ML20072U505
| ML20072U505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1983 |
| From: | POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072U479 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304110332 | |
| Download: ML20072U505 (172) | |
Text
'
POWER AUTIiORITY OF Tile STATE OF NEW YORK ANNUAL ENVIRONfilENTAL OPERATING REPORT PART B: RADIOLOGICAL REPORT JANUARY 1,1982 - DECEr.IBER 31, 1982 JAf.IES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-59 DOCKET NUI,1BER 50-333 h
8304110332 830331 PDR ADOCK 05000333 R PDR
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 Program Objectives 2 II. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND DESIGN 3 Sample Methodology 3 Analysis Performed 7 4
Changes in Program 7 III. SAf.!PLE SUP.lMARIES 10 IV. ANALYTICAL RESULTS 26.
V. DATA SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 58 Lake Program 59 Terrestrial Program 77 Conclusion 96 Exceptions to the Prograa 97 References 98 VI. HISTORICAL DATA 99 VII. FIGURES AND MAPS 127 L
i
LIST OF TABLES P,, age Table I Required Sample Collection and Analysis (Lake Program) 8 Table II Required Sample Collection and Analysis (Land Program) 9 Table 1 Periphyton Results 27 Table 2 Bottom Sediment Results 29 Table 3 Mollusk Results 30 Table 4 GAfilMARUS Results 31 Table 5 Fish Results 32 Table 6 Vlater Composite Results, Gross Beta 33 Table 7 b'ater Composite Results, Tritium, Sr-89, Sr-90 34 Table -8 Vlater Composite Results, Gamma Isotopic 35 Table 9, 10 Particulate Filter Results, Gross Beta 37, 38 Table 11 Particulate Composite Results, Gamma Isotopic 39 Table 12, 13 Airborne I-131 Results 41, 42 Table 14 TLD Results 43 Table 15 Radiation f.lonitor Readings 45 Table 16 Milk Results, I-131 49 Table 17 f.lilk Results, Gamma Isotopic 50 Table 18 Milk Results, Sr-90 52 Table 19 Milch Animal Census Results 53 Table 20 Food Product Results, Gamma Isotopic 55 Table 21 Pasture Grass Results, Gamma Isotopic 57 11
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Offsite Environmental Stations and TLD Locations 128 Figure 2 Offsite Radiological Monitoring Stations 130 Figure 3 Onsite Environmental Stations and TLD Locations 131 Figure 4 Produce, Meats, Poultry and Eggs Sampio Locations 132 Figure 5 Milch Animal Census Locations 133 Figure 6 New York State Regional Map 134 Figure 7 Bottom Sediment Description 135 Figure 8 Graph - Periphyton (Co-60) 136 Figure 9 Graph - Periphyton (Cs-137) 137 Figure 10 Graph - Periphyton (Ce-144) 138 Figure 11 Graph - Mollusk (Co-60) 139 Figure 12 Graph - Mollusk (Mn-54) 140 Figure 13 Graph - Mollusk (Sr-90) 141 Figure 14 Graph - Bottom Sediment (Co-60) 142 Figure 15 Graph - Bottom Sediment (Cs-137) 143 Figure 16 Graph - Fish (Cs-137) 144 Figure 17 Graph - Fish (Sr-90) 145 Figure 18 Graph - Lake Water Gross Beta 146 Figure 19 Graph - Lake Water Gross Beta for 1982 147 Figure 20 Graph - Air Particulate Gross Beta 148 Figure 21 Graph - Air Particulate Gross Deta, Weeks 1-26 (1982) 149 Figure 22 Graph - Air Particulate Gross Beta, Weeks 27-53 (1982) 150 Figure 23 Graph - Air Particulate Composite (Co-60) for 1982 151 iii
[
8
( Page Figure ' 24 Graph - Air Particulate Composite (Cs-137) for 1982 152 l Figure 25 Graph - Air Particulate Composite (Nb-95) for 1982 153 Figure 20 Graph - Air Particulate Composite (Nb-95) for 1980-1981 154 Figure 27 Graph - Air Particulate Composite (Ce-144) for 1982 155 r Figure 28 Graph - Air Particulate Composite (Ce-144) for 1980-1981 156 Figure 29 Milk (Cs-137) 157 Figure 30 flilk (Cs-137), Stations 4,14,12, 7, 45, 40, for 1982 158 Figure 31 f:lilk (I-131) 159 Figure 32 f.lilk (Sr-90) 160 t
l L
I' l
i l
l iV
i
[
{
I 1
(
INTRODUCTION i
- I-A INTRODUCTION The Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) is the owner and licensee of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) which is located on the eastern portion of the Nine Mile Point promontory approximately one-half mile due east of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corpora-tion (NMPC) Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNPS). The NMPNPS Unit
- 1 is located on the western portion of the site and is a boiling water re-actor with a design capacity of 620 f.lue. The NMPNPS has been in commer-cial operation since the fall of 1969. Located between the JAFNPP and NMPNPS , Nine Mile Point Unit #2 is under construction. NMPNPS Unit #2 will have generation capacity of 1,100 MWe and is expected to be completed in 1986. The JAFNPP is a boiling water reactor with a power output of 810 MWe (net). Ini.ial fuel loading of the reactor core was completed in November of 1974 Initial criticality was achieved in late November, 1974 and commercial operation began in July of 1975.
The site is located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County, New York, approximately seven miles northeast of the city of Oswego, New York. Syracuse, New York is the largest metropolitan center in the area and is located 40 miles to the south of the site. The area con-aists of partially wooded land and shoreline. The land adjacent to the site is used mainly for recreational and residential purposes. For many miles to the west, cast and south the country is characterized by rolling terrain rising gently up from the lake, composed mainly of glacial deposits. Ap-proximately 34 percent of the land area in Oswego County is devoted to farming.
The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for the FitzPatrick Plant is a site program with responsibility for the program shared by the Power Authority and Niagara Mohawk. Similar Technical Specifications for radiological monitoring of the environment allows for majority of the sam-pling and analysis to be a joint undertaking. Data generated by the pro-gram is shared by the two facilities with review and publication of the data undertaken through each organization.
This report is submitted in accordance with Section 5.6.1 of Appendix D , to DPR-59, Docket 50-333. Environmental reports of this nature have been compiled and submitted in semiannual and annual reports since 1974.
This report contains data from samples representing the period from Janu-ary 1,1982 to December 31, 1982.
1
I-B PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program are as follows:
- 1. To determine and evaluate the effects of plant operation on the envi-rons and to verify the effectiveness of the controls on radioactive ma-terial sources.
- 2. To monitor and evaluate natural radiation levels in the environs of the JAFNPP site.
l
- 3. To meet the requirements of applicable state and federal regulatory guides and limits.
- 4. To provide information by which the general public can evaluate the
. environmental aspects of nuclear power using data which is factual and unbiased.
i j
f I
3 1
- --a . -- - m-- e h m_a; m-
- _,Ah - A .- .m .h L s _ 4 5.
l 1
4 1
J j II i
a i .
J PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND DESIGN k
?
i t
I l
l I
a B
i i
i i
t -
II PROGRAF.1 It.lPLEMENTATION AND DESIGN To achieve the objectives listed in Section I-B, sampling and analysis are performed as outlined in Tables I and II in this section.
4 The sample collections for the radiological program are accomplished by a dedicated site environmental staff from both the James A. FitzPatrick Plant and the Nine Mile Point Station. The site staff is assisted by a con-tracted environmental engineering company, Ecological Analysts, Inc.(EA).
EA was responsible for performing the 1982 Aquatic Ecology Study at the site which is required by Section 4.1, Appendix B of the plant operating license (DPR-59). The staff required by EA to perform the aquatic studies program is used to perform the radiological aquatic sampling and assists the site staff with the terrestrial sampling program.
- 1. SAP.1PLE COLLECTION f.iETHODOLOGY A. Lake Water (surface water)
The two indicator stations are the respective inlet canals at JAFNPP and NMPNPS. These samples are composited using continuously running pumps which discharge into large holding tanks.
The control station sample is collected from the city of Oswego water intake. The sample is drawn from the intake prior to treat-ment and is composited in a large sample bottle.
Quarterly composite samples are made up from proportional ali-quotes of monthly samples.
B. ~ Air Particulate / Iodine The air sampling stations are located in two rings surrounding the site. The onsite locations. ring the terrestrial area around the plants inside the site boundary.
The onsite sampling network is composed of nine stations. The offsite air monitoring locations range six to 17 miles from the site and are composed of six stations. Air monitoring locations are shown on Figures 1 and 2 of Section VII.
i The air particulate glass fiber filters are approximately two inches in diameter and are placed in sample holders in the intake line of a vacuum sampler. Directly- down stream from the particulate filter i
is a 2 x 1 inch charcoal cartridge used to absorb . airborne radiciodine. The samplers run continuously and the charcoal cartridges and particulate filters are changed on a weekly basis.
3 r -- ,, , - - ..
I The particulate filters are composited on a monthly basis by loca-tion (offsite , onsite) after being counted individually for gross beta activity.
C. I.lilk During 1982 milk samples were collected from six locations. Five of these locations are considered indicator samples and the sixth is used as a control sample. Fililk samples are collected in polyeth-ylene bottles from the bulk storage tank at each sampled farm.
Before the sample is drawn the tank contents are agitated from three to five minutes to assure a homogenous mixture of milk and butterfat. Two gallons are collected during the first week of ecch month from each of the five farms. An additional one gallon is I collected from each farm at mid month to make up the second half of the monthly composite. The complete composite is made up from one gallon collected during the first week of the month and one gallon from the mid month collection. The samples are frozen and shipped to the analytical contractor routinely within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of collection in insulated shipping containers. The milk sampling lo-cations are found on Figure 4 of Section VII.
I) . P.leat. Poultry and Eggs Semiannually one kilogram .of meat is' collected from loc 6tions within a 10 mile radius of the site. Periodic phone calls are made to the local slaughter houses to determine availability of slaughtered live-stock from within the sampling area. Whenever possible meat sam-ples 'are collected from locations previously used. Attempts are made to collect a control sample located outside the 10 mile radius, with each series of collections.
4 Semiannually one kilogram of poultry and one kilogram of eggs are collected from each of three locations within a 10 mile radius of the site. Attempts are made to collect poultry and eggs at the same time as the meat samples. The poultry and eggs are frozen and shipped in insulated containers. Whenever possible samples are obtained from previously sampled farms . Attempts are made to collect a control sample located outside the 10 mile radius, with each series of collections (see Section VII, Figure 5).
E. Human Food Crops liuman food crops are collected during the late summer harvest season at locations previously sampled, if available. One kilogram each, of the two types of fruits and/or vegetables from each of the three locations within a 10 mile radius of the site are collected.
The types of fruits and vegetables sampled depend on what is lo-cally available at the time of collection. Attempts are made to col-leet at least one broad leaf type vegetable from each location. The 4
fruits and vegetables are chilled prior to shipping and shipped ;
fresh in insulated containers. Attempts are made to collect a con-trol sample located outside the 10 mile radius for each type of sam-ple (see Section VII, Figure 5).
F. Soil Samples Soil samples are required once every three years. Samples were collected during 1980. Soil samples were taken at each of the 15 air monitoring stations at this time. No soil samples were collected during 1982.
G. Fish Samples Available fish species are iemoved from the Nine alile Point Aquatic Ecology Study monitoring collections during the spring and fall collection periods. Samples are collected from a combination of the four onsite sample transects and one offsite sample transect (see Section VII, Figure 6). Available species are selected under the following guidelines:
- 1) 0.5 to 1 kilogram of edible portion only of a maximum of three species per location.
- 2) Samples composed of more than 1 kilogram of single species from the same location are divided into samples of 1 kilogram each prior to shipping. - A maximum of three samples per spe-cies per location are used. Weight of samples are the edible portions only.
Selected fish samples are frozen immediately after collection and segregated by species and location. Samples are shipped frozen in insulated containers for analysis.
H. GALlhiARUS GALihlARUS (fresh water shrimp) samples are collected by EA per-sonnel during the spring and fall season from two onsite locations and from one offsite location. Natural and artificial substrates are used. to collect samples. The GAh!alARUS samples are removed from the sampling gear, frozen and shipped to the analytical con-tractor in insulated shipping containers.
i I. EIollusks During the spring and fall seasons at two onsite locations and one offsite location benthic samples are collected. The mollusks are collected by divers and sorted. The tissue is removed from the shell, frozen and shipped for analysis in insulated containers.
l
J. Bottom Sediments One kilogram of bottom sediment sample is collected at two onsite locations and one offsite location. Samples are collected at the same time and location as the mollusk samples, where possible, by a diver. The samples are placed in plastic bags, sealed and shipped for analysis in insulated containers.
K. Periphyton Periphyton (fresh water algae) samples are collected in the spring and fall seasons from two onsite locations and one offsite location.
Periphyton is collected from natural substrates. The periphyton is scraped from the substrates into vials, labeled, frozen and shipped in insulated containers for offsite analysis.
L. TLD (direct radiation)
Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's) are used to measure direct radiation in the JAF/NMP-1 environment. The TLD stations are placed around the site using a two zone distribution. The first group of TLD's is located within the site boundary and are called "onsite" TLD's. The second set of TLD stations is the "offsite" stations, located at the offsite air monitoring stations 'and in areas of special interest such as population centers. Also included in the offsite group are the field control TLD's. A total of 45 TLD stations were used for the 1982 TLD program.
Each TLD set is made up of two CaSOg dosimeters (two chips per dosimeter), sealed in a polyethylene package to insure dosimeter integrity. The TLD packages are further protected by placement in Plexiglas " birdhouses", or by tape sealing to supporting surfaces. The dosimeters are collected, replaced and evaluated on a quarterly basis.
M. Special Samples Additional samples were collected during the 1982 sample period to enlarge the data base for farm related sample media.
The following additional sample media was collected during 1982:
1
- 1) Pasture Grass - Pasture grass was collected three times during the 1982 grazing season. Samples were taken at each of the seven routine milk sample locations and were collected in con-junction with the morithly milk samples in July, August and September. Each sample was analyzed for gamma emitters using gamma spectral analysis.
l 6
- 2. ANALYSIS PERFORMED '
The analysis of the environmental radiological samples are performed by the Radiation P.lanagement Corporation- (Rf.1C) and the James A.
, FitzPatrick Environmental Counting Laboratory (JAFECL). The follow-ing samples are analyzed at the JAFECL:
Air Particulate Filter gross beta (weekly)
Air Particulate Filter Composites -
gamma spectral analysis
- (monthly)
- Airborne Radioiodine gamm'a spectral analysis (weekly)
Surface 1/ater Composites - gamma spectral analysis (monthly)
Special Samples (pasture grass, soil, etc.) gamma spectral analysis (as collected)
The remainder of the sample analysis, as outlined in Tables I and 11 in this section is performed by the Radiation, f,lanagement Corporation.
- 3. CilANGES TO TIIE 1982 SAI.iPLE PROGRAF.I A. f.lilk sample location number 45 was added to the milk sampling program in July of 1982. The new sample location was added as a result of the 1982 spring milch animal census which identified this farm as being in a critical downwind sector. The new sampling ,
station is located in a SE direction (125 degrees) at a distance of i approximately 8.0 miles from the site. The addition of milk sample location ' number 45 brings the total number of milk sample stations to seven for the 1982 sampling program.
I l
e l
t I
7
TAllLli I SAMPl.li COLLliCTION AND ANALYSIS SIT!! ItADIGI.OGICAL liNVIRONMiiNTAl. MONITORING PROGRAM A. l.AKli PROGRAMlI)
MiiDI A ANALYSIS FRiiQUliNCYl4) LOCATION (2)
- 1. Fish GeLi, 89Sr G 90Sr 2/yr 2 onsite 1 offsite
- 2. Mollusks GeLi, 89Sr 4 90 Sr 2/yr 2 onsite 1 offsite
- 3. Gammarus GeLi, 89Sr G 90Sr 2/yr 2 onsite 1 offsite
- 4. nottom Sediments GeLi, 90Sr 2/yr 2 onsite 1 offsite
- 5. Periphyton GeLi 2/yr 2 onsite 1 offsite
- 6. I. uke Water Gil, GSA or GeLi M Comp. 3(3) 3li, 89S r, 90Sr Qtr. Comp.
Notes:
(1) Program cont inued for at least three years after the startup of James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
(2) Onsite locations samples collected in the vicinity of discharges, offsite samples collected at a distance of at least five miles from site.
(3) The three lake water samples to include Nine Mile Point Unit 1 intake water, James A. FitzPatrick intake water, and Oswego City water.
(4) Samples of items 1 through 5 collected in spring and fall when available.
I
i TAliLE II SAMPl.E COLLECTION AND ANAL.YSIS SITli RAD 101.0GICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 11 LAND PROGRAMll)
NiiDI A ANAL.YSIS FREQUENCY NO. OF LOCATIONS LOCATIONS
- 1. Air Particulates Cli W At least 10 9 onsite 6 offsite GSA M Comp.@)
- 2. Soil GSA, 90Sr Every 3 years 15 9 onsite 6 offsite
- 3. TI.1) Gamma Dose Qtr. 20 14 onsite 6 offsite
- 1. Radiation Monitors Gamma Dose C 10 9 onsite 1 offsite
- 5. Airborne - 1 131 GSA W At least 10 9 onsite 6 offsite 6 Milk 1 M 4 l7) (8)
GSA, 90Sr M Comp.
- 7. Iluman Food Crops GSA, 13I l A 3 (8)
Notes: (Cont.)
(6) Onsite samples counted together, offsite counted together, any high count samples counted separately.
(7) Frequency applied only during grazing season.
(8) Samples to be collected from farms within a 10-mile radius having the highest potential concentrations of radionuclides.
Abbreviations:
M Comp. - Monthly composite of weekly or bi-weekly samples A - Annually BW - Bi-weekly (alternate wks.)
Gil - Gross beta analysis W - Weekly Qtr. - Quarterly GeLi - Gamma spectral analysis on a GeLi system (quantitative) M - Monthly SA - Semiannually GSA - Gamma spectral analysis on a Nal system (quantitative) C - Continuous
L<+--AR_u4+ ksw. - - . ~1- + 9- ~- ma ~ -- 1k- M --b L - - - +- 3w -
1LW2 4A4-" " - -A-- a-- D9X ,E-- - A E
I I
f h
i e -
6 4
l i i l
1 III 1
l r
4 j
SAMPLE SUMMARIES i
4 l
I.
(
I-l l
t r
b I.
l
[
i I
t " '
, , - <- . . . , .n_,---.. . - - . - - . . .- - , .. - - .,-- - - .. . . . . . . . - . - - . . .. .-.. ... -- - - - --,--__,,_, - ,, ,,,--n - , , - . . --- .
III SAr.lPLE SUP.IP.1 ARIES All sample data is summarized in tabls form. The tables are titled "Envi-ronmental Sample Data Summary" and use the following format:
A. Sample medium.
B. Type of analysis performed.
C. Number of analyses performed.
~
D. Range of detectable levels. The data column is labeled " Lower Limits of Detection". This wording indicates that inclusive data is based on 4.66 sigma of background.
E. f.iean value of the data, based on positive measured values *.
F. Standard deviation, based on positive measured values. (The standard deviations represent the variability of measured results for different samples rather than single sample uncertainty *.)
G. Ala.tmum and minimum values.
- 11. Range of the data, calculated by subtracting the minimum value from the maximum value
- Only positive measured values are used in statistical calculations. The use of LLD's in these calculations would result in the means being biased high and the standard deviations being biased low.
v.
10
E C 5 2 45 7 4 3 64 M 02 - - - - - 0000 - - - - 6100 - - - 30110 - - -
R 01 0000 01 00 00000 M
U E 6 4443 3 22 MUL 55333 52 - - - - - 0000 - - - - 5500 - - - 00000 - - -
NI VA I 01 0000 0100 00000 M
_ Y M U E R MU HLA 1 6488 26 85973 A A V M
64 - - - - - 0000 - - - -
02 0000
- 2. G. 0 0 - - - 30110 - - -
1200 00000 M
M U
S D N R 0l A
A D A N
l 45 08 1 34 00 37 2 6 76 T A VI T E
- - - - - 0. A - - - - 3 4.A00 - - - 1A 0000.A - - -
A S D 00 0 00 00 0 D
E L
P D.LLID D
D D.L DD.LL LI DD DDD DDD M A N
9 I, 1 LLLL54G6LLLL 1823 L.LL45 I
A E
M 58 . L L.LL 01 I LLI 0000 I. I0000 LLI. LLI..L I 7900.LLL 10100.I.LL I.
LL S AAAAA AAAA 0100 LLL AAA 00000IAAA L
A t N 78 00226 7 7
01 03 9
1 332 7 1 224
. T i 0 l
Mi)C l
00000 0 0000 0 001 0 0000 N l l EI e
g n
EE dN 00000 E 0 EE N NN 0000 EE NN 0
E 000 N
E 0 EE N NN 0000 E R D(E r a
OO 77 O OO 6 8 OO O G O OO G07 E
NN00115N7NN01 02 NN0N1 5N5NN0002 M W O f 00000 0 0000 0 1
000 0 0000 N L O 00000 0 0000 0 000 0 0000
_ O R
I D 5
V f E
_ O Sl Y R M t t
_ N O .L A f 0 222222222222222 444444444444444 8
1 E N N R A I P
S O
P S
C l
i
- l$ c S l
D i p l S N A Y
L A t o I A D E S o
N E lD s r O A Ml I o N F RC l o G 74G2 43 OOIUN a r t
a 6 746 243 .
n 405 50 342 330 89 c 705 405 503423 3089 E E R m i t no 705 69 91 11221 -
1 5 5 i 69 91 1- 221 4 - - - - - - - 55 1
U P E - - - - - i - - - - d L I P I
a G C l norbuscal le KMCZNI CCITCl 0F t
su0e t l I
n l
n o r h u s c a h s u o e-le-KMCZNI CCI TCI CF t t t A
V E
V l
i t
s
) o nte P E
L M)
U o w E
_ P I ts t y( N MDiE n a O A
S M (u lp g Y eil L k ri N
_ aeC LPp O
A
[
i l
I I
i i
U @MW e
N @ )
,, i i c. i i i i i i i o
i i o. . =. o. i i . ,
i o. . =. .
m ocoo o o e
E EE ***
aa
-m i i N i i . . . . i o
i i T. . o. . . . i e ocoo i ".
o o
"o.
E o 1
E a w EM Eg ~me w N
- > .. I N.
g O
i i I . I i e i i
- n. o.
. . 6 i i i i o. i .
ocoo o o E
o o
em S
g =gg i i < i i i i . i i i i < *ooo M
~. o. . . i ,
=
i o. i N
o, g gg .
o o Q
W J
=
n == ======= == ==== =a =
g .J .a .2 ; 3 .4 .a .J .2 .22 .2 .J .2 J .2
.a w
.2 a .4 4 2 .2 4 .a .2 .2 .4 TNo-wton.2.4 ;.4 .a on ;
==
.23 N* 2 .2 .4
( 3
.2 .J o .2
.4 .2
.2 .2
.2 .4
- .; .2 .4
.J .a J2o o* o o* .2 3 .2
.J .23 2
2 o-
- o*
J 4 m=
- -o
- e. , n e. n - c. c. . m e,
< , e. n .-. N n c.o.c.c.o.c.o.c.c.o. c. o. w. o. c. c. o. o. o.
g EUy cococococo o ct o gg omeco o g o.g W *a*_= =
zz = z as *** * *2 =0 C O E es n n en ce ce ce ce ca n, Z Z to ce ce ce w ca = es :
t o o.c.o.c.o.o.o. c.c.o. o. e. v. c. o. c. c. o. o. o.
l g -.* O cococococo oco ococo o o O
12:
- o
> he.
o U ***
e.
m asE he Z ogO NNNNNNNNNN TTTTTTTTTv NN TV an G
t.g a zasas w e b o b
w u
m m
- cm o M M M -L c e- \
O at 0 T m M
- l ea 6.d i M E ==* 9 73
- s. o
- E
- a= au
- C m'= --
o a
l OOm - b *d2 to t- w o e- w O ~ -
wga 9 -- o eoe *o ONeim ao c 'w n n m
-- . o c o o
.2 oeoo
' **' o ce e o N co n n e
' o - -= c.
m.
co :
6 mo co a .2 y eo ce m 64
=
1 m.
> g e -O .3' =i : C i=e 0* m' 2i io i
-% . =i = 0' = 0' m' a' g i
6 C k i.
i -
e i sL
~ = u zuunu=uvow = :sw2u=uvow w u mm = mm
- 6.,
Y r
m A O Q=
l h*'8 Ee C O I b" ". 2 3 w 5 x I
Eo3 ew a x* x* e M Ew a s3 V:
m.
e=% c3 % m2 w
.aC 2 **= M C *** E aOQ COO o 42a 42L . j at 19
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE TYPE OF ANALISIS NO. 0 F LOWER llMils MIDIUM PERf0RMED AND ANALYSIS SIANDAllD MAllMUM OF DETICil0N MEAN MINIMUM (mails) NUCllDE DEVIAll0N VAlgE RANCE PERIORMED (rany) VAluE Lake llottom Gamma Isotopic Sediment Sr-90 pCilg (dry)
Control lle-7 2 0.50 0.90 ALI LLD - - - -
K-40 2 NONE 10.2 1.2 11.0 9.3 1.7 Co-60 2 0.0G 0.10 ALI. LI.D - - - -
Hb-95 2 0.008 0.200 AI.L LLD - - - -
Cs-137 2 NONE 0.52 0.33 0.75 0.29 Cs-134 0.46 2 0.040 0.070 ALI. LLD - - - -
Ita-22G 2 NONE 0.3G 0.07 0.41 0.31 0.10 Mn-54 2 0.046 0.006 ALI. LLD - - - -
S r-90 2 0.008 0.040 ALL LLD - - - -
u Indicator lle-7 4 0.33 0.60 ALL LLD - - - -
K-40 4 2.0 13.9 4.8 18.0 8.6 9.4 Co-60 4 0.03 0.113 0.09 0.19 0.000 0.181 Nin-95 4 0.050 0.100 AI.L 1.LD - - - -
Cs-137 4 NONE 0.203 0.11 0.30 0.05 0.25 Cs-134 4 0.04 ALL LLD - - - -
Ita-226 4 NONE 0.180 0.06 0.2G 0.13 0.13 Mn-54 4 0.037 0.045 ALL Lt.D - - - -
S r-90 4 0.008 0.040 0.037 0.03 0.06 0.013 0.047 A ONLY ONE POSlilVE VALUE, NO STAllSilCS POS$18LE.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE ifPEOFANAlfSIS NO. 0 F LOWER LIMlIS MEDIUM PERIORMEB AND SIANDARD MAllMUM MINiugM ANALYSIS OF DEIECil0N MEAN RANCE BEVIAll0ll VALUE VAlgE (unils) NUCllDE PERf0RMED (range)
I.ake Gamma Isotogile G AMMAltUS Sr-89, Sr-90 pCilg (wel)
Cont rol Co-60 1 0.3 ALL LI.D - - - -
Hn-54 1 0.1 ALI. I.LD - - - -
Cs-13 4 1 0.1 AI.L LLD - - - -
Zn-65 1 0.2 ALL LLD . - - - -
dr-89 1 0.02 ALL LLD - - - -
S r-90 1 NONE 0.09 A U.09 0.09 0.0 Co-58 1 0.1 ALL LLD - - - -
ludicator Co-60 2 0.2 1.1 ALL LLD - - - -
Mn-54 2 0.08 0.8 ALL LLD - - - -
Cs-137 2 0.2 0.7 ALL LLD - - - -
Cs-134 2 0.2 0.7 ALL LLD - - - -
Zn-65 2 0.4 2.3 ALL LLD - - - -
S r-89 2 0.03 0.2 ALL LLD - - - -
S r-90 2 NONE 0.23 0.10 0.30 0.16 0.14 Co-58 2 0.2 0.9 Al.L LLI) - - - -
Fe-59 2 0.5 1.8 ALL LLD - - - -
A - ONLT ONE POSITIVE VALUE, N0 SIAllSilCS POSSIBLE.
co ce m y n o, n oo
= *=. . o. . . o. =. ii .i=.. i o. o. i i .
3 o o om n o oo u
mw - n e. , n e.
ee ao n ao M *,
- o. l o, g g o, o, g g g ,g o, g g o o, g g g n o oc n o oc a
i l
l
=
=w g 3m Gg o
o en o-w we e oo j ( = =
M
", e e, i i o, o, a i i n o oo w
o, e i o. o i o oo e i E
- s m
==
as o-
- =Q m
=- o - oc
- a. i o. i e c. o. ,
o o -
oc f as > i i a. i o. , i o. o. i , i g gg o o oo o o oo Q
W J
n
'un = ==
- e-.4 : ,e
=
== ==
- , n : .: .
.4 .4
.m g n .: e .4 : o o.Ja.J.4 o .4 en .4 : o o .4 : .:
w co* o oo* o* o* oo*
(
3 *
" .44=* J J.J .4 o = .4 : :.2.a J " .J.: o .:;: : o o: :.: .J .::
J z n a ce n o ce ce es n o N w
-m O e
- o. o.o.o.o.o. e. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. e. o.
g M U$- g e gooooooo g e gooooooo w ::: =
i z z z =
M w
E
$$ 0 Zo =Oo e w co o o o n ce :OeO o Z oe o: a ce o -o aso ee ea w o. c.o. o.o.o. o. o.
g .a o o cococco o.
o cococco
- c. o. o. o. o. c. o.
l O m
= a o"M Z o-E =.w ~~-----~~- -
=
w N
= .
4 ene m
b g M
s.a e-i "a l
>5 g.w 5*3, 2
=
E w" -$m'
= auaw u O
o a
m e -
- a w co. *n t- e
.$.: o e - .ni o ecoo ce
~
e- w noc o ce w e a,oeee o
,g = ao o e .2 e
T. m .n - o co, o oe o= = m o u=u, e t
& G e 8 9 a - ' I I e t au o T. =eaouuoo em o = :z o c o m m o w s= =
.:: u .; o c o m m o w s t e co=
I d
=
w
- =
m A O b
w M G ch. _a O f.e & W a
MM *g* [* O M E @ $
., =
co
- c. O i .
1 15 l
i 5 7
" 4 4 - 0 5 G.
' 1 3 5 G 0 4 2 9 H 1
5, 2
m
- E 6 B 0 5 0 t 8 3 - 6 7 4 A
V 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 9 1 1 Y E R U L
A G
O 0 7 A V 2 3
7 4 7 0
- G.
0 3
5 0
3
- M 0 3
8 7,
M 2 U
S
, N 0
A l
l A 3 3 8 H T 7 4 7 1 1 A
I V
- H.
E 0 0 4 2 0 A
1 D 9 9 8
D E
L P N D.
1 6 0 4 H M
1 A 4 7 6 0 0 E .
M 2 2 5 ) I. 0 2 1 A 6 1
4 6
I A
S L
A S N 3 2
6 3
T I I
Mi)C 0
l e E E E E 2 1 E E Nl l ET n g
N N N N l l ll E R E r a OO OO O O E B( N N N H 3 0 J
I J
I M W O f L O 4
0 4
0 N
O R
I S
D V
f I E l O S M l N T R O . AL I O 2
1 4
2 4 8 4 4 8 B 1
E N N R A E P
S O
P S
C l
I s i S
IS D l
l S N A f
l A a 1 E t $
A 9 r r r r N E 0 l
ie o o o o 0 A Ml l l o t n l o t l
o t l
o N F RC s r a u r n r a r tn O0U s t c i t e 9 8 t c 0 D t e E f N o no i t
t i n i
l
- n i l
- n i t
U E R r i r o n r o t r o i rE n C n C
n L i
f P G C i T C I S I S I A V
E V
i l
l i
S r r r r O e e e e P EL M)
U s ta s t
ais ta s t
a E P I MDil l i l n Wsyl l l i s l
l N O
I a yI yl l A ell el e /
S M (m kela/i k ai k a/ i k Y
- u. nC a. nC a. nC n. I(I L 1
Ap 1 Ap l Ap 1 g N
O A
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE ITPE DI ANALYSIS N0.0F E N!!! llMliS I "' " " '" "INI"'"
MEDIUM PERf0RMED AND ANAlTSIS OF BEI!Cil0N MEAN RANCE PERf0Rulp DEVIAll0N VALVE VALUE (units) MUCllDE (range)
Lake Unter Ganinsa Isotopic Analysis I pCill Control Cc-14 4 12 4.83 7.18 ALL I.LD - - - -
Cs-134 12 0.92 1.47 AI.L LLD - - - -
Cs-131 12 0.98 1,62 AI.L I.LD - - - -
Zr-95 12 2.85 5.67 AI.I. I.LD - - - -
Hb-95 12 1.40 3.59 ALL 1.LD - - - - -
Co-58 12 1.10 2.33 ALL 1.LD - - - -
Mn-54 12 1.07 1.81 ALL LLD - - - -
Fe-59 12 1.38 3.4G ALL LLD - - - -
Co-60 12 1.15 2.33 ALL LLD - - - -
g indicator l
" Cc-144 23 4.62 6.91 ALL 1.LD - - - -
l l Cs-134 24 0.72 1.55 0.72 A 0.72 0.72 0.0 Cs-137 24 0.94 1.79 2.47 1.78 3.72 0.43 3.29 Z r-95 24 2.13 5.17 ALL LLD - - - -
Nb-95 24 1.45 3.83 All. LLil - - - -
i Co-58 24 0.99 2.51 ALL I.LD - - - -
l Mn-54 24 0.74 1.94 AI.L LLD - - - -
Fe-59 24 0.96 3.GG ALL LLD - - - -
Co-60 24 1.11 3.53 2.77 1.57 2.91 1.58 1.33 Airl>orne Cross lieta Particulate Activity Analysis pCi/m3 Cont rol 317 NONE 0.033 0.012 0.078 0.011 0.067 Indicator 47G NONE 0.031 0.012 0.113 0.001 0.112 A - ONLY ONE POSillVE VALUE, M0 SIAllSilCS POSSIBLE.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE ITPE Of ANALYSIS N o. 0 F LOWER llMlis SIANDARD MAllMUM MINIMuiA MEDIUM PIRf0RMED AND ANALYSIS Of DETECil0N MEAN RANCE DEVIAll0N VALUE VALUE (unils) NUCllDE PERf0RMED (range)
Airloorne Gamma Isotogiic Particulate Analysis on t nil pCi/m' x 10 3 Co-60 12 0.24 0.43 0.31 0.26 0.49 0.12 0.37 11n-54 12 0.13 0.35 ALL 1.LD - - - -
Co-58 12 0.12 0.56 ALL Lt.D - - - -
N ts-95 12 0.20 1.24 0.4G 0.13 0.61 0.36 0.25 Z r-95 12 0.34 1.45 All, LI.D - - - -
Cs-137 12 0.20 0.29 0.31 0.09 0.45 0.17 0.28 Cs-134 12 0.12 0.29 ALL LLD - - - -
Co-141 12 0.23 1.17 ALL LLD - - - -
Ce-144 12 0.68 1.03 1.47 0.G5 2.43 0.86 1.57 Itu-103 12 0.16 0.36 Al.I,LLD - - - -
lle-7 12 NONE 107.6 22.8 140.0 74.6 65.4 y Indicator Co-GU 12 0.14 0.35 0.29 0.1G 0.58 0.14 0.44 Ein-54 12 0.10 0.24 0.1 A 0.1 0.1 0.0 Co-58 12 0.11 0.28 AI.L LLD - - - -
1113-95 12 0.12 0.43 0.59 0.06 0.65 0.54 0.11 Zr-95 12 0.23 0.63 alt. l.I.D -
Cs-137 12 0.20 0.60 0.35 0.13 0.60 0.16 0.44 Cs-134 12 0.10 0.19 All. LLD - - - -
Cc-141 !2 0.20 0.44 ALL I.I.D - - - -
Ce-144 12 0.51 0.96 1.32 0.54 2.30 0.68 1,62 Ru-103 12 0.13 0.30 AI.I, I,I.D - - - -
lle-7 12 110NE 102.2 31.2 180.0 60.3 119.7 Airl>orne lodine Gamma Annlysis Analysis 1-131 pCi/m 3 Control 317 0.033 0.080 0.039 A 0. 0:,9 0.039 0.0 Innlientor 476 0.007 0.0G9 0.016 0.011 0.042 0.002 0.040 A - ONLY ONE POSillVE V4luE. NO STAllSilCS POSSIBiE.
