United States Eastern Environmental EPA-520/5-77-004
Environmental Protection Radiation Facility October 1978
Agency P.O Box 3009
Office of Radiation Programs Montgomery AL 36109
Radiation
&EPA A Radiological
Environs Study at a
Fuel Fabrication
Facility
-------
EPA-520/5-77-004
A RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONS STUDY AT
A FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
R. J. Lyon
R. L. Shearin
J. A. Broadway
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
P. 0. Box 3009
Montgomery, Alabama 36109
October 1978
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Radiation Programs
Waterside Mall East
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Foreword
The Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency carries out a national program
designed to evaluate population exposure to ionizing and
nonlonizing radiation and to promote development of controls
necessary to protect the public health and safety. In-depth
field studies of various radiation sources (e.g., nuclear
facilities, uranium mill tailings, and phosphate mills) provide
technical data for environmental impact statement reviews as well
as needed information on source characteristics, environmental
transport, critical pathways for population exposure, and dose
model validation.
The staff of ORP's Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility,
Montgomery, Alabama, was responsible for assessing the release to
the environment of uranium effluents from a nuclear fuel
fabrication plant. This work was in direct support of ORP's
overall evaluation of the uranium fuel cycle of which nuclear fuel
fabrication is an integral part.
I encourage readers of this report to inform us of errors or
omissions. These or requests for further information may be
forwarded to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-458)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
W. D. Rowe, Ph.D.
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
for Radiation Programs
no.
-------
Preface
The Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF)
participates in the identification of solutions to problem
areas as defined by the Office of Radiation Programs. The
facility provides analytical capability for evaluation and
assessment of radiation sources through environmental studies,
surveillance, and analysis. The EERF provides technical assis-
tance to state and local health departments in their radio-
logical health programs and provides special analytical support
for Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices and other
federal government agencies as requested.
The fuel fabrication plant described in this report is
one of a series of field studies designed to provide a data
base for use in evaluating the environmental impact of uranium
fuel cycle elements.
Charles R. Porter
Director
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
iv
-------
Acknowledgement
This study was made possible by the cooperation of the
General Electric Company, Nuclear Fuel Division, and its staff.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Mr. W. B. Smalley
of General Electric for his contribution of information, con-
sultation, and liaison services.
The North Carolina Department of Human Resources provided
helpful cooperation and assistance.
The authors acknowledge the capable consultative support
provided by the headquarters staff of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC.
The authors also recognize this report is a product of the
entire staff of the Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
(EERF). Significant individual cooperation and team efforts
contributed directly to make this work possible.
-------
Contents
Page
Foreword
Preface ................ i>v
Acknowledgement ............. v
Contents. ................ V1
Abstract ................ xl
Introduction ..............
Study Design .............. •*
Basic Premise ............ ^
Air Pathway Sampling . ........ • •*
Water Pathway Sampling ......... 5
Study Site
Plant Description
Fabrication Process
Waste Treatment ........... 9
Liquid Waste ........... 9
Airborne Waste ........... 12
Plant Environs ............ 12
Demography ............ 12
Hydrology ............ 15
Water Use ............ 16
Airborne Exposure Pathway .......... 16
Sampling ............ _ 16
Analysis ............ . 17
Airborne Plant Effluents ....... . 18
Environmental Air Monitoring Data ! ! 18
Air Exposure Model ..... .... . 33
Discussion of Air Monitoring Data .... . 35
Terrestrial Deposition ....... . 35
vi
-------
Contents
(Continued)
Page
Water Exposure Pathway . 38
Sampling 38
Analysis 38
Liquid Plant Effluents 38
River Sampling Data 39
Aqueous Transport Model .... 39
Aquatic Environment 43
Dose Calculations 45
**^ *•••••••••••••• 43
Water 48
Conclusions and Recommendations 50
References 52
Appendix A. Plume Monitoring Data . 55
Appendix B. Continuous Air Monitoring Data .... 60
Appendix C. Statistical Interpretation of Atmospheric
Concentration Data 75
Appendix D. Terrestrial Vegetation and Soil Data . . 81
Appendix E. Atmospheric Deposition Data 83
Appendix F. Liquid Release Data 88
Appendix G. Water Concentration Data 90
Appendix H. Aquatic Vegetation and Sediment Data . . 104
VI1
-------
Tables
Page
Table 1 Population Distribution in the Plant
Environs 14
Table 2 Airborne Radioactive Waste Release
(July 12-19, 1974) 19
Table 3 Airborne Radioactive Waste Release
(October 18-24, 1974) 20
Table 4 Airborne Radioactive Waste Release
(March 14-21, 1975) 21
Table 5 Airborne Radioactive Waste Release -
Summary July 1974 - March 1975 22
Table 6 Summary of Uranium-234 and Uranium-238
Concentrations in Air 24
Table 7 Statistical Outliers of the Air Samples ... 25
Table 8 Average Uranium Background in Air 32
Table 9 Uranium Concentration in Air Above
Background 33
Table 10 Observed and Predicted Uranium Concen-
trations (Above Background) 34
Table 11 Uranium Concentrations of Liquid Effluent
During Field Surveys 40
Table 12 Uranium Concentration in the Waters of the
Northeast Cape Fear River 41
Table 13 A Comparison of the Observed and Predicted
Uranium Concentrations in the Waters of the
Northeast Cape Fear River (Above Background) . 44
viii
-------
Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]
Pathways between Radioactive Materials
Released to the Atmosphere and Man ....
Pathways between Radioactive Materials
Released to Surface Waters and Man ....
Fuel Fabrication - Mechanical Processing
Fuel Fabrication - Chemical Processing
Population Distribution in the Plant
Plant Site and Location of Air Monitoring
Weekly Concentration of Uranium-234 and -238
in Air at C._
N
Weekly Concentration of Uranium-234 and -238
in Air at C,,
£i
Weekly Concentration of Uranium-234 and -238
in Air at C_
o
Weekly Concentration of Uranium-234 and -238
in Air at C-. •••••••••••
Weekly Concentration of Uranium-234 and -238
in Air at CB
Probability Curve of Uranium Concentrations
for the East Continuous Sampling Site (Normal
Distribution)
Page
4
4
8
w
3 0
•L U
18
AO
26
** V
26
£• V
27
27
28
29
ix
-------
Figures
(Continued)
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Probability Curve of Uranium Concentration
for the East Continuous Sampling Site(Log-
Normal Distribution)
Frequency Distribution of Uranium-234/Ura-
nium-238 Ratios
Frequency Distribution of Uranium-234/Tho-
rium-2.30 Ratios
River Sampling Locations Map
Uranium Concentration Profile in Northeast
Cape Fear River
Page
30
31
31
38
42
-------
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear
Regularory Commission conducted joint field studies to
detect environmental contamination from fuel fabrication
plant effluents. The plant chosen for study was operated
by the General Electric Company, Nuclear Field Division,
at Wilmington, NC.
The facility operates continuously using the ammonium
diuranate (ADU) process to convert 2.0 to 2.2% enriched UFe
to U05 fuel. Environmental uranium from plant effluents
was distinguished from naturally occurring uranium by using
specific isotopic analyses and statistical interpretations.
Continuous air samplers at five sites measured the concen-
trations of 23I*U and 238U in air for 36 one-week intervals.
River water was sampled at nine locations above and below
the plant discharge point during each of three field surveys.
The atmospheric concentrations of 23*U and 238U appeared
to vary according to a log-normal distribution. Data points
clearly off the distribution curve were indicative of con-
tamination by plant effluent. Comparisons of the isotopic
ratios also indicated samples with significant contamination
from plant effluent. The annual facility release of appro-
ximately 2 to 3 mCi uranium to the atmosphere would add from
0.01 to 0.2 fCi/m3 uranium in the atmospheric environs. An
individual residing continuously at the nearest residence is
predicted to receive a 50-year dose commitment of 0.9 mrem to
the lung.
The approximately 1 Ci/yr of uranium liquid effluent
released would increase the uranium concentration in North-
east Cape Fear estuary about 3 kilometers downstream by 0.3
pCi/liter. Although this water is not potable and is not
used for any potable water supply, ingestion of water contain-
ing uranium at this concentration for a year would deliver a
3-mrem dose commitment to the bone.
*fCi = femtocurie + 10"15 Ci
XI
-------
Introduction
The assessment of the radiological impact of the total
uranium fuel cycle by the Office of Radiation Programs in-
dicates that members of the general population may receive
significant radiation doses from the operation of facilities
in the cycle other than reactors (1). One such facility is
the fuel fabrication plant. Prior to this study, its radio-
logical impact had been estimated using facility operational
data and theoretical dispersion formulae. These preliminary
studies (1) indicate that the fuel fabrication operation can
deliver a measurable dose even though it may only constitute
about 2 percent of the population dose from the fuel supply
portion of the uranium fuel cycle. Although studies of re-
actors (2,3) and reprocessing plants have been reported (4-8),
basic environmental measurements required to confirm the en-
vironmental effects of radioactive effluents from a fuel
fabrication facility are lacking. Since this indicated a
need for definitive field data to assess the presence of
radioactive effluents in the environs of a fuel fabrication
facility, the Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility was
assigned the responsibility of designing and implementing a
field study of such a facility which would measure the radio-
logical impact of plant effluents on its environs.
A joint Environmental Protection Agency - Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission field study was initiated at the General
Electric Company, Nuclear Fuel Division, fuel fabrication
plant, Wilmington, North Carolina, July 1974. The study was
conducted with the full cooperation of the General Electric
Company. This plant was selected as representative of current
engineering technology in fuel fabrication. The construction
of this plant began in 1967 and production operations began
in 1969. Since several plants had been operating for about
8 years prior to the construction of this plant, their opera-
ting experience was incorporated in the design of this facility.
During the five years of operation, General Electric has further
improved their waste treatment systems.
The study of this fuel fabrication plant was designed to
provide information for evaluating the radiological component
of the environmental impact and to estimate the population dose.
The specific objectives of the study were:
1. to determine off-site concentrations of radioisotopes
of uranium which are released through plant operations,
-------
2. to estimate from these concentrations the dose
commitment to individuals residing in the vicinity
of this fuel fabrication plant,
3. to evaluate the relationship between effluent dis-
charges and dose commitment, and
4. to evaluate the relevance of radiation dose path-
ways and to validate existing pathway dose models
for this facility.
-------
Study Design
Basic Premise
The overall study design was built around the signifi-
cant pathways of radioactive effluents to man. Figures 1
and 2 describe a generalized summary of radionuclide path-
ways to man via air and water, respectively.
These pathways apply to all nuclides, but the signi-
ficance of a pathway may vary depending on the particular
nuclide studied. The predominate plant radioactive efflu-
ent is uranium which is released into the air and water.
Consequently, the study was designed to make measurements
in the most significant pathways in air and water due to
the release of uranium.
Since uranium occurs naturally in components of these
pathways, additional characteristics were necessary to de-
lineate the impact of plant effect from natural environ-
mental radionuclide content. The characteristic most heavily
relied upon for this study was that of the uranium-234/ura-
nium-238 activity ratio. Naturally occurring uranium is
usually found in equilibrium with its daughters having a
uranium-234/uranium-238 ratio of one. The plant effluent is
enriched uranium. Although enrichment refers to uranium-235,
uranium-234 is also enriched during the diffusion process.
The plant effluent has a characteristic uranium-234/uranium-
238 ratio of 3.5. Other distinctive characteristics could
be elevated uranium-thorium ratios and 235U content.
Air Pathway Sampling
The first measurements in -the air pathway (figure 1)
occurred at the release point where the plant operators
sampled to determine the quantity of radioactivity released.
The plant operators continuously monitored individual vent
releases and provided the weekly release data for this study.
From the vents the airborne radioactivity follows one
of the three major routes - inhalation, deposition, and direct
radiation - to deliver a radiation dose to man.
The major effort of the study was directed at the in-
halation route, since preliminary evaluations indicated it
to be the dominant exposure pathway. This effort involved
measuring uranium concentrations of environmental air. In the
-------
Radioactive
Materials
Deposition
Deposition
Resu sponsion
I
Crops
and
Plants
Soil
I
Inhalation
Ingestion
Direct Radiation
Animals
tngeslion
Ingestion
Direct Radiation
Man
Figure 1.
Pathways between radioactive materials released
to the atmosphere and man
M
Direct Radiation
Man
Figure 2. Pathways between radioactive materials released
to surface waters and man
-------
sampling of these air concentrations for the effect of plant
releases, it was recognized that the relatively small plant
effect would be difficult to discern from natural uranium
background. In the hopes of optimizing sensitivity for plant
effluents, we designed two sampling systems.
A plume monitoring system was designed using four down-
wind sampling systems and one background system each controlled
by windvane. This system was operated during each of three
field surveys of the study. This system detected plant efflu-
ent, but an appropriate background was not measurable The
details of sampling and the resulting data are given in Appendix
£\ »
A second monitoring system consisted of five continuous
samplers which ran for the duration of the study. Four samplers
were within 2 kilometers of the facility to determine plant
effluent characteristics. A fifth sampler was 7 kilometers
from the facility to characterize background. The samples
were collected weekly and analyzed for isotopes of uranium
and thorium. The concentration of uranium and thorium and
the isotopic ratios were used to characterize and distinguish
between background and plant effluent.
The segment of the air pathway involving deposition and
subsequent ingestion through the consumption of locally grown
food crops was considered much less significant than inha-
lation. (See figure 1.) There are few farm crops grown in
the area and uranium does not concentrate in plants or vege-
tation (11). The removal of uranium from the air pathway by
deposition was monitored. Fallout trays and rain collectors
were used at the continuous air sampling sites for the duration
of the study. Soil and vegetation were collected at these
sites during field surveys to evaluate these routes.
The inhalation or ingestion of uranium by animals and
later ingestion of milk and meat by man was not monitored
since exposures in this pathway would be several orders of
magnitude below the more direct ones described above.
Water Pathway Sampling
The release of radioactivity into surface water was
monitored by plant operators. The plant operators sampled
the released liquid continuously and provided weekly release
data to this study. Selected liquid release samples were
split for cross-check analysis by EERF.
The major effort of monitoring the water exposure path-
way was directed at the ingestion route (figure 2) even
-------
though the water is not used for potable purposes. A
Geological Survey study (9) performed in 1969 described
the dispersion and transport of soluble pollutants in the
Northeast Cape Fear estuary. Every effort was made to
duplicate the' sampling sites of this study to facilitate
the use of their empirical model.
The uptake of uranium from the Northeast Cape Pear
River by plants and animals was not considered a signifi-
cant exposure pathway to man (10). Most of the fish removed
from these waters were migrating through rather than living
in the river. Removal of uranium from the water pathway
was monitored by collection of sediment and vegetation at
water sampling sites.
This estuarine water is not used for irrigation and this
pathway was not monitored.
Direct radiation was not monitored since there is prac-
tically no swimming in the area, boating personnel would not
be exposed to alpha radiation, and exposure to direct radia-
tion would be expected to be negligible in light of historical
effluent release data for the fuel fabrication plant.
-------
The Study Site
Plant Description
The General Electric Nuclear Fuel Division plant (9)
is situated on a 6.74 square kilometer site, approximately
10 kilometers north of the city of Wilmington, North Carolina.
This location is in the southeastern corner of the coastal
plains region of the state. The area around the site is
sparsely populated, and the land is characterized by heavily
timbered tracts. Farms, single family dwellings and limited
commercial activities are located chiefly along major high-
ways .
Of the total 6.74 square kilometers, only about .61
square kilometer has been developed. The developed area
consists of landscaping, storage, parking, and waste treat-
ment facilities. There are five major buildings: (1) fuel
manufacturing operations (FMO), (2) equipment services opera-
tions (ESO), (3) fuel components operations (FCO), (4) main-
tenance (MAINT) building, and (5) office building. The FMO
is the only building in which uranium is processed and is,
therefore, the point at which all radioactive waste is gener-
ated.
The Fabrication Process
The fuel manufacturing process produces fuel for light
water nuclear reactors. The process begins with the receipt
of slightly enriched uranium (up to 4 percent uranium-235)
in the form of a uranium hexafluoride (UFg). The final pro-
duct is a fuel assembly of uranium dioxide pellets encapsu-
lated in a zircaloy cladding ready for insertion into a par-
ticular reactor core.
Operations involving chemical processing (figure 3)
include conversion of UFg to U02 and the recovery of uranium
from scrap and waste by chemical processing in the uranium
purification system (UPS). The chemical conversion of UFg
to U(>2 utilizes the ammonium diuranate (ADU) process. En-
riched uranium hexafluoride is received in 76 centimeter dia-
meter cylinders, each contained within a protective shipping
fixture (11). The nominal cylinder capacity is 2,275 kg of
UFg. A cylinder is placed within a vaporization chamber and
heater by recirculating heated air. Vaporized uranium hexa-
fluoride flows through piping connected to the cylinder valve
into a tank containing water where it is hyrdolized to uranyl
-------
PRE-
TREATMENT
HEPA*
FILTER
TO ATMOSPHERE
FUEL
ELEMENT
ASSEMBLY
ROD
LOADING
AND
WELDING
PELLITIZING
SINTERING
GRINDING
FUEL ELEMENT TO LWR
LIQUID WASTE TREATMENT
I
M
tfl
(0
•HIGH EFFICIENCY PARTICULATE AIR FILTER
CO
CO
a)
o
o
M
ft
id
O
••H
E
0)
§
o
•H
rt
M-I
(U
3
fe
0)
H
3
tn
•H
oo
-------
fluoride (UO2F2) and hydrofluoric acid (HF).
Ammonium diuranate [(NH4)2U207l is precipitated from
uranyl fluoride upon contact with ammonium hydroxide (NH^OH).
Centrifugation separates the liquid phase (water) from the
resulting ADU slurry. The separated liquid is processed in
a second high speed centrifuge to obtain more complete re-
moval of uranium. The liquid is then quarantined, sampled,
and released to the final waste treatment system. The ADU
solid flows continuously into a horizontal gas-fired defluon-
natorcalciner where it dries at about 670°C and reduces to
uranium dioxide in a second similar furnace. Off-gas from
the defluorinator is scrubbed to remove uranium compounds
and routed to the main scrubber filter ventilization system.
Uranium dioxide discharged from the calciner is stored as
feed for the mechanical processing.
The uranium purification system (UPS) reprocesses
certain process materials which do not meet the required
specifications for the uranium dioxide product. These
materials are first dissolved in nitric acid (HN03). The
resulting uranyl nitrate [UO2(N03)2] solution is then fil-
tered and cooled. Reaction with hydrogen peroxide (H202)
and ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) precipitates the uranium as
the tetroxide (UO4»2H20) which is dewatered by centnfugation,
After drying, the tetroxide powder goes to the calciner where
it is converted to uranium dioxide (U02). This recovered
product is also utilized as feed for the mechanical process.
Waste liquids from the UPS are collected in a quarantine
tank, sampled, and routed to the waste treatment system.
The uranium dioxide powder is pressed into pellets
(figure 4) which are normally 1.27 centimeters in diameter
by 1.27 centimeters long. After sintering in a reducing
atmosphere at 1670°C the pellets are ground to a standard
diameter, purity tested, dried, and loaded into zircaloy
tubes. The tubes have been previously fitted with a welded
end plug at one end. After filling, the second end plug is
welded into place. The loaded tubes or.rods are assembled
in 49- or 64-rod bundles or fuel assemblies and packaged for
shipment to the customers' nuclear reactor sites.
Waste Treatment
Liquid waste:
Liquid wastes are generated by several in-plant
operations but only the fuel manufacturing operation in
the FMO building generates waste containing uranium
-------
UF6 IN 2-XT CYLINDERS
HEAT
VOLATILIZATION
WATER
HYDROLYSIS
NH4 OH
PRECIPITATIOII
TO ATMOSPHERE
A
HEPA*
FILTER
SCRUBBER
CALCINATION
DRYING
CENTRIFU6AT10N
CERAMIC UO 2 POWDER
WASTE LIQUOR TO TREATMENT
n)
•H
O
O
CO
0)
a)
o
2
a
o
•H
(0
x:
u
f
c
o
•H
O
•H
M
XI
n)
M-l
(U
**•
-------
contaminants. The liquid wastes at the FMO are classi-
fied and treated separately as fluoride, nitrate, or
radwaste.
Liqu.,.d removed by centrifugation in the conversion
of uranium hexafluoride to uranium dioxide is classi-
fied as fluoride waste. Each batch collected in the FMO
quarantine tanks is sampled and analyzed for its uranium
content. Upon verification of adequate uranium removal
(including recycling when necessary), these liquids are
pumped to a 245,000-liter storage tank. Liquids from
this tank are pumped to the 378,500-liter tank in the
waste treatment facility. The latter tank is constructed
with a conical (funnel-shaped) bottom which effects a
further settling of particulate residue as material is
pumped through. The settled residue is periodically re-
moved and returned for rework and recovery of the uranium.
Lime is added to the liquid fraction on a batch
basis causing the fluorides to precipitate as calcium
fluoride and freeing the ammonia for subsequent removal
by aeration. The resulting slurry goes to a series of
final treatment lagoons in which calcium fluoride settles
and ammonia is dissipated.
Liquid wastes from the UPS and nitric acid residues
from equipment cleaning operations are collected in quar-
antine vessels and are classed as nitrate wastes. In the
waste treatment system, the addition of lime precipitates
the calcium uranate. The precipitated slurry is centri-
fuged to remove the calcium uranate which is returned to
the fuel manufacturing for recovery. The clarified nitrate
solution is routed to nitrate retention lagoons for final
treatment.
