United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas NV 89193-3478
EPA 600/4-91/030
DOE/DP00539-063
Research and Development
vvEPA
Offsite Environmental
Monitoring Report:
Radiation Monitoring Around
United States Nuclear Test
Areas Calendar Year 1990
SlonTLibra;y"(PL-12J)
T7 WestJStkson Boulevard, 12th r
Chicaen. fl 60604-3590
-------
ERRATA
Front inside cover. The following information should have
appeared on the front inside cover:
#
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the
Office of Scientific and Technical Information,
P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 39831;
prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 625-8401
Available to the pulic 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
Front and back cover photographs by: © Charles D. Haire
Wheeler Peak (front) and Lake Theresa (back),
Great Basin National Park, Nevada
Section 6.7, page 82. The reference to Table 21 at the bottom of
the first column should be changed to Table 19.
Appendix, Table A8, page 161. Sampling locations in Blue Jay and
Frenchman Station, Nevada incorrectly appear under the heading of
NTS Semiannual Network. Blue Jay, Nevada should appear under the
heading Project Faultless and Frenchman Station, Nevada should
appear under the heading Project Shoal.
-------
EPA/600/4-90
DOE/DP
Offsite Environmental
Monitoring Report:
Radiation Monitoring Around United States
Nuclear Test Areas, Calendar Year 1990
Contributors:
D.J. Chaloud, B.B. Dicey, D.G. Easterly,
C.A. Fontana, R.W. Holloway, A.A. Mullen,
V.E. Niemann, W.G. Phillips, D.D. Smith,
N.R. Sunderland, D.J. Thomg, and
Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Energy
under Interagency Agreement
Number DE-AI08-86-NV10522
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NV 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.
-------
Abstract
This report describes the Offsite Radiation Safety Program conducted during 1990 by the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas. This laboratory
operates an environmental radiation monitoring program in the region surrounding the Nevada Test 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 current radiation levels and associated doses to the general public are in
compliance with existing radiation protection standards. The surveillance program additionally has the
responsibility 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 animals, food crops, and humans. Personnel with mobile monitoring
equipment are placed in areas downwind from the test site prior to each nuclear weapons test to implement
protective actions, provide immediate radiation monitoring, and obtain environmental samples rapidly after
any occurrence of radioactivity release.
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 current NTS activities. Annual and long-term (10-year) trends were evaluated
in the Noble Gas and Tritium, Milk Surveillance, Biomonitoring, TLD, PIC networks, and the Long-Term
Hydrological Monitoring Program. All evaluated data were consistent with previous data history. No radiation
directly attributable to current NTS activities was detected in any samples. Monitoring network data indicate
the greatest population exposure came from naturally occurring background radiation, which yielded an
average exposure of 123 mrem/yr. Worldwide fallout accounted for about 0.01 mrem/yr. Calculation of
potential dose to offsite residents based on onsite source emission measurements provided by the
Department of Energy (DOE) resulted in a maximum calculated dose of 0.006 mrem/yr. These were
insignificant contributors to total exposure as compared to natural background.
in
-------
Contents
Page
Notice ii
Abstract iii
Figures ix
Tables x
Abbreviations, Acronyms, Units of Measure, and Conversions xi
List of Elements xiii
Acknowledgements xv
SECTION 1
1 Introduction 1
SECTION 2
2 Summary 3
2.1 Objective 3
2.2 Air Surveillance Network 3
2.3 Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network 3
2.4 Milk Surveillance Network 3
2.5 Biomonitoring Program 4
2.6 Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Program 4
2.7 Pressurized Ion Chamber Network 4
2.8 Internal Exposure Monitoring 4
2.9 Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program 4
2.10 Quality Assurance Program 4
2.11 Community Monitoring Stations 4
2.12 Dose Assessment 5
SECTION 3
3 Description of the Nevada Test Site 7
3.1 Location 7
3.2 Climate 7
3.3 Geology and Hydrology 9
3.4 Land Use of Nevada Test Site Region 11
3.5 Population Distribution 11
SECTION 4
4 Radiological Safety Activities 19
4.1 Nuclear Test Support 19
4.1.1 Remedial Actions 19
4.1.2 Remedial Actions to Minimize Whole-Body Exposure 20
-------
Contents (continued)
4.2 Routine Environmental Surveillance 21
4.2.1 Airborne Releases of Radioactivity at the Nevada Test Site during 1990 21
4.2.2 Air Surveillance Network 21
4.2.2.1 Network Design 21
4.2.2.2 Methods 22
4.2.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 22
4.2.2.4 Results 25
4.2.3 Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network 26
4.2.3.1 Network Design 26
4.2.3.2 Methods 28
4.2.3.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 28
4.2.3.4 Results 31
4.2.4 Milk Surveillance Network 31
4.2.4.1 Network Design 33
4.2.4.2 Methods 33
4.2.4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 35
4.2.4.4 Results 35
4.2.5 Biomonitoring Program 38
4.2.5.1 Design and Methods 38
4.2.5.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 39
4.2.5.3 Results 39
4.2.6 Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Network 42
4.2.6.1 Network Design 44
4.2.6.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 46
4.2.6.3 Monitoring Results — Offsite Personnel 46
4.2.6.4 Monitoring Results — Offsite Stations 48
4.2.6.5 Discussion 49
4.2.7 Pressurized Ion Chamber Network 50
4.2.7.1 Network Design 50
4.2.7.2 Methods 51
4.2.7.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 51
4.2.7.4 Results 53
4.2.8 Internal Exposure Monitoring 53
4.2.8.1 System Design 55
4.2.8.2 Network Design 55
4.2.8.3 Methods 58
4.2.8.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 58
4.2.8.5 Results 58
4.2.9 Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program 60
4.2.9.1 Background 60
4.2.9.2 Design and Methods 60
4.2.9.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 64
4.2.9.4 Results 64
4.2.9.5 Discussion 64
4.2.10 Special Environmental Surveillance 65
VI
-------
Contents (continued)
SECTION 5
5 Public Information and Community Assistance Programs 69
5.1 Community Monitoring Station Program 69
5.2 Town Hall Meetings 70
5.3 Nevada Test Site Tours 70
5.4 Animal Investigations 71
SECTION 6
6 Quality Assurance and Procedures 73
6.1 Policy 73
6.2 Standard Operating Procedures 73
6.3 Data Quality Objectives 76
6.3.1 Data Quality Objectives for the Offsite Radiological Safety Program 76
6.3.2 Decisions to be Made 77
6.3.3 Use of Environmental Data 77
6.3.4 Time and Resources Required 77
6.3.5 Description of Data to be Collected 77
6.3.6 Domain of the Decision 78
6.3.7 Calculations to be Performed on the Data 78
6.4 Data Validation 78
6.4.1 Box-and-Whisker Plots 79
6.5 Quality Control 80
6.5.1 Milk Surveillance Network 80
6.5.2 Internal Dosimetry Program 80
6.5.3 Pressurized Ion Chamber Network 81
6.5.4 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Network 81
6.6 Health Physics Oversight 81
6.7 Precision of Analysis 81
6.8 Accuracy of Analysis 82
6.9 Quality Assessment for Biomonitoring Program 83
SECTION 7
7 Dose Assessment 85
7.1 Estimated Dose from Nevada Test Site Activities 85
7.2 Estimated Dose from Worldwide Fallout 85
7.3 Estimated Dose from Radioactivity in a Nevada Test Site Deer 86
7.4 Dose from Background Radiation 87
7.5 Summary 87
VII
-------
Contents (continued)
SECTION 8
8 Sample Analysis Procedures 89
SECTION 9
9 Radiation Protection Standards for External and Internal Exposure 91
9.1 Dose Equivalent Commitment 91
9.2 Concentration Guides 91
9.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Guide 91
References 95
Glossary of Terms 97
Appendix
Supplementary Figures and Tables 101
VIII
-------
Figures
Number
1. Typical mid-latitude steppe climatological zone in Nevada 7
2. Location of the Nevada Test Site 8
3. Ground water flow systems around the Nevada Test Site 10
4. General land use within 180 miles (300 km) of the Nevada Test Site 12
5. Population of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah counties near the Nevada Test Site 13
6. Distribution of family milk cows and goats, by county 14
7. Distribution of dairy cows, by county 15
8. Distribution of beef cattle, by county 16
9. Distribution of sheep, by county 17
10. Monitoring Technician surveys ambient environmental radiation using a hand-held
survey instrument 20
11. Monitoring Technician servicing air sampler at Pahrump Community Monitoring Station 22
12. Air Surveillance Network stations 23
13. Standby Air Surveillance Network stations 24
14. Noble gas sampling equipment 28
15. Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network sampling locations 29
16. Monitoring Technician changes molecular sieve on tritium air sampler at
Community Monitoring Station 30
17. Network weekly average krypton concentrations in air, 1990 data 34
18. Annual network average krypton concentrations 35
19. Monitoring Technician collects milk sample from commercial dairy 36
20. Milk sampling locations within 180 miles (300 km) of the Nevada Test Site 37
21. Standby Milk Surveillance Network stations 38
22. Strontium-90 concentrations in Pasteurized Milk Network samples 39
23. Mule deer at the Nevada Test Site 40
24. Collection sites for animal samples 41
25. Average strontium concentrations in animal bone ash, 1955 to 1990 43
26. Construction of a typical Panasonic dosimeter 44
27. Locations monitored with thermoluminescent dosimeters 45
28. Typical personnel thermoluminescent dosimeter holder as worn by individuals 47
29. Summary of ambient gamma exposure of offsite residents -1990 48
30. Typical fixed environmental thermoluminescent dosimeter monitoring station 49
31. Frequency distribution analysis, fixed station, and personnel thermoluminescent
dosimeters-1990 50
32. Comparison of thermoluminescent dosimeter results to pressurized ion chamber
results-1990 51
33. Community monitoring pressurized ion chamber (PIC) stations and other PIC station
locations-1990 52
34. Pressurized Ion Chamber Network, including remote automatic weather stations operated
by the Bureau of Land Management 53
35. Pressurized ion chamber, gamma-rate recorder remote processor unit, with chart recorder,
digital readout, and telemetry antenna with solar panel 54
36. Annual pressurized ion chamber averages by station in microroentgens per hour -1990 56
37. Lung counting with semiplanar array 57
38. Location of families in the Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program 59
39. Monitoring Technician collecting city water sample from Pahrump, NV 61
40. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations on the Nevada Test Site 62
41. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations near the Nevada Test Site 63
42. Community Monitoring Station at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas 69
43. Example of a box-and-whisker plot 79
IX
-------
Tables
Number Page
1. Characteristics of Climatic Types in Nevada 9
2. Radionuclide Emissions on the Nevada Test Site during 1990 21
3. Summary of Gross Beta Analyses for Air Surveillance Network Continuously
Operating Stations-1990 26
4. Summary of Gross Beta Analyses for Air Surveillance Network Standby Stations — 1990 27
5. Summary of Analytical Results for the Noble Gas Surveillance Network— 1990 32
6. Summary of Analytical Results for Concentrations of Tritiated Water Vapor in Air —1990 33
7. Annual Average Krypton Concentrations in Air, 1981 to 1990 34
8. Radionuclide Concentrations in Desert Bighorn Sheep Samples — 1989 42
9. Pressurized Ion Chamber Readings — 1990 55
10. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Tritium Results for Nevada Test Site
Monthly Network—1990 65
11. Water Analysis Quality Control 66
12. Water Analysis Control Limits 66
13. Sampling Locations Where Water Samples Contained Manmade Radioactivity 66
14. Summary of Quality Control Samples 74
15. Blind Control Limits 75
16. Matrix Spike Control Limits 76
17. Summary of Annual Effective Dose Equivalents 78
18. Samples and Analyses for Duplicate Sampling Program —1990 82
19. Sampling and Analytical Precision —1990 82
20. Quality Assurance Results from Department of Energy Program —1990 83
21. Summary of Annual Effective Dose Equivalents from Nevada Test Site Operations
during 1990 86
22. Summary of Analytical Procedures 89
23. Routine Monitoring Guides 91
-------
Abbreviations, Acronyms, Units of Measure,
and Conversions
ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS
ALARA — As Low as Reasonably Achievable LWL —
ALI — Annual Limit on Intake MDC —
ASN — Air Surveillance Network MSL —
ANSI — American National Standards Institute MSN —
BLM — Bureau of Land Management NCRP —
BOMAB — Bottle Mannequin Absorber
CFR — Code of Federal Regulations NIST —
CG — Concentration Guide
CMS — Community Monitoring Station NGTSN —
CP-1 — Control Point One
DAC — Derived Air Concentration NTS —
DOE — U.S. Department of Energy ORSP —
DOELAP — Department of Energy, PIC —
Laboratory Accreditation Program QA —
DQO — data quality objective QAMS —
DRI — Desert Research Institute QC —
EML — Environmental Monitoring Laboratory RAWS —
EMSL-LV— Environmental Monitoring Systems RCF —
Laboratory, Las Vegas SAIC —
EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDA — Food and Drug Administration S.D. —
Ge(Li) — lithium-drifted germanium diode SMSN —
GOES — Geostationary Operational SOP —
Environmental Satellite STDMS —
HTO — tritiated water
ICRP — International Commission on TLD —
Radiological Protection UCL —
IG — intrinsic germanium USGS —
LCL — lower control limit UWL —
LTHMP — Long-Term Hydrological vs. —
Monitoring Program
lower working limit
minimum detectable concentration
mean sea level
Milk Surveillance Network
National Council of Radiation
Protection and Measurement
National Institute of Standards
and Technology
Noble Gas and Tritium
Surveillance Network
Nevada Test Site
Offsite Radiological Safety Program
pressurized ion chamber
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Management Staff
quality control
Remote Automatic Weather Station
reference correction factor
Science Applications
International Corporation
standard deviation
Standby Milk Surveillance Network
standard operating procedure
sample tracking data management
system
thermoluminescent dosimeter
upper control limit
U.S. Geological Survey
upper working limit
versus
XI
-------
Abbreviations, Acronyms, Units of Measure,
and Conversions (continued)
UNITS OF MEASURE
Bq
C
°C
Ci
cm
eV
°F
g
hr
keV
kg
km
L
!b
m
meV
mg
min
ml
— Becquerel, one disintegration per
second
— coulomb
— degrees centigrade
— Curie
— centimeter, 1/100 meter
— electron volt
— degrees Fahrenheit
— gram
— hour
— one thousand electron volts
— kilogram, 1000 grams
— kilometer, 1000 meters
— liter
— pound
— meter
— one million electron volts
— milligram, 1/1 000 gram
— minute
— milliliter, 1/1 000 liter
PREFIXES
a
f
P
n
V-
m
k
atto = 10-18
femto = 10~15
pico = 10-12
nano = 1 0~9
micro = 1 O"6
milli = 10-3
kilo = 103
mo — month
mR — milliroentgen, 1/1000roentgen
mrem — millirem, 1/1000 rem
mSv — millisievert, 1/1000sievert
pCi — picocurie, 1/1,000,000,000,000 curie
qt — quarter
R — roentgen
rad — unit of absorbed dose, 100 ergs/g
rem — dose equivalent, the rad adjusted for
biological effect
Sv — sievert, equivalent to 100 rem
wk — week
yr — year
n£i — microcurie, 1/1,000,000 curie
u.R — microroentgen, 1/1,000,000
roentgen
% — percent
± — plus or minus
< — less than
— equals
= — approximately equals
CONVERSIONS
Multiply by.
Concentrations
nCi/mL 109
1012
SI Units
rad
rem
pCi
mR/yr
10-2
10-2
3.7 x10-2
2.6 x10-7
To Obtain
pCi/L
pCi/m3
Gray (Gy = 1 Joule/kg)
Sievert (Sv)
Becquerel (Bq)
Coulomb (C)/kg-yr
xii
-------
List of Elements
ATOMIC
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
SYMBOL
H
He
Li
Be
B
C
N
0
F
Ne
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Kr
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Tc
Ru
Rh
Pd
NAME
hydrogen
helium
lithium
beryllium
boron
carbon
nitrogen
oxygen
fluorine
neon
sodium
magnesium
aluminum
silicon
phosphorus
sulfur
chlorine
argon
potassium
calcium
scandium
titanium
vanadium
chromium
manganese
iron
cobalt
nickel
copper
zinc
gallium
germanium
arsenic
selenium
bromine
krypton
rubidium
strontium
yttrium
zirconium
niobium
molybdenum
technetium
ruthenium
rhodium
palladium
ATOMIC
NUMBER
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
SYMBOL
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Xe
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
W
Re
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Po
At
Rn
Fr
Ra
Ac
Th
Pa
U
NAME
silver
cadmium
indium
tin
antimony
tellurium
iodine
xenon
cesium
barium
lanthanum
cerium
praseodymium
neodymium
promethium
samarium
europium
gadolinium
terbium
dysprosium
holmium
erbium
thulium
ytterbium
lutetium
hafnium
tantalum
tungsten
rhenium
osmium
iridium
platinum
gold
mercury
thallium
lead
bismuth
polonium
astatine
radon
francium
radium
actinium
thorium
protactinium
uranium
XIII
-------
List of Elements (continued)
ATOMIC
NUMBER SYMBOL NAME
93 Np neptunium
94 Pu plutonium
95 Am americium
96 Cm curium
97 Bk berkelium
98 Cf californium
99 Es einsteinium
100 Fm fermium
101 Md mendelevium
102 No nobelium
103 Lr lawrencium
XIV
-------
Acknowledgements
External peerreviews were provided by L.R. Anspaugh, Lawrence Livermore Natonal Laboratory (Livermore,
California); R.O. Gilbert, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (Richland, Washington); E. Essington, Los
Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, New Mexico); F. Au, U.S. Department of Energy (Las Vegas,
Nevada); S.C. Black, Reynolds Electric and Engineering Company (Las Vegas, Nevada); and N. Cooper,
Desert Research Institute (Las Vegas, Nevada). Internal reviewers, in addition to the authors, included G.G.
Martin and C.F. Costa, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Las Vegas, Nevada) and J. Flueck, University
of Nevada Environmental Research Center (Las Vegas, Nevada). The contributions of these reviewers in
production of this final version of the 1990 Annual report are gratefully acknowledged.
The authors would like to thank C. F. Costa for his advice and assistance in the coordination and preparation
of this report. We also want to thank the Field Monitoring Branch for collecting samples, maintaining the
equipment, and interfacing with offsite residents; and the Radioanalysis Branch for analyzing the samples.
Appreciation is also extended to the University of Nevada Environmental Research Center for preparation of
the box-and-whisker plots, to The Pipkins Group for preparation of figures, and to Computer Sciences
Corporation for programming, data base management, and word processing support.
xv
-------
-------
1 Introduction
C. A. Fontana
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission used the Ne-
vada Test Site (NTS), between January 1951 and
January 1975, for conducting nuclear weapons tests,
nuclear rocket engine development, nuclear medicine
studies, and for other nuclear and nonnuclear experi-
ments. Beginning in mid-January 1975, these activi-
ties 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. Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE).
Atmospheric weapons tests were conducted peri-
odically at the NTS 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 con-
ducted underground, with the expectation of con-
tainment, except for the above ground and shallow
underground tests of Operation Sunbeam and in
cratering experiments conducted under the Plow-
share 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 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has operated the Offsite Radiological
Safety Program (ORSP), both in Nevada and at
other nuclear test sites, under interagency agree-
ments with the DOE or its predecessor agencies.
Since 1954, the three major objectives of the offsite
radiation surveillance program have been:
Measuring and documenting levels and
trends of environmental radiation or radio-
active contaminants in the vicinity of atomic
testing areas.
Verifying compliance with applicable radia-
tion protection standards, guidelines, and
regulations.
Assuring the health and safety of the people
living in the vicinity of the NTS.
Offsite levels of radiation and radioactivity are as-
sessed by gamma-ray measurements using pres-
surized ion chambers and thermoluminescent do-
simeters; by sampling air, water, milk, food crops,
other vegetation, soil, animals; and humans using
biological assay procedures.
Before each nuclear test at the NTS, 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 the
control center at the NTS.
Hours before each test, Weather Service Nuclear
Support Office personnel and, if requested, an in-
strumented aircraft gather meteorological data for
use by the Test Controller's Advisory Panel in judging
the safety of executing the test. A second aircraft
carries radiation detectors. In the unlikely event of a
significant release of radioactivity following a nuclear
weapons test, the equipment on the aircraft enables
rapid sampling and analysis of a radioactive cloud.
Data gathered by the aircraft are used to assist in
deploying field monitoring technicians to downwind
areas, to help determine appropriate protective ac-
tions, and to perform radiation monitoring and envi-
ronmental sampling (EPA88B).
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 the summary data for each six-
month period was initiated in 1964. In 1971, the
Atomic Energy Commission implemented a re-
quirement (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 radio-
logical monitoring report. During 1988, Order 5484.1
was superseded by the General Environmental Pro-
tection Program Requirements (Order 5400.1)
(DOE88) of the DOE. Each annual report summa-
rizes the radiation monitoring activities of the EPA in
the vicinity of the NTS and at former nuclear testing
areas in the United States. This report summarizes
those activities for calendar year 1990.
Included in this report are descriptions of the perti-
nent features of the NTS and its environs; summaries
of the dosimetry and sampling methods; a delinea-
tion of analytical and quality control procedures; and
the results of environmental measurements. Where
applicable, dosimetry and analytical data are com-
pared with appropriate standards and guidelines for
the external and internal exposure of humans to
ionizing radiation.
Although written to meet the terms of the interagency
agreement between the EPA and the DOE as well as
the requirements of DOE 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. State, federal, and local agencies in-
volved 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.
-------
2 Summary
C. A. Fontana and D. J. Chaloud
The primary functions of the ORSP are to conduct routine environmental monitoring for radioactive
materials in areas potentially impacted by nuclear tests and, when necessary, to implement actions
to protect the public from radiation exposure. Components of the ORSP include surveillance networks
for air, noble gas and tritium, and milk; biomonitoring of meat, game animals, and vegetables;
exposure monitoring by thermoluminescent dosimetry, pressurized ion chambers, and whole body
counting; and long-term hydrological monitoring of wells and surface waters. In 1990, data from all
networks and monitoring programs indicated no radiation directly attributable to current activities
conducted at DOE's NTS and there was no need for any protective actions to be undertaken. The
highest calculated (modeled) dose was 6 x 1Q-3 mrem (6 x 10'5 mSv) to hypothetical populations living
within 48 miles (80 km) of Control Point One (CP-1).
2.1
OBJECTIVE
"EPA is charged by Congress to protect the nation's
air and water systems" (EPA89). This policy applies
to exposure of the population to radiation and radio-
active contaminants. To accomplish these goals and
to ensure compliance with the DOE policy of keeping
radiation exposure of the general public as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA), the EPA's Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas
(EMSL-LV) conducts the ORSP around the DOE's
NTS. This program is conducted under an Interagency
Agreement between EPA and DOE. The main
activity at the NTS is the testing of nuclear devices;
however, other related projects are also conducted.
The principal activities of the ORSP are to: (1)
conduct routine environmental monitoring for radio-
active materials in various media and for radiation in
areas that may be affected by nuclear tests; (2)
implement protective actions in support of the nuclear
testing program; and, (3) gather 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 1990.
2.2 AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORK
In 1990, the Air Surveillance Network (ASN) con-
sisted of 32 continuously operating sampling locations
surrounding the NTS and 78 standby stations, op-
erated one or two weeks each quarter. In 1990,
sampling was conducted at 75 of the 78 standby
stations. At least one sampler is located in each state
west of the Mississippi River. No airborne radioac-
tivity related to current nuclear testing atthe NTS was
detected in any sample from the ASN during 1990.
Apart from naturally occurring 7Be, the only activity
above the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)
detected by this network was ^Pu in two composite
samples from Rachel and Las Vegas, N V, and 239^«pu
in one composite sample from Austin and Amarillo,
TX. Operation of the ASN and data results are
discussed in Section 4.2.2.
2.3 NOBLE GAS AND TRITIUM
SURVEILLANCE NETWORK
The Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network
(NGTSN) consisted of 16 noble gas and 19 tritium
sampling stations in 1990. No NTS-related activity
was detected at any network sampling station. As in
previous years, results for xenon and tritium were
typically below the MDC. Krypton results, although
exceeding the MDC, were within the range of values
expected from sampling background levels, as dis-
cussed in Section 4.2.3.
2.4 MILK SURVEILLANCE NETWORK
The Milk Surveillance Network consisted of 26 loca-
tions within 180 miles (300 km) of the NTS and an
additional 109 standby locations in the contiguous
states west of the Mississippi River, with the excep-
tion of Texas. As discussed in Section 4.2.4, a single
sample from Boise, ID contained minimally detect-
able amounts of 3H and detectable levels of 90Sr were
found in samples from two locations (Shoshone, NV
-------
and Ivins, UT). Both the Boise and Ivins samples
were within the expected range of false positive
values. The Shoshone samples indicated concen-
trations were above the MDC in three of four samples
taken between May and November. Similar results
were noted in 1989 during the same seasonal period,
coinciding with cattle grazing on green forage.
2.5 BIOMONITORING PROGRAM
Meat, home-grown fruits and vegetables, and game
animals are analyzed in the biomonitoring program.
In 1990, cattle, desert bighorn sheep, mule deer, and
root crop vegetables were analyzed for tritium,
strontium, plutonium, and gamma emitters. As
discussed in Section 4.2.5, most sample results
were less than the MDC. Those samples with
concentrations above the MDC were similarto results
seen in previous years. Detectable levels of 239+240Pu
in beets from St. George, UT, were attributed to
incomplete washing of soil from the sample prior to
processing.
2.6 THERMOLUMINESCENT
DOSIMETRY PROGRAM
In 1990, external exposure was monitored by a
network of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) at
134 fixed locations surrounding the NTS and by
TLDs worn by 71 offsite residents. No apparent net
exposures were related to NTS activities. As dis-
cussed in Section 4.2.6, regulatory or ALARA in-
vestigation limits were not exceeded for any individual
or cumulative exposure. The range of exposures
was similar to those observed in other areas of the
U.S.
2.7 PRESSURIZED ION
CHAMBER NETWORK
The pressurized ion chamber (PIC) network measures
ambient gamma radiation exposure rates. The 28
PICs deployed around the NTS in 1990 showed no
unexplained deviations from background levels. The
maximum annual average exposure rate of 160 mR/yr
was measured in Austin, NV; the minimum of 50 mR/yr
was recorded in Las Vegas, NV. As discussed in
Section 4.2.7, these values are within the U.S.
background range (BIER80) and are consistent with
previous years' trends.
2.8 INTERNAL EXPOSURE MONITORING
Internal exposure is assessed by whole body count-
ing using a single intrinsic coaxial germanium detec-
tor, lung counting using six intrinsic germanium semi-
planar detectors, and bioassay using radiochemical
procedures. In 1990, analyses were made on 236
individuals, 120 of whom were regular participants in
the monitoring program. As discussed in Section
4.2.8, tritium concentrations higher than the MDC
were measured in four percent of the subjects;
however, the highest value was 0.3 percent of the
annual limit for uptake. Medical examinations con-
ducted as part of the monitoring program revealed a
normally healthy population consistent with the age
and sex distribution of that population.
2.9 LONG-TERM HYDROLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAM
In 1990, the Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring
Program (LTHMP), discussed in Section 4.2.9,
analyzed samples taken from 265 wells, springs, and
other sources near locations of underground nuclear
explosive tests. Only background radionuclide
concentrations were measured, with the exception
of tritium concentrations in samples from sources
known to be affected by underground nuclear testing
or those spiked with radionuclides for hydrological
tests. In all cases, the wells displaying elevated
tritium concentrations are not part of the public
drinking water supply.
2.10 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
The quality assurance (QA) program for the ORSP is
in full compliance with EPA mandates for data-
generating monitoring programs. As detailed in
Chapter 6, the QA program includes development of
and adherence to standard operating procedures
(SOP), monitoring of data quality objectives (DQO),
standardized data validation procedures, health
physics oversight, and participation in the EPA QA
Intercomparison Study Program. In 1990, DQOs
were met for precision and accuracy for all compo-
nents of the ORSP.
2.11 COMMUNITY MONITORING STATIONS
The Community Monitoring Stations (CMS) are
integral parts of the ASN, NGTSN, TLD, and PIC
networks. These community stations are operated
-------
by local residents for the EPA, DOE, and Desert
Research Institute (DRI). Nineteen stations have
been fully operational since 1988. All data
measurements from CMSs in 1990 were within the
normal background range for the U.S. Results from
CMS samples are included in this report as part of the
networks in which they participate.
2.12 DOSE ASSESSMENT
Dose assessments for 1990 were calculated using
an atmospheric dispersion model (AIRDOS/EPA)
and NTS-reported releases. Dose assessments
could not be made on the basis of measured results
because no radioactivity related to current NTS
operations was observed in the monitoring network
results in 1990. The highest individual dose calculated
using the model was approximately 6 x 10"3 mrem to
a hypothetical person residing in Crystal, NV, a small
residential community north of Pahrump, NV.
Compared to natural background, NTS activities and
worldwide fallout contributed a negligible amount of
the calculated exposure. Chapter 7 describes the
procedures used to calculate the dose assessment
for 1990.
-------
-------
3 Description of the Nevada Test Site
C. A. Fontana
The principal activity at the NTS 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 ORSP is radiation monitoring around the NTS. This section provides an overview of the climate,
geology and hydrology, and land uses in this generally arid and sparsely populated area of the
southwestern United States (Figure 1). The information included should provide an understanding
of the environment in which nuclear testing and monitoring 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 technicians in collecting samples and maintaining
equipment.
3.1
LOCATION
The NTS is located in Nye County, NV, with its
southeast corner about 54 miles (90 km) northwest
of Las Vegas (Figure 2). It occupies an area of about
1,350 square miles (3,750 square km), varies from
28 to 35 miles (46 to 58 km) in width (east-west) and
from 49 to 55 miles (82 to 92 km) in length (north-
south). This area consists of large basins or flats
about 2,970 to 3,900 feet (900 to 1,200 m) above
mean sea level (MSL) surrounded by mountain ranges
rising from 5,940 to 7,590 feet (1,800 to 2,300 m)
above MSL.
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 privately owned lands. This
buffer zone varies from 14 to 62 miles (24 to 104 km)
between the test area and land that is open to the
public. In the unlikely event of a venting, two to more
than six hours would elapse, depending on wind
speed and direction, before any release of airborne
radioactivity would reach private lands.
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
Figure 1. Typical mid-latitude steppe climatologial zone in Nevada.
-------
Scale in Miles
SO 100
50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-2
Figure 2. Location of the Nevada Test Site.
8
-------
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
Koppen 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 4 inches (10 cm) at
the lower elevations to around 10 inches (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 aircurrents. The average daily temperature
ranges at the lower altitudes are around 50 to 25 °F
(10to^°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). 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 5.4 miles (9 km) north-
northwest 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 pre-
dominate during daylight hours of most months.
During the winter months, southerly winds pre-
dominate slightly over northerly windsforafew 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 differ-
ences in elevation.
3.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Two major hydrologte 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 6.6 to 600 feet (2 to 180 m) per
year to the south and southwest toward the Ash
Meadows discharge 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 6.6 feet (2 m)
nor greater than 730 feet (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 southern part of the
NTS, the eastern ground water flow shifts to the
southwest, toward the Ash Meadows discharge area.
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATIC TYPES IN NEVADA
(from Houghton et al. 1975)
MEAN
CLIMATE TYPE
Alpine tundra
ANNUAL
TEMPERATURE
°F
(°C)
WINTER SUMMER
Oto15 40 to 50
(-1810-9) (4 to 10)
PRECIPITATION
Inches
(cm)
TOTAL* SNOWFALL
15 to 45 Medium to heavy
(38 to 11 4)
DOMINANT
VEGETATION
Alpine meadows
PERCENT
OF
AREA
—
10 to 30
Humid continental
Subhumid continental 10 to 30
Mid-latitude steppe
Mid-latitude desert
Low-latitude desert
20 to 40
(-7 to 4)
20 to 40
(-7 to 4)
40 to 50
(-4 to 10)
50 to 70
(10 to 21)
50 to 70
(10 to 21)
65 to 80
(18 to 27)
65 to 80
(18 to 27)
80 to 90
(27 to 32)
25 to 45
(64 to 114)
12 to 25
(30 to 64)
16 to 15
(15 to 38)
3 to 8
(8 to 20)
2 to 10
(5 to 25)
Heavy
Moderate
Light to moderate
Light
Negligible
Pine-fir forest
Pine or scrub woodland
15
Sagebrush, grass, scrub 57
Greasewood, shadscale
Creosote bush
20
* Limits of annual precipitation overlap because of variations in temperature which affect the water balance.
-------
Ash Meadows
Ground Water System
Flow Direction
Ground Water
System Boundaries
Silent Canyon
Caldera
Timber Mountain
Caldera
Scale in Miles
10 20
10 20 30 40
Scale in Kilometers
LOCATION MAP
0076GR91-3
Figure 3. Ground water flow systems around the Nevada Test Site.
10
-------
3.4 LAND USE OF NEVADA
TEST SITE 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 180-mile
(300-km) radius of the NTS operations control cen-
ter, located at CP-1 (the location of CP-1 is shown
on Figures 3 and 6). West of the NTS, elevations
range from 280 feet (85 m) below MSL in Death
Valley to 14,600 feet (4,420 m) above MSL in the
Sierra Nevada Range. Parts of two major ag ricultural
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 in-
tensive 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
Nevada within 180 miles (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 camping
and fishing sites to the northwest, north, and north-
east 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.
3.5
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Figure 5 shows the current population of counties
surrounding the NTS based on 1990 Bureau of
Census count (DOC90). Excluding Clark County,
the major population center (approximately 741,459
in 1990), the population density of counties adjacent
to the NTS is about 0.7 persons per square mile (0.4
persons per square kilometer). For comparison, the
population density of the 48 contiguous states was
70.3 persons per square mile (27 persons persquare
kilometer) (1990 census). The estimated average
population density for Nevada in 1980 was 1.1 per-
sons per square mile (0.4 persons per square kilo-
meter) (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 48 miles (80 km) of CP-1 (the
primary area in which the dose commitment must be
determined for the purpose of this report) is pre-
dominantly rural. Several small communities are
located in the area, the largest being in the Pahrump
Valley. Pahrump, a growing rural community with a
population of 7,425 (DOC90), is located 48 miles (80
km) south of the NTS CP-1. The small residential
community of Crystal, NV, is also located in the
Pahrump Valley, several miles north of the town of
Pahrump. The location of Crystal, NV, is shown in
Figure 3. The Amargosa farm area, which has a
population of about 950, is located 30 miles (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 39 miles (65 km)
to the west of CP-1.
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 (about 111 square km) in the
Mojave Desert, is Barstow, CA, located 159 miles
(265 km) south-southwest of the NTS, with a 1990
population count of 21,472. The largest populated
area is the Ridgecrest, CA area, which has a current
population of 27,725 and is located 114 miles (190
km) southwest of the NTS (DOC90). The Owens
Valley, where numerous small towns are located,
lies 30 miles (50 km) west of Death Valley. The
largest town in the Owens Valley is Bishop, CA,
located 135 miles (225 km) west-northwest of the
NTS, with a population of 3,475 (DOC90).
The extreme southwestern region of Utah is more
developed than the adjacent part of Nevada. The
largest community is St. George, located 132 miles
(220 km) east of the NTS, with a 1990 population
count of 28,502. The next largest town, Cedar City,
with a population of 13,443, is located 168 miles (280 km)
east-northeast of the NTS (DOC90).
11
-------
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, 99 miles
(165 km) south-southeast of the NTS, with a 1990
population count of 21,951 and Kingman, located
168 miles (280 km) southeast of the NTS, with a
population of 12,722 (DOC90). Figures 6 through 9
show the domestic animal populations in the counties
near the NTS.
A Camping &
Recreational
Areas
D Hunting
• Fishing
O Mines
A Oil Fields
Lake Havasu
so 100
Scale In Kilometers
Figure 4. General land use within 180 miles (300 km) of the Nevada Test Site.
12
-------
50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-5
Figure 5. Population of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah counties
near the Nevada Test Site (DOC90).
13
-------
Washoe
5(28)
Storey f
0(14)
Carson
City
0(0)
Douglas
3(4)
50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-6
Figure 6. Distribution of family milk cows and goats, by county (DOC90).
14
-------
I—r _
I NEU.IS
AFB
RANGE
COMPLEX
50 100
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-7
Figure 7. Distribution of dairy cows, by county (DOC90).
15
-------
I
Washoe f
27,500
Storey I
300
Carson S
City
1,100
Douglas
50 100
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-8
Figure 8. Distribution of beef cattle, by county (DOC90).
16
-------
Figure 9.
,. Distribution of sheep, by county (DOC90).
17
-------
-------
4 Radiological Safety Activities
C. A. Fontana
The radiological safety activities of EMSL-LV are divided into two areas, both designed to detect
environmental radiation: nuclear test support and routine environmental surveillance. Routine
environmental surveillance includes pathways monitoring and internal and external exposure
monitoring. Special environmental surveillance is performed when there is reason to expand the
routine environmental surveillance due to public concern or special events such as the accident at
Chernobyl U.S.S.R. in 1986. 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 initiated to keep
these exposures to a minimum. These activities are described in the following portions of this report.
4.1
NUCLEAR TEST SUPPORT
Priorto all nucleartests, 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, dosim-
eters, portable air samplers, and supplies for collect-
ing environmental samples, are prepared to conduct
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 EMSL-LV are based on those speci-
fied in NVO-176 (EPA91 A).
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.
4.1.1 Remedial Actions
Remedial actions that EPA could recommend or
implement to reduce whole-body exposures and the
thyroid dose resulting from uptake of radionuclides in
the food chain, particularly radioiodine in milk, include:
• evacuation.
shelter.
access control.
livestock feeding practices control.
