Annotated TOC draft for Tl-Cs fish tissue resp plan

DE BEERS CANADA INC.

SNAP LAKE MINE

THALLIUM AND CESIUM IN FISH TISSUE RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD

June 2015

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine i June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In 2013, the concentrations of metals in large-bodied fish in Snap Lake were assessed as part of the De Beers Canada Ltd. (De Beers) Snap Lake Mine (Mine)’s Aquatic Effect Monitoring Program (AEMP). Concentrations of two rare metals, cesium and thallium, which are very low in Snap Lake surface waters and are not increasing in sediment, were found to be increasing in fish tissues. As a result, De Beers has developed a Response Plan to determine what these results mean and whether management actions are required. The findings of this Response Plan are provided below in terms of the answers to key questions.

What are cesium and thallium? Cesium and thallium are non-essential metals that can leach from rocks as water runs off them. This leaching process occurs naturally in the Northwest Territories (NWT) and elsewhere.

Are we sure cesium and thallium are increasing in Snap Lake fish? Yes. There are no obvious laboratory or analysis errors that might explain the higher concentrations in Snap Lake fish than in reference lakes or than previously measured.

Where do cesium and thallium come from around Snap Lake? Cesium and thallium are naturally found in streams in the area in very low concentrations. They are also found in the underground water coming from the Mine and in water running off the North Pile into sumps. Most of the cesium and thallium entering Snap Lake is coming from the Mine.

How much cesium and thallium are going from the Mine into Snap Lake? Very little; most measurements of these metals in the effluent are non-detectable by current, routine analytical technology.

How much cesium and thallium are in Snap Lake water and sediment? Most measurements of these metals in the waters of Snap Lake are non-detectable by current, routine analytical technology. There are measurable concentrations of these metals in Snap Lake sediments, however, there has been no change in their concentrations since baseline. In other words, sediment concentrations remain at pre-mining levels.

Will these concentrations harm the fish? No, there are no expected effects on fish health. Measured fish tissue concentrations of thallium are below fish tissue benchmarks that are protective of fish health. Although there are no benchmarks for cesium, fish remain healthy in Snap Lake. De Beers checks fish health every three years; there have been no changes to fish health.

De Beers Canada Inc.

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine ii June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

Will these concentrations harm humans eating fish? No, these concentrations will not harm humans eating fish. Although there are more data for thallium than for cesium, there is no evidence of harm to humans from either metal at the measured concentrations. A concentration of thallium in fish tissue above which thallium concentrations could be harmful to humans or wildlife was calculated using available data from the scientific literature. This value is 0.66 milligrams of thallium per kilogram of wet tissue, or mg/kg wet weight. The maximum concentration measured in fish muscle from Snap Lake in 2014 was 0.0257 mg/kg wet weight, which is more than 25-fold less than the value that could be harmful to humans. Fish are safe to eat in Snap Lake.

Will the fish taste different with these metals in them? No, the concentrations of these metals are very low; taste will not be affected. Snap Lake fish were judged during the Annual Snap Lake Fish Tasting in 2014 and were determined to taste good and sometimes excellent. This fish tasting is reported annually basis in the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program (AEMP) Report.

What will De Beers do about these metals in fish? No management actions are currently required, as there is no risk to fish or humans. De Beers will continue to monitor and report on concentrations of cesium and thallium in effluent, water, sediment, and in Lake Chub, Round Whitefish, and Lake Trout in the AEMP.


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine iii June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Regulatory Requirements ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Parameter Description .............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.3.1 Cesium ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Thallium ..................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Focus of the Response Plan ..................................................................................................... 1-4

2 ACTION LEVEL EXCEEDANCE ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Low Action Level Definition ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Determination of Low Action Level Exceedance ....................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Relevance to the Significance Threshold .................................................................................. 2-7

3 INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Confirmation of Action Level Exceedance ................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Data Quality Assurance/ Quality Control ................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Assessment of Covariance in Cesium and Thallium Concentrations with Fish

Size ............................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Summary ................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2 Existing Environment ................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1 Sediment.................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Surface Water ............................................................................................................ 3-7

3.3 Possible Sources of Cesium and Thallium to Snap Lake ....................................................... 3-10 3.3.1 Methods ................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.3.2 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 3-23

3.4 Possible Mechanisms of Cesium and Thallium Uptake to Biota ............................................. 3-24 3.4.1 Bioaccumulation by Biota ........................................................................................ 3-24 3.4.2 Internal Biological Processing ................................................................................. 3-25 3.4.3 Cesium ..................................................................................................................... 3-26 3.4.4 Thallium ................................................................................................................... 3-27 3.4.5 Summary ................................................................................................................. 3-30

4 ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPLICATIONS ................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Ecological Implications .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Fish ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Fish-eating Wildlife .................................................................................................... 4-7

4.2 Human Health Implications ..................................................................................................... 4-12 4.2.1 Methods ................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.2.2 Results ..................................................................................................................... 4-13

4.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 4-16


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine iv June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

5 FISH HEALTH, TEMPORAL AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 5-1

5.1 Fish Health and Temporal Tissue Review ................................................................................ 5-2 5.1.1 Methods ..................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Regional Assessment ............................................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.1 Methods ..................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 5-5

6 RESPONSE(S) .................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Follow-up Response(s) ............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Rationale for Selection of Response(s) .................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Description of Timelines ............................................................................................................ 6-2 6.4 Projection of Environmental Response to Planned Response(s) ............................................. 6-4 6.5 Monitoring Plan for Tracking Environmental Response to Follow-up Response(s) ................. 6-4 6.6 Schedule ................................................................................................................................... 6-4

7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 7-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.2-1 Location of Water Licence MV2011L2-0004 Response Plan Requirements under Schedule 6: Part G: ........................................................................................................... 1-2

Table 2.2-1 Summary Statistics and Statistical Comparisons to Reference and Baseline for Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Muscle, Liver, and Kidney Collected from Snap Lake in 2013 ............................................................................................................ 2-4

Table 2.2-2 Normal Range Calculations for the Mean Concentration of Cesium and Thallium in Snap Lake Fish Tissue Sampled in 2013 ...................................................................... 2-4

Table 3.1-2 Statistical Comparison of 2013 Snap Lake Cesium and Thallium Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Muscle, Liver, and Kidney Concentrations to Reference Lakes by Analysis of Covariance ...................................................................................................... 3-3

Table 3.3-1 Comparison of Snap Lake Mine Monitoring Data to Leach Testing and Other Diamond Mines ............................................................................................................... 3-22

Table 4.1-1 Summary of Freshwater Toxicity Data for Cesium and Thallium for Fish ......................... 4-3 Table 4.1-2 Summary of Studies Linking Fish Tissue Concentrations of Thallium to Effects on

Survival, Growth, Development, and Reproduction .......................................................... 4-5 Table 4.1-3 Receptor Characteristics for the American Mink and Common Loon ............................. 4-10 Table 4.1-4 Fish Tissue and Water Concentrations of Thallium in Snap Lake .................................. 4-10 Table 4.1-5 Total Exposures, Toxicity Reference Values and Hazard Quotients for the

American Mink and Common Loon ................................................................................. 4-11 Table 5-1 Summary of Statistically Significant Differences and Normal Range Exceedances

in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Tissue Chemistry Parameters Collected from Snap Lake in 2013 ............................................................................................................ 5-1

Table 5.1-1 Fish Health Endpoints for Lake Trout, Round Whitefish, and Lake Chub Collected from Snap Lake in 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2013 ............................................................... 5-3

Table 5.2-1 Regional Comparison of Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Tissue .................................................................................................... 5-6

Table 6.3-1 Sampling Schedule for Measurement of Cesium and Thallium Concentration in Water, Sediment, and Tissue ............................................................................................ 6-3


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine v June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Study Lakes in the Upper Lockhart River Watershed ....................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Cesium Concentrations in the Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish

Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013 .................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3 Cesium Concentrations in the Liver Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish

Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013 .................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4 Cesium Concentrations in the Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish

Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013 .................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5 Thallium Concentrations in the Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish

Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013 .................................... 2-6 Figure 2-6 Thallium Concentrations in the Liver Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish

Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013 .................................... 2-6 Figure 2-7 Thallium Concentrations in the Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish

Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013 .................................... 2-6 Figure 3-1 Mean Cesium Concentrations Measured in Sediments from Snap Lake,

Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2004 to 2013 ..................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-2 Mean Thallium Concentrations Measured in Sediments from Snap Lake,

Northeast Lake, and Lake 13. ........................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-3 Total Cesium Concentrations in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2004 to

2013 ................................................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-4 Total Thallium Concentrations in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2004

to 2013 ............................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-5 Water Quality Monitoring Locations at the Snap Lake Mine ........................................... 3-12 Figure 3-6 Flows from the North Pile to the Water Management Pond and the

Underground Mine to the Water Treatment Plant ........................................................... 3-14 Figure 3.7 Loading of Cesium and Thallium to Snap Lake .............................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-8 Dissolved Cesium Concentrations in Various Locations around the Mine Site,

2001 to 2013 ................................................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-9 Dissolved Cesium Loadings Contributing to the Final Discharge from 2003 to

2013 ................................................................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-10 Total Cesium in the Treated Effluent, 2004 to 2013 ....................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-11 Dissolved Thallium Concentrations in Various Locations around the Mine Site,

2003 to 2013 ................................................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-12 Dissolved Thallium Loadings Contributing to the Final Discharge from 2003 to

2013 ................................................................................................................................. 3-20 Figure 5-1 Temporal Comparisons of Lake Trout (A) and Round Whitefish (B) Muscle

Cesium (1) and Thallium (2) Concentrations in Snap Lake, Reference Lake, and Northeast Lake in 1999, 2004, and 2013. ......................................................................... 5-4

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Confirmation of Low Action Level Appendix B Regression Plots for Fish Tissue Cesium and Thallium Concentrations against

Body Size Appendix C Snap Lake Mass Balance Model and Calibration Appendix D 2015 Benthic and Epilithic Algae Sampling Plan Appendix E Effluent, Water Quality, and Sediment Chemistry Summary Statistics Appendix F Raw Data


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine vi June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Term Definition

AEMP Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program

ALS Australian Laboratory Services

ANCOVA analysis of covariance

ANCOVAlog analysis of covariance on log10 transformed data

ANOVA analysis of variance

ANOVAlog analysis of variance on log10 transformed data

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CalEPA California Environment Protection Agency

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CCV continuing calibration verification

CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency

CRM certified reference materials

Cs cesium

ERED Environmental Residue-Effects Database

De Beers De Beers Canada Inc.

DL detection limit

DOC dissolved organic carbon

DQO data quality objective

dw dry weight

e.g. for example

EA Environmental Assessment

EAR Environmental Assessment Report

ECOTOX Ecotoxicology Database System

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment

ESL ecological screening level

FCSAP Environment Canada Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan

Golder Golder Associates Ltd.

GSI gonadosomatic index

HPVIS High Production Volume Information System

HQ hazard quotient

HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank

i.e. that is

ICx external concentration that has an inhibitory effect of x% to a specific endpoint (e.g., mortality, lack of fertilization) in the test organisms

ILL incipient lethal level

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

K-W Kruskal-Wallis test

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LCS Laboratory Control Standard

LKTR Lake Trout

LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level

LOEC lowest observed effect concentration


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine vii June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

Term Definition

LSI liversomatic index

M-W Mann Whitney test

MT metallothionein

Mine Snap Lake Mine

MOECC Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

MVLWB Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

NEL Northeast Lake

NR normal range

NOAEL no observed adverse effect level

NOEC no observed effect concentration

OMOE Ontario Ministry of Environment

PHG Public Health Goal

PK processed kimberlite

PPRTV Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values

QA/QC quality assurance / quality control

RIVM Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment

RNWH Round Whitefish

RSL regional screening level

SD standard deviation

SNP Surveillance Network Program

SR studentized residuals

TRV toxicity reference value

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USCHPPM United States Army Centre for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine

VEC valued ecosystem component

WHO World Health Organization

WMP water management pond

WQG water quality guideline

WTP water treatment plant

ww wet weight


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine viii June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Term Definition

% percent

< less than

> greater than

± plus or minus

+ plus

Cs cesium

Etotal total amount of a chemical to which a receptor is exposed via all relevant exposure routes

LC50 external concentration killing 50% of tested organisms

LD50 median lethal dose; internal concentration that results in mortality in 50% of the tested population

n sample count/size

nc not calculated

nd not determined

NW northwest

p p-value

P probability

R2 coefficient of determination

t two-sample t-test

tlog two-sample t-test on log10 transformed data

Tl thallium

UNITS OF MEASURE

Abbreviation Definition

cm centimetre

Cs/kg cesium per kilogram

Cs/kg-d cesium per kilogram per day

g gram

g/day grams per day

h hour

kg kilogram

kg/day kilograms per day

µg/g micrograms per gram

µg/L micrograms per litre

mg milligram

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram

mg/kg-d milligrams per kilogram per day

mg/L milligrams per litre

mm millimetre

ppm parts per million


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine 1-1 June 2015 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In 2013, concentrations of cesium and thallium were higher in Snap Lake fish than in fish from the two local reference lakes and had increased beyond estimates of natural variability; similar increases did not occur in Snap Lake waters or sediments. The increased concentrations of two rare metals in fish tissue were considered within the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan (AEMP) Response Framework as Low Action Level exceedances. In accordance with the Snap Lake Mine’s (Mine) Water Licence (MV2011L2-0004 [MVLWB 2015]), De Beers is required to submit a Response Plan to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (MVLWB) to address these increased concentrations. The Response Plan is to follow requirements listed under Part G, Schedule 6, Item 5 of the Water Licence. The present document is the Response Plan to the Low Action Level exceedances for thallium and cesium in fish tissue.

1.2 Regulatory Requirements

Specific Water Licence conditions applying to the Response Plan component of the AEMP for the Mine in Water Licence MV2011L2-0004 [Part G, Schedule 6, Item 5 of MVLWB (2014)] are:

5. The AEMP Response Plan referred to in Part G, Item 9 shall contain the following information for each parameter that has been reported in the AEMP Annual Report to have exceeded an Action Level:

a) A description of the parameter, its relation to Significance Thresholds and the ecological implication of the Action Level exceedance;

b) A summary of how the Action Level exceedance was determined and confirmed;

c) A description of likely causes of the Action Level exceedance and potential mitigation options if appropriate;

d) A description of actions to be taken by the Licensee in response to the Action Level exceedance including:

i. a justification of the selected action which may include a cost-benefit analysis;

ii. a description of timelines to implement the proposed actions;

iii. a projection of the environmental response to the planned actions, if appropriate;

iv. a monitoring plan for tracking the response to the actions, if appropriate; and

v. A schedule to report on the effectiveness of actions and to update the AEMP Response Plan as required.



e) Any other information necessary to assess the response to an Action Level exceedance or that has been requested by the Board.

The location where each of the above required conditions is addressed within this document is listed in Table 1.2-1. Note that these conditions are not addressed sequentially but are provided in a logical order that is intended to facilitate the readability of this document.

Table 1.2-1 Location of Water Licence MV2011L2-0004 Response Plan Requirements under Schedule 6: Part G:

Requirements Sections

5. a) A description of the parameter, its relation to Significance Thresholds and the ecological implication of the Action Level exceedance; 1.3

b) A summary of how the Action Level exceedance was determined and confirmed; 2.1, 2.2, 3.1

c) A description of likely causes of the Action Level exceedance and potential mitigation options if appropriate; 3.3, 5.1

d) A description of actions to be taken by the Licensee in response to the Action Level exceedance including: 5

i. a justification of the selected action which may include a cost-benefit analysis; 5.2

ii. a description of timelines to implement the proposed actions; 5.3

iii. a projection of the environmental response to the planned actions, if appropriate; 5.4

iv. a monitoring plan for tracking the response to the actions, if appropriate; and 5.5, 6.5

v. A schedule to report on the effectiveness of actions and to update the AEMP Response Plan as required. 5.6

e) Any other information necessary to assess the response to an Action Level exceedance or that has been requested by the Board. 6

In addition to the above regulatory requirements, specific recommendations for the contents of the Response Plan for cesium and thallium were provided in the 2013 AEMP Annual Report (De Beers 2014a). Further amendments to the Response Plan include the addition of raw data appendices, provided in electronic format, for effluent and water chemistry, sediment chemistry, and fish tissue chemistry.



1.3 Parameter Description

Cesium and thallium are both inorganic, non-essential metals1, meaning neither is required for biological processes in living organisms. Their basic chemical properties and environmental fate are discussed in the following two sections.

1.3.1 Cesium

Cesium, chemical symbol ‘Cs’, is a rare alkali metal that naturally occurs as a single stable isotope, 133Cs, and numerous radioisotopes, the most common being137Cs and 134Cs (ATSDR 2004; Avery 1996). Cesium 133 is commonly referred to as stable cesium, the form present in Snap Lake. Cesium has physical and chemical properties similar to those of rubidium and potassium (Campbell et al. 2005). The principal ore of cesium is pollucite, but cesium is also associated with the lithium minerals lepidolite and petalite. Cesium is used in industrial processes as a high-density component in drilling mud, photoelectric cells, and in the chemical processing industry as an ingredient in metal-ion catalysts (Butterman et al. 2004).

Naturally-occurring cesium occurs in the environment mostly from the erosion and weathering of rocks and minerals (ATSDR 2004). Stable cesium concentrations in most northern Canadian surface waters (e.g., the Lockhart River) appear to be at or below analytical detection limits (DL) (GNWT and AANDC 2014), as is the case in Snap Lake. In aquatic ecosystems, cesium is a highly soluble element and stable as a mobile ion under most conditions. Precipitation of cesium may occur under highly oxidizing conditions (Drever 2005); however, these conditions do not occur naturally in Snap Lake. Cesium may form weak complexes with sulphate, chloride, and nitrate ions under oxidizing conditions (Rayner-Canham and Overton 2006). Uptake of cesium by lake-bottom sediment in Snap Lake is not kinetically favoured; cesium is found in measurable concentrations in Snap Lake sediment but concentrations have not increased from baseline conditions.

The potential for cesium to bioaccumulate (i.e., accumulate in biological tissues) has been demonstrated in plants, invertebrates, and fish species (Rowan and Rasmussen 1994; Avery 1996). Additional information regarding cesium uptake and biological processing is presented in Section 3.3.

1.3.2 Thallium

Thallium, chemical symbol ‘Tl’, is an alkali metal. It is rarely found in large ore deposits, but can be recovered from sulphide ores of lead, copper, and zinc and may be associated with cadmium, iron, and potassium minerals such as feldspars and micas (CCME 1999). Aquatic environments receive natural inputs of thallium via weathering processes, while anthropogenic inputs include industrial sources such as fly ash and metal smelter emissions (CCME 1999; Zhuang and Gao 2015).

1 In this report, “metals” refers to metals, as well as metalloids, such as arsenic, and non-metals, such as selenium, where applicable.



Thallium is found in Canadian freshwaters at concentrations ranging from 1 to 100 micrograms per litre (µg/L); sediment concentrations of up to 5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg dry weight [dw]) have been reported downstream from industrial operations (CCME 1999). Thallium exists in aquatic systems in oxidation states of plus (+) 1 (the thallous ion, Tl[I]) and +3 (the thallic ion, Tl[III] (CCME 1999). The mobility of thallium decreases with alkaline pH and under oxidizing conditions. Due to the solubility of thallium under weakly oxidizing and reducing conditions, precipitation of thallium in lake-bottom sediment may not be kinetically favoured; thallium in found in measurable concentrations in Snap Lake sediment but concentrations have not increased over baseline conditions. Thallium favours co-precipitation with manganese oxides (RSC 1982) and iron oxides (Lin and Nriagu 1998).

Similar to cesium, thallium is also a non-essential metal and has been demonstrated to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, including plants, invertebrates, and fish species (CCME 1999). Additional information regarding thallium uptake and biological processing is presented in Section 3.3.

1.4 Focus of the Response Plan

The Response Plan is designed to answer six basic questions:

1. What is the Low Action Level for fish and how did it get triggered in 2013?

2. Are the data from 2013 real? Where did the metals come from and how did they get into fish?

3. Are the cesium and thallium concentrations in fish in 2013 harmful to fish, wildlife or humans?

4. Are fish in Snap Lake healthy?

5. How do the 2013 results compare to other years? How do the Snap Lake results compare to other lakes in the region?

6. What should De Beers do about the 2013 fish tissue data?

Based on the above questions, together with the Water Licence requirements, the present Response Plan focusses on:

• defining the Low Action Level exceedance in 2013 (Section 2);

• investigating if the cesium and thallium Low Action Level exceedances in fish tissues are accurate, sources of cesium and thallium to Snap Lake, and how these two metals might be bioaccumulated by fish (Section 3);

• the potential human health and ecological implications of cesium and thallium in fish tissues (Section 4);

• comparing cesium and thallium in fish tissue in 2013 to existing fish health in Snap Lake, to fish tissue concentrations over time, and to regional fish tissue concentrations (i.e., the upper Lockhart River watershed) (Section 5); and,

• recommending follow-up actions (Section 6).



2 ACTION LEVEL EXCEEDANCE

This section describes the Low Action Level and how it was triggered in 2013.

2.1 Low Action Level Definition

A large-bodied fish tissue chemistry survey was completed under the Mine’s AEMP in 2013. In 2013, as part of the AEMP Design Plan update required by the MVLWB, a Low Action Level was defined for fish tissue on the basis of comparison to baseline data, reference lakes data, and the normal range (De Beers 2014a). The Low Action Levels were defined as follows:

• Fish Safe to Eat: Metals in edible fish tissue above 75 percent (%) of upper limit of normal range.

• Fish Health: Statistically significant difference (Probability [p]<0.1) in fish tissue chemistry that is beyond normal range, and change is in direction, and of magnitude, that is indicative of an impairment to fish health.

In previous years (e.g., De Beers 2012a), the normal range for fish tissue chemistry parameters had been considered as the reference mean plus or minus (±) two standard deviations. In 2013, the normal range for fish tissue was reviewed and re-defined as a 95% prediction interval for the mean (Appendix 9A in De Beers 2014a) focussing on fish tissue chemistry parameters differing significantly from baseline and reference lake concentrations, and falling outside the normal range. The Low Action Level definition does not include temporal comparisons among years; it is based on a one-year snap shot compared to baseline and reference and was considered conservative and appropriate for “early-warning” in large-bodied fish tissue.

2.2 Determination of Low Action Level Exceedance

The 2013 AEMP fish tissue chemistry survey reported statistically significant differences in cesium and thallium concentrations between Snap Lake and the two study reference lakes, Lake 13 and Northeast Lake (Figures 2-2 through 2-7; De Beers 2014a). Statistically significant differences were also reported between 2013 fish muscle cesium2 concentrations and baseline concentrations (Table 2.2-1); cesium and thallium concentrations were also above normal range (Table 2.2-2). Fish tissue cesium and thallium concentrations were, therefore, considered within the AEMP Response Framework as Low Action Level exceedances. Temporal comparisons of fish tissue chemistry within Snap Lake during Mine operations (i.e., between 2009 and 2013) were not considered qualitatively or quantitatively as part of the Low Action Level screening process, but are considered herein for context (Section 5).

2 Thallium was not statistically compared to baseline data because baseline fish tissue thallium data were below analytical detection limits, and the 2004 detection limit of 0.4 mg/kg ww [wet weight] was above concentrations at which thallium is currently detected in fish tissue from Snap Lake (see Section 9.5.1 in De Beers 2014a for further discussion).



Baseline muscle chemistry samples were collected in 1999, prior to operational effluent discharge, from Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum). Liver samples were also collected in 1999 from Lake Trout. Baseline muscle and liver chemistry data, and additional muscle chemistry data from 2004 during early operations were included in the normal range calculations (see Appendix 9A, Table 9A-1 in De Beers 2014a for a complete normal range baseline data set description). Normal range for fish tissue chemistry is considered to represent the range of natural variability, as such it includes not only baseline data from Snap Lake, but also available historical and current reference lake data including a 1999 reference lake south of Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 (Figure 2-1). Data collected during operations (2009 and 2013) are not included in the calculation of normal range.

In 2014, fish tissue data were collected from Lac Capot Blanc, downstream of Snap Lake (Figure 2-1) as part of an AEMP Downstream Lake Special Study to collect information on the existing environmental conditions in lakes downstream of Snap Lake. Large bodied fish tissue data were not collected from Snap Lake in 2014; they will be collected from Snap Lake in 2016 (De Beers 2014b).


!(Ì

489000

489000

498000

498000

507000

507000

516000

516000

525000

525000

7045

000

7045

000

7054

000

7054

000

7063

000

7063

000

7072

000

7072

000

7081

000

7081

000

Study Lakes in theUpper Lockhart River Watershed

SNAP LAKE MINE

KMDRAWN:

CHECK:

±

REVISION NO:A

November 20, 2014DATE:

NAD83DATUM:

N:\A

ctive

\GIS

\2014

\14_1

349_

0003

_Sna

p\Map

ping\M

XD\14

1349

0003

2400

2402

_2_1

.mxd

GOLD-YELOFFICE:14-1349-0003-2400-2402JOB NO:

FILE No:141349000324002402_2_1

UTM Zone 12PROJECTION:

REFERENCES

LEGEND

Base Data Source: National Topographic DatabaseFigure 2 -1

5 50

SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES

HM

Mackay Lake

Northeast Lake

Lake 13

Snap Lake

CamsellLake

Lac Capot Blanc

1999Reference

Lake

Snap Lake Mine

!(Ì SNAP LAKE MINEWATERCOURSEWATERBODY

SNAP LAKE AND DOWNSTREAM LAKESMACKAY LAKEREFERENCE LAKECAMSELL LAKE


Table 2.2-1 Summary Statistics and Statistical Comparisons to Reference and Baseline for Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Muscle, Liver, and Kidney Collected from Snap Lake in 2013

Tissue Parameter Species

2013 Snap Lake Summary Statistics Comparisons to Reference Comparisons to Baseline

n DL(a) %>DL Minimum

(a) Maximum

(a) Median

(a) Mean(a) SD(a)

2013 NEL vs. 2013 Lake 13

2013 Snap Lake vs. 2013 Pooled Reference

2013 Snap Lake vs. 2013 Lake 13

2013 Snap Lake vs. 2013 NEL

2013 Snap Lake vs. 1999 Snap Lake

2013 Snap Lake vs. 2004 Snap Lake

Test p % Test p ↑/↓ % Test p ↑/↓ % p ↑/↓ % Test p ↑/↓ % Test p ↑/↓ %

Muscle Cesium

LKTR 10 0.0010 100 0.0261 0.1440 0.1200 0.1055 0.0436 tlog 0.189 29 MW 0.342 - 1 - - - - - - - t 0.953 - -1 MW 0.012 ↓ -30 RNWH 10 0.0010 100 0.0282 0.0884 0.0630 0.0609 0.0190 MW 0.072 13 - - - - ANOVAlog 0.088 ↑ 40 <0.001 ↑ 77 t 0.044 ↑ 38 nt - - -

Thallium LKTR 10 0.0004 100 0.0036 0.0141 0.0088 0.0094 0.0035 tlog 0.534 10 tlog 0.013 ↑ 47 - - - - - - - nt - - - nt - -

RNWH 10 0.0004 100 0.0069 0.0257 0.0109 0.0123 0.0055 tlog 0.430 16 tlog <0.001 ↑ 128 - - - - - - - nt - - - nt - - -

Liver Cesium

LKTR 10 0.0010/0.0020 100 0.0141 0.1390 0.0701 0.0679 0.0351 MW 0.049 35 - - - - ANOVA 0.891 - 9 0.114 - 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- RNWH 10 0.0010 100 0.0124 0.0844 0.0249 0.0321 0.0231 t 0.031 39 - - - - ANOVAlog 0.575 - 37 0.020 ↑ 103 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Thallium LKTR 10 0.0004/0.0008 100 0.0265 0.1360 0.0985 0.0882 0.0380 t 0.646 9 t 0.007 ↑ 60 - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

RNWH 10 0.0004 100 0.0231 0.1080 0.0699 0.0604 0.0248 t 0.053 68 - - - - ANOVA 0.786 - -15 0.226 - 73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Kidney Cesium

LKTR 10 0.0010 100 0.0174 0.0909 0.0754 0.0711 0.0211 t 0.345 19 t 0.210 - 21 - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- RNWH 10 0.0010/0.0020 100 0.0126 0.0397 0.0267 0.0276 0.0079 t 0.192 20 t 0.002 ↑ 47 - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Thallium LKTR 10 0.0004 100 0.0104 0.0483 0.0332 0.0320 0.0124 t 0.070 27 - - - - ANOVAlog 0.005 ↑ 76 0.123 - 33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- RNWH 10 0.0004/0.0008 100 0.0103 0.0336 0.0158 0.0182 0.0074 t 0.236 23 tlog <0.001 ↑ 107 - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

a) Units = milligram per kilogram wet weight (mg/kg ww).

LKTR = Lake Trout; RNWH = Round Whitefish; n = sample count; DL = detection limit;% = percent; “<” = less than; “>” = greater than; “-“ = not tested; -- = no baseline data available; nd = not determined (at least 50% of data values were <DL); nc = not calculated (more than 50% of values were <DL for at least one group); nt = not tested (at least 50% of data values were <DL for each group); ANOVA = analysis of variance; ANOVAlog = analysis of variance on log10 transformed data; ANCOVAlog = analysis of covariance on log10 transformed data; K-W = Kruskal-Wallis test; M-W = Mann Whitney test; NEL = Northeast Lake; SD = standard deviation; p = p-value; t = two-sample t-test; tlog = two-sample t-test on log10 transformed data;↑/↓= statistically significant increase/decrease in parameter in Snap Lake relative to reference or baseline; X = present.

Table 2.2-2 Normal Range Calculations for the Mean Concentration of Cesium and Thallium in Snap Lake Fish Tissue Sampled in 2013

Tissue Parameter Species

Reference/ Baseline Data used to Define

the NR Data

Transformation(a)

Reference/ Baseline Normality

Test P-value

Reference/Baseline Resampled Means

Normality Test P-value

Reference/ Baseline Mean (Transformed)

Reference/Baseline SD (Transformed)

Reference/ Baseline n

2013 Snap Mean

(Transformed)

2013 Snap Lake

sample size (m)

Bounds of NR for the Mean of a sample of

size m (Transformed)

2013 Snap Mean (back

transformed) (mg/kg ww)(b)

NR for the Mean of a sample of size m

(back transformed) (mg/kg ww)

Snap 2013 above NR

Upper Bound

Snap 2013 below NR

Lower Bound

Muscle Cesium

LKTR 1999, 2004, 2013 0.5 0.015 0.091 0.3244 0.02112 71 (c) 0.3154 10 0.2830 0.3658 0.099 (0.08, 0.134) - - RNWH 1999, 2004, 2013 -0.7 <0.005 0.091 10.7 0.9324 75 (c) 7.581 10 8.777 12.52 0.0554 (0.0271, 0.0449) X -

Thallium LKTR 2009, 2013 1 0.160 - 0.006716 0.002247 32 0.009358 10 0.005056 0.008376 0.0094 (0.0051, 0.0084) X -

RNWH 2013 1 0.120 - 0.005446 0.002419 19 0.01228 10 0.003461 0.007431 0.0123 (0.0035, 0.0074) X -

Liver Cesium

LKTR 2013 1 0.100 - 0.05330 0.02094 41 0.06786 10 0.03838 0.06823 0.0679 (0.0384, 0.0682) - - RNWH 2013 -0.8 0.927 - 25.66 6.814 19 19.78 10 20.07 31.25 0.0240 (0.0135, 0.0235) X -

Thallium LKTR 2013 0.2 0.220 - 0.5354 0.05778 41 0.6043 10 0.4942 0.5766 0.0806 (0.0295, 0.0637) X -

RNWH 2013 -0.3 0.359 - 2.706 0.5954 19 2.403 10 2.218 3.195 0.0538 (0.0208, 0.0703) - -

Kidney Cesium

LKTR 2013 1 0.165 - 0.05881 0.02640 21 0.07106 10 0.03766 0.07997 0.0711 (0.0377, 0.080) - - RNWH 2013 1 0.616 - 0.0188 0.006124 19 0.02764 10 0.01377 0.02383 0.0276 (0.0138, 0.0238) X -

Thallium LKTR 2013 1 0.130 - 0.02123 0.007340 21 0.03200 10 0.01535 0.02711 0.0320 (0.0153, 0.0271) X -

RNWH 2013 1 0.728 - 0.009107 0.003751 19 0.01823 10 0.006029 0.01219 0.0182 (0.0060, 0.0122) X -

Note: The number of significant figures in the table was retained from the statistical analyses presented in De Beers (2014a) so that calculations could be repeated by reviewers if desired.

a) log = log10 transformation; number = power transformation.

b) If the normal range was defined and more than 50% of 2013 Snap Lake concentrations were below the detection limit, the 2013 back transformed mean was reported as less than mean of the 2013 data with non-detects substituted as the full detection limit.

c) The sample size reported is the number of reference/baseline observations but the normal range was defined by resampling 1,000 randomly selected samples of size m (m = 2013 Snap Lake sample size) from the reference/baseline observations. This resampling approach was required due to non-normality of the baseline dataset persisting through all transformation attempts.

- = not applicable; <= less than; LKTR = Lake Trout; RNWH = Round Whitefish; m = 2013 Snap Lake sample size; n = sample size; nd = not determined; SD = standard deviation; NR = normal range; X = back transformed Snap Lake mean exceeds the upper bound of the normal range for the mean; mg/kg ww = milligrams per kilogram wet weight.



Figure 2-2 Cesium Concentrations in the Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013

Figure 2-3 Cesium Concentrations in the Liver Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013

Figure 2-4 Cesium Concentrations in the Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013

mg/kg ww = milligrams per kilogram wet weight; n = sample size; LKTR = Lake Trout; RNWH = Round Whitefish; NE = Northeast Lake.



0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Snap LakeLKTR

10

NE LakeLKTR

11

Lake 13LKTR

10

Snap LakeRNWH

10

NE LakeRNWH

10

Lake 13RNWH

9

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

LakeSpecies

n

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Snap LakeLKTR

10

NE LakeLKTR

11

Lake 13LKTR

10

Snap LakeRNWH

10

NE LakeRNWH

10

Lake 13RNWH

9

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

LakeSpecies

n

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Snap LakeLKTR

10

NE LakeLKTR

11

Lake 13LKTR

10

Snap LakeRNWH

10

NE LakeRNWH

10

Lake 13RNWH

9

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

LakeSpecies

n



Figure 2-5 Thallium Concentrations in the Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013

Figure 2-6 Thallium Concentrations in the Liver Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013

Figure 2-7 Thallium Concentrations in the Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Collected from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13 in 2013




0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

Snap LakeLKTR

10

NE LakeLKTR

11

Lake 13LKTR

10

Snap LakeRNWH

10

NE LakeRNWH

10

Lake 13RNWH

9

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

LakeSpecies

n

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Snap LakeLKTR

10

NE LakeLKTR

11

Lake 13LKTR

10

Snap LakeRNWH

10

NE LakeRNWH

10

Lake 13RNWH

9

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

LakeSpecies

n

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Snap LakeLKTR

10

NE LakeLKTR

11

Lake 13LKTR

10

Snap LakeRNWH

10

NE LakeRNWH

10

Lake 13RNWH

9

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

LakeSpecies

n



2.3 Relevance to the Significance Threshold

In the Mine’s updated AEMP Design Plan (De Beers 2014b), Significance Thresholds are part of the AEMP Response Framework outlining that water must be drinkable, fish safe to eat, sediment quality not impaired, and ecological function of Snap Lake maintained. Elevated fish tissue cesium and thallium concentrations in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish in 2013 triggered a Low Action Level in the Response Framework relative to both potential changes to fish health and to fish edibility. The Low Action Level is designed to be an “early warning” indicator of relatively minor changes in fish tissue chemistry parameters to allow for investigation and response in advance of potentially more serious changes occurring in Snap Lake. The current Low Action Level exceedances for cesium and thallium do not presently affect the Significance Thresholds. Water remains safe to drink, fish are safe to eat, and the ecosystem function of the lake has not been impaired.



3 INVESTIGATION

This section addresses the following questions:

• Are the data from 2013 accurate?

• Where did the metals come from and how did they get into fish?

An investigation of the cesium and thallium exceedance in fish tissue in 2013 was performed to:

• confirm the action level exceedance (Section 3.1);

• review cesium and thallium concentrations in other media in Snap Lake, including water and sediment (Section 3.2);

• investigate the source of the cesium and thallium to the fish (Section 3.3); and,

• review the mechanisms by which fish bioaccumulate metals (Section 3.4).

3.1 Confirmation of Action Level Exceedance

One of the first questions addressed before proceeding with data interpretation is the reliability and validity of the analytical data (i.e., are the results seen in 2013 accurate?). Historical data were re-reviewed for possible errors. Additionally, the appropriateness of the statistical methods used to assess the fish tissue data in each lake in 2013 were re-examined.

3.1.1 Data Quality Assurance/ Quality Control

Historical data were reviewed for consistency of units of measurement (i.e., mg/kg wet weight [ww] versus dw) and of DLs before inclusion in the 2013 data analysis. A standard review of 2013 analytical data and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) was undertaken to determine whether sampling or laboratory errors could be present within the dataset that could influence the interpretation of fish tissue chemistry. The methods and results of these investigations are presented in Appendix A. There was no evidence of laboratory or sampling error that could have affected the overall interpretation of trends and patterns of cesium and thallium in fish tissue (Appendix A). Sample contamination and outliers did not affect the overall assessment of significant differences from baseline, reference lakes, or concentrations above the normal range for fish tissue cesium or thallium concentrations.

No anomalies were identified in the quality control samples prepared or analyzed by the chemical analytical laboratory, ALS Canada Ltd. (ALS). ALS also confirmed that no evidence of laboratory error was identified for cesium and thallium fish tissue concentrations.



3.1.2 Assessment of Covariance in Cesium and Thallium Concentrations with Fish Size

Methods

Cesium and thallium tend to bioaccumulate in top trophic level consumers (i.e., predatory fish) in aquatic ecosystems (see Section 4 for further discussion). Thus, fish tissue cesium and thallium concentrations were re-analyzed with fish size (e.g., length) as a covariate to determine whether differences in fish size accounted for the significant differences in cesium and thallium concentrations between baseline and reference lakes. If reference lakes could not be pooled for this comparison due to the presence of statistically significant differences between the reference lakes, differences between Snap Lake and the individual reference lakes were examined.

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess differences in concentrations of cesium and thallium among sampling areas or years when body size (i.e., length or body weight) was identified as a significant covariate. An assumption of ANCOVA is that the slopes of the regression lines among treatment groups are equal; therefore, a test for homogeneity of slopes was conducted prior to performing ANCOVA analyses. If there was no significant interaction (P <0.05)3 between sampling lakes or years and the covariate (i.e., assumption of homogeneity of slopes was satisfied), an ANCOVA was performed and predicted means were calculated. If a significant difference (P <0.1)4 was detected in the ANCOVA analysis for differences among the 2013 Snap Lake mean concentration and the reference site or baseline mean concentration, pairwise comparisons (Tukey’s honestly significant differences method) were conducted to determine which sampling areas were different.

Results and Discussion

Statistical analyses were conducted to test for differences in cesium and thallium concentrations between Snap Lake and the reference lakes in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish muscle, liver, and kidney samples using body size (i.e., weight and length) as a covariate. A number of tests could not be performed due to non-significant regression relationships4 between cesium or thallium and body size (Table 3.1-2; Appendix B). For example, muscle thallium concentrations in both fish species could not be tested by ANCOVA due to non-significant regression relationships in one or all lakes.

3 p-values for regressions and tests for interaction were evaluated for significance at p=0.05, while significance of the ANCOVA tests was evaluated at p=0.1, consistent with the approach taken during the AEMP (De Beers 2014a). 4 A linear regression model explains the relationship between two variables using a straight line; in the case of fish tissue chemistry with metals that bioaccumulate, metal concentration (variable 1) is dependent on body size (variable 2). Non-significant regression relationships result when there is no linear relationship between metal concentration and body size.



Table 3.1-2 Statistical Comparison of 2013 Snap Lake Cesium and Thallium Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Muscle, Liver, and Kidney Concentrations to Reference Lakes by Analysis of Covariance

Tissue Parameter Species Year

Covariate regression Weight

Regression (R2)

Length Regression

(R2)

Analysis of Covariance Reference Lake Comparisons ANOVA(a)

Normal Range (ANCOVA)

2013 Snap Adjusted Mean

Weight p

Length p

Best Covariate

Interaction Statistic

p Normality

p

Test Statistic

p

Direction of difference

↑/↓

Ref vs. Ref p

Snap vs. LK13

p

Snap vs. NEL

p Snap vs. Pooled

Reference Lakes p Test

Statistic p

Direction of difference

↑/↓

Muscle

Cesium LKTR

2013

0.260 0.102 - ns ns - - - - - - - - 0.342 - (0.0826, 0.138) 0.105

RNWH <0.001 <0.001 Weight 0.7596 0.7570 0.437 0.740 <0.001 ↑ 0.014 0.034 <0.001 - 0.01 ↑ (0.0277, 0.0494) 0.0584

Thallium LKTR 0.849 0.971 - ns ns - - - - - - - - 0.013 ↑ ns ns

RNWH 0.363 0.377 - ns ns - - - - - - - - <0.001 ↑ (b) (b)

Liver

Cesium LKTR 0.291 0.057 Length 0.2194 0.3114 0.535 0.128 0.040 ↑ 0.097 0.961 0.051 - 0.158 - (c) (c)

RNWH 0.492 0.568 - ns ns - - - - - - - - 0.035 ↑ ns ns

Thallium LKTR 0.583 0.754 - ns ns - - - - - - - - 0.007 ↑ - -

RNWH 0.385 0.397 - ns ns - - - - - - - 0.202 - ns ns

Kidney

Cesium LKTR <0.001 <0.001 Length 0.6060 0.6403 0.484 0.675 0.004 ↑ 0.259 - - 0.003 0.275 - (0.0396, 0.0680) 0.0743

RNWH 0.187 0.115 - ns ns - - - - - - - - 0.002 ↑ - -

Thallium LKTR 0.144 0.027 Length 0.4470 0.5035 0.184 0.241 0.005 ↑ 0.584 - - 0.002 0.005 ↑ (0.0156, 0.0267) 0.0321

RNWH 0.399 0.339 - ns ns - - - - - - - - <0.001 ↑ (b) (b)

Muscle

Cesium LKTR

1999

0.152 0.066 - ns ns - - - - - - - - 0.953 - n/a n/a

RNWH 0.027 0.029 Weight 0.3635 0.3596 0.335 0.149 0.016 ↑ - - - - 0.044 ↑ n/a n/a

Thallium LKTR All 1999 concentrations <0.1 n/a n/a

RNWH All 1999 concentrations <0.1 n/a n/a

a) ANOVA conclusions as reported in De Beers (2014a).

b) Regressions with the covariates were not significant, and there was an interaction in slopes between Snap Lake and Reference Lake; normal range was not calculated.

c) Regressions with the covariates were significant, but there was an interaction in slopes between Snap Lake and Reference Lake; normal range was not calculated.

Boldly boxed cells indicate conclusions that have changed as a result of the ANCOVA analysis.

ANCOVA = Analysis of Covariance; ANOVA = Analysis of Variance; na = not applicable; ns = regressions not significant; - = not tested; Snap = Snap Lake; NEL = Northeast Lake; LK13 = Lake 13; p = probability; R2 = coefficient of determination.



Lake Trout liver and kidney cesium concentrations in Snap Lake were both significantly greater than reference lakes when tested by ANCOVA (Table 3.1-2); these cesium concentrations had not been significantly different when tested by ANOVA (i.e., without the body size covariate). This result suggests that future analyses for Lake Trout should include ANCOVA for better discrimination of significant differences.

Conclusions did not change when baseline concentrations were tested by ANCOVA relative to 2013 cesium and thallium concentrations; Snap Lake Round Whitefish muscle cesium concentrations in 2013 were significantly greater than baseline concentrations (Table 3.1-2). Lake Trout muscle cesium concentrations could not be tested by ANCOVA relative to baseline due to non-significant regression relationships. Thallium concentrations in both Lake Trout and Round Whitefish could not be tested relative to baseline because the 1999 samples were below DLs.

When the normal range was calculated as per ANCOVA analysis (i.e., considering body size as a covariate), one result changed: Lake Trout kidney cesium concentrations were beyond the normal range.

The re-analysis of cesium and thallium concentrations using a covariate of body size to account for potential bioaccumulation in larger fish did not change the conclusions of the 2013 AEMP report; rather, they supported the conclusion that cesium concentrations have increased in both Lake Trout and Round Whitefish. The Low Action Level triggers for cesium and thallium in fish tissue in 2013 were, thus, confirmed.

3.1.3 Summary

There was no evidence of laboratory or sampling error that could have affected the overall interpretation of trends and patterns of cesium and thallium in fish tissue (Appendix A). Re-analysis of fish tissue cesium and thallium concentrations (Appendix B), taking body size into consideration to account for bioaccumulation, did not change the Low Action Level determination but did provide additional discrimination of the results. The Low Action Level identified in the 2013 AEMP was confirmed.

3.2 Existing Environment

After confirming that the Low Action Level was valid, the next step in the investigation was to examine cesium and thallium concentrations in Snap Lake sediment and water to determine current conditions in Snap Lake that could contribute to cesium and thallium availability to fish.



3.2.1 Sediment

Cesium

Mean cesium concentrations measured in sediments from Snap Lake and two reference lakes over time are shown in Figure 3-1 and reported in Appendix E. Cesium concentrations in Snap Lake have remained similar since 2004 baseline conditions, ranging from 1.4 to 2.6 mg/kg dw. Mean concentrations were slightly higher in the main basin of Snap Lake than at the diffuser station, and mean concentrations were lower in the Northwest arm, but all mean concentrations for Snap Lake have remained within the baseline normal range. What appear to be elevated concentrations in Snap Lake in 2005 are an artefact of the analytical laboratory using a higher DL (10 mg/kg dw) that year; all the measurements were less than that DL. In 2012 and 2013, cesium concentrations were measured in the top 2-centimetre (cm) and top 5-cm sediment layers at the diffuser station in Snap Lake; concentrations were similar at the two sediment depths. Mean concentrations of cesium in reference lake sediments have also been similar over time for both Northeast Lake and Lake 13; mean concentrations in the reference lakes are higher than in Snap Lake (2.9 to 3.4 mg/kg dw).

Figure 3-1 Mean Cesium Concentrations Measured in Sediments from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2004 to 2013

mg/kg dw = milligrams per kilogram dry weight; cm = centimetre; NW = Northwest.



Thallium

Mean thallium concentrations measured in sediments from Snap Lake and the two reference lakes over time are shown in Figure 3-2 and reported in Appendix E. Mean concentrations in Snap Lake sediments have fluctuated annually since 2004 (0.06 to 0.3 mg/kg dw), with peak concentrations occurring between 2007 and 2009, and mean concentrations subsequently decreasing. Within Snap Lake, mean thallium concentrations are highest in the Northwest arm, and concentrations at the diffuser station are either lower or similar to mean concentrations in the main basin of Snap Lake. Mean concentrations within Snap Lake have remained within the baseline normal range. In 2012 and 2013, thallium concentrations were measured in the top 2-cm and top 5-cm sediment layers at the diffuser station; concentrations at the two sediment depths were similar in 2012 and higher in the top 2-cm layer in 2013. Mean concentrations in reference lake sediments are similar or higher than in Snap Lake over time (0.13 to 0.35 mg/kg dw).

Figure 3-2 Mean Thallium Concentrations Measured in Sediments from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13.

mg/kg dw = milligrams per kilogram dry weight; cm = centimetre; NW = Northwest.



3.2.2 Surface Water

Cesium

Cesium concentrations in all areas of Snap Lake and in the two reference lakes from 2004 to 2013 were typically always below the DL of 0.1 µg/L. Increases in cesium concentration in Snap Lake and reference lake surface water were not observed (Figure 3-3, Appendix E).

Thallium

Thallium concentrations in all areas of Snap Lake and in the two reference lakes from 2004 to 2013 were typically below the DLs of 0.03 µg/L (from 2004 to July 2011) and 0.01 µg/L (from August 2011 to 2013) with two exceptions (Figure 3-4, Appendix E). Increases in thallium concentration in Snap Lake or the surface waters of the two reference lakes were not observed. Thallium in all study lakes was well below the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) drinking water guideline of 0.8 µg/L (CCME 1999).



Figure 3-3 Total Cesium Concentrations in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2004 to 2013

Note: Normal range presented as the lowest detection limit (DL) between 1999 and 2004, because values were typically reported below the DL. Data shown are from representative stations within Snap Lake: Diffuser Area = SNAP13 (2004 to April 2006) and SNP 02-20e (July 2006 to 2013); Main Basin = SNAP09, SNAP05 and SNAP08 (2004 to 2013); Northwest Arm = SNAP02 (2004 to April 2006) and SNAP02A (July 2006 to 2013); Reference Lakes = NEL01 to NEL05 and LK13-01 to LK13-05.

SNP = surveillance network program; NEL = Northeast Lake, LK-13 = Lake 13; μg/L = micrograms per litre; ± = plus or minus.



Figure 3-4 Total Thallium Concentrations in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2004 to 2013

Note: Normal range presented as the lowest detection limit (DL) between 1999 and 2004, because values were typically reported below the DL. Data shown are from representative stations within Snap Lake: Diffuser Area = SNAP13 (2004 to April 2006) and SNP 02-20e (July 2006 to 2013); Main Basin = SNAP09, SNAP05 and SNAP08 (2004 to 2013); Northwest Arm = SNAP02 (2004 to April 2006) and SNAP02A (July 2006 to 2013); Reference Lakes = NEL01 to NEL05 and LK13-01 to LK13-05.

SNP = surveillance network program; NEL = Northeast Lake, LK-13 = Lake 13; μg/L = micrograms per litre; ± = plus or minus.



3.3 Possible Sources of Cesium and Thallium to Snap Lake

As noted above, cesium and thallium were undetectable in Snap Lake surface water in 2013 and, with few exceptions, have similarly been undetectable since monitoring began in 1999. Thus, the 2013 AEMP Report concluded that the source of cesium and thallium to fish was not obviously linked to the Mine. A further investigation of sources direct to Snap Lake from naturally-occurring sources in types of rock that are present in the Snap Lake area and from areas of the Mine was initiated. This investigation included modelling the concentrations and load of cesium and thallium in the effluent and around the Mine site, as well as a review of local and regional geochemistry to determine whether the concentrations observed at the Mine are as expected in the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) and are typical of the region.

3.3.1 Methods

3.3.1.1 Sources Direct to Snap Lake

A mass-balance model was used to evaluate the amount of cesium and thallium coming from each source, herein referred to as the ‘relative load’ of cesium and thallium, to Snap Lake. The same inputs and outputs from the Snap Lake model were used as for other metals (De Beers 2013a,b). Modelled concentrations of total cesium and thallium in Snap Lake surface water from 2004 through 2013 were compared to observed concentrations to evaluate how accurately the loading inputs to Snap Lake were estimated in the model (Appendix C). Load calculations accounted for groundwater recharge reporting from Snap Lake to the Mine (i.e., where surface water leaves the surface water system from Snap Lake and contributes to Mine recharge this mass is essentially circulated within the system and does not contribute to increasing concentrations observed in Snap Lake [Appendix C]). Results from 2013 are most representative of existing conditions at the Mine and are presented below. Results from 2003 through 2013 are presented in Appendix C.

Sources to Snap Lake evaluated for the presence of cesium and thallium were:

• Tributary and non-point source inflows that do not come into contact with the Mine site (i.e., natural runoff). A daily time series of flow was constructed from a hydrology monitoring station.

• Mine site runoff that is not captured in the Water Management Pond (WMP). A monthly time series of runoff was obtained from the EAR (De Beers 2002).

• Seepage from the WMP. A monthly time series of seepage was obtained from the EAR (De Beers 2002).

• Seepage from the North Pile. A constant seepage rate was obtained from the EAR (De Beers 2002).

• Spills to Snap Lake including Spill 11-391 and 11-398. A spill rate was obtained from Golder (2011).

• Effluent discharged from the water treatment plant (WTP). A daily flow time series was obtained from monitored data.



Sources to Snap Lake that were not evaluated were:

• spills contained on site and not released to Snap Lake (not relevant as no exposure to biota in the lake);

• lake sediment releases to water (no means to evaluate this with presently available data; however, given the consistency of concentrations in lake sediments, not expected to be a major source); and,

• aerial deposition to the lake (e.g., dust; no means to evaluate this but not expected to be a major source).

Water quality data for the sources of cesium and thallium to Snap Lake that were evaluated were obtained from the Snap Lake Environmental Database. Total cesium is not detectable in Snap Lake (Figure 2-2c) or in natural runoff to Snap Lake at the current laboratory DL. For the purposes of this report and the Mine’s modelling reports, and for consistency with the Mine’s EAR (De Beers 2002), total cesium concentrations were assumed to be at half of the DL.

3.3.1.2 Sources from the Mine

Sources of cesium and thallium originating from the Mine site can be broadly defined as originating from the deep groundwater, or as contact water that interacts with Mine materials or facilities. As part of the source investigation for cesium and thallium, parameter concentrations and chemical loads at key monitoring locations (Figure 3-5) from the Mine site were evaluated. The following section provides a review of loadings and concentrations for cesium and thallium from the following sources:

• Appendix III.2, Geochemistry Report of the EAR (De Beers 2002);

• Site Water Quality 2013 Update (De Beers 2013a); and,

• Water Licence Annual Reports (De Beers 2005a, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2011, 2012b, 2013c, 2014b).

For the purposes of this report, the concentrations at the Mine site were compared to lake concentrations provided in Section 3.2.2. Concentrations are discussed in terms of general trends and differences in magnitude between locations. Chemical loads within the Mine site reporting to treatment at the WTP are discussed in terms of dissolved concentrations rather than total concentrations as dissolved concentrations will be more bioavailable to biota. The WTP treats for total suspended solids, removing the majority of the particulate fraction from the final discharge.


Office

WATERMANAGEMENT

POND

EMULSIONPAD OUTFALL

ANSTORAGEAREA

LAYDOWN AREALAYDOWN AREA

N 7 053 000 N 7 053 000

E 5

05 5

00E

505

500

N 7 053 500 N 7 053 500

N 7 052 500 N 7 052 500

N 7 052 000 N 7 052 000

E 5

05 0

00E

505

000

E 5

04 5

00E

504

500

E 5

04 0

00E

504

000

E 5

03 5

00E

503

500

E 5

06 0

00E

506

000

E 5

06 5

00E

506

500

E 5

07 0

00E

507

000

AIRSTRIP

WESTCELL

SNAP LAKE

STARTERCELL

EASTCELL

(PRELIMINARY - TO BE FINALIZED IN DETAILED DESIGN)

SNP 02-01

SNP 02-02

SNP 02-05

SNP 02-14

SNP 02-17B

SP06-05

SP08-09

SP08-15

Bog Boat Shed

Bog Cement Storage

Bog East

Bog East Ditch North

Bog FAR

Bog Outfall Pipe Bench

Bog Outfall Pipe Bench Southeast

Bog SP2 South

Bog SP3 North

Bog SP4 North

Bog SP5 North

Bog TS1 North

Bog TS2

Bog West

Bog Winter Access Road

North Pile north of sump road

Outfall Pipe Bench Bog

Perimeter Sump 1

Temporary Sump 4

TS2 Bog North

TS2 Bog Northeast

TS2 Bog Northwest

Bog Landfarm

SP08-14

NORTH PILEFOOTPRINT

3-5

FILE No:

JOB No:

OFFICE:

GOLDER VICTORIA

REVISION No:

DRAWN: CHECK:

DATE:

November 18, 2014

PROJECTION:

UTM Zone 12DATUM:

NAD83

Water Quality MonitoringLocations at the Snap Lake Mine

N:\C

AD-G

IS\C

lient

\DeB

eers

\Sna

p_La

ke\9

9_PR

OJE

CTS

\141

3490

003_

2402

_PO

PC\1

4134

9000

3-24

04_5

-3.d

wg

1413490003-2404_5-3

14-1349-0004 A

JEF PC

SNP Monitoring Locations

LEGEND

SCALE

200 0

METRES

200

Water Quality Monitoring Locations

Piezometer Locations

1. Grid is displayed in Transverse Mercator, Datum : NAD83,

2. Coordinate system : UTM zone 12.

3. Project site infrastructure is shown for information purposes only.

REFERENCESNOTES

Survey information provided by De Beers Canada inc. in August 3, 2013. Where current ground surveyinformation was not provided, the 2004 base map information provided by AMEC Americas Limited was used.


In addition to comparing the magnitude of cesium and thallium concentrations, a comparison of chemical loads was conducted to evaluate the relative loads from primary sources at the Mine site. A detailed mass load evaluation was completed in 2013 as part of an update to the water quality model (De Beers 2013a). Based on the results of the mass loading evaluation, the following locations represent the primary sources of total metals load to the final discharge point at SNP 02-17B, and are discussed in the context of cesium and thallium:

• discharge from the underground mine (SNP 02-01); and,

• runoff and infiltration from the North Pile (SNP 02-02).

Other loads (i.e., seepage or runoff from non-point sources) originating from the Mine are relatively minor. These loads report directly to Snap Lake and are discussed in Section 3.3.1.1.

The flows used to calculate the two primary sources of loading to the final discharge water were the flow from the North Pile sumps to the WMP, which is then pumped to the WTP, and the flow from the underground mine (SNP 02-01) to the WTP (Figure 3-6). The flow from the North Pile sumps to the WTP via the surface water management infrastructure is variable but does not increase substantially over time. The flow from the underground mine to the WTP has increased over time, and is currently approximately 20 times higher than the flow from the North Pile.

A portion of the flow and chemical load leaving Snap Lake reports back to the Mine site either via groundwater inflow to the underground or is pumped for camp use. This load is then cycled back through the Mine and potentially to the North Pile before reporting back to the final discharge at the WTP. Figure 3-6 shows the key components of discharge to Snap Lake, and also shows the modelled flow of water reporting back to the Mine site from Snap Lake.



Figure 3-6 Flows from the North Pile to the Water Management Pond and the

Underground Mine to the Water Treatment Plant

WMP = water management pond; WTP = water treatment plant; m3/day = cubic metres per day.

3.3.1.3 Snap Lake Rock Types

A data review was conducted to determine whether cesium and thallium concentrations in contact waters at the Mine are within the range of similar diamond mines or within the range expected for contact waters based on the rock types at the Mine. Publically available data from the Ekati Mine and the Gahcho Kué Project were tabulated for comparison to leach test and monitoring data as presented in the Snap Lake Water Licence Annual Reports (De Beers 2005a, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2011, 2012b, 2013c, 2014b). The following references were consulted:

• Ekati Mine: humidity cell testing from Dominion (2014).

• Gahcho Kué Project: humidity cell testing and short-term leach testing from De Beers (2012c).

3.3.2 Results and Discussion

3.3.2.1 Sources Direct to Snap Lake

The primary sources of total cesium and thallium that had an influence on concentrations observed in Snap Lake in 2013 were the discharge from the WTP, followed by natural tributary inflows or runoff (Figure 3-7). The Mine site runoff, 2011 spills 11-391 and 11-398 (Golder 2011), and seepages from the North Pile and WMP were relatively minor sources of chemical loadings to Snap Lake (Appendix C). Overall, the model calibration confirmed that chemical loads entering Snap Lake have been appropriately identified for cesium and thallium (Appendix C).



Figure 3.7 Loading of Cesium and Thallium to Snap Lake

Note: The incremental load from the Mine represents the load from the WTP that contributes to increased concentrations in Snap Lake and does not include the load that is recirculated from Snap Lake or released out of the Snap Lake outlet.

Average 2013 Total Cesium Load

Non-Point Source LoadFrom Mine

Natural Load

Incremental Load fromMine

Average 2013 Total Thallium Load

Non-Point Source LoadFrom Mine

Natural Load

Incremental Load fromMine



3.3.2.2 Sources from the Mine

The sources of chemical loads from the WTP are shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9 for cesium and Figures 3-10 and 3-11 for thallium. The loading from underground and the North Pile (incremental loads) are the primary sources from the mining operations that influence Snap Lake concentrations. As noted above, cesium is not detectable in surface waters but is conservatively assumed to be present at half of the DL.

Cesium

Dissolved cesium concentrations at water quality monitoring locations within the Mine site (Figure 3-8) are approximately double the total concentrations observed in the main basin of Snap Lake and reference lakes (Figure 3-3, Appendix E). No visible trend in cesium concentrations is evident at any of the Mine site monitoring points, with the exception of the WMP, which shows an increase in concentration followed by a slight decrease. The highest cesium concentrations have been recorded in water from the North Pile sumps, bogs, and the North Pile discharge (SNP 02-02).

Cesium loadings to the final discharge are shown in Figure 3-9. In 2012 and 2013, water cycled back to the Mine from Snap Lake accounted for approximately 40% of the cesium load reporting to the WTP (SNP 02-17B). The primary source of incremental cesium loading to the final discharge is water pumped from the underground mine at SNP 02-01, although occasional spikes in incremental cesium load from the North Pile occur, particularly during the spring freshet. Total cesium in the treated effluent is often at the laboratory DL or marginally above (Figure 3-10a, Appendix E). The total loading to Snap Lake from treated effluent is approximately 10 grams per day (g/day) assuming concentrations below the DL are equal to half the DL; while DL changes over time make temporal comparisons difficult, cesium loading may be increasing over time because the volume of treated effluent released is increasing, although the concentrations are remaining the same (Figure 3-10b, Appendix E). Cesium is often below detection at many locations around the Mine and in the lakes and streams, making it impossible to accurately determine a loading trend for this parameter.



Figure 3-8 Dissolved Cesium Concentrations in Various Locations around the Mine Site,

2001 to 2013

Note: Measurement of flow from the North Pile at SNP 02-02 began in 2011. µg/L= micrograms per litre; WMP = water management pond.

Figure 3-9 Dissolved Cesium Loadings Contributing to the Final Discharge from 2003 to 2013

Note: Measurement of flow from the North Pile at SNP 02-02 began in 2011. The total load is represented by the top of the blue line. Each portion of the plot represents a fraction of the total load, which is added on top of the one below it. For example, the underground incremental load is equivalent to the red zone (i.e., the difference between the top of the red line and the top of the orange line is the underground incremental load); g/day = grams per day.



Figure 3-10 Total Cesium in the Treated Effluent, 2004 to 2013 a. Concentration

Non-Detect = values reported as less than the method detection limit; SNP 02-17 = treated effluent from the temporary water treatment plant; SNP 02-17B = treated effluent from the permanent water treatment plant; SNP = surveillance network program; µg/L = micrograms per litre.

b. Loading

Note: A logarithmic scale was used to display the historical trend in loading, which could not otherwise be identified due to the wide range of analytical detection limits.

Non-Detect = values reported as less than the method detection limit; SNP 02-17 = treated effluent from the temporary water treatment plant; SNP 02-17B = treated effluent from the permanent water treatment plant; SNP = surveillance network program; kg/day = kilograms per day.



Thallium

Dissolved thallium concentrations at water quality monitoring locations within the Mine site (Figure 3-11) are approximately double the total concentrations observed in the main basin of Snap Lake and reference lakes (Figure 3-3, Appendix E). There is no visible trend in dissolved thallium concentrations at the Mine site over time. The highest thallium concentrations have been recorded in the North Pile, including sumps, bogs, and the North Pile discharge (SNP 02-02), as well as the WMP.

Thallium loadings to the final discharge are shown in Figure 3-12. In recent years, water cycled back to the Mine from Snap Lake accounts for between 20% and 50% of the thallium load reporting to Snap Lake from the discharge at the WTP (SNP 02-17B). The primary source of incremental thallium loading to the final discharge is water pumped from the underground mine at SNP 02-01. Although occasional spikes in incremental thallium load from the North Pile occur, particularly in early 2011 and during the annual spring freshet, the incremental load from the underground mine is approximately double the load from the North Pile. Note that loadings are all based on the assumption that values below DLs are equal to half the DLs.

Total thallium in the treated effluent is often at the laboratory DL with a few higher concentrations observed during mine construction and early operation (Figure 3-13a, Appendix E). Total thallium concentrations appear to be increasing over time; however, this is at least partly due to the improvements in laboratory DLs. There is detectable total thallium in the treated effluent at very low concentrations. The total loading to Snap Lake from treated effluent is approximately 0.5 g/day; however, because of DL changes over time, temporal comparisons are difficult. It is unclear what the pattern in thallium loading is over time (Figure 3-13b, Appendix E) due in large part to the changing DLs and the use of half the DLs when those limits are not exceeded.



Figure 3-11 Dissolved Thallium Concentrations in Various Locations around the Mine Site,

2003 to 2013

Note: Measurement of flow from the North Pile at SNP 02-02 began in 2011. µg/L= micrograms per litre; WMP = water management pond.

Figure 3-12: Dissolved Thallium Loadings Contributing to the Final Discharge from 2003 to 2013

Note: Measurement of flow from the North Pile at SNP 02-02 began in 2011. The total load is represented by the top of the blue line. Each portion of the plot represents a fraction of the total load, which is added on top of the one below it. For example, the underground incremental load is equivalent to the red zone (i.e., the difference between the top of the red line and the top of the orange line is the underground incremental load); g/day = grams per day.



Figure 3-13 Total Thallium in the Treated Effluent, 2004 to 2013

a. Concentration

Non-Detect = values reported as less than the method detection limit; SNP 02-17 = treated effluent from the temporary water treatment plant; SNP 02-17B = treated effluent from the permanent water treatment plant; SNP = surveillance network program; µg/L = micrograms per litre.

b. Loading

Non-Detect = values reported as less than the method detection limit; SNP 02-17 = treated effluent from the temporary water treatment plant; SNP 02-17B = treated effluent from the permanent water treatment plant; SNP = surveillance network program; kg/day = kilograms per day.



3.3.2.3 Snap Lake Rock Types

A comparison of material types, mine locations, and contact water concentrations is shown in Table 3.3-1. The concentrations of thallium in contact waters at Snap Lake in both the underground and North Pile fall within the range observed in leach testing from similar mines in the region. Maximum concentrations observed at the Mine site are below the maximum concentrations observed in leach testing of kimberlite and granite at other diamond mines.

Very little cesium data were readily available from similar diamond mining projects. Due to the lack of data, a comparison was made between short term leach testing of grab sample processed kimberlite (PK) and granite from the Mine with monitoring data from the underground and North Pile. Average cesium concentrations in both the North Pile and underground fall within the range observed in short term leach testing of PK and granite collected from the Mine.

Table 3.3-1 Comparison of Snap Lake Mine Monitoring Data to Leach Testing and Other Diamond Mines

Cesium (µg/L)

Thallium (µg/L)

Snap Lake Monitoring Data – SNP-02-01

Minimum 0.11 0.011

Maximum 0.17 0.011

Average 0.13 0.011

Snap Lake Monitoring Data – SNP-02-02

Minimum 0.16 0.032

Maximum 0.54 0.11

Average 0.40 0.071

Gahcho Kué Humidity Cells

Granite Minimum - 0.010

Maximum - 0.10

Kimberlite Minimum - 0.010

Maximum - 0.25

Ekati Humidity Cells


Maximum - 1.5


Maximum - 5.0

Snap Lake Short Term Leach

Granite Minimum 0.025 0.004

Maximum 2 0.13

Kimberlite Minimum 0.025 0.015

Maximum 1 0.17

Gahcho Kué Short Term Leach – Granite


Maximum - 0.20


Maximum - 0.20

µg/L = micrograms per litre.



3.3.3 Summary

Sources of loading of cesium and thallium to Snap Lake are Mine discharges via the WTP, natural tributary and runoff inflows, Mine site runoff, and seepages from the North Pile and WMP. The largest sources of loading of cesium and thallium to Snap Lake are the interactions within the underground mine and the North Pile, which discharge via the WTP, followed by natural tributary inflows and runoff. Mine site runoff, spills, and seepages from the site were a minor source of loadings to Snap Lake.

The following general conclusions can be drawn:

• Cesium: The highest cesium concentrations are recorded in water from the North Pile sumps, bogs, and the North Pile discharge (SNP 02-02). The primary source of incremental cesium loading to the final discharge is water pumped from the underground mine at SNP 02-01, although occasional spikes in incremental cesium load from the North Pile occur, particularly during the spring freshet.

• Thallium: The highest thallium concentrations were observed for the North Pile, including sumps, bogs, and discharge at SNP 02-02. The primary source of incremental thallium loading to the final discharge is water pumped from the underground mine at SNP 02-01.

Cesium and thallium are not increasing in concentration over time in minewater; however, the volume of minewater is increasing, which suggests that loadings are increasing.

The concentrations of thallium in contact waters for both the underground and North Pile fall within the expected range for contact water at other diamond mines in the region. Although few data are available at other diamond mines for cesium, average concentrations of these two parameters in both the North Pile and underground fall within the range observed in short term leach testing of PK and granite collected from the Mine. On the basis of this comparison, concentrations of cesium and thallium observed in the final discharge are within the expected concentrations for granite and PK contact waters.



3.4 Possible Mechanisms of Cesium and Thallium Uptake to Biota

Once the source of the metals was confirmed to be from the Mine and from local runoff, the next step in the investigation was to review how the relatively low concentrations of metals in the water could be bioaccumulated by fish.

3.4.1 Bioaccumulation by Biota

Biota are exposed to and accumulate substances from the environment from water, sediment and/or diet. Bioconcentration occurs when organisms accumulate substances via uptake from the water only. Bioaccumulation occurs when organisms accumulate substances via direct exposure (through water or sediment), as well as through food (dietary uptake).

There are a number of mechanisms that control availability of substances in surface waters that can limit exposure to biota (Chapman et al. 1998; Chapman and Wang 2000; Adams and Chapman 2006; Campbell et al. 2006; Chapman 2008). For metals, free ions are generally considered the most biologically reactive forms (Campbell et al. 1988; Luoma 1983). In the aqueous environment factors that can control the presence of free ions include pH, the presence of other ions, and the presence of ligands (Stumm and Morgan 1981).

Ligands include dissolved substances in the water column that can form complexes with metal ions, thereby reducing the availability of the metal for uptake by biota. These ligands are comprised mainly of organic molecules, such as dissolved organic carbon, as well as humic and fulvic acids (Stackhouse and Benson 1988; Martino et al. 2003; Van Genderen et al. 2003) and particulate organic and inorganic matter (e.g., clay minerals). Therefore, the concentration of a metal in water does not directly equate to the concentration of metal that will be available to biota.

Diet can also be a primary route of exposure to metals in the environment. Where direct availability of a metal from the water column is limited by factors such as pH or competing ligands and ions, diet can remain as a primary exposure pathway. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, many metals can be incorporated into biological tissues or detoxified to inactive forms.

Uptake of cesium and thallium by fish from the environment is controlled by a number of environmental factors, including the geochemistry of each element in the environment (see Sections 3.4.3.1 and 3.4.4.1), accumulation at lower trophic levels (see Section 3.4.2), and the assimilation and elimination characteristics of each element (see Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4). However, despite these environmental factors, cesium and thallium have been taken up by fish in Snap Lake from water, diet, or both.



3.4.2 Internal Biological Processing

Once accumulated by biota, the availability of a substance to aquatic organisms (i.e., how much of the substance is free and available to react in vivo) is typically determined by the internal physiological response of the organism. This typically occurs at the cellular level and, depending on the type of substance, the changes can be reversible or irreversible (Baudo 1985).

While environmental factors that control bioavailability external to aquatic organisms are important in considering uptake, the distribution of the elements internally in the organism is equally important, since the internal distribution, and the mechanisms that the organisms possess to manage elements accumulated from the environment are important in understanding their potential toxicity.

Aquatic organisms exposed to metals in the aquatic environment, whether directly through water or indirectly through diet, physiologically manage the uptake of metals through two main mechanisms. The mechanisms are based on the reality that organisms need to maintain an internal pool of those metals that are essential for metabolic processes such that they are available for physiological functions, and that organisms need to eliminate or detoxify non-essential metals that could interfere with essential physiological processes or excess essential metals (Vijver et al. 2004; Adams et al. 2010). The two mechanisms of biological processing are:

• Active depuration: excess metal is excreted (depurated) from the internal metabolically available pool or from a detoxified store; and,

• Internal detoxification: excess metal is detoxified either through formation of inclusion bodies (e.g., granules) or through binding to heat-stable proteins such as metallothioneins (MTs).

Metals stored by active depuration or internal detoxification are not subsequently reactive within the organisms and, therefore, do not participate in a toxic response. As a result, organisms can, over time, accumulate relatively high tissue residues of some metals without apparent adverse effect. If the rate of metal accumulation is gradual, then these metal detoxification mechanisms can effectively remove excess or non-essential metals without resulting in adverse effects to the organism. Toxicity typically occurs when the rate of uptake is greater than rate at which the metal detoxification mechanisms can process the metals and these detoxification mechanisms become overwhelmed (Vijver et al. 2004).

While metal detoxification mechanisms are available to sequester excess metals, these mechanisms are not irreversible, and stored metals can later be depurated. Stored metals are also potentially available to predators (Vijver et al. 2004).

Accumulation of non-essential metals in tissues does not necessarily result in expression of a toxic effect since not all of the metal will be present in a biologically reactive form. Thus, tissue residues typically serve as an indication of exposure and bioavailability from environmental media but do not necessarily relate to toxic effects.



3.4.3 Cesium

3.4.3.1 Background

Cesium exists in the aquatic environment at circum-neutral pH and oxygenated conditions primarily as the free ion, Cs+. Cesium in surface waters can form complexes with other particulate and dissolved matter, such as particulate organic matter and clays, which can limit uptake from the water by aquatic organisms. Thus, the bioavailability of cesium in surface waters is influenced by the presence of other ligands in the water column. Phytoplankton, for example, have been shown to passively accumulate cesium from the water column through sorption (Adam and Garnier-Laplace 2003). Bioavailability and uptake from the water column can also be affected by the presence of other ions, of which potassium has been identified as having a significant effect on uptake through competitive interaction at uptake sites (Rowan and Rasmussen 1994). Thus, while cesium is present as the free ion, there are biogeochemical factors that will limit bioavailability and uptake of this element.

3.4.3.2 Literature Review

There are limited studies on the uptake and toxicity of elemental cesium. Most of the available studies on cesium have addressed the radioisotope 137Cs. Thus, the environmental fate and bioaccumulation of elemental (stable) cesium reviewed in this section is based primarily on studies using radiocesium, since cesium kinetics can be approximated by studies on the radioactive isotope (Campbell et al. 2005). This review assumes that accumulation and internal distribution of elemental cesium is similar to radiocesium, which may not be the case.

Adam and Garnier-Laplace (2003) demonstrated that phytoplankton will accumulate cesium from the water column. Other studies have demonstrated bioaccumulation by algae from the water column, with subsequent accumulation of cesium in planktivores (Rowan and Rasmussen 1994). Fletcher et al. (2014) assessed cesium uptake at different trophic levels in a coal waste impacted stream and noted that, while concentrations in benthic invertebrate species were very low, concentrations in fish tissue (primarily muscle) increased with trophic level, such that piscivores had the highest concentrations. They demonstrated that cesium increases with trophic level, although the authors were unable to demonstrate whether diet or uptake from the water column accounted for the accumulation at higher trophic levels.

At lower trophic levels, uptake appears to be primarily through passive mechanisms such as sorption from the water column. Relatively low concentrations in benthic organisms suggest that availability from sediments is likely to be low, possibly due to complexation of cesium with sediment particulate matter (Fletcher et al. 2014).

Rowan and Rasmussen (1994) undertook a review of the available data on cesium, focusing on bioaccumulation, and in particular assimilation and elimination efficiencies. In general, based on a review of available studies, the authors concluded that diet was the main source of cesium in fish and that the assimilation efficiency was much higher than elimination efficiency, which accounted for the accumulation



of cesium in fish tissues. The authors noted that cesium is preferentially accumulated in muscle tissue as is the case in Snap Lake, although the authors did not note whether the cesium was stored in a detoxified form. Peters et al. (1999) also noted that cesium accumulation was highest in muscle tissue. Based on existing data from large-bodied fish species in Snap Lake (De Beers 2014a), cesium accumulates to greater concentrations in muscle tissues of both Lake Trout and Round Whitefish than in liver or kidney tissue (Table 2.2-1).

Rowan and Rasmussen (1994) noted that, in addition to competing ions such as potassium, and the presence of clay minerals, temperature also appeared to influence cesium uptake, with assimilation increasing with increased temperatures. It is possible that, in Snap Lake, cesium assimilation is reduced during the winter months.

3.4.3.3 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be derived from the limited literature available:

• Cesium can be assimilated by aquatic organisms directly from dissolved cesium in the water column (e.g., phytoplankton), and through diet. While both mechanisms will operate in organisms at higher trophic levels, diet appears to be the more significant route in fish.

• Cesium is generally accumulated in muscle tissues, although the form it is in is uncertain.

• Low elimination rate relative to assimilation rate in fish will result in accumulation of cesium in tissues as a function of fish growth; cesium concentrations would be expected to increase with fish age. Mature fish would be expected to accumulate higher concentrations than juveniles, with the highest concentrations in piscivores.

3.4.4 Thallium

3.4.4.1 Background

As noted previously, thallium in the aquatic environment can exist as the monovalent (Tl[I]) and trivalent (Tl[III]) cations, although the predominant form of dissolved thallium appears to be the hydroxide, Tl(OH)3 (Twiss et al. 2004). The two forms exist in an approximate ratio of 70% Tl(III) and 30% Tl(I), depending on pH. The bioavailability of thallium is affected by the form in which it occurs. The hydroxide form is less bioavailable than the free ion, thus uptake from the water column is dependent on the availability of the free ion, and also the presence of other ions such as potassium and calcium that can influence uptake at biologically active sites through competitive interaction. Similar to cesium, for organisms at higher trophic levels such as fish, diet appears to be the main route of uptake while uptake from the water column appears to be the main route of uptake for plankton.



3.4.4.2 Literature Review

Twiss et al. (2004) conducted studies with phytoplankton (Chlorella vulgaris and Chlorella spp, and the diatom Stephanodiscus hantzschii) to assess uptake of thallium. The authors found, over a period of approximately 76 hours, bioconcentration factors of 1000-fold for each species. The data suggest uptake occurred directly from the water column. Thus, it appears that very low water concentrations of thallium can be highly concentrated by phytoplankton.

Dumas and Hare (2008) conducted uptake studies with benthic invertebrates using thallium-spiked sediments. The accumulation factor for the midge Chironomus riparius was approximately 0.6 ([TlChironomus/Tlsediment]), while the accumulation factor for the oligochaete Tubifex tubifex was approximately 0.3. The authors assessed the internal distribution of thallium in the test species through operationally defined fractionation to determine the amount of thallium accumulated that was biologically available. Overall, the authors calculated that approximately 65% of the thallium accumulated by C. riparius was potentially detoxified, while approximately 74% of the thallium (including the detoxified portion) was potentially available for assimilation by a predator. In comparison, the thallium in T. tubifex was distributed approximately equally, with approximately 52% in the detoxified fractions and 49% potentially available for assimilation by a predator. Potential transfer of thallium to a predator (the megalopteran, Sialis, which is known to feed on both species) was determined to assess assimilation efficiency during trophic transfer. Sialis accumulated thallium from C. riparius and T. tubifex with approximately 70% efficiency, providing evidence of the potential for transfer of thallium at relatively high efficiencies through trophic levels.

Lapointe et al. (2009) assessed accumulation of thallium by fish using juvenile Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) as the test species. The authors considered dietary uptake by the minnows from prey species: the benthic species Tubifex tubifex, (exposed to thallium-spiked sediment) and the pelagic species Daphnia magna (exposed to thallium-spiked artificial lake water). Minnows were exposed for a period of 7 days. T. tubifex accumulated thallium from the spiked sediment to levels approximately 16-fold the concentrations in the control sediments, while D. magna accumulated thallium in the spiked lake water to concentrations approximately 4-fold those in the control water. The authors calculated that 49% and 50% of the thallium accumulated by T. tubifex and D. magna respectively would be potentially available for trophic transfer. The authors noted that thallium was accumulated by the Minnows with approximately 30% efficiency from the T. tubifex (which had accumulated approximately 15-fold the thallium as D. magna), and approximately 75% efficiency from D. magna. Approximately 68% of the thallium in Fathead Minnow fed D. magna was in detoxified fractions, while approximately 52% of the thallium in fish fed T. tubifex was in detoxified fractions. The authors suggested that the differences in accumulation efficiencies in the Fathead Minnows could be attributed to differences in the tissue residues in the prey species. This study showed that thallium is accumulated efficiently by invertebrates from both the water column and sediments, and transferred efficiently to higher trophic levels, such as fish.



Lapointe and Couture (2009) exposed juvenile Fathead Minnows over various time periods to thallium through four treatments: controls, water-only exposures, prey-only exposures, and combined water and prey exposures. At the end of each treatment, the accumulated thallium was assessed with respect to total thallium and the amounts in various detoxified fractions. The authors found that the concentration of thallium in tissues increased over time in the prey in combined water and prey exposures, with thallium accumulating in three subcellular fractions: granules (29% to 32%), cellular debris (31% to 42%), and heat stable proteins including MTs (15% to 24%). The authors noted that, initially, bioaccumulation was more rapid from the water-only exposure, but that over time both water and prey contributed to accumulation.

Lapointe and Couture (2010) also considered accumulation of thallium by early-life stages of Fathead Minnows. In these studies, fish were exposed to thallium through either:

• Water-only exposures at two concentrations that were at least one to two orders of magnitude greater than Snap Lake concentrations (i.e., experimental exposures of 0.1 µg/L and 1.0 µg/L versus Snap Lake concentrations below DLs of 0.03 µg/L and 0.01 µg/L);

• Diet-only exposures (24-hour old nauplii of brine shrimp cultured in thallium spiked seawater (mean thallium concentration of 0.086 µg/g); or,

• Water and diet exposure combinations.

They found that fish exposed to the higher aqueous concentration of thallium bioaccumulated increased concentrations of thallium, compared to the lower aqueous concentrations and the diet-only and water and diet exposures. They also noted that thallium tissue concentrations increased over time, and that thallium accumulation from the water and diet combination exposure was higher than in the water-only exposure by the end of the 21-day tests. Lapointe and Couture (2010) concluded that, for newly-hatched larvae, water was the most important route of exposure and uptake, but that as the larvae matured, dietary uptake increased in importance, such that in juvenile fish (Lapointe et al. 2009), both water and diet appeared to be equally important. The results show that not only is the route of exposure important in assessing uptake, but also that the developmental stage of the receptor can be important in understanding thallium accumulation in fish.

In contrast to cesium, thallium accumulated to a greater degree in the liver and kidney tissue of both Lake Trout and Round Whitefish than in the muscle tissue (Table 2.2-1). However, no literature information was found substantiating lower accumulation of thallium in muscle than in internal organs. No relevant literature on the toxicity of cesium in large-bodied fish was found.



3.4.4.3 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be derived from the available literature:

• Phytoplankton can readily bioconcentrate thallium from water.

• Invertebrates can bioaccumulate and bioconcentrate thallium from both water and sediments.

• Invertebrates possess mechanisms by which a significant percent of the accumulated thallium is detoxified and stored internally.

• Fish bioaccumulate and bioconcentrate thallium from both water and diet, and are able to detoxify a significant percentage of the thallium, although the effectiveness of the detoxification mechanisms appears to depend on the rate of uptake.

3.4.5 Summary

Cesium is generally considered to accumulate primarily in muscle tissues of fish species, and this is supported by Snap Lake muscle, liver and kidney cesium concentrations (Table 2.2-1). In contrast, thallium accumulates to a greater degree in the liver and kidney tissue of fish species than in the muscle in both Lake Trout and Round Whitefish (Table 2.2-1). The uptake of cesium and thallium in fish from Snap Lake appears to be primarily from the diet. The literature suggests that the transfer efficiency for cesium is high, which likely accounts for the increases in tissue residues at higher trophic levels (e.g., Lake Trout tissue cesium concentrations are consistently greater than Round Whitefish tissue cesium concentrations). Thallium can be bioconcentrated and bioaccumulated by phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates from relatively low concentrations in water and sediment; thus, it likewise is expected to have a relatively high transfer efficiency to higher trophic levels.



4 ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

This section addresses the question: Are the cesium and thallium concentrations in fish in 2013 harmful to fish, wildlife or humans? This section is organized as follows: the potential risk to fish (Section 4.1.1), wildlife (Section 4.1.2), and humans (Section 4.2).

4.1 Ecological Implications

4.1.1 Fish

4.1.1.1 Methods

The approach used in the assessment of potential risk to fish from elevated tissue concentrations of cesium and thallium was to attempt to derive fish tissue benchmarks and to compare the elevated fish tissue concentrations to the fish tissue benchmarks for these metals. Fish tissue benchmarks represent concentrations of metals in fish tissue below which adverse effects to fish are not expected and above which adverse effects are possible but not certain. Fish tissue benchmarks were derived using the following approach:

• Step 1: Existing data compilations linking tissue concentrations to acute and chronic lethal and sublethal (e.g., development, growth, and reproduction) endpoints for freshwater fish species were reviewed: the Linkage of Effects to Tissue Residues Database for Aquatic Organisms (Jarvinen and Ankley 1999) and the Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED; Bridges and Lutz 1999).

• Step 2: Studies in the scientific literature that reported on the acute and chronic toxicity of cesium and thallium in freshwater fish were identified and retrieved from the following sources:

− United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Ecotoxicology Database System (ECOTOX) (USEPA 2014a);

− Peer reviewed scientific literature. A search of the scientific literature for acute and chronic toxicity data for freshwater fish was performed using journal databases (e.g., Web of Science); and,

− Acute and chronic toxicity data used by regulatory agencies in the derivation of the CCME water quality guidelines (WQGs) and USEPA water quality criteria, where available. Specifically, the CCME factsheets and USEPA reference documents were used.

The retrieved studies were reviewed and summarized (Table 4.1-1). Tissue concentrations were identified from those studies for which tissue concentrations could be linked to acute and chronic lethal and sublethal (e.g., development, growth, and reproduction) endpoints.

• Step 3: The lowest relevant tissue concentrations identified in Steps 1 and 2 were conservatively selected as the fish tissue benchmarks for the assessment.



4.1.1.2 Results

Cesium

There were no fish tissue concentrations available for cesium in the data compilations by Jarvinen and Ankley (1999) and the ERED (Bridges and Lutz 1999). A search of the scientific literature yielded one study (Birge et al. 1980) that reported on the toxicity of cesium to freshwater fish, but this study did not link cesium tissue concentrations to effects in fish and was of limited use in the current assessment (Table 4.1-1).

Due to the lack of fish tissue benchmarks for cesium, an assessment of the potential risk to fish from the elevated cesium concentrations in Snap Lake fish tissue could not be completed using the approach described above. Potential risk to fish is discussed further with respect to the health as well as a comparison of concentrations in Snap Lake fish to fish in the region (upper Lockhart River) (Section 5).

Thallium

There were no fish tissue concentrations available for thallium in the data compilation by Jarvinen and Ankley (1999). However, the ERED (Bridges and Lutz 1999) provided some fish tissue concentrations for thallium.

The concentrations provided for thallium in the ERED were derived from three studies (Bridges and Lutz 1999; Dubé et al. 2005; Lapointe and Couture 2010) that measured not only ecologically relevant endpoints including survival, growth, and development in freshwater fish but also pathological, physiological, and biochemical endpoints (e.g., enzyme activity) that have uncertain ecological relevance. Fish were exposed to thallium in water and/or food under laboratory or field conditions (e.g., artificial stream systems, mesocosms); the exposures sometimes included exposure to other metals in addition to thallium (e.g., exposures to metal mine effluent). The endpoints were generally reported in terms of effect tissue concentrations causing a percentage inhibition response (ICx), no observed effect concentration (NOEC), or lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC). The tissue concentrations were largely reported as whole-body concentrations of thallium.

Eleven studies were identified that reported on the toxicity of thallium to freshwater fish (Table 4.1-1). Of these studies, five linked thallium tissue concentrations to effects in fish (Zitko et al. 1975; Dubé et al. 2005; Kelly and Janz 2009; Lapointe and Couture 2010; Ouellet et al. 2013). Of these five studies, two were provided in the ERED database and reported on endpoints of survival, growth, and development (Dubé et al. 2005; Lapointe and Couture 2010), one reported on endpoints of uncertain ecological relevance (Kelly and Janz 2009), and two linked fish tissue concentrations to endpoints that included mortality (Zitko et al. 1975) and reproduction (Ouellet et al. 2013).



Table 4.1-1 Summary of Freshwater Toxicity Data for Cesium and Thallium for Fish

Reference Summary of Study

Cesium

Birge et al. (1980) Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) were exposed to cesium as (cesium chloride) from fertilization through 4 days post-hatch (giving a total exposure period of 28 days). LC1, LC10 and LC50 values for cesium were determined to be: 3,887; 21,826; and, 181,000 µg/L, respectively.

Thallium Kimball (No Date); as cited in CCME (1999) and USEPA (1980)

CCME (1999) and USEPA (1980) referenced an embryo-larval test with Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) conducted by Kimball which determined a 28-d LC55 and LOEC (growth) of 292 and 81 µg/L, respectively.

Zitko et al. (1975) Using laboratory toxicity tests with juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) a 108-d incipient lethal level (ILL) of 30 µg/L was determined from interpolation from the toxicity curve (LT50 versus log thallium concentration).

Nehring (1962); as cited in Zitko (1975)

Zitko (1975) referenced a study by Nehring (1962) for lethal effect levels of 10 to 15 mg/L for Rainbow Trout and 60 mg/L for Perch. No other study details are provided.

Dawson et al. (1977) The authors reported a 96-h LC50 of 132 mg/L for Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), approximately 33 to 75 mm in length, exposed to thallium acetate in well water.

Birge (1978)

Semi-static embryo-larval bioassays were performed on Goldfish (Carassius auratus) and Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri). Eggs were exposed to thallium (as thallium chloride) from fertilization through 4 days post-hatch giving treatment periods of 7 days for Goldfish and 28 days for Trout. LC50 and LC1 values of 7 and 52.5 mg/L, respectively, were calculated for Goldfish. LC50 and LC1 values of 0.17 and 8.4 mg/L, respectively, were calculated for Rainbow Trout.

LeBlanc and Dean (1984)

Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas) were exposed to control, 40, 120, 200, 350, and 720 µg/L thallium (as thallium sulfate) from 48-hours post-fertilization to 30-days post hatch. At 30-days post-hatch, percentage survival, mean total length, and average wet weight of larvae were determined. All embryos died in the 720 µg/L treatment. Percent hatch was significantly reduced in the 350 µg/L treatment. There was no significant effect on percent hatch in the 200 µg/L treatment. All larvae died in the 350 µg/L treatment and larvae survival was significantly reduced from exposure to the lowest concentration tested (40 µg/L). Growth of larvae was significantly reduced from exposure to 120 (length) and 200 (weight) µg/L. Based on the reduced survival of larvae exposed to 40 µg/L, the authors estimated the maximum acceptable concentration to be less than 40 µg/L. The authors also report a 96-h LC50 of 860 µg/L for Fathead Minnows.

Pickard et al. (2001)

The acute toxicity of thallium to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was studied using the Environment Canada acute lethality test protocol. Rainbow trout were exposed to nominal thallium concentrations of 0, 1.56, 3.125, 6.25 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg/L for 96 hours. The calculated 96-h LC50s ranged from 2.77 to 5.97 mg/L in five replicate tests. An average 96-hr LC50 of 4.27 mg/L was calculated from the five replicate tests.

Dubé et al. (2005)

Growth and exercise performance of juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and young-of-the-year Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus) were evaluated at a zinc-copper mine in New Brunswick, Canada using artificial stream systems in which fish were exposed to 0%, 20%, and 80% treated metal mine effluent for 45 days (Salmon) and 30 days (Sculpin). Metal, including thallium, concentrations increased across the treatments levels. Salmon tissue body burdens of some metals were increased in the 80% treatment and thallium tissue body burdens increased across all treatments. In both fish species, mortalities increased across treatments. Growth (length and weight) was significantly depressed in the 80% treatment in Salmon but only weight was significantly decreased in Sculpin and only in the 80% treatment. The liver weights of Salmon were significantly greater in the 20% and 80% treatments. There was little effect of treatment on exercise performance.



Table 4.1-1 Summary of Freshwater Toxicity Data for Cesium and Thallium for Fish

Reference Summary of Study

Kelly and Janz (2009)

Oxidative stress and histopathology were evaluated in juvenile (age 1+) Northern Pike (Esox lucius) collected from lakes receiving effluent from the Key Lake uranium mine mill in northern Saskatchewan (low and high exposure) and one reference lake. Pike collected from the low exposure lake had significantly greater oxidized glutathionine and ratio of oxidized to reduced glutathionine in kidney relative to Pike collected from the reference lake. The activity of glutathionine peroxidase in liver was greater in Pike collected from the high exposure lake relative to the reference lake. No other significant changes were noted in the indicators of oxidative stress measured. The histopathological evaluations of the kidney and gills found greater pathology in Pike collected from the reference lake compared to Pike collected from exposure lakes. Differences between Pike collected from the reference lake and Pike collected from exposure lakes were noted in the histopathological evaluation of the liver but there were no signs of pathology. Concentrations of eight metals (arsenic, cobalt, copper, iron, molybdenum, selenium, thallium, and uranium) were significantly higher in Pike collected from exposure lakes than in Pike collected from the reference lake. The authors concluded that there was limited evidence of oxidative stress and no evidence of histopathology in Pike collected from exposure lakes despite the bioaccumulation of metals (including thallium) in Pike tissues.

Lapointe and Couture (2010)

Early-life stages of Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas) were exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations of aqueous (nominal concentrations of 0.1 and 1.0 µg/L) and dietary (0.086 µg/g dry weight) thallium, and metal accumulation was monitored from the embryo until the larvae reached 21 days after hatching. This was done with the objective of determining the relative contribution of water and prey to the fish tissue burden of thallium. During and after metal exposure, six toxicity endpoints were measured including time to hatch, embryo survival rate, routine metabolic rate, and the activity of key enzymes. Thallium was bioaccumulated by embryos and non-feeding larvae and water was the major source of thallium for larvae. Thallium had no significant effect on time to hatch, embryo survival, routine metabolic rate, or enzyme activities.

Ouellet et al. (2013)

Breeding pairs of Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas) were exposed to either reference water (RW) or 45% process water mine effluent (PWE) for 21 days and fed either low food quantities (LF) or normal food (NF) quantitites in artificial stream systems. Fish in RW treatments were fed Chironomus dilutus cultured in RW and fish in PWE treatments were fed C. dilutus cultured in PWE. Tissue metal accumulation (gill, liver, gonad, and carcass), egg production, and morphometric parameters were measured. In RW and PWE water, Minnows that were exposed to LF had significantly smaller body, gonad, and liver sizes and were in poor condition as compared to Minnows exposed to NF. PWE and C. dilutus cultured in PWE had significantly greater concentrations of some metals, including thallium, and thallium increased in tissues of Fathead Minnows (gills and carcass) in the PWE treatments (NF and LF). The tissue accumulation of metals (including thallium) in the PWE-NF and PWE-LF were similar, suggesting that higher food quantities can decrease metal accumulation. In both water treatments (RW and PWE), LF exposure resulted in a signficant decrease in total egg production. The authors noted that the impaired reproduction noted in the PWE-LF Minnows was likely not the result of the increased tissue concentrations of thallium in this treatment because egg production was only decreased in the LF treatment and not the NF treatment, which also had elevated tissue concentrations of thallium.

LCx = lethal concentration causing an effect of x on exposed test organisms; LOEC = lowest observed effect concentration; µg/L = micrograms per litre; ILL = incipient lethal level; mg/L = milligrams per litre; mm = millimetre; h = hour; % = percent; + = plus; µg/g = micrograms per gram; LF = low food; NF = normal food; PWE = process water mine effluent; RW = reference water.

The tissue concentrations and corresponding endpoints identified from the ERED and the scientific literature are summarized in Table 4.1-2. Only those effects related to survival, development, reproduction, and growth are summarized given the uncertain ecological relevance of pathological, physiological, and biochemical endpoints.



Table 4.1-2 Summary of Studies Linking Fish Tissue Concentrations of Thallium to Effects on Survival, Growth, Development, and Reproduction

Reference Species Species Common Name

Tissue Concentration

(mg/kg ww) Effect Endpoint Exposure Route Tissue Type Life Stage Notes

Zitko et al. (1975) Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 3.6 to 34 Mortality Mortality Water Muscle Juvenile At exposure times below 200 h (thallium concentration 1,000 to 10,000 µg/L) the fish died before an equilibrium was reached in thallium uptake; these are the thallium concentrations at death Zitko et al. (1975) Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 5.7 to 46 Mortality Mortality Water Liver Juvenile

Zitko et al. (1975) Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 7 to 89 Mortality Mortality Water Gills Juvenile

Barrows et al. (1980); as cited in Bridges and Lutz (1999) Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 2.72 Mortality NOEC Absorption Whole Body Immature -

Dubé et al. (2005) Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 0.1 Mortality LC4 Water Whole Body Juvenile Survival was 88.1% in the reference stream and 84.6% in 20% metal mine effluent (MME); artificial stream exposure system; exposure to multiple metals in treated metal mine effluent

Dubé et al. (2005) Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 0.27 Mortality LC27 Water Whole Body Juvenile Survival was 88.1% in the reference stream and 64.2% in 80% MME; artificial stream exposure system; exposure to multiple metals in treated metal mine effluent

Dubé et al. (2005) Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 0.27 Growth EC17 Water Whole Body Juvenile Length; artificial stream system; exposure to multiple metals in treated metal mine effluent

Dubé et al. (2005) Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 0.27 Growth EC61 Water Whole Body Juvenile Weight; artificial stream system; exposure to multiple metals in treated metal mine effluent

Lapointe and Couture (2010) Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 0.05 Development NOEC Water Whole Body Embryo Time to hatch; low metal concentration water and uncontaminated prey

Lapointe and Couture (2010) Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 0.66 Development NOEC Water Whole Body Embryo Time to hatch; high metal concentration water and uncontaminated prey

Ouellet et al. (2013) Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 3,000 Reproduction NOEC Water Gonads 10-12 month old Mesocosm study; exposure to multiple metals in an environmentally relevant metal mine effluent

Ouellet et al. (2013) Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 20,000 Reproduction NOEC Water Gills 10-12 month old Mesocosm study; exposure to multiple metals in an environmentally relevant metal mine effluent

Ouellet et al. (2013) Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 10,000 Reproduction NOEC Water Liver 10-12 month old Mesocosm study; exposure to multiple metals in an environmentally relevant metal mine effluent

Ouellet et al. (2013) Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 2,000 Reproduction NOEC Water Carcass 10-12 month old Mesocosm study; exposure to multiple metals in an environmentally relevant metal mine effluent

mg/kg ww = milligrams per kilogram wet weight; µg/L = micrograms per litre; NOEC = no observed effect concentration; LC = lethal concentration; EC = concentration causing a defined effect;% = percent.



The lowest fish tissue thallium concentration provided in Table 4.1-2 was 0.05 mg/kg ww, a whole-body tissue concentration that was not associated with observed effects on development (time to hatch) of early-life stages of Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas) exposed to a thallium concentration in water of 0.1 µg/L from the embryo stage until larvae reached 21 days after hatching under laboratory conditions (Lapointe and Couture 2010). A tissue concentration of 0.66 mg/kg ww was reported from the same study, which is a whole-body concentration that was associated with no observed effects on development (time to hatch) for embryos exposed to a thallium concentration in water of 1 µg/L. Since both tissue concentrations are associated with no observed effects on development, the higher concentration of 0.66 mg/kg ww is considered to be the most relevant tissue concentration from this study.

Of the tissue concentrations and endpoints summarized in Table 4.1-2, only Dubé et al. (2005) provided tissue concentrations lower than the tissue concentration of 0.66 mg/kg ww reported in the Lapointe and Couture (2010) study. Dubé et al. (2005) provided a thallium tissue concentration of 0.10 mg/kg ww, a whole-body concentration that was associated with 4% mortality (LC4) in juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) exposed to treated metal mine effluent in an artificial stream system for 45 days. A whole-body thallium tissue concentration of 0.27 mg/kg ww was reported in the same study, associated with a 17% reduction in growth (IC17) of Atlantic Salmon. Although the thallium tissue concentrations reported in the Dubé et al. (2005) study are lower than those reported in the Lapointe and Couture study (2010), the tissue concentration of 0.66 mg/kg ww reported by Lapointe and Couture (2010) was selected as the fish tissue benchmark for thallium. This is because the metal mine effluent tested by Dubé et al. (2005) contained other metals (e.g., cadmium, copper, selenium and zinc) that were also shown to bioaccumulate in salmon tissues, and the effects of exposure to the metal mine effluent cannot be attributed to the accumulation of thallium alone.

Fish tissue thallium concentrations were most recently measured in Snap Lake as part of the 2013 AEMP (De Beers 2014a). Fish tissue concentrations were measured in the kidney, liver, and muscle of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish. The maximum measured thallium concentration of the three tissue types and two fish species was compared to the fish tissue benchmark of 0.66 mg/kg ww. The maximum measured thallium concentration was 0.136 mg/kg ww in the liver of Lake Trout, whereas the fish tissue benchmark is a whole body tissue concentration. Given that thallium is predominately stored in the liver and kidney (Section 3.4.2), comparison of the liver concentration to a whole body benchmark is considered to be a conservative approach.



The maximum liver thallium concentration of 0.136 mg/kg ww is less than the whole-body tissue benchmark of 0.66 mg/kg. This suggests that fish should not be adversely affected by the presently measured tissue concentrations of thallium in Snap Lake and should not be affected even if those concentrations increase approximately five-fold. Ouellet et al. (2013) provide a liver thallium concentration of 10,000 mg/kg ww for no observed effects on reproduction (egg production) of Fathead Minnows exposed to a metal mine effluent (containing thallium) for 21 days. Zitko et al. (1975) provide a liver concentration range of 5.7 to 46 mg/kg ww associated with mortality in juvenile Atlantic Salmon. The maximum measured liver thallium concentration in fish in Snap Lake (i.e., 0.136 mg/kg ww) is also well below the liver concentrations measured by Ouellet et al. (2013) of 10,000 mg/kg ww and Zitko et al. (1975) of 5.7 to 46 mg/kg ww.

4.1.2 Fish-eating Wildlife

4.1.2.1 Methods

The assessment of potential risk to wildlife (mammals and birds) from eating fish that have bioaccumulated cesium and thallium from Snap Lake used the same risk assessment framework that was applied in the environmental health assessment component of the overall EA for the Snap Lake Diamond Project in 2002 (De Beers 2002). That framework is endorsed by federal regulatory agencies as a tool to characterize potential risks to wildlife from the release of chemicals to the environment (e.g., CCME 1996, 1997). In brief, the framework progresses from a qualitative initial phase (problem formulation), through exposure and toxicity assessments, and culminates in quantitative risk characterization.

4.1.2.2 Results

Cesium

No toxicity reference values (TRVs) for cesium for mammals or birds were identified in the scientific literature. In general, toxicity data for cesium for mammals and birds are lacking and restricted to chemical forms (e.g., cesium hydroxide, cesium bromide) and exposure routes (e.g., intraperitoneal injection) that are not environmentally relevant and are not suitable for deriving TRVs. With the lack of TRVs, hazard quotients (HQs) could not be calculated for cesium. However, the lack of TRVs suggests that there is not a potential risk to fish-eating mammals and birds from elevated cesium concentrations in fish tissue; otherwise, TRVs would have been developed in Canada, the US, or elsewhere.

Thallium

Problem Formulation As described previously, thallium was measured in large-bodied fish tissue at concentrations greater than baseline, greater than in reference lakes, and above the normal range in Snap Lake. Thallium is rarely detected in Snap Lake surface waters. Thallium in fish tissues may pose a potential risk to wildlife that eat fish from Snap Lake. As such, potential risk to fish-eating wildlife from eating fish that have bioaccumulated thallium from Snap Lake was evaluated.



Potential risk was evaluated for the American mink (Mustela vison) and the common loon (Gavia immer). The common loon was selected for assessment because it was identified as a valued ecosystem component (VEC) in the environmental health assessment (De Beers 2002) and fish constitute the majority of its diet, although loons are only noted as incidental in recent Wildlife Effects Monitoring Program (De Beers 2010c). A fish-eating mammal was not identified as a VEC in the environmental health assessment (De Beers 2002), so the American mink was selected for the current assessment. The American mink has been observed in the study area (De Beers 2010c).

The common loon primarily feeds on live fish, although some crustaceans are taken during the breeding and winter periods (Evers et al. 2010). Fish can make up a large portion of the American mink’s diet but it also feeds on crustaceans, small mammals and birds, amphibians, and insects (USEPA 1993). The American mink tends to feed on small fish (generally less than 15 cm) (Gerell 1968; Bueno 1996); however, larger fish (greater than 15 and greater than 20 cm) are also taken, sometimes in the form of carrion (Bueno 1996).

In addition to exposure via ingestion of fish, wildlife may be exposed to thallium in Snap Lake via ingestion of surface waters as drinking water and incidental ingestion of sediment while foraging or grooming. Incidental ingestion of sediment while foraging or grooming was assumed to be negligible, consistent with risk assessment guidance for fish-eating wildlife (Sample and Suter 1994). Ingestion of fish and ingestion of surface waters as drinking water were evaluated further.

Exposure Assessment A food chain model was used to estimate the total exposures (Etotal; from ingestion of fish and ingestion of surface waters as drinking water) to thallium received by the American mink and common loon in Snap Lake. The Etotal is the total amount of a chemical to which a receptor (i.e., mink and loon) is exposed via all relevant exposure routes (i.e., from ingestion of fish and ingestion of surface waters as drinking water) on a daily basis, and is reported in units of milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg-d). In order to calculate the total exposures to the mink and loon, the following parameters were required for the food chain model:

• Receptor characteristics, including body weights, rates of food and water ingestion, proportions of fish in the diet, rates of fish ingestion, and area use factors; and,

• Concentrations of thallium in fish and water.



The total exposures to thallium were calculated as follows: [Equation 1]

𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = ��𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓ℎ × 𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓ℎ

𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� + �

𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 × 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵

�� × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

Where:

Etotal is the total exposure to thallium (mg/kg-d); IRfish is the fish ingestion rate (kilograms wet weight per day [kg ww/d]); IRwater is the water ingestion rate (litres per day [L/d]); Cfish is the concentration of thallium in fish (mg/kg ww); Cwater is the concentration of thallium in water (milligrams per litre [mg/L]); BW is the receptor’s body weight (kilograms [kg]); and, AUF is the area use factor (unitless).

The ingestion rates for fish were calculated as follows: [Equation 2]

𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓ℎ = 𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓ℎ × 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑓𝑓

Where:

IRfish is ingestion rate for fish (kg ww/d); Pfish is the proportion of fish in the diet; and, IRfood is the total food ingestion rate (kg ww/d).

Characteristics of the American mink and common loon are provided in Table 4.1-3. This information was taken from the Environment Canada Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) guidance (Environment Canada 2012). The conservative dietary proportions (i.e., 100% fish) were selected with the objective of assessing the selected receptors with respect to their exposure to fish in Snap Lake. In the wild, these receptors have a more varied diet that includes other items from the aquatic environment (e.g., aquatic invertebrates for the common loon) and even some food items from the terrestrial environment (e.g., small mammals and birds for the American mink). Therefore, considering that these receptors exclusively consume fish provides a conservative evaluation of the potential risk to fish-eating wildlife in Snap Lake. Area use factors of one (1) were assumed; that is, it was assumed that the receptors would spend all of their time in the study area. Again, this approach provides an unrealistic, but highly conservative evaluation of the potential risk to fish-eating wildlife in Snap Lake.



Table 4.1-3 Receptor Characteristics for the American Mink and Common Loon

Receptor (Species name)

BW(a) (kg)

IRfood(a)(b)

(kg ww/d) Pfish

(c)

(unitless) IRfish

(kg ww/d) AUF(c)

(unitless) Proportion of Fish in Diet(c)

American mink (Mustela vison) 0.82 0.11 1 0.11 1 100%

Common loon (Gavia immer) 5.3 1.0 1 1.0 1 100%

Note:

a) Environment Canada (2012)

b) The food ingestion rates provided in Environment Canada (2012) are reported in units of kg wet food/kg BW/d. These rates were converted to ingestion rates in units of kg ww/d by multiplying by the body weight of the animal.

c) Assumed.

BW = body weight in kilograms (kg); IRfood = total food ingestion rate in kilograms wet weight food per day (kg ww/d); Pfish = proportion of fish in the diet; IRfish = fish ingestion rate in kilograms wet weight fish per day (kg ww/d); AUF = area use factor; kg ww/d = kilograms wet weight per day.

As described previously, fish tissue concentrations of thallium were most recently measured as part of the 2013 AEMP (De Beers 2014a). Fish tissue concentrations were measured in the kidney, liver, and muscle of two large-bodied fish species, Lake Trout and Round Whitefish. The maximum measured concentration of thallium in the three tissue types and two fish species was used as the fish tissue concentrations in the food chain model: 0.136 mg/kg ww in the liver of Lake Trout (Table 4.1-4). This approach provides a conservative evaluation of the potential risk to the mink and loon from ingestion of fish from Snap Lake, given that these receptors would likely consume whole fish rather than specific tissues. Small-bodied fish, which are more in line with the preferred prey size of the mink and loon, had tissue concentrations that did not differ from baseline, reference lakes, or the normal range in Snap Lake, which contributes to the conservatism of the current assessment.

Thallium was not detected in Snap Lake surface waters during the 2013 AEMP (De Beers 2014a). The maximum DL was used in the food chain model, not the half the DL used for concentrations measured in effluent and water below DLs. This approach provides a very conservative evaluation of the potential risk to American mink and common loon from ingestion of surface waters from Snap Lake. As noted above, there are compounding levels of conservatism built into this approach.

Table 4.1-4 Fish Tissue and Water Concentrations of Thallium in Snap Lake

Metal Concentration in Fish Tissue(a)

(mg/kg ww) Concentration in Water(b)

(mg/L)

Thallium 0.136 0.00001

Note: a) Maximum concentration of kidney, liver, and muscle tissues of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) measured during the 2013 Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program (AEMP) sampling period (De Beers 2014a).

b) Maximum detection limit during the 2013 AEMP sampling period. Thallium has rarely been detected in Snap Lake surface waters (De Beers 2014a).

mg/kg ww = milligrams per kilogram wet weight; mg/L = milligrams per litre.



The total, conservative exposures to thallium received by the American mink and common loon in Snap Lake are summarized in Table 4.1-5.

Table 4.1-5 Total Exposures, Toxicity Reference Values and Hazard Quotients for the American Mink and Common Loon

Metal

American mink (Mustela vison)

Common loon (Gavia immer)

Etotal (mg/kg-d)

TRV (mg/kg-d)

HQ (unitless)

Etotal (mg/kg-d)

TRV (mg/kg-d)

HQ (unitless)

Thallium 0.019 0.074 0.26 0.026 0.35 0.074

Note:

Etotal = total exposure to metal in milligrams per kilogram body weight per day; TRV = toxicity reference value; HQ = hazard quotient; mg/kg-d = milligrams per kilogram per day.

Toxicity Assessment The TRV is the amount of a chemical to which a receptor can be exposed without experiencing adverse effects and is reported in units of mg/kg-d. The TRV used for thallium for mammals was derived by Sample et al. (1996) in their guidance on toxicological benchmarks for wildlife for ecological risk assessments. The TRV is based on a sub-chronic lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL; the lowest concentration that causes a statistically significant effect in a test) for reproductive effects in rats from a study performed by Formigli et al. (1986). In the study, male Wistar rats were exposed to 10 parts per million (ppm; µg/L) thallium (as thallium sulphate) in drinking water for 60 days. Rats exposed to 10 ppm thallium (0.74 mg/kg-d) showed a significant decrease in sperm motility compared to control rats. Since the exposure was sub-chronic, Sample et al. (1996) applied an uncertainty factor of ten to the sub-chronic LOAEL to estimate a chronic LOAEL of 0.074 mg/kg-d. Formigli et al. (1986) also forms the basis of the LOAEL-based TRV for thallium for mammals derived by the United States Army Centre for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine (USCHPPM 2007) for use in screening level ecological risk assessments of 0.074 mg/kg-d.

Data regarding the toxicity of thallium to birds are limited. The TRV used for thallium for birds was derived by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL 2010) in the derivation of its ecological soil screening levels (ESLs) for birds. The TRV is based on an LD50 (internal median lethal dose; concentration that results in mortality in 50% of the tested population) of 34.6 mg/kg for starlings to which an uncertainty factor of 100 was applied to estimate a chronic no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL; the highest concentration tested in a test that does not cause a statistically significant adverse effect in comparison to the controls) of 0.35 mg/kg-d.



Risk Characterization To evaluate potential risk, HQs were calculated, which are the ratios of the total exposures of thallium (Etotal; in mg/kg-d) to the TRVs for thallium (in mg/kg-d). The standard target HQ for evaluation is one (1). That is, an HQ of less than 1 indicates that the amount of chemical to which the receptor is exposed is less than the level of exposure shown to adversely affect the health of the receptor. Therefore, the health of the receptor should not be adversely affected by exposure to that chemical. An HQ greater than 1 indicates that the amount of a chemical to which the receptor is exposed may result in adverse effects on the receptor, but this is not certain.

The HQs for thallium for the American mink and common loon are summarized in Table 4.1-5. For this metal, despite the extensive conservatism in the assessment, the HQs are less than the target HQ of one for both the American mink and common loon. This indicates that fish-eating mammals and birds should not be adversely affected from eating fish containing thallium from Snap Lake.

4.2 Human Health Implications

4.2.1 Methods

The following approach was used in the assessment of potential human health risks from cesium and thallium that have accumulated in fish tissue:

• Health-based guidelines for fish tissue quality were obtained from provincial, federal, and/or international regulatory agencies, if available;

• If fish tissue quality guidelines were not available, provincial, federal, and international regulatory agencies were reviewed for TRVs or other information suitable for deriving a site-specific fish tissue guideline; and,

• If no data were available from provincial, federal, or international regulatory agencies, a search of the scientific literature was completed to identify studies that could reasonably be used to derive a TRV and site-specific fish tissue guideline.

The following provincial, federal, and international regulatory agencies were reviewed:

• Health Canada;

• CCME;

• Environment Canada;

• Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA);

• British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE);

• Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC);



• USEPA, including Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity

Values (PPRTV), and High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS);

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR);

• California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA);

• Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); and,

• World Health Organization (WHO).

The following search engines were used:

• PubMed from the National Institutes of Health, US National Library of Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed);

• Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) from the US National Library of Medicine (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/hsdb.htm); and,

• Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.ca/).

4.2.2 Results

4.2.2.1 Cesium

Neither the CFIA nor USEPA provide fish tissue benchmarks for cesium. Additionally, none of the reviewed federal, provincial, and international regulatory agencies provide TRV or toxicity information for cesium.

A literature search was performed for cesium. No toxicological information for stable cesium could be found for humans; limited information was available for experimental animals. In general, cesium is capable of temporarily replacing potassium in vivo in potassium-deficient animals and cesium interferes with cell processes that require potassium in both potassium-deficient and potassium-sufficient animals (Relman 1956).

A man who voluntarily consumed 34 mg cesium per kilogram (Cs/kg) body weight as stable cesium chloride twice per day in a homeopathic remedy for 36 days (intermediate duration) presented with gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, and decreased appetite) and apparent neurological effects within 15 minutes of dosing (ATSDR 2004). However, this dose is orders of magnitude greater than the dose expected in a meal containing the highest muscle tissue concentrations of cesium at Snap Lake of 0.0005 milligram (mg) Cs/kg body weight (0.144 mg/kg ww in a meal of 227 grams [g] for a 70-kilgoram [kg] person). No chronic data were available for humans, and no data related to consumption of cesium in fish tissue or other foods were found.



Acute toxicity studies have reported median lethal doses (LD50) of 800 to 2000 mg Cs/kg body weight in rats and mice (ATSDR 2004). A study was also summarized by ATSDR (2004) in which rats (dams) were administered stable cesium chloride in drinking water during gestation (115 mg cesium per kilogram per day [Cs/kg-d]) and lactation (40 mg Cs/kg-d); while no effects were observed in dams, some slight but statistically significant reductions in body weight, organ weight, and hepatic changes were reported in offspring. However, no gross or histological examinations were completed and, as a result, these findings cannot be relied upon in assessing the developmental toxicity of stable cesium. These doses are also orders of magnitude greater than the expected doses in a meal of fish tissue from Snap Lake. No studies were identified in which cesium was dosed to laboratory animals in food, and no chronic studies were available (ATSDR 2004). The ATSDR (2004) review concluded that stable cesium is generally of low toxicity, which may explain the relative lack of toxicity studies on stable cesium).

Although the lack of suitable TRVs for cesium does not permit a formal assessment of risks due to consumption of Round Whitefish and Lake Trout, the limited studies available indicate that concentrations of cesium in fish tissue are well below concentrations that would be expected to result in any adverse effects to human health.

4.2.2.2 Thallium

The CFIA was the only federal regulatory agency within Canada that provided benchmarks for select contaminants in fish tissue, but there were no values available for thallium (Government of Canada 2014). However, the USEPA provides regional screening levels (RSLs) for Fish Tissue (USEPA 2014b). These fish tissue screening levels rely upon TRVs that are considered to be associated with negligible health risk, and consider that an adult could consume 54 g of fresh weight fish on a daily basis. Assuming that a typical fish meal is approximately 227 g fresh weight (Ontario Sport Fish Guide 2014), the fish tissue screening levels consider approximately 7 to 8 fish meals per month are consumed.

A fish tissue screening level of 0.015 mg/kg ww is available for thallium. The maximum concentration of thallium in Lake Trout muscle tissue measured in the 2013 AEMP sampling program (De Beers 2014a) was 0.0141 mg/kg ww, which is about 10-fold less than the screening level (assuming no other sources of dietary exposure), while the maximum concentration in Round Whitefish was 0.0257 mg/kg ww, which is less than 2-fold above the screening level. However, it is not reasonable to consider that anglers would consume fish containing maximum thallium concentrations on a continuous basis; instead, the mean concentrations in fish tissue are considered to be representative of a long-term, chronic exposure scenario. The mean concentration of thallium in Round Whitefish muscle tissue was 0.0109 mg/kg ww, which is below the fish tissue screening level.

Further discussion of the toxicity information that was considered in the derivation of the fish tissue screening level is provided below.



No provincial, federal, or international regulatory agencies have developed TRVs for thallium (e.g., Health Canada [2010], USEPA [2014c], ATSDR [2004], RIVM [2001, 2009]). The USEPA’s fish tissue screening level described above relied upon a Screening Value of 1.1E-05 mg/kg-d; its derivation is described by USEPA (2012). The available toxicity data for thallium did not meet the data requirements for derivation of a Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV); instead, a Screening Value was derived that can be used in certain instances. This value is to be used with caution given that the supporting study had limitations described by USEPA (2012).

The key supporting study upon which the USEPA screening value of 1.1E-05 mg/kg-d is based is a sub-chronic oral gavage study carried out in Sprague-Dawley rats. However, the USEPA (2012) considered that the supporting study was insufficient to rely on in setting a PPRTV. The USEPA had previously set a TRV on the IRIS online database in 1988 for thallium compounds based upon this key study, but it was withdrawn upon re-assessment against the revised data requirements for deriving TRVs on IRIS.

The same key study and endpoint were used by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in their derivation of the Public Health Goal (PHG) for thallium in drinking water (CalEPA 1999, 2004). Similar to the PPRTV documentation, an uncertainty factor of 3,000 was applied to the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 0.0405 mg/kg-d to derive a TRV of 1.4E-05 mg/kg-d.

Additionally, three sub-chronic animal studies were summarized in the PPRTV documentation for thallium (USEPA 2012) and IRIS documentation (USEPA 2009), which were not considered suitable as the basis for deriving a PPRTV:

• Downs et al. (1960; as cited in USEPA 2009) due to the high degree of uncertainty with the results of these studies given that mortality was observed in both control and treatment groups.

• El-Garawany et al. (1990; as cited in USEPA 2009), in which the authors identified a LOAEL of 0.65 mg Tl/kg-d for thallium (I) sulphate based upon hematological changes; the results of the study were based on a single dose.

• Manzo et al. (1983; as cited in USEPA 2009) reported a LOAEL of 1.4 mg Tl/kg-d for thallium sulphate based upon mortality, alopecia, and nerve histopathology, also based on a the results of a single administered dose.

Studies reporting on reproduction and development endpoints were also summarized in the PPRTV documentation as detailed in USEPA (2009). The studies by Formigli et al. (1986), Wei (1987; as cited in USEPA 2009) and Rossi et al. (1988; as cited in USEPA 2009) were excluded due to limitations in the studies that precluded the use of these studies in the derivation of a chronic effects benchmark or TRV for human health.



Most reports regarding the oral toxicity of thallium to humans are limited to reports of single or short-term exposures in the cases of accidental ingestions, poisonings, or attempted suicides. These types of studies are not suitable for development of a chronic TRV. In the few available epidemiological studies, small study populations and lack of data on long-term exposure concentration(s) combined with often self-reported health effects do not provide an adequate scientific basis upon which to derive a TRV (e.g., USEPA 2009).

Developmental effects may also occur in humans as demonstrated in a review of case studies of women exposed to 120 to 1,100 mg of thallium during pregnancy (Hoffman 2000). Premature birth and low birth weights were identified, particularly when exposure occurred during the last trimester. However, as these are based upon a large, single dose exposure, these case studies are not suitable for derivation of a chronic TRV.

Based on the uncertainties in the available studies, there are no clearly demonstrable health effects data related to dietary thallium. Given the uncertainties in the database, a conservative screening level toxicity benchmark was derived by USEPA in their PPRTV documentation (USEPA 2012), which was relied upon when setting the USEPA’s fish tissue screening level of 0.015 mg/kg ww. However, concentrations in Snap Lake muscle tissue, which is the portion that is typically consumed, were below the screening level and as a result it is unlikely there would be adverse health impacts from consumption of fish due to thallium. It is also noted that the maximum measured muscle tissue concentration in Lake Trout in Northeast Lake of 0.0136 mg/kg ww was similar to the maximum measured in Snap Lake of 0.014 mg/kg ww. Therefore, no increased risk over background due to consumption of fish from Snap Lake is anticipated.

4.3 Conclusions

There do not presently appear to be adverse ecological or human health implications of the increased concentrations of cesium and thallium in the tissues of fish from Snap Lake. These are not metals with high toxicity; thus, there are no national or international benchmarks for cesium relative to effects of fish tissue concentrations on the fish or on wildlife or humans eating those fish. Although there are more data for thallium than for cesium, there is no evidence of harm to fish, wildlife, or humans from either of these metals at the measured concentrations in Snap Lake fish tissues.



5 FISH HEALTH, TEMPORAL AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENT

This section addresses the questions:

• Are fish in Snap Lake healthy?

• How do the 2013 results compare to other years?

• How do the Snap Lake results compare to other lakes in the region?

As discussed above, cesium and thallium were measured in fish tissue at concentrations greater than baseline, greater than local reference lakes, and above the normal range in 2013 (discussed in Sections 2.2 and 3.1) (De Beers 2014a). When cesium and thallium concentrations in fish tissue were re-assessed with consideration of a body size covariate (i.e., by ANCOVA, Section 3.1), the Low Action Level exceedance was confirmed, with additional significant differences from reference lakes identified in Lake Trout liver and kidney, and an additional normal range exceedance identified in Lake Trout kidney (Table 5-1).

The final questions in the investigation are related to understanding: whether there is evidence these fish tissue concentrations are affecting fish health in Snap Lake (Section 5.1); how do these concentrations compare to 2009 when effluent was also present in the Snap Lake; and, how do these concentrations compare to other fish in the region of the Upper Lockhart River watershed?

Table 5-1 Summary of Statistically Significant Differences and Normal Range Exceedances in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Tissue Chemistry Parameters Collected from Snap Lake in 2013

Parameters Statistical

Test

Lake Trout Round Whitefish

Comparisons to reference in 2013 Comparison to baseline

Comparisons to reference in 2013

Comparison to baseline

Kidney Liver Muscle Muscle Kidney Liver Muscle Muscle

Cesium ANOVA(a) - - - - ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑

Thallium ANOVA(a) ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ nt ↑↑ - ↑↑ nt

Cesium ANCOVA ↑↑ ↑ - - ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑

Thallium ANCOVA ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ nt ↑↑ - ↑↑ nt

a) Results as reported in De Beers (2014a); nt = not tested due to lack of sufficient baseline data.

Note: “-” indicates no change; ↓ or ↑ indicates a statistically significant difference in the direction indicated; ↑↑ or ↓↓indicates a statistically significant difference in the direction indicated that is also beyond normal range.

Grey shaded cells indicate results that have changed due to new analysis using a body weight covariate.

Boldly boxed cells indicate Low Action Levels that were triggered in the 2013 AEMP (De Beers 2014a,c).



5.1 Fish Health and Temporal Tissue Review

5.1.1 Methods

Given the lack of toxicity literature available for cesium in fish, a qualitative review of the Snap Lake AEMP fish health assessment endpoints was completed to evaluate whether there was evidence of changes in fish health that correlate with increasing tissue cesium concentrations. Small-bodied fish health was included in the fish health review, despite no statistically significant differences in cesium concentrations in Lake Chub between Snap Lake (0.033 ± 0.012 mg/kg ww) relative to the pooled reference lakes (Northeast Lake 0.034 ± 0.008 mg/kg ww, Lake 13 0.021 ± 0.007 mg/kg ww) (De Beers 2013d). Small-bodied fish health was included in the fish health review to incorporate existing information on relevant fish health endpoints from Snap Lake.

A qualitative temporal review of Lake Trout and Round Whitefish muscle cesium and thallium concentrations was also completed, which considered 2013 Snap Lake and reference lakes (Figure 2-1) fish tissue chemistry compared to all available previous AEMP data for cesium and thallium fish tissue concentrations.

5.1.2 Results

With the possible exception of female liversomatic index (LSI) in Lake Trout and Lake Chub from Snap Lake, fish health endpoints have not systematically changed over time in a way that correlates with trends in cesium concentrations in fish muscle (Table 5.1-1, Figure 5-1). Lake Trout liver tissue was collected in 1999 and 2013, with reported mean concentrations of 0.23 mg/kg ww and 0.07 mg/kg ww, respectively (De Beers 2005b, 2014a). These measured cesium concentrations indicate a decrease in cesium liver concentrations between years, which does not support the possibility that cesium is related to the increased LSI in Lake Trout over time.

While the mean cesium and thallium concentrations in Snap Lake Lake Trout and Round Whitefish muscle have significantly increased in 2013 relative to baseline, the ranges of both cesium and thallium concentrations measured in fish tissues have not changed substantially over time in Snap Lake (Figure 5-1). Thus, it is unlikely that cesium and thallium concentrations in fish tissue are directly responsible for the apparent changes in fish health endpoints over time in Snap Lake.



Table 5.1-1 Fish Health Endpoints for Lake Trout, Round Whitefish, and Lake Chub Collected from Snap Lake in 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2013

Species Sex Year

Fish Health Endpoints in Snap Lake

LSI mean ± SD (n)

K mean ± SD (n)

Large bodied

LKTR

Female

1999(a) - 1.2 ± 0.2 (18)

2004(a) 1.2 ± 0.5 (24) 1.0 ± 0.1 (24)

2009(b) 1.4 ± 0.4 (15) 1.1 ± 0.1 (32)

2013(e) 1.51 ± 0.51 (25) 1.15 ± 0.12 (25)

Male

1999(a) - 1.2 ± 0.2 (55)

2004(a) 0.9 ± 0.2 (20) 1.1 ± 0.1 (20)

2009(b) 1.2 ± 0.3 (21) 1.1 ± 0.1 (32)

2013(e) 1.21 ± 0.34 (45) 1.20 ± 0.12 (45)

RNWH

Female

1999(a) - 1.0 ± 0.1 (18)

2004(a) 0.8 ± 0.2 (16) 1.0 ± 0.0 (16)

2009(b) - 0.9 ± 0.1 (25)

2013(e) 0.74 ± 0.19 (20) 1.02 ± 0.09 (30)

Male

1999(a) - 1.1 ± 0.1 (9)

2004(a) 0.6 ± 0.1 (10) 1.0 ± 0.0 (11)

2009(b) - 0.9 ± 0.1 (22)

2013(e) 0.70 ± 0.19 (19) 1.06 ± 0.09 (25)

Small-bodied LKCH

Female 2009(b) 1.86 ± 1.16 (13) 0.88 ± 0.05 (14)

2012(d) 2.25 ± 0.54 (20) 0.92 ± 0.08 (20)

Male 2009(b) 0.90 ± 0.45 (22) 0.88 ± 0.07 (55)

2012(d) 1.02 ± 0.35(f) (26) 0.94 ± 0.07 (29)

Juvenile 2009(b) 1.08 ± 0.66 (10) 0.90 ± 0.12 (13)

2012(d) 1.75 ± 0.88(f) (26) 0.96 ± 0.17 (27)

a) AEMP 2004 Annual Report (De Beers 2005b).

b) AEMP 2009 Annual Report (De Beers 2010b).

d) AEMP 2012 Annual Report (De Beers 2013d).

e) AEMP 2013 Annual Report (De Beers 2014a).

(#) = sample size; LSI = liversomatic index; K = condition factor, calculated using total body weight; ± = plus or minus; LKTR = Lake Trout; RNWH = Round Whitefish; LKCH = Lake Chub.



Figure 5-1 Temporal Comparisons of Lake Trout (A) and Round Whitefish (B) Muscle Cesium (1) and Thallium (2) Concentrations in Snap Lake, Reference Lake, and Northeast Lake in 1999, 2004, and 2013. A-1 Lake Trout Cesium B-1 Round Whitefish Cesium

A-2 Lake Trout Thallium B-2 Round Whitefish Thallium

mg/kg ww = milligrams per kilogram wet weight; n = sample size; LKTR = Lake Trout; RNWH = Round Whitefish; NE = Northeast Lake; LK13 = Lake 13; Snap = Snap Lake; Ref= Reference Lake. Open circles indicate samples that were below the detection limit

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Ref199910

Snap1999

10

Ref200410

NEL200410

Snap2004

10

LK132013

10

NEL201311

Snap2013

10

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake Year

9 6 9

2

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Ref199913

Snap1999

14

Ref200410

NEL200410

Snap2004

10

NEL2013

9

LK132013

9

Snap2013

10

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake Year

10 10 10

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Ref200410

NEL200410

Snap2004

10

NEL 2009

11

Snap2009

10

NEL201311

LK132013

10

Snap2013

10

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

7

Lake Year

n

10 10 10

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

Ref200410

NEL200410

Snap2004

10

LK132013

9

NEL201310

Snap2013

10

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake Year

n



5.2 Regional Assessment

5.2.1 Methods

Available fish tissue chemistry data were compiled for cesium and thallium from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, Lake 13, Lac Capot Blanc (i.e., a large lake downstream of Snap Lake that was sampled in 2014), and MacKay Lake (i.e., a regional lake that was sampled in 2001) to qualitatively compare fish tissue cesium and thallium concentrations in Snap Lake to other regional waterbodies with no direct point-source anthropogenic inputs (Table 5.2-1; Figure 2-1).

5.2.2 Results

Mean concentrations of both cesium and thallium in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish muscle in Snap Lake were consistently below those measured in fish from MacKay Lake in 2001, indicating higher concentrations of cesium and thallium in fish tissue may be normal in some lakes in the region and, therefore, would not be expected to detrimentally affect fish health (Table 5.2-1). In some instances, Snap Lake cesium and thallium concentrations were below those measured in the reference lakes in the same years (e.g., Lake Trout muscle cesium, Round Whitefish liver thallium). Most recently, fish tissue chemistry data were collected in 2014 from Lac Capot Blanc, a large lake located downstream of Snap Lake (De Beers 2014a,c). Concentrations of both cesium and thallium in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish tissue in Lac Capot Blanc were occasionally above those measured in Snap Lake (e.g., Lake Trout liver cesium, Round Whitefish kidney cesium, Round Whitefish liver and kidney thallium), further indicating increased concentrations of cesium and thallium measured in fish tissue from Snap Lake may be within the range of concentrations considered normal for the region.



Table 5.2-1 Regional Comparison of Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Lake Trout and Round Whitefish Tissue

Parameter Species Tissue type

Mean ± Standard Deviation (mg/kg ww)

2013 Snap Lake

(n)(a)

2013 Northeast

Lake (n)(a)

2013 Lake 13 (n)(a)

2014 Lac Capot Blanc

(n)(b)

2001 MacKay

Lake (n)(c)

Cesium

LKTR

Muscle 0.1055 ± 0.0436 (10)

0.090 ± 0.035 (11)

0.121 ± 0.0678 (10)

0.101 ± 0.044 (13)

0.243 ± 0.128 (10)

Liver 0.0679 ± 0.0351 (10)

0.0439 ± 0.0199 (11)

0.0624 ± 0.0224 (10)

0.087 ± 0.053 (13)

0.181 ± 0.110 (9)

Kidney 0.0711 ± 0.0211 (10)

0.0535 ± 0.0267 (11)

0.0647 ± 0.0262 (10)

0.066 ± 0.033 (13) -

RNWH

Muscle 0.0609 ± 0.0190 (10)

0.0288 ± 0.0070 (9)

0.0437 ± 0.0152 (9)

0.04281 ± 0.01937 (15)

0.048 ± 0.026 (10)

Liver 0.0321 ± 0.0231 (10)

0.0158 ± 0.0043 (10)

0.0233 ± 0.0091 (9)

0.02767 ± 0.01637 (14) <0.05 (10)

Kidney 0.0276 ± 0.0079 (10)

0.0170 ± 0.0036 (10)

0.0208 ± 0.0078 (9)

0.03933 ± 0.01965 (13) -

Thallium

LKTR

Muscle 0.00936 ± 0.00348 (10)

0.00679 ± 0.00315 (11)

0.00570 ± 0.00113 (10)

0.00653 ± 0.00218 (13)

0.037 ± 0.016 (10)

Liver 0.0882 ± 0.0380 (10)

0.0527 ± 0.0322 (11)

0.0580 ± 0.0155 (10)

0.06185 ± 0.03138 (13)

0.376 ± 0.141 (9)

Kidney 0.0320 ± 0.0124 (10)

0.0240 ± 0.0075 (11)

0.0182 ± 0.0062 (10)

0.02702 ± 0.00968 (13) -

RNWH

Muscle 0.0123 ± 0.0055 (10)

0.00577 ± 0.00254 (10)

0.00509 ± 0.00238 (9)

0.00674 ± 0.00179 (15) <0.04 (10)

Liver 0.0604 ± 0.0248 (10)

0.0349 ± 0.0263 (10)

0.0707 ± 0.0470 (9)

0.07283 ± 0.06109 (14)

0.119 ± 0.053 (10)

Kidney 0.0182 ± 0.0074 (10)

0.01010 ± 0.00351 (10)

0.00801 ± 0.00390 (9)

0.02625 ± 0.01674 (13) -

a) Data from De Beers (2014a).

b) Data from De Beers (2015).

c) De Beers (2002).

RNWH = Round Whitefish; LKTR = Lake Trout; n = sample size; mg/kg ww = milligrams per kilogram wet weight; ± = plus or minus; - = data not available or not appropriate for comparison.

5.3 Conclusions

The differences in cesium and thallium concentrations in Snap Lake compared to pre-mining and to the reference lakes are minimal. Data from the AEMP indicate that the fish are healthy and there have been no changes ascribable to these two metals.



6 RESPONSE(S)

This section addresses the question: What should De Beers do about the 2013 fish tissue data?

6.1 Follow-up Response(s)

Seven additional follow-up responses are recommended:

1) Continue to monitor both rare metals in effluent and water to determine any potential increases over time.

2) Continue to monitor fish tissue in small and large bodied fish every three years to determine whether there is a pattern of increasing concentrations of cesium and thallium over time.

3) Consider fish size in future statistical analyses to account for bioaccumulation in larger and top-trophic level fish (i.e., ANCOVA using body size as a covariate).

4) Collect fish tissue data from MacKay Lake to further assess regional fish tissue trends over time;

5) As required by the MVLWB, De Beers proposes to sample lower trophic organisms, benthic invertebrates, and aquatic plants as part of the Response Plan as described in Appendix D. Given the lack of submerged or emergent aquatic plant vegetation in Snap Lake, De Beers proposes to sample an alternative plant type, algae that grow on rocks throughout the AEMP study lakes, known as ‘eplithilic algae’ (previously known as periphyton);

6) After the exceedance of a Low Action Level, Medium and High Action Levels should be set (see Table 6.5-1 in De Beers 2014a). Given that there is only one year of data on the increase in fish tissue and that there is a paucity of literature on the toxicological effects of these metals on fish or humans, it is challenging to set the appropriate Medium and High Action Levels for cesium and thallium. It is proposed that the Medium and High Action Levels be set after the next fish tissue program in 2015 (small-bodied fish) and 2016 (large-bodied fish), and be reported to the MVLWB in the subsequent 2017 AEMP Re-evaluation Report and the 2017 AEMP Design Plan. It is anticipated that the Medium Action Level will include consideration of temporal comparisons, as well as baseline, reference and normal range considerations.

7) If concentrations in surface water, sediment, or fish tissue increase in the future, it is recommended that the results of the risk assessment and health assessment of this Response Plan be re-examined.



6.2 Rationale for Selection of Response(s)

The Mine’s follow-up responses are focussed on continued monitoring on the basis of the following facts:

• There are no predicted risks to humans or wildlife from consumption of fish due to tissue residues of thallium or cesium;

• Results from the small-bodied fish health assessment, fish tasting, and fish community monitoring do not show any adverse effects to fish;

• Concentrations in fish tissue are within the range found in the upper Lockhart River region including MacKay Lake; and,

• The increase in cesium and thallium concentrations in fish tissue is currently documented in only one year (i.e., 2013) and the variability in the range of concentrations measured indicates both inter- and intra-annual variability could account for the changes seen in 2013.

6.3 Description of Timelines

Large and small-bodied fish tissues were collected in Lac Capot Blanc and were included in the 2014 AEMP Annual Report (De Beers 2015). Small-bodied fish tissue in Snap Lake will be monitored in 2015 and large bodied fish tissue in Snap Lake will be monitored in 2016 as per the approved AEMP Design Plan. Water and sediment quality will continue to be monitored as per the AEMP Design Plan. Benthic invertebrate and epilithic algae tissue chemistry analyses will be performed in 2015, as outlined in the Benthos and Eiplithic Algae Sampling Plan (Appendix D). The schedule for these monitoring activities is outlined in Table 6.3-1.



Table 6.3-1 Sampling Schedule for Measurement of Cesium and Thallium Concentration in Water, Sediment, and Tissue

Component Parameter Waterbody Study Matrix Last Sampling

Year Next Sampling

Year Season Recurrence

Effluent (WTP discharge)

Total Cesium, Total Thallium (µg/L)

Treated Effluent (SNP) Water 2014 2015 monthly Annual

Surface Water Total Cesium, Total Thallium (µg/L)

Snap Lake (Diffuser stations) Water 2014 2015 monthly(a) Annual

Snap Lake (Main Basin and Northwest Arm) Water 2014 2015 late-ice cover (April or May) /

late open-water (September) Annual

Tributaries (Stream S1 and S27) Water 2014 2015 freshet/monthly during

open-water (July to September) Annual

Northeast Lake (AEMP) Water 2014 2015

late-ice cover (April or May) / late open-water (September)

Annual

Lake 13 (AEMP) Water 2014 2015 Annual

Lac Capot Blanc Water 2014 2015 2015,2016,2017(b)

Downstream Lake 1 and Downstream Lake 2 Water 2014 2015 -(c)

Downstream Watercourses Water - 2015 2015,2016,2017(b)

Effluent (WTP discharge)

Dissolved Cesium, Dissolved Thallium (µg/L)

Treated Effluent (SNP) Water 2014 2015 monthly Annual

Surface Water

Dissolved Cesium, Dissolved Thallium (µg/L)

Snap Lake (Diffuser stations) Water 2014 2015 monthly(a) Annual

Snap Lake (Outlet from Snap Lake, SNAP08) Water 2014 2015 late-ice cover (April or May) /

late open-water (September) Annual

Snap Lake (Main Basin with exception of SNAP08 and Northwest Arm)

Water 2014 2015 late-ice cover (April or May) / late open-water (September)(d) Annual(d)

Tributaries (Stream S1 and S27) Water 2014 2015 freshet/monthly during open-

water (July to September)(d) Annual(d)

Northeast Lake (AEMP) Water 2014 2015

late-ice cover (April or May) / late open-water (September)(d)

Annual(d)

Lake 13 (AEMP) Water 2014 2015 Annual(d)

Lac Capot Blanc Water 2014 2015 2015,2016,2017(b, d)

Downstream Lake 1 and Downstream Lake 2 Water 2014(d) 2014(d) -(c)

Downstream Watercourses Water - 2015 2015,2016,2017(b, d)

Sediment Quality

Total Cesium, Total Thallium (mg/kg)

Snap Lake (AEMP) Sediment 2012 2015 fall Every 3 years

Snap Lake (Diffuser) Sediment 2014 2015 fall Annual

Northeast Lake (AEMP) Sediment 2012 2015 fall Every 3 years

Lake 13 (AEMP) Sediment 2013 2015 fall Every 3 years

Lac Capot Blanc (d/s) Sediment 2014 2016

Every 3 years

Benthic Invertebrate Community

Total Cesium, Total Thallium (mg/kg wet weight)

Snap Lake (Response Plan) Tissue - 2015 fall -

Northeast Lake (Response Plan) Tissue - 2015 fall -

Aquatic Plants (Algae)


Snap Lake (Littoral Zone Special Study) Tissue 2014 - summer -

Northeast Lake (Littoral Zone Special Study Tissue/water (filtrate) 2014 - summer -

Fish Tissue


Snap Lake (AEMP)

Large bodied fish (muscle, liver, kidney) 2013 2016 summer Every 3 years

Small bodied fish (carcass) 2012 2015 summer Every 3 years

Northeast Lake (AEMP)



Lake 13 (AEMP)



Lac Capot Blanc (d/s)

Large bodied fish (muscle, liver, kidney) 2014 - summer -

Small bodied fish (carcass) 2014 - summer -

MacKay Lake (d/s)

Large bodied fish (muscle, liver, kidney) 2001 2015 summer -

Small bodied fish (carcass) - 2015 summer -

a) Monthly when ice-conditions allow. Sampling may not occur during break-up (June) and freeze-up (i.e., November and December).

b) It is anticipated that the Downstream Watercourses Special Study will be a two-year field study (i.e., June 2015 to May 2017).

c) Downstream Lake 1 and Downstream Lake 2 will not be sampled after May 2015.

d) Dissolved metals sample is archived and only analyzed if a total metal is above an AEMP benchmark or if an anomalous total metal value is reported.

Reference: De Beers (2014b).

- = not currently scheduled; d/s = downstream waterbody not part of AEMP design; AEMP = an AEMP study lake identified in The Snap Lake AEMP Design Plan (De Beers 2014b); Response Plan = sampling exclusively for the Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan.



6.4 Projection of Environmental Response to Planned Response(s)

De Beers will monitor and report on fish tissue data. It is unknown at this time whether a pattern of increase over time will be observed and thus a projection of environmental response to planned response(s) is not provided. De Beers proposes to assess the need for Response(s) in the next (2017) AEMP Re-evaluation Report.

6.5 Monitoring Plan for Tracking Environmental Response to Follow-up Response(s)

De Beers proposes that the existing AEMP Design Plan (De Beers 2014b) is appropriate to track existing and future patterns in fish tissue chemistry in Snap Lake.

6.6 Schedule

De Beers proposes that the 2015 Benthic and Epilithic Algae Sampling Plan (Appendix D) be implemented in 2015. Upon receipt of the laboratory results, quality assurance and quality control checks will be completed. Results will be reported as a data appendix to the Fish Tissue Chemistry chapter of the AEMP Annual Report, and will be interpreted within the context of the overall AEMP program as part of the 2017 AEMP Re-evaluation Report.

De Beers proposes that the Medium and High Action Levels be set, if necessary, after the next fish tissue program in 2015 (small-bodied fish) and 2016 (large-bodied fish), and be reported to the MVLWB in the subsequent 2017 AEMP Re-evaluation Report and 2017 AEMP Design Plan. The updated statistical approach to analyzing cesium and thallium concentrations in fish tissue using a covariate will be applied in the next annual large bodied fish tissue chemistry program in 2016.



7 REFERENCES

Adam C, Garnier-Laplace J. 2003. Bioaccumulation of silver-100m, cobalt-60, cesium-137, and manganese-54 by the freshwater algae Scenedesmus obliguus and Cyclotella meneghiana and by suspended matter collected during a summer bloom event. Limnol Oceanogr 48: 2303-2313.

Adams W, Chapman PM (eds). 2006. Assessing the Hazard of Metals and Inorganic Metal Substances in Aquatic and Terrestrial Systems. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, USA.

Adams WJ, Blust R, Borgmann U, Brix KV, DeForest DK, Green AS, Meyer JS, McGeer JC, Paquin PR, Rainbow PS, Wood CM. 2010. Utility of tissue residues for predicting effects of metals on aquatic organisms. Integr Environ Assess Manage 7: 75-98.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2004. Toxicological Profiles. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA, USA. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp. Accessed: November 4, 2014.

Avery SV. 1996. Fate of cesium in the environment: Distribution between the abiotic and biotic components of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. J Environ Radioact 30: 139–171.

Baudo, R. 1985. Transfer of trace elements along the aquatic food chain. Mem Ist Ital Idrobiol 43: 281-309.

Birge WJ. 1978. Aquatic toxicology of trace elements of coal and fly ash. In Thorp JC, Gibbons JW (eds), Energy and Environmental Stress in Aquatic Systems: Selected Papers From a Symposium Held at Augusta, Georgia, November 2-4, 1977. Dep Energy Symp Ser 48: 219-240.

Birge WJ, Black JA, Westerman AG, Hudson JE. 1980. Aquatic toxicity tests on inorganic elements occurring in oil shale. In Gale C (ed), Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA, pp. 519-534.

Bridges TS, Lutz CH. 1999. Interpreting Bioaccumulation Data with the Environmental Residue-Effects Database. Dredging Research Technical Note EEDP-04-30. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS, USA.

Bueno F. 1996. Competition between American mink Mustela vison and otter Lutra lutra during winter. Acta Theriologica 41: 149-154.

Butterman WC, Brooks WE, Reese RG Jr. 2004. Mineral Commodity Profile: Cesium. United States Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1432/. Accessed November 8, 2014.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Public Health Goal for Thallium in Drinking Water. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, CA, USA.



CalEPA. 2004. Memorandum RE: Update of PHG – Thallium. August 17, 2004. Sacramento, CA, USA.

Campbell LM, Fisk AT, Wang X, Kőck G, Muir DGC. 2005. Evidence for biomagnification of rubidium in freshwater and marine food webs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62: 1161-1167.

Campbell PGC, Lewis AG, Chapman PM, Crowder AA, Fletcher WK, Imber B, Luoma SN, Stokes PM, Winfrey M. 1988. Biologically Available Metals in Sediments. NRCC Pub. 27694, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 298 pp.

Campbell PGC, Chapman PM, Hale B. 2006. Risk assessment of metals in the environment. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds), Chemicals in the Environment: Assessing and Managing Risk. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, pp 102-131.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1996. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance. The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program. Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

CCME. 1997. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical Appendices. Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

CCME. 1999. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Thallium. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999. Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Chapman PM. 2008. Environmental risks of inorganic metals and metalloids: a continuing, evolving scientific odyssey. Human Ecol Risk Assess 14: 5-40.

Chapman PM, Wang F. 2000. Issues in ecological risk assessment of inorganic metals and metalloids. Human Ecol Risk Assess 6: 965-988.

Chapman PM, Wang F, Janssen C, Persoone G, Allen H. 1998. Ecotoxicology of metals in aquatic sediments: binding and release, bioavailability, hazard, risk and remediation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55: 2221-2243.

Dawson GW, Jennings AL, Drozdowski D, Rider E. 1977. The acute toxicity of 47 industrial chemicals to fresh and saltwater fishes. J Hazard Mater 1: 303-318.

De Beers (De Beers Canada Inc.). 2002. Snap Lake Diamond Project: Environmental Assessment Report. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2005a. 2004 Water Licence Annual Report, Type A Water Licence MV2001L2-0002. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.



De Beers. 2005b. 2004 Annual Report in Support of the Aquatics Effects Monitoring Program Water

Licence (MV2001L2-0004), Snap Lake Project. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2006. 2005 Water Licence Annual Report, Type A Water Licence MV2001L2-0002. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.




De Beers. 2010a. 2009 Water Licence Annual Report, Type A Water Licence MV2001L2-0002. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2010b. 2009 Annual Report in Support of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program Water Licence (MV2001L2-0002), Snap Lake Project. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2010c. De Beers Snap Lake Mine Wildlife Effects Monitoring Program 2010 Annual Report. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.


De Beers. 2012a. Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program Re-evaluation Report: Snap Lake AEMP. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2012b. 2011 Water Licence Annual Report, Type A Water Licence MV2001L2-0002. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2012c. Environmental Impact Statement Supplemental Information Submission for the Gahcho Kué Project. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2013a. Snap Lake Site Model Water Quality Report. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2013b. Snap Lake Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model Report. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.



De Beers. 2013c. 2012 Water Licence Annual Report, Type A Water Licence MV2001L2-0004.

Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2013d. 2012 Annual Report in Support of the Aquatics Effects Monitoring Program Water Licence (MV2001L2-0004), Snap Lake Project. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2014a. 2013 Annual Report in Support of the Aquatics Effects Monitoring Program Water Licence (MV2001L2-0002), Snap Lake Project. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers 2014b. AEMP Design Plan (MV2001L2-0002), Snap Lake Project. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2014c. 2013 Water Licence Annual Report, Type A Water Licence MV2001L2-0004. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

Dominion (Dominion Diamond Corporation). 2014. Jay Project: Developer’s Assessment Report. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Review Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

Drever JI (ed). 2005. Surface and Groundwater, Weathering, and Soils. http://books.google.ca/books?id=7NbGsXg96OAC&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=solubility+and+mobility+of+rubidium&source=bl&ots=qZ6S0FIPvt&sig=8TaAtTJ6KMDh3atCmcskljLm_m8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DO4aVIaHPMnViwKZpoCACA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed November 8, 2014.

Dubé MG, MacLatchy DL, Kieffer JD, Kieffer NE, Glozier NE, Culp JM, Cash KJ. 2005. Effects of metal mining effluent on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus): using artificial streams to assess existing effects and predict future consequences. Sci Tot Environ 343: 135-154.

Dumas J, Hare L. 2008. The internal distribution of nickel and thallium in two freshwater invertebrates and its relevance to trophic transfer. Environ Sci Technol 42: 5144-5149.

Environment Canada. 2012. Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. Prepared by: Azimuth Consulting Group, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Evers DC, Paruk JD, Mcintyre JW, Barr JF. 2010. Common Loon (Gavia immer). In Poole A (ed), The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/313. Accessed November 4, 2014.

Fletcher DE, Lindell AH, Stillings GK, Mills GL, Blas SA, McArthur JV. 2014. Variation in trace-element accumulation in predatory fishes from a stream contaminated by coal combustion waste. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 66:341-360.


http://books.google.ca/books?id=7NbGsXg96OAC&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=solubility+and+mobility+of+rubidium&source=bl&ots=qZ6S0FIPvt&sig=8TaAtTJ6KMDh3atCmcskljLm_m8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DO4aVIaHPMnViwKZpoCACA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg%23v=onepage&q&f=false




Formigli L, Scelsi R, Poggi P, Gregotti C, DiNucci A, Sabbioni E, Gottardi L, Manzo L. 1986.

Thallium-induced testicular toxicity in the rat. Environ Res. 40: 531-539.

Gerell R. 1968. Food habits of the mink (Mustela vison) in Sweden. Viltrevy 5: 119-194.

GNWT and AANDC (Government of the Northwest Territories and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada). 2014. NWT Water Stewardship. http://www.nwtwaterstewardship.ca/. Accessed March 25, 2014.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2011. Snap Lake Spill 11-391 and 11-398 Monitoring Program. Submitted to De Beers Canada Inc. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

Government of Canada. 2014. Standards and Methods Manual. Appendix 3 - Canadian Guidelines for Chemical Contaminants and Toxins in Fish and Fish Products. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/fish-and-seafood/manuals/standards-and-methods/eng/1348608971859/1348609209602?chap=7. Accessed November 6, 2014.

Health Canada. 2010. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values and Chemical-Specific Factors. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Hoffman RS. 2000. Thallium poisoning during pregnancy: a case report and comprehensive literature review. Clinical Toxicol 38:767–775.

Jarvinen AW, Ankley GT. 1999. Linkage of Effects to Tissue Residues: Development of a Comprehensive Database for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Inorganic and Organic Chemicals. SETAC Technical Publication Series, Pensacola, FL, USA.

Kelly JM, Janz DM. 2009. Assessment of oxidative stress and histopathology in juvenile northern pike (Esox lucius) inhabiting lakes downstream of a uranium mill. Aquat Toxicol 92: 240-249.

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory). 2010. ECORISK Database (Release 2.5). Los Alamos, NM, USA.

Lapointe D and Couture P. 2009. Influence of the route of exposure on the accumulation and subcellular distribution of nickel and thallium in juvenile fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 57: 571-580.

Lapointe D. and Couture, P. 2010. Accumulation and effects of nickel and thallium in the early-life stages of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73: 572-578.

Lapointe D, Gentes S, Ponton DE, Hare L, Couture P. 2009. Influence of prey type on nickel and thallium assimilation, subcellular distribution and effects on juvenile fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Environ Sci Technol 43: 8665-8670.


http://www.nwtwaterstewardship.ca/


LeBlanc GA, Dean JW. 1984. Antimony and thallium toxicity to embryos and larvae of Fathead Minnows

(Pimephales promelas). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 32: 565-569.

Lin TS, Nriagu JO. 1998. Revised hydrolysis constants for thallium(I) and thallium(III) and the environmental implications. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 48:151-156.

Luoma SN. 1983. Bioavailability of trace metals to aquatic organisms - a review. Sci Tot Environ 28: 1-22.

Martino M, Turner A, Millward GE. 2003. Influence of organic complexation on the adsorption kinetics of nickel in river waters. Environ Sci Technol 37: 2383-2388.

MVLWB (Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board). 2015. Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board Water Interim Type A Water Licence # MV2011L2-0004. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

Ontario Sport Fish Guide. 2014. 2013-2014 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish. Toronto, ON, Canada.

Ouellet JD, Dubé MG, Niyogi S. 2013. The influence of food quantity on metal bioaccumulation and reproduction in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) during chronic exposures to a metal mine effluent. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 91: 188-197.

Peters EL, Schultz IR, Newman MC. 1999. Rubidium and cesium kinetics and tissue distribution in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Ecotoxicology 8: 287-300.

Pickard J, Yang R, Duncan B, McDevitt CA, Eickhoff C. 2001. Acute and sublethal toxicity of thallium to aquatic organisms. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 66: 94-101.

Rayner-Canham G, Overton T. 2006. Descriptive Inorganic Chemistry. WH Freeman and Company, New York, NY, USA.

Relman AS. 1956. The physiological behavior of rubidium and cesium in relation to that of potassium. Yale J Biol Medicine 29: 248-262.

RIVM (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). 2001. Re-evaluation of Some Human-toxicological Maximum Permissible Risk Levels. Report 711701 025. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

RIVM. 2009. Re-evaluation of Some Human-toxicological Maximum Permissible Risk Levels Earlier Evaluated in the Period 1991-2001. Report 711701092/2009. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Rowan DJ, Rasmussen JB. 1994. Bioaccumulation of radiocesium by fish: the influence of physicochemical factors and trophic structure. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51: 2388-2410.

RSC (Royal Society of Chemistry). 1982. Environmental Chemistry – Volume 2. London, UK.

Sample BE, Suter GW. 1994. Estimating Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants. ES/ER/TM-125. Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.



Sample BE, Opresko DM, Suter GW II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision.

ES/ER/TM-86/R3. Risk Assessment Program, Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

Stackhouse RA, Benson WH. 1988. The influence of humic acid on the toxicity and bioavailability of selected trace metals. Aquat Toxicol 13: 99-108.

Stumm W, Morgan JJ. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry. Second Edition. Wiley-Interscience. Toronto, ON, Canada. 780 pp.

Twiss MR, Twining BS, Ficher NS. 2004. Bioconcentration of inorganic and organic thallium by freshwater plankton. Environ Toxicol Chem 23: 968-973.

USCHPPM (United States Army Centre for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine). 2007. Wildlife Toxicity Assessment for Thallium. Prepared by Health Effects Research Program, Environmental Risk Assessment Program. Washington, DC, USA.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Thallium. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Research and Development, Carcinogen Assessment Group and Environmental Research Laboratories. Washington, DC, USA.

USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I of II. EPA/600/R-93/187. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC, USA.

USEPA. 2009. Toxicological Review of Thallium and Compounds (CAS No. 7440-28-0). EPA/635/R-08/001F. Washington, DC, USA.

USEPA. 2014a. ECOTOX User Guide: ECOTOXicology Database System. Version 4.0. http:/www.epa.gov/ecotox/. Accessed November 8, 2014.

USEPA. 2014b. Regional Screening Levels for Fish Tissue. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/. Accessed September 12, 2014.

USEPA. 2014c. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). http:/www.epa.gov/iris/. Accessed November 4, 2014.

USEPA. 2012. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Thallium and Compounds. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Van Genderen EJ, Ryan AC, Tomasso JR, Klaine SJ. 2003. Influence of dissolved organic matter on silver toxicity to Pimephales promelas. Environ Toxicol Chem 22: 2746-2751.



Vijver M, van Gestel CAM, Lanno RP, van Straalen NM, Peijnenburg WJGM. 2004. Internal metal

sequestration and its ecotoxicological relevance: a review. Environ Sci Technol 38: 4705- 4712.

Zhuang W, Gao X. 2015. Distribution, enrichment and sources of thallium in the surface sediments of the southwestern coastal Laizhou Bay, Bohai Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 96: 502-507.

Zitko V, Carson VW, Carson WG. 1975. Thallium: occurrence in the environment and toxicity to fish. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 13: 23-30.

Zitko V. 1975. Toxicity and pollution potential of thallium. Sci Tot Environ 4: 185-192.


SNAP LAKE MINE

APPENDIX A

CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LEVEL EXCEEDANCE

June 2015

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine A-i June 2015Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Confirmation of Action Level Exceedance Appendix A


TABLE OF CONTENTS

A1 METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 1 A1.1 Assessment of Blank and Duplicate Samples ............................................................................. 1 A1.2 Assessment of Outliers ................................................................................................................ 1 A1.3 Assessment of Sampling and Laboratory Quality Assurance/ Quality Control

Procedures ................................................................................................................................... 1

A2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 3 A2.1 Blank and Duplicate Samples ...................................................................................................... 3 A2.2 Outliers ......................................................................................................................................... 3 A2.3 Sampling and Laboratory QA/QC Procedures ............................................................................. 3

A3 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.3-1 Summary of Laboratory-Based Quality Control Samples for Cesium and Thallium ............ 3

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine A-1 June 2015Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Confirmation of Action Level Exceedance Appendix A


A1 METHODS

ALS Canada Ltd. (ALS) is the primary analytical laboratory used to measure metal concentrations in fish tissue for the Snap Lake Mine (Mine). The data quality for the cesium and thallium fish tissue chemistry was reviewed by amalgamating the standard Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) review completed in the annual Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program (AEMP) reports for cesium and thallium by:

reviewing field and laboratory blank and duplicate samples from 2004 to 2013 to assess whether laboratory data quality objectives (DQOs) were achieved reliably;

reviewing potential fish tissue cesium and thallium concentration outliers from 2004 to 2013 to determine whether the statistical or observed results, such as normal ranges, could have been skewed; and,

reviewing and re-confirming the laboratory QAQC procedures, such as the use of appropriate and relevant certified reference materials (CRM), were within acceptable data quality objective (DQOs) limits.

A1.1 Assessment of Blank and Duplicate Samples

The 2013 QA/QC fish tissue chemistry data were reviewed for any issues with blank or duplicate samples identified with cesium or thallium; all DQO reported results were examined. ALS established DQOs based on an average tissue type, and were not specifically derived for each individual tissue type (i.e., muscle, liver, and kidney).

A1.2 Assessment of Outliers

Fish tissue chemistry data were screened for outliers by visual examination (e.g., boxplots, minimum and maximum values) and using studentized residuals (SR). Outlier screening was performed as part of the process for normal range determination during the 2013 AEMP reporting (Appendix 9-A in De Beers 2014). Regression outliers with a SR of magnitude greater than four were removed from the data set due to high influence. An SR of three is often used to identify statistical outliers, but given the small sample sizes (n = 10), an SR of three was deemed overly conservative and excluded samples unnecessarily (i.e., samples were within range of expected variability).

A1.3 Assessment of Sampling and Laboratory Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Procedures

The Mine has a QA/QC Plan (De Beers 2008), which was followed in the 2013 AEMP Report (De Beers 2014a). The AEMP QA/QC was re-assessed for cesium and thallium to confirm that sampling, including QA/QC procedures, was done correctly.



ALS uses internal certified or standard reference materials (CRMs), method blanks, and laboratory duplicates as part of the internal validation of their laboratory data. The results of the internal laboratory quality control samples that applied to the Mine data were reviewed to determine whether there were any abnormalities in the CRMs, method blanks, or laboratory duplicates for cesium and thallium.

ALS was also asked to assess whether potassium could cause interference in the fish tissue analysis results generating ‘false positives’ in the data, specifically for thallium, which is chemically similar in ionic radius to potassium (Borgmann et al. 1998). For completeness, ALS was also asked to determine whether laboratory errors occurred in the determination of the cesium fish tissue concentrations.



A2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A2.1 Blank and Duplicate Samples

No fish tissue chemistry method blanks had elevated concentrations of cesium or thallium, and all duplicate sample cesium or thallium concentrations were within the DQOs defined by ALS (De Beers 2014). As often occurs with biological samples, there was evidence of sample heterogeneity in some of the kidney and liver samples. Homogenization procedures applied to these samples met laboratory criteria for applicability and did not appear to affect cesium or thallium results.

Cesium and thallium fish tissue chemistry data were accepted and included in subsequent data analyses, subject to statistical screening methods (see Section A2.2 for discussion of statistical outliers).

A2.2 Outliers

There was one statistical outlier identified in the 2013 fish tissue chemistry data set for cesium in Round Whitefish muscle tissue from Northeast Lake (Appendix 9C, Table 9C-7 in De Beers 2014). There were no statistical outliers identified for thallium (De Beers 2014).

Two additional statistical outliers were identified for cesium in Lake Trout kidney tissue. These were omitted from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); one outlier was identified in each of Snap Lake and Lake 131. These outliers were identified as a result of the regression analysis that is performed prior to performing the ANCOVA, and were not statistical outliers if cesium concentrations were considered without a covariate as performed in the 2013 AEMP.

A2.3 Sampling and Laboratory QA/QC Procedures

A review of sampling and laboratory QA/QC procedure did not indicate any abnormalities affecting cesium or thallium in fish tissue. However, it was noted that the number and type of CRMs were variable between lake water, sediment, and fish tissue analyses performed at ALS (Table 2.3-1).

Table 2.3-1 Summary of Laboratory-Based Quality Control Samples for Cesium and Thallium

Quality Control Sample Type Certified Reference Material(a) Method Blanks Laboratory Duplicate Water Quality thallium cesium, thallium cesium, thallium Sediment Quality n/a cesium, thallium cesium, thallium Fish Tissue n/a cesium, thallium cesium, thallium

a) Certified Reference Material (CRM) used by ALS varies from year to year and therefore may include different parameters. n/a = CRM did not include cesium or thallium in 2013.

1 Outliers identified were SL-13-U-SL-LKTR-26176 and SL-13-U-L13-LKTR-28023.



Cesium is not a component of the CRM that ALS currently uses for the ultra low-level metal analysis of water quality samples, and neither cesium or thallium are components of the CRM used for metal analysis of fish tissue samples. For water quality samples, ALS runs continuing calibration verification (CCV) samples regularly, which contain cesium, as part of the instrument quality control procedures. The results of CCV are not currently reported in the laboratory report; however, ALS is considering including these results in future reports. The ultra low-level metal analysis for the AEMP is performed on samples that have no digestion, extraction or other treatment, and therefore a CCV can be considered to have been treated the same as a sample (i.e., no pre-analysis treatment). The CCV comes from a different source than the calibration standards; it is composed of the same matrix as a sample (acidified water), it contains the elements of interest, and it is certified. Therefore CCV can be considered equivalent to a CRM for the ultra-low level metal analysis. Future fish tissue chemistry analysis by ALS will, wherever possible, include a Laboratory Control Standard (LCS), which will provide a reference material for cesium and thallium analyses in fish tissue.

ALS reviewed representative fish tissue data and analytical methods and determined there was no reason to suspect a laboratory error for thallium or cesium.



A3 REFERENCES

Borgmann U, Cheam V, Norwood WP, Lechner J. 1998. Toxicity and bioaccumulation of thallium in Hyalella azteca, with comparison to other metals and prediction of environmental impact. Environ Pollut 99:105-114.

De Beers (De Beers Canada Inc.). 2008. 2008 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan, Snap Lake Project. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

De Beers. 2014. 2013 Annual Report in Support of the Aquatics Effects Monitoring Program Water Licence (MV2001L2-0004), Snap Lake Mine. Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada.

SNAP LAKE MINE

APPENDIX B

REGRESSION PLOTS FOR FISH TISSUE CESIUM AND THALLIUM

CONCENTRATIONS AGAINST BODY SIZE

June 2015

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine B-i June 2015Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Regression Plots for Fish Tissue Appendix B


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B-1 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ............................................ 1

Figure B-2 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, 1999 and 2013 ............................................................................ 2

Figure B-3 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ......................... 3

Figure B-4 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, 1999 and 2013 ......................................................... 4

Figure B-5 Thallium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, 1999 and 2013LKTR Tl in Muscle ........................................ 5

Figure B-6 Thallium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ......................... 6

Figure B-7 Cesium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ............................................ 7

Figure B-8 Cesium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ..................................... 8

Figure B-9 Thallium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ............................................ 9

Figure B-10 Thallium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ................................... 10

Figure B-11 Cesium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 .......................................... 11

Figure B-12 Cesium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ....................... 12

Figure B-13 Thallium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ................................... 13

Figure B-14 Thallium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013 ....................... 14

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine B-1 June 2015Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Regression Plots for Fish Tissue Appendix B


Figure B-1 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

900800700600500400300

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

mg/kg ww = milligram per kilogram wet weight; mm = millimeters; g = grams; NEL = Northeast Lake; Snap = Snap Lake.

800070006000500040003000200010000

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B



Figure B-2 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, 1999 and 2013

900800700600500400300

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

19992013

Year


800070006000500040003000200010000

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

19992013

Year

A

B



Figure B-3 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

325300275250225200175

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

30025020015010050

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


A

B



Figure B-4 Cesium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, 1999 and 2013

350300250200150

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

19992013

Year


4003002001000

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

19992013

Year

A

B



Figure B-5 Thallium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, 1999 and 2013LKTR Tl in Muscle

800070006000500040003000200010000

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000

Weight (g)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


900800700600500400300

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000

Length (mm)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B



Figure B-6 Thallium Concentrations in Muscle Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

30025020015010050

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

Weight (g)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


325300275250225200175

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

Length (mm)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B



Figure B-7 Cesium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013


800700600500400300

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

800070006000500040003000200010000

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B



Figure B-8 Cesium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

300275250225200175

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

30025020015010050

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


A

B



Figure B-9 Thallium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

900800700600500400300

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Length (mm)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

800070006000500040003000200010000

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Weight (g)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


A

B



Figure B-10 Thallium Concentrations in Liver Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

325300275250225200175

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Length (mm)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


30025020015010050

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Weight (g)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B



Figure B-11 Cesium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

800700600500400300

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

0.000

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

6000500040003000200010000

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

0.000

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


A

B



Figure B-12 Cesium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

325300275250225200175

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Length (mm)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


30025020015010050

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Weight (g)

Ces

ium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B



Figure B-13 Thallium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Lake Trout Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

800070006000500040003000200010000

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Weight (g)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


900800700600500400300

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Length (mm)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B



Figure B-14 Thallium Concentrations in Kidney Tissue of Round Whitefish Relative to (A) Length and (B) Weight in Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, and Lake 13, 2013

325300275250225200175

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Length (mm)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake


30025020015010050

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Weight (g)

Thal

lium

(mg/

kg w

w)

Lake 13NEL

Snap

Lake

A

B

SNAP LAKE MINE

APPENDIX C

SNAP LAKE MASS BALANCE MODEL AND CALIBRATION

June 2015

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine C-i June 2015Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mass Balance Model and Calibration Appendix C


TABLE OF CONTENTS

C1 DESCRIPTION OF MASS BALANCE MODEL FOR CESIUM AND THALLIUM LOAD CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 1 C1.1 Model Calculations ....................................................................................................................... 1 C1.2 Key Model Results ....................................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure C-1 Inputs: Loading of Parameters of Potential Concern to Snap Lake, 2003 through 2013 ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure C-2 Outputs: Loading of Parameters of Potential Concern from Snap Lake .............................. 5 Figure C-3 Calibration of Parameters of Potential Concern ................................................................... 6

De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine C-1 June 2015Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Mass Balance Model and Calibration Appendix C


C1 DESCRIPTION OF MASS BALANCE MODEL FOR CESIUM AND THALLIUM LOAD CALCULATIONS

C1.1 Model Calculations

For the source and load calculations, Snap Lake was modelled as a completely mixed flow reactor. In a completely mixed flow reactor, there is flow into the reactor (i.e., Snap Lake), flow out of the reactor, and complete and instantaneous mixing throughout the reactor.

[Equation 1]

Total cesium and thallium in Snap Lake were modelled as conservative parameters. Therefore, the mass rates of each parameter produced and consumed in Equation 1 were set equal to zero. Equation 1 was re-written.

[Equation 2]

∙ ∙

where:

= change in concentration of metal in Snap Lake with time

V = volume of Snap Lake

QIN = inflow to Snap Lake

QOUT = outflow from Snap Lake

MetalIN = concentration of metal in the inflow to Snap Lake

MetalOUT = concentration of metal in the outflow from Snap Lake

In the model, the inputs to Snap Lake, in addition to the ones listed in Section 3.3.1.1 were: precipitation and water addition for ice melting (see Figure V1). The outputs from Snap Lake were:

Water pumped from Snap Lake for camp use. A monthly time series was obtained from monitoreddata.

Seepage from Snap Lake to the underground mine. A monthly time series of seepage was obtainedfrom the groundwater model (Itasca 2013).



Downstream outflow from Snap Lake. A daily time series of flow was constructed from monitoreddischarge at hydrology monitoring stations.

Evaporation. Evaporation was calculated using the Meyer Formula and monthly average temperature,relative humidity, and wind speed measured at Snap Lake.

Water withdrawn for ice formation. Ice formation volumes were derived from the annual average ofmaximum ice thickness measurements between 2004 and 2012, which were calculated by firstidentifying the maximum ice thickness measurement at each Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program(AEMP) station from each year and then averaging the maximum ice thickness measurements fromall AEMP stations in Snap Lake.

To calculate the incremental load added from the mine operations, the chemical load from Snap Lake to the Mine was subtracted from the total load in the final Snap Lake Mine (Mine) site discharge at the water treatment plant (WTP) as follows

[Equation 3]

Load(incremental addition) = Load(WTP) – Load (recharge to lake)

The incremental addition of load to the system was then assigned to either the underground or the North Pile based on the proportion of load as measured from each of these locations.

In 2012 and 2013, modelled tributary inflows that do not come into contact with the Mine site and downstream outflows from De Beers (2013c,d) were used in the mass-balance model as opposed to monitored data because of the difficulty in capturing flows during the freshet periods from 2004 to 2011. Since the freshet period is only temporary, the uncertainty introduced by not fully capturing the freshet flows in the model from 2004 to 2011 is not expected to change the model calibration or the identified loading sources of metals to Snap Lake.



C1.2 Key Model Results

The relevant modelling results are:

Input loads for the metals to Snap Lake from 2003 through 2013 are shown in Figure C-1. Key inputloads are: incremental load from the Mine (includes underground interactions and North Pile);non-point source loads (runoff and seepage from site); and, natural load (natural runoff andtributaries). Recharge water from Snap Lake to the underground mine that is discharged via the WTPis not included as an input load because the mass added to Snap Lake from this source is equivalentto the mass removed via recharge to the underground mine.

Output load calculations showed that the largest source of total cesium and thallium from Snap Lakebetween 2003 through 2013 was the seepage of water from Snap Lake to the underground mine. Theonly exception was the loading from the Snap Lake outlet downstream during freshet in 2012 and2013, where modelled freshet flows are used instead of monitored freshet flows, as described above.(Figure C-2).

The model did not include a source or sink of chemical load from an atmospheric compartment or asediment compartment. Since the calibration obtained for each of the metals was reasonable(Figure C-3), the uncertainty introduced by not including other spills, or atmospheric or sedimentcompartments in the model is expected to be small.

Overall, the model calibration confirms that the loads entering Snap Lake have been appropriately identified for cesium and thallium. Cesium concentrations in Snap Lake were below detection limits and

model results remained below detection limits from 2004 to 2013. The model slightly over-predicted thallium concentrations in Snap Lake from 2011 to 2013. Given the uncertainty in model inputs, the differences between predicted and observed concentrations are reasonable. Further modelling work,

which will focus on defining model inputs more accurately and detailed calibration, with particular attention to cesium and thallium, will be conducted in 2014 when the metals are added to the Snap Lake hydrodynamic and water quality model.



Figure C-1 Inputs: Loading of Parameters of Potential Concern to Snap Lake, 2003 through 2013

(a) Total Cesium

(b) Total Thallium

Note: The incremental load from the Mine was calculated by taking the difference between the load entering Snap Lake from the effluent discharge and the load entering the Mine from Snap Lake. The non-point source load from the Mine includes seepage from the North Pile, seepage from the water management pond (WMP), site runoff that is not captured in the WMP, and Spill 11-391 and 11-398; g/day = grams per day

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l Ces

ium

(g/d

ay)

Year

Incremental Load from Mine Non-Point Source Load From Mine Natural Load

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l Tha

llium

(g/d

ay)

Year

Incremental Load from Mine Non-Point Source Load From Mine Natural Load



Figure C-2 Outputs: Loading of Parameters of Potential Concern from Snap Lake

(a) Total Cesium

(b) Total Thallium

Note: 2012 and 2013 freshet flows out of Snap Lake are based on modelled data not monitored data. g/day = grams per day.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l Ces

ium

(g/d

ay)

Year

Load from Snap Lake to the Mine Load Pumped from Snap Lake Load from Snap Lake Outlet

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l Tha

llium

(g/d

ay)

Year

Load from Snap Lake to the Mine Load Pumped from Snap Lake Load from Snap Lake Outlet



Figure C-3 Calibration of Parameters of Potential Concern

(a) Total Cesium

(b) Total Thallium

Note: Solid dots represent data from AEMP monitoring stations in the Main Basin of Snap Lake; open dots represent data from AEMP monitoring stations that were reported as less than detection; solid line represents model results; μg/L = micrograms per litre; AEMP = aquatic effects monitoring program.

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l Ces

ium

(µg/

L)

Year

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l Tha

llium

(µg/

L)

Year

APPENDIX D

BENTHOS AND EPILITHIC ALGAE SAMPLING PLAN

June 2015

D-1 June 2015De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake Mine Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response Plan Benthic Invertebrates and Epilithic Algae Appendix D


D1 BENTHOS AND EPILITHIC ALGAE SAMPLING PLAN

The proposed sampling plan to document cesium and thallium concentrations in tissues of both benthic invertebrates and epilithic algae is described herein.

D1.1 Benthos

D1.1.1 Benthos Tissue Collection Benthic invertebrates will be collected from three areas in the Snap Lake main basin and in Northeast Lake. Supporting environmental information will recorded, including Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) co-ordinates, water depth, and vertical profile measurements. Areas that have historically had higher biomass in previous benthos sampling programs in the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program (AEMP) will be prioritized for sampling.

Benthic sled tows will be used to collect organisms as this method has been implemented successfully in Snap Lake in previous years to collect higher sample volumes in shorter time periods than by repetitive grab sampling (De Beers 2014). Samples will be sieved in the field using a series of nested box sieves ranging in size from 0.250 millimetres (mm) up to 1 mm. The benthos community in the AEMP study area is dominated by midges (chironomids), which are a preferred fish prey; they will be the organism sampled for analyses.

Chironomids from each sampling area will be carefully removed from the sieved sample using Teflon-coated forceps and placed in a clean pre-weighed whirl pak bag. Chironomids will be collected and composited into one sample per area. A minimum target wet weight of 0.5 grams is required to achieve analytical laboratory detection limits. Given the small size of chironomids in Snap Lake and the extensive effort it will take to collect sufficient biomass for analysis, at a minimum one composite sample from each of Snap Lake and Northeast Lake will be analyzed. However, the goal is to analyze three composite samples from each lake.

Samples will be frozen and shipped to ALS Canada Ltd. (ALS; Burnaby, British Columbia) to determine concentrations of cesium and thallium and percent moisture content. Detection limits will be 0.005 milligrams per kilogram dry weight (mg/kg dw) for cesium and 0.002 mg/kg dw for thallium.



D1.2 Epilithic Algae

D1.2.1 Epilithic Algal Tissue Collection The shoreline of Snap Lake is dominated by large boulders and lacks smaller cobble that would allow field crews to lift and scrape rocks in the littoral zone to collect epilithic algae tissue samples in 2015. Surface scraping of boulders would not be sufficient for tissue chemistry sample collections as the community present at the top of the wave zone will be restricted to the strongly attached taxa only and not be representative of the typical community. Because no epilithic algal sample collections are scheduled in 2015, and no divers will be available, archived epilithic algal tissue samples collected from Snap Lake and Northeast Lake during the Littoral Zone Special Study (Section 11.1, De Beers 2015) in August 2014 will be analyzed to determine concentrations of cesium and thallium.

The epilithic algal samples were collected at five stations throughout the main basins of each of Snap Lake and Northeast Lake. The archived samples contain 200-millitre of a frozen algal slurry. Because the samples were simply frozen with no added preservatives or other substances, they should provide usable data on thallium and cesium in representative epilithic algae collected using clean sampling techniques. Samples will be shipped to ALS for cesium and thallium analyses.

Once at the laboratory, the samples will be filtered on pre-weighed metal-free mixed-cellulose ester filters and composited as necessary to reach the minimum target wet weight of 0.5 grams. At a minimum, one composite sample from each of Snap Lake and Northeast Lake will be analyzed. However, the goal is to analyze three composite samples.

Filtrate volume will be measured, and both the epilithic algal tissue and filtrate will be analyzed for concentrations of cesium and thallium. Because the filters will be digested along with the collected material, data will only be reported on a dry weight basis, and moisture content will not be determined directly but rather will be based on a published literature conversion factor (e.g., 0.2 for diatoms and 0.15 for other taxa, as per Winberg [1971]).

Detection limits will be 0.005 mg/kg dw for cesium and 0.002 mg/kg dw for thallium.

D1.3 Data Analysis and Reporting

Upon receipt of the laboratory results, quality assurance and quality control checks will be completed. Results will be reported as a data appendix to the Fish Tissue Chemistry chapter of the 2015 AEMP Annual Report, and will be interpreted within the context of the overall AEMP program as part of the 2017 AEMP Re-evaluation Report.



D1.4 References

De Beers. 2014. 2013 Annual Report in Support of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program for the Snap Lake Mine. Water Licence (MV2011L2-0004). Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada

De Beers. 2015. 2014 Annual Report in Support of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program for the Snap Lake Mine. Water Licence (MV2011L2-0004). Submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Yellowknife, NWT, Canada

Winberg GG (ed). 1971. Methods for the estimation of production of aquatic animals. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.

APPENDIX E

EFFLUENT, WATER QUALITY, AND SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY SUMMARY

STATISTICS

June 2015

Snap Lake MineThallium and Cesium Fish Tissue Response PlanEffluent Summary

E-1 June 2015

Appendix E

Table E-1 Summary Statistics of Total Cesium Concentrations in Effluent Collected at SNP 02-17 and SNP 02-17B, 2004 to 2013

Number of Samples After Removal of

Samples with High Detection Limits

Number of Samples Less than the

Detection Limit

Mean(µg/L)

Standard Deviation

(µg/L)

2004 SNP 02-17 44 8 <0.1 0.2 <50 37 1 0.2 0.082005 SNP 02-17 96 70 <0.1 <0.1 <50 73 47 <0.1 -2006 SNP 02-17 97 58 <0.1 0.1 <50 93 54 <0.1 -

SNP 02-17 54 39 <0.1 <0.1 <50 42 27 <0.1 -SNP 02-17B 45 12 <0.1 0.1 <50 42 9 0.1 0.04SNP 02-17 6 2 0.3 0.5 <50 4 0 0.4 0.12SNP 02-17B 15 3 0.1 0.2 <50 12 0 0.2 0.05

2009 SNP 02-17B 12 4 <0.1 0.1 <50 11 3 0.1 0.042010 SNP 02-17B 13 1 0.1 0.1 <200 12 0 0.1 0.03

SNP 02-17 4 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 4 0 0.2 0.10SNP 02-17B 43 10 <0.1 0.1 <200 41 8 0.1 0.04SNP 02-17 3 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 3 0 0.2 0.05SNP 02-17B 44 10 <0.1 0.1 0.2 44 10 0.1 0.04

2013 SNP 02-17B 68 13 <0.1 0.1 0.2 68 13 0.1 0.03

Table E-2 Summary Statistics of Total Thallium Concentrations in Effluent Collected at SNP 02-17 and SNP 02-17B, 2004 to 2013

Number of Samples After Removal of

Samples with High Detection Limits


Detection Limit

Mean(µg/L)

Standard Deviation

(µg/L)

2004 SNP 02-17 43 30 <0.03 0.05 0.10 23 10 <0.03 0.0192005 SNP 02-17 96 93 <0.03 <0.03 <0.1 68 65 <0.03 -2006 SNP 02-17 99 96 <0.03 <0.03 0.30 99 96 <0.1 -

SNP 02-17 54 33 <0.03 <0.03 0.25 46 25 <0.1 -SNP 02-17 B 45 44 <0.03 <0.03 0.10 43 42 <0.03 -SNP 02-17 6 0 0.08 0.08 0.10 6 0 0.09 0.010SNP 02-17 B 15 10 <0.03 0.04 <0.1 12 7 <0.03 -

2009 SNP 02-17 B 12 12 <0.03 <0.03 <0.1 11 11 <0.03 -2010 SNP 02-17 B 12 11 <0.03 <0.03 0.03 12 11 <0.03 -

SNP 02-17 4 3 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 4 3 <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 42 18 <0.01 0.02 <0.1 28 4 0.01 0.004SNP 02-17 3 1 0.02 0.02 <0.05 3 1 0.02 0.003SNP 02-17 B 44 15 0.01 0.02 0.07 44 15 0.02 0.009

2013 SNP 02-17 B 68 11 <0.01 0.01 <0.05 65 8 0.01 0.004

SNP = Surveillance Network Program; < = less than; DL = detection limit; µg/L = micrograms per litre; % = percent; - = not calculated because more than 50% of the data were less than the DL.

Mean and Standard Deviation Calculations(a)

Maximum(µg/L)

Median(µg/L)

Minimum(µg/L)


Detection Limit

Total Number of SamplesStationYear

Year Station Total Number ofSamples


Detection Limit

Minimum(µg/L)

Median(µg/L)

Maximum(µg/L)

(a) Means and standard deviations were calculated by substituting concentrations less than the DL with half of the DL. If the resulting mean value was less than the DL, then the mean was reported as less than the DL. Concentrations were excluded from the mean and standard deviation calculations if they were reported as less than a DL when that DL was greater than or equal to the maximum detected concentration.

2011

2012

2007

2008

2011

2012

2007

2008

SNP = Surveillance Network Progrm; < = less than; DL = detection limit; µg/L = micrograms per litre; % = percent; - = not calculated because more than 50% of the data were less than the DL.

(a) Means and standard deviations were calculated by substituting concentrations less than the DL with half of the DL. If the resulting mean value was less than the DL, then the mean was reported as less than the DL. Concentrations were excluded from the mean and standard deviation calculations if they were reported as less than a DL when that DL was greater than or equal to the maximum detected concentration.

Mean and Standard Deviation Calculations(a)


De Beers Canada Inc., Snap Lake MineThallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response PlanMackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

E-2 June 2015

Appendix E

Table E-3 Summary Statistics of Total Cesium Concentrations in Water in Snap Lake and Reference Lakes, 2004 to 2013

Year AreaNumber of Samples

Number of Samples Less Than the Detection Limit

Mean(a)

(µg/L)

Standard Deviation

(µg/L)Minimum

(µg/L)Median(µg/L)

Maximum(µg/L)

Diffuser Area 2 2 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 4 4 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 2 2 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 2 2 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 4 4 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 19 19 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 4 4 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 3 3 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 17 17 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 18 18 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 4 4 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 12 12 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 19 19 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 19 19 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 6 6 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 21 21 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 26 26 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 12 12 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 3 3 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 17 17 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 24 24 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 13 13 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 4 4 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 20 20 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 30 30 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 12 12 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 5 5 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 20 20 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 26 26 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 12 12 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 6 6 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 20 20 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 25 25 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 12 12 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 5 5 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 25 25 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Diffuser Area 12 12 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Main Basin 9 9 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Northwest Arm 3 3 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Reference Lakes 25 25 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Note: Data presented are from representative stations within Snap and reference lakes: Diffuser Area = SNAP13 (2004 to April 2006) and SNP 02-20e (July 2006 to 2013); Main Basin = SNAP09, SNAP05, and SNAP08 (2004 to 2013); Northwest Arm = SNAP02 (2004 to April 2006) and SNAP02A (July 2006 to 2013); Reference Lakes = NEL01 to NEL05 and LK13-01 to LK13-05.

< = less than; DL = detection limit; µg/L = micrograms per litre; % = percent; SNP = surveillance network program; NEL = Northeast Lake, LK13 = Lake 13; - = not calculated because more than 50% of the data were less than the DL.

(a) Means were calculated using half of the DL when concentrations were reported as less than the DL. If the resulting mean value was less than the DL, then less than the DL was substituted for the mean.



E-3 June 2015

Appendix E

Table E-4 Summary Statistics of Total Thallium Concentrations in Water in Snap Lake and Reference Lakes, 2004 to 2013

Year AreaNumber of Samples

Number of Samples Less Than the Detection Limit

Mean(a)

(µg/L)

Standard Deviation

(µg/L)Minimum

(µg/L)Median(µg/L)

Maximum(µg/L)

Diffuser Area 2 2 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Main Basin 4 4 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 2 2 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Reference Lakes 2 2 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 4 4 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Main Basin 19 19 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 4 4 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Reference Lakes 3 3 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 17 17 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Main Basin 18 18 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 4 4 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Reference Lakes 12 12 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 19 15 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 0.06Main Basin 20 20 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 6 6 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Reference Lakes 21 21 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 26 26 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Main Basin 12 12 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 3 3 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Reference Lakes 17 17 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 24 24 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Main Basin 13 13 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 4 4 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Reference Lakes 20 20 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 30 30 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Main Basin 12 12 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 5 4 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 0.09Reference Lakes 20 20 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 26 26 <0.03 - <0.01 <0.03 <0.03Main Basin 12 12 <0.03 - <0.01 <0.03 <0.03Northwest Arm 6 6 <0.03 - <0.01 <0.03 <0.03Reference Lakes 20 20 <0.03 - <0.01 <0.03 <0.03Diffuser Area 25 25 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Main Basin 12 12 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Northwest Arm 5 5 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Reference Lakes 25 25 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Diffuser Area 12 12 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Main Basin 9 9 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Northwest Arm 3 3 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Reference Lakes 25 25 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

(a) Means were calculated using half of the DL when concentrations were reported as less than the DL. If the resulting mean value was less than the DL, then less than the DL was substituted for the mean.

2006

2007

2012

2013

2010

2011

2008

2009

Notes: Data presented are from representative stations within Snap and reference lakes: Diffuser Area = SNAP13 (2004 to April 2006) and SNP 02-20e (July 2006 to 2013); Main Basin = SNAP09, SNAP05, and SNAP08 (2004 to 2013); Northwest Arm = SNAP02 (2004 to April 2006) and SNAP02A (July 2006 to 2013); Reference Lakes = NEL01 to NEL05 and LK13-01 to LK13-05.

< = less than; DL = detection limit; µg/L = micrograms per litre; % = percent; SNP = surveillance network program; NEL = Northeast Lake, LK13 = Lake 13; - = not calculated because more than 50% of the data were less than the DL.

2004

2005



E-4 June 2015

Appendix E

n n (<DL) min max mean median SD n n (<DL) min max mean median SD1999 Snap Lake - Main Basin Bulk 4 0 1.30 1.70 1.58 1.65 0.19 4 3 <0.2 0.30 <0.2 <0.2 0.10

Snap Lake - Main Basin Bulk 10 0 1.20 3.90 1.98 1.85 0.73 10 0 0.08 0.40 0.21 0.18 0.11Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Bulk 2 0 1.30 1.50 1.40 1.40 0.14 2 0 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.05Snap Lake - Diffuser Bulk 2 2 <10 <10 <10 <10 0 2 1 <0.1 0.40 0.23 0.23 0.25Snap Lake - Main Basin Bulk 13 13 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.00 13 0 0.10 0.45 0.24 0.22 0.09Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Bulk 2 2 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.00 2 2 <0.42 <0.46 NA NA 0.01Northeast Lake Top 5 cm 3 3 <10 <10 <10 <10 0 3 0 0.08 0.37 0.22 0.22 0.15Lake 13 Top 5 cm 3 3 <10 <10 <10 <10 0 3 0 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.01Snap Lake - Diffuser Bulk 1 0 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 NA 1 0 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 NASnap Lake - Main Basin Bulk 14 0 1.30 2.93 2.10 2.08 0.44 14 0 0.13 0.42 0.24 0.24 0.08Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Bulk 3 0 1.27 1.77 1.57 1.67 0.26 3 0 0.18 0.46 0.28 0.21 0.15Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 1 0 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 NA 1 0 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 NASnap Lake - Main Basin Bulk / Top 5 cm 19 0 1.40 2.70 2.14 2.10 0.32 19 0 0.17 0.57 0.29 0.27 0.09Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Bulk / Top 5 cm 6 0 1.30 1.70 1.48 1.50 0.13 6 0 0.19 0.52 0.32 0.27 0.13Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 1 0 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 NA 1 0 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 NASnap Lake - Main Basin Bulk / Top 5 cm 20 0 1.40 2.60 2.11 2.05 0.33 20 0 0.14 0.47 0.26 0.24 0.08Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Bulk / Top 5 cm 6 0 1.20 1.90 1.50 1.50 0.25 6 0 0.15 0.54 0.28 0.18 0.18Northeast Lake Top 5 cm 5 0 2.30 3.80 3.12 3.30 0.56 5 0 0.27 0.38 0.31 0.28 0.05Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 1 0 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 NA 1 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 NASnap Lake - Main Basin Top 5 cm 14 0 1.19 2.49 1.93 1.86 0.37 14 0 0.12 0.33 0.24 0.25 0.07Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Top 5 cm 3 0 1.33 1.54 1.43 1.41 0.11 3 0 0.18 0.32 0.23 0.19 0.08Northeast Lake Top 5 cm 5 0 2.59 3.08 2.92 2.94 0.20 5 0 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.34 0.06Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 1 0 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 NA 1 0 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 NASnap Lake - Main Basin Top 5 cm 14 0 0.74 2.38 1.99 2.16 0.44 14 1 0.03 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.06Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Top 5 cm 3 0 1.52 1.93 1.66 1.53 0.23 3 0 0.14 0.41 0.25 0.20 0.14Northeast Lake Top 5 cm 5 0 3.08 3.63 3.38 3.36 0.23 5 0 0.22 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.04Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 1 0 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 NA 1 0 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 NASnap Lake - Main Basin Top 5 cm 14 0 1.15 2.56 1.85 1.79 0.36 14 0 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.02Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Top 5 cm 3 0 1.26 1.52 1.37 1.34 0.13 3 0 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.02Northeast Lake Top 5 cm 5 0 2.56 3.14 2.91 2.95 0.21 5 0 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.02Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 3 0 1.75 1.94 1.86 1.89 0.10 3 0 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.01Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 2 cm 1 0 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 NA 1 0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 NASnap Lake - Main Basin Top 5 cm 16 0 1.29 2.49 1.93 1.89 0.33 16 0 0.08 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.03Snap Lake - Main Basin Top 2 cm 2 0 1.65 2.08 1.87 1.87 0.30 2 0 0.08 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.06Snap Lake - Northwest Arm Top 5 cm 3 0 1.38 1.59 1.52 1.58 0.12 3 0 0.16 0.29 0.21 0.20 0.07Northeast Lake Top 5 cm 6 0 2.99 3.46 3.18 3.11 0.21 6 0 0.15 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.04Lake 13 Top 5 cm 5 0 2.92 3.81 3.37 3.51 0.39 5 0 0.12 0.36 0.22 0.21 0.09Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) Top 5 cm 4 0 1.59 2.10 1.92 1.99 0.22 4 0 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.01

Table E-5 Summary Statistics for Total Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Sediments from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, Lake 13, and Downstream Lakes as part of the Baseline andAquatic Effects Monitoring Programs, 1999 to 2014

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2004

2005

2006

2007

Total Thallium (mg/kg dw)Total Cesium (mg/kg dw)Water BodyYear

Sediment Depth Sampled



E-5 June 2015

Appendix E

n n (<DL) min max mean median SD n n (<DL) min max mean median SD

Table E-5 Summary Statistics for Total Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Sediments from Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, Lake 13, and Downstream Lakes as part of the Baseline andAquatic Effects Monitoring Programs, 1999 to 2014

Total Thallium (mg/kg dw)Total Cesium (mg/kg dw)Water BodyYear

Sediment Depth Sampled

Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 2 0 1.62 1.74 1.68 1.68 0.08 2 0 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 2 cm 1 0 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 NA 1 0 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 NALake 13 Top 5 cm 6 0 2.10 3.77 2.96 3.03 0.58 6 0 0.19 0.47 0.28 0.23 0.10Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) Top 5 cm 12 0 1.69 2.36 1.96 1.90 0.23 12 0 0.13 0.38 0.18 0.15 0.07Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 5 cm 2 0 1.85 2.01 1.93 1.93 0.11 2 0 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.02Snap Lake - Diffuser Top 2 cm 1 0 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 NA 1 0 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 NADownstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) Top 2 cm 17 0 1.29 2.32 1.68 1.67 0.25 17 0 0.07 0.33 0.17 0.16 0.07

Concentrations reported as <DL were replaced with values equal to one-half their DL for calculation of summary statistics."Bulk" samples used the entire Ekman grab contents; in 2007 and 2008, Main Basin and Northwest Arm stations were sampled at both bulk and top 5-cm depths.

2014

2013

mg/kg dw = milligrams per kilogram dry weight; cm = centimetre; < = less than; DL = detection limit; DSL = Downstream Lakes 1 and 2; LCB = Lake Capot Blanc; NA = not applicable; n = number of samples; n (<DL) = number of samples that are non-detects; SD = standard deviation


APPENDIX F

RAW DATA

June 2015


F-1 June 2015

Appendix F

Table F-1 Total and Dissolved Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Effluent Collected at SNP 02-17 and SNP 02-17B, 2004 to 2014

Sample NameDate Sampled(yyyy-mm-dd)

Sample Control Number Sample Type

Total Cesium(µg/L)

Dissolved Cesium(µg/L)

Total Thallium(µg/L)

Dissolved Thallium(µg/L)

SNP 02-17 2004-06-23 2004-1647 Sample 0.1 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-07-28 2004-1814 Sample <50 - 0.1 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-05 2004-1851 Sample 0.1 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-05 2004-1861 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-05 2004-1865 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-05 2004-1869 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-05 2004-1870 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-06 2004-1874 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-06 2004-1875 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-09 2004-1879 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-15 2004-1887 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-08-16 2004-1907 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-08-22 2004-1934 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-08-23 2004-1937 Sample <50 - <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-23 2004-1941 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-08-25 2004-1944 Sample 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-08-25 2004-2007 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-08-26 2004-2010 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-08-27 2004-2015 Sample <50 - <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2004-08-28 2004-2019 Sample <0.1 - - -SNP 02-17 2004-08-29 2004-2022 Sample 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-09-06 2004-2096 Sample <50 - <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2004-09-21 2004-2164 Sample 0.2 0.7 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-09-23 2004-2167 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-10-04 2004-2263 Sample 0.3 - 0.04 -SNP 02-17 2004-10-14 2004-2273 Sample <50 - <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2004-10-18 2004-2279 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-10-28 2004-2286 Sample - 0.2 - <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-11-01 2004-2316 Sample 0.3 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-01 2004-2317 Duplicate Sample 0.3 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-07 2004-2329 Sample 0.3 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-07 2004-2330 Sample - 0.3 - <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-11-08 2004-2332 Sample - 0.3 - <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-11-11 2004-2336 Sample - 0.2 - <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-11-11 2004-2339 Sample <50 - <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-15 2004-2342 Sample 0.2 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-15 2004-2344 Sample 0.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-11-19 2004-2346 Sample 0.2 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-22 2004-2350 Sample <50 - <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-26 2004-2352 Sample 0.3 - 0.04 -SNP 02-17 2004-11-28 2004-2359 Sample 0.2 - 0.04 -SNP 02-17 2004-12-02 2004-2366 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-12-03 2004-2367 Sample 0.2 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-12-05 2004-2379 Sample 0.2 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-12-09 2004-2381 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2004-12-13 2004-2385 Sample 0.2 - 0.05 -SNP 02-17 2004-12-21 2004-2394 Sample 0.2 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2004-12-26 2004-2397 Sample 0.2 - 0.03 -SNP 02-17 2005-01-02 2005-0070 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 0.03SNP 02-17 2005-01-02 2005-0071 Duplicate Sample 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.04SNP 02-17 2005-01-03 2005-0077 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2005-01-06 2005-0079 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2005-01-10 2005-0084 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2005-01-13 2005-0086 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2005-01-17 2005-0088 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1SNP 02-17 2005-01-20 2005-0092 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.04 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-01-24 2005-0108 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.05SNP 02-17 2005-01-30 2005-0115 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 0.08SNP 02-17 2005-02-06 2005-0133 Sample <50 0.2 <0.1 0.08SNP 02-17 2005-02-13 2005-0141 Sample <50 0.2 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-02-20 2005-0147 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-02-27 2005-0156 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-03-02 2005-0160 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-03-06 2005-0172 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-03-13 2005-0180 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-03-17 2005-0182 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-03-20 2005-0190 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-03-27 2005-0198 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-04-03 2005-0211 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-04-07 2005-0226 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-04-11 2005-0233 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-04-16 2005-0245 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-04-21 2005-0257 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2005-04-24 2005-0261 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-04-28 2005-0268 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-05-01 2005-0274 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-05-04 2005-0289 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2005-05-04 2005-0290 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2005-05-04 2005-0291 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2005-05-05 2005-0292 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2005-05-05 2005-0297 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-05-09 2005-0278 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-05-09 2005-0634 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-05-15 2005-0637 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-05-19 2005-0644 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-05-22 2005-0647 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-05-26 2005-0650 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-05-29 2005-0662 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-06-03 2005-0669 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2005-06-05 2005-0676 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-06-08 2005-0682 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-06-12 2005-0686 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-06-16 2005-0690 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-06-19 2005-0694 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-06-21 2005-0703 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-06-26 2005-0714 Sample <0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-2 June 2015

Appendix F




Total Cesium(µg/L)




SNP 02-17 2005-06-29 2005-0720 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-03 2005-0729 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-10 2005-0743 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-14 2005-0753 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-17 2005-0756 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-21 2005-0770 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-24 2005-0775 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-29 2005-0788 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-07-31 2005-0796 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-03 2005-1102 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-07 2005-1113 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-11 2005-1117 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-14 2005-1120 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-18 2005-1129 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-21 2005-1170 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-25 2005-1207 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-08-28 2005-1225 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-04 2005-1244 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-04 2005-1257 Duplicate Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-07 2005-1284 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-11 2005-1291 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-15 2005-1295 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-18 2005-1300 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-22 2005-1307 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-22 2005-1308 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-25 2005-1315 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-09-28 2005-1324 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-10-02 2005-1330 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-10-05 2005-1344 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-10-12 2005-1354 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-10-26 2005-1377 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-10-30 2005-1380 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-02 2005-1385 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-02 2005-1386 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-06 2005-1395 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-09 2005-1398 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-13 2005-1419 Sample <0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-16 2005-1422 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-20 2005-1425 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-23 2005-1428 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-11-27 2005-1454 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-12-01 2005-1459 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-12-04 2005-1464 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-12-07 2005-1470 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-12-11 2005-1473 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-12-14 2005-1476 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-12-18 2005-1479 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2005-12-27 2005-1484 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-04 2006-1490 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-08 2006-0012 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-11 2006-0015 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-15 2006-0018 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-19 2006-0023 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-22 2006-0026 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-25 2006-0029 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-01-29 2006-0033 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-01 2006-0042 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-06 2006-0053 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-08 2006-0059 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-12 2006-0065 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-15 2006-0069 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-19 2006-0076 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-24 2006-0080 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-02-26 2006-0083 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-01 2006-0108 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-05 2006-0111 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-06 2006-0123 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-08 2006-0124 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-12 2006-0127 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-19 2006-0503 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-22 2006-0510 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-26 2006-0513 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-03-29 2006-0516 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-02 2006-0519 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-09 2006-0529 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-12 2006-0538 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-16 2006-0541 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-20 2006-0557 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-23 2006-0561 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-26 2006-0572 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-04-30 2006-0573 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-02 2006-0580 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-03 2006-0585 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-07 2006-0588 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-10 2006-0598 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-14 2006-0601 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-17 2006-0607 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-21 2006-0620 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-25 2006-0627 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-28 2006-0638 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-05-31 2006-0645 Sample <0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-06-04 2006-0651 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-06-07 2006-0666 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-06-07 2006-0667 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-06-11 2006-0669 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-06-14 2006-0685 Sample <50 - 0.1 -



F-3 June 2015

Appendix F




Total Cesium(µg/L)




SNP 02-17 2006-06-18 2006-0700 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2006-06-21 2006-0725 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-06-25 2006-0732 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2006-06-28 2006-0743 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-03 2006-0752 Sample <50 0.1 0.3 0.12SNP 02-17 2006-07-05 2006-0758 Sample 0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-17 2006-07-09 2006-0781 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-12 2006-0793 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-17 2006-0821 Sample 0.2 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-19 2006-0824 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-23 2006-0832 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-26 2006-0839 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-26 2006-0840 Duplicate Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-07-30 2006-0846 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-02 2006-0851 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-06 2006-0910 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-13 2006-0952 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-16 2006-0969 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-20 2006-0972 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-23 2006-0982 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-27 2006-0987 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-08-27 2006-0988 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-09-06 2006-1031 Duplicate Sample - - 0.007 0.007SNP 02-17 2006-09-10 2006-1136 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-09-14 2006-1348 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-09-14 2006-1349 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-09-17 2006-1353 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-09-24 2006-1361 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-09-27 2006-1370 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-04 2006-1412 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-08 2006-1425 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-11 2006-1446 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-15 2006-1449 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-18 2006-1457 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-23 2006-1461 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-25 2006-1467 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-10-29 2006-1473 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-11-01 2006-1480 Sample 0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-11-13 2006-1523 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-11-21 2006-1537 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-11-21 2006-1538 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-11-21 2006-1539 Sample - - <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 2006-11-26 2006-1557 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-11-28 2006-1568 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-12-04 2006-1582 Sample 0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-12-05 2006-1591 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-12-10 2006-1597 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-12-14 2006-1613 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-12-17 2006-1619 Sample 0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-12-20 2006-1634 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2006-12-21 2006-1646 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-01-02 2007-0504 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2007-01-07 2007-0516 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2007-01-10 2007-0527 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2007-01-14 2007-0532 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 0.06SNP 02-17 2007-01-17 2007-0541 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 -SNP 02-17 2007-01-21 2007-0550 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2007-01-24 2007-0564 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2007-01-28 2007-0567 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.05 0.05SNP 02-17 2007-01-31 2007-0576 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.07 -SNP 02-17 2007-02-04 2007-0583 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.05SNP 02-17 2007-02-05 2007-0584 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.04SNP 02-17 2007-02-07 2007-0599 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.04 0.05SNP 02-17 2007-02-11 2007-0603 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.03 0.03SNP 02-17 2007-02-14 2007-0591 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.03 0.04SNP 02-17 2007-02-18 2007-0626 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.07 0.14SNP 02-17 2007-02-21 2007-0639 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.05 0.06SNP 02-17 2007-02-25 2007-0643 Sample 0.1 <0.1 0.04 0.04SNP 02-17 2007-02-27 2007-0653 Sample <50 0.1 0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 2007-03-05 2007-0657 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 0.07SNP 02-17 2007-03-07 2007-0671 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.07 0.07SNP 02-17 2007-03-14 2007-0714 Sample <50 <0.1 0.2 0.16SNP 02-17 2007-03-18 2007-0720 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.21 0.22SNP 02-17 2007-03-20 2007-0730 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.18 0.23SNP 02-17 2007-03-25 2007-0735 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.17 0.21SNP 02-17 2007-03-28 2007-0748 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.25 0.26SNP 02-17 2007-04-03 2007-0754 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-04-03 2007-0788 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-04-04 2007-0771 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-04-08 2007-0797 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-04-11 2007-0808 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-04-13 2007-0821 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-04-15 2007-0824 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-04-15 2007-0826 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-04-18 2007-0835 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-04-18 2007-0836 Sample 0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-04-22 2007-0841 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-04-24 2007-0855 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-04-29 2007-0859 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-02 2007-0874 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-07 2007-0878 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-05-07 2007-0903 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-09 2007-0905 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-13 2007-0916 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-05-15 2007-0931 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-17 2007-0933 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-4 June 2015

Appendix F




Total Cesium(µg/L)




SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-21 2007-0978 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-05-23 2007-0979 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-23 2007-0980 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-27 2007-0991 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-05-27 2007-0992 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-05-30 2007-1013 Sample 0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-04 2007-1040 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-04 2007-1041 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-06-06 2007-1054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-06 2007-1069 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-10 2007-1099 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-06-10 2007-1102 Sample <50 <0.1 0.2 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-06-13 2007-1128 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-06-13 2007-1129 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-13 2007-1132 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-17 2007-1154 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-19 2007-1172 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-22 2007-1180 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-24 2007-1192 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-06-25 2007-1193 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-06-27 2007-1206 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-02 2007-1218 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-07-04 2007-1245 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-07-08 2007-1747 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-09 2007-1224 Sample <50 <0.1 0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-09 2007-1235 Duplicate Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-07-11 2007-1757 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-11 2007-1758 Sample 0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-07-15 2007-1833 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-15 2007-1834 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-07-18 2007-1842 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-18 2007-1843 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-07-22 2007-1883 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-22 2007-1884 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-07-25 2007-1895 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-25 2007-1896 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-07-30 2007-1914 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-08-01 2007-1924 Sample <50 0.1 0.2 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-08-01 2007-2000 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-08-07 2007-2018 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-08-12 2007-2078 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-08-26 2007-2237 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-09-02 2007-2268 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-09-02 2007-2269 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-09-02 2007-2281 Duplicate Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-09-23 2007-2461 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-09-23 2007-2462 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-10-02 2007-2496 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-10-02 2007-2498 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-11-04 2007-2628 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-11-14 2007-2663 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2007-11-14 2007-2664 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2007-12-03 2007-2738 Sample 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.06SNP 02-17 B 2007-12-03 2007-2739 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2008-01-03 2008-1008 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2008-01-09 2008-1061 Sample <50 0.2 <0.1 -SNP 02-17 B 2008-02-20 2008-1188 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2008-03-03 2008-1210 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2008-03-16 2008-1248 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2008-03-24 2008-1274 Sample 0.3 0.3 0.08 0.08SNP 02-17 B 2008-04-02 2008-1307 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2008-04-13 2008-1330 Sample 0.3 0.3 0.08 0.08SNP 02-17 B 2008-05-04 2008-1390 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2008-05-24 2008-1495 Sample <50 0.3 0.1 0.12SNP 02-17 B 2008-05-24 2008-1496 Sample <50 0.2 <0.1 0.06SNP 02-17 2008-05-30 2008-1566 Sample <50 0.3 0.1 0.04SNP 02-17 B 2008-05-30 2008-1567 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.03SNP 02-17 2008-06-05 2008-1598 Sample 0.5 0.5 0.08 0.07SNP 02-17 B 2008-06-05 2008-1599 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.04SNP 02-17 2008-06-15 2008-1647 Sample 0.5 0.5 0.08 0.08SNP 02-17 B 2008-07-06 2008-1897 Sample 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.05SNP 02-17 B 2008-08-04 2008-2099 Sample 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.06SNP 02-17 B 2008-09-01 2008-2292 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.05SNP 02-17 B 2008-11-09 2008-2687 Sample 0.2 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2008-12-03 2008-2783 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-01-08 2009-0017 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-02-01 2009-0086 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-03-03 2009-1159 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-04-08 2009-1288 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-06-01 2009-1393 Sample <0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-06-01 2009-1395 Duplicate Sample <0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-07-13 2009-1583 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-08-12 2009-1649 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-09-17 2009-1777 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-10-11 2009-1838 Sample <50 <0.4 <0.1 -SNP 02-17 B 2009-11-04 2009-1874 Sample 0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2009-12-10 2009-1977 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-01-03 2010-0124 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-02-02 2010-0168 Sample <200 <0.1 - <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-03-16 2010-0298 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-04-06 2010-0313 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-05-03 2010-0423 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-06-04 2010-0516 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-07-14 2010-0711 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.04SNP 02-17 B 2010-08-01 2010-0740 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-09-06 2010-0928 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-5 June 2015

Appendix F




Total Cesium(µg/L)




SNP 02-17 B 2010-10-12 2010-1016 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-10-12 2010-1017 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-11-11 2010-1073 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2010-12-05 2010-1189 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2011-01-09 2011-0020 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2011-02-08 2011-0115 Sample <200 <0.4 - 0.26SNP 02-17 B 2011-03-10 2011-0169 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2011-03-27 2011-0208 Sample <50 0.1 <0.1 <0.05SNP 02-17 B 2011-04-10 2011-0226 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2011-04-10 2011-0228 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2011-05-03 2011-0301 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 B 2011-06-14 2011-0525 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2011-06-30 2011-0574 Sample 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.06SNP 02-17 B 2011-07-10 2011-0671 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-17 2011-07-31 2011-0756 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.05 0.03SNP 02-17 2011-08-02 2011-0768 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.05 0.03SNP 02-17 B 2011-08-02 2011-0769 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-09-29 2011-1196 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 -SNP 02-17 2011-10-02 2011-1216 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.05 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-10-02 2011-1217 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-10-26 2011-1418 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05SNP 02-17 B 2011-10-27 2011-1427 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-10-28 2011-1434 Duplicate Sample 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-10-29 2011-1443 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-10-30 2011-1450 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-10-31 2011-1460 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-01 2011-1467 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-02 2011-1475 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-03 2011-1479 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-04 2011-1484 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-05 2011-1492 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-06 2011-1496 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-07 2011-1515 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-08 2011-1517 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-13 2011-1535 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-20 2011-1594 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-22 2011-1609 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-24 2011-1617 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-26 2011-1624 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-27 2011-1627 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-11-30 2011-1638 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-02 2011-1693 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.05SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-04 2011-1701 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-06 2011-1715 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-08 2011-1724 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-09 2011-1728 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-11 2011-1738 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-13 2011-1748 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-15 2011-1755 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-18 2011-1781 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05SNP 02-17 B 2011-12-27 2011-1809 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.05 <0.05SNP 02-17 B 2012-01-03 2012-0012 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-01-03 2012-0013 Duplicate Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-02-07 2012-0245 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-03-11 2012-0491 Sample 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 2012-03-11 2012-0492 Duplicate Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 2012-03-26 2012-0605 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-03-31 2012-0626 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-04-01 2012-0636 Sample 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-04-12 2012-0680 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-05-06 2012-0821 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-05-21 2012-0961 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2012-05-23 2012-1012 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 2012-05-23 2012-1015 Sample 0.2 0.2 <0.05 <0.05SNP 02-17 B 2012-06-05 2012-1138 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-06-23 2012-1205 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-06-29 2012-1258 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-07-23 2012-1385 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-07-29 2012-1391 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-01 2012-1413 Sample 0.1 <0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-01 2012-1415 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-02 2012-1417 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-04 2012-1420 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-10 2012-1457 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-12 2012-1472 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-16 2012-1499 Sample <0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-22 2012-1519 Sample <0.1 - 0.07 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-08-28 2012-1625 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-09-03 2012-1674 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-09-09 2012-1701 Sample <0.1 0.1 0.01 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-09-15 2012-1746 Sample 0.2 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-09-21 2012-1775 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-09-27 2012-1804 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-10-03 2012-1841 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2012-10-09 2012-1849 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-10-21 2012-1916 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-10-27 2012-1933 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-11-02 2012-1950 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-11-08 2012-2029 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2012-11-14 2012-2041 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-11-20 2012-2065 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-11-26 2012-2089 Sample <0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-12-02 2012-2098 Sample 0.11 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2012-12-02 2012-2099 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2012-12-08 2012-2120 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-12-14 2012-2137 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -



F-6 June 2015

Appendix F




Total Cesium(µg/L)




SNP 02-17 B 2012-12-20 2012-2177 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2012-12-26 2012-2184 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-01-01 2013-0001 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-01-07 2013-0016 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-01-13 2013-0031 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-01-19 2013-0060 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-01-25 2013-0074 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-01-31 2013-0082 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-02-06 2013-0145 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-02-12 2013-0158 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-02-19 2013-0197 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-02-24 2013-0200 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-03-02 2013-0213 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-03-05 2013-0230 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-03-08 2013-0237 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-03-11 2013-0247 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-03-17 2013-0266 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-03-23 2013-0295 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-03-29 2013-0305 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-04-04 2013-0318 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-04-10 2013-0333 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-04-16 2013-0363 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-04-22 2013-0370 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-04-28 2013-0394 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-04 2013-0417 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-07 2013-0431 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-10 2013-0432 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-16 2013-0459 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-20 2013-0514 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-22 2013-0542 Sample 0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-26 2013-0593 Sample 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2013-05-28 2013-0619 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-03 2013-0685 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-09 2013-0710 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-15 2013-0722 Sample 0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-18 2013-0751 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-21 2013-0754 Sample 0.2 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-23 2013-0755 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-25 2013-0771 Sample 0.1 - <0.05 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-27 2013-0773 Sample 0.2 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-06-30 2013-0785 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-07-03 2013-0820 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-07-07 2013-0826 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-07-09 2013-0842 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-07-15 2013-0853 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-07-21 2013-0923 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-07-27 2013-0953 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-08-02 2013-0985 Sample <0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-08-08 2013-1020 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-08-14 2013-1034 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-08-20 2013-1080 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-08-26 2013-1110 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-09-01 2013-1134 Sample 0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-09-08 2013-1197 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2013-09-13 2013-1217 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-09-19 2013-1270 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-09-25 2013-1308 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-10-01 2013-1379 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-10-07 2013-1410 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.02SNP 02-17 B 2013-10-13 2013-1437 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-11-06 2013-1658 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.02 0.05SNP 02-17 B 2013-11-12 2013-1700 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-11-18 2013-1719 Sample 0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-11-24 2013-1737 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-11-30 2013-1760 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-12-06 2013-1790 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-12-12 2013-1840 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-12-18 2013-1899 Sample <0.1 0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2013-12-24 2013-1912 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2013-12-30 2013-1916 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-01-05 2014-0008, 2014-0011 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-01-11 2014-0050 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-01-17 2014-0076 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-01-23 2014-0094 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-01-28 2014-0134 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-01-29 2014-0141 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-02-04 2014-0160- 2014-0161 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-02-10 2014-0172 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-02-16 2014-0214 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-02-22 2014-0254 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-02-28 2014-0270 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-03-06 2014-0306 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-03-12 2014-0318 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-03-18 2014-0349, 2014-0358 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-03-24 2014-0371 Sample <0.2 - <0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-03-30 2014-0375 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-04-05 2014-0398 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-04-11 2014-0452 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-04-17 2014-0489 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-04-23 2014-0538 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-04-29 2014-0554 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-05-05 2014-0571 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-05-06 2014-0580 Sample 0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-05-11 2014-0605 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-05-17 2014-0667 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-05-23 2014-0737 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -



F-7 June 2015

Appendix F




Total Cesium(µg/L)




SNP 02-17 B 2014-05-29 2014-0803 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-06-04 2014-0871 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-06-10 2014-0903 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-06-16 2014-0944 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-06-22 2014-0962 Sample 0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-06-28 2014-0981 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-07-04 2014-1012 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-07-10 2014-1030 Sample 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-07-16 2014-1070 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-07-22 2014-1117 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-07-28 2014-1125 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-08-03 2014-1158 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-08-09 2014-1199, 2014-1200 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-08-11 2014-1204 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-08-15 2014-1219 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-08-21 2014-1257 Sample <0.1 - - -SNP 02-17 B 2014-08-27 2014-1277 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-09-02 2014-1285, 2014-0284 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-09-07 2014-1331, 2014-1330/4 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.02 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-09-08 2014-1345, 2014-1344 Sample 0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-09-14 2014-1366, 2014-1363 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-09-20 2014-1398, 2014-1397 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-09-26 2014-1414, 2014-1413 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-10-02 2014-1445 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-10-08 2014-1474 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 <0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-10-13 2014-1507 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-10-14 2014-1514 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-10-20 2014-1542 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-10-26 2014-1575 Sample <0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-11-01 2014-1591 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-11-07 2014-1641 Sample <0.1 - 0.02 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-11-13 2014-1655 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-11-19 2014-1675, 2014-1670 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-11-25 2014-1690, 2014-1687 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-12-01 2014-1714 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01SNP 02-17 B 2014-12-07 2014-1730 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-12-13 2014-1750 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-12-19 2014-1766 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-12-25 2014-1796 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -SNP 02-17 B 2014-12-31 2014-1805 Sample <0.1 - 0.01 -

yyyy-mm-dd = year-month-day; - = no data; < = less than the detection limit; µg/L = micrograms per litre.



F-8 June 2015

Appendix F

Station DepthDate Sampled (yyyy-mm-dd)


Total Cesium(µg/L)




WQ1 mid 1998-02-02 1998-01 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1WQ2 mid 1998-02-02 1998-04 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1WQ3 mid 1998-02-02 1998-06 Sample 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1WQ1 mid 1998-07-20 1998-03 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ1 mid 1998-07-20 1998-02 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ2 mid 1998-07-20 1998-05 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ3 mid 1998-07-20 1998-07 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ6 mid 1998-07-20 1998-10 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ7 mid 1998-07-20 1998-11 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ1 mid 1999-03-24 990416 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ1 mid 1999-03-24 990415 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ2 mid 1999-03-24 990393 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ2 mid 1999-03-24 990394 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ3 mid 1999-03-24 990414 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ4 mid 1999-03-24 990397 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ6 mid 1999-03-24 990402 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ6 mid 1999-03-24 990403 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ7 mid 1999-03-24 990409 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ7 mid 1999-03-24 990410 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1WQ1 mid 1999-08-12 991681 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQ2 mid 1999-08-12 991682 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQ3 mid 1999-08-12 991683 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQ4 mid 1999-08-12 991684 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQ6 mid 1999-08-12 991686 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQ7 mid 1999-08-12 991687 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQR1 mid 1999-08-12 991689 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQR3 mid 1999-08-12 991690 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQR7 mid 1999-08-12 991688 Sample <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.1WQ1 mid 2001-07-22 1001-157 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ2 mid 2001-07-22 1001-158 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ3 mid 2001-07-22 1001-159 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ4 mid 2001-07-22 1001-160 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ6 mid 2001-07-22 1001-161 Sample - <0.1 - <0.03WQ7 mid 2001-07-22 1001-162 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ3 mid 2001-10-07 1001-426 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ1 mid 2001-10-08 1001-425 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ7 mid 2001-10-08 1001-427 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03WQ1 mid 2002-02-15 1001-586 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2004-05-05 L168930-3 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP14 mid 2004-05-05 L168930-2 Duplicate Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP14 mid 2004-05-05 L168930-1 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2004-05-06 L169471-1 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2004-05-07 L169471-2 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP13 mid 2004-05-09 L169492-3 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP13 mid 2004-05-09 L169492-4 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a bottom 2004-05-09 L169492-2 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a surface 2004-05-09 L169492-1 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2004-05-10 L170257-2 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2004-05-10 L170257-1 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2004-07-30 L194283-5 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2004-07-30 L194283-23 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02 mid 2004-07-31 L194283-1 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a bottom 2004-08-01 L194283-13 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a mid 2004-08-01 L194283-12 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a surface 2004-08-01 L194283-11 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20b bottom 2004-08-01 L194283-16 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20b mid 2004-08-01 L194283-15 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20b surface 2004-08-01 L194283-14 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20c bottom 2004-08-01 L194283-19 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20c mid 2004-08-01 L194283-18 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20c surface 2004-08-01 L194283-17 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-21b mid 2004-08-17 L199619-1 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02 mid 2004-08-31 2004-2032 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2004-08-31 2004-2036 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2004-08-31 2004-2051 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a bottom 2004-08-31 2004-2044 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a mid 2004-08-31 2004-2043 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a surface 2004-08-31 2004-2042 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20b bottom 2004-08-31 2004-2047 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20b mid 2004-08-31 2004-2046 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20b surface 2004-08-31 2004-2045 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20c bottom 2004-08-31 2004-2050 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20c mid 2004-08-31 2004-2049 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20c surface 2004-08-31 2004-2048 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-01-18 2005-0033 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a mid 2005-01-18 2005-0032 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-01-18 2005-0031 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-01-18 2005-0036 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b mid 2005-01-18 2005-0035 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-01-18 2005-0034 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-01-18 2005-0039 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02 mid 2005-01-19 2005-0001 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2005-01-19 2005-0006 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2005-01-19 2005-0005 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2005-01-19 2005-0004 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 bottom 2005-01-19 2005-0009 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2005-01-19 2005-0008 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 surface 2005-01-19 2005-0007 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 bottom 2005-01-19 2005-0015 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2005-01-19 2005-0014 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 surface 2005-01-19 2005-0013 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2005-01-20 2005-0016 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2005-01-20 2005-0040 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP10 mid 2005-01-20 2005-0010 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c surface 2005-02-17 2005-0309 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-02-18 2005-0303 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03

Table F-2 Total and Dissolved Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Water from Snap Lake Collected as part of the Baseline and Aquatic Effects Monitoring Programs,1998 to 2014



F-9 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNP 02-20a surface 2005-02-18 2005-0300 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-02-18 2005-0301 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-02-18 2005-0308 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-02-18 2005-0304 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-03-21 2005-0320 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-03-21 2005-0325 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-03-22 2005-0326 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-03-22 2005-0323 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-03-22 2005-0324 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-03-22 2005-0327 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02 mid 2005-04-16 2005-0341 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2005-04-17 2005-0347 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2005-04-17 2005-0346 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2005-04-17 2005-0344 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-04-17 2005-0348 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-04-17 2005-0345 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2005-04-18 2005-0355 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2005-04-18 2005-0354 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2005-04-18 2005-0360 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2005-04-18 2005-0352 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 bottom 2005-04-19 2005-0365 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2005-04-19 2005-0366 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 surface 2005-04-19 2005-0362 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 bottom 2005-04-19 2005-0367 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2005-04-19 2005-0364 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 surface 2005-04-19 2005-0361 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-04-20 2005-0369 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-04-20 2005-0371 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-04-20 2005-0368 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2005-04-21 2005-0375 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2005-04-22 2005-0380 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2005-04-22 2005-0381 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2005-04-22 2005-0379 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11 mid 2005-04-22 2005-0378 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-05-18 2005-0384 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-05-18 2005-0383 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-05-18 2005-0386 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-05-18 2005-0385 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-05-18 2005-0387 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-05-18 2005-0388 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2005-07-19 2005-0547 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2005-07-19 2005-0548 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2005-07-19 2005-0549 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0552 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 bottom 2005-07-21 2005-0553 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0554 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0556 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 surface 2005-07-21 2005-0555 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 bottom 2005-07-21 2005-0557 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0558 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 surface 2005-07-21 2005-0559 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2005-07-22 2005-0563 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2005-07-22 2005-0562 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11 mid 2005-07-22 2005-0565 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2005-07-23 2005-0570 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 bottom 2005-07-23 2005-0573 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 mid 2005-07-23 2005-0571 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 surface 2005-07-23 2005-0574 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2005-07-23 2005-0575 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2005-07-23 2005-0576 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2005-07-23 2005-0577 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-07-24 2005-0584 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-07-24 2005-0585 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-07-24 2005-0586 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-07-24 2005-0587 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-07-24 2005-0588 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-08-17 2005-0902 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-08-17 2005-0901 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-08-17 2005-0904 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-08-17 2005-0903 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-08-17 2005-0905 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-08-17 2005-0906 Duplicate Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNAP02 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0963 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0965 Sample - <0.1 - <0.03SNAP05 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0970 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0969 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0968 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0967 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0966 Sample - <0.1 - <0.03SNAP09 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0972 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11 mid 2005-09-13 2005-0973 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 mid 2005-09-14 2005-0976 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2005-09-14 2005-0977 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2005-09-14 2005-0978 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2005-09-14 2005-0979 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2005-09-14 2005-0980 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2005-09-14 2005-0981 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-09-14 2005-0982 Sample - <0.1 - <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2005-12-14 2005-0992 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2006-01-13 2006-0133 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2006-01-13 2006-0134 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2006-01-13 2006-0136 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2006-01-13 2006-0137 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2006-01-13 2006-0132 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2006-01-14 2006-0140 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2006-01-14 2006-0139 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-10 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNAP03 surface 2006-01-14 2006-0138 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 bottom 2006-01-14 2006-0143 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2006-01-14 2006-0142 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 surface 2006-01-14 2006-0141 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 bottom 2006-01-15 2006-0155 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2006-01-15 2006-0154 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 surface 2006-01-15 2006-0153 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 bottom 2006-01-15 2006-0149 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 mid 2006-01-15 2006-0148 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 surface 2006-01-15 2006-0147 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2006-01-15 2006-0152 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2006-01-15 2006-0151 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2006-01-15 2006-0150 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2006-01-16 2006-0158 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2006-01-16 2006-0157 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2006-01-16 2006-0159 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11 mid 2006-01-17 2006-0163 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02 mid 2006-01-18 2006-0170 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2006-02-17 2006-0180 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2006-02-17 2006-0179 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2006-02-17 2006-0182 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2006-02-17 2006-0183 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2006-02-17 2006-0181 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2006-02-17 2006-0177 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2006-03-14 2006-0189 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2006-03-16 2006-0196 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2006-03-16 2006-0197 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2006-03-16 2006-0198 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2006-03-16 2006-0194 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2006-03-16 2006-0195 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a bottom 2006-04-07 2006-0320 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20a surface 2006-04-07 2006-0319 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b bottom 2006-04-07 2006-0323 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20b surface 2006-04-07 2006-0322 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20c mid 2006-04-07 2006-0324 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2006-04-08 2006-0338 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2006-04-08 2006-0337 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2006-04-08 2006-0336 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 bottom 2006-04-08 2006-0335 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2006-04-08 2006-0333 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2006-04-08 2006-0334 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 surface 2006-04-08 2006-0332 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 bottom 2006-04-08 2006-0331 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2006-04-08 2006-0330 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 surface 2006-04-08 2006-0329 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 bottom 2006-04-09 2006-0343 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 mid 2006-04-09 2006-0342 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP13 surface 2006-04-09 2006-0341 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2006-04-10 2006-0350 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2006-04-10 2006-0349 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2006-04-10 2006-0353 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2006-04-10 2006-0352 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2006-04-10 2006-0351 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2006-04-11 2006-0356 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2006-04-12 2006-0359 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2006-04-14 2006-0368 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2006-04-14 2006-0367 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2006-04-16 2006-0369 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2006-07-10 2006-0379 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2006-07-10 2006-0378 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2006-07-10 2006-0377 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2006-07-11 2006-0380 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2006-07-12 2006-0385 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2006-07-12 2006-0384 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2006-07-12 2006-0383 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2006-07-12 2006-0387 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2006-07-12 2006-0388 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2006-07-12 2006-0386 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2006-07-13 2006-0397 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2006-07-13 2006-0394 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2006-07-13 2006-0395 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2006-07-13 2006-0396 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2006-07-13 2006-0393 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2006-07-14 2006-0409 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2006-07-14 2006-0408 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2006-07-14 2006-0405 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2006-07-14 2006-0404 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2006-07-18 2006-0411 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2006-07-18 2006-0410 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2006-07-19 2006-0424 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2006-07-20 2006-0444 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2006-08-13 2006-0450 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2006-08-13 2006-0449 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2006-08-13 2006-0448 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2006-08-13 2006-0454 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2006-08-13 2006-0457 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2006-08-13 2006-0456 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2006-08-13 2006-0455 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2006-08-13 2006-0460 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2006-08-13 2006-0459 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2006-08-13 2006-0458 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2006-09-13 2006-1152 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2006-09-13 2006-1151 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2006-09-13 2006-1150 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2006-09-13 2006-1148 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2006-09-13 2006-1149 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-11 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNAP02A mid 2006-09-14 2006-1159 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2006-09-14 2006-1158 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2006-09-15 2006-1168 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2006-09-15 2006-1170 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2006-09-15 2006-1166 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2006-09-15 2006-1167 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2006-09-18 2006-1180 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2006-09-19 2006-1192 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2006-09-19 2006-1201 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2006-09-19 2006-1194 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2006-09-19 2006-1197 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2006-09-19 2006-1198 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2006-09-19 2006-1195 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2006-09-20 2006-1196 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2006-09-20 2006-1199 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2006-09-20 2006-1188 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2006-09-20 2006-1185 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2007-02-21 2007-0004 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2007-02-21 2007-0003 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2007-02-21 2007-0002 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 0.06SNP 02-20e bottom 2007-02-21 2007-0007 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2007-02-21 2007-0006 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2007-02-21 2007-0005 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 0.04SNP 02-20f bottom 2007-02-22 2007-0012 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2007-02-22 2007-0011 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2007-02-22 2007-0010 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP25 mid 2007-02-23 2007-0017 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2007-02-24 2007-0032 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2007-02-24 2007-0031 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2007-02-24 2007-0030 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 bottom 2007-02-24 2007-0029 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2007-02-24 2007-0028 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 surface 2007-02-24 2007-0027 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2007-02-24 2007-0026 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2007-02-24 2007-0025 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2007-02-24 2007-0023 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2007-02-24 2007-0024 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2007-02-24 2007-0018 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP27 mid 2007-02-24 2007-0019 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 bottom 2007-02-26 2007-0037 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2007-02-26 2007-0036 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 surface 2007-02-26 2007-0035 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 bottom 2007-02-27 2007-0046 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2007-02-27 2007-0045 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 surface 2007-02-27 2007-0044 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2007-02-27 2007-0042 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2007-02-27 2007-0041 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2007-02-27 2007-0040 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 bottom 2007-02-27 2007-0049 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2007-02-27 2007-0048 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 surface 2007-02-27 2007-0047 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A bottom 2007-02-28 2007-0057 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2007-02-28 2007-0056 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A surface 2007-02-28 2007-0055 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A bottom 2007-03-01 2007-0072 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2007-03-01 2007-0071 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A surface 2007-03-01 2007-0070 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2007-03-14 2007-0080 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.06 0.07SNP 02-20d mid 2007-03-14 2007-0079 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.06 0.09SNP 02-20d surface 2007-03-14 2007-0078 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.08 0.20SNP 02-20e bottom 2007-03-15 2007-0085 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.06 0.07SNP 02-20e mid 2007-03-15 2007-0084 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.06 0.17SNP 02-20e mid 2007-03-15 2007-0087 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.03 0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2007-03-15 2007-0083 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.05 0.10SNP 02-20e surface 2007-03-15 2007-0086 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2007-03-17 2007-0092 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.05 0.06SNP 02-20f mid 2007-03-17 2007-0091 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.03 0.04SNP 02-20f surface 2007-03-17 2007-0090 Sample <0.1 <0.1 0.06 0.14SNAP23 mid 2007-04-10 2007-0100 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 mid 2007-04-10 2007-0101 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2007-04-12 2007-0115 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2007-04-12 2007-0114 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2007-04-12 2007-0113 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2007-04-13 2007-0122 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2007-04-13 2007-0121 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2007-04-13 2007-0120 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 bottom 2007-04-13 2007-0128 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2007-04-13 2007-0129 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 surface 2007-04-13 2007-0127 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2007-04-15 2007-0135 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2007-04-15 2007-0134 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2007-04-15 2007-0133 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2007-04-16 2007-0140 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2007-04-16 2007-0144 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2007-04-16 2007-0139 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2007-04-16 2007-0138 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2007-04-17 2007-0149 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2007-04-17 2007-0148 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2007-04-17 2007-0147 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 bottom 2007-04-18 2007-0154 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2007-04-18 2007-0153 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 surface 2007-04-18 2007-0152 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 bottom 2007-04-20 2007-0160 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2007-04-20 2007-0159 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 surface 2007-04-20 2007-0158 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A bottom 2007-04-21 2007-0167 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-12 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNAP11A mid 2007-04-21 2007-0166 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A surface 2007-04-21 2007-0165 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 mid 2007-04-24 2007-0181 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2007-04-25 2007-0189 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2007-04-25 2007-0191 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2007-04-25 2007-0190 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2007-04-27 2007-0199 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2007-04-27 2007-0201 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2007-07-19 2007-1261 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2007-07-19 2007-1260 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2007-07-19 2007-1259 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2007-07-19 2007-1264 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2007-07-19 2007-1263 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2007-07-19 2007-1262 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2007-07-20 2007-1268 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2007-07-20 2007-1267 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP10 mid 2007-07-22 2007-1277 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2007-07-22 2007-1275 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2007-07-22 2007-1274 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2007-07-22 2007-1273 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1288 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP04 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1278 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1287 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1286 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1284 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2007-07-23 2007-1283 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP12 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1289 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1279 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2007-07-23 2007-1280 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A bottom 2007-07-24 2007-1297 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2007-07-24 2007-1294 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2007-07-24 2007-1296 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 bottom 2007-07-24 2007-1300 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 mid 2007-07-24 2007-1299 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 surface 2007-07-24 2007-1298 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2007-07-25 2007-1307 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2007-07-25 2007-1306 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2007-07-25 2007-1305 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2007-08-14 2007-1319 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2007-08-14 2007-1318 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2007-08-14 2007-1316 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2007-08-14 2007-1315 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2007-08-15 2007-1324 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2007-08-15 2007-1325 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2007-09-13 2007-1351 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2007-09-15 2007-1359 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP28 mid 2007-09-15 2007-1358 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2007-09-16 2007-1363 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2007-09-16 2007-1364 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20 mid 2007-09-16 2007-1362 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP12 mid 2007-09-17 2007-1371 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2007-09-17 2007-1367 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2007-09-17 2007-1368 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2007-09-17 2007-1370 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 bottom 2007-09-18 2007-1377 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2007-09-18 2007-1378 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 surface 2007-09-18 2007-1376 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP10 mid 2007-09-19 2007-1382 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP10 mid 2007-09-19 2007-1381 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2007-09-19 2007-1383 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2007-09-20 2007-1387 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2007-09-21 2007-1395 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2007-09-21 2007-1394 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2007-09-21 2007-1393 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP04 mid 2007-09-22 2007-1400 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-01-22 2008-0007 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-01-22 2008-0006 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-01-22 2008-0005 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2008-01-23 2008-0022 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-01-23 2008-0017 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-01-23 2008-0016 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-01-23 2008-0015 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-01-23 2008-0013 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2008-01-24 2008-0028 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2008-01-24 2008-0027 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2008-01-24 2008-0026 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-01-24 2008-0025 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-01-24 2008-0024 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-01-24 2008-0023 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2008-01-25 2008-0032 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2008-01-25 2008-0031 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2008-01-26 2008-0038 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2008-01-26 2008-0037 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-02-17 2008-0050 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-02-17 2008-0048 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-02-17 2008-0049 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-02-17 2008-0047 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2008-02-19 2008-0056 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-02-19 2008-0055 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-02-19 2008-0054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-02-19 2008-0053 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-02-20 2008-0062 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-02-20 2008-0061 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-02-20 2008-0059 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2008-02-24 2008-0081 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-03-13 2008-0089 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-13 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNP 02-20d mid 2008-03-13 2008-0088 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-03-13 2008-0086 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-03-13 2008-0087 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-03-13 2008-0092 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-03-13 2008-0091 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-03-13 2008-0090 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-03-16 2008-0098 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-03-16 2008-0097 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-03-16 2008-0096 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2008-04-04 2008-0141 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2008-04-05 2008-0148 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-04-06 2008-0157 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-04-06 2008-0156 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-04-06 2008-0155 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-04-07 2008-0166 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-04-07 2008-0165 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-04-07 2008-0164 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2008-04-08 2008-0173 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 bottom 2008-04-09 2008-0183 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2008-04-09 2008-0182 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 surface 2008-04-09 2008-0181 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2008-04-10 2008-0190 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2008-04-10 2008-0188 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2008-04-10 2008-0189 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 bottom 2008-04-11 2008-0198 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2008-04-11 2008-0197 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2008-04-11 2008-0196 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 surface 2008-04-11 2008-0195 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2008-04-12 2008-0204 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 mid 2008-04-12 2008-0203 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-04-13 2008-0210 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-04-13 2008-0209 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-04-13 2008-0208 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2008-04-16 2008-0216 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2008-04-16 2008-0220 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-05-08 2008-0236 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-05-08 2008-0235 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-05-08 2008-0234 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-05-08 2008-0232 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-05-08 2008-0231 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-05-08 2008-0230 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-05-08 2008-0233 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-05-11 2008-0239 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-05-11 2008-0238 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-05-11 2008-0237 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 mid 2008-07-13 2008-0265 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-07-14 2008-0269 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-07-14 2008-0268 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-07-14 2008-0266 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-07-14 2008-0267 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2008-07-15 2008-0278 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-07-15 2008-0277 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-07-15 2008-0276 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-07-15 2008-0275 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-07-16 2008-0283 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-07-16 2008-0282 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-07-16 2008-0281 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2008-07-17 2008-0291 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2008-07-17 2008-0292 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2008-07-17 2008-0290 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2008-07-18 2008-0297 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2008-07-18 2008-0298 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2008-07-18 2008-0296 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2008-07-19 2008-0303 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2008-07-19 2008-0302 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2008-07-19 2008-0301 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2008-07-20 2008-0307 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2008-07-21 2008-0316 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-08-12 2008-0331 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-08-12 2008-0329 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-08-12 2008-0330 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-08-12 2008-0328 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-08-14 2008-0344 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-08-14 2008-0343 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-08-14 2008-0341 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-08-14 2008-0339 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-08-14 2008-0338 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-08-14 2008-0337 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2008-09-10 2008-0353 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2008-09-10 2008-0352 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 mid 2008-09-10 2008-0354 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2008-09-13 2008-0372 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2008-09-13 2008-0371 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2008-09-13 2008-0370 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2008-09-13 2008-0369 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2008-09-14 2008-0381 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2008-09-14 2008-0380 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-09-14 2008-0377 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2008-09-14 2008-0378 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2008-09-15 2008-0391 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2008-09-15 2008-0390 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2008-09-15 2008-0389 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2008-09-15 2008-0388 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2008-09-15 2008-0387 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2008-09-15 2008-0386 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2008-09-16 2008-0374 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-14 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNAP14 mid 2008-09-16 2008-0394 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2008-09-16 2008-0373 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2008-09-19 2008-0406 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2008-09-19 2008-0405 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2008-09-19 2008-0407 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2009-02-06 2009-5008 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2009-02-06 2009-5006 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2009-02-06 2009-5007 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2009-02-07 2009-5014 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2009-02-07 2009-5012 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2009-02-08 2009-5013 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2009-02-08 2009-5011 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2009-02-09 2009-5020 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2009-02-09 2009-5019 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2009-02-09 2009-5024 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2009-02-09 2009-5023 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-02-09 2009-5021 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-02-09 2009-5022 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 bottom 2009-02-11 2009-5039 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 mid 2009-02-11 2009-5038 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 surface 2009-02-11 2009-5037 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2009-02-12 2009-5042 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP14 mid 2009-02-12 2009-5041 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2009-02-12 2009-5043 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2009-02-12 2009-5050 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2009-02-12 2009-5049 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-02-12 2009-5048 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2009-02-12 2009-5054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2009-02-12 2009-5053 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-02-12 2009-5044 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2009-03-18 2009-5063 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2009-03-18 2009-5062 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-03-18 2009-5061 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2009-03-19 2009-5079 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2009-03-19 2009-5077 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-03-19 2009-5075 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-03-19 2009-5073 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2009-03-19 2009-5085 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2009-03-19 2009-5083 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-03-19 2009-5081 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2009-04-30 2009-5105 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2009-05-02 2009-5114 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2009-05-02 2009-5113 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2009-05-03 2009-5122 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2009-05-03 2009-5121 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-05-03 2009-5120 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2009-05-03 2009-5119 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2009-05-03 2009-5118 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-05-03 2009-5116 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-05-03 2009-5117 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2009-05-04 2009-5132 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2009-05-04 2009-5130 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP07 mid 2009-05-04 2009-5129 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2009-05-04 2009-5127 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20f bottom 2009-05-05 2009-5135 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2009-05-05 2009-5134 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-05-05 2009-5133 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-05-05 2009-5124 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP23 bottom 2009-05-06 2009-5142 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2009-05-06 2009-5146 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 surface 2009-05-06 2009-5138 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP03 mid 2009-05-07 2009-5152 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP09 mid 2009-05-07 2009-5149 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP11A mid 2009-05-07 2009-5151 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2009-06-06 2009-5170 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2009-06-06 2009-5169 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2009-06-06 2009-5173 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2009-06-06 2009-5172 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-06-06 2009-5171 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-06-07 2009-5167 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2009-06-07 2009-5166 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2009-06-07 2009-5165 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-06-07 2009-5163 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-06-07 2009-5164 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2009-07-07 2009-5181 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2009-07-07 2009-5180 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-07-07 2009-5178 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-07-07 2009-5179 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2009-07-07 2009-5184 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2009-07-07 2009-5183 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-07-07 2009-5182 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2009-07-09 2009-5192 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2009-07-09 2009-5189 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e mid 2009-07-09 2009-5188 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-07-09 2009-5187 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-07-09 2009-5186 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2009-07-10 2009-5205 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP09 mid 2009-07-10 2009-5206 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP11A mid 2009-07-10 2009-5207 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2009-07-11 2009-5201 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP05 mid 2009-07-11 2009-5203 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP20B mid 2009-07-11 2009-5208 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2009-07-11 2009-5209 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2009-07-12 2009-5210 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP03 mid 2009-07-13 2009-5202 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2009-07-13 2009-5204 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -



F-15 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNP 02-20d bottom 2009-08-18 2009-5232 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d mid 2009-08-18 2009-5231 Duplicate Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d mid 2009-08-18 2009-5230 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d surface 2009-08-18 2009-5228 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2009-08-18 2009-5235 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e mid 2009-08-18 2009-5234 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e surface 2009-08-18 2009-5233 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20f bottom 2009-08-18 2009-5245 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20f mid 2009-08-18 2009-5237 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20f surface 2009-08-18 2009-5236 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2009-09-10 2009-5501 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2009-09-11 2009-5503 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2009-09-11 2009-5502 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2009-09-12 2009-5505 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2009-09-12 2009-5507 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2009-09-13 2009-5516 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP07 mid 2009-09-13 2009-5512 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2009-09-13 2009-5511 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2009-09-13 2009-5510 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2009-09-13 2009-5515 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2009-09-13 2009-5513 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2009-09-14 2009-5518 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2009-09-15 2009-5529 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2009-09-15 2009-5528 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-09-15 2009-5526 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2009-09-15 2009-5527 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2009-09-16 2009-5532 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2009-09-16 2009-5531 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2009-09-16 2009-5530 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2009-09-16 2009-5539 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2009-09-16 2009-5538 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2009-09-16 2009-5537 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2010-01-19 2010-5003 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2010-01-20 2010-5005 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP03 mid 2010-01-20 2010-5011 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP05 mid 2010-01-20 2010-5012 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 bottom 2010-01-20 2010-5010 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2010-01-20 2010-5008 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 surface 2010-01-20 2010-5006 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2010-01-22 2010-5029 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2010-01-22 2010-5030 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2010-01-22 2010-5028 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2010-01-22 2010-5031 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2010-01-22 2010-5032 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2010-01-23 2010-5040 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-01-23 2010-5037 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-01-23 2010-5036 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-01-23 2010-5035 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-01-23 2010-5038 Duplicate Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-01-24 2010-5016 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2010-01-24 2010-5015 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-01-24 2010-5020 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-01-24 2010-5014 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-01-24 2010-5019 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-01-24 2010-5018 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-01-24 2010-5017 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-02-16 2010-5048 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-02-16 2010-5047 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-02-16 2010-5046 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-02-17 2010-5053 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-02-17 2010-5052 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-02-17 2010-5049 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-02-17 2010-5050 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-02-21 2010-5056 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2010-02-21 2010-5055 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-02-21 2010-5054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-03-16 2010-5067 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-03-16 2010-5066 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-03-16 2010-5064 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-03-16 2010-5063 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-03-17 2010-5072 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2010-03-17 2010-5071 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-03-17 2010-5070 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-03-17 2010-5075 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-03-17 2010-5074 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-03-17 2010-5073 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-04-06 2010-5083 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-04-06 2010-5082 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-04-06 2010-5080 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-04-06 2010-5079 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-04-07 2010-5089 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-04-07 2010-5088 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-04-07 2010-5087 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2010-04-08 2010-5093 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP05 mid 2010-04-08 2010-5094 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2010-04-09 2010-5101 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP09 mid 2010-04-09 2010-5100 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP11A mid 2010-04-09 2010-5099 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP26 mid 2010-04-09 2010-5097 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2010-04-10 2010-5104 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 bottom 2010-04-10 2010-5107 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2010-04-10 2010-5106 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 surface 2010-04-10 2010-5105 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP07 mid 2010-04-11 2010-5117 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP08 mid 2010-04-11 2010-5118 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-04-11 2010-5115 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03



F-16 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNP 02-20d mid 2010-04-11 2010-5114 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-04-11 2010-5111 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-04-11 2010-5112 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2010-04-12 2010-5120 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-05-04 2010-5140 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2010-05-04 2010-5139 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-05-04 2010-5138 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-05-04 2010-5143 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-05-04 2010-5142 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-05-04 2010-5141 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-05-05 2010-5151 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-05-05 2010-5150 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-05-05 2010-5147 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-05-05 2010-5148 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-07-14 2010-5157 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-07-14 2010-5156 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-07-14 2010-5154 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-07-14 2010-5155 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-07-14 2010-5159 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-07-14 2010-5158 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-07-14 2010-5161 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-07-16 2010-5165 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2010-07-16 2010-5163 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-07-16 2010-5166 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-07-16 2010-5162 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 -SNAP03 mid 2010-07-17 2010-5174 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP05 mid 2010-07-17 2010-5172 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2010-07-17 2010-5173 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP09 mid 2010-07-17 2010-5178 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP11A mid 2010-07-17 2010-5175 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A bottom 2010-07-18 2010-5181 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2010-07-18 2010-5180 Sample <0.1 - 0.09 -SNAP20B mid 2010-07-18 2010-5182 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 bottom 2010-07-18 2010-5186 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2010-07-18 2010-5185 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP07 mid 2010-07-20 2010-5187 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2010-07-20 2010-5189 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP26 mid 2010-07-20 2010-5195 Sample <0.1 - 0.08 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-08-11 2010-5207 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2010-08-11 2010-5206 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-08-11 2010-5204 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-08-12 2010-5211 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-08-12 2010-5209 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-08-12 2010-5210 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-08-12 2010-5208 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-08-15 2010-5218 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-08-15 2010-5216 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-08-15 2010-5215 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2010-09-07 2010-5228 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2010-09-07 2010-5227 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-09-07 2010-5224 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2010-09-07 2010-5226 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2010-09-08 2010-5236 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2010-09-08 2010-5235 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-09-08 2010-5231 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2010-09-08 2010-5234 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2010-09-08 2010-5233 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2010-09-08 2010-5232 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2010-09-08 2010-5229 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP06 mid 2010-09-09 2010-5240 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP07 mid 2010-09-09 2010-5239 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2010-09-09 2010-5238 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP09 mid 2010-09-09 2010-5241 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP11A mid 2010-09-09 2010-5242 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2010-09-10 2010-5247 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP20B mid 2010-09-10 2010-5246 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2010-09-10 2010-5248 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP03 mid 2010-09-11 2010-5252 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP05 mid 2010-09-11 2010-5253 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP26 mid 2010-09-11 2010-5254 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 bottom 2011-01-14 2011-5004 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2011-01-14 2011-5003 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 surface 2011-01-14 2011-5002 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP05 mid 2011-02-18 2011-5011 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP03 mid 2011-02-19 2011-5014 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2011-02-19 2011-5013 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP09 mid 2011-02-19 2011-5012 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP26 mid 2011-02-19 2011-5015 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2011-02-20 2011-5024 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2011-02-20 2011-5022 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2011-02-20 2011-5021 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2011-02-20 2011-5029 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2011-02-20 2011-5027 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2011-02-20 2011-5026 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-02-20 2011-5025 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2011-02-20 2011-5020 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2011-02-20 2011-5018 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2011-02-20 2011-5019 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2011-02-20 2011-5017 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP07 mid 2011-02-21 2011-5035 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2011-02-21 2011-5034 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP11A mid 2011-02-21 2011-5033 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2011-02-23 2011-5046 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP20B mid 2011-02-23 2011-5045 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 bottom 2011-02-23 2011-5049 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2011-02-23 2011-5048 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -



F-17 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNAP23 surface 2011-02-23 2011-5047 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2011-03-20 2011-5056 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2011-03-20 2011-5055 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-03-20 2011-5057 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-03-20 2011-5054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2011-03-21 2011-5061 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2011-03-21 2011-5060 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2011-03-21 2011-5059 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2011-03-21 2011-5064 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2011-03-21 2011-5063 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2011-03-21 2011-5062 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP02A mid 2011-04-06 2011-5069 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP20B mid 2011-04-06 2011-5068 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 bottom 2011-04-06 2011-5070 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2011-04-07 2011-5079 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP07 mid 2011-04-07 2011-5077 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2011-04-07 2011-5078 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP09 mid 2011-04-07 2011-5076 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP11A mid 2011-04-07 2011-5074 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP26 mid 2011-04-09 2011-5089 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2011-04-10 2011-5094 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2011-04-10 2011-5095 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-04-10 2011-5096 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-04-10 2011-5097 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2011-04-10 2011-5098 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2011-04-10 2011-5099 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2011-04-10 2011-5100 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP03 mid 2011-04-11 2011-5105 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP05 mid 2011-04-11 2011-5106 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2011-04-12 2011-5110 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2011-04-12 2011-5109 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2011-04-12 2011-5111 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2011-04-12 2011-5108 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2011-04-26 2011-5114 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2011-05-07 2011-5121 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2011-05-07 2011-5119 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-05-07 2011-5118 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-05-07 2011-5117 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2011-05-08 2011-5125 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2011-05-08 2011-5124 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2011-05-08 2011-5123 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2011-05-08 2011-5128 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2011-05-08 2011-5127 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2011-05-08 2011-5126 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d bottom 2011-07-05 2011-5141 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d mid 2011-07-05 2011-5140 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2011-07-05 2011-5143 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20d surface 2011-07-05 2011-5139 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e bottom 2011-07-05 2011-5137 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e mid 2011-07-05 2011-5136 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20e surface 2011-07-05 2011-5135 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f bottom 2011-07-05 2011-5138 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f mid 2011-07-05 2011-5145 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2011-07-05 2011-5144 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNP 02-20f surface 2011-07-05 2011-5142 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03SNAP20B mid 2011-07-06 2011-5150 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2011-07-07 2011-5153 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A mid 2011-07-07 02A MC Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP02A-shore mid 2011-07-07 02A Shore Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP03 mid 2011-07-07 2011-5151 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP23 mid 2011-07-07 2011-5154 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP26 mid 2011-07-08 2011-5158 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP09 mid 2011-07-10 2011-5171 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP11A mid 2011-07-10 2011-5172 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP05 mid 2011-07-12 2011-5175 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP06 mid 2011-07-12 2011-5176 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP07 mid 2011-07-12 2011-5177 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNAP08 mid 2011-07-12 2011-5178 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2011-08-09 2011-5186 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2011-08-09 2011-5185 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2011-08-09 2011-5187 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2011-08-09 2011-5184 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2011-08-09 2011-5183 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2011-08-09 2011-5182 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2011-08-09 2011-5181 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2011-08-10 2011-5196 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2011-08-10 2011-5195 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2011-08-10 2011-5194 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP06 mid 2011-09-08 2011-5222 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP07 mid 2011-09-08 2011-5218 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2011-09-08 2011-5217 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2011-09-08 2011-5219 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2011-09-08 2011-5220 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2011-09-09 2011-5225 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2011-09-09 2011-5227 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP26 mid 2011-09-09 2011-5229 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2011-09-11 2011-5240 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2011-09-11 2011-5239 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2011-09-11 2011-5238 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2011-09-11 2011-5235 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2011-09-11 2011-5243 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2011-09-11 2011-5242 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2011-09-11 2011-5237 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2011-09-11 2011-5241 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2011-09-11 2011-5246 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2011-09-11 2011-5245 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01



F-18 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNP 02-20f surface 2011-09-11 2011-5244 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP02A mid 2011-09-12 2011-5209 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP20B mid 2011-09-12 2011-5208 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2011-09-12 2011-5210 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2012-01-13 2012-5003 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP02A mid 2012-01-14 2012-5007 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2012-01-14 2012-5008 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP20B mid 2012-01-14 2012-5006 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP06 mid 2012-02-17 2012-5024 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP07 mid 2012-02-17 2012-5020 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2012-02-17 2012-5019 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2012-02-17 2012-5021 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2012-02-17 2012-5022 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2012-02-18 2012-5032 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2012-02-18 2012-5034 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP26 mid 2012-02-18 2012-5037 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-02-19 2012-5045 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-02-19 2012-5044 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-02-19 2012-5043 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-02-19 2012-5046 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-02-19 2012-5040 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2012-02-19 2012-5039 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-02-19 2012-5038 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-02-19 2012-5041 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-02-19 2012-5050 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-02-19 2012-5049 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-02-19 2012-5048 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP02A mid 2012-02-20 2012-5053 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP20B mid 2012-02-20 2012-5052 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2012-02-20 2012-5054 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-03-18 2012-5067 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-03-18 2012-5066 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-03-18 2012-5064 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-03-18 2012-5063 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2012-03-18 2012-5062 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-03-18 2012-5060 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-03-18 2012-5061 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-03-21 2012-5070 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-03-21 2012-5069 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-03-21 2012-5068 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP02A mid 2012-04-13 2012-5082 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP20B mid 2012-04-13 2012-5083 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2012-04-13 2012-5084 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-04-15 2012-5091 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-04-15 2012-5090 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-04-15 2012-5092 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-04-15 2012-5089 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-04-15 2012-5095 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2012-04-15 2012-5094 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-04-15 2012-5096 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-04-15 2012-5093 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-04-15 2012-5099 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-04-15 2012-5098 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-04-15 2012-5097 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP06 mid 2012-04-16 2012-5102 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP07 mid 2012-04-16 2012-5103 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2012-04-16 2012-5104 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2012-04-16 2012-5105 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2012-04-16 2012-5107 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2012-04-17 2012-5109 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2012-04-17 2012-5111 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP26 mid 2012-04-17 2012-5113 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d mid 2012-04-17 2012-5118 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-04-17 2012-5121 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-04-17 2012-5119 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-04-17 2012-5120 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-05-13 2012-5126 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-05-13 2012-5125 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-05-13 2012-5124 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-05-13 2012-5127 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-05-13 2012-5130 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2012-05-13 2012-5129 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-05-13 2012-5128 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-05-13 2012-5133 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-05-13 2012-5132 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-05-13 2012-5131 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-05-21 2012-5136 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP20B mid 2012-07-06 2012-5142 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2012-07-06 2012-5144 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP02A mid 2012-07-07 2012-5143 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2012-07-07 2012-5150 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2012-07-07 2012-5152 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-07-09 2012-5164 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-07-09 2012-5156 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-07-09 2012-5155 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-07-09 2012-5154 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-07-09 2012-5159 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2012-07-09 2012-5158 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-07-09 2012-5157 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-07-09 2012-5162 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-07-09 2012-5161 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-07-09 2012-5163 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-07-09 2012-5160 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP26 mid 2012-07-11 2012-5188 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2012-07-12 2012-5190 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2012-07-12 2012-5195 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -



F-19 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNAP06 mid 2012-07-13 2012-5172 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP07 mid 2012-07-13 2012-5200 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2012-07-13 2012-5197 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-08-12 2012-5209 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-08-12 2012-5208 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-08-12 2012-5207 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-08-12 2012-5212 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2012-08-12 2012-5211 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-08-12 2012-5210 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-08-12 2012-5217 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-08-12 2012-5215 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-08-12 2012-5214 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-08-12 2012-5213 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP03 mid 2012-09-07 2012-5238 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP26 mid 2012-09-07 2012-5248 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d bottom 2012-09-09 2012-5905 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2012-09-09 2012-5904 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2012-09-09 2012-5903 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2012-09-09 2012-5902 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2012-09-09 2012-5901 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2012-09-09 2012-5900 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2012-09-09 2012-5908 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2012-09-09 2012-5907 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-09-09 2012-5906D Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2012-09-09 2012-5906 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP05 mid 2012-09-11 2012-5240 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP06 mid 2012-09-11 2012-5241 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP07 mid 2012-09-11 2012-5242 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2012-09-11 2012-5243 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP02A mid 2012-09-12 2012-5251 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP20B mid 2012-09-12 2012-5252 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2012-09-12 2012-5253 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2012-09-13 2012-5244 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP11A mid 2012-09-13 2012-5246 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP20B mid 2013-02-08 2013-5003 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP02A mid 2013-02-08 2013-5004 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2013-02-08 2013-5005 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2013-02-09 2013-5012 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP07 mid 2013-02-09 2013-5010 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2013-02-09 2013-5008 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2013-02-09 2013-5011 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP06 mid 2013-02-09 2013-5009 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2013-02-10 2013-5022 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2013-02-10 2013-5021 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2013-02-10 2013-5020 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d bottom 2013-02-10 2013-5019 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-02-10 2013-5018 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2013-02-10 2013-5016 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2013-02-10 2013-5015 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f bottom 2013-02-10 2013-5027 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-02-10 2013-5026 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2013-02-10 2013-5024 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2013-02-10 2013-5023 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP03 mid 2013-02-11 2013-5030 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2013-02-11 2013-5032 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP26 mid 2013-02-11 2013-5035 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20f bottom 2013-03-17 2013-5049 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-03-17 2013-5048 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2013-03-17 2013-5046 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f surface 2013-03-17 2013-5047 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d bottom 2013-03-19 2013-5052 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-03-19 2013-5051 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d surface 2013-03-19 2013-5050 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2013-03-19 2013-5055 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2013-03-19 2013-5054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e surface 2013-03-19 2013-5053 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2013-04-21 2013-5065 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-04-21 2013-5064 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-04-21 2013-5067 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-04-21 2013-5066 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP06 mid 2013-05-05 2013-5070 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2013-05-05 2013-5071 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d mid 2013-05-07 2013-5080 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-05-07 2013-5079 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2013-05-07 2013-5081 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-05-07 2013-5082 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP08 mid 2013-05-09 2013-5094 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2013-05-09 2013-5095 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2013-05-09 2013-5093 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2013-05-09 2013-5092 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP29 mid 2013-05-09 2013-5098 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2013-05-09 2013-5097 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP20B mid 2013-05-09 2013-5096 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP02A mid 2013-05-10 2013-5100 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20e bottom 2013-07-09 2013-5116 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-07-09 2013-5118 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-07-09 2013-5117 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-07-09 2013-5115 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2013-08-11 2013-5157 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-08-11 2013-5159 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-08-11 2013-5156 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-08-11 2013-5158 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP02A mid 2013-09-05 2013-5183 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP20B mid 2013-09-05 2013-5181 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP23 mid 2013-09-05 2013-5184 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP29 mid 2013-09-05 2013-5185 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01



F-20 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)





SNAP06 mid 2013-09-06 2013-5188 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2013-09-06 2013-5189 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2013-09-06 2013-5190 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2013-09-06 2013-5191 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2013-09-06 2013-5192 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2013-09-06 2013-5193 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20e mid 2013-09-08 2013-5195 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-09-08 2013-5194 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-09-08 2013-5197 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-09-08 2013-5196 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2013-10-01 2013-5219 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2013-10-01 2013-5220 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2013-10-01 2013-5221 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-01-22 2014-5009 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-01-23 2014-5006 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2014-01-23 2014-5007 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-01-23 2014-5008 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-02-18 2014-5015 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-02-18 2014-5019 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-02-18 2014-5017 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2014-02-18 2014-5016 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-02-18 2014-5018 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2014-03-18 2014-5023 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-03-18 2014-5025 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-03-18 2014-5022 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-03-18 2014-5024 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-04-08 2014-5029 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-04-08 2014-5033 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-04-08 2014-5032 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2014-04-08 2014-5030 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-04-08 2014-5031 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP20B mid 2014-05-03 2014-5038 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP02A mid 2014-05-03 2014-5039 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 bottom 2014-05-03 2014-5040 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP29 mid 2014-05-03 2014-5041 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2014-05-04 2014-5045 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2014-05-04 2014-5044 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP08 mid 2014-05-05 2014-5046 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2014-05-05 2014-5047 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2014-05-05 2014-5048 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP06 mid 2014-05-05 2014-5049 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20d mid 2014-05-06 2014-5052 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-05-06 2014-5055 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2014-05-06 2014-5053 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-05-06 2014-5054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-05-06 2014-5056 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-06-25 2014-5075 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-06-25 2014-5073 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-06-25 2014-5076 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2014-06-25 2014-5074 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e bottom 2014-07-14 2014-5109 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-07-14 2014-5111 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-07-15 2014-5110 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-07-15 2014-5132 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-07-15 2014-5108 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-08-26 2014-5152 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-08-26 2014-5154 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2014-08-26 2014-5155 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-08-26 2014-5153 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-08-26 2014-5172 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP08 mid 2014-09-05 2014-5182 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP09 mid 2014-09-05 2014-5180 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP11A mid 2014-09-05 2014-5181 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP06 mid 2014-09-05 2014-5179 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP05 mid 2014-09-05 2014-5178 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP03 mid 2014-09-05 2014-5177 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP29 mid 2014-09-07 2014-5186 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP23 mid 2014-09-07 2014-5184 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNAP02A mid 2014-09-07 2014-5183 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20e mid 2014-09-07 2014-5198 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-09-07 2014-5216 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.012SNP 02-20g mid 2014-09-07 2014-5200 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-09-07 2014-5197 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.013SNP 02-20f mid 2014-09-07 2014-5199 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNAP20B mid 2014-09-14 2014-5185 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -SNP 02-20f mid 2014-10-07 2014-5220 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20f mid 2014-10-07 2014-5222 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20d mid 2014-10-07 2014-5218 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20g mid 2014-10-07 2014-5224 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01SNP 02-20e mid 2014-10-07 2014-5219 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01

WQ = water quality; SNAP = Snap Lake; SNP = Surveillance Network Program

yyyy-mm-dd = year-month-day; - = no data; < = less than the detection limit; bottom = bottom-depth sample; mid = mid-depth sample; surface = surface-depth sample;µg/L = micrograms per litre.



F-21 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)




NEL001-WQ mid 2004-08-11 2004-1883 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL002-WQ mid 2004-08-11 2004-1884 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0483 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0487 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0491 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2006-07-16 2006-0418 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2006-07-16 2006-0417 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2006-07-17 2006-0422 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2006-07-17 2006-0421 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2006-07-17 2006-0420 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2006-07-17 2006-0419 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2006-09-16 2006-1165 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2006-09-16 2006-1174 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2006-09-16 2006-1173 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2006-09-16 2006-1171 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2006-09-17 2006-1172 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2006-09-17 2006-1175 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 bottom 2007-02-28 2007-0060 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2007-02-28 2007-0059 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 surface 2007-02-28 2007-0058 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 bottom 2007-03-01 2007-0064 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2007-03-01 2007-0062 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 surface 2007-03-01 2007-0061 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 bottom 2007-03-01 2007-0066 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2007-03-01 2007-0065 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 surface 2007-03-01 2007-0063 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2007-03-01 2007-0067 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2007-03-01 2007-0068 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2007-07-17 2007-1251 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2007-07-17 2007-1250 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2007-07-18 2007-1255 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2007-07-18 2007-1254 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2007-07-18 2007-1253 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2007-09-11 2007-1342 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2007-09-11 2007-1341 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2007-09-12 2007-1347 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2007-09-12 2007-1346 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2007-09-12 2007-1345 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2008-02-21 2008-0068 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2008-02-21 2008-0069 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2008-03-28 2008-0114 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2008-03-30 2008-0123 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2008-03-31 2008-0127 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2008-03-31 2008-0128 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2008-04-01 2008-0133 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2008-07-10 2008-0251 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2008-07-11 2008-0252 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2008-07-12 2008-0259 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2008-07-12 2008-0254 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2008-07-12 2008-0253 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2008-09-17 2008-0397 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2008-09-17 2008-0398 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2008-09-17 2008-0399 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2008-09-17 2008-0400 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2008-09-17 2008-0401 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2009-02-10 2009-5028 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2009-02-10 2009-5029 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2009-02-10 2009-5030 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2009-02-11 2009-5035 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2009-02-11 2009-5036 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2009-05-01 2009-5106 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2009-05-01 2009-5109 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2009-05-01 2009-5110 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2009-05-01 2009-5107 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2009-05-01 2009-5108 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL01 mid 2009-07-14 2009-5217 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2009-07-14 2009-5218 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2009-07-14 2009-5219 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2009-07-14 2009-5220 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2009-07-14 2009-5221 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2009-09-18 2009-5543 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2009-09-18 2009-5541 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2009-09-19 2009-5545 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2009-09-19 2009-5544 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2009-09-19 2009-5542 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2010-01-21 2010-5022 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2010-01-21 2010-5023 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL03 mid 2010-01-21 2010-5024 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL04 mid 2010-01-21 2010-5025 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL05 mid 2010-01-21 2010-5026 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03NEL02 mid 2010-04-13 2010-5122 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2010-04-14 2010-5121 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2010-04-14 2010-5123 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2010-04-14 2010-5124 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2010-04-14 2010-5125 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2010-07-19 2010-5192 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2010-07-19 2010-5183 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2010-07-19 2010-5177 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2010-07-19 2010-5191 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2010-07-19 2010-5190 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2010-09-14 2010-5263 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2010-09-14 2010-5266 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2010-09-15 2010-5264 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2010-09-16 2010-5265 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2010-09-16 2010-5267 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2011-02-22 2011-5039 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -

Table F-3 Total and Dissolved Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Water from Northeast Lake Collected as part of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program, 2004 to 2014



F-22 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)




Table F-3 Total and Dissolved Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Water from Northeast Lake Collected as part of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program, 2004 to 2014

NEL02 mid 2011-02-22 2011-5042 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2011-02-22 2011-5043 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2011-02-22 2011-5040 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2011-02-22 2011-5041 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2011-04-08 2011-5081 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2011-04-08 2011-5082 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2011-04-08 2011-5083 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2011-04-08 2011-5084 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2011-04-08 2011-5085 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2011-07-11 2011-5163 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL02 mid 2011-07-11 2011-5164 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL03 mid 2011-07-11 2011-5165 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL04 mid 2011-07-11 2011-5167 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL05 mid 2011-07-11 2011-5166 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -NEL01 mid 2011-09-06 2011-5199 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2011-09-06 2011-5200 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2011-09-06 2011-5201 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2011-09-06 2011-5202 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2011-09-06 2011-5203 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2012-02-21 2012-5026 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2012-02-21 2012-5027 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2012-02-21 2012-5028 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2012-02-21 2012-5029 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2012-02-21 2012-5030 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2012-04-14 2012-5076 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2012-04-14 2012-5077 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2012-04-14 2012-5078 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2012-04-14 2012-5079 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2012-04-14 2012-5080 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2012-07-10 2012-5176 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2012-07-10 2012-5177 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2012-07-10 2012-5178 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2012-07-10 2012-5179 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2012-07-10 2012-5180 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2012-09-08 2012-5254 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2012-09-08 2012-5255 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2012-09-08 2012-5256 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2012-09-08 2012-5257 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2012-09-08 2012-5258 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2013-02-12 2013-5038 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2013-02-12 2013-5041 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2013-02-12 2013-5042 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2013-02-12 2013-5039 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2013-02-12 2013-5040 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2013-05-06 2013-5076 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2013-05-06 2013-5078 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2013-05-06 2013-5077 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2013-05-06 2013-5075 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2013-05-06 2013-5074 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2013-09-14 2013-5211 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2013-09-15 2013-5214 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2013-09-15 2013-5212 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2013-09-15 2013-5213 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2013-09-15 2013-5215 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2014-05-08 2014-5064 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2014-05-08 2014-5067 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2014-05-08 2014-5068 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2014-05-08 2014-5066 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2014-05-08 2014-5065 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL01 mid 2014-09-06 2014-5187 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL04 mid 2014-09-06 2014-5190 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL02 mid 2014-09-06 2014-5188 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL03 mid 2014-09-06 2014-5189 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -NEL05 mid 2014-09-08 2014-5191 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -

NEL = Northeast Lake; WQ = water quality

yyyy-mm-dd = year-month-day; - = no data; < = less than the detection limit; bottom = bottom-depth sample; mid = mid-depth sample; surface = surface-depth sample; µg/L = micrograms per litre.



F-23 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)


LK13-01 mid 2005-07-21 2005-0494 Sample <0.1 <0.03LK13-02 mid 2005-07-23 2005-0498 Sample <0.1 <0.03LK13-03 mid 2005-07-23 2005-0502 Sample <0.1 <0.03LK13 mid 2012-07-10 2012-5186 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-01 mid 2012-08-18 2012-9001 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-02 mid 2012-08-19 2012-9002 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-03 mid 2012-08-19 2012-9003 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-04 mid 2012-08-20 2012-9004 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-05 mid 2012-08-20 2012-9005 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-01 mid 2013-05-08 2013-5086 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-02 mid 2013-05-08 2013-5087 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-03 mid 2013-05-08 2013-5088 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-04 mid 2013-05-08 2013-5090 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-05 mid 2013-05-08 2013-5089 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-01 mid 2013-09-12 2013-5203 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-02 mid 2013-09-14 2013-5204 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-03 mid 2013-09-14 2013-5205 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-04 mid 2013-09-14 2013-5206 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-05 mid 2013-09-14 2013-5207 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-01 mid 2014-05-07 2014-5059 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-02 mid 2014-05-07 2014-5060 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-05 mid 2014-05-07 2014-5063 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-03 mid 2014-05-07 2014-5061 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-04 mid 2014-05-07 2014-5062 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-01 mid 2014-09-10 2014-5192 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-02 mid 2014-09-10 2014-5193 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-05 mid 2014-09-10 2014-5196 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-04 mid 2014-09-10 2014-5195 Sample <0.1 <0.01LK13-03 mid 2014-09-10 2014-5194 Sample <0.1 <0.01

yyyy-mm-dd = year-month-day; < = less than the detection limit; mid = mid-depth sample; µg/L = micrograms per litre. LK13 = Lake 13

Table F-4 Total Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Water from Lake 13 Collected as part of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program, 2005 to 2014



F-24 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)




S1 surface 1999-05-28 990658 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1S1 surface 1999-05-28 990659 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1S27 surface 1999-05-28 990653 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1S1 surface 1999-06-07 990800 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1S1 surface 2001-05-29 1000-73 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2001-07-11 1001-78 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2001-10-08 1001-424 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S27 surface 2002-08-27 1001-968 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2005-06-17 2005-0395 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2005-06-17 2005-0396 Duplicate Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S27 surface 2005-06-17 2005-0394 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2005-06-21 2005-0702 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05S1 surface 2005-06-29 2005-0719 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2005-07-25 2005-0593 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2005-09-21 2005-0988 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2006-05-27 2006-0635 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2006-06-01 2006-0646 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2006-06-08 2006-0668 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2006-06-15 2006-0686 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05S1 surface 2006-06-20 2006-0719 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05S1 surface 2006-06-23 2006-0728 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05S1 surface 2006-07-02 2006-0749 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05S1 surface 2006-07-18 2006-0403 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2006-08-13 2006-0465 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2006-09-18 2006-1182 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2007-06-03 2007-1038 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2007-06-17 2007-1157 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2007-06-23 2007-1182 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2007-07-05 2007-1228 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2007-07-05 2007-1231 Duplicate Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2007-07-20 2007-1269 Sample <50 <0.1 0.7 <0.03S1 surface 2007-08-13 2007-1312 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2007-09-15 2007-1357 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2008-06-06 2008-1612 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2008-06-10 2008-1628 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2008-06-13 2008-1648 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2008-06-24 2008-1802 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2008-07-16 2008-0287 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2008-09-12 2008-0359 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2009-06-30 2009-1556 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2009-07-02 2009-1562 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2009-07-09 2009-5191 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -S1 surface 2009-08-16 2009-5244 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -S1 surface 2009-09-12 2009-5509 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2010-06-05 2010-0518 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2010-06-09 2010-0544 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2010-06-11 2010-0554 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2010-06-15 2010-0578 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2010-06-24 2010-0670 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2010-07-20 2010-5194 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -S1 surface 2010-08-15 2010-5214 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -S1 surface 2010-09-11 2010-5255 Sample <50 - <0.1 -S1 surface 2011-05-24 2011-0383 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2011-05-29 2011-0425 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2011-06-02 2011-0432 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2011-06-06 2011-0483 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2011-06-13 2011-0522 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2011-06-18 2011-0542 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S1 surface 2011-06-23 2011-0554 Sample <50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.03S27 surface 2011-06-29 2011-0570 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2011-06-30 2011-0569 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03S1 surface 2011-07-08 2011-5159 Sample <0.1 - <0.03 -S1 surface 2011-08-10 2011-5189 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2011-08-19 2011-0861 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.01S1 surface 2011-09-09 2011-5231 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2012-05-14 2012-0889 Sample - <0.1 - <0.01S27 surface 2012-05-15 2012-0941 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2012-05-18 2012-0950 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2012-05-18 2012-0951 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2012-05-22 2012-1005 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2012-05-22 2012-1006 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2012-05-25 2012-1038 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2012-05-25 2012-1039 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2012-05-28 2012-1053 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2012-05-28 2012-1054 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2012-07-11 2012-5189 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2012-09-01 2012-5236 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2012-09-07 2012-5276 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2013-05-19 2013-0490 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2013-05-23 2013-0563 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2013-05-24 2013-0569 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2013-05-27 2013-0618 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2013-05-27 2013-0621 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2013-06-03 2013-0682 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2013-06-03 2013-0683 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2013-07-08 2013-5110 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2013-07-10 2013-5120 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S27 surface 2013-08-09 2013-5148 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2013-08-11 2013-5149 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S27 surface 2013-09-05 2013-5182 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2013-09-08 2013-5199 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2014-05-23 2014-0738 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2014-05-24 2014-0740 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2014-05-28 2014-0802 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2014-05-29 2014-0804 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01

Table F-5 Total and Dissolved Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Water from Stream 1 and Stream 27 as part of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program, 1999 to 2014



F-25 June 2015

Appendix F



Total Cesium(µg/L)




Table F-5 Total and Dissolved Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Water from Stream 1 and Stream 27 as part of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program, 1999 to 2014

S1 surface 2014-06-03 2014-0870 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S27 surface 2014-06-03 2014-0869 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2014-06-26 2014-5077 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S27 surface 2014-06-26 2014-5078 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S27 surface 2014-07-04 2014-5116 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -S1 surface 2014-07-14 2014-5115 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2014-08-17 2014-5159 Sample <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01S1 surface 2014-09-05 2014-5204 Sample <0.1 - <0.01 -

yyyy-mm-dd = year-month-day; < = less than the detection limit; surface = surface-depth sample; µg/L = micrograms per litre.

S1 = Stream 1; S27 = Stream 27.



F-26 June 2015

Appendix F

Year Waterbody StationSediment Depth

Sampled Sample TypeTotal Cesium(mg/kg dw)

Total Thallium(mg/kg dw)

1999 Snap Lake - Main Basin SH1 Bulk Sample 1.7 <0.21999 Snap Lake - Main Basin SH2 Bulk Sample 1.6 <0.21999 Snap Lake - Main Basin SH3 Bulk Sample 1.3 <0.21999 Snap Lake - Main Basin WQ3 Bulk Sample 1.7 0.32004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Bulk Sample 1.70 0.132004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Bulk Sample 2.20 0.292004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Bulk Sample 1.80 0.222004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Bulk Sample 1.60 0.122004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Bulk Sample 1.20 0.082004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Bulk Sample 3.90 0.402004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Bulk Sample 2.00 0.232004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Bulk Sample 1.50 0.132004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP13 Bulk Sample 1.90 0.132004 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Bulk Sample 2.00 0.372004 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP01 Bulk Sample 1.50 0.072004 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Bulk Sample 1.30 0.142005 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20a Bulk Sample <10 <0.12005 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20b Bulk Sample <10 0.402005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Bulk Sample <10 0.212005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP04 Bulk Sample <10 0.162005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Bulk Sample <10 0.362005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Bulk Sample <10 0.222005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Bulk Sample <10 0.162005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Bulk Sample <10 0.102005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Bulk Sample <10 0.232005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP10 Bulk Sample <10 0.452005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Bulk Sample <10 0.282005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Bulk Sample <10 0.292005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP13 Bulk Sample <10 0.222005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Bulk Sample <10 0.212005 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP16 Bulk Sample <10 0.292005 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP01 Bulk Sample <10 <0.462005 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Bulk Sample <10 <0.422005 Lake 13 LK13-01 Top 5 cm Sample <10 0.252005 Lake 13 LK13-02 Top 5 cm Sample <10 0.242005 Lake 13 LK13-03 Top 5 cm Sample <10 0.232005 Northeast Lake NEL01 Top 5 cm Sample <10 0.222005 Northeast Lake NEL02 Top 5 cm Sample <10 0.372005 Northeast Lake NEL03 Top 5 cm Sample <10 0.082006 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20b Bulk Sample 2.60 0.122006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Bulk Sample 1.77 0.132006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Bulk Sample 2.77 0.302006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Bulk Sample 2.93 0.362006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Bulk Sample 1.77 0.182006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Bulk Sample 1.30 0.152006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Bulk Sample 2.40 0.262006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Bulk Sample 2.33 0.252006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Bulk Sample 1.67 0.202006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP13 Bulk Sample 2.03 0.242006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Bulk Sample 2.00 0.242006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP15 Bulk Sample 1.80 0.222006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Bulk Sample 2.13 0.422006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP18 Bulk Sample 2.25 0.252006 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP19 Bulk Sample 2.23 0.232006 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Bulk Sample 1.67 0.182006 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Bulk Sample 1.77 0.462006 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Bulk Sample 1.27 0.212007 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.8 0.182007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Bulk Sample 1.8 0.222007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 5 cm Sample 2 0.232007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Top 5 cm Sample 1.9 0.222007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Bulk Sample 2.1 0.392007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Top 5 cm Sample 2.1 0.332007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Top 5 cm Sample 1.7 0.22007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Top 5 cm Sample 1.4 0.172007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Bulk Sample 2.3 0.352007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Top 5 cm Sample 2.4 0.382007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Bulk Sample 2.5 0.272007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Top 5 cm Sample 2.5 0.272007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Top 5 cm Sample 2 0.282007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Top 5 cm Sample 1.9 0.222007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Bulk Sample 2.1 0.232007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 5 cm Sample 2.3 0.342007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Bulk Sample 2.7 0.572007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP18 Top 5 cm Sample 2.3 0.262007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP19 Top 5 cm Sample 2.3 0.282007 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP26 Top 5 cm Sample 2.4 0.242007 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Bulk Sample 1.5 0.192007 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Top 5 cm Sample 1.5 0.22007 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Top 5 cm Sample 1.4 0.442007 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Bulk Sample 1.7 0.522007 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Bulk Sample 1.3 0.262007 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Top 5 cm Sample 1.5 0.282008 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.9 0.162008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Bulk Sample 1.9 0.232008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 5 cm Sample 1.9 0.212008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Top 5 cm Sample 2.3 0.362008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Bulk Sample 2.6 0.442008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Top 5 cm Sample 2 0.262008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Top 5 cm Sample 1.6 0.162008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Top 5 cm Sample 1.4 0.142008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Bulk Sample 2.3 0.272008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Top 5 cm Sample 2.6 0.242008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Bulk Sample 2.4 0.24

Table F-6 Total Cesium and Thallium Concentrations Measured in Sediments From Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, Lake 13, and Downstream Lakes as part of the Baseline and Aquatic Effects Monitoring Programs, 1999 to 2014



F-27 June 2015

Appendix F





2008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Top 5 cm Sample 2.5 0.252008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Top 5 cm Sample 1.9 0.212008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Top 5 cm Sample 1.8 0.222008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Bulk Sample 1.9 0.222008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP15 Top 5 cm Sample 1.9 0.222008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 5 cm Sample 2.1 0.322008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Bulk Sample 2.2 0.472008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP18 Top 5 cm Sample 2.4 0.262008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP19 Top 5 cm Sample 2 0.192008 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP26 Top 5 cm Sample 2.4 0.192008 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Top 5 cm Sample 1.4 0.152008 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Bulk Sample 1.6 0.22008 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Top 5 cm Sample 1.6 0.462008 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Bulk Sample 1.9 0.542008 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Bulk Sample 1.2 0.162008 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Top 5 cm Sample 1.3 0.152008 Northeast Lake NEL01 Top 5 cm Sample 2.9 0.282008 Northeast Lake NEL02 Top 5 cm Sample 3.3 0.352008 Northeast Lake NEL03 Top 5 cm Sample 2.3 0.272008 Northeast Lake NEL04 Top 5 cm Sample 3.8 0.382008 Northeast Lake NEL05 Top 5 cm Sample 3.3 0.282009 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.99 0.2522009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 5 cm Sample 1.61 0.1722009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Top 5 cm Sample 1.86 0.2512009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Top 5 cm Sample 2.23 0.3012009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Top 5 cm Sample 1.64 0.172009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Top 5 cm Sample 1.45 0.1532009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Top 5 cm Sample 2.31 0.2462009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Top 5 cm Sample 2.28 0.2452009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Top 5 cm Sample 1.86 0.3242009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Top 5 cm Sample 1.85 0.1932009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP15 Top 5 cm Sample 1.85 0.2942009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 5 cm Sample 2.17 0.3322009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP18 Top 5 cm Sample 2.49 0.2642009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP19 Top 5 cm Sample 2.23 0.2462009 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP26 Top 5 cm Sample 1.19 0.1162009 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Top 5 cm Sample 1.54 0.1852009 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Top 5 cm Sample 1.41 0.3162009 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Top 5 cm Sample 1.33 0.1812009 Northeast Lake NEL01 Top 5 cm Sample 2.59 0.3042009 Northeast Lake NEL02 Top 5 cm Sample 3.07 0.3352009 Northeast Lake NEL03 Top 5 cm Sample 2.94 0.3622009 Northeast Lake NEL04 Top 5 cm Sample 3.08 0.4412009 Northeast Lake NEL05 Top 5 cm Sample 2.93 0.2942010 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.79 0.1362010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 5 cm Sample 1.92 0.1822010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Top 5 cm Sample 2.38 0.1852010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Top 5 cm Sample 1.80 0.2052010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Top 5 cm Sample 1.70 0.1232010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Top 5 cm Sample 0.74 <0.052010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Top 5 cm Sample 2.32 0.2252010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Top 5 cm Sample 2.36 0.1902010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Top 5 cm Sample 1.68 0.1942010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Top 5 cm Sample 2.07 0.1832010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP15 Top 5 cm Sample 1.80 0.2202010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 5 cm Sample 2.33 0.2952010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP18 Top 5 cm Sample 2.26 0.1752010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP19 Top 5 cm Sample 2.24 0.1842010 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP26 Top 5 cm Sample 2.25 0.2052010 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Top 5 cm Sample 1.53 0.1432010 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Top 5 cm Sample 1.93 0.4122010 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Top 5 cm Sample 1.52 0.202010 Northeast Lake NEL01 Top 5 cm Sample 3.58 0.3132010 Northeast Lake NEL02 Top 5 cm Sample 3.23 0.2202010 Northeast Lake NEL03 Top 5 cm Sample 3.08 0.2392010 Northeast Lake NEL04 Top 5 cm Sample 3.36 0.2852010 Northeast Lake NEL05 Top 5 cm Sample 3.63 0.2572011 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.75 0.1122011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 5 cm Sample 1.82 0.132011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Top 5 cm Sample 1.56 0.0912011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Top 5 cm Sample 1.64 0.1412011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Top 5 cm Sample 1.74 0.0912011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Top 5 cm Sample 1.15 0.0842011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Top 5 cm Sample 2.56 0.1112011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Top 5 cm Sample 2.3 0.1162011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Top 5 cm Sample 1.67 0.0952011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Top 5 cm Sample 1.75 0.1382011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP15 Top 5 cm Sample 1.92 0.1292011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 5 cm Sample 2.1 0.1412011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP18 Top 5 cm Sample 2.08 0.142011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP19 Top 5 cm Sample 2.15 0.1112011 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP26 Top 5 cm Sample 1.51 0.0722011 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Top 5 cm Sample 1.52 0.1052011 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Top 5 cm Sample 1.26 0.1332011 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Top 5 cm Sample 1.34 0.1052011 Northeast Lake NEL01 Top 5 cm Sample 2.56 0.1112011 Northeast Lake NEL02 Top 5 cm Sample 2.97 0.1312011 Northeast Lake NEL03 Top 5 cm Sample 3.14 0.1242011 Northeast Lake NEL04 Top 5 cm Sample 2.95 0.1532011 Northeast Lake NEL05 Top 5 cm Sample 2.94 0.1142012 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 2 cm Sample 1.67 0.1272012 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 1.75 0.1352012 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.89 0.120



F-28 June 2015

Appendix F





2012 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.94 0.1372012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 2 cm Sample 1.65 0.0822012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 1.73 0.1052012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP03 Top 5 cm Sample 1.75 0.1362012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP05 Top 5 cm Sample 1.90 0.1402012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP06 Top 5 cm Sample 1.88 0.1312012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP07 Top 5 cm Sample 1.72 0.1012012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP08 Top 5 cm Sample 1.40 0.1282012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP09 Top 5 cm Sample 2.49 0.1492012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP11 / 11A Top 5 cm Sample 2.28 0.1412012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP12 Top 5 cm Sample 1.70 0.1532012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP14 Top 5 cm Sample 2.02 0.0802012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP15 Top 5 cm Sample 1.86 0.1552012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 2 cm Sample 2.08 0.1692012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 5 cm Sample 2.16 0.1622012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP17 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 2.20 0.1782012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP18 Top 5 cm Sample 2.28 0.1432012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP19 Top 5 cm Sample 2.18 0.1782012 Snap Lake - Main Basin SNAP26 Top 5 cm Sample 1.29 0.0872012 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP02 / 02A Top 5 cm Sample 1.58 0.1552012 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP20 Top 5 cm Sample 1.59 0.2852012 Snap Lake - Northwest Arm SNAP23 Top 5 cm Sample 1.38 0.1962012 Lake 13 LK13-01 Top 5 cm Sample 3.00 0.1602012 Lake 13 LK13-02 Top 5 cm Sample 3.63 0.1192012 Lake 13 LK13-03 Top 5 cm Sample 2.92 0.3602012 Lake 13 LK13-04 Top 5 cm Sample 3.51 0.2122012 Lake 13 LK13-05 Top 5 cm Sample 3.81 0.2712012 Northeast Lake NEL01 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 2.99 0.1752012 Northeast Lake NEL01 Top 5 cm Sample 3.03 0.1612012 Northeast Lake NEL02 Top 5 cm Sample 3.18 0.2112012 Northeast Lake NEL03 Top 5 cm Sample 3.01 0.1492012 Northeast Lake NEL04 Top 5 cm Sample 3.40 0.2662012 Northeast Lake NEL05 Top 5 cm Sample 3.46 0.1992012 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-1 Top 5 cm Sample 2.10 0.1062012 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL2-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.59 0.0902012 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.96 0.0862012 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-1 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 2.01 0.0912013 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.62 0.0582013 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 2 cm Sample 1.73 0.1592013 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.74 0.0642013 Lake 13 LK13-01 Top 5 cm Sample 2.55 0.1932013 Lake 13 LK13-01 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 2.93 0.2272013 Lake 13 LK13-02 Top 5 cm Sample 3.12 0.2372013 Lake 13 LK13-03 Top 5 cm Sample 2.10 0.4652013 Lake 13 LK13-04 Top 5 cm Sample 3.26 0.2322013 Lake 13 LK13-05 Top 5 cm Sample 3.77 0.3272013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.81 0.1572013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-2 Top 5 cm Sample 2.13 0.1632013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-3 Top 5 cm Sample 1.69 0.1312013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL2-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.74 0.1262013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL2-2 Top 5 cm Sample 2.08 0.1382013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL2-3 Top 5 cm Sample 1.95 0.1342013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-1 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 1.78 0.1452013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.84 0.1422013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-2A Top 5 cm Sample 2.07 0.3752013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-3 Top 5 cm Sample 2.33 0.2222013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-4 Top 5 cm Sample 2.36 0.2022013 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-7 Top 5 cm Sample 1.72 0.2742014 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 2 cm Sample 1.85 0.1712014 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 1.85 0.1742014 Snap Lake - Diffuser SNP 02-20e Top 5 cm Sample 2.01 0.1982014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.63 0.1522014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-2 Top 5 cm Sample 1.73 0.1212014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-3 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 1.51 0.1072014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL1-3 Top 5 cm Sample 1.55 0.1122014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL2-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.29 0.1002014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL2-2 Top 5 cm Sample 2.01 0.0742014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) DSL2-3 Top 5 cm Sample 1.68 0.1112014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-1 Top 5 cm Sample 1.45 0.1182014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-10 Top 5 cm Sample 1.67 0.3262014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-10 Top 5 cm Field Duplicate 1.81 0.3032014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-11 Top 5 cm Sample 1.61 0.1632014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-2A Top 5 cm Sample 1.90 0.1662014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-3 Top 5 cm Sample 1.72 0.2342014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-4 Top 5 cm Sample 2.32 0.1902014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-7 Top 5 cm Sample 1.58 0.2072014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-8 Top 5 cm Sample 1.35 0.1722014 Downstream Lakes (DSL1, DSL2, LCB) LCB-9 Top 5 cm Sample 1.82 0.226

mg/kg dw = milligrams per kilogram dry weight; cm = centimetre; DL = detection limit; < = less than ; SNP = Surveillance Network Program; SNAP = Snap Lake;LK13 = Lake 13; DSL = Downstream Lakes; LCB = Lake Capot Blanc; NEL = Northeast Lake;



F-29 June 2015

Appendix F

Year Waterbody Species Tissue Type SCN Sample Description UnitsCesium

(Cs)Thallium

(Tl)1999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991476 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991477 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.5 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991481 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.5 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991483 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991485 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991240 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991241 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.6 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991242 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991247 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.5 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991478 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991479 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.5 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991480 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.6 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991482 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.5 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 991484 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991243 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.7 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991244 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991245 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991246 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.6 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991248 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.5 <0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 991249 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.9 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991496 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991498 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991499 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991504 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991508 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991509 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991510 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991261 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991262 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991263 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991265 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991266 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991267 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991268 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991272 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991497 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991500 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991501 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991502 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991503 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991505 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991506 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 991507 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991260 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991264 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991269 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991270 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 <0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991486 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991487 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991488 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.11999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991489 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.21999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991490 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.21999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991491 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 0.31999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991492 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 0.21999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991493 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 0.21999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991494 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.21999 Reference Lake LKTR Liver 991495 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991250 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991251 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.21999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991252 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991253 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991254 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.3 0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991255 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 0.31999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991256 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.4 0.21999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991257 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.11999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991258 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.41999 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 991259 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 0.41999 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 991274 Sample mg/kg dwt <0.1 0.21999 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 991276 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 991275 Sample mg/kg dwt <0.1 0.21999 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 991278 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.1 0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 991277 Sample mg/kg dwt <0.1 0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991271 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.1 <0.11999 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 991273 Sample mg/kg dwt 0.2 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Liver - Composite mg/kg dwt <0.1 0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Liver - Composite mg/kg dwt <0.1 <0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Liver - Composite mg/kg dwt 0.1 0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Liver - Composite mg/kg dwt <0.1 0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Liver - Composite mg/kg dwt 0.1 0.11999 Reference Lake RNWH Liver - Composite mg/kg dwt <0.1 <0.12001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-132-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.19 0.222001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-132-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.49 <0.042001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-133-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.2 0.32001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-133-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.2 0.042001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-134-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.31 0.392001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-134-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.31 0.052001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-135-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.4 0.632001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-135-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.43 0.05

Table F-7 Cesium and Thallium Concentrations in Fish Tissue from Snap Lake Snap Lake, Northeast Lake, Lake 13, Reference Lake, Lac Capot Blanc, and MacKay Lake Collected as part of the Baseline and Aquatic Effects Monitoring Programs, 1999-2014.



F-30 June 2015

Appendix F


(Cs)Thallium

(Tl)


2001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-136-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 0.262001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-136-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.23 <0.042001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-137-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.06 0.242001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-137-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.1 <0.042001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-138-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.12 0.342001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-138-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.14 <0.042001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-139-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.16 0.062001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-140-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.13 0.522001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-140-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.2 0.042001 MacKay Lake LKTR Liver 1001-141-1 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 0.482001 MacKay Lake LKTR Muscle 1001-141-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.17 0.052001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-142-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.132001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-142-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.05 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-146-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.062001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-146-2 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-147-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.092001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-147-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.05 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-143-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.152001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-143-2 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-148-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.12001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-148-2 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-149-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.152001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-149-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-150-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.242001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-150-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.05 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-151-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.12001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-151-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.06 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-144-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.062001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-144-2 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.06 <0.042001 MacKay Lake RNWH Liver 1001-145-1 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 0.112001 MacKay Lake RNWH Muscle 1001-145-2 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1965 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1969 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.1 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1970 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1971 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1972 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.09 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1945 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.08 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1948 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1951 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.09 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1953 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.07 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1954 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.08 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1986 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.15 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1989 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.09 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1992 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.16 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1993 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.16 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1994 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.16 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1966 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.12 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1967 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.15 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1968 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.14 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1973 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1974 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.09 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1946 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.12 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1947 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1949 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.08 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1950 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.09 <0.042004 Reference Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1952 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.08 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1987 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.22 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1988 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.17 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1990 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.14 <0.042004 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2004-1991 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.14 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1975 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.06 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1976 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1977 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1979 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1981 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1955 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1956 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1957 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1958 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1963 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1995 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1996 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1997 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.07 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1998 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-2000 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.18 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1978 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1980 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1982 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1983 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1984 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1959 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1960 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1961 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1962 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Reference Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1964 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-1999 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.07 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-2001 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-2002 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.04



F-31 June 2015

Appendix F


(Cs)Thallium

(Tl)


2004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-2003 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.05 <0.042004 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2004-2004 Sample mg/kg wwt <0.05 <0.042009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7006 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7013 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7005 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7001 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.012009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7004 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.012009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7002 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7003 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7014 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0122009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7015 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7016 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7017 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7012 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7010 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7009 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7008 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7007 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7011 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7020 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7023 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0152009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7018 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7021 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0132009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7022 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2009-7019 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7027 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0112009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7026 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0212009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7024 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0242009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7025 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7028 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0122009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7030 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0242009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7031 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0142009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7033 Sample mg/kg wwt - 0.0192009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7032 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102009 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2009-7029 Sample mg/kg wwt - < 0.0102012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4006 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0265 0.002462012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4007 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0199 0.000992012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4008 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.014 0.001632012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4009 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0182 0.001862012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4010 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0334 0.002062012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4011 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.026 0.002372012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4012 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0145 0.001552012 Lake 13 LKCH Carcass 2012-4013 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0154 0.00182012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4014 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0183 0.001522012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4015 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0317 0.003642012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4016 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0283 0.003162012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4017 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0411 0.002712012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4018 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0387 0.002442012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4019 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0383 0.001712012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4020 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0368 0.001782012 Northeast Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4021 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0421 0.002212012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4022 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0225 0.005752012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4023 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0517 0.005642012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4024 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0524 0.006472012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4025 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0299 0.003932012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4026 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.027 0.005862012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4027 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0225 0.001682012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4028 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.025 0.003052012 Snap Lake LKCH Carcass 2012-4029 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0296 0.003142013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7083 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0174 0.022013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7092 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0657 0.022013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7098 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0909 0.04512013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7107 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0601 0.01042013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7146 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0852 0.04832013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7152 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0822 0.03312013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7170 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0761 0.03332013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7173 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0746 0.02892013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7176 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0856 0.03662013 Snap Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7179 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0728 0.04432013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7062 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0627 0.01762013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7065 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0659 0.03212013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7068 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0234 0.01482013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7110 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0131 0.01552013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7113 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0519 0.0232013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7119 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.022 0.01742013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7125 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0479 0.0332013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7131 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0991 0.02942013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7137 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0863 0.03292013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7143 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.066 0.01862013 Northeast Lake LKTR Kidney 2013-7181 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0501 0.02952013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7002 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0535 0.01522013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7008 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.124 0.02912013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7020 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.096 0.01362013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7029 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0589 0.02092013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7041 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0365 0.01342013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7044 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0646 0.02032013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7047 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0481 0.008462013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7053 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.046 0.025



F-32 June 2015

Appendix F


(Cs)Thallium

(Tl)


2013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7056 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0557 0.02132013 Lake 13 LKTR Kidney 2013-7059 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0634 0.01482013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7032 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0224 0.01392013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7086 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0262 0.01692013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7089 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0126 0.01032013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7095 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0288 0.01272013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7101 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0228 0.0142013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7104 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0318 0.01612013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7149 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0387 0.02842013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7155 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0263 0.03362013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7158 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0271 0.0212013 Snap Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7161 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0397 0.01542013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7071 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0199 0.006822013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7074 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0206 0.005992013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7080 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0186 0.01422013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7116 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0218 0.01062013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7122 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.014 0.008352013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7128 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0108 0.0172013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7134 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0127 0.01242013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7140 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0186 0.007622013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7164 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0157 0.008062013 Northeast Lake RNWH Kidney 2013-7167 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0176 0.009932013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7005 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0233 0.007772013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7011 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0351 0.004612013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7014 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0268 0.004682013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7017 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0169 0.008082013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7023 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0124 0.002042013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7026 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0217 0.01292013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7035 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0149 0.01312013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7038 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0252 0.007292013 Lake 13 RNWH Kidney 2013-7050 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0106 0.01162013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7031 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0631 0.06952013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7085 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.027 0.07282013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7088 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0124 0.04522013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7094 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0152 0.02312013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7100 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0289 0.03482013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7103 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0263 0.07042013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7148 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0188 0.07092013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7154 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0234 0.1082013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7157 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0211 0.07032013 Snap Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7160 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0844 0.0392013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7070 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0167 0.02312013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7073 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0143 0.01362013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7079 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0178 0.05772013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7115 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0123 0.01592013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7121 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0125 0.02392013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7127 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0143 0.09962013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7133 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0101 0.02882013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7139 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0214 0.03452013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7163 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0145 0.01522013 Northeast Lake RNWH Liver 2013-7166 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.024 0.03662013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7004 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0153 0.01582013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7010 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0391 0.1022013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7013 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0354 0.1372013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7016 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0292 0.1312013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7022 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0206 0.1012013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7025 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0172 0.04322013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7034 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0177 0.04592013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7037 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0218 0.02352013 Lake 13 RNWH Liver 2013-7049 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0137 0.03672013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7082 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0141 0.08732013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7091 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0694 0.04362013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7097 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0903 0.1222013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7106 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0456 0.02652013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7145 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0708 0.1252013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7151 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.139 0.09912013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7169 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.049 0.04312013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7172 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.092 0.09792013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7175 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0337 0.1012013 Snap Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7178 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0747 0.1362013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7061 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0458 0.0332013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7064 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0727 0.052013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7067 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0252 0.04462013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7109 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0113 0.01342013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7112 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0426 0.03752013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7118 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.03 0.1052013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7124 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0392 0.1142013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7130 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0731 0.06292013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7136 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0653 0.06512013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7142 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0466 0.02072013 Northeast Lake LKTR Liver 2013-7182 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.031 0.03392013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7001 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.062 0.07232013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7007 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0827 0.07012013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7019 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.117 0.06212013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7028 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0676 0.06842013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7040 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0449 0.04552013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7043 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0529 0.0612013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7046 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0511 0.0367



F-33 June 2015

Appendix F


(Cs)Thallium

(Tl)


2013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7052 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0482 0.07892013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7055 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0457 0.0512013 Lake 13 LKTR Liver 2013-7058 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0522 0.03382013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7084 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0286 0.007862013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7093 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.135 0.007682013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7099 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.144 0.01152013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7108 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.112 0.005422013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7147 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.132 0.01242013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7153 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.106 0.008252013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7171 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.102 0.009322013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7174 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.141 0.01412013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7177 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0261 0.003552013 Snap Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7180 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.128 0.01352013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7063 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.121 0.005122013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7066 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.106 0.008322013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7069 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0454 0.004892013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7111 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0345 0.003712013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7114 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.104 0.005552013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7120 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0376 0.008192013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7126 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0847 0.01362013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7132 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.137 0.01012013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7138 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.114 0.007532013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle 2013-7144 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.107 0.002792013 Northeast Lake LKTR Muscle ARCHIVE Archive mg/kg wwt 0.0958 0.004942013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7003 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.104 0.005282013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7009 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.191 0.00772013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7021 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.284 0.005952013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7030 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.117 0.006192013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7042 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0681 0.005282013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7045 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.115 0.005062013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7048 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0716 0.003452013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7054 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0691 0.006682013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7057 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0843 0.006112013 Lake 13 LKTR Muscle 2013-7060 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.105 0.005252013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7033 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0282 0.008992013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7087 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0617 0.01532013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7090 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0366 0.009062013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7096 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0553 0.006862013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7102 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.071 0.007342013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7105 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0492 0.01122013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7150 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0643 0.0142013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7156 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0884 0.02572013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7159 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.076 0.01382013 Snap Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7162 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0784 0.01052013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7072 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0257 0.00352013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7075 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0384 0.004842013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7081 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0324 0.007162013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7117 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.126 0.005572013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7123 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0205 0.005732013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7129 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0232 0.01222013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7135 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0214 0.005052013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7141 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0259 0.003572013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7165 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0329 0.004012013 Northeast Lake RNWH Muscle 2013-7168 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0386 0.006032013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7006 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0637 0.003412013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7012 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0568 0.002922013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7015 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0482 0.003542013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7018 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0403 0.003172013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7024 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0338 0.002612013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7027 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0294 0.007282013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7036 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0296 0.008342013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7039 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0649 0.006712013 Lake 13 RNWH Muscle 2013-7051 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0267 0.007832014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7045 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.108 0.03862014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7046 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.109 0.02482014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7047 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0436 0.02022014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7048 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.053 0.01942014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7049 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.007 0.00912014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7050 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0908 0.04622014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7051 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0478 0.03562014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7052 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0739 0.02512014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7053 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0985 0.03182014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7054 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0738 0.02662014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7055 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0748 0.02812014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7056 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.01 0.01762014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7057 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0691 0.02812014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Kidney 2014-7056 Duplicate mg/kg wwt 0.0089 0.01532014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7058 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0485 0.04322014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7061 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.015 0.01512014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7062 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0582 0.0252014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7063 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0311 0.01692014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7064 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0167 0.01682014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7065 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0287 0.01572014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7066 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0171 0.01282014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7067 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0532 0.01392014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7068 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0325 0.0142014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7069 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.064 0.04422014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7070 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0707 0.0494



F-34 June 2015

Appendix F


(Cs)Thallium

(Tl)


2014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7071 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0548 0.06042014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Kidney 2014-7072 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0208 0.01392014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7004 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0699 0.04922014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7005 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.183 0.07962014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7006 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0878 0.06192014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7007 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0549 0.03042014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7008 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0075 0.03022014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7011 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.101 0.1482014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7129 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0801 0.07482014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7017 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0999 0.05742014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7018 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.177 0.06912014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7019 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.124 0.04152014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7020 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0741 0.07612014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7028 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0087 0.02962014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Liver 2014-7029 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0599 0.05622014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7002 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0181 0.2592014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7003 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0215 0.1192014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7009 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0802 0.1122014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7021 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0205 0.007692014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7030 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0273 0.05142014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7031 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0279 0.07232014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7037 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0207 0.04922014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7038 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0158 0.03812014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7039 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0395 0.04972014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7040 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0262 0.04222014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7041 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0199 0.0392014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7042 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0195 0.05052014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7043 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0311 0.08032014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Liver 2014-7044 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0192 0.04922014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7073 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.163 0.006892014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7074 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.157 0.006652014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7075 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0877 0.009932014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7076 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.107 0.006752014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7077 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0157 0.00472014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7078 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.119 0.009092014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7079 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0941 0.008722014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7080 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.11 0.003042014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7081 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.126 0.005022014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7082 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0953 0.004872014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7083 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.116 0.007092014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7084 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.013 0.003562014 Lac Capot Blanc LKTR Muscle 2014-7085 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.113 0.008552014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7086 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0346 0.005172014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7087 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0299 0.00532014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7088 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0783 0.007242014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7089 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0357 0.0042014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7090 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0526 0.007542014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7091 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0302 0.004032014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7092 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0267 0.005732014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7093 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0284 0.005232014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7094 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0371 0.00752014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7095 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0938 0.008942014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7096 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0482 0.006362014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7097 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0315 0.008622014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7098 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0479 0.009232014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7099 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0353 0.00922014 Lac Capot Blanc RNWH Muscle 2014-7100 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.032 0.006982014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7012 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0375 0.001732014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7013 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0284 0.002672014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7014 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0192 0.001682014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7015 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0339 0.002922014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7016 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0136 0.00212014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7022 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0273 0.001912014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7024 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.042 0.003452014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7025 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0215 0.002632014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7026 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0384 0.002332014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7010 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0224 0.002662014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7032 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0344 0.002022014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7033 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.021 0.001442014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7034 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0223 0.001572014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7035 Sample mg/kg wwt 0.0203 0.004932014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7134 Composite mg/kg wwt 0.0644 0.003322014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Whole Body 2014-7135 Composite mg/kg wwt 0.0379 0.002922014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7136 Composite mg/kg wwt 0.0369 0.002192014 Lac Capot Blanc LKCH Carcass 2014-7022 Duplicate mg/kg wwt 0.0271 0.00202

LKCH = Lake Chub; LKTR = Lake Trout; RNWH = Round Whitefish; SCN = Sample Control Number; mg/kg = milligram per kilogram; dwt = dry weight; wwt = wet weight; < = less than; - = not available/ negligible


Annotated TOC draft for Tl-Cs fish tissue resp plan

Documents

Transcript of Annotated TOC draft for Tl-Cs fish tissue resp plan