unueo states
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
PO Box 15027
Las Vegas NV 89114-5027
EPA-600/3 83 040
DOE/DP/00539-049
May 1983
Research and Development
A Community Monitoring
Program Surrounding the
Nevada Test Site:
One Year of Experience
prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy
under Interagency Agreement
Number DE-A108-76DP00539
-------
Available from:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
Price Code:
Paper copy, A03
Microfiche. AOl
-------
EPA-600/3-83-040
DOE/DP/00539-049
May 1983
A COMMUNITY MONITORING PROGRAM SURROUNDING THE
NEVADA TEST SITE: One year of experience
by
Geneva S. Douglas
Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada
prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy
under Interagency Agreement
Number DE-AI08-76DP00539
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
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 consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
MONITORING EQUIPMENT AND STATION SETUP. . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . .
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND DATA INTERPRETATION
. . . .
. . . . .
.....
PUBLIC INTERACTION AND REPORTING. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
.....
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
.....
. . . . . .
iii
1
4
7
15
20
26
29
-------
INTRODUCTION
Since 1954, the U.S. Public Health Service and later the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada, have been respon-
sible for conducting a program of environmental radiation monitoring and
public radiation safety associated with nuclear weapons tests conducted by
the United States. The original interagency agreement assigning this respon-
sibility was between the Atomic Energy Commission and the Public Health
Service (Sanders et a1., 1955). and in recent years has been between the
U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency's Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada (Black et al.,
1982).
A recent major innovation in this long-term program has been the estab-
lishment of a network of Community Monitoring Stations in 15 offsite commun-
ities. The new network supplements existing networks operated for nearly
three decades in these and other offsite communities. It differs from other
networks in the continuing offsite radiation monitoring and public safety
program in that it incorporates Federal, State, and local Government par-
ticipation. This report reviews the history of offsite radiation surveil-
lance leading to institution of the new network and describes the first year
of experience with its equipment, methodology, and management as well as its
impact on citizens of the communities involved.
PROGRAM HISTORY
In the 1950's nuclear tests were conducted in clusters, or series, that
lasted for a few to several months. Like the atmospheric tests themselves,
the off site monitoring and public safety program was highly visible. The
Public Health Service (PHS) divided the offsite area into zones, each having
a community designated as zone headquarters. PHS officers from Federal,
State, and local health departments were brought to Nevada for the duration
of each test series, and one or two officers were assigned to each zone.
These officers lived in the zone headquarters community, some bringing their
families, and entered into the life of the community. This brought added
visibility to the program, in which the officers were to operate air samplers,
collect other environmental samples, set out and exchange dosimeters, take
exposure rate readings during and after passage of radioactive debris, insti-
tute protective or preventive actions should these become necessary to pro-
tect public health, and keep the public informed of the testing schedule and
the radiation levels detected (Sanders et a1., 1955; Placak et a1., 1957;
Placak et al., 1958).
1
-------
The United States conducted no tests between October 30, 1958, and
September 15, 1961. Tests thereafter were conducted year round, rather than
in operations of a few months duration. The PHS no longer assigned officers
to live in zone communities, but operated out of its Southwestern Radiolog-
ical Health Laboratory established in Las Vegas in 1959. They set up a per-
manent network of continuously operating air s&mplers, many of which were
attended by local residents who changed filters daily and were paid a nominal
amount for their time and for the power used to operate the sampler (Off-Site
Radiological Safety Program, 1964).
Before, during, and after each nuclear test, PHS personnel were in the
offsite area to take samples and make radiation exposure rate readings, to
institute protective actions if needed, and to continue the public informa-
tion program. They continued to address local groups and show films on
nuclear testing, radiation, and the offsite monitoring and public safety
program. Activities and findings of the program were published in annual
reports and in the monthly PHS journal, Radiological Health Data.
However, as the magnitude and frequency of releases of radioactivity
from the test site became less, particularly after the Limited Test Ban
Treaty went into effect in 1963 requiring all nuclear tests to be conducted
underground, the offsite monitoring and public safety program became less
visible. Residents of remote ranches and other small settlements were aware
of the continuing program and of the monitoring personnel in their area
before and during each test whether or not an accidental release occurred,
but residents of the towns and cities seemed less aware of the safety pro-
gram and less concerned about nuclear testing.
During the 1970's, only one underground test, the Baneberry event of
December 18, 1970, released significant amounts of radioactivity to the off-
site area. Only two seeps of noble gasses occurred that could be detected in
the offsite area, one in 1971 and one in 1980 (U.S. Department of Energy
1982). '
Also during the 1970's, the Three Mile Island reactor accident occurred.
In news reports of the accident, the fact of the minor release of radioactiv-
ity was overshadowed by what seemed to be a real-life dramatization of the
current movie, "The China Syndrome" (Rogovin and Frampton, 1980).
During the same period, numerous suits against the U.S. Government were
filed by long-time residents of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, claiming that can-
cers they or members of their families had developed were caused by radioac-
tive fallout. So-called atomic veterans also filed claims or suits contend-
ing cancer was caused by their exposure to radiation from nuclear weapons
tests. Various claimants contended that they were forgotten guinea pigs
that the Government had done nothing to protect their health and welfare' d
f ' an
that data on fallout exposure were alisified or suspect. Publicity attend-
ant to these events raised public anxiety and propagated misinformation that
intensified the anxiety and fear.
2
-------
THE COMMUNITY MONITORING CONCEPT
Following the Riola event of September 1980 when a small amount of noble
gasses was released off site, it became evident that citizens and officials in
the more distant offsite communities were quite unaware of the continuing
program of offsite radiation monitoring. In this climate of public opinion,
the Department of Energy's Nevada Operations Office (DOE) and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Laboratory at Las Vegas (EPA) believed that they
must take steps to make the offsite radiological safety program more visible
and that a non-Federal watchdog on the program might make the data obtained
more credible to the local populace.
Both DOE and EPA had been involved in a citizens' monitoring program in-
stituted in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island reactor in 1980 during the
time when radiokrypton was purged from the reactor containment building. The
program was a response to local officials in the TMI area who sought State
and Federal aid to purchase radiation monitoring instruments that their munic-
ipalities could use to independently monitor environmental radiation during
the purge (Reilly 1980; Baratta et al., 1980).
For that program, local officials nominated residents as citizen moni-
tors, and State and Federal participants selected the monitors from these
nominees. DOE and EPA provided detector/recorder systems that would continu-
ously measure beta and gamma radiation exposure. Citizen monitors were
trained by Pennsylvania State University, and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources Bureau of Radiation Protection (DER) provided tech-
nical direction. Citizen monitors independently analyzed the data they col-
lected daily and reported it to their own communities and to the DER. The
DER checked, analyzed, and reported the data to news media. The 12 community
monitoring stations managed by local citizens did much to reassure residents
of participating communities that radiation levels were being measured and
truthfully reported by industry and government.
The apparent success of the program at Three Mile Island led EPA and DOE
to attempt an expanded program of community monitoring in the environs of the
Nevada Test Site. The Community Monitoring Program was instituted as a joint
project between two Federal agencies (the EPA and the DOE), two State agen-
cies (the University of Nevada and the University of Utah), and 15 commun-
ities (11 in Nevada, 3 in Utah, and 1 in California).
3
-------
RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
The Health Physics Division of DOE's Nevada Operations Office and the
Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division of EPA's Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory--Las Vegas together designed the program. It was to com-
prise a network of community monitoring stations with state-of-the-art equip-
ment that would be an integral part of the offsite radiation safety program
that EPA and its predecessor had conducted for DOE for 27 years. Another
major objective was to enhance visibility and credibility of the offsite pro-
gram by eliciting direct community involvement.
Fifteen population centers close to the Nevada Test Site, or those where
knowledge and understanding of the program were important to allay fear of
Government neglect or health effects from fallout, were selected as community
participants. Seven of the communities selected already had active air sam-
pling stations for the offsite program, and four of these also had samplers
for noble gases in air and for tritium in atmospheric moisture. Five of the
other communities selected had standby stations in EPA's offsite program.
