ML20078A727
| ML20078A727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1983 |
| From: | Borst F, Johns J, Jerrica Johnson COLORADO STATE UNIV., FORT COLLINS, CO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078A711 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8309230390 | |
| Download: ML20078A727 (127) | |
Text
_ _ .
. s gADIATlO/V 4'- - -8 N#
/f ,
'[
- \,
FORT ST. VRAIN - '.
Y/ ,' ' NUCLEAR '
', l g, R' f GENERATING STATION '
_O LLJ " l
- TY
\
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
/ 's I \
l I
\, '
~ -
~ -
PROGRAM e w2 0309230390 830830 PDR ADOCK 05000 R
PURCHASE ort)ER t&, 96239 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521
- I)UBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO Attach. P-3F ,
gj FORT 57. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION page 1 of 1 ,
t i ;
ERSP
SUMMARY
REPORT COVER SHEET ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM Summary Report for the pericd January - June. 1983 -
i Prepared by: h 6!Z4!O3 am' :s E. Joh son , Professor, Ddte olorado Stat niversity i
l Reviewed by: , d/ Alt $. )DR Sf fd3 l Radiation ProtecJion Manager r Date Reviewed by:
- R- 25-83 S6pdnis6r, Nuclear' Licensing Date I
t
, Approved by: TV) W % r A ,, A
- f-y a n Statioh Man'ager / Date i
s d by 'O h4f Z6 8 i Manager, Nuclear Engineeri/g Division E8t' /
4 1
- - - + . y -.,.r,- , , , , .m. , . , , . . . - , , ,.,,,,.;,m..,-..mv.3, -
++y ..r ee,_f.--.-...~. _ - . - -e---w-..w-wm-.w%m-%.w.,s--
I Acknowledgements Many persons have contributed to this project during the first half of 1983 and it is important to acknowledge their conscientious effort.
Those persons working directly on the project have been:
Gordon Carstens Sheri Chambers Sharon Clow Elizabeth Matern Marion Mcdonald Charles Sampier Jim Satterfield Alan Solow Marilyn Watkins Donna Wooding We also wish to thank the citizens from whose farms, homes, and ranches we collect the environmental samples. Without their cooperation the project would not be possible.
1 l 9
4 r w- a y m4--eym-,ny
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
List of Tables iji List of Figures vi I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SURVEILLANCE DATA FOR JANUARY THROUGH JUNE 6 1983 AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS A. External Gamma Exposure Rates 6 B. Air Sampling Data 9 C. Water, Sediment, and Precipitation 26
- Sampling Data D. Food Chain Data 60 E. Aquatic Biota 81 F. Beef'Catt,le 89 G. Sample Cross Check Data 91 H. Conclusion and Summary 97 III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE 113 PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE 114 A. Collection and Analysis Schedule B. Sampling Locations 315 I
t I-
LIST OF TABLES Page No.
II.A.1 Gama Exposure Rates Measured by the TLD Technique. 8 II.B.1 Concentration of Long-lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles.
- a. First Quarter, 1983. 11
- b. Second Quarter, 1983. 12 II.B.2 Concentraticas of Long-lived Gross Beta
' Activity in Alrborne Particles.
- a. FirsEQuarter,1983. 13
- b. Second Quarter, 1983. 14 II.B.3 _ Tritium Concentrations in Atmospneric Water Vapor.
- a. FirstQuarter,19b3. 17
- b. Second Quarter, 1983. 18 II.B.3a Tritium Concentrations in Air
- a. First Quarter, 1983. 19
- b. Second Quarter,1983. 20 II.B.3b Tritium Released in Reactor Effluents, 21 II.B.4 Iodine-131 Concentrations in Air (Composite). 22 II.B.5 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations 25 in Air (Composite).
II.C.1 Gross Beta Activity in Water. 29 II.C.la Gross Beta Activity in Effluent Water, Goosequill 30 (E-38).
II.C.2 Tritium Concentrations in Surface Waters. 31 II.C.3 Strontium-90 Concentrations in Surface Waters. 32 II.C.4 Strontium-89 Concentrations in Surface Waters. 33 iii
)
l 9 ,.
~$l LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
w Page No.
v 3 .;
,, , II.C.4a - Tritium, Strontium-89-90 in Effluent dater, Goosequill,
.(E-38).
.a. First Quarter, 1983. 34
' b. .Second-Quarter,'1983.
35 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Water. 36 II.C.5 II.C.5a Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Effluent Water, Goosequill (E-38). 42 Gross Beta Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 45 II.C.6 Strontium-90 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 46 II.C.7 Strontium-89 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment. 47 II.C.8 II.C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in 48 Bottom Sediment.
Gross Beta and Tritium Deposition from Precipitation. 56 c II..;C.10
'II.C.11 Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from Precipitation at Location F1. 57 II.C.12 Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from 58 Precipitation at Location F4.
) .
Radiostrontium Deposition.from Precipitation. 59 II.C.13 62 II.D.1 Tritium Concentrations in Water Extracted from Milk.
i 63 I . II.D.2 Strontium-90 Activity in Milk.
f II.D.3 Strontium-89 Activity in Milk. 64 II.D.4 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite Milk Samples. 65 i
II.D.5 Tritium, Strontium-89, and Strontium-90 Concentrations in Forage. 69 iv
)
LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)
II.D.6 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentraticns in Forage. 71 II.D.7 Gross Beta Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) and Soil (pCi/kg). 73 II.D.8 Gross Beta in Soil (pCi/m2 ). 76 II.D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil (nCi/m2). 77 II.D.10 Tritium, Strontium-89, and Strontium-90 Concentrations in Soil. 79 II.E.1 Gross Beta and Radiostrontium Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples. 83 II.E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples. 86 II.F.1 Radionuclides in Facility Area Beef Cattle. 90 II.G.1 EPA Cross-Check Data Summary. 94 II.G.2 Fort St. Vrain-Colorado Department of Health Cross-Check Data Summary. 96 II.H.1 Data Summary. 101 III.A.1 Environmental Radiation Surveillance Program. 114 III.B.1 Facility Area and Effluent Sampling Locations for Environmental Media. 115 III.B.2 Adjacent Area and Downstream Sampling Locations for Environmental Media. 116 III.B.3 Reference Area and Upstrea.a Sampling Locations for Environmental Media. 117 v
LIST OF FIGURES Page No.
III.B.1 On-site Sampling Locations 118 III.B.2 Off-site Sampling Locations lig i 4 a
l 4' I
-j-t !
vi l
)
1 1.- Introduction to Radiation Surveillance Data for the First Half of 1983.
During the first half of 1983 the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station produced power'as follows:
Month- Dates With Electrical # of Days Without Gross Electrical Energy (1983) Generation Generation Generation (MWH)
January 1-28 3 122062 February 8, 10-15 21 7728 March 9, 12-17 24 11024 April 30 0 May 31- 0 June 30 0 The energy generation was 31% of that in the previous 6 month reporting period. The reactor did not operate during the last 3 months of 1982. Radioactivity. released by normal effluent routes, however, was not negligible during the shut-down period (see Table II.B.3b).
This is due to scheduled 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 Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When possible'in this report we have discussed any correlation of radioactivity in environmental samples with the effluent release data. This analysis is found in each sample type section and in the summary section, II.H.
Tropospheric fallout was a minor but not negligible contributor to k activities measured during this period. The most recent Chinese atmospheric nuclear weapon test was conducted in December of 1980. Air L
f
2 concentrations were at pretest background levels, but the resulting surface deposition of _the fallout from that test was still observed.
Significant tropospheric fallout from Chinese weaoon tests has been observed during the entire preoperational and operational period of the reactor. The fallout has been extremely. variable and does not allow direct comparison of preoperational and post operational data.
Fallout deposition and more importantly natural background must be subtracted before any-such comparisons are made.
The environmental sampling and analysis program was essentially identical to that used in the most recent reporting periods. Any change and their rationale are given by Section III.A.
Essentially all radioactivity data measured on this project are near background levels and, more importantly, near the minimum detectable activity (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 result, the overall variability of the surveillance data is' quite large, and it is necessary to use mean _ values from a rather large sample size to make any conclusions about the absolute radioactivity concentrations in any environmental pathway.
f Environmental radiation surveillance data commonly exhibit non-normal frequency distributions. Usually the data can be satisfactorily 1
treated using log-normal statistics. However, when the number of
- observations is small, i.e. , less than 10, log-normal treatment is tentative.
)
3 When a high percentage of data points is less than MDA or MDC,
- (the minimum detectable concentrations of activity in that sample type),
calculation 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 arithmetic means and confidence intervals for the reporting period as well as for the last 12 months. We also list 1 the geometric means and geometric standard deviations for the last year of data reporting. If any data points measured resulted in negative values, these~ values were used in calculating the true mean values in Table II.H.1. (negative values are possible due to the statistical nature of radioactivity counting). This is the current accepted practice by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. It should be noted-that we 4
have not used any footnote for values less than MDC. Rather we list the measured value as less than the actual MDC value. Because the MDC is dependent upon variables such as the background count time and sample size, the value will be different 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 different 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 b chosen to list the maximum permissible concentrations as found in Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR 20. This is the concentration of any L
y
e 4
radionuclide which if ingested or inhaled continuously, would singularly produce the maximum permissible dose rate to a member of the general public. That value is 170 millirem / year, but must include the dose from all sources and routes excluding background radiation and medical I
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 limits for water cooled reactors are found in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I. These are judged the "As Low as Reasonably Achievable" dose rates from such reactor types and although not directly applicable to the Fort St. Vrain gas cooled reactor, can be used for comparison purposes.
A limit that does apply is the independent maximum permissible l
dose commitment rate set by the E.P.A. (40 CFR 190) for any specified member of the general public from any part of the nuclear fuel cycle.
I This value is 25 mrem / year as the dose to the whole body from all
-contributing radionuclides. As will be noted in this report, dose l commitments are calculated for any mean concentrations noted in unrestricted areas that are significantly above control mean values.
i
A 5
l i
Thefollowingis.jhefootnotesystemusedinthisreport.
- 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).
- i. Analytical error (actual reason given).
N.A. Not applicable.
6 II. Surveillance Data for January through June 1983 and Interpretation of Results.
A. External Gamma-ray Exposure Rates The average measured gamma-ray exposure rates expressed in mR/ day are given in Table II.A.I. The values were determined by CaF :Dy 2
(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. 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 II.B.1 and II.B.2 and Tables III.B.1, III.B.2 and III.B.3 for the exact TLD locations.
The TLD data indicate that the arithmetic mean measured exposure rate in the Facility area was 0.43 mR/ day. The mean exposure rate was 0.41 mR/ day for the Adjacent area and 0.40 mR/ day for the Reference area.
There were no significant differences between the values for the Facility, Adjacent and Reference areas. There was also no significant difference from the values measured during all of 1982.
The exposure rate measured at all sites is due to a combination of _ exposure from cosmic rays, from natural gamma-ray emitters in the earth's crust and from ground surface deposition of fission products l
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 i method. The purpose of the TLD ring around the reactor is not to
)
7 measure gamma-rays ge.'erated 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 b;y the reactor there-has~been.no detectable increase in the external exposure rate due to reactor releases.
The TLD system is calibrated by exposing chips to a ' scattered gamma-ray flux in a cavity surrounded by Uranium mill tailings. This produces a spectrum nearly identical to that measured in the reactor environs.
l 1
8 Table II.~A.1 1GammFiposdre a Rates Measured by the TLD Technique (mR/ day).
First Half, 1983.
Facility Area Average aily Gama Exposure Rates Locations Jan. Feb. -March -April May June F'l 0.41- 0.44 0.44 0.40 0.42 0.39 F.3 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.42 0.43 0.41 F -4 0.43 0.44 0.47 0.41 0.39 0.42 F 7 0.43 0.45- 0.43- 0.41 0.43 0.40 F 8 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.45 0.42 F 9 0.43 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.43 F 11 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.40 0.40 -0.42
.F 12 0.48 0.44 0.50 0.45 0.44 0.45 F 13 0.41 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.44- 0.38 F 14 0.40 0.44 0.41 0.40 0.'38 0.39 F 46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.45 0.45 y 47 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.40 F 51 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 Y 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.42 0.43 0.41 Adjacent Area Locations A 5 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.40 A 6 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.37 0.38 A 27 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.43 0.40 0.37 A 28 0.34 0.40 0.42 0.41 0.34 0.39 A 29 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.41 A 30 0.34 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.43 A 31 0.37 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.38 0.39 A 32 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.39 A 33 0.41 0.45 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.39 A-34 0.45- 0.45 0.51 '0.46 0.45 -0.44
-A 35 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.40 0.42 A 36.- 0.38' O.45. 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.40 i 0.40 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.40 Reference Area Locations R 15 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.37 0.37 R 16 0.33 0.42 0.47 0.46 0.42 0.44 R 17 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.30 R 18 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.35 0.33 R 19 0.40 0.39 0.44 0.39 0.35 0.34 R 20' 0.41 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.38 '
R 21 .
b- 0.41 0.44 0.43 0.36 0.38 R'22' O.41 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.39 0.40 R 23 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.37 R 24 0.43 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.46 0.45 R 25 U.41 0.39 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.39
' R 26 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.34 i 0.40 0.41 0.43 , 0.43 0.38 0.37
- b. Sample missing at site.
I
9
-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. The concentrations are listed in units of femtocuries per cubic meter'of air, although the activity is due to a mixture of radionuclides.
It was observed that the concentration of gross alpha emitting radionuclides at all sites was statistically the same as for the second half of 1982. Although not significantly different, the mean . values for all sites were lower during the second quarter than during the first quarter. It can be noted that the reactor operated during the first quarter but not during the second quarter of 1983.
The range of values observed was consistent with previous sampling
' periods. The maximum gross alpha values were all observed during the week ending 1/22/83 (Table II.B.1). The gross beta values (table II.B.2) measured during that week were also the highest observed for the entire period. Since gross alpha and gross beta counts on the same filter are totally independent of each other, analytical error can be eliminated.
It can only be concluded that a pulse of tropospheric air arrived sometime during that sampling week.
The minimum values for both gross alpha and gross beta occurred during the week ending 5/21/83. Minimum values were observed at all seven air sampling locations, both facility and adjacent. This was a week of heavy rainfall. Over three inches of precipitation was f observed at the Greeley C0 station. Evidently the air was scoured of particulates that contain natural airborne I
10 radioactivity. The filter sample weights were very low which confirms this explanation.
Mean values for gross alpha activity were slightly less than during the last six months of 1982. Mean values for gross beta activity were considerably less than during the last half of 1982.
There was no significant difference between Facility stations and Adjacent stations during the entire sampling period. There has never been a significant difference observed between the facility and Adjacent sites. Thus it can be concluded that gaseous effluents of particulate fission products or activation products is not a pathway of concern for the Fort St. Vrain reactor.
For the period 2/19/83 to 3/5/83, sampling was not conducted at station A-5. The pump was observed to be not operating and a necessary part had to be ordered. A spare pump is normally available for the air samplir.g system but was used at a different location. To prevent this cccurrence in the future a second spare pump has recently been ordered.
For the period 5/21 - 6/17 sampling could not be conducted at site F-2. Initially the pump stopped operating, likely because of high rainfall, but subsequently electricity was lost at the F-2 site.
Hunters using the cabin turned it off and later the wiring was changed to prevent this occurrence. That procedure took nearly 3 weeks. After h the fourth week operaticn began again but the membrane filter was observed to be severely damaged at the 6/17/83 collection. The membrane filters used in this study, while excellent for gross alpha counting, 1 are rather fragile and can be broken not only during handling, but during operation due to a variety of environmental conditions.
)
-Table II. B.1 .
3 Concentrations of Long-Lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m ),
a) First Quarter, 1983.
Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected -1 1 2 l 3 l 4 5 6 35 1-3-83 cy 2.2 (0.8)* 1.3 (1.1) 2.7(0.8) 4.0 (1.3) 2.4 (0.8) 4.9 (1.9) 1-9-83 2.9 (0.8) 1.3(0.6) 2.5 (0.8) 2.6 (0.8) 6.2 (1.6) 1.5 (0.6) 3.3 (0.9) 1-15-83 5.4 (1.3) 3.5 (0.9) c 2 3.7 (0.9) 7.6 (2.0) 3.7 (1.2) 5.2 (1.2) 1-22-83 20.7 (2.6) 16.4 (2.3) 15.2 (1.9) c 1
18.6 (2.6) 17.8 (2.3) 15.1 (2.0) 1-29-83 3.8 (0.9) 1.9 (0.6) 8.2 (1.4) 8.4 (1.6) 7.1 (1.2) 3.1 (0.8) 1.9 (0.5) 2-2-83 1.5 (0.7) 1.3 (0.5) 1.6 (0.5)' 1.4 (0.5) 2.3 (0.8) 1.1 (0.5) 1.0 (0.4) 2-12-83 4.4 (0.8) 1.8 (0.4) 4.5 (0.9) 4.3 (0.9) 6.1 (1.6) 4.1 (0.8) 3.9 (0.7) 2-19-83 4.0 (1.0) 4.1 (1.0) 3.3 (0.9) c c 4.8 (1.1) 1.7 (0.5) 2 1 2-26-83 3.5 (0.9) c2 6.4 (1.3) 4.0 (1.1) c 4.0 (1.2) 6.9 (1.7) 3 3-5-83 0.7 (0.3) 1.8 (0.5) 2.2 (0.7) 3.5 (0.8) c 8.3(1.7) 5.4 (1.2) g 3
3-10-83 1.1 (0.6) 2.0 (1.0) < 0.8 1.1 (0.6) 0.4 (0.4) 0.6 (0.5) < 0.6 3-20-83 1.7 (0.6) 1.0 (0.4) 2.6 (0.5) 0.3 (0.2) l'.6 (0.6) 0.7 (0.3) 1.3 (0.6) 3-26-83 1.6 (0.7) 1.4 (0.7) 1.3 (0.7) 1.4 (0.6) 0.7 (0.6) 0.8 (0.5) 1.3 (0.6)
Average 4.3 3.2 4.4 3.1 5.5 4.1 4.0 Quarterly Quarterly (47 Samples) 0.3 minimum ( 36 Samples) 0,4 minimum 20.7 maximum 18.6 maximum 3.7 .T 4.4 Y 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 Pump not running.
1 c Filter damaged during sampling period.
2 c
3 Pump in for repair.
Table II. 8.1 .
3 Concentrations of Long-Lived Gross Alpha Activity in Airborne Particles. (fCi/m ), ,
b)-. Secondl Quarter, 1983.
.Date Facili ty Areas Adjacent Areas 3 4 5 6 35 Collected 1 l 2 l
'4-2-83 .C 1
C 1
1.0 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3). 1.6 (0.4) 2.1 (0.6)' .1.1 (0.5) 4-9-83 1.7 (0.5) 3.4 (0.7) 1.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.2) '1.4.(0.5) 2.1-(0.7) 1.5 (0.5) 4-16-83 4.5'(1.1) 4.1 (0.8) 1.1 (0.4) 2.0 (0.7) 3.7 (0.9) 3.1-'(0.9) 3.7 (0.9).
).