Water from protective clothing washing machines,
laboratory sinks, floor washings, equipment decontami-
nation, and similar fuel building services is collected
in radwaste accumulator tanks. After the solids have
been removed by centrifugation, the clarified water is
sampled, analyzed and either recycled or released to the
discharge lagoons. These lagoons discharge the liquid
effluent through a weir overflow. Aliquots proportional
to the flow are collected at the weir continuously. The
aliquots are combined on a daily basis and analyzed for
chemical concentration'of uranium. The uranium dis-
charged in liquid effluent is reported on a weekly basis.
11
-------
Airborne waste:
Operations within the FMO also produce airborne
radioactive waste. The FMO has several different
operations which have separate vencing systems. The
ventilation systems installed are designed to filter
all air from zonesused to handle or process uranium
through High Efficiency Particulate Aerosol (HEPA)
filters prior to release.
The ventilation systems for operationswhich could
result in the release of uranium as soluble mists or
gases incorporate water scrubbing prior to HEPA fil-
tration. In these systems, water is sprayed into the
air stream to wash out the contaminant mist or gas.
The air stream is then heated prior to passing through
the final HEPA filters.
The ventilation systems for operations that could
result in release of only particulate uranium incorporate
two successive stages of HEPA filtration.
Each release vent is equipped with a sampling de-
vice which continuously draws a sample of the vent ex-
haust through a Hollingsworth & Vose #70 filter. The
filters are changed and analyzed for uranium weekly.
There are 21 vents protruding approximately 2 meters
above the roof of the three-story FMO. These vents are
located in a 900 m2 area.
Uranium contaminated, combustible waste is reduced
to ash in a specially designed incinerator. The offgas
is treated by water scrubbing and HEPA filtration. The
incinerator is located approximately 50 meters west of
the FMO.
Plant Environs
Demography:
Although the General Electric plant is located near
Wilmington which has a population of 46,000, the nearest
community, Castle Hayne, is five kilometers north of the
plant and has a population of 700. The population density,
within an eight-kilometer radius of the plant, was 18 per-
sons per square kilometer in 1973 (figure 5, table 1).
12
-------
L
Figure 5. Population distribution in the plant environs
13
-------
Table 1
Population Distribution in the Plant Environs
INHABITANTS PER SECTOR
(1973)
Population: kilometers from FMO stack
0-1.6 1.6-3.2 3.2-4.8 4.8-6.4 6.4-8.0
Compass
Sector
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
No. of Inhabitants per Subsector
0
2
7
16
16
37
48
30
32
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
44
87
7
18
156
175
122
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
161
92
9
7
80
600
37
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
207
34
25
0
104
300
366
81
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
44
21
21
274
10
175
7
0
0
0
0
20
0
Total No.
of Inhab-
itants per
Subsector
0
113
419
273
78
83
662
1115
732
124
14
0
0
0
20
0
14
3633
-------
Hydrology:
The Northeast Cape Fear River, at the western
boundary of the plant site, receives all surface
storm water and treated waste drainage from the plant
site. The Northeast Cape Fear River originates about
160 kilometers north of the plant site. The river
meanders approximately 200 kilometers from its origin
to its confluence with the Cape Fear at Wilmington.
The confluence is 10 h kilometers south of the plant.
From this point, the Cape Fear widens into an estuary
and discharges to the Atlantic Ocean about 30 kilo-
meters further south.
The flow characteristics of the Northeast Cape
Fear River, at the plant site, are complex because of
its estuarine characteristics. Dilution and transit
times are a function of both tidal influence and fresh
water inflow. The U. S. Geological Survey conducted
a special study to determine the dispersive and assimi-
lative characteristics of this type flow at the request
of and in cooperation with the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Water and Air Resources and General Electric (9).
The study determined that the volume of water
passing the site during a particular ebb and flood tidal
cycle was 6 x 10* liters and 9 x 109 liters, respectively,
whereas the fresh water inflow was estimated at only 3 x
108 liters during the same period. This study, based
on fluorescent dye tracing, showed that the Northeast
Cape Fear River quickly disperses a solute both verti-
cally and horizontally.
Extrapolation of the study shows that at the maximum
fresh water inflow for the period of record, the transit
time from the plant site to the confluence with the Cape
Fear River would be about 12 hours. Based on the water
year, October 1969 - September 1970, a more normal transit
time would be 10 days.
Three significant aquifers contain potable water in
the G. E. Wilmington Plant environs. They are located
in the shallow surface sands, the Peedee formation, and
the Castle Hayne formation. Deeper strata contain saline
water. The Peedee formation which provides the potable
well water for the plant is separated from the saline
aquifers by 30 to 50 meters of impervious clay sediments.
The major recharging source of near-surface waters is
rainfall.
15
-------
Water use:
Residential, industrial, and commercial facilities
outside the Wilmington Water District draw their water
from individual wells. The plant site water is supplied
by a series of strategically placed wells on the site.
The Wilmington Water District serves the city of
Wilmington and obtains supply water from the Cape Fear
River. The supply point for the district is about 30
km above the confluence of the Cape Fear and the North-
east Cape Fear Rivers. The supply point is also above
the dam and navigational Lock #1. Therefore, the Wil-
mington water supply is unaffected by the G. E. Wilmington
plant discharges. There appears to be no potable or com-
mercial use of the Northeast Cape Fear water within the
area affected by plant discharge.
AIRBORNE EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Sampling
Continuous monitoring of gaseous effluent is a routine
part of the operation of the General Electric fuel fabrication.
The gaseous effluent consists of gas and the particulates which
pass through High Efficiency Particulate Aerosol (HEPA) filters.
Approximately 21 separate vents release gaseous effluent from
the processes in the FMO building. Each stack is continuously
sampled by pumping a portion of the released gas through a
Hollingsworth & Vose #70 filter paper. The filters are re-
placed weekly for analysis. Essentially all of the airborne
uranium which is in the gaseous effluent is considered to be
in the particulate form. Only streams containing UF6 carry the
contaminant in a gaseous form. Since all UFg streams pass through
water scrubbers and driers prior to final filtration and since
the air stream at final filtration is at temperatures below the
volatization temperature of UFg, the assumption that airborne
contaminants are in a particulate state seems valid.
Half of the in-plant samples collected during each field
survey were analyzed for specific isotopes of uranium for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Health Services Laboratory.
These analyses were performed after plant analyses for total
uranium were completed. Five of these samples were split for
cross-check analysis by the EERF. This was to provide added
assurance of the accuracy of release data.
16
-------
As a part of each field survey, pairs of air samplers
were set up at four locations in the predominant downwind
direction from the plant. Each pair was controlled by its
own wind vane such that under optimum wind conditions one
sampler ran; for any other condition the other sampler ran.
This was an effort to increase the chances of sampling the
plume at ground level. This system and its data are de-
scribed in Appendix A. The resultant data did not produce
any significantly useful information.
The continuous sampling system was initiated July 15,
1974, when four continuous air particulate samplers were
set up 1.4 to 2 kilometers from the plant in the north, east,
south, and west quadrants. To obtain background airborne
uranium concentration, a fifth air particulate sampler was
loacted 7.5 kilometers in a predominantly upwind direction,
south southeast of the plant. Except for minor sampler
breakdowns, this sytem operated until March 21, 1975.
The samplers filtered airborne particulates at 0.8 cubic
meters per minute for 7 days using an MSA type H filter which
is 99.98% efficient for 0.3 ym DOP (dioctyl phthalate) par-
ticles. The filters were then changed for the next sampling
period.
As shown in figure 6, the samplers were located at the
following distances and direction from the FMO: CN at 1.4
kilometers and 55°, CE at 1.7 kilometers and 90°, Cs at 2
kilometers and 190°, GW at 1.7 kilometers and 260°, and CB
at 7.5 kilometers and 150°.
Analysis
Air particulate sampling filters were gamma scanned on
a Ge(Li) spectrometry system prior to chemical processing.
The filters were then ashed in a muffle furnace and put into
solution for chemical separation of uranium and thorium.
Uranium and thorium were separated using liquid extraction (12)
and coprecipitation (13) with lithium fluoride (LiF). The
uranium or thorium precipitates were filtered through membrane
filters having a pore size of .45 micrometers. The precipitate
was washed with alcohol and dried. This extremely thin sample
affords practically no self-absorption. The samples were
counted with silicon surface barrier alpha spectrometry systems
to determine the activity of the specific isotopes of uranium
and thorium.
17
-------
General Electric Fuel Fabrication Plant
Wilmington, North Carolina
Figure 6. Plant site and location of air monitoring stations
Airborne Plant Effluents
The airborne release from selected stacks is given in
table 2 (Field Survey 1), table 3 (Field Survey 2), and
table 4 (Field Survey 3). A comparison of the two inde-
pendent analyses (HSL, GE) was statistically tested. The
data according to the paired "t" statistic are not signi-
ficantly different at the 5 percent significance level.
It can be seen in tables 2-4 that the uranium is enriched in
3I|U and has an average uranium-234/uraniuin-238 ratio of 3.5.
The total airborne release data provided by GE (table 5)
are used in modeling plant effect. Although the average re-
lease rate during the study, July 15, 1974, to March 21, 1975,
was 45 yCi per week, the weekly releases do vary significantly
from the average. The minimum weekly release was 7 yCi per
week while the maximum was 298 yCi per week.
Environmental Air Monitoring Data
Continuous air sampling generated approximately 36 weekly
samples for each sampling location. The data tabulated in
appendix B are illustrated in figures 7-11. The average ura-
nium concentrations for the 36-week study period, given in
18
-------
Table 2
Airborne Radioactive Waste Release (July 12 - 19, 1974)
Health Services Laboratory Data
Process
or Stack*
SEGM
SLUG
PEL-1
PEL- 2
FURN
GADO
UPSE
INEX
POWS
#5 MILL
CHMN
fCi/m3
U-234 U-235 U-238 y<
32.2 1.4 8.4
175 4.9 52.5
17.2 0.6 3.5
96.7 3.8 31.9
14.7 0.5 2.8
13.5 0.5 3.5
260 1.8 73.6
1470 54.3 421
17.3 0.6 4.9
1020 39.4 326
4730 315 1576
STACK CODE PROCESS DESIGNATION
CHMN
CHMS
SEGM
SLUG
POWS
PEL-1
PEL- 2
FURN
GADO
BAGH
CLAB
Chemical Process (North )
Chemical Process (South)
Pellet Grinding
Powder Pressing
Powder Storage
Palletizing
Pelletizing
Sintering Furnaces
Powder to Pellet Line
Baghouse Exhaust
Laboratory
General
Electric
3iU/week yCi/week
0.139
0.787
0.045
0.134
0.064
0.068
1.32
1.30
0.046
0.703
56.0
STACK CODE
MANT
INEX
WTCR
WTLB
15 MILL
UPSE
NDRE
INEX
INCN
INCS
0.224
1.03
0.123
0.287
0.418
0.140
2.25
1.10
0.075
1.03
19.0
PROCESS DESIGNATION
Maintenance Area
Incinerator
Centrifuge Room-
Waste Treatment
Laboratory-Waste
Treatment
Mill System
Drying Ovens
NDF Decontamina-
tion Facility
End Incinerator Rm.
End Incinerator Rm.
Incinerator Room
19
-------
Table 3
Airborne Radioactive Waste Release (October 18 - 24, 1974)
Health Services Laboratory Data
Process
or Stack
CHMN
CHMS
SLUG
PEL-2
BAGH
CLAB
INEX
WTCR
WTLB
#5 MILL
UPSE
MANT
U-234
4040
501
846
(836)
138
346
225
4940
(4180)
17.9
276
395
783
(731)
108
fCi/m3
U-235
149
17.7
37.9
(40.6)
6.5
14.7
10.2
179
(254)
0.6
7.6
18.9
36.3
(39.2)
3.8
U-238
1190
151.8
265
(271)
39.8
99.4
68.6
1470
(1470)
5,. 5
57.8
163
284
(253)
32.5
yCiU/week
4.96
5.14
4.66
0.189
0.197
0.659
4.44
0.001
0.069
0.330
4.09
0.825
General
Electric
yCi/week
5.578
3.543
3.957
0.221
0.230
0.117
2.942
0.002
0.100
0.391
5.749
0.176
Numbers in parentheses are EERF cross-check data.
20
-------
Table 4
Airborne Radioactive Waste Release (March 14 - 21, 1975)
Health Services Laboratory Data
Process
or Stack
CHMN
CHMS
SLUG
PEL- 2
BAGH
#5 MILL
UPSE
NDRE
INCN
INCS
U-234
3210
(2930)
1350
(1190)
96.9
28.0
414
134
49.2
10.0
43.3
20.5
fCi/m3
U-235
134
(132)
54.4
(52.9)
4.1
1.2
14.9
5.4
2.2
0.3
2.1
0.8
U-238
807
(769)
355
(322)
30.6
9.8
108.2
38.3
13.8
3.2
14.0
6.1
uCiU/week
9.02
11.2
0.545
0.055
0.358
0.102
0.261
0.043
0.034
0.030
General
Electric
yCi/week
16.380
3.348
0.608
0.274
0.608
0.279
0.494
0.276
0.042
0.109
Numbers in parentheses are EERF cross-check data.
21
-------
to
to
Table 5
Airborne Radioactive Waste Pelease
Summary: July 1974 - March 1975 (11)
Date
7/12-19/74
7/19-26/74
7/26-8/2/74
8/2-9/74
8/9-16/74
8/16-23/74
8/23-30/74
8/30-9/6/74
9/6-13/74
9/13-20/74
9/20-27/74
9/27-10/4/74
10/4-11/74
10/11-18/74
10/18-25/74
yCi U/wk
27.0
21.2
11.9
13.2
11.1
42.2
16.9
15.7
27.1
25.9
24.8
86.5
197.6
61.7
35.5
pCi U/sec
44.7
35.1
19.7
21.8
18.4
69.8
27.9
26.0
44.9
42.7
41.1
143.0
326.8
102.0
58.7
Date
10/25-11/1/74
11/1-8/74
11/8-15/74
11/15-22/74
11/22-29/74
11/29-12/6/74
12/6-13/74
12/13-20/74
12/20-27/74
12/27-1/3/75
1/3-10/75
1/10-17/75
1/17-24/75
1/24-31/75
1/31-2/7/75
yCi U/wk
74.2
50.1
35.2
33.2
26.6
20.2
14.7
53.9
77.7
39.8
39.8
60.3
32.0
28.2
298.4
pCi U/sec
122.8
82.8
58.2
54.9
44.0
33.3
24.4
89.1
128.4
65.7
65.7
99.6
53.0
46.6
493.5
-------
N>
U>
Table 5 - Continue4
Airborne Radioactive Waste Release
Summary: July 1974 - March 1975 (11)
Date yCi U/wk pCi U/sec
2/7-14/75
2/14-21/75
2/21-28/75
2/28-3/7/75
3/7-14/75
3/14-21/75
7.2
7.4
8.9
28,7
44.5
30.7
11.9
12.2
14.7
47.4
73.5
50.7
-------
table 6, show an extreme variability as seen from the range
of concentrations.
Table 6
Summary of Uranium-234 and Uranium-238 Concentrations in Air
'N
'W
'B
U-234 (fCi/m3)
(average) (range)
0.11
0.23
0.18
0.10
0.09
0.02 - 0.46
0.01 - 4.04
0.02 - 1.46
0.01 - 0.31
0.09 - 0.43
U-238 (fCi/m3)
(average) (range)
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.01 - 0.25
0.01 - 1.19
0.01 - 0.51
0.01 - 0.26
0.01 - 0.15
Using the 2-a confidence level intervals, the following
values were determined to be outliers which are indicative of
contamination by plant effluent (table 7).
The airborne particulate sampler set up to collect a
background sample was located 7.5 kilometers from the plant
and in a less frequent downwind direction. But/ as shown in
figure 11, the samples were influenced by the plant effluent
on three occasions. Therefore, an effort to determine back-
ground levels for the area was based on statistical analysis
of the data itself.
The data were plotted on cumulative normal and log
normal probability paper to examine the distribution present.
Visual examination of the plot on normal probability paper
(figure 12) indicates the data vary widely from a normal dis-
tribution since the plot is markedly concave upward. The
Plot on log normal paper (figure 13) is a straight line in-
dicating the data fit a log normal distribution. Statistical
tests described in appendix C show that the data do fit a
log normal distribution and the sampling sites are statisti-
24
-------
cally different. Thus, the data for each site were analyzed
separately to identify any possible outliers or suspiciously
high values which would be indicative of contamination by
plant effluent.
Table 7
Statistical Outliers of the Air Samples
Measured Air Concentrations
Site & Date
North
1/27-31/75
East
12/16-26/74
10/21-24/74
South
10/21-24/74
West
Background
12/2-9/74
2 3 "»
U
0.46
> 4.04
0.88
1.46
0.02
> 0.17
0.03
0.09
No outlier values
0.43 0.02
> 1.19
0.32
0.51
0.12
To determine which air samples are affected by plant
effluent, several characteristics of the effluent should be
investigated. Since the plant effluent contains enriched
uranium with little or no ingrowth of thorium-230, other
indicators of plant effect are the uranium-234/uranium-235
ratio, and uranium-234/thorium-230 ratio.
Natural uranium in the environment is usually assumed
to be in equilibrium, and the uranium-234 concentration equals
the uranium-238 concentration. Thus, the ratio of uranium-234
to uranium-238 would be expected to be one. Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) uranium in air
data (14-17) show the ratio is experimentally one in most cases.
25
-------
10—
.D —
a —
3£L
.15—
.10—
• Uranium-234 Concentration
*'Uranium-238 Concentration
* •
ttlj*
4f
* *
:*:
10, 14 21 24 30 1^11 19 26
NT1M.MTE OF COLLECTION
**t
! ,',
,...
w 3, !, ,'T
4
'
Figure'7. Weekly concentration of 23"u and 238U in air at C
• Uranium-234 Concentration
* Uranium-238 Concentration
1 * *
* t * . *
I * *
•
* *
•
t
*l
• •*
** •
If **
i llflTliiliTillk i r i i i i i ii n i i i i i i i T i i i
I 18 a a 8ft 12 19 26 ta> 16 a X 10, 14 21 24 30 11, II 19 X 12, 9 16 20 30 I 13 90 27 31 1, 17 » 3^ 11 17
'S* INmALOKTEOFOOOECnON '*
Figure 8. Weekly concentration of 23*U and 23eU in air at C
E
26
-------
.30—
.25—•
.20—
.15—
.10—
.05—
• Uranium-234 Concentration
* Uranium-238 Concentration
t*
* •
*
t
i i f r f i i f i 11 i 1111 11 11 11 i 11 11111 111 i 11 i i
I 18 22 » 5,512 « 28 9^,9 16 23 X 10,, 14 21 24 X llj 11 19 28 12^ 9 16 28 X 1, 13 20 27 31 2,^17 24 3^11 17
INITIAL DATE OF COLLECTION
Figure 9. Weekly concentration of 23*U and 23BU in air at C£
• Uranium-234 Concentration
*iUranium-238 Concentration
f
* t
7, 18 22 29 8/512 19 26 9^ 9 16 23 30 10, 14 21 24 30 1Jj 11 19 26 12, 9 16 28 30 ^ 13 20 27 31 2/17 24 3,311 17
•?4 NTIM. DATE Of COILECT1CW re
Figure 10. Weekly concentration of 23"u and 238U in air at C
'W
27
-------
.25—
.20—
.15'
.10—
OS—
• Uranium-234 Concentration J
*Uranium-238 Concentration
***
*,*
18 22 29 8,512 19 26 9/3 9 16 23 30 iq, u 21 24 30 111 19 26 12 ! li A A 13 i 27 31 2, 17 a l'l 7
INITIAL DATE OF COLLECTION
Figure 11. Weekly concentration of 23
-------
Log Atmospheric Concentration of Uranium
vs. Cumulative Probability
234u
238u
/\..*
A • '
A «
A •
A •
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
.05 .2 1 5 20 40 60 80 95 99 99.8
10
1.0
t
0.01
99*99
Cumulative Probability %
Figure 12. Probability curve of uranium concentrations for the
East continuous sampling site (Normal Distribution)
29
-------
Atmospheric Concentration of Uranium
vs Cumulative Probability
234U-A
238U-0
0
A 4.04
•*-
Probability curve of uranium concentration for
the East continuous sampling site (Log-Normal
distribution)
30
-------
Jl
in
•m
Figure 14. Frequency distribution of 23"U/238U ratios
—
_
—
_
-FFR
10 20 30 ~
m
Figure 15. Frequency distribution of 23"u/230Th ratios
31
-------
The samples containing uranium from plant effluent can be
identified using three characteristics of plant effluent: (1)
uranium concentration, (2) uranium-234 to uranium-238 ratio,
and (3) uranium-234 to thorium-230 ratio. For purposes of this
study, plant affected samples are defined as those samples which
have all three characteristics greater than the median value
plus one sigma. The remaining samples are assumed to be back-
ground and the average backgrounds for each location are given
in table 8.
The usual error term does not apply in this table since
the data do not follow a normal distribution. An error term
also implies a statistical random variation only. The back-
ground varies due to physical or meteorological factors as well
as randomness. The measured variation of background is greater
than statistical variation predicts. Table 8 is the average
concentration of the samples which were considered background
samples. Table 9 is the average concentration of the samples
which were considered to contain mostly plant effluent uranium
rather than average concentration above background.
It is interesting to note that the CB location was apparently
not representative of the background at the plant site, although
one way analysis of variance shows no significant difference in
the other locations after plant effect samples are removed.
