United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
vvEPA
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas NV 89193-3478
EPA/600/4-90/016
DOE/DP/00539-062
May 1990
Research and Development
Offsite Environmental
Monitoring Report
Radiation Monitoring
Around United States
Nuclear Test Areas,
Calendar Year 1989
-------
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the
Office of Scientific and Technical Information,
P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831;
prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 625-8401
Available to the public from the
National Technical Information Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161
Price Code: Printed Copy or Microfiche A01
-------
EPA/600/4-90/016
DOE/DP/00539-062
May 1990
Offsite Environmental
Monitoring Report
Radiation Monitoring Around United States
Nuclear Test Areas, Calendar Year 1989
contributors:
C. F. Costa, N. R. Sunderland, S. C. Black,
M. W. Chilton, B. B. Dicey, W. G. Phillips,
C. A. Fontana, R. W. Holloway, C. K. Liu,
A. A. Mullen, V. E. Niemann, C. J. Rizzardi,
D. D. Smith, D. J. Thome, E. A. Thompson, and
Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division
,r: xr- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Energy R ,^ Library (-5PL-16)
under Interagency Agreement 230 s> Doarborn street. Room 1670
Number DE-AI08-86NV10522 Chicago, IL 60604
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89193-3478
-------
NOTICE
This report has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's peer and
administrative review policies and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Figures , v
Tables vii
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Conversions viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Chapter 2. Summary 3
Section 2.1. Purpose 3
Section 2.1.1. Air Surveillance Network (ASM) 3
Section 2.1.2. Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network (NGTSN) 3
Section 2.1.3. Milk Surveillance Network (MSN) 3
Section 2.1.4. Biomonitoring Program 3
Section 2.1.5. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD) Program 3
Section 2.1.6. Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) Network 4
Section 2.1.7. Internal Exposure Monitoring 4
Section 2.1.8. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program (LTHMP) 4
Section 2.1.9. Quality Assurance (QA) and Procedures 4
Section 2.1.10.Community Monitoring Stations (CMS) 4
Section 2.1.11.Dose Assessment 4
Chapter 3. Description of the Nevada Test Site 5
Section 3.1. Location 5
Section 3.2. Climate 7
Section 3.3. Geology and Hydrology 9
Section 3.4. Land Use of NTS Region 9
Section 3.5. Population Distribution 9
Chapter 4. Radiological Safety Activities 17
Section 4.1. Special Test Support 17
Section 4.1.1. Remedial Actions 18
Section 4.1.2. Remedial Actions to Minimize Whole-Body Exposure 18
Section 4.2. Routine Environmental Surveillance 18
Section 4.2.1. Airborne Releases of Radioactivity at the NTS During 1989 18
Section 4.2.2. Air Surveillance Network (ASN) 19
Section 4.2.2.1. Network Design 20
Section 4.2.2.2. Methods 21
Section 4.2.2.3. Results 23
Section 4.2.3. Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network (NGTSN) 26
Section 4.2.3.1. Network Design 26
Section 4.2.3.2. Methods 26
Section 4.2.3.3. Results 29
Section 4.2.4. Milk Surveillance Network (MSN) 38
Section 4.2.4.1. Design 38
Section 4.2.4.2. Methods 38
Section 4.2.4.3. Results 40
Section 4.2.5. Biomonitoring Program 49
Section 4.2.5.1. Methods 49
Section 4.2.5.2. Results 51
Section 4.2.6. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD) Network 54
Section 4.2.6.1. Network Design 54
Section 4.2.6.1.1. Results of TLD Monitoring — Offsite Personnel 56
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section 4.2.6.1.2. Results of TLD Monitoring — Offsite Stations 59
Section 4.2.6.1.3. Special Evaluation of Elevated Radiation Levels at
Warm Springs Monitoring Location 64
Section 4.2.6.1.4. Comparing Routine TLD Results with Direct Exposure Measurements 66
Section 4.2.6.1.5. Historical Trends in TLD Network 67
Section 4.2.6.1.6. Statistical Evaluation of TLD Results 67
Section 4.2.6.1.7. Conclusion 71
Section 4.2.7. Pressurized Ion Chamber Network (PIC) 71
Section 4.2.7.1. Network Design 71
Section 4.2.7.2. Methods 71
Section 4.2.7.3. Results 73
Section 4.2.8. Internal Exposure Monitoring 80
Section 4.2.8.1. System Design 80
Section 4.2.8.2. Network Design 80
Section 4.2.8.3. Methods 80
Section 4.2.8.4. Results 83
Section 4.2.9. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program (LTHMP) 86
Section 4.2.9.1. Background 86
Section 4.2.9.2. Methods 86
Section 4.2.9.3. Results 103
Section 4.2.9.4. Discussion 103
Chapter 5. Public Information and Community Assistance Programs 117
Section 5.1. Town Hall Meetings 117
Section 5.2 Animal Investigations 117
Section 5.3. NTS Tours 117
Section 5.4. Community Monitoring Stations 117
Chapter 6. Quality Assurance and Procedures 119
Section 6.1. Policy 119
Section 6.2. Standard Operating Procedures 119
Section 6.3. Data Quality Objectives 119
Section 6.4. Data Validation 119
Section 6.5. Quality Control 119
Section 6.6. Health Physics Oversight 120
Section 6.7. Precision of Analysis 120
Section 6.8. Accuracy of Analysis 121
Chapter 7. Dose Assessment 125
Section 7.1. Estimated Dose from NTS Activities 125
Section 7.2. Estimated Dose from Worldwide Fallout 125
Section 7.3. Dose from Background Radiation 126
Section 7.4. Summary 126
Chapter 8. Sample Analysis Procedures 127
Chapter 9. Radiation Protection Standards for External and Internal Exposure 129
Section 9.1. Dose Equivalent Commitment 129
Section 9.2. Concentration Guides 129
Section 9.3. EPA Drinking Water Guide 129
Appendix 1. References 133
Appendix 2. Glossary of Terms (NRC81) 135
IV
-------
Figures
Number Page
1 Typical Mid-Latitude Steppe Climatological Zone in Nevada 5
2 Location of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 6
3 Ground Water Flow Systems Around the Nevada Test Site 8
4 General Land Use Within 300 km of the Nevada Test Site 10
5 Population of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah Counties 11
6 Distribution of Family Milk Cows and Goats and Dairy Cows, by County (1989) 13
7 Distribution of Dairy Cows, by County (1989) 14
8 Distribution of Beef Cattle, by County (1989) 15
9 Distribution of Sheep, by County (1989) 16
10 EPA Monitoring Technician Surveys Ambient Environmental Radiation Using a
Handheld Survey Instrument 17
11 EPA Monitoring Technician Servicing Air Sampler at Pahrump
Community Monitoring Station 19
12 Air Surveillance Network Stations (1989) 20
13 Standby Air Surveillance Network Stations (1989) 21
14 Monthly Average Gross Beta in Air Samples, Las Vegas, NV, 1981 -1989 22
15 EPA Monitoring Technician Changes Noble Gas Tanks and Checks Gauges at
Community Monitoring Station 26
16 Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network Sampling Locations 27
17 EPA Monitoring Technician Changes Molecular Sieve on Tritium Air Sampler at
Community Monitoring Station 28
18 Weekly 85Kr Concentrations in Air by Station, 1989 Data 29
19 Network Weekly Average 85Kr Concentrations in Air, 1989 Data 34
20 Annual Network Average 85Kr Concentration 34
21 EPA Monitoring Technician Collects Milk Sample From Commercial Dairy 38
22 Milk Sampling Locations Within 300 km of the NTS CP-1 39
23 Standby Milk Surveillance Network Stations 40
24 Strontium-90 Concentration in Pasteurized Milk Network Samples 41
25 Mule Deer at the Nevada Test Site 49
26 Collection Sites for Animals Sampled 50
27 Average 90Sr Concentrations in Animal Bone Ash 53
28 Locations Monitored with TLDs 54
29 Construction of a Typical Panasonic Dosimeter 55
30 Typical Personnel TLD Holder as Worn by Individual 56
31 Summary of Ambient Gamma Exposures of Offsite Residents by State — 1989 59
32 Typical Fixed Environmental TLD Monitoring Station 59
33 Range of Ambient Gamma Exposures of Fixed Environmental Stations by State — 1989 60
34 Correlating TLD and PIC Results— 1989 68
35 Historical Trends — TLD Exposures at Fixed Environmental Stations -1971 -1989 68
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
36 Distribution of Personnel TLD Results— 1989 69
37 Distribution of Fixed Station TLD Results— 1989 70
38 Frequency Distribution Analysis Fixed Station and Personnel TLDs— 1989 70
39 Community Monitoring PIC Stations and Other PIC Station Locations— 1989 72
40 Pressurized Ion Chamber, Gamma-Rate Recorder Remote Processor Unit with
Chart Recorder, Digital Readout, and Telemetry Antenna with Solar Panel 74
41 Annual PIC Averages by Station in Milliroentgens per Year — 1989 75
42 Annual PIC Averages by Station in Microroentgens per Hour— 1989 76
43 Z-Score Plot of PIC Data— 1989 77
44 Representative Trends in Annual Average PIC Data 78
45 Location of Families in the Offsite Human Surveillance Program 81
46 Calibration of the Semi-Planar Detectors for Transuranic Radionuclides Using the
LLNL Realistic Lung Phantom 82
47 The BOMAB Phantom is Shown During Calibration of the Coaxial Whole-
Body Counting Detector 82
48 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Concentration of Tritium in Urine of Offsite Residents ... 85
49 EPA Monitoring Technician Collecting City Water Sample from Pahrump, Nevada 87
50 LTHMP Sampling Locations on the NTS 88
51 LTHMP Sampling Locations Near the NTS 89
52 Amchitka Island and Background Sampling Locations for the LTHMP 90
53 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Cannikin 91
54 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Projects Milrow and Long Shot 92
55 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Rio Blanco 93
56 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Rulison 94
57 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Dribble — Towns and Residences 95
58 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Dribble — Near GZ 96
59 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Dribble — Near Salt Dome 97
60 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Faultless 98
61 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Shoal 99
62 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Gasbuggy 100
63 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Gnome 101
64 EPA Monitoring Technician Collecting Fresh Water Sample 102
65 Typical Tritium Concentration in Deep Water Wells — 1989 104
66 Tritium Concentration Increasing with Time 104
67 Wells that Had Higher Levels Early 106
68 Community Monitoring Station at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas 118
VI
-------
Tables
Number Page
1 Characteristics of Climatic Types in Nevada 7
2 Radionuclide Emissions on the NTS During 1989 19
3 Summary of Results for Air Surveillance Network Stations — 1989 23
4 Summary of Results for Standby Air Surveillance Network Stations — 1989 24
5 Concentrations of 238Pu and 239^opu (Composited Air Samples — 1989) 25
6 Summary of Analytical Results for the Noble Gas Surveillance Network—1989 35
7 Summary of Analytical Results for the Tritium in Air Surveillance Network — 1989 36
8 Annual Average 85Kr Concentrations in Air, 1980-89 37
9 Summary of Analytical Results for the Milk Surveillance Network—1989 41
10 Analytical Results for the Standby Milk Surveillance Network— 1989 45
11 Radionuclide Concentrations in Desert Bighorn Sheep Samples — 1988 51
12 Radiochemical Results for Animal Samples 52
13 Offsite Resident TLD Results — 1989 57
14 Offsite Resident TLD Results — 1989 60
15 Offsite Station TLD Results — 1989 61
16 Offsite Station TLD Results — 1989 65
17 TLD Results - Warm Springs, NVVicinity 66
18 Pressurized Ion Chamber Readings — 1989 73
19 Tritium in Urine Radiological Safety Program 83
20 Tritium in Urine Offsite Human Surveillance Program 84
21 Sampling Locations Where Water Samples Contained Man-Made Radioactivity— 1989 103
22 LTHMP Tritium Results for NTS Monthly Network— 1989 105
23 Tritium Results for the LTHMP —1989 107
24 Results for LTHMP Off-NTS Sites - 1989 110
25 Samples and Analyses for Duplicate Sampling Program — 1989 121
26 Sampling and Analytical Precision — 1989 121
27 Quality Assurance Results from DOE Program — 1989 122
28 EPA Quality Assurance Intercomparison Results — 1989 122
29 Quality Assurance Results for the Bioenvironmental Program — 1989 123
30 Summary of Annual Effective Dose Equivalents due to Operations at the NTS During 1989 . 126
31 Summary of Analytical Procedures 127
32 Routine Monitoring Frequency, Sample Size, MDC and Concentration Guides 129
VII
-------
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Conversions
ABBREVIATIONS
ALARA —
All -
ASN -
AVG -
BOMAB —
Bq
CFR -
CG -
Ci -
CMS -
CP-1 —
CY -
d -
DAC —
DOE —
DOE/NV —
DQO -
DRI -
EG&G -
EML -
EMSL-LV—
EPA —
eV -
g -
GOES -
Gy
GZ -
hr -
As Low as Reasonably Achievable
Annual Limit on Intake
Air Surveillance Network
Average
Bottle Mannequin Absorber
Becquerel, one disintegration per second
Code of Federal Regulations
Concentration Guide
Curie
Community Monitoring Station
Control Point One
Calendar Year
day
Derived Air Concentration
U.S. Department of Energy
Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office
Data Quality Objectives
Desert Research Institute
EG&G Energy Measurements
Environmental Monitoring Laboratory
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
electron volt
gram
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
Gray, equivalent to 100 rad (1 J/kg)
Ground Zero
hour
PREFIXES
a atto
f femto
p pico
n nano
(i micro
m mill!
k kilo
M mega
= 10'18
- 10-'5
= 10'12
= 10-9
= 10'6
= 10'3
= 103
= 106
HTO -
keV -
L -
LTHMP -
m —
MeV -
MDC -
MSL -
MSN -
NIST —
NGTSN -
NRD -
NTS -
Pa -
PIC -
QA -
QC -
R —
REECo -
RNM —
rad —
rem —
SAIC -
S.D. -
SI -
SOP -
Sv -
TLD -
USDI -
WHO -
WSNSO -
tritiated water
One thousand electron volts
liter
Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program
meter
One million electron volts
Minimum Detectable Concentration
Mean Sea Level
Milk Surveillance Network
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network
Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division
Nevada Test Site
Pascal - unit of pressure
Pressurized ion chamber
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Roentgen
Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Corporation
Radionuclide Migration
unit of absorbed dose, 100 ergs/g
dose equivalent, the rad adjusted for biological effect
Science Applications International Corporation
Standard deviation
International System of Units
Standard Operating Procedure
Sievert, equivalent to 1 00 rem
thermoluminescent dosimeter
United States Department of Interior
World Health Organization
Weather Service Nuclear Support Office
CONVERSIONS
Multiply
by To Obtain
Concentrations
uCi/mL
uCi/mL
SI Units
rad
rem
pCi
109 pCi/L
1012 pCi/m3
10'2 Gray (Gy = 1 Joule/kg)
10-2 Sievert (Sv)
3.7 x10'2 Becquerel (Bq)
VIII
-------
Abstract
This report describes the Offsite Radiation Safety Program conducted during 1989 by the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV). This
laboratory operates an environmental radiation monitoring program in the region surrounding the NevadaTest
Site (NTS) and at former test sites in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico. The
surveillance program is designed to measure levels, and trends of radioactivity, if present, in the environment
surrounding testing areas to ascertain whether the testing is in compliance with existing radiation protection
standards, and to take action to protect the health and well being of the public in the event of any accidental
release of radioactive contaminants. Offsite levels of radiation and radioactivity are assessed by sampling
milk, water, and air; by deploying thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and using pressurized ion chambers
(PICs); and by biological monitoring of both animals and humans. To implement protective actions, provide
immediate radiation monitoring, and obtain environmental samples rapidly after any release of radioactivity,
personnel with mobile monitoring equipment are placed in areas downwind from the test site priorto each test.
Comparison of the measurements and sample analysis results with background levels and with appropriate
standards and regulations indicated that there was no radioactivity detected offsite by the various EPA
monitoring networks and no exposure above natural background to the population living in the vicinity of the
NTS that could be attributed to NTS activities. Trends were evaluated in the Noble Gas and Tritium, Milk
Surveillance, TLD, and PIC networks, and the Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program. All evaluated
data were consistent with previous data history, with the one exception of some slightly elevated results which
occurred due to the accident at Chernobyl, U.S.S.R in April 1986. Population exposure came from naturally
occurring background radiation which yielded an average dose of 93 mrem/yr, and worldwide fallout which
accounted for about 0.04 mrem/yr.
IX
-------
-------
Chapter 1. Introduction
C. A. Fontana
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission used the
NevadaTestSite, between January 1951 and January
1975, for conducting nuclear weapons tests, nuclear
rocket engine development, nuclear medicine studies,
and for other nuclear and non-nuclear experiments.
Beginning in mid-January 1975, these activities
became the responsibility of the U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration. Two
years later this organization was merged with other
energy-related agencies to form the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE).
Atmospheric weapons tests were conducted
periodically at the Nevada Test Site from January
1951 through October 1958, followed by a test
moratorium which was in effect until September
1961. Since then all nuclear detonations at the NTS
have been conducted underground, with the
expectation of containment, except for the above
ground and shallow underground tests of Operation
Sunbeam and in cratering experiments conducted
under the Plowshare program between 1962 and
1968.
Priorto 1954, an offsite radiation surveillance program
was performed by personnel from the Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory and the U.S. Army. Beginning
in 1954, and continuing through 1970, this program
was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service.
Since 1970, the EPA has provided an offsite
Radiological Safety Program, both in Nevada and at
other nuclear test sites, under interagency
agreements with the DOE or its predecessor
agencies.
Since 1954, the objectives of the offsite radiation
surveillance program have included: the
measurement and documentation of the levels and
trends of any radiation or radioactive contaminants in
the environment in the vicinity of nuclear testing
areas; and the determination as to whether the
testing is in compliance with radiation protection
standards, guidelines and regulations. Offsite levels
of radiation and radioactivity are assessed by gamma-
ray measurements using pressurized ion chambers
and thermoluminescent dosimeters; by sampling air,
water, milk, food crops, other vegetation, and animals,
and by biological assay procedures.
Before each nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site,
EPA radiation monitoring technicians are stationed
in offsite areas most likely to be affected by an
airborne release of radioactive material. These
technicians use trucks equipped with radiation
detectors, samplers, and supplies and are directed
by two-way radio from a control center at the Nevada
Test Site.
Hours before each test, the Weather Service Nuclear
Support Office personnel (WSNSO) and, if requested,
an aircraft gathers meteorological data for use by the
Test Controller's Advisory Panel in judging the safety
of executing the test. Another aircraft carries radiation
detectors and is in a pattern over Yucca Lake at test
time to track the radioactive effluent if a release
should occur. Radioactive cloud sampling and
analysis can also be performed aboard the aircraft.
Data relating to the location of the radioactive effluent
would be used to move the field monitoring technicians
on the ground to positions along the path of the
effluent to initiate protective action for the public, and
to perform radiation monitoring and environmental
sampling (EPA88C).
Beginning with operation Upshot-Knothole in 1953,
a report summarizing the monitoring data obtained
from each test series was published by the U.S.
Public Health Service. For the reactor tests in 1959
and the weapons and Plowshare tests in 1962, data
were published only for the tests in which detectable
amounts of radioactivity were measured in an offsite
area. Publication of summary data for each six-
month period was initiated in 1964. In 1971, the
Atomic Energy Commission implemented a
requirement (AEC71), subsequently incorporated
into Department of Energy Order 5484.1 (DOE85),
that each agency or contractor involved in major
nuclear activities provide an annual comprehensive
radiological monitoring report. During 1988, Order
5481.1 was superseded by the General
Environmental Protection Program Requirements
(Order5400.1) (DOE88) of the Department of Energy.
Each annual report summarizes the radiation
monitoring activities of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in the vicinity of the Nevada Test
Site and at former nuclear testing areas in the United
States. This report summarizes those activities for
calendar year 1989.
-------
Included in this report are descriptions of the pertinent
features of the Nevada Test Site and its environs;
summaries of the dosimetry and sampling methods;
a delineation of analytical and quality control
procedures; and the results of environmental
measurements. Where applicable, dosimetry and
analytical data are compared with appropriate
standards and guidelines forthe external and internal
exposure of humans to ionizing radiation.
Although written to meet the terms of the interagency
agreement between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Energy as
well as the requirements of Order 5400.1, the data
and information contained in this report should also
be of interest and use to the citizens of Nevada, Utah
and California who live in the areas downwind of the
Nevada Test Site. State, federal and local agencies
involved in protecting the environment and the health
and well-being of the public, and individuals and
organizations concerned with environmental quality
and the possible release of radioactive contaminants
into the biosphere, may also find the contents of this
report of interest.
-------
Chapter 2. Summary
C. A. Fontana and Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division
SECTION 2.1. PURPOSE
"EPA is charged by Congress to protect the nation's
air and water systems" (EPA89). This policy applies
to radioactive contamination of the biosphere and
accompanying radiation exposure of the population.
To accomplish these goals and to ensure compli-
ance with the DOE policy of keeping radiation expo-
sure of the general public as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA), the EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas con-
ducts an Offsite Radiological Safety Program around
the DOE's Nevada Test Site (NTS). This program is
conducted under Interagency Agreement between
EPA and DOE. The main activity at the NTS is the
testing of nuclear devices, however, other related
projects are conducted as well.
The principal activities of the Offsite Radiological
Safety Program are: routine environmental monitor-
ing for radioactive materials in various media and for
radiation in areas that may be affected by nuclear
tests; protective actions in support of the nuclear
testing program; and gathering information to direct
protective actions where needed. These activities
are conducted to document compliance with stan-
dards, to identify trends, and to provide information
to the public. This report summarizes these activities
for the calendar year 1989.
Section 2.1.1. Air Surveillance Network (ASN)
In 1989, the air surveillance network consisted of 31
continuously operating air sampler locations sur-
rounding the NTS and 78 standby stations operated
one or two weeks each quarter. At least one standby
air sampler is located in each state west of the
Mississippi River. During 1989, no airborne radioac-
tivity related to current nucleartesting at the NTS was
detected in any sample from the ASN. Other than
naturally occurring 7Be, the only activity detected by
this network was238Pu which was attributed to world-
wide fallout.
Section 2.1.2. Noble Gas and Tritium
Surveillance Network (NGTSN)
The noble gas and tritium sampling network (NGTSN)
consisted of 20 offsite sampling stations (outside of
the NTS and Nellis Air Force Base Range) in 1989.
During 1989, no NTS-related radioactivity was de-
tected at any network sampling station. As in previ-
ous years, resu Its for xenon and tritium were typically
below the minimum detectable concentration (MDC),
as expected. The results for krypton, although
exceeding the MDC, were within the range of values
expected due to statistical variations that occur when
sampling at background levels.
Section 2.1.3. Milk Surveillance Network (MSN)
The milk surveillance network consisted of 27 loca-
tions within 300 kilometers of the NTS and 106
standby milk surveillance network (SMSN) locations
in the contiguous states west of the Mississippi
River, except Texas (Texas is sampled by state
radiological laboratories). Samples from two loca-
tions each in the SMSN and MSN contained mini-
mum detectable amounts of tritium. Eighteen of the
236 analyses for radiostrontium were above the
sample MDC, and the concentrations were compa-
rable to those obtained by other laboratories.
Section 2.1.4. Biomonitoring Program
Tissue samples are collected annually from cattle,
deer and bighorn sheep and samples of garden
vegetables are collected every two to three years for
analysis of radioactivity. The gamma emitting radi-
onuclide most frequently found in the edible portion
of the sampled animals is 137Cs. However, its con-
centration has been near the MDC since 1968.
Strontium-90 in samples of animal bone remain at
very low levels as does 239+240Pu in both bone and
liver samples. Elevated tritium concentrations were
found in samples from deer that drank from a con-
taminated source on the NTS.
Section 2.1.5. Thermoluminescent Dosimetry
(TLD) Program
External exposure is monitored by a network of
thermoluminescent dosimeters at 135 fixed loca-
tions surrounding the NTS and by TLDs worn by 65
offsite residents. No apparent net exposures were
related to NTS activities. With one exception, there
were no apparent net exposures above natural
background when tests for statistical significance of
-------
variation were applied. (See Section 4.2.6.) The
range of exposures measured, varying with altitude
and soil constituents, is similar to the range of such
exposures found in other areas of the U.S.
Section 2.1.6. Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC)
Network
The PIC network measures ambient gamma radia-
tion exposure rates. The 27 PICs deployed around
the Nevada Test Site showed no unexplained devia-
tions from background levels during 1989. The
maximum annual average exposure rate of 165 mR/
yr was at Austin, NV, the minimum of 52 mR/yr was
at Las Vegas, NV. These values were within the
United States background maximum and minimum
values. The 1989 data was consistent with previous
years' trends.
Section 2.1.7. Internal Exposure Monitoring
Internal exposure is assessed by whole-body count-
ing, using asingle intrinsic coaxial germanium detec-
tor, lung counting using six intrinsic germanium semi-
planar detectors and bioassay using radiochemical
procedures. In 1989, counts were made on 221
individuals from the following: offsite areas around
the NTS, EMSL-LV Laboratory, EG&G facilities
throughout the United States, two DOE contractors,
and members of the general public concerned about
possible radiation exposure. No nuclear test related
radioactivity was detected. In addition, physical
examinations of the offsite residents revealed a nor-
mally healthy population consistent with the age and
sex distribution of that population.
Section 2.1.8. Long-Term Hydrological
Monitoring Program (LTHMP)
The Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring of wells and
surface waters near sites of nuclear tests showed
only background radionuclide concentrations except
for those wells that showed detectable activity in
previous years or those that had been spiked with
radionuclides for hydrological tests.
Section 2.1.9. Quality Assurance (QA) and
Procedures
The Quality Assurance program conducted by EMSL-
LV includes: use of standard operating procedures,
data quality objectives, data validation, quality con-
trol, health physics oversight, precision and accu-
racy of analysis. The aim of the QA program is to
ensure that all EPA decisions which are dependent
on environmental monitoring data are supported by
data of known quality. All EPA laboratories partici-
pate in a centrally managed and locally implemented
QA program.
Section 2.1.10. Community Monitoring
Stations (CMS)
The Community Monitoring Stations are operated for
the Environmental Protection Agency, Department
of Energy and the Desert Research Institute (DRI) by
local residents. Fifteen of the CMS became opera-
tional in 1982, the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eight-
eenth in 1988. Each station is an integral part of the
Air Surveillance Network, Noble Gas and Tritium
Surveillance Network, and the Thermoluminescent
Dosimetry Network; in addition, they are equipped
with a pressurized ion chamber connected to a
gamma rate recorder and a barograph. Samples
and data from these stations are analyzed and
reported by the EPA at EMSL-LV. Data is also
interpreted and reported directly by the DRI. Data
from these stations are reported herein as a part of
the networks in which they participate. All radiation
measurements for 1989 were within the normal
background range for the United States.
Section 2.1.11. Dose Assessment
Based on the radionuclides measured in samples
collected by the monitoring networks, the maximum
dose above background calulated for an adult living
in Nevada would have been about 37 urem (0.37
(iSv) for 1989. No radioactivity originating on the
NTS was detectable by the monitoring networks;
therefore, no dose assessment could be made.
Based on the NTS releases reported atmospheric
dispersion calculations (AIRDOS/EPA) indicate that
the highest individual dose would have been 0.15
l^rem (1.5 x 1O'3 nSv), and the collective dose to the
population within 80 km of Control Point One (CP-1)
would have been 1.1 x 10~3 person-rem (1.1 x 10'5
person-Sv). The person receiving the highest dose
would also have been exposed to 67 mrem from
natural background radiation.
One mule deer was sampled by EPA personnel. In
the unlikely event that this deer was consumed by
one person, a dose equivalent of 0.06 mrem (0.6
would have resulted.
-------
Chapter 3. Description of the Nevada Test Site
C. A. Fontana
The principal activity at the Nevada Test Site is the testing of nuclear devices to aid in the development
of nuclear weapons, proof testing of weapons, and weapons safety and effects studies. The major
activity of the EPA's Offsite Radiological Safety Program is radiation monitoring around the NTS. This
section is included to provide readers with an overview of the climate, geology and hydrology, as well
as with land uses, in this generally arid and sparsely populated area of the southwest. The information
included should provide an understanding of the environment in which nuclear testing and monitor-
ing activities take place, the reasons for the location of instrumentation, the weather extremes to
which both people and equipment are subjected, and the distances traveled by field monitoring tech-
nicians in collecting samples and maintaining equipment.
SECTION 3.1. LOCATION
The NTS is located in Nye County, Nevada, with its
southeast corner about 90 km northwest of Las
Vegas (Figure 2). It occupies an area of about 3,500
square km, varies from 40 to 56 km in width (east-
west) and from 64 to 88 km in length (north-south).
This area consists of large basins or flats about 900
to 1,200 m above mean sea level (MSL) surrounded
by mountain ranges rising from 1,800 to 2,300 m
above MSL.
• 5 . } , >'£**
! *
Figure 1. Typical Mid-Latitude Steppe Climatological Zone in Nevada.
-------
•/(se) Newcastle.^
. v*-^^-»
I /Cedar
! / City
I /
St George
ARIZONA
5/90
Figure 2. Location of the Nevada Test Site (NTS).
-------
The NTS is surrounded on three sides by exclusion
areas, collectively named the Nellis Air Force Base
Range Complex, which provides a buffer zone be-
tween the test areas and public lands. This buffer
zone varies from 24 to 104 km between the test area.
and land that is open to the public. In the unlikely
event of a venting and depending upon wind speed
and direction, from 2 to more than 6 hours would
elapse before any release of airborne radioactivity
would reach over public lands.
SECTION 3.2. CLIMATE
The climate of the NTS and surrounding area is
variable, due to its wide range in altitude and its
rugged terrain. Most of Nevada has a semi-arid
climate characterized as mid-latitude steppe.
Throughout the year, there is insufficient water to
support the growth of common food crops without
irrigation.
Climate may be classified by the types of vegetation
indigenous to an area. According to Houghton et al.
(HO75), this method of classification developed by
Kb'ppen, is further subdivided on the basis of "...sea-
sonal distribution of rainfall and the degree of sum-
mer heat or winter cold." Table 1 summarizes the
characteristics of climatic types for Nevada.
According to Quiring (QU68), the NTS average annual
precipitation ranges from about 10 cm at the lower
elevations to around 25 cm on the higher elevations.
During the winter months, the plateaus may be
snow-covered for a period of several days or weeks.
Snow is uncommon on the flats. Temperatures vary
considerably with elevation, slope, and local air
currents. The average daily temperature ranges at
the lower altitudes are around (50° to 25°F) (10° to
-4°C) in January and (95° to 55°F) (35° to 13°C) in
July, with extremes of 120°F(49°C) and -15°F(-26°C).
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATIC TYPES IN NEVADA
(from Houghton et al. 1975)
CLIMATE TYPE
Alpine tundra
Humid continental
Subhumid continental
Mid-latitude steppe
Mid-latitude desert
Low-latitude desert
MEAN ANNUAL
TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION
°C cm
(°F) (inches) DOMINANT
WINTER SUMMER TOTAL* SNOWFALL VEGETATION
-18° to -9°
(0°to15°)
-12° to -1°
(10° to 30°)
(10° to 30°)
-7° to 4°
(20° to 40°)
-7° to 4°
(20° to 40°)
-4° to 10°
(40° to 50°)
4° to 10°
(40° to 50°)
10° to 21°
(50° to 70°)
10° to 21°
(50° to 70°)
18° to 27°
(65° to 80°)
18° to 27°
(65° to 80°)
27° to 32°
(80° to 90°)
38 to 114 Medium to heavy Alpine meadows
(15 to 45)
64 to 1 1 4 Heavy Pine-fir forest
(25 to 45)
30 to 64 Moderate Pine or scrub woodland
(12 to 25)
15 to 38 Light to moderate Sagebrush, grass, scrub
(6 to 15)
8 to 20 Light Greasewood, shadscale
(3 to 8)
5 to 25 Negligible Creosote bush
(2 to 10)
OF
AREA
—
1
15
57
20
7
* Limits of annual precipitation overlap because of variations in temperature which affect the water balance.
-------
\
\Pahute Mesa
Ground Water
Ash Meadows
Ground Water System
10 20 30
Scale in Kilometers
Flow Direction
___ — Ground Water System Boundaries
__. _—. — Silent Canyon Caldera
Timber Mountain Caldera
5/90
Figure 3. Ground Water Flow Systems Around the Nevada Test Site.
-------
Corresponding temperatures on the plateaus are
(35° to 25°F) (2°to -4°C) in January and 80° to 65°F)
(27° to 18°C) in July with extremes of 115°F (46°C)
and -30°F(-34°C).
The wind direction, as measured on a 30 m tower at
an observation station about 9 km NNW of Yucca
Lake, is predominantly northerly except during the
months of May through August when winds from the
south-southwest predominate (QU68). Because of
the prevalent mountain/valley winds in the basins,
south to southwest winds predominate during day-
light hours of most months. During the winter months
southerly winds have only a slight edge over north-
erly winds for a few hours during the warmest part of
the day. These wind patterns may be quite different
at other locations on the NTS because of local terrain
effects and differences in elevation.
SECTION 3.3. GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Two major hydrologic systems shown in Figure 3
exist on the NTS (ERDA77). Ground water in the
northwestern part of the NTS or in the Pahute Mesa
area flows at a rate of 2 m to 180 m per year to the
south and southwest toward the Ash Meadows Dis-
charge Area in the Amargosa Desert. Ground water
to the east of the NTS moves from north to south at
a rate of not less than 2 m nor greater than 220 m per
year. Carbon-14 analyses of this eastern ground
water indicate that the lower velocity is nearer the
true value. At Mercury Valley in the extreme south-
ern part of the NTS, the eastern ground water flow
shifts south-westward toward the Ash Meadows
Discharge Area.
SECTION 3.4. LAND USE OF NTS REGION
Figure 4 is a map of the off-NTS area showing a wide
variety of land uses, such as farming, mining, graz-
ing, camping, fishing, and hunting within a 300-km
radius of the NTS Control Point-1 (CP-1). Westofthe
NTS, elevations range from 85 m below MSL in
Death Valley to 4,420 m above MSL in the Sierra
Nevada Range. Parts of two major agricultural
valleys (the Owens and San Joaquin) are included.
The areas south of the NTS are more uniform since
the Mojave Desert ecosystem (mid-latitude desert)
comprises most of this portion of Nevada, California,
and Arizona. The areas east of the NTS are primarily
mid-latitude steppe with some of the older river
valleys, such as the Virgin River Valley and Moapa
Valley, supporting irrigation for small-scale but inten-
sive farming of a variety of crops. Grazing is also
common in this area, particularly to the northeast.
The area north of the NTS is also mid-latitude steppe,
where the major agricultural activity is grazing of
cattle and sheep. Minor agriculture, primarily the
growing of alfalfa hay, is found in this portion of the
State within 300 km of the CP-1. Many of the
residents have access to locally grown fruits and
vegetables.