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 projected
exposures and doses, the response time available
for carrying out the action, and local constraints
associated with a specific site. Constraints vary, but
include such factors as:
Number of people and their distribution in
the impacted area.
Availability of transportation and condition of
transportation routes.
Season of the year.
Existence of schools and hospitals.
Availability and number of law enforcement
personnel and state and county emergency
services personnel.
• Presence of bedridden people or those un-
willing to cooperate.
These factors, either alone or collectively, impact the
effectiveness of remedial action.
An important factor affecting the efficacy of the
remedial actions is the degree of credibility EPA
19
-------
Figure 10. Monitoring Technician surveys ambient environmental radiation using a hand-held
survey instrument. Foreground from left to right: constant flow air sampler,
gamma exposure-rate recorder, and compressed noble gas sampler.
personnel maintain with offsite residents. Credibility
is created and maintained by routine personal con-
tacts made with local officials and law enforcement
personnel as well as with the ranchers, miners, and
others living in the offsite areas close to the NTS.
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 1960s that contaminated
offsite areas. No remedial actions have been nec-
essary since 1970, so there is no recent experience
by which to test this judgment. However, through
routine contact with offsite residents and through
continuing population and road surveys, EPA
maintains a sense of the degree to which it could
implement remedial actions and the kind of coopera-
tion that would be provided by officials and residents
ofthearea(EPA91A).
If an underground nuclear test is expected to cause
ground motion detectable offsite, EPA monitoring
technicians are stationed at locations where haz-
ardous situations might occur, such as underground
mines. At these locations, occupants are notified of
potential hazards so they can take precautionary
measures.
EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. 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. Information from these two aircraft can
be used in positioning the mobile radiation monitor-
ing technicians. During calendar year 1990, EMSL-
LV personnel were deployed for all underground
nuclear tests conducted at the NTS, none of which
released radioactivity that could be detected offsite.
20
-------
4.2 ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL
SURVEILLANCE
The following subsections describe each of the major
component programs of the ORSP. Network sampling
locations, sampling and analysis procedures, and
data results are described. Specific QA procedures
and results are described in Chapter 6; Chapter 8
briefly describes analytical methods. Supplementary
figures and tables are contained in the Appendix.
These supplementary figures include box-and-
whisker plots, which are described in Section 6.4. 1 .
4.2.1 Airborne Releases of Radioactivity at the
Nevada Test Site during 1990
in drainage ponds onsite that remain in situ. Evapo-
ration could contribute 3H to the atmosphere, but the
amounts were too small to be detected by the offsite
network.
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.
W.G. Phillips
4.2.2 Air Surveillance Network
All nuclear detonations during 1990 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 radio-
nuclides released to the environment, as reported by
the DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE90). Be-
cause 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
TABLE 2. RADIONUCLIDE EMISSIONS ON
THE NEVADA TEST SITE DURING 1990
Grouped Sources
1. Ground seepage
2. Drillbacks & Tunnel Purging
3. Containment Pond Evaporation
RADIONUCLIDE
HALF-LIFE
(DAYS)
Emissions from Sources 1 and 2:
3H
37Ar
MAr
133|
131mXe
133mXe
133Xe
135Xe
4,510
34.8
98,200
3,910
8.05
0.86
11.9
2.19
5.25
0.36
Emissions from Source 3:
QUANTITY
RELEASED (Ci)
4,510
698
2.42
1.3X10-3
7.6 x10'2
1.3X10-3
1.9x10-"
1.16
1.84 x10'1
30.0
8.0 x10'2
670
V. E. Niemann
The ASN monitors an important pathway for human
exposure to radionuclides, the inhalation of airborne
materials (Figure 11). This network consists of 32
continuously operating air samplers (Figure 12) in
areas surrounding the NTS and 78 standby air sam-
plers (Figure 13), operated routinely on a quarterly
schedule or more often, as needed. Each sampler
draws air through a glass-fiber filter (for particulates)
and a charcoal cartridge (for gaseous radioiodines)
for one week. Both the filters and the charcoal
cartridges are analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.
The particulate filters are analyzed for gross beta
activity, then selected filters are composited (com-
bined and dissolved) for plutonium analysis. Only
naturally occurring 7Be was detected by gamma
spectroscopy; the gross beta results were consistent
with previous data; and one composited filter sample
from Rachel, NV, contained a detectable amount of
238pu
4.2.2.1 Network Design
Both the concentration and the source of airborne
radioactivity must be determined if appropriate cor-
rective actions are to be taken. The ASN is designed
to monitor the areas within 210 miles (350 km) of the
NTS. Station location is dependent upon the avail-
ability of electrical power and, at stations distant from
the NTS, of a resident willing to operate the equip-
ment. This continuously operating network is
supplemented by the standby network, which covers
the contiguous states west of the Mississippi River.
21
-------
Figure 11. Monitoring Technician servicing air sampler at Pahrump Community Monitoring Station.
4.2.2.2 Methods
During 1990, air samples were collected from 32
continuously operating sampling stations and 75 of
the 78 standby stations. Another station was added
to the ASN late in 1990, making a total of 33 stations
in the continuously operating network. The air sam-
pler 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.
Samples of airborne particulates 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. Sample volumes of approximately 570 m3
were collected during each sampling period; actual
total sample volumes were measured with ± ten
percent precision. 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 approxi-
mately one week per quarter. The standby samplers
are identical to those used at the active stations and
are operated by state and municipal health depart-
ment personnel or by local residents. All analytical
work was performed at EMSL-LV.
All air samples are initially analyzed by gamma
spectrometry; each of the glass-fiber filters is then
analyzed for gross beta activity after a 7- to 14-day
delay to decrease the contribution from naturally
occurring radon-thoron daughter activity. Gross
beta analysis is used to detect trends in atmospheric
radioactivity since it is more sensitive than gamma
spectrometry for this purpose. Selected filters are
then composited (combined) and are analyzed for
plutonium. The analytical procedures used are de-
scribed briefly in Chapter 8.
4.2.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance requirements for the gross beta,
gamma, and plutonium analyses include:
22
-------
I -----------------
•
•
•
I
I
m
i
j
•
I Austin
NEVADA | UTAH
PYRAMID
V
>Ely
Blue Eagle Rn
-r u
Tonopah
\Goldfield
Stone _
Cabin Rn.^ Nyala Sunnyside
•
Pioche
Twin
Springs Rn.
^^^
Rachel
V
«r»
RANGE
COMPLEX
m.
Scotty's Jet. • x.
Fleur-de-Lis Ranch-i
Beatty i
^
Groom
Lake
• Hiko •Call te
• Alamo
Amargosa VaHeyjj|'*->;j"a-tj '
Furnace Creek • ^f 9
Amargosa Center ' V Indian Springs
Death Valley • »v»pahrump
Junction >^ (
Overton
Delta •
• Milford
• Cedar City
»St. George
ARIZONA
Shoshone
\
Vegas I
LAKE MEAD
\ *
N
• Community Monitoring Stations (19)
• Other Air Sampling Stations (13)
A New air sampling station added during 1990 (1)
Scale in Miles
50
50 100
Scale in Kilometers
0076PB91
Figure 12. Air Surveillance Network stations (1990).
23
-------
Canada
North DakotaMinnesota
Oklahoma^ [Arkansas
^,1^'V
\
Vxv
Scale in Miles
0 100 300 500
I I I 1
100 300 500 700
Scale in Kilometers
A Standby Air Surveillance Network
Stations (78)
0076GR91-13
Figure 13. Standby Air Surveillance Network stations (1990).
24
-------
Maintaining a current calibration decal on all
field sampling and laboratory instruments.
Maintaining a file of calibration records, con-
trol charts, and log books for balances.
• Assigning unique sample numbers.
Obtaining laboratory supervisor approval of
all analytical results before they are entered
into the permanent data base.
Maintaining files of QA data, which includes
raw analytical data, intermediate calcula-
tions, and review reports.
Quality control (QC) procedures include:
Performing analysis of blanks to verify that
method interferences caused by contami-
nants in solvents, reagents, glassware, and
other sample processing hardware are
known and minimized.
Estimating analytical accuracy with spiked
samples. For the gamma analysis of fiber
filters, spiked samples should be within ±20%
of the known value. Gamma analysis of
charcoal cartridges should be within ±20%.
Gross beta should be within ±10%. Pluto-
nium analysis internal spikes should pro-
duce results within ±20% of the known value.
Estimating precision of laboratory analytical
techniques and total precision for the entire
system (both analytical and sampling error)
by several methods, including replicate
analyses.
Determining bias (the difference between
the data set mean value and the true, [i.e.,
reference], value) by intercomparison cross-
check studies.
Chapter 6 provides detailed information on the QA
program and 1990 QA and QC results.
4.2.2.4 Results
During 1990, no airborne radioactivity related to
current 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:
-0.16 toO.91 x10-12|iCi/mL(-0.006to0.034Bq/m3).
The principal means of 7Be production is from spal-
lation (splitting) of 16O and14N by cosmic rays in the
atmosphere.
The monthly average gross beta in air samples since
1981 from five stations in the network is plotted in
Figure A1 (Appendix). These figures are box-and-
whisker plots, described in Section 6.4.1 . The data
from the other stations are similar and suggest little
significant difference among stations. A summary of
the 1 990 ASN data is shown in Table 3 and Table 4
for the standby stations.
The filters from the stations at Las Vegas, Lathrop
Wells, and Rachel, NV, and Salt Lake City, UT, are
composited as monthly samples and analyzed
quarterly for plutonium. The other samples for pluto-
nium analysis consist of composited filters from two
stations in each state in which standby stations are
located. Plutonium analyses are completed quarterly.
The results ofthe238Puand239+240Pu analyses from 14
states are shown in Table A1 (Appendix).
Concentrations of ^Pu above the MDC were de-
tected in one sample from Rachel, NV, and one
sample from Las Vegas, NV, in 1990. Additionally,
a single composite sample from Austin and Amarillo,
TX, produced a 23M40Pu concentration greater than
the MDC. All three samples were near the MDC.
With the exception of the Rachel sample, the results
are considered to be within the expected five percent
probability of false positives. The generally low
results obtained for other samples from these loca-
tions over several years provides further support that
these two results were false positives.
Occassional positive 238Pu and 239+24°Pu results ob-
tained at Rachel over the past three years indicate
the need for additional sampling to characterize the
area and to pinpoint the source of the very small
amounts of plutonium in the air samples there. A
sampling program for both Lathrop Wells and Rachel,
NV, will be designed and undertaken during 1 991 to
accomplish this. High volume air samplers will be
utilized, and soil sample analysis will be done. Also,
because of the surface plutonium cleanup, which will
occur at the NTS during the restoration efforts, and
due to the prevailing wind patterns, air samples from
the Alamo, Nevada, station will be analyzed routinely
for238Puand239+240Pu.
25
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF GROSS BETA ANALYSES FOR AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORK
CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING STATIONS —1990
SAMPLING LOCATION
DEATH VALLEY JCTCA
FURNACE CREEK CA
SHOSHONE CA
ALAMO NV
AMARGOSA CENTER NV
AUSTIN NV
BEATTY NV
BLUE EAGLE RANCH NV
CALIENTE NV
ELYNV
FALLINI'S TWIN SPGS RANCH NV
FLEUR-DE-LIS RANCH NV
GOLDFIELD NV
GROOM LAKE NV
HIKO NV
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
LAS VEGAS NV
LATHROP WELLS NV
NYALA NV
OVERTON NV
PAHRUMP NV
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"
357
361
332
371
357
351
350
362
348
369
363
56
347
347
370
366
371
369
364
370
370
355
349
368
365
364
370
365
364
355
356
370
370
GROSS BETA CONCENTRATIONS
(10-12 nCi/mL)'
MAX
0.036
0.069
0.100
0.051
0.045
0.043
0.041
0.041
0.044
0.035
0.047
0.027
0.041
0.039
0.043
0.038
0.046
0.041
0.036
0.051
0.039
0.038
0.039
0.043
0.036
0.042
0.034
0.047
0.043
0.072
0.068
0.036
0.060
MIN
0.011
0.007
0.000
0.005
0.004
0.008
0.011
0.008
0.011
0.005
-0.002
0.003
0.009
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.011
0.002
-0.003
0.011
0.008
0.009
0.001
0.009
0.005
0.001
0.004
-0.002
-0.000
0.011
0.002
0.012
0.001
AVG
0.020
0.027
0.022
0.023
0.022
0.020
0.022
0.019
0.022
0.020
0.022
0.017
0.021
0.019
0.022
0.021
0.023
0.019
0.014
0.024
0.020
0.021
0.020
0.022
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.026
0.023
0.022
0.021
Multiply by 3.7x 10'° to convert to Bq/nf.
Number of days determined from dates of filter changes and, therefore, do not equal exactly 365.
This station was added to the network late in the year.
4.2.3 Noble Gas and Tritium
Surveillance Network
V.E. Niemann
This network is designed to detect noble gas (^Kr,
133Xe, and 135Xe) and 3H emissions from the NTS.
Samples were collected weekly at 16 noble gas
sampling stations and 19 tritium stations during
1990. No activity attributable to the NTS was
identified.
4.2.3.1 Network Design
Noble gases and 3H are emitted from nuclear reactors,
reprocessing facilities, and nuclear testing.
Background levels of ^Kr have slowly increased
over time with the increased use of nuclear power
and because of the radionuclide's relatively long half-
life and tendency to remain in the atmosphere.
Environmental levels of the xenons, with their very
short half-lives, are normally below the MDC.
Although 3H has a half-life similar to ^Kr, it is
26
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF GROSS BETA ANALYSES FOR AIR SURVEILLANCE
NETWORK STANDBY STATIONS — 1990
SAMPLING I
NO.
1AVS
LOCATION SAMPLED
GLOBE AZ
KINGMAN AZ
TUCSON AZ
WINSLOWAZ
YUMAAZ
LITTLE ROCK AR
ALTURAS CA
BAKER CA
BISHOP CA
CHICO CA
INDIO CA
LONE PINE CA
NEEDLES CA
RIDGECREST CA
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
KALISPELL MT
MILES CITY MT
ADAVEN NV
BATTLE
MOUNTAIN NV
BLUE JAY NV
CLARK STATION NV
CURRANT NV ANGLE
WORM RANCH
CURRIE NV - CURRIE
MAINTENANCE
STATION
29
21
29
35
28
28
30
26
32
28
14
26
28
34
28
21
21
20
28
28
28
35
28
21
35
21
35
28
31
21
28
28
41
30
20
13
58
30
GROSS
BETA CONC.
(10-12nCi/mL)*
MAX
0.036
0.038
0.022
0.054
0.034
0.025
0.024
0.046
0.050
0.026
0.027
0.059
0.015
0.024
0.013
0.029
0.024
0.044
0.050
0.018
0.025
0.043
0.044
0.035
0.037
0.025
0.044
0.041
0.026
0.019
0.031
0.032
0.029
0.020
0.047
0.026
0.037
0.021
MIN
0.022
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.010
0.017
0.005
0.016
0.014
0.011
0.014
0.018
0.007
0.012
0.007
0.015
0.011
0.025
0.015
0.012
0.011
0.010
0.020
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.018
0.021
0.017
0.009
0.003
0.012
0.008
0.014
0.019
0.023
0.016
0.011
AVG
0.026
0.026
0.019
0.029
0.024
0.021
0.015
0.029
0.027
0.017
0.021
0.032
0.010
0.016
0.008
0.023
0.018
0.036
0.026
0.015
0.020
0.027
0.031
0.022
0.023
0.019
0.032
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.018
0.021
0.016
0.017
0.036
0.025
0.024
0.015
SAMPLING L
NO.
rtAvc
wmnr^mu **•-» • **
LOCATION SAMPLED
DUCKWATER NV
ELKO NV
PHILLIPS 66
TRUCK STOP
EUREKA NV
FALLON NV
GEYSER RANCH NV
LOVELOCK NV
LUND NV
MESQUITE NV
RENO NV
ROUND MOUN-
TAIN 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
AMARILLO TX
AUSTIN TX
MIDLAND TX
TYLER TX
BRYCE CANYON UT
ENTERPRISE UT
GARRISON UT
LOGAN UT
PAROWAN UT
VERNAL UT
WEN DOVER UT
SEATTLE WA
SPOKANE WA
ROCK SPRINGS WY
WORLAND WY
23
35
35
14
28
20
22
27
14
29
29
28
20
27
12
28
21
28
41
28
29
29
7
22
21
33
21
21
36
29
21
21
30
28
28
29
28
GROSS
BETA CONC.
(10-1znCI/mL)*
MAX
0.029
0.029
0.027
0.061
0.033
0.026
0.019
0.024
0.014
0.032
0.032
0.022
0.032
0.026
0.020
0.032
0.041
0.041
0.043
0.019
0.013
0.046
0.046
0.016
0.010
0.021
0.038
0.018
0.030
0.076
0.045
0.043
0.023
0.020
0.049
0.023
0.041
MIN
0.022
0.007
0.015
0.027
0.009
0.011
0.010
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.017
0.012
0.023
0.009
0.020
0.013
0.028
0.023
0.020
0.004
0.004
0.022
0.046
0.014
0.002
0.020
0.018
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.019
0.011
0.006
0.001
0.006
0.013
0.005
AVG
0.025
0.017
0.020
0.044
0.018
0.017
0.015
0.017
0.011
0.021
0.021
0.017
0.027
0.017
0.020
0.025
0.036
0.031
0.026
0.012
0.009
0.030
0.046
0.015
0.006
0.020
0.025
0.017
0.023
0.033
0.029
0.024
0.016
0.012
0.022
0.016
0.019
Multiply by 3.7 x 10W to convert to Bq/rrP.
dynamically distributed among the air, surface and
ground water, and soil. Environmental tritiated water
(HTO) in air levels are normally below the MDC.
The NGTSN is designed to detect an increase in
background levels of all of these radionuclides due to
possible NTS emissions. Network samplers, as
shown in Figure 14, are typically located in populated
areas surrounding the NTS. To provide complete
and indepth coverage in the downwind sector, some
samplers are located in communities at some distance
from the NTS, as indicated in Figure 15. In 1990,
samples were collected from 16 noble gas sampling
sites and 19 atmospheric moisture sampling sites
located in the states of Nevada, Utah, and California.
Atmospheric moisture collectors for tritium analyses
27
-------
Figure 14. Noble gas sampling equipment.
located in Milford and Delta, UT, are on standby, so
there are a total of 21 locations in the network
equipped to sample atmospheric moisture.
4.2.3.2 Methods
Noble gas samples are collected by compressing air
into storage tanks. Air is continuously sampled over
a 7-day period and approximately 0.6 m3 of air is
collected. The tanks are returned to EMSL-LV for
contents analysis. For the analysis, samples are
condensed at liquid nitrogen temperature. Gas
chromatography is then used to separate the various
radionuclides. The radioactive gases are dissolved
in chemical "cocktails" to prepare them for liquid
scintillation counting (Chapter 8).
For 3H concentration in atmospheric moisture, a col-
umn filled with molecular sieve pellets are used to
collect water from the air (Figure 16). Up to 10 m3 of
air is pulled through the column over a 7-day sam-
pling period. Water absorbed in the molecular sieve
pellets is recovered, and the concentration of 3H in
the water is determined by liquid scintillation count-
ing (Chapter 8). The measured amount of water in
the sample is then used, along with the 3H mea-
surement, to calculate the concentration of HTO, the
vapor form of tritium. This is the most commonly
encountered form of tritium in the environment.
4.2.3.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance requirements for noble gas and
tritium analysis include:
• Maintaining a current calibration decal on all
field sampling and laboratory instruments.
Maintaining a file of calibration records, con-
trol charts, and log books for balances.
Assigning unique sample numbers.
Obtaining laboratory supervisor approval of
all analytical results before they are entered
into the permanent data base.
Maintaining files of QA data, which includes
raw analytical data, intermediate calcula-
tions, and review reports.
28
-------
Austin <
Amargosa Valley
Amargosa Center
NEVADA I UTAH
• Ely
Pioche
Rachel
•Alamo
DeltaV
'Milford
> Cali e
I Cedar City
i St. George
ARIZONA
Overtop •,
Indian Springs
Pahrurrip • _ J/LAKE MEAD
Shoshone(
> Both Noble Gas and Tritium (16)
. Tritium only (2)
Noble Gas on Standby; Tritium (1)
' Tritium on Standby only (2)
Scale in Miles
SO
50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-15
Figure 15. Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network sampling locations (1990).
29
-------
Figure 16. Monitors
30
-------
Quality control procedures include:
Performing analysis of blanks to verify that
method interferences caused by contami-
nants in solvents, reagents, glassware, and
other sample processing hardware are
known and minimized.
Estimating analytical accuracy with spiked
samples (the content of which is unknown to
the technicians). Forthe noble gases, spiked
samples should be within ±20% of the known
value. Tritium should be within ±10%.
Estimating precision of laboratory analytical
technique by analysis of duplicate samples.
• Determining bias (the difference between
the data set mean value and the true [i.e.,
reference] value) by intercomparison cross
check studies.
Chapter 6 provides more information on the QA
program and results.
4.2.3.4 Results
While none of the m 135Xe results exceeded the MDC,
the ^Kr results always exceed the MDC due to the
presence of an enhanced background. The results
are, however, within the range expected.
Sample results for the NGTSN are summarized in
Tables 5 and 6 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 ex-
pected number (52) since samples are sometimes
lost in analysis, or, due to equipment failure, an
insufficient sample volume is collected. Network
weekly averages for ^Kr concentrations measured
in 1990 are shown in Figure 17.
The measured MKr concentrations ranged from 2.0
to 3.3 x 10'11 uCi/mL (0.74 to 1.2 Bq/m3). A historical
summary of data for this network shows an increas-
ing trend over time. Network average ^Kr results for
the past ten years are shown in Table 7, while results
for the period 1972-1990 are plotted in Figure 18.
The average concentration for the network in 1990
was 2.6 x 10-11 nCi/ml_ (0.98 Bq/m3). This network
average concentration, as shown in Figure 18, has
gradually increased from the time sampling began in
1972 to the present. The historical increase reflects
the worldwide increase in ambient concentrations
resulting from the increased use of nuclear technol-
ogy. There is no evidence in the 1990 ^Kr results to
indicate that the radioactivity detected resulted from
current activities conducted at the NTS. Figure A2
(Appendix) displays box-and-whisker plots for net-
work stations. An explanation of box-and-whisker
plots is in Section 6.4.1. The general increasing
trend appears to be present, although the high de-
gree of variability in the data preclude a definitive
conclusion.
The analysis results for the 841 xenon samples counted
were all below the MDC; the MDC varied, but was
generally about 1.4 x ia11 uCi/mL (0.5 Bq/m3).
As in the past, HTO concentrations in atmospheric
moisture samples from the sampling stations were
generally below the average MDC of about
4.6 x 10-12 uCi/mL (0.17 Bq/m3) of air (Table 6). Of the
1,003 tritium network samples analyzed in 1990, six
exceeded the MDC slightly. When counting samples
with very low activities, false positive results are
expected about five percent of the time. Results that
slightly exceed the MDC may be true indicators of
some slight elevation in activity levels or could be a
result of statistical counting variations. The range of
HTO concentrations is considered to be representa-
tive of statistical variations in counting background
samples and not indicative of the presence of in-
creased tritium 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 during
1990.
4.2.4 Milk Surveillance Network
A.A. Mullen
Milk is particularly 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 products. It is one of the most universally
consumed foodstuffs and certain radionuclides from
any source are readily traceable through the food
chain from feed/forage to consumer. Accordingly,
milk is closely monitored by EMSL-LV through two
intensive and interrelated networks: the MSN and
the Standby Milk Surveillance Network (SMSN).
31
-------
TABLE 5 . SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE
NOBLE GAS SURVEILLANCE NETWORK —1990
RADIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATION
NUMBER SAMPLES
SAMPLING LOCATION ANALYZED RADIONUCLIDE MAX MIN
AVG
PERCENT OF
CONCENTRATION
GUIDE"
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
49
49
50
51
49
49
52
52
46
47
50
50
50
52
52
52
47
47
50
50
50
51
49
50
49
52
49
51
49
49
48
49
133Xe
KKr
133Xe
133Xe
133Xe
133Xe
MKr
133Xe
133Xe
KKr
133Xe
MKr
133Xe
*%•
133Xe
KKr
133Xe
MKr
133Xe
KKt
133Xe
KKr
133Xe
MKr
133Xe
"Kr
133Xe
33
4.5
31
8.3
31
11
32
9.0
32
11
32
11
32
8.0
30
8.4
33
4.5
33
12
32
9.2
30
7.7
32
10
31
16
32
9.0
31
6.3
20
-14
21
-16
21
-9.4
21
-9.2
21
-12
20
-13
20
-12
21
-8.1
20
-5.6
22
-10
22
-12
21
-9.4
21
-14
22
-11
21
-11
20
-7.8
26
-0.20
26
0.25
27
0.21
26
-0.09
26
-0.23
27
0.34
27
0.32
27
0.26
26
-0.28
26
-0.17
26
0.15
26
0.06
27
-0.46
26
-0.66
26
-0.13
27
-0.48
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
0.004
<0.01
The units used in this table (Kr'fyCi/mL) are equal to, and the values in the table may be read as, pCi/rrP.
The concentration guide referenced is 40CFR61, subpart H. The maximum dose allowable to a resident in the environment
surrounding a DOE facility is 10 mrem per year from air emissions (all pathways). The percent of the concentration guides
were calculated assuming the respiration rate of standard man (ref ICRP-23) for a continuous exposure over a 1-year period.
32
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONCENTRATIONS OF
TRITIATED WATER VAPOR IN AIR —1990
RADIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATION
PERCENT OF
SAMPLING LOCATION
SHOSHONE CA
ALAMO NV
AMARGOSA CENTER NV
AMARGOSA VALLEY NV
AUSTIN NV
BEATTY NV
CALIENTE NV
ELY NV
GOLDFIELD NV
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
LAS VEGAS NV
OVERTON NV
PAHRUMP NV
PIOCHE NV
RACHEL NV
TONOPAH NV
CEDAR CITY UT
ST. GEORGE UT
SALT LAKE CITY UT
• •*OMM^ftv« • %FW*H ^^%^
ANALYZED
53
50
8
50
52
52
51
51
50
48
53
52
52
51
51
52
52
51
49
MAX
5.4
13
8.3
5.3
4.6
3.3
8.3
7.5
16
2.8
2.8
7.2
12
5.1
10
10
5.0
4.5
6.4
MIN
-4.6
-3.8
-2.7
-3.1
-2.3
-1.8
-2.7
-1.5
-9.1
-5.0
-2.1
-3.3
-5.2
-6.2
-4.0
-4.6
-4.9
-2.3
-2.0
AVG
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.2
1.3
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
>•»%*! VVPklV 1 I ••-» I »V"1
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
<0.01
The units used in this table (1O" \iGUmL) are equal to, and the values in the table may be read as, pCi/rrf.
The concentration guide referenced is 40CFR61, subpart H. The maximum dose allowable to a resident in the environment
surrounding a DOE facility is 10 mrem per year from air emissions (all pathways). The percent of the concentration guides
were calculated assuming the respiration rate of standard man (reflCRP-23) fora continuous exposure over a 1-year period.
Data results for 1990 indicate no activity in milk
samples related directly to current NTS activities.
4.2.4.1 Network Design
The MSN consists of 26 locations at which samples
of raw milk are collected from either privately owned
or commercial dairy milk cows and goats. These
locations are within a 180-mile (300-km) radius of the
NTS to maintain timely surveillance for radioactivity
that may result from the NTS nucleartesting program.
The SMSN consists of 109 sampling locations within
the major milksheds west of the Mississippi River,
except Texas where the State Health Department
collects samples for analysis by the EPA Office of
Radiation Program's National Air and Radiation En-
vironmental Laboratory in Montgomery, AL. Begin-
ning in 1991, samples from Texas will also be ana-
lyzed by EMSL-LV. In the SMSN, samples are
collected by state Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) personnel by request submitted through EPA
Regional Offices and are analyzed at EMSL-LV to
determine radioactivity from any source.
4.2.4.2 Methods
In either network, raw milk is collected in 1-gallon
(3.8-L), collapsible Cubitainers (Figure 19) and
preserved with formaldehyde. Routine sampling is
conducted monthly for the MSN and annually for the
SMSN, or whenever 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 3H by liquid
33
-------
40 1 I i I i i i | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 |
0
3
£20- -
3
10
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.
ISPl
LIIJ ]
i i i i
May
i
ill 1
rTTj
I I 1 II 'I'"
iTrllTTT
[#[
1 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
June July Aug.
Concentration + 1 S.D.
[Jlltfllfllp
Horizontal line
denotes network
averages for 1990
I i i i | i i i | i i i | i i i
Sep. Oct Nov. Dec.
0076GR91-17
Figure 17. Network weekly average krypton concentrations in air, 1990 data.
TABLE 7. ANNUAL AVERAGE
SAMPLING LOCATIONS 1981 1982
MAMMOTH LAKES CA — —
SHOSHONE CA — 25
ALAMO NV 27 24
AUSTIN NV — 24
BEATTY NV 24 25
CALIENTE NV — —
ELY NV — 24
GOLDFIELD NV — 25
INDIAN SPRINGS NV 24 24
LAS VEGAS NV 24 24
LATHROP WELLS NV 24 24
OVERTON NV 26 24
PAHRUMP NV 23 24
RACHEL NV 24 26
TONOPAH NV 25 24
CEDAR CITY UT — 25
ST. GEORGE UT — 24
NETWORK AVERAGE 24 24
KRYPTON CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR,
1983
—
25
25
25
24
—
25
24
25
24
26
25
24
24
25
24
25
25
"Kr CONCENTRATIONS (10-" (iCi/mL)
1984 1985 1986 1987
—
23
24
23
23
—
22
24
22
23
22
23
23
22
23
22
23
23
—
24
24
25
25
—
24
24
24
25
24
24
25
24
25
24
24
24
25
24
25
26
—
26
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
26
26
26
25
26
—
25
25
26
25
25
25
26
25
26
26
25
26
1981 to 1990
1988 1989 1990
25 — —
25 27 26
25 27 26
25 27 26
26 27 26
24 27 26
25 26 26
25 26 26
25 26 27
26 26 26
26 26 26
26 26 26
25 26 26
26 27 27
25 27 26
25 . 26 26
26 26 27
25 26 26
— No station was operational at that location during that year.
34
-------
45 -
40 -
35 -
E 30 -
£20-
d
I15-
£ 10 -
s
5 -
0 -
18
• • • ^ • » « « * (
1 I 1
>
\ \ I
170 1975 1980 1985 1990
0076PB91
Figure 18. Annual network average krypton concentrations.
scintillation counting and for 89Sr and ^Sr by an ion
exchange method, as outlined in Chapters. Figures
20 and 21 show the locations of the collection sites.
4.2.4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance procedures consist of taking two
or more samples at the same time from the same
source and using standardized procedures for sample
handling and analysis. In addition, randomly selected
samples are rerun as blind duplicate measurements.
Intercomparison and spiked samples are run in
accordance with QC requirements presented in
Section 6.2. Analytical results are reviewed by a
health physicist for completeness and comparability.
Trends are identified and potential risks to humans
and the environment are determined based on the
data. Data quality objectives were met for all 1990
analyses.
4.2.4.4 Results
Samples from the MSN and SMSN were analyzed for
gamma emitting radionuclides. Only naturally
occurring ""K was detected. Selected samples were
also analyzed for 3H and 89-90Sr. Only one sample
(SMSN Boise, ID) was found to contain 3H slightly
above the MDC, which is well within expected
statistical variation (an expected five percent false
positive). Strontium-90 above the MDC was detected
in two locations (Shoshone, NV, and Ivins, UT) in the
MSN. Ivins, UT, had a single sample slightly above
the MDC, which is consistent with an expected false
positive rate of five percent. Shoshone, NV, had
three out of four values slightly over the MDC. The
samples from this location were collected in May
through November, when the cows were on green
feed. The same sets of samples were also slightly
positive in the preceding year. Tables A2 and A3
(Appendix) present analytical results for the MSN
and SMSN, respectively.
Seventeen locations in the SMSN were also slightly
above the ^Sr MDC (2 x 10'9 jiCi/mL [7 x 10'2 Bq/L]).
Those samples showing positive results are mainly
from the midwest and south where weather patterns
and precipitation have resulted in greater soil inven-
tories of o^Sr with resultant uptake by vegetation
and transfer to dairy animals and milk. These values
have decreased significantly since the early 1960s
(Figure 22). In conclusion, no radioactivity directly
related to current NTS activities was evident in either
MSN or SMSN samples in 1990.
Data in Figure 22 were compiled through the
Pasteurized Milk Network operated by the EPA's
35
-------
Figure 19. Monitoring Technician collects milk sample from commercial dairy.
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
in Montgomery, AL (EPA 88A). Data from samples
collected in the MSN and SMSN over the years
indicate a comparable downward trend in levels of
radioactivity.
The box-and-whisker plots (Figures A3 and A4 in the
Appendix) from selected MSN locations are typical
of the values found over the last ten years. While
some individual 3H sampling results rose above the
MDC (approximately 350 x 10'9 uCi/mL [13Bq/L]) in
response to isolated atmospheric releases, the me-
dian values remained below the MDC for tritium.
Analytical results for 90Sr from the same locations
show fluctuations of values within expected statisti-
cal variability and medians at or below the MDC of
about 2 x 10-9 u.Ci/mL (7 x 10'2 Bq/L) for Mesquite, NV,
which supplies milkforthe Las Vegas area, Pahrump,
NV, and Cedar City, UT. Median values for milk from
Shoshone, NV, are slightly higher. The higher val-
ues occurred during the summer grazing months,
indicating the 90Sr in the soil may be taken up by
forage crops, probably due to soil mineral deficien-
cies, or may be ingested as particulates during
grazing.
Plots of the SMSN data (Figures A5 and A6 in the
Appendix) by area for the past ten years show the
medians to be at or below the MDC, again with some
samples exhibiting higher values following isolated
controlled atmospheric releases or changes in feed-
ing practices. Strontium-90 values tend to be slightly
higher in the midwest area due to greater deposition
of fallout during the 1960s as a result of weather
patterns and precipitation. Forage in these areas
take up the radionuclide and it passes through the
forage-cow-milk-man food chain.
To facilitate surveillance activities, a comprehensive
census of milk cows and goats has been compiled.
Updated through interim survey as part of routine
monitoring and by general resurvey every two years,
this information is computerized and a Milk Cow
Directory is published containing the number of cows
and goats, the type of feed, use of the milk (marketed
or consumed by the family), and the precise location
of the collection 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.
36
-------
I
i
j
•
i
i
f*
f\
m C I PYRAMID
1 vi LAKE
j
NEVADA | UTAH
i i
j
I*
i
i
*
i
i
'v ^-\ r\
\ \I\
( SALT W
L LAKEft^
XJ^
I Austin • !
i,
^^
°*< *
• Young's Rn. 1
McKay Rn. • _,,.*, ..,
' • Harbecke Rn.
Manzonie Rn. • Lund • Shoshone
Cun-ant • R. Horsley Rn. •
\\ Blue Jay Springs" • Blue Eagle Rn. j
% V Warm Springs • • Nyala j
Benton* \ Sharp Rn. 1
Lemon Rn. _ , ,_ . . 1
nuor • Goldfield i 1 |
uyer • — | NELUS L,
Scott Rn
"n.U™ > 1 CoxRnJ" ,.•
.•rcoMPUX L •Caliente t
\\lbV^ i""2""
V > Wim. DahlRn. 1
X y^lfN M^a AMesquite
Amargosa Valley jjjp^-A-Li 1 B* _ ^Speda Brothers
John
Deere Rn."^ r Rockview^ L- Marshall Rn.
^ Indian Springs .Dairies (l Logandale
Pahrump • Carr Rn- )/
Pahrump Dairy • /^"/^s^. (F**
^^ \~.-f ^** \&^y
V, 1 1 iK-p MFAD
• Ridgecrest T» • A
i • Cedarsage Farm x 1
m
T
N
Scale in Miles
0 50 100
P*^ — i—l
0 50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
V = •
V .
• Hinkley w
• Desert View Dairy
• Bill Nelson Dairy NO'
sarr
occ
tow
loca
use
both
sam
Cedar City
I Brent Jones
ARIZONA
and Hafen Dairy
Nearest Town
Milk
Sampling
Locations
FE: When a
pling location
jrred in a city or
i, the sampling
tion symbol is
d for showing
i town and
pling location.
0076GR91-20
Figure 20. Milk sampling locations within 180 miles (300 km) of the Nevada Test Site.
37
-------
Scale in Miles
0 100 300 500
100 300 500 700
Scale in Kilometers
0076PB91
Figure 21. Standby Milk Surveillance Network stations.
4.2.5 Biomonitoring Program
D. D. Smith
The pathways fortransport of radionuclidesto humans
include air, water, and food. Monitoring of air, water,
and milk have been discussed in the previous
sections. 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.
Analyses of animal and vegetable samples are
discussed in this section. Data for the last ten years
for selected tissues are graphically displayed as box-
and-whisker plots in the Appendix. Data results for
1990 were, in general, consistent with previous years
and indicate no significant contribution by current
NTS activities to concentrations of radionuclides
found in grazing animals and vegetables.
4.2.5.1 Design and Methods
In the spring and again in the fall of each year, four
cattle are purchased from commercial beef herds
that graze on areas adjacent to the NTS. The
animals are sacrificed and necropsied. Bone and
liver samples are analyzed for ^Srandfor 238.239+24oPu
Muscle, kidney, lung, liver, and thyroid are analyzed
for gamma emitters; blood or kidney samples are
analyzed for 3H.