4-23-83 4.0 (1.0) 2.3 (0.5) C 2 5.0 (l'3) . 4.3 (0.9) C 3
3.2 (0.8)'
- 4-30-83 3.8 (0.8) 4.2 (0.7) *** 5.9 (1.0) 5.1(0.9) 19.2(1.8) C 3
5-7-83 2.0 (0.4) 1.6 (0.4) *** 4.1 (0.8) 17.1(1.7) 3.2 (1.1) '3.7 (1.0) 5-14-83 3.3 (1.0) 3.1 (0.7) 2.3 (0.7) 1.2.(0.5) 2.4-(0.7) 2.8 (0.9) 4.6:(1 1) 5-21-83 .1.2 (0.6) C 2
1.3 (0.6)- C 2
0.6(0.3) 0.6 (0.4) 1.4 (0.6)'
5-28-83 3.8 (1.0) C 5.5 (1.1) C 3
6.4 (1.2) -5.1 (1.3) 4.E (0.9) 5 6-4-83 1.6 (0.5) C 5
2.5 (0.8)' 1.8 (0.8) 2.7 (0.7) 1.2(0.7)- 1.3 (0.5) -.
m 6-11-83 1.8 (0.7) C 5
1.9'(0.5) 2.3 (0.6) 2.8 (0.7) 2.9 (1.0) 2.5 (0.7) 6-17-83 2.4 (0.7) C 1
2.8 (0.9) 2.1 (0.7) 2.9 (0.8) 1.5(0.7) 2.3 (0.7) l 6-26-83 4.4 (1.0) .2.9 (0.7) 4.9(1.1) 7.6 (1.5) 9.'9'(2.1) 6.4 (1.4) l Average 2.9 3.1 2.5 3.0 4.3 4.5 3.0 Quarterly Quarterly (40 Samples) 0.1 minimum (36 Samples) "0.6 minimum 7.6 maximum 19.2 maximum 2.9 J 3.9 Y All corcentrations 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.)
Cy Filter damaged during sampling period. C4 Pump switch turned off.
C Pump not running. C Pump off, no electricity.
2 5 C Pump in for repair.
3
- Filter weight too high for alpha counting.
"* Fire at sampling site, new site being located.
I
jl.
Table II.B.2-Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m3 ),
a) First_ Quarter, 1983.
Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas Collected 1 2 3 4 5 l 6 l 35 ;
1-3-83 .c 1 L 16 (1), 11 (3). 12 (1)' 22 (2) '12 (1) '28 (6) 1-9-83 11.(1)- 12-(1) 13 (1) 14 (1) 14 (2) L7 (1) '9'(1) 1-15-83 11 (1) 10 (1)- c 2
8 (1) 18 (2) '9 (1) 10 (1) 1-22-83 41 (2) 32 (2) ?28 (2) c 1
36 (2) 28 (2) 23 (2) 1-29-83 16 (1) 11'(1) 14-(1)' 13(2) 18 (2) 8 (1) ~8 (1) 1 I
2-3-83 11 (1). 13 (1) 112 (1) 10 (1) 10 (1). 13(1) 9 (1) 2-12-83 15 (1) 7 (1) 15 (1) 11-(1) 34 (2)- 9 (1) 11 (1) 2-19 13 (1) 12 (1) 12-(1) c.2 c 10.. (1) 7 (1) 2-26-83 16 (1) c 15 (1) 18 (2) c (}
2 3 3-5-83 2 (1) 7 (1) 13 (1) 6-(1) c 3
( (I} ~
3-10-83 19 (2) 15(2) 15 (2) 13 (2) 6 (1) 6(1) 8 (1) ,
3-20-83 8 (1) 7 (1) 5 (1)' 4 (1) 6 (1) 6 (1) 4 (1) 3-26-83 17 (2) 6 (1) 17 (2) 10 (1) 10 (1) 7 (2) 11 (1)
Average 15 12 14 11 17 11 11 Quarterly Quarterly
( 47 samples) 2 minimum ( 36 samples) 4 minimum 41 maximum ' 36 max _imum 13 X 13- X 3
All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of. air: IfCi/m = 10-15 pCi/ml.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the' 95% confidence interval (11.96 S.D.)
cy Pump not running.
c 2
Filter damaged during sampling period.
c 3
Pump in for repair.
Table II.B.2 3 Concentrations of Long-lived Gross Beta Activity in Airborne Particles (fCi/m ),
a) Second Quarter, 1983.
Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas 35 Collected 1 2 3 l 4 5 l 6 ! ,
4-2-83 C Cy 9 (1) 2 (1) 7 (1.) 9 (1) 8 (1) 1 4-9-83 12 (1) 3 (1) 15 (1) 1 (1) 9 (1) 7 (1) 8 (1) 4-16-83 5 (1) 10 (1) 5 (1) 6 (1) 10 (1) 9 (1) 10 (1) 4-23-83 3(1) 7 (1) C 2
9 (1) 8 (1) C 3
6 (1) 4-30-83 12 (1) 13 (1) ,, 11 (1) 11 (1) 4 (1) C 4
5-7-83 10 (1) 8 (1) **
4 (1) 8 (1) 5 (1) 14 (1) 5-14-83 8 (1) 7 (1) 7 (1) 3 (1) 7 (1) 4 (1) 4 (1) 5-21-83 4 (1) C <1 C 4 (1) 2 (1) <1 2 2 5-28-83 14 (1) C 5
17 (1) C 3 14 (1) 14 (2) 8 (1) 6-4-83 9 (1)- C 5
11 (1) 9 (2) 9 (1) 6 (1) 7 (1) g 6-11-83 8 (1) C 11 (1) 8 (1) 10 (1) 7 (1) 7 (1) 5 6-17-83 10 (1) C y 11 (1) 9 (1) 0 (1) 6 (1) 8 (1) 6-26-83 15 (1) 8 (1) 19 (1) 22 (2) 27 (2) 20 (2) 13 (2)
Average 9 8 11 8 10 8 8 Quarterly Quarterly
( 40 samples) 1 minimum ( 37 samples) 2 minimum 22 maximum 27 max,imum 9'X .7. X All concentrations are expressed in femtocuries per cubic meter of air: IfCi/m3 = 10-15 Ci/ml.
Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval (i 1.96 S.D.)
Cy Filter damaged during sampling period. C 4 Pump switch turned off.
C Pump not runnin9 C Pump off, no electricity.
2 5 C Pump in for repair. ** Fire at sampling site, new site being located.
3
15
- 2. Tritium Activity. Tropospheric water vapor samples are collected continuously by passive absorption on silica gel at all seven air sampling stations (four in the Facility area and three in the Adjacent area).
The specific activity of tritium in water in weekly samples from these stations is listed in Table II.B.3. From measured relative humidity, the corresponding air concentration of tritium is calculated and these values are given in Table II.B.3a.
The principal release mode of tritium from the reactor is batch liquid releases from holding tanks. The tank water is first analyzed and then released with sufficient dilution in order to not exceed 10 CFR 20 concentration limits. The sunnary of tritium released by all modes is given in Table II.B.3b. A comparison of this table and the measured air values implies only a limited correlation. The predominant fraction of the total tritium released during the period was released during February, March and April. During this period tritium concentrations above MDC were noted but the values were not high and the correlation with location is low. Indeed inspection of Table II.H.1 shows that mean value for all Facility stations was less than the mean value for the Adjacent stations. The difference, however, was not statistically significant.
A hygrothermograph is located at site F4 only. Using the temperature and relative humidity data from the hygrothermograph it is possible to convert specific activity of tritiated water collected on
{
3 silica gel (pCi/ liter) to activity per unit volume of air (pCi/m ),
This is used if calculation of immersion dose from tritiated water vapor were ever necessary.
)
h
16-Two equations are used in the conversion of pCi/ liter of water to pCi/m3 of air. The first equation is used to determine the vapor pressure of water (1):
log 10'P = A-B (C+t), where: P = vapor pressure (mm Hg) t'= temperature (C)
A = 9.10765 3 = 1750.286 C = 235.0 The temperature used'is the integrated weekly.value taken from the hygrothermograph. The conversion is completed in the second equation which is the " Ideal Gas Equation":
PV = nRT, where: P = vapor pressure (atmosphere).
V = volume (liters) n = number of moles of gas R = 0.08206 liter-atmospheres / mole-K T = temperature in K The number of grams of water per cubic meter of air is then determined.
The~ value of "n" obtained is for saturated air. The relative humidity is therefore integrated over-the week and this percentage of the' saturated air value is taken. The final value is reaorted in pCi/m . .This' procedure has been applied to data collected for the first half of 1983 and listed in Table II.B.3a. The weekly integrated relative humidity at the F-4 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 discussed above.
{
t 1
I t l
- ~ ~
~
Table II. B.3 '
-Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water Vapor (pCi/1).
~
- a)_ First Quarter, 1983.
Facility Areas Adfacent Areas Date. 5 l 6 l -35 2 l 3- l 4 Collected 1 l
< 287 < 287- < 287 < 287 < 287-
~
1-3-83 < 287 < 287 1-9-83 < 287 <.287 < 287- < 287' ~ < 287
. < 287 < 287 1-18-83 < 287 < 287 < 287 < 287 < 287 486 < 287 (255),
< 291- < 291 < 291 < 291 < 291-1-22-83 < 291 < 291 1-29-83 < 295 < 295 <.295 < 295 < 295 < 295
- < 295 2-3-83 593 542 494 < 284 301 < 284 530 (254)- (253) (253) (251)' (253) 2-12-83 < 284 < 284- < 284- 557 532 517 459 ,.
(253) (253) (253) (252) 2-19-83 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 468 2-26-83 714 613 481 328 e 436 337
.(268) '
(267) (265) .(264) (265) '(264) 3-5-83 < 296 368 < 296 < 296 359 < 296 431 (291) (291) (292) :s 3-10-83 312 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 296 < 296 ' < 296 (290) 3-20-83 < 290 < 290 < 290 < 290 < 290 < 290 < 290 3-26-83 < 294 < 294 < 294 < 294 < 294 < 294 < 294
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval , ( 1.96 S.D.),
e Insufficient volume for_ analysis.
Table II. B 3 Tritium Concentrations in Atmospheric Water' Vapor (pCi/l).
b) Second Quarter, 1983.
Facility Areas Adjacent _ Areas Date 6 35' 2 3 l 4 5 l l Collected 1 l l
< 292 < 292 319 < 292 . < 292 371 4-2-83 373 (287) (286) (287) 4-9-83 310 < 294 < 294 < 294 < 294 < 294 324 (288) (288) 373 342 < 294 429 431 407 < 294 4-16-83 (289) (289) (290) (290) (289)
< 286 463 < 286 362 305 586 < 286 4-23-83 (283) (281) (281) (284)
< 286 ** 286 < 286 640 523 4-30-83 571 (286) (280)' (285) (283) ,
- 479 5-7-83 505 391 359 < 295 < 295 (291) (290) (290) (291) 5-14-83 < 295 299 < 286 < 286 < 286 < 286 < 286 os (289) 5-21-83 < 298 < 298 < 298 < 298 < 298 < 290 < 290 5-28-83 < 295 < 295- < 295 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 6-4-83 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 < 299 6-11-83 < 299 < 299 < 299 413 < 299 < 299 < 299 (294) 6-17-83 762 371 360 623 337 < 295 404 (295) (290) (290) (293) (290) (291)
< 299 <.299 < 299 < 299 < 299 b < 299 6-26-83
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval , ( 1.96 S.D.).
b Sample missing from site.,
- Fire at sampling site, new site being located.
- ~ . - - - - - -
. l[
y Tahic II.B.3a
-Tritium Concentrations in Air-(pCi/m )
a) First Quarter, 1983.
Date 1:acility Areas Adjacent Areas 4 5 6 35 Collected 1 2 3 1-3-83 C C C 'C C C C 1-9-83 < 0.787 < 0.787 < 0.787 < 0.787 < 0.787 < 0.787 < 0.787 1-15-83 < 0.662 < 0.662 < 0.662 < 0.662 . < 0.662 1.12 1.12 1-22-83 < 0.606 < 0.'606 < 0.606 < 0.606 < 0.606 < 0.606 < 0.606 1-29-83 C C C C C C C 2-3-83 1.40 1.28 1.17 < 0.671 0.712 < 0.671 1.25 2-12-83 < 0.630 < 0.630 < 0.630 1.24 1.18 1.15 1.02 2-19-83 < 0.980 < 0.980 < 0.980 < 0.980 < 0.980 < 0.980 < 0.980 U$ .
2-26-83 2.01 1.73 1.35 0.923 e 1.23 0.948 3-5-83 < 0.976 1.21 < 0.976 < 0.976 1.18 < 0.976 1.42 3-10-83 0.803 < 0.762 < 0.762 < 0.762 < 0.762 < 0.762 < 0.762 3-20-83 < 1.30 < 1.30 < 1.30 < 1.30 < 1.30 < 1.30 < 1.30 3-26-83 < 0.772 < 0.772 < 0.772 < 0.772 < 0.772 < 0.772 < 0.772 3
H MPC = 2x10 5 pCi/m3 . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).
a C Instrument malfunction.
e Insufficient volume for analysis.
a ~ -
Table II.B.3a Tritium Concentrations in Air (pCi/m )
b) Second Quarter,,1983.
Date Facility Areas Adjacent Areas .
Collected 1 2 3 4 5 6 35 4-2-83 1.08 < 0.845 < 0.845 0.923 < 0.845 < 0.845 1.07 4-9-83 0.744 < 0.705 < 0.705 < 0.705 < 0.705 < 0.705 0.777 4-16-83 1.20 1.03 < 1.31 1.51 1.52 1.43 < 1.31 4-23-83 < 1.48 2.39 < 1.48 1.87 1.58 3.03' < 1.48 4-30-83 3.00 < 1.50 ** < 1.50 < 1.50 3.36 < 2.75
- 2.76 < 2.27 < 2.27 3.68 5-7-83 3.88 3.01 5-14-83 < 1.61 1.63 < 1.56 < 1.56 < 1.56 < 1.56 < 1.56 n, 5-21-83 < 1.72 < 1.72 < 1.72 < 1.72 < 1.72 < 1.67 < 1.67 5-28-83 < 4.12
< 4.12 < 4.12 < 4.17 < 4.17 < 4.17 < 4.17 6-4-83 < 2.98 < 2.98 < 2.98 < 2.98 < 2.98 < 2.98 < 2.98 6-11-83 < 3.20 < 3.20 < 3.20 4.43 < 3.20 < 3.20 < 3.20 6-17-83 9.24 4.50 4.36 7.55 4.09 < 3.58 4.90 6-26-83 < 2.86 < 2.86 < 2.86 < 2.86 < 2.86 b < 2.86 3 3 H MPC = 2x105' pCi/m . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II).
a b Sample missing froin site.
- Fire at simpling site, new site being located.
21 -
Table 'II. B.3b Tritium Released (Ci) in Reactor Effluents,1983.
Mode . Jan- Feb March. April May June ' Total
. Continuous 0.78 61.9 -70.3 13.8 .O.58 0.29 147.7
-(Turbine building ^
sump and. reactor building sump)
Batch Liquid 0.21 64.0 48.8 80.7 -2.7- 2.3 198.8 Gaseous Stack. 0.12 0.25 0.36 0.37 0.08 0.10 1.3 .
TOTAL 1.11 126.2 119.5 94.9 3.4 2.7 347.8 b <
s p
~
I-.
22 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 131 3 1 (fC1/m )
1-3-83 < 8.14 1-9-83 < 5.55 1-15-83 < 6.98 1-22-83 < 7.40 1-29-83 < 5.39 2-3-83 < 6.69 2-12-83 < 7.65 2-19-83 < 7.30 2-26-83 < 9.48 3-5-83 < 7.29 3-10-83 < 8.06 ,
3-20-83 < 4.23 3-26-83 < 7.05 4-2-83 < 6.81 4-9-83 < 5.00 4-16-83 < 4.43 4-23-83 < 6.34 4-30-83 < 6.12 5-7-83 < 5.89 5-14-83 < 5.02 5-21-83 < 9.87 5-28-83 < 7.59 6-4-83 < 7.41 6-11-63 < 6.21 9_
6-17-83 < 7.51 6-26-83 < 5.20 Allconcentrationsareexpresygdinfemtocuriespercubic 3
meter of air: 1 fC1/m = 10- pCi/ml.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are.for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96.S.D.)
1 I MPC, = 10 fCi/m . (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) p.
23
- 3. Activity of gamma-ray emitting radionuclides in air.
Table II.B.4 lists the concentrations of I-131 observed in air by activated charcoal sampling and gamma-ray spectrum analysis. The sample counted is a composite from all seven air sampling stations.
All charcoal samples are counted for at least 1000 minutes on the Ge(Li) detector essentially immediately after collection to minimize decay of I-131. All radon and thoron daughters are trapped on the particulate filter and radon daughter ingrowth on the charcoal can be corrected by Ge(Li) high resolution spectrometry. Background is determined from counts of unused charcoal. The I-131 concentrations presented are the result of decay correction back to the midpoint of the sampling period. Decay correction to the midpoint of the sampling period.is appropriate as any I-131 in air would not arrive at the sampling station at a constant rate, but rather in pulses 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 measured during the first half of 1983 were all less than the lower limit of detection.
The mean value for this reporting period as during the last half of 1982 was not significantly different from zero. The Effluent Release Report data indicated negligible reactor release of I-131 i during the period.
Table II.B.5 lists the results of the gamma-ray spectrum analysis of weekly composites of the membrane air filters from each
) of the seven samplers. Mean values of Ru-106, Zr-Nb-95 and Cs-137
)
24 were essentially the same as during all of 1982 and lower than during 1981 when fission product debris from the most recant Chinese weapon test was apparent. All samples are' counted after decay of Radon and Thoron daughters, several of which are gamma-ray
. emitters.
The radioruthenium data is listed in the tables as Ru-106.
However, it is true that the activity measured is often a mixture of Ru-103 and Ru-106. Both isotopes have gamma-rays at essentially the same energy, and they cannot-be separated by NaI(Tl) spectral analysis. No separation by half-life determination was attempted on the data. Since the half-life of Ru-103 is 40 days and that of Ru-106 is one year, in periods soon after an atmospheric weapon test, a high proportion 'is expected to be Ru-103, and at later times predominately.Ru-106. Since the element ruthenium and its compounds have negligible biological availability, neither isotope have any consequence in calculation of population dose, and efforts to separate
, them are not warranted. The naturally occurring radionuclide 7Be,
~
which is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays also has a gamma-ray very close to the two Ruthenium isotopes. Air concentrations 7
of Be are apparently very constant over the U.S. The mean concentration recently measured from air filters collected on the project was 87 fCi/m3 . (1) 7
_W e correct for Be in our spectrum stripping program but likely small errors due to gain shift, etc., often produce significant 106 variation in the Ru estimate. The high value measured for the L week ending 6/26/83 is suspected to be such a case.
(1) Personal Communication, Dr. Owen Hoffman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
p.
~ ~~ ~
' 25 L Table II. B.5
. Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Air'(Taken from Composites'of all Air Sampling Stations) (fCi/m 3),
Sample Ending 106 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Dates 1-3 < 8.42 1.91 '(1.66) 1.57 (0.779)
'1-9-83 < 2.54 0.901 (0.559) 0.498 (0.244) l-15-83 < 7.22 2.74 (1.43) 1.48 (0.777) 1-22-83 11.1 (9.31) 4.86 (1.56) 0.873 (0.780) 2-3-83 10.0 (7.83) 2.03 (1.38) 0.709 (0.492) 2-12 8.43 (9.77) '3.07 (1.61) 2.59 (0.801).
2-19-83 < 7.62 2.44 (1.52) 2.03 (0.705) 2-26-83 5.37 (4.49) 1.71 (0.761) 0.396 (0.330) 3-5-83 ,
< 7.13 3.95 (1.43) 0.728 (0.570) 3-10-83 < 8.41 2.65 (1.66) < 0.807
_3-20-83 < 4.39 < 0.979 0.433 (0.396) 3-26-83 .< 7.30 < 1.63 1.30 (1.82) 2-83 < 7.05 < 1.57 1.82 (1.62) 4-9-83 < 5.19 2.71 (1.05) 1.14 (0.503) 4-16-83 < 4.60 4.46 (0.951) 1.31 (0.415) 4-23-83 < 6.58 < 1.47 1.78 (0.822) 4-30-83 < 6.34 < 1.41 < 0.613 5 _7-83 39.8 (7.70) . < 1.36 <-0.589 5-14-83 32.9 (6150) 1.63 (1.06) 0.776 (0.502) 5-21-83 < 10.2 < 2.28 < 0.986 i
.5-28-83 < s7 . 88 - 1.81 (1.55) 0.817(0.689) 6-4-83 < 3.20 2.18 (0.716) 1.15 (0.308) 6-11-83 < 6.43 .3.17 (1.24) < 0.620 6-17-83' ,
< 7.77 . < 1.74 < 0.750 I 6-26-83 < 1.20 126 (7.98) 1.12 (0.548)
Allcongentrat{gnsareexpressedinfemtocuriespercubicmeterofair:
pC1/ml.