Two of the remaining communities had active stations nearby, and only 1 of
the 15 communities selected required a completely new setup. Locations of
the 15 communities are shown on the map in Figure 1.
The DOE, as the agency with ultimate responsibility for public safety
during nuclear testing operations, was to provide overall management over-
sight of the program and would provide financial support to program partici-
pants. Two contracts were let: one with the Desert Research Institute of
the University of Nevada, and another with the Nuclear Engineering Department
of the University of Utah. DOE also provided incremental funds to EPA for
purchase of additional equipment needed for the community stations. DOE pro-
vides funds to operate the total offsite radiological safety program under
its interagency agreement with EPA.
The Desert Research Institute (DRI) was to negotiate with each communit
for a suitable station location and for electrical power service to it. DRIY
would interact with local officials in selecting and employing the local sta-
tion managers and would maintain close liaison with the managers to provide
administrative management and direction. DRI would also assist station man-
agers in arranging and publicizing community meetings, make arrangements and
handle logistics for their training, and assure that data from the program
would be disseminated to the communities through the local managers. DRI was
also to develop and manage a quality assurance program and provide statis-
tical analysis of the data as an independent check on EPA, and would publish
quarterly reports of their findings.
4
-------
.................... ~~
.... ...g.::r
. .
'. -io. .
l) 4". Salt
'/8 Lake
~'<::.
.Austin
.Ely
"=>0.
l)
~~
801'
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Cedar ~ity
.
.St. George:
.
.
M;le. f ~
50 :100 N
, . I
. '.'
50 10~ 150
Kilometers
r::t:~ttl Nevada Te~t Site
Figure 1.
Community Monitoring Network station locations.
Under its contract with DOE, the University of Utah (UU) was to provide
training of station managers. This training obligation included an initial
intensive course of instruction for all managers as well as periodic refresh-
er courses, training of replacement managers, and providing training aids
that the managers could use in teaching local assistants to perform the sta-
tion manager's routine duties during a manager's absence. Also, the UU was
to assist in developing visual aids the managers could use in illustrating
talks they would give to local groups.
EPA was to provide technical direction for the program. EPA would sel-
ect and acquire the instruments to be used at the stations; calibrate, in-
stall, and maintain them; visit each station on a weekly schedule to collect
samples and records; analyze the samples and interpret radiochemical as well
as dosimetr~ data; and include findings from the Community Monitoring Net-
work as weli as from all its other offsite surveillance networks in its regu-
lar annual report. EPA was also to provide technical guidance to station
managers as problems were identified and during the training and refresher
courses.
Each community was to nominate a local resident, preferably one with
Some science background or training, who would provide day-to-day operation
of the station and serve as an effective liaison between the community and
the nuclear testing organization. Also, each community was to provide advice
on suitable space for the station.
5
-------
The station managers selected include two University professors (one in
Las Vegas and one in Salt Lake City) who involve students in station opera-
tion. Nine are high school science teachers. Two manage retail stores. one
is a retired science teacher Who owns and manages a television repair shop,
and one is a county water district employee. In the first year of the pro-
gram's operation, one manager resigned and was immediately replaced and an-
other became a station co-manager, sharing responsiblities with a colleague
at the high school Where both teach. All station managers are part-time em-
ployees of the DRI. They are paid a monthly stipend and receive per diem
during the time they are attending training sessions. Also, all are expected
to have their families participate in EPA's Human Surveillance Program, visit-
ing the EPA's Las Vegas Laboratory twice a year for measurement of the radio-
isotopes in their body tissues (their body burdens) by Whole-body and lung
counting of gamma activity.
The space provided by the communities was selected to make the stations
readily noticeable to residents. Power had to be available or able to be
brought to the space provided. Also, the bright lights to remain on the sta-
tions at night were a consideration. In two communities, space was provided
on the grounds of the university campuses. Six communities provided space on
the grounds of the local high schools. Two found space on county property
near the local sheriff's offices. One station was located on the grounds of
the community center, one was at a county park near the area swimming pool,
and one was on county property along the main street of town. Two were loca-
ted on private property, one near a bank, and one near the town's only store.
Although some locations were more visible than others, all were readily ac-
cessible to residents.
6
-------
MONITORING EQUIPMENT AND STATION SETUP
Each station is equipped with three kinds of air sampler, two systems
for direct measurement of gamma radiation, and a recording barometer or baro-
graph. Each occupies a rectangular area, lighted at night from floodlights
mounted on poles at each end of an aluminum-frame equipment bench and auto-
matically controlled by a light-sensor switch. The sampling equipment is
arranged on a 10-foot long by 30-inch wide bench and the dosimetry equipment
is attached to an aluminum T-shaped frame located about 10 feet from one end
of the bench. Both bench and T-frame are set in concrete, and both allow
radiation detectors and sampling ports to be 1 meter above ground. The
arrangement of equipment is illustrated in Figure 2.
Affixed to the front edge of the bench, facing the approach to the sta-
tion, are two signs. One explains what the station is and gives the name and
phone numbers of the station manager in that community. The other is a dia-
gram of the station that identifies each piece of equipment. After several
months of experience with the stations, a weather-tight box was added in
which to store tools, supplies, and air samples awaiting pickup by EPA per-
sonnel. In February 1983, a locking, glass-fronted, aluminum display case
was added to each station. In this case, managers display a statement of
findings from the station and a graph of average daily gamma exposure rate
for the past week. Both are provided weekly by EPA.
In April 1981 the first station was installed on the campus of the Uni-
versity of Nevada at Las Vegas, on which the EPA Laboratory is also located.
This station served as a prototype for 4 months before installation of the
other stations was begun. All but one of the stations had been installed by
the end of January 1982, despite the difficulties EPA personnel encountered
in pouring concrete during sub-freezing weather in some communities. The
station in Austin, Nevada, was not completed until late April of 1982 due to
delays in installing a power line to the station during winter months.
In the following sections, the operating characteristics, sampling or
measurement frequency, sensitivity, and calibration of each piece of monitor-
ing equipment are described. Also described are problems encountered by sta-
tion managers in day-to-day operation of the stations and the equipment mod-
ifications made to correct those problems.
AIR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
particulates and Reactive Gases
Each station has a RADeCO HD-28A air sampler that samples air at a con-
stant flow rate of 2 cubic feet per minute (cfm) through a 2-inch diameter
7
-------
"v
'¥
,
~?/Jf',~:~t:tti:'~~\'< ,,":V{;~L~'7 ~;:,~Z~'~~-~' :~
Air Compressor for
Noble Gas Sampler
Tritium
Sampler
Air
Particulate
Sampler
~
Noble Gas
Sampler
Thermoluminescent
Dosimeters
Gamma
Exposure Rate
Recorder
for PIC
-
Pressurized
Ion Chamber
(PIC)
-
Figure 2.
A typical Community Monitoring Station.
8
-------
glass fiber prefilter and a 2-inch diameter cartridge of activated charcoal
impregnated with triethylene diamine (TEDA) to increase efficiency for organ-
ic iodine collection. The station manager changes prefilters and cartridges
each Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and packages and labels them. An EPA mon-
itor picks them up during his routine weekly visit to each station and takes
them to the Las Vegas Laboratory for analysis.
Each of the air samplers is protected from sun, rain, snow, and dust
storms by being mounted in a metal weather housing. The sampling head is out-
side the housing, about 4 feet above ground level, and connected to the sam-
pler vacuum pump by copper tubing, as can be seen in Figure 2.
The RADeCO samplers were calibrated by the manufacturer to a standard
traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) before shipment. They
are recalibrated to the constant flow rate of 2 cfm by means of a venturi-
type portable calibrator designed and manufactured by RADeCO and calibrated
against an NBS standard by the manufacturer. Recalibration is performed
every 6 months and after any preventive maintenance or repair is performed
on a sampler.