Once each quarter during the calendar year, a mule
deer is collected from the NTS (Figure 23). Muscle,
liver, lung, thyroid, and rumen contents samples are
analyzed for gamma emitters and samples of muscle,
liver, lung, rumen contents, and bone are analyzed
for 238.239+24opu. Bone tjssue js a|so analyzed for 9<>Sr
and selected tissues are analyzed for 3H.
38
-------
For the last 33 years, during the desert bighorn
sheep hunt each November and December in south-
ern Nevada, licensed hunters have donated bone
and kidney samples to EMSL-LV. The bone samples
are analyzed for ^Sr and *»&*+wpu, while the kid-
ney samples are analyzed for 3H and gamma emit-
ters. The areas from which the bighorn sheep, mule
deer, and cattle were collected in 1989 and 1990 are
shown in Figure 24.
Vegetables are collected annually, if possible, from
home gardens in the near offsite areas or in the
prevailing downwind direction. Tubers (e.g., pota-
toes), fruits (e.g., tomatoes, squash), and leafy
vegetables (e.g., chard) are donated by local gar-
deners. These samples are analyzed by gamma
spectrometry and for 3H, ^Sr, and ^.^^Pu.
Water is extracted from the blood, kidney, and veg-
etable samples for3H analyses. Samples for ^Sr and
238,239+24<>pu ana|yses are ashed prior to analysis by a
contract laboratory. The analytical methods are
summarized in Chapter 8.
4.2.5.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance procedures include the submis-
sion of blind duplicate tissue samples and spiked
bone ash samples in each shipment to the analytical
laboratory. The analytical results of these samples
are discussed in Chapter 6.
4.2.5.3 Results
Bighorn Sheep — Analytical data from bones and
kidneys of desert bighorn sheep collected during the
late fall of 1989 are presented in Table 8. Tritium
concentration in the kidneys of the 17 animals sampled
did not exceed the MDC of 520 pCi/L (19.3 Bq/L) and
are characteristic of values seen during the last
decade (see Figure A7 in the Appendix). As shown
in Figure A8 (Appendix), 137Cs is agammaemitterthat
is infrequently detected in sheep kidneys (three
animals in 1989). The source of the 137Cs is thought
to be worldwide fallout. The three values detected
were 0.023,0.051, and 0.097 pCi/g wet weight (0.85,
1.9, and 3.6 Bq/kg).
Strontium and plutonium values detected in the
sheep bones are similar to those reported during the
1980s (Figures A9 through A11 in the Appendix).
The average ^Sr concentration of 1.0 pCi/g bone ash
is consistent with values reported in recent years and
is comparable to values found in two other large
ruminant species on and around the NTS (Figure
25).
Cattle — Tritium concentrations in the blood of the
beef cattle sampled during 1990 did not exceed the
MDC of 390 to 450 pCi/L (14.4 to 16.7 Bq/L). These
values are similar to those reported during the last
few years (Figure A12 in the Appendix). One kidney
sample contained 20 ± 10 pCi/kg wet weight (0.7 ±
o
New Orleans, LA
Salt Lake City, UT
Las Vegas, NV
Ss!
So
Q.
CO
1960
1965
Figure 22. Strontium-90 concentrations in Pasteurized Milk Network samples.
39
-------
Figure 23. Mule deer at the Nevada Test Site.
0.4 Bq/kg) of 137Cs. Other than naturally occurring
40K, this was the only gamma emitter detected.
Strontium-90 concentrations in cattle bones ranged
from 0.3 to 1.9 pCi/g of ash (0.01 to 0.07 Bq/g
of ash) with an average of 1.0 pCi/g of ash (0.04 Bq/g of
ash). The 1990 90Sr values are compared to those of
the last ten years in a box-and-whisker plot (Figure
A13 in the Appendix) and with other large ruminants
in Figure 25.
Plutonium-238 values reported in cattle liver ranged
from 0.002 to 0.007 pCi/g of ash (7 x1Q-5 to 2.6 x
10-4 Bq/g of ash) and for bone ranged from 0.0007 to
0.008 pCi/g of ash (2.6 x 10-5 to 2.9 x 10-4 Bq/g of ash).
The 239+24opu va|ues jn |jver rangeo- from -rj.0003 to
0.03 pCi/g of ash (-1.1 x 10'5 to 1.1 x 10'3 Bq/g of ash)
and in bones ranged from -0.0009 to 0.005 pCi/g of
ash (-3.3 x 105 to 1.9 x 104 Bq/g of ash). These
values are similar to those reported in recent years,
as shown in box-and-whisker plots for the last ten
years (Figures A14 through A17 in the Appendix).
Mule Deer — Tritium levels in mule deer tissues
(combined muscle, kidney, blood, liver, and urine) for
the last ten years are depicted in Figure A18 in the
Appendix. It should be noted that the plotted con-
centrations are on a logarithmic scale and show the
wide range in concentration reported in recent years.
The high values observed in past years were in deer
that drank from contaminated drainage ponds in
Area 12 of the NTS. None of the deer sampled in
1990 drank from these ponds and 3H concentrations
were below the MDCof 520 to 570 pCi/L(19.2to
21.1 Bq/L).
The kidney from one animal contained a 137Cs con-
centration of 38+ 14pCi/kg (0.14+0.52 Bq/kg). The
only other gamma emitter detected, other than the
naturally occurring 40K, was the naturally occurring
7Be, with a maximum concentration of 460 ±200 pCi/kg
(17 ±7.4 Bq/kg). A 137Cs concentration of 17+9 pCi/kg
(0.63+0.3 Bq/kg) was found in the rumen contents of
one deer.
Strontium-90 values reported in NTS deer bones
ranged from 0.5 pCi/g of ash (0.019 Bq/g of ash) to
1.0 pCi/g of ash (0.038 Bq/g of ash). As shown in
Figure 25, the average concentration was 0.8 pC/g of
ash (0.03 Bq/g of ash). Plutonium-238 values in
40
-------
Queen City Smt.
. Coyote
~\Smt.
NELLISAFB
RANGE COMPLEX
V Scotty's
Jet.
DESERT
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
RANGE
Springdal
Cactus ndia
Springs Springs
Death
Valley
Jet.
Bighorn Sheep (winter 1989)
Mule Deer (1990)
Cattle (1990)
Numbers below or within symbol,
represents the animal identification numbers.
Figure 24. Collection sites for animal samples.
41
-------
TABLE 8. RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SAMPLES —1989
BIGHORN SHEEP
(COLLECTED %
WINTER 1989) ASH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Median
Range
42
26
40
32
31
26
26
28
25
31
33
24
21
22
30
22
BONE
«°Sr
CONC. ± 1 S.D.
(pCi/g ASH)"
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.3
0.4
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.9
Bone Sample
29.5
21 to 42
+
±
±
±
+
+
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
+
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
BONE
CONC. ± 1 S.D.
-3.4 ±
8.9 ±
8.6 ±
3.7 ±
-0.9 ±
3.2 ±
3.0 ±
3.3 ±
1.3 ±
7.7 ±
1.0 ±
3.7 ±
0.8 ±
-2.0 ±
1.7
4.2
3.3
5.6"
2.9"
3.6"
3.9"
3.7"
3.1"
4.2
3.6"
3.3
3.3
4.3"
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
BONE
CONC. ± 1 S.D.
(lO^pCI/g ASH)"
1.7 ± 1.6
0.4 ± 1.2"
0.5 ± 0.9"
0.2 ± 0.8"
0.2 ± 0.8"
0.2 ± 0.9"
1.2 ± 1.5"
-0.3 ± 1.0"
0.7 ± 1.1"
-0.9 ± 0.8"
-1.0 ± 0.8"
0.7 ± 1.0"
0.3 ± 1.1"
1.2 ± 1.5
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
not collected
1.1
0.3 to
3.25
1.7
-3.4 to 8.9
0.35
-1.0 to 1.7
KIDNEY*
'H
CONC. ± 1 S.D.
(pCi/L)c
130
330
20
350
20
180
-120
95
-120
-75
-30
100
70
-230
350
210
-140
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
95
160"
100
100"
100
300"
100
155"
100"
100"
100"
155"
160"
160"
155"
150
100
155"
-230 to 350
KIDNEY
1"Cs
CONC. ± 1 S.D.
(pCl/g)"
0.051 ± 0.014
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.023 ± 0.007
-
-
-
-
-
0.097 ± 0.032
0.051
0.023 to 0.097
Aqueous portion of kidney tissue.
To convert. pCi/g to Bq/kg, divide concentration by 0.027.
To convert pCi/L to Bq/L, divide concentration by 27.
Counting error exceeds reported activity.
mule deer bones ranged from 0.0029 to 0.008 pCi/g
of ash (0.0001 to 0.0003 Bq/g of ash) and 239+24°Pu
values ranged from -0.0003 to 0.0004 pCi/g of ash
(-1.1x10-5 to 1.5 x 10-5 Bq/g of ash). None of the
239+24<>pu values exceeded the one-sigma counting
error, indicating values are not significantly greater
than the MDC in a statistical sense.
Two liver samples were lost prior to analysis comple-
tion and only one 238Pu value exceeded the one
sigma counting error. This was 0.004 ± 0.003 pCi/g
of ash (1.5 x 10-4 ± 1.1 x 10-4 Bq/g of ash). These
values are also consistent with those observed in
recent years.
Vegetables—During the summer of 1990, samples
of vegetable produce were collected from offsite
farms in Nevada and Utah. Refrigeration failure
resulted in the loss of all samples except for the root
crops. These included beets from Rachel, NV, and
St. George, UT; carrots from Enterprise, UT; and
potatoes from Hiko, NV. Otherthan naturally occurring
^K, there were no detectable gamma emitters and
none of the samples had a 3H, ^Sr, or 238Pu con-
centration that exceeded the MDC. One sample,
table beets from St. George, UT, had a detectable
concentration of 0.007 ± 0.005 pCi/g of ash
(2.6x 10-*± 1.9x 10"4 Bq/g of ash). This was probably
due to incomplete washing of the soil from the
sample.
Data results exhibit no direct correlation with current
NTS activities. Annual vegetable crops did not
contain any radionuclides above the MDC, with the
exceptions of naturally occurring 40K and 239+240Pu,
which was in soil adhering to a root crop. None of the
mule deer sampled this year had been contaminated
by drinking from containment ponds. Results for all
animal species were generally similar to those ob-
tained in previous years.
4.2.6 Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Network
B. B. Dicey
The primary method of measuring external ambient
gamma radiation exposures is the TLD. Since 1987,
environmental and personnel monitoring for ambient
gamma exposures has been accomplished using
the Panasonic TLD system as shown in Figure 26.
This system provides greater sensitivity, precision,
and (for TLDs used to monitor offsite residents)
42
-------
Number of Bone Samples Analyzed *
40 -i
20 -
10 -
Year
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Deer
5
6
4
4
3
5
7
6
7
6
4
3
4
2
0
0
0
4
5
4
3
4
Bighorn
Sheep
14
6
12
11
15
7
18
14
19
13
12
14
17
18
19
24
19
19
20
14
16
0
Cattle
12
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
12
12
6
3
14
6
4
8
4
8
8
8
7
8
'Number of samples prior to 1969 not available
bighorn sheep • cattle B deer
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
YEAR (1955-1990)
0076GR91-25
Figure 25. Average "Sr Concentrations in Animal Bone Ash.
43
-------
tissue equivalence than is possible using film or
other TLD systems. This facilitates correlation of
individual measured exposures with the absorbed
biological dose equivalent. Results for 1990 indicate
no exposure directly attributable to current NTS
activities.
4.2.6.1 Network Design
The TLD network is designed primarily to measure
total ambient gamma exposures at fixed locations. A
secondary function of the network is the measurement
of exposures to a smaller number of specific
individuals living within and outside estimated fallout
zones from past nuclear tests at the NTS (offsite
residents). Measuring environmental ambient gamma
exposures at fixed locations provides a reproducible
index that can be easily correlated to the maximum
exposure an individual would have received by being
continuously present at that location. Measurement
of exposures to specific individuals involves multiple
uncontrollable variables commonly associated with
any personnel monitoring program. However,
monitoring of individuals provides an estimate of
individual exposures that help confirm the validity of
correlating fixed-site ambient gamma measurements
to projected individual exposures.
A network of environmental stations and monitored
personnel has been established in locations encir-
cling the NTS. Monitoring locations are shown in
Figure 27. This arrangement facilitates estimation of
average background exposures and prompt detec-
tion of any increase due to NTS activities.
Monitoring of offsite personnel is accomplished with
the Panasonic UD-802 dosimeter. This dosimeter
contains two elements of Li2B4O7:Cu and two of
CaS04:Tm phosphors. The four elements are be-
hind 14-, 300-, 300-, and 1,000-mg/cm2 filtration,
respectively. Monitoring of offsite environmental
stations is accomplished with the Panasonic UD-814
dosimeter. This dosimeter contains a single element
of Li2B4O7:Cu and three replicate CaSO4:Tm ele-
ments. The first element is filtered by 14 mg/cm2 of
plastic and the remaining three are filtered by 1,000
mg/cm2 of plastic+lead. The three replicate phos-
phors are used to provide improved statistics and
extended response range.
Figure 26. Construction of a typical Panasonic dosimeter.
44
-------
fl r
100 150
Sato In Ktomaen
A Locations monitored with both personnel
and fixed station TLDs. (40)
ll T-
• Locations monitored with fixed station TLDs. (133)
0076GR9-27
Figure 27. Locations monitored with thermoluminscent dosimeters.
45
-------
4.2.6.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The TLD program for monitoring of exposures to
individuals is fully accredited by DOE's Laboratory
Accreditation Program (DOELAP). Environmental
monitoring with TLDs is conducted in accordance
with the recommendations of American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N545-1975,
(ANSI75) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Regulatory Guide 4.13 (NRC77).
Each field-deployed TLD is processed together with
transit and unirradiated background controls and
with irradiated reference correction factor (RCF)
TLDs. Irradiated RCF TLDs are subjected to a
known radiation exposure equivalent to a nominal
absorbed dose of 200 mrem. A 137Cs source having
a calibrated output traceable to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) is used. All
exposures are verified by simultaneous exposure to
a precision ionization chamber. Calibration of the
ionization chamber is also NIST traceable.
Performance and calibration of the TLD readers is
verified by a series of daily QC checks as well as
semiannual system calibration. System calibration
verifies that the readers are linear in response over
the range of 2 to 10,000 mR. Blind performance
testing conducted as part of the DOELAP accredita-
tion process verified system linearity over the range
of 30 to 500,000 m R for x-rays, gamma photons, and
mixtures.
4.2.6.3 Monitoring Results — Offsite Personnel
During 1990, a total of 71 individuals living in areas
surrounding the NTS were provided with personnel
TLDs. All personnel dosimeters are cross-refer-
enced to associated fixed reference background
TLDs. Associated reference background TLDs are
fixed environmental monitoring positions located in
the general vicinity of each individual's place of
residence. Frequently the associated reference
background is the local CMS.
The TLDs used to monitor individuals are sensitive to
beta, gamma, neutron, and x-radiations. The TLDs
used to monitor fixed reference background loca-
tions are designed to be sensitive only to gamma and
x-radiations. Because fixed environmental TLDs are
sensitive only to x- and gamma radiation, personnel
TLDs are routinely evaluated for only these two
radiation types. Exposures of this type are numeri-
cally equivalent to absorbed dose. Raw data for all
personnel and environmental TLDs are stored in a
form that permits detailed evaluation for other radia-
tion types (beta and/or neutron), if needed. The
existing dose conversion algorithm could be used for
this purpose with only minimal modification. Specifi-
cally, evaluation for potential neutron exposure us-
ing TLDs would require detailed knowledge of the
energy of neutrons to which the TLD was exposed.
TLDs used to monitor individuals are provided in
holders 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 ambient gamma and x-radiation exposure
and to characterize the absorbed radiation dose an
individual wearing the dosimeter received. Figure 28
illustrates a typical personnel TLD holder as it would
be worn by a monitored individual. TLDs issued to
individuals are deployed and collected on a nominal
monthly schedule.
Of the 71 individuals monitored, 20 showed zero
detectable exposure above that measured at the
associated reference background location. Measur-
able variations from reference background ranged
from 3.7 to 175.3 mrem in one year. When ex-
pressed as afraction of reference background, expo-
sures to monitored individuals ranged from 0.71 to
4.0 times background, with a median of 1.2. First and
third quartiles were 1 .Oand 1.75, respectively. Within
the first through third quartiles, the average was 1.3
± 0.22, where 0.22 equals one standard deviation.
From this, using a 2 S.D. test, it can be concluded
with 95 percent confidence that monitored individu-
als receiving from 0.88 to 1.72 times the associated
reference background exposure in one year did not
vary from associated reference background levels.
Individuals receiving less than the first quartile had
exposures which could not be distinguished from
reference background.
Of those individuals receiving apparent exposures
greater than the third quartile when compared to
associated reference background levels, one (indi-
vidual #358 in Beatty, NV) was determined by inves-
tigation to represent an exposure to the badge but
not to the individual. In this case, the individual, a
worker at the Nevada Low Level Waste Site, was
triple badged: one badge each from EPA, his em-
ployer, and the Nevada Low Level Waste Site. Ex-
cept for the EPA dosimeter, none of the dosimeters
provided to this individual showed any detectable
exposure above background. Detailed review of
dosimeter processing and the exposure history of
46
-------
the TLD involved did not support an explanation of
dosimeter or reader malfunction. Therefore, it was
concluded that the exposure recorded represented
an exposure to the dosimeter but not to the indi-
vidual. The remaining ten dosimeters issued to this
individual in 1990 showed exposures ranging from
3.1 to 12 mrem, with an average of 8.4 ± 2.9 mrem.
Average reference background exposure during the
same period was 8.0 ± 1.8 mR.
A review of associated reference background expo-
sure measurements for the remaining individuals
showing apparent exposure ratios greater than the
third quartile also failed to support an explanation
that the individuals' exposures were due to environ-
mental radiation exposure related to current NTS
activities. Individual investigations are being con-
ducted in each of these cases in an attempt to
determine other factor(s) that may have resulted in
the reported exposures. In no case did any individual
orcumulative exposure exceed regulatory or ALARA
investigation limits.
Table A4 (Appendix) lists the results of offsite per-
sonnel TLD monitoring for 1990. Figure A19 (Appen-
dix) summarizes the TLD monitoring results foroffsite
residents living in California, Nevada, and Utah.
There was no statistically significant difference be-
tween the states in the recorded means and the
ranges were similar. Figure 29 illustrates the distri-
bution of exposures measured for offsite residents.
The net exposure to any individual is determined by
comparing the results of each dosimeter issued to
that individual with the results obtained from dosim-
eters located at the associated reference background
location established for that individual. Reference
background dosimeters measure ambient gamma
radiation exposure. Any associated reference back-
ground dosimeter reading that varies by greaterthan
a statistically determined amount (± 2 standard de-
viations) from the historical mean 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 con-
taining less than three data elements are not in-
cluded in the calculation. This situation could arise in
the event one of the two dosimeters included in a
fixed environmental station deployment was dam-
aged or otherwise unreadable.
Figure 28. Typical personnel thermoluminscent dosimeter holder as worn by individuals.
47
-------
4.2.6.4 Monitoring Results —
Offsite Stations
During 1990, a total of 134 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 30 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
in one year) was calculated by multiplying the me-
dian daily rate for each station by 365.25. A review
of the measurement 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,
calculational differences are less than 1 mR/year.
This is considered to be an insignificant discrepancy.
Annual exposures measured at fixed environmental
stations ranged from 18 to 391 mR, with a median of
73 mR. Table A5 (Appendix) details the results
obtained at each of the fixed environmental stations
monitored by TLDs during 1990. Figure A20 (Appen-
dix) summarizes the results obtained from measure-
ments of natural background ambient gamma radia-
tion levels at fixed environmental station locations.
During 1990, the maximum net annual exposure at
an offsite station was measured to be 391 mR. This
exposure, at Warm Springs #2, was determined to
be due to elevated levels of naturally occurring
radioactive material present in a stream adjacent to
the monitoring location. Radiation levels measured
in a nearby parking lot (Warm Springs #1) indicated
an exposure of 139 mR in one year at that location.
A detailed evaluation of the Warm Springs #1 and
Warm Springs #2 monitoring locations was included
in the 1989 Annual Report (EPA90).
300
250
q
C/D
CJ
200
$ 15°
,>»
a:
E 100
50
USavg 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
Source: Annual Offsite Environmental Monitoring Reports.
Bulb TLDs used prior to 1974; Harshaw 1974-1987; Panasonic since 1987.
Shaded area represents natural background minimum and maximum for the
U.S. (BIER80).
0076PB91
Figure 29. Summary of ambient gamma exposure of offsite residents — 1990.
48
-------
F/gfi/re 30. Typical fixed environmental thermoluminscent dosimeter monitoring station.
The primary function of fixed environmental station
TLDs is to characterize ambient (natural background)
gamma and x-radiation fields. The practice of
subtracting reference background readings from fixed
environmental station results is valid only to evaluate
whether asingle measurement varies by asignificant
amount from the historical record for that location.
Data collected in 1990 to study the impact of self-
annealing during the hottest portion of the year were
inconclusive. In this study, "test" TLDs were de-
ployed at indoor locations at the Las Vegas airport
and the Las Vegas U.S. Department of the Interior
office. Initial results appear to indicate a reduction in
indoor exposure levels at the two locations, possibly
due to structural shielding.
Because of the great range in the results, an average
for all offsite station TLDs is not an appropriate tool
for estimating individual exposures. Environmental
ambient radiation levels vary markedly with natural
radioactivity in the soil, altitude, and other factors. If
environmental TLD data are to be used in estimating
the background radiation exposure of an individual,
results obtained at the fixed environmental station
closest to that individual would be the most appropri-
ate reference point. Figure 31 presents the fre-
quency distribution of exposures to offsite residents
and to fixed environmental stations. The results
indicate no significant exposures related to current
NTS activities.
4.2.6.5 Discussion
When calculated TLD exposures were compared
with results obtained from collocated PICs, a uniform
underresponse of TLD vs. PIC was noted as de-
picted in Figure 32. This difference could be attribut-
able primarily to the differing energy response of the
two systems. The PICs have a greater sensitivity to
lower energy gamma radiation than the TLDs and
hence will normally record a higher apparent expo-
sure rate than do the TLDs. This difference could be
attributable to four primary factors:
• The PIC measures ionization in air (the
Roentgen) while the TLD measures energy
deposited in matter (the rad). Results of the
two methods are not adjusted to account for
this difference.
49
-------
The PIC is an exposure rate measuring
device, sampling every five seconds. The
TLD, an integrating dosimeter, is analyzed
approximately once each quarter. Some
reduction in TLD results may be due to
normal fading. Studies by Panasonic have
shown this loss to be minimal over the sam-
pling period used. A six-month fade study
was completed during 1990. The study
confirmed that fading is negligible.
PICs are more sensitive to lower energy
gamma radiation than are TLDs. A review of
the manufacturers' specifications forthe PIC
and TLD systems shows their responses to
be close to linear above approximately 80
and above approximately 150 keV, respec-
tively; and
PICs are calibrated by the manufacturer
against 60Co, while the TLDs are calibrated
using 137Cs. No adjustment is made to ac-
count for the differing energies at which the
two systems are calibrated.
4.2.7 Pressurized Ion Chamber Network
C. A. Fontana
The PIC network measures ambient gamma radia-
tion exposure rates. In addition to the 28 PICs
deployed around the NTS, there are ten Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Remote Automatic
Weather Stations (RAWS) PICs. All showed no
unexplained deviations from background levels dur-
ing 1990. The maximum annual average exposure
rate of 160 mR/yr (4.2 x 10'5 C/kg-yr) was at Austin,
NV; the minimum of 50 mR/yr (1.3 x 10*C/kg-yr) was
at Las Vegas, NV. These values were within the
United States background maximum and minimum
values (BEIR80). The 1990 data were consistent
with previous years' trends, and no prolonged unex-
plained deviations from background occurred during
the year.
4.2.7.1 Network Design
The purpose of the PIC network is to measure
ambient gamma radiation exposure rates. These
30%
25% -
20% -
15%
5%
0%
<10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 >200
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16° 180 200
Offsite Stations
mR in one year
Offsite Personnel
0076PB91
Figure 31. Frequency distribution analysis, fixed station, and personnel
thermoluminscent dosimeters— 1990.
50
-------
120
110
100
90
80
™
^
5°
40
30
20
10 I-
** */
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
PIC - mR in one year
Regression Foimula: TLD = (0.805 X PIC) - 16.73
Std. Error of Y = 0.054; Correlation Coefficient = 0.894
0076PB91
Figure 32. Comparison of thermoluminscent dosimeter results to
pressurized ion chamber results — 1990.
rates vary with altitude (cosmic radiation) and natural
radioactivity in the soil (terrestrial radiation). The PIC
is a spherical shell filled with argon gas to a pressure
25 times that of 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.
The current generated is measured, and the intensity
of the radiation field is determined from the magni-
tude of this current.
There are 28 PICs deployed in nearby communities
around the NTS. Of these, 19 are at CMSs described
in Section 5. Figure 33 shows PIC locations in
California, Nevada, and Utah. The ten RAWS are
utilized to expand the coverage of the PIC network.
The data are exclusively acquired via satellite trans-
mission. The locations of all PICs are shown in
Figure 34.
4.2.7.2 Methods
All data are transmitted via the Geostationary Opera-
tional Environmental Satellite (GOES). In addition to
telemetry retrieval, all of the data except for the
RAWS locations are also recorded on magnetic
media and strip charts for hard copy backup. In the
event of an accidental release of radioactivity from
the NTS, signals transmitted through the GOES
system would provide instantaneous data from all
affected PIC locations. Figure 35 shows PIC equip-
ment setup in the field.
Data are displayed in u,R/hr (microroentgens per hour,
which is equivalent to 2.6 x 10/10 C/kg-hr) on a digital
readout display at each location for easy access by
the public. The roentgen is a measure of exposure
to x- or gamma radiation. A microroentgen is one
millionth of a roentgen. For example, one chest x-ray
results in an exposure of 20,000 to 40,000 jiR (5.2 x
1Q-6 to 10 x 1Q-6 C/kg). Computer analysis of the data
is conducted weekly at EMSL-LV. Trends are noted
as part of routine QA procedures. Source checks are
conducted weekly and data are plotted for compari-
son to previous weeks.
4.2.7.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The external ambient gamma exposure rate mea-
surements made by the PICs are validated by cali-
brating annually. Weekly checks are made using
51
-------
r
NEVADA I UTAH
• Ely
Pioche
• Complex I • Call e
Medlins Rn.
•Alamo
Delta*
• Milford
> Cedar City
i St. George
Amargosa Valley _
Furnace Creek • \f ~ C" Overton<
Amargosa Center -7^ Indian Springs
Pahrump • J/LAKE MEAD
•% Las
Shoshone^ V VeQ33 .
\ I
V 1
ARIZONA
N
Community Monitoring Stations (\ 9)
Other PIC Locations (9)
Scale in Miles
50
100
50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-33
Figure 33. Community monitoring pressurized ion chamber (PIC) stations and other
PIC station locations — 1990.
52
-------
Scale in Miles
0 100 300
500
100 300 500 700
Scale in Kilometers
• EPA PICS (28)
O BLM PICS (10)
0076PB91
Figure 34. Pressurized Ion Chamber Network, including remote automatic weather stations
operated by the Bureau of Land Managment.
radioactive sources of known activity and control
charts are maintained. Data and calibration checks
are evaluated to detect trends or anomalies.
4.2.7.4 Results
Data for 1990 are displayed in Table 9 as the average
jxR/hr and annual mR/yr (mR/yr is equivalent to 2.6
x 10'7 C/kg-yr) for each station. Figure 36 shows box-
and-whisker plots (described in Section 6.4.1) for
each location in |iR/hr as compared to the maximum
and minimum United States background (BEIR80).
The averages of the 28 PICs operated for the EPA, DOE,
and DRI varied from 50 mR/yr (1.3 x 10'5 C/kg-yr) at
Las Vegas, NV, to 160 mR/yr (4.2 x 10'5 C/kg-yr) at
Austin, NV. The U.S. background maximum and mini-
mum values of the combined terrestrial and cosmic
components of environmental gamma radiation ex-
posure rates represent the highest and lowest values,
respectively. Figure A21 (Appendix) shows histori-
cal annual |iR/hr PIC exposure rates from all sta-
tions, except the BLM RAWS locations. The 1990
PIC data are consistent with previous years' trends
and within U.S. background maximum and minimum
values. No prolonged unexplained deviations from
background levels occurred.
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 Internal Dosimetry Pro-
gram at EMSL-LV. During 1990, a total of 1,500
gamma spectra from whole-body counting of 236
individuals were obtained, of whom 120 were partici-
pants in the Internal Dosimetry Program.
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.
53
-------
Figure 35. Pressurized ion chamber (left), gamma-rate recorder remote processor unit (right), with chart
recorder, digital readout, and telemetry antenna with solar panel (top center).
54
-------
TABLES. PRESSURIZED ION
STATION LOCATION
ALAMO NV
AMARGOSA CENTER NV
AMARGOSA VALLEY NV
AUSTIN NV
BEATTY NV
CALIENTE NV
CEDAR CITY UT
COMPLEX 1 NV
DELTA UT
ELY NV
FURNACE CREEK CA
GOLDFIELD NV
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
LAS VEGAS 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
" Weekly averages.
NUMBER OF
WEEKLY VALUES
53
52
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
CHAMBER
READINGS
— 1990
EXPOSURE RATE (jiR/hr)'
MIN
13
11
14
14
16
14
9.5
15
11
12
9.4
11
8.7
5.5
15
16
12
8.7
7.4
11
12
8.5
10
11
16
16
16
15
MAX
14
11
15
20
17
15
11
17
13
14
11
16
9.5
6.2
17
18
14
9.8
8.2
13
18
9.5
11
13
19
18
19
18
AVG±1
13 ±
11 ±
14 ±
19 ±
17 ±
14 ±
10 ±
16 +
11 ±
13 ±
10 +
15 +
9.0 ±
5.7 +
16 +
17 ±
13 ±
9.2 ±
7.7 ±
12 +
16 +
8.9 ±
11 ±
12 +
17 ±
16 ±
17 ±
17 ±
S.D."
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.7
mR/yi*
115
96
120
160
150
127
88
140
100
110
87
130
79
50
140
150
110
81
68
100
140
78
95
100
152
140
148
149
" Multiply \iR/hr by 2.6 xm10 to obtain C/kg-hr.
c Multiply mR/yr by 2.6 x 1Cr7 to obtaion C/kg-yr.
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 that may have been inhaled or
ingested. Routine examination consists of a 2,000
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 as shown in Figure 37. 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 summation of left- or right-lung arrays and of
the total lung area. This provides much greater
sensitivity forthetransuranic radionuclides but main-
tains the ability to pinpoint "hot spots." Custom-
designed detector mounts allow maximum flexibility
for the placement of detectors in various configura-
tions for skull, knee, ankle, or other geometries.
4.2.8.2 Network Design
The Internal Dosimetry Program consists of two
portions, an Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program and
a Radiological Safety Program. The Offsite Internal
Dosimetry Program is designed to: (1) 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) act as a biological monitoring system
for present nuclear testing 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 analyzed periodically as a
public service.
55
-------
o
CO
CM
Maximum U.S. Background
S
8
o _
5
8.
co
0>
If "
CD
e
s
i 2
*
i 5
h
y
*
n
i
^
roe,
n in m
in -
Minimum U.S. Background
CO
in
s
o -
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I
Z Z Z Z ZZ
>
Z
o is >» c >»CD >»— eg >».*: -o
co
<
$
CO
w
o
S5
CO
<
Au
I CO CB
o-§
00
O
-* S
CD ®
O
CD
Z
D>
51
"P co
>>»!-!-<»>>
ZZZZ^IDOZZZZ
I
Gold
CL
C/)
CO
T3
CO
DC
CO v
CD
I
-------
Figure 37. Lung counting with semiplanar array.
57
-------
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.
4.2.8.3 Methods
The Off site Internal Dosimetry Program was initiated
in December 1970 to determine levels of radionu-
clides in some of the families residing in communities
and ranches surrounding the NTS. Analyses are
performed semiannually, in the spring and in the fall.
This program started with 34 families (142 individu-
als). In 1990, 15 of these families (35 individuals)
were still active in the program. When the CMS
network was started in 1981, the families of the
station managers interested in participating were
added to the program. These 23 families (85 indi-
viduals) are analyzed in the winter and summer of
each year. The geographical locations of the fami-
lies which participated in 1990 are shown in Figure
38. Although most families are able to come into the
laboratory as scheduled, some are unable to partici-
pate in a particular year due to distance, weather, or
family commitments. All families would presumably
be available following any accidental releases of
radioactivity.
These persons travel to EMSL-LV where a whole-
body and a lung analysis of each person are made to
determine the body burden of gamma-emitting ra-
dionuclides. A urine sample is collected for 3H
analysis. Results of the whole-body and lung analy-
ses 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.
4.2.8.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance procedures consist of daily equip-
ment operations checks using QA software obtained
specifically for this program. Some of the param-
eters monitored daily include efficiency calibration of
each detector using a NIST-traceable point source to
check for zero, gain shift, and resolution over a wide
range of energies. A background is also taken once
or twice daily depending on the analysis schedule.
The software calculates out-of-range parameter val-
ues, flags investigation and action values, and gen-
erates a daily QA report. Necessary adjustments are
made before any counting of subjects is done. The
detector systems are calibrated annually using NIST-
traceable phantoms. Intercalibration phantoms are
exchanged with other facilities to provide additional
QA. Results of all analyses are verified by opera-
tional personnel and validated by a health physicist.
Bioassay samples are submitted for radiochemical
analysis. Blind duplicates are analyzed for every
tenth sample. Intercomparison spiked samples are
run periodically. All analytical results are reviewed
by a health physicist and dose calculations are
performed using verified software utilizing Interna-
tional Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)-
30 methodology (ICRP79).
4.2.8.5 Results
During 1990, a total of 1,500 gamma spectra were
obtained from 236 individuals, of whom 120 were
participants in the Offsite Internal Dosimetry Pro-
gram. 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 radionuclides
were detected in any lung analysis data.
Several employees of a waste processing plant in
Utah were flown down after a small contaminating
event occurred. No contamination was detected in
any of the employees. Several visiting scientists
from Europe were counted. A very small amount of
cesium is still present in some of these individuals as
a result of the Chernobyl accident.
The 3H concentrations in urine samples from occu-
pationally exposed persons were mostly below the
MDC. The highest concentration, 1.9 x 1 .Q-6 u.Ci/ml_
(70 Bq/mL) was in an individual wearing a tritium dial
watch. This amount was only eight percent of the
allowable limit for occupationally exposed individu-
als. Table A6 (Appendix) presents analytical results
for 1990.
Bioassay results for the Offsite Internal Dosimetry
Program showed that the 3H concentration in single
urine samples collected at random periods of time
58
-------
I
NEVADA UTAH
PYRAMID
!"o
I Xi^
I
f
Austin O
Round Mt.QOO
Blue Jay
4^
Tonopah
• McGill
• Ely
• Lund
• Blue Eagle Rn.
Nyala
Caliente
\
Amargosa Valley,
Amargosa Center
OO Delta
OO Milford
O* Cedar City
O St. George
ARIZONA
Pahrump^P
^
Shoshone 9
Overton (
V Indian Springs 11 >
LAKE MEAD
Las
N
• Offsite Family Monitored in 1990
O Not Monitored in 1990
50 100
Scale in Kilometers
0076GR91-38
Figure 38. Location of families in the Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program.
59
-------
varied from below the MDC of about 3.0 x 10-7nCi/mL
(11 Bq/L) to 5.5 x 10-7nCi/mL (20 Bq/L). The average
value for 115 samples analyzed for 3H in urine was
1.0 x 1Q-^Ci/mL (3.7 Bq/L). Only four percent of the
concentrations were above the MDC. None of the
values above the MDC were over applicable limits.
The highest value, 5.5 x 10-7uCi/mL, was 0.3 percent
of the annual limit on radionuclide intake for the
general public. Analytical results are shown in tabu-
lar form in Table A7 (Appendix). The higher than
MDC tritium values seen in the offsite population
occur routinely. There appears to be no correlation
with 3H found in air samples. Biological indicators of
exposure have been shown to be much more sensi-
tive than instruments as they concentrate the activity
overtime. The urine samples can be used only as an
indicator of exposure as they are taken on a random
basis; e.g., sampling is not correlated to radioactivity
release or weapons testing dates.
The box-and-whisker plots (Figure A22 in the Appen-
dix) indicate the distribution of 3H concentrations in
samples from residents of Overton and Rachel, NV,
and Cedar City, UT. Values higher than the MDC
have occurred occasionally over the past ten years
due to controlled atmospheric effluent releases but
no exposures over allowable limits for the general
population have occurred.
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 radionuclide exposure; hence results
are not attributable to past or present NTS testing
operations. As no planned releases of radioactivity
occurred from the NTS, no additional bioassay sam-
pling was done in 1990.
4.2.9 Long-Term Hydrological
Monitoring Program
W.G. Phillips
Tritium and gamma-spectral analyses were per-
formed on samples taken from 265 wells, springs,
and other sources at locations near sites where
underground nuclear explosives tests have been
conducted. Man-made gamma radioactivity was
found in only three sampled locations. Tritium con-
centrations found during this sampling year were
consistent with the levels found in previous years.
The tritium concentrations were greater than the
EPA Drinking Water Standards (CFR88) in only
three samples from wells in New Mexico not acces-
sible to the general public.
4.2.9.1 Background
Surface and ground water sampling have been per-
formed for many years on water sources around the
NTS (Figure 39). 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 constitute the
LTHMP. At each of the sites of underground nuclear
tests, water sampling points were established by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) so that any migra-
tion of radioactivity from the test cavities to potable
water sources could be detected by radioanalysis.