1 fCi/m = 10~
~
L
Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
( 1.96 S.D.)
106 6 6 Ru MPC,= 3x10 fCi/m . Cs MPC,= 2x10 fCi/m . Zr MFC,= 4x10 fCi/m .
p (10CFR20,' Append,ix B, Table II)
T.
26 II.C.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water.
Table II.C.1 lists the gross beta activity in surface water and potable water supplies in the study area.
Values of gross beta concentrations in surface water fluctuated at_ upstream, effluent and downstream sites by approximately a factor of 4, but the mean values were'not greatly different. The mean upstream value was 7.9 pCi/L, the mean effluent value was 10.6 pCi/L and the mean downstream value was_ also 7.9 pCi/L. .There was no significant difference between these mean values. Mean values were slightly less than those measured during the second half of 1982 but the decrease was not statistically significant. The gross beta concentrations
(
in the two potable water sources were lower and not as variable as v,
' ~
surface water. The mean concentration in potable water was significantly less than tha't in upstream samples. The concentrations in potable
'f
\ ? water should be lower due to water purification which removes suspended solids. Any variation is probabb due to mixing of different reservoir or well water sources which vary due to different runoff 3 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. It must be noted,'however, that tritium is lost
's j' during the evaporation step for gross beta activity determination,
{
IYf and.therefore the gross beta value does not include tritium. Gross beta concentrations in these samples are shown in Table II.C.la.
[d , -
Note that these values include the monthly samples shown in Table II.C.1.
h e '"z;-
a ,
o W
n c
9
?_ v V
27 The values observed were reasonably constant and presumably only reflect runoff from fallout deposition as well as naturally occurring radioactivity. It is again important to note that the effluent mean concentration observed during this period was not statistically different from the upstream mean value. This implies that the major source of beta product activity was not due to the reactor effluent.
The effluent, however, does have high tritium concentrations, which is discussed below.
Table II.C.2 lists tritium in surface water and potable water
~
supplies for each monthiy collection for the first half of 1983. In several. cases, the downstream tritium concentration exceeded the upstream value. The upstream mean value during the period was 193 pCi/L which is less than the lower limit of detection and the downstream arithmetic mean value was 777 pCi/L. These mean values are not significantly different even though downstream values particularly at D-40 and D-45 were high during the peak tritium discharge periods (see Table II.B.3b). The unusually high spring runoff this year did not occur until rather late in the spring but over all produced greater than normal dilution of the tritium effluent. More tritium
- j. was released in the liquid effluent routes during the first half of 1983 as compared to the second half of 1982 but the mean downstreom .
tritium concentration was less during this period.
No radiation dose commitment calculations are warranted as the mean concentrations in possible drinking water sources were not statistically greater than upstream concentrations, The tritium concentrations in the potable water supplies again y
showed significant variation. No reason for the high value observed p
28 at D-39 on 2/19/83 can be given. Evidently these wells are partly in contact with tributary water and partly comprised of true well water from deeper aquifers. This conclusion is supported by observations of high NO 3 concentrations in this well water which can only be due to surface runoff. True well water should have essentially no tritium activity. The study of tritium concentrations in a large number of wells around the reactor was recently expanded and not completed, but will be discussed in the next report.
Table II.C.3 and II.C.4 list Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations in surface water at the same sampling locations. These values were ull close to the MDC values and mean values for each category were not significantly different. Table II.C.4a lists the same radionuclides as well as tritium in reactor effluent water samples collected weekly at E-38.
The concentrations of Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zr-Nb-95 in surface and potable water are given in Table II.C.S. The same radionuclides were measured in the weekly samples collected at E-38. This data is shown
)
in Table II.C.Sa. The concentrations of all of the fission products measured in water are similar to those previously measured.
)
b
)
m - _
Table II.C.1 -
Gross Beta Activity in Surface' Water (pCi/L)
. Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 4-30 .5-21-83 6-11-83 1-9-83 2-19-83 3-26-83 Effluent 6.86 10.2 10.4 9.72 9.83 9.22 E 38: Farm Pond (2.23) (2.21) (? ??)
(coosequill) (2.08)* (2.20) (2.25) 8.51 8.10 5.47 E 41: consequill Ditch 16.1 7.23- 9.58 (2.24) (2.18) (2.28) (2.06)~
(2.52) (2.11)
Downstream 8.15 16.4 11.3 7.88 12.5 14.1 (2.37) n 37: Lower Latham (2.22) (2.57) neservoir (2.33) (2.29) (2._41) 8.30 5.13 3.01 12.2 9.85 9.26 D 40: S. Platte River (2.14) (2.06) (1.96)~ m e
nelow Confluence (2.26) (2.20) (2.24) 4.20 4.60 4.80 8.05 6.92 5.83 a 45: St. Vrain (2.03) (2.05) (2.02) creek (2.15) (2.10) (2.14)
Uystream 2.74 7.70 10.5 6.21 8.75 2.99 u 42: St. Vrain (1.63) (2.12) _ (2.27) (2.08) (2.17) (1.97) creek 9.79 9.23 9.39 10.3 U 43: S. Platte 7.32 ** 10.4 (2.20) (2.24) (2.20) (2.22) (2.25)
River (2.27) _,
Potable 4.23 4.80 3.74 3.65 F 49: Visitor's 3.59 4.45 (4.25) (4.25) (4.27) (4.23) (4.23) center (4.25) 8.35 7.24 3.75 8.64 n 19: clicrest City 6.98 7.61 (4.45) (5.31) (4.30) (4.44)
W.i t e r (4.39)~ -(4.94)
- Uncertainties'(in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)
!!PC w = 30 pCi/L Table II, Appendix B limit 10 CFR20 for an unidentified mixture of radionuclides in water 'if either the identity or the' concentration of any radionuclide is not known.'
- Sample collected 1-22-83.
30 Table II. C.1.A.
Gross Beta Activity in Ef fluent Water, Goosequill Pond, E-38. (pCi/L)
Collection Date Total Water Concentrations 1-3-83 7.93 (2.12)*
1-9-83 6.86 (2.08) 1-15-83 10.4 (2.29) 1-22-83 10.0 (2.15) 1-29-83 8.62 (2.10) 2-3-83 6.05 (1.99) 2-12-83 15.1 (2.33) 2-19-83 10.2 (2.20) 2-26-83 9.77 (2.21) 3-5-83 19.8 (2.90) 3-10-83 6.80 (2.15) 3- 20-83 7.94 (2.19) 3-26-83 10.4 (2.25) 4-2-83 6.70 (2.17) 4-9-83 8.49 (2.19)
) 4-16-83 7.19 (2.15) 4-23-83 10.0 (2.23) 4-30-83 9.72 (2.23) 5-7-83 4.64 (2.07) f 5-14-83 7.05 (2.16) 5-21-83 9.83 (2.21) 5-28-83 9.83 (2.24) 6-4-83 9.35 (2.26)
$ 6-11-83 9.22 (2.22) 6-17-83 13.5 (2.31) 6-26-83 13.4 (2.25)
)
MPC = 30 pCi/L Table II, Appendix B limit 10 CFR20 for an unidenti-fied mixture of radionuclides in water 'if either the identity or the concentration of any radionuclide is not known. '
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
) (! 1.96 S.D.)
, n - -
Table II. C.2 Tritium Concentrations in Surface Waters (pC1/1).
Sampling Monthly Collection Dates Locations 4-30-83 5-21-83 6-11-83 1-9-83 2-19-83 3-26-83 Effluent _
< 303 < 292 < 290 < 295 418 E 38: Farm Pood < 291 (294).
(Coosequill) . _ _
1,730 217,000 32,600 < 300 1,660 E 41: Coosequill Ditch 1,680 (271) , (313) (1,260) (554) (309)
Downstream D 37: Lower Latham < 303 < 292 < 290 < 300 < 299
< 291 Reservoir
< 291 2,370 1,360 < 295 < 300 . < 299 o 40: S. Platte River (301) w Below Confluence (320) ~
8,420 4,340 < 295 < 295 456 D 45: St. Vrain Cr.cek < 291 (380) (333) (295)
Upstream 550 < 303 1,080 < 295 < 300 681 U 42: St. Vrain ~
(297)
Creek (261) (297)
U 43: S. Platte < 303 ** < 303 < 294 < 295 < 300 < 299 River Potable F 49: Visitor's 434 < 303 485 < 295 < 300 < 299 Center (260) (290) o 39: cilcrest city 366 3,170 373 < 295 < 295 701 Water (259) (322) (289) (298)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.)
3 6 11 f1PCg
= 3x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
- Sample collected 1-22-83.
v v- .
+ - _ _ _ . . .
i Table II. C.3 .
Strontium 90 Concentrations in Surface Waters (pCi/l).
Monttily Collection Dates Sampting I.oca t tons - 2-19-83 3-26-83' 4-30-83 5-21 A3 6-11-33 1-9-83 Efflugnt,
< 1.01 < 0.904 < 0.840 < 0.914 < 0.839 E 38: Farm Pond . < 0.931 (Coosequill)
< 0.819 < 0.782 < 0.784 <.2.00 E 4t: Consequiti Ditch < 0.708 < 1.19 Downstream
< 0.685 < 0.784 < 1.02 < 2.10 D 37: Lower I.atham < 0.822 < 1.12 Reservoir
< 0.901 < 1.26 < 0.736 < 0.936 D 40: S. Platte River < 0.890 < 1.08 -
Below Confluence
< 0.746 < 1.48 N D 45: St. Vrain < 0.956 < 1.19 < 0.720 < 1.21 Creek ijpstream
< 1.28 < 0.847 < 1.16 < 1.19- < 1.40 V 42: St. Vrain < 0.698 Creek
< 1.36 < 0.782 < 0.894 < 0.889 < 1.04 U 43: S. Platte < 0,802 **
River-Potable F 49: Visitor's < l.08 < 1.04 < 0.759 < 0.836 < 1.27 < 0.964 Center D 39: Gilcrest City < 0.745 < 1.13 < 0.894 < 0.988 < 1.04 < 0.811 Water
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)
Sr HPC + 300 pC1/I.. -(10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II) .
- Collected 1-22-33
.y. .~. -
1 Table IL. C.4 . .
Strontium 89 Concentrations in Surface Waters (pci/1).
Monthly Collection Dates Sampling _
L cattons 4-30-83 5-21-83 6-11-83 1-9-83 2-19-83 _ 3-26-83
. Effluent-
< 0.745 ~< 0.736 < 0.807 < 0.730 E 38: Fa rm Pon<l < 0.883 0.892 (consequtil) (1.16)*
< 1.02 - < 0.697 < 0.685 < 0.687 < 1.72 E 41: Goosequill Dit ch < 0.714 Downstream 3.28 < 0.609 < 0.693 < 0.877 ~ < 1.82 D 37: Lower Latham < 0.776 Reservoir (1.36)
< 0.790 < 1.11 . < 0.649. < 0.805 n 40: S. Platte River < 0.872 < 0.893 Below Confluence w 2.15 < 0.655 < 1.28 n 45: St. Vrain < 0.908 1.72 < 0.636 (2.13)
Creek (1.68) gstream
< 0.695 < 1.01 < 0.981 < 1.21 u 42: St. Vrain < 0.703 < 1.04.
Creek
- 0.918 u 43: S. P1atte < 0.663 1.66 2.61 1.27 < 0.787 4 River _
(1.86) (6.03) -(1.44)
Potable
< 1.00 1.67 < 0.663 < 0.722 < 1.05 < 0.828 F 49: Visitor's center (1.54)
< 0.789 1.11 < 0.858 < 0.713 n 39: cilcrest City < 0.744 ~1.06 Water (1.34) (1.56)
- lincertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.) .
Sr HPC = 3x10 pCi/L . (10CFR20, Appendix L, Table II) .
- Collected 1-22-83
- -j -
3'4 -
Table II.C.4.4 T-itium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Effluent Water, . Goosequill Pond , E :38.
a) First Quarter, 1983.
Collection Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Date (pCi/1) (pCi/1.) (pCi/1) 1-3-83 852 (264)* < 0.824 < 0.859 1-9-83 < 291 < 0.883 < 0.931 1-15-83 < 291' < 0.904 < 0.933 1-2'2-83 < 303 < 0.716 0.937 (1.30) 1-29-83 < 303 < 0.853 2.06 (1.61) 2-3-83 < 303 2.64 (1.98) < 1.01 2-12-83 < 303 1,32 (1.86) < 1.03 2-19-83 < 303 1.49 (1.16) < 1.01 2 ,26-83 < 303 < 0.928 < 1.06 3-5-83 < 303 < 0.779 < 0.907 3-10-83 < 294 < 0.808 < 0.943
)
3-20-83 < 294 < 0.674 < 0.798 3-26-83 < 292 < 0.745 < 0.904 1
{
'r.
h-
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 954 confidence interval,
)' ( 1. 9.6. S . D. ) ' '
E }'?Cg = -3x10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix 1, Table II) . .
3 b95 : M?C,= 3x10 pCi/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix E Table II) .
O sr MFC,,= 300 pC1/L (10 CFR 20, Appendix 5, Table II) .
=
)..
i 35~
Table II.C.4.a
. Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Effluent h'ater, Goosequill Pond , E-38.
b) Second Quarter, 1983.
Collection Tritittm Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Date (pCi/1) (pCi/l )' (pCi/1) 4-2-83 < 294 < 0.866 < 0.995 4-9-83 < 294 < 0.846 < 0.971 4-16-83 < 294 < 0.731 < 0.831 4-23-83 < 295 < 0.679 < 0.788 4-30-83 < 290 < 0.736 < 0.840 5-7-R3 < 295 < 0.760 < 0.878 5-14-83 < 295 < 1.02 < 1.17 5-21-83 < 295 < 0.807 < 0.914 5-28-83 353 (294)* < 1.03 < 1.18 6-4-83 < 299 < 1.78 < 2.06 6-11-83 418 (294) < 0.730 < 0.839 6-17-83 < 295 < 1.13 < 1.29 6-26-83 < 295 < 1.16 < 1.34
)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95', confidence interval,
( 1.96 S.D.)
3 6 H MPC,,= 3x10 pCi/.1 (10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Tabl e II) .
09 3 Sr M?C,= 3x10 pCi/1 (10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Tabic II).
90 Sr MPC,,= 300 pCi/1 (10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Table II).
Y
36 Table 11. C.S.
Ga:r.a-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surfa:e Water. (pCi/L) l Collected January 9. 1983 .
,. Sample 1.ocation 106g p 1,37.ist 955r&Nb Effluen:
E 38: Farm Pond < 0.810 1.90 1.04 (Goosecuill) .(0.557)*
(0.299)
E 41: Gooseipill Ditch'-~ ~
< 2.33 2.39 1.59
. (0.568) (0.360)
Downstream D 37: Lower Lathan < 2.17 2.46 1.30 Reservoir (0.834) (0.530)
D 40: S. Platte River < 0.713 2.23 0.807-Lelow Confluence (0.545) (0.311)
D 45; S ..Vrain < 0.683 1.86 1.18 Creek . (0.521) (0.260)
Destrean U 42: St. Vrain < 1.07 3.03 1.22 Creek (0.601) (0.37R) f
< 2.17 6.22 1.85 U 43: S. Platte ,,
River (0.858) (0.472) i I Potable ,
.7 49: Visitor's < 2.79 1.99 1.19 Ce::e (0.702) (0.478)
D 39: Gilcrest < 2.79 1.26 0.936 City Water (0.688) (0.414) 1 4
- kJncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95 confidence interval, !-
( : :1. S6 3.D. )
106Ru 1TC =1x10' pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 5
2r-Nb C,=6x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix E, Table II)
)
- Collected 1-22-83 4
)
t
37 l
Table'II. C.S.
Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L)-
Collectea February 19 '983 1 .
Sample Location 106Ru" I37 C s'.. 955r&Nb Effluent E 38: ' Farm Pond 2.02
- 2.16 0.752 (Goosecuill) (1.39) (0.559) (0.255)
E 41: Goosequill Ditch' ~
2.21 1.98 0.727 (1.75) (0.654) (0.291)
Downstream D 37: Lower Latham 3.01 3.73 1.15 Reservoir (2.40) (0.906) (0.'283)
D 40: S. ' Platte River 5.22 7.15 2.12 Below Confluence (3.23) (0.879) (0.389)
D 45: 'St. Vrain < 2.17 1.28 0.658 Creek .. -(0.794) (0.390)
Uostream U 42: St..Vrain 3.64 2.14 1.07 Creek (3.20) (0.835) (0.540)
U 43: S. Platte 5.41 3.27 1.24 .
P.iver (3.21) (0.847) (0.372)
Potable J 49: Visitor's < 2.58 2.13 0.638 center .- (0. 649) (0.284)
- .- 39: Gilcrest < 3.36 2.61 0.734
)
(0.843) city Water- (0.369)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
( c 1. 96 S.D. )
b Ru MPC =lx10 pCi/L .
Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 2r-Nb M C.,=6x10 pCi/L (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
).
1 .
E 38 Table II. C.S.
Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide' Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L)
Collected March 26, 1983 ,
Sample Location 106R -' 137 959gg Cs-Effluent
< 2.18 2.67 1.30 E 38: Farm Pond (0.845)* (0.611)
(Goosecuill)
E 41: r-cosequill pitch * < 2.18 1.41 1.57
~
(0.827) (0.682)
-Downstre.am
< 2.18 2.00 < 0.289 D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir (0.687)
< 2.18 5.30 0.454 D 40: S. Platte River (0.809) (0.733)
Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 0.916 < 0.285
< 0.121 Creek Upstream
< 2.09
< 0.649 0.676 U 42: St. vrain (0.555)
Creek U_43: S. Platte' < 2.18 1.09 1.09 River (0.827) (0.486)
Potable 10.4 1.01 2.67 F 49: Visitor's (0.402)
Center (2.70) (0.660)
) D 39: Gilerest < 2.61 < 0.811 .< 0.346 City Water
~
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
)~
(: 1.96 S.D.)
Ru MPCy
=lx10' pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L j '(10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
)
L
39-Tabic . II. C.5, Gama-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface 'a'ater. (pC1/L)
Collected April 30,1983 .
, Sample Location 106g 1,37. C/'
59gg Effluen:
E 38: Fa= Pond < 2.17 0.819 < 0.289 (Gooseouill) (0.818)* l
< 2.18 0.986 < 0.298 I 41: Goosei;uill Ditch .
, ;. . . - --~. .; (O.822)
Do'.~astreze
< 2.18 < 0.678 < 0.991
.D 37: Lover Latha=
Esservoir
< 2.18 4.34 0.605 D 40: S. Platte River (0.827) (0.480) selov confluence D 45: S:. Train < 2.18 < D.668 < 0.289 Creek ..
.Uos:rea=
< 2.18.
O.800 0.625 U 42: St. Train (0.802) (0.658)
Creek ~
U 43: S..?latte < 2.18 < 0.678 < 0.289 Eiver
?otable T 49: Visi:or's -< 2.58 < 0.804 < 0.342 Cen:er
< 2.58 1.41 < 1.09 D 39: Gilerest I
city Water (0.634)
. ,.~,
- *Jacertain:ies (in parentheses) are for the 95 confidence interval,
(.: 4.96's.D.)
) 06 Ru MPC,,=1x10 pCi/L
'37Cs MPC =2x10 4
^
pCi/L
- " 4 c5
' Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pC1/L w
(10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
)
). :
40 Table II. C.S.
Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L)
Collected May 21, 1983 .
Sample Location 106;'
R 137 C s'.