The particularly harsh environmental conditions to which the samplers
are subjected, with temperatures ranging from above 120°F. to below OaF.
caused the plastic rotameters to crack and break at the flow adjustment screw
and thus indicate a false flow rate. The rotameters were therefore replaced
with Dwyer model rotameters.
The elapsed time indicator, also made of plastic, did not long withstand
resetting three times a week, every time the filters were changed. These
plastic indicators were thus replaced with a Kramer-type timer made of metal.
Also, the plastic jar in the exhaust muffler assembly did not withstand the
extreme summer heat and was replaced in each sampler with a glass jar.
Tritium in Atmospheric Moisture
Atmospheric moisture is collected by a sampler designed and built by
Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division personnel at the EMSL-LV. An aquarium
aerator pump pulls air through a Union Carbide SA molecular sieve containing
lIB-inch to 3/16-inch pellets. The sampler collects water from up to 10
cubic meters of air during a 7-day sampling period. A prefilter at the air
intake removes particles before the air passes through the sieve. A thermo-
graph and rotameter allow calculation of sample volume.
The molecular sieve column, with thermograph, rotameter, dry gas meter,
and aerator pump, are mounted in a 2.S-cubic-foot refrigerator to maintain
uniform temperature during the sampling period. The air intake and exhaust
are located outside the refrigerator, connected to the column with tubing.
The entire assembly is mounted on the metal bench as shown in Figure 2.
During his weekly visit to each Community Monitoring Station, the EPA
monitor replaces the molecular sieve column containing the moisture sample
with a fresh column. At the Laboratory in Las Vegas, the moisture is recov-
ered and analyzed for tritium.
9
-------
Calibration of the dry gas meter in each sampler is performed every 6
months. Calibration is against a wet test meter.
Noble Gases
An Air Products cryogenic air sampler system is used to collect an air
sample in liquid form, from which noble gases can be fractionally distilled
in the laboratory. The system consists of a filter-dryer assembly connected
to an evacuated sample bottle housed in a liquid nitrogen dewar. Air, pas-
sing first through the filter-dryer assembly to remove particles, moisture,
and carbon dioxide that could freeze the inlet line, moves into the sample
bottle at a constant flow rate. Flow rate is regulated by a limiting orifice
at the ambient air intake and depends on the orifice size. To maintain the
nitrogen in liquid form, a compressor module is linked to a refrigerator, or
expander module, in the top of the dewar. Liquefaction of the sampled air
maintains negative pressure in the sample bottle, and the flow continues at
a constant rate over the 7-day sampling period.
Each week, the EPA monitor replaces the dewar and sampling bottle con-
taining the liquified air sample with a freshly filled dewar and evacuated
sampling bottle. He carries with him a spare tank of liquid nitrogen with
which to top off the dewar, which is sometimes necessary during hot weather.
Also, the sample bottles and dewars are covered during transport to minimize
liquid nitrogen evaporation. The samples are brought to the Las Vegas Lab-
oratory for fractional distillation of noble gases and recovery of krypton
and xenon, which are analyzed for radioactivity. Volume of the sample is
determined by weight, so no flow-rate calibration is required.
Experience in using the cryogenic sampling system showed that some mod-
ifications were required for its reliable operation in extreme weather- A
gauge cover was installed on the compressor module to protect it from direct
sunlight. A direct-reading vacuum gauge was installed on the expander to pro-
vide a visual indicator of the actual pressure in the dewar during opera-
tion of the refrigeration system.
The calibrated brass capillary orifice provided by the manufacturer
often became plugged and had to be replaced. The prohibitive cost of these
orifices led EPA to design and construct a far less expensive forged-needle
metering valve system to replace the calibrated orifice. The metering valve
was installed on each sample bottle. The valve is adjusted to allow a flow
rate of between 80 standard cubic centimeters (scc) and 100 scc per minute
depending on the location and altitude of the station where it is operatin~.
The EPA monitor checks flow rate with a rotameter before and after sample
bottles are changed. The set flow rate provides a total sample volume over
a 7-day pe:iod of up t~ 1.5 cubic meters of air. The minimum volume required
for analys1s is approx1mately 0.25 cubic meters.
DOSIMETRY EQUIPMENT
Integrated Gamma Radiation Exposure
At each Community Monitoring Station, three Harshaw Model 2271-G2
10
-------
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TL-200's) are placed in a secured plastic
housing, referred to as a "birdhouse," located 1 meter above ground to stand-
ardize exposure geometry. Each dosimeter contains two small "chips" of
dysprosium activated calcium fluoride mounted in a Teflon window and attached
to a small aluminum card. An energy compensation shield of 1.2-mm thick cad-
mium metal is placed over the card bearing the chips, and the shielded card
is sealed in an opaque plastic holder- With three such holders at each sta-
tion, six readings of total gamma radiation exposure are obtained. The
dosimeters are exchanged and read quarterly.
The TL-200 dosimeters are almost uniformly sensitive to photons of 100
kiloelectron volts (keV) and higher energy. The smallest exposure increment
above background radiation that they can measure depends primarily on the
magnitude of background variation. Natural background at the 15 Community
Monitoring Stations ranges from 15 milliroentgens (mR) to 35 mR per quarter;
depending mainly on altitude and composition of the earth's surface at each
location. Typically, the smallest change in exposure detectable at the 99
percent confidence level for a 90-day exposure is between 1 and 5 mR above
background.
Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate
Each station has a pressurized ion chamber (PIC) detector/recorder
system. It provides a continuous direct measure of gamma radiation exposure
rate. The PIC is the only instrument at the stations that residents can look
at whenever they wish to get an immediate reading of radiation exposure rate.
The PIC system is a modified Reuter Stokes RSS-1011 radiation monitoring
system. Each consists of a low-range pressurized ion chamber detector that
will measure exposure rates of 0 to 100 milliroentgens per hour (mR/h) con-
nected to a remote processor unit. This unit contains circuitry, power sup-
plies, recording and display devices, and an 8-bit microcomputer. In the
standard Reuter Stokes system, the microcomputer directs transmission of data
to a central data collection and processing center. In the system acquired
for the Community Monitoring Stations this communicating function is replaced
with a magnetic tape recording system.
One other modification was made in the basic system. A large window of
clear plexiglass was installed in the hinged cover of the remote processor
unit housing to make the readout systems visible without opening the housing.
There are three readout systems. Two of these can be immediately seen and
read by local residents. One is a digital display of the exposure rate in
microroentgens per hour (~R/h) or mR/h depending on the automatically sel-
ected range, and the other is a paper strip chart on which the gamma exposure
rate is recorded by a dot every 2 seconds. Readings are in four ranges that
are indicated on the strip chart by an auxiliary chart trace (broken line):
o to 50 ~ R/h, 0 to 500 ~ R/h, 0 to 10 mR/h, and 0 to 100 mR/h. The third
readout is the magnetic tape record which must be removed and read into a
computer at the laboratory. Exposure rate is recorded on the magnetic tape
every 5 seconds.
11
-------
The low-level sensor has a sensitivity ranging from 0.81 to 1.56 for
photons of 70 keV up to at least 8 million electron volts (MeV) relative to
a sensitivity of 1.00 for 4 MeV photons. It is calibrated against cobalt-60
by the manufacturer, who reports a calibration accuracy of better than ~4
percent and a calibration drift of less than 2 percent per year (Reuter-
Stokes, Inc., 1981).
On his weekly visit to each station, an EPA monitor removes the 7-day
paper strip chart record and exchanges the magnetic tape cassette record with
a fresh tape. The local station manager examines the system daily, inserts a
new roll of chart tape as necessary, and reports any operational problems to
the EPA Laboratory. During power-line failures, the system automatically
converts to 12-volt battery power and will operate for 8 hours in that mode.
The 12-volt battery is recharged by an internal battery charger wh~n power
is restored. That battery is replaced annually. A 300-volt dry cell used
for ion chamber bias is not rechargable. It is replaced as necessary. about
every 3 months.