Also, the normal uranium-234 to uranium-238 ratio is one,
yet even the samples which appear to be only background have a
ratio of 1.7.
Table 8
Average Uranium Background in Air
Background Uranium
CN
CE
CS
cw
CB
The average concentrations above background are given in
table 9.
32
U-234 (fCi/m3)
.10
.08
.10
.09
.06
U-238 (fCi/m*)
.06
.05
.06
.06
.04
-------
Table 9
Uranium Concentration in Air above Background
Plant Effect
U-234 (fCi/m3) u-238 (fCi/m3)
CN .01 .00
CE .15 .04
Cc .08 .02
Cw -°1 -00
C .03 .01
Gamma spectral analyses were performed on the air par-
ticulate samples in order to monitor any other radionuclides
in the effluent stream which might affect our study or other-
wise require consideration. Such analyses revealed only fall-
out products. Uranium daughters were below the detection limits.
Cerium-144, ruthenium-rhodium-106, and zirconium-niobium-95 were
present at concentrations ranging from 5 to 50 fCi/m3. Cesium-
137 concentrations were from 1 to 5 fCi/m3. Beryllium-7 was
the predominate isotope at 50-200 fCi/m3. During the first week
in August fresh fission products were found. Apparently these
fresh fission products originated in the atmospheric nuclear
test of the Peoples Republic of China, June 17, 1974. There
were 12 fCi/m3 of barium-lanthanum-140 and 2 fCi/m3 of iodine-
131. The iodine became nondetectable by the middle of Septem-
ber while the barium-lanthanum remained just detectable until
the first of October.
The gross beta counting confirmed the presence of fission
products but gave no further information.
Air Exposure Model
The AIREM program (18) is a model which describes the
expected dispersion of airborne effluents using plant para-
meters and weather data. Local climatological data, 3-hour
intervals, were obtained for the New Hanover Airport which is
7 kilometers south-southeast of the plant site. General Elec-
tric provided gaseous release data and pertinent plant para-
meters. The X/Q values in Table 10 for various distances and
33
-------
directions drom the plant were computed based on the average
weather conditions during the 36-week period of the study.
Using the average release for the study of 75 pCi of uranium
per second, the predicted concentrations of uranium contributed
by the plant at the continuous air particulate sampling sites
were computed to be those in table 10. The measured uranium
concentrations above background (table 9} are compared to the
predicted values.
The air particulate sample collected at Cg during Decem-
ber 16, 1974, to December 26, 1974, was unusually high in
uranium-234 (40 times background) and had a uranium-234 to
uranium-238 ratio equal to plant effluent. The other samples
of that time period were not unusual and the release data do
not explain the high activity. The weather records show that
weather parameters were conducive to transport of effluent
from the plant to the sampler for only a short period of less
than 24 hours. This short-term apparent non-routine release
would not be predicted by the AIREM model and is not included
in table 10.
Table 10
Observed and Predicted Uranium Concentrations
(Above Background)
Predicted Observed Observed
X/Q(sec/m3) U(fCi/m3) U(fCi/m3) Predicted
CN 1 X 10~6 0.08 0.01 0.1
CE 5 X 10~7 0.04 0.06 1.5
Cg 7 X 10~7 0.05 0.10 2.0
GW 7 X 10~7 0.05 0.01 0.2
C_ 3 X 10~8 < .01 0.04 > 4.0
D
The model predicts the average uranium concentrations
during the 36 weeks of the study to be .22 fCi uranium per
cubic meter at the nearest residence (600 meters south-south-
east of the plant) due to plant effluent. The ratio of observed
34
-------
values to predicted values ranges from .1 to > 4 and, there-
fore, the average concentration at the nearest residence was
probably between 0.02 and 0.44 fci uranium per cubic meter.
Discussion of Air Monitoring Data
The detection of contamination from plant effluent in the
environs is difficult not only because the concentrations are
very low, but also because the natural uranium in the environs
interferes with plant effluent detection. Isotopic analyses
of gaseous and liquid effluents show that uranium-234 is 3.5
times the activity of uranium-238. Natural uranium in equili-
brium has equal activities of uranium-234 and -238. This
characteristic distinguished plant effluent from natural back-
ground. Usually small amounts of plant effluent were added to
the naturally occurring uranium such that the samples could not
be classified as only background or only plant effluent. This
is especially true of samples collected for a 1-week period.
The plant effluent may be sampled for 1 to 3 days and masked
by the 7-day background.
Statistical analyses of the data show that 8 percent of the
continuous air samples showed predominantly contamination by
plant effluent material. The average concentrations of the re-
maining 92 percent of the air samples were 0.09 fCi/m3 uranium-
234 and 0.06 fCi/m3 uranium-238. These averages seem to be
reasonable estimations of background at the plant site.
Of the 8 percent plant-affected samples, the highest values
were observed in the eastern sector. The average uranium con-
centrations during the study as measured at CE were 0.15 fCi/m3
uranium-234 and 0.04 fCi/m3 uranium-238 at 1.7 kilometers from
the plant. One sample collected from December 16-26, 1974,
accounts for 75 percent of the effect. When the filter at CE
was replaced on December 26, 1974, the sampler was not operating.
If one assumes the sampler operated properly until immediately
prior to collection, the uranium-234 was 4.04 fCi/m3, uranium-
235 was 0.17 fCi/m3, and the uranium-238 was 1.10 fCi/m3. The
concentrations may have been higher and the sampler operated
for a shorter period of time. This one anomalous sample is
twice the total effect seen at CE from the remaining routine
operations of the 36 weeks. An annual anomaly of this magnitude
would have environmental impact comparable to routine operation
for the year.
Terrestrial Deposition
The deposition of plant effluent on soil and vegetation and
the uptake of activity by vegetation was monitored by collecting
35
-------
soil, vegetation, rain, and fallout trays. Rain collectors and
fallout trays were placed at the continuous air monitoring sites
The rain was collected in a 32-gallon galvanized metal garbage
can. A faucet was welded at the bottom. Thus, rainwater was
drained by gravity into a cubitainer for collection. To pre-
vent large foreign objects (i.e., leaves) from stopping the
drain, a screen was placed inside the top of the can. A fall-
out tray of adhesive cellulose was placed on this screen.
The pressure sensitive adhesive cellulose was mounted on
a 30-cm by 30-cm by 0.5-cm lucite plate. The trays were chang-
ed each month. The exposed trays were returned to the labora-
tory where the adhesive sheets were removed and analyzed for
specific uranium and thorium content. Again, there was no
evidence of plant effluent uranium deposition (fallout) from
the air (Appendix D).
Soil and vegetation were collected at the continuous air
monitoring sites during the field surveys. Soil was collected
from a 30-cm by 30-cm area to a depth of 4 cm. Vegetation con-
sisted, of grass clippings, leaves, and weeds as available. The
soil and vegetation samples showed no effect of plant effluent.
The data in Appendix E show the variability associated with soil
and vegetation sampling.
The precipitation samples collected at CE and C^, August
19 through September 16, 1974, showed high uranium-234 concen-
trations. The ratios of uranium-234 to uranium-238 were also
greater than 2 (Appendix E). The sample collected at CB/ Jan-
uary 27 through February 24, 1975, also showed these charac-
teristics. The total uranium washed out of the atmosphere was
not determined since the area of rainfall was not measurable.
Since the probability of rain is independent of the effluent
release rate, over an extended period time, high and low re-
lease rates will average to appear relatively uniform on an
annual basis. The washout effect would represent a removal
rate roughly equivalent to the fraction of time that rain
occurred. During the study period from July 1974 to March 1975,
rain fell less than 10 percent of the time. Hence, the washout
effect should not be expected to remove more than 10% of the
airborne contamination from plant effluents.
36
-------
WATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Sampling
A second major effort of the field studies was to evaluate
the signficance of the water exposure pathway of uranium to man
from this facility. This evaluation was based on the collection
and analyses of water samples from four locations upstream of
the plant and four locations downstream of the plant and one
location near the liquid waste discharge point.
On each field trip two samples of 10 liters each were col-
lected at these nine locations. The samples were collected at
different depths and distances from the bank to assure samples
representative of the location. Since these waters are estuarine
and tide effects are noticeable more than 10 kilometers upstream
of the plant, the first location, Position I-background, was 40
kilometers upstream of the liquid waster discharge point (figure
16). Position II was also considered background and was 25
kilometers upstream. Position III and IV were in an area of
potential tidal effect and could have waters affected by the
effluent releases. They were 15 km and 3 kilometers upstream,
respectively. Position V was 1 kilometer downstream from the
point of discharge. This was relatively close to the source
but remote enough to insure thorough mixing. Positions VI and
VII were 3 and 9 kilometers downstream, respectively. Position
VIII, 11 kilometers downstream, was near the confluence of the
Northeast Cape Fear and Cape Fear Rivers, but the samples were
collected in the Northeast Cape Fear River. Position IX was 18
kilometers downstream from the point of discharge and was in
the Cape Fear River.
Analyses
Water samples were gamma scanned prior to processing and
then filtered for separate analysis of dissolved and undissolved
solids. The filtrate water was evaporated and counted for gross
alpha and beta activity. The undissolved solids which were
filtered from the water were dried and also counted for gross
alpha and beta activity. Thereafter, the dissolved solids and
the undissolved solids were ashed and chemically separated to
count U and Th by alpha spectroscopy.
Liquid Plant Effluents
, The liquid waste is discharged in equal proportions from
two lagoons into an on-site creek. Aliquots of the discharge
are collected daily for analysis.
The Department of Interior, Geological Survey (9) study
of the Northeast Cape Fear estuary in October 1969 showed
that discharges that occurred several days prior to river
37
-------
General Electric Fuel Fabrication Plant
Wilmington, N.C.
Figure 16. River sampling locations map
38
-------
sampling could effect the concentration of radionuclides in
the river at time of sampling. Therefore, samples of the dis-
charge liquid were obtained for one or two weeks prior to a
field survey. The samples were composited such that a sample
represented the average concentration of discharge liquid for
the week.
Table 11 gives the average weekly concentrations of ura-
nium isotopes and the total uranium discharged weekly for
periods prior to each field survey. Appendix F gives the G.E.
reported uranium discharges by week for 1974 and the first
quarter of 1975. The average weekly discharge for 1974 is
13.6 kg/wk. No given weekly discharge was greater than twice
this average.
A paired t test of the EERF analyses compared to the G.E.
analyses shows no significant difference, thus, G.E. release
data in appendix F are used in predictive models.
River Sampling Data
The analyses of environmental liquid samples are tabulated
in appendix G. Although the field surveys were at different
times in the year and under differing river flow conditions,
a general impression of the behavior of the plant liquid efflu-
ent can be seen from a comparison of the average uranium con-
centration at each location (table 12).
Figure 17 shows the concentration of uranium versus the
distance from the discharge point.
As one would expect, the concentration of uranium is
greatest immediately below the discharge point. Also, the
ratio of U-234 to U-238 is indicative of enriched uranium at
Positions V-VII (1-9 km from the discharge point). The figure
shows the highest concentration three kilometers below the
discharge point.
Aqueous Transport Model
The Geological Survey model (9) of the dispersion of a
soluble material (fluorescent dye) is used to predict the con-
centration during the field surveys at positions IV, V, VI,
and VII. The model predicts the maximum daily concentration
as a function of location,, fresh water flow rate, and soluble
material release rate, equation (1).
39
-------
Table 11
Uranium Concentrations of Liquid Effluent During Field Surveys
EERF Analysis
Dates
7/8/74-7/14/74
10/8/74-10/14/74
10/15/74-10/21/74
3/5/75-3/10/75
3/11/75-3/17/75
3/18/75-3/20/75
pCi/liter (+17%)
U-234
896
1806
1164
1604
1672
1103
U-235
44
76
51
58
70
47
U-238
250
550
360
477
522
344
Average
Discharge
Liters/day
2.21 X 106
1.87 X 10s
2.09 X 10s
2.16 X 10s
2.00 X 106
2.36 X 106
Total U
pCi/wk
18416
31880
23059
32343
31696
24681*
Kg U/wk
13.3
23.1
16.7
23.4
23.3
17.9
Kg U/wk
6.7
16.0
15.8
12.4
23.0
18.7
*Assuming days composited were typical or average.
-------
Table 12
Uranium Concentration in the Waters
of the Northeast Cape Fear River
Position U-234 (pCi/£) U-238 (pCi/fc) U-234/U-238
x ± 2s.. x ±
li
1.09
1.75
1.23
1.64
2.33
2.10
1.81
1.47
1.26
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
.05 ±
.07 ±
.05 ±
.08 ±
.18 ±
.35 ±
.19 ±
.15 ±
.21 ±
x
.03
.07
.02
.03
.07
.17
.10
.10
.13
.04 ±
.04 .±
.04 ±
.05 ±
.08 ±
.17 ±
.10 ±
.10 ±
.17 ±
x
.02
.02
.03
.02
.03
.07
.05
.06
.12
41
-------
.40-
.30-
.20-
10
08-
.06-
.04-
.02'
dissolved U
•234
•238
-n 5 km/unit
T
ii
T
in
IV V VI
•7—T-
VII VIII
Plant Discharge
IX
Figure 17. Uranium concentration profile in Northeast Cape Fear River
-------
Cj = K Z L±/Qi
where: Cj is the maximum daily concentration
at position j, K-: is the constant of
proportionality tor position j. LI is
the average daily release of solute on
the ith day Q^ is the average daily
fresh water flow rate for the ith day.
It must be noted that the model predicts maximum daily
concentrations and was developed during a period when the
flow rates were 200 cfs. The present study collected grab
samples of water at various stages of tidal movement, thus
the samples were not necessarily representative of maximum
daily concentrations. The freshwater flow rates during the
study were usually greater than 200 cfs and occasionally as
much as 2000 cfs.
Table 13 gives the predicted concentrations due to plant
effluent. The observed concentrations are the average of the
two samples collected at that date and location minus the
background obtained at Position I, II, and III. Only the
dissolved uranium is used in this comparison.
Using the model, an average uranium concentration for the
year 1974 can be calculated. The average concentration at
Position VI for 1974 is predicted to be 0.6 pCi/fc. Using the
comparison in Table 13, the average observed concentration at
Position VI would be near .4 pCi U/fc for 1974.
Since the samples were taken at different depths at each
location, the data were tested to determine mixing character-
istics of the river. A paired t test of total uranium and dis-
solved U-238 each showed no significant difference of samples
at different depths. The paired t test of dissolved U-234 data
did show the deeper samples to have a statistically higher con-
centration but the average difference (D - .026) was less than
the analytical error of the data. If one compares the U-234
in solution in samples near the right bank to the values in
samples near the left bank, the paired t test shows no signi-
ficant difference. The river appears to be generally well
mixed.
Aquatic Environment
Although the exposure pathway of radioactive material to
sediment to vegetation to man was considered of minor consequence,
43
-------
Table 13
A Comparison of the Observed and Predicted
Uranium Concentrations in the Waters of the
Northeast Cape Fear River (above background)
Position
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VII
VII
VII
Date
7/16/74
10/22/74
3/19/75
7/16/74
10/22/74
3/19/75
7/16/74
10/22/74
3/19/75
7/16/74
10/22/74
3/19/75
Predicted
pCi U/£
.87
.84
.13
1.29
1.66
.26
1.01
1.70
.25
.36
1.05
.15
Observed
pCi U/JZ,
.03
.09
.01
.26
.13
.12
.31
.72
.29
.25
.36
< .01
Ratio of
Observed
Predicted
.03
.11
.08
.20
.08
.46
.31
.42
1.16
.69
.34
—
samples of sediment and vegetation were collected to determine
any major removal of uranium from the water by deposition in
sediment or uptake in vegetation. Samples were collected at
the position of water sample collection. Thus, for each field
survey nine vegetation and nine sediment samples were collected,
one at each position as mentioned earlier.
The samples were dried and counted for gamma emitters
by gamma spectroscopy and also counted for gross alpha and
beta activity. The samples were then ashed and dissolved for
44
-------
chemical separation of U and Th which were counted by alpha
spectroscopy. The data are tabulated in Appendix H.
The uranium-234 to uranium-238 ratio of the vegetation
samples averaged 1.4 ± .9. The vegetation samples collected
at Position V in July 1974 and October 1974 and at Position
VI in July 1974 have uranium-234 and uranium-238 ratios of
2.4, 2.0, and 2.3, respectively. But the ratios are not
statistically different from the average. The uranium-234 to
thorium-230 ratios of these samples are also higher than the
average implying possible uptake of plant effluent by vege-
tation. The amount of uranium in the vegetation does not
indicate a concentrating effect by the vegetation (10).
Therefore, vegetation does not appear to be a major means
for removal of uranium from the water pathway.
DOSE CALCULATIONS
Air
In order to relate an airborne concentration of a radio-
nuclide to a dose commitment for an individual exposed to such
a concentration, it is necessary to develop a descriptive path-
way from environmental air through the body. This development
requires numerous assumptions as to the pathway parameters.
The end product of such a description or model is known as a
dose conversion factor. Citing a dose conversion factor is
incomplete without providing sufficient information to allow
a user to comprehend the significant elements of the model.
The model chosen for this study begins with the assumption
that the effluent material is essentially all insoluble parti-
culates of respirable sizes. Such an assumption seems appro-
priate since the first process in the fuel fabrication is the
conversion of UFg to U02F2 and then to insoluble (NH4)2U2°7-
Once in the insoluble form the uranium fuel receives most of
the handling and processing that is necessary to produce the
final product material. During the entire time the uranium
is processed at the fabrication plant only an insignificant
fraction of the gaseous effluent waste could occur as other
than insoluble particulates. The initial assumption appears
to be warranted.
The next assumption is that the lung is the critical organ.
45
-------
This appears valid since pathway models for bone, whole-body,
and other components do not suggest a dose conversion factor
nearly as large as the one for the lung.
The simplified mathematical expression which describes the
dose commitment'over the next fifty years due to continuous
accumulation of a radionuclide for one year is:
vs o
(rem)
= 51.
ZEF (1 - e
Q.F. D.F.
Equation (1)
where:
(rem)
= dose (rem)
= 50 years x 365 days/yr. = 18.25 x 103 days
= total radionuclide intake (yCi)
m
ZEF
Q.F.
D.F.
= fraction of radionuclide intake which is
deposited in the organ (lung)
= mass of the organ (lung)
= effective decay constant of the radionuclide
from the organ
= energy deposited in the organ per disin-
tegration (MeV)
== Quality Factor
= Distribution Factor
This expression simplifies further to:
= 51.1
(rem)
since:
ZEF(W.F.)D.F. Equation (2)
Tl/2 eff = 50° davs (assumed) (23)
46
-------
eff = .693/500 days = .00139 days'1
t = 18.25 x 103 days
Equation (2) is of the form of a one-shot exposure model.
This is due to the long effective half-life which enables simp-
lification of the model for exposure times of a year or less
without introducing an appreciable amount of error.
In order to conveniently relate equation (2) to a dose
conversion factor, the commitment dose is calculated for a
1 fCi/m3 exposure for one year to an adult male (19).
Breathing rate =23 m3/day
1 fCi/m3 = 10"9 yCi/m3
AQ =1 fCi/m3 X 10~9 yCi/fCi X 23 m3/day
X 365 days/yr.
AQ = 8.40 X 10~6 yCi/year
In addition to the assumption of respirable quality, the
particles are also assumed to have a 1-ym Activity Mean Aero-
dynamic Diameter (AMAD). No experimental data are available
concerning particle sizes in the environment. It is known
that the most penetrating particles through the HEPA filter
are .05 to .10 ym AMAD (21). It is believed that for particles
of this size agglomeration occurs in the environment.and thus
increases the AMAD significantly. The main parameter selected
for the calculation of the dose commitment is as follows:
The f = .25(.6) = .15, since 25% of the uranium of 1 ym
a
AMAD reaches the pulmonary region and 60% of that is re-
tained for more than a day (20). The m (mass of the pul-
monary region) is 570 g (19). The IEF is 4.9 MeV since
most of the activity is uranium-234 (24). The quality
factor is ten for alpha radiation and the distribution
factor is 1 in the lung.
47
-------
D
5° =
8.4 X 10"6(.15)
500
4.9 (10) 1
lung.
D50 = 4.0 X 10 3 rem =4.0 mrem
Thus, the dose commitment factor is 4 mrem/fCi/m3 to the
Assuming the airborne uranium concentrations in table 9
are the average effect of plant discharges for the year, the
dose commitments to an individual residing at CN, CE, Cs/ Cw/
and CB are .04 mrem, .76 mrem, .40 mrem, .04 mrem, and .16 mrem,
respectively.
Water
These estuarine waters are not potable and are indepen-
dent of any existing municipal drinking water supply. If
these waters were ingested, the following calculated dose
should be considered as additive to other pathway exposures.
The uranium in liquid effluent is assumed to be soluble
since precipitated uranium is removed prior to discharge and
the conservative assumption seemed prudent. The critical
organ for ingestion of soluble uranium is bone (23). As in
a:j-r an acute or one shot exposure is assumed by mathematical
simplification. A similar equation applies:
D 50
O
51
i /A f \
.1 / o w \
V Aeffm /
ZEF (Q.F.) D.F.