95 p&n Effluent E 38: Farn Pond < 2.17 1.59 * < 0.289 (Goesecuill) (0.754)
E 41: coosequill pitch' 34.8 < 0.814 1.79 (4.74) (0.791)
Downstrec=
D 37: Lower Lathan < 2.50 1.88 1.36 Reservoir (0.960) (0.696)
D 40: S. Platte River < 2.17 < 0.677 < 0.289 3elow Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 2.17 5 0.677 1.08 Creek (0.588)
Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 2.24 < 0.804 0.797 Creek (0.518)
U 43: S. Platte < 2.17 < 0.677 < 0.289 Kiver Potable F 49: Visitor's l < 2.79 1.16 0.882 Center j (0.692) (0.511)
D 39: Gilerest < 2.79 < 0.870 < 0.371 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 Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L j (10C7R20, Appendix B, Table II)
)
41 Table II. C.5.
Ga:T=a-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water. (pCi/L)
Collected June 11. lona .
Sample Location 137 -
95 106$ R Cs Zr & Nb Effluent E 38: Farm Pond 's.86 6.04 3.05 (Goosecuill) (3.45)** (0.869; (0.570)
E 41: Goosequill pitch' < 2.17 1.98 3.17 (0.821) (0.599)
Downstream D 37: Lower Latha= 3.20 5.70 5.99 Reservoir (4.26) (1.06 (0.552)
D 40: S. Platte River < 1.63 2.12 0.703 Below confluence (0.667) (0.461)
D 45: St. Vrain < 2.17 1.12 2.37 Creek (0.811) (0.584)
Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 2.17 1.65 1.94 creek i (0.816) (0.582)
U 43: S. Platte < 0.879 2.81 3.04 River (0.565) (0.401)
Petable F 49: Visitor's 3.58 1.07 < 0.371 center (2.88) (0.680)
) D 39: Gilerest < 2.79 1.58 1.56 City Water (0.689) (0.515)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
( 1.96 S.D.)
Ru MPCw
=lx10 pCi/L Cs MPC =2x10 pCi/L 95 Zr-Nb MPC =6x10 pCi/L
) (10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II)
)
I 42 j r
l l Table II.C.S.a Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentraticns in Effluent Water,- i
'Goosequill Pond, E-38. (pCi/L) j l
l I
Collection.Date 106 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb l
1-3-83 3.29 (3.24)* '4.00 (0.853) 1.59 (0.421) 1-9-83 < 0.810 _1.90 (0.559) 1.04 (0.299) l 1-15-83 4.-34 (2.77) 5.22 (0.716) 3.19 (0.392) l 1-22-83 3.96 (2.97) 2.50 (1.07) 1.11 (0.406) l 1-29-83 2.05 (2.15) 2.78 (0.552) 1.39 (0.282) I i
l 2-3-83 3.00 (3.23) 2.88 (0.840) 0.687(0.404) i 2-12 5.95 (3.31) 4.84 (0.860) 2.15 (0.649) 2-19-83~ 2.02 (1.39) 2.16 (0.559) 0.752(0.255) l 2-26-83 8.35 (3.33) 3.12 (0.862) 2.12 (0.408) 3-5-83 < 1.10 _4.48 (1.08) 1.28 (0.725) 3-10-83 < 2.18 2.72 (0.844) 6.05 (1.17) l 3-20-83 < 1.54 2.46 (0.731) 1.15 (0.628) 3-26-83 < 2.18 2.67 (0.845) 1.30 (0.611) 4-2-83 < 2.18 < 0.678 < 0.289 4-9-83 < 2.18 1.55 (0.837) 2.05 (0.657)
) ,
~4-16-83 < 0.667 0.774(0.591) 0.568(0.345) 4-23-83 < 2.18 1.64 (0.828) 5.13 (0.804) 4-30-83 < 2.17_ 0.819(0.818) < 0.289 5-7-83 < 2.17 < 0.677 < 0.289
) 14-83 < 2.17 < 0.677 < 0.289 5-21-83 < 2.17
~
1.59 (0.754) < 0.289 5-28-83 < 2.58 1.08 (1.08) < 0.342
( 6-4-83 < 2.17 10.2 (0.882) 0.935 (0.580)
[. '6-11-83 3.86 (3.45) 6.04 (0.869) 3.05 (0.570) 6-17-83 < 2.17 0.820 (0.851) 2.84 (0.546) i 6-26-83 < 2.17' -< 0.677 1.73 (0.495)
) 106 Ku MPC -1x10 pCi/L Cs MFC,,92x10 pCi/L Zr-Nb MPC,=6x10 pCi/L y
(10CFR20, Appendix
- Uncertainties B. parent (in TableII)heses) are for the 95% confidence interval,
(!' 1. 96 S.D. )
43 II.C.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment Sediment is the major compartment for radionuclide contaminants in a fresh water ecosystem due to the high concentration factors for fission products in the sediment mineral matrices. Although the samples are always collected at the same point, it is impossible to collect a sample with a known surface area to volume ratio as can be done for soils. Therefore, activity is reported as concentration values in pCi/kg rather than as deposition in uCi/m2. 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 l'
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 for the first half of 1983. .
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 gross beta activity is predominately from naturally occurring radionuclides in the uranium and thorium decay series, and y K-40.
i 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 f, of both radionuclides were not significantly different between the three sampling areas, e.g., effluent, downstream and upstream, although i there were occasional high values. Table II.C.9 shows the concentration in sediment of the fission products Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zr-Nb-95. I
)
i
) :
44 Although again occasional high values appear, the mean values for these sample types (Table II.H.1) indicate no significant difference for any of the fission products in each of the sampling locations.
Sediment samples are su'oject to leaching and solubility differences between the three radionuclides 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. Tritium of course is lost in the heat drying of the sample.
The high minimum detectable concentrations are due to the fact that sediment samples are counted by Ge(Li) gamma-ray spectrometry.
High resolution gamma-ray spectrum analysis is necessary due to the presence of members of the Ra-226 and Th-232 decay series.
t j i i-
- - - ~ ..
Table II. C.6 Gross Beta Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg).
Sampling Monthly Collection Dates L cations' 1-9-83 2-19-83 3-26-83 4-30-83 5-21-83 6-11-83 Effluent 32,000 28,600 35,400 32,900 28,500 E 38: Farm Pond 28,000 , (1,630) (1,490)
(coosequill) (1,430) (1,670) (1,380) (1,430) _
30,000 32,300 27,500 34,900 34,600 29,200 E 41: Goosequill Ditch (1,720) (1,420)
(1,470) (1,650) (1,360) (1,410)
Downstream 30,400 26,400 26,100 31,600 37,500 31,200 D 37: Lower Latham (1,460)
Reservoir (1,420) (1,450) (1,340) (1,360) (1,810) ,
30,100 36,000 32,900 37,100 33,500 32,000 D 40: S. Platte River (1,520) (1,580)
Below Confluence (1,400) (1,920) (1,490) (1,500) 27,700 35,100 27,700 30,100 31,700 27,800 D 45: St. Vrain (1,470) (1,410) creet (1,440) (1,700) (1,390) (1,280) upstream 29,:0^ 32,400 30,000 25,200 29,000 29,700 u 42: St. Vrain (1,210) (1,600) (1,390)
Creek (1,. d) (1,700) (1,420) 27,500 29,400 29,700 34,600 32,900 33,300 u 43: S. Platte (1,590)
(1,430) ,, (1,440) (1,460) (1,590) (1,670)
River
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)
- Sample collected 1-22-83.
_- m- -- -_- _
Table II. C.7 Strontium 90 Activity Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg).
Sampling Monthly Collection Dates locations 1-9-83 2-19-83 3-26-83 4-30-83 5-21-83 6-11 R3 Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 140 < 155 < 294 < 237 < 225 < 173 (Coosequill)
E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 141 < 147 < 175 < 181 < 234 < 168 Downstream
< 152 167 < 175 < 199 < 192 n 37: Lower Latham 324 (233)*
(190) g; Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 189 < 178 < 195 < 306 < 271 < 178 Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain 268 (270) < 157 < 167 < 165 < 322 < 232 Creek Upstream u 42: St. Vrain < 184 < 151 < 170 < 248 < 250 < 178 Creek U 43: S. Platte < 185** < 160 < 194 < 255 < 275 < 313 River
- Uncertainties (in parenthesca) are for the 95% confidence interval, (! 1.96 S.D.)
- Collected 1-22-83
-- ~
Table II. C.8 Strontium 89 Activity = Concentrations' in Bottom Sediment (pC1/kg).
Sampling Monthly Collection Dates 3-26-83 4-30-83. 5-21-83 6-11-83 locations 1-9-83 2-19-83 Effluent ')
< 118 < 136 < 251 < 196 < 194 < 152.
E 38: Farm Pond (Coosequill)
< 129 < 155 < 160 < 203 < 154 E 41: Gooncquill Ditch 153 (203)*~
Downstream
< 170
< 155 < 173
< 142 < 135 < 152 D 37: Lower Latham -
g Reservoir
< 157 611 < 263 < 232 < 155 D 40: 'S.Platte River 814 (364)
Below confluence ___
(263)
< 154 < 139 < 144 < 144 < 220' < 200 D 45: St. Vrain Creek Upstream
< 149 < 133 < 144 < 216 < 200 < 156 u 42: St. Vrain Creek
< 154 < 141 I < 168 313 < 237 < 273 U 43: S. Platte River l _
(360)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( i 1.96 S.D.)
- Sample collected 1-22-83.
Table II. C.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottcm Sediment (pci/kg) for Samples Collected January 9, 1983. .
Sampling 106 137 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Loca tions Effluent E 38: Farm Pond < 4,510 < 782 1,630 *
(Coosequill) (?_76n)
E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 4,290 < 745 < 268 Down s t.r eam D 37: Lower Latham < 3,320 < 574 < 207 Reservoir D 40: S. Platte River < 1,310 < 226 < 81.2 g Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 2,150 < 374 < 134 Cccek Upstream u 42: st. Vrain < 3,010 741 208 Creek (662) (382)
U 43: S. Platte ** < 5,650 < 980 < 353 River
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)
- Sample collected 1-22-83.
Table II. C.9 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pC1/kg) for Sampics Co11ceted February 19, 1983 .
137 95 Sa m.. '. t n g 106 Cs Zr & Nb Locations Effluent 6,010 < 951 < 343 E 38: Farm Pond (Coosequill) ( 7,330)*
< 6,960 < 1,210 < 435 E 41: Goosequill Ditch Dounstream
< 2,850 < 492 < 177 D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir
< 3,070 < 532 < 191 @
D 40: S. Platte River Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 3,580 < 618 < 223 Creek Upstream 4,330 < 511 < 184 U 42: St. Vrain Creek (4,840)
< 3,110 < 538 < 194 U 43: s. Platte River
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval. (1 1.96 s.D.)
- ~
Table II. C.9 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) for Sampics Collected March 26, 1983 .
Sampling 106 137 95 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Locations Effluent
< 3,860 < 665 < 240 E 38: Farm Pond (Goosequill) _
E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 1,700 235 < 105
( 509)*
Downstream
< 1,700 < 292 < 105 D 37: Lower Latham Reservoir
< 137 cn D 40: S. Platte River
< 2,210 420 Below Confluence (563)
D 45: St. Vrain < 5,820 < 1,010 < 363 Creek
,U J stream u 42: sr. Vrain < 3,050 < 526 < 190 Creek
< 2,990 547 208 U 43: S. Platte niver (649) (257)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 s.D.)
Table II. C.9 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrati.ons in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg)
- for. Samples Collected April 30, 1983 .
137 95 Samp11ng. 106' s Zr & %
u Locations _
Effluent
< 2,980 < 516 < 185 E 38: Farm Pond (Goosequill)
E 41: Goosequill Ditch < 8,060 < 1,400 562 *
(650)
Downstream
< 1,850 .< 318 243 D 37i Lower Latham (ppn)
Reservoir
< 3,760 < 651 < 234 $
D 40: S. Platte River l Below Confluence
< 3,800 < 659 < 237 D 45: St. Vrain l
Creek Upstream
< 3,360 < 581 < 209 U 42: St. Vrain l
Creek
< 6,370 < 1,100 < 397 U 43: S. Platte River
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are fc,r the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.)
Table II. C.9 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Botton Sediment (pC1/kg) for Samples Collected May 21,.1983 .
. Sampling 106 137 g 95 h Zr & Mb locations Effluent
< 7,.470 < 1,300 < 466 E 38: Farm Pond (Goosequill)
~
< 3,210 < 556 .
E 41: Goosqquill Ditch Downstream D 37i Lower Lathan 3,890 < 617 < 222 Reservoir (5,250)
D 40: S. Platte River < 2,680 < 464 < 167
- ro Below Confluence D 45: St. Vrain < 4,990 < 866 < 311 Creek Upstream U 42: St. Vrain < 3,340 < 578 < 208 Creek
< 5,220 < 905 < 325 U 43: S. Platte River .
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1. 96 S'.D.)
I J
' Table II. C.9 '
Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Bottom Sediment (pCi/kg) '
., for Samples Collected June 11, 1983 .
J s t S
+ Sampling ,
106 Ru Cs Zr & Nb Locations (
4.
\ .
t Effluent _
< 3,170 912 344 .t E 38: Farm Pond (328)
(Coosequill) (659)*
E 41: Coosqquill Ditch < 3,020 '< 524 < 188-Downstream
< 2,630 < 456 440 D 37i Lower Latham (320)
Reservoir
< 5,910 < 1,030 < 370 0 D 40: S. Platte River Below Confluence
< 5,070 917 708 D 45: St. Vrain ,
Creek (955) (494) p Upstream
< 2,320 < 402 487 U 42: St. Vrain Creek (291)
< 5,570 < 968 472 U 43: S. Platte (515)
River ..
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval (i 1.96 S'.D.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - _.._m.... ._, ... . , ,
lh 54
)'
_f .4
.II.C,3 Precipitation l
Gross beta deposition from' precipitation and the tritium concentration in precipitation is given in Table II.C.10. Large funnel collectors (diameter = 2.4m) are located at locations F-1 and F-4. These laroe. funnels produce a significant sample per
- month for analysis. The gross, beta deposition measured (expressed as pCi/m ) is actually the's'um of d'ry and precipitation deposition as the . funnels are washed down at sample collection or after a
)
large rain or sn'owfall event that would cause overflow of the collecting container.' Valu'see'xpressed as deposition can be used to a predictfoodchaikt'ransport. Studies'of world wide fallout in the 1960's have produced models that predict forage and subsequent meat or milk 2 concentrations from deposition values.
Tritium in precipitation is almost certainly tritiated water and hence there is no dry deposition. The' tritium concentration in the precipitation water3 is therefore listed in Table II.C.10.
+-]Correctior,ismade=forthewashwatervolumeandthebackgroundtritium in this wash water. ,
i From Table II.C.10 and Table II.H.1 it can be observed that av there'is essentially no difference in gross beta deposition at the f two coll'ection sites. The mean gross beta deposition at F-1 was
[ 51.1 pCUm and 2 at F-4 38.1 pCi/m .2These mean values have large standard de5iations and are not statistically different from each l other. 'High values were observed for both collectors during the month of June. Values this high have commonly been observed I
[ previously, however, it can also be noted that gross beta concentrations l ,
i
+
,F
55 7 106 in air were'also high for the week ending 6/26/83. Be (or Ru) was also elevated for that week.
The monthly observed concentrations of tritium were on the average less than MDC and the average for F-1 was not statistically different from F-4. Tritium concentrations at F-1 have never been significantly greater than at F-4 even though F-1 is nearer the principal effluent surface water pathway. These collection sites are at opposite directions from the reactor and in tne 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 only source of these radionuclides has been world wide fallout. The mean values at F-1 and F-4 were not significantly different due to the high standard deviation values. Cs-137 values should be higher than the other radionuclides measured because it has a much longer half-life and it is held strongly-by ion exchange to the clay minerals in soil. Therefore the Cs-137 deposition is trapped on the surface of the soil. These surface soil particles are resuspended by wind and deposited in the collection funnel and are evidenced in the suspended solids fraction.
Table II.C.13 lists the deposition of the strontium radioisotopes.
These as well have their origin in world wide fallout. 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. Sr-90 penetrates deeper into the soil profile than Cs-137 and therefore the values due to soil resuspension are somewhat lower.
Sr-89 has a short half-life and it cannot be detected above counter background.
56 Table II. C.10 Gross Beta and Tritium Deposition from Precipitation at Locations F1 and F4.
Sample Cumulative Total Gross Beta Tritium Concentration in Ending Volume
- Dates (liters)' Deposition (pCi/m2 ) Precipitation (pci/m 2).
F1 F4 F1 F4 F1 F4
'l-31-83 24 24 17.8 14.1 < 303 < 303
-(5.87),, (5.62) 2-26-83 24 '24 20.5 5.12 < 294 < 292 (9.98) (8.92) 3-26-83 50 50 11.0 < 4.72 < 292 < 292 (12.0) 4-30-83 50 50 42.5 15.2 < 290 -< 290 (12.9) (11.3) 5-26-83 40 40 9.81 33.3 < 299 786 (11.8) (11.9) (295) 6-26-83 50 65 205 - 193 < 295 468 (16.9) (16.3) (291)
- Samples are analyzed at the end of each month.
- Uncertainties ( in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 s.D.)
t . .
i
-Table II. C.11 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from Precipitation at Location Fl.
Sample. Total Total Deposition (pCi/m2 )
" "E Volume
- Date 106 Ru 137 95 Zr & Nb Cs 1-31-83 24 < 11.9 12.35(4.72)** 1.61(2.74) 2-26-83 24 81.2 (31.84) 11.84 (6.96) 7.37 (8.59)
. 3-26-83 50 < 24.8 < 7.71 < 3.29 4-30-83 50 < 22.8 < 7.08 5.09(6.77)~ ui s
5-28 83 40 < 22.4 10.8 (5.45) 5.08 (4.89) 6-26-83 50 < 24.7 19.8 (1.07) 25.1 (6.31) 4 I
- Samples are analyzed at the end of each month.
a ** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
- Analysis on suspended solids only.
Table II. C.12 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Deposition from Precipitation at Location F4.
I
! Sample Total Total Deposition (pCi/m2 )
Ending V *
"5 106 Ru 137 Cs 95Zr 6 Nb Date 24 < 11.6 25.27 (4.76) 4.65 (2.89)
. 1-31-83 i
2-26-83 24 < 18.7 8.41(7.67) 3.68 (7.51) 3-26-83 50 < 23.4 < 7.29 ;
7.62 (3.52) 4-30-83 50 108 (28.9) 14.2 (6.82) j 5.14 (4.68) g; I
5-28-83 *** 40 < 15.5 6.98(3.90) ; < 2.06 6-26-83 65 < 23.4 < 7.28 18.4~(6.39)
- Sampics are analyzed at the end of each month.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( l.96 S.D.)
- Analysis oa suspended solids only.
Tabic II.'C.13 Radiostrontium Deposition from Precipitation' at Locations ?! and F4. (pC1/m ).
I Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Sample thiding g )
py g4 Dates ,p g 74 pg 74 24 24 < 4.42 < 3.68
< 5.31 4.03 (7.05) 1-13-83
< 3.52 9.01 (13.4) < 4.47 < 5.24 2-26-83 24 24
< 8.89 0.921 (1.58) < 11.3 < 0.900 3-26-83 50 50 50 50 < 8.59 < 8.03 < 9.95' < 9.31 4-30-83 .
5-28-83 40 .40 < 8.69 < 8.13 < 10.1 10.3 (11.2) g 65 < 7.84 < 9.20 < 9.06 < 10.7 6-26-83 50
- Samples are analyzed at the end of each month.. ...
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
4
60 >
II.D Food Chain Data
- 1. Milk. Milk is the most important radiation dose commitment pathway.for H-3, I-131, Cs-137 and Sr-89,90. Tritium concentrations in milk are summarized in Table II.D.1. There was no significant difference in mean tritium values in water extracted from milk at the only dairy in the Facility area (F-44), and the Adjacent Composite and the Reference Composite mean values for the first half of 1983 (see TableII.H.1). In fact, none of the values or the arithmetic means were significantly different from MDC. Since the mean tritium values for all three sampling zones were not significantly different, this implies the tritium from reactor effluents is not contributing any radiation dose via the milk pathway.
Tritium concentrations in milk should respond rapidly to changes in tritum concentrations-of the forage water intake or drinking water intake to the cow. This is due to the short biological half-life for water in the cow (about three days for the lactating cow).