MICRO BAROGRAPH
Natural background varies with atmospheric pressure, and a record of
this pressure was desired at each station. Because of the weather extremes
encountered in the network of Community Monitoring Stations, and because the
statiDns are not constantly attended, a marine barograph, designed to main-
tain its precision through the varied conditions encountered by ships at sea,
was selected. The particular instrument is Federal Stock Number 6660-946-
9632, available from the Belfort Instrument Company. The instrument has a
2.5 to 1 magnified scale, high sensitivity and accurate temperature compensa-
tion. These earn it the title of microbarograph.
The chart drive mechanism is an 8-day, spring-wound clock which drives
the cylinder at a rate of one revolution in 108 hours. The charts are marked
for a pressure range of 965 to 1050 millibars. They are changed by the EPA
monitor during his weekly visit and brought to the Laboratory where they aid
in interpreting gamma exposure rate records. The station managers ensure
that the barographs are operating, add ink or adjust the recording pens as
necessary, and report problems promptly to the EPA.
HAND-HELD SURVEY METERS
In November 1982, EPA provided each station manager with two hand-held
radiation survey instruments. One was an Eberline E-500B Geiger-Mueller sur-
vey meter with a beta/gamma probe; the other was a Baird Atomic scintillator,
model NE148A, suitable for measuring low-level gamma radiation and X rays.
With the instruments, managers received a Coleman lantern mantle to use as a
radiation source with which to determine that the instruments are operating.
12
-------
When the instruments were issued, each manager received personal in-
struction in their proper use from the EPA personnel who delivered them.
This training was reinforced at a session in the refresher course managers
attended in Las Vegas in December 1982. At the refresher course, each man-
ager received a written and illustrated standard operating procedure for the
instruments. Also, they were briefed on the routine calibration and preven-
tive maintenance procedures to which the instruments are subject. These pro-
cedures are the same as those used for instruments the EPA monitoring person-
nel carry, and every 90 days the station managers' instruments are exchanged
for newly recalibrated and maintained instruments.
Station managers use their survey instruments to check alleged radiation
sources reported by residents to be in the community. Several managers have
found the instruments useful for classroom demonstrations of natural radio-
activity and variations in natural background. Also, should there be a re-
lease of fission products from the Nevada Test Site, station managers could
use their instruments to assist EPA monitoring personnel in measuring and
documenting beta and gamma radiation exposure rates in and around the commun-
ities affected.
NETWORK COSTS
Most of the equipment installed in Community Monitoring Stations was
already in use or scheduled for purchase to replace older equipment in the
offsite monitoring networks. Therefore, incremental costs to cluster the air
samplers and dosimetry equipment in 15 Community Monitoring Stations was rel-
atively small.
The average cost of equipping 1 station in the IS-station network was
approximately $32,000. This includes two dewars for each noble gas sampler
and the prorated cost of four complete extra sets of equipment as replace-
ments and backup to the network. Additional funds were spent on labor and
travel to select the sites, obtain power, and work with local officials to
select the station managers.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MONITORING NETWORKS
Although the Community Monitoring Stations themselves form a unique mon-
itoring network, almost all the equipment at these stations are part of other
routine networks operated by the EPA Laboratory in the offsite area surround-
ing the Nevada Test Site. Only the microbarograph is unique to the Community
Monitoring Network.
The RADeCO air samplers are part of a network of 30 continuously opera-
ting stations in Nevada, Utah, and California for sampling airborne particu-
lates and reactive gasses. In addition, there is a network of 72 standby air
sampling stations throughout the western States. These are now equipped with
Gelman Tempest samplers but will be converted to the RADeCO-type samplers in
fiscal year 1983.
13
-------
Noble gas and tritium samplers are operated routinely at one additional
small community close to the Test Site boundaryt giving that network a total
of 16 stations. Temporary stations can be added by EPA personnel should
there be a seepage of noble gases from an underground nuclear test opera-
tion.
A dosimetry network comprises 81 stations in Nevada and surrounding
Statest including the 15 Community Monitoring Stations. All have the same
"birdhouse" containing six TLD chips. Alsot some 46 local residents of the
offsite areat including the 15 Community Monitoring Station managerst rou-
tinely wear TLD badgest which are exchanged and read monthly.
The exposure rate recorder network comprises 22 stations including the
15 Community Monitoring Stations. Three of these locations are equipped with
solar-powered PIC systems. Alsot EPA monitors carry portable PIC systems to
be set up downwind of the Nevada Test Site should there be an accidental
release of radioactivity from testing operations there.
FinallYt the EPA has a Human Surveillance Program in which selected fam-
ilies visit the Las Vegas Laboratory twice a year. On each visit their radi-
ation body burdens are determined and once a year they receive a physical
examinationt also. Families of the Community Monitoring Station managers are
among the 34 offsite families now actively participating in this continuing
program.
ThuSt the Community Monitoring Network cant but does nott stand alone.
Its stations serve double duty as stations in the several routine networks
EPA maintains to monitor environmental radiation trends in the offsite area
as well as compliance with the guidelines for public radiation safety during
nuclear testing operations.
14
-------
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND DATA INTERPRETATION
As each monitoring system at the Community Monitoring Stations is part
of another routine offsite monitoring network, samples and dosimetric meas-
uremeents from the Community Monitoring Stations are analyzed by the same
methods used for samples and measurements from the other networks. Analytical
methods are described in detail by Johns et a!. (1979) in "Radiochemical
Analytical Procedures for Analysis of Environmental Samples." Also, each
monitoring system is subject to the applicable monitoring network quality
assurance plan described in the offsite environmental monitoring report pub-
lished annually by the EPA Laboratory (Black et al., 1982).
Public health implications of radioisotopes detected in air samples are
determined by comparing the measured amount of each isotope to the Concentra-
tion Guides specified by DOE Order 5480.1, Chapter XI. These Concentration
Guides are annual average air concentrations. They are one-thirtieth of the
maximum permissible concentrations recommended by the International Commission
on Radiation Protection (ICRP) for continuous (168 hours per week) occupation-
al exposure. The maximum permissible concentrations specified by the ICRP
could be present in air continuously for a radiation worker's entire worklife
without causing discernable biological effect in the workers breathing that
air. The maximum permissible concentration is divided by 30 to obtain the
Concentration Guide to protect any unusually sensitive person in the general
population.
AIR SAMPLES
Particulates and Reactive Gases
Prefilters from the RADeCO air samplers are analyzed by gamma spectrom-
etry. Intrinsic germanium (IG) or lithium-drifted germanium [Ge(Li)] detec-
tors are used with a multichannel gamma pulse height analyzer calibrated at
0.5 kiloelectron volts (keV) per channel from 0.04 MeV to 2 MeV.
Efficiencies of the detectors depend on the gamma energy, but are about 4 per-
cent for the 0.662 keV gamma photons from cesium-137. Counting* time for
each filter is 30 minutes. The minimum detectable concentration by this
method is about 0.04 picocuries (pCi) for a single radioisotope per cubic
meter of air. (Since a picocurie is 2.2 radioactive disintegrations per min-
ute, the minimum detectable concentration is about 0.088 disintegrations per
minute in 35 cubic feet of air.)
*Counting refers to enumerating the radioactive disintegrations per unit
of time.
15
-------
This detection limit allows measurement of iodine-131 concentrations in
air that are 0.12 percent of the Concentration Guide. It enables measurements
of other gamma emitting fission products at concentrations in air that are
even smaller percentages of the Concentration Guides 30r those fission prod-
ucts. For example, the detection limit of 0.04 pCi/m is 0.024 percent of
the Concentration Guide for cesium-137.
Spectral data are resolved by an on-line computer program that identifies
every peak in the spectrum and quantifies the concentration of isotopes of
beryllium, zirconium, niobium, molybdenum, ruthenium, iodine, tellurium,
cesium, barium, lanthanum, and cerium. Should other isotopes be identified
in the spectrum, they would be quantified by special techniques.