A = 1 pCi/1 X 2 liters/day X 365 days/yr X 10 6 yCi/pCi
o = .73 X 10~3 yCi
f = f,fJ
w
fi = .1 (fraction from G. I. tract to blood) (24-26)
f2 = -11 (fraction from blood to bone) (27)
Veff = .693/500 days (27)
48
-------
m = 5000 g (19)
ZEF =4.9 MeV for uranium-234 (23)
Q.F. = 10 for a
D.F. = 5 in bone
~. iT3vin~3/rtii\l
rj5 0 _ c-l 1 I » /-J A J.U t.UJ.J.; 1 . n /ln\ c
o b1'1 ^.693/500 X 5000 I 4'9 {10) 5
D^° = 8.5 X 10~3 rem/pCi/1 = 8.5 X 10~3 rem/pCi/1 X 103
mrem/rem
= 8.5 mrem/pCi/1
The predicted average concentration of uranium at
Position IV was .3 pCi/1. This would result in a 2.6 mrem
dose commitment to the bone if the water were potable. It
should be noted that if the river were a water supply source,
standard water treatment by a municipality might remove a
significant amount of uranium and reduce the exposure to any
consuming public.
The concentration of uranium in seafood in the Cape Fear
Bay area is not available. The dose commitment can be esti-
mated using the concentration factors, mass consumption, and
dose commitment factors of the nuclear regulatory guide (28).
The dose commitment to the bone due to ingestion of seafood
is 1/40 the dose commitment due to ingestion of the water.
49
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The detection of contamination from plant effluent in the
ambient environs is difficult since natural uranium is also
present. Using the characteristics of uranium concentration
and uranium daughter equilibrium, 8% of the continuous air
samples were identified as having measurable amounts of con-
tamination from plant discharges. These samples indicated
that the plant added 0.01 to 0.2 fCi/m3 of uranium to the
average measured concentrations in the environs. The plant
effluent in the Northeast Cape Fear River was more identifi-
able since upstream background concentrations could be measur-
ed. The tidal inflow holds the uranium in the river and the
plant effect was most noticeable 3 kilometers downstream of
the discharge point. The plant effluent added 0.3 pCi/1 of
uranium at the downstream point.
Since the water is not potable, only the airborne path-
way of exposure is considered significant at this plant site.
The dose commitment to individuals residing at the continuous
monitoring locations would be less than a millirem. The pre-
dicted uranium concentration at the nearest residence due to
plant operations was 0.22 fCi/m3 resulting in a dose commit-
ment of 0.9 mrem to an individual residing continuously at this
location.
The plant discharges 2-3 mCi of airborne uranium per year
and approximately 700 kg (0.96 Ci) of uranium as liquid waste.
This results in a dose commitment of less than a millirem via
the airborne exposure pathway and a potential dose commitment
of less than 3 millirem if the water were potable. The results
of this study compare favorably with-the estimates in the
Environmental Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (1) when
standardized computational models are used.
To evaluate the significance of the radiation dose path-
ways, portions of the pathways were monitored to detect and
quantitate contamination from plant releases in the atmosphere.
The portions of the pathway monitored were affluents (airborne
and liquid), atmosphere, river water, and deposition. The most
significant pathways were inhalation of air particulates or in-
gestion of water containing uranium.
This facility operation and radioactive release patterns
are typical of facilities using the ammonium diuranate process.
A facility using the direct conversion fluid bed (DCFB) pro-
cess may have radically different release patterns. Thus the
dose commitment due to a DCFB process could be different than
found in this study.
50
-------
This study points out the difficulty of accurately model-
ing at these low release levels relative to a variable back-
ground. The environmental forces which disperse and transport
contaminants are changing continuously. A good example of this
was that the plant effluent plume was detected seven kilometers
away even though the dispersion model predicted that such de-
tection was highly improbable. Short-term releases are not
predicted in this study but these can obliterate long-term
averaged effects.
In a study of this type continuous monitoring in the
environment is recommended for estimating the potential dose
committed to the population. When such monitoring is used/
special detailed evaluations should be performed to determine
background concentrations of each sampling site. The use of
short sampling periods (i.e., three and one-half days) may be
necessary for a clear distinction of plant effect and background.
Although laboratory analyses may seem standardized, each
environmental sample may have differences which affect the analysis
Initial surveys should collect duplicate samples to confirm lab-
oratory, methodology.
51
-------
References
1. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Environmental analysis of
the uranium fuel cycle, part 1 - fuel supply, EPA-520/9-73-003-B.
Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20230 (Oct. 1973).
2. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Radiological surveillance
studies at a boiling water nuclear power reactor, BRH/DER 70-1.
Division of Surveillance and Inspection, Cincinnati, OH (Second
printing Feb. 1971).
3. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Radiological surveillance
studies at a pressurized water nuclear power reactor, RD71-1.
National Environmental Research Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH (Aug. 1971).
4. KILLEHER, W. J. Environmental surveillance around a nuclear fuel
reprocessing installation. Radiological Health Data and Reports
10:329-339 (Aug. 1969).
5. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. Liquid waste
effluents from a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, BRH/NERHL 70-2.
Northeastern Radiological Health Laboratory, Public Health Service,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Winchester, MA.
(Nov. 1970).
6. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. An investigation
of airborne radioactive effluents from an operating nuclear fuel
reprocessing plant, BRH/NERHL 70-3. Northeastern Radiological Health
Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Winchester, MA (Nov. 1970).
7. LOGSDON, J. E. and 0. W. N. HICKEY. Radioactive waste discharge
to the environment from a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Radio-
logical Health Data and Reports 12:305-312 (June 1971).
8. AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY. Transactions of the American Nuclear
Society 1972 Annual Meeting, June 18-22, 1972. Fuel cycle, fuel
reprocessing and waste management. American Nuclear Society
15:85-99 (June 1972).
9. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. Movement and dispersion of
soluble pollutants in the Northeast Cape Fear Estuary, North
Carolin-a, Water-Supply Paper 1873-E. Geological Survey,
Washington, DC (1972)
10. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Concentration factors of chemical
elements in edible aquatic organisms. UCRL-50564 Rev. 1.
Lawrence Livennore Laboratory, University of California,
Livermore, CA (Oct. 1972)
52
-------
Nuciear Fuei
T'/' and-A> A' MOGHISSI- Coprecipitation technique for
spectroscopic determination of uranium thorium and
Plutonium. Health Physics 15:359-362 (Set 1968)
14. U. s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. ERAMS plutonium and
uranium in air. Radiation Data and Reports 15:715-720 (Nov. 1974).
15. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. ERAMS plutonium and
uranium in air. Environmental Radiation Data 2:8-10 (Sept. '1975)
FarJm ^DrfT Pr°9rams' Easte™ Environmental Radiation
Facility (EERF), Montgomery, AL 36109.
16. Ibid. 3:10-13 (Jan. 1976). Office of Radiation Programs, Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF), Montgomery, AL 36109.
17. Ibid. 4:10-11 (Apr. 1976). Office of Radiation Programs, Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF), Montgomery, AL 36109
18' Ln\ENVITME,NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Airem program manual , a
-Hnnc H ^ C8JculaJ1n? doses > population doses, and ground
itions due to atmospheric emissions of radionuclides. Office
0lramS F
nuces.
20460 (May0li974J9ramS' Fi6ld Operations Div1sion, Washington, DC
19. ICRP Report of the Task Group on Reference Man, p. 173, 65. ICRP
Publication 23, Pergamon Press, New York NY (1975).
2°' InHKpp?2T°N i^NAMICS, P- E. Morrow, Chairman, Deposition
nHpp , ,
?nrv ?^rt "H ?tISD!°r.InternaVDos1meK^ of the Huma" Respira-
tory Tract. Health Physics 12, 173-207 (1966).
21. BATTELLE NORTHWEST LABORATORIES. Calculated doses from inhaled
transuranium radionuclides and potential risk equivalence to whole
body radiation. BNWL-SA-5588. Battelle Memorial Institute at the
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Rich! and, WA (1976).
IfRP JnSi?6*?011;; °l ComP°unds of P^tonium and Other Actinides.
ion 19, Pergamon Press, New York, NY (1972).
lt?nnReP?rrDD°D S™1"66 " on Permissible Dose for Internal Radi-
ation. ICRP Publication 2, Pergamon Press, New York, NY (1959)..
-------
24. U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION. Environmental
statement. Light water breeder reactor program, ERDA-1541. Vol III,
p.IX.C-23 through p. IX.C-36 and p. IX.D-8 and 9. Energy Research
and Development Administration, Washington, DC (Jul. 1975).
25. HURSH, J. B., W. R. NEUMAN, T. TORIBARA, H. WILSON, and C. WATERHOUSE.
Oral ingestion of uranium by man. Health Physics 17:619-621 (Oct. 1969),
26. HURSH, J. B. and N. L. SPOOR. Data on Man. Uranium, Plutonium,
Transplutonic Elements. H. C. Hodge, J. N. Stannard and J. B. Hursh,
Eds., Springer-Verlay, New York, NY 197-235 (1973).
27. ICRP Report of -Committee IV on Evaluation of Radiation Doses to
Body Tissues from Internal Contamination due to Occupational
Exposure." ICRP Publication 10, Pergamon Press, New York, NY (1968).
28. U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY GUIDE. Regulatory Guide 1.109 Calculation
of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents
for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix I. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555, Director, Office of Standard Development. (March 1976).
54
-------
Appendix A
Plume Monitoring Data
The plume monitoring system was operated by an EPA field
team during each of the three field surveys. These were con-
?S?? d S17 15;18' 19??; °Ct0ber 21-24' M*'> «S March 11-21,
i97!: ™e, system consisted of four sampling locations in the
predicted downwind direction from the plant and one in the up-
wind location. Two air particulate samplers were placed at
?aCSo SB? o?*! • Ea?h sampler used an MSA type H filter which
is 99.98% efficient f or . 3 y DOP. The samplers operated at
the sampling rate of approximately 1.7 cubic meters per minute.
A timer recorded the running time of each sampler. A wind vane
was set up 6 meters above the ground where the paired samplers
were located. The primary air particulate sampler operated
while the wind vane indicated the wind direction was from the
plant toward the sampler location. When the wind vane rotated
to a direction indicating the wind was not from the plant to-
ward the sample location, the primary sampler shut off and a
secondary (background) air sampler began sampling. Thus a pri-
mary air sample was collected when the sampler was downwind from
the plant. The secondary sampler represented air particulates
that were likely non-plume particulates. The upwind background
air particulate sampler set was located 7.5 kilometers south
southeast of the plant to insure the collection of a background
sample.
The plume monitoring system was designed to provide samples
of airborne particulates which had a higher probability of con-
taining some of the uranium released from the plant. This was
collected by the primary sampler (noted "p" in table A-l, 2, 3)
A secondary sampler (noted "s" in tables) operated when the wind
was not from the plant to the sampler. On the July 1974 field
survey, plant effluent was apparent on the primary sampler at
the station nearest to the plant at 1 kilometer to the northeast.
Samples from the other three downwind stations did not demon-
strate a clear accumulation of plant released material.
In October 1974, plant effluent was detected at the three
stations nearest the plant: 1 kilometer northeast and 2 kilo-
meters south. The plant effluent was, however, evident on the
a™nnrta?LSamP*e as1well.as °n the primary sample. Thus, back-
ground for a given location was not available. Although the
^ndPwind K^em X k^onurter fro* the plant was in a pine grove
and wind eddies could violate the wind direction control/the
sampling systems 2 kilometers from the plant were in open areas
and wind control should have been proper. The light and variable
CaUSed diffi^lty with this sampling
55
-------
In March 1975, the plume was sampled 1.5 kilometers east
of the plant, but samples 1 kilometer northeast and 2 kilo-
meters south of the plant show no evidence of the plume. Al-
though plume sampling is feasible, a more definitive back-
ground sample than provided by the matched secondary sampler
is necessary. An independent means of determining the plume
location is desirable.
56
-------
Location
925 meters @ 50'p
925 meters @ 50°s
Table A-l
Plume Monitoring System Samples
7/15-18/74
fCi/m3
fd/m3
U-234 U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230
.25 +_ 21% .01 +_ 65% .08 +_ 27% 3.0 .02 +_ 46% .03 +_ 34%
,12 + 22% <.01 .07 + 27% 1.8 <.01 .04 + 36%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.03 +_ 37% 8.3
.02 + 39% 3.0
2150 meters @ 65"p .14 ^ 20% .01 +_ 62% .06 + 26% 2.3 <.01
2150 meters @ 65cs .04 + 39% <.01 .02 + 53% 2.1 .02 + 47%
.04 + 36% .04 + 39% 3.3
.03 + 36% .03 + 39% 1.3
3400 meters @ 55°p .07 +_ 23% <.01 .06 +_ 24% 1.2
3400 meters @ 55°s no sample
.02 + 30% .05 +_ 20% .02 +_ 32%
no sample
3000 meters 0 23cp .04 +_ 35% .01 +_ 69% .04 +_ 35% 1.0
3000 meters @ 23cs .01 + 65% <.01 .02 + 54% 0.6
.05 +_ 43% .05 +_ 43% .05 +_ 45% 0.8
<.01 .02 + 45% .03 + 37% 0.5
7500 meters @ 150°p .02 +_ 47% <.01
7500 meters @ 150"s .01.+ 57% <.01
.01 + 55% 1.6
.02 + 44% 0.6
.01 +_ 58% .02 +_ 46% .01 +_ 60% 0.7
<.01 .02 + 38% .04 + 35% 0.7
-------
Location U-234 U-235
925 meters @ 50cp .40 +_ 28% .04 +_ 58%
925 meters @ 50° s 1.32 + 12% .06 + 23%
Table A-2
Plume Monitoring System Samples
10/21-24/74
fCi/m3
fC1/m3
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230
.16 + 35% 2.6 .01^63% .05 + 27%
.42 + 13% 3.1 .01 + 46% .03 + 27%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.03 +_ 34% 8.0
.01 + 41% 39.5
tn
oo
2150 meters @ 65°p .23 +_ 20% .01 +_ 65% .14 +_ 12% 1.6
2150 meters @ 65cs .42 +_ 15% .02 +_ 35% .21 +_ 17% 2.0
3400 meters G 55Dp .2809% .01 +_ 57% .12 +_ 23% 2.4
3400 meters G> 55cs .26 +_ 26% <.01 .12 +_ 31% 2.3
.03 + 37%
.02 + 31%
.09 +_ 22%
.10 + 15%
.04 +_ 32% 2.6
.04 + 23% 4.2
.01+52% .08+22% .05+28% 3.6
.02 + 34% .06 + 21% .03 + 28% 4.7
2000 meters @ 190cp 2.05 +_ 15% .11 + 22% .68+16% 3.0
2000 meters @ 190ps 1.14 + 14% .05 + 25% .39 + 15% 2.9
.05 + 24% .10^16% .07^20% 20.8
.01 + 40% .06 + 18% .05 + 22% 17.8
7500 meters @ 150"p no sample
7500 meters @ 150°s .08 + 32% <.01
.05 + 35% 1.6
no sample
.01 + 36% .05 + 19% .02 + 32% 1.7
-------
Location
925 meters @ 50"p
925 meters @ 50°s
Table A-3
Plume Monitoring System Samples
3/17-21/75
fCi/m3
fCi/m3
U-234 U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230
.07 +_ 15% <.01 .04 +_ 18% 2.0 .02 +_ 22% .02 +_ 14%
.03 + 35% <.01 .03 +37% 1.1 .02 + 42% .02 + 38%
Th-228 U-234/TH-230
.02^20% 3.1
.02 + 38% 1.3
iff
vo
2150 meters @ 65°p .06 i 21% .<.01
2150 meters 065*5 .08 + 17% .01 +' 46%
.04 +_ 23%
.05 + 20%
1.4
1.7
2000 meters & 190*p .10 +. 15% .01 + 41% .07 +_ 17% 1.6
2000 meters (? 190°s .09 + 18% <.01 .09 + 19% 1.0
.01 +_ 63% .04 ± 24% .04 + 22% 1.6
.02 +_ 26% .03 + 23% .04 + 20% 2.7
.01 +_ 35% .05 + 15% .02 +_ 23% 2.0
.03 + 22% .08 + 14% .03 +24% 1.2
1460 meters 0 90ep .18 + 17% .01 +_ 44x, .06 + 22% 3.0
1460 meters @ 90rs .07 + 36% <.01 .07 + 30% 1.0
.02 + 24% .02 +_ 24% .02 + 21% 9.9
<.01 .02 + 32% .01 + 44% 3.0
7500 meters @ 150cp no chemical recovery
7500 meters @ 150°s .07+22% <.01 .07+22% 1.0
.01 + 55% .02 +_ 37% .03 +_ 35%
.02 + 26% .06 + 15% .03 + 22% 1.2
-------
Appendix B
Continuous Air Monitoring Data
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - C,
'N
Date
7/15-7/18/74
7/18-7/22/74
7/22-7/29/74
7/29-8/5/74
8/5-8/12/74
8/12-8/19/74
8/19-8/26/74
8/26-9/3/74
9/3-9/9/74
9/9-9/16/74
9/16-9/23/74
9/23-9/30/74
9/30-10/7/74
10/7-10/14/74
10/14-10/21/74
10/21-10/24/74
fCi/nr
Ratio:
fCi/m:
Ratio:
U-234
.31 i 16%
.14 + 17%
.09 i 16%
.03 +_ 22%
.04 +_ 20%
.07 +_ 15%
.04 i 20%
.10 + 15%
.03 +_ 22%
.02 i 24%
.03 + 20%
.10 + 16%
.08 +_ 17%
.10 +. 28%
U-235
.02 + 39%
.01 + 57%
.01 + 43%
<.01
<.01
.01 + 50%
<.01
.01 +_ 43%
volume unknown
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01 +_ 37%
<.01
.01 +_ 52%
no sample
U-238 U-234/U-238(2) Th-232
.23
.07
.05
.02
.03
.03
.02
.04
+ 17%
± 20%
i 19%
+_ 28%
^46%
+_ 22%
+_ 25%
+ 19%
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.3
2.2
2.1
2.3
.01 +_ 60%
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01 + 33%
.01 +_ 43%
<.01
.01 t_ 27%
Th-230
.08
.04
.02
.01
.02
.02
.01
.02
+_ 18%
+_ 20%
+ 23%
i 32%
+_ 22%
+_ 23%
+ 35%
i 22%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230(2)
.02
.02
.01
.02
.02
.02
.01
.02
i 36%
+ 29%
+_ 30%
+. 23%
+_ 26%
+ 25%
+ 31%
i 20%
3.
3.
4.
2.
1.
3.
4.
5.
9
5
3
9
6
2
7
3
volume unknown
.02
.01
.01
.06
.05
.05
+_ 29%
i 32%
+ 22%
+ 19%
+_ 20%
+_ 30%
2.1
1.8
2.9
1.8
1.7
2.1
.01 +_ 45%
<.01
.01 i 42%
.02 +_ 23%
.02 +_ 22%
.01 +_ 39%
.01
.01
.02
.02
.04
.03
i 29%
+_ 35%
+_ 25%
+. 19%
+_ 16%
+_ 19%
.01
.01
.01
.02
.03
.01
+_ 33%
+_ 35%
i 34%
i 24%
+ 19%
+_ 25%
2.
3.
2.
4.
2.
3.
1
2
0
1
1
8
no sample
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - C (Continued)
fCI/m
fCi/m:
Date
10/24-10/30/74
10/30-11/4/74
(1) H/4-11/11/74
11/11-11/19/74
11/19-11/26/74
11/26-12/2/74
12/2-12/9/74
12/9-12/16/74
12/16-12/26/74
12/26-12/30/74
12/30-1/6/75
1/6-1/13/75
1/13-1/20/75
1/20-1/27/75
1/27-1/31/75
1/31-2/12/75
2/12-2/17/75
2/17-2/24/75
U-234
.28 +_ 13%
.11 + 29%
.21 +. 20%
.07 +. 28%
.14 + 16%
.06 +_ 28%
.03 + 24%
U-235 U-238
.02^25% .10^16%
<.01 .06 +_ 35%
<.OI .08^25%
<.01 .04 +. 33%
.01 +. 52% .06 i 20%
.01 +_ 56% .03 +_ 37%
<.01 .02 +_ 26%
U/234/U-238
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
.8
.9
.7
.7
.2
.3
.4
Th-232
.01 +
.01 +
.02 +_
.01 +
.01 +
<.02
.01 +
39%
39%
28%
37%
46%
38%
Th-230
.03
.02
.04
.02
.03
.03
.01
+_ 22%
+_ 29%
+_ 21%
+_ 20%
+ 20%
+ 56%
+ 30%
Th-228
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.05
.01
+ 25%
+ 28%
+_ 25%
i 22%
+_ 27%
+. 49%
+ 27%
U-234/TH-230
10.
4.
6.
2.
4.
1.
2.