Recreational areas lie in all directions around the
NTS (Figure 4), and are used for such activities as
hunting, fishing, and camping. In general, the camp-
ing and fishing sites to the northwest, north, and
northeast of the NTS are closed during winter months.
Camping and fishing locations to the southeast,
south, and southwest are utilized throughout the
year. The peak of the hunting season is from
September through January.
SECTION 3.5. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Figure 5 shows the current population of counties
surrounding the NTS based on 1988 Bureau of
Census estimates (DOC88). Excluding Clark County,
the major population center (approximately 631,300
in 1988), the population density within a 150 km
radius of the NTS is about 0.5 persons per square
kilometer. For comparison, the population density of
the 48 contiguous states was 29 persons per square
kilometer (1980 census). The estimated average
population density for Nevada in 1980 was 2.8 per-
sons per square kilometer (DOC86). Knowledge of
population densities and spatial distribution of farm
animals is necessary to assess protective measures
required in the event of an accidental release of
radioactivity at the NTS.
The offsite area within 80 km of CP-1 (the primary
area in which the dose commitment must be deter-
mined for the purpose of this report) is predominantly
rural. Several small communities are located in the
area, the largest being in the Pahrump Valley. This
growing rural community, with an estimated popula-
tion of approximately 6,000, is located 80 km south
of the NTS CP-1. The Amargosa farm area, which
has a population of about 950, Is located 50 km
southwest of CP-1. The largest town in the near
offsite area is Beatty, which has a population of about
1,500 and is located approximately 65 km to the west
of CP-1.
-------
•me J MAZING
.—. TV GRAZING
GRAZING
GRAZING
Camping &
Recreational Areas
D Hunting
• Fishing
O Mines
A Oil Fields
'LAKE •Kmgman
'MOJAVE
Lake Havasu
Figure 4. General Land Use Within 300 km of the Nevada Test Site.
5/90
10
-------
Was hoe
239,700
Storey
1,900
Carson City I
38,400
Douglas
25,000
Lyon
18,400
Humbolt
1 1 ,800
1
\
NEVADA
Elko
26,400
Pershing F
4,300 /
/
i Churchill \4'800
C7 1 16,500 /
1 \ \
\
\
i
P i irok?i I
uUlcfNct \
1,400 /
) White Pine
{ 7,900
|
|
•
1
L
i
j
i
T
1
i
•
i
UTAH
Box Elder
38,400
-_-X
>
Tooele
28,700
Juab 5,700
—
^
Millard
12,300
Mono\/Esmeralda!
Q 500 *^. < nnn
Scale in Miles
50 100
50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
NELUS
AF8 RANGE
COMPLEX
San Bernardino
1,292,500
5/90
Figure 5. Population of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah Counties
Near the Nevada Test Site (Based on 1988 Census Estimates).
11
-------
The Mojave Desert of California, which includes
Death Valley National Monument, lies along the
southwestern border of Nevada. The National Park
Service (NPS90) estimated that the population within
the Monument boundaries ranges from a minimum
of 200 permanent residents during the summer
months to as many as 5,000 tourists and campers on
any particular day during the major holiday periods in
the winter months, and as many as 30,000 during
"Death Valley Days" in the month of November. The
next largest town and contiguous populated area
(about 40 square miles) in the Mojave Desert is
Barstow, California, located 265 km south-southwest
of the NTS, with a 1988 population of about 20,990.
The largest populated area is the Ridgecrest-China
Lake area, which has a current population of 27,460
and is located 190 km southwest of the NTS. The
Owens Valley, where numerous small towns are
located, lies 50 km west of Death Valley. The largest
town in the Owens Valley is Bishop, located 225 km
west-northwest of the NTS, with a population of
3,570.
The extreme southwestern region of Utah is more
developed than the adjacent part of Nevada. The
largest community is St. George, located 220 km east
of the NTS, with .a 1988 population of 22,970. The
next largest town, Cedar City, with a population of
12,020, is located 280 km east-northeast of the NTS.
The extreme northwestern region of Arizona is mostly
range land except for that portion in the Lake Mead
Recreation Area. In addition, several small
communities lie along the Colorado River. The
largest towns in the area are Bullhead City, 165 km
south-southeast of the NTS, with a 1988 population
estimate of 20,160 and Kingman, located 280 km
southeast of the NTS, with a population of 11,510.
Figures 6 through 9 show the domestic animal
populations in the counties near the NTS.
12
-------
Washoe
5(28)
Storey
0(14)
Carson City •
0(0)
>
Douglas
3(4)
Lyon
5(32)
hk
Humbolt
39(4)
1
1
NEVADA -
i
Elko I
oc /n\ 1_
Pershing /
11(0) /
/ Lander
J > lb(UJ
_^7 Churchill )
r/ / 21 (38) /
i \ >
i 1 OJ v^; .
1
I ™
Eureka\ g.
24 (0) 1
1 Whitp Pinp ™
f 17(0) 1
1
Box Elder
11(0)
•
Tooele
19(0)
Juab
Millard
37(5)
NEiLIS
AF8 RANGE —
COMPLEX
•Washington
I 48 (0)
Scale in Miles
50 100
0 50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
San Bernardino
16 (37)
00 Cows
(00) Goats
5/90
Figure 6. Distribution of Family Milk Cows and Goats, by County (1989).
13
-------
San Bernardino
164,000
5/90
Figure 7. Distribution of Dairy Cows, by County (1989).
14
-------
Washoe
27,500
Storey
300
Carson Cityl
1,000 ~~
Douglas'
15,000
Beaver
10,300
•v f '
Mono^/Esmeralda
2,400 \ 9,000
Lincoln
12,000
Washington
9,300
Scale in Miles
50 100
0 50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
San Bernardino
5,400
2/90
5/90
Figure 8. Distribution of Beef Cattle, by County (1989).
15
-------
Washoe
4,000
Carson City I
2,800
Douglas
5,000
Lyon
10,000
Mono\/Esmeralda
,800 V <700
Washington
1,500
ARIZONA
Scale in Miles
50 100
6 50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
San Bernardino
20,000
5/90
Figure 9. Distribution of Sheep, by County (1989).
16
-------
Chapter 4. Radiological Safety Activities
C. A. Fontana
The radiological safety activities of the EMSL-LV are divided into two areas, both designed to detect
environmental radiation: special test support, and routine environmental surveillance. Routine
environmental surveillance includes pathways monitoring and internal and external exposure moni-
toring. Data acquired from this surveillance provide a basis for assessing possible exposures to
individuals or population groups. If an increase in environmental radiation occurs for which
protective actions are necessary, specific remedial actions would be provided to keep these
exposures to a minimum. These activities are described in the following portions of this report.
SECTION 4.1. SPECIAL TEST SUPPORT
Priorto all nuclear tests, mobile monitoring teams are
deployed around the NTS. They are prepared to
assist in directing protective actions for offsite resi-
dents should that become necessary. Prior to each
test, the teams determine the locations of residents,
work crews and domestic animal herds, and obtain
information relative to residents in communities and
remote areas. Monitoring technicians, equipped
with a variety of radiation survey instruments, do-
simeters, portable air samplers, and supplies for col-
lecting environmental samples, are prepared to con-
duct a monitoring program as directed via two-way
radio communications from CP-1 at the NTS (Figure
10). The radiological safety criteria, or protective
action guides, used by the EMSL-LV are based on
those specified in NVO-176 (EPA88B).
Senior EPA personnel serve as members of the Test
Controller's Advisory Panel to provide advice on
possible public and environmental impact of each test
and on feasible protective actions in the event that an
accidental release of radioactivity should occur.
Figure 10. EPA Monitoring Technician Surveys Ambient Environmental Radiation Using a Handheld
Survey Instrument. Foreground from left to right: constant flow air sampler, gamma exposure-rate
recorder, and compressed noble gas sampler.
17
-------
Section 4.1.1. Remedial Actions
"Remedial actions that EPA could implement to
reduce whole-body exposures and the thyroid dose
resulting from uptake of radionuclides in the food
chain, particularly radioiodine in milk are:
• evacuation
• shelter
• access control
• control of livestock feeding practices
• milk control
• food and water control (to a lesser degree)
Which action, if any, is feasible depends largely upon
the type of accident and the magnitude of the pro-
jected exposures and doses, the response time
available for carrying out the action, and local con-
straints associated with a specific site. Constraints
vary, but include such things as:
• the number of people and their distribution in
the impacted area
• the availability of transportation and condi-
tion of transportation routes
• the season of the year
• the existence of schools and hospitals
• the presence of bedridden people or those
unwilling to cooperate
Any of these factors, either alone or collectively,
could impair the effectiveness of remedial action.
Another important factor affecting the efficacy of the
remedial actions is the degree of credibility EPA
personnel maintain with offsite residents and the
extent to which they are trusted by those residents.
Credibility and trust are created and maintained by
routine personal contacts made with local officials
and law enforcement personnel as well as the ranch-
ers, miners, and others living in the offsite areas
close to the NTS.
Section 4.1.2. Remedial Actions to Minimize
Whole-Body Exposure
To determine the feasible remedial actions for an
area, EPA uses its best judgment based on experi-
ence gained during atmospheric tests and from
those tests conducted in the 1960's that contained
offsite areas. No remedial actions have been neces-
sary since 1970, so there is no recent experience by
which to test this judgment. However, through rou-
tine contact with offsite residents, and through con-
tinuing population and road surveys, EPA maintains
a sense of the degree to which it could implement
remedial actions and the kind of cooperation that
would be provided by officials and residents of the
area" (EPA88B).
If an underground nuclear test is expected to cause
ground motion detectable offsite, EPA monitoring
technicians are stationed at locations where hazard-
ous situations might occur, such as underground
mines. At these locations, occupants are notified of
potential hazards so they can take precautionary
measures.
EG&G cloud sampling and tracking aircraft are flown
over the NTS to gather meteorological data and
obtain samples, assess total cloud volume and
content and provide long range tracking in the event
of a release of airborne radioactivity. A second
aircraft is also flown to gather meteorological data
and to perform cloud tracking. Information from
these aircraft can be used in positioning the mobile
radiation monitors.
During calendar year 1989, EMSL personnel were
deployed for all underground nuclear tests con-
ducted at the NTS, none of which released radioac-
tivity that could be detected offsite.
SECTION 4.2. ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL
SURVEILLANCE
Section 4.2.1. Airborne Releases of
Radioactivity at the NTS During 1989
S. C. Black
All nuclear detonations during 1989 were conducted
underground and were contained. Releases of low-
level radioactivity occurred during re-entry drilling,
seepage through fissures in the soil or purging of
tunnel areas. Table 2 shows the quantities of radi-
onuclides released to the environment, as reported
by the DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE90).
Because these releases occurred throughout the
year and because of the distance from the points of
releases to the nearest offsite sampling station, none
of the radioactive material listed in this table was
detected offsite. Also listed are radionuclides found
in drainage ponds onsite that remain in situ. Evapo-
18
-------
ration could contribute 3H to the atmosphere but the
amounts were too small to be detected by the tritium
monitors offsite.
To detect any radioactivity that might escape from
the NTS, a routine surveillance program is con-
ducted. This program includes pathway monitoring
that consists of air, water, and milk surveillance
networks surrounding the NTS and a limited animal
sampling program. In addition, external and internal
exposures of offsite populations are assessed using
state-of-the-art dosimetry equipment. The following
portions of this report detail the results of these
surveillance programs.
Section 4.2.2. Air Surveillance Network (ASN)
V. E. Niemann
The ASN monitors an important pathway for human
exposure to radionuclides, the inhalation of airborne
materials. This network consists of 31 continuously
operating air samplers (Figure 11) in areas surround-
ing the NTS and 78 standby air samplers, operated
routinely on a quarterly schedule or more often as
TABLE 2. RADIONUCLIDE EMISSIONS ON THE NTS
DURING 1989
HALF-LIFE QUANTITY
RADIONUCLIDE (years) RELEASED (Ci)
3H
37Ar
39Ar
MKr
127Xe
129mXe
»""Xe
133Xe
135Xe
137Cs
AIRBORNE RELEASES
12.35
0.096
269
10.72
0.10
0.022
0.0326
0.0144
0.001
30.17
73
15.1
0.0042
0.21
3.8 x10'5
0.0022
0.34
63
3.9
7.3 X10"6
TUNNEL &RNM PONDS'
3H 12.35 2069
238Pu 87.743 1.7 x10'5
aotMopu 24065 3.4x10-*
Gross Beta 0.20
Tunnel drainage andRadionuclide Migration (RNM) study ponds.
Figure 11. EPA Monitoring Technician Servicing Air Sampler at Pahrump Community Monitoring Station.
19
-------
needed. Each sampler draws air through a glass-
fiber filter (for particulates) and a charcoal cartridge
(for gaseous radioiodines) for one week; the filters
are then removed for analysis. Both the filters and
the charcoal cartridges are analyzed by gamma
spectroscopy. The paniculate filters are analyzed for
gross beta activity, then composited (combined and
dissolved) for plutonium analysis. Only naturally
occurring 7Be was detected by gamma spectros-
copy; the gross beta results were consistent with
previous data; and one composited filter sample
contained a detectable amount of 238Pu.
SECTION 4.2.2.1. NETWORK DESIGN
Both the concentration and the source of airborne
radioactivity must be determined if appropriate cor-
f\ P
NEVADA " UTAH
I
•
I
j
j
i
•
i
•
i
•
i
i
Austin I
• Ely
Blue
Eagle Rn
Nyala
I
j
j
ISunnystde ~
Delta
I Alamo
• Milford
Cedar City
Lathrop Wells
Furnace Creek | *V *!ndian
^» Springs
Death Valley Jet WV —
»^PPahrump ^
Shoshone» V wLas ^
>^ Vegas |
Caliente|
j
r
Overtonl
i
>St George
ARIZONA
MEAD
I Community Monitoring Stations (18)
I Other Air Sampling Stations (13)
Scale in Miles
50 100
100 150
Scale in Kilometers
5/90
Figure 12. Air Surveillance Network Stations (1989).
20
-------
rective actions are to be taken. The ASN is de-
signed to monitor the areas within 350 km of the
NTS (Figure 12). Station location is dependent
upon the availability of electrical power and, at
stations distant from the NTS, of a resident willing
to operate the equipment. This continuously oper-
ating network is supplemented by a standby net-
work which covers the contiguous states west of
the Mississippi River (Figure 13).
SECTION 4.2.2.2. METHODS
During 1989, the ASN consisted of 31 continuously
operating sampling stations and 78 standby stations.
The air sampler at each station was equipped to collect
both paniculate radionuclides on filters and gaseous
radioiodines on charcoal. The filters and charcoal
cartridges from all active stations and the filters from
the standby stations were routinely analyzed.
Canada
\ "" *
North Dakota\ Minnesota
Scale in Miles
0 100 300 500
100 300 500 700
Scale in Kilometers
A Stand-by ASN \
Stations (78) *
5/90
Figure 13. Standby Air Surveillance Network Stations (1989).
21
-------
Samples of airborne participates were collected at
each active station on 5-cm diameter glass-fiber
filters at a flow rate of about 80 m3 per day. Filters
were changed after sampler operation periods of one
week (approximately 570 m3 of sample volume).
Activated charcoal cartridges placed directly behind
the filters to collect gaseous radioiodines were
changed at the same time as the filters. The standby
network was activated for approximately one week
per quarter. The standby samplers are identical to
those used at the active stations and are operated by
state and municipal health department personnel or
by other local residents. All analytical work was per-
formed at the EMSL-LV.
Gross beta analysis is used to detect trends in at-
mospheric radioactivity, since it is more sensitive
than gamma spectrometry for this purpose. Starting
in the first quarter of 1989, filters from all active and
standby stations were analyzed for gross beta activ-
ity. This analysis was previously performed on only
five continuously operating stations.
All air samples are initially analyzed by gamma
spectrometry; each of the glass-fiber filters is then
analyzed for gross beta activity after a seven-to-
fourteen day delay to decrease the contribution from
naturally occurring radon-thoron daughter activity.
Some filters are then composited (combined) and
are analyzed for plutonium. The analytical proce-
dures used are described briefly in Chapter 8 and the
quality assurance in Chapter 6.
1
1:
0
t
^ 0.1
_c
D
"o
DO
1
CD
0.01
8
i i i i i i i i i
0*
0
H- O
0
On
& 00
0 Oo
o
Q) o 0 o
0 ° ° OS) 0 0° S£)
^ ° OP0 ^°°° ° Oo°0o0(.p0^f)o o
0 o0 ° 0 ° (?>C) °° °
o % o
I ° I 0 i
1 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 9
1
* Elevated Concentration Attributed to April 1986 Accident at Chernobyl, U.S.S.R.
Figure 14. Monthly Average Gross Beta in Air Samples, Las Vegas, NV, 1981 -1989.
22
-------
SECTION4.2.2.3. RESULTS
During 1989, no airborne radioactivity related to cur-
rent nuclear testing at the NTS was detected on any
sample from the ASN. Throughout the network,
naturally occurring 7Be was the only nuclide detected
by gamma spectroscopy. The minimum and maxi-
mum concentrations were similar to previous results
(.02 to 1.9 x 1Q-12 jiCi/mL). The principal means of 7Be
production is from spallation (splitting) of 16O and14N
by cosmic rays in the atmosphere.
The monthly average gross beta in air samples from
the Las Vegas, Nevada, station since 1981 is plotted
in Figure 14. The data from the other stations are
similar and suggest little significant difference among
stations. A summary of the 1989 ASN data is shown
in Table 3 and for 73 of the SASN stations in Table 4.
The filters from the stations at Las Vegas, Lathrop
Wells, and Rachel, Nevada, and Salt Lake City,
Utah, are composited as monthly samples and sub-
mitted quarterly for plutonium analysis. The other
samples for plutonium analysis consist of compos-
ited filters from two stations in each state in which
standby stations are located. The results of the
238Pu and 239+24°Pu analyses from 14 states are
shown in Table 5. The only sample which showed
a detectable amount of 238Pu was the January
composite from Rachel, Nevada. It is borderline
detectable and could be a statistical anomaly.
Statistically, about five percent of the time, a sample
which does not contain plutonium will yield a false
positive result. No 239+240Pu was detected. The
plutonium results from the last two quarters of 1989
were not available for inclusion in this report and will
be reported in the 1990 report.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORK STATIONS -1989
SAMPLING LOCATION
DEATH VALLEY JCTCA
FURNACE CREEK CA
SHOSHONE CA
ALAMO NV
AUSTIN NV
BEATTY NV
BLUE EAGLE RANCH NV
CALIENTE NV
ELYNV
FALLINI'S TWIN SPGS
RANCH NV
GOLDFIELD NV
GROOM LAKE NV
HIKO NV
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
LAS VEGAS NV
LATHROP WELLS NV
NYALA NV
OVERTON NV
PAHRUMP NV
NO.
DAYS
SAMPLED*
326
326
357
334
330
324
318
319
322
325
328
329
326
330
359
334
326
329
329
GROSS
BETA CONC.
(10-12nCi/mL)
MAX
0.054
0.160
0.051
0.059
0.056
0.049
0.210
0.240
0.420
0.040
0.036
0.043
0.047
0.050
0.080
0.048
0.044
0.046
0.038
MIN
-0.004
0.000
-0.006
0.010
-0.004
0.010
0.008
0.002
0.006
0.010
0.009
0.002
0.009
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.000
0.012
-0.005
AVG
0,030
0.033
0.027
0.026
0.024
0.024
0.026
0.035
0.036
0.022
0.023
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.027
0.023
0.010
0.027
0.023
SAMPLING LOCATION
PIOCHE NV
RACHEL NV
SCOTTY'S JCT NV
STONE CABIN RANCH NV
SUNNYSIDE NV
TONOPAH NV
TONOPAH TEST RANGE NV
CEDAR CITY UT
DELTA UT
MILFORD UT
SALT LAKE CITY UT
ST GEORGE UT
NO.
DAYS
SAMPLED*
313
322
354
324
317
319
332
332
353
351
315
360
GROSS
BETA CONC.
(10-12nCi/mL)
MAX
0.150
0.086
0.051
0.220
0.036
0.056
0.037
0.044
0.180
0.098
0.160
0.260
MIN
0.003
0.009
0.006
0.000
0.010
0.009
0.000
0.011
0.009
0.006
0.000
0.003
AVG
0.025
0.022
0.027
0.025
0.022
0.024
0.021
0.025
0.033
0.028
0.026
0.033
Analysis for gross beta on air filters from all continuously operating stations was initiated (at different times for different stations) during the
first quarter of 1989. This analysis previously was done on filters from five continuously operating stations.
23
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR STANDBY AIR SURVEILLANCE
NETWORK STATIONS - 1989
GROSS
BETA CONC.
SAMPLING LOCATION
GLOBE AZ
KINGMAN AZ
TUCSON AZ
WINSLOWAZ
YUMAAZ
LITTLE ROCK AR
ALTURAS CA
BAKER CA
BISHOP CA
CHICOCA
INDIO CA
LONE PINE CA
NEEDLES CA
RIDGECRESTCA
SANTA ROSA CA
CORTEZ CO
DENVER CO
GRAND JCT CO
MOUNTAIN HOME ID
NAMPA ID
POCATELLO ID
FORT DODGE IA
IOWA CITY IA
DODGE CITY KS
MONROE LA
MINNEAPOLIS MN
CLAYTON MO
JOPLIN MO
ST JOSEPH MO
GREAT FALLS MT
KALISPELLMT
MILES CITY MT
NORTH PLATTE NE
ADAVEN NV
BATTLE MOUNTAIN NV
CURRANT NV -
ANGLE WORM RANCH
CURRIENV-CURRIE
MAINTENANCE STATION
NO.
HA VG
UAYo
SAMPLED*
14
23
21
24
28
21
28
35
22
32
25
24
21
20
28
14
37
29
23
21
22
29
22
35
28
30
14
21
22
21
28
21
25
45
28
21
13
(10'12nCi/mL)
MAX
0.048
0.054
0.041
0.088
0.047
0.041
0.021
0.048
0.048
0.025
0.057
0.037
0.020
0.029
0.032
0.019
0.044
0.098
0.029
0.032
0.024
0.040
0.033
0.032
0.035
0.024
0.029
0.043
0.038
0.032
0.040
0.029
0.048
0.031
0.023
0.042
0.036
MIN
0.038
0.005
0.024
0.017
0.030
0.023
0.011
0.025
0.027
0.015
0.018
0.004
0.014
0.003
0.009
0.011
0.013
0.030
0.003
0.017
0.017
0.028
0.025
0.014
0.018
0.012
0.022
0.016
0.024
0.018
0.018
0.023
0.024
0.006
0.019
0.022
0.025
AVG
0.043
0.027
0.033
0.036
0.038
0.033
0.014
0.040
0.039
0.019
0.034
0.021
0.017
0.014
0.019
0.016
0.024
0.059
0.018
0.023
0.021
0.033
0.030
0.025
0.027
0.018
0.025
0.027
0.030
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.036
0.019
0.020
0.031
0.028
SAMPLING LOCATION
DUCKWATER NV
ELKONV-
PHILLIPS 66 TRUCK STOP
EUREKA NV
FALLON NV
LOVELOCK NV
LUND NV
MESQUITE NV
RENO NV
ROUND MOUNTAIN NV
WELLS NV
WINNEMUCCA NV
ALBUQUERQUE NM
CARLSBAD NM
SHIPROCK NM
BISMARK ND
FARGO ND
WILLISTON ND
MUSKOGEE OK
BURNS OR
MEDFORD OR
RAPID CITY SD
AMARILLOTX
AUSTIN TX
MIDLAND TX
TYLER TX
BRYCE CANYON UT
ENTERPRISE UT
GARRISON UT
LOGAN UT
PAROWAN UT
VERNAL UT
WENDOVER UT
SEATTLE WA
SPOKANE WA
ROCK SPRINGS WY
WORLANDWY
NO.
nAVC
UH 1 O
SAMPLED*
7
14
24
21
30
36
21
23
21
28
36
24
24
38
24
21
28
21
21
22
21
35
34
14
26
35
42
16
24
44
20
23
18
21
21
21
GROSS
BETA CONC.
(10-12|iCi/mL)
MAX
0.029
0.011
0.031
0.060
0.065
0.023
0.042
0.032
0.028
0.023
0.049
0.052
0.051
0.049
0.028
0.056
0.056
0.048
0.017
0.023
0.029
0.040
0.035
0.021
0.038
0.033
0.055
0.042
0.071
0.042
0.039
0.026
0.016
0.039
0.035
0.044
MIN
0.013
0.005
0.019
0.022
0.015
0.010
0.007
0.013
0.018
0.009
0.006
0.023
0.031
0.029
0.021
0.019
0.028
0.005
0.010
0.003
0.020
0.031
0.004
0.013
0.008
0.011
0.017
0.002
0.022
0.006
0.016
0.007
0.004
0.021
0.013
0.026
AVG
0.018
0.008
0.026
0.035
0.031
0.017
0.016
0.022
0.022
0.017
0.028
0.035
0.043
0.039
0.026
0.036
0.040
0.030
0.013
0.012
0.023
0.035
0.014
0.017
0.022
0.023
0.027
0.007
0.032
0.021
0.031
0.020
0.013
0.029
0.024
0.035
Analysis for gross beta on air filters from all standby stations was initiated during the first quarter of 1989. This analysis was not performed
on filters from standby stations prior to that time.
24
-------
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATIONS OF 238PU AND239*240PU
(COMPOSITED AIR SAMPLES - 1989)
COLLEC'
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION
AZ COMPOSITE
(WINSLOW& TUCSON)
CA COMPOSITE
(BISHOP &
RIDGECREST)
CO COMPOSITE
(DENVER & CORTEZ)
ID COMPOSITE
(BOISE & MOUNTAIN
HOME)
MO COMPOSITE
(CLAYTON & JOPLIN)
MT COMPOSITE
(GREAT FALLS &
MILES CITY)
NV COMPOSITE
(LAS VEGAS)
NV COMPOSITE
(LATHROP WELLS)
1989
01/25
04/17
02/14
04/24
02/22
04/19
01/25
04/22
01/25
04/19
01/25
04/19
01/30
02/27
03/27
04/24
05/29
06/26
01/31
02/28
03/27
04/30
05/28
06/26
CONCENTRATION
12S.D.(MDC)
nxMi
IIUN
238pu
(10-18jaCi/mL)
-7127
9113
7118
0+34
218
0131
-17150
11+17
-15+57
13113
(48)
(16)
(24)
(55)
(12)
(50)
(85)
(21)
(101)
(12)
541139(204)
0113
0150
-29122
8 + 19
3+5
016
118
-137165
2±18
-46 ±29
118
115
016
(22)
(82)
(44)
(27)
(6)
(10)
(12)
(133)
(29)
(58)
(12)
(8)
(10)
239*240 pu
(10-18|iCi/mL)
0118
019
-4112
-5110
0+5
5119
-27124
-3+5
-8134
-415
18162
6 + 9
-13125
216
3113
-212
113
014
-26141
-4 + 9
12113
316
-213
-112
(30)
(16)
(24)
(23)
(8)
(25)
(50)
(12)
(62)
(12)
(83)
(9)
(51)
(8)
(19)
(6)
(4)
(6)
(78)
(18)
(11)
(7)
(8)
(4)
COLLEC'
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION
NV COMPOSITE
(RACHEL)
NM COMPOSITE
(ALBUQUERQUE &
CARLSBAD)
ND COMPOSITE
(BISMARCK & FARGO)
OR COMPOSITE
(BURNS & MEDFORD)
IX COMPOSITE
(AUSTIN &AMARILLO)
UT COMPOSITE
(LOGAN & VERNAL)
UT COMPOSITE
(SALT LAKE CITY)
WA COMPOSITE
1989
01/30
02/27
03/27
04/24
05/29
06/26
01/27
04/23
01/30
04/19
01/27
05/02
01/30
05/22
02/09
04/24
01/30
02/27
03/27
04/25
05/29
06/26
01/25
(SEATTLE & SPOKANE) 04/1 9
WY COMPOSITE
(WORLAND &
ROCK SPRINGS)
01/25
04/19
CONCENTRATION
12S.D.(MDC)
rinu
238py 239+240py
(10-18|iCi/mL)
15111
-9119
-6111
417
9117
214
0136
0±7
(11)"
(33)
(20)
(9)
(23)
(6)
(59)
(12)
-95 ±119(21 7)
7±11
-16 ±24
10 + 14
(12)
(50)
(16)
-117 ±107 (203)
-1±5
(8)
73 ±126 (169)
8±14
-17 ±25
1±7
-4 ±62
-2 ±5
5+6
4±6
(19)
(45)
(11)
(103)
(10)
(8)
(7)
(10'18nCi/mL)
5±7
-919
3±9
5±5
3±10
-113
-6122
0+4
-35169
218
5119
-517
8 ±29
-1+1
-18+63
6+9
417
0±5
-25 ±31
-112
1+3
1+3
(8)
(19)
(13)
(5)
(13)
(6)
(41)
(6)
(13)
(12)
(25)
(16)
(39)
(3)
(120)
(9)
(9)
(8)
(60)
(4)
(4)
(4)
26±392(641) -153±193(376)
8±12
(16)
Sample lost
-2 ±6
(11)
015
(9)
Sample lost
3+8
(11)
All concentrations below the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) unless denoted by'
25
-------
Section 4.2.3. Noble Gas and Tritium
Surveillance Network (NGTSN)
M. W. Chilton and E. A. Thompson
This network was designed to detect noble gas and
tritium emissions from the NTS. Samples were
routinely collected at 16 noble gas stations and 18
tritium stations during 1989 and no activity attribut-
able to the NTS was identified.
SECTION 4.2.3.1. NETWORK DESIGN
The sources for the radionuclides monitored by this
network include noble gases emitted from nuclear
reactors, reprocessing facilities, and nuclear testing.
Tritium is emitted from the same sources and is also
produced naturally. The monitoring network may be
impacted by these "background" sources, but it is
designed to detect an increase in these levels due to
possible NTS emissions. Network samplers are
typically located in populated areas surrounding the
NTS with emphasis on drainage wind channels lead-
ing from the test areas. To provide complete and in-
depth coverage in the downwind sector, other sam-
plers are located in communities at some distance
from the NTS.
As indicated in Figure 16, in 1989 this network
consisted of 20 sampling stations located in the
states of Nevada, Utah, and California. In addition to
the 18 community monitoring stations, there are also
stations in Lathrop Wells and Pioche, Nevada. At
Milford and Delta, Utah, there are tritium samplers
installed, but they are only used on a standby basis.
Noble gas samplers will be installed at these stations
when they are available, then these will also be run
on a standby basis. The station at Salt Lake City,
Utah, has both tritium and noble gas samplers; the
tritium sampler is run on a routine basis, but the noble
gas sampler is run on a standby basis. Only tritium
samples are collected at Pioche, Nevada. There-
fore, there were 16 noble gas and 18 tritium sam-
pling stations routinely operating in 1989.
SECTION 4.2.3.2. METHODS
Noble gas samples are collected by compressing air
into storage tanks. The equipment continuously
samples air over a 7-day period and stores approxi-
Figure 15. EPA Monitoring Technician Changes Noble Gas Tanks and Checks Gauges at Community
Monitoring Station.
26
-------
mately 0.6 m3 of air in the tanks. The tanks are
exchanged weekly and returned to the EMSL-LV
where their contents are analyzed. Analysis starts
by condensing the samples at liquid nitrogen tem-
perature and using gas chromatography to sepa-
rate the various radionuclides. The separate frac-
tions of radioxenon and radiokrypton are dissolved
in scintillation cocktails and counted in a liquid scintil-
lation counter (see Chapter 8).
For tritium sampling, a molecular sieve column is used
to collect water from the sampled air. Up to 10 m3 of
air is passed through the column over a 7-day
sampling period. Water adsorbed on the molecular
NEVADA TUTAH
I PYRAMID
( LAKE
Austin
Ely I
\
Tonopah^
Goldfield*
PiocheA
Rachel
NSUJSAFB
RANGE COMPLEX
*V ^-v v«t*$8*
• Alamo
Delta T
T Milford
• Cedar City
• St George
ARIZONA
/ellslr—\J~LJ Overton
^ Indian Springs II
Pahrump* Las . ^jH^
o, „. «^ Vegas CS^\J
> Both Noble Gas and Tritium
• Tritium only
' Tritium on Standby only
i Noble Gas on Standby; Tritium
\ *'
\'
Scale in Miles
50 100
0 50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
5/90
Figure 16. Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network Sampling Locations.
27
-------
^3^K-1r^ m
W
-^5"^:^V^ €" \^
* ". **•* « "*^* '"* ^
Figure 17. EPA Monitoring Technician Changes Molecular Sieve on Tritium Air Sampler at Community
Monitoring Station.
28
-------
sieve is recovered, and the concentration of tritium in
the water is determined by liquid scintillation count-
ing (see Chapter 8). This result can then be com-
bined with the amount of water in the air sampled to
calculate the concentration of tritium in air.
SECTION 4.2.3.3. RESULTS
Figure 18 contains individual plots, listed by sam-
pling location, showing the 85Kr results for all samples
analyzed in 1989, with the error bars representing
E
c5
a.
CM
1
0
^
O
C
o
o
£
ID
oo
1
E
6
CM
|
O
^
U
C
o
O
£
lO
CO
1
£
o
CM
1
O
c.
U
C
o
O
£
LO
co
,1 C
^ ~J ~
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
n
u
Shoshone, CA
T
OT TTTT°OTTTT TT^ojyTTToTyjJJ^
OTOTO O^O-^OTT^ JOoJoOlT iooJoO JOfT^iOo?! l^OiO^Ho
.11 ?0 i 0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
n -
Alamo, NV
T ,
J° Jo ?° IT ^o^ -i- io1oio 1J-0 ii i i]11 L -"-Jil1 l-1-1!^ io
d 1 o i i i i i 1
II 1 1 1 1
^ 1 I 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ! ~1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
n -
Austin, NV
1 i ^
1 1 1 1 1
u T 1 " 1 ! 1 1 T 1 r I
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
o Concentration ± 2 S.D.
_L
Figure 18. Weekly 85Kr Concentrations in Air by Station, 1989 Data.
29
-------
E
o
i
0
•C,
u
c
o
o
^
00
1
E
^
CM
1
O
•C-
(J
C
O
o
£
00
_J
E
6
i
™
i
0
O
o
c
o
O
>-
m
CO
_
^
o
CM
:
0
.3-
o
c
O
£
00
t^>
40 -
35 -
30 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
Beatty, NV
T
OTT T TT T TTT
TT ^T o ?T i 1" 00° T ?0 T O -1 o T 09T 1 ?Io° T TO???T^ oio I -1-?1
^9 ?o? o 9 i i l S -1- i A ! ioi1o ?iin o 9 1 Tl -1- ° T^ i 9T i
1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 1TJ-1 I 1 ° J- 0
11 o Y 1 i
-
1 1 1
Q -1 - — — T | i | 1 | | |
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
4C
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 -
Caliente, NV
-
T 0 QO T T oT ^T 0TT^ T
S o il-l- ilio-^^llo1 ? o
11 -^ J_ i i-
_
l l l l i
i i r^ l l l i - i i n^ t '
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
4-^
H-o H
40 -
35
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
„
u i
Ely, NV
T T TT T ^ T
- T O InlOO'^Oo^-i-ifTTy T O i -L rs i 1^1 O 1 ^i^A^Oi
o i t -L -L 9 ^ 1 I 1 ^-^^ol? l 1 ^-^-l9 !