-~ > ..
l l
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE IVPE OF ANALYSIS NO. 0 F LOWER tlMils Si NO RD MAllMUM MINIMUM MEDIUM Pfff0RMID AND ANALYSIS OF dei [Cil0N MEAN RANCE DEVIAll0N VALUE VALUE (units) NUCllDE PERIORMED (range)
Environmental Offsite TLD's l TLD llendings mrem /Standaril First Quarter 22 NONE 4.24 0.40 5.53 3.79 1.74 l
Second Quarter 21 NONE 5.42 0.44 6.24 4.50 1.74 lont ti Third Quarter 22 NONE 5.55 0.53 6.95 4.20 2.75 Fourth Quarter 23 NONE 5.29 0.47 6.51 4.44 2.07 Year 88 NONE 5.12 0.69 6.95 3.79 3.16 Onsite klonitor TLD's (Excluding D-1 Onsite)
First Quarter 8 NONE 4.53 0.41 5.08 3.87 1.21 Second Quarter 8 NONE G.35 1.22 9.13 5.37 3.76 Third Quarter 8 NONE 6.55 1.04 8.70 5.G8 3.02 y Fourth Quarter 8 NONE 5.8G 1.13 8.50 4.67 3.83 e Year 32 NONE 5.82 1.24 9.13 3.87 5.26 Continuous Exposure Hate ,
Itadiation Location Elonitors millhr (Average Offsite alonthly Value) C NONE 13 0.01G 0.003 0.020 0.012 0.000 l Onsite D-1 13 NONE 0.021 0.004 0.025 0.011 0.014 D-2 13 NONE 0.016 0.003 0.025 0.013 0.012 i E 13 NONE 0.017 0.003 0.022 0.013 0.d09 I F 13 NONE 0.015 0.003 0.018 0.011 0.007 l G 13 NONE 0.020 0.004 0.025 0.014 0.011 Il 13 NONE 0.02G 0.004 0.033 0.020 0.013 I 13 NONE 0.025 0.006 0.033 0.011 0.022 J 13 NONE 0.018 0.00G 0.028 0.013 0.015 l' 13 NONE 0.015 0.003 0.019 0.012 0.007 A- ONLY ONE POSillVE VALUE.N0 SIAllSilCS POSSIBLE.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE IIPE OF ANALYSIS NO. O F LOWER llulIS MfDIUM PIRIORMID AND ANALYSIS OF DEIECIl0N IN D MAHMUM MINIMUM MEAN RANCE (anits) NUCllDE PERIORMED (range) DEVIAll0N VALUE VALUE f.lill; Analysis 1-131
. pCill lamention 11 o . 4 8 0.09 0.28 AI.L LI.D - - - -
tio. 7 8 0.09 0.29 AI.I. LI.D - - - -
!!o. 12 8 0.12 0.30 AI.L LI.D - '- - -
tio. 14 8 0.09 0.29 ALI. I.LD - - - -
flo. IG 8 0.14 0.34 AI.L LLD - - - -
rio. 45 G 0.11 0.29 AI.L LLD - - - -
Ilo. 40 (Control) 8 0.13 0.38 ALL LLD - - - -
f.lilk Analysis Gamria Isotopic pCi/I Sr-90 tO o la> cation tio. 4 l'-40 8 NOME 1450 192.7 1*l00 1100 G00 Cs-137 8 3.5 5.3 5.9 A 5.9 5.9 0.0 Cs-134 8 2.9 3.8 AI.I. LLD - - - -
I.n-140 8 4.7 23. ALL LLD - - - -
Ila-140 8 31. 110. ALL LLD - - - -
Sr-90 8 2.73 4.78 3.67 0.96 5.53 2.91 2.62 No. 7 K-40 8 NOt1E 1388 99.1 1500 1300 200 Cs-137 8 3.3 5.1 3.3 A 3.3 3.3 0.0 Cs-134 8 0.34 3.3 AI.I. LLD - - - -
La-140 8 3.3 21. ALL LLD - - -
Ila-140 8 27. 110 Al.L LLD - - - -
S r-90 8 140NE 5.04 2.8G 9.76 2.01 7.75 A - ONLY ONE POSillVE VALUE, NO SIAllSilCS POSSIBLE.
_______ ___ _ -- . . - - - - - ~ . - , - -
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE ITPE Of ANALYSIS NO. 0 f E0WER llMlIS NEDIUM PERFORMED AND ANALYSIS Of DEIECil0N STANDARO MAllugM MiglugM NEAN (anits) NUCllDE DEVIAll0N RANCE PERIORNES (range) VALUE VALIE Milk Annlysis Gnmma isotopi.
pCl/l Sr-90 (cont. )
I.ocation IJo. 12 K-40 8 tlOllE 1425 128.2 1600 1300 300 Cs-137 8 4.0 5.9 9.9 7.5 18.0 3.4 14.G Cs-134 8 2.8 4.2 AI.L l.l.D - - -
1.a-140 8 4.7 31.0 AI.I. I.I.D - - - -
Ila-140 8 35.0 120.0 AI.I. I.I.D - - -
Sr-90 8 nolle 4.60 1.51 G.68 2.66 4.02 to W
tio. 14 11-40 8 110til: 1400 141.4 1600 1200 400 Cu- 137 8 3.1 4.7 4.G A 4.G Cs-134 4.6 0.0 8 2.3 3.8 A l.l. 1,l .D - - - -
I.n-140 8 4.3 14.0 Al.I. l.I.D - - - -
lla-140 8 20.0 110.0 AI,l. l.I.D - - - -
S r-DO 8 1.49 5.05 2.54 9.24 2.20 7.04 13 o . 16 K-40 8 110N E 14G3 150.6 1600 1200 400 Cs-137 8 3.8 5.8 4.2 0.9G 4.9 3.1 1.H Cs-131 8 2.G 4.0 AI.I. I.I.D - - - -
I I.n-140 8 4.0 35.0 A l.l. 1.1.D - - -
lin-140 8 34.0 140.0 A I.I. 1.1.D - - - -
S r-90 8 140til; 4.03 2.41 8.59 0.76 7.H3 A - ONtf OME POSlilVE VALUE, N0 SIAllSilCS POSSIBLE.
i ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE TYPEOfANAlfSl$ NO. 0I LOWER LIMils Si NBARI MAllMUM MINIMDM NEBluN PERIORMED AND ANALYSl5 Of DETECil0N MEAll RANCE (units) NUCllOE PERIORMED (range)
DEMN VANE VANE f.lille, Analysis Unmma Isotopic pCill Sr-SO (cont.)
I4,cu tion i
tio. 45
! 1;-40 G NONi? 1417 172.2 1600 1100 500 l Cs-137 6 3.6 G.1 6.9 A G.9 G.9 0.0 l Cs-134 6 2.5 4.3 AI.I. Lt.1) - - - -
l La-140 6 4.0 35.0 AI.L Lt.D - - - -
Ha-140 6 32.0 140.0 AI.L LI.D - - - -
S r-90 6 NONE 5.57 1.30 7.47 4.35 3.12 t$
flo. 40 (Contre, )
K-40 8 11013 E 1413 99.1 1500 1300 200 Cs-137 8 3.3 5.1 AI.l. I.LD - - - -
Cs-134 8 2.3 3.4 ALI. Lt.D - - - -
25.0 I.a-140 8 2.2 A LI. 1.1.D - - -
9.5 AI.L 1.1.D 11a-140 8 120.0 - - -
S r-90 8 3.3 15.9 2.96 1.20 4.20 0.93 3.28 A ONLT ONE POSillVE VALUE,NO STAllSilCS POS$1BLE.
i ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE ifPE OF ANALYSIS NO. 0 F LOWER llMiiS MIDIUM PIRIORMED AND ANAlVSIS STANDARO MAllMM OF DEllCil0N MEAN MINIMM (units) NUCll0E PERIORMED (rang 6 HVIAN VA M VA N RANCI l
Elcat & 1*oultry Gamma Isotopic pCi/g (wet)
Cont rol Co-60 4 0.018 0.034 ALL LLD - -
1(-40 4 NONE 4.55 1.39 5.90 2.80 3.10 Cs-134 4 0.01 0.02 ALL LI.D - - -
Cs-137 4 0.02 0.03 ALL LLD - - -
Co-58 4 0.022 0.03 ALL LLD ' - - -
Mn-54 4 0.017 0.025 ALL I.LD - - -
Ce-144 4 0.11 0.13 ALL LI.D - -
lle-7 4 0.20 0.30 ALL LI.D - - - .-
t'
, C3 laulicator Co-60 12 0.015 0.052 ALL LLD - - -
li-40 12 NONE 4.59 1.95 8.4 Cs-134 0. r,3 2.4 G.0 12 0.01 ALL LLD - - - -
Cs-137 12 0.01 v.03 0.034 0.03 Co-58 0.08 0.02 0.06 12 0.017 0.047 ALL LLI) - - - -
RIn-54 12 0.012 0.034 ALL LLD - - - -
Co-144 12 0.077 0.25 AI.I. LLD - - - -
j lle-7 12 0.16 0.50 ALL LLD - - - -
A ONLY ONE POSillVE VALUE.NO STAllSilCS POSSIBLE.
I ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
SAMPLE TYPE Of ANALYSIS NO.0F LOWER llMils MEDIUM PERIORMED AND ANALYSIS OF DEIECil0N STANDARD MAllMUM MINIMUM MEAN RANCE (mails) NUCll0E PERIORMED (range) BEVIAll0N VALUE VALUE Chicken Eggs Gamma Isotopic pCilg (wet)
Control Co-Go 2 0.015 0.029 ALL LLD - - - -
K-40 2 NONE 2.90 1.27 3.8 2.0 1.8 Cs-134 2 0.01 0.02 ALL LLD - - - -
Us-137 2 0.02 ALL Lt.D - - - -
Co-58 2 0.017 0.03 ALI. LLD - - - -
Mn-54 2 0.014 0.025 AI.L LLD - - - - -
Cc-144 2 0.11 0.12 Al.L LLD - - - -
Ile-7 2 0.20 0.30 ALL LLD - - - -
[.
Indientor Co-60 G 0.013 0.06 ALL LLD - - - -
K-40 6 NONE 2.40 1.11 3.5 1.2 2.3 Cs-134 6 0.01 0.04 AI.L LI.D - - - -
Cs-137 6 0.01 0.04 A L L I.I.D - - - -
Co-58 6 0.013 0.05 ALI. LLD - - - -
Mn-54 6 0.01 0.04 ALI. LI.D - - - -
Cc-144 6 0.051 0.27 All. LLD - - - -
11e-7 6 0.10 0.50 AI.L I.LD - - - -
A - ONLY ONE PoslilVE VALUE, NO STAllSilCS POS$1BlE.
SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
ITPE OF ANALYSIS N 0. 0 F LOWER LIMlIS MEDIUM PERIORMED AND STANDARD ANALYSIS Of DEIECil0N MEAN MAllMUM MINIMUM (units) NUCtIDE DEVIAll0N RANCE PERFORMED (range) VALUE VALUE Produce Gamma Isotopic pCilg (wet)
Control K-40 2 NONE Cs-134 5.95 4.74 9.3 2 0.003 0.01 ALL LLD 2.6 6.7 Cs-137 2 0.004 0.01 lle-7 AI.L LLI) -
2 0.04 A Ce-144 A 0.12 0.12 2 0.02 0.07 ALL I.LD 0.0 Hb-95 2 0.008 0.015 ALL LLD -
Indicator K-40 G NONE to Cs-134 2.85 2.25 7.4
" 6 0.002 0.01 1.5 5.9 Cs-137 ALL LLD -
6 0.003 0.01 -
6 0.03 0.07 A Le-144 A 0.14 0.14 G 0.01 0.07 AI.I. LLD -
0.0 Hb-95 6 0.005 0.014 ALL I.LD - -
Produce I-131 pCi/g (wet)
Cont rol 1 0.02 0.02 AI.L LLD -
Indicator 3 0.008 0.02 ALL LLD -
l l A - ONLY ONE POSillVE VALUE.NO STATISilCS POS$1BLE.
W IV l
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
IV ANALYTICAL RESULTS Sample Summaries Environmental sample data is summarized by tables. Tables are pro-vided for select sample media and contain data summaries based on quar-terly mean values. BIcan values are comprised of both positive and LLD values where applicable. These tables are entitled " Environmental Sample Summary".
t I
f i
L i
l l- "U t_
e N @ @
== N C e N g (2 O C = m
>= N e N Oe Ce C C e C .,a C N N N O DN D CC e N enn C* *C ** C C* C. C C. C Ce M Ce Ce C .-a O e
- C C N C C C C Ce C &. C* *C*Cvee w n=e $Ce C C C o m * ~ C
- v = = = = * *
- a N
- C, M O C C @
v v C v
~M MCm Mm -CC m N - M W1 O C C N C C m u1 u1 m
.=* N *
- C * * * *C m * *** v v v N v Cv CC C C -
C C C * = aC
- O C C C *
- C C C C C M
W
.,,a R
A
'n-5- 5 m -
D.
_Q
.. N
=
- w Q. m @ @ @
M N CC C C m N tllC C C N N C N @ N C @ C C C C C M C C
=C 2 C* C C N w WN
- m C * *
- J * ** === M e M a
- C. C. C.J C
A c= = CO C ~ C. C. C. C=
- C. C. C* - C. C v
J C=
=
C
-e C. C. C. C
- C. C. C C.
C v
J C N Cm e C C C C CO C C @ M M - @ @ C C C N C C C N CO -
w = '=3 -
- v v v === v v wi - W1 . v v v m v v c =
>= v m. =. C C. C. aC
- N C*
- C-w >=~ c. C
- C* C C C C. C C aC a C C CO C 5.= C C
- w o
>=
5
=
Mc =
=
W_
- =C E- -
- S
- = a
- -b t,,J w CC elP N @ N W W N @ N M i 5 y
= Z
.,=4- W E O 4C W M M N M b T CC C% C @ M M N Ms=*'6 C W1 @@ *= g us w N.
. La.
- e. e o o o e o o = .=. . m. . N. N.
N.
o . =
,O W1
. m. A. @. @ . m. . N. N. m Q
E M E W 6 U N W Q ClC >= C CQ M E m o e a e e Cr.
6 U N U Q a aN C 4 C
l
.4
- o CL Z W
, C =
c p m k e N'e e,qP 88 8 4.J Lad 1 E
. W >- Q-l enb
- N@ NN h
v w C O z
t L
i i
i r
t r
t a7
~
8 9 0 1 2 T 0 1 7 9 8 1 0 0 0 O S2 0 0 3 0 2 0 7 L U8 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 01 L -
G9 1 t 1 <
U1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 l A 6 < < < < < < 4 < 0 0 l 1
0 A 0 0 0 0
S E
L
_ P M
A S
a N m O g T i Y s H '
P 2 I
R
- E P )
t 6
) N e 8 0 2 1 2 t
. I
(
w 0 2 7 8 7 6 0 0 0 0 O n S 0 0 2 0 2 0 L 9 E2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 t
. o R / N8 1 t -
1 1 1 <
c E i U9 6 4 0 <0 0( 0 0 2 4 8 8 l
( T C J1 5 < ( . ( 6 0 0 0 l T p 2 0 A I
t f 0 0 0 0 I
D o 0 E A l
s L t t B i .
A N n T G U f n O i S s N t O l I
T u
s A e R R T
N S E E C DD 4 1 4 6 2 s N IN 4 3 9 0 5 3 3 4 2 31 r O LU 7 0 5 5 5 6 6 1 1 2 2 e C CO - 4 - - - - - - - - - - h UF e - n o e o n s s e a h t
. N B K M C F C Z C C C R T O
)
0 n
0 .
N -
D l I
T o o r CE c
,O C
- ! i i
D D D O D D s L L L L L L r L L t L t L e ( ( < ( < <
h l l I I I 1 t l l I I O A A A AI A A 9 7 9 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 3
2 0
1 ot 0
1 ot 0
t 01 h 2 5 3 5 4 4 T 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 7 9 9 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
2 0 0t 0 0 0t 0
- 1 1 1 1 a 3 3 2 6 1 1 R 1 1 2 3 4 0
S 0 0 0 0 0 E
L PI M
S 3 3 5 4 8 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 3 N 1 ot 0t 0 o 0 0 E
l
- 1 t t 1 l s 5 0 2 4 5 9 i C 0 2 2 2 7 2 D
E a 0 0 0 0 0 0 S m 1
9 1
G T
s T 2 0
8 t 4 3 4 4 4 4 7 4 N ) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I y -
r Ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 S d RC < < < < < (
R ( E E g T 2 T / T T i l l C i E
L D i
P D B f A A A o l f 3 5 4 T 0 lt 0 0
- t s N0 G6 3 6 G i -
0 01 01 0 1 0 t
n o 0 9 9 4 0 0 A
mUn C ( 0 1 1 < <
i 0 0 0 0
9 s
- t r l S u s 9 9 F e 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 O R 4 1 t 1 1 t
- 2 6 8 5 1 3 S K < 1 1 1
_ N 8 9 O
_ I
- T A
R T 4 N 0 3 E 6 0 0 8 C 0 0 4 0 4
- N 9 0 0 01 o 0 0 O - t C r 0 0 3 6 0 0 S < < 1 0 < (
- 0 0
0
. N
- O I 2 2 2 2 2 2 T 8- 8 8 8 8 8 CE - - - - -
ET 4 0 4 5 8 8 LA 1 3 1 0 1 0 LD - - - - - -
O 6 9 6 0 6 0 C 1 1 t
i n
k P o
N c '
O i e
_ C F( N O
O O O C C m a u & 4 a 6 & J d 4 & J g
e v v v v v v
- - - = m -
w - - - - -
C 4 -4 4 4 < <
m w e N @ C. C. C= v M N C C C e O. * * + C. C.
m C = N w C C E v v v
- a. a. a.
O C C N
m N N N N N N m
e C. C. C. C. C. C.
- O C C C C C U v v v v v v e I m N m N m N = j m '
e O. C. C. C. C. C.
m e C C C C C C I w u v v v v v v i 4
m 2 W N W N m e W W e e C. C. C. C. C. C.
C C C C C C C C J N v v v v v v N N N N Z 9 m C. C. C. C. m N M w t .
+ E e O @ m N w C C.
w U v v
> N C. C. C. C.
e , C C C e 5 -
M @ w D N 9
$ W *
"}' me C. . C. a. O. C.
v EQ C C C. C C C m wb v v v v v v
'm N w
W g U m
= %
5C N m N 9 N N
> m C O (W C.
e M geC C C.
C C.
C C.
C C.
C C.
C M
b e
%u G
v v v v v v C
C m m mm C
- e C. C. C. C. N N d C C C C e w w w w w C. C.
M M m
C M
~ m C C s v v 6 3 N. . m. a.
M e C C C C D
L E *
' C N. N. .
I M O
g C w. C w
- m. C
= w . w I E 8 C C C I C W T. v T. v v N.
f = O C C
? >
t
< N m e N E C m o m C C L' &
Z C C. C. C. C. C. C.
W m C C C C C C v a w w w w w w Z b N a m N W C C M @
- m. m m.
m m W C C C* C
- C
- C
- O C C C l
g m N
o m
o N N o o N
6 C C C C C C M v v v v v v i
i i
5 m N N N N N N W W W M M W M uw WW e e e e e e T C @ @ W M d4 m M C C m C JC e e e e e e 8 @ C m
D C m
A C
C M s E
C -W W -
= 6 - O
> a = 6 QW 4 Z O &
wm am we mc Ja Nm @ CN O Q MM WC C= c 3v C =w =*Ow aw U 6 ZA C i i
30
D D D s L L L r t L L e < ( (
h 1 l l t 1 l l O A A A 7
3 1 7 2 1 s 0 0 0 C < < <
4
. 3 S 1 7 2 1 E -
L s 0 0 0 P C ( < <
M A
S S
U R 5 At 6 3 4 2 t n 2 0 0 W
f Z < < <
N a I m g
S i R s 0 E 6 1 2 3 T 2 -
T o l 0 0 I 1 C < <
H )
E t S A e R 1
f w E T
4 W f (/
1 g T9 I5 H-8 5 3 E D C Ee l 0 0 L N P F < < <
R A A A f M T 0 o M-9 A
- s G r t S i 8 n 5 9 2 1 D U -
N n
o 0
( 0 0 A i C < (
9 s 8 t
- l S
r us 4 8 e 5 8 0 1 f R -
O n 0 0 0 M < < < -
S
_ N O
I T 2 1 A 1 0 0 R 0 T 9 01 01 01 N -
E r 3 6 9 C S 1 0 N 0 O 0 0 C
,. 9 3 2 8 2 0 0 r 0 0 0 S < < <
N D
I T 2 2 2 2 2 2 CE 8 8 8 R 8 8 ET - - - - - -
LA 7o0 7o0 7o0 LD 1t1 1t1 1t1 O - - - - - -
C 8 9 8 9 8 9
)
0 k
0 N -
O ic e l I
T t r l i
o r
CE a M t) ot ET p) g n LI z3 en2 eo LS t 0 ni 0 wC O i( io( s(
C F NP O a.
cp 1
r il
e com oceo add dddd com maco add com como k dddd ddd dddd ddd addd ddd addd ddd dadd W vvv vvvv vvv vvvv vvv vvvv nu C <<< <<<< <<< <<<< <<< <<<<
e =~~= m . m~m
~
m m
8.
CCO
$.5 OCCC 8888 858 8885 QQC COOO
=~$
8 COC
- 8. . es$e
- 88. 8 OCCC e ~~~ -~~- --- -~~- --- ---
e mem Mmem vem mmem m~m ~Ces s
u WTC
- mvMM vem wmmN Q. C. C Q. Q. C. C. m Q o.Cm w w v C. CCC O* C. C* C
- C
- C C O. C CC CCCC C C CCC CCC* CCCC
~= =~~
e E. 8 8 $. 8=. 5. 5 $.m 88m 5. $. $. o. 5. $. e8 8885 e CCC CQQC CCC CCCC CCC CCCC u vvv vvvv vvv vvvv vvv vvvv MNM NMMM MMN MMMT MNN NMN.
- m. C. Q. Q.
e C. C. C. C. C. C. C. O. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C.
N C OCO OCCC CCC CCCC CCC CCCC m vvv vvvv vvv vvvv vvv vvvv W ]
A i b
R ~
m a N m mmmN Nmc NmmN N m memN 1
= , C. . C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C.C. C. C. C. . C. C.C.C.C.
M O CCC CCCC CCC CCCC CCC CCCC
= u vvy vvvv vvv vvvv vvv vvvy 6
=
m M g M s e TMM WMcM MTN TTg mMe F. M M w m W
> e e C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. o. m. C. C. C. C. C. C. m.
=
G CCC CCCC CCC CCCC CCC CCCC 6 vvv vvvy vvv vvvy vvv vvvv Q
~
e
- a m R v e mmm mmNN mmc NmmM Nmm mmmM c 3 me M
C. C. C. C. C. C. C.
v > C. C. C. C.C.C. C. C. C. C. C. C.C.C.
g m 20 CCC CCCC = CCC CCCC CCC CCCC g,g wu u vvv vvvy g vvv vvvv vvv vvvv v > m A C C G m E C W e -
W W 4
m e b Q <W e mm d 2 O h N m M se M
< g
- m
<T gm -
N
- Z mm m N O m R a e m C. 8. . . 8. o. c. w O. c. . C. . . C. C.8 8 8. . N C.
C R3 cm 6 CCC vvv CCCC vvvv
=
m CCC vvv CCCC vvvv CCC vvv CCCC vvvv g a =
e C E
- E M w a C Me Me T. M. N. M. T. M. M. M. M. M. M. m. M. M. M. M. Me M.M.
T, CCC COCO CCC CCCC CCC CCCC
-- --- -~~ ---- --- --~~
.= u m E g m. m. .-m. m. m. .-
. . N. M. m. N. ~. m. m. m. e. m. e. m. m. e.
MNM NNNM MMM MNNw MNM MNNN 6 NN v mm NN N NM
- ~88 8~ m88 M88m 8m~ M88~
5 m
Re S. --dd N$d8
- 8. . - . 8. --d d Edd8 --
d88 Edd8 6 Cee CCmc Cem CNNC MCC CNec g
g M vgg vvgv vgg vggv mvv vggv . .
= 8 MM NC NN meeg . .Cg8g O e C 88 E.CCCC M.8 8 C 88 8 COOC 8 8. e. $. C 9 5.m85 6 -CC -OC C+- CCCC m evv vvvv Myv vvvv vmM vvvv 8 8 88 C C CC I i
- N mN mN mN mN *N I
%% %%6 %% %%L %% %% k a a o a a e a a o W 3aa 3 aux 3aa saa maad WW LA 033 600 033u 6003 03 3 6 00 baus33v 6003 033 6 00 O
6 su OS )
Z> M6 6 566m ebb M 66m ML6 > 6e KW >> >> WW >> >> WW M C C & C C C C C O 390 3 tea 3WW 2 OGa 3e& 3@ Wa Osa Odd- OAA Dade Odd OMa*
6 mm Mdd k een Mdd2 6 mm QMM Mddg a 6 no 6 em Odd 6 mm~
Mdd$
N N N d C C m m m N m N
- N
- m M w
m m
6 o
8 m
6 e
J m C -
6 o
I AW 4 4 3 4 I h> & O O O
- W O j rg c a C a Z c a 4 Co 3 V 7 U C 3 v m 9 Q 7 C U 7 C 32 i
TAllLE 6 CONCENTRATIONS OF IIETA FMITTERS IN LAKE WATER SAMPLES Results in Units of pC1/112 sigma Station Code January February March April May June JAF Inlet 2.78 1 0.6 3.47 1 0.6 2.62 0.7 3.00 0.7 2.85 1 0.7 i
2.31 i 0.7 NMP Inlet 2.32 1 0.6 2.78 1 0.6 3.16 1 0.7 2.77 0.6 1.27 1 0.6 1.74 1 0.6 Raw City Water (control) 2.54 0.6 3.20 1 0.6 2.99 1 0.7 2.68 1 0.6 2.66 1 0.7 2.04 1 0.7 Station Code Nuclide July August September October November December JAF Inlet 2.74 1 0.7 3.53 1 0.7 2.69 1 0.7 2.71 0.7 2.40 0.7 1.98 1 0.4 NMP Inlet 2.43 0.7 3.22 0.7 4.72 0.8 3.89 1 0.8 1.79 0.7 2.23 i 0.4 Raw City Water (control) 2.06 0.7 2.16 1 0.7 1.79 1 0.6 2.47 1 0.7 2.00 0.7 2.39 i 0.4 6
- .~ _ _. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
TABLE 7 CONCENTRATIONS OF TRITIUM AND STRONTIUM-89 AND STRONTIUM-90 IN LAKE WATER (QUARTER COMPOSITE SAMPLES)
Results in Units of pCi/l i 2 sigma STATION CODE PERIOD DATE TRITIUM Sr-89 Sr JAF INLET First Quarter 12/31/81 to 03/31/82 311 ! 140 <0.722 1.55 ! 0.42 Second Quarter 03/31/82 to 07/02/82 247 1 120 <0.603 1.07 1 0.38 Third Quarter 07/02/82 to 10/01/82 311 110 <0.580 0.718 0.31 Fourth Quarter 10/01/82 to 01/03/83 194 98 <0.396 0.6911 0.31 NMP INLET First Quarter 12/31/81 to 03/31/82 229 1 130 <l.36 3.07 ! 0.77 Second Quarter 03/31/82 to 07/02/82 202 1 120 <0.502 0.5011 0.34 Third Quarter 07/02/82 to 10/01/82 859 1 120 <0.592 0.67 ! 0.34 Fourth Quarter 10/01/82 to 01/03/83 2,780 280 0.606 ! 0.38 0.40 1 0.30 RAW CITY WATER First Quarter 12/31/81 to 03/31/82 307 ! 140 <2.23 5.30 i 1.3 (Control) Second Quarter 03/31/82 to 07/02/82 123 120 <0.586 1.10 0.37 Third Quarter 07/02/82 to 10/01/82 112 1 110 <0.628 1.01 0.32 Fourth Quarter 10/01/82 to 01/03/83 118 97 <0.433 0.75 0.32
TABLE 8 CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN LAKE WATER SAMPLES Results.in Units of pCill i 2 sigma Station Code Nuclide January February March April May June OSWECO CITY Ce-144 < 5.04 < 4.83 WATER
< 7.18 < 6.23 < 5.64 < 6.73 Cs-134 < 0.95 < l.04 < 1.29 < 1,43 (00, CONTROL) Cs-137 < l.14 < l.17
< l.15 < l.06 < 1.59 < l.59 Zr-95 < l.41 < l.53
< 3.43 < 2.85 < 5.47 < 5.02 < 3.60 Nb-95 < l.67 < 5.51
< 1.40 < 3.42 < 2.62 < 2.48 < 3.59 Co-58 < l.48 < l.19 < 2.05 < 1.92 < 1,72 < 2.18 Mn-54 < l.17 < l.26 < l.7 < 1.58 < l.30 < l.59 Fe-59 < l.38 < 1.56 < 3.03 Co-60
< 3.46 < 2.57 < 3.32
< l.15 < 1.20 < 2.33 < 1.78 K-40 <12.4
< l.66 < 1.89
<l5.0 <19.6 <20.3 <17.30 <17.40 NINE MILE Ce-144 < 5.10 < 4.90 < 6.85 < 6.35 < 6.43 < 6.18
, POINT Cs-134 < 0.95 m (02, INLET)
< l.17 < 1.27 < l.41 < l.24 < 1.55 Cs-137 < l.10 < 0.98 <, 1.37
< l.4 < 1.38 < 1.53 Zr-95 < 3.92 < 3.11 < 5.17 < 4.77 < 4.61 Nb-95 < 2.14 < 5.09
< l.63 < 3.25 < 2.96 < 2.65 < 3.16 Co-58 < 1.48 < l.21 < 2.41 < 2.00 Mn-54 < 1.14
< l.65 < 2.51
< 0.99 < l.59 < l.72 < l.45 < l.49 Fe-59 < l.38 < l.96 < 3.37 < 3.18 Co-60
< 3.16 < 3.27
< l.41 < l.64 < 2.02 < l.85 < l.66 < l.91 K-40 <14.7 < 9.7 <21.7 16.919.6 <15.9 <17.6 FITZPATRICK Ce-144 < 3.18 < 4.62 < 6.88 (03, INLET) < 6.91 < 6.19 < 5.82 Cs-134 < 0.72 < 1.07 < l.42 < l.42 < l.35 < 1.30 Cs-137 0.4310.29 < l.52 < l.79 < l.69 < l.41 < l.50 1
Zr-95 < 2.13 < 3.66 < 4.98 < 5.16 < 4.38
( Hb-95 < 4.59
< l.45 < l.55 < 3.45 < 3.83 < 2.50 < 3.33 Co.-58 < 0.99 < l.29 < 2.19 < 2.13 s 2.02 < 2.02
- Mn-54 < 0.74 < l.46 < l.94 < l.66 < l.83 < l.49 Fe-59 < l.35 < l.92 < 3.21 < 3.66 < 3.07 < 2.85 Co-60 1.5810.56 < l.03 < 2.30 2.37il.13 < 2.26 < 2.27 K-40 4.5 3.3 <11.5 <18.7 <23.3 <21.60 <17.9 l
. . =-. - - __ - . .
TA13LE 8 (cont.)
CONCENTitATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTEllS IN LAKE WATEll SAMPLES i
llesults in Units of pCi/l i 2 sigma '~
Str. tion Code Nuclide July August September October November December OSWEGO CITY Cc-144 < 5.97 < 6.47 < 6.76 < 5.79 < 5.29 < 6.96 WATER Cs-134 < 1.07 < l.26 < l.37 < 0.917 < 1.07 < 1.47
, (00, CONTROL) Cs-137 < l.47 < l.41 < 1.46 < 0.996 < 0.98 < l.62 Zr-95 < 3.92 < 3.97 . < 4.64 < 4.31 < 3.22 < 5.67 Nb-95 < 2.64 < 2.32 < 3.24 < 2.43 < 1,55 < 3.29 j Co-58 < 1.84 < l.96 < 2.24 < l.32 < 1.10 < 2.33 Mn-54 < l.13 < 1.58 < l.70 < 1.07 < 1.67' < 1.81 Fe-59 < 2.15 < 2.83 < 3.05 < 2.28 < 1.76 < 3.40 Co-60 < l.50 < 1.78 < 2.01 < 1.26 < 1.18 < 2.20 I K-40 <18.4 <16.3 <20.5 14.318.9 14.817.9 <22.9 1
NINE MILE Cc-144 < 5.02 < 6.24 < 5.63 < 5.83 < 4.79 < 6.05 a
POINT Cs-134 < 0.946 < 1.13 < l.14 s < 1.11 < 1.03 < l.28 4
(02, INLET) Cs-137 < 0.989 < l.62 3.7211.13 3.2510.10 < 1.10 < l.39 Zr-95 < 3.47 < 3.97 < 3.72 < 4.20 < 3.11 < 4.18 Nb-95 < 2.09 < 2.08 < 2.82 < 2.42 < 1.71 < 2.52 Co-58 < 1.36 5 1.63 < l.69 < 1.34 < l.11 < l.89 Mn-54 < l.16 < 1.22 < l.40 < l.02 < l.18 < l.39
! Fe-59 < l.98 < 2.97 < 2.56 < 2.27 < 2.01 < 2.29
! Co-60 < l.20 < l.70 < l.62 < l.70 < 1.11 < 1.62 K-40 <14.2 <14.4 <l2.4 <11.5 <13.1 16.318.7 FITZPATRICK Ce-144 < 5.35 < 5.97 < 5.71 < 5.70 < 4.97 < 5.97 (03, INLET) Cs-134 < 1.07 < l.10 < l.16 < l.19 < 0.96 < 1.13 Cs-137 < l.26 < 1.21 < l.18 < l.27 < l.04 < l.09 Zr-95 < 4.12 < 4.26 < 4.47 < 4.43 < 2.90 < 3.54 Nb-95 < 2.11 < 2.30 < 2.93 < 3.07 < 1.87 < 2.11 Co-58 < 1.46 < l.84 < l.70 < l.53 < 1.16 < 1.69 Hn-54 < 1.25 < 1.38 < l.31 < 1.28 < 0.93 < l.22 Fe-59 < 2.47 < 2.19 < 2.62 < 2.60 < l.49 < 2.06 Co-60 < l.67 1.6110.78 < l.54 < l.46 < 1.14 < 1.18 K-40 <14.9 <15.0 16.517.8 <l5.2 14.2 7.9 <16.2
r
. s46ss6sssss466ss6s44t344s4i34444i446e56s6ss6ss634t4i3 eeeeee9eeeeseesese00se0908esseceeeses8eeeeeeeeee8sses r
D t s s s. s, s. s. s s. e. s e s c e. s e e. 0 0 e. s. e. e. 8 0 s e. e s s. c e s e s e 8. e. s s s s e. e. s s. c. e e e. s e ses8eseee0eseese8ss0e880e88e8se8ese0s8e9eeeses8ee0ee8 . .
- it111ejti1i1ii1l1i11i111t11i1it1t1l11111 tite s3757e77t t111i1l11 _
9s2st7e4a03?1e2e95l -
33444342i332s3si4S322222l12l2c2222 C.eeeeeeeeeeeeeceeeee0ee0ee8 sees ass 2324ls3762o396276si3a99408e02 9eeeseeeeeeeses8es0 a4e13223t22 esee e e e e s e e e e e s e e e e e e e. e0eeeeeee8eeeeeseeeeseeeeeee8eeeeee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4gss4ss4ts43s4sssss443444t44g4g4gi35s444s44s43g343t34 r
r eeeseeeesee0seeeeeeess0seesee0e8ees8 sees 0e8eeses0ssse o- _ s s s. e s. s s. s. e s. s e c s. s. s s s s 9. e. e 0. e s s. e s. s. 0 s 0 s. s e. 9 c s. s e 0 8 0 s s e e e 8. e e e s essseeeeesesss8ss08ses0sss5ssss0e988e8e88e00eess0se8s r
- *iI1iii11e i11i1i1111l111111l11i1t111* 1i11111il1111t 1e 3233tl
?96tt23s9e2475a219874e45e2s73894t 34444gs23ss2sss4ss42c222223a3333322742335t44732se6760n43 34ct3222i22 e e.e.e e e. e e.e e e.9 e.e e e e e e.8.s e.e.e e.e 8.s.9 9 0 0 e.0 0 0 e.e e e 8.s e e s s e 0 e e e e e e e s e e e e e e s e e e e e e e e s s e e s s. eeeeee0eeseeeaeeeeeeeeseesee8. . . . . . . . . . . .
_ S .
_ N
_ D t
f -
A I
G ss6ss66ss6s47s7636e66s56t4ssss44s44ss444s4ssg44s44t34 T
E r
eeeseeeeeeeeeeee2es0se0ssseseesseseees8eseeaeesesssse
_ I r.
O s s s e s. s e. s s s s s. s. t s s. e e. e 0 e. s 0. e. e e. s. e s. s. e e s e s. s e. e 0 s c s s. s s. s e s e e e. e s S
a eseesssssesse9seesse0s0eessesse0e0sses0s8s00sss0eee0e 11111eI ei i1i11i1+ 1 e rn rg E 1467300s7t4s42s554547s082e7v22e9s823ns0e4s224es2ees3s11i11li1i11t1i111ii1i1i111ii1lli1i 3333434e3s3a42s33s422e13al3a33323326sn23sl 342t3233a2a Oi S
. e e. e e. e. e e. s e e e. s e e. e e 9 e. 9 3 0 s s 8 s. e .
e e e e e s e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e e. e e. e 8 e.e 0 8 e e e e 8 e e.e e e. e s 8 8 0 e e 0 e.
2 8ee8ee00eeeesse0eeee88e8eee 8
E1 L
P3 H*
An tE/ -
t l -
IEC H
_ 9 BT p 0 sssss6sssss46s6s67676t55sss6s6s666gss344s44st34344t33 E -l A LY 1
T f.seeseeeeeesoeeeeeeeeeee80seeee8ee0eeeeoe8s8e0ssee8ee08 fO.} .e.e s s.e s t e e.c.s.g s s s s s l s s s 9 0.e.s s s s 8.s t 0. s.s.s.s.c.s.8 e.0 s 0 e.e 0.s 8 s n 8 8.
L AU1 A . . . . . .
B JCI A
T / IV C
O 2 aeeoeseseeese88sessese98es89e80s8es8eeess088ss0e0eee8 1itli1i194s646474s3406t674e36t741ee92ss974543579t 4t6es4l tit 11111i11i1i111i11i1111l11ii111111111i11i11 PT1 HR1 L D 343444s2343243s3s6442a122232s3233s1ssa22s134213n23t22 01?48 NAC 9,e e.e.e e.e. e e e e e.e e e. e e 8.e.e e.e 8 9 e 8 8 e e 8 e e 8 e s e e e e 5 e 8 e e e e e e 0 e s e e.