0(1)
6
0
7
6
8
7
volume unknown
.15 + 14% .01 +_ 38%
.11 +_ 18% .01 + 59%
.01 + 42%
.11 +. 15%
.05 +_ 22%
.11 + 15%
.46 +. 13%
.04 +_ 17%
.05 + 22%
.01 +_ 41%
volume unknown
.02 + 29%
Volume unknown
*
•
•
•
•
•
'•
•
11
05
05
04
08
25
02
03
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
15%
25%
19%
25%
16%
14%
20%
25%
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
.3
.4
.3
.4
.3
.9
.5
.5
<-(
-------
to
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - CN (Continued)
Date
2/24-3/3/75
3/3-3/11/75
3/11-3/17/75
3/17-3/21
.-fCi/m3
fCi/m:
U-234 U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230 Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.16+_14% <.01 .08 +_ 17% 2.1 .03 +_ 24% .06 +_ 16% .04+18% 2.9
volume unknown volume unknown
.03 +_ 23% <.01 .02 +_ 26% 1.3 .01+35% .02 +_ 26% .01 +_ 32% 1.8
.05 + 18% <.01 .03 + 22% 1.7 .01 + 27% .02 + 23% .01 + 29% 2.5
(1) plant affected sample
(2) ratio calculated from raw data before rounding
-------
Date
7/15-7/18/74
7/18-7/22/74
7/22-7/29/74
7/29-8/5/74
'(1) 8/5-8/12/74
8/12-8/19/74
8/19-8/26/74
8/26-9/3/74
9/3-9/9/74
9/9-9/16/74
(1) 9/16-9/23/74
9/23-9/30/74
9/30-10/7/74
10/7-10/14/74
10/14-10/21
.02 +_ 21%
.03 +.21%
.03 + 22%
.04 +_ 19%
.04 + 19%
.04 +_ 19%
.04 + 18%
Appendix B
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - CE
fCi/m3
U-238 U-2>
1.7
1.4
2.8
1.9
2.7
1.8
fCi/rn3
U-234 U-235
.07 +_ 24% <.01
.03 + 27% <.01
.08 + 17% .01 +_ 41%
.01 +_ 31% <.01
.08 +_ 16% .01 +_ 40%
.03 + 21% <.01
U-238
.04 +_ 29%
.02 ±31%
.03 ± 23%
.01 ± 42%
.03 ±21%
.02 + 26%
volume unknown
.02 ± 24%
.01 ± 26%
.02 ± 25%
.02 ± 28%
.02 + 22%
.02 ± 22%
.03 + 22%
1.4
2.2
1.4
2.5
1.7
1.6
1.4
volume unknown
Th-232 Th-230
.03 ± 45% .03 ± 28%
.01 ± 52% .02 +_ 32%
<.01 .01 ± 29%
.01 ± 43% .01 ± 39%
<.01 .01 +41%
<.01 .01 ± 31%
volume unknown
.01 +_ 32% .01 +_ 24%
<.01 .01 ± 42%
.01 +_ 35% .01 ± 26%
<.01 <.01
<.01 .01 + 27%
.01 +_ 32% .02 ± 22%
.01 + 31% .02 + 21%
volume unknown
Th-228
.02 ± 31%
.02 ± 31%
.01 ± 32%
.01 +_ 29%
.02 ± 29%
.01 ± 29%
.02 +_ 22%
.01 ± 34%
.02 ± 25%
.01 + 27%
.01 +_ 27%
.02 ± 23%
.02 +_ 21%
U-234/Th-230
2.2
2.0
7.7
2.1
13.9
3.0
1.6
5.4
2.1
8.4
3.2
2.0
1.9
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous
Date
10/21-10/24/74
10/21-10/24/74*
10/24-10/30/74
10/30-11/4/74
11/4-11/11/74
11/11-11/19/74
11/19-11726/74
11/26-12/2/74
12/2-12/9/74
12/9-12/16/74
12/16-12/26/74
(1) 12/26-12/30/74
12/30-1/6/75
1/6-1/13/75
1/13-1/20/75
1/20-1/27/75
1/27-1/31/75
1/31-2/12
Monitoring System Samples - CL,
£
fCi/m3
U-234
.88 + 13%
.98 +_ 12%
.06 i 32%
.06 +_ 20%
.17 +_ 14%
.12 +_ 16%
.15 +. 19%
.04 +_ 20%
.31 +_ 12%
U-235
.03
.05
<.
.01
.01
.01
.02
<•'
.01
+ 28%
+_ 21%
01
^53%
+_ 34%
+_ 39%
+_ 28%
01
+_ 29%
(Continued)
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.32 + 14%
.34 + 13%
.04 + 35%
.04 +_ 23%
.07 +_ 16%
.06 +_ 19%
.10 +_ 15%
.02 +_ 24%
.11 +_ 15%
2.7
2.9
1.4
1.6
2.3
2.2
1.5
1.6
2.9
.01 +
.01 jf
.01 +_
.01 +
.02 +
.01 +
.01 +_
.01 +
.01 +
39%
32%
28%
31%
26%
27%
58%
45%
37%
volume unknown
14.04
.23 +_ 15%
.14 +_ 15%
.05 i 18%
.09 + 16%
.09 +_ 15%
.20 +_ 16%
1.
.01
.01
<.l
Si
.01
.01
17
+_ 43%
+ 43%
01
Dl
+ 43%
+ 45%
11.19
.10 +_ 18%
.07 +_ 18%
.05 +_ 19%
.07 +_ 18%
.06 +_ 17%
.11 + 18%
3.4
2.2
2.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.8
SOI
.01 +_
.02 +
.01 +.
.03 +
.03 +
.04 +
52%
22%
35%
25%
21%
20%
volume unknown
fC1/m3
Th-230
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.02
.02
.02
+.30%
+_ 23%
+_ 19%
+_18%
+_ 20%
+ 19%
+_ 42%
+_25%
+_ 27%
Th-228
.02
.02
.02
.03
.03
.02
.02
.01
.02
+_36%
+_ 31%
i 23%
+_23%
+_ 21%
+_22%
+_ 42%
+_ 28%
+_ 23%
U-234/Th_230
33.8(1)
33.4(1)
1.7
1.4
5.3
4.9
9.0
2.3
18.3(1)
volume unknown
1.03
.02
.04
.02
.04
.04
.11
volume
+_ 15% .
+_ 28%
+ 17%
+_ 30%
+ 20%
+_ 19%
+_ 13%
unknown
1.01
.02
.04
.02
.02
.04
.06
+_ 22%
+_ 31%
+_ 15%
+_ 31%
+_ 29%
+_ 19%
+_ 17%
125.3(1)
10.6
3.7
3.2
2.2
2.5
1.9
CONTINUED
-------
ui
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - C£ (Continued)
fCi/m3
Date
2/12-2/17/75
2/17-2/24/75
2/24-3/3/75
3/3-3/11/75
3/11-3/17/75
3/17-3/21/75
U-234 -U-235
.05 +_
.04 +
.16 +
.12 +
.05 +_
.10 +_
19% <.01
19% <.01
15% .01 +_ 42%
15% .01 + 37%
20% <.01
15% .01 +. 41%
U-2J8 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.03 i
.03 +
.14 +
.09 _+
.04 +.
.05 +
25%
21%
16%
16%
22%
18%
1.9
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
2.1
.01
.01
.05
.03
.01
.01
+. 34%
+ 27%
+_ 14%
+_ 17%
+_ 32%
+_ 27%
1 U 1 / III
Th-230
.01
.03
.08
.08
.02
.03
+. 30%
i 19%
+ 11%
i 11%
^24%
+_ 18%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.03
.02
.06
.03
.02
.02
+ 24%
+_ 23%
i 13%
i 18%
^27%
+ 22%
3.5
1.4
2.0
1.5
2.1
4.0
* Sampling rate double usual rate
-------
Ol
Date
7/15-7/18/74
7/18-7/22/74
7/22-7/29/74
7/29-8/5/74
8/5-8/12/74
8/12-8/19/74
8/19-8/26/74
8/26-9/3/74
(1) 9/3-9/9/74
9/9-9/16/74
(1) 9/16-9/23/74
9/23-9/30/74
9/30-10/7/74
10/7-10/14/74
10/14-10/21/74
Appendix B
Continuous Monitoring System Samples -
fCi/m3
fCi/m3
U-234 U-235 U-238 L
.09 +_ 26 % <.01 .04 ±35%
.08 ± 20 % <.01 .03 +_ 21 %
.03 ± 26 % ^01 .01 ± 36 %
.02 + 25 % <.01 .01 ± 37 %
.02 ± 39 % <.01 .01 ± 46 %
.04 ± 20 % <.01 .02 ± 23 %
volume unknown
.03 +_ 21 % <.01 ..02 ± 23 % 1.2
.11 ± 16 % .01 + 35 % .03 ± 22 % 3.3
.48 +_ 12 % .03 ± 22 % .17 ± 14 % 2.9
.18 ± 14 % .01 ± 31 % .07 ± 18 % 2.5
.07 ± 16 % <.01 .04 ± 20 % 2.0
volume unknov/n
.52 ±14 3! .03 ±24'% .19 ±16% 2.7
.07 + 22 % .01 + 54 % .04 + 26 % 1.7
34/U-238 Th-232 Th-230
2
2
2
2
1
1
.3
.7
.5
.6
.4
.5
<.01 .05
<.01 .01
.01 +_ 33 % .02
<.01 .01
.01 +_ 31 % .01
.01 + 32 % .02
+_25
+_ 33
± 26
+ 31
± 30
+ 23
%
%
%
%
%
%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
.02
± 41
%
±33%
± 28
± 27
± 26
+ 20
%
%
%
%
1
5
2
1
1
2
.9
.5
.2
.7
.4
.0
.01 + 35
volume unknown
.02 ± 20 % .01 + 25
.01 + 44 %
1.2
.01 + 39 % 18.0
.01
.01
.01
40 %
35%
40 %
.02 +_ 24 % .01 ± 31 % 24.6(1)
.01 ± 27 % .02 ± 24 % 14.5
.02 + 24 % .01 + 29 % 4.7
volume unknov/n
.03+_20% .04 ± 16 % .03 ± 18 % 12.0(1)
.01 + 33 % .02 + 23 % .01 + 30 % 3.1
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - C$ ( Continued)
fCi/m3
cv
•vj
Date
10/21-10/24/74
10/21-10/24/74*
10/24-10/30/74
10/30-11/4/74
11/4-11/11/74
11/11-11/19/74
11/19-11/26/74
11/26-12/2/74
12/2-12/9/74
12/9-12/16/74
12/16-12/26/74
12/26-12/30/74
12/30-1/6/75
1/6-1/13/75
1/13-1/20/75
1/20-1/27/75
1/27-1/31/75
U-234
1.46 +_ 15%
1.28 + 19%
.06 +_ 22%
.22 +_ 21%
.13 + 19%
.06 +_ 30%
.06 +_26%
.24 +_ 13%
.10 +_ 16%
.11 + 14%
.57 +_ 11%
.09 + 17%
.16 +_ 13%
.30 + 13%
U-235
.09 +.21% .51 + 16%
.07 +_ 27% .42 +_ 20%
<.01 .04 +_ 26%
.01 +_ 53% .08 + 26%
.01 +_ 44% .06 +_ 23%
.01 +_ 66% .04 +_ 32%
<.01 .03 ± 33%
volume unknown
.01 +_29% .10 + 15%
<.01 .05 + 19%
<.01 .07 +_ 16%
Lost in Laboratory
.03 +_ 22% .22 + 13%
<.01 .04 + 20%
.01 + 43% .08 + 15%
volume unknown
.01 + 41% .21 + 14%
U-238 U-234/U-238. Th-232
fCi/m3
Th-230
.07 +_ 19%
.04 +_ 18%
.04 + 17%
.03. +_ 25%
.03 ++21%
.03 +_ 18%
.02 + 24%
2.9 .01 +_ 42%
3.0 .01 +_ 31%
1.5 .01 +_ 28%
2.5 .02 +_ 30%
2.4 .02 +_ 31%
1.3 .01 +_ 29%
2.0 .01 +_ 37%
volume unknown
2.4 .01 +_ 32% .02 +_ 27%
1.9 .01 + 35% .04 +_ 17%
1.5 .01 + 29% .06 + 11%
Lost in Laboratory
2.6 .06 + 16% .06 + 15%
2.0 .01 +_ 33% .01 +_ 29%
1.9 .03 +_ 22% .07 +_ 14%
volume unknown
1.4 .06 + 17% .13 + 12%
Th-228 U-234/TH-230
.05+23% 22.1(1)
.03^21% 32.0(1)
.03 +_ 20% 1.5
.03 +_ 25%
.03 +_ 23%
.03 + 19%
.02 + 24%
6.6
4.0
1.9
3.7
.02+23% 13.1(1)
.02 +_ 23% 2.7
.01 +_ 23% 1.8
,05+17% 9.3(1)
01 +_ 32% 6.3
03 +_ 21% 2.3
06 + 14% 2.3
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - C<- (nnnti
Date
1/31/2/12/75
2/12-2/17/75
2/17-2/24/75
2/24-3/3/75
3/3-3/11/75
3/11-3/17/75
3/17-3/21/75
fCi/m3
U-234 U-235
.04 +_ 20% <.01
.07 +_ 18% <.01
.04 +_ 20% <.01
.15 +_ 16% .01'+. 44%
.31 +_ 13% .02 +_ 27%
.03 +_ 21% <.01
.09 +_ 15% <.01
U-238
.04 +_ 20%
.04 +_ 23%
.03 +_ 23%
.14 +_ 16%
.14 +_ 15%
.03 +_ 22%
.06 +_ 16%
U-234/U
1.0
2.0
1.1
1.0
2.2
1.2
1.5
fCi/m
Th-232 Th-230 Th-228 U-234/TH-230
no chemical recovery
.01 +_ 38% .02 +_ 27% .03 +_ 22%
.01 + 30% .02 + 22%
.04 j. 15%
.01 i 18%
.01 +_ 31%
.02 + 24%
.07 +_ 11%
.07 + 11%
.02 +_ 24%
.06 + 13%
.02 +_ 21%
.06 ^ 13%
.03 +_ 18%
.01 +_ 29%
.03 + 19%
3.6
1.6
2.1
4.4
1.8
1.6
CO
-------
vo
Date
7/15-7/17/74
7/18-7/22/74
(1) 7/22-7/29/74
7/29-8/5/74
8/5-8/12/74
8/12-8/19/74
8/19-8/26/74
8/26-9/3/74
9/3-9/9/74
9/9-9/16/74
9/16-9/23/74
9/23-9/30/74
9/30-10/7/74
10/7-10/14/74
10/14-10/21/74
10/21-10/24/74
10/21-10/24/74*
Appendix B
Continuous Monitoring System Samples -
fCi/m
fCi/m3
U-234
.18£
.05 £
.13£
.06 £
.05 £
.05 £
.03 £
.01 £
.19 £
.04£
.06 £
.10 £
.03 £
.14 +
.18 +
18%
22%
14%
18%
19%
18%
21%
31%
14%
19%
17%
.17%
20%
24%
17%
U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.01 £54% .15
<.01 .04
.01 £ 35% .05
<.01 .03
<.01 .03
volume unknown
<.01 .02
<.01 .02
<.01 .01
.01 £ 35% .07
<.01 .03
<.01 .04
volume unknown
<.01 .04
<.01 .02
<.01 .06
*
.01 £ 43% .07
£ 19%
£ 25%
£ 18%
£ 21%
£ 23%
1.2
1.5
2.7
1.8
1.8
.03 £41%
<.
<.
.01
.01
01
01
£ 32%
£24%
Th-230
.08£
.04 £
.02 £
.02 £
.02 £
24%
21%
24%
23%
23%
Th-228
.03
.02
.01
.01
.01
£ 41%
£ 27%
£ 33%
£ 26%
£ 27%
volume unknown
£23%
£23%
£ 36%
£ 17%
£23%
£ 19%
2.1
1.3
1.3
2.8
1.7
1.4
<.
<.
.01
.01
<.
.01
01
01
£ 45%
£43%
01
£ 41%
<.01
.02 £
.01 £
.02 £
.01 £
.02 £
20%
34%
24%
26%
22%
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
£ 25%
£ 27%
£ 29%
£ 26%
£ 31%
£ 24%
U-234
2.3
1.4
7.8
3.3
2.3
2.5
10.0
'1.4
1.3
12.0
3.1
3.1
volume unknown
£21%
£22%
+ 31%
£20%
2.3
1.4
2.4
2.5
.01
.01
.01
.02
£ 33%
£ 38%
+ 55%
£ 31%
.02 £
.02 £
.04 £
.03 £
20%
22%
27%
23%
.04
.01
.03
.03
£ 19%
£ 31%
£ 30%
£ 24%
4.0
1.4
4.0
6.0
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous Monitoring System Samples -
fCi/m3
(Continued)
Date
10/24-10/30/74
(1) 10/30-11/4/74
11/4-11/11/74
11/11-11/19/74
11/19-11/26/74
11/26-12/2/74
12/2-12/9/74
12/9-12/16/74
12/16-12/26/74
12/26-12/30/74
12/30-1/6/75
1/6-1/13/75
1/13-1/20/75
1/20-1/27/75
1/27-1/31/75
1/31-2/12/75
2/12-2/17/75
2/17-2/24/75
2/24-3/3
fCi/m3
U-234
.20 +
.28 +
.07 +_
.08 +
.11 +
.09 +_
.10 +
.10 +
.21 +
.10 +_
.05 +
.09 +_
.31 +
.04 +_
.03 +_
.05 +
13%
14%
16%
16%
15%
23%
16%
19%
16%
15%
19%
15%
14%
16%
24%
19%
jU-235 U-238
.01 + 35% .12
.02 +_ 30% .13
<.01 .06
<.01 .05
volume unknown
<.01 .06
.01 +_ 54% .04
<.01 .07
volume unknown
<.01 .06
.01 + 36% .08
.01 +_ 36% .06
<.01 .03
<.01 .08
.01 +_ 41% .26
<.01 .03
<.01 .02
<.01 .04
+ 15%
+ 17%
+_ 17%
+_ 18%
+ 18%
+_ 29%
+_ 18%
+_ 23%
+_ 19%
+_ 18%
+ 23%
+_ 15%
+_ 14%
+_ 16%
+_ 32%
+ 20%
U-234/U-238 Th-232
1.6
2.2
1.3
1.7
1.9
2.1
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.5
2.1
1.1
.01
.01
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
< .(
.01
.02
.01
.05
.03
<.(
<.(
.02
+ 30%
+ 39%
+ 27%
+ 31%
+ 47%
+_ 40%
+ 32%
)1
+_ 33%
+_ 26%
+_37%
+_ 14%
+_25%
)1
)1
+ 20%
Th-230
.07
.05
.05
.04
volume
.03
.01
.05
volume
.02
.02
.03
.02
.07
.20
.02
<.C
.03
+_ 13%
+_ 17%
+_ 16%
+_ 16%
unknown
+_ 30%
+_ 29%
+ 15%
unknown
+ 28%
+_ 26%
+_ 19%
+ 24%
+_ 13%
+_ 10%
+_ 17%
)1
+ 20%
Th-228
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
.06
.08
.01
<.C
.03
+_ 23%
+_ 26%
+ 27%
+_ 20%
+. 30%
+ 23%
+_ 27%
+_ 28%
+_ 31%
+_ 29%
i 30%
+_ 13%
+_ 15%
+ 21%
n
+ 18%
U-234/Th-230
2.9
6.2
1.5
2.2
4.3
6.4
2.1
4.6
8.KD
3.0
2.5
1.4
1.6
2.0
24.9(1)
1.9
volume unknown
volume unknown
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - GW (Continued)
_ fCi/m3 _ fCi/m3 _
Date 1FZ34" U-235 \FZ3S U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230 Th-228 U-234/Th-230
3/3-3/11/75 no sample no sample
3/11-3/17/75 .07 + 16% <.01 .06 + 17% 1.2 .03 +, 20% .05 *_ 15% .04 + 17% 1.5
3/17-3/21/75 .05 + 19% <.01 .04 + 20% 1.2 <.01 .02 + 22% .02 + 22% 2.1
-------
Date
7/15-7/18/74
7/18-7/22/74
7/22-7/29/74
7/29-8/5/74
8/5-8/12/74
8/12-8/19/74
w 8/19-8/26/74
8/26-9/3/74
9/3-9/9/74
9/9-9/16/74
9/16-9/23/74
9/23-9/30/74
9/30-10/7/74
10/7-10/14/74
10/14-10/21/74
10/21-10/24/74
10/21-10/24/74*
Appendix B
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - Cn
fCi/m3
fCi/nr
U-234
.07 +_
.02 +_
.02 +_
.01 +_
.01 +_
.01 +_
.01 +
.02 +_
.02 +_
.30 +_
.04 +_
.05 +_
.03 +_
.06 +_
.11 +
26%
35%
23%
33%
30%
31%
29%
24%
32%
13%
19%
21%
47%
38%
26%
U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238
<.01 .04
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
volume unknown
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
volume unknown
<.01 .02
<.01 .01
.03+_22% .13
<.01 .03
<.01 .02
<.01 .03
<.01 .04
<.01 .06
+ 31%
+_ 39%
±29%
+_ 39%
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.3
Th-232 Th-230
.01 + 44% .02
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
.02 + 37% .01
+
+
+
t
volume
+ 29%
+_ 32%
+ 32%
0.9
1.1
1.2
<.01 .01
<.01 <.l
.01 + 40% .01
+
31
+
volume
+_ 27%
+_30%
+ 14%
+_ 22%
+_ 27%
+_ 52%
+_ 45%
+ 30%
1.4
1.7
2.3
1.5
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
.01 +_ 38% .01
<.01 .01
.01 +_ 32% .02
.01 + 27% .02
.01 + 34% .02
.01 + 36% .02
<.01 .04
<.01 .04
+
+
+
+
+
+
t
+
38%
20%
42%
45%
unknown
. 31%
27%
unknown
27%
60%
20%
22%
25%
25%
26%
19%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.02
.02
.01
.03
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.02
.01
.04
.03
+_ 41%
+_ 29%
+_ 29%
+_30%
+_ 28%
+_ 39%
+_ 26%
+_ 29%
+_ 26%
+_ 13%
+_ 23%
+_ 23%
+ 26%
+_ 28%
+ 23%
3
1
4
7
1
2
1
1
1
12
2
3
2
1
2
.7
.2
.0
.7
.1
.3
.1
.7
.9
.5(1)
.2
.2
.1
.5
.6
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - C (Continued)
B
U)
Date
10/24-10/30/74
10/30-11/4/74
11/4-11/11/74
11/11-11/19/74
11/19-11/26/74
11/26-12/2/74
12/2-12/9/74
12/9-12/16/74
12/16-12/26/74
12/26-12/30/74
12/30-1/6/75
1/6-1/13/75
1/13-1/20/75
1/20-1/27/75
1/27-1/31/75
1/31-2/12/75
2/12-2/17/75
2/17-2/24/75
U-234
.04 ± 20%
.04 ± 24%
.39 ±12%
.05 ± 39%
.10 ± 17%
.05 ± 19%
.43 ± 12%
.16 ± 14%
.12 ± 18%
.10 ± 15%
.11 ±15%
.07 ±16%
.10 ± 18%
.05 ± 15%
.05 ± 19%
fCi/m3
fCi/m3
U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
<.01 .03
<.01 .03
.03 ±22% .15
<.01 .04
.01 ± 46% .04
<.01 .03
.02 ±25% .12
volume unknown
.01 ± 40% .12
.01 ± 48% .05
.01 ± 39% .07
.01 ± 43% .09
volume unknown
<.0l .04
<.01 .06
<.01 .03
<.01 .04
volume unknown
±21%
±27%
± 14%
±44%
±22%
± 22%
± 14%
1.1
1.4
2.6
1.5
2.5
1.4
3.6
.01 ±
.01 ±
.02 ±
.01 ±
<.01
<.02
.01 *
39%
36%
46%
32%
37%
Th-230
.oi±
.03 ±
.04 ±
.03 ±
.02 ±
<.C2
.05 ±
32%
16%
31%
18%
24%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.01
.02
.02
.02
.01
±32%
± 26%
± 45%
± 23%
± 34%
3
1
9
2
5
.4
.6
.0(1)
.1
.7
<.02
17%
.02
±28%
8
.7(1)
volume unknown
± 14%
±23%
± 16%
± 15%
1.3
2.4
1.5
1.2
.01 ±
.01 ±
.02 ±
.03 ±
32%
43%
27%
22%
.07 ±
.02 ±
.03 ±
.06 ±
10%
32%
20%
15%
.01
.02
.02
.02
± 23%
± 28%
± 28%
± 24%
2
'7
3
1
.2
.3
.2
.7
volume unknown
±20%
± 23%
± 16%
±22%
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.4
<.C1
.01 ±
.01 ±
<.01
37%
30%
.01 ±
.04 ±
.02 ±
.02 ±
28%
21%
19%
26%
.01
.02
.01
.02
± 29%
+ ?7%
±23%
±24%
5.6
2.4
2.9
2.7
volume unknown
CONTINUED
-------
Continuous Monitoring System Samples - CB (Continued)
fCI/m3
Date
2/24-3/3/75
3/3-3/11/75
3/11-3/17/75
3/17-3/21/75
fCi/m3
U-234 ...U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232 Tn^2lOTh-228 U-234/Th-230
volume unknown volume unknown
.12 j_ 16% .Olj.43% .08__17% 1.4 .04 __ 16% .06 __ 12% .04 j_ 15% 2.0
.04 + 21% <.01 .04j_21% 1.0 .01^24% .03 j_ 20% .14^28% 1.4
.06 + 20% .<.01 .07 + 20% 0.9 .03 + 19% .05 + 16% .02 -^ 19% 1.3
(1) Plant effected sample
* Sampling rate double the usual rate
-------
Appendix C
Statistical Interpretation of Atmospheric Concentration Data
The weekly data obtained from the continuous east samp-
ling station were plotted on cumulative normal and log-normal
probability paper to examine the distribution present. These
plots are shown in figures C-l and C-2. By visual examination,
the plot on normal paper is markedly concave upward when com-
pared to the plot on log-normal paper. To quantify the good-
ness-of-fit of the data with respect to the normal and log-
normal distribution each distribution was tested with a chi
squared test. For the test of the normal distribution the X2
(13) was evaluated as 131.31 using the Poisson dispersion test
for 14 time periods over the sampling interval (1). When com-
pared with a tabulated X2(13, .975) = 24.7, the null hypothesis
of good fit was rejected. Therefore, the data varied widely
from a normal distribution.
