mm
mm
mm
888
EPA-520/5-76/020
RADIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
AT THE MAXEY FLATS
RADIOACTIVE WASTE BURIAL
mm
SSfiWi
mm
SITE-1974 TO 1975
I'.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Radiation Programs
-------
EPA-520/5-76/020
RADIOLOGICAL MBASUSEMENTS AT THE
MAXEY FLATS RADIOACTIVE WASTE BURIAL SITE - 1874 to 1875
Daniel M. Montgomery
Harry E. Kolde
Richard L. Blanchard
January 1877
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office o* Radiation Programs
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
Radlochemlstry and Nuclear Engineering Branch
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMED
This report has been reviewed by the Office of
Radiation Programs» U. 3» Environmental Protection
Agencyt and approved for publication. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use*
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Office o± Radiation Programs ( ORP) of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) carries out a national program designed
to evaluate population exposure to ionizing and non—ionizing
radiation and to prepare Federal radiation protection guidance
and generally applicable environmental standards necessary to
protect the environment and public health* In order to carry out
these responsibilities, the EPA has performed field studies at
nuclear facilities and sites* These field studies have required
the development of means for identifying and quantifying any
released radionuclidest as well as the methodology for evaluating
facility discharge pathways and environmental transport*
Within the ORPt radioactive waste management has been
assigned a high priority, and requires participation and
cooperation with several State and Federal agencies* This report
is one of a series directed at a specific EPA task to establish
radiation protection guidelines and criteria for radioactive
waste management and disposal, based on environmental pathways
and radiation exposure levels* Other reports, recommendations
and State assistance projects are being developed and executed to
fulfill EPA obligations in the management and disposal of all
types of radioactive wastes, including high-level wastest low-
level wastest transuranium—contaminated wastes* uranium mill
tailingst naturally-occurring radioactive wastes, and wastes from
decommissioned nuclear facilities*
This report discusses radiological measurements made by the
Radiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering Branch, Cincinnati, at the
request of the ORP Technology Assessment Division in support of
EPA's program to obtain data on the principles and processes of
land burial and the actual Impact on the environment of presently
operating commercial burial facilities* These measurements also
furnished technical support* which was requested by the State,
and they were obtained in cooperation with the Kentucky
Department for Human Resources (KDHR)*
The information obtained Indicates that the quantities of
radioactivity detected outside the burial trenches are so low
that they do not appear to be a significant hazard to the
environment or to public health in the Maxey Flats area* at the
present time* However, the potential long-range Impact of these
contaminants is not known*
This report supplements and expands upon reports previously
published by the EPA and the KDHR* Observations presented in
iii
-------
these earlier reports were used as the basis for this study*
Particular attention was focused on the potential pathways from
the burial site to man, and the radionuclide composition of the
effluent discharged to the atmosphere from the evaporator system
used in trench water control operations* It was not the intent
of this study to ascertain the relative significance of suggested
mechanisms by which radioactivity could migrate from the burial
trenches* Hydrogeological studies being conducted by the U.S.
Geological Survey concurrent with further radiological
measurements may provide information on the latter* as well as
furnish data useful in predicting the future impact of the burial
site on the surrounding environment* Information obtained and
surveillance methodologies developed at the Maxey Plats site will
be utilized In planning and conducting similar studies under
consideration at other commercial burial sites*
Review comments were received from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission* the Energy Research and Development Administration*
the U.S. Geological Survey, several State laboratories, the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, the Kentucky Department for Human
Resources, and the Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc.; and they
were quite useful in the final editing of this report.
Additional comments on this report would be appreciated. These
should be sent to the Director, Technology Assessment Division
(AW-459), Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D. C* 20460.
W. D* Rowe, Ph.D.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .......... 1
1.1 Need for Study ••••••••.............. 1
1.2 The Burial Site 3
1.3 The Study ......................... 4
EVAPORATOR STUDY ....... . 5
2.1 Introduction •••••••.....»««........ 5
2.2 Radlonuclides in Storage Tanks .............. 6
2.3 Description o± the Evaporator System ........... 6
2.4 Sample Collection ..................... 9
2.4.1 General ...................... 9
2.4.2 Stack effluent sampler ...............11
2.4.3 In—plant sample collection •••••••«... ..11
2.5 Radlonucllde Analysis ............ ........13
2.5.1 General .••••••...............13
2.5.2 Gamma-ray spectrometry •••............14
2.5.3 Radiochemical analysis ............... 14
2.6 Results and Discussion of Evaporator Measurements • • • • • 15
2.6.1 Radionuclide concentrations in stack
effluent from the evaporation of berm water .... 15
2.6.2 Radionuclide concentrations in stack effluent
from the evaporation of storage tank liquids .... 15
2.6.3 Radionuclide discharge rates from evaporator
stack. .......................21
2.6.4 Radionuclide concentrations in liquids processed
during tests .................... 23
2.6.5 In—plant concentrations of tritium and
other radionuclides ................26
2.6.6 Decontamination factors of the evaporator ..... 29
2.7 Estimated Annual Radiation Dose Rates from Evaporator
Stack Effluent ............... .......29
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS 34
3.1 Sample Collection and Analyses ...••.••......34
3.2 Radlonuclides in Surface Water and Stream Bed Sediment • . 39
3.2.1 Radionuclides in surface water ••••.••....39
3.2.2 Radionuclides in stream bed sediment ........46
3.3 Radionuclides in Domestic Well Water ••«..... ...49
3.4 Radionuclides in Poods ..................51
3.4.1 Radionuclides in milk 51
3.4.2 Radionuclides in vegetables ••••••••....54
E-SERIES TEST WELL MEASUREMENTS 59
4*1 General •••••••••.......... .......sg
4.2 Sample Collection and Analyses ..............58
4.3 Results and Discussion ............. .....60
4*4 Significance of Test Well Measurements ..........65
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND TEST WELL MONITORING PROGRAMS ... 67
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ,71
-------
6.1 Evaporator Study «.••••••••••••••••••• 71
6.2 Environmental Study ...«...•.. 72
6*3 E-Series Test Well Measurements •••••••••••••• 74
6*4 Recommendations for Future Studies ••••••••••••74
7. REFERENCES • • 76
APPENDICES
1. Sensitivity Levels for Analyses of Evaporator
Effluent, fJCi/ml • 79
2* In-Plant Sampling Data ••••••••• 80
3. Radionuclide Concentrations in Evaporator Plant (Excluding
3H), fJCi/ml 8i
4* Annual Average Air Concentration Near Limiting Receptor
from Evaporator Stack Discharge ••••••••••••••89
5« Estimated Annual Dose to Limiting Receptor from Evaporator
Stack Discharge ••••••••••••••••••••••91
6. Environmental Samples Collected During Maxey Flats Study . • 93
7* Radiochemical Methods for Environmental and
Test Well Samples 94
8. The Dose Conversion Factor for the Ingestion of Tritium • • 97
9« Acknowledgments •••••••••••••••••••••• 98
vi
-------
FIGDKES
Page
2.1 Evaporator Treatment Process (As of October lt 1875) • • • • • 8
2.2 Collection Train for Sampling Evaporator Stack Effluent «... 12
2.3 Locations o* Residences near Evaporator Stack •••••••..32
3,1 Nearby Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations 36
3.2 Distant Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations 37
3.3 Domestic Well, Milk and Vegetable Sampling Locations 38
4.1 Test Well Locations and Depths ................59
vli
-------
TABLES
Page
2.1 Evaporator Stack Effluent Sampling Data ••••• 10
2.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air Samples of Evaporator Stack
Effluent during Berm Water Evaporation Tests 1-5, MCi/ml
of Air 16
2.3 Radionuclide Concentrations in Water Samples of Evaporator
Stack Effluent during Berm Water Evaporation, Tests 1-5,
MCi/ml of Water 17
2.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air and Water Samples of
Evaporator Stack Effluent, Tests 6-9, MCi/ml of Air or Water. .18
2.5 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air and Water Samples of
Evaporator Stack Effluent, Tests 10-13, MCi/ml of Air or Water 19
2.6 Radionuclide Concentrations in Evaporator Stack Effluent,
Tests 14-17, MCi/ml of Air or Water 20
2.7 Summary of Radionuclide Discharge Rates (Q) from Evaporator
*3 O
Stack, MCi/s ••••• ......••••••• *z
2.8 Radionuclide Concentrations in Four Liquid Waste Tanks,
Processed during Tests Nos. 6 to 13, MCi/ml •••• 24
2.9 Radionuclide Concentrations in Liquid Waste Tanks Nos. 5A
and 9 Processed during Tests Nos. 14 to 17, MCi/ml 25
2.10 Radionuclide Concentrations in Dilution Water, MCi/ml . • • • . 27
2.11 Tritium Concentrations in Evaporator Plant During Tests,
MCi/ml
2.12 Decontamination Factors of Waste Processing System •••••• 30
3.1 Sampling Locations near Maxey Flats Burial Site ....••••35
3.2 Hadionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Water Samples,
Oct. 7-8, 1974 4l
3.3 Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Water Samples,
Nov. 7, 1974 43
3.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Large Volume Environmental
Water Samples, March 13, 1975 • 45
3.5 Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment Samples from the
Maxey Flats Environment ........ ....... •••••47
3.6 Radionuclide Concentrations in Domestic Well Water Samples
from the Vicinity of the Maxey Flats Site 50
3.7 Radionuclide Concentrations in Milk and Cows* Drinking
. nP 1/1 -•-.«•• ....••••••...•••••52
, ps/ji/ *•
3.8 Radionuclide Concentrations in Garden Products from the
Maxey Flats Area ....56
4.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Test Well Samples
from Maxey Flats • 6*
4.2 Plutonium Concentrations in Test Well Samples 62
4.3 Comparison of Plutonium Concentrations in Test Well
Sediments •••••••• ••••• ..64
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Need for Study
The Maxey Flats radioactive waste burial sitet operated by
the Nuclear Engineering Companyv Inc. (NBCO), is presently the
largest commercial depository in the United States. It contains
approximately 40 percent of all commercially-generated low-level
radioactive wastes buried in the U.S. Solid wastes containing
low-level radioactivity are received at the site for burial from
hospitals* research facilities* industrial radioisotope users*
nuclear generating stations and related facilities.(1) Until
1912, liquid wastes solidified in a cement and paper mixture were
also buried. Since 1972* however* the deposit of liquid wastes
has been prohibited and only solid wastes are now accepted for
burial.(2) The wastes are received in 210-liter (55-gal) steel
drums as well as plastic* wood* and cardboard containers* which
are buried in trenches 76 to 110 m long* 6 m wide and 6 m deep.
When full* the trenches are capped with at least 1 m of compacted
soil andf in recent years* fescue and clover have been planted in
the trench area to retard erosion.
Burial operations at the Maxey Flats site began in May
1963.O) During the past 13 years* approximately 121*000 m3 of
waste containing more than 1.92 million curies of radioactive
material, 376 kg of special nuclear material and 154*000 kg of
source material have been deposited.(4) The cumulative waste
volume has increased nearly exponentially* from 2200 m3 in the
first year to about 70*000 m3 in 1971 and 121,000 m3 in
1975.(4,5) Most of the increase in the later years has been
attributed to nuclear power plant operations.
A comprehensive inventory of radionuclldes present in these
waste materials will soon be available.(6) The wastes include
relatively long—lived fission products, many activation products,
and the actinides. Although concentrations of transuranium
radionuclides are now limited to 10 nCi/g for deposit, it is
estimated that 80 kg of 239Pu plus additional quantities of other
plutonium isotopes have been buried at the site.(3) Tritium is
probably the most abundant radionuclide in the trenches ranging
from less than 1 Ci to a maximum of 650,000 Cl in trench No.
31.(7)
In 1972, environmental monitoring by the Kentucky Department
for Human Resources
-------
nearby off—site locations• ( 8) The principal radionuclides
reported by KDHR were 3H, 54Mnt 60Cot 90Sr, 137Cs, 238Pu and
239Pu in samples collected on-site* while in the off-site samples
3Ht 90Srf 238Pu and 239Pu were detected in soil and 3H in surface
water.
Invest illations revealed that infiltrating rain water
apparently leached radioactivity from the wastest producing a
radioactive leachate that could move through the adjacent
subsurface soil and rocks* Contamination on the surfacet due to
evaporator plume depletion* container leakage during burial and
possibly the trench-pumping operation* could also be carried off-
site.^) Four major routes for the transport of radioactivity to
the surrounding environment have been proposed:(2*8*8)
1) surface water run—off*
2) lateral migration from the trenches through the soil
zone*
3) migration from the trenches through fissure systems in
the surrounding rockst and
4) atmospheric fallout from the evaporator plume*
The extent of migration by routes 2 and 3 would be influenced by
such factors as rainfall* depth to water table* the ion—exchange
properties of the soil and rock* soil and rock permeability*
surface gradient* and the distance the radioactive material must
migrate before surfacing in a free—flowing water supply*(10)
During the past three years* NECO has conducted a program to
reduce the movement of radioactivity from the burial site* Since
it was assumed that trench water resulted from Infiltration of
precipitation rather than from groundwater, the permeability of
the trench caps was reduced by adding additional soil with
further compacting* and reshaping the caps to facilitate run-
off •( 2) Also* while filling the trenches* the wastes deposited
are covered routinely by back filling with uncontaminated soil
and any water that accumulates is pumped out*(ll) The surface of
the burial site has been regraded to improve surface drainage*
cover has been planted to retard erosion* and* of immediate
importance* the water was pumped from the trenches to large
holding tanks* This leachate is evaporated to reduce the volume*
and the residue from the evaporator is stored in a large tank*
When approval is obtained from KDHR* this residue will be
solidified and buried on site* The trenches are routinely
examined for water and are pumped as often as additional water
accumulates*( 11) However* all trenches have not yet been pumped*
•*g.* #31, due to high 3H levels.
At the present time* only small quantities of radioactivity
have been detected in the environment surrounding the burial
- 2 -
-------
and so far these are believed to represent no health
hazard.(2*8) However* the existence of radioactivity off-site
requires special attention and a better understanding of the
future environmental impact of the site*
The factors influencing migration of radioactivity listed
above differ at the six commercial radioactive burial sites —
Maxey Flats* Kentucky; West Valley* New York; Barnwell, South
Carolina; Sheffield* Illinois; Beatty* Nevada; and Richland*
Washington.(12*13) There are* however* sufficient generic
similarities among these sites which might allow data acquired at
Maxey Flats to assist in evaluating the potential radiological
impact of the others* For example* at the West Valley site the
infiltration and accumulation of rain water in burial trenches
have led to the movement of radioactivity off site.(13*14)
1.2 The Burial Site
The site occupies a 1.3—km2 (330-acre) tract of land located
on Maxey Flats* a flat-topped ridge in Fleming County* about 10
km NW of Morehead* Kentucky. The trenches and working areas are
fenced* excluding access by the public to these areas. The
surface of the ridge lies about 100 m above the surrounding
valleys* and is relatively narrow* varying from about 150 m to
600 m wide* The region is drained by tributaries of the Licking
River* which Joins the Ohio River near Cincinnati* Ohio. The
site drains to the east into No-Name Hollow Creek* to the west
into Drip Springs Hollow Creek and to the south into Rock Lick
Creek. Both No-Name Hollow Creek and Drip Springs Hollow Creek
Join Rock Lick Creek which flows west into Fox Creek and thence
to the Licking River (see Figure 3*2)• About 75 percent of the
surface run-off flows east down a wash and into No-Name Hollow
Creek.(9 )
Rainfall in the region varies with season* being least in the
fall and most abundant in spring and early summer. The average
annual rainfall at Flemingsburg (about 22 km NW of the burial
site) is 117 cm (46 in).(15) Rainfall in a 24-hour period during
thunderstorms* common in spring and summer* frequently exceeds 7
cm and occasionally reaches 12 to 15 cm* Heavy rains commonly
cause flooding in the valleys.
Parts of the upland areas and valleys are cleared for
agricultural use; the hillsides are heavily forested* The major
agricultural crops are tobacco* corn and forage for both beef and
dairy cattle* In addition to family milk and beef cattle* three
commercial dairy farms are known to exist within 4 km of the
site* the closest being about 2 km SSW* Small family vegetable
gardens are common. Game in the area includes deer* quail*
grouse* raccoons* squirrels* rabbits* oppossums* etc. Fish occur
In Crane Creek* north of the burial site* and Fox Creek* The
water in Rock Lick Creek is Insufficient to support fish
- 3 -
-------
throughout the year. Only a few minnows, crayfish and some
benthic organisms were observed in Rock Lick Creek*
A survey of occupied homes, conducted on July If 1976*
yielded 20 houses and 9 trailer hones within a 1.61 km radius of
the burial site. Estimating 3.2 persons per dwelling, *he
population density is about 11 persons/km2. There are a few
scattered farm families on the east-west road along the ridge,
and at present* five families live along Rock Lick Creek Road in
the valley south of the burial site. The nearest population
center (7,200) is Morehead. Kentucky, 10 km southeast of the
site. During the school year, enrollment at Morehead State
University may nearly double the town's population.
1.3 The Study
Investigations to date were performed in 10 field trips to
the burial site and its environs between October 1974 and October
1975. The principal purposes of the trips were to:
1. Identify and measure radionuclides In the evaporator
effluents discharged to the atmosphere, and attempt to
determine decontamination factors of the evaporator system
for the principal radionuclides.
2* Measure the radionucllde content of selected aquatic and
terrestrial samples to identify potential pathways and,
possibly, the critical pathways to man.
3. Measure radionuclides in selected environmental and test-well
samples to support and supplement KDHR measurements.
The study was undertaken at the request of the Technology
Assessment Division, ORP, USEPA, in support of BPA's program to
obtain data on the principles and processes of land burial and
the actual impact on the environment of presently operating
commercial burial facilities. In addition, these studies
furnished technical support which was requested by the State and
were Implemented in cooperation with the KDHR.
The study was performed by the Radlochemistry and Nuclear
Engineering Branch, Cincinnati, with the support of the
Technology Assessment Division, ORP, USEPA, and the Radiation and
Product Safety Branch, KDHR. Assisting the investigators were
individuals, listed in Appendix 9, from the KDttR, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Nuclear Engineering Company.
- 4 -
-------
2. EVAPORATOR STUDY
2.1 Introduction
The Nuclear Engineering Company (NECO) Instituted in 1972 a
water removal program to alleviate waste management problems
caused by rain water infiltrating and saturating filled
radioactive waste trenches. Water contaminated by waste
radionuclides was suspected to be migrating from the storage
trenches to springs* streams and domestic wells located in
adjacent valleys beyond the restricted area of the site*(8) The
trenches were estimated at the time to contain as much as 4 x 106
liters (106 gallons) of liquid.(16)
NECO began in 1972 to pump leachate from the trenches to 48
large steel storage tanks with a total capacity of 2*5 x 106
liters (6.7 x 10s gal)«(3*7) The tanks were mounted horizontally
above ground on wooden ties in an area surrounded by a bar nit or
dlkey to contain potential leakage* The site operator Installed
an evaporator plant in 1973 and started treatment of wastes
accumulated in the tanks on a 40—hours—per—week basis in July
1973. During the latter half of 1974, the feed material
consisted mostly of water that had accumulated in the berm area
from precipitation and which had become contaminated by tank
leakage* Since January 1975t evaporation of stored waste was
being conducted 24 hours per day, five days per week*
The evaporator plant, described in Section 2*3, concentrates
non-volatile radionuclides in the wastes by boiling off the
liquid fraction* At Itaxey Flats, however, this fraction contains
relatively high concentrations of tritium plus other
radionuclides not completely removed by the process* The degree
of liquid decontamination depends on radlonuclide volatility,
with volatile species auch as iodine and ruthenium being less
susceptible to decontamination than nonvolatile ones* Other
factors affecting evaporator decontamination Include pH of the
waste feed* presence of organic matter* and design of the
evaporator itself, particularly as to the degree to which liquid
droplets containing particulate radionuclides can be entrained by
effluent vapor and discharged*( 17)
Rain water collected In the diked area is used for dilution
when relatively high-level radioactive trench water is to be
evaporated* to assure that ambient concentrations of effluents
off-site remain below permissible values* During this study*
this water was contaminated by waste leaking from tanks* NECO
began in mid—1975 to transfer this water to an adjacent diked
- 5 -
-------
area ("lined pond") that included a double-layer, impermeable
liner on the sides and bottom and another over the top of the
water. During the latter part of 1975 the number of storage
tanks was being reduced to approximately ten* The pumping of the
trenches was being continued except for some containing very high
amounts of 3H.(7)
The evaporator effluent containing water vapor and particles
is discharged directly to the atmosphere and dispersed by wind.
The airborne water vapor fraction, containing tritium, is removed
primarily by precipitation when moving over land and the airborne
particles settle out or fall with precipitation. Atmospheric
haIf-residence values cited recently are 28 days for water vapor
removed by rain and 30 days for particles.C18)
2*2 Radionuclides in Storage Tanks
KDHR sampled the contents of 44 storage tanks in October 1973
for analysis by the EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
(EERF).(19) Radionucllde concentrations in the various tanks
varied widely, as expected. Tritium, 6OCo, 90Sr and l37Cs were
present in the liquid of all tanks. Other measured radionuclides
included 5*Mn, *«Zn, l°*Ru, I25sbf l3«Cs, 228Ac (228Rft), 238pUj
239Pu and 2*°Pu. The samples were not analyzed by EERF for
concentrations of 14C, S5Fe, 129I, 226Ra and other long-lived
actinides (U, 241Am, etc.).
The maximum and average concentrations of the more
radiologically significant radionuclides in stored trench water
are given below. Their significance was determined by a
comparison of their volume—weighted average concentrations,
computed from the EERF results, with their permissible
concentrations In environmental air*
Concentration* UCi/ml
mum
3H 2.7 x 10l 2.1
*°Co 9.6 x 10~* 2.3 x 10"*
«°Sr 4.8 x 10~3 4.7 x 10""*
»3*Cs 4.2 x 10~"3 4.3 x 10~4
238Pu 1.5 x 10~3 9.5 x 10~5
239Ptt 7.4 x 10~5 4.5 x 10"'
2.3 Description of the Evaporator System( 11,17,20)
- 6 -
-------
The evaporator plant consists essentially o± two 3800-liter
(1000-gal) settling tanks, filter units, evaporator, and
discharge system, all of which are housed in the evaporator
building* Their primary purposes are to pro-treat waste to
remove solid material, evaporate the liquid, and discharge the
vapor to the atmosphere. A schematic of the evaporator system is
shown in Figure 2.1*
Waste liquid is drained from the storage tanks through valves
located about 15 cm above the tank bottom and pumped through
hoses to one of the settling tanks, which are filled to the 3000-
liter (800-gal) level* When dilution is necessary, water from
the lined pond (formerly, from the tank berm area) is added at
the settling tank* Up to the end of June 1975, the tanks were
filled alternately and the contents held for 1.5 hours to allow
solids to settle by gravity. As a result of initial measurements
by this laboratory, the site operator started in early 1975 to
test various chemical additives to enhance settling. After June
1975, the operator instituted plant modifications which included
pumping the waste into the first settling tank, adding a lime
flocculating agent, and stirring the contents with air for a few
minutes. After settling for 1 hr, the clarified liquid is
withdrawn from the upper part of the tank and pumped to the
second tank through a 75-M» cartridge filter. Liquid collected
in this tank is fed continuously through another 75-Mm filter and
a 5-Mm filter to the evaporator.
The evaporator, a submerged-combustion type manufactured by
the Ozark-lfahoning Co., is fueled by a mixture of propane gas and
air. The burner is immersed in the liquid which is heated by
combustion gases bubbling through It. A sllicone-based antifoam
agent is added at the evaporator to reduce radionuclide
entrainment in vapor caused by bubbles, which result primarily
from heating organic material.
The liquid feed rate to the evaporator is nominally 17
liters/min (4*5 gal/min), for which a combustion heat rate of 7.9
x 1012 ergs/s (2.7 x 106 BTU/hr ) is required. The temperature of
the vapor leaving the evaporator is 89°C (193°F). Its volumetric
flow rate is 860 liters/s (30.3 ft3/s). Oases formed by
evaporating trench water and burning propane consist of:(21)
Volume. »
water vapor (from evaporation) 57.3
water vapor (from combustion) 6.4
N2 31.2
Oz 0.40
CO2 4.7
- 7 -
-------
Liquid Wastes
I
00
I
Figure 2.1 Evaporator Treatment Process (As of October I, 1975)
-------
Water vapor produced by propane combustion dilutes the waste
liquid by approximately 10 percent*
The evaporator exhaust flows throueh a centrifugal separator
type of mist eliminator to remove entrained water droplets. The
effluent is discharged to the atmosphere through a 30-cm-diameter
steel pipe that passes horizontally through the side of the
building and rises outside to a height of 10 m (33 ft) above
ground level*
The slurry-like sediment at the bottom of settling tank no. 1
is removed daily (formerly weekly from both tanks when they were
operated alternately) and pumped to one of five holding tanks for
eventual solidification and burial* Residue collected in the
evaporator is discharged every 30 min to the first settling tank.
