&EPA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
           Office of Research and
           Development
           Washington, DC 20460
EPA 600/R-94/209
January 1993
Offsite Environmental
Monitoring Report

Radiation Monitoring
Around United States
Nuclear Test Areas,
Calendar Year 1992



-------
  Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the
   Office of Scientific and Technical Information,
       P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 39831;
       prices available from (615) 576-8401
         Available to the public from the
      National Technical Information Service,
         U.S. Department of Commerce,
   5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161

    Price Code: Printed copy of Microfiche A01

              Front and back cover:
Community Monitoring Truck (front), Polly Huff and
  Radioanalysis Program (back), Kitty M. Houston

-------
Offsite Environmental Monitoring Report:
Radiation Monitoring Around United States
Nuclear Test Areas, Calendar Year 1992
Contributors:

D.J. Chaloud, A.A. Mullen, A.C. Neale, L.D. Carroll, DJ. Thome,
D.M. Daigler, M.G. Davis, and C.A. Fontana, Nuclear Radiation
Assessment Division
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Energy
under Interagency Agreement
Number DE-A108-86-NV10522
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NV 89193-3478

-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through it Office of Research and Development (ORD),
funded and performed the research described here.  It has been subjected to the Agency's peer review
and has been approved as an EPA publication. The U.S. Government has the right to retain a non-
exclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this article.

-------
Abstract
This report describes the Offsite Radiation Safety Program conducted during 1992 by the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's), Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas.  This laboratory
operates an environmental radiation monitoring program in the region surrounding the Nevada Test Site
and  at former test sites in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico.  The surveillance
program is  designed to measure levels and  trends of radioactivity,  if present,  in the environment
surrounding testing areas to ascertain whether current radiation levels and associated doses to the general
public are in compliance with existing radiation protection standards. In 1992, there were six events. The
surveillance program additionally has the responsibility to take action to protect the health and well-being
of the public in the event of any accidental release of radioactive contaminants. Offsite levels of radiation
and radioactivity are assessed by sampling milk, water, and air; by deploying thermoluminescent dosimeters
and  using pressurized ion chambers; and by biological monitoring of animals, food  crops, and humans.
Personnel with mobile monitoring equipment are placed in areas downwind from the test site prior to each
nuclear weapons test to implement protective actions, provide immediate radiation monitoring, and obtain
environmental samples rapidly after any release of radioactivity.

Comparison of the measurements and sample analysis results with background levels and with appropriate
standards and regulations indicated that there was no radioactivity detected offsite by the various EPA
monitoring networks and no exposure above natural background to the population living in the vicinity of
the NTS that could be attributed to current NTS activities.  Annual and  long-term (10  year) trends were
evaluated in the Noble Gas, Tritium, Milk Surveillance, Biomonitoring, Thermoluminescent Dosimetry,
Pressurized Ion Chamber networks,  and the Long-Term  Hydrological Monitoring Program. All evaluated
data were consistent with previous data  history.  No radiation directly attributable to current NTS activities
was detected in any samples.  Monitoring network data  indicate the greatest population  exposure came
from naturally occurring background radiation,  which yielded  an average  exposure of 78  mrem/yr.
Worldwide fallout  accounted  for about 0.088  mrem/yr.  Calculation of potential dose to offsite residents
based  on onsite source emission  measurements provided  by the Department of  Energy resulted in a
maximum calculated dose of 0.012 mrem/yr.  These were insignificant contributors  to total exposure as
compared to natural background.
                                              in

-------
Contents
Notice 	   ii
Abstract	iii
Figures	ix
Tables	xi
Abbreviations, Acronyms, Units of Measure, and Conversions	  xii
List of Elements  	xiv
Acknowledgements	xvi

SECTION 1	

1      Introduction	   1
       1.1    Program Description  	   1
       1.2    Report Description	   2

SECTION 2	

2      Description of the Nevada Test Site	   4
       2.1    Location 	   4
       2.2    Climate	   4
       2.3    Hydrology	   6
       2.4    Regional Land Use  	   8
       2.5    Population Distribution	   8

SECTION 3	

3      External Ambient Gamma Monitoring  	   16
       3.1    Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Network	   16
              3.1.1    Design  	   16
              3.1.2    Results of TLD Monitoring 	   16
              3.1.3    Quality Assurance/Quality Control	   18
              3.1.4    Data Management	   20
       3.2    Pressurized Ion Chambers	   20
              3.2.1    Network Design	   21
              3.2.2    Procedures  	   21
              3.2.3    Results	   21
              3.2.4    Quality Assurance/Quality Control	   23
       3.3    Comparison of TLD Results to PIC Measurements  	   24

SECTION 4

4.0    Atmospheric Monitoring	   26
       4.1    Air Surveillance Network  	   26
              4.1.1    Design  	   26
              4.1.2    Procedures  	   26
              4.1.3    Results	   29
       4.2    Tritium in Atmospheric Moisture  	   29
              4.2.1    Design  	   29
              4.2.2    Procedures  	   36
              4.2.3    Results	  .-	   36

-------
 Contents (continued)
        4.3     Noble Gas Sampling Network	  38
               4.3.1   Design  	  38
               4.3.2   Procedures 	  38
               4.3.3   Results  . . .	  38
        4.4     Quality Assurance/Quality Control	  38
SECTION 5
5.0     Foodstuffs  	  43
        5.1     Milk Surveillance Network  	  43
               5.1.1   Design 	  43
               5.1.2   Procedures	  43
               5.1.3   Results	  46
               5.1.4   Quality Assurance/Quality Control	  47
        5.2     Animal Investigation Program	  47
               5.2.1   Network Design	  47
               5.2.2   Sample Collection and Analysis Procedures  	  51
               5.2.3   Sample Results for Bighorn Sheep	  51
               5.2.4   Sample Results for Mule Deer  	  54
               5.2.5   Sample Results for Cattle	  55
               5.2.6   Quality Assurance/Quality Control	  56
        5.3     Fruits and Vegetables Monitoring	  57
               5.3.1   Network Design	  57
               5.3.2   Sample Collection and Analysis Procedures  	  57
               5.3.3   Sample Results	  58
               5.3.4   Quality Assurance/Quality Control	  58

SECTION 6	

6.0     Internal Dosimetry	  5:
       6.1     Network Design	  59
       6.2     Procedures	  59
       6.3     Results	  61
       6.4     Quality Assurance/Quality Control	  61

SECTION 7	

7.0    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program	  63
       7.1     Network Design	  63
               7.1.1   Sampling Locations  	  63
               7.1.2  Sampling and Analysis Procedures	  64
               7.1.3  Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples	  64
               7.1.4  Data Management and Analysis	  65
       7.2     Nevada  Test Site Monitoring  	  65
       7.3     Offsite Monitoring in the Vicinity of the Nevada Test Site 	  67
       7.4     Hydrological Monitoring at Other Locations  	  69
               7.4.1   Project FAULTLESS, Nevada	  72
              7.4.2  Project SHOAL, Nevada	  72
              7.4.3  Project RULISON, Colorado	  72
                                             vi

-------
 Contents (continued)
              7.4.4   Project RIO BLANCO, Colorado	   77
              7.4.5   Project GNOME, New Mexico	77
              7.4.6   Project GASBUGGY, New Mexico  	81
              7.4.7   Project DRIBBLE, Mississippi	82
              7.4.8   Project MILROW, LONGSHOT, and CANNIKIN, Amchitka Island,
                     Alaska  	84
       7.5    SUMMARY	88
SECTION 8
8.     Dose Assessment	89
       8.1     Estimated Dose from Nevada Test Site Activity Data	89
       8.2    Estimated Dose from Offsite Radiological Safety Program Monitoring Network
              Data	91
       8.3    Dose from Background Radiation	93
       8.4    Summary  	93

SECTION 9

9.0    Weapons Test and Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spills Facility Support  	95
       9.1     Weapons Tests Support	95
       9.2    Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spills Test Facility Support	96

SECTION 10	

10.    Public Information and Community Assistance Programs	97
       10.1    Community Radiation Monitoring Program	97
       10.2    Town Hall Meetings	97

SECTION 11

11.0   Quality Assurance	 100
       11.1    Policy	 100
       11.2    Data Quality Objectives	 100
              11.2.1  Representativeness, Comparability, and Completeness Objective	 100
              11.2.2  Precision and Accuracy Objectives of Radioanalytical Analyses 	 101
              11.2.3  Quality of Exposure Estimates  	 101
       11.3    Data Validation  	 101
       11.4    Quality Assessment of 1992 Data	 102
              11.4.1   Completeness	 103
              11.4.2  Precision	 105
              11.4.3  Accuracy	 108
              11.4.4  Comparability 	 111
              11.4.5  Representativeness	 111

SECTION 12	

12.    Sample Analysis Procedures	 117
                                            VII

-------
 Contents (continued)
SECTION 13
13.    Training Program  	119

SECTION 14

14.    Radiation Protection Standards for External and Internal Exposure	 122
       14.1    Dose Equivalent Commitment  	 122
       14.2    Concentration Guides  	 122
       14.3    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Guide	122

SECTION 15

15     Summary and Conclusions  	 124
       15.1    Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Program 	124
       15.2    Pressurized Ion Chamber Network	 124
       15.3    Air Surveillance Network 	 124
       15.4    Tritium in Atmospheric Moisture	124
       15.5    Noble Gas Sampling Network	 124
       15.6    Foodstuffs	125
       15.7    Internal Exposure Monitoring  	 125
       15.8    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program	126

References	 127

Glossary  of Terms  	 130

Appendix A	 133

Appendix B	 141

Appendix C  	 157
                                           viii

-------
Figures
Figure 1.      Typical mid-latitude steppe climatological zone in Nevada	   4
Figure 2.      Location of the Nevada Test Site	   5
Figure 3.      Ground water flow systems around the Nevada Test Site	   7
Figure 4.      General land use within 180 miles (300 km) of the Nevada Test Site	   9
Figure 5.      Population of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah counties near the Nevada
              Test Site	   10
Figure 6.      Distribution of family milk cows and goats, by county	   12
Figure 7.      Distribution of dairy cows, by county	   13
Figure 8.      Distribution of beef cattle, by county	   14
Figure 9.      Distribution of sheep, by county	   15
Figure 10.     Thermoluminescent Dosimeters fixed environmental stations - 1992	   17
Figure 11.     Thermoluminescent Dosimeter personnel monitoring participants - 1992	   19
Figure 12.     Pressurized Ion Chamber network station locations	   22
Figure 13.     Distribution of weekly averages from the Pressurized  Ion Chamber data	   25
Figure 14.     Air Surveillance Network stations,  1992	   27
Figure 15.     Standby Air Surveillance Network stations,  1992	   28
Figure 16.     Distribution of gross beta values from air surveillance network stations, 1989  ....   32
Figure 17.     Distribution of gross beta values from air surveillance network stations, 1990	   33
Figure 18.     Distribution of gross beta values from air surveillance network stations, 1991	   34
Figure 19.     Distribution of gross beta values from air surveillance network stations, 1992	   35
Figure 20.     Offsite noble gas and tritium surveillance network sampling locations, 1992	   37
Figure 21.     Distribution of krypton-85 data from routine sampling stations, 1992	   41
Figure 22.     Annual network average krypton-85 concentrations	   41
Figure 23.     Milk Surveillance Network stations, 1992	   44
Figure 24.     Standby Milk Surveillance Network stations, 1992	   45
Figure 25.     Collection sites for animal sampled	   52
Figure 26.     Average strontium levels in bighorn sheep 1955 - 1992	   54
Figure 27.     Average strontium levels in deer 1955 - 1992	   55
Figure 28.     Average strontium levels in cattle 1955 - 1992	   56
Figure 29.     Location of families in the Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program, 1992	   60
Figure 30.     Wells on the Nevada Test Site included in the Long-Term Hydrological
              Monitoring Program, 1992  	   66
Figure 31.     Tritium concentration trend in Test Well B on the Nevada Test Site	   69
Figure 32.     Wells outside the Nevada Test Site included in the Long-Term Hydrological
              Monitoring Program, 1992	   70
Figure 33.     Tritium results in water from Adaven Springs, Nevada	   71
Figure 34.     Trend  of tritium results in water from Lake Mead, Nevada	   71
Figure 35.     Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project
              FAULTLESS, 1992	   73
Figure 36.     Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project
              SHOAL, 1992	   74
Figure 37.     Tritium results for water from Smith/James  Spring, Nevada	   75
Figure 38.     Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project
              RULISON, 1992	   76
Figure 39.     Tritium trends in ground water, Lee Hayward Ranch, Colorado	   77
Figure 40.     Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project RIO
              BLANCO, Colorado	   78
                                              IX

-------
               (continued)
Figure 41.      Tritium results in water from CER No. 4, Rio Blanco, Colorado	79
Figure 42.      Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project
               GNOME, 1992	80
Figure 43.      Tritium results in water from Well LRL-7 near Project GNOME, New Mexico	82
Figure 44.      Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project
               GASBUGGY, 1992	83
Figure 45.      Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project
               DRIBBLE near ground zero, 1992	85
Figure 46.      Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program sampling locations for Project
               DRIBBLE towns and residences, 1992	86
Figure 47.      Tritium result trends in Baxterville, MS public drinking water supply, 1992	87
Figure 48.      Tritium results in Well HM-S, Tatum Salt Dome, Project DRIBBLE	87
Figure 49.      Field and spiked sample pair precision for Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring
               Program conventional tritium analyses	 106
Figure 50.      Field and spiked sample duplicate pair precision for Long-Term Hydrological
               Monitoring Program enriched tritium analyses	107
Figure 51.      Field duplicate pair precision for Air Surveillance Network gross alpha analyses. .  . 108
Figure 52.      Field duplicate pair precision for Air Surveillance Network gross beta analyses. ... 109
Figure 53.      Split sample precision for Noble Gas Network 85Kr analyses	110
Figure 54.      Field duplicate pair precision for Milk Surveillance Network total potassium
               analyses	111
Figure 55.      The Control Room in the Plutonium Valley exercise on the NTS	119
Figure 56.      Personnel suiting  up for the exercise	 120
Figure 57.      Personnel returing with samples	 121

-------
Tables
1.     Characteristics of Climatic Types in Nevada (from Houghton et al., 1975)	   6
2.     Weeks for which Pressurized Ion Chamber Data were unavailable, 1992	   23
3.     Summary of Weekly Gamma Exposure Rates as Measured by Pressurized Ion
       Chambers, 1992	   24
4.     Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network, 1992  	   30
5.     Gross Alpha Results for the  Offsite Air Surveillance, 1992	   31
6.     Offsite Airborne Plutonium Concentration, 1992	   36
7.     Offsite Atmospheric Tritium Results for Routine Samplers, 1992	   39
8.     Offsite Noble Gas results for Routine Samplers, 1992 	   40
9.     Standby Milk Surveillance Network Sampling Location Changes, 1992   	   46
10.    Summary of Radionuclides Detected in Milk Samples 	   47
11.    Offsite Milk Surveillance 3H Results,  1992	   48
12.    Offsite Milk Surveillance 89Sr Results, 1992	   49
13.    Offsite Milk Surveillance 90Sr Results, 1992	   50
14.    Radiochemical Results for Animal Samples, 1992	   53
15.    Detectable 90Sr and 239+240pu Concentrations in Vegetables  	   58
16.    Tritium in Urine, Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program, 1992	62
17.    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Summary of Tritium Results for Nevada
       Test Site Network, 1992  	68
18.    NTS Radionuclide Emissions, 1992  	90
19.    Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations during 1992	91
20.    Monitoring Networks Data used in Dose Calculations	   92
21.    Dose Calculations from Monitoring Network Data  	94
22.    Community Radiation Monitoring  Program Outreach Presentations, 1992 	98
23.    Community Radiation Monitoring  Program Presentation Topics  	99
24.    Data Completeness of Offsite Radiological Safety  Program Networks	  104
25.    Overall Precision of Analysis 	  112
26.    Accuracy of Analysis from EPA Intercomparison Studies	  113
27.    Accuracy of Analysis from DOE Intercomparison Study 	  114
28.    Comparability of Analysis from EPA Intercomparison Studies	  115
29.    Summary of Analytical Procedures	  117
30.    Routine Monitoring Guides	  123
                                             xi

-------
 Abbreviations, Acronyms, Units  of Measure, and
 Conversions
ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS

AEC     -- Atomic Energy Commission            NCRP
ALARA   -- As Low as Reasonably Achievable
ALI      -- Annual Limit on Intake                NIST
ASN     — Air Surveillance Network
ANSI     -- American National Standards          NGTSN
           Institute
BOC     -- Bureau of Census                   NPDWR
BOMAB  — Bottle Mannequin Absorber
CEDE    -- Committed Effective Dose             NFS
           Equivalent                          NTS
CFR     -- Code of Federal Regulations           NRD
CG      -- Concentration Guide
CP-1     -- Control Point One                   ORSP
CRMP    -- Community Radiation Monitoring
           Program                            PHS
DAC     -- Derived Air Concentration             PIC
DCG     -- Derived Concentration Guide           QA
DOE     -- U.S. Department of Energy            QC
DOELAP  -- Department of Energy,                RAWS
           Laboratory Accreditation Program       RCF
DQO     -- data quality objective                 RCRA
DRI      -- Desert Research Institute
ECF     --Element Correction Factor              SASN
EDE     - Effective Dose Equivalent              S.D.
EML     - Environmental Monitoring Laboratory     SGZ
EMSL-LV - Environmental Monitoring Systems      SMSN
           Laboratory-Las Vegas                SOP
EPA     - U.S. Environmental Protection          STDMS
           Agency
FDA     - Food and Drug Administration          TLD
FRMAC   - Federal Radiological Monitoring and     USGS
           Assessment Center                   WSNSO
GOES    - Geostationary Operational
           Environmental Satellite
GZ      -Ground Zero
HTO     -- tritiated water
HpGe     - High purity germanium
lAGs     - Interagency Agreements
ICRP     -- International Commission on
           Radiological Protection
LGFSTF  - Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill
           Test Facility
LTHMP   - Long-Term Hydrological
           Monitoring Program
MDC     - minimum detectable concentration
MSL     - mean sea level
MSN     -- Milk Surveillance Network
~ National Council on Radiation
  Protection and Measurements
-- National Institute of Standards
  and Technology
-- Noble Gas and Tritium
  Surveillance Network
-- National Primary Drinking
  Water Regulation
-- National Park Service
-- Nevada Test Site
~ Nuclear Radiation Assessment
  Division
-- Offsite Radiological Safety
  Program
-- U.S. Public Health Service
-- pressurized ion chamber
- quality assurance
- quality control
-- Remote Automatic Weather Station
-- reference correction factor
~ Resource Conservation and
  Recovery Act
— Standby Air Surveillance Network
~ standard deviation
~ Surface Ground Zero
- Standby Milk Surveillance Network
- standard operating procedure
- Sample Tracking Data
  Management System
- thermoluminescent dosimetry
-- U.S. Geological Survey
~ Weather Service Nuclear Support
  Office
                                         XII

-------
Abbreviations,  Acronyms,  Units of  Measure, and
Conversions (continued)
UNITS OF MEASURE

Bq      -- Becquerel, one disintegration per     mo
          second                         mR
C       -- coulomb                        mrem
•C      -- degrees centigrade                mSv
Ci       -- Curie                           pCi
cm      -- centimeter, 1/100 meter            qt
eV      ~ electron volt                      R
°F      -- degrees Fahrenheit                rad
g       — gram                           rem
hr       -- hour
keV     — one thousand electron volts         Sv
kg       -- kilogram, 1000 grams              wk
km      -- kilometer, 1000 meters             yr
L       -- liter                            uCi
Ib       -- pound                          u.R
m       — meter
meV     — one million electron volts            %
mg      — milligram, 10"3 gram                ±
min     -- minute                          <
ml_      -- milliliter, 10"3 liter
- month
— milliroentgen, 10"3 roentgen
-- millirem, 10'3 rem
- millisievert, 10"3 sievert
- picocurie,  10"12 curie
-- quarter
— roentgen
-- unit of absorbed dose, 100 ergs/g
— dose equivalent, the rad adjusted
  for biological effect
-- sievert, equivalent to 100 rem
-- week
-- year
-- microcurie, 10s curie
- microroentgen, 10s
  roentgen
-- percent
-- plus or minus
-- less than
-- equals
- approximately equals
PREFIXES  CONVERSIONS
a
f
P
n
H
m
k
atto =
femto =
pico
nano =
micro =
mill!
kilo =
10-ia
10'15
10''2
10 9
10 6
10'3
103
Multiply by_
Concentrations
uCi/mL 109
nCi/mL 10'2
SI Units
rad
rem
pCi
mR/yr

10'2
10 2
3.7 x 10 2
2.6 x 10 7
To Obtain
pCi/L
pCi/m3

Gray (Gy=1 Joule/kg)
Sievert (Sv)
Becquerel (Bq)
Coulomb (C)/kg-yr
                                       XIII

-------
List of Elements
ATOMIC
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

SYMBOL
H
He
Li
Be
B
C
N
O
F
Ne
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Kr
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Tc
Ru
Rh
Pd

NAME
hydrogen
helium
lithium
beryllium
boron
carbon
nitrogen
oxygen
fluorine
neon
sodium
magnesium
aluminum
silicon
phosphorus
sulfur
chlorine
argon
potassium
calcium
scandium
titanium
vanadium
chromium
manganese
iron
cobalt
nickel
copper
zinc
gallium
germanium
arsenic
selenium
bromine
krypton
rubidium
strontium
yttrium
zirconium
niobium
molybdenum
technetium
ruthenium
rhodium
palladium
ATOMIC
NUMBER
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

SYMBOL
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Xe
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
W
Re
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
TI
Pb
Bi
Po
At
Rn
Fr
Ra
Ac
Tn
Pa
U

NAME
silver
cadmium
indium
tin
antimony
tellurium
iodine
xenon
cesium
barium
lanthanum
cerium
praseodymium
neodymium
promethium
samarium
europium
gadolinium
terbium
dysprosium
holmium
erbium
thulium
ytterbium
lutetium
hafnium
tantalum
tungsten
rhenium
osmium
iridium
platinum
gold
mercury
thallium
lead
bismuth
polonium
astatine
radon
francium
radium
actinium
thorium
protactinium
uranium
                         XIV

-------
List of Elements (continued)
ATOMIC
NUMBER      SYMBOL  NAME

  93          Np       neptunium
  94          Pu       plutonium
  95          Am      americium
  96          Cm      curium
  97          Bk       berkelium
  98          Cf       californium
  99          ES       einsteinium
  100         Fm      fermium
  101         Md       mendelevium
  102         No       nobelium
  103         Lr       lawrencium
                                   xv

-------
Acknowledgements
The skill, dedication, and perseverance of Terry L. Mouck in word processing and desktop publishing
support were crucial to the production of this report.  The external peer reviews were provided by Richard
D. McArthur, Desert Research Institute (Las Vegas, Nevada); John F. Heppler, Community Station Manager
(St. George, Utah); Gary M. Sandquist, Community Station Manager (Salt Lake City, Utah).  Internal
reviewers in addition to the authors, included T.M. Grady and B.B.  Dicey, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (Las Vegas, Nevada).  The contributions of these reviewers in production of this final version of
the 1992 annual report are gratefully acknowledged.

The authors would like to thank Paul J. Weeden for his advice and assistance in the coordination and
preparation of this report. We also want to thank the Field Monitoring Branch for collecting samples and
maintaining the equipment, and interfacing  with offsite  residents; and the Radioanalysis Branch for
analyzing the samples.  Appreciation is also extended to Kuen Huang, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (Las Vegas, Nevada), for her preparation of graphs.
                                           XVI

-------
1   Introduction
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) used
the Nevada Test Site  (NTS),  between January
1951  and January 1975, for conducting nuclear
weapons tests, nuclear rocket engine development,
nuclear medicine studies, and for other nuclear and
nonnuclear experiments. Beginning in mid-January
1975, these activities became the responsibility of
the U.S.  Energy  Research  and Development
Administration.  Two years later this organization
was merged with other energy-related agencies to
form the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Atmospheric  weapons  tests  were  conducted
periodically at the NTS from January 1951 through
October 1958, followed by a test moratorium which
was in effect until September 1961. Since then all
nuclear detonations at the NTS have been con-
ducted underground, with the expectation of con-
tainment, except the above-ground and shallow
underground  tests of Operation Sunbeam  and
cratering experiments conducted under the Plow-
share program between 1962 and 1968.

Prior  to  1954,  an  offsite radiation surveillance
program was performed by personnel from the Los
Alamos Scientific Laboratory and the U.S. Army.
Beginning in 1954, and continuing through 1970,
this program was conducted by the  U.S.  Public
Health Service  (PHS).  When the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) was  formed in
December 1970, certain radiation responsibilities
from several federal agencies were transferred to
it, including the Offsite Radiological Safety Program
(ORSP) of the PHS.  Since  1970, the EPA Envi-
ronmental Monitoring  Systems  Laboratory-Las
Vegas (EMSL-LV) has conducted the ORSP, both
in  Nevada and at other U.S.  nuclear  test sites,
under  interagency  agreements  (lAGs)  with  the
DOE or its predecessor agencies.

Since  1954, the three major objectives  of  the
ORSP have been:

    •   Assuring the health and safety  of  the
        people living near the NTS.

    •   Measuring and  documenting  levels  and
        trends of environmental radiation or radio-
        active  contaminants  in  the  vicinity  of
        atomic testing areas.
     •   Verifying  compliance  with  applicable
        radiation protection standards, guidelines,
        and regulations.

Offsite levels of radiation and  radioactivity are
assessed  by gamma-ray measurements  using
pressurized ion chambers (PICs) and thermolumi-
nescent dosimeters (TLDs); by sampling air, water,
milk, food crops, other vegetation, soil,  and ani-
mals; and by human exposure and biological assay
procedures.

Before each nuclear test at the NTS, EPA radiation
monitoring technicians are stationed in offsite areas
most likely to be affected by an airborne release of
radioactive material. These technicians use trucks
equipped with radiation detectors, samplers, and
supplies and are directed by two-way radio from
the control point at  the NTS.

1.1  Program Description

The EPA EMSL-LV  Nuclear Radiation Assessment
Division (NRD)  provides  scientific and  technical
support to the  DOE's  nuclear weapons testing
program at the NTS and other nuclear testing sites
through an IAG.  The primary objective  of EPA's
activities is protection of the health and  safety of
the offsite resident  population.  This objective is
accomplished through monitoring and documenta-
tion  of environmental  levels of radiation  in the
areas around the NTS, monitoring of people in the
offsite  area,  calculating  committed  effective
radiation dose to offsite residents most likely to be
exposed, maintaining emergency response capabil-
ities, and  fostering community involvement and
education in  radiation-related issues.

Emergency response capabilities are maintained in
readiness for each  nuclear weapons test conduct-
ed at the  NTS.  Monitoring  technicians are de-
ployed for each  test and senior EPA personnel
serve on  the Test Controller's Scientific  Advisory
Panel.  Tests are only conducted when  meteoro-
logical conditions are such that any release would
be carried towards sparsely populated, controllable
areas.  Should a release occur, EPA monitoring
technicians would deploy mobile monitoring instru-
ments, assist state and local officials in implement-
ing protective actions,  and  collect samples for

-------
 prompt analysis.  Hours before each test, Weather
 Service Nuclear Support Office personnel and,  if
 requested, an instrumented aircraft gather meteo-
 rological data  for use  by the Test Controller's
 Advisory Panel in judging the safety of executing
 the test. A second aircraft carries radiation detec-
 tors.  In the unlikely event of a significant release
 of radioactivity following a nuclear weapons test,
 the equipment on the aircraft would enable rapid
 sampling and analysis of a radioactive cloud. Data
 gathered  by the aircraft  are  used to assist  in
 deploying field monitoring technicians to downwind
 areas,  to help determine appropriate  protective
 actions, and to perform radiation monitoring and
 environmental sampling (EPA, 1988a).

 The IAG also requires EPA monitoring technicians
 to conduct monitoring during tests conducted at the
 Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility (LGFS-
 TF) located on the NTS. These spills involve non-
 radioactive hazardous materials.

 Environmental  radiation levels  are continuously
 monitored and documented through an extensive
 environmental surveillance program conducted by
 EPA  in the offsite areas surrounding the  NTS.
 This program  is  an  outgrowth  of  environmental
 surveillance activities conducted by the PHS before
 1970.   The original  PHS surveillance program,
 initiated in 1954, was limited to offsite surveillance
 during testing activities.  Since 1954, the program
 has grown and evolved to its present configuration.
 Many historical sampling locations  have  been
 retained, resulting in  a continuous data record of
 three  decades or longer.

 The ORSP consists of several networks to  monitor
 concentrations of radioactive materials  (radioiso-
 topes) in  air,  atmospheric moisture, milk,  local
 foodstuffs, and surface and ground water. Ambient
 radiation levels  are  continuously  monitored at
 selected locations using PICs and TLDs.  Atmo-
 spheric monitoring includes air samplers, noble gas
 samplers, and atmospheric moisture (tritium-in-air)
 samplers.   Milk, wildlife,  domestic animals,  and
 fruits  and  vegetables  are routinely sampled and
 analyzed.   Some residents  in the offsite areas
 participate in TLD and internal dosimetry networks.
Ground  water on and in the vicinity of the NTS is
 monitored in the Long-Term Hydrological Monitor-
ing  Program  (LTHMP);  additional  monitoring of
surface  and ground water is conducted under the
LTHMP  at sites of previous nuclear weapons tests
in Alaska, Colorado,  Nevada, New  Mexico,  and
Mississippi. Results obtained from these networks
 are used to calculate an annual radiation dose to
 the offsite residents.

 Another function of the ORSP is to conduct dairy
 animal and human population censuses. This type
 of information would be necessary in the unlikely
 event of a release from the NTS. A dairy animal
 and population census is continuously updated for
 areas within 240 miles  north and east, and 125
 miles south and west of Control Point One (CP-1).
 The location of CP-1 is shown in Figures 3 and 6,
 Section 2.  The remainder of the Nevada counties
 and the western most Utah counties are scheduled
 for dairy animal and population  census updates
 every two years.  A partial  census was done in
 1992.   The locations of  processing plants and
 commercial dairy herds in Idaho and the remainder
 of Utah are obtained from the milk and food sec-
 tions of the  respective state governments.

 Community  information programs are an integral
 component of the EPA activities.  Town hall meet-
 ings or presentations are  held at the  request  of
 various civic groups. These meetings and presen-
 tations provide a forum for increasing public aware-
 ness  of NTS activities, disseminating radiation
 monitoring results,  and addressing concerns  of
 residents related  to environmental radiation and
 possible health effects.  In addition, tours of the
 NTS are arranged for interested parties. In  nine-
 teen of the communities around the NTS, Commu-
 nity Radiation Monitoring Program (CRMP) stations
 have been established.  The CRMP stations are
 established  in prominent locations in the o  ite
 communities and include samplers for sevei.   of
 the surveillance  networks (PIC,  TLD,  and  air
 samplers; many also include noble gas and tritium-
 in-air samplers).  At each CRMP location, a local
 resident  serves  as the station  manager.  The
 CRMP is a collaborative effort of EPA EMSL-LV,
the Desert Research Institute (DRI), the University
of Utah, and DOE.

 1.2  Report Description

 Beginning with Operation Upshot-Knothole in 1953,
a report summarizing the monitoring data obtained
from each test series was published by the U.S.
 PHS.   For  the  reactor tests in  1959 and the
weapons and Plowshare tests in 1962, data  were
published only for the tests in which detectable
amounts of radioactivity were measured in  an
offsite area.  Publication of the summary data for
each six-month period was initiated in 1964.   In

-------
1971, the Atomic Energy Commission implemented
a requirement (AEC71), subsequently incorporated
into Department of Energy Order 5484.1(DOE85),
that each agency or contractor involved  in major
nuclear activities provide an annual comprehensive
radiological monitoring report. In 1988, DOE Order
5484.1 was superseded by the General  Environ-
mental Protection Program Requirements (Order
5400.1) of the DOE (DOE88).  Each annual report
summarizes the radiation  monitoring activities of
the EPA  in the vicinity of the NTS and at former
nuclear testing  areas  in the United States.  This
report summarizes  those  activities for calendar
year 1992.

Section 2 of this report contains a physical de-
scription  of the NTS and the surrounding areas.
Section 3 discusses the external ambient gamma
monitoring networks, including the TLD Network,
the PIC Network, and a comparison of  the two
monitoring technologies. Section 4 discusses the
atmospheric monitoring networks including the Air
Surveillance Network,  the  Tritium in Atmospheric
Moisture  Network,  and the Noble Gas Sampling
Network.    Section  5  addresses foodstuffs that
could be consumed by residents living close to the
NTS.  This includes the Milk Surveillance Network,
the Animal Investigation Program, and a discussion
of fruits and vegetables. Section 6 discusses the
Internal Dosimetry Program. The LTHMP is dis-
cussed  in  Section 7.   Each  of  the  monitoring
network sections includes  a description of the
network design, a discussion of the procedures, a
presentation of the results, and a section on quality
assurance/quality  control   (QA/QC)   methods.
Section 8 contains a calculation of potential radia-
tion dose  to residents living in the offsite area.
Section 9 contains a discussion of the support the
ORSP provides for weapons testing and liquefied
gaseous fuels spill tests. Section 10 describes the
CRMP and lists the town hall meetings and NTS
tours conducted in 1992. A detailed description of
the QA  program  including a discussion of data
quality objectives and of  QA data analysis, is
provided in  Section 11.  Section 12 contains  a
discussion  of the sample  analysis procedures.
Section 13 explains our training program. Section
14  contains  radiation  protection  standards for
external and  internal  exposure.  Section 15 con-
tains the summary and conclusions.

Although written to meet the  terms  of  the IAG
between the  EPA and the  DOE  as well as the
requirements of DOE Order 5400.1, this report also
should be of interest and use to  the  citizens of
Nevada, Utah, and California. State, federal, and
local agencies involved in protecting the environ-
ment and the health and well-being of the public,
and individuals and organizations  concerned with
environmental quality and the possible release of
radioactive contaminants into the biosphere, also
may find this report of interest.

-------
 2    Description  of the  Nevada Test  Site
 The principal activity at the NTS is the testing of
 nuclear devices to aid in the development  of
 nuclear weapons, proof testing of weapons, and
 weapons safety and effects studies.  The major
 activity of the EPA's ORSP is radiation monitoring
 around the NTS.  This section provides an over-
 view of the climate, geology, hydrology,  and land
 uses in this generally arid and sparsely populated
 area of the southwestern United States (Figure 1).
 The information included should provide an under-
 standing of the environment  in which  nuclear
 testing and  monitoring activities take place, the
 reasons for the  location  of instrumentation, the
 weather extremes to which both people and equip-
 ment are subjected, and the distances traveled by
 field monitoring technicians in collecting samples
 and maintaining equipment.

 2.1   Location

 The NTS is located in Nye County, Nevada, with
 its southeast corner about 54 miles (90 km) north-
 west of Las Vegas (Figure 2).  It occupies an area
 of about 1,350 square  miles (3,750 square km),
 varies from 28 to 35 miles (46 to 58 km) in width
 (east-west) and from 49 to 55 miles (82 to 92 km)
in length (north-south). This area consists of large
basins or flats about 2,970 to 3,900 feet (900 to
1,200 m) above mean sea level (MSL) surrounded
by mountain ranges rising from 5,940 to 7,590 feet
(1,800 to 2,300 m) above MSL.

The NTS is surrounded on three sides by exclusion
areas, collectively named the Nellis Air Force Base
Range Complex, which  provides a buffer zone
between the test areas and privately owned lands.
This buffer zone varies from 14 to 62 miles (24 to
104 km) between the test area and land that is
open  to the public.   In the unlikely event of an
atmospheric release of radioactivity (venting), two
to more than six hours would elapse, depending on
wind speed  and direction, before any release of
airborne radioactivity would reach  private lands.

2.2   Climate

The climate  of the NTS and surrounding area is
variable, due to its wide  range in  altitude and its
rugged terrain.  Most of Nevada has a semi-arid
climate  characterized as mid-latitude  steppe.
Throughout the year, water is insufficient to support
the  growth of common food crops without irrigation.

Figure 1.  Typical mid-latitude steppe climatological zone in Nevada.

-------

                                                                                         Scale in Wiles
                                                                                            50          100
                                                                                        50     100     150
                                                                                       Scale in Kilometers
Figure 2.  Location of the Nevada Test Site.

-------
 Climate may be classified by the types of vegeta-
 tion indigenous to an area.  According to Nevada
 Weather and Climate (Houghton et al., 1975), this
 method of classification developed by Koppen is
 further  subdivided  on  the basis of "...seasonal
 distribution of rainfall and the degree of summer
 heat or winter cold."  Table 1  summarizes the
 characteristics of climatic types for Nevada.

 According  to Quiring (1968), the NTS average
 annual  precipitation  ranges  from  about 4 inches
 (10  cm) at  the  lower elevations to  around  10
 inches (25 cm) at the higher elevations. During the
 winter months, the plateaus may be snow-covered
 for a period  of several days or weeks.  Snow is
 uncommon on the flats.  Temperatures vary con-
 siderably with elevation, slope, and local air cur-
 rents.  The average daily temperature ranges at
 the lower altitudes are around 25 to 50° F (-4 to
 10°C) in January and 55 to  95°F (13 to 35°C) in
 July, with extremes of  -15°F (-26°C) and 120°F
 (49°C).  Corresponding temperatures on the pla-
 teaus are 25 to 35°F (-4 to 2°C) in January and 65
 to SOT (18 to 27°C) in July with extremes of -30°F
 (-34°C)and 115°F(46°C).
The wind direction, as measured on a 98 ft (30 m)
tower at an observation  station approximately 7
miles (11 km) north-northwest of CP-1, is predomi-
nantly northerly except during the  months of May
through August when winds from the south-south-
west predominate (Quiring, 1968).  Because of the
prevalent  mountain/valley winds  in the basins,
south to  southwest winds  predominate during
daylight hours of most months. During the winter
months, southerly winds predominate slightly over
northerly winds for a few hours during the warmest
part of the day. These wind patterns may be quite
different at other locations on the NTS because of
local terrain effects and differences in elevation.

2.3   Hydrology

Two major hydrologic systems shown in Figure 3
exist  on the  NTS (U.S.  Energy  Research and
Development Administration, 1977). Ground water
in  the northwestern part of the NTS (the Pahute
Mesa area) flows at a rate of 6.6 to 600 feet (2 to
180 m) per year to the south and southwest toward
the Ash  Meadows discharge area in the Amargosa
Desert.   Ground  water to the east of  the NTS
Table 1. Characteristics of Climatic Types in Nevada (from Houghton et al. 1975)

                                       Annual
Climate Type
Alpine tundra
Humid continental
Subhumid continental

Mid-latitude steppe
Mid-latitude desert
Low-latitude desert
Temperature
°F
(°C)
Winter Summer
0 to 15
(-18to-9)
10 to 30
(-12to-1)
10 to 30
(-12to-1)
20 to 40
(-7 to 4)
20 to 40
(-7 to 4)
40 to 50
(-4 to 10)
40 to 50
(4 to 10)
50 to 70
(10 to 21)
50 to 70
(10 to 21)
65 to 80
(18 to 27)
65 to 80
(18 to 27)
80 to 90
(27 to 32)
Precipitation
inches
(cm)
Total*
15 to 45
(38 to 114)
25 to 45
(64 to 114)
12 to 25
(30 to 64)
16 to 15
(15 to 38)
3 to 8
(8 to 20)
2 to 10
(5 to 25)
Snowfall
Medium to
heavy
Heavy
Moderate

Light to
moderate
Light
Negligible
Percent
Dominant of
Vegetation Area
Alpine meadows
Pine-fir forest
Pine or scrub
woodland
Sagebrush, grass,
scrub
Greasewood,
shadscale
Creosote bush
-
1
15

57
20
7
* Limits of annual precipitation overlap because of variations in temperature which affect the water balance.

-------
           Pahute Mesa
          Ground Water
             System
                                                               Ash Meadows
                                                            Ground Water System
               Flow Direction
               Ground Water
               System Boundaries
               Silent Canyon
               Caldera
               Timber Mountain
               Caldera
  Scale in Miles
  10      20
10   20   30    40
Scale in Kilometers
NELLIS
AFBRANGE
COMPLEX
                                                                              LOCATION MAP
Figure 3. Ground water flow systems around the Nevada Test Site.

                                              7

-------
 moves from north to south at a rate of not less
 than 6.6 feet (2 m) nor greater than 730 feet (220
 m) per year. Carbon-14 analyses of this eastern
 ground  water  indicate  that the lower  velocity is
 nearer the true value.   At Mercury Valley  in the
 extreme southern part of the NTS, the eastern
 ground water flow shifts to the southwest, toward
 the Ash Meadows discharge area.

 2.4  Regional Land Use

 Figure 4 is a map of the off-NTS area  showing a
 wide variety of land uses, such as mining, camp-
 ing, fishing, and hunting within a 180-mile (300 km)
 radius of the NTS operations control center at CP-
 1 (the location of CP-1 is shown on Figures 3 and
 6).   West of the NTS, elevations range from 280
 feet (85 m) below MSL in Death Valley to 14,600
 feet (4,420 m) above MSL in  the Sierra Nevada.
 Portions  of two  major agricultural  valleys (the
 Owens and San Joaquin) are included.  The areas
 south of the NTS are  more  uniform  since  the
 Mojave  Desert ecosystem (mid-latitude desert)
 comprises most of this portion of Nevada, Califor-
 nia, and Arizona.  The areas east of the NTS are
 primarily mid-latitude steppe with some of the older
 river valleys, such as the Virgin River Valley and
 the Moapa Valley, supporting  irrigation for small-
 scale but intensive farming of a variety of crops.
 Grazing is also common in this area, particularly to
 the northeast.  The area north of the NTS is also
 mid-latitude steppe, where the major agricultural
 activity is grazing of cattle and sheep.   Minor
 agriculture, primarily the growing of alfalfa hay, is
 found in this portion of Nevada within  180 miles
 (300 km) of the CP-1. Many of the residents have
 access to locally grown  fruits and vegetables.

 Recreational areas lie in all directions around the
 NTS (Figure 4) and are  used for such activities as
 hunting, fishing,  and camping.   In general, the
 camping and fishing sites to the northwest,  north,
 and northeast of the NTS are closed during winter
 months.  Camping and fishing locations to the
 southeast,  south,  and  southwest   are  utilized
throughout  the year.  The  peak of the  hunting
season is from September through January.

2.5   Population Distribution

Knowledge of  population  densities  and spatial
distribution of farm animals is necessary to assess
protective  measures required  in the  event  of an
accidental release of  radioactivity at  the  NTS.
 Figure 5  shows the population of counties sur-
 rounding the NTS based on the 1990 Bureau of
 Census  (BOC) count  (DOC, 1990).  Excluding
 Clark County, the major population center (approxi-
 mately 741,459 in 1990), the population density of
 counties adjacent to the NTS is about 0.7 persons
 per square mile (0.4 persons per square kilometer).
 For comparison, the population  density of the 48
 contiguous states was 70.3 persons per square
 mile (27  persons per square kilometer) (DOC,
 1990). The estimated average population density
 for Nevada in  1990 was 10.9 persons per square
 mile (3.1  persons per square kilometer) (DOC,
 1986).

 The offsite area within 48 miles (80 km)  of CP-1
 (the primary area in  which the dose commitment
 must be determined for the purpose of this report)
 is predominantly rural. Several small communities
 are located in  the area, the largest being in Pah-
 rump Valley. Pahrump, a growing rural community
 with a population of 7,425 (DOC, 1990), is located
 48 miles (80 km)  south of CP-1. The  small resi-
 dential community of Crystal, Nevada, also located
 in the Pahrump Valley, is several miles north of the
 town of Pahrump (Figure 3).  The Amargosa farm
 area, which has  a population of about  950,  is
 located 30 miles (50 km) southwest of CP-1.  The
 largest town in the  near offsite area  is  Beatty,
 which has a population of about  1,500  and  is
 located approximately 39 miles (65 km) to the west
 of CP-1.

 The Mojave Desert of  California, which includes
 Death Valley National Monument, lies  along the
 southwestern border of Nevada.   The National
 Park Service (NPS) estimated that the  population
 within the Monument boundaries ranges from a
 minimum of 200 permanent residents during the
 summer  months to as many as 5,000  tourists
 including campers on any particular day during the
 major holiday periods in the winter months, and as
 many as 30,000  during "Death Valley Days"  in
 November (NPS,  1990).  The largest  populated
 area is the Ridgecrest, California area,  which has
 a population of 27,725 and is located  114 miles
 (190 km) southwest of the NTS.  The next largest
town is Barstow, California, located 159 miles (265
 km) south-southwest of the NTS,  with  a 1990
population of 21,472.  The Owens Valley, where
 numerous small towns are located, lies 30 miles
 (50 km) west of Death Valley. The largest town in
the Owens Valley is Bishop, California, located 135
 miles (225 km) west-northwest of the NTS, with a
population of 3,475 (DOC, 1990).

-------

     A. Camping &
         Recreational
         Areas
     D  Hunting
     •  Fishing
     O  Mines
     A  Oil Fields
                           w
                       Lake Havasu
Scale in Miles
   50
                                    Scale in Kilometers
Figure 4.  General land use within 180 miles (300 km) of the Nevada Test Site.

                                                 9

-------
Figure 5.  Population of Arizona,  California, Nevada, and Utah counties near the Nevada Test Site.




                                               10

-------
The extreme southwestern region of Utah is more
developed than the adjacent part of Nevada. The
largest community is St. George, located 132 miles
(220 km) east of the NTS, with a 1990 population
of 28,502. The next largest town, Cedar City, with
a population of 13,443, is located 168 miles (280
km) east-northeast of the NTS (DOC, 1990).

The  extreme northwestern  region of  Arizona is
mostly range land except for that portion  in the
Lake Mead National Recreation Area.  In addition,
several small communities lie along the Colorado
River.

The largest towns in the area are Bullhead City, 99
miles (165 km) south-southeast of the NTS, with a
1990  population  of 21,951 and Kingman, located
168 miles (280 km) southeast of the NTS,  with a
population of 12,722 (DOC, 1990).
Figures 6 through  9 show the most  recent esti-
mates of the domestic animal populations in the
counties near the NTS. Domestic animal numbers
are updated through interim surveys as  part of
routine monitoring and by periodic resurveys. The
numbers given in Figure 6, showing distribution of
family milk cows and goats, are determined from
these interim surveys. The numbers in  Figures 7 to
9 were  compiled for Nevada and Utah from the
Nevada Agricultural Statistics 1992 report (Nevada
Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992) and from the
1992  Utah  Agricultural  Statistics report  (Utah
Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992). The numbers
in Figures 7 to 9 pertaining to counties in California
were received orally from personnel at the Califor-
nia Agricultural Statistics Service.
                                              11

-------
          I	
  Washoe =
  5(28)
                                                -^H
                                                  Vvi
                                                    ^  •*
                                     San Bernardino
                                        16(37)
N
                                                          >
                                                                                   100
                                                                      50   100    150
                                                                      Scale in Kitametefs
Figure 6.  Distribution of family milk cows and goats, by county.

                                           12

-------

   Washoe •
    700


   Storey  |
    0

   Carson Z
    City
    80
                                                                                     Scale in Wiles
                                                                                        50          100
                                                                                    50     100     150
                                                                                   Scale in Kilometers
  All   counties total 2,700 dairy cows.
  Individual county values not published
  to avoid disclosure of individual operations.
Figure 7. Distribution of dairy cows, by county.
                                                   13

-------

          I
          m
  Washoe f
   31,000  ;
  Storey  f
   300- "
  Carson
   City
   1,700
  Douglas
                                                                                                           100
                                                                                                 100    150
                                                                                          Scale in Kilometers
Figure 8.  Distribution of beef cattle, by county.
                                                       14

-------

  Washoe
   Storey |
  Carson 2
   City
                                                           Elko
                                                          25,000
White Pine
  19,000
                                                                   NEVADA  I UTAH
                                                           Clark



\_^





^— — — — ^

Jncoln
*
r

                                                                                  Box Elder
                                                                                   41,000
                                                                                  Tooele
                                                                                  12,000
                     Juab 4,000
                                                                                 Millard
                                                                                 7,000
                                                                                 Beaver
                                                                                  1,000
                                                                         I"1""1"1
                                                                         fl   ARIZONA
                                                                         i

                                                                                        D
                                                                                       N
                        Scale in Wiles
                           50

                          *.
                       50     100
                      Scale in Kilometers
                                                                                                  100
  All   counties total 19,800 sheep.
  Individual county values not published to avoid disclosure of individual operations.
Figure 9. Distribution of sheep, by county.
                                                  15

-------
 3   External  Ambient  Gamma Monitoring
 External ambient gamma radiation is measured by
 the Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD) Network
 and also by the Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC)
 Network. The primary function of the two networks
 is to detect changes in ambient gamma radiation.
 In the absence of nuclear testing, ambient gamma
 radiation rates  naturally differ among locations
 since rates vary with altitude (cosmic radiation) and
 with radioactivity in the soil (terrestrial radiation).
 Ambient gamma radiation will also vary slightly at
 a location due to weather patterns.

 3.1  Thermoluminescent
      Dosimetry Network

 The primary function of the EPA EMSL-LV environ-
 mental dosimetry program is to  define a  mecha-
 nism for identifying any increase in radiation levels
 in areas  surrounding the NTS.   This  is  accom-
 plished by developing baseline information regard-
 ing  ambient radiation levels from all radiation
 sources and looking  for any deviations from data
 trends.   In  addition to  the environmental TLD
 program, EPA deploys personnel TLDs to prede-
 fined individuals living in areas surrounding the
 NTS.   Information  gathered from  this program
 would help define possible exposures to residents
 in the event of a release from the test site. Basic
 philosophies for program development  for the
 personnel TLD program  are essentially similar to
 the  environmental TLD program.

 3.1.1  Design

 The current EPA TLD program utilizes the Panaso-
 nic  Model UD-802 TLD for personnel monitoring
 and the UD-814 TLD for environmental monitoring.
 Each dosimeter is read using the Panasonic Model
 UD-71OA automatic dosimeter reader.

 The UD-802 TLD  incorporates two elements of
 Li2B4O7:Cu and two elements of CaSO4:Tm phos-
phors.  The phosphors are behind approximately
 17,  300,  300, and 1000 mg/cm2 of attenuation,
 respectively. With the use of different phosphors
and filtrations, a dose algorithm can be applied to
 ratios of the different element responses.  This
process defines the radiation type and energy and
provides a mechanism for assessing an absorbed
dose equivalent.
Environmental monitoring  is accomplished  using
the UD-814 TLD, which is made up of one element
of Li2B4O/.Cu and three elements of CaSO4:Tm.
The CaSO4:Tm elements are behind approximately
1000 mg/cm2attenuation.   An  average of the
corrected values for elements two through four
gives the total exposure for each TLD.  Two UD-
814 TLDs are deployed at each station per  moni-
toring period.

In general terms, TLDs operate by trapping elec-
trons at an elevated energy state.  After the collec-
tion period, each TLD element is heated.  When
heat is applied to the phosphor, the trapped elec-
trons are  released and the  energy differences
between the initial energies of the electrons and
the energies at the elevated state are given off in
the form of photons.  These photons  are then
collected using a photomultipliertube. The number
of photons emitted, and the resulting  electrical
signal,  is proportional to the initial deposited ener-
gy-

3.1.2 Results of TLD Monitoring

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA:

A network of environmental stations and monitored
personnel has been established by  EMSL-LV  in
locations encircling  the NTS.  Figure 10 shows
fixed environmental monitoring locations.   Total
annual exposures were calculated by dividing all
available data by the number of days representing
each deployment period where data were  avail-
able. If a deployment period overlapped the begin-
ning or end of the year,  a daily rate was calculated
for that deployment period  and multiplied by the
number of days that fell within 1992.  The total
average daily rate  is then multiplied by 365 to
show the total annual exposure for each station.
Detailed results are shown in Appendix A, Table A-
1.

Total annual exposures ranged from 57 mR at the
station  located on the  campus of UNLV in Las
Vegas, Nevada to 354 mR  at the station in Warm
Springs, Nevada with a mean  annual exposure of
113 mR for all operating locations.  The Warm
Springs #2  station consistently shows exposure
levels higher than all other locations due to the
                                            16

-------
      I	r~~
                                                                       Seal* in Mil**
Figure 10.  Thermoluminescent dosimetry fixed environmental stations • 1992.
                                            17

-------
elevated levels of naturally occurring radioactive
materials present in the stream near the monitoring
location. The next highest annual exposure was
182 mR at Hancock,  NV.

Transit control dosimeters accompany station TLDs
during transit to the deployment location and during
their return to the processing laboratory.  Between
1988  and 1991, transit control TLD  results were
inappropriately  subtracted from the  station TLD
results, reducing the deployment exposure.  Opera-
tional techniques  for defining  these transit expo-
sures have since changed to provide higher quality
data.   A summary of current and  past  annual
exposure data is shown in Appendix A, Figure A-1.

PERSONNEL DATA:
During 1992, a total of 67 offsite personnel were
issued TLDs to monitor their annual dose equiva-
lent. Locations of program participants are shown
in Figure 11.   Detailed results are  displayed in
Appendix A,  Table A-2.   This table shows  the
following information:

       •    Personnel  ID  Number:   This is a
           unique number given to  each person
           participating in the program.

       •    Issue and Return Dates:  The actual
           dates the TLD was issued to and re-
           trieved from each individual.

       •    Shallow Dose:  This represents  the
           dose equivalent at the depth of 0.007
           cm in  a sphere of soft tissue of a
           density of 1  g/cm3 and a diameter of
           30 cm.

       •    Eye Dose:  This represents the dose
           equivalent to the lens of the eye.

       •    Deep Dose:  This represents the dose
           equivalent at the depth of 1.0 cm in a
           sphere of soft tissue of a density of 1
           g/cm3 and a diameter of 30 cm.

       •    Total annual whole body dose equiva-
           lent:  This is calculated  as the total
           cumulative deep dose over the calen-
           dar year.

       •    Data:  This represents the percentage
           of data available for the year.
       •    Associated Station:  This is the envi-
            ronmental station located nearest the
            participant's residence.

Total annual whole body absorbed dose equivalent
was calculated by summing all available data for
the year.  All data were used from TLDs that were
calibrated within ±15 days of the beginning or end
of the year.  If data gaps occurred, all available
data were summed and a daily rate was computed
by dividing the sum by the number of  days with
available data.  The daily rate was then multiplied
by 365 days.

Annual whole body dose  equivalents ranged from
a low of 103 mrem to a high of 391 mrem with a
mean of 187 mrem for all monitored personnel.

3.1.3      Quality Assurance/
            Quality Control

During  1992,  two  calibration instruments  were
available to support the program. One is a TLD
irradiator manufactured by Williston-Felin housing
a nominal 1.8  Ci 137Cs  source.   This irradiator
provides for automated irradiations of the TLDs.
The second calibration instrument is a nominal 10
Ci 137Cs well type irradiator.  Unlike the Williston-
Felin irradiators, this well type does  not provide
automated capabilities.   TLD  exposures accom-
plished with the well type irradiator are monitored
using a Victoreen E-5000 precision electrometer
whose calibration is traceable to the National
Institute of Standards and  Technology (NIST).  The
exposure  rates  of  both   irradiators  have  been
confirmed  by  measurement  using a  precision
electrometer which has a calibration traceable to
NIST.  Panasonic UD-802 dosimeters exposed by
these irradiators are used to  calibrate the TLD
readers and to verify TLD  reader linearity. Control
dosimeters of the same type as  field dosimeters
(UD-802 or UD-814) are exposed and read togeth-
er with the field dosimeters.  This provides  daily
on-line process quality control checks in the form
of irradiated controls.

Each magazine containing TLDs to be  read nor-
mally contains three irradiated control TLDs that
have been exposed to a nominal 200 mR at  least
24 hours prior to the reading.  After the  irradiated
controls have  been read, the ratio of  recorded
exposure to delivered exposure is calculated and
recorded for each of the four elements of the
dosimeter.  This ratio is applied to all raw element
                                             18

-------

     LAKE *.
           k. Locations monitored with both personnel
             and fixed station TLDs.  (25)
           > Towns
           i Towns monitored with both personnel
             and fixed station TLDs.  (16)

            Note:  Numbers beside symbols represent
            the number of  personnel TLDs at that
            location.
Figure 11. Thermoluminescent dosimetry personnel monitoring participants - 1992.
                                       19

-------
 readings from field and unirradiated control dosim-
 eters  to  automatically compensate for reader
 variations.

 Prior to being placed in service, element correction
 factors are determined for all dosimeters. Whenev-
 er a dosimeter is read, the mean of the three most
 recent correction factor determinations is applied to
 each element to compensate for normal variability
 (caused primarily by the TLD manufacturing pro-
 cess) in individual dosimeter response.

 In addition to irradiated control dosimeters,  each
 group  of TLDs  is accompanied by three  unirradi-
 ated control  dosimeters during deployment and
 during return.  These unirradiated  controls are
 evaluated at  the  dosimetry laboratory to ensure
 that the TLDs did not receive any excess  dose
 while either in transit or storage.  The exposure
 received while either in storage or transit is typical-
 ly negligible and thus is not subtracted.

 An assessment of TLD data quality is based on the
 assumption that exposures measured at a  fixed
 location will remain substantially constant over an
 extended period of time. A number of factors will
 combine to affect the certainty of measurements.
 The total uncertainty of the reported exposures is
 a combination of random and systematic compo-
 nents.   The random component  is primarily the
 statistical  uncertainty in the reading  of the  TLD
 elements themselves.  Based on repeated known
 exposures, this random uncertainty for the calcium
 sulfate elements used to determine  exposure to
 fixed environmental stations is estimated to  be
 approximately ± 3 to 5%.  There are also several
 systematic components of exposure  uncertainty,
 including  energy-directional   response,  fading,
 calibration, and exposures received while in  stor-
 age. These uncertainties are estimated according
 to established statistical methods for propagation
 of uncertainty.

 Accuracy  of  the  overall TLD deployment  and
 processing cycle has  been  evaluated  via the
 Department of  Energy Laboratory Accreditation
 Program (DOELAP). This process concluded that
 procedures and practices utilized by the  EPA
 EMSL-LV TLD Laboratory are  adequate to detect
dose equivalent to individuals greater than 3 mrem
above  background at the 95% confidence level.
This is  referred to as the lower limit of detectability.
Tests using dosimeters exposed to known radiation
levels both in-house and by external organizations
have confirmed that the TLD readers exhibit linear
 performance from the  lower limit of detectability
 through the accident range (500 rads).

 3.1.4      Data Management

 The TLD data base resides on a Digital Equipment
 Corporation Micro VAX II directly connected to the
 two Panasonic TLD readers.  Samples are tracked
 using field data cards and an issue  data base
 tracking system incorporated into the reader control
 software.    Two  major software packages are
 utilized by the TLD network.  The first, a propri-
 etary package written and supported by Interna-
 tional Science Associates, controls the TLD read-
 ers, tracks dosimeter performance,  completes
 necessary calculations to determine absorbed dose
 equivalent, performs automated QA/QC functions,
 and generates  raw data  files and reports.  The
 second  software  package,   locally  developed,
 maintains privacy act information  and the identify-
 ing data, generates reports in a number of prede-
 fined formats, and provides archival storage of TLD
 results dating to 1971.

 3.2  Pressurized  ion Chambers

 The Pressurized  Ion  Chamber   (PIC) Network
 continuously measures ambient gamma radiation
 exposure rates, and because of its sensitivity, may
 detect low-level exposures not detected by other
 monitoring methods.  The  primary function  of the
 PIC network is to detect changes  in ambient
 gamma  radiation due to anthropogenic activities.
 In the absence of anthropogenic activities, ambient
 gamma  radiation  rates naturally differ among
 locations as rates vary with altitude (cosmic radia-
 tion) and  with radioactivity in the soil  (terrestrial
 radiation).  Ambient gamma radiation also varies
 slightly within a location due to weather patterns.

 3.2.1  Network Design

 Twenty-seven PICs are stationed in communities
 around the NTS and provide near real-time esti-
 mates of gamma exposure rates for the ORSP.
 (The stations located at Terrell's Ranch and Amar-
 gosa Valley Community Center became part of the
Yucca Mountain  Project in December  1991  and,
therefore, are not included in this discussion.) The
locations of the  PICs are shown in Figure 12.
 Eighteen of the PICs are located at CRMP stations
 (Section 10.1).
                                             20

-------
         I

        I

        I

       I

       I

       I

      I

      I

     I
       X
I
                                                         NEVADA
    I PYRAMID
    I  LAKE
                       Austin •
                                                                  i Ely
 V
                                                   Nyala
               Vv
                 ~1 ^f     Tonopah •
              11 yo.ia

 Stone    Twjn  * Uhaldes Rn.
Cabin Rn.Springs pn  |        Pioche
                                                                  ^r
                                                       Medlins Rn.
                                                       "     ~> Alamo
                VGoldfield • pr*  fe| Rachel   ComPlex 1
                  \      ^KSFpv"*"^*             • Calie  e


                        Beatty i

                            X,
                      Amargosa Valley ta  ^  iJ
                 r-      _   ,  _    •        IT      Overton I
                 Furnace Creek  •    »^    Indian Springs       r,   ,
                                 Pahrump*              	J^LAK|_MEAD
                                          ^   Vegas



                                            \,  \
                                                                    UTAH
                                                                                      Delta
                                                                                      • Milford
                                                                                       Cedar City
                                                                                St. George
                                                                                          ARIZONA
                                     ShoshoneI
                Community Monitoring Stations (18)
                Other PIC Locations (9)
                                                                                    Scale in Miles
                                                                                       50
                                                                                   50    100    150
                                                                                  Scale in Kilometers
Figure  12.  Pressurized Ion Chamber Network station locations - 1992.
                                                     21

-------
 3.2.2 Procedures

 The PIC  Network utilizes Reuter-Stokes models
 1011,  1012, and 1013PICs. The PIC is a spheri-
 cal shell  filled with argon gas to a pressure 25
 times  that of atmospheric.  In the center of the
 chamber  is a spherical electrode with  a charge
 opposite to the outer shell. When gamma radiation
 penetrates the sphere, ionization of the gas occurs
 and the ions are collected by the center electrode.
 The electrical current generated is measured, and
 the intensity of the radiation field  is determined
 from the magnitude of this current.

 Data are  retrieved from the PICs shortly after
 measurements  are made.  The  near  real-time
 telemetry-based  data retrieval is achieved by the
 connection of each PIC to a data collection plat-
 form which collects and transmits the data.  Gam-
 ma exposure measurements are transmitted via
 the  Geostationary  Operational  Environmental
 Satellite (GOES) directly to a receiver earth station
 at the NTS and from there to the EMSL-LV by
 dedicated telephone line.  Each station routinely
 transmits  data every four hours (i.e., 4-hour aver-
 age, 1-minute  maximum, and 1-minute  minimum
 values) unless the gamma exposure rate exceeds
 the currently established  alarm threshold.  When
 the threshold is exceeded for two consecutive 1 -
 minute samples, the system goes into the alarm
 mode and transmits a string of nine consecutive 1-
 minute values every 2 to 15 minutes. Additionally,
 the location and status (i.e.,routine or alarm mode)
 of each station are shown on a map display in the
 CP-1 control room at the NTS and at EMSL-LV.
 Thus, the  PIC Network is able to provide immedi-
 ate documentation of radioactive cloud passage in
 the event  of an accidental release from the NTS.

 In previous years and at the beginning of 1992, the
 alarm threshold limit was  50 uR/h.  During March
 and April  1992,  new limits were established for
 each station by multiplying the normal background
 rate by two. The new threshold limits range from
 12 uR/h for Las Vegas,  Nevada to 35  jiR/h for
 Milford, Utah, and Stone Cabin Ranch, Nevada.

 In addition to telemetry retrieval, PIC data are also
 recorded on both magnetic tapes and hard-copy
 strip charts at 25 of the 27 EPA stations and on
 magnetic  cards for the other two EPA  stations.
The magnetic tapes and cards, which are collected
weekly, provide a backup to the telemetry data and
are also useful for investigating anomalies because
the data are recorded in smaller increments of time
(5-minute averages).   The PICs  also contain a
liquid crystal display, permitting interested persons
to monitor current readings.

The  data  are evaluated weekly  by EMSL-LV
personnel.  Trends and anomalies are investigated
and equipment problems are identified and referred
to field personnel for correction.  Weekly averages
are stored  in Lotus  files on a personal computer.
These weekly averages are compiled from the 4-
hour  averages from  the  telemetry data, when
available, and from the 5-minute averages from the
magnetic tapes or cards when the telemetry data
are unavailable.  Computer-generated reports of
the PIC weekly average data are issued weekly for
posting at each station. These reports indicate the
current  week's average gamma exposure rate, the
previous week's and year's averages, and the
maximum and minimum background levels in the
U.S.

3.2.3  Results

The PIC data presented in this section are based
on weekly averages of gamma exposure rates from
each station. Weekly averages were compiled for
every station for every week during 1992, with the
exception of the weeks listed in Table 2.  Data
were  unavailable during  these weeks  due  to
equipment failure.

Table 3 contains the number of weekly averages
available from each station and  the  maximum,
minimum, mean, standard deviation, and median of
the weekly  averages.  The mean ranged from 6.0
U-R/hr at Las Vegas,  Nevada to 19 )iR/hr at Austin,
Nevada. For each station, this  table also shows
the total mR/yr (calculated based on the mean of
the weekly  averages) and the  average  gamma
exposure rate from 1991.  Total mR/yr measured
by this  network ranged from 53 mR/yr  at Las
Vegas to 169 mR/yr at Austin. Background levels
of environmental  gamma exposure  rates in the
U.S. (from the combined effects of terrestrial and
cosmic sources) vary between 49 and 247 mR/yr
(Committee  on the  Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation,  1980).    The annual exposure levels
observed at each PIC station are well within these
U.S. background  levels.   Figure  13 shows the
distribution  of the weekly averages from each
station arranged by ascending means (represented
by filled circles). The left and right edges of the
box on  the graph represent the 25th and  75th
                                             22

-------
Table 2.  Weeks for which Pressurized Ion Chamber Data were Unavailable

Station                  Week Ending            Station

Alamo, Nevada
Austin, Nevada

Cedar City, Utah

Delta, Utah

Furnace Creek,
California

Las Vegas, Nevada
Medlin's Ranch,
Nevada
July 15
July 22
July 28
January 14

May 12

May 26

June 2
January 21
January 28

March 11
Nyala, Nevada




Pahrump, Nevada



Salt Lake City, Utah


St. George, Utah



Twin Springs,  Nevada
Week Ending

February 25
March 11
November 17
November 24

June 16
November 11
November 24

February 4
February 18

February 25
May 12
June 16

December 30
percentiles of the distribution of the weekly averag-
es (i.e., 50 percent of the  data fell within this
region).  The vertical line drawn inside the box
represents the 50th percentile or median value.
The horizontal lines extend from the box to the
minimum and  maximum values.

The data from Goldfield, Nevada show the largest
range.  From  October  1990  until the sensor unit
was exchanged in February 1992, the PIC unit  at
this location had been underestimating the gamma
exposure rate.  The gamma exposure rates mea-
sured  from  February to December 1992 closely
resemble those seen prior to October 1990.

3.2.4  Quality Assurance/Quality
       Control

Several measures are taken to ensure that the PIC
data are of acceptable quality:

    •   The PICs are calibrated at least once every
       two years and usually once a year. The
                              DOE requires that the PICs be calibrated
                              every two years.

                           •  Radiation monitoring technicians  place a
                              radioactive source of a known exposure on
                              the PICs weekly to check the performance
                              of the units.

                           •  Source check calibration and background
                              exposure rate data are  evaluated weekly
                              and compared to historical values.

                           •  Data transmitted via the telemetry system
                              are compared to the magnetic tape data on
                              a weekly basis to check that both  systems
                              are reporting the same numbers. Whenev-
                              er weekly averages from the two sets of
                              numbers are not in agreement, the cause
                              of  the  discrepancy  is  investigated  and
                              corrected.

                       A data quality assessment of the PIC data is given
                       in Section 11, Quality Assurance.
                                            23

-------
 3.3 Comparison Of TLD ReSUltS    ln Previous years, the comparison between the
                                                     and tne  P'C data snowed a uniform under-
                                                response of the TLD results.  It is now believed
                                                that this under-response was due to subtracting
 A comparison was conducted between the 1992    results from transit  control  dosimeters from the
 TLD data and the 1992 PIC data. This comparison    environmental  TLD  results.   This process was
 showed  only minor fluctuations between the two    discussed in Section 3.1.2.
 sets of data.  PIC data compared to TLD data
 ranged from a low of a 10% difference at Overton,
 Nevada  to a high of a 25% difference at Cedar
 City, Utah, with a mean deviation of +5%. A visual
 representation of this comparison is shown  in
 Appendix A, Figure A-2.
Table 3.   Summary of Weekly Gamma Exposure Rates as Measured by Pressurized Ion Chamber -
           1992
                                        Gamma Exposure Rate (jiR/hr)
                     Number of    	            1991
                      Weekly                     Arithmetic  Standard           Total  Mean
Station                Averages Maximum  Minimum    Mean    Deviation   Median  mR/yr (uR/hr)

Furnace Creek, CA        51       10.8       9.9     10.1        0.18       10.0     88   10.1
Shoshone, CA            52       12.5      11.5     11.9        0.24       12.0     105   11.8
Alamo, NV                49       14.1       13.1     13.7        0.30       13.7     120   13.4
Amargosa Valley, NV      52       16.6      13.7     14.4        0.54       14.2     126   14.0
Austin, NV                51       20.2      16.0     19.3        1.05       19.8     169   17.4
Beatty, NV                52       17.0      14.5     16.0        0.50       16.0     140   16.3
Caliente, NV              52       15.3      13.3     14.4        0.42       14.2     126   14.3
Complex I, NV            52       16.7      14.5     15.8        0.41       15.9     139   15.9
Ely, NV                  52       13.4      11.9     12.6        0.41       12.5     110   12.3
Goldfield, NV             52       15.4      10.4     14.5        1.03       14.9     127   12.8
Indian Springs, NV         52       10.1        8.5      8.9        0.27        9.0     78    8.7
Las Vegas, NV            50        6.3       5.3      6.0        0.12        6.0     53    5.9
Medlin's Ranch, NV        51       16.0      15.0     15.8        0.28       15.9     138   15.8
Nyala, NV                48       12.7      11.2     11.9        0.36       11.9     104   12.4
Overton, NV              52        9.3       8.5      9.0        0.16        9.0     79    8.9
Pahrump, NV             48        8.1        7.0      7.7        0.39        7.9     67    7.9
Pioche, NV               52       12.9       10.8     12.0        0.35       12.0     105   11.8
Rachel,  NV               52       16.9       15.0     16.2        0.37       16.1      142   15.9
Stone Cabin Ranch, NV    52       18.9       16.4     17.6       0.59       17.5     154   17.6
Tonopah, NV             52       17.8       15.0     16.9       0.51       17.0     148   16.7
Twin Springs, NV          51       17.6       16.2     16.7       0.37       16.6     146   16.7
Uhalde's Ranch, NV        52       18.8       14.6     17.4        1.15       18.0     152   17.0
Cedar City,  UT            51       14.1       10.2     12.3        1.12       12.9     108   10.6
Delta, UT                 51       12.8       11.3     12.1       0.24       12.0     106   11.9
Milford, UT                52       18.3       16.6     17.4       0.37       17.3     152   17.4
Salt Lake City, UT         50       11.2       10.4     11.0       0.15       11.0     96   10.9
St. George, UT            49        9.5       8.0      8.4       0.42        8.3     74    8.9

Note:  Multiply u.R/hr by 2.6 x 10'° to obtain C/kg.hr
                                            24

-------
                                      1992 Pressurized Ion Chamber Data
             Las Vegas, NV -
              Pahrump, NV -
             St. George, UT -
         Indian Springs, NV -
              Overton, NV -
         Furnace Creek, CA -
          Salt Lake City, UT -
                Nyala, NV -
             Shoshone, CA -
               Pioche, NV -
                 Delta, UT -
             Cedar City, UT -
                   Ely, NV -
                Alamo, NV -
       Amargosa Valley, NV -
              Caliente, NV -
              Goldfield, NV -
         Medlins Ranch, NV -
             Complex I, NV -
                Beatty, NV -
               Rachel, NV -
          Twin Springs, NV -
              Tonopah, NV -
               Milford, UT -
        Uhaldes Ranch, NV -
     Stone Cabin Ranch, NV -
                Austin, NV -
                         5.0
K3J*
                      i—SH
                           *—n«l—i
       10.0
     15.0
Gamma (uR/hr)
20.0
25.0
Figure 13.    Distribution of the weekly averages from each Pressurized Ion Chamber Network station
             - 1992.
                                             25

-------
 4   Atmospheric Monitoring
 The inhalation of radioactive airborne particles can
 be a major pathway for human exposure to radia-
 tion.  The atmospheric  monitoring networks are
 designed  to detect environmental radiation  from
 NTS and non-NTS activities.  Data from atmo-
 spheric monitoring can determine the concentration
 and source of airborne radioactivity and can project
 the fallout patterns and  durations of exposure to
 man. Atmospheric monitoring networks include the
 Air  Surveillance,  Noble Gas, and Atmospheric
 Moisture (Tritium-in-Air) networks.

 The atmospheric monitoring networks were de-
 signed to monitor the areas within 350 kilometers
 (210 miles) of the NTS.   These continuously
 operating networks are supplemented by standby
 networks which cover the contiguous states west of
 the Mississippi River.

 Many of the data collected from the atmospheric
 monitoring networks fall below the minimum detect-
 able concentration (MDC).   Averages of  data
 presented in this chapter were calculated including
 measured results below MDCs.  All of the  data
 collected from the atmospheric monitoring networks
 reside on a VAX computer in the Sample Tracking
 Data Management  System (STDMS).

 4.1  Air Surveillance Network

 4.1.1   Design

 In  1992,  the  Air  Surveillance  Network  (ASN)
 consisted  of 30 continuously operating sampling
 stations located in areas surrounding the NTS  (see
 Figure 14 for sampling locations).  Complementing
the ASN,  the Standby Air Surveillance Network
 (SASN) consisted of 77 samplers located in contig-
 uous states west  of the Mississippi River  (see
 Figure  15 for standby station locations).  Each
state had at least one standby sampler which  was
operated continuously for one week each quarter
by local residents  or state and municipal  health
department personnel.  Locations of stations were
dependent upon the availability of  electrical power
and the willingness of a local resident to operate
the equipment at stations distant from the NTS.

There were no changes in the ASN in 1992; the
last major network change was reassignment of
three stations to the Yucca Mountain Program on
December 1,1991. The only change in the stand-
by network was the reactivation of an air sampler
in Lida, Nevada in the second quarter of 1992.

The air sampler at each station was equipped  to
collect particulate radionuclides on fiber prefilters
and gaseous radioiodines in charcoal cartridges.
Prefilters and charcoal cartridges collected from all
ASN and prefilters collected from all SASN stations
received complete analyses at EMSL-LV.  Char-
coal cartridges are collected from the  SASN sta-
tions and would be available for analyses should
the need arise.

4.1.2  Procedures

At each ASN station,  samples of airborne particu-
lates are collected as air is drawn through 5 cm
(2.1 in) diameter, glass-fiber filters (prefilters) at a
flow rate of about 80 m3 (2800 ft3) per day.  Filters
are exchanged after sampler operation periods  of
about one week (approximately 560 m3 or 20,000
ft3).  Activated charcoal cartridges placed directly
behind the filters to collect gaseous radioiodines
are exchanged at the same time as the filters.

Duplicate air samples were obtained weekly from
various stations.  Four air  samplers,  which are
identical to the ASN station samplers, were rotated
between ASN stations for three  to  four week
periods.  The results of the duplicate field sample
analyses are  given in Section 11 as part of the
data quality assessment.

At EMSL-LV, both the prefilters and the  charcoal
cartridges are initially analyzed by high resolution
gamma spectrometry. Each of the prefilters is then
analyzed for  gross beta activity.  Gross beta
analysis is performed on the prefilters 7 to 14 days
after sample collection to allow time for the decay
of naturally occurring radon-thoron daughter prod-
ucts.  Gross beta analysis is used to detect trends
in atmospheric radioactivity since it is more sensi-
tive than gamma  spectrometry for this  purpose.
Selected prefilters are then composited (combined)
and analyzed for plutonium isotopes.  Additional
information on the analytical procedures is provid-
ed in Section 12.
                                             26

-------
                                         Stone
                                        Cabin Rn.     Nyala  Sunnyside
     Amargosa Valley J ''--OV*-! i	
Furnace Creek •  ^         f
                  *V Indian Springs
       Death Valley >,  _
         Junction  •  V*P£
                        *
           Shoshone •    ^
                                                                                          ARIZONA
                                                                      LAKE MEAD
                                                                                      N
           Routine Air Sampling Stations (30)
                                                                                    Scale in Mites
                                                                                  Scale in Kilometers
Figure 14.  Air Surveillance Network stations •  1992.
                                                    27

-------
                                              Canada
                                fjf-—-«».».-.-..—F-— '^,^
                                                     North Dakota \Minnesota
                                                              Oklahoma^  (Arkansas
                                                                             A
         A Standby Air Surveillance
           Network Stations (77)
                 Scale in Miles
           0   100      300      500
            100   300  500    700
              Scale in Kilometers
Figure 15.  Standby Air Surveillance Network stations - 1992.
                                              28

-------
Selected air prefilters were  also  analyzed  for
plutonium isotopes.   Prefilters are composited
monthly for  each of four ASN stations  (Alamo,
Amargosa Valley, Las Vegas, and Rachel, Nevada)
and are composited quarterly for two SASN sta-
tions  in each of 13 states:  Arizona,  California,
Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming.  Beginning January 1,1992, plutoni-
um analyses of prefilters from the ASN sampler at
Salt Lake City, Utah, were discontinued.

4.1.3  Results

The majority of ASN and  SASN prefilters and
cartridges analyzed by gamma spectrometry were
gamma-spectrum  negligible  (i.e.,  no  gamma-
emitting radionuclides were detected).   Naturally
occurring 7Be averaging 0.29 x 10"12 fiCi/mL was
the only radionuclide occasionally detected.  The
principal means of 7Be production is from spallation
(splitting) of 16O and  14N by cosmic rays in the
atmosphere.

Alpha and beta results for 64 samples were not
included in the data analysis. These results were
excluded because they met one or more of the
following criteria: sampling duration of greater than
14 days, total volume of less than 400 m3, average
flow rate less than 2.9 m%r or greater than 4.0
m3/hr, or power outage lasting more than one-third
of sampling  interval length.  All remaining results
were used in data analysis  and are presented  in
tables in this report.

As  in  previous years, the gross beta results from
both networks consistently exceeded the analysis
MDC. The annual average gross beta activity was
1.64 x 10'14  uCi/mL for the ASN and 1.71  x 10'u
p.Ci/mL for the SASN. Summary gross beta results
for  the ASN  are in Table 4  and for the SASN  in
Appendix B,  Table B-1.

The average annual gross alpha activities for 1992
were 9.23 x  W16 u.Ci/mL for the ASN and 1.11 x
10"'5 uCi/mL for the SASN.  These results indicate
a slight decrease in alpha activity as compared  to
the only other alpha data available,  which  are for
1989.  The average annual gross alpha activities in
1989  were 1.3  x  10'15 u€i/mL  for  the 14 ASN
stations and 1.5 x 10'15 uCi/mL for the 21 SASN
stations. Summary gross alpha results for the ASN
are presented  in Table 5 and for the SASN  in
Appendix B,  Table B-2.
Figures 16,17, 18, and 19 show the distribution of
the gross beta values from each ASN station for
1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 respectively.  The
stations are ordered by ascending means of the
data values. The mean values are represented by
the filled circles (black dots).   The left and  right
edges of the box on the graph represent the  25th
and  75th  percentiles  of the  distribution  of the
values  (i.e., 50%  of the data  falls within this re-
gion).  The vertical  line  drawn  inside the  box
represents the 50th percentile or the median value.
The  horizontal lines extend from the box to the
minimum and maximum values. The averages of
the quarterly gross beta values from the SASN
stations are shown in Appendix B, Table B-1.

The  23aPu  and  239*240pu  results  from January
through December 1992 for the ASN are in Table
6; those for the SASN are listed in Appendix  B,
Table B-3. The third quarter California composited
sample was lost during analysis and no samples
were received from the California SASN stations
for the first quarter. The May, August, and October
composited  samples from Rachel, Nevada ex-
ceeded  the MDC for 23aPu.  The  fourth  quarter
composites for New Mexico and Wyoming exceed-
ed the  MDC of 238Pu analysis.  The only 239+2"0pu
result greater than the analysis MDC was  for the
fourth quarter New Mexico sample, a single sample
collected in Carlsbad.  The plutonium results are
consistent with data from previous years.

4.2    Tritium  In Atmospheric
        Moisture

4.2.1   Design

Tritium is created by natural forces in the upper
atmosphere and  is also emitted from  nuclear
reactors, reprocessing facilities (non-NTS facilities),
and worldwide nuclear testing.

At the beginning of  1992, the tritium network
consisted of 14 continuously operated and seven
standby stations.  The routine stations are adjacent
to the  NTS to detect atmospheric tritium which
could reach populated centers in  the immediate
offsite  area.   In  addition, a  tritium  sampler  is
routinely  operated near  the  nuclear research
reactor in Salt Lake City, Utah.  The following five
stations were converted from  routine to standby
status effective with their last sampling collection
                                             29

-------
Table 4. Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1992



                                         Gross Beta Concentration (10'14 gCi/mL)
Arithmetic
Sampling Location
Death Valley Junction, CA
Furnace Creek, CA
Shoshone, CA
Alamo, NV
Amargosa Valley, NV
Austin, NV
Beatty, NV
Caliente, NV
Clark Station, NV
Stone Cabin Ranch
Currant, NV
Blue Eagle Ranch
Ely, NV
Goldfield, NV
Groom Lake, NV
Hiko, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Las Vegas, NV
Nyala, NV
Overton, NV
Pahrump, NV
Pioche, NV
Rachel, NV
Sunnyside, NV
Tonopah, NV
Tonopah Test Range, NV
Twin Springs, NV
Fallini's Ranch
Cedar City, UT
Delta, UT
Milford, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
St. George, UT
MeanMDC: 2.53 x irj15nCi/mL
Number
39
49
51
50
51
43
52
48

51

51
52
52
43
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
50
45
52
51

52
52
45
48
51
52
Maximum
2.24*
3.77*
3.20*
2.91*
3.22*
5.71*
3.12*
2.90*

2.53*

5.82*
2.00*
3.39*
3.68*
2.88*
3.48*
3.81*
3.97*
3.98*
3.05*
2.89*
4.67*
2.92*
2.57*
2.68*

4.04*
2.69*
5.14*
5.03*
3.39*
4.10*
Minimum
0.37*
0.56*
0.40*
0.58*
0.48*
0.21*
0.31*
0.21

0.29*

0.28*
0.15
0.32*
0.73*
0.17
0.38*
0.43*
0.16
0.45*
0.04
0.09
0.11
0.28*
0.42*
0.19

0.36*
0.32*
0.86*
0.61*
0.79*
0.36*
Standard Deviation of Mean
Mean
1.43
1.79
1.77
1.61
1.58
1.66
1.70
1.63

1.40

1.68
1.29
1.68
1.79
1.60
1.76
1.76
1.39
1.89
1.27
1.55
1.71
1.62
1.48
1.50

1.86
1.40
1.83
1.93
1.66
1.81
MDC: 3.15 x
Standard
Deviation
0.44
0.62
0.61
0.46
0.57
0.84
0.53
0.65

0.43

0.92
0.43
0.53
0.60
0.53
0.62
0.65
0.63
0.74
0.56
0.53
0.80
0.60
0.44
0.44

0.66
0.47
0.79
0.82
0.55
0.70
10'16nCi/mL
MDC = minimum detectable concentration.
= result is greater than the
MDC of analysis.
                                           30

-------
Table 5. Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1992
Gross Alpha Concentration (10"15 uCi/mL)
Arithmetic
Sampling Location
Death Valley Jet, CA
Furnace Creek, CA
Shoshone, CA
Alamo, NV
Amargosa Valley, NV
Austin, NV
Beatty, NV
Caliente, NV
Clark Station, NV
Stone Cabin Ranch
Currant, NV
Blue Eagle Ranch
Ely, NV
Goldfield, NV
Groom Lake, NV
Hiko, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Las Vegas, NV
Nyala, NV
Overton, NV
Pahrump, NV
Pioche, NV
Rachel, NV
Sunnyside, NV
Tonopah, NV
Tonopah Test Range, NV
Twin Springs, NV
Fallini's Ranch
Cedar City, UT
Delta, UT
Milford, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
St. George, UT
Mean MDC: 8.07 x 10'16|aCi/mL
Number
39
49
51
50
51
43
52
48

51

51
52
52
43
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
50
45
52
51

52
52
45
48
51
52
Maximum
2.4*
2.4*
2.8*
2.8*
2.7*
2.6*
2.5*
2.4*

2.6*

8.9*
1.9*
2.5*
5.2*
2.5*
3.9*
3.1*
2.5*
4.6*
2.2*
2.4*
2.5*
4.8*
2.1*
2.8*

4.7*
2.3*
4.4*
2.9*
1.5*
2.5*
Minimum
0.1
0.1
-0.3
0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
-0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-0.1

0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.3
0.0
Standard Deviation of Mean
Mean
0.96
0.95
0.81
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.91
0.98

1.1

1.2
0.73
0.80
1.4
0.86
0.83
0.89
0.66
0.86
0.68
0.60
0.97
1.2
0.67
1.0

1.0
0.98
0.84
0.94
0.65
0.77
MDC: 2.36 x
Standard
Deviation
0.57
0.57
0.61
0.58
0.68
0.59
0.60
0.64

0.58

1.5
0.45
0.50
1.0
0.61
0.70
0.75
0.52
0.72
0.60
0.48
0.69
0.85
0.50
0.72

0.80
0.55
0.75
0.65
0.39
0.55
10'16nCi/mL
MDC = minimum detectable concentration.
= result is greater than the
MDC of analysis.
31

-------
                                     Routine Air Sampling Stations -1989
                 Nyala, NV -
                   Ely, NV -
                  TTR, NV -
      Stone Cabin Ranch, NV -
             Sunnyside, NV -
       Blue Eagle Ranch, NV -
           Twin Springs, NV -
                Pioche, NV -
                Rachel, NV -
              Goldfield, NV -
        Amargosa Valley, NV -
                 Austin, NV -
              Pahrump, NV -
              Tonopah, NV -
               Caliente, NV -
           Groom Lake, NV -
                 Beatty, NV -
             Cedar City, UT -
                  Hiko, NV -
          Indian  Springs, NV -
          Salt Lake City, UT -
             Shoshone, CA -
                Alamo, NV -
               Overton, NV -
             Las Vegas, NV -
       Hollowa/s Ranch, NV -
        Death Valley Jet., CA -
                Milford, UT -
             St.  George, UT -
                 Delta, UT -
         Furnace Creek, CA -
                         -0.02
—GB-
i—DH-
    ffl—'
>—DO-
 '	DTr-
  0.02         0.06          0.10
         BetainAir(1.0E-12uCi/ml)
0.14
Figure 16.  Distribution of gross beta values from Air Surveillance Network stations, 1989.  Figure shows
           minimum, 25th percentile, mean, median, 75th percentile, and maximum values.
                                             32

-------
                                       Routine Air Sampling Stations -1990
                 Nyala, NV -
           Coffer Ranch, NV -
             Cedar City, UT -
     Stone Cabin Ranch, NV -
             Sunnyside, NV -
       Blue Eagle Ranch, NV -
                  TTR, NV -
           Groom Lake, NV -
              Tonopah, NV -
       Amargosa Valley, NV -
                Austin, NV -
                   Ely, NV -
       Death Valley Jet., CA -
                Rachel, NV -
              Pahrump, NV -
              Goldfield, NV -
          Indian Springs, NV -
                Pioche, NV -
                  Hiko, NV -
          Salt Lake City, UT -
           Twin Springs, NV -
            St.  George, UT -
       Amargosa Center, NV -
       Holloway's Ranch, NV -
                Beatty, NV
             Shoshone, CA -
              Caliente, NV -
                Milford, UT -
            Las Vegas, NV -
                Alamo, NV -
              Overton, NV -
                 Delta, UT -
         Furnace Creek, CA -
                         -0.02
0.02          0.06          0.10
       BetainAir(1.0E-12uCi/ml)
0.14
Figure 17.  Distribution of gross beta values from Air Surveillance Network stations, 1990. Figure shows
           minimum, 25th percentile, mean, median, 75th percentile, and maximum values.
                                              33

-------
                                       Routine Air Sampling Stations -1991
           Coffer Ranch, NV -
                 Nyala, NV -
                   Ely, NV -
                Austin, NV -
             Sunnyside, NV -
                Alamo, NV -
              Tonopah, NV -
                  TTR, NV -
      Stone Cabin Ranch, NV -
             Cedar City, UT -
                Pioche, NV -
                  Hiko, NV -
        Death Valley Jet., CA -
        Amargosa Valley, NV -
           Groom Lake, NV -
              Goldfield, NV -
          Salt Lake City, UT -
       Holloway's Ranch, NV -
              Caliente, NV -
              Pahrump, NV -
       Blue Eagle Ranch, NV -
                Beatty, NV -
                Rachel, NV -
          Indian Springs, NV -
       Amargosa Center, NV -
             Shoshone, CA -
            St. George, UT -
              Overton, NV -
                 Delta, UT -
                Milford, UT -
            Las Vegas, NV -
         Terrell's Ranch, NV -
          Twin Springs, NV -
         Furnace Creek, CA -
                        -0.02
 i—{B—i
^—CH-
 HT»>
i—nn-
>—CH	1
   0.02         0.06          0.10
          Beta in Air (1.0E-12 uCi/ml)
0.14
Figure 18.  Distribution of gross beta values from Air Surveillance Network stations, 1991. Figure shows
           minimum, 25th percentile, mean, median, 75th percentile, and maximum values.
                                             34

-------
                                           Routine Air Sampling Stations -1992
                   Pahrump, NV -
                        Ely, NV -
                      Nyala, NV -
                  Cedar City, UT -
          Stone Cabin Ranch, NV -
                   Tonopah, NV -
                       TTR, NV -
                     Pioche, NV -
             Death Valley Jet., CA -
                       Hiko, NV -
             Amargosa Valley, NV -
                  Sunnyside, NV -
                     Alamo, NV -
                    Caliente, NV -
                     Beatty, NV -
                   Goldfield, NV -
            Blue Eagle Ranch, NV -
               Salt Lake City, UT -
                     Austin, NV -
                     Rachel, NV -
               Indian Springs, NV -
                Groom Lake, NV -
                 St. George, UT -
                  Shoshone, CA -
                 Las Vegas, NV -
                    Overton, NV -
                      Delta, UT -
                Twin Springs, NV -
              Furnace Creek, CA -
                     Milford, UT -
                              -0.02
i—SH
 i—ffi-
'—LT>
•	CH-
 •—CH-
 '	D§-
  i	Dsr-
     0.02           0.06
          BetainAir(1.0E-12uCi/mL)
 i
0.1
0.14
Figure 19.  Distribution of gross beta values from Air Surveillance Network stations, 1992. Figure shows
           minimum, 25th percentile, mean median, 75th percentile and maximum values.
                                             35

-------
 Table 6. Offsite Airborne Plutonium Concentrations - 1992

                                                  ^Pu Concentration (10'1S uCi/mL)
 Composite
 Sampling Location

 Alamo, Nevada
 Las Vegas, Nevada
 Amargosa Valley, Nevada
 Rachel, Nevada

 Mean MDC: 1.50 x 10'17 u.Ci/mL
                              Arithmetic
Number  Maximum  Minimum     Mean
                                Standard  Mean as
                                Deviation  %DCG
    12
    12
    12
    12
 6.82
 7.40
 5.02
37.10*
 -2.95
 -5.42
 -8.77
 -7.21
 1.98
 1.57
-0.77
 6.23
 3.00
 3.84
 4.12
12.61
 0.07
 0.05
 N/A
 0.21
            Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 1.01 x 10'17 u.Ci/mL
 DCG =  derived concentration guide.  Established by DOE Order as 3 x 10~15 u.Ci/mL.

                                                23M*°Pu Concentration (1Q-18 uCi/mL)
Composite
Sampling Location

Alamo, Nevada
Las Vegas, Nevada
Amargosa Valley, Nevada
Rachel, Nevada

Mean MDC: 1.35 x 10'17 uCi/mL
                             Arithmetic
Number  Maximum  Minimum    Mean
                                Standard  Mean as
                                Deviation  %DCG
   12
   12
   12
   12
 4.97
 5.68
25.70
 9.88
 -3.71
 -4.39
-15.10
 -7.42
 0.389
-0.667
 0.002
 3.512
 2.28
 2.70
 9.49
 4.74
 0.02
 N/A
<0.01
 0.18
                  Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 1.05 u.Ci/mL
      =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
DCG =  derived concentration guide.  Established by DOE Order as 2 x 10"15
MDC =  minimum detectable concentration.
NA   =  not applicable.
periods in November 1991: Shoshone, California;
Cedar City, Utah; and Austin, Ely, and Caliente,
Nevada.  Samples were collected approximately
once a week from the routine stations and once a
quarter from  the standby stations.   Figure 20
shows the locations of the tritium network sampling
stations in conjunction with the noble gas sampling
network stations.

4.2.2 Procedures

A column filled with molecular sieve pellets is used
to collect  moisture from the air. Approximately 6
m3 (212 ft3) of air  is  drawn through  the column
during a typical 7-day sampling period. The water
absorbed in the pellets is recovered and measured
and the concentration  of 3H is determined by liquid
scintillation counting.  The volume of recovered
                water and the 3H concentration  is then used to
                calculate the concentration of HTO, the vapor form
                of tritium. HTO is the most common form of tritium
                encountered in the environment.

                4.2.3  Results

                Of the 716 routine and 15 standby samples collect-
                ed in  1992, 15 samples were not analyzed: five
                because of broken sieves, three were  lost, and
                seven contained insufficient sample (moisture). An
                additional seven samples were excluded  from data
                analysis because of indications of  operational
                malfunctions  affecting data  reliability.    These
                included frozen lines, lack of pump flow, indications
                of leaks, and overextended sampling interval. Two
                samples exceeded the analysis MDC. Both sam-
                ples were collected June 16-24;  one  from Las
                                            36

-------

           , PYRAMID

              LAKE
                              Austin I
          1\
             «V
               ^t V
               ~ ^,    Tonopah ^



                      'vGoldfield •









                                Beatty


                                  X
                           Amargosa Valleyi

                          Amargosa Center
NEVADA




• Ely
Twin Springs
^& 1 Rachjl
link 1!!!. *Cali
y^)^,,"l 	 •Alamo
XlPtf*
i | TsW
L ^5^sv
llevl **MU^- 4*i~ u^tfcul
"=yw XJT^ yiininn
er\» • Overton*.
UTAH

1
— ;
1 ^\st*
Lake
City
Delta •

• Milford
e • Cedar City
• St. George
ARIZONA

                                        •^  Indian Springs      M   |
                                      Pahrunip •               J/LAKEMEAD
                                            "»,    Us •
                                 ShoshoneB   V  Vegas

                                                \        !

                                                  \     \

                                                     \i

                                                        sy
   N
             • Both Noble Gas and Tritium (13)

             • Standby Noble Gas and Tritium (7)

             A Tritium, Standby Noble Gas (1)
Scale in Miles

    50
                100
                                                                         50     100      150

                                                                        Scale in Kilometers
Figure 20.  Off site Noble Gas sampling and Tritium-in-Air Network stations - 1992.
                                                37

-------
 Vegas and the other from Overton, Nevada.  The
 average HTO concentration for  the  Las Vegas
 station, located near the EPA Radioanalysis Labo-
 ratory, was  1.5 x 10"6 pCi/mL.  The annual HTO
 network average was 6.6 x 10~7 pCi/mL. Summary
 data results are given  in Table 7 for the routine
 stations and in  Table  B-4, Appendix B, for the
 standby stations.  The 1992 tritium data appear to
 be consistent with data from previous years.

 4.3  Noble Gas Sampling

        Network

 4.3.1  Design

 At the beginning of 1992, the Noble Gas Sampling
 Network consisted of 13 routine (continuously oper-
 ated) and 8 standby stations. In November 1991,
 the  following  5 stations were  converted from
 routine  to standby status:   Austin, Caliente,  and
 Ely, Nevada; Shoshone, California; and Cedar City,
 Utah. Samples were collected approximately once
 a week from the routine stations and quarterly from
 the standby stations. Samples collected were ana-
 lyzed for 8SKr and 133Xe. The locations of the noble
 gas sampling stations are shown in Figure 20 in
 conjunction with the tritium stations.

 Noble gases may be released into the atmosphere
 from research and  power reactor facilities,  fuel
 reprocessing facilities, nuclear testing, and drill-
 backs and  tunnel  purgings which  occur after
 nuclear tests. Environmental levels of the xenons,
 with their very short half-lives, are normally below
 the  MDC.   Krypton-85 disperses more  or less
 uniformly over the entire globe because of its half-
 life,  10.7 years, and the lack of significant sinks
 (NCRP,  1975). For these reasons, 8SKr results are
 expected to be slightly above the MDC.

 4.3.2  Procedures

 Noble gas samples are collected by compressing
 air into storage tanks (bottles). Air is continuously
 sampled over a 7-day period, collecting approxi-
 mately 0.6 m3 (21.2 ft3) of  air into a four-bottle
system.  One bottle is filled  over the  entire sam-
pling  period.  The other three  bottles are filled
consecutively over the same sampling period in 56-
hour increments.  The bottle containing the  sample
from the entire sampling period is the only  sample
which is routinely analyzed.  If xenons or abnor-
mally high levels of S5Kr were detected  in this
 sample, then the other three samples would be
 analyzed.  For the analysis, samples are con-
 densed at liquid nitrogen temperature. Gas chro-
 matography is then used to separate the gaseous
 radionuclide fractions.  The radioactive gases are
 dissolved in  liquid  scintillation  "cocktails," then
 counted to determine activity.

 4.3.3  Results

 Table 8 summarizes the 85Kr and 133Xe results for
 the routine stations and Table B-5, Appendix B,
 summarizes the results for the standby stations.
 The number of samples analyzed was less than 52
 because samples were occasionally lost in analysis
 due to equipment failure or because the sample
 volume collected was insufficient to permit  analy-
 sis. Of the 699 samples collected in 1992,  analy-
 ses were not performed on 74 samples  (10.6
 percent)  due to  insufficient volume collected or
 sampler malfunctions.  Twelve quarterly samples
 were collected from standby samplers; none were
 collected from Milford and Salt Lake City, Utah. As
 expected, all 85Kr results exceeded the MDC and
 all 133Xe results were below the MDC. The annual
 averages for the continuously operated samplers
 were 2.62 x 10'11 u.Ci/mL for 85Kr and -1.77 x 10'11
 uCi/mL for 133Xe and  for the standby samplers,
 2.58 x 10'11 uCi/mL for 85Kr and  -2.74 x 10'11
 uCi/mL for 133Xe.

 Figure 21 shows the distribution of the 8SKr data
 from each routine sampling location arranged by
 ascending means. The graph, presented using the
 same conventions as in Figure 16,  indicates that
 85Kr results are very consistent  among stations.
 Figure 22 shows the annual average 85Kr value
 from 1972 through 1992.  The graph indicates that
 the levels of 85Kr have remained consistent over
 the past several years. The results for 133Xe are
 not graphed as all the values were below the MDC.

 4.4   Quality  Assurance/
       Quality  Control

General QA/QC  guidelines  for the atmospheric
monitoring networks are as follows:

    • All  field sampling  and laboratory instru-
      ments are calibrated and  the date of cali-
      bration is marked on a decal affixed to the
      equipment.
                                             38

-------
Table 7.  Offsite Atmospheric Tritium Results for Routin.-1 Samplers - 1992

                                                   HTO Concentration (10'7 pCi/ml)
Sampling Location
Number   Maximum  Minimum
                  Arithmetic
                    Mean
                   Standard
                   Deviation
                   Mean as
                    %DCG
Alamo, NV
Amargosa Valley, NV
Amargosa Valley
 Community Center, NV
Beatty, NV
Goldfield, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Las Vegas, NV
Overton, NV
Pahrump,  NV
Rachel, NV
Tonopah, NV
Twin Springs, NV
 Fallini's Ranch
Salt Lake City, UT
St. George, UT

Mean MDC:  5.52 x 1fJ6 pCi/mL
  48
  51
43.1
50.3
-35.3
-19.7
6.52
8.86
17.4
14.3
0.01
0.01
51
51
52
49
52
51
51
48
51
65.3
18.7
29.3
47.9
94.9*
57.0
64.9
22.6
49.4
-44.7
-12.7
-27.0
-43.2
-49.4
-42.1
-22.4
-22.7
-24.2
5.48
2.97
4.93
7.41
15.3
8.53
10.4
3.8
5.50
19.1
7.37
11.7
17.6
30.1
19.7
19.9
9.82
15.6
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
50
38
51
56.5
24.0
88.2
-39.5
-35.3
-79.4
4.38
1.93
6.86
17.1
13.3
32.7
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
           Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 2.75 x 10"6 pCi/mL
DCG   =  derived concentration guide.  Established by DOE Order as 1 x 102 pCi/mL.
MDC   =  minimum detectable concentration.
*      =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
   1 Maintaining a file of calibration records, con-
    trol charts, and log books.

   • Assigning unique sample numbers.

   1 Obtaining laboratory supervisor approval of all
    analytical results before they are entered into
    the permanent data base.

    Maintaining files of QA data, which includes
    raw analytical data, intermediate calculations,
    and review reports.

    Performing analysis of blanks to verify method
    interferences  caused by  contaminants  in
    solvents,  reagents,  glassware,  and other
    sample processing are known and minimized.
                     Estimating analytical  accuracy with  perfor-
                     mance evaluation samples.  For the gamma
                     analysis of fiber filters, spiked samples should
                     be within  ± 10% of the known value.  Gross
                     beta analysis should be within ± 20%. Pluto-
                     nium analysis of internal spikes should pro-
                     duce results within ± 20% of the known value.
                     For the noble gases,  spikedsamples  should
                     be within ± 20% of the known value.

                     Estimating precision of laboratory analytical
                     techniques and total precision for the entire
                     system (both analytical and sampling error)
                     using replicates. Field duplicate air samples
                     as well as internal laboratory replicates are
                                             39

-------
 Table 8. Offsite Noble Gas Results for Routine Samplers - 1992

                                                  e5Kr Concentration (10'11 uCi/mL)
 Sampling Location

 Alamo, NV
 Amargosa Valley, NV
 Amargosa Valley
  Community Center, NV
 Beatty, NV
 Goldfield, NV
 Indian Springs, NV
 Las Vegas, NV
 Overton, NV
 Pahrump, NV
 Rachel, NV
 Tonopah, NV
 Twin Springs, NV
  Fallini's Ranch
 St. George, UT
Number  Maximum  Minimum
  48
  44

  35
  50
  49
  50
  51
  52
  47
  44
  45

  43
  49
3.03*
3.01*
2.18*
2.18*
3.05*
3.08*
3.08*
3.03*
3.07*
3.12*
3.05*
3.07*
3.09*
2.95*
3.14*
2.09*
2.09*
2.13*
2.17*
2.08*
2.11*
2.23*
2.04*
2.02*
2.21*
2.01*
Arithmetic
  Mean

  2.62
  2.59

  2.64
  2.62
  2.61
  2.62
  2.61
  2.63
  2.67
  2.57
  2.63

  2.61
  2.59
Standard
Deviation

  0.21
  0.20

  0.23
  0.24
  0.22
  0.23
  0.23
  0.22
  0.20
  0.22
  0.19

  0.19
  0.26
Mean as
 %DCG

  0.01
  0.01

  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01

  0.01
  0.01
Mean MDC:  5.55 x 10~1Z uX)i/mL            Standard Deviation of Mean MDC:  1.25 x 10~12

DCG = derived concentration guide. Established by DOE Order as 3 x 10~7 u.Ci/mL.

                                                  133Xe Concentration (10"'2 u.Ci/mL)
Sampling Location                Number

Alamo, NV                           49
Amargosa Valley, NV                  44
Amargosa Valley
  Community Center, NV               36
Beatty, NV                           51
Goldfield, NV                         48
Indian Springs, NV                    50
Las Vegas, NV                       51
Overton, NV                          52
Pahrump, NV                         47
Rachel, NV                           44
Tonopah, NV                         46
Twin Springs,  NV
  Fallini's Ranch                      43
St. George, UT                       49

Mean MDC:  1.40 x 10'11 u.Ci/mL

Maximum
4.22
7.19
21.0
6.01
12.9
6.05
4.55
8.22
5.75
7.22
8.79
4.33
7.71

Minimum
-18.4
-14.9
-17.3
-15.4
-16.5
-12.0
-17.6
-22.2
-14.9
-15.4
-15.5
-13.0
-11.1
Arithmetic
Mean
-2.57
-2.09
-2.10
-2.11
-1.36
-1.82
-1.49
-2.63
-1.10
-2.58
-1.21
-0.935
-1.01
Standard
Deviation
4.39
3.59
7.10
4.59
4.95
3.45
4.67
5.58
3.53
5.21
5.23
3.85
4.49
                                                   Mean as
                                                    %DCG

                                                     NA
                                                     NA

                                                     NA
                                                     NA
                                                     NA
                                                     NA
                                                     NA
                                                     NA
                                                     NA
                                                     NA
                                                     NA

                                                     NA
                                                     NA
          Standard Deviation of Mean MDC:  5.41 x 10"12 u.Ci/mL
DCG =   derived concentration guide.  Established by DOE Order as 5 x 10"8 u.Ci/mL.
MDC =   minimum detectable concentration.
     =   result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
NA  =   not applicable.
                                             40

-------
                 Amargosa Valley, NV -
                         Rachel, NV -
                      St. George, UT -
                      Indian Spr., NV -
                       Goldfield, NV -
                      Las Vegas, NV -
                         Alamo, NV -
                    Twin Springs, NV -
                         Beatty, NV -
                        Overton, NV -
                       Tonopah, NV -
                Amargosa Center, NV -
                       Pahrump, NV -
•T
   •T
                                  20.0        22.5        25.0        27.5
                                                          Kr-85 (pCi/m3)
                30.0
32.5
Figure 21.  Distribution of krypton-85 data from routine sampling stations, 1992. Figure shows minimum,
           25th percentile, mean, median,  75th percentile,  and maximum values.


n
e
-rH
a
a
• — •

u
c
o
CJ
LO
00




45 -
35 -


30 -


25 -



20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
n







• • • ^
~ ••*•**
•

9
. * •
•


III 1
















u 1 I 1 1
1970 1975 1980 1935 1990 1995
Figure 22.  Annual network average krypton-85 concentrations.
                                                41

-------
analyzed for the ASN.  Only internal laborato-        • Determining bias (the difference between the
ry replicates are analyzed for the noble gas         value obtained and the true or reference
and the HTO samples.                             value) by  participating in intercomparison
                                                 studies.

                                             Further discussion of the QA program and the data
                                             quality assessment is given  in Chapter 11.
                                         42

-------
 5.0   Foodstuffs
 Ingestion is one of the critical exposure pathways
 for radionuclides  to humans.   Food crops  may
 absorb radionuclides from the soil in which  they
 are grown.  Radionuclides may be found on the
 surface of fruits, vegetables, or food crops.  The
 source of these radionuclides may be atmospheric
 deposition, resuspension, or adhering particles of
 soil. Weather patterns, especially precipitation, can
 affect soil inventories  of  radionuclides.   Grazing
 animals ingest radionuclides which may have been
 deposited on forage grasses and, while  grazing,
 ingest soil which could contain radionuclides.

 Certain organs in the grazing animal, such as liver
 and muscle,  may bioaccumulate radionuclides.
 These radionuclides are transported to humans by
 consumption of meat and meat products. In the
 case of dairy cattle, ingested radionuclides may be
 transferred to  milk. Water is another significant
 ingestion transport pathway of  radionuclides to
 humans (see Section 7).

 To monitor the ingestion pathways,  milk surveil-
 lance and  biomonitoring  networks  are operated
 within the ORSP.  The Milk Surveillance Network
 (MSN) includes commercial dairies and  family-
 owned milk cows and goats representing the major
 milksheds within 186 miles (300 km) of the NTS.
 The MSN is supplemented by the  Standby  Milk
 Surveillance Network (SMSN) which includes all
 states west of  the Mississippi.  The  biomonitoring
 network includes the Animal Investigation Program
 and monitoring of radionuclides in  locally grown
 fruits and vegetables.

 5.1  Milk Surveillance Network

 Milk is particularly  important in assessing levels of
 radioactivity in a given area and the exposure of
 the population  as a result of ingesting milk or milk
 products.  Milk is one of the most universally con-
 sumed foodstuffs  and certain radionuclides are
 readily traceable through the food chain from feed
 or forage to the consumer. This is particularly true
 of radioiodine isotopes which, when consumed by
 children,  can  cause  significant  impairment  of
thyroid function. Because dairy animals consume
vegetation representing  a large area of  ground
 cover and because many radionuclides are trans-
ferred to milk, analysis of milk samples may yield
information on the deposition of small amounts of
radionuclides over a relatively large area.  Accord-
ingly, milk  is closely  monitored by  EMSL-LV
through the MSN and the SMSN.  Records are
kept of cow and goat locations.

5.1.1  Design

At the beginning  of  1992, there were  24 MSN
collection sites.  Two sites were discontinued  in
July:  Susie Scott's Ranch (Goldfield, Nevada) and
Cedarsage Farm (Inyokern, California), which went
out of business and moved  to Idaho.   McKay's
Ranch (McGill, Nevada) was added to the MSN in
February. These locations are shown in Figure 23.
No samples were collected from Blue Eagle Ranch
(Currant, Nevada) nor from Susie Scott's Ranch
prior to its discontinuation.

The SMSN  consists of dairies or processing plants
representing major milksheds west of the Missis-
sippi River.  The network is activated annually by
contacting cooperating Food and Drug Administra-
tion (FDA)  Regional Milk Specialists, who in turn
contact State Dairy Regulators to enlist cooperating
milk processors or producers.  The annual activa-
tion permits trends to be monitored and ensures
proper operation of the SMSN, should an emergen-
cy arise.   The 115  locations sampled in 1992
appear in Figure 24.  Changes in SMSN sampling
locations are given in Table 9.

The dairy animal and population census is continu-
ally updated for those areas  within 385 km (240
mi) north and east of CP-1 and within 200 km (125
mi) south and west of CP-1. The remainder of the
Nevada counties and the western Utah counties
are surveyed approximately every other year.  A
partial census, including all  California  counties
contiguous to Nevada, Box Elder and Tooele coun-
ties in Utah, and half of Nevada, was performed in
1992. The locations of processing plants and com-
mercial dairy herds in Idaho and the remainder of
Utah can be obtained from the agriculture depart-
ments of the respective state governments.

5.1.2  Procedures

Raw milk is collected in 1-gallon (3.8 L) collapsible
cubitainers  and  preserved  with formaldehyde.
                                             43

-------
p. 	 	
1
f
f
I
j
f"
j%
. CSS PYRAMID
f 1| LAKE
I
I Austin •


NEVADA | UTAH '
i
i
i
i
i

i
i
McGill 1
B McKay's Rn.









j Young Rn.B * I
V • By -
•V Duckwater^^ Bradsnaw Rn m Harb"ecke Rn
^*. Manzonie Rn.B B Lund* Shoshone
S^\, Currant • R. Horsley •
<%, >, Blue Jay Springs Rn. B
^ ^ Tonopah _ Warm •
X K. Harper" Springs
Lemon Rn. Goldfield
r\\iar B (O\ • I i j • i f i:. 1_
B Blue Eagle Rn. I
B Nyala •
Sharp's Rn. 1
i



V Frayne Rn. i !;§» j R.aghel June Cox Rn. • • _ . _.
1. Brown Rn. B »^c°« Rn. Uj^^g
N>. ^Sv NEVADA
V Is TEST
* 1 -SxE^
* • Caliente
^^V • •• i •
B Brent Jones
) 	 B Alamo §• Ivms Dairy
| n Sey : ^vid Hafen
: Dahl Rn. I
Moapa B Hafen Dairy ARIZONA
^ i • • Mesquite
Bar^-Suelln3— •t ^ n ™. B L. Marshal
John Deei\, Indian Springs H°^eswJ| Logandale
Pahrump •
Pahrump Dairy B
l/LAKE MEAD
d*^W^uy'
X i ~
• Inyokem ^ •
*B Cedarsage Farm ^ \
\ i

N* Hinkley
B Desert View Dairy


Scale in Miles
0 50 100

^^^^ ^•^T1""*
| T^^^^i 1
0 50 100 150
Scale in Kilometers
N =








Rn.


• Milk
Sampling
Locations
• Nearest Town
NOTE: When
sampling location
occurred in city or
town, the sampling
location symbol was
used for showing
both town and
sampling location.

Figure 23.  Milk Surveillance Network stations - 1992.
                                               44

-------
          • Standby Milk Surveillance
            Network Station

                 Scale in Miles
          0   100       300       500
            100   300  500    700

              Scale in Kilometers
Figure 24.  Standby Milk Surveillance Network stations - 1992.
                                                    45

-------
 Table 9.  Standby Milk Surveillance Network Sampling Location Changes - 1992
 City, State
 Saugus, California
 North Powder, Oregon
 Logandale, Nevada
 Corpus Christi, Texas
 Glen Rose, Texas
 Huston, Louisiana

 Manteca, California
 Aurora, Missouri
Old Diary Name
Wayside Honor Ranch
Elmer Hill Dairy
Nevada Dairy
People's Baptist Church
Daffan Family Dairy
Technical University Dairy

A & J Foods, Inc.
Mid-America Dairymen, Inc.
City, State
Long Beach, California
Ontario, Oregon
Las Vegas, Nevada
Corpus Christi, Texas
Glen  Rose, Texas

Coalgate, Oklahoma
Manteca, California
Monett, Missouri
New Dairy Name
Paul's Dairy
Eastway Dairy
Anderson Dairy
Hygeia Milk Plant
DeWayne Hankins Dairy
(no replacement)
Larry Krebs Dairy
Supremo Foods
Mid-America Dairymen, Inc.
 (relocation)
 Routine  sampling is conducted  monthly for the
 MSN and annually for the SMSN,  or  whenever
 local or  worldwide radiation events such as the
 Chernobyl incident or nuclear testing by foreign
 nations suggest possible radiation concerns.

 All samples are analyzed by high resolution gam-
 ma spectroscopy  to detect gamma-emitting radio-
 nuclides. One sample per quarter from each MSN
 location and the annual samples from two of the
 SMSN locations in each western state (excluding
 Nevada)  are evaluated by radiochemical analysis.
 These samples are analyzed for  3H  by liquid
 scintillation counting and for  89Sr  and ^Sr  by
 radiochemical separation and beta counting.

 5.1.3  Results

 The average total  potassium concentration derived
 from 40K activity was 1.6 g/L.  Two SMSN samples
 indicated the presence of 137Cs: the Tommy Rue
 Potts Dairy (Sulphur  Springs,  Texas) sample
 collected November 13 yielded 2.43  ± 0.86 pCi/L,
 and  the  Brown's Velvet  Dairy  Products (New
 Orleans,  Louisiana)  sample collected  April  9
 yielded 3.46 ± 0.89  pCi/L.  These  values were
 below the MDC of the analysis, which was approxi-
 mately 5  pCi/L. No other  manmade gamma-emit-
 ting radionuclides were detected.

 Selected  MSN  and SMSN milk samples were also
 analyzed for 3H, 69Sr,  and 90Sr, and the results are
similar to those obtained in previous years; neither
 increasing  or   decreasing  trends  are  evident.
Although  there was a slight increase in the number
of samples whose results exceeded  the MDC for
3H, 89Sr, and ^Sr in 1992, as listed in Table 10, the
                            average annual  concentrations have, in general,
                            decreased slightly. A summary of the MSN results
                            are in Tables 11 for 3H, 12 for 89Sr, and 13 for 90Sr.
                            The results for the annual SMSN samples ana-
                            lyzed for 3H, 89Sr, and MSr are given in Table B-6,
                            Appendix B.  Samples analyzed by gamma spec-
                            trometry for the SMSN are listed in Table B-7,
                            Appendix B.

                            Time series distributions of the 90Sr and 3H data for
                            the SMSN stations for 1982  through  1992 are
                            provided in Appendix B, Figures B-1 through B-6.
                            The information contained in these graphs is the
                            same as that provided for Figures 16 - 19. The
                            stations were divided into three  regions for the
                            graphs:  the  Midwest region including Louisiana,
                            Texas,  Arkansas, Illinois,  Oklahoma,  Missouri,
                            Kansas,  Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, South and
                            North Dakota; the Mountain region including New
                            Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho
                            and  Montana; and the Western region including
                            California, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.  It
                            should be noted that the  data presented in these
                            graphs include many values which are below the
                            MDC.  Values below the MDC were reported as
                            measured.

                            In conclusion, the MSN and SMSN data are con-
                            sistent with previous years and are  not indicative of
                            increasing or decreasing  trends.  No radioactivity
                            directly  related  to  current  NTS  activities was
                            evident.
                                              46

-------
Table 10. Summary of Radionuclides Detected in Milk Samples
          Milk Surveillance Network

      No. of samples with results > MDC
   (Network average concentration in pCi/L)
        Standby Milk Surveillance Network

        No. of samples with results > MDC
   (Network average concentration in pCi/L)
1992
3H 5 (153)
89Sr 4 (-0.01)
90Sr 5 (0.65)
1991
2 (152)
1 (0.30)
4 (0.54)
1990
0 (129)
0(0.18)
4 (0.59)
1992
3H 6 (158)
89Sr 4 (0.38)
90Sr 17 (0.99)
1991
1 (153)
3 (0.42)
18 (1.24)
1990
1 (159)
0 (-0.16)
17 (1.32)
5.1.4  Quality Assurance/Quality
        Control

Procedures for the operation, maintenance,  and
calibration of laboratory counting  equipment, the
control and statistical analysis of the sample,  and
the data review and records are  documented in
approved Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
External and internal comparison studies were  per-
formed and field and internal duplicate samples
were obtained for precision and accuracy assess-
ments.  Analytical results are reviewed for com-
pleteness and comparability. Trends are identified
and potential risks to humans and the environment
are determined based  on the data.   The data
quality assessment  is given in Section 11.

5.2  Animal Investigation
       Program

The primary purpose of the Animal Investigation
Program is monitoring of the ingestion transport
pathway to humans.  Therefore, animals which are
likely to be consumed by humans  are targeted by
the program. These are bighorn sheep, mule deer,
and beef cattle.

A  veterinarian retained through  EPA  EMSL-LV
investigates  any  claims of  damage to animals
caused  by  radiation.  No such claims were re-
ceived in 1992.
5.2.1   Network Design

The objective of the animal investigation program
is  to  determine  whether there is  potential for
radionuclides to reach humans  through ingesting
wild game or meat from range cattle. To that end,
the program is based upon what is considered to
be a worst-case scenario.  Mule deer are migrato-
ry; the ranges of the herds which inhabit the NTS
include lands outside the federal exclusionary area
in  which hunting  is permitted.   Therefore, it is
theoretically possible for a resident to consume
meat from a deer which had become contaminated
with radionuclides while on the  NTS.  During the
years of atmospheric testing, fission products were
carried outside the  boundaries of the NTS and
deposited in the offsite area.  Longer-lived radio-
nuclides, particularly plutonium and strontium iso-
topes, are still detected in soil in the area.  Some
of these radionuclides may be ingested by animals.
Cattle are purchased from ranches  where atmo-
spheric tests are known to have deposited radio-
nuclides.  The continued monitoring  of bighorn
sheep provides a long-term history for examination
of radioactivity trends in large grazing animals.

The  collected  animals are not selected  to be
representative  of  average radionuclide  levels in
animals residing in the offsite area, nor are they
designed to be necessarily representative of the
herd from which they are drawn. However, selec-
tion is not random.  There is an inherent nonran-
dom selection in  hunting and the  ranchers select
the cattle 4o be sold.  Because the program is not
statistically based, no conclusions can or should be
                                             47

-------
Table 11. Offsite Milk Surveillance 3H Results -1992
                                                    3H Concentration (10'7 nCi/mL)

Sampling Location
Benton, CA
Irene Brown Ranch
Hinkley, CA
Desert View Dairy
Inyokern, CA
Cedarsage Farm
Alamo, NV
Cortney Dahl Ranch
Amargosa Valley, NV
Bar-B-Cue Ranch
John Deer Ranch
Austin, NV
Young's Ranch
Caliente, NV
June Cox Ranch
Currant, NV
Manzonie Ranch
Duckwater, NV
Bradshaw's Ranch
Dyer, NV
Ozel Lemon
Goldfield, NV
Frayne Ranch
Logandale, NV
Leonard Marshall
Lund, NV
Ronald Horsley Ranch
McGill, NV
McKay's Ranch
Mesquite, NV
Hafen Dairy
Moapa, NV
Rockview Dairies
Nyala, NV
Sharp's Ranch
Pahrump, NV
Pahrump Dairy
Shoshone, NV
Harbecke Ranch
Tonopah, NV
Karen Harper Ranch
Cedar City, UT
Brent Jones Dairy
Ivins, UT
David Hafen Dairy
Mean MDC: 2.85 x 10'7 nCi/mL
DCG = derived concentration


Number Maximum

1

4

3

2

4
2

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

4


2.53*

3.81

1.08

1.74

1.64
2.26

2.65

1.04

2.63

1.20

3.97*

2.42

1.94

1.56

2.42

4.18*

2.51

2.77

2.61

2.55

4.76*

2.99

2.64
Standard

Minimum

2.53

0.675

0.620

1.14

-0.692
1.46

0.519

0.433

1.42

0.292

0.245

0.944

-0.020

1.05

-0.186

0.090

0.377

-0.200

1.02

0.462

0.252

0.871

0.900
Deviation of
guide. Established by DOE Order as 8
Arithmetic
Mean

2.53

1.93

0.875

1.44

0.913
1.86

1.33

0.816

1.77

0.852

1.92

1.71

0.862

1.31

1.48

1.89

1.82

1.14

1.91

1.55

2.03

2.08

2.07
Standard
Deviation

—

1.33

0.234

0.424

1.08
0.564

0.937

0.288

0.572

0.418

1.89

0.739

0.913

0.255

1.15

1.95

1.00

1.53

0.662

0.873

2.40

0.919

0.789
Mean MDC: 5.70 x 10'8
x IQ-'u.Ci/mL

Mean as
%DCG

0.32

0.24

0.11

0.18

0.11
0.23

0.17

0.10

0.22

0.11

0.24

0.21

0.11

0.16

0.19

0.24

0.23

0.14

0.24

0.19

0.25

0.26

0.26
1 u.Ci/mL

MDC = minimum detectable concentration.
= result is greater than
MDC of analysis.





                                              48

-------
Table 12. Offsite Milk Surveillance 89Sr Results - 1992
89Sr Concentration (10'1° nCi/mL)

Sampling Location
Benton, CA
Irene Brown Ranch
Hinkley, CA
Desert View Dairy
Inyokern, CA
Cedarsage Farm
Alamo, NV
Cortney Dahl Ranch
Amargosa Valley, NV
Bar-B-Cue Ranch
John Deer Ranch
Austin, NV
Young's Ranch
Caliente, NV
June Cox Ranch
Currant, NV
Manzonie Ranch
Duckwater, NV
Bradshaw's Ranch
Dyer, NV
Ozel Lemon
Goldfield, NV
Frayne Ranch
Logandale, NV
Leonard Marshall
Lund, NV
Ronald Horsley Ranch
McGill, NV
McKay's Ranch
Mesquite, NV
Hafen Dairy
Moapa, NV
Rockview Dairies
Nyala, NV
Sharp's Ranch
Pahrump, NV
Pahrump Dairy
Shoshone, NV
Harbecke Ranch
Tonopah, NV
Karen Harper Ranch
Cedar City, UT
Brent Jones Dairy
Ivins, UT
David Hafen Dairy
Mean MDC: 1.15 x 10"9 nCi/mL

Number

1

4

3

2

4
1

3

3

4

3

2

2

4

3

4

4

3

3

4

4

2

4

4


Maximum

5.10

4.07

4.57

6.29

3.00
4.42

5.58

1.46

6.79

11.5*

-3.25

3.51

4.38

1.12

-3.40

4.00

11.0*

6.95

6.30

8.25

3.74

9.74*

11.0*
Standard

Minimum

5.10

-7.60

-0.332

-14.8

-19.4
4.42

-8.09

-15.8

-0.221

-11.0

-7.26

-3.29

-7.84

-1.45

-9.13

-7.66

-3.57

3.57

-2.42

0.770

3.25

-5.26

-4.90
Deviation of
DCG = derived concentration guide. Established by DOE Order as 8
MDC = minimum detectable
= result is greater than
NA = not applicable.
concentration.


Arithmetic
Mean

5.10

-1.87

2.10

-4.25

-6.33
4.42

0.177

-4.67

3.49

-3.37

-5.26

0.110

-1.64

-0.309

-5.36

-1.93

2.48

4.97

1.83

4.71

3.49

1.85

2.76
Mean MDC:
Standard
Deviation

—

5.48

2.45

14.9

9.89
—

7.27

9.66

3.00

12.9

2.84

4.81

5.45

1.31

2.61

4.76

7.59

1.76

3.74

3.49

0.35

6.15

7.33
2.28 x 10"10
Mean as
%DCG

0.06

NA

0.03

NA

NA
0.06

<0.01

NA

0.04

NA

NA

<0.01

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.03

0.06

0.02

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.03
u.Ci/mL
x 10'7nCi/mL



the MDC of analysis.






49

-------
Table 13. Offsite Milk Surveillance ^Sr Results - 1992
90Sr Concentration (10"1° nCi/mL)

Sampling Location
Benton, CA
Irene Brown Ranch
Hinkley, CA
Desert View Dairy
Inyokern, CA
Cedarsage Farm
Alamo, NV
Cortney Dahl Ranch
Amargosa Valley, NV
Bar B Cue Ranch
John Deer Ranch
Austin, NV
Young's Ranch
Caliente, NV
June Cox Ranch
Currant, NV
Manzonie Ranch
Duckwater, NV
Bradshaw's Ranch
Dyer, NV
Ozel Lemon
Goldfield, NV
Frayne Ranch
Logandale, NV
Leonard Marshall
Lund, NV
Ronald Horsley Ranch
McGill, NV
McKay's Ranch
Mesquite, NV
Hafen Dairy
Moapa, NV
Rockview Dairies
Nyala, NV
Sharp's Ranch
Pahrump, NV
Pahrump Dairy
Shoshone, NV
Harbecke Ranch
Tonopah, NV
Karen Harper Ranch
Cedar City, UT
Brent Jones Dairy
Ivins, UT
David Hafen Dairy
Mean MDC: 1.45 x 10'9 fiCi/mL
DCG = derived concentration

Number

1

4

3

2

4
2

4

3

4

4

3

3

4

3

4

4

3

4

4

4

3

4

4


Maximum

-1.23

5.65

3.74

6.94

14.2
1.88

13.1

8.60

16.0*

13.7

10.6

9.29

6.92

7.51

8.70

10.4

6.82

9.59

8.60

19.6*

22.9*

7.78

11.1
Standard

Minimum

-1.23

1.13

1.04

-1.83

-0.872
-0.094

5.18

2.59

3.24

1.24

5.46

7.55

1.75

2.25

5.12

3.48

-0.819

4.30

1.11

6.80

11.7

2.58

2.27
Deviation of
guide. Established by DOE Order as 4
MDC = minimum detectable concentration.
= result is greater than
NA = not applicable.


Arithmetic
Mean

-1.23

3.57

2.28

2.55

4.99
0.89

9.60

5.00

7.68

8.27

8.55

8.14

4.39

4.01

7.18

6.44

3.51

6.77

4.87

14.1

16.8

5.49

5.85
Standard
Deviation

—

2.11

1.36

6.20

6.60
1.34

3.28

3.18

5.85

5.21

2.72

0.99

2.69

3.03

1.69

2.99

3.92

2.20

4.18

5.51

5.68

2.16

3.94
Mean MDC: 1.52x 10'10
x 10"8nCi/mL



Mean as
%DCG

NA

0.89

0.57

0.64

1.25
0.22

2.40

1.25

1.92

2.07

2.14

2.04

1.10

1.00

1.80

1.61

0.88

1.69

1.22

3.52

4.19

2.74

2.92
u.Ci/mL


MDC of analysis.






50

-------
drawn regarding average concentrations of radio-
nuclides in animals in the offstte area, nor should
any  conclusions  be drawn regarding average
radionuclide ingestion by humans.  The collection
sites for the bighorn sheep, deer, and cattle ana-
lyzed in 1992 are shown in Figure 25.

5.2.2  Sample Collection and
        Analysis Procedures

During the bighorn sheep season in November and
December, licensed hunters in Nevada are asked
to donate one leg bone and one kidney from each
bighorn  sheep  taken.  The location where the
sheep was taken and any other available informa-
tion are recorded on the field data form. The bone
and kidney samples are weighed, sealed in labeled
sample bags, and  stored in a controlled freezer
until processing. Weights are recorded on the field
data form. After completion of the hunting season,
a subset of the samples is selected to represent
areas around the NTS.  The kidney is divided into
two samples. One kidney  sample is delivered to
the EPA EMSL-LV Radioanalysis  Laboratory for
analysis of gamma-emitting radionuclides.   The
second kidney sample and all bone samples are
shipped in a single batch to a contract laboratory
for ashing. Upon completion of ashing, both the
kidney and the bone samples are analyzed for
plutonium isotopes and the bone samples are
additionally analyzed for strontium. All results are
reported in units of pCi/g of ash. The ash weight
to wet weight ratios (percent ash) are also report-
ed, to permit conversion of radionuclide activity to
a wet weight basis for use in dose calculations.

Each year, attempts are made to collect four mule
deer from the NTS, on a one per quarter schedule.
If a deer is killed on the road, that animal is used.
If road kills are not available, a deer is hunted by
personnel with a special permit to carry weapons
on the NTS.  The deer is usually sampled in the
field, with precautions taken to  minimize risk of
contamination.  The location of the deer, weight,
sex, condition, and other information are recorded
on a field data form.    Organs  are removed,
weighed, and sealed in labeled sample bags. Soft
tissue organs, including  lung, liver, muscle,  and
rumen contents are divided into two samples, one
for analysis of gamma-emitting radionuclides and
one which is ashed prior to analysis for plutonium
isotopes.  Thyroid and  fetus (when available),
because of their small size, are analyzed only for
gamma-emitting radionuclides. Samples of blood
are analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and
tritium. Bone samples are ashed and analyzed for
plutonium isotopes and strontium.   The samples
requiring ashing are shipped in a single batch each
quarter to a contract laboratory.  Analyses are
completed in the EPA EMSL-LV  Radioanalysis
Laboratory.

Four cattle are purchased from ranches in the
offsite  area  around  the  NTS  each spring  and
another four are purchased each fall. In 1992, four
cattle were  purchased in the  spring  from  G.L.
Coffer's Fleurde Lis Ranch located north of Beatty,
Nevada and another four were purchased in the
fall from the Cortney Dahl  ranch in Delamar Valley
(east of  Alamo,  Nevada). Generally, two adult
cattle and two calves are acquired in  each  pur-
chase.  The facility  at the old EPA farm on the
NTS is  used for  the slaughter.  This facility  is
designed to  minimize risk of contamination.   As
with the bighorn sheep and mule deer, sampling
information and sample weights are recorded on a
field data form and samples are sealed in labeled
sample bags.  Samples of blood and soft tissues
(lung, muscle,  liver, thyroid, and kidney) are ana-
lyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides; blood is
also analyzed for tritium activity.  A second kidney
sample and bone samples are sent to  a  contract
laboratory for ashing. Ashed  kidney samples are
analyzed for plutonium isotopes; bone ash samples
are analyzed for plutonium isotopes and strontium.
A  sample of the  water  used in processing the
samples is also collected and analyzed.

5.2.3   Sample Results for Bighorn
        Sheep

The sheep hunt takes place in November  and
December, hence, the data  presented here are
from animals hunted in  late  1991.  The kidney
samples and one  lung sample were analyzed for
gamma-emitting radionuclides and for tritium.  The
bone samples were ashed prior to analysis for 90Sr,
238Pu, and 239t240Pu. A summary of results obtained
from analysis of bighorn sheep bone and kidney
are shown in  Table 14.  Other  than naturally
occurring *°K, gamma-emitting radionuclides were
not detected, nor was tritium detected, at activities
greater than the MDC in any of the kidney or lung
samples. All of the bone tissue samples, however,
yielded 90Sr activities greater than the MDC of the
analysis.   The  range and  median values  for 90Sr,
shown in Table 14, were similar to those obtained
last year (DOE, 1991).  The  average 90Sr levels
                                             51

-------
                                                                  Nyala
                                                        Queen City Smt.
                                                                Tempiute

                                                                 Coyote    Hiko
NEUJS AFB
RAt*5E COMPLEX  -
                                                                         Hancock Smt.
                                                                         - \
                                                                  Medlins'Rn. +Mamo
                                             1 NEVADA 1
                                                  Cactus
                                                  Springs  springs
                                                                     ^Searchlight
           Bighorn Sheep (winter 1990)

           Mule Deer (1991)

       A Cattle (1991)
       Numbers below or within symbol
       represent the animal identification numbers.
Figure 25. Collection sites for animals sampled - 1992.
                                              52

-------
Table 14. Radiochemical Results for Animal Samples -
Sample Type Parameter Number Maximum
Cattle Blood
Cattle Liver


Cattle Bone




Cattle
Fetus


Deer Blood
Deer Liver


Deer Lung


Deer Muscle


Deer Rumen
Content

Deer Bone




Bighorn
Sheep Bone



Bighorn
Sheep Kidney
•rt»
% Ash
238pu(c)
239.240pu(c)
% Ash
89Sf
% Ash
238puM
23W«,pu(c>
% Ash
B9gr
-------
 found in bighorn sheep bone ash since 1955 are
 shown in Figure 26.  None of the bone samples
 yielded 238Pu results greater than the MDC of the
 analysis and only one sample (Bighorn sheep No.
 6) yielded a ^^Pu result greater than the MDC.
 This animal was collected in Area 268, near Buff-
 ington Pockets Spring south and west of Moapa,
 Nevada near the  Valley of Fire.  Medians and
 ranges of plutonium isotopes, given in  Table 14,
 were similar to those obtained previously (DOE,
 1991).

 5.2.4   Sample Results for Mule Deer

 Blood samples were analyzed for gamma-emitting
 radionuclides  and tritium.   Soft tissue  samples
 (lung, muscle, liver, thyroid, rumen contents, and
 fetus, when available) were analyzed for gamma-
 emitting radionuclides and plutonium  isotopes.
 Samples of bones were ashed and then analyzed
 for plutonium  isotopes and for 90Sr.  Samples of
 thyroid and fetal tissue were not ashed due to their
 small size.

 No deer was collected in the first quarter of 1992,
 although two hunting trips were conducted.  The
mule deer collected in the second quarter of 1992
was a buck in good condition obtained by hunting
in Area 18 of the NTS, near Buckboard Mesa road.
No  gamma-emitting  radionuclides  other  than
naturally occurring 40K were detected in soft tis-
sues, however, 239+240pu was detected in the lungs,
liver, and muscle.  The rumen content contained
238Pu and ^^Pu. Values for 239^°pu were 0.031
± 0.006 pCi/g ash in the lungs, 0.017 ± 0.004 pCi/g
ash in the  liver, 0.006 ±0.001  pCi/g ash in the
muscle, and 0.0174 ± 0.003 pCi/g  ash in the ru-
men.  The  bone sample contained 0.74 ±  0.13
pCi/g ash of 90Sr. There was no detectable 3H in
the blood above the MDC of 1.82 x 10'7 uCi/mL

The mule deer collected in the third quarter was a
young buck in fair condition obtained by hunting in
Area 19 of  the NTS.  The blood sample did not
contain 3H above the MDC of 4.84 x 10'7 u.Ci/mL,
and there were no gamma-emitting radionuclides
other than 4DK in the  soft tissues. Plutonium-238
was found in the lung and rumen content.  Bone
contained only 90Sr, 1.4 ± 0.2 pCi/g ash. All soft
tissue samples  contained  239+240pU; the lungs
contained 0.011 ± 0.002 pCi/g ash, the liver 0.002
± 0.0001 pCi/g ash, and the muscle 0.012 ± 0.002
pCi/g ash.
                          Bighorn   Sheep
         40
     o   30
     Q.
     0)
     O   20
     CD
         10
     CO
                                                  18
                                                                          1416 13 1J16
              55  57  59  61   63  65   67  69   71  73  75  77  79  81  83  85   87  89  91
                                                 Year
     * Number of samples prior to 1969 not available
Figure 26.  Average strontium levels in bighorn sheep, 1955 - 1992.

                                           54

-------
                                           Deer
         40
     0)
    O  30
     0)
     C  20
     O
    CD
     C
     E
     2
    'c  10
     o
    c/5
                                                                   000
                                                                         4 5 4 3  4  4 3
             55  57  59   61  63  65  67  69   71   73  75  77  79   81   83  85  87  89  91
                                                Year
    'Number of samples prior to 1969 not available
Figure 27. Average strontium levels in mule deer, 1955 - 1992.
The final deer killed in the fall was a nonlactating
doe in good condition located in Area 19 of the
NTS on Pahute Mesa Road.  There was no 3H
found in the blood above the MDC of 5.16 x 10~7
u.Ci/ml_,  and no  gamma-emitting radionuclides
other  than  40K were  detected  in soft tissue or
rumen content.   Liver, muscle, and rumen  con-
tained 239+240Pu: 0.052 ±  0.008 (liver), 0.097 ±
0.008 (muscle), and 0.037 ± 0.005 (rumen) pCi/g
ash.  Bone contained 0.008 ± 0.001  pCi/g  ash
239.240pU| Q 3g ± 0 32 pCj/g ash Qf Sgg^ ^ Q QQ ±
0.07 pCi/g ash of 90Sr.

The medians and ranges of the 1992  mule  deer
analyses, presented in Table  14, are similar to
those  reported for mule deer collected in 1991 for
bone  tissue analyses  and  238Pu analyses in all
tissues (DOE, 1991). The average 90Sr levels found
in  mule deer bone ash since 1955 are shown in
Figure 27. Marked differences between years are
observed in the medians of tritium activity in blood
and 239*2*°pu in ashed soft tissues. These differ-
ences are due to the fact that two contaminated
animals were collected  in 1991.  In past years,
none, or at most one, of the mule deer have shown
evidence of radioactive contamination and, thus, a
contaminated sample had no impact on the medi-
an.

5.2.5   Sample Results for Cattle

Blood and soft tissues (lung, muscle, liver, thyroid,
kidney, and fetal tissue, when available) were ana-
lyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides; blood was
also analyzed for tritium activity.  Samples of liver,
bone, and fetal tissue were ashed and analyzed for
plutonium isotopes; bone and fetus samples were
also  analyzed for 90Sr.  Duplicate liver and  bone
samples from two animals in each group of four
were prepared and analyzed.

The four cattle purchased in May 1992 from the
G.L.  Coffer Fleur de Lis Ranch of Beatty, Nevada
had detectable concentrations of 90Sr in bone ash
samples ranging from 0.27 ± 0.08 to 0.75 ±0.13
                                            55

-------
 pCi/g ash.  One bone sample contained, 0.001 ±
 0.001 pCi/g ash of ^Pu and 0.003 ± 0.001  pCi/g
 ash of 239+24° pu.  One of the cows was pregnant.
 The fetal bone contained no 90Sr above the detect-
 able concentration of 0.70 pCi/g ash. The average
 90Sr found in cattle bone ash since 1955 is shown
 in Figure 28. All liver samples from the adult cattle
 contained 239+240pu, ranging from 0.004 ±  0.001
 pCi/g ash to 0.015 ± 0.004 pCi/g ash.  No 3H was
 detected above the MDC.   These animals had
 ranged  from Beatty into the NTS in the Beatty
 Wash area.

 Four cattle were purchased in September  1992
 from the Cortney  Dahl ranch in  Delamar Valley
 (near Alamo, Nevada). The livers of three of the
 animals contained 239+240pu  ranging from 0.010 ±
 0.004 to 0.014 ± 0.002 pCi/g ash and  one liver
 contained 0.008 ± 0.003 pCi/g ash of ^Pu.  Only
 one bone sample contained 239+240Pu,  0.018  ±
 0.002 pCi/g ash, but all four contained 90Sr ranging
 from 0.34 ± 0.06 to 0.88 ±  0.07 pCi/g ash.  One
 bone sample also contained 89Sr, 0.72 ± 0.36  pCi/g
                                  ash.  One cow was pregnant and the fetus con-
                                  tained 0.005 ± 0.001 pCi/g ash of ™*"°pu.  No 3H
                                  was detected above  the MDC.  Medians  and
                                  ranges,  given in Table  14, are similar to those
                                  reported  for animals  collected in 1991   (DOE,
                                  1991).

                                  5.2.6  Quality Assurance/Quality
                                          Control

                                  Standard  operating  procedures  detail sample
                                  collection, preparation, storage, analysis, and data
                                  review procedures to ensure comparability among
                                  operators. Field personnel complete a standard-
                                  ized necropsy protocol  form  to ensure that all
                                  relevant information is recorded, such as date and
                                  location  of collection, history and condition of the
                                  animals and tissues, sample weights, and assigned
                                  identification numbers. Standardized forms accom-
                                  pany each shipment of samples sent to the con-
                                  tract laboratory for ashing and are also used for
                                  analyses conducted in the Radioanalysis Laborato-
                                  ry.  All  information entered  into the data base
                                      Cattle
      40
      30
 O
  Q.
  co
 <
  0)   20
  O
 m
      10

 O
 •»—'
 CO
I
                                            liillikii;
3 14   484
            8  8 8 7 8 8  8
           55   57   59  61  63   65   67   69   71   73   75   77   79   81  83   85   87   89   91
                                             Year
'Number of samples prior to 1969 not available
Figure 28.  Average strontium levels in cattle,  1955 -1992.

                                           56

-------
management system by Sample Control and the
radioanalysis chemists is checked and verified by
the Group Leader and assigned media expert.

An estimate of system precision is obtained from
results of duplicate samples. Matrix spike samples
are used to verify analytical accuracy. Matrix blank
samples monitor any contamination resulting from
sample preparation  and  analysis.   The  entire
sample set analyzed  in any given year is  quite
small (usually four or five sample batches) and, as
a  consequence, the QA/QC sample results set
contains fewer values than is considered minimal
for statistical  uses.   Therefore,  the  results  of
QA/QC samples are considered to provide only an
indication or estimate of true precision and accura-
cy.   This is  considered  adequate because the
Animal Investigation Program itself is not statistical-
ly based.

Prior to 1991, analyses of animal tissue samples
were performed by a contract laboratory. The EPA
EMSL-LV   Radioanalysis  Laboratory   assumed
responsibility  for sample analysis beginning with
the results contained in this report. The change of
laboratories raised concerns about comparability of
analyses, so a special QA  review was conducted.
The  procedures  used by each  laboratory  are
comparable, as are results of matrix spike sam-
ples. Generally, the result ranges obtained in 1991
were similar to those  obtained in previous years
when samples were  analyzed by the contract
laboratory.  Finally, results of QA/QC samples, with
the exception of one routine duplicate  pair, were
within established control limits.  Although a direct
comparability  study  was  not   undertaken  (i.e.,
analysis of replicate samples by both laboratories),
the results of the QA review  indicate the  data
obtained for 1992 analyses are comparable to data
obtained in previous years.

The QA review also resulted in recommendations
for some  changes  in the animal  investigation
program that  were implemented in 1992.  These
recommendations included preparation of a large
stock of matrix spike and  blank sample material
and addition of a system blank.  The single stock
of matrix spike sample material permit an addition-
al  estimate of precision,  in this case analytical
precision, to be obtained.   The system  blank was
a  bone  sample known to  contain no detectable
concentrations of radionuclides (with the possible
exception of strontium).   It was processed with
each  tissue sample  batch  to provide a check of
possible  contamination  during  the  ashing and
sample preparation processes.

5.3    Fruits And Vegetables
        Monitoring

Another possible pathway of radionuclide ingestion
is through produce: fruits, vegetables, and grains.
Commercial farming, other than alfalfa, is not a
major industry in the offsite area around the NTS.
Therefore, monitoring is limited to fruits and vege-
tables grown in local gardens for family consump-
tion. In the event of a release of radioactivity from
the NTS,  monitoring of produce would be extended
to include alfalfa, forage grasses, and feed grain
supplies.  No extensive monitoring was required in
1992.

5.3.1   Network Design

Like the  Animal Investigation  Program, fruit and
vegetable monitoring is  based on a worst-case
scenario.  Local residents living in areas known to
have received fallout from past atmospheric testing
are asked to donate produce from  their family
gardens.   These areas which received fallout are
also the areas in the preferred downwind direction
during current underground testing.   As sample
collection is not statistically based, no inference
should be drawn regarding the representativeness
of the sampled materials  to concentrations  of
radionuclides in produce as a whole, nor should
any conclusions be drawn regarding  the average
consumption of radionuclides from produce.

5.3.2 Sample Collection and
       Analysis Procedures

Fruit and vegetable  contribution of  samples is
voluntary  by the offsite  residents.   Sampling is
done only once per year, in the late summer.
Fruits and vegetables  harvested at that  time
generally  include  root  crops  (onions,  carrots,
potatoes), melons  and  squash,  and  some leafy
vegetables (e.g., cabbage).

Samples  are processed by washing the material as
it would be done  by residents  prior  to eating or
cooking.   This washing procedure introduces an
element  of  variability,  as the  thoroughness  of
washing varies by individual. Potatoes and carrots
are not  peeled.   Further  processing  generally
includes  cutting the  material  into small  pieces
                                              57

-------
 and/or blending in a  mixer or food  processor.
 Splits are prepared for analysis of gamma-emitting
 radionuclides and tritium. Other sample splits are
 ashed and analyzed for 90Sr, 238Pu, and ^^Pu.

 5.3.3  Sample  Results

 In the fall of 1992, eight samples of locally grown
 fruits and vegetables  were donated  by offsite
 residents  in Utah and Nevada.  Fruits and vegeta-
 bles sampled included  apples, broccoli, cabbage,
 carrots, and summer squash.  All samples were
 analyzed  for gamma-emitting radionuclides and
 only  naturally occurring 40K was  detected.  All
 samples  were  analyzed for  tritium;  no  results
 greater than  the MDC of the analysis  were  ob-
 tained.  Samples were then ashed and analyzed
 for 90Sr, ^Pu, and ^^Pu.  Results which were
 greater than the MDC of the analysis are listed in
 Table 15.  Four vegetable samples from Nevada
 (cabbage, broccoli, and  two samples of carrots with
 tops) contained 90Sr greater than the MDC of the
 analysis.  The source of the ^Sr may have been
 soil particles adhered to the vegetable.  No ^Pu
 was found in any of the samples. Concentrations
 of 239*ZMpu greater than the analysis MDC were
 found in all carrots with  tops. None of the smooth-
 skinned surface crops contained these radionuclid-
 es.
                                                 5.3.4  Quality Assurance/Qualtiy
                                                        Control

                                                 The fruits and vegetables are considered to be a
                                                 batch within the Animal Investigation  Program.
                                                 The  same QA/QC  samples are used, including
                                                 matrix spikes and matrix blanks (animal bone ash
                                                 is the matrix). If sufficient material is received, at
                                                 least one  of the samples  may be analyzed in
                                                 duplicate; however, in many years not enough of
                                                 any one type of material is received from any one
                                                 source to permit preparation of duplicates. As with
                                                 the  Animal Investigation Program,  the QA/QC
                                                 samples provide only an estimate or indication of
                                                 the analytical precision and accuracy.
Table 15. Detectable 90Sr and Z39+240pu Concentrations in Vegetables
                  Collection
                   Location      % Ash

                  Rachel, NV       0.45


                  Rachel, NV       0.31


                  Alamo, NV       1.61


                  Rachel, NV       1.03


                 LaVerkin, UT      1.21


MDC    =  minimum detectable concentration
Vegetable

Broccoli


Cabbage


Carrots with
tops
                                                     90Sr±1a
                                                    pCi/g ash
2.0    ±    0.49
      (1.4)

0.78   ±    0.18
     (0.62)

0.34   ±    0.05
     (0.12)

0.82   ±    0.22
     (0.68)
                            10"3 pCi/g ash
1.26   ±   0.47
    (0.833)

3.40   ±   1.46
     (2.26)

0.772  ±   0.409
    (0.719)
                                             58

-------
6.0   Internal  Dosimetry
Internal exposure is caused by ingested, absorbed,
or inhaled radionuclides that remain in the body
either temporarily or for longer periods  of  time
because  of storage in tissues.  At EMSL-LV, two
methods  are used to detect body burdens: whole-
body counting and urinalysis.

6.1  Network  Design

The Internal Dosimetry Program consists of two
components, the Offsite Internal Dosimetry  Pro-
gram and the Radiological Safety Program.

The Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program is designed
to (1)  measure radionuclide body  burdens  in a
representative  number of families who reside in
areas that were subjected to fallout during the early
years of nuclear weapons tests, and (2) provide a
biological monitoring  system for present  nuclear
testing activities.  A  few families who reside in
areas not affected by fallout were selected for
comparative study.  Members of the general public
concerned about possible exposure to radionuclid-
es are also counted periodically as a public ser-
vice.

The program was initiated in December  1970 to
determine levels of radionuclides in some of the
families  residing  in  communities  and  ranches
surrounding the NTS.  For these families, counting
is performed in the spring and fall  of each year.
This program started with 34 families (142 individ-
uals).  In 1992, 54 families (158 individuals) were
eligible for the program.  Locations  of  the 27
families monitored in 1992 are shown in Figure 29.
The number  of  individuals  participating in  the
program  varies as children leave home to attend
school  or obtain  employment.   Although most
families are able to come into the laboratory as
scheduled,  some are unable to  participate  in a
particular year due to distance, weather, or family
commitments.  All families currently in residence
would  presumably be  available  following  any
accidental release of radioactivity.

The Radiological Safety Program  is designed to
assess internal exposure for EPA employees, DOE
contractor employees, and by special request, em-
ployees of companies or government agencies who
may have had an accidental exposure to  radioac-
tive material. Individuals with potential for occupa-
tional exposure are counted at the request of their
employers.  Counting is done routinely for DOE
contractors.  EPA personnel in radiation programs
or those  who  work with  radioactive  materials
undergo  a whole  body count and  a urinalysis
annually.

6.2  Procedures

The whole-body  counting facility has  been  main-
tained at EMSL-LV since 1966 and is equipped to
determine the  identity  and quantity  of gamma-
emitting radionuclides that may have been inhaled,
absorbed, or ingested.   Routine  examinations
consist of a 2,000 second count in each of the two
shielded examination vaults. In one vault, a single
intrinsic germanium coaxial detector positioned
over an adjustable chair allows detection of gamma
radiation with energies ranging from 60 keV to 2.0
meV in the whole body.  The other vault contains
an adjustable chair with six intrinsic  germanium
semiplanar detectors mounted above the  chest
area.  The semiplanar array is designed to detect
gamma-  and X-ray-emitting  radionuclides  with
energy ranges from 10 to 300 keV.   Specially
designed  software  allows  individual  detector
spectra to be analyzed to obtain a summation of
left- or right-lung arrays and of the total lung area.
This provides  much greater  sensitivity for  the
transuranic radionuclides while still maintaining the
ability to pinpoint "hot spots."  Custom-designed
detector mounts  allow maximum flexibility for the
placement of detectors in various configurations for
skull, knee, ankle, or other geometries.

To complete the evaluation,  a  urine sample is
collected for 3H analysis. Not all participants in the
Radiological Safety Program submit urine samples
for 3H analysis.

Before the  Offsite  Internal  Dosimetry  Program
participants leave the facility, results of the whole-
body and lung counts are made available and are
discussed with the  subjects.  Results  of the urine
3H analysis are reported later if the result is abnor-
mal.   At  18-month intervals, a physical  exam,
health  history, and the following are performed:
complete urinalysis, complete blood count, serolo-
gy, chest X-ray (three-year intervals), sight screen-
                                             59

-------
        J	
                                                            NEVADA
         CM PYRAMID

             LAKE
                            Austin OO
                                                                      UTAH
                                                                                 OO Delta
                                                                              OO Milford
                                                                                Cedar City
                                                                     OO St. George
         X
 Amargosa Vail-, _   _  _^
Amargosa Center»O   , >*   •  Overton'  ,   .
              V   Indian Spnngs      t\   |

           Pahrump^^       _Q    J/LAKE MEAD


      Shoshone *  V   Vegas*~i'''^S^?
                O    •»       • I
                     ^Henderson"


                       \     I
                           A.    •


                           \!
                                                                                  ARIZONA
                                                                               N
           • Offsite Family Monitored in 1992

           O Not Monitored in 1992
                                                                            Scale in Miles


                                                                               50
                                                                                         100
                                                                           50    100    150

                                                                           Scale in Kilometers
Figure 29.   Location of families in the Offsite Internal Dosimetry Program - 1992.
                                                60

-------
 ing, audiogram, vital capacity, EKG (for individuals
 over 40 years old), and thyroid panel. The results
 of the examination can be requested for use by the
 individual's family physician.

 6.3  Results

 During 1992, EPA performed whole-body and lung
 counting on 281  individuals,  of whom  107 were
 participants  in the Offsite Internal Dosimetry Net-
 work.  An additional 118  gamma spectra were
 obtained  for radiation workers,  including  EPA,
 DOE, and contractor personnel.  Special study
 whole-body counts were performed for Utah State
 University volunteers participating in an 59Fe uptake
 study,  the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy,  and con-
 cerned citizens. No transuranic radionuclides were
 detected in any lung counts. All of the whole-body
 gamma spectra for the Offsite Internal Dosimetry
 Network and Radiological Safety Program partici-
 pants were  representative of normal background
 and showed only naturally occurring 40K.  The Utah
 State University volunteers, as expected, showed
 uptake of 59Fe. The U.S Army specialist, wounded
 by  an  antitank missile during Operation Desert
 Storm,  was  found  to  have depleted  uranium
 shrapnel imbedded  in his  legs and  in one hand.
 An attempt was made to determine the amount of
 235U and 238U present in the embedded  shrapnel,
 but the depth of most of the shrapnel was unknown
 as  was the self-absorption  by the metal itself, so
 an  accurate  determination was impossible.

 Bioassay results for single urine samples collected
 from participants in the Offsite Internal Dosimetry
 Network  showed  only five samples at random
 times with tritium concentrations greater than the
 MDC. The greatest tritium concentration detected
 was 3.43 x 10~7 ± 2.99 x 107 u.Ci/mL, which is 0.4
 percent of the annual limit of intake for the general
 public.  Table 16 provides a summary of bioassay
 results.  Two participants from McGill, Nevada did
 not participate in the bioassay portion of the pro-
 gram this year.

 As  reported  in previous years, medical  examina-
tions of the  offsite families revealed a  generally
 healthy population.  The blood examinations and
thyroid profiles showed no symptoms which could
be attributed to past or present NTS testing opera-
tions.
6.4  Quality Assurance/Quality
      Control

Quality  Assurance  procedures consist  of  daily
equipment operations checks using  QA software
obtained specifically for this facility.  Some of the
parameters monitored daily include energy calibra-
tion of each detector using a NIST-traceable  point
source to check for zero, gain shift, and resolution
over a wide  range of energies.   A background
measurement is also taken once or twice  daily
depending on the count schedule.

The  whole-body detector efficiency  is calibrated
annually  using  a   Bottle  Mannequin  Absorber
(BOMAB) phantom containing a  NIST-traceable
mixed radionuclide source.  The lung  counter is
also  calibrated annually with a  male  realistic lung
phantom. A  separate set of efficiency calibration
data  is  kept  for each  combination of sample
shape/organ geometry.

The following MDCs were calculated after recali-
bration of the lung  counting system in February
1992:241Am, 0.2 u.Ci; 238Pu, 18 u.Ci; and 239Pu, 130
u.Ci.   There were no significant differences  from
previous  MDC's.   These were calculated for a
standard chest wall thickness of 3 cm. The MDAs
for the whole-body counting system for 1991  were
as follows: 60Co, 10 nCi; 137Cs, 14 nCi; 134Cs, 11
nCijand131!,  13 nCi.

All efficiency curves are generated by the vendor-
supplied  whole-body counting and lung counting
software.  QA software is used to  monitor the
systems  by  performing  out-of-range   tests for
predetermined parameters.  Results are  plotted
and reports are generated daily and  monthly. All
data  are stored in the computer. Replicate count-
ing of the standard  BOMAB phantom provides a
measure  of consistency.  Replicate counts of  blind
intercalibration phantoms and of people counted
previously in  other facilities provide  additional
measurements of precision and accuracy. Verifi-
cation and validation are completed before results
are entered  into a data base.   Calculation  of
internal dose is done utilizing software based on
the  International  Commission  on  Radiological
Protection (ICRP) methodology (ICRP, 1979).
                                              61

-------
Table 16.  Tritium in Urine, Offs'rte Internal Dosimetry Program - 1992

                                             3H Concentration  (10'7 nCi/mL)
Location

Shoshone, CA
Alamo, NV
Beatty, NV
Goldfield, NV
Henderson, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Las Vegas,  NV
Lund, NV
Nyala, NV
Overton, NV
Pahrump, NV
Pioche, NV
Rachel, NV
Tonopah, NV
Cedar City,  UT
          Number    Maximum
               3
              10
              10
               2
               2
               2
               2
               2
               9
              11
              23
              10
               4
               4
              11
-0.0145
1.81
3.07*
2.73
1.29
1.32
2.33
1.49
3.43*
2.00
2.52
1.68
2.09*
3.02*
1.65
Mean MDC: 2.46  x 10'7 fiCi/mL

Minimum
-1.07
-0.592
-0.573
1.65
0.756
0.741
1.38
1.41
0.0432
0.839
0.000
0.306
1.19
-0.642
-0.792
Arithmetic
Mean
-0.418
0.941
0.967
2.19
1.02
1.03
1.85
1.45
1.45
1.39
1.01
0.803
1.67
1.66
0.908
Standard
Deviation
0.574
0.731
1.24
0.764
0.381
0.407
0.669
0.0551
1.05
0.424
0.773
0.546
0.373
1.60
0.714
  Mean
as %DCG

      NA
     0.10
     0.11
     0.24
     0.11
     0.11
     0.21
     0.16
     0.16
     0.15
     0.11
     0.09
     0.19
     0.18
     0.10
                                            Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 5.29 x 10~
DCG  =
MDC  =
*     __

NA   =
derived concentration guide.  Established by DOE Order as 9 x 10~5 jiCi/mL.
minimum detectable concentration.
result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
not applicable.
Dose calculation is verified using ICRP and Nation-
al Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments (NCRP) guidelines (NCRP, 1989).  Preven-
tive  maintenance and repair of  analytical equip-
ment are done by the vendor service representa-
tive. Data are retained permanently. Subject
                                          confidentiality and  data security are maintained
                                          through well-established procedures.  EPA whole-
                                          body counting technicians participate in DOE and
                                          EPA QA training programs.
                                               62

-------
7.0  Long-Term  Hydrological  Monitoring  Program
One of the  concerns  of  underground nuclear
weapons testing is the possibility of radionuclide
contamination  of groundwaters.   Underground
nuclear weapons tests are currently conducted only
on the NTS, but between 1961 and 1973, eleven
tests were conducted in eight other locations in the
United States.   The initial  ground and surface
water monitoring program was established by the
PHS in the early 1950s.  Pretest and posttest
monitoring  for  the locations off the  NTS was
conducted  by  the PHS, the  U.S.  Geological
Survey (USGS), and Teledyne Isotopes, Inc.  In
1972, the LTHMP was established by the Nevada
Operations Office  of  the  AEC.   Through an
interagency agreement between AEC (later DOE)
and the EPA, responsibility for operation of the
LTHMP was  assigned  to  the  EMSL-LV.   The
LTHMP is only one component of the total surface
and ground water monitoring program  conducted
under the auspices of DOE/NV.

The LTHMP conducts routine monitoring of specific
wells  on the  NTS and of wells, springs, and
surface waters in the offsite area around the NTS.
In addition, sampling for the LTHMP is conducted
at other sites in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico,
Mississippi, and Alaska locations where nuclear
weapons tests have been conducted.

7.1   Network Design

The  LTHMP  was  instituted  because  the  AEC
acknowledged its responsibility for obtaining and
disseminating  data acquired from  all locations
where nuclear devices have been tested. The three
objectives  originally  established  for the LTHMP
were to:

      •   Assure public safety.

      •   Inform the public, news media, and
         scientific community about any radiologi-
         cal contamination.

      •   Document compliance with existing fed-
         eral,  state,   and  local  antipollution
         requirements.

Another objective which has been incorporated into
the LTHMP is to, where possible, detect trends in
radionuclide   activities   which   may   indicate
migration from test cavities.

The primary radionuclide analyzed in the LTHMP
is tritium. As a product of nuclear weapons testing,
tritium  is found at high levels in test  cavities.
Because tritium can be incorporated into water
molecules, it is expected to be the first radionuclide
to  migrate from a test cavity.  Therefore, tritium
serves  as an indicator of radionuclide migration.
Atmospheric  tritium may also  be  deposited into
water,  primarily  by  precipitation  scavenging.
Tritium from this  source is primarily  found  in
surface waters, surficial  aquifers, and springs
closely connected to surficial aquifers.

7.1.1  Sampling Locations

In  order to meet the objective  of assuring public
safety,  EMSL-LV monitors drinking water supply
wells and springs around the NTS and in the
vicinity  of surface ground zero (SGZ) at the other
locations. The majority of these sampling sites are
privately owned and participation in the LTHMP is
voluntary.  Municipal drinking water supplies are
also represented.  Regardless of  the number of
individuals served by a particular water supply, the
National  Primary   Drinking  Water Regulation1
(NPDWR) pertaining to radioactivity is used as the
compliance standard2 (see notes at the end of this
section).

All of the nuclear weapons tested at locations other
than the NTS were emplaced at depths of greater
than 1,200 feet. Nuclear weapons tested on the
NTS are also emplaced at great depths, with the
exception  of some  shallow underground tests
conducted in the early 1960s. Most of the drinking
water   supply  wells tap shallow  aquifers, and
consequently do not represent groundwater in the
geologic strata containing the test cavities. There-
fore, wherever possible,  deep wells are included in
the monitoring program.  These wells include some
which  were  drilled  soon after  a nuclear test
specifically to monitor activities in or near the test
cavity and others which can be considered only as
"targets of opportunity"; e.g.,  existing  wells for
which  sampling permission  has been  obtained.
Most of the- deep wells tap non-potable water
sources.   Monitoring design standards,  such as
                                             63

-------
 those in the Resource Conservation and Recovery
 Act (RCRA), did not become available until long
 after the LTHMP deep wells had been drilled.  Cost
 has delayed emplacement of new wells, although
 a program to drill more than 9CF new wells on the
 NTS was initiated in 1990.  The sampling locations
 not associated with the NTS are defined by DOE
 as inactive hazardous waste sites and are exempt
 from the RCRA monitoring design requirements.

 7.1.2  Sampling and Analysis
        Procedures

 At nearly  all LTHMP  locations, the  standard
 operating  procedure is to collect three samples
 from each  source.  Two samples are collected in
 500-mL glass bottles to be analyzed for tritium.
 The results from analysis of one of these samples
 are reported while the other sample serves as a
 backup in case of  loss  or as a duplicate sample.
 The remaining sample is collected in a 3.8-L plastic
 container (Cubitainer). At LTHMP sites  other than
 the NTS and vicinity, two Cubitainer samples are
 collected.   One of these is analyzed by gamma
 spectrometry and the other is stored as a backup
 or  for duplicate analysis.  At a few  locations,
 because of limited water supply,  only 500-mL
 samples are collected for tritium analysis.

 For wells  with operating  pumps,  samples  are
 collected at the nearest convenient  outlet.  If the
 well has no pump, a truck-mounted sampling rig is
 used.  With this rig  it  is possible to collect  3-L
 samples from wells as deep as 1,800 meters. At
 the  normal sample collection sites,  the  pH,
 conductivity, water temperature, and  sampling
 depth are measured when the sample is collected.

 When  samples are first  collected  from a well,
 89'90Sr,  238'239pu,   and   uranium   isotopes   are
 determined by radiochemistry. Prior to  1979, the
 first samples from  a new location were analyzed
 for 15 stable elements; anions, nitrates,  ammonia,
 silica, uranium, plutonium, and strontium isotopes;
 and 226Ra.   Most of these analyses can still be
 completed by special request.  At least one of the
 Cubitainer samples from each site is analyzed by
 gamma spectrometry, using a 100-minute counting
 time.  One of the 500-mL samples from each site
 is analyzed for tritium.  When sample results are
close to or less than the MDC for the conventional
tritium analysis (approximately 400 to 700 pCi/L),
the sample is concentrated by electrolysis.   The
 MDC for this method (referred to as the enrichment
 method in the following text) is approximately 5 to
 7 pCi/L. Most of the LTHMP samples are analyzed
 by the enrichment method, unless past years' data
 have indicated activities are within the detectable
 range of the conventional method.  Additionally,
 semiannually sampled wells on and in the vicinity
 of the NTS are analyzed once per year by the
 enrichment  method and  once per year by the
 conventional method.

 7.1.3  Quality Assurance/Quality
        Control Samples

 Sample collection and analysis procedures are
 described in SOPs. Data base management and
 data analysis activities are described in the Quality
 Assurance Plan (EPA, 1992).  Use of standardized
 procedures  ensures  comparability of operations
 and data among monitoring locations and across
 temporal intervals.

 Annual  data quality  assessments of  precision,
 accuracy, and  comparability are  based  on the
 results  of QA/QC samples.   The data quality
 assessment results for 1992 are given in  Section
 11. Overall system precision is estimated from the
 results of field duplicates.  A field duplicate is a
 second sample collected from a sampling  location
 immediately  following collection  of the  routine
 sample   using   identical  procedures.     Field
 duplicates are collected from sampling locations on
 the NTS and in the vicinity of the NTS according to
 a schedule established by the LTHMP Technical
 Leader.   Generally, all samples from the  other
 locations are collected in duplicate; the  second
 sample  may  be  used as  a duplicate or  may  be
 used  as a replacement for the  routine sample, if
 necessary.

 Accuracy is estimated from results of intercompari-
 son study samples.  These samples  are spiked
 samples (i.e., a water sample to which a known
 amount  of particular  radionuclide(s) have  been
 added).  Intercomparison study programs managed
 by   EMSL-LV   and  DOE's   Environmental
 Measurements  Laboratory (EML)   both  include
 water   matrix   samples.     The  EMSL-LV
 intercomparison  study samples are also used for
 an estimate of  comparability.   Generally, 60 to
 more  than 300 laboratories participate in  a given
 intercomparison study. Results for each laboratory
are reported, as  are pooled results (mean,  stan-
dard  deviation).   Comparison  of  the EMSL-LV
 Radioanalysis Laboratory result to the mean for all
                                             64

-------
laboratories   provides   an  estimate  of  the
comparability of results.

In addition to the above-described QA/QC samples
which are used  in annual data quality assess-
ments, the Radioanalysis Laboratory  employs  a
number of internal QC samples and procedures to
ensure data quality on a day-to-day basis. Internal
QC samples include  blanks,  regular calibrations,
matrix spike  samples, and  duplicate analyses
(gamma spectroscopy only).   If results of these
internal QC samples fall outside prescribed control
limits, corrective actions are implemented; analysis
is stopped until the cause of the discrepant data is
found and resolved.

7.1.4  Data Management and
        Analysis

In the spring of 1991,  the LTHMP was selected as
the pilot  program to test  the use of bar code
sample labels.  Bar  code  labels were prepared
prior to each sampling excursion. Upon receipt of
samples in Sample Control,  the bar code label was
read  and the information transferred into  the
Sample  Tracking  Data  Management  System
(STDMS), along with information from the field data
card.  This pilot program was extremely successful
and  is  being  continued for the  LTHMP and
expanded to other monitoring  networks.

Analysis data were entered into the STDMS after
they had been generated  and reviewed  by  the
analyst and Group  Leader.   Special software
written in Fortran (referred  to as  "Chemistry
Programs") was  used  for  a  majority  of  the
radiochemical data  reduction.   The  Chemistry
Programs were used for calculating final data such
as activity per unit volume,  MDC, and 2-sigma
error terms.  All hand-entered data were checked
for  transcription  errors.  Once data  had been
entered and checked, they  were transferred from
a "review" data base  to a permanent data base,
where further changes may  be made only by
authorized personnel.

Periodically, the assigned media expert reviewed
the  data base and checked for completeness of
sample collection, transcription errors, completion
of sample analysis and QA/QC  samples, and
accuracy  of information input. All discrepancies
were resolved and corrected.  Once the data base
was complete for a given location, time series plots
were generated.   Any  discernable trends were
discussed at an annual data review attended by
management  and scientific  personnel.   Another
data review of the LTHMP was held with DOE and
DRI  hydrology personnel. The time series plots
which indicated consistent data trends are included
as figures in the subsections which follow.  The
filled circles on the time series plots represent the
result values,  the error bars indicate  ±  one
standard deviation of the  result, and the  (x)
represents the MDC value.

7.2   Nevada Test Site
       Monitoring


The  present structure of the LTHMP for the NTS
onsite network, which includes sample locations on
the NTS and immediately outside its borders on
federally owned land, is displayed in Figure 30. All
sampling locations are  selected  by  DOE  and
primarily represent drinking  water  supplies.   All
samples are analyzed by gamma spectrometry and
for tritium by the enrichment method. Sixteen wells
are sampled monthly  and 21 wells are sampled
twice per  year,  at  approximately  six-month
intervals. No gamma-emitting radionuclides were
detected in any of the samples collected in 1992.
The  greatest tritium  activity  measured  in  the
LTHMP  NTS network in 1992 was 448 ± 4 pCi/L in
a sample from Well UE-7ns.  This activity is 0.5
percent of the derived concentration guide (DCG).3

Of the  37  sampling  locations  assigned to  the
LTHMP, six could  not be sampled at any time in
1992: Water Well 2,  where the pump has been
inoperative since December 1990;  Water Well A,
which was deactivated by DOE in  October 1988;
Well USGS HTH "F", which was last successfully
sampled in 1980;  Well U3cn#5, which  was shut
down throughout 1992 and was last sampled in
December 1981; Well UE-6d, which has never
been successfully accessed for sampling; and Well
UE-15d   where  the  pump  was  found  to  be
inoperative during a sampling visit in April and had
not been repaired as of the end of 1992.  One new
sampling  location  was  added,  Well   P.M.
Exploratory #1, and sampling was resumed at two
locations in 1992:   Well  5B,  which  was  last
sampled in July 1988, and Well UE-7ns, which had
last been sampled in September 1987.  Additional
analyses were performed on the  first samples
collected from the  new location  and from the two
wells with a long  break  in sampling.   The May
1992 sample from Well P.M.  Exploratory #1  and
                                            65

-------
                               Well P.M.
                               Exploratory
                               #1
                                WellUE-19c  ,
                                      ._._L,™,
                                      I          12
                                                           Well Groom
                                                         Well Groom 4
                                                         WellUE-15d
                                                                              •   Well
                                                                            Well    Groom 6
                                                                            Groom 5
                                                USGSTest
                                               I Well D
                I 18	
                                                                           Well U3cn#-5
                                                                 Water Well C
                                                                 Well C-1
                                                                 Water Well #4
                                                                    ell UE-Sc
                                                                       III
                                                                     Well SB
, Water We  J-13
                  Water WellJ-12
                                          , 0 Well Army #1  ii!
                                                        Well Army #6A

                                        |~|  = Not Sampled this year

                                        •  = Water Sampling Location
Figure 30. Wells on the NTS included in the LTHMP, 1992.
                                             66

-------
the August 1992 sample from Well 5B yielded no
detectable activity for 137Cs, 238Pu, 239Pu, 89Sr, or
90Sr.  The Well 5B sample was also negative for
tritium while the sample from Well P.M. Exploratory
#1 yielded a tritium activity of 207 ± 3 pCi/L.  The
March 1992 sample from Well UE-7ns yielded no
detectable alpha or gamma emitters; a gross beta
activity of 7.87 ± 0.96 (MDC of 2.51) pCi/L  was
obtained and tritium results were 380 ± 4 pCi/L

In the fall of 1992, DOE elected to restrict access
and reduce maintenance to certain portions of the
NTS.  As part of this cost-saving measure, Water
Well 20 and Well UE-19c  were temporarily shut
down; i.e., power to the  pump was disconnected
and the lines were  drained.  This measure  was
later  reversed,  with the  result that  only  the
November sampling period was lost.  Wells  UE-
16f, UE-18r, and UE-181  are located in areas  with
restricted access and/or reduced maintenance (i.e.,
no snow removal)  which precluded collection of
any samples after September 1992.  It is expected
that access restrictions will be removed and power
restored in the spring of 1993.

Summary results of tritium analyses are presented
in Table  17.  Five  of the monthly sampled wells
and  seven of the  wells sampled  semiannually
yielded tritium results greater than the MDC of the
enrichment analysis (approximately 5 to 7 pCi/L) in
one or more samples.  Of these, six involved only
a single sample,  with tritium activities less than 30
pCi/L  (less than 0.03 percent of the DCG). Two of
the monthly sampled wells, Test Well B and Water
Well C, have consistently shown detectable tritium
over their sampling history.  The 1992 average for
Test Well B was 105 pCi/L (range 94 to 119 pCi/L,
0.10 to 0.13 percent of the DCG) and for Water
Well C was 16.1  pCi/L (range 10.9 to 23.7 pCi/L,
0.01 to 0.03 percent of the DCG).  A decreasing
trend is evident in Test Well B, as shown in Figure
31.

Both of the  semiannual  samples collected from
Wells UE-4t#1, P.M. Exploratory #1, and UE-7ns
contained detectable tritium, as did  the  single
sample  obtained from  Well  UE-18t.   Average
concentrations for these  wells were less than 40
pCi/L  (0.04 percent of the DCG)  in Well UE-4t#1,
207 pCi/L (0.23 percent of the DCG) in Well P.M.
Exploratory #1, and 414 pCi/L (0.46 percent of the
DCG) in Well UE-7ns. The single sample  obtained
from Well UE-18t yielded a tritium result  of 102 ±
2 pCi/L (0.11 percent of the DCG). Three of these
sampling locations do not have sufficient data to
discern any trends, as they have been added to
the sampling network in recent years. Well UE-7ns
was routinely sampled between 1976 and 1987; an
increasing  trend  was   evident,   with   tritium
concentrations in excess of 2,500 pCi/L at the time
sampling ceased in September 1987.

7.3   Offsite Monitoring In The
       Vicinity Of The Nevada
       Test Site


The monitoring  sites  located in  the offsite area
around the NTS are shown in Figure 32. Most of
the sampling  locations represent drinking water
sources for rural residents in the offsite area and
public  drinking  water supplies  in  most of the
communities  in  the area.   The  sampling sites
include 23 wells, seven springs,  and two surface
water sites. Thirty locations are routinely sampled
every month.  The remaining two sites, Penoyer
Well 13  and Penoyer  Wells 7  and  8, are in
operation only  part of the year;  samples are
collected whenever the wells are  in  operation.
Water  samples  are  collected  each  month for
gamma spectrometric analysis. Samples for tritium
analysis are collected semiannually.  One of these
semiannual  tritium analyses  is done by the
conventional analysis method; the other analysis is
done by the enrichment method.

Over the last  decade,  only  three sites  have
evidenced detectable tritium activity on a consistent
basis.  These three sites are in  Nevada, namely
Lake Mead Intake (Boulder  City), Adaven Spring
(Adaven), and Specie Springs (Beatty).  In all three
cases, the tritium activity represents environmental
levels that have been generally  decreasing over
time.   The last time  tritium  concentrations for
Specie  Springs were greater than the MDC  was in
1990.

In  1992, four of the  samples, all from sites in
Nevada,  that were analyzed  for tritium by the
enrichment  method  yielded  detectable  tritium
activities.  The  Adaven Spring January result of
32.4 ±  1.8 pCi/L (0.04 percent of the  DCG) was
consistent with tritium levels noted in recent years,
as shown in Figure 33.  The results for the Lake
Mead Intake May and September samples were
57.5 ±  2.2 pCi/L (0.06 percent of the  DCG) and
62.2 ±  2.3_pCi/L  (0.07  percent of the  DCG),
respectively." These results were similar to results
obtained in  1991, as indicated in Figure 34. This
                                             67

-------
 Table 17.     Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Summary of Tritium Results for Nevada
              Test Site Network, 1992
                                                  Tritium concentration (pCi/L)

                                                          Arithmetic  Standard     Mean
 Location                     Number   Maximum   Minimum  Mean    Deviation   as %DCG
 Well 1 Army
 Well Army #6A
 Water Well 2
 Well Groom 3
 Well Groom 4
 Water Well #4
 Well Groom 5
 Well 5B
 Water Well 5C
 Well Groom 6
 Test Hole 7
 Water Well HTH-8
 Water Well 20
 Well A
 Test Well B
 Water Well C
 Well C-1
 USGS Test Well D
 Well USGS HTH "F"
 Well HTH-1
 Water Well J-12
 Water Well J-13
 Well P.M. Expl.#1
 Well U-3cn#5
 Well UE-1c
 Well UE-4t#1
 Well UE-Sc
 Well UE-6d
 Well UE-6e
 Well UE-7ns
 Well UE-15d
 Well UE-16d
 Well UE-16f
Well UE-17a
Well UE-18r
WellUE-18t
WellUE-19c

 All
                              12        3.2        -2.5       0.2        1.8        NA
                               2        3.2         1.7       2.5        1.5        NA
                            Well shut down throughout 1992, last sampled December 1990.
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
12
12
12
12
1
12
11
2
12
8
Well
11
11
2
2
Not
1
8
12
2
6.2
3.4
2.9
3.2
3.2
3.7
1.2
3.3
10.3*
4.9
inactivated
119*
24*
17*
5.6
sampled in
-2.1
2.2
3.7
207*
-2.0
-1.9
-4.8
-3.0
3.2
-2.7
-1.9
2.8
-5.1
-3.0
2.0
-0.1
-0.6
-0.0
3.2
0.1
-0.2
3.0
0.3
1.0
by DOE, last sampled
94* 105*
11*
4.7
3.1
1992, last
-2.1
-3.9
-2.6
207*
16*
10.8*
4.3
2.6
1.6
2.1
1.9
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
3.6
2.7
October 1988.
7.5
4.4
12.3
2.5
sampled February 1980.
-2.1 0
-0.2
0.4
207*
2.2
2.0
0
                                                                                   0.12
                                                                                   0.02
                                                                                   0.01
                                                                                  NA

                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                  NA
                                                                                   0.23
                            Well shut down throughout 1992, last sampled December 1981.
                               2         2.5         0.0       1.2       2.5        NA
                               2       47*         30*      38*        17           0.04
                               2        -1.1         -2.9      -2.0       1.8        NA
                         Inaccessible throughout 1992, has never been successfully sampled.
                               1       26*         26*      26*         0
                               2      448*        380*     414*        68
                                     Pump inoperative, well shut down by DOE.
                                                                       6.8
                                                                       0
                                                                       4.6
                                                                       0
                                                                       0
                                                                       2.5
2
1
2
1
1
11
2.3
7.2*
2.3
1.3
102*
5.3*
-4.6
7.2*
-2.3
1.3
102*
-2.1
-1.1
7.2*
0.0
1.3
102*
0.5
                                             0.03
                                             0.46

                                            NA
                                             0.01
                                            NA
                                            NA
                                             0.11
                                            NA
                            184
448
-5.1
15.5
53.5
0.02
Average MDC ± s is 5.36 ±1.11 pCi/L
*    =  Activity is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
NA  =  Not applicable. Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either because the tritium result is less than the MDC
       or because the water is known to be nonpotable.
                                            68

-------
      400
      300
   t200
       100
       14DEC70     05JUN76     28NOV81     19MAY87    08NOV92     01MAY98
                                  Sample Collection Date
Figure 31. Tritium concentration trend in Test Well B on the NTS.
surface water site may be impacted by rainfall
containing scavenged  atmospheric tritium to a
greater extent than the well and spring sites in the
offsite network.  The tritium result of 5.98 ± 1.73
pCi/L for the September sample from Johnnie Mine
was only slightly higher than the  MDC of 5.50
pCi/L and was the first detectable  tritium activity
obtained for that site since sampling was initiated
in 1989. Tritium results for all samples are shown
in Table C-1, Appendix C. No gamma-emitting
radionuclides were detected in any sample taken
in 1992.

7.4   Hydrological Monitoring At
       Other Locations

In   addition  to  the  groundwater   monitoring
conducted on and in  the  vicinity of the NTS,
monitoring is conducted under the LTHMP at sites
of past nuclear device testing in other parts of the
U.S.   Annual sampling of surface and  ground
waters  is  conducted  at the Projects SHOAL and
FAULTLESS  sites  in  Nevada,  the  Projects
GASBUGGY and GNOME sites in New Mexico,
the Projects RULISON and RIO BLANCO sites in
Colorado,  and  the  Project DRIBBLE site  in
Mississippi.   Additionally,  sampling is conducted
every two years on Amchitka Island, Alaska, site of
Projects CANNIKIN, LONG SHOT, and MILROW;
sampling was last conducted in 1991. The primary
purposes  of this portion  of the LTHMP are  to
ensure the safety of public drinking water supplies
and, where suitable sampling points are available,
to monitor any migration of radionuclides from the
test cavity.  The following subsections summarize
results of  sampling conducted in 1992; analytical
results for all samples are provided in Appendix C.

The sampling procedure is the same as that used
for sites on the NTS and offsite areas (described in
Section 7.1.2),  with the exception that  two 3.8-L
samples are collected in Cubitainers.  The second
sample serves as a backup or as  a duplicate
sample.  Because of the variability noted in past
years  in  samples  obtained from  the shallow
monitoring wells near the Project DRIBBLE ground
zero (GZ), the sampling procedure was modified.
A second sample is now taken after pumping for a
                                           69

-------
                                                      Sharp's Ranch
         Tonopah City Well
                                                                  Adaven Springs
                                        Twin Springs Ranch
                             NEUUS APS
                                  COMPLEX
              Spicer
              RoadD
                Goss Springs

              Coffers 11S/48-1dd
   N
      X  Coffers 11 S/48-1dd» I    jp
Beatty Well 12S/47E-.7dbd •  «T Youni.ha:
          -». Specie Springs •
           >»• U.S. Ecology
                                                             Union Carbide Well

                                                           Penoyer (4)
                                                            Well 7 & 8
                                                             Well 13    • Crystal Springs
                                                               Culinary Well

                                                                          • Alamo
                                                                            City Well 4
              Nickell's Ranch
                   •"k.           •
                  Amargosa Valley
               Well15S/50E-18cdc    Fairbanks
                         •%       • Springs
                           N      • Crystal Pool
                              *X     • Spring 17S/50E-14cac
                                \BWell18S/51IE-7db
                                   *^    •Johnnie Mine

                                      \    BCalvadaWell

                                         X.
                                   Shoshone
                                   Spring f
                                                                 ndian Springs
                                                                Sewer Co. Well 1
                                                                              Las Vegas
                                                                               Well 28
                                                                                      Lake Mead
                                                                                      Intake •
                       Scale in Miles

                    10     20     30
              0   10   20   30  40  50   60
                     Scale in Kilometers

              •= Water Sampling Location
                                                LOCATION MAP
Figure 32.  Wells outside the Nevada Test Site included in the LTHMP.
                                                70

-------
         eoo

         500

         400

      n  300

         200

         100:
         14DEC70      05JUN76       26NCV81       19MAY87
                                Sample Collection Dale
Figure 33. Tritium results in water from Adaven Springs, Nevada.
         300
         200

         100
08NCV92
                                                                   X X
         26NOV81      22AUG84       19MAYB7       12FEB90
                                Sample Collection Date
Figure 34. Trend of Tritium results in water from Lake Mead, Nevada.
08NOV92
                                       71

-------
 specified period of time or after the well has been
 pumped  dry and  permitted to refill with  water.
 These   second   samples   may  be   more
 representative of formation water, whereas the first
 samples  may be more indicative of recent area
 rainfall.

 7.4.1  Project FAULTLESS

 Project  FAULTLESS  was  a  "calibration  test"
 conducted on January 19,  1968,  in a  sparsely
 populated area near Blue Jay Maintenance Station,
 Nevada.  The test had a yield of less than 1  Mt
 and was designed to test the behavior of seismic
 waves and to determine the usefulness of the site
 for high-yield tests.  The emplacement depth was
 975 m (3,200 ft). A surface crater was created, but
 as an irregular block along local faults rather than
 as a saucer-shaped  depression.   The area is
 characterized by basin and range topography, with
 alluvium  overlying  tuffaceous sediments.   The
 working point of the test was in tuff.  The ground-
 water flow is generally from  the highlands to the
 valley and through the valley  to Twin Springs
 Ranch and Railroad Valley (Chapman and Hokett,
 1991).

 Sampling was conducted on  February 24 and 25,
 1992. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 35.
 Routine sampling locations include one spring and
 five wells of varying depths.  One location, Hot
 Creek Ranch spring, was  not sampled  this year
 because the spring  was dry.  All of the  sampling
 locations are being  used as,  or are suitable for,
 drinking water supplies. At least two wells (HTH-1
 and HTH-2) are positioned to intercept  migration
 from the test cavity, should it occur (Chapman and
 Hokett,  1991).   All  samples yielded negligible
 gamma activity and tritium activities were less than
 the MDC and less than 0.01  percent of  the DCG
 (Table C-2, Appendix C).    These  results are
 consistent with results obtained in previous years.
 The consistently below-MDC results for tritium
 indicate that, to date, migration into the sampled
 wells has not taken place and  no event-related
 radioactivity has entered  area  drinking water
 supplies.

 7.4.2 Project SHOAL

 Project SHOAL, a 12-kt test  emplaced at 365  m
 (1,200 ft),  was conducted on October 26, 1963, in
a sparsely populated area near Frenchman Station,
Nevada.   The test,  a  part of the Vela Uniform
 Program, was designed to investigate detection of
 a nuclear detonation in an active earthquake zone.
 The working point was in  granite and no surface
 crater was created.

 Samples  were collected  on February 11,  1992.
 Four of the six routine sampling locations shown in
 Figure 36 were sampled at that time. No sample
 was collected from Spring Windmill because the
 well was  dry and no sample was collected from
 Well H-3  because the pump was not operational.
 The pump was replaced in the fall of 1992  and a
 sample from Well H-3 was collected on October
 21, 1992.  The routine sampling locations include
 one spring, one windmill, and four wells of varying
 depths.  At least one location, Well HS-1, should
 intercept radioactivity migration from the test cavity,
 should it occur (Chapman and Hokett, 1991).

 No gamma activity was detected in any  of the
 samples.   A tritium result of 56 ± 2 pCi/L was
 detected in the water sample from Smith/James
 Spring, equivalent to 0.06 percent of the DCG(see
 Table C-3, Appendix  C).   All of  the  remaining
 samples yielded tritium results less than the  MDC.
 The result for Smith/James Springs is consistent
 with values obtained in previous years, as shown
 in Figure 37.  It is unlikely that the tritium source is
 the Project SHOAL  cavity;  the most probable
 source is considered to be rainwater infiltration.

 Because Well H-3 had not been sampled  since
 1986, analyses of 89-90Sr and  Pu and U isotopes
 were  completed in addition to tritium analysis.
 Results were less than the MDC of the analysis for
 strontium, plutonium, and 235U. Uranium-234 and
 ^U were detected at low levels (0.14 ± 0.02 pCi/L
 of ^U and 0.042 ± 0.011  pCi/L of ^U) and are
 probably of natural origin.

 7.4.3 Project RULISON

 Co-sponsored by  the AEC and Austral Oil Co.
 under the Plowshare Program, Project RULISON
 was designed to stimulate natural gas recovery in
 the  Mesa  Verde formation. The test, conducted
 near Rifle, Colorado,  on  September 10,  1969,
 consisted of a 43-kt nuclear explosive emplaced at
a depth of 2,568 m (8,426  ft).  Production testing
began in 1970 and was completed in April 1971.
Cleanup was  initiated in  1972  and wells  were
plugged in 1976.   Some  surface  contamination
resulted from decontamination of drilling equipment
                                             72

-------
                                                                HTH2
                                                                HTH1
                                                            \
                                                            I
                                                            I
                                                        X  '
                                                      ,'    I
                    Hot Creek   |
                      Ranch
                                                      Six-Mile Well
                                     Jim Bias Well
                                   (Blue Jay Springs)
                                                              Blue Jay
                                                            Maintenance
                                                              Station
       1 Surface Ground Zero
        Water Sampling Locations

        Not Sampled this year
                                        Scale in Miles
Scale in Kilometers
                                                                                      NYE
                                                                                     COUNTY
                                    LOCATION MAP
Figure 35.  LTHMP sampling locations for Project FAULTLESS - 1992.
                                              73

-------
           Fallen
                                           Flowing Well
                                       Hunt's Station
                                                       H-3
                                                                       • HS-1

                                                                       Smith/James
                                                                         Spring
                                      CHURCHILL COUNTY
                                      Wmm •• MM 1MB ••» MB §•• •
                                       MINERAL COUNTY
                                                                               N
       fyp Surface Ground Zero
       •  Water Sampling Locations
       D  Not Sampled This Year
                                                                      LOCATION MAP
                                              Scale in Miles
                                                  5
0     5     10      15
    Scale in Kilometers
                                         CHURCHILL
                                           COUNTY
Figure 36. LTHMP sampling locations for Project SHOAL - 1992.
                                             74

-------
      90

      80

      70

      60

      50

      40

      30

      20

      10
x
            i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—[—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r-\—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i

      04JAN86     19MAY87      30SEP88     12FEB90      27JUIM91      08NOV92

                                  Sample Collection Date

Figure 37.  Tritum results for water from Smith/James Spring, Nevada.
and fallout from gas flaring.  Soil was removed
during the cleanup operations.

Annual sampling was completed on June 9, 1992,
with  collection of  nine  samples in  the area  of
Grand  Valley and  Rulison, Colorado.  Routine
sampling locations,  depicted in Figure 38, include
the Grand Valley municipal drinking water supply
springs, water supply wells for five local ranches,
and three sites in the vicinity of GZ, including one
test well, a surface-discharge spring, and a surface
sampling location  on  Battlement Creek.   An
analysis of the sampling locations performed by
DRI indicated that none of the sampling locations
are likely to detect migration of radionuclides from
the test cavity (Chapman and Hokett, 1991).

Tritium has never been observed in measurable
concentrations in the  Grand Valley City Springs.
All of the remaining sampling sites show detectable
levels of tritium, which have generally exhibited a
decreasing  to stable  trend over the  last two
decades. The range of tritium activity in the 1992
samples was 48 ± 2 pCi/L at CER Test to 160 ± 3
    pCi/L at Lee Hayward Ranch  (see Table C-4,
    Appendix C).  These  values are less than one
    percent of  the DCG.   The  detectable tritium
    activities are probably a result of the natural high
    background in the area. This is supported by the
    DRI analysis, which indicated that most of the
    sampling locations are shallow, drawing water from
    the surficial aquifer which is unlikely to  become
    contaminated by any radionuclides arising from the
    Project  RULISON cavity (Chapman and Hokett,
    1991).  Figure 39 displays  data for the last  20
    years for Lee Hayward Ranch.  The low value
    obtained in 1990  may be attributed to analytical
    bias and was observed consistently for all Project
    RULISON sampling locations.

    7.4.4  Project RIO BLANCO

    Like Project RULISON, Project  RIO BLANCO was
    a  joint government-industry  test  designed  to
    stimulate natural  gas  flow  and was conducted
    under  the Plowshare  Program.  The  test was
    conducted on May 17, 1973,  at a location  between
                                            75

-------
                         Searcy
                         Ranch
             Grand Valley
              City Springs

                    ^"S^
        Grand Valley f^-fc- ^-f	•
                                  Potter Ranch
                         Sefcovic Ranch
                                  Hayward Ranch
                                     \
                                      \Battlement Creek
Gardner    CER
 Ranch   Test Well
                                           Spring
                                                                                N
                                                                   LOCATION MAP
           Surface Ground Zero

           Water Sampling Locations
                                           Scale in Miles

                                      0                 5
                                      0                 8

                                         Scale in Kilometers
                                                          GARFIELD
                                                          COUNTY
Figure 38. LTHMP sampling locations for Project RULISON - 1992.
                                             76

-------
 Rifle and Meeker, Colorado. Three explosives with
 a  total yield of 90 kt were emplaced at 1,780-,
 1,920-, and 2,040-m (5,838-, 6,229-, and 6,689-ft)
 depths  in the  Ft.   Union and Mesa  Verde
 formations. Production testing continued to 1,976;
 tritiated water produced during testing was injected
 to  1,710  m  (5,600  ft)  in a  nearby gas well.
 Cleanup and restoration activities were completed
 by November 1976.

 Samples were collected on June 10 and 11,1992.
 The sampling  sites, shown in Figure 40, include
 two  shallow  domestic water  supply  wells,  six
 surface water sites  along Fawn Creek,  three
 springs, and three monitoring wells located near
 the cavity. At least  two  of the monitoring wells
 (wells  RB-D-01  and  RB-D-03) are  suitable  for
 monitoring possible migration of radioactivity from
 the cavity. Tritium activity in  the three springs
 ranged from 49  to 57 pCi/L.   These values are
 <0.1 percent of the DCG (see Table C-5, Appendix
 C). A generally decreasing trend in tritium activity
 is  evident in the  three springs;  Figure 41 depicts
 tritium results from one of the springs.  Neither of
 the two shallow  domestic  wells located near the
RIO  BLANCO  site  yielded  detectable  tritium
activity.   All of the sampling sites along Fawn
Creek yielded tritium activities of approximately 25
pCi/L (range 21 to  29 pCi/L),  less than 0.04
percent  of  the  DCG.  There is no  statistically
significant  difference  between  sites   located
upstream and downstream of the cavity area.  The
three monitoring wells all yielded  no detectable
tritium activity, indicating that migration from the
test cavity has not yet been detected.  No gamma
activity was detected in any sample.

7.4.5 Project GNOME

Project GNOME, conducted on  December 10,
1961, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, was a multipur-
pose test conducted in a salt formation. A slightly-
more-than-3-kt nuclear explosive was emplaced at
a depth of 1,216 ft in the Salado salt formation.  Oil
and  gas  are produced from the geologic units
below the working  point.  The overlying Rustler
formation contains   three water-bearing zones:
brine located at the boundary of the Rustler and
Salado formations, the Culebra Dolomite which is
used for  domestic  and stock supplies,  and the
       500
       400
       300
      200
       100
                                                                            x  x   x
       14DEC70         05JUN76        26NOV81        19MAY87
                                   Sample Collection Dale

Figure 39.  Tritium trends in groundwater, Lee Hayward Ranch, Colorado.

                                             77
                               08NOV92

-------
                                                                                Johnson
                                                                              Artesian Wei
                                                                  awn Cr. No. 1
                      B-1 Equity
                        Camp
                                                                 Brennan
                                                                 Windmill
                                 Fawn Cr.8400'
                                  Downstream
                                              Fawn Cr.500' Downstreamfl
                                              RB-D-01 1
                                              RB-D-03 >3
                                              RB-S-03 J
    Fawn Cr.500
     Upstream
Fawn Cr. 6800'
  Upstream
                                           Fawn Cr. No. 3
                  Scale in Kilometers
                                     RIO BLANCO COUNTY
                                                                LOCATION MAP
           Surface Ground Zero
           Water Sampling Locations
                                                                         RIO BLANCO
                                                                          COUNTY
Figure 40.  LTHMP sampling locations for Project RIO BLANCO, Colorado.
                                           78

-------
   si
1401
130
120
110
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
                                                               x
                                                                        x
                                                                            x
           "^—1—i—r-r r i -i—r i—j1 i  i i i—r—T—i—i i j i—i  i i i i—i—r T-J r-i \  i i i1 i i  i j r i—i i  i i i i T |—i i i i  T i—i—i—

      05JUN76  02MAR79  26NOVB1  22AUG84  19MAY87   12FEB90   08NCM92

                                   Sample Collection Date

Figure 41.  Tritium results in water from CER No. 4, Rio Blanco, Colorado.
Magenta Dolomite  which is above  the zone  of
saturation (Chapman and  Hokett, 1991).   The
ground water flow  is generally to the west and
southwest.

Radioactive  gases  were  unexpectedly vented
during the test. In 1963, USGS conducted a tracer
study involving  injection of 20 Ci tritium, 10  Ci
137Cs, 10 Ci 90Sr, and  4 Ci  131I  in  the Culebra
Dolomite zone; wells USGS 4 and 8 were used for
this tracer study. During remediation activities in
1968-69, contaminated material was placed in the
test cavity and shaft up to within 7 ft of the surface.
More material was slurried into the cavity and drifts
in 1979.  There is a potential for discharge of this
slurry to the  Culebra Dolomite and to  Rustler-
Salado brine.  This potential may increase as the
salt around  the cavity will compress, forcing  con-
tamination upward and distorting and cracking the
concrete stem and grout.

Annual  sampling   at   Project   GNOME   was
completed between June 15 and  18, 1992.  The
routine  sampling sites,  depicted  in Figure 42,
                                         include nine monitoring wells in the vicinity  of
                                         surface GZ, the municipal supplies at Loving and
                                         Carlsbad,  New Mexico,  and  the  Pecos  River
                                         Pumping Station well. No detectable tritium activity
                                         was detected in the Carlsbad municipal supply or
                                         the Pecos River Pumping Station well.  A tritium
                                         activity of 8 ± 2 pCi/L was detected in the Loving
                                         municipal supply. An analysis by DRI (Chapman
                                         and Hokett, 1991)  indicates  that this sampling
                                         location, located on the opposite side of the Pecos
                                         River  from the  Project  GNOME   site, is  not
                                         connected hydrologically to the site and, therefore,
                                         cannot become contaminated by Project GNOME
                                         radionuclides except via surface pathways.

                                         Tritium results greater than the MDC were detected
                                         in  water samples from six  of the nine sampling
                                         locations in the immediate vicinity of GZ. Tritium
                                         activities  in wells DD-1, LRL-7,  USGS-4, and
                                         USGS-8 ranged from 11,700 ± 200 pCi/L in Well
                                         LRL-7 to 6.48 x 107 ± 3.2 x 105 pCi/L in Well  DD-1,
                                         which are 13 to 720 percent of the DCG.  Well DD-
                                         1 samples water in the test  cavity, Well  LRL-7
                                         samples a sidedrift, and wells USGS-4 and -8 were
                                            79

-------
             Carlsbad
    Carlsbad
    City    |
    Well 7
                                                   PHSWellQ

                                                           PHSWelMO
                     Loving City
                       Well 2
                              PHS Well 6 •


                                    • PHS Well 8
                                                      Pecos River
                                                      Pumping Station
                                                      WelM
             N
         Surface Ground Zero

         Water Sampling Locations
Scale in Miles

    5
                                0     5     10     15

                                   Scale in Kilometers
                                          EDDY
                                         COUNTY
                                  LOCATION MAP
Figure 42.  LTHMP sampling locations for Project GNOME - 1992.
                                            80

-------
used in the radionuclide tracer study conducted by
the  USGS.     In  addition  to  tritium,  137Cs
concentrations  ranging  from 69  ± 1  pCi/L  to
551,000 ± 25,600 pCi/L were observed in samples
from wells DD-1, LRL-7, and  USGS-8, while 90Sr
activity ranging from 5,140 ± 16 pCi/L to 13,000 ±
1,200 pCi/L was detected in wells  DD-1, USGS-4
and USGS-8. Samples from these four wells were
also analyzed for plutonium isotopes; results were
less than the MDC in all cases. The samples from
wells  DD-1,  LRL-7,   and  USGS-4   indicate
decreasing trends for all analyzed radionuclides.''
Although the tritium activity in the 1992 sample
from Well LRL-7 was greater than that observed in
the 1991  sample,  the overall historical trend is
decreasing, as shown in Figure  43.  An increase
was observed in 137Cs and 90Sr concentrations in
USGS-8; however, a decrease was observed in the
tritium  concentration in this well.

The remaining two wells  with detectable tritium
concentrations were PHS  wells 6  and 8, with
results of  37 ±  2 pCi/L  and  15 ±  2 pCi/L,
respectively (see Table C-6, Appendix C).  These
values are less than 0.05 percent of the DCG.  No
tritium  was detected  in the remaining Project
GNOME  samples, including Well USGS-1, which
the DRI  analysis (Chapman  and Hokett,  1991)
indicated is possibly positioned to detect migration
of radioactivity from the cavity, should it occur.

7.4.6 Project GASBUGGY

Project GASBUGGY was  a Plowshare  Program
test co-sponsored by the U.S.  Government and El
Paso  Natural  Gas  Co.    Conducted  near
Gobernador, New Mexico on December 10,  1967,
the  test  was  designed   to stimulate a low
productivity natural gas  reservoir.   A  nuclear
explosive with a 29-kt yield was emplaced at a
depth of  1,290  m (4,240 ft).  Production testing
was completed in 1976 and restoration  activities
were completed in July 1978.

The  principal  aquifers are the Ojo Alamo Sand-
stone,  an aquifer  containing  non-potable  water
located above  the test  cavity,  the San  Jose
formation and Nacimiento formation, both surficial
aquifers containing potable water. The flow regime
of the San Juan Basin is not well known, although
it is likely that the Ojo Alamo Sandstone discharg-
es to the San Juan River 50 miles northwest of the
GASBUGGY site.  Hydrologic  gradients in the
vicinity are downward, but upward gas migration is
possible (Chapman and Hokett, 1991).

The routine sampling locations include six wells,
one windmill, three springs, and two surface water
sites,  all  depicted in Figure 44.  Sampling  was
conducted April 14  through 16, 1992.   In prior
years, samples were collected in June; an earlier
trip was scheduled this year because of the tritium
increase seen in Well EPNG 10-36 and discussed
in  last year's Annual Site  Environmental Report
(Black et al; DOE91). Ten samples were collected.
Samples  were not  collected from Arnold  Ranch
due to a road washout nor from Well 28.3.33.233
(South) because the windmill was not operational.
The Old School House Well, first sampled in 1991,
was sealed  by the  State  of New Mexico, thus
ending plans to add this  station to the routine
sampling   directory.    The two  surface water
sampling  sites yielded tritium activities of 34 ± 3
pCi/L  and  70 + 3 pCi/L; a  comment  by the
sampling technician indicated the first-listed sample
was primarily rainwater.  These values are 0.04
and 0.08  percent of the DCG, respectively.  The
three springs yielded tritium activities ranging from
42 ± 2 pCi/L to 75 ± 3 pCi/L, which are less than
0.1 percent of the DCG and similar to the range
seen in previous years. Tritium activities  in three
shallow wells which were sampled this year varied
from less than the MDC to 19 ± 2 pCi/L, which is
0.02 percent of the  DCG.  Analytical  results are
presented in Table C-7, Appendix C.

Well EPNG 10-36, a gas well located 132 m (435
ft)  northwest of the test cavity with a sampling
depth  of  approximately 1,100 m (3,600  ft),  had
yielded tritium activities between  100 and  560
pCi/L  in each year since 1984, except  1987.  The
proximity  of the well to the test cavity suggests the
possibility that the activity increases may  indicate
migration  from  the test cavity.   The  sample
collected  in April yielded a tritium activity of 33 ± 2
pCi/L.  The  area had been experiencing heavy
rainfall in the weeks prior to and during sampling.
The sampling technician had noted that one of the
surface sampling sites, a  pond, was comprised
primarily of rainwater. The  tritium concentration in
that sample and in Well EPNG 10-36 are identical.
Further, the pH and conductivity measured in Well
EPNG 10-36 were similar to the values  obtained at
the surface sampling site and  markedly different
than measurements of pH  and  conductivity taken
in   Well   EPNG   10-36  in   previous   years.
Consequently it is suspected that the sample may
not be representative of formation water.
                                             81

-------
       40000
       30000

       20000
       10000
                                                                       XXX
         02MAR79    26NOV81     22ALIG84   19MAYB7    12FEB90     08NOV92
                                    Sample Collection Date
Figure 43.  Tritium results in water from Well LRL-7 near Project GNOME, New Mexico.
A second sample was collected from Well EPNG
10-36 on September  16, 1992.  Initial  results for
this sample indicated a concentration of 10.3 ± 2.6
pCi/L (MDC of approximately 7 pCi/L) of 137Cs
based on a 100-minute counting time. Presence of
137Cs was  confirmed by  a 1,000-minute count
which yielded results of 5.97 ± 0.85 pCi/L (MDC of
0.83 pCi/L) and a  longer 5-day count which
confirmed this concentration (with an MDC of 0.1
pCi/L). The tritium activity in this sample was 364
± 4 pCi/L.  No 238.239*»°pUi or «ogr was detected at
activities greater than  the MDC.

The  presence of  fission  products in samples
collected from EPNG 10-36 confirms that migration
from the Project GASBUGGY cavity is  occurring.
The  migration mechanism and route are not
currently  known, although an analysis by  DRI
indicated  two feasible routes, one through the
Painted Cliffs Sandstone and the other through the
Ojo Alamo Sandstone, one of the principal aquifers
in the region (Chapman, 1991).  In either case,
fractures extending from the  cavity may be the
primary or a contributing mechanism.
7.4.7 Project DRIBBLE

Project DRIBBLE comprised four explosive tests,
two nuclear and two gas, conducted in the Tatum
Salt  Dome area of  Mississippi under the Vela
Uniform  Program.    The  purpose of  Project
DRIBBLE was to study the effects of decoupling on
seismic signals produced by explosives tests.  The
first test, SALMON, was a nuclear device with a
yield of about 5 kt, detonated on October 22, 1964
at a depth of 826 m (2,710 ft). This test  created
the cavity used for the subsequent tests, including
STERLING, a nucleartest conducted on December
3, 1966 with a yield of about 380 tons, and the two
gas explosions, DIODE  TUBE, on  February 2,
1969 and HUMID WATER, on April 19, 1970.  The
ground surface and shallow ground water aquifers
were contaminated by disposal of drilling muds and
fluids   in   surface   pits.     The  radioactive
contamination  was   primarily  limited   to  the
unsaturated zone and upper, non-potable aquifers.
Shallow wells,  labeled HMH wells on Figure 45,
have been added to the area near surface GZ to
                                            82

-------
                                                                          To Dulce
                             Bixler Ranch
                                                     ™  Pond N. of
                                                     Well 30.3.32.343N
  To Blanco &
  Gobernador
                             Bubbling
                             Springs
                         EPNG Well 10-36
                   Cedar Springs •
              Cave Springs •
                                                La Jara Creek
                                                   Windmill 2
                                                                  Jicarilla Well 1
        Arnold Ranch I
                     Lower Burro
                       Canyon
                                                    D Well 28.3.33.233 (South)
                                                                     LOCATION MAP
         Surface Ground Zero
         Water Sampling Locations
         Not Sampled this year
     Scale in Miles
0                 5
0                 8
   Scale in Kilometers
  RIO
ARRIBA
COUNTY
Figure 44. LTHMP sampling locations for Project GASBUGGY - 1992.
                                             83

-------
 0
      Well HM-L2
      HMH-161
Decontamination
Pad
                                                HMH-12   \V
                                                HMH-5 \Creek
                                                       \
                                                      X
                                                       HM-
                                                                          Hunting Tatum
                                                          \ Half Moon      Club Well
                                                             "
                                                       HMH-10
                                                               *
                                                                   Half
                                                                   Moon
                                                                  -
                                                                AOverflow
                                                     HM-2Av«HMH-1
                                                     HM-3
                                                                 • HMH-11     !
                                                             |HMH-2«HMH-9/
                                                                                  \
                                                                                   \

                                                                                   t


                                                                                  \
                                                                                    «
                                                                                N
             I Well HT-2C
          Surface Ground Zero
          Water Sampling Locations
          Not Sampled This Year
                                            Scale in Feet
                                                1000
                                                           2000
                                                            MISSISSIPPI
                                      0  100  200  300 400 500
                                           Scale in Meters
                                                                                   LAMAR
                                                                                   COUNTY
                                                                            LOCATION MAP
Figure 45.  LTHMP sampling locations for Project DRIBBLE, near ground zero - 1992.
                                               84

-------
 monitor this  contamination.   In addition to the
 monitoring  wells  surrounding  GZ,  extensive
 sampling is conducted in the nearby offsite area.
 Most private  drinking water  supply  wells  are
 included, as shown in Figure 46.

 Sampling on and in the vicinity of the Tatum Salt
 Dome was conducted between April 26  and 29,
 1992.  A total of 109  samples were collected; five
 of these were from  new sampling locations in
 Lumberton,  Mississippi.   Six  routine sampling
 locations were not sampled.   One resident had
 moved  and the well is no longer in  operation;
 another resident was connected to city water and
 no longer uses the well for drinking water. These
 sampling locations have been eliminated from the
 routine sampling directory. The remaining samples
 not  taken  this year  were  unobtainable due  to
 inaccessibility of the sampling location because of
 local flooding, because the resident was not home,
 or because the well was dry.

 In the 50 samples collected from offsite sampling
 locations, tritium activities ranged from less than
 the MDC to 59 ± 5 pCi/L, equivalent to less than
 0.07 percent  of the DCG. These results do not
 exceed the natural  tritium activity  expected  in
 rainwater in the area.  In general, results for each
 location were similar to results obtained in previous
 years.   Long-term decreasing  trends in tritium
 concentrations are evident only for a few locations,
 such as the Baxterville  City  Well, depicted  in
 Figure 47.  Low levels of uranium isotopes were
 detected in four of the five new sampling locations,
 ranging from 0.038 to 0.14 pCi of 234U/L and 0.018
 to 0.12 pCi  of  238U/L.   These low levels are
 probably of natural origin.

 Due to the high rainfall in the area, the normal
 sampling procedure  is modified  for the  shallow
 onsite wells. Following collection of a first sample,
 the well is pumped for a set period of time or until
 dry and a second sample is collected the next day.
The  second  samples are thought to be  more
 representative of the formation water. Twenty-four
 locations in the vicinity of GZ were sampled using
this procedure; 19 of these yielded tritium activities
 greater than the MDC in either the first or second
sample. In addition, seven locations were sampled
 once;  five of  these  samples  yielded  tritium
concentrations greater than the  MDC.   Overall,
tritium activities ranged from less than the MDC to
 1.44 x 104  ±  200 pCi/L as shown in Table C-8,
Appendix C.   The locations where the  highest
tritium   activities  were   measured  generally
correspond to  areas  of known contamination.
Increases in tritium activity over previous years
were noted in REECo pits B and C and Well HMH-
10.  However, decreasing trends were noted for
the  wells  where  high  tritium  activities  have
historically  been  noted,  such  as  Well  HM-S
depicted in Figure 48. Results of sampling related
to Project DRIBBLE are discussed in greater detail
in Onsite and  Offsite Environmental Monitoring
Report: Radiation Monitoring around Tatum Salt
Dome, Lamar  County,  Mississippi,  April  1992
(Thome and Chaloud).

7.4.8 AMCHITKA ISLAND, ALASKA

Three nuclear weapons tests were conducted on
Amchitka Island in the Aleutian  Island  chain  of
Alaska.    Project  LONG  SHOT, conducted  on
October 29, 1965 was an 85-kt test under the Vela
Uniform Program, designed to investigate seismic
phenomena.   Project MILROW, conducted  on
October  2,  1969  was  an approximately  1-Mt
"calibration test" of the seismic and environmental
responses to the detonation of large-yield nuclear
explosives.  Project CANNIKIN, conducted  on
November 6, 1971 was a proof test of the Spartan
antiballistic missile warhead with less than a 5-Mt
yield.  Project  LONG SHOT resulted  in some
surface contamination, even though the chimney
did not extend to the surface.

Amchitka Island is composed of several hundred
feet  of permeable  tundra  overlying  tertiary  vol-
canics.  The ground water  system consists of a
freshwater lens floating on seawater; estimates of
the depth to the saline-freshwater interface range
from 3,900 to 5,250 ft  (Chapman and Hokett,
1991).  It is likely that any migration from the test
cavities would discharge to the nearest salt water
body, Project MILROW to the Pacific  Ocean and
Projects LONG SHOT and CANNIKIN to the Bering
Sea (Chapman and Hokett,  1991). The sampling
locations on Amchitka Island are shallow wells and
surface sampling sites. Therefore, the monitoring
network for Amchitka Island is restricted to monitor-
ing of surface contamination and drinking water
supplies.

Sampling on Amchitka Island, is conducted every
other year. No samples were collected in 1992.
The next sampling trip is scheduled for September
1993.
                                             85

-------
     B. Dennis
     M. Dennis
     Columbia City Little Creek #1 -
      Well64B  Lee Anderson -
    Hewle Gipson  Jjm Bibo -
         |  Yancy Saucier
                              Gil Ray's Crawfish Pond
       Herman Gipson _,

  Lower Little Creek #2
                                       . Thompson
                                       Willie Burge
                                         Joe Burge
                                            Salt Dome Timber Co.
                                 A!
                       Phil Gipson  Mills
                                Roy Mills
                     B. Chambliss R King -—
                          Anderson's Pond?
                             B.R.Anderson
  Howard
  Smith Pond
  E.J. Smith •
Sylvester Graham
       Lee L. Saul
P.T. Lee
 R.H. Anderson
   E. Cox
   W.H. Noble Jr
     G.W. Anderson
      Noble's Pond
                                                                                     Purvis City Well
                                                                                              ^
                                                                                              G. Ray
          D.
          Rushing
      Ray Hartfield
                                                              Powers and
                                                              Bond (2)
                                        Regina Anaerson
                                           .Andlrson, Jr.
                        Daniel's Fish
                        Pond Well #2
                Baxterville
                City Well
                                                                                       Lumberton
                                                                                       City Well 2
                                                                                              LAMAR
                                                                                             COUNTY
           Surface Ground Zero
           Water Sampling Locations
           Not Sampled This Year
                                      01234
                                        Scale in Kilometers
                                                                                      LOCATION MAP
Figure 46.  LTHMP sampling locations for Project DRIBBLE, towns and residences - 1992.
                                                        86

-------
         100
          90
          60
          70
          60
          50
          40
          30
          20
,1
                                                               I
                                                               x x
         14DEC70       05JUN76       26NOVB1       19MAY87       08NOV92
                                Sample Collection Date
Figure 47. Tritium result trends in Baxterville, MS public drinking water supply - 1992.
                          Tritiun vs Normal Tritium Decay
         40000
         30000
         20000
         10000
             0
                                                       X   X   X   X
           02MAR79   26NOV81   22AUG84   19MAYB7   12FEB90   08NOV92
                                 Sample Collection Date
Figure 48. Tritium results in Well HM-S, Tatum Salt Dome, Project DRIBBLE.
                                       87

-------
 7.5  Summary

 None of the domestic water supplies monitored in
 the LTHMP in 1992 yielded tritium activities of any
 health concern.  The greatest tritium activity mea-
 sured in any water body which has potential to be
 a drinking water supply was less than one percent
 of the limit prescribed by the NPDWRs. In general,
 surface water and spring samples yielded tritium
 activities greater than those observed in shallow
 domestic wells in the same area. This is probably
 due to scavenging  of atmospheric tritium by
 precipitation.   Where  suitable  monitoring wells
 exist, there were no indications that migration from
 any test cavity is affecting  any domestic water
 supply.

 In most cases, monitoring wells also yielded no
 radionuclide activity above the MDC.  Exceptions
 include wells  into  test  cavities,  wells monitoring
 known areas of contamination,  and one well  at
 Project  GASBUGGY.      Known   areas   of
 contamination exist at Project GNOME where the
USGS conducted a tracer study experiment, some
areas onsite at Project  DRIBBLE,  and  a few
surface  areas near Project LONG SHOT.  The
1992  results  for  these  monitoring  wells are
consistent with  decreasing trends observed over
time.   Monitoring  well EPNG 10-36 at Project
GASBUGGY was  a notable  exception to wells
showing decreasing trends. This well is a former
gas well located 435 feet northwest of SGZ.  The
sampling depth  of this well  is approximately 3,600
ft  in  the  Ojo  Alamo  Sandstone,  an  aquifer
containing nonpotable water. The tritium activity in
1992 was 10.3 ± 2.6 pCi/L and in 1991 was 484 ±
4  pCi/L,  approximately 10 times  the  historic
background activity. An increase in tritium activity
was first observed in 1984, seventeen years after
the test was conducted. In every year since then,
with the exception of 1987, tritium activities have
been  between  100 and  560  pCi/L,  with wide
variability sometimes noted between consecutive
years. The proximity of the well to the test cavity
suggests the possibility that the increased activity
may be indicative of migration from the test cavity.
                                           NOTES
1.  The NPDWR states that the sum of all beta/gamma emitter concentrations in drinking water cannot
lead to a dose exceeding 4 mrem/year, assuming a person were to drink two L per day for a year (40
CFR 141).  Assuming tritium to be the only radioactive contaminant yields a maximum allowable
concentration of 20,000 pCi/L.

2.  The NPDWR applies only to public systems with at least 15 hookups or 25 users.  Although many of
the drinking water supplies monitored in the LTHMP serve fewer users and are therefore exempt, the
regulations provide a frame of reference for any observed radionuclide activity.

3.  The derived concentration guide (DCG) used in this report  is 90,000 pCi/L of tritium in water.  This
DCG is taken from DOE Order 5400.5 (DOE, 1990), which is based on the annual limit on intake given
in ICRP-30 (ICRP,  1979) for a maximum dose of 4 mrem/year for ingestion of beta/gamma emitters in
water, assuming consumption of two L of water per day and assuming tritium to be the only radioactive
contaminant.  The current U.S. standard given in the National  Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40
CFR 141), although based  on the same maximum dose and assumptions, specifically limits tritium to
20,000 pCi/L in drinking water.  A revision of the standard has been proposed which will, when
enacted, raise the permissible tritium concentration to 63,000 pCi/L in  U.S. drinking water.

4.  137Cs was below the MDC in the 1992 sample from Well USGS-4.
                                             88

-------
 8.  Dose Assessment
 Four pathways of possible radiation exposure to
 the population of Nevada were monitored by EPA's
 offsite  monitoring networks during 1992. The four
 pathways were:

     •   Background radiation due to natural sourc-
        es such as cosmic radiation, natural radio-
        activity in soil, and 7Be in air.

     •   Worldwide distributions  of radioactivity,
        such as 90Sr in milk, 85Kr in air, and plu-
        tonium in soil.

     •   Operational  releases of radioactivity from
        the  NTS, including those  from drillback
        and purging activities.

     •   Radioactivity accumulated  in migratory
        game animals during their residence on
        the NTS.

 8.1   Estimated Dose  From
       Nevada  Test Site Activity
       Data

 The potential Committed Effective Dose Equivalent
 (CEDE) to  the offsite population due to NTS
 activities is estimated annually. Two methods are
 used to calculate the CEDE to a resident of the
 community potentially most impacted by airborne
 releases of radioactivity from the  NTS.  In the first
 method,  effluent   release   estimates  and
 meteorological data are used as inputs to EPA's
 CAP88-PC model. The second method uses data
 from the ORSP with documented assumptions and
 conversion factors to calculate the CEDE.  Both
 methods provide an estimate of the  CEDE to a
 hypothetical  person who would have to have been
 continuously present in one outdoor location.  In
addition, a collective CEDE is calculated  by the
 first method for the total offsite population residing
 within 80 km (50 mi)  of the NTS.  Background
 radiation measurements  are used to provide a
 comparison  with  the  calculated  CEDEs.   In the
absence of detectable releases of  radiation from
the  NTS,   the  PIC  Network   provides  a
 measurement of background gamma radiation in
the offsite area.
The extensive offsite environmental surveillance
system  operated around  the  NTS  by  EPA
EMSL-LV measured no radiation exposures that
could be attributed to recent NTS operations. The
Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) to
offsite residents, based on onsite source emission
measurements provided by DOE and calculated by
EPA's CAP88-PC model, was 0.012 mrem (1.2 x
10"* mSv) to a  hypothetical  resident of  Indian
Springs, Nevada 54  km (32 mi) southeast of the
NTS CP-I.  Pressurized ion chamber data indicated
a 1992 dose of 78 mrem from normal background
radiation  occurring  in  Indian  Springs.    The
calculated dose to this individual from world-wide
distributions  of radioactivity as measured from
surveillance  networks  was 0.088  mrem.   The
calculated  population dose  (collective effective
dose  equivalent)  to  the  approximately  21,750
residents living within 80 km (50 mi) from each of
the  NTS airborne emission  sources was 0.029
person-rem (2.9 x 10"4 person-Sv).  An additional
CEDE of 0.015 mrem would be received if the liver
and all of the 45 kg (100 Ib) of meat from a deer
collected on the NTS were consumed. All of these
maximum dose estimates are about one percent of
the most restrictive standard.

Onsite   source  emission  measurements,   as
provided by DOE, are listed  in Table  18 and
include  tritium,  radioactive  noble  gases, and
radioiodine. These are estimates of releases made
at the point of origin. Meteorological data collected
by the Weather  Service  Nuclear Support  Office
(WSNSO)  were  used  to  construct wind  roses,
indicating the prevailing  winds  for the following
areas:  Desert Rock, Area 12, Area 20, Yucca Flat,
and RWMS in Area 5.  A calculation of estimated
dose from NTS  effluents was  performed using
EPA's  CAP88-PC  model (EPA   1992).   The
population  living within a  radius of 80 km  (50 mi)
from each of the sources was estimated to  be
21,750 individuals, based on  1991 DOC.  The
collective population dose within 80 km (50 mi)
from the airborne emission  sources was 0.029
person-rem  (2.9  x  10'4  person-Sv).    Activity
concentrations in air  that would  cause these
calculated doses are too  small to be detected by
the  offsite  monitoring  network.    Table   19
summarizes the annual contributions to the CEDEs
resulting from 1992 NTS operations as calculated
using CAP88-PC.
                                             89

-------
 Table 18.   NTS Radionuclide Emissions 1992

 Airborne Effluent Releases

 Event or Facility                                          Curies'"'
 Name (Airborne
 Releases)         3H     37Ar      ^Ar    "W       127Xe     129mXe    131mXe     133Xe      131I

 Area 3,
  DIVIDER                                                                        1.1x10''
 Area 3
-------
Table 19. Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations during 1992
Dose
Location
NESHAP(C)
  Standard

Percentage
  of NESHAP

Background
Percentage of
  Background
Maximum EDE at
NTS Boundary'3'

1.7 x 10~2 mrem
(1.7x 1Cr4mSv)

Site boundary 60 km
SSE of NTS Area 12

10 mrem per year
(0.1 mSv per yr)
0.17

78 mrem
(0.78 mSv)
2.2 x 10'2
Maximum EDE to
an Individual"11

1.2 ±0.1 x 10'2 mrem
(1.2x 10'4mSv)

Indian Springs, NV, 80 km
SSE  of NTS Area 12

10 mrem per year
(0.1 mSv per yr)
0.12

78 mrem
(0.78 mSv)
1.5 x 1CT
Collective EDE to
Population within 80 km
of the NTS Sources

 2.9 x 10"2 person-rem
(2.9 x 10"4 person-Sv)

21,700 people within
80 km of NTS sources
not applicable
not applicable

1660 person-rem
(16.6 person-Sv)
1.6x 10"
(a)       The maximum boundary dose is to a hypothetical individual who remains in the open continuously during
         the year at the NTS boundary located 60 km SSE from the Area 12 tunnel ponds.

(b)       The maximum individual dose is to a person outside the NTS boundary at a residence where the highest
         dose-rate occurs as calculated by CAP88-PC (Version 1.0) using NTS effluents listed in Table 18 and
         assuming all tritiated water input to the Area 12 containment ponds was evaporated.

(c)       National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
Input data  for  the  CAP88-PC model  include
meteorological data from  WSNSO  and  effluent
release data reported by  DOE.   The  effluent
release data are  estimates and the meteorological
data are mesoscale; i.e., representative of an area
approximately 40 km (25 mi) or less around  the
point of  collection.   However,  these data  are
considered sufficient  for model input, primarily
because  the model itself  is not  designed  for
complex terrain such as that on and around  the
NTS. Errors introduced by the use of the effluent
and meteorological data are small compared to the
errors inherent in the model.  Results obtained by
using the  CAP88-PC model are considered only
estimates of the dose to offsite residents although
these results are consistent with the data obtained
by offsite monitoring.
                             8.2  Estimated  Dose From
                                   ORSP  Monitoring Network
                                   Data

                             Potential CEDEs  to individuals may be estimated
                             from the  concentrations measured by the EPA
                             monitoring   networks  during   1992.      The
                             concentrations  of radioactivity detected  by the
                             networks and used in the calculation of potential
                             CEDEs are  shown  in  Table 20.  Animal  and
                             vegetable   data   are   based   on   maximum
                             concentration in all areas regardless of sampling
                             location. In most  cases, the analysis results used
                             in the dose calculations are near the MDC of the
                             analysis.   Precision and accuracy data quality
                             objectives  (DQOs)  are  less stringent  for values
                             near the MDG;  consequently,  confidence intervals
                             around the input data are broad.
                                              91

-------
Table 20. Monitoring Networks

Medium      Radionuclide

Animals

Beef Liver       238Pu


Deer Muscle  »»*»°pu

Deer Liver    a»*««pu

Milk             90Sr

                  3H

Water             3H



Vegetables

Broccoli          90Sr

Carrots       239+240Pu
(with tops)
Air
                 85'
 (Moisture)
Kr
                  3H
3H
                             Data used in Dose Calculations

                                Concentration           Comment
                               1.01 x 1CT4pCi/g
                               1.97X 10'4pCi/g
                               8.69 x lO

                               6.73 x 10'4pCi/g

                              6.5 x 1Q-7uCi/mL

                              1.53x 10-7uCi/mL

                              3.95x10-8uCi/mL
 9.00 x lO

 3.50 x 1Q-5pCi/g


3.03 x10'11 uCi/mL


9.49 x 10'12uCi/mL


1.5x 10-12uCi/mL
                                 Concentrations are the maximum
                                 concentrations observed for each animal tissue
                                 type, corrected to wet weight.
                                 Concentration is the average of all
                                 milk surveillance network results.
                                 Average concentration of all results
                                 above MDC for sampling locations in
                                 the vicinity of the NTS.
                                                   Concentrations  are maximum observed  for
                                                   each sample type, corrected to wet
                                                   weight.
                                                   Maximum  concentration  for  the  sampling
                                                   location in Indian Springs, Nevada.

                                                   Maximum concentration for the sampling
                                                   location in Las Vegas, Nevada.

                                                   Maximum concentration for the sampling
                                                   location in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The  concentrations  given  in  Table  20  are
expressed in terms of activity per unit volume or
mass.  These concentrations are converted to a
dose  by  using  the assumptions  and  dose
conversion factors  described below.   The dose
conversion factors assume continuous presence at
a fixed location and no loss of radioactivity in meat
and vegetables through storage and cooking.

    •  Adult respiration rate = 8,400 m3/yr (2.3 x
       104L/day [ICRP 1975]).

    •  Milk intake for a 10-year old  child = 450
       mL/day (ICRP 1975).
                                  •  Consumption of beef liver = 11.5 kg/yr.

                                  •  An average deer has 45 kg of  meat.

                                  •  Water  consumption for  adult-reference
                                     man = 2  L/day  (approximately  1,900
                                     mL/day [ICRP  1975]).

                                  •  Fresh  vegetable consumption for North
                                     America  =  516  g/day  (ICRP  1975),
                                     assuming a four-month growing season.

                              The CEDE conversion factors are derived  from
                              EPA-520/1-88-020 (Federal Guidance Report No.
                                             92

-------
11). Those used here are:

     •  3H:   6.4 x 10~2 mrem/u.Ci (ingestion or
        inhalation).
        90,
         'Sr:  1.4 x 102 mrem/uCi (ingestion).
     •  85Kr:  1.5 x 107 mrem/yr/u.Ci/mL
        (submersion).

     ,  238,239+240p...
        3.7 x 10"4 mrem/pCi (ingestion).
        3.1 x 10"1 mrem/pCi (inhalation).

The algorithm for the dose calculation is:

(concentration) x (assumption in volume/unit time)
x (CEDE conversion factors) = CEDE

In calculating the inhalation CEDE from 3H, the
value is  increased by 50 percent  to account for
absorption through the skin.  Dose calculations
from the ORSP data are given in Table 21, except
for the dose  from consumption of a mule deer
collected on the NTS.  The individual CEDEs from
the various pathways added together give a total of
3.0 mrem/yr. The additional dose from ingestion of
deer  meat  and  liver containing  the  239+240pu
activities given in Table 20 would be:

{[(8.69 x  10'4 pCi/g) x (4.5 x 104 g)] + [(6.73 x 104
pCi/g) x (280  g)]} x (3.7 x W4 mrem/pCi) = 1.5 x
10"2 mrem

The weight of the liver (280  g) used in the above
equation is the median weight of the livers from the
three mule deer obtained in 1992.

Total CEDEs can be calculated based on different
combinations  of data.   If  an  individual  were
interested in  just  one area,  for  example, the
concentrations from those stations  closest to that
area could be substituted into the equation.

8.3   Dose  from Background
       Radiation

In addition to external radiation exposure due to
cosmic rays and gamma  radiation from naturally
occurring radionuclides in soil  (e.g., 40K, uranium
and thorium daughters), there is a contribution from
7Be that is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic ray
interactions with oxygen and nitrogen. The annual
average 7Be concentration measured by the offsite
surveillance network was 2.91 x 10~13u.Ci/ml_. With
a dose conversion factor for inhalation of 3.2 x 101
mrem/fiCi, this equates to a dose of 7.82 x 10"4
mrem.   This  is  a  negligible  quantity  when
compared with  the PIC Network measurements
that vary from 53 to 169 mR/year, depending on
location.

8.4  Summary

The extensive offsite environmental surveillance
system operated around the NTS by  EMSL-LV
measured no radiological exposures that could be
attributed to recent NTS operations.  Calculation
with the CAP88-PC model resulted in a maximum
inhalation dose of 0.012 mrem (1.2 x 10~4 mSv) to
a hypothetical resident of Indian Springs, Nevada
54 km (32 mi) southeast of the NTS CP-I.  If this
individual were to additionally collect and consume
an NTS deer  such as the one discussed above,
the estimated CEDE  would  increase by  another
1.96 x 10"4 mrem to a total possible  CEDE of
slightly over .027  mrem.  All of these  maximum
dose estimates  are less than 0.1 percent of the
ICRP  recommendation  that an  annual effective
dose equivalent for the general public not exceed
100  mrem/yr  (ICRP  1985).    The  calculated
population dose (collective  committed  effective
dose  equivalent)  to  the approximately  21,750
residents living within 80 km (50 mi) of each of the
NTS  airborne  emission sources was  0.029
person-rem (2.9 x 10~4 person-Sievert).

Data from the PIC Network indicated a 1992 dose
of 78 mrem from gamma radiation occurring in
Indian Springs.  This gamma background value is
derived from an average PIC field measurement of
8.7 uR/hr.  The 0.067 mrem CEDE calculated from
the monitoring  networks discussed above is  a
negligible amount by comparison.

The   uncertainty  (percent  relative   standard
deviation)  for the PIC  measurement  at  the 78
mrem exposure level is approximately 3.1 percent.
Extrapolating to the calculated annual exposure at
Indian Springs, Nevada yields a total uncertainty of
approximately 2.3 mrem. Because the estimated
dose from NTS activities is much less than 1 mrem
(the lowest level for which DQOs are defined, as
given  in Section 11), no conclusions can be  made
regarding the  achieved  data quality as  compared
to the DQO for this insignificant dose.
                                             93

-------
 Table 21. Dose Calculations from Monitoring Network Data
 Medium
 Milk
 Route of
Exposure
                 Ingestion
Radionuclide
                                 90.
                  'Sr
                                   3H
TOTAL FROM MILK CONSUMPTION
 Foodstuffs
 Beef Liver
Ingestion
               238
     Pu
                             239+240
                                  Pu
Broccoli'3'
Carrots(a)
Ingestion
Ingestion
                                 90,
     Sr
                             239+240
     Pu
TOTAL FROM FOODSTUFFS

Air
                Submersion



TOTAL FROM AIR

TOTAL
                85
                 Kr
       Calculation
 Dose (CEDE)
 (mrem/yr)
                (2.29 x 10'9 u,Ci/mL) x (450 mL/day)
                x (365 days/yr) x
                (1.4 x 102 mrem/nCi)           5.27 x 1O'2

                (4.76 x 10'7 uCi/mL) x (450 mL/day)
                x (365 days/yr) x
                (6.4 x 10"2 mrem/uCi)
(1.01 x 10'4pCi/g)
x(11.5x103g/yr)
x (3.7 x 10'4mrem/pCi)

(1.97x10'4pCi/g)
x(11.5x103g/yr)
x (3.7 x 10'4mrem/pCi)
(9.00 x lO
x (516 g/day) x (120 days/yr)
x(1.4x 10^mrem/pCi)

(3.50x10'5pCi/g)
x (516 g/day) x (120 days/yr)
x (3.7 x 10'4mrem/pCi)
               (3.09 x 1Q-11 u.Ci/mL)
               x (1.5x 107 mrem/yr
                per uCi/mL)
5.00 x10'3

5.77 x 10 2 mrem/yr




4.3 x 10"*



1.13x 10'4
7.8 x 10-2



7.1 x 10-4

2.372 x 10~1 mrem/yr




4.63 x 10'4

4.63 x 10'4 mrem/yr

2.95 x 10"1 mrem/yr
(a)    The assumption for total vegetable consumption (516 g/day) is used in the equations for both broccoli
     'and carrots.  Only broccoli is included in the total for foodstuffs. One hundred twenty days was used
     for consumption based on four 30-day months.
                                            94

-------
9.0   Weapons Test and Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spills
        Facility Support
The  EPA  participates  in the execution of every
nuclear test conducted at the NTS.  For each test,
the EPA performs a pre-test census of the offsite
area population and is  prepared to take protective
actions in the event they are necessary. The EPA
also provides offsite safety monitoring in support of
chemical spill  tests conducted  at  the Liquified
Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility (LGFSTF) on the
NTS.

9.1    Weapons Tests Support

Two  days  before each  nuclear test, mobile teams
of radiation monitoring  technicians are dispatched
to the counties  surrounding the NTS.    These
technicians perform a census of the offsite areas to
determine  the locations and numbers of residents,
work  crews, and domestic animal  herds.  This
information would be essential to providing protec-
tive actions in the event of a radiation release from
a test.  Additionally, the technicians monitor the
seasonal population such as  hunters, campers,
and shepherds to  ensure that they too  can be
notified if necessary. After the census is complet-
ed, the information is presented by the EPA to the
Test  Controller's  Science Advisory Panel.

Senior EPA personnel serve as members of the
Test Controller's Science Advisory Panel to  provide
advice on possible  public  and environmental
impact of  each  test and on feasible protective
actions  if  an accidental release of radioactivity
should occur.

At the time of each test, approximately 20 radiation
monitoring technicians  are positioned in the areas
downwind  of the test. Each technician is equipped
with  a variety of  radiation survey instruments,
dosimeters, portable air samplers, and supplies for
collecting environmental samples. The technicians
are in constant  radio  contact with CP-1  which
enables them to provide monitoring information and
to receive operational  instructions from the EPA
staff.  In the unlikely occurrence of a release of
radioactivity, the technicians are prepared to initiate
all manner of protective actions to ensure the
health and safety of people in the  offsite areas.
They  are also prepared to conduct a radiological
monitoring and sampling program to document the
radiation levels in the environment.  The radiologi-
cal safety criteria, or protective action guides, used
by the EPA are based on those specified in NVO-
176 (EPA, 1991 a).

If an  underground nuclear test is expected to
cause  detectable ground  motion  offsite,  EPA
monitoring technicians are  stationed at locations
where hazardous situations might occur, such as
underground mines. At these locations, occupants
are  notified of potential hazards so they can take
precautionary measures.  Miners, for example, are
brought above ground before such a test.

Remedial actions that  EPA could recommend or
implement to reduce exposures include: evacua-
tion, shelter, access  control, livestock feeding
practices control, milk control, and food and water
control.   Which  action would be appropriate de-
pends largely upon the type of accident and the
magnitude of the projected exposures and doses,
the  response time available for  carrying out the
action, and  local  constraints  associated with a
specific site.

An important factor affecting the effectiveness of
the  remedial actions  is the degree of  credibility
EPA personnel  maintain with offsite residents.
Credibility is created  and maintained  by routine
personal contacts made with local officials and law
enforcement personnel as well as with the ranch-
ers, miners, and others living in  the offsite areas
close to the NTS.

To determine the feasible remedial actions for an
area, EPA uses its best judgment based on experi-
ence gained during atmospheric tests  and from
those tests conducted in the 1960s that contami-
nated offsite areas.  No remedial  actions  have
been  necessary since 1970.  However, through
routine contact with offsite residents and through
continuing  population  and  road surveys,  EPA
maintains a sense of the degree to which it could
implement remedial actions and the kind of cooper-
ation  that  would  be  provided  by  officials  and
residents of the  area.
                                             95

-------
During 1992, EMSL-LV personnel were deployed
for all nuclear tests conducted at the NTS, none of
which released radioactivity that could be detected
offsite.

9.2   Liquefied Gaseous
       Fuels  Spills  Test  Facility
       Support

The  EPA provides  offsite  safety  monitoring in
support of chemical spill  tests conducted at the
LGFSTF.  This  is one of  the few non-nuclear
related activities conducted at the NTS. A scientist
from the EPA is a member of the Spill Test Adviso-
ry Panel for each test. For each test, the EPA also
conducts monitoring in the downwind direction at
the boundary of the NTS.

Prior to the  initial test of any given series and
during  operational trials, an EPA  technician  in-
spects the unmaintained jeep-trail routes to the
predetermined sampling location to assure ready
access. Since each test is contingent on compati-
ble technical and weather  conditions, including
wind direction and speed,  the  technician remains
at the Test Facility Control Center until the
Advisory Panel authorizes initiation  of the test.
The EPA  Advisory  Panel representative then
dispatches the technician to the sampling location,
as close as accessible to the downwind trajectory.
When the spill test is in progress, the EPA repre-
sentative, in coordination with the Advisory Panel
meteorologist, determines the travel time of gases
from the spill to the sampling location of the moni-
tor. The EPA representative then gives the techni-
cian specific clock time(s) to collect gas samples.

Samples are collected using a Model 31 Draeger
hand pump into which is inserted a Draeger tube
for the types of chemical gases to be detected.
The  technician remains at  the sampling location
until the Advisory Panel determines that further
offsite monitoring  is no  longer required for that
day's testing.
                                            96

-------
 10.    Public Information and
         Community  Assistance Programs
In addition to its many monitoring and data anal-
ysis activities, the EMSL-LV conducts a compre-
hensive program designed to provide information
and assistance to individual citizens, organizations,
and local government agencies in communities
near the NTS. Activities in 1992 included participa-
tion in  public hearings,  "town hall" meetings,
continued support of the Community  Radiation
Monitoring  Program (CRMP), and a variety of
tours, lectures, and presentations.

10.1   Community Radiation
         Monitoring Program

Beginning in 1981, DOE and EPA established a
network of CRMP stations in  the offsite  areas to
perform radiological sampling and monitoring, to
increase public awareness, and to disseminate the
results of radiation  monitoring activities to the
public.  These  stations continued operation in
1992.  The DOE, through an interagency agree-
ment with EPA, sponsors the program.  The EPA
provides  technical and scientific direction, main-
tains the instrumentation and sampling equipment,
analyzes the collected samples, and interprets and
reports the data. The DRI administers the program
by hiring the local station managers and alternates,
securing  rights-of-way and utility meters, and by
providing QA checks of the data. The University of
Utah provides in-depth training for station manag-
ers and alternates twice a year on issues related to
nuclear science, radiological health, and  radiation
monitoring.   In each community, EPA and  DRI
work with civic leaders to select and hire a local
manager and an alternate.  Whenever possible,
they choose residents with some scientific training,
such as a high school or university science teach-
er.

All of the 19 CRMP stations contain one each of
the samplers for the air, noble gas, and tritium
networks discussed in the previous chapters. Each
station also  contains  a TLD  and  a PIC with  a
recorder for immediate readout of external gamma
exposure, and a recording barograph. The stand-
by samplers are routinely activated for one week
each quarter to assure proper operation.  Sample
collection can be initiated at any time by notifying
the station manager or alternate or by EMSL-LV
personnel.

All the equipment is  mounted on a  stand at a
prominent location  in  each community  so the
residents are aware of the surveillance and, if
interested, can have ready access to the PIC and
barometric data.   The  locations of  the CRMP
stations are shown  in  Figure 12, Section 3.  The
data from these stations were discussed in  Sect-
ions 3 and 4.

Computer-generated reports for each  station are
issued weekly. These reports indicate the current
weekly average  gamma exposure rate as  mea-
sured by the PICs,  the average for the previous
week, and the average for the previous year. For
comparison these reports also show the maximum
and  minimum background concentrations  in the
U.S. These reports  are distributed to each CRMP
station for public display.

10.2   Town Hall Meetings

These  meetings provide an opportunity  for the
public to meet directly with EPA, DOE, and DRI
personnel, ask questions, and express their con-
cerns regarding nuclear testing.  During a typical
meeting, the procedures used and the  safeguards
in place during every  nuclear test are described.
The EPA's radiological monitoring and surveillance
networks are  explained and the  proposed High
Level Waste  Repository at Yucca Mountain  is
discussed.

In the fall of 1990 the focus of this outreach pro-
gram was changed.  Rather than a single subject
presented at general town hall meetings, audienc-
es from schools, service clubs, and civic groups
from the various communities were targeted and
offered presentations on many different subjects.

Table 22 lists the outreach presentations conduct-
ed in 1992.   A list of  presentation  subjects  is
provided in Table 23.

The CRMP outreach program is managed by Mr.
Nate Cooper .of DRI.  All inquiries regarding the
outreach  program and presentations  should be
directed to Mr. Cooper at (702)  895-0461.  An
                                            97

-------
 annual report on the CRMP and outreach program-
 is published by the DRI under the name "Commu-
 nity Radiation Monitoring Program Annual Report
                                      for PIT" 19xx," with a report number such as DOE/-
                                      NV-10845-xx, which may be obtained from either
                                      DRI or DOE/NV.
 Table 22. Community Radiation Monitoring Program Outreach Presentations -1992
 Date
Location
 02/12    Adaven, NV

 02/24    Tonopah, NV


 02/25    Tonopah, NV


 04/07    Panaca, NV


 04/20    Tonopah, NV

 04/24    Tonopah, NV


 05/02    Beatty, NV
06/01    Coal Valley, NV

06/09    Tonopah, NV


07/14    Tonopah, NV

09/16    Indian Springs, NV


10/12    Cedar City, UT


10/13    Cedar City, UT


10/13    Cedar City, UT


11/16    Tonopah, NV

12/15    Parowan, UT


12/16    Cedar City, UT

12/16    Cedar City, UT
        Audience
        Subject
NTS Deer Migration Study
                 Uhalde Ranch County
                 School
                                           Consumer Electronic Product
                 Alpha  Sigma Phi            Radiation
                 (women's college sorority)
                                           Downwind Radiation and Sheep
                 Tonopah Junior High School  Kill
                 Lincoln County Middle and
                 High Schools

                 Tonopah Rotary Club

                 Tonopah Elementary and
                 High Schools

                 Beatty High School
                Complex I Residents

                Tonopah Rotary Club


                Tonopah Rotary Club
                          NTS Deer Migration Study


                          NTS Archaeology

                          ABC's of Radiation


                          NTS Archaeology; Archaeology
                          in Egypt; Career Opportunities
                          in Archaeology, Geology, and
                          Hydrology; NASA's astronaut
                          program

                          NTS Deer Migration Study

                          Joint Verification Experiment


                          NTS Deer Migration Study

                          Current Events and the NTS
Attendance
    21

    16
                                104


                                 75


                                 20

                                 87


                                125
                Indian Springs High School
                Government Class
                                          Consumer Electronic Product
                American Legion and Auxil-  Radiation
                iary
                                          Consumer Electronic Product
                                          Radiation
Cedar City High School


Women in Business


Tonopah Rotary Club

Parowan High School


Cedar City High School

Cedar City Exchange Club
                                          Consumer Electronic Product
                                          Radiation

                                          NTS Hydrology

                                          NTS Deer Migration Study


                                          NTS Deer Migration Study

                                          NTS Deer Migration Study
                                  6

                                 19


                                 16

                                 35


                                 19


                                122


                                 30


                                 19

                                 96


                                 78

                                 16
                                                                      Attendance Total 904
                                             98

-------
Table 23. Community Radiation Monitoring Program Presentation Topics

  1.   ABC's of Radiation. Radiation explained in understandable terms; when it is dangerous and when it
      is not.

  2.   Testing Nuclear Weapons. How nuclear weapons are tested (safely) on the NTS.

  3.   Joint Verification Experiments.  Interaction with the USSR during exchange of weapons tests at the
      NTS and the USSR.

  4.   Downwind Radiation Exposures and Legislation.  The different studies that have been done to
      calculate the radiation exposures to people who were living in the downwind area during atmospheric
      testing.

  5.   Otfsite Radiation Monitoring and the Community Monitoring Program.  The offsite monitoring
      program which is performed by the EPA in areas and communities surrounding the NTS.  The
      Community Radiation Monitoring Program details how science teachers and local residents in
      Nevada, California, and Utah have been and are involved in understanding activities on the NTS.

  6.   Hiroshima-Nagasaki Experience. Predicted radiation affects based on the Hiroshima-Nagasaki
      data.

  7.   Environmental Restoration. Current environmental restoration programs on the NTS and those
      planned for the future.

  8.   Onsite Environmental  Monitoring.  The NTS onsite environmental monitoring program.

  9.   Consumer Electronic Product Radiation. Risks and benefits of safe usage of common household
      electronic products.

 10.   NTS Archaeology.  Prehistory and cultural resources of the southern Great Basin and NTS.

 11.   NTS Hydrology. Groundwater flow studies and subsurface contamination on the NTS and surround-
      ing areas.

 12.   Surficial Radioactive Contamination.  Occurrence of radioactive contamination on the NTS and
      surrounding area as a result of weapons testing.

 13.   NTS Deer Migration Study.  Seven-year deer tagging study to understand migration patterns.

 14.   Low Level Waste. A description of how low level waste is managed and controlled at the Low Level
      Waste Management Site on the NTS.

 15.   Emergency Response Training. The training program for Nevada policemen and firemen who are
      first-on-the-scene accident responders.
                                               99

-------
 11   Quality Assurance
 11.1   Policy

 One of the major goals of the EPA is to ensure
 that all agency decisions which are dependent on
 environmental data are  supported by  data of
 known quality.   Agency policy initiated by the
 Administrator in memoranda of May 30, 1979, and
 June  14, 1979, requires participation in a centrally
 managed QA Program by all EPA Laboratories,
 Program  Offices,  Regional  Offices,  and those
 monitoring and measurement efforts supported or
 mandated through contracts, regulations, or other
 formalized agreements.   Further, by EPA Order
 5360.1, Agency policy requires participation in a
 QA Program by all EPA organizational  units in-
 volved in environmental data collection.

 The QA policies and requirements of EPA's EMSL-
 LV are  summarized in the Quality  Assurance
 Program Plan (EPA, 1987).  Policies and require-
 ments specific to the ORSP are documented in the
 Quality Assurance  Program Plan for the Nuclear
 Radiation Assessment Division Offsite Radiation
 Safety Program (EPA, 1992). The requirements of
 these documents establish a framework for consis-
 tency in the continuing application of quality assur-
 ance standards  and procedures in support of the
 ORSP. Administrative and technical procedures
 based on these QA requirements are maintained in
 appropriate manuals or are described in SOPs.  It
 is NRD policy that personnel adhere to the require-
 ments of the QA Plan and all SOPs applicable to
 their duties to ensure that all environmental radia-
 tion monitoring data collected by the EMSL-LV in
 support of the ORSP are of adequate quality and
 properly documented for use by the DOE, EPA,
 and other interested parties.

 11.2  Data Quality Objectives

 Data quality objectives  (DQOs) are statements of
the quality of data a  decision maker needs  to
 ensure that  a decision  based on that  data is
defensible.  Data quality objectives are defined in
terms  of  representativeness, comparability, com-
pleteness, precision, and accuracy.  Representa-
tiveness and comparability are generally qualitative
assessments while  completeness, precision, and
accuracy may be quantitatively assessed. In the
ORSP,  representativeness, comparability,  and
 completeness  objectives  are defined  for  each
 monitoring  network.  Precision and accuracy are
 defined for each analysis type or radionuclide.

 Achieved data quality is monitored continuously
 through internal QC checks and procedures.  In
 addition to  the  internal QC procedures,  NRD
 participates in external intercomparison programs.
 One such intercomparison program is  managed
 and operated by a group within EMSL-LV. These
 external performance audits are conducted  as
 described  in and according to the schedule con-
 tained in "Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory
 Intercomparison Studies Program" (EPA, 1981).
 The analytical  laboratory also participates in the
 DOE  Environmental  Measurements Laboratory
 (EML) Quality Assurance Program in which real or
 synthetic environmental samples that have  been
 prepared and thoroughly analyzed are distributed
 to participating  laboratories. External systems and
 performance audits are conducted  for the  TLD
 Network as part of the  certification requirements for
 DOE's Laboratory  Accreditation  Program (DOE-
 LAP)  (DOE, 1986,  1986b).  These external inter-
 comparison and audit  programs are used to moni-
 tor analysis accuracy.

 11.2.1 Representativeness,
        Comparability, and
        Completeness Objectives

 Representativeness is defined as "the degree to
 which the data  accurately and precisely represent
 a  characteristic of a parameter, variation  of a
 property, a process characteristic, or an operation
 condition"  (Stanley and Vemer,  1985).   In the
 ORSP, representativeness may be considered to
 be the degree to  which the collected samples
 represent the radionuclide activity concentrations in
the offsite environment.  Collection of samples
 representative of all possible pathways to  human
 exposure as well as direct measurement of offsite
 resident exposure through the TLD  and internal
dosimetry monitoring programs provides assurance
of the representativeness of the calculated expo-
sures.
                                            100

-------
Comparability is defined as "the confidence with
which one data set can be compared to another"
(Stanley and Verner, 1985).  Comparability of data
is assured by use of SOPs for sample collection,
handling, and analysis; use of standard reporting
units; and use of standardized procedures for data
analysis and interpretation.   In addition, another
aspect of comparability is examined through long-
term comparison and trend analysis of various
radionuclide activity concentrations, and TLD, and
PIC data.  Use of SOPs,  maintained under a
document control system, is an important compo-
nent of comparability,  ensuring that all personnel
conform to a unified, consistent set of procedures.

Completeness  is defined as "a measure of the
amount of  data collected  from a measurement
process compared to the amount that was expect-
ed to be obtained under the conditions of measure-
ment" (Stanley and Verner,  1985).  Data may be
lost due to instrument malfunction, sample destruc-
tion, loss in shipping or analysis, analytical error, or
unavailability of samples. Additional data values
may be deleted due to unacceptable precision,
accuracy,  or detection limit  or as the result of
application  of statistical  outlier tests.   The com-
pleteness  objective for all  networks  except the
LTHMP is 90%.  The  completeness objective for
the LTHMP is  80%; a lower objective has been
established because dry wells or access restric-
tions occasionally preclude sample collection.

11.2.2  Precision and Accuracy
        Objectives of  Radioanalytical
         Analyses

Measurements  of  sample  volumes  should  be
accurate to ± 5% for aqueous samples (water and
milk) and to ± 10% for air and soil samples.  The
sensitivity of radiochemical and gamma spectro-
metric analyses must allow no more than a 5% risk
of either a false  negative or false  positive value.
Precision to a 95% confidence interval, monitored
through analysis of duplicate and  blind samples,
must be within ±  10% for activities greater than 10
times the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)
and ± 30% for activities greater than the MDC but
less than 10 times the MDC.  There are no preci-
sion requirements for activity concentrations below
the MDC, which by definition cannot be distin-
guished from background at the 95% confidence
level.  Control limits for accuracy, monitored with
matrix spike samples, are required to be no greater
than ± 20% for all gross alpha, gross beta, and
gamma spectrometric analyses,  depending upon
the media type.

At concentrations greater than 10 times the MDC,
precision is required to be within  ± 10% for:

    •   Conventional Tritium Analyses
    •   Uranium
    •   Thorium (all media)
    •   Strontium

and within ± 20% for:

    •   Enriched Tritium Analyses
    •   Strontium (in milk)
    •   Noble Gases
    •   Plutonium.

At concentrations  less than 10  times the MDC,
both precision  and accuracy are expressed  in
absolute units, not to exceed 30% of the MDC for
all analyses and all media types.

11.2.3  Quality of Dose  Estimates

The allowable uncertainty  of  the effective dose
equivalent to any human receptor is ± 0.1 mrem
annually. This uncertainty objective is based solely
upon  the precision and  accuracy  of the data
produced from the surveillance networks and does
not apply to  uncertainties in the model used,
effluent release data received from DOE, or dose
conversion  factors.  Generally, effective  dose
equivalents  must have an accuracy (bias) of no
greater than 50% for annual doses greater than or
equal to 1  mrem but less than  5 mrem and no
greater than 10% for annual doses greater than or
equal to 5 mrem.

11.3    Data Validation

Data validation is defined as "A systematic process
for reviewing  a body  of  data against  a  set  of
criteria to provide  assurance that the  data are
adequate for their intended use.   Data validation
consists  of  data   editing,  screening,  checking,
auditing, verification,  certification, and  review"
(Stanley et al;  1983),  Data validation procedures
are documented in SOPs.  All data are reviewed
and checked  at various steps in the  collection,
analysis, and reporting processes.
                                             101

-------
The first level of data review consists of sample
tracking; e.g.,  that all  samples  planned to be
collected are collected or reasons for noncollection
are documented; that all  collected samples are
delivered to Sample Control and are entered into
the appropriate data base management  system;
and that all entered information is accurate.  Next,
analytical data are reviewed by the analyst and by
the laboratory supervisor.   Checks at this stage
include  verifying that all samples received from
Sample Control have been  analyzed or reasons for
nonanalysis have been documented; that data are
"reasonable" (e.g., within expected range), and that
instrumentation operational  checks indicate the
analysis instrument is within permissible toleranc-
es. Discrepancies indicating collection instrument
malfunction  are reported to the Field Operations
Branch.  Analytical discrepancies are resolved;
individual  samples or sample batches  may be
reanalyzed if required.

Raw data are reviewed by  a  designated media
expert. A number of checks are made at this level,
including:

    1.  Completeness - all samples scheduled to
        be collected have, in fact, been collected
        and analyzed or the data base contains
        documentation explaining the reasons for
        noncollection or nonanalysis.

    2.  Transcription errors - checks are made of
        all manually entered information to ensure
        that the information contained in the data
        base is accurate.

    3.  Quality control data - field and analytical
        duplicate, audit sample, and matrix blank
        data are checked  to ensure that the col-
        lection and analytical processes are with-
        in specified QC  tolerances.

    4.  Analysis schedules - lists of samples
        awaiting  analysis are  generated  and
        checked against normal analysis sched-
        ules to identify  backlogs in analysis or
        data entry.

    5.  Unidentified malfunctions - sample results
        and diagnostic graphics of sample results
        are reviewed for reasonableness.  Condi-
        tions indicative of  instrument malfunction
        are reported to  Field and/or Laboratory
        Operations.
 Once the data base has been validated, the data
 are  compared to  the  DQOs.   Completeness,
 accuracy, and precision statistics are calculated.
 The achieved quality of the data is reported at
 least annually. If data fail to meet one or more of
 the established DQOs, the data may still be used
 in data analysis; however, the data and any inter-
 pretive results are to be qualified.

 All sample  results  exceeding the natural back-
 ground activity range are investigated. If data are
 found to be associated  with a non-environmental
 condition, such as a check of the instrument using
 a calibration source, the data are flagged and are
 not included in calculations.  Only data verified to
 be associated with a non-environmental condition
 are flagged; all other data are used in calculation
 of averages and other statistics, even if the condi-
 tion  is traced to a source other than the NTS (for
 example,  higher-than-normal activities were  ob-
 served  for  several  radionuclides following  the
 Chernobyl accident).  When  activities exceeding
 the expected range  are observed for one network,
 the data for the other networks at the same loca-
 tion  are checked.  For example, higher-than-nor-
 mal-range PIC values are compared to  data ob-
 tained by the air, noble gas, TLD, and tritium-in-air
 samplers at the same location.

 Data are also compared to previous years' data for
 the same location using trend analysis techniques.
 Other statistical procedures may be employed as
 warranted to permit interpretation of current data
 as compared to past data. Trend analysis is made
 possible due to the length of the sampling history,
 which in some cases is 30 years or longer.

 Data from the offsite networks are used, along with
 NTS source emission estimates prepared by DOE,
to calculate or estimate annual committed effective
 dose equivalents to offsite residents. Surveillance
 network data are the primary tools for the dose
calculations. Additionally, EPA's CAP88-PC model
 (EPA, 1992) is used with local meteorological data
to predict doses  to offsite  residents from  NTS
source term  estimates.   An  assessment of  the
uncertainty of the dose estimate  is made  and
reported with the estimate.

11.4   Quality Assessment  Of 1992
        Data

Data quality assessment is  associated with  the
regular QA  and QC practices within the radio-
                                             102

-------
analytical  laboratory.   The analytical QC plan,
documented in SOPs,  describes specific proce-
dures used to demonstrate that  data are within
prescribed requirements for accuracy and preci-
sion.  Duplicate samples are collected or prepared
and analyzed in the exact manner as the regular
samples for that particular type of analysis. Data
obtained from duplicate  analyses are used for
determining  the  degree  of  precision for each
individual  analysis.   Accuracy  is assessed by
comparison of data from spiked samples  with the
"true" or accepted values.  Spiked samples  are
either  in-house  laboratory  blanks spiked  with
known amounts of radionuclides,  or QC samples
prepared by other organizations in which data are
compared between several laboratories  and  as-
sessed for accuracy.

Achieved data quality statistics are compiled on a
quarterly and  annual  basis.  This data quality
assessment is performed as part of the process of
data validation, described in Section  11.3.  The
following subsections describe the achieved data
quality for 1992.

11.4.1  Completeness

Completeness is calculated as:
              %C = (-) x 100
                     n
  where:
  %C = percent completeness
  V  = number of measurementsjudgedvalid
  n   = total number of measurements
The  percent completeness of the  1992 data is
given in Table 24.   Reasons  for sample  loss
include instrument malfunction, inability to gain site
access,  monitoring technician error, or laboratory
error.   Completeness  is  not applicable  to  the
Internal  Dosimetry Network, as all individuals who
request  a whole body or lung count receive  one,
resulting in a  completeness of 100  percent by
definition.

The achieved completeness of over 96 percent for
the LTHMP exceeds the DQO of 80 percent. If the
wells which have been shut down by DOE are
included in  the completeness  calculation,  the
achieved completeness is 86 percent for the
LTHMP overall,  but only 78  percent  for sites
sampled on the NTS.

Overall completeness for the routine Air Surveil-
lance Network was  greater than 98 percent,  ex-
ceeding the DQO of 90 percent.  Individually, all
stations exceeded 95 percent data recovery and
four stations achieved completeness of 100 per-
cent.   Plutonium  analyses, conducted  on com-
posited filters from selected routine and standby air
stations, were over 93 percent complete, exceed-
ing the DQO of 90 percent.

Overall, the noble gas network met the DQO of 90
percent completeness.  On an individual station
basis, data recovery was over 90 percent for seven
routine sampling locations, and greater  than 80
percent for another five routine sampling locations.
Completeness  was less than 70 percent for one
routine sampling location (Amargosa Center) and
for all of the standby station locations.  Generally,
recovery of less than 75 percent of the  sampling
period indicate the data cannot be considered to
be representative of that period; consequently, an
annual average for  Amargosa Center cannot be
considered representative of the year.

The achieved completeness for the atmospheric
moisture  network  was greater than  95  percent,
exceeding the DQO of 90 percent. On an individu-
al station basis, all of  the routine sampling loca-
tions  achieved data recoveries greater  than 80
percent; all but one were greater than 90 percent.
Data  recoveries were  lower for the standby sta-
tions; however, the issue of annual representation
does not apply to the standby locations, which are
operated only  one  week  per  quarter  to retain
operational reliability.

Overall data recovery for the MSN was less than
the DQO of 90 percent. Many of the milk sampling
locations consist of  family-owned cows or goats
that can  provide  milk only when the animal is
lactating. Less than 75 percent of the total possi-
ble number of samples were collected from seven
ranches:   Dahl (Alamo,  Nevada), Lemon (Dyer,
Nevada), John Deer (Amargosa Valley,  Nevada),
Frayne (Goldfield, Nevada), Brown (Benton, Cali-
fornia), Blue Eagle (Currant,  Nevada), and Scott
(Goldfield, Nevada).  Annual  means for these
locations individually cannot be considered to be
representative of the year.  However, the milkshed
may be adequately represented if an  alternate
location in the area was sampled when the primary
station could not supply milk.
                                             103

-------
 Table 24.  Data Completeness of Offsite Radiological Safety Program Networks
 Network

 LTHMP

 Air Surveillance


 Noble Gas
Atmospheric
  Moisture

Milk Surveillance

Animal
  Investigation
             No. of
           Sampling
           Locations

                243
Total Samples
   Possible

          423(a)
Valid Samples
  Collected

    408
   Percent
Completeness

   96.5(a)
30
H Q /238, 239+24i
ID (
21(d)
21(e)
10,950 days(b)
°Pu) 196(c)
4,969 days(b)
5,306 days(b)
10,824
184
4,519 (8SKr)
4,545 (h3Xe)
5,054
98.8
93.9
90.9 (85Kr)
91.5 (133Xe)
95.3
PIC


(a)




(b)




(c)





(d)




(e)
               25


               3

               27
           288


           12m

  1,404 weeks'9'
     225


     11

    1,379
   78.1


   91.7

   98.2
(s)
Does not include wells which were shut down by DOE for part or all of the year (see Section 9.5.2),
nor unoccupied residences in Mississippi (see Section 9.6.7).

Continuous samplers with samples collected at intervals of approximately one week.  Days used
as units to account for differences in sample interval length.

Includes five quarters (July 1991  through September  1992) of data for 13 standby network
locations and five routine sampling locations.  Analyses of plutonium isotopes for one routine
sampling location (Salt Lake City, Utah) were discontinued at the beginning of 1992.

Thirteen stations are operated on a routine basis and another eight are operated one week per
quarter.

Fourteen stations are operated on a routine basis and another seven are operated one week per
quarter.

Includes four mule deer from the Nevada Test Site and four cows from each of two locations.
Does not include bighorn sheep, fruits and vegetables, and other animals which are "samples of
opportunity."

Continuous samplers with data summarized on a weekly basis.
                                             104

-------
All  of the animals scheduled for collection in the
AIP were collected, with the exception that no mule
deer was collected from the NTS in the first quarter
of 1992. There were no road kills in that quarter
and no deer  were found on  two hunting  trips
conducted during the quarter.  Overall complete-
ness exceeded the DQO of 90 percent.

The achieved completeness of over 98 percent for
the PIC Network exceeds the DQO of 90 percent.
The redundant data systems  used  in the  PIC
Network (i.e., satellite telemetry, magnetic tape or
card data acquisition systems, and strip charts) are
responsible for the high rates of recovery. Gaps in
the satellite transmissions are filled by data from
the magnetic tape  or card media.  If necessary,
strip charts would be digitized to fill  gaps if data
were  not available from either of the other  two
sources; however, no digitized data were needed
in 1992.

11.4.2  Precision

Precision is monitored through analysis of duplicate
samples.  Field duplicates (i.e., a second sample
collected at the same place and  time and under
the same conditions as the routine  sample)  are
collected in the ASN, LTHMP, and MSN. For the
ASN, a duplicate sampler is collocated with  the
routine sampler at  randomly  selected sites for a
period of one to three months to provide the field
duplicate. A total of four samplers are used; these
second samplers are moved to various site loca-
tions throughout the year.  Noble gas and atmo-
spheric  moisture  samples are split  to provide
duplicate samples  for  analysis;  the  number of
duplicates is  limited by the number of routine
samples which contain sufficient volume to permit
division  into two samples. Animal tissue, vegeta-
ble, and bioassay (urine) samples are also split
after processing, if the volume of material is suffi-
cient. Two TLDs, each with three identical phos-
phors, are deployed to each fixed station, providing
a total of six replicates. In lieu of field duplicates,
precision for the PICs is determined by the vari-
ance of measurements over a specific time interval
when only background activities are being mea-
sured.   Precision may  also be determined from
repeated analyses of routine or laboratory spiked
samples.  The spiked  QC samples are  generally
not  blind to the analyst; i.e.,  the analyst both
recognizes the sample as a QC sample and knows
the  expected (theoretical) activity of the sample.
Precision is expressed as percent relative standard
deviation (%RSD), also known as coefficient of
variation, and is calculated by:
%RSD = (
                    std-
                     mean
                             x 100
The precision or %RSD is not reported for dupli-
cate pairs in which one or both results are less
than the MDC of the analysis. For most analyses,
the DQOs for precision are defined for two ranges:
values greater than or equal to the MDC but less
than ten times the MDC  and values equal to or
greater than ten times the MDC.

Figure 49  displays %RSDs for LTHMP field and
spiked sample  duplicate  pairs analyzed  by  the
conventional tritium method. This figure includes
48 pairs of matrix spike  samples and one field
duplicate pair with means  equal to or greater than
the MDC but less than ten times the  MDC.  All
pairs yielded %RSDs of less than 12 percent; the
DQO for precision of samples in this activity range
is 30 percent.  Two field duplicate pairs with means
equal to or greater than 10 times the MDC are not
included in the figure; these two pairs had  means
of  118,000 and 91,800 pCi/L and %RSDs of 0.02
and 1.1 percent, respectively.  These results  are
well within the DQO of ten  percent for values equal
to  or greater than ten times the MDC.

Figure 50 displays  %RSDs for  duplicate pairs
analyzed by the enriched tritium method.   Of 26
field and two matrix spike sample duplicate pairs
with means equal to or greater than the MDC but
less than ten times the MDC, only one pair  ex-
ceeded the DQO of 30 %RSD. The mean  for this
pair was approximately two times the MDC and the
%RSD was 31.4 percent.  The %RSD for all matrix
spike and field duplicate sample pairs with  means
equal to or greater than 10 times the  MDC was
within the DQO of 20 percent.  Six of the field
duplicate pairs  are not   included  on  the  figure
because the means were much higher than  the
remaining values.  These means of these six pairs
range from 373 to 721   pCi/L  and the %RSDs
range from 1.3 to 12.6 percent.  The single matrix
spike duplicate pairs analyzed for gross alpha and
for gross beta in water had means equal to or
greater  than  ten times   the MDC and  yielded
%RSDs of less than 10 percent.  Duplicate analy-
ses were performed for 137Cs, however, all results
were less than the MDC.
                                             105

-------
         100
            0
                     ODD  vaue*MDC&Y*je< 10X MDC (SpicedSamples)
                     000  VaueiMDC&Value<10XMDC
                                O
                     D
                 0        1000      2000     3000     4000     5000

                     Mean of Duplicate  Pair  Results  (pCi/L)
Figure 49. Field and spiked sample pair precision for LTHMP conventional tritium analyses.
In the ASM, field duplicate pairs are analyzed for
gross alpha,  gross  beta, and gamma-emitting
radionuclides. Figure 51 shows the %RSD distri-
bution for gross alpha field duplicate analyses. Of
55 field duplicate pairs with means greater than or
equal to the MDC but less than ten times the MDC,
36  pairs  were within the DQO of 30  %RSD.
Another seven pairs yielded %RSDs between 30
and 40 percent.  As shown in  Figure 52, gross
beta field duplicate  analyses  yielded %RSDs
ranging from less than one percent to greater than
100 percent for the 117 field duplicate pairs greater
than or equal to the MDC but less than 10 times
the  MDC.  Of the 117 pairs, 94 yielded %RSDs
within the DQO of 30 %RSD and another eight
pairs yielded %RSDs less than 40 %RSD. There
were only three duplicate pairs with means equal
to or greater than ten times the MDC; the %RSDs
for these pairs were all within  the  DQO of 20
percent.
These  results  indicate that  the  true achieved
precision for these gross spectrometric analyses, at
concentrations  less than 10  times the MDC, is
closer to 40 percent. The data users are currently
reevaluating the data quality  required to achieve
program objectives; the DQO may be modified if it
is  determined that the achieved data quality is
adequate for program needs.  Of the five field
duplicate  pairs with 7Be  activities equal to or
greater than ten times the MDC,  all  yielded
%RSDs less than 20 percent and, of these, all but
one were less than 10 %RSD.

In  addition to  analysis of  field duplicate pairs,
selected routine sample filters are analyzed twice
for gross  alpha, gross beta, and gamma-emitting
radionuclides.  Of 74 duplicate analyses for gross
alpha with results equal to or greater than the MDC
but less  than  10  times the MDC,  63  yielded
%RSDs within the DQO of 30 percent and another
three yielded %RSDs of less than 40 percent.  Of
                                          106

-------
        100
         80
         60
   .1    40
   o

   ,9    20
ana value 110 X MDC (Spted Sairptei)
O O  O Value i MDC & Vdue < 10 X MDC (Sptoed Sarptee)
A A  A Value a 10 X MDC
ooo Value i MDC &Vakje< 10 X MDC
                 0             50           100          150           200

                     Mean of Duplicate Pair Results (pCi/L)
Figure 50.  Field and spiked sample duplicate pair precision for LTHMP enriched tritium analyses.
174 duplicate analyses for gross beta with means
equal to or greater than the MDC but less than ten
times the MDC, all but one yielded %RSDs of less
than 20 percent. In addition, 13 duplicate analyses
for gross beta yielded means equal to or greater
than ten times the MDC; the %RSDs for these
pairs were all less than ten percent. Four duplicate
gamma spectrometry analyses yielded 7Be results
with means equal to or greater than ten times the
MDC and %RSDs for the pairs were all less than
four percent.

All of the 48 noble gas sample splits analyzed for
85Kr had activities greater than or equal to the MDC
but less than  ten times the MDC.  All but  two
%RSDs were less than 20 percent, better than the
DQO of 30 percent for sample pairs in this activity
range.  The %RSDs for 85Kr are shown in Figure
53. Of 104 analyses of split sample pairs analyzed
in  the atmospheric moisture  network,  only nine
pairs yielded results equal to or greater than the
MDC but less than ten times the MDC.  With one
                        exception, the %RSDs for these were all less than
                        22 percent.

                        Only one of the 31 field duplicate pairs from the
                        MSN analyzed for tritium yielded results equal to or
                        greater than the MDC but less than ten times the
                        MDC.  The %RSD for this sample pair was 5.8
                        percent. Total potassium was measured at con-
                        centrations equal to or greater than ten times the
                        MDC in 74 field duplicate pairs and in 36 duplicate
                        analyses. In all but two cases, the %RSDs for the
                        pairs was less than 20 percent and the remaining
                        two pairs were within 25 percent.  The %RSD
                        results for the field duplicate pairs are shown in
                        Figure 54.  Four spiked sample duplicate  pairs
                        yielded means of 90Sr equal to or greater than the
                        MDC but less than ten times the MDC; the %RSDs
                        for these pairs were all less than 12 percent.

                        In the AIP, matrix (bone ash) spike sample dupli-
                        cates were analyzed for 90Sr and ^ * 2*°Pu. The
                        single pair analyzed for 90Sr yielded a mean equal
                                          107

-------

o
••e
CO
1

*S
.s
3
O
Q
^

100
80

60

40


20-

O-

DD D Value i MDC & Value < 10 X MDC

n n'-'
n
rf]
n D D
I I I I I I—I . — .
i~\ r i
(I &I u D
^~! fflrP D
n-, L^'-^n n
DD J3D
n nan tr n a
              0.000    0.001     0.002     0.003    0.004    0.005

                   Mean of  Duplicate Pair Results  (pCi/hnS)
Figure 51. Field duplicate pair precision for Air Surveillance Network gross alpha analyses.
to or greater than the MDC but less than ten times
the MDC and a %RSD of 12.9 percent. The single
pair analyzed for239 + 240Pu yielded a mean equal to
or greater than ten times the MDC and a %RSD of
2.2 percent.  Vegetable sample splits were ana-
lyzed for 90Sr, but all results were less than the
MDC. Similarly, all 14 split bioassay sample pairs
yielded results less than the MDC.

In addition to examination of %RSDs for individual
duplicate pairs, an overall precision estimate was
determined by calculating the  pooled standard
deviation, based on the algorithm given in Taylor
(1987).  To convert to a unitless value, the pooled
standard deviation  was divided by the grand mean
and multiplied by 100 to yield a %RSD.  Table 25
presents the pooled data and estimates of overall
precision.  The pooled standard deviations and
%RSD  indicate that,  with the exception of gross
alpha analyses, the achieved precision is better
than  the DQO for the analysis and activity range.
The pooled %RSD for tritium in air is based on a
limited number of sample pairs, with the result
influenced by one outlier with a %RSD of over 40
percent.

11.4.3  Accuracy

The accuracy of all analyses is controlled through
the use of approved or NIST-traceable standards
in instrument  calibrations.   Internal  checks of
instrument accuracy may be periodically performed
using spiked matrix samples.  These internal QC
procedures are the only control of accuracy  for
whole body and lung counts and PICs. For spec-
troscopic and radiochemical analyses, an  indepen-
dent  measurement of  accuracy is provided  by
participation in  intercomparison studies  using
samples  of known activities.   The  EMSL-LV
Radioanalysis Laboratory participates in two such
intercomparison studies. An independent verifica-
tion of the accuracy of the TLDs is performed
                                           108

-------
        120
 o
o
o
                                             D  vaue*10XMDC
                                               0
                                                          D
                                                                O
               0.00      0.01       0.02      0.03      0.04       0.05

                   Mean of  Duplicate  Pair  Results (pCi/m3)
Figure 52. Field duplicate pair precision for Air Surveillance Network gross beta analyses.
every two or three years by DOELAP,  with a
"pass/fail" report given.

In the EMSL-LV Intercomparison Study program,
samples of known activities of selected radionuclid-
es are sent to participating laboratories on a set
schedule throughout the year. Water, milk, and air
filters are used as the matrices for these samples.
Results  from all  participating laboratories  are
compiled and statistics are computed comparing
each laboratory's results to the known value and to
the  mean of all laboratories.  The comparison to
the  known value provides an independent assess-
ment of accuracy for each participating laboratory.
Table 26  presents accuracy results for these
intercomparison  studies.  Comparison of results
among all participating  laboratories  provides a
measure of comparability, discussed  in Section
11.4.4.  Approximately  70 to 250  laboratories
participate in any given intercomparison study.
               Accuracy, as percent difference or percent bias, is
               calculated by: With the exception of gross alpha in
                        %BIAS = (Cm " C') x 100

                  where:
                  %BIAS = percent bias
                  Cm    = measured concentration
                  Ca    = known! theoretical concentration

               water  and 106Ru in the October gamma in  water
               intercomparison study sample, the achieved accu-
               racy was better than  ±  20 percent.  For most
               analyses, the DQOs are  ± 20 percent for values
               greater than 10 times the MDC  and ± 30 percent
               for results greater than the MDC but less than ten
               times the MDC. The achieved %Bias for the alpha
               activity in water samples was approximately 25 to
               35 percent. The other intercomparison study in
               which  the  EMSL-LV  Radioanalysis Laboratory
               participates  is-the semiannual DOE QA Program
               conducted by EML in New York, NY. Approximate-
               ly 20 laboratories participate in this intercomparison
                                           109

-------
         100
   .2    80
          60
          40
          20
            0
                                        D D  D Value*HOC&V*J8< 10XMDC
                                               D
                 20
22
24
26
28
30
                    Mean of  Duplicate Pair Results (pCi/m3)
Figure 53. Split sample precision for Noble Gas Network 8SKr analyses.
study program. Sample matrices include water, air
filters, vegetation,  and soil.  The  EML  result is
assumed to represent the known or true activity for
calculation of %Bias.   Results for these perfor-
mance audit samples are given in Table 27. The
DQOs for accuracy were exceeded for a number of
analyses, primarily for gamma-emitter results in the
September air and water samples.  The cause of
the evident bias is under investigation.  Routine
sample data were not affected and internal  QC
checks indicated the  systems were in control.
Gamma spectroscopy  results for the March water
and air filter samples were all well within the DQO
of ± 20 percent.  The DQO was also exceeded for
239Pu in the March soil and vegetation samples and
for  90Sr  in  the  September  vegetation  sample.
Routine and internal QC check samples processed
in the same time frame on the same systems are
being checked to  determine  if results  may be
affected, requiring flagging or invalidation.
                 In addition to use of irradiated control samples in
                 the processing of TLDs, DOELAP monitors accura-
                 cy, precision, and bias as part of the accreditation
                 program.  As with the  intercomparison studies,
                 dosimeters  receiving  a known type  and  level
                 exposure are submitted  as single blind samples.
                 The designation "single blind" indicates the analyst
                 recognizes  the sample  as being  other than a
                 routine sample, but does not know the radiation
                 type  or level to which the  dosimeter has been
                 exposed except that dosimeters are identified as
                 having been exposed in either the "protection
                 range" or the "accident range."   Individual results
                 are not provided to the participant laboratories by
                 DOELAP until the conclusion of the third round of
                 performance testing in each test cycle.  Issuance
                 of the accreditation certificate indicates acceptable
                 accuracy,  precision, and  bias  and successful
                 completion of a comprehensive  onsite review by
                 independent DOELAP  site assessors.
                                           110

-------
§
••S
Co
1
B
1
|

100-
80-
60
40
20-
0

D D D VtfuC



D^


>i10XMDC




D D
I ' I ' I ' I I ' I
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
                       Mean of  Duplicate  Pair  Results  (g/L)
Figure 54. Field Duplicate Pair Precision for Milk Surveillance Network Total Potassium Analyses.
11.4.4  Comparability

The  EPA Intel-comparison Study reports  (EPA,
1991) provide results for all laboratories participat-
ing in each intercomparison study. A grand aver-
age is computed for all values, excluding outliers.
A  normalized deviation statistic compares each
laboratory's result (mean of three replicates) to the
known value  and  to the grand  average.  If the
value of this statistic  (in multiples of standard
normal deviate, unitless) lies between control limits
of  -3 and +3,  the accuracy (deviation from known
value) or comparability (deviation  from  grand
average) is  within  normal  statistical  variation.
Table 28 displays data from the 1992 intercompari-
son  studies  for the  variables  most  commonly
measured in the ORSP.  Of the commonly mea-
sured variables, there were three  instances in
which the Radioanalysis Laboratory results deviat-
ed from the grand average by  more  than three
standard normal deviate units.   These were the
April intercomparison sample for total potassium in
milk, the August sample for beta emitters on an air
filter, and  the September water intercomparison
sample containing 89Sr. The first two of these also
exceeded  the  DQO for accuracy (see Section
11.4.3, above).  The third sample, 89Sr in water,
was within the DQO for  accuracy.  Apart  from
these three, all of the normalized deviations from
the grand average were within the statistical control
limit range of -3 to +3. This indicates acceptable
comparability of the Radioanalysis Laboratory with
the 69 to 207 laboratories participating in the EPA
Intercomparison Study Program.

11.4.5  Representativeness

Representativeness cannot be evaluated quantita-
tively. Rather, it is a qualitative assessment of the
ability of the sample to model the objectives of the
program. The primary objective of the ORSP is to
protect the health and safety of the offsite resi-
dents.  Therefore, the DQO of representativeness
is met if the samples are representative of the
                                            111

-------
 Table 25.  Overall Precision of Analysis
 Network
 LTHMP
Air Surveil-
 lance
Noble Gas

Tritium
  in Air

Milk
Analysis

Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Conv. Tritium
Conv. Tritium
Conv. Tritium
Enrich. Tritium
Enrich. Tritium
Enrich. Tritium
Enrich. Tritium

Gross Alpha
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Gross Beta
Gross Beta
Gross Beta
7Be
7Be
              85
 ;Kr
HTO

Conv. Tritium
Potassium (total)
Potassium (total)
90Sr
Sample
 Type

Spiked
Spiked
Spiked
Field
Field
Spiked
Field
Spiked
Field

Field
Lab Dup
Field
Lab Dup
Field
Lab Dup
Field
Lab Dup

Split
Split
>10xMDC           1
>10x MDC           1
>MDC,<10x MDC    48
>MDC,<10xMDC     1
>10x MDC           2
>MDC,<10x MDC     2
>MDC,<10xMDC    26
>10x MDC          16
>10x MDC          20

>MDC,<1 Ox MDC    55
>MDC,<10xMDC    74
>MDC,<10xMDC   117
>MDC,<1 Ox MDC   174
>10x MDC           3
>10x MDC          13
>10x MDC           5
>10x MDC           4

>MDC,<10xMDC    46
>MDC,<1 Ox MDC
Field      >.MDC,<10x MDC
Field      >10x MDC
Lab Dup   >10x MDC
Spiked    >MDC,<10xMDC
                    1
                   74
                   36
                    4
 Pooled
Standard
Deviation

    1.42
    2.75
  157.65
  141.77
  725.16
    5.75
    3.37
    5.62
   19.79

    0.000
    0.000
    0.004
    0.001
    0.003
    0.001
    0.025
    0.006

    2.43
    1.46

  25.21
    0.111
    0.076
    1.56
%RSD

  5.8
  8.7
  4.3
 11.8
  0.7
  6.8
 11.9
  7.2
  8.6

 33.8
 23.6
 27.6
  8.3
 10.4
  3.8
  8.8
  2.4

  9.5
20.9

  5.8
  6.8
  4.7
  7.5
Animal
Invest!- 90Sr (ash)
gation 239 + 240Pu (ash)
Program

Spiked
i Spiked


>MDC,<1 Ox MDC
>10x MDC


1
1


2.69
0.09


12.9
2.2

radiation  exposure of the  resident  population.
Monitoring  stations  are  located in  population
centers. Siting criteria specific to radiation sensors
are not available for many of the instruments used.
Existing siting criteria developed for other pollut-
ants are applied to the ORSP sensors as available.
For example, siting criteria for the placement of air
sampler inlets are contained in Prevention  of
Significant  Deterioration  guidance  documents
(EPA, 1976).  Inlets for the air samplers at the
ORSP stations have been evaluated against these
criteria and, in most cases, meet the siting require-
                                 ments.  Guidance  or requirements for handling,
                                 shipping, and storage of radioactivity samples are
                                 followed in program operations and documented in
                                 SOPs.  Standard analytical methodology is used
                                 and  guidance on the holding times for samples,
                                 sample  processing, and results calculations are
                                 followed and documented in SOPs.

                                 In the LTHMP, the  primary objectives are protec-
                                 tion of drinking water supplies and monitoring of
                                 any potential cavity migration. Sampling locations
                                 are primary "targets of opportunity", i.e., the sam-
                                            112

-------
 Table 26. Accuracy of Analysis from EPA Intercomparison Studies

                                 Known Value       EPA Average       Percent
 Nuclide Month                      (pCi/L)(a)            (pCi/L)(a)          Bias

                                   Water Intercomparison Studies

 Alpha  Jan                          30.0                  22.67          -24.43
 Alpha  Apr(PE)                     40.0                  49.67           24.18
 Alpha  May                         15.0                  18.33           22.20
 Alpha  Sep                         45.0                  56.67           25.93
 Alpha  Oct (PE)                     29.0                  40.00           37.93
 Beta   Jan                          30.0                  31.33            4.43
•Beta   Apr(PE)                    140.0                 130.67           -6.66
 Beta   May                         44.0                  47.00            6.82
 Beta   Sep                         50.0                  59.00           18.00
 Beta   Oct(PE)                     53.0                  48.33           -8.81
 3H     Feb                       7,904.0               7,965.0             0.77
 3H     June                      2,125.0               2,070.33           -2.57
 3H     Oct                       5,962.0               5,896.67           -1.10
 60Co   Feb                          40.0                  42.00            5.00
 e°Co   Apr(PE)                     56.0                  55.3            -1.20
 60Co   May                         20.0                  19.33           -3.35
 60Co   Oct                          10.0                  10.00            0.00
 60Co   Oct(PE)                     15.0                  14.67           -2.20
 65Zn    Feb                         148.0                 165.00           11.49
 ^Zn    May                         99.0                 102.67            3.71
 65Zn    Oct                         148.0                 153.00            3.38
 ""Sr    Jan                          51.0                  44.33          -13.08
 "Sr    Apr(PE)                     15.0                  12.67          -15.53
 ^Sr    May                         29.0                  26.33           -9.21
 ^Sr    Sep                         20.0                  18.67           -6.65
 89Sr    Oct(PE)                      8.0                   8.33            4.13
 90Sr    Jan                          20.0                  20.33            1.65
 ""Sr    Apr(PE)                     17.0                  16.33           -3.94
 ^Sr    May                          8.0                   8.00            0.00
 90Sr    Sep                         15.0                  14.00           -6.67
 ^Sr    Oct(PE)                     10.0                  11.00           10.00
 106Ru   Feb                         203.0                 182.00          -10.34
 106Ru   May                        141.0                 128.67           -8.74
 106Ru   Oct                         175.0                 135.33          -22.67
 1311     Feb                          59.0                  60.33            2.25
 131I     Aug                         45.0                  45.00            0.00
 133Ba   Feb                          76.0                  67.00          -11.84
 133Ba   May                         98.0                  91.67           -6.46
 133Ba   Oct                          74.0                  73.67           -0.45
 134Cs   Feb                          31.0                  29.67           -4.29
 134Cs   Apr(PE)                     24.0                  23.00           -4.17
 134Cs   May                         15.0                  13.33          -11.13

 (a>      Values were obtained from the individual intercomparison study reports and are reported with the units
        and significant figures included in those reports.
 pling locations are primarily wells developed for     monitoring wells have  not been  applied  to the
 purposes  other  than   radioactivity  monitoring.     LTHMP  sampling sites.  In spite of these limita-
 Guidance or requirements developed for Compre-     tions, the samples  are  representative of the first
 hensive Environmental Response, Compensation,     objective, protection of drinking water supplies. At
 and  Liability Act  and  Resource  Conservation     all of the LTHMP monitoring areas, on and around
 Recovery Act regarding the number and location of     the  NTS, all potentially impacted drinking water

                                               113

-------
 Table 27 Accuracy of Analysis from DOE Intercomparison Study

 Nuclide  Month             EML Value'3'          EPA Value(a>
7Be
7Be
MMn
MMn
57Co
57Co
60Co
60Co
""Sr
134Cs
134Cs
137Cs
137Cs
144Ce
144Ce
238Pu
238pu
239Pu
239pu
Mar
Sept
Mar
Sept
Mar
Sept
Mar
Sept
Mar
Mar
Sept
Mar
Sept
Mar
Sept
Mar
Sept
Mar
Sept
239
  Pu
90Sr
90Sr
(a)
          Sept
          Mar
          Sept
          Mar
          Sept
          Mar
          Sept
          Mar
          Sept
                                    Air Intercomparison Studies
                               28.6
                               308
                               5.97
                               25.9
                               7.93
                               6.4
                               5.81
                               3.06
                               0.207
                               4.44
                               3.72
                               5.76
                               5.82
                               63.9
                               43.3
                               0.270
                               0.042
                               0.285
                               0.045
                                                      29.4
                                                     389
                                                       6.39
                                                      35.9
                                                       7.33
                                                      . 8.1
                                                       6.09
                                                       4.3
                                                       0.172
                                                       5.20
                                                       4.8
                                                       6.43
                                                       8.3
                                                      69.8
                                                      51.4
                                                       0.261
                                                       0.0346
                                                       0.254
                                                       0.0392
                                   Soil Intercomparison Studies
21.9
25.5
7.76
 20
 31.6
  6.98
                                Vegetation Intercomparison Studies
376
489
1.08
1.25
0.311
0.379
350
618
  1.13
  1.34
  0.374
  0.342
                                                                          Percent
                                                                           Bias
                                              2.80
                                             26.30
                                              7.04
                                             38.61
                                             -7.57
                                             26.56
                                              4.82
                                             40.52
                                            -16.91
                                             17.12
                                             29.03
                                             11.63
                                             42.61
                                              9.23
                                             18.71
                                             -3.33
                                            -17.62
                                            -10.88
                                            -12.89
 -8.68
 23.92
-10.05
 -6.91
 26.38
  4.63
  7.20
 20.26
 -9.76
        Values were obtained from the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML)  and reported with  the
        significant figures provided by EML. Units are Bq/filter for air, Bq/L for water, and Bq/Kg for the remaining
        matrices.
supplies are monitored, as are many supply sourc-
es with virtually no potential to be impacted by
radioactivity resulting from past or present nuclear
weapons testing.  The sampling network at some
locations is not optimal for achieving the second
objective,  monitoring of any migration of radio-
nuclides from the test cavities.  An evaluation
conducted by DRI describes, in detail, the monitor-
ing locations for  each  LTHMP  location and the
                                                 strengths and  weaknesses of each monitoring
                                                 network (Chapman and Hokett, 1991). This evalu-
                                                 ation is cited in the discussion of the LTHMP data
                                                 in Section 7.
                                              114

-------
Table 28.
Nuclide
Comparability of Analysis
EPA Lab
Average
Month (pCi/L)
from EPA Intercomparison Studies'3'
Grand Known Normalized Normalized
Value Average Deviation from Deviation from
(pCi/L) (pCi/L) Grand Average Known Value
Water Intercomparison Studies
Alpha
Alpha
Alpha
Alpha
Alpha
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
3H
3H
3H
60Co
60Co
60Co
60Co
60Co
65Zn
65Zn
65Zn
89Sr
89Sr
89Sr
89Sr
89Sr
90Sr
90Sr
90Sr
90Sr
90Sr
106Ru
106Ru
106Ru
131,
131,
133Ba
133Ba
133Ba
134Cs
134Cs
134Cs
134Cs
134Cs
January 23
April (PE) 50
May 18
September 57
October (PE) 40
January 31
April (PE) 130
May 47
September 59
October (PE) 48
February 8,000
June 2,100
October 5,900
February 42
April (PE) 55
June 19
October 10
October (PE) 15
February 160
June 100
October 160
January 44
April (PE) 13
May 26
September 1 9
October (PE) 8.3
January 20
April (PE) 16
May 8
September 14
October (PE) 11
February 180
June 130
October 140
February 60
August 45
February 67
June 92
October 74
February 30
April (PE) 23
June 15
October 7
October (PE) 5
24
40
14
36
28
30
118
43
49
46
7,900
2,100
6,000
40
56
21
11
15
150
100
160
47
16
28
20
8.6
19
16
7.7
14
10
190
140
160
60
46
75
96
73
29
23
15
8.1
5.3
30
40
15
45
29
30
140
44
53
53
7,900
2,120
5,960
40
56
20
10
15
148
98
148
51
15
29
20
8
20
17
8
15
10
203
141
175
59
45
76
98
74
31
24
15
8
5
-0.30
1.7
1.4
3.2
2.9
0.50
1.0
1.5
0.31
0.31
0.05
-0.16
-0.29
0.67
-0.38
-0.44
-0.33
-0.22
1.9
-0.34
0.33
-0.97
-0.99
-0.59
-0.47
-0.09
0.36
0.17
0.09
-0.17
0.17
-1.1
-1.2
-2.4
0.05
-0.26
-1.8
-0.78
0.15
0.08
-0.15
-0.49
-0.39
-0.11
-1.6
1.7
1.2
1.8
2.7
0.46
-0.77
1.0
3.1
-0.81
0.13
-0.21
-0.19
0.69
-0.23
-0.23
0
-0.12
2.0
0.64
1.4
-2.3
-0.81
-0.29
-0.46
0.12
0.12
-0.23
0
-0.35
0.35
-1.8
-1.5
-3.8
0.38
0
-2.0
-1.1
-0.08
0.46
-0.35
-0.58
-0.35
0
(a)  Values were obtained from the individual, intercomparison study reports and are reported with all
    values rounded to two significant figures.                              Continued
                                              115

-------
 Table 28.  (Comparability of Analysis from EPA Intercomparison Studies'3', cont.)
                       EPA Lab     Grand     Known      Normalized     Normalized
                       Average     Value    Average   Deviation from  Deviation from
 Nuclide       Month    (pCi/L)      (pCi/L)     (pCi/L)    Grand Average   Known Value
 134Cs
 137Cs
 137Cs
 137Cs
 137Cs
 137Cs
October (PE)
February
April (PE)
June
October (PE)
October
                              Water Intercomparison Studies (cont.)
 5
51
23
15
 8.3
 8.7
Alpha
Alpha
Beta
Beta
90Sr
9oSr
137Cs
137Cs
U (Nat)
U (Nat)
U (Nat)
U (Nat)
U (Nat)
239pu
239pu
March
August
March
August
March
August
March
August
March
April (PE)
July
October (PE)
November
January
August
8
30
39
71
15
22
11
20
26
4.2
4
10
15
16
8.7
89Sr
89Sr
90Sr
9oSr
,31,
131,
137Cs
137Cs
K (Total)
K (Total)
April
September
April
September
April
September
April
September
April
September
32
12
26
14
78
96
40
15
1,760
1,820
 5.3
51
23
16
 8.9
 8.7
 5
49
22
15
 8
 8
-0.11
 0.11
-0.07
-0.5
-0.18
-0.02
                                Air Filter Intercomparison Studies
                                       8.3
                                      31
                                      42
                                      72
                                      15
                                      24
                                      11
                                      20
                                      24
                                       4.3
                                       4
                                      10
                                      14
                                      16
                                       8.6
                                       7
                                      30
                                      41
                                      69
                                      15
                                      25
                                      10
                                      18
                                      25
                                       4.2
                                       4
                                      10
                                      15
                                      17
                                       9
                                  Milk Intercomparison Studies
                                     31
                                     14
                                     25
                                     13
                                     78
                                    101
                                     40
                                     16
                                   1,700
                                   1,710
                                      38
                                      15
                                      29
                                      15
                                      78
                                     100
                                      39
                                      15
                                   1,710
                                   1,750
                                    -0.12
                                    -0.19
                                    -1.0
                                    -0.17
                                     0.02
                                    -0.8
                                    -0.12
                                     0.11
                                     1.1
                                     1.7
                                     0.03
                                     2.9
                                     0.17
                                     0.35
                                     0.23
                                     0.22
                                    -0.48
                                     0.35
                                     0.41
                                    -0.1
                                    -0.92
                                    -0.23
                                    -0.27
                                     1.1
                                     2.2
 0
 0.69
 0.35
-0.12
 0.12
 0.23
                                          0.35
                                          0
                                          -0.58
                                          0.35
                                          -0.12
                                          -1.0
                                          0.23
                                          0.69
                                          0.21
                                          1.7
                                          0.02
                                          2.7
                                          -0.27
                                          -0.85
                                          -0.58
                                         -2.2
                                         -0.92
                                         -1.2
                                         -0.35
                                          0
                                         -0.75
                                          0.23
                                          0.12
                                          0.94
                                          1.4
(a)     Values were obtained from the individual intercomparison study reports and are reported with the
       significant figures included in those reports.
                                             116

-------
12.   Sample Analysis Procedures
The procedures for analyzing samples collected for
this report are described  in Radiochemical and
Analytical  Procedures  for  Analysis   of
Environmental  Samples (Johns, 1979)  and  are
summarized in Table 29.  These include  gamma
analysis, gross beta on air filters, strontium, tritium,
plutonium,  and  noble  gas  analyses.   These
procedures outline standard  methods  used  to
perform given analytical procedures.
Table 29. Summary of Analytical Procedures
Type of Analytical Counting Analytical
Analysis Equipment Period (min) Procedures
HpGe
Gammab










Gross alpha
and beta on
air filters




W,90S|.







3H





HpGe Air charcoal
detector- cartridges and
calibrated at individual air
0.5 keV/ filters, 30; 100
channel for milk, water,
(0.04 to 2 suspended
meV range) solids.
individual
detector
efficiencies
ranging from
15 to 35%.
Low-level end 30
windows, gas
flow pro-
portional
counter with a
5-cm diameter
window.
Low 50
background
thin-window,
gas-flow,
proportional
counter.


Automatic 300
liquid
scintillation
counter
with output
printer.
Radionuclide concen-
tration quantified from
gamma spectral data
by online computer
program.







Samples are
counted after decay
of naturally occurring
radionuclides.



Chemical separation
by ion exchange.
Separated sample
counted succes-
sively; activity calcu-
lated by simulta-
neous-solution of
equations.
Sample prepared by
distillation.




Sample
Size
1 .0 and 3.5 L for
routine liquids;
560 m3 for low-
volume air
filters, and
approximately
10,000m3 for
high-volume air
filters.



560m3






1.0 L for milk
or water. 0.1
to 1 kg
for tissue.




5 to 10 mL for
water.




Approximate
Detection Limit*
ForCs-137, routine
liquids; 5x10"' |iCi/mL
(1.8x 10'' Bq/L) low-
volume airfilters;
5 x 10'14 \iC\lrc\L
(1.8x 10-'Bq/m3), high-
volume airfilters;
5 x 10'16 |iCi/mL
(1.8x ID'5 Bq/m3).



alpha: 8.0 x10"'VCi/mL
(3.0 x 10'5Bq/m3)

beta: 2.5 x 1 0'15 uCi/mL
(9.25 x 10'5 Bq/m3)


"Sr=5 x 10'9 uCi/mL
(1.85X 10-' Bq/L)
90Sr=2x10-'u.Ci/mL
(7.4x 10'2Bq/L)




300 to 700 x
10'snci/rriL
(11-26 Bq/L)c



                                                                      Continued
                                         117

-------
Table 29.  (Summary of Analytical Procedures, cont.)
Type of
Analysis
Analytical
Equipment
Counting
Period (min)
Analytical
Procedures
Sample
Size
Approximate
Detection Limit3
3H Enrichment
(LTHMP
samples)
BKr, 133Xe
Automatic
liquid
scintillation
counter
with output
printer.

Alpha
spectrometer
with silicon
surface
barrier
detectors
operated in
vacuum
chambers.
                     300
                                 1,000
Automatic
liquid scin-
tillation counter
with output
printer.
                   200
  Sample concen-
trated by electrolysis
    followed by
    distillation.
Water sample,
acid-digested filter or
tissue samples
separated by ion
exchange and electro-
plated on stainless
steel planchet.
Separation by gas
chromatography;
dissolved in
toluene "cocktail" for
counting.
 250 mL for
   water.
I.OLfor
water; 0.1 to
1 kg for
tissue; 5,000
to 10,000 m3
for air.
0.4 to 1.0m3
for air.
   10x10''nCi/mL
   (3.7X101 Bq/L)
                                                                                                  (iCi/mL (2.9 x 10'3
                                                                                                  Bq/L), 239*240 Pu=0.04
10'3 Bq/L) for water.
For tissue samples,
0.04pCi(1.5x 10'3
Bq) per sample
for all isotopes; 5 x
10'17to 10 x 10'17
HCi/mL(1.9x 10'6 to
3.7x10'6Bq/m3)for
plutonium on air
filters.

^Kr, 133Xe = 4x
10'12uCi/mL(1.5x
10-1 Bq/m3)
    The detection limit is defined as the smallest amount of radioactivity that can be reliably detected, i.e., probability of Type I and Type
    II error at 5 percent each (DOE81).
    Gamma spectrometry using a high purity intrinsic germanium (HpGe) detector.
    Depending on sample type.
                                                         118

-------
13  Training  Program
Proper and  efficient performance of radiological
health functions by qualified personnel is required
to ensure protection from radiological  hazards.
The purpose of the training program is to provide
well-trained,  qualified  personnel to safely  and
efficiently  perform their  assigned  duties  at  a
predetermined level of expertise.

The training program  includes;  tracking training
requirements,   maintaining   training   records,
developing in-house  training, and  documenting
personnel qualifications  and accomplishments.
Systematic  determination of job  requirements
promotes consistent training activities and develops
or improves knowledge, skills, and abilities that can
be utilized in the work environment.
A  Plutonium Valley Exercise was conducted  at
Area 11 of the NTS from November 2 through
November 6, 1992  (see Figures 55, 56, and 57).
This was a combined effort of the EPA, REECo,
EG&G  and the DOE Albuquerque Field  Office
Accident Response Group.  The exercise included
full face respirator dress out, monitoring for alpha
contamination  using  Field  Instruments for the
Detection  of  Low  Energy Radiation  Sources,
sample handling, health and safety, hot line, radio
communications, data control, and decontamination
procedures.

Evaluation and assessment of both laboratory and
field data  were   performed.    Some  federal
emergency response classroom training  was
provided, and there was an opportunity to practice
a shift change. This provided a unique opportunity
Figure 55.  The Control Room in the Plutonium Valley Exercise on the NTS.

                                             119

-------
 for  hands-on  practice  of  monitoring/sampling
 operations in an aged fallout area contaminated
 with 239+240pu. A weapons accident scenario was
 used.

 A Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment
 Center (FRMAC) and a  Joint Hazard Evaluation
 Center was operational during the exercise; each
 exercised  technical interfaces.   The   FRMAC
 exercised  its data  center, which  included  the
 database for field monitoring and laboratory results,
 Geographical Information  System,  and  Global
 Positioning System.  FRMAC field teams from the
 EMSL-LV, EPA/Office of Radiation and Indoor Air,
 and state teams participated.

 Each  year  the  Nuclear  Radiation  Assessment
 Division hosts a  two-day  Environmental Radiation
 Monitoring-Monitor's Refresher course.  This year
 the course  was  conducted October 22  through
 October 23, 1992.

 In addition  NRD  hosted two  Radiation  Safety
 Training Courses. The first course was  held on
 January 19.  It  covered  risks from occupational
exposure, health effects from ionizing radiation,
regulations regarding reporting to the Radiation
Safety Officer a suspected or confirmed pregnancy,
and  "Radiation   Safety:      Introduction,   Lab
Techniques and Emergency Procedures" (video).
The second course was held on June 5; it covered
basic  radiological  health,  including  biological
effects,  radiation detectors, exposure control, and
regulations.

The  final  course  was  a  Quality  Assurance
indoctrination course held on June  26,  1992.  It
covered the "Quality Assurance Program Plan for
the Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division, Offsrte
Radiation Safety Program", Standard  Operating
Procedures,   each  person's  role   in  quality
assurance, rights, responsibilities and  authorities,
stop  work   mechanisms   to   effect  change,
surveillance, and audits.
Figure 56.  Personnel suiting up for the exercise.
                                              120

-------
Figure 57.  Personnel returning with samples.
                                              121

-------
 14.  Radiation  Protection Standards  For External  and
       Internal Exposure

 Design and operation of the ORSP are based on    cable legislation and  literature.  A summary of
 requirements and guidelines contained in appli-      applicable regulations and guidelines follows.

 14.1  Dose Equivalent Commitment

 For stochastic effects in members of the public, the following limits are used:
                                         Effective
                                          Dose
                                         mrem/yr
                  Dose
                Equivalent3
                 mSv/yr
Occasional annual exposures'3

Prolonged period of exposure
500

100
5

1
a  Includes both effective dose equivalent from external radiation and committed effective dose equivalent
   from ingested and inhaled radionuclides.

b  Occasional exposure implies exposure over a few years with the provision that over a lifetime the
   average exposure does not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year (ICRP, 1983).
14.2 Concentration Guides

ICRP-30 (ICRP, 1979) lists Derived Air Concentra-
tions (DAC) and Annual Limits on Intake  (ALI).
The ALI is the secondary limit and can be used
with assumed breathing rates and ingested vol-
umes to calculate concentration guides.   The
concentration  guides (CGs) in  Table 30  were
derived  in this manner and yield the committed
effective dose  equivalent (50 year) of 100 mrem/yr
for members of the public.
14.3  U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency
       Drinking Water Guide

In 40 CFR 141 (CFR, 1988), the EPA set allowable
concentrations for radionuclides in drinking water
sources.  Any combination of beta and gamma
emitters may not lead to exposures exceeding 4
mrem/yr. For tritium, this is 2.0 x 10"5 uCi/mL (740
Bq/L) and for 90Sr it is 8 x 109 uCi/mL (0.3 Bq/L).
                                       122

-------
Table 30. Routine Monitoring Guides
Sampling
Nuclide Frequency
Air Surveillance Network
7Be 1/wk
95Zr 1/wk
35Nb 1/wk
"Mo 1/wk
103Ru 1/wk
131I 1/wk
13?Te 1/wk
137Cs 1/wk
140Ba 1/wk
140La 1/wk
14ICe 1/wk
144Ce 1/wk
238Pu 1/mo
Gross Beta 1/wk
3H 1/wk
85Kr 1/wk
133Xe 1/wk
135Xe 1/wk

Locations
(ASN)
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
19
16
16
16
Water Surveillance Network ILTHMPJ
3H 1/mo
3H+ 1/mo
(enriched tritium)
"Sr 1st time
s°Sr 1st time
137Cs 1/mo
226Ra 1st time
234U 1st time
235U 1st time
238U 1st time
238Pu 1st time
239.24opu 1st time
Gamma 1/mo
all
all

all
all
ail
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
Milk Surveillance Network (MSN}
3H 1/mo
131I 1/mo
137Cs 1/mo
89Sr 1/mo
90Sr 1/mo
Dosimetry Networks
TLD 1/mo
(Personnel)
TLD 1/quarter
(Station)
PIC weekly
all
all
all
all
all
Locations
72

130

29
Sample
Size
m3
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
2400
560
5
0.4
0.4
0.4
b Liters
1
0.25

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.5
Liters
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Number
1

3 to 6

Continuous
Count
Time
Minutes
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
1000
30
150
200
200
200
Minutes
300
300

50
50
100
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
30
Minutes
300
100
100
50
50
Concentrations

Bq/m3
1700
12
110
110
58
4
17
12
120
120
52
1.2
5x 10"
2 X 10'2
4.6 x 103
2.2 x 10*
1.8 x 104
2.3 x 103
Bq/L
740
740

16
0.8
3.3
1.4
8.2
10
10
6.2
4.1
—
Bq/L
12 x 104
41
160
820
40
Exposure Guide MDC
100mR

Guide*
uCi/mL
4.7 x10'8
3x 10'10
3 x 10'9
3x10'9
1.5x 10-9
1 x 10'to
5 x 10-'°
3 x 10'10
3 x 10'9
3x 10'9
1.4x 10'9
3x10'"
1 x 10'14
5 x 10'13
1.2x 10-7
6.2 X 10'7
4.9 x 10'7
6.2 x 10"
uCi/mL
2 x 10'5
2 x 1Q-5

4.4 x 1Q-7
2.2 x 10 9
8.8 x 10 8
3.9 x 10'8
2.2 x 10'7
2.8 X ID'6
2.8 x 10'8
1.7x 10'e
1.1 x 10'8
--
uCi/mL
3 x 10'3
1 x 1Q-6
4 x 10'6
2x1Q-5
1 x 10'6
MDC(%CG)
MDC
mBq/m3
17
4.1
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
4.8
2.6
3.0
12
1.5x 10'3
0.11
148
148
370
370
Bq/L
12
0.37

0.18
0.074
0.33
0.037
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.003
0.002
0.18
Bq/L
12
0.18
0.33
0.18
0.074

MDC
(%CG)

1 X 10'3
4x 10'2
2 X 10'3
2 x 1Q-3
3 x 10°
4x10'2
1 x 102
2x 10'2
4x 103
2 x 103
6 x 103
1.0
0.32
6 x 10'1
3x 10'3
6 x 10-'
2x10'3
2x102

1.6
5x102

1.1
9.2
10
2.6
0.04
0.035
0.035
0.05
0.05
<0.2

0.01
0.44
0.2
0.02
0.18

3.01 mrem 2




5.10mrem

--

2uR/hr

--




     ALI and DAC values from ICRP-30 modified to 1 mSv annual effective dose equivalent for continuous exposure. Te and
     I data corrected to 2 g thyroid, greater milk intake, and smaller volume of air breathed annually (1 year-old infant).
     For tritium, Sr, and Cs the concentration guide is based on Drinking Water Regs, (4 mrem/yr) (CFR,  1988).
                                                   123

-------
 15   Summary and Conclusions
 The primary functions of the ORSP are to conduct
 routine  environmental monitoring for  radioactive
 materials in areas potentially impacted by nuclear
 tests and, when necessary, to implement actions to
 protect the public from radiation exposure.  Com-
 ponents of the ORSP include surveillance networks
 for air, noble gases, atmospheric tritium, and milk;
 biomonitoring of meat, game animals, and vegeta-
 bles; exposure monitoring by thermoluminescent
 dosimetry, pressurized ion chambers,  and whole
 body counting; and long-term hydrological monitor-
 ing of wells and surface  waters.  In 1992, data
 from all networks and monitoring activities indicat-
 ed no radiation  directly  attributable  to current
 activities conducted at the NTS. Therefore, protec-
 tive  actions  were not  required.  The following
 sections summarize the ORSP activities for 1992.

 15.1 Thermoluminescent
       Dosimetry Program

 In 1992, external exposure  was monitored by a
 network of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs)
 at 131 fixed locations surrounding the NTS and by
 TLDs worn by 67 offsite residents.  No apparent
 net exposures were related to NTS activities.  As
 discussed  in Section 3, regulatory or  as low as
 reasonably achievable investigation limits were not
 exceeded for any individual or cumulative expo-
 sure. The range of exposures was similar to those
 observed in other areas of the U.S.

 15.2 Pressurized Ion  Chamber
       Network

 The  Pressurized Ion Chamber  (PIC) network
 measures  ambient  gamma  radiation  exposure
 rates. The 27 PICs deployed around the NTS in
 1992 showed  no unexplained deviations from
 background levels.   The  data  from  Goldfield,
 Nevada, show the greatest range.  From October
 1990 until the sensor  unit was  exchanged in
 February 1992, the  PIC unit at this  location had
been under-estimating the gamma exposure rate.
The gamma exposure rates measured from Febru-
ary to December 1992 closely resemble those
seen prior to  October 1990.  As discussed in
Section 3.2 all PIC values are within the U.S. back-
 ground  range and  are consistent with previous
 years' trends.

 15.3  Air Surveillance  Network

 In  1992,  the Air  Surveillance  Network (ASN)
 consisted of 30 continuously operating sampling
 locations surrounding the NTS.   These stations
 were complemented by 77 standby stations which
 were operated at least one week each quarter. At
 least one standby sampler is located in each state
 west of the Mississippi River.

 In the majority of cases, no gamma-emitting radio-
 nuclides were detected by gamma spectrometry
 (i.e., the results were gamma-spectrum negligible).
 Naturally occurring 7Be was the only radionuclide
 occasionally detected. As in previous years, the
 majority of the gross beta results exceeded the
 MDC.   The plutonium result greater  than the
 analysis MDC was for the fourth quarter New
 Mexico  sample,  a  single  sample  collected  in
 Carlsbad.  The  plutonium results are consistent
 with data from previous years.  Operation of the
 ASN and  the  data results  were discussed  in
 Section 4.1.

 15.4  Tritium  In Atmospheric
       Moisture

 At the beginning of 1992,  the  tritium network
 consisted of  14  continuously operating and two
 standby  stations.   Of the 716 routine and  15
 standby  samples collected  in 1992, 15 samples
 were not analyzed: five because of broken sieves,
 three were lost,  and seven contained insufficient
 sample (moisture).  Two samples exceeded the
 analysis MDC. Both samples were collected June
 16-24,  one from Las Vegas and the other from
 Overton, Nevada.   The operation of the tritium
 samplers and the data results are discussed  in
 Section 4.2.

 15.5  Noble Gas Sampling
       Network

At the beginning of 1992, the Noble Gas Sampling
 Network consisted of 13 routinely operated and
                                          124

-------
three standby stations.  Of the 699 samples col-
lected in 1992, analyses were not performed on 74
samples (10.6 percent) due to insufficient volume
collected or sampler malfunctions. Twelve quarter-
ly samples were collected from standby samplers;
none were collected from Milford and Salt  Lake
City,  Utah.  As  expected, all KKr results  were
above the MDC and were within the range antici-
pated from sampling background  levels and all
133Xe results were below the MDC.

15.6  Foodstuffs

Milk samples were collected from 24 Milk Surveil-
lance Network  (MSN)  and  115  Standby  Milk
Surveillance Network (SMSN) stations  in 1992.
Selected MSN  and SMSN  milk samples  were
analyzed for 3H, 89Sr, and 90Sr, and the results are
similar to those obtained in previous years; neither
increasing  or decreasing trends   are  evident.
Although there was a slight increase in the number
of samples whose results exceeded the  MDC for
3H, 89Sr, and 90Sr in 1992, as listed in Table 10, the
average annual concentrations have, in general,
decreased slightly. A summary of the MSN results
are in Tables 11 for 3H, 12 for ^Sr, and 13 for 90Sr.
The results for the annual SMSN  samples ana-
lyzed for 3H, 89Sr, and 90Sr are given in Table B-6,
Appendix B. Samples analyzed by gamma spec-
trometry for the  SMSN are  listed  in Table  B-7,
Appendix B. The MSN  and SMSN data are con-
sistent with previous years and are not indicative of
increasing or decreasing trends. No radioactivity
directly  related to current   NTS  activities  was
evident.

Sampling under the Animal Investigation Program
in 1992 showed similar results to those reported for
mule deer collected in 1991 for bone tissue analy-
ses and ^Pu analyses in all tissues (DOE, 1992).
The average 90Sr  levels found in mule deer bone
ash since  1955 are shown in Figure 27. Marked
differences between years are observed in the
medians of tritium activity in blood and ^^"Pu in
ashed soft tissues. These differences are due to
the  fact that two contaminated  animals  were
collected in 1991. The analysis of bighorn sheep
showed only  one sample with a ^^"Pu result
greater than the MDC. The four cattle purchased
in May  1992  from the  G.L.  Coffer Fleur de Lis
Ranch of Beatty, Nevada, had detectable concen-
trations  of 90Sr in bone ash samples ranging from
0.27 ± 0.08 to 0.75 ±0.13 pCi/g ash.  One  bone
sample contained 0.001 ± 0.001 pCi/g ash of ^Pu
and 0.003 ± 0.001 pCi/g ash of 239+Z4° Pu.  One of
the cows was pregnant. The fetal bone contained
no 90Sr above the detectable concentration of 0.70
pCi/g ash. The average 90Sr levels found in cattle
bone ash since 1955 are shown in Figure 28. All
liver  samples from the adult  cattle contained
239*24QpU) rangjng from 0 004 ± 0 001 pCi/g asn to
0.015 ± 0.004 pCi/g ash.  No 3H  was detected
above the MDC.  These animals had ranged from
Beatty into the NTS in the Beatty Wash area. As
the objective of the Animal Investigation Program
is  to  detect  worst-case conditions,  the results
indicate that the component of possible radionucl-
ide ingestion from meat is  small  (see Chapter 8,
Dose Assessment).

In the fall of 1992, eight samples of locally grown
fruits  and vegetables  were  donated by offsite
residents in Utah and Nevada. Fruits and vegeta-
bles sampled included  apples, broccoli, cabbage,
carrots, and summer squash. All samples  were
analyzed for  gamma-emitting radionuclides  and
only  naturally occurring  40K  was detected.  All
samples  were analyzed for tritium;  no results
greater than the  MDC of the analysis were ob-
tained. Samples were then ashed and analyzed
for 90Sr, ^Pu, and 239*240Pu.  Results which  were
greater than the MDC of the analysis are listed in
Table 15.  Four vegetable  samples from Nevada
(cabbage, broccoli, and two samples of carrots with
tops) contained 90Sr greater than the MDC of the
analysis.  The source of the ^Sr may have  been
soil particles adhered to the vegetable. No  ^Pu
was found in any of the samples. Concentrations
of  239+240pu  greater than the analysis  MDC  were
found in all carrots with tops samples.  None of the
smooth-skinned surface crops  contained these
radionuclides.

15.7 Internal Exposure
       Monitoring

Internal exposure is assessed  by whole  body
counting using a single  intrinsic coaxial germanium
detector, lung counting using six intrinsic germani-
um semiplanar detectors, and  bioassay using
radiochemical procedures.  During 1992, a total of
2,800 gamma spectra  was obtained  from whole-
body  counting of 281 persons  (including those
individuals who were counted twice).  One hundred
and seven of the counts were on participants of the
Offsite Internaf Dosimetry  Program.   All spectra
were  representative of normal background and
showed only  naturally  occurring  *°K.  No transu-
                                             125

-------
 ranic radionuclides were  detected in any lung-
 counting data.  No internal exposure above appli-
 cable  regulatory limits  was  detected  in  either
 occupationally exposed individuals or members of
 the general public who participated in the Internal
 Dosimetry Program at EMSL-LV.

 Bioassay results for single urine samples collected
 at random periods of time  from participants in the
 Offsite Dosimetry Network showed only five sam-
 ples, from random locations and times, with tritium
 concentrations greater than the MDC. The great-
 est tritium concentration detected in a sample was
 3.43 x 10~7 ± 2.99 x 10"7 u.Ci/ml_, which is only 0.4
 percent of the annual limit of intake for the general
 public.  Table 16 provides a summary of bioassay
 results. Two participants from McGill, Nevada, did
 not participate in the bioassay portion of the pro-
 gram this year.   As  reported in previous years,
 medical examinations of the offsite families re-
 vealed a generally healthy population. The blood
 examinations  and thyroid profiles  showed  no
 symptoms  which could be attributed to past or
 present NTS testing operations.

 15.8  Long-Term Hydrological
        Monitoring  Program

The Long-Term Hydrological  Monitoring Program
is discussed in detail in Section 7. None of the
domestic water supplies monitored in the LTHMP
in 1992 yielded tritium  activities  of any  health
concern. The greatest tritium activity measured in
any  water body  which  has  potential to be a
drinking water supply was less than one percent of
the NPDWRs.   In general,  surface  water and
spring  samples yielded tritium activities greater
than those observed in shallow domestic wells in
the same area. This is probably due to scavenging
of atmospheric tritium by  precipitation.  Where
suitable monitoring  wells  exist, there were  no
indications  that migration from any test cavity is
affecting any domestic water supply.
 In most cases, monitoring wells also yielded no
 radionuclide activity above the MDC.  Exceptions
 include wells into test cavities,  wells monitoring
 known areas of contamination,  and one well at
 GASBUGGY. Known areas of contamination exist
 at Project GNOME where the USGS conducted a
 tracer  study  experiment, some areas onsite at
 Project DRIBBLE.   The  1992 results for  these
 monitoring wells are consistent with  decreasing
 trends  observed over time. Monitoring well EPNG
 10-36  at  Project  GASBUGGY was a  notable
 exception  to wells evidencing decreasing trends.
 This well  is a former  gas well located  435 feet
 northwest  of SGZ. The sampling depth of this well
 is approximately 3600 ft in the Ojo Alamo Sand-
 stone,  an aquifer  containing  nonpotable  water.
 The tritium activity  in 1992 was  10.3 ± 2.6 pCi/L
 and in  1991  was 484 ± 4 pCi/L, approximately 10
 times the historic background activity. An increase
 in tritium activity was first observed in 1984, seven-
 teen years after the test was conducted.  In every
 year since then, with the exception of 1987 and
 1992, tritium activities have been between 100 and
 560 pCi/L, with wide variability sometimes  noted
 between consecutive years. The proximity of the
 well to  the test cavity suggests the possibility that
the increased activity may be indicative of  migra-
tion from the test cavity.
                                             126

-------
References
American National Standards Institute, 1975.
ANSI Standard N545--1975.  American National
Standards Institute, New York, NY.  16pp.
ANSI75

Black, S. and A. Latham, eds. In preparation.
U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Operations
Office Annual Site Environmental Report - 1991.
U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations
Office,  Las Vegas, Nevada. DOE91

Black, S.C., 1989. Memorandum to C.F. Costa,
Subject: DQO's For The Offsite Radiological
Monitoring Program, dated September 10.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
NV. SCB89

Bureau of  the Census, 1990. Population Count
Pursuant to Public La w 94-171.  U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
DOC90

Bureau of  the Census, 1986. 1986 Population
and 1985 Per Capita Income Estimates for
Counties and Incorporated Places, Publication
Number P-26. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. DOC86

Chapman, J.B. and S.L. Hokett.  1991.
Evaluation of Groundwater Monitoring at Offsite
Nuclear Test Areas.  DOE/NV/10845-07, UC-703.
U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, Nevada.
82 pp. DOE91

Code of Federal Regulations, 1988. Drinking
Water Regulations, Title 40, part 141,
Washington D.C. CFR88

Code of Federal Regulations, 1989. National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Polutants;
Radionuclides; Final Rule and Notice of
Reconsideration, Title 40, part 61, Washington,
D.C. CFR89

Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation,  1980.  The Effects on Populations of
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
BEIR80
Corley, J.P., D.H. Denham, R.E. Jaquish, D.E.
Michels, A.R. Olsen D. A. Waite, 1981. A Guide
for Environmental Radiological Surveillance at
U.S. Dept. of Energy Installations, DOE/EP-0023.
Office of Operational Safety Report, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.  DOE81

Costa, C.F. ,  N.R. Sunderland, S.C. Black, M.W.
Chilton, B.B. Dicey,  W.G. Phillips, C.A. Fontana,
R.W. Holloway, C.K. Liu, A.A. Mullen,  V.E.
Niemann, C.J. Rizzardi, D.D. Smith, D.J. Thome,
E.A. Thompson, 1990.  Offsite Environmental
Monitoring Report:  Radiation Monitoring Around
United States Nuclear Test Areas,  Calendar Year
1989, EPA/600/4-90/016. U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, Las Vegas,  NV. EPA90

Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory
Intercomparison Studies Program,  1981.  EPA-
600/4-81-004.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office  of Research and Development,
Las Vegas, NV. EPA81

Freund, J.E., 1962.  Mathematical Statistics.
Prentice Hall Press, Englewood, NJ. FRE62

Houghton, J.G., C.M. Sakamoto, R.O.  Gifford,
1975. Nevada  Weather and Climate, Special
Publication 2.  Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology, University of Nevada,  Mackay School of
Mines, Reno, NV. HO75

Interational Commission on  Radiological
Protection, 1985. Quantitative Bases for
Developing a Unified Index of Harm, ICRP-45.
ICRP85

International Commission on Radiological
Protection, 1982. Limits for Intake of
Radionuclides by Workers, ICRP-30.  Pergamon
Press, New York. ICRP30

International Commission on Radiological
Protection, 1983. Principles for Limiting
Exposure of the Public to Natural Sources of
Radiation, Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) and
Derived Air Concentrations (DAC)  for Members
of the Public, ICRP-39. ICRP39
                                            127

-------
 Jarvis, A.N., L. Siu, 1981.  Environmental
 Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies
 Program - FY 1981-82, EPA-600/4-81-004.  U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
 NV. JA81

 Johns, F., 1979. Radiochemical and Analytical
 Procedures for Analysis of Environmental
 Samples, EMSL-LV-0539-17-1979. U.S.
 Environmental Protection /agency, Las Vegas,
 NV.

 Johns, F., 1979. Radiochemical and Analytical
 Procedures for Analysis of Environmental
 Samples, EMSL-LV-0539-17-1979. U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
 NV. EMSL79

 National Council on Radiation Protection and
 Measurement, 1989.  Screening Techniques for
 Determining Compliance with Environmental
 Standards: Releases of Radionuclides to the
 Atmosphere, NCRP Commentary No 3.
 Washington, D.C. NCRP89

 National Park Service, 1990.  Personal
 communication from Supervisor Park Ranger, R.
 Hopkins,  Death Valley National Monument,  Death
 Valley, CA. NPS90

 Nelson, L., S.J. Qual, 1975. Tec/7.7 (1), January.
 NEL75

 Power, D.V., and C.R. Bowman.  1970. An
 Evaluation of Water Production from the
 GASBUGGY Reentry Well. PNE-G-58. 26pp.

 Quiring, R.E., 1968. Climatological Data, Nevada
 Test Site, Nuclear Rocket Development Station
 (NRDS), ERLTM-ARL-7. ESSA Research
 Laboratories, Las Vegas, NV. QU68

 Snedecor, G.W., W.G. Cochran, 1967.  Statistical
 Methods, 6th edition.  The Iowa State University
 Press, Ames,  IA. SNE67

 Stanley, T.W., et al, 1983.  Interim Guidelines
 and Specifications for Preparing Quality
Assurance Project Plans, QAMS-005/80.  U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
 Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
40 pp. STA83
 Stanley, T.W., and S.S. Vemer, 1985.  The U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency's Quality
 Assurance Program.  In: J.K. Taylor and T.W.
 Stanley (eds.).  Quality Assurance for
 Environmental Measurements. ASTM STP 867,
 pp. 12-19. American Society for Testing and
 Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. STA85

 U.S. Energy Research and Development
 Administration, 1977. Final Environmental
 Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye
 County, Nevada, Report ERDA-1551. U.S.
 Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
 ERDA77

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
 Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Nuclear
 Radiation Assessment Division Offsite Radiation
 Safety Program.  U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, Office of Research and Development,
 Las Vegas, NV.  Internal document.  37 pp.
 EPA92

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.
 Onsite and Offsite Environmental Monitoring
 Report:  Radiation Monitoring Around Tatum Salt
 Dome, Lamar County Mississippi, EPA 600/4-
 91/005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 Las Vegas, NV.  EPA91B

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.
 EPA Journal.  United States  Environmental
 Protection Agency, Office of  Public Affairs (A-
 107), Washington, D.C.  EPA89

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.
 Monitoring Radiation from Nuclear Tests. U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
 Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
 EPA88B

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.
 Environmental Radiation Data, Draft Report 55.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of
 Radiation Programs, Eastern Environmental
 Radiation Facility, Montgomery, AL. EPA88A

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1987.
 Quality Assurance Program Plan. EPA/600/X-
87/241. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas,
NV.  Internal document. 36 pp. EPA87
                                            128

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980.
Plutonium -238 and Plutonium -239 Metabolism
in Dairy Cows Following Ingestion of Mised
Oxides. EPA-600/3-80-097.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Las Vegas, NV. EPA80

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1976.
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems.  EPA/600/9-76/005.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development,  Research Triangle
Park, NC.  EPA76

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991.
Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological
Effluent Monitoring and Environmental
Surveillance, DOE/EH-0173T. U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D.C.  DOE91

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977.
Regulatory Guide 4.13.  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Standards Development,
Washington, D.C. 3pp. NRC77

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981.
Glossary of Terms, Nuclear Power and
Radiation,  NUREG-0770. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC81

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988b.  General
Environmental Protection Program, DOE Order
5400.5  U.S.  Department of Energy, Washington
D.C. DOE88B

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988.  General
Environmental Protection Program, DOE Order
5400.1   U.S.  Department of Energy, Washington
D.C. DOE88

U.S. Department of Energy, 1986.  Handbook for
the Department of Energy Laboratory
Accrediation Program for Personnel Dosimetry
Systems.  DOE/EH-0027. U.S. Department of
Energy, Assistant Secretary for Environment,
Safety, and Health, 36 pp. DOE86B

U.S. Department of Energy, 1986.  Handbook for
the Department of Energy Laboratory
Accrediation Program for Personnel Dosimetry
Systems.  DOE/EH-0026. U.S. Department of
Energy, Assistant Secretary for Environment,
Safety, and Health, 38 pp. DOE86
U.S. Department of Energy. 1986. Long-Term
Monitoring Program, Project GASBUGGY, Rio
Arriba County, New Mexico. NVO-277. U.S.
Department of Energy, Nevada Operations
Office, Las Vegas, Nevada . 24 pp. DOE86

U.S. Department of Energy, 1985.
Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health
Protection Information Reporting Requirements.
DOE Order 5484.1. U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C. DOE85

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1971. Effluent
and Environmental Monitoring and Reporting, jrr
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Manual,
Chapter 0513. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C. AEC71

Velleman, P.P., D.C. Hoaglin, 1981.  Applications
Basics, and Computing of Exploratory Data
Analysis.  Duxbury Press, Boston, MA. VEL81

Westinghouse Savanah River Company, 1989.
Savannah River Site Environmental Report for
1988.  Westinghouse Savannah River Company.
SRS89
                                           129

-------
 Glossary of  Terms
 Definitions of terms given here are modified from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glossary of
 terms (NRC81).
 background   The radiation in man's natural envir-
 radiation      onment, including cosmic rays and
              radiation from the naturally radioac-
              tive elements,  both outside and
              inside the bodies of humans and
              animals.   It  is also called natural
              radiation. The usually quoted aver-
              age individual exposure from back-
              ground radiation is 125 millirem per
              year in midlatrtudes at sea level.

 becquerel     A unit, in the International System
 (Bq)          of Units, of measurement of radio-
              activity equal to one nuclear trans-
              formation per second.

 beta          A charged particle emitted from a
 particle (B)    nucleus during  radioactive decay,
              with a mass equal to 1/837 that of a
              proton. A positively charged beta
              particle is called a positron.  Large
              amounts  of  beta  radiation  may
              cause skin burns, and beta emitters
              are harmful if they enter the body.
              Beta particles are easily stopped by
              a thin sheet of metal or plastic.

 blind          A spiked sample, the composition
 samples      of which is unknown to the techni-
              cian, which has been  introduced
              into  the laboratory as  a  separate
              sample.  These samples are used
              for the verification of analytical ac-
              curacy. Approximately one percent
              of the  sample  load  shall be  blind
              samples.

 Committed    The summation of Dose Equivalents
 Effective      to specific organs or tissues that
 Dose          would be received from an intake of
 Equivalent     radioactive material by an individual
              during  a 50-year period following
              the intake,  multiplied by the appro-
              priate weighting factor.

cosmic        Penetrating ionizing radiation,  both
 radiation      particulate  and  electromagnetic,
             originating  in  space.  Secondary
             cosmic rays, formed by  interactions
              in the earth's atmosphere, account
              for about 45 to 50 millirem of the
              125 millirem background  radiation
              that an average individual receives
              in a year.

 curie (Ci)     The basic unit used to describe the
              rate  of  radioactive  disintegration.
              The curie is equal to 37 billion disin-
              tegrations  per  second,  which  is
              approximately the rate of decay of 1
              gram of radium; named for Marie
              and Pierre  Curie, who discovered
              radium in 1898.

 dosimeter     A portable instrument for measuring
              and registering the total accumulat-
              ed dose of ionizing radiation.

 duplicate     A second aliquot of a sample which
              is approximately equal in  mass  or
              volume to  the  first aliquot and  is
              analyzed for the sample  parame-
              ters. The laboratory performs dupli-
              cate analyses to evaluate the preci-
              sion of an analysis.

 half-life       The time in which half the atoms  of
              a particular radioactive substance
              disintegrate to another nuclear form.
              Measured half-lives vary from mil-
              lionths of a  second to billions  of
              years. Also called physical half-life.

 ionization     The  process  of  creating  ions
              (charged particles) by adding one or
              more electrons to, or removing one
              or more electrons from, atoms or
              molecules.     High  temperatures,
              electrical discharges, nuclear radia-
             tion, and X-rays can cause ioniza-
             tion.

ionization    An instrument that detects and mea-
chamber     sures ionizing radiation by  measur-
             ing  the electrical current that flows
             when  radiation  ionizes gas in  a
             chamber.
                                             130

-------
isotope      One of two or more atoms with the
             same number of protons, but differ-
             ent numbers of neutrons in their
             nuclei.  Thus, 12C, 13C, and UC are
             isotopes of the element carbon, the
             numbers denoting the approximate
             atomic weights.  Isotopes have very
             nearly the  same chemical proper-
             ties,  but  often  different  physical
             properties (for example, 13C and UC
             are radioactive).

matrix spike  An aliquot of a sample which  is
             spiked with a known concentration
             of the analyte of interest. The pur-
             pose  of analyzing this type of sam-
             ple is to evaluate to the effect of the
             sample matrix upon the analytical
             methodology.

method blank A  method blank  is a volume  of de-
             mineralized water for liquid samples,
             or an appropriate  solid matrix for
             soil/sediment   samples,  carried
             through the entire analytical proce-
             dure.  The volume or weight of the
             blank must be approximately equal
             to the volume or weight of the sam-
             ple processed.   Analysis of the
             blank verifies that method interfer-
             ences caused by contaminants  in
             solvents, reagents, glassware, and
             other sample processing hardware
             are known and minimized.

minimum     The smallest amount of radioactivity
detectable    that can be reliably detected with a
(MDC)       probability of Type I  and Type  II
             error at five percent each (DOE81).

millirem      A one-thousandth part of a rem.
(mrem)      (See rem.)

milliroentgen  A one-thousandth part of a roent-
(mR)         gen.  (See roentgen.)

noble gas    A  gaseous element that does not
             readily enter into chemical combina-
             tion with other elements.  An inert
             gas.

personnel    The determination of the degree of
monitoring    radioactive contamination on individ-
             uals using survey meters, or the
             determination  of radiation dosage
picocune
(pCi)
received by means of internal or
external dosimetry methods.

One trillionth part of a curie.
quality factor  The factor by which the  absorbed
             dose is to be multiplied to obtain a
             quantity that expresses, on a com-
             mon scale for all ionizing radiations,
             the biological damage to  exposed
             persons.  It is used because some
             types  of  radiation, such  as alpha
             particles, are more biologically dam-
             aging than other types.

rad          Acronym  for  radiation   absorbed
             dose.   The basic  unit of  absorbed
             dose of radiation.  A dose of  one
             rad means the absorption of  100
             ergs  (a   small but  measurable
             amount of energy)  per  gram of
             absorbing material.

radioisotope  An unstable isotope of an element
             that decays or disintegrates sponta-
             neously, emitting radiation.

radionuclide  A radioisotope.

rem          Acronym for  roentgen equivalent
             man. The unit of dose of any ioniz-
             ing radiation  that  produces  the
             same  biological effect as a unit of
             absorbed dose of ordinary X-rays.
             (See quality factor.)

roentgen (R)  A unit of exposure to ionizing radia-
             tion. It is that amount of gamma or
             X-rays required to  produce  ions
             carrying  one  electrostatic  unit of
             electrical charge in one cubic centi-
             meter  of  dry air  under  standard
             conditions.   Named  after Wilhelm
             Roentgen,  German  scientist  who
             discovered X-rays in 1895.

scintillation   The combination of phosphor,
(dectector or  photomultiplier tube, and associated
counter)      counter electronic circuits  for count-
             ing light emissions produced in the
             phosphor by ionizing radiation.
                                              131

-------
Sieved (Sv)   A unit, in the International System of
              Units (SI), of dose equivalent which
              is equal to one joule per kilogram (1
              Sv equals 100 rem).

terrestrial     The  portion of  natural  radiation
              (background)  that  is  emitted by
              naturally occurring radiation radioac-
              tive materials in the earth.

tritium        A radioactive isotope of hydrogen
              that decays  by beta emission.  It's
              half-life is about 12.5 years.

verification/    A prepared sample of known con-
reference     centration of a purchased standard
standard      reference material. These samples
              are  analyzed in  triplicate  and the
              results are used  to verify accuracy
              and precision of the procedure.
X-rays        Penetrating electromagnetic radia-
              tion (photon)  having a wavelength
              that is much shorter than that  of
              visible light. These rays are usually
              produced by excitation of the elec-
              tron field around certain nuclei.  In
              nuclear reactions, it is customary to
              refer to  photons originating in the
              nucleus  as gamma  rays,  and  to
              those originating in the electron field
              of the atom as X-rays.  These rays
              are sometimes called roentgen rays
              after their discoverer,  Wilhelm  K.
              Roentgen.
                                              132

-------
                                 Appendix A
                      Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Tables and Figures



Table A-1     Personnel Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results -1992



Table A-2     Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results - 1992



Figure A-1     Summary of Annual TLD Data



Figure A-2     Thermoluminescent Dosimetry versus Pressurized Ion Chamber Data -1992
                                         133

-------
Table A-1 Personnel Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results, 1992
Daily Deep Dose Total
# Exposure (mrem) Annual'3'
Station Name of Days
002
003
006
007
009
010
011
014
015
018
019
021
022
025
029
037
038
040
042
044
045
052
056
060
232
248
264
293
300
302
304
307
329
334
336
339
341
344
345
346
347
348
358
359
Caliente, NV
Hot Creek Ranch, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Goldfield, NV
Blue Eagle Ranch, NV
Complex I, NV
Complex I, NV
Coyote Summit, NV
Coyote Summit, NV
Nyala, NV
Goldfield, NV
Beatty, NV
Alamo, NV
American Borate, NV
Stone Cabin Ranch, NV
Indian Springs, NV
Beatty, NV
Goldfield, NV
Tonopah, NV
Cedar City, UT
ST. George, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
American Borate, NV
Shoshone, CA
Hiko, NV
Penoyer Farms, NV
Rachel, NV
Pioche, NV
Koyne Ranch, NV
Gabbs, NV
Death Valley Jet, CA
Mina, NV
Austin, NV
Rachel, NV
Caliente, NV
Tonopah, NV
Silver Peak, NV
Delta, UT
Delta, UT
Milford, UT
Milford, UT
Overton, NV
Beatty, NV
Death Valley, CA
341
237
336
376
305
341
335
343
342
320
307
275
338
262
349
302
360
337
336
309
341
339
280
297
336
239
344
342
336
337
311
354
316
335
331
337
310
340
340
339
339
303
245
285
Min
0.49
0.24
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.36
0.40
0.33
0.32
0.25
0.33
0.38
0.33
0.25
0.33
0.23
0.13
0.32
0.35
0.31
0.18
0.31
0.22
0.24
0.29
0.33
0.34
0.19
0.32
0.27
0.13
0.35
0.42
0.32
0.30
0.38
0.38
0.29
0.32
0.30
0.31
0.26
0.33
0.35
Max
0.82
1.78
0.54
0.71
2.23
0.78
0.68
0.64
0.60
1.14
0.97
0.78
0.53
0.40
1.46
0.57
0.69
0.78
0.77
0.71
0.56
0.81
1.39
0.60
0.61
0.68
0.62
0.75
0.52
0.69
0.80
1.19
0.82
0.64
0.75
0.76
0.71
0.82
0.75
0.76
0.84
0.68
0.71
0.75
Mean Exposure (mrem)
0.59
0.85
0.39
0.49
0.63
0.57
0.54
0.46
0.46
0.73
0.55
0.54
0.41
0.33
0.74
0.39
0.51
0.53
0.53
0.50
0.37
0.48
0.40
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.42
0.49
0.54
0.59
0.63
0.50
0.46
0.60
0.56
0.47
0.46
0.48
0.47
0.43
0.48
0.56
216
293
145
184
219
204
197
167
167
271
215
201
150
125
264
145
188
194
203
180
136
166
154
150
165
178
174
177
157
184
198
231
239
183
168
218
206
168
166
192
186
157
184
198
Percent
Completeness
93
65
92
103
84
93
92
94
94
88
84
75
93
72
96
83
99
92
92
85
93
93
77
81
92
65
94
94
92
92
85
97
87
92
91
92
85
93
93
93
93
83
67
78
134

-------
Table A-1  (Personnel Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results - 1992, con't)

                                        Daily Deep Dose        Total
                              #         Exposure (mrem)      Annual'3'          Percent
Station Name               of Days      Min   Max   Mean Exposure (mrem)   Completeness
370   Twin Springs Ranch, NV     342      0.33   0.99   0.61        227             94
372   Pahrump, NV              327      0.12   0.63   0.40        148             90
377   Las Vegas USDI, NV        196      0.23   1.06   0.44        166             54
379   Manhattan, NV             337      0.40   0.83   0.61        231             92
380   Amargosa Valley, NV        325      0.40   1.60   1.03        370             89
404   Shoshone, CA             327      0.32   0.68   0.46        172             90
405   Indian Springs, NV          296      0.31   0.58   0.43       166              81
411   Pahrump, NV              354      0.18   0.57   0.37        130             97
426   Amargosa Center, NV       352      0.25   0.64   0.50        177             96
427   Alamo, NV                 279      0.25   0.71   0.44        160             76
429   Beatty, NV                 365      0.15   0.63   0.46        173            100
443   Rachel, NV                345      0.34   0.70   0.48        175             95
444   Ely, NV                   343      0.32   0.62   0.46        167             94
445   Terrell's Ranch, NV         364      0.16   0.71   0.52        194            100
448   lone, NV                  309      0.37   0.84   0.54        206             85
449   Round Mountain, NV        314      0.45   0.86   0.64        230             86
450   Pahrump, NV              333      0.19   0.59   0.42        154             91
453   Las Vegas USDI, NV        258      0.24   1.15   0.39        145             71
454   Cedar City, UT             305      0.33   0.70   0.45        163             84
455   Ely, NV                   336      0.41   0.82   0.53        191             92
467   Las Vegas USDI, NV        251      0.19   1.29   0.43        165             69
468   Las Vegas USDI, NV        251      0.25   1.39   0.47        180             69
470   Las Vegas USDI, NV        175      0.17   0.40   0.31        121             48

Total data completeness: 86.8%
(a)  Total annual exposure is calculated by multiplying the mean daily exposure rate by 365.25.
Table A-2  Environmental Thermoiuminescent Dosimetry Results - 1992

                         #      Daily Exposure (mR)   Total Exposure'3' Percent
Station Name            of Days   Min    Max  Mean       (mR)    Completeness

Alamo, NV               366    0.28    0.31    0.30         110        100
Amargosa Center, NV     268    0.34    0.40   0.37         135         73
Amargosa Valley, NV      269    0.31    0.40   0.35         128         74
American Borate, NV      268    0.31    0.40   0.36         131         73
Atlanta Mine, NV         275    0.20    0.29   0.24          88         75
Austin, NV               275    0.38    0.46   0.40         146         75
Baker, CA               366    0.25    0.30   0.28         102        100
Barstow, CA             366    0.30    0.36   0.33        .121        100
                                           135

-------
 Table A-2  (Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results - 1992, con't)

                          #      Daily Exposure (mR)   Total Exposure'3'  Percent
 Station Name            of Days   Min    Max   Mean        (mR}    Completeness
 Battle Mountain, NV       274    0.19   0.36   0.28         102         75
 Beatty, NV               267    0.34   0.40   0.37         135         73
 Bishop, NV               364    0.31   0.36   0.34         124        100
 Blue  Eagle Ranch, NV     359    0.21   0.26   0.24         88         98
 Blue  Jay, NV             360    0.37   0.46   0.41         150         99
 Boulder, UT              296    0.21   0.30   0.25         91          81
 Bryce Canyon, UT        296    0.20   0.29   0.24         88         81
 Cactus Springs, NV       366    0.19   0.23   0.21         77        100
 Caliente, NV              366    0.29   0.35   0.32         117        100
 Carp, NV                366    0.28   0.34   0.30         110        100
 Cedar City, UT            303    0.17   0.26   0.22         80         83
 Cherry Creek, NV         272    0.25   0.35   0.30         110         75
 Clark Station, NV          358    0.32   0.39   0.37         135         98
 Coaldale, NV             276    0.31   0.38   0.34         124         76
 Colorado City, AZ         232    0.20   0.32   0.26         95         64
 Complex I, NV            365    0.09   0.38   0.30         110        100
 Com  Creek, NV           366    0.15   0.18   0.17         62        100
 Cortez Hwy 278, NV       206    0.26   0.47   0.33         121         56
 Coyote Summit, NV       364    0.36   0.48   0.42         153        100
 Crescent Valley, NV       303    0.21    0.37   0.28         102         83
 Currant , NV              358    0.33   0.36   0.35         128         98
 Currie, NV                179    0.28   0.47   0.38         139         49
 Death Valley Jet, CA       181     0.32   0.33   0.33         121          50
 Delta, UT                357    0.23   0.28   0.25         91          98
 Desert Co. Fty, NV        366    0.17   0.20   0.19         69         100
 Diablo Well, NV           360    0.37   0.43   0.41          150         99
 Duchesne, UT             359    0.20   0.26   0.23         84          98
 Duckwater, NV            359    0.31    0.37   0.33         121          98
 Elgin, NV                365    0.40   0.50   0.43         157        100
 Elko,  NV                 303    0.19   0.37   0.26         95          83
 Ely, NV                  275    0.19   0.29   0.24         88          75
 Enterprise, UT             296    0.31    0.47   0.38         139         81
 Eureka, CA               359     0.07   0.41    0.29         106         98
 Fallon, NV                302     0.21    0.48   0.30         110         83
 Perron, UT                359     0.20   0.26   0.23         84          98
 Flying Diamond, NV       366     0.06   0.29   0.23         84         100
 Furnace Creek, CA        268     0.23   0.30   0.26         95          73
Gabbs, NV                274     0.25    0.30   0.27         99          75
Garrison, UT              272     0.19    0.24   0.22         80          75
Geyser Ranch, NV         275     0.18   0.28   0.23         84          75
Goldfield, NV              276     0.30   0.35   0.32         117         76
Grantsville, UT            358     0.22    0.27   0.24         88          98
Green River, UT           366     0.23    0.38   0.28         102        100
Groom Lake, NV           236     0.29    0.37   0.32         117         65
                                           136

-------
Table A-2  (Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results - 1992, con't)

                       #      Daily Exposure (mR)   Total Exposure'3' Percent
Station Name          of Days   Min   Max   Mean       (mR)   Completeness
Gunnison, UT
Hancock Summit, NV
Hiko, NV
Hot Creek Ranch, NV
Ibapah, UT
Independence, CA
Indian Springs, NV
lone, NV
Jacob's Lake, AZ
Kanab, UT
Kirkeby Ranch, NV
Koyen's Ranch, NV
Las Vegas, Apt., NV
Las Vegas, UNLV, NV
Las Vegas, USDI, NV
Lida, NV
Loa, NV
Lone Pine, CA
Lovelock, NV
Lund, NV
Lund, UT
Mammoth Geother, CA
Mammoth Lakes, CA
Manhattan, NV
Medlin's Ranch, NV
Mesquite, NV
Milford, UT
Mina, NV
Moapa, NV
Monticello, UT
Mtn Meadows Ranch, NV
Nash Ranch, NV
Nephi, UT
Nyala, NV
Olancha, CA
Overton, NV
Page, AZ
Parowan, UT
Penoyer Farms, NV
Pine Creek Ranch, NV
Pioche, NV
Price, UT
Provo, UT
Pahrump, NV
302
366
366
353
272
211
364
231
364
366
280
366
267
267
267
275
296
315
302
274
296
365
134
231
366
365
210
275
365
365
272
366
302
359
365
366
366
294
365
265
366
359
358
366
0.16
0.46
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.10
0.19
0.31
0.27
0.19
0.17
0.31
0.13
0.11
0.15
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.27
0.33
0.30
0.38
0.36
0.19
0.34
0.31
0.07
0.26
0.22
0.06
0.17
0.27
0.28
0.19
0.07
0.19
0.38
0.40
0.26
0.22
0.21
0.17
0.26
0.57
0.31
0.44
0.36
0.33
0.22
0.43
0.42
0.31
0.26
0.38
0.25
0.25
0.33
0.38
0.42
0.35
0.37
0.32
0.43
0.41
0.34
0.45
0.44
0.36
0.41
0.36
0.29
0.44
0.26
0.29
0.25
0.31
0.31
0.43
0.27
0.28
0.47
0.42
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.22
0.20
0.50
0.27
0.36
0.30
0.24
0.21
0.36
0.33
0.24
0.22
0.33
0.18
0.17
0.22
0.33
0.35
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.33
0.36
0.32
0.41
0.39
0.25
0.36
0.33
0.23
0.33
0.24
0.23
0.20
0.29
0.30
0.26
0.21
0.24
0.41
0.41
0.28
0.25
0.23
0.19
                                                       73        83
                                                      183        100
                                                       99        100
                                                      131        97
                                                      110        75
                                                       88        58
                                                       77        100
                                                      131        63
                                                      121        100
                                                       88        100
                                                       80        77
                                                      121        100
                                                       66        73
                                                       62        73
                                                       80        73
                                                      121        75
                                                      128        81
                                                      117        86
                                                       99        83
                                                       95        75
                                                      121        81
                                                      131        100
                                                      117        37
                                                      150        63
                                                      142        100
                                                       91        100
                                                      131        58
                                                      121        75
                                                       84        100
                                                      121        100
                                                       88        75
                                                       84        100
                                                       73        83
                                                      106        98
                                                      110        100
                                                       95        100
                                                       77        100
                                                       88        81
                                                      150        100
                                                      150        73
                                                      102        100
                                                       91        98
                                                       84        98
                                                       69        100
                                        137

-------
 Table A-2  (Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Results - 1992, con't)

                          #      Daily Exposure (mR)   Total Exposure'31  Percent
 Station Name            of Days   Min    Max   Mean       (mR)   Completeness
 Queen City Summit, NV    360     0.40    0.46    0.43         157         99
 Rachel, NV               366     0.35    0.45    0.39         142        100
 Reed Ranch, NV          360     0.35    0.43    0.39         142         99
 Reno, NV                290     0.30    0.32    0.31         113         79
 Ridgecrest, CA            366     0.29    0.36    0.32         117        100
 Round Mountain, NV      276     0.36    0.40    0.38         139         76
 Ruby Valley, NV          302     0.23    0.49    0.35         128         83
 Salt Lake City, UT         358     0.23    0.28    0.25          91          98
 Shoshone, CA            366     0.24    0.28    0.26          95         100
 Shurz, NV                301     0.26    0.40    0.33         121          82
 Silver Peak,  NV           274     0.25    0.30    0.28-        102         75
 Springdale, NV            267     0.35    0.47    0.41         150         73
 St. George, UT            356     0.15    0.22    0.18          66          98
 Steward Ranch, NV        275     0.27    0.42    0.34         124         75
 Stone Cabin Ranch,  NV    356     0.36    0.43    0.39         142         98
 Sunnyside, NV            273     0.14    0.22    0.18          66          75
 Tempiute, NV             366     0.35    0.45    0.38         139        100
 Terrel's Ranch, NV        267     0.36    0.41    0.39         142         73
 Tonopah Test Range, NV   358     0.38    0.47    0.41         150         98
 Tonopah, NV             275     0.36    0.42    0.38         139         75
 Trout Creek, UT           271     0.21    0.28    0.24          88          74
 Twin Springs Ranch, NV    360     0.33    0.41    0.37         135          99
 U.S. Ecology, NV          267     0.37    0.47    0.41         150          73
 US Ecology,  NV           268     0.36    0.43    0.40         146          73
 Uhaldes Ranch, NV        366     0.33    0.43    0.38         139         100
 Valley Crest, CA           268     0.19    0.23    0.21          77          73
 Vernal, UT                359     0.21    0.26    0.24          88          98
 Vernon, UT               358     0.22    0.27    0.24          88          98
 Warm Springs #2, NV      176     0.93    1.08    1.00         365          48
 Wells, NV                301     0.21    0.41    0.29         106          82
 Wendover, UT            238     0.18    0.28    0.22          80          65
 Willow Springs Lodge, UT   358     0.18    0.28    0.22          80          98
 Winnemucca, NV          302     0.22    0.40    0.30         110          83
 Young's Ranch, NV        274     0.31    0.36    0.32         117          75


 Minimum total exposure is  56.5 at Las Vegas, UNLV, Nv.
 Maximum total exposure is 365.6  at Warm Springs #2, Nv
 Mean of total exposure is 113.4

TOTAL DATA COMPLETENESS:  85.7%

(a)  Total exposure is calculated by multiplying the mean daily exposure rate 365.25.
                                           138

-------
                         (MINIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM)
     800 H
     720-
     640-
     560-
  E
  1   480:
  CO
  IT
  £  400:
  3
 IS
  C
     320-
     240 :
     160 :
      80-
         71  72  73 74 75 76 77 78 79  80  81  82  83 84 85 86 87  88  89  90 91  92 93
                                     Calendar Year 19...

Figure A-1. Summary of Annual TLD Data
                                      139

-------
                                  (All units are in mR/year)
   1   110
   Q
       50-
           50     60    70
1 i  '

80
T-|-I T-r i |  i T i  r-|- -r-

 90    100    110

       PIC Data
-, pri i i [  i i .  i | i  i i i  | i i  i i |


120    130    140    150    160
Figure A-2.  TLD vs. PIC Data - 1992
                                          140

-------
                      Appendix  B
             Atmospheric Monitoring Tables And Figures

Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Standby Air Surveillance Network, 1992

Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Standby Air Surveillance Network, 1992

Offsite Atmospheric Plutonium Results for Standby Samplers, 1992

Offsite Atmospheric Tritium Results for Standby Samplers, 1992

Offsite Noble Gas Results for Standby Samplers, 1992

Standby Milk Surveillance Network Radiochemical Analyses Results, 1992

Standby Milk Surveillance Network Gamma Spectrometry Results, 1992

Distribution for strontium results for the standby milk stations, Western Region 1982 -1992

Distribution for strontium results for the standby milk stations, Midwest Region 1982 -1992
Table B-1

Table B-2

Table B-3

Table B-4

Table B-5

Table B-6

Table B-7

Figure B-1

Figure B-2

Figure B-3


Figure B-4

Figure B-5

Figure B-6
Distribution for strontium results for the standby milk stations, Mountain Region  1982 -
1992

Distribution for tritium results for the standby milk stations, Western Region 1982  -1992

Distribution for tritium results for the standby milk stations, Midwest Region 1982  -1992

Distribution for tritium results for the standby milk stations, Mountain Region 1982 -1992
                               141

-------
 Table B-1.  Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Standby Air Surveillance Network - 1992

                                         Gross Beta Concentration (1Q'U uCi/mL)


 Sampling Location

 Little Rock, AR
 Globe, AZ
 Kingman, AZ
 Tuscon, AZ
 Winslow, AZ
 Yuma, AZ
 Alturas, CA
 Baker, CA
 Bishop, CA
 Chico, CA
 Indio, CA
 Lone Pine, CA
 Needles, CA
 Ridgecrest, CA
 Santa Rosa, CA
 Cortez, CO
 Denver, CO
 Grand Junction, CO
 Mountain Home, ID
 Nampa, ID
 Pocatello, ID
 Fort Dodge, IA
 Iowa City, IA
 Dodge City, KS
 Monroe, LA
 Minneapolis, MN
 Clayton, MO
 Joplin, MO
 St. Joseph,  MO
 Great Falls, MT
 Kalispell, MT
 Miles City, MT
 North Platte, NE
Adaven-Uhalde Ranch,
Battle Mountain, NV
Blue Jay, NV
Clark Station, NV

Number
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
3
NV 8
5
4
4

Maximum
2.75*
2.77*
2.44*
2.26*
5.51*
2.49*
1.76*
2.34*
3.00*
3.12*
4.08*
2.59*
2.37*
0.15
2.52*
2.95*
2.12*
2.52*
3.35*
2.35*
1.58*
2.22*
2.37*
2.21*
2.59*
2.38*
3.11*
3.17*
2.11*
1.59*
1.90*
2.30*
2.69*
2.83*
2.19*
2.49*
2.70*

Minimum
1.40*
1.06*
0.59*
0.84*
1.45*
1.37*
0.06*
1.74*
1.21*
1.44*
1.81*
1.24*
1.18*
0.08
0.20
2.50*
1.67*
1.63*
0.51*
0.76*
1.08*
1.30*
1.96*
1.67*
1.29*
0.91*
1.52*
0.90*
-0.06
0.98*
1.40*
1.26*
1.51*
0.52*
1.53*
1.05*
1.18*
Arithmetic
Mean
2.04
1.75
1.45
1.79
3.14
1.97
0.91
1.99
1.89
2.07
2.73
1.75
1.77
0.11
1.40
2.72
1.93
2.00
1.66
1.66
1.33
1.71
2.16
1.98
1.87
1.58
2.06
2.01
0.71
1.22
1.65
1.77
2.09
1.64
1.89
1.46
1.73
Standard
Deviation
0.63
0.76
0.93
0.65
1.79
0.56
0.81
0.31
0.69
0.91
0.96
0.73
0.84
0.05
1.16
0.22
0.23
0.46
1.50
0.75
0.35
0.47
0.29
0.26
0.66
0.73
0.74
1.04
1.21
0.26
0.35
0.52
0.59
0.80
0.24
0.69
0.69
Mean MDC: 2.50 x 1Q-15 u.Ci/mL
Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 3.07 x 10'16 uCi/mL
MDC  =  minimum detectable concentration.
      =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
                                           142

-------
Table B-1.  (Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Standby Air Surveillance Network - 1992, cont.)

                                       Gross Beta Concentration (1Q'U uCi/mL)
Sampling Location

Currant-Angle
 Worm Ranch, NV
Currie Maint. Station,
Duckwater, NV
Elko, NV
Eureka, NV
Fallon, NV
Geyser Ranch, NV
Lida, NV
Lovelock, NV
Lund, NV
Mesquite, NV
Reno, NV
Round Mountain, NV
Wells, NV
Winnemucca, NV
Albuquerque, NM
Carlsbad, NM
Shiprock, NM
Bismarck, ND
Fargo, ND
Williston, ND
Muskogee, OK
Burns, OR
Medford, OR
Rapid City, SD
Amarillo, TX
Austin, TX
Midland, TX
Tyler, TX
Bryce Canyon, UT
Enterprise, UT
Garrison, UT
Logan, UT
Parowan, UT
Vernal, UT
Wendover, UT
Seattle, WA
Spokane, WA
Rock Springs, WY
Worland, WY
   Number
NV
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
2
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4

1
4

4
3
2
2
4
6
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Maximum
2.10*
1.78*
1.42*
1.28*
1.56*
3.56*
3.23*
1.77*
2.11*
1.43*
4.27*
1.73*
1.64*
1.78*
1.55*
2.52*
2.59*
1.84*
2.18*
3.35*
5.93*

Minimum
1.39*
0.76*
1.07*
0.04
0.83*
1.65*
1.28*
1.37*
1.28*
0.33*
3.40*
1.04*
1.06*
0.86*
0.89*
1.08*
0.93*
1.35*
0.94*
1.32*
1.19*
Quarterly sampling not
1.07*
2.36*
Quarterly
3.18*
1.54*
1.59*
1.60*
1.96*
2.25*
1.41*
3.13*
1.59*
2.39*
1.94*
1.37*
3.01*
3.40*
1.97*
1.07*
0.39*
sampling not
1.59*
1.06*
0.66*
1.25*
1.59*
1.61*
1.02*
1.93*
0.99*
0.57*
1.23*
0.57*
1.29*
1.56*
1.40*
Arithmetic
Mean
1.60
1.16
1.26
0.67
1.18
2.73
2.19
1.57
1.64
1.03
3.83
1.34
1.30
1.34
1.21
1.69
1.52
1.59
1.57
2.00
2.53
performed
1.07
1.26
performed
2.08
1.28
1.12
1.43
1.79
1.94
1.21
2.33
1.39
1.52
1.58
0.91
2.25
2.09
1.63
Standard
Deviation
0.34
0.44
0.15
0.62
0.31
0.98
0.81
0.28
0.39
0.50
0.62
0.30
0.30
0.38
0.37
0.67
0.79
0.24
0.56
0.92
2.27

~
1.00

0.74
0.24
0.66
0.25
0.17
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.27
0.86
0.37
0.34
0.73
0.88
0.27
Mean MDC: 2.50 x 10'15 uCi/mL
                      Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 3.07 x 10'16 uCi/mL
MDC  =  minimum detectable concentration.
*     =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
                                           143

-------
 Table B-2. Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Standby Air Surveillance Network -1992
                                         Gross Alpha Concentration (10'15 uCi/mL)
 Sampling Location

 Little Rock, AR
 Globe, AZ
 Kingman, AZ
 Tuscon, AZ
 Winslow, AZ
 Yuma, AZ
 Alturas, CA
 Baker, CA
 Bishop, CA
 Chico, CA
 Indio, CA
 Lone Pine,  CA
 Needles, CA
 Ridgecrest, CA
 Santa Rosa, CA
 Cortez, CO
 Denver, CO
 Grand Junction, CO
 Mountain Home, ID
 Nampa, ID
 Pocatello, ID
 Fort Dodge, IA
 Iowa City, IA
 Dodge City, KS
 Monroe, LA
 Minneapolis, MN
 Clayton, MO
 Joplin, MO
 St. Joseph,  MO
 Great Falls, MT
 Kalispell, MT
 Miles Crty, MT
 North Platte, NE
Adaven-Uhalde Ranch, NV
 Battle Mountain, NV
 Blue Jay, NV
Clark Station, NV
Currant-Angle
 Worm Ranch, NV
Currie Maint. Station, NV
Duckwater,  NV

Mean MDC:  7.70 x 10'16 uCi/mL

Number
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
3
V 8
5
4
4
4
4
4

Maximum
2.1*
2.1*
2.2*
1.4*
2.8*
1.7*
1.6*
2.7*
2.3*
1.7*
1.5*
1.1*
1.5*
0.6
2.1*
2.1*
0.8*
1.9*
2.6*
1.5*
1.2*
2.0*
0.7
0.9
1.4*
1.7*
1.0*
2.3*
1.8*
2.7*
0.9
3.1*
1.3*
2.2*
1.7*
2.2*
1.3*
1.1*
1.8*
1.2*

Minimum
0.6
1.4*
0.2
0.4
0.8*
0.5
0.0
2.0*
1.4*
0.2
1.1*
1.0
1.0*
0.0
0.6
0.6*
0.5
1.1*
0.2
0.4
0.7*
1.3*
0.6
0.3
0.4
-0.1
0.5
0.5
-0.1
0.4
0.5
2.2*
0.7*
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.9*
Arithmetic
Mean
1.3
1.8
1.2
0.97
1.5
1.2
0.62
2.4
2.0
0.83
1.3
1.0
1.2
0.30
1.2
1.5
0.63
1.6
1.2
0.90
0.95
1.6
0.65
0.70
0.77
0.80
0.82
1.1
0.70
1.6
0.70
2.8
0.93
1.0
0.88
1.2
0.60
0.82
0.95
1.0
Standard
Deviation
0.72
0.40
1.0
0.43
0.92
0.62
0.69
0.35
0.37
0.78
0.17
0.06
0.35
0.42
0.78
0.81
0.15
0.44
1.2
0.53
0.35
0.36
0.07
0.27
0.55
0.77
0.24
0.82
0.98
1.2
0.28
0.39
0.32
0.83
0.71
0.71
0.50
0.25
0.84
0.14
Standard Deviation of Mean MDC:  2.49 x 10"1S u€i/mL
MDC  =  minimum detectable concentration.
*     =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
                                           144

-------
Table B-2. (Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Standby Air Surveillance Network - 1992, cont.)
                                        Gross Alpha Concentration (10s uCi/mL)
Sampling Location

Elko, NV
Eureka,  NV
Fallen, NV
Geyser Ranch, NV
Lida, NV
Lovelock, NV
Lund, NV
Mesquite, NV
Reno, NV
Round Mountain, NV
Wells, NV
Winnemucca, NV
Albuquerque, NM
Carlsbad, NM
Shiprock, NM
Bismarck, ND
Fargo, ND
Williston, ND
Muskogee, OK
Burns, OR
Medford, OR
Rapid City, SD
Amarillo, TX
Austin, TX
Midland, TX
Tyler, TX
Bryce Canyon, UT
Enterprise, UT
Garrison, UT
Logan, UT
Parowan, UT
Vernal, UT
Wendover, UT
Seattle, WA
Spokane, WA
Rock Springs,  WY
Worland, WY
Mean MDC:  7.70 x KJ16 u€i/mL

Number
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
2
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
-
1
4
-
4
3
2
2
4
6
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Maximum
1.6*
1.2*
3.0*
2.3*
0.7
,1.1*
3.1*
3.9*
1.3*
1.6*
1.6*
0.6
1.6*
1.6*
1.5*
1.3*
3.8*
7.4*

1.1*
2.1*

3.6*
0.8
0.5
1.0*
1.4*
2.3*
1.3*
1.2*
1.8*
2.6*
1.5*
1.8*
1.0*
1.5*
2.1*

Minimum
0.1
0.2
1.1*
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.7*
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.8*
Quarterly sampling
1.1*
0.1
Quarterly sampling
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.9*
0.6*
0.5*
0.5
0.9*
0.0
0.4
-0.3
0.3
0.2
-0.1
Arithmetic
Mean
0.87
0.72
1.7
1.6
0.55
0.75
1.3
2.8
0.60
0.87
1.0
0.32
1.1
0.70
0.87
0.75
1.3
2.6
not performed
1.1
0.82
not performed
2.0
0.67
0.50
0.70
1.0
1.2
0.90
0.80
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.65
0.65
0.85
1.1
Standard
Deviation
0.75
0.43
1.1
0.90
0.21
0.34
1.3
1.6
0.56
0.64
0.54
0.26
0.51
0.67
0.78
0.54
1.6
3.2

-
0.88

1.3
0.23
0.00
0.42
0.24
0.63
0.57
0.32
0.39
1.2
0.46
0.89
0.31
0.53
0.91
Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 2.49 x 10'16 u.Ci/mL
MDC  =  minimum detectable concentration.
      =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
                                           145

-------
 Table B-3. Offsite Atmospheric Plutonium Results for Standby Samplers - 1 992

                                                 23aPu Concentration (10'18 uCi/ml)

                                                           Arithmetic    Standard   Mean as
 Sampling Location         Number  Maximum    Minimum      Mean      Deviation    %DCG

 AZ (Winslow & Tucson)        4       24.90      -7.30       4.400        14.093     70.15
 CA (Bishop & Ridgecrest)      2         6.01       -8.48      -1.235        10.246    N/A
 CO (Denver & Cortez)         4       22.50     -11.90       1.512        15.744      0.05
 ID (Nampa & Mountain Home)  4         0.00     -18.50      -7.250         8.986    N/A
 MO (Clayton & Joplin)         4       16.50     -11.90       0.295        11.905      0.01
 MT (Great Falls & Miles City)   4       12.10      -6.60       1.820         9.515      0.06
 NM (Albuquerque & Carlsbad)  4       85.70*      -6.69      19.682        44.219      0.66
 ND (Bismarck & Fargo)        4         0.00     -18.50      -4.625         9.250    N/A
 OR (Mines & Medford)         4         6.77     -49.90     -23.132        23.668    N/A
 TX (Austin & Amarillo)         4       <0.01      -38.90     -21.400        18.168    N/A
 UT (Logan & Vernal)          4       <0.01      -14.50      -4.180         6.959    N/A
 WA (Seattle & Spokane)        4         0.00      -4.44      -2.218         2.561     N/A
 WY (Worland & Rock Springs)  4       22.20*      -8.97       5.807        14.334      0.19

 Mean MDC: 4.19 x  10"17 nCi/mL             Standard Deviation of Mean MDC:  2.62 x 10"17 u.Ci/mL
 DCG = derived concentration guide. Established by DOE Order as 3 x 10~15 u,Ci/mL.
                                                       Concentration (1Q-
                                                                      -18
AZ (Winslow & Tucson)        4        14.60       -6.52        2.610        9.692       0.13
CA (Bishop & Ridgecrest)      2         0.00       -8.48       -4.240        5.997     N/A
CO (Denver & Cortez)         4         9.16       -7.49        0.418        6.814       0.02
ID (Nampa &  Mountain Home)  4         0.00      -10.50       -5.902        4.409     N/A
MO (Clayton & Joplin)         4         0.00      -16.50       -6.045        7.854     N/A
MT (Great Falls & Miles City)   4        13.20        1.93        6.025        5.074       0.30
NM (Albuquerque & Carlsbad)  4      120.00*      -3.76       29.862       60.288       1.49
ND (Bismarck & Fargo)         4        <0.01       -9.26       -5.798        4.111     N/A
OR (Hines & Medford)         4        <0.01      -24.90       -8.750       11.772     N/A
TX (Austin & Amarillo)         4        16.90       -7.79        2.795       10.317       0.14
UT (Logan & Vernal)           4         4.82       -2.22        0.650        2.971       0.03
WA (Seattle & Spokane)        4        12.10       -5.94        3.760        8.246       0.19
WY (Worland  &  Rock Springs)  4         3.70       -8.97       -3.480        6.338     N/A

Mean MDC: 3.39 x m17 u.Ci/mL             Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 2.02 x 1Q-17 u.Ci/mL
DCG  =  derived concentration guide. Established by DOE Order as 2 x 10"15 uCi/mL.
MDC  =  minimum detectable concentration.
*      =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
N/A   =  not applicable.
                                            146

-------
Table B-4. Offsite Atmospheric Tritium Results for Standby Samplers - 1992
                                     HTO Concentration (10'7 pCi/mL)
Sampling Location

Shoshone, CA
Austin, NV
Caliente, NV
Ely, NV
Cedar City, UT
Delta, UT
Milford, UT
Mean MDC:  4.89 x 10's pCi/mL
Number Maximum   Minimum
Arithmetic
  Mean
4
2
1
1
3
1
1
25.8
4.90
-11.6
-5.53
8.78
-3.99
15.9
4.47
-5.22
11.6
-5.53
13.8
-3.99
15.9
14.2
-0.157
-11.6
-5.53
-3.18
-3.99
15.9
Standard
Deviation

   9.03
   7.15
                                          11.3
Mean as
 %DCG

  0.01
  N/A
  N/A
  N/A
  N/A
  N/A
  0.02
                 Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 2.40 x 10'6 pCi/mL
DCG  =  derived concentration guide. Established by DOE Order as 1 x 10"2 pCi/mL.
MDC  =  minimum detectable concentration.
N/A   =  not applicable.
Table B-5. Offsite Noble Gas Results for Standby Samplers -1992

                                     85Kr Concentration (1Q'11 uCi/mL)
Sampling Location
                             Arithmetic  Standard  Mean as
Number  Maximum   Minimum    Mean    Deviation   %DCG
Shoshone, CA                2     2.86*
Austin, NV                    2     2.55*
Caliente, NV                  2     2.76*
Ely, NV                      1      2.35*
Cedar City, UT                4     2.82*
Delta, UT                     1      2.80*
Milford, UT
Salt Lake City, UT

Mean MDC: 5.82 x 10-12 u.Ci/mL
                      2.65*
                      2.44*
                      2.34*
                      2.35*
                      2.11*
                      2.80*
   2.75
   2.50
   2.55
   2.35
   2.55
   2.80
   0.14
   0.08
   0.30

   0.33
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
  0.01
                 Quarterly sampling was not performed
                 Quarterly sampling was not performed

                 Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 1.40 x 10'12 u€i/mL
DCG  =  derived concentration guide. Established by DOE Order as 3 x 10"7u€i/mL.
MDC  =  minimum detectable concentration.
*     =  result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
                                            147

-------
 Table B-5. (Offsite Noble Gas Results for Standby Samplers -1992, cont.)

                                        133Xe Concentration (10'12 uCi/mL)
 Sampling Location

 Shoshone, CA
 Austin, NV
 Caliente, NV
 Ely, NV
 Cedar City, UT
 Delta, UT
 Milford, UT
 Salt Lake City, UT
 Mean MDC: 1.68 x 10"11 uCi/mL
                               Arithmetic  Standard  Mean as
  Number Maximum   Minimum    Mean    Deviation   %DCG
2
2
2
1
4
1
0.880
0.000
0.328
-3.21
1.73
0.000
0.285
-12.1
-0.438
-3.21
-16.8
0.000
0.582
-6.07
-0.055
-3.21
-4.63
0.000
0.421
8.59
0.542
~
8.34
—
0.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
              Quarterly sampling was not performed
              Quarterly sampling was not performed

                  Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 6.96 x 10'12
 DCG  = derived concentration guide. Established by DOE Order as 5 x 10"8 \iC\lmL.
 MDC  = minimum detectable concentration.
 N/A   = not applicable.
Table B-6.  Standby Milk Surveillance Network Radiochemical Analyses Results - 1992

                                                   Concentration ± 1s (MDC)(a)
Sampling
Location

Little Rock, AR
  Borden's

Russellville, AR
  Arkansas Tech Univ.

Taylor, AZ
  Sunrise Dairy

Tucson, AZ
  University of Arizona

Bakersfield, CA
  Favorite Foods, Inc.
Collection
 Date in
                3H
1992     x 1Q-9uCi/mL(t"        x 109uCi/mL(b)     x 10'9 uCi/mL(b)


06/18     206+84(270)       0.59 ± 1.1 (1.1)      2.6+0.48(1.4)*


06/18     153 + 83 (271)     0.087  ± 0.85 (1.1)   0.86 ± 0.37 (1.4)


                                     N/A        -0.29 ± 0.40 (1.5)


                                     N/A        -0.40 + 0.32 (1.4)
  10/18      385 ±124 (400)


  10/20      296 ±130 (421)
  10/05      368 ±128 (413)     -0.47 ± 1.1 (1.5)    0.63 ± 0.40 (1 .5)
(a)    =  minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
(b)    =  multiply the results by 3.7 x 10~7 to obtain Bq/L.
      =  result is greater than the MDC of  analysis.
N/A   =  not analyzed.
                                            148

-------
Table B-6.  (Standby Milk Surveillance Network Radiochemical Analyses Results - 1992, cont.)

                                                    Concentration 11s (MDC)(a)
                         Collection     	
Sampling                  Date in           3H                  ^Sr                90Sr
Location                   1992      x IP'9 uCi/mL(b)        x 10'9 uCi/mL
-------
 Table B-6.  (Standby Milk Surveillance Network Radiochemical Analyses Results - 1992, cont.)

                                                     Concentration ± 1s (MDC)(a>
                         Collection     	
 Sampling                  Date in           3H                  89Sr               90Sr
 Location                    1992      x 10'9 uCi/mL(b)        x 10'9 uCi/mL(b)      x 1(r9 uCi/mL(b>

 Fosston, MN
  Land O' Lakes, Inc.       04/28       94 ± 72 (234)         1.6 ± 1.1 (1.3)*     1.7 ± 0.41 (1.3)*

 Rochester, MN
  Assoc Milk Prod, Inc.      05/26       53 ± 71 (234)       0.22 1 1.1 (1.4)      1.4 1 0.42 (1.4)

 Monett, MO
  Mid-America Dairy, Inc.    07/27      -68 ± 76 (252)            N/A            1.8 ± 0.42 (1.4)*

 Chillicothe, MO
  Mid-America Dairymen     09/03      4131126(407)*          N/A            1.6 ± 0.34 (1.3)*

 Billings, MT
  Meadow Gold Dairy       07/17      322 ± 86 (273)*      0.82 ± 0.77 (0.86)    1.7 ± 0.42 (1.3)*

 Great Falls, MT
  Meadow Gold Dairy       07/16      298185(273)*           N/A            1.410.43(1.5)

 Norfolk, NE
  Gillette Dairy              07/14      171183(268)        2.010.80(0.93)*   1.010.42(1.3)

 North Platte,  NE
  Mid-America Dairymen     07/27       46+78(257)            N/A            1.510.40(1.4)*

 Albuquerque, NM
  Borden's Valley Gold      09/08      2931122(394)           N/A           0.5310.42(1.5)

 La Plata, NM
  River Edge Dairy          07/11      298 1 90 (287)*     -0.60 1 0.65 (0.93)   1.34 1 0.34 (1.3)*

 Bismarck, ND
  Bridgeman Creamery, Inc  04/14      -70 1 68 (227)      0.063 1 0.82 (1)       2.0 1 0.38 (1.3)*

 Grand Forks, ND
  Minnesota Dairy           04/22       82171(232)      -0.7410.77(1)       1.610.38(1.4)*

 Enid, OK
  AMPI Goldspot Division    06/08      127171(231)       0.9411.1(1.3)      1.010.43(1.5)

McAlester, OK
  Jackie Brannon Corr Ctr    07/16      241  1 87 (281)       0.21  1 0.70 (0.91)    1.0 1 0.37 (1.3)

(a)    =  minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
(b)    =  multiply the results by 3.7 x 10"7 to obtain Bq/L.
      =  result is greater than the MDC  of analysis.
N/A   =  not analyzed.
                                             150

-------
Table B-6.  (Standby Milk Surveillance Network Radiochemical Analyses Results - 1992, cont.)

                                                    Concentration ± 1s (MDC)(a)
                        Collection     	
Sampling                  Date in           3H                  89Sr                90Sr
Location                   1992      x 10'9 uCi/mL(b)        x 10'9 uCi/mL(b)      x 10'9 uCi/mL(b)

Medford, OR
 Dairygold Farms           07/13      171 ± 83 (268)       -0.22 ± 0.59 (0.89)   0.86 ± 0.32 (1.3)

Salem, OR
 Curly's Dairy              07/06      101 ± 84 (275)      0.047 ± 0.68 (0.99)    1.2 ± 0.34 (1.3)

Tillamook, OR
 Tillamook Creamery        08/17      -6.4 ± 78 (257)           N/A           0.81  ± 0.36 (1.4)

Rapid City, SD
 Gillette Dairy - Black Hills   04/06       67 ± 69 (226)        1.010.82(1.1)  -0.065 ± 0.39 (1.5)

Sioux Falls, SD
 Lakeside Dairy            04/02       25 ± 70 (229)       0.66 ± 0.93 (1.2)    0.84 ± 0.43 (1.5)

Sulphur Springs, TX
 Tommy Rue Potts Dairy    11/13      108 ±91 (296)       0.24 ±1(1.2)       1.7 ± 0.45 (1.4)*

Windthorst, TX
 Lloyd Wolf Dairy           11/13      153 ± 118 (387)      -3.3 ± 0.90 (1.2)     1.2 ± 0.39 (1.4)

Beaver, UT
 Cache Valley Dairy         05/26      128 ± 74 (241)       0.80 ± 0.65 (0.91)   0.22 ± 0.33 (1.3)

Provo, UT
 BYU Dairy Products Lab    06/15       92 ± 73 (238)       0.39 ± 0.80 (1.2)    0.38 ± 0.35 (1.4)

Seattle, WA
 Darigold, Inc.              10/12      114 ±125 (410)      1.3 ±2.1  (3.4)     0.37 ± 0.35 (1.4)

Spokane, WA
 Darigold, Inc.              10/06      437 ± 128 (412)*            N/A           1.1 ± 0.39 (1.4)

Cheyenne, WY
 Dairy Gold Foods          07/15      214 ± 87 (280)       0.62 ± 0.70 (0.86)   1.33 ± 0.38 (1.3)*

Sheridan, WY
 Mydland Dairy             05/19       41 ± 76 (250)        1.3± 0.85 (1)*    0.99 ± 0.40 (1.3)

(a)     = minimum detectable concentration (MDC).
(b)     = multiply the results by 3.7 x 10'7 to obtain Bq/L.
       = result is greater than the MDC of analysis.
N/A    = not analyzed.
                                             151

-------
 Table B-7.  Standby Milk Surveillance Network Gamma Spectrometry Results - 1992
 Samples from the following locations were analyzed by gamma spectrometry only: in all cases
 only naturally occuring radionuclides were detected.
 Sampling                           Collection
 Location                             Date

 Duncan, AZ
  Lunt Dairy                          09/23
 Tempe, AZ
  United Dairymen of Arizona            10/07
 Batesville, AR
  Hills Valley Foods                    06/24
 Fayetteville, AR
  University Of Arkansas                06/10
 Chino, CA
  CA  Institute for Men                  10/27
 Cresent City, CA
  Rumiano Cheese Company            10/16
 Fernbridge, CA
  Humboldt Creamery Assn.             10/16
 Fresno, CA
  CA State University Creamery          10/19
 Helendale, CA
  Osterkamp Dairy No. 2                10/07
 Holtville, CA
  Schaffner & Son Dairy                10/05
 Lompoc, CA
  Federal Penitentiary Camp             10/27
 Long  Beach, CA
  Paul's Dairy                          10/26
 Manchester, CA
  Point Arena Dairies                   10/14
 Manteca, CA
  Supremo Foods                      11/20
 Modesto, CA
  Foster Farms - Jersey Dairy            12/03
 Petaluma, CA
  Point Reyes Seashore Dairy            10/14
 San Jose, CA
  Marquez Bros Mexican Cheese         10/07
 San Luis Obispo, CA
  Cal Poly University Dairy               10/27
 Soledad, CA
  Correction Training Industry            10/20
 Tracy, CA
  Deuel Vocational  Institute              10/20
 Colorado Springs, CO
  Sinton  Dairy                          07/10
Greeley, CO
  Meadow Gold Dairy                   07/08
 Ft Collins, CO
  Poudre Valley Creamery               06/08
Caldwell, ID
  Darigold, Inc.                         08/31
Pocatello, ID
 Sampling                           Collection
 Location                              Date

  Rowland's Meadowgold Dairy          08/06
 Twin Falls, ID
  Triangle Young's Dairy                08/03
 Kimbalrton, IA
  Assoc. Milk Pro., Inc.(AMPI)            06/10
 Lake Mills, IA
  Lake Mills Coop Creamery             06/01
 Lemars, IA
  Wells Dairy                          06/10
 Manhattan, KS
  Kansas State University               06/11
 Lafayette, LA
  Borden's                            04/28
 New Orleans,  LA
  Walker Roemer Dairy                 04/09
 Shreveport, LA
  Foremost Dairy                      05/11
 Fergus Falls, MN
 Mid-America Dairymen                 04/08
 Browerville, MN
  Land O' Lakes, Inc.                   04/28
 Nicollet, MN
  Doug Schultz Farm                   05/09
 Jackson, MO
  Mid-America Dairymen, Inc.            06/23
 Jefferson City, MO
  Central Dairy Company                07/23
 Bozeman, MT
  Country Classic-DBA-Darigold          07/28
 Kalispell, MT
  Equity Supply Co                     07/20
 Omaha, NE
  Roberts Dairy, Marshall Green          07/28
 Chappell, NE
  Leprino Foods                       07/06
 Superior, NE
  Mid-America Dairymen                09/08
 Fargo, ND
  Cass Clay Creamery                  04/24
 Minot, ND
  Bridgemen Creamery                  04/13
 Las Vegas, NV
  Anderson Dairy                       10/07
 Reno, NV
  Model Dairy                          10/19
Yerington, NV
  Valley Dairy                          10/26
Coalgate, OK
  Larry Krebs Dairy                     06/15
                                               152

-------
Table B-7.  (Standby Milk Surveillance Network gamma Spectrometry Results - 1992, cont.)
Samples from the following locations were analyzed by gamma spectrometry only: in all cases
only naturally occuring radionuclides were detected.
Sampling
Location
Collection
  Date
Sampling
Location
Collection
  Date
Claremore, OK
 Swan Brothers Dairy
Stillwater, OK
 OK State University Dairy
Grants Pass, OR
 Valley Of Rouge Dairy
Junction City, OR
 Lockmead Farms Inc
Klamath Falls, OR
 Klamath Dairy Products
Myrtle Point, OR
 Safeway Stores,  Inc.
Ontario, OR
 Eastway Dairy
Portland, OR
 Darigold Farms
Redmond, OR
 Eberhard's Creamery, Inc.
Ethan, SD
 Ethan Dairy Products
  06/17

  06/17

  07/07

  07/20

  07/22

  08/03

  09/01

  07/27

  07/14

  04/07
Volga, SD
 Land O'Lakes Inc
Canyon, TX
 West Texas State Dairy
Corpus Christi, TX
 Hygeia Milk Plant
Fabens, TX
 Island Dairy - El Paso County
Glen Rose TX
 Dewayne Hankins Dairy
Richfield, UT
 Ideal Dairy
Smithfield,  UT
 Cache Valley Dairy
Moses Lake, WA
 Safeway Stores,  Inc
Riverton, WY
 Western Dairymen's Co-op
Thayne, WY
 Western Dairymen's Co-op
  07/09

  11/06

  11/16

  12/01

  11/09

  05/18

  05/27

  10/05

  07/07

  06/08
                                              153

-------
                   8-
              3
             en
              I
                   4-
                                                    i      1
              I
                 _4
 Figure B-1.
-a-l
      |  i—i  i i—] i  i—i  i |i r  i I |  r—i  r-.  i i  i—)i  i i  r-i- |  i '  i i  | i  i—i—i [—i  i i  i—i  r i  i i  [
      82     83     84     85      86     87     88      89     90     91      92
                                  Sample Collection Year
Distribution for strontium results for the standby milk stations, Western Region 1982 -1992.
8-
0- 4:
3 :
05
1
° :
I
o
a -4-
-8-








I ?




'


I | | i


82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Figure B-2.
                                 Sample Collection Year
Distribution for strontium results for the standby milk stations, Midwest Region 1982 - 1992.
                                                     154

-------
                  8-"
            b
            O)
             I
                  0-
             'cr
                — 8 -
                       I i  I r—i  | I  i i  i |  r-i  ! r  ] i  i I  i |  p i i  i p-i i  i i  j i—I r—i |  I I  I i  [ i  I i  i ( i  i i  i j
                      82     83     84      85     86     87      88     89     90     91     92
                                                  Sample Collection Year
Figure B-3.       Distribution for strontium results for standby milk stations, Mountain Region 1982 -1992.
             o>
             |
                  600-
                  500-
                  400-
                  300
                  200
                  100-
   0-
                 -100-
                -200-
                 -300 -1.
Figure B-4.
       82     83     84      85     86     87     88_   89      90     91
                                  Sample Collection Year
Distribution for tritium results for standby milk stations, Western Region 1982 - 1992.
                                                                                                92
                                                     155

-------
 F\gure B-5.
                   700-
                   600-
                   500-
              i    400
              ID
              o>
              iL    300
              o
              =    200-
              |
  100
                     0-
                  -100-
                 -200 -I
82
83
84
85
89
90
91
                                     86      87     88
                                   Sample Collection Year
 Distribution for tritium results for standy milk stations, Midwest Region 1982 - 1992.
                                                                                                 92
700-
600-
500:
? 400:
o :
CD 300-
i :
LU
0
c. 200:
g 100:
1 °^
-100:
-200:
-300 :









•

I

































82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Figure B-6.
                                   Sample Collection Year
Distribution for tritium results for standy milk stations, Mountain Region 1982 - 1992.
                                                     156

-------
                                     Appendix C
                             Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Tables

Table C-1    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Locations in the NTS
            Vicinity  - 1992

Table C-2    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project FAULTESS -1992.

Table C-3    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project SHOAL - 1992

Table C-4    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project RULISON - 1992

Table C-5    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project RIO BLANCO -1992

Table C-6    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project GNOME - 1992

Table C-7    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project GASBUGGY - 1992

Table C-8    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project DRIBBLE - 1992
                                             157

-------
 Table C-1.   Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Locations in the NTS
              Vicinity  - 1992
 Sampling
 Location

 Amargosa Valley, NV
  Well Mary Nickell's
 Shoshone, CA
  Shoshone Spring
 Adaven, NV
  Adaven Spring

 Alamo,  NV
  Well 4 City
 Ash Meadows, NV
  Crystal Pool
  Fairbanks Springs


  Spring-17S-50E-14cac


  WelM8S-51E-7db
Beatty, NV
  U.S. Ecology
  Specie Springs


  Tolicha Peak


  Well 11S-48-1dd Coffers


  Well 12S-47E-7dbd City
Collection
 Date in
  1992
  02/06
  08/04
  02/04
  08/05
  01/14
  07/01

  01/16
  07/02
  05/07
  11/02

  05/07
  11/02

  06/08
  12/14

  05/07
  11/02
  06/08
  12/08

  03/04
  07/09

  02/05
  08/05

  01/08
  07/09

  01/07
  07/09
Concentration ± 1 s
     of Tritium
     (pCi/L)fb)
     1.3 ±   2.2
    46   + 140
     0.0 ±   1.8
    82   + 140
    32   +   2
  -114   + 113

     0.0  ±   1.7
   -45   ± 114
     4.6  ±    3.7
   138   ±  145

    -2.3  ±    4.6
 -411   +143

    -4.1  ±    1.7
   374   +  142

     1.9  +    3.8
    52   ±  145
     1.9  +   2.0
  315   ±  142

  -82   ±  127
     4.6  +   1.6

  -32   ±  127
     0.21 +   1.74

  111    +  126
     2.7  ±   1.5

  243   ±  127
     3.0  +   1.5
  Percent of
Concentration
   Guide(a)
      N/A
      N/A
      N/A
      N/A
      0.04
      N/A

      N/A
      N/A
      N/A
      N/A

      N/A
      N/A

      N/A
      N/A

      N/A
      N/A
     N/A
     N/A

     N/A
     N/A

     N/A
     N/A

     N/A
     N/A

     N/A
     N/A
(a)    Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
(b)    Multiply the results by 3.7 x 107 to obtain Bq/L
N/A   Not applicable. Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either because the tritium result is less than the
      MDC or because the water is known to be nonpotable
                                                158

-------
Table C-1 . (Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Locations in the NTS
Vicinity - 1992, cont.)
Collection Concentration ± 1s Percent of
Sampling
Location
Well Road D Spicers
Younghans Ranch
(House Well)
Boulder City, NV
Lake Mead Intake


Clark Station, NV
Well 6 TTR

Hiko, NV
Crystal Springs
Indian Springs, NV
Well 1 Sewer Company
Well 2 US Air Force

Johnnie, NV
Well Johnnie Mine

Las Vegas, NV
Well 28 Water District

Lathrop Wells, NV
City 15S-50E-18cdc
Nyala, NV
Sharp's Ranch
Date in
1992
02/05
08/05
06/11
12/09
03/06
05/07
09/03

02/04
08/05
01/16
07/02
03/03
09/10
03/03
09/03
03/03
09/10
09/03
10/08
04/06
10/16
02/04
08/03
of Tritium
(pCi/U
85 + 127
-1.9 ± 1.7
-1.3
-81
-32
58
62

-21
1.8
-2.9
33
25
1.1
-118
1.5
96
6.0
-0.50
-1.3
1.5
-14
-92
0.81
± 1.9
± 140
± 127
± 2
+ 2

+ 127
+ 1.6
± 1.6
± 115
+ 127
± 2.6
± 126
± 1.3
± 128
+ 1 7^
+ 1.32
± 1.7
+ 2.2
+ 140
± 127
± 1.56
Concentration
Guide'3'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.06
0.07

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
(a)    Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
(b)    Multiply the results by 3.7 x 107 to obtain Bq/L
N/A   Not applicable. Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either because the tritium result is less than the
      MDC or because the water is known to be nonpotable
                                                  159

-------
 Table C-1.  (Long-Term  Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Locations in the  NTS
            Vicinity - 1992, cont.)
Sampling
Location

Oasis Valley, NV
  Goss Springs
Pahrump, NV
  Calvada Well
Rachel, NV
  Wells 7 & 8 Penoyer
  Well 13 Penoyer


  Well Penoyer Culinary
Tempiute, NV
 Union Carbide Well
Tonopah, NV
 City Well
Warm Springs, NV
 Twin Springs Ranch
Collection
 Date in
  1992
  02/05
  08/05
  02/04
  08/05
  06/03
  09/21

  06/03
  09/09

  04/01
  10/06
  02/12
  08/06
  03/03
  09/08
  04/01
  10/01
Concentration ± 1 s
    of Tritium
       aCi/L)
   -11   + 127
     0.0 ±   1.9
     0.0 ±   1.5
   107   ± 140
    44   ±112
     0.63 ±    1.45

  -165   ±  110
    -0.89 ±    1.76

    39   +  133
    -0.21 ±    1.65
 -153   +  126
    -2.0  +    1.9
   121    ±  128
     4.2  ±    1.4
 -291    ±  132
    -0.47 ±    1.25
  Percent of
Concentration
   Guide'3'
      N/A
      N/A
      N/A
      N/A
      N/A
      N/A

      N/A
      N/A

      N/A
      N/A
     N/A
     N/A
     N/A
     N/A
     N/A
     N/A
(a)   Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
(b)   Activity is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)
N/A  Not applicable;  Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either because the tritium result is less than
     the MDC or because the water is known to be nonpotable
                                                160

-------
Table C-2.   Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
           FAULTLESS-1992.
Sampling
Location

Blue Jay, NV
Hot Creek Ranch Spring
Maintenance Station
Well Bias
Well HTH-1
Well HTH-2
Well Six Mile
             Collection
              Date in
               1992
              02/24
              02/24
              02/25
              02/25
              02/25
              02/25
     Concentration ± 1 s
         of Tritium
           aCi/L)
          Percent of
        Concentration
           Guide'3'
  Not Sampled - Spring and well dry
         0.0  ± 1.4           N/A
         4.2  ± 1.8           N/A
         0.73 ± 1.22          N/A
         1.4  ± 1.2           N/A
         0.9  ± 1.5
              N/A
(a)  Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
N/A Not analyzed
Table C-3.  Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
           SHOAL- 1992
Sampling
Location

Frenchmen Station, NV
 Hunt's Station
 Smith/James Springs
 Spring Windmill
 Well Flowing
 Well H-3
 Well HS-1
             Collection
              Date in
               1992
               03/11
               03/11
               03/11
               03/11
               10/21
               03/11
     Concentration ± 1s
         of Tritium
           3Ci/L)
          Percent of
        Concentration
           Guide'3'
        0.88  ± 1.50
         56  ± 2(c)
   Not Sampled - Well dry
        -1.1  ± 1.8
       -0.38  ± 1.62
        0.86  ± 1.47
              N/A
              0.06

              N/A
              N/A (b>
              N/A
(a)  Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
(b)  Additional analyses performed on this sample and results are greater than MDC
(c)  Activity is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)
N/A Not applicable; Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either because the
    tritium result is less than the MDC or because the water is known to be nonpotable
Analysis

U-234
U-238
      Additional analyses on Well H-3

Result             1 sigma          MDC
0.14
0.042
0.02
0.011
0.03
0.020
 Units

pCi/L
pCi/L
                                      161

-------
 Table C-4.  Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
            RULISON-1992
 Sampling
 Location

 Rulison, CO
  Lee Hayward Ranch
  Potter Ranch
  Robert Searcy Ranch
  Felix Sefcovic Ranch

 Grand Valley,  CO
  Battlement Creek
  City Springs
  Albert Gardner Ranch
  Spring 300 Yd. N of GZ
  Well CER Test
                   Collection
                     Date in
                      1992
                      06/09
                      06/09
                      06/09
                      06/09
                      06/09
                      06/09
                      06/09
                      06/09
                      06/09
Concentration ± 1 s
    of Tritium
      3Ci/L)
    160 ± 3(b)
    67 ± 2(b)
    78 ± 2(b)
    57 ± 2(b)
    63
   0.43
    98
    63
1.49
3(b!
    48  ± 2
           .(b)
           Percent of
         Concentration
            Guide(a)
              0.18
              0.07
              0.09
              0.06
0.07
(b)

0.11
0.07
50.05
 (a)  Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
 (b)  Activity is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)
 N/A Not applicable. Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either because the
     tritium result is less than the MDC or because the water is known to be nonpotable
Table C-5.
Collection
Sampling
Location
Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
RIO BLANCO  - 1992
               Concentration ± 1s
                     Date in
                      1992
Rio Blanco, CO
  B-1 Equity Camp (spring)         06/10
  CER No.1 Black Sulfur (spring)    06/10
  CER No.4 Black Sulfur (spring)    06/10
  Fawn Creek 1                   06/10
  Fawn Creek 3                   06/10
  Fawn Creek 500 Ft Upstream     06/10
  Fawn Creek 500 Ft Downstream   06/10
  Fawn Creek 6800 Ft Upstream    06/10
  Fawn Creek 8400 Ft Downstream  06/10
  Johnson Artesian Well            06/10
  Brennan Windmill (well)           06/10
  WellRB-D-01                    06/11
  Well RB-D-03                   06/11
  Well RB-S-03                   06/11
    Percent of
    of Tritium
49
57
50
21
26
26
26
26
29
-1.8
3.7
-2.1
0.75
1.7
+ 2(b)
+ 3
-------
Table C-6.   Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
            GNOME - 1992
Sampling
Location

Malaga, NM
 Well 1 Pecos
 Pumping Station
 Well DD-1
 Well LRL-7
 Well PHS 6
 Well PHS 8
 Well PHS 9
 Well PHS 10
 Well USGS 1
 Well USGS 4
 Well USGS 8

Carlsbad, NM
 Well 7 City

Loving, NM
 Well 2 City
             Collection
              Date in
               1992
              06/17
              06/16
              06/16
              06/15
              06/15
              06/15
              06/15
              06/15
              06/16
              06/16
              06/18
              06/17
             Concentration ± 1s
                 of Tritium
                   3Ci/L)
-2.6
6.5x1 07
11,700
37
15
0.14
-2.0
-0.40
118,000
91,100
+
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
1.5
3.2x1 05(b)
170(b)
2^
2
                                         N/A(d)
                                         0.04
                                         0.02
                                         N/A
                                         N/A
                                         N/A
                                         N/A(e)
                                         N/A(f)
                           N/A
                                          <0.01
(a)
(b)
(c,d,e,f)
N/A
Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
Activity is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)
Additional analyses greater than MDC
Not applicable; Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either
because the tritium result is less than the MDC or because the water is
known to be nonpotable
(c)

(d)
(e)
(f)
                      Additional analyses greater than MDC

              Analysis     Result       1 sigma        MDC
      Cs-137
      Sr-90
      Cs-137
      Sr-90
      Cs-137
      Sr-90
551,000
 13,000
  200
 6,200
  69
 5,140
25,600
 1,180
  11
  18
   1
  16
  N/A
2,920
  N/A
   59
  N/A
   53
Units

pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
                                     163

-------
Table C-7.    Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
              GASBUGGY- 1992
                              Collection
Sampling                      Date in
Location                        1992

Gobernador, NM
  Arnold Ranch                 04/14
  Bixler Ranch                  04/16
  Bubbling Springs              04/14
  Cave Springs                 04/14
  Cedar Springs                 04/14
  La Jara Creek                 04/15
  Lower Burro Canyon           04/15
  Pond N of Well
  30.3.32.343                   04/15

Well EPNG 10-36               04/16

                               09/16

Well Jicarilla 1                   04/15
Well 28.3.33.233 (South)         04/16
Windmill 2                      04/15
                           Concentration ± 1 s
                               of Tritium
                               Percent of
                              Concentration
                                 Guide(al
                      Not Sampled - Road washed out
13
42
75
55
70
0.0
34
33
364
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
2(c)
2<=)
3(0
3(0)
3«4
1.8
3(0;
2
-------
Table C-8.
Sampling
Location
Baxterville, MS
 Half Moon Creek

Half Moon Creek Overflow

Pond West Of GZ

REECO Pit Drainage-A
REECO Pit Drainage-B
REECO Pit Drainage-C
Well E-7
Well HM-1

Well HM-2A

Well HM-2B

Well HM-3

Well HM-L

Well HM-L2

Well HM-S

Well HMH-1

Well HMH-2

Well HMH-3

Well HMH-4

Well HMH-5

Well HMH-6

Well HMH-7

Well HMH-8

Well HMH-9

Well HMH-10

Well HMH-11
Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
DRIBBLE- 1992
Collection
Date in
1992
Concentration ± 1 s
of Tritium
(pCi/L
\
Percent of
Concentration
Guide'3'
Onsite Sampling Locations
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/26
04/26
04/28
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
04/26
04/27
15
27
690
587
16
14
31
1,317
556
6.0
1.8
0.0
-2.3
-1.6
2.1
-4.5
3.3
-0.88
1,305
611
2.4
-3.0
7,073
6,724
5,835
14,395
5,115
12,841
11
27
13
15
1856
2064
72
57
Not Sampled -
Not Sampled -
13
20
87
91
298
256
23
28
± 1"
+ 2(c
± 5«
± 4(c
+ 2(c
+ 2(c)
+ 2(c>
±114(c)
+ 4(c)
± 1.8(c)
± 1.6
± 1.6
+ 2.0
± 1.5
+ 1.9
± 1.3
± 2.0
± 1.6
±114(c)
± 4
+ 2(c)
+ 1«
±117(c)
±118(c)
± 2(c)
± 3
+ 2(c)
± 3«>
± 3«>
± 4W
± 2«>
± 2(c)
0.02
0.03
0.8
0.7
0.02
0.02
0.03
1.5
0.6
0.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.5
0.7
N/A
N/A
7.9
7.5
6.5
16.0
5.7
14.2
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
2.1
2.3
0.08
0.06
water
water
0.01
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.03
0.03
                                      165

-------
  Table C-8.
  Sampling
  Location
(Long-Term Hydorlogical Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
GNOME - 1992, cont.)
                   Concentration ± 1s
                         Date in
                          1992
       Percent of
       of Tritium
          DCi/L)
                        Concentration
                           Guide'3'
                                Onsite Sampling Locations
Well HMH-12

We!! HMH-13

Well HMH-14

Well HMH-15

Well HMH-16

Well HT-2C
Well HT-4
Well HT-5
Baxterville, MS
 Little Creek #1
 Lower Little Creek #2
 Salt Dome Hunting Club
 Salt Dome Timber Co.
 Anderson Pond
 Anderson, Billy Ray
 Anderson, Regina
 Anderson, Robert Harvey
 Anderson, Robert Lowell, Sr.
 Anderson, Robert Lowell, Jr.
 Bilbo, Timothy
 Burge, Joe
 Chambliss, B.
 Daniels, Ray
 Daniels, Webster Jr.
 Daniels Fish Pond Well #2
 Kelly Gertrude
 King, Rhonda
 Lee, P. T.
 Mills, A. C.
 Mills, Roy
 Nobles  Pond
 Noble's Quail House
 Noble, W. H., Jr.
 Ready,  R. C.
 Saucier, Dennis
 Saucier, Wilma/Yancy
 Smith, Rita
 Well Ascot 2
 City Well
                      04/26
                      04/27
                      04/26
                      04/27
                      04/26
                      04/27
                      04/26
                      04/27
                      04/26
                      04/27
                      04/28
                      04/28
                      04/28
      12
      12
      11
       7.6
               ±
               ±
               ±
               ±
               (c)
Not Sampled - Well dry
Not Sampled - Well dry
12
9.1
75
117
9.0
6.1
±
±
±
±
±
+
2(c)
2.3(c)
2
3(0)
1.5(c)
2.5
    0.99   ±
                  1.69
                                Offsite Sampling Locations
                      04/28
                      04/28
                      04/29
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/28
                      04/27
                      04/28
                      04/29
                      04/29
                      04/29
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/29
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/27
                      04/29
                      04/28
                      04/28
                      04/27
                      04/28
                      04/29
     20     +   2(c)
     18     +   1(c)
     24     ±   2(c)
     27     +   2(c>
      8.5   +    1.3|c)
     16     ±   2
Not Sampled - No one home
               1.43
             2&
               1.54
               1.59
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
                              0.01
                              0.01
                              0.08
                              0.1
                              0.01
                              N/A
                              N/A
                         0.02
                         0.02
                         0.03
                         0.03
                         0.01
                         0.02
        17     ±
        20     ±
        17     ±
        24     ±
        18     ±
        -0.85   ±
        15     ±
        18     ±
        19     ±
        -0.87   ±
        20     ±
        45     ±
        -0.90   ±
        18     ±  2(c)
        18     ±  2(c)
        59     +  5(c)
        37     ±  2(c)
Not Sampled - Now on city water
        41      ±  3(c)         0.05
        3.1    ±    1.7        N/A
Not Sampled - Moved, Well Down
  Not Sampled - Well In Water
        26     ±  2(c)         0.03
                           0.02
                           0.02
                           0.02
                           0.03(d)
                           0.02
                           N/A
                           0.02
                           0.02
                           0.02
                           (b)
                           0.02
                           0.05
                           (b)
                           0.02
                           0.02
                           0.07
                           0.04
                                          166

-------
  Table C-8.
 (Long-Term Hydorlogical Monitoring Program Analytical Results for Project
 GNOME - 1992, cont.)
  Sampling
  Location
                    Concentration ± 1 s
                          Date in
                           1992
                           Percent of
                           of Tritium
                      Concentration
                         Guide(a)
Columbia, MS
 Dennis, Buddy
 Dennis, Marvin
 City Well 64B

Lumberton, MS
 Anderson, G. W.
 Anderson, Lee L.
 Bond, Bradley K.
 Cox, Eddie
 Gil Ray's Crawfish Pond
 Gipson, Herman
 Gipson, Hewie
 Gipson, Phillip
 Graham, Sylvester
 Hartfield, Ray
 Moree, Rita-House Well
 Beach, Donald
 Powers, Sharon
 Rushing, Debra
 Saul, Lee L.
 Smith,  E. J.
 Smith,  Howard
 Smith,  Howard-Pond
 Thompson, Roswell
 Well 2  City

Purvis, MS
 Surge Willie Ray and Grace
 City Supply
 Gil, Ray-House  Well
                           Offsite Sampling Locations (continued)
                       04/28
                       04/28
                       04/28
       04/27
       04/29
       04/29
       04/27
       04/27
       04/28
       04/27
       04/27
       04/28
       04/28
       04/28
       04/27
       04/29
       04/28
       04/28
       04/28
       04/28
       04/29
       04/28
       04/29
                       04/27
                       04/27
                       04/27
                                Not
                                Not
                       21
                       14
                        6.8
    19
    20
    16
    28
     7.0
    -1.8
    23
    21
    -2.0
    -2.8
Sampled
Sampled
    13
    27
     0.0
    18
     1.5
    12
    28
     2.2
                       15
                        2.9
                       -2.9
           ±
           ±
           ±
                                                   (c)
                                              ±  3
                                                   lc)
                                              ±  3
                                                   (c)
 +    1.5
 +   3(c)

 ±    1.8
 ±    3.8
Moved, Well Down
Moved, Well Down
                0.02
                0.02
                0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
N/A
0.03(b)(e)
0.02(b)(f>
N/A
  ±
  ±
  ±
                                                    1.7

                                                    2.2
                                                  3(c)

                                                    2.0
                1.8
                1.6
                0.01
                0.03
                N/A
                0.02(b)
                N/A
                0.01
                0.03(b)(h)
                N/A
0.02
N/A
N/A
  *    =  Activity is greater than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC)
  N/A =  Not applicable; Percent of concentration guide is not applicable either because the
         tritium result is less than the MDC or because the water is know to be nonpotable
  (a)  =  Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L tritium
  (b)  =  Formerly the residence of Talmadge  S. Saucier
  (c)  =  New sampling location
  (d,e,f,g) = Additional analyses greater than MDC:
  (d)

  (e)
  (f)

  (9)
Analysis
  U-234
  U-238
  U-238
  U-234
  U-238
  U-234
  U-238
Result
  0.038
  0.021
  0.018
  0.099
  0.057
  0.14
  0.12
            MDC
              0.026
              0.010
              0.014
              0.036
              0.009
              0.01
              O.OJ
                  Units
                  pCi/L
                  pCi/L
                  pCi/L
                  pCi/L
                  pCi/L
                  pCi/L
                  pCi/L
                                           167

-------
I
s ^_^ B     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
              ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY-LAS VEGAS
                             P.O. BOX 93478
                        LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89193-3478
                              702/798-2100
                           April  20,  1995
  Dear Reader:

       Since 1954, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)
  and its predecessor the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) has
  conducted radiological monitoring in the offsite areas around
  United States nuclear test areas.  The primary objective of this
  monitoring has been the protection of the health and safety of
  residents in the unlikely event of release of radioactive
  material into public areas.  Further, the Offsite Environmental
  Surveillance Program documents has provided independent
  verification of the safety of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing
  Program.

       The enclosed report documents EPA's monitoring activities
  for calendar year 1992, the last year of nuclear testing prior to
  the moratorium.  Monitoring data are included so that you may
  evaluate the contribution, if any, of nuclear testing to man's
  radiation exposure.  The total radiation exposure man receives
  includes external exposure from naturally occurring, manmade
  materials in our environment, and internal exposure from natural
  and manmade radioactive materials in the air we breathe, the
  water we drink, and the food we eat.  In 1992, there was no
  radioactivity detected offsite by the various EPA monitoring
  networks and no exposure above natural background to the
  population living in the vicinity of the Nevada Test Site  (NTS)
  that could be attributed to current NTS activities.

       If you have any questions regarding EPA's monitoring  of
  radiation in areas around U.S. nuclear test areas, please  feel
  free to contact me at the above address.

                                Sincerely,
                                Paul J. Weeden
                                Director
                                Radiation Sciences Division
  Enclosure

-------

-------