Three of the Community Monitoring Stations participate in a gross beta
activity study begun for the Air Surveillance Network in July 1980 to detect
trends in atmospheric radioactivity more quickly than is possible with gamma
spectrometry. The three stations are those at St. George, Las Vegas, and
Shoshone. Two other stations from the Air Surveillance Network, north and
east of the Nevada Test Site, are also part of the study (Black et al. 1982).
Gross beta activity in each of the prefilters from these stations is deter-
mined by counting for 30 minutes in a low-level, end-window, gas-flow propor-
tional counter. Counting is done at least 5 days after sample collection to
allow natural radon and thoron daughter products to decay. This procedure
provides a detection limit of about 0.5 pCi of total gross beta activity per
sample.
Following gamma spectral analysis, and also gross beta counting for the
Las Vegas samples, prefilters from Rachel, Indian Springs, and Las Vegas are
composited and any plutonium present is isolated by radiochemical procedures
using acid digestion and anion-column separation. The recovered plutonium is
analyzed for plutonium-239 by alpha spectrometry with a counting time of 1,000
to 1,400 minutes. The detection limit for plutonium-239 by this method is
about 5 to 10 attocuries of plutonium per cubic meter of air- Ten attocuries
is 0.003 percent of the Concentration Guide for plutoniurn-239. (An attocurie
is one one-millionth of a picocurie.) Plutonium concentrations in prefilters
from the three Community Monitoring Stations near the Nevada Test Site are
compared with plutonium concentrations determined by the same procedures in
prefilters from eight distant stations in the Standby Air Surveillance Net-
work. If this comparison should show a trend toward increasing concentration
in samples from close-in stations relative to those from the distant stations,
potential local sources of the increased plutonium, including the Nevada Test
Site, would be investigated.
The charcoal cartridges are designed to collect reactive gases. These
are mainly gamma-emitting radioisotopes of iodine found in fresh fission prod-
ucts, so under normal conditions little if any radioactivity is expected.
Therefore, four cartridges from each station are composited and together
screened for gamma emitters by counting for 10 minutes using a thallium act-
ivated sodium iodide [NaI(Tl)] detector and multichannel analyzer. If any
gamma energy peak from a man-made radioisotope is discerned in the spectrum,
each of the four cartridges is analyzed separately by the gamma spectrometry
method described for the prefilters.
16
-------
Tritium in Atmospheric Moisture
Tritium is measured in the atmospheric moisture collected by the molec-
ular sieves at each Community Monitoring Station. The moisture is removed
from the molecular sieve by heating and collected in another moisture trap
cooled by liquid nitrogen. The water collected is weighed and then distilled.
Four milliliters of the water sample. containing the tritium. is dissolved in
a scintillation cocktail. (The cocktail is a solution of organic substances
that emit light after absorbing energy from the tritium beta radiation.) The
sample is allowed to adapt to the dark for 3 days and then is counted for 50
minutes in a liquid scintillation counter. About 400 picocuries of tritium
per liter of water is the minimum concentration of tritium detectable by this
method. The minimum amount detectable per cubic meter of air depends on the
relative humidity of the air during the week it is being collected. and this
varies from week to week and from one location to another.
Noble Gases
The liquid air collected by the cryogenic samplers is weighed to determine
sample size. It is then fractionally distilled by a method of gas chromatog-
raphy that takes advantage of the different temperatures at which the con-
stituent gases are liquified. The krypton and xenon fractions are separately
dissolved in scintillation cocktails of toluene. After dark adaptation. each
is counted for radiokrypton or radioxenon. With an original air sample ~f
0.4 to 1.0 cubic meters. the minimum concentration detectable is 4 pCi/m for
krypton-85. xenon-133, and xenon-13S at the time of counting. This is 0.012
percent of the Concentration Guide for xenon-13S.
Findings
Since the Community Monitoring Stations began operation. the only gamma
emitting radioisotope detected in air is beryllium-7. Beryllium-7 occurs
naturally world wide. It is produced by cosmic radiation interacting with
nitrogen and oxygen in the air. Although it is not strictly appropriate to
apply a Concentration Guide to a naturally occurring isotope, beryllium con-
centrations detected in the prefilters have been less than 0.1% of the
Concentration Guide for that isotope. No reactive gases have been detected
in the charcoal cartridges collected from Community Monitoring Stations since
the stations began operation.
Most samples of atmospheric moisture collected from the Community Moni-
toring Stations to date contain less than the minimum detectable concentration
of tritium. Of the few samples in which tritium could be measured. none con-
tained concentrations greater than 0.1% of the Concentration Guide.
No radioactive xenon has been detected in any of the cryogenic air sam-
ples from the Community Monitoring Stations, but all have contained some
krypton-85 at levels consistent with worldwide radiokrypton activity. The
maximum concentration of krypton-8S in any sample has been less than 0.1% of
the krypton-8S Concentration Guide.
17
-------
Specific data from the air samplers at the Community Monitoring Stations
and from the gross beta activity and plutonium studies associated with the Air
Surveillance Network will be published in the 1982 "Offsite Environmental
Moni to ring Report." Gross beta activity and plutonium concentrations are con-
sistent with the low levels found nationwide and are attributable to worldwide
fallout.
DOSIMETRY
Integrated Gamma Radiation Exposure
After one-quarter year (3 months) of exposure at a Community Monitoring
Station, the TL-200 dosimeters are exchanged and brought to the Las Vegas
Laboratory where they are read in a Harshaw 2271 automated TLD reader. The
reader heats the radiation-sensitive chips, which then give off light propor-
tional to the gamma radiation they absorbed. The light is converted to an
electrical signal which is interpreted by a computer and printed as the total
exposure in milliroentgens. Thermoluminescent dosimeters worn by the station
managers are exchanged and read in the same way.
Gamma Radiation Exposure Rate
Paper strip charts and magnetic tape cassette records of gamma exposure
rate made by the pressurized ion chamber (PIC) system at each station are col-
lected weekly and brought to the Las Vegas Laboratory. The paper strip chart
records are examined visually, and any anomalies are noted. Photocopies of
the portions of the record containing an anomaly are made as a permanent
record, and the original strip chart is returned to those station managers
who want them for reference or display in the community.
Exposure rate data from the magnetic tapes are transferred through a
minicomputer to permanent computer storage, from which they may be retrieved
as desired. The minicomputer averages the data collected on the tape every
5 seconds to obtain hourly averages for each day. It also obtains a daily and
a weekly average exposure rate and calculates a standard deviation for each
average. The computer is programmed to print the hourly averages for each
day in tabular form and as a graph of gamma exposure rate versus time. It
also prints the daily averages in tabular form and as a graph showing the
average exposure rate for each day versus date.
Findings
The total gamma radiation exposure measured by the TLD's is compared to
valid measurements of natural background exposure made during the past year at
the same location or a similar nearby location. Background here refers to the
gamma radiation exposure from cosmic radiation and naturally occurring radio-
isotopes plus any contribution from residual manmade fission products, such as
worldwide fallout. TLD's from all the Community Monitoring Stations have been
within the normal range of background.
18
-------
Total gamma radiation exposure determined by TLD badges worn by a station
manager is compared to the background measured at the Community Monitoring
Station in his or her community. Any net increase above station background
is reported to the station manager and the source of the net increase is in-
vestigated if the manager wishes. For example. a volunteer with an appoint-
ment to have bite-wing X rays taken by his dentist wore TLD badges in his
shirt and pants pockets while at the dentist's office. Neither badge received
an exposure from scattered X rays that would show in a quarter-year exposure.
The few net exposures reported have been low. Most have been less than 5 mR
above background. which is the upper range of the detection limit at a 99 per-
cent confidence level.