Much emphasis is placed on 3H analysis of ground
water samples. Following an underground nuclear
test, most of the radioactive materials that are cre-
ated decay away very quickly. Most of those remain-
ing are captured in the molten rock created by the
explosion and in the surrounding rock itself. Tritium,
a radioactive form of hydrogen, is naturally occurring
and is also a product of nuclear explosions. It
becomes incorporated into water molecules and
moves with the ground water flow. For this reason,
the first indication of the migration of the radioactive
materials created from nuclear explosions is the
migration of 3H.
4.2.9.2 Design and Methods
Sampling in the LTHMP is conducted near locations
of underground nuclear explosive tests throughout
the U.S. This includes the NTS, two sites in Nevada
not on the NTS, and sites in Alaska, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Mississippi. In 1990, LTHMP activities
focused on the NTS and on Tatum Dome, MS, site of
Project Dribble. Twenty-eight wells on the NTS plus
one well adjacent to the NTS and 35 sampling
locations in areas near the NTS that are part of this
program are shown in Figures 40 and 41, respec-
tively. A comprehensive sampling program was
conducted in the vicinity of Tatum Dome in 1990.
Samples from many media were collected (Section
4.2.10). In addition, several residents requested that
their water be analyzed because of news reports of
leakage from the Project Dribble test cavity. The
locations of sampling points used to monitor specific
nuclear tests at sites in Nevada, Colorado, Missis-
sippi, and New Mexico are shown in Figures A23
60
-------
Figure 39. Monitoring
itorino Technician collecting city water sample from Pahrump, NV.
61
-------
WellS
NEVADA RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AREA
AWell UE5c
1k.Well UE5n
WelISc
Well 3,
Well 4 A
0 5 10
Scale in Kilometers
Army Well 6A
= Water Sampling Location
0076GR9-40
Figure 40. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations on the Nevada Test Site.
62
-------
A Nyala
A Tonopah
A Adaven Springs
V
A Twin Springs Rn.
A TTR Well #6
NELLISAFB
RANGE COMPLEX
Spicer A
RoadD
Goss Springs A
Coffers 11S/48-1dd A
i A
^»v Beatty eniirip
Nus EcologyA Sp*Cie
^v A Nickells
A Tempiute
A Penoyer (3) A Hjk
Well 7 & 8 A MIKO
Well 13 A Crystal Springs
A Alamo
X Amargosa A
\ Valley Fajrbank
\^ A Springs
*X A Crystal Pool
\ A 14CaC
We,, 18S/51,E-7db\^ A Ash Meadows^
Death Valley Jet. A *\ A Calvada Well #1
ndian Springs
Sewer Co. Well #1
Las Vegas
Well #28
A
Lake Mead
Intake A
Shoshone
Spring A
X
V
Scale in Miles
10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Scale in Kilometers
LOCATION MAP
NEV.
TEST
SITE&
NELLIS
AFB RANGE
COMPLEX
0076GR91/7
Figure 41. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations near the Nevada Test Site.
63
-------
through A30 (Appendix). Sites in Alaska were not
sampled in 1990. Those sites will be sampled in
1991 and every two years thereafter.
At nearly all locations, the standard procedure is to
collect four samples. Two samples are collected in
500-mL glass bottles to be analyzed for 3H. The
analysis results of one of these are reported while the
other sample serves as a backup in case of loss. If
3H is found at a detectable concentration, the second
sample serves as a duplicate sample. The remaining
two samples are collected in 1-gallon (3.8-L) 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-L samples from wells as
deep as 5,900 feet (1800 m). At a few locations,
because of limited supply, only 500-mL samples are
collected for 3H analysis. At the normal sample
collection sites, pH, conductivity, and water tem-
perature are measured at the time the sample is
collected. The first time samples are collected from
a well, "^Sr, ^Ra, 238,239+24opUi and uranjum jso-
topes are determined by radiochemistry as time
perm its. The 3H and gamma spectrometric analytical
methods are described in Chapter 8. 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 1Q-7 to
about 1 x 10'VCi/mL (from 18 to 0.4 Bq/L).
For those operations conducted in states other than
Nevada, samples for the LTHMP are collected annu-
ally. For the locations on the NTS listed in Table 10,
the samples are collected monthly, when possible,
and analyzed by gamma spectrometry as well as for
3H. For afew NTS wells and for all the water sources
around the NTS shown in Table A8 (Appendix), a
sample is collected twice per year at about a 6-month
interval. One of the semiannual samples is analyzed
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 ana-
lyzed by gamma spectrometry.
The standard collection procedure is modified for
samples collected in the Tatum Dome, MS area.
Because of the variability noted in past years in
samples obtained from the shallow monitoring wells,
a second sample is taken after pumping for awhile or
after the hole has refilled with water. These second
samples are frequently higher in 3H concentration and
may be more representative of formation water.
4.2.9.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
As described in Chapter 6, duplicate analyses, ma-
trix spikes, blanks, blinds, and reference standards
are utilized to guarantee the highest possible quality
in all water analyses. As a general radioanalytical
procedure, a minimum of ten percent of the work load
are QC samples. Table 11 is a breakdown of the
frequencies for each type of QC sample in the water
matrix. In addition, each analysis technique must
prove to be accurate to within various predefined
control limits. Table 12 is a chart of these tolerance
limits for the water matrix.
4.2.9.4 Results
The locations at which the water samples contain
man-made radioactivity are shown in Table 13 along
with the analytical results. For 3H, only those
samples having a concentration exceeding one per-
cent of the EPA Drinking Water Standards, i.e. > 2.0
x 10'7 nCi/mL are shown. The activity in Well LRL-7
is expected since it is linked to the Gnome test cavity.
Results for the USGS wells 4 and 8 are also expected
because radioactivity was added to the aquifer for
hydrological testing. The 3H in samples from Project
Dribble are a result of postshot drilling operations
and disposal of low-level contaminated debris. Ex-
cept for three samples listed in Table A8 (Appendix),
all the gamma spectra were negligible (no measur-
able gamma-emitting fission products over the en-
ergy range 60 to 2,000 keV). Results are listed in
Tables 10,13, and A8 (Appendix).
Table 10 shows the maximum, minimum, and aver-
age 3H concentrations found in the NTS wells that are
sampled monthly. Shown in Table 13 are the 3H
results for those onsite and offsite water sources that
are analyzed semiannually. Finally, Table A8 (Ap-
pendix) contains the 3H concentration in water
samples collected around sites used for underground
nuclear tests that were performed outside the NTS.
4.2.9.5 Discussion
The results forthe residents' special request samples
are shown in Table A8 (Appendix) at the end of the
Project Dribble listing. The ten-year trend of activity
concentrations of 3H for two wells which have tradi-
tionally shown man-made radioactivity are plotted in
Figure A31 (Appendix). These wells are typical of
64
-------
those at each of the four locations that show positive
activity.
The first six plots of Figure A32 (Appendix) are of
single yearly values except for two samples in 1984
for Dribble Well HM-S and two samples in 1985 for
Dribble Well HMH-2. The last two plots, for NTS test
wells C and C1, depict multiple analyses for each
year. In each case, the general trend is for declining
activity concentrations with time.
Regardless of the finding of detectable amounts of
radioactivity in some water samples, the exposure to
the public is negligible. The HMH holes at Project
Dribble tap shallow, nonpotable water and the HM-S
and HM-L wells are locked. The wells at the Gnome
site are locked and inaccessible to the general public
while the EPNG well at the Gasbuggy site is a
monitoring well with no pump.
4.2.10 Special Environmental Surveillance
C.A. Fontana and D.D. Smith
During the spring of 1990, an intensive sampling
program was conducted on and around the Tatum
Salt Dome site in Lamar County, MS (Project Dribble).
This study was designed to document any migration
or lack of migration of radioactive materials (espe-
cially 3H) from the original test cavity.
Animal sampling was included in the study since
animals are a possible pathway of radioactive material
to humans. A steer and a goat living near the Tatum
Salt Dome were purchased and samples of their
muscle, liver, bone, and blood were analyzed.
Samples of wild turkey, deer, catfish, and a turtle
were collected on or near the Tatum Salt Dome site.
Control samples from a Columbia, MS, steer were
purchased at a packing plant and four deer were
collected on the Red Creek Wildlife Management
Area in southern Mississippi. None of the animals
contained tissue 3H levels above the MDC,
approximately 520 pCi/L (1.9 x 108 Bq/L). The
maximum 137Cs concentration found in the Tatum
Salt Dome deer muscle was 0.5 pCi/g (18 Bq/kg),
which is the same order of magnitude of levels of
137Cs found in the control deer. Similar levels have
also been reported from South Carolinadeer (SRS89).
The source of137Cs is global fallout from atmospheric
nuclear testing.
Two nuclear and two nonnuclear detonations were
conducted in the Tatum Salt Dome in Lamar County,
MS, between 1964 and 1970. Local residents have
expressed concern of possible health effects attrib-
uted to the nuclear detonations conducted in the
Tatum Dome. Because of this concern, EPA in-
creased the scope of the radiological sampling activi-
ties in 1990 to include:
• Urine samples from nearby residents.
Vegetable and soil samples from local
gardens.
• Milk samples from goats and cows.
TABLE 10. LONG-TERM HYDRO-LOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
TRITIUM RESULTS FOR NEVADA TEST SITE MONTHLY NETWORK —1990
TRITIUM CONCENTRATION
SAMPLING LOCATION
WELL 1 ARMY
WELL 2
WELL 3
WELL 4
WELL4CP-1
WELLS
WELL 5C
WELLS
WELL 20
WELL B TEST
WELLC
WELLJ-12
WELLJ-13
WELLUE19C
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
12
12
4
12
11
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
MAX
3.2
3.3
3.7
4.9
8.7
9.4
4.5
7.8
5.2
140
70
2.0
8.6
3.8
(104 nCi/mL)
MIN
-4.5
-4.9
-2.3
-4.0
-3.6
-1.6
-7.8
-5.4
-3.6
57
-2.2
-4.1
-4.9
-6.8
AVG
-0.30
-0.91
2.0
0.68
0.84
2.6
-0.48
-0.16
-0.21
100
18
-0.78
-0.43
-0.50
PERCENT OF
CONCENTRATION
GUIDE
<0.01
<0.01
<0.010
<0.01
<0.01
0.013
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.52
0.092
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
65
-------
TABLE 11. WATER ANALYSIS
QUALITY CONTROL
FREQ. FREQ. FREQ. FREQ.
ANALYSIS (% BLANK) (%DUP.) (%SPIKE) (% BLIND)
3H (conventional) 4321
3H (enrichment) 3331
""Sr.'x'Sr 3331
TABLE 12. WATER ANALYSIS
CONTROL LIMITS
ANALYSIS
CONTROL LIMIT (±%)
3H (conventional)
3H (enriched)
89Sr,9°Sr
10%
20%
20%
Gross Alpha/
Gross Beta
Gamma Scan
3
8
3
10
3
3
1
1
Gross Alpha,
Gross Beta 20%
Gamma Scan 20%
MATRIX SPIKE CONTROL LIMITS
3H (conventional) 10%
3H (enriched) 20%
89Sr, *>Sr 20%
Gross Alpha,
Gross Beta
Gamma Scan
20%
20%
TABLE 13. SAMPLING LOCATIONS WHERE WATER SAMPLES
CONTAINED MANMADE RADIOACTIVITY
SAMPLING LOCATION
RADIONUCLIDE
CONCENTRATION
PROJECT GNOME NM
Well DD-1
3H
137Cs
40K
89Sr
""Sr
Well LRL-7
Well USGS 4
Well USGS 8
PROJECT GASBUGGY NM
Well EPNG-10-36
PROJECT RIO BLANCO CO
CER No. 1 BLACK SULFUR
PROJECT DRIBBLE MS
Well HMH-1
Well HMH-2
Well HMH-5
Well HMH-16
Well HMH-L
Well HMH-S
Half Moon Creek
Half Moon Creek Overflow
Lower Little Creek
3H
137Cs
3H
3H
137Cs
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
2.8
7.9
7.6
-1.9
8.2
5.4
1.1
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.2
6.4
2.3
107
10s
103
101
103
io-2
10°
104
102
103
105
102
3.5 x 102
4.0
8.2
1.9
9.7
1.1
9.4
3.0
4.5
6.8
103
103
103
102
103
103
102
102
102
66
-------
Offsite and onsite atmospheric moisture
monitoring.
Onsite atmospheric paniculate monitoring.
Onsite deer, turkey, catfish, and turtle tissue
samples.
Onsite soil, sediment, and vegetation
samples.
Offsite and onsite water samples for radio-
logical and nonradiological analysis (volatile
organics, semivolatile organics, pesticides,
and heavy metals).
Five additional shallow onsite wells.
Cow tissue samples.
Goat tissue samples.
In all of the offsite samples, including human bioas-
say samples, no radioactive materials from the Tatum
Dome site were detected. Only background levels of
no health consequence were found. Although de-
creasing, 3H contamination was detected in some
onsite water samples. These levels were so low that
the onsite water meets the EPA criterium fordrinking
water (CFR88). No other radioactive material above
background was detected onsite or offsite. The
analysis of onsite water samples for nonradioactive
hazardous materials revealed very low level concen-
trations of only a few organic chemical contaminants
of unknown origin. No health effects would be
expected from the contaminants at the concentra-
tions found. The complete set of analytical data
resulting from radiological monitoring at Tatum Salt
Dome was published in EPA's "Onsite and Offsite
Environmental Monitoring Report: Radiation Moni-
toring Around Tatum Salt Dome, Lamar County,
Mississippi, April 1990" (EPA91B).
67
-------
-------
5 Public Information and Community
Assistance Programs
D. J. Thome
In addition to its many monitoring and data analysis activities, the EPA EMSL-LV 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. Activities in
1990 included: participation in public hearings, "town hall" meetings, continued support of the CMS
Program, and a variety of tours, lectures, and presentations.
5.1 COMMUNITY MONITORING
STATION PROGRAM
Beginning in 1981, DOE and EPA established a
network of CMSs (Figure 42) in the offsite areas to
perform radiological sampling and monitoring, to
increase public awareness, and to disseminate the
results of radiation monitoring activities to the public.
These stations continued operation in 1990. The
DOE, through an interagency agreement with EPA,
sponsors the program. The EPA provides technical
and scientific direction, maintains the instrumenta-
tion and sampling equipment, analyzes the collected
samples, and interprets and reports the data. The
Desert Research Institute of the University of Ne-
vada administers the program by hiring the local
station managers and alternates, securing right-of-
way and utility meters, and by providing QA checks
of the data. The University of Utah provides in-depth
training twice a year on all issues related to nuclear
science, radiological health, and radiation monitor-
ing. In each community, EPA and DRI work with civic
Figure 42. Community Monitoring Station at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas. (From left to right:
particulates and reactive gases sampler, tritium sampler, microbarpgraph, noble gas sampler, gamma
radiation exposure rate recorder, and thermoluminscent dosimeter.)
69
-------
leaders to select and hire a local manager and an
alternate. Whenever possible, they choose resi-
dents with some scientific training, such as a high
school or university science teacher.
All of the 19 stations contain one of the samplers for
the ASN, NGTSN, and TLD networks discussed in
the previous chapter. Each station contains a PIC
with a recorder for immediate readout of external
gamma exposure and a recording barograph. 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 4 with the other data from the appropriate
networks. Table 9 (Section 4.2.7) contains a sum-
mary 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 the previous year. These
reports additionally show the maximum and mini-
mum background concentrations in the U.S. In
addition to being posted at each station, copies are
sent to appropriate federal and state personnel in
California, Nevada, and Utah. All of the CMSs are
equipped with satellite telemetry transmitting equip-
ment. With this equipment, gamma exposure mea-
surements acquired by the PICs are transmitted, via
GOES, directly to the NTS and from there to EMSL-
LV by dedicated telephone line. The transmission of
these data occurs automatically every four hours.
However, whenever the gamma exposure measure-
ments at any station exceeds 50 (o.R/hr, that station
goes into an emergency mode and transmits data
every minute. This continues until the measurement
is again less than 50 i^R/hr, at which time the PIC
reverts to its routine condition.
5.2 TOWN HALL MEETINGS
Ninety-four town hall meetings have been conducted
since 1982. These meetings provide an opportunity
for the public to meet directly with EPA, DOE, and
DRI 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 net-
works are explained and the proposed High Level
Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain is discussed.
In addition to the regular town hall meetings held in
1990, similar presentations and presentations de-
voted solely to EPA's ORSP were presented to
various groups such as chambers of commerce,
League of Women Voters, senior citizens, high
schools, and the press. Four town meetings were
held in Lamar County, MS to explain what took place
at the Tatum Dome Nuclear Test Site and the results
of EPA's onsite and offsite radiological monitoring
activities. These meetings were held in response to
concerns expressed by residents about possible
health effects originating from the Tatum Dome site.
The locations of the 1990 meetings were as follows:
Location
Date
Lumberton, MS 08/29/90
Columbia, MS 08/29/90
Purvis, MS 08/28/90
Baxterville, MS 08/27/90
Hattiesburg, MS - Press 08/27/90
Mesquite, NV 06/28/90
Bunkerville, NV 06/27/90
Dolan Springs, AZ 05/24/90
Alamo, NV 04/17/90
Rachel, NV 04/16/90
Las Vegas, NV - League of
Women Voters 03/24/90
Bishop, CA 02/15/90
Bishop, CA - Chamber of
Commerce 02/15/90
Bishop, CA - High School 02/15/90
Pahrump Valley, NV 02/09/90
Pahrump Valley High School, NV 02/09/90
Pahrump Valley Senior Citizen
Center, NV 02/09/90
5.3 NEVADA TEST SITE TOURS
To complement the town hall meetings and to fa-
miliarize citizens with both the DOE testing program
at the NTS and the Environmental Radiological
Monitoring Program conducted by EPA, tours are
arranged for business and community leaders and
individuals from towns around the NTS, as well as for
government employees and for the news media.
Between January and December 1990, the following
tours were sponsored by the EPA:
U.S. Congressional Working Group
Staff Members 12/07/90
EPA Employees and Dependents 12/06/90
70
-------
EPA Headquarters Workforce
Development Office and the
National Association for
Hispanic Elderly 08/21/90
EPA Headquarters Office of
Modeling, Monitoring Systems,
and Quality Assurance 06/26/90
EPA Agency-Wide Secretaries
Advisory Council 05/10/90
Public Officials and Residents of
Kingman, AZ
Residents of Ely, NV
04/2 and 3/90
03/21 and 22/90
Residents of Beatty and
Tonopah, NV
EPA Headquarters Senior
Management
5.4 ANIMAL INVESTIGATIONS
02/22 and 23/90
02/06/90
One of the public service functions of 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 1990.
71
-------
-------
6 Quality Assurance and Procedures
D. G. Easterly and C. A. Fontana
The QA program conducted by EMSL-LV for the ORSP includes: SOPs, DQOs, data validation, QC,
health physics oversight, and monitoring precision and accuracy of analyses. Duplicate samples are
analyzed for the ASM, NGTSN, MSN, TLD, and LTHMP networks. The coefficient of variation of
replicate samples for these networks varied from a median value of 0.5 percent for the MSN tritrium
analyses to 22 percent for the TLD network over 1990. Comparisons of EMSL-LV- and DOE-generated
data indicate 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 for
analyses conducted in 1990.
6.1
POLICY
One of the major goals of EPA is to ensure that all
decisions which are dependent on environmental
data are supported by data of known quality. Agency
policy initiated by the EPA Administrator in memo-
randa of May 30,1979, and June 4,1979, requires
participation in a centrally managed QA Program by
all EPA Laboratories and those monitoring and
measurement efforts supported or mandated through
contracts, regulations, or other formalized agree-
ments. Further, byOrder5360.1, EPA policy requires
participation in a QA Program by all organizational
units involved in environmental data collection.
EMSL-LV's QA policies and requirements are sum-
marized in EPA/600/X-87/241, Quality Assurance
Program Plan (EPA87), and are fully adhered to
within the ORSP.
6.2 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
Elements of the QA program include local SOPs
which define methods of sample collection, handling,
control, analysis, data validation, interpretation, 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 expo-
sures to radiological hazards in the environment.
These SOPs describe the extent of QC practices
conducted within the radioanalytical laboratory. The
SOP describes what activities are to be performed
and includes complete instructions for preparation
and use of control charts, use of spiked samples for
accuracy and precision determinations, and other
activities used for controlling the quality of data.
The analytical QC program is used to demonstrate
that the ORSP is operating within prescribed re-
quirements of accuracy and precision. These data
are used in the preparation of control charts for each
type of analysis and are appropriately evaluated.
The QC samples are analyzed within the normal
sample stream. Blind or known spiked samples are
prepared at concentration levels which do not com-
promise the health and safety of laboratory personnel
or cause deterioration of the low-level detection
capability of counting equipment. The intralaboratory
QC samples are summarized in Table 14.
A minimum of ten percent of the work load consists
of QC samples. All of the various QC types are used
where possible and practical for all analyses. If the
sample is introduced by the QC Coordinator, the
radionuclide content and activity are unknown to the
technician. Samples unknown to the technician
provide independent verification of laboratory
operation.
The first line supervisor is responsible for QC pro-
grams and reporting results of the associated
analyses to higher management. It is the respon-
sibility of the Branch Chief to ensure that the labo-
ratory performs the required analyses in a timely
manner and that results are reported on time. The
laboratory technician is responsible for the timely
performance of the required analyses so that results
may be reported on time. The technician is the
primary person to make sure samples are processed
quickly and tracked throughout the analysis process.
The Branch Chief ensures thatthe first line supervisor
and technicians receive proper training to perform
their jobs with respect to QC activities in the best
possible manner.
73
-------
When applicable, method blanks for each analytical
procedure are prepared. The blank is carried
throughout the entire procedure. The blank is pro-
cessed identically to the routine samples and counted
accordingly. The QC program emphasizes blank
control whenever blank correction is significant. En-
vironmental control usually denotes good house-
keeping practices, coupled with any special proce-
dure used to minimize the potential for contamina-
tion. Contamination can arise from the following five
principle sources:
• the analysis environment.
• the reagents used in the analysis.
• the apparatus used.
• radioactive decay products.
• the analyst performing the analysis.
Applicable SOPs are strictly followed so that con-
tamination risk is minimized.
The first line supervisor is responsible for evaluating
the stability and variability of the blank. Control
charts for this parameter are used where applicable.
If control charts are used, a review for trends and
outliers is conducted on a routine basis. It might then
be possible to correlate abnormalities with other
experimental information to discover assignable
causes and corrective measures necessary to ob-
tain acceptable blanks. In general, however, an
investigation is initiated whenever a blank is re-
corded that has a value greater than the expected
lower limit of detection.
Duplicate samples are prepared where applicable.
The sample is entered into the sample stream and
analyzed in the exact manner as the regular samples
for that particular type of analysis. Blind samples are
prepared as needed (Table 14). The blind sample is
entered into the sample stream and analyzed in the
exact manner as the regular samples forthat particu-
lar type of analysis. Blind sample data are evaluated
on the basis of percent recovery and accuracy.
Information on the efficiency, stability, and variability
of recovery is evaluated by the first line supervisor.
The application of a blind recovery correction factor
is generally not merited. Table 15 shows the control
limits for each type of analysis.
Matrix spikes are prepared by the first line supervisor
or analyst/technician as needed (Table 14). These
samples are entered into the sample stream and
analyzed in the exact manner as the regular samples
for that particular type of analysis. Matrix spike
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
ANALYSIS
Kr
Xe
3H
3H (Conventional)
3H (Enrichment)
3H
3H
89Sr, «>Sr
89Sr, 9°Sr
89Sr, 9°Sr
Pu Isotopes
U Isotopes
Th Isotopes
Gross Alpha/Gross Beta
Gross Alpha/Gross Beta
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
MATRIX
Air
Air
Air
Water
Water
Urine
Tissue
Milk
Air Filter Composite
Water
(ANY)
(ANY)
(ANY)
Air Filters
Water
Air Filters
Charcoal Cartridge
Milk
Water
FREQ.
(% BLANK)
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
8
8
FREQ.
(% DUP.)
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
3
10
10
10
10
FREQ.
(% SPIKE)
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
NA
3
3
FREQ.
(% BLIND)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA = not applicable
74
-------
TABLE 15. BLIND CONTROL LIMITS
ANALYSIS
Noble Gas
3H
3H (Conventional)
3H (Enrichment)
3H
3H
89Sr, 89Sr
89Sr, xSr Composite
89Sr, MSr
Pu Isotopes
U Isotopes
Th Isotopes
Gross Alpha/Gross Beta
Gross Alpha/Gross Beta
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
MATRIX
Air
Air
Water
Water
Urine
Tissue
Milk
Air Filter
Water
(ANY)
(ANY)
(ANY)
Air Filters
Water
Air Filters
Charcoal Cartridge
Milk
Water
CONTROL LIMIT (±%)
20
10
10
20
10
10
10
20
20
20
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
sample data are evaluated on the basis of percent
recovery. Efficiency, stability, and variability of re-
covery are evaluated by the first line supervisor. The
application of a matrix spike recovery factor is gen-
erally not merited. Table 16 shows the control limits
for each type of analysis.
Control charts are basic tools for QA in the
radioanalytical laboratory. They provide a graphical
means to demonstrate statistical control, monitor a
measurement process, diagnose measurement
problems, document measurement uncertainty,
identify and diagnose instrumental problems, and
generally aid in methodology development. Back-
ground control charts are used for controlling the
system background of counting instrumentation and
determining possible contamination and/or trends.
Technicians are responsible for counting, on a daily
basis (or before each use), the background for the
standard counting time (the time for which samples
are normally counted). This value is recorded in the
controlled notebook that is issued for this purpose.
This value is also plotted on the control chart es-
tablished for the specific system. Technicians are
responsible for counting, on a daily basis (or before
each use), a standard check source. These check
sources are counted for a predetermined length of
time. The technician records this value in a controlled
notebook especially designated for this purpose.
The notebook is kept near the instrument. This value
is also plotted on a control chart established for a
specific system.
Assuming that the data are normally distributed, a
standardized statistic is computed and the resulting
value plotted on a scatterplot with Mean=0, upper
working level (UWL)=+2 S.D., upper control limit
(UCL)=+3 S.D., lower working level (LWL)=-2 S.D.,
and lower control limit (LCL) =-3 S.D. Normalized
deviation values falling outside the UCL and LCL (±
3 sigma) indicate "outlier" data values. Need for
corrective action is indicated by 2-sigma and
3-sigma values. Some indicators of an "out-of-
control" situation include:
• One point outside of the UCL or LCL.
• Two out of three consecutive points beyond
the UWL or LWL.
Eight consecutive points on one side of the
center line.
Any other systematic trend.
When an out-of-control situation arises, the analyst
is instructed to recount the check source a minimum
of five times to see if there really is a problem, or if the
outlier was due to randomness (rare events). If a
problem is indicated, the first line supervisor is noti-
fied of the condition, and appropriate diagnosis/
correction of the problem is made. The first line
supervisor is responsible for reviewing QC results
produced by employees on a routine basis.
75
-------
TABLE 16. MATRIX SPIKE CONTROL LIMITS
ANALYSIS
MATRIX
CONTROL LIMIT (±%)
Noble Gas
3H
3H (Conventional)
3H (Enrichment)
3H
3H
B9Sr, «Sr
89Sr, ""Sr Composite
MSr, *>Sr
Pu Isotopes
U Isotopes
Th Isotopes
Gross Alpha/Gross Beta
Gross Alpha/Gross Beta
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
Gamma Scan
Air
Air
Water
Water
Urine
Tissue
Milk
Air Filter
Water
(ANY)
(ANY)
(ANY)
Air Filters
Water
Air Filters
Charcoal Cartridge
Milk
Water
20
10
10
20
10
10
20
20
20
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
Quality assurance review is performed on all QC
samples using the following procedure:
Review the following sample paperwork:
sample header card, analytical datasheets,
QC sample data, sample tracking data
management system (STDMS) data reports,
requirements, and non-conformances, as
applicable.
Cross-check all information included for
correctness and completeness of the data.
Evaluate the QC results according to the
control limits given in the applicable SOP.
If a QC result is outside of the acceptable
limits, thesupervisorinvestigatesthe problem
and determines the impact on other analytical
results. Processing of samples is stopped,
if necessary, until the problem is resolved.
If QC results are acceptable, the supervisor
signs and dates the listing.
6.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The EPA requires all projects involving
environmentally related measurements to develop
DQOs. These DQOs must clearly define the level of
uncertainty that a decision maker is willing to accept
in results derived from environmental data (SCB89).
The ORSP has always been operated with DQOs
specified, butthey are imbedded in various documents
prepared by EPA and by DOE. In 1987, formal
DQOs were developed and the necessary information
was compiled as set forth below so that the DQOs
are available as a single document. As a historical
note, radiological monitoring activities have been in
the forefront for developing data of known quality by
applying the basic principles of what is now called
QA/QC, and the ORSP always has had the objective
of maintaining the radiochemical methods and
instrumentation at state-of-the-art levels. In what
follows, the essential elements listed in the Quality
Assurance Management Staff (QAMS) document
"Development of Data Quality Objectives" are
addressed.
6.3.1 Data Quality Objectives for the Offsite
Radiological Safety Program
Measurements of the volume of air, water, and milk
samples must be accurate within ±10%. The results
of gamma spectrometric analyses must be accurate
with no more than a five percent risk of either a false
positive or a false negative report.
Radiochemical analyses must have an uncertainty
no greater than ±60% for results near the MDC and
no greater than ±10% for results that are ten times
the MDC.
76
-------
The calculation of effective dose equivalents based
on all environmental measurements must have an
uncertainty no greater than ±50% for annual expo-
sures between one and five mrem per year and no
greater than ±10% for annual exposures at five
mrem per year or more.
6.3.2 Decisions to be Made
In connection with nuclear weapons tests at the NTS,
there are two decisions to be made, namely:
Are radiation exposures to the offsite public
from routine operations at the NTS within the
radiation exposure standards set by the
ICRP?
Do radiation exposures of the offsite public
from accidental releases of radioactivity from
the NTS exceed the protective Action Guides
published by the FDA or the maximum
exposure level recommended by the ICRP?
The standards addressed by these decisions are at
several reference levels, specified by DOE, in "Re-
quirements for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and
Environmental Surveillance for DOE Operations"
(DOE91). They are:
• All pathways that lead to the following
exposures shall be routinely monitored:
a. One mrem annual effective dose
equivalent to any offsite individual, or
b. One hundred person-rem annual col-
lective effective dose equivalent per
million individuals within 80 km of the
site center, or
c. Five mrem annual whole-body dose
equivalent or 15 mrem to the skin of
offsite individuals.
• Any exposure to an offsite person of 25
mrem effective dose equivalent in any year
shall be reported to DOE Headquarters.
Unplanned releases of radioactivity shall be
monitored and quantified.
• All measurements shall be based on
statistically significant differences between
the point of measurement and the
background in the area or suitable control
data.
6.3.3 Use of Environmental Data
Environmental data are needed so that the pathways
for human exposure to radioactivity can be assessed
fortheircontribution to total exposure. The pathways
to be assessed include inhalation, ingestion, and
direct radiation so air, water, milk, meat, and veg-
etables as well as external exposures due to pen-
etrating radiation must be measured.
These measurements together with appropriate
models and correction factors can be summed to
give an effective dose equivalent for an individual or
a critical population. The effective dose equivalent
can then be compared with the criteria stated above
to estimate the degree of compliance with those
criteria.
6.3.4 Time and Resources Required
The resources to be used in collecting the pertinent
environmental data are negotiated annually. Modi-
fications to the sampling and QA programs may be
incorporated as warranted by analysis of long-term
trends and resource constraints. Such modifications
may include changes in the number of sampling
stations, media represented, radionuclides analyzed,
or frequency of sample collection.
6.3.5 Description of Data to be Collected
The data to be collected are the average annual
exposures contributed by each pathway to an indi-
vidual (Table 17). For the inhalation pathway, air
samples must be collected in such a manner that the
average annual concentration of radioactive particu-
lates, reactive gases, and tritium can be calculated.
For the ingestion pathway, the concentrations of
radionuclides in water, milk, meat, and vegetables
must be measured. The radioisotopes of concern
include those of hydrogen, strontium, cesium, and
iodine. The capability to detect other radionuclides
must be available.
For the external exposure, measurement of pen-
etrating radiation exposure of individuals and loca-
tions which are above natural background must be
made. Whole body and skin exposure can also result
from atmospheric concentrations of radioactive noble
gases, so the average annual concentrations of
those species must also be measured.
77
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENTS
SOURCE
RECIPIENT
ANNUAL EFFECTIVE
DOSE EQUIVALENT
mrem mSv
For routine operations, including controlled releases (tunnel purgings and drillbacks):
All (Air pathway) Offsite person
10
0.1
For accidental releases of radioactivity:
All
Offsite person
500
'Permissible lor few years if lifetime average does not exceed 100 mrem per year.
6.3.6 Domain of the Decision
The environmental data on which a decision regard-
ing compliance is to be made are collected in the
area from the boundary of the NTS out to 180 miles
(300 km) from that boundary, although DOE requires
only the inclusion of all population centers within 48
miles (80 km) of the NTS. Where public concern is
evident, suitable environmental monitoring should
be extended as far as is feasible given the equipment
and manpower available.
6.3.7 Calculations to be Performed on the Data
For air, water, milk, and food samples, any
activity above the MDC is considered as contributing
to exposure. The MDC is calculated from the formula:
MDC = 3.29KS
Where K is the proportionality constant relating de-
tector response to the activity concentration in the
sample, S is the estimated standard error for the net
sample activity, and 3.29 is the factor used when
both Type I and Type II errors (a and 6) are set at 5
percent. For reporting purposes, the actual result
obtained is used in the calculation of concentration
averages even if that result is less than the MDC so
that exposure values over time or space can be
estimated.
The external exposure data as measured by TLDs
are compared with environmental background data
for each area. The background data are the average
and standard deviation obtained for the previousfour
quarters at a given location. For personnel expo-
sures, the data from the personnel TLDs are also
compared with the area background to determine
any net exposure. The data from both the area and
the personnel TLDs are compared with the back-
ground data using an analysis of variance to deter-
mine whether any statistically valid difference exists.
In the case of atmospheric emissions from the NTS
as reported by DOE, a Gaussian plume dispersion
model and the EPA AIRDOSE/RADRISK code are
used to calculate exposure to offsite individuals.
Effective dose equivalents from inhalation and in-
gestion of radionuclides are calculated using the
methods in ICRP report 26 with the dose conversion
factors given in ICRP report 30 (ICRP79).
Data quality objectives contain quantitative state-
ments relating to the decision to be made, how
environmental measurements are to be used, time
and resource constraints on data collection, de-
scriptions of the data or measurements to be made,
specifications of which portions of the physical sys-
tems from which samples will be collected, and the
calculations that are to be performed on the data in
order to arrive at a result.
6.4 DATA VALIDATION
An essential element of QA is the validation of data.
Four categories of data validation methods are em-
ployed in the ORSP: procedures applied routinely to
ensure adherence of acceptable analytical methods;
those that ensure that completeness of data is at-
tained; those that are used to test the internal com-
parability 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
78
-------
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.
6.4.1 Box-and-Whisker Plots
The box-and-whisker plot, commonly called box plot,
is an effective way to display summary statistics
graphically (VEL 81). It allows for the detection of
outliers and of asymmetric behavior (shows little or
no correspondence of form on opposite side of a
boundary) of a data set. As shown in Figure 43, the
plot divides the data into four equal areas, or
"quartiles." The "box" contains two quartiles, each
containing 25 percent of the data, and the two
"whiskers" each contain one quartile (25%).
The range of the data (the difference between the
highest and lowest values), the median (the middle
value), and whetheror not the data is skewed (shifted,
i.e., indicated when one "whisker" is longer than the
other) can easily be determined. The box itself
covers the middle 50 percent of the data values.
Variability of the data is also indicated by the height
of the box, as well as by whisker length.
When unusual values occur far away from the bulk of
the data, they are plotted as separate points. The
whiskers extend only to those points that are within
1.5 times the range (the difference between the
highest and lowest values) of the box. Values
outside the whiskers denoted by an "*" are possible
outliers. They are between 1.5 and 3 times the range
of the box. Values denoted by an "O" are very far out
of range (at least 3 times the box range) and are
probable outliers.
There are several possible causes of outliers or
asymmetric behavior of the data:
Random fluctuations.
• NTS emissions of radionuclides.
• Non-NTS emissions of radionuclides.
Concentration (10"12 nCi/mL)
IS $ 8 53 g
MKr Gas Samples
i
-
—
c
*l
^
1
(- -
Median
Feb
Monthly Data
than 3 X the interquartile
range of the box data
Possible Outlier - within 1 .5 X
the interquartile
range of the box data
) Whisker -top 25%
!Box Data • 50% (middle half)
of the data
> Whisker -bottom 25%
• Box - rectangle that contains
50% (the middle 2 quartiles) of the
data
• Whisker - line which designates
most of the 1st and 4th quartiles
of the data
• Median - middle value (one-half
of the data points are larger,
one-half are smaller)
• Interquartile range - value at
75% minus the value at the 25%
point
• Outlier - a data point outside of
the range of the box data
0076GR9-43
Figure 43. Example of a box-and-whisker plot (VEL 81).
79
-------
The box-and-whisker plot allows for closer examina-
tion of the data to determine the reason for unusual
or out of range data. Box-and-whisker plots are used
as a tool in the validation of data for most networks.
Plots of this type can be found in the Appendix.
6.5
QUALITY CONTROL
The QC portion of the ORSP QA program consists of
routine use of methods and procedures designed to
achieve and maintain the specified level of quality for
the given measurement system. Accuracy of analy-
sis 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 pur-
poses) and the true or reference value (EPA87). The
EPA EMSL-LV laboratory participates in EPA, DOE/
Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML), and
World Health Organization laboratory intercom-
parison 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, (i.e., 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). At a minimum, three percent of
all samples are collected and analyzed in duplicate,
and results compared. In addition, instruments are
calibrated with standards directly or indirectly trace-
able to N 1ST (formerly National Bureau of Standards)
or approved EPA-generated sources. Performance
checks are routinely accomplished, control charts of
background and check source data are maintained,
and preventive maintenance of equipment is sched-
uled and performed.
6.5.1 Milk Surveillance Network
Samples are collected from established locations
using documented SOPs. Milk samples are deliv-
ered to sample control by field monitoring personnel
or by the U.S. Postal Service. Samples are accompa-
nied by a sampling report, a sample collection tag,
and a chain-of-custody form. Upon receipt, milk
samples are assigned a unique identification number
and the information from the sampling report is keyed
into STDMS and a header sheet is generated.
For gamma analysis, 3.5-kg samples are weighed
into labelled Marinelli beakers. Sample size is veri-
fied by calibration of the balance using NIST-certified
weights. An accuracy of within five percent meets
the DQOs. Gamma spectrometers are efficiency
calibrated using NIST mixed radionuclide sources
prepared in the same geometry and matrix as the
milk samples. Analysis is performed with vendor-
supplied software to calculate and store an efficiency
vs. energy curve. A daily performance check is
completed and control charts are prepared using QA
software. Analysis of results is accomplished using
vendor-supplied software. Results are reviewed by
a gamma spectroscopist and the data are entered
into STDMS. Samples are reanalyzed as duplicates
(replicates) on a routine basis. A minimum of ten
percent of all samples are QA samples (i.e., blanks,
duplicates, spikes, and blinds). The blind control
limit and the matrix spike control limit are ±10% and
±20%, respectively.
Aliquots for radiochemical analysis of the
radiostrontiums also have sample control proce-
dures as outlined above. Spiked samples are pre-
pared from NIST-traceable materials. Blank, dupli-
cate, spiked, and blind samples are incorporated at
the frequencies shown in Table 14. Samples are
analyzed within three months of collection. Results
must be accurate within ±20%. Balances are cali-
brated annually by the vendor and the gas flow
counter is calibrated annually using NIST-traceable
standards. Control charts of standards and back-
grounds are maintained. If any samples remain after
analysis, they are returned to sample control accord-
ing to chain-of-custody procedures and are stored in
a cooler for six months.
6.5.2 Internal Dosimetry Program
Bioassay of urine samples for tritium follows sample
control procedures similar to that for milk. A mini-
mum of ten percent of the samples are QC samples.
Three percent (each) of the samples are blanks,
duplicates, and spikes, and one percent are blind, as
indicated in Table 14. The procedure is accurate
within ten percent as measured with NIST-traceable
spiked samples. The liquid scintillation counter is
calibrated with NIST-traceable standards as part of
the maintenance contract. Sealed standard and
backgrounds are used for performance checks and
control charts are maintained.
All data are entered into the STDMS data base and
reviewed for transcription errors and for anomalous
80
-------
results. Data entered into the permanent data base
may occasionally need to be corrected to preserve
the integrity of the data base. To document correc-
tions, a data correction form must be prepared and
approved by two persons before being submitted for
inclusion. All data are reviewed by a health physicist
for completeness and comparability, trends are
identified, and potential risks to humans and the
environment are determined based on the data.
The whole-body detector is efficiency calibrated
annually using a Bottle Mannequin Absorber
(BOMAB) phantom containing a NIST-traceable
mixed radionuclide source. The lung counter is also
calibrated annually with a male realistic lung phan-
tom. A separate set of efficiency calibration data is
kept for each combination of sample shape/organ
geometry.
All efficiency curves are generated by the vendor-
supplied whole-body counting and lung-counting
software. Daily performance and background rou-
tines are completed and QA software is used to
monitorthe systems by performing out-of-range tests
for predetermined parameters. Results are plotted
and reports generated daily and monthly. All data
are stored in the computer. Determination of precision
is limited by the sample, i.e., human being. Replicate
counting of the standard BOMAB phantom provides
a measure of consistency. Replicate counts of blind
intercalibration phantoms and of people counted
previously in other facilities provide additional mea-
surements of precision and accuracy. Verification
and validation are completed before results are
entered into a data base. Calculation of internal dose
is done utilizing software based on the ICRP-30
methodology (ICRP79). Dose calculation is verified
using ICRP and National Council of Radiation Pro-
tection and Measurement (NCRP) guidelines
(NCRP89). Preventive maintenance and repair of
analytical equipment are done by the vendor service
representative. Data are retained permanently.
Subject confidentiality and data security are main-
tained through well-established procedures. Whole
body counting personnel participate in DOE and
EPA QA training programs.
6.5.3 Pressurized Ion Chamber Network
External ambient gamma exposure rate measure-
ments made by the PICs are validated by calibrating
annually. Weekly checks are made using sealed
radioactive sources of known activity. Data and
calibration checks are evaluated weekly to detect
trends or anomalies.
6.5.4 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Network
The TLD program is fully accredited by DOELAP. In
addition, environmental TLD monitoring is conducted
in accordance with ANSI. The thermoluminescent
dosimetry system is calibrated semiannually. Tran-
sit controls, irradiated controls, and unirradiated
background dosimeters are used to verify proper
reader performance and to correct for background
exposure occurring during other than the deploy-
ment period. Regular cleaning and maintenance of
the Panasonic TLD readers helps prevent mechanical
failure.
6.6 HEALTH PHYSICS OVERSIGHT
All analytical results receive a final review by EPA
health physics personnel for completeness and com-
parability. Increasing or decreasing trends of radio-
nuclides in the environment are identified and potential
risks to humans and the environment are determined
based on the data.
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 EMSL-
LV. The program consists of analyzing duplicate or
replicate samples from the ASN, NGTSN, MSN,
TLD, and LTHMP networks. 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 fixed environmental station in the TLD
network, no additional replicate samples are
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 18 summa-
rizes the sampling information for each surveillance
network.
81
-------
TABLE 18.
SURVEILLANCE
NETWORK
ASN
NGTSN
Dosimetry
MSN
LTHMP
SAMPLES AND ANALYSES FOR DUPLICATE SAMPLING PROGRAM — 1990
NUMBERS OF
SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
110
19
133
132
265
SAMPLES
COLLECTED
THIS YEAR
2,020
837 (MKr)
837 (133Xe)
1,003(HTO)
610
403
1,089
DUPLICATE
SAMPLES
COLLECTED
118
4
610
100
379
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
Gross beta, YSpectrometry
238.239t240pu
"SKr, 133Xe
HTO
Effective dose from gamma
«K. 89Sr, 3H
3H
The variance, s2, of each set of replicate results is
estimated by the standard expression (SNE67):
S2= (Xi-x)2/(n-l)
i=l
where n = number of replicates.
Eq.1
The principle that the variances of random samples
collected from a normal population follow a chi-
square distribution (X2) is then used to estimate the
expected population standard deviation lor each type
of sample analysis. The expression used is as fol-
lows (FRE62):
V
where n - 1
Eq-2
= the degrees of freedom for n,
samples collected for the ith
set.
k = number of sets.
s2 = the expected variance of the ith
replicate sample.
s = the pooled estimate of sample
standard deviation derived from
the variance estimates of all rep-
licate samples (the expected
value of s2).
For expressing the precision of measurement in
common units, the coefficient of variation (s/x) is
calculated for each sample type (NEL75). These are
displayed in Table 21 for those analyses for which
there were adequate data.
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 19 represent total error in
sampling and analysis.
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 results is given in
Table 20, which compares the mean of three repli-
cate 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)
TABLE 19. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL
PRECISION —1990
SETS OF
REPLICATE COEFFICIENT
SURVEILLANCE SAMPLES OF VARIATION
NETWORK ANALYSIS EVALUATED (%)
ASN Gross Beta 216 9
NGTSN
TLD
MSN
LTHMP
•%
Gamma
"Sr
3H
3H
3H+(enriched
tritium)
46
663
15
44
44
23
8
22.4
1.3
0.5
4.1*
17*
* True mean
82
-------
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 something
otherthan normal statistical variation that contributed
to the difference between the measured values and
the known value.
The analytical methods are further validated by labo-
ratory participation in the semiannual DOE QA Pro-
gram conducted by the EML, New York, NY. The
1990 results from these tests (Table 20 and Table A9
in the Appendix) indicate that the EPA EMSL-LV
laboratory results were of acceptable quality in that
the DQOs for accuracy of radiochemical analyses
given in Section 6.3.1 were met or exceeded for most
radionuclides as indicated by the ratios.
6.9 QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR BIOMONI-
TORING PROGRAM
To measure the performance of the contractor labo-
ratory 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
the known amount in bone ash in Table A10 (Appen-
dix). The percent bias for the spiked samples was
determined by subtracting 100 from the average
percent of activity recovered. As the contractor
laboratory had difficulty recovering strontium in two
shipments, a special shipment of four spiked bone
ash samples was provided in April 1991. The aver-
age bias for ^Sr, including these four samples plus
all valid routine samples, was 61 percent. The
average bias for239+240Pu was two percent, based on
two sample analyses. Precision was determined by
calculating the coefficient of variation for each pair of
values and then averaging. The average precision
determined from two sets of duplicate bone samples
was 70 percent for 239+240Pu and 11 percent for ^Sr.
The average precision for three sets of liver samples
was 23 percent for239*240?^ The DQO for uncertainty
in results less than ten times the MDC is 60%. This
DQO was met with the exception of 239+240Pu in bone
samples. However, overall precision was calculated
using results less than the MDC, for which precision
is undefined.
TABLE 20. QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS FROM
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM — 1990
ANALYSIS MONTH
54 MN
in air
57Co
in air
""Co
in air
"Sr
in air
134Cs
in air
137Cs
in air
144Ce
in air
in air
3H
in water
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
EPA EMSL-LV EML RATIO
RESULTS RESULTS EPA/EML
41.9
15.1
28.1
0.100
20.7
19.6
20.9
0.0467
4430
33.3
11.4
25.4
0.093
16.3
15.7
16.5
0.0510
3900
1.26
1.32
1.11
1.08
1.27
1.25
1.27
0.92
1.14
ANALYSIS
54 Mn
in water
57Co
in water
60Co
in water
""Sr
in water
134Cs
in water
137Cs
in water
in water
in water
Total U
EPA EMSL-LV
MONTH RESULTS
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
302
1350
503
9.00
372
403
908
0.857
0.527
EPA EMSL-LV = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
EML = Environmental Monitoring Laboratory.
EML RATIO
RESULTS EPA/EML
301
1300
491
9.93
355
390
923
1.09
0.480
Vegas.
1.00
1.04
1.02
0.91
1.05
1.03
0.98
0.79
1.10
83
-------
-------
7 Dose Assessment
W. G. Phillips
The extensive offsite environmental surveillance system operated around the NTS by EPA EMSL-LV
measured no radiological exposures that could be attributed to recent NTS operations. Calculation
of potential dose to offsite residents, based on onsite source emission measurements provided by
DOE and calculated by EPA's AIRDOS-PC model, resulted in a maximum calculated dose of
6 x 10H mrem (6 x 1Q-5 mSv) to a hypothetical resident of Crystal, N V, 31 miles (52 km) south of the NTS
CP-1. Monitoring network data indicated a 1990 dose of 123 mrem from normal background radiation
occurring at Crystal. The calculated population dose to the approximately 7,700 residents living
within 48 miles (80 km) of CP-1 was 1.5 x 10~2 person-rem (1.5 x 10^ person-sievert).
7.1 ESTIMATED DOSE FROM NEVADA
TEST SITE ACTIVITIES
The estimated effective dose equivalentto the offsite
population due to NTS activities was based on the
total release of radioactivity from the NTS in 1990 as
listed in Table 2. As no radioactivity of recent NTS
origin was detectable offsite by the various monitoring
networks, no measurable exposure to the population
living around the NTS was expected. To confirm this
expectation, a calculation of estimated dose was
performed using EPA's AIRDOS-PC model. The
individuals exposed were considered to be all of
those living within a radius of 48 miles (80 km) of the
NTS CP-1, a total of 7,700 individuals. The hypo-
thetical individual with the maximum calculated dose
from airborne NTS radioactivity would have been
continuously present at Crystal, NV, 31 miles (52 km)
south of CP-1. That maximum dose was 6 x 1Q-3
mrem (6 x 1Q-5 mSv). The population dose within 80
kilometers from airborne emissions was calculated
to be 1.5 x 10~2 person-rem (1.5 x 10^ person-Sv).
During calendar year 1990, there were four sources
of possible radiation exposure to the population of
Nevadathat were measured by the offsite monitoring
networks. The four sources were:
Operational releases of radioactivity from
the NTS, including those from drillback and
purging activities.
• Radioactivity that was accumulated in mi-
gratory game animals during their residence
on the NTS.
Worldwide distributions, such as 90Sr in milk
and 85Kr in air.
Background radiation due to natural sources
such as cosmic radiation, natural radioactivity
in soil, and 7Be in air.
The estimated dose equivalent exposures from these
sources to persons living near the NTS are calculated
separately in the following subsections. Table 21
summarizes the annual effective dose equivalents
due to operations at the NTS during 1990 using
AIRDOS-PC and the released radionuclides listed
in Table 2.
7.2 ESTIMATED DOSE FROM WORLDWIDE
FALLOUT
From the monitoring networks described in previous
chapters of this report, the following concentrations
of radioactivity were found:
• 3H; 6 x 1 0-7 uCi/m3 of air (2.2 x 1 0~2 Bq/m3),
• ^Kr; 26 pCi/m3 of air (1 Bq/m3).
• 90Sr; 6 x 1 0-7 nCi/L in milk (2.2 x 1 0'2 Bq/L)..
• 137Cs; 38 pCi/kg in deer kidney (1 .4 Bq/kg),
; 0 201 pci/kg (7x 1 0'3 Bq/kg) in beef
liver and 0. 1 02 pCi/kg (4 x 1 0~3 Bq/kg) in deer
meat.
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 (for a ten-year old) is 1 60 L/year.
85
-------
TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENTS
FROM NEVADA TEST SITE OPERATIONS DURING 1990
MAXIMUM DOSE AT
NTS BOUNDARY*
MAXIMUM
DOSE TO
AN INDIVIDUAL11
COLLECTIVE DOSE TO
POPULATION WITHIN
80 km of NTS CP-1
Dose
Location
NESHAP
Standard
Percentage of
NESHAP
Background
Percentage of
Background
8.9x10-" mrem
Site boundary 30 km
south of NTS CP-1 at 191°
123 ±5.3 mrem
(1.2 mSv)
7.2xio-3%
6.0 ±0.6x10-° mrem
Crystal, Nevada, 52 km
south of NTS CP-1
10 mrem per year
(0.1 mSv per yr)
6.0X10-2
123 ±5.3 mrem
(1.2mSv)
4.9x10-3%
LSxIO^person-rem
(1.5x1CHperson-Sv)
7700 people within
80 km of NTS CP-1
759 person-rem
(7.9 person-Sv)
2x10-3%
'The maximum boundary dose is to a hypothetical individual who remains in the open continuously during the year at the Nevada
Test Site (NTS) boundary located 30 km from Control Point-1 (CP-1) in the direction 191° south.
"The maximum individual dose is to an individual outside the NTS boundary at a residence where the highest dose-rate occurs as
calculated by AIRDOS-PC (Version 3.0) using NTS effluents listed in Table 2 and assuming all Inflated water input to containment
ponds was evaporated.
• Consumption of beef liver is 0.5 Ib/wk (11.5
kg/yr).
• An average deer has 100 Ib (45 kg) of meat.
The dose conversion factors are derived from Ap-
pendix C of NCRP Commentary No. 3 (NCRP89).
These are:
• 3H;1.3x10-7mrem/pCi.
• MSr;1.3x10^rnrem/pCi.
• 137Cs;4.6x10^mrem/pCi.
r; 1.1 x 10~5 mrem/yr per pCi/m3.
; 9 x -j 0-4 mrem/pCi.
As an example calculation, the following is the result
for 3H exposure from breathing HTO:
• 0.6 pCi/m3 x 8400 rrWyr x (1.3 x 10~7 mrem/
pCi) = 6.6 x 10"4 mrem/yr. However, in
calculating the inhalation dose from 3H, the
value is always doubled to account for ab-
sorption through the skin. The total dose,
therefore, is 1.2 x 10'3 mrem/yr.
0.6 pCi/L x 1 60 L/yr x (1 .3 x 10^ mrem/
pCi) = 0.01 2 mrem/yr.
Also:
; 26 pCi/m3 x (1 .1 x 1 0"5 mrem/year per
pCi/m3' =3x10^ mrem/yr.
. 239+240PU- a2rji pCi/kg x 1 1 .8 kg/yr x (9 x
lO^mrem/pCi) =2.1 x 1Q-3 mrem/yr.
Therefore, exposure to worldwide fallout causes a
dose equivalent equal to the sum of the four preced-
ing exposures or approximately 1 .5 x 1 Q-2 mrem (1 .5
7.3
ESTIMATED DOSE FROM
RADIOACTIVITY IN A NEVADA
TEST SITE DEER
The highest measured concentrations of radionu-
clides in deer tissues occurred in deer collected on
the NTS. There was 38 pCi/kg of 137Cs in a kidney
sample and 0.1 pCi/kg of ^^Pu in a muscle
sample.
In the unlikely eventthat one such deer was collected
by a hunter in offsite areas, the hunter's intake could
be calculated. Assuming two pounds (0.9 kg) of
86
-------
kidney and 100 pounds (45 kg) of meat with the
radionuclide concentrations listed above, the dose
equivalent would be:
• 38 pCi/kg x 0.9 kg x (4.6 x 1 0~5 mrem/pCi) =
1.6x
surements that vary from 50 to 170 mR/year, de-
pending on location.
• 0.1 pCi/kg x 45 kg x (9 x 1 0-* mrem/pCi) =
4 x 1 0"3 mrem.
Thus, approximately 6 tirem (6 x 1 0~5 mSv) would be
delivered to one individual consuming the stated
quantity of meat and assuming no radioactivity was
lost in food preparation.
7.4 DOSE FROM BACKGROUND
RADIATION
In addition to external radiation exposure due to
cosmic rays and gamma radiation from naturally
occurring radionuclides in soil (e.g-.^K, uranium and
thorium daughters), there is a contribution from 7Be
that is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic ray
interactions with oxygen and nitrogen. The annual
average 7Be concentration measured by the offsite
airsurveillance network was 0.11 pCi/m3. Withadose
conversion factor for inhalation of 2.6 x 10~7 mrem/
pCi, this equates to 2.4 x 1Q-4 mrem, a negligible
quantity when compared with the PIC network mea-
7.5
SUMMARY
The individual with the calculated (modeled) highest
exposure to NTS effluent during 1990 was a hypo-
thetical person living in Crystal, NV, where the NTS
exposure, plus that due to worldwide fallout, plus
background would total (6X1Q-3) + (LSxIQ-2)*
123 mrem = 123 mrem (1.2 mSv). Both the NTS and
worldwide distributions contribute a negligible amount
of exposure compared to natural background. If one
of these people was to collect and consume an NTS
deer, that estimated dose equivalent would increase
by 6 x 10"3 mrem, a negligible amount.
The 123 mrem figure is derived from average PIC
field measurements of 14 |j.R/hr. The uncertainty
(2o) for this measurement at this exposure level is
approximately 4.3%. Extrapolating to the calculated
annual exposure at Crystal, NV, yields a total un-
certainty of approximately 5.3 mrem. The estimated
dose from NTS activities is much less than 1 mrem,
the lowest level for which DQOs are defined, as given
in Section 6.3.1. Therefore, no conclusions can be
made regarding the achieved data quality as com-
pared to the DQO.
87
-------
-------
8 Sample Analysis Procedures
R. W. Holloway
The procedures for analyzing samples collected for this report are described in Johns et ai. (EMSL79)
and are summarized in Table 22. These include gamma analysis, gross beta on air filters, strontium,
tritium, plutonium, and noble gas analyses. These procedures outline standard methods used to
perform given analytical procedures.
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
TYPE OF
ANALYSIS
IG Ge(Li)
Gamma"
Gross beta on
air filters
ANALYTICAL
EQUIPMENT
IG or GE(Li)
detector-
calibrated at
0.5 keV/
channel
(0.04 to 2
meV range)
individual
detector
efficiencies
ranging from
15 to 35%.
Low-level end
window, gas
flow pro-
portional
counter with a
5-cm diameter
window
COUNTING
PERIOD (min)
Air charcoal
cartridges and
individual air
filters, 30; 100
for milk, water,
suspended
solids.
30
ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES
Radionuclide concen-
tration quantified from
gamma spectral data
by online computer
program. Radionu-
clides in air filter com-
posite samples are
identified only.
Samples are
counted after decay
of naturally occurring
radionuclides and, if
necessary, extrapo-
lated to midpoint of
collection in accor-
SAMPLE
SIZE
560 m3 for air
filters and
charcoal car-
tridges; 3.5 L
for milk
and water.
560m3
APPROXIMATE
DETECTION LIMIT*
For routine milk and
water generally, 5 x
1 0"9 nCi/mL (1 .85 x
lO-'Bq/L) for most
common fallout radio-
nuclides in a simple
spectrum. Filters for
LTHMP suspended
solids, 6 xlO^uCi/mL
(2.22x10-1Bq/L). Air
filters and charcoal
cartridges, 0.04x1 0-12
Bq/m3).
2.5x10-15nCi/mL
(9.25 X10-5 Bq/m3)
dance with f1-2 decay
or an experimentally-
derived decay.
Low
background
thin-window,
gas-flow,
proportional
counter.
50 Chemical separation
by ion exchange.
Separated sample
counted succes-
sively; activity calcu-
lated by simulta-
neous solution of
equations.
1.0 L for milk
or water. 0.1
to1 kg
for tissue.
89Sr = 5x10-9|iCi/mL
(1.85x10-1Bq/L)
90Sr = 2x10-9nCi/mL
(7.4x10-^/1)
(continued)
89
-------
TABLE 22. (Continued)
TYPE OF
ANALYSIS
3H
ANALYTICAL
EQUIPMENT
Automatic
liquid
scintillation
counter
with output
printer.
COUNTING
PERIOD (min)
300
ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES
Sample prepared by
distillation.
SAMPLE
SIZE
5 to 10mLfor
water.
APPROXIMATE
DETECTION LIMIT-
300 to 700 x
10-*uCi/mL
(11-26Bq/L)°
3H Enrichment
(LTHMP samples)
Automatic
liquid
scintillation
counter
with output
printer.
300 Sample concen-
trated by electrolysis
followed by
distillation.
250 mL for
water.
238,239»240pu
Alpha
spectrometer
with silicon
surface
barrier
detectors
operated in
vacuum
chambers.
1,000 Water sample or LOLfor
acid-digested filter or water; 0.1 to
tissue samples 1 kg for
separated by ion tissue; 5,000
exchange, electro- to 10,000 m3
plated on stainless for air.
steel planchet.
0.08x10-»
nCi/mL (2.9X10-3
Bq/L), 23i««>pu = 0.04
x10-»|iCi/mL(1.5x
10-3 Bq/L) for water.
For tissue samples,
0.04 pCi (1.5x10^
Bq) per total sample
for all isotopes; 5 x
10-"to10x10-17
nCi/mL (1.9x10-" to
3.7 x-\Cr* Bq/mP tor
plutonium on air
filters.
133Xe, 135Xe
Automatic
liquid scin-
tillation counter
with output
printer.
200 Separation by gas
chromatography;
dissolved in
toluene "cocktail" for
counting.
0.4 to 1.0m3
for air.
ffiKr, 133Xe, 13SXe = 4 x
10-l2nCi/mL(1.5x
10-1 Bq/m3)
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.
Depending on sample type.
90
-------
9 Radiation Protection Standards for External
and Internal Exposure
N. R. Sunderland
Design and operation of the ORSP are based on requirements and guidelines contained in applicable
legislation and literature. A summary of applicable regulations and guidelines follows.
9.1
DOSE EQUIVALENT COMMITMENT
9.2
CONCENTRATION GUIDES
For stochastic effects in members of the public, the
following limits are used:
EFFECTIVE DOSE
DOSE EQUIVALENT*
mrem/yr mSv/yr
Occasional annual exposures6 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
(ICRP39).
ICRP-30 lists Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) and
Annual Limit on Intake (ALI)(ICRP79). The All is the
secondary limit and can be used with assumed
breathing rates and ingested volumes to calculate
concentration guides. The concentration guides
(CGs) in Table 23 were derived in this manner and
yield the committed effective dose equivalent (50
year) of 100 mrem/yr for members of the public.
9.3 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY DRINKING WATER GUIDE
In 40 CFR 141 (CFR88), the EPA set allowable
concentrations for continuous controlled releases of
radionuclides to drinking water sources. Any single
or combination of beta and gamma emitters should
not lead to exposures exceeding 4 mrem/yr. For
tritium, this is 2.0 x 1Q-5 u,Ci/mL (740 Bq/L) and for
TABLE 23. ROUTINE MONITORING
SAMPLING
NUCLIDE FREQUENCY
Air Surveillance Network
7Be 1/wk
KZf 1/wk
^Nb 1/wk
"Mo 1/wk
103Ru 1/wk
131 1 1/wk
132Te 1/wk
137Cs 1/wk
140Ba 1/wk
LOCATIONS
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
SAMPLE
SIZE
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
COUNT
TIME
Minutes
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
GUIDES
CONCENTRATIONS
GUIDE"
Bq/m3
1700
12
110
110
58
4
17
12
120
[iCi/mL
4.7x10-"
3x10-10
3x10^
3x10-*
1.5x10-*
1x10-10
5x10-10
3x10-10
3X10-9
Bq/L).
MDC
mBq/m3-
17
4.1
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
4.8
MDC
(%CG)
1 X10-3
4x10-2
2X10-3
2X10-3
3x10-
4x10-2
1 x10-2
2x10-2
4X10-3
(continued)
91
-------
TABLE 23. (Continued)
SAMPLING
NUCLIDE FREQUENCY
SAMPLE
LOCATIONS SIZE
Air Surveillance Network
1+°La
141Ce
144Ce
«Pu
Gross Beta
3H
»5Kr
133Xe
13SXe
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/mo
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
Water Surveillance Network
3H
1/mo
3H* 1/mo
(enriched tritium)
8»Sr
""Sr
137Cs
-Ra
«u
-u
«u
-Pu
239»240py
Gamma
1 st time
1 st time
1/mo
1st time
1st time
1 st time
1st time
1st time
1st time
1/mo
all
all
all
all
all
19
16
16
16
(LTHMPV
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
Milk Surveillance Network
3H
131 1
137Cs
89Sr
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
1/mo
all
all
all
all
ma
560
560
560
2400
560
5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Liters
1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.5
Liters
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
COUNT
TIME
Minutes
30
30
30
1000
30
150
200
200
200
Minutes
300
300
50
50
100
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
30
Minutes
300
100
100
50
CONCENTRATIONS
GUIDE-
BO?
120
52
1.2
5x1CH
2x10'2
4.6 X103
2.2 x 104
1.8X104
2.3 X103
Bq/L
740
740
16
0.8
3.3
1.4
8.2
10
10
6.2
4.1
-
Ba/L
12x10*
41
160
820
(iCi/mL
3x1O*
1.4x10"*
3x10-"
1 x10-14
5x10-13
1.2X10-7
6.2 x10-7
4.9 x10-7
6.2x10"*
)iCi/mL
2X10-5
2x10-*
4.4 x10-7
2.2x10-"
8.8x10-"
3.9x10-"
2.2 x10-7
2.8x10-"
2.8x10-"
1.7x10-"
1.1 x10-"
-
^Ci/mL
3X10-3
1 x10-"
4x10-"
2x10-*
MDC
mBq/m3
2.6
3.0
12
1.5x10^
0.11
148
148
370
370
Bq/L
12
0.37
0.18
0.074
0.33
0.037
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.003
0.002
0.18
Ba/L
12
0.18
0.33
0.18
MDC
(%CG)
2x10-*
6x10^
1.0
0.32
6x10-1
3x10^
6x10^
2X10-3
2X10-2
1.6
5x10-*
1.1
9.2
10
2.6
0.04
0.035
0.035
0.05
0.05
<0.2
0.01
0.44
0.2
0.02
(continued)
92
-------
TABLE 23. (Continued)
SAMPLING
NUCLIDE FREQUENCY LOCATIONS
Milk Surveillance Network
""Sr 1/mo all
Dosimetry Networks Locations
TLD 1/mo 71
(Personnel)
TLD 1/qtr 134
(Station)
PIC weekly 28
SAMPLE COUNT CONCENTRATIONS
SIZE TIME GUIDE- MDC
Liters Minutes Bq/L iiCi/mL Bq/L
3.5 50 40 1x10-* 0.074
Number Exposure Guide MDC
1 100mR 3.01 mrem
3 to 6 - 5.10 mrem
2016 - 2jiR/hr
MDC
(%CG)
0.18
MDC (%CG)
2
-
-
'ALI and DAC values from ICRP-30 modified to 1 mSv annual effective dose equivalent for continuous exposure. Te and I data
corrected to 2 g 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) (CFR88).
93
-------
-------
References
AEC71 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1971. Ef-
fluent and Environmental Monitoring and Reporting.
In: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Manual,
Chapter 0513. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C.
ANSI75 American National Standards Institute,
1975. ANSI Standard A/545-1975. American Na-
tional Standards Institute, New York, NY. 16 pp.
BEIR80 Committee on the Biological Effects of Ion-
izing Radiation, 1980. The Effects on Populations of
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Na-
tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
CFR88 Code of Federal Regulations, 1988. Drink-
ing Water Regulations, Title 40, part 141, Washing-
ton D.C.
DOC86 Bureau of the Census, 1986. 1986 Popu-
lation and 1985 Per Capita Income Estimates for
Counties and Incorporated Places, Publication
Number P-26. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C.
DOC90 Bureau of the Census, 1990. Population
Count Pursuant to Public Law 94-171. U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
DOE81 Corley, J.P., D.H. Denham, R.E. Jaquish,
D.E.Michels.A.R.OIsen.D.A. Waite, 1981. A Guide
for Environmental Radiological Surveillance at U.S.
Dept. of Energy Installations, DOE/EP-0023. Office
of Operational Safety Report, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C.
DOE85 U.S. Department of Energy, 1985. Environ-
mental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection
Information Reporting Requirements. DOE Order
5484.1. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C.
DOE88 U.S. Department of Energy, 1988. General
Environmental Protection Program, DOE Order
5400.1. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C.
DOE90 Bingham, F.E., 1990 (Unpublished). Radio-
active Effluent Reports, Department of Energy, En-
vironmental Protection Division. Personal commu-
nication to C. F. Costa, EMSL-LV, March 8,1990.
DOE91 U.S. Department of Energy, 1991. Envi-
ronmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Efflu-
ent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance, DOEJ
EH-0173T. U.S. Department of Energy, Washing-
ton, D.C.
EMSL79 Johns, F., 1979. Radiochemical and
Analytical Procedures for Analysis of Environmental
Samples, EMSL-LV-0539-17-1979. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV.
EPA87 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.
Quality Assurance Program Plan, EPA/600/X-87/241.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
NV.
EPA88A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1988. Environmental Radiation Data, Draft Report
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation Programs, Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility, Montgomery, AL.
EPA88B U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1988. Monitoring Radiation from Nuclear Tests. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
EPA89 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.
EPA Journal. United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Public Affairs (A-107), Wash-
ington, D.C.
EPA90 Costa, C.F., N.R. Sunderland, S.C. Black,
M.W. Chilton, B.B. Dicey, W. G. Phillips, C.A. Fontana,
R.W. Holloway, O.K. Liu, A.A. Mullen, V.E. Niemann,
C.J. Rizzardi, D.D. Smith, D.J. Thome', E.A. Thomp-
son, 1990. Offsite Enviromental Monitoring Report:
Radiation Monitoring Around United States Nuclear
TestAreas, Calendar Year 1989, EPA/600/4-90/016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
NV.
EPA91A Costa, C.F., 1991 (Unpublished). Offsite
Remedial Action Capability for Underground Nuclear
Weapons Test Accidents. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
EPA91B U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1991. Onsite and Offsite Environmental Monitoring
95
-------
Report: Radiation Monitoring Around Tatum Salt
Dome, Lamar County, Mississippi, EPA 600/4-91/
005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, NV.
ERDA77 U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, 1977. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Nye County, Nevada, Report ERDA-1551.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
FRE62 Freund, J. E., 1962. Mathematical Statis-
tics. Prentice Hall Press, Englewood, NJ.
HO75 Houghton, J. G., C.M. Sakamoto, R.O. Gifford,
1975. Nevada Weather and Climate, Special Pub-
lication 2. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology,
University of Nevada, Mackay School of Mines,
Reno, NV.
ICRP39 International Commission in Radiological
Protection, 1983. Principles for Limiting Exposure of
the Public to Natural Sources of Radiation, Annual
Limit on Intake (ALI) and Derived Air Concentrations
(DAC) for Members of the Public, ICRP-39. Inter-
national Commission in Radiological Protection.
ICRP79 International Commission in Radiological
Protection, 1982. Limits for Intake of Radionuclides
by Workers, ICRP-30. International Commission in
Radiological Protection.
JA81 Jarvis, A. N., L Siu, 1981. Environmental
Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies
Program — FY 1981-82, EPA-600/4-81-004. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV.
NCRP89 National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurement, 1989. Screening Techniques for
Determining Compliance with Environmental Stan-
dards: Releases of Radionuclides to the Atmo-
sphere, NCRP Commentary No. 3. National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurement, Wash-
ington, D.C.
NEL75 Nelson, L, S.J. Qual, 1975. Tech. 7 (1),
January.
NPS90 National Park Service, 1990. Personal
communication from Supervisor Park Ranger, R.
Hopkins, Death Valley National Monument, Death
Valley, CA.
NRC77 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977.
Regulatory Guide 4.13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Standards Development,
Washington, D.C. 3 pp.
NRC81 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981.
Glossary of Terms, Nuclear Power and Radiation,
NUREG-0770. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, Washington, D.C.
QU68 Quiring, R. E., 1968. Climatological Data,
Nevada Test Site, Nuclear Rocket Development
Station (NRDS), ERLTM-ARL-7. ESSA Research
Laboratories, Las Vegas, NV.
SCB89 Black, S.C., 1989. Memorandum to C. F.
Costa, Subject: DQO's For The Offsite Radiological
Monitoring Program, dated September 10. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV.
SNE67 Snedecor, G.W., W.G. Cochran, 1967.
Statistical Methods, 6th edition. The Iowa State Uni-
versity Press, Ames, IA.
SRS89 Westinghouse Savanah River Company,
1989. Savannah River Site Environmental Report
for 1988. Westinghouse Savannah River Company.
VEL81 Velleman, P.F., D.C. Hoaglin, 1981. Appli-
cations Basics, and Computing of Exploratory Data
Analysis. Duxbury Press, Boston, MA.
96
-------
Glossary of Terms
Definitions of terms given here are modified from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glossary of terms
(NRC81).
background The radiation in man's natural en-
radiation vironment, including cosmic rays
and radiation from the naturally ra-
dioactive elements, both outside and
inside the bodies of humans and
animals. It is also called natural
radiation. The usually quoted av-
erage individual exposure from
background radiation is 125 millirem
per year in midlatitudes at sea level.
beta A charged particle emitted from a
particle (13) 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, of measurement of radio-
activity equal to one nuclear trans-
formation per second.
blind samples A spiked sample unknown to the
technician which has been intro-
duced into the laboratory as a
separate sample. These samples
are used for the verification of ana-
lytical accuracy. Approximately one
percent of the sample load shall be
blind samples.
cosmic Penetrating ionizing radiation, both
radiation paniculate and electromagnetic,
originating in space. Secondary
cosmic rays, formed by interactions
in the earth's atmosphere, account
for about 45 to 50 millirem of the 125
millirem background radiation that
an average individual receives in a
year.
coulomb (C) UnitofelectricalchargeintheMKSA
system of units. A coulomb is a
quantity of a charge equal to one
ampere-second.
curie (Ci) The basic unit used to describe the
rate of radioactive disintegration.
The curie is equal to 37 billion disin-
tegrations per second, which is ap-
proximately the rate of decay of 1
gram of radium; named for Marie
and Pierre Curie, who discovered
radium in 1898.
dosimeter A portable instrumentfor measuring
and registering the total accumu-
lated dose to ionizing radiation.
duplicate A second aliquot of a sample which
is approximately equal in mass or
volume to the first aliquot and is
analyzedforthe sample parameters.
The laboratory performs duplicate
analyses to evaluate the precision
of an analysis.
half-life The time in which half the atoms of
a particular radioactive substance
disintegrate to anothernuclearform.
Measured half-lives vary from mil-
lionths of a second to billions ol
years. Also called physical halflife.
ionization The process of adding one or more
electrons to, or removing one or
more electrons from, atoms or
molecules, thereby creating ions.
High temperatures, electrical dis-
charges, nuclear radiation, and x--
rays can cause ionization.
ionization An instrument that detects 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 dif-
ferent numbers of neutrons in their
97
-------
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 properties,
but often different physical proper-
ties (for example, 12C and 13C are
stable, 14C is radioactive).
matrix spike An aliquot of a sample which is
spiked with a known concentration
of the analyte of interest. The pur-
pose of analyzing this type of sample
is to evaluate to the effect of the
sample matrix upon the analytical
methodology.
method blank A method blank is a volume of
demineralized water for liquid
samples, or an appropriate solid
matrix for soil/sediment samples,
carried through the entire analytical
procedure. The volume or weight of
the blank must be approximately
equal to the volume or weight of the
sample processed. Analysis of the
blank verifies that method interfer-
ences caused by contaminants in
solvents, reagents, glassware, and
other sample processing hardware
are known and minimized.