PA eseeee8seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee8eeees8seeeeeeeee0eeeeeea8e EA NT RE UB B
R LC 44ss4ss44s437 eoeeeeeeseese 6sa6sst44st44sss4664gssa44sgt44s4sg4433 A
T F eoseeessoeesseeoseeseeeeoeoeeseeeee0ses
~N E
F O
_ s. c. s s s s s s. e. s s. e s.s. c.e.s s.s.e e.s s s.e e.s.s.c e s s.e.s.s.e.s.c s c.s.s e.s s.e s,s 0 e s e.
se8eess8eeesoeseees8e880ss8seseeee0eeeee0ssssseee0se8 N -
111ili11i1t1i H
O i
D 626 tee 47s1682 3434g4s2a431 3 11* 111l111i111i elt *i1 *iT7 l +IiIiIiiiI7i 1 703136e232e329e6ss308es29s049966szt3329 R
I e e. e . .e . e e. e. e e. e e. e. e.
s3s74232233242432a3226s22a5t232t 3a33221
_ V eeeeseeeeeeee e e e. e e e e. e. e. e 8 e e e. e. e e e e. 0 0. s. e. .e. e. .s .e s e. e s. s e. s e. 8. e. 8 0
_ N E
eseeeeeeseseseeseeeeeeee8eeeeeee8eeesee I
A N
O I
T
_ F 444445544s43s4s4565543444s4s4444s4346343444s434s444t4 eseee00eeeese8oe0000 esse 0e8eee0eeeesse00eeeoseeoeeess A R
F E D s.e.s s s 0 0 s s s s.e.e 8.c.s 0 0 0 0.s e e.s 0 s.0.t s.s 0 s s.s.s.e e.s 0.e s s s.c e s s s s s s e e O ses8s08s800ss8ee00e8e8888e0s8e8sstseee8ese8eeeoseeee8. P
_ - 1 C 2n4299ee737s94s2736973424?129s79702ss?44e7526s4372963i11111i111i11i111*
33343353343t43s3463222222t332c222224st2241242t3223t22 111111 UN e e e e e e 8 e.e e e s e 8 e. e.0 8 0 0 e.0 e e e s e e 8 s 8.s e 0 e e e e 8 e.e e 0 e e e e e e e s s e P eeeeeeeseeeee8eeee80essese0seeeeees8ees0eeeeeeeeseeee
. . . . . M U
l' s
N s39639732964e63e7428s2852973s73e741 419 96 EE I
9112ee1 2se1230122s112se122e122es12381 225s12291237t2ee 1t1t22223333344/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
63e s1s4 KA ED 9sessssseese8sc0eeeeeo80ee00e0ess0seee011 44ss556666677778ee9e999900e01 111t2222t 111 111t1111 s E
W /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222223 88888988888088088988800008888080888800008880000088880 o4 t'
t j ! ;-
< i : ,j ij ,; i i {iI! ;; -i'
=
44ss46s4s4ttssssssss534t4344s44s443t544564344344444aa M
eeeeeee0eeeeeoeeaeee8eees80seeee0ses8ee8e8s0888eeeees s s s.s s s s 0 s s.s .s. s. c. .s. s. e s s e 8 s.s s.e 8 0 e s.s s s 0 e.0 e 8 s s.8 s e e 0 8 8 8 s s s.s s e o- . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
sseessa8eesssssss0ess0eees8sa0es080s8aee88e0888saeees.
11tl1111t1t11i1ii1ti11tti111111i111i11ii11t11111i1iti N 273i3278a6s43e4sa5ps46ets5471 333t3432t3at 99s862e77ss92e71896s2sss 43sts4423ttaa1323124222432a231l32223232at
- e e e. s. e. .e. e. .e. s. .e e s e. e.a. s. e. e. e
. .e .0.s.s.s. e. 0 e. e e. e 8 e 0 e. e e. 0. e . . .. . . . .e . .e e 0. e. e 8 8 8 e. e. e s. c e ee8eeeeeeeseeee0eeeeessee0seeeeeee0eee8eeeesseeeeeeee . ... . . .
- s3443ss43s435tssssst 43433334433s44336s5ss4s5445taat34 H-
- es8eseeesoee8eoeeeee0sess0eees8e88ssee08o0e08e0esssse s e 0 s e. s s s. e c s s 0 s s s s s s s,0 e s e e 8 s s s e 8 s 8 8 e e t s.0 8.c 0.s 0 8.s.0 s e.e e e s O . .
eae0ee0sas8s8se8eoeeeaaes0ese80888sesee8088008a8aesa8 ti11it1111111i;1i11t1111i1ii1111111t1t11111111111t1i1 6n92st J- 3a14ae42t43t9644447et2s77s6769s5se79677s7336216418971 43s4s44a21t1t1 04s3s2
- 3321273322533221231t33322a2 e e. 0 e. .e.s. e. .8. s. .e.e. s. e e e e. e e e. e e. e s. e s 0 8. .e .e. e. 8 . .e. 8 . 0. .s.s. e . e . .e. 8 e 8 8 e 8. s 8 8 e e. 0. s e ee8sseeeeeeeaeea8aee0eeee0eaeee8e0eeeeeese8eees8 eases. .
6s64346ss6s46s7666sss44ss4s65ts756s4t413434543444343a es8see0eeseeeoee8eeoeeoee0ee0ese00ese00see83eee0eoess N-,
D s. e 8 e s s. e. s s. e s s t. c s s 8. s. s. c s s c s. s. 0. s. s 0 s e. e 0 0. s. e s 0 8. e. s s e 8 s s s 0 s s. s e e
- - ss88e8a0sseseess0a888esea0ss0e8e08see88ss008sss0saeee.
111111111ilitii11i1111ti11i11i1t1111i11111111i11tittt
- - 995936236eea0t e3224486et33s31 t9e2742s789768t 4e42ss6su S 1 - 2221ss52333t 4ss46s422tla223332272234t2313t342233aat
- at N
O
- e e 8. e e e 8 s e e e. s e e. .e. e. . 0. .e. e
. . . . . . . . . . . 0 e s e. s .
e a e e e e e e e a e e e e e e e e s e e e a e. e 8. e e. e. s e. e. e 0 e e s. 8 8 e 8. s e. 8 e e e e. e s s
_ I T
eeeaeeasasaeea8e8eeeeeeEaeaee.
A T
S t4saast444434es45s44t3333344sa334334a5345ss6sss44444e eeeeeoeseesseees8seeeeess8eeeesse0eee88s8eeeeseeeeeee E s s s. s s s. s. e s. s e. e s s. s. e 0 e s. s. s s s e e 8 s s. s. s. e e.. .s.e. s. .s. s. 8 N- . .8. e . 8 s s s s. e. s s s s s s s I
I Sa O-- - ssos0sesssseess88ss8esase88aas8es8ese8848ao08eseeesse.
111111lii11rtii11i111111i1111i1l11i1i11111111i1trtii1 647673et e27u4ee17s635649t9977e4e11S4e51 n H : 47442t76ases2 Ng - 333et4s3343t33s4444221t1a1323223332342823t242a332a2a2 Di -
e e. e. s s e e 0 e e e s. e. e. e. e. e 8 e 0 0 e a. e. s 0 e e. e. 0 e e e 8 8 e e. 8 8. e. 8 s 8. e. 8 s e. e e s. e s e S - . . .. . . . .
2 sseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee0eesseeaeeeoe0e0eeaeeeeeeeee S
E1 L
P3 t4tstsssssstssss6asts4ttt5s7656s654s755s5ss6sts6s46ts eeseseeeoeeeeoeo8eseeeeee0eeeeeee08ee88 eses 8eeeeeeses H* N- s s e. s e s. s. .s .c. s. s. .s .e. c. n
. .s. 0 . s . .a s s s s. s n e s s. s 0 s s. s. 0 0 s s 0 8 s 0 s e 8. s s. e. s. s s.e s e An D- . . .
ES/ esssseoss8 esses 088e8sssas8e4s8sss08eee8e0oa8ee8aeesse.
l lEC 1
H
- ti11ii1111i1ii1111i1t1ii11i11111i11ti1111111ii11ti1it sa64et 61 01t7et9312t9s77n99e17120e846s6963768t s136s4us G
0 1 Ul p D a3244443344t43446ss1atta113322323222s2223124aa342a2t a m
A I e. e e e e e e e. 8 e. e s e 8 e e e e,e s e e a s. 0 8. e. e 8 0 e e. e e 8 s e 0 8 e 0 4 0.e. s e p e h e.8 s s E FLY . . . .
L B
AUT A I
aeeaeaseeeseeeeeaeeeeeeee8eeseeeee8ees0e0eeseeeeeeeee.
JCI C A /IV O ,
T PII MRT L 6s666766aa65asss7es665sss4s6a5s5s54t655t5ss6s455sss4e ee0eee8esee0eeee8t eee0eeeeeee4e0e84ee08s8eeeee88ooeee HAC
_ PA N s e 0 s s s. 8 s. e s s. 0 s. s s. s. 0. s. s s s e s. s s s s s. s. 8 s 0 s e. 8. s s 0 s. e 0 s. s s s s. 0 0. s, c s s. s D saaeeeeaee40ssss8se8t8a8a8ses0eae880s44e8seaes888sesa.
EA Hl eE
- 111ttt111l11ii111111i1i1111ii1l1i111i11i1l1iii1111i11 37347a932a72te763424e6s7793ts3e5S230t85t1e4sto4S47e96 F 333443424s3143s4664232t2213a32333322t23a3a2 sat 33222 uD p
RS e e 8 e e. e. e e. e e. e 8. e e e. e. 8 8. e s e 8 s. 8. s. 8. e. s e. s e. e 8. e. 0 e e 0 8 s 8 s e e s. s. e. 8 8 e. 8 e e IS eaeeseeeeeeaeseeaaeee4eeeeseeseaee0eaeeeaeaseaa8eaeee AO H
LC s4s5t6s5sss4s4ss76sss4t4t44ss546444464s45s46444444s4s A _
oee8ees4eee8eeea80eee0eeeesee4sss88eeeee8ee8se08eseoe I _
H H a s s e. s s e 4 s s. s. e s. s. s e 8 0 s. s s 0 s. 4. s. e e s s. e e. e e. 8 8 s s s. e s 8 s s 8 e. e 0 8. s. e s s s C G ess4eee0es888aes888es88888ee88s8a8888s808e88ee09ssesa.
H -
11i1 lit 1ii111it1111li111111i111111111i111i11t11111i1t N
E . 69a1asa3Se962s35e46ae948313t200e26337e466s38s4S633s7s O
R 333534434438 4ss4754a31t22233322S322343s33a25a23332at t I
V . e. e e 8 s e e 8. e. e. .e.8. e
. . . . . . . .e. a . .e. 0 . . e.e. s. 4 0 s 8 e. 8 0 8 e. s 4 e e. 0 0 e. e. 0. e e. 8 e e. e. s e 8 e. e e e s s N eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeea8seeaeaeaeeeeeee0a4eseeaasees8eeeeea.
E
-. ss66sss6sss4s4ss6a3ss444t44sstsss444s45t44tse34t4e433
- aes80ee8ees8se0e8eeoe8ese8eeeeeee08eo08e8esees0eeeees 1
A
- N H-D e s e 4 e s s 8 s s e 0 e s. 8 s. 0 s. s s s. e s e n 4 s s. t. s e e s 8. e s a 0 8 s 8 s. e. s s. e 0 t s s s e e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O sas088s8sess8ss808e0s8e8s0ae08a8080ses8e0808ee0seese8 I
- -64395971 2 - 11111111iti11t1111i1i1i111ii11111111111l1111ii11ii1i1 tsa67s7321s7e8&43e2t74034952797e4996tt05ss4t 7 T A D J33443444J313as455a232t22233222n3223s2333114aa332a2a: R.
ee088ee8.ees80ea88ee8ese8e0e888eies8.ee8680808s.se8esese t
l' O
eeseaasesee4eseeeeese8eassaeeaeess8esaeceeeeee4esesee T O
N 6s765766666566 s6ssts3t4t44ss44ti43aa44343s54344as4ss eee88eeeees88e eeessete4e8seeeeseessees880e800e0eoeee l' H
H s.s s 4 e s s.s s s e 8 s e. s s s e e s s e. e s 8 e e s s e e s 4 e e s s e 8 e 0 s 8 0 0 s s s s. s s e U
1l O esse 8aa88ses8e s0se8e800e8eaesaee8eose4a8s4884e8aa8se t
ti1t11i11it11ie11it1t111t111i11it111ii11111111111t1rt Je6325s74e44et 30a62s662t927s47t ss27ot31677s4s257soeo D 343444t24t3143 46s423t122132322332L2S332311422332aa2t e 8 8.e e e. e 0 8 s e 8 8 0 e 8 e e 8 e s e. e s. 4 8 8 e. e e e e 8 e 6 e e 4 e 8 8 e e e 8. e e s ps 8. e m -
seeaese08oeaee e8eeaaeeeeeeeeeeaeeeseeeee8eee4eeeeeee D - 420s2a62ius29s2963t741741062962963e73e7 285 5a9 4e73 N -/ os12se12eot22es12es12e8122e112 set 23s1224112181226t220 EE ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
KA I
nt112222333334t14ssss666667777aoooo9v99e04s118t esees0ss04e4 esse 0eeee0e0eeeee0ssssseee8t11t111s1111 12222t 1 s ED /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
. E W 2222222222222aa2222222222222222a2222a2222222222222a23 B880800080080ca0800080a00000000D0008n00D0808000000c00 ao co
!j ! ,!' i
{j;j .l!j; l1i ' .' l . ; l1 d
9 e
O 9 .* FS l
to. O. ==. M. tS. =e.
O O e 13 ea 43 O ett to O .= 40 O m T Ctw O Nt=CDc5O
- +g P3. +g f5. N. +tt=. PS. F3. F3. M.
3 +1 F3. +4F3. ou. er (D. 4"3. N. N. f"3 c= O OOEDOOOOO G3 O O OettO O O O O
- 33. v O. v v N. v v v v v
- 't O att O te. v Q.v v et. v v v v v
' e O N O
.== O
==
m er O F9 F3 .et d'1 O. m. O. ==. pe.
A O c9 ett te O O tS to CD N O O P1 T C N O O 00 G3 ett O M J +t M. +gN. N. +ttt3. F9. N. N. 4"9 ta2 m +t N. +l Ne *e. +eT. N. =*. ==. el ee O OOOOOOOO O O m Oy O O O em
.O
- O g.,_
g m. v O. v v et. v v v v v . v O. v v et.
v v v N.
O -e O a'* ao O m ==
O y .ee.
ee
==
w Q
g w e its .e ce eg tt3 1D. ee. ==. T. F3 J
"" Cl2 g ==
O t= m r= S3 O tt5 9 48 tt3 O C.
O *P @ == m O P5 O 09 T C gW g I,
+c . +e N. N. +# T. N. til. f9. T. *s gr +1 e9. ==. +4 49. es N. N. F3 Z L J e"3 =d CD C ett .* ** O O O OO O O O O tes O O O
< g.e pg *C T. vQ.v v ar. v vv v v F3 V O. v v 40. v 40 v v v u ce O O ca O d *C T cp O O e ~ M Z 7. -u
~
.E. H
" la:
t/1 H ~
C ~*-
-< Q 7.
m e O. 2 to f*
O w M""*.
- L M e9 pD .-
- i; p g e4 g e 3,
T
att. to.
O e its e es e op O-e m es N.
- C T. tO. .m.
O O ar O m O es es ao ce e
.m
.O= 8 .
Q m obm d m J J +e TO T. MM. N. N. N. +1M. N. M.
OOOO COO
+1 T. +1M. w. +1 W . T.N.N.M.
eq WM ** a fis] 89 g MO OCTOCOCO E"
.aC m
< Q m
-* * **.=
v O.
y v v vNv v v T* H W v@
. .v v et. v v v v v O
de % g "
O "r>
t m 4= = W Z m
O
. = e. T .-. O ,, . ,, .
b 4 =
g a4 @@ N 0 M g ett. e. . N. T. ta. ==.
. ==.
-3 g ONWWOOMOWNO f/J Ea, 3 E +6 #1. +tN. N. +ttil. +1N. N. +1 O M T N S O M C .O M O Z^ g3 b
NO et N. +ff4. me. M er. +t =* . e4. +1 e*
w g .O O O N O *'*O O m NO O Ov e1 toO ar O O CD
" re c t=. v O. v v M. v 40. v v gr. CD. v O. v y
he .* 'O O O O **
att. v v ett.
GD C O O
.E" e: .er .N E
H Z
g O eD es
,J h =e 4'9 m en e es
' tra. to. . ==. ta. O. N. O.==.
Z 8 C 3 ON e1TMN. e T.=. O +tgr.
m ON m.=. .-ee N. w O M M m O O - C T.e OC M +9 N +t.g me + ten. +4a . +# +t Q = t= O O O f1 O 43 O O O NO O O t'= O t= O O PS
.eg ==. v e. v v N. y FD. v v v ** v M
. v PD. v N. v ett. v ==. T.
t= O O == c1 O O OO
.O= CD .
M U T -ie 89T to
! 3 .Tw .T.e t=
O W
.M .M .c, m W T O.
T ==
'O1 ar t=
o .Te .T.t= m ontW T O, 1 I I I .M I fM.ac.0W1 I 4 .
3 f 4 9 0 9 9 g 8 t I e 8 o e c 3 ao cc s.,.2 o = c t c c c 3 asto 6.4 C C C Z QU=MQQNZQ2Q O O ll*. M Q Q N Z Q 2 Q 39
TAllLE 11 (cont.)
CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN MONTill.Y COMPOSITES OF JAF AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLES 1982 Results in Units of 10-s pCl/m3 12 sigma Nuclides July August September October November December OFFSITE COMPOSITE Ce-144 0.861 0.54 <1.03 <0.70 <0.93 <0.83 <0.68 ,
Ce-141 <0.39 . <0.32 <0.27 <0.34 <0.32 <0.23 Ile-7 126.0 1 5.0 107.0 1 4.7 74.6 i 3.8 76.6 1 4.3 83.7 1 4.5 87.8 1 3.8 Hu-103 <0.28 <0.23 <0.20 <0.28 <0.22 <0.16 Cs-134 <0.15 <0.17 <0.14 <0.21 <0.16 <0.12 u Cs-137 0.351 0.12 <0.28 <0.20 <0.24 <0.24 0.171 0.09 cm Z r-95 <0.56 <0.46 <0.38 <0.61 <0.50 <0.34 Nb-95 <0.34 <0.27 <0.22 <0.36 <0.28 <0.20 Co-58 <0.26 <0.24 <0.19 <0.28 <0.22 <0.12 Mn-54 <0.20 <0.21 <0.18 <0.21 <0.18 <0.13 Co-60 <0.27 <0.26 <0.23 <0.35 <0.28 0.121 0.08 ONSITE COMPOSITE Ce-144 0.881 0.29 <0.72 <0.54 <0.77 <0.74 <0.51 Cc-141 <0.27 <C.23 <0.22 <0.28 <0.26 <0.20 De-7 118.0 1 3.8 103.0 1 3.8 60.3 1 2.9 72.51 3.7 85.8 1 3.7 82.7 1 3.2 Ru-103 <0.20 <0.16 <0.15 <0.25 <0.22 <0.13 Cs-134 <0.14 <0.13 <0.11 <0.18 <0.16 <0.10 Cs-137 0.471 0.10 <0.20 0.1610.07 <0.22 <0.20 0.201 0.07 Zr-95 <0.41 <0.39 <0.29 <0.47 <0.46 <0.23 Nb-95 <0.23 <0.19 <0.17 <0.33 <0.28 <0.12 Co-58 <0.17 <0.12 <0.I1 <0.25 <0.22 <0.I1 Mn-54 <0.17 <0.16 <0 I1 <0.19 <0.19 <0.10 Co-Go 0.231 0.11 0.171 0.09 0.1810.08 <0.30 <0.30 <0.14
l 6
6 44..mem.M.M.,4meme.. mph,bNmhm.homm,.NN>m,hodem=Se=4 m*N====NmmNNeNNNMN==mNONMNNeNNwNN Q
s t e s s e e m e .e. n. .e. s. .s. e. .s. s. .e.m ... e s p e e m m e m o m m .eeemesseessemesammaes m e s. e e = N N M N N N N M M M= N = =
emeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
I . . .... . . . . . . .
Q ll l
l wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem l
l 3
6 4 h C
I i B4MhWNhem>N>WSENhhhme4SWWahdesh>44hmMcMNhbNmehMmMNOmM
==N===mN======= Nam *NWmemmNm NN NANN NammNN e em I
e m e e e e. e e. e e e e m m e. s e e e e e e. e e e. e e e e* e e = e= e= e e e e. e= e e e e e e e= =e =e =
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
6 l wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww eeemmesseeseeeeeeeeeeeeese I
e C
m W
W L ' WhmmNemmeNMes=4meMNmemesmCEM4emNemmbMhmeemMMMme4*MMbe 6 I C8 N==NMTNmNNMNMNMNENeMMMMMNN=NNNNNNNeeNamammNammmmN===N m g W e e s.e s. s.e. m e. m e s s e.s.e.m. e.s s e s.m . . . .
e s s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e e e e e e. e s s e e. m s. e e e e e e e e e.
- l l 2 Wt 6
E I
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 8.c l I e
=
We W
JN Wb+f
-C N ~BM N .e m S Q '
WE' m 4 y
=
LQN Cam 4 Q y m w kmmmebMmem>>hdemtbebMcMehmemmemmeckeMb4MmemkmemmemeMN
- NNNmWNNNNNNNNNMNN4mMNNMNMNNeNNMMa*NNemNmWNmemaNNNmWN a
se.em e ee.me. me e se eeSeOe.F e e eeee.e ee.eee e. e eeee. e eeee. e eeeeee. e ee.e e e eeeeeemepes.e. e ee e. e ee e.e e. ee ee ee m.s ee
%=Q e . . . . . . .
4 NME O N ee ee ee . . .... . . . , .
H Em & eeeeeesemme SE>
ECW W
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Um Ju CW CQ Ud
=M Um t 8 1 Jm m 4
w e A SNamebdommeke Z 6 C ==Nm=MmmmmmmM N m>medmemcheebc4Nhemem=44mmMCe m e m 4 N M N 6 4 e.N e = N w m N M N N a m m = = N m N N N m N a m m N N i m. e. m. . .e . e e e. e. e. e. e e. e. e .e.
- e. e.e.N.e.Ne. aeme ee. *(Neme. N. . e. .e. e e e e e. e e e e e e e e e e e. e e. e e e e e e
. . e memeemmeeseem wwwwwwwwwwwww emmemmemebessessemesmessemememe.memeseme.
e
=
, wwwwwwwwwMwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww g
e.
Z e W
6 5
w C
eMeNbbecewh4NhhebeekeeNNemmhNSMhmomebbhemhemmeemmememH4
'NmNeemmmmmmmN=NNam4m=NmNNam=N=NmNNNammmmmmWNmNamm=NNm
=
- a m e. e e e e. e e e e e. e m m e n e. e m o. e m e e
. . . X m e s s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesesammee e e e e e e. e. e. e. e e. e. e. e e e e. e e h4e m l 1 . . .
c wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
- D E
b
=
i e
i 8
E MMb4MbhMNbeeedMeheNemNCmNbhMehmehem ems b4 4MO mmCe WW
- em= Nee = Nee =NMe=NNemmNeemNNemmNem*NMSmNNmmwNN>mNMhmWNe NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN MC W2 l==mmNNNNMMMMmeveemmmm44444hhhhmWC=Cb>>>emeemmmmmNNNNm meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmm===mme W
3 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNM 4'GSGSSSSSmeemmSSWEacQgemmQmCQCmS3CammmmmmmmmmmmmmmeCSS s
41
N D
6,70746608053.32222122222
,. 21 1211:222 7501 204734e56048861 222122221 32973544002359! 11222312221t 6012133 :1 22222 N
((
00390ee005.e0008s008e.ee098000800080o0800 0e3080e000Oe0000000oees008004000080s080e0005e880s0e.
e 8 8. S e. 8 8 0 0 0. e
(( (( (((( (( (((( (( (( (t (( (( ((((( ((( (((((( (( (( (( (( (( (( (
4 3 6 0 8 0 N ,
2,6947745318758785610218o86871936 0. 2 8. 0 0.6229660005993228 D
11151121122212222122tt s11121110t 81822362331 231 1222
, . 8,0 8 0 8 0 s 8 8 4. . e. 9 0 0 0 0 0 8 0. S. s. e 8 0 8 0 8 0 0.11s. 210.41e. 8 8 0 0. e. 4 0 0. e 8 0 0 8 0. .
J i,. 3800e0s008 s00000004ees80005401e002e0000e000e40e00
( (( (( (((( (( ((( ( (( (((( (( (( ( ( ((( (0( 0( 0( (( (( (( (( (( (((( ( . . .
0 0 0
- 6 5 0
N D
,,376224v730 2 . 321312a213 123016640t20985 33432622123t22303233321321112a211 t21121 2 9300 0.3731630158793t40741
- . 800800000e1e00e80000e0s000100008800e0000s008s80080e
. . . . . . . . . . 5 . . , . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 0 008480e000 2
(( (( (( (((( (( (e08000000e0s008400000080a003e8008s08000
(( (( (((( (( (( ( ( 8(( ((( (((( (( (( (( (( (( (((( ( .
8 0 H
D I
T A 453 4 3 T 008 0 0 S N
- D 6 ., t 2 0 3 18a10443S89?240686760966e85 088.92 0. 3 0.2 5 4 7 8 5 1 36302*/6609n E
T
- i. . s e 3 8 8 4:21i2222225121
. . e
. . . . . . 0 8 g a s 0 e 9 0 8 0 8 0 s t1 28880281 0222222233322t 8121 i e s 0 9. 0 7 511*08.61e. 4190e000088.e0se0004.
l I . .
l , se3t80e08e e0O808000seo00111080e008s00080080ee0004, S
(((t (( (((( (( (((( (( (( (( (( (( ( 008( (0t 0((( (( (( (( ( ( (( (( (( ( . . .
N Da 880 0 0 n
- g i
Ss E
L2 H i42135783588 3806803424: 6402485144143770233313o78235e P D 2 22121121132322221222222233332332223222233231 J21333s EM1 .
3 TA I83 N C e
000808.e800ee90000000s0e008800080809e8008.
5000e8s00eee80000000oee00OO80000500e8030e008e00e00 e008e48000.
1 D
- O ( (
(( (( (((((( (((((( (((((((( ((((( ((( ((((( ( (( (( (( (( (( (( (
En I E rG/ T
. L ADt A B JIC C
- A T
/Rp O PT L nRY HAT CI N . 82443T L1 A1 V D 3
.22222223224422323263322s321 723775178435t69t2287.33322223a2212228
.88080000000e800000800eee00004080900s8800888#e08060. 1 76693607s920487822544945 3222122 DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .
CA F
( 08003000403se50e00000eee00k000000008e0s08se08s000ee.
( (((( (((((((((( (( (( (( (( ((( (((( ((( (((( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (
R A1 l
l3 C1 LI A
I N H E D . i121612t1122a22221622222222132322113221231212:22122
. s829227s7794a02407973554234974880743774749873S669537 N - ..
N D E
- 3 0 0 0 8 8. s. 0 0 0. e s. 8 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 s e. e. e. 8 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 e. 0 4 8. e. 0 0 8 0. e. 8 0 0 0 0 .
R 0004e4e803see4000800see000850080000e08000880s00000
(((( (( (((( (( (t(( (( ((((((((( ( ((( ((( (((( (( (( (((( (( (((( (
I V
N
- E 4 4 0 5 N
D
- _2.
33695 89a37 0.i471566595e3718028.20509975829339v8a2a6184 2142211t220a21222461322t2202022221 832221122i1 t2t121 i 2 _ .
040004s401ss088808800es000010808800e800830S8s8s800
. . . . . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . . . .
.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D
( e000800e802oe00880800eoo00081808ee00e0000O00400e850.
((((( (((((
- 8. (( (
( (( ((((( ( ((( ((8(((( t((((( (( (((( ((((((( .
8 8 4
N 2i219696630753 3966889te2946461208535e13771635s675522 D 2331212223323 2224421nz312122222111422111 4218a81112i
- 2. 908800e8890e88008808eee090840008000e80008009e80009.
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .
9 048000e8800s.
(((((( ((((( ( (( 4000800ete4e0008050808s98008000o03000
( (( (( ((((((( (((( (( ((((((((( (((( (( (((( (
D 42852062s052952963174174t862962963073e7 285 N 529 4073 EE- i120012e0122e11281128 eta 201 12s812331 22411 2188 226122.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
NA I
i 1 12222s3333444455556s666777798D0899990000111s12222 808000e080ee00900000eee080000d00808e4111 111 1i11111 i
ED /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
E W 22222222222222222222222222222222222222322222222222223
- o088880008888n08880888888888080808008000880808u00G888 i;
_ l j; l
] li' !;
TARLE 14 DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMilTS - QUARTERLY RESULTS (1982) 5TATIGN JResuARY APRIL JULY OCTOBER 10CAIION NulBER LOCATION TO TO TO 10 (DIRECTION AND april. JULY OCTOBER DEEEMBER DISTANCE) 3 D1 on Site 5.5810.25' 12.2720.46 13.04to.21 10.81t1.54 4 D2 on Site 5.08t0.61 0.25 miles 9 69*
6.70to.30 7.03:0.40 5.6920.61 0.40 miles 9 140*
5 E on Site 4.6310.50 5.59t0.12 5.70t0.41 5.83tc.50 6 F en Site 3.8710.08 0.40 miles # 175*
5.37t0.13 5.89te.58 4.6721.89 0.50. miles # 210' 7 G en Site 4.15t0.48 5.61to 08 5.6810.63 5.68t0.63 0.70 miles # 250*
8 C off Site 4.53 0.36 5.61tc.10 5.99tc.57 6.08*0.69 16.00 miles 9 42' 9 DI off Site 4.06t0.64 6.24tc.17 5.7110.47 5.05:0.22 11.40 miles # 80*
10 D2 off Site 4.8010.13 5.4410.22 5.6910.28 5.38tO.74 9.00 miles 9 117*
11 E off Site 4.0220.56 5.9310.11 5.68t0.58 4.83t0.08 7.20 mile?. 9 160*
12 F off Site 4.05te.15 4.7910.22 5.24t0.33 5.56tl.01 7.70 miles 9 190*
13 G off Site 4.66tc.23 5.4210.19 5.95t0.28 5.1310.34 5.30 miles 9 225*
14 DeMass Ild. SW Oswego-Control 4.55t0.29 5.17tc.06 5.66tc.18 5.20t0.42 12.80 miles 0 225*
15 Pole 66. W. Boundary-Bible Camp 3.85tc.45 4.50t0.18 4.20t0.27 4.4410.56 0 90 miles 9 238*
18 Pro 9ress Center-Picnic Area 4.35t0.39 5.6410.15 5.08to.32 5.08e3.76 0.50 miles 9 268*
19 East Soundary-M. Pole 9 4.40to.53 5.64tc.29 6.25te.34 5.44t0.63 1.30 miles 9 81*
.c.
6' 23 H on Site 5.03t0.34 9.13t0.14 8.70t0.54 8.50t0.98 0.80 miles 9 71*
24 I on Site - 4.55t0.16 6.6010.12 7.20t0.Il 5.50t0.45 0.80 miles 9 98*
25 J on Site 4.5720.39 5.8R10.08 6.13t0.45 5.63t0.88 0.90 miles # 110' 26 K on Site 4.32t0.49 5.9210.05 6.08t0.75' 5.3710.83 0.50 miles 9 132*
27 Nor. Fence-le86 Sector. M 9.7120.77 23.1810.29 20.98t0.98 17.2412.15 0.40 miles 9 60*
28 Light Pole (E) W 29.33t2.91 41.79t0.16 53.26t3.11 47.44t6.42 0.50 miles 9 68*
29 Nor. Fence (E) W 40.99t2.24 90.56t1.73 - 75.8914.93 72.72t8.84 0.50 miles 9 65*
30 Nor. Fence (101) W 7.03t0.91 16.88t0.13 19.52t1.55 14.89tl.07 31 0.40 miles 9 57*
Nor. Fence (161) ler-1 10.15t1.16 10.76t0.11 li.60te.62 ' (1) 0.20 miles # 290*
39 East Fence Rad. Waste-199-1 31.4920.94 44.40tl.89 61.9114.46 43.59t16.!! 0 10 miles 9 292*
43 .9 al Rt. 3 from Rt. 1948 4.26to.30 5.9210.07 5.0lt0.52 5.02:0.34 9.40 miles 9 88*
44 Cor. Rt 3 and Kelly Drive 4.1220.30 5.63tc.31 5.82to.42 4.95t0.50 12.60 miles 9 64*
45 Cor. Rt 64 and Rt. 35 4.3520.25 5.9110.06 5.76t0.14 6.00:0.40 7.60 miles # 130' 46 Cor. Rt.176 and Black Creek ild. 4.25t0.37 (1) 5.23t0.29 4.89tc.49 47 7.90 miles 9 178* i IIE Shortline ( M ) 16.16t3.36 46.87to.08 51.1220.30 43.33t3.41 0.60 miles # 69*
48 .36 al (N) on Access Rd. (JAF) 4.8510.52 7.1320.16 8.79t0.58 6.90t0.78 49 0.80 miles 9 92* j Phoenix. NY-Controll 3.8010.23 4.97tc.03 5.0220.57 4.8710.42 20.00 miles 0 165*
50 Lake Rd. West of J On-Site 4.4910.49 5.78tc.22 (1) 4.90f0.44 0.70 miles e 115*
51 Oswego Steam Sta. N End of W Fence 4.18 t0.36 5.8610.13 5.3910.58 5.25t0.37 7.50 miles 9 233* i 52 East lith St. Fitzhu9h Park Sch. (1) (1) 4.88t0.15 5.2911.11 5.80 miles # 227*
53 Broadwell & Chestnut Sts. -
Fulton H.S. 3.84t0.25 5.49t0.21 5.8510.17 5.1120.45 13.70 miles 9 183*
54 Liberty St. & Co. Rt. 16 -
Mexico H.S. 4.1120.45 5.1810.13 5.5010.46 5.0120.81 9.30 miles 9 115*
u v ~~ , - -- , ,
o TABLE 14 (cont.)
DIRECT RADIATION HEASUREENTS - flUARTERLY RESULTS (1982)
STATION JAftlARY APRIL JULY OCTOBER LOCAil0N Nt#RER LOCATION TO TO 10 10 (DIRECiton AND APRIL JULY OCTOBER DECEMPFR DISTANCE) 55 Hinnmann Rd. & Co. Rt. 5 -
1 Pulaski H.S. 3.7910.47 4.84t0.16 5.6910.36 5.23tc.45 13.70 miles 9 75*
56 Rt. 104 - New Haven H.S. (SE Corner) 4.1010.37 4.95:0.24 5.8410.30 5.00to.65 5.40 miles 9 120*
57 Co. Rt. 29 & Miner Rd. (SE) i t,ycoming MY 4.2410.41 5.35to.26 ~ 5.5310.35 5.54t0.69 58 4.30:0.38 1.90 miles 9 14S*
Co. Rt.1 - ALCAN (S of Entrance Rd.) 5.4710.19 (1) 5.5710.14 3.20 miles 9 220*
59 Environmental Lab - JAF 9.25tl.15 38.4010.98 34.0013.56 21.09t2.52 0.50 miles 9 95*
4 60 S. Shore (FishPoint)
- Little Sodus Bay, NY 5.5310.51 5.7310.07 6.9510.43 6.5190.75 61 21.00 miles 9 225*
700' N of #48 ((he Access Rd.) - JAF 5.3910.38 10.5010.18 11.83t0.61 9.83tl.55 0.80 miles 9 83*
65 Dutch Ridge Rd. & Kerften Rd. (SE) 3.8110.32 5.3410.06 ~ 5.4010.58 5.2911.13 7.80 miles 9 198*
a
$ (I) TLDs lost.
4 l
l
T/uBLE 15 CONTINUOUS RADIATION MONITORS * (GM) mR/hr -
FIRST HALF mR/hr LOCATION PERIOD 1982 MIN. MAX. AVG.
C Offsite 01/05 to 02/04 0.010 0.032 0.012 02/04 to 03/02 0.010 0.019 0.012 03/02 to 04/01 0.010 0.080 0.019 04/01 to 04/30 0.011 0.020 0.017 04/30 to 05/29 0.011 0.018 0.015 05/29 to 06/29 0.010 0.020 0.014 D1 Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.010 0.015 0.011 02/03 to 03/01 0.010 0.017 0.011 03/01 to 03/30 0.010 0.040 0.019 03/30 to 04/30 0.015 0.060 0.023 04/30 to 05/28 0.011 0.063 0.024 05/28 to 06/28 0.010 0.058 0.022 D,.
Onsite. 01/04 to 02/03 0.011 0.021 0.015 02/03 to'03/01 0.011 0.031 0.015 03/01 to 03/30 0.011 0.099 0.014 03/30 to 04/30 0.011 0.050 0.016 04/30 to 05/28 0.012 0.047 0.015 05/28 to 06/28 0.011 0.091 0.014 E Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.011 0.022 0.014 02/03 to 03/01 0.011 0.026 0.016 03/01 to 03/30 0.010 0.051 0.014 03/30 to 04/30 0.011 0.077 0.017 04/30 to 05/28 0.013 0.053 0.019 05/28 to 06/28 0.011 0.085 0.015 F Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.010 0.017 0.011 02/03 to 03/01 0.010 0.022 0.012 03/01 to 03/30 0.010 0.022 0.011 l 03/30 to 04/30 0.010 0.025 0.016 l
04/30 to 05/28 0.010 0.032 0.016 05/28 to 06/28 0.010 0.040 0.012 Dstectors are " bugged" to. insure on scale readings.
45
T/UBLE 15 (cont.)
CONTINUOUS RADIATION MONITORS * (GM) mR/hr FIRST HALF mR/hr LOCATION PERIOD 1982 MIN. MAX. AVG.
G Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.012 0.028 0.014 02/03 to 03/01 0.011 0.029 0.024 03/01 to 03/30 0.013 0.036 0.014 03/30 to 04/30 0.015 0.067 0.018 04/30 to 05/28 0.010 0.053 0.019 05/28 to 06/28 0.011 0.085 0.018 H Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.018 0.040 0.022 02/03 to 03/01 0.010 0.048 0.030 03/01 to 03/30 0.017 0.071 0.027 03/30 to 04/30 0.010 0.080 0.030 04/30 to 05/28 0.018 0.060 0.024 05/28 to 06/28 0.015 0.088 0.027 I Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.010 0.013 0.011 02/03 to 03/01 0.011 0.021 0.015 03/01 to 03/30 0.012 0.099 0.028 03/30 to 04/30 0.021 0.099 0.028 04/30 to 05/28 0.011 0.062 0.029 05/28 to 06/28 0.010 0.090 0.026 J Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.011 0.025 0.014 02/03 to 03/01 0.010 0.034 0.015 03/01 to 03/30 0.010 0.080 0.015 03/30 to 04/30 0.017 0.072 0.025 04/30 to 05/28 0.015 0.028 0.020 05/28 to 06/28 0.013 0.089 0.022 K Onsite 01/04 to 02/03 0.010 0.023 0.012 02/03 to 03/01 0.010 0.099 0.015 03/01 to 03/30 0.010 0.050 0.018 03/30 to 04/30 0.011 0.051 0.019 I 04/30 to 05/28 0.011 0.049 0.014 f 05/28 to 06/28 0.011 0.069 0.019
- Detectors are " bugged" to insure on scale readings.
46
- TABLE 15 (cont.)
CONTINUOUS RADIATION MONITORS * (GM) mR/hr SECOND IIALF mR/hr LOCATION PERIOD 1982 MIN. MAX. AVG.
C Offsite 06/29 to 07/23 0.010 0.028 0.018 07/23 to 08/20 0.013 0.021 0.018 08/20 to 09/17 0.012 0.030 0.018 09/17 to 10/19 0.010 0.023. 0.018 10/19 to 11/16 0.010 0.035 0.020 11/16 to 12/15 0.010 0.025 0.018 12/15 to 02/01/83 0.010 0.023 0.015 .
D 1
Onsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.010 0.060 0.021 07/22 to 08/19 0.014 0.082 0.023 08/19 to 09/17 0.013 0.600 0.022 09/17 to 10/15 0.010 0.110 0.025 10/15 to 11/12 0.010 0.063 0.022 11/12 to 12/08 0.010 0.032 0.022 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.010 0.033 0.022 D,,
~
Onsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.011 0.097 0.017 07/22 to 08/19 0.011 0.094 0.013 08/19 to 09/17 0.010 0.060 0.015 09/17 to 10/15 0.010 0.047 0.015 10/15 to 11/12 0.010 0.130 0.025 11/12 to 12/08 0.010 0.030 0.013 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.010 0.075 0.015 E Onsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.012 0.190 0.018 07/22 to 08/19 0.013 0.121 0.019 08/19 to 09/17 0.010 0.100 0.022 09/17 to 10/15 0.010 0.075 0.020 10/15 to 11/12 0.010 0.150 0.013 11/12 to 12/08 0.010 0.032 0.018 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.010 0.081 0.018 F Onsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.010 0.040 0.013 07/22 to 08/19 0.010 0.071 0.014 08/19 to 09/17 0.010 0.033 0.014 09/17 to 10/15 0.010 0.070 0.016 10/15 to 11/12 0.011 0.072 0.018 11/12 to 12/08 0.010 0.041 0.018 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.010 0.030 0.018 ODetectors are " bugged" to insure on scale readings.
47
=. . . . . - .
TABLE 15 (cont.)
CONTINUOUS RADIATION MONITORS * (GM) mR/hr SECOND HALF mR/hr LOCATION PERIOD 1982 MIN. MAX. AVG.
G Onsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.013 0.051 0.020 07/22 to 08/19 0.019 0.052 0.024 08/19 to 09/17 0.013 0.058 0.023 09/17 to 10/15 0.013 0.041 0.023 10/15 to 11/12 0.013 0.075 0.025 11/12 to 12/08 0.013 0.032 0.022 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.012 0.033 0.021 H Unsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.018 0.070 0.028 07/22 to 08/19 0.014 0.092 0.033 08/19 to 09/17 0.017 0.100 0.028 09/17 to 10/15 0.015 0.080 0.022 10/15 to 11/12 0.013 0.082 0.02G 11/12 to 12/08 0.013 0.037 0.025 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.015 0.038 0.020 I Onsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.012 0.090 0.028 07/22 to 08/19 0.014 0.110 0.033 08/19 to 09/17 0.011 0.120 0.025 09/17 to 10/15 0.012 0.060 0.028 10/15 to 11/12 0.020 0.092 0.030 11/12 to 12/08 0.015 0.035 0.025 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.012 0.080 0.025 J Onsite 06/28 to 07/22 0.011 0.090 0.013
^
J7/22 to 08/19 0.010 0.080 0.013 08/19 to 09/17 0.010 0.047 0.025 09/17 to 10/15 0.012 0.051 0.028 10/15 to 11/12 0.010 0.062 0.013 11/12 to 12/08 0.010 0.028 - 0.013
- 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.010 0.027 0.013 I; Onsito 06/28 to 07/22 0.011 0.130 0.014 1 07/22 to 08/19 0.012 0.081 0.014 08/19 to 09/17 0.010 0.060 0.013 09/17 to 10/15 0.010 0.065 0.018 ,
, 10/15 to 11/12 0.010 0.044 0.018 11/12 to 12/08 0.010 0.022 0.013 12/08 to 01/06/83 0.010 0.024 0.012 i
- Detectors are " bugged" to insure on scale readings.
48 1
r e
b 3 0 1 1 2 0 7 m 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 e . . .
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e < < < < < < <
D r
e b 3 0 4 3 3 4 3 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e . . . . . . .
v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o < < < < < < <
N r
e b 9 9 3 8 1 1 8 o 0 0 3 2 1 1 3 t . .
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O < < < < < < <
r e
b K a m 8 7 8 9 8 4 1 L
I m
g e 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 t . . . . . .
l t i p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s e < < < < < < <
N S I 2 1 1 .
3 I 1 1 I
- /
E i V N C t 0 9 1 0 4 0 5 n 6 I p s 2 2 1 D u . .
2 3
2 2
2 o
i 0 f g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 1 1 o u < < < < < < < c I
A e I F s S A O t T i ,
S n 5 N U O e I n r T i y 8 9 4 0 9 3 3 u A l 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 g R s u . . i T t J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F N l < < < < < < <
E u n C s o N e O R d C e t
s i .
e 8 7 2 8 6 2 l n n 1 1 2 1 1 2 o u . . . - . s i
- J 0 0 0 0 0 0 n t
< < < < < < o a i r t e a p c o
_ o l n i
7 7 6 7 e
y 1 1 4 5 l t 1 1 1 1 p o a . . . . - . .
m n M 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
- < < < < < < s n o
o i t t
)
a s t l d s n o n r o g o t p n i n s i t
a o e l t
C r p S
( r m 4 4 6 2 5 7 0 o a C S 1 1 1 4 4 g
TA8tE 17 CONCENTRATI0r!S OF GMt1A ElllTTERS IN lilLK (IIONTHLY CG1POSITE SNIPLES) ._
Results in Units of pCi/l i 2 signa 5-03-82 6-07-82 7-12-82 3-09-82 9-13-R2 10-04-82 11-08-82 12-06-82
, to to to to to to to to STATION NUCL10ES 5-17-82 6-21 782 7-26-82 8-23-82 9-20-82 10-18-82 11-29-82 12-20-82 i
- g, 7 K-40 1300t130 1300t130 1500t150 1300t130 1300t130 1400t140 1500t150 15001150 Cs-134 <2.5 <3.1 <3.2 (2.4 <3.4 <3.3 <2.6 <3.1 Cs-137 <5.1 <4.4 3.3t2.2 <3.5 <4.4 <4.0 <4.0 <3.3 Ba-140 <41 <27 <50 <27 <37 <37 <110 <42 La-140 <6.6 <7.1 <4.3 <4.0 <8.5 <3.3 <21 <!2 Others <LLD <LLD (LLD <LLD (LLD <LLD (LLD <tLD No. 4 K-40 15001150 1300tl30 1400t140 11001110 1700t170 1600t160 1400t140 1600t160 Cs-134 <2.9 <3.3 <3.4 <3.5 <3.0 <3.8 <2.9 <3.4 Cs-137 (5.3 <3.5 (4.9 (4.1 5.913.0 <4.0 <3.7 <4.8 Ba-140 (41 <39 <51 <33 <31 (48 <l10 (46 La-14r <4.7 <5.8 <ll <7.9 <6.3 < 8.1 <23 <8.3 Other <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD (LLD (LLD (LLD <LLD bS No. 45 K-4. 14001140(1) 1400tl40 11001110 1600t160 15001150 15001150 Cs-134 <2.5 <2.8 <3.7 <4.0 - <3.2 < 4.3 Cs-137 - SEE NOTE - 6.9 t 2.6 <4.5 <4.2 <5.8 <3.6 <6.1 Ba-140 <36 <40 <32 <57 <140 <?2 La-140 <4.3 <7.9 <5.9 <ll <35 <I2 Othe rs <LLD <LLD <tLD <LLD <LLD <LLD
~
No. 14 K-40 1400tl40 1500t150 1400t l40 1200t120 1200t120 1600tl60 1500t150 14001140 Cs-134 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <2.3 <3.0 <3.8 <2.6 <3.3 Cs-137 <4.3 <3.8 4.6t2.7 <3.4 <3.1 (4.7 <3.4 <4.3 Ba-140 <53 <37 <55 <29 <34 <32 <llo <51 La-140 (8.8 <7.3 <!2 <4.3 <7.9 <5.3 <14 <10 Others <LLD <LLD (LLD (LLD <tLD <tLD <LLD (LLD No. 12 K-40 1600t160 1300tl30 1400tl40 ,1300t130 1500tl50 1600tlSO 1300t130 1400tl40 Cs-134 <3.5 <3.5 <4.2 <3.1 <3.0 <3.8 <2.8 <2.9 Cs-137 <5.0 3.412.4 7.9:3.9 1814 (4.8 <4.0 <5.9 <4.1 Ba-140 (42 <110 (57 <49 <35 (48 <l20 <45 La-140 <8.8 <22 (7.3 <ll <ll <8.1 <31 <4.7 Others < LL,D (LID <tLD <LLD (LLD <LLD (LLD (LLD fluit: fio results - Sar:ipling statiori not in operattori.
Sampling begari at. f aria rio. 45 on 07/12/32.
- Corresponds to sahiple> locations notal on figure 5. Section Vil.
TABLE 17 (cont.)
00NCENTRATIONS Of GNilA DilTTERS IN HILK (t10HTHLY C(111'OSITE SAIPLES)
Results in Units of pCl/1 t 2 sigma 5-03-82 6-07-82 7-12-82 8-09-82 9-13-82 10-04-82 11-08-82 12-06-82 to to to to to to to to STATION NUCLIDES 5-17-82 6-21-82 7-26-82 8-23-82 9-20-82 10-18-82 11-29-82
, 12-20-82 No. 16 K-40 1400t140 1200t120 1600t160 1500t150 1500t150 1600t160 1600t160 1300t130 Cs-134 <2.8 <3.9 <2.6 <2.7 <3.6 <4.0 <3.1 <3.2 Cs-137 3.1t2.0 <4.9 <4.3 4.912.5 4.612.8 <5.8 <3.8 (4.8 Ba-140 (34 <42 <41 <39 <47 <57 (140 (52 La-140 (7.6 <12 (7.8 (7.0 <4.7 (11 <35 (11 Others < LLD (LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD <LLD (LLD No. 40 (Control) K-40 14001140 13001130 1500t150 1500t150 1300t130 13001130 15001150 15301150 Cs-134 <2.3 <2.8 <2.4 <3.3 <3.4 <2.3 <3.0
'" <3.1
"" Cs-137 <3.3 <3.3 <3.9 <4.7 (4.4 <5.1 <3.7 <3.6 Ba-140 <37 (20 (46 <58 (9.5 <41 <120 (110 L a-140 <7.7 <6.6 <9.1 <4.6 <2.2 <8.5 <25 <14 Others <LLD <LLD (LLD <LLD <tLD (LLD <LLD (LLD
- Corresponds to sample locations noted on Figure 5.Section VII.
TABLE 18 CONCENTRATIONS OF STRONTIUM-90 IN MILK
, (MONTilLY COMPOSITE SAMPLES) -
Results in Units of pCi/l i 2 sigma Station
- May June July August 4 <2.73 <4.78 3.02 1 1.4 2.91 1 0.71 14 5.45 1.7 <l.49 2.66 1 2.1 7.28 ! 3.0 16 2.77 1 2.2 0.76 1 0.67 1.93 0.92 5.68 1 0.85 12 4.16 1 0.83 5.78 1.1 3.98 1 1.1 6.49 i 1.3 45 - -
6.89 1 2.4 4.35 ! 0.88 7 9.76 1 4.7 7.91 1 1.5 3.43 1 0.96 6.95 1.4 40 (Control) <3.3 0.925 '0.67 3.27 2.0 4.20 0.84 Station
- September October November December 4 5.53 1.0 3.68 i 1.0 3.49 2.6 3.38 1 0.97 14 9.24 i 8.7 4.93 1 0.99 3.56 1 1.3 2.20 0.80 16 8.59 1 2.2 4.30 0.89 3.62 1 1.9 4.58 1.1 12 3.76 1 1.2 6.68 1 0.99 3.29 1 1.1 2.66 1 1.2 45 4.49 1 1.2 5.19 1 1.2 7.47 1.6 5.00 ! 0.81 7 3.10 1 2.1 2.33 ! 0.59 4.81 ! 1.3 2.01 1 1.5 40 (Control) 2.17 1 1.2 3.58 1 0.69 3.61 1 1.0 <15.9
- Corresponds to sample locations listed on Figure 5,Section VII.
- Sampling station not in operation.
TABLE '19 MILCH ANIMAL CENSUS SPRING 1982 '
NUMBER ON y NUMBER TOWN CENSUS MAP OF MILCH ANIMALS Scriba 1 2G 16* 39 C 2 20 C 3 1C 6 2C i
New Haven 8 35 C 9 45 C 4* 55 C 15* 18 C 10 24 C 5* 40 C 11 34 C 7* 51 C Mexico 12 62 C 13 2C 14* 65 C 17 38 C 18 46 C 19 43 C 20 37 C 21 5C 22 35 C 23 150 C 24 35 C 25 82 C Richland 26 42 C 27 58 C Oswego 28 30 C Hannibal 45** 33 C Volney 29 2C
[ TOTALS 1,129 Cows 2 Goats C = Cows G = Goats
- = Milk Sample Locations
- = Milk Sample Control Location 1 = Figure 5,Section VII 53
TABLE 19 (cont.)
MILCH ANIMAL CENSUS SUMMER 1982 NUMBER ON NUMBER TOWN 1 CENSUS MAP OF MILCH ANIMALS Scriba 1
1 2G 16* 39 C 2 20 C 3 1C 6 1C 1
New Haven 8 30 C l 9 40 C 4* 70 C 15* 20 C, 1 G 10 26 C 5* 45 C 11 40 C 7* 52 C Mexico 12 70 C 13 2C 14* 60 C 17 34 C 18 42 C 19 45 C 20 40 C 21 8C 22 40 C 23 114 C 24 37 C 25 75 C Richland 26 37 C 27 60 C Oswego 28 29 C Hannibal 45** 34 C i
Volney 29 30 C TOTALS 1,141 Cows ,
3 Goats C = Cows G = Goats
- =- Milk Sample Locations
- = Milk Sample Control Location 1 = Figure 5,Section VII 54
s D D D D D D D O O D D D D D r L L L L L L L L L L L L L D D D D D D LD D L e L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L h < ( ( ( < ( ( ( ( < ( < ( ( ( ( ( ( (
t 1 l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l
( ( (
O 1 l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l
l l
l l l
l l l l A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A l l l A
7 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 0 0 0 3 9 4 4 5 3 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- t 1 t s 0 0 0 1
< < < < < < < 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 < < < < < <0 < < <0 < < 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0
- 4 3 8 3 3 4
- 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- s 0 0 ; 0 0 0 0 0 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C < < - ( < < < < < < < < < < < < < (
0 0 S
T C
0 8 0 1 2 2 4 1 6 6 0 0 3 7 9 8 7 8 8 0 9 4 8 5 4 0 0 0 0 R 1 0 0 1 4 4 P - 3 0 0 0 0 0 D.
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D a 1 ( < < < < < < < < ( < < < < < < < < < <
O O
n g
F i s
, S
- U ?
O I t R
A )
V t e 5 6 7 4 4 7 5 8 3 6 5 5 7 9 2 2 2 3 2 N w 2 3 3 G I ( 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 2
g 4 1 1 1 t 1 t 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
t 0
1 0
1 0
1 01 01 o 0 0 01 0 S / - 2 9 8 5 2 '5 5 4 4 0 4 8 3 t t 1 t R l K 4 1 4 8 6 5 9 9 5 E E C 5 5 6 3 3 6 3 8 2 6 5 3 7 L T p 9 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 B T A I f T M E
o s
A l
t i
i M Un G 7 7 .
n 0 0 l 4
. F i 7 5 2 3 3 3 3 3 7 4 4 4 l 5 3 2 3 3 3 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 O - 2 V S
s e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t B < < < < ( < < ( < < < < 1 1 < < < < < < < < n N l o O u 0 0 i
_ I s t T e c A R e R S T
N .
E 4 C
N e O r C u g
i N dr d F O r I
e a n T h h s s s o P n n n n e i
o eg e o e e ng i e e C C I
R k e e o d e
k k k s s a C f f c s s c s c k f c s s s t
a b t
a t
a b a hc f f t
m o o mo S e e i g g i g i r e i g n E e e h g g h g h o e g i i w wS a b a
b c e e n D. B B C E E C E C P B h
C E S C a u e e
- T C T T Z B B s n
i o
t a
- c
- o 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 l
E 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 2 LE - - - - -
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e PT 3 3 5 5 6 6 6 7 0 0 2 2 7 7 7 MA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 7 7 7 7 5 0 lp AD - - - - - - - - -
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 m
. S 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 a 9 9 1 1 s
1 1 t
o s
d n
- ) o
) ) ) ) p N l o l l l l s O
r o r
or o r o e r
I t r T t t t t r CE n n n n n o ET o o o o o C LI C C C C C LS ( ( ( ( (
- O A 8 K C I I J J K D C L L Q T P R R S N N E F n
e
TABLE 20 (cont.)
CONCENTRATI0lis 0F GNEtA D11TTERS IN VARIOUS FOOD PRODUCTS Results in Units of pCi/g(wet) i 2 sigma
. COLLECTION SMtPLE SITE DATE DESCRIPTION Be-7 K-40 I-131, Cs-134 Cs-137 Others L (s.ontrol) 11-10-82 Chicken <0.2 4.110.4 <0.4 <0.01 (0.02 All<LLD L (Control) 11-10-82 Eggs <0.2- 2.010.2 <0.2 <0.01 <0.02 All(LLD M 11-10-82 Oilcken <0.3 3.610.4 <0.5 (0.02 <0.02 All<tLD
~
M 11-10-82 Eggs <0.2 1.410.2 (0.3 (0.01 <0.01 All<tLD ,
G (Control) 11-10-82 Beef <0.2 2.8to.3 <0.4 <0.02 <0.02 All(LLD H 11-11-82 Beef <0.2 , 3.510.4 <0.4 <0.01 0.0210.01 All<tLD 1 11-11-82 Chicken <0.2 3.110.3 <0.3 <0.01 (0.02 All(LLD I 11-11-82 Eggs (0.1 1.210.2 <0.2 <0.01 <0.01 All(LLD
$ J 11-11-82 Chicken <0.2 4.210.4 <0.4 <0.01 <0.02 All(LLD J 11-11-82 Egg' <0.2 1.610.2 <0.3 <0.01 <0.02 All(LLD
- Corresponds to sample locations noted on Figure 4.Section VII.
TAlli.E 21 CONCENTRATION OF CAMnlA EntlTTERS IN PASTURE GRASS Results in Units of pC1/g (wet)
Station .
- S.saple Code Sample Type Date Ra-226 Be-7 Cs-134 Ru-106 Cs-137 Nb-95 Co-58 Mn-54 Co-60 K-40 Ce-t44 40 Pasture Crass 07/26/82 2.6121.70 < 8.86 <0.255 <3.13 <0.273 <2.36 <0.586 <0.341 <0.363 12.9 13.40 cl.41 4 Pasture Crass 07/26/82 <3.98 < 7.80 <0.259 <2.43 <0.236 <2.01 <0.545 <0.297 <0.294 17.0 13.47 14 Pasture Crass <l.30 07/26/82 2.8721.40 4.2812.57 <0.159 <l.82' <0.159 <l.57 <0.447 <0.211 <0.197 17.7 22.39 <0.896 12 Pasture Crass 07/26/82 3.0713.97 < C 00 <0.22 <2.46 <0.224 <l.92 <0.775 <0.288 <0.322 18.1 14.03 <l.50 16 Pasture Crass 07/26/82 <2.91 < 5.95 <0.146 <l.87 <0.160 <l.43 <0.455 <0.204 <0.234 Pasture Crass 15.1 12.95 <0.944 7 07/26/82 <4.38 < 7.85 <0.291 <3.03 <0.280 <2.07 <0.740 <0.362 <0.358 21.3 14.20 <l.39 45 Pasture Grass 07/26/82 4.5013.06 < 9.84 <0.291 <2.75 <0.329 <2.24 <0.824 <0.390 <0.376 40 30.4 14.9) <l.56 Pasture Crass 08/23/82 <3.2I 9.2227.09 <0.175 <2.02 0.34720.133 <2.36 <0.733 <0.232 <0.168 - 23.4 13.16 <l.32 4 Pasture Crass 08/23/82 <3.72 <ll.2 <0.233 <2.45 <0.206 <2.79 <0.744 <0.282 <0.248 22.2 13.44 <l.38 14 Pasture Crass 08/23/82 2.2811.53 < 9.43 <0.179 <l.78 <0.198 . <2.93 <0.641 <0.215 <0.119 27.1 13.61 <0.949 12 Pasture Crass 08/23/82 <2.85 6.9115.07 <0.177 <2.11 <0.160 <3.07 <0.733 <0.260 <0.187 27.4 23.48 <l.20 3 16 Pasture Crass 08/23/82 <2.60 < 8.58 <0.141 <l.76 <0.L67 "4 <2.54 <0.627 <0.208 <0.200 9.3112.18 <0.936 7 Pasture Crass 08/23/82 4.7611.86 10.9 26.27 <0.192 <2.00 <0.238 <2.62 <0.699 <0.258 <0.314 19.7 23.45 <l.23 45 Pasture Crass 08/23/82 <3.12 S.2815.26 <0.201 <l.98 <0.182 <3.36 <0.639 <0.206 <0.244 40 23.7 13.31 cl.26 Pasture Crass 09/20/82 <3.70 < 8.89 <0.219. <2.16 <0.236 <2.26 <0.722 <0.279 <0. 305 19.8 13.43 <l.13 4 Pasture Crass 09/20/82 <2.52 < 6.83 <0.162 <l.84 <0.146 <l.87 <0.522 <0.180 <0.167 20.4 23.31 <0.910 14 Pasture Crass 09/20/82 2.Iltl.54 <10.00 <0.235 <2.41 <0.239 <2.07 <0.780 <0.317 <0.246 22.4 13.65 <l.42 12 Pasture Crass 09/20/82 2.64t1.71 < 8.01 <0.211 <l.84 <0.180 cl.80 <0.617 <0.188 <0.185 12.2 12.06 <l.29 16 Pasture Crass 09/20/82 2.3611.47 < 8.05 <0.208 <l.82 <0.184 <2.11 <0.479 <0.261 <0.230 17.3 13.08 cl.04 7 Pasture Crass 09/20/82 1.1310.847 < 5.26 <0.127 <l.29 <0.141 <l.32
<0.337 <0.158 <0.183 29.9 12.87 <0.775 45 Pasture Crass 09/20/82 3.73tl.10 8.8615.18 <0.229 <2.09 <0.181 <l.77 <0,557 <0.240 <0.261 12.9 13.01 cl.13
- Corresponds to sample locations noted on Figure 5.Section VII, d
l-V i
I J
t 1
DATA SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 4
J I
l s
I l
i
-- r ,-. m. .... . - .-.m -..- , -m- -.,-.-e.- -..- - -~ . - - .- - -.
V DATA SUPEIARIES AND CONCLUSIONS The results of the 1982 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Pro-gram are evaluated considering the natural processes of the environment and the aggregate of past data. A number of factors are considered in the course of this radiological data evaluation and interpretation. The interpretation of data can be made at several levels including trend analy-sis, population dose, risk estimates to the general population based on environmental concentrations, effectiveness of plant eftluent controls and specific research areas, among others. An attempt has been made in this report not only to report the data collected during the 1982 sample pro-gram but also to assess the significance of the radionuclides detected in the environment. It is important to note that detection of an isotope is not of itself an indication of its environmental significance. Evaluation of the impact of the radionuclide in terms of potential increased dose to man, in relation to natural background, is necessary.
Three specific groups of radionuclides exist in the environment.
The first of these groups is naturally occurring. It must be recognized that our environment contains a broad inventory of natural background radiation of primordial and daily origin. The background radiation is in a co:1stant state of flux, influenced by a myriad of daily phenomena in-cluding solar activity, snow cover, barometric pressure and meteorological conditions. The natural background radiation in the general area of the site is assessed on a quarterly basis and is found to be the most signifi-cant contributor to man's radiation exposure.
The radiation resulting from the detonation of thermonuclear devices in the earth's atmosphere has produced a second group of radionuclides generally found in the environment. The inventory of fallout radionu-clides found worldwide is the result of atmospheric testing conducted in the years 1945 through 1963, in 1963 a ban was placed on the testing of thermonuclear devices in the atmosphere greatly reducing the inventory of short half-life radionuclides in the environment. Since 1963 several atmo-spheric nuclear tests have been conducted by the People's Republic of China. The most recent of these tests took place in October of 1980.
The resulting fallout from these tests has influenced the background radi-ation in the vicinity of site and is evident in many of the sample media analyzed during 1982. Calculations of the resulting dose to man from fallout nuclides in the environment show that the contribution from such nuclides in some cases (Sr-90 and Cs-137) is significant and second in in-tensity only to natural background radiation.
The third group of radionuclides detected in the local environment is those resulting from the operation of the plant. The detection of plant related radionuclides is one of the main objectives of the environmental surveillance program. The dose to man as a result of plant operation is small and much less than the radiation exposure from naturally occurring sources of radiation and in most cases from fallout exposure.
58
i.
I -
L l In Section V each sample medium is discussed. Concentrations of j radionuclides detected and exposure to man are presented and scruti-nized.
~
( Section VI, titled HISTORICAL DATA, contains sample statistics from
- previous environmental sampling. The process of determining the impact
!. (or lack of impact) of plant operation on the environment includes the l scrutiny of past analytical data, a tool by which trends are discerned.
The interpretation of historical data in this report is done to a limited degree. Because of the constant change in analytical sensitivities, as state-of-the-art detection capabilities improve, data compa'risons become difficult. For example, minimum detection capabilities for the 1969 and i
1974 analyses of environmental samples would be considered anomalous by 1982 standards, i
(
LAKE PROGRAll
! Tables 1 through 8 list the 1982 analytical results for the aquatic / lake water media sampled during the 1982 sampling program. Aquatic samples were obtained at a combination of four onsite locations. The transect designations used for the onsite sampling locations are NMPW (01), Nf,lPP
( (02), JAF (03) and NMPE (04). Due to limited availability of certain required sample media, samples could not be obtained consistently at each of the same onsite transects sampled for other media. Offsite samples were collected in the vicinity of the Oswego Harbor (offsite - 00).
- 1. PERIPHYTON SAMPLES - TABLE 1
[
( Periphyton is a common fresh water algae found throughout the
~
l.. Great Lakes and in almost all underwater aquatic systems. Periphy-
! ton in its simplest form is a single celled organism which colonizes the natural and artificial substrates found in the shore and near shore waters. Colonies of periphyton can be found from the shore zone to water depths which can be sufficiently penetrated by sun-light to support photosynthesis. Periphyton is dependent on sun-light and inorganic materials found in the lake to support life therefore putting it in the classification of a primary producer.
Periphyton in its simplest form is the slimy coating which is found !
on most underwater surfaces and has a brown to green coloration. I This organism is used as an indicator organism to help evaluate the possible effects of plant operation on the local aquatic environment i on the lowest level of the food chain.
The~ collection and analysis of periphyton samples was performed twice during the 1982 sample program.
- The first collection of periphyton was completed on June 17, 1982
- and the second collection was completed on August 16, 1982. The gamma spectral analysis of periphyton samples showed detectable
{
t 59
k concentrations of Cs-134, Cs-137, 51n-54, Co-60, Be-7, Ra-226, Ce-144, Th-232 and K-40. The nine radionuclides detected in peri-phyton samples can be attributed to several sources. Each of the radionuclides detected. can be placed in one of three groups. The first group of radionuclides is the result of plant operation. The se und group of radionuclides is naturally occurring and is found in ,
many living organisms as noted throughout this report. The third group of radionuclides is the result of past atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. Radionuclides with relatively long half-lives which i
fall into this third group are the result of atmospheric tests con-ducted over the.past. decades. The only fallout related radionuclides detected in 1982 periphyton samples were Cs-137 and Ce-144. Cs-137 l requires special consideration as this radioisotope of cesium is a com-mon constituent of the background radiation due to fallout but can also be attributed to the operation of the plant. In 1981 six fallout radionuclides were detected in the periphyton samples. Of the six
- radionuclides detected in 1981, two, Ce-144 and Cs-137, were de- i tected in the 1982 samples. The other fallout radionuclides were not
. detected in 1982 because of their short half-lives (3.5 . days to 368 days) which resulted in their decaying away to concentrations below
, that of the lower limits of detection (LLD) and as a result of ecolog-ical cycling.
The first set of periphyton samples collected on June 17, 1982 con-tained detectable concentrations of Be-7, K-40,- Co-60, Cs-137, Ce-144, Ra-226 and Th-232. The maximum detectable concentrations
- for plant related radionuclides were 0.018 pCi/g (wet) for Co-60 and r
0.062 pCi/g (wet) for Cs-137. Cs-137 was detected in both the con-
- trol (offsite) sample and the two indicator (onsite) samples with the maximum concentration, as noted above, present in the control sam-ple. Ce-144, a fallout radionuclide, was also detected in the control
- _ sample collected in June. Ce-144 was detected in only one of the six periphyton samples collected in 1982 and its presence is attributed to i
past nuclear weapons testing. Ce-144 was also detceted in air par -
ticulate samples collected during 1982 at both the onsite and offsite sample locations.
l The second collection of periphyton samples completed on August 16,
, showed a small increase in the concentrations of plant related radio-i nuclides. The maximum concentrations of plant related radionuclides in the second ' or summer collection were 0.38 pCi/g (wet) for
' Cs-13 7, 0.033 pCi/g (wet) for Cs-134, 0.06 pCi/g (wet) for Co-60
- and 0.02 pCi/g (wet) for hin-54. Cs-134 and hin-54 which were de-tected in the August samples were not found in the June samples.
As in the June samples Cs-137 was detected at all three sample loca-I tions including the control location.
L Four naturally occurring radionuclides were detected in each of the six 1982 samples. Be-7, K-46, Ra-226 and Th-232 were found in both- the onsite and the offsite samples. The concentration of the i naturally occurring radionuclides was consistent with levels detected in previous years' samples. A general increase in the concentrations L
i j 60
of radionuclides in the second or late summer collection compared to the June collection was noted for the 1982 samples at the indicator 3 locations. A similar increase in concentration in samples collected in late summer was also noted in 1980 and 1981. This increase in sample concentration may be due to the higher metabolic rate or increased growth of the periphyton community between the first and second collections. Each of the plant related radionuclides detected in the 1982 samples were trace amounts and are attributed to plant effluents.
A dose to man calculation from the level of activity found in lake periphyton samples in the vicinity of the plant is difficult to make as ;
periphyton is not- directly in the human food chain. To best deter- l mine the resulting dose to man from the activity found in periphyton samples , calculations were made based on concentrations found in fish samples as fish represent the upper level of the food chain in
-which periphyton is a primary producer. Dose to man t:alculations based on concentrations found in fish and consumption rates are contained in Section V.5.
A review of past data shows Cs-137 concentrations in both indicator
,. and control periphyton samples have decreased in 1982 from a see-ondary peak in 1981 which was the result of fallout from a nuclear weapons test conducted in October of 1980. The ' downward trend of Cs-137 concentrations should continue in the following years if no future atmospheric nuclear testing is conducted. Co-60 concentrc-tion in periphyton showed.a general reduction in concentration at the indicator stations but remains sli;;htly above control station values for the six years between 1974 and 1980. Ce-144 also showed a marked decrease in concentration from 1981, as did Cs-137 with levels returning close-to background (LLD) at both the indicator and control sample locations. Both the 1977 and 1981 peaks represented on the graph in Section- VII are attributed to fallout from atmos-pheric testing with the 1982 concentration representing the general reduction of Ce-144 concentrations in the environment due to radio-I logical decay of Ce-144. Graphs depicting concentrations of Cs-137, Co-60 and Ce-144 are present in Section VII.
l 2. BOTTOM SEDIMENT - TABLE _2 Bottom sediment samples were collected twice during the 1982 sam- I pling program. Gamma spectral analyses and Sr-90 analyses were performed on each of the six samples and the results are presented
-in Table 2. Samples were collected in June and September / October l' in 1982 with the Oswego Harbor area (transect [00]) serving as the control location, Nine Mile Point Plant (transect [02]) and the FitzPatrick Plant (transect [03]) serving as the indicator or onsite sample locations. As in past years the most abundant fission radio-nuclide detected was Cs-137 which was found in each of the six sam-j ples collected in 1982, which included both the onsite and offsite 61
.e samples. Co-60 was detected in three of the six samples and Sr-90 was detected in two of the six 1982 samples.
The presence of Cs-137 in the lake bottom sediment can be attri-buted to the accumulation of fallout in the aquatic environment as -a result of the detonation of nuclear devices in the atmosphere. The origin of Cs-137 in atmosphere testing can be demonstrated by sam-ple results which show the presence of Cs-137 in control location
-sediment samples. The level of _Cs-137 detected in the June offsite l or control sample exceeds the concentrations of any one of the four i onsite er indicator stations collected during the year. The maximum control' station value was 0.75 pCi/g (dry) which was greater than two times the concentration detected at either of the indicator sta-tions during the same sample period. The Cs-137 concentrations ranged from 0.75 to 0.29 pCi/g (dry) for the control samples and from 0.30 to 0.05 pCi/g (dry) for the indicator samples. The con-trol sample values for Cs-137 showed similar trends in 1979, 1980 and 1981 when the control concentrations exceeded those that were detected at the indicator locations.
Co-60 was detected in three of the four indicator samples collected in 1982. Positive detections of Co-60 ranged from a minimum of 0.09 pCi/g (dry) to a maximum of 0.19 pCi/g (dry). The detected levels of Co-60 are lower than the concentrations detected in 1981 when the minimum concentration was '0.11 pCi/g (dry)' and the maximum value was 0.27 pCi/g (dry). The detection of Co-60 in sediment can be attributed to the operation of the plant. Co-60 was not detected in the control samples collected in 1982. The levels of Co-60 detected in the onsite samples are very small and are near the lower limits of detection.
-Strontium-90.was detected in two of the four onsite samples collected in 1982. Both positive detections were made at the Nine f.iile Point-(02) transect. Sr-90 was not detected at the second onsite sample location or the control sample location. The presence of Sr-90 at the indicator location is considered to be the result of weapons fallout even though Sr-90 was not detected at the control location. Sr-90 was detected in the control station samples during 1979, 1980 and 1981 which is evidence that Sr-90 is attributable to weapons testing fallout . . The LLD _ value for the control location samples are near the
! detected concentrations of Sr-90 and in one case (October) is above l
the detected concentration of 0.013 pCi/g (dry). Variations in Sr-90 concentrations can be influenced by several factors including sedi-l ment type and chemical make-up. The presence of Sr-90 in many of l
the other control samples supports the fact that Sr-90 is ubiquitous
! throughout the environment. The mean 1982 indicator concentration for Sr-90 was 0.037 pCi/g (dry).
The dose to man from bottom sediment is not of concern and cannot be directly calculated. Bottom sediment is not accessible to man and the radioactivity found in the sediment is shielded by ,the overlaying water column. To illustrate the impact of radioactivity in sediment 4
62 j
samples with respect 'to the dose to man concept, the assumption can be made that at some future time bottom sediment could be intro-duced into the shoreline sediment through re-suspension and deposi-tion. Assuming that the density of the sediment is 40 kg/m8 (dry) and using the average residence time on the shore of 47 hours5.439815e-4 days <br />0.0131 hours <br />7.771164e-5 weeks <br />1.78835e-5 months <br /> per year for a teenager, the annual dose rate from a maximum indicator sample Cs-137 concentration of 0.24 pCi/g (dry) is calculated to be 0.0019 mrem per year whole body dose. The whole body dose from a Co-60 concentration of 0.19 pCi/g (dry) would be equal to 0.0061 mrem per year. The resulting total whole body dose would be equal 1
to 0.080 mrem per year whole body. The contribution to the total whole body dose due to Sr-90 would be infinitesimal due to the fact that Sr-90 decays by a beta emission and has no associated strong gamma energy.