Increases in gamma exposure rate recorded by the PIC systems have been
associated with weather fronts moving through a station's area. These are
small increases. usually of a few hours' duration. Reduced barometric pres-
sure. which can be verified by the barograph records. allows more natural
radon and thoron to enter the air from the earth and rock. and the daughter
products of radon and thoron decay account for the slightly increased gamma
radiation exposure rate observed. Precipitation and snow cover also cause
slight changes in the gamma exposure rate.
The backgroun~radiation levels recorded by the PIC's are consistently
about 23 percent higher than that measured by the TLD's. This difference may
be attributed in part to the wider range of gamma energies to which the PIC
detector is sensitive. The difference will be further investigated during
the next several months.
19
-------
PUBLIC INTERACTION AND REPORTING
TOWN HALL MEETINGS
Enhanced visibility and understanding of the offsite radiation monitoring
and public safety program by offsite residents was a major program objective.
Therefore. a series of "town hall meetings" to be held in the participating
communities during the first year of station operation was incorporated into
the Community Honitoring Program design. The meetings were intended to
introduce the Community Monitoring Station and its manager to the community.
provide background information on the nuclear testing program and its associ-
ated safety programs. explain the role of each participating agency. and
obtain feedback from local residents who would be encouraged to ask questions
and express their concerns.
The Desert Research Institute (DRI) arranged the meetings in cooperation
with the station manager in each community. In cooperation with the DOE Public
Affairs Office. the DRI also arranged to publicize the meetings. They provided
handbills for the station manager and EPA monitors to distribute. placed paid
advertisements in local newspapers. encouraged news stories about the new
stations and the meetings. and arranged for public service announcements on
radio whenever possible. All were weekday evening meetings beginning at a
time considered most convenient for the community.
The first such
Nevada. on February
to open the meeting
they spoke. were:
meeting was held at the Community Center in Pahrump.
3. 1982. The agenda called for the local station manager
and introduce the guest speakers. These. in the order
.
the Manager of the DOE's Nevada Operations Office. who explained why
and how nuclear tests are conducted and showed a 30-minute film illus-
trating the preparation for and conduct of an underground nuclear test
and the associated safety programs.
.
the Director of the EPA Laboratory's Nuclear Radiation Assessment
Division. who explained the history and current operating procedures
of the offsite radiation monitoring and public safety program.
.
the Director of the DRI's Water Resources Center. who explained
objectives of the new Community Monitoring Program and the role
two State universities in it. and
the
of the
.
the station manager. who explained the equipment at his station and
his own role in the program.
20
-------
Most used slides to illustrate their talks. The series of speakers was fol-
lowed by a question-and-answer period and refreshments. The formal part of
the program took longer than the scheduled 1-1/4 hours, and there were many
questions, which continued in informal groupings when refreshments were served.
Sixteen local residents attended, not counting the station manager.
Attendance at the next two meetings in Goldfield and Tonopah, as shown in
Table 1, was discouraging. Nevertheless, at critiques held after each meeting,
participating Federal and State agencies agreed that the effort must be made
no matter how small the attendance. At most meetings, at least one local
official attended, usually the official Who originally arranged for community
participation. Attendees seemed interested and asked many questions, some-
times staying quite late to do so. Some expressed appreciation for the open-
ness with which speakers explained the program and answered questions. Also,
numerous handouts on the Community Monitoring Program, on related monitoring
and public safety programs, on activities at the Nevada Test Site, and on
other programs of the DOE, such as nuclear waste storage, were picked up and
presumably read by residents attending the meetings.
Meetings were held in six more communities before the station managers
gathered in Las Vegas in August 1982 for their first week-long refresher
course arranged by DR! in cooperation with the University of Utah. Attendance
at these six ranged from 8 in Cedar City to 37 in Alamo (see Table 1). Local
press representatives attended those at E1y, St. George, and Rachel, and a
Japanese television company filmed portions of the meeting in Cedar City.
Some residents complained that the formal part of the meeting was too long,
and with so many speakers there was not enough time, or residents were too
tired, to ask all the questions they wanted to ask. With additional feedback
from the station managers during their course, they and the other partici-
pants agreed on a modified format for the remaining meetings.
The new format was first used at the meeting in Beatty on September 15.
The station manager opened the meeting by introducing Federal and State gov-
ernment participants, but only one of these, the EPA representative, made a
formal presentation. A IS-minute version of the film on nuclear testing was
shown, after Which the EPA representative spoke for 20 minutes from an outline
approved by all agencies. A series of 12 slides contributed by the agencies
illustrated the Community Monitoring Network and its relationship to other
offsite networks, both past and present; how station managers were selected
and trained and the duties they perform; the purpose of each instrument at a
station and the significance of the radioisotopes monitored; and how the rou-
tine monitoring networks are supplemented with special activites before and
during each nuclear test. She called on the DOE representative to briefly
answer the common question, "Why do we continue to test nuclear weapons when
so many have already been tested?"
Throughout the program, the audience was encouraged to note their ques-
tions on cards handed out with pencils as people arrived. These cards were
gathered at the close of the presentation. The station manager then acted as
moderator for the panel of experts to answer those questions and any others
from the floor. The panel comprised at least one representative from each
21
-------
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF "TOWN HALL MEETING" ATTENDANCE AND SCHEDULE
=============================================================================
COMMUNITY
Pahrump~ NV
Goldfield~ NV
Tonopah~ NV
Rachel~ NV
Overton~ NV
St. George~ UT
Cedar City, UT
Alamo~ NV
Ely~ NV
Beatty~ NV
MILES FROM NTS
CONTROL POINT
POPULATION*
49
84
105
51
98
137
171
59
175
47
3~500
700
3~600
50
1~200
11 ~ 350
10~972
700
65
4~882
800
350
1~500
250**
Austin~ NV 180
Indian Springs~ NV 31
Shoshone~ CA
*
**
GUESTS ATTENDING
No. % of Population
16
6
7
29
18
14
8
37
14
20
4
0.46
0.86
0.19
58
1.5
0.12
0.07
5.4
0.29
2.8
1982
MEETING DATE
February 3
March 22
April 1
April 15
May 27
June 9
June 18
June 30
July 28
September 15
October 13
October 28
November 18
From 1980 U.S. census and from EPA census in small communities.
This number increases greatly due to seasonal influx in winter months.
7
40
1.1
0.47
16
=============================================================================
participating agency, usually the top official or his deputy, and the station
manager.
The 45-minute presentation format proved effective~ and no further com-
plaints about the length of the meetings or inadequate time for questions were
received. The question-and-answer period usually lasted more than an hour~
although some audiences needed more encouragement to open up than did others.
The revised format was used for the remainder of the meetings.
Altogether, 223 residents attended the series of 13 meetings. (The pop-
ulations of Las Vegas and Salt Lake City were considered too large for this
type of meeting to be effective.) The number attending excludes station
managers and their families~ members of a speaker's family who occasionally
attended, or outside groups such as the Japanese television crew.
DATA REPORTS
For each "town hall meeting" the DRI prepared a data report summarizing
all air sampling data collected by the network. It showed the number of
22
-------
samples collected at each station since it began operation, the number found
to contain radioactivity, the activity measured, and the activity expressed as
a percentage of the applicable Concentration Guide. These air data summaries
reported particulates, reactive gases, tritium, and noble gases. They were
updated bimonthly. The DRI is continuing these bimonthly data summaries and
provides them to station managers to distribute within the communities
(Cooper and Jones 1982).
Beginning in mid-May, EPA began delivering weekly printouts of data from
PIC gamma exposure rate systems to each station manager for use in the commun-
ity. At the "town hall meeting" in Austin, residents asked for a simpler re-
port than the comprehensive summary provided by the DRI, so EPA developed a
one-page statement typed in a format that would allow it to be displayed in
the community. A typical statement is shown in Figure 3. Each station man-
ager receives the statement for his or her community with the weekly PIC
printouts. By the end of February 1983, EPA had installed at each station a
glass fronted, aluminum display board. In these the managers could display the
weekly statement as well as the computer plot of the daily average exposure
rate for the past week. The one-page statement was also used by DRI as part
of the data report handout at the remaining meetings.
