EMSL-LV-0539-34
THE INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY OF RANGE PLANTS GROWN ON PLUTONIUM
      CONTAMINATED SOILS AS DETERMINED WITH GRAZING CATTLE
                           March 1980
                         Prepared under
                  Memorandum of Understanding
                      No. EY-76-A-08-0539
                            for the
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER

    This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United
States Government.  Neither the United States nor the United States Department
of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied,
or assumes any legal  liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights.  Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof.   The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
States Government or any agency thereof.
          AVAILABLE FROM THE NATIONAL  TECHNICAL  INFORMATION SERVICE
                         U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF  COMMERCE
                            SPRINGFIELD, VA   22161
                    PRICE:   PAPER  COPY$         MICROFICHES

-------
                                                        EMSL-LV-0539-34
THE INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY OF RANGE PLANTS GROWN ON PLUTONIUM
      CONTAMINATED SOILS AS DETERMINED WITH GRAZING CATTLE

                               by

                  V. R. Bohman and C. Blincoe
               University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
                    Contract No.  68-03-0247
                          D. D. Smith
                        Project Officer
          Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Las Vegas, Nevada  89114
                         Prepared under
                  Memorandum of Understanding
                      No. EY-76-A-08-0539
                            for the
                   U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

-------
                                   ABSTRACT
    Area 13 is  one of several  areas  of  the  Nevada  Test  Site  contaminated with
transuranics.   Cattle were  grazed  on the  area  to  study  the botanical  and
chemical composition  of the forage,  the digestibility of  range  plants  as
selected by range cattle, and  the  intake  of plutonium and americium by grazing
cattle.

    The botanical  and chemical  composition  of  the  diet  of cattle  grazing on
Plutonium-contaminated range was determined.   The  major portion of the diet
was browse plants which were high  in fiber  and ash but  low in energy.   Daily
feed intake of the grazing  animals was  also determined  so that  the amount of
nuclides ingested daily could  be ascertained.   Cattle generally consumed over
2 kilograms per 100 kilograms  body weight of dry matter daily which resulted
in a daily intake of  3,600  to  6,600  picocuries of  plutonium-238,  85,000 to
400,000 picocuries of plutonium-239, and  11,000 to 31,000 picocuries  of
americium-241.   The soil ingested  by range  cattle  constituted the principal
source of ingested plutonium and americium.  This  is not  unexpected as
plutonium oxide is one of the  least  soluble  substances  known and  the  range
studied is one of very limited rainfall.  As expected,  the forage from an
"inner" compound was  contaminated  to a  greater extent than the  range  plants
from an "outer" compound.

-------
                                   CONTENTS







                                                                         Page





Abstract 	 i i



List of Figures and Tables 	 iv





Introduction 	  1



Methodology 	  2



    Data Calculation	  4



    Error	  5



Botanical and Chemical Composition and Intake of Range Forage 	  5



Plutonium and Americium Intake of Grazing Cattle 	  6



    Plant Radioactivity 	  6



    Rumen Contents 	  7



    Ingested Radioactivity 	  7





Discussion 	  7



Summa ry 	,	  8



Literature Cited 	 24



Appendix 	 27
                                     m

-------
                               LIST OF  FIGURES

Number                                                                   Pa9e
  1  Botanical  composition  of diet  of grazing  range  cattle 	   9

                                LIST OF TABLES

Number                                                                   Page
  1  Analytical error 	  10
  2  Botanical  composition  of range forage selected  by rumen
       fistulated steers grazing on area 13 of the  Nevada  Test Site 	  11
  3  The chemical composition of forage selected  by  rumen  fistulated
       steers (in percent)	  12
  4  Composition of selected hand-sampled plants  during intake and
       digestion trial,  (dry basis) Area 13 	  13
  5  Digestibility and  intake of range  forage  	  14
  6  Radioactivity of hand-selected range plants  	  15
  7  Radioactivity of range forage  sampled by  rumen  fistulated cattle....  18
  8  Measured radioactivity ingested 	  21
  9  Calculated radioactivity ingested  	  22
 10  Average measured daily intake  of radioactivity  	  23
                                     iv

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION
    Area 13 is one of several areas on the Nevada Test Site contaminated with
plutonium and americium.  The contamination of Area 13 resulted from Project
57 which consisted of one safety test in 1957 (Dunaway and White 1974).   This
area was isolated by fencing (400 hectares).  Within this area, the most
heavily contaminated area was further fenced to form an inner compound (100
hectares).  These isolated areas have been restricted from all  vehicular use
or grazing by domestic animals since contamination.  This area  has been
extensively studied and reports have been published of the plutonium and
americium in the soil, plants and small  mammals of the area (Dunaway and
White, 1974; White and Dunaway, 1975, 1976, 1978; White, Dunaway and Wireman,
1977).  Area 13 soil survey and contamination maps have been published by
Leavitt in 1974 and 1978 by Gilbert Eberhardt in 1974.

    With the slow decay of plutonium and related nuclides, and  since this area
was fenced, an opportunity was provided  to graze the area with  experimental
livestock and measure the intake and digestibility of desert range forage by
these animals and also to measure the intake of residual plutonium and other
contaminants by grazing livestock.

    The isotopes selected for study were plutonium-238, plutonium-239 and
americium-241.  All  are alpha-particle emitting nuclides with half-lives
between 86 and 24,000 years.  Americium-241 arose from beta-decay of
plutonium-241 which has a half-life of 13 years.  Based on isotope equilibrium
calculations, one would expect the maxiumum americium-241 levels to occur
approximately 65 years after the initial plutonium contamination.

    Plutonium and americium can enter grazing cattle either by  inhalation of
dust or by ingestion.  An insignificant  portion may also enter through cuts
and other abrasions in the skin.  Ingestion would include both  the nuclides
contained within the grazed plants and with any soil adhering to the plants
and consumed at the same time.   Soil data indicate that the greatest
concentration of plutonium in Area 13 is contained in the coarse silt fraction
(20- to 53-micron diameter) of the soil  and in a somewhat larger particle-size
fraction of blown sand in the area (Tamura 1974).  This soil plutonium is
present as plutonium dioxide (Pu02).  Plutonium dioxide is one  of the least
soluble compounds known, and americium oxide is only somewhat more soluble.
Plutonium and americium exhibit appreciable solubility in artificial rumen
fluids (Barth and Mullen 1974;  Barth 1978) indicating that it can be absorbed
by ruminants.  Plutonium and americium have been reported in tissues of cattle
grazing Area 13 (Smith 1974, 1979; Smith, Barth, and Patzer 1976).

    The first part of this report deals  with methodology.  The second part
reports on the dry matter intake, botanical and chemical composition of the

-------
grazed forage, and the dry matter digestibility of range plants at various
seasons of the year on a qualitative as well  as quantitative basis as selected
by grazing cattle.  The third part deals with the qualitative and quantitative
intake of plutonium and americium by grazing  range cattle.


                                 METHODOLOGY


    Four rumen-fistulated cattle were used  to sample native forage grown on
plutonium-contaminated range from July 1973 to January 1975 according to the
procedure described by Lesperance et al. (1960a, 1960b).   This procedure
involves complete removal of the contents of  the rumen and  reticulum of cattle
adapted to grazing the experimental  area, allowing the animals to graze for 15
minutes to 2 hours (depending on forage density), removal  of the grazed forage
from the rumen and reticulum, then replacing  the original  rumen contents
within the animal.  A rumen solid and a rumen liquid sample were collected
separately.  The rumen liquid sample consisted almost entirely of saliva.  If
the next sampling period were soon,  the animal was allowed  to graze the
experimental range until again utilized for sampling.  If the interval  before
the next sampling were extended, the animal was kept elsewhere until  1  to 2
weeks prior to sampling and then returned to  the experimental  pasture.   The
dates of sample collections from 16 fistulated steers were:

              Period I - June 28 to July 2, 1974
              Period II - October 1  to October 5, 1974
              Period III - January 17 to January 21, 1975

Rumen samples were also collected from resident cattle of  the study area that
were sacrificed on the following dates:

              Nos. 2, 8, 12 and 3 -  September 25, 1973
              Nos. 1, 4 and 6 - July 9, 1974
              Nos. 5, 13 and 15 - January 29, 1975

    Forage and fecal samples were taken three times during  the sampling
period, according to the procedure outlined by Conner et al. (1963) for
digestion and feed intake studies utilizing fecal grab samples.  These
procedures were as follows:  Fistula samples  for forage evaluation were
obtained, as described earlier, one  day prior to beginning  of fecal sample
collections and the second and fourth day of  fecal collection.  A group of
fistulated cattle was used as forage samplers, and a second group of cattle
was used for the digestion studies.   Starting one week prior to the initiation
of fecal  collections, 5 grams of powdered chromic oxide,  hand-packaged  in
filter paper, was administered morning and  evening to the  animals on the
digestion trials.  The chromic oxide, an external indicator, is used to
measure fecal excretion, and was analyzed according to the  procedure of Bolin
et al. (1952) as modified by Connor  et al.  (1963).  Fecal  grab samples  were
obtained twice daily for 6 consecutive days from the same  animals for the
intake and digestibility studies.

-------
    Internal indicators, i.e., indigestible, measurable components of the
diet, are used with grazing animals to determine the digestibility of the
diet.  Lignin has been used extensively for this purpose.  The lignin content
of forage samples collected by fistulated cattle are consistently higher than
the lignin content of forage consumed (Lesperance et al.  1974).  A regression
equation has been developed from the composition of forage samples fed to
rumen fistulated cattle and forage samples collected though fistulas as
described earlier which permits a correction for this change (Connor et al.
1963).

    Samples for botanical composition were collected by the Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) and summarized in this
report.  Other analyses were completed according to Association of Official
Analytical Chemists (AOAC 1975) methods.

    Individual range plants were collected from both the  inner and outer
compound while the digestion and intake studies were underway.  These samples
were limited to the current years growth of each plant.

    The fresh plant samples and rumen contents were dried to remove surface
moisture and split into two subsamples of equal size.  One subsample ("as
received") was subjected to no further treatment.  The other subsample was
washed with petroleum ether (40-70°C boiling range) until essentially no
further adhering material could be removed (Dye 1962).  The solvent was
filtered and residual solvent was evaporated from both the plant material
("washed") and the removed soil ("soil").  The "as received" and "washed"
subsamples were dried at 70°C in a mechanical  convection  oven to less than  10
percent moisture content, ground in a Wiley mill  , and mixed thoroughly.  Total
moisture was determined on these samples by standard procedure 7.008 (AOAC
1975).  Samples of the "as received" and "washed" plant material and the
entire "soil" fraction were ashed for 16 hours at 550°C.   The entire ash from
the "washed" samples was forwarded to EMSL-LV  for radioassay.  The major
portion of the ash from the "soil" fraction was also sent for radioassay.  The
sample number key is given in Appendix Table 1.  Details  on the sample weights
are given in Appendix Table 2.

    As an indicator of soil remaining on the washed plant material, titanium
was determined on the "as received" and the "washed" samples (Mitchell 1960).
Titanium is present in soils in reasonably large concentrations and is present
in quite small  concentrations in plants.  The  soil  concentration is about
10,000 times that of plants.  Thus the amount  of titanium in a sample of plant
material  is indicative of the amount of soil  contamination of the sample.  In
these studies, a comparison of the titanium contained in  plant samples as
received by the laboratory ("as received" samples)  and that after the washing
procedure outlined above ("washed" samples) indicated the efficiency of the
washing processes.   A correction for the plutonium and americium remaining  in
the soil  contaminating the washed samples was  made.  A colorimetric analytical
procedure was used (Yoe and Armstrong 1947; Clark 1968).   Some studies of the
titanium analytical  procedures were made.  Samples and standards were prepared
by wet digestion and fusion with sodium carbonate.   Since identical results

-------
were obtained, the simpler wet digestion procedure was  used.   Studies were
also made of optimum development time and the standard  curve  stability.

    Five samples of the "rumen liquid"  were analyzed for titanium and gross
alpha radioactivity.  Very small amounts of titanium (19 ± 16 micrograms per
collection) and no detectable alpha radioactivity were  found.  This confirmed
our procedure of not assaying the "rumen liquid"  samples.  Transuranic
elements are reported in rumen liquid (Smith, Barth, and Patzer 1976).  It
should be pointed out that the "rumen liquid" sample analyzed here is that
liquid accumulated during the time the  fistulated animals were sampling  the
range.  Since the normal rumen contents were removed prior to this sampling,
this "rumen liquid" consisted largely of saliva.   This  is markedly different
from normal, in vivo, rumen liquid in that it would (a)  have  a much lower
microorganism content, and (b) it would not have  been in prolonged contact
with the ingested feed and especially with remasticated  rumen contents.   For
these reasons its content of compounds  likely to  complex metals,  such as
tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates, would be  quite  low.   It is not
surprising that the "rumen liquid" analyzed in these studies  would not contain
transuranic elements whereas the rumen  liquid from normally functional
ruminants would.

    Data Calculation:  The radioactivity per unit weight (dry basis)  was first
calculated.  The radioactivity "in" and "on" the  samples was  calculated  using
the titanium analysis to correct for soil  remaining after washing the samples.
The radioactivity "in" the sample was that measured in  the washed sample less
the correction for unremoved soil (Mitchell  1960).   This unremoved
radioactivity was calculated by three methods:

    (a)  By the ratio of the titanium in the "as  received" sample to  that in
         the "washed" sample.  This used no average values and three  data
         points per calculation.

    (b)  By using an average value for the titanium in  the soil  (24,000
         micrograms per gram ash) and two data points per calculation.

    (c)  By using an average ratio of radioactivity to  titanium for each
         nuclide and only one data point per calculation.

The results of all three calcuations were tabulated. Method  "a"  was
considered to be more reliable since it used only data  and no average values,
however agreement between two calculated values was required.  The value
reported was selected as follows:  If there was agreement between method "a"
and one of the other methods ("b" or "c"), the results  from methods "a"  were
used.   If there was agreement between methods "b" and "c", but the results
were markedly different from those with method "a", the  results from  method
"b" were used.  In approximately two-thirds of the samples the value  from
calculation method "a" was reported.  The radioactivity  "on"  the  sample  was
the sum of that measured in the soil removed by washing  and the soil  still
remaining on the plant.  An example of  this calculation  is given  as Appendix
Table  3.

-------
    Other calculations, including statistical  analysis of d^ata, were by
standard methods.  All calculations were made by digital  computers.

    Error:  The over-all analytical error for the various procedures is given
in Table 1.  In all cases, the standard deviation of analysis was estimated
from presumably blind duplicate sample analyses (Youden 1951).   In the case of
the plutonium and americium assay, duplicates were derived both from the same
original sample prior to ashing and from the same ashed sample.  These
standard deviations were of the same order of magnitude.


        BOTANICAL AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND INTAKE OF  RANGE  FORAGE


    The botanical composition of range forage selected by fistulated steers
grazing on Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site is given in Table 2  and illustrated
in Figure 1.  Details are given in Appendix Table 4.  The plant cover in Area
13 is predominantly browse.  When grass is available, cattle select  grass as
the main component of their diet.  As grass disappeared from the environment,
a higher proportion of browse was then consumed.  Forbs,  nongrass annuals, did
not consitute a major portion of the animal's diet at any time, although they
have in other studies (Smith et al. 1968) on different areas of the  Nevada
Test Site at times.  Since this portion of Area 13 had been restricted from
grazing by domestic livestock for some period of time, more grass was
available at the beginning of the grazing period than later.  Since animals
were restricted to a relatively small area of desert range, the variation in
grass and forb consumption was not as great as noticed in other studies of
desert range areas (Connor et al. 1963; Smith et al. 1968; Bohman and
Lesperance 1967).  Some examples of grass intake by range cattle are
illustrated by location:  NTS, 22 to 100 percent (Smith et al.  1968); Delamar
Valley, Lincoln Co., Nevada, 0 to 85 percent, Elko Co., Nevada, 60 to 80
percent (Connor et al. 1963).  In the current study, the  grass  present in the
diet varied from 0 to 64 percent depending on the month sampled.

    The chemical composition of forage selected by fistulated steers grazing
on Area 13 on the Nevada Test Site is given in Table 3.  Details are given in
Appendix Table 5.  The ash content of range forage (11.9  to 14.9 percent) is
consistently higher than harvested hays (7 to 10 percent).  This reflects not
only mineral  incorporated into plant tissues but also soil materials that
adhere to the surface of the plant.  This has been noticed in other studies on
Nevada ranges which reported 11 to 22 percent ash (Connor et al. 1963; Smith
et al. 1968)-  The protein content of the diet did not vary as  much as
expected considering the variation in the plant species ingested.  Animals
graze very selectively (Bohman and Lesperance 1967) and thus the chemical
composition of the diet shows much less variation than the botanical
composition.   The total  protein content of the diet generally increases when
the plant is rapidly growing (May 1974) and is lowest on  desert ranges when
the plants are dry and mature (September 1973; October 1974).  Except when
plant growth is modified by non-seasonal  rains, these trends in composition
are usually seasonal.

-------
    The composition of selected hand-sampled plants harvested during the
intake and digestion trials is shown in Table 4.  Grass species were fairly
mature when harvested hence their low protein and high fiber content.   Browse
was consistently higher in lignin as compared with annual  species.  Forbs and
grasses were heavily utilized at sampling and the residual material was short
and heavily contaminated with soil  material  and consequently has a high
mineral content.

    The digestibility and intake of range forage are shown in Table 5.  In
this current study, it ranged from 34.0 to 44.4 percent.   The digestibility is
low but is comparable to other studies where greater feed selection was
possible.  In other similar range studies in Southern Nevada, Connor et al.
(1963) found that the dry matter digestibility ranged from 39.7 to 42.7
percent.  Smith et al. (1968) at the NTS found that dry matter digestibility
was 43.6 to 62.5 percent.  Browse is far less digestible than grass and during
the time that the digestion trials  occurred, cattle were consuming browse
almost exclusively.  The digestibility of Northern Nevada range varied during
the summer from 47 to 61 percent on predominantly grass type range.  The feed
intake was higher than expected for poor quality range, but quite normal for
grazing animals on pasture.   Animals probably attempted to compensate  for the
low nutritive value of the forage by greater consumption.


               PLUTONIUM AND AMERICIUM INTAKE OF GRAZING CATTLE
    Plant Radioactivity:  Table 6 summarizes the data on the radioactivity of
range plants collected from the study area.   Sample and analysis  numbers are
given in Appendix Table 1 and detailed data are presented in Appendix Table 2.
Samples were taken from two levels of contamination, the "inner"  compound
being more severely contaminated than the "outer" area.   Plant samples from
the "inner" area averaged about thirty times more radioactivity than samples
from the "outer" area.  No time trends were apparent,  but none would be
expected because of the long half-life of the nuclides studied.   Table 6 also
gives the partitioning of the radioactivity between that as external
contamination on the plant and that contained within the plant.   For the
purposes of Table 6, negative calculated values of radioactivity  within the
plant were reported as zero.  The mean and standard deviation for each nuclide
in plants, considering both positive and negative calculated values were:

         Plutonium-238            -0.08 ± 0.54 pCi/g (dry basis)
         Plutonium-239               31 ± 12
         Americium-241                3 ± 3

Except for plutonium-239 the average radioactivity contained within the range
plants was insignificantly different from zero.   This  was also reflected in
similar data from rumen contents.   Since the plant uptake of plutonium
isotopes would depend  on the chemical  properties of plutonium rather than  on
the isotope,  one cannot draw conclusions from the above table about the uptake
of plutonium  by desert plants.

-------
    Tible 6 also compares the measurement of total radioactivity in the "as
recei /ed" sample ("measured") with that calculated by the sum of the
radioactivity "in" and "on" the sample.  The agreement is generally quite good
and a paired t-test indicates no significant difference between the two
methods of ascertaining the total radioactivity of the "as received" sample.

    Rumen Contents:  The concentration of radioactivity in the rumen contents
of the test animals is summarized in Table 7 and the total ingested
radionuclides in Table 8.  As was the case with the plant samples, essentially
all o- the plutonium and americium ingested by the experimental animals was
ingested as surface contamination and as soil rather than being contained
within the plant matter.  A somewhat larger proportion of the americium was
found within the ingested plant material.  Again, if the calculated negative
values are included; the mean value for the radioactivity contained within the
plant material is  not significantly different from zero.

    Ingested Radioactivity:  The measured radioactivity ingested is given in
Table 8 as the radioactivity in the total rumen content.  The fistula samples
(Animals 707, 729, 761 and 774) were the sum of collections on three
consecutive days.  The other samples were the rumen contents collected from
sacrificed animals.  Table 9 gives the estimated radioactivity ingested based
on the plant analyses (Table 6) and the botanical composition of the rumen
ingesta (Table 2).  The two methods of estimating the radioactivity ingested
were compared using a paired t-test.  Considering all data, there were no
statistically significant differences between methods although the intake
calculated from feed composition tended to be higher than that directly
measured.  Table 10 gives the average daily intake of the three nuclides by
cattle.  This was  based on the daily forage intake (Table 5) and on the
measured radioactivity per unit weight of the rumen contents of the
rumen-fistulated animals (Table 8).


                                  DISCUSSION
    The cattle in this study were grazing Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site.
This is a rather poor, very dry desert range.  Grass disappeared from the diet
as grass became unavailable due to continued grazing.  Dry matter
digestibility was rather low but the animals compensated by increasing dry
matter intake.

    The transuranics consumed by the cattle were largely consumed as soil
associated with their diet.  This was reflected both by studies of the plants
consumed and by studies of the rumen contents.  The diet was high in ash
reflecting surface contamination of the plants with soil.  Soil had been noted
in the digestive tract of animals grazing this area and it was estimated that
cattle grazing this range consumed 0.25 to 0.5 kg of soil per day (Smith
1979).

-------
     Plants grown under irrigated, greenhouse conditions on soils from Area 13
take up the transuranics (Au et al.  1977).  These studies were with non-native
species under irrigated conditions.   The native species on this range are
rather deep rooted, drawing water and nutrients from considerable depth
(Robertson, Blincoe and Torell 1972).  Transuranic contamination is largely
confined to the upper portion of the soils in Area 13 (Gilbert and Eberhardt
1974).  It is thus not surprising that this study found only minimal
concentrations of the transuranics  within the desert flora consumed by grazing
cattle.

    The quantities of plutonium and  americium ingested by grazing cattle were
determined both from measurements on the ingesta and from measurements on the
range plants.  The two methods gave  substantial agreement.  How much of the
ingested radioactivity was assimilated by the cattle was not addressed by this
study.  Plutonium and americium are  reported in the tissues from cattle
grazing Area 13 (Smith 1979).  Plutonium and americium are also reported to be
very poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal  tract even when ingested in a
soluble form (Stanley, Bretthauer and Sutton 1975 and Sutton et al. 1978).
Since the insoluble oxides in glass-like particles were ingested by grazing
cattle (Tamura 1974) one would anticipate minimal  assimilation of the ingested
transuranics.
                                   SUMMARY


    The botanical and chemical  composition of the diet of cattle grazing on
plutonium-contaminated range was determined.   The major portion of the diet
was browse plants which were high in fiber and ash but low in energy.  Daily
feed intake of the grazing animals was  also determined so that the amount of
nuclides ingested daily could be ascertained.  Cattle generally consumed over
2 kg/100 kg body weight of dry matter daily which resulted in a daily intake
of 3.6 x 103 to 6.6 x 103  pCi  238Pu, 8.5 x 104 to 4 x 105 pCi 239Pu, and
1.1 x l(T to 3.1 x 104 pCi 2LflAm.  The  soil  ingested by range cattle
constituted the principal  and possibly  only source of ingested plutonium and
americium.   This is not unexpected as plutonium oxide is one of the least
soluble substances known and the range  studied is one of very limited
rainfall.  As expected, the forage from the "inner" compound was contaminated
to a greater extent than the range plants from the "outer" compound.

-------
%100
60
                                              \
                                              A
June   July    Aug   Sept   Oct    Nov  Dec   Feb    Mar   May  June   July   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec    Jan    Feb   Mar
          1973                                        1974
                    Figure  1.  Botanical  composition of diet of grazing  range cattle,
1975

-------
                          TABLE 1.  ANALYTICAL ERROR
Statistic
Pu-238  Pu-239  Am-241     Moisture     Titanium
Chemical analyses:
  n
  Standard deviation
   of % composition
  Standard deviation
   of % error
Radiochemical analyses*:
                              20           20
                            ±0.42        ±0.0079
                             ±8.0
±7.0
n
Standard deviation
of pCi/g ash
Standard deviation
of % error
Overall**:
n
Standard deviation
of pCi/g ash
Standard deviation
of % error
7 7
±2.1 ±74
±57 ±54
15 15
±2.7 ±88
±35 ±30
7
±35
±45
14
±14
±40
 * All  steps subsequent to forwarding the ash to EMSL-LV for radiochemical
   analysis
** Includes all  analytical  errors
 n Number of duplicate-pairs used for statistical  analysis
                                     10

-------
   TABLE  2.   BOTANICAL  COMPOSITION OF  RANGE FORAGE SELECTED BY RUMEN-FISTULATED STEERS
                         GRAZING ON AREA 13 OF THE NEVADA  TEST SITE*
Percent
Plant Species
Grasses:
Hi 1 aria jamesii
Oryzopsis hymenoides
Sitanion jubatuni
Stipa speciosa
Sporobolus spp.
unidentified
Total
Forbs:
Salsola paulsenii
Sphaeralcea ambigua
Eriogonum spp.
Chaenactis spp.
Chenopodium spp.
Malacothrix spp.
Ambrosia acanthi carpa
Phlox spp.
Gilia spp.
unidentified
Total
Browse (shrubs):
Eurotia lanata
Atriplex canescens
At ri pi ex conferti folia
Lycium andersonii
Suadea spp.
unidentified
Total
CO CO
CM CJ>
IO l-~

4
60
T**



64

T
T

T





2
2

26
8




34

28
32
T



60

4
T
T







4

21
15
T



36
CO
00
CO

10
19
T



29

T
T
T






1
1

14
55
T



69
co
LO
5?


12


T
T
12

T


T
T




2
2

31
55
T



86
CO
r*-
i— i
O
I— 1


13


1
1
15



1






1
2

20
62
1



83
CO
r-.
U3
t— t
r-H


41
2



43

2


T
1




1
5

45
5



2
53
o
~^.
CM


1


1
1
3

4
1
T

T




1
6

82
3
2

4

91
of
5/21/74

T
6
40
1

1
47


2
1
5
2
4
T
T

3
17

26
2
1

4
3
36
Total Forage at
6/28/74

1
8
7
1


17

12

T






1
15

34
4
T

28
2
68
6/30/74

2
2
6
5
T
1
16

1

4
2
1




1
9

26
9
32

5
3
75
OJ
1 —

1
3
T



4

16
T
T






3
19

49
6
5

14
3
77
^
CO


29
2



31

T

T






1
1

54
4
2

8

68
Various
l-H
O


T




0

1

1







2

33
2
58

5

98
10/3/74


2




2

1

1







2

21
2
63

10

96
Sampling Dates
10/5/74


T




0

2









2

23
4
68

3

98
«* LO
LO P-.
^-» <— 1
<-> --»


9 1




9 1

2

1






T 1
3 1

50 12
T
38 86



88 98
LO
-^
r-H


1
1


T
2

1

1






T
2

3
1
92


T
96
LO
^
CM


8
4


1
13

1

T






1
2

36
7
42



85
LO
^»
cy>
CM
-~.


11

3

1
15

3

1







4

31
12
30
1

7
81
LO
CM
t— 4
CO


8

1

2
11

2

T






1
3

40

42


4
86
 * These data were collected by EMSL-LV.
** T indicates trace amount - lower than 1 percent.

-------
TABLE 3.  THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION  OF  FORAGE  SELECTED BY RUMEN
                FISTULATED STEERS (in  percent)
Date
07-10-73
08-08-73
09-05-73
10-01-73
11-06-73
02-20-74
05-24-74
06-28 to
07-02-74
08-07-74
10-01 to
10-05-74
01-17 to
01-21-74
Ash
Dry
Basis
13.99
14.91
15.44
13.65
12.72
11.92
14.86
13.02
12.76
11.54
14.33
Organic
Matter Protein
Dry
Basis
86.01
85.09
84.56
86.35
87.28
88.08
85.14
86.98
87.27
88.46
85.67
Dry
Basis
8.85
7.86
6.20
7.44
7.91
7.60
11.21
8.83
8.64
6.92
7.72
Ash
Free
10.29
9.24
7.33
8.62
9.06
8.63
13.17
10.15
9.90
7.82
9.01
Acid
Detergent Fiber
Dry
Basis
40.18
40.76
41.72
40.57
40.30
41.30
37.27
37.95
39.80
42.37
43.90
Ash
Free
46.72
47.90
49.34
46.98
46.17
46.89
43.77
43.63
45.61
47.90
51.24
Lignin
Dry
Basis
9.19
9.29
9.15
12.91
12.01
14.56
9.96
10.46
13.11
13.87
15.35
Ash
Free
10.68
10.92
10.82
14.95
13.76
16.53
11.41
12.03
15.02
15.68
17.92
                             12

-------
TABLE 4.  COMPOSITION OF SELECTED HAND-SAMPLED PLANTS DURING INTAKE
               AND DIGESTION TRIAL,  (DRY BASIS)  AREA 13
Percent of Dry Matter
Date
and
Location
07-02-74
Outer
Compound



Inner
Compound
10-08-74
Outer
Compound

Inner
Compound


01-20-75
Outer
Compound


Species
Russian thistle
(Salsola paulsenii)
Gall eta grass
(Hilaria jamesii)
Indian rice grass
(Oryzopsis hymenoides)
Four-wing saltbush
(Atriplex canescens)
White sage
(Eurotia lanata)
Four-wing saltbush
White sage •<
Russian thistle

Grass spp.
White sage
Russian thistle
Grass spp.
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Grass spp.

Bud sage
(Artemesia spinescens)
Four-wing saltbush

Protein

9.74
10.41
5.28
7.13
8.15
6.86
7.35
6.97

5.48
8.70
7.34
3.29
8.66
7.15
7.92

7.84
8.47

Acid
Detergent
Fiber

19.47
42.13
39.61
29.04
38.25
27.26
34.61
51.76

53.96
41.68
32.69
61.19
30.36
40.15
45.19

47.83
32.66

Lignin

3.01
4.10
4.84
11.22
12.64
11.09
9.07
2.85

6.68
14.49
3.04
5.08
12.42
15.45
5.73

15.91
13.30

Ash

23.76
24.21
12.79
19.95
6.81
20.84
9.73
56.39

29.94
10.30
34.11
43.73
16.47
7.30
19.62

14.87
12.68
(continued)
                                 13

-------
                            TABLE 4.   (Continued)
Percent of Dry Matter
Date
and
Location

Inner
Compound


Species
White sage
Grass spp.
Bud sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Protein
7.77
5.39
8.05
8.65
7.74
Acid
Detergent
Fiber
42.29
50.14
48.04
31.93
42.30
Lignin
17.46
6.37
15.25
13.27
16.91
Ash
5.80
22.23
16.96
13.13
6.35
              TABLE 5.   DIGESTIBILITY  AND  INTAKE  OF  RANGE  FORAGE
Measurement
Dry matter digestibility, %a
Dry matter intake, kg dailyb
Cattle weight, kg
Intake, % of body weight

I
40.1
7.32
311
2.35
Periods
II
34.0
9.00
337
2.67

III
44.4
8.23
334
2.46
aDry matter (D.M.)  digestibility  =



            inn
                    lignin feces
                                \ (  %  P.M.  in  feces )

                                / \%  D.M.  in  feed  /
where % lignin in feed is  corrected  for  sample  processing  according  to  the

following equation (Conner et  al.  1963)


         corrected lignin  value  =  3.63 +  0.405  (lignin in  samples)



Fecal dry matter output, g  =        amount  of Cr20,  fed -
                               %  Cr203  in  fecal  grab  sample



t>Drv matter intake  -    100 fecal  weight, dry basis
 Dry matter intake  -    %  dry  ^tter indigestibility



                                      14

-------
TABLE 6.  RADIOACTIVITY OF HAND-SELECTED RANGE PLANTS*
pCi/g (d.b.)t
Nuclide Period Sample
No.
'38Pu I 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
II 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
III 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
239Pu I 01
02
03
04
05
Area* Species
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
Russian thistle
Galleta grass
Indian rice grass
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Indian rice grass
Gal leta grass
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Undetermined
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Russian thistle
Grass
Bud sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Grass
Bud sage
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Russian thistle
Galleta grass
Indian rice grass
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
ON
0.14
0.32
0.11
0.38
0.19
(T)
15.
6.5
2.2
1.0
0.15
0.31
0.22
0.046
0.35
1.1
1.8
0.31
4.4
2.9
0.17
0.17
0.014
0.31
2.0
0.52
0.41
5.5
4.5
4.1
1.1
5.4
2.7
IN
0.06
0
0.09
0
0

12.
39.
3.6
0
0.15
0.10
0
0.11
0
3.4
0
0
0
0.30
0.80
0.02
0.25
0.02
4.5
0.95
0.17
1.6
0
5.5
1.6
0
3.1
TOTAL
Sum Measured
0.20
0.32
0.20
0.38
0.19

27.
46.
5.8
1.0
0.30
0.41
0.22
0.16
0.35
4.5
1.8
0.31
4.4
3.2
0.97
0.19
0.26
0.33
6.5
1.00
0.58
7.1
4.5
9.6
2.7
5.4
5.8
0.20
0.27
0.20
0.20
0.16

27.
46.
5.8
0.94
0.30
0.41
0.082
0.16
0.48
4.5
2.4
0.28
4.2
3.3
0.98
0.18
0.26
0.34
6.6
1.00
0.58
7.1
3.8
9.6
2.7
7.1
5.8
                                                       (continued)
                          15

-------
TABLE 6.  (Continued)
pCi/q
Nuclide Period Sample
No.
06
07
08
09
10
II 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
III 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
2<(1Am I 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Area* Species
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
Indian rice grass
Galleta grass
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Undetermined
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Russian thistle
Grass
Bud sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Grass
Bud sage
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Russian thistle
Galleta grass
Indian rice grass
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Indian rice grass
Gal leta grass
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
ON
(T)
530.
260.
44
20
8
0
3
0
11
20
110
7
120
96
7
5
0
3
78
2
9
220
0
1
0
2
1
.
•
.2
.74
.5
.17
-

.
.3
.
•
.3
.2
.64
.8
9
.2
.7
•
.75
.7
.75
.4
.1
IN
430
140
200
9

2

1

52

4

17
20

5
3
190
38
5
59

0


0
•
.
.2
0
.4
0
.2
0

"o
.5
0
•
9
0
.7
.3
a
.
.9
•
0
.61
0
0
.14
fd.b.h
TOTAL
Sum Measured
960
400
240
2
8
3
3
1
11
72
110
12
120
110
27
5
6
7
270
40
16
280
0
2
1
2
1
•
.
.9
.2
.1
.5
.5
•

.
.
.
•
^
.2
.3
.1
.
.
.
•
.75
.3
.75
.4
.2
960
400
250
30
7
3
1
1
12
73
89
12
120
110
27
4
6
7
270
40
16
280
0
2
0
1
1
•
.
•
.2
.2
.7
.5
•

.
.
.
•
m
.8
.3
.1
.
.
.
•
.64
.3
.59
.4
.3
(T)
68
27
27
1
%
%
m
.7
79
5


m
.4
0
1.8
32
27
3
2
.

.*5
.3
33
25
3
1
.

.*5
.5
                                       (continued)
        16

-------
                            TABLE 6.  (Continued)

Nuclide Period Sample
No.
II 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
III 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Area* Species
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
White sage
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Undetermined
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Russian thistle
Grass
Bud sage
Four wing saltbush
White sage
Grass
Bud sage
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass

ON
2.3
0.10
0.92
1.2
1.6
1.4
18.
1.4
12.
6.5
0.65
0.39
0.12
0.58
11.
0.52
12.
15.
pCi/g (d.b
•)t
IN TOTAL
Sum Measured
0 0.83
0.73 0.92
0 1.4
0.19 1.6
0
14. 15.
0 18.
1.1 2.5
1.7 14.
4.8 11.
3.4 4.1
0.25 0.64
0.90 1.0
0.63 1.2
7.3 18.
9.4 10.
0 12.
10. 25.
0.83
0.55
1.4
1.7

15.
15.
2.5
14.
11.
4.1
0.64
1.0
1.2
18.
10.
8.
26.

Notes:
 T - Data Missing - Sample lost
 * - "0" = Outer area; "I" = Inner area
 t - Picocurie per gram dry basis
 * All data expressed to two significant figures
                                     17

-------
TABLE 7.   RADIOACTIVITY OF RANGE FORAGE  SAMPLED BY  RUMEN FISTULATED CATTLE
(pCi/g (d.b.)
Nuclide Period Animal
No.
i3SPu I 707
729
761
774
II 707
729
761
774
III 707
729
761
744
I 1
4
6
III 5
13
15
'73 2
3
8
12
239Pu I 707
729
761
774
II 707
729
761
774
ON
0.62
0.33
0.99
1.52
0.66
0.60
1.10
0.51
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.49
1.22
.91
2.32
0.16
1.53
0.027
1.77
1.85
0.073
2.73
49.
74.
40.
54.
13.
20.
63.
21.
IN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.008
0
0.117
0
0
0.095
2.59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
Total
0.62
0.33
0.99
1.52
0.66
0.60
1.10
0.58
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.49
1.22
.91
2.32
0.17
1.53
0.14
1.77
1.85
0.17
5.32
49.
74.
40,
54.
13.
20.
63.
23.
                                                                 (continued)
                                  18

-------
TABLE 7.  (Continued)
Nuclide Period Animal
No.
Ill 707
729
761
774
I 1
4
6
III 5
13
15
'73 2
3
8
12
2"lAin I 707
729
761
774
II 707
729
761
774
III 707
729
761
774
I 1
4
6

ON
11.
6.9
9.9
10.
31.
2.4
76.
6.2
68.
2.8
55.
29.
2.1
5.8
2.2
4.3
2.7
7.6
2.0
1.8
1.4
0.92
0.89
0.17
2.1
0.57
4.8
2.5
10.0
(pCi/g (d.b.)
IN
1.0
1.4
0
0
0
6.2
0
0
0
4.3
0
0
3.4
17.
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
1.1
0.44
0.34
0.35
0.27
0
0
0

Total
12.
8.3
9.9
10.
31.
8.6
76.
6.2
68.
7.1
55.
29.
5.5
23.
2.2
4.3
2.7
7.6
2.0
1.8
4.2
2.0
1.3
0.51
2.5
0.84
4.8
2.5
10.0
                                       (continued)
         19

-------
                            TABLE 7.   (Continued)


Nuclide Period Animal
No.
Ill 5
13
15
'73 2
3
8
12

ON

0.40
3.8
1.2
8.5
1.9
0.21
0.67
(pCi/g (d.b.
IN

0.18
0
0.68
1.6
0
.46
1.0
)
Total

0.58
3.83
1.9
10.
1.9
0.67
1.7

ON - Radioactivity on particles adhered to the plant
IN - Radioactivity of plant materials
                                     20

-------
TABLE 8.  MEASURED RADIOACTIVITY INGESTED

Period
I






II



III



III


'73



Animal
No.
707
729
761
774
1
4
6
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
5
13
15
2
3
8
12

«»Pu
850
4100
3400
7300
59
88
57
550
1000
8400
1200
410
630
470
400
120
30
45
240
160
64
130
pCi/Sampl ing
•••Pu
39000
17000
120000
220000
2400
2800
910
16000
41000
33000
51000
17000
18000
16000
9400
1600
1800
1900
8300
3200
2400
1500

2ltlAm
2400
4500
7000
19000
82
200
90
820
3500
8200
7600
160
410
1500
860
230
290
240
270
370
160
200
                   21

-------
TABLE 9.   CALCULATED RADIOACTIVITY INGESTED
Period Animal
No.
I 707
729
761
774
1
4
6
II 707
729
761
774
III 707
729
761
774
5
13
15

"•Pu
640
3200
1600
50000
83
65
84
550
1700
4800
375
550
720
850
631
200
140
150
pCi /Sampl ing
«»Pu
20000
10000
35000
1500000
2200
2000
2400
19000
29000
180000
7900
15000
19000
16000
17000
4800
3600
3400

'"Am
4100
21000
7900
180000
510
300
530
5100
10000
31000
2200
2300
2900
2200
2500
760
550
580
                    22

-------
          TABLE 10.  AVERAGE MEASURED DAILY INTAKE OF RADIOACTIVITY

Nuclide Period
2"Pu I

II

III
239Pu I

II

III
21tIAm I

II

III
Area*
I
0
I
0
All
I
0
I
0
All
I
0
I
0
All
pCi/day
11 100
4 700
9 900
5 500
3 600
400 000
400 000
570 000
170 000
85 000
56 000
22 000
42 000
16 000
11 000

* I = one animal in the inner area
  0 = average of three animals in the outer area
All = average of all animals (distribution of animaTs between inner and
      outer areas unknown for period III)
                                     23

-------
                               LITERATURE CITED


A.O.A.C.  1975.  Official Methods of Analysis (12th Ed.) Association  of
    Official Agricultural Chemists.  Washington, D.C.

Au, F. H. F., V. D. Leavitt, W. F- Beckert and J. C. McFarlane.   1977.
    Incorporation of transuranics into vegetables and field crops grown at the
    Nevada Test Site.  In:  Transuranics in Desert Ecosystems.  M. G. White,
    P. B. Dunaway and D. L. Wireman (Eds.).U.S. Department of Energy,
    Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.  NVO-181.

Barth, J.  1978.  The solubility of americium-241 in in vitro bovine
    ruminal-gastro intestinal fluids and predicted tissue retention and milk
    secretion of field-ingested americium-241.  In:  Selected Environmental
    Plutonium Research Reports of the NAEG.  M. G. White and P. B. Dunaway
    (Eds.).U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, NV.  NVO-192.  p.  45.

Barth, J., and A. A. Mullen.  1974.  In vitro plutonium studies using the
    artificial rumen and simulated abomasal and intestinal fluids.  In:  The
    Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert Environments.  P. B. Dunaway  and
    M. G. White (Eds.).U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations
    Office, Las Vegas, NV.  NVO-142.  p. 143

Bohman, V. R., and A. L. Lesperance.  1967.  Methodology research for range
    forage evaluation.  J. Animal  Science 26:820.

Bolin, D. W., R. P. King and E. W. Kolsterman.  1952.  A simplified method for
    the determination of chronic oxide (Cr203) when used as an index
    substance.  Science 116:634.

Clark, R. J. H.  1968.  The Chemistry of Titanium.  Pergamon Press, New York.

Connor, J. M., V. R. Bohman, A. L. Lesperance and F- E. Kinsinger.  1963.
    Nutritive evaluation of summer range forage with cattle.  J. Animal
    Science 22:961.

Dunaway,  P.  B., and M. G.  White (Eds.).   1974.  The dynamics of Plutonium
    in desert environment.   U.S.  Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations
    Office,  Las Vegas, NV.   NVO-142.

Dye, W. B.  1962.   A micronutrient survey of Nevada forage.  Nevada Agr. Expt.
    Sta.  Tech.  Bui.  227.
                                      24

-------
Gilbert, R. 0., and L. L.  Eberhardt.   1974.  Statistical analysis of pi utoni urn
    in soils at the Nevada Test Site  - some results.  _In_:  The Dynamics of
    Plutonium in Desert Environments.  P- B. Dunaway and M. G. White (Eds.).
    U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
    NVO-142.  p. 51.

Leavitt, V. D.  1974.  Soil  survey of five piutoniurn-contaminated areas on the
    test range complex in  Nevada.  In:  The Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert
    Environments.  P. B. Dunaway and  M. G. White  (Eds.).  U.S. Atomic Energy
    Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.  NVO-142.  p. 21.

Leavitt, V. D. 1978.  Soil surveys and profile descriptions of plutonium-
    contaminated areas on  the test range complex  in Nevada, 1970-1977.  In:
    Selected Environmental Plutonium  Research Reports of the NAEG.  M. G.
    White and P- B. Dunaway  (Eds.).U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas,
    NV.  NVO-192.  p. 253.

Lesperance, A. L., V. R. Bohman and D. W. Marble.  1960a.  Development of
    techniques for evaluating grazed  forage.  J.  Dairy Science 43:682.

Lesperance, A. L., E. H. Jensen, V. R. Bohman and R. A. Madsen.  1960b.
    Measuring selective grazing with  fistulated steers.  J. Dairy Science
    43:1615.

Lesperance, A. L., T. M. Smith and V.  R. Bohman.  1967.  Influence of sample
    preparation on intake and digestion.  Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. of
    Animal Science 18:234.

Lesperance, A. L., D. C. Clanton, A.  B. Nelson and C. B. Theurer.  1974.
    Factors affecting the apparent chemical composition of fistula samples.
    Nv. Agric. Expt. Sta. Pub. T-18.   University  of Nevada, Reno, NV.

Mitchell, R. L.  1960.  Contamination problems in soil and plant analysis.
    J. Sci. Food Agric. 11:553.

Robertson, J. H., C. Blinooe and C. Torel1.  1972.  Phreatic tendencies of
    exotic grasses and residual species as indicated by radioisotope
    absorption.  J. Range Management  25:295.

Romney, E. M. and A. Wallace.  1976.  Plutonium contamination of vegetation in
    dusty field environments.  In:  Transuranics  in Natural Environments.
    M. G. White and P- B. Dunaway (Eds.).U. S.  Energy Research and
    Development Administration, Las Vegas, NV.  NVO-178.  p. 287.

Smith, D. D.  1974.  Grazing studies  on selected  piutoniurn contaminated areas
    in Nevada,  lin:  The Dynamics of  Plutonium in Desert Environments.  P. B.
    Dunaway and M.  G. White  (Eds.).U.S. Atomic  Energy Commission, Nevada
    Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.  NVO-142.   p. 151.
                                     25

-------
 Smith, D. D.   1979.  Summary Report of the Grazing Studies Conducted on  a
     Plutonium-Contaminated Range in Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site.
     Monitoring Systems Research and Development Division, Environmental
     Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Las  Vegas, NV.  EMSL-LV-0539-24.

 Smith, D. D., J. Barth and R. G. Patzer.  1976.  Grazing studies on a
     Plutonium-contaminated range of the Nevada Test Site.  J_n:  Transuranium
     Nuclides in the Environment.  International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
     pp.  325-335.

 Smith, T. M., A. L. Lesperance, V. R.  Bohman, R. A. Brechbill and K. W.  Brown.
     1968.   Intake and digestability of forage grazed by cattle on a southern
     Nevada  range.  Proc. West. Sec.  Amer. Soc. of Animal Science 19:277.

 Stanley, R.  E., E. W. Bretthauer and W. W.  Sutton.  1975.  Absorption,
     distribution and excretion of plutonium by dairy cattle.  In:  The
     Radioecology of Plutonium and Other Transuranics in Desert Environments.
     P. B. Dunaway and M. G. White (Eds.).U.S. Energy Research and
     Development Administration, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
     NVO-153.   p. 97.

 Sutton,  W.  W., R. G. Patzer, A. A. Mullen,  P. B. Hahn and G. D. Potter.  1978.
     Metabolism of americium-241 in dairy animals.  In:   Selected Environmental
     Plutonium Research Reports to the NAEG.  M. G. Wh~ite and P. B. Dunaway
     (Eds.).  U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, NV.   NVO-192.   p. 19.

 Tarnura,  T.   1974.  Distribution and characterization of plutonium in soils
     from Nevada Test Site.  In:  The Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert
     Environments.  P. B. Dunaway and M. G.  White (Eds.).U.S. Atomic Energy
     Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.  NVO-142.  p. 29.

 White, M. G. and P- B. Dunaway (Eds.).  1975.  The Radioecology of Plutonium
     and  Other Transuranics in Desert Environments.  U.  S. Energy Research and
     Development Administration, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
     NVO-153.

 White, M. G. and P. B. Dunaway (Eds.).  1976.  Transuranics in Natural
     Environments.  U.S.  Energy Research and Development Administration,
     Las  Vegas, NV.  NVO-178.

 White, M. G. and P.  B. Dunaway (Eds.).  1978.  Selected Environmental
     Plutonium Research Reports to the  NAEG.  U.S. Department of Energy,  Las
     Vegas, NV.   NVO-192.

 White, M. G., P-  B.  Dun  away and D.  L. Wireman (Eds.).   1977.  Transuranics in
     Desert Ecosystems.  U.S.  Department of  Energy, Nevada Operations Office,
     Las Vegas,  NV.   NVO-181.

 Yoe, J. H.  and  A.  R.  Armstrong.  1947.  Colorimetric determination of titanium
    with  disodium-1,2 dihydroxybenzene-3,5-disulfonate.  Anal. Chem. 19:100.

Youden, W.  J.  1951.   Statistical  Methods for Chemists.  John Wiley, New York.

                                      26

-------
                                   APPENDIX


Table                                                                     Page

  1  Sample and analyses numbers 	  28

  2  Sample analysis data	  30

  3  Sample calculation of 23ePu "in" and "on" a plant sample 	  35

  4  Botanical composition of forage selected by rumen-fistulated
      steers grazing on Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site	  38

  5  Chemical  composition of range forage sampled by fistulated
      cattl e 	  42
                                     27

-------
                APPENDIX TABLE 1.  SAMPLE AND ANALYSES NUMBERS
Sample Numbering

UNR Numbers:
     391-x-yyy-zzz

     391 = Project 391
       x = Sampling Period
                1 = June-July 1974
                2 = Sept. 1974
                3 = Jan. 1975
                4 = Any other
     yyy = Sample Identity Number
                One or two digit numbers are plant samples.
                Three digit numbers are rumen contents.
                Bos or Be followed by one or two digit numbers are rumen
                 contents.
     zzz = Type of Sample
                Plant Samples:
                     AR = As Received
                      W = Washed plant material.
                      S = Soil removed by washing plant material
                Rumen Samples:
                     RS = Rumen solids
                     RL = Rumen liquid
                     AR, W & S as above

Analysis Numbers:
     wxyz
       w = Sampling period
                1  = June-July 1974
                2  = Sept. 1974
                3  = Jan. 1975
                4  = Any other
       x = Sampling type
                1  = Plant, As received (Category not used for samples to
                     NERC-LV)
                2  = Plant, washed
                3  = Plant, Soil  removed by washing
                4  = Rumen Solids, As  received
                5  = Rumen Solids, Washed
                6  = Rumen Solids, Soil  removed by ashing
                7  = Rumen Solids, Fraction of questionable indent!ty
                                                                   (conti nued)
                                     28

-------
                        APPENDIX TABLE 1.   (Continued)
      yz = Sample Identity Number
           Plant Samples:  Serial  number of sample
                 Oz if serial number below 10
                 yz if serial number 10-19
                 2z if duplicate of sample number below 10
                 3z if duplicate of sample number 10-19
           Rumen Solids:
                 Three digit sample numbers use first  and last digit
                  number with 0 as needed
                 6z for duplicates of samples 7z.

Examples:
     391-3-707-RSAR
           Project:  391.  Period:  3.   Animal:  707.   Sample:   Rumen Solids,
            As Received.
     3477   (Same as 391-3-707-RSAR).
     3467   (Duplicate of 3477).
                                     29

-------
APPENDIX TABLE  2.   SAMPLE ANALYSIS  DATA (All  data dry basis)
Sample Weights,g
Analysis Dry
Lab No. No. A* Ashed

391-1-1 AR
391-1-1 W
391-1-1 S
391-1-2 AR
391-1-2 W
391-1-2 S
391-1-3 AR
391-1-3 W
391-1-3 S
391-1-4 AR
391-1-4 W
391-1-4 WB
391-1-4 S
391-1-5 AK
391-1-5 W
391-1-5 S
to 391-1-6 AR
0 391-1-6 W
391-1-6 S
391-1-7 AR
391-1-7 W
391-1-7 S
391-1-8 AR
391-1-8 W
391-1-8 S
391-1-8 S
391-1-9 AR
391-1-9 U
391-1-9 S
391-1-10 AR
391-1-10 W
391-1-10 S
391-2-1 AR
391-2-1 W
391-2-1 S
391-2-2 AR
391-2-2 W
391-2-2 S


1201
1301

1202
1302

1203
1303

1204
1224
1304

1205
1305


1306

1207
1307

1208
1308
1328

1209
1309

1210
1310

2201
2301

2202
2302

252.
152. 103.95

186.
106. 35.37

140.
120. 47.61

400.
300. 51.27


300.
200. 52.58

160.
182.

142
82. 8.59

280.
180. 33.89


205
115 45.15

220
100 69.56

216
116 45.96

142
72 19.59
,
Total


25.75
4.775

5.63
6.255

4.37
1.07

12.14
12.47
6.185

4.20
.485


1.07

2.76
6.88

11.26
19.80


4.50
.525

12.44
.535

4.25
2.15

8.46
19.685
Ash
NERC UNR
PLANT

25.75
3.715 1.

5.63
4.28 2.

4.37
.585 .5

12.14
12.47
4.095


.260


.52 .5

2.16
4.89 2.

11.26
8.17
8.41


.305

12.44
.270 .2

4.25
1.16 1.

8.46
8.77
Hater
SAMPLES -
6.07
5.33

3.91
3.97

3.60
5.17

5.11
4.90


6.11
3.86





4.13


4.78


3.69
4.50

4.88
5.63

3.60
5.56

2.74
4.00
Ti
pg/g Dry wt
pCi/sample
238pu 239pu 2
pCi/g Ash
-ita
23SpU
»'Pu
^ 'Am
• HAND COLLECTED
110
140

660
200

200
100

200
80


140
150





770


450


270
26

130
100

400
340

110
1120,1070

12.2 126.
8.69 279.

6.84 296.
5.14 66.7

7.34 107.
<4.60 23.4

5.99 116.
2.89 182.
20.6 815.

30.08 220.
9.82 141.


11.8 468.

125. 4640.
635. 2220D.

145. 5950.
415. 16500.
370. 14900.

202. 8890.
70.3 2560.

32.6 1370.
21.1 431.

9.80 150.
4.15 228.

2.49 46.8

21.8
46.6

64.4
27.1

15.3
15.9

26.7
49.1
128.

34.5
58.6


87.2

784.
2860.

312.
2150.
640.

982.
156.

182.
36.1

19.2
64.4

14.0
<1.20 6.04 2.88

.474
2.34

1.21
1.20

1.67
<7.80

0.493
0.232
5.03

0.733
37.8


22.7

57.9
130.

115.
50.8
44.0

44.9
230.

2.62
78.2

2.31
3.58

0.294
<0.14

4.89
75.1

52.6
15.6

24.5
40.0

13.7
14.6
165.

53.4
542.


900.

2148.
4540.

528.
2020.
1772.

1976.
8393.

110.
1596.

35.3
197.

5.53
0.689

.847
12.5

11.4
L..3J

3.50
27.2

2.20
3.94
31.2

8.21
225.


168.

303.
585.

27.7
263.
133.

218.
511.
.
14.6
134.

4.52
55.5

1.65
0.328
                                                                             (continueu)

-------
APPENDIX  TABLE 2.   (Continued)
Sample Weights, g
Analysis
Lab No. No. A*
391-2-2 S
391-2-3 AR
391-2-3 W
391-2-3 S
391-2-4 AR
391-2-4 W
391-2-4 WA
391-2-4 S
391-2-5 AR
391-2-5 W
391-2-5 S
391-2-5 S
391-2-6 AR
391-2-6 W
391-2-6 S
391-2-7 AR
391-2-7 W
391-2-7 WB
391-2-7 S
391-2-8 AR
391-2-8 W
391-2-8 S
391-2-9 AR
391-2-9 H

391-2-9 S
391-2-10 AR
391-2-10 W
391-2-10 S
391-2-10 S
391-3-1 AR
391-3-1 W
391-3-1 S
391-3-2 AR
391-3-2 W

391-3-2 S
391-3-3 AR
391-3-3 W
391-3-3 WA
391-3-3 S
391-3-4 AR
391-3-4 W
2322

2203
2303

2204
2224
2304

2205
2305
2325

2206
2306

2207
2227
2307

2203
2308

2209

2309

2210
2310
2330

3201
3301

3202

3302

3203
3223
3303

3204

90
45

256
156


240.
140.


38.
23.

406.
306.


215.
115.

48.
33.


308.
208.


225
125

247.
147.


370
270


260
160
Dry
Ashed


16.00


51.35



49.78



2.10


62.20



47.24


7.96
96.14


47.15



34.45


57.42



41.64
41.26


50.88
Total


2.02
.695

8.00
5.755
4.24

7.53
20.29


.38
.465

3.06
3.72
5.245

9.07
1.715

1.94
28.41
2.95

6.37
75.21


4.215
2.655

6.29

.380

2.19
2.23
.745

6.36
Ash
NERC UHR
8.22

2.02
.365 .3

8.00
5.755
3.24 1.

7.53
9.43 2.
8.155

.38
.240



3.28 2.

9.07
.88 .9

1.94
28.41
1.945 1.

6.37
35.46 2.
35.60 2.

4.215
1.63 1.

6.29

.215

2.19
2.23
.400 .35

6.36
Water

5.45
4.63


3.64


2.38
4.47


4.84


3.68
4.84


4.59
3.91

4.46
5.31


2.15
4.22


3.76
4.22

3.78
4.30


4.45
4.85


3.36
3.71
Ti
pg/g Dry wt

300
130


160
160

1130
340,430


109,210


130,150
180
140

120,190
60,110

470,500
250


1390,1700
400,490,450


400
520,750

860
100


130
170


1580
230
pCi/sample
238P(J
15.8

<.50
<2.92

4.29
4.91
4.95

8.37
23.6
12.6

7.84
6.40

37.1
48.6
316.

8.93
4.91

1.33
1.11
82.9

34.6
297.
180.

28.7
7.79

4.00
4.86
8.02

7.93
12.6
<2.20

9.37
239Ru 2
34.1

9.97
23.9

90.1
30.3
18.1

94.6
869.
324.

105.
232.

1610.
1820.
11500.

442.
114.

69.4
4960.
2300.

1450.
9620.
5920.

756.
332.

97.7
106..
238.

314.
161.
50.0

177.
"to
<3.26
<2.80

4.21
6.22

16.3
7.03
13.2

10.8
155.
21.6

27.8
15.4

400.
225.
1840.

93.7
21.8

21.5
660
232

261.
594.
457.

121.
29.4


14.6
29.6

44.8
30.8
9.19

33.6
pCi/g Ash
238pu
1.92

<.248
<8.00

.536
.853
1.53

1.11
2.50
1.55

20.6
26.7

12.1
13.1
96.3

.985
5.58

.686
3.91
42.6

5.43
8.38
5.06

6.81
4.78

.636
.773
37.3

3.62
5.65
<5.50

1.47
239Pu
4.15

4.85
65.5

11.3
5.25
5.59

12.6
92.2
39.7

276.
967.

526.
489.
3506

48.7
130.

35.8
175.
1183.

228
271.
166.

179.
204.

15.5
16.9
1107.

143
72.2
125.

27.8
*"*»
<.397
<.341

2.08
17.0

2.04
1.22
40.7

1.43
16.5
2.65

73.2
64.2

131.
60.5
561.

10.3
24.8

11.1
23.2
119.

41.0
16.8
12.8

28.7
18.0


2.32
138.

20.5
13.8
23.0

5.28
                                                              (continued)

-------
                                               APPENDIX  TABLE 2.   (Continued)
u>
ro
Sample Weights.q
Analysis
Lab No. No. A*
391-3-4 S
391-3-5 AR
391-3-5 W
391-3-5 S
391-3-6 AR
391-3-6 W
391-3-6 WA
391-3-6 S
391-3-7 AR
391-3-7 W
391-3-7 WA
391-3-7 S
391-3-8 AR
391-3-8 W
391-3-8 S
3304

3205
3305

3206
3206
3306

3207
3227
3307

3208
3308

270
170

328
228


270
170


165
100

Dry
Ashed


72.78


40.65
40.31


50.32
31.54


26.62

Total
4.86

7.27
4.25

2.90
2.01
.53

5.52
3.525
.300

3.05
9.19
pCi/sample
Ash Water Ti
NERC UNR % yg/g Dry wt 238Pu
3.83

7.27
3.24

2.90
2.01
.32

5.52
3.525
.155

3.05
7.17
1.0
3.63
4.30
1.
4.21
4.04

.21
3.49
3.66

.15
3.57
4.25
2.

730
650

180
130


90
80


760
300

17.7

390.
120.

52.7
22.3
<5.75

18.8
10.1
16.2

55.9
366.
239Pu 21tlAn,
423.

16080.
4600.

2020.
1020.
121.

535.
468.
386.

2140.
15000.
64.4

910.
640.

378.
366.
29.0

106.
86.
40.0

305.
1030.
pCi/g Ash
238pu
4.26

53.7
37.0

25.2
11.1
<18.0

3.41
2.82
105.

18.3
51.0
239Pu
110.

2212.
1419.

967.
507.
378

96.9
133.
2490.

720.
2092.
Am
16.8

125.
198.

181.
182.
90.6

19.2
24.4
258.

100.
144.
RUMEN CONTENTS
391-1-Bos 1 ASAR
391-1-Bos 1 RSW
391-1-Bos 1 RSS

391-1-Bos 4 RSAR
391-1-Bos 4 RSW
391-1-Bos 4 RSS
391-1-Bos 6 RSAR
391-1-Bos 6 RSW
391-1-Bos 6 RSS
391-3-Bos 5 RSAR
391-3-Bos 5 RSW
391-3-Bos 5 RSS
391-4-Bos 2 RSAR
391-4-Bos 2 RSW
391-4-Bos 2 RSS
391-4-Bos 3 RSAR
391-4-Bos 3 RSIJ
391-4-Bos 3 RSS
391-4-Bos 8 RSAR
391-4-Bos 8 RSW
391-4-Bos 8 RSS
391-4-Bos 12 RSAR
391-4-Bos 12 RSW
391-4-Bos 12 RSS
391-2-Bc 15 RSAR
1401
1501
1601
1701
1404
1504
1406
1506
1606
3405
3505
3605
4402
4502
4602
4403
4503
4603
4408
4508
4608
4412
4512
4612
2415
2350



1998

2590
3440
3000
2550

2300


2100


2370
127.81
127.91
101.17
113.19
132.54
131.53
72.74
81.37
16.88
130.66
1 29 .03
26.06
35.58
41.98
59.40
47.19

129.20
137.71

5.91
7.41

102.86
9.715
9.15
2.24
1.16
9.43
8.705
5.94
6.27
1.93
9.23
8.13
2.53
3.40
3.42
2.71
7.10
5.06
2.406
13.38
12.46
3.715
.665
.74
.900
8.15


1.24
.655


1.00
1.525
.1.74
1.400


2.68

.44
.540
8.15
4.70
7.06
1.
0.5
6.80
7.49
6.59
7.01
.9
5.64
7.17
3.17
5.31
1.
3.59
4.96
1.
4.61
5.68
1.
3.49
.3 5.72
.4
5.98
190
310


170
180
180
180
110
110
120
120,190
210

240,200
150

200,320
180,170

220
20.2
26.6
4.21
7.43
36.4
23.7
9.95
19.6
26.3
28.8
6.71
<1.93
17.5
32.8
28.8
23.0
3.72
14.0
22.7
15.4
<0.86
2.35
1.33
7.57
12.2
802.
600.
263
93.2
1170
854.
160.
560.
870.
373.
280.
79.7
617.
1320.
941.
473.
240.
179.
838.
486.
12.1
26.1
83.8
19.
528.
27.9
112.
46.4
15.4
82.0
166.
15.8
72.1
115.
55.4
54.1
5.50
20.1
252.
65.3
54.5
65.3
21.8
57.5
74.3
3.82
3.54
5.54
7 2.25
64.0
2.08
2.91
3.40
11.3
3.86
2.72
1.68
3.13
26.3
3.12
.825
<1.27
5.15
9.59
16.6
3.24
.735
10.0
1.70
1.24
<0.32
3.53
3.02
14.0
1.50
82.6
65.5
212
142
124.0
98.1
26.9
89.3
870.
40.4
34.4
52.3
181.
386.
541.
66.6
47.6
128.
62.6
39.00
4.51
39.2
190.
36.5
64.8
2.87
12.2
37.4
23.5
8.70
19.1
2.66
11.5
115.
6.00
6.65
3.59
5.91
73.7
37.5
7.68
12.9
15.6
4.30
5.89
1.43
5.32
12.6
4.17
7.85
                                                                                                               (continued)

-------
                                                APPENDIX TABLE  2.
oo
OJ

Lab Mo.


Analysis
No. A*
391-2-Bc 15 RSW
391-2-Bc 15 RSS
391-2-Bc 13 RSAR
391-3-Bc 13 RSW
391-3-Bc 13 RSS
2515
2615
4533 2380.
3513
3613



Sample Weights, g
Dry Ash
Ashed Total NERC UNR
128.74
152.51
8.87
3.21
9.22
9.09
.715
8.87
2.21 1.
9.22 .3
9.09
.450

\ 	 ' • "
Water Ti
% ug/9 Dry wt
5.77
6.60
150
60
	 /


pCi/sampies
238pu 239pu 21.1^
16.4
<0.70
11.8
15.6
9.41
748.
70.7
694.
447.
418.
157.
23.6
116.
67.0
23.5
— = 	 -— 	 jr-T 	
pC 1/9 <>sn
238p(J 239pu
1.85
<0.32
1.28
1.72
20.9
84.3
32.0
75.3
49.2
929.
241 „
Am
17.7
10.7
12.6
7.37
52.2
PLANT SAMPLES - ANIMALS COLLECTED
391-1-707
391-1-707
391-1-707

391-1-729
391-1-729
391-1-729
391-1-761
391-1-761
391-1-761
391-1-774
391-1-774
391-1-774
391-2-707
391-2-707

391-2-707
391-2-707
391-2-707
391-2-729
391-2-729
391-2-729
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-3-707
391-3-707
391-3-707
391-3-707
RSAR
RSW
RSS

RSAR A
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSAR A

RSW
RSWA
RSW A
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSAR
RSARA
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSWA
RSS
RSS
RSAR
RSARA
RSW
RSS
1477 7000.
1577
1677

1469 37300.
1579
1679
1471 37800.
1571
1671
1474 41600.
1574
1674
2477 8480.
2467

2577
2567
2569
2479 16600.
2579
2679
2471 17500
2771
2461
2571
2671
2474 11100.
2574
2564
2674
2664
3477 7840
3467
3577
3677
131.51
123.20


122.54
133.49

125.17
131.32

61.17
49.24

131.48
128.75

122.14
124.96

128.01
124.27


132.98
113.51
136.93

110.75
128.40
133.83


137.36
133.87
134.90

18.125
16.19
11.86

13.70
19.47
7.655 .
18.365
15.84
18.70
9.025
7.015
4.645
14.23
13.90

11.00
13.92
11.04
14.21
11.07
5.99
12.60
16.12
11.00
14.07
4.85
26.30
12.48
13.22
41.085

20.32
20.04
15.52
35.09
18.125
16.19
9.615 2.
7.615
13.70
19.47
5.66 2
18.365
15.84
16.69 2.
7.025
7.015
3.635 1.
14.23
13.90

11.00
13.92
11.04
14.21
11.07
4 .00 2 .
12.60
16.12
11.00
14.07
3.85 1.
26.30

19.23 2.
19.77



15.59 2.
4.29
4.68


4.73
4.94

4.37
4.90

4.27
4.87

3.10


1.73
5.80

2.51
2.91

7.27
1.80

4.95

3.81
5.26



4.58

5.18

250



260


480
370

330
300

250


350
160

280
190

380
310

360

330,300
210



380

210

99.5
26.1
34.1

83.8

38.2
69.8
20.7
66.7
66.7
17.1
19.0
53.5
45.0

31.4
29.5
29.9
50.2
7.93
12.8
223.
160.
202.
734
26.1
74.0
29.0
27.6
35.5
33.6
44.7
32.5
18.6
32.2
4590.
1130.
1550

3410

1530
2470
789.
2840.
2060.
673.
650.
1470.
1670

986.
720.
532.
1980.
464.
418.
8540.
7010.
8650
2820
910.
3180
830.
996.
1210.
1650.
1870
889.
676.
972
285.
142.
50.0

91.4

169.
145.
15.7
235.
172.
129.
126.
79.6
175.
154
136.
139.
105.
169.
139.
50.0
223.
349.
198.0
458.
27.2
27.5
tf?:
198.
78.7
80.8
17.5
42.0
97.3
56.6
0.52
1.61
3.51

6.12

6.75
3.80
1.31
4.00
7.39
2.44
5.23
3.76
3.26

2.85
2.2
2.71
3.53
.716
3.20
17.7
9.93
18.8
5.22
6.78
100.3
2.'09
1.85
1.70
2.20
1.62
1.20
2.07
253.
69.8
160.1

248.9

270.
135.
50.4
170.
295.
95.9
179.
103.
120.

89.6
57.7
48.2
139.
41.9
105.
678.
435.
782
200.
236
121.
66.5
75.3
62.9
83.5
92.0
44.6
43.6
59.5
15.7
8.77
5.14

6.67

29.9
7.89
9.91
14.1
19.0
18.4
34.7
5.59
12.6
11.1
12.4
9.99
9.51
11.9
12.6
12.5
17.7
21.7
18.0
S2-.6
7.06
7.14
18.1
13.7
15.0
18.09
4.09
0.861
2.10
6.27
3.63
                                                                                                                  (continued)

-------
                                           APPENDIX TABLE 2.   (Continued)
to
Sample Weights, g
Analysis Dry
Lab No.
391-3-707
391-3-729
391-3-729
391-3-729
391-3-761
391-3-761
391-3-761
391-3-761
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-2-707
391-2-729
* Weight

RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSW A
RSS
RSAR
RSARA
RSW
RSWA
RSS
RSS
A-RL
Bc-RL
"A"
No.
3667
3479
3579
3679
3471
3571
3561
3671
3474
3464
3574
3564
3674
3664



"AR" Samples:
"W" Samples:
A* Ashed

11100. 155.66
152.39

13800. 157.28
161.31
155.58

9770 131.42
164.80
144.59
136.31





Total collected
Weight washed
Ash Water
Ti
pCi/sample
pCi/q Ash
n-in n-ir\ r» I. 1 TOO OQQ 9 ll 1
Total NERC UNR % ug/g Dry wt "°Pu z"Pu ^"'Am
15.57 2.4
21.74 3.57
16.25 4.93
38.47 36.34 2.
19.92 4.49
14.50 4.87
15.38
33.11
22.13 4.56
28.10
18.17 4.92
18.52
48.30 22.36 2.
21.95






270
140

360
240


370

280



26.0
36.0



26.5
55.4
9.10
67.8
32.2
24.2
34.4
83.6
33.7
66.7
11.8
16.1
54.8
18.1





620
1560
455.
790
1120
1120.
1300.
3210.
788.
2290.
404.
312.
935.
322.





59.0
35.6
58.1
28.2
106.
216.
256.
308.
71.9
171.
81.1
63.1
51.0
33.4





'JUPu Pu
1.70
2.55
0.560
1.87
1.67
1.67
2.24
2.52
1.52
2.37
.649
.869
2.45
.824





39.8
71.8
27.4
21.7
56.2
77.2
84.5
96.9
35.6
81.5
22.2
16.8
41.8
14.7





Am
3.79
1.64
3.58
0.776
5.32
14.9
16.6
9.30
3.25
6.09
4.46
3.41
2.28
1.52






-------
            APPENDIX TABLE 3.  SAMPLE CALCULATION OF 238Pu "IN"  AND "ON"
                                A PLANT SAMPLE
Data:
    Sample Number:               391-1-2.  (Plant sample number 2, period 1).
    Weight Sample, g
    Weight Washed, g
    Weight Ashed, g
    Ash Weight Total, g
    Ash Weight to EMSL-LV, g
    Water, %
    Titanium, mcg/g (db)
    23'Pu, pCi/sample

Radioactivity per gram ash:

    RA/g ash]w  =  6.84/5.63 = 1.21 gCi/g
    RA/g ashls  =  5.14/4.28 = 1.20 pCi/g

Calculation of radioactivity per unit weight of plant (dry basis):

    Z  =  Proportion of ash (db) in plant material:

          	Ash Weight	
       ~  Wgt. Ashed (1 - % water/100)
As Received
186




3.91
660.

Washed

106
35.37
5.63
5.63
3.97
200.
6.84
Soil



6.255
4.28


5.14
   zw  =
                 5.64
35.37 (1 - 3.91/100)

       6.25
                      =  0.1657  (16.57% ash)
                              =  0.0614
    L^     106 (1 - 3.97/100)

       RA/g plant (db)  =   (RA/g Ash)Z

     RA/g plant (db)]w  =   1.21 x 0.1657  =  0.2005 pCi/g plant (db).

     RA/g plant (db)]s  =   1.20 x 0.0614  =  0.0737 pCi/g plant (db).

    RA/g plant (db)]AR  =   RA/g plant (db)]W + RA/g plant (db)]s

                                = 0.2005 + 0.0737  =  0.2742 pCi/g plant (db).

                                                                   (continued)
                                      35

-------
                        APPENDIX  TABLE 3.   (Continued)
Calculation of radioactivity in and on plant:

a.  Method of titanium ratio:
    C  =  Ti/9 Plant     -    (RA/g soil  ash)
          Ti/g plant (db)]yj


               0.0737  =  0.2432
    RA in plant  =  RA/g plant  (db)]w -  C  =   0.2005  -  0.2432
                 =  0.0427 pCi/g plant (db)

    RA on plant  =  RA/g plant  (db)Js +  C  =   0.0737  +  0.2432
                 =  0.3169 pCi/g plant (db)

    (N.B. for this sample washing was rather  inefficient  for removal  of the
    contaminating soil.).

    RA in AR sample  =  RA in plant  + RA on plant  = 0.3169 - 0.0427 = 0.2742

b.  Method using average titanium composition of ash  (2400 mcg/g ash) as
    calculated from this project:

          Ti]y
    C  =  2400 (RA/g soil ash)
               (0.0737)   =  0.00614


    RA in plant  =  RA/g plant (db)]y -  C   =   0.2005  -  0.00614
                 =  0.1944 pCi/g  plant (db).

    RA on plant  =  RA/g plant (db)]$ +  C   =   0.0737  +  0.00614
                 =  0.0798 pCi/g  plant (db).

c.   Method using  average value of the ratio of soil radioactivity to soil
    titanium (0.0014)  as calculated  from this  project:

    C  =   0.0014  x Ti]y

       =   0.0014  x 200  =  0.280
    RA in  plant   =   RA/g  plant  (db)Jw -  C   =   0.2005  -  0.280
                 =   -0.0795  pCi/g  plant  (db).

    RA on  plant   =   RA/g  plant  (db)]s +  C   =   0.0747  +  0.28
                 =   0.3737 pCi/g plant (db).
                                                                   (continued)
                                      36

-------
                        APPENDIX TABLE 3.  (Continued)
Selection of reported value:

    RA in plant  =  -0.0426 (Method a and c agree.  Results  of  Method  a
                    reported.).

    RA on plant  =  0.317 (Method a and c agree.   Results of Method  a
                    reported.).
*Abbreviations:

    RA = Radioactivity
    db = Dry Basis

Subscripts

    AR = As Received Sample
     W = Washed Sample
     S = Soil  Washed from Sample
                                     37

-------
                APPENDIX TABLE 4.  BOTANICAL  COMPOSITION OF FORAGE SELECTED BY RUMEN-FISTULATED  STEERS
                         GRAZING ON AREA  13 OF  THE  NEVADA TEST SITE (Percent of Total Forage)
\
x
\
x
\
\
\
\
\







Date
Sampled
06-12-73


07-19-73


08-U8-73


09-05-73


10-01-73


11-06-73




Plant
Species





\
\
\
\
\
\
\
SteeK
No. X.
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
Grasses

•a  4_> (o a. o

u) >> -Q O in "O
~ JZ 3 -r- Ol
1X3 -r-J U l/l -r-
r-3 l/» Q) 3 4-
•— C 0. I— -I-
re in o in o +J
•r- CL -r- -Q C
s- o c re o aj
re N .0 a. s_ -o
r— >, -M ••- O -f-
-•- 1- -i- 4_> CL C

Not used
Not Used
8 32 1
88
17 41 T
49 42
1 12 1
43 31
11 29
11 19
9 13 T
7 16
16
19
8 1
6 2
10 4
Sample lost
14 2 1
16 2
32 5
36
79
16 4


3
•r- CD

01 £


zj re
re n»
CL 0


, — ^.
O OJ
in (O
IT^ r\
OO oo

T
1 T
2 T
14

1
1

1





4
1
2

Forbs
re
re m
u n
. . -r- S_
ZL 0. .= O
• CL CL CL 4-> 1 i
il 1 <_n *n c~

in — X U O)


=1 •!-> -3 .C 13 Q. CL •!-

o re Li o in c


'si 5 J= 're "i !c ^ 'c


2
1
1
T T
2
T
1
T 2

1
1
T 1
2


T 2
2
3
2
3
2
,0 Shrubs
•«-
o in
in 4- -O
c ••-••- ZJ
o s_ c: j:

+j QJ 4- in in
re c c s- o ~o
C ro O OJ c: • O>
re u o "o •> — CL -r—
. — c: CL CL 4-
x >< re in in •»—
re  •*->
•r— r^ ,^ c= re re cr
-t-> CL CL Z> -i— d tl)

i- i- i- u re re •<—
=1 .u j-> >, l- n c
uj <; =£ _j CD l~n ZD

44 13
8 2
24 15
b 3
29 41
26 1
b b3
27 41
15 62
10 65 1
29 54
38 42 T
43 46
15 76 1
19 65 2
23 58
18 62
49 7
54 7 T
13
65 7 U
co
00
                                                                                                     (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  TABLE 4.   (Continued)
\
\
\
\
\










Date
Sampled
02-20-74



05-21-74


06-28-74


06-30-74


07-02-74


08-07-74


"
Plant
Species


\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\^
Steer\
No. \^
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774

(/i
OJ

o

•r- 0)

QJ >•>


••—) in


-r- CL
!- O
£ O
2



1 2
3
6
13
4 28
2
3
3
5 5
T 2
2
2

3
39
23
29
26
Grasses
in
OJ
in

- T3



_Q O in "O
3 -f- oj

0) n M-
c n. i — ••-
O i/l O +J

C 

r_
^
tj
a.



0
GO
10
3
2

T


32
6
10
T
4
1

14
16
16
16
1

T


' 3

>f—
.0


 LU


E X U OJ

-r- T- t- O. Q. 4-
<-> -a -c "3 CL a. ••-

fO ^- O VI C
c: o o o x 


9
3
4
5


3
3
6
1
9
14
b
6
4
6
4
9
12
6


•^
D

4->
1_
01
4-
C
O


X
OJ

^
4-J
T
2
2
3
T
T

2

1

19
29
34
44
14
T
4
1
4
4

drills



•r—
C
3 > t.
—1 
-------
                                            APPENDIX TABLE 4.    (Continued)
  Date
Sampled
10-01-74
10-03-74
                          Plant
                         Species
                       Steer
                        No.
                        707
                        729
                        761
                        774
                        707
                        729
                        761
                        774
                                              Grasses
                                                  Q.  i—  -r-
                          •T-   O   -r-
                                           1
                                           8


                                           1  T
                                                                             Forbs
                                                                 CJ   £=   -r-
                                                         i—   _Q   i—   r—   *r—
                                                                                                              Shrubs
                                                                                                        C   T-   -r-
                                                                                                                    ,
                                                                             19
                                                                             46
                                                                             38
                                                                             29
        69
        40
        62
        59
                                                                             23
                                                                             24
                                                                             19
                                                                             19
     3   65
     7   49
        55
        80
12

 7
16
26
10-05-74
11-05-74
                        707
                        729
                        761
                        774
                                                                              7      92
                                                                             21      77
                                                                             56      44
                                                                              9  14  59
                                                                                                                             2

                                                                                                                            12
01-17-75
                        707
                        729
                        761
                        774
                        707
                        729
                        761
                        774
                   19
                    5
                   10
33      38
59      35
62      27
46   1  51
                                                                                                     14
                                                                                                     18
                                                                                                     16
                                                                                    100
                                                                                     83
                                                                                     79
                                                                                     84
01-19-75
707
729
761
774
                                           3  1
                                              1
                                                                                                     10
        86
        99
     4  86
        98
                                                                                                                      (continued)

-------
                                               APPENDIX  TABLE  4.   (Continued)
  Date
Sampled
                         Plant
                        Species
                                              Grasses
                                           (/)    O
                                           CL   •--
                                           o    c:
in   o   •*->
    -O   C
fO   O   CU
O.  i-   T3
•t-   O   •—
                                                                              Forbs
                                                                      O

                                                                      O
-o
O
CL
O
C
Ol
.c
cj
                                                                                          CL   C^_  ••-
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      i-
                                                                                      -Q
                                                             Shrubs
                                                                                                          C   i-   r-
                                                                                                      O  -r-  -^
01-21-75
10-29-75
03-12-75
                        707
                        729
                        761
                        774
                          5
                         15
                         13
                         13
                        707
                        729
                        761
                        771
                                              0
                                          19  6
                                           4
                                           8  2
                                                    T
                                                   34
                                                   61
                                                   48
                             7   79
                             9   28
                             4   28
                             9   48
                                          17
                                          11
                                           6
                                                   36  15  16
                                                   24   9  34
                                                   34  13  40
                                          27  T   4

                                           4
                                                   39
                                                   52
                                                   32
                                                   38
                             1  52

                               61
                               46
T = Trace

-------
APPENDIX TABLE 5.
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF RANGE FORAGE SAMPLED BY
     FISTULATED CATTLE
Date
7/10/73
7/10/73
7/10/73
7/10/73


8/8/73
8/8/73
8/8/73
8/8/73


9/5/73
9/5/73
9/5/73
9/5/73


10/1/73
10/1/73
10/1/73
10/1/73


11/6/73
11/6/73
11/6/73
11/6/73


2/20/74
2/20/74
2/20/74
2/20/74


Animal
Number
707
729
761
774


707
729
761
774


707
729
761
774


707
729
761
774


707
729
761
774


707
729
761
774



Dry
Matter
97.12
97.40
95.64
95.43


94.76
98.44
95.77
96.60


96.00
95.55
95.49
96.04


95.40
98.40
95.75
95.83


94.75
98.32
95.03
96.75


97.97
97.45
95.91
95.34



Percent by
Weight

Dry Basis
Protein
7.90
9.62
8.41
9.48
I 35.41
X 8.85
8.32
6.65
7.93
8.56
Z 31.46
X 7.86
5.71
5.17
6.41
6.97
Z 24.80
X 6.20
7.99
7.05
7.28
7.46
Z 29.78
X 7.44
8.36
7.22
8.64
7.43
Z 31.65
X 7.91
7.10
7.87
7.88
7.54
I 30.39
X 7.60
ADF
40.75
40.00
41.37
38.58
160.70
41.18
38.50
43.65
42.65
38.23
163.03
40.76
43.64
44.91
41.40
36.93
166.88
41.72
39.27
43.83
40.57
38.62
162.29
40.57
40.71
41.22
38.42
40.83
161.18
40.30
42.40
39.59
41.45
41.78
165.22
41.30
Lignin
8.04
8.13
11.57
9.01
36.75
9.19
8.66
10.09
9.05
9.37
37.17
9.29
8.31
10.37
8.82
9.11
36.61
9.15
12.31
15.35
12.23
11.76
51.65
12.91
13.01
12.00
11.13
11.91
48.05
12.01
14.01
12.42
16.17
15.62
58.22
14.56
Ash
13.67
13.40
13.68
15.40
55.95
13.99
13.43
12.76
18.74
14.70
59.63
14.91
25.98
8.44
12.25
15.10
61.77
15.44
12.24
11.59
16.14
14.62
54.59
13.65
10.97
11.17
14.98
13.76
50.88
12.72
12.53
11.77
10.95
12.44
47.69
11.92
                                                             (continued)
                               42

-------
APPENDIX TABLE 5.  (Continued)

Percent by Weight
Animal
Date Number
5/21/74 707
5/21/74 729
5/21/74 761
5/21/74 774
8/7/74 707
8/7/74 761
8/7/74 774
No date 761
No date 774
Goat #2
10/25/73
No # No Date
Dry
Matter
96.14
97.74
96.05
95.22
95.45
94.97
96.09
95.03
95.74
96.32
96.44

Protein
11.89
11.12
9.82
12.02
Z 44.84
X 11.21
9.95
8.19
7.77
Z 25.91
X 8.64
11.61
10.33
6.03
7.66
Dry
ADF
35.60
36.61
40.96
34.92
149.09
37.27
39.02
40.70
39.68
119.4
39.8
35.60
39.74
40.54
36.90
Basis
Lignin
9.80
9.90
11.22
9.63
39.83
9.96
11.85
14.07
13.41
39.33
13.11
6.40
6.99
13.27
8.73

Ash
12.18
13.74
19.41
14.14
59.46
14.86
14.06
11.71
12.50
38.27
12.76
14.77
16.36
12.21
13.74
z = summation or total
X" = average
ADF = acid detergent

fiber








             43

-------
                                DISTRIBUTION


 1-40  Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory-Las  Vegas
     41  Mahlon E. Gates, Manager, DOE/NV, Las Vegas,  NV
     42  Troy E. Wade, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     43  David G. Jackson, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     44  Paul J. Mudra, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     45  Elwood M. Douthett, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
46 - 47  Ernest D. Campbell, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
48 - 49  Paul B. Dunaway, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     50  Roger Ray, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     51  Robert W. Taft, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     52  Leon Silverstrom, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     53  Robert W. Newman, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     54  Bruce W. Church, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
55 - 56  Technical Library, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     57  Chief, NOB/DNA, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     58  Hal Hoi lister, GTN, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
     59  Tommy F. McCraw, DOS, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
     60  L. Joe Deal, DOS, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
61 - 65  Major General William W. Hoover, Director,  MA, DOE/HQ, Washington,
         DC
     66  Gordon C. Facer, MA, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
     67  Robert L. Watters, OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington,  DC
     68  Jeff Swinebroad, OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington,  DC
     69  Robert W. Wood, OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
     70  William S. Osburn, Jr., OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington,  DC
     71  Ray Brechbill, DOE/SAN, Oakland, CA
     72  Marcy Williamson, RESL/INEL, DOE/ID, Idaho  Falls,  ID
     73  Steven V. Kaye, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak  Ridge,  TN
     74  Nancy Vaughan, ESIC, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak  Ridge, TN
     75  H. E. Walburg, CARL, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak  Ridge, TN
     76  Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, EPA,
         Washington, DC
     77  Deputy Assistant Administrator for Monitoring and  Technical Support,
         ORD, EPA, Washington, DC
     78  Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation  Programs, EPA,
         Washington, DC
     79  Director, Monitoring Technology Division, Office of  Monitoring and
         Technical Support, ORD, EPA, Washington, DC
     80  Director, Technical  Support Division, Office  of Monitoring and
         Technical Support, ORD, EPA, Washington, DC
     81  Director, Criteria Development and Special  Studies Division, Office
         of Health and Ecological Effects,  ORD, EPA, Washington, DC

-------
      82  Library, EPA, Washington, DC
      83  Regional Administrator, Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
      84  Regional Radiation Representative, Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
      85  Director, Radiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering Branch, EPA,
          Cincinnati, OH
      86  Director, Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, EPA, Montgomery,
          AL
      87  Harold F. Mueller, NOAA/WSNSO, Las Vegas, NV
      88  Gilbert J. Ferber, NOAA/WSNSO, Silver Spring, MD
      89  K. M. Oswald, Manager, Health and Safety, ILL, Mercury, NV
      90  Richard L. Wagner, LLL, Livermore, CA
      91  Howard W. Tewes, LLL, Livermore,  CA
      92  Paul L. Phelps, LLL, Livermore, CA
      93  Mortimer L. Mendelsohn, LLL, Livermore, CA
      94  J. C. Hopkins, LASL, Los Alamos,  NM
      95  Harry S. Jordan, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
      96  Lamar J. Johnson, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
      97  George E. Tucker, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM
      98  Carter D. Broyles, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM
      99  Melvin L. Merritt, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM
     100  R. Glen Fuller, Oracle, AZ
     101  Richard S. Davidson, Battelle Memorial  Institute,  Columbus, OH
     102  Arden E. Bicker, REECo, Mercury,  NV
     103  Savino W. Cavender, REECo, Mercury, NV
     104  Auda F. Morrow, CETO, Mercury, NV
     105  Joseph H. Dryden, NTSSO, DOE/NV Mercury, NV
     106  Billy Moore, NVHQ, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
     107  Leo Bustad, Director, Veterinary  Medicine, Washington State
          University, Pullman, WA
     108  Vincent Schultz, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
     109  Arthur Wallace, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
     110  Wesley E. Niles, University of Nevada,  Las Vegas,  NV
     111  Library, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
112 -115  Verle R. Bohman, University of Nevada,  Reno, NV
116 -118  Clifton Blinooe, University of Nevada,  Reno, NV
     119  Lloyd P. Smith, President, Desert Research Institute, University of
          Nevada, Reno, NV
     120  Paul R. Fenske, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada,
          Reno, NV
     121  William S.  Twenhofel, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
     122  Manager, Desert National Wildlife Range, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
          Service, Las Vegas, NV
     123  Supervisor, Region III, Nevada Fish and Game Department, Las Vegas,
          NV
     124  Paul Lyons, Nevada Wildlife Research, Division of  Archives, Capitol
          Building Annex, Carson City, NV
     125  L. L.  Skolil, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
     126  C. S.  Fore, ESIC, Oak Ridge National  Lab., Oak Ridge, TN
127 -153  Technical  Information Center, DOE, Oak Ridge, TN (for public
          availability)

-------