A review of past Cs-137 data illustrates that the mean concentration 4
values for the indicator stations have dropped significantly from 1976 to 1979 with the general trend downward continuing from 1979 through 1982. Since 1979 the mean value for the control station has been greater than the indicator stations with 1982 showing a change in the downward trend for Cs-137 concentrations at the control loca-tions. .This change in trend for the Cs-137 concentrations may be the effect of the sample location's close proximity to the Oswego River outlet and possible source of Cs-137 from deposition of Cs-137 from atmospheric . nuclear testing onto the river watershed. The.
concentration of Co-60 in sediment samples has shown a similar downward trend to that of Us-137 since 1977. The maximum Co-60 concentration was detected in 1977. The concentration of Co-60 in the indicator samples (mean) shows a consistent downward trend since 1977 that continued through 1981 with a slight increase in mean concentration for 1982. The increase noted in 1982 is not significant and is within the bounds of statistical variation. Historical trends for concentrations of Cs-137 and Co-60 are presented in graphic form in Section VII.
- 3. MOLLUSK SAMPLES - TABLE 3 A total of six mollusk samples were collected in 1982 from a total of three general locations. Each sample was analyzed for gamma emit-ters using gamma spectral analysis and for Sr-90 using chemical sep-arations and beta particle analysis. The results of the 1982 samples are presented _ on Table 3. As in past years the effort to collect mollusk samples of sufficient size has been of limited success in terms of sample volume collected. The. collections in 1982 were pro-ductive and resulted in sample volumes in the 500 gram range which in some cases resulted in good sensitivities for the gamma spectral analysis, in particular for the indicator samples. Mollusk _ samples were successfully collected at the offsite (00) or control location and at the Nine Mile Point Plant (02) transect and the FitzPatrick (03) transect, for the indicator samples.
1 e G3
I The results of the' isotopic analysis of mollusk tissue detected the
~
, presence of five radionuclides. The nuclides detected consisted of
' two ' naturally occurring radionuclides (K-40. and Ra-226), two plant
'related radionuclides (Mn-54 ' and Co-60), and one radionuclide re-L lated to fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing (Sr-90). Detectable i
. concentrations of Sr-90 were. measured in each of six samples col-t lected at both the onsite and offsite locations. The presence of Sr-90 in all the mollusk samples collected for the sample year was
- also observed in 1979,1980 and 1981. The 1982 Sr-90 concentrations ranged. from a maximum of 0.12 pCi/g (wet) to a minimum of 0.018 I
pCi/g (wet) with the control station mean equal. to 0.027 pCi/g (wet) and the indicator mean equal to 0.097 pCi/g (wet). As in other sample media the presence of Sr-90 is considered to be the result of fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing. This determination is based on the fact that Sr-90 is consistently detected in control samples in 1 previous years as noted above. Mn-54 and Co-60 were detected in each .of,the four onsite or indicator samples collected in 1982. The presence of Mn-54 and Co-60 in mollusk tissue can be attributed to the operation of the plant. Manganese-54 was detected in only the indicator samples with concentrations ranging from a maximum of 0.31 pCi/g (wet) to a minimum of 0.15 pCi/g (wet). Co-60 concentrations ranged from a maximum of 0.07 pCf/g (wet) to a minimum of 0.04 pC1/g (wet).
The relatively high frequency for the detection of Co-60 and partic- '
-ularly Mn-54 in mollusk samples can be attributed to the phenomenon
- of bioaccumulation or concentration factors. The level of an element
, in a particular organism relative to the level or concentration of the
- same element ir, the organism's environment is known as the concen-tration factor. Fresh water mollusk have an extremely high concen-tration factor of 300,000 (mean) for Mn-54 and 32,408 (mean) for Co-60*. Such high concentration factors would result in a rapid ac-cumulation of manganese and cobalt activity .in mollusk that are in-digenous to the off shore area of the site. .
r Fresh water mollusk found in the vicinity of the site are not con-sumed by humans and are not a major component or level in the food chain if for no other reason other than the small population due to the unfavorable physical makeup of the lake bottom in the area. Be-( . cause these fresh water mollusk are not considered edible there is no dose to man from. the presence of the Mn-54 or Co-60 concentrations. '
- As in past years an estimate can be made using. substituted parame- "
ters for the purpose of putting into perspective the possible sig-nificance of Mn and Co-60 concentrations detected in the mollusk
[_
samples. . Using the average individual consumption of seafood' of 1.0 kg/ year _ for an adult , the dose resulting from ingestion of mollusks would be 0.0003. mrem / year to the whole body and 0.0043
- mrem / year to the gastrointestinal tract for the maximum Mn-54 con-centration of 0.31 pCi/g (wet). The dose resulting from the Co-60 i-concentration of 0.07 pCi/g (wet) would be 0.0003 mrem / year to the l
0 Eisenbud (1973) 64
, , _ , _ . - . . _ _ - ~ , _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ - _
whole body and 0.0028 mrem / year to the gastrointestival tract. The total maximum dose that would be received from the consumption of 1.0 kg of fresh water mollusk would be 0.0006 mrem to the whole body and 0.0071 mrem to the gastrointestinal tract. This calculated dose is extremely small and as noted above in reality would be equal to no dose, because of the zero consumption rate.
The concentrations of Mn-54 and Co-60 have shown a significant drop since 1976 when both radionuclides were detected at their maximum level. The concentration of Mn-54 detected in the 1982 samples is a small increase from 1980 and 1981 but remains below the levels of 1978 and 1979. This small increase in Mn-54 concentration is not a direct indication of an upward trend for Mn-54 concentra- t tions. The particular sample or samples collected will have an influence on the level of Mn-54 detected. Such factors as age, physical size or exact location of the sample with respect to the plant will result in small deviation from the true mean concentra-tions. The difference in concentrations between 1982 levels and those detected in 1980 and 1981 would probably be within the bounds of the associated sampling error or variability, though the exact values for such bounds would be difilcult to determine. The Co-60 concentration in the indicator samples showed a small decrease from levels detected in 1981. Co-60 concentrations in mollusk samples have remained relatively constant since 1977. Sr-90 concentrations in mollusk samples have remained stable since 1978 after a peak in 1976, with little change in the 1982 samples. Graphs of previous mollusk sample results for Mn-54, Co-G0 and Sr-90 are presented in Section VII. Also found in Section Vll is a physical description of the lake bottom in the vicinity of the site for reference to the suitability of the area as mollusk habitat.
- 4. GAMMARUS - TABLE 4 GAMMARUS samples were collected once during the 1982 sample pe-riod in conjunction with mollusk, periphyton and bottom sediment.
GAMMARUS are benthic or demersal dwelling organisms found in the general vicinity of the site and throughout Lake Ontario. GAMMARUS are sampled as an indicator organism whose major predator is the -
local fish population. GAMMARUS are generally found in periphyton and cladophora growth areas and are limited in their territorial ranges. Samples were successfully collected at the control location (00) and at the NMPP (02) and JAF (03) transects for the summer sampling. Three collections are normally required to collect suf-ficient samples for acceptable analyses. The first collection of ;
GAMMARUS attempted in the spring of 1982 yielded sample weights of '
only 4.0 g, 0.1 g and 0.0 g respectively for the Oswego, NMPP and JAF transects. Three sampling attempts were made at each sample location during the period of June 15 through June 18, 1982. The sample sizes collected were insufficient for analysis. The difficulties in obtaining sufficient sample size is experienced each year. It i i
65 I i
should be noted that GAf.lMARUS are normally less than 10 mm in size and require a large number to obtain a biomass of one gram of
. sample . The spring collection of GAMMARUS samples was also im-peded by the unusually cold water temperature experienced in the spring of 1982 resulting in few GAMMARUS inhabiting the shoreline shallows.
Sampling for GAMMARUS in the summer provided sufficient quantities of this organism for analysis. The analytical sensitivities were good for the summer samples with the exception of the JAF (03) transect sample. . The JAF sample resulted in sensitivities of <1.1 pCi/g (wet)
[ for Co-60 and <0.7 pCi/g (wet) for Cs-137. These sensitivities are l acceptable, but several times higher than those achieved for the control and the NMPP samples.
The analyses of the summer GAMMARUS collected in August showed no measurable . concentrations of Co-60, Cs-137, Cs-134 or any other plant related radionuclides. Strontium-90 was detected in each of the samples collected in 1982 in both the indicator and control sam-ples. As noted previously similar detections of Sr-90 were made in mollusk samples. Sr-90 was also detected in many of the fish sam-ples analyzed. in 1982. Sr-90 is considered to be a background ra-dionuclide because its origin is not related to the operation of the plant but is attributed to fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing.
The absence of plant related radionuclides in . GAMMARUS samples collected in 1982 and the lack of detectable concentrations in 1980 and 1981 (second collection only) indicates that the presence of these nuclides is not routine. The dose to man as a result of plant re- .
lated radionuclides would be zero as no such nuclides were detected in 1982. The importance of any activity detected in these organisms is only significant with respect to the passage of any radionuclides through the food chain to a tropic level which may impact man.
Historical data for GAMMARUS sample results shows a small increase
. in Cs-137 from 1981 sample concentrations for the indicator samples.
The 1982 indicator mean concentration was approximately one third of I the peak onsite concentration detected in 1980 [0.64 pCi/g (wet)].
The mean lower limit of detection for Cs-137 in 1982 was <0.45 pCi/g
- . (wet) ,which was many times less than the positive detection of 4.7 l pCi/g (wet) for Cs-137 in 1981. No definite trend can be deter-l mined for Cs-137' concentrations as positive detections have been l random in past years. Previous GAf.if.iARUS data ( Cs-137, Sr-89, l Srq0) is presented in Section VI, HISTORICAL DATA.
t l S. FISH - TABLE 5 A total of 18 required fish samples were collected in the spring sea-son (June 1982) and in the fall season (October 1982). Collections were made utilizing gill nets at one offsite location greater than five
- miles from the site (Oswego Harbor area), and at- two onsite locations in the vicinity of the Nine Mile Point Unit #1 (02), and the James A.
l 1
l- G6 t
1 FitzPatrick (03) generating facilities. The Oswego Harbor samples i
served as control samples while the NhlP (02) and JAF (03) samples served as indicator samples. . Samples were analyzed for gamma emitters, Sr-89, and Sr-90 Data is presented in the ANALYTICAL RESULTS section of the report.
4 Analysis of the 1982 fish samples indicated detectable concentrations of radionuclides related to past weapons testing and natural origins (naturally occurring). Small detectable concentrations of Cs-137 were found in all fish samples (including control samples). Sr-89
' and Sr-90 were also detected in control as well as indication samples.
Spring fish collections were comprised of two separate species and nine individual samples. The two species represented one feeding type. Lake trout and brown trout are highly predacious and feed on significant quantitics of smaller fish such as smelt, alewife, and other smaller predacious species. Because of the limited avcilability of species present in the catches, no bottom feeder species were col-lected in the spring samples.
Cs-137 was detected in all onsite and offsite samples for both species collected. Onsite samples showed Cs-137 concentrations to be slight-ly greater than control levels for some samples and slightly less than i
control levels for other samples. The concentrations detected are not significantly different from the control results and are therefore considered background. Cs-137 in lake trout samples ranged from 0.044 to 0.054 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.050 pCi/g (wet) for the indicator samples. Cs-137 in the control samples ranged from 0.047
, to 0.051 pCi/g (wet, and averaged 0.049 pCi/g (wet) for lake trout.
' Cs-137 in brown- trout samples ranged from 0.048 to 0.064 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.056 pCi/g (wet). Cs-137 in the control sam-ples was 0.049 pCi-g (wet) (one sample collected).
Sr-89 .was detected in four of the nine samples collected. Two of
-the four samples were control samples. The remaining two samples were collected at the NhlP (02) and the JAF (03) locations. Of the j positive results, the highest concentration was found in the control t- sample. This concentration, however, was only slightly above the
} indicator sample results.
Sr-89 in lake trout samples ranged from 0.003 to 0.005 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.004 - pCi/g (wet) in the control samples. Sr-89 was l not detected in the indicator samples for lake trout. Brown trout i samples showed detectable concentrations of Sr-89 in the indicator samples ranging from 0.0034 to 0.0036 pCi/g (wet) and a mean of 0.0035 pCi/g (wet). The control brown trout sample showed no de-tectable Sr-89. All positive Sr-89 results are considered to be l representative of normal background Sr-89 concentrations in fish.
Background levels are a result of past weapons testing in this case.
Sr-90 was detected in five of the nine samples collected. One of the five samples was a control sample. The remaining samples with posi-tive Sr-90 results were at the NnlP (02) and the JAF (03) locations.
67
Of the five positive results, the control result had the highest con-centration. Lake trout samples for the indicator locations showed Sr-90 concentrations ranging from 0.0026 to 0.0043 pCi/g (wet) and a mean of 0.0036 pCi/g (wet). The lake trout control sample result showed no detectable Sr-90. Ilowever, the control sample result for brown trout was 0.013 pCi/g (wet), significantly greater than the indicator sample mean of 0.0036 pCi/g (wet) for the lake trout sam-ples. Sr-90 was not detected in the indicator samples for brown trout. As noted above, the control sample result for brown trout was 0.013 pCi/g (wet).
All positive results are considered to be representative of normal background Sr-90 concentrations in fish. This is especially evident when considering the highest Sr-90 concentration in the spring fish collections for the indicator samples (0.004 pCi/g (wet]) and the highest concentration in the control samples (0.013 pCi/g [ wet]).
These background levels of Sr-90 are a result of past weapons testing.
I(-40 was detected in all of the spring samples collected. I{-40 is a naturally occurring radionuclide and is not related to power plant operations. Detectable concentrations of IC-40 in the indicator sam-ples (lake trout and brown trout) ranged from 2.1 to 3.6 pCi/g (wet) and 2.5 to 3.1 pCi/g (wet) for the control samples. No other radionuclides were detected in any of the spring fish samples.
Fall sample collections were comprised of two' separate species and nine individual samples. Six samples of lake trout and three samples of brown trout were collected at a combination of two onsite sample locations (NMP and JAF) and one offsite sample location (Oswego Ilarbor area). Samples were collected by gill net in October.
Cs-137 was detected in all nine samples including the three control samples. Control samples showed Cs-137 concentration to be greater than the indicator samples from the onsite locations. The detected concentrations were not significantly different from one another be-cause of the extremely small quantities detected. Cs-137 in lake trout samples at the indicator locations ranged from 0.034 to 0.045 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.042 pCi/g (wet). Lake trout samples at the control location ranged from 0.050 to 0.055 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.052 pCi/g (wet). Brown trout samples from the indicator locations ranged from 0.049 to 0.053 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.051 pCi/g (wet). The associated control sample was 0.047 pCi/g (wet).
Sr-89 concentrations for the fall samples were all less than the min-imum detectable level. Sr-89 was not detected in any of the onsite or offsite sample locations.
Sr was detected in five of the nine samples collected. Sr-90 was detected in indicator as well as control sample locations. Indicator samples for both lake trout and brown trout showed Sr-90 concentra-tions approximately equal to control sample locations. Indicator 68
3 samples ranged from 0.0021 to 0.0054 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.0033 pCi/g (wet). Control sample results ranged from 0.0021 to 0.0041 pCi/g (wet) and averaged 0.0028 pCi/g (wet). Sr-90 results at both indicator and control sample locations are indicative of background Sr-90 concentrations and are a result of past weapons testing.
K-40 was detected in all of the fall samples collected. Detectable concentrations of K-40 in the - indicator samples (lake trout and brown trout) ranged from 2.1 to 3.2 pCi/g (wet) and 2.5 to 3.0 pCi/g (wet) for the control samples. No other radionuclides were detected in any of the fall fish samples.
1 In addition to the normal fall fish samples, extra samples were col-lected shortly after the lake trout and brown trout sample collec-tions. White sucker samples were collected at this time. White sucker samples were not available at all locations during the schedule sample collections (i.e. , when the lake trout and brown trout sam-ples were collected). White sucker samples were analyzed because they represent a group of " bottom feeders" contrasting the predato-ry species of lake trout and brown trout.
Samples of white sucker were collected in the vicinity of the NMP and JAF discharges as well as from the inlet canal at the Oswego Steam Station (control sample). Gamma spectral analyses were per-formed on these three samples. Analyses for Sr-89 and Sr-00 were also performed. These samples are not considered Environmental Technical Specification (ETS) samples.
Cs-137 was detected in all thre'e of the white sucker samples (control and indicator sample locations). Cs-137 in the two indicator samples was 0.61 pCi/g (wet) and 0.39 pCi/g (wet) respectively. Cs-137 in the control sample was 0.027 pCilg (wet). Although the one indica-tor sample (NMP) had a detected concentration of 0.061 pCi/g (wet) or approximately two times the control result of 0.027 pCi/g (wet),
this difference is not considered significant because of the minute amounts of Cs-137 measured in these two samples. In addition, con-trol sample data in 1981 showed Cs-137 concentrations as high as 0.058 pCi/g (wet).
K-40 was detected in all three extra white sucker samples. Detected concentrations ranged from 3.6 to 4.5 pCi/g (wet). The control sample showed 2.8 pCi/g (wet). It is interesting to note here that the same pattern of concentration in the indicator and control sam-ples for Cs-137 is present for K-40 (in fact the proportions are al-most identical). That is, the K-40 and Cs-137 concentrations were approximately 200% of the control result at the JAF location and ap-proximately 130% of the control result at the NMP location.
No other gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in the extra i white sucker samples. I 69
Sr-89 and Sr-90 concentrations for the fall extra white sucker sam-ples were all -less than the minimum detectable level. Sr-89 and
, Sr-90 was not detected in any of the control or indicator samples.
Review of past environmental data indicates that the Sr-89 concen-trations have decreased steadily- since 1976 for both indicator and control locations. The indicator sample mean results have decreased significantly since 1976. These results range from a mean of 0.27
- pCi/g;(wet) in 1976 to 0.0036 pCi/g (wet) in 1982 Control sample results have also decreased significantly from 0.24 pCi/g (wet) in 1976 to 0.0042 pCi/g (wet) in 1982. Sr-90 mean sample results have decreased significantly since 1976 as well. Indicator sample results have' decreased from 0.28 pCi/g (wet) in 1976 to a low of 0.0035 pCi/g (wet) in 1982. 1981 and 1982 mean sample results are approx-imately the same. Control sample results have decreased as well, from 0.25 pCi/g (wet) in 1976 to 0.0026 pCi/g (wet) in 1982. Sr-90 ,
, was not detected in 1981, however, the LLD level and the 1982 de-tected level are approximately equal. A general decline in detectable 4
Sr-89 and Sr-90 results is most probably due to the result of the in-i corporation of these radionuclides with organic and inorganic sub-stances through ecological cycling. In addition, Sr-89 has a rela-tively short half-life of 52 days.
The mean 1982 Cs-137 concentrations have decreased slightly from 1981 for the indicator samples and significantly from ' 1980 to 1976.
Concentrations for these samples decreased from a level of 1.4 pCi/g (wet) in 1976 to a level .~of 0.048 pCi/g (wet) in 1982. Control sample results have also decreased from a level of 0.12 pCi/g (wet)
! in 1976 to a level of 0.050 pCi/g (wet) in 1982. Results from 1979 to 1982 have remained fairly consistent.
As noted for Sr-89 and Sr-90 above, the general decreasing trend for Cs-137 is most probably a result of ecological cycling. 'A signifi-
- cant . portion of Cs-137 detected since 1976 in fish _ is a result for
- weapons ' testing fallout, and the general downward trend in concen-trations will continue as a function of ecological cycling and nuclear
- decay.
Lake Ontario _ fish are considered an important food source by many, therefore, fish is an integral part of the human food chain. Based on the importance of fish in : the local diet, a reasonable estimate of
- dose 'to man can be calculated. Assuming that the average ' adult L consumes 6.9 kg of fish per year and the fish consumed contains an average Cs-137 ~ concentration of 0.048 pCi/g (wet) (annual mean.
- result of indicator samples for -1982), the whole body dose received
- Ewould be 0.024 mrem per year. The critical ' organ in this case is the liver which would receive ~ a calculated dose' of 0.036 mrem per year. Using the same above criteria,- the calculated doses associated with Sr-89 are 0.003 mrem per year whole body dose and 0.102 mrem
. per year bone dose (critical organ). Calculated doses as a result of '
Sr-90 -are 0.616 mrem per year .whole body dose and 2.510 mrem' per
_ year bone dose (critical. organ). These whole body and critical
.70
organ doses are conservative calculated doses associated with
- consuming fish from the Nine hlile Point area (indicator samples).
l Conservative whole body and critical organ doses can be calculated !
for the consumption of fish from the control location as well. In this l case the consumption rate is assumed to remain the same (6.9 kg per
- year) but the average annual Cs-137 mean concentration for the con-trol samples is 0.050 pCi/g (wet). The calculated Cs-137 whole body dose is 0.025 mrem per year and the associated dose to the liver is 0.038 meem per year. Doses as a result of Sr-89 are 0.003 mrem i
per year (whole body) and 0.106 mrem per year (bone). Sr-90 t doses are 0.62 mrem per year (whole body) and 2.615 mrem per year (bone).
i Calculated doses as a result of fish consumption (lake trout and brown trout) at the indicator and control locations are presented below.
Indicator Control Whole Body
- Critical Organ
- Whole Body
- Critical Organ
- Cs-137 0.024 0.036 (liver) 0.025 0.038 (liver)
Sr-89 0.003 0.102 (bone) 0.003 0.106 (bone)
Sr-90 0.616 2.510 (bone) 0.642 2.615 (bone)
- Doses -in mrem per year. Consumption assumed for all months.
I In summary, the whole body and critical organ doses observed as a result of consumption of fish is small. Doses received from the consumption of indicator and control sample fish are approximately the same with the dose from control samples being slightly higher.
Doses from both sample groups are considered background doses.
Doses from the consumption of white sucker samples are not con-sidered here since these tish are rarely if ever consumed.
Giaphs of past Cs-137 and Sr-90 concentration can be found in Sec-tion VII.
6 .- LAKE WATER - TABLES 6, 7, AND 8 1 1982 lake water samples were analyzed monthly for gross beta and I gamma emitters (using gamma spectral analvsis). Sr-89, Sr-90, and -
tritium an_alyses were performed quarterly. Quarterly samples (i.e. ,
Sr-89, Sr-90, and tritium) were composites of monthly samples.
The analytical results for the 1982 lake water sample program showed
- l. no evidence of plant related radionuclide buildup in the lake water in i- the vicinity of the site. Indicator samples were collected from the inlet ' canals at the Nine Mile Point Unit #1 and James A. FitzPatrick i
71
l 4
i facilities. The control location samples were collected at the City of ;
Oswego water treatment plant and consisted of raw lake water prior to treatment. ,
The gross beta annual mean activity for the Nine Mile Point Unit #1
- and the James A. FitzPatrick inlet canals (3.00 pCi/ liter) was ap-proximately the same as the 1981 mean inlet canal results (3.0 pCi/li-ter), and was significantly less than the annual mean results for the
_ years prior to 1981. The Nine Mile Point Unit #1 canal samples were greater than the ' control samples for six of the 12 monthly samples analyzed and ranged from 1.27 pCi/ liter to 4.72 pCi/ liter. The James l A. FitzPatrick canal samples were greater than the control samples i for 10 of the 12 monthly samples and ranged from 1.98 pCi/ liter to 3.53 pCi/ liter. The control sample results ranged from 1.79 pCi/li-ter to 3.20 pCi/ liter. The fluctuation in the gross beta canal sample results is due to the natural variation in concentration of naturally occurring radionuclides. A slight increase in the gross beta activity was noted in the Nine Mile Point inlet canal samples for September and October. These two results (4.72 pCi/ liter and 3.89 pCi/ liter respectively) are most probably as a result of liquid waste dis-charges in September and October and the reverse flow mode of the circulating water system. The discharges and reverse flow mode are covered in more detail below.
A reduction in gross beta activity since 1974 is primarily the result of improved analytical procedures and equipment and not necessarily
- to changes in plant operations. Although the past elevated gross beta concentration may be due in part to past weapons testing, it is difficult to determine what portion was due to improved instrumenta-tion and what part was due to weapons testing. There were no sig-nificant changes or trends in gross beta activity on a monthly basis for 1982 (See historical data graphsSection VII.)
Gamma spectral analysis was performed on 36 monthly composite sam-pies required by the Environmental Technical Specifications. Three radionuclides were detected in the inlet canal samples. Two of these radionuclides were plant related and the remaining radionuclide was naturally occurring.
Co-60 was detected in the inlet canal samples for the Nine Mile Point and James A. FitzPatrick facilities. Co-60 was detected in the James i
A. FitzPatrick inlet canal samples in January, March, and August (1.58 pCi/ liter, 2.37 pCi/ liter, and 1.61 pCi/ liter respectively) .
The detected quantity of Co-60 was possibly the result of intake i tempering in January. On this occasion, a portion of the warm dis-charge water is circulated into the inlet canal. As a result of nor-mal' liquid - discharges, a small portion' of this discharge enters the inlet canal and may be sampled. The concentration detected is very small and is at the lower limit of detection. The March and August inlet canal samples, as noted above, also showed Co-60 (2.37 pCi/li-ter, '1.61 pCi/ liter) . The concentration detected here was most probably a result of instrument background. Co-60 has been 72
detected in environmental samples on a few occasions as a result of a ;
minute Co-60 background at the onsite counting laboratory. Co-60 was not detected in. the Nine Mile Point inlet canal samples during 1982, therefore any detection of Co-60 in the James A. FitzPatrick canal samples was most probably a result of tempering (January) and/or instrument background (March, August). It should be noted that a quality control sample split, for the FitzPatrick March 1982 1 inlet canal, was analyzed by an independent contractor. The analy- I sis of the sample split showed no detectable Co-60. The reported l lower limit of detection .(LLD) for this sample was <0.57 pCi/l which is one quarter of the 2.37 pC1/1 reported for the routine or in-house sample analysis. The lack of a positive Co-60 detection in the quality control sample indicates the presence of instrument or environmental background. Efforts are made to keep background levels at a minimum (below detectable levels), but because of the small quantity of material required to increase the background above detectable levels and variability of these small concentrations, background levels of plant radionuclides will at times be present.
Cs-137 was detected once during 1982 in the James A. FitzPatrick inlet canal samples-~ for the month of January. The concentration detected here was 0.43 pCi/ liter. The detection of Cs-137 in the January sample was again most probably the result of inlet canal tempering as noted above for the detection of Co-60 during January.
This concentration is minute and is at the lower limit of detection for the other monthly samples.
No other radionuclides were - detected in the James A. FitzPatrick in-let canal samples with the exception of naturally occurring K-40.
E-40 was detected twice during 1982 for the months of September and November. The concentrations detected during these months were.16.5 pCi/ liter and 14.2 pCi/ liter respectively.
Co-60 was not detected during 1982 in the Nine Mile-Point inlet canal samples. The lower limit of detection values for monthly samples ranged from 1.11 pCi/ liter to 2.02 pCi/ liter which was at the ap-proximate detection limits for Co-60 in the James A. FitzPatrick sam-ples. Two monthly samples did show Cs-137 concentrations for the months of September and October. The concentrations detected here were slightly above the lower limit of detection for Cs-137 in the other monthly samples. The September sample showed a Cs-137 con- {
centration of 3.72 pCi/ liter and the October sample showed a Cs-137 ,
concentration of 3.25 pCi/ liter. !
The presence of Cs-137 in the Nine Mile Point inlet canal samples (
during September and October is a result of liquid discharges made during those months and the fact that the circulating water flow was in a reverse flow mode. In this case, a portion of the inlet canal
- becomes the pathway for the discharge flow and a portion of- the dis-charge canal becomes a pathway for the intake flow. The liquid dis-charge pipe is located in the discharge canal vertical shaft which-is part of the portion of the discharge canal that is affected by the 73 m_ _ . _ . . . . .
i
reverse flow mode (i.e. , this part of the canal receives intake water in the reverse flow mode). The intake sample (taken at the dis-charge canal during reverse flow) is downstream of the liquid waste discharge pipe. It is not practical or possible to acquire an inlet water sample prior to (i.e . , upstream) the liquid waste discharge pipe considering the present inlet / discharge canal system design.
Therefore, as noted above, the intake water sample contained a por-tion of the liquid waste discharge. Liquid waste discharges were made in September and October of 1982 which were the same months that Cs-137 was detected in the monthly inlet canal samples. Liquid waste discharges were not made in November and December (with the exception of a very minor discharge in November). The correspond-ing inlet samples showed no detectable radionuclides with the excep-tion of K-40.
No other radionuclides were detected in the Nine Mile Point inlet canal samples other than Cs-137 and K-40 K-40 was detected in the April and December inlet canal samples. The concentrations detected were 16.9 pCi/ liter and 16.3 pCi/ liter respectively.
Water samples of the raw water prior to treatment at the City of Os-wego water treatment plant showed no detectable concentrations of plant related radionuclides. K-40 was the only detectable radionu-clide and was noted in October at a concentration of 14.3 pCi/ liter. ,
Quarterly samples for Sr-89 analysis were composites of the monthly samples. Sr-89 was not detected in any of the water samples taken from the City of Oswego water treatment plant or the James A. Fitz-Patrick inlet canal. The lower limit of detection values for the City of Oswego water treatment plant and the James A. FitzPatrick inlet canal samples ranged from <0.43 pCi/ liter to <1.80 pCi/ liter (LLD).
Sr-89 was detected once in the Nine Mile Point inlet canal composite samples at a concentration of 0.61 pCi/l in the fourth quarter of 1982. The presence of Sr-89 in the fourth quarter sample is attrib-uted to the reverse flow mode for the inlet / discharge canal system as detailed above.
Quarterly samples for Sr-90 analysis were composites of the monthly samples as noted for the Sr-89 analysis. Sr-90 was detected in all quarterly samples for 1982 at all three locations. At the City of Oswego water treatment plant or control location, Sr-90 ranged from 0.75 pCi/ liter to 5.30 pCi/ liter with a mean of 2.04 pCi/ liter. Sr-90 in the Nine Mile Point inlet canal samples ranged from 0.40 pCi/ liter to 3.07 pCi/ liter and showed a mean of 1.16 pCi/ liter. The James A. FitzPatrick inlet canal samples showed Sr-90 ranging from 0.69 l pCi/ liter to 1.55 pCi/ liter and a mean value of 1.01 pCi/ liter. As demonstrated , the control location showed the highest mean result (2.04 pCi/ liter) which is a result of natural variation in. the dis-tribution of Sr-90. Sr-90, as detected in the 1982 water samples, is considered to be background Sr-90 as a result of past weapons testing.
74 _
_ ~ - - -
Tritium samples, as noted above for Sr-89 and Sr-90, are quarterly samples that are a composite of the appropriate monthly samples.
Tritium.was detected in all samples taken at all three locations. The City of Oswego water treatment plant showed tritium concentrations ranging from 112 pCi/ liter to 307 pCi/ liter with a mean of 165 pCi/li-ter. - Tritium concentrations for the James A. FitzPatrick inlet canal ranged from 198 pCi/ liter to 311 pCi/ liter and showed a mean con-centration of 267 pCi/ liter. Inlet canal samples taken at Nine Mile Point showed tritium concentrations ranging from 202 pCilliter to 4,620 pCi/ liter. The annual mean concentration was 1,478 pCi/ liter.
The maximum concentration (4,620 pCi/ liter) and the mean concentra-
, tion (1,478 pCi/ liter) were significantly greater than the control ,
results. As noted above for the detection of Cs-137 in the Nine f.lile '
' Point inlet canal samples during September and October, liquid waste discharges were made during September and October. These dis-charges contained concentrations of tritium. As a result of the re-verse flow mode and the location of the liquid waste discharge pipe, a portion of this effluent was sampled (the sampling equipment is
, located slightly downstream of the liquid waste pipe). Since monthly samples are composited to quarterly samples, it stands to reason that the third and fourth quarter sample of the inlet canal should show tritium concentrations. Observation of the data shows that the third quarter sample was approximately .four times the normal inlet canal concentrations and the fourth quarter result was approximately 23 times the normal canal concentrations. Since a significant portion of the September - October discharges were made in October, it is rea-sonable to expect that the fourth quarter (October - December) inlet canal sample would demonstrate the higher tritium concentration of
, the two. Although this sample represents intake water from Lake
! Ontario , the presence of tritium in this sample is indicative of the location of the liquid waste discharge pipe. During the third and fourth quarters, the James A. FitzPatrick inlet canal samples showed tritium concentrations consistent with the first half of the year and within the' natural variability of tritium in lake water.
1 Evaluation of past environmental data shows that gross beta concen-trations in water samples have decreased significantly since 1977 at both the indicator sample locations (inlet canals) and at the control location (Oswego city water). As noted previously, however, the decrease is primarily a result of more superior analytical instrumen-tation. Since 1078, gross beta levels have remained relatively con-
! stant at both indicator and control locations. Indicator annual means l ranged from 15.8 pCi/ liter in 1977 to 41.8 pCi/ liter in 1976. For the period of 1978 thrcugh 1981, annual means ranged from 2.98 pCi/11- ,
ter (1981)' to 4.53 pCi/ liter (1978). The indicator annual mean for 1982 was 3.00 pCi/ liter. Control . annual means also were relatively high during 1975 to 1977. ' During these years, the concentrations ranged from 45.33 pCi/ liter (1975) to 10.9 pCi/ liter (1977). Data from 1974 for the control location was daleted from this comparison 1
because of questionable results. For the period 1978 through 1981,
-l I
75 l
d annual mean gross beta concentration ranged from 2.60 pCi/ liter (1980) to 3.55 pCi/ liter (1978). The control annual mean for 1982 was 2.42 pCi/ liter.
Review of previous data for Sr-89 and Sr-90 demonstrates that re-sults have been variable since 1975. Sr-89 for the indicator samples has ranged from not detected (1976,1977, and 1979) to 0.78 pCi/li-ter (1981) and has been relatively constant. At the control loca-tions, Sr-89 ranged from not detected (1975 - 1978 and 1981) to 1.4 pCi/ liter (1980). During 1982, Sr-89 showed an annual mean of
<0.97 pCi/ liter (LLD) at the control location and 0.61 pCi/ liter (mean based on a single detection) at the indicator locations. Sr-90 annual means have remained relatively consistent at both indicator and control sample locations since 1975. Mean results for the indicator samples ranged from not detected (1975 and 1976) to 1.00 pCi/ liter (1977 and 1980). Mean results at the control sample location ranged from not detected (1975 - 1978) to 1.10 pCi/ liter (1980). The annual mean Sr-90 results for the indicator samples and control samples were 1.16 pCi/ liter and 2.04 pCi/ liter respectively.
Previous annual mean results for tritium at the indicator sample loca-tion has decreased slightly since 1976. Sample results were available since 1974 through 1981 and showed a peak value of 513.0 pCi/ liter (1976) and a minimum value of 234 pCi/ liter (1979). The annual mean tritium result at the indicator locations for 1982 was 740 pCi/li-
.ter. This result is higher than the annual mean for any of the pre-vious years but this mean reflects the two elevated results at the-Nine Mile Point location in the third and fourth quarters. The two elevated results are as a result of the deptember and October liquid waste discharges and the reverse flow mode at the Nine Mile Point facility, as noted above.
Mean tritium results at the control location have decreased slightly since 1976 as was noted for the indicator samples. Mean annual results were available for 1974 through 1981. These results showed that tritium at the control location ranged from not detected (1974) to 652 pCI/ liter (1976). 1979 through 1981 mean results were consis-tent, as was also noted for the indicator results. The control peak concentration was greater than the peak concentration in the indica-tor samples of 513 pCi/ liter.
The impact, as expressed by a dose to man, is not assessed here since the primary pathway, in this case, is drinking water. The
- nearest source for drinking water is the City of Oswego water treat-ment plant which is the control location for the sampling program.
The results of the control location are consistent with previous years' results and are representative of normal background radionu-clide concentrations in lake water and regional drinking water that might be affected by the site.
t 76
TERRESTRIAL PROGRAM Tables 9 through 21 represent the analytical results for the terrestrial.
samples collected for the 1982 reporting period.
- 1. AIR PARTICULATE GROSS BETA - TABLES 9 and 10 Tables 9 and 10 contain the weekly air particulate gross beta results for the six offsite and nine onsite sample locations. The samples are counted at a minimum of twenty-four hours after collection to allow for the decay of naturally occurring radionuclides with short half- !
lives. A total of 317 offsite and 476 onsite samples were collected and analyzed during 1982. No significant levels of gross beta activ-ity were observed in any of the samples. The offsite or control mean concentration for 1982 was 0.033 pCi/m a while the indicator or onsite sample mean was equal to 0.031 pCi/m3 . As noted, the annual mean is about ten percent lower than the offsite mean for the same sample period. This difference in mean concentration has been ex-hibited in the past eight years with the exception of 1977 when a higher annual mean gross beta activity was observed for the onsite sampling stations. In these seven years, the control stations' annual mean ranged from a minimum difference of 8.5 percent higher than the indicator observed in 1981 to a maximum difference of 28.6 per-cent higher, observed in 1978. The difference in offsite and onsite weekly and monthly mean values for gross beta could be the result of a combination of the many natural processes which can affect en-vironmental- concentrations. The most significant parameter that could possibly contribute to a depressed or lower concentration for the onsite stations would be location. The close proximity of onsite I sampling stations to the lakeshore (Lake Ontario) would account for lower concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides being col-lected on the sampling media. Surface winds from off the lake would contain less particulate matter and airborne gases than surface winds l
from adjacent land areas. The major component of gross beta con-centrations are decay or daughter products of uranium and thorium and potassium-40. The concentrations of these nuclides in the ground level atmosphere are dependent upon the local geology and l
its chemical constituents. Thus surface winds of terrestrial origin have a potential for centaining higher concentrations of naturally oc-curring radionuclides.
Review of air particulate gross beta concentrations shows that no I significant increases in concentration occurred during 1982. The standard deviation for sample results on an individual sample basis is '
O.02 for both the onsite and offsite data base, representing small variations in analytical results for the year. Week #32 (August 2, .
l 1982 through August 10, 1982) showed an onsite mean concentration I i
of 0.51 pCi/m3 which was 76 percent greater than the concurrent offsite weekly mean concentration. The onsite particulate filters for this week were analyzed for gamma emitter using a gamma spectral analysis. No plant related radionuclides were detected in this 77
i sample, . above 'the limits of detection, for the gamma isotopic analy-sis.