The statement shown in Figure 3 reflects a policy adopted in September
1982 whereby the DRI notifies each station manager by telephone when an
underground nuclear test takes place at the Nevada Test Site. This helps
to keep station managers more fully aware of activities at the Test Site and
lets them know of tests earlier than they would through newspaper or broadcast
media reports. Also, it allows them to mark their gamma exposure rate charts
with the time and date of the test so that interested residents can review
the exposure record with respect to each test.
EPA prepares internal quarterly reports of data from all its offsite net-
works. Although these are not published, all data they contain are included
in the annual "Offsite Environmental Monitoring Report," and beginning with
the 1982 report, the Community Monitoring Program will be included. The
annual reports are published with both EPA and DOE report numbers by which
they may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service in
Springfield, Virginia, or from the DOE's Technical Information Center in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. Copies of the annual reports are distributed free to State
health departments of every State in which samples are collected and to the
Community Monitoring Station managers as well as to EPA Regional Offices, DOE
Operations Offices and numerous other Government officials.
OTHER CO~1UNICATION
EPA maintains a recording telephone for station managers to call at any
time of day or night to ask questions or report problems. The EPA project
officer for the Community Monitoring Program or his designee interrogates the
record of calls often so that response can be prompt. Station managers also
have credit cards with which they can call DOE, DRI, or EPA participants in
the program at work or at home free of charge. These arrangements reflect the
policy of open and frequent communication among program participants and be-
tween them and the public.
23
-------
RADIOACTIVITY IN AUSTIN, NEVADA
AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THIS MONITORING STATION DURING THE WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 23, 1982, SHOWED THAT THE CONCEN-
TRATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN AUSTIN'S AIR REMAINS AT NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVELS.
THE PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER (PIC) DETECTOR AT THIS STATION RECORDED THE AVERAGE GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURE RATE FOR
THE WEEK ENDING DECEMBER 14, 1982, AS 16.9 MICROROENTGENS PER HOUR. THIS IS WITHIN THE NORMAL BACKGROUND RANGE OF
EXPOSURE RATE FOR AUSTIN, NEVADA. A PLOT OR GRAPH OF THE PIC'S AVERAGE DAILY EXPOSURE RATE FOR THE WEEK REPORTED IS
D I SPLAYED BELOW.
AN UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TEST WITH A YIELD OF BETWEEN 20 AND 150 KILOTONS WAS CONDUCTED AT THE NEVADA TEST SITE ON
DEW1BER 10, 1982, AT 7:20 A.M. P.S.T. THE TEST WAS CODE-NAMED MANTECA. NO RADIOACTIVITY FROM THAT TEST WAS DETECTED
ABOVE GROUND.
A SLIGHT INCREASE IN GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURE RATE THAT OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 13, 1982 WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A STORM
FRONT MOVING THROUGH THE AUSTIN AREA. REDUCED BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ALLOWS MORE NATURAL RADON AND THORON TO ENTER THE
AIR FROM THE EARTH AND ROCK, AND THE DAUGHTER PRODUCTS OF RADON AND THORON ACCOUNT FOR THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER GAMMA
EXPOSURE RATE OBSERVED. PRECIPITATION CAN ALSO ACCOUNT FOR AN INCREASE IN EXPOSURE RATE BY WASHING NATURAL RADWACTIVE
MATERIAL OUT OF THE AIR AND DEPOSITING IT ON THE GROUND,
SPECIFIC DETAILED DATA OBTAINED FROM COMMUNITY RADIATION MONITORING NETWORK STATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE
STATION MANAGER.
Figure 3.
A typical weekly statement for display at a station.
The DRI issues a progress report as needed to which other participants
contribute articles or notices. The progress report summarizes program accom-
plishments, announces future plans, explains solutions to problems encountered
by station managers, and provides them with continuing education.
The University of Utah's Nuclear Engineering Department has prepared two
scripted slide series. One is to be used as a refresher for station managers
and as an aid to them in training a new manager or an assistant. It explains
and illustrates in some detail the proper care and operation of equipment at
the stations. The other is a collection of slides with narrative for each
that covers the basic principles of radiation, radioactivity, and radiation
protection, and also the scope of the Community Monitoring Program. Station
mangers may use this collection as a resource for developing slide talks they
can present to groups in their communities.
A few station managers have given talks to civic. fraternal. service. or
church groups, and all are being encouraged to do so. Several have conducted
field trips for school classes to visit the local monitoring station and re-
ceive a briefing on what is being monitored and why. and on how the equipment
works .
24
-------
A major duty of station managers is to serve as an effective liaison be-
tween the public and the nuclear testing organization, and their interaction
with the public is totally encouraged. The training and refresher course each
summer, the mid-year refresher held usually during the Christmas holidays, and
conducted tours of the Nevada Test Site with associated briefings on current
activities there are designed to increase the managers' knowledge and allow
them to discuss problems and recommend ways to better inform the public about
the Community Monitoring Program and the environmental radiation it monitors.
25
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
There is no doubt that from a technical aspect the Community Monitoring
Program has been successful. For the most part, equipment runs smoothly,
samples are collected on schedule, and local station managers perform their
duties well. Although only background levels of radiation and radioactivity
are being measured at the stations, the data are valid and reliable and ob-
tained with instruments and methodology that are better than necessary to
monitor compliance with guidelines. The Community Monitoring Stations have
been successfully integrated into the various routine monitoring networks of
the offsite radiological safety program, and data within each of the networks
are intercomparable.
It is far more difficult to assess the degree of success in meeting the
other program objectives. The objective of making the monitoring program
more visible and credible was based on the belief expressed by Thomas
Jefferson. He said people "...are inherently capable of making proper judg-
ments when they are properly informed." It was hoped that receiving full
factual and verifiable information in understandable terms would enable
anxious residents to reevaluate their anxieties and reduce them Where they
are not warranted. However, no mechanism for assessing increased credibility
or reduced anxiety was built into the program design.
The facts about the current nuclear testing program and the offsite radi-
ation monitoring program, as well as the history of these programs, have been
made available to residents of 13 offsite communities. In addition, experts
on nuclear testing and radiation protection have been available in the com-
munities to answer questions and respond to residents' expressed concerns.
Yet in most of the communities only a small fraction of the residents wanted
or were able to receive the information and opportunity offered. In a few
communities, some residents frankly stated that although information about
current programs might be true, the information about earlier testing and
monitoring was not credible.
Certainly the monitoring program has been made more visible. Besides the
obvious monitoring stations in 13 of the 15 communities (in Las Vegas and in
Salt Lake City the stations are visible to those who frequent the university
campuses but not to the public at large), there has been considerable public-
ityabout the program in local newspapers. A collection in Appendix F of the
Desert Research Institute's first annual report on the program (Cooper and
Jones, 1982) illustrates the publicity attending the installation of stations
and the community meetings.
26
-------
Perhaps the best evidence of success in meeting the program's ultimate
ob"
Jective is anecdotal. In Cedar City, a new resident who moved there from
California was disturbed by stories she heard from neighbors about friends and
relatives becoming ill and dying from cancer due to fallout radiation. She
expressed her concern to officials who referred her to the local Community
Monitoring Station manager. He spent an hour or so with her, showing her the
station and talking about the data obtained now and in the past, with the
result that she decided Cedar City was in fact a safe place to live as far as
radiation exposure was concerned.
In St. George, city officials were pleased with the economic boost prom-
ised by a movie company from New York that was making arrangements for a pro-
duction to be filmed in the St. George area. mien they later heard that the
company would have to find another location because five members of the pro-
duction crew refused to work in St. George for fear of being irradiated by
fallout, they asked the local Community Monitoring Station manager to tele-
phone and write to the film company to explain the radiation situation in
St. George and environs to them. He called and talked with the film producer
and also sent him a letter, which the producer shared with crew members. All
were satisfied that there was no fallout radiation danger in or around
St. George, and a month after receiving the station manager's letter, the pro-
duction crew was in St. George and filming of the movie was underway. In late
January 1982, the St. George Chamber of Commerce named the station manager,
who is a high school science teacher, the Citizen of the Year. In honoring
him at a banquet, Chamber members mentioned his role as the community's radi-
ation monitoring station manager in which he works with the DOE and EPA and
the two State universities.
