Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Figure 3. Variation of Plutonium Activity ",iJh Inflow for S. Walnut Creek <br /> <br />1.2 <br /> <br /> <br />0.5 <br /> <br />1.5 <br /> <br />2 25 <br />Inflow in CFS <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />3.5 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />4.5 <br /> <br />1.4 <br /> <br />s <br />'is. <br />.5 0.1 <br />]: <br />'S: <br />~ <br />0 <br />~ <br />~ 0.6 <br />'"' <br />N <br />~ <br />0.. <br /> 0.4 <br /> <br />0.2 <br /> <br />Table 1. Particle Size Distribution in Stonnwater Samples <br /> <br />Mesh Size Opening (um) Cum.% 8J. less than <br />.75 in 19050 0.00 100.00 <br />.375 in. 9525 1.50 98.50 <br />#4 4750 6.10 93.90 <br />#10 2000 28.60 71.40 <br />#40 425 86.60 13.40 <br />#200 75 97.60 2.40 <br />-200 I 100 0.00 <br /> <br />Although the distribution of particle sizes was determined for the 5uspended sediments of tM B-Senes <br />drainage. no data exists for the distribution of radionuclides, particularly Pu, amongst the different particle <br />sizes in these suspended sediments. Because the partitioning of Pu to various particles based on particle <br />surface chemistry is complex, the assumption was made that all surface areas of suspended particles are <br />equally attractive to the actinides, regardless of the particle diameter. Therefore. the premise was made <br />that Pu adsorbed to suspended particulate matter is evenly distributed over the surface area of all suspended <br />particles in a given volume of stonnwater. <br />