.The observed increases and decreases in general gross beta activity can be attributed to changes experienced in the biosphere. As dis-2 cussed above, the concentrations of the naturally occurring radionu-clides in- the lower limits-of the atmosphere -directly above the ter-restrial portion of the earth are affected by time related processes such- as wind direction, snow cover, soil temperature and soil mois-t-
ture content. Very little change was noted in gross beta activity which corresponded with seasonal changes as has been observed in past years.
L l~ In general, the gross beta activity in air samples has decreased sig-nificantly. .The mean 1982 concentration for both offsite and onsite is five times lower than the mean concentration detected in 1981.
This five-fold reduction in activity. is directly attributable to the increased activity detected in 1981 as a result of fallout from an atmospheric nuclear test and subsequent return to background levels in 1982. . The trend of gross beta activity in the environment is that of reduced concentrations. The mean 1982 concentration is the low-est level of: gross beta activity observed since sampling for the l
FitzPatrick program began in -1974 This general decrease could be the result of the reduction of atmospheric- nuclear testing in recent E
years in comparison,to the 1960's' when such testing was prolific.
't Graphs of air particulate gross beta concentrations on a weekly and
- yearly basis can be found in Section VII.
i
- 2. ' MONTHLY PARTICULATE COMPOSITES - TABLE 11 The air particulate filters collected weekly from each of the 15 air
- l sampling stations are composited monthly by location (onsite/offsite).
Each composite is analyzed for gamma. emitter using gamma spectral analysis.
l The results for the 24 monthly samples analyzed for the 1982 pro-gram showed positive ' detections for seven radionuclides. Those ra-dionuclides detected were Nb-95, Co-60, Cs-137, Mn-54, and Ce-144 in addition to Be-7 and K-40 which are both naturally occurring ra-
~
i dionuclides. .The total number of radionuclides detected was seven, with five identified in the'offsite samples and seven identified in the onsite samples. The seven radionuclides measured in the 1982 com-posite samples ^ can be divided into' three categories, the first cate- ,
gory ' in naturally occurring radionuclides. Be-7 was detected in each of. the 24 composite samples both onsite and offsite. The mean
.value for Be-7 ~ concentrations was five percent higher in the offsite composite samples than the onsite samples. Potassium-40 was detected in six-of the offsite and 10 of the onsite monthly composite samples.
The onsite annual mean was 10 percent higher than the offsite annu-al mean for K-40.
l
!~
l 78
I i
The second category of radionuclides detected are those which are !
plant related. Included here are Co-60, Eln-54 and Cs-137. Cs-137 )
was included here due to the fact that the Cs-137 may be a constitu-ent of plant ' effluents. A review of 1982 Cs-137 sample data indi-cates that Cs-137 is most likely the result of past weapons testing
, and subsequent. environmental levels of Cs-137 from fallout. Cs-137 was detected'in seven of the offsite composite samples and nine of the onsite composite samples. The yearly mean - concentration of Cs-137 was 0.00031 pCi/m8 for the offsite sample results and 0.00035 pCi/m8 for the onsite sample results. The maximum Cs-137 concen-r
- trations detected were 0.00045 pCi/m8 and 0.00060 pCi/m3 for the offsite and onsite composite samples respectively. The presence of-
! Cs-137 in the offsite samples on a temporal distribution, consistent i with detections of Cs-137 at the onsite locations, is an indication '
that the main source of Cs-137 in the environment is not due to the operation of the plant. The two remaining plant related radionu-chdes are Mn-54 and Co-60. Mn-54 was detected in one of the on-site monthly composite samples and was not detected in the offsite samples. The one onsite Mn-54 detection was made in January of
- 1982 at a concentration of 0.0001 pCi/m8.. Co-60 was detected in six of the twelve onsite monthly composite samples and two of the twelve offsite monthly composite samples. The onsite Co-60 concentrations ranged from a minimum of 0.00017 pCi/m3 in August and a maximum j concentration of ~ 0.00058 pCi/m8 in February of 1982. The mean Co-60 concentration for the onsite samples was 0.00029 pCi/m3 for 1982. The total release of Co-60 from the FitzPatrick Plant in 1982 l was ' 2.34 x 10-5 Ci for elevated releases and 1.43 x 10-8 Ci for ground level releases. The detected concentrations of Co-60 mea-sured in the onsite air particulate filter composites are not above
- those expected from effluent release rates measured in 1982. Using a conservative, mean ground level X/Q value of 5.0 x 10-7 sec/m3 for the nine onsite environmental air sampling stations and a mea-sured ground level release rate of 1.43 x 10-8 Ci/ year, the resulting
- environmental air concentrations would be less thar. 0.0014 pCi/m8
! The mean Co-60 concentration of 0.00029 pCi/ma measured at the on-site sample station is well below the calculated maximum value for mean air concentrations based on measured release rates.
- The third category of radionuclides are those which are related to
- atmospheric nuclear testing. The specific fallout related radionu-clides are Ce-144 - and Nb-95. Both radionuclides were detected in
- i. the offsite and onsite composite samples. Nb-95 was detected in the early months of 1982 while Ce-144 was detected through July of i 1982. Nb-95 has a half-life of 3.5 days and Ce-144 has a half-life of !
, 284 days which could result-in Ce-144 being detectable longer into ,
the year. The maximum values for both Nb-95 and Ce-144 were de-tected in the onsite April 1982 sample. April of 1982 was also the month in which maximum values for Be-7 were detected. Be-7 is a naturally occurring radionuclide which is produced in the upper at-mosphere (stratosphere). Studies have shown that bomb produced fission products in the upper atmosphere behave in a similar manner as De-7 and Na-22 (both naturally occurrirg) which show seasonal 1
l 4 79
variations of spring peaks and fall and winter miniEums for ground level concentrations. These seasonal variations in biosphere concen-trations of cosmogenic and fallout nuclides, which are the result of physical removal through wet and dry deposition, appear to be more pronounced.as latitude increases which may be a factor in the level 4
of fallout nuclides detected, as the sampling locations are at approxi-mately 43o 28' N. _ Graphs of 1980 and 1981 concentrations of Nb-95 and Ce-144 have been 'acluded in Section IV, along with the 1982
- graphs of these radionuclides for the purpose of comparison and to demonstrate that the concentrations of these nuclides have decreased since the October 1980 Chinese atmospheric weapons test.
l Dose 'to man' calculations can be made using inhalation rates and air
. . concentrations based on air sample results. Using the average adult <
inhalation rate of 8,000 m 8/yr (667 m3/ standard month) and the mean concentration measured at the onsite sample stations, the following yearly doses can be calculated based on the amount of time the ra-dionuclide was detected during the year:
Concentration No. Months Dose
- Nuclide (pCi/m a) Detected Origin (mrem /yr)
Cs-137 0.00035 8 Fallout / Plant 0.00002 Co-60 0.00029 6 Plant 0.00087 hh-54 0.00010 1 Plant 0.00001 Nb-95 0.00059 3 Fallout 0.00007 Ce-144 0.00132 7 Fallout 0.00599
! Totals 0.00696 Fallout 0.00606 Plant 0.00088 Fallout / Plant 0.00002
- Dose to the lung.
l The above table illustrates that the average calculated dose to man from the plant related isotopes is insignificant. The dose to man as a result of weapons testing exceeds by six times the dose related to plant nuclides. In both cases the resulting dose to man is of little biological consequence.
Section VII contains four graphs illustrating the concentrations of radionuclides detected during the 1982 sample program. Also in Sec-tion VII are two graphs showing sample results for 1980 and 1981.
- 3. AIRBORNE RADIOIODINE (I-131) - TABLES 12 AND 13 The results for Icdine-131 (charcoal cartridge) sampling and analyses are presented in Table 12 (Offsite) and Table 13 (Onsite).
1 80
_ - .-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ ._ . - _ _ . . - - - -. _ _ _ - - - -~
During the 1982 sampling program airborne radiciodine was detected in one of the 317 weekly samples collected from the six offsite sam-pling stations. An I-131 concentration of 0.039 pCi/m8 was detected at the D-1 offsite sampling station for the sampling period of June 8, 1982 to June 15, 1982. The resulting dose to man can be calculated at this offsite location based on an inhalation rate of 160 m 8 per week and the measured concentration. The dose received by man at sampling station D-1 offsite would be 0.00018 mrem to the thyroid and 0.00000031 mrem to the whole body for a one week exposure.
The detections of I-131 at an offsite sampling location is not routine.
In the 1,247 weekly offsite I-131 samples collected in 1979 through 1982 I-131 was only detected once and is noted above. Offsite I-131 1 detections were made in 1977 and 1978. )
l I-131 was detected in twelve of the 476 onsite samples analyzed in 1982. These samples which contained radiciodine covered a total of eight sample weeks or periods. The environmental I-131 concentra-tions detected in 1982 are outlined as follows:
Sample Onsite Concentration Dose (mrem)
End Date Sample Station I-131, pCi/m3 Thyroid /Whole Body 03/22/82 D-2 0.0244 0.004 0.00011/0.00000019 03/29/82 I 0.02E0 0.006 0.00012/0.00000010 07/12/82 H 0.0104 0.004 0.00005/0.00000008 07/19/82 H 0.0169 0.005 0.00008/0.00000013 I 0.0424 0.005 0.00019/0.00000033 l 07/26/82 D-2 0.0131 0.004 0.00006/0.00000010 H 0.0146 0.003 0.00007/0.00000012 08/16/82 H 0.0064 0.004 0.00003/0.00000006 J 0.010510.004 0.00005/0.00000008 08/30/82 H 0.0036 0.003 0.00002/0.00000002 J 0.0024 0.003 0.00001/0.00000002 09/13/82 J 0.0239 0.006 0.00011/0.00000019 TOTAL 0.00090/0.00000142
, The spacial distribution of the I-131 concentrations show that five of l
the positive detections were observed at H and three at J onsite air monitoring stations with two positive detections observed at both the i D-2 and I onsite air monitoring stations.
I The four onsite air monitoring stations showing positive I-131 detec-tions in 1982 are located, in reference to the FitzPatrick reactor cen-terline , at approximately 1,900 ft /600 (H onsite); 1,600 ft/1350 (I onsite); 2,400 ft/155 (J onsite); and 1,100 ft/2700 (D-2 onsite) .
81
A meaningful dose estimate is difficult to make for the I-131 concen-trations at the four onsite sampling stations as there are no residen-cies or individuals in the immediate vicinity of the sample locations.
As noted on Figures 2 and 3 in Section VII, the H, I, J and D-2 air monitoring stations are within the site boundary or controlled area.
The above table illustrates the doses that can be calculated using the assumption that a critical individual was present at all the moni-toring locations simultaneously for the total period of time for which the I-131 was collected. Such an individual does not exist but the calculated dose can be used for the purpose of illustration. The critical organ for this example is the thyroid gland. The calculated total dose for the above mentioned critical individual would be 0.00090 mrem to the thyroid and 0.00000142 mrem to the whole body assuming a seven day sample period and an inhalation rate of 160 m 3 per sample period. The resulting calculated dose due to onsite I-131 concentration is extremely small and can be compared to a similar dose from natural or background radiation that an individual could receive as a result of changing elevation. An individual residing one meter higher in altitude for a period of 37.3 min. would receive an additional radiation dose of 0.00000142 mrem which is equal to the total calculated dose to the whole body from environmental I-131 con-centrations.
A review of plant gaseous effluent data for the sample periods in which I-131 was detected in the environment was performed. This data shows that the I-131 release rates are well within the 4% design objective of the plant as outlined in the appropriate sections of the Environmental Technical Specifications. Calculations show that the detectable levels of I-131 in the environment are consistent with the measured source terms at the plant for the same sample period.
The end result of the 1982 I-131 sampling effort showed no signifi-cant impact due to the operation of the plant. During 1982, I-131 was not detected in any other environmental sample media including milk and green leafy vegetables.
- 4. TLD (ENVIRONP.1 ENTAL DOSIMETRY) - TABLE 14 TLD's were collected once per quarter during the sample year. The TLD results are an average of four independent readings at each lo-cation and are reported in mrem per standard month. Each location t
has two TLD's with each TLD containing two distinct calcium sulfate dosimeters. In 1982, TLD's for the most part were collected on
- f. larch 31,1982, July 1,1982, September 30, 1982 and December 30, 1982 TLD results are organized into three groups for reporting purposes.
The groups are onsite TLD's icefined as TLD's in the immediate proximity of the individual facilities, at points of interest), environ-mental station TLD's (a ring of TLD's surrounding the generating l
l 82
facilities _as a group), and offsite TLD's (TLD's located off the site property or controlled area and ranging up to 20 miles from the site) .
A net dose at the environmental station TLD's can be calculated sim-ply by subtracting the mean standard month offsite doses from the mean standard month onsite environmental station doses *, Environ-mental station TLD's are arranged in a concentric circle and range in distance from the individual facilities from 1,500 to 2,000 feet. The net dose per mean standard month for each quarter is as follows:
Quarter Net Environmental Station Dose **
1 0.21 2 0.88 3 0.94 4 0.61 The annual site property boundary dose for 1982 cannot be deter-mined from the net environmental station dose since the property boundary extends out to approximately 0.75 miles from the site (i.e. , beyond the concentric circle of environmental station TLD's).
A general estimate can be made based on two available TLD's located at the site boundary. The net dose per standard month for each quarter can be calculated for these two locations (TLD numbers 19 and 15) east and west of the site. This calculation is conservative since it represents the shortest distance to populated areas.
i Quarter Net Site Property Boundary Dose **
1 - 0.13 2 - 0.35 3 - 0.32 4 - 0.33 As observed, the site boundary dose based on two available TLD lo-cations is less than the average offsite dose. This is probably due l to the difference in ground dose rates which are indicative of vari-able concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil and rock such as radium, uranium, thorium, and potassium. The differ-
- Location numbers 5, 6, 7, 23, 24, 25, and 26.
- Dose in mrem per standard month.
l t
83
ence could also result from statistical variation in the TLD readings, k as the site boundary dose is based on a population of only eight in-dividual readings per quarter (two TLD's).
TLD numbers 31 and 39 are located within the Nine Mile Point #1 re-stricted area near the radwaste facility and are influenced by the-close proximity to the building. TLD numbers 27 through 30 and 47 are located within the restricted area of the James A. FitzPatrick radwaste facility and are influenced by the buildings. TLD number 59 is located near the restricted area of the FitzPatrick Plant stack and is influenced by the proximity to this structure. TLD numbers i
! 3 and 4 are located at the construction site of Nine Mile Point #2.
TLD's are subject to radiography at the Unit #2 site and to a much lesser extent the FitzPatrick facility.
TLD results remained fairly consistent for most TLD locations each quarter. A slight increase in natural background radiation levels were noted for offsite TLD's in the third quarter of the year. This is most probably a result of increased emission rates for radon and thoron gases emanating from the ground. The emission rates are re-lated to ground moisture content and other natural parameters.
Onsite TLD results remained fairly consistent except for TLD's Io-cated near radwaste facilities which may be affected by the frequen-cy of radwaste processing and shipment. These TLD's include num-bers 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47, 48, and 61 at the James A. Fitz-Patrick facility and number 39 at the Nine Mile Point #1 facility.
TLD numbers 3, 4, 41, and 62 are located at the Nine Mile Point #2 facility and were affected by the frequency of radiography at the construction site. Radiography is a common practice at construction sites in order to determine the quality of equipment welds such as pipes. TLD's located in areas near radiography work will show flue-tunting doses as the amount of radiography performed is not consis-tent. TLD number 59 results were variable as a result of the oper-ating mode of the James A. FitzPatrick facility. This TLD is located near the James A. FitzPatrick facility exhaust stack.
The results of 1982 showed no detectable impact from direct radiation measured outside the site boundary.
- 5. RADIATION MONITORS - TABLE 15 Environmental radiation monitors are located in 10 of the 15 air moni-toring environmental stations. Each of the on site environmental monitoring stations contains a radiation monitor and, in addition, the l C off site monitoring station contains a similar monitor. The radia- !
tion monitors consist of a GM detector with an associated power sup- !
ply, chart recorder, and trip unit. The monitor has an operating l and recording range from 0.01 to 100 mrem /hr. Each radiation moni- l tor has a small radioactive source mounted inside the detector casing l
84 l
to produce an on scale reading. The design intent of the monitors is to detect possible dose rates resulting from plume releases from the site. The monitors are not considered to be capable of high sensitivity environmental monitoring and do not detect minute fluctu-ation in levels of background radiation. Because of the relatively low sensitivity of the monitors (environmentally speaking) no compar-isons are made between the radiation monitor readings and the read-ings from environmental TLD's.
- 6. MILK - TABLES 16,17, AND 18 Milk samples were collected from a combination of seven farms d.uring the 1982 grazing season and the following months of November and December. The grazing season is considered to be May through Oc-tober. One of the sample locations, number 45, was added to the milk sample locations as a result of the spring milch animal census.
The location was added in July. Sample location descriptions are listed below.
Location No. Direction from Site Distance from Site (miles) 4 ESE 7.7 40 SW 15.3 14 ESE 9.8 16 SSW 5.2 12 SSE 7.2 7 ESE 5.5 45 SE 8.1 Milk samples were collected from each of the locations in the first half of the month and analyzed for 1-131. At approximately mid month, a second milk collection was made at the same locations. The second collection was composited with an equal aliquot from each lo-cation sampled during the first collection. The composite samples were analyzed for gamma emitters and Sr-90. 1-131, gamma isotopic, and Sr-90 results are found in the analytical results section.
The gamma spectral analysis of the monthly composite samples showed ,
K-40 to be the most abundant radionuclide detected in the milk sam-ples collected in 1982. K-40 was detected in every sample analyzed and ranged in concentration from 1,700 pCi/ liter to 1,100 pCi/ liter at the indicator locations and 1,500 pC1/ liter to 1,300 pCi/ liter at the control .acation. K-40 is a naturally occurring radionuclide and is found in many of the environmental medias sampled.
Cs-137 was the second most abundant radionuclide detected in the 1982 milk samples. Cs-137 was measured in 10 of the 54 monthly samples analyzed. Cs-137 was detected in milk samples at all loca-tions at various times throughout the year except at location number 40 which is designated as the control. Cesium concentrations ranged 85
[
. -- .= __ - - .-
from 3.1 pCi/ liter to 18.0 pCi/ liter for all samples with a mean of 6.26 pCi/ liter. Cesium was detected at a higher frequency at loca-tions 12 and 16. Overall, Cs-137 was detected at a higher frpquen-cy during the months of July, August, and September at the milk sampling locations. A maximum concentration of 18.0 pCi/ liter was detected at location number 12 during_ August. Annual means for the detection of Cs-137 at all locations are presented below.
Location No. Annual Mean (Cs-137) 4 5.9 pCi/l j
40 (control) <4.0 pCi/l (LLD) 14 4.6 pCi/l 16 4.2 pCi/1 12 9.8 pCill 7 3.3 pCi/l 45 6.9 pCi/l Annual mean Cs-137 values for each sampling location are variable but quantitatively the values are not significantly different from one another especially when the magnitude of these minute concentrations is considered. Location number 12 had an annual mean slightly higher than the other locations. Location number 40 (control loca-tion) showed no detectable .Cs-137 during 1982. During _1981, loca-tion number 40 showed an annual mean Cs-137 concentration of 7.0 pCi/ liter, and in 1980 the control location showed a Cs-137 concen-tration of 4.5 pCi/ liter. Because of the minute quantities of Cs-137 detected, it is difficult to assess whether the concentrations detected are a result of operations at the site or whether part or all of the detected cesium is due to weapons testing fallout. The impact in any case is extremely small (see below).
An evaluation of milch animal pasture feed , sampled during 1982, showed that Cs-137 was detected once in pasture grass collected from the milk sampling locations during 1982. Samples of pasture
- grass were collected in July, August , and September at each milk sampling location. Of the 21 samples collected, one sample showed Cs-137 at a concentration of 0.35 pCi/g (wet) . The sample was taken from the control location (number 40) in July. The origin of Cs-137 ~ in this sample was from past weapons testing fallout and probably became incorporated in the pasture grass as a result of plant uptake. As noted above, Cs-137 was not detected in any
! other pasture grass samples in 1982. Naturally occurring radionu-
! . clides, such as K-40, Ra-226, and Be-7, were also detected at 1
varying concentrations in most pasture grass samples.
No other radionuclides were detected in milk samples using gamma spectral analysis.
Sr-90 was detected in 48 of the 54 milk samples collected during 1982. Sr-90 was detected in all sample locations for at least 75% of 86
the time. The mean Se90 concentration for the control location was 2.96 pC1/ liter. The mean for all indicator locations (within 10 miles of the site) was 4.90 pCi/ liter. The control and indicator sample means are similar. Sr-90 results for the indicator locations ranged from 1.93 pCi/ liter to 9.76 pCi/ liter. Control sample results ranged from 4.20 pCi/ liter to 0.93 pCi/ liter. The detection of C -90 in indi-cator and control locations at similar concentrations is indicative of 4
background Sr-90 as a result of past weapons testing.
Milk samples were collected and analyzed monthly for I-131. I-131 was not detected during 1982 in any of the indicator or control sam-ples. All 1982 I-131 milk results are reported as lower limits of detection (LLD).
Examination of previous Cs-137 levels in milk samples shows that the annual mean for the indicator samples has decreased steadily since 1974. 1976 did show a decrease (7.8 pCi/ liter) that was less than 1975 and 1977 (1975 was 20.6 pCi/ liter and 1977 was 17.1 pCi/ liter).
1974 through 1981 showed Cs-137 concentrations ranging from 26.1 pCi/ liter in 1974 to 7.57 pC1/ liter in 1981. As noted above, the in-dicator mean for 1982 was 4.90 pCf/ liter. Previous Cs-137 concen-trations at the control location is only available from 1978 to 1981.
Concentrations range from 5.83 pCi/ liter in 1978 to 7.0 pCi/ liter in 1981. As noted from this range, the Cs-137 concentration at the control location has increased since 1978. The mean control result for 1982 was <4.0 pCi/ liter (LLD result).
Presented below is a table taken from NCRP Report No. 45 (National Council On Radiation Protection and Measurements), " NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION IN THE UNITED STATES", November 15, 1975.
USPHS Network Data for *Sr and "Cs concentrations in milk (pCl/l)e 1956 (959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
- Sr New York 6 8 9 8 14 28 23 18 14 !! 12 to 10 7 8 i l
Cineinanti 8 13 to B 14 23 22 15 12 to 9 3 7 7 6 St. Imuis 13 22 18 8 13 21 22 17 18 10 9 8 8 6 4 Salt Lake City 4 7 6 3 9 22 23 19 11 6 5 8 4 3 3 Secremento S $ 3 4 4 to 8 6 6 3 2 1 2 1 I l Atlanta lib !$ 13 10 18 29 31 24 15 18 le to !! 10 9 I
! Austin 38 6 4 3 7 9 9 7 5 4 3 2 3 t 2 I
' Chicaso l' 9 9 6 18 22 19 I4 to 9 9 7 7 6 3 Spokane 96 12 11 I 12 25 26 22 14 10 6 7 5 6 4 4'Ce
- New York 60 54 25 t$ 81 147 144 71 35 to 15 12 17 8 8 Clamanati 63 50 20 <3 30 84 86 ' 42 20 10 6 3 3 2 4
! St. Louis 80 80 30 15 32 82 74 34 24 7 7 2 4 5 3 Salt take City 50 40 30 $ $2 148 165 85 29 11 12 4 8 12 3 l Sacramento 60 48 10 $ 14 58 42 27 !! 4 5 0 0 0 0 Atlante 906 85 33 to 37 13 7 130 68 32 26 20 19 to 16 to
' Austio 506 43 13 <3 20 44 33 23 11 4 2 4 3 0 0 Chicsso sob 60 30 10 39 tot toe 59 :s to 10 9 11 9 9 Spokane 808 70 35 14 49 132 13 2 ft 34 17 10 4 2 6 5
- 1956-40, Raw Milk Network 196t on. Pasteunned Milk Network. l I b Data not collected for the entire year.
l 4
~ '- - '
This table illustrates the levels of Sr-90 and Cs-137 detected in milk samples in the United States in the years 1958 through 1972 as mea-sured by the Public Health Service P.lilk Networks. The presence of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in milk is not unique and is a situation common in the northern hemisphere. The levels detected in 1982 milk samples are similar to those detected in the years 1971 and 1972 as might be expected , considering the long radiological half-lives for Sr-90 and Cs-137 (29 years and 30 years respectively), and the fact that several atmospheric nuclear tests have been conducted since 1972, one as recent as 1980.
Previous Sr-90 data from the indicator locations shows that the an-nual mean Sr-90 concentrations have decreased slightly from 1974.
Sr-90 ranged from 4.3 pCi/ liter in 1980 to 7.16 pCi/ liter in 1976.
The 1982 annual mean for Sr-90 was 4.90 pCi/ liter and was at the same approximate concentration as results since 1979. Sr-90 concen-trations at the control location is available since 1978. The annual mean concentration ranged from 3.33 pCi/ liter in 1980 to 5.88 pCi/li-ter in 1978. The 1982 annual mean was 2.96 pCi/ liter or approxi-mately the same as the 1981 annual mean results.
The impact as a result of Cs-137 in 1982 milk samples is very mini-mal. With respect to Cs-137, the dose resulting from Sr-90 ingestion to the bone is much more significant. Cs-137 was detected in all the indicator samples at varying times throughout the year. The control samples showed no detectable Cs-137. As noted above, it is difficult to assess whether Cs-137 in the indicator milk samples is a result of background cesium levels, totally as a result of site operations, or partially as a result of plant operations. The difficulty ~ arises because of the minute quantities detected that are at or just above the lower limit of detection.
The impact can be assessed by calculating doses to man as a result of consumption of milk with detectable quantities of Cs-137. For the purposes of a calculated dose, the mean indicator sample Cs-137 con-centration is used (6.26 pCi/ liter). Assuming a consumption rate of 330 liters (87.18 gallons) per year for an infant (Regulatory Guide 1.109 ' maximum exposed individual), the whole body dose would be 0.059 mrem and a critical organ dose would be 0.841 mrem to the
, liver. The calculated doses are based on eight months of consump-tion (eight months of milk sample results). Since Cs-137 was not
_ detected at the control location in 1982, a dose calculation cannot be l_
performed. For a limited comparative purpose, the calculated dose to an infant as a result of consuming milk from the control location during 1981 would be 0.067 mrem whole body dose and 0.94 mrem critical organ dose '(dose to the liver). The annual mean Cs-137 concentration for the 1981 control location was 7.0 pCi/ liter.
The calculated dose to an adult can be determined assuming a con-sumption rate of 110 liter (29.06 gallons) per year (Regulatory Guide 1.109) and a mean Cs-137 concentration of 6.26 pCi/ liter for the in-dicator locations. The resultant doses are 0.033 mrem to the whole 88
i body and 0.050 mrem to the liver (critical organ). The calculated doses- are based on eight weeks of consumption. As noted above, Cs-137 was not detected at the control location, therefore no whole body _or critical
- organ doses can be calculated. Using the example above, the dose to an adult based on the 1981 control sample results would be 0.037 mrem to the whole body and 0.056 mrem to the liver (critical organ).
For the purpose of illustration, the significance of the above doses can be brought into -perspective by comparison to background doses due to cosmic radiation with changes in altitude. Assuming the above calculated whole body dose, as a result of the consumption of J. milk, is 0.059 mrem to an infant and is totally a result of plant op-
! erations at the site, a comparison can be made to the incremental '
increase in dose due to cosmic radiation at sea level. A dose of 0.059 mrem whole body is equal to residing at a location 100 meters
, (328 feet) higher in altitude for 10.8 days.
An additional comparison can be made to naturally occurring K-40.
K-40 has been noted in almost all environmental samples at signifi-cant levels. A 70 kg adult weighs approximately 154 pounds and contains approximately 0.1 microcuries of K-40 as a result of normal life functions (inhalation, consumption, etc.). The dose to the bone tissue is about 20 mrem per year as a result of the internal depos-ited K-40. For comparison purposes, an adult bone dose can be cal-i' culated that results from the consumption of milk from the 1982 indi-cator locations. The mean Cs-137 concentration of 6.26 pCi/ liter is used. The resulting bone dose is 0.041 mrem per year (an average milk Cs-137 concentration of 6.26 pCi/ liter is applied over the entire year). This dose u 0.002 of the bone dose as a result of naturally occurring E-40 in a 154 pound adult.
The impact, as a result of Sr-90 in milk, due to plant operation, is I extremely small if any since the mean result of the indicator results j and the control results are approximately equal considering fluctua-i tions in the background levels. The levels of Sr-90 detected in in-dicator as well as control samples is considered to be representative of background concentrations.- In this regard, the resultant - calcu-lated doses would be approximately equal.
lodine-131 was not detected in the 54 monthly milk samples analyzed
,for the 1982 program. No doses to man have been calculated due to the lack of positive detection. The detection of I-131 in milk sam-ples- has not - been routine in the past. In past sampling programs, j I-131 has been detected in . milk samples in conjunction with fresh )
fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing.
Graphs of yearly milk sample results for Cs-137, Sr-90 and 1-131, along with monthly (1982) Cs-137 results by station, are presented in Section VII.
\'
1 i
89
- 7. - MILCH ANIMAL CENSUS - TABLE 19 l
7 The milch animalL census is an estimation of the number of cows and
- goats within a 10 mile radius of the Nine Mile Point Site. A census is conducted twice per year, once in the spring and once in the summer. The census is conducted by sending questionnaires to pre-vious milch animal owners and also by road surveys to locate any possible new owners. Questionnaires not responded to are followed 4
up by telephone calls.
The number of milch animals located within the 10 mile radius of the
[ site was estimated to be 1,129 cows and two goats for the spring 1982 census. - Five new locations were found since the summer 1981 census.
The . number 'of cows increased by 143 and the number of goats decreased by eight with respect to the 1981 summer census.
As a result of this census, a new sampling location (number 45) was L added). .
The 1982 summer census showed a total of 1,141 cows and three goats. This represents an increase of 12 cows and an increase of
,one goat with respect to the spring 1982 census. Four milch loca-
- tions were deleted as a result of this census when compared to the spring 1982 census.
L
- 8. HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTS - TABLE 20 e
Human food product samples were comprised of meat, eggs, poultry, and vegetables. Collections for meat, poultry, and eggs were made in the spring and fall seasons. Samples of produce included vegeta-bles with an attempt to sample at least one green leafy vegetable
~
' - from each location. The collection of produce was performed in late summer or early fall. Three indicator locations were' sampled for each type of media collected. in addition, a control location was sam-
- pled during each collection period. Indicator samples were collected
.within a 10 mile radius of the site in areas which would have 'a high potential for demonstrating possible effects of site operations. The ultimate factor controlling sample locations was the availability of l ' required samples. Attempts were made to maintain prior ' sample loca-
- tions where possible.
Spring meat collections were made at . one offsite . location (greater than 10 miles from the site) . and at three onsite locations (less than l 10 miles from the site). Spring meat collections showed detectable l' concentrations of K-40 in all samples. K-40 concentrations ranged from 2.4 pCi/g (wet) to 6.0 pCi/g (wet). K-40 is a naturally occur-ring radionuclide. Two of the four spring meat samples showed de-tectable concentrations of Cs-137. - The two positive concentrations were in the indicator or onsite samples. Cs-137 in these- two sample results 'were 0.023 pCi/g (wet) and 0.082 pCi/g (wet). Cs-137 was not detected in the control sample.
90
Cs-137_ is detected in many environmental samples and was most prevalent in meat. and fish, with respect to all the sample media collected. Cs-137 in meat samples is esentially a result of past weapons testing. Cesium is incorporated into meat tissue from feed sources. The results detected in the spring meat samples are very low concentrations and thus can appear in some samples and not in others. By review of the 1981 spring meat sample data, it is noted that Cs-137 appeared in .the control samples (0.017 pCi/g [ wet] and 0.024 pCi/g [ wet]). Cs-137 was also found in the control sampic during 1980 (0.01 pCi/g [ wet]).
Of the two meat samples that showed detectable concentrations of s Cs-137, one sample (0.023 pCi/g [ wet]) was approximately equal to '
detected concentrations in control sample results during the spring of 1981. The other result was greater than control results over the past several years. Because this result (0.082 pCi/g [ wet]) is small, the impact or dose as a result of this concentration is insig-nificant (see below).
No other radionuclides were detected in the spring meat samples using gamma spectral analysis.
Fall meat collections were made at one offsite and at three onsite
- sample locations. The fall samples showed detectable concentrations of K-40 in all samples. E-40 concentrations ranged from 2.5 pCi/g (wet) to 3.5 pCi/g (wet). K-40 is naturally occurring.
Cs-137 was detected in two of the four fall meat samples. The two positive results were two indicator samples (less than 10 miles from the site). The two results showed small concentrations of Cs-137 that was approximately at the lower limit of detection (LLD). The results were 0.019 pCi/g (wet) and 0.015 pCi/g (wet) as compared to ' the control sample result of <0.017 pCi-g (wet). These results are very small concentrations and, as noted above for the spring samples, are comparable to concentrations detected at control loca-tions during 1981. These 1981 samples showed control Cs-137 con-centrations of 0.017 and 0.024 pC1/g (wet) respectively. The impact of these small concentrations is discussed below.
No other radionuclides were detected in the fall meat samples using gamma spectral analysis.
l The detection of Cs-137 in meat samples has been noted for all years 1 since 1978 for indicator samples and since 1980 for control locations (control samples were not collected prior to 1980). The detected j
. concentrations since 1978 at the indicator locations have been fairly !
consistent. These samples ranged from 0.021 to 0.036 pCi/g (wet). I At the control locations, Cs-137 ranged from 0.01 to 0.021 pCi/g (wet) . The indicator semple annual mean results have been slightly higher than the control sample annual mean results.
l 91
The detection of Cs-137 in meat at control and indicator sample loca-tions is an indication of cesium production from weapons testing.
During 1982, Cs-137 was not detected at the control sample locations although Cs-137 has been detected in the n ist (1981 for example) at control sample locations. As noted above, the concentrations de-tected are very small and the impact or dose to man is insignificant.
An average annual dose to man can be calculated as a result of meat consumption from within 10 miles of the site (indicator sample results) .
The average Cs-137 concentration in meat during 1982 was 0.035 pCi/g (wet) . Assuming an adult consumption rate of 95 kg per year, the ~ annual dose to the whole body is 0.237 mrem per year.
The critical organ dose is 0.362 mrem per year to the liver. This calculated dose is small and can be compared to an annual dose of 20 mrem per year to the critical organ (the gonads in this case) as a result of naturally occurring K-40 in the environment. The calcu-lated whole body dose _(0.237 mrem per. year) and the calculated crit-ical organ dose (0.362 mrem per year to the liver) can also be com-pared to the dose received from control sample results during 1981.
During 1981, the annual me.n - concentration for the control meat samples was 0.02 pCi/g (wet). Using the same cons.umption factor of 95 kg per year, the annual whole body dose was 0.136 mrem per 1
year and 0.207 mrem per year to the liver (critical organ dose). As noted above, the 1982 control samples' did not show any Cs-137 above the lower limits of detection. However, Cs-137 -in meat has historically been present. Because of the small concentrations noted here, cesium can be noted in some samples and not in other samples.
Egg samples were collected in the spring (flay 5-12, 1982) and in the fall (November 10-11, 1982). Samples were collected at three onsite locations (within 10 miles of the site) and at one offsite loca-tion' (greater than 10 miles from the site). The only radionuclide detected during 1982 in egg samples was K-40. E-40 was detected in the spring samples at concentrations that ranged from 3.2 pCi/g to 3.8 pCi/g (wet). The fall samples showed K-40 concentrations that ranged from 1.2 pCi/g to 2.0 pCi/g (wet). For both the spring and fall samples, the control samples had the highest K-40 concen-trations.
Poultry samples were taken during the spring (f. lay 5-12, 1982) and during the fall (November 10-11, 1982) at three onsite locations and
, one offsite location. E-40 was detected in all spring and fall samples
- both onsite and offsite. E-40 in the spring samples ranged from 5.5 pCi/g to 8.4 pCi/g (wet). The control sample had the lower concen-tration (5.5 pCi/g). E-40 in the fall samples ranged from 3.1 pCi/g to 4.2 pCi/g (wet). The control sample showed a concentration of 4.1 pCi/g (wet).
Cs-137 was detected in one of the onsite poultry sample locations during 1982, the concentration detected was very small and was ap-proximately at the lower limit of detection (LLD) level for all the 92
1982 poultry samples. The detected Cs-137 concentration was 0.027 pCi/g (wet). The LLD levels for the other samples ranged from- 0.02 pCi/g to 0.03 pCi/g (wet) . Historically, the control samples for poultry have not demonstrated detectable concentrations of Cs-137.
Although this sample is an onsite sample (i.e. , within 10 miles of the site), it is difficult to assess whether the detected cesium is plant
, related or a minute background cesium concentration. In regards to background Cs-137, poultry can be- compared to beef (meat) samples in the sense that Cs-137 can become incorporated in tissue through the ingestion pathway. Thus, poultry have the potential to ingest Cs-137 through the purchased feed they consume (possible weapons
, testing source) but conversely they also have the potential to in-corporate Cs-137 through ingestion of local deposition (plant relcted source).
The impact, as a result of consumption of poultry, can be assessed by projecting a whole body and critical organ dose to an adult. A maximum and therefore very conservative dose can be calculated based on the one positive detection of Cs-137. Assuming a Cs-137 concentration of 0.027 pCi/g (wet), and a consumption rate of 95 kg
- per year, a conservative dose to man can be calculated. The adult whole body dose is 0.092 mrem per year and the adult critical organ dose is 0.140 mrem per year to the liver. These doses were calculated for a six month period since Cs-137 s.as detected only during the first half of the year. As noted in the assessment of the meat sample data, these doses are small when compared to an annual
, dose of 20 arem per year to the critical organ (the gonads in this case) as a result of naturally occurring K-40 in the environment.
, An additional comparison can be made to natural background cosmic radiation and the resulting increase in dose with an increase in altitude. Using the incremental increase in dose due to cosmic radiation at sea level, a conservative dose calculation can be made.
The dose due to consumption of poultry to the whole body is 0.092 mrem per year, as noted above. This dose is equal to an increase in dose due to cosmic radiation that one would receive by residing at a location 100 meters (328 feet) higher in altitude for 16.8 days. It is assumed that by residing at this location one would remain at this altitude for the full 16.8 days.
4 Fruits and vegetables were obtained during the harvest season. Col-lections were made during September at three indicator locations and one control location. A successful attempt was made to collect one broadleaf and one non-broadleaf fruit or vegetable at each location.
Broadleaf vegetables of Swiss chard and cabbage and non-broadleaf ;
fruits and vegetables of tomatoes and zucchini were collected.
K-40 was detected in all broadleaf and non-broadleaf vegetables and fruits. Broadleaf vegetables (Swiss chard and cabbage) showed con-centrations of K-40 ranging from 1.5 pCi/g to 9.3 pCi/g (wet). The
- - control sample had the highest concentration (9.3 pCi/g { wet]) .
Non-broadleaf fruits and vegetables (tomatoes and zucchini) showed 1
93
concentrations of K-40 ranging from 1.9 pCi/g to 2.6 pCi/g (wet).
Again the control location had the highest K-40 concentration (2.6 pCi/g [ wet]).
In addition to K-40, another naturally occurring radionuclide was de-tected. Be-7 is a naturally occurring radionuclide of co'smic origin in the upper atmosphere. B e-7 was detected in two of the four broadleaf vegetable samples. Be-7 was not detected in samples of non-broadleaf fruits and vegetables. Concentrations of Be-7 detected were 0.12 pCi/g (wet) and 0.14 pCi/g (wet). One of the positive results (0.12 pCi/g [ wet]) was . detected in the control sam-ple.
No other radionuclides were detected in the 1982 collection of fruits and vegetables.
Review of past environmental data indicates that K-40 has been con-sistently detected in food crop samples. K-40 concentrations have fluctuated from one sample to another but the annual ranges have remained relatively consistent from year to year. Be-7 has been de-tected occasionally during the past on leafy vegetables (1978 through 1981).
Dose estimates are not performed here for fruits and/or vegetables since no other radionuclides with the exception of naturally occur-ring K-40 and Be-7 were detected.
- 9. SPECIAL STUDIES - TABLE 21 Since 1974, the detection of Cs-137 in milk samples analyzed for the Radiological Environmental f.!onitoring Program has been common.
The specific source of the Cs-137 is not known as there are several possible source terms for this particular radionuclide. Cs-137 is a small component of plant effluents and is also a major fallout nuclide from the detonation of thermonuclear devices in the atmosphere.
, Because Cs-137 has a half-life of 30.2 years it remains a detectable component of environmental sample medial for many years. It is estimated that about 34 million curies (34 P.legacuries) of Cs-137 have been produced in the atmosphere due to weapons testing. Cs-137 is
> present in many of the sample media collected for the environmental nonitoring program. In the environment, cesium behaves much like potassium with regard to metabolism and elements found in living l tissue.
I In 1982, pasture grass samples were collected from the routine milk sample locations three times during the grazing season. Collections of pasture grass samples were made in July, August and September which resulted in a total of 21 samples. Each sample was analyzed for gamma emitters. A total of four radionuclides were detected in these pasture grass samples. Three of the four radionuclides detected are naturally occurring and include Ra-226, Be-7 and_ K-40.
i 94
K-40 was detected in each sample and ranged in concentration from 9.3 pCi/g (wet) to 30.4 pCi/g (wet). Ra-226 was detected in 11 samples and Be-7 ' was detected in six of the 21 samples analyzed.
The fourth radionuclide detected was Cs-137. Cs-137 was detected once in the August sample at the control location with a measured concentration of 0.347 pCi/g (wet). The indicator locations showed no detectable concentrations of Cs-137. The lower limits of detection (LLD) for these samples - ranged from a minimum of <0.141 pCi/g (wet) to a maximum of <0.329 pCi/g (wet).
The general lack of Cs-137 above detectable levels in the indicator samples demonstrates that fresh Cs-137 deposition as a result of )
plant effluents is not indicated in the grass-cow-milk pathway.
1 95
CONCLUSION The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program is conducted each year to determine the radiological impact of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant on the local environment. As demonstrated by the analytical results of the 1982 program, the major radiological impact on the environ-ment was the result of fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing.
Levels of natural background and the associated fluctuaticn in intensity are much more significant in terms of dose to man (normal background in the vicinity of the site is equal to 60 mrem /yr) than radiation levels in l
l the environment associated with the operation of the plant.
Using the data presented in this report, and earlier reports as a basis, it can be concluded that no appreciable radiological environmental impact has resulted from the operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
t i
l l
l 96
~-
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROGRAF,I
- 1. The spring collection of GAalMARUS as required by Table 4.3.1, Ap-pendix B of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Environ-mental Technical Specifications was missed due to seasonal unavail-ability of the organism. As required by plant procedures , three attempts were made to obtain sufficient quantities of GAMMARUS for analysis. The unavailability of GAMMARUS is most probably due to the unseasonably cold . temperature of Lake Ontario and the delay of the spring lake turnover. Few GAMMARUS were inhabiting the shoreline shallows during the spring sampling season.
- 2. Environmental Air Llonitoring Station D-1 off-site was inoperable for one sample period due to electrical supply line failure. Dates of known inoperability were March 28, 1982 to April 7,1982.
- 3. Environmental Radiation Monitoring Station G on-site was inoperable from June 14, 1982 (1330 hrs) to June 15, 1982 (1445 hrs). Inoper-ability was due to faulty high voltage power supply.
- 4. Environmental radiation monitor C offsite was inoperable from Octo-ber 1, 1982 (1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br />) to October 7, 1982 (0800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br />). Inoper-ability was due to vandalism. The radiation detector cable was cut and the detector itself was removed and - stolen. As a result of the cut, the radiation monitor short circuited and was damaged.
- 5. The air sampling pump at the J onsite environmental sampling station was inoperable from Octoter 7 1982 (1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br />) to October 12, 1982 (1330 hours0.0154 days <br />0.369 hours <br />0.0022 weeks <br />5.06065e-4 months <br />). Inope
- ability was caused by an electrical mal-function.
- 6. Environmental sampling station D-1 was found off its normal mounting structure (utility pole) . The station was de-energized on Octo-ber 21, 1982 tc prevent any safety hazards. The radiation monitor sustained damage during the fall and required repair. The sampling station was reactivated after the installation of a new support struc-ture. The total inoperability period of the D-1 onsite station was October 20, 1982 (0940 hours0.0109 days <br />0.261 hours <br />0.00155 weeks <br />3.5767e-4 months <br />) to October 29, 1982 (1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br />).
4
- 7. The air sampling pump at the J onsite environmental sampling station was inoperable from November 12, 1982 (1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br />) to November 15, 1982 (0945 hours0.0109 days <br />0.263 hours <br />0.00156 weeks <br />3.595725e-4 months <br />). Inoperability was caused by pump mechanical problems.
- 8. The air sampling pump at the D-1 onsite environmental sampling sta-tion was inoperable from April 5,1982 to April 12, 1982 due to pump failure.
- 9. The air sampling pump at the D-1 offsite environmental sampling sta-tion was inoperable from March 30, 1982 to April 6, 1982 due to pump failure.
97
REFERENCES
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Cal-culation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluent for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I", March,1976
- 2. U.S. Nuclear . Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Cal-culation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluent for the P(trpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I", October,1977
- 3. Eichholz, G., Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power, First Edition, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. , Ann Arbor, Michigan,1976.
- 4. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).
Environmental Radiation Measurements NCRP Report No. 50, 1976.
- 5. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),
i Natural Dackground Radiation in the United States _ , NCRP Report
+
No. 45, 1975, i
- 6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),
' Cesium-137 from the Environment to Man: Metabolism and Dose.
NGRP Report No. 52, 1977.
- 7. U.S. Nuclear Regu'atory Commission Regulatory Guide 4.8, " Environ-mental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants", December 1975.
- 8. U.S. _ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Branch Technical Position to Regulatory Guide 4.8, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program", November,1979.
- 9. Eisenbud, Merril, Environmental Radioactivity, Second Edition, Aca-l demic Press, New York, New York,1973.
- 10. Francis, C. W. , Radiostrontium Movement in Soils and Uptake in Plants, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, L U.S. Department of Energy,1978.
/
l 11. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),
Radiation Exposure from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources, NCRP Report No. 56, 1977.
- 12. Pochin, Edward E., Estimated Population Exposure from Nuclear Power Production and Other Radiation Sources, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1976.
- 13. ICRP Publication Number 29, Radionuclide Releases into the Environ-ment: Assessment of Dose to Man,1979.
i 98
I VI
/
1 I!ISTORICAL DATA f
t l
3
_ _ _ , . _ . - - - ._ - .. - ~
1 l
VI HISTORICAL DATA Sample Statistics _ from Previous Environmental Sampling The mean, standard deviation, minimum value, maximum value, and range, were calculated for selected sample mediums and isotopes.
Special Considerations:
- 1. Sample data listed as 1969 was taken from the NINE MILE POINT, PREOPERATION SURVEY, 1969 and ENVIRONMENTAL hiONITORING REPORT FOR NIAGARA flOIIAWI' POWER -CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, NOVEMBER,1970.
- 2. Sample data listed as 1974 was taken from the NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, ENVIRONMENTAL' OPERATING REPORT. The 1974 data is pre-operational to the James A. FitzPatrick7uclear Power Plant, which started commercial operation in November,1974.
- 3. Sample data listed as 1975,1976,1977,1978,1979,1980 and 1981 was taken from the respective environmental operating reports for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
4
- 4. Only measured values were used for statistical calculations.
4 e
l' l
l 99
1 i
i HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l Periphyton STANDARD Cs-137 pCi/g (vet) MEAN DEVIAT10N MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE 1982 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.02 1981 0.19 0.07 0.24 0.14 0.10 1980 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 1979 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.02 0.11 1978 0.03 0.063 0.04 0.023 0.04 1977 <gt ___ ___ ___ ___
1976 5.00 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1975 <gt ___ ___ ___ ___
1974 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.09 0.03 1969 '
(PPI-OPEM U CNAL) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
IN DIC ATO R Periphyton STANDARD Cs-137 pCi/g (wet) MEAN DEVIAT10N MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE 1982 0.14 0.16 0.38 0.05 0.33 1981 6.24 6.75 16.00 0.47 15.53 1980 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.11 1979 0.36 0.55 1.10 0.08 1.02 1978 0.11 0.06 0.19 0.05 0.14 l
i 1977 0.42 0.56 1.40 0.09 1.31 1976 2.60 1.38 4.10 1.40 2.70 1975 22.25 14.34 36.00 4.00 32.00 1974 5.18 3.73 8.44 1.72 6.72 1969 ep:tt.cPEnnem) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
l 100
l HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l l
-8 pC1/g (wet) '
1982 <tLD -- --- --- ___
1981 <LLD -- -- ___ -__
1980 <LLD - --- --- --
1979 <LLD -- -- -- --
I' O 0.02 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1977
<MDL ___ ___ ___ ___ i 1976 NO DATA --- -- --- ---
1975 NO DATA -- --- --- ---
1974 No DATA -- --- --- ---
r 1969 l (PPI-CPERAIIONAl.) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1 IN DIC ATO R Mollusks STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-89 pCi/g (wet) 1982 <tto _ _ ___ --
1981 <tto __ __ __ __
l 1980 <tto __ __ __ __
i 1979 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.06 l
(
1978 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.04 l 1
i 1977 <MDL -- --- --- ---
i 1976 0.42 ONLY ONE DATA POINT
, 1975 <39t ___ ___ ___ ___
1 1
1974 i <MDL --- --- --- ---
1969
< x t.cernim:E ) NO DATA , -- --- --- ---
l l
101
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA .
CONTR0i. l
~
Mollusks STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION 1982 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 1981 0.046 0.008 0.052 0.040 0.012 1980 0.07 l 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.08 l 1979 0.07 0.05 1.00 0.02 0.98 1978 0.14 'O.02 0.15 3.12 0.03 1977 l 0.23 0.21 0.38 0.08 0.30 1976 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1975 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1974 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1969 tm-om monu NO DATA --- --- --- ---
IN DIC ATO R no11usks STANDARD MEAN DEVIAT10N MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 oCi/g (wet) 1982 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.05 1981 0.094 0.060 0.132 0.005 0.127 1980 0.11 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.07 l
1979 0.10 0.04 0.17 0.05 0.12 l 1978 0.14 0.03 0.18 0.10 0.08 l
1977 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.04 1976 0.51 ONLY ONE i DATA POIN2 1975 0.17 0.04 f 0.19 0.14 0.05 1974 0.32 OhU ONE DATA POINT 1969 nn-optuncnu 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.01 0.23 i
, 102 s
~ . . - _ _ _ - - . ~ _ _ ._
i HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l acf l Mollusks STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION 1982 <LLD --- --- -- ---
1981 <LLD --- - --- ---
1980 <LLD -- --- -- --
1979 <tLD -- --- --- --
l 1978 < t __ __ __ __
l 1977 <MDL -- -- -- --
1976 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1975 NO DATA -- -- -- --
I 1974 NO DATA i l 1969
! (PRE-CPERAUCNAI.) NO DATA --- - -- --
IN DIC ATO R M 11usks STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pCi/g (wet) DEV1ATION 1982 <LLD - --- --- --
1981 0.061 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1980 <tto __. __ ___ __
{
1979 <tto ___ ___
f --- -__
1978 0.99 0.80 2.10 0.24 1.86 l 1977 <MDL --- --- --- -
1976 0.18 ONLY l ONE DATA POINT f 1975 < ggt __ ___ _-_ ___
(
1974 0.26 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1969 m r.cprRAn cre) 0.08 ONLY ONE DATA POINT l l
103 l l
L_
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL
~
Bottom Sediment STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION 1982 <tLD --- --- ---
1981 0.027 0.007 0.032 0.022 0.01 1980 0.12 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1979 0.02 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1978 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.02 1977 ygt __ __ __ __
1976 ogt __ __ __ __
1975 cmL --- -- --
1974 omL -- -- -- --
1969 (PPI-OPERATIONAL) NO DATA --- --- - - - - ---
IN 0ic ATO R STANDARD Bottom Sediment MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM DEVIAT10N RANCE Sr-90 oci/c (wet) 1982 0.037 0.03 0.06 0.013 0.047 1981 0.011 0.007 0.02 0.005 0.015 1980 0,01 0,003 o,015 0,011 0,004 1979 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.01 0.04 1978 0.015 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1977 ogt ___ ___ ___ __
1976 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 1975 0.29 0.27 0.65 0.03 0.62 l
1974 <st __ ___ __ ___
l 1969 i
< ==r.cprunr :u) 0.08 ONLY ONE DATA POINT i
i I
i 104
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA I CONTROL l I Bottom Sediment STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pC1/g (dry) DEVIATION 1982 0.52 0.33 0.75 0.29 0.46 1981 0.26 0.23 0.42 0.10 0.32 1980 0.43 0.2 0.57 0.29 0.28 1979 0.47 0.10 0.54 0.40 0.14 1978 0.61 0.15 0.71 0.50 0.21 1977 0.68 0.08 0.73 0.62 0.11 1976 g ___ ___ ___ ___
1975 0.40 0.10 0.50 0.30 0.20 1974 0.11 ONT.Y ONE DATA POINT 1969 (PRE-CPER.CC':AL) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
IN DIC ATO R Bottom Sediment STANDARD MEAN DEVIATl6N MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 oCi/e (dry) 1982 0.20 0.11 0.30 0.05 0.25 1981 0.23 0.04 0.27 0.19 0.08 1980 0.34 0.40 0.94 0.12 0.82 1979 0.44 0.45 1.00 0.13 0.87 1978 0.99 0.80 2.10 0.24 1.86 1977 2.27 1.90 4.10 0.31 3.79 l 1976 2.45 0.64 2.90 2.00 0.90 1975 0.83 0.86 3.50 0.20 3.30 1974 0.40 0.26 0.58 0.21 0.37 1969 mt-cPrune:u) 0.38 0.09 0.44 0.31 0.13 105
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l GAMARUS STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-89 pCi/g (wec) DEVIATION I
1982 <tLD --- -- --- ---
l 1981 0.034 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1980 <ttD __ _ ___ ___
1979 <tLD - - --- --
1978 <MDL --- - --- ---
1977 <MDL --- --- ---
1976 NO DATA --- --- ---
l 1975 NO DATA -- --- --- ---
1974 <MDL --- --- --- ---
1969 (PM-OPERGIC:!AL) NO DATA --- --- ---
IN DIC ATOR GAMARUS STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-89 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION 1982 <tLD -- -- --- --
1981 0.069 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1980 <tLD - - - --
1979 0.105 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1978 <MDL -- -
l I
1977 <MDL --
1976 NO DATA -- -- --- ---
1975 NO DATA -- --- ---
1974 l<MDL -- --- -- -
1969 '
< =or.cptter :n> NO DATA -- --- --- ---
106
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA l CONTROL l )
GAMMARUS STANDARD MEAN gg MAXIMUM MINI 51Ubi RANGE Sr-90 pC1/g (wet) l 1982 0.09 ONLY ONE DATA POINT I 1981 0.099 0.066 0.146 0.052 0.094 f 1980 0.102 ONLY ONE DATA POINT l 1979 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.03 l
1978 0.14 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.01 ,
1977 0.32 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1976 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1975 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1974 <gt __ __ __ __
1969 (PRE-OPERAI!CMA1.) NO DATA --- --- - - - - ---
IN DIC ATO R GAMMARUS STANDARD MEAN DEVIAT10N MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pC1/g (wet) 1982 0.23 0.10 0.30 0.16 0.14 1981 0.193 0.058 0.274 0.13a 0.136 1980 0.64 0.86 1.64 0.14 1.5 l 1979 0.19 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.03 1978 0.14 0.04 0.21 0.13 0.08 l
1977 0.40 0.46 0.73 0.08 0.65 1 1976 NO DATA -- - --- ---
1975 NO DATA --- --- --- --- i 1974 <st ___ __ __ ___
(
1969 r n r.<3pixA m :C NO DATA --- --- --- ---
107
l l
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTR01. l GAEARUS STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM Cs-137 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION MINIMUM RANGE 1982 <tLD -- --- -- --
1981 <tto __ ___ ___ ___
1980 <LLD -- --- -- -
1979 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.06 1978 0.028 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1977 '
<MDL -- -- -- --
1976 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1975 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
1974 NO DATA -- --- --- ---
1969 (PPI-OPE.uncnt) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
INDICATOR cA m us STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM Cs-137 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION RANGE 1982 <LLD -- - - - - .
1981 4.7 4.67 8.0 1.4 6.6 1980 <tLD l l 1979 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.03 1978 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00
[
1977 <MDL -- - -
l 1976 NO DATA -
1 1975 NO DATA -- -- -- -
1974 l 0.21 ONLY ONE DATA PODT
{ 1969 t <=or.cpng m:q) NO DATA --- --- --- --
108
I HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA l CONTROL l l
' ' M A XIMUM MINIMUM RANGE S 9 (wec) DE/ TION 1982 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.003 0.002 )
1981 0.015 0.001 0.015 0.014 0.001 l 1980 <tta ___ __ __ __
1979 o,07 o,04 o,og 0.04 0.05 1978 <got ___ ___ ___ ___
l 1
- 1977 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 ;
1976 0.24 0.08 0.33 O.19 0.14 1975 <got ___ ___ ___ ___
l 1974 <got ___ ___ ___ ___
1969 (P'I-CPERAI CNAL) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
IN DIC ATO R Fish Sa=ples MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-89 pC1/g (wet) DEVI AT10N 1982 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.001 1981 0.061 0.021 0.10 0.027 0.073 1980 <LLD -- - --- --
1979 <LLD - -- -- --
l
! 1978 0.01 0.001 0.015 0.014 0.001 1977 0.07 0.05 0.24 0.03 0.41 1976 0.27 0.15 0.41 0.12 0.29 j 1975 <MDL -- -- -- ---
l 1974 l <MDL --
l --- --- --
.oor.cpro :.-.:e NO DATA --- --- -- --
i 109 l
l
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l Fish Sa=ples STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pCi/g (wet) DEVIAIl0N 1982 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.002 0.011 1981
<tLD --- --- --- ---
1980 0.005 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.005 1979 0.018 0.012 0.033 0.008 0.025 1978 0.010 0.004 0.015 0.004 0.011 1977 0.07 0.03 0.14 0.02 0.12 1976 0.25 0.27 0.81 0.05 0.76 1975 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.06 1974 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.05 1969 (P?2-cPERn:c:UL) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
INDICATOR i1EAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM S 0o / (wet) DEVIAT101 RANGE 1982 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.003 1981 m.0022 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1980 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.003 0.010 i
1979 0.019 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 1978 0.013 0.006 0.025 0.004 0.021 1977 0.07 0.05 0.24 0.03 0.21 1976 0.28 0.48 2.20 0.05 2.15 1975 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.11 1974 0.23 0.69 2.30 0.01 2.29 1969 m r-eptpr e.:u) 0.17 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.51 110
' HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l Fish Samples STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM Cs-137 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION RANGE 1982 0.047 0.009 0.055 0.027 0.028 1981 0.043 0.016 0.062 0.028 0.034 1980 0.059 0.032 0.110 0.029 0.081 1979 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 1978 0.09 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.16 1977 0.13 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1976 0.12 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1975 ogt ___ ___ ___ ___
1974 0.43 0.37 3.94 0.09 0.85 1969 (PRE-CPERAIICNAD NO DATA -- --- --- ---
INDICATOR Fish Samples I STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM Cs-137 pC1/g (wet) DEVIATION RANCE 1982 0.050 0.008 0.064 0.034 0.030 1981 0.061 0.021 0.10 0.027 0.073 1980 0.061 0.029 0.10 0.030 0.070 1979 0.10 0.14 0.55 0.02 0.53 l 1978 0.08 0.02 0.10 1
0.03 0.07 l 1977 0.29 0.21 0.79 0.13 0.66 j 1976 1.4 1.67 3.90 0.50 3.40 1975 1.38 0.22 1.70 1.10 0.60 1974 0.57 0.82 4.40 0.08 4.32 1969 mr.cptuncup 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.01 0.12 l
111
__ ._. ~ .. - -
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l e water cross Beta MEAN STANDARD '
DEVIATION IA XlM U M MINIMUM RANGE 1982 2.4 0.43 3.2 1.8 1.4 1981 3.24 1.27 5.8 1.9 3.9 1930 2.60 0.50 3.48 1.87 1.61 1979 3.05 0.85 4.80 2.10 2.70 1978 3.55 1.58 6.10 0.50 5.60 1977 10.9 14.5 49.3 2.50 46.8 1976 42.48 50.62 189.00 4.90 184.10 1975 45.33 52.79 160.00 1.00 159.00 1974 4.85 0.07 4.90 4.80 0.10 1969 (PFI-OPE.uncn:.) NO DATA -- --- -- ---
INDICATOR I
a water cross Beta MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE l
1982 2.7 0.73 4.7 1.3 3.4 1981 2.98 1.19 5.4 1.2 4.2 I
I 1980 3.10 0.63 5.10 2.35 2.75 1979 3.24 1.06 6.30 2.00 4.30 1978 4.53 2.62 11.10 0.60 10.50 l
19,77 15.80 21.00 87.00 1.00 86.00 i 1976 41.76 55.23 192.00 1.10 190.90 l 1975 18.24 17.08 80.00 0.60 79.40 l 1974 31.71 20.22 60.00 6.30 53.70 l
mer..!prp e c.:n) NO DATA --- --- -- --
112
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTR01. l STANDARD Lake Water MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-89 pC1/1 DEVIAT10N 1982 ,m __ __ __ __
~
1981
<LtD --- - --- ---
1980 1.4 0.07 1.4 1.3 0.1 1979 0.70 0.14 0.80 0.60 n.90 1978 y __ __ __ __
1977 1976 <gt ___ ___ ___ __
1975 <MDL -- -- -- --
1974 No DATA -- -- --- ---
1969 i
(PRE-OPLunc:Id NO DATA -- --- --- --
l l
! IN DIC ATO R l
Lake Water STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-89 pCi/1 1982 0.61 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1981 0.78 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1980 0.70 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1979 <tLD --- - --- --
i 1978 0.70 0.10 0.80 0.60 l 0.20 1977 <MDL - -- --- --
l 1976 <MDL -- - -- --
1975 0.30 ONLY ONE DATA l
POINT l 1974 l NO DATA --- -- --
1969 i toer cpe n n c in.) NO DATA --- -- --
l 113
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL STANDARD Lake Water MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pC1/1 DEVIATION
. 1982 2.04 2.18 5.30 ,' . 75 4.55 1981 0.68 0.176 0.868 0.484 0.384 1980 1.10 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 1979 0.80 0.26 1.10 0.60 0.50 1978 <gt ___ __., ___ ___
1977 <gt ___ ___ ___ ___
1976 <gt __ ___ ___ ___
1975 <gt ___ __ __ ___
l 1974 NO DATA --- --- --- ---
.1969 (PRI-0PEM n CNAL) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
IN 01C ATO R Lake water STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pC1/1 1982 1.08 0.88 3.07 0.40 2.67
) 1981 0.74 0.08 0.805 0.597 0.208 1980 1.00 0.20 1.20 0.80 0.40 1979 0.84 0.34 1.30 0.40 0.90 1978 0.80 0.30 1.10 l 0.40 0.70 1977 1.00 ONLY ONE DATA POINT l
l 1976 <st __ _ ___ ___
1975 <st ___ __ ___ --
1974 lNODATA __ -- --- ---
l 1969 net.cptu csA;) NO DATA --- -- -- --
I 114
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l l STANDARD EAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE iu p 1/1 DEVIAT10N 100 165.0 94.7 307 112 195 1981 293.3 49.3 357 211 246 1980 257.3 38.5 290 211 79 1979 258.7 73.7 308 174 134 1978 303.8 127.5 490 215 275 1977 407.5 97.4 530 300 230 1976 651.7 251.0 929 440 489 1975 362.5 72.8 414 311 103 1974 __ __ __ __
1969 (PPI-CPERAIICnL) NO DATA --- --- --- ---
IN DIC ATO R STANDARD Iake Water MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM DEVIATION RANGE Tritium oCi/1 1982 641.0 891.1 2780 194 2586 1981 258.3 76.9 388 183 205 1980 263.0 95.4 457 150 307 1979 234.0 40.7 286 176 110 1978 389.4 119.9 560 253 207 1977 450.0 67.2 530 380 150 1976 513.0 250.3 889 297 592 1975 334.8 132.5 482 124 358 l 1974 sco,o ga,9 l 500 l380 120 1969
'ee r-opruncnu NO DATA -- -- -- ---
l 115
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTR01.
EAN chos$sefapi)m 2 DEV T10 MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE
>I 1982 0.033 0.012 0.078 0.011 0.067 1981 0.165 0.135 0.549 0.016 0.533 1980 0.056 0.04 0.291 0.009 0.282 l
1979 0.077 0.086 0.703 0.010 0.693 1978 0.14 0.13 0.66 0.01 0.650 1977 0.07 0.03 0.140 0.016 0.124 1970 0.051 0.031 0.240 0.004 0.236 1975 0.085 0.060 0.294 0.008 0.286 1974 0.121 0.104 0.808 0.001 0.807 1969 (PRE-OPEMEC AL) 0.334 0.097 0.540 0.130 0.410 l IN DIC ATO R Air Particulate , STANDARD Gross Beta pC1/m 3 DEVIA?l0N M 'il U il WNIMUM RANGE 1982 0.031 0.012 0.113 0.001 0.112 1981 0.151 0.128 0.528 0.004 0.524 1980 0.045 0.03 0.207 0.002 0.205 1979 0.058 0.06 0.271 0.001 0.270 1978 0.10 0.09 0.34 0.01 0.33 1977 0.106 0.07 0.326 0.002 0.324 1976 0.047 0.032 0.191 0.002 0.189 1975 0.067 0.055 0.456 0.001 0.455 1974 o,itt o,ti; o,355 0.003 0.S52 1969
. es t-cPruma) 0.320 0.090 0.520 0.130 0.390 l
i l 116 l
I HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l {
Environmental TLD's Quarterly Reading mrem / Standard Month STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Offsite* DEVIATION 1982 5.12 0.691 6.95 3.79 l 3.16 1981 4.72 0.685 6.63 3.24 3.39 1980 4.57 0.614 6.06 3.12 2.94 1979 REPORTED AS PRIOR TO MREM /QTR 1980 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1969 (PRE-CPERAIICNAL)
IN0lcATOR
- Environmental ILD's Quarterly Reading mrem / Standard Month STANDARD MEAN DEVIAT10N MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Onsite Monitors
- 1982 5.82 1.24 9.13 3.87 5.26 1981 5.24 0.73 7.45 4.09 3.36 1980 DATA NOT COMPARABLE DUE TO CHANGES 1979 IN TLD LOCATIONS I 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 l 1969 noE-cPrunem) i
- Sea Clarification on Environ =entcl Sacple Statistical Analysis Talle,Section III.
117
._.= - HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL -l Milk Samples STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pCi/1 DEVIATION 1982 2.96 1.20 4.20 0.93 3.28 1981 4.85 1.91 8.00 2.41 5.59 1980 3.33 0.9 4.3 1.8 2.5 1979 4.44 1.33 5.80 1.70 4.10 1978 5.88 2.04 9.00 3.00 6.00 1977 NO DATA - --
1976 NO DATA - - - -
1975 NO DATA - -- -- -
1974 NO DATA -- -- -
1969 (PPI-OPERAIIONAL) NO DATA - -
l INDICATOR Milk Samples STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pCi/1 1982 4.60 2.29 8.59 0.76 7.83 1981 4.60 2.45 10.70 1.12 9.58 1980 4.3 2.6 11.0 1.1 9.9 1979 4.84 2.12 9.00 0.70 8.30 1978 5.93 1.81 10.00 2.50 7.50 i 1977 6.07 3.50 15.00 2.00 13.00 1976 7.16 3.41 14.80 1.50 13.30
- 1975 6.31 3.11 13.80 2.30 11.50 l 1974 5.66 2.89 14.00 1.00 13.00 l 1969
(?9E-OPERATIOnl.) NO DATA - -- -
118
l 3 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l l STANDARD l Milk Samples MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pC1/1 DEVIATION 1982 ytto ___ _ ___ ___
1981 7.0 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1980 <LLD -- --- --
l 1979 3.73 0.29 3.9 3.4 0.5 l l
l 1978 5.83 1.98 7.8 2.4 5.4 1977 NO CONTROL DATA PRIOR 13 1978 1976 1975 I 1974 1969 (PRE-OPERATICNAO NO DATA -- --- --- --
IN DIC ATO R STANDARD Milk samples MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM Cs-137 pCi/1 DEVIATION RANGE 1982 6.26 4.41 18.0 3.. 14.9 1981 7.57 5.95 29.0 4.3 24.7 l 1980 9.7 4.9 21.0 4.0 17.0 i 1979 9.4 8.0 40.0 2.7 37.3 ,
I l <
1978 9.9 7.1 33.0 3.4 29.6 1977 17.1 3.9 22.0 11.0 11.0 1976 7.8 3.7 13.2 4.0 9.2 l l 1975 20.6 7.8 36.0 6.0 30.0 1974 26.1 10.5 61.0 13.0 48.0 l 1969 i l / PRE-CPERATIONE) NO DATA -- --- ---
)
l 119
l I
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL Milk Samples STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE I-131 pC1/1 DEVikTION 1982 <LLD -- -- --- ---
1981 <tt,D _- __ ___ ___
1980 1.4L ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1979 *
<LLD --
1978 <MDL -- -- -- --
1977 NO DATA --- --- --- --
l 1976 NO DATA --- --- --- --
1975- NO DATA --- -- --- ---
1974 NO DATA --- --- --- --
1969 (PFI-OPERATIONAL) NO DATA -- --- --- --
IN DIC ATO R - ~
l Milk Samples STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE I-131 pC1/1 DEVIATION 1982 <tLD -- - --- __
l l 1981 <ttD -- - -- --
[
i 1980 4.9 4.23 8.80 0.40 8.40 1979 <tLD - - --- ---
1978 0.19 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1977 0.20 0.14 0.22 -0.40 0.62 1976 3.20 7.81 45.00 0.02 44.98 1975 0.37 0.60 2.99 0.01 2.98 1
1974 l 1.23 0.44 2.00 0.70 1.30 1969 I i not.cprnnc.:,u.) NO DATA -- -- --- --
l I
l 120
r HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL STANDARD Human Food Crops MEAN S1AXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pCi/g (vet) Produce DEVIATION 1982 <LLD -- -- --
1981 <LLD --- -- --- ---
1980 <LLD -- -- --- ---
1979 NO CONTROL DATA PRIOR TO 1980 1978 l 1977 1976 1975 1974 1969 (PFI-OPEMIICNAL)
IMOICATOR Human Food Crops STANDARD Cs-137 pCi/g (vet) Produce MEAN gmg M A XIM U51 MINIMUM RANGE
( 1982 <LLD - -- --- --
1981 <tLD - -- --- --
1980 0.033 2.26 0.06 0.004 0.056 1979 <LLD -
l 1978 0.01 ONLY ONE DATA POINT 1977 <MDL - - -- --
1976 <MDL -- -- -- --
1975 <MDL -- -- --
1974 0.142 0.09 0.34 0.04 0.30 1969 (pog..,pr u n c!;g) NO DATA -- - ---
121 l
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l Human Food Crops STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE I-131 pC1/g (wet) Produce DE lATION 1982 <LLD --- -- - ---
1981 <LLD --- --- --- ---
l 1980 <ttD _- -_ -__ ___
l 1979 NO CONTROL DATA PRIOR TO 1980 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1969 (PRI-OPERAUCNAL)'
INDICATOR -
Human Food Crops STANDARD I-131 pCi/g (wet) Produce MEAM mmg MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE 1982 <LLD - -- -- --
1981 <LLD - --- -- -
[ 1980 <LLD - -- --- -
1979 <LLD - -- -- ---
1978 <MDL - -
l --- -
1977 <MDL -- --- -- --
1976 <MDL - -- --- -
[ 1975 <MDL -- -- --- --
1974 NO DATA -- --- --- --
Int-cPE :c m ) NO DATA -- -- --- --
l l
! 122 l . _ _ . _ . _ _ . , . . . . . .
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA C ONTR01.
neae - STANDARD MEAN M AXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pCi/g (wec) DEVIATION 1982 <LLD --- -- -- --
1981 0.021 0.005 0.024 0.017 0.007 l 1980 0.01 ONLY ONE DATA POINT l
l 1979 NO CONTROL DATA PRIOR TO 1980 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1969 (PRE-CPER.C CNAI.)
INDICATOR STANDARD c !37 pct /g (wet) .'r1EA N DEVIATION MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE 1982 0.034 0.026 0.08 0.02 0.06 1981 0.036 0.021 0.068 0.023 0.045 1980 0.02 1.35 0.042 0.009 0.033 1979 0.03 2.13 0.07 0.01 0.06 1978 0.021 0.011 0.04 l 0.013 0.027 i
1977 <MDL -- - --- --
1976 <MDL -- - -- --
1975 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 1974 No DATA -- ---
l --- --
cent.npt m :;c.) NO DATA l 123
i
. HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l Eggs STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pCi/g (wet) DEVIATION 1982 <tLD -- --- --- ---
1981 <LLD - - --- ---
1980 <LLD --- --- -- --
1979 NO CONTROL DATA PRIOR TO 1980 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1969 (PRI-OPERAUCNAL)
INDICATOR -
Eggs STANDARD MgAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM Cs-137 pC1/g (wec) DEVIAT10N RANGE 1982 <tta _ _ ___ ___
1981 <LLD -- --
l -- ---
1980 <ttD __ _ _ __
l 1979 <tto _ __ ___ ___
1978 <st ___ __ ___ ___
l 1977 <st ___ __ ___ ___
1976 <st __ ___ ___ ___
1975 <st ___ __ ___
1974 No DATA -- --
l --- --
1969
! mr.cptxAner na.) NO DATA - - - --
124
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA CONTROL l STANDARD Soil Samples MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pCi/g (dry) DEVIATION 1982 r0 SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1982 1981 NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1981 1980 1.20 0.91 2.90 0.41 2.49 1979 NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1979 1978 NO SAMPLES REOUIRED IN 1978 1977 1.17 0.43 2.00 0.70 1.30 1976 NO DATA --- -- --- -
1975 1.07 0.21 1.30 0.90 0.40 1974 i NO DATA l -- --- --- ---
1969 (PPl-OPE.UUC:!AL) NO DATA -- -- --
l ---
IN DIC ATO R STANDARD Soil Samples MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Cs-137 pCi/g (drv) l DEVIATION 1982 NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1982 1981 NO ' SAMPLES IN 1981 REQUIRED 1980 1.26 0.61 2.1 0.29 1.81 1979 NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1979 1978 NO SAMPLES REGUIRED IN 1978 1977 1.03 0.62 2.00 0.30 1.70 1976 No DATA - - --- --
1975 No DATA - -- - --
1974 1.03 1.13 2.80 0.40 2.40 1969 m t.cytu rent) NO DATA - -- -- -
125
l HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE DATA l CONTROL -l Soil Samples STANDARD MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE Sr-90 pC1/g (dry) DEVIATION 1982 NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1982 1981 NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1981 1980 0.063 0.065 0.19 0.008 0.182 1979- NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1979 1978 NO SAMPLES REQUIRED IN 1978 1977 0.21 0.07 0.29 0.13 0.16 1976 NO DATA - --- --- --
1975 0.13 0.10 0.26 0.04 0s22 1974 NO DATA -- -- --- ---
1969 (PRE-OPERAH ONAL) NO DATA -- --- -- --
IN 0!C ATO R Soti Samples STANDARD MEAN MAXlMUM MINIMUM Sr-90 pCi/g (dry) DEVIAT10N RANGE l 1982 NO SAMPLES IN REQUIRED 1982 l
l 1981 NO SAMPLES IN REQUIRED 1981 l 1980 0.074 0.052 0.140 0.008 0.132 1979 NO SAMPLES IN REQUIRED 1979 1978 NO SAMPLES IN REQUIRED 1978 f 1977 0.40 0.18 0.65 0.17 0.48 l
1976 NO DATA - -- --- --
[ 1975 NO DATA -- -- --- --
l
[ 1974 0.27 0.06 0.04 0.23 0.11 l 1969 tper-cprRAnn ut) NO DATA - - --- --
126 l
VII
\
FIGURES AND MAPS
VII FIGURES AND IJAPS
- 1. DATA GRAPHS This section includes graphic representation of selected sample results.
For graphic representation, - results less than the filDL or LLD were considered to be at the f.lDL or LLD level of activity. f,IDL and LLD values were indicated where possible.
i
- 2. - SAf.lPLE LOCATIONS
. Sample locations referenced as letters and numbers on analysis results tables are plotted on maps.
t l,
e>
127
&&&2Q,f'(Wsly jWa > gr \ _\ - - >
- , li *N ) tf}llY .g l~d \ & U- )
~
fi f
.._? 's,f\ Vf_
l y} ,mt
'l sj19lTwhj%. %> -W45 l h& '
n ,
. \. g. , m ;. ,
y
- "*h' lu. 4 4 1 hr!?;n-
-l- ,er~ y e[
- l ,s&kN g .$ I'-
/ E !.
ll ff f."I .~. &j t a / ;- I h j V 4 \ lb f $ " ,, M ,
> % '= ' rL! kp '/ 'L ,
h a >> v ,a -
. ~, ,
l fI ' ~ '
1"; _ y' I y -
.1J .
I 0, s
lin 1 gs /d50( =- / -
i a',jl; 3 - 1! .
j tb {pT - ' '
D, .!
- ~
i
< c:: -
. I Li< < ~~ .
yJ
- s=;'
m g~ E M J ,9'"1 ,
s .. g ca a 16 -
4f L /
" t-ijI J1 .
/-
2:
e
!,77 ==tif
' g~ p ,,,1'j N
g
%<ki
'f j
- hh* 3 '
.I M w g
- I N *
! f ,L_tIII -
tL i
t j
., ; h !! j i. \\\g[J , f J h8
=
- Id d!EaJ
_ {j g jj
- 5
\, if' I' ' i p,i g * =Hf -
g its e -l s.
};l g5 wj : :
cj .2
.h E E*
- 3 p;'ll .a ;M
- !-
- 5 !
si
- ea4 :..: -}: ./ 7 2
a
- = .i. n-i 1 l:. . .
, . _di s< -
$ 4 h '#
G.>Tg _in _ yy I
ll! i" Mi ;f~f u
5y - L = .
a- I
- et
.t % 4- 'fm 128
(J [ W 'Ail; /
~
/ .
/, Lv es,"
a- i n
3 %q.
- 'J3,~,x4 -
u p f- 1' aA
- M E ,.
iy Wfig(fpl/ b j,i h. 'S
,i i ,, , e - .. !!d4, g: : ;
??! la b 'l W
' m" w/r, g
e I %.N], y
!i i
~
e e *!
"Ni
/q. 3s"@F
./, '.' l E:
-1 <u t j
-e
=
N
' fj'h R(n-4.,/.- ' -
. ,f4 e il 4- -// ug6
.it
/ f m i y $ j af j . .
, l{f ' 5 f: =
~,
i l'. d }
h,%g* '
~
3r !/ s.
E# : jf if ,,
lm4 - G')
l
.[.11!',<i ki i ~ Ve$,Jj i,=~ i,f l .
/? d
. 9: .? /(. ' -
j ! . r" k . .. , 1 4b 4 'W
~!.
i 7 i, c '
- ,i hi{^I
- J od 4
.f1 i j '
,. 2 2, N' j "Q i li' l t
l p - s.
e, gi 5 'n ? 2f' *l
^
ib
= .
[A' O f3 - n.
~'! i -(pxin
<= g: = i_ -s, g, ( = =s . . .! .
ui :
15 E5 5 b. ./ lI \ I{ _a q!l l
1 [ i l w/ #3 m
sgass e l"i.=8
- . i
- -; . 3 .. .
E c e c t- 1 a b i :. d. b :
h b :-b E W " ,' ' G Y k k h 'Y sr=
~-
7
- i, s-
,J t g v dUhri
-~
i E o- i \ j~1!!!!i a E ;-
eT \
d
=L$ ,
~~'
5 ffb
-J
' gCg~ -
N
, I. ..
' & Ts hg--
N .
ll 4mv y' Y <G li [ .h
._ _~ h.
,_j'
, . -- -- - ~ ~ ~ "
- ./
- FIGURE 2 ; y
- OFFSITI MONITORING *
- I.
STATION LOCATIONS #
- ; C .
MONITOR STATION .
! /
./ *
/
I O WILES 5
- f
- .**..** Oj
/ .* ~,
A !
f
.- .- ~ ~
1 f .. ..* '
e j %
o S M N_ ,, T,,.* .PULASKI
.. g.g -
, 4.p * . . . . . .. .. -:y. .......
0 i * .....****
j k'g OSWE ,./ .
l I
',...f .9 'tk% =
- m W MEXICO l
. =
.i. .
G i
- D2
/ . .
i e F : .
/ 1
. 1 e
ptv' 3 gA
( E T . . . . .-
..ooo
+=i.2
.g
-Q p4AMES A, FIT 2Patmicx
- . NUCLEAR P0wf R y PLAh?
NINE MILE POINT NUCLE AR STAT 10M $
I N l.'282.300
' ~
PROPERTY LINE 8
\\ SCALt.rttT j L A K E VIEW
\
q CN-stTE M ADICLCGICAL MONtTQMlNG i e existi=s ucNironima sikricNs sTaricu s i
uoNITONf N$ sIATICNs LOCAT[Q A7 I
2,000 F?. AA018 FRCm $7&cAs 130
i LAKE ONTARIO ON SITE ENVIRONMENTAL STATION Si JAMES A. IIIZPAIRICK AND TLD LOCATIONS TABLES 1-5 AND 9-14 NUCLEAR POWER PLANI Ma P"
""**"' 827
- 29 828 d47 11 # 2 3 NU L R$ ION 330 .
1 ggMW'HW N by
[NERGY INFORMA110N CENIER 831 ,- "
_k #61 A gg9 gg 18 Switch) . as o
I48 A d
, ' . Swiktiyasd -) D1 83 i f ll
'/ A g "
d I#24g ,','
I tuu A g g7 le 'l ,l n Metmokxp:al :
D2 54 g f A gj 1
' K #26
~
A
- 15 1: 86 l f'l l85 l
/ r.!.l--.- e- "-'" ,
\
C ljl
~
j ',,
\
j! ,
a tines ,
- l :L _ -Iransnis- ,
'(: Il -
Q ..
t 2 !:
i GAnA M0llANK STATE POWER AUil10RIIV ' ,,'
)
N ji
$ ~
ll e 2
ll ,
A =TI.D 1.0 CATION .' ,
l, ,
\
G =l!NVlit0NMENTAl. STATION
- ._t -
j; l uum w Lycoming ,i, g
a,-. . .
a, -- _
e k
3 *. i n W .' !1 si QW '
- .'?2 &.; W,/ 2; W
&' Q h? ' W.D%$
J'-jh&..$
y 4yb f g Lf W Mtrymf %- W' r/;, X r -
M
~- ' '
fe } % .y ~
! I! C' '
]
i nw~ r a i j
mg _;}[k' ; r 7. :
<w m - , 4 ,,
1 Ef k
'~
l lp f* l y; ;_ Q ii$,
^
g V y!' .,
> ! t p,el ' g% ,$% g (A& ; d. UjIl f l'i
- l
! ' I
,1 n
a >
ifw" /E a
l ~, I !
f* tis =Ib"A<
y j O
l[f[/'
e p< a q 'h - 1\si y -
4! ',,
[
>; i
~
pg' f
? . ,f/f ,)i Ai L f un. .a r
>i d
- l
',; fe L
7 .t, - I -
/ ;..
f y Lg)1 gd ) ("yii. -
,+ w ,ga a. q , _.o..
-. i. 1[ / {
ri g, di '
, - ' .L A' ' . ~Weg (
e gl f, i
t ;
h!( 't Y
- e. ;,
, 1I=g- .
g ,
.; t- H
- 1. h4-#
l .
t- ii ( ,e ,y' :
v 'J o/ V
%j,if 3 J' !*; } i 3 f \ ff'
~
I I. p ;w lul a = 5 e hyl~jy'f.i i
- :!...j:s t !E
'/
I's MI 9 U .'
e j!;g s ".y . % y ;]
.< ; 'i 0 i, ~ 2 -
f X./
/ 8,l &oC.) , -
11@-t Tit =
%m' ggl"g5 1'l 1a .. : ;.. ;t ,
,,, f ; m j i,
- 7 e ,2 5 f ' . der * ,I
._e,,,- di ,i t 'We - j,
- Eag
- W N m -
, If /.
" l .
50 o 7[M
"\ 1
!3s n 3 r,m.mwr an.
5 % "J !e%,, s. 1 wec.
,u
~
s hu
.3@8- __ - - - - - -
WI
'%W, l
i $ .h
~
.li I i/ W. 4 h
e
=
A/ ) m/ i j j ik, [1 .N \
Q Q, $LQ, n*A- j ,n. E d!! Q.
i n&
?
r ,> ; 'dj 4 1,/ ,/ ~V ,
g $ !Q- e'N nN -
I ft Dh'li%' )
3 -
/ / {g d '
s);F<J'i' E 7&
Y3 } /
if L -
y ..} v.i3 lJ> &'(V J ,f h h il
=
'~
.~i'~G' g, ~*
?* !!
i 4,L .
i '~f~!% s;i - &, ,
r= -
s f.n-u,,,[.7T a G , ,,
' (' E , a. ,
e m s,. ' y .y>)7 ;;d';Nl y: l},g ,
P &=flfi h 11 ,
p mp ,y},y.p:
1 1
n .
i
$e.wt K. i,rf
- ; ~
i i j $/
!l%
1 a a j Q [gh,_q Rfh J'"*.,
% [L; ~ i.
is";-6'Q' / 4o f: ~r,, 27=4,;,=. w y,f'. \ j .. ma~/ , e = *cf / .' f , f a. s o
}4
DJi ^ , 9 ft,l(,ro!!, k _ Ll s s +l b1~ . 4 ie Ib l, g ,~ g L, e(g.s gj 4 1-l l ,, ' - , . . .. ,
=<-
1 M V s . jmp . u. - b;;gd'/43 W/.
~
g pf wi c oli 'i l ,. 1 '7%
- 4. ; Wq.,"' ...
j1.g" 4 -1 A p .. .
, , . c
/tY.
. . I '
?.' &s. r I
.. ' * ' l o
- .',,e -;M )
5 .- ;; -
,N s}t-
,e I
l a D
= ( r!
/#
A
$s L W
Y I '['i'
- c' g
? jX
. jh h '$ =
dy"#
- 4 u 9 ;;
- tifid .! g {4m.i '~e. '.M x) D , g
,,)., ~
' * ~ ~ " ' "
gy = _ uO jjjO' 'I!!)!k w p . v,J, Wl \\* w id[ N . iP M wa=131 )T V q vgp =;p; s- t o x ~'"i'J u _'L:..
} .
\ 7I, ' e I-
*9 ~
I . k.l } l-
- D (J (jY T-~=- -
! @, $ $ 7 1 E'b M .
133
E e S a: T C I 2 N
' ;5
=
. i
, . x l :. , . 8
. 5 z
- s l'
.-**--+-*-***..(, ,
. -- - - .e . .
- s 37'bMfh,N W. 5 4
,c'(e rn.> m.
i s3( i ! J. z _i Sii@t1, .:u\ ': .
.' M.),. y \ ,;-[p '
\i
- m. w w ci Q
_l - osv<
- 3. t
. = s :
'1
- .-( rg
- : :e x{
i l :
; I !.!al!
s gi,,e ceie a f
; . ].., ..
1
- __l
.- Sl}14\
FIGURE 7 Composition of Bottom Sediment Determined by Visual Examination at Benthic Sampling Stations in the Vicinity of Nine hiile Point,1978 Depth Contour (ft) Transect Description
- Comments 10 NLIPW 100% bedrock Nr.lPP 70% boulders, 20% rubble,10% gravel Some algae on rocks FITZ 80% boulders,10% gravel,10% sand Some algae N51PE 70% boulders, 20% gravel,10% sand Some algae 20 NP.IPW 50% bedrock, 50% rubble NEIPP 50% boulders, 30% rubble, 20% gravel All lying on bedrock FITZ 50% boulders, 20% rubble, 20% gravel, 10% sand NP.JPE 40% bedrock, 30% boulders, 25% gravel, 5% sand 30 NMPU 100% bedrock Some rubble NEIPP 100% bedrock Some boulders FITZ 80% bedrock Some sand NEIPE 100% bedrock Some rubble and sand 40 N?.lPU 50% bedrock, 30% sand, 20% rubble NalPP 80% boulders, 20% bedrock FITZ 50% bedrock, 30% rubble, 20% boulders, Nr.IPE 100% bedrock Some scattered sand 60 NMPW 100% bedrock NMPP 80% boulders,10% rubble,10% gravel FITZ 80% bedrock, 20% boulders Some rubble NLIPE 80% bedrock, 20% rubble Some sand
- Description based on USEPA (1973) field evaluation method for categorizing soils.
135
i FIGURE 8 PERIPHYTON SAMPLES
*. Co-60
_JRF ENVIRONMENTRL LAB 10.0- -10.0
--*-- = CONTROL
-+- = INDICRTOR 9.0- - 9. 0 z z o m 8.0- - 8. 0 o n > ~m g~ y 7.0- n>
s - 7.0 g "y s m z s' al 6.0-
- 6.0 zul s oSk U
5.0-
-5.0zk.o U
4.0- - 4.0 3.0- - 3.0 2.0- - 2. 0 1.0- - 1.0 0.0- *----*----*---' '
> - - - - - - - -*- - - h - 0.0
, v tn c.c N cc cn CD - cu N N N N N N co cc cc cn cn c7 cn c1 c7 cn c1 cn SRMPLE PERIOD (YEAR) CONTROL VALUES 1974 TO 1979 RRE MDL's; 1980 TO 1982 RRE LLD's 136
FIGURE 9
. PERIPHYTON SAMPLES
- Cs-137 JRF 1
ENVIRONMENTAL l LRB l 10^ 02== ,=10^ 02
~
--*-- = CONTROL
-+- =
INDICATOR - 2 _ es RTMOSPHERIC NUCLERR _ 2 TEST 10/16/80 l-c u 10^ 01= - =10^ 01l-x 2 2 - c rz cn - x x
,s - i._
w N -
, - z u o -
i s y z - o
' z 8 10^ 00=-- ,
p' \ s =10^ 00 0
- k
,/ _
/ \ -
/ \ /g N 10^-01= *
\ / N -10^-01 5 \ ,
*s s / N :
's
- 1 k' -
'v/ _
10^-02, , , , , , , , , , , 10^-02 1 e to to N cD cn Q - N N N N N N N CD CD CD s cn c7 cn cn c1 cn cn cn Cn SRMPLE PERIOD (YERR) CONTROL VALUES 1S75 & 1977 RRE MDL'S 137
FIGURE 10 PERIPHYTON SRMPLES
- Ce-144 JRF CNVIRONMENTRL LRB
--*-- = CONTROL 3.0- -+_ .= INDICRTOR -3.0 2.8- -2.8 Z RTMOSPHERIC NUCLERR
- 7 o
g,4_ TEST 10/16/80 _g,4 o H I- u 2.2- -2.2 H c [ 2 8 2.0- -2.0 2r 3 3N~ *1.8- - 1. 8 6 E M o a U 1.6- -1.6 Mo EC u 1.4-
- 1. 4 u 1.2- -1.2 1.0- -1.0 0.8- *
/g -0.8 0.6-
- s
\s j 's -0.6 0.4- / \ -0.4 s / \
0.2- \ ,/ \, -0.2 0.0- - -
* -0.0 1 6 i i 1 i i i i v in to N C3 cn CD -
OJ N N N N N N CO CD CD cn cn cn cn cn c7 cn al c7 SAMPLE PERIOD CYEPR) NO CONTROL DRTR FOR 1974 & 1975 CONTROL YERRS 1976 RRE MDL's ; 1980 RRE LLD's INDICATOR YERRS 1975,1976,1979 RRE MDL's; 1980 RRE LLD's 138
{ FIGURE 11 MOLLUSK SAMPLES
- Co-60 JRF ENVIRCNMENTRL )
LRB l
--*-- = CONTROL 2.0- -+- - INDICRTOR -2.0 1.8- -1.8 z z o 1.6- -1.6 o H H
~9 c i-h ac$
H m 1.4- -1. 4 c oc 1-z
- s 1.2- -1.2 wz w.
u_ o-z .o S 1.0- -1.0 oz .o o 0.8- -0.8 0.6- -0.6 0.4- -0.4 0.2- . . -0.2
---*--~~~*
0.0- -0.0 ; T_ LO CD N CD CD Q - OJ N N N N N N CD CD CD CD CD CD 01 CD CD CD 01 CD SRMPLE PERIOD (YERR) NO CONTROL DRTR FOR 1974-1976 NO INDICATOR DATR FOR 1975 CONTROL YEARS 1977-1979 RRE MDL'S; 1980-1982 RRE LLD'S INDICRTOR YEAR 1977 IS MDL 139
FIGURE 12 i MOLLUSK SAMPLES
- Mn-54
, JRF ! ENVIRONMENTRL LRB 3.3- -3.3 3.0- --*-- = CONTROL
-+-a INDICRTOR -3 . O
- 2.7-
-2.7 $
-2.4 H~s H
u 2.4- w. lI ' EI y "a3 2.1-N -2 .1 H "a
,_5 1.8-
+
-1.8 o g is o a 1.5- - 1 . 5 o$) .
1.2- -1.2 0.9- -0.9 0.6- -0.6 l l 0'3- -0'3 I s.
/
i 0.0- -
-0.0 i a i i i i a a i v in C.o N co 07 CD - N N N N N N N co co co 01 c3 c) c1 a7 cn c) cn cn I
SAMPLE PERIOD CYEAR) l NO CONTROL DATR FOR 1974,1975,1976 CONTROL YEARS 1977-1979 RRE MDL'S; 1980-1982 RRE LLD'S INDICATOR YEARS 1977,1979 RRE MDL'S 140 l
FIGURE 13
. . MOLLUSK SAMPLES
- Sr-90 JRF ENVIRONMENTRL LRB 1.0- -1.0
--*-- = CONTROL 0.9- -+- = INDICRTOR -0.9
- z z
;o m 0.8- -0. 8 o,,_ 6 .c H b -0.7 H$
2 x 0.7- xI lm F-
;wz s* 0.6- -0.6 w z
- u a.0.5-5 u
.z o
-0.5 oz
;u o 0.4- -0.4 0.3- -0.3 0.2- ' s ,. -0.2 0.1- ' -, + .
-0.1 0.0- -0.0 i
l i 4 i l i 4 i i i v in t.o N 03 ai CD ~ N N N N N N N CD CD C3 l m m m m m m m m m l SRMPLE PERIOD (YERR) NO CONTROL DATR FOR YERRS 1974-1978 141
2 FIGURE 14 BOTTOM SEDIMENT
- Co-60 JRF ENVIRONMENTRL LRB 2.50- --*-- = CONTROL -2.50
~~ ~ "
2.25- -2.25 z z o m 2.00- -2.00 o -
~>- ~>-
h$1.75-H" -1.75hE z s* w @ 1.50- -1.50 z s w zh.1.25-o .
-1.25Eh o
U U 1.00- -1.00 0.75- y N -0.75 O.50- / \ -0.50
/ \
0.25- / \ -0.25 O.00- * - -*--- I ~~~~*~~~~*~~~~
-0.00 i i i a i i i a i e in to N co al CD - N N N N N N N cn co co al al c1 al cn cn cn cn co SPMPLE PERIOD (YERR)
CONTROL DATR FOR YERRS 1975-76,1978-79 RRE MDL'S; 1980-82 RRE LLD'S 142
FIGURE 15 BOTTOM SEDIMENT 4
- Cs-137 JFF ENVIRONMENTRL LRB 2.50- --*-- - CONTROL -2.50 i
2.25- -2.25 z z o ,.,2.00- -2.00 ~o
~H> i--
cx $ 1.75-m
-1. 75 cx-l- l-
.' LJz (" 1. 5 0-
-1.50 bJ z oG z o 1.25- -1.25 oz u
-:o .o u 1.00- -1.00 0.75- -0.75 7 y. , ' ' 0.50- /
,# -0.50 l ~~, ,'
O.25- ' A' '.' -0.25
,- N / 4
* 's
0.00- * -0.00 l
. . . . . . i . .
T LO CD N C3 CD G -' CU N N N N N N CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD SRMPLE PERIOD (YERR) CONTROL DATR FOR 1976 IS MDL 4. 143
FIGURE 16 FISH SAMPLES Cs-137 l JRF l ENVIRONMENTRL LRB 2.50- -2.50
--*-- = CONTROL 2.25- : = INDICRTOR -2.25 z z o m 2.00- -2.00 so s& w .+
- I
- lm 2
$ 1.75- -1.75 cC2
- z
- 1.50- +
-1.50 z "
- w-o .s ,
w s z o o
!o
.o a.1.25- -1.25 o Z-o 1.00-- -1.00 0.75- -0.75 0.50- * -0.50 l s 0.25- \s t -0.25
\
p,"".>----* -
-y. --
, .. 4 _
l i i i i i i i i i T l.O C.O N 03 CD G ~ N N N N N N N CD CD CD - CD CD CD CD CD CD 01 07 CD
- - - .--. - --. ~ ,-.
SRMPLE PERIOD (YERR) CONTROL DRTR FOR 1975 IS MDL; 1981 IS LLD I l r 144
1 1 FIGURE 17 FISH SAMPLES
- Sr-90 3RF ENVIRONMENTRL LRB 0.50- -0.50
--*-- = CONTROL 0.45- -
-+- = INDICATOR -0.45 z z' o
- m 0.40- -0.40 o H H s i--
cC oc $ 0.35- -0.35 c
&m oc .z st" 0. 3 0- W
. w .._ -0.30 z U w U z o 1 0.25-
- e' -0.25 oz
- o /\ u 0.20- / \ -0.20
/ \
0.15-
/
/ \ \
-0.15 0.10- / -0.10 n----,
0.05- -
~0.05 0.00-- " - - - "
-0.00 3 i i i i i i i i i T LO CD N CD CD Q '-* N N N N N N N CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C's CD CD SRMPLE PERIOD (YEAR)
CONTROL DATR FOR 1981 IS LLD 145 i
i l FIGURE 18 i LAKE WRTER
- GROSS BETR ACTIVITY JRr ENVIRONMENTRL LRB l
l l 10^ 03: =10^ 03 2 2
~ --*-- - CONTROL
-+- = INDICATOR _"
- z -
lo - z s o i_. - - x-s 2N cc - 2N b- 'zo 10^ 02: - =10^ 02 H - Ld D - zC o Ld C z _ F- _ o
- o _
e _ z o 10
/ s
\
\
o x _
\
,# \
g 10^ 01: / R :10^ 01
,/ N :
- xs _
s, _- 10^ 00 i i i i i i i i i 10^ 00 e tn Co N CD cn e - cu N N N N N N CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD SAMPLE PERIOD (YEAR) 146
i FIGURE 19 I LAKE WATER SAMPLES
~
- GROSS BETA :
JRF \ ENVIRONMENTRL I LRB 8.0- --c-- = CONTROL -8.0 7.5- -*- = JRF INLET
,,+,, _ nne ,1 rntg7 -7.5 7.0- -7.0 6.5- -6.5 5 -
i-- 6 . 0-- ' S . O i-- c c oc N .s - 5.5- - l 5. 5 roc ua -5 . 0 Z w zo 5.4.5-0-l J+ - lM , -4.5 M !8 4.0- , J
-+ -4.0 82 3.5- /
. . -3.5
,O % .+. + -
.+- - e .. s. --,
3.0, - - -
-3 . 0 2.5 g.- -
's ,-ic ,A,.
' 'c '. j*
-2.5 21.5J. 0-]l 't '
~
~* ~ ~ ~
- N c
+-
' 2. 0
'+
-i-
.- -1.5 t i
1 1.0-l -1.0 0.5- -0.5 :
- 0. 0 , i i i i , , , , i i i , 0.0
- m m v in c.c N co cn cc - m SRMPLE PERIOD (MONTHS 1982) 147
FIGURE 20 , RIR PARTICULATE
- GROSS BETR ACTIVITY i JRF
! ENVIRONMENTRL LRB
--*-- = CONTROL
~~*~~ "
0.20- RTnosesEarc NuctERn -0.20
-TEST 1976 & 1988 0.18- -0.18 0.16- ,
'z
-0.16 m
< l$\
, i l--
cc m e 0.14- M l -0.14 m @< s <s , i i s x-oct 0.12-
- l\ s
\ Z-Ns
' i s
! i
-0.12 oo L!O
,/
i
' \ <
\ z 3 0.10- N / \ / \ -0.10 8 i
N g i
/ \ s t 0.08- s 4 i ! -0.08
\s ,' %, , '
s % 1
' \
0.06-N"/ w
-0.06 0.04- -0.04 l
0.02- -0.02 i I O.00 i i i i i i i i i 0.00 t e .tn to N m Cn o - cu N N N N N N m m m CD CD CD CD CD CD C") CD Cr. l .-. ~ . .-. .-. ~ ~ SRMPLE PERIOD (YERR) 148
FIGURE 21 RIR PARTICULATE
- GROSS BETR ACTIVITY JRF ENVIRONMENTRL LAB j i
i 0.504 -0.50 0.45 ; --*-- - CONTROL i
- - = INDICATOR -0.45 Z '
o' O.40- i Z "O.40 ~o Hm i s E h 0 . 3 5 -i -0.35 E Hs - H Z- i Z w u 0. 3 0-i u o_ ' 0. 30 W Z i u Z 8 0.25j -0.25 8 0.20 -0.20 i 0.15J -0.15 O.10 ; LO.10 l 0.05 J gj -0.05 0.00.i , ri i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,, 0.00
- m m v tn w N aa m- -e- -,-.-.-.-
m m- e tn e s ,-..-.m e m a - m m e tn w mmmmmm SRMPLE PERIOD (WEEKS 1982) 149
a e i FIGURE 22
.i .
RIR PARTICULATE -
- GROSS BETR ACTIVITY '
l JRF ,
! ENVIRONMENTRL , !
LRB f
\ l I
0.50- FO.50 i i 0.45- --*-- = CONTRO' 'O.45
- + - = INDICRTOR 7 'l 7 5 0.40-i -0.40 ~5 - : l -m l
_sm E
-N h 0.351 p0.35 E h Hs Z'- f 5 z- # o.
J u 0. 30-I 'O.30 ug b u Z j ' z 3 0.251 ,
, ',' -0.25 8 o i
(- -0.20 O. 20 li
; s i \'
O.15i ' .' LO.15
- , .\ ! ,
l , s'
~
..'8 0.101 :
s .
%,(is
\'-[0'.'10 5
.i \
l 0'05- 'N m - 12'05 \
-+ .-n '
, 6 4, ll ;, ,
-0.00 i i , i i i i i i i i i., i i i , , i , i i , , , ,, 0.00.'
m w m a - m m v in w w w m a - m m e tn w w w m a - m m
. m m m m m m m m m m m m m e v v v v v v v e r in in tn to
/ ; ,s SRM,PLE PERIOJ , s.
(WEEKS l!S8,2)s *
\>
1
\
t j
'y t'
\ l \
/ +
\ i I
/
\
\ %
'F 150..
s N , V _-
FIGURE 23 IR PARTICULATE COMPOSITE
!
- Co-60 i 3Rr
; ENVIRONMENTRL
, LRB i
1.0- -1.0 i --*-- = CONTROL 0.9- --+-- = INDICRTOR -O.9 Z M Z oh \ 0.8- -0.8 -o H w lE
- w E 0.7-
-0.7 E+ .
Z Z Wg7 0.6-
- u ,
-0. 6 W o "
Z g / Z, O ! O iu _* 0.5- *
,, -0.5 u l\ y' 0.4- l \ ,A s s -0.4 i
l \ k
/ 's, s -
,A, s ,
l 'n 's ,-
,n 0.3- l V' 's - '
-0.3 i
% - -l 0.2- N r
-0.2 0.1- -0.1 1
- 0. 0 , , i , , i i ,- i i i i i 0.0 :
- m m v to co N ca cn o -
m ' SRMPLE PERIOD 1 ' , (MONTHS 1982) i- CONTROL MONTHS 1,3-12 RRE LLD'S INDICATOR MONTHS 3,4,6,10,11,12 RRE LLD'S j i 151 l
I FIGURE 24 l RIR PRRTICULRTE COMPOSITE
- Cs-137 3R7 ENVIRONMENTAL '
LRB 1.0- --*-- - CONTROL -1.0
-+- = INDICATOR 0.9- -0.9 Zm Z-o L 0.8- ~N -0.8 o <
H ~N s E U 0.7-s R- -0.7 @ u Z H Z w g7 0.6-o -0.6 w o 7 Z ' g Z 8 ;g 0.5- -0.5 8 ;g 0.4-A\
/ -0.4
/ \'
0.3-
/
/' -/ k
[x 3
\
-0.3 s, , ,* ,
0.2- r -0.2 0.1- -0.1 0.0 i i i i i i i i i i i i 0. 0.
- m m v to to N m o, e - m SRMPLE PERIOD CMONTHS 1982)
CONTROL MONTHS 3,8-12 RRE LLD'S INDICATOR MONTHS 4,8,10,11,12 RRE LLD'S 152
FIGURE 25 RIR PRRTICULATE COMPOSITE
~
JRF Nb-95 ENVIRONMENTAL LAB
--*-- = CONTROL
{,4_ -+- = INDICATOR _{,4 M Z< o 1.2- ,Y Z
- E ,i i
- 1. 2 o s
sN <\ i-cc ,i CC Z E 1 . 0- ' l ',i -1.0 $- u m i Z I l i w i i u u$,O.8-i -0.8 $ u_ l i, u 0.6- A ,! ',
-0.8 i 's ' l l c 0.4- *
/ in-- -0.4 y, ,
,a 0.2- -0.2 0.0 , , , , , , , , , , , , 0.0
- m m v to co N ce cn co -
m SRMPLE PERIOD (MONTHS 1982) CONTROL MONTHS 4-12 RRE LLD'S INDICATOR MONTHS 3,5-12 ARE LLD'S 153
FIGURE 26 RIR PRRTICULRTE COMPOSITE
- Nb-95 -
JRF ENVIRONMENTRL ' LRB
--*-- -CONTROL 150- -+- -INDICRTOR
-150 .
140- -140 " 130- -130 h, -120 OZ7E * ' 5 7E 120- : M
?
c 1 110 I ,
, i -110 c[ 1 ct - 1 100- l 1 -100 a: E, .
l 90- ,I
$m RTnosestarc NuctcRa
- 90 $ m 80- l Mh '
- 80 M h '~#~
8 ; 70- -- 70 8 ; 60- / - SO 50- - 50 W 40- - 40 30- - 30 20-20 10- - 10 ' 0- """- -
'*'"-
- 4 -: : -
0 4: i i j I i 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 I 4 i i i s i 4
- m m v tn to N cc e, cc - m - m m v u, w N co e, ca - m -
1980 SAMPLE PERIOD 1981 (MONTHS) CONTROL MONTHS 1980 1 TO la RRE MDL's INDICRTOR MONTHS 1980 1 TO 10 RRE MDL's 154
! FIGURE 27 RIR PARTICULRTE COMPOSITE
- Ce-144 JRF ENVIRONMENTRL LRB 3.0- --*-- = CONTROL -3.O g,g_ -+- - INDICATOR _g,g 2.6- -2.6 Z M -
Z o
- L 2.4- 4
-2. 4 o
@ 2.2- *, -2.2 y
// \
$ o-2.0- '
Ns -2. 0 Z$ Z 7 1.8- N, , -1.8 y g 5
$ 1.6- '
-1.6 5 01 1.4-
\,l/ \
-t.4 0
1.2- \ -1.2 O.6 J E 's, e ::::
-0.6 0.4- -0.4 0.2- -0.2 0.0 , i i i i , i i i i i i c0.0
- m m v m e s a m o - m SRMPLE PERIOD (MONTHS 1982)
CONTROL MONTHS 8-12 RRE LLD'S INDICRTOR MONTHS 8-12 RRE LLD'S 155
FIGURE 28
- RIR PRRTICULRTE COMPOSITE
- Ce-144 JRF ENVIRONMEr4TRL LRB
--*- = CONTROL 70- -INDICRTOR
-70 l 63- -63
${56-Ps ,
[
-565{
49- 'i e
~s h5 r o- /
f I, i ~43hU z 42- s c-y M RTMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR ,'
' i; -42 yM z
l U TEST 10,'18/80 i i U l zO d 35-l -35 Oz y U 4 28-U _* l -
-28 l
21- I -21 8 l 14- '
-14
/
7- / N' -7
, + - * . '~ ,A
~ *-*7,_e'
~
0- "4
-0 i i i i e i i i i i iii,iii
- m m v in e N co e, ca
. iiii
-. _m - m m e in e N co cn --co - m 1980 SRMPLE PERIOD 1981 CMONTHS)
CONTROL MONTHS 1980 1 TO 11 RRE MDL's INDICRTCR MONTHS 1980 1 TO 11 RRE MDL'c 156
l
; FIGURE 29 MILK SAMPLES
- Cs-137 3R7 ENVIRONMENTRL LAB
--*-- = CONTROL 30.0- _ -- - INDICATOR -30.0 27.0- -27.0 Z
24.0- -24.O H RTMOSPHERIC NUCLERR C TEST 1978 L 1980 ct N 21.0- F21.0
) .- '
Zu
\
d o- 18. 0- -18.0 Z 8 15.0- -15.0 12.0- -12.0 9.0- - 9. 0 2 6.0- *, , ,- N - 6.0 s, N,# s 'y 0.0 i i , , , , , , i 0.0 e in to N co c3 ca - ou N N N N N N CD CD co cn c) c) cn 07 07 cn c) cn SRMPLE PERIOD CYERR) NO CONTROL DRTR FOR YERRS 1974-1977 CONTROL DATR FOR YERRS 1980 & 1982 RRE LLD'S a 157
FIGURE 30 MILK SAMPLES I * .rpr Cs-137 ENV NetEN .B. 4----= CONTROL 64 0
... 4....= INDICATOR +4 l . 7- . = INDICATOR +7 i + = INDICATOR +12 1
20.0- 6 = INDICATOR +14 -20.0
..$ ..=INDICRTOR +16 18.0- - * - . = INDICATOR 445
-18.O Z Z o 16.0- -16.0 so i-.
l-- H E~ 1.4.0- -14.0 E F-- - I-Zu z W o-12.0-u -12.0 oW Z Z
- 8 10.0- -10.0 8 1
8.0- - 8. 0
+.
N 6.0- , , ., ,,4 j+ - 8. 0 eE M 4 . O _> y ...
-.{ 7-k . D M
-% -. 4 k[g,tg-g L -p
- 4. 0 2.0- - 2. 0 0.0 i i i i- i i , , - 0 . 0.
tn t.o N cn cn e n; SRMPLE PERIOD (MONTHS 1982) REFER TO TRBLE +17 FOR EXRCT DATR VRLUES and LLD OCCURRENCES SRMPLING BEGRN RT THE +45 FARM ON 7/82 158
FIGURE 31 MILK SRMPLES
- I-131 JRF ENVIRONMENTAL
-: = INDICRTOR 5.0- -5.0 4.5- -4.5 RTMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR -
TEST 1976 & 1980 w 4.0- _4.0 h E 5 3.5- -3.5 E eG e y a 3.0- -3. 0 d z z 8 2.5- -2.5 8 2.0- -2.0 1.5- -1.5 7
- s 1.0- ,
N -1.0
/
\
0.5- '
\, -0.5
; a 0.0 i i i i i i i i i 0.0 v tn to N co 03 O ~ N N N N N N N CD CD CD 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SRMPLE PERIOD (YERR)
NO CONTROL DRTR FOR 1974-1977 CONTRCL DATR FOR 1978-79 RRE MDL'S; 1981-82 RRE LLD'S INDICATOR DRTR FOR 1979 IS MDL;1981-82 RRE LLD'S 159
FIGURE 32 MILK SAMPLES
- Sr-90 JW ENVIRONMENTAL LRB
--*-- = CONTROL 10.0- l = INDICRTOR -10.0 9.0- - 9.0 z z
- S 8.0- - 8.0 3-E5 7.0- -
7.0 E zo -. z ' d o- 6.0- - 6.0 d z , s z
\
8 5.0- s , , 5.0 8
~,\ , ,y ,
4.0- s s ,/ N 4.0
's g' \
3.0- RTMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR
- TEST 1978 & 1980 - 3.O 2.0- - 2.0 1.0- - 1.0 0.0 , , , , , , , i i 0.0 v in (.o N CD 01 Q --a N N N N N N N CD CD CD 3 3 3 3 3 3 $ 3 3 SAMPLE PERIOD (YERR)
NO CONTROL DATR FOR 1974-1977 160 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}