As noted in previous reports, tritium activity per liter reflects the tritium in water extracted frot the milk and not the activity per liter of milk. Whole milk is approximately 87% water (+ 3-4%,
depending on the cow breed, pasture, and feed).
Skim milk accordingly has a higher water content. It may be assumed though that the remaining solids in milk (proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids) also contain some tritium due to exchange of tritium with hydrogen on these large molecular structures. This tritium concentration will be very much lower than in the water fraction and is not significant for dose considerations.
Tables II.D.2 and II.D.3 list the Sr-90 and Sr-89 concentrations L
61 in milk. The arithmetic mean for the facility milk samples was not significantly different than the means for the other two areas.
Variations noted during this reporting period are typical of past periods and attributed to differences in feeding practices and methodological variation but not to reactor effluents. The mean values for Sr-89 were also not significantly different.
- The concentrations of I-131, Cs-137 and K-nat in milk are given in Table II.D.4. The arithmetic mean values of I-131 and Cs-137 for the Facility area (Table II.G.1) for the reporting period were not significantly different from the means of the Adjacent and Reference areas.
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 I
therefore only as a quality control measure of Cs-137 and I-131 determined in the same sample by _ gamma-ray spectrometry.
A close relationship between forage deposition and milk concentrations should be expected for tritium, the strontium radioisotopes, for Cs-137 and for I-131 only if the cows are on pasture or fed green cut forage. 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
I-131 or tritium concentrations in milk are noted, the surface depositions must have been reasonably related in time and location due to the short effective half lives of these radionuclides.
m.
M Table II. D.1 Tritium Concentrations in Water Extrac'ted from flilk (pCi/1).
Sample'Ending Facility Area 44 Adjacent' Composite
- Reference Composite.*
Dates Pre-pasture Season 1- I5-83 < 291 < 287 < 287 2-3-83 < 296 < 296 < 296 3-5-83 < 296 ,- < 296 < 296 4-2-83 535 (291) , < 294 389 (289)
Pasture Season 5-7-83 < 298 < 298 < 298 R 5-14-83 < 298 < 298 < 298 5-21-83 < 298 < 298 < 298 5-28-83 < 295 < 295 < 295 6-4-83 < 300 < 300 < 299 6-11-83 < 299 < 299' < 299 6-17-83 < 299 < 299 < 300 6-26-83 378(290) < 295 429 (291)
- 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, ( 1.96 S.D.)
Table II. D.2' Strontium 90 Activity'in Milk (pCi/l).
Sa e Ending Facility Area 44 Adjacent Composite
- Reference Composite _*
Pre-pasture Season 8.60 (2.89) * < 1.99 < 2.20 1-15-83 < 2.11 2-3-83 < 2.77 < 4.29
< 2.05 1.29.(1.55) < 2.22 3-5-83 - < 1.55 4-2-83 2.05 (1.24) < 2.28 Pasture Season 5-7-83 < 2.85 < 3.51 < 2.96 cn 5-14-83 < 1.29 < 1.21 1.86 (1.44).
< 1.45
~
5-21-83 2.30. (1.38) < 1.11 5-28-83 1.98 (1.27) 1.46 (1.48) 1.82- (1.81) 6-4-83 1.97 .(1.72) 1.49 (1.55) < 2.04 6-11-83 2.91 (1.62) < 1.53 < 3.65 6-17-83 < 2.15 3.20 (1.69) 2.03 (1.19) 6-25-83 2.38 (1.59)~ <-2.16 < 1.66
- Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48.
I 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).
Sam le Ending Facility Area 44 Adjacent Composite
- Reference Composite
- Pre-pasture Season 1-15-83 7.71 (3.93)** 3.96 (2.61) < 1.86 2-3-83 < 2.43 6.03 (6.54) 3.93 (3.13) 3-5-83 < 1.92 < 1.23 < 2.13 4-2-83 < 0.893 < 0.02 < 1.39 Pasture Season m
5-7-83 < 2.52 < 3.13 < 2.56 5-14-83 < 1.22 < 1.19 < 1.08 o-21-83 < 1.09 < 1.06 < 1.35 5-28-83 5.21 (2.93) 2.75 (3.13) 4.11 (3.5%)
6-4-83 < 1.46 < 1.33 < 1.89 6-11-83 < 1.08 < 1.43 < 3.54 6-17-83 < 1.87 < 1.32 < 0.873 6-25-83 < 1.27 < 1.97 < 1.56
- 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.)
65 Table II. D.4 Gamma-ray I'mitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite ,
Milk Samples. l d I (PCi/l) Cs (pCi/1) Nat. K (g/1) t 1-15-83 Facility 1.62 (1.27) 2.15 (1.00) 1.32 (0.0161)
Adjacent < 0.143 < 0.146 1.32 (0.0144)
Reference < 0.143 < 0.146 1.31(0.0143) 2-3-83 Facil ity- < 0.154 .
< 0.157 1.42(0.0151)
Adjacent _0,559 (1.72) 0.329(0.918) 1.31(0.0146)
Reference < 0.132 < 0.135 1.28(0.0136) 3-5-83 Facility' < 0.166 . < 0.169 1.46 (0.0160)
Adjacent < 0.158 < 0.161 1.46 (0.0023)
Reference < 0.143 < 0.146 1.42 (0.0144) ,
4-2-83 Facili'y < 0.143 < 0.146 1.53(0.0146)
Adjact:nt < 0.146 < 0.148 1.39 (0.0150)
Reference < 0.186 < 0.190 1.33 (0.0170) 5-7-83 Facility < 0.220 < 0.225 1.41(0.0319)
Adjacent 1.44 (1.60) 2.20 (1.09) 1.42 (0.0191)
Reference < 0.181 < 0.184 1.52 (0.0175)14-82l Faci 1ity- < 0.288 < 0.294 1.44 (0.0245)
- Adjacent 2.11 (1.52) 1.27 (1.04) 1.55 (0.0182) 1 Reference 2.62 (1.54) 1.99 (1.14) 1.54 (0.0205) 5-21-83 Facility 2.14 (1.63) 1.41 (1.11) 1.35 (0.0194)
Adjacent 11.6 (1.87) 4.59 (1.07) 1.46 (0.0186)
Reference < 0.270 < 0.212 1.38 (0.0191) 5-28-83, Facility < 0.201 < 0.205 1.44 (0.0184) l Adjacent < 0.184 < 0.191 1.39 (0.0167)
Reference < 0.135 < 0.141 1.39 (0.0185)
- - 6-4-83 Facility 9.61 (1.67) < 0.192 1.45 (0.0192)
! Adjacent < 0.164 < 0.170 1.38 (0.0154)
! Reference 5.76 (1.65) < 0.190 1.39 (0.0189)
{
- Adjacent Composite Locations : A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48 Reference Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.
J' ncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (
- l.96 S.D.).
)
66 Table II. D.4 Gancna-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite Milk Samples.
I (PCi/1) Cs (pC1/1) Nat. K (g/1)
Col ec ed 6-11-83 Facility < 0.180 < 0.187 1.45(0.0167)*
Adjacent < 0.188 < 0.196 1.43 (0.0173)-
Reference 7.56 (1.59) < 0.189 1.36(0.0166) 6-17-83 Facility < 0.193 < 0.201 1.53 (0.0178)
Adjacent d d d Reference < 0.193 < 0.201 1.39(0.0175) 6-26-83 Facility < 0.198 < 0.207 1.51 (0.0183)
Adjacent < 0.'132 < 0.137 1.51 (0.0137)
Reference < 0.171 < 0.178 1.52 (0.0162) l
- Adjacent Composite Locations: A6, A28, A31, A50, A36, A48.
Reference Composite Locations: R16, R17, R20, R22, R23, R25.
-** Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (: 1.96 S.D.).
d Sample lost during analysis.
67 I I '. D . Food Chain Data
- 2. Forage. Table II.D.5 lists the tritium specific activity in water extracted from forage samples as well as Sr-89 and Sr-90 concentrations in the forage dry matter. Tritium mean values were less than the minimum detectable for the first two months of the 1983 pasture season. There were no significant differences in mean tritium values between Facility, Adjacent and Reference locations.
l The forage samples collected May 14, 1983 were principally herd ration hay and as a consequence most were too dry to extract sufficient water for tritium analysis. This is often the case before the growing season.
The forage samples collected June 4,1983 were inadvertantly oven dried for other radio-nuclide analysis before the water could be extracted for tritium analysis. The error was not detected until the following month.
Strontium-89 and Sr-90 concentrations were also not significantly different for the three sampling zones. Sr-89 mean values were less than MDC. The Reference area mean for Sr-90 was higher than that for the other two areas, but due to the high standard deviation the mean values were not statistically different (a = 0.05).
Table II.D.6 lists Ru-106, Cs-137 and Zr-Nb-95 activities in forage samples for the first half of 1982.
No significant differences were' observed.
L Gross beta concentrations in soil and forage collected at the f same locations are given in Table II.D.7. No statistically significant
- differences were observed. The forage concentrations are of course, lower than soil as all of the radionuclides in the soil are not l
l biologically available for plant uptake. However,it should be noted l
. - _- - -- - 1
68 that a significant fraction of the forage activity is due to soil particles trapped on the plant surface from resuspension.
A cattle forage sample,:1.e. fresh cut grass or alfalfa hay, is the sample of choice for several reasons. Forage integrates atmos-pheric wet and dry deposition over a large surface area per unit weight and also is a direct link in the dairy and beef food chain transport I _
of H-3, Cs-137, and the strontium radioisotopes. Such samples are i
i collected when possible. However, due to feeding practices, vagaries
-of weather and other factors, often silage or cut samples must be collected. These samples may or may not be harvested locally and may represent different fallout periods as well as different soil areas.
I i
Y
69 Table II. D.5 Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Forage for Samples Collected May 14, 1983 .
Tritium Strontium 89 Strontium 90 Areas (pCi/1) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)
Facility 4 e < 34.2 167 (49.0)*
44 < 295 < 18.4 142 (26.9)
Adjacent 6 e < 12.9 27.7 (19.3) 28 < 295 < 22.4 71.9 (25.4) 31 e < 9.12 69.9 (12.0) 36 e < 16.3 61.3 (18.2) 48 e < 16.2 177 (24.1)
~. 50 e < 12.9 47.5 (13.9)
Reference 16 < 299 < 15.9 122 (27.7) 17 < 299 < 8.12 55.8 (10.4) 20 e < 19.2 106 (19.8) 22 e < 13.0 68.1 (15.9) 23 e < 9.12 69.9 (12.0) l .
25 e < 13.4 76.6(15.8) l
!-
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence f interval, ( 1.96 S.D.). 1 I e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.
I l
I l
= .
7-70 Table II. D.5 Tritium, Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 Concentrations in Forage for Samples Collected June 4, 1983 .
Tritium Strentium 89 Strontium 90 (PCi/1) (pCi/kg) (pCi/kg)
Facility 4 i '76.7 (8.82) 4.05 (4.22)*
44 i < 12.2 < 13.6 Adjacent 6 i < 16.9 114 (20.7)
.28 i < 29.6 83.4 (40.8) 31 .i . < 41.7 58.0(66.8)
.36 i < 19.4 27.1 (22.8)
-48 i < 25.2 140 (33.0)
'. 50 i < 17.8 53.6 (21.3)
Reference 16 i < 13.6 65.7 (17.4) 17- i < 41.1 129 (44.9)
. 20 j < 29.4 120 (36.9) 22 i < 11.6 150 (16.9) 23 i < 18.9 82.9(21.0) 25- i < 14.1 142 (21.4)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses') are for the 95% confidence interval, (! 1.56 S.D. ) .
i Analytical error.
l
.71 -
Table II. D.6 .
Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) f6r Samples Collected Ma_y 14, 1983 .
Areas Ru Cs Zr & Nb Facility 4 < 44.2 36.3 (11.4)* < 5.83 44 < 99.6 88.1-(26.4) 103 (27.1)
Acjacent 6 < 22.9 36.8 (7.38) 46.9 (7.53) 28, < 53.9 55.2 (15.0) 65.5(15.3)
' 31,** < 56.4 ,
69.7(16.1) 57.4 (16.5)
-3 6 - < 11.6 62.2 (3.76) 48.5 (3.79) 48 ' < 43.6 49'.9(12.4) 63.4 (12.7) 50 < 43.0 .36,4 (12.0) 60.3(12.6)
Reference .
16 < 82.5 62.7 (22.0) 52.6 (22.1) 17 < 56.0 34.9 (15.2) 39.0 (15.4)
. 20 < 66.1 56.9 (17.5) 39.3 (17.5) 22 < 38.5 72.8 (10.7) 52.1(10.6) 23 ** < 56.4 69.7 (16.1) 57.4 (16.5) 25 < 20.0 51.2(6.64) 68.2 (6.72)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
- Composite sample.
t
72 Table II. D.6 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide. Concentrations in Forage (pCi/kg) f6r Samples Collected June 4, 1983 .
Areas Ru Cs Zr & Nb Facility 4 < 38.3' 37.1(10.0) 28.3 (8.15) 44 < 28.9 16.5 (7.49) 6.82 (5.96)
~
i Adjacent 6 < 101 145 (27.4) 55.3 (21.2) 28 < 57.9 53.4 (15.9) 52.3 (12.9)
'31 148 488 (39.1) 144 (31.5) 36 < 130 90.2 (34.6) 109 (28.3) 48 < 62.2 64.7 (17.2) 65.4 (13.4) 50 < 67.7 50.5 (18.2) 56.6 (14.8)
Reference .
16 < 52.1 81.3 (14.2) 52.0 (10.7) 17 < 47.8 42.4 (14.3) 54.6 (11.7)
. 20 < 69.1 73.3 (18.6) 48.3 (14.6) 22 < 63.8 30.6 (16.7) 24.9 (13.4) 23 < 71.4 63.5 (19.4) 48.2 (15.7) -
25 < 60.1 33.5 (16.0 35.8 (12.9)
)
I
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
r
) . .
F
- 73 ~
Table II. D.7
. Gross Beta Concentrations in' Soil and Forage (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected Second Quarter, 1983.
i Sampling May 14,.1983 June 4,1983 L cation Forage Forage Soil. Forage Soil Soil Facility-4'- -27,500* 20,900 . 25,800 19,100 (1,140) (486) (1,390) (628) 44 26,800 19,300 29,800 17,800 (1,330) (464) (1,430) (392)
Adjacent 6 22,300 15,200 24,000 18,400 (1,200) (396) (1,370) (440) 28 19,600 20,500 23,500 17,200
-(1,050). (483) (1,270) (379) 31 26,300- 20,000** 29,300 16,600 (1,490) (399) (1,410)- (593) 36 21,000 12,200 22,800 10,800 (1,240) (268) (1,320) (255) 40 27,300 20,200 27,300 20,600 (1,220)- (364) (1,600) (51 4) 50 25,100 18,900 22,500 19,600 (1,130) (358) (1,250) (392)
Reference 16 22,400 21,200 30,600 -10,700 (1,190) (535) (1,390) (265) 17 19,700 17,400 16,800 30,100 (1,100) (284) (1,180) (633) 20 24,100 13,700 27,400 13,400 (1,200) (301) (1,410) (344) 22- 26,800 8,880 27,400 15,600 (1,270) (208) (1,390) (31 5) 23 21,400 20,000** 21,200 22,800 (1,280) (399) (1,220) (425) 25 ' 21,300 22,100 23,000 14,400 (1,130) - (387) (1,280) (283) j
- Uncertainties (in ' parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( l.96 S.D.).
- Composite Sample.
t-
74 II.D. Food Chain Data
- 3. Soil. Soil samples are collected at the same time and location as forage samples. A core borer is used to collect the sample.
The sample depth is 10.3 cm and the area is 102 cm2 . Bulk soil density 3
is approximately 1 g/cm . Table II.D.8 presents gross beta activity of soil per unit surface area for the first half of 1983. This parameter is calculated from the gross beta concentration in soil (Table II.D.7) multiplied by the mass per unit surface area of the sample core. Since reactor airborne effluents or fallout will result in deposition on the soil surface, activity per unit surface area is the parameter of choice to document environmental contamination.
The mean value for the Facility area was not significantly greater than that measured for the Adjacent or Reference areas (Table II.H.1).
Any small variations are due to different concentrations of the natural Uranium and Thorium decay series and natural K-40. The difference is not due to fission pr0 duct activity. Table II.D.9 and the calculated nean values indicate that there is no significant difference for Ru-106, Cs-137 or Zr-Nb-95 between the Facility, Adjacent or Reference sampling Zones.
Tritium, Sr-89, and Sr-9D in soil are shown in Table II.D.10.
Tritium specific activity in soil water is statistically the same as that in other environmental samples, e.g. water, forage and milk. The activity per unit surface area of the strontium radioisotopes was again quite variable. Due to the large standard deviations there was no statistical difference in the mean values between the three sampling zones. It should be noted that the Sr-90 values are less than measured
75 for Cs-137. This is because the weapon's fallout Cs-137 is trapped near the soil surface by ion exchange and the Sr-90 is leached down the soil profile to depths greater than that collected by our coring method.
)
)
i 76 Table II. D.8 Gross Beta Activity in Soil per. Unit Surface Area (pCi/n ) for Samples Collected Second Quarter, 1983.
' Sampling
.fLocations May 14, 1983 : June 4, 1983
--s .
Facility 4 3.55 (0.148)* 3.33(0.179)
=44 3.46.(0.172) 3.85 (0.185)
Adjacent 6 2.08 (0.~154) 3.09(0.177) 28 2.53 (0.136) 3.03 (0.164) 31 ~ 3.39 (0.192) 3.77 (0.182) 36 2.71 (0.160) 2.94 (0.170) 48 3.52 (0.157) 3.52(0.206) 60 3.24 (0.146) 2.91 (0.161)
Reference 16 2.90 (0.153) 3.95 (0.180) 17 2.54(0.142) 2.17 (0.153) 20 3.11 (0.154) 3.53 (0.182) 22- .3.45.(0.164) 3.54 (0.179)
[ ~ 23- 2.76 (0.165) 2.74 (0.158) 25 2.74 (0.146) 2.97 (0.165)
- Uncertainties -(in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
L
. ~ . . . . . .
77 Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Activity per Unit Surface Area of Soil (nCi/m 2) for Samples Collected May 14, 1983 .
Sampling 106 '$
Zr & Nb Ru Cs Location Facility 4 .< 495 < 85.9 < 30.9 44 < 264 < 45.8 < 16.4 Adjacent 6 < 323 < 56.0 < 20.1 28 < 509 < 88.3 47.0 (43.4) 31- < 719 < 125 < 45.0 .
36 < 250 < 43.2 < 15.5 48- < 308 < 53.4 39.4 (34.4) 50 < 297 < 51.5 < 18.5 Reference 16 < 256 < 44.4 75.0 (30.4) 17 < 261' < 45.2 < 16.2 l
20 < 265 < 45.9 < 16.5 22 < 257 < 44.6 < 16.0 23 < b55 < 96.3 < 34.6 L25 < 523 179 (106). 266 (32.7)
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
78 Table II. D.9 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Activity per Unit Surface Area of Soil (nCi/m2 ) for Samples Collected June 4. 1983 .
Sampling 106 95 Ru Cs 2r & Nb Location Facility 4 < 411 < 71.5 55.5(39.2)*
44 < 415 < 72.0 < 25.9
' _ Adjacent
- 6. < 479 114 (90.3) 31.7 (57.3)
_28 - < 464 < 80.8 < 29.0 31 < 311 < 53.9 < 19.4 36 < 451 < 78.2 < 28.1 48 < 277 < 48.1 27.3 (33.4)
< 299 < 51.8 < 18.6 l 50 l
Reference 16 < 574 149 (99.7) 58.7 (47.0) 17 < 460 97.4 (82.6) 81.5 (40.3) 20 < 321 < 55.6 31.7 (35.5) 22- < 446 < 80.8 < 29.1 1
- 23 < 496 < 86.2 46.2 (43.1) 25 < 464 < 80.5 < 29.0
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence
) interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
g Analysis in progress.