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 five percent each (DOE81).
millirem A one-thousandth part of a rem.
(mrem) (See rem.)
milliroentgen A one-thousandth part of a roent-
(mR) gen. (See roentgen.)
noble gas A gaseous element that does not
readily enter into chemical combi-
nation with other elements. An inert
gas.
personnel The determination of the degree of
monitoring radioactive contamination on indi-
viduals 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 com-
mon 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
radioisotope
radionuclide
rem
roentgen (R)
scintillation
(detector or
counter)
sievert (Sv)
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 ma-
terial.
An unstable isotope of an element
that decays or disintegrates spon-
taneously, emitting radiation.
A radioisotope.
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.)
A unit of exposure to ionizing ra-
diation. It is that amount of gamma
or X-rays required to produce ions
carrying one electrostatic unit of
electrical charge in one cubic cen-
timeter of dry air under standard
conditions. Named after Wilhelm
Roentgen, German scientist who
discovered X-rays in 1895.
The combination of phosphor, pho-
tomultiplier tube, and associated
counter electronic circuits for
counting light emissions produced
inthe phosphor by ionizing radiation.
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).
98
-------
terrestrial The portion of natural radiation
radiation (background) that is emitted by
naturally occurring radioactive ma-
terials in the earth.
tritium A radioactive isotope of hydrogen
that decays by beta emission. It's
half-life is about 12.5 years.
verification/ A prepared sample of known
reference concentration of a purchased
standard standard reference material. These
samples are analyzed in triplicate
and the results are used to verify
accuracy and precision of the pro-
cedure.
X-rays Penetrating electromagnetic radia-
tion (photon) having a wavelength
that is much shorter than that of
visible light. These rays are usually
produced by excitation of the elec-
tron 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.
99
-------
-------
Appendix
Supplementary Figures and Tables
Included here are additional figures and tables, presented in the order in which they are referenced in the text.
The figures include the box-and-whisker plots of 1990 and historical data. A description of the box-and-
whisker plots is presented in Section 6.4.1. A listing of the contents of this Appendix follows:
Figures
Number Page
A1. Historical gross beta trends in air samples- monthly averages 106
A2. Historical MKr trends in air samples - monthly averages 108
A3. Historical ^Sr trends in milk samples - monthly averages 123
A4. Historical 3H trends in milk samples - monthly averages 124
A5. Historical ^Sr trends in standby milk samples - monthly averages 125
A6. Historical 3H trends in standby milk samples - monthly averages 126
A7. 3H concentrations in desert bighorn sheep kidneys, 1981-1989 127
A8. 137Cs concentrations in desert bighorn sheep kidneys, 1981-1989 127
A9. ^Sr concentrations in desert bighorn sheep bones, 1981-1989 127
A10. 238Pu concentrations in desert bighorn sheep bones, 1981-1989 127
A11. 239+24<>pu concentrations in desert bighorn sheep bones, 1981-1989 128
A12. 3H concentrations in cattle tissue, 1981-1990 128
A13. ^Sr concentrations in cattle bones, 1981-1990 128
A14. 238Pu concentrations in cattle bones, 1981-1990 128
A15. 239+2topu concentrations in cattle bones, 1981-1990 129
A16. 238Pu concentrations in bovine liver, 1981-1990 129
A17. 239*24oPu concentrations in bovine liver, 1981-1990 129
A18. 3H concentrations in mule deer combined tissues, 1981 -1990 129
A19. Thermoluminescent dosimeter monitoring results foroffsite residents 132
A20. Thermoluminescent dosimeter monitoring results for fixed stations 136
A21. Historical trends of pressurized ion chamber samples by station 137
A22. Historical trends of 3H in urine samples 149
A23. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Faultless 150
A24. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Shoal 151
A25. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Rio Blanco 152
A26. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Rulison 153
A27. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Dribble-town
and residences 154
A28. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Dribble —
near ground zero 155
A29. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Gasbuggy 156
A30. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Gnome 157
A31. Historical trends of 3H in water samples by locations 165
A32. Water data plots 166
101
-------
Tables
Number Page
A1. Concentrations of ^Pu and 239+240Pu 103
A2. Summary of Analytical Results for the Milk Surveillance Network -1990 112
A3. Summary of Analytical Results for the Standby Milk Surveillance Network -1990 118
A4. Thermoluminscent Dosimeter Results for Offsite Personnel-1990 130
A5. Thermoluminscent Dosimeter Results for Offsite Stations -1990 133
A6. Tritium in Urine, Radiological Safety Program -1990 144
A7. Tritium in Urine, Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program -1990 146
A8. Tritium Results for the Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program -1990 158
A9. EPA Quality Assurance Intercomparison Results -1990 168
A10. Quality Assurance Results for the Biomonitoring Program -1990 170
102
-------
TABLE A1. CONCENTRATIONS OF ^Pu AND ao+^Pu
(Composited Air Samples — 1989 and 1990)
COMPOSITE
SAMPLING LOCATION
WINSLOW & TUCSON AZ
BISHOP & RIDGECREST CA
DENVER & CORTEZ CO
NAMPA& MOUNTAIN HOME ID
CLAYTON & JOPLIN MO
GREAT FALLS & MILES CITY MT
LAS VEGAS NV
COLLECTION
DATE
08/02/89
11/01/89
01/26/90
05/02/90
09/17/90
12/19/90
08/23/89
11/01/89
01/11/90
05/02/90
08/09/90
11/09/90
08/21/89
11/01/89
03/01/90
06/27/90
08/20/90
11/28/90
09/18/89
11/12/89
01/29/90
05/02/90
07/23/90
10/22/90
08/28/89
11/03/89
03/01/90
06/25/90
09/17/90
11/26/90
08/21/89
11/01/90
01/25/90
05/02/89
09/17/90
12/28/90
07/30/89
08/28/89
09/25/89
10/30/89
11/27/89
12/25/89
01/29/90
02/26/90
03/26/90
04/30/90
05/29/90
06/25/90
07/29/90
08/27/90
CONCENTRATION ± 1 S. D. (MDC)
Z»pu 23>*240pu
(1 fr18 jiCi/mL) (1 0-" nCI/mL)
7.6
46
8.9
80
4
6
21
-0.03
6.2
-43
-9
10
28
25
8.9
29
33
0
14
11
14
-6.5
14
-19
0
-58
-7.9
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
+
+
±
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
17
40
5.9
81
7.7
11
26
200
5.8
38
21
18
25
36
6.4
29
33
19
26
22
7.5
20
14
19
8.2
150
21
(50)
(110)
(15)
(190)
(21)
(29)
(74)
(670)
(16)
(150)
(76)
(49)
(66)
(100)
(17)
(67)
(77)
(63)
(80)
(67)
(18)
(68)
(33)
(88)
(27)
(540)
(73)
SAMPLE LOST
10
-5
-5.2
-33
6.8
18
0
0
-28
0
0
2.6
17
-51
4.9
2.4
7.5
2.1
-27
4.8
-8.8
-5.5
±
±
+
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
17
9
7.4
87
23
32
10
9.9
15
2.5
14
7.8
8.6
31
2.7
4.2
3.8
3.7
24
8.4
8.8
5.5
(46)
(35)
(27)
(300)
(71)
(96)
(33)
(33)
(64)
(8.3)
(45)
(24)
(20)
(130)
(6.6)
(13)
(8.7)
(9.9)
(93)
(23)
(36)
(26)
-7.6
-11
3
40
4
0
0
0
-1.5
14
-9
10
-7.1
0
0
-14
0
-14
0
0
0
0
-7
0
-4.1
58
0
±
±
±
±
7.7
11
-3
-70
±9.8
±8.8
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
+
±
+
10
100
1.5
25
9.5
18
12
18
2.5
14
23
14
9.9
11
2.7
9.2
7.2
27
4.1
100
11
(36)
(53)
(6.9)
(190)
(29)
(29)
(33)
(330)
(7.2)
(66)
(44)
(49)
(47)
(59)
(8.3)
(67)
(77)
(63)
(33)
(36)
(9)
(30)
(33)
(88)
(19)
(270)
(37)
SAMPLE LOST
10
5
0
0
6.8
-9.2
7
5
0
2
-4.8
0
0
0
2.1
2.4
0.9
2.1
27
0
4.4
-5.5
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
±
±
±
17
9
3.7
46
12
9.3
12
8.6
7.9
1.8
4.8
3.7
3.1
20
1.6
2.4
1.6
3.7
20
6.8
7.7
9.5
(46)
(24)
(12)
(150)
(32)
(43)
(33)
(23)
(26)
(4.4)
(22)
(12)
(10)
(67)
(3.3)
(5.6)
(4.4)
(9.9)
(42)
(23)
(21)
(36)
(continued)
103
-------
COMPOSITE
SAMPLING LOCATION
LATHROP WELLS NV
RACHEL NV
ALBUQUERQUE & CARLSBAD NM
BISMARCK & FARGO ND
TABLE A1.
COLLECTION
DATE
09/24/90
10/08/90
11/26/90
12/31/90
07/30/89
08/28/89
09/24/89
10/29/89
11/27/89
12/26/89
01/28/90
02/26/90
03/26/90
04/29/90
05/27/90
06/24/90
07/30/90
08/26/90
09/30/90
10/28/90
11/25/90
12/30/90
07/31/89
08/28/89
09/25/89
10/30/89
11/27/89
12/26/89
01/28/90
02/26/90
03/26/90
04/30/90
05/28/90
06/25/90
07/29/90
08/26/90
09/23/90
10/28/90
11/25/90
12/25/90
08/21/89
11/01/89
01/29/90
05/02/90
09/17/90
11/26/90
08/21/89
10/31/89
02/05/90
09/24/90
11/26/90
Continued
CONCENTRATION + 1
»>PU
(10-18nCi/mL)
-2.8 ± 2.8 (13)
1 ± 2.3 (6.9)
3.7 ± 4.4 (12)
*11 ± 5.8 (10)
12 ± 6.6 (14)
-2.9 + 9.6 (33)
-3.9 ± 4.3 (16)
-22 ± 24 (91)
24 ± 21 (56)
-13 ± 9.6 (40)
3.7 + 2.6 (6.8)
6.2 ± 3.1 (7.3)
3 ± 3.6 (11)
-21 ± 13 (53)
5.3 ± 9.2 (25)
-2.9 ± 8.8 (13)
6.7 ± 12 (31)
0 ± 12 (41)
0 ± 14 (47)
SAMPLE LOST
-9.6 ± 17 (63)
12 ± 8.6 (20)
2.7 ± 8.3 (26)
9.6 ± 5.1 (11)
0 ± 2.9 (9.6)
24 ± 19 (48)
-43 ± 34 (130)
-4.5 + 12 (42)
6.1 ± 3.1 (7)
8.2 ± 3.8 (8.5)
*6.2 ± 2.6 (5.9)
4.3 ± 7.5 (20)
-29 ± 18 (20)
34 ± 26 (54)
-8 ± 18 (64)
-5.9 ± 5.9 (28)
6.7 ± 6.7 (16)
-3.5 ± 3.5 (16)
1.9 ± 3.3 (8.8)
1.7 ± 2.9 (7.8)
0 ± 14 (47)
32 + 32 (86)
13 ± 11 (27)
35 ± 61 (160)
12 ± 21 (56)
-6.8 ± 6.8 (32)
-28 ± 28 (110)
-110 ± 87 (300)
19 ± 9.6 (22)
0 ± 20 (65)
-3.8 ± 3.8 (18)
S. D. (MDC)
23»>2«>pu
(10-1
-------
COMPOSITE
SAMPLING LOCATION
BURNS & MEDFORD OR
AUSTIN & AMARILLO TX
LOGAN & VERNAL UT
SALT LAKE CITY UT
SEATTLE & SPOKANE WA
WORLAND & ROCK SPRINGS WY
TABLE A1.
COLLECTION
DATE
08/04/89
10/31/89
01/26/90
05/10/90
09/21/90
12/03/90
08/23/89
12/11/89
03/30/90
06/28/90
11/28/90
08/21/89
11/01/89
01/29/90
06/28/90
09/18/90
12/31/90
07/31/89
08/28/89
09/25/89
10/30/89
11/27/89
12/26/89
01/29/90
02/26/90
03/26/90
04/30/90
05/28/90
06/25/90
07/30/90
08/27/90
09/24/90
10/29/90
11/26/90
12/31/90
08/18/89
10/31/89
01/25/90
05/02/90
09/24/90
11/28/90
09/04/89
11/01/89
02/05/90
05/28/90
09/27/90
11/27/90
Continued
CONCENTRATION ± 1 S. D. (MDC)
23»p(J 2M.2WPU
(10-ienCi/mL)
13 ± 17 (44)
-40 ± 110 (380)
0 ± 25 (83)
0 + 15 (48)
41 ± 25 (48)
0 ± 12 (40)
-23 ± 33 (120)
23 ± 62 (190)
3.2 ± 11 (33)
-43 ± 62 (230)
0 ± 13 (44)
SAMPLE LOST
55 ± 79 (220)
14 ± 11 (27)
13 ± 23 (61)
21 ± 21 (49)
6.8 ± 12 (32)
3.5 ± 7.1 (22)
9.6 ± 6.9 (18)
5.7 ± 5.1 (13)
10 ± 11 (32)
6.8 ± 18 (55)
5.8 + 23 (72)
10 ± 4.9 (12)
7.6 ± 3.5 (7.6)
4.2 ± 3 (7.7)
-1.9 ± 5.7 (20)
11 + 11 (25)
-27 ± 17 (71)
-12 ± 12 (55)
13 ± 13 (31)
5.9 ± 5.9 (14)
-1.8 ± 3 (12)
-2.9 ± 5.1 (19)
0 ± 2.3 (7.6)
0 ± 10 (33)
-54 ± 43 (170)
-8.5 ± 25 (88)
SAMPLE LOST
15 ± 26 (70)
7.2 + 7.2 (17)
-9.4 ± 16 (62)
60 ± 67 (190)
7.6 + 8.4 (24)
SAMPLE LOST
-4.8 ± 11 (39)
17 ± 30 (114)
(10-18nCi/mL)
0 ± 9.5 (31)
0 ± 57 (190)
8.9 ± 15 (42)
10 + 18 (48)
10 ± 24 (67)
24 ± 15 (28)
0 ± 16 (54)
0 ± 33 (110)
-3.2 ± 3.2 (15)
22 ± 38 (100)
*33 ± 18 (31)
SAMPLE LOST
28 + 48 (130)
0 + 4.8 (16)
0 ± 18 (61)
0 ± 21 (69)
0 ± 9.6 (32)
1.8 ± 3.9 (12)
-1.9 ± 1.9 (9)
-1.9 ± 3.3 (13)
-3.4 + 3.4 (16)
-6.8 ± 6.8 (32)
0 + 12 (38)
-1.1 + 1.1 (5.2)
1.9 ± 1.9 (4.4)
-0.8 ± 0.8 (3.9)
3.8 ± 3.8 (8.8)
-5.3 + 5.3 (25)
0 ± 9.7 (32)
12 + 20 (55)
6.5 + 11 (31)
-5.9 ± 4.2 (20)
5.2 ± 3.9 (8.1)
8.8 ± 6.6 (14)
0 ± 2.3 (7.6)
5.8 + 5.8 (14)
0 + 27 (89)
8.5 + 15 (40)
SAMPLE LOST
15 ± 26 (70)
3.6 ± 6.3 (17)
9.4 ± 16 (44)
0 + 28 (93)
5.1 + 5.1 (12)
SAMPLE LOST
4.8 + 8.4 (23)
0 ± 24 (81)
All concentrations above the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) are denoted by an asterisk (*).
105
-------
Delta. UT
Las Uegas, HM
125
1.88
jj
" 8.75
a
'9
centra t Ion
9
&
3 825
8JB8
125
0*
1.88
3
^ 8.75-
?„
o p
3 858
O 0
8 |
0
-------
St. George, UT
1.25
1.88
I
" 8.75--
a
'3
c
0
£ 8.58
I
8.25
o*
8
8
8.88
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
A1. Continued
107
-------
Gas Sanples (Xi—85): Alamo, NU
Gas Samples CKr-85): Austin, NU
48.8
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 ¥: Beatty, NM
Gas Sanples CKr-8S): Caliente,
48.8
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
52 58 46 46 38 41 39 44 58 52 « Sanples
I
'3
48.8
32.8--
24.8
16.0 -
8.8
8.8
H 1 \-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
23 18 46 B Sanples
Figure A2. Historical 85Kr trends in air samples - monthly averages.
108
-------
Gas Sanples (Kr-85): Ely, HU
u
3
I
18.8
32-B
24.B -
16 .B--
8.8
BJB
Gas Sanples CKr-85): Cedar City, UT
•4 1 1 1 1 I-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9B Vear
48 46 49 47 44 42 39 48 49 * Samples
48.8
32.8-
I
S 24 .B
'3
"a 16.8
c
8 B.B
8.8
*
* *
i 1 1 ilu id
• '
[ 1 i|i 1 !
i i i i i i i ii
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98
41 48 48 47 52 48 45 43 58 « Sanples
Gas Sanples CKr-85): Goldfield, MU
Gas Sanples CKr-85): Indian Springs, NU
48 .a •
I
a3
'si
16.8
8.8
8.8
-I 1 1 1-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 ¥ear
48 58 49 45 49 42 46 51 SB « Sanple
48.8
32.8
24 .8
16 .B
B.B
*
9
illlliiii^
•- D0 1 R? ? D?T
^IPJTTVT.
>
iii i i i i i
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9B
52 44 44 46 48 44 42 41 49 52 « Sanples
Figure A2. Continued.
109
-------
4BJB
32.8 •
a 24.8
I
16.8-•
BJB-
8.8 -
Gas Samples Otr-85>: Las Vegas, NV
Gas Samples CKr-85): Lathrop Wells, MU
H—I—h
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
11 45 46 47 45 46 47 49 49 47 * Samples
t
48.8
32 JB
24.8 -
8.8
H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
81828384858687888998 Vea*
54 52 58 49 48 51 46 47 43 58 * Samples
32 ^
24JB--
'a
« 16.8
1
8.8
8.8
Gas Sanples OCp-65): Ouepton, NV
Gas Saiiples (Kr-85): Pahru«p, NU
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Veap
•444842484946484958 * Samples
i
'5
I
48.8
32 .B
24.8
16.8
8.8
8.8
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
14 49 42 45 47 48 58 44 47 58 * Samples
Figure A2. Continued.
110
-------
Concentration lB~12uCiXnL
—12
Concentpation 18 uCi/nL
3]
-------
TABLE A2. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE MILK
SURVEILLANCE NETWORK — 1990
SAMPUNG LOCATION
BENTON CA
I. BROWN RANCH
HINKLEYCA
DESERT VIEW DAIRY
HINKLEYCA
BILL NELSON DAIRY
RIDGECREST CA
CEDARSAGE FARM
ALAMO NV
COURTNEY DAHL RANCH
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
01/05
02/08
03/09
04/02
05/03
06/05
07/19
08/09
09/06
10/04
11/01
12/05
01/03
02/07
03/15
04/02
05/02
06/05
07/18
09/05
10/02
08/07
11/01
12/05
01/03
02/07
03/15
04/02
05/02
06/05
07/18
08/08
09/05
10/03
11/01
12/05
02/06
03/07
03/28
05/02
06/01
07/11
08/15
09/11
10/01
11/01
12/05
SH
(10* (iCi/mL)-
110 ± 120(400)
45 ± 140 (460)
-40 ± 120(420)
260 ± 140 (450)
-45 ±120(400)
-140 ± 130(430)
-13 ± 120(400)
260 ± 170(550)
-85 ± 120(400)
-16 ± 120(420)
-55 ± 120(420)
210 ± 150(500)
220 ± 130(410)
290 + 140 (450)
180 ± 120(370)
-24 ± 140 (480)
CONC. ± 1S.D. (MDC)
»SR "SR
(1 0* (iCi/mL)' (1 0* (iCI/mL)-
0.23 ± 0.59 (22)
o -0.10 ± 0.39(1.6)
b
-0.10 ± 0.39(1.6)
b
b
0.19 ± 0.41 (1.6)
-0.14 ± 2 (2.7) 0.63 ± 0.41 (1.5)
» 0.061 + 0.51(1.9)
" 0.052 ± 0.34(1.4)
1.0 ± 1.1(1.5) 0.54 ± 0.35(1.3)
0.37 ± 1.9(2.5) 0.48 ± 0.39(1.5)
b -0.36 ± 0.51 (2.0)
» -0.32 ± 0.37(1.5)
-1.1 ± 1 (1.6) 0.50 ± 0.32(1.4)
" 0.23 ± 0.38(1.6)
NO SAMPLE - NO MILK
" 0.69 ± 0.52(1.8)
NO SAMPLE -COW SICK
0.32 ± 1.3(2.1) 0.26 ± 0.31 (1.3)
0.85 ± 1.9(3) 0.46 + 0.38(1.5)
" -0.19 ± 0.39(1.6)
(continued)
112
-------
TABLE A2. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
AUSTIN NV
YOUNG'S RANCH
BLUE JAY NV
BLUE JAY SPRGS-JIM BIAS
CALIENTE NV
JUNE COX RANCH
CURRANT NV
BLUE EAGLE RANCH
CURRANT NV
MANZONIE RANCH
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
01/19
02/15
03/15
04/11
05/08
06/06
07/18
08/16
09/13
10/04
11/07
12/12
R 01/10
02/12
03/08
04/11
05/02
06/11
07/18
08/09
09/06
10/11
11/13
01/08
02/05
03/01
03/27
05/07
06/01
07/10
08/06
09/05
10/01
11/01
12/04
01/03
02/13
03/07
04/09
05/01
06/11
08/13
09/06
01/03
03/07
04/11
CONC. + 1S.D. (MDC)
'H ~SR
(1 0* nCi/mL)' (1 0-" nCi/mL)'
250 ± 120 (390)
180 ±120(420)
220 ± 120(370)
160 ± 140(480)
330 ± 120(400)
5.1 ± 110(380)
130 ±120(390)
150 ± 130(440)
110 ±120(380)
110 ±140(480)
92 ± 120(400)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
b
0.54 ± 1.5(2.0)
b
b
b
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
b
b
0.63 ± 1.5(2.1)
-0.74 + 2.2(3.1)
0.18 + 1.7(2.7)
b
*>SR
(ia»nCi/mL)a
1.1 ± 0.35(1.4)
0.87 + 0.39(1.4)
0.092 ± 0.37(1.5)
0.77 ± 0.38 (1 .4)
1 + 0.39(1.4)
0.57 ± 0.41 (1.5)
0.15 ± 0.43(1.6)
0.99 ± 0.36 (1 .3)
0.74 ± 0.39(1.5)
-0.13 ± 0.39(1.7)
0.63 ± 0.35 (1 .4)
NO SAMPLE - NO ONE HOME
160 ± 130(430)
310 + 130(420)
-0.32 ± 1.2(1.8)
NO MILK AVAILABLE
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
b
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
0.55 ± 0.34(1.4)
0.90 ± 0.35 (1 .4)
113
-------
TABLE A2. Continued
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1990
DYER NV
OZEL LEMON
ELYNV
MCKAY, ROBERT AND CARLA
GOLDFIELD NV
FRAYNE RANCH
GOLDFIELD NV
SUSIE SCOTT RANCH
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
SUSAN CARR RANCH
AMARGOSA VALLEY NV
JOHN DEERE RANCH
01/24
02/14
03/09
04/12
05/10
06/07
07/19
08/15
09/06
10/02
11/13
12/06
01/09
02/05
03/01
03/27
05/07
06/01
07/11
08/06
09/02
09/05
11/01
12/05
01/19
06/07
07/24
08/17
09/14
10/10
11/15
12/12
01/19
04/12
05/10
06/07
07/20
08/17
01/02
02/05
03/05
01/05
04/04
05/09
06/06
07/10
3H
(K^nCi/mL)-
110 ±120(400)
93 ± 120 (420)
160 ±110(370)
200 ±160(510)
220 ± 120 (400)
330 ± 150 (500)
140 ±110(370)
320 ±170(550)
180 ±110(360)
230 ± 120 (400)
-29 ± 120 (400)
-34 ±130(440)
CONC.±1S.D.(MDC)
"SR
(KHfiCI/mL)-
b
0.73 ±1.4(1.9)
b
b
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
b
-0.57 ±1.4(2.1)
-2.6 ±2.4(3.5)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
b
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
b
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE -GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
1.8 ±1.6(2.0)
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
b
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
NO SAMPLE -GOAT DRY
0.89 ±1.4(1.9)
NO SAMPLE - GOAT DRY
«°SR
(10* nCi/tnL)-
0.90 ± 0.40(1.6)
0.76 ±0.38(1.4)
0.019 ±0.39(1.5)
0.29 ±0.55(1.8)
0.66 ± 0.74 (2.5)
0.76 ±0.33(1.4)
1.1 ± 0.43(1.7)
0.22 ±0.50(1.8)
0.91 ±0.42(1.6)
0.41 ±0.40(1.5)
0.85 ±0.38(1.4)
0.33 ±0.36(1.4)
(continued)
114
-------
TABLE A2. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
LOGANDALE NV
LEONARD MARSHALL
RANCH
LUND NV
RONALD J HORSLEY RANCH
MESQUITE NV
HAFEN DAIRY
MESQUITE NV
SPEDA BROTHERS DAIRY
MOAPA NV
ROCKVIEW DAIRIES, INC.
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
01/04
02/08
03/01
03/25
05/02
06/04
07/02
08/06
09/05
10/04
11/01
12/04
01/09
02/06
03/01
03/28
05/18
06/04
07/11
08/07
09/05
10/02
11/01
12/12
06/28
08/06
09/05
09/28
11/01
12/04
01/04
02/08
03/01
03/26
05/02
06/01
01/04
02/08
03/01
03/26
05/02
06/04
07/02
08/06
09/06
10/04
11/01
12/04
CONG. ± 1S.D. (MDC)
3H *»SR
(1 0-" nCi/mL)' (1 0-» jiCi/mL)'
220 + 120 (390) "
310 ± 130(430) -0.71 ± 1.4(2^2)
170 ± 110(360) 0.050 ± 2.6(4.2)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
170 ± 180(580) 0.73 ±2.7(4.1)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
-28 ± 120(400) b
200 ± 130(440) -0.42 ±1.1 (1.8)
56 ± 97(320) 1.3 ± 2.7(3.5)
220 ± 160(540) 0.11 ± 1.7(2.8)
-5.6 ± 130(430) -0.043 ± 1.3(2.0)
240 ± 150(490) b
9.9 ± 120(410) b
230 ± 130(430) b
140 ± 120(420) b
120 ± 130(440) b
-180 ± 120(420) 0.00065 ± 2 (2.7)
180 ± 150(500) 2.2 ± 1.9(2.7)
«°SR
(10* (iCi/mL)1
0.24 ± 0.37(1.5)
0.38 ± 0.30 (1 .3)
0.34 + 0.44(1.8)
-0.11 + 0.58(2.2)
0.26 ± 0.40(1.6)
0.97 ± 0.32(1.3)
0.48 ± 0.56(1.9)
-0.021 ± 0.40 (1 .7)
0.56 ± 0.33(1.3)
0.30 ± 0.37 (1 .5)
0.35 ± 0.37(1.5)
0.32 ± 0.36(1.5)
1.1 ± 0.35(1.4)
0.40 ± 0.34(1.5)
0.96 ± 0.49(1.7)
0.034 ± 0.40(1.5)
(continued)
115
-------
TABLE A2. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
NY ALA NV
SHARP RANCH
PAHR(JMP NV
PAHRUMP DAIRY
SHOSHONE NV
HARBECKE RANCH
CEDAR CITY UT
BRENT JONES DAIRY
IVINS UT
DAVID HAFEN RANCH
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
01/09
02/06
03/07
04/10
05/01
06/12
07/19
08/13
09/06
10/11
11/07
12/05
01/02
02/06
03/02
04/02
05/01
06/04
07/17
08/06
09/04
10/01
11/01
12/06
01/08
02/05
03/01
03/27
05/07
06/01
07/10
08/06
09/05
10/01
11/01
12/04
01/03
02/07
03/01
03/26
05/01
06/01
07/02
08/09
09/05
10/04
11/01
12/04
01/04
CONC. + 1S.D. (MDC)
3H »SR
130 ±120(400) b
71 ±120(420) -0.43 ± 1.3(1.8)
NO SAMPLE - COW DRY
42 ±150(490) -0.71 ± 1.7(2.3)
380 ±140(480) b
-120 ±120(380) b
-50 ±120(420) "
-160 ±120(400) -0.18 ± 2(2.6)
170 ±140(480) b
280 ±130 (420) b
140 ±130(430) -0.10 ± 1.6(2.2)
270 ±110 (360) -1.6 ± 2.2(2.7)
290 ± 160 (520) 0.16 ± 2.2 (2.7)
190 ±130(420) b
88 ±130(440) b
-33 ±130(420) 0.25 ± 1.4(2.0)
320 + 150 (480) 2.7 ± 2.5 (3.4)
100 ±120(410) b
"SR
(1(HVCi/mL)«
0.37 ± 0.39(1.6)
0.91 ± 0.37(1.4)
0.96 ± 0.40(1.5)
0.71 ± 0.40(1.4)
0.71 ± 0.50(1.7)
0.39 ± 0.43 (1 .6)
0.36 ± 0.53(1.9)
0.029 ± 0.40(1.7)
1.3 ± 0.46(1.5)
1.8 ± 0.40(1.4)c
2.1 ± 0.49(1.6)°
2.5 ± 0.52(1.7)°
1.1 ± 0.39(1.4)
0.55 ± 0.36(1.5)
0.80 ± 0.36(1.4)
0.10 ± 0.50(1.8)
1 ±0.42(1.5)
(continued)
116
-------
TABLE A2. Continued
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1990
02/08
03/02
03/26
05/02
06/01
07/02
08/06
09/07
10/04
11/01
12/04
CONC.±1S.D. (MDC)
3H *>SR "SB
(1 0-» nCi/mL)' (1 0-" nCi/mL)' (1 0* nCi/mL)"
310 ± 1 40 (450) b 2.6 ± 0.48 (1 .5)c
-98 ± 1 30 (420) -0.021 ± 1 .3 (1 .8) 0.84 + 0.34 (1 .3)
270+140(460) b 0.76+0.49(1.8)
• Multiply by 3.7x107 Bq/L to convert to Becquerals.
" Samples not analyzed.
c Concentration is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
Note: Where only collection dates are shown, samples were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy only.
117
-------
TABLE A3. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE STANDBY
MILK SURVEILLANCE NETWORK — 1990
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1990
TAYLOR AZ
SUNRISE DAIRY 07/31
TUCSON AZ
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 07/22
LITTLE ROCK AR
BORDENS 07/01
RUSSELLVILLE AR
ARKANSAS TECH. UNIV. 07/26
BAKERSFIELD CA
FAVORITE FOODS, INC. 07/31
ORLAND CA
MEADOW GLEN/JERSEYLAND 08/01
CHEESE
WILLOWS CA
GLENN MILK PRODUCERS 08/01
ASSN.
CANON CITY CO
JUNIPER VALLEY FARMS 08/13
DAIRY
DELTA CO
MEADOW GOLD DAIRY 07/25
QUINCY IL
PRAIRIE FARMS DAIRY 07/31
BOISE ID
MEADOW GOLD DAIRIES 08/31
IDAHO FALLS ID
REEDS DAIRY 08/29
DUBUQUE IA
SWISS VALLEY FARMS, INC. 07/23
ELLIS KS
MID-AMERICA DAIRY 06/26
SABETHA KS
MID-AMERICA
DAIRYMEN 06/19
BATON ROUGE LA
BORDEN'S 09/05
MONROE LA
BORDEN'S DAIRY 09/25
CONC. ± 1S.D. (MDC)
3H "SR
(10-9 nCi/mL)' (10* nCi/mL)'
280 ± 110 (370) 0.85 ± -0.93 (1.4)
-64 ± 130 (430) 0.043 ± 0.92 (1 .5)
-16 ±130(420) -0.31 ± 1.3(1.5)
40 ±110(370) 0.71 ± 1.2(1.5)
240 ± 120 (380) -0.35 ± 0.80 (1.3)
270 ± 120 (380) 0.37 ± 0.96 (1.3)
78 ±110(360) 0.41 ± 0.84(1.3)
190 ±110(370) 1.3 + 1.1 (1.3)
1 80 ±110 (370) 0.24 ± 0.99 (1 .5)
240 ±110(360) 0.61 ± 0.93(1.3)
380 ± 1 1 0 (360)" -1 .2 ± 1 .8 (2.6)
120 ±110(370) -1.5 ± 1.6(2.5)
120 ±130(440) 0.83 ± 0.91 (1.1)
140 ± 130 (440) 0.43 ± 1.1 (1.5)
440 ±140(440) 0.21 ± 1.1 (1.6)
80 ± 1 10 (370) -0.94 ± 1 .9 (2.5)
240 ±120(370)
"°SR
(lO^Ci/mL)'
-0.089 ± -0.32 (1 .4)
0.34 ± 0.32(1.4)
3.2 ± 0.48 (1 .4)"
1.6 ± 0.41 (1.4)"
0.59 ± 0.31 (1.3)
0.69 ± 0.3 (1 .3)
0.61 ± 0.33(1.3)
0.44 ± 0.42 (1 .5)
0.51 ± 0.33 (1 .4)
0.81 ± 0.35 (1 .4)
1.7 ± 0.45(1.6)"
0.94 ± 0.39(1.6)
1.4 ± 0.41 (1.4)
1 .2 ± 0.39 (1 .4)
1.2 ± 0.37(1.4)
2.2 ± 0.49 (1 .6)b
0.67 ± 0.47(1.8)
(continued)
118
-------
TABLE A3. Continued
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1990
NEW ORLEANS LA
BROWN'S VELVET 09/07
DAIRY
FOSSTON MN
LAND O' LAKES INC. 07/30
ROCHESTER MN
ASSOC. MILK PROD. INC. 08/15
(AMPI)
AURORA MO
MID-AMERICA DAIRY INC. 07/24
CHILLICOTHE MO
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN 07/05
BILLINGS MT
MEADOW GOLD DAIRY 09/1 1
HAVRE MT
VITA-RICH DAIRY 09/10
NORFOLK NE
GILLETTE DAIRY 06/06
NORTH PLATTE NE
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN 06/12
ALBUQUERQUE NM
BORDEN'S VALLEY GOLD 1 0/29
LA PLATA NM
RIVER EDGE DAIRY 07/02
BISMARCK ND
BRIDGEMAN CREAMERY, INC. 05/23
GRAND FORKS ND
MINNESOTA DAIRY 05/08
ENID OK
AMPI GOLDSPOT DIVISION 07/1 8
MCALESTER OK
JACKIE BRANNON CORR. CTR. 07/12
CORVALLIS OR
SUNNY BROOK DAIRY 08/1 6
MEDFORD OR
DAIRYGOLD FARMS 08/14
TILLAMOOK OR
TILLAMOOK CO. CREAMERY 1 0/1 9
3H
(10-9nCi/mL)a
98 ±110(360)
51 ±110(370)
270 +120(380)
72 + 1 30 (420)
230 ±130(420)
92 ±120(380)
240 ±110(370)
24 ±120(410)
59 ±130(420)
240 ±160(530)
400 ± 140 (440)
210 ±130(440)
380 ± 140 (440)
27 ± 130 (420)
87 ±120(410)
100 ±110(370)
130 ±110(360)
220 ±150(480)
CONC. + 1S.D. (MDC)
»SR
(10-9nCi/mL)a
C
0.70 ± 1.1 (1.4)
-2.3 ± 1.8(2.3)
-1.3 ± 1.5(1.8)
-0.063 + 1.1 (1.3)
-0.88 ± 1.7(2.1)
C
-1.2 ± 1.1 (1.4)
0.87 ± 1.3(1.3)
0.093 ± 1.2(1.5)
-1 ± 0.87(1.4)
-0.99 ± 1.6(1.8)
1.8 ± 1.9(2.8)
0.19 ± 0.90(1.1)
-0.85 ± 0.88(1.2)
-0.71 ± 1.8(2.4)
0.83 ± 0.79(1.1)
0.70 ± 1.4(1.9)
»SR
(10-'nCi/inL)a
2.6 ± 0.50(1.5)b
1 ± 0.38(1.4)
2.4 ± 0.47(1.5)"
3.1 ± 0.51 (1.5)"
2.1 + 0.41 (1 .4)"
1 .8 ± 0.46 (1 .5)b
0.31 ± 0.45(1.6)
2.3 ± 0.39(1.3)"
2.9 ± 0.47(1.3)b
0.78 ± 0.41 (1.5)
0.79 ± 0.32(1.4)
2.2 ± 0.44 (1 .4)"
0.73 ± 0.36(1.4)
1.9 ± 0.40(1.4)b
1.6 ± 0.36(1.4)"
1.2 ± 0.46(1.6)
0.29 ± 0.34(1.4)
0.56 ± 0.42(1.5)
(continued)
119
-------
TABLE A3. Continued
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1990
RAPID CITY SD
GILLETTE DAIRY-BLACK 08/30
HILLS DAIRY
SIOUX FALLS SD
LAND O'LAKES INC. 06/07
BEAVER UT
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY 07/1 8
PROVO UT
BYU DAIRY PRODUCTS LAB. 07/1 8
SEATTLE WA
DARIGOLD, INC. 10/24
SPOKANE WA
DARIGOLD, INC. 08/28
SHERIDAN WY
MIDLAND DAIRY 06/11
'Multiply by 3.7 x Iff Bq/Lto convert to Becquerals.
CONC.±1S.D. (MDC)
3H »SR
(10* nCi/mL)' (10« nCi/mL)-
-1 1 0 ± 1 1 0 (360) -2.3 ± 1 .8 (2.6)
440 ± 140 (440) -0.86 ± 1.1 (1.4)
-62 ± 130 (440) -0.29 ± 0.82 (1 .2)
-4.7 ± 130 (420) -0.25 ± 0.76 (1.1)
150 ±140(440) 2 ± 1.7(2.5)
2.5 ±110 (370) -1.7 ± 3.3(5.1)
400 ± 1 40 (440) -0.46 ± 1 .4 (1 .7)
•°SR
(lOVCi/mL)-
1.7 ± 0.44(1.6)"
1.7 ± 0.38(1.4)"
0.67 ± 0.34(1.4)
0.80 ± 0.33(1.4)
-0.24 ± 0.47(1.5)
2 ± 0.79 (3)
2.4 ± 0.42(1.4)"
"Concentration is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
c Samples not analyzed.
COLLECTION
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION 1990
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
SAMPLES FROM THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS WERE FERNBRIDGE CA
ANALYZED BY GAMMA SPECTOSCOPY ONLY:
(IN ALL CASES ONLY NATURALLY OCCURRING
RADIONUCLIDES WERE DETECTED)
DUNCAN AZ
LUNT DAIRY 07/22
HUMBOLDT CREAMERY ASSN.
FRESNO CA
CA STATE UNIV. CREAMERY
HOLTVILLE CA
07/25
10/22
TEMPE AZ
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF AZ
YUMAAZ
RICHARD K. COMBS DAIRY
BATESVILLE AR
HILLS VALLEY FOODS
FAYETTEVILLE AR
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
HELENDALE CA
OSTERKAMP DAIRY NO. 2
CHINO CA
CA INST. FOR MEN
07/20
07/22
07/05
07/11
07/27
07/23
SCHAFFNER & SON DAIRY 07/24
LOMPOC CA
FEDERAL PENITENTIARY CAMP 07/31
MANTECA CA
A&J FOODS, INC. 07/31
MODESTO CA
FOSTER FARMS, JERSEY
DAIRY 08/01
PETALUMA CA
POINT REYES SEASHORE 07/25
DAIRY
REDDING CA
MCCOLL'S DAIRY PROD. 08/01
(continued)
120
-------
TABLE A3. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
SAN JOSE CA
MARQUEZBROS. MEXICAN 07/26
CHEESE
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA
CALPOL. UNIV. DAIRY 07/25
SAUGUS CA
WAYSIDE HONOR RANCH 07/27
CRESENT CITY CA
RUMIANO CHEESE CO. 07/23
SOLEDAD CA
CORRECTION TRAINING INST. 10/24
TRACY CA
DEUEL VOC. INST. 07/31
MANCHESTER CA
POINT ARENA DAIRIES 07/25
COLORADO SPRINGS CO
SINTON DAIRY CO. 07/12
GREELEY CO
MEADOW GOLD DAIRY 08/29
DENVER CO
SAFEWAY DAIRY PLANT 07/24
FT COLLINS CO
POUDRE VALLEY CREAMERY 11/08
CALDWELL ID
DAIRYMENS CREAMERY ASSN. 09/06
POCATELLO ID
ROWLAND'S MEADOW
GOLD DRY 08/29
KIMBALLTON IA
ASSOC. MILK PRO. INC. (AMPI) 07/23
LAKE MILLS IA
LAKE MILLS COOP. CREAMERY 07/25
LEMARS IA
WELLS DAIRY 07/24
MANHATTAN KS
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 06/12
LAFAYETTE LA
BORDEN'S 09/05
NEW ORLEANS LA
WALKER ROEMER DAIRY
SHREVEPORT LA
FOREMOST DAIRY
FERGUS FALLS MN
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN
BROWERVILLE MN
LAND O' LAKES, INC.
NICOLLET MN
DOUG SCHULTZ FARM
JACKSON MO
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN
JEFFERSON CITY MO
CENTRAL DAIRY CO.
BOZEMAN MT
COUNTRY CLASSIC-DBA-
DARIGOLD
GREAT FALLS MT
MEADOW GOLD DAIRY
KALISPELL MT
EQUITY SUPPLY CO.
OMAHA NE
ROBERTS DAIRY-
MARSHALL GR.
CHAPPELL NE
LEPRINO FOODS
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
09/07
09/14
08/30
08/28
08/08
09/17
09/14
09/10
09/10
09/06
06/21
07/30
06/13
07/23
08/29
07/23
07/23
05/07
(continued)
121
-------
TABLE A3. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
FARGO ND
CASS CLAY CREAMERY
CLAREMORE OK
SWAN BROS. DAIRY
STILLWATER OK
OK STATE UNIV. DAIRY
GRANTS PASS OR
VALLEY OF ROUGE DAIRY
KLAMATH FALLS.OR
KLAMATH DAIRY PRODUCT
COVE OR
SUNNY COVE DAIRY
MYRTLE POINT OR
SAFEWAY STORES INC.
REDMOND OR
EBERHARD'S CREAMERY INC.
05/07
07/24
10/29
08/14
08/09
08/13
08/14
08/13
OGDEN UT
WESTERN DAIRYMEN
COOP.
RICHFIELD UT
IDEAL DAIRY
SMITHFIELD UT
CACHE VALLEY DAIRY
MOSES LAKE WA
SAFEWAY STORES INC.
CHEYENNE WY
DAIRY GOLD FOODS
RIVERTON WY
WESTERN DAIRYMAN
COOP.
THAYNEWY
WESTERN DAIRYMEN COOP.
09/13
06/22
06/23
08/29
09/10
06/11
06/13
ETHAN SD
ETHAN DAIRY PRODUCTS
08/31
122
-------
Milk Samples (Sr-98): Cedar City, UT
9.8
3.8
B-B
- I
-3.8
-\ 1 1 1 h
<*
I
Milk Samples (Sr-98): Mesquite, NU
9.B
6.8
3.8
8.8
-3.8 •
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
4443643644 * Samples
H 1 h
H 1 1 1 h
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
4433354644ft Samples
Hi Ik Samples (Sr-98): Pahrunp, NU
-------
Hi lie Saiiples (H-3): Cedar City, UT
1858
788
358
-358 •
-788
1 - 1
1
1
81828384858687888998 Year
445743644 * Sanples
dilk Sanples (H-3): Mosquito, NV
1858
788
i
-358
-788-
ru
-+-
-+-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Year
4445564544 ft Sanples
Milk Samples (H-3): Pahnmp, NV
Milk Soup IBS (H-3): Shoshone
1858
788
358
-358 •
-788-
\
81828384858687888998 Year
1 4 t Sanples
1858
788
358
-358 •
-7BB-
H 1 1 1 1 1 h
81828384858687888998 Year
344244444 * Samples
Figure A4. Historical 3H trends in milk samples - monthly averages.
124
-------
Hi Ik Sanples
-------
Hi Ik Sanples CStandby/H-3 ) : West
Milk Samples (Standby/H-3): Mid-West
680
e
in 488
'S
c
o
* 280 ••
J
8
-288
r
ITT
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
166 85988
pj
o
688
488
t 288
-288 •
-9
i
81828384858687888998 Vear
Milk Samples (Standby/H-3): Mountain
688
cn 488 • •
288
1
8
-2BB
T
I
I
I
4-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vcar
386 6126111413* Samples
Milk Samples (Standb>^H-3)
Conbined for M id-Uest/Uest/fttn
688
os 488
8
-288 -
1
I
H 1-
81828384858687888998 Vear
11 33 29 23 41 21 42 42 42 « Sanples
Figure A6. Historical 3H trends in standby milk samples - monthly averages.
126
-------
Bighorn Sheep (Kidneys - H-3)
1608
1288
s
*
488
0-
-488 -
-H 1 1 1 r-
-H H
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 SB Vear
16 14 19 28 16 17 28 11 17 ft Samples
0.14
0.12-
S> 0.1
£
g
0.06-
0.04-
0.02-
# Samples
Bighorn Sheep (Kidneys - Cs-137)
*
j**'
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Year
s z 22 3
Figure A7. 3H concentrations in desert bighorn
sheep kidneys, 1981-1989.
Figure A8. 137Cs concentrations in desert bighorn sheep
kidneys, 1981-1989.
Bighorn Sheep (Bones - Si—98)
5.8
4.8
a
S 3ja
1
^
I 2JI-
1.8
*
I
f
1
*
I
I
*
^
1
>
p-
«
-i <
]
1
,
'
•i
1
j T
. ...u i. i ...
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
17 18 23 26 19 18 28 14 16
It Samples
Figure A9. 90Sr concentrations in desert
bighorn sheep bones, 1981-1989.
I
8
J
.889
.886
J003
BJB -
-.883
-.BB6-
Bighorn Sheep (Bones - Pu-238)
I
H h
H H
-H-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 8B 89 90 Vear
19 18 23 28 19 18 28 14 14 ft Samples
Figure A10. 238Pu concentrations in desert
bighorn sheep bones, 1981-1989.
127
-------
Bighorn Stoop (Bom* - Pu-239+248)
B.125r
8.108
| 8^+
I
£ 8*58
8.825
8.88
2008
1588
1888
588
o
o
-588 •
H 1 1 1-
H 1 1 1 1—
818283848586878889 98 Vear
17 18 23 28 19 19 19 14 14 s Sanples
Figure A11. 239+24opu concentrations in desert
bighorn sheep bones, 1981-1989.
-I
Bouine (Combined - H-3)
(Kidnoy/Blood)
J,
I 9
*
-------
8.125-
8.1B8--
8.875--
I
8.858 o
8.025
8.88-•
Bovine (Bones ~Pu-239+24B)
o
Bouine (Liver - Pu-238)
-t-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
16 5 4 14 9 8 11 8 ? 8 * Samples
Figure A15. 239+24opu concentrations in cattle
bones, 1981-1990.
Bovine (Liver - Pu-239+24B)
.86 -
1 .B4f
£
•s
c
2
8
.82 -
.8 -
.82
-.84--
D
-t-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
14 6 9 IB 8 88 » Samples
Figure A16. 238Pu concentrations in bovine
liver, 1981-1990.
Muledeer (combined - H-3)
(B lood/Ur ine/Musc le/K idney/L i ver )
.32
" 2A
o
a.
I -I*
2
+>
g .88
°
B.B
-.88-
1B
r IB •
[
*
T
.
— >-
1
i
j^
-t-
IB8-
CJ
* 6
IB
e
_o
0 •g 4
U la
g
0
* I * in2
r-i 18
a Li -,. n D Q p
o
B
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
^
I
r
1
*
a
I
-
1
^
"*"
a
•
H h— 1 — H 1 1 1 1 1 1
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
14 68 198 888 Samples
Figure A17. 239+24opu concentrations in bovine
liver, 1981-1990.
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
42 55444 Samples
Figure A18. 3H concentrations in mule deer
selected tissues, 1981-1990.
129
-------
TABLE A4. THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETER
RESULTS FOR OFFSITE PERSONNEL —1990
ASSOCIATED
REFERENCE REFERENCE
IDENTIFICATION BACKGROUND
NUMBER LOCATION
MEASUREMENT PERIOD
TIME NUMBER
ISSUE COLLECT PERIOD OF DATA
DATE DATE (days) POINTS
EQUIVALENT
DOSE RATE
(mrem/day)
MAX MIN MEAN
DOSE
(mram/yr)*
ANNUAL ASSOCIATED
MEASURED REFERENCE
BACKGROUND
EXPOSURE
(mR/yr)
Arizona
No individuals residing in Arizona were monitored during the period covered by this report
California
304
359
60
404
Nevada
22
426
21
38
358
37
405
381
00
49
297
326
376
377
398
399
400
401
402
403
342
380
379
307
18
348
36
372
410
411
248
293
264
334
299
341
29
42
Death Valley Jet.
Death Valley Jet.
Shoshone
Shoshone
Alamo
Amargosa
Comm. Center
Beatty
Beatty
Beatty
Indian Springs
Indian Springs
lone
Koyne's Ranch
Las Vegas (UNLV)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Lavada's Market
Lavada's Market
Manhattan
Mina
Nyala
Overton
Pahrump
Pahrump
Pahrump
Pahrump
Penoyer Farms
Pioche
Rachel
Rachel
Round Mountain
Silver Peak
Stone Cabin Ranch
Tonopah
01/05/90
01/04/90
01/02/90
04/02/90
01/10/90
01/10/90
01/04/90
01/04/90
01/04/90
01/02/90
04/02/90
01/09/90
01/09/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
03/05/90
03/05/90
03/05/90
03/05/90
03/05/90
03/05/90
01/04/90
01/04/90
01/10/90
01/09/90
01/03/90
01/04/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
04/02/90
04/02/90
01/09/90
01/08/90
01/09/90
01/09/90
01/10/90
01/17/90
01/03/90
01/19/90
01/09/91
01/10/91
01/08/91
01/16/91
01/03/91
01/16/91
01/10/91
01/09/91
01/11/91
01/07/91
01/07/91
01/15/91
01/03/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
11/06/90
11/06/90
01/02/91
01/02/91
10/11/90
01/03/91
01/16/91
01/15/91
01/03/91
01/02/91
07/17/90
01/03/91
01/08/91
01/08/91
01/03/91
01/02/91
01/04/91
01/03/91
01/16/91
01/17/91
01/03/91
01/17/91
369
370
371
289
358
370
370
370
372
370
279
371
359
364
365
365
365
365
303
302
245
246
303
302
280
364
371
371
364
363
195
366
280
280
358
359
360
358
370
365
365
362
12
12
12
9
11
12
10
12
11
12
9
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
10
10
8
8
10
10
9
11
12
12
12
12
6
11
9
9
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
0.45
0.32
0.88
0.83
0.30
0.39
0.45
0.54
5.40
0.42
0.28
0.58
0.24
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.19
0.21
0.99
0.29
0.26
0.79
0.81
0.97
0.24
0.32
0.52
0.39
0.39
0.27
0.38
0.28
2.45
0.37
0.37
0.32
0.54
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.55
4.11
0.22
0.09
0.02
0.08
0.09
0.02
0.05
0.17
0.11
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.11
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.10
0.16
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.35
0.21
0.28
0.34
0.17
0.26
0.22
0.31
0.75
0.12
0.17
0.24
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.32
0.14
0.13
0.26
0.29
0.25
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.15
0.41
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.27
0.20
0.21
0.19
0.34
0.54
128
77
103
98
62
95
80
115
280
44
46
88
43
41
37
34
31
36
95
42
32
64
89
76
49
68
81
73
64
57
40
55
114
54
74
76
98
72
78
69
122
196
69
69
50
51
67
99
96
95
95
28
28
76
67
14
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
72
76
100
69
63
56
27
27
28
28
92
60
85
85
80
61
92
87
(continued)
130
-------
TABLE A4. Continued
ASSOCIATED
MEASUREMENT PERIOD
REFERENCE REFERENCE
IDENTIFICATION BACKGROUND
NUMBER LOCATION
339
370
424
Tonopah
Twin Springs Ranch
Yucca- Halloway
Ranch
ISSUE
DATE
01/11/90
01/03/90
11/15/90
COLLECT
DATE
01/17/91
01/03/91
01/10/91
TIME
PERIOD
(days)
371
365
56
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
12
12
2
EQUIVALENT
DOSE RATE
(mrem/day)
MAX
0.60
0.38
0.29
MIN
0.04
0.11
0.22
MEAN
0.28
0.25
0.25
DOSE
(mrem/yr)'
105
90
14
ANNUAL ASSOCIATED
MEASURED REFERENCE
BACKGROUND
EXPOSURE
(mR/yr)
87
95
104
Utah
44
344
345
347
346
52
445
Cedar City
Delta
Delta
Milford
Milford
Salt Lake City
St. George
01/04/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/08/90
01/03/90
01/04/90
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
363
359
359
358
358
364
362
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.34
0.93
0.58
0.62
0.84
0.29
0.51
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.17
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.17
0.15
62
85
85
92
87
60
53
43
59
59
89
89
45
33
'Annual dose (mrem/yr) is calculated by multiplying the average (mean) equivalent dose rate (mrem/day) by 365.25.
131
-------
1990 TLD RESULTS BV STATE
Offsite Personnel
200
160-
0)
0
120-
o (274)
o (274)
! 80
40-
8-
I
I
ALL
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
UTAH
State
Figure A19. Thermoluminescent dosimeter monitoring results for offsite residents.
132
-------
TABLE AS.
THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETER RESULTS
FOR OFFSITE STATIONS — 1990
EQUIVALENT
MEASUREMENT PERIOD ELAPSED NUMBER ^fmRAJav^1^
STATION ISSUE COLLECT TIME IN OF DATA v "
LOCATION DATE DATE PERIOD (days) POINTS MAX MIN MEAN
Arizona
Colorado City
Jacob's Lake
Page
California
Baker
Barstow
Bishop
Death Valley Jet.
Furnace Creek
Independence
Lone Pine
Mammoth Geothermal
Mammoth Lakes
Olancha
Ridgecrest
Shoshone
Valley Crest
Nevada
Alamo
Amargosa Comm Ctr.
Amargosa Valley
American Borate
Atlanta Mine
Austin
Battle Mountain
Beatty
Blue Eagle Ranch
Blue Jay
Cactus Springs
Caliente
Carp
Cherry Creek
Clark Station
Coaldale
Complex 1
Corn Creek
Cortez Rd/Hwy 278
Coyote Summit
Crescent Valley
Currant
Currie
Diablo Maint Sta.
Duckwater
Elgin
Elko
Ely
Eureka
Fallen
11/06/89
11/06/89
11/07/89
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
11/01/89
01/04/90
01/02/90
01/02/90
12/01/89
11/08/89
12/13/89
01/04/90
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
01/04/90
11/29/89
01/05/90
01/04/90
11/01/89
12/12/89
11/29/89
01/04/90
12/13/89
10/30/90
10/30/90
10/31/90
11/01/90
11/01/90
11/03/90
01/09/91
01/09/91
11/02/90
11/02/90
11/03/90
11/03/90
11/02/90
11/02/90
11/01/90
01/09/91
10/30/90
11/27/90
01/14/91
01/14/91
12/04/90
11/07/90
11/28/90
01/09/91
01/08/91
01/08/91
11/01/90
10/29/90
10/29/90
12/05/90
01/08/91
11/06/90
10/31/90
11/01/90
11/28/90
10/30/90
11/28/90
01/09/91
12/05/90
01/03/91
01/08/91
10/29/90
11/27/90
12/05/90
01/15/91
11/29/90
358
358
357
359
358
353
369
368
359
359
353
353
359
358
358
368
363
327
377
377
368
363
350
370
369
368
359
361
361
370
369
364
363
359
350
362
351
370
371
362
369
361
350
370
375
350
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.20
0.27
0.17
0.22
0.29
0.28
0.24
0.19
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.19
0.13
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.32
0.23
0.31
0.22
0.35
0.19
0.38
0.14
0.26
0.24
0.30
0.32
0.26
0.31
0.10
0.32
0.36
0.22
0.29
0.31
0.39
0.28
0.37
0.20
0.22
1.97
0.26
0.13
0.18
0.11
0.18
0.21
0.20
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.18
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.09
0.18
0.17
0.24
0.25
0.14
0.26
0.14
0.27
0.13
0.31
0.08
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.28
0.22
0.22
0.05
0.21
0.24
0.15
0.26
0.20
0.32
0.23
0.24
0.13
0.13
0.24
0.11
0.15
0.22
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.24
0.20
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.26
0.26
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.11
0.21
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.18
0.29
0.18
0.30
0.16
0.33
0.10
0.21
0.19
0.23
0.30
0.24
0.27
0.07
0.25
0.30
0.18
0.28
0.25
0.35
0.25
0.30
0.16
0.17
0.70
0.17
EQUIVALENT
EXPOSURE
(mR/yr)a
53
81
47
72
90
88
74
61
78
77
93
94
80
72
57
39
75
68
89
105
66
107
64
111
59
122
37
78
70
84
109
88
97
25
92
109
66
100
90
128
91
110
57
61
254
63
(continued)
133
-------
TABLE AS. Continued
MEASUREMENT
STATION ISSUE
LOCATION DATE
Flying Diamond Camp
Gabbs
Geyser Ranch
Goldfield
Groom Lake
Hancock Summit
Hiko
Hot Creek Ranch
Indian Springs
lone
Kirkeby Ranch
Koyne's Ranch
Las Vegas Airport
Las Vegas (UNLV)
Las Vegas (USDI)
Lavada's Market
Lida
Lovelock
Lund
LV Airport - Test
LV (USDI) - Test
Manhattan
Medlin's Ranch
Mesquite
Mina
Moapa
Mtn. Meadows Ranch
Nash Ranch
Nevada LLW Site
Nyala
Overton
Pahrump
Penoyer Farms
Pine Creek Ranch
Pioche
Queen City Summit
Rachel
Reed Ranch
Reno
Round Mountain
Ruby Valley
S. Desert Corr. Ctr.
Shurz
Silver Peak
Springdale
Steward Ranch
Stone Cabin Ranch
Sunnyside
Tempiute
Tonopah Test Range
Tonopah
Twin Springs Ranch
Uhalde's Ranch
US Ecology
Warm Springs #1
11/01/89
11/07/89
12/01/89
11/09/89
11/13/89
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
01/04/90
11/01/89
12/13/89
11/30/89
01/02/90
01/02/90
11/08/89
11/01/89
11/02/89
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
EQUIVALENT
PERIOD ELAPSED NUMBER ^^SL^
COLLECT TIME IN OF DATA imreaayj
DATE PERIOD (days) POINTS MAX MIN MEAN
10/31/90
11/06/90
12/04/90
11/13/90
11/14/90
11/01/90
10/30/90
01/08/91
11/01/90
11/06/90
12/04/90
11/01/90
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/14/91
11/13/90
11/28/90
12/06/90
01/02/91
01/02/91
11/07/90
11/01/90
10/29/90
11/06/90
10/29/90
01/03/91
10/30/90
01/10/91
01/03/91
10/29/90
11/01/90
10/31/90
10/31/90
10/29/90
01/03/91
10/31/90
01/03/91
11/29/90
11/07/90
11/27/90
11/01/90
11/29/90
11/13/90
01/11/91
12/04/90
01/03/91
12/06/90
11/01/90
01/02/91
11/07/90
01/03/91
10/31/90
01/11/91
01/03/91
363
364
368
368
366
364
362
369
359
363
367
364
364
365
365
375
376
349
371
364
365
364
365
360
363
360
364
363
371
364
361
359
363
363
361
362
363
362
349
363
349
359
349
371
371
368
364
371
365
362
363
365
363
372
365
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
0.21
0.15
0.29
0.22
0.23
0.42
0.19
0.25
0.12
0.24
0.22
0.26
0.10
0.09
0.16
0.29
0.24
0.21
0.23
0.18
0.10
0.32
0.31
0.15
0.23
0.53
0.19
0.22
0.32
0.23
0.44
0.11
0.35
0.35
0.21
0.37
0.30
0.33
0.20
0.29
0.32
0.11
0.30
0.17
0.37
0.31
0.32
0.15
0.30
0.35
0.29
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.45
0.13
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.27
0.12
0.21
0.07
0.20
0.13
0.17
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.22
0.20
0.11
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.27
0.22
0.11
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.28
0.18
0.11
0.06
0.23
0.25
0.16
0.33
0.21
0.29
0.12
0.23
0.19
0.06
0.17
0.14
0.27
0.20
0.28
0.08
0.22
0.31
0.24
0.27
0.21
0.29
0.35
0.17
0.15
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.34
0.15
0.23
0.09
0.22
0.16
0.21
0.07
0.05
0.12
0.26
0.22
0.16
0.18
0.11
0.07
0.29
0.26
0.12
0.21
0.27
0.17
0.18
0.30
0.20
0.21
0.09
0.29
0.30
0.18
0.35
0.26
0.31
0.15
0.26
0.24
0.08
0.21
0.16
0.30
0.27
0.30
0.11
0.27
0.33
0.26
0.30
0.27
0.31
0.38
EQUIVALENT
EXPOSURE
(mR/yr)-
61
54
82
76
68
125
55
84
32
82
58
78
25
19
45
96
82
57
66
39
26
107
97
45
75
98
61
67
109
74
75
31
106
111
66
129
94
115
56
94
89
31
78
57
111
97
109
39
98
120
95
110
99
115
139
(continued)
134
-------
TABLE A5. Continued
STATION
LOCATION
MEASUREMENT
ISSUE
DATE
PERIOD
COLLECT
DATE
ELAPSED
TIME IN
PERIOD (days)
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
EQUIVALENT
EXPOSURE RATE
(mR/day)
MAX MIN MEAN
EQUIVALENT
EXPOSURE
(mR/yr)'
Warm Springs #2
Wells
Winnemucca
Young's Ranch
Utah
01/03/90
12/12/89
12/13/89
11/08/89
01/03/91
11/27/90
11/28/90
11/07/90
365
349
349
363
3 1.12 0.99 1.07
4 0.24 0.14 0.18
4 0.24 0.15 0.19
4 0.22 0.09 0.17
390
67
68
60
Boulder
Bryce Canyon
Cedar City
Delta
Duchesne
Enterprise
Perron
Garrison
Grantsville
Green River
Gunnison
Ibapah
Kanab
Loa
Logan
Lund
Milford
Monticello
Nephi
Parowan
Price
Provo
Salt Lake City
St. George
Trout Creek
Vernal
Vemon
Wendover
Willow Springs Lodge
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
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
01/09/90
01/08/90
12/11/89
01/09/90
12/05/90
12/05/90
11/28/90
01/30/91
01/29/91
11/27/90
01/29/91
12/05/90
01/30/91
10/31/90
12/06/90
12/05/90
10/30/90
12/05/90
01/10/91
11/28/90
12/04/90
10/31/90
12/06/90
12/04/90
01/29/91
01/29/91
01/30/91
11/28/90
12/05/90
01/29/91
01/30/91
11/27/90
01/30/91
369
369
359
387
383
360
384
371
385
358
369
371
358
369
371
362
368
358
331
368
384
385
391
359
370
384
387
351
385
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.23
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.18
0.36
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.15
0.27
0.15
0.36
0.22
0.31
0.35
0.26
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.19
0.14
0.23
0.19
0.26
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.14
0.23
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.19
0.10
0.24
0.09
0.19
0.23
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.11
0.13
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.19
0.16
0.29
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.23
0.12
0.29
0.14
0.24
0.28
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.14
0.16
0.11
0.18
0.17
0.20
0.14
0.15
66
58
51
70
58
105
57
57
61
57
46
85
42
105
53
89
102
74
58
58
62
51
57
40
64
63
72
52
53
Exposure at a fixed environmental TLD location in the monitoring period is calculated by multiplying the average (mean)
exposure rate (mR/day) by the number of days included in this report. Exposure at the location in one year is calculated by
multiplying the average (mean) mR/day by 365.25.
135
-------
1998 TLD RESULTS B¥ STATE
Off site Stations
208
168 -
S, 128
0)
0
8 -
0(391)
O C391)
88-- I
i
ALL ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH
State
Figure A20. Thermoluminescent dosimeter monitoring results for fixed stations.
136
-------
PIC Sanples: Alano
383
24.8
3 183 -
I
PC
6.8
83 -
Haxinun U.S. Background
Mininun U.S. Background
-+-
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
22 35 44 48 58 58 58 52 53 tt Sanples
PIC Sanples: ftnargosa Valley
38 .8
24.8 -
*S 18.8 -
3 12.8 -
n
I
x
6.8
8.8 -
Max inun U .S . Background
M in inun U .S . Background
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 ¥ear
6 51 51 49 48 51 49 58 52 # Sanple
38.8
24.8 •
183
I
12.8 -
6.8
8.8
PIC Samples: Austin, NU
Naximin U^. Background
+
s 8 i
B
HiniMum U.S. Background
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Year
22 51 58 51 51 51 49 52 53 « Sanples
PIC Sanples: Beatty, NU
38.8
24.8
S 12 .a
X
U
6.8
8.8
Max inun U.S. Background
H in inun U.S. Background
4-
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 ¥ear
22 39 51 49 43 51 58 52 53 tt Sanples
Figure A21. Historical trends of pressurized ion chamber samples by station.
137
-------
Exposure Rate uR/hr
Exposure Rate uR/hr
Tl
to
^
CD
§
OJ
oo 0
o
5'
1
ft
S
5
$
$
S
8
•
*
•a
ff
M
03
8
s
**
£0
CM tS) W
-r GO ^ 5
Is is is is is is
a -
2 -
s -
s -
3 -
s •
s -
s -
r
3
MI
3
1
C
CO
I
H-
o»{]«
-0-
•D
o*i-D
£h«
f
\
c
CO
?
& CO
is is is is is is
3
3;
C
CO
S
O
4>«
•a
0
CO
•e
8
M
? if
r •
c
f°
w
n
•8
S
1
?
Complex I,
i
^ h* H^ N CO
CD 0^ fs) 00 AS
s -
s -
2 -
ffl -
S -
£ S3 -
S S -
in jfi
CO B
-------
Exposure Rate uH/hr
Exposure Rate uR/hr
CO
__t'J±NW f h* N> W
9 u^ N GO rfk CD CO CT» N CO •* CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CB CD CD CD CD CD
* N a?
| w KS Si
"9* JL »
II I I '
g,^" in po
3 <* A CO
».» * s •
J? 8 S3 -
!l * §
|| 2 S -
a F f £
g» w i
^ i-
o ^F
(5' a 3 *»
3
S'
c
CO
I
3
-D o
»Qo
•O-
+
•»-f* O DO
* * *
•D.
—c^
^ s s -
M S 2 -
§
8 g CO .
ff5 m CD
£. ™ ^
? 5 S S -
x ^
5. &. a « -
3 - N ^D
3 2 in u> -
c *• w es
»
S M «
f ! "
1
3
1
c
CO
f
1 1 1 1
0
D-
^
a
a
<*
Q
D-
1 —
"0
i
8
3 M
X S
§ i
CO
•
!
«
<^ r is 1 = IF s 1
•^ S. 3 M 3 S
> 0" 5. a. »•
to
O
3. Exposure Rate uR/hr Exposure Rate uH/hr
c c^GSlS10 cocnNSSa
g_ siscBiscBis *?_$'?_'**?__?
N » -
£ S
Ss -
*
in CB
H* in
S 9 -
S 8 -
8 S -
H S -
J "
1
3
3'
|
CO
f
1 1 1 1
CH o
4
D-
Eh
D
"i
0
&
— i—
^ S -
2 * « -
o en *
ft S -
-------
Exposure Rate uR/hr
. os tS S g g
is is is is is is
1 1 1 1 1
s -
s a -
5 2 -
£ ffl -
$ s -
a 3 -
ft S
til CQ
•%j 3 "
a s
; f
3
[
c
to
°"Q>
•0
•-Eh
B-
^
o Q«o
eo
2
?
!
i
?
X
c
to
"" 1 S? S?
o' !T | |
c ty ST y
s f 1
§ ^ &
O Exposure Rate uR/hr
3 M M IM W
*~ Q S O CD CD O
CD
Q. M ij)
$ U
01 00
u tfr
r* ^
$ s
s s
S 5
EG S
id 3
in tf
N S
** ff
f 1
-
2
3'
r
c
5"
D
o Q»
•-0
D
-H
+
fl»
t*
+
TJ
f?
r
•B
8
W
0
!
s
f *
c
lo
Exposure Rate uR/hr
R £
3
"8
9
» s -
s a --
tno.
* C8
5 9i
v S8 -
i.* P
* 9 -
S S
s s •
IV
** (f
1
at
5"
3
C
to
r
1 1 1 1
+<
fl
m
)-
HO
*
&
h
— 1 —
,
x_
i
c
to
M
1
1 1 1
1 I
Exposure Rate uR/hr
S> (T1 N 00 »^ 03
- _l I I 1 ' .___.!
S
£ S
(/I ^
iS S
s s
S 3
B S
12 S
N S
f§
r
--
--
--
--
--
3
3"
§
C
CO
r i i i
-D
ocl.
•-D--
$
»
o •-)»
o*i»
•t»
?
)^
i'
3
C
CO
8 1
8 I f
1 i
1 t
>«
o
!
8
0)
f
s
%
i
^
0
1"
"d
of
!
Pu
1— '
3'
w"
1
*
i
-------
PIC Sanples: Fahrump, NU
PIC Sanples: Pioche, HO
30.0 • -
24.8 - -
18.8 -
M
K
X
w
0.0 -
Maxinun U.S. Background
Nininun U.S. Background
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Vear
19 47 50 50 52 51 51 51 52 ft Sanples
30.0 -
24.0 -
18.0 -
12.0
| 6.0-
0.0 -
Haxinun MS. Background
Hininun U.S. Background
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
30 49 52 52 52
PIC Sanples: Rachel, MU
PIC Sanples: St. George, UT
30.8
I
24.0
18.8
12.0
6.0
8.8
Hax inun U .S. Background 30.8- •
Hininun U.S. Background
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Vear
22 51 51 48 48 47 46 52 53 « Sanples
24.8
18.0 +
•12.0 -
6.8
0.0
Haxinun U.S. Background
nininun U.S. Background
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
21 45 50 50 52 52 51 52 53 ft Sanples
Figure A21. Continued.
141
-------
Exposure Rate uR/hr
Exposure Rate uR/hr
M
KK CO tij
co i& 5>
OP 09 CD O) O Qj
s -
H S -
•fc CO
i&i 03
A P
£ S3 -
S S -
S S -
12 $ -
tt K!
-n * §
[
3
3'
I'
c
w
M
1 1- 1 1
— H
-HZD
•Hi Q-.
Eh
• — CZh
H>-
m— «
^
3
X
1
c
CO
ai
CQ 1 S- S.
5 S 9 f
CD o o
g 1 1
§ Exposure Rate uR/hr
=j- 01 tn G S * aj
C is is is is is is
8. ,0 CO
K) N
$ s -
S 2 -
01 CO
s s -
g CO
* § -
s s -
in vo
(0 O
•> <
3
3'
c
CO
8ffl
KH
*£>•
«^
D-
D-
L«n
°*r*°
D*
0*+«
ri-i *
UP
3
X
C*
1
c
to
f
7
£ 1
g
5 S
6 8
S 2
$ S
& m
(S S
? ^
$ S
tn g
as--
09 CT> N CO N^ SS
Q9 O 03 03 09 CS
1 ' ' __ . _i i i —
3
3
1
3
C
to
%
1 — I 1 — T^
-a
-a
»» i — rTH
-CH
HZEZH
-a
o»»|-. a
Q
,
?
X
r
3
C
01
if
Exposure Rate uR/hr
2 S
S 2
S
tfl
CJ
•o
S
5"
0
t?
OJ v1 t*0 CD ** CS
is is is is is i
3
5'
i
c
to
, , ! , ,
0
•£!«
^0
-Eh
i
X
i
c
*»
I
•8
if
g
s
-------
Exposure Rate iiR/hr
31
CD"
ro
O
o
CD
Q.
GD CT> R) OB * 3)
is is is is is is
R 8 -
5 8 -
8 2 -
s 8 -
ft S -
ui S3 -
ft S •
S S -
a s -
: r
3
3-
|
3
C
CO
D
0 •£]«
-- Q
— H
-ho
OfJKJ
•fi-" o
H3-
« EH'o
i e ?
n3 O
S
I
8
JH
e
3'
CO
i
r f
£. 31
2 **
i 1
c
r
r f i
S. 8.
Exposure Rate iiR/hr
h* H* CO 00
CD O1* fO CO »^ O
(S CD CD CD CD CD
i i i » ' i —
8 -
03
00
en
ft S3
cn 92
** CO
s s
a s
* SF
8? fi
!_
-
3
3"
c
i i i i
*
0»«*Q>
«KS
.^Eh
f5
r
•e
8
c
IF
w"
? r
r .»
= I
M
HI
-------
TABLE A6. TRITIUM IN URINE, RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY PROGRAM — 1990
COLLECTION
SAMPLING LOCATION DATE 1 990
LAS VEGAS NV 01/23
01/23
01/25
02/15
02/22
02/27
03/06
03/13
04/12
04/12
04/18
04/18
04/18
04/18
04/19
04/19
04/19
04/24
04/24
04/24
04/26
04/26
04/26
04/27
05/17
05/18
05/24
05/24
05/24
05/29
06/04
06/07
06/07
06/07
06/07
06/08
06/08
06/08
06/08
06/14
06/19
06/22
06/22
06/29
06/29
07/03
08/01
08/02
08/09
10/02
10/04
10/04
10/04
10/04
10/09
10/10
10/12
10/14
10/15
CONC.±1S.D.(MDC)
(10-9 (iCi/mL)'
130 ±95
260 ± 92
-2.0 ±91
1900 ±100"
360 ±99b
300 ±97
220 ±96
160 ±93
68 ±95
220 ±100
-170 ±93
-28 ±94
160 ±98
-61 ±95
25 ±96
-67 ±110
200 ±98
160 ±110
72 ±100
230 + 1 00
-2.3 ±100
11 ±99
97 ±97
1500 ±100"
6.2 ± 96
-2.0 ±93
110 ±94
120 ±98
170 ±97
210 ±95
51 ±95
-49 ± 93
-45 ±94
250 ±97
10 ±95
-23 ±97
-2.0 ±94
-68 ±95
-63 ±93
4.2 ±98
-49 + 93
170 ±97
330 ±100"
260 ±96
260 +99
220 ±74
240 ±73"
-20 ±72
54 ±91
18 ±88
50 ±87
-52 ±87
-9.7 + 87
1000 +95"
88+88
-72 ±87
-65 +88
-18 ±87
34 .+ 89
(310)
(300)
(300)
(320)
(320)
(310)
(310)
(300)
(310)
(330)
(310)
(310)
(320)
(310)
(320)
(370)
(320)
(360)
(350)
(330)
(350)
(330)
(320)
(300)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(320)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(320)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(320)
(310)
(310)
(320'
(310)
(320)
(240)
(240)
(240)
(300)
(290)
(280)
(290)
(290)
(290)
(290)
(290)
(290)
(290)
(290)
ORGANIZATION
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Polish Scientist
Polish Scientist
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
DOE
EPA
DOE
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
SAIC
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
EPA
SAIC
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EGG
EPA
EPA
SAIC
LESC
LESC
LESC
LESC
LESC
LESC
LESC
LESC
LESC
(continued)
144
-------
TABLE A6. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE 1990
10/15
10/16
10/31
12/06
CONC. ± 1 S. D. (MDC)
(10-9 nCi/mL)'
400 ±93b (300>
53 ± 89 (290)
14+87 (290)
230 ±110 (360)
ORGANIZATION
DRI
LESC
SAIC
SAIC
RENO NV
09/14 -46 ±89 (290) DRI
11/28 73 ±100 (350) DRI
12/17 -54 ±100 (360) DRI
12/17 120 ±110 (360) DRI
*To convert to Bacquerals, multiply by 3.7x 107 Bq/L
bConcentration is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
DOE = Department of Energy
DRI = Desert Research Institute
EPA ?= U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
LESC = Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co., Inc.