Similarly, the log-normal distribution hypothesis was
tested. The observed X2(13) = 10.92 compared with a tabulated
value of X2 (13, .975) =24.7 and, therefore, the null hypo-
thesis of adequate fit could not be rejected. Therefore, the
log-normal distribution appeared to be an adequate description
of the data.
Although the above tests indicated that the log-normal
distribution appeared to describe the data much more adequate-
ly than the normal, subsequent tests were run in duplicate for
each type distribution to examine the types of conclusions which
could be made from the assumptions of either distribution. In
spite of the obvious limitation of using tests based on the
normal distribution, the results of such tests are of interest
when compared with results of tests performed under the log-
normal assumption. This is particularly important when one
considers that often analysis of variance is performed on data
without careful consideration of the type of assumed distri-
bution which might be most appropriate.
The first set of tests applied was a three-factor analysis
of variance design using the factors time, site, and nuclide
and including first order and second order interaction. Using
the assumption of normally distributed data each F ratio was
tested at the 0.01 significance level. Each of the observed
F values for interaction was not significant. In contrast
each of the several F ratios for site, time, and nuclide was
significant. Identical results were obtained under the assump-
tion of log-normally distributed data where each interaction
term was not significant and each main effect was significant.
75
-------
Log Atmospheric Concentration of Uranium
vs. Cumulative Probability
234J A
238u ,
A •
A
A •
.05 .2 1
Figure C-l,
20 40 60 80
Cumulative Probability %
10
1.0
t
1
b
§
95 99 99.8 99.99
Probability curve of uranium concentrations for
the East continuous sampling site (Normal Distribution)
76
-------
Atmospheric Concentration of Uranium
vs Cumulative Probability
234u-A
238u-o
A 4.04
A
A
a fr nil I i i i i i
t
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
99.99
10 30 50 70 90 98 99.8
Cumulative Probability %
Figure C-2.
Probability curve of uranium concentration for
the East .continuousi sampling site (Log-Normal
distribution)
77
-------
Of particular importance in these results was the fact
that mean sum of squares due to the nuclide effect dominated
the respective F ratios. For example, under the log-normal
assumption the respective mean sum of squares for time, site,
and nuclide were 6.11, 2.52, and 24.92. Since these results
showed that effect of 231*U and 238U nuclide difference domi-
nated the design, the data for subsequent tests were separated
by nuclide and tested only for time and site effects.
Next a two-way factorial design was set up with the data
to study the main effects time and sites and interaction be-
tween the two. The results from the normal assumption are as
follows. (The 0.01 significance level was used for each test.)
Since the data appeared to follow a log-normal distri-
bution according to the tests run previously, a logarithmic
transformation was performed and the two-way analysis of vari-
ance tests were rerun. Results of these tests for the assump-
tion of a log-normal distribution are as follows. (The 0.01
significance level was used for each test.)
Table C-l
Results of the Two-way ANOVA for Time and Site Effects
No rma1 Distribution
238U
Time & site
interaction
Site
Time
2 3
u
F(68,90) = 1.08
Not significant
F(4,90) - = 1.51
Not significant
F(17,90) = 1.36
Not significant
F(68,90) = 1.00
Not significant
F(4,90) = 1.37
Not significant
F(17,90) = 1.79
Not significant
Time & site
interaction
Site
Log-Normal Distribution
234
U
F(68,90) = 1.43
Not significant
F(4,90) = 4.02
Significant
238
U
F(68,90) = 1.27
Not significant
F(4,90) = 2.07
Not significant
78
-------
Table C-l - Continued
Log-Normal Distribution
23*u 238u
Time F(17,90) = 7.36 F(17,90) = 7.63
Significant Significant
To briefly summarize the above results under the assump-
tion of normally distributed data, none of the effects tested
was significant at the 0.01 level. In contrast, under the
assumption of log-normally distributed data the site and time
effects were significant for 23IfU but for 238u only the time
effect was significant at the 0.01 level.
Since the analysis of variance had shown that for 231*U
sites were significantly different under the log-normal assump-
tion, a multiple range test was then used to try to group the
23lfU site data according to the concept of a significant range
between sites. The test employed was the Duncan's New Multiple
Range Test, as described in Dixon (2). The results showed that
no single site or group of sites was confined to a significant
range at the 0.05 level. Therefore, although there is evidence
for a significant difference among the sites they are not sepa-
rable into distinct grouping under the significant range concept.
Since the two-way analysis of variance using a logarithmic
transformation showed the sites to be significantly different,
transformed data for the 36 weekly measurements for each of the
five sites were handled separately in subsequent tests. In order
to determine suspiciously high values at each site, confidence
intervals at the 2a level on 23"U concentrations were deter-
mined at each site using values transformed as X1 = In(lOOOX)
where X is the measured value. The confidence intervals on
transformed values for 231*U and 238U are given below.
Calculated Confidence Intervals on Transformed 23^U and 23eu Data
Confidence interval on
Site transformed 23I>U values 23BU values
x1 + 20X1 x1 + 20X1
North 4.29 ± 1.75 3.77 ± 1.75
79
-------
Calculated Confidence Intervals oh Transformed 23<>U and 238U Data
(Continued)
Site Confidence interval on
transformed 2 3-lfU values 238U values
x1 + 2CTX1 x1 + 20X1
East 4.38 ± 2.22 3.82 ± 1.92
South 4.63 ± 2.04 3.96 ± 1.84
West 4.34 ± 1.48 3.85 ± 1.34
Background 3.95 ± 2.02 3.54 ± 1.68
Using these confidence intervals the following values
were determined to lie outside the 2ax1 range.
Measured Air Concentrations
fCi/m3
Site & Date 23"u 235U 238u
North
1/27-31/75 0.46 0.02 0.25
East
12/16-26/74 4.04 0.17 1.19
10/21-24/74 0.88 0.03 0.32
South
10/21-24/74 1.46 0.09 0.51
West No values outside range
Background
12/2-9/74 0.43 0.02 0.12
References (Appendix C):
1. Cursie, L. A. On the Interpretation of Errors in Counting
Experiments,~SSTaTyticai Letters, 4, 777-784, 1971.
2. Dixon, W. T., BMD. Biomedical Computer Program, p. 677,
UCLA. Health Sciences Computing Facility. T971.
80
-------
Appendix D
Terrestrial Vegetation Data
00
oCi/q ash
Position Date
CN
CN
CN
CE
CE
CE
cs
cs
cs
°w
cw
Cw
CB
CB
CB
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
U-234
.20 +
.34 +
.17 +
.05 +.
.48 +
.30 +
.22 +
.35 +_
.60 +_
.22 +
.56 +
1.41 +_
.94 +_
.38 +
.16 *
17%
13%
16%
23%
13%
14%
19%
14%
13%
17%
13%
12%
15%
14%
15%
U-235
.01
.02
.01
<,
.03
.02
.02
.02
.03
.02
.04
.22
.08
.02
.02
+_ 42%
+_ 35%
+ 53%
.01
+ 27%
+ 35%
+ 41%
+ 33%
+ 28%
+_ 37%
+_25%
+_ 15%
+_ 20%
+ 33%
+_ 32%
U-238 U-234/U-23
.16 + 18%
.34 +_ 13%
.16 + 16%
.06 + 22%
.44 + 13%
.26 +_ 15%
.21 + 19%
.33 + 14%
.56 + 13%
• .18 + 17%
.54 +_ 13%
.75 +_ 13%
.92 + 15%
.38 + 14%
.12 +_ 16%
1.3
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.3
8 Ti
.09
.21
.02
.03
.41
.11
.22
.18
.31
.06
.28
.21
.48
.34
.02
h-232
+_ 14%
+ 9%
i 32%
+.23%
+_ 7%
+ 12%
+ 14%
+ 10%
+_8%
+ 17%
+ 9%
+_ 9%
± 7%
+ 7%
+_ 27%
pCi/g ash
Th-230
.13 + 11%
.32 + 7%
.03 +_ 22%
.05 +_ 15%
.45 +_ 6%
.16 + 10%
.27 +_ 8%
.39 +_ 7%
.53 + 6%
.14 + 11%
.64 + 6%
.37 + 7%
.63 + 6%
.37 + 7%
.07 + 16%
-228 U
.13 + 12%
.25 +.8%
.03 +_ 22%
.08 +_ 15%
.50 +_ 6%
.69 +_ 5%
.46 +6%
.45 +_ 7%
.37 +8%
.10 + 14%
.29 +9%
.51 + 6%
.43 + 7%
.33 +_ 7%
.64 + 5%
-234/Th-230
1.5
1.1
5.1
1.0
1.1
1.9
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.6
0.9
3.8
1.5
1.0
2.4
-------
Position Date
•CN
CN
CN
CE
CE
S CE
cs
cs
cs
°w
cw
S*
CB
CB
CB
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
pCi/g dry wt.
U-234
.31
.35
.21
.54
.71
.82
.35
.33
.49
.50
1.20
.37
.36
.95
.84
+_ 15%
+ 14%
i. 15%
i 15%
+ 13%
+ 13%
+ 17%
+ 15%
+ 14%
i 21%
+. 12%
+ 13%
i 17%
+_ 15%
i 12%
U-235
.02 + 30%
.02 +_ 32%
.02 +_ 33%
.04 + 25%
.03 + 25%
.04 + 25%
.02 +. 33%
.02 + 37%
.03 + 31%
.07 + 30%
.08 + 18%
.02 i 32%
.02 +. 34%
.07 + 24%
.04 +_ 26%
Appendix D
Soil Data
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.87
.34
.22
.67
.73
.83
.69
.33
.50
.44
1.28
.34
.56
.99
.84
+ 14%
+_ 14%
i 15%
i 15%
i 13%
+ 13%
i 16%
+ 15%
i 14%
+ 21%
i 12%
i 13%
+_ 16%
+ 15%
i 12%
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.0
1.0
.20 + 10%
.28 + 8%
.12 + 13%
.62 + 6%
.97 + 5%
.59 + 6%
.62 + 6%
.11 + 13%
.29 + 8%
.21 +_ 9%
<.01
.24 +_ 9%
.23 i 9%
1.26 +_ 5%
.68 i 6%
pCi/P drv wt.
Th-230
.15 +
.37 +_
.22 +_
.54 +.
.84 i
.70 i
.32 *
.41 i
.39 +
.53 +
1.34 *_
.54^
.36 +
1.04 +
.78 +
11%
7%
10%
6%
5%
6%
8%
7%
7%
6%
4%
6%
7%
5%
5%
Th-228
.20 +_ 10%
.26 +_ 4%
.15 i 11%
.68 +_ 6%
.82 +_ 5%
.64 +_ 6%
.40 + 7%
.34 +_ 8%
.34 + 7%
.21 +_ 9%
.36 i?X
.28 + 8%
.46 +_ 7%
1.10 15%
.80 +. 5%
U-234/Th-230
2.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.1
0.8
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.1
-------
Appendix E
Atmospheric Deposition Data
Atmospheric Deposition - Fallout Trays
pCi/m2-ino
pCi/ni*-mo
00
w
Position Date
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
cs
cs
cs
cs
Co
7/15-8/19/74
8/19-9/23/74
9/23-10/24/74
12/30-1/31/75
2/24-3/17/75
7/15-8/19/74
8/19-9/23/74
9/23-10/24/74
12/30-1/31/75
2/24-3/17/75
7/15-8/19/74
8/19-9/23/74
9/23-10/24/74
12/30rl/31/75.
2/24-3/17/75
U-234
2.0 +_ 24%
3.8 + 19%
5.0 +17%
4.1 +_ 18%
1.6 +_ 25%
1.8 +_ 25%
2.6 +_ 22%
8.7 + 15%
7.4 + 16%
1.4 +. 28%
1.9 +_ 25%
5.6 +_ 18%
8.3 +_ 15%
6.8 +_ 16%
1.6 +_ 29%
.1
.3
.4
.4
<
<
.4
.4
<
.2
.5
.6
.4
<
U-235
+ 66%
+_58%
+ 48%
+_ 47%
CJ
c.l
c.l
+ 48%
+ 51%
CJ
+ 60%
+_46%
+_ 42%
+ 51%
:.l
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.97 + 31%
2.6 + 22%
5.2 + 17%
2.4 + 22%
1.1 +_ 31%
1.1 +_ 31%
1.6 +_ 27%
7.2 + 15%
4.3 + 20%
1.3 +_ 28%
1.1 + 30%
4.9 + 19%
6.8 +_ 16%
5.2 +_ 17%
1.5 4- 29%
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.0
1.7
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.0
.4
2.3
4.2
.5
.4
.4
.5
10.2
1.3
.5
.6
3.2
10.6
.9
.8
+ 44%
+_ 19%
+ 15%
+_ 42%
+ 45%
+_49%
+ 46%
+_ 10%
+ 26%
+_42%
+_ 37%
+_ 17%
+_ 10%
+_ 31%
+_37%
Th-230
.8 +_ 34%
1.3 +_ 26%
3.7 +_ 16%
.9 +_ 31%
.6 +_ 38%
.3 +_ 50%
.6 +_ 42%
6.9 +_ 11%
2.0 +_ 21%
1.0 +_29%
.6 +_ 38%
1.4 +_25%
6.3 +. 11%
2.3 +_ 20%
.7 +_39%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
1.0 + 30%
3.5 + 16%
5.2 + 13%
.9 +_ 32%
.5 +41%
1.7 +22%
2.1 +_21%
10.2 + 10%
3.0 + 17%
1.0 +_ 28%
.8 + 34%
4.8 +_ 14%
12.6 +9%
1.6 + 23%
1.2 +_ 30%
2.6
2.9
1.4
4.7
2.6
5.4
4.7
1.3
3.8
1.3
3.0
3.9
1.3
3.0
2.3
CONTINUED
-------
Appendix E
Atmospheric Deposition - Fallout Trays (Continued)
pCi/m2-mo
Position
CW
cw
°w
cw
°w
CB
CB
CB
CB
CR
Date
7/15-8/19/74
8/19-9/23/74
9/23-10/24/74
12/30-1/31/75
2/24-3/17/75
7/15-8/19/74
8/19-9/23/74
9/23-10/24/74
12/30-1/31/75
2/24-3/17/75
U-234
4.8 +_ 18%
3. 1 + 20%
9.9 +. 15%
9.5 +_ 16%
1.9 + 26%
1.1 +_ 31%
1.4 + 37%
9.0 +_ 15%
3.4 + 19%
3.5 +20%
_f ~ ' "' „ .---V^
U-235
.2 +_ 61%
<.l
.5 +_ 44%
.4 +_ 53%
<.l
.1 +_ 66%
.4 +_ 66%
.7 +_ 37%
.3 +_ 57%
.5 +_ 47%
U-238
2.0 +_ 24%
2.7 +_22%
9.2 +_ 15%
4.3 +_ 18%
1.6 +_ 28%
1.1 + 31%
1.2 +_ 39%
7.8 +_ 16%
2.2 +_ 23%
2.4+23%
U-234/U-238
2.4
1.1
1.1
2.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.4
Th-232
.6 +_ 40%
2.3 +_ 19%
5.8 +_ 12%
.5 +41%
.4 +_ 44%
.6 +_ 40%
2.0 +_ 21%
6.0 +_12%
.5 +_41%
1.0 +_30%
Th-230
.9 + 32%
1.0 +_ 30%
5.3 +_ 13%
1.9 + 11%
.4 +_ 45%
.8 +_ 36%
.8 +_ 34%
4.2 + 15%
.6 +_ 37%
.9 +_ 32%
Th-228 U-2
1.2 + 28%
4.0 + 15%
6.8 +_ 11%
1.4 +_ 25%
.8 + 33%
1.0 +_ 31%
3.1 +_ 17%
7.4 +11%
.9 +_ 31%
1.4 + 26%
34/T
5.5
3.2
1.9
5.0
4.6
1.4
1.8
2.1
5.3
4.0
-------
Appendix E
Atmospheric Deposition - Precipitation
Location/Date
CN (7/15-8/19/74)
CN (8/19-9/16/74)
CN (9/16-10/14/74)*
CN (10/14-11/11/74)
CN (11/11-12/16/74)
CN (12/16-1/3/75)
CN (1/6-1/27/75)
CN (1/27-2/24/75)
CN (2/24-3/18/75)
CE (7/15-8/19/74)
CE (8/19-9/16/74)
CE (9/16-10/14/74)*
CE (10/14-11/11/74)
CE (11/11-12/16)
CE (12/16-1/3/75)
CE (1/6-2/24/75)
CE (2/24-3/18)
U-234 U-235
<2 <2
4.9 +_ 28% <1
>.5 >.l
no measurable
1.7+36% <1
1.1 +.47% <1
2.7 +_ 30% <1
3.4 + 30% <1
3.4+_27% <1
<2 <2
11.2+25% <1
>.4 <1
.5 +_ 50% <1
1.4+38% <1
.8+46% <1
2.0 + 37% <1
.3 +_ 50% <1
U-238 U-234/U-238
<2
2.4 + 40%
>.4
rain
1.1 +44%
1.0+49%
1.3 +_43%
1.8+44%
2.8 + 30%
<2
4.9 + 35%
>.3
.5 + 53%
.9 + 48%
.5 + 57%
2.6 +_ 53%
.6 + 44%
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.1
2.0
1.9
1.2
2.3
1.6
1.0
1.6
1.5
0.8
0.6
* No chemical yield of dissolved portion
NOTE: Th-
-------
Location/Date
Cs (7/15-8/19/74)
Cs (8/19-9/16/74)
Cs (9/16-10/14/74)*
Cs (10/14-11/11/74)
Cs (11/11-12/16/74)
Cs (12/16-1/3/75)
Cs (1/6-1/27/75)
Cs (1/27-2/24/75)
Cs (2/24-3/18/75)
Cw (7/15-8/19/74)
Cw (8/19-9/16/74)
Cw (9/16-10/14/74)
Cw (10/14-11/11/74)
Cw (11/11-12/16/74)
Cw (12/16-1/3/75)
Cw (1/6-1/27/75)
Cw (1/27-2/24/75)
Cw (2/24-3/18/75)
Appendix E
Atmospheric Deposition - Precipitation
pCi/m2 mo (dissolved & undissolved)
U-234
<2
U-235
U-238
<2
U-234/U-238
no measurable rain
1.1 +_ 43% <1 .8 +_47%
1.0+_36% <1 <1
12.8 + 36% 7.6 + 36% 13.5 + 35%
2.3 +_ 36% <1 2.1 +_ 38%
1.1 + 37% <1 1.1 + 37%
<2 <2 <2
28.5 + 17% 1.4 +40% 10.3 + 22%
> .3 <1 >.3
no measurable rain
1.5 + 39% <1 1.5 +_ 39%
1.9 + 32% <1 .7 +_46%
3.0 + 31% <1 2.0 +_ 37%
3.0+33% <1 1.5+50%
.6 + 55% <1 .5 + 45%
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.1
1.1
2.8
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.2
* No chemical yield of dissolved portion
NOTE: Th- <1 pCi/m2 - mo
except Cs(1/27-2/24/75) 8.6 + 15% Th-230
86
-------
Appendix E
Atmospheric Deposition - Precipitation
Location/Date
CB (7/15-8/19/74)
CB (8/19-9/16/74)
CB (9/16-10/14/74)
CB (10/14-11/11/74)
CB (11/11-12/16/74)
CB (12/16-1/3/75)
CB (1/6-1/27/75)
CB (1/27-2/24/75)
CB (2/24-3/21
pCi/m2 mo (dissolved & undissolved)
^n~v^ U-234/U-238
U-234
<2
.7 + 57%
U-Z35
<2 <2
<1 .7 + 59%
no measurable rain
no measurable rain
<1 1.9+32%
<1 .5 +_ 62%
_ <1 .7+_49%
33.0+30% 9.5+41% 14.7+36%
1.2 + 50% <1 1.1 + 50%
.9+51%
.7 +_ 53%
1.5+30%
1.1
0.5
1.4
2.2
2.2
1.1
NOTE: Th-
-------
Appendix F
Liguid Release Data
(courtesy G.E.)
Date
12/31/73-1/7/74
1/7-1/14/74
1/14-1/21/74
1/21-1/28/74
1/28-2/4/74
2/4-2/11/74
2/11-2/18/74
2/18-2/25/74
2/25-3/4/74
3/4-3/11/74
3/11-3/18/74
3/18-3/25/74
3/25-4/1/74
4/1-4/8/74
4/8-4/15/74
4/15-4/22/74
4/22-4/29/74
4/29-5/6/74
5/6-5/13/74
5/13-5/20/74
5/20-5/27/74
kg U/wk
12.7
15.2
10.0
7.8
14.0
12.1
14.8
20.5
16.1
15.9
16.2
26.0
14.8
17.5
11.2
11.0
13.4
12.6
9.0
13.2
12.5
mCi U/day
2.52
3.02
1.99
1.55
2.78
2.40
2.94
4.07
3.20
3.16
3.22
5.16
2.94
3.48
2.22
2.18
2.66
2,50
1.79
2.62
2.48
Date
5/27-6/3/74
6/3-6/10/74
6/10-6/17/74
6/17-6/24/74
6/24-7/1/74
7/1-7/8/74
7/8-7/15/74
7/15-7/22/74
7/22-7/29/74
7/29-8/5/74
8/5-8/12/74
8/12-8/19/74
8/19-8/26/74
8/26-9/2/74
9/2-9/9/74
9/9-9/16/74
9/16-9/23/74
9/23-9/30/74
9/30-10/7/74
10/7-10/14/74
10/14-10/21/74
kg U/wk
17.8
16.1
10.7
13.8
11.3
9.9
6.7
10.6
11.3
3.5
4.3
2.4
3.6
13,8
15.0
19.0
11.5
16.3
13.6
16.0
15.8
mCi U/day
3.53
3.20
2.12
2.74
2.24
1.97
1.33
2.10
2.24
0.70
0.85
0.48
0.71
2.74
2.98
3.77
2.28
3.24
2.70
3.18
3.14
88
-------
Appqndlx F
Liquid Release Data
(Continued)
Date kg U/vvk mCi U/day
10/21-10/28/74 18.2 3.61
10/28-11/4/74 21.8 4.33
11/4-11/11/74 15.7 3.12
11/11-11/18/74 22.2 4.41
11/18-11/25/74 18.6 3.69
11/25-12/2/74 9.9 1.97
12/2-12/9/74 20.4 4.05
12/9-12/16/74 13.5 2.68
12/16-12/23/74 14.4 2.86
12/23-12/30/74 11.6 2.30
12/30-1/6/75 12.8 2.54
1/6-1/13/75 11.5 2.28
1/13-1/20/75 10.5 2.08
1/20-1/27/75 8.7 1.73
1/27-2/3/75 13.9 2.76
2/3-2/10/75 0.0 0
2/10-2/17/75 0.0 0
2/17-2/24/75 6.3 1.25
2/24-3/3/75 1.6 .32
3/3-3/10/75 12.4 2.46
3/10-3/17/75 23.0 4.57
3/17-3/24/75 18.7 3.71
89
-------
vo
o
Appendix G
Water Concentration Data
Water Samples
July 16, 1974
Dissolved Solids pCi/1 Dissolved Solids pCi/1
Position
I
I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
- 10'
- 5'
- 5'
- 10'
- 20'
- 10'
- 5'
- 12'
- 25'
- 10'
- 10'
- 6'
- 10'
- 25'
- 10'
- 20'
- 5'
- 10'
U-234 U-235
.04 +.27% <.01
.04 + 33% <.01
.03 + 100% <.01
.05 +100% <.01
.09 +.60% <.01
.03 +.29% <.01
.12+57% <.01
.06 +.73% <.01
.28+38% <.01
.24 +.15% .01 +53%
.32 +. 16% .03 + 34%
.25 + 15% .02 + 39%
.23 + 19% .02 + 60%
.24 + 17% .01 +44%
.12+41% <.01
.12 + 19% .01 +46%
.25 + 38% <.01
.17 + 19% <.01
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.07 +_ 23%
.02 +_ 39%
.03 + 100%
.05 +_ 100%
.10 +55%
.04 +_ 27%
.07 +. 69%
.02 + 100%
.11 +49%
.09 i 19%
.14 +19%
.11 +18%
.11 +25%
.12 +.20%
.12 +40%
.09 + 21%
.21 + 40%
.11 +22%
0.6
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.7
3.0
2.5
2.7
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.5
.01 +_ 43%
.01 +_ 55%
.01 + 50%
.01 + 43%
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
.02 +_ 31%
<.01
<.01
.01 +_ 55%
.01 +_ 50%
.01 + 62%
<.01
.01 +_ 55%
Th-230
.02 +_ 32%
.02 +_ 33%
.02 + 35%
.02 +_ 35%
.02 +41%
.02 + 40%
.02 +_ 38%
.02 +_ 34%
.02 +. 40%
.01 + 47%
.03 + 27%
.01 + 45%
.01 + 37%
.01 + 43%
.01 + 45%
.01 + 43%
.01 + 50%
.01 +. 44%
Th-228 U-234/Th
.04 +_ 24%
.02 +_ 31%
.03 +_ 27%
.03 +_ 27%
.02 +_ 33%
.04 +_ 25%
.01 +. 43%
.02 +_ 30%
.03 +_ 39%
.04 +. 22%
.04 +_ 25%
.03 +_ 26%
.01 +23%
.03 + 30%
.01 +_ 55%
.02 + 32%
.01 +_ 50%
.04 +_ 26%
1.9
1.6
1.6
3.1
4.6
2.3
6.0
3.0
14.0
24.5
11.0
24.6
23.3
18.2
10.7
9.8
25.0
13.2
-------
Appendix
VO
Hater Samples
July 1974
Description
Lagoon Composite
7/8-7/15/74
North Lagoon
7/8/74
7/9/74-
South Lagoon
7/8/74
7/9/74
GE Well - 80*
GE Well
Dissolved Solids pCi/1
Dissolved Solids pC1/1
U-234
896
846
895
574
648
+ 15%
± 12%
± 12%
± 12%
± 12%
U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-23P Th-228
44 ± 16% 250
36 ± 13% 236
42 ± 13% 248
25 ± 13% 152
30 ± 13% 184
± 15% 3.6 <.(
± 12% 3.6 <.(
± 12% 3.6 <.(
± 12% 3.8 <.(
±12% 3.5 <.(
31 .54 ± 39% <
Dl <.01 1.07
)1 <.01 1.04
31 .30 ± 57% 1.16
31 <.01 .77
.01
±32%
± 35%
± 32%
±37%
U-235/
1659
2056
No chemical recovery
.05
.01
± 25%
+ 45%
<.01
<.01 .01
.07 .07 ± 35% <.C
+52% 1.0 <.C
)1 .01 ± 60% .03
)1 .01 ± 64% .04
±29%
± 25%
7.3
2.2
Motel - municipal
No chemical recovery
-------
Water Samples
October 22, 1974
VO
to
Position
I
I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
- 5'
- 20'
- 5'
- 10'
- V
- 10'
- 5'
- 10'
- 5'
- 15'
- 5'
- 10'
- 15'
- 5'
- 10'
- 51
- 20'
- 3'
U-234
.07 +_ 29%
.11 +25%
.02 + 36%
.18 +_ 16%
.06 +_ 28%
.04 +_ 28%
.13 +_ 33%
.11 +_ 18%
.08 +_21%
.23 +_ 21%
.58 + 13%
.62 +_ 20%
.34 + 14%
.24 +_ 17%
.34 +_ 14%
.23 + 15%
.44 +_ 24%
.33 + 22%
U-235
<.01
.02 +_ 25%
<.01
.01 +_ 42%
<.01
<.01
.01 +_ 100%
.01 + 47%
<.01
.02 + 42%
.03 +_ 28%
.04 +_ 37%
.02 +_ 34%
.01 +_ 57%
.01 +_ 38%
.01 +_ 46%
.02 +_ 53%
.02 +_ 55%
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.07 +_ 29%
.07 +_ 34%
.03 +_ 35%
.07 +_21%
.04 + 29%
.04 +_ 29%
.08 +_ 45%
.07 +_ 41%
.04 + 25%
.11 +24%
.22 + 15%
.22 + 23%
.22 + 15%
.14 +_24%
.21 +_ 15%
.14 + 17%
.39 +_ 24% '
.24 +_ 23%
1.0
1.6
0.7
2.6
1.5
1.0
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.6
2.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.1
1.4
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01 +_ 52%
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01 + 56%
.01 + 50%
<.01
.01 +_ 50%
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01 +_ 48%
.01 +_ 49%
<.01
Th-230
<.01
<.01
.01 + 56%
.01 + 43%
.05 +_ 44%
.06 +_ 40%
.01 + 45%
.02 +_ 39%
.01 +_ 47%
<.01
.02 +_ 42%
<.01
.01 +_ 49%
.01 +_ 58%
<.01
.01 +_ 56%
.02 +_ 35%
<.01
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
<.01
<.01
.02 +_ 40%
.03 + 27%
.09 _ 30%
.06 +_ 38%
.02 +_ 35%
.08 +_ 16%
.02 +_ 34%
<.01
.14 + 14%
<.01
.02 +_ 34%
.02 +_ 30%
<.01
.04 +_ 28%
.02 + 32%
.01 + 44%
15.0
1.1
0.8
9.1
7.3
6.9
38.8
34.2
40.0
25.2
23.3
-------
vo
co
Water Samples
October 1974
Dissolved Solids pCi/1 Dissolved Solids pCi/1
Description
Lagoon Composite
10/8-10/14/74
10/15-10/21/74
GE Well - 80'
GE Well
(iron removed)
H.W. Well - 35'
Motel - municipal
III
20' duplicate
5' duplicate
U-234 U-235
1806
1164
.05
.06
.02
.03
.57
.04
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
t
16% 76+17%
15% 51 + 16%
24% <.01
22% <.01
46% <.01
35% <.01
14% .04 +_ 29%
28% .01 + 53%
U-238 U-234/U-238
550
360
.06
.06
.01
.02
.40
.03
+ 16%
i 15%
+ 22%
+ 22%
+ 58%
+ 39%
+ 14%
+_34%
3.
3.
0.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
3
2
8
0
0
5
4
3
Th-232 Th-230 Th-228
<.01 <.01 <.01
<.01 <.01 <.01
<.01 <.01 .02 +_ 50%
<.01 <.01 <.01
<.01 <.01 <.01
.01 +_ 52% <.01 .02 + 37%
.01 +_ 39% .02 +_ 31% .02 + 33%
.03 + 27% .02 +_ 32% .03 +_ 26%
U-234/T
25.7
2.0
-------
Water Samples
March 18, 1975
Dissolved Solids pCi/1 Dissolved Solids pC1/l
Position
I -
I -
II -
II -
III -
III -
IV -
IV -
V -
V -
VI -
VI -
VII -
VII -
VIII-
VIII-
IX -
IX -
20'
31
25'
3'
3'
20'
15'
3'
3'
25'
10'
3'
3'
25'
25'
3'
25'
3'
U-234 U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.02 +_
.02 +
.04 +_
.03 +_
.04 +
.03 +_
.03 +
.04 +_
.13 +
.11 +_
.10 +
.11 +
.04 +_
.03 +_
.04 +_
.09 +_
.03 +
.03 +_
33% <.C
39% <.C
29% <.C
37% <.C
32% <.C
40% <.C
32% <.C
34% <.C
20% <.C
20% <.C
20% <.(
18% <.(
29% <.(
29% <.(
30% <.(
21% <.(
31% <.(
31% <.(
11 .02
11 .02
11 .03
11 .03
)1 .02
)1 .02
11 .03
Jl .03
)1 .05
)1 .05
)1 .04
)1 .05
)1 .02
)1 .02
)1 .02
)1 .06
)1 .02
)1 .03
+_ 35%
+_ 36%
+_ 31%
+ 39%
+ 38%
+_ 40%
+_ 32%
+_ 35%
+_27%
+_ 26%
+_25%
+_24%
+ 35%
+_ 34%
+ 37%
+_24%
+ 38%
+_ 35%
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
2.0
1.4
1.0
1.3
2.6
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
<
.01
<
.01
.01
<
.01
<
.01
<
<
.03
.01
.03
.01
.01
.01
<
.01
+_ 50%
.01
+_ 49%
+_39%
.01
+ 47%
.01
+ 49%
.01
.01
+ 52%
+ 40%
+ 58%
+_ 39%
+ 53%
+_ 46%
.01
Th-230
.02 + 36%
.01 +_ 50%
.01 +_ 42%
.01 + 46%
.01 + 53%
.01 + 60%
.01 +_ 41%
.01 +_ 46%
.01 + 47%
.02 +_ 34%
.01 +_ 50%
.05 + 42%
.01 + 45%
.03 +55%
.02 +_ 35%
.02 + 33%
.01 +_ 58%
.01 + 56%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.04 + 23%
.03 + 30%
.03 + 28%
.02 +_ 31%
.03 + 25%
.03 + 26%
.03 +_ 25%
.02 +_ 34%
.03 + 27%
.04 + 25%
.02 +31%
.10 + 29%
.03 + 26%
.06 +_ 37%
.04 +_ 24%
.04 + 23%
.02 + 37%
.02 +_ 37%
1.4
2.1
3.0
2.9
4.8
2.9
2.1
4.0
13.2
5.7
13.0
2.2
3.4
1.1
2.1
4.5
2.9
4.9
-------
vo
U1
Water Samples
March 1975
Dissolved Solids pCi/1 Dissolved Solids pCi/1
Description
Lagoon Composite
3/5-3/10/75
3/11-3/18/75
3/18-3/20/75
GE Well - 80'
GE Well
(iron removed)
H.W. Well - 35'
U-234
1604 +
1672
1103
.07
.04
.01
Motel - municipal. 03
Creek Water
GE Site
NE of Site
S of Site
Between IV and V
15'
3'
Cape Fear River
25'
3'
.03
.03
.02
.04
.03
.04
.02
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
11%
11%
11%
27%
30%
48%
35%
32%
34%
37%
27%
34%
31%
37%
U-235 U-238
58+13% 477
70+13% 522
47+13% 344
<.01 .09
<.01 .04
<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .02
<.01 .05
<.01 .02
<.01 .03
<.01 .03
<.01 .03
<.01 .02
+
+
+
^^
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
12%
12%
12%
24%
31%
44%
36%
35%
28%
38%
26%
34%
35%
43%
U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230
Th-228
U-234/
3.4 <.01 <.01 <.01
3.2 <.01 <.01 <.01
3.2 <.01 <.01 <.01
0.8 <.01 <.01
.01
+_ 43%
l.D <.0, <.01 <.01
1.0 <.01 <.01
.01
+_47%
1.5 <.01 <.01 <.01
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
5 <.01 .01 +_ 46%
6 <.01 .01 +_ 45%
0 <.01 <.01
3 .03 +_ 52% .04 +_ 46%
0 .04 + 23% .02 +_ 36%
3 <.01 .01 +_ 50%
0 .01 + 49% .01 + 50%
.03
.02
.01
.12
.07
.02
.02
+_ 30%
+_35%
+_47%
+ 27%
+_ 18%
+_40%
+_42%
2.2
2.2
1.0
1.8
3.5
2.2
CONTINUED
-------
V0
a\
Water Samples, March 1975 (Continued)
Dissolved Solids pCi/1 Dissolved Solids pCi/1
Description
Brunswick & Cape
Fear Confluence
25'
3'
Brunswick River
10'
3'
VIII
1* duplicate
I1 duplicate
U-234 U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-23Z
.02
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
+ 44% <.C
+ 33% <.C
+_31% <.C
+ 33% <.(
i 28% <.(
+ 28% <.<
11 .02
)1 .03
11 .02
)1 .03
)1 .02
)1 .03
+_39%
+ 33%
+ 33%
+ 32%
+ 38%
+_ 33%
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.3
.01
.01
<
.01
.01
.01
+ 47%
+ 56%
.01
+_ 44%
+_ 45%
+ 38%
Th-230
.01
.01
<,
.01
.01
.02
+_ 44%
+_ 44%
.0!