)-
j
. 79 Table II. D.10
' Tritium, . concentration in soil water and Strontium 89, Strontium 90 Activity per unit surface of Soil for LSamples Collected May 14, 1983 .
Sa:npling Tritium Strontium 89 Strontiu 90 Location ~ (pCi/1) ,(pCi/m2) . (pC1/m ).
Facility 4 < 290 < 12.7 < 14.8 I 44 '< 295 < 15.3 < 18.6 Adjacent i
6 < 290 < 10.5 < 12.1 28 < 295 < 8.88 17.8 (13.0)*
< 295 < 20.6 < 25.6
. 31 -
'36 < 295 < 11.8 < 14.7
< 14.7 43 < 295 37.1(23.7) 50 < 295- < 11.2 < 13.0-
-Reference
- 16. < 13.8
< 290 -
< 12.1-17' 398(285)' < 8.54 11.6 (12.1) 20- < 290- < 11.4 < 15.4 l
22 < 295 < 13.1 <-16.0 1
23 ' < 295 <.15.9 < 22.0 .
25 < 295 < 10.1 < 11.1 l *-Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( l',96 S.D.).
k p
r 80 Table II. D.10 Tritium,' Strontium 89, and Strontium 90 concentrations in Soil for Samples Collected June 4'. 1983 .-
Sampling Tritium Strontium 89 Location (pCi/1) (pCi/m2) Stronting)90 (pC1/m Facility 4 < 300 < 12.4 < 14.4 44 < 300 15'.9 (30.0)* < 16.5 Adjacent 6 < 300 < 8;94 39.3 (13.4) 28 < 300 < 14.4 < 16.4 31 < 300 < 8.64 < 9.92 36 ' < 300 < 11.1 16.5 (13.9) 43 - <-300 < 14s3 23.7 (18.9) 50 < 300 < 10.6 < 12.2 Reference 16 < 300 < 11.2 < 12.9 17 < 300 < 11.1 23.1 (16.1) 20 < 300 37.3 (29.0) < 15.9 22 < 300 < 9.25 18.2 (14.0) 23 < 300 < 14.5 < 16.6 25 < 300 < 11.2 < 12.9
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( t 1.96 S.D.).
F
x 81 II.E. Aquatic Biota ,
Table II.E.1 shows gross beta and strontium concentrations observed in aquatic biota collected during the first half of 1983. Gross beta concentrations in the sample types are higher than any particular m .,
fallout fission product because of the presence of the naturally occurringradionuclides,hig.K-40. The Strontium-89, Sr-90, and '
gross beta concentrations' observed were essentially the same as
,- .c observed during 1982.' Thare was no evidence that downstream values were higher than upstream. Although not statistically greater, mean values for gross beta concentration at the effluent sites were less than upstream mean values. This further supports the contention
~
that particulate fission product release in the reactor water effluent .is negligible.
Asmallnumberofsamhlesarecollectedforeachreportperiod and during the spring of 1983, unusually high runoff caused river
'l xt flow rates to 'be .very high. This prevented collection of certain sample types.
Table II.E.2 lists Ru-106, Cs-137, and Zn-Nb-95 concentrations measured in the same samples. These concentrations appear to be similar to those measured during the last half of 1982. The activity of_ fallout ,radionu'clides deposited previously from the 1980 Chinese Nuclear Weapon.Tes[ is apparently only gradually decreasing.
The high MDC values for seston are due to the fact that such l.
I samples are counted by a Ge(li) spectrometer system rather than the Nal used for most other sample types. This is because seston, which is principally algae, collects and concentrates particulate radioactivity, u
b #
82 r, ' -
('
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
~ lcJ]am,isbe'ingmonitoredatseveralsitesaroundtheFortSt.Vrain
^
~ ,
, J, eNuclear Generating Station in Platteville. Corbicula have been intf6duced to North Ame,rica from Asia. The freshwater clams are now
/}oundinlarg'eriversystemsintheU.S.fromcoasttocoast.
r The Colorado Division of Wildlife has stated that Corbicula have been found in Northern Colorado, Boyd Lake, some 30 miles from the Fort 1
St.VrainNuclearGeneratjngStation. However, to this date, our samplings have indicated no evidence of Corbicula in any of the sampling _ sites immediately upstream of the reactor.
/
v'
% k d
/
)
l.
t
)
_ ~ . . . _. - . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ , -_ _ __ _ _ . _ - _ _ , . _ - -
Tcble II. : E.1 Analysis ef' Composite 0 Aquctic Biots-For Samples collected First Quarter 1983.-
Gross Beta Strontium gg Strontium 90-Sampling locations pCi/Kg PCi/Kg pCi/Kg
' Fish Upstream 3-26-83 10,400 (384)** < 16.9 < 18.5 Downstream 3-26-83 7,510 (329) < 48.1 .'< 55.5
~
Effluent 3-26-83 20,100 (840) < 14.9 ,
.44.2 (24.2)
Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream f f _f Effluent f f f
,Vascula- Plants @
Upstream ~ 4 30-83 4,150 (115) 769 (156) 37.3 (7.73).
Downstream 4-30-83 2,390 (85.7) 24.9 (13.1) 79.6 (10.3)
Effluent 4-30-83 7,700 (205) < 7.90 37.1 (10.8)
Seston Urstream 3-26-83 f f f Downstream 3-26-83 f f f Effluent 3 "5-83 12,400 (798) < 56.3 < 44.5
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, ( 1.96 S.D.).
f Sample unavailable.
Table II. E.1 Analysis of Corepositoo Aquatic Bioto For Samples collected May . 1983 .
Cross Beta . Strontium 89 Strontium 93 Sampling locations pCi/Kg pCi/Kg pCi/Kg Fish -
Upstream 5-16-83 10,400 (352) < 35.8 27.5 (33.4)
Downstream 5-16-83 9,040~(279) < 26.7 36.6 (28.1)
Effluent 5-16-83 9,130 (304) < 38.6 56.5 (47.5)
Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f r Downstream f f f Effluent 5-21-83 1,290 (874) < 169 < 137 Vascular Plants ,
Upstream 5-21 -83 2,970 (190) < 4.89 45.4 (6.84)
Downstream 5-21 -83 2,320 (168) < 27.7 105 (39.5)
Effluent 5-21.-83 2,510 (158) < 8.25 32.0 (11.0)
Seston ,
Upstream 5 83 23,200 (842) < 92.3 < 65.1 Downstream 5-16-83 23,600 (1,030) < 262 540 (224)
Effluent 5-16-83 17,600 (721) < 75.9 79.2 (63.0)
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43. ~
i Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval. (i 1.96 S.D.).
f Sample unavailable. .
Table II. E.1 Analysis of Composite 0 Aquztic Bicta For Samples collected June. 1983 .
Strontium gg Strontium 90 Cross Beta pCi/Kg Sampling locations pCi/Kg pCi/Kg Fish **
10,500 (395) < 53.9 56.1 (59.8)
Upstream 6-25 9,110 '(313) < 39.3 83.7 (48.9)
Downstream 6-25-83 11,800 (408) < 118 < 81.3 Effluent 6-25-83 Benthic Organisms 10,100 (552) < 519 < 455 Upstream 6-25-83 f f f
Downstream 8,780 (468) e e Effluent- 6-25-83 Y
Vascular Plants
< 111 * < 119 Upstream 6-11-83 16,100 (473) 22,600 (445) < 47.1 311 (69.7)
Downstream 6-11-83 8,790 (170) < 14.7 34.0(20.9)
Effluent 6-11-83 Seaton
< 305 < 282 6-25-83 23,400 (772)
Upstream < 91.2 25,30') (566) < 92.7 Downstream 6-25-83 e e
Effluent 6-25-83 21,100 (646)
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45. 1.96 S.D.).
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (
e Insufficient weight or volume for analysis.
f Sample unavailable.
n Table II. E.2 Camma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples (pC1/kg) for Samples Collected First Quarter, 1983 __.
Sampling Locations
- Ru Cs Zr & Nb Fish 3-26-83 < 253 < 78.7 < 33.5 Upstream
< 253 120 (63.2)** 59.1 (36.9)
Downstream 3-26-83 Effluent 3-26-83 < 251 79.2 (62.2) 46.0 (34.9)
Benthic Organisms f f f Upstream f f f Downstream f f f Effluent Vascular Plants Upstream 4-30-83 889 (547) 470 (127) 487 (114)
Downstream 4-30-83 < 264 203 (69.8) 113 (63.3)
Effluent 4-30-83 1,980 (721) 1,070 (171) 1,050 (152)
Seston f f f Upstream I f f Downstream 3-26-83 *** < 1,020 < 1,760 < 635 Effluent
- 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.).
- Counted on Ge(Li) detector.
f Sample unavailable.
Table II. E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Sampics (pci/kg) for Samples Collected- May, 1933 .
Sampling Locations
- Ru Cs Zr & Nb Fish Upstream 5-16-83 < 250 83.7(61.4) < 33.2 Downstream 5-16-83 < 250 198 (63.1) 196- (54.9)
Effluent 5-16-83 < 250 200 (62.5)' 123 (54.4)
Benthic Organisms Upstream f f f Downstream f f f Effluent 5-21-83 e e e Vascular Plants m.
Upstream 5-21-83 < 633 232 (156) < 84.0 Downstream 5-21-83 < 575 194 (142) < 76.3 Effluent 5-21-83 < 689 337 (171) 144 (131)
Seston_ ***
Upstream 5-16-83 < 3,210 < 556 < 200 Downstream 5-16-83 < 1,230 < 2,140 < 770 Effluent 5-16-83 < 8,780 < 1,520 < 546
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.
Effluent: E 38.
- Unceptainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (i 1.96 S.D.).
- Counted on Ge(Li) detector, e Insufficient weight for Analysis.
f Sample unavailable.
Table II. E.2 Gamma-ray Emitting Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Biota Samples (pCi/kg) for Samples Collected June, 1983 .
Ru Cs Zr & Nb Sampling Locations
- Fish 6-25-83 < 250 211 (62.7)** 39.5(34.8) upstream
< 250 < 779 < 322 Downstceam 6-25-83 6-25-83 < 250 121 (61.8) 52.2 (35.0)
Effluent Benthic Organisms 6-25-83 808 < 251 < 107 Upstream f f f Downstream 6-25-83 < 2,500 < 779 < 322 Effluent Vascular Plants u s stream 6-11-83 < 491 < 153 < 65.1 Downstream 6-11-83 < 582 < 181 < 77.2 Effluent 6-11-83 < 533 < 166 < 70.6 Seston Upstream 6-25-83 < 447 332 (113) 14 2 (49.7)
Downstream 6-25-83 < 833 < 260 < 111 Effluent 6-25-83 *** < 1,920 1,140 (479) 497 (2 14 )
- Upstream Composite: U 42, U 43.
Downstream Composite: D 40, D 45.
Effluent: E 38.
- Uncertainties (in parentheses) are for the 95% confidence interval, (1 1.96 S.D.) .
- Counted on Ge(L1) detector, f Sample unavailable.
89 II.F. Beef Cattle. Two head of beef cattle fron the herd that grazes the Facility area are counted each quarter in the CSU whole-body-counter. The animals are washed carefully and counted for 20 minutes each. This method is far more sensitive than counting meat samples and is the method of choice for detecting Cs-137 in the meat food chain of humans. If thyroid I-131 contamination were significant this would be detected from the whole body count.
Detectable I-131 activity has never been observed.
Table II.F.1 gives values for whole body counting of beef cattle for the first half of 1983. The animals are telected at random; however, the animal number is recorded and the animal may be retrieved and recounted if necessary. The Cs-137 body burdens are similar to those observed during the last several years. Variation in Cs-137 concentration reflects a different cutting and/or source of hay and pasture for the animals.
The Cs-137 concentration is expressed as pCi per gram of K in the whole animal. This is done to more easily compare the counts between different size animals. K and Cs are both intracellular cations and by normalizing the Cs-137 activity to K, differences due '
to fat percet 7;e in the animals are eliminated because the K concentration of fat free muscle is very constant.
t i
~90-Table II. F.1. Radionuclides in Facility Area Beef Cattle In-vivo Gama-ray activity in Fort St. Vrain Area beef cattle.
t
. Quarter Values 131 137 3-16-83 7 Cs oci/a K Cow 1 None detected 2.74 Cow 2 None detected 0.861 6-25-83 Quarter %1ues Cow 1 None detected 11.3 Cow 2 None detected 6.37 L
91-II.G.1 Sample Cross Check Data.
To assure the precision and accuracy of the environmental data obtained from the radiation surveillance program providcd for the Fort St. Vrain reactor, Colorado State University participates in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored laboratory intercomparison studies program. This involves the analysis of a variety of environmental media containing various levels of radioactivity. The media, type of analysis and frequency of analysis are summarized below.
The media, type of analysis and frequency of analysis Medium Analysis (radionuclide) Frequency Water 3
H bimonthly Water gross a, gross a bimonthly
. Water 51Cr, 60Co, 65Zn 106Ru,134Cs, triannually 137 Cs Water 09Sr, 90Sr triannually 131 triannually Water I Air particulate 90Sr,137Cs, gross a, gross s triannually filters Milk 095r, 90Sr, 1317, 137Cs, 40K triannually For each radionuclide analysis of a particular medium, three independent measurements are performed and the mean value is then calculated. The percentage deviation of our determined mean value from the EPA specified value is also calculated.
o _
92 i
Table II.G.1 gives the EPA cross check data for the last half of 1982. The EPA has chosen to use the term Estimated Laboratory Precision (ELP), calculated as 3c/N, as the control parameter where N = the number of analyses. Whenever our mean value falls outside this limit, the sample calculations are rechecked and the sample reanalyzed if possible. Of the cross check results reported for this period, most were within the ELP. These values have a **
notation in Table II.G.I. The recheck process and conclusion is given below for each of these individual samples.
- 1. Gross beta in water, 1/21/83. The original CSU mean value was 22 pCi/L which is just technically outside the ELP. The sample was recounted and the new mean value was 26 as reported in Table II.G.I. This value falls within the ELP. No reason for the discrepancy except counting statistics can be given.
- 2. Gamma, water sample, 2/4/83. The original values for all radionuclides in this sample were all outside the ELP. It was detennined that there was NaI(Tl) phototube problems as well as MCA timer problems during the analysis. The sample was recounted approximately 4 months later. The Cr-51 had obviously decayed during that period. All the other radionuclide determinations except Zn-65, Cs-134 and Ru-106 were within the ELP. All activity estimates were low No reason for the discrepancy can be given at this time.
The sample will be sent to a comercial laboratory for independent cross check analysis.
- 3. Milk sample 2/25/83. The counter timer was malfunctioning for this count. The sample was simply recounted and all results were within the ELP as shown in Table II.G.I.
The crystal phototube and MCA timer problems noted above were corrected and all sami les counted during the period were checked for the same possible errors. Corrections were made when necessary.
Table II.G.2 lists the results of a cross-check study between this program, the Colorado Department of Health and the Public Service
~93 Company counting laboratory at the reactor. Water samples are now collected monthly by personnel at the Colorado-Department of Health and split between the three groups. The analysis'of the results of the study for the first half of 1983 are still under ' review.
l l
\
i I
94 Table II.G.I. EPA Cross-Check Data Summary Radio CSU EPA Precision Estimated LaborJ , deviation Date nuclide Value Value (1 sigma) atory Precision
- from known Water, Tritium pCi/l 2-11-83 3H 2,664 2,560 353 612 + 4 4-8-83 3H 3,533 3,330 362 628 + 32 6-10-83 3H 1,220 Water, 41pha & Beta 3Ci/l 1-21-83 gross a 24 29 7.25 12.5 - 17 gross s 26 31 5 8.7 - 16 3-18-83 gross a 19 31 7.8 13.4 - 39 gross s 25 28 5 8.7 - 11 5-20-83 gross a 9 11 5 8.7 - 18 gross 8 53 57 5 8.7 - 7 i
Water,. strontium 89 L 90 pCi/l 1-7-83 895r 21 29.2 5 8.7 - 28 9 0Sr 19 17.2 1.5 2.6 + 9.5 Air Filters, pCi/l 1-26-83 gross a 24 27 6.8 11.3 - 11 gross 6 60 59 5 8.7 + 2 90Sr 16 16 1.5 2.6 0 137 Cs 24 27 5 8.7 - 11 3-25-83 gross a 22 26 6.5 11.3 - 15 gross 6 63 68 5 8.7 - 7.4 90Sr 20 20 1.5 2.6 0 137 Cs 26 27 5 8.7 - 3.7
)
i I
l
)
i
- 30/in
- Results of reanalysis.
)
95 Table II.G.I. EPA Cross-Chreck Data Sumary Radio CSU EPA Precision Estimated Labor- % deviation Date nuclide Value Value (1 sigma) atorv Precision
- from known Water, Gamma, pCi/ l 2-4-83 SICr 1 45 5 8.7 -
60Co 17 22 5 8.7 * - 23 6SZn 8 21 5 8.7 - 62.
106 Ru 27 48 5 8.7 - 44 134Cs 6 20 5 8.7 - 70 137 Cs 17 19 5 8.7 - 11 Milk, Gamma, pCi/l 2-25-83 89Sr 35 37 5 8.7 -5
_90Sr 19 18 1.5 2.6 +5 1311 58 55 6 10.4 +5 137Cs 31 26 5 8.7 + 19 K 1520 1512 76 131 +.5 Water, Iodine 1-83 131I 23 26 6 10.4 - 14 l
- 3c/in
(
- Results of reanalysis.
l
f 96 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.
Collection Sample Gross Beta Tritium pCi/L pCi/,L Date Location CSU CDH* PSC CSU CDH PSC 1-28-83 E38 7.17 . < 61 459 1,290 685 042 6.31 < 61 542 483 < 674 2-28-83 E38 < 8.36 < 61 4,560 4,213 5,030 E41 7.50 < 61 < 296 < 350 1,160 U42 8.36 < 61 < 296 < 350 < 136 3-23-83 E38 < 6.33 < 63 < 299 534 < 720 E41 < 7.20 97 < 300 < 350 < 720 l U42 6.33 < 63 < 299 < 350 < 720 .
l 4-14-83 E38 7.20 < 63 < 299 < 350 < 720 E41 4.55 97 < 299 488 < 720 U42 3.14 < 63 < 299 s 350 < 720 5-13-83 E38 '6.29 150 317 364 < 702 E41 < 6.10 < 76 1,040 1,942 940 U42 < 6.29 < 65 < 299 421 < 660 6-24-83 E38 6.10 < 80 < 299 2,357 < 682 E41 3.80 < 80 < 299 558 < 682 U42 -< 3.00 < 80 : 299 826 < 682 l
i All concentration values are being re' calculated by CDH and were not available for this report.
97 II.H. Summary and Conclusions Table II.H.1 presents the primary sunmary and analysis of data collected during the first half of 1983. The tabular data may be used for comparison to previous reactor operational periods and for com-parison to other cperating power reactors. The number of samples analyzed in the reporting period and the maximum and minimum values for each sample type are given. From log-normal analysis of each data set for the last 12 month period the geometric mean and geometric standard deviations are presented. The arithmetic mean is also calcu-lated back for the entire year and for the reporting period. It should be noted that the tabular data presented in the body of this report contain only positive calculated values. Any calculated values less than zero or less than the minimum detectable concentration (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 period. Therefore all values, negative as well as positive, were included. This procedure is now generally accepted and gives a better estimate of the true mean value. Because of this procedure, however, the values listed in Table II.H.1 cannot be calculated directly from the tabular values in the report. It must be emphasized that while it is true that no sample can contain less than zero radioactivity, due to the random nature of radioactive decay it is statistically possible to obtain sanple count rates less than background and hence a negative result. The minimum value listed in Table II.H.1 is the lowest positive value observed in the data set.
L- - -
98 The log-normal probability treatment is to plot all data for eacn 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 xgis 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 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., (i o), whereas in the log-normal distribution the geometric standard deviation go is a multiplicative parameter to the geometric mean (ig ; og ). The area between gi divided by og , and i gmultiplied by o shouldg contain 68% of the frequency values.
