.! ~. - -,~. . . . . ‘ -, --[.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_ &ltM .~n.iversfly gIl @lilor_n@.for 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.

. .