- 1 i i i
-
~
i i
^ ^ ^ t i i i i i 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
4-c
^.^j T
40 -
35 -
30 -
25
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 -
Goldfield, NV
T T T TT TT
-TT ° TToT oTToJo iT T, o T o-.^jTJio oo
ri>OTTTo o 1 ° O 9 -^ 1 •'•??•'• ?? Ty-1-0^ lo n 1 ° ^ -L? "^
Oo o^ ATjT-L_[_ ' Ofklj Til -^- OT
^ijiiOlo i j. j^ J- o lo
_
III 1
III 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
T Concentration ± 2 S.D.
J_
Figure 18. Continued.
30
-------
c
t
c5
CN
1
O
(J
C
O
o
>-
m
00
i
c
c
o
^-
^
1
o
C-
u
c
o
o
tri*
i
c
c
\
o
Cxi
^—
1
o
C-
(J
c
o
o
^
LO
_
E
a
™
i
o
'
u
c
o
o
£
ID
CO
t^
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 -
Indian Springs, NV
T
T T T T TTTTjT10T TT oo oj T o T JOT T
° l5°ooOTiTOoOiTi5iOoo IOT f o^ j 1 ^ ^i TTI ^ o-LoJo i f TO
i-Lj^O 1 -1- J-ll 1 ^
III III 1
1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
45
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
Las Vegas, NV
T T T T T T T
O TO|j_o9c?-,--rOj_7.LQQ(I)IOoj.l oT T^lT^i1? Oll^T_L|i_
I Ol J-OO-i- O ll-l-l 1 O |OyO -1-T1) o -i-
1 111 l1!11^ 1
i i
0 - i - r , | |
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
15
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
~
Lathrop Wells, NV
T T^ OTO"'"T T TT!T'T T T T T
yjT ijOj i JOT JvY i^oTTAT-r o ooA '"'A ^ o o
-OO "'"lO-LO i ToTOT|-L IVAoVo I III l^i -Lj^lT 1
_Lj_i OO^j_ IT Ol J-Q-L ll!1"* -L-1--L 111-L Q-L-LoT^
" 1 -"- 1
i i
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
15
40 -
35 -
30 -
9 c.
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
o
Overton, NV
T T y
- n oV^O 1 oO TO-Ll-L OlO-Ll^o '^Oii ^C)CyL\^r^
T i l^l^irs/^llTOl 1 1 1 1 T i -^ i. -^-|X I
f ill01 0
1 1
i ~" i i r^ 1 i i • ~~ .) j 1 — .
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
o Concentration + 2 S.D.
_L
Figure 18. Continued.
31
-------
E
\
o
CM
1
O
U
C
o
o
1-
m
CO
J
E
\
'^
i
o
O
o
c
o
o
^
LT)
oo
|
E
\
^_
2
I
0
j
c
o
o
i-
LT>
CO
^-^
j|_
0^
CN
1
O
(J
c
o
o
1-
CO
1-~l
40 -
35 -
30 -
?5
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
_
^
Pahrump, NV
T T T T T Tj TTTTT
T^AT-[-O T jlVAooQ i^oo! Y li-L/-\ ol ToVoi Q i^iii oi
oi.ooijoj i ^^T i,, ^ Lo ol_ l 1 1
11 III
1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 t 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
4S
n
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
,-.
Rachel, NV
T TT TT T OT T!
TTTTT 0 OTTTTO^jT^jjTJoTTT, ^T^TjT^J?^ oJlT
-LiXiiloQyii-'- o-1- ^ i x ill OT i
i 1 1 ? i i
~
i iii
U ~( i ii i
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
AC.
40 -
35 -
30 -
25
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0-
Tonopah, NV
To T T
TTT T JT TTTTT TTo TTT OrTTo Tj i IT^T T T^oJojT
6O6TOl |T9O|O9^T^)Ol 1^1 o O | lol^rNJ ^ *? J- *? O J- i -^ "'"O
1l1o i11!!1 1lili 1 1
i II II
t i t t 1 1 1 1 r I ------ 1-
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
45 -,
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
Cedar City, UT
T TT T TT T To TT TT 0T TT T° OT T TTOTOT5 T
900^°? ?o?°o? ° i L T 1 oo o? IQ -^ 1 ?1T1 T1?©0 i?1?^?1©? o
j_|J_i Tl-i-i-J- O _!_-L-L i TV O 1 I T-J-
1 1 1
II II
1 1 1 1 1 1 i \ i i
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
o Concentration ± 2 S.D.
_L
Figure 18. Continued.
32
-------
45
40 --
O 35 - -
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 18. Continued.
the two-standard deviation counting error. While
none of the 133Xe results exceeded the Minimum
Detectable Concentration (MDC), the 85Kr results
routinely exceeded the MDC due to the presence of
an enhanced background. The results are, however,
within the range expected due to statistical variations
in the analytical results obtained from background
sampling.
NGTSN sample results are summarized in Tables 6
and 7 for all sampling locations. This summary
consists of the maximum, minimum and average
concentration for each station. The number of
samples analyzed is typically less than the expected
number (fifty-two) since samples are occasionally
lost in the analysis process, an insufficient sample
volume is collected for analysis, or are not collected
due to equipment failure. Caliente has a smaller
number of samples processed than the other sites
because the noble gas sampler was not operational
until mid-July. Weekly network averages for 85Kr
concentrations (with two-standard deviation error
bars) measured in 1989 are shown in Figure 19. The
measured 85Kr concentrations ranged from 2.0 to
3.3 x 10'11 fiCi/mL (0.74 to 1.2 Bq/m3).
A paper presented in 1973 by Bernhardt et al.
(BE73), contained a curve predicting the 85Kr con-
centration for the future. In recent years, measured
levels have not reached those predicted, but have
increased less rapidly than expected. One reason
for this may be the decision by the United States to
defer fuel reprocessing, which is the step in the fuel
cycle where the majority of the krypton is actually
released.
A historical summary of data for this network shows
its trends overtime. Network average krypton results
for the past ten years are shown in Table 8, while
results forthe period 1 972-1 989 have been plotted in
Figure 20.
The average concentration forthe network, in 1989,
was 2.65 x 10-11nCi/mL (0.98 Bq/m3). This network
average concentration, as shown in Figure 20, has
gradually increased from the time sampling began in
1 972 to the present. This increase, observed at all
stations, reflects the worldwide increase in ambient
concentrations resulting from the increased use of
nuclear technology. There is no evidence in the B5Kr
results to indicate that the radioactivity detected
resulted from activities conducted at the NTS.
The analysis results for the 737 xenon samples
counted were all below the minimum detectable
concentration (MDC), which varied but was gener-
ally about 1.0 x 10-11 ^iCi/mL (0.37 Bq/m3).
As in the past, tritium concentrations in atmospheric
moisture samples from the sampling stations were
generally below the MDC of about 7.0 x 1 0-7(iCi/mL
(0.026 Bq/mL) of water (Table 7) . Of the 924 network
samples analyzed in 1989 only three slightly ex-
ceeded the MDC. Due to the statistical variations
associated with counting radioactive samples, some
samples may yield negative results, results between
33
-------
o
o
c
o
o
IT)
00
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-i h
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Network Weekly Averages for 1989
° Concentration ± 2 S.D.
Figure 19. Network Weekly Average 85Kr Concentrations in Air, 1989 Data.
45 -,
40 -
E 35-
U 30-
CM
T 25-
o
O 20-
o
c§ 15-
^ 10-
oo
5-
0-
19
Annual Network Average
0 0 0 o ° ° °
o
o
00
0 0
70 1975 1980 1985 1990
Time in Years
Figure 20. Annual Network Average 85Kr Concentration.
34
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE
NOBLE GAS SURVEILLANCE NETWORK - 1989
SAMPLING
LOCATION
SHOSHONE,
CA
ALAMO,
NV
AUSTIN,
NV
BEATTY,
NV
CALIENTE,
NV
ELY,
NV
GOLDFIELD,
NV
INDIAN SPRINGS,
NV
LAS VEGAS,
NV
LATHROP WELLS,
NV
OVERTON,
NV
PAHRUMP,
NV
RACHEL,
NV
TONOPAH,
NV
CEDAR CITY,
UT
ST GEORGE,
UT
NUMBER
SAMPLES
ANALYZED
48
48
45
47
45
45
50
51
18
18
43
43
51
51
49
49
49
49
43
44
49
49
47
48
48
48
49
51
48
48
47
48
RADIOACTIVITY CONC.
(10-12|oCi/mL)*
RADIONUCLIDE
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
85 Kr
133 Xe
MAX
31
7.7
32
8.1
31
11
32
11
29
5.7
30
10
32
12
32
13
31
12
30
9.4
31
10
31
4.5
32
9.0
33
11
30
11
30
8.3
MIN
21
-6.7
22
-16
21
-18
20
-10
25
-17
22
-16
21
-14
21
-5.5
21
-12
21
-7.5
21
-13
20
-8.0
21
-10
22
-13
20
-8.8
20
-14
AVG
27
1.1
27
-0.018
27
-0.55
27
1.8
27
-1.4
26
0.42
26
0.82
26
0.75
26
1.1
26
0.16
26
0.41
26
0.23
27
0.47
27
-0.15
26
0.52
26
0.085
PERCENT
CONC.
GUIDE"
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
* The units used in this table (W2 \iCi/mL) are equal to, and the values in the table may be read as, pd/rrf.
" The concentration guides referenced are calculated from the Annual Limit on Intake (ALI), listed in ICRP-30 and (where applicable) are based
on the respiration rate of standard man, with the resulting exposure being equal to the non-occupational exposure guide of 25 mrem tor
exposure from radionuclides in air.
35
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE
TRITIUM IN AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORK— 1989
SAMPLING
LOCATION
SHOSHONE,
CA
ALAMO,
NV
AUSTIN,
NV
BEATTY,
NV
CALIENTE,
NV
ELY,
NV
GOLDFIELD,
NV
INDIAN SPRINGS,
NV
LAS VEGAS,
NV
LATHROP WELLS
NV
OVERTON,
NV
PAHRUMP,
NV
PIOCHE,
NV
RACHEL,
NV
TONOPAH,
NV
CEDAR CITY,
UT
ST GEORGE,
UT
SALT LAKE CITY,
UT
NUMBER
SAMPLES
ANALYZED
52
52
51
51
52
52
51
51
52
52
52
52
52
52
50
50
52
52
, 50
50
52
52
51
51
52
52
52
52
51
48
52
52
52
52
51
51
RADIOACTIVITY CONC.
(lO^iiCi/mL)*
RADIONUCLIDE
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
3H in atm. m.*
3H as HTO in air
MAX
0.81
3.6
0.42
6.6
0.59
3.2
0.74
11
0.74
4.1
0.68
3.9
0.58
4.3
0.87
4.9
0.71
2.6
0.79
4.7
0.63
4.5
0.57
4.3
0.39
3.5
0.62
4.2
0.59
3.9
0.60
4.9
0.50
7.8
0.72
4.2
MIN.
-0.53
-2.1
-1.3
-24
-1.4
-9.3
-1.1
-11
-0.50
-2.9
-1.3
-11
-1.2
-11
-0.67
-1.8
-0.29
-1.7
-0.41
-2.4
-0.52
-3.1
-0.33
-2.0
-0.45
-2.6
-1.3
-15
-1.0
-7.1
-0.30
-1.8
-0.66
-3.5
-0.66
-3.5
AVG
0.079
0.44
0.0061
-0.087
-0.039
-0.16
0.064
0.52
0.061
0.30
0.00098
0.045
0.047
0.23
0.066
0.37
0.076
0.40
0.056
0.28
0.036
0.17
0.068
0.29
0.033
0.22
0.019
0.016
-0.017
-0.14
0.081
0.44
0.036
0.51
0.063
0.40
PERCENT
CONC.
GUIDE"
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
* Concentrations of Inflated water vapor in air are given in units of irjepd/mL (pd/rrP) of air while the activity of tritium in atmospheric moisture
is given in units of 1(}6yCi/mL (pCi/mL) of water.
" The concentration guides referenced are calculated from the Annual Limit on Intake (ALI), listed in ICRP-30 and (where applicable) are based
on the respiration rate of standard man, with the resulting exposure being equal to the non-occupational exposure guide of 25 mrem for
exposure from radionuclides in air.
36
-------
zero and the MDC, or some small percentage of the
time even exceed the MDC yielding a false positive
indication. Results between zero and the MDC are
not necessarily real but are below the sensitivity of
the method. Results that slightly exceed the MDC
may be true indicators of some slight elevation in
activity levels or, as previously indicated, could be a
result of statistical counting variations only. The
range of tritium concentrations observed at the
sampling stations was considered to be representa-
tive of statistical variations in counting background
samples and not indicative of the presence of
increased 3H levels in the environment.
In conclusion, the sampling network found no detect-
able increase in noble gas or tritium levels which
could be attributed to activities at the NTS.
TABLE 8. ANNUAL AVERAGE 85Kr CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR, 1980-1989
SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
Mammoth Lakes, CA*
Shoshone, CA
Alamo, NV
Austin, NV
Beatty, NV
Caliente, NV
Ely, NV
Goldfield, NV
Groom Lake, NV*
Hiko, NV*
Indian Springs, NV
Las Vegas, NV
Lathrop Wells, NV
NTS, Mercury, NV*
NTS, BJY, NV*
NTS, Area 12, NV*
NTS, Area 15, NV*
NTS, Area 400, NV*
Overton, NV
Pahrump, NV
Rachel, NV
Tonopah, NV
Cedar City, UT
St. George, UT
Salt Lake City, UT*
NETWORK AVERAGE
1980
—
21
—
21
21
21
22
21
23
21
21
21
—
21
21
—
—
21
1981
—
27
24
—
24
24
24
24
24
23
26
24
25
23
26
23
24
25
—
—
24
KKr CONCENTRATIONS (10'12 u£i/mL)
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
25
24
24
25
24
25
—
26
24
24
24
—
—
—
24
24
26
24
25
24
25
24
25
25
25
24
25
24
—
25
24
26
—
—
—
25
24
24
25
24
25
25
25
23
24
23
23
22
24
—
22
23
22
—
—
—
23
23
22
23
22
23
25
23
24
24
25
25
24
24
—
24
25
24
—
—
—
24
25
24
25
24
24
25
24
25
24
25
26
26
25
—
26
25
25
—
—
—
25
25
25
25
24
24
—
25
1987
26
26
26
25
26
25
25
—
26
25
25
—
—
—
25
26
25
26
26
25
—
26
1988
25
25
25
25
26
24
25
25
—
25
26
26
—
—
—
26
25
26
25
25
26
—
25
1989
27
27
27
27
27
26
26
—
26
26
26
—
—
—
26
26
27
27
26
26
—
26
Stations discontinued.
No station was operational at that location during that year.
37
-------
Section 4.2.4. Milk Surveillance Network (MSN)
C. J. Rizzardi
Because it is one of the most universally consumed
foodstuffs, and because certain radionuclides from
any source are readily traceable through the food
chain from feed/forage to consumer, milk is particu-
larly important in assessing levels of radioactivity in
a given area and, especially, the exposure of the
population as a result of ingesting milk or milk prod-
ucts. Accordingly, milk is closely monitored by the
EMSL-LV through two intensive and interrelated
networks: the Milk Surveillance Network (MSN) and
the Standby Milk Surveillance Network (SMSN).
SECTION 4.2.4.1. DESIGN
The MSN consists of 27 locations at which samples
of raw milk are collected from either privately owned
or dairy milk cows and goats. These locations are
within a 300-kilometer radius of the Nevada Test Site
to maintain timely surveillance for radioactivity that
may result from the NTS nuclear testing program.
The SMSN consists of 106 sampling locations within
the major milksheds west of the Mississippi River,
except Texas where the State Health Department
operates its own milk surveillance network. In the
SMSN, samples are collected by State Food and
Drug Administration personnel on request through
EPA Regional Offices and analyzed at the EMSL-LV
to determine radioactivity from any source.
SECTION 4.2.4.2. METHODS
In either network, raw milk is collected in four-liter
collapsible cubitainers and preserved with formalde-
hyde. Routinely in the MSN, samples are collected
monthly, and in the SMSN annually on a routine
basis, orwhenever local or worldwide radiation events
suggest possible radiation concerns, such as the
Chernobyl incident or nuclear testing by foreign
nations. All samples are analyzed by high resolution
gamma spectroscopy to detect gamma-emitting
radionuclides. One sample per quarter from each
MSN location and from two locations in each western
state in the SMSN are evaluated by radiochemical
analysis. These samples are analyzed for tritium by
liquid scintillation counting and for 89Sr and 90Sr by an
ion exchange method, as outlined in Chapter 8,
Sample Analysis Procedures. Figures 22 and 23
show the locations of the collection sites.
Figure 21. EPA Monitoring Technician Collects Milk Sample
From Commercial Dairy.
38
-------
NEVADA | UTAH
• Austin
• Young Rn
McKay Rn
• Ely
Round Mm
Berg Rn •
Blue Jay Springs
Manzonie Rn
Currant •
• Lund
R Horsley
Blue Eagle Rn
a
•*v
Lemon Rn
Dyer*
I Brown Rn •
Benton •
~ ,., , .
G°'df'e
Warm- _
Springs ™
Twin
Springs
Rn
Nyala
Sharp's Rn
Milk Sampling Locations
Rachel
I
Becky Shorten clliente
;
i
j
i
j
i
• Harbecke Rn
• Shoshone
•
•
I
•
I
j
i
June Cox
|Rn
I Alamo
Cortney
Dahl Rn
Moapa
_
| •
1
.
Cedar City
• Brent Jones
0a'rV
Ivins
David Hafen
Amargosa Valley
John Deere
NOTE When sampling location occurred
in city or town the sampling location
symbol was used for showing both town
and samphnq location
IndiaT,
X sPrin9s
Pahrump • Susan Cam
-
-------
Figure 23. Standby Milk Surveillance Network Stations.
SECTION4.2.4.3. RESULTS
The analytical results for MSN are in Table 9 and for
the SMSN in Table 10. In analysis for gamma emit-
ters, only naturally occurring 40K was detected in
samples from either network. Concentrations of
radioactivity above minimum detectable levels were
measured in several samples: tritium in two MSN
locations (Inyokern, CA, and Currant, NV) and two
SMSN locations (Delta, CO, and Fosston, MN); and
radiostrontiums in seven samples from six different
locations in the MSN, and eleven in the SMSN as
shown in the accompanying tables. The results were
just slightly above the minimum detectable amount
for the samples and could represent the 5 percent
false positive results that could be expected.
Figure 24 shows how levels of 90Sr in Las Vegas, New
Orleans and Salt Lake City milk samples have de-
creased continuously since the 1960s when atmos-
pheric nuclear tests were conducted worldwide.
Results from the New Orleans samples, as shown in
the figure, have been consistently higher because of
greater soil inventory of radiostrontiums from atmos-
pheric testing as a result of weather patterns and pre-
cipitation. Although these figures were compiled
through the Pasteurized Milk Network operated by
the EPA's Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility,
Montgomery, Alabama, data from samples collected
in the MSN and SMSN overthe years indicate acom-
parable downward trend in levels of radioactivity.
To facilitate surveillance activities, a comprehensive
census of milk cows/goats is compiled. Updated
through interim survey as part of routine monitoring
and by general resurvey every two years, this infor-
mation is computerized and a Milk Cow Directory is
published containing the number of cows/goats, the
type of feed, use of the milk (marketed or consumed
by the family), and the precise location of the collec-
tion source by both latitude and longitude and road/
mileage directions. This survey covers all of Nevada
and the counties in California, Idaho, and Utah that
border Nevada. The comprehensive resurvey was
conducted in 1989 and the Milk Cow Directory will be
published and distributed in early 1990.
40
-------
A New Orleans
• Salt Lake City*
• Las Vegas
No sample reported for 1988 and 1989
1960
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Figure 24. Strontium-90 Concentration in Pasteurized Milk Network Samples.
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE MILK SURVEILLANCE NETWORK -1989
SAMPLING LOCATION
BENTON CA
1. BROWN RANCH
HINKLEYCA
DESERT VIEW DAIRY
INYOKERN CA
CEDARSAGE FARM
ALAMO NV
C. DAHL RANCH
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
01/04
04/04
07/12
09/02
01/03
04/03
07/12
10/03
01/03
04/04
07/12
10/03
02/02
05/02
08/08
11/01
CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
3H
(10-VCi/mL)
233 ±
233 ±
-170±
154 +
43 +
197 +
146 +
201 ±
650 ±
141 ±
128 +
282 ±
36 ±
19 +
-9±
-35 ±
369
342
259
231
370
315
266
246
377
328
261
259
368
322
263
249
(602)
(558)
(431)
(376)
(609)
(515)
(435)
(401)
(608)"
(537)
(427)
(420)
(606)
(531)
(434)
(412)
89Sr
(10'VCi/mL) (10
0.7
0.2
-1.2
2.3
-9.1
0.02
-1.4
0.6
-1.0
1.3
-1.6
1.9
-1.9
-0.6
0.8
±10.4
±2.7
±3.9
+ 6.2
±12.7
+ 2.3
±5
±3.2
±8.0
±5.7
+ 4.3
±3
+ 6.2
±3.4
±3.5
(5.3)
(2.2)
(3.3)
(4.1)
(7.2)
(2)
(3.9)
(2.8)
(4.2)
(3.6)
(3.4)
(2.5)
(4.3)
(2.5)
(2.9)
0.4
1.7
0.5
0.3
1.2
0.6
0.9
-0.02
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.04
0.7
0.6
0.2
±
±
+
+
±
+
±
±
+
+
±
»Sr
•9|,Qj
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.7
0.5
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.2
0.9
+ 0.5
±
+
±
*
0.9
0.9
0.6
/ml)
(2)
(1.4)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(2.6)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(1.4)
(1.6)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.8)
(1.3)
(Continued)
41
-------
SAMPLING LOCATION
AUSTIN NV
YOUNG'S RANCH
BLUE JAY NV
BLUE JAY SPRGS RANCH
CURRANT NV
BLUE EAGLE RANCH
CURRANT NV
MANZONIE RANCH
DYER NV
LEMON RANCH
ELYNV
MCKAY RANCH
GOLDFIELD NV
FRAYNE RANCH
GOLDFIELD NV
S. SCOTT RANCH
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
03/16
06/14
09/12
12/01
03/02
06/07
09/11
12/04
01/05
03/10
09/11
12/05
03/01
06/17
10/03
12/05
03/15
06/21
09/12
12/07
02/01
05/02
08/08
11/08
01/11
03/17
05/12
12/01
01/11
03/10
12/07
TABLE
9.
(Continued)
CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
3H
(10-9|iCi/mL)
289
374
203
7
245
322
-54
-5
87
11
327
524
277
175
74
309
86
284
54
264
205
-6
490
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
337
313
272
245
326
308
262
240
236
245
326
318
250
253
327
306
268
247
372
323
279
304
337
(549)
(508)
(444)
(404)
(533)
(401)
(433)
(396)
(387)
(404)
(531)
(514)"
(405)
(413)
(537)
(498)
(440)
(400)
(611)
(527)
(455)
(502)
(545)
""Sr
(10-9nCi/mL)
1.4 ±4.4 (2.4)
1.8 ±4.6 (3.3)
0.6 ±4.3 (2.8)
*
2.1 ± 4.4 (3.2)
*>Sr
(10-9|iCi/mL)
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.05
0.7 ±1.6 (1.1) -0.004
1.6 ±4.2 (3.1)
*
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
-0.8 ± 3.7 (2.2)
*
0.4 ± 5.5 (3.3)
-0.06 ±2.1 (1.6)
0.21
1.6
0.1
0.3
2.5 ± 4 (3.2) -0.02
*
2.4 + 5 (2.8)
0.9+2.0 (1.7)
0.01 ±4.4 (3)
*
3.3 ± 15.2 (7.1)
-1.2 ±2 (1.5)
-0.08 ± 2.8 (2.2)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
1.8 ±5 (3)
-1.6 ±5.6 (4.2)
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.4
1
0.5
0.7
1.3
±1.0
±1
±0.9
*
±0.9
±0.7
±0.84
*
±0.8
*
±1.0
±0.8
+ 0.7
*
± 1.1
±0.5
±0.9
±1.7
±0.6
+ 0.8
±1.2
+ 1.2
(1.4)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(1.6)
(1.4)"
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.6)
(2.2)
(1.4)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(2.2)
NO SAMPLE - GOATS DRY
NO SAMPLE -GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE -GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
(Continued)
42
-------
TABLES. (Continued)
CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
SAMPLING LOCATION
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
S. CARR RANCH
LAS VEGAS NV
D. ANDERSON (IDS FARMS)
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
05/01
09/05
11/06
01/02
04/06
05/08
07/14
10/02
3H
(10-'|iCi/mL)
235 ±313 (511)
55 ± 232 (381)
-28 ± 238 (393)
214 ± 366 (598)
55 ± 326 (537)
363 ± 304 (494)
312+ 281 (456)
269 ± 252 (409)
"Sr
(10-9nCi/mL)
0.915.4 (3.1)
2.7 ± 5.7 (3.6)
*
1.1 ±10.1 (5.3)
*
0.09 ±1.7 (1.5)
-4.4 ± 5.9 (4.7)
2.3 ± 3.7 (3)
»Sr
(10-»nCi/mL)
0.8 + 1.2 (1.8)
0.5 +1.0 (1.7)
i,
0.3 + 1.3 (2)
0.5+0.6 (1.3)
0.3 + 0.6 (1.3)
1.2 + 1.1 (2.5)
-0.1 +0.7 (1.4)
(Out of Business, November 1989)
AMARGOSA VALLEY
J. DEERE RANCH
LOGANDALE NV
L. MARSHALL
LUND NV
R. PEACOCK
01/10
03/10
06/08
07/11
08/02
09/07
12/01
02/01
05/01
08/07
11/02
02/01
NO SAMPLE - GOATS DRY
-62 + 316 (523)
264 + 314 (512)
*
-2.6 ± 233 (384)
206 ± 269 (438)
190 ± 366 (599)
-178± 321 (533)
-52 ± 231 (381)
204 ± 250 (406)
490 ± 376 (609)
-0.1 + 4.0 (2.6)
-0.4 ±2.1 (1.9)
*
-0.8 ± 4.7 (3.6)
0.3 ± 6.7 (4.4)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
-0.7 ± 5.4 (3.8)
0.3 +2.2 (1.7)
6.9 ± 7.7 (5.7)
*
1.7 ±6.5 (4)
-0.01 ±0.8 (1.4)
0.3 +0.5 (1.2)
*
0.7+0.7 (1.4)
0.7 + 1.2 (2)
0.3 +0.7 (1.2)
-0.2+0.6 (1.5)
-0.3 ± 1.1 (1.9)
*
0.6+0.9 (1.3)
LUND NV
HORSLEY RANCH f
MESQUITE NV
SPEDA BROTHERS DAIRY
MOAPA NV
ROCKVIEW DAIRIES, INC.
NYALA NV
SHARP'S RANCH
03/02
05/02
08/08
11/09
01/03
04/02
07/03
10/02
01/03
04/03
07/03
10/02
03/10
06/06
09/06
12/04
60+319 (525)
60 + 320 (527)
3± 232 (381)
68+ 253 (416)
100 +369 (606)
-108± 322 (533)
157+ 266 (435)
100 + 235 (385)
68 ± 370 (608)
142± 323 (528)
81 ± 270 (442)
52 ±232 (381)
230 ± 319 (521)
252 ±310 (506)
128+ 269 (441)
59 ± 239 (393)
0.3 ±11.6 (7.5)
1.5+2.5 (1.9)
1.4+2.9 (2.3)
1.8 ±2.5 (1.8)
-0.7 ± 3.0 (2.2)
1 + 2.8 (2.1)
-0.4 + 3.1 (2)
-4.3 + 9.4 (4.8)
-0.2 ± 3.2 (2.4)
0.2 + 2.6 (2.3)
1.0 ±3.0 (2)
0.2 ± 6.1 (4.3)
-0.9 ±2.6 (1.9)
1.7 ±4.1 (2.9)
0.1 + 2.1 (3.3)
-0.1 ±0.7 (1.4)
-0.3 +0.8 (1.8)
-0.2 ±0.7 (1.4)
-0.1 ±1.4 (2.1)
1.4+0.7 (1.3)*'
1 +0.6 (1.3)
1 ±0.8 (1.5)
1.1 +1.2 (1.8)
0.7 ±0.7 (1.4)
0.2 ±0.5 (1.4)
0.2 ±0.8 (1.5)
0.4 ±1.3 (2.2)
0.7 ±0.8 (1.6)
0.8 ±0.8 (1.5)
(Continued)
43
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
SAMPLING LOCATION
PAHRUMP NV
PAHRUMP DAIRY
H. HETTINGA
CALIENTE NV
J. COX RANCH
ROUND MT NV
BERG'S RANCH
SHOSHONE NV
HARBECKE RANCH
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
11/07
01/03
03/04
05/01
08/07
11/08
01/11
06/14
08/09
12/01
02/01
05/01
08/07
11/08
CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
3H
(10'VCi/mL)
-154+ 241 (401)
89Sr
(10-9(iCi/mL)
*
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
*>St
(10'9nCi/mL)
*
NO SAMPLE - GOATS DRY
35 ± 326 (537)
249 ± 275 (447)
302 ± 267 (434)
433 ± 315 (512)
-121 + 231 (384)
129 + 372 (610)
240 ± 328 (534)
192 ± 274 (447)
206 ± 249 (405)
-0.3 ±1.8 (1.4)
1.8 ±4.9 (3.9)
3.3+2.8 (1.9)**
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
1.6+4.1 (3.1)
2.4 + 5.3 (3.8)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
4.5 ± 13.9 (8.3)
-0.5 ±2.6 (1.7)
2.7 + 6.8 (4.2)
3+3.6 (1.9)
0.4 ± 0.6
0.1 ± 0.7
-0.8 + 0.8
0.7 ± 0.8
0.6 + 0.8
1.5 ± 1.1
2.1 + 0.8
2.3 +1
1.9 ± 1
(1.3)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(1.7)
(1.4)"
(1.6)**
(1.5)"
RACHEL NV
B. SHORTELL
WARM SPRINGS NV
06/07
254+ 316 (516)
-0.8 ±2.8 (1.9)
* Sample not analyzed for this radionuclide.
" Concentration is greater than the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC).
f Replacement for R. Peacock.
ft Replacement for T. Cannon.
1.2 ± 1.2 (2.1)
TWIN SPRINGS RANCH
CEDAR CITY UT
B. JONES DAIRY
IVINS UT
D. HAFEN RANCH ft
ST GEORGE UT
T. CANNON
03/01
06/14
09/11
12/05
01/03
04/03
07/03
10/02
07/03
10/06
01/06
04/03
98 +
247 ±
323
301
(531)
(490)
0.9
2
±7.7
+ 3
(4.8)
(2.4)
1
0.7
+
+
1.4
0.7
(2.2)
(1.4)
NO SAMPLE
NO SAMPLE
135 ±
198 +
151 +
43 ±
-301 +
-10 ±
198 +
174 ±
370
338
274
227
261
231
369
329
(607)
(553)
(448)
(373)
(437)
(380)
(603)
(539)
-1.4
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.3
3.2
0.9
*
±2.7
+ 2.7
±3.2
±2.8
±3.2
±9.3
+ 2.2
(2)
(2.2)
(2.1)
(2.2)
(1.9)
(5)
(2)
-0.8
1.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.1
-0.4
-0.1
+ 1.9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.3
0.5
(2.8)
(1.3)"
(1.3)
(1.5)
(1.3)
(1.5)
(2)
(1.3)
44
-------
TABLE 10. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1989
TAYLOR AZ
SUNRISE DAIRY 08/10
TUCSON AZ
SHAMROCK DAIRY (PIMA CO) 08/1 1
LITTLE ROCK AR
BORDENS 11/20
RUSSELLVILLE AR
ARKANSAS TECH UNIV 08/30
BAKERSFIELD CA
FAVORITE FOODS, INC 07/20
WEED CA
CRANDALL'S CREAMERY 08/16
WILLOWS CA
GLENN MILK PRODUCERS 08/14
ASSOCIATION
CANON CITY CO
JUNIPER VALLEY FARMS DRY 07/17
DELTA CO
MEADOW GOLD DAIRY 07/29
QUINCY IL
PRAIRIE FARMS DAIRY 06/13
BOISE ID
MEADOW GOLD DAIRIES 08/1 7
IDAHO FALLS ID
REEDS DAIRY 08/21
DUBUQUE IA
SWISS VALLEY FARMS, INC 06/1 2
ELLIS KS
MID-AMERICA DAIRY 06/07
SABETHA KS
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN 06/19
MONROE LA
BORDEN'S DAIRY 09/06
NEW ORLEANS LA
BROWN'S VELVET DRY PRO 08/1 6
FOR THE STANDBY MILK SURVEILLANCE NETWORK - 1989
CONC.±2S.D
3H
(10-9nCi/mL)
247 +
49 ±
29 ±
217 ±
44 ±
-66 +
173 ±
270 ±
458 +
375 ±
217 ±
335 ±
404 ±
444 ±
289 +
29 +
119±
276
263
250
265
267
232
272
268
278
319
269
260
307
338
307
236
262
(450)
(433)
(412)
(431)
(439)
(384)
(445)
(437)
(448)"
(517)
(438)
(421)
(498)
(547)
(388)
(429)
83Sr
(10-9|iCi/mL)
-0.3 ± 2.1
2.7 ±5.7
0.7 ± 2.9
0.8 ±6.1
1.2 ±4.7
0.1 ±3.1
-0.9 ± 1.6
-0.2 ±2.3
0.2 ±3.20
-0.6 ± 2.7
-1.5 ±3.4
-0.4 + 2.5
1.5 ±2.9
0.4 ± 1.4
-0.6 ±2.6
3.4 ± 4.2
*
(1.9)
(4)
(1.6)
(3.4)
(3.2)
(2.8)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(2.8)
(1.9)
(2.6)
(2)
(2)
(0.96)
(2.5)
. (MDC)
(10'9|iCi/mL)
0.5 ±0.7 (1.6)
0.1 ±0.8 (1.6)
2.4 ±1 (1.5)"
2 ±1.1 (1.6)"
0.2 ±1.4 (2.5)
-0.02 ± 1.0 (2.2)
1 ±0.6 (1.3)
0.5 ±0.6 (1.4)
0.6 ±0.8 (1.9)
1.7 ±1 (1.7)
1.2 ±1.1 (2.1)
0.4 ±0.8 (1.8)
1.2 ±1 (1.7)
0.9 ±0.7 (1.3)
1.5 ±1
1.1 ±0.9 (1.5)
*
(Continued)
45
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1989
FOSSTON MN
LAND 0' LAKES INC
ROCHESTER MN
ASSOC.MILK PROD.INC(AMPI)
AURORA MO
MID-AMERICA DAIRY INC
CHILLICOTHE MO
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN
BILLINGS MT
MEADOW GOLD DAIRY
KALISPELLMT
EQUITY SUPPLY CO.
NORFOLK NE
GILLETTE DAIRY
NORTH PLATTE NE
MID AMERICA DAIRYMEN
ALBUQUERQUE NM
BORDEN'S VALLEY GOLD
LA PLATA NM
RIVER EDGE DAIRY
BISMARCK ND
BRIDGEMAN CREAMERY, INC
GRAND FORKS ND
MINNESOTA DAIRY
ENID OK
AMPI GOLDSPOT DIVISION
MCALESTER OK
JACKIE BRANNON CORR CTR
CORVALLIS OR
SUNNY BROOK DAIRY
MEDFORD OR
DAIRYGOLD FARMS
TILLAMOOK OR
TILLAMOOK CO CRMY
06/26
06/22
06/14
06/28
11/14
12/06
06/26
06/27
12/30
12/30
09/10
09/11
06/29
07/02
08/16
08/16
08/22
CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
3H
(10-9nCi/mL)
494 ± 305 (492)"
435 + 305 (494)
377 ± 297 (482)
236 ± 305 (498)
121 +225
-44 ± 240 (397)
369 +311 (505)
309 ±318 (517)
211 ± 255 (415)
232 ± 247 (401)
-16± 266
-101 ± 264 (437)
265 ± 296 (482)
366 ±316 (514)
363 ± 259 (419)
157± 262 (428)
207 + 266 (434)
89Sr
(10-9nCi/mL)
1.9+3 (1.9)
-1.3 ±3.1 (2.1)
0.5+3.0 (1.8)
-0.3 +2.4 (1.5)
-0.02 + 2.9
*
0.3 + 3.3 (2)
1.1 ±2.9 (1.7)
SAMPLE RECEIVED
SAMPLE RECEIVED
0.6 ±4.0
1.6+4.8 (2.8)
2.2 +2.9 (1.9)
0.4 ±2.1 (1.4)
-0.4 ± 3.3 (2.7)
-0.3+2.1 (1.8)
0.6 ±2.1 (1.6)
*>Sr
(10-9nCi/mL)
1.6 ±0.8
1.7 + 1.1
2.5 ±1.1
2.3 ± 0.7
1.9 ±0.9"
*
2 ±0.8
1.6 ±0.7
1/25/90
1/25/90
2.3 + 0.9"
1.8 ±1.1
0.9 ±0.8
1.0 ±0.6
0.7 ±1.0
0.7 ± 0.7
1 .4 + 0.8
(1.3)"
(2)
(1.6)"
(1.2)"
(1.4)"
(1.3)"
(1.6)".
(1.4)
(1.2)
(2.1)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(Continued)
46
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
CONC.+2S.D.
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1989
RAPID CITY SD
GILLETTE DRY-BLACK HILLS 08/09
SIOUX FALLS SD
LAND O'LAKES INC 08/1 1
BEAVER UT
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY 08/13
PROVO UT
BYU DAIRY PRODUCTS LAB 08/1 7
SEATTLE WA
DARIGOLDJNC 08/17
SPOKANE WAS
DARIGOLD INC 08/21
CHEYENNE WY
DAIRY GOLD FOODS 08/15
SHERIDAN WY
MYLAND DAIRY 11/14
'Samples not analyzed.
3H "Sr
(10'VCi/mL) (lO-^Ci/mL)
215+ 257 (419)
263 ± 276 (450) -0.3 + 3.0 (2)
-52+ 269 (444) 0.8 ±1.7 (1.3)
53 ± 260 (427)
111 + 256 (419) -2.9 ±7.7 (6)
403 ± 267 (432) -1.2 ±3.2 (2.3)
127+253
15 ± 229 (378) -0.4 ±2.7 (1.7)
(MDC)
"Sr
(10-9|iCi/mL)
*
1.5 ±0.9 (1.7)
0.6+0.6 (1.3)
*
0.8 + 2.0 (4)
2 ± 1.1 (2)
*
1.7 ±0.9 (1.4)"
"Concentration is greater than the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC).
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLES FROM THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS
ANALYZED BY GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY ONLY:
(IN ALL CASES ONLY NATURALLY OCCURRING
RADIONUCLIDES WERE DETECTED)
PIMA AZ
PIMA DAIRY
TEMPEAZ
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF AZ
YUMAAZ
COMBS DAIRY
BATESVILLE AR
HILLS VALLEY FOODS
FAYETTEVILLEAR
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
HELENDALE CA
OSTERKAMP DAIRY NO 2
COLLECTION
DATE
1989 SAMPLING LOCATION
WERE CHINO CA
: GAINST FOR MEN
FERNBRIDGE CA
HUMBOLDT CREAMERY
FRESNO CA
CA STATE UNIV CREAMERY
HOLTVILLE CA
08/1 0 SCHAFFNER & SON DAIRY
MANTECACA
08/09 LEGEND DAIRY
MODESTO CA
08/10 FOSTER FARMS DAIRY
OXNARD CA
08/28 CHASE BROS DAIRY
PETALUMA CA
08/29 CA CO-OP CREAMERY
REDDING CA
11/21 MCCOLL'S DAIRY PROD
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
08/22
08/15
08/16
08/20
08/15
08/17
08/22
08/15
08/17
(Continued)
47
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
SAN JOSE CA
MARQUEZ BROS MEXICAN CHEE
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA
CAL POLY UNIV DAIRY
SAUGUS CA
WAYSIDE HONOR RANCH
CRESENTCITYCA
RUMIANO CHEESE CO
MANCHESTER CA
CA CO-OP CREAMERY
FT COLLINS CO
POUDRE VALLEY CREAMERY
GRAND JCT CO
GRAFF DAIRY
CALDWELL ID
DAIRYMENS CREAMERY ASSN
LEWISTON ID
GOLDEN GRAIN DAIRY PROD
POCATELLO ID
ROWLAND'S MEADOWGOLD DRY
TWIN FALLS ID
TRIANGLE YOUNG'S DAIRY
KIMBALLTON IA
ASSOC. MILK PRO.INC (AMPI)
LAKE MILLS IA
LAKE MILLS COOP CRMY
LEMARS IA
WELLS DAIRY
MANHATTAN KS
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
SHREVEPORT LA
FOREMOST DAIRY
FERGUS FALLS MN
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN
BROWERVILLE MN
LAND 0' LAKES, INC.
NICOLLET MN
DOUG SCHULTZ FARM
JACKSON MO
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN INC
JEFFERSON CITY MO
CENTRAL DAIRY CO
BOZEMAN MT
COUNTRY CLASSIC-DAIRYGOLD
GREAT FALLS MT
MEADOW GOLD DAIRY
SOLEDAD CA
CORR TRAINING FAC DAIRY
TRACY CA
DEUELVOCINST
08/15
08/14
08/22
08/15
08/15
07/26
08/19
08/18
08/22
08/28
08/25
06/13
06/19
06/15
06/13
09/05
06/23
07/10
06/21
06/13
06/09
06/06
11/15
08/17
08/15
SUPERIOR NE
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN
FALLON NV
CREAMLAND DAIRY
LOGANDALE NV
NEVADA DAIRY
RENO NV
MODEL DAIRY
YERINGTON NV
VALLEY DAIRY
DEVILS LAKE ND
LAKE VIEW DAIRY
FARGO ND
CASSCLAY CREAMERY
ATOKA OK
MUNGLE DAIRY
CLAREMORE OK
SWAN BROS DAIRY
EUGENE OR
LOCHMEAD FARMS INC.
GRANTS PASS OR
VALLEY OF ROGUE DAIRY
OMAHA NE
ROBERTS DAIRY-MARSHALL GR
CHAPPELL NE
LEPRINO FOODS
KLAMATH FALLS, OR
KLAMATH DAIRY PRODUCTS
COVE OR
WILHARRY DAIRY
MYRTLE POINT OR
SAFEWAY STORES INC
PORTLAND OR
DARIGOLD FARMS
REDMOND OR
EBERHARD'S CREAMERY INC
MITCHELL SD
CULHANE DAIRY
VOLGA SD
LAND O'LAKES INC
OGDEN UT
WESTERN DAIRYMEN CO-OP
RICHFIELD UT
IDEAL DAIRY
MOSES LAKE WA
SAFEWAY STORES INC
RIVERTON WY
WESTERN DAIRYMAN CO-OP
07/01
07/11
07/11
07/11
07/11
08/30
09/18
10/09
06/22
08/17
08/16
06/27
06/29
07/30
08/15
08/18
08/28
08/17
08/08
08/10
08/14
08/14
08/21
08/13
48
-------
Section 4.2.5. Biomonitoring Program
D. D. Smith
The pathwaysfortransport of radionuclides to humans
include air, water and food. Monitoring of air, water,
and milk are discussed elsewhere in this report.
Meat from grazing animals and locally grown fruit
and vegetables are food components that may be
potential routes of exposure to offsite residents.
Grazing animals ingest forage from large areas of
ground surface and so represent a concentrating
mechanism. Home garden vegetables may be a
direct route of exposure for humans. Analysis of
animal and vegetable samples is discussed in this
section. Strontium-90 in bone samples was about
the same as last year while plutonium was infre-
quently detected and only near the MDC level.
SECTION 4.2.5.1. METHODS
In the spring and fall of each year, four cattle are
purchased from commercial beef herds that graze on
areas adjacent to the NTS. The animals are sacri-
ficed and necropsied. Bone and liver samples are
analyzed for 90Sr and for 238,239+24oPu_ MUSC|ei kidney,
lung, and thyroid are analyzed for gamma emitters
and blood samples are analyzed for 3H.
Once each quarter during the calendar year, a mule
deer is collected from the NTS. These may be road
kills or collected by hunting. Samples of muscle,
liver, lung, thyroid, rumen contents, and bone are
collected for analysis of 238'239+24opUi ^e bone js a|so
analyzed for 90Sr and blood is analyzed for 3H.
Also, for the last 32 years, during the desert bighorn
sheep hunt each November and December in south-
ern Nevada, licensed hunters donated bone and
kidney samples to this Laboratory for analysis. The
bone samples are analyzed for 90Sr and 238,239+24opu
while the kidney samples are analyzed for 3H. The
areas from which the bighorn sheep were collected
are shown in Figure 26. Analytical data from bones
and kidneys from desert bighorn sheep collected
during the late fall of 1988 are presented in Table 11.
i-; * »>&<$^$«$$i
3 '-;""" '^~-^SB*«"» 1MiBi"'"i^::'";i^'?'>i^-^i
Figure 25. Mule Deer at the Nevada Test Site.
49
-------
Nyala
Queen City Smt. /\
Tempiute
^.Coyote _Hiko
Smt
Hancock Smt.
NELLIS AFB
RANGE COMPLEX
DESERT
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
RANGE
Cactus |ndian
Springs Springs
Bighorn Sheep (winter 1988)
[j Mule Deer
/\ Cattle
Numbers below or within symbol,
represents the animal identification numbers.
Figure 26. Collection Sites for Animals Sampled.
50
-------
TABLE 11. RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SAMPLES-1988
BIGHORN SHEEP
(COLLECTED
WINTER
1988)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Median
Range
%
ASH
21
32
25
28
33
29
28
NC
39
NC
37
37
26
21
26
35
NC
28.5
21-39
BONE
""Sr
CONC.+2S.D.
(pCi/g ASH)
0.06 ± 0.02
0.110.03
1.8 ±0.09
1.3 + 0.08
1.4 ±0.08
0.1+0.04
0.3 ± 0.02
NC
1.4 + 0.1
NC
1.8 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.08
0.2 ± 0.08
1.2 + 0.08
0.1 ±0.1
0.6 + 0.1
NC
0.9
0.06-1.8
BONE
238pu
CONC.±2S.D.
10-3pCi/gASH)
2.4 + 5.5ft
7.9±9.8tt
4.8 ± 6.1ft
1.8 + 5.7ft
0.6 + 5.7ft
5.0 + 6.0ft
5.0 ± 6.1ft
NC
5.6 + 6.0ft
NC
1.7 + 5.4ft
2.4 ± 5.2ft
5.1 + 6.5ft
3.6 + 6.9ft
-0.5 ±5.1 ff
3.1+ 5.5ft
NC
3.35
0.5 - 7.9
BONE
239t240p(j
CONC.±2S.D.
(10'3pCi/gASH)
0.6 ± 1.3ft
1.1+1.5ft
0.4 ± 1.3ft
5.3 + 3.1
0.8+ 1.6ft
0.7 + 1.4ft
0.7 + 1.4ft
NC
3.1 ±2.3
NC
1.3 + 1.7ft
2.4 ± 2.0
2.1±2.2ff
7.6±4.2tf
2.8 ±2.2
0.9 + 1.5ft
NC
1.2
0.4-7.6
KIDNEY
3H
CONC.±2S.D.
(10-9nCi/mL)t
1 60 ± 350ft
-240 + 350ft
1±340ft
1 50 ± 340ft
NC
180 + 340ff
520 + 350
540 ± 350
NC
1 ± 300ft
-380 + 340ft
400 ± 350
1±300ff
330 + 350ft
590 ± 350
580 + 350
400 ±350
180
-380 - 590
t Aqueous portion of kidney tissue.
tfCounting error exceeds reported activity.
NC = Not collected.
In alternate years, an attempt is made to collect
vegetables from home gardens in the near offsite
areas or in the prevailing downwind direction.
Samples of each type of vegetable, i.e., tubers (such
as potatoes), fruits (such as tomatoes, squash) and
leafy vegetables (such as chard) are collected if
possible. These samples were analyzed by gamma
spectrometry and for 3H, 90Sr, and 238.239+24oPu
Water was extracted from the blood, kidney and
vegetable samples for tritium analyses. Samples for
90Sr and 238,239+24opu analyses were ashed prior to
analysis. The analytical methods are summarized in
Chapter 8 and the QA procedures in Chapter 6.
SECTION 4.2.5.2. RESULTS
The results obtained from analysis of all the animal
tissues are shown in Table 12. Other than naturally
occurring "°K, only one of the 107 samples had a
detectable gamma emitter, the concentration of 137Cs
in a cow liver sample was 0.028 ± 0.016 pCi/g. The
sensitivity of the gamma analysis method is stated in
Table 31.
The results of radiochemical analyses are shown as
the median and range of concentrations detected in
ashed samples. All of the 90Sr levels in the 24 bone
samples were above the MDC, but only one of the
238Pu results was above the MDC. There were 10
detectable 239+Z4°pu results; one in a cow bone sample
and five in cow liver samples although the maximum
concentration was only 0.025 pCi/g ash. There were
also two detectable concentrations in deer lung
samples and three in deer rumen content samples as
might be expected for animals that graze on the NTS.
The precision and bias of these radiochemical analy-
ses, performed by a contract laboratory, are indi-
cated by the results shown in Table 27 in the Quality
Assurance Section of this report. A graph of the
51
-------
average 90Sr in bone from 1955 to date is shown in
Figure 27. The 1989 data fit the pattern.
The 3H analysis of cow blood samples and bighorn
sheep kidney samples showed only background
levels, median values <400 pCi/L, as is found in
surface waters in this area. The blood samples from
two deer, however, contained elevated levels of 3H
with a maximum of 580,000 pCi/L, due to the deer
having access to the tunnel drainage ponds on the
NTS. The unfenced tunnel drainage ponds of area
12, NTS continue to be a potential source of expo-
sure to the offsite population which may consume
meat from mule deer or migratory fowl that may have
drank from those ponds.
The vegetable samples collected were as follows:
City & State
Virgin, Utah
St. George, Utah
Castleton Farms, Nevada
Rachel, Nevada
Hiko, Nevada
Type of sample
Carrots and tomatoes
Beets and grapes
Potatoes and zucchini squash
Turnips and Swiss chard
Potatoes and squash
Other than naturally occurring 40K, there were no
detectable gamma emitters, none of the samples
had a 3H, or a 90Sr, or a 238Pu concentration that
exceeded the MDC. There was only one sample, the
Swiss chard from Rachel, Nevada, that had a detect-
able 239+24opu concentration (0.017 ± 0.013 pCi/g
ash). This may have been due to incomplete wash-
ing of the soil from the sample.
TABLE 12. RADIOCHEMICAL RESULTS FOR ANIMAL SAMPLES
SAMPLE ASH/FRESH '"SrpCi/L 238PupCi/L
TYPE (NO.) WT. RATIO MEDIAN (RANGE) MEDIAN (RANGE)
MEDIAN (RANGE)
3H pCi/L
MEDIAN
(RANGE)
Cattle Blood (8)
Cattle Liver (8) 0.011
Deer Muscle (3) 0.010
Deer Lung (3)
Deer Liver (3)
0.012
0.012
Deer Rumen Cont (3) 0.019
Deer Blood (4)
Deer Bone (3)
0.327 1.2(1.0,1.4)
Cattle Bone (7)* 0.195 0.8(0.4,1.0)
Sheep Bone (14) 0.285 0.9 (0.06,1.8)
Sheep Kidney (15)
0.0023
(-0.0034,0.0096)
0.0017
(0.001,0.0042)
0.0087
(0.0004,0.016)
0.0018
(0.0001,0.0067)
0.010
(0.005,0.013)
0.002
(-0.0001,0.012)
0.0009
(-0.0001,0.0048)
0.0034
(-0.0005,0.0079)
0.0081
(-0.046,0.025)
0.0024
(0.0001,0.0053)
0.010
(0.0044,0.012)
0.0068
(0.0056,0.018)
0.040
(0.040,0.040)
0.0017
(0.0013,0.0020)
0.0016
(0.0007,0.0033)
0.0012
(0.0004,0.0076)
420
(100,600)
15000
(1,580000)
180
(-380,590)
* One Cattle sample was lost.
52
-------
tn
CO
Number of Bone Samples Analyzed *
40 -
.
^
i 3° -
V.
G)
1
g
«
3
U
O
U
Q.
£ on -
w 20
CO
d>
C
o
n
C
CO
a>
a;
i
. 10-
E
3
C
o
55
0_
I
1
Pi m?
[A •/
ffll
1
1
55 56 57
'- ;'
1
'r-\rf '•
1 ' 'l
t /• r
' J' /^ '
i
7
1
n
ill
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
ll
73
Year
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
1
Ill
74 75 76 77
Deer
5
6
4
4
3
5
7
6
7
6
4
3
4
2
0
0
0
4
5
4
3
Bighorn
Sheep
14
6
12
11
15
7
18
14
19
13
12
14
17
18
19
24
19
19
20
14
0
Cattle
12
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
12
12
6
3
14
6
4
8
4
8
8
8
7
"Number of samples prior to 1969 not available
•"'-'
Cattle
•
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
YEAR (1955-1989)
Figure 27. Average Sr Concentrations in Animal Bone Ash.
-------
Section 4.2.6.
(TLD) Network
B. B. Dicey
Thermoluminescent Dosimetry
A total of 65 individuals and 135 fixed environmental
stations were monitored with TLDs in 1989. Of the 65
individuals monitored, 60 showed zero detectable
exposure above that measured at the associated
reference background location. Except for one indi-
vidual who wore a TLD while undergoing a medical
radiographic examination, none of the apparent indi-
vidual exposures detectable above background rep-
resented a statistically significant variation from
expected natural background levels at the monitored
individual's location. During 1989, the maximum net
annual exposure at af ixed environmental station was
measured to be 316 mR. This exposure, at Warm
Springs #2 (WS-2), NV, was determined to be due to
high levels of naturally occurring radioactive material
in ground water at that location. A detailed descrip-
tion of the Warm Springs monitoring location is
included in this report. All other fixed environmental
TLD results were within the range of natural back-
ground levels expected for any location in the United
States. Statistical analysis of personnel and fixed
environmental TLD results indicated no unexplained
results outside the range of naturally occurring back-
ground radiation and also indicated that the distribu-
tion of measured exposures was consistent with
natural (i.e., random) occurrences rather than dis-
crete events such as planned or unplanned releases
of radioactivity from NTS operations.
SECTION 4.2.6.1. NETWORK DESIGN
The primary method of measuring external ambient
gamma radiation exposures is the thermolumines-
cent dosimeter (TLD). Since 1987, environmental
and personnel monitoring for ambient gamma expo-
sures have been accomplished using the Panasonic
TLD system. This system provides greater sensitiv-
ity, precision, and tissue equivalence (for TLDs used
to monitor offsite residents) than was possible using
film or earlier TLD systems. This facilitates correlat-
ing individual measured exposures with the absorbed
biological dose equivalent.
The TLD network is designed primarily to measure
total ambient gamma exposures at fixed locations. A
secondary function of the network is the measure-
ment of exposures to a smaller number of specific in-
Locations monitored with both personnel and
tixed station TLDs
Locations monitored with fixed station TLDs
5/90
Figure 28. Locations Monitored with TLDs.
54
-------
dividuals. Individuals monitored as part of this net-
work live both within and outside estimated fallout
zones from past nuclear tests at the Nevada Test
Site. Measurement of exposures to individuals in-
volves multiple uncontrollable variables associated
with any personnel monitoring program. Measuring
environmental ambient gamma exposures in fixed
locations provides a reproducible index which can
then be easily correlated to the maximum exposure
an individual would have received were he continu-
ously present at that location. Monitoring of individu-
als makes possible an estimate of individual expo-
sures and helps to confirm the validity of correlating
fixed-site ambient gamma measurements to pro-
jected individual exposures.
A network of environmental stations and monitored
personnel has been established in locations encir-
cling the NTS. Monitoring locations are shown on
Figure 28. This arrangement facilitates estimation of
average background exposures and detection of any
increase due to NTS activities. TLDs used for routine
monitoring of fixed environmental stations are de-
ployed and read on a quarterly cycle. TLDs for moni-
tored personnel are deployed and read on a monthly
cycle.
Monitoring of offsite personnel is accomplished with
the Panasonic UD-802 dosimeter. This dosimeter
contains two elements of Li2B4O7:Cu and two of
CaSO4:Tm phosphors. The four elements of the UD-
802 dosimeter are behind 14,300,300, and 1000 mg/
cm2 filtration, respectively. These filtrations closely
approximate the attenuation afforded by the dead
layer of the skin, the cornea of the eye, and the "deep"
tissues of the body.
The lithium borate used in the UD-802 dosimeter is
na'Li2na'B4O7 This compound is nearly as sensitive to
neutron irradiations as is enriched 6Li210B4O7 The
neutron cross section for 6LJ210B4O7is so high that its
low abundance by weight in the natural compound is
of little significance. The major consideration in
neutron dosimetry is not so much sensitivity of a
phosphor to neutrons as is the ability to determine
neutron energy and thus to properly calculate an
absorbed dose equivalent.
Monitoring of offsite environmental stations is ac-
complished with the Panasonic UD-814 dosimeter.
This dosimeter contains a single element of Li2B4O7:Cu
and three replicate CaSO4:Tm elements. The first
element is filtered by 14 mg/cm2 of plastic and the
remaining three are filtered by 1000 mg/cm2 of
plastic+lead. The three replicate phosphors are
used to provide improved statistics and extended
response range. Figure 29 illustrates the construc-
tion of a typical Panasonic dosimeter.
Figure 29. Construction of a Typical Panasonic Dosimeter.
55
-------
Section 4.2.6.1.1. Results of TLD Monitoring -
Offsite Personnel
During 1989, a total of 65 individuals living in areas
surrounding the Nevada Test Site were provided with
personnel TLD dosimeters. The TLDs used to monitor
individuals are sensitive to beta, gamma, neutron,
and to low and high energy x-radiations. The TLDs
used to monitor fixed reference background loca-
tions are designed to be sensitive only to gamma and
high-energy x-radiations. Because personnel do-
simeters are cross-referenced to associated fixed
reference background TLDs, all personnel expo-
sures are presumed to be due to gamma or high
energy x-radiations. Exposures of this type are
numerically equivalent to absorbed dose. TLDs used
to monitor individuals are provided in holders which
are designed to be worn on the front of an individual's
body, between the neck and the waist. When worn in
this manner, the TLD may be used to estimate not
only ambient gamma radiation exposure but also to
characterize the absorbed radiation dose an individ-
ual may have received while wearing the dosimeter.
Figure 30 illustrates atypical personnel TLD holder.
TLDs issued to individuals are normally deployed
and collected on a monthly schedule.
The net exposure to any individual is determined by
comparing the results of each dosimeter issued to
that individual with the results obtained from the
previous four "valid" dosimeters located at the asso-
ciated reference background location established for
that individual. Reference background dosimeters
measure ambient gamma radiation exposure. Any
associated reference background dosimeter reading
that varies by greater than a statistically determined
amount (± 2 standard deviations) from the historical
average for that location is not used in calculating net
exposures to individuals because of the possibility
that this variation could represent an anomaly or a
contribution due to NTS activities. Also, reference
background readings containing less than three
useable phosphors are not included in the calcula-
tion. This situation could arise in the event one of the
two dosimeters included in a fixed environmental
station deployment were damaged or otherwise un-
readable. In either case, (unacceptable variation
from historical average or insufficient number of
phosphors) additional historical data points are then
selected for calculating the historic average until a
total of four is available. By this method, a consistent
number of prior data points in the average is selected
and also individual TLDs that may have received
elevated exposures due to an episodic occurrence
are excluded from "natural background."
Of the 65 individuals monitored, 60 showed zero
detectable exposure above that measured at the as-
Figure 30. Typical Personnel TLD Holder as Worn by Individual.
56
-------
sociated reference background location. The appar-
ent individual exposures were slightly greater than
the associated reference background. These ranged
from 16 to 48 mrem absorbed dose equivalent for the
year. Each of these represented total exposures
obtained from several dosimeters worn during the
year. Apparent exposures to an individual dosime-
ter of less than three times the associated reference
background are considered to be within the range of
normal variation for the Panasonic TLD system.
Therefore, none of the three apparent net individual
exposures are considered to represent an abnormal
occurrence. Table 13 lists the results of offsite
personnel TLD monitoring for 1989.
TABLE 13. OFFSITE RESIDENT TLD RESULTS — 1989
RESIDENT
ID
NUMBER
ASSOCIATED
REFERENCE
BACKGROUND
LOCATION
MEASUREMENT
PERIOD
ISSUE
DATE
COLLECT
DATE
ELAPSED
TIME
(days)
EQUIVALENT
DOSE RATE
(mrem/day)
MAX MIN AVG
ANNUAL
MEASURED
DOSE
(mrem/yr)
mrem/yr =
AVERAGE
mrem/day
X# of DAYS
ASSOCIATED
REFERENCE
BACKGROUND
EXPOSURE
±2S.D.
(mR/year)
>» PERSONNEL MONITORED IN ARIZONA «<
No individuals residing in Arizona were monitored during the period covered by this report.
>» PERSONNEL MONITORED IN CALIFORNIA <«
359
304
331
60
Death Valley Jet., CA
Death Valley Jet., CA
Death Valley Jet., CA
Shoshone, CA
04/04/89
01/06/89
01/05/89
01/04/89
01/04/90
01/05/90
04/04/89
01/02/90
275
364
89
363
0.28
0.45
0.15
0.35
0.06
0.16
0.03
0.01
0.21
0.32
0.10
0.15
58
116
9
54
50 ±2
66 ±3
16±1
51 ±2
>» PERSONNEL MONITORED IN NEVADA <«
22
329
38
21
9
2
336
11
10
56
25
15
14
233
47
302
343
7
19
Alamo, NV
Austin, NV
Beatty, NV
Beatty, NV
Blue Eagle Ranch, NV
Caliente, NV
Caliente, NV
Complex 1 , NV
Complex 1,NV
Corn Creek, NV
Corn Creek, NV
Coyote Summit, NV
Coyote Summit, NV
Ely, NV
Ely, NV
Gabbs, NV
Gabbs, NV
Goldfield, NV
Goldfield, NV
01/04/89
01/12/89
01/06/89
01/06/89
01/04/89
01/04/89
01/04/89
01/05/89
01/05/89
01/03/89
01/03/89
01/04/89
01/04/89
01/11/89
01/11/89
01/10/89
01/10/89
01/11/89
01/11/89
01/10/90
01/10/90
01/04/90
01/04/90
01/03/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/09/90
01/09/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/09/90
01/09/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/09/90
11/07/89
01/16/90
01/17/90
371
363
363
363
364
369
369
369
369
364
364
370
370
362
362
364
301
370
371
0.22
0.40
0.52
0.38
0.37
0.33
0.27
0.34
0.34
0.23
0.18
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.32
0.19
0.25
0.23
0.27
0.06
0.07
0.19
0.07
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.11
0.20
0.28
0.20
0.13
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.09
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.15
41
73
102
73
47
81
52
81
81
33
29
56
56
40
51
47
45
56
56
67 ±3
98 ±5
87 ±4
87 ±4
44 ±2
70 ±3
70 ±3
85 ±4
85 ±4
25±1
25 ±1
89 ±4
89 ±4
58 ±3
58 ±3
47 ±2
39 ±2
59 ±3
59 ±3
(Continued)
57
-------
TABLE 13. (Continued)
RESIDENT
ID
NUMBER
40
232
3
37
6
381
300
49
377
349
376
297
326
342
380
379
307
18
348
372
354
36
248
293
264
54
334
299
341
29
42
339
8
370
358
ASSOCIATED
REFERENCE
riti tntiwt
BACKGROUND
LOCATION
Goldfield, NV
Hiko, NV
Hot Creek Ranch, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Indian Springs, NV
lone, NV
Koyne's Ranch, NV
Las Vegas (UNLV), NV
Las Vegas (USDI), NV
Las Vegas (USDI), NV
Las Vegas (USDI), NV
Las Vegas (USDI), NV
Las Vegas (USDI), NV
Lavada's Market, NV
Lavada's Market, NV
Manhattan, NV
Mina, NV
Nyala, NV
Overton, NV
Pahrump, NV
Pahrump, NV
Pahrump, NV
Penoyer Farms, NV
Pioche, NV
Rachel, NV
Rachel, NV
Rachel, NV
Round Mountain, NV
Silver Peak, NV
Stone Cabin Ranch, NV
Tonopah, NV
Tonopah, NV
Twin Springs Ranch, NV
Twin Springs Ranch, NV
US Ecology, NV
MEASUREMENT
PERIOD
ISSUE
DATE
01/11/89
01/04/89
01/05/89
01/03/89
01/03/89
11/07/89
01/12/89
01/03/89
07/31/89
01/03/89
07/31/89
01/03/89
01/03/89
01/04/89
09/05/89
09/13/89
01/10/89
01/04/89
01/10/89
07/06/89
01/04/89
01/04/89
01/05/89
01/04/89
01/05/89
01/03/89
01/05/89
01/12/89
01/11/89
01/04/89
01/13/89
01/11/89
01/04/89
06/06/89
03/09/89
COLLECT
DATE
01/12/90
01/09/90
01/04/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/09/90
01/09/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
04/03/89
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/04/90
01/04/90
01/10/90
01/09/90
01/03/90
01/04/90
01/02/90
07/06/89
01/02/90
01/09/90
01/08/90
01/09/90
03/27/89
01/09/90
01/10/90
01/17/90
01/03/90
01/19/90
01/11/90
05/02/89
01/03/90
01/04/90
ELAPSED
TIME
(days)
366
370
364
364
364
63
362
364
155
90
155
364
364
365
121
119
364
364
359
180
183
363
369
369
369
83
369
363
371
364
371
365
118
211
301
EQUIVALENT
DOSE RATE
(mrem/day)
MAX
0.83
0.20
0.44
0.20
0.23
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.27
0.06
0.20
0.13
0.23
0.36
0.38
0.29
0.25
0.29
0.21
0.14
0.22
0.16
0.29
0.23
0.30
0.12
0.27
0.33
0.31
0.31
0.35
0.27
0.29
0.24
0.43
MIN
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.15
0.17
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.03
0.15
AVG
0.23
0.12
0.21
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.15
0.09
0.12
0.05
0.11
0.05
0.09
0.16
0.25
0.23
0.17
0.15
0.09
0.08
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.14
0.20
0.05
0.16
0.23
0.18
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.16
0.26
ANNUAL
MEASURED
DOSE
(mrem/yr)
mrem/yr =
AVERAGE
mrem/day
X# of DAYS
84
44
76
36
44
11
54
33
19
5
17
18
33
58
30
27
62
55
32
14
26
33
59
52
74
4
59
83
67
76
74
77
30
34
78
ASSOCIATED
REFERENCE
BACKGROUND
EXPOSURE
±2S.D.
(mR/year)
59 ±3
67 ±3
66 ±3
29±1
29±1
13±1
65 ±3
18±1
16±1
9 ±0.4
16±1
36 ±2
36 ±2
66 ±3
22 ±1
31 ±1
69 ±3
58 ±3
43 ±2
14±1
15±1
29±1
92 + 4
59 ±3
85+4
19±1
85 ±4
80 ±4
70 ±3
87 ±4
89 + 4
88 ±4
28±1
51 ±2
72 ±3
>» PERSONNEL MONITORED IN UTAH <«
44
345
344
347
346
52
45
Cedar City, UT
Delta, UT
Delta, UT
Milford, UT
Milford, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
St. George, UT
01/04/89
01/06/89
01/06/89
01/06/89
01/06/89
01/04/89
01/06/89
01/04/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/03/90
01/04/90
365
367
367
367
367
364
363
0.21
0.81
0.22
0.29
0.28
0.31
0.20
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.14
0.22
0.13
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.10
51
81
48
62
62
62
36
44 ±2
55 ±3
55 ±3
88 ±4
88 ±4
44 ±2
33+2
58
-------
100
200
300
400
O
u
O
O
(0
4->
in
ARIZONA
CALI FORM I A
NEVADA
UTAH
ALL 3 STATES
U S AVERAGE C2}
59 4
116
4 49 5
102
3657 5
4 51 0
81
116
43 68
168
Mln., Avg. & Max. mR/year
(I) No residents of Arizona were monitored with TLDs in 1989.
(2) Est. cosmic + terrestrial . REF: OAKLEY. 1972.
Figure 31. Summary of Ambient Gamma Exposures of Off site Residents by State — 1989.
Figure 31 summarizes TLD monitoring results for
offsite residents living in California, Nevada, and
Utah. There was no statistically significant differ-
ence among the States in the recorded minima,
maxima, or averages.
Section 4.2.6.1.2. Results of TLD Monitoring -
Offsite Stations
During 1989 a total of 135 offsite stations were
monitored to determine background ambient gamma
radiation levels. Each station has a custom designed
holder that can hold from one to four Panasonic
TLDs. Normal operations involve packaging two
TLDs in a heat-sealed bag to provide protection from
the elements and placing the dosimeter packet into
the fixed station holder. Figure 32 illustrates atypical
fixed environmental TLD monitoring station. Fixed
environmental monitoring TLDs are normally de-
ployed for a period of approximately three months
(one calendar quarter).