+_ 44%
+_58%
+ 34%
Th-228
.02 +_ 33%
.03 +_ 30%
.01 +_ 47%
.02 + 35%
.02 +_ 30%
.03 +_26%
U-234/-
2.9
2.2
2.6
6.0
2.1
Cape Fear
3 mi. above .02 +_ 42% <.01 .01 +_ 55% 1.9 <.01 <.01 .03 +_ 27%
Cape Fear & NE
Cape Fear Con-
fluence .01 + 50% <.01 .02 + 45% .8 .01 + 52% <.01 .02 +_ 31%
-------
Water Samples
July 16, 1974
Undissolved Solids pCi/1
Undissolved Solids pC1/l
Position
I - 10'
I - 5'
II - 5'
II - 10'
III
III
IV
IV
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
- 20'
- 10'
- 5'
- 12'
- 25'
- 10'
- 10'
- 6'
- 10'
- 25'
- 10'
- 20'
- 5'
- 10'
U-234
.01 + 54%
.02 + 43%
.01 ± 45%
.02 + 37%
.03 ± 31%
.02 ± 34%
.03 ± 32%
.11 +24%
.12 ±20%
.12 ±21%
.16 ±19%
.09 ± 22%
.14 + 18%
.15 ±20%
.05 ± 57%
.11 ±21%
.06 + 23%
U-235 U-238
<.01 .01 ± 52%
No chemical recovery
<.01 .02 ± 42%
<.01 .02 ± 37%
<.01 .02 ± 37%
.01 ± 52% .03 ± 29%
<.01 .02 ± 35%
<.01 .02 ± 35%
<.01 .10 ± 25%
.03 ± 35% .06 ± 26%
.01 ± 50% .09 ± 23%
.04 ± 30% .10 ±21%
.01 ±54% .10 ±21%
.02 ± 38% .08 ± 21%
.01 ±52% .14 ±20%
<.01 .05 ± 57%
<.01 .13 ± 21%
<.01 .05 ± 25%
U-234/U-238 Th-232
1.0 <.01
No
1.0 .01 ±60%
0.5 .01 ±55%
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.1
2.0
1.3
1.6
0.9
1.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.2
.01 ± 50%
.02 ± 34%
.01 ± 45%
.01 ± 46%
.02 +_32%
.02 ± 30%
.02 ± 31%
.03 ± 30%
.02 ± 44%
.02 ± 39%
.05 ± 28%
<.01
.03 ± 29%
.03 ± 27%
Th-230 Th-228
.01 ± 50% .02 ± 49%
chemical recovery
.02 ± 37% .01 ± 52%
.02 ± 33% .01 ± 44%
.02 ± 38%
.04 ± 22%
.02 ± 38%
.02 ± 35%
.04 ± 24%
.03 ±25%
.04 ± 24%
.04 ± 25%
.04 ± 29%
.03 ± 30%
.07 ± 23%
<.01
.05 ± 22%
.04 ± 24%
.02 ± 39%
.06 ± 19%
.01 ± 46%
.02 ± 35%
.03 ± 27%
.05 ± 21%
.04 ± 25%
.05 ± 23%
.01 ± 47%
.06 ± 19%
.06 ± 25%
.18 ± 27%
.04 ± 26%
.04 ± 25%
U-234/Th-230
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.0
0.7
1.6
1.7
2.9
3.7
3.1
3.9
2.4
5.1
2.2
2.4
1.7
-------
vo
09
Mater Samples
July 1974'
Description
Lagoon Composite
7/8-7/15/74
North Lagoon
7/8/74
7/9/74 1
South Lagoon
7/8/74
7/9/74
GE Well - 80'
Undissolved
•234
> + 21%
5 +_14%
) +.20%
5 + 16%
Solids
U-235
All
.22
.95
.25
.47
PCi/1
U-238 U
-234/U-238
activity soluble
+ 72%
+_ 32%
+ 64%
+ 47%
1.27
4.59
1.33
2.47
+_ 31%
+_ 17%
+ 30%
+ 23%
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.9
No chemical recovery
GE Well
(Iron removed) <.01
<.01 .01 + 60%
H.W. Well - 35' .01 +.51% <.01 .01 +53%
Motel - municipal No chemical recovery
1.0
TR3232
Undissolved Solids pCi/1
.32 + 53%
Th-230
.01 +_ 60%
.01 + 64%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
1.01 + 30%
.99 i 32%
1.09 +_ 28%
1.08 + 29%
.04 +_ 24%
.03 + 27%
1.7
-------
Water Samples
October 22, 1974
Undissolved Solids pCi/1 Undissolved Solids pCi/1
~
Posi
I
I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
tion
- 5'
- 20'
- 5'
- 10'
- T
- 10'
- 5'
- 10'
- 5'
- 15'
- 5'
- 10'
- 15'
- 5'
- 10'
- 5'
- 20'
- 3'
U-234
.02 +_ 43%
.01 + 57%
.02 +_ 37%
.02 +_ 40%
.62 + 15%
.03 +_ 34%
.04 +_ 28%
.52 + 16%
.05 + 26%
.08 + 23%
.18 + 18%
.25 + 18%
.38 +17%
.13 +35%
.05 +_ 35%
.08 +_ 25%
.05 +_ 15%
.04 + 31%
U-235
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
.04 +_ 28%
<.01
<.01
.04 +. 28%
<.01
<.01
.01 +_ 42%
.01 .+_ 48%
.01 +_ 47%
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
U-238
.02 + 44%
.01 +_ 54%
.02 +_ 40%
.02 +_ 39%
.55 + 15%
.03 +_ 34%
.03 +_ 29%
.40 + 16%
.04 + 30%
.05 +_ 27%
.10 +_ 21%
.13 + 21%
.25 +_ 19%
.08 +_ 37%
.05 +_ 37%
.04 + 31%
.03 +_ 30%
.04 + 30%
U-234/U-238
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.0
2.0
1.7
1.0
Th-232
<.01
.01 +_ 49%
.01 +_ 45%
<.01
.60 +_ 6%
.01 +_ 49%
<.01
.10 +_ 15%
.03 +31%
.03 +_28%
.03 +_ 30%
.02 + 31%
.11 +_ 14%
.03 + 29%
.01 +_ 50%
.01 +_ 49%
.02 +_ 34%
<.01
Th-230
.01 +_ 52%
.01 + 58%
.02 +_ 32%
.01 +_ 52%
.81 +_ 5%
.03 +_ 29%
.03 + 30%
.36 + 8%
.03 + 29%
.03 + 26%
.06 +_20%
.08+17%
.14 +_ 12%
.03 +_ 27%
.01 +_ 50%
.01 + 44%
.03 +_ 31%
.02 + 43%
Th-228
<.01
.02 +_ 33%
.02 + 35%
.01 +_ 50%
.58 +_ 6%
.03 + 29%
.02 +_ 31%
.25 +_9%
.04 +_ 25%
.03 +_ 27%
.04 +_ 23%
.06 + 20^
.10 +_ 15%
.02 + 31%
.02 +_ 30%
.02 +_ 34%
.03 +_ 28%
.02 + 39%
U-234/Th-230
1.9
1.0
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.7
3.4
3.3
2.7
4.2
5.7
6.1
2.0
1.9
-------
o
o
Water Samples
March 18, 1975
Undissolved Solids pCi/1 Undissolved Solids pCi/1
Position
I '
I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
- 20'
- 3'
- 25'
- 3'
- 3'
- 20'
- 15'
- 3'
- 3'
- 25'
- 10'
- 3'
- 3'
- 25'
- 25'
- 3'
- 25'
- 3'
U-234
.01 +_ 49%
.01 + 44%
.02 +_ 39%
.02 +_ 43%
.01 +_ 53%
.01 +_ 50%
.04 +. 30%
.03 +_ 33%
.02 +_ 41%
.02 _+ 38%
U-235 U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
<.01 .01
<.01
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
<.01
<.01 .01
<.01 .04
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
+ 59%
.01
+ 47%
+_ 57%
,01
+_ 53%
+_ 30%
+ 50%
+_ 55%
+ 50%
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
No chemical recovery
.02 + 35%
.05 +_ 29%
.06 +_ 25%
.05 +_ 23%
.08 + 20%
.04 + 29%
.05 +_ 52%
<.01 .02
<.01 .03
<.01 .02
<.01 .06
<.01 .08
.01 +_ 54% .05
<.01 .03
+ 42%
+_39%
+_ 35%
+_ 22%
+ 21%
+ 28%
+ 62%
1.0
1.7
3.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.7
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
<,
<,
.01
.01
.01
.01
.04
.03
.03
.01
+_ 52%
,01
,01
+ 53%
+ 50%
+ 55%
+_64%
+_ 52%
.01
.01
+_ 60%
+_64%
+_41%
+ 44%
+_24%
+_26%
+ 27%
+_ 45%
Th-230
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.06
.10
.02
.01
+_ 52%
+ 40%
+_44%
+_ 55%
+_ 58%
+ 49%
+_52%
+ 44%
+ 49%
+_49%
+ 64%
+ 52%
+_42%
+_43%
+_19%
+_15%
+_29%
+_49%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.01 +_ 43%
.01 +_ 43%
.02 +_ 31%
.03 + 27%
.03 +_ 28%
.02 +_31%
.02 +_ 30%
.03 +_ 26%
.03 +_ 27%
.03 +_ 26%
.02 +_ 38%
.02 +_ 38%
.02 +_ 38%
.02 +_ 40%
.05 +_ 20%
.04 +_23%
.05 +_ 20%
.02 +_ 33%
1.6
1.1
1.5
2.1
1.3
1.2
5.4
2.5
2.0
2.2
2.8
4.1
4.1
0.8
0.8
1.8
5.2
-------
Water Samples
March 1975
Description
Lagoon Composite
375-3/10/75
3/11-3/17/75
3/18-3/21/75
GE Well - 80'
GE Well
(iron removed)
H.W. Well - 35'
Motel -Municipal
Creek Water
GE Site
NE of Site
S of site
Between IV&V-151
3'
Cape Fear River
25'
3'
Undissolved
Solids pCi/1
U-234 U-235 U-Z38
t
3.90 + 22% .22 ±67% 1.98 ±26%
3.86 ±22% .37 ±59% 1.54 ± 30%
2.39 ±
.01
.06
.03
.02
.02
.02
.03
.01
.01
.03
.04
+
±
+
+•
+
±
+
+
MV
+
+
23% <.
62% <.l
33% <.(
35% <.(
38% <.(
32% <.(
36% <.(
36% <.(
53% <.C
53% <.C
30% <.0
29% <.0
10 1.49
31 .02
31 .02
31 .03
31 .03
)1 .02
)1 .03
)1 .02
11 .01
11 .01
11 .03
1 .04
±29%
±45%
±47%
± 36%
± 35%
± 30%
± 32%
± 37%
±59%
±57%
±30%
+ 37%
U-234/U-2
2.0
2.5
1.6
0.5
3.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Undissolved Solids pCi/1
38 Th-232 Th-230
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01 .01
.02 ± 32% .02
<.01 .01
.01 ± 39% .01
<.01 .01
,01-±53% .01
.01 ± 47% .01
.02 + 38% .02
:.01
.01
.01
.01
±60%
±36%
±44%
±42%
±58%
± 43%
±42%
+ 37%
Th-228
<
.03
.02
.03
.02
.03
.02
.02
.01
.01
.02
.02
.01
± 29%
± 35%
±28%
±42%
±29%
±30%
±33%
±47%
± 44%
± 35%
+ 29%
U-234/
3.3
1.2
2.1
2.2
1.3
0.7
2.8
2.6
CONTINUED
-------
o
to
Water Samples, March 1975 (Continued)
Undissolved Solids pCi/1 Undissolved Solids pCi/1
Description U-234 U-235 U-Z38 U-Z34/U-238 Th-232
Cape Fear and Brunswick
Confluence
25' no chemical recovery .03
3' .03 +_ 36% <.0
Brunswick River
TO1 <.01 <.C
3' <.01 <.C
VIII
V duplicate .04 +_ 29% <.C
.03 +_ 33% <.C
Cape Fear
3 mi. above .08 + 25% <.(
11 .03 +. 36% 1.0 .01
11 <.01 .01
11 <.01 .03
)1 .03 +_ 33% 1.3 .02
)1 .02 + 37% 1.5 .02
)1 .08 +.25% 1.0 .02
+ 26%
+.44%
+_45%
+_ 28%
+ 44%
+_ 32%
+_37%
Th-230
.02
.01
.01
.02
.02
.02
.02
+
+
+
+
+
+
+_
31%
23%
43%
30%
42%
37%
33%
Th-228 U-234/1
.05
.03
.01
.04
.02
.01
.05
+_21%
+ 63%
+ 39%
+_ 22%
+ 38%
+ 43%
+_22%
2.2
2.0
1.7
3.2
Cape Fear, NE
Cape Fear
Confluence .19 + 21% <.01 .13 +_ 22% 1.4 .01 +_ 44% .01 +_ 41% .05 +_ 22% 13.4
Feb. 20, 1976
-------
Water Samples
October 1974
Undissolved Solids pCi/1
o
U)
Description U-234U-235
Lagoon Composite
10/8-10/14/74 all ac
10/15-10/21/74 all ac
GE Well - 80' .01 +_ 43% <.01
GE Well
(iron removed) <.01 <.01
H.W. Well - 35' .01 +_ 51% <.01
Municipal .01 +_ 44% <.01
III
20' duplicate .03 +_ 29% <.01
5' duplicate .02 + 36% <.01
Undissolved Solids pCi/1
U-238
/ soluble
/ soluble
.01 +_ 49%
.01 +51%
.01 + 42%
.03 + 29%
.02 + 35%
U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230
1.0 <.01 .01 +_ 55%
<.m <.'!!
1.0 .01 +53% .01 +_ 55%
1.0 .02+_365i .03+_31%
1.0 .01 +_ 46% .02 +_ 43%
Th-228 U-234/
.01 +_ 63% 1.6
<.01
.02 +_ 39% 1.5
.03+_28% 1.2
.02 +_ 41% 1.4
-------
Appendix H
Aquatir Vegetation ana Sediment Data
Aquatic Vegetation
pCi/g ash
pd'/g ash
Position/Date
I
I
I
II
II
II
H
£ in
in
in
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
U-234
.14 + 17%
.75 +13%
.25 + 16%
.19 + 16%
.57 +_ 14%
.21 + 17%
.29 +_ 14%
.41 + 13%
.41 +_ 13%
.52 + 13%
.82 + 12%
1.71 + 12%
1.16 + 14%
4.64 +_ 13%
1.99 + 12%
2.19 +_ 14%
1.69 + 14%
1.28 i 12%
U-235
.01 +_ 41%
.08 +. 20%
.02 + 35%
.05. +_ 22%
.07 +_23%
.02 +_ 40%
.03 + 32%
.04 +_ 25%
.02 +_ 32%
.09 +_ 18%
.05 + 26%
.08 + 20%
.08 + 20%
.27 + 16%
.10 + 19%
.09 + 20%
.12 + 19%
.08 +. 20%
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.14 + 17%
.79 +_ 13%
.24 +_ 16%
.15 +_ 17%
.28 +_ 15%
.18 + 16%
.18 +_ 17%
.31 + 14%
.39 + 13%
.46 +_ 14%
.42 + 14%
.96 +_ 12%
.49 +_ 15%
2.33 +_ 14%
1.06 + 12%
.94 +_ 15%
1.01 + 14%
.76 + 12%
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
2.1
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.1
2.0
1.8
2.4
2.0
1.9
2.3
1.7
1.7
.06 + 18%
.50 + 6%
.11 + 13%
.08 + 15%
.18 +_ 10%
.06 + 17%
.27 + 9%
.10 + 18%
.14 + 11%
.20 +_ 19%
.19 + 10%
.39 +_ 7%
.04 + 23%
.76 +_ 5%
.39 + 7%
.15 + 11%
.26 +_9%
.36 + 8%
Th-230
.09
.64
.18
.14
.32
.07
.39
.21
.23
.36
.28
.56
.21
.99
.55
.20
.40
.55
+_ 14%
+_ 5%
+_ 10%
+_ 12%
+_ 8%
+_ 16%
+ 8%
+_ 13%
+_ 10%
+_ 14%
+ 8%
+_ 6%
+_ 10%
+_ 4%
+_ 6%
+ 10%
+_7%
+ 6%
Th-228
.69
.95
.45
1.30
1.52
.18
.80
.82
1.47
2.04
.93
.68
.53
.73
.72
.19
.34
.60
+_ 6%
+_ 4%
+_ 8%
+_5%
+_ 4%
+_ 10%
+ 6%
+ 5%
+ 4%
+_ 7%
+_ 4%
+ 6%
± 7%
+ 5%
+ 5%
+ 10%
+ 8%
+ 5%
U-234/T
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.8
3.1
0.8
1.9
1.7
1.4
3.0
3.0
5.6
4.7
3.6
11.1
4.2
2.3
CONTINUED
-------
Aquatic Vegetation (Continued)
o
(Jl
Position/Date
VII :
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
VIII
I*
IX
IX
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
Jul 1974
Oct 1974
Mar 1975
U-234
1.13 +_ 15%
.58 + 13%
.63 +.13%
.98 + 16%
.89 + 132
.91 +_ 123!
.10 +20*
.24 +. 153S
.55 + 133!
pCi/g ash
U-235
.07+21%
.04 + 26%
.04 + 24%
.08 + 22%
.17 + 17%
.05 + 22%
.01 + 57%
.02 + 55%
.02 + 29%
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.78 + 15%
.44 + 14%
.52 +_ 13%
.89 + 16%
.88 +_ 13%
.59 +_ 13%
.09 + 20%
.25 +_ 15%
.46 + 14%
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.2
.49
.12
.09
.48
.43
.14
.03
.13
.20
± 7%
+_ 13%
+ 14%
+ 6%
+ 7%
+_ 11%
+ 24%
+ 13%
+ 10%
pCi/g ash
Th-230
.70 + 6%
.24 +9%
.10 +_ 13%
.65 +_ 5%
.42 +_ 7%
.20 +_ 10%
.04 +_ 20%
.10 +_ 14%
.20 + 10%
Th-228
.44 +_
.18 +
.09 +
.50 +
.43 +_
.28 +_
.06 +
.10 +
.18 +_
7%
10%
14%
6%
7%
9%
17%
14%
10%
U-234/Th-230
1.6
2.4
6.2
1.5
2.1
4.6
2.2
2.3
2.7
VIII-IX Oct 74 2.32+12% .11+17% 1.48+12% 1.6 .28+8% .44+7% .46+7% 5.3
-------
Appendix H
Sediment
Position/Date
I Jul 1974
I Oct 1974
I Mar 1975
II Jul 1974
II Oct 1974
II Mar 1975
o III Jul 1974
(Tl
III Oct 1974
III Mar 1975
IV Jul 1974
IV Oct 1974
IV Mar 1975
V Jul 1974
V Oct 1974
V Mar 1975
VI Jul 1974
VI Oct 1974
VI Mar 1975
pCi/g dry
PCi/9 dry
U-234
.12 +_ 18%
1.04 +_ 12%
1.27 i 12%
1.05 +_ 13%
.56 +_ 14%
.25 +_ 16%
.18 + 17%
.97 +_ 12%
1.48 + 12%
.22 + 15%
5.77 + 11%
2.37 + 12%
.36 +_ 17%
.93 + 13%
1.28 +_ 12%
.43 +_ 16%
1.69 +_ 12%
1.14 + 12%
U-235 U-238
.01 +_ 39% .13 + 17%
.06 +_ 21% .92 + 12%
.06 + 22% 1.30 +_ 12%
.05 + 26% 1.01 +. 13%
.02 +_ 32% .56 +_ 14%
.02 + 34% .22 +_ 16%
.01 + 42% .18 +_ 17%
.05 +_ 22% .85 _+_ 12%
.07 +.21% 1.31 +.12%
.01 +_ 40% .17 +_ 16%
.50 +.13% 2.98 +_ 12%
.10 +_ 18% 2.04 +_ 12%
.02 +_ 37% .24 +.17%
.05 +_ 23% .76 +. 13%
.04 + 25% 1.15+_12%
.02 +. 35% .39 +_ 17%
.10 +_ 20% 1.56 + 12%
.06 + 22% 1.06 + 12%
U-234/U-238 Th-232 Th-230
0.9 .08 +_ 15% .09 +_ 15%
1.1 .93+_7% 1.30 +.6%
1.0 .78 +_ 5% .99 +. 4%
1.0 .59 +_ 7% .68 +_ 6%
1.0 .73+5% .74+5%
1.1 .19 +_ 10% .28 +_ 8%
1.0 .08 +_ 15% .16 +_ 11%
1.2 .41 +7% 1.02 +4%
1.1 1.01 + 4% 1.44 + 4%
1.2 .11 +.13% .16 + 11%
1.9 .94 + 4% 1.20 + 4%
1.2 .47^6% .84 + 5%
1.5 .44 + 6% .36 +_ 7%
1.2 .31 + 7% .58 +.5%
1.1 .61 +.6% .65 +_ 6%
1.1 .80 +_ 5% .55 + 6%
1.1 .96 +_ 4% 1.30 +_ 4%
1.1 1.06 + 4% 1.11 + 4%
Th-228 U-234/Th-230
.08 +.15% 1.4
1.04+6% 0.8
.77+_5% 1.3
.57 +_ 7% 1.6
.65 +_ 6% 0.8
.24+9% 0.9
.09 +_ 14% 1.1
.86 +_ 5% 1.0
1.09+4% 1.0
.14+_18% 1.3
.77 +. 5% 4.8
.57 +. 6% 2.8
.36 +7% 1.0
.26 +.8% 1.6
.51 +_ 6% 2.0
.67 +_ 5% 0.8
1.16 +.4% 1.3
1.06 +4% 1.0
CONTINUED
-------
Sediment (Continued)
Position/Date
VII Jul 1974
VII Oct 1974
VII Mar 1975
VIII Jul 1974
VIII Oct 1974
VIII Mar 1975
IX Jul 1974
IX Oct 1974
IX Mar 1975
U-234
.39 + 17%
.84 + 12%
.61 + 13%
1.73 ±20%
.18+. 15%
.66 + 13%
.31 + 14%
.60 + 13%
.56 + 13%
pCI/q dr
U-235
.02 +_ 36%
.05 + 21%
.03 + 28%
.31 + 23%
.01 + 44%
.04 + 25%
.02 + 33%
.02 +_ 30%
.02 + 31%
y
U-238 U-234/U-238 Th-232
.36 +_ 17%,
.80 i 12%
.53 +_ 13%
1.63 +_ 20%
.16 +_ 15%
.67 + 13%
.31 + 14%
.53 + 13%
.55 + 13%
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
.11 +13%
.94 +_ 4%
.38 +_ 7%
1.47 +4%
.21 +4%'
.28 + 8%
.18 + 10%
.40 +_ 7%
.30 + 8%
pCi/g dry
Th-230
.42 + 7%
.91 +_4%
.46 +_ 6%
1.54 +_4%
.25 + 4%
.45 +_ 18%
.21 +_ 10%
.56 +_6%
.40 + 7%
Th-228
.56 + 7%
.72 +5%
.35 +_ 7%
1.22 +_4%
.18 +_ 10%
.38 +_ 7%
.20 + 10%
.39 +_ 7%
.33 + 8%
U-234/Th-230
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.1
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.4
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-520/5-77-004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Radiological Environs Study at A Fuel Fabricati
Facility
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. J. Lyon, R. L. Shear in, J. A. Broadway
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
P.O. Box 3009, Montgomery, AL 36109
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation Programs, Waterside Mall East,
401 M Street, S.W.
Washineton. DC 20460
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lOENTI
Environmental Radioactivity Radla
Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Fuel
Plant
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECU
Iln<
Release to public 20 SECU
Un
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
on October 1978
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/ 2 00/03
ANALYSIS
FIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
tion Surveys 1806
Fabrication
Environs 1807
RITY CLASS (This Report/ 2.1. NO. OF PAGES ,
~1anm1f1oA lift
RITY CLASS (TttUpfgt) 22. PRICE
classified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rtv. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |