected Ataust 27. 1983 . Areas Tritium Strontium.89 Strontium 90 (pC1/1) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg) Facility 4 < 328 < 52.1 147 (54.8)* 44 e < 8.01 94.8 (11.9) Adjacent f e < 3.61 28.8 (7.05) 28 < 328 40.9 (33.3) < 17.3 31 < 328 < 16.4 87.3 (28.8)
'36 e 20.0'(51.1) 71.0 (13.0) 48 e < 11.1 160 (19.9)
'. 50 e < 14.2 62.2(13.9)
): Reference 16 e < 19.1 60.9 (16.1) 17 e 15.6 (14.5) 54.0 (8.88) 20 e 22.0 (35.2) 295 (23.9) 22 -
< 11.3 37.7 (11.0) 23 e < 16.8 78.7 (21.8) 25 e 22.9 (33.5) 80.8 (20.6)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.),
e Insufficient water in forage sample for analysis.
1;[ .:- -
~
75 Table II.:D.5
. Tritium. Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in For.:ge for Samples Collected ~ September 17, 1983 .
Tritium' Strontium 89 Strontium 90 (PCi/1) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)
' Facility 1
-4 . < 299 26.5(23.2) 40.2 (15.6)
_44 e. 11.6-(17.1) 72.8 (12.8) Adjacent 6 e < 27.6 245 (35.4) 28 e < 11.9 56.8 (15.2) 31 < 299- < 15.7 98.1(24.5) 36: e 86.0 (20.6) < 4.94 ~ 48 e < 8.47 122 (12.4)
'. 50 e <=11.3 63.9 (16.1)
Reference 16 e < 9. 44 - 101 (16.6)
~17 e' -< 24.7 175 (25.7) 20 e 35.8 (36.8) 138 (28.3) 22- e < 15.3 48.7 (15.4) 23 < 299 ' < 21.5 53.5(22.0)'
- 25. e 19.8 (46.6) 91.7 (18.0)
- Uncertainties (in parencheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 '1'.96 S. D. ) .
e Insufficient water in forage sample for analysis.
76' Table II. D.6 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected July 9, 1983 . Areas Ru Cs Zr & Nb Facility 4*** 219 (135)* 196 (33.2) 147 (23.4) 44 < 72.7 107 (19.3) 63.0 (14.1) Adjacent 6 < 80.9 62.7(21.7) 56.2 (15.5) 28 < 75.3 87.6(20.7) 57.4 (15.1)
'31 83.2 (83.4) 49.1(19.8) 30.7 (14.4) 36 128 (73.5) 51.4 (17.3) 44.5(13.0) 4g 117 (76.7) 125' (19.3) 85.2 (14.0) 50 68.6 (76.4) 72.7(18.7) 71.7 (14.0)
. Reference .
16 < 73.7 123 (20.1) 64.9 (14.0) 17 ** < 787 < 137 < 49.1
. 20 < 88.3 54.0 (23.3) 37.1(17.0) 22 83.7 (80.1) 73.4 (19.8) 56.7(14.7) 23 163 (160) 97.3(38.6) 52.0 (28.6) -
25 103 (80.5) 75.5(19.4) 73.8 (14.8)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
** Counted on Ge(Li) detector.
*** Sample collected 7-16-83.
i
. 77 y
. Table II. D.6
- Gaanna-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage
~ (pci/kg) for - Samples Collected August 27, 1983 .
~' 2 -
Areas = Ru Cs ' Zr & Nb Facility
'4 - l172 (77.6)* 74.2(19.8) 86.4(13.8)
.44- 83.1(53.6) 32.0'(12.7) 68.4 (11.1)
Adjacent 6- 71.4(57.8) 15.5 (14.3) 23.8 (9.86) r28; 43.5(48.4) :28.6 (11.1) 29.3(12.1)
31;
< 190 ,
151 -(49.7) 84.8(59.1) 3'6 68.3'(54.7) 34.5(14.8) 39.6 (11.3) 48 < 62.6 43.2(17.4)' 91.5(21.4) 50' 85.0(72.4) 41.4 (17.1) 34.8(15.8) Reference-
'16 - 129 '(85.4)- '43.5(20.2) 100 (19.3) 17' < 47.6- < 15.0 30.2 (9.17) 20 84.2-(71.4)-
44.6(17.9) 51.9 (12.3)
.22: < 59.9 50.2(16.7)- 43.5 (11.4)
--231 193 (27.4) 553.0 (6.13) 41.4 (6.95) 25 :146 (67.6) -40.5(16.0) 73.2-(15.1)
- Uncertainties.(in parentheses) are'for the 95% confidence t interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
__._____________________J
i. 78 Table II. D.6 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected Seotember 17. 1983 . Sampling 106 137 95 Location h Cs Zr & Nb F cility 4 65.0 (26.0)* 41.2 (6.19) 54.9 (5.42) 44 48.8 (20.2) 55.0 (5.12) < 2.05 Mjacent 6 164 (128) 97.9 (30.5) 105 (26.7) _2a 56.0 (59.1) 41.9 (14.0) 26.4(11.9) 31 146 (29.0) 84.8 (7.10) 85.9 (6.10) 36 105 (68.0) 39.1 (16.2) 40.9(14.0) 48 48.1(25.7) 78.4 (13.9) 64.9(12.2) 50 117 (94.3) 33.3 (19.7) 28.5 (32.4) R-ference 16 66.5(22.8) 147 (5.42) 72.3 (4.96)
.17 136 (40.4) 56.7 (9.51) 51.4 (8.58) 20 < 66,5 46.3 (17.7) 36.6(15.5) 22 90.4 (24.6) 56.0 (5.90) 61.6 (5.10) 23 < 83.7 74.3(22.3) 47.9 (19.5) 25 26.1 (36.5) 42.1 (7.79) 102 (13.1)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( t 1.96 S.D.).
79 Table II.'D.7
. Gross Beta Concentrations in Soil and Forage (pCi/kg) for
. Samples Collected Third Quarter, 1983.
; Sampling JulyJ,1983 August.12, 1983 September 17, 1983
. Soil Forage Soil Forage Soil Forage F cility
.4 31,000 , 6,480** 27,500 31,300 25,600 20,900 (1,760) (166) -(1,390) (530)- (1,200) (333) 44 31,300 15,800 18,100 22,600 30,700 19,300 (1,670) (794) (1,160) (349) (1,410) (330)
Adjacent-4_ 26,800 20,400 26,100 7,730 22,700 48,700 (1,730) (602) (1,220) (165) (1,230) (796)
.,' 3 22,000 19.700 22,000~ 11,800 16,500 15,300 (1,430) (977) (1,240) (258) (1,120) (235)
' 27,500 16,900 25.900 25,000 25,400 18,500 31 (1,690) (755) (1,300) (440) (1,270) (475)
-36 25,700 16,700 25,300 14,300 22,900 14,700 (1,610) (804) -(1,300) (226) (1,240) '(230) 40- 31,500 2,510 26,100 21,300 .26,700 20,300
( 1,870) _.- (84) (1,320) (291) (1,280) (328) 50 24,100 23,400 26,800 13,800 26,600- 7,990 (1,490) (765) (1,350) (263) (1,330) (179) Reference - 16 30,800 14,600 27,800 21,200 25,200 18,300 ~ (1,710) (549) (1,380) (333) (1,300) (289)
.17 22,700 13,300 26,900 12,200 21,800 17,800 (1,540) (556) (1,350) (192) (1,120) (287)
,20 28,000 . -20,900 26,700 20,000 23,900 20,600 (1.760) (734) (1,370) (393) (1,260) (344) 25,200 18,800 27,100 14,200 29,300 18,100 (1,630) (286)' (1,380)- (224) (1,350) (308)
~ 23 19,900 22,500 21,600 4,470 26,400 14,900 (1,400) .(1,060) (1,140) (114) (1,320) (267) 25- 29,700 22,500 27,400 18,200 23,500 25,400 (1,880) (746) (1,370) (368) (1,300) (486)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.) .
** -Collected 7/16/83.
80. II.D. Food Chain Data
- 3. Soil. Soil samples are collected at the same time and location as forage samples. A core borer is used to collect the 2
sample. The sample depth is 10.3 cm and the area is 102 cm . Bulk soil density is approximately 1 g/cm3. Table II.D.8 presents gross beta activity of soil per unit surface area for the second half of 1983. This parameter is calculated from the gross beta concentration in soil (Table II.D.7) multiplied by the mass per unit surface area of the sample core. Since reactor airborne effluents or fallout will result in deposition on the soil surface, activity per unit surface area is the parameter of choice to document environmental contamination. The mean value for the Facility area was not significantly greater than that measured for the Adjacent or Reference areas (Table II.H.1). Any small variations are due to different concentrations of the natural Uranium and Thorium decay series and natural K-40. The difference is not due to fission product activity. Table II.D.9 and the calculated mean values indicate that there is no significant difference for Ru-106, Cs-137 or Zr-Nb-95 between the Facility, Adjacent or Reference sampling zones. Tritium, Sr-89, and Sr-90 in soil are shown in Table II.D.10. Tritium specific activity in soil water is statistically the same as that in othar environmental samples, e.g. water, forage and milk. The activity per unit surface area of the strontium radioisotopes was again quite variable. Due to the large standard deviations there was no statistical difference in the mean values between the three
81 sampling zones. I It should be noted that the Sr-90 values are considerably less than measured for Cs-137. This is because the weapon's fallout Cs-137 is trapped near the soil surface by ion exchange and the Sr-90 is leached down the soil profile to depths great.er than that collected by our coring method.
--- _ __ _ - - - - - - ' - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ^ ' '
82 Table II. D.8 Gross Beta Activity in Soil per Unit Surface Area (pCi/m ) for Samples Collected Third Quarter, 1983. Sampling Locations July 9, 1983 August 12, 1983 September 17, 1983 F'.cility 4' 3.99 (0.227)* 3.55 (0.179) 3.31 (0.155) 44 4.04 (0.215) 2.33 (0.150) 3.96 (0.182) Adjacent 6 3.46 (0.223) 3.37 (0.157) 2.93(0.159) 28 2.84 (0.185) 2.84 (0.160) 2.12 (0.145) 31 3.54 (0.218) 3.34 (0.167) 3.28 (0.164) 36 3.32 (0.207) i 3.26 (0.168) 2.96 (0.160) 48 4.06(0.241) 3.37(0.170) 3.45(0.1CS) 50 3.11(0.192) 3.46 (0.174) 3.43 (0.172) R~ference 16 3.97(0.221) 3.59 (0.178) 3.25 (0.167) 17 2.92 (0.198) 3.48 (0.175) 2.81(0.145) f 20 3.61 (0.227) 3.45 (0.177) 3.09 (0.163) 22 3.25 (0.210) 3.50 (0.178) 3.78(0.174) 23 2.56(0.181) 2.79 (0.148) 3.41 (0.171) 25! 3.82 (0.243) 3.54 (0.176) 3.03 (0.167)
- Uncertainties _(in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
83 Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Activity per Unit Surface Area of Soil (nCi/m 2) for Samples Collected July 9. 1983 . Sa-'pling 106 137 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Location Facility 4 < 350 < 60.8 < 21.8 44 < 257 < 44.7 69.9 (93.4) Adjacent 6 < 314 < 54 6 < 19.6
.zs < 315 < 54.8 < 19.6
< 227 < 39.2 < 14.1 31 ,
36 < 489 < 85.2 42.2 (140) 48 < 314 89.4 (67.2) 48.5 (37.4)
-50 < 439 < 76.5 60.6 (45.3)
R':f erenc e 16 < 314 < 54.6 36.9 (72.0) 17 < 276 < 48.0 < 17.2 20 < 370 < 64.3 < 23.1 22 < 738 < 129 < 46.4 23 < 359 < 62.5 30.4 (41.8) 25 < 444 < 77.3 47.9 (39.5)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (.1 1.96 S.D.).
i
84 Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Activity per Unit Surface Area of Soil (nCi/m 2) for Samples Coll'ected August 12, 1983 . Sampling 106 Location Ru- Cs ' Zr & Nb Facility 4 < 337 < 58.6 < 21.1 44 < 313 < 54.4 < 19.6 Adjacent 6
< 342 < 59.4 < 342 28
-< 302 61.2 (62.3) < 18.9 31
< 452 < 78.7 29.0 (52.2) 36
< 268 < 46.5 '
< 16.7 48
< 503 < 87.5 < 31.5 50
< 435 < 75.7 38.1 (57.8)
R-'ference 16 < 283 < 48.7 < 17.6 17 < 321 < 55.7 < 20.0 20 < 278 < 48.3 < 17.4 22 < 303 < 52.6 < 18.9 23 < 284 < 49.3 < 17.7 25 < 320 < 55.5 < 20.0
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( ! 1.96 S.D. ) .
~.>
QN , ll 85-.
+
Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Baitting pdionuclide Activity.per Unit Surface x Area of- Soil- (nci/m ) for Samples Collected September 10. 1983 Sampling
; Location 106 h
137 Cs 953 , g g T cility
-4 .< 303 62.3(63.0)* < 18.9
< 57.7 < 20.8
- 44 < 332
> Adjacent 16'- <-505 '< 87.9 < 31.5 24 l: < 287 < 49.9- < 17.9
'31 <-481 < 83.7 < 30.1
~36- < 505' < 88.0 < 31.6
'48
-< 192- < 33.2~ < 11.9
;50-- T< 220 < 38.2 < 13.7 R-ference 16 < 265 < 46.0 < 16.5
- < 555 < 96.6- < 34.8 17' -
20- <<.313 ' < 54.3 < 19.5 22< < 415 < 72.1 < 26.0 23 < 252: <-43.7 20.6 (49.9)
'25 :< 584.
< 102. .< 36.7
.
- Uncertainties _(inLparentheses) are for the 95% confidenote
. - ~ interval, ( 1'l. 96 S.D.) .
.. f m
I' 86
-Table 11. D.10 Tritium, concentration in soil water and Strontium 89, Strontium 90 Activity per unit surface of Soil for Samples Collected July 9 1983 .
Sampling Tritium Strontium 89
' Location (pC1/1) (pCi/m2) -Strontiug)90 (pC1/m
-F~cility 4 < 319. 17.7 (32.0)* < 14.4 44 ' < 299 < 28.1 209 (49.9)
Adjacent 6' < 319 < 56.8 316 (83.9)
=28 < 319 < 27.4 170 (44.8) 31: < 299 < 20.5 120 (33.9)
-36 < 299 < 18.0 137 (30.4) 43 < 299 < 18.0 < 15.5 50' < 299 < 29.2 186 (53.0)
R-ference 16 431 (314) < 31.5 164 (46.4) 17- < 319 < 14.8 22.0(13.6) 20 < 319 < 20.7 < 17.4 22 386 (313) < 34.8 263 (56.7)
'23 .<:319 < 44.9 230 (69.5)
< 23.8
-25: 441 (296) < 27.6
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( t 1. 96 S.D. ) .
i
87 L m.
' Table II. D.10' -
Tritium, concentration in soil water and Strontium 89, Strontium 90 Activity per unit surface of Soil for Samples Collected August 12, 1983 . .
-Sampling Tritium Strontium 89 Location (pCi/1) _ (pCi/m )' Strontiug)90 (pC1/m
;Freility -
4 < 304 < 9.83 15.2(11.7)* 44 < 304 11.3(28.3) < 11.9
' Adjacent 6 < 304 < 9.54 19.6(11.4) 28- < 304 20.5(40.9) 29.3(18.6) 31 < TiO4 87.4 (46.7) 25.4(17.3) 36 . < 304 < 9.94 26.4 (13.3) 43 ' < 304 < 11.3 28.1(16.8) 50 < 304 < 12.8 22.6 (19.5)
R-f er enc e 16 < 297 < 10.7 31.8(13.6) 17 < 300
< 9.97 12.4 (12.2) 20 . < 297 < 11.1 < 12.7 22 < 297 < 14.4 18.0 (17.7)
~
.23- < 297 < 9.87 28.3(13.9)
< 297. < 12.3 30.3(17.1) 25-
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the SS% confidence interval, ( 3 1,96 S.D.) .
l' 88 Table II. D.10 Tritium, concentration in soil water and Strontium 89, Strontium 90 Activity per unit surface of Soil for Samples Collected September 17, 1983 . S:mpling Tritium Strontium 89 Location -(pC1/1) (pCi/m2) Stronting)90 (pCi/m Freility 4 < 300 < 8.02 53.3(16.7) 44 < 300 < 7.82 13.6 (14.8) Adjacent 6 < 300 < 10.8 17.3(13.0) 28 < 300 < 9.78 14.7 (12.3) 31 < 300 < 8.65 < 10.9 36- < 300 < 9.15 28.2 (16.8) 43- < 300 < 12.8 39.2(25.3) 50 < 300 < 10.0 < 11.8 Rmference 16 < 299 10.1 (30.6) 10.1 (11.9) 17 < 299 < 8.72 22.5 (10.8) 20 < 299 < 8.89 12.0 (11.1) 22 < 299 < 8.16 10.7 (9.89) 23 < 299 < 10.8 13.5 (13.6) 25 < 299 < 8.60 21.4 (15.1)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( t 1.96 S.D.).
89
. II.E. Aquatic Biota Table II.E.1 shows gross beta and strontium concentrations observed in ' aquatic biota collected during the second half of 1983. Gross beta concentrations in the sample types are. higher than any particular fallout
- fission product because of the presence of the naturally occurring radionuclide, K-40. For all of the sample types, the downstream gross beta concentrations were statistically the same as upstream. This was true for the radiostrontium isotopes as well. The number of samples analyzed over
- the last 6 months was small, but observation of the data over all ot' 1983 shows large variation in all the radionuclides in all of the sample types. (From Table II.H.1 it can be observed that the geometric standard
~
deviationsareverygreat). Table II.E.2 lists Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zn-Nb-95 concentrations
' measured in.the same samples. These concentrations appear to be similar to those measured during the first half of 1983. The activity of fallout radionuclides deposited previously from the 1980 Chinese Nuclear Weapon
. Test is apparently only gradually decreasing. There was no significant difference between upstream and downstream sample types.
The high MDC values for seston are due to the fact that such
' samples are counted by a rather low efficiency Ge(Li) spectrometer system rather than the NaI used for most other sample types. This is because seston,.which is. principally algae, collects and concentrates particulate radioactivity, 'and.high resolution is necessary for radionuclide measurement of fission product activity in the presence of Ra-226 and Th-232 natural radioactivity. Seston radionuclide concentrations are generally higher f_ - --- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w
, 90
~
?than for._the other sample types. A much larger Ge(Li) system is on order
'and-will be used in -1984 for most sample types.
~
The presencefof Corbicula Fluminea_, a species of freshwater clam. is being monitored at'several sites around the Fort St. Vrain
- Nuclear Generating Station in Platteville. Corbicula have been
. introduced to North America from Asia. The freshwater clams are now found in large-river-systems in the U.S. from coast to coast. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has stated that Corbicula have been Lfound in Northern Colorado, Beyd-Lake, sone 30 miles from the Fort St.
Vrain Nuclear ~ Generating Station. However, to this date, our samplings
~have, indicated no evidence of Corbicula in any of the sampling sites
'immediately~ upstream of the reactor.
b
J l . Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite
- Aquatic Biota For Samples collected July 1983 .
f Strontium gg Strontium 90 -
- Cross Beta PCi/Kg Sampling locations pC1/Kg PCf/Kg f Fish 9,570 (262)
< 14.5 25.6 (16.0)
Upstream 7-23-83 10,200 (277) < 28.9 35.4 (36.0) ' Downstream 7-23-83 ' 36.4 (30.1) j 14,100 (405) < 25.4 Effluent 7-23-83 l
)
Benthic Organisms. '
< 48.5 198 (44.5)
Upstream 7 23-83 11,100 (524)
< 261 198 (180)
Downstream 7-23-83 11.400 (533)
< 126 87.4 (119)
Effluent 7-23-83 13,300 (534) ., Vascular Plants
- 120 (23.4) 19,700 (349) < 26.1 Upstream 7-16-83
< 27.1 127 (27.2) 28,500 (443)
Downstream 7-16-83 69.8 (18.3) 9,090 (169) < 15.9 Effluent 7-16-83 Seston
< 26.1 120 (23.4) 7-23-83 .24,300 (717)
Upstream 127 (27.2) 26,400 (533) < 27.1 Downstream 7-23-83 69.8 (18.3) 23,300 (523) < 15.9 Effluent 7-23-83
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45. (i 1.96 S.D.).
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
- T;bla II.:.E.1 .Analy;ic cf Compositpa Aqu:tia Bitta
. For Samples collected August 1983' .
. , -- Cross Beta . Strontium gg Strontium 90
- Sampling locations' pCi/Kg- ,
pC1/Kg PCi/Kg
' Fish **
11,400 (414) < 46.2 62.3 (40.0) ,' Upstream 8-10-83 10,500(402) < 24.9 35.4 (29.8) i Downstream 8-10-83 8-10-83 10,000 (437) < 60.6 < 55.7 Effluent Benthic Organisms Upseream ~8-10-83 7,950 (459) < 380 327 (346) 23,300 (bd9) < 228 < 216 Downstream 8-10-83 8-10-83 18,400 (706) < 162 226 (242) Effluent ,
~
Vascular Plants 8 8-27-83 27,100-(515) < 30.5 - 119 (54.0) Upscream 29,300(493) < 26.9 99.7 (39.1) Downstream 8-27-83 Effluent 8-27-83 22,900 (419) 46.6 (42.0) 38.5 (18.5) Seaton 8-10-83 18,100f566) 78.9 (130) 181 (91.2) l Upstream 24,800 (657) < 51.7 219 (53.1) Downetream 8-10-83 8-10-83 21,400 (600) < 66.8 139 (84.3) Effluent
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40,'D 45.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 9.i% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
+
l .a , . .1 ' . s;c 1 m~g . .
. . e , ~ 7 .y . , .
.r y ,.
T:.b1h II. E.1J ,.
'~ .Analy'sia cf Composit:13(Aquatil.3 .J GLcto J %..
4 ,
.j- .
~'p]
0 For Samples collected September, 1983
- i- ,
; 4 ,' / 1 y;,- ; . /* . , .
+
P - Cross Beta . Strontium gg Strontium 90. i ' '
'/pci/Kg Sampling locations pC1/Kg ,
pCi/Kg
- :* j.
j r - Fish- ,,
- -(
-/ Upstream. ,9-28-83 9,380- (308)** < 64.3 _ ,
< 53.5 r Downstream9-28-83 ,
' l2,370 '(165) < 78.8
-.,61.6 (65.5)
Z dffluent. 9-28-83 , 10,700 (323) < 50.5 .'34.6 ' (35.9) .; l Benthic Organirms . L 's
~
*. ,j r
Upstream 9-28-83 , 5,330 , (184)
.d ?,. ;
- d < ', {
~
,, 19.2 (11.1). ,, ,'/ ,,
Downstream 9-28 3,240 (121) < 10.6 j[ , V'#
~
' < 27.1 Effluent 9-28-83 5,020 (160) , < 37.~9'
- r .
, w !
Vdscular Plants ! Upstreara 9-10-83 .
- 23,300 (410) < 86.0 121 (155) i townstream 9-10-8'3 '17,500 (314) < 16.5 61.9 (19.7) /
Effluent 9-10'-83 18,700 (402) < 14.4 44.3 (18.1) Seston Upstream 9-28-83 73,500 (1,850) < 25.0 < 19.3 - Downstream 9-28-83 11,500 (492) < 24.8 35.5 (25.8) Effluent 9-28-83 29,900 (854) < 3.28 7.3'4 (3.92)
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: n 40, D 45. l
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
d Sample lost during analysis. 7
3 .j T bli II;:Ea1 -Analycio cf Composit;G Aqu^ tic Bi;to . - For~ Samples collected 4th Quarter,1983 . Cross Beta. . Strontium gg Strontium 90 -
' Sampling locations pCi/Kg pC1/Kg.
pCi/Kr. . Fish Upstream 12-2-83 2,440 (169) < 53.9' < 36.7 . Downstream 12-2-83 2,910 L(196) < 109 82.3 (91.9) f f f Effluent Benthic Organisms f f Upstream f f f Downstream f I f f Effluent f , E Vascular' Plants 14,900 (346) 179 (122) 164 (55.9) Upstream 10-8-83 20,400 (406) < 15.7 39.3(19.4) Downstrenm 10-8-83 12,900 (224) 44.6 (84.4) 206 (37.3) Effluent 10-8-83 1 Seston f f Upstream f . f f Downstream f f f Effluent f
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) nre for the 951 confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
f Sample unavailable due to weather conditions. I
' ~ -
Table II, E.2 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples (pC1/kg) for Samples Collected Julv.:J983 . Sampling Locations
- Ru -
Cs Zr & Nb. Fish ** Upstream '7-23-83 < 250 177 (62.2) < 33.2 l Downstream 7-23-83 273 (257)- 202 (63.1) 122 (44.1)
,.ffluent 7-23-83 < 250 355 (64.8) 150 (45.0)
Mr Benthic Organisms Uprtream 7-23-83 < 298 109 (75.3) 102 (45.1) Downstream 7-23-83 < 250 284 (64.2) 192 (41.4) Effluent 7-23-83 238 (88.2) 285 (22.0) 138 (13.5) m Vascular Plants on Upstream 7-16-83 < 481 460(122) 218 (91.0) 7-16-83 901 (528) < 159 < 67.6 Downstream 7-16-83 c 568 449 (141) < 75.5 Effluent Seston *** Upstream 7-23-83 1,280 (352) 503 (84.6) 355 (56.6) Downstream 7-23-83 1,640 (619) 300 (*47) 205 (98.4) Effluent 7-23-83 e e e
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstrecm Composite: D 40, D 45. Effluent: E 33.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D .) .
Counted on Ge(Li) detector. e Insufficient sample weight for analysis.
4 Table II. E.2 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Sa=ples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected August, 1983 . Sampling Locations
- Ru Cs Zr & Nb Fish Ups tream 8-10-83 285 (242) 248 (63.5) 55.8 (30.7)
Downstream 8-10-83 < 250 130 (61.7) 35.3 (30.0) Effluent 8-10-83 < 250 244 (63.2) 46.8 (30.5) Benthic Organisms Upstream 8-10-83 < 312 465 (80.9) 174 (37.2) Downstream 8-10-83 < 250 434 (66.6) 198 (28.9) Effluent 8-10-83 < 304 ' 515 (79.7) 169 (34.6) e Vascular plants os Upst ream 8-27-83 < 385 234 '(99.8) 166 (67.3) Downstream 8-27-83 < 432 328 (113) 227 (76.4) Effluent 8-27-83 510 (444) 162 (109) 178 (75.0) Seston Upstream 8-10-83 461 (380) 565 (101) 206 (44.2) Downstream 8-10-83 < 556 419 (138) 180 (61.2) Effluent 8-10-83 e e e
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45. Effluent: E 38.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( l.96 S.D.).
- e. Insufficient weight for analysis.
- , s p
- ~
*-e Table II.:E.2 .
~Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations'in Aquatic Biota Samples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected September, 1983 .
Sampling Locations'* Ru - Ca. Zr & Nb . Fish-Upstream 9-28-83 195 (139) 108 (32.8) 76.9 (29.7) Downstream 9-28-83 122- (57.5) 66.5 (13.4)- 47.0 (11.9) Eftluent 9-28-83 < 120 71.9(30.6) 47.4 (27.0) Benthic Organisms Upstream 28-83 228 (132) 240 (30.9) 194 (26.7) Downstream 9-28-83 538-(283) 250 (66.6) 173 (58.2) Effluent 9-28-83 1,340 (390) 875 (94.2) 426 (72.4) Vascular Plants ~ $' Upstream . 9-10-83 722' (465) 235 (104) 183 (113) Downstream 9-10-83 659 (183) 202 (41.7) 177 (40.9) Effluent 9-10-83 799 (448) 302 (102) 205 (99.3) Seston *** Upstream 9-28-83 < 6,130 < 1,060. 455 (382) Downstream 9-28-83 < 25,800 < 4,490 < 1,610 Effluent 9-28-83 < 22,800 < 3,950 < 1,420 i
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
i Downstream Composite: D AO, D 45. ! Effluent: E 38.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
*** Counted on Ge(Li) detector.
l l,
n - Table II. E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrat.fons in Aquatic Biota Samples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected 4th Quarter,1983 . 06 Cs Zr & Nb Sampling Locations
- Ru -
Fish Upstream 12-2-83 < 232 106 (57.8)** < 31.2 Downstream 12-2-83 < 74.6 61 (23.1) 29.0 (14.0) . f f f Effluent Benthic Organisms f f f Upstream f f f Downstream f f f Effluent Vascular Plants g 1 Upstream 10-8-83 612 (448) 243 (106) 155 (86.2) Downstream 10-8-83 678 (538) 321 (127) 184 (104) Effluent 10-8-83 1,980 (412) 715 (100) 355 (69.6) Seston l Upstream f f . f Downstream f f f Effluent f f f L
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45. Effluent: E 38.
** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
f Sample unavailable due to weather conditions.
99
- I I '. F . Beef Cattle. Two head of beef cattle from the herd that grazes the Facility area are counted each quarter in the t,$U whole-body-counter. ine animals' are washed carefully and counted for 20 minutes each. This method i
is far more sensitive than ccunting meat samples and is the method of
! choice for detecting Cs-137 in~ the meat food chain of humans. If thyroid I-131 contamination were significant this would be detected from the whole body count. Detectable I-131 auivity has never been observed.
Table II.F.1 gives values for whole body counting of beef cattle for the second half of 1983. The animals are selected at random; however, the animal number is recorded and the animal may be retrieved and recounted
- if necessary. The Cs-137 body burdens are greatly different between third quarter and fourth quarter. This only reflects a different cutting and/or source of' hay and pasture for the animals. The values are still within the-range of past data.
The Cs-137 ccncentration is expressed as pCi per gram of K in the whole animal'. This is done to more easily compare the counts between different size animals. K and Cs are both intracellular cations and by normalizing the Cs-137 activity to K, differences due to fat percentage in the animals are' eliminated because the K concentration of fat free muscle is very constant. Table II.F.2. lists the Cs-137, tritium, K and radiostrontium concentrations in one beef animal from the local herd which was slaughtered , at'the end of the pasture season. The radionuclide of concern for FSV 4 . effluents would be tritium,but the observed concentration was -less than MDC.
100
-Table; II. F.1. Radionuclides in Fact 11ty Area. Beef Cattle In-vivo Gamma ray activity in Ibrt St. Vrain Area beef cattle.
Third Quarter Values 9-22-83 I Cs pCi/q K Cow 1 none. detected < 2.21 Cow-2 none detected < 2.21 12-21-83 Fourth Quarter %1ues Cow I'- none detected 48.6
~ Cow 2 none detected 33.5 Table II.F.2.
Radionuclides in Beef Sample from Local Herd. < Animal Slaughtered, Fourth Quarter,1983
- Hamburger 137 Cs pCi/Kg K g/kg Tritium pCi/l
~0.171 0.610 - < 299 Bone 89 90 Sr pCi/Kg Sr pCi/Kg
< 320 367 (337)
--* Uncertainties (shown~ in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( ~1.96 S.O.).
x 101
,.. II.G.11 Sample Cross Check Data.
.To assure the precision and accuracy of the environmental data crew ' ~
obtained from the radiation surveillance program provided for the Fort St. Vrain reactor, Colorado State University participates in the U.S. . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored laboratory intercomparison studies program. This involves the analysis of a variety of environmental media containing various levels of radioactivity. The media, type of analysis and frequency of analysis are. summarized below. The media, type of analysis and frequency of analysis Medium Analysis (radionuclide) Frequency i 3 Water H bimonthly Wateri gross a, gross e bimonthly Water '51Cr, 60Co, 65Zn,106Ru,134Cs, triannually 137 Cs Water , 89Sr., 90Sr triannually 131 Water 1 triannually Air. particulate 90Sr,137Cs, gross a, gross s triannually filters i Milk 89sr, . 90sr, 1313, 137Cs, 40K triannually For each radionuclide analysis of a particular medium, three independent measurements are performed and the mean value is then calculated. The percentage deviation of our determined mean value
~from:the EPA specified value is also calculated.
102 Table II.G.1 gives the EPA cross check data for the last half g ,. ofc1983. The EPA has chosen to use the tonn Estimated laboratory Precision (ELP), calculated as 3 o/ N, as the control parameter,
? where N = the number of analyses. Whenever our mean value falls outside this'11mit, the sample calculations are rechecked and the sample reanalyzed if nossible.- Of the cross check results reported for this' period, most were within the ELP. These values have a
(., superscript notation (n) in Table II.G.I. The recheck process and conclusion is given below for each of these individual samples. (1)through(6) The analysis of each radionuclide in this sample exceeded the ELP. The sample results given were determined independently by NaI(T1) and Ge(Li) spectrometry. Although there still
.is uncertainty regarding,the Cr-51, Co-60 and Zn-65 calibrations, we have confidence in the calibration of the other three radionuclides and generally had good cross check results. No reason for this discrepancy can be given at this time. The analysis was repeated and the results were essentially unchanged. A new calibration for all 6 radionuclides is currently underway.
(7),(8) A repeat analysis of this sample also gave the original values which are outside of the ELP. The Ra-106 value did prove to be correct after reanalysis.
.(9) The Sr-90 analysis was repeated but no reason for the discrepancy can-be given.
(10) . This I-131 analysis could not be repeated due to the decay of the radionuclide in the epa sample. '? plan to' check all milk samples in'the future by high efficiency Ge(Li) counting using a L N -- . -
~
103 Marinelli beaker.
-: 4 ~ : -
Table II.G.2 siivws the results of independent analyses of the 5are water sample by CSU, the Colorado Department of Health, and
~ Public Service Company of Colorado. The samples are from two effluent locations and one upstream location. The results for~ gross beta analyses have been reviewed and.the following corrective actions have been adopted.
- 1. l Samples will be counted at approximately the same time after collection to correct for possible S-35 activity in the sample.
- 2. The same sample volume (100 ml) will be used by each group so that sample self-absorption will be identical.
- 3. All samples will be homogenized and treated with acid identically.
The tritium results were acceptable. 4 e V y y -- , _ _ , , , ---r..-,- .-e,-...
104
- Table,II.C.I. EPA Cross-Check Data Summary Radio' CSU EPA Standard Estimated Labor- % deviation 2 ;. g .c:_:J Mte- nuclide Value- Value De .ristion ,.e sterf Precision
- frc= known Wate'. , Tritium pCi/'
8-12 3H' 1,483 1,836 342 - 593 - 19.2. 10-14-83 3H 1,210 .1,099 329 570 + 18.3 12-9-83 3H 2,480 2,389 351 608 + 3.8 Water, Alpha and Beta pCi/1 .
'7-15-83 gross a. .7 7. 5 8.7 0
. gross 8- 22 22 5 8.7 0 9-16-83 gross a 4 5. 5 8.7 - 20.0 gross 8 ~6 9 5 8.7 - 33.3 6
Water, Strontium 89 & 90 pC1/1 9-2-83' 89Sr 1% 15- 5 8.7 - 23.1 90Sr. 11 10 1.5 2.6 + 10.0 Water, Iodine pCi/l 5-83 ' 13 1 I. 9 14 6 10.4 - 35.7 0 1
-i .
c'3c/d ,
.=
. . _. -- . . -. _ .-_~
M 105 Tchle.,II.G.I. EPA Cross-Check Data Stunmary, (cont.) Radio CSU EPA Standard Estimated Labor- % deviation
- p. Date- nuclide. Value Value naviation,.o etery Precisien* from known Air, p :i/ Filter 8-26-83 gross a 11 13 5 ?. 7 - 15.4
. gross 8 38 36 5 0.7 + 5.6 90Sr 11~ 10 1.5 2.6 + 10.0 137. Cs 15 15 5 8.7 0 Water _tfg731,pCi/l 6a3-83 LICr I 2
21 60 5 8.7 - 65 60Co 2.3 13 5 8.7 - 82
- 3) 9.3 36- 5 8.7 - 74 csZnf4) 106 Ru 11 40 5 8. 7 - - 73 34Csfff 74 47 5 8.7 + 57 137 Cs' 37 - 26 5 8.7 + 42 10-7-83 - SICr (7) 16 51 5 8.7 - 168.6 60Co- 20- 19 5 - 8. 7 + 5.3
- 6 5Zn ( ) 26 40 '5 8.7 - 35.0
- 1 C6 Ru 54** - 52 5' 8.7 + 3.8 134 Cs 22 15 5 8.7 + 46.7 IN Cs 30 30- 5 8.7 0
, ' Gamma , Milk pCi/l 6-10-83 89Sr 17~ 25 5 8.7 - 32.0
- 30Sr (9I 20 -16 1.5 2.6 + 25.0 131I- 28. 30 6 10.4 -
6.7 1 37Cs ,50 47 5 8.7 + 6.4 K 1,557 1,486 75 129 + 4.8 10-28-83 89Sr 10 15 5 8.7 - 33.3 15 14 1.5 2.6 + 7.1 90Sr 131g. (10) 20 40 4 dB 8.4 - 50.0 1 37Cs 32 33 5 8.7 - 3.0 K- 1,637- 1,5' ' 78 135 + 5.6 - L c N
- 3o/.dn
** Result'of reanalysis.
N 4r*wg + & P '
,mwu- --%, g- -- --ww-g,w--+-n ----w-ye-w--w:wras-eww -. ei
106 i i Table II.G.2 Crosscheck Analyses on Split Water Samples Determined by Colorado State University, Colorado Department of
..uo... o... Public Service Company vi cusorauo.
-Collection Sample Gr ss Beta pCi/L Tritium pCi/L Date Location CSU CDH PSC CSU CDH PSC 7-15-83 E38 7.6 12 < 78.2 1,110 1,030 < 651 E41 7.6 9 < 78.2 1,440 1,120 936 U42 4.7 28 < 78.2 297 350 ; < 651 8-12-83 E38 7.7 22 < 73.7 4,170 4,190 5,490 E41 9.4 20 < 73.7 805 993 873 U42 5.7 15 < 73.7 < 303 < 350 1,140 9-16-83 E38 9.3 17 21.0 1,230 1,404 1,280 E41 13.4 23 17.1 744 1,759 < 695 U42 6.6 12 11.2 < 297 469 < 695 10-14-83 E38 12.2 17 23.2 1,840 1,377 ! 2,080 E41 12.3 21 27.6 861 911 1,660 U42 7.1 10 26.4 1,170 855 1,010 11-25-83 E38 11.0 18 < 69.8 3,420 4,554 3,760 E41 12.2 19 < 70.1 3,750 4,629 3,770 U42 7.3 11 < 69.8 5 302 571 < 482 12-8-83 E38 10.7 16 13.8 1,350 1,359 ' 1,350 E41 16.7 18 24.5 1,220 1,033 , 948 U42 5.7 12 14.3 < 302 < 350 < 477
, , - , - - - .~,--%. + - e<,..-,e- - --.-,--c . . - - - --w
107 II.H. Summary and Conclusions i Table II.H.1 presents the primary summary and analysis of data collected during the second half of 1983. The tabular data may be used for comparison to previous reactor operational periods and for comparison to other operating power reactors. The number of samples . , analyzed in the reporting period and the maximum and minimum values - for each sample type are given. From log-normal analysis of each data set for the last 12 month period the geometric mean and geometric - - standard deviations are presented. The arithmetic mean is also calculated back for the entire year and for the reporting period. . It should be noted that the tabular data presented in the body of this report contain only positive calculated values. Any calculated values less than zero or less than the minimum detectable concentration e g .a}.i g (MDC) are listed as less than the actual MDC for that sample analysis. N y 2Ns
., 4-However, the actual result in all cases was used in the calculation for the aritnmetic mean values for the period. Therefore all values, negative as well as positive, were included. This procedure is now generally accepted and gives a better estimate of the true mean value. Because of this procedure, however, the values listed in Table II.H.1 cannot be calculated directly from the tabular values
~
in the report. It must be emphasized that while it is true that no sample can contain less than zero radioactivity, due to the random nature of radioactive decay, it is statistically possible to obtain sample count rates less than background and hence a negative result. The minimum value listed in Table II.H.1 is the lowest positive value observed in tha data set, even if this value is below the MDC value which is recorded in the text table. On a few occasions, due to small data sets all values are negative and the minimum value listed in Table
A 108 L _a
. @ R .'4 [
II.H.1 is the MDC value corresponding to the lowest negative value. 7. e,G. M/ l The log-normal probability treatment is to plot all data for f*i each sizingle type uver i.iie lost full year on log-proDit coordinates. h),~; ,k The samples are ranked by increasing activity concentration and the
. wv cumulative percentage of rankings are plotted on the probit abcissa W/.*N ! .
y :.; .Q : j . versus the activity concentration on the log ordinate. The geometric t-( .W .
."e.~-
't i*'
mean value i is detemined directly from the 50th percentile point. r;/i; Q:!..* 9 . . t. ~ The geometric standard deviation is simply the slope of the line 9(.'&"- Wy which can be calculated from the ratio between 84.1 percentile and 9. ' ~r.. Ew the 50th percentile, .S a normal distribution the arithmetic standard 'Nj. rl;$ M yg.:tX - deviation is an additive parameter to the arithmetic mean; i.e., d. yw3.4 ;f",.e - (i + c), whereas in the log-normal distribution the geometric standard _ .[p . .
, 1, ..
deviation ogis a multiplicative parameter to the geometric mean b: .4...,V 2 . g . . y .. - (i i og). The area between i divided bygo , and gi multiplied by hN.{.y g 2 .m o should contain 68% of the frequency values. The log-normal L N. i 9 u statistical treatment is tentative when the number of samples in the M/:pn e* ts 3 group is small. For this reason only the last full year of data points m l. . -d@2 4A. > ;". .
;C
$ .-wa; is treated by this method. With the log-normal analysis, no bias D.'j? . ;: , (v.
(.g.] results from using either actual values or less than MDC values. , g:v.jp 9 From the values presented in Table II.H.1 and the tabular data of the report, the following observations and conclusions may be drawn: jdr[@ p.L;<.~ '.GJ
- 1. Tritium was the only radionuclide that was detected in any of fMf '.1;;
x.,,; the effluent pathways that can be attributed to reactor operation. . Since the tritium is released as tritiated water, the dilution by the : . ~ , t.,; $
.y_ - s . 9 surrounding hydrosphere is great. Although on several occasions
%:... n-Q- iM elevated concentrations of tritiated water could be detected downstream
109 - - - of the reactor, the average over the six month period was not statistically greatcr than upstream concentrations. The t.rii. lum concentrations measured in animals that graze near the reactor in the Facility area and the milk produced by the nearest dairy herd were all less than MDC. Thus no dose commitment can be calculated for the effluent tritium for any pathway.
- 2. The fallout from the October 17, 1980 Chinese Nuclear Weapon test was not detectable in air samples during this reportirg period. Only the previous deposition as observed in soil and food chain samples was still observed. Nuclear weapon test fallout, however, has since the inception of the project been noted to be the predominant contribution to background. It is the variation in fallout deposition that requires so many environmen hl samples to detect any possible increase due to reactor effluents. A simple comparison of preoperational and postoperational values is of little value for most sample types because the fallout deposition was considerably greater during the preoperational period. Figure II.H.1 shows the half-yearly mean values of gross beta concentrations in air for the Facility and Adjacent air sampling sites. Although by using half M yearly means some of the fine structure is lost, the overall conclusion K .fJ.2-is that from 1974-1983 there was no difference in gross beta air w;. - v
< yp.c concentrations between Facility and Adjacent sites. The large peaks X '?
5, correspond to weapons testing fallout produced by Mainland China. 4 -, Table '.H.2 gives dates of announced atmospheric nuclear weapon tests 4}/ and the dates of the reactor start-up and operation. The mean for ,
- e jg gl.j..,
the Adjacent stations was greater than for the Facility station. '# p;4.r.>:;. m 'fl.
.d.
-m 1:w. ; e g...
This difference was not statistically significant. It is clear Yh;CI M; from the plot that if fallout produces variai. ions of such magnitude [.{sg4 , (a factor approximately 25) then small inccements from reactor kf . effluents even if detectable would not be significant and difficult h X.a. R*
'.'. M . ' :
' '.1
> >.1 to document. bh.N.
.3
,c h 41
- 3. Figure II.H.2 is a plot of tritium measured in water '
y/: 7 , , samples over the period 1974-1983. During the entire period the .I ^ .:5 W overall pattern is that of fallout deposition. There is some delay ...=Of,f. i l$.,p period in the peaks due to the mean residence time of tritium in the h, lN;; f . hydrosphere and input from other areas. Beginning in 1981 there
. kjM4; -
can be observed an increase in the downstream locations relative ,Y~.Q.? ?). to upstream. This small increase is statistically significant, but . f[ has not produced any increase in tritium concentration in potable M. . c . .- - g, R.G - Q water or any food products measured.
- 4. The most significant pathway for environmental tritium dose to humans is via milk. Figure II.H.3 shows tritium concentrations in milk measured during 1974-1983. Although between 1974 and 1977 there is an apparent difference in the concentrations between the three sampling zones, during the periods of significant reactor -
operation, no differences are discernible.
- 5. The log-normal treatment of all the data revealed tht for i most of the data such analysis is appropriate. However, sigmoid distributions were quite often observed. Sigmoid distributions can be resolved intn bimodal or even trimodal log-normal distributions.
This is generally interpreted to mean that there is more than one significant activity source te:::. For all of the data analyzed over the past year by the log-normal treatment, those sample types that i
111 are reservoirs or sinks for activity, e.g., soil, sediment and TLD, tended to be described by a single distribution. Those sample types which are less stable and fluctuate due to outside sources, e.g., air and precipitation, tended to be bimodal or trimodally distributed, particularly when weapon test fallout is present.
- 6. As in every previous report, it was again apparent that for most sampls types the variability observed around the mean values was great. This variability is due to counting statistics anu methodological error, but principally due to true environmental variation. It must be recognized and accounted for in analysis of any set of environmental data before meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
- 7. It can be concluded again that the radiation dose commitments calculated for the closest inhabitants or other parts of the nearby ecosystems from current reactor effluents are negligible compared to natural background radiation dose rate and the dose commitment from atmospheric weapon testing fallout.
E
)e , -
m 112 y . p Figure II.H.1 E [ GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR
;ggg 1974-1963 Y =71 fCI/m3
~ ^
0---* Facility Sampling Stations (4) Y = 76 fC1/m3
~
Ar- -A Adjacent Sompting Stations (3) v . .Y _ , - (.. ' . . ,_ y j f! $hlI, f , I e j k?u,k; .$.? ; h e j i +4 f, .Nl.:j sp : " if7; h 4. g
'f-L
. f0 f b .:' .
$ l00 -
\
- U l
k - - [ t
- 1
(
'ff
\ 1 l 1
\ 1 1
~
\
I,1 a [ . m i I 1 k '
\ '
\l
\I Y<
\ ._-
\
g y .. - k h \ d: Aq ,fH g 10
'5 #
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 60 81 82 83 TIME (years) 1. i M
TRITIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER, 197 1983
*-* Surface Upstream I = 524 pCl/L
_~2 A- -A Surfoce Downstroom Y = 787 pCi/L A Y! 1500 - i = 595 pCi/L 4 g O O Polable Il 1400 - I\ M gi i:: 1300 - I'
- h I\
- 1200 -
..,8 ,. i gg , g
!, ' I I 110 0 -
p ' ,\ f < I g g \ r . I f ' \ 8 I I I k 1000 - f '4 I\
- - I \
I
\
l \ f k gg i 900 - L i
- ' i ! i i gi i j i i gg i 4 5a 800 -g t I
- . gg \ f
- : . t/ -
700 - p, g E C V %- I I i 5 600 - Y: : : l t .. s ! : I 500 - I.. \ 6 4 J f .- i\ l 400 - g ii g ,O
\ I 300 - ) . :
t '\f g 'J i
/
m ) / 200
/3
- i I t e a 1
B I I I f f l 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 73 74 75 TIME (years) l l l
l:lI , C e 2cQ* F x. y ll L L L
/ / - l 3
p 8 l / l C l C p C p p 2 4 3 8 4 3 1 2 4 4 3 1 8
= = = _
Y Y I .
- .:* t 1
8
., d
/ -
M ' U I 0 e T 4 .* 8 I R 4 e t i s a. T s ig F o i e r . F p m la y
- 9 O r i 7
a o D i
)
S 3 D C e. e s r N 8 y n ns ci t t a O19 i ec eor t e y 4 , I p 8 ( T- i l a ef m e 7 A4 R7 T9 c j a d eo F A RC Ks . E M I N1 T E
..*.'.'g
- B a \y\ 7 -
C t I 7
\ N N -
O - - C e m a x K f 6 .
' e 7
\g **'.s L
I M \ ,'
\
5
\. . \ : * . " h I
7 jf:l _6 W 0 4 t 7
- - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - 3 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%%0 0 0 0 0 ,
0 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 8 T 6 5 4 5 2 1 Jbn
- > s
-~
f ll illlIll I 1!
- m . . _ ..
Table 11.11.1. bban Values for all Sample Types. Number of Minimima 14:iximust . Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o 8 g ; 3 Analyzed 6 Montha 6 Honths Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Honths Samgle Type
.TLD Facility 78 0.34 0.52 0.44 1.08 0.44 0.45 l External Adjacent 70 0.32 1.72 0.42 1.16 0.43 0.45 l 0.42 l (mR/ day) Reference 70 0.33 0.58 0.41 1.12 0.41 Facility 99 0.60 22.9 4.21 2.43 5.93 8.24 Air .
73 '3.60 22.7 4.16 2.49' 5.91 7.89 Gross a Adjacent l (fci/m )3 . Facility 99 4.0 51.0 13.6 1.81 15.8 19.7 Air 24.4 Adjacent 73 3.0 64.0 13.1 1.94 16.1 Gross S 3 (fCi/m ) Air Facility 107 < 297 5,770 249 2.52 137 185 = m l Adjacent 81 < 295 894 208 2.46 52.6 13.1 Tritium l (pci/1) 26 < 5.45 < 5.45 0.307 9.19 < 5.45 < 5.45 Air Composite 1311 , 3 (fCi/m ) Air Composite 26 < 2.00 18.0 6.47 2.37 2.65 0.632 106Ru (fCi/m3) e
. .. . n. .. . . I Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.) Number of Minimum Mtximum i o Samples Value Observed Value Observed # E i i Arinlyzed 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year Sample Type Area 6 Months . 5.31 1.37 2.68 1.61 1.67 . Composite 27 < 1.26 Air , 137c3 (fCi/m3 ) 0.698 3.47 0.834 2.16 0.469 Composite 27 < 0.185 Air 952r (fCi/m3 ) 11.5 5.50 18.8 9.98 1.42 10.6 Water Effluent 31 16.2 7.48 1.54 8.12 8.32 18 4.47 7.80 Gross S Downstream 12.9 7.44 7.64 7.87 I 12 4.90 6.88 (pci/1) Upstrean, 11.9 6.43 1.46 6.23 12 3.62 Potable 563 4.54 4,620 1,450 g; Effluent 33 < 300 11,200 Water 319 3.37 528 279 Downstream 18 < 289 953 Tritium 254 2.01 229 266 Upstream 12 < 289 505 (PCi/1) 613 354 1.90 311 214 Potable 12 < 297 2.25 0.804 2.41 0.327 0.888 Water Effluent 33 < 0.927 0.341 0.888 Downstream < 0.740 3.77 0.785 2.06 90Sr 18 0.764 2.38 < 0.896 0.305 Upstream < 0.896 1.84 (pci/1) 12 1.00 0.657 2.15 < 0.872 0.374 Potable 12 < O'.860
Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.) Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed x o , 6 Months 8 8 x x l Analyzed 6 Nonths 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months j Sample Type Area 6 Months 33 < 0.558 5.28 0.642 - 3.02 < 0.558 < 0.558 Water Effluent 0.134 0.883 1.72 < 0.642 < 0.642 Downstream 18 < 0.636 89Sr 0.?92 0.746 3.14 < 0.650 < 0.650 12 < 0.650 (pci/1) Upstream
< 0.550 1.45 0.663 2.05 < 0.550 < 0.550 Potable 12 t
1.49 Water Effluent , 33 < 0.685 11.1 2.36 2.17 < 0.680 106Ru . Downstream 18 < 1.82 12.9 2.35 3.11 < 2.17 4.54 (pci/1) Upstream 12 < 0.822 8.00 2.58 2.32 0.889 4.39 Potable 12 < 2.54 9.77 2.83 2.21 1.75 3.63 l l Water Effluent 33 < 0.238 7.79 1.58 2.34 0.631 < 0.253 137Cs Downstream 18 < 0.248 5.39 1.44 2.66 2.03 1.75 C
< 0.224 4.80 1.02 3.27 0.976 1.38 l (pci/1) Upstream 12 1.27 1.44 Potable 12 < 0.799 5.15 0.898 3.13 Effluent 33 < 0.110 3.67 0.850 2.63 1.09 0.780 Water Downstream < 0.288 1.50 0.61E 3.04 0.947 0.711 952r 18 0.780 Upstream < 0.188 2.67 0.693 2.54 0.953 (pci/1) 12 0.572 1.95 0.629 0.546 Potable 12 < 0.341 1.17 Effluent 29,900 40,000 31,900 1.10 32,000 32,500 Sediment 12 30,000 Gross S Downstream 18 26,300 35,200 30,800 1.11 30,900 27,300 48,000 31,700 1.14 32,000 33,f;00 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 e
6
Table I1.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.) Number of Minimum Maximum Value Observed I o Samples Value Observed S g g 3 6 Months 6 Months l Analyzed (, Months Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year , l Sample Type 1 1 Effluent 12 < 161 533 105 3.41 54.1 158 i Sediment 83.2 l Downstream 18 < 163 477 135 3.01 172 ' 90Sr 53.1 Upstream 12 < 160 420 146 2.45 164 (pci/kg) 12 < 148 892 131 2.35 67.4 103 Sediment Effluent 202 1.92 < 119 < 119 Downstream 18 < 119 513 89sr 2.81 < 149 < 149 Upstream 12 < 149 494 117 (pci/kg)
< 2,440 8,430 2,160 2.99 < 2,440 < 2,440 Sediment Effluent 12 2,510 < 2,900 106Ru Downstream 18 < 2,900 8,390 2.19 < 2,900 Upstream 12 < 2,340 2,650 2,800 2.03 < 2,340 < 2,340 (pci/kg) 5' 12 < 423 2,090 391 2.59 185 273 Sediment Effit.ent 328 3.08 < 557 < 557 137Cs Downstream 18 < 502 844 12 < 405 777 379 3.48 216 187 (pci/kg) Upstream Sediment Effluent 12 < 152 2,510 194 2.40 145 262 95Zr Downstream 18 < 180 367 175 2.34 < 180 < 180 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 < 27.0 1,090 140 3.71 152 177 Precipitation F-1 9 < 5.57 48.5 20.1 2.63 34.1 22.7 f Gross 6 F-4 9 < 7.14 63.4 21.6 2.79 33.8 30.9 (pCi/,2) ,
1 ,
=
Table II.H.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.) Number of Minimum Maximuni Value Observed i o Samples Value Observed # 8 i i Analyzed 6 Honths 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Honths Sam Qe Type Area 6 Months 9 < 292 < 303 215 2.80 < 295 < 295 Precipitation F-1 < 295 < 295 9 < 292 < 295 245 1.68 Tritium F-4 (pci/m2) 9 < 3.37 86.9 13.0 ; 2.52 < 3.37 15.9 Precipitation F-1 3.95 26.0 48.5 9 < 4.72 338 18.1 106Ru- F-4 (pCi/m2 ) Precipitation F-1 9 < 14.2 67.8 4.82 2.28 4.53 5.43 137Cs F-4 9 13.4 54.5 16.4 1.95 18.6 26.0 (pCi/m2 ) Precipitation F-1 9 < 2.00 37.2 3.91 - 2.03 1.21 < 2.00 , 95Zr F-4 9 2.07 11.9 5.87 1.95 7.08 7.24 g 2 (pci/m ) Precipitation F-1 9 < 2.33 7.76 2.53 3.77 < 2.33 1.21 90Sr F-4 9 < 2.07 54.4 6.68 2.99 6.86 12.3 (pci/m 2)_ : Precipitation F-1 9 < 1.83 2.50 4.99 2.20 < 1.83 < 1.83 89Sr F-4 9 < 1.66 25.5 6.52 2.38 < 1.66 < 1.66
- (pci/m2 )
Milk Facility 16 < 300 566 301 1.64 < 300 *
< 300 Tritium Adjacent 16 < 300 492 183 2.84 < 300 < 300 (pci/1) Reference 16 < 300 < 328 257 1.72 < 300 < 300
. :L .N-; ; - ;$$ ?;.'.y' ',' }_; & G, ' q.
';* f .. f j.l "'*
- l. T- ' _
g ~) " - ? ? .. .... " sk& :[ K V $, jf & . t,' D :,. 16f_+l$ '. g, y.J._'.' ?.'%ks .*%.*: L.g;? '(,%?'t*
?:_
a;* Q i ,',.? .',. {. T.
- .r :.: I 3 .J: . . , q, .
- ~ g- @%y.
.. ' ' &.< . . , ;. , ;,: . .. , <.'_1._
T . ,,, . : : ' '.. - . g .4{s
- n. :. ... ;. ;. , ~ :
f,:p +qq , . a 5.. . .
....-.._ _ t. a n
. . ,-_r:. . g >'; .
1 a ry,.- 1
;:. ~. .e e.1.f_ . :r. . . , . :; ;. e .; . ..
l Y.: $.k
, ... . .: .1:? ^: ; . . .y : ; .;.- . .:..., ,.. sg. ._; ,(j. . , $ . : 'gq a. :
Ql. ._ 1.'.Y .
;' R_
Al
, g u. _. ...: . . f_ $Y
_yQg. Y ..
; ;; . . . ' 5, .:.. . e:r _.-_.y._,,..? !.h. .5 '; . 7 . ,.
5
~
=
Table 1 1 .11 . 1 . Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.) _ Number of Minimtun Maximum Samples Value Obser ed Value Observed x o g g . - Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months x x e Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 5 Months Milk Facility 16 0.843 5.05 2.13 1.72 2.33 2.50
'3 0s r Adjacent 16 < 1.36 10.8 1.65 2.97 1.42 2.20 (pct /1) Referer - 16 C.344 5.26 1.67 2.62 1.57 2.14 Miik 1ac11ity 16 0.792 9.35 1.37 4.07 0.864 0.841 -
2.33 3.05 2.59 4.03 "S r Adjacent 16 . 1.43 40.9 (pCi/1) Re fe rence 16 0.311 59.2 1.53 5.30 3.44 6.50 Mi1k Faci 1ity 16 0.140 4.51 0.466 3.90 < 0.140 0.140 0.115 0.116 131 I Adjacent if 0.116 5.65 0.626 4.49 (pfi/1) Reference 16 0.141 7.86 0.528 4.40 0.141 0.141 _
~
O Mt1k Faci 11ty 16 0.146 2.17 0.258 2.06 0.146 0.i46 137Cs Adjacent 16 0.120 < 0.256 0.251 2.33 n.720 0.120 (pCi/l) Re fe renc e 16 0.132 0.287 0.204 1.64 0.132 0.132 m Milk Facility 16 1.37 1.79 1 .51 1.08 1 .51 1.56 Nat. k Adjacent 16 1.38 1.66 1.47 1.06 1.47 1.51 (g/1) Re fe ren c e 16 1.28 1.67 1.44 1.08 1.45 1.48 Forage Faci 1ity 3 299 328 278 1.24 299 299 1ritium Adjacent 7 299 328 190 1.99 ' 299 299 (pCi/1) Reference 1 299 299 179 2.30 299 297
=
- j. ,
1
$, I, -h -
.( b5 .' *f .
i, , - Qlb QM f%&TQ&M[, k,.n.' M y' &
- 5. -
Q..
.;....~p+..
. n T.;.
,.,.;n: -:
6,- .'.. .;
, >;y;
.m........,..s 7
- % 2. . ;. ~ ,% .
,a
. s. ,. ,u. ...r
.h~%.
o..: _, .,, r;w y . gy:~~
&Wf;t'
+l g. . . 'fi
. - . .v .-
.k%'Q~\y.
c, *, ..,4 A. ' . . . . . arv. . m. .,'y ..~l3h, - .- ..
.q -
;. ; . - n.
u ~ ; :w :- . ,i,,. 5.
- y. .. . 6;.. : '?;:@R...,.
w
.n
.i
1., Sf', y,3. I ,,. I,7 :p gt.h Q.Q {. , ? 3.y 7 g , g. .. . ; . . ,
,yj, ,
. .; . , y , . ; .
,, .e .4
- .,. p.-
v. S a.- ,.
~'
Table II.H.l. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.) u. , '{- _
- p. -1 y..
3 Minimm hhximurg -4 Number of ,
- 4y Value Observed x o ,
j.. Samples Value Observed E 8 i i Analyzed 6 bbnths 6 Months f3.1 Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year <> Months v2 .
't 7.70 26.5 19.9 2.26 3.39 5.54 Fo ra ge Facility 6 'C 3.61 86.0 12.4 2.67 3.61 3.61 .;
89Sr Adjacent 18 l' i;'
< 9.44 35.8 16.9 2.04 9.44 9.44 (pC1/kg) Re fe re nce 18 '
- w. %
- . ' ' 53 40.2 147 49.6 3.74 80.8 81.5 ..
Forage Facility 6 -;/ 4.94 245 66.7 2 .1 > 83.7 87.7 f 90Sr Adjacent 18 gr 295 91.9 1.56 102 103 ...
-Referen:e 18 37.7 24 (pci/kg) 69.5 1.01 39.4 106 Facility 6 48.8 219 L Forage '
43.5 164 60.4 2.03 62.6 78.4 ( Adjacent 18
/ ." 10 f> Ru 1379 75.9 2.10 59.5 123 j. ' .U - (pci/kg) Reference 18 66.5
- .ny y -
4
][ Forage Facility 6 32.0 196 54.3 2.03 68.3 84.2 63.2 f
15.5 151 60.8 1.88 78.0 y 137Cs Adjacent 18 4, 40.5 147 51.0 i.93 59.3 61.5
'(' Re fe rence 18 ..
(pci/kg) f
- p. ,
' 4:
2.05 147 30.6 4.25 28.0 23.6 . Forage Facility 6 55.4 1.56 60.9 55.6
- Wr idjacent 18 23.8 30.2 105 102 51.3 1.37 53.9 58.0 .'
9[: (pci/kg) Re fe renc e 18
. t y
18,200 1.50 19,300 19,400 5 Forage Facility 6 6,480 31,300 d,I
'L Gross B Adjacent 18 2,510 48,700 16,000 1.63 17,600 17,700 17,700 18 4,470 25,400 16,700 1.44 17,600 y..' (pci/kg) Re fe re nc e . s ..
gi. ..
~ ~ ^ - ~ '~ '
~ _ - - - - --- -- - - - - + - - - - ~ ' - * * * - - ' ' ~ - - - ' ' ~
~. _. . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ m
,. i .
s
- r. .
f,. .'
*# O
,g g -,9 e
.' g. 'p g.
,,J**g ,
4 .
. ' . , : i.__. ..* +_ . , , . ' y. . .,.eg . . .%,5 . .g, . . .j . i J< > f . :-r.* : .M / r ,_
.e
,m cr , m .. .
.:. -..3 9.;.t -.."'y
-~4
.g
.' u.
i,. .. .c . d. .* W , p;g - ., $#_ . ,
.. .. $. . .2.t... ,r+*.g- .a. (. , _
- v. .3
,c.ne
,1.,+--
- 4, .
z.; ..
- s . . ,,
c.
.h:-~.,
k h, . ih,h.j .[ .h .n.. .a ,Y ., . .,;.
-h.
- h. h,' 'm4,. , lh.,; .k..'h. , _.. .y: ... m'
? .
g.._~~ '_ : h;.. . . , . t . )_ : _;5 , C;4 - y h;s ' q, +;.; %. ._s
;.+.
.-x ,; ? +
y
, jf. ,.
..+
... ,... _ ,- f;.. ,m : ;' -
, p -;.%, . ,. a g, j y.s g ,( m ?
..dR,.a
;3(j;_4
=
[,';. .q . :
..; .g .
.3 .:,,. :4..,-
. .g r .. , , g. ,. - ,,,
, r..
-, p , .-] . .., y., , ...w
. ,, y ,; g ., . ...
.... ,,3 .
A; agq-_ p _,_.;9 . , .e; +., , . . e eqq.. ._ ; . ., , > s . , , , s ..3.. ( c e, < r _. _ _ . ,, _
89 E I I- 1 I' in i i Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.) Maximum Number of Samples Analyzed Minimum Value Observed 6 Honths Value Observed 6 Honths ( o 8 x x 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Sample Type Area 18,100 31,300 27,100 1.17 27,400 27,400 Soil Facility 6 16,500 31,500 24,600 1.14 24,800 25,000 Gross 8 cujacent 18 19,900 30,800 24,600 1.16 24,900 25,800 (pci/kg) Re ference 18 . Facility 6 2.33 4.04 3.50 1.17 3.54 3.53 Soil 3.23 Adjacent 18 2.12 4.06 3.17 1.14 3.19 Gross S 3.21 3.33 2 (pci/m ) Reference 18 2.56 3.97 3.18 1.16 6 < 257 63.0 241 2.26 < 257 < 257 Soil Facility
< 192 357 278 1.88 < 192 < 192 106Ru Adjacent 18
< 265 2 < 252 303 248 2.38 < 265 -
(nci/m ) Reference 18 _ m N 6 < 44.7 62.3 30.7 2.24 10.9 25.6 Soil Faci 1ity
< 33.2 89.4 34.1 2. 3'/ 18.2 19.3 ,
137Cs Adjacent 18 20.7
~
2 Reference 18 < 43.7 89.6 26.9 3.50 28.4 (nci/m ) 6 < 18.9 69.9 23.3 1.90 20.0 12.1 : Soil Facility
< 11.9 60.6 18.2 3.08 6.40 1.68
%rZ Adjacent 18 47.9 16.9 4.63 24.6 11.1 2
(nci/m ) Reference 18 < 16.5 6 < 319 < 319 265 1.27 < 299 < 299 Soil Facility < 299 18 < 299 55.9 274 1.40 < 299 Tritium Adjacent 2.36 < 297 < 2r 18 < 297 441 197 (pci/1) Reference
*
- 0 %
- . *f a ~g y . 9
* ~ * ..n .*
- h ,
zg ?' .k:qy W.*'. 1 y r.w. _ .g, ,g a :;;g..!s. T.{s;s y aQ.k_. g y .c. " ~. L .hG ? '?QRW ;& N.:+', t? QW I, ., ." Q W* n.&;. ,
. g. ,~,z.u. m.7 : p .e y .y >.;. 3,r. w .y.
%+s ..v.v. ;.;p;iflg:k"._;f,;f ;w.,a;:s
. c4.m.w
.~
,; .y.s.cy .s ..,
w,.:
.. ;v .
.m. . ? . . .:. p.4.g. .y: %..av..a-
.._.u,
. . 'a..
u .7.y._ .q ., . :. 2 . ( _ ~; r.: . .;;_ :m _x; .3
- . .e
Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.) Number of Minimum Maximum Sacples Value Observed Value Observed I o a g g g Analyzed 5 Months 6 Months 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Sample Type Area Facility 6 < 7.82 17.7 13.0 1.47 < 7.82 < 7.82 Soil w 8.65 < 8.65 Adjacent < 8.65 87.4 14.3 1.75 89S r 18 8.55 4.22 < 8.60 < 8.60 (.pci/m) Reference 18 < 8.60 12.6 - 6 < c 1.1. 9 209 18.7 2.71 32.0 48.2 Soil - Facility
< 11.8 316 22.6 3.31 46.2 66.2 90S r Adjacent 18 33.3 50.3
. Reference 18 10.1. 263 13.6 3.53
( pC1/m2)
~2,440 11,400 8,350 1.73 9,160 8,200 k Aquatic Biota Fish Upstream Downstream 4
4 2,370 10,500 6,430 1.87 7,380 6,500 10,000 14,100 12,200 1.33 12,600 11,600 E 3 Gross S Effluent y 6 (pCi/kg) 5,330 11,100 8,300 1.39 8,620 8,130 Aquatic Biota Upstream 3
$ 3,240 23,300 9,510 2.72 12,600 12,600 E Benthic Downstream 3 5,020 18,400 6,740 2.84 9,360 12,200 3 ? Gross S Effluent j (pCi/kg). = 4 14,900 -27,100 12,300 2.44 16,000 22,200 - Aquatic Biota Upstream 20,400 29,300 13,000 3.24 19,300 26,900 Vascular Plants Downstream 4 22,900 10,100 2.13 12.400 16,900
'i Gross S Effluent 4 9,900, (PCi/kg) i 18,100 73,500 28,100 1.73 32,500 - 38,600 3 Aquatic Biota Upstream 11,500 26,400 21,400 1.42 22,300 20,900 Downstream 3 [ Seston 21,400 29,900 20,200 1.34 21,000 24,900 3 E Gross S Effluent ~ (pci/kg)
=
Table I1.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.) s Number of Minimum Maximum . Samples Value Observed Value Observed x 8 g
- x X
Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months , Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 < 14.5 < 64.3 28.1 2.99 < 14.5 < 14.5 Fish Downstream 4 < 24.9 12.0 26.4 3.69 < 78.8 < 78.8 89Sr Effluent 3 < 25.4 24.8 12'.9 6.42 < 50.5 < 50.5 (pci/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 < 48.5 < 48.5 212 3.63 < 48.5 < 48.5-Benthic Downstream 3 < 10.6 < 10.6 85.8 6.12 < 10.6 < 10.6 89Sr Effluent
~
3 < 37.9 < 37.9 107 2.02 < 37.9 < 37.9 (pci/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 < 26.1 179 65.4 5.01 114 28.3 Vascular Plants Downstream 4 < 15.7 20.0 21.1 1.60 < 15.7 < 15.7 89 Sr 46.6 2.22 < 14.4 < 14.4 Effluent 4 < 14.4 16.4 - (pC1/kg) - Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 < 25.0 78.9 68.0 2.82 < 25.0 2.03 Seston Downstream 3 < 24.8 10.9 39.1 3.31 < 24.8 < 2a.8 89Sr Effluent 3 < 3.28 2.27 11.2 4.16 < 3.28 < 3.28 (pCi/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 17.6 62.3 28.2 2.27 35.5 39.8 Fish Downstream 4 35.4 82.3 32.3 3.70 48.1 53.7 90Sr Effluent 3 34.6 36.4 29.2 1.83 33.3 29.1 (PCi/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 198 327 97.9 5.33 180 263 Benthic Downstream 3 19.2 216 93.6 3.95 144 144 90Sr Effluent 3 4.3 226 56.0 5.80 108 106 (pCi/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 119 164 - 88.1 1.74 99.0 131 Vascular Plants Downstream 4 39.3 127 96.9 1.91 118 82.0 90Sr Effluent 4 38.5 206 51.7 1.93 66.0 89.7 (pci/kg)
f . Tab 12 11.H.I.- 'Mean Value3 f r ell Sampla Typo 5.(Cont'd')c . s
- Number of . Min' imum .
Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed 2 9 Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months' E f . g g Saaple Type -Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months
' Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 0.556 181 39.8 11.2 85.0- 101 1 Seston Downstream 3- 35.5 219 134 2.79 201 127 90Sr Effluent 3 7.34
'139 47.9 3.08 46.5 .72.0 (pCi/kg)
, j Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 '289 . 289 143 2.34 3.76 179 Fish Downstream 4 43.4 273 92.8 3.27 < 24.9 133 106Ru. -Effluent 3 56.3 163 115 2.10 ,34.2 101 i (pci/kg).
1 l Aquatic Biota Upstream 3- 2.58 228 76.8 11.8 75.9 101 ! Benthic Downstream 3 92.4 538 214 2.42 276 276 106 Ru Effluent 3 28.9 1,340 390 7.38 < 37.8 536 - l (pCi/kg) @ l Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 274 722 401 2.18. 215 492 Vascular. plant Downstream 4 371 901 509 1.53 144 653 106 Ru Effluent 4 5^10 1,980 773 2.06 608 893 (pCi/kg). Aquatic biota Upstream '3 461 1,280 1,030 2.29 < 25.0 1,030 Seston Downstream 3 < 556 1,640 930 1.53 < 556 590 106Ru Effluent 1 < 2,870 <22,800 3,570 5.76 <2,870 < 2,870 (pCi/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 106 248 132 1.58 12'8 160 Fish Downstream 4 61.0 202 153 2.36 88.9 115 137Cs 1.90 Effluent 3 71.9 355 151 179 224-(pci/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 240 465 ' 279 1.51 298 338 Benthic Downstream 3 250 434 313 1.33 -323 323 137Cs Effluent '285 875 562 1.66 418 558 3 (pCi/kg) -
. 4 4
Table I1.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.) Number of Minimum Haximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed 2 o l Analyzed 6 lbnths 6 lbnths E f g 3 Sample Type Area 6 lbnths 1 Year 1 Year 6 lbnths . Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 234 460 237 1.95 f.77 293
'4jscularPlant Downstream 4 < 202 328 199 1.58 183 233 Cs Effluent 4 162 715 369 2.02 416 407 (pC1/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 < 1,060 503 561 1.52 159 178. gg3 ton Downstream 3 300 419 294 1.44 309 356 Cs Effluent 1 < 3,950 < 3,950 1,724 1.76 < 3,950 < 3,950 (pCi/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 0.978 76.9 19.7 4.38 27.4 36.1 Fish Downstream 4 29.0 122 80.5 3.15 65.9 58.3 952r Effluent 3 46.8 150 67.9 1.72 77.6 81.4 (pci/kg) h{ Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 102 194 139- 1.39 114 157 Benthic Downstream 3 173 198 187 2.19 188 188 952r Effluent 3 138 205 198 1.44 103 171 (pci/kg) Aquatic Biota Upstream 4 155 218 143 2.29 168 181 Vascular Plants Downstream 4 67.6 227 105 4.69 106 162 95Z Effluent 4 75.5 355 187 2.67 272 199 (pCi/kg) ' Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 206 455 238 1.66 264 339 Seston Downstream 3 180 205 240 3.00 40.8 < 1,610 95Zr Effluent 1 < 1,420 < 1,420 437 2.57 156 < 1,420 (pCi/kg) Beef F-44 4 < 2.21 48.6 5.P4 4.13 9.58 13.9 137Cs pCi/g Nat K
127 Table II.H.2 Dates of Announced Atmospheric Nuclear Weapon Tests and FSV Reactor Operation. Date Event Jnnuary 1974 FSV reactor start-up June 1974 1 Mton test by Mainland China .
. July, August, and Six tests by Mainland China of unknown yield September, 1974 January, 1976 20 kton test by Mainland China December, 1976 Initiation of significant operation of FSV reactor September, 1976 200 kton test by Mainiar.d China November, 1976 4 Mton test by Mainland China September, 1977 20 kton test by Mainland China March,.197f 20 kton test by Mainland China October, 1980 Test of unknown yield by Mainland China . . ~ . .
m 128 s-III.- . ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRA;* SCHEDULE s
.III.A. Enviionmental Radiation Surveillance Sch'edule
, -Table III'.A.1 outlines the collection and analysis of environmental -samples within an area extending to a twenty-mile
~
radius;from the. reactor site. A concentrated area of sampling within a one mile radius -is designated the " Facility" zone; the area from one to : ten miles, the " Adjacent" zone; while th'e " Reference" zone extends
.from-ten to twenty miles. The data obtained from the Facility zone are statistically ~ compared to those from the Adjacent and Reference
- zones to test for any significant differences in values. A similar rationale is used for surface waters and sediments. These are t
partitioned into " Effluent" '(Farm Pond and Slough), " Downstream", and
' " Upstream" locations for statistical analysis.
The sampling locations are shown .in Figures III.B.1 and III.B.2. Tables III.B.1,'III.B.2 and III.B.3 give some detaii of the sampling
' sites in the Facility, Adjacent and Reference zones respectively.
~
i '
.There were no changes in the sampling sites during the secund half of 1983.- -
F 4 d
L O TAllLE III. A.l. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM SCt(EDULE _s SAMPLING FREQUENCIES ANO ANALYSES - by Action t.evels, Ewposure Routes av based upon actual emissions as percentages of retesse rates authorized Iny to CF R 20 g ;,3 g g yyp,, Action Lewes 2: 3% to 10% Act.nn Level 3 Gremier st.an trM (No. of Locations /rone)' jv.;on Levet 1: Less than 3% l EXTERNAL EXPOSult6 Average mR/ day determined by TLD Chips Average mR/ day determined by OUARTEf1LY cumulative exposures: MONTHLY analytes ni att Tt f)*. connection and analysis in rotation of 1/3 of oil T LDs MONTHLY. (F-13. A-12. R-12) ATMOSPHER E . Some as for Level 1, plus gross Gross alpha amt bets,every fitier; Membrane fetters for Gross beta, every filter, WE E K LY; alpha on one weekly set of Damma spectrum of feller and particulates; charcoal Damma spectrum of litter ami carindge compos tes, all WE E K LY. cartridgu composites, MONT MLY. filters, MON TilLY. cartridges for iodine. (F-4. A-3) Specil c activity of tritium in atmospheric water vapor by passive absorption and liquid scintillation counting. Tritium oxide WEEKLY OUARTE RLY g MONTHLY g (F-2) ' I f WATER Gross beta, tritium and gamma spectrum analyses; Facility area and nearest of f site supply l Potatute water (shallow wells at town of Galcrest,6 miles northeasti. (F-1, A-1) MONTHLY. plus Sr 89 & 90 analyses j OUARTERLY MONTHtY Gross beta, MON THLY Gross beta, tritium and Sr 89 & 00 No collection or analyses of j Precipitateon MONTHLY; gamma spectrum of (F-2) precipitation at Level I. composite, OU ARTE f1LY. 1 1 Same as for Level 1, but Same as for Level 2, plus Surf ace water & si.: Gross beta tritium 8 nod Gamma Sr 89 & 90 analyses, MONTHL /. ] spectrirm. OtJ AR T ERLY. MONTHLY. (F-3. A-4) l FOOD CH AINS Tritium and gamma sgwetrum analyses of forage and crops in the anost erobable routes to man. Suel, forage & crops OU ARTE R LY, as avastalde MONTHLY during growin0 season Same as Level 2, plus Sr 89 & 90. ru (F.2. A-6. R-6) (i.e., approx. April to October). plus concurrent soil sampres c (i.e., spring. summer and f all). analyzed for the same nuclides, l MONTHLY during growin0 se35nn. . 1 Gamma spectrum, tritium and Same as f'or Level 2. plus total ' Beef catsie No anafysis of beef at Level 1. Sr 89 & 90 analyses on one nwas brxtv count of 2 to 4 animalt (F-1) sample from beef raised m Facility from Facility Area. QUART,ERLY. Area; ANNUALLY, at end of gearing season (i.e., late f alli. Samn as for Level 2,but Mith Tri'ium, p ma spectrum and Sr 89 & 90 analvses on composi's: WEEKLY during pasture season, F acihty Area only, OU Ai. , E RLY. Facility, Adjacent and F eference Areas: (F-2. A-6. A-6) MONTHLY during pasture seasen, otherwise, MON TH LY. otherwise OUAR TE f1LV. AQUAT.C BIOTA Same as for level 2, plus (2 streams, above Gross leta andDamma spectrum analyses of composites of each of 4 categories: Sr 89 & 90 analyses. anel below (1) suspended organisms, (2) benthic organisms, (3) vascular plants and (4) fish. OUAR T E R LY, as available. MONTHLY during summer; discharge points) e otherwise OU ARTE RLY, as avai:ahte. (F.2. A-2) l
' Table 5 91. in Technical Specibcalions.
- 1. Legeno. ,
F - F1cility Zono A - Adjacent Zone R - Reference Zone
- 2. Tritium Analysis of Surface Water Only
i Table'III.B.1. Facility area and effluent sampling locations for environmental media. Loc. Media Sampled at Location Location and Description (see Fig. II.B.1) I No. TLD AIR M S HO AQB Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments. 2 F 1 * ** 0.8 mi. N: potato cellar; TLD on pole at NE corner of barr;; precipitation I on hill E of barn. l F 2
- 1.1 mi. NNE; cabin. (
F 3 *
- 0.7 mi. SE; Farm on corner next to machine shop. TLD cn pole 250 ft. N of Drive.
F 4 * **
- 0.8 mi. S: first shed along drive; precipitation in corral; forage and soil S of shed.
F 7
- 0.8 mi. NNE; pole by gate at corner of Goosequill Rd.
l
- 0.6 mi. NE; 2nd pole S of cattle-guard on hill.
l F 8 I F 9
- 0.8 mi. SSE; 2nd pole W of pump house. .
I F 11
- 0.9 mi. SSW; 0.3 mi. W of intersection of 19b and 34. O F 12
- 0.8 mi. SW; 7th pole N of intersection.
F 13
- 0.6 mi. WSW; pole nearest intersection.
F 14
- 1.0 mi. NW; pole nearest corner.
F 44 *
- 1.1 mi. E; Leroy Odenbaugh dairy.
F 51
- 0.3 mi. N; Ted Horst farm, pole SW of house.
F 46
- 1.0 mi. SW; 2nd pole N of intersection, near Aristocrat Angus office.
F 47
- 0.4 mi. E; pole near driveway to punp house.
F 49
- 0.1 mi. W; tap outside Visitors Center.
E 38 *
- 1.3 mi. NNE; Goosequill pond.
E 41
- 0.2 mi. NW; Concrete slough above and below point of entry of plant water.
Codes: F = Facility area (within one mile). S = Soil and Forage sampling locations. E = Effluent surface streams. TLD = Thermoluminescent Dosimeter for measuring external gamma exposure. AIR = Air sampling location; ** = atmospheric precipitation collected. H2O = Water sampling locations; silt also sampled from surface sourcos. AQB = Aquatic biota sampling locations
Table III;B.2 '74jacent area sampling locations for environmental media. Loc. Media Sampled at Location Location Description (See Figs. II.B.1 and II.B.2) No'. TLD AIR M S HO AQB Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments 2 l A 5 *
- 4.5 mi. NNE; Lloyd Rumsey farm; 2 mi. N,1.5 mi. W of Peckham. :
A 6 * * *
- 5.5 mi. S; Clifton Wissler farm; 2 mi. W, 2.5 mi. S of Platteville; TLD on I polo 30 ft N of parlor, i A 27
- 5.0 mi. NW; 1 mi. S of Colo. 56.1 mi. E of I-25, pole on NE corner.
A 28 * *
- 6.0 mi. NW; Virgil Podtburg dairy; Colo. 60, 2 mi. W of Johnstown; TLD on last pole on NE corner.
A 29 >
- 3.5 mi. NNW; 3 mi. S; 1.6 mi. E of ilohnstown, TLD on pole by the stand of trees.
A 30
- 3.5 mi. NE; 1 mi. S of Colo. 256 on Colo. 60, pole on NE corner.
, ~
* * ~* 6.0 mi. ENE; 1.5 mi. E of Peckham; TLD on pole in front of house.
A 31 3 mi. N of Platteville; 1.2 mi. E of US 85; NW pole. A 32
- 4.0 mi. E; A 33
- 5.0 mi. SE; Niles Miller Dairy; 0.2 mi. S, 0.5 mi. E of Platteville.
A 34
- 6.5 mi. SW; 1 mi. E of I-25 at Colo. 254; pole on SW corner.
A 35 *
- 2.5 mi. SSW; .5 mi. N of Colo. 66 on RD 19, Curtis Strong feedlot. C:
* *
- 8.0 mi. W; Dave Gruber dairy; 2 mi W of I-25 on Colo. 56, then 1.5 mi S.
A 36 l TLD 0.5 mi. W. A 48 *
- 9.5 mi. NW; Bill Ray dairy; 2 mi. E and 1 mi. N of Peckham.
A 50 *
- 5.0 mi. SE; 0.8 mi. E of Platteville.
D 37
- 12.5 mi. ENE; Lower Latham Res.; 2.5 mi. E of LaSalle.
l D 39
- 5.0 mi. ENE; Gilcrest water from U.S. Post Office.
D 40 *
- 5.5 mi. ENE; South Platte River at Colo. 60.
D 45
*
- 1.0 mi. N; St. Vrain Creek at Jct. Rd. 19b, 0.2 mi. from discharge.
Codes: A = Adjacent area (one to ten miles from reactor). D = Downstream potable or surface waters. All other symbols same as for Table III.B.1.
hl Table III.B.3. Reference area and upstream sampling locations for environmental media Ltc. Media Sampled at Location Location Description (see Figs. II.B.1. and II. B.2.) N 7. TLD AIR M S H,0 AQB Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments. f R 15
- 11.5 mi. NW; 4.2.mi. W of I-25 on Colo. 60; TLD on pole W of farm driveway.
R 16 * *
- 11.8 mi NNW; Fountain View Farms; N side of Colo. 402 W of I-25.
R 17 * .
*
- 11.8 mi-. NNE; Bob Schneider Dairy; 1 mi. S of US 34 on RD 25; on pole 0.5 mi. N of parlor on RD 25.
R 18-
- 10.0 mi. NNE; on pole on SE corner of intersection of 65th Ave. and 37th Street (Greeley)
R 19
- 13.3 mi. NNE; US 34 at 47th Ave. (Greeley); pole on SW corner, opposite golf course.
R 20 * *
- 11.1 mi. ENE; Dick Stroh dairy; 2 mi. E;,1.6 mi. S of Lasalle; TLD on pole W of parlor R 71
- 11.9 mi. E; 5 mi. E of US 85 on Colo. 265; then 1 mi. S; TLD on pole on SW ,
corner. R$ R 22 * *
- 11.1 mi. SE; Hagans Bros. Dairy; 4.2 mi. S of Platteville; 4.2 mi. E of US 85 TLD on 1st pole E of drive.
R 23 * *
- 11.5 mi. S; Dick Silver; 3.5 mi W of Ft. Lupton, TLD on 1st pole W on drive.
R 24
- 12.2 mi. SSW; I-25 at Colo. 52; pole W of the frontage road; NW corner.
R 25 * *
- 13.3 mi. SW; 5665 Weld County RD 3.
R 26
- 12.2 mi. WNW; On US 287, 2.5 mi on Colo. 56, 2nd pole S on RD 2E.
U 42
*
- 1.5 mi. WSW; St. Vrain Creek at bridge, RD 34.
U 43
*
- 0.6 mi. E; South Platte River, at dam and inlet ponds.
Codes: R = Reference area (greater than 10 miles from reactor). U = Upstream from effluent discharge points. All other symbols as in Table III B.1. u__
133 Fib re III.B.I. On-site Sampling Locations
, s N,
/ 's
~'
- i 3 '\, ) _J L
,e '] r
- y-
~
1J I N ~
/ \ .\
/ %~
F-i s 7 [ h'\ l s
% M E- D I:-______ ! w
\
/ I / , B E2 Eit"'a l i \
t
,, v a '" u a
/ EPo Y#* l j rActoR g switcM , ,LE _j e l YARD w p _____.J
\
9-- l
;.l i
i ( j.o
\ >
i o1 /
\ &l 1
, [ ,/
x l l c / 1 l /
-I I .
F-3 / q) E*4 I N.
% _,/
On-site and close-in sampling locations. F = facility area, E = effluent stream, U = upstream, D = downstream. I
I-p' 134 Figure III.B.II. Off-site Sampling Locations
!!Gi ng t_1 W >
li \ t I~!,,,,*'!-_-_-l- -T - 1 [ 2S7 s __ __ p _ _ .j _ _ g L. I Og 0 0 _
' i g ggt gy ,,,
'g a ! =
- I , as Q '
l
~
l
/ <..<a. j ~
i f , I r
\ fyy ,\ U i\ vm
, ~~
i ; 7 gf Q J, W M s u..
.. . g n'a ., ,a s . 3 => ",',
; ,y /
~
/
g-~eg. i
,.... m , , i
- - ; A 4. j i,m_,a .. p ,; pa
~
l _1_ n 4 0 7 _ _ 7 ,% qr_-_ ___ _
; __. _ -- ; _. _ __ _. _ f te -
_ _/g) {5 U-E l l _ _ _ . . od
. 6 e -
J l: , ---i l- p-+i- , - - - ._ i i 3
"*-F**-
I[ D g j <
/ ' 1, ! 8
'O . PLATTEItLt %^I 'l 8i_l _ ,~~A !
j y,, ;
/
.a
$_. T
,,s,y/..i. -
i 2 yq _y_a i---
.__i
, L r- 3 g+
D 3 -. __ I) __ j ___._. __!_ I_! i i gd_h__3 L 1 _ l _ _ _ !_ _ ,_ _ .L .s ! __ _- . --F-4i T - 6- [t.- J
/
l 3t i _ _g _s i i i
,y_ a
.s i
___r a____i i
- i. ;
_y
! I I
} ) M FT LUPTON 4_ + . ,
q , 1- 4 (e ll .w$ v 7 T-1 s l l l fl l M. i ! /l I ,l 0 5milst 10 miles SCALE W
~
'. Publi( Service ('omptmy 2 O dle m dro i
,' 420 W. 26th Avenue, Suite 100D Denver, CO 80211 February 29, 1984 Fort St. Vrain Unit No. 1 P-84061 Mr. John T. Coll'ns, ] g g g % ~@, %
Regional Administrator ; Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV d MAR . 'l1984
~
Office of Inspection and Enforcement l j 611 Ryan Plaza Drive b l. Arlington, Texas 76012
SUBJECT:
Environmental Radiation Surveillance Drogram - Summary Report
Dear Mr. Collins:
Please find enclosed two copies of the Summary Report for the $ Environmental Radiation Surveillance Program being conducted by Colorado State University fo: the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station for the period July 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983. This documer:t is submitted to report the results of environmental radiological monitoring performed in accordance with the requirements of Technical Specification SR 5.9.1 of Appendix A to operating license DPR-34 which was in effect throughout 1983. If you should have any questions regarding these reports, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, f MW H. L. Brey, Manager Nuclear Engineering Division HLB /JLR:pa Enclosure L'gDI i \ ( 1 x}}