Liquid from the mist eliminator returns to the evaporator as does
the small amount of condensate formed in the stack* Spent
filters are buried on—site*
Early tests conducted by NBCO indicated the decontamination
factor ( radionucllde concentrations of input divided by output)
of the evaporator alone to be 40 or greaterf based on gross
alpha- and beta-particle (excluding tritium) and gamma-ray
measurements. Tritium, which is affected very little by the
treatment system* was identified as the most significant effluent
radionuclide relative to permissible airborne concentration
levels in areas beyond the site fenceline.( 21 )
Samples of evaporator effluent are composited and analyzed
daily for 3H and gross alpha- and beta-particle and gamma-ray
radioactivity. Wind speed and direction instruments are mounted
2 m above the building, and their readings are recorded continu-
ously inside. According to a program established by NBCO, wind
data and tank 3H concentration values provide at the beginning of
each 8-hr shift the basis for determining whether and how much
dilution water is required to assure that ambient 3H
concentrations remain below the permissible levels established by
KDHR, which conform to 10CFR20 recommendations.(22)
2.4 Sample Collection
2*4** .general. Evaporator stack effluents were measured on
four occasions, during each of which four or five tests were
conducted. Table 2.1 presents test dates, sampling intervals and
actual sampling durations, and identifications and fractions of
storage tank liquid being processed (the remainder consisted of
dilution water from the berm and lined pond areas). The amounts
of air and water sampled from the stack discharge are also
listed*
The first trip (tests nos. 1 to 5) provided an operational
check of the stack sampling system. At the time, contaminated
water from the berm area was being evaporated. During the second
- 9 -
-------
Table 2.1
Evaporator Stack Effluent Sampling Data
Test
no.
1
2
3
4
5
1 6
S 7
1 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Date
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
May
May
Sept
Sept
Sept
Oct.
6,
6,
7,
7,
8,
8,
9,
9,
10,
20,
21,
21,
22,
. 29
. 30
. 30
1,
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
, 1975
, 1975
, 1975
1975
Period,
hrs
1320-1447
1605-1705
0928-1235
1429-1654
0923-1123
1343-1547
0955-1123
1343-1622
1000-1150
1606-1635
0934-1130
1331-1535
0948-1125
1333-1540
0926-1059
1303-1503
1018-1145
Sampling
duration,
min
62
55
172
128
111
102
88
155
104
20
112
120
92
120
90
116
81
Evaporator feed
(amount, %)
berm
berm
berm
berm
berm
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
tank
(100)
(100)
(100)
(100)
(100)
5 (50)
5 (50)
10 (35)
10 (100)
46 (100)
46 (100)
46 (100)
36 (100)
9 (50)
9 (50)
9 (50)
5A (50)
Sample volumes
air, m^ water
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
0
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
.30
.15
.53
.62
.33
.14
.85
.26
.26
.42
.35
.52
.93
.52
.89
.44
.76
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
0
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
, liters
.37
.26
.78
.63
.53
.55
.17
.70
.30
.51
.25
.52
.77
.54
.72
.34
.65
-------
test series ( nos. 6 to 9), waste liquids were generally being
processed with dilution water, because light winds prevailed.
Since effluent radionuclide concentrations differed significantly
during apparently identical evaporation conditions (tests 6 and
7), another series (nos. 10 to 13) was performed* Its purpose
was to measure emissions while the contents of one tank (no. 46)
were being treated with constant operating conditions. This tank
reportedly contained many radionuclides and a volume sufficient
for 2.5 days of operation. The study was hampered, however, by
plant shutdowns* omission of the ant1 foam agent in test no. 11,
and the emptying of tank no* 46 after test no. 12. Tests nos. 14
to 17 were conducted to measure effluents during the lime
flocculation treatment.
2.4*2 Stack^ effluent sampler. Since no stack sampling probe
was installed at the time, a sampler for this study was devised
for mounting on the top flange of the stack* Effluents were
withdrawn through a nylon nozzle with an inside diameter of 0*64
cm (0*25 in), inserted downward into the stack about 18 cm (7 in)
and about 10 cm (3.8 in) from the interior wall. The sampled air
was pumped continuously to ground level through a 0.8-cm (0.31
in) inside—diameter rubber hose to the sample collectors,
depicted in Figure 2.2. Water vapor was removed from incoming
air by condensation in a 3-liter glass flask immersed in an ice-
water bath, followed by two small backup flasks in ice water.
Particles in the then essentially dried air were removed by a
5.4-cm (2.1-in) glass fiber filter (Mine Safety Appliances Co.
type 1106) mounted in a leak-tight holder. Air flow rate was
determined with a pre-callbrated Gelman type 8223 flow meter.
Constant flow was maintained by a regulator on the vacuum pump.
Adjustments were necessary only when the filter became loaded
with small particles. During some tests, changes of air filters
were required because they were clogged by an abundance of fine
particles, and these were composited for analyses. Some samples
were given to NBCO personnel for crosscheck measurements*
The evaporator effluent enters the stack at 1180 cm/a (38.6
ft/s) when the volumetric flow rate Is 860 liters/8 and its
temperature is 362°K (193°F).(21) Stack effluent temperature
measured at its discharge point during November 1974 ranged
between 325°K (125°F ) and 333°K (140°F). This temperature drop
reduces the volumetric flow rate at the stack exit approximately
9 percent. The modified flow rate divided by the ratio of the
inside cross-sectional areas of the stack and sample nozzle
(2300:1) yields a result of 20*4 liters/mint the flow rate needed
for isokinetic sampling.
2*4*3 Xn—plant sample collection. During each stack
discharge measurement, samples of waste being treated were
collected in 125- or 250-ml plastic bottles from the settling
tanks and the evaporator* Sampling data are provided in Appendix
2* Obtaining representative samples was difficult due to the
nature of the settling and evaporation processes and the varying
- 11 -
-------
H>
I
u
o
35
Sampling
Nozzle
Rubber
Hose
Backup Water Condensers
in Ice - water Bath
3-liter Water Condenser
and Ice - water Bath
Air Filter
Flowmeter
Vacuum
Pump
Figure 2.2 Collection Train for Sampling Evaporator Stack Effluent
-------
composition of the waste* Samples of settling tank contents were
dipped from the top* Evaporator contents were obtained during
the first trip from a drain valve located between the two
vessels* A new evaporator core was installed after this tript
and thereafter samples were collected usually from a valve on the
liquid level gauge*
Two sets of samples were obtained during the flocculation
treatment being used in settling tank no. 1 at the time of the
fourth trip* One sample was collected at the top of the tank
after the contents were stirred with air and the secondf after
the flocculant was added and the contents settled for
approximately 30 min*
A one-liter liquid sample from the top of the tank no* 5A was
obtained on September 29, 1975, and 4 liters from the bottom, on
September 25, 1975. One-liter liquid samples of the top and
bottom of tank no* 9 were taken on September 29, 1975*
Samples of water used to dilute liquid waste were obtained as
the water was being added to the settling tank* Six 125-ml
aliquots of water from the berm water catchment aret. were
collected from November 6 to 8, 1974* A 4—liter sample of water
from the lined pond was obtained on October 1, 1975*
2*5 Radionuclide Analysis
2*5.1 General. Water collected during each stack test was
composited in a plastic bottle and the air filter was sealed in a
plastic bag* Upon return to the laboratory, each water sample
was weighed and passed usually through a 0*8—M» membrane filter
to remove suspended solids (0*45—pa filters were difficult to use
due to very rapid clogging)* The filter was dried, weighed and
mounted on a stainless steel planchet.
All test containers and samples bore a yellow oily substance
that apparently accompanies stack discharge* No radioactivity,
however, was found to be associated with It* Presence of the
oily substance on the air filters prevented gross alpha-particle
measurements* The plastic water bottles and rubber hose for
stack sampling were also analyzed by gamma—ray spectrometry after
use and no radioactivity was found to have adhered to internal
surfaces•
Radionuclides in solids collected on the air filter, in the
filtered condensed water and in material collected on the 0*8 pm
membrane filter were measured by gamma-ray spectrometry or
radiochemical techniques* Radionuclide concentrations that were
not measurable were below the minimum detectable concentration
limits given in Appendix 1* These values were calculated at the
99*7 percent (3 a) confidence lev*I using typical sample volumes
and instrument counting intervals*
- 13 -
-------
Samples collected within the evaporator plant were filtered
after return to the laboratory. Membrane filters of 0.45-Hn> pore
size were usedt occasionally alone with a glass fiber pre-filter
when excessive amounts of solids were present* All filtered
water and suspended solids fractions were analyzed by gamma-ray
spectroscopy using Ge( Li ) detectors. For this* the water
fractions were brought up to standard counting volumes of 200 or
400 ml with distilled water. Selected samples were analyzed also
for 3H and 9OSr contents. In general, the analytical sensitivity
levels given in Appendix 1 apply for in-plant samples.
2.5.2 Gamma- rav apec t r ome t rv . Radionuclides that emit gamma
rays of 40 to 2048 keV were analyzed with 55- or 85-cm3 Ge( Li )
detectors coupled to 2048-channel pulse-height analyzers. Air
and membrane filters were placed on the detector face for
counting; the filtered water was placed in a plastic container
for this measurement. GeC Li ) detection efficiencies for the
various sample geometries and volumes were determined by
calibrations with mixed gamma-ray point source and solution
radioactivity standards prepared by the National Bureau of
Standards.
2.5.3 Badlochemical analysis. Tritium was measured using
duplicate 1-ml aliquots of the filtered water, diluted to 100 ml
and distilled. One ml of the distillate was mixed with 19 ml of
Instagel scintillation solution and counted in a liquid
scintillation counter for three 100-min periods.
Strontium was chemically separated from one half of each of
the membrane or glass fiber filters and from 200- to 500-ml
aliquots of filtered water. The radlostrontium content was
measured by counting for 100-min intervals with low background
Geiger-Mueller beta-particle detectors* Strontium-90 was
distinguished from 89Sr by separating and counting the 90Y
daughter (see Appendix 7).
The gross alpha-particle activity of the membrane filters or
100 ml of filtered water dried on a stainless steel planchet was
measured with internal proportional counters for an Interval of
900 min.
Plutonium was also chemically separated from one half of the
filters and 200 ml of filtered water after the addition of a
known amount of 2*2Pu to determine chemical yield. The plutonium
was electrodeposited on stainless steel planchets and analyzed
for 4000 min by alpha spectrometryf using a 400-mm2 silicon
surface barrier detector (see Appendix 7)
.
Carbon-14 in the filtered water sample fraction was oxidized
to COzt converted to CaCOa precipitate» and mounted on a
stainless steel planchet for measurement with a low- background
beta counter. Iron-55 was chemically separated and measured with
- 14 -
-------
a xenon— filled x-ray proportional counter and a multichannel
pulse— height analyzer*
2.6 Results and Discussion of Evaporator Measurements
2.6.1 Radiomiclide concent ratAnna in stack effluent from thq
evaporation oj. berm water. Radionuclide concentrations in the
air filter and water sample fractions during processing of berm
water are listed in Tables 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. No
radioactivity was detected by gamma-ray spectrometry in the
suspended solids fraction* However t since Whatman type 41 filter
paper was used in this casev radioactivity may have been
associated with small particle size material «4 Mm). The
discharge contained 3H, 5*Mn, 6OCot 9OSr» 13*Cs and 137Cs*
Tritium was the most abundant radionuclide, at an average
concentration of 7*6 x 10 2
These results represent concentrations in water from the berm
area as of early November 1974* Concentrations of radionuclides
at any given time could be affected by many factors. These
include occurrences of storage tank leakage t rainfall,
evaporation, sedimentation, fallout from nuclear weapons testing
and scavenging of effluents from the evaporator stack plume as It
passes over the area.
2.6.2 Radionuclide concentrations in, stack effluent from the
storage £aj*k. liquids. Fifteen long-lived
radionuclides were identified in stack effluent during
evaporation of wastes from six different tanks. Radionuclide
concentrations were measured in the air filters and the suspended
and dissolved material fractions of the water samples. Sample
measurements for tests nos. 6 to 8 are given in Table 2.4, tests
nos. 10 to 13 in Table 2.5 and tests nos* 14 to 17 in Table 2.6.
Tritium, observed in every sample of stack discharge, was the
predominant radionuclide, ranging in concentration up to 1.79
pCl/ml of water. Also observed in every test were *°Co, *°Sr and
137Cs. Sodium- 22, *°*Ru and 13*Cs were detected frequently and
5*Mn, l2SSb, 22*Ra and 228Ac (progeny of 5.75-yr 228Ra),
occasionally* Strontium- 89 was not measurable in any test.
Carbon-14 was found in the three filtered water samples (tests
nos. 6, 10, and 12) chosen for analysis, and may be present in
other sample fractions as well as other test samples, since it is
reported to be present in most trenches.(S) Iron— 55 was measured
in one of two samples analyzed. Plutonium— 238 and 239Pu were
found in the three sample sets analyzed* Iodine— 131 was observed
in stack discharge during two consecutive tests* NECO reported
that waste containing I3»i waa processed about 10 days
earlier.(ll) Apparently *3»i was retained on surfaces within the
plant and was being removed slowly. Although observed in samples
from within the plant (see Appendix 3), 65Zn and 24lAm were not
measurable in stack effluents by gamma-ray spectrometry.
- 15 -
-------
Table 2.2
Radionuclide Concentrations in Air Samples of Evaporator Stack Effluent
during Berm Water Evaporation, Tests 1-5, yCi/ml of Air
Radionuclide
54Mn
60Co
90Sr
134Cs
137Cs
1
ND
ND
3.1 +_ 0.3 x 10~12
ND
5.7 +_ 0.8 x 10~12
Test no.*
2
ND
1.5 ^ 0.7 x 10~12
4.7 +_ 0.3 x 10~12
ND
1.0 +_ 0.1 x 10"11
2
2
1.9
3
4.6
3 & 4
*_ 1 x
+ 1 x
+ 0.1 x
+ 1 x
*, 0.3 x
io-13
io-13
10- 12
io-13
io-12
*
Air sample for Test 5 given to NECO for analyses.
Notes:
1. Rvalues indicate analytical error at 2-sigma confidence level of the count rate.
2. ND - not detectable (see Appendix 1).
-------
Table 2.3
Radionuclide Concentrations in Water Samples of Evaporator Stack Effluent
during Berm Water Evaporation, Tests 1-5, yCi/ml of Water
1
«J
1
nuclidi
3H
9°Sr
137Cs
B
7.3
1.3
5
1
+_ 0.1
+ 0.1
"""
+_ i
x 10~2
x 10"7
x 10'8
2
7.6 +_ 0.1
1.3 + 0.1
__
4 +. 1
x 10~2
x 10"7
x 10"8
Test no.
3
7.8 +_ 0.1 x 10~2
1.7 + 0.1 x 10"7
"••
5^1 x 10~8
7.6
1.5
5.0
4
+_ 0.1
+ 0.1
—
+_ 0.8
x 10"2
x 10"7
x 10"8
5
7.8 + 0.1 x 10"2
1.4 + 0.1 x 10"7
—
4.4 +_ 0.9 x 10"8
Note: _+values indicate analytical error at 2-sigma confidence level.
-------
Table 2.4
Radionuclide Concentrations in Air and Water Samples of Evaporator Stack Effluent,
Tests 6-9, yd/ml of Air or Water
!
Sample
Radionuclide type*
3H
14C
22Na
55Fe
60Co
90Sr
106Ru
125Sb
131,
134Cs
137Cs
226Ra
228AC
238Pu
239Pu
Gross a
'Sample types:
Notes:
1. + values
2. ND - not
3. NA - not
W
A
K
F
A
K
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A - air
through
indicate
6
4.4 + 0.1
NA
5 ±3
NA
9 ±5
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
4.1 ± 0.2
1.3 ± 0.2
5 ±1
8.4 ± 0.9
2.4 ± 0.2
1.5 ± 0.8
1.8 ± 0.4
ND
9 +7
5.8 ± 0.1
ND
ND
1.2 ± 0.1
2.8 ± 0.8
ND
1.1 ±0.6
ND
ND
1.7 ±0.1
3 ± 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
3 +2
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5 ±0.1
1.30 + 0.01
filter; W -
which water
analytical
xlO-1
x 10~8
x ID'13
x ID'11
XlO-7
xlO-9
x ID'13
x,0-8
x ID'10
x 10
xlO-9
x ID'12
x JO'11
x 10'8
x ID'12
x IO-11
x 10"8
X JO"12
x 10'8
XIO'8
Test no.
7
1.47 ± 0.06 X 10"1 3.05
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
1.8 + 0.1 x 10 5.6
1.0 ± 0.2 x 10"7 3
2.1 + 0.7 x 10"9 1.7
4.7 + 0.1 x 10"13 2.0
1.5 ±0.1 x 10"8 1.3
ND 4
ND
ND
ND
2 ±1 x 10"12
ND
ND
1.3 ± 0.6 X 10"12
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.2 ± 0.8 x 10'12 8.9
1.2 + 0.9 x 10"8 3
ND
ND
1.5 ± 0.9 x 10"7
ND 4
ND 1.2
ND
ND
5.5 <• 0.4 x 10"13
ND
2.0 » 0.1 x 10~9
ND
ND
8 +3 x 10"11
NA
1.5 ±0.1 X 10"8 3.9
1.80 ± 0.02 x 10'8 9.0
water passed through a 0.8-pm filter;
sample was passed.
error at
2- sigma confidence level.
8
» 0.08
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
± 0.1
± 1
± 0.5
±0.1
± 0.03
± 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
+ 0.1
± 1
ND
ND
ND
± 3
± 0.8
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
± 0.7
± 0.2
F - 0.
9
x 10"1 1.79.± 0.02
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
x 10"11 2.90 ± 0.05 x
x 10"8 3.5 ± 0.2 x
X 10"9 1.80 ± 0.04 x
x 10"12 1.80 ± 0.02 x
x 10"7 1.90 ± 0.05 x
x 10"10 3.5 ± 0.2 x
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7 ±0.2 x
4 +1 x
ND
X 10"11 4.6 ± 0.1 X
x 10'8 1.2 ± 0.3 x
2 ±1 x
ND
ND
x 10'9 ND
x 10" 12 ND
ND
ND
1.4 ±0.5 x
4.1 ± 0.8 x
1.8 ±0.2 x
ND
ND
5 +3 x
NA
x 10"9 2.7 ± 0.1 x
x 10"9 2.50 ± 0.02 x
8-ym membrane filter
io-10
ID'7
io-7
io-10
lO'6
ID'9
'
ID'11
ID'8
ID'10
lO'6
ID'9
ID'13
lO'10
lO'9
ID'11
lO'8
ID'8
detectable (see Appendix 1).
analyzed
.
- 18 -
-------
Table 2.5
Radionuclide Concentrations in Air and Water Samples of Evaporator Stack Effluent,
Tests 10-13. pCi/ml of Air or Water
Radio-
nuc 1 ide
3H
14C
22Na
S4Mn
55Fe
60Co
90Sr
106Ru
134Cs
137Cs
226Ra
Gross a
Sampl
W
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A'
K
F
A
K
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
»
10
6.19 +_ 0.01 x 10"1
NA
1.8 +_ 0.3 X 10"7
NA
1.6 +_ 0.2 x 10"11
4 +.1 x 10"8
ND
3 +_ 2 x 10'12
ND
2 +1 x IO"8
ND
ND
6 +_ 3 x 10'8
2.10 +_ 0.04 x. 10"U
4.9 +_ 0.4 x 10"7
3.4 +_ 0.1 x IO"7
3.4 +.0.1 x 10"11
2.00 +_ 0.01 x 10"6
1.1 +. 0.1 x 10"8
1.3 +_ 0.2 x 10"11
ND
. 2.9 +.0.4 x 10"7
3.10 +_ 0.04 x 10"11
8.S +_ 0.4 x 10"7
ND
2.60 +_ 0.02 x 10"9
6.0 +_ 0.1 x 10'6
1.9 +^0.4 x 10"8
ND
ND
ND
...
6.7 +^0.3 x 10'7
1.00 +_ 0.02 x 10"6
• 1.09
2.6
2.2
5
1.20
2.5
7.7
4.3
9.6
6.1
7.6
1.30
4.8
2.8
5.60
2.60
3.10
2.70
3.50
11
+. 0.01
NA
NA
NA
+_ 0.9 x
+_ 0.3 x
ND
ND
ND
+ 4 x
NA
NA
NA
+_ 0.03 x
+. 0.1 x
+_ 0.1 x
+_ 0.1 x
+. 0.2 x
+_ 0.2 x
+_ 0.9 x
ND
+. 0.05 x
+_ 0.2 x
+_ 0.1 x
ND
+_ 0.04 x
+_ 0.02 x
+. 0.04 x
ND
ND
ND
_ __
+_ 0.06 x
+. 0.06 x
Test
ID'12
ID'7
io-9
io-10
ID'6
io-7
io-11
io-7
ID'8
to'11
ID'6
io-11
10"6
io-10
io-5
io-8
W6
io-7
no.
1.01
2.4
3.5
6
1.00
1.20
7.0
3.1
5.8
1.10
5
1.50
4.4
1.00
5.20
1.00
3.4
1.50
3.6
12
+. 0.01
NA
*. 0.1 x
NA
+.0.8 x
+.2 x
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
+.0.03 x
+_ 0.06 x
+_ 0.1 x
+_ 0.1 x
+_ 0.1 x
+ 0.06 x
+ 1 x
ND
+. O.OS x
+ 0.2 x
+. O.OS x
ND
+_ 0.04 x
+_ 0.01 x
+.0.4 x
ND
ND
ND
+ O.OS x
+.0.1 x
ID"6
ID'12
ID'8
io-10
10"6
io-8
io-11
io-7
io-8
io-11
1C'7
io-11
ID'6
io-10
JO'S
io-9
ID'6
ID'7
2.70
2.1
7
6.8
1.10
2.5
1.9
5.2
4.S
4
1.0
2.6
1.00
3.60
1.20
3.9
5.6
5
5.2
8.5
13
+.0.01 x
NA
NA
NA
+_ 0.9 x
±2 x
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
+. 0.2 x
+. 0.05 x
+. 0.2 x
+. 0.3 x
*_ 0.1 x
+. 0.2 x
ND
+_ 0.1 x
+.0.2 x
1 O.OS x
ND
+. 0.04 x
+. 0.01 x
+. 0.9 x
ND
+_ 0.3 x
*. 1 x
+ 0.2 x
+ 0.4 x
1Q-1
ID'12
io-8
io-11
io-6
ID"8
io-11
to'7
io-9
io-11
to'7
ID'6
io-10
!o-9
io-7
io-8
W7
io-8
which water sample was passed.
Notes:
1. *. values indicate analytical error at 2-sigma confidence level.
2. ND - not detectable (see Appendix 1).
3. NA - not analyzed.
- 19 •-
-------
Table 2.6
Radionuclide Concentrations in Evaporator Stack Effluent,
Tests 14-17, yCi/ml of Air or Water
Radio-
nuclide
3H
22Na
60Co
90Sr
106Ru
125Sb
134Cs
137Cs
238Pu
239n
Pu
Gross a
Sample
type*
W
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
A
W
F
1.73
2
2.6
4.3
3.7
4.5
2.7
4.6
3.4
1.6
3.1
3
1.3
2.30
2.4
1.00
2.4
14
+. 0.01
ND
+_ 1 x 10"8
ND
+. 0.3 x 10"11
+. 0.3 x 10"7
+ 0.2 x 10"8
+ 0.4 x 10"12
+_ 0.1 x 10"7
+_ 0.7 x 10"9
ND
ND
+. 0.9 x 10"8
ND
ND
ND
+. 0.1 X 10"10
+_ 0.1 x 10"6
+ 1 x 10
+_ 0.1 x 10"9
+. 0.01 x 10'5
+. 0.2 x 10"8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
+ 0.02 x 10"7
+ 0.1 x 10"8
1.64
2
4.5
8.5
3.3
5.4
2.7
2.3
5.1
1.00
2.9
7.7
2.20
1.2
5.5
1.00
Test
15
+_ 0.02
ND
+. 1 x 10"8
ND
+_ 0.2 x 10'11
+. 0.4 x 10~7
+_ 0.2 x 10"8
^ 0.9 x IO"12
+ 0.1 x 10"7
+. 0.3 x 10'9
ND
ND
+ 0.9 x 10
ND
ND
ND
+_ 0.03 x 10'10
+ 0.1 x 10"6
—
ND
+0.1 x ID'10
+_ 0.02 x 10"5
+. 0.1 x 10"8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
+_ 0.3 x 10"8
+ 0.05 X 10"8
no.
2.42
4
5.8
1.20
S.7
6.1
3.3
7.4
9
1.4
1.1
3.5
6
7.9
2.6
3.5
4.6
2.4
1.0
6
1.10
1.4
+•
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4.
+
+
+
+
+
+•
+_
+
16
0.01
ND
2 x 10"
ND
0.4 x IO"11
0.04 x 10"6
0.5 x 10"8
0.6 x 10"12
0.1 x 10"7
ND
ND
ND
0.2 x 10"
2 x ID'12
ND
0.6 x 10"8
0.2 x IO-10
0.1 x 10"6
-9
3 x 10
0.1 x ID'10
0.2 x 10"5
0.3 x 10"8
0.6 x 10"
0.2 x 10"9
0.1 x 10"8
2 x ID'13
ND
ND
NA
0.02 x 10"7
0.1 x 10"8
9.71
4
6
1.20
1.20
3.8
1.3
3.6
5
1.5
3
1.1
2.4
2.5
2
2.10
1.9
1.2
1.10
1.60
17
+ 0.01 x
+_ 2 x
+.1 x
ND
+_ 0.06 x
+_ 0.04 X
+_ 0.2 x
+. 0.1 x
+ 0.1 x
ND
*. 3 x
ND
+_ 0.1 x
+ 1 x
ND
+^ 0.3 x
+_ 0.1 x
^ 0.1 x
+ 1 x
+_ 0.02 x
+. 0.1 x
+_ 0.1 x
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
+_ 0.02 x
+_ 0.02 x
lO'1
io-12
io-8
io-10
io-6
io-8
lO'11
io-7
io-11
ID'7
io-11
ID'8
10- 10
ID'6
-9
10
ID'9
ID'5
ID'8
ID'7
ID'8
*Sample types: A - air filter; W - water passed through a 0.8-ura filter;
which water sample was passed.
Notes:
1. +_values indicate analytical error at 2-sigma confidence level.
2. ND - not detectable (see Appendix 1).
3. NA - not analyzed.
F - 0.8-pm membrane filter through
- 20 -
-------
Water collected from stack discharge was usually slightly
basic. The pH ranged between 7.2 and 7.6, except that in tests
nos. 8 and 9 the values were 6.9 and 5.6, respectively.
Comparison of the amount of each radionuclide found in the
filtered water fraction to the total quantity in the sample set
Indicated its solubility in stack discharge. The index was
computed by cwvw/q, where cw denotes the radionuclide
concentration in filtered water; vw, the volume of water
collected, and q, the total quantity of the radionuclide. The
latter term represents the sum of the products of c and v for all
three sample fractions: filtered water, material collected on the
membrane filter, and the air filter.
Based on sample sets in which the radionuclide was measured
with satisfactory precision, over 90 percent of 22Na, 90Sr,
13*Cs, 137Cs and 22*Ra was not filterable. The same was true of
most *°Co (>70 percent ). Kuthenium-106 was completely insoluble,
and 54Mn, 55Fe, *2SSb, 22«Ac and Pu were associated mostly with
undissolved material. The solubility of **C is uncertain at this
time.
2.6.3 Radionuclide discharge rates from evaporator stack.
Total emission rates to the atmosphere of radionuclides measured
in the 17 tests are listed in Table 2.7. The rates were
calculated from sample concentration values as follows:
Qi = 2300 Qi/t,
where
Qi = discharge rate of radionuclide i, pCi/s
2300 = ratio of internal cross-sectional areas of stack to
sampling nozzle (see Sections 2.3 and 2*4.2)
o.i = quantity of radionuclide i measured in all sample
fractions (see Section 2.6.2), pCi
t = sampling time (see Table 2.1), s
Discharge rates during processing of water from the berm area
(tests nos. 1 to 5) were averaged for Table 2.7, since the values
were relatively constant* The tritium discharge rate was about
65 MCi/s ± 5 percent. Strontlum-90 rates varied within ± 10
percent and 137Cs, ± 4 percent.
Emission rates of the various radionuclides determined from
test no* 6 measurements exceeded those during test no. 7 by
several fold, although during both tests, waste from tank no* 5
was reportedly being treated with equal volumes of dilution
water. Of particular Interest, 3H releases during the former
test were three-fold higher, indicating possibly that the actual
*• 21 -
-------
Table 2.7
Summary of Radionuclide Discharge Rates (Q) from Evaporator Stack, pCi/sec
Radionuclide
3H
14C
22Na
54Hn
55Fe
60Co
90Sr
106Ru
12SSb
•131,
134Cs
157Cs
226Ra
228Ac
238Pu
239Pu
Gross a
1-5 fave.l
6.5(1)
NA
ND
ND
NA
6.8(-7)
1.2 (-4)
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.3(-5)
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
6
4.2(2)
4.7(-5)
6.8(-7)
ND
ND
1.6(-4)
2.5(-5)
2.5(-5)
4.4(-6)
3.7(-S)
8.7C-7)
4.4(-5)
ND
2.1 (-6)
NA
NA
4.6(-5)
7
1.4(2)
NA
ND
ND
NA
3.3(-5)
l.S(-S)
ND
1.4 (-6)
1.2(-6)
ND
7.8(-6)
8.4(-5)
ND
2.3(-6)
7.0(-8)
3.K-5)
8
2.8(2)
NA
ND
ND
NA
3.1(-5)
1.2(-4)
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.K-5)
3.6(-6)
7.7(-7)
NA
NA
1.2(-S)
9
1.5(3)
NA
ND
ND
NA
6.8(-4)
1.7(-3)
ND
ND
ND
4.7(-5)
1.4(-3)
ND
ND
1.9(-6)
4.4(-8)
4.3(-5)
10
6.0(2)
1.8(-4)
5.5(-5)
1.8(-S)
5.3(-5)
1.0(-3)
2.3(-4)
3.9(-4)
ND
ND
l.K-3)
8.0(-3)
ND
ND
NA
NA
1.6C-3)
Test
11
8.4(2)
NA
1.7(-4)
3.7(-6)
NA
2.6(-3)
8.2(-4)
l.l(-3)
ND
ND
2.2(-3)
2-K-2)
ND
ND
NA
NA
2.3(-3)
no.
12
8.2(2)
1.9(-3)
5.K-5)
ND
NA
l.K-3)
5.0 (-4)
1.6(-4)
ND
ND
8.4(-4)
8.6(-3)
ND
ND
NA
NA
1.5(-3)
13
2.0(2)
NA
5.5(-5)
ND
NA
8.9(-4)
4.1(-4)
l.K-4)
ND
ND
7.7(-4)
8.9(-3)
4.5(-4)
ND
NA
NA
4.3(-4)
14
1.4(3)
NA
1.4(-5)
ND
NA
4.0(-4)
2.2(-4)
2.7(-5)
ND
ND
2.6(-3)
2.0(-2)
ND
ND
NA
NA
1.0(-4)
15
1.2(3)
NA
1.4(-5)
ND
NA
6.9(-4)
2.0 (-4)
3.7(-5)
ND
ND
2.2(-3)
ND
ND
NA
NA
4.8(-5)
16
1.9(3)
NA
3.2(-5)
ND
NA
1.0(-3)
2.6(-4)
5.8(-5)
ND
2.8(-3)
2.K-2)
ND
ND
1.4(-S)
4.6(-7)
9.3(-5)
17
7.6(2)
NA
5.2(-5)
ND
NA
l.K-3)
2.9(-4)
3.0(-5)
ND
2.K-3)
1.6(-2)
ND
ND
NA
NA
9.9(-5)
Notes:
1. ND - not detectable; NA - not analyzed.
2. ( ) indicates exponent of 10, e.g., (-2) = x 10 .
-------
dilution was significantly different. Waste from another tank
(no. 4), processed about 8 hrs before test no* 6, was considered
as a cause, but 3H concentrations in both tanks were similar.(19)
Similar differences were noted in discharges during tests
nos. 8 and 9, even after normalizing the data to account for the
dilution water added during test no. 8(2 parts dilution to 1
part waste ). Tritium discharge was five-fold higher in test no.
9 rather than the anticipated three-fold. Discharge rates of
other radionuclides were 14 to 33 times higher.
Discharge rates during tests nos. 10 to 12 were expected to
be similar and were in these cases, except for 3H. This
radlonUclide was about 25 percent lower than the two succeeding
tests. This may have reflected 3H levels in wastes treated
before tank no. 46 (processing of tank no. 4 ended Just before
test no. 10 was initiated). Release rates of radionuclides other
than 3H during test no. 11 were generally three-fold higher than
during tests nos. 10 and 12. It was learned later that defoaming
agent was not being added during this test, which may have been
the cause.
During tests nos. 14 to 16, waste was being processed with
equal volumes of dilution water. Discharge rates of all
radionuclides during the first two tests, however, were only 40
to 80 percent of those determined in test no* 16. Tritium
notably was about 30 percent lower in the first two runs.
It is evident from the results of these tests that the
contents of radionuclides other than 3H in stack effluent are
significantly influenced by treatment of previous storage tank
liquids for a period longer than expected. That is,
radionuclides from previous batches appear to be re-introduced to
the evaporator input from some point in the system, probably the
residue in the settling tanks including that from the
evaporator, which makes it difficult to compare accurately
evaporator effluent concentrations with storage tank concen-
trations.
2.6*4 Ba.rfi.omic I Arfa concen-t«-a-tlor>«i in licmida nrocmastmrt
during ±fial&> Concentrations of radionuclides in waste contained
in storage tanks nos. 5, 10, 36 and 46 are given in Table 2.8.
These are results of samples obtained by KDHR on October 18,
1973, and analyzed by the BPA Eastern Environmental Radiation
Facility in early 1974.(19)
Radionuclide contents in tanks 5A (denotes tank no. S after
refilling) and 9 are listed in Table 2.9 according to the
radionuclide concentrations associated with dissolved material
and suspended solids in samples from the top and bottom portions
of the storage tanks. Concentrations in these two tanks tend to
be similar in the two portions, with most radioactivity being
- 23 -
-------
Table 2.8
Radionuclide Concentrations in Four Liquid Waste Tanks,*
Processed During Tests Nos. 6 to 15, yCi/ml
Tank no.
Radionuclide
3H
5V
6°Co
90Sr
106Ru
134Cs
137Cs
228Ac
238D
Pu
239n
Pu
1
1
5
1
1
6
4
1
5
5
.6 + 0.
.3 + 0.
.9 + 0.
.2 + 0.
,8 + 0.
.3 + 0.
.2 + 0.
ND
.0 + 0.
.7 +_ 0.
10
05
2(-5)
K-4)
K-4)
K-4)
K-4)
01C-3)
K-4)
6(-6)
2.3
1.3
5.3
1.9
1.5
1.6
6.8
1.5
7.4
+ 0.
ND
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
± °-
01
04 (-4)
K-4)
4(-5)
K-5)
03(-4)
5C-5)
l(-3)
7 (-5)
4.9
2.2
8.9
2.1
1.9
5
36
+ o.oi(-i)
ND
+ 0.04(-4)
+ 0.4(-4)
ND
ND
+ 0.1 (-5)
ND
+' 0.2(-7)
±K-8)
1.3
2.9
3.8
1.5
3.2
•9
1.3
3.2
9
46
+ 0
± °
+ 0
1 °
1 °
+_ 1
± °
ND
± °
.01
.2(-5)
.04 (-4)
.06(-4)
.6(-5)
(-6)
.02(-4)
.3(-5)!
± K-7)
Measurements by EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility for KDHR.^
Samples obtained Oct. 18, 1973, and analyzed for 3H and 90Sr during Jan. to
Mar. 1974 and for gamma-ray emitters, Mar. and Apr. 1974. Disintegration
rates apply at time of analyses.
Notes:
1. ( ) indicates exponent of 10, e.g., (-2) = x 10" .
2. ND - not detectable.
- 24 -
-------
Table 2.9
Radionuclide Concentrations in Liquid Waste Tanks Nos. 5A and 9
M
cn
Dissolved material
tank top
3H
22Na
6°Co
90Sr
106Ru
125Sb
137Cs
Gross alpha
3H
22..
Na
60Co
90Sr
^Ru
125Sb
134Cs
137Cs
238Pu
239Pu
Gross alpha
1.46 ± 0.01
3.6
1.20
1.20
1.6
1.2
1.2
2.0
5.84
3
4.0
1.00
1.4
6
9
1.1
1.9
+_ 0.8
+_ 0.01
+_ 0.01
+_ 0.1
i 0.3
+_ 0.1
+.0.1
+. 0.01
+_ 1
+_ 0.1
+. 0.01
+_ 0.2
±4
ND
± 2
+_ 0.1
ND
+_ 0.1
x 10"7
x 10"4
x 10"4
x 10"5
x IO-6
x IO-6
x 10~4
-7
x 10
xlO-5
x NT4.
x 10"5
x 10"7
x 10"7
x 10~5
XIO'5
tank bottom
Tank
No. 5A
Suspended solids
tank top
tank bottom
1.46 x 0.01
3
1.20
1.10
1.7
4.3
2.3
2.0
5.79
4
3.9
9.80
1.1
5
1.5
2.3
+_ 2 x
+_ 0.01 x
+_ 0.01 x
+_ 0.1 x
+_ 0.4 x
+. 0.2 x
+_ 0.1 x
Tank
+ 0.01
~
1 1 x
+_ 0.1 x
+_ 0.01 x
t. 0.1 x
± 3 x
ND
+_ 0.2 x
NA
NA
^0.1 x
io-7
io-4
io-4
io-5
io-6
io-6
io-4
No. 9
_7
10 '
io-5
ID'5
ID'5
io-7
io-6
io-5
2.8
2.80
5
1.3
1.00
8.3
4.0
1.0
4.1
1.3
1.1
1.4
9
1.9
ND
+_ 0.1
+_ 0.04
± 2
ND
+_ 0.3
+_ 0.04
ND
+. 0.2
+_ 0.1
+_ 0.3
+.0.9
+. 0.6
1 0.1
1 o.i
± 3
1 o.i
x IO"6
x 10"6
x 10~7
x ID'7
x 10"5
x 10"6
x 10"6
x 1Q-6
xlO'7
x 10~7
XIO'6
xlO'5
x 10"8
xlO-5
ND
1.3 ^0.1 x
1.20 +_ 0.03 x
4 +_ 1 x
ND
4.4 ^0.2 x
1.70 +_ 0.05 x
ND
4.6 ^0.1 x
1.00 +_ 0.01 x
8 +_ 3 x
2.6 +_ 0.8 x
ND
6.3 _+_0.6 x
NA
NA
4.3 _+0.1 x
io-6
io-6
io-7
io-8
io-5
ID'6
io-5
io-7
ID'7
io-7
io-4
Notes: 1. Dissolved material is that which passed through a 0
collected on filter.
2. +_ values indicate analytical precision expressed at
3. ND - not detectable (see Appendix 1).
,8-um membrane filter; suspended solids
the 95 percent confidence level.
-------
dissolved* The pH of -the liquids in tanks nos. 5A and 9 were 8.8
and 8«0» respectively*
Concentrations in water used for dilution are given in Table
2.10. Dilution water contained 3H, 6OCof 9OSr, lO6Ru, 13*Cs and
137Ca. These results apply at the time of sampling since
concentration levels are affected toy many factors* as discussed
in Section 2.6.1.
2.6.5 In— plant concentrations of tritium and other
radio nuc I i des . Tritium concentrations in samples from the
settling tanks and evaporator during the stack effluent
measurements are given in Table 2.11. Although 3H concentrations
are not affected by the various pre- treatments in the evaporator
bulldingf they are reduced approximately 10 percent by dilution
with water formed by propane combustion. This is demonstrated by
comparing the similar 3H levels in the settling tank and incoming
water (see Table 2.10) during tests nos. 1 to 5 with those in
stack effluent (see Table 2.3 )• In this case* the stack emission
concentrations are 12 percent lower on the average.
Tritium levels in the evaporator are generally slightly lower
than those in the settling tanks. In some cases* the much lower
concentrations may have been due to incomplete draining of the
evaporator sampling line or residue from waste batches previously
processed.
Comparing 3H concentrations measured in the storage tanks
(see Tables 2.8 and 2.9) and in the stack effluent during tests
nos. 6 to 17 (see Tables 2.4, 2*5 and 2.6) provides verification
of the mixture of liquid waste and dilution water reported by the
site operator. The reported and apparent (measured) fractions of
liquid waste being treated are as follows:
Liquid waste fraction*
Test no. renorted apparent*
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
50
50
35
100
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
SO
35
10
10
90
55
85
90
65
35
30
45
75
*Based on concentrations measured
in storage tank liquids and
in—plant samples.
- 26 -
-------
Table 2.10
Radionuclide Concentrations in Dilution Water, yCi/ral
Radionuclide
V
6°Co
90Sr
137Cs
3H
60Co
90Sr
106Ru
134Cs
137Cs
Concentration
dissolved material
Nov. 6-8, 1974
8.7 + 0.1 x 10"2*
1.9 + 0.5 x 10"?
2 +1 x 10"5
1.0 +_ 0.6 x 10"7
Oct. 1, 1975
_7**
2.31 + 0.01 x 10
2.3 + 0.2 x 10"7
5.20 + 0.05 x 10"6
9 +8 x 10"8
ND
7 +_ 1 x 10"8
suspended solids
5
2
4.0
7.7
4.1
1.4
+4 x 10"8
+1 x 10~
ND
+ 0.6 x 10~8
+ 0.4 x 10"8
ND
+ 0.6 x 10"8
i o.i x io~7
**
+_values represent dispersion at one standard deviation of analytical
results of 6 samples.
- • . .
values indicate analytical precision at the 95 percent confidence level
- 27 -
-------
Notes:
Table 2.11
Tritium Concentrations in Evaporator Plant
during Tests, yCi/ml
Test no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Location
settling tank
8.3 x 10"2
8.8 x 10"2
8.7 x 10"2
8.7 x 10"2
8.6 x 10"2
8.8 x 10"2
_i
4.79 x 10
NA
NA
NA
7.74 x 10"1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.00
2.68
2.80
9.70 x 10"1
evaporator
8.3 x 10"2
8.1 x 10"2
7.6 x 10"2
8.2 x 10"2
8.0 x 10"2
8.0 x 10"2
NA
1.62 x 10"1
2.52 x 10"1
2.11
6.31 x 10"1
-1
8.25 x 10
_i
9.83 x 10
2.54 x 10"1
_i
2.71 x 10
NA
1.59
2.24
9.59 x 10"1
1. Analytical error of individual results is < +_ 1 percent
at the 95 percent confidence level.
2. NA - not analyzed.
- 28 -
-------
Close agreement is noted for many tests while some, however,
are widely different. Causes of the latter may be addition of
waste with different 3H concentration to the storage tank since
the original analysis, effects of previous waste present in the
settling tank bottoms, operator error, since the incoming waste
liquid and dilution water are not always metered during mixing,
or errors in sampling*
The concentration of other radionuclides measured in in-plant
liquid are listed in Appendix 3. A list of all in-plant samples
obtained during the tests is given in Appendix 2. Measured
radionuclides included 22Na, 54Mn, 6OCo, 65Zn, 9OSr, 1O6Ru,
»25Sbf »34C8f l37C8f 226Raf 228Ac and 2»lAm. Only Belccted
samples were analyzed for *°Sr. No analyses for 14C, S5Fe, 238Pu
or 239Pu were performed.
2.6.6 Decontaminati on fact ore of the evaporator.
Decontamination factors (DP) provide a measure of the
effectiveness of the entire treatment system for removing various
radionuclides from the waste liquid. Such factors, in turn,
could be useful in estimating stack discharge rates resulting
from processing a waste batch of known radionuclide composition.
Plant DF«s were calculated for each radionuclide by dividing
its concentration in incoming water (see Section 2.6*4) by that
measured in stack discharge. The latter was determined by
dividing the value of q for each test (see Section 2*6.2) by the
amount of water collected in the stack sample (Table 2*1).
DF«s derived for 7 principal radionuclides from six sample
sets, each set representing waste from different storage tanks,
are given in Table 2.12. The tests selected were those in which
no plant malfunctions occurred, sample fractions were analyzed
with good precision, and effluent 3H concentrations approximated
expected levels. The factors vary considerably, reflecting
undoubtedly the chemical diversity of the waste and the
complexity of the treatment process* Cesium DF§ s ranged over
four magnitudes. The <1 values for tests nos. 16 and 17 arose
from higher »37Cs concentrations in stack effluent than in feed,
which could have resulted from residual cesium of previous
batches being removed from the plant* The DP* s for Pu also
showed large variations.
The DF«s obtained in these six tests on an individual
radionuclide basis confirm that the DP value of 40 derived from
measurements by the site operator for the evaporator alone is
reasonable and provides a conservative estimate of removal
fficiency for the entire system.
e
2*7 Estimated Annual Kadi at ion Dose Sates from Evaporator Stack
Effluent
- 29 -
-------
Table 2.12
Decontamination Factors of Waste Processing System
Test no.
Radionuclide
6°Co
9°Sr
106Ru
134Cs
137Cs
238Pu*
239Pu
6
1,040
1,460
1,160
__ _
30,000
_ __
9
140
250
180
96
6.4 x 105
1.4 x 106
12
230
240
70
6
11
-__
13
100
1,050
1.1
16
17
170
81
0.04
700
17
67
320
85
0.07
* 238
Also, a DF of 4300 for Pu was obtained with test no. 7 measurements.
- 30 -
-------
Dose rates were estimated for the limiting receptor* to place
in perspective the environmental impact of radionuclides
discharged from the evaporator. The total annual dose was
calculated on the bases o± the average concentration of six
principal radionuclides measured in the storage tanks in October
1973 (see Section 2.2) and the evaporator plant operating
continuously throughout the year at a waste feed rate of 17
liters/iain (4.5 gal/min ). The decontamination factors applied
for the various radionuclides were based on the average of the
values given in Section 2.6.6, except for l"Cs. For the latter,
a factor of 40 was used due to the large variation in measured
values. Because of the larger analytical uncertainty associated
with the 23»Pu measurements, the DF for plutonium was based on
the 23aPu data.
The residence of the limiting receptor, at which the maximum
annual average air concentration occurs, was concluded to be the
home at the entrance to the burial site. The residence is
situated approximately 0.8 km distant from the evaporator stack
at an azimuth of 21° (NNE) and at the same ground elevation (325
m) as the evaporator (see Figure 2.3). The intervening terrain
is flat and relatively open. Wind from the SSW occurs most
frequently. Another residence lies closer to the stack, 0.5 km
WNW, but because it is located in Drip Springs Hollow at an
elevation about 90 m below the top of the stack, airborne
concentrations at this home are expected to be lower. In
addition, the wind frequency in this direction is less than that
from the SSW.
Calculation of the annual average air concentrations is given
in Appendix 4 and the method of estimating dose to , the limiting
receptor is described in Appendix 5. Most dose to the body from
airborne concentrations of the principal radionuclides discharged
from the evaporator results from inhalation of particles and
tritiated water vapor. Dose calculations are dependent on the
degree of solubility of the radionuclide in the effluent, as
indicated by stack measurements (see Section 2.6.2). Tritium,
90Sr and 137Cs were predominantly soluble, and, since «°Co and
Plutonium were both dissolved and associated with particles, dose
was determined for each form. Their actual dose contribution
lies between the calculated values, depending on. the relative
amounts that are soluble and insoluble.
Dose rates received by the limiting receptor from exposure by
inhalation of airborne concentrations of these radionuclides are
estimated to be:
*The bAiii*. » AUK x-wt:«DTO«* IB rra-ri •»«»«* __ 4.4..^. , .
that person!a 1 who resides
- 31 -
-------
to
I
Residence of
Limiting Receptor
Figure 2.3 Locations of Residences near Evaporator Stack
-------
Radi.onucT.lde Form Cfitloptl organ Doae. nrem/vr*
3H soluble total body 2.6
60Co soluble 01 tract 1.4 x 10~*
insoluble lung 5*0 x 10~~3
90Sr soluble bone 7,1 x 10~2
137Cs soluble total body 3.8 x 10~2
238Pu soluble bone 1.0 x 10~"2
insoluble lung 6*2 x 10""*
239Pu soluble bone 5.4 x 10~*
insoluble lung 2.8 x 10~5
Of these radionuclides, 3fl contributes the largest dose,
estimated to be about 2.6 mrem/year to the limiting receptor,
while the other above radionuclides individually contribute less
than 1 mrem/year* To determine the total dose from the effluent,
other radionuclides observed in the various tests must be
considered. Of these, 226Ra and 22«Ha may be the most
significant*
It should also be noted that the calculational method used
yields maximum annual dose rates. The actual dose should be
factored on the bases of:
1. actual duration of year in which evaporator plant is
operated, since it is shut down frequently for
operational reasons and occasionally for repair,
2. volume of dilution water rather than waste being treated
annually, and
3. duration of year that receptor lives in or near
residence, and the actual airborne concentrations
occurring within the home, particularly when it is
closed to the outside*
In addition, comprehensive meteorological data for liaxey
Flats are needed to determine more accurately annual average
airborne concentrations. These data Include frequency of wind
speed and direction and of atmospheric stability conditions.
Meteorological studies are also necessary to determine plume rise
caused by its higher temperature relative to ambient »ir
temperature, and the downwash effect on the plume Induced by site
structures.
- 33 -
-------
3. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS
Radiological measurements described in this section were
directed to identifying and measuring radionuclides in
environmental media near the site* All sampling locations were
outside the exclusion fence (unrestricted area) although some
locations were within the site property boundary* The topography
of the site and surrounding area is described in Section !•
Primary emphasis was placed on identifying and evaluating
potentially significant pathways of radiation exposure to people
living near the site* Pathways believed to be of secondary
importancef e*g*, tobacco* wild garnet etc*, were not examined*
3*1 Sample Collection and Analyses
Samples that were collected in the vicinity of the Maxey
Plats site during the study period* October 1974 to August 1975,
included surface water, stream bed sediment, domestic well water,
milk and vegetables* The sampling locations are described in
Table 3*1 and shown in Figures 3*1, 3*2 and 3*3* A summary of
samples collected during the study is given in Appendix 6*
Radionuclide analyses of samples included 3H (HTO), 90Sr, gamma-
ray—emitting radionuclides ( gamma—ray spectrometry)f 226Ra,
228Ra, 238Pu and 239Pu* Details regarding sample preparation and
radioassay of various types of samples are given in Appendix 7*
Four—liter grab samples of surface water and domestic well
water were collected on October 7, 1974, and November 7, 1974*
The samples were returned to the laboratory and filtered through
Whatman #40 filter paper (2 Mm)* Analyses of the filtrates
included 3H (HTO), 9OSr and gamma—ray—emitting radionuclides*
Additional surface water samples, collected on March 13, 1975,
included two 8—liter samples and one 30—liter sample* The
suspended sediment from the 30—liter sample was separated after
settling for one week and processed in the same manner as stream
bed sediments* Larger volumes of domestic well water were
collected on April 20, 1975* and August 26—27, 1975, for more
sensitive analyses* Twenty—five—liter samples were acidified to
pH 2 with concentrated HCl at the time of collection* Twenty-
liter portions were analyzed for gamma—ray—emitting radionuclides
after preconcentration by ion exchange, and four—liter aliquots
were used for 90Sr analysis* Radium-226 and 228Ra were
determined in 4—liter aliquots of samples collected on April 29,
1975.
Four—liter milk samples were obtained from dairy farms and
family cows on two occasions, June 3, 1975, and August 26-27,
- 34 -
-------
Table 3.1
Sampling Locations near Maxey Flats Burial Site
Site
Number Location
1-6" Main East Wash
7 Wash NE of site
8-10 No-Name Hollow Creek
11-16 Rock Lick Creek - downstream from confluence with No-Name Hollow Creek
17 Fox Creek - near confluence with Rock Lick Creek
18 Fox Creek - 100 m upstream from confluence with Licking River (not
shown in Figure 3.2]
19-22 Drip Springs Hollow
23 Pond near residence in Drip Springs Hollow
24 Farm pond in Drip Springs Hollow
25 Wash NW of site
26 Wash south of site
27-28 Fox Creek - upstream from confluence with Rock Lick Creek
29-30 Crane Creek
31 Rock Lick Creek - upstream from confluence with No-Name Hollow Creek
32-33 Farm ponds - near Maxey Flats Road, approximately 1.3 km east of
site entrance
34 Pond on site property - outside exclusion fence, east of the site
35 Fox Creek - 25 m upstream from confluence with Licking River (not
shown in Figure 3.2)
36 Farm pond - near junction of site access road and Maxey Flats Road
37 Wash on west side of site near the exclusion fence
38 Wash on west side of site approximately 25 m below site 37
39 Rock Lick Creek - south of farm house on Rock Lick Creek road,
approximately 0.3 km east of Rt. 158
40 Residence in Drip Springs Hollow, approxinately 0.5 km west of site
evaporator
41 Residence on Rock Lick Creek road, approximately 1.7 km west of
Rt. 158
42 Abandoned house on Rock Lick Creek road, approximately 2.5 km west of
Rt. 158
43 Residence on Rock Lick Creek road, approximately 3.2 bo west of
Rt. 158
44 Residence approximately 2.2 km north northeast of site, and
approximately 0.3 km south of Rt. 32
45 Pasture located south of Maxey Flats Road and east of the site
1 access road
46 Dairy farm on Rock Lick Creek road approximately 0.3 km east of
Rt. 158
47 Dairy farm on Markwell Road approximately 3.1 km south southwest of
- the site
48 -Residence southwest of the intersection of the site access road
with Maxey Flats Road
49 Dairy farm approximately 11 km west of site (not shown on Figure 3.3)
50 Dairy farm on Rt. 158 approxinately 3.1 km south southeast of the
site
51 Residence on Maxey Flats Road approximately 1.1 km east of site
access road
52 Residence on Maxey Flats Road approximately 1.0 km west of site
access road
53 Garden near NECO operations office
- 35 -
-------
I
o
S?
0 0.1 02 O.3^0.4
Figure 3.1 Nearby Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
-------
Q
•J
km
Rgure 3.2 Distant Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
-------
a
oo
O 0.5 l;0
km
Figure 3.3 Domestic Well, Milk, and Vegetable Sampling Locations
-------
1975. Radiocheraical analyses of milk included 3H (HTO)y 9OSr and
gamma—ray spectrometry. At some milk sampling locatlonsf samples
o± the cows' drinking water were collected for 3H analyses.
Produce from vegetable gardens in the vicinity of Maxey Flats
were collected during a field trip on August 26-21, 1975*
Tomatoes were collected at seven locations; grapes, cucumbers*
corn and watermelons were collected at four locations. All
vegetable samples were analyzed for 3H (HTO) and gamma-ray-
emitting radlonuclides. Samples from selected locations were
also analyzed for 90Sr*
Stream bed sediments near the site were collected on October
7, 1974, November 11, 1974, April 29, 1975, and June 2, 1975, by
removing the upper 1-2 cm of bed material with a small garden
trowel. Sediments were taken from low points in the stream
channels. Radlochemical analyses of sediment samples Included
gamma-ray spectrometry and, on selected samples, 90Sr, 238Pu and
239Pu.
3.2 Radionuclides in Surface Water and Stream Bed Sediment
The principal drainage ways for surface run-off from the
burial site are washes to the east and west of the site (see
Figure 3.1). Water flow in both washes Is intermittent since the
primary water source is precipitation; however, pools are
generally present even during relatively dry periods* Possible
sources of radioactivity in surface water Include contaminated
water from the site surface, lateral movement of radioactive
leachate from the trenches through the shallow soil zone, and
subsurface migration from the trenches through fissure systems in
the rock. Potential sources of surface contamination are spills
during burial operations and pumping of the trenches, deposition
of radioactivity from the evaporator plume, and overflow or
lateral movement of leachate from the trenches to the surface.
Contamination of stream bed sediment can result from the
deposition of radionuclides associated with suspended sediment in
surface water or adsorption of radionuclides from the water.
Surface water and stream bed sediment sampling was performed
to identify and measure radionuclides moving from the burial site
in order to evaluate potential aquatic pathways that could lead
to exposure' of people and the adequacy of the current
environmental monitoring program* Since surface water from the
site may include radionuclides from several sources which are
affected by site operations and meteorological and climatic
conditions, measurements"made during this study should not be
considered to represent conditions prevailing at all times* The
routine environmental monitoring program should provide the data
needed to determine any long—term trends*
3.2.1 Radionuclirfea in surface water*-Initial m^mpltng of
surface water during the period of October 7-8, 1974, involved
- 39 -
-------
simultaneous sampling with KDHR and NECO for an Intel-laboratory
comparison of 3H analyses* (The results of the interlaboratory
comparison analyses were supplied to KDHR and NECO, and are not
presented in this report* ) The samples were collected during a
relatively dry period with the last precipitation (3 cm)
occurring on September 30, 1974, 7 days prior to sampling* Since
flow rates in the creeks were low, samples from the washes were
collected from pools* Water sampled from the washes during this
period probably represents surface run—off from the last rainfall
or flow from near—surface sources, since specific conductance
measurements in streams during low flow show relatively small,
contributions from deep subsurface sources*(9)
The results of the radiochemical analyses are given in Table
3*2* Radionuclides detected in the surface water included 3H
(HTO), 6OCo and 9OSr* Tritium concentrations ranged from
nondetectable (<200 pCi/l> to 15,200 pCi/l. Among the streams
draining the site and ultimately emptying into Rock Lick Creek,
the highest 3H concentration was in a wash east of the site
(referred to as the Main East Wash). This wash, the principal
drainage path for surface run—off from precipitation, has been
estimated to receive approximately 75 percent of the total site
run-off*(9) Tritium concentrations at locations upstream from the
outfall of site drainage (27f 28, 29, 30, 31) were <240 pCl/l
which indicates that site drainage is the principal source of 3H
discharged to Kock Lick Creek and ultimately to Fox Creek*
Cobalt-60 was the only gamma-ray emitter detected in surface
water* Concentrations of 60Co were 5 pCi/l in the Main East Wash
(Location 3)* 3 pCi/l In Bock Lick Creek (Location 16), and below
the minimum detectable level at all other locations.
Strontium-90 concentrations ranged from 0*9 to 80 pCi/l, with
the highest concentration in the Main Bast Wash (Location 3)*
The 90Sr concentration in Drip Springs Hollow Creek (Locations 19
and 22) was only 0.9 pCi/l compared to 5.2 pCi/l in Rock Lick
Creek at Location 15 Just below the outfall of Drip Springs
Hollow Creek* This suggests that for this particular sampling
period, the Main East Wash was the principal source of 9OSr
released to Rock Lick Creek. Strontium-90 concentrations in No-
Name Hollow Creek (Location 10) and Rock Lick Creek (Location 15)
were 5*0 and 5.2 pCi/l, respectively, which are lower than
expected considering the 9OSr concentration in the Main East Wash
and the expected dilution factors, approximated from ?H
measurements. This can be attributed to deposition from the
water onto the stream sediment. The contribution of atmospheric
fallout to the 9OSr levels in surface water was not measured,
however, an upper limit of 1 to 2 pCi/l can be inferred from the
90Sr concentrations in Drip Springs Hollow Creek at Locations 19
and 22. This represents an upper limit since site releases could
contribute to the measured values at these locations. a
The surface water samples collected on November 7, 1974, were
taken in conjunction with sediment sampling to trace the movement
- 40 -
-------
Table 3.2
Radionuclide Concentrations in Environmental Water S
Location
no. Description
3
10
31
15
16
17
26
19
22
23
24
27
28
29
30
35
Notes :
1.
2.
3.
4.
Main East Wash
No-Name Hollow Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Fox Creek
Run-off south of site
Drip Springs Hollow Creek
Drip Springs Hollow Creek
Old pond on McRoberts Farm
New pond on McRoberts Farm
Fox Creek
Fox Creek
Crane Creek
Crane Creek
Fox Creek at confluence
with Licking River
Radionuclide concentration, pCi/1
3H
1.33 +. 0.03(4)
9.2 +.0.2(3)
< 0.2(3)
1.5 + 0.2(3)
0.7 i 0.2(3)
0.4 +. 0.2(3)
3.2 +0.2(3)
4.7 +.0.2(3)
2.2 i 0.2(3)
1.52 + 0.02(4)
8.5 +_ 0.2(3)
0.2 +. 0.1(3)
<0.2(3)
0.2 + 0;1(3)
0.2 +.0.1(3)
< 0.2(3)
ND - not detected; typical, detection limits were
NA - not analyzed.
+. values are uncertainties based
Exponents of 10 are indicated in
on 20 counting'
parentheses: 1.
Gamma-ray
emitters
60Co-5+2
ND
ND
ND
6°Co-3+2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
: 6°Co 3pCi/l,
error.
33 + 0.03(41 - f]
90Sr
80 +.3
5.0 +.0.3
<0.6
5.2 +. 0.6
NA
2.1 +_ 0.3
NA
0.9 iO.2
0.9 +.0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0 +_ 0.2
NA
137Cs 3 pCi/1.
L.33 + O-OSI x
10*.
- 41 -
-------
of radionuclides along the main drainage pathway. Samples were
taken in the Main East Wash* No-Name Hollow Creek* and Rock Lick
Creek. Approximately 1.3 cm (0.5 in) of precipitation had fallen
intermittently during the three days proceeding sample
collection, and water was flowing in the Main East Wash and
surrounding creeks* The radionuclide concentrations are given in
Table 3.3. Tritium concentrations in the Main East Wash ranged
from 28*500 to 45,000 pCi/l, and generally decreased going down
the wash. One sample collected at Location 3 was from a spring
located approximately 1 m above the main stream bed. The 3H
concentration of the spring water was much lower (6000 pCi/l)
than stream water in the Main East Wash (41*600 pCi/l). Although
the spring water could be contaminated by both subsurface
migration and surface run-off* its low 3H concentration relative
to stream water in the Main East Wash suggests that the
subsurface pathway for 3H was small compared to surface run-off.
Supporting this conclusion are the generally decreasing 3H
concentrations in the series of samples collected from the top to
the bottom of the wash. The decreasing trend suggests that 3H
from the surface of the burial site was progressively diluted
going down the wash. This does not exclude the possibility of
contributions of contaminated ground water via subsurface
migration through the deep geologic zones* but suggests that the
latter pathway was not a significant contributor during this
sampling period.
The 3H concentration in No-Name Hollow Creek upstream from
the confluence with the Main East Wash (Location 8) was
approximately an order of magnitude lower than below the
confluence (Location 10). The 3H concentration at Location 9
appears anomalous since it is lower than at Location 10 and in
Rock Lick Creek (Locations 12* 13, 14). Tritium concentrations
in Rock Lick Creek decreased from 4700 pCl/l at Location 12 near
the confluence of No-Name Hollow Creek and Rock Lick Creek to
1900 pCi/l at Location 16, which is approximately 3.2 km
downstream from Location 12. The 3H concentrations in two farm
ponds approximately 0.9 km NE of the site (Locations 32* 33) were
600 and 400 pCi/l* respectively. Tritium levels in excess of
ambient* assumed to be 200 pCi/l or leas* is attributed to
depletion from the evaporator plume since surface run-off from
the site could not reach these ponds.
The only gamma-ray emitters detected in surface water were
6OCo (Location 3) and l°3Ru (Location 34)* at concentrations of 3
pCi/l and 9 pCi/l, respectively. The presence of the short-lived
i03Ru (hall-life of 40 days) detected in a pond (Location 34) was
most likely from surface run-off. The highest 9OSr
.concentrations in the various streams were: 68 pCi/l in the Main
Bast Wash CLocation 2), 5.8 pCi/l in No-Name Hollow Creek
(Location 10>, and 5.8 pCi/l in Rock Lick Creek (Location 12).
As observed in the October 7-8, 1974, samples, the *°Sr
concentrations in No-Name Hollow Creek and Hock Lick Creek were
lower than might be expected from its concentration in the Main
- 42 -
-------
Table 3.3
Location
no.
1
2
3
3
3-A
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
32
33
34
Radionuclide concentration. nCi/l
Description
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
(spring water § runoff)
Main East Wash
(spring water)
Main East Wash
(15 ft. below 3)
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
No-Name Hollow Creek
No-Name Hollow Creek
No-Name Hollow Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Farm pond
Farm pond
Pond near site boundary
3H
3.
4.
4.
6.
2.
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0.
4.
4.
3.
3.
1.
o.
0.
3.
5
5
2
0
85
05
88
4
8
38
5
7
6
7
9
9
6
4
0
± °
1 °
1 °
± o
NA
± °
± °
± °
± °
± °
± °
± °
± P
± °
± °
± °
±°
1°
±°
±.°
•1(4)
•1(4)
.1(4)
.3(3)
.05(4)
.05(4)
.04(4)
.2(3)
•2(3)
.03(4)
.2(3)
.2(3)
.2(3)
.2(3)
•2(3)
.2(3)
.2(3)
•2(3)
• 2(3)
Gamma-ray
emitters
ND
ND
ND
60Co - 3 ± 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
103Ru-9>4
68
44
53
64
1
6
2
5
2
1
2
1
90Sr
± 3
1 2
NA
NA
NA
+_ 1
± 3
NA
NA
.8 +_ 0
± 2
.3^0
.8 +_ 0
.1 To
.9^0
.6 +_ 0
•9 1 0
NA
NA
NA
.4
.3
.2
.1
.2
.2
.2
60Co 3'pCi/l. 137Cs 3pCi/l.
Notes
1. ND - not detected; typical detection limits were:
2. NA - not analyzed.
3. +_values are 2o uncertainties based on counting error.
4. Exponents of 10 are indicated by numbers in parentheses; 3.53 + 0 06f41
(3.53+^0.06) X 104. ,— ^ J
- 43 -
-------
East Wash and the estmated dilution in No-Name Hollow Creek and
Rock Lick Creek* As explained earlier, this is most likely due
to the 90Sr depositing on sediments.
The radionuclide concentrations in the two 8—liter samples
from a wash west of the trench area (Locations 37, 38) and one
30-liter sample from the Main Bast Wash (Location 5), collected
on March 13, 1975, are presented in Table 3.4. In addition,
sediment from 20 liters of the water collected at Location 5 was
separated for analyses of gamma—ray emitters and plutonium. The
3H concentrations in the wash west of the trench area were
179,000 pCi/l at Location 37 and 82,400 pCi/l at Location 38
compared to 12,700 pCi/l in the Main East Wash (Location 5). The
high concentrations in the west wash compared to the Main East
Wash suggest that the depletion of 3H from the evaporator plume
may contribute significantly to the levels observed in surface
run—off* The samples were collected during a period of heavy
rainfall (March 11-13) with 5 to 10 knot winds varying from the
north—northeast to east* Strontium—90 concentrations in the wash
west of the trench area were 16*1 pCi/l at Location 37 and 6
pCl/l at Location 38 compared to 14*3 pCi/l in the Main East Wash
at Location 5* It should be noted in making the previous
comparisons that the drainage volume to the east wash is much
greater than that to the west* Hence the comparison does not
relate the total radioactivity in the two washes, however, during
this period both washes were significant pathways for carrying 3H
and 90Sr from the site-
Analysis of the larger water volumes (8 to 30 liters)
provided the sensitivity required to measure the following gamma-
ray emitters: *°Co, 9SZr, 9SNb, 1O3Ru, 131I, andd 137Cs. The
concentrations were quite low and of little significance compared
to the 3H and 9OSr levels* Since ground water movement is
usually much slower than surface water Movement, the presence of
relatively short—lived radlonuclides, particularly 9SZr (half-
life of 65.5 d), 103Ru (half-life of 38*8 d), and 131I (half-life
of 8*06 d), indicates that surface run—off from the burial site
is a major source of radioactivity leaving the site*'
Radionuclides in sediment from water collected at Location 5
included 6OCo, 9SZr, 95Nb, 13*Cs, and l37Cs, all at
concentrations less than 1 pCi/l. With the exception of 95Zr,
more activity was associated with the sediment than with the
water* This could result from transport of contaminated sediment
in the stream beds draining the site*
During the period of October 1974 to March 1975, 3H and 90Sr
were the only radionuclides of radiological significance detected
in surface water* The highest 3H concentration (179,000 pCi/l)
occurred in a sample from the wash west of the site and this,
level corresponded to 6 percent of the MFC for 3H in unrestricted
areas.(22) The highest 9OSr concentration (80 pCi/l) was in a
sample from the Main Bast Wash and corresponded to 27 percent of
the MFC for 9OSr* The 3H and 90Sr concentrations were
- 44 -
-------
cn
I
Table 3.4
Radionuclide Concentrations in'Large Volume Environmental Water Samples, March 13, 1975
no. Description 3H
37 Wash on west side of site 1.79^+0.09(5)
(opposite the evaporator,
near site boundary
38 Wash on west side of site 8.24 +^'0.06(4)
(opposite evaporator, "*
approximately 20 ft.
below top of. Ohio shale)
5 Main East Wash at logging
road* 1.27 +J 0.03 (4)
60Co ,.
5 Main East Wash at logging 3.5 +^0.4
r°ad (0.70 +_0.08)
* 31I detected af;0."4 + 0.2 pCi/1.
** , • "" ' '
Sediment concentrations in nkrentheses is oCi/1 pal nil a
Radionuclide concentration of water, pCi/1
60
Co
0.6 +_ 0.2
0.8 +_ 0.3
v 0.2 +_ 0.1
Radionuclide
95Nb
3"iO + o.s:
(6!60+_ 0.01)
9°Sr
16.1 +_ 0.2
6.0 +_ 0.1
14.3 +_ 0.3
concentration of
95Zr
2.0+^0.7
(0.40+_ 0.01)
fed from nCi/sram Him»n«- r B£Z
9SNb 95Zr
0.9 +_ 0.3 <0.6
0.8 + 0.4 < 0.6
0.3 +_ 0.1 4.7 +_ 0.5
suspended sediment, pCi/g and
134Cs 137Cs
0.5 +_ 0.3 2.7 1 0.3
(0.10+_ 0.06) (0.50+^ 0.06)
JBS sediment , ... r - , ..
106n
Ru
<0.4
<0.4
1.1 +_ 0.2
(pCi/1)**
238Pu
0.70 +_ 0.07
(0.14 +_ 0.01)
137Cs
0.2 +^ 0.1
<0.1
239Pu
0.33 +_ 0.04
(0.07 +_ 0.01)
Notes:
I. ^values are 2o are uncertainties based on counting errors.
2. Exponents of 10 are indicated by numbers'in parentheses; 1.79 +_ 0.09(4) • (1.79 + 0.09) x 10 .
-------
considerably lower in Kock Lick Creek where the highest measured
concentrations were 4700 pCl/l and 5.8 pCi/l, respectively.
The surface water measurements suggest that the radioactivity
detected in Kock Lick Creek resulted principally from surface
run-off, but do not indicate the source of the surface
contamination. A comprehensive assessment of the radiological
impact of radionuclides entering Rock Lick Creek from the site
would require an estimate of the quantity of radioactivity that
is transported down the various drainage pathways. This would
necessitate continuous flow measurements and sampling of the
major drainage pathways. In view of the observed 3H and 9OSr
concentrations in site run-off, the site monitoring program
should be expanded to monitor the quantities of these
radionuclides entering Rock Lick Creek. Specific recommendations
regarding surface water monitoring are given in Section 5.
Additional hydrological, geological and radiological measurements
would be necessary to determine the relative significance of the
various sources of the radioactivity observed in surface run-off.
3.2.2 Bad!ontictides in ftr*"" bed aediment. Sediment samples
from stream beds were collected from pathways draining the site:
No-Name Hollow Creek, Drip Springs Hollow Creek and Fox Creek.
Most samples were collected during the field trip of November 7-
8, 1974t to identify and measure radionuclides in the Main East
Wash, No-Name Hollow Creek, and Rock Lick Creek. To determine
the extent of radionuclide transport via the other drainage
pathways* additional sediment samples were collected on April 29,
1975, and June 3, 1975.
The results of the radiochemical analyses are given in Table
3.5 for all sediment samples collected during this study. These
results show that radionuclides associated with burial operations
were present in all sediment samples from streams receiving
effluents discharged via the Main East Dash, as far distant as
the confluence of Fox and Rock Lick Creeks. In addition to
naturally-occurring radionuclides, S4Mn, 6OCo, *°Sr, 137Cs, 238Pu
and 239Pu were detected in sediment. The highest radionuclide
concentrations were observed in the Main East Wash. Similar to
the surface water results, radionuclide concentrations generally
decreased going down the principal drainage pathway: Main East
Wash to No-Name Hollow Creek to Rock Lick Creek. The «°Sr,
137Csf 238Pu and 239Pu concentrations in sediments from streams
receiving site effluents were generally higher than in sediment
from streams isolated from site effluents, suggesting that the
contribution of atmospheric fallout from nuclear detonations was
small. Since 6OCo is undetectable in atmospheric fallout, its
presence in sediment gave unambiguous evidence that disposal
operations have resulted in off-site contamination.
Cobalt-60 levels in sediment in the main drainage pathway
generally decreased with increasing distance from the site,
ranging from 4.3 to 2.7 pCi/g in the Main Bast Wash, 2.3 to 1.7
- 46 -
-------
Table 3.5
Radionuclide Concentrations in Sediment Samples From the Maxey Flats Environment
«J
I
Location Date
no. sampled
1
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
25
26
27
11/7/74
10/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
n/7/74
11/7/74
6/3/7S
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
6/3/75
6/3/75
4/29/7S
4/29/75
4/29/75
10/7/74
6/3/75
Radionuclide
Description
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
Main East Wash
Wash NE of site
No-Name Hollow Creek
No-Name Hollow Creek
No-Name Hollow Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Rock Lick Creek
Fox Creek
Fox Creek
Drip Springs Hollow
Drip Springs Hollow
Wash west of site
Wash south of site
Fox Creek
54Mn
<0.05
0.22 ± O.OS
<0.08
0.23 ± 0.09
0.09 ±0.04
-------
pCl/g in No-Name Hollow Creek, and 1*2 to 0*08 pCi/g in Rock Lick
Creek* Cobalt-60 was not detected «0*04 pCi/g) in sediment from
No-Name Hollow Creek upstream from the outfall of the Main East
Wash (Location 8) or in sediment from Rock Lick Creek upstream
from the confluence with No—Name Hollow Creek (Location 11),,
indicating that its major source was site effluents discharged
via the Main East Wash* Similar trends were observed for 90Sr,
137Ca, 238Pu, and 239Pu. The 9OSr concentration in a sediment
sample from Location 4 was 42.5 pCi/g, an order of magnitude
higher than any other sample* This sample consisted of a mixture
of dead leaves and sediment* The high 90Sr concentration can be
attributed to the probable high ion-exchange capacity of organic
material* The highest 238Pu and 239Pu concentrations in
sedimentt 0*82 and 0*43 pCi/g, respectively, occurred at Location
3 in the Main East Wash* Low-level plutonium concentrations
(0.23 pCi 238Pu/g and 0.07 pCi 239Pu/g) were observed in sediment
from Rock Lick Creek as far as Location 16, the last sampling
location in Rock Lick Creek before it Joins Fox Creek* Cobalt-60
was also detected in sediment from washes northeast (Location 7),
west (Location 25), and south of the site (Location 26)*
The only artificially-produced radionuclide detected in
sediments from Fox Creek was 137Cs. Its presence, at very low
concentrations (0*13 to 0*40 pCi/g), is considered to be from
atmospheric fallout.
In contrast -to surface water measurements which reflect,
conditions at the time of sampling, sediment measurements may
reflect the accumulation of radioactivity from May 1963, when
burial operations began, to the date of sample collection*
Although radionuclide concentrations in stream bed sediment
cannot be directly related to the quantity or concentration of
radionuclides released to streams, their accumulation in sediment
permit the detection of radionuclides previously released or that
are present in very low concentrations in surface water*
The analyses of stream bed sediment showed that 60Co, 9OSr,
137Cs, 238Pu and 239Pu have moved from the burial site in
sufficient quantities to be detected in the stream bed sediment
of Rock Lick Creek as far as 3*5 km below the confluence of No
Name Hollow Creek* In addition, S4Mn from the site was detected
in the Main East Wash*
The radionuclide concentrations in sediment samples from the
Main East Wash did not vary significantly from near the top to
the bottom of the wash* This suggests that a major source of
sediment contamination was from the surface of the burial site,
presumably from the transport of contaminated soil or adsorption
of radionuclides from surface water* Recently reported plutonium
concentrations in soil core samples from the Main East Wash also
suggest that a major source was the site surface.(2) The highest
plutonium concentrations occurred in sanples collected at the top
- 48 -
-------
of the wash near the fence and generally decreased at sampling
locations down the Main East Wash*
Although both the surface water and sediment data indicate
that a major source of the contamination detected in the site
drainage and nearby streams was radioactivity transported from
the site surface, this does not exclude some contribution from
other pathways* such as subsurface migration from the trenches to
the groundwater. Radionuclide measurements of surface water and
sediment are of little value in detecting or assessing the
contribution of subsurface migration from the trenches through
soil and rock to the environment since the quantity of
radionuclides from other sources appears to be greater and
indistinguishable from that contributed by subsurface migration*
3.3 Radionuclides in Domestic Well later
*
Families living south of the burial site receive their water
supply from shallow wells that may contain radionuclides from the
Maxey Flats waste burial site. To assess potential radiation
dose to individuals drinking well water v five wells were
monitored for radioactivity during this study. Four wells,
Locations 40, 41, 42 and 43, are within 1,6 km of the site, and
have been shown by KDHS to have elevated 3H (HTO) levels.(8) The
fifth well at Location 44, approximately 2.2 km north-northeast
of the burial site, is not affected by surface run-off from the
site, although contamination by radionuclides from the site
evaporator is possible.
Radionuclide concentrations of well water samples are given
in Table 3.6. The detection limits for 90Sr and the gamma-ray
emitters were much lower for samples collected on April 29, 1975,
and August 26-27, 1975, because 20-liter. samples were analyzed.
Tritium was the only radionuclide detected in well water
samples at concentrations which reflect contributions from site
operations* The 3H levels in well water from Locations 40 and 41
exceeded 1000 pCi/l on all three sampling dates, ranging from
1100 to 1900 pCi/l. At Location 43 the 3H concentration was 2000
pCi/l on October 7, 1974, but less than 200 pCi/l on April 29,
1975, and August 26, 1975. Location 43 is in an area where site
run-off should not contaminate the well, and the high
concentration on October 7, 1974, may reflect contributions from
the evaporator. Lower concentrations, 500 to 700 pCi/l, were
measured at Location 42, which is near an abandoned house and not
a regular source of water for domestic use*
Although 9 °Sr was detected in well water at low
concentrations (0.02 to 0.5 pCi/l), its source may be atmospheric
fallout rather than site effluents*
Radium analyses of selected well water samples showed
concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 pCi/l and 228Ra
- 48 -
-------
Table 3.6
en
o
Radionuclide Concentrations in Domestic Well Water Samples
From the Vicinity of the Maxey Flats Site
Radionuclide concentration, pCi/1
Location
no.
40
41
42
43
43
43
44
44
Date
sampled
10/7/74
4/29/75
8/27/75
10/7/74
4/29/75**
8/27/75
10/7/74
4/29/75
8/27/75
10/7/74
4/29/75
8/26/75
10/7/74
8/26/75
3H
1.1 ^ 0.2(3)
1.9 +. 0.2(3)
1.7 i 0.1(3)
1.9 i 0.2(3)
1.6 i 0.2(3)
1.6 +_ 0.1(3)
0.5 ^ 0.2(3)
0.6 +_ 0.2(3)
0.7 +_ 0.1(3)
2.0 +_ 0.1(3)
< 0.2(3)
< 0.2(3)
<0.1(3)
<0.2(3)
Gamma- ray emitters*
60Co
<3
<0.2
<0.2
<3
<0.2
<0.2
< 3
<0.2
<0.2
<3
< 0.2
<0.2
<3
<0.2
137Cs
< 3
<0.2
<0.2
<3
<0.2
<0.2
<3
<0.2
<0.2
<3
<0.2
<0.2
<3
<0.2
90Sr
NA
0.29 +_ 0.03
0.13 +_ 0.01
NA
0.5 +^0.1
0.07 *_ 0.01
NA
0.10 +_ 0.05
0.07 +_ 0.01
NA
0.09 +_ 0.04
0.03 +_ 0.01
0.36 +_ 0.04
Oj020i 0.005
226Ra
1.0 +_ 0.1
NA
NA
2.0 +_ 0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6 +_ 0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
228n
Ra
<0.9
NA
NA
<0.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
No gamma-ray emitters were detected; typical detection limits are given for 60Co and 137Cs.
Pu concentration in well at Location 41 was< 0.005 pCi/1 238Pu and 239Pu on 4/29/75.
Notes:
1. NA - not analyzed.
2. ^values are 2a uncertainties based on counting error.
3. Exponents of 10 are indicated by numbers in parentheses; 1.1 +_ 0.2(3) = (1.1 +_ 0.2) x 10 .
-------
concentrations to be lees than 0*9 pCi/l* These radium
concentrations are consistent with ambient levels expected in
well waters from this area.(8)
Considering that Location 41 is near a drainage pathway south
of the site and the low-level plutonium contamination of sediment
in this washf a well water sample from Location 41 was collected
on April 29, 1975, but showed no detectable plutonium
contamination (<0.005 pCi/l of 238Pu and 239Pu)*
Low-level 3H contamination of nearby domestic wells has
resulted from operations at the Ifaxey Plats burial site* A whole
body dose of 0*1 mrem/yr was estimated for an adult receiving his
drinking water from the well with the highest average 3H
concentration* at Location 41, based on three measurements during
the, study* The dose rate was calculated for a daily intake of
one liter of water with an average concentration of 1700 pCi/l,
using a daily intake dose rate conversion factor of 6*2 x 10~s
(mrem/yr)/(pCi/day)* The dose conversion factor for 3H is based
on the INDOS Program,(23) which uses the parameters given in
Publication 10 of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection and is described In Appendix 8.(24) The estimated dose
of 0.1 mrem/yr corresponds to 0*06 percent of the recommended
maximum dose of 170 mrem/yr to population groups from sources
other than medical exposures•(25)
3.4 Radionuclides in Foods
Potential pathways of radionuclides from the waste burial
site to man through various food chains were investigated*
Studies were limited to the most probable pathways based on the
radionuclides detected in surface water and evaporator effluents
and the types of food produced near the site*
3.4.1 BQdiQflUCUrtftH Jjn ail*. Milk was one of the primary
food products sampled because of the potential exposure of
individuals via the cow-miIk-man pathway. Contamination of
cattle forage and water could result primarily from deposition of
radionuclides from the evaporator plume and the discharge of
radioactive liquid effluents from the site via surface water.
Results of the radlochemical analyses of milk collected
during this study are given in Table 3.7. The reported 3H
concentrations are those associated with the water fraction of
milk* Organically-bound 3H was not determined since only 5 to 10
percent is expected to be in this form.(26) The 3H concentration
measured in the water fraction of the milk was converted to milk
concentration using a factor of 90 percent, the percent bv welirh-t
of water in milk.(27) ~ "i|snT
Milk samples were collected on June 3, 1975, from: a family
cow grazing near the burial site entrance (Location 48), a
commercial dairy herd grazing along Bock Lick Creek (Location
- 51 -
-------
Table 3.7
Radionuclide Concentrations in Milk and Cows' Drinking Water, pCi/1
Date
6/3/75
6/3/75
6/3/75
6/10/75
8/27/75
8/27/75
8/28/75
8/28/75
9/3/75
6/3/75
6/3/75
8/27/75
Location no.
48
46
49
CIN*
41
46
47
50
CIN*
46
48
46
3H
Milk
3.2 +_ 0.2(3)
1.0 +_ 0.1(3)
0.3 +_ 0.1(3)
<0.2(3)
6.5 +_ 0.3(3)
4.1 +_ 0.3(3)
1.3 +_ 0.2(3)
0.5 +_ 0.2(3)
< 0.3(3)
Cows' Drinking Water
0.9 1 0.2(3)
3.6 +_ 0.2(3)
7.4 +_ 0.2(3)
90Sr
7.3 +_ 0.4
8.4 +_ 0.4
4.4 +_ 0.2
NA
4.9 +_ 0.3
2.0 +_ 0.1
2.8 +_ 0.4
2.3 +_ 0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
137Cs
7 ± 2
<3
< 3
NA
<4
<4
<4
<4
NA
NA
NA
NA
Milk sample from a commercial dairy in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Notes:
1. NA - not analyzed
2. ^values are 2a uncertainties based on counting error.
3. Exponents of 10 are indicated by numbers in parentheses; 3.2 _+ 0.2(3)
= (3.2'i 0.2) x 103.
- 52 -
-------
46), and a commercial dairy herd approximately 11 km wee* of the
burial area (Location 49, not shown in Figure 3.3). Milk from a
Cincinnati, Ohio, dairy was obtained as a 3H control sample on
June 10, 1975. The 3H concentrations in milk JCrom the three
locations near the waste burial site were higher than in
Cincinnati milk. The dairy at Location 49 was selected to serve
as a control station since it was approximately 11 km west o± the
burial site, but the unexpected presence of 3H in milk from
there, 300 pCi/l, may reflect a contribution from the site
evaporator. Additional sampling at Location 49 and at more
distant control locations, are necessary to determine the source
of 3H detected at this location. The highest 3H concentration
(3200 pCl/l) was measured in milk from a cow grazing at Location
48, which is a pasture located within the NECO site boundary,
extending from the liaxey Flats Road to the site exclusion fence.
The cow at Location 48 drinks from a small farm pond located in
the pasture near the site entrance. A water sample from this
pond was collected on June 3, 1975, for 3H analysis. Its
concentration was 3600 pCi/l compared to 3200 pCl/l in the milk
which suggests that the pond is the main source of 3H. The June
3 3H concentration in milk from cows grazing at Location 46 and
drinking from Rock Lick Creek was 1000 pCi/l compared to 900
pCi/l in water from the creek. Although the 3H concentration of
milk collected on June 3 would reflect prior 3H intake by the
cows, the similar 3H concentrations in milk and Rock Lick Creek
water suggest that the creek is the main source of 3H observed in
milk at Location 46.
Although »°Sr was detected in milk from Locations 46, 48 and
49, the concentrations are within the range expected from
atmospheric fallout.(28) Likewise, the *37Cs level in milk from
Location 46, 7 pCi/l, cannot be differentiated from fallout
137^8.
Additional milk samples were collected during August 27-28,
1975. With the exception of Location 46, the sampling locations
were different than those sampled on June 3, 1975. The new
locations included: Location 41 ^ family cow grazing on
pasture approximately 0.7 km south of the site and drinking from
Rock Lick Creek; Location 47 - commercial dairy farm located
approximately 3.1 km south-southwest of the site where cows drink
water from Fox Creek; and Location 50 - commercial dairy farm
located approximately 3.1 km south-southeast of the site where
cows drink water from farmponds*
The radionuclide concentrations of milk collected during
August 27-28, 1975, are given in Table 3i7. Tritium was the only
radionuclide detected in these samples that can be attributed to
site operations. Concentrations were substantially higher at
Locations 41 and 46 than at the other locations. Cows grazing at
these locations- drink* from Rock Lick Creek, which had ah *H
concentration of 7400 pCi on August? 27, 1875. The elevated 3H
levels in Rock Lick Creek and milk from Locations 41 and 46 on
- 53 -
-------
thai date compared to June 3, 19*75, resulted from the planned
discharge of 3H contaminated water from an on—site pond to Rock
Lick Creek via the Main East Wash as recommended by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission*(16) The pond water, discharged
intermittently during the latter part of July and first part of
August* 1975, contained 45,000 pCi/l of 3H according to analyses
by NECO.(11)
The 3fl concentration in milk from Location 47 was 1300 pCi/l*
Since cows at this location drink ±rom Fox Creek both upstream
and downstream from the confluence of Bock Lick Creek and Fox
Creek, the source of 3H could not be determined* The 3H
concentration in milk from Location 47 was lower than milk from
Locations 41 and 46, which may reflect the lower 3H concentration
in Fox Creek*
The 3H concentration in milk from Location 49 was 300 pCi/l
compared to less than 200 pCi/l in Cincinnati milk* Although 3H
from the site evaporator is the only known source at this
particular location, the concentration was so low that additional
measurements would be necessary to verify the actual source*
3*4*2 Radionuclidea in vegetables* An additional pathway
for exposure of individuals living near the waste burial site is
consumption of food products from family gardens* The site
evaporator is the primary source of radioactivity for gardens at
residences north of the site* Kadionuclides from evaporator
effluents and surface run-off could contribute radioactivity in
vegetables from gardens located near the site drainage pathways*
Primary emphasis was placed on sampling gardens located near the
site evaporator (within 1*5 km) where potential contamination
from evaporator effluents is greatest*
Vegetable samples were collected from five off—site gardens
at local residences corresponding to Locations 40, 41, 44, 51 and
52 (see Figure 3*3)* Their distances from the evaporator stack
ranged from 0*5 km (Location 40) to 2*2 km (Location 44)*
Samples were also collected from gardens within the site boundary
at Locations 48 and 53* The garden at Location 48 was maintained
by a family living at that location, while the garden at Location
53 was located only a few meters from the NECO office (outside
exclusion fence) and maintained by a NECO employee*
Vegetable samples were collected during the period of August
26-28, 1975* Gardens were sampled near the end of the growing
season and were generally in poor condition due to drought* Many
of the plants were wilted since gardens are not irrigated* and
many vegetables commonly grown were not available* Tomatoes were
available at all sampling locations and were generally edible*
but most families had discontinued harvesting them* Other food
products sampled included watermelons* sweet corn* grapes and
cucumbers; however* corn and watermelons were not being harvested
for consumption at this time*
- 54 -
-------
The radionucllde concentrations in vegetable sample* are
given in Table 3.8. Concentrations are reported in pCi/kg (fresh
weight) andf for 3H, pCi/l (tissue water)* Tritium assay was
limited to that associated with tissue water* Organically-bound
3H was not measured since its contribution to the total 3H
concentration was estimated to be small•( 26) The water content of
the vegetable samples was determined during the azeotropic
distillation separation procedure (see Appendix 7). The samples
were distilled until all the tissue water was removed and the
volume of water recovered was determined per gram of wet tissue*
The measured 3H concentration in tissue water in pCi/l was
multiplied by the volume of tissue water per kg wet tissue
(liters/kg) to give pCi per kg wet weight* The percentage by
weight of water in vegetable samples varied from 57 for corn to
92 for tomatoes*
Ambient 3H levels in vegetation at the time of sampling were
below the detection limit of 250 pCi/kgt as determined by an
analysis of tomatoes from the Cincinnati area* Tritium levels in
precipitation during August 1975 in most areas of the U.S. were
less than 200 pCi/l.(28)
The 3H concentrations in garden products from off-site
locations were all higher than 250 pCi/kg, ranging from 990 to
4620 pCi/kg* Higher 3H concentrations were observed in
vegetables from gardens located within the site boundary
(Locations 48 and 53), ranging from 3570 to 78*700 pCi/kg. The
elevated levels in vegetables from off-site gardens at Locations
Sit 52 and 54 and the on-site gardens at Locations 48 and 53 can
be attributed to 3H releases from the evaporator* Although'the
evaporator is the most likely source of contamination of
vegetables from Locations 40 and 41, contributions from surface
run—off cannot be excluded*
Substantial differences in 3H concentrations in the tissue
water were observed for different types of vegetables from the
same locations* For example, at Location 53 the concentration in
cucumbers was 95,100 pCi/l of tissue water compared to 38,300
pCi/l of tissue water in tomatoes* These differences are proably
related to the transpiration rates of the plants which differ for
various types o* vegetation depending on the growing cycle*
Tritium levels in vegetables may vary considerably during the
growing season depending on: 1) tritium concentrations in air
which are related to its release rate from the evaporator and
meteorological conditions; 2) rain frequency which affects
deposition of tritiated water from the evaporator plume; and 3)
biological and climatic conditions affecting water uptake by
vegetation from soil and air* Routine sampling and analyses of
garden products during the growing season would be necessary to
determine the extent of ••• *H contamination of vegetables from the
evaporator*
-55 -
-------
Table 3.8
1
en
a
I
Sampling
date
8/27/75
8/27/75
8/27/75
8/27/75
8/26/75
8/26/75
8/27/75
8/26/75
8/26/75
8/27/75
8/27/75
Locatioi
no.
40
41
41
44
51
51
52
48
48
53
53
i Sample
type r
tomatoes
tomatoes
watermelon
tomatoes
tomatoes
grapes
tomatoes
tomatoes
corn
tomatoes
cucumbers
3H
jCi/1 (tissue water)
5.4 +_ 0.1 (3)
4.7 +_ 0.1 (3)
1.9 +_ 0.2 (3)
1.1 +_ 0.2 (3)
1.9 +_ 0.1 (3)
5.2 +_ 0.2 (3)
5.0 ^0.1 (3)
6.2 +_ 0.2 (3)
6.3 + 0.2 (3)
3.83 +_ 0.03 (4)
9.51 +_ 0.05 (4)
90Sr
Gamma-ray emitters
pCi/kg (fresh weight) pCi/kg (fresh weight) pCi/ke ffresh weiehtl
4.6 _+ 0.1 (3) 2.4 + 0.3
4.0 ^0.1 (3) 2.6 + 0.3
1.5 +_ 0.1 (3)
1.0 ^0.1 (3) 2.1 + 0.3
1.8 +_ 0.1 (3) 0.8 + 0.4
3.9 +_ 0.2 (3)
4.3 +_ 0.1 (3)
5.3 +_0.1 (3)
3.6 ±0.1 (3)
3.19 +_ 0.02 (4)
7.87 +_ 0.04 (4)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Notes:
1. ND - not detected; typical detection limits were:
2. ^values are 20 uncertainties as based on counting error.
3. Exponents of 10 are indicated by numbers in parentheses.
60Co - 8 pCi/kg, 137Cs - 8 pCi/kg.
-------
The concentration of gamma-ray-emitting radionuclidea in
garden products was below the detection limit tor all samples.
Typical detection limits were approximately 8 pCl/kg for 60Co and
Selected garden samples were analyzed for 90Sr. Its
concentration in tomatoes from Locations 40» 41 * 44, 51 and 53
ranged from 0.8 to 2.6 pCi/kg fresh weight. Since these
concentrations were not significantly different from those at
more distant locations* the probable source of 90Sr is
atmospheric fallout.
With the exception of low-level 3H contamination,
radionuclide levels in garden produce grown near the waste burial
site were below detection limits or indistinguishable from
atmospheric fallout. The consumption of produce from these
gardens at the measured 3H concentrations would lead to rather
low doses. The potential dose is probably the highest for
tomatoes and cucumbers, since they have a high water content and
are generally available for two to three months during the
summer. To illustrate its magnitude* the annual dose was
estimated for a hypothetical individual consuming tomatoes from
off-site gardens with the highest measured 3H concentration* The
dose to an adult individual was calculated as follows:
1. An annual intake was acquired by consuming daily 100 g
0± fresh tomatoes containing 4,600 pCi/kg of 3H for 90
days •
2. The annual intake was converted to an average daily
Intake and an annual dose was calculated using the dose
rate-daily intake conversion factor of 6.2 x 10~5
(mrem/yr )/(pCi/day ) (see Appendix 8).
The estimated whole body dose based on the above calculation was
0.007 mr em/year for an adult.
Although the radiation dose to individuals living near the
waste burial site from contaminated garden produce Is quite low,
the routine environmental surveillance program should include
sampling and analyses of garden products lor assessing exposures
via this pathway
.
- 57 -
-------
4. E-SERIES TEST WELL MEASUREMENTS
4*1 General
A.B part of the Maxey Flats radiological monitoring program*
KDHR and NECO routinely sample and analyze water samples from 12
test wells surrounding the burial site (designated as E—series
test wells)* The wells were constructed for NECO in 1973 under
the supervision of Emcon Associates to obtain hydrological and
geological information* The wells also provide a means of
sampling ground water to detect potential subsurface migration of
radioactivity from the trenches* Their location and depths are
shown in Figure 4*1*
Since the KDHR program includes twice—monthly monitoring of
radioactivity in the test wells* Including 3H and gross alpha-
and beta—particle measurements* our efforts were directed in
support of the KDHR program* including an interlaboratory 3H
cross check program with KDHRt NECO, and this laboratory* When
the study was initiated only limited data were available
regarding the specific radionuclide composition of well samples*
During the KDHR "Six Months Study" analyses were expanded to
include measurements of gamma—ray-emitting radionuclidest 89Sr»
and 90Sr in samples from wells 3E, HE, 12E and 13E.(8 ) Plutonium
concentrations were only measured in the suspended solids
(primarily sediment) from wells 3E» 6E and 11E*(8)
Test wells were sampled during this study to identify and
measure specific radionuclides not analyzed previously* In
addition* emphasis was placed on determining the concentration of
plutonium isotopes in the test wells and their distribution
between sediment and water*
4*2 Sample Collection and Analyses
Test well water was sampled during site visits on October 8,
1974» and April 28* 1975* A sample from well 2E was collected by
KDHR on April 28* 1975* and forwarded to this laboratory for
analysis* Water samples were collected with a bailer supplied by
NECO* The bailer consisted of a steel pipe* 90 cm long by 3*8 cm
in diameter* with a foot valve which opens when the bailer
strikes the bottom of the well* Since the top of the bailer is
open* it fills also from the top when the water level exceeds 90
cm* Water samples generally had a high sediment load due to
suspension of bottom sediment when the bailer was inserted.
- 58 -
-------
01
CD
0l2E(23m)
NE(l5m)
I4E (12.5m)
D
Evaporator
Disposal
Site
6E(l5m)
b8E(24m)
Elevations in feet
Depths in meters
Figure 4.1 Test Well Locations and Depths
-------
On October 8* 1974* test well water samples were collected by
personnel from KDHR* NECO, and this laboratory and split for
analyses* The wells were sampled with one bailer in a clockwise
direction beginning with 2B and ending with 14E (see Figure 4*1 )•
Previous measurements indicated much higher 3H levels in llE and
13Et and this order of sampling was followed to minimize cross-
contamination of samples* The bailer was not rinsed after
sampling each test well* and in view of potential cross-
contamination of samples and the wells* the use of separate
bailers for each test well was recommended to and adopted by KDHR
and NECO* Water samples were stored in polyethylene containers
and transported to Cincinnati for processing* The samples were
filtered through tared Whatman #40 filter paper to separate
sediment from the water* The filters were dried, weighed, and
counted by gamma— ray spectrometry* The filtrates were analyzed
for 3H, 90Sr (selected samples)* and gamma— ray— emitting
radionuclides* Details of the radiochemical methods are given in
Appendix 7*
The test well sampling procedures were modified for the
samples collected on April 28 f 1975* In addition to sampling in
a clockwise direction from IE to 13Et the bailer was rinsed with
approximately 1-llter of distilled water between each well to
minimize cross-contamination* Aliquots of the water samples were
filtered within five hours of collection through glass fiber
filters (nominal pore size 3~M» ) followed by 0.45-pm membrane
filters* The filtrates were acidified by addition of 10 percent
nitric acid by volume and stored in polyethylene bottles* The
unfiltered fractions of the samples were stored in polyethylene
bottles and transported to our laboratory for processing*
Sediment was separated from the unfiltered samples by
centrifugationt dried, weighed* and combined with the sediment
previously separated by filtration to afford sufficient sample
for analysis* The samples were filtered shortly after collection
to minimize exchange of radionuclides between sediment and water*
which may occur when samples are stored for several days prior to
separation* The filtrates were acidified to prevent loss of
radionuclides on the container walls during storage.
Radiochemical analyses of the filtrate and sediment from the well
water samples included 3H (filtrate only)* gamma-ray-emitting
radionuclides and plutonium as described in Appendix 7*
4.3 Results and Discussion
The results of the analyses of test well water samples for
3H» 90Sr* and gamma— ray— emitting radionuclides are given in Table
4*1* The plutonium results are summarized in Table 4*2* The
radiochemical analyses did not indicate the presence of any
radionuclides in addition to those that had been reported by KDHR
23Spu,
Tritium concentrations ranged from 200 pCi/l to 4*3 x 10*
pCi/l. The highest 3H levels were observed in wells llE and 13E*
- 60 -
-------
Table 4.1
Radionuclide Concentrations in Test Well Sanmles From Maxpv Flats
Filtrate
Number Sampled H
IE
2E
3E
3E
5E
6E
6E
8E
8E
10E
HE
HE
12E
12E
13E
13E
14E
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4/28/75 2.6 +_ 0.2 (3)
10/8/74 3.1 +_ 0.2 (3)
10/8/74 0.4 ^0.2 C3)
4/28/75 0.9 +_ 0.2 (3)
10/8/74 0.8 ••-*_ 0.1 (3)
10/8/74 2.5 +/0.2 (3)
4/28/75 12.5 +. 0.2 C3)
10/8/74 0.8 *_ 0.1 C3)
4/28/75 0.3 i 0.1 (3)
4/28/75 0.7 +_ 0.2 (3)
10/8/74 1.20 *. 0.05 (6)
4/28/75 3.48 +_ 0.01 (6)
10/8/74 3.5 +. 0.2 (3)
6°Co
NA
< 3
<18
NA
< 4
< 17
NA
< 4
<14
<12
49 i
50 +_
< 1.8
4/28/75 11.9 ^0.2 (3) < 14
10/8/74 2.8 +_ 0.1 (6)
4/28/75 4.33 *_ 0.01 (6)
11 +_
<16
10/8/74 2.4 *. 0.2 (3) < 3
Exponents of 10 are indicated by
+_ values are uncertainties based
NA - not analyzed.
. PCI/1
90Sr 137Cs
NA NA
6.7 +. 0.2 < 3
3.3 +_ 0.9 <20
NA NA
1.6 ^0.2 < 4
20 +_ 2 < 16
NA NA
NA < 4
NA <14
NA <12
6 16 i 3 < 15
20 NA < 17
1.9 +_ 0.5 < 1.6
NA <14
3 6.1 +_ 0.2 < 2.1
NA <16
3.0 +_ 0.4 < 3
Grams/ 1
NA
NA
10
73
NA
41
79
NA
3.8
6.1
73
19.3
NA
1.2
NA
4.2
NA
Sediment ,_pCi/g (Dry Weight)
6°Co 137Cs 226Ra
< 1.6 < 1.6 < 40
<0.1 <0.1 12 +_ 3
<0.3 <0.3 <10
<0.1 < 0.1 3 +_ 1
2.5 +_ 0.2 1.4 +_ 0.2 10 +_ 2
0.22 +_ 0.05 <0.4 34 *_ 10
0.6 +_ 0.2 <0.3 5 +_ 2
1.2 +_ 0.2 <0.1 3 *_ 1
19 +_ 1 1.6 +_ 0.5 <12
2.7 * 0.3 1.9 +_ 0.2 < 31
numbers in parentheses.
on 2a
counting error.
-------
Table 4.2
Plutonium Concentrations in Test Well Samples
Sediment, pCi/g
Well
number
IE
2E
3E
6E
8E
10E
HE
12E
13E
Date
sampled
4/28/75
9/11/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
Solids,
grams/ 1
2.6
0.4
73
79
3.8
6.1
19.3
1.2
4.2
238D
Pu
2.9
11.7
0.56
0.08
16
3.7
0.39
7.3
7.5
+_ 0.2
+_ 0.5
+ 0.05
+ 0.02
+ 1
+_ 0.3
+ 0.04
+_ 0.5
^ 0.5
239D
Pu
0.08 +_
0.27 _+
0.015 +_
< 0.005
0.50 +_
< 0.05
0.015 +
0.29 +_
0.34 +_
0.03
0.05
0.007
0.05
0.006
0.05
0.05
Filtrate, pCi/g
238_
Pu
NA
< 0.02
< 0.07
NA
< 0.02
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.05
NA
239D
Pu
NA
< 0.01
< 0.03
NA
< 0.02
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.05
NA
Notes:
1. NA - not analyzed
2. + values are uncertainties based on 2a counting error.
3. Sample 2E was collected by KDHR and acidified to 10% in HN03>
- 62 -
-------
and were significantly higher than the concentrations in the
other test wells. The lowest 3H concentration measured in well
HE or 13E was approximately two orders o* magnitude higher than
the highest concentration in any of the other test wells* These
results support the conclusion of the NRC Review Group that the
high 3H levels in wells HE and 13E have resulted from subsurface
migration of 3H from trenches 31 and 33-L.(16) The most probable
source of 3H contamination in wells IB, 2B, 3E, SB, 6E, 8E, 10E,
12E and 14E is also subsurface migration; however, the 3H levels
are low and some contribution from Infiltration of contaminated
surface water cannot be excluded. A probable source of
contaminated surface water is 3H from the site evaporator.
Measurements of the 3H levels in precipitation at the test well
locations would be valuable in estimating the potential
contribution from infiltration of contaminated surface water.
Gamma-ray-emitting radionuclides detected in test wells
included 6OCo, »3*Cs and 226Ra. The highest *°Co concentrations
were associated with test wells HE (SO pCi/l of filtrate), 13E
(11 pCi/l of filtrate) and 12E (19 pCi/g of suspended material).
Although *37Cs wae detected in sediment from wells 2£, 3E, 5B,
12E, and 13E, the concentrations were quite low, ranging from 1.4
to 1.9 pCi/g. Radium-226 concentrations in sediment showed
considerable variation, ranging from 3 to 34 pCi/g. Although
appropriate control samples were not available for comparison,
this ran«e probably reflects the differences in naturally-
occurring 226Ra concentrations in the various geological
formations rather than contributions from waste buried at the
site.
Strontium-90 analyses were limited to the filtrate fraction
of test wells 2E, 3E, SB, 6E, HE, 12E, 13B, and 14B.
Concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 20 pCi/l. In view of the
elevated levels in the test wells, «°Sr analyses should be
included in the routine test well monitoring program.
The concentration of plutonium isotopes in sediment from the
test wells ranged from 0.08 to 16 pCi/g for 238Pu and from <0.005
to 0.5 pCl/g for 239Pu. The 23«Pu concentrations in test well
sediments ranged / from approximately 200 to 40,000 times current
levels of 238Pu in soils in the U.S. from atmospheric fallout
(4 x 10-* pCi/g 23«Pu).(29) These analyses showed plutonium
contamination in all test well sediment samples, and confirmed
the results for test wells 3B, 6E (238pu only) and 11B reported
toy KDHR; however, the concentrations were substantially lower
than previously observed by KDHR.(2,8) The plutonium
concentration in test wells from the KDHR "Six-Months Study" are
compared in Table 4.3 with samples collected later during this
study. Although the plutonium concentrations appear to have
decreased from the levels observed during the "Six-Months Study"
in 1974, additional data are needed for verification.
- 63 -
-------
Table 4.3
Comparison of Plutonium Concentrations in Test Well Sediments
_ KDHR Study _ _ EPA
lest 970 9'*Q ?"$R
well ^8Pu (pCi/g) iyPu (pCi/g) J°Pu (pCi/g) Pu (pCi/g)
3E 3.9 +_ 0.3 0.05 +_ 0.01 0.56 +_ 0.05 0.015 +_ 0.007
6E 2.7 +_ 0.3 0.09 +_ 0.02 0.08 _+ 0.02 < 0.005
6E 3.4 +_ 0.2 0.10 +_ 0.01
HE 9.9^0.9 0.21^0.03 0.39^0.04 0.015+^0.006
HE 15 ^1 0.26 +_ 0.03
Notes :
1. +_ values are 2o uncertainties based on counting error.
2. KDHR samples collected between 2/18/74 and 5/18/74; EPA samples
collected on 4/28/75.
- 64 -
-------
The concentration of plutonium isotopes in the water fraction
(filtrate) from the test wells was below detectable levels in all
samples; the detection limit varied from 0.04 to 0*3 pCi/l for
238Pu anct 23«pu, depending on the volume of water available for
analysis* The absence of detectable levels of plutonium in* the
water suggests that it is primarily associated with insoluble
species (> 0.45-Mm particles) rather than soluble species* It
has been suggested that complexing agents in the trenches at
Maxey Flats could produce soluble plutonium species which could
lead to subsurface migration through the rock formations from the
trenches to the test wells.(2) The low plutonium concentrations
in the water, however, do not support this hypothesis as a
probable mechanism for subsurface migration of plutonium*
However, information on complex—ion formation of plutonium in
trench leachate would be useful. These data do not exclude the
possible transport of plutonium through the rock zone on fine
(> 0*45 Mm) particles*
4*4 Signficance of Test Well Measurements
Although the measurements show that disposal operations at
Maxey Flats have resulted in low-level contamination of the test
wellst the data are not sufficient to establish subsurface
migration from the trenches as the only source, or to evaluate
the extent of subsurface migration from the trenches* Possible
sources of test well contamination have been attributed to the
introduction of contaminated soil from the surface and the use of
contaminated water during drilling, and surface run-off entering
the well at the casing-soil interface. The possibility of some
cross-contamination of the wells during sampling cannot be
excluded; however, this would not be expected to be a major
source of contamination*
With the exception of the high tritium levels in test wells
HE and 13E, the radionuclide levels were quite low, indicating
that subsurface migration of radionuclides other than 3H has not
been extensive compared to the quantities of radioactivity buried
at the site and the radionuclide concentrations in the trench
water.(5,19) Many of the potential problems associated with
subsurface migration may be alleviated by the improved waste
management practices initiated within the last three years.
However, additional radiological, hydrological and geological
investigations would be necessary to determine if the improved
water management program (e.g., minimizing the infiltration of
surface water into the trenches and pumping the trenches) will be
effective in controlling subsurface migration to the environment.
Detailed recommendations (at the request of KDHS) for additional
studies have been made by an Environmental Study Design Committee
composed of scientists from various Kentucky state and federal
agenc ies• ( 30)
Routine monitoring of the test wells should be continued to
determine if radionuclide levels are increasing or decreasing.
- 65 -
-------
These data, along with additional hydrological and geological
Information, will be valuable in evaluating the extent of
subsurface migration of radioactivity* It should be pointed out
that NECO has implemented an improved test well monitoring
program including some specific radionuclide analyses* Howeven
recent test well data collected by NECO have not been received
for review in this report* Specific recommendations regarding
the test well monitoring program are given in Section 5.
The potential implications of plutonium transport from the
site by various pathways provide an important part of the
selection and regulation of low—level radioactive waste disposal
sites and, as such, suggest the need for additional hydrological,
geological and radiological studies.
- 66 -
-------
5. REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND TEST 1ELL MONITORING PROGRAMS
The NECO routine environmental and test well monitoring
programs are summarized below!
No. of
Exposure pathway sampling
or sampling media locations
Sampling
freouencv
Type of
analvala
Test well water
Surface water
Domestic wells
(drinking water)
Air (fenceline)
Air (limiting
residence)
Direct radiation
(fenceline)
10 twice-monthly 3H, gross alpha
and beta
21 twice-monthly 3H, gross alpha
and beta
5 twice—monthly 3H, gross alpha
and beta
8 continuous 3Ht gross alpha
(weekly analysis) and beta
continuous 3H, gross alpha
(weekly analysis) and beta
9 continuous TLD ( gamma—ray
(quarterly analysis) exposure)
In addition to gross radioactivity measurements, specific
isotopic analyses are made when gross alpha or beta
radioactivities exceed control values*
Routine environmental monitoring by KDHR is limited to twice-
Monthly sampling and analyses of surface water and domestic wells
for 3H and gross alpha— and beta-particle radioactivity*
Although the analyses of test well samples for 3H and gross
alpha- and beta-particle radioactivity have beerf useful for
detecting elevated levels of radioactivity in ground water, this
monitoring program should include analyses for individual
radionuclldes. To ensure reliable and more useful data regarding
subsurface migration of radioactivity from the trenches, specific
- 67 -
-------
recommendations for sampling and analyses of the test wells
follow:
A* Analyses of test well water should measure radionuclides
associated with both particulate (suspended solids) and
dissolved material* Although somewhat arbitrary, dissolved
material is defined as the material which passes through a
filter of a specified pore size, generally a 0. 45-pin membrane
filter, and material retained by the filter is classified as
particulate or suspended material* Separation of the two
fractions at the time of collection is preferable to miminize
changes in the distribution of radionuclides between
particulate and dissolved species, but may be impractical
when high particulate concentrations occur. If the dissolved
fraction is to be stored for analysis, acidification is
recommended to prevent or minimize losses from deposition on
the container*
In addition to the radlochemical data, the concentration
of the suspended material should be reported in g/liter*
Radionucllde concentrations should be reported in appropriate
units, e.g., pCi/liter - dissolved, pCi/g - suspended*
B* Specific radionuclide analyses of samples should include
3H (dissolved only), 9OSr, gamma—ray-emitting radionuclides,
238Pu and 239Pu. Since samples are collected twice-monthly
and analyzed for 3H and gross alpha— and beta—particle
radioactivity, allquots of dissolved and suspended material
could be composited for quarterly radionuclide analyses* The
need for more frequent radionuclide analyses would be
indicated by results of 3H and gross radioactivity
measurements•
The current NECO environmental monitoring program is not
adequate to satisfy the generally accepted objectives and
requirements of environmental monitoring around nuclear
installations* (31 ) Although the design of an environmental
program is dependent on the nature of the installation, the
contents of the effluents and the site, environmental monitoring,
in general, should provide data to:
a* confirm or identify critical exposure pathways,
b* assess the radiation exposure to individuals or
populations residing near the facility,
c* detect build—up of radioactivity in the environment and
measure long—term trends in environmental radioactivity
levels, and
d* establish correlations between environmental
radioactivity levels and radioactivity discharged from
the site.
- 68 -
-------
The environmental monitoring program at Maxey Flats should be
reviewed and restructured to meet these objectives. In addition
to addressing the adequacy of the current program, guidelines
should be established for an adequate analytical quality control
or assurance program and the issuing of a semi-annual
environmental report. Based on our investigations at the Maxey
Flats burial site, measurements that would improve the
environmental monitoring program are discussed below.
The design of an environmental monitoring program to meet the
objectives outlined above is generally based on knowledge of the
source term, including the types and quantities of radionuclides
released to the environment, which is obtained by effluent
monitoring. Since the discharge of radioactivity from the Maxey
Flats site via aqueous pathways is not a controlled release
situation, the environmental surveillance program should identify
and measure radioactivity released by this route. The current
surface water monitoring program provides limited information
regarding the concentration and identity of radionuclides
discharged to streams near the site, but is not designed to
determine the quantity of radioactivity released.
Measurement of the radioactivity discharged from the site via
the aqueous pathways would require continuous flow rate
measurements and proportional sampling of the three main drainage
pathways. Because construction of three sampling stations would
Involve considerable expense, an alternative would be a single
station to monitor effluents after discharge to Rock Lick Creek.
Since all the main drainage pathways empty into this Creek, a
sampling station in Rock Lick Creek downstream from the outfall
of Drip Springs Hollow would monitor discharges from the main
effluent streams. A gauging station in Bock Lick Creek,
maintained by the USGS, is located approximately 0.5 km
downstream from the outfall of Drip Springs Hollow Creek and
could be used in conjunction with a proportional sampler for
monitoring discharges to Rock Lick Creek. An additional samplina
station could be established in Rock Lick Creek upstream from the
influence of the site drainage to differentiate between site-
related radioactivity and "background" radioactivity in fallout
from atmospheric nuclear tests and natural radioactivity. Since
current levels of radioactivity from atmospheric nuclear tests
are quite low, a continuous sampling station for background
measurements may not be necessary if specific radionuclide
analyses were made on samples collected at the effluent
monitoring station.
Continuous monitoring of radioactivity discharged to Rock
Lick Creek would provide additional guidance as to the
significance of the radioactivity leaving the site and the need
tor monitoring additional aquatic pathways, such as fish. Lon«-
.*• A«*ffll IIIAA.fll1.««0mVAni+ a wr«««* 1 ** _ *B _ . ___.A..*_*•_* . -. .. **•
— ^ — » ^~ ^™-^»» w*« ^bABSAim) M^ ^f TIM
t!!in m:"™!^!8 ™1V1?? •r!ablj-b " the discharge levels
*uit of improved waste management
- 69 -
-------
The analysis of stream bed sediment would be useful in
detecting the build—up of radioactivity in the environment from
aqueous discharges. However) since contaminated stream bed
sediment is not presently an important exposure pathway) annual
or semi—annual sampling would be sufficient*
In view of the elevated 3H levels in milk from cows drinking
from Rock Lick Creek, routine monitoring of radionuclides in milk
should be initiated to assess the potential dose from this
pathway* Hadionuclide analyses of milk should include 3H and
90Sr; analyses for additional radionuclides would be dictated by
the results of effluent monitoring in Rock Lick Creek*
Since the evaporator appears to be a major source of
radioactivity at the burial site, air samples collected at the
fenceline and particularly at the residence of the limiting
receptor should be routinely composited quarterly and analyzed
for gamma—ray—emitting radionuclides and for 3H, 90Sr, 238Pu and
239Pu* This together with wind frequency data will provide
average airborne concentrations of specific radionuclides to
assist in estimating dose to man or to predict their
contributions to other pathways*
Tritium was the only radionuclide detected in garden products
that can be attributed to discharges from the site evaporator*
Although the potential dose associated with consumption of 3H-
contaminated vegetables was quite low, our measurements were
limited and may not be representative of radionuclide
concentrations during the growing season* Since the production
of vegetables in this area is limited to small family gardens and
collection of suitable quantities of vegetables may limit the
frequency of sampling, measurements of radionuclide levels in
other types of vegetation during this season should be included
in the routine environmental monitoring program* Sampling of
grass, for example, from specific plots may serve as a suitable
indicator*
- 70 -
-------
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Information obtained during this study indicates that the
eruantities of radioactivity detected outside the burial trenches
are so low that they do not appear to be a significant hazard to
the environment or to public health in the Maxey Flats area, at
the present time. However, the potential long-range impact of
these contaminants is not known*
6*1 Evaporator Study
Fifteen long-lived radionuclides have been identified in
stack effluent during evaporation of wastes from s7x~ "orage^
tanks. Tritium, observed in every sample of stack discharge, was
the predominant radionuclide. Cobalt-60, «°Sr and *3*Cs were
also found in every sample, and "Na, 106Ru and l34Cs wcre
detected frequently. Discharge rates o* ^H ranged up to 1.9 x
M6W« alpna;P"-*lcl« emitters in stack effluent included
226Ra, 238Pu and 239Pu. AmCri cium-241 was observed in wastes
being treated but levels in stack discharge, if presen?, were
below detection levels. No extensive analyses have been
conducted so far to identify all radionuclides of this type.
Sodium-22, , f a ftn Ra ^^ aaaocla
dissolved matter in stack effluent. Most »*Mn, S5Fe. 60 "
l2Ssb, 228Ac and pu were ftlso 1Q *n, Fe Co,
, c and pu were ftlso ln ^hl8 1Q
The solubility of "C is uncertain-more analyses are ne±d to
determine the extent of * *C in discharges. needed to
dilution water resulted either fro. storage
depletion of the evaporator stack plume (e.g.? by r
eondensed droplets, as it passsed over the former tank
Tritium concentrations are reduced slightly in the waste
treatment process due to water formed by com »«8te
fuel. Decontamination factors (DF-s) for
system were determined for «Co, «oSrt i
- 71 -
-------
Samples taken within the treatment system during: stack
measurements were highly variable and difficult to correlate with
radionuclide concentrations in stack effluent* The radionuclide
contents of batches previously treated appear to influence
subsequent batch concentrations*
Annual average dose from exposure to six principal
radionuclides in evaporator stack discharge were calculated for
the limiting receptor* an occupant at the residence located NNE
of the stack at a distance of 0*8 km* The calculations were
based on the average radionuclide concentrations in all storage
tanks measured in 1973, average DF's observed in this studyf
reported treatment system parameterst and available climatologi—
cal data*
Most dose was contributed by airborne ground-level
concentrations of 3H water vaporf estimated to be 2*6 mrem/year*
The other radionuclides, 60Cot 90Sr, l37Cs, 238Pu and 239Pu,
produced less than 0*1 mrem/year each; the dose calculations for
137Cs, 23aPu and 239Pu are tentative) however, pending more DF
measurements•
6*2 Environmental Study
The principal radionuclides detected in off-site surface
water samples were 3H and 9OSr* The highest 3H concentration was
179,000 pCi/l in water from a wash on the west side of the site*
outside the exclusion area (i*e», unrestricted area)* This
corresponds to 6 percent of the maximum permissible concentration
(MFC) for 3H in water discharged to unrestricted areas*(22) The
highest 9OSr concentration was 80 pCi/l in the Main East Wash,
corresponding to 27 percent of the MFC for 9OSr in water* The 3H
and 90Sr levels in Rock Lick Creek were lower than in the primary
drainage pathways; the highest concentrations were 4700 pCi/l and
5*8 pCi/lf respectively* The major aqueous pathways for
radionuclides moving from the site were the Main East Wash and
the wash on the west side of the site* The principal vehicle of
transport appeared to be precipitation run—off from the surface
of the burial site* Contamination of the site surface could have
resulted from a number of sources, including lateral migration
through the soil zone from the trenches to the land surface*
spills during burial and trench pumping operations, and deposi-
tion from the evaporator plume* However, the relative
contribution from these sources could not be determined*
Deposition of radionuclides from the evaporator plume* especially
3H, could be a major source of radioactivity observed in surface
water, but additional studies would be necessary to evaluate its
significance*
Radionuclides detected in stream bed sediment included 54Mn,
60Co, 90Srt 137Cs, 238Pu and 239Pu. The highest concentrations
were in samples from the Main East Wash which is the major
drainage pathway for the burial site* The sediment data
- 72 -
-------
supported the conclusion, based on surface water measurements,
that the transport of radionuclides from the site surface by
precipitation run-off was a major source of the radioactivity
detected in the drainage pathways.
The radionucllde levels in sediment were quite low and of
little significance relative to population exposure. The
accumulation of radionuclides in sediment serves as a reservoir
or source of radionuclides that can be released by desorption or
resuspension of the sediment. Considering the measured
concentrations, however, contaminated sediment did not represent
a significant source compared to the levels of 3H and 9OSr
measured in surface water.
Only 3H was detected in domestic well water at concentrations
which reflect contributions from site operations. The source of
the contamination may be a combination of surface run-off from
the site and deposition from the evaporator plume. A daily
Intake of one liter of well water with an average concentration
of 1700 pCi/l, the highest average concentration measured, would
result in a total-body dose of only 0.1 mrem/year.
Radiochemical analyses of milk samples showed that 3H
releases from the Maxey Flats burial site have produced low-level
contamination of milk from cows located within 3.1 km of the
site. The highest 3H concentration was associated with milk from
cows drinking from Rock Lick Creek and can be attributed to
releases from the site to Rock Lick Creek. Elevated 3H levels in
milk from a cow grazing near the site entrance were attributed to
site evaporator effluent.
The potential dose to an individual from drinking 3H in milk
at the concentrations (300-6,500 pCi/l ) detected in samples near
the Maxey Flats site is quite low. Dally consumption of one
liter of milk containing 6,500 pCi/l of 3H would lead to an
annual total body dose of approximately 0.4 mrem. The average
dose rate to consumers of local milk Is probably less. A more
accurate assessment of the dose from this pathway would require
more extensive monitoring efforts than attempted in this study.
With the exception of low-level 3H, radionuclide levels in
garden produce—tomatoes, watermelons, corn, grapes and
cucumbers—grown near the waste burial site were below detection
limits or indistinguishable from atmospheric fallout. Tritium
concentrations in vegetables grown in off-site locations ran*e
-------
100 g per day of -tomatoes containing 4*600 pCi 3H/kg (the highest
off-site 3H concentration observed) during a 90—day season was
estimated to be less than 0.01 mrem/year.
6*3 E-Series Test Well Measurements
Radionuclides measured in the E-series test well samples were
3H, 60Co, 9°Sr, 137Cs, 226Ra, 238Pu and 339pu. However, only 3H,
60Co and 90Sr were observed to exist in the soluble fraction, and
the presence of 226Ra may not be related to wastes burled at the
site. Within the limits of detection, all plutonium was
associated with sediment, which raises the question regarding the
mechanism of its movement from the trenches. Although subsurface
migration is apparently the major pathway responsible for the
presence of radionuclides in the wells, possible contamination
during drilling or from contaminated surface water entering the
wells at the casing-soil interface cannot be excluded. Even
though subsurface transport might explain the occurrence of
radionuclides in the test wells, their presence off-site—in the
Main East Wash, No-Name Hollow Creek, Rock Lick Creek, etc.—
appears to be primarily from surface water run-off and evaporator
plume depletion. Additional geological, hydrological and
radiological measurements would be necessary to evaluate the
extent of subsurface migration of radionuclides from the
trenches•
6.4 Recommendations lor Future Studies
Recommendations for improvement of the present routine
environmental and test well monitoring programs at the Maxey
Flats burial site are discussed in Section 5. Major changes
recommended are, briefly:
1 ) Install and operate a continuous water sampling station
on Rock Lick Creek at the site of the USGS gauging
station.
2) Include milk and vegetables, during the growing season,
as routine sampling media to be analyzed for 3H«
3) Perform specific radionucllde analysis on both
particulate and dissolved material in test well samples.
4) Sample stream bed sediment on a semi—annual or annual
basis for radionuclide analysis to monitor build-up of
radioactivity in the environment from the aqueous
pathway*
5) Analyze quarterly composited air filters from fenceline
and residential air samplers for radionuclides emitting
gamma-rays and for 90Sr, 238Pu and 239Pu.
- 74 -
-------
Additional short-term studies planned at the Maxey Flats
burial site and based on this study include:
1) Determine the distribution of plutonium between
particulate and dissolved material in test well water
samples, and the distribution of plutonium as a function
of particle size*
2) Measure the plutonium concentration in vegetation and
soil from the trench area.
3) Measure *H levels in environmental media, particularly
vegetation, and determine the percent associated with
water and that which is organically bound.
4) Measure radionuclide concentrations in air outside the
fenceline to verify dose estimates from evaporator
effluents, and determine the contribution of washout
from the plume to surface water contamination.
5) Perform additional sampling of evaporator treatment
plant to determine more accurately DF•s for 137Cs and
Plutonium and quantities of 1*C in stack discharge.
- 75 -
-------
7. REFERENCES
1. O'Connell, M. F. and Holcomb, W. F. , "A Summary of Low-
Level Radiation Wastes Buried at Commercial Sites Between 1962-
1973, with Projections to Year 2000," Radiol. Health Data Repts.
15, 759 (1974).
2. Meyer, G. L. and Berger, P. S. , "Preliminary Data on the
Occurrence of Transuranium Nuclides in the Environment at the
Radioactive Waste Burial Site, Maxey Flats, Kentucky,"
International Symposium on Transuranium Nuclides in the
Environment, IAEA and ERDA, San Francisco, November 17-20, 1975.
3. Clark* D. T., "History and Preliminary Inventory Report
on the Kentucky Radioactive Waste Disposal Site," Radiol. Health
Data Repts. 14, 573 (1973).
4. Kentucky Department for Human Resources, Radiation
Control Branch, "Radioactivity Concentrations at the Maxey Flats
Area of Fleming County, Kentucky-January 1, 1975 to December 31,
1975" (1976).
5. Gat, U., Thomas, J. D. and Clark, D., "Radioactive Waste
Inventory of the Maxey Flats Nuclear Waste Burial Site," Health
Phys. 20., 281 ( 1976).
6. Oat, U.f "Nuclear Low-Level Waste Burial Site Inventory
Evaluation," to be published.
7. Clark, D. T.f personal communication (1975).
8. Kentucky Department for Human Resources, Radiation and
Product Safety Branch, "Project Report-Six Months Study of
Radiation Concentrations and Transport Mechanisms at the Maxey
Flats Area of Fleming County, Kentucky," Kentucky Department for
Human Resources Report (1974).
9. Zehner, H. H., U.S. Geological Survey, Louisville,
Kentucky, personal communication (1975)*
10. Papadopulos, S. S. and Winograd, I. J., "Storage of Low-
Level Radioactive Wastes in the Ground, Hydrogeologic and
Hydrochemical Factors with an Appendix on the Maxey Flats,
Kentucky, Radioactive Waste Storage Site: Current Knowledge and
- 76 -
-------
Data Needs for a Quantitative Hydrogeo logic Evaluation." USEPA
Report* EPA-520/3-74-009 (1974).
£•
11. Razor t J.f Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc., Maxey
Flats, Kentucky, personal communication (1975).
12. Duguid, J. O., "Status Report on Radioactivity Movement
from Burial Grounds in Melton and Bethel Valleys," Oak Ridge
National Laboratory Report, ORNL-5017 (1975).
13. Meyer, G. L. , "Recent Experience with the Land Burial of
Solid Low-Level Radioactive Wastes," IAEA Symposium on Management
of Radioactive Wastes from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Vienna,
Austria, IAEA-SM-207/64 (1976).
14. Matuszek, J. M. , fiJt ajj.1 "Radionuclide Dynamics and
Health Implications for the New York Nuclear Service Center's
Radioactive Burial Site," in Mananeman* ^ Radiouc*!™ Waatea
±ha Nucle&r EU£l Cjrcie,, IAEA, Vienna (1976).
15. Walker, I. R.f "Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation of a
Proposed Site for Burial of Solid Radioactive wastes Northwest of
Morehead, Fleming County, Kentucky," New Jersey Geological
Survey, Report to Nuclear Engineering Company, unpublished
( 1962).
16. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review Group, "Report
Regarding Maxey Flats, Kentucky Commercial Radioactive Waste
Burial Ground," July 7, 1975, unpublished.
17. International Atomic Energy Agency, "Design and
Operation of Evaporators for Radioactive Wastes," IAEA Technical
Report Series No. 87 (1968).
18. Krey, P. W. and Krajewski , B.f "Tropospheric Scavenging
of 90Sr and 3H," in P**eol r.1 tfltil?n Scavcngl^ ( 1970 1. ABC
Symposium Series 22, 447 (1970).
19. Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, "Special
Kentucky Samples-Analytical Data," unpublished (1974).
20. Leonard, J. H.t "Engineering Design of a Treatment
System for Aqueous Radioactive Wastes," Rept. prepared for
Nuclear Engineering Company, Morehead, Kentucky, Nuclear Science
and Engineering Department, University of Cincinnati (1973).
21. Leonard, J. H.f University of Cincinnati, personal
communication (1974).
22. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Standards for
Protection Against Radiation," Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20, U.S. Government Printing
Washington, D.C. (1975).
- 77 -
-------
23. Killough, G. G. and McKay, L. R. , "A Method for
Calculating Radiation Doses from Radioactivity Released to the
Environment,11 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Rept. ORNL-4992
(March 1976).
24. Report of Committee 4 of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection, "Evaluation of Radiation Doses to Body
Tissues from Internal Contamination Due to Occupational
Exposure," ICRP Publication No* 10, Pergamon Press, Oxford
( 1967).
25* "Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards," Fed* Rad. Council Rept* #2, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. (1961)*
26* Bogen, D* C* and Welford, G. A*, "Fallout Tritium
Distribution in the Environment," Health Phys. £fl, 203 (1976).
27. "Nutritional Data," Fifth Edition, J. H. Heinz Co.,
Pittsburgh, PA, 84 (1963).
28* Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "Environmental Radiation Data," Rept. No. 3
(January 1976).
29. Harley, J. , "Transuranium Elements on Land,"
Environmental Quarterly Report, Health and Safety Laboratory,
ERDA, HASL-291 (1975).
30. Department of Human Resources Waste Disposal
Environmental Study Design Committee, "Recommendations of the
Environmental Study Design Committee for the Maxey Flats
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, Frankfort , Kentucky," (April
4, 1975).
31. International Atomic Energy Agency, "Objectives and
Design of Environmental Monitoring Programs for Radioactive
Contaminants," Safety Series 41, IAEA, Vienna (1975).
- 78 -
-------
APPENDIX 1. SENSITIVITY LEVELS FOR ANALYSES OF
EVAPORATOR EFFLUENT *yCi/ml
Radionuclide
12.3 -y 3H
5730 -y 14C
2.60 -y 22Na
313 -d 54Mn
2.7 -y 55Fe
5.26 -y 60Co
244 -d 65Zn
28.5 -d 90Sr
369 -d 106Ru
2.77 -y 125Sb
8.06 -d 131I
2.07 -y 134Cs
30.0 -y 137Cs
1600 -y 226Ra
6.13 -h 228Ac
87.7 -X 238Pu
2.4xl04 -y 239PU
433 -y 241Am
Gross alpha
Air filter
•K _ M
....
5 x ID'13
2 x ID'12
2 x 10-11
2 x ID'12
2 x ID'12
1 x ID'14
1 x 10-11
2 x ID'12
1 x ID'12
1 x 10-12
1 x 10-12
4 x ID'12
2 x 10-12
5 x 10-14
5 x ID'14
1 x ID"12
Water
3 x 10~7
3 x 10"8
1 x 10"8
1 x 10~8
3 x 10"8
1 x 10~8
1 x 10"8
5 x 10"9
1 x 10"7
4 x 10~8
1 x 10"8
1 x 10"8
1 x 10"8
1 x 10~7
2 x 10"8
4 x ID'11
4 x HT11
9 x 10~8
1 x 10~9
Membrane
filter
5 x 10"9
4 x 10~9
1 x 10"8
1 x 10"9
1 x 10"9
1 x 10-10
4 x 10"9
2 x 10"9
1 x 10"9
1 x 10"9
1 x 10"9
3 x 10"9
2 x 10"9
8 x 10"12
8 x 10"12
2 x 10"9
5 x 10"9
Values calculated .at the 99.7% (30) confidence level and
based on typical sample volumes and counting intervals.
- 79 -
-------
APPENDIX 2. IN-PLANT SAMPLING DATA
Stack
test
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
In-plant
sample no.
1
3
6
8
11
13
16
18
20
22
25
27
30
33
34*
35
37
38
40
41
43
44
46
47
49
50
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
Date
Nov. 6, 1974
"
Nov. 6, 1974
"
Nov. 7, 1974
"
Nov. 7, 1974
"
"
"
Nov. 8, 1974
"
April 8, 1975
11
April 9, 1975
"
"
"
April 9, 1975
"
"
"
April 10, 1975
11
"
"
May 20, 1975
"
11
May 21, 1975
"
"
"
"
May 21, 1975
"
11
"
May 22, 1975
"
"
11
Sept. 29, 1975
M
"
"
Sept. 30, 1975
"
11
11
11
11
Sept. 30, 1975
"
"
"
11
11
Oct. 1, 1975
11
"
"
Time
1325
1345
1634
1615
1012
1018
1441
1446
1654
1656
0955
0955
1418
1525
1000
1003
1050
1052
1349
1353
1550
1552
1003
1006
1133
1135
1412
1416
1437
0940
0943
1105
1107
1111
1336
1338
1513
1515
0953
0955
1119
1121
1353
135S
1519
1520
0939
0941
1106
1107
1145
1230
1313
1315
1424
1450
1459
1501
1031
1033
1136
1139
Location
Evaporator
Settling Tank #1
Evaporator
Settling Tank 12
Evaporator
Settling Tank #2
Evaporator
Settling Tank #2
Evaporator
Settling Tank #1
Evaporator
Settling Tank *2
Settling Tank #1
Settling Tank #1
Evaporator
Settling Tank #2
Evaporator
Settling Tank #1
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Evaporator
Settling Tank »1
Evaporator
Settling Tank »1
Evaporator
Settling Tank 01
Evaporator
Settling Tank »1
Settling Tank »2
Pvaporator
Settling Tank *2
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Settling Tank »1
Evaporator
Settling Tank »1
Evaporator
Settling Tank 12
Evaporator
Settling Tank »1
Evaporator
Settling Tank #1
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Evaporator
Settling Tank #2
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Settling Tank »1
Settling Tank »1
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Settling Tank »1
Settling Tank »1
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
Evaporator
Settling Tank »2
New evaporator vessel and valve location since last field trip.
*
Flocail.itor te.it in settling tnnk »1.
- 80 -
-------
APPENDIX 3
I
00
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
NOTES:
•**• •*'*• •*"! wj_i^*rfj_« \^v^ii v^uAi ^ i \-fiA JL wiiij .Lii LI v nj. wx\i
Settling Tank
Dissolved Material
2.7 £ 0.6 x 10"7
-7
2.1 +_ 0.6 x 10
-fi
1.0 1- 0.6 x 10 °
1.8 + 0.8 x 10~£
1.1 +_ 0.4 x 10
Sample Lost _
7 + 2 x 10~'
6 + 1 x 10~'
^— •. h
2.6 + 0.5 x 10 7
3 +-1 x 10~'
3 ^ 1 x 10
Sample Lost 7
9 + 2 x 10"7
3 + 2 x 10"'
1.3 + 0.2 x 10~g
1.9 ^ 0.3 x 10~
-
( Samp . )
( No. )
(3)
(22)
(30)
(33)
(38)
(44)
(47)
(50)
(53)
(54)
(56)
(58)
(61)
(63)
(65)
(67)
Suspended Solids
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
^ivj\ ruruii v jJAv^jjui-'j.nvj nj9 — ; —
ml
Evaporator
Dissolved Material
22
Na
1.6 + 0.1 x 10~p
1.8 i 0.2 x 10~g
2.5 + 0.5 x 10~
2.4 + 0.2 x 10~fi
1.8 + 0.1 x 10~
2.4 jh 0.2 x 10
2 + 1 x 10~g
1.8 jf 0.4 x 10~g
3 +2 x 10~s
1.4 ;t 0.1 x 10
1.8 + 0.2 x 10~g
1.8 + 0.1 x 10~j?
1.4 + 0.2 x 10 ^
1.1 ^ 0.1 x 10J?
1.2 + 0.1 x 10~5
1.5 + 0.1 x 10~
4 + 1 x 10"p
3^1 x 10~g
4 +1 x 10~fi
5 +1 x 10 .
7.8 + 0.8 x 10 £
9 + 1 x 10
( Samp . )
( No. )
(1)
(6)
(11)
(16)
(20)
(25)
(43)
(46)
(49)
(52)
(55)
(57)
(60)
(62)
(64)
(66)
(72)
(74)
(78)
(82)
(84)
(86)
Suspended Solids
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND -6
1.0 ^ 0.3 x 10
1.1 + 0.6 x 10~6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1. £ values indicate analytical error at 2-sigma confidence level.
2. ND - not detectable (sensitivity levels given in Appendix 1 apply generally to in-plant sample
analyses).
3. Omission of results for particular samples indicates that the radionuclide was not measurable.
-------
I
CO
Test
No.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Settling Tank
Dissolved Material
ND
3.7 + 0.4 x 10 7
2.3 _+ 1.3 x 10
Sample Lost
8 +2 x 10
ND
7 +2 x 10 '
5 +3 x 10
ND
ND
ND
7.5 + 0.6 x 10~7
2,1 + 0.9 x ID".!
2.1 + 0.6 x 10~'
2.0 + 0.2 x 10~'
6.1 + 0.6 x 10~'
2.4 + 0.9 x 10
2.31 + 0.03 x 10 j;
3.51 + 0.04 x 10
8.9 + 0.2 x 10
2.07 + 0.03 x 10"
5.6 jf 0.5 x 10
Sample Lost
( Samp . )
( No. )
(53)
(54)
(56)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(63)
(65)
(67)
(76)
(80)
(3)
(8)
(13)
(18)
(22)
(27)
(30)
(33)
(35)
(38)
(41)
(44)
Suspended Solids
1.3
1.7
9.6
1.0
2.7
1.3
7
4.1
6.1
1.1
9
4.2
1.7
3
2.2
1.0
2
8.0
+ 0.1 x
+ 0.3 x
+ 0.5 x
+ 0.1 x
+ 0.3 x
+ 0.1 x
+ 3 x
+_ 0.1 x
+_ 0.3 x
+ 0.2 x
+_ 4 x
+_ 0.3 x
+ 0.4 x
+ 1 x
+ 0.9 x
+ 0.7 x
+ 1 x
+ 0.2 x
1.21 t 0.02
2.3
7.0
1.2
2.0
+ 0.2 x
+ 0.4 x
+ 0.1 x
+ 0.1 x
54..
Mn
10-5
10~7
10
10~7
io'7
10
if6
io"6
c
ID-6
t-j
ID'7
60
Co
ID"!
10
10"
l°~o
-8
iSf6 ,
x ig
10"6
10
io"6
Dissolved Material
3
5
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
+_1 x 10 °
+2 x 10"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5 + 0.1 x 10~
3 + 0.2 x 10"
0 + 0.2 x 10 p
9+0.2 x 10 p
1 +_ 0.2 x 10g
4 +_ 0.1 x 10"
77 + 0.01 x 1Q-
6+0.1x10
55 + 0.04 x 10 g
47 + 0.04 X 10
Evaporator
(Samp. )
( No. )
(52)
(55)
(57)
(60)
(62)
(64)
(66)
(68)
(72)
(74)
(78)
(82)
(84)
(86)
(1)
(6)
(11)
(16)
(20)
(25)
(34)
(37)
(40)
(43)
Suspended
6.2
2.9
5.6
4.9
2.7
2.2
2.8
2.2
1.6
1.1
2.1
1.8
3
2
2.1
6.7
4.8
7.0
3.0
7.7
1.7
3.0
7.6
1.7
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.8
+ 0.4
+ 0.4
+ 0.3
+ 0.8
+ 1
+ 1
+ 0.1
+ 0.2
+ 0.1
+ 0.2
+ 0.1
+_ 0.2
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.5
+ 0.1
Solids
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
io-5
10
10~5
io"5
10-5
10~7
ID'?.
10
10-6
10-6
101
101
10~6
10-6
10
10-6
W-6
ID'6
10"
10~K
10
ID'5
-------
00
o
Test
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
11
12
13
Settling Tank
Dissolved Material
5.7 + 0.1 x 10";?
7.3 + 0.1 x 10
1.00 + 0.02 x 10
4.3 + 0.5 x 10"^
3 ^2 x 10"
Sample Lost _
1.5 + 0.3 x 10";?
1.2 + 0.1 x 10~!?
1.0 Jh 0.2 x 10~g
3.0 + 0.1 x 10~
4.3 + 0.1 x 10";?
1.9 + 0.1 x 10~j?
2.1 + 0.1 x 10~^
3.0 + 0.2 x 10";?
2.8 + o.i x 10";?
2.9 + 0.2 x 10~j?
2.2 +. 0.1 x 10~g
2.5 + 0.1 x 10~
3.1 Jh 0.1 x 10^;?
3.3 .+ 0.1 x 10~
2.6 i 0.1 x 10~g
3.4 + 0.1 x 10~
4.6 +_ 0.2 x 10
4
.ND
ND
Sample Lost
( Samp . )
( No. )
(47)
(50)
(53)
(54)
(56)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(63)
(65)
(67)
(69)
(71)
(73)
(75)
(76)
(77)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(83)
(85)
(87)
(53)
(56)
(58)
Suspended Solids
7.9 + 0.4 x 10~
6.9 + 0.8 x 10"'
2.5 + 0.1 x 10 ~?
6.2 + 0.5 x 10~
2.0 +_ 0.1 x 10_g
4.9 + 0.1 x 10~7
3.5 + 0.3 x 10"'
3.7 + 0.2 x 10 "£
9 + 3 x 10~"
2.2 + 0.1 x 10
9.8 + 0.5 x 10~!?
3.3 + 0.6 x 10
2.4 + 0.4 x 10~'
1.8 + 0.3 x 10~'
1.0 + 0.3 x 10"'
1.8 + 0.1 x 10~^
1.0 + 0.2 x 10~'
9.0 + 0.3 x 10 g
2.0 + 0.1 x 10~_
1.8 + 0.4 x 10
1.0 + 0.3 x 10~'
5.2 + 0.5 x 10"'
3.5 +_ 0.5 x 10"
65
Zn
5 + 1 x 10"^
3.1 + 0.8 x 10~'
3.3 + 0.2 x 10
Evaporator
Dissolved Material
2.24 + 0.02 x 10~j|
3.23 + 0.04 x 10
4.2 +_ 0.1 x 10~
5.2 + 0.1 x 10~
5.2 +_ 0.1 x 10
-4
4.0 + 0.1 x 10
3.8 + 0.1 x 10"
3.2 + 0.1 x 10~
3.4 + 0.1 x 10"
1.7 + 0.1 x 10 g
1.8 + 0.1 x 10"
3.07 + 0.04 x 10~
3.15 + 0.05 x 10
—4
3.40 + 0.05 x 10
3.37 + 0.05 x 10
4.4 + 0.1 x 10~£
4.6 + 0.1 x 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(Samp. )
( No. )
(46)
(49)
(52)
(55)
(57)
(60)
(62)
(64)
(66)
(68)
(70)
(72)
(74)
(78)
(82)
(84)
(86)
(52)
(55)
(57)
(60)
(62)
(64)
Suspended Solids
8.87 + 0.04 x 10~5
4.5 + 0.1 x 10
1.65 + 0.02 x 10
1.86 + 0.03 x 10~|*
1.35 + 0.02 x 10
-4
1.12 + 0.02 x 10
5.9 + 0.1 x 10 ;?
4.2 + o.i x 10 ;?
3.4 + 0.1 x 10 g
2.6 + 0.2 x 10
7.4 + 0.9 x 10
6.4 + 0.1 x 10
5.6 + 0.1 x 10
-4
1.14 + 0.02 x 10
1.26 + 0.02 x 10
5.30 + 0.04 x 10~||
5.22 + 0.04 x 10~
_5
1.2 + 0.1 x 10
1.2 t 0.3 x 10 .
1.0 + 0.2 x 10~
6 -h 2 x 10 c
— — b
5 t 1 x 10
2.0 + 0.9 x 10
-------
I
00
Test
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Settling Tank
Dissolved Material
-4
1.09 + 0.01 x 10
1.8 + 0.04 x 10';?
1.7 +_ 0.04 x 10
not analyzed
not analyzed
6.1 + 0.9 x 10~|?
9 + 1 x lOp
2.6 + 0.4 x 10~;?
5.8 +_ 0.3 x 10
Sample Lost
5.9 + 0.8 x 10~5
Sample Lost fi
9^4 x 10
1.8 + 0.3 x 10~;?
2.5 +_ 0.6 x 10
8 + 5 x 10~g
8 +_ 4 x 10~g
9 +4 x 10~
1.1 + 0.4 x 10~;?
1.0 +_ 0.4 x 10 g
9 +4 x 10
( Samp . )
( No. )
(3)
(8)
(13)
(30)
(33)
(35)
(38)
(44)
(53)
(58)
(61)
(65)
(67)
(76)
(77)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(85)
Suspended Solids
9°Sr
-6
9.2 + 0.1 x 10 J?
3.9+_0.1xlO
not analyzed
not analyzed
not analyzed
1060
Ru
ND
1.0 + 0.4 x 10
ND
ND
_7
7 +3 x 10
8+2 x 10~6
_ c
1.2 + 0.3 x 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dissolved Material
_3
1.45 + 0.01 x 10
not analyzed
2.24 + 0.04 x 10
3.84 + 0.04 x 10
3.82 + 0.04 x 10
3.03 + 0.02 x 10
c
5.5 + 0.3 x 10
7.9 + 0.9 x 10 p
2.9 + 0.3 x 10
4.3 + 0.4 x 10
ND
2.4 + 0.2 x 10 J*
2.9 + 0.3 x 10 ,
_ h
2.8 + 0.2 x 10
2.1 +_ 0.2 x 10_Jj
2.0 + 0.2 x 10
1.5+"0.2xlO,|
1.6 + 0.2 x 10
7 +4 x 10
1 +2 x 10
4 +2 x 10
6 +2 x 10
6 +_ 2 x 10
-4
1.0 + 0.2 x 10
9 +2 x 10
Evaporator
(Samp. )
( No. )
(1)
(6)
(11)
(16)
(20)
(25)
(34)
(37)
(40)
(43)
(46)
(52)
(55)
(57)
(60)
(62)
(64)
(66)
(68)
(72)
(74)
(78)
(82)
(84)
(86)
Suspended Solids
not analyzed
not analyzed
not analyzed ^
1.01 + 0.03 x 10~
4.85 t 0.02 x 10
not analyzed
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.6 + 0.1 x 10
4.1 + 0.5 x 10
5 T 1 x 10 ^
— — s
4.7 + 0.6 x 10
3.6 + 0.6 x 10
2.5 + 0.4 x 10
2.1 t 0.4 x 10"
3.4 + 0.6 x 10~
ND
1.6 + 0.3 x 10
1.5 + 0.3 x IP
3.0 + 0.3 x 10
1.9 _+ 0.5 x id
-4
1.4 + 0.1 x 10
1.3 + 0.1 x 10
-------
Test
No.
00
en
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
Settling Tank
Dissolved Material
7 + 2 x 10~|!
7 + 2 x 10"^
2 + 1 x 10" '
5.9 +_ 0.6 X 10
Sample Lost
ND
Sample Lost
( -•
3.1 +_ 0.1 x 10"?
_7
2.0 +. 0.1 x 10
ND
Sample Lost -
5.0 +0.4 x 10 p
7.1 + 0.2 x 10";?
4.7 +_ 0.1 x 10~g
3.5 + 0.4 x 10~fi
1.6 +_ 0.3 x 10
Sample Lost
1.5 + 0.4 x 10~!?
7.5 + 0.5 x 10~g
1.4 + 0.3 x 10
( Samp . )
(No. ).
(30)
(33)
(35)
(38)
(44)
(53)
(58)
(3)
(22)
(38)
(44)
(47)
(50)
(53)
(54)
(56)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(63)
Suspended Solids
1250,
Sb
ND
ND
ND
ND
2 +_ 1 x 10
o
1.2 + 0.5 x 10 p
2 +_ 1 x 10
134-
Cs
ND
ND
•7
2.2 +_ 0.6 x 10
ND
ND
ND
7 +2 x 10
ND
ND _6
2.8 + 0.4 x 10
ND
ND
ND
Dissolved Material
4.9 + 0.6 x 10~
8 +2 x 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.6 +_ 0.2 x 10~
1.8 + 0.4 x 10
2.4 + 0.3 x 10~£
2.4 + 0.3 x lOg
1.9 + 0.2 x 10 p
2.4 + 0.3 x 10
4+^2 x 10~7
1.3 + 0.2 x 10~
1.6 + 0.1 x 10 ^
2.6 + 0.3 x 10
1.56 +_ 0.02 x 10
2.6 + 0.1 x 10~£
2.4 +_ 0.1 x 10
1.9 + 0.1 x 10~£
1.8 + 0.1 x 10
Evaporator
( Samp . )
( No. )
(34)
(37)
(43)
(46)
(52)
(55)
(60)
(62)
(64)
(1)
(6)
(11)
(16)
(20)
(25)
(40)
(43)
(46)
(49)
(52)
(55)
(57)
(60)
(62)
Suspended Solid:
ND
ND
5 +2 x 10 '
3.9 + 0.2 x 10 p
4 +1 x 10 g
9 +_ 3 x 10~
6 +1 x 10~
4 £ 1 x 10 g
2.2 + 0.8 x 10~
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.4 + 0.2 x 10
ND
9.7 + 0.5 x 10~
1.4 t 0.1 x 10~fi
9.9 +_ 0.7 x 10
6.5 + 0.6 x 10~
3.2 + 0.4 x 10
-------
I
00
Test
No.
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
b<
Dissolved Material
2.3 + 0.1 x 10~;?
3.2 +_ 0.1 x 10 5
1.4 + 0.1 x 10~
1.2 + 0.1 x 10"^
1.7 + 0.1 x 10~£
9.4 + 0.7 x ID";?
3.0 +_ 0.6 x I0"g
2.6 + 0.3 x lOlg
5.0 + 0.5 x 10
7 + 1 x I0"g
8.0 + 0.6 x 10"£
4.4 +_ 0.5 x 10 g
1.9 + 0.4 x 10~_
1.3 7 0.5 x 10
6.3 + 0.1 x ID"!?
1.3 + 0.1 x 10~'
1.1 + 0.1 x 10"'
1.0 + 0.3 x 10~'
4.3 + 0.1 x 10 '!?
1.0 + 0.6 x 10~'
8 + 1 x 10";?
1.3 + 0.1 x 10^
2.5 + 0.5 x 10~'
5.3 + 0.4 x 10 ~£
7.1 +_ 0.5 x 10
Sample Lost
1.33 + 0.02 x 10~JJ
1.63 + 0.01 x 10 H
3.44 + 0.03 x 10
6.5 + 0.1 x 10
Bttling Tar
( Samp . )
( No. )
(65)
(67)
(69)
(71).
(73)
(75)
(76)
(77)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(83)
(85)
(87)
(3)
(8)
(13)
(18)
(22)
(27)
(30)
(33)
(35)
(38)
(41)
(44)
(47)
(50)
(53)
(54)
ik
Suspended Solids
ND
ND -8
5 +2 x 10
ND
5 +2 x 10
ND
2.8 + 0.2 x 10
2 + 1 x 10
ND
5.8+0.4x10
ND
ND
5 + 2 x 10
ND
137,,
Cs
5.9 + 0.3 x 10~8
ND
ND
ND
2.3 + 0.9 x 10
ND
9.2 + 0.8 x 10 '
9.5 + 0.6 x 10~
1.0 +_ 0.1 x 10 g
3.2 + 0.3 x 10~
2.0 + 0.2 x 10~
8.4 + 0.6 x 10 '
5 +3 x 10
1.0 + 0.5 x 10 '
4.2 + 0.4 x 10
9 +2 x 10
Dissolved Material
1.7 + 0.1 x 10~J|
1.9 + 0.1 x 10~£
2.3 + 0.1 x 10~
2.3 + 0.1 x 10
2.34 + 0.03 x 10
2.35 + 0.04 x 10
2.22 + 0.04 x 10~J|
2.07 +_ 0.03 x 10
1.83 + 0.03 x 10~||
1.74 +_ 0.03 x 10
3.30 + 0.03 x 1Q~5
3.6 + 0.1 x 10
4.5 + 0.1 x 10
4. 9 + 0. Ix 10
3.88 + 0.03 x 10
4.6 _+ 0.1 x 10
6.8 + 0.3 x 10~
7.7 +_ 0.6 x 10
8.4 + 0.4 x 10~
2.9 + 0.1 x 10
3.65 + 0.02 x 10~jJ
6.28 + 0.04 x 10"!:
1.28 + 0.06 x 10
Evaporator
(Samp. )
( No. )
(64)
(66)
(68)
(70)
(72)
(74)
(78)
(82)
(84)
(86)
(1)
(6)
(11)
(16)
(20)
(25)
(34)
(37)
(40)
(43)
(46)
(49)
(52)
Suspended Solids
3.0 + 0.4 x 10~|?
2.3 + 0.6 x 10
ND
Q
6 + 2 x 10~p
1.6 + 0.3 x 10 :?
1.6 + 0.3 x 10
2.9 + 0.4 x 10~6
4.1 +_ 0.6 x 10-6
7.4 + 0.8 x 10~^
6 +_ 1 x 10
6 + 1 x 10~^
1.3 + 0.2 x 10 ;?
5.9 + 0.1 x 10 ^
8.1 + 0.2 x 10 '
4.8 + 0.2 x 10 '
6.9 + 0.2 x 10
—
1.4 + 0.2 x 10~-
2.6 +" 0.3 x 10~
3.8 + 0.3 x 10 ^
4.9 + 0.3 x 10~
4.03 + 0.02 x 10
2.6 + 0.1 x 10~^
6.4 + 0.1 x 10
-------
00
•J
Test
No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Settling Tank
8
9
Dissolved Material
_5
5.5 +_ 0.1 x 10
Sample Lost
5.5 + 0.1 x 10
1.08 + 0.02 x 10
5.5 +_ 0.1 x 10
2.30 + 0.01 x 10~||
3.45 + 0.02 x 10 ~U
1.15 + 0.02 x 10"||
1.00 + 0.02 x 10~|;
1.26 + 0.03 x 10-
7.6 + 0.2 x lOg
1.9 t 0.1 x 10"^
2.1 +_ 0.1 x 10~g
3.9 + 0.1 x I0"j?
3.2 + 0.1 x 10"^
5.7 + 0.2 x 10";?
3.6 + o.i x 10";?
1.4 + 0.1 x 10~^
1.6 i 0.1 x 10
ND -6
6 i 3 x 10
ND
Sample Lost
ND
ND
(Samp. )
( No. )
(56)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(63)
(65)
(67)
(69)
(71)
(73)
, (75)
(76)
(77)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(83)
(85)
(87)
(47)
(50)
(41)
(44)
(47)
(50)
Suspended Solids
n
9.1 + 0.5 x 10"'
7.7 + 0.1 x 10,
1.6 + 0.3 x 10~'
1.4 + 0.1 x 10
ND
3.5 + 0.5 x 10,
9 + 2 x 10"'
9 + 4 x 10,
1.2 + 0.3 x 10,
2.2 + 0.2 x 10",
1.8 + 0.3 x 10"'
2.4 + 0.1 x 10,
1.5 + 0.2 x 10,
1.3 + 0.3 x 10~'
4.7 + 0.1 x 10 ",
2.4 + 0.3 x 10"'
9.0 + 0.2 x 10,
5.5 + 0.4 x 10 ,
4.3 +_ 0.4 x 10~
Ra
5 + 3 x IO'7
ND
228,
Ac
3 + 1 x 10~7
4.2 + 0.6 x 10,
9.0 + 0.4 x 10"'
1.7 + 0.2 x 10"
Dissolved Material
2.27 + 0.01 x 10";?
2.30 +_ 0.01 x 10
1.82 + 0.01 x 1Q~*
1.82 + 0.01 x 10"^
1.93 + 0.01 x 10 ,
2.18 + 0.01 x 10~^
1.74 + 0.02 x 10~j;
1.75 + 0.03 x 10~,
1.82 + 0.01 x 10"3
1.78 +_ 0.01 x 10
1.70 + 0.01 x 10~^
1.63 +_ 0.01 x 10
1.40 + 0.01 x 10 ~
1.37 + 0.01 x 10
Evaporator
(Samp. )
( No. )
(55)
(57)
(60)
(62)
(64)
(66)
(68)
(70)
(72)
(74)
(78)
(82)
(84)
(86)
Suspended Solids
1.41 + 0.02 x 10
9.7 +_ 0.1 x 10
7.0 + 0.1 x 10~
2.8 + 0.1 x 10 ^
3.7 + 0.1 x 10~j?
2.8 + 0.1 x 10,
3.1 + 0.7 x 10
1.3 + 0.4 x 10~
1.4r+ 0.1 x 10
1.4 + 0.1 x 10
2.6 + 0.1 x 10~^
3.6 +_ 0.1 x 10
6.2 + 0.1 x 10~s
4.4 + 0.2 x 10
ND
(46)
ND
ND
ND
ND
(40)
(43)
(46)
(49)
8 +_ 2 x 10 '
1.3 +_ 0.2 x 10
2.80 +_ 0.02 x lp"
2.1 + 0.1 x 10~
-------
Test
No.
Settling Tank
Evaporator
Dissolved Material
(Samp.)
( No. )
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Material
(Samp.)
( No. )
Suspended Solids
241
1
00
00
1
10
11
12
13
ND
ND
Sample Lost
ND
(53)
(56)
(58)
(65)
3.1 + 0.8
3.7 + 0.3
2.9 +_ 0.2
2 +_ 1
Am
x 10
x 10
-7
-5
x 10
-7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(52)
(55)
(57)
(60)
(64)
(66)
1.5 + 0
2.1 + 0
1.1 + 0
1.1 + 0
5 + 1
6.9 + 2
2 x 10
2 x 10
2 x 10
2 x 10
x 10
0 x 10
—5
-5
-5
-5
-6
-6
-------
APPENDIX 4. ANNUAL AVERAGE AIR CONCENTRATION NEAR LIMITING RECEPTOR
FROM EVAPORATOR STACK DISCHARGE L1Mill™> RECEPTOR
22 5 decree wldt^^T"^10" ?* * recePtor' «^™ a downwind sector of
22.5-degree width, due to a plume from a single source is estimated by: CD
2 Q f
X = .- (2irx) 6XP
^ V U6T
2
X = annual average concentration, yCi/m3
Q = radionuclide discharge rate from stack,
± = frequency of wind in receptor sector
CTZ = vertical standard deviation of stack plume m
u = average wind speed, m/s
x = receptor distan
h = stack height, m
,
= receptor distance downwind, m
800
values of I SI I? lower values of jf. Stable conditions produce higher
rejuired to SJuJiT f S°"ated wind sPeeds are 1«*. the si?e operato? is
effwt of ?he h?rt . being treated' No co"ection was made for the
3.3 X
X10°6 ^ Umiting re"Ptor residence is calculated to be
iLSJ^? a d d :" "8 ^ s '•
:
-• 88 -
-------
Radionuclide
3H
6°Co
9°Sr
137Cs
238Pu
239Pu
DF
1.
2.
5.
4.
2.
2.
1
7
8
0
2
2
x
x
X
X
X
10
10
10
10
10
2
2
1*
5
5
5.
2.
2.
3.
1.
5.
j.
yCi/s
4 x
4 x
3 x
1 x
2 x
8 x
io2
io-4
io-4
io-2
io-7
io-9
1.
8.
7.
1.
4.
1.
3
yCi/m
8 x
0 x
6 x
0 x
0 x
9 x
10"*
io-10
io-10
io-7
io-13
io-14
*DF of 40 used due to uncertainty of average value.
1. Turner, D. B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," USEPA
Kept. AP-26 (1970).
2. Leonard, J. H., University of Cincinnati, personal communication (1974)
- 90 -
-------
APPENDIX 5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL DOSE TO LIMITING RECEPTOR
FROM EVAPORATOR STACK DISCHARGE
For H, Co, Sr and Cs, annual dose to the limiting receptor
from inhaling at a standard breathing rate of 23 m3/day evaporator effluent
having an annual average concentration, xi> was estimated by:
Dose, mrem/year . 23 - x 365 £g x 103 =S (DCF) -
= 8.4 x 106 (DCF)
dose oSreceZrS°n f*?WS ^ ' th&t 6qUate airborne concentrations to
ro^Sm01?^ radionuclide u?take> ^e based on the INREM and
the T^tP ?1Ch,UrC the recommendations in Publications 2, 6, 10 and
a r, f Tal Commission °n Radiological Protection (ICRP) . The
receptor and calculation of x- are discussed in Appendix 4.
the eItim!!r^S f°r Ya^ious Critical organs and radionuclide solubility and
the estimated annual doses for a of 3.3 x 1(T6 ^ are as follows:
Radionuclide
3H
60
Co
90
Sr
137
Cs
Because of
iatinn r1r>=^o
Solubility
sol.
sol.
insol.
sol.
sol.
the very long
Critical
organ
total body
GI tract
lung
bone
total body
effective half-]
DCF,
rem/uCi
1.71 x 10"4
2.13 x 10~2
7.44 x 10
1.11 x 101
4.52 x 10"2
life of 238Pu
Annual dose,
mrem/year
2.6
i 4 x m
•*• • *T •" J-W «_
5.0 X 10~3
7.1 x 10~2
3.8 x 10~2
^A 239n -
and Pu in va
Dose, mrem/year = 23 15— x 106 &± x 103 ^^- (DCF) ^.
rem
= 2.3 x 1010 (DCF) x.
doses to the limiting
- 91 -
-------
receptor are:
Radionuclide
238n
Pu
239n
Pu
Solubility
sol.
insol.
sol.
insol.
Critical
organ
bone
lung
bone
lung
DCF,
rem/year
pCi/day
1.14
6.74 x 10
1.24
6.32 x 10
Annual dose,
mrem/year
1.0 x 10"2
6.2 x 10"4
5.4 x 10~4
2.8 x 10
1. Killough, G. G. and L. R. McKay, "A Methodology for Calculating Radiation
Doses from Radioactivity Released to the Environment," Oak Ridge National
Laboratory Report, ORNL-4992 (March 1976).
2. P. S. Rohwer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, personal communication (1976)
- 92 -
-------
APPHNDIX ..
COUBCTBD DURING
Date
sampled
10/7/74
10/7/74
10/7/74
11/7/74
11/7/74
3/13/75
4/29/75
4/29/75
6/2/75
6/2/75
8/26-28/75
8/26-28/75
8/26-28/75
•8/26-28/75
8/26-28/75
8/26-28/75
8/26-28/75
Type of sample
~———————_^_
Domestic well water
Surface water
Bed sediment
Surface water
Bed sediment
Surface water
Domestic well water
Bed sediment
Milk
Bed sediment
Domestic well water
Tomatoes
Grapes
Cucumbers
Corn
Watermelon
Milk
Sample location
—
40, 41, 42, 43, 44
3, 9, 15-17, 19, 22-24,
26-31, 34, 35
3, 26, 30
1-6, 8-16, 33-34
1, 3-16
5, 37, 38
40-44
20, 21, 25
46, 48, 49
12, 17, 18, 27
40-44
40, 41, 44, 48, 51-53
51
53
48
41
41, 46, 47, 50
- 93 -
-------
APPENDIX 7. RADIOCHEMICAL METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND TEST WELL SAMPLES
Sample
type
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
1
CO
^ Water
1
Water
Sediment
Sediment
Milk
Milk
Quantity
analyzed
1-2 1
8-20 1
4-8 ml
1-4 1
1-4 1
1-4 1
1-4 1
1-500 g
l-10g
4-5 ml
1 1
Radionuclide
y-emitters
(dissolved)
Y-emitters
3H (HTO)
90Sr
226Ra
228Ra
238pU)239pu
Y-emitters
90Sr
3H (HTO)
Y-emitters
Method
A
Filtration, evaporation to 100-200 ml, Y-spectrometry.
Preconcentration by ion exchange (anion and cation), Y-spectrometry.
B
Distillation, liquid scintillation counting.
Precipitation of carbonates, ion exchange separation of Ca and Sr
with EDTA. gQ
After 2 weeks ingrowth, Y separated, precipitated and counted
with gas flow beta counters. C Reference 1
Coprecipitation of Ra with BaSO/j, emanation of 222Rn, scintillation
counting of 222Rn and daughters.0 Reference 2
Coprecipitation of Ra with BaS04, separation of 228Ac with
yttrium oxalate, beta counting. Reference 3
Coprecipitation of Pu with Fe(OH), KF fusion, pyrosulfate fusion,
solvent extraction, electrodeposition and alpha spectrometry.E
References 4, 5
Sediment dried, ground, and sieved through #10 mesh screen,
counted by Y-spectrometry.
90Sr leached with boiling 1 N HC1, carbonates precipitated and
processed as for 90Sr analysis of water. Reference 1
Azeotropic distillation of HTO, liquid scintillation counting.
Reference 7
Preconcentration on cation ion-exchange column, gamma-ray
spectrometry. Reference 7
continued
-------
APPENDIX 7 (continued)
Sample Quantity
type analyzed Radionuclide
Method
Milk
1 1
90
Sr
90
Y separated after 14 days ingrowth by anion exchange,
precipitation as oxalate, and beta counted. Reference 8
CO
-------
APPENDIX 7 (continued)
E Alpha Spectrometry - Electrodeposited Pu samples were counted with an alpha-particle spectrometer
consisting of an Ortec 400 mm2-diameter silicon surface barrier detector and a 512-channel pulse
height analyzer. The detector resolution was approximately 50 keV fwhm at 5.40 MeV. The detector
efficiency was approximately 25 percent.
1. Porter, C. R., et al., "Determination of Radiostrontium in Food and Other Environmental Samples,"
Environmental ScTence and Technology JL_, 745 (1967).
2. Krieger, H. L. , "Interim Radiochemical Methodology for Drinking Water," EPA-600/4-75-008/Revised,
16 (1976).
' 3. Ibid., p. 24.
to
* 4. Sill, C. W., U.S. ERDA Health Services Laboratory, Idaho Falls, unpublished procedure (1974).
5. Sill, C. W., Puphal, K. W. and Hindman, F. D., "Simultaneous Determination of Alpha-emitting
Nuclides of Radium through Californium in Soil," Anal. Chem. 46, 1725 (1974).
6. Moghissi, A. A., et_ al_., "Separation of Water from Biological and Environmental Samples for
Tritium Analysis," Anal. Chem. 45_, 1565 (1973).
7. Porter, C. R., "Rapid Field Method for the Collection of Radionuclides from Milk," in Proceedings
of the'first International Conference of Radiation Protection, Rome, 339 (1966).
8. Porter, C. R., et al., "Determination of Strontium-90 in Milk by an Ion-Exchange Method," Anal.
Chem. 33, 1306 "(196l) .
-------
APPENDIX 8. THE DOSE CONVERSION FACTOR FOR THE INGESTION OF TRITIUM
dose the't'otTh^10" f^Ct0^ (DCF) that equates the ingestion of 3H to
DCF = 26>9
M
where
DCF = dose conversion factor, mrem/yr per pCi/day
= for 3;C2)10nal UptSke by the critical ^an (total body), 1.0
disintegration, 0.01
the critical organ (total
= forS3S(2)he Critical orSan in grams. 43,000 g (mass of body water)
Constant value of 26.9 is given by:
3.2xlOJ
11 •^^^••— ^^— IP— ^-»^^«».
100 (erg/g tissue/rad)xl . 0 (rad/rem) xO. 693
Substituting these parameters into the above equation a nrp «f A •» i«-S
'
.-
(2)
0 on Radiological
Contamination De o cSl? F .^r^7 TisSUeS from Inter
Pergamon Press/Oxford (?967) ExPosure'" ICRP Publication No. 10,
- 97 -
-------
APPENDIX 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report includes contributions from the staff of the Radiochemistry
and Nuclear Engineering Branch, USEPA. In addition to the authors,
Gerald L. Gels and Jasper W. Kearney made significant contributions by
participation in field trips and sample analysis. Other staff members who
assisted in the study or the preparation of the report were:
William J. Averett George W. Frishkorn Herman L. Krieger Eleanor R. Martin
William L. Brinck Seymour Gold B. Helen Logan James B. Moore
Teresa B. Firestone Betty J. Jacobs Alex Martin Ethel M. Tivis.
The assistance of John Razor, Nuclear Engineering Company; David T.
Clark, Kentucky Department for Human Resources; and Harold H. Zehner;
U.S. Geological Survey, in the collection of samples is gratefully
acknowledged. The cooperation and support of Charles Hardin, Kentucky
Department for Human Resources, and G. Lewis Meyer, USEPA, during the course
of the study are also appreciated.
__ __ _ »O.P O. t»7«-TM-ISO/48*7. REGION NO. 4
------- |