CECK & INDICATOR ), = MR/HR IN SITU 7] 0,7 MR/HR. AT 3° CALIBRATION SAMPLES SENT To 417 CHAMBER —— COMPUTED CEGENERATE SPECTRUM assuueo tih, sectaum <p>) Ie oe WATER SAMPLERS _—— y Dy THERMOCLINE 100 METERS if OT ey Ts = Dr= wevssecsem®= 16, 30. Qe: Zaz Zu 0, = me/HR Figure C.1 Schematic of reduction of readings to dose rate (mr/hr) at 3 feet elevation. C.2 NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS The numerical values of B; (yg x), taken from Figure 20 of AFSWP 502A,are listed tn Table C.1 for each of the seven components of an average activity spectrum that is listed in the right hand column of Table B.2. Also shown are the tabular values of the exponential integral for the seven energy components corresponding to the elevation X = feet. It is seen from Table C.1 the computation based upon average spectrum gives the numerical value of the survey, Dissha (E;)fe —- ds B; (p¢ x) = 1.90 x 10 Thus finally, the dose rate at 3 feet elevation reducesto, O (52) (16.5) (1.90 x 104) (14) 2g, 0.082 Zot where Z is in centimeters, and 6 and ¢¢ are in milliroentgens per hour and when instead Z is in meters, $+ ig in milliroentgens per hour and @ is in roentgens per hour O = 8.2 x 10 Zo C.38 CONCLUSION REGARDING HYPOTHETICAL DOSAGE AT 3 FEET ELEVATION The numerical factor just derived, along with the calibration curves discussed in Appendix B permit the reduction of the raw gamma data (obtained in microamperes) to the desired terms. Figure C.1 schematically summarizes the whole procedure for reducing the underwater measurements to the desired hypothetical intensity at 3 feet elevation. 91 - 92 Ys A Lj ,