Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
.! ~. - -,~. . . . . ‘ -, --[.3?’..,-.:% ~f-.~.j.,<. .. AL.,,.: -.!..8 -...4 ..,:,. ~. . . -, .,.
-, “! ,. -, ,-. --<t :w-,,’. .ti, ,,k.. ,,k . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ,. .- .,.> .’ -t. . . . .~! -. ,
. .
. . ...-& .,,, .’...- . . 3 .“-te”~s k?. q.$.~. a..lh.. i~”.”... ” ,-,>,-4 . . . .. : Y ,2< : . . . :. . . ~, ,:
.,4’, .,,,’ .-’.
. .-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~-f“.L&9.445-P_f!4~x--M -~-
-L..y.-.—-!.--,—-.,-—.--: ..2ZLWX+?!???.*.:.?-.%: ....-..--7.-+...+.... . .-_ ,,,_ . . ._+f++@?&%K@$F&@.=.J;-i3=-’&+W:12+?+w+I.!j-U-- -.= :-L.?+;-~:>.-<~~-;—,—- i:.f-:.-.:.-=7.:<.,““”- ‘ : “,.~~ :’ ..:-—... . ....,-——..-.-~.-.;l;:<z:<z:-.‘:,..-,-------------- .. .:._,”-.*,”_%,mwif.sti.~bww~:::,:=~w-u..:k::-”.:---:.....=----PI- . . ..J s , . . . ., .:,
. ..-. . .
. . ;-d. a.- ..* Ttiw+.,w.4~ -kw,. w.%
.- ,~<.::y:;xz... l? -, -’. . . . . ...*..-.- ,-. . . . —.. . -.x=. i-kr’K@r Xm!M%z&?XrXw
-------- -.. . ,. ..,- . .. —.,,.. -,,. :.... . . ,, . . . . . . . . .
2-
z.4..7x~.,2w-A’aL’Ei;4 k->:tz-xi- .-x, . . . — . ---.7’. -.7 , . ; ? ..; :. L. . . . . . . . .-. . ..- —----- .,q. J.&
..-.—r ——— .——. -,— ——— <,’’.-,~:
---- - ..-=. — . . . . . - , . . .. . . --------- .— ----------- ------------ ..— - . - -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .---,. . ..”.-,.’,> . k
‘ I-I+ &am_06 National L@o~a~o.ryJ~p~aQd_ <M .~n.iversfly gIl @[email protected] Lh.QUnlt~ States Department of Enerov under contract W-7405 -ENWM
An AfTiitive Actiotr/EqrMI Opporfunit y Employer
-~
This report was prepared by Kathy, Derouin, Lois Schneider, and Mary Lou
Keighcr, Group H-8.
. I
.
D[sCf.AfMER
This report was prepared asan account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes anywarranty, exprera or fmplied, or asarsmesany legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness,or oscfulncssof any information, apparatus, product, or processdisclosed, or represmta that iIs usc would
not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to assyspecitlc commercial product. proccaa, or8WVLCCby trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not nemaaarily cunstifutc or imply itsmdorscment, recmnrnendation, or favoring by the United States Governrnent or any agenty thereof. Theviews and opiniona of authors expressed herebr do not necessarily rtate or reflect those of tic Unated
States Gverrtment or any agency thereof.
II
LA-9445-PNTX-M
Issued: December 1982
Supplementary Documentation for anEnvironmental Impact Statement
Regarding the Pantex Plant
Agricultural Food Chain Radiological Assessment
W. J. Wenzel D. L. MayfieidK. M. Wallwork-Barber A. F. Gallegos?J. M. Horton* J. C. RodgersK. H. Rea R. G. ThomasL. C. Hollis, D.V.M.** G. TrujilloE. S. Gladney
~~—m5=====%
●Visiting Scientist at Los Alamos. Director, Killgore Beef CattleCenter,Texas Tech
8UniversityCenteratAmarillo,Panhandle,TX 79068.
$ZJE●*visiting scientist at Los Alamos.Texas A&M Veterina~MedicalDia9nostfcLaboratory,Amarillo,TX 79108.
8=== mtVisiting Staff Member at Los Alamos. Department of Scienceand Mathematics,New
.— MexicoHighlandsUniversity,LasVegas,NM 87701.g-
r
~~~ ~k)~~~ LosAlamos,Ne.Mexico87545Los Alamos National Laboratory
. CONTENTS
ABSTRACT- 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1
II. METHODOLOGYA. Soils
1. Pantex Plant Sampling Plots2. Pantex Plant NE Perimeter Soil Samples3. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis
B. Vegetation1. Pantex Plant Range Sampling Plots2. l?antexPlant NE Perimeter Grain Sorghum Plant Samples3. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis
c. Water1. Sampling Stations2. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis
D. Beef Cattle and Feed1. Cattle Handling and Feeding2. Organ and Tissue Dissections and Meat Sampling3. Laboratory Sample Preparation for Tissue and Meat4. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis for Feed
111. RESULTSA. SoilsB. Range Vegetation and Grain Sorghumc. WaterD. Beef Cattle Tissue and Feed
1. Feed2. Beef Cattle Tissue and Meat
IV. CONCLUSIONSA. Concentration Ratios Among Sample TypesB. Radiation Doses
v. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
. APPENDIX - RESULTS FOR URANIUM, SCANDIUM, TRITIUM, AND PLUTONIUM
33366777888888
121414
14141616161617
222222
23
27
29
I.II.III.IV.v.
VI.VII.VIIIIX.x.XI.XII.XIII.
TABLES
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE TYPES 4FEED COMPOSITION FOR TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT HEIFERS 11FEED COMPOSITION OF BUSHLAND FEEDLOT HEIFERS 11 .HEIFER WEIGHT AND FEED DATA 13MEAN VALUES AND 1 STANDARD DEVIATION FOR SOIL, PLANT, AND 15WATER SAMPLES
.
SCANDIUM AND URANIUM CONTENT OF TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT FEED CONSTITUENTS 18TRITIUM ANOVA RESULTS 18TRITIUM T-TEST RESULTS 19SCANDIUM ANOVA RESULTS 20SCANDIUM T-TEST RESULTS 21URANIUM ANOVA RESULTS 23URANIUM T-TEST RESULTS 24SCANDIUM CONCENTRATION RATIOS 25
XIV. URANIUM CONCENTRATION RATIOS 26
A-I.A-II.A-III.A-IV.A-V.A-VI .A-VII.A-VIII.A-IX.A-X.A-XI.A-XII.A-XIII.A-XIV.A-XV.
A-XVI.A-XVII.
APPENDIX TABLES
RESUSPENSION SOIL LAYER RESULTS 30RESUSPENSION SOIL LAYER COMPOSITE RESULTS 31SOIL CORE LAYER (25 cm) RESULTS 32SOIL CORE LAYER (25 cm) RESULTS FOR COMPOSITES 33RANGE VEGETATION RESULTS 34RANGE VEGETATION RESULTS 35GRAIN SORGHUM PLANT RESULTS 35WATER SAMPLES 36WEEKLY FEED MIX RESULTS FOR TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT 36FEED COMPONENT SAMPLES FROM TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT 37ALFALFA SAMPLES FROM TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT 37WEEKLY FEED RESULTS FOR BUSHLAND FEEDLOT 38FEED COMPOSITE RESULTS FOR TEXAS TECH AND BUSHLAND FEEDLOTS 39HEIFER TISSUE AND ORGAN RESULTS 40cATTLE TREATMENT PT (PANTEx RANGE PLUS TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT) 50URANIUM RESULTS pCi/g WETcATTLE TREATMENT AB (BusHLAND FEEDLOT) URANIUM RESULTS pCi/g WET 52CATTLE TREATMENT PC (PANTEX RANGE CONTROLS) URANIUM RESULTS 53pCi/g WET
A-XVIII. CATTLE TREATMENT AC (AUCTION cONTROLS) URANIUM RESULTS pCi/g WET 53A-XIX. TISSUE COMPOSITE RESULTS FOR PLUTONIUM pCi/g WET 54A-XX . BLOOD COMPOSITE RESULTS FOR PLUTONIUM pCi/g WET 55 -A-XXI . DOSE FACTORS FOR NATURAL URANIUM INGESTION WHEN GUT TO BLOOD 56
IS 0.05 AND 50-YR DOSE COMMITMENT .
vi
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTREGARDING THE PANTEX PLANT:
AGRICULTURAL FOOD CHAIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
by
W. J. Wenzel, K. M. Wallwork-Barber, J. M. Horton, K. H. Rea,L. C. Hollis, D.V.M., E. S. Gladney, D. L. Mayfield,
A. F. Gallegos, J. C. Rodgers, R. G.
ABSTRACT
This report documents work performed in
Thomas, and G; Trujillo
support of preparation of anEnvironmental Impact Statement regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE)Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas. The introduction describes why soil,water, vegetation, and beef cattle were sampled on the Pantex Plant and thegeneral experimental treatments analyzed for a feedlot experiment. Thechemical and radiochemical methods used for analyzing these samples at theLos Alamos National Laboratory are discussed in the methods sectjon for eachsample type. The results section presents the statistical differences foundbetween control samples and samples from the Pantex Plant for uranium,tritium, plutonium, and scandium, a nonradioactive rare earth element marker.The significant differences are explained in the conclusions section. Theradiation levels found in water, soil, range vegetation, sorghum, and beefcattle from sampling on and near the Pantex Plant are compared to naturalbackground levels. Their significance is interpreted as radiation doses fromingestion of meat. The Appendix contains the uranium, tritium, plutonium,and scandium analysis results for all the samples.
I. INTRODUCTION
This report documents work performed in support of preparation of anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the Department of Energy’s(DOE) Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas. That EIS addresses continuingnuclear weapons operations at Pantex Plant and the construction of additional
. facilities to house those operations. The EIS was prepared in accordance withcurrent regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act. Regulationsof the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500) require agencies to
prepare concise EISS with less than 300 pages for complex projects. Thisreport was prepared by Los Alamos National Laboratory to document detail ofwork performed and supplementary information considered during preparation ofthe Draft EIS.
Approximately 25% of the United States beef cattle feeding industry is.
concentrated within a 200-mile radius of Amarillo, Texas. Yearly, over four -million cattle are fed for slaughter in this area, which includes the Texasand Oklahoma Panhandles and southwestern Kansas. Cattle raised on nativegrasses and small-grain pastures are usually sold at public auction.Generally, these cattle will be traded at more than one auction barn beforereaching a preconditioning or finishing feedlot. Cattle fed a growing rationin a preconditioning feedlot do not usually go to a finishing feedlot untilthey weigh 650 to 750 lbs. Pasture cattle may also be sold and transferredto either type of feedlot. After cattle in a finishinq feedlot have attaineda weight of-lOOO to 1100 lbs, they are sold to a slaug~ter facility wherethey are butchered and prepared for human consumption.
Cattle feed ingredients are grown in various sections of the country.For economic reasons, feedlots attempt to obtain most ingredients from localsources. Cottonseed hulls, cottonseed meal, and grain sorghum are usuallypurchased locally. However, soybean meal, minerals, and most of the grain(other than sorghum) must be transported in from other parts of the country.
Upon arrival at the feedlot, cattle are started on a high-roughageration and rapidly (usually within 28 days) adjust, through a series ofrations of increasing energy content, to a high-energy ration. High-energyrations will contain from 80 to 100% grain. Therefore, for most of the feed-ing period (100 to 140 days), grain is the major dietary component.
Because cattle are pastured on the Pantex Plant site and grain sorghumis the major crop grown on the site, beef cattle ranging on the site werepurchased and sampled for radioactive nuclides. Additional cattle purchasedat auction were fed grain sorghum grown near the Pantex Plant site to deter-mine whether the feed-to-cattle pathway may be a significant pathway to man.Previous soil and air samples at the Pantex Plant indicated that uranium andtritium are possible onsite contaminants that could enter the food chain(tltlSM1982, 13uhl1982). Because plutonium is handled at the site, it wasincluded along with uranium and tritium in the radiochemical analysis forthis study; however, plutoniumPantex Plant. It is availableof nuclear weapons. Elementalis considered a good tracer orits immobility and relatively -
has never been released by operations at thefrom worldwide fallout from open-air testingscandium was also analyzed in most samples and“marker” for plutonium and uranium because of
.
arge natural concentration in soil. In thisstudy~ range grass, feeds, and beef cattle produced on and near the Pantex .
Plant that could be pathways for radiation exposure to the public were sam-pled and analyzed for tritium, uranium, plutonium, and scandium. Statistical
2
analyses of the results were performed using standard statistical techniques.Results are reported as mean values *1 standard deviation. Means among cat-tle treatments were tested for significant differences using one-way analysisof variance (ANOVA). Means between onsite and offsite samples were tested
. using a Student’s t-test.
Two major crops, grain sorghum and winter wheat (Triticum sp.), are.grown at the Pantex Plant site. Several large pastures on the Pantex Plantsite are subleased to local ranchers for beef cattle grazing. These cattleare then placed in a local feedlot or offered for sale at auction. For thisstudy, cattle pastured on Pantex Plant rangeland and cattle purchased atauction were placed in a local feedlot (Texas Tech Feedlot) and fed sorghumgrown near the northeast perimeter of the Pantex Plant. A control herd wasplaced on another feedlot at Bushland, Texas (Bushland Feedlot), and fed acommercial ration. Soil, range grasses, feed, water, blood, selected organs,and meat were sampled and analyzed for tritium, uranium, plutonium, andscandium. Table I lists the sample types, sampling location, and number ofsamples. A total of 581 samples were analyzed. Uranium and scandium wereanalyzed in all individual samples except blood; uranium in blood could notbe analyzed. Eighty-one composite samples representing all sample types wereanalyzed for 238Pu and 239Pu.
Other food chain studies have found that cattle, through inhalation andconsumption of contaminated particles in soil and vegetation, will accumulateuranium and plutonium in their tissues and hence make them available to man.Uptake studies have been done at the Nevada Test Site and Rocky Flats Plantin areas known to have low-level plutonium and uranium contamination (Smith1974, Smith 1975). In addition, as part of the radiological assessment aftera uranium mill tailings spill near Gallup, New Mexico, the US Public HealthService analyzed goat, sheep, and cattle tissues for uranium and otherelements to ascertain the effect on the food chain (Ruttenber 1980). Dairyproducts and meat ingestion are considered major routes of entry ofradionuclides through ingestion for man, and radiation doses calculated fromingestion of radionuclides in these foods are routinely calculated forradiological assessments (USNRC 1977, Garten 1978, and Boone 1981).
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Soils
1. Pantex Plant Sampling Plots. Thirty sample plots were surveyed in a200-acre pasture (Sections 11.A and 11.B, Sec. 51, Tract 36 of Carson County,.Texas, located 1 mile west of the Pantex Plant site burning ground) on thePantex Plant site. The plots were sampled on October 27 and 28, 1981, while
. the cattle were on range. The survey origin was the corner fence postlocated at the q-id origin in Fig. 1. A N-S and E-W 30-m grid system waslaid out over the pasture with markers. Figure 1 depicts the grid and sample
3
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE TYPES
Number ofSample Type Sampling Location Samples
Resuspendible range soil Pantex Plant site pasture 3025-cm range soil core 30Live and dead above- 30ground range grass
Water trough 1
25-cm soil core NE perimeter near 3Pantex site
Grain SorghumSeed head 3Shoot 3Root 3
Heifer samples Five beef cattle treatmentsKidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumen contentsHamburgerSteakBlood
3030303030303030
180
.
.I
Feed and water samplesFeed mix Texas Tech Feedlot 23Alfalfa 11Feed constituents 4Tap water 1
Feed mix 18Tap water 1
Bushland Feedlot
plots by number. Thirty Xl and Yl coordinates were obtained from four-digitrandom numbers selected by blind entry into a random number table. The firstdigit represented the positive or negative direction from the fence postorigin along a N-S line according to whether it was even or odd,respectively. The second digit represented the distance. Similarly, the .
third and fourth numbers represented direction and distance along the E-Wline. Figure 2 is a photograph of the Pantex Plant range showing the SE
4
f
MAGmr[cNomi
1
● 16
● =● 1
& 14
●9 ● 25
● 27 i
● 23
Fig. 1. Random sampling
(MmRS)
-1
plots on Pantex Plant range.
corner of the pasture. A dry playa lake with approximately 6 ft of elevationchange occupies the center portion of the pasture.
Soil samples were taken at each plot by two methods (Hansen 1980). A 1-cm resuspendible soil layer sample was taken, after removal of vegetation, bypounding a 20-cm-diam metal ring into the soil 1 cm until the top edgewas flush with the surface. A circular spatula was slid underneath the ringto obtain only the top l-cm soil layer. The sample was placed in doubleplastic bags, labeled, and packed for shipping. After removal of theresuspendible layer, a 5-cm-diam plastic pipe was driven 25 cm into the soil
. and removed to gain a 25-cm soil core. The entire pipe and contents weresealed in double plastic bags, labeled, and packed for shipping. The spatula
. and l-cm ring were rinsed with distilled water between plots to avoid crosscontamination.
5
.
.
Fig. 2. SE corner looking north toward dry playa of Pantex Plantrange bordering the burning grounds.
2. Pantex Plant NE Perimeter Soil Samples. On October 29, 1981, three25-cm-deep soil core samples were collected beneath sorghum plants on aharvested field edge approximately 2 miles north of the NE corner of thePantex Plant site. The cores were placed in plastic bags, labeled, andpacked for shipping.
3. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis. All samples werebrought to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for analysis.
Standard procedures for analytical quality assurance were rigorouslyfollowed for all analyses. Details can be found in Gladney 1981A, 1981B, and19825. The samples were frozen until ready for analysis. Wet weights were
.
obtained on each sample. Water was distilled from the resuspendible layersoil samples for tritium analysis (Gladney 1982A). When at least 6 m!?of .
distillate had been collected, a 5-ml sample was pipetted into a glass
6
scintillation vial and 15 ml of PCS II* cocktail was added. Each sample wasshaken vigorously and counted for 35 min in a Packard Liquid ScintillatorCounter. These data were reduced to pCi/2 3H using standard computingtechniques (GIadney 1982A). Dry weights were obtained after drying at 105”C.The resuspendible soil samples had considerable organic material and wereashed over a period of about 4 days by gradually increasing the oventemperatures to 500”C until a white ash was visible in the soil matrix..
The ashed, resuspendible soil layer and the dried soil core layer sampleswere ball milled to homogenize the samples. A portion of each sample wasanalyzed for total uranium using delayed neutron assay (Gladney 1980A and19806). Scandium was determined on the same sample by instrumental thermalneutron activation analysis (Gladney 1980B). Plutonium analyses were notdone for the soil cores from the NE perimeter. Plutonium was determined forsoil composites from the Pantex Site pasture plots. Five plots werecomposite which gave six analyses for resuspendible and six analyses for 25-cm core samples. The composite plutonium isotopic composition was determinedby radiochemical separation and alpha spectroscopy (Gladney 1982A).Plutonium-239,240 are reported together as 239Pu because the analyticalmethod does not distinguish between these two nuclides.
B. Vegetation
1. Pantex Plant Range Sampling Plots. Forage samples were collected atthe same time as the soil samples on each plot by clipping all dead and livestanding biomass of grasses (mainly Bouteloua gracilis, and Buchloedactyloides) and forbs to within 1 cm of the ground surface. In some plots,because of sparse vegetation, two or three l-m2 plots adjacent to each otherwere sampled to obtain sufficient biomass for analyses. Grass clippers wererinsed with distilled water between plots. Plots 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,18, 24, 25, 26, 28, and 29 were 2 m2; plots 7, 21, 30 were 3-m2 plots; andthe remainder were l-m2 plots. Biomass was adjusted to 1 mz for datacalculations in all cases. Most of the 2- and 3-m2 plots were within the dryplaya area and were predominantly small forbs instead of establishedperennial grasses.
2. Pantex Plant NE Perimeter Grain Sorghum Plant Samples. On October29, 1981, three entire grain sorghum plants were collected from the edge of aharvested field approximately 2 miles north of the NE corner of the PantexPlant site. The three plants were removed carefully to minimize disturbanceof the root system. While in the field each plant was separated into roots,shoots , and seed heads. The samples were placed in double plastic bags,
.labeled, and packaged for shipment.
.
*PCS II, Phase Combining System, Amersham Corp., Arlington Heights,Illinois.
3. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis. Wet, dry, and ashweights were taken on all vegetation. During preparation for 3Hanalysis, some of the vegetation samples yielded colored distillates causingquenching. They were redistilled over KMNO and realiquoted. Redistillation
~H spikes were added and theproved unsatisfactory; therefore, internalsamples recounted. This procedure allowed for an analysis of the countingefficiency and results were adjusted accordingly. .
The uranium, scandium, and plutonium analyses were determined on theplant ash using the same procedures described earlier for soils. Totalpotassium analysis was performed on the NE perimeter sorghum and soil samplesusing standard procedures (Gladney 1980B).
c. Water
1. Sampling Stations. Ten l-gal. plastc containers were used tosample the Pantex Plant pasture trough (October 28, 1981), the Texas TechFeedlot tap (December 17, 1981), and the Bushland Feedlot tap (December 17,1981). The samples were labeled and transported to the Los Alamos NationalLaboratory for analysis.
2. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis. The ten l-gal. watersamples were frozen at Los Alamos until analysis. The 5-m2 aliquots weretaken for 3H analysis using the PCS II cocktail. Total uranium ”wasdetermined directly on the water samples. Scandium determination.s in waterrequired an initial chemical separation. Five hundred milliliters of samplewater were acidified to 0.5 M HC1, after which a known quantity of 144Cetracer was added. The sample was passed through a DOWEX* 50 x 8 cationexchange column, which quantitatively retains scandium and other rare earthelements. After washing with 2 M HC1, scandium is eluted with 6 M HC1. Theeluant was dried on polycarbonate film, and 144Ce was counted on a NaI wellcounter to determine chemical rare earth yield. The fplaced into small polyethylene beam vials for scandiumneutron activation.
D. Beef Cattle and Feed
lms were folded andmeasurement by thermal
1. Cattle Handling and Feed. Figures 3 and 4 are schematics of theexperimental cattle treatments performed for this study at the Texas TechUniversity Research Feedlot (Texas Tech Feedlot) on the southwest boundary ofthe Pantex Plant and at the USDA and Texas A&M Experiment Station Feedlot atBushland (Bushland Feedlot).
~OWEX cation=xchange resin supplied by Bio-Rad Laboratories, 32nd &Griffin, Richmond, Calif. DOWEX is the registered trademark of the DowChemical Co.
.
.
8
Pc = Pantex Control
.
. 8 Heifers onTexas Tech Feedlot
10 Heifers from Pantex PerimeterPantex Plant Pasture milo for
117-155 days680-lb average
November 2, 1981
#253 and 25511/18/81
PT = Pantex T.T. Feedlot
8 HeifersDissected
_E!ElFig. 3. Experimental cattle treatments PC and PT.
AC = Auction Control
4 HeifersDissected
#488, 188, 198, 541
20 Heifers fromAuction 8 Heifers on AT = Auction T.T.Feedlot
Texas Tech Feedlot630-lb average 8 Heifers
November 17, 1981 Pantex Perimeter Dissectedmilo for
117-155 days #225, 458, 468, 495513, 536, 565, 568
8 Heifers onBushland Feedlot AB = Auction Bushland
FeedlotCommercial Feed117-155 days 8 Heifers
Dissected#288, 315, 324, 363373, 494, 496, 570
Fig. 4. Experimental cattle treatments AC, AT, and AB.
9
On November 2, 1981, ten 680-lb (average weight) heifers were purchasedfrom Edwin Kennedy and received at the Texas Tech Feedlot. These heifers hadbeen grazing native grasses from the 200-acre Pantex Plant pasture, which hadbeen sampled earlier for vegetation and soil. Grazing period for theseheifers was from approximately June 1, 1981, through November 2, 1981. Twowere dissected as controls (pc = Pantex Control), and the remaining eight(PT = Pantex Texas Tech Feedlot) were placed in the Texas Tech Feedlot. Thisis depicted in Fig. 3.
.
On November 17, 1981, twenty 630-lb (average weight) heifers werepurchased at public auction from the Amarillo Livestock Auction Company. Theheifers were randomly allocated to two groups of 10 head. Eight of the tenheifers were retained at the Texas Tech Feedlot as background controls(AT = Auction Texas Tech Feedlot). Eight of the remaining ten heiferswere transferred to the Bushland Feedlot to serve as nonexposed controls(AB = Auction Bushland Feedlot). Transfer of the AB heifers toBushland was delayed until November 24, 1981, because of a quarantinein effect at Bushland. This is depicted in Fig. 4.
Two heifers from each of the three groups (PC = Pantex Control and AC =Auction Control) were randomly chosen and transported on November 18, 1981,to Texas Tech University Meats Laboratory in Lubbock, Texas, to be sacrificedand dissected as controls.
Cattle were housed in open air, dirt floor pens, which provided 20 ft ofbunkspace and 300 sq ft of space/heifer at the Texas Tech Feedlot and offeredfeed ad libitum. Fresh water was available from automatic waterers. TableII sh~s the feed composition for the PT and AT treatments. Grain sorghumprovided to the heifers at the Texas Tech Feedlot was obtained from a field(S 1/2, Sec. 52, Block M-4) located 1 mile west and 1.5 mile north of thePantex Plant site’s northeast corner. This area is considered to be downwindof the Pantex Plant firing site because of the prevailing SW winds. Originof the chopped alfalfa hay was near McClave, Colorado. Origins of the othercommercial feed components are listed in Table II. Weekly feed samples werecollected and transported to Los Alamos National Laboratory. Jugular bloodsamples were collected from both range and auction heifers. Samplinginvolved collection of 250 cm3 of blood twice weekly for 2 wk followed byonce weekly for 2 wk and then once every 2 wk for 2 mo. Initial and finalweights were recorded as well as daily feed consumption. Upon reachingfinished weight and carcass grade of choice by visual estimation, the threegroups of heifers were delivered to the meats laboratory at Texas Tech atLubbock, Texas, for dissection.
.
The heifers kept at Bushland were housed in pens similar to those at theTexasTech Feedlot. The ration described in Table III was provided adlibitum. Table 111 lists the weight gain and feed consumption for e~h ofthe Bushland heifers. Rations were prepared by a commercial feedmill in
10
TABLE II
FEED COMPOSITION FOR TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT
Ingredient
Dry rolled sorghum (from NE perimeter of Pantex)Chopped alfalfa hayCane molassesProtein supplement
Dehydrated alfalfa mealRice mill feedCaC03 (from Waco, Texas)NaCl (from Carlsbad, New Mexico)KC1 (from Carlsbad, New Mexico)Dicalcium phosphate (from Florida)Anmonium sulfateUreaTrace mineralsVitamin AVitamin E
. ,(+-
HEIFERS..,,,,,,.,
Per Cent by Weight..
7812 “-”5
2.00.750.800.5*
0.260.310.360.02”**
*Trace.
.
.
TABLE III
FEED COMPOSITION OF BUSHLAND FEEDLOT HEIFERS
,...
Ingredient Per Cent by Weight....
Dry rolled corn 69.0Cottonseed meal 6.0Cottonseed hulls 10.0 ““”Alfalfa (dehydrated) 7.5Cane molasses 5.0 “’””Fat 1.1NaCl 0.5Urea 288 0.5CaC03 0.5Rumensin 60 *Vitamin A *Trace minerals *
.
*Trace.!,)-
11
Friona, Texas. Origin of individual ngredients was not known. Fresh waterwas provided at all times from automatic waterers. Table IV gives the heiferweight and feed data for both feedlots. Weekly feed samples were collectedand transported to Los Alamos National Laboratory for analysis.
2. Organ and Tissue Dissections and Meat Sampling. Heifers weretransported to the Texas Tech University Meats Laboratory in Lubbock, Texas,
.
to be sacrificed and dissected. The collection and preparation of tissues - .
was performed by L. C. Hollis, 11.V.M.,from the Texas A&M VeterinaryDiagnostic Laboratory at Amarillo. After dissection of each tissue, scalpelsand surgical gloves were discarded to avoid cross contamination. Dissectionprocedures were the same for all carcasses and progressed as follows.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Following exsanguination, the hide was carefully removed to avoidpuncturing pleural and peritoneal cavities.
The carcass was washed completely with hot water.
The peritoneal cavity was carefully incised to avoid puncture of thedigestive tract.
Tissue and organ samples were removed in sequence from low to highpotential radioactivity concentrations.
Extraneous fat and connective tissues were removed from.eachsample.
Samples were sealed in freezer containers and frozen for airtransport to Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The organ and tissue samples were removed in the following sequence.
a. Skeletal muscle (The tensor fascia antibrachiunl muscle was removedfrom the posterior border of the left front leg and discarded. Themuscle bellies from the underlying long and medial heads of thetriceps muscle were then collected.)
b. Kidney (left)
c. Liver (A portion of dorsal border of the liver including the caudatelobe was collected. )
d. Bone (The left elbow joint was disarticulate and the upper one-half -of both the radius and ulna were collected.)
P Lung (The left lung was removed and distal portion was collected. ).
-.
f. Rumen content (A sample from dorsal sac of rumen was collected.)
12
TABLE IV
HEIFER WEIGHT AND FEED DATA
.
259260251252257258254256
225495458468536565513568
373570288315363494324
. 496
InitialWeight(lb)
694682759710668738636620
619618649526597647595640
812715661714639560546532
FinalWeight(lb)
93785710881036988
1124926982
798920
11007389871002917
1072
13401050105611501084872964920
Average AverageTotal Days Daily Consumption/ FeedGain on Gain Day Efficiency(lb) Feed (lb) (lb) (lb)— —
Pantex Plant Ranae Heifers
243175329326320386290362
117117138138138138155155
2.081.492.382.362.322.801.872.33
Pantex Plant Auction Heifers
179302451212390355222432
528335395436445312418388
117 1.53117 2.58138 3.27138 1.54138 2.83138 2.57155 2.08155 2.79
Bushland
117 4.51117 2.86138 2.86138 3.16138 3.22138 2.26155 2.70155 2.50
21.6921.6921.9221.9221.9221.9221.6821.68
19.9019.9020.1320.3120.3120.3120.2520.25
20.6020.6020.6020.6020.6020.6020.6020.60
10.4314.569.219.299.457.8311.599.30
13.017.716.2113.197.187.909.737.26
4.567.207.206.526.409.117.638.24
.
13
The carcasses were chilled and butchered at the meats laboratory. Ran-dom l-kg ground beef and steak samples were collected from each carcass.
Fetuses were recovered from heifers 494, 565, and 570. The fetuses willbe dissected for placental transfer studies. Heifer 225 fell immediatelybefore slaughter and inhaled rumen contents, which contaminated the lungsample. .
3. Laboratory Sample Preparation for Tissue and Meat. Wet, dry, andash weights were obtained for each sample. Considerable difficulty wasexperienced while ashing the large volumes of tissue. Lung and liver weredifficult to dry and ash due to bubbling and a tendency to explode in theoven. One liver and two lung samples were lost during ashing because the ovenoverheated. Therefore, the oven had to be carefully raised over a severalday period to avoid loss of sample. Tritium analyses were performed asdescribed earlier on muscle, hamburger, steak, blood, and rumen contents.Analyses on the other tissues were not necessary due to the rapid (about 4 h)equilibrium time for tritium in the body water pool. lJranium, scandium, andplutonium were analyzed on ashed tissue as described previously.Considerable difficulty in the analysis for uranium was encountered for theashed blood samples because of a large interference by chlorine. Therefore,only the blood scandium data are reported. Total uranium was determineddirectly on ashed samples.
Samples were composite within sample types and treatments for plutoniumanalyses.
4. Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis for Feed. Feed sampleswere prepared as described previously for vegetation. Tritium analysesencountered quenching problems and were reanalyzed with interval 3H-spikes inthe same fashion as the vegetation samples. Samples were composite forplutonium by collection dates and feedlots.
III. RESULTS
A. Soils
Tables A-I through A-IV give the analysis results for the soil samplesfor tritium, scandium, uranium, and plutonium. Table V lists the radionuclideand scandium concentration mean value and 1 standard deviation. Tritium meanvalue for soils is higher than those in northern New Mexico (2600 f 2400pCi/1) (ESG 1982), but the standard deviation indicates the means are in thesame range. However, Pantex Plant offsite soil and native vegetation samples -were not analyzed for tritium to determine the regional tritium concentra-tion. No statistical difference was found between the 2-cm resuspension soil .
layer uranium concentration and the 25-cm core layer for the 30 Pantex Plant
14
I o
Safmle TYDe
TABLE V
MEAN VALUES AND 1 STANDARD DEVIATION FOR SOIL, PLANT, AND WATER SAMPLES
Resuspendible soil - Pantex25-cm soil core - Pantex25-cm soil core - perimeter
Range grass - Pantex
Sorghum - perimeterSeed headShootRoot
Water samples
Feed mix - Texas TechFeedlot
Feed constituents - TexasTech FeedlotRolled miloCotton seedProtein pelletsCane molassesAlfalfa
Feed mix - Bushland Feedlot
n—
30303
30
333
3
23
1111
11
18
3H Sc upCi/t ppm (ash) pCi/g (dry)
3290 f 2290 8.7 ~ 1.5** Zel *0014
9.3 ~ 1.7** 2.0 *0.138.8 * 0025** 2.4 .tO.058
7580 ~ 4490 0.!58t 0.5** 0.081 fO.088
0.31 10.012 0.0027 tO.000510.44 *0.17 0.010 fo.oo355.7 -E2,~ 0.34 f 0.13
1500 * 530 O.oclocllot 6.5 i-O.40
0.0000016 (pCi/1)
2780 ~ 2350 0.11 *0.07** 0.26 fO.16
0.11 *0.02 0.0016 * 0.00022000 * 2000 2.1 fool 0.058 fO.006
-1000 ~ 2000 0.96 *0.05 3.2 *0.38000 f 2000 0.64 *0.04 0.068 * 0.0072760 *2670 1.6 -I-1.3 0.11 ~o.070
2410 ~ 1380 0.057 + 0.02** 0.15 fo.074
238pu*
fCi/g (dry)
0.82 t 1.5-0.10 f 1.2
0.14* 0.20
-15 ~ 7
(fCi/1)
~03 f 100
-0.4 ~006
-().3io.5
239~240pu*
fCi/g (dry)
36? 7.25.7 ~ 8.7
l.Of 0.67
-172 3
(fCi/~)
100* l.O
4.0 f 2
003~ 0,8
*Plutonium analyses done on composites of n.d
u-l **ppm (dry).
range plots sampled. A Student’s t-test at 95% confidence level indicatedthe means were identical. The uranium soil concentrations are in theworldwide background range of 2-3 pCi/g (Russell 1966). Values for 238Pu and23g$240Pu for these soil samples are lower than for the region surroundingLos Alamos (ESG 1982).
B. Range Vegetation and Grain Sorghum
Tables A-IV through A-VII give the analysis results for the plantsamples for tritium, scandium, uranium, and plutonium. The vegetation valueslisted in Table V indicate considerably lower concentrations in plants thanare in soils, which show discrimination against uptake as one moves up thefood chain from soil to plants for scandium, uranium, and plutonium. Thisindicates that scandium, uranium, and plutonium are not selectivelyaccumulated in the plants as, for example, is potassium (Table A-VII).Values for potassium were 12 times higher in sorghum shoots than in soil.Tritium values were higher in plant water than in soil water. The 3H inrange grasses was in the same range as for northern New Mexico (4200 * 3600pCi/~) (ESG 1982). The mean for range grass was higher statistically than itwas for the vegetable samples collected on or near the Pantex Plant and inClaude, Texas (Buhl 1982).
c. Water
Table A-VIII lists the analysis results for the water samples. Table Vgives the mean values for these analyses. The tritium levels in the watersamples are similar to those in northern New Mexico. Uranium concentrationsare higher than they are for northern New Mexico, but plutonium values arelower (ESG 1982).
D. Beef Cattle Tissue and Feed
A-XIII list the analysis results for theBushland Feedlots. The mean values are
1. Feed. Tables A-IX throughfeed samples for the Texas Tech andgiven in Table V. Tritium, uranium, plutonium, and scandium values in feedare comparable to the other vegetation samples.
Because the cattle tissues would reflect the feed concentrations for theradionuclides and scandium, the feeds and feed constituents were statisti-cally tested for differences between the two feedlot feeds. The meanscandium value (ppm dry) for the Texas Tech Feedlot weekly feed mix sampleswas 0.11 t 0.07 and for the Bushland Feedlot was 0.057 * 0.02. These meanswere tested and found to be statistically different using the Student’s t-test (a= 0.05).
.
.The mean uranium value (pCi/g dry) for the Texas Tech Feedlot weekly
feed mix samples (n = 23) was 0.26 t 0.16, whereas the Bushland Feedlot feed
16
(n = 18) was 0.15 tO.074. Means were tested at the 95% confidence level (a= 0.05) and found to be statistically different using the Student’s t-test.The reason for the higher scandium and uranium content of the Texas TechFeedlot feed was traced to a protein supplement additive (which was not used
. at the Bushland Feedlot) that had 0.41 ppm (dry) scandium and 3.2 pCi/g(dry) of natural uranium and represented 5% of the total weight of the normalTexas Tech Feedlot feed used for all cattle at the feedlot. Table VI showsthe feed grab sample component and mix analyses. Each component was sampledbefore mixing and analyzed separately. The feed mix milled at the Texas TechFeedlot was sampled before distributing to the cattle. Individual uraniumanalyses on the feed components times the feed component fraction of thefinal mix gave the same total uranium content as the feed mix grab sample(Similar analysis for scandium gave the same result. ) This finding con-clusively shows the protein pellets containing the dicalcium phosphatemineral supplement are the source of uranium for the feed mix. The protesupplement in the feed mix contains 92% of the total uranium in the feed.The specific source of uranium in the Bushland Feedlot feed was not
n
identified because a commercial premixed feed was purchased and fed to thecattle. Two previous studies have identified uranium in cattle feeds (Reid1977, Chapman 1963). Chapman found about 8 times more uranium in feedconcentrates than in alfalfa hay fed to dairy cattle. The average in suchconcentrate was 0.09 pCi/g of uranium. Reid found uranium to be proportionalto the phosphate percentage in the mineral feed supplements and phosphorusranges from O to 20%, which gave uranium values from O to 200 ppm.
2. Beef Cattle Tissue and Meat. Tables A-XIV through A-XXI list theanalysis results for the tissues and meat samples for tritium, scandium,uranium, and plutonium. Two statistical analyses were performed for eachradionculide and scandium: one-way analysis of variance and the two-tailed t-test (Nie 1975). The tissue data in Table A-XIV were input to a file andSPSS was used to do the statistical analyses.
Comparison of treatments PT, AT, and AB for tritium showed nosignificant difference between these treatments for muscle, hamburger, steak,and rumen contents. Table VII gives the tritium ANOVA results. Significanceis given for a. When 1 a was greater than 0.90, results were consideredsignificant. Tritium t-test results are shown in Table VIII for PC vs AC, ACvs AB, and AC vs AT. The reason for significance for hamburger and steak inAC vs AB is not clear. Analyses were done several months apart, andinterference from ambient tritium levels may be the cause for the difference.The major result of no difference between treatments for tritium is apparentin Table VII.
Table IX gives the ANOVA and Table X the t-test results for scandium●
among the same treatments as tested for tritium. Two sets of data weretested: analysis results in ppn (ash) and a converted set ppn (wet). Rumencontents were treated differently. Because rumen contents are vegetative
17
18
‘Na*
~cu
mO
ooui
Oood
O“O”&&
+1
++
++
++
WM
CO
N.-lbtn
Ooo
t-i0...00
0
+1
+IY1-
.
1I
.
TABLE VIII
TRITIUM T-TEST RESULTS
.
. Sample Type DF
Muscle 4Rumen contents 4Hamburger 4Steak 4
Muscle 10Rumen contents 10Hamburger 10Steak 10
Muscle 10Rumen contents 10Hamburger 10Steak 10
T Value
-0.260.19
-0.710.48
1.28-1.01
2.633.84
-0.37-0.68
2.263.93
2-Tai 1Prob., a
0.8050.8570.5170.654
0.2280.3380.025**o. 003**
0.7160.5100.047**0. 003**
Pc350 f 70300 * 140
2100 f8504000 * 3000
AC430 * 380230 * 510
4200 ~ 39003200 * 1100
AC430 * 380230 f510
4200 f 39003200 * 1100
AC430 * 380230 k 510
4200 * 39003200 * 1100
AB38 f530
2400 *41OO700 ~ 520860 * 950
AT810 + 2000
1700 f42001000 * 1000
850 * 920
*Uncertainties are *1 standard deviation.**Means are significantly different at the l-a level of 0.90 or higher.
matrices, they were converted to ppm (dry) for analysis. (This conversionfrom ash to dry weights for rumen contents was also done for uranium). Thescandium in rumen contents of PT and AT heifers was significantly higher thanAB. This is reasonable because the scandium concentration was higher in theTexas Tech Feedlot feed than the Bushland Feedlot feed. The reason for thedifference in the hamburger samples is not clear. 13ecause both steak andmuscle do not show a similar trend, probably differences in detection levels(which change for each batch of samples run) COU1d account for the differ-ence. In Table X significant differences between means of scandium in muscleare probably attributable to changes in detection limits for PC vs AC.
. Because these heifers are close in age and weight, the test indicates simi-lar scandium concentrations in tissue at the beginning of the feedlot
# experiments. Testing the AC vs AB and AT indicates differences due to ageand feed, resulting in significant changes of scandium concentration inkidney, liver, bone, muscle, and rumen contents.
79
. .“.
TABLE IX
SCANDIUM ANOVA RESULTS
. . ppb (wet)- Significance
Sample Type n F Va~ue a—,..
Kidney 24 0.0648Lung - .. 24 0.3525Bone - . 24 0.5997Liver 24 1.5797Muscle’ ~ 24 .0.1851Rumen content,,24 3.0032“(dry) ‘
Hamburger .24 3.0588Steak ‘: ,24,0.5795.,,.
0.9375.0.7070“0.55810:2296
-0.83230.0713*
0:0693*0.5693
..
ppb (ash)Significance
F Value ~ a
0.2174 0.80640.6391 0.53770.5739 0.57191.1717 0.32930.9147 0.41603.1337 0.0644*
2.5967 0.0994*0;6117 0.5523
ppb (wet)Treatment PT Treatment AT Treatment A8X * 1 s.d. X ~ 1 s.d. x~l~.d
0.18 tO.2 0.16 fO.06 0.16* 0.06101 *2 0.67 ~0.2 0.79 * 0.5’”1.8 f007 2.4 ~ 2 2.9? 3 ~:
0.29 kO.1 - 0.43 * 0.3 0.24 t 0.660.31 10.2 0.36 *0.2 0.40 f:o.4150 *6O 150 ~ 70 82 *:60
*Means are .sig”n$ficantlydifferent at the l-a level of 0.90 or higher..... .
‘..,. . $
-.. .r...- ,..-: , ..
. c:.: .. -,,.
\, . ;. ..
.
\ It . “
0.81 fO.6 0.33 *0.3 0.37 f’o.20.64 fO.6 0.45 *0.3 0.46* 0.2
1:.1‘II
.“
1 r
ppb (wet)2 Tail
Sample Type DF—
PC vs ACKidney 4Lung 3Bone 4Liver 4Muscle 4Rumen con- 4tents (dry)Hamburger 4Steak 4
AC VS ABKidney 10Lung 9Bone 10Liver 10Muscle 10Rumen con- 10tents (dry)Hamburger 10Steak 10
AC VS ATKidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumen con-tents (dry)HamburgerSteak
109
10101010
1010
T Value
1.08-0.22-1.30-0.63-2.62
1.95
0.37-0.35
2.760.171.682.425.07
-0.69
-0.21-2.37
2.980.722.12
-0.316.61
-2.31
0.10-1.50
Prob., a
0.3410.8420.2640.5600.059*0.122
0.7300.743
0.020*0.8680.1230.036*o.000*0.506
0.8360.039*
0.014*0.4910.060*0.7640.000*0.043*
0.9220.164
TABLE X
SCANOIWl T-TEST RESULTS
ppb (ash)2 Tail
OF—
434444
44
109
10101010
1010
109
10101010
1010
T Value
0.89-0.26-1.53-1.28-2.504.32
-0.57-0.33
2.641.042.032.778.68-0.88
1.26-0.90
2.461.112.480.119.32
-2.22
2.97-1.13
Prob., a
0.4250.8100.2010.2700.067*0.012*
0.5980.757
0.025*0.3240.069*0.020*O.000*0.400
0.2360.390
0.034*0.2960.032*0.9140. 000*0.050*
0.014*0.284
ppb (wet)Treatment Treatment~~ 1 s.d.
Pc0.43 *0.20.73 +0.5
3.0 * 1
0.31 +0.020.56 *0.6
120 f 10
0.42 ~ 0.30.19 f 0.08
AC0.30 *0.10.85 ? 0.7
5.6 2 30.37 fo.1
1.6 fO.459 * 40
0.35 *0.20.22 *0.09
AC0.30 +0.10.85 * 0.7
5.6 ~ 3
0.37 *0.11.6 ~ o.4
59 i 40
0.35 +0.20.22 fo.09
~f 1 s.d.
AC0.30 * 0.10.85 * 0.7
5.6 f 3
0.37 * 0.11.6 fo.4
59 * 40
0.35 fo.20.22 f 0.09
AB0.16 *0.060.79 * 0.52.9 * 3
0.24 * 0.060.40 fo.482 ~ 60
0.37 *0.20.46 * 0.2
AT0.16 f 0.060.67 * 0.22.4 * 2
0.43 f 0.30.36 * 0.2150 f 70
0.33 * 0.30.45 * 0.3
*Means are significantly different at the l-a level of 0.90 or higher.
The uranium ANOVA and t-tests are given in Tables XI and XII. Uraniumin bone was significantly different in the ANOVA. One large outlier(heifer 565) forced treatment AT to be higher than PT and AB. This is morenoticeable in the larger standard deviation for uranium in bone in treatmentAT than for PT and AB. T-test results indicate differences for rumencontents when AC vs AB and AC vs AT means were tested. Apparent differencesfound scattered in muscle, hamburger, and steak means can probably beattributed to differences in detection limits. Data resolution appearssomewhat lower for uranium than for scandium. Even though higher uraniumcontent was found in Texas Tech Feedlot feeds compared to Bushland feeds,ANOVA identified a significant difference only for bone [although kidney l-asignificance was 0.83 for ppb (ash)].
Inspection of the 238Pu and 239‘240Pu analysis results for the tissuesand meat did not indicate expected metabolic dynamics typical of plutonium.Bone and liver values should be higher than muscle and kidney for plutonium.However, because the tissue plutonium concentrations were so low, thesemetabolic dynamics were apparently masked by the uncertainty of analyticaldetection limits. Statistical analyses were not done on the plutoniumcomposites because the values were at or below the detection limits.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A. Concentration Ratios Among Sample Types
The extent of discrimination in the food chain for uranium is apparentwhen the concentration ratios are examined. Uranium concentrations in thesoil exceed those in vegetation; concentrations in vegetation are greaterthan those in cattle tissues. This decrease in concentration as onetraverses up the food chain can be expressed as a concentration ratio (CR)between the soil, vegetation, and tissue compartment of the food chain. Theuranium CR for grass/soil is 0.039. Thus, soil has about 26 times moreuranium on a per dry gram basis than does the range grass growing on it.
The two cattle that had grazed on the Pantex Plant range from Junethrough October (treatment PC, heifers 253 and 255) gave the estimated CRS inTables XIII and XIV. CRS for treatments PT, AT, and AB are also listed inTables XIII and XIV. The CRS are lower for the tissue/feed than thetissue/range grass CRS. Perhaps this is caused by the chemical form ofingested uranium or by feed effects on uranium absorption in the ruminantgut. This difference is not apparent for the scandium CRS.
B. Radiation Doses
Calculated radiation doses based on the levels of uranium, tritium, andplutonium found in meat were in the fraction of amrem/yr per person.
.
.
.
22
TABLEXI
URAN1lMANOVARESULTS
fCi/g (wet)Significance
. Sample Type ~ F Value a
KidneyLung.BoneLiverMuscleRumen con-tent (dry)
HamburgerSteak
242424242424
2424
1.37311.55803.57200.70580.39190.7019
0.78560.9311
0.27510.23390. 0462*0.50510.68060.5069
0.46880.4098
ppb (ash)Significance
F Value a
1.9047 0.17371.3145 0.28983.4845 0.0493*0.3746 0.69211.7195 0.20341.8730 0.1784
0.0003 0.99970.5709 0.5736
fCi/g (wet)Treatment PT Treatment AT Treatment ABxi 1 s.d. xi 1 s.d. Xt 1 s.d.
0.90* 0.5 1.5* 1.3 0.78* 0.70.082* 0.04 0.14* 0.07 0.36* 0.65.3* 7. 19 * 19 7.4i 4.20.11* 0.08 0.23* 0.4 0.11* 0.040.071* 0.03 0.090f 0.07 0.096* 0.07160* 60 190f 100 230* 160
0.21f 0.1 0,20* 0.09 0.16t 0.070.091i 0.05 0.083t 0.04 0.11* 0.05
*Values for bone show strong differences between treatments.
Uranium occurs naturally in soils at an average of 3 to 4 ppm. Levelsin soil, grass, and meat samples were in the background range. Naturaluranium usually has 99.3% 238U, 0.72% 235U, and 0.006% 234U (Los AlamosScientific Laboratory 1979). Dose factors for natural uranium can becalculated using the INREM Ingestion model (Dunning 1977). These values aregiven in Table A-XXI as rem/uCi of natural uranium ingested. If a beefconsumption rate of 79 kg/yr is assumed, then the 50-yr dose commitment to anadult from ingestion of ground beef at 1.6 x 10-4 pCi/g wet weight wuld be0.2 mrem to bone, 0.01 mrem to kidney, and 0.01 mrem to liver. These valuesare far below the 500 mrem/yr accepted for an individual and over 500 timesbelow the radiation dose each person receives each year from naturalbackground. Uranium, 3H, and plutonium values for samples collected at thePantex Plant and Bushland indicate background levels for soil, range grass,sorghum, cattle tissues, and meat. Ingestion of meat grown on or near thePantex Plant does not represent a radiological hazard to the public becauselevels of these radionuclides are far below the accepted ConcentrationGuides.
Cattle slaughtered after ranging on a Pantex pasture west of the burningground did not have levels of these nuclides above the background levelsobserved for cattle purchased at auction. Cattle fed milo grown near thenortheast perimeter of the Pantex Plant showed no significant differences innuclide concentrations in their tissues from those purchased at auction andfed a commercial ration.
v. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the many people atTexas Tech at Amarillo and Lubbock who assisted in this experiment. The
.authors also thank Richard Peters, Daryl Knab, Marcia Mueller, Dan Perrin,and Susan Meadows for their assistance in performing the analyses.
23
.+s
00..
00+4+
4
-lmImcu
G?o
ALscwgso
..
..
Ooeodz
m<+I+IU
*+I+I
~~er-c
tio..-#m
m.A
mo
wG
oo
o“
mu
Com.
.N
Y
20‘NO..
**
om
~m
oo
dd
omcJ
moo
.+
l-id
..
o
..
SCANDIUM
.
Sample Description
1. Pantex Plant pasture
Resusuendible soil25-cm core soil
Ranue arassResuspendible soil
Kidney/range grassLung/range grassBone/range grass
Liver/range grassMuscle/range grass
Rumen contents/range grassHamburger/range grass
Steak/range grass
2. Feedlots
Kidney/feedLung/feedBone/feed
Liver/feedMuscle/feed
Rumen contents/feedHamburger/feed
Steak/feed
TABLE XIII
CONCENTRATION RATIOS
Concentration Ratio
PT
0.00160.010
0.016
0.0026
0.0028
1.360.0074
0.0058
0.94
0.067
0.00740.013
0.052
0.0053
0.0097
2.07
0.0072
0.0033
AT
0.0015
0.00610.022
0.0039
0.0032
1.360.0030
0.0041
AB
0.0028
0.014
0.051
0.0042
0.0070
1.44
0.00650.0081
25
TABLE XIV
URANIUM CONCENTRATION RATIOS
.
Sample Description Concentration Ratio
1. Pantex Plant pasture
Resuspendible soil25-cm core soil
Range Grass
Resuspendible soil
Kidney/range grass
Lung/range grass
Bone/range grassLiver/range grassMuscle/range grass
Rumen contents/range grassHamburger/range grass
Steak/range grass
2. Feedlots
Kidney/feedLung/feedBone/feed
Liver/feedMuscle/feed
Rumen contents/feedHamburger/feedSteak/feed
1.0
0.039
0.017
0.0014
0.030
0.0022
0.00120.630.0038
0.00036
PT AT
0.0035
0.00032
0.020
0.00042
0.00027
0.620.00081
0.00035
0.0058
0.000540.073
0.000880.000350.730.000770.00032
AB
0.00520.0024
0.0490.000730.000641.50.00110.00073
26
REFERENCES
Boone
Buhl
.
1981: F. W. Boone, Y. C. Ng, and J. M. Palm, “Terrestrial Pathways ofRadionuclide Particulate,” Health Phys. 41, 735-747 (1981).—
982: T. Buhl, J. Dewart, T. Gunderson, D. Talley, J. Wenzel, R. Romero,J. Salazar, and D. Van Etten, “Supplementary Documentation for an—Environmental Impact Statement Regarding the Pantex Plant: RadiationMonitoring and Radiological Assessment of Routine Releases,” Los AlamosNational Laboratory report LA-9445-PNTX-C (1982).
Chapman 1963: T. S. Chapman and S. Hammons, Jr., “Some ObservationsConcerning Uranium Content of Ingesta and Excreta of Cattle,” HealthPhys. ~, 79-81 (1963).
Dunning 1977: D. E. Dunning, Jr., S. R. Bernard, P. J. Walsh, G. G. Kil-lough, and J. C. Pleasant, “Estimates of Internal Dose Equivalent to 22Target Organs for Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases fromNuclear Fuel-Cycle Facilities, Vol. II,” Oak Ridge National Laboratoryreport ORNL/NUREG TM-190/V2 (October 1977).
ESG 1982: Environmental Surveillance Group, “Environmental Surveillance atLos Alamos During 1981,” Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-9349-ENV (April 1982).
Garten 1978: C. T. Garten, Jr., “A Review of Parameter Values Used to Assessthe Transport of Plutonium, Uranium, and Thorium in Terrestrial FoodChains,” Environ. Res. 17, 437-452 (1978).—
Gladney 1980A: E. S. Gladney, D. R. Perrin, and W. K. Hensley, “Determina-tion of Uranium in NBS Biological Standard Reference Material by De-layed Neutron Assay,” J. Radioanal. Chem. 16(1), 249-251 (1980).—
Gladney 1980B: E. S. Gladney, D. B. Curtis, D. R. Perrin, J. W.
W. E. Goode, “Nuclear Techniques for the Chemical Analysismental Materials,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report(January 1980).
Gladney 1981A: E. S. Gladney, J. W. Owens, T. C. Gunderson, and
Owens, andof Environ-LA-8192-MS
W. E. Goode,“Quality Assurance for Environmental Analytical Chemistry 1976-1979,”Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-8730-MS (March 1981).
.Gladney 1981B: E. S. Gladney, W. E. Goode, D. R. Perrin, and C. E. Burns,
“Quality Assurance for Environmental Analytical Chemistry: 1980,” Los.- A1amos National Laboratory report LA-8966-MS (September 1981).
27
Gladney 1982A: E. S. Gladney, C. E. Burns, and D. R. Perrin, Eds., “Envi-ronmental Surveillance at Los Alamos: Analytical Techniques, Data Man-agement, and Quality Assurance,” Los Alamos National Laboratory report(in preparation).
Gladney 1982B: E. S. Gladney, D. R. Perrin, C. E. Burns, and R. D. Robinson,“Quality Assurance for Environmental Analytical Chemistry: 1981,” LosAlamos National Laboratory report LA-9579-MS (November 1982).
Hansen 1980: W. R. Hansen, D. L. Mayfield, and L. J. Walker, “InterimEnvironmental Surveillance Plan for LASL Radioactive Waste Areas,” LosAlamos Scientific Laboratory document LA-UR-8O-311O (1980).
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 1979: “Los Alamos Scientific LaboratoryManual, Chapter 1, Health, Safety, and Environment--Technical Bulletin503, Uranium,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (1979).
MHSM 1982: “Environmental Monitoring Report for Pantex Plant Covering 1981,”Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., MHSMP-82-14 (April 1982).
Nie 1975: N. H. Nie, C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. Ii.Bent, SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (McGraw-Hill,New York, 1975).
Reid 1977: D. F. Reid, W. M. Sackett, and R. F. Spalding, “Uranium andRadium in Livestock Feed Supplements,” Health Phys. 32, 535-540 (1977).—
Russell 1966: R. Scott Russell, Radioactivity and Human Diet, (PergamonPress Inc., Elmsford, New York, 1966) p. 370.
Ruttenber 1980: A. J. Ruttenber, Jr., K. Kreiss, H. Falk, G. T. Caldwell,
Smith
Smith
and C. W. Heath, Jr., “Biological Assessment After Uranium MillTailings Spill, Church Rock, New Mexico,” Memorandum to Director,Centers for Disease Control for Chronic Disease Division, Bureau ofEpidemiology, Public Health Service, EPI-79-94-2 (December 24, 1980).
1974: D. D. Smith, “Grazing Studies on Selected Plutonium-ContaminatedAreas in Nevada,” National Environmental Research Center, NevadaApplied Ecology, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, report NVO-142(1974).
1975: D. D. Smith and S. C. Black, “Actinide Concentrations in Tissuesfrom Cattle Grazing Near the Rocky Flats Plant,” National Environmental
.
Research Center, Nevada Applied Ecology, Nevada Operations Office, LasVegas, report NERC-LV-539-36 (1975). .
28
USNRC 1977: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide1.109: Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases ofReactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFRPart 50, Appendix I,” USNRC Office of Standards Development,Washington, DC (October 1977).
APPENDIX
RESULTS FOR URANIUM, SCANDIUM, TRITIUM, AND PLUTONIUM
Tables A-I through A-XXI give the vegetation, soil, water, feed, andtissue analysis results for uranium, scandium, tritium, and plutonium.Wet, dry, and ash weights are also included for conversions. Natural uranium(pCi/g) is calculated from the total uranium analysis results in ash.
The uncertainty following each analytical result is estimatedcounting error plus analytic error. Analytic error is based onradiochemical recovery and standardization with National Bureau ofStandards (NBS) standard matrix samples.
29
VI
L
...
, t
AshWeight
Plot L
6,22,23,24,26 10.0110,11,12,17,21 10.005,7,8,15,25 10.021,4,14,20,27 10.049,16,18,19,28 10.052,3,13,29,30 10.09
TABLE A-II
RESUSPENSION SOIL LAYER COMPOSITE RESULTS
238pU
Ash(pcilg)
0.0020 *0.0010.0033 to.ool0.0005 f 0.00070.0011 to.ool0.0014 ~o.ool0.001 ko.ool
238pU
Dry(pCi/g)
0.0015 *0.0010.0031 fo.ool
-0.0005 f 0.001-0.0010 fo.ool
0.0012 f 0.0010.0006 *0.001
239pU
Ash(pCi/g)
0.043 f 0.0040.045 f 0.0040.030 f 0.0040.004 ~o.oo20.049 f 0.0040.028 fO.004
239pu
Dry(pCi/g)
o.040f 0.0040.041 * 0.0040.028t 0.0040.038 ~ 0.0020.0431 0.0040.026 * 0.004
TABLE A-III
SOIL CORE LAYER (25 cm) RESULTS
Plot
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
WetWeight
-@_
848546746
1094916717
103287354310238349998396071101719919624707755730836977857991886726622820631
DryWeight
*
726487650945751603874700489851741832701542926611791529597618592704823750713763591549666529
ScandiumDry
(ppm)
9.7 f 0.58.4 ?0.56.8 foo4
6.6 fo.48.8 ~ 0.59.7 fo.56,8 foo4
12.0 *0.69.5 fo658.3 ~0048.3 fo.5
9.2 tO.58,6 fo*5
15.0 tO.88.5 ~o.5
8.5 tO.59,5 foo5
9.0 .lo.58.o ~ o.4
11.0 ~0.611.0 *0.6
9.6 -FO05
11.0 tO.68.3 ~o.4
10.0 fO.68.9 *0.5
10.0 fo.59.2 fo.5
11.0 ~0.68.7 i-oo5
UraniumDry
(ppm)
3.1 fo.33.3 fo.3
2.7 ~0.32.5 to.32.8 ~oo3
3.2 ~0.32.9 tO.32.9 ~0.33,2 to.3
2.9 ~0.33.2 fo,3
3.2 ~0.32.9 ~0.33.1 *0032.8 ~ o.33.2 i-oo32.9 ~o,33.3 foo33.1 f 0.32.9 *oo3
2.9 tO.33.2 iO.33.3 foo33.2 ~o,3
2.8 ~ 0.33.2 ~0.33.1 ko.3
3.2 ~0.32.8 & o.3360 *003
32
.
.....
..
-:.-.
.—..—
...s.
.~.-,,
..
...
..
..
...&.r
,.
(Awl--
.,.-
..&.
.L,.
..
..
...
..
...
.,,.
-
i
1-%
...
:..-.
T.“.,
..=
$?.
Y.
....
.,---
-.-,-.
—-.00.
z..
----.-..=
c.,.
.-.
.‘%..
..
,.00.
0
04“
00G&A
l-i,..
~~
:.
.:-
g
,.,...e
...,.
-....
,
....7
..
..
.
----.
.,..
,-..
.,.,.-.
I.-1
.,..
..>
.“
.0.*
.c1-
-s
..-.,
,,>-
...=
.:=>
..
lABLt A-V
RANGE VEGETATICUiRESULTS
Plot
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
WetWeight
(9)
98.7075.7187.56
276.1463.5767.5547.97
168.9872.8462.7864.9691.3077.59
127.3276.6770.3075.71
121.73169.93
90.4889.47
151.6494.4489.6387.8657.51
100.4854.4174.6075.91
OryWeight
(9)
39.4646.9554.00
163.2237.9438.7925.0661.7847.2538.5137.5851.4744.0068.6747.9644.4750.0075.61
107.9537.0149.7089.5554.8450.2747.7532.1062.7028.2832.4948.13
AshWeight
9)
13.315.408.40
16.415.984.945.62
19.385.865.475.818.66
11.2110.176.896.596.75
10.1614.18
9.6910.3611.4410.97
7.9310.524.838.714.167.137.50
3H
(PCi/t)
6200 * 4009400 * 5007300 * 4009800 ~ 5007900 ~ 4002600 * 4003400 * 40014300 * 5001500 * 4009400 * 5006000 * 4005300 * 4004800 * 4001700 t 400
12000 ~ 5008200 + 4001600 f 14007500 * 4008000 ~ 500
1800 t 40012100 * 50017000 k 80011100 f 5006300 f 4002100 * 4009900*600
12500 f 5005300 t 4001500 * 4004&30 f400
ScandiunAsh(Pm)
5.2 k 0.31.0 fo.07
0.98 * 0.071.1 to.~3.2 * 0.21.2 *0.086.8 * 0.45.4 io.31.9 * 0.1
0.44 *0.041.2 ~o.082.2 fool4.8? o.3
0.97 fo.072.3 t 0.1
0.37 *0.040.86 * 0.060.63 fO.05
2.2* ().14,0 tcl.25.()* 0.3
1.5 *0.095.5 *0.33.4 *0.25.4 * 0.3
0.83 *0.063.3 * 0.21.3 *0.084.2 fo.2
1.1 *0.07
ScandiunOry
(PPm)
1.8 f 0.10.12 *0.0080.15 * 0.010.11 fO.0080.50 * 0.030.15 *0.01
1.5 *0.091.7 ~o.09
0.24 * 0.010.062 *0.006
0.19 t 0.010.37 *0.02
1.2 * 0.080.14 fool0.33 *0.010.55 fO.0060.12 fO.0080.85 fO.0070.29 f 0.01
1.O *0.-J5
1.0 *0.060.19 *0.01
1.1 *0.060.54 *0.03
1.2 * 0.070.12 ~o.oo90.46 * 0.030.19 ~o.ol0.92 * 0.040.17 *0.01
UraniunAsh
(Pm)
1.69 f 0.20.35 *0.030.33* 0.030.29 f 0.030.79* 0.080.29 * 0.031.45* 0.11.28 f 0.10.49* 0.050.16 * 0.020.33* 0.030.26 fO.030.97 f 0.10.26 ~0.030.57? 0.060.12 ~o.ol0.21* 0.020.22 * 0.020.71 *0.070.86 f 0.091.21 * 0.10.37 ~ 0.040.76 ~ 0.080.50 ~ 0.050.81 + 0.080.23 t 0.020.44* 0.040.29 * 0.030.95* 0.090.26 *0.03
UraniumOry
(pCi/g)
0.38~ 0.040.027 * 0.002o.034f 0.0030.019* 0.0020.083* 0.0080.025 * 0.0030.22* 0.020.27* 0.03
0.040* 0.0040.015 * 0.002o.034f 0.0030.029* 0.003
o.17f 0.020.026 * 0.0030.055f 0.0060.012 ~ 0.0010.019* 0.0020.020* 0.0020.062* 0.0060.15* 0.020.17* 0.02
0.031 * 0.003O.1O* 0.002
0.053 * 0.0050.12* 0.01
0.023 ~ 0.0020.041* 0.0040.028 + 0.0030.14* 0.01
0.027* 0.003
1 1
I ,
Plot
6,22,23,24,2610,11,12,17,215,7,8,15,251,4,14,20,279,16,18,19,282,3,13,29,30
Grain SorghumSample
Seed HeadPlant 1Plant 2Plant 3
ShootPlant 1Plant 2Plant 3
RootPlant 1Plant 2Plant 3
soilBelow plant 18elow plant 2Below plant 3
WetWeight
(9)
10179.060.0
133128
97.0
18.318.531.5
.-----
AshHeight9)
10.009.99
10.0210.0010.0010.02
OryWeight
(9)
89.070.055.0
50.045.533.0
13.017.322.5
23.030.023.5
RANGE
238pu
Ash(pCi/g)
0.0003 *0.0005-0.0010 * 0.000030.0018 f 0.0010.0009 *0.0020.0012 f 0.00060.0003 f 0.0004
TA8LE
GRAIN SORGH1.Ri
TABLE A-VI
VEGETATION RESULTS
238pU
Ory
(pCi/g)
0.00026 *0.0002-0.0002 *0.00020.0004 fo.00020.00018 *0.00020.00016 *0.00020.00005 *0.0002
A-VI I
PLANT RESULTS
AshWeight
9)
2.842.531.90
5.765.573.66
2.%3.643.11
------
ScandiumAsh(ppm)
0.32 *0.030.30 *0.020.32 *0.03
0.32 tO.030.63 tO.040.37 fo.03
8.o foC4
4.3 *0.24,7 +0.3
ScandiumOry
239pu
Ash(pCi/g)
0.0053 * 0.0010.0010 fo.ool0.0080 * 0.0030.0009 *0.0020.0029 * 0.0010.0072 tO.001
UraniumAsh (dryfor soil,
_k?iQ- _—iw!L_
0.10 fool0.13 f 0.010.12 *0.01
0.16 *0.020.15 ~ 0.020.08 ~0.01
2.3 ~ 0.22.5* 0.32,3 ~ o.2
8.6 *0.5 3.4 *0.39.1 *0.5 3.6 ~ o.4
8.8 *13.5 3.6 *0.4
239PU
Ory
(pci/g)
0.0008* 0.0002o.0002f 0.00020.0017* 0.00060.0018* 0.00020.0004* 0.00010.0013* 0.0002
UraniumOry
(pCi/g)
0.0021 * 0.00020.0031* 0.00050.0028 f 0.0003
0.012 i 0.0010.012* 0.001
0.0059* 0.0006
0.35 f 0.040.47* 0.050.21 *0.02
2.3 * 0.022.4* 0.032.4 f 0.03
Potassium
~
18.2 * 0.914.0* 0.714.1* 0.7
20.4* 0.914.2* 0.729.5* 1.4
5.97* 0.6019.oi 0.916.9* 0.8
1.71t 0.171.70* 0.171.80* 0.18
(dm
VoluneCollected
Location Srmnpled -Q)._
Pantex range trough 35.4Pantex Feedlot tap 35.4Bushland Feedlot tap 35.4
DateCol1ected
11/06/8111/13/8111/20/8111/27/8112/04/8112/11/8112/17/8112/25/8101/01/8201/08/8201/15/8201/22/8201/29/8202/05/8202/12/8202/19/8202/26/8203/05/8203/12/8203/19/8203/26/8204/02/8204/09/82
1 #
Qy
512192633404654616875828996
103110117124131138145152159
WetIJeight
.JQ-
542402292478448529713499605791652717531682959949914829950738712840776
DryWeight
(9)
395191207354346419572419541664545627440538821823749716819641609730639
A2100 * 3001100 * 3001300 * 300
TA8LE A-VIII
WATER SAMPLES
Scandium Uranium(PP )b (PP )b
0.0091 fo.ool 10.0 * 1.00.012 *0.001 9.0 fo.90.0094 *0.001 9.6 f l.o
TA8LE A-IX
Uranium 23tlpu
Q!w.1(pCi/2)
6.9 -o.o17~ 0.00036.1 -0.020* 0.00046.5 -0.0076 * 0.0002
WEEKLY FEED MIX RESULTS FOR TEXAS TECH FEEOLOT
AshWeight
(9)
36.722.018.852.824.140.839.232.042.546.551.749.642.349.950.876.055.046.978.744.661.797.647.2
3H
(PCi/t)
o * 20002000 t 2000
--
4000 f 20003000 f 20001000 * 20002000 * 2000
400 * 300900 * 300100 * 300
1400 * 300600 ~ 31313
700 * 300100 f 300
3000 tzooo3000 f 20006000 *20004000 * 3008200 t 5005f3fyj*4@3
5000 * 4003900~3(30
6100 t 400
ScandiunAsh(Ppm)
1.1 fo.06
0.58 fO.041.2 *~.071.0 * 0.06
0.78 ~0.041.3 *().()7
0.89 ~0.051.3 *0.(371.1 *0.06
0.81 f 0.050.75 * 0.050.90 fo.05
1.2 *0.070.89 f 0.06
1.2 *0.07
1.2 fo.060.73 ~o.04
1.8 ~0.21.5 *0.2
0.98 * 0.053.2 *0.22.(I *IJ.12.0 *0.1
ScandiunDry(PPm)
O.1O* 0.0060.067 * 0.005
0.11 f 0.0060.15 *0.009
0.054 * 0.0030.13 * 0.007
0.061* 0.0030.099 *0.0050.086* 0.0050.057 t 0.0040.071* 0.0050.071 * 0.004
O.lzf 0.0070.083 f 0.0060.074 * 0.004
0.11 fO.0060.54* 0.0030.12 * 0.010.14* 0.02
0.068 f 0.0030.32 * 0.020.27 *0.010.15 f 0.01
UraniunAsh(PP )m
1.6~ 0.21.2 * O.11.1 * ().13.3 ~ 0.33.8* o.45.0 f 0.53.8* o-4
5.0 f 0.55.4~ 0.55.13 to.5Z.zi 0.23.9 * 0.45.4* 0.5
6.2 *0.66.5* 0.78.7 fO.97.7* 0.81.9 f 0.25.5* o.61.4 *0.14.2? o.48.5 to.94.6* 0.5
239pu
(pCi/t)
-0.017* 0.004-0.020 ~ 0.01-0.015* 0.0003
UraniurnOry
(pCi/g)
o.lo~ 0.010.097* 0.010.065t 0.01
0.33* 0.030.17* 0.020.32 * 0.030.17* 0.020.26* 0.03O.Z&l* 0.030.24 * 0.020.14* 0.010.21 * 0.030.35* 0.040.38* 0.040.27* 0.03o.54f 0.050.38f 0.04
0.082* 0.010.35* 0.04
0.066* 0.010.29* 0.030.76* 0.080.22* 0.02
8 ,
TABLE A-X
FEED COMPONENT SAMPLES FROM TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT
Wet Dry Ash Scandium Scandiun UraniunHeight
UraniumWeight Weight 3H Ash Dry Ash Dry
Samples !zJ!.J@__J.!l)_JQ_ (pCi/t) (Pm) (PP )m (PP )m (pCi/g)
Rolled milo 46 1252 1149 147 -- 0.11 * 0.02 o.o14~ 0.003 0.019* 0.002 0.0016* 0.0002Cotton seed 46 344 273 25.7 2000 t 2000 2.1 ~o.1 0.20 * 0.009 0.92f 0.09 0.058 f 0.006Protein pellets 46 1322 1180 507 -1000 f 2000 0.96 t 0.05 0.41 * 0.02 11.0 * 1.0Cane molasses
3.2 f o.346 580 363 86.5 8000 f 2000 0.64 fO.04 0.15 * 0.01 0.43* 0.04 0.068 f 0.007
TA8LE A-XI
ALFALFA SAMPLES FROM TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT
DateCol1ected
12/17/8112/17/8112/23/8101/07/8201/18/8201/31/8202/14/8202/24/8203/10/8203/17/8204/05/82
Day—
464652677891
105115129136155
WetWeight
(9)
307277292284251144238343282366287
OryWeight
(9)
285232258244220122221301255297258
AshHeight
&
31.126.729.728.522.013.928.136.031.166.128.6
3H
(pCi/t)
--2000 f 2000
300 * 4001300 * 300600 ~ 300300 * 300
1800 * 4002000 * 3007700 * 5005500 * 4006100 t 400
ScandiumAsh(ppm)
0.88 * 0.050.85 fO.05
1.6 f o.09
0.80 *0.050.51 *0.03
1.1 *0.07
1.7* 0.11.6 fo.og
1.4* 0.25.4 ~o.3
1.5 f 0.08
Scandiun
(%)
0.096f 0.0050.098 ~0.006
0.18* 0.010.093 ~ 0.0060.051 * 0.003
0.13 * 0.0080.22 f 0.010.19 * 0.010.12* 0.02
1.2 *0.070.17+ 0.009
UraniunAsh(PPm)
1.4* 0.10.95 * 0.09
1.4 f O.11.5 * (3.2
0.61* 0.061.1 * O.11.1 * 0.11.8 ~ o.2
0.80f 0.082.0* 0.2
0.81f 0.08
Uranium
&
0.10 * 0.0070.074* 0.0070.11 * 0.0080.12 f 0.020.041* 0.0040.085* 0.008o.095f 0.0090.15 * 0.020.066* 0.007IJ.30 * (3.030.061 f 0.006
CAal
DateCol1ected
12/03/8112/14/8112/23/8112/30/8101/06/8201/13/8201/22/8201/28/8202/01/8202/09/8202/18/8202/24/8203/10/8203/17/8203/24/8203/31/8204/01/8204/07/82
Da_y
92029364350616771798894
118125132139140146
WetWeight
9)
301153348286259229400401228273193387202240228230246204
TA8LE A-XII
WEEKLY FEEO RESULTS FOR BUSHLANO FEEOLOT
OryHeight
(9)
255133270227200189323327189219149339172203199201216179
AshWeight
-(Q._
17.111.018.614.713.99.416.122.112.113.410.122.214.217.519.220.922.016.7
J.l?L-1500 * 3003500 * 3001800 ~ 300
700 * 3001500 * 3001000 * 3001700 f 3001700 *3001300 * 3001400 * 3001400 * 3002100 * 3003800 * 3002700 * 3005900 * 4003800 f 3003800 t 3003700 ~ 300
ScandiumAsh(PPm)
0.68 *0.041.5 tO.08
0.87 *0.060.61 * 0.040.82 *0.050.84 * 0.050.76 *0.050.82 *0.060.81 ~0.060.81 ~0.060.63 *0.040.58 ~ 0.030.89 *0.050.67 * 0.070.76 *0.080.72 ~0.070.52 *0.050.47 ~ 0.05
ScandiumOry(Pm)
0.046t 0.0030.12 * 0.0070.060* 0.0040.040 f 0.0030.057 * 0.0030.042 *0.0020.038* 0.0020.055 * 0.0040.052 ~ 0.0040.050 f 0.0040.043* 0.0030.038 ~ 0.0020.073* 0.0040.058 * 0.0060.073* 0.0080.075 *0.0070.053* 0.0050.044 ~o.oo5
UraniunAsh(PPm)
2.2* ().23.4* 0.32.5* 0.31.8 t 0.23.3? 0.32.3* o.22.0* 0,23.6 t o.43.5* 0.41.9 * (3.22.4* o.23.0 * 0.36.6 ~ 0.74.4t 0.43.2 i 0.33.1* 0.32.9* 0.32.3t 0.2
UraniumOry
(pCi/g)
0.099 * 0.0090.19 * 0.020.11 f 0.01
0.079 * 0.0080.15 f 0.02
0,075* 0.0070.067* 0.007
0.16 * 0.020.15* 0.02
0.076 * 0.008O.11* 0.010.13 * 0.010.36f 0.040.25 * 0.030.20* 0.020.21 * 0.020.19* 0.020.15* 0.01
t 1 ( 1
Feed lot
Texas Tech(feed mix)
Texas Tech(alfalfa)
Bushland
TABLE A-XIII
FEED COMPOSITE RESULTS FOR TEXAS TECH AND BUSHLANDFEEDLOTS
Dates
11/06/81 - 11/27/8112/04/81 - 12/25/8101/01/82 - 01/22/8201/29/82 - 02/19/8202/26/82 - 03/19/8203/26/82 - 04/09/82
12/17/81 - 01/07/8201/18/82 - 02/24/8203/02/82 - 04/05/82
10/07/81 - 11/25/8112/03/81 - 12/14/8112/16/81 - 01/06/8201/13/82 - 02/01/8202/09/82 - 03/10/8203/17/82 - 04/07/82
238 Pu (pCi/g)
-0.0012 * 0.0009-0.0010 fo.ool-0.0028 * 0.002
0.0003 * 0.00060.0005 fo.oo20.0004 fo.ool
-0.0010 f 0.00090.0002 *0.001
-0.0003 *0.0006
0.0002 f 0.00070.0004 f 0.00070.0003 fo.0007
-0.0006 t 0.00030.0003 fo.00070.0009 f 0.0007
239Pu (pCi/g)
0.0012* 0.0010.0007 to.ool
-0.0006 * 0.0010.0019 fo.00090.0015 f 0.0020.0026 *0.002
0.006* 0.0020.003 fo.oo2
0.0041 * 0.001
0.0002 * 0.00070.0004 * 0.00080.0003 * 0.00060.0003 tO.00080.0016 ~ 0.0009
-0.0009 * 0.0007
39
TABLE A-XIV
HEIFER TISSUE AND ORGAN RESULTS
Pc
AC
AC
Treatment Tissue
Pc Heifer 253KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakBlood11/05/8111/12/8111/17/81
Heifer 255KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakBlood11/05/8111/12/8111/17/81
Heifer 188KidneyLung8oneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakBlood11/17/81
Heifer 198KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood11/17/81
WetWefght
(9)
330427353695931617836816
363422517
265324370628511810985829
372575441
233547337724503791883813
289
183373328396559943873699
285
DryWeight
(9)
83.4103290261310137273176
60.667.496.8
82.873.9
300252130181307247
54.188.769.5
65.2120272251124155313264
50.0
47.777.2
264150140117315191
48.4
AshWeight
J@_
3.404.79
146.19.3511.211.38.69.1
3.341.954.71
3.063.66
144.06.886.2014.317.58.8
5.46--4.80
2.895.65
1245.146.4910.48.109.00
2.67
2.273.69
1105.397.19
13.97.66.8
2.48
d?&-.-.-----
400 * 300200 * 300
1500 f 4006100 f 400
1800 t 3002600 f 300
500 * 300
--------
300 * 300400 * 300
2700 f 4001800 f 400
800 ~ 3002200 * 3001100 * 300
--------
400 * 300700 * 300
2700 f 4003400 * 400
4200 f 300
-------.
700 * 300300 * 300
9900 * 5002800 * 400
1100 * 300
Scandiun UraniurnAsh Ash(Ppm) ~-
0.056 * 0.010.096 tO.020.0090 * 0.0070.022 fool0.081 fO.02
1.3* 0.080,022 *0.010.022 * 0.01
0.067 *0.020.030 *0.010.043 fo.02
0.024 * 0.0080.033 f 0.009
< 0.0060.029* 0.0090.012 *0.01
1.6 ~o.og
0.034 *oool0.013 * 0.01
0.014 * 0.013--
0.68 * 0.044
0.021 * 0.009NS
0.022 * 0.0070.024 * 0.01
0.12 * 0.020.32 fO.02
0.026 fO.010.015 *0.01
0.031 *0.008
0.032 * 0.010.029 * 0.0090.013 * 0.0070.032 * 0.010.17 * 0.020.32 *0.020.032 *0.010.024 i 0.01
0.026 * 0.02
200 * 10 -15*38t4
22t215*3
1400* 7047*5
< 4
------
170* 9NS
10*222*210*2
480f 2025*3
( 4
------
170 * 9NS
61*6NS< 4
1300* 6040*4
< 4
--
43*4< 4
9*3< 4
9*3950* 50 -16~3
<4
.--
NS = no sample.
40
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
Treatment.
AC
AC
PT
PT
Tissue
Heifer 448KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood(none)
Heifer 541KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakBlood11/17/81
Heifer 251KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak61ood11/05/6111/12/Bl11/17/8111/19/6111/24/8112/01/6112/15/6112/29/8101/13/8202/10/B203/11/82
Heifer 252KidneyLung80neLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
WetWeight
(9)
286610437563560791801745
234472322455657783790769
291
353457329573779447
1030981
294520446292289282267264300288297
351441441800789719
1043852
DryWeight
(9)
67.5143359192147139260201
63.699.32621551621263011B7
48.7
83.199.8
24816219365.2331270
41.89B.270.647.545.249.147.248.956.751.849.0
81.0107359252231119349286
Weight9)
2.366.83
1627.707.07
18.88.608.10
2.975.17
1235.878.3511.87.6010.4
2.52
2.905.2077.07.0025.17.8027.66.20
2.751.543.682.602.552.522.372.412.523.682.60
2.804.70
19411.121.710.912.9
8.50
3~
(pCi/L)
------..
-100 f 300-500 * 3001400 ~ 4004600 * 400
--------
700 * 300400 ~ 300
2700 f 4002000 * 400
3900 * 300
--------
100 * 300O.r)i 301)100 * 300400 * 300
300 * 3002700 * 300
800 * 3004600 f 400
900 * 3003400 * 300
300 * 300-1oo * 300
300 * 300600 * 300
1300 * 300
--------
300 * 300-1100 * 300
600 f 300700 * 300
ScandiumAsh(ppm)
0.044 * 0.010.056 f 0.009
< 0.0070.033 *0.010.12 *0.010.62 *0.050.059 * 0.020.031 * 0.01
0.013 * 0.0090.15 fo.20.019 * 0.00B0.033 * 0.010.094 fo.020.68 * 0,040.024 *0.02
< 0.01
0.012 *0.01
0.011 * 0.0070.070 * 0.010.006 f 0.0020.024 f 0.0060.027 * 0.008
1.7 * 0.090.046 * 0.010.065 *0.02
0.020 *oool0.031 * 0.0090.026 *0.010.060 f 0.010.028 fO.010.028 * 0.020.046 ~ 0.010.013 * 0.020.052 fO.020.022 * 0.0090.038 fO.01
0.008 *0.0080.035 *0.0050.004 * 0.0010.019 ~ 0.0040.003 *0.0061.5 * 0.0800.032 *0.010.060 f 0.01
UraniurnAsh
J!?EQ-
11O* 1127? 3.
6*44?4
( 4480* 25
5?5< 4
110 * 11gltg22*332*3
< 41400* 70
11*3
< 4
--
160 * 14c 5
Zgts7*5
< 52600* 130
13*312*4
------.-------.-------
66t77*5
lBf4< 5< 5
2000* 10021*3
8?5
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
WetWeight
Treatment Tissue J$l.l_
Heifer 252 [centI
PT
PT
Blood - -11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8111/24/8112/01/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
Heifer 254KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8111/24/8112/01/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
Heifer 256KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHcsnburgerSteakBlood11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8111/24/8112/01/8112/15/8112/29/81
340522279283302240293184293292275
415431432598606819963864
356577436292294271245222297220258
303461397901841899924907
379578288293284290292299
DryWeight
x
52.889.948.752.864.942.755.733.258.459.750.2
10410435617215489.7269220
57.910873.959.156.150.942.139.660.840.450.7
6998310215231185315313
72.192.548.448.846.450.455.856.6
AshWeight
(9)
3.492.102.502,462.602.352.751.582.604.752.40
6.004.90
1918.807.10
17.848.038.7
3.236.413.872.572.532.322.271.834.161.842.10
3.65.7
1808.3
13.221.835.243.2
3.392.832.462.582.522.652.705.74
3H
(pCi/z)
1100 * 3001700 * 3004200 * 300
600 * 3001300 * 300
700 ~ 3001100 f 300
200 * 3002100 f 3001600 f 3001500 * 300
----.---
2900 * 3002600 * 3003400 ~ 300
700 * 300
400 f 3002300 * 300-1oo * 300
800 * 3004500 * 3001000 * 3001400 * 300
400 * 3002300 * 300
0.O f 300--
--------
2700 ~ 300900 * 300
2400 f 3002500 * 300
400 * 300200 * 300
2400 f 30010900 * 400
500 * 3004800 * 4003200 * 3001000 f 300
ScandiumAsh(Ppm)
0.049 * 0.020.030 + 0.020.083 *0.020.021 *oool0.026 *0.010.021 * 0.010.030 *0.020.033 *0.01
< 0.020.019 fool0.048 *0.01
0.045 *oool0.066 foooo90.007 *0.0030.039 ~o.ol0.026 *0.008
1.2 *0.060.012 * 0.0060.041 *0.009
0.038 * 0.020.061 *0.020.023 *0.020.017 fool0.045 *0.020.039 *oool0.031 *0.010.033 *0.020.046 ?0.020.027 * 0.010.061 *0.02
< 0.0040.39 * 0.003
0.002 * 0.0020.013 tO.0080.010 *0.004
1.1 *0.060.014 tO.006
< 0.006
0.034 +0.010.027 fO.010.021 *0.01
< 0.010.052 * 0.020.019 ~ 0.010.038 *0.020.023 * 0.01
UraniumAsh
JJz!!Q-
---------------------.
-----------------.--.-
120* 121B*3
7*5< 5< 5
2700* 130( 5( 5
-----.----------
.
.
.
42
. Treatment
PT
PT
.
PT
.
WetWeight
Tissue (9)
Heifer 256 (cent]Blood “01/03/8201/10/8203/11/82
Heifer 257KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8111/24/8112/01/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
Heifer 258KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood
11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8112/01/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
Heifer 259KidneyLungBoneLiver
299291290
308398428923679670922
1020
338579419299274287298281296283289
353310431625985609992912
567584409301267294298299299292
307491519373
TA8LE A-XIV (cent)
DryWeight
J.@_
58.156.954.5
68.381.924729220588.2291322
44.989.858.143.147.443.651.144.752.950.049.6
91.173.8
352208276
85.5316261
83.9B8.558.444.142.447.054.351.051.651.7
74.3115428102
AshWeight
(9)
2.602.563.00
1.84.3
18712.719.111.0
9.39.4
2.874.564.182.842.393.252.692.432.512.382.70
2.33.6
1808.6
10.610.022.430.8
4.924.923.652.652.572.782.542.512.542.90
3.665.44
2222.94
(PC%
-300 * 300100 f 300
1800 f 300
--------
0.0 * 300200 * 300
-200 * 300700 * 300
400 * 300800 f 300
0 ~ 300
7900 * 400700 * 300600 f 300600 f 300200 f 300900 f 300500 * 300
.-
----.---
100 * 300100 * 300
1200 f 300500 * 300
700 * 3001800 * 3002300 * 3001000 * 300
600 f 3001800 f 3001900 * 3001100 * 3003000 * 3008700 * 400
.-------
ScandiurnAsh(Ppm)
0.037 *0.020.033+ 0.020.040 ~ 0.006
0.019 20.0080.055 ~ 0.0070.005 * 0.0020.030 * 0.0090.014 * 0.006
1,2 * 0.1
0.033 i 0.0090.051 * 0.01
0.043 ? 0.0080.033* 0.020.041 * 0.02
< 0.00.026 * 0.010.014* 0.010.022 io.ol0.026* 0.010.018 f 0.02
< 0.020.013 fo.oo7
0.013 ~ 0.010.024 + 0.0060.003 * 0.0020.020 * 0.0040.031 ~o.ol
1.3 * 0.060.090 *0.010.006 f 0.005
0.045 * 0.020.038* 0.020.040 *0.010.038* 0.010.017 f ().()10.057? 0.020.037 ~o.020.020* 0.020.042 k 0.020.061* 0.01
0.019 *c).Ill0.043 ?0.02
< 0.0050.019 * 0.01
UraniurnAsh
J12!?)-
------
194 f 19.014~333t627*5
< 521OO* 100
2of416*4
----- --------------...-
140 + 14.< 5
2ot42424
( 51400 t 70
26*4< 5
-----..---.,-----.----.
lBO + 18< 10
16*410*4
43
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
Treatment Tissue
Heifer 259 (cent]
PT
AT
Muscle ‘ ‘RumenHamburgerSteakB1ood11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8111/24/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
Heifer 260KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakBlood11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8111/24/8112/01/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202110/8203/11/82
Heifer 225KidneyLung8oneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak81ood11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/08/81
WetWeight
*
508642898686
353541458320284277293283296290
310462391677567303931909
514519410293294269297293299286290
307303442554772687585719
289261293266267
DryWeight
A
129115296171
49.786.785.247.249.847.356.753.155.253.7
78.910331022115540.0
330259
91.678.562.646.948.248.452.151.855.053.251.3
84.068.6
348167189
57.1159179
52.745.452.071.140.7
AshWeight
Jll-
2.9610.427.512.3
3.352.834.042.542.492.422.492.382.492.70
3.345.16
1819.308.405.4015.99.50
4.644.583.022.612.582.692.573.462.702.682.80
3.743.43
1787.2023.311.1
6.28.1
2.622.222.481.282.92
3H
(pci/z)
-300 f 300IJ.o * 300100 * 300
-200 f 300
200 * 300100 * 300
-300 * 300400 * 300
1700 * 3001800 * 300
300 * 3001600 * 3401200 * 300
. .
--------
0.0 f 300-300 * 300
400 f 300300 * 300
100 f 300900 * 300
3300 f 3006800 f 4001000 * 300
500 f 300800 * 300400 * 300
1000 * 3001000* 300
12300 * 400
---.----
-200 * 300-400 * 300-1oo t 300
100 * 300
1300 * 300400 * 300
2300 * 300700 * 300
3400 f 300
ScandiumAsh(Ppm)
0.021 *0.010.55 * 0.06
0.017 * 0.0080.025 *0.02
0.030 + 0.010.068* 0.020.059 + 0.02
< 0.020.048 *0.02o.033~ 0.02
< 0.020.028f 0.020.039 *0.020.044* 0.01
0.015 * 0.010.028 * 0.02
( 0.0040.019 * 0.010.016 * 0.009
0.89 *0.1----
0.060 ~0.020.067* 0.020.039 * 0.020.036* 0.010.045 *0.02o.035f 0.010.018 *0.02o.047~ 0.020.036 *0.020.029* 0.010.038 *0.01
0.012 fool0.046 * 0.020.020 * 0.0090.027 *0.020.027 *0.020.790 *0.080.022 *0.020.028 f. 0.01
0.029 *0.020.094* 0.010.046 * 0.02
< 0.010.010 *0.008
Uraniurnk h
J?E!!l–.
1400* 70 -< 5
-----.----.---------
66*7< 10
21*4< 10< 10
1200* 6026*4
c 5
--------- -------------
540 f 3031*461*6
< 10.< 10.
11OO* 6021*421*4
..-----
b----
44
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
WetWeight
. Treatment Tissue _!w
Heifer 225 (cent)12/15/8i ‘12/29/8101/13/8203/11/82
AT Heifer 458KidneyLung8oneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/01/8112/08/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
AT Heifer 468KidneyLung8oneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak8100d
11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/01/8112/08/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
286280283284
364337478756813873996894
292289244294291249294285297282295
3132713596245622469941017
279274252278270216299264283229194
DryWeight
J@_
48.750.352.054.5
60.978.8369258203147304229
53.951.437.853.65046.550.053.151.552.353.9
72.450.927718214131
271262
51.747.436.941.538.430.846.341.248.637.232.9
AshWeight
_M_
2.382.732.542.70
4.104.10
20611.020.115.032.7
9.20
2.582.602.232.642.622.252.942.382.602.332.50
2.002.90
15022.9
6.103.80
49.510.3
2.512.542.502.392.512.012.582.312.662.051.90
J!?&600 * 300500 * 3000.0 * 300
.-
---.----
200 * 300-1800 f 300
200 ~ 300400 * 300
-200 f 3009600 * 4001200 f 300
300 * 300-1oo * 3001500 * 300
700 f 300-1oo * 300
500 * 300600 * 300900 * 300
--.-----
-200 i 300-200 * 3001000 * 300
600 * 300
-1oo * 300600 * 300800 * 300
1300 * 300600 * 300
2200 f 3001000 * 300
700 * 300700 i 300600 * 300
--
Scandimk h(PPm)
0.053 * 0.020.043* 0.020.042 *0.020.0712 0.02
0.019 * 0.0060.032 *0.0060.002 *().()1310.019 ?0.0070.026 f 0.oo8
1.2 ~o.06
0.033 *cl.m370.029 * 0.009
< 0.01o.054t 0.020.045 fo.020.013* 0.010.049 k 0.02o.054f 0.020.018 *0.010.041 * 0.020.015 *0.010.019* 0.020.071 *0.02
0.012 *0.0060.043 * 0.010.007 * 0.0030.026 * 0.0080.004 * 0.009
2.0 * ().20.008 t 0.0040.033 * 0.02
0.034 +0.020.013* 0.0080.030 * 0.010.019+ 0.0070.023 * 0.0090.017* 0.010.019 *0.010.011 * 0.020.042 *0.02
< 0.010.039 * 0.006
UraniumAsh
J!?!?Q_
--------
97 * 10
c 517*4
( 5c 5
2800f 14017f4
< 5
----------------------
150* 1516*447*549*5
< 52400 * 120
7~5< 5
----------.-----------
45
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
Treatment Tissue
AT Heifer 495KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakBlood11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/01/8112/08/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
AT Heifer 513KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/01/8112/08/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
AT Heifer 536KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
WetWeight
(9)
385352474721690676923627
276255290285267279292292289285307
304498398668666934830812
242288289278267275298256283295293
30033740486299877010071016
OryWeight
(9)
88.675.838523716996.7
272162
42.939.950.945.139.145.046.151.250,351.744.6
69.710931518216876.8254272
44.754.549.646.443.951.659.247.451.159.353.4
71.471.3
321239238106298318
AshWeight
(9)
4.463.82
1988.60
10.89.70
41.413.5
2.842.422.552.512.592.482.642.442.452.422.80
4.005.50
1695.207.90
16.918.2
8.30
2.102.502.822.512.562.361.912.172.452.432.50
2.807.10
16811.723.011.110.7
3H
(PCi/t)
--------
100 * 300-400 t 300
500 f 300-500 * 300
2100 * 3002BO0 * 300
500 * 3002000 * 3005900 * 400
900 * 300400 * 300100 ~ 300600 ~ 300
1000 * 300400 * 300
--------
5600 * 30011300 * 400
3100 * 3001900 * 300
700 * 3003400 * 3001400 f 300
11800 * 4001300 f 3001100 * 3001400 f 300
600 * 300200 * 300
1300 f 3001500 * 300
-----.--
100 * 300BOO * 300
1700 f 30011.8 600 * 300
Scandiumk h(PP )m
0.015 *0.010.066 *0.02
< 0.0050.057 *0.020.021 fool0.63 * 0.07
< 0.0070.048 * 0.01
0.050 *0.02< 0.02
0.049 *0.010.023* 0.010.044 ~ 0.010.024* 0.010.076 *0.020.047* 0.020.023 *0.020.048~ 0,020.025 *0.009
0.007 fo.oo40.083 t 0.010.003 * 0.0020.008 *0.0060.027 *0.01
0.96 * 0.050.013 ~ 0.010.031 fo.oo9
0.039 *0.010.040* 0.020.064 *0.020.045* 0.020.065 *0.020.020* 0.0090.053 ~o.02
< 0.020.042 *0.010.043* 0.020.064 * 0.02
0.017 * 0.0060.049 fO.0080.001 *0.0010.007 *0.0070.011 *0.0060.61 *0.030.012 * 0.0070.011 *0.009
UraniumAsh
J!Q!L!_.
150* 159*4
fjltfj12*4
5*418001 90
< 5< 5
--. -------------------
73*723*451t6
< 58t5
2800* 14012*4
7*5
.-
. .----------.-------
.
46
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
WetWeight
Treatment Tissue (9)
Heifer 536 (cent)Blood
11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/01/8112/08/8112/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
AT Heifer 565KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteakB1ood11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/01/8112/08/8112/15/Bl12/29/Bl01/13/8102/10/8103/11/82
AT Heifer 568KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak61ood
11/17/B111/19/8111/24/Bl11/26/8112/01/Bl12/08/8112/15/81
268273294299288299283283288282282
330418438750707633874955
2B6288280290253282286297292272297
360345424846779840865909
274105292300282259192
DryWeight
(9)
48.349.048.755.144.347.348,050.853.351.848.8
79.287.2341226214108275306
52.751.747.247.641.252.547.452.656.751.758.2
78.675.136120219779.4
289258
57.815.652.956.148.440.530.7
AshWeight
J.!zL
2.402.452.542.622.702.652.695.302.562.292.60
2.804.80
18410.311.3
9.208.50
26.1
2.572.642.462.452.303.162.752.452.592.272.30
4.404.10
1838.908.80
16.144.829.0
2.361.842.522.572.382.291.74
3H
(pCi/1)
1300 * 300600 * 300
9000 * 4001400 t 300
600 * 3004500 * 4001900 * 3001900 * 300
500 f 300-600 * 300
500 f 300
-..------
-400 * 300500 * 300500 f 300
2100 f. 300
2900 * 300500 * 300
1600 * 300400 * 300
2300 ? 3005200 * 400
500 f 300500 * 300
1000 * 300600 * 300900 * 300
--------
1300 * 3003800 * 3001200 * 3001600 * 300
300 * 3001600 * 300
300 f 300900 * 300
2000 * 3002300 * 3002000 * 300
ScandiumAsh(Ppm)
0.018 * 0.010.015* 0.010.058 * 0.020.026* 0.020.033 *0.010.021 * 0.020.031 fo.020.042f 0.020.045 ~o.02
< 0.010.013 ~o.02
0.017 *0.0050.055 f 0.010.003 ~ 0.0020.015 t 0.0050.020 *0.007
1.3 *(),1< 0.009
0.028 * 0.007
0.028 f 0.020.030* 0.010.060 *0.02o.033f 0.020.021 *0.010.019* 0.010.065 *0.020.034* 0.020.024 *0.01
< 0,020.039 * 0.01
0.021 *0.0070.055 *0.0090.005 fo.oo30.074 ~ 0.020.017 +0.01
1.2 * 0.060.002 *0.0030.013 * 0.007
0.022 * 0.020.041* 0.020.060 fO.020.040* 0.020.019 *0.020.044* 0.010.030 *0.01
UraniurnAsh
J.w!J__
----.-----------------
270 ~ 203ot5230 * 2032~5
<52300~ 12044*5
< 5
-.--------------------
202 * 1521*450?5
< 5< 5
1600f BO< 5< 5
.-------------
47
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
WetWeight
Treatment Tissue &
Heifer 568 (cent)Blood
AB
AB
A8
AB
AB
12/29/8102/10/8203/11/82
Heifer 288KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
Heifer 315KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
Heifer 324KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
Heifer 363KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
Heifer 373KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
302294286
327410398727809774852784
412572523878729685961912
321457421867749665931839
416515393658660723
1020712
419412558766671605881824
OryWeight
(9)
53.555.850.5
95.093.333223123394.0313281
10813041829320286.0331278
78.210434924221484.7291270
118115328lB1179151340260
10196
444202179143336242
AshWeight
(9)
2.614.142.70
2.404.50
156.9.908.7012.58.107.50
5.6028.9214.14.88.0012.29.209.90
4.207.20
183.20.18.70
10.B39.236.8
1.605.90
167.9.209.109.00
22.913.9
7.524.42
23610.420.4
9.010.135.2
3H
(pcilt)
500 * 3002900 f 3001300 * 300
. .-.-.-.
0.00 * 300-1oo * 300
900 f 300400 * 300
------.-
0.0 * 3ofJ
700 * 300900 * 300
1500 * 300
--------
1000 * 3005900 * 4001400 * 3001900 f 300
-----.--
100 * 300300 f 300600 * 300
1300 * 300
--.-----
-900 ~ 300-200 * 300-200 f 300-800 * 300
ScandiumAsh(PP )m
0.027 * 0.020.026* 0.020.044 *0.01
0.020 *0.0060.099 *0.0070.007 * 0.0020.015 *0.0050.019 ~ 0.009
1.2 * 0.060.016 * 000060.048 * 0.012
0.013 *0.0040.035 * 0.0070.004 * 0.0020.016 *0.0070.017 * 0.008
1,1 fool
0.035 * 0.0080.070 *0.01
0.018 * 0.0070.057 *0.010.009 * 0.0030.013 * 0.0060.025 * 0.010.860 * 0.050.007 *0.0060.012 *0.005
0.010 * 0.0040.068 *0.008
< 0.0020.012 * 0.0060.015 *0.004
0.1 *0.020.034 *0.010.034 fool
< 0.010.034 * 0.02
< 0.005c 0.02
0.031 *0.010.76 *0.08
0.048 tO.02< 0.01
UraniunI% h
J!Y!!Q_ -
.--.---
200 * 2035*446i611*421*4
4600* 25036*5
12.4* 4
220 * 20< 5< 5
14*4
( 53600* 200
18*421*4
79~B18*43325
< 5< 5
1500* 80< 5< 5
31*4
12*423*418*419*4
670* 40lli4
7*5
30*4 .23*427*4
< 10< 10
*
10000 * 50018*4
<5
48
TABLE A-XIV (cent)
Al?
AB
. Treatmeot Tissue
AB Heifer 494. Kidney
LungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
Heifer 496KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
Heifer 570KidneyLungBoneLiverMuscleRumenHamburgerSteak
WetWeight
(9)
273.0206.1444.4475538
1300918887
330413425935722716944899
370317451706418721800720
DryWeight
J.@_
67.650.2
350120144275301251
77.691.9
350262226
84.830336B
10271.2
380194101127234153
AshWeight
__QJ_
3.702.20
1616.905.8017.28.808.30
4.004.70
1857.9017.611.546.29.30
4.703.40
18113.72.2010.013.815.8
(PCL)
--------
-300 * 300900 * 300
1000 * 3001000 t 300
--------
300 * 30011300 * 400
900 f. 3001700 * 300
-------.
100 * 300100 * 300100 * 300
-1oo * 300
ScandiumAsh(PP )m
0.010 +0.0040.037 ~ 0.0060.005 t 0.0020.014 * 0.0050.018 * 0.006
0.36 * 0.040.014 io.ol0.033 *0.01
0.020 f 0.0080.038 ~0.070.004 t 0.0040.038 f 0.010.044 20.02
0.84 * 0.050.006 *0.0020.017 *0.01
0.012 *0.010.056 * 0.020.022 * 0.0070.010 * 0.010.024 f 0.02
0.42 * 0.050.027 *0.010.016 ~ 0.01
UraniurnAsh
J.wQ_
32*513*4
9*47*5
< 51200? 60
21*4
7*5
170t 20230 f 20
44*5
12*4( 5
1200 * 708*5
24*4
46f520~4
23*4< 10( 10
5700 t 300< 5< 5
49
TABLE A-XV
MuscleKidneyLiver8oneLungRumenSteakHanburger
MuscleKidneyLiver8oneLungRumenSteakHamburger
CATTLE TREATMENTPT (PANTEX RANGEPLU5 TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT)URANIUM RESULTS pCi/g WET
Heifers251 252 254 256
< 1.07 x 1O-Q8.77 X 10-4 * 8.77 X 10-55.38 x 10-5 * 4.08 x 10-54.53 X 10-3 f 7.08 X 10-4
c 3.79x 10-53.02 X 10-2 ~ 3.02 X 10-35.19x 10-5 * 8.90x 10-52.26 X 10-4 *8.90 X 10-5
< 9.17 x 10-53.50 X 10-” f 3.72 X 10-5
< 4.63 X 10-55.27 X 10-3 * 1.47 X 10-34.69 X 10-5 ~ 3.55 X 10-52.03 X 10-2 *2.02 X 10-35.12 X 10-5 * 3.32 X 10-s1.71 X 10-4 *4.12 X 10-5
< 3.91 x 10-51.60 X 10-3 * 1.64 X 10-41.16 X 10-k * 4.91 X 10-53.68 X 10-3 * 1.47 X 10-31.18 X 10-4 * 3.79 X 10-52.39 X 10-2 * 2.46 X 10-3
< 1.49 x 10-’+< 1.66 x 10-+
< 5.24 X 10-59.58 X 10-4 * 9.51 X 10-51.84 x 10-5 * 3.07 x 10+2.05 X 10-3 * 1.51 X 10-31.47 x Io-’f ~ 4.12 x 10-54.42 X 10-2 * 4.37 X 10-3
< 1.59X 10-4< 1.27 x 10-4
Heifers257 258 259 260
< 9.38x 10-57.57 x 10-4 * 7.41 x 10-52.46 x 10-’+* 4.59x 10-59.60 X 10-3 * 1.46 X 10-31.03 x 10-4 f 3.60X 10-52.27 X 10-2 i 2.30 X 10-39.74 x 10-5 f 3.08 x 10-51.39 X 10-4 * 3.36 X 10-5
< 3.59 x 10-56.09 X 10-4 * 6.09 X 10-52.21 x 10-4 f 4.59 x 10-55.57 x 10-3 ~ 1.39 x 10-3
< 3.87 X 10-51.51 x 10-2 *1.51 x 10-3
< 1.13X 10-’$3.95 x 10-4 * 7.53 x 10-5
< 3.88 x 10-51.41 x 10-3 * 1.41 x 10-45.21 X 10-5 t 5.26x 10-64.61 X 10-3 * 4.55 X 10-4
< 7.39 x 10-51.49 x 10-2 * 1.49 x 10-3
< 5.98 x 10-5< 1.02 x 10-3
< 9.88 x 10-54.70 x 10-4 * 4.74 x 10-5
< 9.17 x 10-58.02 X 10-3 * 6.48 X 10-*
< 7.44 x 10-s1.43 x 10-2 ~ 1.43 x 10-3
< 3.48 x 10-52.93 X 10-4 f 5.70 X 10-5
< Less th~ detection limits.
.. b
TABLE A-XV (cent)
MuscleKidneyLiver8oneLungRumenSteakHanburger
MuscleKidneyLiverBoneLungRumenSteakHanburger
CATTLE TREATMENT AT (AUCTION CATTLE ON TEXAS TECH FEEDLOT)URANIUM RESULTS pCi/g WET
Heifers225 458 468 495
< 2.01 x 10-44.37 x 10-3 f 4.37 x 10-4
< 8.67 X 10-51.63 X 10-2 * 1.64 X 10-42.34 x 10-’+* 2.34 x 10-51.23 X 10-2 * 1.23 X 10-31.55 X 10-4 t’ 3.76 X 10-51.49 x 1O-Q * 3.53 x 10-5
< 8.25 X 10-47.31 x 10-4 f 7.51 x 10-5
< 4.85 X 10-54.83 X 10-3 * 1.44 X 10-3
< 4.06 x lo-f’3.23 X 10-2 * 3.23 X 10-3
< 3.43 x 10-53.70 x 10-4 f 1.1OX 10-4
< 3.62 X 10-s6.52 X 10-4 * 6.39 X 10-51.21 x 10-3 * 1.22 x 10-41.32 X 10-2 * 1.39 X 10-31.16 X 10-+ * 3.57 X 10-52.51 X 10-2 ~ 2.47 X 10-3
< 3.38 x 10-52.26 X 10-4 * 1.66 X 10-4
5.22 x 10-5 f 5.22 x 10”61.13 x 10-3 f 1.13 x 10-49.54 x 10-5 * 9.54 x 10-61.70 x 10-2 * 1.70 x 10-36.29 X 10-5 * 6.50 X 10-61.73 x 10-2 * 1.73 x 10-3
< 7.18 X 10-5< 1.50 x 10-4
Heifers513 536 565 568
6.48 X 10-5 t 3.95 X 10-56.39 X 10-* * 6.15 X 10-5
< 2.60 x 10-51.43 X 10-2 * 1.42 X 10-31.70 X 10-4 t 3.69 X 10-53.39 X 10-2 * 3.38 X 10-34.77 x 10-5 * 3.40 x 10-51.68X 10-4 *7.31 X1O-5
1.89 X 10-4 * 7.69 X 10-57.59 x 10-4 * 7.47x 10-55.61 X 10-5 t 4.52 X 10-57.94 x 10-3 * 1.39X 10-31.01 x 10-4 * 7.03 x 10-41.60 X 10-2 * 1.63x 10-31.06 X 10-4 * 3.87x 10-56.81 x 10-5 f3.54 x 10-5
< 5.33 x 10-51.52 X 10-3 * 1.53 X 10-42.88 X 10-4 * 4.58 X 10-56.47 X 10-2 f 6.44 X 10-32.30 X 10-4 f 3.83 X 10-52.18 X 10-2 f 2.18 X 10-3
< 9.12 X 10-52.84 X 10-4 * 3.25 X 10-5
c 3.77 x 10-51.65 X 10-3 * 1.63 X 10-4
< 3.51 x 10-51.44 x 10-2 * 1.44 x 10-31.69 X 10-4 t 3.% X 10-52.06 X 10-2 * 2.05 X 10-3
< 1.06 X 10-4< 1.73 x 10-4
< Less than detection limits.
Cs-1
TABLE A-XVI
MuscleKidneyLiverBoneLungRumenSteakHamburger
MuscleKidneyLiver8oneLungRumenSteakHanburger
CATTLE TREATMENT AB (BUSHLAND FEEDLOT)URANIUM RESULTS pCi/g WET
Heifers288 315 324 363
1.52x 10-% * 3.59x 10-57.69 X 10-% * 9.78 X 10-51.03 x 10-4 t 4.54 x 10-51.21 x 10-2 * 1.31 x 10-32.55 X 10-4 * 3.66 X 10-54.97 x 10-2 ~ 4.97 x 10-37.78 X 10-5 ~ 3.19 X 10-52.26 X 10-4 * 3.17 X 10-5
< 3.66 x 10-s1.99 x 10-3 * 1.99 x 10-41.54 X 10-4 * 5.62 X 10-5
< 1.36 X 10-3< 1.69 X 10-4
4.31 X 10-2 *4.28 X 10-31.53 X 10-4 * 3.62 X 10-51.17 x 10-4 ~ 3.19 x 10-5
< 3.87 X 10-56.91 X 10-4 * 6.98 X 10-5
( 7.73 x 10-s9.56 X 10-3 * 1.45 X 10-31.90 x 10-+ * 5.25 x 10-51.59 X 10-2 * 1.62 X 10-3
< 1.46 X 10-*< 1.40 x 10+
1.71 x 10-’+* 4.60 x 10+’8.00 X 10-5 * 1.28 X 10-51.70 x lo~ f 4.66 x 10-56.58 X 10-3 * 1.42 X 10-38.95 X 10-5 ~ 3.82x 10-55.56 X 10-3 * 5.57 X 10-49.51 X 10-5 * 6.51 X 10-51.67 X 10-4 * 7.50 X 10-5
Heifers373 494 496 570
< 2.03 X 10-43.59 x 10-4 * 3.59 x 10-5
< 9.06 x 10-57.51 X 10-3 * 7.62 X 10-41.65 X 10-+ * 1.65 X 10-51.01 x 10-1 *1.01 x 10-2
< 1.42 x 10-41.37 X 10-4 * 3.82 X 10-5
< 3.60 x 10-52.89 X 10-4 *4.52 X 10-56.4o X 10-5 t 4.85 X 10-52.13 X 10-3 *1.21 X 10-38.97 X 10-5 * 3.56 X 10-51.o4 X 10-2 *1.06 X 10-34.37 X 10-s t 3.12 X 10-51.35 X 10-4 *3.20 X 10-5
< 8.12 X 10-s1.34 x 10-3 f 1.38 x 10-’+6.93 X 10-5 ~ 2.82 X 10-s1.29 X 10-2 * 1.45 X 10-31.75 x 10-4 * 3.80 x 10-s1.33 X 10-3 * 1.29 X 10-41.67 X 10A * 3.45 X 10-52.71 X 10-4 * 1.63 X 10-4
< 3.58 x 10-53.95 x 10-4 f 3.93 x 10-5
< 1.29 X 10-46.03 X 10-3 f 6.14 X 10-41.44 x 10+ f 1.45 x 10-55.31 x 10-2 f 5.31 x 10-3
< 7.31 x 10-5( 5.75 x 10-5
< Less than detection limits.
. .b ●
TABLE A-XVII
MuscleKidneyLiverBoneLungRumenSteakHamburger
MuscleKidneyLiverBoneLungRumenSteakHamburger
CATTLE TREATMENT PC (PANTEX RANGE CONTROLS)URANIUM RESULTS pCi/g WET
Heifers253 255
1.17 x 1O-* ~ 1.20 x 10-5 7.% x 10-5 * 8.09 X 10-~1.36 X 10-3 * 1.37 X 10-4 1.32 X 10-3 ~ 1.32 X 10-41.95 X 10-4 * 1.98x 10-5 1.60 X 10-4 * 1.61 X 10-52.27 X 10-3 *2.21 X 10-4 2.58 X 10-3 * 2.60 X 10-41.09 x 10-~ ~ 1.12 x 10-5 Ns1.68X 10-2 f 1.68 x 10-3 5.66 X 10-3 f 5.66 X 10-4
< 2.98 X 10-s < 2.83 X 10-53.24 X 10-4 * 2.74 X 10-k 2.98 X 10-$ * 2.96 X 10-s
TABLE A-XVIII
CATTLE TREATMENT AC (AUCTION CONTROLS)URANIIJ4RESULTS pCi/g WET
Heifers188 198 448 541
< 3.44x 10-51.39x 10-3 * 1.38 X 10-4
NS1.50 x 10-2 * 1.50X 10-3
NS1.10 x 10-2 * 1.09X 10-3
< 2.95 x 10-52.45 X 10-4 ~ 2.45 X 10-5
NS = no sample.< = leSS than detection limit.
7.58x 10-5 * 7.72 X 10-63.56 X 10-4 * 3.56 X 10-5
< 3.64 X 10-51.93 x 10-3 * 2.01 x 10-4
< 2.64 X 10-59.38 X 10-3 * 9.38 X 10-4
< 2.60 X 10-59.00 X 10-5 * 9.28 X 10-6
< 5.24 X 10-55.94 x 10-~ * 5.95 x 10-52.99x 10-5 i 2.74 X 10-61.35 X 10-3 * 1.24 X 10-41.99 x 10-4 * 2.02 x 10-57.53 x 10-3 * 7.53 x 10-47.54 X 10-6 * 7.25 X 10-73.71 x 10-5 * 3.71 x 10-6
< 3.39 x 10-59.33 x 10-4 * 9.33 x 10-52.75 X 10+ * 2.75 X 10-55.60 X 10-3 * 5.60 X 10-46.61 X 10+ * 6.65 X 10-52.12 x 10-3 f 2.12 x 10-4
< 3.61 X 10-57.11 X 10-5 * 7.25 X 10-6
AT
AB
TABLE A-XIX
TISSUE COMPOSITE RESULTS FOR PLUTONIUM
Treatment Tissue
PT Muscle
J(idney
LiverBoneLungRumenSteakHamburger
MuscleKidneyLiverBoneLungRumenSteakHamburger
MuscleKidneyLiverBoneLungRumenSteakHamburger
pCi/g WET
238pu Ash(pCi/g)
0.0005 *0.0020.0005 f 0.001
-0.0020 * 0.005-0.0004 * 0.00050.0007 *0.0020.0002 *0.00030.0002 * 0.0003-0.0015 *0.0007
0.0011 *0.0010.0010 *0.001
-0.0050 * 0.005-0.0003 f 0.0010.0003 * 0.00060.0002 *0.0006
-0.0012 ~ 0.0020.0007 fo.ool
-0.0005 f 0.0009< 0.001
-0.0004 * 0.003-0.0016 *0.0008-0.0005 * 0.001-0.0003 *0.0001-0.001 *0.001-0.0003 * 0.0009
23gpu Ash(pCi/g)
-0.0040 * 0.0030.0005 *0.001
-0.0020 * 0.0050.0004 * 0.00080.0007 f 0.0020.0020 f 0.0007-0.0002 * 0.0003-0.0010 *0.001
-0.0004 * 0.0010.0024 ~0.002
-0.0030 * 0.004< 0.001
0.0003 * 0.00070.0015 tOoOO080.0030 f 0.0020.0013 * 0.001
0.0016 f 0.002-0.0011 to.ool0.0040 f 0.004-0.0003 * 0.00080.0005 * 0.00090.0013 fo.00050.0003 *0.0010.0006 *0.0008
< less than detection limits.
54
TABLE A-XX
BLOOD COMPOSITE RESULTS FOR PLUTONIUMpCi/g WET
s
Treatment Date.
PT 11/05/8111/12/8111/17/8111/19/8111/24/8112/01/81
AT
12/15/8112/29/8101/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
11/17/8111/19/8111/24/8111/26/8112/01/8112/08/8112/15/8112/29/8111/13/8202/10/8203/11/82
Pc 11/05/8111/12/8111/17/81
AC 11/17/81
AC 11/17/81(before transferto Bushland)
238pu Ash(pci/g)
--
--
--
--
--
- -
--
0.0002 *0.00090.0004 ~ 0.0004-0.0005 * 0.0004-0.0005 f 0.0005
--
--
--
--
--
-0.0001 * 0.00020.0002 * 0.00060.0007 +0.0006-0.0007 *0.0004
--
--
--
--
--
239pu Ash(pCi/g)
0.0004 * 0.00040.0004 * 0.0004
-0.0015 * 0.0001-0.0008 * 0.0008-0.0004 * 0.0004-0.0009 * 0.0009-0.0009 * 0.00090.0002 * 0.00080.0004 f 0.0004-0.0006 * 0.00040.0003 * 0.0005
-0.0011 f 0.00010.0004 * 0.0004-0.0009 * 0.00090.0003 *0.0003
-0.0010 * 0.00010.0003 to.00030.0013 *0.00010.0001 *0000030.0002 * 0.00060.0002 *0.001-0.0006 * 0.0002
-0.0023 * 0.0002-0.013 fo.ool
-0.0005 *0.001
0.0010 ~ 0.0001
-0.0004 ~ 0.0004
55
TABLE A-XXI
Nuclide
235(j
234(j
DOSE FACTORS FOR NATURAL URANIUM INGESTION WHEN GUT TO BLOODIS 0.05 AND 50-Yf?DOSE COMMITMENT
IngestedIngested* Natural** (rem/uCi(rem/uCi) Uranium for natural
QLu!l per model (Wt%) uranium)
Bone 18.0 0.72 0.13Kidney 0.770 0.0055Liver 0.526 0.0038
Bone 19.9 0.0057 0.0011Kidney 0.851 0.000049Liver 0.583 0.000033
99.27238u Bone 17.6 17.5Kidney 0.765 0.75Liver 0.522 0.52
U-nat Bone x 17.6Kidney 0.77Liver 0.52
—
*D. E. Dunning, Jr., S. R. Bernard, P. J. Walsh, G. G. Killough, and J. C.Pleasant, “Estimates of Internal Dose Equivalent to 22 Target Organs forRadionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel-CycleFacilities, Vol. II,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory report ORNL/NUREGTM-190/V2 (October 1!377).
**’’Los/llamos Scientific Laboratory Manual , Chapter 1, Health, Safety, andEnvironment--Technical Bulletin 503, Uranium,” Los Alamos ScientificLaboratory (1979).
56
SmsPW Range Price Code
001.02s A02
026.050 A03
0s I 07s AIM
076.100 A05
101.125 A06
[:6.150 A07
PAmed in the United S[mrs of Ammice ,,
Availnbk fmm
Nekml Technical lnfornwion Sewice
US Depsnmen; of Commerce
S28S Pon Royd Rosd
!@inglidd. VA 22161
NTIS NTIS
Psge RanSe Price Cede Page Range PA= Code
151.11s AOS JOI.325 A 14
176.2(WJAm 3~&J5Q AIS
201 22s AIO 351.37s A16
226-2S0 All J?6 xa A17
Ml 27s A12 401 42S A18
276300 A13 4:6.450 A19
NTIS
Pwe RwIce Pdce Code
a I 47s A20
476.S00 All
SOI.52S A22
526.550 A2J
5s1. s?s A24
S76JQX2 A23
601 up” A99
“Con!tc! .YTISfor a price quote.
. .