The log-normal statistical treatment is tentative when the number of samples in the group is small. For this reason only the last full year of data points is treated by this method. With the log-normal analysis, no bias results from using either actual values or less than MDC values.
From the values presented in Table II.H.1 and the tabular data of the report, the following observations and conclusions may be drawn:
- 1. Tritium was the only radionuclide that was detected in any of the effluent pathways that can be attributed to reactor operation. Since I the tritium is released as tritiated water, the dilution by the sur-i
! rounding hydrosphere is great. Although on several occasions elevated concentratior.s of tritiated water could be detected downstream of the reactor, the average over the six month period was not statistically greater than upstream concentrations. During the current reporting l
l
99 period more tritium was released than during the previour period but the downstream tritium concentrations were lower. This was due to the dilut1on caused by the high spring water run-off from the Colorado mountains.
- 2. The fallout from the October 17, 1980, Chinese Nuclear Weapon test was essentially undetectable in air samples during this reporting period. Only the previous deposition as observed in soil and food chain samples was still noted. Nuclear weapon test fallout, however, nas since the inception of the project been noted ta be the predominant contribution to background. It is the variation in fallout deposition that requires so many environmental samples to detect any possible increase due to reactor effluents. A simple comparison of preoperational and postoperational values is of little value for most sample types because the fallout deposition was considerably greater during the preoperational period.
- 3. A comparison of Table II.H.1 with the same table in previous reports implies that for the first half of 1983 there is no evidence that effluents from reactor operation have produced any statistically significant off-site concentrations of radionuclides in any sample type.
l
- 4. The log-normal treatment of all the data revealed that for
- most of the data such analysis is appropriate. However, sigmoid distributions were quite often observed. Sigmoid dist'ributions can be resolved into bimodal or even trimodal log-normal distributions.
i 1
100 This is generally interpreted to mean that there is more than one significant activity source term. For all of the data analyzed over the past year by the log-normal treatraat, those sample types that are reservoirs or sinks for activity, e.g., soil, sediment and TLD, tended to be described by a single distribution. Those sample types which are less stable and fluctuate due to outside sources, e.g., air and precipi-tation, tended to be bimodal or trimodally distributed, particularly when weapon test fallout is present.
- 5. As in every previous report, it vaJ. again apparent that for most sample types the variability observed around the mean values was great. This variability is due to counting statistics and methodo-logical error, but principally due to true environmental variation. It must be recognized and accounted for in analysis of any set of environ-mental data before meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
- 6. It can be concluded again that the radiation dose commitments calculated for the closest inhabitants or other parts of the nearby ecosystems from current reactor effluents are negligible compared to natural background radiation dose rate and the dose commitment from atmospheric weapon testing fallout.
?
)
Tablo 1I .11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.
Number of Miniminn Fla ximur.1 .
Samples Value Observed Value Observed ig - -
Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months E x x Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Sampic Type TI.D Facility 78 0.38 0.50 0.44- 1.1 0.45 0.43 External Adjacent 72 0.34 0.51 -0.43 1.1 0.43 0.41 l (mR/ day) Reference 72 0.30 0.51 0.41 1.1 0.42 0.40 t
Air Facility 86 0.3e 20.7 3.2 2 .1. > 4.0~ 3.29 Gross a Adjacent 72 0.4 18.6 3.43 2.2 4.5 4.18 (fCi/m3 )
l Facility 87 1. 0 . 41 14 , 1.9 17 11 Air Adjacent 73 2.0 36 13 1.8 16 11 Gross 6 3
(fCi/m )
Air Facility 103 1.80 762 255 2.23 30.9 85.5 5 Tritlam Adjacent 75 14.4 586 238 2.38 69.4 94.2 (pci/1)
Air Composite 26 0.0027 4.13 2.69 14.1 < 4.43 0.135 Illy
-(fCi/m3 )
Air Composite 26 < 2.54 1N 5.98 3.3 < 1.47 4.70 106!tu (fCi/m3)
1 Table I1.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)
Number of Minimum , Maximum .
Samples Valus Observed Value Observed x o E E Analyzed 6 Months 6 )fonths ,
i i Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Stonths Sample Type Air Composite 26 0.901 4.86 1.65 2.22 1.76 1.55 j 137CS 3
(fCi/m )
Air Composite 26 0.433 2.59 0.561 3.26 < 0.191 0.748 952r (fCi/m3) 32 5.47 16.1 9.82 1.40 10.4 9.49 Water Effluent Downstream 18 2.20 16.4 8.28 1.58 9.08 7.92 Gross B 7.94 (pci/1) Upstream 12 2.74 10.5 8.57 1.56 9.28 Potable 12 3.59 8.64 6.30 1.78 7.32 5.58 5
32 268 217,000 590 5.83 10,700 7,880 Water Effluent 777 Downstream 18 162 8,420 409 2.48 507 '
Tritium 193 Upstream 12 59.5 1,380 260 2.01 147 (pci/1) 408 Potable 12 254 3,170 305 3.33 371 32 0.121 2.06 0.518 2.88 < 0.708 < 0.708 Nater Effluent 18 0.0509 0.835 0.540 2.89 < 0.685 < 0.685 90Sr Downstream < 0.698 12 0.131 0.382 0.519 2.93 < 0.735 (pci/1) Upstream < 0.745 rotable 12 0.745 1.27 0.854 1.51 < 0.745
~
Table II.!!.1. Blean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)
Number of hilnimtsa )!aximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o 8 8 Analyzed 6 Flonths 6 Ffonths i i Sample Type Area 6 blonths 1 Year 1 Year 6 )!onths Water Effluent 32 0.0'.63 2.64 0.479 3.26 0.0030 < 0.685 89Sr Downstreau 18 0.251 3.28 0.696 2.92 0.205 < 0.636 (pci/1) Upstream 12 0.0820 2.61 0.440 3.59 0.293 0.185 Potable 12 0.125 1.67 0.610 2.25 0.295 0.185 I .
l Water Effluent 32 0.819 34.8 2.62 2.64 < 0.810 < 0.810
! 106Ru Downstream 18 0.018 5.22 1.55 3.07 < 0.683 < 0.683 (pci/1) Upstream 12 1.59 5.41 1.88 1.67 < 0.879 < 0.879 Potable 12 0.340 10.4 1.92 5.60 < 2.58 < 2.58 Water Effluent 32 0.677 6.04 1.70 2.65 2.21 2.08 137Cs Downstream 18 0.273 7.15 1.49 2.50 1.94 2.30 5 (pci/1) Upstream 12 0.482 6.22 1.20 3.38 0.964 0.575 Potable 12 0.126 10.4 0.793 C.46 0.861 1.10 Water Effluent 32 0.0821 6.05 0.832 3.20 1.24 1.40 952r Dowr.s tream 18 0.0180 5.99 0.567 3.41 ~0.843 1.18 (pci/1) Upstream 12 0.238 3.04 0.669 2.46 0.750 1.13 Potabic 12 0.126 2.67 0.399 3.06 0.117 0.713 1
12 27,500 35,400 30,600 1.11 30,800 30,400 l Sediment Effluent 18 26,100 37,500 31,900 1.12 32.100 32,900 f Gross B Downstream 33,600 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 25,200 34,600 31,600 1.15 31,900
~
Table I1.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)
Number of Minimum . Maximum .
Sampics Value Observed Value Observed x o E 8 Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months i i Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Sediment Effluent 12 27.0 76.7 90.0 3.15 < 49.3 < 49.3 90Sr Downstream 18 5.02 324 98.5 3.71 1.84 < 152 (pCi/kg) Upstream 12 109 234 131 2.71 3.75 < 313 Sediment Effluent 12 27.0 158 92.1 2.47 < 122 ~31.6 89Sr Downstream 18 7.55 814 117 2.90 8.59 < 135 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 4.42 313 120 2.93 1.66 < 133 Sediment Effluent 12 1,490 7,710 3,023 1.57 < 2,190 37.3 106Rt Downstream 18 370 3,890 2,252 2.69 < 1,700 < 1,700 (pci/kg) Upstream 2,140 4,330 3,220 < 2,320 12 1.71 < 2,770 gl Sediment Effluent 12 235 915 469 3.05 < 482 96.8 137Cs Downstream 18 4.39 917 264 3.74 82.9 121 l (pci/kg) Upstream 12 146 741 505 2.04 264 245 Sediment Effluent 12 48.0 562 199 1.78 < 105 26.8 95Zr Downstream 18 22.4 243 140 2.97 35.0 80.0 (pci/kg) Upstream 12 5.25 487 127 3.96 127 128 Precipitation F-1 6 9.81 205 47.0 2.90 76.7 51.1 Gross 8 F-4 6 5.12 193 39.3 3.90 75.7 38.1 (pCi/m2 )
8
c - .
Table II.11.1, Mean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)
Number of Minimaa lhximum Sampics Value Observed Value Observed xg o , _
8 x x Analyzed 6 Months 6 ffonths Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 11onths l
Precipitation F-1 6 189 227 259 1.41 < 284 < 290 1 Tritium F-4 6 50.5 786 296 1.9 < 284 < 284 l (pci/m2) 1 Precipitation F-1 6 4.53 81.2 17.6 2.33 < 10.4 < 1-1. 9 106Ru F-4 6 1.79 108 18.7 3.90 < 11.6 < 11.6 (pci/m 2)
Precipitation F-1 6 6.70 19.8 13.9 2.22 18.0 9.27 137Cs F-4 6 5.92 25.3 20.3 2.51 28.0 7.47 (pCi/m2 )
Precipitation F-1 6 1.61 25.1 4.24 2.40 3.55 7.28 -
95Zr F-4 6 1.47 18.4 7.80 2.26 7.92 6.83 0 (pci/m2) .
Precipitation F-1 6 0.284 < 11.3 4.82 6.04 2.36 < 9.96 90Sr F-4 6 0.900 10.3 7.13 2.06 1.58 < 7.94 (pCi/m2),
Precipitation F-1 6 < 2.45 6.26 8.37 2.63 < 3.52 < 11.4 89Sr F-4 6 5.34 9.01 5.52 4.43 < 3.68 < 6.10 (pci/m2)
Miik Facility 12 247 378 290 1.44 < 284 < 291 Tritium Adjacent 12 1.80 < 300 172 3.41 < 284 < 287 (pci/1) Re ference 12 75.7 429 239 2.24 < 285 < 287
Table II.lf.1. Mean Values for all Sampic Types.(Cont'd.)
Number of Minimum . Maximum Samples Yalue observed Value Observed i o
- 8 Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months i i Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Milk Facility 12 0.819 8.60 1.46 2.09 1.51 2.10 l
90Sr Adjacent 12 0.383 3.20 1.68 3.63 0.634 0.379 l (pci/1) Reference 12 0.932 2.03 1.89 1.40 0.725 0.806 Milk Facility 12 0.265 7.71 1.36 2.29 0.925 1.02 89Sr Adjacent 12 < 1.06 6.03 1.39 2.89 1.23 0.666 (pci/1) Reference 12 < 0.873 4.11 1.95 1.96 8.58 2.09 Milk Facility 12 < 0.143 9.61 0.328 4.18 < 0.117 < 0.143 1311 Adjacent 11 < 0.132 11.6 0.253 3.59 < 0.115 < 0.132 (pci/1) Reference 12 < 0.132 7.56 0.318 4.65 < 0.115 < 0.132 -
8-l Milk Facility 12 < 0.146 2.15 0.271 2.85 < 0.121 < 0.146 137Cs Adjacent 11 < 0.137 4.59 0.276 3.35 < 0.117 < 0.137 l (pci/1) Reference 12 < 0.135 1.99 0.231 2.66 < 0.118 < 0.135 Milk Facility 12 1.28 1.53 1.42 1.06 1.42 1.40 Nat. K Adjacent 11 1.31 1.55 1.42 1.05 1.42 1.42 (g/l) Reference 12 1.28 1.54 1.44 1.06 1.44 1.40 Forage Facility 1 204 204 361 1.74 253 204 Tritium Adjacent 1 166 166 271 2.72 61.6 166 1 (pCi/1) Reference 2 281 281 255 2.60 140 108 l l
Table 1I.11.1. Etean Values for all Sample Types.(Cont'd.)
Number of Flinimum )!aximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o E 8 Analyzed 6 Flonths 6 }!onths i i Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 )fonths Forage Facility 4 8.13 76.7 23.8 2.97 2.03 0.158 89Sr Adjacent 12 2.37 3.46 12.3 2.52 < 12.9 < 12.9 (pci/kg) Reference 12 2.37 2.37 14.5 2.32 < 8.12 < 8.12 Forage Facility 4 5.77 167 54.7 4.39 104 79.8 90Sr Adjacent 12 27.1 177 65.5 1.76 76.0 77.6 (pci/kg) Reference 12 55.8 150 87.6 1.41 92.6 98.6 Forage Facility 4 < 28.9 42.2 67.5 2.67 < 28.9 < 28.9 106Ru Adjacent 12 < 22.9 < 22.9 52.9 2.56 < 22.9 < 22.9 (pci/kg) Reference 12 < 20.0 < 20.0 53.8 1.79 < 20.0 < 20.0 -
S Forage Facility 4 16.5 88.1 47.2 3.47 77.3 44.5 137Cs Adjacent 12 36.4 488 51.1 2.76 82.3 100 (pci/kg) Reference 12 33.5 81.3 42.7 2.21 51.6 56.1 Forage Facility 4 < 5.83 103 34.0 3.05 51.1 34.5 952r Adjacent 12 52.3 144 35.3 2.86 46.8 68.7 (pci/kg) Reference 12 24.9 72.8 26.0 2.56 33.6 47.7 Forage Facility 4 17,800 20,900 17,200 1.35 17,800 19,300 Gross S Adjacent 12 10,800 20,600 15,700 1.72 18,400 18,400 (pci/kg) Reference 12 8,880 30,100 16,900 1.36 17,600 17,500 t
O d
Table I1.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)
Number of Minimtmi .)!aximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed o h" 8 i i Analyzed 6 Flonths 6 Ffonths Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Sample Type Soil Facility 4 25,800 29,800 29,000 1.07 29,000 27,500 Gross 6 Adjacent 12 19,600 29,300 23,700 1.13 25,000 22,400 1 (pci/kg) Re fe rence 12 16,800 30,600 3,580 1.17 23,600 23,500 l
l l Soil Facility 3.33 3.85 3.74 1.07 3.75 3.55 l Gross 8 Adjacent 12 2.53 3.77 3.11 1.12 3.27 3.13 l
(pci/m2) Re ference 12 2.17 3.95 3.02 1.17 3.05 3.03 1
Facility 4 < 264 < 495 265 1.63 < 203 < 264 Soil Adjacent 12 29.2 194 276 2.34 < 168 < 205 106Ru 2 Re ference 12 5.74 5.74 236 2.46 < 256 < 185 -
(nci/m ) 8 Soil Facility 4 5.69 16.1 45.8 3.14 13.6 < 45.8 l 137Cs Adjacent 12 3.31 114 35.2 3.06 < 38.2 16.6 (nci/m2) Reference 12 5.74 179 38.5 2.56 35.2 39.9 Soil Facility 4 12.1 55.5 15.8 2.48 11.3 31.7 95Zr Adjacent 12 1.21 47.0 17.9 2.69 < 13.9 13.5 Reference 1.70 266 17.6 4.24 21.2 44.9 l (nci/m2 ) 12 Soil Facility 4 162 245 274' 1.49 < 283 87.8 Adjacent 12 139 283 269 1.69 < 283 < 290 Tritium Reference 12 9.01 398 213 2.45 < 283 < 290 (pci/1)
Table I I .11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)
Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed I o N 3 i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months i Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months Soil Facility 4 12.4 15.9 14.1- 1.86 2.43 < 12.4 89Sr Adjacent 12 8.18 8.18 11.1 2.23 < 8.08 < 8.64 2 2.66 < 8.54
(.pci/ta ) Re ference 12 0.0265 37.3 8.13 4.02 Soil Facility 4 9.61 13.2 10.8 3.86 16.7 7.68 90Sr Adjacent 12 1.01 39.3 10.3 2.45 16.3 9.89
( pCi/m2) Re ference 12 1.51 23.1 23.9 5.72 < 10.3 8.21 Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 10,400 10,500 10,300 1.32 10,700 10,400 Firh Downstream 3 7,510 9,110 8,530 1.14 8,600 8,550 9,130 20,100 9,800 1.42 10.400 13,700 Gross S Effluent 3 -
(pci/kg) g Aquatic Biota Upstream 1 10,100 10,100 9,470 1.10 9.490 10,100 Benthic Downstream 0 - - 8,200 1.46 8,490 -
2 1,290 8,780 5,310 2.13 6,320 5,040 Gross S Effluent (pci/kg).
2,970 16,100 6,100 3.77 10,900 7,740 Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 8,940 9,100 vascular Plants Downstream 3 2,320 22,600 2.68 12,500 3 2,510 8,790 11,900 2.39 15,600 6,330 Gross S Effluent *
(pCi/kg) 2 23,200 23,400 24,900 1.09 25,000 23,300 Aquatic Biota Upstream 13,700 4.11 20,900 24,500 Downstream 2 23,600 25,300 Seston 19,600 17,000 Ef fl uent 3 12,400 21,100 1.38 20,500 Gross S (pCi/kg) 6
Table 11.11.1. Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)
Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Va'lue Observed i o g g p Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months ,
3 Sample Type Area '6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Months l
Aquatic Biota Upstream '3 3.06 3.06 21.5 2.60 < 16.9
. < 16.9 Fish Downstream 3 18.6 18.6 13.2 4.69 < 26.7 -< 26.7 89 Sr Effluent' 3 . 0.600 35.0 11.6 4.87 < 14.9 4'14.9-(pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 1 < 519 < 519 125 7.47 < 519 < 519 Benthic Downstream 0 - ~ 106 l'.36 < 85.9 -
895r Effluent I < 169 < 169 85.3 1.87 < 169 < 169
! (pci/kg) l 3 < 4.89 769 34.1 5.85 113 ~228 l
Aquatic Biota Upstream vascular Plants Downstream 3 < 27.7 24.9 28.2 2.45 < 27.7 < 27.7 89 Sr Effluent 3 5.42 5.42 14.5 2.13 < 7.90 < 7.90 -
(pCi/kg) , %
Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 < 92.3 < 305 136 2.61 25.7 < 92.3 Seston Downstream 2 25.1 25.1 64.2 7.21 79.8 < 92.7 895r Effluent 2 19.4 19.4 25.4 2.91 17.0 < 56.3 (pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 6.18 56.1 35.6 2.43 45.6 29.9.
Fish Downstream 3 1.89 83.7 32.4 4.35 46.4 40.7 3 12.0 56.5 33.4 2.01 35.1 37.6 90Sr Effluent (pCi/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream i 14.5 14.5 44.4 4.87 75.3 14.5 Benthic Downstream 0 -
130 1.32 133 -
90Sr Effluent 1 < 137 . < 137 91.5 1.59 100 116 (pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 37.3 86.1 41.5 1.66 45.8 56.3 vascular Plants Downstream 3 105 311 74.8 2.23 101 165 90Sr Effluent 3 32.0 37.1 47.3 1.50 50.8 34.4 (pCi/kg)
_ _ __ _ _ - _ _ .. . i
Table 1I .11.1. Mean . Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.)
Number of Minimum Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed, 2 o E g p p Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months .
Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year- 1 Year 6 Months Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 127 127- 24.2 6.51 5.86 61.6 Seston Downstream 2 81 1 540 130 2.94 86.0 311 90Sr Effluent 2 79.2 '79.2 33.8 2.61 22.4z 8.10 (pCi/kg) ,
Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 25.3 25.3 - 171 2.36 < 250 < 25O' Fish Downstream 3 9.66 186 _ 191 4.98 < 250 < 250 106Ru Effluent 3 46.7 46.7 140 2.13 < 250 < 250 (pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 1 < 808 < 808 341- 3.39 < - 808 < 808 Benthic Downstream 0 - -
396 1.86 198 -
106 Ru Effluent 1 < 2,500 < 2,500 358 3.54 < 2,500 < 2,500 -
l -
(pCi/kg) 3 88.1 889 382 2.09 < 491 < 491 Aquatic Biota Upstream 3.85 < 575 < 575 vascular Plant Downstream 3 264 386 225 106 Ru 3 1,980 1,980 342 3.02 < 533 < 533 Effluent (pCi/kg).
Aquatic niota Upstream 2 < 447 < 3,210 4,360 4.43 < 447 < 447 Seston Downstream 2 < 833 < 1,230 1,430 2.12 < 833 < 833 106 Ru Effluent < 8,780 5,280 4.67 < 1,020 < 1,020 3 421 (pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 83.7 211 69.5 2.14 50.5 86.4 Fish Downstream 3 120 198 202 2.55 139 . 54.3 137Cs 200 71.7 2.04 62.0 133 Effluent 3 79.2 (pCi/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 1 176 176 - 116 1.81 126 176 nenthic Downstream 0 - - 56.3 3.12 75.6 -
137Cs Effluent 1 < 779 < 779 196 2.23 65.7 779 (pci/kg) .
---n~ - - om , ----m ---_, a.- em- ---,.n- - - -.,w -A" - -6,
_ s -
Table - I I .11.1. -Mean Values for all Sample Types. (Cont'd.) ~
Number of Mini.wum . Maximum Samples Value Observed Value Observed i o
- 8 i i Analyzed 6 Months 6 Months ,
Sample Type Area 6 Months 1 Year 1 Year 6 Honths Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 62.9 470 161 5.59 314~ 255 vascular Plant Downstream 3 194 203 132 2.21 .125 115 137Cs Effluent 1,070 210 2.63 245 427 3 337 (pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream -2
- 332 332 1,130 2.87 < 556 13.0 gton Downstream 2 159 317 316 1.69 349 238 4
Cs Effluent 3 1,140 1,290 1,320 3.20 < 1,520 586 (pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream .3 19.4 39.5 - 31.1 1.25 < 33.2 15.9 Fish Downstream 3 59.1 196 92.8 3.46 90.8 75.9 95Zr Effluent 3 46.0 123 37.3 1.98 24.9 73.7 ,_.
(pci/kg) M Aquatic Biota Upstream 1 < 107 < 107 89.6 1.28 31.2 < 107 Benthic Downstream 0 - -
52.9 1.90 58.4 -
93Zr Effluent 1 < 322 < 322 91.4 2.41 20.3 322 (pci/kg)
Aquatic Biota Upstream 3 37.8 478 166 3.31 267 '150 Vascular Plants Downstream 3 35.6 113 69.4 1.76 26.8 31.3
, 95Zr Effluent 3 144 1,050 83.4 3.43 143 368 (pci/kg) -
i Aquatic Biota Upstream 2 142 160 381 2.75 < 200 -151 Seston Downstream 2 101 134 231 2.49 322 118 95Zr Effluent 3 144 497 473 2.56 < 546 333 (pci/kg) f F-44 4 0.861 11.3 4.51 2.16 5.47 5.63 f
i pCi/g Nat K 4
i
113 III. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM SCHEDULE III.A. Environmental Radiation Surveillance Schedule Table-III.A.1 outilnes the collection and analysis schedule for the radiation surveillance program.
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 Reference zones to test for any significant differences in values. A similar rationale is used for surface waters and sediments. These are partitioned into
" Effluent" (Farm Pond and ' Slough), " Downstream",and " Upstream" locations for statistical analysis.
The sampling locations are shown in Figures III.B.1 and III.B.2.
Tables III.B.1, III.B.2 and III.B.3 give some detail of the sampling sites in the Facility, Adjacent and Reference zones respectively.
Sampling location A35 was relocated to a location at a feedlot on County Road 19 approximately 2.5 miles South, Southwest of the reactor. This chance was made at the request of the prev'ious occupant and occurred 4/23/83. - R-25 was also changed to a new dairy operation approximately 1.5 miles Southeast of the previous R-25 dairy. The previous dairy went out of business. Air pump location F-3 was moved 300 yards south of previous location due to a fire at the sampling site.
[
wWA s
e
% ys s
y 0 bD 1
dL ; Y la 0. n. Y n
a eT r L n 9f Y 0, o L ,
ht in l lte K 0
a &o L 9 s ee s
,a 1 n o
9m l
ma idE f s
r f
nE 9 i
&sds la lsE1 a t
e a t rf eo yaw r
er Y &
8u .
rt sY T
N 9ehg 8pui l
cn toai t
l mf e
s e es vel ScL e sO u siA e s r ds y i
t
.L 9 d pR r
Smnw unaU t u r u e, f la, 8 o ss a e b, uY.
l G yl aa a i s gK nE r ns a E lp, M, ut my lp
,4 Q t sL lp .,
dn f e i E S aT 2s e 2apH 2s e 3
/ a teot s mmR lpoiag 2 o a, H Y b is tnW u leys ,s s n le t
e leg T ley s le v mE dmo n up u
o Wp itimA ag0 evl a 2tnh eru i
v2r A ef vnN ei vl e a e c n lee LrO eH atr m n , r ;0 Ln a a t d Loy Lna 0
L n
g aT a co hep c o ly p LY t, Y ale
, r o0 mvr e rufoY r
L rt it ond ord u M, r o0 o rN e pse it p i t t f 9 toLc f uc f Ye s f 9
- 2 i vO la g a u t Ie,THos i
s s ndH e s oa sLi s R t ad l
s i a& sao zT a cF aKw a&
AM l
c e E F A s
s mir t n
i e N s sNp e9 e c yN eym e s e9
- L C omt r
aa r
ic it s O oOm r
o m8 ar tumslaO o al un md o an mEe a Eh m8 ar U ls, 0 Ggc s f M GMc SS r S p aM Shir SWto SS D e 1 v y d fo le E iu t b
- e. b q s a l t il e b l
C nd e r
a ). o S o iz d n et vg -
t e
r a nsa t M c o A h n de s o
o nh A y u t
s.
at r m R b a p ao en e ;
s G -
s e
r o r as h
t g a
e O S a t
b s
tyla e n r le.
e R E e % a is n tyr m A , .
t la 0 licim i
n P S es 1 e v
pos t ahig r a e o c s :s hs a i
E Y ae o ;
s s is a t, or er a ). drc na eh i
r a v
C L A ler t s e - o s a Ft s
- eY cse dgo b npaf a e Fo ee r s e
o) g4 ;s N N rY r
pY s r e( er a, A A o f
3 u sL gf s o yL e sl cL r nnt ai:
innd moin :eer tiRuY f e tadnrY oH bH ut e ye H de L s Y u egow0 u n et . cnmL D e 2 pT lps r T laGT s tsL L N ga s eN oN nf L b, aio t
i osa a, l odaR pnp 4a uR ao N H r gt ts s E l s I
e , y . p a E E A tn v eO 1lt Y aO T 1 e gl t
r,se Yila m gI fongT e leleL m nO nrp i vM f
msye Lf t
n V S e E cr L i vM v et r us M N le v
f n oeuA f
ele co er niR handiR c r R n tas ewiT O 'e ula ncuA a s aA U
I C p e o l uD L te tr to M L sd .
r ntsAta ojadU erdU S N s it mL r eN n a
w c
et pa .
rY.
e sYo x tcamUl, e sd f ta ouYO E a c u T ooO c ss a o L y
Lr p 0 o N e. e s A,Y LeO ssrLe N U s A cl f
i l re fsH lanHpp s9r Ni .
y s s n M, r al e f teaHs O O on Y fla ao s _b la. ityHi i
e aT w ea r h m w s aT a m & e A (n l
T w i s) I rw I
T C i s Lo p m _s eN mN a, 9 pao aiNe il r n3Ne R R mhe aw or nO m8mcr s c p1 s
i 3 apt l s
o go a uOe.
rc M (i a r a a 0aOh m,Oh F me E/ SM GSsAe 9FMt o osMt f
IA T1 Saf i
m l
G t s o D dla cm Rf o ta nh e &
A GN ta A n n as e p 9
f s R IL u m( s om Uo 8 i
P ca t
mg a r
sa eg d L M Ot e a
I iu m S s r yo e A n yt m it m t A o bo t r e a d lac c T S p i
r g n nie e u dr t a, a N en f d al t l l
E d ni o te n m mne o e is b a u c M s aa % ms r y i
ty s s m t r
ruit N t 3 tel a i
v o iu c
e . tc7 1 t
a O n a en Y; Y.
t c
i G
r a
7 it pY s
e1 p , a R da r. r s d ht yd L L a T aL s IV s an K dH c m .
- 1. mR am l N
s e
da EnT hi cL Y Y a g ea
)
l l
mE i m
mna.e l
a L /n H o EaN L fo , le v a gn a i. l E
- mt i WrO, e e l pl S TE R
E s
e .
dY nL df iad e ,A ggb e a C
, 1 e
gin c rlt M. T s1 y aR i n taa L
mU d.
r n el R ttei R t
. f s R lal e ) E v r a adv N le tuQ ea ae e
A n ev at 1 v e r o Ie fot e A mT f e y, tal y ec U U a uR s e r i n s A
L A
v ymo r
is O O rota L s tA a, m m
b e Tl n ca e, a b .
lle n
o eup vr irU t Yu o ts yY ab n
os n fo a a.O i
e, tcom Ls e s os oL l va R g. s I tc A
a ep c iio Em e
s A r r G ()1E l ot r
tes e ct a tem y ps D ha g l e ta bur T r p la ty T
pu d lop st R s, n R ao s
s mi* r ci c s c A . a li A s
. ly n i E omt o r e i
L r
Ggc aa r
Np oer Gs p U e.
Oh N o
F c
a U O
n o O laev l
l i
ta r
e inrp A c t a
f h
T hs gt c W ini
) e e w s p c t n S e o fa iac wn ru aa l
s e t E a r pt R c eS o v c a U i
n enf nl i
r la e s T o S ) oo cm tt s p h op oZ e si iso e oZnoo
- e. O 2 f c n m u d eL srd is o Aev ) e s to gf P 1 r a o & r c) )
To s T rc I no X R E
Et ehi c e r r S N& -R 6 6 O4 p t
n Ztnvy e v n Ril s;or l
a d e n e - m yeic a e S Ls2 f
R, B a, I
io i Ag e.
, I t r E ce f i
x ta) io ta) e s p) icr n s u &o A p1 Hnt s3) o w1 w4- 1 li c jf aeA i e s N NhA i
Pal ae g-t a Ha6 it 6 Cmoge2 w
- dnFAR ade mT a
- h r o
p ia- RleA eA coa r - t a I al - 9 u d 1C f
Sebci udA, m u) E ba1, t.
p) c Df, 2, c) A. T ee aA r S u E e e Mn EO1 TL- F 3
Omttr -4 Mer ir t2i i - Tt -
i c2 e -
fa 3.
- OitoF-t 1 c - k l 1 Art b h Usdc2. s e
le g - - - t n
i aaF rF( AoF rF suF eF i -
b e e o XT( TMpc(
A T P( P( S( OS( H( M (F O(2niF(
A ad aL FARI t Z E
(
W F T o 1 2 N
Ta bl e ' I I I . B.1. Facility area and effluent sampling locations for environmental media. ,
Media Sampled at Location Location and Description (see Fig. II.B.1)
Loc.
TLD AIR M S HO AQB Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments.
No. 2
{
F 1 * ** 0.8 mi. N: potato cellar; TLD on pole at NE corner of barn; precipitation {
on hill E of barn. j F 2
- 1.1 mi. NNE; cabin.
F 3 F 4 * **
- 0.8 mi. S: first shed along drive; precipitation in corral; forage and soil
[
S of shed.
F 7
- 0.8 mi. NNE; pole by gate at corner of Goosequill Rd.
F 8
- 0.6 mi. NE; 2nd pole S of cattle-guard on hill.
F 9
- 0.8 mi. SSE; 2nd pole W of pump house. =
- 0.9 mi. SSW; 0.3 mi. W of intersection of 19 and 34. m r 11 7th pole N of intersection.
- 0.8 mi. SW; F 12 F 13
- 0.6 mi. WSW; pole nearest intersection.
F 14
- 1.0 mi. NW; pole nearest corner.
F 44 *
- 1.1 mi. E; Leroy Odenbaugh dairy.
F 51
- 0.3 mi. N; Ted Horst farm, pole SW of house.
F 46
- 1.0 mi. SW; 2nd pole N of intersection, near Aristocrat Angus office.
F 47
- 0.4 mi. E; pole near driveway to pump house.
F 49
- 0.1 mi. W; tap outside Visitors Center.
E 38 *
- 1.3 mi. NNE; Goosequill pond.
- 0.2 mi. NW; Concrete slough above and below point of entry of plant water.
E 41 F = Facility area (within one mile). S = Soil and Forace sampling locations.
Codes:
E = Effluent surface streams.
TLD = Thermoluminescent Dosimeter for measuring external gamma exposure.
AIR = Air sampling location; ** = atmospheric precipitation collected.
H20 = Water sampling locations; silt also sampled from surface sources.
AQ8 = Aquatic biota sampling locations
Table III.B.2 Adjacent area sampling locations for environmental media.
Media Sampled at Location Location Description (See Figs. 11.B.1 and ll.B.2)
Loc.
HO Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments No. TLD AIR M S 2
AQB
- 4.5 mi. NNE; Lloyd Rumsey farm; 2 mi. N, 1.5 mi. W of Peckham.
A 5 * *
- 5.5 mi. S; Clifton Wissler farm; 2 mi. W, 2.5 mi. S of Platteville; TLD on A 6 pole 30 ft N of parlor.
- 5.0 mi. NW; 1 mi. S of Colo. 56, 1 mi. E of I-25, pole on NE corner.
A 27
- *
- 6.0 mi. NW; Virgil Podtburg dairy; Colo. 60, 2 mi. W of Johnstown; TLD on I A 28 last pole on NE corner.
- 3.5 mi. NNW; 3 mi. S; 1.6 mi. E of Johnstown. TLD on pole by the stand of trees.
A 29 3.5 mi. NE; 1 mi. S of Colo. 256 on Colo. 60, pole on NE corner.
A 30
- *
- 6.0 mi. ENE; 1.5 mi. E of Peckham; TLD on pole in front of house.
! ~A 3I 4.0 mi. E; 3 mi. N of Platteville; 1.2 mi. E of US 85; NW pole. l l A 32
- 5.0 mi. SE; Niles Miller Dairy; 0.2 mi. S, 0.5 mi. E of Platteville. l A 33 6.5 mi. SW; 1 mi. E of I-25 at Colo. 254; pole on SW corner. ,,
A 34
- 2.5 mi. SSW; .5 mi. N of Colo. 66 on RD 19, Curtis Strong feedlot. g;.'
A 35 Dave Gruber dairy; 2 mi W of 1125 on Colo. 56, then 1.5 mi. S.
- *
- 8.0 mi. W; A 36 TLD 0.5 mi. W.
- 9.5 mi. NW; Bill Ray dairy; 2 mi. E and 1 mi. N of Peckham.
A 48 A 50
- 5.0 mi. SE; 0.8 mi. E of Platteville.
- 12.5 mi. ENE; Lower Latham Res.; 2.5 mi. E of LaSalle.
D 37
- 5.0 mi. ENE; Gilcrest water from U.S. Post Office.
D 39 South Platte River at Colo. 60.
- 5.5 mi. ENE; D 40 St. Vrain Creek at Jct. Rd.19 , 0.2 mi. from discharge.
D 45
- 1.0 mi. ,N; Codes: A = Adjacent area (one to ten miles from reactor).
D = Downstream potable or surface waters.
All other symbols same as for Table III.B.I.
Table III.B.3. Reference area and upstream sampling locations for environmental media Loc. . Media Sampled at Location Location Description (see Figs.-II.B.1. and II. B.2.)
No. TLD AIR M S H,,0 AQB Distance and Direction from Reactor; Comments.
- 11.5 mi. NW; 4.2 mi. W of I-25 on C910. 60; TLD on pole W of farm driveway.
R 15 Mountain View Farms; N side of Colo. 402 W of I-25.
R 16 *- *
- 11.8 mi. NNW; R 17 * *
- 11.8 mi. NNE; Bob Schneider Dairy; I mi. S of US 34 on RD 25; on pole.0.5 mi. N of parlor on RD 25.
R 18
- 10.0 mi. NNE; on pole on SE corner of intersection of 65th Ave. and 37th l Street (Greeley) -
R 19 * .13.3 mi. NNE; US 34 at 47th Ave. (Greeley); pole or SW corner, opposite golf course.
R 20 * *
- 11.1 mi. ENE; Dick Stroh dairy; 2 mi. E;, .1.6 mi. S of Lasalle; TLD on pole
.W of parlor j
l R 21 j corner. . .
O l R 22 * * *' 11.1 mi. SE; Hagans Bros. Dairy; 4.2 mi. S of Platteville; 4.2 mi. E of US 85 -)
' TLD on 1st pole E of' drive.
- *
- 11.5 mi. S; Dick Silver; 3.5 mi W of_Ft. Lupton, TLD on 1st pole W on drive.
R 23 R 24
- 12.2 mi. SSW; I-25 at Colo. 52; pole W of the frontage road; NW corner.
13.2 mi. SW; 5665 Weld County RD 3.
R 25 On US 287, 2.5 mi on Colo. 56,~fnd pole S on RD 2E.
12.2 mi. WNW; l R 26 l
U 42
- 1.5 mi. WSW; St. Vrain Creek at bridge, RD 34.
- 0.6 mi. E; South Platte River, at dam and inlet ponds.
U 43 Codes: R = Reference area (greater than 10 miles from reactor).
U = Upst' ream from effluent discharge points.
All other symbols as in Table.III B.1.
118 Figure III.B. I. On-site Sampling Locations 1
~
NN M.
/
I g
/ '
_ j) 8
-. , 1 JL
/O \
-/
T
~~ -
i N
/ I N y~ ~ j r' gx; '
g
/ l 7
N
\
/ . ;T -D ! \
\
/
.s e r -
l / 0 8 Eu'n---- i i \
i n i g s; gen , ,,t E'i l h__ _ _,_ a
' ' . _ _ . :? .g t
\ *!
[
L o1 /
\ l I, /
\ '
l 1 e J, /
I ! /
GE?CRf
- N p.4 i N ,-*
x- /
On-site and close-in sampling locations.
F = facility area, E = effluent stream, U = upstream, D = downstream.
O
119 Figure III.B.II. Off-site Sanpling Location-s r_,i. , q , i ,
- 263
-1
[' [ u tovttako /
g 'f "II A 1
,1 l EVAN3 F jr p R-651 r "df
' 1 a
\ Ia ] 1pT" , 2 -i [
N l l f ?82b(LLElf"s g
D } ,%. fso/ 9' I ELwELL i F i s' f N M ~ N s ,,, , '
.-k N)>_. 3 erTwovog 9 ,_ _
_j lPEcdM AM i
~ ~ ' ' ~
J . T- [
^ - - - - - -
-- -_J._ -._.L.
g, e g 1 , ,
- ,j e s r--
e' w(ao
[.!'lll .$f Glpy
" u l - - - _
A M' '
i WiLToN- R E S.
g? , 1
,, l u, e ._
D g j ,
_ _7, _l e _e, l
E,h g l l O A** PLATTEst LE ,a i l l J o's I /*"'*h.tt i N J M7 m A.7 yn - - - -- T r 3 g-37 4
i ggfgj ~
n' ; ;t ", j l--
- >- t-ti ,
t-1 A V ,-'_.
- _ __q- 4 __ .1. _ i l I ih(-
L ,s 9? -
l l'
@-._ _4 _ t __y_ 3 t _
l l q
- _____._ -. p -a
,,g [g_2_ __ _ e _ 7_ . _
f-
' - ~ ~ ~ ~ -
-#b
-4 -a u r s i rT.LUPToN ! 2
(, R- /
1
- h f
) i i l
! M (T i ! IlI Ii C 5 miles IOmiles SCALE l
l
- - _ ____- -______ _ ______-_ ___