In Alamo, a woman with skin cancer on her hand was told by her Las Vegas
doctor that it was probably due to radioactive contamination in her gold wed-
ding band. He had evidently heard of the several wedding bands made of gold
contaminated with radium when a jeweler melted gold-clad radium needles, used
several years ago for radiation therapy, into a supply of gold for making wed-
ding rings. The Woman removed her ring reluctantly, but decided to ask the
Alamo station manager to check it for her. He surveyed the ring in her pres-
ence with the survey meters provided him by EPA and showed that only background
radiation could be detected upon contact with her ring. She appeared satisfied
that her ring was not contaminated and is wearing it again, apparently without
anxiety.
Future plans call for further effort to inform community residents about
the program and its findings, and to spread this awareness as much as possible
into outlying communities that do not have their own Community Monitoring
Station. Program participants will be seeking effective ways to do this and
to provide information that residents of the offsite area want about the
nuclear testing program and related public safety programs now and in the past.
An attempt will be made to encourage community newspapers, especially the
weekly papers, to publish an abbreviated version of the weekly summary report.
The summary statement illustrated in Figure 3 will be rewritten each week in
the form of a news release for station managers to deliver to their local news
editors. With the release, at least at first, will be a note to editors
27
-------
suggesting that if space is at a premium, they may wish to publish the in-
formation in the form of a box score, similar to the format used by many daily
papers in reporting the air pollution index for their communities.
Information about the program may also be brought to outlying communities
near those that have Community Monitoring Stations by some sort of meeting
held there. This will be similar to the "town hall meeting" already held.
Some meetings may be arranged specifically for community leaders, such as town
board members, fire and police departments, or county commissioners. Also,
station managers will be further encouraged to seek opportunities to speak or
to bring an Agency speaker to local civic, fraternal, and service groups.
Nearly half the station managers see possibilities of incorporating their Com-
munity Monitoring Stations into a school science fair, which could bring in-
formation to interested parents as well as to students.
The DOE will continue to arrange special tours of the Nevada Test Site
for offsite residents, and station managers will visit the Site during their
annual training and refresher course for briefings to update them on activ-
ities there. The next course is tentatively scheduled for August 1983.
No changes in station numbers, locations, or equipment are presently
anticipated. However, through continuous communication between participants
and with increased feedback from residents, ideas for improving the program
will be evaluated and implemented when possible. Those directly associated
with the program agree, after 1 year of experience with it, that it is worth-
while. They believe that its continuation, accompanied by sensitivity to con-
cerns of the citizens it serves, will successfully bring visibility and credi-
bility to the data it provides.
28
-------
REFERENCES
Baratta, A. J., W. A. Jester, B. G. Gricar, M. A. Reilly, G. Eidam, and A. C.
Millunzi. 1980. A Citizens' Radiation Monitoring Program for the TMI
Area. In: TRANSACTIONS OF THE ANS AND ENS 1980 INTERNATIONAL CONFER-
ENCE ON WORLD NUCLEAR ENERGY--ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PERSPECTIVES. TANSAO
35 1-676, ISSN: 003-018X. pp. 40-42.
Black, S. C., R. F. Grossman, A. A. Mullen, G. D. Potter, D. D. Smith and
J. L. Hopper. 1982. OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT:
RADIATION MONITORING AROUND UNITED STATES NUCLEAR TEST AREAS, CALENDAR
YEAR 1981. EPA-600/7-82-061. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 111 pp.
Cooper, E. N., and M. A. Jones. 1982. COMMUNITY RADIATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ANNUAL REPORT. DOE/NV/10162-3. Water Resources Center, Desert Research
Institute, University of Nevada System, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Johns, F. B., P. B. Hahn, D. J. Thome, and E. W. Bretthauer. 1979. RADIO-
CHEMICAL PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES. EMSL-LV-
0539-17- Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Las Vegas, Nevada. 109 pp.
Off-Site Radiological Safety Program. 1964. FINAL REPORT OF OFF-SITE SUR-
VEILLANCE FOR OPERATION NOUGAT, SEPTEMBER 15, 1961 - JUNE 30, 1962.
SWRHL-1r. Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory, Public Health
Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 123 pp.
Placak, o. R., M. W. Carter, R. A. Gilmore, R. H. Goeke and C. L. Weaver.
1957. OPERATION PLUMBBOB,OFF-SITE RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY REPORT. OTO-57-3.
Nevada Test Organization, Mercury, Nevada. 207 pp.
Placak, o. R., M. S. Seal, J. R. McBride, R. A. Gilmore, R. L. Elder and J. S.
Silhanek. 19S8. OPERATION HARDTACK - PHASE II, OFF-SITE RADIOLOGICAL
SAFETY REPORT. OTO-S8-6. Off-Site Radiological Safety Activities,
Nevada Test Organization, Mercury, Nevada. 222 pp.
Reilly, M. A. 1980. The Measurement of Krypton-8S by a Community Monitoring
Program. In: TRANSACTIONS OF THE ANS AND ENS 1980 INTERNATIONAL CONFER-
ENCE ON WORLD NUCLEAR ENERGY--ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PERSPECTIVES. TANSAO
35 1-676, ISSN: 003-018X. pp. 60-61.
29
-------
Reuter-Stokes, Inc. 1981. REMOTE STATION OPERATIONAL MANUAL, RSS-1011
RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEM. Reuter-Stokes, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
p. 5.
Rogovin, M., and G. T. Frampton, Jr.. 1980. THREE MILE ISLAND: A REPORT
TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND TO THE PUBLIC, Vol. I. NUREG/CR-1250, Vol. I.
Special Inquiry Group, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. p. 4.
Sanders, J. B., O. R. Placak, and M. W. Carter. 1955. REPORT OF OFF-SITE
RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY ACTIVITIES, OPERATION TEAPOT, NEVADA TEST SITE,
SPRING 1955. Public Health Service. 153 pp.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1982. ANNOUNCED UNITED STATES NUCLEAR TESTS:
JULY 1945 THROUGH DECEMBER 1981. NVO-209. Rev. 2. Office of Public
Affairs, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy.
30
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO. (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA-600/3 83-040
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
A COMMUNITY MONITORING PROGRAM SURROUNDING THE NEVADA May 1983
TEST SITE: One year of experience 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Geneva S. Douglas
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Las Vegas. NV DU FI04 FA0702
Office of Research and Development 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory lAG:
Las Vegas. NV 89114 DE-A108-76DPOOS39
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPOflT AND PE~I~D COVERED
U.S. Department of Energy Response 9181 - 1 8
Nevada Operations Office 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
P.O. Box 14100
Las Vegas, NV 89114 EPA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This report is also listed as DOE publication No. DOE/DP/00539-049.
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes the background and the first year of experience with a com-
munity radiation monitoring program initiated in communities surrounding the Nevada
Test Site as a joint project of the U.S. Department of Energy. the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. the University of Utah. the Desert Research Institute of the
University of Nevada. and 15 communities in Nevada. Utah. and California.
The report describes and discusses the equipment installed at each station. the
role of each participant. methodology used to analyze samples and dosimetric measure-
ments. and the criteria against which the results are judged as well as the special
activities undertaken to foster increased awareness in offsite residents of the total
offsite radiological surveillance and public safety program and to elicit feedback
from them about the program and about their radiation health and safety concerns.
Although only background radiation levels have been detected by the network so
far, the program is considered worthwhile and will be continued.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (TllisReport) 21. NO. OF PAGES
UNCLASSIFIED 34
RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC 20. SECURITY CLASS (Tllis page) 22. PRICE
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |