ML20065B085

Environ Radiation Surveillance Program, Summary Rept for First & Second Quarters 1982

ML20065B085
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	08/27/1982
From:	Borst F, Johns J, Jerrica Johnson COLORADO STATE UNIV., FORT COLLINS, CO
To:
Shared Package
ML20065B071	List: ML20065B069 ML20065B085
References
NUDOCS 8209140247
Download: ML20065B085 (130)

Text

_

gADIATlog i f

4: .

I -O

,f NI ' '

/':/

's -

, ,- X X FORT ST. VRAIN 's s %y m p/ ,e NUCLEAR 's, 'g g;' / GENERATING STATION '. 'O ltJ I l 'n \Y u

r

\ i i

y .

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

\ OF

\ COLORADO

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

x /

~

~ - s' PROGRAM SIM%RY REPORT FIRSTANDSECONDQUARTERS ,

1982 l

! PURCHASE OPI)ER No. 96239 l

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 8209140247 820830 PDR ADOCK 05000267 PDR _ , _____ _ __ _ _ _ , _ _ _

j

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO Attach P-3F 1

FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Pa 1 of 1

'/ '

ERSP

SUMMARY

REPORT COVER SHEET ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM O

1 s

Summary Report for the period January through June, 1982 Prepared by:

Date Mb 4 Jame) E . Johnso U rofessor, Colo Neo State University Reviewed by: /$6L d 74h2-Date Taciation ProteckJon Manager

' Reviewed by: 8/27!8'1 Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing Dhte '

Approved by: [b b cc  %

Date '

L_

Station Manager (7 i::::; % i  % d.A Aw.w.m 8 /n/sz Date

~

Manager, Nuclear Engineering Division

Acknowledgements Many persons have contributed to this project during the first half of 1982 and it is important to acknowledge their effort. We also wish to thank the citizens from whose fanns, homes, and rancheswe collect the environmental samples. Without their cooperation the project would not be possible.

The persons working directly on the project have been:

John Combs Sheri Chambers Sharon Clow Charly Domingue Diane Higgins Marion Mcdonald Hildy Morgan Neill Stanford June Vando-Gugluzza Marilyn Watkins Greg White

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

List of Tables iii List of Figures vi I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SURVEILLANCE DATA FOR JANUARY THROUGH JUNE 6 1982, AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS A. External Gamma Exposure Rates 6 B. Air Sampling Data 9 C. Water, Sediment, and Precipitation 28 Sampling Data D. Food Chain Data 63 E. Aquatic Biota 85 F. Beef 'Ca ttl e 93 G. Sample Cross Check Data 95 H. Conclusion and Summary 101 III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATIF. SURVEILLANCE 117 PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE A. Collection and Analysis Schedule 117 B. Sampling Locations 119 i

LIST OF TABLES Page No.

8 II.A.1 Gama Exposure Rates Measured by the TLD Technique.

II.B.1 Concentration of Long-lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles.

11

a. First Quarter, 1982 12

b. Second Quarter,'1982 II.B.2 Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta Activity in Airborne Particles, 13

a. First Quarter, 1982 14

b. Second Quarter, 1982 II.B.3 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water Vapor, 18

a. First Quarter, 1982 19

b. Second Quarter,:1982 II.B.3a Tritium Concentrations in Air 20

a. First Quarter,1982 21

b. Second Quarter,1982 II.B.3b Tritium Released in Reactor Effluents, 22 Iodine-131 Concentrations in Air (Composite). 25 II.B.4 II.B.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Air (Composite).

First Quarter,1982 26 a.

Second Quarter,1982 27 b.

Gross Beta Activity in Water. 32 II.C.1 33 II.C.la Gross Beta Activity in Effluent Water, Goosequill (E-38).

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

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

36 II.C.4 Strontium-89 Concentrations in Surface Waters.

iii

F~

LIST OF. TABLES (Cont.)

Page No.

II.C.4a Tritium, Strontium-89-90 in Effluent Water, Goosequill, 37 (E-38).

a. First Quarter, 1982 37

b. Second Quarter, 1982 38 II.C.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Water. 39 II.C.5a Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 45 Effluent Water, Goosequill (E-38).

II.C.6 Gross Beta Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 48 II.C.7 Strontium-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 Deposition 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. 67 II.D.2 Strontium-90 Activity in Milk. 68 II.D.3 Strontium-89 Activity in Milk. 69 II.D.4 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 70 Composite Milk Samples.

II.D.5 Tritium, Strontium-89, and Strontium-90 Concentrations 73 in Forage.

.iv

LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)

Page No.

I.I.D.6 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 75 Forage.

II.D.7 Gross Beta Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) and 77 Soil (pCi/kg).

II.D.8 Gross Beta in Soil (pCi/m2 ). 80 II.D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 81 Soil (nC1/m2),

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

II.E.1 Gross Beta and Radiostrontium Concentrations in 87 Aquatic Biota Samples.

II.E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 90 t Aquatic Biota Samples.

II.F.1 Radionuclides in' Facility Area Beef Cattle. 94 II.G.1 EPA Cross-Check Data Summary. 98 II.G.2 Fort St. Vrain-Colorado Department of Health 100 Cross-Check Data Summary.

II.H.1 Data Sunnary. 105 III.A.1 Environmental Radiation Surveillance Program. 117 III.B.1 Facility Area and Effluent Sampling Locations for 119 Environmental Media. ,

j III.B.2 Adjacent.: Area and downstream sampling locations for 120 '

Environmental Media.

III.B.3 Reference Area and Upstream sampling locations for 121 i

Environmental Media.

l-v f

i

LIST OF FIGURES III.B.1 On-site Sampling Locations 122 III.B.2 Off-site Sampling Locations 123

I. Introduction to Radiation Surveillance Data for the first half of 1982.

During the first half of 1982 the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station produced power as follows:

Number of Gross Month Dates with Days Without Electrical Energy-(1982) Electrical Generation Generation Generated (MWH)

January 31 0 February 28 0 i

March 31 0 April 15, 17-20 25 5,691 May 8-31 7 82,273 l June 1-4, 14-30 10 98,183

)

The energy generation was 44% of that in the previous 6 month reporting period. The reactor did not operate during the last month of 1981 or the-first 3.5 months of 1982. Radioactivity released by normal effluent routes, I

however, was not negligible during the shut down period (see Table II.B.3b) .

This is due to scheduled clean up and maintenance operations. A complete and detailed listing of radioactivity released by all effluent routes may be found in the Public Service Company of Colorado semi-annual Effluent Release t

Report to the U.S.N.R.C. When possible in this report we have discussed any j

correlation of radioactivity in environmental samples with the effluent release data. This analysis is found in each sample type section and in the

[' summary section, II.H.

The most recent Chinese atmospheric nuclear weapon test was monducted in October of 1980. The influx of tropospheric fallout from this test was noted during all of 1981 but air concentrations during the first half of

f l l

1982 were at pretest background levels.

Significant tropospheric fallout from Chinese weapon tests has been l observed during the entire preoperational and operational period of the l reactor. The fallout has been extremely variable and does not allow direct comparison of preoperational and post operational data. Fallout deposition l

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

The environmental sampling and analysis program was essentially identical to that used in the previous reporting period.

Essentially all radioactivity data measured on this project are near background levels and, more importantly, near the minimum detectable activity l

l (MDA) 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 most importantly due to true environmental or biological variability. As a l

result, the overall variability of the surveillance data is quite large, and l

it is necessary to use mean values f rom a rather large sample size to make r

any conclusions about the absolute radioactivity concentrations in any environ-mental pathway.

Environmental radiation surveillance data commonly exhibit nonnormal frequency distributions. 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 MDA or MDC, (the minimum detectable concentrations of activity in that sample type), calcula-tion of true 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 i

f .

, - - , . --,.,,.-o -

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

_3_

arithmetic means and confidence intervals 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. l.

(Negative values are possible due to the statistical nature of radioactivity counting) . This is the current accepted practice by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It should be noted that we have not used any footnote for values less than HDC. Rather we list the measured value as less then the actual MDC value. Because the MDC is dependent upon variables such as the background count time and sample size, the value will be dif ferent for each sample type and even within sample 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 dif ferent or not significantly different, the confidence for the statement is at the 95% level (a=0.05).

In this report we have added to appropriate tables the maximum permissible concentration applicable to that radionuclide. We have chosen to list the mdximum permissible concentrations as found in Appendix B Table II of 10 CPR 20. These concentrations if ingested or inhaled continuously would singularly produce the maximum permissible dose rate to a member of the general public. That value i

is 170 millirem / year and must include the dose from all sources and l

l i

i

routes excluding background radiation and medical radiation. The MPC values are given only for comparison of the measured effluent values. As stated in 10 CFR 20 they are the maximum concentrations above natural background that a licensee may release to an unrestricted area. It is generally assumed that no direct ingestion or inhalation of 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 i i

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 are not directly applicable to the Fort St.

Vrain gas cooled reactor.

A limit that does apply is * .te independent maximum permissible dose ccmmitment 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-radioquelides. As will be noted in this report dose commitments are calculated for any concentrations noted in unrestricted areas that are significantly above control values.

l-

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

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.

f. Sample unavailable.

g. Analysis in progress.

h. Sample not collected (actual reason given).

N.A. Not applicable.

~

II. Surveillance Data for January through June 1982 and Interpretation of Results.

A. External Camma-ray Exposure Rates The average gamma-ray exposure rates expressed in mR/ day are given in Table II.A.I. The values were determined by CaF2 :Dy (TLD-200) dosimeters at each of 37 locations (see Table III.B.1-III.B.3) . Two TLD chips per package are installed at each site and the mean value is reported for that site if neither value is aberrant. The mean calculated total exposure is then divided by the number of days that elapsed between pre-exposure and post-exposure annealing to obtain the average daily exposure rate. The TLD devices are changed monthly at each location.

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

The TLD data indicate that the mean measured exposure rate in the Facility area was 0.49 mR/ day. The mean exposure rate was 0.49 mR/ day for the Adjacent area and 0.47 mR/ day for the Reference area. There were no significant dif ferences between the values for the Facility, Adjacent and Reference areas. There was also no significant dif ference from the last 6 month period of 1981.

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 surface deposition of fission products from world-wide fallout. The variation in measured values is due to true variation of the above sources plus the variation due to the measurement method. The purpose of the TLD ring around the reactor is not to 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.

l l

l l

l

Table II. A.1 Gamma Exposure Rates lleasured by the TLD Technique (mR/ day). First Half, 1982.

Average Daily Gamma Exposure Rates Facility Area Locations January February March April May June F 1 0.51 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.49 0.48 F 3 0.52 0.46 0.54 0.51 .

0.49 0.50 F 4 0.51 0.44 0.47 0.52 '0.52 c2 F 7 0.50 0.41 0.44 0.50 0.47 0.45 F 8 0.53 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.49 F 9 0.54 0.50 0.51 0.54 0.51 0.50 F 11 0.47 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.16 F 12 0.43 0.48 0.46 0.54 0.56 0.49 F 13 0.51 0.42 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.47 F 14 0.50 0.42 0.47 0.51 0.49 0.44 F 46 0.53 0.46 0.47 0.51 0.56 0.48 F 47 0.50 0.43 0.49 0.45 0.50 0.41 F 51 0.53 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.54 i 0.51 0.45 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.48

. Adjacent Area Locations A 5 0.51 0.47 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.50 A 6 0.47 0.40 0.41 0.48 0.47 0.48 A 27 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.47 0.47 0.47 A 28 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 b A 29 0.50 0.44 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.49 A 30 0.54 0.46 0.48 0.53 0.52 0.56 A 31 0.47 0.40 0.45 0.55 0.50 0.54 A 32 0.49 0.41 0. 30 0.51 b 0.51 A 33 0.50 0.46 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.57 A 34 0.57 0.49 0.52 0.53 0.60 0.58 A 35 0.52 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.55 A 36 0.50 0.45 0.44 0.50 0.47 0.54

.I 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.53 i 0.50 0.44 Reference Area Locations R 15 0.46 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.48 R 16 0.50 0.53 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.58 R 17 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.42 0.41 c1 R 18 0.46 0.41 0.40 0.43 0.44 0.50 R 19 0.43 0.42 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.49 R 20 0.46 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.51 R 21 0.49 0.46 0.51 0.47 b 0.50 R 22 0.50 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.49 R 23 0.48 0.46 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.45 R 24 0.51 0.54 0.56 0.54 0.60 0.51 R 25 0.48 0.45 0.47 0./3 0.43 0.49 R 26 0.50 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.44 b i, 0.47 0.46 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.50

b. Sample missing at site, c1 Chips broken in vial.

c2 Instrument malfunction.

I

II.B. Air Sampling Data

1. Gross alpha and beta activity.

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

It was observed that the concentration of gross alpha emitting radio-nuclides at all sites was slightly lower but statistically the same as for the last half of 1981.

Gross beta concentrations decreased from those observed in 1981.

The second quarter mean value was significantly lower than the mean for all sites during the first quarter. This indicates that the contribution from Chinese weapon test fallout was still decreasing. The mean value for the second quarter was even lower than the values measured during any reactor preoperational period.

There was no statistically significant difference between facility and adjacent sites for either gross alpha or gross beta concentrations during either quarter. There has never been a significant difference observed between the facility and adjacent sites.

l 1

l I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table II. 8.1 -

Concentrations of Long-Lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles .(fCi/m3 ),

a) First quarter, 1982 Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 l 2 3 1 4 5 6 35 1-2-82 3.7 (1.0)* 4.3 (1.1) 3.7 (1.1) 4.6 (1.3) 3.0 (1.2) 3.7 (1.0) 4.1 (1.2) 1-9-82 6.1 (1.3) 5.0 (1.4) 6.5 (1.5) 5.6 (1.2) 7.8 (1.5) 5.5 (1.4) 11.2 (2.2) 1-16-82 3.7 (0.7) c1 7.9 (1.3) 10.2 (1.6) 3.1 (2.0) 10.6 (1.9) 2.7 (0.9) 1-23-82 8.3 (1.4) c2 4.7 (1.0) 8.2 (1.4) c1 10.0 (1.7) c3 1-30-82 4.0 (1.1) 5.3 (2.2) c1 6.6 (1.8) 4.2 (1.1) 4.2 (1.7) c1 2-6-82 6.4 (1.4) 6.8 (1.1) c2 7.8 (1.5) 6.4 (1.3) 8.4 (1.7) 9.3 (1.6) 2-13-82 4.8 (0.9) 4.9 (0.9) 3.6 (0.8) 8.7.(1.5) 7.4 (1.4) 7.4 (1.5) 8.3 (1.5) '

2-20-82 3.5 (0.9) 2.2 (0.6) c1 4.7 (1.3) 3.3 (1.1) 7.7 (1.9) 5.3 (1.3) ,

2-27-82 5.0 (1.2) 3.7 (0.9) c2 5.0 (1.3) 6.5 (1.6) 10.0 (2.3) 5.7 (1.5) f 3-6-82 8.7 (1.2) 6.2 (0.9) 12.3 (1.7) 12.6 (1.8) 7.7 (1.5) 9.5 (1.5) 10.6 (1.6) 3-13-82 4.5 (0.9) 3.9 (0.8) 2.5 (0.6) 8.6 (1.6) 5.5 (1.0) 10.6 (2.1) 6.0 (1.2) 3-20-82 4.5 (1.0) 3.7 (1.0) 3.2 (0.7) 8.2 (1.7) 3.7 (1.0) 5.4 (1.1) 5.9 (1.2) 3-27-82 6.1 (1.4) 5.3 (1.0) 4.3 (1,0) 12.0 (2.2) 7.2 (1.5) 7.0 (1.3) 7.0 (1.5)

Average 5.3 4.7 5.4 7.9 5.5 7.7 6.9 Quarterly Quarterly (46 Samples) 2.2 -minimum ( 36 Samples) 2.7 -minimum 12.6 -maximum 11.2 -maximum 5.9 Y 6.7 -Y All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10-15 pCi/ml.

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

c1 Pump motor failure.

c2 Pump in for repairs.

c3 Unable to count filter due to damage.

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

b) Second Quarter, 1982.

Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 l 2 l 3 1 4 5 6 35 4-3-82 4.7 (1.1) 4.0 (1.1) 2.2 (0.6) **

5.2 (1.4) 9.3 (2.0) 4-10-82 5.0 (1.1) 2.2 (0.9) 4.2 (1.3) 5.0 (1.4) 2.9 (1.0) 5.0 (1.2) 5.6 (1.2) 4-17-82 4.7 (1.3) 6.1 (1.4) 4.7 (1.4) 8.7 (2.2) 6.0 (1.8) 6.5 (1.6) 4-24-82 6.7 (1.5) 5.4 (1.7) 5.6 (1.6) 9.5 (2.1) **

9.2 (1.9) 7.5 (1.7) 5-1-82 5.9 (1.4) c 7

c 2

7.5 (1.6) 7.7 (2.6) 6.6 (1.5) 3.4 (0.9) 5-8-82 6.0 (1.3) c 1

8.2 (1.6) 6.6 (1.6) 5.5 (2.0) 4.6 (1.4) 8.2 (1.7) 5-16-82 3.3 (0.8) 2.9 (1.0) 3.0 (0.7) 2.7 (0.8) 3.7 (1.1) c 5.6 (1.3) ,

3 5-22-82 5.3 (1.3) c 1

2.0 (0.7) 3.1 (1.0) 3.3 (0.8) 6.0 (1.4) 3.5 (1.0) y 5-30-82 2.8 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) 2.7 (0.8) 2.7 (0.8) 3.9 (0.9) 4.4 (1.0) 5.1 (1.2) 6-6-82 cy 1.5 (0.5) 1.9 (0.6) 1.6 (0.5) 3.6 (0.9) 1.4 (0.4) 3.4 (0.9) 6-12-82 2.9 (1.0) 3.6 (1.0) 2.2 (0.7) 4.4 (1.2) 4.8 (1.5) 7.4 (1.7) 6.0 (1.4) 6-19-82 3.3 (0.8) t (0.6) 2.2 (0.7) 0.6 (0.4) 3.7 (1.0) 2.6 (0.8) 4.4 (1.1) 6-26-82 2.7 (0.8) '

) (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 5.2 (1.3) 2.8 (0.8) 5.3 (1.3) 4.0 (1.2)

Average 4.4 3.3 3.4 4.8 4.5 5.3 5.6 Quarterly Quarterly (46 Samples) -minimum 0.6 (35 Samples) -minimum 1.4

-maximum 9.5 -maximum 9.3

.T 4.0 -X 5.1 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10-15 Ci/ml.

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

• • Excessive dust loading, analysis uncertain.

c Pump in for repairs.

1 c Filter missing, not collectable.

2

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

a) First Quarter, 1982 Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 2 3 l 4 5 l 6 l 35 1-2-82 24 (2) 21 (2) 20 (2) 19 (2) 25 (2) 16 (2) 21 (2) 1-9-82 35 (2) 29 (2) 36 (2) 31 (2) 36 (2) 27 (2) 35 (3) 1-16-82 35 (2) cy 33 (2) 33 (2) 21 (3) 32 (2) 11 (1) 1-23-82 34 (2) c 2

26 (2) 32 (2) .c y 32 (2) c 3

1-30-82 21 (2) 27 (2) c 19 (2) 17 (1) 22 (2) cy 1

2-6-82 26 (2) 25 (2) c 2

29 (2) 21 (2) 29 (2) 24 (2) 2-13-82 34 (2) 31 (2) 31 (3) 36 (2) 36 (2) 36 (2) 28 (2) ,L 2-20-82 14 (1) cy 16 (2) 13 (2) 18 (2) 16 (2) Y 15 (1) 2-27-82 23 (2) 20 (2) c 2 24 (2) 25 (2) 28 (3) 21 (2) 3-6-82 23 (2) 23 (2) 22 (2) 23 (2) 24 (2) 19 (2) 22 (2) 3-13-82 20 (2) 18 (1) 17 (2) 21 (2) 19 (1) 24 (2) 18 (2) 3-20-82 15 (2) 16 (1) 15 (2) 18 (2) 13 (2) 14 (1) 16 (2) 3-27-82 22 (2) 19 (2) 17 (2) 24 (2) 23 (2) 20 (2) 18 (2)

Average 25 22 24 25 23 24 21 Quarterly Quarterly (46 sampies) 14 -minimum ( 36 samples) 11 -minimum 36 -maximum 36 -maximum 24 - X 23 - 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 (

• 1.96 S.D.)

c y Pump motor failure, c Pump in for repairs.

2 c Unable to count filter due to damage.

3

~

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

b). Second Quarter, 1982 Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 2 3 l 4 5 l 6 l 35 4-3-82 15 (2) 15 (1) 13 (2) 23 (3) 12 (2) 18 (2) 4-10-82 17 (2) 14 (2) 16 (2) 16 (2) 15 (2) 14 (2) '13 (1) 4-17-82 20 (2) 18 (2) 16 (2) 23 (3) 19 (2) 23 (2) 19 (2) 4-24-82 21 (2) 16 (2) 19 (2) 24 (2) 24 (2)- 21 (2) 20 (2) 5-1-82 20 (2) c c 22-(2) 22 (3) 23 (2) 14 (1) 1 2 5-8-82 26 (2) c 40 (2) 19 (2) 28 (3) 15 (2) 19 (2) 1 5-16-82 8 (1) 7 (1) 9 (1) 6 (1) 8 (1) c 7

11 (1) 5-22-82 16 (2) c 1

13 (1) 13 (2) 15 (1) 16 (2) 13 (1) h' 5-30-82 18 (1) 20 (1) 20 (2) 21-(2) 18 (2) 20 (2) 21 (2) 6-6-82 c.

y 14 (1) 16 (2) 14-(2) 13 (1) 12 (1) 12 (1) 6-12-82 19 (2) 17 (2) 19 (2) 20 (2) 17 (2) 18 (2) 18 (2) 6-19-82 15 (1) 12 (1) 14 (2) 5 (1) 16 (1) 10 (1) 13 (1) 22 (2)

~

6-26-82 20 (2) 7 (1) 15 (1) 21 (2) 14 (2) 21 (2)

Average 18 14 18 17 17 18 16 Quarterly Quarterly

( 47 samples) -minimum 5 ( 37 samples) -minimum 8

-maximum 40 -maximum 28

-Y 17 _ y 17 All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10-15 Ci/ml.

Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval ( 1.96 5.D.)

• • Excessive dust loading, analysis uncertain.

c . Pump in for repairs.

l c Filter missing, not collectable.

2

2. Tritium Activity. Tropospheric water vapor samples are collected continuously by absorption on silica gel at all seven air sampling stations (four in the Facility ares and three in the Adjacent area). The specific activity of tritium in water in weekly samples from these stations is listed in Table II.B.3. From the measured relative humidity the corresponding air concentration of tritium can be calculated and these values are given in Table II.B.3a.

From the tables the influence of plant liquid effluent tritium can be observed. The values at sites F1 and F2 are significantly greater than those at either of the other two Facility sites or at any of the Adjacent sites. F1 and F2 are closest to the Goosequill ditch effluent pathway. The tritium measured at those sites has always been greater than at the other sites during reactor release periods.

The elevnted values are assumed to be due to evaporation of tritiated water f rom the discharge ditch. The reactor effluent release of tritium is given by release mode in Table II.B.3b. There is indeed a correlation with peak values observed at F1 and F2 during February and March and the total activity released via the batch liquid mode. Generally, the correlation of activity released and tropospheric air concentrations is not very high due to variations in temperature, humidity, ditch flow rate, wind direction, and the fact that the release time is short compared to the sample collection period.

In spite of the high values measured at F1 and F2 and occasionally i

at other sites, the mean for all facility sites was low and not significantly dif ferent f rom the three adjacent sites.

l l

i

i A hygrothermograph is located at site F4 only. Using the temp-erature and relative humidity data from the hygrothermograph it is possible to convert specific activity of tritiated water collected on silica gel (pCi/ liter) to activity per unit volume of air (pCi/m ).

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

Two equations are used in the conversion of pCi/ liter of water to I pCi/m of air. The first equation is used to determine the vepor pressure of water (1):

log 10P = A - B (C+t), where: P = vapor pressure (mm Hg) t = temperature (C) j A = 9.10765 B = 1750.286 C = 235.0 The temperature used is the integrated weekly value taken from i

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 0 K T = temperature in Og .

The number of grams of water per cubic meter of air is then determined. l The value of "n" obtained is for saturated air. The relative humidity is therefore integrated over the week and this percentage of the saturated air value is taken. The final value is reported in pCi/m .

l This procedure has been applied to data collected for the first half l

of 1982 and listed in Table II.B.3a. The weekly integrated relative humidity l

l l

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

l

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

a) First Quarter, 1982 4

Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Date 35 i Collected 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 5 l 6 l 362 < 310 < 310 < 310 < 310-1-2-82 e < 310 *

(280) < 321

< 321 < 321 < 321 < 321 < 321 1-9-82 < 321

< 326 < 326 < 326 < 326 < 326 1-16-82 < 326 < 326

< 325 < 325 < 325 < 325 < 325 1-23-82 < 325 < 325 e < 322 < 322 < 322 1-30-82 < 322 e < 322

< 308 < 308 e < 308 < 308 '

2-6-82 481 811 (278) (282) < 318 < 318

< 318 < 318 < 318 < 318 2-13-82 e

< 318 < 318 < 318 < 318 < 318 2-20-82 < 318 2,170 (306) < 325 -

e e' 2,350 < 325 < - 325 < 325 2-27-82 (316) < 325 < 325

< 325 7,590 < 325 < 325 < 325 3-6-82 (367) < 320 < 320 < 320 3-13-82 530 582 < 320 e (292) (293) < 321 < 321 < 321 3-20-82 < 321 < 321 < 321 < 321

< 320 < 320 < 320 < 320 < 32d 3-27-82 < 320 391 (292) i

~

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

e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

Table II. B.3 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water Vapor (pCi/l).

b) Second Quarter, 1982 Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Date 4 5 l 6 l 35 2 3 l Collected 1 l l e e < 320 < 320 e 4-3-82 e 1,170 ,

(299) < 312

< 312 < 312 < 312 < 312 < 312 < 312 4-10-82 2,680 < 312 < 312 < 312 < 312 4-17-82 e < 312 (304) < 337

< 337 < 337 < 337 < 337 < 337 4-24-82 < 337

< 306 < 306 < 306 < 306 < 306 5-1-82 e < 306 .L 1,080 < 303 < 303 < 303 < 303 - 303 5-8-82 < 303 j (279) 335 < 297 l

< 297 620 < 297 < 297 < 297 5-16-82 l (268)- (265)

< 297 < 297 < 297 < 297 < 297 5-22-82 < 297 595 (268) < 299 782 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 5 30-82 < 299 (271) < 294 < 294 470 < 294 < 294 < 294 6-6-82 447 (263) (263) 481 < 294 1,220 < 291 432 501 6-12-82 616 (267) (259) (260) (260)

(261) < 291 < 291 < 291 6-19-82 < 291 658 < 291 429 (262) (259)

I 438 < 295 < 295 432 6-26-82 333 < 295 < 295 l

(262) (263)

(262) 1

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 955 confidence interval, (1.96 S.D.).

e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

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

a) First Quarter, 1982 Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas 4 5 6 35 -

Collected 1 2 3 1-2-82 e < 0.536 < 0.625 < 0.536 < 0.536 < 0.536 < 0.536 1-9-82 < 0.511 < 0.511 < 0.511 < 0.511 < 0.511 < 0.511 < 0.511 1-16-82 < 0.497 < 0.497 < 0.497 < 0.497 < 0.497 < 0.497 < 0.497 1-23-82 < 0.820 < 0.820 < 0.820 < 0.820 < 0.820 < 0.820 < 0.820 1-30-82 < 0.823 e < 0.823 e- < 0.823 < 0.823 << 0.823 2-6-82 < 0.747 < 1.26 < 0.498 < 0.498 e < 0.498 < 0.498 2-13-82 e < 0.499 < 0.499 < 0.499 < 0.499 < 0.499 < 0.499 2-20-82 < 1.09 7.41 < 1.09 < 1.09 < 1.09 < 1.09 < 1.09 2-27-82 e 7.34 < 1.02 < 1.02 < 1.02 < 1.02 < 1.02 3-6-82 < 1.09 25.5 < 1.09 < 1.09 < 1.09 < 1.09 < 1.09 3-13-82 < 1.79 < 1.96 < 1.08 e < 1.08 e e 3-20-82 < 1.12 < 1.12 < 1.12 < 1.12 < 1.12 ' < 1.12 < 1.12 1 3-27-82 < 0.882 < 1.03 < 0.882 < 0.882 < 0.882 < 0.882 < 0.882 H MPC = 2x105 . pCi/m3 . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).

a e Insufficient. volume for analysis.

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

, b) Second Quarter, 1982 Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 2 3 4 5 6 35 4-3-82 e 3.41 e e e < 0.933 < 0.933 4-10-82 < 0.929 < 0.929 < 0.929 < 0.929 < 0.929 < 0.929 < 0.929 4-17-82 e < 1.32 11.4 < 1.32 < 1.32 < 1.32 < 1.32 i 4-24-82 < 1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 - <'1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 t

5-1-82 < 1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 < 1.10 L

! 5-8-82

< 1.66 5.90 < 1.66 < 1.66 < 1.66 < 1.66 < 1.66 I 5-16-82 < 2.01 4.19 < 2.01 < 2.01 < 2.01 2.26 < 2.01

5-22-82 c c c c c c c l 5-30-82 < 2.84 7.41 < 2.84 < 2.84 < 2.84 < 2.84 < 2.84

! 6-6-82 4.48 4.71 < 2.94 < 2.94 < 2.94 < 2.94 < 2.94 l

6-12-82 5.94 11.8 < 2.81 4.16 4.83 4.64 < 2.83 6-19-82 < 2.88 6.51 < 2.88 4.24 < 2.88 < 2.88 < 2.88 6-26-82 3.90 < 3.45 < 3.45 5.13 < 3.45 < 3.45 5.06 pCi/m3 . (100FR20, Appendix B, Table II).

l H MPCa

= 2x10 c Instrument malfunction- hygrothermograph was knocked over by wind.

e Insufficient volume for analysis.

l I

Table II.B.3b Tritium Released (C1) in Reactor Effluents, 1982 Mode Jan 'Feb March April May June Total Continuous 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.28 0.32 1.0 liquid effluent (turbine building and reactor sump)-

Batch liquid 0.03 67.3 27.4 10.7 35.6 14.4 155.4 Gaseous stack 0.11 0.68 0.28 0.64 2.3 0.63 4.6 Total 0.2 68.1 27.8 11.5 38.2 15.4 161.1 i

3. Activity of gamma-ray emitting radionuclides in air.

Table 11.6.4 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 approximately 20 days post collection to allow Rn-222 decay and minimize decay of I-131. Background is determined from counts of unused charcoal. The I-131 concentrations presented are the result of decay correction back to the midpoint of the sampling period. Decay correction to the midpoint of the sampling period is appropriate as any I-131 in air does not arrive at the sampling station at a constant rate, but rather in pulses short compared to the collection period. This is the case whether the I-131 source term would be weapons testing fallout or reactor stack effluent.

The composite air concentrations of I-131 during the first half of 1982 were less than during 1981. The mean value was 2.1 fC1/m3 and this value was not significantly different from zero. The Effluent Release Report data indicated negligible reactor release of I-131 during the period. The calculated values above MDC therefore are the result of Chinese weapon fallout or method variability. There was no known source term for I-131 in the period other than the Chinese fallout.

Considering the long period since the atmospheric test, even the low values observed are suspect. The method currently in use is active absorption on charcoal. Radon-222 is trapped at the same time and, as pointed out above, a decay time of 20 days is allowed. However, in

periods when ambient radon is extremely high, e.g. during prolonged inversion periods, it is likely that sufficient decay of radon has not occurred. In addition, even a decay time of 20 days produces an I-131 decay correction factor of 5.6. Thus for this case any positive uncertainty in the calculated I-131 air concentration is magnified by 5.6. For comparison purposes it can be noted that the maximum permissible air concentration of I for the general public is 100,000 fC1/m (10 CFR 20, Appendix B Table II).

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

Mean values of Ru-106 and Zr-Nb-95 were lower than during 1981 due to the decreasing Chinese weapon fallout. Cs-137 values were essentially the same during both periods, but any difference could not be tested due to the low concentrations observed. All samples are counted after decay of Radon and Thoron daughters.

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

However, it is true that the activity measured is often a mixture of Ru-103 and Ru-106. Both isotopes have gamma-rays at essentially the same energy, and they cannot be separated by NaI(TI) 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 ef forts oc Separate them are not warranted.

Table'II. B.4 Iodine-131 Concentrations in Air (Taken From Composites of Activated Charcoal at all Air Sampling Stations and Determined by Gamma Spectrometry).

Sample Ending Dates I (fC1/m )

1-2-82 <-6.54 1-9-82 < 5.89 1-16-82 < 7.34 1-23-82 < 9.38 1-30-82 10.9 (2.95) 2-6-82 6.60'(3.35) 2-13-82 14.8 (4.45) 2-20-82 9.74 (4.41) 2-27-82 < 6.66 3-6-82 7.53 (2.90) 3-13-82 19.2 (2.51) 3-20-82 < 5. 52.

3-27-82 < 5.50 4-3-82 < 4.80 4-10-82 < 6.04 4-17-82 < 6.44 4-24-82 14.1 (2.95) 5-1-82 < 9.25 5-8-82 13.4 (5.67) 5-16-82 15.5 (3.70) 5-22-82 < 7.41 5-30-82 < 5.28 6-6-82 21.4 -(3.16) 6-12-82 < 7.43 6-19-82 < 5.95 6-26-82 8.80 (3.42)

Allconcentrationsareexpresygdinfemtocuriespercubic meter of air: 1 fCi/m3= 10- FCi/ml.

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

131 1 MPC, = 10 fCi/m . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

Table II. B.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 6_ir (Taken from Composites of all Air Sampling Stations) -(fC1/m3 ),

, a) First Quarter, 1982.

Sample Ending 106 1 95 Zr & Nb Ru Cs Dates 1-2-82 7.71 (8.15)* 5.09 (1.44) d'.908(0.566) 1-9-82 9.82 (8.08) < 1.40 < 0.602 1-16-82 < 1.95 < 0.439 0.324 (0.252) 1-23-82 < 9.88 4.54 (1.90) < 0.958 1-30-82 < 9.35 2.47 (1.89) l 1.03 (0.945) 2-6-82 7.07 (7.88) 5.98 (1.44) l 2.17 (0.634)

~

2-13-82 < 6.62 < 1.49  ! < 0.641 2-20-82 ] < 8.68 2.86 (1.75) 0.924 (0.770) 2-27-82 < 7.02 < 1.58 0.841 (0.581) 3-6-82 < 5.55 < 1.25 < 0.537 3-13-82 < 5.79 < 1.31 < 0.561 3-20-82 < 5.80 < 1.31 < 0.564 3-27-82 < 5.77 < 1.30 < 0.562 1

Allcongentrat{gnsareexpressedinfe=tocuriespercubicmeterofair:

1 fCi/m = 10 pCi/ml.

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 957. confidence interval,

(= 1.96 S.D.)

06 6 6 6 Ru MPC = 3x10 fCi/m . Cs MPC - 2x10 fC1/m . Zr MPC = 4x10 fCi/m .

(10CFR20, Appendix E, Table II)

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

b) Second Quarter, 1982.

Sample Ending 106 ' Zr-& Nb Ru Cs Dates 4-3-82 < 5.19 < 1.17 < 0.503 4-10-82 < 5.03 1.28 (1.01) < 0.490 4-17-82 < 2.48 < 0.599 < 0.211 4-24-82 < 6.76 2.51 (1.35) < 0.662 5-1-82 < 9.71 < 2.20 < 0.950 5-8-82 < 2.41 < 0.546 < 0.236 5- 16-82 < 6.26 < 1.42 < 0.611 5-22-82 < 7.75 < 1.75 < 0.757 5-30-82 < 2.17 < 0.491 < 0.212 6-6-82 < 6.93 < 1.57 < 0.677 6-12-82 < 5.64 < 1.27 <-0.550 6-19-82 < 2.26 < 0.511 < 0.211 6-26-82 < 2.13 < 0.481 < 0.207 All congentrat{gns are expressed in f emtocuries per cubic meter of air:

1 fCi/m = 10 pCi/ml.

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

(: 1.96 S.D.) 6 6 6 Zr MPC = 4x10 fCi/= .

j Ru MPC,= 3x10 fCi/m . Cs MPC,= 2x10 fCi/m .

I -(10CTR20, Appendix B, Table II) l

II.C.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water i

Table II.C.1 lists the gross beta activity in surf ace water and potable water supplies in the vicinity of the reactor.

Values of gross beta concentrations in surface water fluctuated at upstream, downstream and effluent sites by approximately a factor of 2, but the mean upstream and the mean downstream values were essentially identical. The mean upstream value was 9.64 pCi/L, and I

the mean downstream value was 9.94 pC1/L. There was no significant difference between these mean values. Mean values were slightly less than those measured during the second half of 1981 due to the decreasing fission product deposition from the Chinese fallout. The gross beta concentrations in both potable water sources were lower but as variable as surface water. The concentrations in potable water should be lower due to water purification which removes suspended solids. The variation is probably due to mixing of dif ferent 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 adequate to reflect discharges of tritium. Gross beta concentrations in these samples are shown in Table II.C. la. The mean concentration was 11.0 pCi/L.

During the second half of 1981, the mean concentration was 10.9 pCi/L.

The values observed were quite constant and presumably due to the effluent release patterns and to runoff from fallout deposition

as well as naturally occurring radioactivity. It is important to note that the effluent mean concentration observed during this period was not statistically different from the upstream mean value. This implies that the major source of fission product activity was not due to the reactor effluent. Although the effluent also has high tritium concentra-tions, the tritium is lost in preparation for gross beta analysis and does not contribute to the gross beta activity.

Table II.C.2 lists tritium in surface water and potable water supplies for each monthly collection for the first half of 1982. As observed during all of 1981, the downstream tritium concentration exceeded the upstream value. The upstream mean value during the first half of 1982 was less than the lower limit of detection and the downstream arithmetic mean value was 1,500 pCi/L. The highest concentrations were observed at D-40. The mean measured value for the period at this site was 3,730 pCi/L and this can be taken for the worst credible case. If this increase was indeed due only to reactor ef fluents, radiation dose commitment calculations can be performed for possible dose pathways in the immediate reactor environs. Using U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 parameters and methodology the dose commitment calculation would proceed as follows:

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

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

3. The measured downstream concentration of tritium was highest l

! at sampling location D-40. The mean value for the first half of 1982 at this location was 3,730 pCi/L. Taking the upstream l

l

mean value to be 321 pCi/L (the geometric mean value for the period) the net concentration that can be attributed-to reactor effluent would be 3,410 pCi/L.

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

3410pci/L x 330L/ year x 3.08 x 10' mrem /pCi x 1. year = 0.35 mrem This would be a whole-body dose. For comparison purposes the-limit in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I is 3 mrem / year for light water-power reactors. Background whole-body dose rates in the ' reactor vicinity are approximately 340 mrem / year.

The EPA independently has set an upper limit-total dose rate of 25 mrem / year (40 CFR 190) to any individual from any part of the nuclear. fuel cycle.

No dose calculations were performed for the farm pond water.

Although this is considered an unrestricted area, it is located on company _

property and as such there is no credible occurrence for the pond water to be ingested.

The tritium concentrations in the potable water supplies again showed significant variation. Evidently- these sources are comprised

. partly from tributary water and partly from well water. True well water should have essentially no tritium activity.

Table II.C.3 and II.C.4 lists Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations in surface water at the same sampling locations. Table II.C.4a lists i the same radionuclides as well as tritium in reactor effluent water samples collected weekly at E-38.

Significantly high tritium values have always been observed at I

effluent sampling sites, and this was true for the first half of 1982 (Sec. Table II.C.4a). This is directly attributed to liquid af fluent i

releases by Fort St. Vrain.

i I

l I

The concentrations of Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95 in surf ace and potable water are given in Table II.C.S. The same radionuclides were measured in the weekly samples collected at E-38. This data is shown in Table II.C.5a. The concentrations of all of the fission products measured in water are similar to those previously measured.

Table II.C.1 Gross Beta Activity in Surface Water (pCi/L)

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 6-12-82 1-9-82 2-13-82 3-13-82 4-10-82 5-22-82 Effluent 9.52 .. 14.0 14.1 7.21 12.8 11.0 E 38: Farm Pond '(2.37)

(coosequill) (2.56) (2.68) (2.69) (2.43) (2.44) 4.16 -13.8 13.3 14.7 7.60 10.3 E 41: Goosequill Ditch (2.42) (2.67) (2.67) (2.67) (2.26) (2.36)

Downstream 11.9 11.9 9.95 9.04 7.67 9.04 ,

D 37: Lower Latham (2.32) (2.42) M Reservoir (3.08) -(2.66) (2.60) (2.51) I 15.8 10.7 9.58 11.0 9.29 9.32 D 40: S. Platte River (2.35)

(2.74) (2.61) . (2.57) (2.57) (2.35)

Below Confluence 0 45: St. Vrain 9.34 7.31 9.80 9.47 9.03 8.84 (2.49) (2.60) (2.55) (2.10 (? 191 creek (2.61)

Upstream 12.3 7.34 8.45 7.41 6.78 6.99 u 42: St. Vrain creek (2.64) (2.50) (2.54) (2.47) (2.27) (2.26) 11.0 9.48 11.9 12.4 10.8 10.8 U 43: S. Platte River -(2.61) (2.57) (2.62) (2.61) (2.38) (2.37)

Potable 1.78 3.68 3.72 4.26 3.79 2.83 F 49: Visitor's (1.90)

(0.580) (4.57) (4.57) (4.58) (4.25) center 7.30 6.42 10.5 9.79 5.24 0 39: Gilerest city 7.90 (2.47). (5.81) (5.78) (5.88) (5.45) (2.09)

Water

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

MPC y = 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.'

040 collected February 27, 1982.

I .:

Table II. C.I.A.

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

Collection Date Total Water Concentrations 1-2-82 11.6 (2.60) 1-9-82 9.52 (2.56) 1-16-82 8.19 (2.52) 1-23-82 8.54 (2.53) 1-30-82 9.31 (2.55) 2-6-82 8.92 (2.53) 2-13-82 14.0 (2.68) 2-20-82 9.84 (2.58) 2-27-82 7.57 (2.51) 3-6-82 9.40 (2.54) 3-13-82 14.1 (2.69) 3-20-82 10.0 (2.58) 3-27-82 8.68 (2.53) 4-3-82 16.0 (2.69) 4-10-82 7.21 (2.43) 4-17-82 11.4 (2.61) 4-24-82 15.4 (3.32) 5-1-82 15.9 (2.80) 5-8-82 10.9 (2.38) 5-16-82 11.6 (2.25) 5-22-82 12.8 (2.44) 5-30-82 12.1 (2.41) 6-6-82 9.16 (2.31) 6-12-82 11.0 (2.37) 6-19-82 12.7 (2.36) 6-26-82 10.2 (2.35)

MPC = 30 pCi/L Table II, Appendir. B limit 10 CFR20 for an unidenti-fie5mixtureofradionuclidesinwater'ifeithertheidentityorthe concentration of any radionuclide is not known. '

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

k 4

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

2 Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations J 1-9-82 2-13-82 3-13-82 4-10-82 5-22-82 6-12-82 Effluent s E 38: Farm Pond < 321 575 , 35,400 418 456 766 4

(coosequill) (298) (636) (274) (263) (263)

E 41: Coosequill Ditch 1,550 566 6,320 468 18,000 645 j

(304) (298) (350) (275) (434) (262)

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 321 < 325 < 321 < 305 < 294 < 291 i -

Reservoir

] '

D 40: S. Platte River < 321 < 325 ** 19,000 917 1,300 1,260

! Below Confluence (474) (279) (271) (268)

' D 45: St. Vrain creek < 321 < 325 4,720 < 305 < 294 631 1 (334) (261)

Upstream ,

U 42: St. Vrain < 321 < 325 < 321 < 305 319 425 1 Creek (261) (259)

{ U 43: S. Platte < 321 < 325 < 321 < 305 375 400 River (767) (9c;9)

Potable

! F 49: Visitor's 342 < 325 < 321 < 305 < 294 301 (258)

Center (292)

D 39: Gilcrest city 445 < 325 < 321 < 305 < 294 625 Water (293) (261)

.

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

• • February D40 collected on February 27, 1982.

3 6 H MPCg = 3x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).

4

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

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates 1.oca t ions 1-9-82 2-13-82 3-13-82 4-10-82 5-22-82 6-12-82 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 1.31 < 0.951 < 0.849 < 0.925 < 0.907 < 0.867 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 2.05 < 0.911 1.09 < 1.08 < 0.920 < 0.866 (0.961)

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 1.09 < 0.874 < 0.870 < 0.950 < 0.735 < 0.796 Reservoir g D 40: S. Plarte River < 1.45 1.51 1.21 < 1.79 < 0.997 < 0.765 y' nelow Confluence (1 17),, (1_02)

D 45: St. Vrain < 1,43 < 0.815 < 0.844 < 0.930 < 0.924 < 0.946 Creek Upstream u 42: St. Vrain < 1.11 < 0.978 < 0.987 < 1.05 < 0.859 < 0.807 Creek _

U 43: S. Platte < l.67 < 0.771 < 0.910 < 0.952 < 0.812 < 0.840 River Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.28 < l.42 < 0.815 < 1.39 < 1.13 < 0.808 Center D 39: Gilcrest City < 1.14 < 0.757 < 0.869 < 0.771 < 0.973 < 0.793 Water

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

O Sr !!PC = 300 pCi/L. (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).

D 40 collected 2-27-82.

Table II. C.4 Strontium 89 Concentrations in Surface Waters (pCi/1).

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 5-22-82 6-12-82 1-9-82 2-13-82 3-13-82 4-10-82 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond 1.53

• 1.05 < 0.719 < 0.761 < 0.753 < 0.720 (Goosequill) (1.92) (1.19)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch 2.49 1.19 < 0.777 < 0.942 < 0.752 0.377 (3.16) (1.17) (1.04)

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 0.925 3.89 < 0.732 < 0.749 < 0.627 < 0.680 i Reservoir (1.16)

D 40: S. Platte River < 0.874 < 0.833

< l.19 < 1.53 < 0.762 < 0.674 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain 1.84 0.874 < 0.738 < 0.802 < 0.725 1 39 Creek (2.51) (1.13) (1.75)

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain 2.27 1.14 < 0.782 1.44 < 0.683 < 0.709 Creek (1.89) (1.32) (1.29)

U 43: S. Platte < 1.36 < 0.682 < 0.760 < 0.811 < 0.700 < 0.735 River Potable ,

F 49: Visitor's < 1.75 1.52 1.49 1.28

< 0.687 < 1.19 Center (2.02) (1./6) (1.08)

D 39: Gilcrest City < 0.957 < 0.670 < 0.711 1.11 < 0.775 < 0.709 Water l (0.995)

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

89 3 (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) .

Sr MPC = 3x10 pCi/L .

• • D40 collected 2-27-82.

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

a) First Quarter, 1982 Collection Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Date (pCi/1) (pCi/1) (pCi/1) 1-2-82 625 (282) <1.16 1.66 (1.97) 1-9-82 < 321 1.53 (1.92) <1.31 1-16-82 < 325 < 2.67 < 3.54 1-23-82 < 325 <0.834 <1.03 1-30-82 < 322 < 0.830 < 0.977 2-6-82 485 (297) < 0. 692 < 0.847 2-13-82 575 (298) 1.05 (1.19) < 0. 951 2-20-82 4,530 (337) < 0.739 < 0.886 2-27-82 2,030 (313) < 0. 787 < 0.939 3-6-82 1,050 (297) < 0.895 < 0.03 3-13-82 35,400 (636) < 0.719 < 0.849 3-20-82 204,000 (2,290) < 0.744 <0.872 3-27-82 2,590 (316) <0.775 < 0.889

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95*. conf'idence interval, (i 1. % S.D. )

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

89 3 Sr MPC g = 3x10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II).

O Sr MPC g

= 300 pCi/t (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Tame II).

r

(

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

b) Second Quarter, 1982 Collection Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Date (pCi/1) (pCi/1) (pCi/1) 4-3-82 < 323 < 0.953 < 1.15 4-10-82 418 (274) < 0.761 < 0.925 4-17-82 544,000 (2,420) < 0.747 < 0 862 4-24-82 35,200 (607) 0.880 (0.977) < 0.749 5-1-82 3,110 (292) < 0.761 < 0.901 5-8-82 407 (266) < 0.681 < 0.770 5-16-82 1,590 (277) < 0.889 < 1.16 5-22-82 456 (263) < 0.753 < 0.907 6-30-82 299 (261) < 0.645 < 0.767 6-6-82 953 (268) < 0.679 1.12 (0.853) 6-12-82 766 (263) < 0.720 < 0.867 6-19-82 375 (263) 0.838 (1.07) < 0.778 6-26-82 941 (268) < 0.691 < 0.794

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95*6 confidence interval,

(= 1.9.6 S.D.)

6 H MPCf 3x10 pC1/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II).

3 Sr MPCf x10 3 pC1/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II).

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

Table 11. C.S.

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

Collected January 9, 1982 ,

Sample Location 106 137 -

95 Ru Cs. - Zr & Nb Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 0.704 1.19 , 0.168 (Goosecuill) .(0.612)

(0.426)

E 41: Coosequill Ditch . < 0.747 1.07 0.705 (0.673) (0.343)

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 3.30 < 1.04 < 4.40 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 0.726 < 0.262 1.02-Below Confluence (0.258)

D 45: St. Vrain < 2.31 4.66 0.810 Creek .

(D.859) (0.460)

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 1.74 1.47 0.899 Creek (0.776) (0.409)

U 43: S. Platte < 2.21 2.84 0.446 River (0.864) (0.454)-

Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.82 < 0.887 < 0.377 Center .

D 39: Gilcrest < 2.62 < 0.823 0.622 City Water (0.325)

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

( 1.96 S.D.)

6 Ru MPC =lx10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 95 4 Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) 4.-

40-Table 11. C.5.

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

Collected February 13. 1982 .

Sample Location 106 l37 -

95 Ru -

Cs. Zr & %

Effluent E 38: Farm Pond 1.04 , 0.860 0.207 (Gooseouill) (2.21) (0.581) (0.308)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch 5.25 0.604 < 2.95 (3.25) (0.854)

Downstream D 37: Lower Latha: < 0.696 < 0.218 < 0.0926 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River 3.44 ,, 1.04 0.647 Below Confluence (2.39) (n an) (n ano D 45: St. Vrain 3.03 2.53 0.786 Creek (2.19). (0.585) (0.265)

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 0.814 < 0.256 < 0.108 Creek U 43: S. Platte 1.13 < 0.222 < 0.0940 River (2.35)

Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.82 1.18 < 0.377 Center (0.715) -

D 39: Gilcrest < 0.825 < 0.259 < 0.110 City Water

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

( 1.96 S.D.)

Ru MPC y

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

• • Collected 2-27-82 l

Table 11. C.S.

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

Collected March 13, 1982 .

Sample Location 106 137 -

95 Ru . C s ._ Zr & Nb Effluent E 38: '

Farm Pond < 0.706 0.861 0.923 (Gooseouill) (0.630), (0.296)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch 6.28 2.3/ 1.85 (3.32) (0.871) (0.405)

Downstreat D 37: Lower Latham < 0.493 < 0.154 < 0.0655 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 2.22 2.42 0.635

. Beloe confluence (0.862) (0.367)

D 45: St. Vrain < 2.20 '2.16 0.694 Creek (0.860) (0.398) ,

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 9.721 < 0.226 0.187 Creek (0.157)

U 43: S. Platte < 1.56 < 0.490 0.365 River (0.339)

Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.98 < 0.934 < 0.397 Center D 39: Gilcrest < 2.63 < 0.824 < 0.350 City Water

~

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

(! 1.96 S.D.)

Ru MPC =1x10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L Zr-Nb MPC =6x10' pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) l-l

-v.,,.w .v-.r .,9- , - . - - - . , -._ .. ,.w..,,-pg. r, -,4 ,.,y.-,,,w_.%, ,-w . g-yr---,,c.,, y y - - - ..~r

~ .- . -_

Table 11. C.S.

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

Collected April 10, 1982 ,

106 l37 Sample Location . Ru -

C s'. 95h&2 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 2.20 < 0.694 < 0.295 (Gooseeuill)

E 41: Goosequill _ Ditch 2.63 < 0.694 < 0.295 (3.15)

Downstream D 37: Lower Latham 2.07 < 0.213 < 0.0904 Reservoir (2.27)

D 40: S. Platte River < 2.20 < 0.694 < 0.295 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 2.20 < 0.694 < 0.295 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 0.944 < 0.297 < 0.126 Creek U 43: S. Platte 3.52 < 0.694 < 0.0295 River (3.18)

Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.83 < 0.891 - < 0.379 Center D 39: Gilcrest < 2.27 < 0.715 < 0.304 City Water

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

( 1.96 S.D.)

Ru MFC =lx10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 95 4 i Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

- - - - - , - - ,.r-- w r- ,.w -- .-w---%,- -- --..-y,. -,-- -*w.,,y. ---..+-.w~,,%-,- .=, -

1 43- l Table :1I. C.S.

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

Collected May'22, 1982 .

Sample Location l37 -

959gg 106RO' - .Cs Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 2.20 1.00 < 0.296 (Gooseouill) (0.845),

E 41: Goosequill Ditch' < 0.512 < 0.161 < 0.688

. Downstream D 37: Lower Latham 1.95 < 0.694 < 0.112 Reservoir (2.14)

D 40: S. Platte River < 2.39 < 0.752 < 0.321 Below Confluence D 45: St._Vrain < 2.20 <.0.694 < 0.296 Creek Upstrea

U 42: ' St. Vrain 1.90 < 0.234 < 0.0995 Creek (2.10)

U 43: S. Platte < 0.703 < 0.222 < 0.0944 Plver Potable F 49: Visitor's < 2.48 < 0.783 < 0.331 Center D 39: Gilerest < 2.48 0.782 0.333 City Water

~

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

( l.96 S.D.)

Ru MPC =lx10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 95 Zr-Nb MPC =6x10' pCi/L

-(10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

Table 11. C.S.

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

Collected June 12, 1982 .

106 ~

95 Sample Location Ru 1.37 Cs.

& & Nb Effluent

< 1.23 < 0.389 < 0.166 E 38: Farm Pond (Goosecuill)~

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 2.20 < 0.693 < 0.295 Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 0.819 < 0.258 < 0.110 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 2.41 < 0.759 < 0.323 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 0.691 < 0.218 < 0.0926 Creek .

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 0.553 < 0.174 < 0.0943 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 2.60 < 0.821 < 0.349 Pdver Potable .

F 49: Visitor's < 2.82 < 0.891 < 0.379 Center D 39: Gilerest < 2.60 < 0.821 < 0.350 City Water

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

( 1.96 S.D.)

Ru MPC =lx10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 'pci/L 95 Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 4 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)

Table II.C.S.A.

Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in. Effluent Water, Goosequill Pond, E-38. (pCi/L)

Col 1ettion.Date 106 137 95 Ru- Cs Zr & Nb

,1-2-82 < 2.43 '0.990 (0.889) 1.5d (0.489) 1-9-82 < 0.704 .1.19 (0.612) 0.168 (0.426).

1-16-82 < 2.21 2.45 (1.22) 0.796-(0.434) 1-23-82 < 2.21 < 0.694 '0.721 (0.368)-

1-30-82 < 0.873 2.18 (0.593) 0.426 (0.258)-

2-6-82 3.69 (3.28) 1.08 (0.857) 0.459 (0.419) 2-13-82 1.04 (2.21) 0.860 (0.581) 0.207 (0.308) 2-20-82 < 0.699 < 0.825 0.294 (0.436) 2-27-82 < 1.33 1.80 (0.713) 0.543 (0.322) 3-6-82 1.41-(2.04) <-0.183 0.098 (0.0930) 3-13-82 < 0.706 0.861-(0.630) 0.923 (0.296) 3-20-82 3.76 (3.25) 2.33 (0.864) 1.21 (0.391) 3-27-82 < 0.796 0.675 (0.475) 0.605 (0.209) 4-3-82 < 0.490 0.536 (0.601) < 0.0655 4-10-82 < 2.20 < 0.694 < 0.295 4-17-82 6.57 (2.27) < 0.207 0.145 (0.259) 4-24-82 < 1.04 < 0.328 < 0.140 5-1-82 < 0.687 0.981 (0.628) < 0.0925 5-8-82 9.67 (3.27) 0.880(0.858) 1.89 (0.838) 5-16-82 < 0.696 .< 0.219 < 0.0935 5-22-82 < 2.20 l'00 (0.845)

. < 0.269 5-30-82 < 2.20 < 0.694 < 0.296 6-6-82 ~ < 0.612 < 0.193 < 0.0822 6-12-82 < 1.23 <-0.389 < 0.166 6-19-82 < 0.874 < 0.275 < 0.117 6-26-82 < 2.20 < 0.695 < 0.296 106 Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCOL Ru MPC =1x10 pCi/L Cs MPC,42x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B. TableII).

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 957. confidence interval, (c 1. 96 S.D.)

II.C.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment Sediment is the major compartment for radionuclide contaminants in s fresh water ecosystem due to the high concentration factors for fission products in the sediment mineral matrices. Although the samples are always collected at the same point, it is impossible to collect a sample with a known surface area to volume ratio as can be done for soils. Therefore, activity is reported as concentration values in pCi/kg rather than as deposition in pCi/m . The values cannot be used to predict environmental transport of activity and serve only as monitoring information. The sample itself is a result of sediment movement downstream and is therefore a function of water flowrate which fluctuates greatly during the year. Table II.C.6 lists gross beta activity in sediment samples from the sampling sites in the water courses. The mean values for effluent, upstream, and downstream samples were, as always, nearly identical. They were not significantly different (see Table II.H.1) and indicate that the sediment samples are very homogeneous. The mean values and standard deviations were essentially the same as during the lant year. The gross beta activity is predominately from naturally occurring radionuclides from the uranium and thorium decay series and K-40.

Table II.C.7 and II.C.8 list the Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations in the same sediment samples respectively. The mean concentrations of both radionuclides were not significantly different between the three sampling areas, e.g., effluent, downstream and upstream. Table II.C.9 shows the concentration in sediment of the fission products l

I

Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zr-Nb-95. Although occasional high values appear, the mean values for these sample types (Table II.H.1) indicate no nynificant difference for any of the fission products in each of the sampling locations. Sediment samples are subject to leaching and solubility differences between the three radionuclides, which should be expected.

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

These two particle size fractions should contain essentially all of the radioactivity, both natural and that due to reactor effluents.

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.

Table II. C.6 Gross Beta Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pC1/kg).

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates tocations 1-9-82 2-13-82 3-13-82 4-10-82 5-22-82 6-12-82 Effluent .

E 38: Farm Pond 36,000 , 33,800 33,800 37,300 35,100 .32,500 (coosequill) (1,630) (1,470) ( 1_,460) (1.720) (1,500) (1,480)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch 32,000 31,700 31,900 35,100 37,100 32,100 (1,550) (1,540) (1,480) (1,680) (1,510) (1,470)-

Downstream ,

29,000 27,900 '

D 37: Lower Latham 30,700 26,200 30,300 32,200 Reservoir (1,590) (1,410) (1,420) (1,640) (1,410) (1,390)

D 40: S. Platte River: 42,600 37,600 ,, 37,400 40,300 31,800 .33,600 Below Confluence (1,730) (1,690) (1,580) (1,780) (1,430) (1,500)

D 45: St. Vrain 42,500 37,500 30,300 32,100 30,000 33,600 Creek (1,920) (1_,550) (1,480) (1,690) (1,330) (1,500)

Upstream u 42: St. Vrain 36,400 39,100 34,400 31,300 35,500 40,500 Creek (1,580) (1,580) (1,550) (1,500) (1,450) (1,630)

U 43: S. Platte 39,100 36,000 39,400 38,400 34,600 37,200 River (1,690) (1,590) (1,640) (1,670) (1,470) (1,580)

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

• • Collected 2-27-82

\ Table II. C.7 Strontium 90 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg).

I I

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates t

i Locations 6-12-82 1-9-82 2-13-82 3-13-82 4-10-A7 5-22-82 '

i Effluent 226 * < 211 < 207 < 256 < 179 < 236

! E 38: Farm Pond (Goosequill) (220)

< 183 < 160 7 < 184 27 1 E 41: Goosequill Ditch ,

L Downstream f D 37: Lower Latham < 194 < 215 < 186 < 211

< 221 < 143 Reservoir

• • < 203 D 40: S. Platte River < 209 < 164 < 170 < 242 < 221 Below Confluence D 45: Ft. Vrain < 272 < 198 < 187 < 223 < 190 < 508 Creek Upstream

< 262 < 239 <-195 < 237 < 276 < 236 l

U 42: St. Vrain -

Creek 287 < 213 < 196 < 193 < 216 < 214

! U 43: S. Platte River (303) i

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

! ** D40 collected 2-27-82.

1 i

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

Sampling Monthly Collection Dates L cati ns 4-10-82 5-22-89 6-12-82 1-9-82 2-13-82 3-13-82 Effluent

< 161 < 167 < 173 < 215 < 188 E 38: Farm Pond (446),

224 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 150 < 139

< 131 < 161 < 143 . < 175 Downstream 603 131 < 171 < 180 < 164 < 176 D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir (303) (55.4) 265 149 ** 177 < 210 646 < 168 D 40: S.Platte River Below Confluence (328) (256) (239) (299)

D 45: St. Vrain < 177 < 168 < 159 271 < 156 < 410 Creek (345)~

Upstream u 42: St. Vrain 297 -

450 205 < 200 < 226 < 192 Creek (401) (367) (283)

U 43: S. Platte < 158 348 < 167 212 < 176 ... < 173 River (334) (288)

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

• • D40 collected 2-27-82.

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

Sampling 106 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Locations-Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 3,670 < 634 < 233 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 3,060 < 528 < 191 Downstream ,

D 37: Lower Latham < 5,310 < 920 < 332 f Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 3,860 < 669 < 241 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 2,420 < 419 < 151 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 3,660 < 632 < 229 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 2,920 < 504 < 182 River

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

Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected February 13, 1982 .

Sampling 106 137 Cs Zr & Nb Ru.

Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 2,620 < 454 < 164 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 3,260 < 566 < 204 Downstream ,

D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir

< 3,610 < 627 < 226 If D 40: S. Platte River < 6,110 < 1,060 _< 385 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 3,160 < 548 < 198 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 3,370 < 585 < 211 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 5,690 < 989 < 358 River

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

• • Collected 2-27-82

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

Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples collected March 13, 1982 .

Sampling 106 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 2,600 1,340 , < 167 (Goosequill) (716)

E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 3,080 < 547 < 197 Downstream ,

w D 37: Lower Latham < 3,130 < 556 < 201 Y Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 2,320 < 411 < 148 Below confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 3,330 < 593 < 214 creek Upstream 4,410 < 491 < 177 U 42: St. Vrain (5,010) creek U 43: S. Platte < 2,560 < 455 < 164 River '

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

,v -

=v - ~ m v m- v v v . - - ~

, Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected April 10, 1982 .

Sampling 106 5 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Locations.-

Effluent E 38: Farm Pond 5,720 , < 529 < 195 (Coosequill) (5,090)

E 41: Goosqquill Ditch 3,440 531 < 194 (5,090) (690)

Downstream ,

< 3,670 < 634 < 233 E D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 3,870 < 669 < 246 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 3,030 < 524 195 Creek (295)

Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 3,160 < 546 < 201 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 4,930 < 854 < 314 River

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

Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected' May 22. 1982 .

Sampling 106 95 Ru Cs Zr'& Nb Locations Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 3,300 < 569 < 209 (Goosequill)

E 41: Goosgquill Ditch < 5,350 < 927 < 341 Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 4,130 < 714 < 262 Reservoir '

< 4,610 < 798 < 293 D 40: S. Platte River Below Confluence 5,130 , 1,730 < 241 D 45: St. Vrain Creek (6,580) (891)

Upstream

.< 3,930 < 679 < 294 u 42: St. Vrain Creek U 43: S. Platte < 5,720 < 991 < 364 River

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

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

k Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting _Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) l for Samples Collected June 12, 1982 .

I 106 137 95 Sampling Ru Cs Zr & Nb Loca tions.-

Effluent E 38: Farm. Pond < 2,840 < 490 < 180 (Goosequill)-

E 41: Goosequill' Ditch < 3,140 < 542 < 199 f ,

i Downstream ,

l *

< 466 1

^

D 37: Lower Latham <.7,000 < 1,210 i Reservoir I D 40: S. Platte River < 3,070 < 530 < 194

Below Confluence '

.I j D 45: St. Vrain < 5,000 < 866 < 318 Creek i

Upstream u 42: St. Vrain < 4,240 < 733 < 269 2

Creek U 43: S. Platte < 3,050 . < 526 < 193 River t

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

4 i,

2

o II.C.3 Precipitation Gross beta and tritium deposition values are given in Table II.C.10. Precipitation collectors of size sufficient to produce a significant sample are located at two locations, F-1 and F-4. Values are expressed as deposition (i.e. pCi/m ) as this value can be correlated to food chain transport. Studies of world-wide fallout have shown that forage and subsequent milk or meat values can be reasonably predicted from deposition values. The deposition measured is actually the sum of dry and precipitation deposition as the collectors are washed down monthly or after a large rain or snowfall. The tritium deposition is calculated as the product of the concentration measured in the water and the total volume collected.

From Table II.C.10 and Table II.H.1 it can be observed that there is little difference in either gross beta or tritium deposition at the two collection sites. The values for F1 and F4 were essentially the same and not statistically different. The mean values, however, were significantly lower than during the last half of 1981. The decrease was due to the lower air concentrations of Chinese weapon test fallout.

Since the F1 collector is near the liquid effluent pathway it would be expected to collect some increased tritium deposition from the evaporation as discussed in II.B.3. This, however, is apparently not the case. During the first half of 1982 the mean values were less than MDC at both locations. In fact, the tritium deposition at F1 has

never_been significantly greater than'at F4. These collection sites are at opposite directions from the reactor and in the predominant wind directions.

Tables II.C.11 and II.C.12 list the precipitation deposition of Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95. The mean values at F-1 and F-4 were not significantly different due to the high standard deviation values.

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

The values are extremely variable as the concentration in water is extremely-low. Due to the large water volume collected, small uncertainties in the concentrations produce large variations in the total deposition estimate.

1 i

1 l

i i

l I

)-

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

Sample - Cumulative Total Gross Beta Tritium

.) Endino Volume

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

F1 F4 F1 F4 F1 F4

~

1-30-82 61 65 44.9 ,, 27.9 < 322 < 322

) (17.1)

(17.6) 2-27-82 20 25 56.4 42.4 < 325 < 325 (6.92) (7.51) 3-27-82 43 45 113 161 < 306 < 306

) (14.5) (15.4) 4-24-82 23 24 31.5 53.5 < 306

< 306 (7.00) (7.46) 5-30-82 74 74 52.1 36.9 < 291 508 (19.7) (18.2) (260)

) 6-26-82 161 115 .156 114 < 295 < 295 (30.4) (21.8)

)

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

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

1.96 S.D.)

k f .

j b -

Table II. C.ll Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition f rom Precipitation at 1.ocation F1.

Sample Total Total Deposition (pC1/m2 )

Ending ygg g, Date 106 137 9 7.r 6 Nb Ru Cs 1-30-82 61 15.3 (23.4) 33.4 (6.31) 11.2 (3.03) 2-27-82 25 12.6 (10.5) 4.19 (2.74) 2.50 (1.31) 3-27-82 ,

45 < 8.46 71.6 (6.22) 2.17 (2.52) ,

l 8' 4-24-82  ; 24 4.04 (12.7) < 0.993 0.427 (1.44) 5- 30w82 I 74 < 14.9 30.0 (8.61) < 2.00 6-26-82 161 < 11.9 < 3.75 < 1.59

• Samples are analyzed at the end of each month.

• • I!nc er ta in t ics (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.).

Table II. C.12 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition f rom Precipitation at Location F4.

2 Sample Total Total Deposition (pCifm)

Ending V l '"

• Date 106 Ru 137 Cs 95,r 7 & Nb 1-30-82 65 28.5 (35.7) 57.8 (9.60) 12.1 (4.62) 2-27-82 ,

25 22.0 (18.4) 10.4 (4.80) 3.22 (2.30) 3-27-82 45 < 6.14 4.11 (6.19) 5.35 (2.77) 4-24-82 24 < 4.61 < 1.46 < 0.620 5-30-82 74 < 11.3 11.1 (5.25) < 1.51 6-26-82 115 < 9.48 ' 2.99 < 1.27

• Sampics are analyzed at the end of each month.

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

l

Tahl e II . c.13 Radiostrontium Deposition from Precipitation at 1.ocations F1 and F4 (pCi/m ).

Sampic Ending "*[3 ),"* Strontium 89 Strontium 90

' ** F4 F1 F4 F1 F4 F1 65 27.2 (24.8) < 17.4 < 16.4 < 17.4 1-30-82 61 2-27-82 20 25 < 4.31 < 0.542 < 5.08 < 0.673 45 < 9.26 < 9.05 < 10.8 .< 11.5 3-27-82 43

< 3.87 7.56 (6.32) < 4.61 < 4.35 4-24-82 23 24 74 < 16.4 18.5 (27.9) < 18.6 < 17.6 5-30-82 74 6-26-82 161 115 20.6 (25.8) < 8.20 < 14.0 < 9.61

• Samples are analyzed at tlic end of eacit month.. .

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

)

II.D. Food Chain Data

)

1. Milk. Milk is the most"important radiation dose pathway for H-3, 1-131, Cs-137 and Sr-89,90. Tritium concentrations in milk are summarized in Table II.D.l. 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 first half of 1982 (see Table II.H.1) .

In fact, none of the values were significantly different from MDC.

Tritium arithmetic mean values for Facility, Adjacent and Reference sites were 38 pCi/L, 60 pCi/L and less than minimum detectable ,ectively, and were almost identical to those observed during the last half of 1981. Since the mean tritium values for all three sampling zones were not significantly different, no dose commitment calculations are warranted.

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

As noted in previous reports, tritium activity per liter reflects the tritium in the water extracted from the milk and not the activity per liter of milk. Whole milk is approximately 87% water (+ 3-4%,

depending on the cow breed, pasture, and feed). Skim milk accordingly has a higher water content. It may be assumed though that the remaining solids in milk (proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids) also contain some

)

I tritium due to -exchange of tritium with hydrogen on these large molecular l structures.- This tritium concentration will be very much lower than in the water fraction and is not significant for dose considerations.

l Tables II.D.2 and II.D.3 list the Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations i

in milk. The mean of the f acility milk samples was significantly greater than the means for the other two areas, however, this was no't the case if values over the last full year are compared to those as far back as 1977. Th'e mean values were indeed lower than in recent years and the higher value noted for the facility dairy during this reporting period is attributed to differences in feeding practices and not to reactor effluents. Whatever the reason the values were very low and no dose calculations are warranted. As expected the mean values for Sr-89 were less than MDC.

The concentrations of I-131, Cs-137 and K-nat in milk are given in Table II.D.4. The arithmetic mean values of these three radionuclides (Table II.G.1) for the reporting period were slightly less than observed during the last half of'1981. 'The values for the three zones were not l significantly different from each other and were certainly not due to reactor effluent.

Inspection of Table II.D.4 reveals measurable- I-131 milk concencrations l

! during January and February of 1982. It is assumed that these values are real but the source is undetermined. Reactor effluents are not responsible because there was no operation of the reactor during that period or the preceeding month of December, 1981. There was also no significant difference between the values for the facility area and the adjacent or reference area.

I

An increase in Cs-137 concentrations was noted during the last two weeks of June, 1982. This increase could be due to a change to a different cutting of hay for the entire area, probably the first cutting of 1982.

K-natural, as measured by K-40 is very constant in milk. The mean literature value is 1.5 g/L. K-nat is measured and reported therefore only for a quality control measure of Cs-137 and I-131 determined in the same sample by gamma-ray spectrometry.

Due to the availability of a large NaI(TI) scintillation crystal, shield and pulse height analyzer that has been dedicated to counting only project milk samples, we have lowered our MDC for I-131. A counting time of 3000 minutes per sample with a slight reduction in background has achieved a MDC value of approximately 0.6 pCi/L. This is preferable to any chemical concentration process and nearly all milk sample data reported here were for 3000 minutes counting time. The milk sample volume is 5.5L. Differences in counting time produce different MDC values.

A close relationship between forage deposition and milk concen-trations should be expected for tritium, the strontium radioisotopes, for Cs-137 and for 1-131 only if the cows are on pasture or fed green cut grass or alfalfa. This, unfortunately, is not the general feeding practice at the dairies around the reactor. Nearly all cattle feed is hay grown either locally, from Nebraska or the North Park region of

Colorado. At times it can even be cuttings from the previous year.

This makes correlation of milk concentrations with air concentrations very difficult. On the other hand, if elevated I-131 or tritium concentrations in milk are noted, the surface deposition must have been reasonably related in time and location.

l Table II. D.1 Tritium Concentrations in Water Extracted from ?! Ilk (pCi/1).

1. " " Adjacent Composite

• Reference Composite

• Facility Area 44 D

Pre-pasture Season 1-9-82 < 310 < 310 < 310 2-13-82 < 325 < 318 < 318 3-13-82 < 320 < 320 < 320 4-3-82 < 323 < 323 < 323 Pasture Season 5-1-82 < 306 < 306 < 306 ki 5-8-82 < 306 < 306 < 306 ,,

5-15-82 < 297 < 297 319 (265) 5-22-82 < 297 < 297 < 297 5-30-82 317 (261) 312 (261) 366 (262) 6-6-82 < 294 < 294 < 294 6-12-82 503 (260) 598 (261) 486 (260) 6-19-82 < 295 476 (264) 389 (263) 6-26-82 423 (263) 364 (264) < 295

• Adjacent Composite Locations: 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, (t 1.96 S.D.)

Table II. D.2 Strontium 90 Activity in Milk (pCi/1).

S le Ending Facility Area 44 Adjacent Composite

• Reference Composite

• Pre-pasture Season 1-2-82 2.08 (2.47) < 2.84 < 2.20 2-6-82 1.75 (1.67) 1.53 (1.66) < 1.54 3-6-82 2.28 (1.38) 3.00 (1.39) 2.19 (1.90) &

i 4-3-82 3.01 (1.42) 1.98 (1.48) 2.08 (1.91)  ?

Pasture Season 5-1-82 1.93 (1.62) < 1.37 < 1.55 5-8-82 2.39 (1.54) < 2.40 < 1.23 5-16-82 1.14 (1.44) < 1.30 1.79 (1.45) 5-22-82 2.25 (1.53) < 1.81 < 1.49 5-30-82 1.80 (1.73) < 2.62 < 0.721

, 6-6-82 3.25 (1.96) 2.39 (1.69) < 2.04 1.34 (1.62) 6-12-82 1.59 (1.52) 1.66 (1.60) 6-19-82 < 2.58 < 3.16 < 1. 59 6-26-82 2.46 (1.70) 1.80 (1.14) 1.28 (1.26)

• 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.).

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

• E Facility Area 44 Adjacent Composite

• Reference Composite *-

D Pre-pasture Season ,

1-2-82 1.99 (4.04) < 2.46 < 1.95 2-6-82 < 1.35 < 1.33 < 1.49 3-6-82 < 1.25 < 1.17 < 1.40- k

.4-3-82 < 1.51 < 1.83 < 2.00 'f Pasture Season 5-1-82 < 1.29 3.14 (2.08) < 1.45 5-8-82 < 1.16 < 2.10 '

< 1.34 5-16-82 1.79 (1.53) -

< 1.35 < 1.17 5-22-82 < 1.15 < 1.64 .

< 1,53

.5-30-82 < 1.23 2.66 (3.53) < 0.671 6-6-82 < 1.80- < 1,29 < 2.76 6-12-82 < 1.12 < 1.25 < 1.30 6-19-82 < 2.33- < 2.76 < 1.43 6-26-82 .< 1.20 < 0.969 < 1. 06,,

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

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

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

Table II. D.4 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite Milk Samples.

Co c ed (PC'IU

• WAIN " * (El*)

1-2-82 Facility  ; 11.1 (1.48)* < 0.157 1.41 (0.0176)

Adjacent '

11.0 -(1.52) < 0.135 1.32 (0.0163)

Reference q 7.10(1.82) < 0.101 . 1.20 (0.0165) j (0.990)l 2-6-82 Facility .4.37T1.17) 2.88 1.31(0.0162)

Adjacent 3.19(1.62) < 0.133 1.45 (0.0159) -

Reference ll 4.20(1.42) 0.518 (1.00) 1.41 (0.0107) i 3-6-82 Facility , < 0.149 < 0.154 1.53 (0.0171)

Adjacent '

< 0.156 < 0.101 1.49(0.0171) i Reference  ; < 0.150 < 0.155 1.51(0.0169)

. 4-3-82 Facility < 0.194 < 0.198 1.64 (0.0194)

Adjacent .

< 0.135 0.276 (0.900) ' 1.49(0.0152) l Reference '

< 0.161 < 0.165 1.54 (0.0169) i 5-1-82 : Facility < 0.149 < 0.153 1.62 (0.0163)

! Adjacent < 0.149 < 0.153 1.50 (0.0161) l Reference l

< 0.149 < 0.153 1.41 (0.0160) l-5-8-82 Facility I < 0.149 0.518 (0.949) 1.61 (0.0164) l Adjacent I ~

< 0.149 < 0.152 1.44 (0.0161)

Reference < 0.149 < 0.153 1.44 (0.0161) i 5-16-82 l Facility .

< 0.156 < 0.159 1.45_(0.166)

Adjacent l < 0.133 < 0.137 1.55 (0.0153)

Reference  ; -< 0.179 < 0.183 1.45 (0.0181) l 5-22-82 Facility l < 0.134 < 0.137 1.59 (0.0154)

Adjacent 10.5 (1.83) 11.3 (0.899) 1.58 (0.0144) l < 0.149 < 0.152 1.46 (0.0162) l Reference i .

I 5-30-82 Facility l < 0.126 < 0.129  ;

1.60 (0.0150) .

Adjacent < 0.149 < 0.152 1.52 (0.0163) b Reference < 0.122 < 0.125 1.50 (0.0146) l l

, I l i

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

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

i

Table II. D.4 ,

Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite Milk Samples.

)

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

Go ted 6-6-82 Facility < 0.126 < 0.129 1.67 (0.0150)

Adjacent < 0.166 < 0.170 1.40 (0.0172)

Reference < 0.125 < 0.128 1.43 (0.0147) 6-12-82 Facility < 0.122 < 0.125 1.37(0.0145) 3 Adjacent < 0.133 < 0.136 1.55 (0.0153)

Reference < 0.128 < 0.131 1.36 (0.0149) 6-19-82 Facility < 0.149 7.74 (0.964)i 1.46 (0.0162)

Adjacent < 0.126 5.53 (0.896) 1.46(0.0148)

Reference < 0.121 < 0.124 1.24 (0.0144)

)

6-26-82 Facility < 0.148- 8.37 (0.966), 1.51 (0.0165)

Adjacent , < 0.125

' 6.78 (0.894) 1.39 (0.0147)

Reference < 0.148 6.37 (0.960) 1.36 (0.0161) t

)

I I

i

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

3

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

)

t II.D. Food Chain Data f 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 values were less than during either f half of 1981. There were no significant differences in mean tritium values between Facility, Adjacent and Reference locations. The tritium in forage water was essentially the same as the concentration observed I in milk.

Strontium-90 and Sr-89 concentrations were also not significantly different for the three sampling zones. Although the Sr-90 facility mean I

was higher than that for the other two areas, due to the high standard deviation, the mean values were not statistically different (a = 0. 05) .

Table II.D.6 lists Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95 activities in forage I

samples for the first half of 1982. No significant differences were observed.

Gross beta concentrations in soil and forage collected at the same locations are given in Table II.D.7. No statistically significant dif ferences were observed.

A cattle forage sample, i.e. fresh cut grass or alfalfa hay, is the I

sample of choice for several reasons. Forage integrates atmospheric wet and dry deposition over a large surface area per unit weight and ,

1 also is a direct link in the dairy and beef food chain transport of H-3, I

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. This presents obvious difficulties in data interpretation.

)

V' i Table 11. D.5 Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in

}' Forage-for Samples Collected May 16, 1982 .

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

Facility 4 ** e < 18.8 108 (28.0) 44 e < 11.5 68 -(15.1)

Adjacent f, -< 294 < 6.54 61.9 (9.05) 28 < 297 < 13.2 49.7 (18.5) 31 e < 12.6- 30.2(14.1) 13 6 < 297 < 6.60 120 (9.70) 48 e < 6.22 95.1 (9.76)

'. 50 < 297 < 1.85 17.4 (2.32)

Reference 16 825 (266) < 8.84 96.9 (13.9) 17 < 297 < 13.1 75.9 (16.2) 20 e < 10.4 97.8 (17.8) 22 < 297 < 4.64 94.9 (9.87) 23 < 297 < 11.0 68.9 (12.4) 25 e < 5.99 55.6 (8.79)

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

• • Collection date May 30, 1982.

f Insufficient weight or. volume for analysis.

e

Table II. D.,

Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 concentrations in Forage for Samples Collected June 6, 1982 .

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

(pCi/l)

Facility 4 e < 10.2 80.4 (17.4) 44 < 294 < 18.9 93.5 (23.6)

Adjacent 6 < 294 < 11.5 85.9 (17.9) 28 < 294 < 6.03 24.6 '(9.84)

'31 < 294 < 8.06 52.6(11.2) 36 < 294 < 7.95 69.6 (9.95) 48 < 294 < 16.9 48.9 (23.3)

'. 50 < 294 < 8.14 96.6 (12.5)

Reference 16 e < 8.94 101 (15.9) 17 < 294 < 8.32 126 (14.0) 20 < 294 < 14.0 86.5 (23.5) 22 < 294 < 7.07 37.6 (8.86) 23 -

e < 22.7 84.1 (27.5) 25 < 294 < 17.6 54.4 (23.5)

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

e Insufficient volume for analysis.

Table II. D.6 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected May 16. 1982 -

Areas Ru Cs Zr & l'b Facility 4 ** 230 (84.1) 243 (21.6) 29.8 (11.9)

< 29.8 < 12.7 44 < 94.4

't i

Adjacent j ,

6 < 23.7 < 7.47 9.82 (3.75)

~

28 < 98.1 < 30.9 < 23.0

'31 < 16.7 12.8 (5.59) 9.20 (2.77) 36 < 70.9 < 22.4 16.0 (9.17 ) J 3, t -

. 7 48 32.9 (35.0) 8.36 12.6 (4.49) .;

50 168 (68.5) 149 (19.2) SQ.5 (9.26)

N ,

s .f Reference ,

16 < 72.9 32.5 (2u.4) 10.9 (9.76) s 17 < 72.5 < 22.9 ld (9.28) .., ,

20 < 60.4 55.8 (17.0)~ 36.8 (8.01)'

22 106 (104) 113 (28.0) 48.9 (13.0) 23 < 57.0 < 18.0 ,

< 7.67 .,

25 < 43.1 < 13.6 17.3 (6.88) - '

\ '

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

interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).

• • F4 collected May 30, 1982.

s s

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

l. Table II. D.6 i Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected June 6, 1982 .

Areas Ru Cs Zr & Nb

> Facility

,, = 4 < 79.2 149 (21.6)

• 38.0 (9.52) x

.\

44 < 45.2 24.3 (13.0) < 6.07 f, \

Adjacent

_6 41.4 (41.9) 23.5 (11.0) 20.3 (5.83) l

'

I , 2$ < 34.2 < 10.8 < 4.59 I

'31 < 27.8- < 8.77 < 3.74 36 61.6 (17.1) 26.0 (4.47) 14.0 (2.50) 3 48 < 24.4 < 7.70 12.8 (3.62)

A .

N T'N 50 < 23.0 35.1 (7.74) 18.8 (3.60) 6.c ..

.s , v .

?

s, ,- s.

i Referenee

[-

16' 79.0 (58.1) 25.6 (15.5) 38.7 (8.35)

- P,.

'17 < 73.9 < 23.3 14.7 (10.7) y.

20 < 33.1 < 10.4 13.1 (4.60)

Q L jP s 22 < 69.0 105 (20.0) 65.5 (10.2).

j l j. -

23 < 78.7 < 24.8 < 10.6

.~

~

I! 25 < 76.8 < 24.2 30.4 (10.7) s

.'l'

'

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

" interval, (! 1.96 S.D.). ,

I- ,_ e ,

i

{ 1,-

l _

ji

q. ,

w. -- - .12" .v-,_,,- _, -, _ , , _ _ , , , . , , , , , , , , . , , , . , , , , _ , _,

Table II. D.7.

Gross Beta Concentrations in Soil and Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected Second Quarter,.19 .

c

, Sampling May 16,1982 June 6, 1982 -

L cation Soil Forage Soil Forage Soil Forage Facility 4** 30,200 , -10,200 28,900 5,800 (1,410) (355) (1,360) (205) 44 29,600 19,400 30,400 22,700 (1,540) (300) (1,350) (342)

Adjacent 6 31,300 18,500 25,300 10,600

) (1,570) (313) (1,290) (230) 28 23,300 31,900 21,600 20,600

(1,350) (465) (1,150) (321) 31 26,400 8,830 27,200 16,600 (1,340) (174) (1,280) (277) 36 24,000 17,400 25,900 13,900

/ (1,310) (283)l (1.260) (233) 48 26,200 13,600 25,800 21,100

' (1,460) (193) (1,250) (300) 28,800 17,900 29,300 20,800 39 (1,470) (352) -(1,410) (324)

Reference

- 16 24,800 26.,000 31,100 21,300 (1,520) (368) (1,380) (369) l 18,700 17 18,600 18,900 18,400 (1,300) (333) (1,110) (289) 24,000 16,000 27,100 17,000 20 l (1,460) (326) (1,420) (272) 1 22 27,200 7,480 ,

27,600 22,600

(1,440) (167) (1,330) (337)

' 25,200 17,500 22,600 20,100 23 (1,320) (256) (1,200) (318)

I 25,700 3,920 24,000 23,000 25 (1,420) (128) (1,230) (350)

J

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

• • F4 collected May 30, 1982.

- . . , _ , _ . . . _ - , . . , , - - , - - , . ,.,-yr... , - - , . , . , .v..

l

! i II.D. Food Chain Data i

3. Soil.- Table II.D.8 presents gross beta activity of soil j s

per unit surface area for the first half of 1982.

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

sample depth is 10.3 cm and the area is 102 cm . Bulk soil density is approximately I g/cm .

There was no significant difference in the gross beta activity values between the Facility, Adjacent, and Reference collection areas.

The gross beta concentrations are extremely constant because the measured activity is due primarily to naturally occurring radionuclides. Mean values are not different than those collected and analyzed since the l

inception of the project.

l The activities of the tission products Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95 per unit surface area are given in Table II.D.9 for the same l

l period. This analysis is performed by Ge(Li) spectrometry due to i

l the predominant concentration of the naturally occurring radionuclides.

Cs-137 values were similar to previous periods. The deposition of Ru-106 and Zr-Nb-95 was less than during 1981 presumably due to decreasing world wide fallout deposition.

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

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

e

_79-concentrations of the strontium radioisotopes were again quite variable.

The mean Sr-89 values were essentially MDC and the arithmetic mean concentrations of Sr-90 were 35, 5 and 12 pCi/kg for the Facility, Adjacent and Reference zones respectively. These mean values were not statistically different from each other or from the values measured during the previous reporting period.

l l

i

Table II. D.8 ,

Gross Beta Activity in Soil per Unit Surface Area (pCi/m") for Samples Collected Second Quarter, 1982.

Sampling i Locations May 16, 1982 June 6, 1982 Facility 4** 3.89 (0.182) 3.73 (0.176) 44 3.81 (0.199) 3.92 (0.174)

Adjacent 6 4.04 (0.202) 3.26 (0.167) 28 3.00 (0.174) 2.79 (0.149) 31 3.40 (0.172) 3.50 (0.166) 36 3.09 (0.169) 3.34 (0.163) 48 3.38 (0.188) 3.33 (0.161) 50 3.71 (0.189) 3.78 (0.182)

Referenca 16 3.20 (0.196) 4.01 (0.179) 17 2.40 (0.168) 2.38 (0.143) 20 3.10 (0.189) 3.50 (0.183) 22 3.52 (0.185) 3.56 (0.172) 23 3.25 (0.170) 2.91 (0.155) 25 3.31 (0.183) 3.09 (0.159)

• Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1. 96 S.D. ) .

• • F4 collected May 30, 1982.

l I

I

Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Activity per Unit Surface Area of Soil (nCi/m 2) for Samples Collected May 16. 1982 .

Sampling 106 Cs 95Zr & 2 Ru Location Facility 4** < 489 < 84.6 < 31.1 44 < 298 < 51.5 < 18.9 Adjacent d < 270 < 46.6 < 17.1

)

28 < 499 < 86.4 < 31.7 31 < 394 < 68.1 < 25.0 36 536 (438)* 209 (60.5) 17.4 (23.3) 48 330 (242) < 41.8 < 15.4 50 < 287 < 49.5 <-18.2 I

Reference 16 381 (530) 102 (71.8) < 23.9 17 < 521 < 90.3 < 33.2

) 20 < 188 < 32.4 < 11.9 22 330 (492) < 56.4 < 20.7 23 < 263 < 45.5 < 16.7

) 25 < 314 < 54.2 < 19.9

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

, interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).

\ ** F4 collected May 30, 1982.

) .

3.

Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Activity per Unit Surface Area of Soil (nCi/m 2) for Samples Collected June 6, 1982 .

Sampling 106 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Location Facility 4 < 525 205 (99.6) < 33.4 44 < 436 119 (82.4) < 27.7 Adjacent 6 < 671 < 116 < 42.8

.23 < 441 < 76.2 < 28.0

< 337 < 58.2 < 21.4 31

< 471 104 (88.1) < 30.0 36

< 498 < 86.2 < 31.7 48 444 (505) < 61.7 < 22.7 50 Reference 16 < 498 < 86.0 < 31.6 17 < 328 < 56.7 < 20.8 20 < 421 < 72.8 < 26.7 22 < 399 < 69.0 < 25.3 23 < 353 < 61.0 < 22.4 25 < 442 < 76.5 < 28.1

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

t

Table II. D.10 Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Soil for Semples Collected May 16. 1982 .

Sampling Tritium Strontium 89 (pCi/1) (pCi/m2) Strontiup)90 (pCi/m Location ,

Facility 4** < 299 < 10.3 < 12.5 44 < 303 < 12.2 < 14.7 Adjacent 6 < 303 12.0 (22.3) < 15.2 28 < 303 < 8.99 -< 9.96

< 303 26.2 (20.0) < 11.8 31

< 303 < 13.7 < 15.9

.36

< 303 < 9.09 < 11.0 43

< 303 22.9-(22.4) < 13.0 50 Reference

< 303 < 9.97 < 12.6 16 "

< 303 < 11.0 < 12.3 17

< 303 < 16.0 < 18.6 20

< 303 < 12.9 < 15.6 22 23

< 303 < 10.7 13.3 (12.8)

< 303 < 9.80 < 11.9 25

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

• • F4 collected May 30, 1982.

c....-.-... .. ,, ..-... -.-, - . . , . - , . . . . _ . - .- . . . . . - - , - . ,

Table i D.10 Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Soil for Samples Collected June 6.1982 -

Sampling Tritium Strontium 89 (pCi/1) (pCi/m2) Strontiug)90 (pCi/m Location Facility 4 < 297 < 8.76 127 (14.9) 44 e < 13.5 s 16.4 Adjacent 6 < 297 < 10.9 < 12.6 28 < 297 < 9.22 < 10.9 31 < 297 < 8.83 < 10.2 36 < 297 < 9.94 28.5 (15.9) 43 < 297 < 12.6 < 15.0 50 < 297 < 13~0 < 15.4 Reference 16 < 297 < 9.75 36.9 (14.0) 17 < 297 < 8.72 < 9.84 20 < 297 < 9.18 < 11.3 22 < 297 14.3 (20.2) < 15.6 23 < 297 < 9.62 18.6 (13.7) 25 < 297 < 9.54 < 11.1

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

e Insufficient volume for analysis.

l l

L

II.E. Aquatic Biota Table II.E.1 shows gross beta and strontium concentrations observed in aquatic biota collected during the first half of 1982. Gross beta concentrations in the sample types are higher than any particular fallout fission product because of the presence of the naturally occurring radionuclides, e.g. K-40. The Strontium-89, Sr-90, and gross beta concentrations observed were essentially the same, but in many cases less than observed during the last half of 1981. There was no indication that downstream values were higher than upstream. Due to the low number of samples collected for each report period, statistical analyses are tentative at best. During the spring of 1982 there were unusually high flow rates in both of the site rivers and collection of benthic and seston samples were often impossible.

Table II.E.2 lists Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zn-Nb-95 concentrations measured in the same samples. These concentrations appear to be less than during the last half of 1981, probably due to the decreasing runoff of fallout deposited on the ground surface from the 1980 Chinese Nuclear Weapon Test.

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

The presence'of Corbicula fluminea, a species of freshwater clam, is being monitored at sites around the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station in Platteville. Corbicula have been introduced to Norch 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 found in Northern Colorado, Boyd Lake, some 30 miles from the Ft. St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station. To this date, our samplings have indicated no evidence of Corbicula in any of the sampling sites immediately upstream -

of the reactor.

J i

Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite

• Aquatic Biota For San.ples collected First Quarter,1982**

• Gr ss Beta strontium 89 Strontium 90 Sampling locations pCi/Kg pCi/Kg pCi/Kg Fish Upstream 3-23-82 9,560 (342) < 18.9 45.4 (17.6)

Downstream 3-23-82 6,610 (208) < 14.9 25.1 (15.4)

Effluent 3-23-82 5,060 (202) 4 11.2 18.4 (13.2)

Benthic Organisms f f f Upstream Downstream 4-7-82 7,560 (492) < 59.8 115 (50.3) ,

Effluent f f f Vascular Plants Upstream 3-27-82 21,400 (848) < 4.02 13.4 (5.43)

Downstream 2-13-82 12,100 (290) < 7.66 54.7 (8.35)

Effluent 2-13-82 14,200(304) < 10.4 29.3 (8.33)

Seston ***

Upstream 3-23-82 32,500 (1,320) < 274 < 317 Downstream 4-7-82 24,800 (1,020) < 82.4 < 90.7' f f f Effluent

• Upstream Composite: U .42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval. (i 1.96 s.n.).

f Sample unavailable.

Counted on Ge(Li) detector.

Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite

• Aquatic Biota For Samples collected May, 1982 .

Gross Beta Strontium gg Strontium 90 Sampling locations pCi/Kg pC1/Kg pCi/Kg' Fish Upstream 5-3-82 5,980 (247) < 14.0 <.12.4 Downstream 5-3-82 7,870 (265) < 29.3 < 32.0 Effluent 5-3-82 8,960 (340) < 40.3 < 30.9 f

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

Vascular Plants Upstrea" 5-22-82 T9,800 (911) < 51.5 < 59.0 Downstream 5-22-82 19,600 (556) < 21.1 42.5 (29.6)

Effluent 5-22-82 12,400 (469) < ?,6.5 132 (57.4)

Seston --

Upstream 5-3-82 28,200 (1,410). < 75.0 < 84.9 Downstream 5-3-82 25,400(1,320) < 109 < 130 Effluent 5-3-82 17,900 (615) e e

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

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

e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.

f Sample unavailable.

Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite

• Aquatic Biota For Samples collected June, 1982 .

Cross Beta Strontium gg Strontium 90-Sampling locations pCi/Kg PCi/Kg PCi/Kg Fish Upstream 6-10-82 10,800 (278) < 17.0 27.3 (22.7)

Downstream 6-10-82 8,420 (268) < 17.9 29.2 (18.8)

Effluent 6-10-82 10,700,(369) < 24.4 42.1 (29.8)

Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream 6-10-82 8,690 (393) < 35.1 133 (42.2)

Effluent 6-26-82 9,370 (488) < 54.0 85.4 (42.7)  ?

Vascular Plants Upstream 6-12-82 19,900 (405) < 34.2 < 36.4 Downstream 6-12-82 15,100 (350) < 22.0 32.2 (25.4)

Effluent 6-12-82 23,400 (423) < 17.1 27.1 (19.4) .

Seaton Upstream f f f Downstream 6-10-82 27,400 (950) < 197 < 241 Effluent f f f

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

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

f Sample unavailable.

~

q

, Table II. E.2 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected First Quarter, 1982 .**

Sampling Locations

• Ru Cs Zr & Nb Fish Upstream < 208 < 65.3 < 27.8 Downstream < 254 < 79.9 < 34.0 Effluent < 103 < 32.5 < 13.8 Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream e e e Effluent f f f ,

$i Vascular Plants Upstream 3-27-82 < 192 91.6 (61.2) 135 (33.7)

Downstream 2-13-82 < 546 < 173 < 73.6 Effluent 2-13-82 < 515 < 162 < 69.0 seston ***

Upstream 14,500 (16,700) < 2,330 -< 859 Downstream 27,100 (27,800) < 3,130 < 1,1.5D Effluent f f f

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

Effluent: E 38.

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

• • • Counted on Ge(L1) detector,

e. Insufficient weight or volume for~ analysis.

f. Sample unavailable.

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

(pCi/kg) for Samples Collected May. 1982 .**

Sampling Locations

• Ru Cs Zr & Nb Fish Upstream 5-3-82 < 253 313 (60.6) < 34.2 Downstream 5-3-82 < 253 98.5-(58.1) < 34.2 Effluent 5-3-82 < 253 433 (62.1) < 34.1 Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f f

Downstream f f 4 Effluent f f f 'I' Vascular Plants Upstream 5-22-82 650 (420) 1/0 (111) 95.2 (53.4)

< 236 < 74.3 < 31.7 Downstream 5-22-82 5-22-82 < 386 < 122 < 52.0 Effluent Seston ***

Upstream 5-3-82 1,730 (1,410) 1,730 (891) <-677 Downstream 5-3-82 < 11,400 < 1,980 < 726 Effluent 5-3-82 < 6,870 < 1,190 < 436

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

Effluent: E 38.

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

• • • Counted on Ge(Li) detector.

f. Sample unavailable.

1

Table 11. E.2 Garmna-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected June , 1982 .

Sampling Locations

• Ru Cs 2r & Nb Fish Upstream 6-10-82 < 253 < 79.8 < 34.0 Downstream 6-10-82 < 56.8 < 17.9 < -7.62 Effluent 6-10-82 < 253 < 79.8 < 34.0 Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream 6-10-82 < 1,010 < 319 < 136 ,

• e Effluent 6-26-82 < 726 984 (190) 241 (74.5) y Vascular Plants Upstream 6-12-82 < 1,110 < 347 < 148 Downstream 6-12-82 < 214 < 67.6 < 28.8 Effluent 6-12-82 < 572 < 180 < 76.8 Seston Upstream f f f Downstream 6-10-82 < 1,060 < 334 < 143 Effluent f f f

• Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.

Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.

Effluent: E 38.

• • Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( i 1. 96 S. D. ) .

f Sample unavailable.

II.F. Beef Cattle. Two head of beef cattle that graze the Facility area are counted each quarter in the CSU whole-body-counter. The animals are washed carefully and counted for 20 minutes each. This method is far more sensitive than counting meat samples and is the method of choice for detecting Cs-137 in the meat food chain of humans.

If thyroid I-131 contamination were significant this would be detected from the whole body count. Detectable I-131 concentrations have never been observed.

Table II.F.1 gives values for whole body counting of beef cattle for the first half of 1982. The animals are selected at random; however, the animal number is recorded and the animal may be retrieved and recounted if necessary. The Cs-137 concentrations are less than during the fourth quarter of 1981, but similar to those observed during the last several years. Variation in Cs-137 concentration reflects a different cutting and/or source of hay and pasture for the animals. This is probably the reason for the difference between the values for the first and second quarters.

The Cs-137 concentration is expressed as pCi per gram of K in the whole animal. This is done to more easily compare the counts 1

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.

l t

3 Table II.F.1. Radionuclides in Facility Area Beef Cattle In-vivo Gamma ray activity in Fort St. Vrain Area beef cattle.

First Quarter Values 3-20-82 bbI Cs pCi/g K Cow 1 None Detected 1.65 Cow 2 -None Detected 1.73 6-19-82 second Quarter Values Cow 1 None Detected 3.69 Cow 2 None Detected 4.57

. __ _ . = . _ _ _ .

] II.G.1 Sample Cross Check Data a

) To assure the precision and securacy of the environmental data obtained from the radiation surveillance program provided for Fort St.

Vrain reactor, Colorado State University participates in the

, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored laboratory 1 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 J

below.

The media, type of analysis and frequency of analysis Medium Analysis (radionuclide) -Frequency 3

Water 11 bimonthly Water gross a, gross 8 bimonthly 51 Cr, 106 134 Water 60Co, 65Zn, Ru, Cs, Cs triannually Water 'Sr, Sr triannually Water I quarterly 1 90 137 semiannually Air particulate Sr, Cs, gross a, gross 8 filters I 137 Cs, Milk 89Sr, 90Sr, 131I, 40 K semiannually For each radionuclide analysis of a particular medium, three

! independent determinations are performed and the mean value is then calculated. The percentage deviation of our determined mean value from j the EPA specified value is then calculated.

l i

4

Table II.G.1 gives the EPA cross check data for the first half of 1982. The EPA has chosen to use the term Estimated Laboratory Precision (ELP), calculated as 3c/N, as the control parameter. Whenever our mean value falls outside this limit, the sample calculations are rechecked and the sample reanalyzed if possible. Of the 37 cross check samples reported for this period, only 6 fall outside the ELP. These values are noted in Table II.G.I. The recheck process and conclusion is given below for each of these individual samples.

1. Jan. Gross a, Water. The samples were reweighed, recounted and the activities recalculated. The results were essentially the same and still outside the ELF. No reason can be given for the discrepancy.

Only sample mass can significantly change the counting yield.

2. Jan. Cross 8, Water. The samples were reweighed, recounted and the activities recalculated. The results were essentially the same and still outside the ELP. No reason can be given for the discrepancy.

3, 4. Feb. and June Gamma, Water. The sample was recounted and 51 recalculated. Only Cr was outside the ELP after the recheck. Since 51 Cr is not one of the radionuclides to be expected in Fort St. Vrain effluents, emphasis has not been placed on its calibration. A standard 51 Cr solution traceable to NBS is currently on order to correct the gamma counting matrix. This should correct both the count yield value as well as the spectrum stripping parameters.

5. June Gamma, Water. The sample was recounted and recalculated.

65 As noted After the recheck only the Cr and Zn were outside the ELP.

51 above for Cr, 652n is not expected to be present in effluent water samples 65 and emphasis has not been placed on its calibration. A Zn standard

F f

has also been ordered to correct its measurement.

137

6. April, Milk,' Cs. During spring 1982 a new Cs standard-ization for the milk geometry was completed using a standard traceable to NBS. This sample was recalculated using the new matrix but the sample was still outside the ELP. No reason can be given for the discrepancy, but

the percentage deviation was only 39%.

Note: A new I milk and water geometry recalibration was conducted this last spring as well. The water EPA cross check values were very satisfactory and the milk values in this report Table II.D.4 were also satisfactory.

Table II.G.2 lists the results of a cross-check study between this l

program, the Colorado Department of Health and the Public Service Company 1

counting laboratory at the reactor. Water samples are now collected monthly by personnel at the Colorado Department of Health and then split

! between the three groups. The results for the study for the first half i

of 1982 were acceptable.

L

Table II.G.I. EPA Cross-Check Data Summary Radio CSU EPA Precision Estimated Labord te deviation Date nuclide Value Value (1 sigma). atory Precision

• from known Water, Tritium pCi/l 12-11-81 3H 2,733 2,700 355 615 + 1.2 2-12-82 3H 2,097 1,820 342 590 .*

+ 15 4-9-82 3H 2,936 2,860 357 618 + 2.7 6-11-82 3H 1,967 1,830 341 590 - 7.5 Water, Alpha & Beta,T Ci/l 1-22-82 *

• Gross a (1) 12 24 5.8 10 - 50 Gross 8 (2) 15 32 5 8.6 - 53 3-15-82 Gross a 11 19 5 8.7 - 42 Gross 8 20. 19 5 8.7 + 5 5-12-82 Gross a ** 17 27.5 6.9 12 - 36 Gross 8 24 29 5 8.7 - 17 Water, Gamma pCi/l 2-5-82 *, siCr (3) 25 0 0 0 60Co 22 20 5 8.7 + 10 652n 22 15 5 8.7 + 46 106Ru 14 20 5 8.7 - 30 134Cs 23 22 5 8.7 + 4.5 137Cs 27 23 5 8.7 + 17 6-12-82 SICr (4) 9 23 5 8.7 - 61 60Co 31 29 5 8.7 + 6.9 65Zn (5) 38 26 5 8.7 + 46 106Ru 15 0 5 8.7 -

134Cs . 35 35 5 8.7 0 137Cs 25 25 5 8.7 0 l

e

}

• 3c/in l ** Corrected value after additional analysis and/or recalculation.

4 Table II.G.I. EPA Cross-Check Data Summary Radio CSU EPA Precision Estimated Labor-  % deviation Date nuclide Value Value (1 sigma) atory Precision

• from known i

Water, Sr 89 and 90 pC i/l i

1-4-82 89Sr 14 21 5 8.7 i - 33 90Sr 11 12 1.5 2.6 - 8 5-7-82 89Sr 18 22 5 8.7 - 18 l 90Sr 13 13 1.5 2.6 0 i

Air Filters,pCi/l 3-26-82 Gross a 25 27 6.9 12 -

7.4 Gross 8 60 55 5 8.7 + 9.1 90Sr 15 15.9 1.5 2.6 - 5.7

137Cs 22 22 5 8.7 0 i

Milk, pCi/l

! 4-23-82 895r 20 25 5 8.7 - 25 i

90Sr ** 19 16 1.6 2.6 + 19 137CS** (6) 39 28 5 8.7 + 39 K 1,347 1,410 69 120 -

4.5 Water, Iodine pCi/l 1-29-82 1311 <7 8.4 .87 1. 5 -

4-2-82 1311 67 62 6.2 11 + 8 6-25-82 131I <6 4 .64 1.1 -

i i -

• 3c/iE i ** Corrected value after additional analysis and/or recalculation.

-100-Table II.G.2 Crosscheck Analyses on Split Water Samples Determined by Colorado State University, Colorado Department-of Health and Public Service Company of Colorado. ,

Gross Beta Tritium Collection Sample pCi/L pCi/t Date Location CSU CDH PSC CSU CDH PSC 2-25-82 E 38 12 10 < 17 206,00C 178,00C 197,000 E 41 11 18 < 17 < 27C 422 1,360 0 42 7 13 < 17 < 28E 373 695 3-19-82 U 42 7 15 < 63.3 < 323 796 < 560 4-16-82 E 38 14 21- < 58.4 29,000 28,400 27,000 E 41 17 17 < 58.4 < 306 < 350 < 555 U 42 8 8 c 58.4 < 306 < 350 < 555 5-21-82 E 38 10 19  : 62.6 49,400 38,800 46,000 E 41 40 31  : 62.6 443 < 350 < 623 U 42 10 18  : 62.6 < 294 < 350 2,640 6-17-82 E 38 6 24 - 56.5 24,400 28,820 23,000 E 41 14 36 56.5 1,440 1,730 < 624 U 42 4 22 56.5 < 289 < 350 < 624 i

-1

-101- l l

II.H. Summary and Conclusions 1 Table II.H.1 presents the primary summary and analysis of data collected during the first half of 1982. The tabular data may be used i

for comparison to previous reactor operational periods and for comparison i

to other operating power reactors. For each sample type 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 l l

-j 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 einimum detectable concentration (MDC) are listed as less than the actual MDC for that sample analysis. However, the actual result in all cases was used in the calculation for the arithmetic mean values for the last six months. Therefore all values, negative as well as positive, were included. This procedure is now generally accepted and gives 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.

i 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 l

l decay it is statistically possible to obtain sample count rates less )

1 than background and hence a negative result. '

l 4

e

, - - . - _ , , . - - r -- - - -. , , ,.-w-- -y .-+-e , -- . --ag ., e + - ~

-102-l The log-normal p,robability treatment is to plot all data for each sample type over the last full year on log-probit coordinates.

The samples are ranked by increasing activity concentration and the cumulative percentage of rankings are plotted on the probit abcissa versus the activity concentration on the log ordinate. The geometric mean value i is determined directly from the 50th percentile point.

The geometric standard deviation is simply the slope of the line, which can be calculated from the ratio between the 84.1 percentile and the 50th percentile. In a normal distribution the arithmetic standard deviation is an additive parameter to the arithmetic mean, i.e.

(E + a), whereas in the log-normal distribution the geometric standard deviation o is a multiplicative parameter to the geometric mean (i 87 8o). The arca betweeng i divided by go , and 8i multiplied by a should contain 68% of the frequency values. The log normal statistical treatment is tentative when the number of samples in the group is small. For this reason only the last full year of data points is treated by this method. With the log-normal analysis, no bias results from using either actual values or less than MDC values.

From the values presented in Table II.H.1 and the tabular data of the report the following observations and conclusions may be drawn:

1. Tritium is the predominant radionuclide observed in the effluent pathways from the reactor. In fact it is the only radionuclide that can be measured above background in any of the sample types. Since

~

the tritium is released as tritiated water, the dilution by the surrounding hydrosthere is great. Tritium also produces the smallest

\ s 'n. +

-103-q? .

m s '

s "s

,\

+y*m dose commitment per unit activity intake of any of the radionuclides that might possibly be released by the reactor. During the current reporting T i , ~ ~ .

~ ~ '

period more tritium was released than during any other previon'c per'ind A* -

and the highest downstream tritium concentrations were note 2.3 Yet'the -

resulting " worst case" dose commitment calculation produced essentially ,

't s

L negligible dose.

2. The fallout from the October 17, 1980 CSinesd~buciear Weapon

, w s test reached background levels only during this reporting period. In

. e afewcasesthefalloutpresencewasstilludtedibutainconcentrrNions

. s, >

and deposition values were at pretest levels. Nuclear yeapos test ' -

, n :.. m fallout has, since the inception of the project, been noted to b'e the .

> T%-

predominant contribution to background levels. It is the'v'ariettion infalloutdepositionthatrequiressomanyenvirondentahscopkhsto + -

detect any possible increase due to resetor;9ffhuents 'A s'imple ,

comparison of preoperational and post operational glues is of>little value for most sample types because the fallout dep5sition wass considerably greater during the preoperation'al periods " 3 s . -

3. A comparison of Table II.H.1 with the same table ia' previous : . ,

7 reports implies that except for tritium as noted 'above, there is no ,

l, evidence that effluents from reactor operation have produced any atafistical[y'..,

significant off-site concentrations of radionuclides in any sample' type.  ? -

4. The log-normal treatment of all the data revealed that for. _

1 most of the data such analysis is appropriate. However, sigmoid [ .

distributions were quite often observed'. Sigmoid distributions can .

s. -. 1 be resolved into bimodal or even trimodel log-normal distributions. .

s l

l t

a 4

[

s  %

--- - . --c -- -- , w w y,gy+.Nf gr-f' *-,w --9+e p asi gr y  %-gree er p yy w -e t p w----7 mw y g-

O

-1 04 -

2 h

e j3 ,

"~ This Als generally interpreted to mean that there is more than one '

significant activity source term. It was again noted that for all of 3 ..

the data analyzed over the past year by the log-normal treatment,

~

i

< ~ those sample types that are reservoirs or sinks for activity, e.g.

I soil, sediment and TLD, tended to be described by a single distribution.

O" Those sample types which are less stable and fluctuate due to outside-f L. sources, e.g. , air and precipitation, tended to be bimodal or trimodally

. distributed, particularly when weapon fallout is present.

4 ,

P .

p .

5. As in every previous report, it was again apparent that for

) ,

most sample types the variability observed around the mean values was l  %

, $ great. This variability is due to counting statistics and methodological

i .;

l crror, but principally due to true environmental variation.

s It must be recogiired and accounted for in analysis of any set of environmental i

. data before meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

+

k,.

6. It can be concluded again that the radiation dose commitments calculated for nearby inhabitants or other parts of the nearby ecosystems a from reactor effluents, is negligible compared to natural background x

radiation d6se and the dose from atmospheric weapon testing f allout.

Y

/ 4# -

r*

r m

4

Table 11.11.1. Mean. Values for all Sample Types.

Number of -Minimum Jh imum .

Sampics Value Observed Value Observed ig o ,, ._

Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months E x x Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months 0.41 0.56 0.~49 1.2 0.50 0.49 TLD Facility 77 0.30 0.60 0.49 1.2 0.49 0.49 External Adjacent 70 0.40 0.60 0.48 1.2 0.48 0.47 (mR/ day) Reference 69 92 0.6 12.6 4.8 1.6 5.4 5.0 Air Facility 5.9 71 1.4 11.2 5.8 1.5 6.2 Gross a Adjacent 3

(fCi/m )

20 ,L Air Facility 93 5 40 25 1.6 29 Gross 8 Adjacent 73 8 36 25 1.7 30 20 S 3

(fCi/m )

Air Facility 93 < 326 7,590 320 3.17 254 56.1 Tritium Adjacent 75 < 312 501 242 2.21 < 312 < 312 (pCi/1)

A Composite 26 < 7.41 19.2 6.52 2.54 < 7.41 2.06 (fCi/m3)

Air Composite 26 < 9.88 9.82 4.30 2.55 < 2.09 < 1.95 106Ru i

(fCi/m3)

~ '

Table 11.!!.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Coint'd.)-

Number of Minimum flaximum Sampics Value Observed Value Observed i o Analyzed 6 Months # 8

, 6 Months i i j Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Flonths Air Composite 26 < 0.546 5.98 1.10 2.16 0.45 0.52

I37g3 I

(fci/m3) l Air Composite 26 < 0.550 2.17 0.65 3.99 1.23 0.014

! 95Zr j (fCi/m3) 1 Water Effluent. 26 7.21 16.0 11.4 1.24 11.7 11.0 Gross 8 Downstream 18 7.31 15.8 10.4 1.36 10.9 9.94 (pci/1) Upstream 12 6.78 12.4 9.20 1.57 9.89 9.64 y, Potable 12 1.78 10.5 3.42 3.31 5.12 5.60 g

{ i i

?

Water Effluent 26 < 325 544,000 885 6.52 20,500 32,300 i Tritium Downstream 18 < 321 19,000 409 3.75 1,060 -1,500 1 (PCi/1) Upstream 12 < 305 425 328 1.28 < 295 < 305 t Potable 12 < 325 625 303 1.76 38.3 47.0 l Water Effluent 26 < 0.749 1.66 0.633 2.54 0.397 0.0920  :

90Sr Downstream 18 < 1.79 1.51 0.432 3.16 0.183 0.124  :

) (pCi/1) Upstream 12 < 0.771 0.917 0.718 1.99 0.401 0.173 Potable 12 < 1:13 0.248 0.373 3.16 < 0.646 < 0.757

]

t I

l i

I

\

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

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

Table II.!!.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)

Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o i 8 8 Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months :i i Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Water Effluent 26 < 1.16 1.53 0.548 3.13 0.312 0.182 89st Downstream 18 < 0.874 3.89 0.626 2.49 0.320 -0.359 (pci/1) Upstream 12 ' < 0.760 2.27 0.859 2.01 0.450 0.404 Potabic. 12 < 0.687 1.52 0.664 1.97 0.322 0.511

't j Water Effluent 26 < 0.490 s.67 1.49 2.75 < 0.490 < 0.490 106Ru Downstream 18 < 2.20 3.44 1.73 2.33' < 0.493 < 0.493 (pci/1) Upstream 12 < 0.553 3.52 1.32 2.02 < 0.553 < 0.553 Potabic 12 < 2.62 1.75 1.45 2.72 < 0.825 < 0.825 g S!

i i Water Effluent 26 < 0.219 2.45 0.904 3.15 1.06 0.188 137Cs Downstream 18 <-0.154 4.66 0.827 2.66 < 0.154 < 0.154 (pCi/1) Upstream 12 < 0.490 2.84 0.734 2.65 0.363 < 0.174 Potabic 12 < 0.783 1.18 0.748 2.20 0.174 < 0.259 Water Effluent 26 < 0.140 1.89' O.337 4.17 0.447 0.286 95Zr Downstream 18 < 4.40 1.02 0.449 2.90 0.158 < 0.0655 (pci/1) Upstream 12 < 0.349 0.899 0.328 2.95 0.364 < 0.0295 Potable. 12 < 0.350 0.622 0.428 1.76 0.219 < 0.110 i

12 31,700 37,300 34,300 1.09 34,500 34,000 Sediment Effluent Downstream 18 26,200 42,600 34,300 1.16 34,700 33,600 i

Gross 8 36,800 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 31,300 40,500' 35,600 1.11 34,800 l

i P

g , , ,r,- - , - -

Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)

Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed 2 o R 8 Analyzed 6 Months 6 }!onths i i Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Sediment Effluent 12 < 211 273 138 2.27 82.6 77.3 90Sr Downstream 18 < 508 152 114 2.40 44.1 < 164 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 < 239 287 105 2.83 29.6 < 21.4 Sediment Effluent 12 < 143 446 114 2.67 26.9 27.1 89Sr Downstream 18 < 164 646' 164 2.16 73.7 133 (pCi/kg) Upstream 12 < 158 450 172 2.20 38.7 75.6 Sediment Effluent 12 < 3,260 5,720 2,920 1.70 < 2,600 645 k locitu Downstream 18 < 2,420 , 5,130 2,590 2.07 < 2,320 < 2,320 i' (pCi/kg) Upstream 12 < 2,920 4,410 2,640 2.14 < 2,560 < 2,560 Sediment Effluent 12 < 634' 1,340 379 2.99 < 454 < 454 137Cs Downstream 18 < 669 1,730 400 2.85 < 411 237 (pCi/kg) 12 < 455 438 368 1.81 < 455 61.7 Upstream Sediment Effluent 12 < 191 147 167 2.39 43.1 < 167 es2r Downstream 18 < 385 265 166 2.31 1.72 62.8 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 < 358 154 154 2.20 < 164 3.28 Precipitation F-1 6 < 31.5 156 130 3.07 226 75.7 Gross S F-4 6 < 27.9 161 103 2.41 147 72.6 (pci/m 2)

._ . _____._m ..- . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ .._.__ _ _ _ . _ ___ .._ _ _ - . - - . . - - . _ - _ . _

Table II.!!.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)

Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value observed i s

8 x x Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months

Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months 4

Precipitation F-1 6 < 295 84.7 175 3.23 < 291 - < 291' l

Tritium F-4 6 < 325 508 259 2.53 < 295 < 295 (pci/m 2)

Precipitation F-1 6 < 14.9 15.3 11.0 2.56 < 11.9 < 11.9 l

1 106Ru F-4 6 < 11.3 28.5 12.'3 4.43 < 4.32 < 4.61 (pci/m2)

Precipitation F-1 6 < 3.75 71.6 14.7 4.09 21.9 13.9 137Cs F-4 6 < 2.99 57.8 7.59 4.30 13.4 10.0 .L (pci/m2) S 1 Precipitation F-1 6 < 1.59 11.2 7.25 6.46 23.3 < 1.59 95Zr F-4 6 < l .27; 12.1 5.81 5.32 18.3 < 1.27 (pCi/m2) i Precipitation F-1 6 < 18.6 < 4.61 12.3 1.81 6.40 < 4.61 4

90Sr F-4 6 < 17.6 6.75 7.90 4.11 7.92 < 4.35 l (pci/m 2),

Precipitation F-1 6 < 9.26 27.2: 6.85 3.11 2.25 8.54 "Sr F-4 6 < 0.542 18.5 6.01 3.46 6.88 7.11 l

! (pCi/m2 )

i' Milk Facility 13 < 325- 503 249 2.07 26.7. 38.4

Tritium Adjacent 13 < 323 598 227 2.13 60.0 60.2

! (pci/1) Reference 13 < 320 _486 200 2.23 < 291 < 294 i

I i

Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)

l Number of Minimum Maximum ,,

Samples Value Observed Value obscryed x o N E i i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months

, Milk Facility 13 < 2.58 3.25 1.97 2.44 2.27 1.99 90Sr Adj acent 13 < 2.62 3.00 2.12 2.68 1.92 1.13 (pCi/1) Reference 13 < 1.59 2.19 1.74 2.60 0.958 0.959 1

! Milk -Facility 13 < 1.80 1.99 1.29 2.60 < 0.939 < 1.12 03Sr Adjacent 13 < 1.17 3.14 1.74 2.44 < 0.969 < 0.969 (pci/1) Reference 13 < 1.95 1.44 1.85 2.22 1.29 < 0.671 i

' < 0.122 11.1 0.283 4.76 < 0.122 < 0.122 C '

Milk Facility 13 13 < 0.166 11.0 0.398 6.58 < 0.124 < 0.124  ?

4 1311 Adjacent (pCi/1) Reference 13 < 0.148 7.10 0.254 4.31 < 0.121 < 0.121 Milk Facility 13 < 0.125 8.37 2.25 7.30 5.15 < 0.125 l

137Cs Adjacent 13 . < 0.152 11.3 1.74 8.48 < 0.101 < 0.101 (pci/1) Reference 13 < 0.131 6.37 1.34 8.83 4.00 < 0.101 13 1.31 1.67 1.48 1.08 1.48 1.52

-l Milk Facility Nat. K Adjacent 13 1.32 1.58 1.44 1.06 1.44 1.47 13 1.20 1.54 1.37 1.08 1.37 1.41 (g/l) Reference

< 294 I

Forage Facility 1 < 294 < 294 305 3.39 102 10 < 294 285 302 2.09 272 39.9 Tritium Adjacent 74.5 41.1 8 < 297 825 260 1.65 (PCi/1) Reference i

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

i 1

} . Table I1.11.1. Mean Values. for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)

! Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o 6 E 8 i i

! Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months

}

Forage Facility 4 < 18.9 < 11.5 12.5 2.21 < 4.64 < 10.2 89S r Adjacent' 12 < 6.22 10.1 10.3 2.40 < 1.85 < 1.85 3

j (pci/kg) Re ference 12 < 8.94 < 17.6 12.1 2.38 < 4.63 < 4.64 i

1

• Forage Faci 1ity 4 68.0 108 92.1 1.23 94.0 87.5-

'30Sr Adjacent 12 17.4 120 66.0 '1.83. 77.9 62.7 (pCi/kg) Reference 12 37.6 126 78.6 1.45 83.9 81.6

{

a 4 < 79.2 230 96.0 4.58 161' 47.7 C Forage Facility 7

]j 106nu Adjacent 12 < 24.4 168 65.1 2.95 102 22.6 ,

< 33.1 < 33.1-j (pCi/kg) Reference 12 < 72.9 106 59.6 1.87 .

'. Forage Facility 4 < 29.8 243 66.9 2.52 89.9 .98.2 137Cs Adjacent 12 < 10.8 149 25.6 3.37 44.2 17.0 (pCi/kg) Reference 12 < 18.0 113 23.1 3.22 27.7 28.8 i

Forage Facility 4 < 6.07 38.0 62.0 4.46 130 14.3

'35Zr Adjacent 12 < 4.59 50.5 61.5 4.68 155 15.4 (pCi/kg) Reference 12 < 7.67 65.5 44.6 4.91 117 25.3 Forage Facility 4 5,800 22,700 16,300 1.69 18,100 14,500 4 Gross S Adjacent 12 8,830 31,900 18,400 1.36 '19,300. 17,600 j (pci/kg) Reference 12 3,920 .26,000 17,700 1.50 18,900 17,700 -

~

~

i

Table II.!!.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)

i Number of Minimtm Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed o 4' 8 x x Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months l

l Soil Facility 4 ~28,900 30,400 31,500 1.07 31,600 29,800

, Gross S Adjacent 12 21,600 31,300 28,200 1.12 28,400 26,200

. (pci/kg) Reference 12 18,400 27,600 26,000 1.16 26,300 24,700 Soil Facility 4 3.73 3.92 4.06 1.07 4.07 -3.84 l Gross 8 Adjacent 12 2.79 4.04 3.64 1.12 3.66 3.39

, (aci/m2) Reference 12 2.38 4.01 3.36 1.16 3.39 3.19

.L i Soil Facility 4 < 489 311 218 2.48 77.7 55.4 G' 106Ru Adjacent 12 < 270 536 328 5.06 442 74.2

(nci/m2 ) Reference 12 < 188 381 312 3.24 289 57.2 Soil Facility 4 < 51.5 205 52.6 2.83 57.7 89.6 137Cs Adjacent 12 < 76.2. 209 45.2 2.37 < 41.8 34.3 (nci/m2) Reference 12 < 32.4 102 46.2 2.51 18.3 25.9 I

i Soil Facility 4 < 33.4 < 18.9 23.4 2.04 12.9 < 18.9

! Ohr Adjacent 12 < 28.0 17.4 17.7 4.31 2.00 < 15.4

] (nci/m2 ) Reference 12 < 11.9 12.6 19.3 2.74 < 11.9 < 11.9 i

1 i soil Facility 3 < 297 < 299 121 7.88 < 295 < 297 Tritium Adjacent 12 < 303 258 239 2.38 < 290 < 297 i (pci/1) Reference 12 < 303 < 297 228 1.93 < 290 < 297 e

_ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ,__.m ..____ _ _ _ m _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . .... _ _ _ ___.m ._.._. _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ .

4 Tabic 11.11.1. Wan Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)

Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Obscryed i o N 8 i i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months ,

i Soil Facility 4 < 8.76 10.6 12.1 1.95 3.70 < 8.76

! 895r Adjacent 12 < 9.94 26.2 8.63 3.05 < 7.17 4.23

(.pci/m J Re ference 12 < 12.9 14.3 9.40 1.81 < 6.94 < 8.72 Soil Facility 4 < 14.7 127- 21.2 2.20 28.1 35.0

90Sr Adjacent 12 < 15.2 28.5 12.1 2.73 16.4 4.96

( pCi/m2) Reference 12 < 18.6 36.9 15.7 2.28 19.9 11.5 J

.L i Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 5,980 10,800 9,750 1.53 10,800 8,780 0' Fish Downstream 3 6,610 8,420 9,280 1.25 9,490 7,630 i Gross 6 Effluent 3 5,060 10,700 9,040 1.38 9,430 8,240 1 (pCi/kg) l Aquatic Biota Upstream , , , , , , ,

j Benthic Downstream 2 -7,560 8,690 7,300 1.15 7,350 8,130 Gross B Effluent 1 9,370 9,370 9,360 1.14 ~9,420 .9,370-(pCi/kg).

Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 19,900 29,800 21,000 1.23 21,400 23,700 vascular Plants Downstream 3 12,100 19,600 18,500 1.41 19,500 15,600 Gross 6 Effluent 3 12,400 23,400 18,600 1.33 19,300 16,700

! (pCi/kg) l Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 28,200 32,500 26,200 1.29 26,800 ~ 30,400

Seston Downstream 3 24,800 27,400 28,900 1.18 29,200 25,900

Gross 6 Effluent 1 17,900 17,900 24,300 1.54 25,400 17,900

(pCi/kg) 4

i Table 'II.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)

Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o 8 8 i i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Jfonths '

Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months

<13.9 < 17.0 24.3 3.99 < 13.9 < 13.9 Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 1.59 < 14.9 < 14. 9

Fish Downstream 3 <14.9 < 29.3 26.6

< 11.2 < 40.3 35.5 2.97 27.2 < 11.2

]

assr Effluent 3 (pCi/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream - -

< 26.3 < 35.1' Benthic Downstream 2 < 35.1 < 59.8 43.5 1.54 89 Sr 1 < 54.0 < 54.0 42.6 2.09 < 17. 4 < 54.0 -

3 Effluent

(pci/kg)

,J .

Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 < 4.02 25.9 19.3 2.79 1.44 11.5  %

vascular Plants Downstream 3 < 7.66 < 22.0 17.1 1.99 < 7.66 < 7.66 "9 Sr Effluent 3 6.45 < 36.5 19.6 2.16 < 10.4 < 10.4 (pCi/kg) .

Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 9.06 70.7 43.8 4.05 < 75.0 39.4 Downstream 74.1 117 75.1 1.46 29.3 89.8 Seston 3 895r Effluent - - -

(pCi/kg) 11.6 46.4 49.6 3.29 94.8 23.4 Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 26.8 Fish Downstream 3 25.1 29.2 64.2 4.02 185 l

19.2 42.1 34.0 2.71 49.1 26.6 99Sr Effluent 3 (pci/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream - - -

150 124 Benthic Downstream 2 115 133 .147 1.24

' 85.4 85.4 168 1.60 181 85.4 90Sr Effluent 1 (pCi/kg) 9.74 18.8 36.3 2.70 52.5 14.0 Upstream 3 -

Aquatic Biota 60.9 43.1 3 32.2 54.7 54.0 1.62 Vascular Plants Downstream 70.3 62.8 90 Sr Effluent 3 27.1 132 59.4 1.90

! .(pci/kg)

Table II.!!.1. Mean Values for all Sampic Types.(Cont'd.)

Nwnber of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Obscryed Value Observed i o 8 8 i i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months Sample Type Arca 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 < 84.9 < 84.9 220 2.29 118 < 84.9 Seston. Downstream 3 < 90.7 < 130 148 1.51 < 90.7 < 90.7 90Sr Effluent - - - -

(pCL/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 < 253 24.3 177 4.66 < 253 < 253 Fish Downstream 3 < 56.8 < 254 168 1.92 < 56.8

< 56.8 106Ru 3 < 253 24.3 149 2.69 < 253 < 253 Effluent (pci/kg) I

~

Aquatic Biota Upstream -

62.2 <1,010 Y Benthic Downstream 1 < 1,010 < 1,010 411 2.20 77.1 77.1 154 1.85 91.5 77.1 lasRu Effluent 1 (pCi/kg) 3 185 650 306 2.31 102 < 185 Aquatic Biota Upstream < 163 < 214 3 < 214 226 348 1.72 va=cular Plant Downstream < 220 la6 3 < 220 220 354 1.91 104 au Effluent (pCi/kg).

'2 1,730 14,500 6,590 2.90 7,180 8,120 Aquatic Biota Upstream 10,900 993 3 1,060 27,100 3,091 4.12 Seston Downstream 740 740 106 Ru 1 740 740 740 NA Effluent

~

(pCi/kg) 13.6 313 51.1 3.15 28.2 69.5 Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 45.9 10.3 Fish Downstream 3 11.2 98.5 32.6 3.31 137Cs 3 < 32.5 433 83.9 2.49 65.8 152 Effluent (pCi/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream - - -

2.40 29.2 < 319 Benthic Downstream 1 < 319 < 319 155 137Cs 984 984 160 3.37 311 984 Effluent 1 (pCi/kg)

. m_

Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)

Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o

1. 8 i i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 tionths Aquatic Biota Upstream 3' 91.6 170 203 1.72 173 72.8 Vascular Plant Dc,wnstream 3 < 67.6 < 173 168 2.02 63.9 < 67.6 137 Cs Effluent 3 59 104 144 1.77 < 180 < 180 (pci/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 2, 1,730 2,260 2,250 1.30 2,303 2,000 ton Downstream 3 180 1,110 805 1.97 406 211' gs,Cs Effluent 1 121 121 121 NA 121 121 (pCi/kg)

I Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 < 27.8 < 34.2 29.1 3.03 36.3 < 27.8 C Fish Downstream 3 < 7.62 24.0 33.0 2.70 31.9 < 7.62 i 95Zr Effluent 3 1.13 2.72 27.8 7.81- 81.5 < 1.13 (pci/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Benthic Downstream 1 < 136 < 136 145 1.13 12.7 < 136 95Zr Effluent 1 241 241 127. 1.59 139 241-(pCi/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 95.2 148 172 2.30 .184 39.1 Vascular Plants Downstream 3 < 28.8 < 73.6 117 2.95 < 28.8 < 28.8 952r Effluent 3 < 52.0 < 76.8 87.2 1.63 26.9 < 52.0 (pci/kg)

Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 < 677 < 859 634 1.41 < 634 < 677 seston Downstream 3 91.7 145 272 2.98 385 53.7 I < 436

< 436 952r Effluent < 436 < 436 436 NA (pCi/kg)

Beef F-44 4 1.65 4.57 3.09 2.62. 4.76 2.91 137Cs pCi/g Nat K

-117-III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM SCHEDULE III.A. Environmental Radiation Surveillance Schedule Table III.A.1 outlines the collection and analysis schedule for the radiation surveillance program. This is identical to Table 5.9.1 in the Technical Specifications.

The surveillance program provides for collection and analysis of environmental samples within an area extending to a twenty-mile radius from the reactor site. A concentrated area of sampling within a one-mile radius is designated the " Facility" zone; the area from one to ten miles, the " Adjacent" zone; while the " Reference" zone extends from ten to twenty miles. The data obtained from the Facility zone are statistically compared to those from the Adjacent and Refe rence zones to test for any significant differences in values. A similar rationale is used for surface waters and sediments. These are partitioned into "Ef fluent" (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.

Table III.B.1, III.B.2, and III.B.3 give some detail of the sampling sites in the Facility, Adjacent and Reference zones respectively.

No changes in sampling sites were necessary during the current reporting period.

I

i TABLE flI. A.1. f fJVIRONP.1ENT AL RADI ATION SURVEILLANCE PROGR AM SCHEDULE

• Esposure Routes or SAMPLING FREQUENCIES AND AN ALYSES - by Action levels.

based upon actuel emies4ons as percentages of reiesse rates authorized by 10 CFR 70 Med.a & Sampie Types (No of Locations' zone)' Action Level 1; Less than 3% l Action Level 2. 3% to 10% Action t.evel 3 Greater then 10%

EXTERNAL EXPOSURE Ava rsaa mRfrfay detemt by TLD Chips Average mR' day determmed by QU ARTE RLY cumulative exposures; MONTHLY enalysis nf all iLDs a F-13. A.12. R 12) conection and anaivses in roret.on of 1/3 of all i LDs MONTHLY.

ATMOSPH E R E Membrana felters for Gross beta, every filter, WEE KLY; Same as for Level 1, plus gross Gross alpha and hets,every filter; partecu:stes: charcoal gamma spectrum of fitter and alpha on one weekly set of 98mma spectrum of filter and cartridges for sodine. cartridge composites, MONTHLY. filters, MONTH LY, cartridge composites, all WE E KLY.

(F-4 A-3)

Tritium oxide Specific activity of tritium in atmospheric water vapor by passive absorption and bquid scmtillation countmg.

(F 2) OUARTERLY MONTHLY WEEKLY WATER Potable water Gross beta, tritium and gamma spectrum enelyses; Facihty area and nearest of f-site supply (F-1, A-1) (shallow wells at town of Gelerest,6 miles northeast). MONTHLY, plus Sr 89 & 90 analyses OUARTERLY MONTHLY Precipitation No collection or analyses of Gross beta, MONT HLY Gross hete, tritium and Sr 89 & 90, precipitation at Level 1. MONTH LY; gamme spectrum of (F-21 composite,0U ARTE R LY. I e-.

Surf ace water & sitt Gross beta. tritium and gamma Same es for Level 1, but Same as for Level 2, plus E spectrum. QU ARTERLY MONTHLY. Sr 89 & 90 enalyses, MONTHLY. I (F-3. A-41 FOOD CH AlNS Soel, forage & crops Tritium er*d gamma spectrum analyses of forage and crops in the most probable routes to man.

OU A RTE R LY, as available MONTHLY during growir'g season

• Same as level 7. plus Sr 89 & 90, (F-2. A-6, R-6) plus concurreat soil sampies (i.e., spring, summer and f alt). (e.e., approx. Aprit to October). ,

analyzed for the same nuclides.

MONTH LY durmg growmg season.

No analysis of beef at Level 1. Gamma spectrum, tritium and Same es for Level 2 plus total Beef cattle Sr 89 & 90 analyses on one meat body count of 2 to 4 enemais (F-1) f rom F acshty Area. QU ARTE RLY.

sample from beef raised m Facility Area; ANNU ALLY,at end of grarmg season (i.e., late fall).

Milk Tritium, gamma vectrum and Sr 89 & 90 analyses on composite: Same as for Level 7, but Facihty Area only, QUARTE RLY. Facehty Adiocent and Reference Areas; WEEKLY during pasture ?=ason, (F-2. A 6. R-6) otherwise, MONT H LY.

MONTH LY durmg pasture season, otherwise QU A RTE RLY.

AQUATIC BIOTA (2 streams, above Gross beta and gamma spectrum analyses of ecmposites of each of 4 categories: Same as for Level 7, plus and below (1) suspended organisms, (2) benthic orga.usms, (3) vascular plants and (4) fish. Sr 89 & 90 analyses, discharge pomist QU A RTE R LY, as available. MONTHLY durmg summer; otherwise OU A RTE R LY, as available.

(F.2. A-2) l

' Table 5 9-1. In Technical Specsfications.

1 Legend.

F - Facihty Zone A - Adjacent Zone R - Reference Zone 2 Tritium Analysis of Surface Water Only

Table III .B.1. Facility area and effluent sampling locations for environmental media.

14edia Sampled at Location Location and Description (see Fig. II.B.1)

Loc. Distance and Direction from Reactor; Conments No. TLD AIR M S H90 AQB F 1

• ** 0.8 mi. N; potato cellar; TLD on pole at NE corner barn; precipitation on hill E of barn F 2

• 1.1 mi. NNE; cabin.

• 0.7 mi. SE; old dairy barn ; TLD on 1st pole N of drive.

F__3 F 4 * **

• 0.8 mi. S; first shed along drive; precipitation in corral; forage and soll S of shed.

F 7

• 0.8 mi. NNE; pole by gate at corner of Goosequill Rd.

F 8

• 0.6 mi. NE; 2nd pole S of cattle-guard on hill.

F 9

• 0.8 mi. SSE; 2nd pole W of pump house. L F 11

• 0.9 mi. SSW; 0.3 mi. W of intersection of 194 and 34. G

• 0.8 mi. SW; 7th pole N of intersection. '

_F _12 pole nearest intersection.

F_13

• 0.6 mi. WSW; F 14

• 1.0 mi. NW; pole nearest corner.

F 44 *

• 1.1 mi. E; Leroy Odenbaugh dairy.

• 0.3 mi. N; Ted Horst farm, pole SW of house.

F 51 F 46

• 1.0 mi. SW; 2nd pole N of intersection, near Aristocrat Angus office.

F 47

• 0.4 mi. E; pole near driveway to pump house.

F 49

• 0.1 mi. W; tap outside Visitors Center E~58

~~

• 1.3 mi. NNE; GoosequiTl pond.

• 0.2 mi. NW; Concrete slough above and below point of entry of E 41 plant water.

Codes: F = Facility area (within one mile).

E = Effluent surface streams.

TLD = Thermoluminescent Dosimeter for measuring external gamma exposure.

AIR = Air sampling location; ** = atmospheric precipitation collected.

M = Milk sampling locations.

H02

= Water sampling locations; silt also sampled from surface sources.

AQB = Aquatic biota sampling locations.

S = Soil and Forage sampling locations.

Table III.B.2 Adjacent area sampling locations for environmental media.

Loc. Media Sampled at Location Location Description i (see Figs.11.8T1 and II.B.2)

No. TLD AIR M S H2O AQB Distance and UTrection from Reactor; Comments A5 *

• 4.5 mi. NNE; L1oyd Rumsey farm; 2 mi. N,1~.5 mi. W of Peckham.

A6 * * -*

• 5.5 mi. S; Clifton Wissler farm; 2 mi. W, 2.5 mi. S of Platteville; TLD on pole 30 ft. N of parlor._

A 27

• 5.0 mi. NW; I mi. S 'of Colo. 56,1 mi. E of I-25, pole on NE corner.

A 28. * *

• 6.0,mi. tiW; Virgil Podtburg daTry; 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 Johnstown, 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.

A 31 * *

• 6.0 ciiTENE; 1.5 mi. E of Peckham; TLD on pole in front of house.

A 32

• 4.0 mi. E; 3 mi. N of Platteville; 1.2 mi. E of US 85;'NW pole.

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; I mi. E of I-?.5 at Colo. 254; pole on SW corner. g A 35 *

• 3.5 mi. SSW; Mike McDermott; 9476 Hwy 66; S mi. w of Jt. Col.66 & Rd 21 i A 36 * *

• 8.0 mi. W; Dave Gruber dairy; 2 mi. W of I-25 on Colo. 56, then 1.5 mi. S. TLD 0.5 mi. W. m.

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.a mi . ' E'of' Platteville. - -

D 37

• 12.5 mi. ENE; Lower Lathan Res.; 2.5 mi. E of LaSalle.

• 5.0 mi. ENE; O_39 Giltrest water from U.S. Post Office D 40

• 5.5 mi. ENE; South Platte River at Colo. 60.

0 45 * * -1.0 mi. N; St. Vrain Creek at Jct. Rd.19h, 0.2 mi. from discharge.

Codes: A = Adjacent area (one to ten miles from reactor).

D = Downstream potable or surface waters. ,

All other synbols same as for Table III.B.I.' .

e

Table III. D.3. Ref erence area and upstream onmpling locr.tions for environmental medin _

_Hedia Sampled at Location g ation Description (see Fins. II. B.1. and II. B.2.)

Loc. Distance and DLrection from Reactor; Commentn.

No. TLD AIR H S N90 AQD 11.5 mi. NW; 4.2 mi. W of I-25 on Colo. 60; TLD on pole W of farm R 15

• driveway.

• 11.8 mi. NNW; Hountain View Farms; N side of Colo. 402 W of I-25.

• R 16 *

• 11.8 mi. NNE; Bob Schneider Dairy; 1 mi. S of US 34 on RD 25; R 17

• on pole 0.5. mi. N of parlo'r on RD 25.

10.0 mi. NNE; on pole on SE corner of interacction of 65th Ave, and R 18

• 37th Street (Greeley).

13.3 mi. NNE; US 34 at 47th Ave. (Greeley); pole on SW corner, opposite R 19

• golf course.

• *

• 11.1 mi. ENE;, Dick Stroh dairy: 2.mi. E: 1.6 mi. S of LaSalle; TLD on. pale W parlor R 20 5 mi. E of US 85 on Colo. 256; then 1 mi. S; TLD on pole on ,

R 21

• 11.9 mi. E; E SW corner. 4.2 mi. E of T'

• *

• 11.1 mi. SE; Hagano.Dros. Dairy; 4.2 mi. S of Platteville; R 22 US 85; TLD on 1st pole E of drive.

• 11.5 mi. S;, Dick Silver; 3.5 mi. W of Ft. Luoton,TLD on 1st pole W. on drive R 23

• of the frontage road; 12.2 mi. SSW; I-25 at Colo. 52; pole ~.W.

R 24

• NW corner.

Angelo Vendegna Dairy; 4 mi. N of Colo. 52 on RD 1.

11.7 mi. USW; R 25 12.2 mi. IEW; On US 287, 2.5 mi. of Colo. 56, 2nd pole S on RD 2E.

R 26

• St. Vrain Creek at bridge, RD 34.

• 1.5 mi. USW; U 42

• 0.6 mi. E South Platte River, at dam and inlet ponds.

U 43 -_

Codes: R = Reference arca (greater than 10 milco f rom reactor).

U = Upstream from effluent discharge pointo.

All other symbols as in Table II.I B.1.

-122-Figure III.B.l. On-site Sampling Locations J

+

i / x

/ 's s (

,/ -

- 0 3 \,

i 1

'] ['

../

/ )

--- - is

~

'l s

N '-

/

"YN ~ , y"-'gy

[ h'\

-D \

/ T

\

ss e n  : .

/ l / fieT2lFa-----' 5 i f vna '" v Ir.Y'  %

[tacron l U$I 'W i j:-___e _a !N

\ ~ ~ ' /

- _ _ _ _ . :e , .g q /

x\ @! e l .

/

/

\ l az!Cp/ l /

/

'N (F-41 x> '

On-site and close-in sampling locations.

F = facility area, E = effluent stream, U = upstream, D = downstream.

O

-123-Figure III.B.II. Off-site Sampling Locations l l l s I  !, i f r-t1o 9 -

I t _

r

~ ,

g i

r g

L_!"d.o,I,}'o '

' rg) 4 LW 'AIE f

1. 2 l-.I, GH~"Y _

?, $%gT ~r \

l l @ l I

L**"3 of n

{ R-IOll l k-e I I WMC

,,y d h h BERTHOUD h g k,N .

,PEC H

-I gI > a. iLcPEsT- ,

. -_ 0 4 _ _ _ __ _ a _ _ . _

e i

! __ _y. _.-- e ~ e_-

9 i I, B U-43 A-32 F -m'i 1 c) mg ugao -j- i: i' fl '_ _ l-.p_.,__.

l

\ E TCN-REL

, g cm i m u, wu Ql i  !

lO [" PL ATT E . E Je V

@ll O

, T"i s ~1 NGMON g l ST _ _L _ a _i L_m *

~* q) l--

q

-p-- J L --

],3 -

2 ._ __ _ ,s ;_-- _ -4 1 r --

m A _

m - -

e _ 7. _ .H+#

t as ,

___/

, a l

g. N l l  ; ) FT. LUPTON  ! 2

/ f I O S miles IOmiles SCALE l

l