The annual adjusted ambient gamma exposure (mR/
year) was calculated by multiplying the average daily
rate for each station by 365. A review of the meas-
urement periods shows that few stations were
monitored for exactly 365 days. However, when the
results of a "nominal" 365 day year are compared
with the results obtained by multiplying the average
mR/day by the actual number of days, calculation^
differences are less than 1 mR/year. This is consid-
ered to be an insignificant discrepancy.
Figure 32. Typical Fixed Environmental TLD
Monitoring Station.
59
-------
TABLE 14. OFFSITE RESIDENT TLD RESULTS —1989
OFFSITE RESIDENT TLD STATISTICS - 1989
ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH
Number of Individuals Monitored: 0
Number of Days Each Station Monitored:
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Standard Deviation
Calculated C.V.
Equivalent Daily Ambient Gamma
Exposures (mR/day)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Standard Deviation
Calculated C.V.
Calculated Annual Ambient Gamma Exposures
(mR/year)
(Reference background NOT subtracted)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Standard Deviation
Calculated C.V.
4
89
364
272.8
112.1
41.1%
0.01
0.45
0.195
0.082
42.1%
9
116
59.4
38.2
64.3%
54
63
371
316.4
95.0
30.0%
0.01
0.83
0.156
0.057
36.4%
4
102
49.5
22.9
46.3%
7
363
367
365.7
1.6
0.4%
0.03
0.81
0.157
0.035
22.5%
36
81
57.5
13.1
22.7%
ALL 3
STATES
65
63
371
319.0
93.0
29.2%
0.01
0.83
0.158
0.057
36.3%
4
116
51.0
23.6
46.2%
U.S.
AVERAGE
43
168
68
c
o
+->
CO
u
0NV
_J
c
0
4->
CO
-P
in A
(1) WS2
(2) Est.
c
ARIZONA
CAL ! FORM 1 A
NV Ca1 O
UTAH
ALL
U S Avg C2D
= Warm Springs
cosmic + terrestr
] 100 200 300 400
50 7
- 40 — , 68
65 7
71 9
69 1
52 9
66 7
64 8
68
Min., Avg. & Max. mR/year
#2. a stream with high natural radiation levels (see text).
ial . REF: OAKLEY, 1972.
Figure 33. Range of Ambient Gamma Exposures of Fixed Environmental Stations by State — 1989.
60
-------
Annual exposures measured at fixed environmental
stations ranged from 17 to 316 mR, with an average
of 66 ± 32 mR. These values represent gross
ambient gamma radiation levels measured at the
respective locations.
The primary function of fixed environmental station
TLDs is to characterize ambient (natural background)
gamma radiation fields. The practice of subtracting
reference background readings from fixed environ-
mental station results is valid only to evaluate whether
a single measurement varies by a significant amount
from the historical record for that location.
The extremes occurred at the University of Nevada
Las Vegas and Warm Springs #2 fixed monitoring
locations, respectively. Tables 15 and 16 detail the
results obtained at each of the fixed environmental
stations monitored by TLDs during 1989. Figure 33
summarizes the results obtained from measure-
ments of natural background ambient gamma radia-
tion levels at fixed environmental station locations.
This figure also illustrates that, when data from Warm
Springs #2 is excluded, the averages and ranges of
measured ambient gamma exposures is very similar
throughout the geographic area covered by this
network.
The exposure at Warm Springs #2, NV, was deter-
mined to be due to high levels of naturally occurring
radioactive material in ground water at that location.
A second TLD, Warm Springs #1, NV, is located in a
parking lot approximately 100 feet from the spring.
Details of a special evaluation conducted of the
Warm Springs site are included below.
TABLE 15.
OFFSITE STATION TLD RESULTS — 1989
MEASUREMENT PERIOD
STATION LOCATION
ISSUE
DATE
COLLECT
DATE
MEASURED DAILY
EXP. EQUIVALENT
ELAPSED (mR/day)
TIME
(days) MAX MIN AVG
GAMMA
EXPOSURE
(mR/year±2S.D.)
[mR/yr = AVG.
mR/day X 365]
>» STATIONS LOCATED IN ARIZONA <«
Colorado City, AZ
Jacob's Lake, AZ
Page, AZ
11/01/88
11/01/88
11/01/88
11/06/89
11/06/89
11/07/89
>» STATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA <«
Baker, CA
Barstow, CA
Bishop, CA
Death Valley Jet., CA
Furnace Creek, CA
Independence, CA
Lone Pine, CA
Mammoth Geothermal, CA
Mammoth Lakes, CA
Olancha, CA
Ridgecrest, CA
Shoshone, CA
Valley Crest, CA
>» STATIONS LOCATED IN NEVADA -
11/02/88
11/02/88
11/02/88
01/06/89
01/06/89
11/02/88
11/02/88
11/02/88
11/02/88
11/02/88
11/02/88
11/01/88
01/06/89
11/07/89
11/07/89
11/14/89
01/05/90
01/05/90
11/08/89
11/08/89
11/14/89
11/14/89
11/08/89
11/08/89
11/07/89
01/05/90
370
370
371
370
370
377
364
364
371
371
377
377
371
371
371
364
0.16
0.22
0.13
0.20
0.29
0.27
0.22
0.15
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.22
0.19
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.09
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.12
0.17
0.15
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.11
0.08
0.12
0.19
0.11
0.17
0.24
0.23
0.18
0.13
0.19
0.18
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.08
44 ± 18
68 ± 22
40 ± 12
64 ± 24
88 ± 34
83
65
48
69
67
83
78
68
61
50
30
±
±
+
+
+
+
±
±
+
+
±
28
18
10
10
18
22
28
22
16
12
6
Alamo, NV
American Borate, NV
Atlanta Mie, NV
Austin, NV
Battle Mountain, NV
Beatty, NV
11/03/88
01/04/89
12/01/88
11/22/88
11/29/88
01/04/89
11/01/89
01/02/90
12/01/89
11/08/89
12/13/89
01/04/90
363
363
365
351
379
365
0.22
0.23
0.17
0.31
0.17
0.29
0.14
0.20
0.13
0.21
0.14
0.22
0.18
0.22
0.15
0.27
0.16
0.24
66
79
56
100
58
89
± 24
± 10
± 12
± 28
± 10
± 22
(Continued)
61
-------
TABLE 15. (Continued)
MEASUREMENT PERIOD
STATION LOCATION
Blue Eagle Ranch, NV
Blue Jay, NV
Cactus Springs, NV
Caliente, NV
Carp, NV
Cherry Creek, NV
Clark Station, NV
Coaldale, NV
Complex 1 , NV
Corn Creek, NV
Cortez Rd/Hwy 278, NV
Coyote Summit, NV
Crescent Valley, NV
Crystal, NV
Currant, NV
Currie, NV
Diablo Maint Sta, NV
Duckwater, NV
Elgin, NV
Elko, NV
Ely, NV
Eureka, NV
Fallen, NV
Flying Diamond Camp, NV
Gabbs, NV
Geyser Ranch, NV
Goldfield, NV
Groom Lake, NV
Halloway Ranch, NV
Hancock Summit, NV
Hiko, NV
Hot Creek Ranch, NV
Indian Springs, NV
lone, NV
Kirkeby Ranch, NV
Koyne's Ranch, NV
Las Vegas Airport, NV
Las Vegas (UNLV), NV
Las Vegas (USDI), NV
Lathrop Wells, NV
Lavada's Market, NV
Lida, NV
Lovelock, NV
Lund, NV
Manhattan, NV
Medlin's Ranch, NV
Mesquite, NV
ISSUE
DATE
01/04/89
01/05/89
11/01/88
11/01/88
11/03/88
12/01/88
01/04/89
11/08/88
11/02/88
11/01/88
11/29/88
11/03/88
11/29/88
11/01/88
01/05/89
12/01/88
01/06/89
01/05/89
11/03/88
11/29/88
12/01/88
01/05/89
12/01/88
11/02/88
11/16/88
12/01/88
11/07/88
11/08/88
01/05/89
11/03/88
11/03/88
01/05/89
11/01/88
11/16/88
12/01/88
11/03/88
01/03/89
01/03/89
01/03/89
01/04/89
01/04/89
11/08/88
11/30/88
12/01/88
11/17/88
11/01/88
11/01/88
COLLECT
DATE
01/03/90
01/04/90
11/06/89
11/01/89
11/01/89
11/29/89
01/03/90
11/07/89
11/01/89
11/06/89
12/12/89
11/01/89
12/12/89
01/30/89
01/04/90
11/29/89
01/05/90
01/04/90
11/01/89
12/12/89
11/29/89
01/04/90
12/14/89
11/01/89
11/07/89
12/01/89
11/09/89
11/13/89
03/03/89
11/01/89
11/01/89
01/04/90
11/06/89
11/07/89
12/01/89
11/01/89
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/04/90
11/01/89
12/13/89
11/30/89
11/08/89
11/01/89
11/02/89
ELAPSED
TIME
(days)
364
364
370
365
363
363
364
364
364
370
378
363
378
90
364
363
364
364
363
378
363
364
378
364
356
365
367
370
57
363
363
364
370
356
365
363
364
364
364
363
365
358
378
364
356
365
366
MEASURED DAILY
EXP. EQUIVALENT
(mR/day)
MAX
0.14
0.32
0.11
0.22
0.19
0.22
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.07
0.26
0.27
0.17
0.09
0.24
0.23
0.31
0.22
0.71
0.15
0.19
0.39
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.22
0.18
0.08
0.66
0.29
0.20
0.09
0.22
0.17
0.21
0.09
0.06
0.12
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.15
0.17
0.29
0.26
0.12
MIN
0.10
0.23
0.07
0.15
0.12
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.06
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.09
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.17
0.24
0.13
0.15
0.19
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.07
0.13
0.08
0.31
0.11
0.15
0.07
0.19
0.11
0.15
0.03
0.01
0.07
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.13
0.15
0.24
0.17
0.08
AVG
0.12
0.26
0.10
0.19
0.16
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.07
0.23
0.24
0.16
0.09
0.21
0.21
0.26
0.19
0.39
0.14
0.16
0.25
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.20
0.16
0.17
0.08
0.43
0.18
0.18
0.08
0.20
0.14
0.18
0.07
0.05
0.10
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.14
0.16
0.26
0.22
0.10
GAMMA
EXPOSURE
(mR/year±2S.D.)
[mR/yr= AVG.
mR/day X 365]
43
96
35
68
59
77
86
83
83
24
85
87
59
34
75
77
94
71
143
52
58
93
54
52
49
73
60
61
30
156
64
64
29
74
52
66
24
17
37
69
66
71
52
60
95
82
37
+
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
+
±
±
+
+
+
±
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
12
28
12
20
20
10
22
18
30
4
18
20
10
0
18
10
30
14
142
6
12
62
10
10
18
16
46
16
0
106
54
14
6
8
18
18
12
16
14
12
16
12
6
6
14
26
12
(Continued)
62
-------
TABLE 15. (Continued)
MEASUREMENT PERIOD
STATION LOCATION
Mina, NV
Moapa, NV
Mtn Meadows Ranch, NV
Nash Ranch, NV
Nevada LLW Site, NV
Nyala, NV
Overton, NV
Pahrump, NV
Penoyer Farms, NV
Pine Creek Ranch, NV
Pioche, NV
Queen City Summit, NV
Rachel, NV
Reed Ranch, NV
Reno, NV
Round Mountain, NV
Ruby Valley, NV
S Desert Corr Ctr, NV
Shurz, NV
Silver Peak, NV
Springdale, NV
Steward Ranch, NV
Stone Cabin Ranch, NV
Sunnyside, NV
Tempiute, NV
Tonopah Test Range, NV
Tonopah, NV
Twin Springs Ranch, NV
Uhalde's Ranch, NV
US Ecology, NV
Warm Springs #1 , NV
Warm Springs #2, NV
Wells, NV
Winnemucca, NV
Young's Ranch, NV
>» STATIONS LOCATED IN UTAH <
Boulder, UT
Bryce Canyon, UT
Cedar City, UT
Delta, UT
Duchesne, UT
Enterprise, UT
Ferron, UT
Garrison, UT
Grantsville, UT
Green River, UT
Gunnison, UT
ISSUE
DATE
11/16/88
11/01/88
01/04/89
11/03/88
03/22/89
01/04/89
11/01/88
11/01/88
11/02/88
11/03/88
11/01/88
01/06/89
11/03/88
01/06/89
11/30/88
11/14/88
11/29/88
11/01/88
12/01/88
11/16/88
01/05/89
12/01/88
01/04/89
12/01/88
11/02/88
11/15/88
11/08/88
01/04/89
11/02/88
01/04/89
01/04/89
04/05/89
11/29/88
11/29/88
11/17/88
:«
12/01/88
12/01/88
12/01/88
01/06/89
01/04/89
12/01/88
01/04/89
12/01/88
01/05/89
11/02/88
12/01/88
COLLECT
DATE
11/07/89
11/02/89
01/03/90
11/01/89
01/04/90
01/03/90
11/02/89
11/06/89
11/01/89
11/01/89
11/01/89
01/05/90
11/01/89
01/05/90
12/14/89
11/08/89
12/12/89
11/06/89
12/14/89
11/07/89
01/04/90
12/01/89
01/03/90
11/30/89
11/01/89
01/04/90
11/08/89
01/03/90
11/01/89
01/04/90
01/03/90
01/03/90
12/12/89
12/13/89
11/08/89
12/01/89
12/01/89
12/04/89
01/08/90
01/10/90
12/01/89
01/10/90
11/29/89
01/09/90
11/07/89
12/01/89
ELAPSED
TIME
(days)
356
366
364
363
288
364
366
370
364
363
365
364
363
364
379
359
378
370
378
356
364
365
364
364
364
415
365
364
364
365
364
273
378
379
356
365
365
368
367
371
365
371
363
369
370
365
MEASURED DAILY
EXP. EQUIVALENT
(mR/day)
MAX
0.22
0.20
0.15
0.18
0.60
0.18
0.13
0.09
0.29
0.30
0.19
0.30
0.27
0.29
0.15
0.25
0.25
0.09
0.24
0.22
0.27
0.26
0.29
0.11
0.30
0.28
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.93
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.16
0.13
0.27
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.17
0.12
MIN
0.17
0.08
0.11
0.09
0.23
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.20
0.21
0.14
0.26
0.19
0.22
0.13
0.14
0.18
0.05
0.19
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.07
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.22
0.24
0.80
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.24
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.09
AVG
0.19
0.15
0.12
0.14
0.34
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.25
0.26
0.16
0.28
0.23
0.24
0,14
0.22
0.22
0.07
0.22
0.19
0.24
0.23
0.24
0.09
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.86
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.15
0.12
0.25
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.11
GAMMA
EXPOSURE
(mR/year±2S.D.)
[mR/yr = AVG.
mR/day X 365]
69
54
45
52
123
59
43
27
90
95
60
101
85
89
52
79
81
25
79
69
87
85
87
34
90
93
86
86
86
89
96
316
61
62
68
57
52
43
53
43
91
42
45
45
49
40
+
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
+
±
+
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
+
+
±
±
+
±
±
14
36
12
26
90
10
10
10
26
26
16
12
24
22
6
34
22
12
16
20
18
16
26
12
26
24
12
18
24
18
14
30
10
10
12
10
10
6
12
6
10
4
10
6
22
10
(Continued)
63
-------
TABLE 15. (Continued)
MEASUREMENT PERIOD
STATION LOCATION
Ibapah, UT
Kanab, UT
Loa, UT
Logan, UT
Lund, UT
Milford, UT
Monticello, UT
Nephi, UT
Parowan, UT
Price, UT
Provo, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
St. George, UT
Trout Creek, UT
Vernal, UT
Vernon, UT
Wendover, UT
Willow Sprgs Ldge, UT
ISSUE
DATE
12/01/88
11/01/88
12/01/88
01/03/89
12/01/88
12/01/88
11/02/88
01/06/89
12/01/88
01/04/89
01/05/89
01/04/89
12/01/88
12/01/88
01/04/89
01/05/89
11/28/88
01/05/89
COLLECT
DATE
11/29/89
11/06/89
12/01/89
01/03/90
12/01/89
12/01/89
11/07/89
01/09/90
12/01/89
01/10/90
01/09/90
01/03/90
12/04/89
11/29/89
01/10/90
01/08/90
12/11/89
01/09/90
ELAPSED
TIME
(days)
363
370
365
365
365
365
370
368
365
371
369
364
368
363
371
368
378
369
MEASURED DAILY
EXP. EQUIVALENT
(mR/day)
MAX
0.24
0.14
0.27
0.12
0.23
0.25
0.20
0.12
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.15
0.12
0.17
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.11
MIN
0.21
0.08
0.24
0.10
0.20
0.23
0.14
0.08
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.13
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.08
AVG
0.23
0.11
0.26
0.11
0.22
0.24
0.17
0.11
0.14
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.10
GAMMA
EXPOSURE
(mR/year±2S.D.)
[mR/yr = AVG.
mR/day X 365]
83
40
95
41
79
89
63
39
50
44
34
45
34
54
48
51
49
36
+
+
+
+
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
10
18
10
6
10
6
18
12
4
6
6
14
12
12
10
6
8
10
Additional data was collected in 1989 to study the
possibility that some TLD readings may be slightly
lowered due to self-annealing of the phosphors during
the hottest portion of the year. As part of this study,
a six-month test of TLD fade characteristics is cur-
rently underway. In addition, "test" TLDs have been
deployed at indoor locations at the Las Vegas Airport
and the Las Vegas U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDI) office. When one year's data has been
collected, the results obtained from the indoor and
outdoor TLDs at these two locations will be com-
pared to determine the extent to which ambient
temperature may affect readings. Preliminary analy-
sis of historical data from TLDs deployed at Death
Valley, CA, failed to confirm a statistically significant
seasonal variation in ambient gamma readings at
this location. This phenomenon will be studied in
greater detail during the coming year.
Because of the great range in the results, an average
for all off site station TLDs is not an appropriate tool
for estimating individual exposures. Environmental
ambient radiation levels vary markedly with natural
radioactivity in the soil, with altitude, and other fac-
tors. If environmental TLD data is to be used in
estimating the background radiation exposure of an
individual, results obtained at the fixed environ-
mental station closest to that individual would be the
most appropriate reference point.
Section 4.2.6.1.3. Special Evaluation of
Elevated Radiation Levels at Warm Springs
Monitoring Location
A special evaluation was conducted to verify that the
elevated results observed at Warm Springs #2 were
due to naturally occurring radioactive material in the
water. Radiochemical analyses of special samples
taken from this site were found to contain elevatec
amounts of naturally occurring 222Rn, as summarizec
as follows:
ISOTOPE
230Th 9.5
232Th 4.3
234U 185
238U 90
222Rn 2942
3H 1.5
CONCENTRATION
±2S.D.
± 1 .5 fCi/L
± 1 .0 fCi/L
± 27 fCi/L
± 17 fCi/L
± 48 pCi/L(±1
± 7 pCi/L (±1
S.D.)
S.D.)
64
-------
TABLE 16. OFFSITE STATION TLD RESULTS — 1989
ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT - OFFSITE STATION TLDs
FIXED ENVIRONMENTAL STATION TLD STATISTICS -1989
NEVADA STATIONS
ARIZONA CALIFORNIA
UTAH
INCLUDING EXCLUDING
WS-2 WS-2
ENTIRE TLD NETWORK
INCLUDING EXCLUDING U.S.
WS-2 WS-2 AVERAGE
Number of Fixed Stations Monitored:
Number of Days Each Station Monitored:
13
87
29
133
132
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Standard Deviation
Calculated C.V.
Equivalent Daily Exposures
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Standard Deviation
Calculated C.V.
370
371
370.3
0.5
0.1%
(mR/day)
0.09
0.22
0.140
0.036
25.4%
364
8
370.6
4.4
1 .2%
0.08
0.29
0.180
0.043
0.4%
57
415
357.5
45.9
12.8%
0.01
0.93
0.197
0.098
49.8%
57
415
358.5
45.3
12.6%
0.01
0.71
0.189
0.068
35.9%
363
378
367.4
3.3
0.9%
0.08
0.27
0.145
0.047
32.7%
57
415
361.2
37.8
11.9%
0.01
0.93
0.177
0.087
1.0%
57
415
361.9
37.1
10.3%
0.01
0.71
0.177
0.064
36.1%
Calculated Gross Annual Exposures (mR/year)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Standard Deviation
Calculated C.V.
40
68
50.7
12.4
24.4%
30
88
65.7
15.5
23.6%
17
316
71.9
36.0
50.0%
17
156
69.1
24.8
36.0%
34
95
52.9
17.2
32.5%
17
316
66.7
31.8
47.7%
17
156
64.8
23.4
36.1%
43
168
68
8
Except for the 222Rn, isotopic analysis of water from
Warm Springs was very similar to that obtained from
analyzing other springs and from analyzing rain
water. Radon-222 concentrations in other sources
were measured to be in the range of 138-367 pCi/L
except for another hot spring not a part of the EPA's
routine environmental monitoring network (Bailey's
Hot Spring), which showed 222Rn concentration of
3560 ± 30 pCi/L. For further details regarding the
radiochemical analyses, please see "Thorium-230
Dating of Thermal Waters in the Vicinity of the
Nevada Test Site" (HOL89)
A special instrument survey of the Warm Springs
area was conducted June 27,1989. The purpose of
this survey was to confirm differences in ambient
gamma radiation levels noted by TLDs located in this
area. The following results were obtained:
Instrument Used: Ludlum Model 19 micro-R meter, SN 7952
Date Calibrated: 8 June, 1989
Location Surveyed Latitude'
A. Edge of Stream 38°11'13"
B. TLD#004STA977 38°11'12"
("Warm Springs TLD #2")
(6-10'from stream)
C. TLD# 004STA975 38°11'11"
("Warm Springs TLD #1")
(Picnic ground west of cafe)
D. Inside bath house 38°11'12"
(1" above water)
Longitude1
116"22'56"
116°22'56"
116°22'55"
116°22'60"
Survey Results
(nR/hr)
115
80
26
120
' Latitude and longitude measured using a vehicle-mounted Loran-C set to a reference base location of 3^0670" Latitude and 11!P88'10"'Longitude.
Loran-C units set to different reference base locations may give different results, but the relative differences between locations surveyed should
be similar.
65
-------
From these survey meter readings, integrated expo-
sures of approximately 2.8,1.9,0.6, and 2.9 mR/day
could be anticipated at locations A, B, C, and D,
respectively. These compare well with TLD monitor-
ing results at locations B and C, as summarized in
Table 17.
Section 4.2.6.1.4. Comparing Routine TLD
Results with Direct Exposure Measurements
When calculated TLD exposures are compared with
results obtained from collocated Pressurized loniza-
tion Chambers a uniform under-response of TLD vs
PIC was noted.
TABLE 17.
MEASUREMENT PERIOD
ISSUE COLLECT
DATE DATE
WARM SPRINGS, NV
1/14/87 3/30/87
10/7/87 1/4/88
7/7/88 10/4/88
10/4/88 1/4/89
1/4/89 4/5/89
4/5/89 7/11/89
7/11/89 10/3/89
WARM SPRINGS #2, NV
3/30/87 4/6/87
7/6/87 10/7/87
1/4/88 4/5/88
4/5/88 7/7/88
4/5/89 7/11/89
7/11/89 10/3/89
SUMMARY RESULTS:
Avg. mR/day ±2 S.D.:
mR/meas. pd.±2S.D.:
Min. mR/meas. pd.:
Max. mR/meas. pd.:
Calculated C.V.:
TLD RESULTS — WARM SPRINGS,
ELAPSED GROSS
TIME EXPOSURE
(days) (mR)
75
89
89
92
91
97
84
98
93
92
93
97
84
NV VICINITY
HISTORICAL
REFERENCE
BACKGROUND
(mR)
TLDs LOST — NO DATA THIS
30.1
36.1
32.0
21.8
26.1
TLDs LOST
92.7
102.9
81.3
76.8
77.5
78.6
WARM SPRINGS
0.3210.11
29.2 ±9.9
21.8
36.1
16.9%
42.9
40.6
40.4
36.7
32.1
-NO DATA THIS
47.3
44.9
42.0
42.4
NETmR
ABOVE REF.
BACKGROUND
PERIOD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PERIOD
45.4
58.0
39.3
34.4
WARM SPRINGS #2
0.83 ±0.20
85.0 ±19.3
76.8
102.9
11.7%
66
-------
A detailed description of the PIC monitoring system
is included in Section 4.2.7. of this report.
This difference may be attributed to several factors:
(1) The PIC measures ionization in air (the Roent-
gen) while the TLD measures energy deposited
in matter (the rad). Results of the two methods
are not adjusted to account for this difference.
(2) The PIC is an exposure rate measuring device,
sampling every five seconds, while the TLD as
an integrating dosimeter is analyzed approxi-
mately once each quarter. Some reduction in
TLD results may be due to a small loss due to
normal fading (studies by Panasonic have shown
this loss to be minimal over the sampling period
used). As noted above, a six-month fade study
is currently being completed to confirm that
fading is negligible.
(3) PICs are more sensitive to lower energy gamma
radiation than are the TLDs. A review of
manufacturer's specifications for the PIC and
TLD systems shows their responses to be al-
most linear above approximately 80 keV and
above approximately 150 keV, respectively;
(4) The PIC units are calibrated by the manufacturer
against 60Co, while the TLDs are calibrated using
137Cs. No adjustment is made to account for the
differing energies at which the two systems are
calibrated. Studies are planned for 1990 to
determine the extent to which this factor influ-
ences PIC response; and
(5) The use of TLDs for environmental monitoring
requires several approximations, each of which
contributes to the noted difference between the
two systems:
(a) Environmental TLDs do not have a "flat"
response at the low (<100 keV) energies
characteristic of many noble gases and of
beta radiations. The CaSO4used in environ-
mental TLDs is known to overrespond at low
energies.
(b) Environmental TLDs, while calibrated in a
fixed geometry with a parallel beam incident
upon the dosimeter, are deployed in an im-
mersion cloud geometry. This results in a
portion of the exposure occurring behind the
filter. Because of this, development of an
appropriate algorithm to correct environ-
mental TLDs for differences in radiation type
and energy is normally not attempted.
(c) By their design, environmental TLDs are
effectively incapable of discerning beta ra-
diations.
For these reasons, it is important that neither the TLD
northe PIC be considered as "definitive" devices, but
as two complementary components of a comprehen-
sive environmental monitoring system.
Figure 34 compares PIC and TLD results for 1989.
Section 4.2.6.1.5. Historical Trends in TLD
Network
Annual exposures at fixed environmental stations
were evaluated to determine historical trends. Data
for past years was taken from previous annual re-
ports of the offsite monitoring program. Data for
1989 showed no statistically significant variation in
annual ambient gamma exposure levels from those
reported in previous years dating back to 1973. No
statistically significant variation based on State or
other location criterion was noted in the historic data.
Figure 35 illustrates the average ±2 S.D. annual
exposures obtained at all fixed monitoring stations in
each year since 1971.
A noticeable decrease in annual exposure levels
occurred in 1974. Based on the best available infor-
mation, this apparent decrease is most likely due
primarily to a combination of switching from bulb-
type dosimeters to the Harshaw TLD system in 1974
and to a general decline in global fallout as also noted
by other monitoring networks. Overlaid upon the
data in Figure 35 is a shaded box illustrating the
range of natural background exposures in the United
States due to cosmic and terrestrial radiations (OAK,
1972). This overlay illustrates that the ambient
gamma exposures measured by TLDs at fixed envi-
ronmental stations as part of this network were within
the range of exposures anticipated throughout the
United States due to "natural background."
Section 4.2.6.1.6. Statistical Evaluation of TLD
Results
Reviews of station and personnel TLD results were
completed using the statistical "z-score" test. This
test evaluates the distribution of measured values as
67
-------
L.
>
cr
E
o
100
80
60
40
3 2D
20
15
10
0, 0
50 0 100 0 150.0
Calculated mR/yr - PIC
200 0
Measured Data
PIC/TLD Rat io
_*Regression Analysis
"Linear least square analysis Y = 0 715X - 19.27
Std Error of Y = 4 86*. Correlation Coefficient = 0 953
r\
D
_
X
\
V-
r~\
u
Q_
cr
F/gure 34. Correlating TLD and PIC Results — 1989.
Q
in
r\j
(0
0
cr
£
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1980
1982 1981 19B6 1988
1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1965 1967 1969
Source Annual EPA Offsite Environmental Monitoring Reports
Bulb TLDs used prior to 1974, Harsbaw 1974 - 1987, Panasonic since 19B7
| | Range of normal cosmic + terrestrial background radiation exposures in United States (REF: BEIR-II)
Figure 35. Historical Trends — TLD Exposures at Fixed Environmental Stations — 1971-1989.
68
-------
a function of their variation from the average of all
results. When plotted, 99% of data that is normally
distributed will fall on a straight line with a range of
+ 3S.D.
The z-score measures how many standard devia-
tions an individual data point is away from the mean.
It is formally defined as follows:
"The z-score of any number x in a distribution whose
mean is |i and whose standard deviation is a, is
given by:
z =
where: x = value of number in original units
|j, = population mean
a = population standard deviation
The z-score of a number in a population is some-
times called the z-value or measurement in stan-
dard units. Since a is always a positive number, z
will be a negative number whenever x < \i. A z-score
of 0 implies that the term has the same value as the
mean" (STA75).
Figures 36 and 37 confirm that personnel and station
TLD results fall within the range anticipated by ran-
domly distributed data. Figure 43 (Section 4.2.7.)
illustrates that PIC results for 1989 are also randomly
distributed. No personnel TLD result fell outside the
range of ±3 S.D.. Two fixed background station TLD
results fell within the range of >+3 but <+5 S.D.
Analysis of these two stations, Elgin and Hancock
Summit, NV, showed the anticipated range of expo-
sures to be 76 - 218 mR/yr (Elgin) and 103 - 209 mR/
yr (Hancock Summit). Results obtained during 1989
for these two stations were statistically indistinguish-
able from results obtained at these same locations in
1988 and 1987.
To determine if exposures being measured represent
"natural background" or increases due to identifiable
events (i.e., NTS activities), it is helpful to compare the
distribution of measured results against the distribu-
tion of a large number of known random events. If
exposures were due to identifiable (i.e., non-random,
not naturally occurring events), one would expect
their frequency distribution to be non-random. Figure
38 superimposes the frequency distribution of 1,000
known random events (numbers obtained by using a
140
120 -
100 -
CQ 80 -
CC 60 -
-2-10 1 2
Z-5core C± Standard Deviation^
-°- 65 PersonneI TLDs
Figure 36. Distribution of Personnel TLD Results — 1989.
69
-------
200
-2-10 1 2 3 4
Z-Score C ± Standard Deviation}
134 Fixed Environmental Station TLDs
Figure 37. Distribution of Fixed Station TLD Results — 1989.
01
D
(f)
CL
O
60
50
O 30
Q
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-5
-2-10 1 2 3
Standard Deviation
165 PersonneI TLDs
1000 random event?
135 Fixed Station TLDs
E
O
-
o
o
o
M-
o
15
Q
a)
a
Figure 38. Frequency Distribution Analysis Fixed Station and Personnel TLDs — 1989.
70
-------
random number generator) with the frequency distri-
bution of fixed station and personnel TLD results.
This figure illustrates that both fixed station and
personnel TLD results in fact are distributed in a
random manner, further confirming that they repre-
sent natural background as opposed to exposures
due to discrete, identifiable events.
Section 4.2.6.1.7. Conclusion
During the calendar year 1989, a total of 65 individu-
als and 135 fixed environmental stations were moni-
tored with TLDs. One individual showed a single
exposure that was apparently significantly above
levels expected from natural background at that lo-
cation. Upon further investigation it was learned that
the individual had worn the TLD while undergoing a
medical radiographic procedure. No other expo-
sures to monitored individuals were statistically de-
tectable above associated natural background lev-
els. Exposures to TLDs issued to individuals ranged
from 4 to 116 mR for the entire year.
The range of exposures to individuals compared
favorably to the range of 17 to 156 mR noted for the
135 fixed environmental station TLDs. Exposures to
the fixed environmental station TLDs averaged 66.7
± 31.8 mR for the year. A detailed evaluation was
conducted to determine the cause of elevated radia-
tion levels at the Warm Springs #2 monitoring loca-
tion. These were found to be due to high levels of
naturally occurring radioactive material in the stream.
Statistical evaluation of the distribution of personnel
and fixed station exposures confirmed that the expo-
sures occurred in a pattern consistent with random
(i.e., naturally occurring) events. Except as noted
above no apparent exposures were caused by a
discrete event or events. There was no evidence
that any exposure measured by the TLDs was caused
by planned or unplanned releases of radioactivity
from NTS operations.
Published estimates of natural background (terres-
trial + cosmic) radiation exposure for the United
States indicate an expected range of annual expo-
sures of 43 -168 mR, with an anticipated average of
68 mR (OAK72). The range and average of expo-
sures noted for both individuals and fixed environ-
mental stations participating in this network is there-
fore within the range of anticipated exposures for
inhabitants of the United States.
Section 4.2.7. Pressurized Ion Chamber
Network (PIC)
C. A. Fontana
The PIC network measures ambient gamma radia-
tion exposure rates. The 27 PICs deployed around
the NTS showed no unexplained deviations from
background levels during 1989. The maximum annual
average exposure rate of 165 mR/yr was at Austin,
NV, the minimum of 52 mR/yr was at Las Vegas, NV.
These values were within the United States back-
ground maximum and minimum values (BEIR80).
The 1989 data was consistent with previous years
trends, and no prolonged unexplained deviations
from background occurred during the year.
SECTION 4.2.7.1. NETWORK DESIGN
The purpose of the PIC network is to measure
ambient gamma radiation exposure rates. These
rates will vary with altitude (cosmic radiation) and
natural radioactivity in the soil (terrestrial radiation).
The Pressurized Ion Chamber is a spherical shell
filled with argon gas to a pressure 25 times that of the
atmospheric. In the center of the chamber is a
spherical electrode with a charge opposite to the
outer shell. When gamma radiation penetrates the
sphere, ionization of the gas occurs and the ions are
collected by the center electrode. A current gener-
ated is measured and the intensity of the radiation
field is determined from the magnitude of this current.
There are 27 PICs deployed around the Nevada Test
Site in nearby communities. Of these, 18 are at Com-
munity Monitoring Stations described in Section 5.4.,
and nine are at other locations. Figure 39 shows PIC
locations in California, Nevada, and Utah.
SECTION 4.2.7.2. METHODS
Data are collected via satellite transmissions. In
addition to telemetry retrieval, the data are also re-
corded on magnetic tapes and strip charts for
hardcopy backup. In the unlikely event of an acci-
dental release of radioactivity from the NTS, signals
via the satellite telemetry system could provide in-
stantaneous data from all affected PIC locations.
Data is displayed in nR/hr (microroentgens per hour)
on a digital readout display at each location for easy
access by the public. The roentgen is a measure of
71
-------
•—•-»»•—•'
NEVADA ! UTAH
Austin
%.
•^ V Tonopah0
Stone
Cabin Rn
"" • BNyala
Twin
Springs Rn
Rachel
, NELUS AFB 1* Q Complex I
^MedlinsRn Cahente|
Delta
Milford
• Cedar City
. 0St George
• •••••••IMIMIMI^
ARIZONA
Furnace Creek f *<^
Shoshone
I Community Monitonng Stations
Other PIC Locatons
6 50 100 150
Scale m Kilometers
5/90
Figure 39. Community Monitoring PIC Stations and Other PIC Station Locations — 7959.
72
-------
exposure to Xorgamma radiation. For example, one
chest x-ray results in an exposure of 20,000 to
40,000 microroentgens. Computer analysis of the
data is evaluated weekly at EMSL-LV. As part of
routine quality assurance procedures, trends are
noted. Source checks are conducted weekly and
data are plotted by the EMSL-LV specialist for
comparison to previous weeks. Figure 40 shows PIC
equipment setup in the field.
SECTION 4.2.7.3. RESUL TS
Data for 1989 are displayed in Table 18 as the
average u,R/h and annual mR/yr from each station.
Figure 41 shows annual averages for each location
in mR/yr as compared to the maximum and minimum
United States background (BEIR80). Figure 42
shows annual averages for each location in microro-
entgens per hour with error bars representing two
standard deviations about the mean of the weekly
averages. Figure 43 illustrates a z-score plot of the
PIC data for 1989. See Section 4.2.6.1.6. for a
definition of z-score. This demonstrates that there is
good correspondence to the mean of all results. The
averages of the 27 PICs varied from 51.7 milliroent-
gens per year at Las Vegas, NV, to 164.7 milliroent-
gens per year at Austin, NV. The U.S. background
maximum and minimum values of the combined
terrestrial and cosmic components of environmental
gamma radiation exposure rates represent the high-
est and lowest values respectively. Figure 44 shows
historical annual mR/yr PIC exposure rates from rep-
resentative stations. The 1989 PIC data is consistent
with previous years trends, and within U.S. back-
ground maximum and minimum values. No pro-
longed unexplained deviations from these background
levels occurred.
(Text continued on page 80)
TABLE 18. PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER READINGS —1989
STATION LOCATION
Alamo, NV
Austin, NV
Beatty, NV
Caliente, NV
Cedar City, UT
Complex I, NV
Delta, UT
Ely, NV
Furnace Creek, CA
Goldfield, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Las Vegas, NV
Lathrop Wells, NV
Medlin's Ranch, NV
Milford, UT
Nyala, NV
Overton, NV
Pahrump, NV
Pioche, NV
Rachel, NV
St. George, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
Shoshone, CA
Stone Cabin Ranch, NV
Tonopah, NV
Twin Springs Ranch, NV
Uhalde's Ranch, NV
NO. OF
WEEKLY
VALUES
52
47
52
52
50
50
52
52
42
51
52
51
50
51
49
37
52
51
52
52
52
51
51
44
51
40
49
EXPOSURE RATE
MAX
13.6
20.0
17.7
15.0
10.4
16.7
12.1
12.4
10.7
16.0
9.3
6.3
14.6
16.5
18.4
14.0
10.0
8.0
13.1
16.3
9.8
12.7
12.8
18.2
17.1
18.3
17.7
MIN
12.7
15.4
16.4
13.6
9.6
14.3
10.2
11.8
9.6
14.7
8.5
5.6
13.9
14.7
15.4
11.3
9.0
7.2
12.2
11.8
8.5
8.8
11.0
16.0
15.1
15.5
14.7
(pR/hr)*
AVG±2S.D.
13.0
18.8
16.9
14.4
10.0
15.7
11.2
12.0
10.0
15.2
8.9
5.9
14.1
15.8
17.1
12.5
9.4
7.6
12.7
14.9
9.0
10.4
11.7
16.9
16.4
16.9
16.8
+
+
±
+
+
+
±
±
±
+
+
±
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
+
+
+
±
±
+
+
0.3
2.1
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.9
0.7
1.4
0.6
1.1
0.7
1.2
1.5
mR/yr±2S.D.
113.9
164.7
147.8
126.1
87.2
137.8
98.2
105.4
88.0
133.4
78.1
51.7
123.4
138.4
149.4
109.3
82.4
66.6
111.1
130.8
79.0
91.0
102.8
148.2
143.3
148.3
147.0
+
+
+
±
+
±
±
±
+
+
+
±
±
+
±
±
+
+
±
±
±
±
+
±
+
±
±
2.9
18.6
5.3
4.9
2.8
7.8
6.4
2.6
4.9
4.3
3.4
3.2
2.9
5.3
11.6
7.5
4.3
2.8
3.4
16.9
5.7
12.0
5.6
9.7
6.4
10.8
13.5
* Weekly averages.
73
-------
Figure 40. Pressurized Ion Chamber (left) Gamma-Rate Recorder Remote Processor Unit (right) with
Chart Recorder, Digital Readout, and Telemetry Antenna with Solar Panel (top center).
74
-------
U.S. Background
Alamo
Austin
Beatty
Caliente
Cedar City
Complex 1
Delta
Ely
Furnace Creek
Goldfield
Indian Springs
Las Vegas
Lathrop Wells
Medlin's Ranch
Milford
Nyala
Overton
Pahrump
Pioche
Rachel
St. George
Salt Lake City
Shoshone
Stone Cabin Ranch
Tonopah
Twin Springs Ranch
Uhalde's Ranch
c
[Mini |MaxJ
k-a^Kr -I -aeHHirrv^gj
]
SiKillllteJSfOTjHfl
S "~.r ^T;& ~~> ~':-*-~ rf>.t*b"J5Bf *" 1
-: _ - -_ _ -_~n *™Sff-*_ 1 _ .- .g5Sr6.j"_--g-JVj
P->-Vv:--?" 'mi
: ": :- " " "-t . . I-£ 1 '• ]
;S?-i^;^
i'Mie^^^tf^lS^ijs:^
rf^**6p™a*ftA--j»jJS,~^I^'JiS^«^^i^!:wj"_~" "__ •• ~ ;!
: ~~~~" T^^p^-if iC-^rSS^ n._± iwOsSfegg- ~~^a. Ssa - |
= '"-"",- ^-*.~iT>"^i, " -rL" ' "" - " 1
.. _ .^ -_-*^_.^ ^ jjr^..^ - _/ j
^>-z V>--^-Ai, * - --'"- -"^^
;«»^^ffi:^
tJMsSC^iTf^:^^ -, :.^
:_ f^^-Vr^lj^^-j:^,;-^. '-S.'_ --,_«_"* ' ~|
u*li^rf;::r;l
i *_ ™"-'7ai7x-"iSr~~" ^r-Vr^^'S-r*!
|3P^^> ^r^i7| - 7^
:_??_ - .• .__•_" *•' - ' ;. L - _ - - 1
."•-:'. ""?-. -~\ -;?.:" ;- "-" - j
~ -".-'-.'_-.-'"_- \ - 1
. _ i
i. . " . . i
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 i I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I
) 50 100 150 200 250 3C
Milliroentgens Per Year
DO
Figure 41. Annual PIC Averages by Station in Milliroentgens per Year — 1989.
75
-------
Alarno —
Austin —
Beatty -
Caliente —
Cedar City —
Complex I —
Delta -
Ely -
Furnace Creek —
Goldfield -
Indian Springs —
Las Vegas —
Lathrop Wells —
Medlin's Ranch —
Milford -
Nyala —
Overton
Pahrump —
Pioche —
Rachel -
St George —
Salt Lake -
Shoshone —
Stone Cabin Ranch —
Tonopah —
Twin Springs Ranch
Uhalde's Ranch —
-•H
0 5 10 15 20
Microroentgens per Hour
(—•—| = 2 S.D. about mean of weekly averages.
25
F/gure 42. Annual PIC Averages by Station in Microroentgens per Hour — 1989.
76
-------
EXPOSURE RATE, mR/yr
i
Kj
O
CO
oo
CD
-------
Maximum U.S.
Background
£,
E
2
cc
1
o
a.
X
M i
Minimum U.S.
Background
Maximum U.S.
Background
^
cc
0
to
cc
o>
i
1
Minimum U.S.
Background
Alamo, NV
250 -i — —
240 -
230 -
220 -
210 -
200 -
190 -
180 -
170 -
160 -
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
110-
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
n
• • • i
I
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
• Year
Annual Average
Austin, NV
250 -i — ,
240 -
230 -
220 -
210 -
200 -
190 -
180 -
170 -
160 -
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
110-
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
" • m
i
m m
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
• Year
Annual Average
Figure 44. Representative Trends in Annual Average PIC Data.
78
-------
Medlins Ranch, NV
Maximum U.S. 250
Background 240 -
230 -
220 -
210 -
200 -
190 -
,_ 180 -
c£ 170 -
160 -
w
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
110-
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
cc
£
Minimum U.S.
Background
50
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
« Year
Annual Average
1987
1988
1989
IT
Maximum U.S. 250 -
Background 240 -
230 -
220 -
210 -
200 -
190 -
^ 180 -
170 -
160 -
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
110-
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -t
60 -
Minimum U.S.
Background
50
Pahrump, NV
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Year
Annual Average
—i—
1987
1988
1989
Figure 44. Continued.
79
-------
Section 4.2.8. Internal Exposure Monitoring
A. A. Mullen
No internal exposure above applicable regulatory
limits was detected in either occupationally exposed
individuals or members of the general public who
participated in the Offsite Human Surveillance Pro-
gram at EMSL-LV. Several individuals either return-
ing from European visits or visiting the laboratory
from European countries were found to have very
small internal concentrations from 137Cs released
during the Chernobyl accident and still present in the
food chain.
Internal exposure is caused by ingested or inhaled
radionuclides that remain in the body either tempo-
rarily or for longer times because of storage in
tissues. At EMSL-LV two methods are used to
detect body burdens: whole-body counting and
urinalysis.
SECTION 4.2.8.1. SYSTEM DESIGN
The whole-body counting facility has been main-
tained at EMSL-LV since 1966 and is equipped to
determine the identity and quantity of gamma-emit-
ting radionuclides which may have been inhaled or
ingested. Routine examination consists of a 2000
second count in each of the two shielded examina-
tion vaults. In one vault a single intrinsic germanium
coaxial detector positioned over an adjustable chair
allows detection of gamma radiation with energies
ranging from 60 keV to 2.0 meV in the whole body.
The other vault contains an adjustable chair with six
intrinsic germanium semi-planar detectors mounted
above the chest area. The semi-planar array is
designed for detection of gamma, and x-ray emitting
radionuclides with energy ranges from 10 to 300
keV. Specially designed software allows individual
detector spectra to be analyzed to obtain a summa-
tion of left- or right-lung arrays and the total lung
area. This provides much greater sensitivity for the
transuranic radionuclides but maintains the ability to
pinpoint "hot spots." Custom designed detector
mounts allow maximum flexibility for the placement
of detectors in various configurations for skull, knee,
ankle, or other geometries.
SECTION 4.2.8.2. NETWORK DESIGN
This activity consists of two portions, an Offsite
Human Surveillance Program and a Radiological
Safety Program. The Offsite Human Surveillance
Program is designed (1) to measure radionuclide
body burdens in a representative number of families
who reside in areas that were subjected to fallout
during the early years of nuclear weapons tests, and
(2) to act as a biological monitoring system for
present nucleartesting activities. A few families who
reside in areas not affected by such fallout were also
selected for comparative study. Members of the
general public concerned about possible exposure
to radionuclides are also counted periodically as a
public service.
The Radiological Safety Program is designed to
assess internal exposure for EPA employees, DOE
contractor employees, and by special request, for
employees of companies who may have had an
accidental exposure to radioactive material.
SECTION 4.2.8.3. METHODS
The Offsite Human Surveillance Program was initi-
ated in December 1970, to determine levels of radi-
onuclides in some of the families residing in commu-
nities and ranches surrounding the NTS. Biannual
counting is performed in the spring and fall. This
program started with 34families (142 individuals). In
1989,15 of these families (36 individuals) were still
active in the program together with six families
added in recent years. When the Community Moni-
toring Station Network was started in 1981, the
families of the station managers interested in partici-
pating were added to the program. These 24 families
are counted in'the winter and summer of each year.
The geographical locations of the families which
participated in 1989 are shown in Figure 45.
These persons travel to the EMSL-LV where a
whole-body count and a lung count of each person
is made to determine the body burden of gamma-
emitting radionuclides. A urine sample is collected
for tritium analysis. Results of the whole-body count
are available before the families leave the facility
and are discussed with the subjects. At 18-month
intervals a physical exam, health history and the
following are performed: a urinalysis, complete
blood count, serology, chest x-ray (three-year inter-
vals), sight screening, audiogram, vital capacity,
EKG (over 40 years old), and thyroid panel. The
individual is then examined by a physician. The
results of the examination can be requested for use
by their family physician.
80
-------
NEVADA TUTAH
\v
Austin
Round Mt. OOO
Blue Jay O
• Ely
O Lund
O Blue Eagle Rn.
-
TonopahT)
ONyala
Adaven O
Goldfield
Eagle Valley
•^ f RANGE COMPLEX I A[amo
\v
-------
Figure 46. Calibration of the Semi-Planar Detectors for Transuranic Radionuclides Using the LLNL
Realistic Lung Phantom. (The thyroid and coaxial detectors are calibrated for the radioiodines with the
thyroid neck phantom.)
Figure 47. The BOMAB Phantom is Shown During Calibration of the Coaxial Whole-Body Counting
Detector.
82
-------
The Quality Control Program utilizes daily equip-
ment checks analyzed with the help of specially
designed software. Calibrations with National Insti-
tute of Standards and Technology traceable radi-
onuclides are done yearly using standard phantoms
(see Figures 46 and 47). Calibration phantoms are
exchanged among this facility and other whole-body
counting facilities across the nation for intercompari-
son studies.
SECTION 4.2.8.4. RESULTS
During 1989, a total of 904 gamma spectra were
obtained from 221 individuals, of whom 101 were
participants in the Offsite Human Surveillance Pro-
gram. Also, 1440 spectra for calibrations and back-
ground were generated. Cesium-137 is generally
the only fission product detected in the body. As a
result of worldwide fallout following the Chernobyl
accident, a trace amount of 137Cs was detected in a
limited number of individuals who had been visiting
or residing in Europe. In general, the spectra were
representative of normal background for people and
showed only naturally occurring 40K, and radon and
thoron daughter products. No transuranic radionu-
clides were detected in any lung counting data.
The tritium concentrations in urine samples from
EPA, DPI and SAIC employees had a range from
below the (MDC) (average value 3.45 x 1Q-7|iCi/mL
12.8 Bq/L) to 1.25 x 10-6|iCi/mL (46.2 Bq/L). This
value was 0.05 percent of the annual limit on intake
for occupationally exposed employees (see Table
19).
TABLE 19. TRITIUM IN URINE RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY PROGRAM
COLLECTION CONC.
SAMPLING DATE
LOCATION 1989
LAS VEGAS NV 02/06
02/06
02/06
02/06
02/07
02/09
02/13
02/17
02/17
02/22
03/06
03/06
03/07
03/07
03/08
03/10
03/15
03/16
03/16
03/17
03/31
03/31
04/07
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/26
04/27
04/27
±2S.D.
(MDC)
COLLECTION CONC.
SAMPLING
(10-9nCi/mL) ORGANIZATION LOCATION
3491251
289+251
304±252
4881254
-2771201
-3291242
951243
-2371241
741207
237+212
-951209
-1151211
-1341207
-131+202
501209
-220+204
126+218
2981188
190+194
8.6+217
901218
-1901213
3091224
1751218
2211216
272+222
1931215
2831216
1011213
(406)
(408)
(409)
(409)"
(337)
(405)
(398)
(401)
(339)
(344)
(347)
(350)
(345)
(336)
(343)
(341)
(357)
(303)
(316)
(358)
(357)
(355)
(362)
(356)
(351)
(360)
(350)
(349)
(349)
SAIC
SAIC
SAIC
SAIC
SAIC
SAIC
SAIC
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
ERA RENO NV
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
DATE
1989
05/03
05/03
05/04
05/04
05/04
05/04
05/05
05/05
05/09
05/09
05/11
05/11
05/11
05/12
05/15
05/18
06/08
06/28
07/12
07/27
12/12
12/13
12/13
12/13
07/11
11/21
11/21
11/21
12S.D.
(MDC)
(10-9|iCi/mL) ORGANIZATION
0+212
851 +224
4001216
122+214
271213
1301217
494+222
2651215
501213
181+213
2201219
2471222
3971196
1171213
1581196
419+196
601194
-3041187
-19+189
401190
12471213
2361186
2101188
2491195
171+191
1581186
671185
194+188
(349)
(351)"
(347)"
(350)
(350)
(355)
(355)"
(348)
(350)
(347)
(356)
(361)
(315)"
(348)
(319)
(314)"
(319)
(315)
(311)
(312)
(326)"
(301)
(305)
(316)
(311)
(302)
(304)
(305)
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
SAIC
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
SAIC
SAIC
SAIC
DRI
DRI
DRI
DRI
"Concentration is greater than the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC).
83
-------
Bioassay results for the Offsite Human Surveillance
Program showed that the concentration of tritium in
single urine samples collected at random periods of
time varied from below the minimum detectable con-
centration (MDC) (average 3.65 x 10'7nCi/mL, 13.5
Bq/L) to 4.66 x 10^Ci/mL (172 Bq/L)(see Table 20).
The average value for tritium in urine was 3.9 x 10~7
|iCi/ml_(14.5 Bq/L). Nearly half of the concentrations
were below the MDC. None of the values above the
MDC were over applicable limits. The highest value
4.66 x 10-6nCi/mL was 2.5 percent of the annual limit
on intake for the general public. The higher than
MDC tritium values seen in the offsite population
occur routinely. There appears to be no correlation
with tritium found in air samples at a statistically ac-
ceptable confidence level.
TABLE 20. TRITIUM IN URINE OFFSITE HUMAN SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
COLLECTION
SAMPLING LOCATION
SHOSHONE CA
ALAMO NV
BEATTY NV
CALIENTE NV
CURRANT NV
BLUE EAGLE RANCH
ELYNV
DATE
1989
05/12
05/12
03/17
03/17
03/13
03/13
03/13
03/23
03/23
04/25
04/25
04/25
04/25
07/01
07/12
07/12
12/13
12/13
12/13
07/14
07/14
07/14
07/14
07/14
08/04
08/04
03/20
03/20
04/07
04/07
10/11
10/11
CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
(10-9nCi/mL)
44 ± 212 (348)
156 ±218 (356)
138 ± 220 (360)
-58 ±218 (360)
-26 +216 (356)
81 ±216 (354)
146 + 182 (297)
136 +221 (361)
403 + 233 (375)"
110 ±216 (354)
244 ±21 6 (351)
354 + 226 (364)
-119 ±214 (355)
319+194 (313)"
373 + 191 (306)"
460 ± 192 (307)"
107 ± 184 (300)
135 + 187 (305)
99 + 185 (303)
473 ±195 (311)"
269 ± 194 (314)
930 + 205 (319)"
397 + 195 (312)"
425 + 195 (312)"
515 + 199 (316)"
755 + 203 (318)"
125 ± 228 (373)
17 ±215 (354)
38 ± 214 (351)
730 + 232 (366)"
144 ± 204 (334)
62 + 203 (334)
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1989
GOLDFIELDNV 08/17
08/17
08/17
08/17
INDIAN SPRINGS NV 08/1 1
08/11
09/06
09/06
09/06
LAS VEGAS NV 07/14
STATELINENV 03/15
03/15
AMARGOSA FARM AREA NV 07/13
07/13
07/19
07/21
NYALANV 03/14
03/14
03/14
03/24
11/02
11/02
11/16
11/16
OVERTON NV 06/27
06/27
06/27
06/27
06/27
08/16
08/16
08/16
CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
(10-9nCi/mL)
423 ± 193 (309)"
445 ± 192 (307)"
798 ± 214 (336)"
346 + 194 (312)"
136 + 203 (331)
691 + 198 (311)"
268 ± 202 (327)
207 ± 204 (331)
218 ± 206 (335)
937 + 196 (303)"
50 ± 195 (321)
167 ± 219 (357)
523 ± 195 (310)"
445 + 192 (306)"
768 ± 200 (313)"
361 ± 193 (310)"
-68 + 153 (253)
271 ± 158 (254)"
104 ±221 (361)
208 +219 (357)
225 + 194 (315)
101 +185 (302)
191 ±187 (304)
100 + 186 (305)
1192 ±219 (336)"
521 ± 195 (310)"
397 + 194 (310)"
377 ± 195 (313)"
270 ± 192 (310)
268 + 191 (308)
389 + 198 (318)"
290 ± 193 (312)
84
-------
TABLE 20. (Continued)
COLLECTION
DATE CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
COLLECTION
DATE CONC.±2S.D.(MDC)
SAMPLING LOCATION
OVERTON NV
PAHRUMP NV
RACHEL NV
TONOPAH NV
1989
08/16
08/16
05/12
06/16
06/16
06/16
08/11
08/11
03/31
03/31
08/08
08/08
08/21
03/24
06/23
06/23
(10'9nCi/mL)
377 ±194 (311)"
538 ± 196 (312)**
40 ± 212 (349)
-123 + 192 (319)
69 ± 194 (318)
77 ± 194 (318)
291 ± 192 (310)
INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE
604 + 225 (357)**
423 ± 220 (354)**
480 + 196 (314)**
656 ± 198 (313)**
331 ± 194 (312)"
-195 ±212 (354)
7.5 + 188 (309)
96 ± 187 (306)
SAMPLING LOCATION 1989
TONOPAH NV 06/23
06/23
08/18
08/18
08/18
08/18
11/16
CEDAR CITY UT 02/03
02/03
02/03
02/03
07/24
07/24
07/24
07/24
07/24
ST GEORGE UT 05/12
(10-9nCi/mL)
471 ± 194 (310)**
487 ± 194 (310)**
3743 ± 232 (309)**
483 + 195 (310)**
376 ± 192 (309)**
4662 ± 240 (307)**
123 ± 185 (301)
417 ± 255 (412)**
652 ± 264 (421)**
157 + 249 (406)
315 ± 254 (412)
386 ± 194 (312)**
607 ± 204 (323)**
387 ± 193 (309)**
258 + 192 (310)
537 + 195 (309)**
238 ±220 (357)
* Concentration is greater than the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC).
As reported in previous years, medical examinations
of the offsite families revealed a generally healthy
population. The blood examinations and thyroid
profiles showed no abnormal results which could be
attributed to past or present NTS testing operations.
The plot of the average tritium in urine from the Offsite
Human Surveillance Program (Figure 48) shows the
values vary over the years. Additional sampling,
during planned releases (if any) from NTS, will be
performed in 1990.
£ 1
5L
o
C
o
C
O —
o
00
75
50
25
-25
-50
-75
I 00
i i i
I I
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
o Concentration + 2 S.D.
Figure 48. Mean and Standard Deviation for the Concentration of Tritium in Urine of Offsite Residents.
85
-------
Section 4.2.9. Long-Term Hydrological Monitor-
ing Program (LTHMP)
S. C. Black
Tritium and gamma-spectral analyses were per-
formed on samples taken from 217 wells, springs,
and other sources at locations near sites where
underground nuclear explosives tests have been
conducted. Gamma radioactivity was found in only
three sampled locations, as would be expected from
previous results. Tritium concentrations found dur-
ing this sampling year were consistent with the levels
found in previous years. In only three samples were
the tritium concentrations greater than the Drinking
Water Standards, and those samples were from
wells not accessible to the general public.
SECTION 4.2.9.1. BA CKGROUND
Surface- and ground-water sampling and analysis
have been performed for many yearsonwatersources
around the NTS. Also, when underground nuclear
tests occurred in other states, water sampling pro-
grams were instituted. Finally, in 1972, all of the
water sampling programs were combined to consti-
tute the Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Pro-
gram (LTHMP). At each of the sites of underground
nuclear tests, water sampling points were estab-
lished by the U.S. Geological Survey so that any
migration of radioactivity from the test cavities to
potable water sources could be detected by radi-
oanalysis.
The 37 wells on the NTS and a like number of wells
in areas near the NTS that are part of this program
are shown in Figures 50 and 51, respectively. The lo-
cations of sampling points at sites in Nevada outside
the NTS and at sites in Alaska, Colorado, Missis-
sippi, and New Mexico are shown in Figures 52
through 63.
Because of news reports of leakage from the Project
Dribble test cavity, several residents requested that
their water be analyzed (10 extra water samples
were collected) and venison from deer collected at
the Tatum Dome site was also received for analysis.
SECTION 4.2.9.2. METHODS
At nearly all locations, the standard operating proce-
dure is to collect four samples. Two samples are
collected in 500 mL glass bottles to be analyzed for
tritium. The results from analysis of one of these is
reported while the other sample serves as a backup
in case of loss. If the tritium is found at a detectable
concentration, the second sample serves as a dupli-
cate sample. The remaining two samples are col-
lected in 3.8-liter plastic containers (cubitainers).
One of these is analyzed by gamma spectrometry
and the other is stored as a backup or for duplicate
analysis. For wells with operating pumps, the samples
are collected at the nearest convenient outlet. If the
well has no pump, a truck-mounted sampling rig is
used. With this rig, it is possible to collect 3-liter
samples from wells as deep as 1800 meters. At a few
locations, because of limited supply, only 500 mL
samples are collected for3H analysis. At the normal
sample collection sites, the pH, conductivity, and
water temperature are measured when the sample is
collected. This estimates the stability of the water
supply. Also, the first time samples are collected
from a well, 89'90Sr, 226Ra, 238,239+2«pu and uranjum jso-
topes are determined by radiochemistry as time
permits.
The 3H and gamma spectrometric analyses are de-
scribed in Chapter 8, Sample Analysis Procedures.
For those samples in which the 3H concentration is
less than 7 x 10-7|iCi/mL (26 Bq/L), an enrichment
procedure is performed to reduce the MDC from
about 5 x 10-7 to about 1 x 10>Ci/mL (from 22 to 0.4
Bq/L).
For those operations conducted in other states,
samples for the LTHMP are collected annually. For
the locations on the NTS listed in Table 22, the
samples are collected monthly, when possible, and
analyzed by gamma spectrometry as well as for
tritium. For a few NTS wells and for all the water
sources around the NTS shown in Table 23, a
sample is collected twice per year at about a 6-month
interval. One of the semi-annual samples is ana-
lyzed for 3H by the conventional method, the other by
electrolytic enrichment. A 3.8 L cubitainer of water is
collected each month from these sites and analyzed
by gamma spectrometry.
Because of the variability noted in past years in
samples obtained from the shallow monitoring wells
at Project Dribble in Mississippi, a second sample is
taken after pumping for awhile or after the hole has
refilled with water. These second samples are fre-
quently higher in 3H concentration and may be more
representative of formation water.
(Text continued on page 103)
86
-------
Figure 49. EPA Monitoring Technician Collecting City Water Sample from Pahrump, Nevada.
87
-------
NEVADA RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AREA
"7
Well UE5c
Wei] 5B
Weil 5c
5 10
Scale in Kilometers
Army Well 6A
A = Water Sampling Location
Figure 50. LTHMP Sampling Locations on the NTS.
88
-------
Tonopah
Twin Springs
Adaven Springs
Well #6
NELLIS AFB
RANGE COMPLEX
Sprmgdale^
Goss Springs i
f
JS Ecology ^ Species
\,0 Nickells
N k>
Amargosa^
Beatty
^US Ecology £ Specie Springs
Cof er
11S/48-1dd
Younghans Ranch (2)
Mercury
V Valley
P Tempiute
'Penoyer(3)
i Crystal Springs
Alamo
#2
Well 18S/51IE-7dbj
Death Valley Jet. • *
Fairbanks Springs
Crystal Pool
• Ash Meadows
• Johnnie
lndian Springs
Sewer Co. Well # 1
Ca,vadaWel,#1
Scale in Miles
10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Scale in Kilometers
IShoshone
Spring
NEVADA
NEVADA TEST SITE &
NELLIS AFB RANGE COMPLEX
_ Las Vegas
9 Well # 28
Lake Mead ^
Intake
LOCATION MAP
Figure 51. LTHMP Sampling Locations Near the NTS.
89
-------
Clevenger
Lake v Constantino
Spring
BAKER RUNWAY
South Hanger
Figure 52. Amchitka Island and Background Sampling Locations for the LTHMP.
90
-------
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
Figure 53. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Cannikin.
91
-------
/
/
/^7O
Q
/
/COLLAPSE f
' BOUNDARY \
© Surface Ground Zero
9 Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Feet
600 1200
200 400
Scale in Meters
MILROW
Scale in Feet
0 300
\
LONG SHOT
Long Shot
Pond #3
0 100
Scale in Meters
© Surface Ground Zero
9 Sampling Locations
5/90
Figure 54. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Projects Milrow and Long Shot.
92
-------
awn Cr
8400' Downstream
Fawn Cr 500' Upstream
RB-D-01
Fawn Cr. 500'
Downstream
Fawn Cr 6800
Upstream
Fawn Cr. No 3
Rj£ BLANCO COUNTY If
GARFIELoTnTiw-rv "*•
Scale in Miles
• .
Scale in Kilometers
© Surface Ground Zero
Artesian Well
O Windmill
D Water Well
A Spring
Stream
Figure 55. L THMP Sampling Locations for Project Rio Blanco.
93
-------
Schwab Rn. Potter
\ S
Grand Valley \ Rulison
City Water
Grand Valley
Test Well
• Sefcovic Rn.
Hayward Rn.
Battlement Creek
[Spring
'SGZ
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
N
0 8
Scale in Kilometers
^=1-^7
. _ yfk SGZ I
GARFIELD
COUNTY
LOCATION MAPS
5/90
Figure 56. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Rulison.
94
-------
Lower Little Creek
Salt Dome Timber Co.
Anderson
King
B.R.Anderson
G. Kelly • •
T. Saucier • g
B. ChamblissH 4
R. Mills m
P.T. Lee
» Hunt Club
•
R.L Anderson
W. Daniels Jr.
Baxterville
Well Ascot 21
Lumberton
1 Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
N
0 5 10 15
Scale in Kilometers
MISSISSIPPI/ /
/
SGZ
©
LAMAR
COUNTY
LOCATION MAPS
5/90
Figure 57. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Dribble — Towns and Residences.
95
-------
>.. HALF
•. o
HMH-10
\
Half Moon /
Creek
Overflow /
SGZ \
IHMH-2 |
^ BHMH-9
HMH-11
\
HMH-7
1 Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Feet
100 200 300
50
Scale in Meters
100
LAMAR
COUNTY
LOCATION MAPS
5/90
Figure 58. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Dribble — Near GZ.
96
-------
£ •"
\*v
^•"
-------
/-^~v—.
Hot Creek
Ranch
SGZi
HTH2
HTH 1
Six-Mile Well
Jim Bias Well
(Blue Jay Springs)
Blue Jay
Maint Station
| Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
0 58
Scale in Kilometers
NYE
COUNTY
LOCATION MAPS
5/90
Figure 60. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Faultless.
98
-------
Fallen
• HS-1
Smith/James
Spring
CHURCHILL COUNTY
MINERAL COUNTY
i Surface Ground Zero
I Water Sampling Locations
N
Scale in Miles
5
5 10
Scale in Kilometers
CHURCHILL
COUNTY
LOCATION MAPS
5/90
Figure 61. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Shoal.
99
-------
To Blanco &
Gobernador
Bixler Rn.
I Bubbling
Spring
La Jara Creek
•
Windmill #2
EPNG Well 10-36
Cedar Spring •
Cave Spring •
Jicarilla
Well #1
SGZ
Arnold RN.
Lower Burro I
Canyon
I Well 28.3.33.233
I Surface Ground Zero
I Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Miles
0 8
Scale in Kilometers
NEW
MEXICO
RIO
I SGZ \ ARRIBA
COUNTY
LOCATION MAPS
5/90
Figure 62. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Gasbuggy.
100
-------
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
City •
Well #7
Loving City
Well #2
LRL-7
PHS Well #6
PHS Well #9
PHS Well #10
Pecos River
Pumping Station
Well #1
PHS
Well #8
©Surface Ground Zero
• On-Site Water Sampling Locations
A Off-Site Water Sampling Locations °
Scale in Miles
5 10
Scale in Kilometers
EDDY
COUNTY
LOCATION MAPS
5/90
Figure 63. LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project Gnome.
101
-------
Figure 64. EPA Monitoring Technician Collecting Fresh Water Sample.
102
-------
SECTION 4.2.9.3. RESULTS
The locations at which the water samples contain
man-made radioactivity are shown in Table 21 along
with the analytical results. For 3H only those samples
having a concentration exceeding one percent of the
Drinking Water Regulations, i.e., >2 x 10-7|^Ci/mL,
are shown. Except for Well UE-5n on the NTS, the
radioactivity detected in the sampled locations has
been reported previously and is decreasing. Well
DD-1 is linked to the Gnome cavity, as is LRL-7, so
the results are expected. The result for Well USGS-
8 is also expected as radioactivity was added to that
well for hydrological testing. The 3H in samples from
Project Dribble are a result of post-shot drilling opera-
tions and disposal of low-level contaminated debris.
Except for the three samples listed in Table 21, all the
gamma spectra were negligible (no measurable
gamma-emitting fission products over the energy
range 60 - 2,000 keV). Therefore, only the 3H results
are listed in Tables 22, 23, and 24.
Table 22 shows the maximum, minimum and average
3H concentrations found in the NTS wells that are
sampled monthly. Shown in Table 23, are the 3H
results forthose onsite and offsite water sources that
are analyzed semi-annually. Finally, Table 24 con-
tains the 3H concentration in water samples collected
around sites used for underground nucleartests that
were performed outside the Nevada Test Site.
SECTION 4.2.9.4. DISCUSSION
The results forthe residents'special request samples
are shown in Table 24 at the end of the Project
Dribble listing. The two venison samples had 137Cs
contents of 3.8 and 4.3 x 10-7(aCi/g and 3H concen-
trations near the MDC. The cesium concentrations
were similar to those in deer from other locations in
the U.S.
TABLE 21. SAMPLING LOCATIONS WHERE WATER SAMPLES
CONTAINED MAN-MADE RADIOACTIVITY —1989
SAMPLING LOCATION
RADIONUCLIDE
CONCENTRATION
(10'9nCi/mL)
NTS NETWORK, NV
Wei! UE-5n
3H
460
PROJECT GNOME, P
USGS Well 8
Well LRL-7
Well DD-1
3H
137Cs
3H
137Cs
3H
137Cs
1.3
1.6
1.2
7.5
105
85
104
200
10s
105
PROJECT DRIBBLE, MS
Half Moon Creek Overflow
WellsHMH-1,2, and 5
Well HM-S
Well HM-L
REECo Pit B
REECo Pit C
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
1.4
1.1 x103-1.2
1
1.8
103
10"
104
103
740
300
PROJECT LONGSHOT.AK
Well GZ-1
3H
2.3 x 103
103
-------
Figure 65. Typical Tritium Concentration in Deep Water Wells — 1989.
600
£
\
o
I
2
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
1974
-a a-
-a 3
~i < ' ' 1—
1978 1982
YEAR COLLECTED
D TRITIUM pCi/L
1986
Figure 66. Tritium Concentration Increasing with Time.
104
-------
The graphs of results for some water samples are
shown in Figures 65-67. The results for samples
from Well UE-19c are typical of most deep water
sources we have sampled, i.e., no trend with time.
The running average data show pulses that may rep-
resent surface water infiltration on about a 20 month
cycle. Data from natural springs are similar but the
average concentration will be higher because of
relatively rapid surface water recharge. For those
water sources that had above background levels of
3H at earlier times, graphs such as those for Test Well
B on the NTS and for the HMH holes at Project
Dribble in Figure 66 are typical, showing a general
downward trend with time. Other locations that
followthis trend are wells C and C-1 on the NTS, HM-
L and HM-S at Dribble and wells PHS-6, USGS-4
and USGS-8 at Gnome.
The final graph in Figure 67 shows some upward
trend. The graph for Well EPNG 10-36 at Gasbuggy
indicates low-level pulse of 3H passing through the
area. On the Nevada Test Site, an upward trend in 3H
concentration may be starting in Well UE-15d similar
to that reported for Well A in the 1988 annual report.
Regardless of the finding of detectable amounts of
radioactivity in some water samples, the exposure to
the public is negligible. The HMH holes at Dribble tap
shallow, non-potable water and the HM-S and HM-L
wells are locked. The wells at the Gnome site are
locked and inaccessible for the general public while
the EPNG well at Gasbuggy is a monitoring well with
no pump.
TABLE 22. LTHMP TRITIUM RESULTS FOR NTS MONTHLY NETWORK —1989
SAMPLING
LOCATION
NO.
SAMPLES
MAX
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION
(10'9nCi/mL)
MIN
AVG
% CONC.
GUIDE
WELL 1 ARMY
WELL 2
WELLS*
WELL 4
WELL4CP-1
WELLS
WELL 5C
WELL 8
WELL 20f
WELL B TEST
WELLC
WELLJ-12
WELLJ-13
WELLUE19C
13
12
2*
12
12
11
12
12
9t
12
11
12
12
12
5.9
5.0
5.1
4.7
1.1
34
2.9
3.3
3.6
150
43
7.8
27
28
-33
-4.7
-4.4
-28
-26
-11
-13
-3.9
-5.7
67
0.0
-25
-29
-5.0
-2.7
0.82
0.36
-2.2
-4.2
2.9
-2.3
-0.33
-1.3
120
20
-2.3
0.25
2.8
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.61
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
'Replaced by Well 5.
f Samples not collected while pump inoperative.
105
-------
IN HMH HOLES - PROJECT DRIBBLE
u
a
o
z
o
o
2
ID
1978
D HMH-1 DATA
1981 1984
YEAR SAMPLE COLLECTED
+ HMH-2 DATA
1987
O HMH-5 DATA
z
o
u
0
02/76 02/78
D TRITlUM-pCi/L
02/80 02/82 02/84 02/86
COLLECTION DATE - mo/yr
+ 6~rno Running Avg
02/88
Figure 67. Wells that Had Higher Levels Early.
106
-------
TABLE 23. TRITIUM RESULTS FOR THE
SAMPLING
LOCATION
NTS SEMI-ANNUAL NETWORK
SHOSHONE CA
SHOSHONE SPRING
ADAVEN NV
ADAVEN SPRING
ALAMO NV
CITY WELL 4
AMARGOSA VALLEY NV
CRYSTAL POOL
FAIRBANKS SPRING
M.NICKELL'SWELL
15S-50E-18CDC
17S-50E-14CAC
18S-51E-7DB
BEATTY NV
LLW SITE
SPICERS ROAD D
SPECIE SPRINGS
BEATTY NV
TOLICHA PEAK
YOUNGHANS RANCH
11S-48-1DD
COLLECT
DATE
01/04
07/11
07/06
06/05
07/07
02/01
09/07
02/17
03/01
09/07
02/01
06/08
01/04
06/06
02/01
09/07
02/01
06/01
01/04
09/07
02/01
09/14
03/08
09/07
02/01
09/26
01/05
02/01
03/09
02/01
LTHMP — 1989
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION
(10-'nCi/mL)±2S.D.
17
200
83
2
26
3.9
38
-10
-5
0
-1.1
-4
-1.8
-2.1
-1.1
-75
0
22
-0.9
-9
-130
48
22
7
140
-0.9
-3.9
-7
-5
±
+
±
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
NA
+
±
+
+
+
±
±
+
+
+
6
280*
270*
6*
7
6.6*
290
6*
6*
300*
7.1*
7*
6.8*
6.8*
6.3*
290*
6.7*
290
6.8*
6*
290*
7
290*
7*
290*
7.6*
6.5*
7*
6.4*
%CONC.
GUIDE
0.08
---t
...
<0.01
0.13
0.02
—
<0.01
<0.01
...
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
...
<0.01
...
<0.01
<0.01
—
0.24
—
<0.01
...
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
(Continued)
107
-------
TABLE 23. (Continued)
SAMPLING
LOCATION
COFFERS
12S-47E-7DBD
BOULDER CITY NV
LAKE MEAD INTAKE
CLARK STA. NV
TTR WELL 6
HIKO MV
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
WELL 2 AIR FORCE
SEWER CO WELL 1
JOHNNIE NV
JOHNNIE MINE
LAS VEGAS NV
WATER WELL 28
NYALA NV
SHARP'S RANCH
OASIS VALLEY NV
GOSS SPRINGS
PAHRUMP NV
CALVADA WELL
RACHEL NV
WELLS 7&8PENOYER
WELL13PENOYER
PENOYER CULINARY
TEMPIUTE NV
UNION CARBIDE WELL
TONOPAH NV
CITY WELL
COLLECT
DATE
08/02
04/06
10/04
02/07
03/10
04/07
04/05
10/04
05/02
11/08
01/05
11/06
01/03
05/01
11/06
08/01
05/31
11/07
06/06
06/07
06/01
07/11
02/01
07/06
08/16
07/06
08/09
08/02
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION
(10-9nCi/mL)±2S.D.
-140
-5.9
49
75
79
78
-2.1
-53
23
240
4.4
75
-0,9
2
58
2.9
3
210
-2.3
-2
3.6
32
112
27
4.8
27
-2
2
±
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
+
±
±
±
+
+
±
290*
6.4*
290*
7
7
7
7.1"
290*
7
290*
7.2*
290*
6.9*
6*
290*
6.3*
6.6*
290*
6.8*
7
6.7'
7
290*
6
6.3*
7
6*
6*
%CONC.
GUIDE
...
<0.01
...
0.38
0.39
0.39
<0.01
...
0.12
...
<0.01
...
<0.01
<0.01
—
<0.01
<0.01
—
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.16
...
0.14
<0.01
0.14
<0.01
<0.01
(Continued)
108
-------
SAMPLING
LOCATION
WARM SPRINGS NV
TWIN SPRINGS RN
NEVADA TEST SITE (AREA)
WELLUE-1c(1)
WELLUE-1L(1)
TEST WELL 7 (3)
TEST WELL D (4)
WELL UE-Sc (5)
WELLUE-5n
WELL UE-6e (6)
WELL C-1 (6)
UE-10ITS#3(10)
WELLUE-15d(15)
WELLUE-16d(16)
WELLUE-16f(16)
WELLUE-17a(17)
WELLHTH#1 (17)
WELLUE-18r(18)
WELLUE-18t(18)
ARMY6A(OFFSITE)
TABLE
COLLECT
DATE
08/01
02/14
06/29
01/19
06/29
08/21
03/21
09/06
02/15
03/01
04/20
02/15
09/05
03/30
01/10
02/15
08/09
11/02
05/16
08/09
01/25
02/22
11/08
01/18
08/08
01/12
05/17
08/10
07/12
23. (Continued)
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION
(10-9nCi/mL)±2S.D.
2.2
-0.8
8
12
-180
8
9
-3
460
48
2.5
8.5
45
100
83
79
58
120
-90
9.2
8.8
89
-2.6
140
-5.9
4
11
26
+
±
+
6.2*
6.3*
300*
+ 6
CAVED IN
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
+
±
+
±
±
±
+
±
±
+
+
290*
6.3*
6.6*
7*
9
7
6.5*
6.3*
230*
7
7
7
290*
280*
290*
6.4*
6.6*
290*
6.5*
8
6.6*
6.5*
6*
6
%CONC.
GUIDE
<0.01
<0,01
0.06
---
0.04
0.04
<0.01
2.3
0.24
0.01
0.04
...
0.50
0.42
0.40
---
-..
0.05
0.04
—
<0.01
0.70
<0.01
0.02
0.06
0.13
* Indicates results that are less than minimum detectable amt ±2 S. D. (
-------
TABLE 24. RESULTS FOR LTHMP OFF-NTS SITES — 1989
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
CONC.12S.D.
TRITIUM
(10-9nCi/mL)
%CONC.
GUIDE
PROJECT RIO BLANCO
RIO BLANCO CO
B-1 EQUITY CAMP
BRENNAN WINDMILL
CER NO. 1 BLACK SULPHUR
CER NO. 4 BLACK SULPHUR
FAWN CREEK 1
FAWN CREEK 3
FAWN CREEK 6800 FT UPSTRM
FAWN CREEK 500 FT UPSTRM
FAWN CREEK 500 FT DWNSTRM
FAWN CREEK 8400 FT DWNSTRM
WELL JOHNSON ARTESIAN
WELL RB-D-01
WELL RB-D-03
WELL RB-S-03
GRAND VALLEY CO
BATTLEMENT CREEK
CITY SPRINGS
ALBERT GARDNER RANCH
SPRING 300 YRD N OF GZ
WELL CER TEST
RULISON CO
LEE HAYWARD RANCH
POTTER RANCH
R SEARCY RANCH (SCHWAB)
F SEFCOVIC RANCH
BAXTERVILLE MS
HALF MOON CREEK
06/14
06/14
06/14
06/14
06/14
06/14
06/14
06/15
06/15
06/14
06/14
06/15
06/15
06/15
PROJECT RULISON
06/13
06/13
06/13
06/13
06/13
06/13
06/13
06/13
06/13
PROJECT DRIBBLE
04/15
04/17
81
2.2
73
82
34
41
55
48
53
56
-4
3
5.6
3
86
1.1
140
73
140
170
120
89
77
26
36
+
±
±
+
±
±
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
8
6.9*
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7*
7*
7.9*
7*
8
6.8*
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
0.40
0.01
0.36
0.41
0.17
0.20
0.28
0.24
0.26
0.28
<0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.43
0.01
0.70
0.36
0.70
0.85
0.60
0.45
0.38
0.13
0.18
(Continued)
110
-------
TABLE 24. (Continued)
SAMPLING LOCATION
HALF MOON CREEK OVERFLOW
LOWER LITTLE CREEK
POND WEST OF GZ
REECO PIT DRAINAGE-A
REECO PIT DRAINAGE-B
REECO PIT DRAINAGE-C
SALT DOME HUNTING CLUB
SALT DOME TIMBER CO
ANDERSON, B. R.
ANDERSON, H.
ANDERSON, R. LOWELL
CHAMBLISS, B.
DANIELS, W. JR.
KELLY, G.
KING, RHONDA
LEE, P. T.
MILLS, A. C.
MILLS, R.
READY, R.
SAUCIER, T.S.
SAUCIER, DENNIS
WELL E-7
WELL HM-1
WELL HM-2A
WELL HM-2B
WELL HM-3
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
04/15
04/17
04/17
04/15
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/18
04/17
04/18
04/18
04/17
04/17
04/18
04/17
04/18
04/18
04/17
04/18
04/18
04/17
04/17
04/18
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
CONC.±2S.D.
TRITIUM
(10-9nCi/mL)
1200
1400
32
17
17
49
740
300
32
28
16
17
22
-7
23
-9
22
39
-11
18
53
34
56
-0.5
-3.7
-1.7
0.6
4.5
0.5
1.5
2.1
3
8.1
2
1
+
+
±
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
±
290
190
7
7
7
7
11
9
8
7
7
7
7
7*
7
6*
8
8
6*
7
7
7
7
7*
6.8*
6.8*
6.8*
7*
6.9*
7.1*
7.5*
7*
7.2*
7*
T
% CONC.
GUIDE
6
7
0.16
0.08
0.08
0.24
3.7
1.5
0.16
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.11
<0.01
0.11
<0.11
0.11
0.19
<0.01
0.09
0.26
0.17
0.28
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.01
<0.01
(Continued)
111
-------
SAMPLING LOCATION
WELL HM-L
WELL HM-L2
WELL HM-S
WELL HMH-1
WELL HMH-2
WELL HMH-3
WELL HMH-4
WELL HMH-5
WELL HMH-6
WELL HMH-8
WELL HMH-9
WELL HMH-1 0
WELL HMH-1 1
WELL HT-2C
WELL HT-4
WELL HT-5
BAXTERVILLE CITY SUPPLY
COLUMBIA WELL 64B
LUMBERTON CITY WELL 2
PURVIS CITY SUPPLY
TABLE 24.
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/16
04/17
04/16
04/17
04/16
04/17
04/16
04/16
04/16
04/17
04/16
04/16
04/16
04/16
04/16
04/17
04/18
04/18
04/18
04/18
04/18
04/18
04/18
(Continued)
CONC.+2S.D.
TRITIUM
(10-3|iCi/mL)
1200
1800
0
2
10000
9700
7800
12000
3300
11000
24
25
1100
1100
150
17
45
22
41
79
15
4.3
0
35
7
-30
-4
±
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
-290
290
7*
7*
360
350
340
370
300
360
7
7
280
13
8
7
7
7
7
8
7
6.6*
7*
7
7*
7*
8*
% CONC.
GUIDE
6.0
9.0
<0.01
0.01
50.0
48.0
39.0
60.0
16.0
55.0
0.12
0.13
5.5
5.5
0.75
0.08
0.22
0.11
0.21
0.39
0.08
0.02
<0.01
0.18
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
SPECIAL REQUEST SAMPLES
BAXTERVILLE MS
NOBLES POND
JR. GREEN CREEK
LITTLE CREEK #1
BURGE.JOE
04/17
04/17
04/18
04/17
18
23
34
12
±
±
±
±
8
7
7
8
0.09
0.11
0.17
0.06
(Continued)
112
-------
TABLE 24. (Continued)
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAUCIER, WILMA&YANCY
NOBLES, W. H.
SMITH, RITA
ANDERSON, ROBERT L.
CLARK, JAMES
DANIELS -WELL #2
NOBLES QUAIL HOUSE
DANIELS, RAY
BLUEJAY NV
HOT CREEK RANCH SPRING
MAINTENANCE STATION
WELL BIAS
WELL HTH-1
WELL HTH-2
FRENCHMAN STATION NV
HUNT'S STATION
SMITH/JAMES SPRINGS
SPRING WINDMILL
WELL FLOWING
WELL HS-1
GOBERNADOR NM
ARNOLD RANCH
BIXLER RANCH
BUBBLING SPRINGS
CAVE SPRINGS
CEDAR SPRINGS
LA JARA CREEK
LOWER BURROW CANYON
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/17
04/18
04/18
04/18
PROJECT FAULTLESS
06/21
06/23
06/23
06/21
06/21
PROJECT SHOAL
02/27
02/27
02/27
02/27
02/27
PROJECT GASBUGGY
07/20
04/26
04/26
04/26
04/26
07/20
04/26
CONC.±2S.D.
TRITIUM
(10-9nCi/mL)
-13
56
31
32
21
35
56
24
7.1
5.2
3
4
5.2
-10
48
1.4
0
-1.1
5
11
61
140
79
44
11
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
10
8
7
7
8
7
8
7
6.3*
6.3*
6.3*
6.3*
6.3*
6.6*
7
6.8*
6.6*
6.4*
6*
7*
7
9
7
7
7*
% CONC.
GUIDE
<0.01*
0.28
0.15
0.16
0.10
0.17
0.28
0.12
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
<0.01
0.24
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.06
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.22
0.06
(Continued)
113
-------
TABLE 24. (Continued)
SAMPLING LOCATION
POND N WELL 30.3.32.343
WELL EPNG 10-36
WINDMILL2
CARLSBAD NM
WELL 7 CITY
LOVING NM
WELL 2 CITY
MALAGA NM
WELL 1 PECOS PUMPING STA
WELL DD-1
WELL LRL-7
WELL PHS 6
WELL PHS 8
WELL PHS 10
WELL USGS 1
WELL USGS 8
AMCHITKAAK
CONSTANTINE SPRING
DUCK COVE CREEK
JONES LAKE
SITE D HYDRO EXPLORE HOLE
SITE E HYDRO EXPLORE HOLE
WELL ARMY 1
WELL ARMY 2
WELL 4 ARMY
CANNIKIN LAKE (NORTH END)
CANNIKIN LAKE (SOUTH END)
DK-45 LAKE
ICE BOX LAKE
COLLECTION CONC.+2S.D.
DATE TRITIUM
1989 (10-9|iCi/mL)
04/26 150
07/20 110
04/26 5
PROJECT GNOME
04/24 -14
04/23 -5
04/24 6
04/22 12X107
04/22 16000
04/23 51
04/23 15
04/23 10
04/23 59
04/22 130,000
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
10/23 19
10/23 23
10/23 23
10/22
10/22
10/23 33
10/23 16
10/23 50
PROJECT CANNIKIN
10/22 24
10/22 28
10/23 28
10/22 42
± 8
± 7
± 7*
± 7*
± 7*
± 6*
± 82000
± 400
± 7
± 6
± 6*
+ 7
± 850
± 6
± 6
± 6
NOT SAMPLED
NOT SAMPLED
± 7
± 8
± 7
± 6
± 7
± 6
± 7
% CONC.
GUIDE
0.75
0.55
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
6X105(1)
80(2)
0.25
0.08
0.05
0.3
650 (3)
0.09 (4)
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.08
0.25
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.21
(Continued)
114
-------
TABLE 24. (Continued)
SAMPLING LOCATION
PIT SOUTH OF CANNIKIN GZ
WELL HTH-3
WHITE ALICE CREEK
LONG SHOT POND 1
LONG SHOT POND 2
LONG SHOT POND 3
MUD PIT NO. 1
MUD PIT NO. 2
MUD PIT NO. 3
REED POND
STREAM EAST OF LONGSHOT
WELL EPA-1
WELL GZ NO. 1
WELL GZ NO. 2
WELL WL-2
CLEVENGER CREEK
HEART LAKE
WELL W-2
WELL W-3
WELL W-4
WELLW-5
WELLW-6
WELLW-7
WELLW-8
WELLW-9
WELLW-10
WELLW-11
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
10/22
10/22
10/22
PROJECT LONG SHOT
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/24
10/24
CONC.+2S.D.
TRITIUM
(10-9nCi/mL)
0.6 ± 5 .5
26 ± 9
25+6
21 ±5
18 ± 6
38+6
-1.5 ± 5.9*
-3.1 ± 5 .6*
40+6
45+7
-1.4 ± 5.4*
8.7 + 9 .6*
34 ± 7
10/24 2300 ± 310
10/24
10/24
PROJECT MILROW
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
130 ± 8
49 + 10
31 ±6
41 ±6
54 ± 7
23 ± 1
29 ± 7
NOT SAMPLED
21 ±6
25 ± 7
NOT SAMPLED
31 ± 7
NOT SAMPLED
27 ± 7
65 ± 7
% CONC.
GUIDE
<0.01
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.19
<0.01
<0.01
0.20
0.22
<0.01
<0.04
0.17
11.5
0.66
0.24
0.15
0.21
0.27
0.11
0.15
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.13
0.32
(Continued)
115
-------
TABLE 24. (Continued)
SAMPLING LOCATION
WELLW-12
WELLW-13
WELLW-14
WELLW-15
WELLW-16
WELLW-17
WELLW-18
WELLW-19
COLLECTION
DATE
1989
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
CONC.±2S.D.
TRITIUM %CONC.
(10-9nCi/mL) GUIDE
NOT SAMPLED
32 ± 7 0.16
22 ± 7 0.11
27+6 0.13
NOT SAMPLED
25 ± 6 0.13
48 ± 6 0.24
21 ± 6 0.10
* Result is less than minimum detectable concentration.
FOOTNOTES
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Isotope
137Cs
141Ce
238pu
239pu
40K
137Cs
l37Cs
Alpha
226Ra
Concentration ± 2 S.D.
750,000
1,800
0,17
0.41
8,300
200
85
24
0.11
± 58,000
+ 2,200*
± 0.94*
± 0.45*
± 3,000
± 17
± 12
± 10
± 0.11
Unit
(10'9nCi/mL)
(10-snCi/mL)
(10-9nCi/mL)
(10-9(jCi/mL)
(10'9nCi/mL)
(10'9jjCi/mL)
(10'9|jCi/mL)
(10-9pCi/mL)
(10-9nCi/mL)
116
-------
Chapter 5. Public Information and Community
Assistance Programs
D. J. Thome
In addition to its many monitoring and data analysis activities, the Nuclear Radiation Assessment
Division (NRD) conducts a comprehensive program designed to provide information and assistance
to individual citizens, organizations, and local government agencies in communities in the vicinity of
the NTS. During 1989, activities included: participation in public hearings; "town hall" meetings;
continued support of Community Monitoring Stations; and a variety of tours, lectures, and presentations.
SECTION 5.1. TOWN HALL MEETINGS
Eighty-six town hall meetings have been conducted
since 1982. These meetings provide an opportunity
for the public to meet directly with EPA, DOE, and
DPI personnel, ask questions, and express their
concerns regarding nuclear testing. During atypical
meeting, the procedures used and the safeguards in
place during every nuclear test are described. The
EPA's radiological monitoring and surveillance
networks are explained. For meetings in Nevada,
the proposed High Level Waste Repository at Yucca
Mountain is also discussed.
In addition to the regular town hall meetings held in
1989, similar presentations were given to several
high schools and a Chamber of Commerce in Utah.
The locations of these meetings were as follows:
LOCATION DATE
Panaca Valley High School 09/22/89
Caliente, NV 09/21/89
Pioche, NV 09/20/89
Leeds, UT 07/20/89
Virgin, UT 07/19/89
Amargosa Valley, NV 05/19/89
Kanab, UT 04/12/89
Kanarraville, UT 04/11/89
Hurricane Valley Chamber
of Commerce, UT 02/16/89
Springdale, UT 02/16/89
Toquerville, UT 02/15/89
SECTION 5.2. ANIMAL INVESTIGATIONS
One of the public service functions of the EMSL-LV
is to investigate claims of injury allegedly due to
radiation originating from NTS activities. A
veterinarian, qualified by education and experience
in the field of radiobiology, investigates questions
about domestic animals and wildlife to determine
whether radiation exposure may be involved.
No animal investigations were requested during 1989.
SECTION 5.3. NTS TOURS
To complement the town hall meetings and to
familiarize citizens with both the DOE testing program
at the NTS and the Environmental Radiological
Monitoring Program conducted by the EPA, tours are
arranged for business and community leaders and
individuals from towns around the NTS, as well as for
government employees and the news media.
Between January and December 1989, the following
tours were sponsored by the EPA:
Residents of Rachel, NV
Public Officials and Residents
of Kingman, AZ
EPA Personnel (Washington
D.C., Cincinnati and RTP)
EPA Employees and
Dependents
Residents of Hawaii
Senior EPA Officials
(Washington, D.C.,
Cincinnati, OH, and
Las Vegas, NV)
February 21-22
March 13-14
March 16
May8
August 1
September 26
SECTION 5.4. COMMUNITY MONITORING
STATIONS
Beginning in 1981, DOE and EPA established a
network of Community Monitoring Stations in the
off site areas in order to increase public awareness of
radiation monitoring activities. The DOE, through an
interagency agreement with EPA, sponsors the
program and holds contracts with DRI to manage the
stations, and with the University of Utah to train
station managers. Each station is operated by a local
117
-------
resident, in most cases a science teacher, who is
trained in radiation monitoring methods. These
stations continued to be maintained by the NRD
personnel during 1989. Samples were collected and
analyzed at the EMSL-LV. Both the EPA and the DPI
provide data interpretation to the communities
involved and the DPI handles personnel, right-of-
way and utility meters for the stations.
All of the 18 stations except for Milford and Delta, UT,
contain one of the samplers for the Air Surveillance
Network (ASM), Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance
Network (NGTSN) and Dosimetry networks discussed
earlier. In addition, each station contains a
pressurized ion chamber (PIC) with a recorder for
immediate readout of external gamma exposure,
and a recording barograph. The stations at Milford
and Delta are complete except for noble gas samplers.
All of the equipment is mounted on a stand at a
prominent location in each community so the residents
are aware of the surveillance and, if interested, can
have ready access to the PIC and barometric data.
The data from these stations are included in the
tables in Chapter 5 with the other data from the
appropriate networks. Table 18 contains a summary
of the PIC data.
Computer generated reports for each station are
issued weekly. These reports indicate the current
weekly PIC average, the average over the previous
week and the average for that week in the previous
year. These reports additionally show the maximum
and minimum backgrounds in the U.S. In addition to
being posted at each station, copies are sent to
newspapers in Nevada and Utah and provided to
appropriate federal and state personnel in California,
Nevada and Utah. All of the Community Monitoring
Stations are equipped with satellite telemetry
transmitting equipment. With this equipment, gamma
exposure measurements acquired by the pressurized
ion chambers are transmitted, via the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) directly
to the NTS and from there to the EMSL-LV by
dedicated telephone line. The transmission of these
dataoccursautomaticallyeveryfourhours. However,
whenever the gamma exposure measurements at
any station exceeds 50 (iR/hr that station goes into
an emergency mode and transmits data every minute.
This continues until the measurement is again less
than 50 |iR/hr. Then the PIC reverts to its routine
condition.
Figure 68. Community Monitoring Station at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas. (From left to right:
particulates and reactive gases sampler, tritium sampler, microbarograph, noble gas sampler, gamma
radiation exposure rate recorder, and TLD.)
118
-------
Chapter 6. Quality Assurance and Procedures
C. K. Liu and C. A. Fontana
The quality assurance program conducted by EMSL-LV includes: standard operating procedures,
data quality objectives, data validation, quality control, health physics oversight, precision and
accuracy of analysis. Duplicate samples were analyzed for the ASM, NGTSN, Dosimetry, MSN, and,
LTHMP networks. The coefficient of variation of replicate samples for these networks varied from a
median value of 2.1 percent for the LTHMP to 59 percent for the ASM. The EPA/EML ratios from the
DOE program for 1989 varied from .76 to 1.40, indicating good correlation between the two
laboratories. The results of participation in the EPA QA Intercomparison Study Program indicated
that the analytical procedures were in control except for a strontium in water in January and a
strontium in milk in April. The reason for the low recovery of strontium has been identified and
corrected.
SECTION 6.1. POLICY
One of the major goals of the Agency is to ensure that
all EPA decisions which are dependent on
environmental data are supported by data of known
quality. Consequently, agency policy requires that all
EPA laboratories participate in a centrally managed
and locally implemented Quality Assurance (QA)
Program.
EMSL-LV's QA policies and requirements are
summarized in EPA/600/X-87/241, Quality Assurance
Program Plan (reference EPA87), and are fully
adhered to by the Nuclear Radiation Assessment
Division (NRD).
SECTION 6.2. STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURES
Elements of the QA program include local Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) which define methods
of sample collection, handling, sample control,
analysis, data validation, trending and reporting.
These SOPs support the goal of the QA program in
maintaining the quality of results within established
limits of acceptance, with the primary purpose of
assessing the effects of human exposures to
radiological hazards in the environment.
SECTION 6.3. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The EPA requires all projects involving
environmentally-related measurements to develop
data quality objectives (DQOs). DQOs must clearly
define the level of uncertainty that a decision maker
is willing to accept in results derived from
environmental data (SCB89). DQOs contain
quantitative statements relating to the decision to be
made, how environmental measurements will be
used, time and resource constraints on data collection,
descriptions of the data or measurements to be
made, specifications of which portions of the physical
systems from which samples will be collected, and
the calculations that will be performed on the data in
order to arrive at a result.
SECTION 6.4. DATA VALIDATION
An essential element of QA is the validation of data.
Four categories of data validation methods are
employed by NRD: procedures which are applied
routinely to ensure adherence of acceptable analytical
methods, those that ensure that completeness of
data is attained, those which are used to test the
internal comparability within a given data set, and
procedures for comparing data sets with historical
data and other data sets.
Completeness is the amount of data successfully
collected with respect to that amount intended in the
design, and comparability refers to the degree of
similarity of data from different sources included in a
single data set. All data are reviewed by supervisory
personnel to ensure that sufficient data have been
collected and the conclusions are based upon valid
data. Completeness is an important part of quality,
since missing data may reduce the precision of
estimates, introduce bias, and thus lower the level of
confidence in the conclusions.
SECTION 6.5. QUALITY CONTROL
The quality control (QC) portion of the NRD QA
program consists of routine use of methods and
119
-------
procedures designed to achieve and maintain the
specified level of quality for the given measurement
system. Accuracy of analysis is achieved through
the regular determination of bias and precision of the
results.
Bias is defined as the difference between the data set
mean value (or sample average for statistical
purposes) and the true or reference value (EPA87).
The NRD laboratory participates in EPA, DOE/
Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML), and
World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory
intercomparison crosscheck studies. The results of
the EPA intercomparison study are discussed later in
this section. Blank samples and samples "spiked"
with known quantities of radionuclides are also
routinely analyzed. Internal "blind spiked" samples,
(that is, samples spiked with known amounts of
radionuclides but unknown to the analyst) are also
entered into the normal chain of analysis.
Precision is the degree of mutual agreement among
individual measurements made under prescribed
conditions (EPA87). As a minimum, 10 percent of all
samples are collected and analyzed in duplicate, and
results compared.
In addition, instruments are calibrated with standards
directly or indirectly traceable to National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST; formerly National
Bureau of Standards) or NIST-approved EPA-
generated sources. Performance checks are routinely
accomplished, control charts of background and
check source data are maintained, and preventive
maintenance on equipment is scheduled, and
performed.
SECTION 6.6. HEALTH PHYSICS OVERSIGHT
All analytical results receive a final review by the
health physics staff of the Dose Assessment Branch
for completeness and comparability. Trends of
increasing or decreasing amounts of radionuclides
in the environment are identified, and potential risks
to humans and the environment are determined
based on the data.
SECTION 6.7. PRECISION OF ANALYSIS
The duplicate sampling program was initiated for the
purpose of routinely assessing the errors due to
sampling, analysis, and counting of samples obtained
from the surveillance networks maintained by the
EMSL-LV.
The program consists of analyzing of duplicate or
replicate samples from the ASN, the NGTSN, the
MSN, and LTHMP, and the Dosimetry Network. As
the radioactivity concentration in samples collected
from the LTHMP and the MSN are usually below
detection levels, most duplicate samples for these
networks are prepared from spiked solutions. The
noble gas samples are generally split for analysis,
and duplicate samples are collected in the ASN.
Since two TLD cards consisting of three TLD
phosphors each are used at each station of the
Dosimetry Network, no additional samples were
necessary.
At least 30 duplicate samples from each network are
normally collected and analyzed over the report
period. The standard deviation is obtained by taking
the square root of the variance. Table 25 summarizes
the sampling information for each surveillance
network (SNE67).
The variance, s2, of each set of replicate results was
estimated by the standard expression,
I (x,-5()2/(n-1)
where n = number of sets of replicates.
Eq.1
The principal that the variances of random samples
collected from a normal population follow a chi-
square distribution (X2) was then used to estimate
the expected population standard deviation foreach
type of sample analysis. The expression used is as
follows: (FRE62)
s =
Eq.2
i=1
1=1
where n.-1 = the degrees of freedom for n, samples
collected for the ith replicate sample
s2 =
s =
the expected variance of the ith
replicate sample
the pooled estimate of sample
standard deviation derived from the
variance estimates of all replicate
samples (the expected value of s2 of
a2).
120
-------
TABLE 25. SAMPLES AND ANALYSES FOR DUPLICATE SAMPLING PROGRAM —1989
SURVELIIANCE
NETWORK
NUMBER OF
SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
SAMPLES
COLLECTED
THIS YEAR
SETS OF
DUPLICATE
SAMPLES
COLLECTED
NUMBER
PER SET
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
ASM
NGTSN
Dosimetry
MSN
LTHMP
114
18
133
33
217
2,288
710(85Kr)
734(133Xe)
531
394
816
110
53
531
129
416
2 Gross beta, y Spectrometry
2 85Kr, 3H, H20, HTO, 133Xe
6 Effective dose from gamma
2 40K,89Sr,9(lSr,3H
2 3H
For expressing the precision of measurement in
common units, the coefficient of variation (s/x) was
calculated for each sample type. These are dis-
played in Table 26 for those analyses for which there
were adequate data (NEL75).
To estimate the precision of counting, approximately
ten percent of all samples are counted twice. These
are unknown to the analyst. Since all such replicate
counting gave results within the counting error, the
precision data in Table 26 represents errors in
sampling and analysis.
TABLE 26. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL
PRECISION —1989
SURVEILLANCE
NETWORK
ASN
NGTSN
Dosimetry
MSN
LTHMP
ANALYSIS
7Be
85Kr
TLD
90Sr
3H
3H+ (enrich
SETS OF
REPLICATE
SAMPLES
EVALUATED
6
53
531
24
44
ed 68
COEFFICIENT
OF VARIATION
(%)
59
6.8
6.9
11.6
2.1*
7.8*
tritium)
* Median Value
SECTION 6.8. ACCURACY OF ANALYSIS
Data from the analysis of intercomparison samples
are statistically analyzed and compared to known
values and values obtained from other participating
laboratories. A summary of the statistical analysis is
given in Table 27, which compares the mean of three
replicate analyses with the known value. The
normalized deviation is a measure of the accuracy of
the analysis when compared to the known
concentration. The determination of this parameter
is explained in detail in the reference (JA81). If the
value of this parameter (in multiples of standard
normal deviate, unitless) lies between control limits
of -3 and +3, the precision or accuracy of the analysis
is within normal statistical variation. However, if the
parameters exceed these limits, one must suspect
that there is some other than normal statistical
variation that contributed to the difference between
the measured values and the known value. As
shown by Table 28, all analyses were within the
control limit.
The analytical methods were further validated by
laboratory participation in the semiannual Department
of Energy Quality Assurance Program conducted by
the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML),
New York, New York. The results from these tests
(Table 27) indicate that this laboratory's results were
of acceptable quality.
To measure the performance of the contractor
laboratory that analyzed the animal tissues, a known
amount of activity was added to several sets of bone
ash samples. The reported activity is compared to
121
-------
TABLE 27. QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS FROM DOE
ANALYSIS
7Be
in air
MMn
in air
60Co
in air
134Cs
in air
137Cs
in air
144Ce
in air
239t240pu
in air
137Cs
in soil
239t240pu
in soil
137Cs in
vegetation
MONTH
April
Sept.
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
EPA EMSL-LV
RESULTS
2.07 x 103
1.28 x 102
4.77
1.35 x 102
9.18
1.55 x 102
9.21
2.13 x 102
4.22
3.90 x 102
9.14
2.50
1.76 x 102
29.1
7.44 x 102
4.26 x 10'1
15.7
1.77
5.19
EML RATIO
RESULTS EPA/EML
1.95x
1.2 x
4.17
1.26x
8.17
1.58x
9.33
1.89X
3.58
3.27 x
7.08
2.70
18.0
20.8
6.42 x
4.20 x
17.1
1.60
47.9
103
102
102
102
102
102
102
10'1
1.06
1.04
1.14
1.07
1.12
0.98
0.99
1.13
1.18
1.19
1.29
0.93
0.98
1.40
1.16
1.01
0.92
1.11
1.08
ANALYSIS
239+240pu in
vegetation
3H
in water
^Mn
in water
57Co
in water
60Co
in water
90Sr
in water
134Cs
in water
137Cs
in water
239t240py
in water
MONTH
Sept.
April
Sept.
Sept
Sept.
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
April
Sept.
PROGRAM — 1989
EPA EMSL-LV
RESULTS
2.44 x 10-2
6.18
4.00 x 102
66.2
1.37 x 102
1.53 x 102
5.37 x 10-'
40.2
2.27
61.5
2.48
69.7
6.08 x10'3
2.67 x10'1
EML RATIO
RESULTS EPA/EML
2.20 x 1C'2
6.31
3.95 x 102
65.0
1.35 x 102
1.55 x 102
5.50 x 10'1
31.7
2.73
68.3
2.55
68.3
5.90 x 10'3
3.50 x 10'1
1.11
0.98
1.01
1.02
1.01
0.99
0.98
1.27
0.83
0.90
0.97
1.02
1.03
0.76
the known amount in bone ash (Table 28). The
average bias for 239+24°pu was +16 percent and the
average bias for 90Sr was -29 percent. The average
precision determined from two sets of duplicate bone
samples was 20.2 percent for 239+240Pu and 5.1 percent
for 90Sr. The average precision for two sets of liver
samples was 56 percent for 239+24opu jne percent
bias for the spiked samples was determined by
subtracting 100 from the average percent of activity
recovered. Precision was determined by calculating
the coefficient of variation for each pair of values and
then averaging.
TABLE 28. EPA QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERCOMPARISON RESULTS
ANALYSIS
MONTH
MEAN OF
REPLICATE
ANALYSES
(10-9u.Ci/mL)
KNOWN
VALUE
NORMALIZED
DEVIATION
FROM KNOWN
CONCENTRATION
ANALYSIS MONTH
MEAN OF
REPLICATE
ANALYSES
(10'9u.Ci/mL)
— 1989
KNOWN
VALUE
NORMALIZED
DEVIATION
FROM KNOWN
CONCENTRATION
Water Studies:
3H
5'Cr
60Co
65Zn
June
October
February
February
June
October
February
June
October
4874
3835
235.3
10.0
30.7
30.7
167.7
171.7
134.3
4503
3496
235.0
10.0
31.0
30.0
159.0
165.0
129.0
1.4
1.6
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
89Sr January
April
May
September
October
90Sr January
April
May
September
October
25.7
8.7
7.7
14.0
11.0
25.3
8.3
5.3
8.7
7.3
40.0
8.0
6.0
14.0
15.0
25.0
8.0
6.0
10.0
7.0
-5.0
0.2
0.6
0.0
-1.4
0.4
0.4
-0.8
-1.5
0.4
(Continued)
122
-------
TABLE 28. (Continued)
ANALYSIS
106Ru
133Ba
134Cs
1
37Cs
U(Nat.)
MEAN OF NORMALIZED MEAN OF NORMALIZED
REPLICATE DEVIATION REPLICATE DEVIATION
ANALYSES KNOWN FROM KNOWN ANALYSES KNOWN FROM KNOWN
MONTH (lO'flCi/mL) VALUE CONCENTRATION ANALYSIS MONTH (10^Ci/mL) VALUE CONCENTRATION
February 166.3 178.0
June 112.7 128.0
October 150.3 161.0
February 105.3 106.0
August
June
October
February
June
October
October
February
June
October
October
March
April
84.7
48.3
60.7
9.0
35.7
26.3
4.7
10.3
20.3
59.7
5.9
5.3
2.0
83.0
49.0
59.0
10.0
39.0
29.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
59.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
-1.1
-2.0
-1.2
-0.1
0.4
-0.2
0.5
-0.3
-1.2
-0.9
-0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
-0.3
239*2«pu January
Milk Studies:
89Sr April
9°Sr April
137Cs April
Air Filter Studies:
Gross Alpha March
August
Gross Beta March
137Cs March
August
4.4
47.7
48.7
49.0
20.0
5.0
64.3
20.3
9.7
4.2
39.0
55.0
50.0
21.0
6.0
62.0
20.0
10.0
1.0
3.0
-3.7
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
0.8
0.1
-0.1
TABLE 29. QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS
SAMPLE ID
AND
SHIPMENT
NUMBER NUCLIDE
Bone Ash
Ash1
78
Ash 2
78
Ash 3
78
Ash 4
78
Ash1
80
Ash 2
80
Ash 3
80
Ash1
81
Ash 2
81
Ash 3
81
239t240pu
90gr
239+240py
90Sr
239+240pu
90Sr
239t240pu
90Sr
239+240pu
90Sr
90SUr
239+240py
90Sr
239+240py
239+240pu
90Sr
239+24flpy
90Sr
ACTIVITY
ADDED
pCi/g
BONE ASH
ACTIVITY REPORTED
pCi/g BONE ASH
SPIKED SAMPLES
0
0
0
0
0.0885
22.34
0.0897
22.65
0.0863
21.8
0.0944
23.8
0
0
0.436
0
0.431
0
0
2.633
(1.2 ±
2.3 ±
(19 ±
4.6 ±
0.13 +
20.1 ±
0.11 ±
19.9 +
0.085+
16.1 +
0.11 +
20 ±
(1.2 ±
2.3 ±
0.55 ±
0.5 ±
0.52 ±
0.5 ±
(0.8 ±
2.3 ±
0.7) x10'3
0.64
2)x10'3
1.03
0.03
0.3
0.03
0.3
0.012
2
0.015
3
1.9)x10'3
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.07
1.4)x10-3
0.08
FOR THE BIOENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM —
SAMPLE ID
AND
SHIPMENT
NUMBER NUCLIDE
Ash 4 239t240Pu
81 ^Sr
Ash 5 239+240Pu
81 MSr
DUPLICATE SAMPLES
Bone Cow #2 239+2«°Pu
80 90Sr
Dup-Bone Cow #2 ™*™Pu
80 90Sr
Liver-Cow #2 239*2«Pu
80
Dup Liver-Cow #2 239*2<°Pu
80
Bone-Cow #5 239*2<°Pu
81 90Sr
Dup Bone-Cow #5 239t240Pu
81 90Sr
Liver-Cow #5 239t24<>Pu
81
Dup Liver Cow #5 239*24°Pu
R1
ACTIVITY
ADDED
pCi/g
BONE ASH
0
2.666
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989
ACTIVITY REPORTED
pCi/g BONE ASH
(7.0
2.5
(1.0
0.5
(1.5
1.0
(1.3
0.97
(5.3
(1.2
(1.7
0.41
(1.1
0.46
±
±
+
+
±
±
±
+
±
+
±
|
0.025±
-0.018±
3.0) x
0.1
2.0) x
0.07
1.7)x
0.06
1.5)x
0.06
3.7) x
0.7) x
1.8)x
0.04
1.5)x
0.04
0.009
0.008
10'3
10'3
10'3
10-3
10'3
10'3
10'3
10'3
123
-------
-------
Chapter 7. Dose Assessment
S. C. Black
SECTION 7.1. ESTIMATED DOSE FROM NTS
ACTIVITIES
The estimate of dose equivalent due to NTS activi-
ties is based on the total release of radioactivity from
the site as listed in Table 2. Since no significant
radioactivity of recent NTS origin was detectable off
site by the various monitoring networks, no signifi-
cant exposure to the population living around the
NTS would be expected. To confirm this expecta-
tion, a calculation of estimated dose was performed
using EPA's AIRDOS/RADRISK program. The indi-
viduals exposed were considered to be all of those
living within a radius of 80 km of CP-1 on the NTS, a
total of 8,400 individuals. The hypothetical individual
with the maximum calculated exposure from air-
borne NTS radioactivity would have been continu-
ously present at Pahrump, NV, which is south of the
NTS. That maximum dose was O.ISprem (1.5x
10'3 ^iSv). The population dose within 80 km would
have been 1.1 x10'3pers-rem(1.1 x10~5person-Sv).
During calendar year 1989 there were four sources
of possible radiation exposure to the population of
Nevada that were measured by our monitoring net-
works.
• Operational releases of radioactivity
from the NTS, including those from
drillback and purging activities
• Radioactivity accumulated in migratory
animals resident on the NTS
• Worldwide distributions such as 90Sr in
milk, 85Kr in air, etc.
• Background radiation due to natural
sources such as cosmic radiation, natu-
ral radioactivity in soil, and 7Be in air
The estimated dose equivalent exposures from these
sources to people living near the NTS are calculated
separately in the following subsections.
Table 30 summarizes the annual effective dose
equivalents due to operations at the Nevada Test
Site during 1989.
SECTION 7.2. ESTIMATED DOSE FROM
WORLDWIDE FALLOUT
From the monitoring networks described in previous
sections of this report, the following concentrations
of radioactivity were found:
3H (0.24 x 10'12 uCi/m3 of air [9 mBq/m3])
85Kr (26 x 10'12 uCi/m3 of air [0.98 Bq/m3])
90Sr (0.64 x 10'9 uCi/mL in milk [24 mBq/L])
137Cs (28 pCi/kg beef liver [1 Bq/kg])
239+24oPu (24 fCi/kg beef liver [0.9 fBq/kg])
The dose is estimated from these findings by using
the assumptions and dose conversion factors as
follows:
Adult breathing rate is 8400 m3/yr;
Milk intake (10-yrold) is 160 L/yr;
Liver consumption is 0.5 Ib/week = 11.8 kg/yr;
Meat consumption is 248 g/day (when liver
consumption is subtracted this is 78.7 kg/yr.)
The following dose conversion factors are based on
the occupational ALI in Becquerels divided by 50 to
convert to public ALI in Becquerels, then multiplied
by 100 and by 0.037 and inverted to convert to mrem/
pCi:
3H(6.2x 10-Bmrem/pCi)
90Sr(1.8x10-4mrem/pCi)
137Cs(4.5x 10-5mrem/pCi)
239+24opu (9 x -j 0-4 mrem/pCi)
85Kr (1.6 x 1Q-4 mrem/yr per pCi/m3)
133Xe (2 x 10-" mrem/yr per pCi/m3)
As an example calculation, the following is the result
for tritium:
0.24 x 1Q-12 u.Ci/m3 x 8400 m3/yr x 6.2 x 10'8
mrem/pCi x 103|irem/mrem = 0.12
Also:
90Sr (0.64 x 1 60 L/yr x 1 .8 x 1 0'4 x 1 03 = 1 8 urem)
137Cs (28 x 1 1 .8 x 4.5 x 1 0'5 x 1 03 = 1 5 urem)
239+24oPu (24 x 1 0'3 pCi/Kg x 1 1 .8 x 9 x 1 0'4 x 1 03
= 0.26 urem)
85Kr (26.4 x 1 .6 x 1 0'4 x 1 03 = 4.2
125
-------
Therefore, exposure to worldwide fallout causes a
dose equivalent equal to the sum of the above or 37
urem (0.37 uSv).
Estimated Dose from Radioactivity in NTS Deer
The highest measured concentrations of radionu-
clides in mule deer tissues occurred in deer collected
on the NTS. The maximum values were:
Tissue
Liver (pCi/kg)
Muscle (pCi/kg)
3H
87x103
17x103
239+240 py
0.19
0.06
The tritium concentration was calculated by using
5.8 x 105 pCi/L in blood and assuming liver was 15
percent blood and muscle was 3 percent blood
(ICRP-23). In the unlikely event that one such deer
was collected by a hunter in offsite areas, his intake
could be calculated. Assuming 3 pounds of liver and
100 pounds of meat and the radionuclide concentra-
tions listed above, the dose equivalents could be:
Liver: 1.36 kg [(87 x 103 x 6.2 x 10'8) + (0.19 x
9 x 10"4)] = 8 urem
Muscle: 45.4 kg [(17 x 103 x 6.2 x 1O'8) + (0.06
x9x 1O-4)] = 50 urem
Thus, approximately 0.06 mrem would be delivered
to one individual consuming the stated quantity of
meat and assuming no radioactivity was lost in food
preparation. About 97 percent of this dose equiva-
lent is contributed by the tritium content of the meat.
SECTION 7.3. DOSE FROM BACKGROUND
RADIATION
In addition to external radiation exposure due to
cosmic rays and that due to the gamma radiation
from naturally occurring radionuclides in soil (40K,
uranium and thorium daughters, etc.), there is a
contribution from 7Be that is formed in the atmos-
phere by cosmic ray interactions with oxygen and
nitrogen. The annual average 7Be concentration
measured by our air surveillance network was 0.11
pCi/m3. With a dose conversion factor for inhalation
of 2.6 x 1O'7 mrem/pCi, this equates to 3 x 1O'8 mrem,
a negligible quantity when compared with the PIC
measurements that vary from 52 to 165 mR/yr,
depending on location.
SECTION 7.4. SUMMARY
For an individual with the highest exposure to NTS
effluent, that is someone living at Pah rump, Nev., the
NTS exposure, plus that due to worldwide fallout plus
background would add to: (0.0002 + 0.04 + 67)mrem
= 67 mrem (0.67 mSv). Both the NTS and worldwide
distributions contribute a negligible amount of expo-
sure compared to natural background.
TABLE 30. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENTS DUE TO
OPERATIONS AT THE NTS DURING 1989
Percentage of
Background
MAXIMUM DOSE AT
NTS BOUNDARY®
2.8E-4%
MAXIMUM DOSE TO
AN INDIVIDUAL'")
2.2E-4%
COLLECTIVE DOSE TO
POPULATION WITHIN
80 km OF NTS
Dose
Location
NESHAPS
Standard
Percentage
of NESHAPS
Background
0.22 + 0.02 urem
(2.2E-3 uSv)
Boundary 43 km
south of CP-1
80 mrem
(0.80 mSv)
0.15±0.02u/em
(1.5E-3uSv)
Pahrump, Nev.
80 km S of CP-1
25 mrem
(0.25 mSv)
6E-4%
67 mrem
(0.67 mSv)
1.1E-3person-rem
(1.1E-5person-Sv)
8400 people within
80 km of NTS CP-1
784 person-rem
(7.84 person-Sv)
1.4E-4%
(a) Maximum boundary dose is the dose to a hypothetical individual at the NTS boundary where the highest dose rate occurs. It assumes that the
person remains in the open continuously all year.
(b) Maximum individual dose is to an individual outside the NTS boundary at a residence where the highest dose rate occurs and also assumes that
person remains outside at that location continuously all year long. Calculated from the reported effluent (Table 2) using AIRDOS-PC, versions
3 (1989), software. ^^^^^^
126
-------
Chapter 8. Sample Analysis Procedures
R. W. Holloway
The procedures for analyzing samples collected for this report were described by Johns et al.
(EMSL79) and are summarized below. These include gamma analysis, gross beta on air filters,
strontium, tritium, plutonium and noble gas analysis. These procedures outline standard methods
used to perform given analytical procedures.
TYPE OF
ANALYSIS
IG Ge(Li) Gamma
Spectrometry"
Gross beta on
air filters
89+90g|.
TABLE 31. SUMMARY
ANALYTICAL COUNTING
EQUIPMENT PERIOD (min)
IG or GE(Li) Air charcoal
detector cartridges and
calibrated at 0.5 individual air filters,
keV/channel 30 min; 100 min for
(0.04 to 2 MeV milk, water,
range) suspended solids.
individual
detector
efficiencies
ranging from
15% to 35%.
Low-level end 30
window, gas flow
proportional
counter with a
12.7 cm
diameter window
(80 ug/cm2).
Low-background 50
thin-window, gas-
flow, proportional
counter.
OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE
PROCEDURES SIZE
Radionuclide 560 m3 for air
concentration filters; and
quantified from charcoal
gamma spectral data cartridges;
by on-line computer 3-1/2 liters for
program. milk and water.
Radionuclides in air
filter composite
samples are identified
only.
Samples are 560 m3
counted after
decay of naturally-
occurring
radionuclides and,
if necessary,
extrapolated to
midpoint of
collection in
accordance with
t-'1 2 decay or an
experimentally-
derived decay.
Chemical 1 .0 liter for milk or
separation by ion water. 0.1 to 1 kg
exchange. for tissue.
Separated sample
counted
successively;
activity calculated
by simultaneous
solution of
equations.
APPROXIMATE
DETECTION LIMIT*
For routine milk and
water generally,
5x10'9u.Ci/mLfor
most common fallout
radionuclides in a
simple spectrum.
Filters for LTHMP
suspended solids,
6x10-9uCi/mL
Air filters and
charcoal cartridges,
0.04x10-l2uCi/mL
0.5x10'l2uCi/
sample.
89Sr = 5x10-9uCi/mL
90Sr = 2x10-9nCi/mL
(Continued)
127
-------
TABLE 31. (Continued)
TYPE OF
ANALYSIS
3H
3H Enrichment
(Long-Term
Hydrological
ANALYTICAL COUNTING
EQUIPMENT PERIOD (min)
Automatic liquid 300
scintillation counter
with output printer.
Automatic 300
scintillation counter
with output printer.
ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES
Sample prepared by
distillation.
Sample concentrated
by electrolysis
followed by distillation.
SAMPLE
SIZE
4 mL for water.
250 ml for water.
APPROXIMATE
DETECTION LIMIT*
300-700x10'9
u£i/mLt
10x10'9uCi/mL
Samples)
238+239pu A|pha spectrometer
with silicon surface
barrier detectors
operated in vacuum
chambers.
1000-4000
Water sample or
acid-digested filter
or tissue samples
separated by ion
exchange,
electroplated on
stainless steel
planchet.
1.0 liter for water;
0.1 to 1 kg for
tissue; 5000 to
10,000 m3 for air.
= 0.08x10'9
(jCi/mL
(oCi/mL for water. For
tissue samples, 0.04
pCi per total sample
for all isotopes; 5 x
10-17to10x10'l7uCi/
ml for plutonium on
air filters.
85Kr, I33Xe, 135Xe
Automatic liquid
scintillation counter
with output printer.
200
Separation by gas
chromatography;
dissolved in toluene
"cocktail" for
counting.
0.4 to 1.0 m3
for air.
85Kr,133Xe,135Xe
x10-'2uCi/mL
* The detection limit is defined as the smallest amount of radioactivity that can be reliably detected, i.e., probability of Type I and Type II error
at 5 percent each (DOE81).
" Gamma Spectrometry using either an intrinsic germanium (IG), or lithium-drifted germanium diode (Ge(Li)) detector.
t Depending on sample type.
128
-------
Chapter 9. Radiation Protection Standards for
External and Internal Exposure
S. C. Black
SECTION 9.1. DOSE EQUIVALENT
COMMITMENT
For stochastic effects in members of the public, the
following limits are used:
Effective Dose Equivalent*
Dose
mrem/yr mSv/yr
Occasional annual exposures** 500 5
Prolonged period of exposure 100 1
* Includes both effective dose equivalent from external radiation
and committed effective dose equivalent from ingested and
inhaled radionuclides.
" Occasional exposure implies exposure over a few years with the
provision that over a lifetime the average exposure does not
exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year (ICRP-39).
SECTION 9.2. CONCENTRATION GUIDES
ICRP-30 lists Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) and
Annual Limit on Intake (ALI)(ICRP79). The ALI is the
secondary limit and can be used with assumed
breathing rates and ingested volumes to calculate
concentration guides. The concentration guides
(CG's) in Table 32 were derived in this manner and
yield the committed effective dose equivalent (50
year) of 100 mrem/yr for members of the public.
SECTION 9.3. EPA DRINKING WATER GUIDE
In 40 CFR141 (reference CFR88) the EPA set allow-
able concentrations for continuous controlled re-
leases of radionuclides to drinking water sources.
Any single or combination of beta and gamma emit-
ters should not lead to exposures exceeding 4 mrem/
yr. For tritium this is 2.0 x 10'5 |xCi/mL (740 Bq/L) and
TABLE 32. ROUTINE MONITORING FREQUENCY, SAMPLE SIZE, MDC AND CONCENTRATION GUIDES
SAMPLING SAMPLE
NUCLIDE FREQUENCY LOCATIONS SIZE
Air Surveillance Network
7Be 1/wk all
95Zr 1/wk all
95Nb 1/wk all
99Mo 1/wk all
103Ru 1/wk all
131 1 1/wk all
132Te 1/wk all
137Cs 1/wk all
m3
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
COUNT CONCENTRATIONS
TIME GUIDE* MDC
Minutes Bq/m3
30 1700
30 12
30 110
30 110
30 58
30 4
30 17
30 12
uCi/mL mBq/m3
4.7X10'8 17
3x10-'° 4.1
3x10'9 1.8
3x10'9 1.5
1.5 x10'9 1.8
1x10'10 1.8
5x10-'° 1.8
3x10'10 1.8
MDC
(% CG)
1 x10'3
4x10'2
2x10'3
2x10'3
3x10-3
4x10'2
1x10'2
2x10'2
(Continued)
129
-------
TABLE 32. (Continued)
NUCLIDE
SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
SAMPLE
LOCATIONS SIZE
Air Surveillance Network
14°Ba
140La
141Ce
1«Ce
238pu
Gross Beta
3H
85Kr
133Xe
135Xe
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/mo
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
Water Surveillance Network
3H
3H*
1/mo
1/mo
all
all
all
all
all
all
17
17
17
17
(LTHMP)"
all
all
m3
560
560
560
560
2400
560
5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Liters
1
0.25
COUNT
TIME
Minutes
30
30
30
30
1000
30
150
200
200
200
Minutes
300
300
CONCENTRATIONS
GUIDE*
Bq/m3
120
120
52
1.2
5x10'4
2x10-2
4.6 x103
2.2x10"
1.8x104
2.3 x103
Bq/L
740
740
U-Ci/mL
3x10'9
3x10'9
1.4x10-9
3x10'11
1x10'14
5x10-13
1.2 x10'7
6.2 x10'7
4.9 x10'7
6.2x10-"
(jCi/mL
2x10'5
2x10'5
MDC
mBq/m3
4.8
2.6
3.0
12
1.5 x10'3
0.11
148
148
370
370
Bq/L
12
0.37
MDC
(% CG)
4x10'3
2x10'3
6x10'3
1.0
0.32
6x10-'
3x10'3
6x104
2x10'3
2x10'2
1.6
5x10-2
(enriched tritium)
89Sr
90Sr
137Cs
226Ra
234U
235U
238U
238pu
239+240py
Gamma
1st time
1st time
1/mo
1st time
1st time
1st time
1st time
1st time
1st time
1/mo
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.5
50
50
100
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
30
16
0.8
3.3
1.4
8.2
10
10
6.2
4.1
—
4.4 x10'7
2.2 x10'8
8.8 x10'8
3.9 x10'8
2.2 x10-7
2.8 x10'8
2.8 x10'8
1.7x10-"
1.1x10-'
—
0.18
0.074
0.33
0.037
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.003
0.002
0.18
1.1
9.2
10
2.6
0.04
0.035
0.035
0.05
0.05
<0.2
(Continued)
130
-------
TABLE 32. (Continued)
SAMPLING SAMPLE COUNT CONCENTRATIONS
NUCLIDE FREQUENCY LOCATIONS SIZE TIME GUIDE*
Milk Surveillance Network Liters Minutes Bq/L (jCi/mL
3H 1/mo all 3.5 300 12x104 3x103
13'l 1/mo all 3.5 100 41 1x106
137Cs 1/mo all 35 100 160 4x106
89Sr 1/mo all 3.5 50 820 2x105
90Sr 1/mo all 3.5 50 40 1x106
Gamma 1/mo all 3.5 50 — —
Exposure
Dosimetry Network Number Guide
TLD 1/mo 61 1 — 100mR
(Personnel)
TLD 1/qtr 154 3-6 - -
(Station)
PIC weekly 28 2016 - -
MDC
MDC (% CG)
Bq/L
12 0.01
0.18 0.44
0.33 02
0.18 002
0.074 0.18
0.18 <0.2
MDA
2mR 2
2mR -
2ufl/hr —
' ALI and DAC values from ICRP-30 modified to 1 mSv annual effective dose equivalent for continuous exposure. Te and I data corrected to
2g thyroid, greater milk intake, and smaller volume of air breathed annually (1 year-old infant).
" For tritium, Sr and Cs the concentration guide is based on Drinking Water Regs. (4 mrem/yr).
131
-------
-------
Appendix 1. References
AEC71 "Effluent and Environmental Monitoring and
Reporting, "U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Manual,
Chapter 0513. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C., 1971.
BEIR80 The Effects on Populations of Exposure to
Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980, Committee
on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations.
(National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20418.)
BE73 Bernhardt, D. E., A. A. Moghissi and
J. A. Cochran, 1973, Atmospheric Concentrations
of Fission Product Noble Gases, pp. 4-19, in Noble
Gases, EPA600/976-026.
CFR88 40 Code of Federal Regulations-141, Drinking
Water Regulations, Title 40, part 141, 1988.
DOC861986 Population and 1985 Per Capita Income
Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Publication Number P-26.
DOC881988 Population and 1987 PerCapita Income
Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Publication Number P-26.
DOE81 J. P. Corley, D. H. Denham, R. E. Jaquish,
D. E. Michels, A. R. Olsen, D. A. Waite, A Guide for
Environmental Radiological Surveillance at U.S. Dept.
of Energy Installations, July 1981, Office of
Operational Safety Report, DOE/EP-0023, U.S. DOE,
Washington, D.C.
DOE85 U.S. Department of Energy, 1985,
Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health
Protection Information Reporting Requirements. DOE
Order 5484.1, November 6, 1987.
DOE88 U.S. Department of Energy, General
Environmental Protection Program, DOE Order
5400.1, November 9, 1988.
DOE90 Radioactive Effluent Reports, F. E. Bingham,
Department of Energy, Environmental Protection
Division, Personal Communication Reports to C. F.
Costa, EMSL-LV, March 8, 1990, Unpublished.
EMSL79 "Radiochemical and Analytical Procedures
for Analysis of Environmental Samples", F. Johns
(EMSL-LV-0539-17-1979).
EPA87U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987,
Quality Assurance Program Plan, EPA/600/X-87/
241, EMSL-LV, P.O. Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV
89193-3478.
EPA88A Environmental Radiation Data, Draft Report
55, U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation Programs Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility, Montgomery
Alabama, 1988.
EPA88B Offsite Remedial Action Capability for
Underground Nuclear Weapons Test Accidents,
C. F. Costa, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1988. Unpublished, pp.
2-4.
EPA88C Monitoring Radiation from Nuclear Tests,
Public Information Handout, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1988,
p. 3.
EPA89 EPA Journal, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Public Affairs (A-107),
Washington, D.C. 20460.
ERDA77 U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, 1977, "Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Nye County, Nevada." Nevada
Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, Report ERDA-
1551. (U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS,
Springfield, VA22161.)
FRC60 Federal Radiation Council, Report No. 1,
"Background Material for the Development of
Radiation Protection Standards." Reprinted by the
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C. 20201, May 13, 1960.
FRE62 Freund, J. E. Mathematical Statistics.
Prentice Hall, Englewood, New Jersey, 1962, pp.
189-235.
133
-------
HO75 Houghton, J. G.; C. M. Sakamoto, and R. O.
Gifford, 1975, "Nevada Weather and Climate."
Special Publication 2. Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, pp. 69-74.
HOL89 Holloway, R. W. et al., Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. VOL 131,
No. 2 (1989), pp. 351-365.
ICRP79 International Commission in Radiological
Protection, Limits for Intake of Radionuclides by
Workers, lCRP-30, Limits for the Intake of
Radionuclides by Workers (7-Volume Set) 1979-
1982.
ICRP39 Principles for Limiting Exposure of the Public
to Natural Sources of Radiation, Annual Limit on
Intake (ALl) and Derived Air Concentrations (DAC)
for Members of the Public, ICRP-39, 1983.
ICRP23 Report of Task Group on Reference Man,
1975.
JA81 Jarvis, A. N. and L. Siu, 1981, Environmental
Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies
Program — FY 1981-82, EPA-600/4-81-004, U.S.
EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
NEL75 Nelson, Loyd S. J. Qual. Tech. 7 (1), January
(1975).
NPS90 National Park Service, personal
communication with Supervisor Park Ranger,
R. Hopkins, Death Valley National Monument, Death
Valley, California, April 5,1990.
NRC81 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Glossary of Terms, Nuclear Power and Radiation,
NUREG-0770, 1981.
OAK72 Oakley, D. T., Natural Radiation Exposure in
the United States, EPA Report ORP/SID 7201,1972.
QU68 Quiring, R. E., 1968, "Climatological Data,
Nevada Test Site, Nuclear Rocket Development
Station (NRDS)." ERLTM-ARL-7. ESSA Research
Laboratories, Las Vegas, Nevada.
SCB89 Memo from S. C. Black to C. F. Costa,
Subject: DQO's For The Offsite Radiological
Monitoring Program, September 10, 1989.
SNE67 Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran.
Statistical Methods. The Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa, 6th Ed. 1967, pp. 39-47.
STA75 Statistics and Probability, Joseph Newmark,
Rinehart Press/Holt, Rinehart & Winston, San
Francisco, California, 1975, p. 81.
UT89 Utah Department of Agriculture, 1989, "Utah
Agricultural Statistics, 1989." State of Utah
Department of Agriculture, Salt Lake City, Utah.
WI75 Winograd, I. J. and W. Thordarson, 1975,
Hydrogeologic and hydrochemical framework, south-
central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with special
reference to the Nevada Test Site, USGS Professional
Paper 712-C, Denver, Colorado.
134
-------
Appendix 2. Glossary of Terms (NRC81)
Definitions
background
radiation
beta
particle (13)
The radiation in man's natural en-
vironment, including cosmic rays
and radiation from the naturally
radioactive elements, both outside
and inside the bodies of humans
and animals. It is also called natural
radiation. The usually quoted
average individual exposure from
background radiation is 125 miliirem
per year in mid-latitudes at sea level.
A charged particle emitted from a
nucleus during radioactive decay,
with a mass equal to 1/1837 that of
a proton. A positively charged beta
particle is called a positron. Large
amounts of beta radiation may cause
skin burns, and beta emitters are
harmful if they enter the body. Beta
particles are easily stopped by a
thin sheet of metal or plastic.
becquerel (Bq) A unit, in the International System of
Units (SI), of measurement of
radioactivity equal to one nuclear
transformation per second.
cosmic Penetrating ionizing radiation, both
radiation particulate and electromagnetic,
originating in space. Secondary
cosmic rays, formed by interactions
in the earth's atmosphere, account
for about 45 to 50 miilirem of the 125
miliirem background radiation that
an average individual receives in a
year.
curie (Ci) The basic unit used to describe the
rate of radioactive disintegration.
The curie is equal to 37 billion
disintegrations per second, which is
approximately the rate of decay of 1
gram of radium; named for Marie
and Pierre Curie, who discovered
radium in 1898.
dosimeter A portable instrument for measuring
and registering the total
accumulated dose to ionizing
radiation.
half-life The time in which half the atoms of
a particular radioactive substance
disintegrate to another nuclearform.
Measured half-lives vary from mil-
lionths of a second to billions of
years. Also called physical halflife.
ionization The process of adding one or more
electrons to, or removing one or
more electrons from, atoms or mole-
cules, thereby creating ions. High
temperatures, electrical discharges,
nuclear radiation, and x-rays can
cause ionization.
ionization An instrumentthatdetects and mea-
chamber sures ionizing radiation by measur-
ing the electrical current that flows
when radiation ionizes gas in a
chamber.
isotope One of two or more atoms with the
same number of protons, but differ-
ent numbers of neutrons in their
nuclei. Thus, 12C, 13C and 14C are
isotopes of the element carbon, the
numbers denoting the approximate
atomic weights. Isotopes have very
nearly the same chemical proper-
ties, but often different physical prop-
erties (for example, 12C and 13C are
stable, 14C is radioactive).
minimum The smallest amount of radioactiv-
detectable ity that can be reliably detected with
concentration a probability of Type I and Type II
(MDC) error at 5% each (DOE81).
miliirem A one-thousandth part of a rem.
(mrem) (See rem.)
135
-------
milliroentgen A one-thousandth part of aroent-
(mR) gen. (See roentgen.)
noble gas A gaseous element that does not
readily enter into chemical
combination with other elements.
An inert gas.
personnel The determination of the degree of
monitoring radioactive contamination on
individuals using survey meters, or
the determination of radiation
dosage received by means of
dosimetry methods.
picocurie (pCi) One trillionth part of a curie.
quality factor The factor by which the absorbed
dose is to be multiplied to obtain a
quantity that expresses, on a
common scale for all ionizing
radiations, the biological damage to
exposed persons. It is used because
some types of radiation, such as
alpha particles, are more biologically
damaging than other types.
rad Acronym for radiation absorbed
dose. The basic unit of absorbed
dose of radiation. A dose of one rad
means the absorption of 100 ergs (a
small but measurable amount of
energy) per gram of absorbing
material.
radioisotope An unstable isotope of an element
that decays or disintegrates
spontaneously, emitting radiation.
radionuclide A radioisotope.
rem
Acronym of roentgen equivalent
man. The unit of dose of any ionizing
radiation that produces the same
biological effect as a unit of absorbed
dose of ordinary X-rays. (See quality
factor.)
roentgen (R) A unit of exposure to ionizing
radiation. It is that amount of gamma
or X-rays required to produce ions
carrying one electrostatic unit of
electrical charge in one cubic
centimeter of dry air under standard
conditions. Named after Wilhelm
Roentgen, German scientist who
discovered X-rays in 1895.
scintillation The combination of phosphor, pho-
(detector or tomultiplier tube, and associated
counter) counter electronic circuits for
counting light emissions produced
in the phosphor by ionizing radiation.
sievert (Sv) A unit, in the International System of
Units (SI), of dose equivalent which
is equal to one joule per kilogram (1
Sv equals 100 rem).
terrestrial The portion of natural radiation
radiation (background) that is emitted by
naturally occurring radioactive
materials in the earth.
tritium A radioactive isotope of hydrogen
that decays by beta emission. It's
half-life is about 12.5 years.
X-rays Penetrating electromagnetic
radiation (photon) having a
wavelength that is much shorterthan
that of visible light. These rays are
usually produced by excitation of
the electron field around certain
nuclei. In nuclear reactions, it is
customary to refer to photons
originating in the nucleus as gamma
rays, and to those originating in the
electron field of the atom as X-rays.
These rays are sometimes called
roentgen rays after their discoverer,
Wilhelm K. Roentgen.
TI.S.
136
------- |