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
145
-------
TABLE A7. TRITIUM IN URINE, OFFSITE INTERNAL
SAMPLING LOCATION
SHOSHONE CA
ALAMO NV
BEATTY NV
CALIENTE NV
CURRANT NV
BLUE EAGLE RANCH
ELYNV
GOLDFIELD NV
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
LAS VEGAS NV
COLLECTION
DATE 1990
06/21
06/21
06/21
06/21
02/08
02/18
01/26
01/31
01/31
02/14
02/14
02/23
02/23
05/03
05/03
05/03
05/03
05/03
05/03
08/10
08/10
08/31
08/07
08/07
08/07
07/23
07/23
03/14
03/14
03/14
04/27
04/27
07/16
07/16
12/12
12/12
05/16
05/16
05/16
05/16
04/10
04/10
07/10
07/10
07/10
12/17
12/17
01/24
01/24
02/08
DOSIMETRY PROGRAM — 1990
CONC. ± 1 S. D. (MDC)
(10* (iCI/mL)*
270 ± 99
140 ±96
180 ±8
93 ±95
84 ±93
99 ±93
10 ±93
130 + 95
160 + 96
120 + 94
80 ±94
67 ±95
-76 ± 95
46 ±90
44±90
-4±90
-8 ±91
110±92
30 ±91
80 ±71
-84 ±68
130 ±75
42 ±74
20 ±75
140 ±72
49 ±73
110±73
370 ± 97b
160 ±92
60 ±91
230 ± 92
75 ±91
13 ±72
94 ±73
200±110
140 ±100
210 ±93
260 ± 93
-72 ± 94
29 ±94
62 + 91
190 ±95
150 ±73
160 ±72
120 ±73
82 ±100
78±110
60 ±92
140 ±93
270 + 97
(320)
(310)
(280)
(310)
(300)
(300)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(230)
(230)
(240)
(240)
(250)
(250)
(240)
(240)
(310)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(240)
(240)
(360)
(350)
(300)
(300)
(310)
(310)
(300)
(310)
(240)
(230)
(240)
(350)
(360)
(300)
(300)
(310)
(continued)
146
-------
TABLE A7. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
AMAGOSA VALLEY NV
AMARGOSA CENTER NV
LUND NV
MCGILL NV
NYALA NV
OVERTON NV
PAHRUMP NV
PIOCHE NV
RACHEL NV
COLLECTION
DATE 1990
03/07
03/07
01/26
01/10
08/06
08/06
08/14
08/14
01/26
01/26
01/08
01/08
06/14
06/14
06/14
12/10
04/10
04/10
04/10
04/10
04/10
04/10
05/04
05/04
05/04
05/04
05/04
03/07
06/19
06/19
06/25
06/25
02/20
02/20
02/20
02/20
02/20
08/09
08/09
08/09
08/09
08/09
03/02
03/02
03/02
03/02
03/02
06/01
CONC.±1S.D. (MDC)
(10* (iCI/mL)-
160 ±98
-38 ± 97
-18 ±91
66 ±92
120 ±73
-32 ±72
-45 ±74
14 ±72
-12 ±92
80 ±92
89 ±93
8±91
-120 ±100
47 ±100
-13 ±98
-69 ±100
310 ±93"
22 ±91
-64 ±90
-49 ±91
51 ±91
170 ±92
300 ± 93"
100 ±92
100 ±91
550 ± 97"
83 ±91
180 ±92
300 ±100
220 ±98
160 ±99
360 + 99"
150 ±98
180 ±95
210 ±95
10 ±93
29 ±96
170 ±73
-66 ±71
40±72
83 ±72
-130 + 70
150 ±97
88 ±95
-57 ± 94
-65 ±96
-89 ± 95
4 + 94
(320)
(320)
(300)
(300)
(240)
(240)
(240)
(240)
(300)
(300)
(310)
(300)
(340)
(330)
(320)
(360)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(300)
(310)
(300)
(300)
(320)
(320)
(320)
(320)
(320)
(310)
(310)
(310)
(320)
(240)
(240)
(240)
(230)
(240)
(320)
(310)
(310)
(320)
(310)
(310)
(continued)
147
-------
TABLE A7. Continued
COLLECTION CONC. ± 1 S. D. (MDC)
SAMPLING LOCATION DATE 1990 (1Q-"
WARM SPRINGS NV
HOT CREEK VALLEY 12/10 28 + 100 (350)
CEDAR CITY UT 02/16
02/16
02/16
02/16
02/16
06/08
06/18
06/19
11/30
11/30
11/30
11/30
11/30
11/30
MILFORD UT 02/09
02/09
170 + 95
200 ± 95
120 ±9
10 ±93
21+94
97 + 99
-130 ±98
17 ±99
120 ±100
61 ±100
170 + 110
110 + 110
170±110
150±110
130 ±93
59 ±93
(310)
(310)
(300)
(310)
(310)
(320)
(330)
(330)
(330)
(360)
(360)
(350)
(360)
(360)
(300)
(310)
'To convert to Bacquerals, multiply by 3.7x Iff Bq/L.
"Concentration is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
148
-------
25888 •
29888
"15888-1-
ffl
l_
18888
+»
I
5888
B
Cedar City, UT
1488
1858
788
358 -
6
4-
J- -*- -H.
4-
Overton, NV
0
i
+
+
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Year
684363129 14 * Samples
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
24 244 222 18 11 * Simples
Rachel, NV
1888
3
s
I
758
588
258
8
—288-
n
"
•-
i
? }
*
n r
O h
^
' 1
I?
1
•f-
1 T n
i_ j i
i i i
i
— i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
93517 14 71556* Samples
Figure A22. Historical trends of 3H in urine samples.
149
-------
HTH2
HTH1
I
I
A
Hot Creek
Ranch
Six-Mile Well
Jim Bias Well
(Blue Jay Springs)
Blue Jay
Maintenance
Station
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Miles
Scale in Kilometers
NYE
COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
0076GR91-A23
Figure A23. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Faultless.
150
-------
Fallen
Flowing Well
Hunts Station
H-3D
HS-1
CHURCHILL COUNTY
MINERAL COUNTY
Smith/James
Spring
N
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
Not Sampled This Year
Scale in Miles
5 10
LOCATION MAP
0 5 10 15
Scale in Kilometers
CHURCHILL
COUNTY
0076GR91-A24
Figure A24. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Shoal.
151
-------
Johnson
Artesian
Fawn Cr.84001
Downstream
Fawn Cr.500' Downstream
RB-D-01
Fawn Cr.500'
Upstream
Fawn Cr.6800'
Upstream • yA Fawn Cr_ Na 3
Scale in Kilometers
RIO BLANCO COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
Surface Ground Zero U Water Well
Artesian Well A Spring
O Windmill • Stream
COLORADO RIO BLANCO
Figure A25. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Rio Blanco.
152
-------
Schwab
Ranch
Grand Valley
City Water
Grand Valley
Potter Ranch
S
Rulison
Sefcovic Ranch
Hayward Ranch
\
•\BattlementCreek
Test Well
Spring
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Miles
0 5
LOCATION MAP
0 8
Scale in Kilometers
GARFIELD
COUNTY
0076GR91-A26
Figure A26. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Rulison.
153
-------
Little Creek #1 -,
T.S. Saucier n
Yancy Saucier
Herman Gipson —,
Lower Little Creek
Gill Rays Crawfish Pond
Hugh Gipson
i— Willie Surge
I r-Joe Burge
Salt Dome Timber Co.
Donald Beach
A.C
Mills
•n Roy Mills
B.Chambliss R. King
Anderson's Pond
B.R. Anderson
Dennis •
Saucier
Tatum Hunting
I Hulon Lowe Club
Howard Smith
Rita Moree
Sylvester Graham
Lee L Saul
P.T. Lee
H. Anderson
J.R. Nobles
G.W. Anderson
Noble's Pond
Rita Smith
[R.L. Anderson
Regina Anderson
Daniel's Well #2
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Miles
1 2
01234
Scale in Kilometers
LAMAR
COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
0076OR91-A27
Figure A27. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for
Project Dribble — towns and residences.
154
-------
Hunting
Club Well
• HMH-10
....... Half Moon
XHM-2A creek
•i Oi/erf/n
Scale in Miles
0 300
LAMAR
COUNTY
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
0 100
Scale in Kilometers
LOCATION MAP
0076GR91-A28
Figure A28. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for
Project Dribble — near ground zero.
155
-------
To Blanco &
Gobernador
To Dulce / j
Bixler Ranch
Bubbling
Spring
EPNG Well 10-36
Cedar Spring •
Cave Spring •
La Jara Creek
Arnold Ranch
Jicarilla Well #1
Lower Burro
Canyon
N
Well 28.3.33.233
LOCATION MAP
Surface Ground Zero
Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Miles
0 5
0 8
Scale in Kilometers
RIO
ARRIBA
COUNTY
0076GR91/7
Figure A29. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Gasbuggy.
156
-------
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
City |
Well #7
N
Loving City
Well #2
DD-1
1 LRL-7
PHS Well #6
PHS Well #9 •
PHS Well #10
PHS Well #8
Pecos River
Pumping Station
Well #1
Surface Ground Zero
Wells
Scale in Miles
5
10
0 5 10 15
Scale in Kilometers
EDDY
COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
0076GR91-A30
Figure A30. Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project Gnome.
157
-------
TABLE A8. TRITIUM RESULTS FOR THE LONG-TERM HYDROLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAM —1990
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
CONC.±1 S.D.
pCI/L
% OF CONC. GUIDE
PROJECT GNOME
CARLSBAD NM
WELL 7 CITY
LOVING NM
WELL 2 CITY
MALAGA NM
WELL 1 PECOS PUMPING STATION
WELL DD-1
WELL LRL-7
WELL PHS 8
WELL PHS 9
WELL PHS 10
WELL USGS 1
WELL USGS 4
WELL USGS 8
08/01
08/01
08/01
08/02
08/02
08/01
08/02
08/03
08/01
08/02
08/02
2.9 ±3.0"
8.1 ±3.4"
7 ± 3.7"
28000000 ±100000
14000 ±190
27 ± 4.5
13 ± 4.2"
4.6 ± 4.0"
-1.6 ± 2.2"
150000 ± 490
120000 ± 440
0.01
0.04
0.03
140000
71.4
0.13
0.07
0.02
<0.01
767
603
(3)
(1)
(2)
PROJECT DRIBBL5
BAXTERVILLE MS
HALF MOON CREEK
HALF MOON CREEK OVRFLW
LITTLE CREEK #1
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 POND
ANDERSON, BILLY RAY
ANDERSON, REGINA
ANDERSON, ROBERT HARVEY
ANDERSON, ROBERT LOWELL
SURGE, JOE
CHAMBLISS, B.
DANIELS, RAY
DANIELS, WEBSTER JR.
DANIELS - WELL #2
KELLY GERTRUDE
KING, RHONDA
LEE, P. T.
MILLS, A. C.
MILLS, ROY
NOBLES POND
NOBLES QUAIL HOUSE
NOBLE, W. H., JR.
READY, R C
SAUCIER, DENNIS
04/21
04/23
04/21
04/23
04/20
04/18
04/18
04/21
04/23
04/23
04/23
04/23
04/21
04/18
04/21
04/21
04/20
04/21
04/20
04/21
04/19
04/18
04/18
04/18
04/19
04/21
04/19
04/19
04/19
04/19
04/21
04/19
04/18
04/18
300 ± 4.5
19 ± 3.4
450 ± 4.3
390 ± 5.1
7.1 ± 3.7"
680 ± 140
14 ± 3.3
2.3 ± 23?
25 ± 3.2
21 ± 3.0
130 ± 3.3
150 ± 4.7
6.9 ± 2.5"
19 ± 3.7
5.4 ± 3.0"
11 ± 3.3
7.9 ± 3.6"
17 ± 2.9
12 ± 3.7
6.3 ± 5.1"
3.1 ± 5.6"
20 ± 3.6
31 ± 2.8
25 ± 2.9
-1.4 ± 3.8b
13 ± 2.2
23 ± 3.6
0 ± 4.5"
29 ± 5.0
21 ± 3.1
44 ± 3.4
30 ± 2.6
12 ± 2.7
18 ± 3.2
1.54
0.09
2.27
1.97
0.04
3.38
0.07
0.01
0.13
0.10
0.69
0.79
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.15
0.13
<0.01
0.07
0.11
<0.01
0.15
0.10
0.22
0.15
0.06
0.09
(continued)
158
-------
TABLE AS. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
BAXTERVILLE MS (con't)
SAUCIER, TALMADGE S.
SAUCIER, WILMA & YANCY
SMITH, RITA
WELL CITY
WELL E-7
WELL HM-1
WELL HM-2A
WELL HM-2B
WELL HM-3
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 HMH-1 2
WELL HMH-1 3
WELL HMH-1 4
WELL HMH-15
WELL HMH-1 6
WELL HT-2C
WELL HT-4
WELL HT-5
COLUMBIA MS
WELL 64B CITY
COLLECTION CONC.±1 S.D.
DATE pCi/L
1990 (10-8 nCi/mL)1
04/20
04/20
04/19
04/17
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/19
04/21
04/21
04/19
04/21
04/21
04/19
04/21
04/21
04/19
04/21
04/21
04/19
04/21
04/22
04/22
04/22
04/17
10 ± 3.5"
20 ± 2.8
-0.50 ± 3.6b
13 ± 3.4
7.4 ± 2.7"
0.11 ± 3.5"
3.6 ± 3.6"
2.0 ± 3.3"
5.1 ± 3.3b
6.5 ± 3.4b
0.32 ± 2.6"
6.7 ± 3.6"
0.52 ± 3.4b
3.5 ± 3.3b
4.2 ± 3.0»
910 ± 150
1300 ± 150
1000 ± 140
940 ± 150
4.4 ± 3.4b
-7.9 ± 3.6b
9300 ± 180
9500 ± 180
4000 ± 160
8100 ± 180
22 ± 3.0
14 ± 2.8
1800 ± 150
110 ± 3.3
25 ± 3.2
92 + 3.1
19 ± 3.4
36 ± 3.6
8.0 ± 2.9b
1.4 ± 4.0"
4.3 ± 4.0"
51 ± 3.2
5.6 + 3.5"
-0.85 + 3.1"
18 ± 3.0
1.2 ± 4.6"
10 ± 3.9"
9.7 ± 4.5"
0.0 ± 3.7"
2.3 ± 3.7-
550 ± 4.5
970 ± 140
490 ± 5.3
6.8 ± 3.0"
0.67 ± 3.0"
0.17 ± 3.1b
12 ± 3.4
% OF CONC. GUIDE
0.05
0.10
<0.01
0.07
0.04
<0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
0.02
4.56
6.51
5.45
4.71
0.02
<0.01
46.5
47.7
19.8
41.0
0.11
0.07
9.41
0.59
0.13
0.46
0.09
0.18
0.04
<0.01
0.02
0.25
0.03
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
0.05
0.05
<0.01
0.01
2.76
4.85
2.49
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
(continued)
159
-------
TABLE A8. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
LUMBERTON MS
ANDERSON, G W
GIL RAY'S CRAWFISH POND
GIPSON, HERMAN
GRAHAM, SYLVESTER
MOREE, RITA - HOUSE WELL
BEACH, DONALD
SAUL, LEE L
SMITH, HOWARD
WELL 2 CITY
PURVIS MS
CITY SUPPLY
GOBERNADOR NM
ARNOLD RANCH
BIXLER RANCH
BUBBLING SPRINGS
CAVE SPRINGS
CEDAR SPRINGS
LA JARA CREEK
LOWER BURROW CANYON
POND N WELL 30.3.32.343
WELL EPNG 10-36
WELL JICARILLA 1
WELL 28.3.33.233 (SOUTH)
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
ROBERT SEARCY RN (SCHWAB)
FELIX SEFCOVIC RANCH
RIO BLANCO CO
BRENNAN WINDMILL
CER NO.1 BLACK SULPHUR
CER NO.4 BLACK SULPHUR
FAWN CREEK 3
FAWN CREEK 3 (DUPLICATE)
FAWN CREEK 500FT UPSTRM
FAWN CREEK 500FT DWNSTRM
FAWN CREEK 6800FT UPSTRM
FAWN CREEK 8400FT DWNSTR
COLLECTION CONC. + 1 S.D.
DATE pCi/L
1990 (10* nCi/mL)«
04/20
04/23
04/19
04/23
04/20
04/23
04/23
04/20
04/17
04/17
PROJECT GASBUGGY
06/22
06/22
06/22
06/21
06/21
06/21
06/24
06/22
06/24
06/21
06/24
PROJECT RULISON
06/19
06/19
06/19
06/19
06/19
06/19
06/19
06/19
06/19
PROJECT RIO BLANCO
06/17
06/18
06/18
06/17
06/17
06/17
06/17
06/17
06/12
27 ± 3.6
13 ± 3.2
12 ± 3.8
-1.3 + 3.0"
-4.0 ± 3.2"
21 + 4.6
-1.4 ± 3.1"
-2.9 ± 3.7"
3.4 + 1.7"
-0.78 ± 3.5"
0.0 ± 2.3"
10 ± 2.7
13 ± 2.6
53 ± 2.7
23 ± 2.7
2.4 ± 2.2b
63 ± 3.2
41 ± 2.8
230 ± 4.5
9.0 ± 2.4
59 ± 3.5
22 ± 2.2
9.9 ± 4.1"
87 ±5.0
18 ± 2.0
41 ± 2.2
88 ± 2.7
43 ± 2.1
41 + 2.8
27 ± 2.6
6.6 ± 2.5"
340 ± 6.0
56 ± 4.8
22 ± 2.5
24 ± 2.5
34 ± 2.7
33 ± 2.7
31 ± 2.5
29 ± 2.7
% OF CONC. GUIDE
0.13
0.07
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.07
0.26
0.11
0.01
0.32
0.21
1.16
0.05
0.29 (4)
0.11
0.05
0.43
0.09
0.21
0.44
0.22
0.21
0.13
0.03
1.73
0.28
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
(continued)
160
-------
TABLE A8. Continued
COLLECTION CONC. + 1 S.D.
SAMPLING LOCATION
RIO BLANCO CO (con't)
WELL JOHNSON ARTESIAN
WELL RB-D-01
WELL RB-D-03
WELL RB-S-03
B-1 EQUITY CAMP
DATE
1990 (
06/17
06/18
06/17
06/18
06/18
pCi/L
1&*|iCi/mL)g
0.99 ± 2.7"
3.3 ± 3.8b
0.65 ± 2.8b
4.1 ± 4.3b
71 + 5.5
% OF CONC. GUIDE
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
0.36
NTS SEMIANNUAL NETWORK
HIKO NV
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
07/02
49.1 ±142"
0.25
BLUE JAY NV
HOT CREEK RANCH SPRING
MAINTENANCE STATION
WELL BIAS
WELL HTH-1
WELL HTH-2
WELL SIX MILE
FRENCHMAN STATION NV
HUNT'S STATION
SMITH/JAMES SPRGS
WELL FLOWING
WELL H-3
WELL HS-1
AMARGOSA VALLEY NV
WELL MARY NICKELL'S
SHOSHONE CA
SHOSHONE SPRING
ADAVEN NV
ADAVEN SPRING
ALAMO NV
WELL 4 CITY
ASH MEADOWS NV
FAIRBANKS SPRINGS
SPRING 17S-50E-14CAC
WELL18S-51E-7DB
BEATTY NV
LOW LEVEL WASTE SITE
03/09
03/09
03/09
03/23
03/23
03/09
02/26
02/26
02/26
02/26
02/26
02/08
08/07
01/02
02/06
08/07
01/09
07/02
01/11
07/02
05/09
11/21
05/09
11/21
05/09
12/12
05/09
11/21
05/09
06/14
12/05
6.5 ± 2.5"
-1.8 ± 3.1 b
-4.3 ± 2.9"
0.88 + 4.5b
2.3 ± 3.0b
1.2 ± 3.8"
-2.7 ± 2.8"
70 ± 3.7
-4.4 ± 2.6b
c
-1.3 + 3.4"
1.4 + 3.0b
-39 ± 140"
1.1 ± 3.2b
-2.0 ± 3.6"
-67 ± 140"
43 ± 3.4
-40 ± 140b
-2.3 ± 3.2"
-110 + 140b
-0.19 ± 2.8"
310 + 140"
-0.96 ± 3.5b
160 ± 140"
d
-36 + 140b
4.9 ± 2.8b
32 + 140"
87 ± 5.0
0.99 ± 3.7"
-260 ± 14b
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.35
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.59
<0.01
0.84
<0.01
0.02
0.16
0.43
<0.01
<0.01
(continued)
161
-------
TABLE A8. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
CONC.±1 S.D.
pCi/L
(1fr>CI/mL)«
% OF CONC. GUIDE
BEATTY NV (con!)
SPECIE SPRINGS
TOLICHA PEAK
WELL 11 S-48-1 DD COFFERS
WELL 12S-47E-7DBD CITY
WELL ROAD D SPICERS
YOUNGHANS RCH (HOUSE WELL)
BOULDER CITY NV
LAKE MEAD INTAKE
CLARK STATION NV
WELL 6 TTR
FURNACE CREEK CA
NAVARES SPRINGS
HIKO NV
02/07
07/10
02/07
08/01
01/04
07/11
02/09
07/12
01/08
02/08
08/08
06/13
12/05
03/13
09/14
02/07
08/09
04/24
170
20
81
0.12 ±
14"
2.9
130"
3.8b
2.2 ± 2.7"
4.8
-58
4.2 ±
2.0"
130"
2.9"
210" ± 140*
-0.89 ± 3.0"
0.42 ± 3.2"
-0.37 ± 2.9"
-150 ± 130"
44 ± 3.7
-35 ± 130"
-2.0 ± 2.6"
0.87
0.10
0.40
<0.01
0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.02
1.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
<0.01
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
INDIAN SPRINGS NV
TROUGH SPRGS-TOIYABE
WELL 1 SEWER COMPANY
WELL 2 US AIR FORCE
LAS VEGAS NV
WELL 28 WATER DISTRICT
LATHROP WELLS NV
CITY15S-50E-18CDC
NYALA NV
SHARP'S RANCH
OASIS VALLEY NV
GOSS SPRINGS
PAHRUMP NV
CALVADA WELL
01/11
07/02
06/01
03/05
05/01
09/04
03/05
05/01
09/04
03/14
09/14
04/03
02/06
08/08
02/08
08/14
02/06
08/10
09/04
-9.1 ±140"
49 ±140"
28 ± 2.9
81 ± 130"
36 ± 140"
-1.1 ± 3.0"
31 ± 130"
260 ± 140"
-2.2 ± 2.4b
96 ± 140"
-2.1 ± 4.4"
1.5 ± 3.5"
69 ± 130"
-2.3 ± 4.0"
-58 ± 130"
-4.2 ± 3.0"
-1.2 ± 2.8"
-110 ± 14*
-120 ± 140»
<0.01
0.24
0.14
0.40
0.18
<0.01
0.15
1.30
<0.01
0.48
<0.01
<0.01
0.35
<0.01
0.29
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
(continued)
162
-------
TABLE A8. Continued
SAMPLING LOCATION
RACHEL NV
WELLS 7 AND 8
PENOYER
WELL 13 PENOYER
WELL PENOYER CULINARY
TEMPIUTE NV
UNION CARBIDE WELL
TONOPAH NV
CITY WELL
WARM SPRINGS NV
TWIN SPRINGS RANCH
NEVADA TEST SITE (AREA) NV
WELL 6A ARMY
WELL C-1
WELL D TEST
WELL HTH-1
WELLUE1C
WELL UE5C
WELL UE-5N
WELL UE6E
WELL UE15D
WELL UE16D
WELLUE-16F
WELLUE-17A
WELL UE18R
WELL UE-18T
3 Multiply by 3.7 x1&* to convert to Bq/L.
COLLECTION
DATE
1990
04/11
10/01
10/01
04/11
10/01
04/11
10/01
04/04
2/07
08/08
03/07
09/06
09/05
04/03
11/12
01/11
07/19
04/16
11/20
01/03
07/19
06/07
01/04
07/19
03/05
09/10
12/07
03/06
04/16
11/20
05/15
11/19
05/14
11/19
05/14
12/11
06/06
12/11
06/06
CONC. + 1 S.D.
pCi/L
(10* nCi/mL)'
-73.8 ±136"
0.6 ±3.2b
0.58 ± 3.2"
-74 ± 130"
6.3 ± 3.4"
180 ± 130"
-3.6 ± 3.9"
310 ± 130"
-58 ± 130"
-0.65 ± 3.1"
-19 ± 130"
-2.6 ± 2.8b
-51 ± 140b
100 ± 130"
3.2 ± 3.0"
150 ± 140"
3.3 ± 3.5"
0.78 ± 2.9b
-260 ± 140b
5.1 ± 3.3b
-8.9 ± 140"
39 ± 3.6
0.0 ± 3.2b
-1.6 ± 1.9"
4.4 ± 3.2"
-0.55 ± 4.6b
70 ± 4.6
33 ± 2.7
8.4 ± 2.5
270 ± 140b
-0.27 ± 2.7"
0.0 ± 140"
9.2 ± 3.0"
250 ± 140"
2.9 ± 2.6"
-140 ± 140"
1.5 ± 2"
-140 ± 140"
210 ± 3.5
% OF CONC. GUIDE
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.91
<0.01
1.57
<0.01
<0.01
<0,01
<0.01
0.25
0.52
0.02
0.79
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.19
0.00
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.35
0.17
0.04
1.36
<0.01
0.00
0.05
1.30
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.05
* Concentration is less than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
° No sample.
a Gamma spectra negligible.
(continued)
163
-------
TABLE A8. Continued
ANALYSIS RESULT +1 S.D. (pCi/L) (1fr»nCi/mL) = pCi/L
(1) 137Cs 180 7.9
(2) 137Cs 64 6.7
(3) 3H(avg.) 28,000,000 100,000
40K 7,600 1,500
89Sr 790,000 30,000
""Sr -19 48
0.054 0.07
1.1 0.17
(4) 137Cs 13 3.8
164
-------
I
o
o
888
648
488 -
328--
168
8 -
Tritium in Water, Test Well B
NTS, NU
l
H 1 1 1 1 ^
-\ 1 h
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
11 IB 12 11 12 18 9 IB 12 18 « Samples
Tritium in Water, Uell C
HTS, NU
o
388 -
248 -
188
68--
B--
I 1—I 1—I (-
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 98 Vear
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 ft Samples
Figure A31. Historical trends of 3H in water samples by location.
165
-------
<»3UU-
3
i 4000-
>
IS
* 3500-
^0
•4*
| 3000-
8
3
2500-
OfWVi-
*\
* *
'*-..
''*.
\ '"*••.,, ..*
'w*
oouuu-
. 30000-
.*
^ 25000-
C*
3 20000-
« 15000-
1=
8 10000-
£
(J
5000-
n-
*
.•' '; j^__ ,^J£ *
\ / *-.
•*' '• •' "***• )X
'; / ""*•'
••*** &
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Weil GZ-1 Longshot, AZ
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Well HMH-2 Dribble, MS
asuu-
2600-
j 2400-
e
| 2200-
"5 2000-
c
5 1800-
^j
| 1600-
o
g 1400-
0
1200-
•4 rtf\Ti
1 UUU
19
*
*
\
*-. •'' ' %'\ -*;
*'*' \ .-'* *'-,
''-.
""""•$£
\
81 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Z50TO"
26000-
| 24000-
s 22000-
'* 20000-
| 18000-
•4*
S 16000-
§ 14000-
o 12000-
10000-
ftstst
*
\
*-*.
"*•.
"*•",
* -.. j^...
* *
8000"* 1 1 1 1 1 i » ~ ~ '~ " " ^
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 19
Year
fear
Well HM-L2 Dribble, MS
Well HM-S Dribble, MS
ouu-
250-
i
S 200-
3
S 150-
I
% 100-
h
1 ^^
o 50J
3
o-
-K/V-
*.
.^...^ m I ''»--^
( _,N£ / \ ; jjf
* \ ^- : :
\s '^
* i
aiioouu-
i 300000-
jj
3
TS, 250000-
v4
P
0
| 200000-
•**
8
,0 150000-
^ /wwvi
*•.
X
\
''•«.... *
'"*-. .-'" \
'3^'
*•-.
"*-
•••••»
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Well UE15D NTS, NV
Well USGS-8 Gnome, NM
Figure A32. Water data plots.
166
-------
I
Year 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 86 89 30-
« Samples 2 9121212 11 11 9121212121212 11 1212 11 12
Well C, NTS, NV
150
-300
Year 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
* Samples 0222222122223222232
Well C1, NTS, NV
Figure A32. Continued.
167
-------
TABLE A9. EPA QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERCOMPARISON RESULTS — 1990
NUCLIDE
Water Intercomparison
Alpha
Alpha
Alpha
Alpha
Alpha
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
3H
3H
3H
""Co
MCo
MCo
*Zn
ffiZn
KZn
89Sr
89Sr
89Sr
89Sr
89Sr
»°Sr
"°Sr
""Sr
"Sr
MSr
106Ru
106Ru
106Ru
131 1
133Ba
133Ba
133Ba
134Cs
134Cs
134Cs
134Cs
134Cs
137Cs
137Cs
MONTH
Studies:
Jan
Apr
May
Sep
Oct
Jan
Apr
May
Sep
Oct
Feb
Jun
Oct
Feb
Jun
Oct
Feb
Jun
Oct
Jan
Apr
May
Sep
Oct
Jan
Apr
May
Sep
Oct
Feb
Jun
Oct
Aug
Feb
Jun
Oct
Feb
Apr
Jun
Oct
Oct
Feb
Apr
KNOWN
VALUE
(lO-'nCi/mL)'
12.0
90.0
22.0
10.0
62.0
12.0
52.0
15.9
10.0
53.0
4976.0
2933.0
7203.0
15.0
24.0
20.0
139.0
148.0
115.0
25.0
10.0
7.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
7.0
9.0
15.0
139.0
210.0
151.0
39.0
74.0
99.0
110.0
18.0
15.0
24.0
12.0
7.0
18.0
15.0
GRAND
AVG.
(IfrVCi/mL)1
11.5
81.2
17.0
10.0
60.6
12.9
49.1
16.2
10.9
50.8
4915.6
2066.8
7125.1
15.3
25.1
20.5
138.9
149.2
116.2
25.3
9.6
7.6
9.9
18.8
19.2
9.5
7.0
9.3
14.4
133.6
201.0
140.4
40.3
72.5
96.3
107.7
17.0
14.4
23.3
11.9
7.5
18.8
15.8
LAB
AVG.
(10VCi/mL)«
8.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
13.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
5531.0
3230.0
7281.3
15.3
25.7
20.0
136.3
157.3
112.3
22.3
10.7
7.3
8.3
17.3
17.0
8.0
6.3
9.3
12.3
128.3
193.0
131.3
44.3
76.7
100.0
105.7
17.0
13.0
22.3
10.7
7.0
19.0
15.0
NORMALIZED
DEVIATION
FROM KNOWN
CONCENTRATION
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
NA
NA
NA
ND
1.9
1.4
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.3
1.1
0.4
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.9
3.5"
2.3
0.2
0.1
0.9
1.3
1.4
2.3
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
(continued)
168
-------
TABLE A9. Continued
KNOWN
VALUE
NUCLIDE MONTH (10*nCf/mL)'
137Cs
137Cs
137Cs
^Ra
2»Ra
^Ra
^Ra
^Ra
^Ra
^Ra
2»Ra
^•Ra
^Ra
U(Nat.)
UfNat.)
U(Nat.)
U(Nat.)
U(Nat.)
239+240DIJ
239»240p|j
Jun
Oct
Oct
Mar
Apr
Jul
Oct
Nov
Mar
Apr
Jul
Oct
Nov
Mar
Apr
Jul
Oct
Nov
Jan
Aug
25.0
12.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
12.1
13.6
7.4
12.7
10.2
5.1
5.0
7.7
4.0
20.0
20.8
10.2
35.5
5.6
9.1
GRAND
AVG.
(10-9nCi/mL)'
26.2
13.1
5.9
5.2
5.0
11.4
12.7
7.1
12.2
10.4
5.5
5.4
8.1
4.2
19.2
19.2
10.1
34.3
5.2
8.3
LAB
AVG.
(lO-'nCi/mL)1
26.0
12.0
5.0
5.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
14.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.0
20.0
20.9
10.3
33.5
4.8
8.9
NORMALIZED
DEVIATION
FROM KNOWN
CONCENTRATION
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.0
2.4
0.4
Milk Intercomparison Studies:
MSr
89Sr
*>Sr
"Sr
13,,
"'I
137Cs
137Cs
Apr
Sep
Apr
Sep
Apr
Sep
Apr
Sep
23.0
16.0
23.0
20.0
99.0
58.0
24.0
20.0
23.1
13.5
22.3
17.6
98.0
58.9
24.7
21.5
18.7
12.7
19.7
18.0
98.0
63.3
25.3
20.3
1.5
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.2
1.5
0.5
0.1
Air Filter Intercomparison Studies:
Alpha
Alpha
Beta
Beta
»Sr
"Sr
137Cs
137Cs
Mar
Aug
Mar
Aug
Mar
Aug
Mar
Aug
5.0
10.0
31.0
62.0
10.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
6.3
12.2
32.2
64.7
9.7
19.4
11.6
22.7
6.0
14.0
36.7
80.3
11.0
18.7
10.7
22.3
0.3
1.4
2.0
6.4"
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.8
ND = Analytical results were not received.
NA = Not applicable.
• = Multiply by 3.7 x Iff to obtain Bq/L.
6 = Analytical results outside of control limits.
169
-------
TABLE A10. QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS
BIOMONITORING PROGRAM — 1990
SAMPLE ID
AND SHIPMENT
NUMBER
Spiked Samples:
Ash-1
82
Ash-2
82
Ash-3
82
Ash-4
82
Ash-1
84
Ash-2
84
Ash-3
84
Ash-1
86
Ash-2
86
Ash-3
86
Ash-4
86
Ash-5
86
Ash-6
86
Special Shipment:
Ash-1
Ash-2
Ash-3
Ash-4
Duplicate Samples:
Bone Cow #1
84
NUCLIDE
""Sr
"Sr
""Sr
*>Sr
23»+240pu
"Sr
"Sr
"Sr
*>Sr
"Sr
"Sr
*>Sr
*>Sr
»Sr
""Sr
*>Sr
«°Sr
"Sr
^TS"
ACTIVITY ADDED
pCi/g ASH
0.34
2.19
0.37
2.4 ,
0
0
0
0
0.35
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
1.65
0
2.05
0.448
0
0.468
0
0
0
0
0
1.85
1.95
2.01
1.98
0
0
FOR THE
ACTIVITY REPORTED
pCi/g ASH
Lost in Chemistry
0.9 ± 0.004
Lost in Chemistry
1.6 ± 0.07
Lost in Chemistry
0.23 ± 0.003
Lost in Chemistry
0.2 ± 0.002
0.32 ± 0.015
Lost in Chemistry
0.0002 ± 0.0015
Lost in Chemistry
0.002 ± 0.003
Lost in Chemistry
0.0007 ± 0.0019
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
0.47 ± 0.08
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
Lost in Chemistry
1.22
1.37
2.00
1.94
0.0008 ± 0.005
1.1 ± 0.03
(continued)
170
-------
TABLE A10. Continued
SAMPLE 10
AND SHIPMENT
NUMBER
NUCLIDE
ACTIVITY ADDED
pCi/g ASH
ACTIVITY REPORTED
pCl/g ASH
Dup Bone Cow #1
84
Dup Liver Cow #1
84
Dup Liver Cow #1
87
Bone Cow #5
86
Dup Bone Cow #5
86
Liver Cow #5
86
Dup Liver Cow #5
86
Liver Cow #6
86
Dup Liver Cow #6
86
Sr
«°Sr
23!k240pu
*>Sr
0
0
0
0
0.0006 ± 0.0005
1.2 ± 0.01
0.009
0.002
0.02 ± 0.003
-0.0003 ± 0.0004
0.8 ± 0.02
0.001 ± 0.0007
0.7 ± 0.02
0.03 ± 0.003
0.02 ± 0.003
0.004 ± 0.001
0.004 ± 0.001
171
------- |