BECO-88-075, Radiological Environ Monitoring Program Rept 20 for 1987
| ML20151Y608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1987 |
| From: | Bird R, Dionne B, Reilly S BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| BECO-88-075, BECO-88-75, NUDOCS 8805050046 | |
| Download: ML20151Y608 (244) | |
Text
- - - - -
l
! PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l
\
RADILOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT NO. 20 JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,1987 ISSUED: MAY 1988 BY: PLANT SUPPORT DEPARTMENT RADIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY p r iggs W y p EE6BOS7DN
/yE 1h gisiVEDISON ENERGY FOR TOMORROW g'\ ,
3 ,-
BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT NO. 20 January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1987 Prepared by: m m-Bruce YDionne, C.H.P.
Senior Radiological Environmental Engineer Wo i
~ Susan M. Reilly Radiological Engineer W
(/
Approved by: & ristine E./howman I II =-
Radiological Engineering Division Manager t
Date of Report: April 29, 1988 i
. . ~ . , , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , , _ . _ . . . . _ , _ . , , . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _
' TABLE OF CONTENTS PArt Elag I Executive Summary vili II. Introduction 1 III Description and Results 17 of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Results of Radiometric 30 Analyses and Measurements A. Air Particulate 32 Filters B. Charcoal Cartridges 39 C. Soil 44 D. Direct Radiation 45 E. Seawater 52 F. Shellfish 55 G. Irish Hoss 58 H. American Lobster 61 I. Fishes 64 ,
J. Sediment 67 K. Milk 71 L. Cranberries 77 H. Vegetation 80 N. Forage 83 IV Summary of Radiological 86 Impact on Humans
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
M EASA V References 88 Appendix A Special Studies A-1 Appendix B Radioactive Effluents B-1 1987 Appendix C Radiological -
Environmental Technical Specifications Appendix D 1987 Garden and Milk D-1 Animal Census Results Appendix E Revision of TLD E-1 Measurements Appendix F Quality Assurance for F-1 the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program l
e t
1
-1i-4 1
l l
LIST OF TABLES Table Number EAgg II-B-1 Sources-and Doses of 2 !
Radiatior, II-C-1 PNPS-1 Capacity Factors 4 III-1 1987 Sampling Locations 19 III-A-1 Summary of Radioactivity 34 Analysis Results for Air Particulate Filters -
1987 III-B-1 Summary of Radioactivity 40 Analysis Results for Charcoal Cartridges -
1987 III-D-1 Environmental 46 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Results - 1987 III-D-2 Beach Survey Exposure 50 Rates - 1987 III-E-1 Summary of Radioactivity 53 Analysis Results for Seawater - 1987 III-F-1 Summary of Radioactivity 56 Analysis Results for Shellfish - 1987 III-G-1 Summary of Radioactivity 59 Analysis Results for ,
Irish Hoss (Chondrus crispus) - 1987 III-H-1 Summary of Radioactivity 62 Analysis Results for American Lobster (Homarus americanus) -
1987
-lii-4
,, , n- - ,. , - . ,,-,.y, - , , , , , - , . - - - . - - - - - .-
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table Number EAgft III-I-l Summary of Radioactivity 65 Analysis Results for Fishes - 1987 III-J-l Sumary of Radioactivity 68 Analysis Results for Sediment - 1987 III-J-2 Radioactivity Analysis 70 Results for Plutonium in Sediment - 1987 III-K-1 Summary of Radioactivity 72 Analysis Results for Milk - 1987 III-L-1 Summary of Radioactivity 78 Analysis Results for Cranberries - 1987 III-M Summary of Radioactivity 81 Analysis Results for Vegetation - 1987 III-N-1 Summary of Radioactivity 84 Analysis Results for Forage - 1987 IV-A-1 Comparison of 1987 87 Maximum Estimated Doses to EPA Dose Limits and Natural /Han-Made Radiation Levels
-iv-1
LIST OF FIGURES Fiaure Number EAgg II-C-1 Radioactive Fission 5 Products II-C-2 Radioactive Activation 6 Product II-C-3 Five Barriers that 8 Confine Radioactive Materials II-E-1 Generalized Radiation 13 Exposure Pathways to Humans-III-1 Pilgrim Nuclear Power 21 Station's Onsite Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Stations III-2 Pilgrim Nuclear Power 23 Station's Offsite Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Stations (0-4 miles)
III-3 Pilgrim Nuclear Power 25 Station's Off3ite Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Stations (4-25 miles)
III-4 Pilgrim Nuclear Power 27 Station's Terrestrial and Aquatic Sampling Stations III-A 's Radioactivity 36 Measurements of Air Sample Filters Taken at On-Site Locations and Distant Location
-v-
i LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
Figure Number Elgg III-A-2 Radioactivity 37 Measurements of Air Sample Filters Taken at Property Boundary Locations and Distant Location III-A-3 Radioactivity 38 Measurements of Air Sample Filters Taken at Off-Site Locations and Distant Location III-B-1 Radioactivity 41 Measurements of Charcoal Cartridge Samples Taken at On-Site Locations and Distant Location III-B-2 Radioactivity 42 Heasurements of Charcoal Cartridge Samples Taken at Property Boundary Locations and Distant Location III-B-3 Radioactivity 43 Heasurements of Charcoal Cartridge Samples Taken at Off-Site Locations and Distant Location III-D-1 Environmental Radiation 48 Level Trends for Near Plant, Exclusion Area, Distant Neighborhood and Background TLD Locations III-D-2 Environmental Radiation 51 Level Trends at Beaches Near Pilgrim Station III-K-1 Radioactive Cesium - 137 74 in Hilk Samples Taken Near Pilgrim Station and at a Distant Location
-vi-
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
III-K-2 Radioactive Strontium - 75 90 in Milk Samples taken near Pilgrim Station and at a Distant Location III-K-3 Radioactive Iodine - 131 75 in Milk Samples Taken near Pilgrim Station and at a Distant Location
-vii-
I. Executive Summary A. Introduction This report summarizes the results of the Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted in the vicinity of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) during the period from January 1 to December 31, 1987. This document has been prepared in ;
accordance with the requirements of PNPS Technic:1 Specifications section l 6.9.C.2. l The REMP has been established to monitor the radiation and radioactivity released to the environment as a result of Pilgrim Station's operation.
This program, initiated in August, 1968, includes the collection, analysis, and evaluation of radiological data in order to assess the impact of Pilgrim Station on the environment and on the general public.
B. Sampling and Analysis The environmental sampling media collected in the vicinity of PNPS and at distant locations included air particulate filters, charcoal cartridges, seawater, shellfish, Irish moss, American lobster, fishes, sediment, milk, cranberries, vegetation and beef forage.
During 1987, there were over 1,300 samples collected from the atmospheric, aquatic and terrestrial environments. In addition, over 300 exposure measurements were obtained using environmental thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and six exposure rate measurements were performed using a high pressure ion chamber. These 1,300 samples and 300 monitoring devices were collected by Boston Edison Company and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries personnel.
All samples were collected as required by the PNPS Technical Specific-ations with the following exceptions: 50 out of 572 (9%) of the air particulate and charcoal cartridge samples, and 6 out of 160 (4%) of the TLD measurements were missed. The air particulate and charcoal cartridge samples were not available at two onsite stations due to a loss of power to the air sampler pumps. Parts were ordered, repairs were made and power has been restored. Of the TLDs required by PNPS Technical Specifications, there were six (6) TLDs which were found missing from their posted locations during their quarterly retrieval. The missing TLDs and cages were relocated to be inconspicuous and inaccessible, where possible.
There were more than 1,500 analyses performed on the environmental media samples. All analyses were performed by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Environmental Laboratory in Hestboro, Mass.
All samples were analyzed as required by the PNPS Technical Specifications with the following exceptions: 2 out of 1044 (1%) of the analyses for air particulate and charcoal filters at an onsite sampling location were not in compliance with the required lower limit of detection (LLD). The sample was of insufficient air volume to reasonably obtain the required LLD. However, a gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the quarterly
-viti-
1 l
composites which included the aforerentioned air particulate filter, and I the results of the analysis indicated that only naturally-occurring nuclides were detected.
C. Garden and Milk-Producing Animal Census The 1987 annual Garden and Milk-Producing Animal Census was performed as required by the PNPS Technical Specifications. No changes occurred in the ;
number and location of gardens within 5 miles of Pilgrim Station. The i 1987 Town of Plymouth Animal Census indicates a potential for including additional milk or forage locations. The addition of these new sampling locations is currently being pursued.
D. Radiological Impact to the Environment Ouring 1987, all samples (except charcoal cartridges) collected as part of the REMP at Pilgrim Station continued to contain detectable amounts of naturally-occurring and man-made radioactive materials. Air particulate filters, soil, shellfish (mussels), and Irish moss (Chondrus criscus) were the only sampling media which showed radioactivity which could be attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation.
None of the radioactivity analysis results exceeded the reporting levels specified in the PNPS Technical Specifications. Furthermore, the detectable radioactivity which could be attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation was only a small percentage of the naturally-occurring and other man-made amounts of radioactivity. In addition, offsite direct radiation measurements using environmental TLDs and a high pressure ion chamber ranged between 47 and 80 mR/ year. This range of radiation levels is consistent with natural background radiation levels for Hassachusetts as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
E. Radiological Impact to the General Public During 1987, radiation doses to the general public as a result of Pilgrim Station's operation continued to be well below the federal limits and much less than the dose due to other maa-made and naturally-occurring sources of radiation.
The maximum estimated total body dose to the general public from radioactive effluents due to PNPS operations for 1987 was less than 0.2 mrem. This conservative estimate is less than one percent of the EPA's annual dose limit to any member of the general public and less than five one hundredths of one percent of natural and man-made radiation levels.
In addition to dose calculations based on radioactive effluents, three special studies were initiated to determine the dose contribution from radioactivity that was detected in mussels, air / soil, and Irish moss samples. Results of these studies showed that the radioactivity in these media would result in a maximum dose to a member of the general public of less than one mrem, using extremely conservative assumptions.
-ix-
N F. Conclusions The 1987 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for Pilgrim Station resulted in the collection and analysis of hundreds of environmental samples and measurements. The data obtained were used to determine the impact of Pilgrim Station's operation on the environment and on the general public.
An evaluation of direct radiation measurements, environmental sample analyses, and dose. calculations showed that all applicable federal criteria were met. Furthermore, radiation levels and resulting doses were a small fraction of those which are normally present due to natural and man-made background radiation.
Based on this information, there is no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station's operation.
x-
II. Introduction The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for 1987 performed by Boston Edison Company for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) is discussed in this report. Since the operation of a nuclear power plant results in the release of small amounts of radioactivity and low levels of radiation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires a program to be estab1lshed to monitor radiation and radioactivity in the environment. This report, which is required to be published annually by Pilgrim Station's Technical Specifications section 6.9.C.2, summarizes the results of measurements of radiation and radioactivity in the environment in the vicinity of the Pilgrim Station and at distant locations during the period January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1987.
The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program consists of taking radiation measurements and collecting samples from the environment, analyzing them for radioactivity content, and interpreting the results.
Hith emphasis on the critical radiation exposure pathways to humans, samples from the aquatic, atmospheric, and terrestrial environments are collected. These samples include, but are not limited to: air, soil, seawater, shellfish, lobster, fishes, milk, cranberries, vegetables, and forage. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are placed in the environment to measure gamma radiation levels. The TLDs are processed and the environmental samples are analyzed to measure the very low levels of radiation and radioactivity present in the environment as a result of PNPS operation. These results are reviewed by BECo's radiological staff and have been reported semi-annually or annually to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others since 1972.
In order to more fully understand how a nuclear power plant impacts humans and the environment, background information on radiation and radioactivity, natural and man-made sources of radiation, reactor operations, radioactive effluent controls and radiological impact on humans is provided. It is believed that this information will assist the reader in understanding the radiological impact on the environment and humans from the operation of Pilgrim Station.
A. Radiation and Radioactivity All matter is made of atoms. An atom is the smallest part into which matter can be broken down and still maintain all its chemical properties. Nuclear radiation is energy, in the form of waves or particles, that is given off by unstable, radioactive atoms.
Radioactive material exists naturally and has always been a part of our environment. The earth's crust, for example, contains radioactive uranium, radium, thorium and potassium. Some radioactivity is a result of nuclear weapons testing. Examples of radioactive fallout which is normally present in environmental samples are cesium-137 and strontium-90. Some examples of radioactive materials released from a nuclear power plant are cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90 and cobalt-60.
Radiation is measured in units of millirem, much like temperature is measured in degrees. A millirem is a measure of the biological effect of the quantity called dose. The natural and man-made radiation dose received in one year by the average American is 420 mrem.
Radioactivity is measured in curies. A curie is that amount of radioactive material needed to produce 37,000,000,000 nuclear disintegrations per second. This is an extremely large amount of radioactivity in comparison to environmental radioactivity. For example,1 curie equals 9 million tons of iodine-131 or 3.3 tons of uranium-238. That is why radioactivity in the environment is measured in picocuries. One picocurie is equal to one trillionth of a curie.
B. Sources of Radiation As mentioned previously, naturally occurring radioactivity has always been a part of our environment. Table II-B-1 shows the sources and doses of radiation from natural and man-made sources.
Table II-B-1 Sources and Doses of Radiation NATURAL 2 MAN-MADE4 Radiation Dose Radiation Dose Scurce (millirem /vear) Source (millirem /vear)
Cosmic rays 40 Medical / Dental Exposure 90 Building materials 40 Heapons fallout 5-8 Internal 30 Releases from nat. gas, Ground 10 phosphate mining, 5
- Radon / Thoron 3 200 burning of coal, etc.
Consumer products Less than 1 Nuclear power plants Less than 1 APPROXIKATE APPROXIKATE TOTAL 320 TOTAL 100
- Radiation dose from radon / thoron was recently published by the National Council on Radiation Protection in their Report No. 93.
Radiation from outer space and from the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere and continuously bombards us with cosmic radiation. This results in the average person in the United States receiving about 40 millirem per year.
The buildings we live in also emit radiation. The average American receives about 40 millirem per year from building materials.
T Additionally, natural radioactivity is in the food we eat (about 30 millirem /yr), the ground we walk on (about 10 millirem /yr) and the air we breathe (about 200 millirem /yr). All these sources contribute to a total dose of 320 mrem per year from all natural sources of radiation.
Radon and thoron levels vary greatly with location. Many newspaper articles have recently appeared concerning elevated levels of radon / thoron at some locations in Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Residents of these areas have a higher annual dose as a result of higher levels of radon / thoron gases in these areas.
In addition to natural radiation, we are normally exposed to radiation from a number of man-made sources. The single largest doses from man-made sources result from therapeutic and diagnostic applications of x-rays and radiopharmaceuticals. The annual dose to an individual in the U.S. from medical and dental exposure is about 90 mrem. Much smaller doses result from weapons fallout (about 5-8 mrem /yr); exposures from burning natural gas and coal (about 5 mrem /yr); consumer products like televisions and smoke detectors (less than 1 mrem /yr); and nuclear power plants (less than 1 mrem /yr). Basically, the average person in the United States receives about 100 mrem per year from man-made sources.
C. Nuclear Reactor Ooerations Pilgrim Station can generate about 670 megawatts of electricity, which is enough electricity to supply the entire city of Boston, Massachusetts. Pilgrim Station is a boiling water reactor whose nuclear steam supply system was provided by General Electric Co. The nuclear station is located on a 1600 acre site about five miles east-southeast of Plymouth Center. Commercial operation began in December, 1972.
Pilgrim Station was shutdown for refueling, maintenance, safety enhancement and modifications during the period from January 1 to December 31, 1987 which reflects an average capacity factor of 07..
Monthly capacity factors are given in Table II-C-1.
Nuclear-generated electricity is produced at Pilgrim Station by many of the same techniques used for conventional oil and coal-generated electricity. Both systems use heat to boil water to produce steam.
The steam turns a turbine which turns a generator, producing electricity. In both cases, the steam passes through a condenser where it changes back into water and recirculates back through the system. The cooling water source for Pilgrim Station is the Cape Cod Bay.
The key difference between Pilgrim's nuclear power and conventional power is the source of heat used to boil the water. Conventional plants burn fossil fuels in a boiler, while nuclear plants make use of uranium in a nuclear reactor.
3-
^
j 1
TABLE II-C-1 PNPS-1 CAPACITY FACTOR :
I 1987 OPERATING PERCENT CAPACITY (Based on 670 MHe)
Month Eercent Caoacity January 0.0 February 0.0 March 0.0 April 0.0 May 0.0 June 0.0 July 0.0 August 0.0 September 0.0 October 0.0 November 0.0 December 0.0 Average 0.0
Inside the reactor, a nuclear reaction called fission takes place.
Particles, called neutrons, strike the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom, causing it to split into fragments called radioactive fission products. The splitting of the atoms releases both heat and more neutrons. The newly-released neutrons then collide with and split other uranium atoms, thus making more heat and releasing even more neutrons, and on and on until the uranium fuel is depleted or spent.
This process is called a chain reaction.
v Nuclear Fission of t e Uraniu 25
- +
=e7,:":a'*"
=
a chain teact'
/- -
s 3 s E aS ate k
Products f)lh Q
'f' . . . ,
Fis,lon Products i
Figure II-C-1 Radioactive Fission Products
The operation of a nuclear reactor results in the release of small amounts of radioactivity and low levels of radiation. The radioactivity originates from two major sources, radioactive fission products and radioactive activation products.
Radioactive fission products, (see Figure II-C-1)5 originate from the fissioning of the nuclear fuel. These fission products get into the reactor coolant from their relelse by minute amunts of uranium on the outside surfaces of the fuel cladding, by diffusion through the fuel pellets and cladding and, on occasion, through defects or failures in the fuel cladding. These fission products circulate along with the reactor coolant water and will deposit on the internal surfaces of pipes and equipment. The radioactive fission products on the pipes and equipment emit radiation. Examples of some fission products are cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90, xenon-133 and krypton-85.
Radioactive activation products (see Figure II-C-2), on the other hand, originate from two sources. The first is by neutron bombardment of the hydrogen, oxygen and other gas (helium, argon, nitrogen) molecules in the reactor cooling water. The second is a result of the fact that the internals of any piping system or component are subject to minute yet constant corrosion from the reactor cooling water. These minute metallic particles (for example:
nickel, iron, cobalt, or magnesium) are transported through the reactor core into the fuel region, where neutrons may react with the nuclei of these particles, producing radioactive products. Sc, activation products are nothing more than ordinary naturally-occurring atoms that are made unstable or radioactive by neutron bombardment. These activation products circulate along with the reactor coolant water and will deposit on the internal surfaces of pipes and equipment. The radioactive activation products on the pipes and equipment emit radiation. Examples of some activation products are cobalt-60, cobalt-58, iron-59, manganese-54 and zinc-65.
n '
"Co '
"Co Neutron Stable Radioactive Cobalt Nucleus Cobalt Nucleus Figure II-C-2 Radioactive Activation Product At Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station there are five independent l protective barriers that confine these radioactive materials. These five barriers, which are shown in Figure II-C-3,b are: 1) fuel l pellets; 2) fuel cladding; 3) reactor vessel and piping; 4) primary containment (drywell and torus); and 5) secondary containment (reactor building).
The ceramic uranium fuel pellets provide the first barrier. Most of the radioactive fission products are either physically trapped or chemically bound between the uranium atoms, where they will remain.
However, a few fission products which are volatile or gaseous may diffuse through the fuel pellets into small gaps between the pellets and the fuel cladding.
The second barrier, the fuel cladding, consists of zir: onium alloy tubes that confine the fuel pellets. The small gaps between the fuel and the cladding contain the noble gases and volatile iodines which are types of radioactive fission products. This radioactivity can diffuse to a small extent through the fuel cladding into the reactor coolant water.
The third barrier consists of the reactor pressure vessel, steel piping and equipment that confines the reactor cooling water. The reactor pressure vessel, which holds the reactor fuel, is a 65 foot high by 19 foot diameter tank with steel walls about nine inches thick. This provides containment for radioactivity in the primary coolant and the reactor core. However, during the course of operations and maintenance small amounts of radioactive fission and activation products can escape through valve leaks or upon breaching of the primary coolant system for maintenance.
The fourth barrier is the primary containment. This consists of the drywell and the torus. The drywell is a steel lined enclosure that is shaped like an inverted light bulb. The drywell's steel pressure vessel is enclosed by an approximately five foot thick concrete wall. The torus is a donut shaped pressure suppression chamber. The steel walls of the torus are nine feet in diameter with the donut itself having an outside diameter of about 130 feet. This primary containment may leak small amounts of radioactivity through sealed penetrations during high pressures, or during maintenance.
The fifth barrier is the secondary containment or reactor building.
The reactor building is the concrete building that surrounds the primary containment. This barrier is an additional safety feature to contain radioactivity which may escape from the primary containment.
This reactor building is equipped with a filtered ventilation system that is used when needed to reduce the radioactivity that escapes from the primary containment.
Most of the radioactive fission and activation products are confined by the five barriers. However, small amounts of radioactivity do escape via mechanical failures and maintenance on valves, piping and equipment associated with the reactor cooling water system. The small amounts of radioactive liquids and gases that do escape the
i l
SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM OF PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l l
l
- 3. REACTOR VESSEL
- 1. FUEL PELLETS
( j, L[e A \
/4 :
\
gp%1 ' '
wgni j # 'N
[
- .\ . ,
L '_
}
- Yy f mn
, sTURBINE!
' ' ~
f.f, .[ $ .
.d. ]
- TORUS ,
CONDENSER hk () nen sw =;idba: m .- g!! "
l d :\- J 2
/
REACTOR BUILDING DRYWELL FIGURE D C-3 FIVE BARRIERS THAT CONFINE RADIOAC11VE MATERIALS
various containrent systems are further controlled by the liquid purification and ventilation filtration systems. Also, prior to a release to the environment, control systems exist to collect and purify the radioactive effluents in order to reduce releases to the environment to as low as is reasonably achievable. The control of radioactive effluents at Pilgrim Station will be discussed in more detail in the next section.
D. Radioactive Effluent Control The small amounts of radioactive liquids and gases that might escape the five barriers are purified in the liquid and gaseous waste treatment systems, then monitored for radioactivity and released only if the radioactivity levels are below the federal release limits.
Radioactivity released from the liauid effluent system to the environment, is limited, controlled, and monitored by a variety of systems and procedures which include:
The reactor water cleanup system
- The liquid radwaste treatment system Sampling and analysis of the liquid radwaste tanks The liquid waste effluent discharge header radioactivity ronitor The purpose of the reactor water cleanuo system is to continuously purify the reactor cooling water by removing radioactive atoms and non-radioactive impurities that may become activated by neutron bombardment. A portion of the reactor coolant water is diverted from the primary coolant system and is purified by a high efficiency filter that removes radioactive particles suspended in the water.
Subsequent to that, the flow is directed through ion exchange resins where radioactive elements, diluted in the water, are removed through chemical processes. The net effect is a drastic reduction of the radioactive material that is present in the primary coolant water and consequently the amount of radioactive material that might escape from the system.
Reactor cooling water that might escape the primary cooling system and other radioactive water sources is collected in floor and equipment drains. These drains direct this radioactive liquid waste to large holdup tanks. The liquid waste collected in the tanks is purified again using the liauid radwaste treatment system, which consists of a filter and ion exchange resins.
Prior to release, the radioactivity in the liauid radwaste tank is samoled and analyzed to determine if the level of radioactivity is below the release limits and to quantify the total amount of radioactive liquid effluent that would be released. If the levels are below the federal release limits, the tank is drained to the liquid effluent discharge header.
.g.
s
__ ~-_. -,
This liauid waste effluent discharge header has a shielded radioactivity monitor located on it. This detector is connected to a radiation level meter and a strip chart recorder in the Control Room. The radiation alarm is set so that the detector will alarm before radioactivity levels excced the release limits. The liquid effluent discharge header has an isolation valve. If an alarm is received, the liquid effluent discharge valve will automatically close, thereby terminating the release to the Cape Cod Bay and preventing any liquid radioactivity from being released that may exceed the release limits. An audible alarm notifies the Control Room operator that this has occurred.
Another means for controlling liquid effluents is by mixing plant cooling water from the condenser with the liquid effluents in the discharge canal. This larger volume of cooling water further dilutes the radioactivity levels far below the release limits.
The preceding discussion illustrates that many controls exist to reduce the radioactive liquid effluents released to the Cape Cod Day to as far below the release limits as is reasonably achievable.
Radioactive releases from the radioactive gaseous effluent system to the environment are limited, controlled, and monitored by a variety of systems and procedures which include:
- the reactor building ventilation system the reactor building vent effiuent radioactivity monitor and sampling the standby gas treatment system main stack dilution flow the main stack effluent radioactivity monitor and sampling
- the augmented off-gas system
- the off-gas radiation monitor The purpose of the reactor buildina ventilation sys_ tim is to continuously purify the reactor building air by removing airborne gaseous and particulate radioactive and non-radioactive material.
This purified air is then directed to the reactor building ventilation plenum which is located on the side of the reactor building. This plenum, which vents to the atmosphere, has a shielded radiation detector located on it. The radiation level meter and strip chart recorder for the reactor buildina vent effluent radioactivity monitor is located in the Control Room. To supplement the information continuously provided by the detector, radioactive samoles are taken periodically from the reactor building vent and are analyzed to quantify the total amount of radioactive gaseous and particulate effluent released.
If air containing elevated amounts of radioactivity is routed cast the reactor building vent's effluent radioactivity monitor, an alarm will alert the Control Room operators that release limits are being approached. The Control Room operators, according to procedure, will isolate the reactor building ventilation system and initiate the standby gas treatment system to remove airborne particulates and
gaseous halogen radioactivity from the reactor building exhaust.
This filtration assembly consists of high efficiency particulate air filters and charcoal absorber beds. Tiie purified air is then directed to the main stack. The main stack has dilution flow which further reduces concentration levels of gaseous releases to the environment to as far below the release limits as is reasonably achievable.
The approximately 300 foot tall main stack has a special probe inside it which draws a portion of the air out and passes it through a radioactivity monitoring system. This main stack effluent radioactivity monitor samples radioactive particulates and iodines, monitors radioactive gases, and collects a tritium sample. The radioactivity detectors that monitor the particulate filter sample, the iodine charcoal cartridge and the radioactive gases have radiation level meters and strip chart recorders located in th?
Control Room. To supplement the informaticq continuously provided by the detectors, the particulate, iodine, tritium and gas samales are analyzed periodically to quantify the total amount of radioactive gaseous effluent being released.
The purpose of the augmented off-cas system is to reduce the radioactivity from the gases that are removed from the condenser.
This purification system consists of a 30-minute holdup line to reduce the radioactive gases with short half-lives, a pre-filter to remove radioactive particulates and several charcoal absorbers to remove radioactive iodines and further retard the short half-life gases.
The radioactive off-gas from the condenser is then directed into a ventilation pipe to which the off-aas radiation monitor is attached.
The radiation level meter and strip chart recorder for this detector are also located in the Control Room. If the radiation alarm setpoint is exceeded, an audible alarm will sound to alert the Control Room operators. In addition, the off-gas bypass and charcoal absorber inlet valve will automatically re-airect the off-gas into the charcoal absorbers if they are temporarily being bypassed. If the charcoal absorbers fail to return the radioactivity levels to below the alarm setpoint within 13 minutes, the off-gas releases will be automatically isolateh thereby preventing any gaseous radioactivity from being released that may exceed the release limits.
Therefore, for both liquid and gaseous releases, radioactive effluent control systems exist to collect and purify the radioactive effluents in order to reduce releases to the environment to as low as is reasonably achievable. The effluents are always monitored, sampled and analyzed prior to release to make sure that radioactivity levels are below the release limits. If the release limits are being approached, isolation valves in some of the waste effluent lines will automatically shut to stop the release, or Control Room operators will implement procedures to ensure that federal regulatory limits are always met.
l l
i t
E. Radioloaical Imoact on Humans The final effluent control is the determinition of the radiological dose impact to humans and comparison with the federal dose limits to the public. As mentioned previously, the purpose of the continuous radiation monitoring and the periodic sampling and analysis '.s to measure the quantities of radioactivity being released to determine if the radioactivity release limits are complied with. This is the first stage for assessing releases to the environment.
Next, calculations of the dose impact to the general public from Pilgrim Station's radioactive effluents are performed. The purpose of these calculations is to periodically assess the doses to the general public resulting from radioactive effluents to ensure that these doses are being maintained as far below the federal dose limits as is reasonably achievable. This is the second stage for assessing releases to the environment.
The types and quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released from Pilgrim Station during 1987 were reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission semi-annually. The 1987 Radioactive Effluents are provided in Appendix B and will be discussed in more detail in Part IV of this report. These liquid and gaseous effluents were well below the federal release limits and were a small percentage of the PNPS Technical Specifications operational objectives.
These measurements of the physical and chemical nature of the effluents are used to determine how the radionuclides will interact with the environment and how they can result in radiation exposure to humans. The environmental interaction mechanisms depend upon factors such as the hydrological (water) and meteorological (atmospheric) characteristics in the area. Information on the water flow, wind speed, wind direction and atmospheric mixing characteristics are used to estimate how radioactivity will distribute and disperse in the ocean and the atmosphere.
The most important type of information that is used to evaluate the radiological impact on humans is data on the use of the environment.
Information on fish and shellfish consumption, boating usage, beach usage, locations of cows and goats, locations of residences, locations of gardens, drinking water supplies and other usage information are utilized to estimate the amount of radiation and radioactivity received by the general public.
The radiation exposure pathway to humans is the path radioactivity takes from its release point at Pilgrim Station to its impact on man. The movement of radioactivity through the environment and its transport to humans is portrayed in Figure II-E-1.
A .
_ _ , , - - _ _ _ , _ ~ - _
EXAMPLES OF PILGRIM STATION'S RADIATION EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
~ --
GASEOUS IEFFLUENTS
.. i )
"hy.
jN LIQUID I l
EFFL.UENTS
, [ ] g -
)
- 3. DIRECT RADIATION
( TATI N) 2. AIR INHALATION 7 4. DIRECT RADIATION SOIL DEPOSITION) 1. DIRECT RADIATION
,,, (AIR SUBMERSION)
- 1. SHORELINE DIRECT RADIATION [ f (FISHING, PICNIC) ;
4 D d 5. CONSUMPTION j DEPOSITION
- 2. DIRECT RADIATION (IMMERSION IN OCEAN D(VEGETATION) iJ BOATING, SWIMMING) l7 f ?) $ g
- 6. CONSUMPTION DEPOSI l'ON INGESTION MILK AND MEAT) ,
- 3. CONSL PTION p (FISH AN : SHELLFISH) mv ->
~
Q
'" *""5 Gh1 .=.
,,. g 4 ===m
. M 0.2..::g::'.':'":.t. .r:. 4"
- .: :<::{l):
FIGUREll-E 'i GENERALIZED RADIATION EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO HUMANS There are six major Cays in thich gaseous effluents impact humans:
- 1) direct radiation from submersion in airborne radioactivity;
- 2) internal radiation from inhalation of airborne radioactivity;
- 3) direct radiation emitted from Pilgrin Station;
- 4) direct radiation from deposition of radioactive effluents on soil;
- 5) internal radiation from consumption of vegetation containing radioactivity absorbed from the soll due to ground deposition of radioactive effluents; and,
- 6) internal radiation from consurnption of milk and meat containing radioactivity deposited on forage which is eaten by cows and cattle.
There are three major ways in which liquid effluents impact humans:
- 1) direct radiation from liquid effluents that deposit on the shoreline;
- 2) direct radiation from irrmersion in ocean water contaieng 1 radioactive liquids; and,
- 3) internal radiation from consumption of fish and shellfish containing radioactivity absorbed from the liquid effluents.
To the extent possible, the radiological dose impact on humans is based on direct measurements of radiation and radioactivity in the environment (see Appendix A). However, the operation of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station results in releases of only small amounts of radioactivity, and, as a result of dilution in the atmosphere and ocean, even the most sensitive radioactivity measurements and analysis techniques cannot detect these tiny amounts of radioactivity above that which is naturally present in the environment. Therefore, radiation doses are calculated using radioactivity release data and computerized dose calculations that are based on very conservative (over-estimated) NRC-recommended models. These computerized dose calculations are performed by or for Boston Edison Co personnel.
These computer codes use the guidelines and methodology set forth by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.109.7 The dose calculations are documented and described in detail in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station's Offsite Dose Calculation Manua18 which has been reviewed and approved by the NRC.
Dose calculations are performed by Boston Eot:on Co. personnel monthly. Dose calculations are perforced for Boston Edison Co. by Yankee Atomic Electric Co., using their advanced "YODA" computer program, on a semi-annual basis. It should be emphasized that because of the very conservative assumptions made in the computer code calculations, the maximum hypothe'ical dose to an individual is considerably higher than the dose that dould actually be received by a real individual.
After dose calculations are performed, the results are compared to the federal dose limits for the public. The two federal agencies thet are charged with the responsibility of protecting the public from radiation and radioactivity are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The NRC, in 10CFR 20.105,9 limits the levels of radiation to unrestricted areas resulting from the possession or use of radioactive materials such that they limit any individual to a dose of:
- 1ess than or equal to 500 mrem per year to the total body.
In addition to this dose limit, the NRC has established design objectives for nuclear plant licensees. Conformance to these guidelines ensures that nuclear power reactor effluents are maintained as far below the legal limits as is reasonably achievable.
The NRC, in 10CFR 50 Appendix I,10 establishes design objectives for the dose to a member of the general public from radioactive material in liquid effluents released to unrestricted areas to be limited to:
- 1ess than or equal to 3 mrem per year to the total body.
-and-
- Icss than or equal to 10 mrem per year to any organ.
The air dose due to release of noble gases in gaseous effluents is restricted to:
- less than or equal to 10 mrad per year for gamma radiation
-and-
- less than or equal to 20 mrad per year for beta radiation.
The dose to a member of the general public from iodine-131, tritium, and all particulate radionuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days in gaseous effluents is limited to:
i e less than or equal to 15 mrem per year to any organ.
l l l
The EPA, in 40CFR190.10 Subpart B.Il sets forth the environmental standards for the uraniua fuel cycle. During normal operation, the annual dose to any member of the public shall be limited to:
- 1ess than or equal to 25 mrem per year to the total body a less than or equal to 75 mrem per year to the thyroid
-and- '
- 1ess than or equal to 25 mrem per year to any other organ.
The summary of the 1987 radiological impact for Pilgrim Station and comparison with the EPA dose limits and guidelines, as well as a comparison with natural / man-made radiation levels, is presented in Part IV of this report.
The third stage of assessing releases to the environment is the Radiological Environmental Honitoring Program (REHP). The
. description and results of the REMP at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station during 1987 will be discussed in Part III of this report.
L r
III. Descriotion and Results of the Radioloaical Environmental Monitoring Erocram The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) at Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station was initiated in August of 1968.
The purpose of the pre-operational environmental monitoring program was to:l'
- 1) measure background levels and their variations in the environment in the area surrounding Pilgrim Station; and,
- 2) evaluate procedures, equipment and techniques.
The pre-operational program continued years,fromAugust1960toMarch1972.{grapproximatelythreeandahalf 3 Examples of background radiation and radioactivity levels measured during this time period are as follows:
- Airborne Radioactivity Particulate Concentration (gross beta): 0.25 pCi/m3
- Direct Radiation (TLDs): 13 micro-R/hr
- Seawater Radioactivity Concentrations (gross beta): 20 pCi/kg
- Fish Radioactivity Concentrations (gross beta): 3,850 pCi/kg
- Milk Radioactive Cesium-137 Concentrations: 17 pCi/kg e Milk Radioactive Strontium-90 Concentrations: 9 pCi/kg
- Cranberries Radioactive Cesium-137 Concentrations: 170 pC1/kg
, This information from the pre-operational phase is used as a basis for evaluating changes in radiation and radioactivity levels in the vicinity of the plant following plant operation. In April 1972, just prior to initial reactor startup (June 12, 1972), Boston Edison Co. implemented a comprehensive operational environmental monitoring program at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. This program provides information on rad: gactivity and radiation levels in the environment for the purpose of: *
- 1) demonstrating that doses to the general public and levels of radioactivity in the environment are within established limits and legal requirements;
- 2) monitoring the transfer and long-term buildup of specific radionuclides in the environment to revise the monitoring program and environmental models in response to changing conditions;
- 3) checking the condition of the station's operation, the adequacy of operation in relation to the adequacy of containment, and the effectiveness of effluent treatment, so as to provide a mechanism of determining unusual or unforseen conditions and, where appropriate, to trigger special environmental monitoring studies;
- 4) assessing the dose equivalent to the general public and the behavior of radioactivity released during the unlikely event of an accidental release; and
- 5) determining whether or not the radiological impact on the environment .
and humans is significant. !
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that Boston Edison Company provides monitoring of the plant environs for radioactivity that will be released as a result of normal operations, including anticipated ,
operational occurrences, and from postulated accidents. The NRC has established guidelines which specify an acceptable monitoring program.15 The Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program -
was designed to meet and exceed these guidelines. Guidance contained in the NRC's Radiological Apessment Branch Technical Position on Environmental Monitoringio has been used to improve the program. In addition, the program has incorporated the provisions of an agreement made with the Massachusetts Hildlife Federation.17 The program was supplemented by including improved analysis of shellfish and sediment at substantially higher sensitivity levels to verify the adequacy of effluent controls at Pilgrim Station.
Sampling locations have been established by considering meteorology, population distribution, hydrology, and land use characteristics of the Plymouth area. The sampling locations are divided into two classes:
indicator and control. Indicator locations are those which are expected to show effects from PNPS operations, if any exist. These locations were primarily selected on the basis of where the highest predicted environmental concentrations would occur. While the indicator locations are typically within a few miles of the plant, the control stations are generally located so as to be outside the influence of Pilgrim Station.
They provide a basis on which to evaluate fluctuations at indicator locations relative to natural background radiation and natural radioactivity and fallout from prior nuclear weapons tests.
The environmental sampling media collected in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station during 1987 included air particulate filters, charcoal cartridges, seawater, shellfish, Irish moss, American lobster, fishes, sediment, milk, cranberries, vegetation and beef forage. The media, station number, description, distance and direction for indicator and control samples are listed in Table III-1. These sampling locations are also displayed on the maps shown in Figures III-1, 2, 3 and 4.
The radiation monitoring locations for the environmental TLDs are shown in Figures III-1, 2, and 3. The frequency of collection and types of radioactivity analysis are described in Appendix C, Table 8-1-1.
Ths iand-based samples and monitoring devices are collected by Boston Edison personnel from the Electrical Engineering and Station Operation Department's Environmental Laboratory. The aquatic samples are collected by the Division of Marine Fisheries - Pilgrim Station Project personnel.
The direct radiation measurements and soil radioactivity measurements are conducted by Yankee Atomic Electric Co. - Radiological Engineering Group and Environmental Laboratory personnel, respectively. The radioactivity analysis of samples and the processing of the environmental TLDs is performed by Yankee's Environmental Laboratory personnel.
Table III-l Ellarim Nuclear Power Station's Radiological Environmental
_1987 Samolina Locations Etd1A EQ fait Deseriotion Q11];. h Air Particulate 00 HS Harehouse 0.11 Mt ESE Filters / 01 ER E. Rocky Hill Road 0.28 Mi SE Charcoal Cartridaes/ 03 HR H. Rocky Hill Road 0.25 Hi HSH 1q11 06 PL Property Line 0.32 Hi H 07 PB Pedestrian Bridge 0.13 Mi NNH 08 OA Overlook Area 0.09 Hi SH 09 EB East Breakwater 0.33 Mi SE 10 CR Cleft Rock 0.88 Mi SH 15 PC Plymouth Center 4.12 Hi H 17 MS Manomet Substation 2.34 Mi SSE 21 EQ East Heymouth Control 23.90 Mi NH Seawater 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.16 Mi N 17 BP Barlett Pond 2.68 Hi SE 23 PP Powder Point Control 7.76 Mi NNH Shellfish 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Hi NNH 12 Ply-H Plymouth Harbor 3.0 Hi H 15 MP Manomet Poiti t 3.0 Mi SE 13 Dux-Bay Duxbury Bi.y Control 8.0 Hi NNH 24 MS Marshfield Control 9.0 M1 NNH Irish Moss 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Hi NNH 15 MP Manomet Point 3.0 Mi SE 22 EL Ellisville 8.0 Mi SE 34 BR Brant Rock Control 10.0 M1 NNH American Lobster 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 M1 NNH 12 Ply-H Plymouth Harbor 3.0 MI H 13 Dux-Bay Duxbury Bay Control 8.0 M1 NNH Fishes 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Mi NNH 29 PC Priest Cove Control 30.0 Mi SW 90 BB Buzzards Bay Control 35.0 Mi SSH 92 MV Vineyard Sound Control 50.0 Mi SSH I 98 CC-Bay Cape Cod Bay Control 15.0 M1 ESE Sediment 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Mi SE 12 Ply-H Plymouth Harbor 3.0 Mi H l
13 Dux-Bay Duxbury Bay 8.0 Hi NNH 14 PLB Plymouth Beach 2.0 Hi H 15 MP Manomet Point 3.0 Mi SE 24 MS Marshfield Control 9.0 Mi NNH Milt 11 CF Plymouth County Farm 3.44 Hi H 21 HF Nhitman Farm Control 20.10 Mi HNH J
Table III-1 (continued)
Pilarim Nuclear Power Station's Radioloaical Environmental 1987 Samolina Locations Cranberries 13 MR Manomet Pt. Bog 2.45 Mt SE 14 BR Bartlett Rd. Bog 2.74 Mi SSE 23 PS Pine St. Bog Control 16.88 Mi HNH Vegetation 60 AF Alden Road Farm 0.83 Mi SE 75 ML Malmgren Residence 1.02 Hi SE 76 JG Jenkins Residence 1.32 Mi HSH 43 NH Whipple Farm 1.77 Mi SH 77 MG Hoon Residence 2.08 Mi HSH 11 CF Plymouth Harbor 3.44 Mi H 27 BF Bridgewater Farm Cont. 20.00 Mi H Beef Forage 11 CF Plymouth County Farm 3.44 Mi H 12 HF Whitman Farm Control 20.10 Mi HNH J
,1 i
I
FIGURE 111-1 ONSITE ENVIRONMENTAL THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETER AND AIR SAMPLING STATIONS Ono air S^ue'ea LEGEND TLD STATIONS AIR SAMPUNG STATIONS IQ, QQE DESCR!PTION QJSL' DR SQ C@g DESCR.'PTION DJ$L' pg B10 A STATON A .25 M S (D EB EAST BREAKWATER 0.33 M SE B24 8 STATION B 0.26 M E 01 ER E. ROCKY HILL ROAD 0.26 M S B28 C STATON C 0.40 M E C8 OA OVERLOOK AREA 0.09 M SW B05 0 STATON D 0.32 M WAY 07 PB PEDESTRAN BRDGE 0.13 M tuv B26 EB EAST BREAKWATER 0.33 M E C6 PL PROPERTY UNE 0.32 M W B04 F STATION F 0.26 M W CD M W. FOCKY HILL ROAD 0.25 M WSW B11 G STAT)Ctd G 0.32 M M 0) WS WAREHOUSE 0.11 M ESE B02 i STATION I 031M WSW B27 L STAT 10N L 0.27 M EN B09 CM OVERLOOK AREA 0 09 M M B55 P01 SEC H SHORE 710 Ft WAY e B56 P02 FENCE SHORE 140 Ft W B57 P03 FEN L SCEENH 330 Ft W B58 PO4 FEN R SCREENH 230 Ft P4V B59 POS FEN WATER TANK 260 Ft PMY BSO P06 FEN CULVERT 220 Ft N B61 P07 FEN INTAKE 390 FI NNE B62 P06 FEN NEW ADMN 300 Ft E B63 P09 FEN TCF SIDE 440 Ft E B34 P10 FEN IMAKE TCF 730 Ft ENE B65 P11 CMTE WH TOTCF 610 Ft ENE B66 P12 FEN WH CON CMTE 660 Ft ESE C7 P13 FEN CON & F1R 733 Ft ESE B68 P14 FEN BUTLER B 740 Ft E B69 P15 FEN UNIT #9 720 Ft E B70 P16 FEN SYN M CMTE 560 Ft S B71 P17 FEN SHF M GATE 360 Ft M B72 P18 l&C N ADMN 290 Ft E B73 P19 COMPUANCE AREA 290 Ft E B74 P20 FP WIPOOW 220 Ft E B75 P21 WW ADuN & PROC 160 Ft E B76 P22 MCC CONER 440 Fr E B77 P23 CMG COFNER 390 Ft ESE B78 P24 ADMN OFF 0 AD 190 Ft M B79 P25 F1RST AfD TRAll 150 Ft WSW B06 PA PARKING AREA 1180 Ft WAV E07 PB PEDESTRAN BRDGE 700 Ft P4V B03 PL PROPERTY UNE 0 32 M W B53 1C TRAJN!NG 0 ENTER 610 Ft EW B12 M W ROCKY HILL RD 0 52 M W4 801 WS WAREHOUSE 600 Ft ESE
- DISTANCE IS MEASURE BETWEEN THE SAMPUNGMONfTORNG STATION AND THE CENTERUNE OF THE REACTOR BOSTON E E
I l [
+
s ss a 1 T g v.=
um ,'
.Y Wh 9 'h
__H s r# . tm
= #"A T vk 4 r-
~
=
% w scr w 10 .$ ":
=~ % %an ,g '{>\ \
ne DF g
M f
g S
'si-
~
'*-) , g ,\'
1 s ii 9 ' =;
slxt h
se = =
q s s
DISON COMPANY l
.nw* ,
- ' C w I Ll
-s%u f'=M l ,. y a
^
- , eswa.us f O M
.~ -T ..- -
y}
k s E I- 4 E/t/
=
\ // _ua n.o.n i
=:=:d4
. i 9
-.I
-e -i _Q I i .#,4 4
i
' -e-- ,11 s d, APEllTUltE :
3
~
- A CAllD
__-h O F' ' '
1 )
,g -
ll i n nso Ay,jjahle On gEcrfare raiy. j g----g
'w , . ,Y
,mM - l __ ,
m?m% i ._,I[ ,
Is '; 'I ;
2.m,- #j . 6, ,
rl' _.E ,l
[7. , f
..=.= -
-e k owem T
l p====a-=*----======._-= %
N
- .: 1 1 1 ~~-
4 FIGURE Ill-1 PILGRIM NUCIIAR POWER STATION URSITE ENVRENTAL THDELLMNESCENT I)DSKTER #G AR SARING STATl[NS U D b'O T O 0 4 V O f
FIGUREIII-2 OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTALTHERMOLUMINESCENTDOSIMETER AND AIR SAMPLING STATIONS (0-4 MILES)
KEX Oito aa-a LEGU D T1.D STATIONS TLD STATIONS AIR SAMPUNG STATIONS fgl CCOE DESCRPTION DfST? DifL fgl CODE DESCFEPT10h DtST? Di[L 2g1 CCOE DESCFMPTION OtST? DifL 823 AR ACCESSFO 01E3 M S B22 K STATION K 138 M S 10 m CLEFTROCK Oa8 M SMf B13 ID BAYSHORE DR 0.81 M M B50 MS IGNGSTONSUBST to0 M M 21 EW EASTWEYMOUTH CNTTL 23.90 M PMf B42 91 BEAVERDAM RD 3.51 M S B37 M3 MANOIET BEACH 3.46 M SSE 17 MS MANOMET SUBSTATION 2.34 M SSE B14 BS BAYSHORE 126 M W B34 E MANOET ELEM 2.12 M SE 15 FC PLYMOUTH CENTER 4.12 M W B36 BW BEACHWOOD RD 2.56 M SE B35 I# M4NOETPT 227 M E
, 839 CP COLLEGE POND 4.76 M SW B19 M1 MANOMET ROAD 087 M S 818 01 CLEFTROCK 0.88 M SW B33 16 MANO ETSUBST 234 M SSE B38 (S CEDARVILLE ST 10.0 M S B17 nK MICTRO TOWER 0.76 M SW C13 Ul DIRT ROAD 0934 M SW B49 PP NORTH PLYMOUTH 5.82 M M B20 E STATION E 1.11 M S B47 R; PLYMOUTH CENTER 4.12 M , W B41 EA ENLF0 198 M SSE 808 PMT PLYMOUTH ET TR 027 M WSW B31 EM EMERSONFO 0.97 M SE B43 PF PINES ESTATE 17.0 M M B30 m E ROCKY HILL FU 0.66 M SE B15 FC EC POOL 127 M WSW B52 EW E WEYMOUTH SUB 239 M MAf B45 I44 PE N I MLL FO 2.91 M WSW 854 m GREENWOOO HSE O50 M SE B44 FP RT.3 OVERPASS 3.07 M SW B25 H STATION H 0.56 M SW B48 SA SHEF54AN AIRPORT 834 M WSW B29 H3 HALLS BOG 0.32 M ESE B40 :P S PLYMOUTH SUB 2.87 M W B46 FD HILLDALE 50 3.07 M W B51 SS STANDISH SHOES 6.49 M PMf 821 J STATION J 130 M S B32 MH WHITE HORSE 50 132 M SSE DtSTANCE IS MEASUND BETWEEN THE SAMPLING /MONITOFUNG STATION AND THE CENTERUNE OF THE MACTOR a
W IiI _
/
LLI Ltj
/
/
b '
Z.
P:
N /
o C.)
y Z 7 o / rw c
22 Cn -
O 71 M
/ <
)
o / i -
b O
3 m
nn
@ g" 2
x
6 \ / nc /
fn WsW n s1
[
99 -
% E g AR
J K/ VH g-SW RV g
9 5
\ "
( e
=
ea '
~
"8 ssW BR -
9
- 4W 3 -
y e A j#l N SSE M d >
Q e
is
=w nm 4 TGEE I:~ -2
< !' sEid LGH LC:2Al ~30ER S"A" OX T !? 5 e a I
=
pJ OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL THERMDLUMINESCENT I L DDSIMETER AND AIR SAMPLING STATIDNS (0 - 4 MILES)
J
FIGUREIII-3 OFFSITEENVIRONMENTALTHERMOLUMINESCENTDOSIMlilEK AND AIR SAMPLING STATIONS (4-25 MILES) ur AIRSAWLER O TLD ucao TLD STATIONS AIR SAMPUNG STATIONS NQ. M DESC9FI M ILM.* DEL M2. M DFSCRIPTION DIST? DEL B39 CP COLLEGE POND 4.76M !Nr 21 EW EASTWEYMOUTH CNTRL 2390 M NM 10.0 M S 15 ' PC PLYMOUTH CENTER 4.12 M W B38 CS CEDARVillE ST B52 EW EWEYMOUTH SUB 23.9 M NW 10.0 M WGN k 050 MS lONGSTON SUBST E B49 fF NORTH PLYMOUTH 532 M Wet B47 FC PLYMOUTH CENTER 4.12 M W B43 PT PINES ESTATE 17.0 M Wet B48 SA SHERMAN AIRPORT 834 M VISur B51 SS STANOISH SHOFES 6.49 M NM
- DISTANCE IS MEASURED BETWEEN THE SAWUNGMONITORING STATION AND THE CENTERUNE OF THE REACTOR 1
.e. .mm - . 9 -e t e . - - - =
OM g 3
Z ,e . 9 3 >
0
\k : /
s, z
0 y #
N se
' o
^^~'
h e.
, ,s G
0
, . / v a
g '
g r'#'s s -
i, an 's
, sm /""
' \,N
\ s
' =,
/g ' \p 0 au g
s ,/ e 5 ,
' fi
\
g 0
/
I
'. _(
= #
Q ff *
/ o
)
t
+4 1
,%,~
s i
\ $ \ /
i
%. - -. . 1
- k '
f ,
h ' / \ ,f
i Rg,
u w 8" u 4n 5
u xyx,#* j Ql!
. Pl r
- ~
su,tc M art 2 } ,
3 >
\ \
f > # ,
I M 4 t '
Jd ,
I h e'
" k --
1/
[
I
~
N \
l '
' , \
l
- j
/
- y j ?
,.- ', 1
- l
~
TL
- f t
l'ERTURS
+ r f.ai
$ N
/ CARD .
's, /
/ s .
- % Ava11dle (In l
/ ' perture Cara r '
1
- / h g a' >
4
.-a.'.- %
D ms2saov6-oi ,
FIGURE III-4 i
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC SAMPLE STATIONS scr 4
O SEAWATtR O SEunS" . O RSH MOSS C2 LOBSTER (E RSHES
- 0"'"' 0 "'" o caa"a'"* 0 "" "'** ' ' aa "
urom HD. CCOE DESCRPTION Q[lSL* Dl8, HQ, OCEE DESCRPTION Dl3L* Ql8, SEAWATER SEDihENT 11 DtS OtSCHARGE CANAL 0.16 M N 11 DOS DISCHARGE CANAL 0.2 M SE 17 BP BARLETT POND 2.68 M E 12 PLY-H PLYMOUTH HMBOR 3M W 23 PP POWDER POINT CONTROL 7.76 M New 13 DUX41AY DUXBURY BAY 8M Memf 14 PLB PLYMOUTH BEACH 2M W SHELLCISH 15 W MANORET POINT 3M E l 11 DtS DISCHARGE CANAL 0.2 M MMf 24 MS MARSHFIELD CONTROL 9M MMf 12 PLY 44 PLYMOUTH HARBOR 3M W 15 W MANOnET POINT 3M E REX j 13 DUX41AY DUXBURY BAYCONTROL 8M M8Af 11 G PLYMOUTH COUNTYFAFW 3.44 M W i 24 n6 MARSHRELD CONTROL 9M PMW 21 W WHTMAN FAFW CONTROL 20.10 M WMf
! ~
j s RSH MOSS CRAMEIVES 11 OtS OtSCHARGE CANAL 02 M MMf 13 RR MANOnET PT. BOG 2.45 M E 15 W MANOMET POINT 3M E 14 ER BARTLETTRD. BOG 2.74 M SSE
, 22 EL ELUSylLLE 8M E 23 PS PINE ST. BOG (X)NTROL 16 88 M WeRf 34 ER BRANT ROCK CONTROL toh4 MMf VEGETABLES AhETECAN LOBSTER 80 M ALDEN ROAD FARM 0.93 M E 11 Dl3 DISCHARGE CANAL 02 M MMf 75 M. MALMGEN ESIDENCE 102 M E 12 PLY.H PLYnOUTH HAf43OR 3M W 75 JG JENIONS RESIDENCE 11B2 M 1ASW 13 DUX11AY DUXBURY BAY CONTROL 8M POMf 43 VH WHIPPLE FARM 1.77 R4 SPf i 77 nG n00N ESOENCE 208 5A WSW j FISES 11 6 PLYMOUTH COLMTYFAFW 344 M W 11 DtS DISCHARGE CANAL 02 M MMf 27 EF BROGEWATERFARMCONTROL 20.00R4 W
} 29 FC PRIEST COVE CONTROL 30 M SAf
- 90 IB BUZZAFOS BAY CONTROL 3554 SMF FORACE W hAf VINEYAFU SOUND CONTROL 50 M SSW 11 tf PLYMOUTH COUNTY FAFW 3.44 M W
! 98 CC-BAY CAPE COO BAY CONTROL 15 M ESE 12 1AF WHTMAN FAFWCONTROL 20.10 M WeRf OtSTANCE IS nEASUND BETWEEN THE SAMPLWGNONITOf4NG STATION AND THE CENTERUNE OF TE FEACTOFL I
1
- . - - . . . . - . - - - - - --____ ~ . . - . - - - - , .-
gemme a::9 d
2 2
c
% , e 3 E
W /
\ t a /
> s a 2
\ " N, b
h W
" x m h ~~ d w a g
/ t1LN gg
/ #
<ps 0 - f f \
O / <
<\
ms
~ s
< s
\
Q N M /"U ' a Nfg s W\ ,f 1 j s
Q , s ., ~
g s s/ s '/
,I
\
\
(O ,
O /
A '
U 1,> .
i
.c . - /
g s ---_-_. . . _ - g i
,%,~ \
r g ,
, I \ \
f
-- E % '
T I >
l t i g
l gh g
! - - 73p t, r
~
jV
=
w f$n Y'N w
g o
w dh gi E
~,_
i e W m
~
MP '
H.
I l ,
\
n s 1 c- .
1
> 4 e a 5 %
/ -1 s \,
's \
l 'm
/
' )-
\, ,
/ Q ga Cg% .-
/
s ' g
\
E I
'\
,4 's /
I;i
\'
a
/ 's )/
f,il q% -
, 'es
,/
- v 3g
.a..
.' g /
APE 11 tulle =
C AllD
\ . ~ . ,
AIN) Available on Aperture car,g OTOTOON 'Oy
The frequency, types, cinimua number of sarples and maximum lover limits of detection (LLD) for the analytical ceasurements, are specified in the PNPS Technical Specifications (see Appendix C, Table 8.1-1 and Table 8.1-4).
Upon receipt of the analysis results from Yankee Atomic Electric Co., the Boston Edison staff reviews the results. Reporting levels for radioactivity concentrations in environmental samples are listed in Table 7.1-2 of Appendix C. If the radioactivity concentrations are above the reporting levels, the NRC must be notified within 30 days. For radioactivity which is detected that is attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation, calculations are performed to determine the cumulative dose contribution for the current year. Depending upon the circumstances, a special study may also be completed (see Appendix A).
Most importantly, if radioactivity levels in the environment become elevated as a result of the station's operation, an investigation is performed and corrective actions are recommended to reduce the amount of radioactivity to as far below the legal limits as is reasonably
' achievable. This review of the environmental results and the determination of the radiological dose impact to the general public in comparison with the federal dose limits is the third stage of assessing releases to the environment.
The radiological environmental sampling locations are reviewed annually, and modified if necessary. A garden and milk animal census is performed every year to identify changes in the use of the environment in the vicinity of the station to permit modification of the monitoring and sampling locations. The results of the 1987 Garden and Milk Animal Census are reported in Appendix 0. No changes occurred in the number or locations of gardens within five mil 9s of Pilgrim Station; however, the 1987 Town of Plymouth Animal Census 0 (which has recently been received) indicates a potential for including additional milk or forage locations.
The addition of these new sampling locations is currently being investigated.
The accuracy of the data obtained through Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program is ensures through a comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) program. BECo's QA program has been established to ensure confidence in the measurements and results of the radiological monitoring program through:
- Regular audits of the sampling and monitoring program
- An annual audit of the analytical laboratory by the sponsor companies
- Participation in the United States Environmental Protection Agency cross-check program
- Use of blind duplicates for comparing separate analyses of the same sample o Spiked sample analyses by the analytical laboratory
- Boston Edison Company's TLD QA Program and YAEL's TLD QA Program QA audits and inspections of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program are performed by the US NRC, American Nuclear Insurers and by Boston Edison Company's Quality Assurance Department.
The blind duplicates, split samples and spiked samples are performed by Boston Edison Company, Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Environmental l Laboratory and the other four sponsor companies. The 1987 results of i this QA program are summarized in Appendix F. These results indicate that the analyses and measurements which were performed during 1987 exhibited acceptable precision and accuracy.
Results of Radiometric Analyses and Measurements The following pages summarize the analytical results of all the environmental samples which were collected during 1987. Data for each environmental medium are included in a separate section. A discussion of the sampling program and results is followed by a table which summarizes the year's data for each type of medium. The tables were generated by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company's ERMAP computer program. The unit of measurement for each medium is listed at the top of each table. The left hand column contains the radionuclides which are being reported, total number of analyses of that radionuclide, and the number of measurements which exceed ten times the yearly average for the control station (s). '
The latter are classified as "non-routine" measurements. The next column lists the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) for those radionuclides which have detection capability requirements as specified in the PNPS Technical Specifications (see Table 8.1-4 of Appendix C).
Those sampilng stations which are within the range of influence of Pilgrim Station and which could conceivably be affected by its operation are called "indicator" stations. Distant stations, which are beyond plant influence, are called "control" stations. Direct radiation monitoring stations are broken down into four separate zones to aid in data analysis. These are: near plant (0-0.3 miles), exclusion area (0.1
- 0.9 miles), distant neighborhood (0.9 - 7 miles) and background (8 - 23 miles).
For each sampling medium, each radionuclide is presented with a set of statistical parameters. This set of statistical parameters includes separate analyses for (1) the indicator stations, (2) the control stations, and (3) the station having the highest annual mean concentration. For each of these three groups of data, the Yankee Atomic ERMAP computer program calculates:
l
o The mean value of all concentrations including negative values and values below LLD.
- The standard error of the mean.
- The lowest and highest concentrations.
- The number of positive measurements (activity which is three times greater than the standard deviation) divided by the total number of measurements.
Each single radioactivity measurement datum is based on a single measurement and is reported as a concentration plus or minus one standard deviation. The quoted uncertainty represents only the random uncertainty associated with the radioactive decay process (counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncertainties in the sampling and analysis process. Radioactivity is considered to be present in a sample when the concentration exceeds three times its associated standard deviation.
1 A. Air Particulate Filten A type A/E glass fiber particulate filter, a charcoal cartridge and an air sampling vacuum pump were used to collect radioactive airborne particulates. The eleven locations sampled during 1987 are listed in Table III-1. Analyses of the air particulate filters for gross beta radiation are performed weekly. In addition, quarterly composites of the particulate samples for each sampling location were analyzed for gamma-emitting nuclides.
There sere a total of 50 air particulate filters out of the required 572 which were not collected and analyzed during the year 1987. The air particulate filters at Station #09 (East Breakwater) for weekly samples from January 1 to September 30, 1987 were not collected and analyzed due to a lack of power to the air sampler. The lack of power was due to a transformer failure and degradation of electrical cabling. The air particulate filters at Station #08 (Overlook Area) for weekly samples from January 27 to March 3, 1987, and also from March 17 to April 15, 1987 were not collected and analyzed due to a lack of power to the air sampler. Both samplers were repaired and power has been restored.
During 1987, there were several instances of low sample volume due to a variety of causes, such as power failures, motor failures, and crimped sample lines. Of these, there was only one instance which resulted in the maximum value for the lower limit of detection (LLD) not being achieved. The LLC was not met for Station #09 (East Breakwater) which was for the weekly onsite air sample collected between September 22 to September 30, 1987. This was due to a low sample volume that resulted from a power failure after 12.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of operation following the sampler's return to service. The collected volume was not adequate to reasonably obtain the lower limit of detection. However, a gamma isotopic analysis was performed on the quarterly composite which included the aforementioned air particulate sample. The results of the analysis indicated that only naturally-occurring nuclides were detected.
The sumary of the radioactivity analysis results for air particulates for 1987 is presented in Table III-A-1. The station identification numbers correspond to the locations identified in Table III-1.
Naturally-occurring beryllium-7 and potassium-40 were observed in several indicator and control station air particulate filters. The highest mean concentration was detected at the onsite Station #00 (Harehouse) for gross beta and cobalt-60.
Trend plots of the gross beta activity vs. time for the on-site, property boundary and offsite indicator stations are provided in Figure III-A-1, Figure III-A-2, and Figure III-A-3, respectively. These graphs indicate that on-site gross beta concentrations were two to six times greater than the average offsite concentrations, for nine weekly air samples taken on Boston Edison property during January through July. A statistical analysis of the weekly gross beta results for 1987 at these locations and
, the East Heymouth control location indicated that although several radioactivity concentration peaks were observed t.t air samplers located on Boston Edison property, the weekly concentrations at these indicator locations were statistically no different that the weekly concentrations at the distant control station.
.32-I
Three positive measurements of cobalt-60 tere detected at air sampling stations 1ccated on Boston Edison property during the first and second '
quarters of 1987. No other radionuclides were identified which could be attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation. The cob 41t-60 ;
concentrations did not exceed the reporting levels listed in Appendix C '
Table 7.1-1.
Part II of Appendix A contains a summary of the radioactivity detected in environmental media due to the atmospheric dispersion of slightly contaminated soll during 1987. The dose contribution to the maximum individual from inhalation of the cobalt-60 in air was estimated. The l dose impact to a hypothetical member of the general public from the cobalt-60 in air was only a small fraction of the federal dose limits to l the general public and a very small fractica of natural / man-made radiation levels.
Therefore, analysis of air particulate samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.
i i
l l
Tcblo III-A-1 Surnary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Air Particulate Filters - 1987 ED!Wt AIR PART!DLATE Lk!TSt PCl/CU. M INDICATOR STATIONS STATICN WITH HiGEST EM CONTROL STATIONS memmemem munmemm+n+me **+n+**+*+4 MDICNJCLIDES EM EM EM (NO. #dLYSES) EGU!ED RANT STA. lWNX M (N0HKUTIE!' lid m. ETECTEDee NO. NO. ETECTED+e NO. ETECTEDei OR-B (522) .01 ( 2.2t .1)E -2 00 ( 2.9 i .5)E -2 ( 7.3 i .1)E-2
( !) ( 4.4 - 249.0)E -3 ( 4.8 - 249.0)E -3 ( 8.8 - 60.0)E-3
- (469/470)* *( 51/ 51)e *( 52/ 52)e K-7 ( 41) ( 4.8t .1)E -2 15 ( 5.6 t .3)E-2 ( 5.0 .4)E -2
( 0) ( 3.2 - 6.4}E -2 ( 5.0 - 6.8?E -2 ( 4.1 - 6.1)E-2 e( 37/ 37)* *( 4/ 4)e et 4/ 41e K-40 ( 41) ( 6.11 .8)E -3 09 ( l.1 i .5)E-2 ( 8.3 4 2.1)E-3
( 0) (-5.1 - 15.5)E -3 ( 2.7 - 12.7)E-3 et 8/ 37)e *( 0/ 1)e e( 1/ 4)e PW-54 ( 41) ( -6.7t 47.5)E-6 15 ( 2.5 i .9)E-4 ( !.9 i .6)E -4
( 0) (-7.8 - 5.8)E-4 ( 6.3 - 44.9)E -5 ( 3.9 - 30.7)E-5 et 0/ 37)* et 0/ 418 et 0/ 4)*
C&58 ( 41) ( -4.8t 6.8)E -5 10 ( l.6 i 3.9)E -4 ( l.3 i .7)E -4
( 0) (-9.6 - 13.2)E -4 (-4.1 - 13.2)E -4 (-4.2- 24.4)E-5
- ( 0/ 37)# et 0/ 41s #( 0/ 4)e FE-:i9 ( 41) ( -6.6t 14.6)E -5 06 (9.01 4.9)E-4 (l.12 3.8)E -4
( 0) (-1.9 - 2.3)E -3 ( 6.9 - 231.0)E 5 (-6.4 - 10.9)E-4 '
et 0/ 37)e et 0/ 4)e et 0/ 4)e CO-60 ( 41) ( 3.3t 1.6)E -4 00 ( l.3 t 1.0)E-3 ( 3.7 t 13.6)E-5
( 0) (-1.1 - 4.3)E -3 ( l.7 - 42.5)E -4 (-3.5 - 2.9)E-4 f( 3/ 37)* *( 1/ 4)e *( 0/ 4)e N-65 ( 41) ( -2.21 1.4)E -4 01 ( 5.6 t 4.5)E 4 (-1.8 t 2.1)E-4
( 0) (-2.0 - 1.8)E -3 (-1.0 - 18.3)E-4 (-7.3 - 2.1)E -4 et 0/ 37)e et 0/ 4)e et 0/ 4)*
ZR-95 ( 41) ( -1.92 7.6:E -5 15 ( 4.2 & 3.3)E -4 (-3.9 t 2.6)E -4
( 0) (-1.0 - 1.4)E -3 (-2.4 - 13.5)E -4 (-10. - 1.4)E -4 et 0/ 37)e et 0/ 4)e e( 0/ 4)*
- NDHIOUTIE MIIRS TO M N (F lEPMATE EAStfDO(TS W!CN IDE 0 EATER ide TLN (10) TIES M MRAE 8ANDROJtD FOR M PERIOD OF M FUWT.
- M FTeCTION OF S#ftE 4eLYSES Y! ELD!W DETECTABLE EASLf00fi$
ti.E. >3 STD Wy!ATICueSI !$ !$!CATED WITH et le.
tblo III-A-1 Sumary of Radio:ctivity Analysis Results for Air Particulate Filters - 1987 l EDILMt A!R PARTICLt. ATE LNITS: K!/CU. M 12!CATOR STATIONS STATION WITH M' M ST p CtNTRCL STATIONS m e m :::.:::::ee m m m + m m m eteees mmmmme idD!0N.C.! DES S M G (W. #dLES) REQUIRED M STA. AME RMOE (WJN-ROJTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTEDet NO. NO. ETECTEDee NO. ETECTEPee RU '^3 ( 41) ( -2.7t 5.0)E-5 01 ( l.7 i .6tE -4 (-1.3 1 1.1)E-4
( 0) t-1.2 - .7)E -3 ( 2.1 - 31.8)E-5 (-4.4 - .9)E -4 et 0/ 37)* et 0/ 4)e et 0/ 4)e RU-106 ( 41) ( -4.21 4.2)E-4 01 ( !.2 i .5)E -3 ( 2.0 t 14.6)E -4
( 04 (-7.4 - 4.4)E -3 ( l.5 - 26.0)E -4 (-3.7 - 3.4)E-3
- ( 0/ 37)e e( 0/ 4)* s( 0/ 4)*
CS-134 ( 411 .01 ( -2.8t .4)E-4 00 ( '/.7 t 6.2)E -5 (-l.7 t 1.9)E -4
( 0) (-9.6 - 2.1)E -4 (-2.0 - .5)E -4 (-6.9 - 1.9)E -f
- ( 0/ 37)e #( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 4)*
CS-137 ( 41) .01 ( 7.3t 5.0)E-5 21 ( 3.9 i .8)E -4 ( 3.9 i .8)E -4
( 0) (-6.3 - 7.7)E-4 ( !.5 - 5.1)E -4 ( l.5 - 5.1)E -4 et 0/ 37)e e( 0/ 4)e e( 0/ 4le BA-140 ( 41) ( -4.8t 2.2)E-4 15 ( !.6 i 8.3)E -4 ( 9.5 t 35.0)E -5
( 0) (-3.8 - 2.8)E-3 (-l.5 - 2.4)E -3 (-5.9 - 9.4)E -4
- ( 0/ 37)# et 0/ 4)e et 0/ 416 E-141 ( 41) ( 2.0t .9)E -4 15 ( 7.3 t 4.1)E 4 ( 2.0 t 1.3)E -4
( 0) (-1.1 - 1.5)E -3 (-5.5 - 150.0)E -5 (-l.1 - 4.2)E -4 et 0/ 37)e et 0/ 4)e et 0/ 4)e E-144 ( 41) ( -6.6k 20.9)E-5 09 ( 7.0 t 18.2)E -4 (-6.0 t 4.0)E-4
( 0) (-3.8 - 3.9)E-3 (-1.5 - .2)E -3 et 0/ 37)e et 0/ lie et 0/ 4)e TM-232 ( 41) ( l.2t 1.4)E -4 00 ( l.0 t .6)E -3 ( l.0 t .3)E -3
( 0) (-1.7 - 2.4)E -3 (-2.0 - 24.0)E 4 ( 4.1 - 16.1)E -4
- ( 0/ 37)e e( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 4)e e N0lH0/ TIE REFERS TO M KP90t & SENAATE EASLf0DfiS lH!Oi IDE MATER T)MN TEN (10) TIES M MUAE 940IRllN) FOR M PERICO 0F M EPORT.
et M FRACTION & $4FLE ANALES YlilD12 KTECTARI EAstf00(TS
(!.E. >3 STD DEVIATICNS) IS 1 21CATED WITH *( le.
1 1
Figure III-A-1 1 RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF AIR SAAfPLE FILTERS TAKEN AT ON-SITE LOCATIONS 4ND DISTANT LOCATION
- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
o.30 4
m M
k *'0~ 3
? D O==AP-07 AP-00 WAREHOUSE PEDESTR. (0.138 BRIDGE (0.187 MI. MI. SSW) NNW)
% 0.178 MI. W) 0 = AP-09 EAST BREAKWATE Q
A= AP-08 OVERLOOK AREA (R (0.356 M
%= AP-21 E. WEYMOUTH CONTROL (21. MI. NW Q o.20-N w 4 T o.16-O y
N o.to-M k
b ,
o t 80.0s-1A B '
b .'o '
$0" , m w
0.00 , , , . . , ,
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUO SEP OCT NOV DEC 1987 w.
Figure III-A-2 RADIvaCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF AIR SAMPLE FILTERS TAKEN AT PROPERTY BOUNDARY LOCATIONS AND DISTANT LOCATION
- PILCRilf NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
0.30 m
N 0.25-in
? Q= AP-01 ROCKY HILL RD.
O = AP-03 POCKY HILL RD. 280 MI.ifS)SW
.251 MI,
% A= AP-06 EROPERTY LINE .427 MI, NW))
% M= AP-21 E. WEYMOUTH CONTROL (21. MI, NW)
O m
Q o.20-m d
M '
e o 0. f 5 -
o I m
N o.ro-a a
bO o.os- -
l o.00 14 4 '-
k.Ms y
3/
q JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1987
Figura III-A-3 RADI0 ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF AIR SAMPLE FILTERS TAKEN AT OFF-SITE LOCATIONS AND DISTANT LOCATION
- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
o.30 m
N to 0.25-
? . , AP-10 CLEFT ROCK (0.877 MI. SW)
% b = AP-!7 MANOMET SUBST. (2.337 Mt. SSE Q v= AP-15 H = AP-21 PLYMOUTH E. WEYMOUTH CONTROL (21. MI.CENTER N (4.122 Q o.20-b L '4 w
4 o 0.f s -
O N o.to-M D
O '
O o.os - y .
0.00
.L v1 '
7 QQ^ ' '
^ ;-
'4 .%
JAN FEB MAR APR ' MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT ' NOV DEC 1987
B. Charcoal Cartridaes The same sample collection systems which were used to collect airborne particulates were also used to collect gaseous iodine on charcoal cartridges. The Nucon Level A charcoal cartridges were analyzed weekly for gaseous iodine-131. The eleven locations sampled during 1987 are indicated in Table III-1.
There were a total of 50 charcoal cartridges out of the required 572 which were not collected and analyzed during the year of 1987. The charcoal cartridges at Station #09 (East Breakwater) for weekly samples from January 1 to September 30, 1987 were not collected and analyzed due to a lack of power to the air sampler. The lack of power was due to a transformer failure and degradation of electrical cabling. The charcoal cartridges at Station #08 (Overlook Area) for weekly samples from January 27 to March 3, 1987 and also from March 17 to April 15, 1987 were not collected and analyzed due to a lack of power to the air sampler. Both samplers were repaired and power has been restored.
The maximum value for the LLD for I-131 was not achieved for Station #09 (East Breakwater) which was for the period September 22 to September 30, 1987. The LLO was not met due to a low sample volume which was the result of a power failure after 12.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of operation following the sampler's return to service.
The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for charcoal cartridges collected during 1987 is provided in Table III-B-1. The results indicate that the mean value of the gaseous iodine-131 concentrations for the indicator stations is statistically no different than the mean value for the distant control station; that is, none of the results showed a positive measurement of iodine-131.
The graphical trends of gaseous iodine-131 measurements on charcoal cartridges shown in Figures III-B-1, 2, and 3 indicate increased fluctuation about zero in the fourth quarter of 1987. None of these results are statistically significant or different from zero. The increased fluctuation below the minimum detectable concentration is beitsved to be due to a new detector system which was implemented in the beginning of the fourth quarter. The new detection system has different efficiency and background values than the other detectors. Although the results with this new detector have a slightly higher minimum detectable concentration than the other results, the minimum detectable concentrations are well within the required PNPS Technical Specification levels.
Therefore, analysis of charcoal cartridges collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
Table III-B-1 Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Charcoal Cartridges - 1987 EDilm: 0%RC0AL CMTRIC0E LNITS: PCl/CU. M INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST EAN CXNTROL STATIONS HH4HHHitHH4 MHHHHHHtHH4HH4 MH MtHHHH4 RADIONUCLIDES EAN MAN M (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANE RANGE (NON-ROUTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTED ** NO. NO. DETECTED ** 10. DETECTEDH 1-131 (521) .07 ( -1.9f .5)E -3 06 (-3.1 k 11.1)E -4 (-1.2 i 1.1)E -3
( 0) (-0.8 - 3.9)E -2 (-2.3 - 1.7)E -2 (-3.0 - 1.9)E -2
- ( 0/469)* *( 0/ 52)* a( 0/ 52)*
- NON-ROUTIE REFERS TO TE NLMBER CF SEPARATE EASLREENTS lei!Qi ERE CREATER T1%N TEN (10) TIES TE AGE BACXCROLND FCR TE PERIOD OF TE REPORT.
H TE FRACTION OF SAfftE #MLYSES YIELDING DETECTABLE EASLREENTS (l.E. >3 STD EVIATIONS) l$ INDICATED WITH *( )*.
l l
1 l
l l
Figure. III-B-1 RADI0 ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES TAKEN AT ON-SITE LOCATIONS AND DISTANT LOCATION
- PII, GRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
0.20 0.18-O m
~ D = CF-00 WAREHOUSE (0.138 MI. SSW)
I o.16- O = CF-07 PEDESTR. BRIDGE 0.187 MI. NNW) h A = CF-08 OVERLOOK AREA .178 kI, W) SE) 4 o = CF-09 EAST BREAKWA (0.356 MI.
H = CF-21 E. WEYMOUTH CONTROL (21. MI, NW)
@ o_g4 t
M y 0.12-to 4
L U o.10-z o.os-3 Lower Limit of Detection = 0.J7 pCi/m 0.06-y 0.04-o o.r2-o.oo _ . . _
_M se A
Figure III-B-2 RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES TAKEN AT PROPERTY BOUNDARY LOCATIONS AND DISTANT LOCATION
- PILGFIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
0.20 7
0.18-2 2
0.1e- a= CF-01 ROCsr ulLL RD.
4 ,
O = CF-03 ROCKY HILL RD. 280 MI.R s)SW
.251 MI,
>4 A = CF-06 PROPERTY LINE .427 MI, NW))
M = CF-21 E. WEYMOUTH CONTROL (21. MI. NW)
$ 0.14-e n:
y 0.12-m -
i 4 y o s 0.f 0-o 3
Lower Limit of Detection = 0.07 pCi/m 0.06-0.04-o k
0.02-M. . . ..h. M* . . 6 e i 0.00 , .. m. -G. , - . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . m .; . . ..........m~ ..-..m ., - - .. ~ .. - - - - -
JAN FEP MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1987
Figura III-B-3 RADI0 ACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF CHARCOAL CARTRIDGE SAMPLES TAKEN AT OFF-SITE LOCATIONS AND DISTANT LOCATION
- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
o.20 0.18-O 1I 0.16-
. D= CF-10 O= CF-15 CLEFT ROCK PLYMOUTH CENTER(0.877
.122 MMI. SW)I. W f
% A = CF-17 MANOMET SUBST. 337 MI. SS H= CF-21 E. WEYMOUTH CON OL (21. MI. W)
Q o_,4 c.
c.12-
~
s 4 O o o.10-Ei b
o.os-Lower Limit of Detection = 0.07 pCi/m 3 0.06-s D
U O.04-o k
0.02-
' ~ " ^* ~ '
0'00 "
A5" " FEB" ~ " 5fER APR 5 Y"" J55N "" 5UL
"~
- c. Snil Soll surveys at eleven locations are performed once every three years.
The results of the most current soil survey were reported in the 1985 Annual Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program Report, issued in May 1986.
During 1987, a special soil sampling program was initiated as a result of slightly elevated radioactivity observed in nine air particulate samples taken in January through July on Boston Edison property. The results are summarized in Part II of Attachment A. These soil radioactivity measurements indicated the presence of a fission product (cesium - 137) at normal weapons fallout levels and an activation product (cobalt-60) at levels slightly above the minimum detectable concentration. In addition, the dose impact to a hypothetical member of the general public associated with the direct radiation emitted from the cobalt-60 in the soil was less than 2 mrem /yr, which is eight percent of the federal dose limit to the general public, and a very small percentage of the dose due to natural / man-made radiation.
Therefore, analysis of soil samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.
l l
[
D. Direct Radiation Dose rates from external radiation sources were measured quarterly at about eighty locations (only 40 required by PNPS Technical Specifications)'in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station (and at distant locations) using_thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), and annually at six l nearby beach locations using a high pressure ion chamber system.
Indicator TLDs were placed in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station. Control
. TLDs were placed in locations so as to be outside the influence of Pilgrim Station as shown in Figures III-1, 2, and 3.
Only six (6) out of the one hundred and sixty (160) TLD measurements were missed during the year of 1987. The TLD measurements that were missed are noted in Table III-D-1. These six (6) TLDs were found missing from their posted locations during their quarterly retrieval. The missing TLDs and cages were relocated to be inconspicious and inaccessible where possible.
Results.of the direct radiation muitoring program showed that dose rates in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station during 1987 were similar to previous year's background radiation levels. The low levels of radiation measured at all monitoring locations.were the result of naturally-occurring sources, such as cosmic radiation and natural radioactive materials in the air and ground, as well as fallout from prior nuclear weapons testing.
l.
- 1. Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters A new state-of-the-art thermoluminescent dosimeter program (Panasonic UD-801AS1 and UD-814AS1 combination) was implemented in 1987.
Thermoluminescense is a process in which ionizing radiation, upon interacting with the sensitive material of the TLD (the phospor or
' element'), causes some of the energy deposited in the phosphor to be stored in stable electron ' traps' in the TLD material. These TLD traps are so stable that the energy that is deposited does not change appreciably over the course of months or even years. This provides an excellent method of determining the amount of radiation exposure received over a period of time. The energy stored in the TLDs as a result of interactions with radiation is removed and measured by a controlled heating process in a calibrated light reading system. As the TLD is heated, the phosphor releases the stored energy as light.
The amount of light given off is directly proportional to the radiation dose the TLD received. The reading process 're-zeros' the TLD and prepares it for re-use. The TLDs in use for environmental monitoring at Pilgrim Station are provided and processed by Yankee
! Atomic Electric Co. These highly sensitive TLDs are capable of accurately measuring exposures between 1 mR (well below normal environmental levels for the quarterly monitoring periods) and 200,000 mR.
Table III-D-1 shows quarterly average exposure rates and annual exposure from direct gamma radiation at the TLD stations. The offsite exposure rates ranged from approximately 5 micro-R/hr to 9 micro-R/hr whereas the annual exposures ranged from about 50 mR to 80 mR. (Annual exposures were determined by multiplying each quarterly exposure by the number of hours that the TLD was exposed, then summing these four results. The sum was then divided by 1000 to convert from micro-R to mR.) As noted previously, Pilgrim Station was shut down during the entire year.
ENVIRONME"TAL THERM 0 LUMINESCENT DOSIMETER RESULTS - 1987 I!.t Qurrtzr 2nd Quart;r 3rd Quart:r 4th Quartcr ANNUAL Exlcsure Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate EXPOSURE
_NO. CODE DESERIPTION DIST DIR IX # SD uR/hri (X + SD uR/hri (X
- SD uR/hri (X
- SD uR/hri ( MR1 B01 WS WAREHOUSE 0.11 mi ESE 6.6 + *.'a 7.1 1 0.4 NO DATA 7.4 i 1.4 62.2
- B02 I STATION I 0.31 mi WSW 6.1 1 0.5 7.2 1 0.4 7.8 : 0.4 7.0 1 0.2 62.7 803 PL PROPER 1Y LINE 0.32 mi W 6.3 1 0.4 8.6 i 1.1 8.6 1 0.4 7.8 1 0.3 69.9 804 F STATION F 0.26 mi W 7.0 1 0.6 8.4 1 0.5 8.6 1 0.3 7.7 1 0.2 70.8 BOS D STATION D 0.32 mi WNW 8.6 1 0.8 10.1 1 0.8 NO DATA 12.0 1 1.7 92.2
- B06 PA PARKING AREA 0.22 mi WNW 8.3 1 0.6 8.2 1 0.4 8.8 1 0.5 8.4 i 0.3 75.3 807 PB PEDESTRIAN BRID 0.13 mi NNW 13.7 1 0.8 14.0 1 0.7 14.3 2 0.7 13.6 1 0.5 124.2 808 PMT PLYMOUTH MET TR 0.27 mi WSW 6.0 1 0.3 7.7 1 0.5 7.6 1 0.3 6.8 i 0.3 63.0 B09 OA OVERLOOK AREA 0.09 mi SW 7.8 i 0.5 9.6 1 0.6 9.1 1 0.5 8.6 1 0.3 78.5 810 A STATION A 0.25 mi SW 6.1 i 0.3 7.9 1 0.7 7.9 2 0.4 7.4 1 0.2 65.5 Bli G STATION G 0.32 mi SW 6.6 1 0.5 7.8 1 0.5 8.4 1 0.4 7.8 1 0.4 68.2 812 WR W ROCKY HILL RD 0.52 mi WNW 8.1 1 0.5 9.4 i 1.0 10.1 1 0.4 9.4 1 0.4 82.9 B13 BD BAYSHORE DR 0.81 mi WNW 7.1 i 0.5 8.9 i 0.7 8.6 i 0.4 8.4 1 0.2 74.1 B14 BS BAYSHORE 1.26 mi W 8.9 i 0.3 9.0 1 0.6 9.2 1 0.5 8.7 1 0.3 80.0 BIS RC REC. POOL 1.27 mi WSW 6.2 1 0.4 7.8 i 0.4 8.2 1 0.5 7.4 1 0.4 66.1 B16 DR DIRT ROAD 0.93 mi SW 5.6 1 0.4 7.6 1 0.7 7.5 i 0.4 6.9 i 0.3 61.6 B17 MT MICR0 TOWER 0.76 mi SW 6.8 1 0.4 8.7 1 0.6 8.7 1 0.5 7.8 1 0.2 71.5 B18 CR CLEFT ROCK 0.88 mi SW 6.4 1 0.4 8.2 1 0.7 8.0 1 0.4 7.2 1 0.2 66.7 819 MR MANOMET ROAD 0.87 mi 5 6.5 2 0.5 -
8.5 1 0.5 7.9 2 0.5 7.4 2 0.2 67.9 e 820 E STATION E 1.11 mi 5 6.3 1 0.5 7.9 i 0.5 7.8 1 0.4 7.2 1 0.3 65.4 j; B21 J STATION J 1.30 mi 5 6.0 1 0.5 7.4 1 0.4 7.5 1 0.4 6.9 1 0.2 62.3 s B22 K STATION K 1.38 mi 5 6.1 1 0.5 6.7 i 0.3 7.2 1 0.4 6.7 1 0.2 59.5 B23 AR ACCESS ROAD 0.93 mi S 6.3 1 0.3 7.9 1 0.8 7.6 1 0.4 7.0 1 0.2 64.5 B24 B STATION B 0.28 mi SE 7.2 1 0.6 9.2 1 0.7 8.6 i 0.6 8.2 1 0.4 74.5 825 H STATION H 0.56 mi SW 7.9 1 0.6 9.8 1 1.1 NO DATA 8.7 1 0.2 79.1
- B26 EB EAST BREAKWATER 0.33 mi ENE 8.0 1 0.4 10.0 1 1.2 NO DATA 8.8 1 0.5 80.5
- B27 L STATION L 0.27 mi ENE 7.1 1 0.4 9.2 1 0.9 8.9 i 0.4 7.4 1 0.3 72.9 828 C STATION C 0.10 mi E 7.3 2 0.4 8.9 1 0.8 NO DATA 7.7 1 0.2 71.5
- B29 HB HALLS B0G 0.32 mi ESE 6.8 2 0.4 9.4 1 1.8 8.7 i 0.4 7.5 1 0.2 72.3 B30 ER E ROCKY HILL RD 0.66 mi SE 6.3 2 0.4 7.8 1 1.0 7.4 1 0.4 6.9 1 0.3 63.3 B31 EM EMERSON RD 0.97 mi SE 6.4 1 0.5 8.6 1 0.9 7.8 i 0.3 7.0 1 0.2 66.7 B32 WH WHITE HORSE RD 1.32 mi SSE 6.4 1 0.5 8.4 i 1.0 7.7 1 0.3 6.8 1 0.Z (5.6 B33 MS MANOMET SUBST 2.34 mi SSE 7.8 1 0.7 9.7 1 1.4 8.9 i 0.4 8.5 1 0.5 78.4 B34 ME MAN 0 MET ELEM 2.12 mi SE 5.7 1 0.5 7.6 1 0.9 7.3 2 0.4 6.5 2 0.2 61.0 B35 MP MANOMET PT 2.27 mi SE NO DATA 8.3 2 0.7 7.6 2 0.4 7.0 1 0.4 71.5
- B36 BW BEACHWOOD RD 2.56 mi SE 6.0 1 0.4 7.9 1 0.8 7.9 1 0.4 7.1 1 0.3 64.8 037 MB MANOMET BEACH 3.46 mi SSE 7.5 1 0.6 7.7 1 0.9 7.5 2 0.4 6.6 2 0.2 ES.6 B38 CS CEDARVILLE ST 10.0 mi S 5.7 2 0.4 7.9 1 0.9 7.6 2 0.6 7.1 1 0.2 E3.6 839 CP COLLEGE POND 4.76 mi SW 5.6 1 0.4 7.5 1 1.2 7.5 1 0.4 6.7 i 0.2 61.3 840 SP S PLYMOUTH SUB 2.87 mi W 6.2 1 0.4 7.7 1 0.5 7.9 1 0.6 7.2 1 0.2 65.1 841 EA EARL RD 2.98 mi SSE 5.7 1 0.4 6.3 1 0.4 6.8 1 0.4 6.6 1 0.8 56.6 B42 BR BEAVERDAM RD 3.51 mi S 5.0 1 0.4 6.3 1 0.6 6.4 1 0.4 5.9 2 0.2 53.0 843 PT PINES ESTATE 17.0 mi WNW 5.4 1 0.4 6.4 1 0.5 6.9 1 0.3 6.2 1 0.1 55.7 B44 RP RT. 3 OVERPASS 3.07 mi SW 6.5 1 0.5 7.3 1 0.4 7.5 1 0.3 7.0 1 0.4 63.3 B45 RM RUSSELL MILL RD 2.91 mi WSW 5.6 1 0.4 6.4 1 0.4 7.1 1 0.3 6.4 1 0.2 57.0 B46 HD HILLDALE RD 3.07 mi W 6.3 1 0.4 7.7 1 0.6 7.7 1 0.3 7.4 2 0.3 64.7 B47 PC PLYMOUTH CEN!ER 4.12 mi W 5.4 2 0.3 5.7 2 0.5 5.1 1 0.3 5.0 1 0.3 47.4 8.34 mi WSW 5.5 1 0.3 6.2 1 0.4 6.7 2 0.3 6.4 1 0.1 55.3 B48 SA SHERMAN AIRPORT B49 NP NORTH PLYMOUTH 5.82 mi WNW 7.3 1 0.5 8.1 1 0.5 8.6 1 0.4 8.1 1 0.2 71.8
ENVIR0leENTAL THERM 0 LUMINESCENT DOSINETER RESULTS - 1987~
1st Quartir 2nd Quartsr 3rd Quartsr 4th Quart r ANNUAL
[xposure Rate {xposure Rate [xposure Rate ~ (xposure Rate EXPOSU?E NO. CODE DESCRIPTION DIST DIR fX
- SD uR/hr) (X
- SD uR/hr) (X
- SD uR/hr) fX
B50 KS KINGSTON SUBST 10.0 mi WNW 5.6 1 0.3 7.1 1 0.4 7.1 1 0.4 6.9 i 0.3 59.9 B51 SS STANDISH SHORES 6.49 mi NW 6.0 1 0.5 6.6 1 0.4 7.1 1 0.4 6.5 i 0.3 58.6 B52 EN E WEYMOUTH SUB 23.9 mi NW 6.5 1 0.4 7.8 i 0.6 8.3 2 0.5 7.8 1 0.2 67.9 853 TC TRAINING CTR 0.10 mi SSW 5.9 2 0.4 6.4 1 0.8 6.7 10.4- 6.1 193 56.1 B54 GH GREENWOOD HSE 0.50 mi SE 8.1 2 0.5 7.6 1 0.4 NO DATA 7.' i O.3 68.9
- BS5 P01 SEC H SHORE 710 feet WNW 9.4 2 2.0 8.2 1 0.6 9.2 1 0.4 8.C t0.5- 77.6 B56 P02 FENCE SHORE 440 feet W 13.3 1 0.9 9.0 1 0.4 9.6 1 0.4 tb.3 1 0.7 91.9 B57 P03 FEN L SCREENH 330 feet W 25.5 i 1.8 14.1 1 0.6 14.1 1 0.8 13.1 1 0.6 145.9 B58 PO4 FEN R SCRRENH 210 feet NW 107.2 1 6.0 91.5 1 4.7 98.0 1 5.4 59.7 1 1.8 779.4 B59 P05 FEN WATOP TANK 260 feet NNW 22.5 : 2.0 18.7 1 1.1 21.3 1 1.3 22.1 i 0.8 185.0 B60 P06 FEN CULVtRT 210 feet N 44.9 i 4.6 37.3 1 2.6 33.2 1 2.E 27.0 1 2.8 311.4 B61 P07 FEN INTAKE 390 feet NNE 16.2 2 1.2 16.4 1 1.2 23.8 1 1.3 27.9 1 1.8 185.0 B62 P08 FIN NEW ADMIN 300 feet NE 26.8 1 1.2 29.9 1 1.9 30.9 2 1.1 56.2 1 2.4 316.7 B63 P09 FEN TCF SIDE 440 feet NE 65.5 t 4.0 47.1 1 2.7 26.6 1 1.4~ 36.8 t 0.8 383.3 B64 P10 FEN INTAKE TCF 730 feet ENE 24.3 i 1.8 21.5 i 1.6 17.2 1 0.9 10.8 i 0.4 161.5 B65 Pl1 GATE WH TO TCF 610 feet ENE 60.8 2 3.1 45.8 1 3.1 24.6 1 2.3 17.0 1 0.8 322.8 B66 P12 FEN WH CON GATE 660 feet ESE ~12.5 2 0.8 10.6 1 0.6 11.0 i 1.5 8.7 i 0.3 93.7 B67 P13 FEN CON & PK LOT 730 feet ESE 8.510.5 8.4 1 0.7 8.6 i 0.4 7.9 i 0.5 73.4 B68 P14 FEN BUTLER B 740 feet SE 8.5 1 0.5 8.0 1 0.5 8.1 1 0.4 8.0 1 0.3 71.3 j, 869 P15 FEN UNIT #9 720 feet SE 8.320.5 7.9 1 0.5 8.4 i 0.5 7.9 1 0.2 71.5
-a BTO P16 FEN SWY M GATE 560 feet S 10.0 1 0.7 9.0 1 0.7 8.9 i 0.5 9.1 1 0.5 81.2 8
B71 P17 FEN SHF M GATE 360 feet SW 9.9 1 0.7 10.2 2 0.6 10.6 1 0.4 11.3 1 0.6 92.4 B72 P18 I&C ADMIN BLDG 290 feet SE 31.8 i I.1 19.2 1 1.0 14.7 1 0.7 16.9 2 0.9 179.1 B73 P19 COMPLIANCE AREA 280 feet SE 16.6 i 1.3 14.4 1 0.8 11.1 1 0.5 14.4 1 1.0 123.7 B74 P20 DOSINETRY WIND 0 220 feet E 10.7 1 0.6 11.3 1 0.6 9.9 2 0.7 9.6 2 0.4 91.4 B75 P21 WW ADMIN & TURB 160 feet E 12.9 2 0.8 13.2 1 0.7 12.0 1 0.6 11.3 1 0.4 108.7 B76 P22 QA/QC AREA 440 feet E 11.3 1 0.7 12.0 1 0.9 10.2 1 0.4 11.1 1 0.7 98.3 B77 P23 CMG AREA 390 feet ESE 7.8 1 0.6 7.1 1 0.5 6.8 1 0.4 6.6 1 0.4 62.0 B78 P24 OLD ADMIN BLDG 190 feet SW 12.8 2 0.7 11.6 1 0.8 11.8 2 0.7 13.4 2 0.8 108.7 B79 P25 FIkST AID TRAIL 250 feet WSW 10.9 i 0.7 10.4 2 0.7 9.2 2 0.4 9.8 2 0.3 88.2 Denotes that data from one quarter was missing. An average of the reported quarterly values was used to estimate the missing data far purposes of calculating annual exposures.
FIGURE Ill-D-i ENVIRONMENTAL RADI ATION LEVEL TRENDS FOR NEAR PLANT, EXCLUSION AREA, DISTANT NEIGHBORHOOD,AND BACKGROUND TLD LOCATIONS 1
30 l l l l 28 - -
26- - 0 NEAR PLANT --
---e- -- EXCLUSION AREA 24- -
---0--- D ISTANT NElGHBORHOOD - -
*-- -- B ACKG ROUN D 22- - --
M i 20- - --
C y18- -
l R 16 - -
P 14- -
l E R 12- -
10- - -
U e R 8- - - - '
~~~~~~*~~~~~~-A --
-C . . - -o-- -=
f ' __ _ . - . .
l 6- -
V-4- -
1 2- -
O i l l l FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 1987 QUARTER
, . _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ . . ._m. --.. -._, . , - - _ _ _ - . - _ ..
. - , . - - . _ . . . . - - - - . ___-_,..._.-,y _ _ - - _ . . . _ _ _ , .
In addition to average doses for each TLD for each readout period, average doses are calculated for'the "near plant," "exclusion area,"
"distant neighborhood," and "background" geographic zones. Figure i III-D-1 shows environmental radiation levels that are consistent with past trends: the near-plant dosimeters, as expected, have an average reading above the background exposure rates; the exclusion area has a >
lower (but higher than. background) average exposure rate; and the '
distant neighborhood and background exposure rates are statistically no different from each other.
- 2. Beach Surveys Sensitive radiation detection surveys using a high pressure ion chamber were performed at Plymouth Be Duxbury Beach during October of 1987.ggh, Hhite
'u These Horse Beach measurements wereand performed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company's-Radiological Engineering Group personnel. The results of this most recent survey are in agreement with the previous beach surveys conducted annually from 1977 through 1986. The graphical trend of the radiation levels at these beaches shows very little change in the exposure rate over this eleven year period.
The purpose of this survey is to detect differences in the external exposure rate encountered at beaches near the plant (Plymouth and White Horse) and at a control location (Duxbury). The detector's calibration was checked before each measurement. The data in Table III-D-2 indicate that the exposure rates at Plymouth Beach and White l Horse Beach are not significantly different from the exposure rates measured at the distant control station in Duxbury. As noted previously Pilgrim Station was shutdown for the entire year.
Granite beach stones and gravel are present at three locations. It l
has been demonstrated that proximity to beach stones results in higher exposure rates than in sandy areas (see Annual Report No.10).
This survey indicates that tne natural background exposure rate at beaches near Pilgrim Station is 6-11 UR/hr. These results are in close agreement with similar measurements performed in Maine 21, where the natural background exposure rate at shoreline locations was found to vary between 6.6 and 14.5 UR/hr. These exposure rates were also found to vary directly with the size and proximity of granite outcroppings.
The direct radiation (TLD) measurements and beach survey results for 1987 are within the expected natural background exposure rates in the
! northeastern part of the United States. Therefore, analysis of direct radiation data collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.
1
Table III-D-2 Beach Survey Exposure Rates - 1987 1987 Direct Radiation Survev Results October 14. 1987 Exposure Rate Beach Terrain Location Micro-R/hr + 1 std. dev.
White Horse Beach 7.3 0.4 Sandy. Few granite (Near Hill P Ave) boulders within thirty feet.
White Horse Beach 6.8 1 0.6 Sandy with small amounts (In Back of Full of gravel.
Sail Bar)
Plymouth Beach 6.5 1 0.4 Sandy.
(Outer Beach)
Plymouth Beach 5.7 1 0.4 Sandy.
(Inner Beach)
Plymouth Beach 8.9 1 0.5 Sandy with gravel.
(Behind Bert's Breakwater and seawall Restaurant) nearby.
Ouxbury Beach 6.7 1 0.4 Sandy with coarse gravel.
i l
l Figure III-D-2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION LEVEL TRENDS AT BEACHES NEAR PILGRL\f STATION
- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
20 18-D= WHITEHORSE BEACH - HILL P AVE 16- O= WHITEHORSE BEACH - FULL SAIL BAR A= PLYMOUTH BEACH - OUTER
= PLYMOUTH BEACH -INNER V= PLYMOUTH BEACH - BERTS i4~ H= DUXBURY BEACH - CONTROL M
b g 12-
- N go.
m I
O N a- -
~~~
Q &- .
4
- s '
/ -
-%e 6- x_~~~~~'~~~~ - ~
4-2-
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
E. Seawater Samples of seawater were collected at three (3) locations: the Discharge Canal, Bartlett Pond and Powder Point (control). The Discharge Canal sample was collected by a continuously compositing sampler which extracts a sample of about 20 ml of water from the Discharge Canal every twenty minutes. Grab samples were collected weekly from each of the other two locations. Seawater samples were analyzed monthly for gamma isotopes with a quarterly composite analyzed for tritium. All seawater samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of radioactivity analysis results for seawatar samples collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-E-1. There were no positive measurements of nuclides characteristic of Pilgrim Station's operation observed at any of the three sampling locations. The only positive radioactivity measurements observed were due to naturally-occurring and man-made radioactivity (potassium-40 and cesium-137). The cesium-137 is attributible to previous nuclear weapons testing.
Therefore, analysis of seawater samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
(
l l
l l
l l
l t
Table III-E-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Seawater - 1987 EDilM: SEAWATER LHITS: PCI/KG INDICA' TOR STATIONS STATION WITH H!QEST M CONTRG. STATIONS HM*H+HMMfM4 H+ H H H HH HMfM*4+44 eMHHHH4 Hee RAD 10NXI.! DES M M M (NO. ANAL.YSES) EQU! RED RANE STA. RANGE RANE (NON-ft0VTIEl' LLD NO. DETECTED ** NO. NO. DETECTEDH NO. DETECTED ++
BE-7 ( 33) ( l.!t 2.1)E O 23 ( 3.0 t 2.5)E O ( 3.0 t 2.5)E O
( 0) (-1.9 - 2.2)E 1 ( -1. 6 - 1.2)E 1 (-1.6 - 1.2)E !
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ 11)* *( 0/ 11)*
K-40 ( 33) ( l.5* .3)E 2 11 ( 3.0 t .!!E 2 ( 2.3 t .2)E 2
( 0) (-2.3 - 32.8)E 1 ( 2.2 - 3.3)E 2 ( 8.7 - 31.2)E 1
- ( 11/ 22)* *( 11/ 11)* *( 11/ 11)*
191-54 ( 33) 15. ( -2.71 26.3)E -2 23 ( 2.8 1 1.9)E -1 ( 2.8 i 1.9)E -1
( 0) (-2.7 - 1.7)E 0 (-6.4 - 11.9)E -1 (-6.4 - !!.9)E -l
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/11)*
CO-58 ( 33) 15. ( 3.0t 2.5)E -1 17 ( 9.6 i 2.9)E -1 (-3.6 t 3.4)E -1
( 0) (-1.5 - 2.4)E O (-7.2 - 24.4)E -1 (-2.0 - 1.01E O
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/ 11)*
FE-59 ( 33) 30. ( 2.0t .5)E O 11 ( 2.3 i .8)E O ( 6.2 i 6.0)E -1
( 0) (-2.5 - 7.0)E 0 (-1.1 - 7.0)E O (-3.0 - 3.3)E O
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/ 11)*
(D-60 ( 33) 15. ( -1.8t 21.7)E -2 17 ( 3.5 t 3.1)E -1 (-2.7 i 2.4)E -1
( 0) (-2.2 - 1.5)E O (-1.4 - 1.5)E 0 (-1.9 - 1.3)E 0
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/ lile IN-65 ( 33) 30. ( -3.3t 3.4)E -1 23 ( 1.9 t 4.9)E-1 ( !.9 t 4.9)E -1
( 0) (-?.5 - 3.7)E O (-2.7 - 3.0)E 0 (-2.7 - 3.0)E 0
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ 11)* *( 0/ 11)*
IR-95 ( 33) 15. ( 9.7t 3.0)E -1 11 ( l.0 t .5)E 0 ( 5.5 t 4.3)E -1
( 0) (-1.5 - 4.7)E O (-8.1 - 44.6)E -1 (-2.5 - 2.4)E 0
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/11)*
RU-103 ( 33) ( -0.7t 2.4)E -1 23 (-9.7 i 28.5)E-2 (-9.7 t 38.5)E -2
( 0) (-3.5 - 1.1)E O (-2.5 - 1.5)E 0 (-2.5 - 1.5)E O
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/ 11)*
- EN-00VTIE REFERS TO TE MER OF SEPARATE EASWEENTS I4(10( ERE mEATER T)%N TEN (10) TIES TE AGCE BACXCRCU(D FOR TE PERIOD OF TE REPmi.
- TE FRACTION OF S#fiE ANN.YSES YlELDim DETECTABLE EASSEENTS
(!.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) IS INDICATED WITH *( )*,
Table III-E-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Seawater - 1987 EDILM: SEAWATER LNITS: PCI/KG INDICATOR STATIONS STATICH WITH HIGEST M CONTROL STATIONS m ++e+eu w m m eenmeenuneumene eneenmuun RAD 10ftlCLIDES EAN EAN EAN (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RANE RAPCE (N0HOUTIE)' LLD N0. DETECTEDH NO. NO. DETECTEDet NO. DETECTEDee RU-106 ( 33) ( 2.61 1.6)E O 11 ( 4.6 i 1.7)E O ( 4.7 i 30.0)E -1
( 0) (-1.3 - 1.5)E 1 (-3.2 - 13.8)E O (-1.5 - 1.9)E 1
- ( 0/ 22)* e( 0/ !!)* *( 0/ 11)e 1-131 ( 33) 1. ( 3.0f 2.2)E -2 23 ( 6.5 i 5.1)E -2 ( 6.5 i 5.1)E -2
( 0) (-2.5 - 2.2)E -1 (-1.9 - 3.8)E -1 (-1.9 - 3.0)E -1
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ 11)* *( 0/ 11)*
CS-134 ( 33) 15. ( -7.5f 2.7)E -1 17 (-2.7 t 2.5)E -1 (-6.2 i 1.1)E -1
( 0) (-5.0 - 1.6)E O (-1.1 - 1.6)E O (-1.2 - .0)E O
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ 11)* *( 0/ 11)*
l CS-137 ( 33) 18. ( 9.8f 7.5)E -1 11 ( l.7 i 1.5)E O ( 3.0 t 2.7)E -1
( 0) (-2.2 - 15.3)E O (-2.2 - 15.3)E O (-1.0- 1.7)E 0
- ( 2/ 22)* *( 2/ !!)* *( 0/ 11)*
l BA-140 ( 33) 15. ( 2.4f 2.8)E -l 17 ( 5.3 1 3.9)E -1 (-1.4 i .5)E 0
( 0) (-3,0 - 2.3)E 0 (-8.0 - 22.9)E -1 (-4.0 - 1.3)E 0
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ 111e *( 0/ 11)*
E-141 ( 33) ( 4.5f 4.7)E -1 23 ( 6.2 i 5.4)E -1 ( 6.2 i 5.4)E -1
( 0) (-2.3 - 6.6)E 0 (-2.1 - 3.8)E O (-2.1 - 3.0)E O
- ( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/ 11)*
-144 ( 33) ( -1.41 1.3)E 0 11 ( 4.4 i 176.9)E -2 (-3.1 i 1.7)E 0
( 0) (-1.7 - .8)E 1 (-1.1 - .8)E I (-1.2 - .6)E 1 l *( 0/ 22)* *( 0/ !!)* et 0/ 11)*
l H-3 ( 9) 3000. ( 2.81 6.7)E 1 11 ( l.4 t .7)E 2 ( !.! t 1.3)E 2
( 0) (-2.1 -
2.4)E 2 (-1.5 - 242.0)E O (-8.8 - 34.5)E 1
- ( 0/ 6)* *( 0/ 3)e *( 0/ 3)*
- N0HOUTIE EFERS TO TE MMER CF SEPARATE EASlf00TS IM!m EPE (REATER T)MN TEN (10) TIES TE AGCE BACXCROLND Fm TE FERIOD (f TE FEPORT.
H TE FPACTION OF SAPPLE MLYSES YIELDINO DETECTABLE EA9.REENTS (f.E. >3 STD IEVIATICNS) IS INDICATED WITH *( )*.
F. Shellfish Shellfish samples, which include soft shell clams, quahogs and blue mussels, were collected quarterly from five (5) locations: the Discharge Canal, Manomet Point, Plymouth Harbor, Duxbury Bay (control), and Marshfield (control). Shells and bodies were analyzed quarterly for gamma-emitting isotopes. All shellfish samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of radioactivity analysis results for shellfish collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-F-1. This table shows positive measurements of beryllium-7, cesium-137, cobalt-60, thorium-228 and potassium-40 in samples from the Discharge Canal. In addition, there have been positive measurements of bery111um-7, thorium-228 and potassium-40 at Hanomet Point, Plymouth Harbor, Duxbury Bay, and at the Marshfield control station. There were eight positive measurements of cobalt-60 in blue mussels taken from the discharge canal outfall during 1987. The observed concentrations of beryllium-7, thorium-228 and potassium-40 are due to the natural occurrence of these radionuclides, whereas the observed concentrations of cesium-137 and cobalt-60 were the result of Pilgrim Station radioactive liquid releases. It should be noted that no soft shell clams or quahogs showed any detectable radioactivity that could be attributed to Pilgrim Station's operation.
A special study as conducted to evaluate the impact of the radioactivity in the blue mussels. Part I of Appendix A presents the findings and results of this special study. It was shown that if a person were to consume the maximum annual quantity of seafood (5 kilograms / year) with the highest concentrations of the above radionuclides (as found in the mussels ii. the discharge canal), he would receive a dose of less than 0.3 mrsm to the total body and less than 0.4 mrem to the most restrictive organ (adult, GI-LLI). This study noted that blue mussels, due to their flitration effect, concentrate the radioactivity in the water thereby i
making them a sensitive biological indicator.
Therefore, analysis of shellfish samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.
l l
l l
l l
o
I Table III-F-1 l Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis l Results for Shellfish - 1987 J plM: SE11FIm lNITS PCI/KO ET INDICATOR STAT! ms STAT!W WITH HIGEST M (%NTROL STATIONS enannuemm mememmunesaen neuemnum RADIONUCl.! DES M EAN H (NO. AMLYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA. RMOE RANE (NON-ROUTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTEDet NO. NO. DETECTEDee NO. DETECTED ++
BE-7 ( 40) ( 2.31 .8)E 1 24 ( 4.1 i .8)E I ( 4.1 i .8)E I
( 0) (-6.5 - 12.9)E 1 ( 2.0 - 7.5)E i ( 2.0 - 7.5)E 1 et !!/ 32)e *( 6/ Ble *( 6/ 818 K-40 ( 40) ( l.11 .1)E 3 15 ( 1.4 i .1)E 3 ( 9.0 t 2.4)E 2
( 0) ( 6.6 - 251.0)E 1 ( 1.0 - 1.7)E 3 ( 2.8 - 18.3)E 2
- ( 28/ 32)* e( 4/ 4)# *( 8/ 8)e l9t-54 ( 40) ( 4.5t 8.3)E -l 12 ( l.8 t 1.8)E O (-1.9 i 4.5)E -1
( 0) (-1.3 - 1.4)E 1 (-1.3 - 1.4)E I (-2.2 - 1.9)E O
- ( 0/ 32)e *( 0/ 12)e *( 0/ 8)*
CO-58 ( 40) ( -1.21 8.7)E -l 13 (-4.1 1 266.8)E -2 (-6.6
- 2.5)E -1
( 0) (-9.8 - 11.1)E O (-9.8 - it.1)E O (-1.7 - .3)E O
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 8)*
FE-59 ( 40) ( -2.3t 2.5)E O 11 (-3.2 1 3,0)E -1 (-4 ?.t 9.1)E -1
( 0) (-5.5 - 1.4)E 1 (-1.5 - .4)E O (-3.8 - 3.7)E 0
- ( 0/ 32)e et 0/ Ble *( 0/ 8)*
l i
CO-60 ( 40) ( 1.21 .6)E 1 11 ( 5.4 i 1.5)E 1 (-7.0 t 5.2)E -l
! ( 3) (-1.0 - 10.8)E I ( !.5 - 10.8)E 1 (-2.8 - 1.5)E O
( *( 9/ 32)e *( 8/ 8)* *( 0/ Ble l
l ZN-65 ( 40) ( -1. 5f 1.6)E O 15 ( 3.4 1 1.4)E O ( l.7 i 7.5)E -l I ( 0) (-2.9 - 1.0)E I ( 2.8 - 61.1)E -1 (-4.5 - 1.9)E 0
! et 0/ 32)e *( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ 8)*
l l ZR-95 ( 40) ( 5.51 II.6)E -1 12 ( !.21 2.5)E O ( 7.3 i 4.1)E -1 l ( 0) (-2.0 - 1.6)E 1 (-2.0 - 1.6)E i (-7.0 - 29.5)E -1
- ( 0/ 32)e *( 0/ 121e *( 0/ 8)*
RU-103 ( 40) ( -4.5t 8.9)E -l 12 ( !.3
- 1.7)E 0 (-8,5 t 32.4)E -2
( 0) (-1.1 - 1.4)E I (-1.1 - 1.4)E 1 (-1.8 - 1.0)E O
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 12)* *( 0/ 8)e e NON-ROUTIE REFERS TO TE NLMER OF EPARATE EA9EOTS 4(ICH ERE @ EATER THAN TEN (10) TIES TE MERAE BAOXRCLND FCR TE PERIOD CF TE REPCRT.
H TE FRACTICN OF SAff'LE AMLYSES Y!ELDING ETECTAELE EASWEIOTS (I.E. >3 STD EVIATIONS) IS INDICATED WITH et )*,
l
Table III-F-1 Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Shellfish - 1987 EDILM: SELLFISH LNITS: PCI/KG lET IM)lCATm STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST EAN CONTROL STATIONS nmmmum ** ummmniumumi m*M mn**m RADIONJQ.! DES EAN EAN EAN (NO. ANALYSES) EQUIRED RANCE STA. RANCE R# ICE (NON-ROUTIEl' LLD NO. DETECTED ** NO. N0. DETECTED ** NO. DETECTED **
RU-106 ( 40) ( -9.11 7.3)E O !! ( 9.2 t 24.5)E -1 (-7.3 1 1.5)E O
( 0) (-1.1 - 1.1)E 2 (-9.3 - 10,5)E 0 (-1.3 - .1)E 1
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 8)*
1-131 ( 40) ( 3.9t 4.2)E O 12 ( 9.0 i 8.0)E O ( 5.4 t 10.4)E -1
( 0) (-6.6 - 6.4)E 1 (-4.8 - 5.9)E 1 (-2.0 - 5.0)E O
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 12)* *( 0/ 8)*
CS-134 ( 40) ( -2,11 .9)E O 24 (-8.5 t 2.8)E -1 (-8.5 t 2.8)E -1
( 0) (-2.0 - .9)E 1 (-1.9 - .5)E O (-1.9 - .5)E O
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 8)e CS-137 ( 40) ( l.5i .7)E O 12 ( 3.2 i 1.1)E O ( 2.7 1 3.0)E -1
( 0) (-8.8 - 13.3)E O (-2.7 - 133.0)E -1 (-1.1 - 1.3)E 0
- ( 4/ 32)* *( 0/ 12)* *( 0/ 8)*
BA-140 ( 40) ( -5.2t 27.6)E -1 13 ( 9.1 1 7.0)E O (-5.3 i 9.0)E -1
( 0) (-4.1 - 5.1)E 1 (-1.2 - 5.1)E 1 (-4.9 - 1.9)E O
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 8)*
E-141 ( 40) ( 1.5i 1.5)E C 13 ( 4.1 t 3.9)E O ( l.9 i .4)E O
( 0) (-2.7 - 1.9)E 1 (-1.2 - 1.9)E 1 ( 3.0 - 42.9)E -1
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 8)*
CE-144 ( 40) ( -3.8i 5.3)E 0 11 (-1.2 i 2.2)E 0 (-2.9 1 1.2)E O
( 0) (-8.2 - 5.0)E 1 (-1.1 - .7)E 1 (-8.6 - 1.7)E O
- ( 0/ 32)* *( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 8)*
TH-232 ( 40) ( 3.0t .8)E 1 13 ( 5.7 i 2.5)E 1 ( l.8 t .7)E 1
( !) (-2.1 - 18.6)E 1 (-2.1 - 18.6)E 1 (-8.3 - 371.0)E -1
- ( 9/ 32)* *( 4/ 8)* *( 4/ 8)*
i I
- NON-ROUTIE REFERS TO TE NMER OF SEPARATE EASWE)DTS lei!CH IDE GREATER Tl%N TEN (10) TIES TE AWRACE BA0(motND Fm TE PER100 0F TE REPORT.
H TE FRACTION OF S#f'LE #MLYSES YlE1. DING ETECTARE EASWEENTS l (I.E. >3 STD DEVIATi(NS) IS INDICATED WITH *( )*.
l I
G. Irish Moss (Chondrus criscus)
Irish moss (or Chondrus criscus) samples were collected quarterly at four (4) locations: the Discharge Canal, Manomet Point, Ellisville (control) and Brant Rock (control). Irish moss samples were analyzed quarterly for gamma-emitting isotopes. All Irish moss samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of radioactivity analysis results for Irish moss collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-G-1. This table shows positive measurements of beryllium-7, cobalt-60, potassium-40, manganese-54 and cesium-137 at the Discharge Canal. In addition, there have been positive measurements of beryllium-7, cobalt-60, thorium-228 and potassium-40 at Manomet Point; beryllium-7, coDalt-60, thorium-228 and potassium-40 at the control station in Ellisville; and beryllium-7, potassium-40 and thorium-228 at the control station in Brant Rock.
The positive measurements of beryllium-7, potassium-40, and thorium-228 in Irish moss is a result of naturally-occurring radioactivity. The observed concentrations of cobalt-60 at the Discharge Canal, Manomet Point and Ellisville were the result of PNPS-1 liquid releases. The prevailing surface currents along the shoreline in the Plymouth area are in the southerly direction. There were no positive measurements of Pilgrim Station related nuclides at the control station in Brant Rock which is approximately twelve miles away in the north northwest direction.
It is important to note that, due to processing and market dilution of the Irish moss, the presence of the cobalt-60, cesium-137 and manganese-54 concentrations do not represent a significant potential source of dose to the general public. In addition, Irish moss was not harvested in the Plymouth area during 1987, which makes this an improbable radiation exposure pathway to humans. (See Part III of Appendix A for specific reference sources and more detailed l information.) However, direct human consumption of Irish moss (which to l our knowledge, does not occur) with the highest mean concentrations would l result in a dose rate of about 0.03 mrem /yr to the total body and approximately 0.16 mrem /yr to the most sensitive organ (Adult-GI-LLI, using the models presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and assuming consumption of 5 kg/ year of unprocessed material). The dose rate calculations are discussed in detail in Part III of Appendix A.
l Therefore, analysis of Irish moss samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.
l l
l l - - .
1
Table III-G-1 Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis Resulte for Irish Moss (Chondrus crispus) - 1987 EDilM: IRISH MOSS LNITS: PCI/KG IET INDICATOR STATIONS STATICH WITH HIGEST EAN CONTROL STATIONS 4H H H H H H H44* M fe4 H H H Hf4 H H fM fM H +f Mf4H H H H RADIONVQ.! DES EAN EAN EAN (NO. ANALYSES) EQU!ED RANCE STA. RANCE RANE (NON-ROUTIEl' lid NO. ETECTEDH NO. NO. DETECTEDH NO. DETECTED **
BE-7 ( 16) ( l.71 .3)E 2 11 ( 2.1 i .5)E 2 ( !.5 i .2)E 2
( 0) ( 8.2 - 35.4)E 1 ( 9.9 - 35.4)E 1 ( 8.6 - 26.3)E 1
- ( 6/ 8)* et 3/ 4)* *( 5/ 8)*
K-40 ( 16) ( 6.61 .5)E 3 11 ( 7.4 i .7)E 3 ( 6.1 i .3)E 3
( 0) ( 4.7 - 8.9)E 3 ( 5.9 - 8.9)E 3 ( 4.7 - 7.1)E 3
- ( 8/ 8)* *( 4/ 4)* f( 8/ 8)e IW-54 ( 16) 130. ( 1.31 .8)E 1 11 ( 2.3 t 1.4)E 1 ( 3.4 i 1.0)E O
( 1) (-l.1 -
65.9)E O ( 3.8 - 65.9)E O (-2.3 - 6.2)E O
- ( 1/ 8)* *( 1/ 4)e *( 0/ 8)*
CO-58 ( 16) 130. ( -2.0t 1.7)E O 11 (-2.0 1 15.9)E -1 (-6.9 i 14.0)E -1
( 0) (-1.2 - .3)E 1 (-4.4 - 3.1)E 0 (-4.4 - 6.1)E O
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ die *( 0/ 8)*
FE-59 (16) 260. ( 4.71 2.3)E 0 34 ( l.4 i .6)E 1 ( 5.5 i 5.3)E O
( 0) (-3.8 - 14.4)E 0 ( 5.0 - 32.4)E 0 (-2.2 - 3.2)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ Sie CO-60 ( 16) 130. ( 1.31 .9)E 2 11 ( 2.6 i 1.7)E 2 ( !.8 i 2.5)E O
( 5) (-8.4 - 771.0)E O ( 5.8 - 77.1)E 1 (-7.9 - 14.8)E O
- ( 5/ 8)* et 4/ 414 *( 1/ E)*
l ZN-65 ( 16) 260. ( 4.21 6.1)E 0 !! ( 8.7 i 9.8)E O (-6.6 i 2.5)E 0 l
( 0) (-1.9 - 2.6)E i (-l.9 - 2.6)E 1 (-1.6 - .2)E 1
- ( 0/ Sie *( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 9)*
ZR-95 ( 16) ( 6.91 14.8)E -1 15 ( !.2 i 1.8)E 0 (-5.6 t 3.3)E O
( 0) (-4.5 - 6.5)E O (-3.8 - 4.2)E O (-2.3 - .4)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ 8)*
1
( RU-103 ( 16) ( -1. 3t .9)E O 11 ( 2.7 t 13.4)E -1 (-9.9 t 10.0)E -1 l ( 0) (-5.2 - 2.9)E O (-2.3 - 2.9)E O (-5.4 - 2.8)E O l *( 0/ 8)e *( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ Ble e NON-ROUTIE REFERS TO M IU(EER OF SEPMATE EASLEEENTS lei!CH IDE OREATER T)WI TEN (10) TIES M MO%& BACXm0lND Fm M PERIOD OF M REPORT.
- M FRACil0N OF SAELE ANALYSES YlELDING DETECTAR.E EASWEENTS (f E. >3 STD DEV!ATIONS) IS INDICATED WITH *( le.
1 -
Tcble III-G-1 Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Irish Moss (Chondrus crispus) - 1987 EDilft: IRl91 NOSS LNITS: PCI/KG WET INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST EAN CONTROL STATims mmumumee mmemmmeemem e+e m m ne****
RADICNUCLIDES EAN EAN EAN (W. AMLYSES) EQUIRED RN STA. RANI RANGE (NON-ROUTIEl' LLD NO. DETECTED ** NO. NO. DETECTEDee NO. DETECTEDee RU-106 ( 16) ( !.4t 13.7)E 0 34 ( 1,6 i 1.5)E 1 ( 6.8 i 8.4)E O
( 0) t-5.4 - 7.2)E 1 (-5.7 - 59.4)E O (-1.6 - 5.9)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)e *( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ 8)e I-131 ( 16) ( l.11 .9)E I 11 ( 3.0 1 1.0)E i ( l.0 t 5.9)E O
( 0) (-1.9 - 4.7)E 1 ( 5.7 - 46.8)E O (-2.4 - 2.4)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)e *( 0/ Ale *( 0/ 8)*
CS-134 ( 16) 130. ( -2.5t 2.3)E O 34 (-2.4 i 207.6)E -2 (-1.7 1 1.2)E O
( 0) (-1.0 - .8)E 1 (-3.7 - 5.9)E O (-5.2 - 5.9)E O
- ( 0/ Sie *( 0/ 4)* et 0/ 8)*
CS-137 ( 16) 130. ( 9.0t 2.8)E 0 11 ( l.6 i .1)E I ( 3.1 i 1.5)E O
( 4) (-1.3 - 18.6)E O ( !.4 - 1.9)E 1 (-2.9 - 11.1)E O
- ( 4/ 8)* *( 4/ 4)* et 0/ 8)*
BA-140 ( 16) ( -2.3t 2.8)E 0 15 i1.2t 2.1)E O (-1.3 i .3)E 1
( 0) (-1.6 - .7)E 1 (-2.3 - 6.9)E 0 (-2.4 - .7)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ Ble CE-141 ( 16) ( 3.2t 2.9)E O 15 ( 7.5 t 2.3)E 0 ( 2.8 i 3.2)E O
( 0) (-1.4 - 1.3)E I ( 2.8 - 12.7)E O (-1.2 - 1.3)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)e et 0/ 4)* #( 0/ 8)*
-144 ( 16) ( -1.5t 1.1)E 1 !! (-1.0 t 1.6)E 1 (-).2 i .4)E 1
( 0) i-4.8 - 3.0)E 1 (-4.1 - 3.0)E i (-2.7 - .7)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ 8)*
TH-232 ( 16) ( 1.4t .9)E 1 34 ( 4.0 i 1.8)E 1 ( 3.5 t .9)E 1 l ( 0) (-1.6 - 5.8)E 1 ( 3.1 - 87.7)E O ( 3.1 - 87.7)E 0 l *( 0/ 8)e *( 1/ 4)* *( 2/ 8)*
l l
'. IDH0) TIE EFERS TO TE NJEER CF SEPARATE EASLREENTS lei!OI ERE OREATER THAN TEN (10) TIES TE AECE BACK0ROLN) FOR TE PERIOD OF TE REPORT.
- TE FRACTION OF SATLI ANftYSES YlEU)!W DETECTABLE EASlJREENTS
(!.E. >3 STD DEVIATICH3) IS INDICliTED WITH *( le.
H. American Lobster (Humarus americanus)
Lobster samples were collected four tin:es per season in the vicinity of the Discharge Canal and annually at a distant point offshore. Lobsters collected from the vicinity of ^.he discharge canal were analyzed quarterly for gamma-emitting isotopes. Lobsters collected offshore were analyzed annually for gamma-emitting isotopes. All lobster samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1981.
The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for American lobsters collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-H-1. These results indicate that there were no positive measurements of any radioactivity other than potassium-40 in either the indicator or the control samples (potassium-40 is a naturally-occurring nuclide).
Therefore, analy';is of lobster samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
Table III-H-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for American Lobster (Homarus americanus) - 1987
~
ED11m #GICAN LOBSTER LNITS: PCl/KG WET INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST EAN CONTROL STATIONS
- m * * * **en enuneet****ennene nennentuen RADIONUCLIDES EM EM EAN (N0. MYSES) REQUIRED RANI STA. P/NCE RANGE (NON-ROUTIE)' L1D NO. DETECTED *e NO. NO. DETECTED +e NO. DETECTEDee BE-7 ( 5) ( 9.5* 1.1)E 1 11 ( 9.5 t 1.1)E I (-6.5
- 8.4)E I
( 0) ( 7.4 - 12.0)E 1 ( 7.4 - 12.0)E 1 et 0/ 4)* a( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ lie K-40 ( 5) ( 2.31 .3)E 3 12 ( 3.2 i .J)E 3 ( 3.2 i .3)E 3
( 0) ( !.8 - 3.0)E 3
- ( 4/ 4)e et 1/ 1)* e( 1/ 1)e IN-54 ( 5) 130. ( -3.6t .8)E 0 12 (-3.6 i 9.8)E O (-3.6 i 9.8)E O
( 0) (-5.8 - -2.2)E 0 e( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ 1)* e( 0/ 1)*
CD-58 ( 5) 130. ( 9.4t 5.3)E O 11 ( 9.4 t 5.3)E 0 ( 8.1 i 10,5)E 0
( 0) (-3.1 - 22.6)E 0 (-3.1 - 22.6)E O
- ( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 416 e( 0/ !)e FE-59 ( 5) 260. ( 7.61 7.3)E 0 11 ( 7.6 i 7.3)E O (-1.3i 2.6)E 1
( 0) (-8.9 - 25.1)E 0 (-8.9 - 25.1)E 0 et 0/ 4)e e( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ lie CD-60 ( 5) 130. ( 5.7t 5.9)E 0 11 ( 5.7 i 5.9)E 0 (-7.6 i 127.0)E -1
( 0) (-5.4 - 21.7)E 0 (-5.4 - 21.7)E 0 et 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 4)* et 0/ 1)e ZN-65 ( 5) 260. ( !.it .7)E I 11 ( !.1 i .7)E 1 ( 6.5 t 20.8)E 0
( 0) ( 8.7 - 326.0)E -1 ( 8.7 - 326.0)E -1 e( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 4)s et 0/ 1)e ZR-95 t 5) ( 3.4t 6.4)E 0 12 ( 2.4 i 2.2)E 1 ( 2.4 t 2.2)E 1
( 0) (-3.9 - 22.6)E 0
- ( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 1)e *( 0/ 1)*
RLH03 ( 5) ( -9.6t 6.9)E O 12 ( l.1 t 11.4)E 0 ( 1.1 i !!.4)E O
( 0) (-2.6 - .8)E 1
- ( 0/ 4)* e( 0/ 11e *( 0/ 11e e WJH01 TINE REIIRS TO M RMO 0F SENAATE FORREENTS 14410i lGE OREATER THoN TDi (10) TIES M MGAE BA01RtND FCR M MR100 0F M RERRT.
n M FP/CTICN OF S#ftE MYES YIELDING ETECTAILE EASLFDUTS (1.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) IS INDICATED WITH et le.
Table III-H-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for American Lobster (Homarus americanus) - 1987 EDIl8': AERICAN LOBSTER LNITS! PCI/KG ET INDICATOR STATICNS STATION WITH HIGEST EAN CONTROL STATIONS me+mmenwH memmemHfHHHH H"h:44HH W RADIONLO. IDES EM EAN N./W (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RAWE STA. R20E Wi (NON-ROUTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTED ++ NO. NO. DETECTEDH K). E CTED++
RU-106 ( 5) ( -2.9t 28.9)E O !! (-2.9 1 28.9)E 0 (-2.8 i 9.0)E 1
( 0) (-6.9 - 3.2)E 1 (-8.9 - 3.2)E 1 e( 0/ 4)s *( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ lie I-131 ( 5) ( 2.7i 1.8)E 1 11 ( 2.7 i 1.8)E 1 (-1.9 i 6.2)E 1
( 0) ( 8.5 - 79.8)E 0 ( 8.5 - 79.8)E O
- ( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ 4)* *( 0/ lle CS-134 ( 5) 130. ( -1.21 .8)E 1 12 ( 3.6 i 11.1)E 0 ( 3.6 i 11.1)E O
( 0) (-3.6 - .1)E 1
- ( 0/ 4)e et 0/ 1)e *( 0/ 1)*
CS-137 ( 5) 130. ( 1.5i .4)E 1 12 ( 1.7 i 1.0)E 1 ( !.7 1 1.0)E 1
( 0) ( 6.4 - 24.1)E O
- ( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ lie e( 0/ 1)*
BA-140 ( 5) ( -9.2t 4.1)E 0 11 (-9.2 1 4.1)E 0 (-1.3t 3.0)E 1
( 0) (-l.7 - .2)E 1 (-1.7 - .2)E 1
- ( 0/ 4)e et 0/ 4)e a( 0/ 1)*
CE-141 ( 5) ( -2.0t 83.7)E -1 12 ( 1.3 t 1.7)E 1 ( 1.3 i 1.7)E 1
( 0) (-2.1 -
2.0)E 1 e( 0/ 4)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)*
E-144 ( 5) ( 2.81 0.7)E 0 12 (2.31 4.2)E 1 ( 2.3 i 4.2)E 1
( 0) (-1.3 - 2.1)E 1 et 0/ 4)e e( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ lie TM-232 ( 5) ( -1. 4 f 22.01E 0 11 (-1.4 1 22.0)E 0 (-4.0 t 3.6)E 1
( 0) (-6.5 - 3.4)E 1 (-6.5 - 3.4)E 1
- ( 0/ die et 0/ 4)* *( 0/ 1)*
- NON-RC'RI!E REFERS TO M IOBER OF SEFARATE EASUDENTS IMIOi nGE CREATER THM TEN (10) TIES M AWRACE BACXCRO.ND FOR M PERIOD OF M REKRT.
- M FRACTION CF SATLE MLYSES YlELDINO DETECTAfLE EASUOOGS (I.E. >3 STD DEYlATIONS) IS INDICATED WITH e( le.
I. Fishes Fish samples of bottoN oriented (Group I) and near-bottom (Group II) species were collected quarterly (when available) in the vicinity of the Dischcrge Canal. In addition, samples of anadromous (Group III) and coastal migratory (Group IV) species were collected (when in season) in this same area. Lastly, a sample from each group was collected at a distant location offshore. Fish samples collected from the vicinity of the discharge canal were analyzed quarterly for gamma-emitting isotopes and fish samples coll e.ted offshore were analyzed annually. During 1987, Group II samples were unavailable in the first quarter due to rough seas and the species not being found in the general area of the Discharge Canal. Fish samples from all other groups of fishes were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for fishes collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-I-1. There were positive measurements of potassium-40 and cesium-137 at control stations. The potassium-40 is naturally-occurring, whereas the cesium-137 is a result of fallout due to previous atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.
Therefore, analysis of fish samples collected during 1987 showed r.3 evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
Tablo III-I-1 Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Fishes - 1987 ED!tM: FISES (NITS: KI/KO ET INDICATOR STATION? STATION WITH HIGEST EAN CONTROL STATIONS HHes eHeHeeH*4 *HHMMeeHHMMMMH eMMM44MH+H RADIOMXI.! DES EAN EAN M (NO. ANN.YSES) REQUIRED RANE STA. RME RANE (NON40llTIEl' (.1.D NO. ETECTEDet NO. NO. DETECTED ** NO. DETECTED *+
E-7 ( 32) ( 2.0* 1.4)E 1 90 ( 8.4 i 5.6)E 1 ( l.3 1 4.5)E I
( 0) (-1.1 - 1.6)E 2 (-2.0 - 1.7)E 2
- ( 0/ 25)* *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 7)*
K-40 ( 32) ( 3.lt .!)E 3 90 ( 3.9 i .2)E 3 ( 1.2 i .2)E 3
( 0) ( 2.3 - 3.9)E 3 ( 2.4 - 3.9)E 3
- ( 25/ 25)e *( 1/ 1)e *( 7/ 7)*
tW-54 ( 32) 130. ( 3.It 1.6)E O 90 ( 3.2
- 6.2)E 0 (-2.6 i 1.8)E 0
( 0) (-1.3 - 2.0)E I (-9.7 - 3.2)E O
- ( 0/ 25)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 7)*
CD ~4 ( 32) 130. ( -3.0t 14.3)E -1 90 ( !.1 i .7)E 1 (-1.2 i 3.3)E 0
( 0) (-1.0 - 1.6)E 1 (-1.1 - 1.1)E 1
- ( 0/ 25)* *( 0/ 11e *( 0/ 7)e FE-59 ( 32) 160. ( -2.8t 4.3)E O 90 ( 9.1 i 15.4)E O (-3.6i 7.4)E O
( 0) (-4.2 - 3.3)E I (-3.6 - 2.1)E 1 a( 0/ 25)e e( 0/ 1)* et 0/ 7)e CD-60 ( 32) 130. ( -1.2t 2.1)E O 90 (5.4i 8.0)E O (-1.5 t 4.6)E O
( 0) (-2.4 -
1.6)E 1 (-1.9 - 1.5)E I
- ( 0/ 25)* *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 7)e ZN-65 ( 32) 260. ( -5.0t 45.1)E -1 92 ( 7.8 t 13.7)E O (-1.1 i .6)E 1
( 0) (-4.3 - 3.8)E I (-5.9 - 21.5)E O (-2.9 - 2.2)E 1
- ( 0/ 25)e *( 0/ 2)e *( 0/ 7)*
ZR-95 ( 32) ( 2.8t 3.2)E O 90 ( l.6 t 1.3)E 1 (-7.7 i 5.5)E O
( 0) (-3.3 - 4.1)E I (-2.0 - 1.6)E 1 et 0/ 25)* *( 0/ 1)e et 0/ 7)*
Rl-103 ( 32) ( 1.6t 20.2)E -1 90 ( 9.5 t 7.6)E 0 (-4.7 t 4.5)E 0
( 0) (-1.7 - 2.9)E 1 (-2.2 - 1.0)E 1 et 0/ 25)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 7)e e NON40llTIE RETERS TO TE MlMBER OF SEPMATE EAStREENTS Wi!CN EE OREATER T)#N TEN (10) TIES TE AVDtAE BACKCRCUO FOR TE PERIOD OF TE RENRT.
H TE FRACTION OF S#FLE #MLYSES YIEl. DING DETECTAalf EASLRENNTS it.E. >3 STD KY!ATIONS) IS IE!CATED WITH et )..
Tsble III-I-1 Sucrosry of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Fishas - 1987 EDlls FI9(S tam. K!/KG ET INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST H CONTROL STATICNS
( 0) (-1.3 - 1.1)E 2 (-3.2 - 3.4)E 1 (-1.3 - .3)E 2
- ( 0/ 25)* *( 0/ 3)* *( 0/ 7)e I-131 ( 32) ( -2.5* 77.4)E -1 29 ( 2.3 t 2.1)E I (-5.3 t 8.4)E O
( 0) (-1.3 - .5)E 2 (-4.2 - 2.3)E 1 et 0/ 25)e *( 0/ lie et 0/ 7)e CS-134 ( 32) 130. ( -5.7t 1.3)E O 92 ( 2.7 t 4.2)E O (-4.4 1 3.5)E O
( 0) (-2.0 - .6)E I (-1.5 - 6.9)E O (-l.9 - .7)E 1
- ( 0/ 25)* *( 0/ 2)* et 0/ 7)e CS-137 ( ?2) 130. ( l.11 .2)E 1 29 ( l.8 i .9)E 1 ( 8.8 t 2.5)E O
( 3) (-9.0 - 49.0)E O ( l.6 - 17.7)E O
- ( 3/ 23)* *( 0/ lie of 0/ 7)*
& l40 ( 32) ( -3.3t 3.9)E 0 90 ( l.1 i 1.2)E 1 (-2.3 i 7.1)E O
( 0) (-4.3 - 2.6)E I (-2.5 - 2.0)E 1
- ( 0/ 25)e *( 0/ 1)* et 0/ 7)*
CE-141 ( 32) ( 3.0t 2.9)E 0 92 ( !.6 t 1.5)E I ( 7.9 i 4.1)E O
( 0) (-2.7 - 3.0)E 1 ( 5.5 - 306.0)E -1 ( 5.5 - 306.0)E -1 e( 0/ 25)# *( 0/ 2)* *( 0/ 7)*
E-144 ( 32) ( -1.St .9)E 1 90 (-6.5 1 36.3)E O (-2.4 t .9)E i
( 0) (-6.4 - 7.2)E 1 (-6.7 - 1.2)E 1 et 0/ 25)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 7)e TH-232 ( 32) ( !.7t .6)E 1 92 ( 3.9 1 3.2)E I ( 2.5 t .9)E I
( 0) (-5.0 - 8.6)E I ( 6.9 - 71.1)E O ( 2.9 - 711.0)E -1
- ( 0/ 25)e *( 0/ 2)e *( 0/ 7)*.
- NDHOUTIE EFERS TO TE MER OF SEPARATE EAsuaOTS INIDI ERE GREATER THAN TEN (10) TIES TE AWRAE IWXOROLMD FOR TE PERI (X) 0F TE REPORT.
- TE FMCTION & SMPLE MALYSES YlELDING DETECTAi!LE EASU0GT!
(I.E. >3 STD DEVIATION 3) IS IM)!CATED WITH e( )*.
1 l
J. Sediment Sediment samples were collected semi-annually at five (5) indicator stations including: the Discharge Canal, Ply muth Harbor, Duxbury Bay, Plymouth Beach and Manomet Point, and at a control station in Marshfield. There is a detailed procedure for sub-dividing individual sediment cores in which samples are sectioned into 2-cm increments during the first half of the year (this applies to all locations except Plymouth Beatn), and samples are sectioned into 5-cm increments during the second half of the year. The surface and alternate sections were analyzed for gamma-emitting nuclides semi-annually. In addition, the surface section from each core and a mid-depth section from Rocky Point and Plymouth Harbor were analyzed for Pu-238 and Pu-239, 240 annually. All sediment samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of radioactivity analysis results for sediment collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-J-1. This table shows that positive measurements of beryllium-7, potassium-40, thorium-232, and cesium-137 were observed at both indicator and control stations. The bery111um-7, potassium-40, anti thorium-232 are all naturally-occurring radionuclides. The cesium-137, which was also observed at the distant control location, is a resbit of previous atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. If the cesium-137 had been attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation, then cesium-134 would also have been detected in the samples.
However, cesium-134 was not present in any sediment samples collected and analyzed in 1987.
Analyses for plutonium nuclides in sediment samples are now being performed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company - Environmental Laboratory.
The results of these analyses for the 1987 samples are presented in Table III-J-2. In the past, as is indicated in the 1986 analysis results, there was no apparent trend in these data to indicate that Pilgrim Station is contributing measurably to levels of Pu-238 or 239, 240 in the environment, since levels of plutonium at Rocky Point are among the lowest measured at any location.
Therefore, analysis of sediment samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
l l
Tcble 7%I-J-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Sediment - 1987 ED!Lt1r SEDIPENT LNITS: Kl/KO DRY IEICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST M C M TROL STAT!W S m m s+ m m s m umm++memsm+m mmmsmm RADIO M IDES M M M (NO. AMLYSES) M IRED RANCE STA. MNT MNCE (NON-ROUTIE)' LU) NO. DETECTDee NO. NO.1ETECTEDee NO. DETECTED +e BE-7 ( 61) ( 6.6t 2.6)E 1 13 ( !.8 i 1.1)E 2 ( 3.5 t 10.9)E O
( 7) (-6.9 - 120.0)E 1 (-5.4 - 120.0)E 1 (-5.2 - 5.7)E 1
- ( 7/ 50)e *( 4/ !!)* et 0/ !!)*
K-40 ( 61) ( 9.5t .3)E 3 13 ( 1.3 i .1)E 4 ( 9.4 t .4)E 3
( 0) ( 6.6 - 15.8)E 3 ( 9.9 = 15.8)E 3 ( 7.3 - II.8)E 3
- ( 50/ 50)* e( 11/ 11)* et !!/ Ille 79t-54 ( 61) ( -5.8t .7)E O 15 (-3.2 t 1.3)E O (-5.3i 1.3)E 0
( 0) (-1.4 - .6)E ! (-9.7 - 5.7)E O (-1.2 - .1)E 1
- ( 0/ 50)e *( 0/ 11)* ei 0/ lile CO-58 ( 61) 50. ( -2.6t .6)E O 15 (-6.0 t 12.9)E-1 (-1.7 t 2.1)E 0
( 0) (-9.5 - 8.0)E O (-8.2 - 5.7)E O (-1.1- 1.1)E 1 e( 0/ 50)* *( 0/ !!)* *( 0/ Ille FE-59 ( 61) ( -3.2* 1.6)E O 15 ( 5.6 t 2.6)E 0 (-6.8 t 41.5)E-1
( 0) (-2.9 - 2.2)E 1 (-8.8 - 21.9)E 0 (-2.1 - 1.8)E 1 et 0/ 50)e *( 0/ 11)e *( 0/ 11)e CC-60 ( 61) 50. ( !.7t .8)E O 11 ( 8.1 t 1.3)E O ( 3.7 i 13.7)E -1 .
( 0) (-0.6 - 13.1)E O ( l.2 - 13.1)E O (-5.9 - 8.5 E 0 et 0/ 50)e e( 0/ 1115 *( 0/ li)e ZN-65 ( 61) 50. ( -4.3* 1.4)E O 15 (-2.0 t 3.7)E 0 (-5./
- 4.9)E 0
( 0) (-2.6 - 2.1)E 1 (-2.3 - 2.1)E I (-? 7 - 2.6)E 1
- ( 0/ Sole et 0/ 11)e $1 0/lile ZR-95 ( 61) 50. ( 7.0t 1.2)E 0 13 ( 1.2 * .2)E I ( 5.7 i 3.7)E O
( 0) (-1.6 - 2.7)E 1 (-2.1 - 27.3)E O (-1.5 - 1.9)E 1 et 0/ 50)* *( 0/ lile *( 0/ 11)*
All-103 ( 61) ( 1.2* .6)E O 14 ( 2.9 t 2.7)E O ( *.7 J 1 1.7)E O
( 0) M2- 11.7)E O (-0.2 - 10,5)E 0 (-1.2 - .6)E 1 et 1/ 50)* *( 0/ 6)e et 0/ 11)*
- NON40UTIE REFEPS TO M IUEER OF SEPMATE EASLF9ENTS WIDI IDE GREATER TleN TEN (10) TIES M AGOE BACKWOLN) FOR M PERIOD OF M AEPORT.
- M FMCTION 7 S#Fli AMLYSES YlE1. DING DETECTABLE EAMEENTS
(!.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) l$ INDICATED WITH et le.
T& bis III-J-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Sediment - 1987 EDILP,: $EDIENT LNITSt PCI/KG CRY INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST M CCNTRCt. STATICNS titet*HHH4H4H HHHfMHHHHfMHH4 MH+H4HetH H RAD 10NUC1.!CES M M M (NO. MALYSES) REQUIRED RANCE STA. MEE RMCE (NON-ROUTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTED ** NO. NO. IETECTEDH NO. DETECT D ie RU-106 ( 61) ( -2.3t 4.9)E 0 !! ( l.1 i 1.0)E 1 (-1.5 t 1.2)E 1
( 0) (-7.6 - 7.2)E 1 (-3.5 - 6.5)E 1 (-6.6 - 6.4)E 1
- ( 0/ 50)* *( 0/ 11)e st 0/ lile I-131 ( 61) ( -4.lt 2.1)E O 24 ( 2.4 t 8.4)E 0 ( 2.4 i 8.4)E O
( 0) (-4.1 -
3.6)E 1 (-4.5 - 4.0)E 1 (-4.5 - 4.8)E I a( 0/ 50)* et 0/ !!)e e( 0/ 11)e CS-134 ( 61) 50. ( -1.lt .4)E 0 14 (-1.6 t 18.1)E -1 (-2.1 t 1.6)E O
( 0) (-7.6 - 6.2)E 0 (-7.6 - 4.0)E O (-1.0 - .5)E 1
- ( 9/30)* e( 0/ 6)* *( 0/ 11)*
CS-137 ( 61) 50. ( l.8f .3)E I 13 ( 4.7 t .5)E 1 ( !.5 i .4)E 1
( 0) (-8.0 - 68.1)E 0 ( 2.6 - 6.8)E 1 (-1.2 - 44.0)E 0 et 22/ 50)* *( !!/ lile *( 7/ !!)e IR-140 ( 61) ( -7.7t 2.5)E 0 13 (-1.6 i 8.5)E 0 (-1.9 i .3)E 1
( 0) (-4.4 - 3.6)E 1 (-4.4 - 3.6)E 1 (-3.1 - .8)E 1 e( 0/ 50)* st 0/ !!)* a( 0/ lile G-141 ( 61) ( 9.31 1.3)E O 13 ( l.5 t .4)E 1 ( !.! t .3)E I
( 0) (-1.1 -
3.7)E 1 (-1.1 - 3.7)E 1 (-3.6 - 23.3)E 0 et 0/ 50)* *( 0/ lile *( 0/ !!)*
E -144 ( 61) 150. ( -2.4t .4)E 1 15 (-1.4 * .8)E i (-2.3 i .7)E 1
( 0) (-6.2 - 4.5)E 1 (-7.3 - 1.9)E 1 (-5.3 - 2,1)E 1
- ( 0/ 50)e et 0/ 11)e et 0/!!)*
TH-232 ( 61) ( 3.5t .2)E 2 13 ( 4.9 i .3)E 2 ( 3.2 i .2)E 2
( 0) ( !.5 - 6.6)E 2 ( 3.6 - 6.6)E 2 ( 2.4 - 4.5)E 2
- ( 50/ 50)# et 11/ 11)* *( !!/ !!)e t NDHOUTIE REFIRS TO TE IUEER OF SEPMATE EASLREENTS let!DI EE GEATB TM( TEN (10) TIES TE AVERAGE BAD:CAUC FOR TE PERIOD OF TE REPORT.
- TE FRACTION OF SAWLE ANALYSES YlEl. DING DETECTABLE EASLREENTS (1.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) IS IlOICATED WITH et )*.
l
1 i
TA8LE III-J-2 RESULTS OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES FOR PLUTONIUM Results Location Core Depth (cm) pCi/Ka (drt0 +-1 S.D.
Plutonium 238 Plutonium 239, Plutonium 240 Duxbury Bay 0-2 0.01 1 0.47 8.8 i 1.1 Rocky Point 0-2 0.53 1 0.22 2.31 1 0.40 Rocky Point 12-14 -0.63 1 0.33 0.87 1 0.31 Plymouth Harbor 0-2 -0.87 i 0.30 3.64 1 0.54
. Plymouth Harbor 12-14 -0.04 1 0.78 8.0 1 1.2 Manomet Point 0-2 0.54 1 0.22 2.16 i 0.38 ;
Plymouth Beach 0-5 0.49 1 0.35 0.81 1 0.31 '
Marshfield-Control 0-2 -0.36 1 0.35 1.82 1 0.36
, i I
i l
i
't r
t I
l K. Milk Hilk samples were collected at two (2) locations during 1987: the Plymouth County Farm and the Whitman Farm control station. Boston Edison is aware of another milk-producing cow located at Beaver Dam Road, but the owner of the cow declined to participate in the REMP. Thus, the only dependable indicator station (for milk) within 5 miles of PNPS-1 during 1987 was the Plymouth Country Farm. When available, samples were collected semi-monthly when animals were on pasture (generally May through October) and monthly at other times. Hilk samples were analyzed for iodine-131, strontium-89,90 and gamma-emitting isotopes semi-monthly during grazing season and monthly otherwise. All milk samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for the milk collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-K-1. The results of radioactivity analyses for cesium-137, strontium-90 and iodine-131 are presented graphically in Figures III-K-1, III-K-2, and III-K-3, respectively.
Positive measurements of potassium-40, cesium-137 and strontium-90 were detected at both sampling locations, with the highest concentrations observed at the Plymouth County Farm. No iodine-131 was detected in milk during 1987. The presence of potassium-40 is due to naturally-occurring radioactivity. The cesium-137 and strontium-90 is considered to be attributable to fallout from previous atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, since cesium-134 and strontium-89 were not present. In addition, the pre-operationti environmental monitoring program indicated the presence of strontium-90 and cesium-137 in milk at levels of 9 pCi/kg and 17 pCi/kg, respectively. As can be seen in Figures III-K-1 and III-K-2, the levels of cesium-137 and strontium-90 detected in 1987 milk samples were comparable to pre-operational levels.
Therefore, analysis of milk samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
Tcble III-K-1 Su:mnity of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Milk - 1987 EDILM: MILK WITS: PC!/KG INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST H CtWTROL STATICH3 MHHHHHHHH HHHH+HHHHHHHH HHHeHH+HH RADIONUQ.! DES M EAN M (NO. AMLYSES) REQUIRED RANCE STA. RM0E PANGE (NON-ft0VTIEF LLD NO. DETECTEDH NO. NO. ETECTEDH NO. ETECTEDee SR47 ( 36) ( 1.!t 1.8)E-1 11 ( !.! t 1.8)E -1 (-6.9 t 18.6)E -2
( 0) (-l.1 - 1.7)E O (-1.1 - 1.7)E O (-1.7 - 1.1)E O
- ( 0/ 18)* et 0/ 18)* *( 0/ 18)*
SR-90 ( 36) ( 2.4f .2)E O 11 ( 2.4 i .2)E O ( 2.0 t .1)E 0
( 0) ( 9.7 - 37.4)E -1 ( 9.7 - 37.4)E -1 ( l.1 - 3.1)E O
- ( 18/ 18)* *( 18/ 18)* et 17/ 18)*
K-40 ( 36) ( 1.5 .0)E 3 11 ( l.5 i .0)E 3 ( !.4 t .0)E 3
( 0) ( l.4 - 1.5)E 3 ( l.4 - 1.5)E 3 ( l.3 - 1.6)E 3 e( 18/ 18)* el 18/ 18)e *( 18/ 18)*
IW-54 ( 36) ( -2.71 29.0)E -2 !! (-2.7 i 29.0)E -2 (-4.5 t 2.4)E -1
( 0) (-2.6 - 2.2)E 0 (-2.6 - 2.2)E 0 (-3.1 - .9)E 0
- ( 0/ 18)e e( 0/ 18)e *( 0/ 18)e CD-58 ( 36) ( !.3t 18.7)E -2 !! ( l.3 i 18.7)E -2 (-5.3 t 3.2)E -1
( 0) (-2.6 - 1.0)E 0 (-2.6 - 1.0)E O (-3.0 - 1.8)E 0
- ( 0/18)e e( 0/ 18)e et 0/ 18)e FE-59 ( 36) ( !.71 .6)E 0 11 ( !.7 i .6)E 0 ( l.1 i 6.9)E -1
( 0) (-2.1 - 6.9)E 0 (-2.1 - 6.9)E O (-5.4 - 4.7)E O
- ( 0/ 18)* e( 0/ 18)e *( 0/ 18)e CD-M ( 36) ( 8.2f 30.5)E -2 !! ( 8.2 i 30.5)E -2 (-3.3 i 2.5)E-1
( 0) (-2.2 - 2.6)E O (-2.2 - 2.6)E O (-1.9 - 1.6)E O
- ( 0/ 18)* *( 0/ 18)* *( 0/ 18)*
ZM-65 ( 36) ( 9.31 63.8)E -2 11 ( 9.3 t 63.8)E -2 (-1.6 1 5.6)E -1
( 0) (-4.1 -
5.8)E 0 (-4.1 - 5.8)E 0 (-6.3 - 2.4)E O 4( 0/ 18)e et 0/ 18)e *( 0/ 18)*
ZR-95 ( 36) ( 7.3t 5.4)E -1 11 ( 7.3 t 5.4)E -1 (-1.0 t 4.5)E -1
( 0) (-3.8 - 6.3)E O (-3.8 - 6.3)E O (-4.6 - 3.0)E 0
- ( 0/ 18)e e( 0/ 18)e et 0/ 18)e e NON-ROUTIE RETERS TO TE lOBER OF SEPARATE EASLEEMNTS IMICH IDE WEATER TMN TEN (10) TIES TE AVERAE BACXm0lN) FOR TE PER100 0F TE RETORT.
H TE FRACTION OF S#ftE ANN.YSES YIELDINO DETECTAitE EASLREENTS (1.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) !$ INDICATED WITH *( )*.
Tcblo III-K-1 Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Milk - 1987 ED!Wt MILX LNITS: PCl/KG INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST S CtNTFdX. STATICNS
- .::::.:::::::::e *H M4 HMMM4H++MM H HHHH45 MHee RADIONUCLIDES M M M (NO. MALYSES) REQUIRED RANCE -STA. RANCE RAKE (NON-R0llTIEP Li.D NO. IETECTEDH NO. NO. DETECTED *4 NO. DETECTED **
RU-103 ( 36) ( -8.7i 2.6)E -1 11 (-8.7 t 2.6)E -1 (-1.0 t .4)E O
( 0) (-2.5 - .9)E 0 (-2.5 - .9)E O (-3.8 - 2.4)E 0
- ( 0/ 18)* *( 0/ 18)e *( 0/ 18)*
RU-106 ( 36) ( 2.8t 2.5)E 0 11 ( 2.8 t 2.5)E O (-1.9 t 1.7)E 0
( 01 (-1.6 - 2.2)E I (-1.6 - 2.2)E 1 (-1.7 - .9)E 1
- ( 0/ 18)* *( 0/ 18)* *( 0/ 18)*
I-131 ( 36) 1. ( 2.9t 2.0)E -2 11 ( 2.9 t 2.0)E -2 (-3.2 i 1.6)E -2
( 0) (-6.2 - 19.9)E -2 (-6.2 - 19.9)E -2 (-2.0 - 1.0)E -1
- ( 0/ 18)* et 0/ 18)e *( 0/18)*
CS-134 ( 36) 15. ( -4.3t 2.9)E -1 !! (-4.3 t 2.9)E -1 (-6.6 1 2.4)E-1
( 0) (-3.3 - 1.9)E 0 (-3.3 - 1.9)E 0 (-2.4 - 2.2)E O
- ( 0/ 18)* *( 0/ 18)e et 0/ 18)*
CS-137 ( 34) 15. ( 3.3t .3)E O 11 ( 3.3 i .3)E 0 ( 2.6 i .4)E 0
( 0) (-3.0 - 50.7)E -1 (-3.0 - 50.7)E -1 ( !.9 - 65.1)E -1
- ( 13/ 18)* *( 13/ 18)* *( 6/ 18)*
BA-140 ( 36) 15. ( 7.11 3.8)E -1 11 ( 7.1 1 3.8)E -1 (-8.3 t 5.8)E -1
( 0) (-3.0 - 4.1)E 0 (-3.0 - 4.1)E 0 (-5.4 - 4.4)E 0
- ( 0/18)* *( 0/ 18)e *( 0/ 18)*
CE-141 ( 36) ( 2.6i 5.0)E -1 21 ( 4.9 i 4.1)E -1 ( 4? i 4.1)E -1
( 0) (-6.2 - 3.0)E O (-3.3 - 3.2)E O (-3.3 - 3.2)E O
- ( 0/18)* et 0/ 18)e *( 0/ 18)*
-144 ( 36) ( 2.6t 1.9)E O 11 ( 2.6 t 1.9)E O (-2.1 i 1.9)E 0
( 0) (-1.3 - 1.9)E I (-1.3 - 1.9)E 1 (-1.9 - 1.0)E 1
- ( 0/ 18)* el 0/ 18)e *( 0/ 18)*
- EN-R0lfilE ETUtS TO M Mlf9ER OF SEPMATE EASWEENTS lei!CH IDE OREATUt THAN TEN (10) TIES TE AVERACE IMCKWOLN) FOR TE PUt!00 0F TE REPORT.
- TE FRACTION OF S#FLE ANE.YSES VIElSING DETECTABLE EASWEENTS (1.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) IS I E!CATED WITF,*( )*.
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ - --]
Figure III-K-1 RADI0 ACTIVE CESIUM-137 IN MILK SAMPLES TAKEN NEAR PILGRIM STATION AND AT A DISTANT LOCATION
- PILCRIM NUCLEAR POWER SDTION -
to 9-O = TM-11 PLYM. COUNTY FARM (3.440 MI. W)
,_ n- TM-21 WHITMAN FARM CONTR. (23 MI. WNW)
$ 7-m o H*
o ,i R 6- s' Q x .
L m l'. s'
? N a- l '. l ',
, i ,
D f 4 I g E! l '.
.m 4 - o a s M Q f I I
s s
Q :
s o 8 O 3_
M '
i e' h 'Ms
% i
', l s ,x
'Y
~ / s Ms '
s
\s ,
'n' M ,-
2-s ' M' i X i, M s
,H
,- %s i g ,i s
s
,- s s,'
g x'
s, x- ,
f~
/
i .
'/
H 0 . . . . . . s . . . . .
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUC SEP OCT NOV DEC 1987 E
Figur3 III-K-2 RADIOACTIVE STRONTIUM-90 IN MILK SAMPLES TAKEN NEAR PILGRIM STATION AND AT A DISTANT LOCATION
- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
to 9-O c= TM-11 PLYM. COUNTY FARM (3.440 MI. TT)
- g. M= TM-21 WHITMAN FARM CONTR. (23 ME, WNW)
Q r-5 O
6 --
=
=
5 --
CrJ D
g 4-s ..
( w-o . . . . . i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUC SEP OCT NOV DEC 1987
Figure III-K-3 RADIOACTIVE IODINE-131 IN MILK SAMPLES TAKEN NEAR PILGRIM STATION AND AT A DISTANT LOCATION
- PILCRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
0.50 0.46-O = TM-11 PLYM. COUNTY FARM (3.440 MI. W) g go_ H= TM-21 WHITMAN FARM CONTR. (23 MI. WNW) 4 0.35-m O
O 4 0.30-d.,
a' m
f 0.26-M Lower Limit of Detection = 1.0 pCi/kg
% 0.20-O O
N 0.15-Q.
0.10- Y *
/
/
0.05- ys s'
,e ,
' s i
~ ' ~ '
A ' '
~
~~~
0.00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1987
L. Cranberries Cranberries were collected from three (3) locations at the time of harvest: the Manomet Point Bog, the Bartlett Road Bog, and the Pine Street Bog (control station). Cranberries were analyzed at harvest time for gamma-emitting isotopes in edible portions. All cranberry samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for cranberries collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-L-1. Naturally-occurring potassium-40 was observed in all three cranberry samples. The only man-made radionuclide detected was cesium-137, which appeared in one sample. However, the detected concentration of cesium-137 is consistent with typical pre-operational concentrations of 170'pCi/kg. A comprehensive study of cesium uptake in granberries was performed by Yankee Atomic Electric Co. during 1978,24 and the results of this study are published in the 1978 Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program Report No. 11. This report identified fallout from previous atmospheric nuclear weapons testing as the primary source of cesium in cranberries.
In addition, this report indicates that cesium uptake in craaberries can be enhanced when conditions of low soil potassium occur, as cesium is a chemical congener of potassium.
Therefore, analysis of cranberry samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
_v , . _ _ , _ _ _ , __ _ _, .__. . - _ ,
Tcble III-L-1 Sumary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Cranberries - 1987 EDILM: CRANERRIES LMITS: PCl/KG WET INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST M C0(TROL STATICNS ennenumeene uneuemmmw++ nee wou+eenenen RADIONLO.lDES M M M (N0 AMLYSES) MIRED RANE STA. RANE MNCE (NON40llTIE)' LLD NO. E TECTEDee NO. NO. DETECTEDee NO. DETECTED u E-7 ( 3) ( 7.7t 6.6)E 1 13 ( l.4 i 1.1)E 2 ( 9.1
- 5.8)E 1
( 0) ( l.0 - 14.3)E 1
- ( 0/ 2)* *( 0/ 1)e *( 0/ 1)e K-40 ( 31 ( 8.6i 1.0)E 2 13 ( 9.6 t 2.4)E 2 ( 6.1 t 1.1)E 2
( 0) ( 7.5 - 9.6)E 2 f( 2/ 2)* *( 1/ 1)e *( 1/ !H IW-54 ( 3) ( -1. 2t .6)E 1 23 ( 2.6 i 5.4)E O ( 2.6 i 5.4)E 0
( 0) (-1.8 - .6)E 1
- ( 0/ 2)* *( 0/ lie *( 0/ lie CD-58 ( 3) ( 9.0t 2.6)E -1 13 (l.21 12.5)E 0 (-6.3 1 6.2)E O
( 0) ( 6.5 - !!.6)E -l
- ( 0/ 2)e et 0/ !)* *( v/ 1)*
rE-59 ( 3) ( -1.6t 3.2)E 1 23 ( !.8 t 1.5)E 1 ( 1.8 t 1.5)E 1
( 0) (-4.7 - 1.6)E 1 e( 0/ 2)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)e CCH4 ( 3) ( -2.41 2.6)E 1 14 ( 2.0 t 8.9)E O (-1.3 i .8)E I
( 0) (-5.0 - .2)E 1 e( 0/ 2)e *( 0/ 1)e *( 0/ 1)e ZN-65 ( 3) ( 6.84 24.6)E 0 13 ( 3.1 1 2.3)E I (-3.9 t 12.7)E O
( 0) (-1.8 - 3.1)E 1
- ( 0/ 21e et 0/ 1)* e( 0/ 1)*
ZR-95 ( 3) ( -4.21 8.3)E O 13 ( 4.0 1 19.4)E O (-4.4 i 11't.0)E -1
( 0) (-1.3 - .4)E 1
- ( 0/ 2)* *( 0/ 1)e ef 0/ 116 RI)-103 ( 3) ( 7.2t 44.5)E -1 14 ( 5.2 i 6.6)E O (-1.1 1 8.1)E 0
( 0) (-3.7 - 5.2)E O e( 0/ 2)e et 0/ 1)e et 0/ 1)*
- NON-R0t1 TIE EFERS TO M MER OF SEPARATE EASLREENTS lHIQI ERE GEATER M TEN (!0) TIES M AME BAMOUND FOR M PERIOD 0F M REPCRT.
u M FRACTION OF SMLE ANALYSES YlELDING DETECTABLE EASLREENTS (I.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) IS INDIO4TED With et )*.
Tcblo III-L-1 Suentry of Radiotetivity Analysis Results for Cranberries - 1987 EDitMt 0%NBEMIES (MITS: K!/KG WET INDICATOR STATIONS STATICH WITH HIQiST H CONTROL STATIONS HHeHHHHHH e ***HHHHHHoHMM*H eM*HMHHHH RADICNJ0.! DES M M M (NO ANALYSES) G IRED RANGE STA. RANE RANCE (N0HOUTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTEDH NO. NO. CETECTED*+ NO. DETECTEDee All-106 ( 3) ( -5.5t 54.6)E 0 13 ( 4.9
- 14.0)E 1 (-2.4 1 5.5)E i
( 0) (-4.0 - 4.9)E I at 0/ 2)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)*
l-131 ( 3) ( l.0t .7)E 1 13 ( l.7 t 2.1)E 1 ( 8.2 t 30.5)E O
( 0) ( 3.4 - 17.3)E O et 0/ 2)* et 0/ !)* *( 0/ 1)*
CS-134 ( 3) 60. ( -1.21 1.4)E 1 14 ( l.4 t 6.6)E 0 (-7.9 i 6.0)E O
( 0) (-2.6 - .1)E 1
- ( 0/ 2)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)e CS-137( 3) 60. ( 5.71 5.4)E 1 13 ( !.! t .2)E 2 ( 6,3 1 5.7st 0
( !) ( 3.8 - lit.0)E O
- ( 1/ 2)e e( 1/ 1)* *( 0/ lie BA-140 ( 3) ( -0.3t 12.4)E O 23 ( 6.1 1 20.4)E 0 ( 6.1 1 20.4)E 0
( 0) (-2.1 -
.4)E 1 e( 0/ 2)e *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ lie E-141 ( 3) ( 3.3t 1.3)E 1 13 ( 4.6 i 1.8)E I ( !.4 t 1.1)E 1
( 0) ( l.9 - 4.6)E 1 et 0/ 2)e *( 0/ lie *( 0/ Ile E-144 ( 3) ( 9.9t 15.7)E O 14 ( 2.6 i 3.2)E I (-3.6
- 3.2)E 1
( 0) (-5.7 - 25.6)E O e( 0/ 21e et 0/ 1)* et 0/ 1)e TH-232 ( 3) ( 2.5* 1.9)E 1 13 ( 4.5 & 6.2)E I ( l.1 1 2.8)E 1
( 0) ( 5.9 - 44.7)E O
- ( 0/ 2)e *( 0/ lie et 0/ 1)e e N0HOUTIE EFERS TO TE MER OF SEPMATE EASUDENTS lei!Qi lOE GREATER T}tWI TEN (10) TIES TE AGCE BACXCROLND FOR TE PERIOD 0F TE REPORT.
H TE FRACTION OF SMtE AMLYSES Y!ELDING DETECTABLI EASUOENTS (f.E. >3 STD DEVIATI X ) l$ INDICATED WITH *( le.
M. Vggetation Samples of tuberous and green leafy vegetables were collected at the time of harvest at seven (7) locations: Whipple Farm, Hork Residence on John Alden Road, Plymouth County Farm, the Halmgren residence, the Jenkins residence, the Moon residence and the Bridgewater Farm (control station). Vegetation samples were analyzed at the time of harvest for gamma-emitting isotopes in edible portions. All vegetation samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for vegatetion collected in 1987 is presented in Table III-H-1. Positive measurements of beryllium-7, potassium-40, cesium-137 and thorium-228 were observed in the samples; of these isotopes, the beryllium-7, potassium-40, and thorium-232 are naturally-occurring, whereas the cesium-137 is a result of fallout from previous atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.
Therefore, analysis of vegetation samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
r r
i
Tablo III-M-1 Sum;ry of Radio:ctivity Anclysis Results for Vegetation- 1987 EDILM: Vegetation , UNITS PCI/KG ET INDICATOR STAT!(WS STATION WITH HIGEST G CONTRG. STATI(NS womum**+n nuemmun+nmem eme++e ten eeee RN110NUQ.! DES M M M (W. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANCE STA. RANCE RANCE (NON-RlUTIE)' LLD N0. DETECTED ++ NO. W. DETECTEDH NO. DETECTEDet BE-7 ( 11) ( !.6* 1.3)E 3 43 ( !.0 t .0)E 4 ( 4.3 1 1.4)E 1
( 5) ( !.6 - 1040.0)E 1 ( !.7 - 6.7)E 1 et 5/ 8)e *( 1/ 116 *( 0/ 3)*
K-40 ( !!) ( 3.31 .5)E 3 43 ( 4.6 i .2)E 3 ( l.6 i .3)E 3
( 0) ( l.2 - 5.1)E 3 ( !.2 - 2.3)E 3
- ( 8/ Ole *( 1/ lie *( 3/ 3)*
tW-54 ( !!) ( -2.71 1.9)E 0 27 ( 5.3
- 5.9)E 0 ( 5.3 t 5.9)E O
( 0) (-1.0 - .6)E 1 (-5.8 - 14.0)E 0 (-5.8 - 14.0)E 0
- ( 0/ 81* *( 0/ 3H *( 0/ 3)*
CO-58 ( !!) ( -2.21 3.4)E 0 43 ( 1. 4 i .8)E 1 (-5.6 1 1.5)E 0
( 0) (-1.5 - 1.4)E I (-8.4 - -3.2)E C
- ( 0/ Ble *( 0/ 1)e *( 0/ 3)*
FE-59 ( 11) ( 6.21 64.2)E-1 75 ( 2.0 t 1.3)E 1 (-5.1 i !!.7)E 0
( 0) (-4.0 - 2.0)E 1 (-1.8 - 1.8)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)e *( 0/ 11e et 0/ 3)e CD-60 ( 11) ( -7.2t 3.6)E 0 27 ( 7.1 1 1.3)E 0 ( 7.1 t 1.3)( 0
( 0) (-2.8 - .5)E I ( 4.7 - 9.1)E o ( 4.7 - 9.1)E O
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 3)* *( 0/ 3)e ZN-65 ( !!) ( -2.9t 6.0)E 0 43 ( 2.4
- 2.2)E 1 ( 6.4 i 2.1)E 0
( 0) (-2.2 - 2.4)E 1 ( 4.2 - 10.7)E 0 et 0/ 8)e et 0/ !H *( 0/ 3)e ZR-95 ( 11) ( 5.lt 3.0)E 0 11 ( l.3 i .3)E I (-l.7 t 8.0)E 0
( 0) (-6.0 - 18.2)E 0 ( 8.1 - 18.2)E 0 (-1.6 - 1.2)E 1
- ( 0/ 818 et 0/ 3H *( 0/ 3H 70-103 ( 11) ( -1.7t 2.3)E O 75 ( 4.4 i 6.8)E 0 ( 1.3 t 1.1)E O
( 0) (-l.1 - .9)E 1 (-9.0 - 26.4)E -l 8( 0/ 8)* e( 0/ lie et 0/ 3)e e NDHOUTlHE ETDtS TO M WER OF SEPARATE EASWEES IMIDIIDE 0 EATER THWI TEN (10) TIES M MDACE IMalM) FOR M PERIOD OF M EPORT.
++ M FMCTION OF SAffLE MLYSES Y!El. DING DETECTABLE EASEDOTS (I.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) IS 12!CATED WITH *( H.
9
Ttblo III-M-1 Su::cary of Radiocctivity Analysis Results for Vegetation - 1987 KDRM Vegetation WITS PCl/KO WET INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WITH HIGEST H COEL STATIONS m***m m n**n enm* **mmemnun n**nnement RADi(MILICES EAN M M (NO. AMLYSES) EQUIRED RANE STA. RAME RANE (NON410UTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTEDet NO. NO. DETECTED ** NO. DETECTED **
RU-106 ( 11) ( -1.6t 2.8)E 1 27 ( 9.8 t 1.9)E 1 ( 9.8 1 1.9)E 1
( 0) (-1.6 - .8)E 2 ( 6.1 - 12.1)E 1 ( 6.1 - 12.1)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/.3)* *( 0/ 3)*
l-131 ( 11) ( l.4t 4.2)E O 11 ( l.2 t .7)E I (-3.0 1 3.8)E O
( 0) (-1.5 - 2.5)E 1 ( 4.7 - 24.7)E 0 (-7.1 - 4.5)E 0
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 3)* *( 0/ 3)*
CS-134 ( !!) 60. ( -4.6i 2.1)E 0 76 ( 4.4 t 6.8)E 0 (-1.0 t .3)E I
( 0) (-1.6 - .4)E 1 (-1.7 - .6)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 3)*
CS-137 ( 11) 60. ( 8.3t 3.7)E 0 60 ( 2.1 i .5)E 1 ( !.1 1 1.7)E 0
( 2) (-7.5 - 20.8)E 0 (-1.6 - 4.3)E 0
- ( 2/ 8)* *( 1/ 1)* *( 0/ 3)*
BA-140 ( 11) ( -1.4t 5.6)E 0 60 ( 2.2 t 1.3)E I (-4.6 i 2.3)E 0
( 0) (-2.8 - 2.2)E 1 (-8.7 - .8)E 0
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 3)*
E-141 ( !!) ( l.11 .4)E 1 M ( l.6 i 1.0)E 1 ( 8.9 t 1.5)E 0
( 0) (-1.4 - 32.1)E 0 ( 6.2 - li.2)E 0
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 3)*
E-144 ( 11) ( -3.tk 16.9)E 0 !! ( 2.6 t 3.2)E 1 (-3.5 t 22.7)E O
( 0) (-0.5 - 8.8)E I (-2.1 - 8.8)E 1 (-4.5 - 3.3)E 1
- ( 0/ 8)* *( 0/ 3)* *( 0/ 3)*
TH-232 ( 11) ( 5.3t 1.9)E 1 75 ( !.8 i .3)E 2 ( !.! t .9)E 1
( 2) ( !.5 - 17.6)E 1 (-3.0 - 27.7)E 0
- ( 2/ 8)* *( 1/ 1)* *( 0/ 3)*
- NON40iTIE EFERS TO M IOEER OF SEPARATE EASUREENTS IHICH ERE (REATER TMN TDi (10) TIES M AGE BACK0ROLN) FOR M F9100 0F M FEPCRT.
- M FRACTION (F SMFLE #$ LYSES YlELDING DETECTABLE EASLRDENTS (I.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) IS IM)lCATED WITH *( 16
N. EQLast Beef forage is collected from two (2) locations annually: the Plymouth County Farm and the Whitman Farm (control station). Forage samples were analyzed annually for gamma-emitting isotopes. All forage samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1987.
The summary of radioactivity analysis results for the forage collected during 1987 is presented in Table III-N-1. Positive measurements of bery111um-7 and potassium-40 were detected at both stations. These radionuclides are both naturally-occurring.
Therefore, analysis of forage samples collected during 1987 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.
l l
Tcblo III-N-1 i
Surnary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Forage - 1987 ED!lft: FORKE WITS: PCin,0 WET INDICATCR STATICNS STATION WITH HIGEST S (WTIG. STATIONS twen**+ne en e utween+nn**+ nun enuunsee++n RADIONUCLIDES G M M (NO. N HLYSES) REQUIED RAME STA. RANCE RAEE (N0HOUTIE)' LLD NO. DETECTEDet NO. NO. DETECTED +e NO. DETECTEDee BE-7 ( 2) ( !.lt .2)E 3 21 ( l.2 * .1)E 3 ( l.2 t .1)E 3
( 0)
- ( 1/ lie *( 1/ !)* 4( 1/ 1)s K-40 ( 2) ( l.41 .1)E 4 !! ( !.4 t .1)E 4 ( !.2 i .1)E 4
( 0) et 1/ 11e *( 1/ 1)e *( 1/ 1)e IW-54 ( 2) 130. ( 3.91 1.6)E 1 11 ( 3.9 t 1.6)E 1 ( 2.2 1 1.3)E 1
( 0)
- ( 0/ Ile *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)*
CD-50 ( 2) 130. ( l.lt 1.6)E 1 11 ( !.! t 1.6)E i ( 2.5 t 137.0)E-1
( 0)
- ( 0/ 114 *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)e FE-59 ( 2) 260. ( -3.91 38.8)E 0 !! (-3.9 i 38.8)E 0 (-2.71 3.0)E I
( 0)
- ( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)* e( 0/ lie CO-60 ( 2) 130. ( -1.6t 2.5)E 1 21 (-7.4 t 20.3)E 0 (-7.4 1 20.3)E 0
( 0)
- ( 0/ lie et 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)*
IN-65 ( 2) 260. ( -7.It 45.4)E 0 !! (-7.1 1 45.4)E 0 (-5.0 t 3.7)E 1
( 0)
- ( 0/ 11e *( 0/ 1)* et 0/ lie IR-95 ( 2) ( -6.4t 3.1)E 1 21 ( 6.9 t 23.3)E 0 ( 6.9 t 23.3)E 0
( 0) e( 0/ lie *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ lie RJ-103 ( 2) ( l.2t 1.7)E 1 !! ( !.2 i 1.7)E 1 (-2.5 t 13.2)E O
( 0)
- ( 0/ 1)# *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ lie
- ION-ROUTIE EFERS TO TE LOSER OF SEPMATE EASWEENTS lHIOi 60E OREATE T)MN TB (10) TIES TE AGOE BACXOR0tfC FOR TE PERIOD OF TE EFORT.
n TE n%CTION OF SrPLE NHLYSES YIELDING IETECTABLE EASWDENTS (l.E. >3 STD [EY!ATIONS) IS Il@!CATED lilTH et le.
Tcblo III-N-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Forage - 1987 EDILMt FORA 0E LNITS: PCl/KO IET INDICATOR STATIONS STATICN WITH HIGEST H CONTROL STATICNS en + n u++++ neau e**n nen***H u n nen* ++++ t um utus RADIO K ! DES M M M (N0. AMLYSES) EQUIRED RANCE STA. RAKE RMT (N0HOLITIE)' LLD NO. DETECTED ** NO. NO. DETECTED ++ NO. DETECTED ++
Rth106 ( 2) ( 8.11 14.5)E 1 11 ( 8.1 i 14.5)E I (-8,5 t !!.6)E I
( 0)
- ( 0/ lie et 0/ lie *( 0/ 1)e I-131 ( 2) ( 5.4i 5.8)E 1 11 ( 5.4 t 5.8)E 1 ( 5.0 t 3.3)E I
( 0)
- ( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ 1)* et 0/ lie CS-134 ( 2) 130. ( 5.31 17.3)E 0 !! ( 5.3 t 17.3)E 0 ( 4.9 t 14.9)E O
( 0)
- ( 0/ 1)* e( 0/ Ile et 0/ lie CS-137 ( 2) 130. ( 4.2t 1.6)E 1 11 ( 4.2 t 1.6)E I ( 2.1 i 1.3)E i
( 0)
- ( 0/ 1)e *( 0/ lie et 0/ lie 84-140 ( 2) ( 3.2t 41.0)E 0 21 ( 3.3 t 2.6)E I ( 3.3 t 2.6)E 1
( 0)
- ( 0/ 1)# e( 0/ 1)* et 0/ 1)e E-141 ( 2) ( -5.41 23.8)E O 21 ( !.7 t 1.0)E I ( l.7 t 1.8)E I
( 0)
- ( 0/ lie et 0/ !)* et 0/ lie
&-144 ( 2) ( 4.7t 7.2)E 1 21 ( 8.8 i 5.9)E I ( 8.8 t 5.9)E I
( 0)
- ( 0/ 1)* e( 0/ lie *( 0/ 1)*
TH-232 ( 2) ( l.0* .7)E 2 !! ( l.0 t .7)E 2 ( 4.4 t 5.6)E 1
( 0)
- ( 0/ Ile *( 0/ 1)* *( 0/ iie e NDHOUTIE IETERS TO M IUSER OF (EPARATE EASLRDDTS I4110i IDE OREATER T)MM TD( (10) TIES M MRME IMOIWUND FCR M PERIOD OF M REPORT.
n M FTMCTION OF SAPPLE AMLYSES YlELDING DETECTAILE EAREDOTS (I.E. >3 STD EVIATIONS) IS IE!CATED WITH et }e.
IV. Summary of Radioloaical Imoact on Humans ;
The radiological impact to humans from the Pilgrim Station's radioactive liquid and gaseous releases has been estimated using two methods:
- 1) calculations based on measurements of plant effluents, and
- 2) calculations based on measurements of environmental samples.
The first method utilizes data from the radioactive effluents (measured at the point of release) together with conservative models that calculate the dis humans.gersion
' and transport The second method isof radioactivity based on actualthrough the environment measurements of to radioactivity in the environmental samples and on dose conversion factors ,
recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The measured types and quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released from Pilgrim Station during 1987 were reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, copies of which are provided in Appendix B. The measured radioactivity in the environmental sar..ples that required dose calculations are listed in Appendix A.
The maximum individual dose from liquid effluents was calculated using the following radiation exposure pathways (see Figure II-E-1):
- 1) shoreline direct radiation during fishing and sunbathing;
- 2) direct radiation from the ocean during boating and swimming; and
- 3) ingestion of fish and shellfish.
For gaseous effluents, the maximum individual dose was calculated using the following radiation exposure pathways:
- 1) direct radiation from submersion in gaseous effluents (not applicable during 1987);
- 2) inhalation of airborne radioactivity;
- 3) direct radiation from Pilgrim Station (not applicable during 1987);
- 4) direct radiation from soil deposition;
- 5) consumption of vegetables; and
- 6) consumption of milk and meat.
The results from the dose calculations based on radioactive effluents are compared with the federal radiation limits and natural / man-made radiation levels in Table IV-A-1.
Table IV-A-1 Comparison of 1987 Maximum Estimated Doses to EPA Dose Limits and Natural / Man-Made Radiation levels 1987 1987 1987 Liquid Gaseous Total EPA % of Natural / % of Body Dose Dose Dose
- Limit EPA Man-made Back-Part (arem) (mrem) (mrom) (mrem) Limit (mrem) ground.
Total Body <0.118 (0.048 <0.166 25 <0.7% 420 e.0.04%
Skin <0.081 <0.071 <0.152 -- -- - -
Thyroid <0.069 <0.055 (0.124 75 <0.2% - -
Organ <0.198 <0.048 <0.246 25 <1.0% - -
(Liver) (Liver)
- Dose due to direct radiation from Pilgrim Station was not included in total dose, as Pilgrim Station was shut down for the entire year during 1987.
These conservative estimates are a small fraction of the EPA's annual dose limit to the general public and much less than one percent of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
The second method of dose calculation uses actual data from radioactivity measurements on environmental samples. The results of the dose calculations based on this method are described in Appendix A "Special Studies."
During 1987, three special studies were initiated to determine the dose contribution from radioactivity released from Pilgrim Station that was detected in blue mussels, air / soil, and Irish moss.
Part I of Appendix A estimated the maximum internal dose from the hypothetical ingestion of blue mussels taken from the Pilgrim Station discharge canal to be less than 0.3 mrem /yr. This conservative estimate is less than one percent of the EPA's annual dose limit to the general public and much less than one percent of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
Part II of Appendix A estimated the maximum dose from the hypothetical inhalation of dust and direct radiation from the soil to be less than 0.6 mrem /yr. This conservative estimate is less than three percent of the EPA's annual dose limit to the general public and much less than one percent of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
Finally, Part III of Appendix A estimated the maximum internal dose from the hypothetical ingestion of Irish moss harvested in the vicinity of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to be less than 0.03 mrem /yr. This conservative estimate is less than one tenth of one percent of the EPA's annual dose limit to the general public and much less than one percent of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
Therefore, the radiological impact from Pilgrim Station's operation is of insignificant consequence to the public health.
V. References
- 1. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 50, Appendix A Criteria 64.
- 2. Donald T. Oakley, "Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States."
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP/SID 72-1, June 1972.
- 3. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No. 93, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States,"
September 1987.
- 4. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 8.29 "Instructions Concerning Risks from Occupational Radiation Exposure,"
Revision 0, July 1981.
- 5. Boston Edison Company "Pilgrim Station" Public Information Brochure 100M, WNTHP, Septsmber 1987.
- 6. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.2, "Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,"
Revision 1, January 1975.
- 7. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I," Revision 1, October 1977.
- 8. Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 1. June 1, 1987.
- 9. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 20.105.
- 10. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10 Part 50, Appendix I.
- 11. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 190.
- 12. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.1, "Program for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1 April 1975.
- 13. ICN/Tracerlab "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Preoperational Environmental Radiation Survey Program, Quarterly Reports," August 1968 to March 1972.
- 14. International Commission of Radiological Protection, Publication No. 43, "Principles of Monitoring for the Radiation Protection of the Population," May 1984.
- 15. United Statas Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0473, "Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Boiling Water Reactors " Revision 3, September 1982.
- 16. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Branch Technical Position, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," Revision 1, November 1979.
- 17. Settlement Agreement Between Massachusetts M11dlife Federation and Boston Edison Company Relating to Offsite Radiclogical Monitoring - June 9, 1977.
- 18. Laurie Needel, "1987 Town of Plymouth Animal Census," April 1988.
- 19. J. E. Vossahlik, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Computer Program "ERMAP," Version 3.) - January 9, 1979.
- 20. E. R. Cumming, Yankee Atomic Electric Company "1987 Annual Direct Radiation Survey," REG 257/87, November 19, 1987.
- 21. A. E. Desrosiers, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, "Ionization Chamber i Survey of Bailey Cove Sediments," REG. 211/76, October 13, 1976.
- 22. Mark S. Strum, "Determination of Source of Cesium-137 Observed in Comerical Cranberries (Vacunium Macrocarpon) Harvested in the Vicinity of a Nuclear Power Plant," YAEC-1214, May 1980.
1 I
f APPENDIX A SPECIAL STUDIES e
APPENDIX A SPECIAL STUDIES PART I: BLUE KUSSELS l
APPENDIX A SPECIAL DOSE IMPACT STUDIES Part I: Blue Hussels I. Introduction It was noted in early 1987 that a larger than normal population of mussels is growing in the discharge canal due to the extended plant shutdown and the associated reduction in discharge canal temperature and flow. The mussels could become slightly radioactive due to the increased liquid waste releases which occur during plant shutdown, compounded by the lack of full dilution flow which is normally provided by the operation of both seawater circulating pumps. Also, the possibility exists for the mussels to release and migrate into Cape Cod Bay where they would be available for consumption by the public. As a result, the potential dose to the public was determined, in the event that these mussels entered the food chain.
II. Backaround Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) ar; harvested from the Cape Cod Bay area and sold on the commercial market. Although mussels are not as popular a seafood as lobster or clams, they are eaten regularly by certain ethnic groups (estimated maximum ingestion rate of 5 kg/yr per capita).
The uptake and elimination rates of radionuclides discharged by nuclear power plants by these filter feeding molluscs has been scudied and documented.
The uptake rate can be described by,the bioaccumulation factor which indicates how many times higher the concentration in the mussel will be than the radioactivity concentration in the water. The bio 19 gical accumu;g cesium 3jionfactorsdocumentedintheliteratureforcobaltou,
, cesiuo137 and manganese 54 range from 300-50,000 units.(I-4)
This filtration or concentration effect of shellfish makes them a good indicator of radionuclide effects on the aquatic food chain because it is possible to detect radionuclides in the edible portions, even though the concentrations released into the diggh Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 10CFR20to)arge canal concentrations permissible are well within the and offsite dose limits.
The studies on the elimination rates of radionuclides in shellfish indleg mode 1\gethattheremovalisbestrepresentedbyatwocomponent 1
The initial component is characterized by a rapid removal lasting on the order of days, and the second component has a somewhat slower renoval lasting on the order of months. The initial rapid elimination half-times (i.e., time for half of the original amount of the radioactivity to be removed biologically) documented in the l
l A-1 4
l
. literature range from 4.8 to 150 days for cobalt 60 75 t cesium 134,13/ and 2.8 to 1500 days for manganese 54,,(7-9)o This 250 rapiddays for removal indicates that the radioactivity can be flushed out of the mussel in a relatively short amount of time (i.e., months).
During plant operation the mussels soak and feed in the relatively diluted water of the discharge canal. Also, in the past, during the l late spring-early summer months (June-July) when the intake is about 55'F, the water in the discharge canal reaches 85'F. At these elevated temperatures, the mussels will release due to thermal shock and migrate to cooler waters. The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) routinely samples mussels from the outfall of the discharge canal on a quarterly basis. Analysis results of the radioactivity concentrations over the past year (1986-1987) have indicated the presence of cobalt 60 and cesium 137 at values of 10 times higher than our minimum detectable concentrations (See Figures 1 and 2). Previous calculations have shown that these levels, which are typically less than
- 11. of the regulatory limits, would not cause any significant health hazards to the public from the ingestion pathway.
Since the present population of mussels did not release from the canal last summer due to the station outage, and because of the lack of full dilution flow, they have been soaking and feeding in water that has relatively high radioactive concentrations (but less than NRC maximum permissible concentrations) for over a year. A reassessment of the radiological impact was determined to be prudent. The following sections of this document will describe:
- 1) the recent radioactivity concentration measurements on the mussels in the discharge canal,
- 2) the estimated internal dose from the ingestion of these mussels, and
- 3) how these levels compare with existing regulatory limits and proposed guides or guidelines.
III. Mussel Radioactivity Heasurements and Estimated Maximum Internal Dose From Ingestion On June 16, 1987 Boston Edisor Company personnel and a Conservation Helper from the Hassachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries collected mussel samples from the Pilgrim Station discharge canal. Representative samples were collected at the inlet, middle and outlet of the discharge canal. The mussel bodies were removed from the shells to obtain approximately a half a kilegram sample from each location. The bodies and shells were analyzed by the Yankee Atomic Electric Co. Environmental Laboratory on June 27, 1987 (see Attachment A). All samples were counted on lithium drifted germanium detector using standard procedures'0(q ) with the exception that small amounts of charcoal (4-23g) were added to the dried mussel matrix to obtain the proper volume needed for the calibration geometry. The radioactivity concentrations reported in picocuries per kilogram (wet weight) are shown below:
l A-2
Figure 1 Radioactive Concentration of Mussel Bodies from Rocky Point-Discharge Canal Outfall 1000.
e op,2++si~ Tissi^4aIE!1 44 Eiii. am = -- M 2=sz i= es EE: FE = t
= =i- 4Mi N=t+i+i+tz=-i g g9. #42 2 ti=E# E#2: ==## We
= W b-M# 4-M MW ai-i-W +1=-E- ??= *' ltt- ===--
700-5~# 5N 2 E -
---. - 5 600. ._
Co-60 Conc. in Body e_ _,
3 Eta =i Rhi# lie = k-Laael; he=a 4' Mm:==3 ='aM- g -1u ~C - - -
a oo. n~ _ .m . _ _. =-_. = _ .=.=_=-... . =. x. _. _
m- - - ==--- - - - - -
-._ .., w -.._...
307. -
200.
Activity Concen-tration e- -
100.
- / N "N ' -
g3. +2+a := M i) HF = w' . = = + : z '- .=- ;=;;; 1+#+- Lea = = ~ - 2eiw in = W ==^~-
80 . K== E t"l - ... 55=* ia-4: M 5t 4 E-d """i =_~ F~ i= i=A* - i.~ i~ - 44E V---in *i.- " il26E-
==._ .
^
~~ ~~~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
. 2.~: : : :.. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,. D .. ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ .^ ~ ~_ ':. ' ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~L. ^_ ~~' ,
sa. -. - - . -.
K _
. 5-' ill 3-15i- 2!:=555: 45.3~ 5': 5 =-'-I f=M' dN 5-D- M : i $ ~: i) *_E5!=5~:5i5'5~= E~=--':5 E A:
40 . iM _ M i
.=
@MMT 5??*~ MM _.: -- ::.-. r3 TMF 3M @N M9 Wi = = = = --
'7 ~M1
[pCi\
kg(wet s .
w r.
El u
- I l, . ,
p sp, , , ,
g, fi W iitTfi-iF4MT i4 W 4- ; x-a-ftWW Wi i R 4ET-M 4 44ME Ea=ics g g_ q -1 * - 5 ++:
- u == 1s g asp %::t w +=4m
'iTTi-
+=1a=. -9 =, ; 1sc:5 ; si= g = = = = === =-
g*
- :-- ; 4= 3 : C 1. 5 ;;i--- = r. --- -
..E-p=T:
. : ..2 :
2= ; 22 g5
.3d_i3E EE
..=
,1 - - - - - - - -
-_: = .
- ==L 5, 1- r2- 2:2 1;:= ~^ .z: . ._. _ : .:-
6,.. 6. - --
.-- _ __ ,__s W e = ? ! #1-A4 +-E E4 1i =4 4 -
WEi=i i =i:LL t== .E=E g = r =a=: --
-+24 Ig g : sas.:_g- 3 s=-;e- se .*:
i 4, =- N=igi i 4=44 iihm- vi WMT tasti- :*ttaf Mit =
sr=74i = -NciG 42W& _ . ...
==: m=su_.-
A..-= - . L5gp=. i+1-._v. =-- 2,n.i. mat. =. .tx=. .
= -._=.,s.-r.-
3, .
& m :n- --
c.g
=
t.
I 1
.e r :1 3
~i i t
! i i ! : ! ! ! iI , ! !If 1 i i i!! i ! ! Et 3; i,,, , . . . ;, ...: , , . -i; n
2/86 4/86 6/86 8/06 10/86 12/86 2/87 4/87 6/87 8/87 10/87 12/87 Sa ple Collection Date A-3
Figure 2 Radioactive Concentration of Mussel Shells from Rocky Point - Discharge Canal Outfall
=% 5 r =+2i + 4- + + = ;;= ? === - - z'?:=w-M-5 i-2m =_ tis ilam 2_
gq. YFiT
=
= i;;5 i:
=R W EM-3E i-is"- #'*==.~ %3it ==;E2 WI.E.-E: q:t--
~
gg(, , F "-~ -
* :-: i!-E s c a= Miai
9:4 3+4s]
Ti iL=M f=== i?=_r 5Z1.===.= _ L asg ac. iiii t="_5 M4E M-if;.l'.'__...
-. ~___ _ , _ , _ _ _ . m _ _=:;6-__A _ .. _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ . _ , _ _ _ _ .
go, - .
- 00. i t== de mLi MaleM=_- = ;ra+ M w i44 Mg Co-60 Conc' in Sh'11 Ef4M 8-0
- 44:E= =en-f: =sM
- W i= asagi
+='=
ca* 1*W _
=--;._.==. = . = = - =v ----.
C%-137 HDC s- 's
=.wiwi_::-
= = = = = .-
03.
Activity Concentra-t on i
pCi k 9(wetil ;ii. ..
. fx
.i
, i ggh, '
~~
~
~~'"~ Ni-90 US 55b 55Y~5~ ~~'5 IT'5$5II 5UU U55 U-TU 55 -EU 80 5 'xN"I"Ubi5-iU - . . . . - - . .
.,---_=___
m
=.
__=.=\; =
= . = _ .. _ _ = _ _ - == =_ _= -= _ .
. . r.
30 . _---- _-,_. .-----. . _m---. . _ _ _
g, m. _.s __,_i m _.
z; Q. .
smir aea a;;=r =-ia -p.;;;;ra ==i-m;;-;;;.
4M- =il=iFE 24 3+ +=54' - Ies:- aiwnw Em+
=14+ M%E **2E +4a' =Eit- M\El arEE === T izh=Mzt# ;- = ===m tw c, = =~ '
am+=.]OsE.
ri=i=> ase6=iE k / Ji-as-- 534W= ==. = : ' " _ = lia " Z .. _ __ _ _z T_ . _ _ . _ . == :=-
g_ 7':gM ig== .._-___# ------f_ _ _ . ..f5-
- --=-A s _
4 g, f
\s s'
- s -
=
D i,>
E.I 4 . ,
l ,,,, , ,, ,4 , ,. . .. , ., .i ...
g,
- p. 'i4;
t M 4= HR T ~M =m =M MM UT j 1 MJi M a442 Mini 4 W aaW 4: Mii" MM 4* -#W = *M WM 4MC14* "'9 N d
~
=
- s. ====.
% .5=_5 3: 1 =
'51:== == ~ - ~ '
= = - mitt
==
22:' ::_z. --x__
==
-; ::=.::,2; - ==;
===- - === ====y=_L.-x
- - - - . 2: .
Q 7- -: 4.;: ---
Il 6. ' - - -- - -
ki
+i L@ G=l i= " 22= ===~=-
W s :-# M=+n 'tii4-R E E'b- +'4-i- M M =- tt' =: '-'Lii= J = = .^ - =
-= 4%+ 5+
"-Mi- if_W -i'!?W ft"=-V=i-i4=~ =i-iM= -
tiiEin i isWi-M i '= - si'@
4, m.=uwa
'= 131 i=..~m+u 51.= .. _2__.=_==_..
. _ _ = = _ -" _ __ :.3_5 u s d m_
..a=__ . = . _ _ _ __ _._ _
.=.. .
.n . _ _ .
3.
~
p , = w,
, :-5"'~~- ,_ y -
~
--_w
- 2. ,
-i .i
~
1 j i
'1 1 1
1 l i ..
" E t
k I kk f!! *
'!ii i'i _
fli,' . .. . ,
l6
}t iii ii l _ i l.
3, ..a 2/86 4/86 6/86 8/86 10/86 12/86 2/87 4/87 6/67 8/87 10/87 12/87 Sample Colle". tion Date A-4
Radioactivity Concentration of Blue Husse!- Collected at the Inlet Middle and Outlet of the Pilarim Station Discharae Canal Activity Concentration Bodies Activity Concentration Shells (DCi/kg) (oCi/ka)
Isotooes Inlet Middle Outlet Inlet Middle Outlet Co-60 1916 4 22 621 + 12 302.3 + 7.4 1456 + 34 251.9 + 6.9 203.7+8.3 Co-137 502.7+9.9 129.4 + 5.1 91.8 + 4.0 398 + 16 57,4 + 3.2 60.0+5.2 Mn-54 42.0+5.0 11.2 + 3.3 9.0 + 2 1 61.3 +9.2 7.4 + 1.9 <HDC Cs-134 20.6+3.9 7.7 + 3.2 7.6 + 2.9 <MDC <MDC (MDC Comparison of these concentrations to the concentrations for the mussels collected from the outfall of the discharge canal from March 1986 to April 1987, indicates that the present cobalt 60 radioactivity concentrations are about 10 times higher for the mussels in the discharge canal than what has been observed in Cape Cod Bay over the past year.
Next, based on the maximum observed concentration in the mussel bodies (i.e., canal inlet) an estimate of the maximum internal dose from the ingestion of these mussels was calculated. This was based on the conservative assumption that the general public would ingest mussels that were raked from the discharge canal. The calculations were performed in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR50 Appendix I," and are detailed in Attachment B. The results shown in the following table indicate that the internal dose from the ingestion of mussel bodies harvested from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station discharge canal would be less than 1 mrem /yr.
ESTIKATED MAXIMUM INTERNAL COSE FROM THE INGESTION OF BLUE MUSSELS TAKEN FROM PILGRIM STATION DISCHARGE CANAL Organ Adult Teenager Chi.d -
(mrem /vr) (mrem /vr) (mrem /vr)
Total Body 0.237 0.152 0.093 Maximum Graan 0.393(GI) 0.320(Liver) 0.300(Liver)
This amount of internal dose is a small fraction of that received from natural background radiation and is well below the dose that is normally received from ingestion of radioactivity normally present in food, (e.g., Potassium-40).
A-5
1 IV. Comoarison Hith Existina Regulatory LimitssProposed Radioactivity Concentra? ion Guides for Shellfish and Natural / Man-Made Radiation I.evels Neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have regulations regarding acceptable concentrations of radioactive material in shellfish.
The NRC, in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Part 50),(11) in Appendix I, has established numerical guideiines on releases of radioactivity to the environment to limit doses to the public as low a.
reasonably achievable. These regulations also serve to implement the EPA regulations.
The EPA environmental regulations, Title 40 of the Code of Federal RegulationsPart190,"Env{rgnmentalRadiationProtectionStandardsfor Nucient Power Operations," Id establish a limit to the dose commitment to members of the public from all uranium fuel cycle sources to 25 mrem /yr to the total body or any organ with the exception of the thyroid. The thyroid is limited to 75 mrem over any 12 consecutive months. Comparison of the maximum total body and organ dose estimates from the ingestion of the PNPS discharge canal mussels (0.237 mrem /yr adult total body and 0.393 mrem /yr to the adult liver) indicates that this would result in an adult reaching only about 0.9 and 1.6 percent of the EPA limits for total body and organ, respectively.
In 10CFR50 Appendix I the NRC has established design objectives for light water reactors so thu their liquid effluent treatment systems will limit the dose from liquid effluents to 3 mrem /yr to the total body, and 10 mrem /yr to any organ. Comparison of the maximum total body and organ dose estimates from the ingestion of the PNPS discharge canal mussels (0.237 mrem /yr adult total body and 0.393 mrem /yr to adult liver) indicates that this would result in a person reaching only about 8 and 4 percent of the aforementioned design objectives, respectively.
In 10CFR 20.105, the NRC limits the levels of radiation in unrestricted areas resulting from the possession or use of radioactive materials such that they are not likely to cause any individual to receive a dose to the whole body, in any period of one calendar year, in excess of 500 mrem. Comparison to the total body dose for the adult (0.237 mrem /yr) indicates that the resulting internal dose from the ingestion of these mussels is only 0.057. of the dose limit to the public.
As mentioned previously, no regulatory guidance or acceptable limits have been provided for concentrations of radioactive material in shellfish. However, a proposal was assembled in September 1967 by the National Center for Radiological Health in collaboration with the Public Health Service.(3) The proposed radiocctivity concentration guide for shellfish was based on the maximum permissible concentrations for water to the general public. The concentrations were converted to daily radioactivity intake rates by assuming that a person intakes a volume of 2,200 ml of water and food each da Using the HPCw from 10CFR Part 20 Appendix B, Table II Column 2,(5) y.and using the 5 kg/yr usage factor for "other seafoods" from Regulatory Guide 1.109, the values shown on the following page were calculated. (See Attachment C for details of the calculations.)
A-6 1 -
Comoarison of the Proposed Radioactivity Concentration Guides in Shellfish to the Concentration in the Blue Mussels from the Pilarim Station Discharae Canal Proposed Guide Mussel Bodies Percent Isotooe (oCi/ko) (Inlet) (oCi/ka) of Guide Co-60 4.818.000 1.916 0.04%
Cs-137 6.424.000 502 0.008%
Mn-54 16.060.000 42 0.0003%
Cs-134 6.424.000 20 0.0003%
Comparison of the radioactivity concentrations in the mussels from the discharge canal to the proposed radioactivity concentration guides in shellfish indicates that the present mussel concentrations are much less than one percent of the proposed concentration guides.
In order to put in perspective the consequences of the ingestion of blue mussels taken from the PNPS discharge canal, it is useful to compare the maximum estimated dose to that from other sources of radiation. The annual average dose from natural and manmade sources is 420 mrem. The maximum estimated annual dose from ingestion of blue mue.sels is less than 0.3 mrem. Comparison of the maximum estimated dose with the natural / man-made radiation levels indicates that this conservative estimate is less than one percent of natural / man-made radiation levels.
Inerefore, the present radioactivity levels in the mussels from the discharge canal are only a small percentage of NRC regulatory limits, a very small percentage of the proposed radioactivity concentration guides for shellfish and a very small percentage of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
V. Conclusions In conclusion, the total radiological impact associated with slightly contaminated mussels present in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station discharge canal outfall is insignificant. This conclusion is based on the fact that the dose resulting from ingestion of these mussels would be less than 1 mrem /yr to the exposed individual, which is a small percentage of the federal radition limits to the general public set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, the maximum estimated dose was less than one percent of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
- In addition, the reporting levels for radioactivity concentrations in l environmental samples listed in PNPS Technical Specifications Section 7.1.A.2 were not exceeded, nor was t!.e limiting condition for operation for liquid effluent dose rates listed in PNPS Technical Specifications Section 3.8.C.1. This special stJoy is included in the Annual l Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report as required by PNPS Technical Specifications Section 8.1. A.1. Therefore, this occurrence and subsequent actions were in compliance with the applicable Technical Specifications and federal regulations.
A-7
REFERENCES
- 1. Lowman, F. G., T. R. Rice, and F. A. Richards. 1971. "Accumulation and Redistribution of Radionuclides by Marine Organisms in Radioactivity in the Marine Environment," National Academy of Sciences, pp. 168-169.
- 2. Chapman, H. H., H. L. Fisher, and H. H. Pratt. 1968. "Concentration Factors of Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms". Lawrence Radiatin Laboratory, Livermore, Raort UCRL-50564.
- 3. Heaver, C. L., "A Proposed Radioactivity Concentration Guide for Shellfish", U.S. Public Health Service, Septembe ,1967.
- 4. Harrison, F. Personal communication with D. E. McCurdy, 1972 (from Reference 9).
- 5. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 20.
- 6. Hess, C. T., C. H. Smith, A. H. Price, "A Model of the Time Dependence Factor for the Accumulation of Nuclear Reactor Co-58, Co-60, and Mn-54 by Oysters and in Sediments", (Volume 258 No. 5532, pp. 225-226, Nov.
20, 1975).
- 7. Hess, C. T., C. H. Smith, A. H. Price, "Observations of Crassostrea Virginica Cultured in the Heated Effluent and Discharged Radionuclides of a Nuclear Power Reactor", Proceeding of the National Shellfisheries Association, Vol. 66, 1976.
- 8. Harrison, F. L., G. Cranmore, "Loss of Cs-137 and Co-60 from the Oyster Crosstrea Gigas, "Health Physics, Pergamon Press, 1975, Vol. 28 (April) pp. 319-333.
- 9. Hess, C. T., Lutz, R. A., "Biological and Radiological Analyses of the Potential of Nuclear Power Plant Effluent Water for Shellfish Culture",
Proceeding of the Power Plant Haste Heat Utilization in Agriculture, pp.
109-129.
- 10. Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory Procedure No. 450, "Identification and Quantitative Determination of Radionuclides by Gamma Ray Spectrometric Techniques", Rev. 4.
- 11. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulation, Title 10, Part 50.
- 12. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 190.
A-8
Attachttent A
,.,m , , . . . , , u 4. c . . .. , , , , , . . , . , ,
t 'il
, N,,h "i :ai i U,l't!] . ,G ' T U M : '. U ' ' P -1" ' ' i ' ,
'.,,.;,N NK $.
~ ..
7 July 6, 198/
EL 437/87 l
Mr, Bruce Dionne Boston Edison Company 25 Braintree Hill Of fice Park Braintree, MA 02181
Dear Bruce:
Enclosed are the updated Cs-137_and K-40 results for the mussel bodies G66889, G66891 and G66893. As indicated in EL 419/87 the samples were dried according to Laboratory procedure. Because the dried volumes were insufficient to meet the requirements for a calibrated geometry, various weights of blank charcoal (of similar density to the dried mussel bodies) were added to the samples and shaken to obtain a homogeneous distribution. The charcoal was analyzed prior to addition to the bodies to evaluate ambient radioactivity. Cesium-137 and
- K-40 were identified in concentrations (pCi/kg) of 39.8 1 6.1 and 4540 i 180, respectively. 1he amount of charcoal added to each sample is listed below. The concentrations reported for Cs-137 and K-40 have had the ambient-radioactivity subtracted from the total pCi/Kg originally reported. The standard deviation in the concentration reflects the propogation of the random uncertainties in the mussel and the charcoal analyses.
G66889 0.0042 Kg charcoal G66891 0.0103 Kg charcoal G66893 0.0235 Kg charcoal Sincerely, Estella L. Laurenzo Environmental Laboratory JCM/nrg cc: D. E. McCurdy R. W. Poeton J. M. Reilly C. Bowman (Boston Edison)
A-9 ,
Attact. ent A icont. ,
MAILED YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY g g gg7 ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY Initial Analysis Report YAEC ...................____
ENVIRONMENTAL LAB.
Customer : Boston Edison Company Report Date: 07/07/87 Attention: MS. CHRISTINE E. BOWMAN Analysis Dates 6 /26/87 MR. EDWARD CUMMING Date Received: 6 /23/87 Reference Date: 6 /16/87 Mussel body Sample Anounts 0.54 Kg . (Mu s s el s ) Lab Sarple No.: # C66891 Sample submission Code PMU 97 2587 Elapsed Time : 10.36 days other Analysis Requested: None Comment: DISCHARGE CANAL INLET DECAY ACTIVITY NUCLIDE CONC. +- 1 SIGMA MDC CORRECTION ( Pico Curie / Kilogram )
Np-239 4.71E-02 m ( 5 +- 37 ) E 1 120 E 1 Co-57 9.74E-01 ( 8 +- 20 ) E-1 65 E
- Ce-144 9.75E-01 ( 5 +- 15 ) EO 49 E 0 Ce-141 8.02E-01 ( 76 +- 43 ) E-1 140 E-1 Mo-99 7.56E-02 ( 7 +- 49 ) E 1 160 E 1 Se-75 9.42E-01 ( 27 +- 40 ) E-1 130 E-1 Cr-51 7.72E-01 (-32 +- 31 ) EO 100 E o I -131 4.09E-01 ( 168 +- 75 ) E-1 250 E-1 Be-7 8.74E-01 ( 16 +- 41 ) EO 140 E O Ru-103 8.33E-01 ( 24 +- 49 ) E-1 160 E-1 xI -133 2.73E-04 ----
Ba-140 5.71E-01 ( 92 +- 52 ) E-1 170 E-1
- + Cs-134 9.90E-01 ( 206 +- 39 ) E-1 94 E-1 Ru-106 9.81E-01 ( 31 +- 4 3 ) E0 140 E o
- + Cs-137 9.99E-01 ( 5027 +- 99 ) E-1 180 E-1 Ag-110M 9.72E-01 ( 13 4- 85 ) E-1 280 E-1 Zr-95 8.95E-01 (-163 +- 99 ) E-1 330 E-1 Co-58 9.04E-01 ( 58 +- 58 ) E-1 190 E-1
- + Mn-54 9.77E-01 ( 420 +- 50 ) E-1 130 E-1 AcTh228 1.00E 00 ( 23 +- 27 ) EO 97 E 0 TeI-132 1.10E-01 (-19 +- 43 ) E1 140 E 1 Fe-59 8.53E-01 ( 3 +- 16 ) E0 55 E O Zn-65 9.71E-01 ( 2 9 + - 19 ) EO 63 E 0
- + K -40 1.00E 00 ( 1044 +- 63 ) EO 140 E 0 Sb-124 8.8BE-01 ( 20 +- 72 ) E-1 240 E-1 Notes:
- Activity greater than 3* standard deviation
+ Peak is found Approved by x Decay correction lere than .01 Reporting level ratio = 0.465 I n,b p. D,i ! Ti) '
f epdeied su. c .nt e.d s.40 e eenteettee reflect the ---------------- f-e.stie tsen et the west ca.ast .d a-so se ts. e.** E. L. Laurento.
of blest charseet added to the e seel astrie to entale the proper belght for a setibreted semtry. The 3 einse es1.e testudes the prepegatise et the tendse woeertelities le the e.eest sad esblest eherce.1 amelpees.
f A-10
1 1
t-
^"""*" (""'
MAILED YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY JUL 071987 ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY YAEC Initial Analysis Report U."."ROWENTA'. LAB. -~~-~~~--~~~--------~~-
Customer : Boston Edison Company Report Date: 07/07/87 Attention: MS. CHRISTINE E. BOWMAN Analysis Date 6 /26/87 MR. EDWARD CUMMING Date Received: 6 /23/87
. Reference Date: 6 /16/87 Mussel body Sample Amount 0.59 Kg. (Mussels) Lab Sarple No.: # G66889 Sample Submission Code PMU 98 2587 Elapsed Time : 10.36 days Other Analysis Requested: None Comment: MIDDLE OF DISCHARGE CANAL DECAY ACTIVITY NUCLIDE CONC. +- 1 SIGMA MDC CORRECTION
[ Pico Curie/ Kilogran )
Np-239 4.71E-02 (-13 +- 19 ) E1 Co-57 9.74E-01 64 E 1 Ce-144 9.75E-01
( 6 +- 11 ) E-1 37 E-1 Ce-141 8.02E-01
(-41 +- 8 6 ) E-1 290 E-1 Mo-99 7.56E-02
(-23 +- 25 ) E-1 83 E-1 Se-75 9.42E-01
(-15 +- 29 ) E 1 95 E 1 Cr-51 7.72E-01
( 41 +- 2 4 ) E-1 79 E-1 I -131 4.09E-01
( 6 +- 17 ) Eo 58 E O
- + Be-7 8.74E-01
( 25 +- 45 ) E-1 150 E-1 Ru-103 8.33E-01
( 76 +- 19 ) E 0 51 E o xI -133 2.73E-04
( 17 +- 25 ) E-1----
84 E-1 Ba-140 5.71E-01 (-2 +- 3 5 ) E-1 120 E-1 Cs-134 9.90E-01 ( 77 +- 32 ) E-1 Ru-106 110 E-1 9.81E-01 ( 4 9 +- 2 6 ) EO 87 E O
- + Cs-137 9.99E-01 ( 1294 +- 51 ) E-1 100 E-1 Ag-110M 9.72E-01 (-2 6 +- 51 ) E-1 Zr-95 8.95E-01 170 E-1 Co-58 9.04E-01
(-9 +- 57 ) E-1 190 E-1
(-21 +- 35 ) E-1 120 E-1
- + Mn-54 9.77E-01 ( 112 +- 33 ) E-1 96 E-1 ACTh228 1.00E 00 (-11 +- 14 ) EO 51 E O TeI-132 1.10E-01 ( 7 +- 23 ) E1 76 E 1 Fe-59 8.53E-01 ( 74 +- 85 ) E-1 280 E-1 Zn-65 9.71E-01 (-96 +- 99 ) E-1 330 E-1
- + K -40 1.00E 00 ( 1171 +- 62 ) EO 130 E 0 Sb-124 8.88E-01 ( 6 +- 4 8 ) E-1 160 E-1 Notes:
- Activity greater than 3* standard deviation
+ Peak is found x Decay correction less than .03 Approved by Reporting level ratio = 0.127 g,i:l!.. g
- Y- --
- e,detes in. c..in e.4 a 6o seees.ie.ises cetteet se -(_ *--' $- w--'i ----
..bersette. et tie e.neti c..nt . 4 a.6o se ese sw at E. L. Laurenzo.
of blast eteresal added to the owesel metris to obtels the proper belght for a salibrated gesbettf. fie I signa value toelodes the prepegattee of the readse escorteistles la the e.see) and sentent eserseet eastfees.
A-11 I
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - - - _ - -- 9
1 The in-situ soil gamma spectrometry involved placing an unshielded hyper-pura germanium detector about one meter above the ground and counting gamma rays for a period of one to two hours. In addition, an exposure rate measurement was taken using a high pressure ionization chamber (HPIC). The spectrometry analysis results and the HPIC exposure rate data were entered into a computer at YAEC's Environmental Laboratory. A computer program is used to calculate the concentration and exposure rate for each radioactive isotope identified. The soil concentration for cesium-137 and cobalt-60 for top soil, core and in-situ measurement techniques are shown in Table
- 2. The exposure rate for each radioactive isotope identified by the in-situ measurements are shown in Table 3.
A-26 ,
TABLE 2 S0IL SAMPLES TAKEN ON BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY PROPERTY CESIUH-137 AND COBALT-60 CONCENTRATIONS cesium Conc. cobalt Conc Onsite Dist./ Soil Cs-137*1r Co-60ila-Location Direction Ho/Da/Yr Deoth (in.) DCi/ka (wet) oCi/ko (wet)
Harehouse 0.1 Hl./ESE 07/07/87 Top Soil 1" 50*5 106 6 10/06/87 Top Soil 1" 32*3 81i5 10/06/87 In-Situ 45*9 200 7 (I)
E. Rocky Hill Rd. 0.3 Mi./SE 07/07/87 Top Soil 1" 185 22 38i7 10/06/87 Top Soil 1" 1769t11 15i2 10/06/87 Core 0-2" 1113 25 <49 (2) 10/06/87 Core 2-4" 458 17 <41 10/06/87 Core 4-6" 109*12 <45 10/06/87 In-Situ 583i19 <6.5 H. Rocky Hill Rd. 0.3 Mi./HSH 07/07/87 Top Soil 1" 351 12 58 9 10/07/87 Top Soil 1" 1396 27 98*13 10/07/87 Core 0-2" 1122 21 <31 10/07/87 Core 2-4" 181*10 <39 10/07/87 Core 4-6" 85*10 <34 10/07/87 In-Situ 624*22 <7.7 Pedestrian Bridge 0.1 Mi./NNH 07/07/87 Top Soil 1" 1401*20 26i6 10/07/87 Top Soil 1" 100 9 15*10 10/07/87 Core 0-2" 205 14 <37 10/07/87 Core 2-4" 122 13 <39 10/07/87 Core 4-6" 120 13 <37 10/07/87 In-Situ 160*13 21*4 Contractor Parking Lot 0.14 Hl./SSE 10/07/87 In-Situ (7 59i8 P-16 0.1 Mi./SSH 10/06/87 Top Soil 1" 92 8 28*6 TLD Site 10/06/87 Core 0-2" 117*10 54i9 10/06/87 Core 2-4" 108i9 <28 10/06/87 Core 4-6" 71 8 <25 10/06/87 In-Situ 257*17 32t5 First Aid Trailer 0.06 Mi./HSH 10/06/87 Top Soil 1" 227 8 69i7 10/06/87 Core 0-2" 13428 43 8 10/06/87 Core 2-4" 129 9 58*9 10/06/87 Core 4-6" 138*9 44 9 10/06/87 In-Situ 121*16 69*8 I&S Bldg.
Parking Lot 0.2 Hl./HSH 10/07/87 Top Soil 1" <36 15 10 10/07/87 In-Situ 112*16 (9 Outside Fence from Soil Pile at Contr. Lot 0.2 Mi./S 11/19/67 Top Soil 1" 296 7 71*5 BECo Unit 2 Laydown 0.7 Mi./SSE 11/19/07 Top Soil 1" 13 2 <8 4Il The in-situ results of 200 pCi/kg ara not in agreement with top soil and core results. The in-situ result is questionable due to the likelihood of (2) source terms
< indicates lessother thanthan soil at the the minimum location. concentration.
detectable A-27
TABLE 3 BOSTON EDISON IN-SITU ISOTOPIC EXF9SURE RATE RESULTS (Measurements taken 10/07/87) d Naturally Occurring Isotopes (uR/hr) We ns allout PNPS(UR/hr) lotal Ex Rate Oescription U-238 Th-232 K-40 Cs-137 _Co-60 __
_( pR/h_1_posure (pR/h )
Warehouse 0.R1 2 0.07 1.06 1 0.11 1.52 1 0.07 0.08 1 0.07 7.11 e 0.01 9.11
- 0.16 H.52
- 0.35 E. Rocky Hill Road 1.19 1 0.04 2.21 1 0.08 2.58 1 0.04 0.32 1 0.01 b 9.89 ,+ 0.19 10.38 1 0.56 W. Rocky Hill Road 1.00 1 0.05 1.76 1 0.08 1.34 0.04 0.34 1 0.01 b 8.04 1 0.11 8.48 1 0.38 Pedestrian Bridge 0.86 1 0.04 1.68 1 0.87 1.45 1 0.04 0.09 1 0.01 0.07 1 0.01 7.74 1 0.09 8.93 1 0.36 Overlook 1.03 1 0.07 1.78 1 0.11 2.00 1 0.07 .0.05 1 0.01 0.19 1 0.04 8.64 f 0.16 9.56 1 0.29
, S Contractor Parking 1.10 1 0.05 2.05 1 0.08 2.60 1 0.05 b 0.19 1 0.02 9.53 1 0.11 9.94 1 0.48 P-16 TLD Site 1.05 1 0.05 1.74 1 0.08 2.02 1 0.05 0.14 1 0.01 0.10 1 0.02 8.65 1 0.11 9.57 i 0.30 First Aid Trailer 0.92 1 0.06 1.65 1 0.09 2.04 1 0.06 0.07 1 0.01 0.22 ' O.02 8.50 1 0.12 10.20 1 0.37 I&S Parking lot 1.00 1 0.05 2.05 2 0.08 2.60 0.05 b 0.19 1 0.02 9.53 1 0.11 9.01 1 0.33 E. Weymouth 1.99 1 0.05 1.81 i 0.07 2.58 1 0.05 0.17 1 0.01 b 10.15 1 0.10 9.64 1 0.40 Control (1985) c
- a. lotal of portable germanium system plus 3.59 uR/hr cosmic contribution.
- b. Nuclide not identified in spectrum,
- c. This location, which was last measured in August,1985, is located 23 miles Northwest of Pilgrim Station.
It is therefore considered to be outside the influence of station operation and is representative of ambient levels of radioactivity.
The results indicated the presence of a fission product (cesium-137) at normal weapons fallout levels and an activation corrosion product (Cobalt-60) at levels slightly above minimum detectable concentration (HDC).
There are no federal concentration limits for radioactivity in soil.
However, the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications 3 Section 7.1.A.2 in Table 7.1-1 lists reporting levels for radioactivity concentrations in environmental samples. Due to the lack of specific levels for soil, the levels for water were used for comparison purposes.
The use of the reporting level for drinking water is a conservative assumption. The reporting levels are based on a fraction of the design objectives for the dose to the general public. The concentration in drinking water to deliver a given dose via ingestion is much greater than the concentration in soil to give the same dose via external radiation from the soil. Although there is no reason to believe that ingestion of potable water is a pathway of concern (see Section III.A.), the improbable consequence for the drinking water to somehow be at the same radioactive concentration as the soil did not result in levels of radioactivity that were in excess of the reporting level in the PNPS Technical Specifications.
The cesium-137 reporting level for water of 50 pCi/kg has been exceeded, but this was not reported to the NRC, since the cesium-137 is a result of weapons testing and is normally present at these levels in soil in the environment. For example, in 1982, in-situ soil measurements performed at PNPS reported an average activity concentration for cesium-137 of 429 pCi/kg, with a minimum value of 112 pCi/kg and a maximum of 1713 pCi/kg. The 1985 in-situ soil measurement program reported similar concentrations of cesium-137, namely an average of 310 pCi/kg, minimum value of 102 pC1/kg and a maximum of 657 pCi/kg.
In addition, the East Heymouth station is consid ed to be outside the influence of the station effluent releases sinct it is 23 miles NH of PNPS. This location was measured for radioactivity during the 1982 and 1985 in-situ soil analysis programs. The cesium-137 concentration at the East Heymouth location was 496 pCi/kg in 1982 and 306 pCi/kg in 1985. Therefore, the levels of cesium-137 recently detected in the soil are within normal weapons fallout levels of what has been detected in the past.
The cobalt-60 reporting level for water was not exceeded. A review of in-situ soil rr.easurement programs from 1982 and 1985 indicated that only o.ie of the eleven sampling locations indicated the presence of cobalt-60 above minimum detectable concentration (cobalt-60 HDC 10 pCi/kg). The location called Pedestrian Bridge indicated cobalt-60 concentrations in the soil of 305 pCi/kg in 1982 and 123 pCi/kg in 1985. Therefore, the levels of cobalt-60 recently detected in ten soil samples taken on Boston Edison property was not present at the corresponding locations in 1982 and 1985, with the exception of the Pedestrian Bridge.
1 A-29
The detectable cobalt-60 concentrations that were observed in the soil samples taken on Boston Edison property averaged 55 pCi/kg, alth a minimum of <7.7 pCi/kg and a maximum of 69 pC1/kg as measured by in-situ measurements. These results were only slightly above the minimum detectable concentration of about 10 pCi/kg. In addition, Table 3 indicates that the most recent exposure rate measurement at the Heymouth Station was higher than some of the total isotopic exposure rates at the Boston Edison Co. locations where cobalt-60 was detected. Table 3 also indicates that the exposure rate contribution from the Cobalt is only a small fraction of the exposure rate of some of the naturally occurring isotopes such as uranium-238, thorium-232 and potassium-40.
III. Estimated Maximum Internal and External Dese from Cobalt-60 in Dust and Sail A. Basis for Dose Estimates Based on the maximum observed cobalt-60 concentration in air and in the soil, an estimate of the maximum internal and external dose was calculated. The inhalation of contaminated dust and direct radiation from ground contamination are considered to be the only pathways involving radiation exposure to the public associated with an atmosr,heric dispersion of slightly contaminated dust.
Direct exposure from immersion in the dust cloud was considered insignificant due to the short duration and relatively low airborne concentrations.
1 Ingestion exposure from milk, meat and vegetables was considered insignificant based on results from routine samples collected as part l of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. None of the I milk, leafy vegetable, or cranberry samples collected within a 5 mile radius of Pilgrim Station during 1987 indicated radioactivity which could be attributable to atmospheric dispersion of the dust.
Ingestion exposure from potable water was considered, since the water table intersects the land surface in the area where slightly contaminated dirt is presently being stored. Since the soil samples taken from the wetlands indicated cobalt-60 slightly above minimum detectable activities, this pathway was investigated.
A review of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Repgrt4 for PNPS Unit 1 and Pilgrim Station Unit 2's Environmental ReportD was performed.
This review, together with the low activity available in the soil for dispersion, resulted in the conclusion that the exposure associated with the ingestion of potable water was not a significant pathway.
No other pathways would result in exposure to the public from l atmospheric dispersion of the dust.
A-30
B. Maximum Estimated Internal Dose from Inhalation of Dust The maximum estimated internal dose associated with inhalation of contaminated dust is shown in Table 4.
The calculation of dose associated with the inhalation of radioactive material is dependent on the concentration of the radioactivity in air, the isotope involved, the duration of the release, and the breathing rate of the individual, as well as mathematical models and associated parameters.
There are three models and associated parameters which can be used.
The first, referred to as the Reg. Guide 1.1096 methodology, is the model that is presently used to calculate the annual dose to humans from routine operations. The second applies 10CFR207 information which delineates the NRC regulations for the maximum pgrmissible concentrations. The third, referred to as the ICRP-300 methodology, uses the new models which were recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1979 and are presently being proposed in the revised NRC regulations (10CFR20).
The first maximum internal dose estimate in Table 4 is based on the Reg. Guide 1.109 methodology. This calculation is based on the maximum weekly cobalt-60 concentration from Table 1. This maximum cobalt-60 concentration of 1.94 x 10-14 UCi/cm3 (measured on Boston Edison property) was assumed to be inhaled by the nearest resident throughout the first and second quarter. Since the composite air samples for the third and fourth quarter were less than the minimum detectable concentrations, it was assumed that the public inhaled cobalt-60 at the HDC of 1.4 x 10-13 uCi/cm3 for the third and fourth quarter. This yleids an average annJa1 cor.L..tration for cobalt-60 of 1.04 x 10-14 uC1/cm3 It is assumed that the maximum individual would inhale this concentration at a rate of 2.3 x 107 cm3/d for 365 days per yearb. This gives a total annual intake of 8.73 x 10-5 uCi of cobalt-60. Using the Reg. Guide 1.109 conversion factor of 1.85 mrem /uCi (from Table E-7) results in an annual whole body dose of 0.0002 mrem. Therefore, the first estimate of the maximum internal dose to the whole body from inhalation of dust was 0.0002 mrem.
The second maximum internal dose estimate in Table 4 is based on 10CFR20 information. This calculation is base cobalt-60 concentration of 1.04 x 10-14 uCi/cmg on the average described annual above.
This concentration was divided by the cobalt-60 maximum permissible concentratl gn in air of 3 x 10- u UCi/cm3.(insoluble)
This ratiofrom was10CFR20 Appendix then multiplied by B, theTable II annual dose limit for the lung for the general publ~ of 1500 mrem /yr3, Therefore, the second estimate of the maximum internal dose to the lung from inhalation of dust was 0.052 mrem.
The third maximum internal dose estimate in Table 4 utilized the ICRP-30 methodology, which is the preferred method. This calculation was a go based on the average annual cobalt-60 concentration of 1.04 x 10-
- uCi/cm3 described above. It is assumed that the maximum individual would inhale this concentration at a rate of 2.3 x 107 cm3/d for 8.73x10g65daysperyear. This gives a total annual intake of UCi of cobalt-60. Assuming Class Y, the ICRP-30 annual limit of Intake which would result in a committed dose equivalent to the whole body of 5 rem is 27 uCi. Therefore, the third estimate of the maximum annual internal dose to the whole body from inhalation was 0.016 mrem.
A-31
TABLE 4 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM INTERNAL DOSE FROM THE INHALATION OF RADIOACTIVE DUST Reg. Guide 1.109 10CFR20 ICRP-30 Cobalt-60 Cobalt-60 Cobalt-60 Whole Body Dose (mrem) Luna Dose (mrem) Whole Body Dose (mrem) 0.0002 0.052 0.016 C. Maximum Estimated External Dose from Soil The maximum estimated external dose from the direct radiation from a contaminated ground surface is shown in Table 5.
The calculation of dose associated with the direct radiation emitted from a contaminated ground surface is dependent on the aerial concentration of radioactivity, the isotopes involved, the distance from the ground, the duration of exposure and the dose rate conversion factor for the isotopes of interest.
There are again three methods which can be used to estimate the maximum external dose from the soil. The first, referred to as the Reg. Guide 1.109 methodology, is the model that is presently used to calculate the annual dose to humans from routine operations. The second, referred to as the 10CFR20 methodology, uses the measured cobalt-60 exposure rate from in-situ soil measurements in Table 3.
The third, referred to as the NUREG-1918V methodology, is the most recent model recommended by a National Laboratory study funded by the NRC in 1981.
The first maximum external dose estimate in Table 5 was based on the Reg. Guide 1.109 methodology. This calculation utilized the 98 pC1/kg top soil cobalt-60 concentration measured at the East Rocky Hill Road location whi'h c is at the boundary of Boston Edison's property. This location was selected since this measurement could represent the maximum soil concentration that would result in a dose to the nearest resident. It should be noted that the cobalt-60 concentration at the Harehouse (106 pCi/kg) was not used as the maximum because this value was considered questionable due to its close proximity to Pilgrim Station. Assuming a depth of cobalt-60 in the soil of 2.54 cm and a density gf soil of ; 6 g/cm3, yields a surface concentration of 3.98 x 103 pCi/m2 H ltiplying by the Rgg.
Guide 1.109 external dose factor of 1.70 x 10- mrem /hr per pCi/m' from Table E-6 and assuming an individual stands outside for 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> per year yields 0.593 mrem /yr. Therefore, the first estimate of the maximum estimated annual external dose to the whole body from the soil was 0.593 mrem.
A-32
The second maximum external dose estimate in Table 5 was based on 10CFR20. This calculation is based on the maximum cobalt-60 exposure rate from the in-situ measurements at the First Aid Trailer inside the protected area of 0.22 uR/hr (Table 3). It should be noted that the exposure rate at the Harehouse of 2.11 UR/hr was not used as the maximum because this value was considered questionable due to its l close proximity to Pilgrim Station. Converting to mR and multiplying by 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> per year yields 1.927 mR. Therefore, the second ]'
estimated annual external exposure from the soil to the whole body was 1.927 mR.
The third maximum external dose estimate in Table 5 was based on the NUREG-1918 methodology. This utilized the 98 pC1/kg top soil concentration, which, for the NUREG-1918 methodology, was converted to UCi/cm2 This yields a surface concentration of 3.98 x 10-7 uCi/cm2 Hu of2.30x10gtiplyingbytheNUR[G-1918doserateconversionfactor mrem /yr per uCi/cmz yields 0.916 mrem. Therefore, the third estimated annual external dose to the whole body from the soil was 0.916 mrem.
TABLE 5 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM EXTERNAL DOSE FROM THE DIRECT RADIATION FROM RADIOACTIVE SOIL
~
Reg. Guide 1.109 10CFR20 NUREG-1918 Whole Body Dose Eauivalent Heasured Excosure Rate Whole Body Dose Eauivalent (mrem 0 1 m.) (mR @ 1 m.) (mrem @ l m.)
0.593 1.927 0.916 IV. Comoarison of Estimated Maximum Doses with Dose Limits to the General Public. PNPS Technical Soecifications and Natural / Man-Made Radiation Levels Two of the federal agencies that are charged with the responsibility to
- protect the public from radiation and radioactivity are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NRC's radiation limits to the general public are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 20 Section 105. The Environmental Protection Agency's radiation limits for the general public are contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 190 l Subpart 8 Section 10.10 In 10CFR 20.105, the NRC limits the levels of radiation in unrestricted 1 areas resulting from the possession or use of radioactive materials such that they are not likely to cause any individual to receive a dose to the whole body, in any period of one calendar year, in excess of 500 mrem.
Comparison with the maximum estimated internal plus external doses (10CFR20 estimates 0.0S2 + 1.927 - 1.979 mrem) indicates that the resulting maximum total dose from inhalation and direct exposure is 0.4 percent of the NRC dose limit to the public, l
A-33
The EPA in 40CFR190.10 Subpart B sets forth environmental standards for the uranium fuel cycle. During normal operation, the annual dose to the whole body shall not exceed 25 mrem. Comparison with the maximum estimated internal plus external doses (1.109 estimates 0.0002 + 0.593 -
0.593 mrem) indicates that the resulting maximum total dose from inhalation and direct exposure is 2.4 percent of the EPA dose limit to the general public.
The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station's Technical Specifications contain limiting conditions for operations and operational objectives regarding radiological environmental releases. Section 7.1.A.2 contains reporting levels for radioactivity concentrations in environmental samples. None of the air and soil sample radioactivity concentrations exceeded the applicable reporting levels listed in Table 7.1-1. Section 3.8.D.1 contains limiting conditions for operation for gaseous radioactive effluents. Comparision of the maximum estimated internal and external dose of 0.593 with the 500 mrem /yr technical specifications limit indicate that the resulting maximum total dose is 0.1 percent of this limiting condition for operation.
In order to put in perspective the consequences of the atmospheric dispersion of cobalt-60, it is useful to compare the maximum estimated dose to that from other sources of ref.etion t"Dosure. The annual average dose from natural and manmade sources i; 4?0 mremil. The maximum estimated annual dose from the radioactive dust avi soll is 2 mrem using the 10CFR20 methodology. This maximum dose is baseJ on conservative assumptions. For example, the maximum exposed individual is assumed to have stood outside at the location with the highest toil radioactivity concentration for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 365 days a year. In addition, it was assumed that the individual inhaled the maximum weekly concentration of cobalt-60 continuously for 6 months. Comparison of the maximum estimated dose with the natural / man-made radiation level indicates that this l
conservative estimate is less than one percent of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
V. Conclusions In conclusion, the total radiological impact associated with the atmospheric dispersion of slightly radioactive dust from Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station during 1987 was of insignificant radiological consequence.
This is based on the fact that the maximum estimated radiation dose was 0.4% of the NRC and 2.4% of the EPA dose limits to the general public.
In addition, the maximum estimated dose was less than one percent of the natural plus manmade radiation levels.
In addition, the reporting levels for radioactivity concentrations in environmental samples listed in PNPS Technical Specifications Section 7.1.A.2 were not exceeded, nor was the limiting condition for operation for gaseous effluent dose rates listed in PNPS Technical Specifications Section 3.8.D.1. This special study is included in the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report as required by PNPS Technical Specifications Section 8.1.A.I. Therefore, this occurrence and subsequent actions were in compliance with the applicable Technical l Specifications and federal regulations.
A-34
References
- 1. Yankee Atomic Electric Co; Environmental Radiation Surveillance Program Annual Summary of Analytical Heasurements January - December 1987, March 1988.
- 2. Yankee Atomic Electric Co; "Analysis Results for Soil Samples Collected at Boston Edison During 1987," December 1987.
- 3. Boston Edison Co, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-297, Facility Operating Licensee (F0L), No. DPR-35 Appendix A.
- 4. Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
- 5. Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, Environmental Report, September 1976.
- 6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I," Regulatory Guide 1.109, October 1977.
- 7. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 20.
- 8. Commission of Radiological Protection Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Horkers, Publication 30, 1979.
- 9. Kocher D.C., "Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure to Photons and Electrons," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, NUREG/CR-1918, 1981.
- 10. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 190.
- 11. National Council on Radiation Protection, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States," Report No. 93, 1987.
A-35
ATTACHMENT A:
0 s===""
h 23 0 f'I 2 N
Rocky Pomt dj NOTE:
Topowephic feetures #$ e endicated in feet Y' PILGRIM Qs StTE
/,/
~
Waren Cove N \'e
/o j 3
g g.
@ f, {
\ ',
t
'a
/ Q' s I, .
i T.o.i Fia'
- ge e
.s..
'\ s g-w,,
m
, i ,' ,.d,, j.-
, ,,. o1 , s -: . -.
C ,, . . ,
, +
s 4~
g-i,. ...
~
} asp <,. * ,.
- u. x
,\
1 \ ,
U.QW A.,, g' ( g g$(g_;g.% . ;;=. . , ~ *iv;
' Y et.' 4* 4,i($Ey[fj .
,- . 5%.ac .kg.,y,E i ev., . . ,. .
gg ;
- .:s 5;;."/gl!f,g. q:a7g,yf.
.'2 g,r,$g7/ a _, .,. e 13.;,.Q . .-2' .q . .
- , f
- h ; -. %:R ,"' (2 ^:- M ,M s .s
-k k. tg .
r:'.
> r, .. . o. . r. -
. ,; .~, "rg.. :
. .s. ,~7+,vp.
q-. y;id n Q .& -
%.p# .y 6, ,'p,f'
. _ . < 1 .,. ,
i.t
- M pQ.f d '.1 v
- y. 77 n .<ps y- 'q;;6 3.y,.qp,, ~ ,
' l,^
y ,A'
.s s
4
- A 6 .c 6,
1- -Va- 8 .
Air Sample Locations On Boston Edison Property t
- 1. Warehouse
- 2. E. Rocky Hill Rd.
- 3. Property Line 4 Pedestrian Bridge A-36 .
ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM B. i nne February 3,1988 TO D. R. anielski EL 062/88 FROM BASIS AND APPROACH FOR THE GROSS BETA AIR PARTICULATE STATISTICAL EVALUATION SUBJECT REFERENCES
- 1. Ott, L., D.K. Hildebrand, 1983, Statistical Thinking for Managers, Duxbury Press, Boston, MA.
- 2. BBN Sof tware Products Corp. ,1983, RS/l Users Guide (Graphics and Statistics), Book 2, Cambridge MA.
- 3. Dixon, W.J., F. J. Massey Jr., 1957, Introduction to Statistical Analysis McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
- 4. No rusis , M. J . , 1982 SPSS Introductory Guide: Basic Statistics and Operations, McGraw-Hill Book Co., N.Y.
- 5. Weiss, N., M. Hassett, 1982, Introductory Statistics, Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co., Reading, MA.
BACKGROUND Based upon Boston Edison's request, the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory compiled and evaluated the 1987 Air Particulate (AP) gross beta results associated wit') selected onsite and offsite air sampling monitoring stations (Attachments 1 to 3). In an effort to detect possible similarities or differences between stations, the data were evaluated statistically where considered appropriate (Attachment 4). The purpose of this paper is to present the logic sequence associated with the statistical tests selected, and the various assumptions incorporated into the analysis.
SELECTION OF A SUITABLE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The desired approach to statistically evaluate the air particulate data set was the oneway Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) which seeks to identify if differences among the cample air collection station means are large enough to imply that the corresponding means are different. However, before a parametric test of this nature could be considered appropriate its corresponding underlying assumptions had to first be validated. The basic assumptions underlying ANOVA include: mutual independence of the observe 6.lons, homogeneity of variance, and normality of distribution (Reference 1). A review of the individual station variances indicated a non-homogeneous range from a low of 3,953 pCi for the Cleft Rock Station to a high of 27,344 pCi for the Warehouse Station (Attachment 1). In addition, a Kolmogorov/Smirnov or Wilk-Shapiro test for normality was run for each station sample data set, depending on the sample size (n) (Reference 2). In practically all cases the BeCo Air Particulate station data indicated a non-normal distribution (Attachments 2,4). Since the data did not satisfy the more restrictive assumptions of the parametric ANOVA analysis, a nonparametric evaluation was considered the mest appropriate to identify if differences exist between stations (References 1,3).
A-37
B. Dionne February 3. - 1988 Page 2 APPLICATION OF THE NONPARAMETRIC MANN-WHITNEY TWO-SAMPLE NONPAIRED TEST Since differences between all stations could not be tested, an alternative approach was taken to evaluate each onsite or offsite station with the control air sampling station located at East Weymouth. An analysis similar to the two-sample Student's t-test for means was considered appropriate based upon the resources available. Inasmuch as the t-test further requires the observations be selected from normally distributed populations with equal variances (similar to.the ANOVA) (References 1,4), the nonparametric equivalent Mann-Whitney Test (sometimes referred to as the Wilcoxon text) was selected (Reference 4). Essentially the Mann-Whitney analysis tests the hypothesis that two independent samples come from populations having the same distribution (parametric parameters such as the mean and standard deviatien are not utilized).
Before the Mann-Whitney test was performed the Laboratory utilized the RS/l statistical protocol "COMPARE" which evaluates the data in a hierarchical fashion (Attachment 4). The evaluation follows the following sequence:
o The number of samples being tested (in this case two: test station versus the control) o The relationship between the samples (paired versus nonpaired) o The normality of the underlying distribution o Direction of Comparison o Equality of dispersions Number of samples tested The COMPARE program differentiates between a one or two sample analysis.
The number of samples compared determines which analysis approach is taken; for example, if one sample was being compared against a "known thandard" a single sample t-test application would be used. As indicated earlier, however, the two sample test was selected, since a given sample station was compared with the control station.
Are the data paired or nonpaired?
The unpaired approach was selected since the data from any given sample station is not related to any one particular value of the control station. When the data arise from a cross-sectional random sample taken at a specific time, independence holds virtually by definition.
Normality of the underlying distribution Each of the paired sample stations to be compared were evaluated as to their respective distributions. Normality of the distribution is an important underlying assumption which, in part, determines whethe; a pr.cametric or nonparametric evaluation is considered the most appropriate. Either a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Wilk-Shapiro test for normality was run depending upon the sample size.
A-38
r -
B. Dionne February 3,1988 Page 3 Direction of Comparis_on For a two sample analysis the median of the station test sample is either j considered greater than, less than, or not equal to (alternative hypothesis) to the control station. In all tests, the hype hesis that the medians are not equal was selected.
Equality of Dispersions The alternatives for a two sample analysia comparison are either the samples are paired or not. Rather then apply a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for paired samples, an Ansarl-Bradley evaluation which compares sample dispersions was used. In all cases where the control station was compared to a sample station, equal dispersions were observed.
CONCLUSION Having followed the protocol outlined above, the Mann-Whitney test for Pooled Samples with equal dispersions was applied (Reference 5). In all four of the requested comparisons there was insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the sample station median was equal to that of the control station (Attachment 4); in other words, there were no differences between the respective sampling stations and the East Weymouth control station.
Regarding the analyses associated with this statistical comparison, a precautionary note is considered appropriate. When multiple t-tests are applied, the risk of rejecting the null hypothesis, when it is in fact true (Type I, or Alpha error), becomes greater as the number of comparisons increase (?eference 1). Based upon an appreciation of the data, and the design analysis, this concern is considered minimal, however.
Mic y lYe N ma '
D. R. Danielski, Environmental Laboratory Attachments cc: C. L. Harrington D. E. McCurdy J. Murray R. W. Poeton A-39 i
I ATTACHf1ENT 1 4
A-40 i
a II 0,A8 524 a 110 43 8ti il 14;:0 Pa;e 1 lt:0 640$$ lita At t!SJLil FOR titytt $ tat!:m3 UL8!O 1981 0 1 mitt I t:Ctf pl 3 kOCLY MILL 4 pr>titY l r" t: Elf I cvit;Z< f 1.5411t- 0 CLErt at i PLYoLix 1 an;*it 10;$t 40A: Et 201 ut Litt it!DGE Atta taitt At!A Clutta kl $f 1 252 Il4 313 423 254 til 281 2 Pt 182 113 lli 2:1 Ill til ill 3 :s 1 !!7 153 til 211 Ilt 251 114 4 3:2 1812 til til 33: 4:1 213 443 783 5 48 114 113 til 117 175 251 225 6 228 !!4 Ill 315 til 21: 351 Ill 1 141 323 Ill 254 231 213 -
4 233 215 ft) til 184 til til til 1 244 !!? til 211 172 225 244 215 1: til 124 317 251 281 Ill 751 11 311 334 til 112 214 132 338 117 12 211 22 ift 267 1l4 til 211 314 13 il Il 51 87 106 fl 147 174 14 Ill til til til 154 !!$ 151 15 Ill ill 145 til 133 11 175 13: .
16 3:2 III til 5:7 til ill 247 il 11 Il 1 Il il il til 15: 152 114 Ill 152 11: 122 111 Il le 1:6 748 103 194 til 113 2 225 II: Ill ill 216 til Ill 22l 21 ill 125 til 166 Ill Ill 241 ti:
22 61: til 132 155 327 Ill 122 Ill 141 23 til 273 252 211 273 271 242 til 25:
24 211 2:1 143 139 113 til til il 231 itl 221 !al 241 til 211 212 26 111 132 1:1 152 12 125 Ill ill ill 21 181 141 til 131 Ill 152 14 112 21 213 341 112 411 til 141 til 187
!! 213 til 184 20t 115 225 til 155 lli 3 !!: 140 143 Ill 21: til ill It! 113 11 231 !!! 181 184 111 23 til fit 234 32 11 65 131 144 132 ill ill til 33 644 II: Ilt 211 312 Ill Il3 171 34 2:5 Ill 141 til 114 Ill 2:1 35 252 229 21: !$6 225 til all lla il 282 151 112 15: 182 til 171 17: 144 11 115 114 181 Ill 21: tis 118 116 31 170 14 131 134 141 141 156 III '40 ll 1:4 til 1:4 152 142 1:1 85 48 211 253 244 210 !!l !!! 215 22 2:4 41 14f til 114 15: II: tit til ill 231 iff 42 24l 232 213 til !!I 228 211 til 221 tif 6
- 1. A;L vant$ (18tt13!: In t 4 F100CLt!!$.
- 2. Es:ff va;tt5 (4:4 !It0) Ittt!!!nt Elfalt OListi:nal.t t!54t$ (e.g. All $10.t" Pt:t.t'3) '
C4 O A8 ina!$ titt Ptoil:t: If 5+::
- 3. stat!> 1 (tast 1:timtit) O&ta 407 (val;8'!: $:t:t 48 REST.15 m:st CA.Y PC510!:
F t f*t LA$? QLatitt or 1917.
- 4. Et> na.;[ ta$ at as$xlatt! linxe 10 $r$'Isa':0 m:tata:tif t[is a!SXiatt! a:ta 11. tita$t t!rts ? t=! c:s::iat!>
Cf 1987 (wirAstn't. Lal; sat:af 0.atttt.y 10 tilflai 141.?!!$ alga's 704 fat t!$it:tivt m:lita:n?f tas.El A-41
4 I~
MCoft $2R a 11C ll-Fil-ll 14:00 Pole 2 NCC G4055 MTA 48 AISLit.t ?04 (Liv!N StAf!0h5 Dutth6 tilf i 11 (AST WEYN00tM .
1 121 2 246 1- 221 -
4 Ill
'l 4 24 4 415 i
?- 111 1 - 254 '
l 223 11 263 11 262 12 til 13 sit 14 til 15 til Il 17- 120 il ill il II
- it' 172 21 15$
22 230 21 til 24 !!!
25 294 25 til 21 144 21 til 21 til il til 11 154 12 154 33 34 217 15 Ill il ill 17 236 Il 124 al 131 4
41 til 42 212 1, Au tuts Exttil$tt tu l-4 #!;0@t!!$.
- 2. taaff Vuts (u !(to) statistet Elinta @tst!0halLE RE5utt$ (e.l Alt Samtilt Pt;ttes) et 50 At vuts atti tecy!!!0 SY lete.
- 3. Stafim 1 (East latatuatit) Data n:t EVuatID 5;t;t at ttsats ett! Onty tral?!)
F04 f#t LAST $4titt W Illt.
I. las vut pas at 1550Clatt ta*Xe A43 575tteAf t; tt;ttf alttY ftte 1550Clatt; altW 11. tttist #tfll 70 t*E CCS21Latll4 0F 1861 Entit3nststa; Lagosatory gaatttty 443 Intflag Ana;Y3!$ ttponts pee fut it5titflyt Un0ttfainte vaats.
A-42
tt 0,0 !!t a 110 ll Fil-Il 14:40 Fege 3 MCC 600$$ MTA AP tt$JLt$ FOR tttytt STAfl0h5 ht!bG litt e ^1 matt 2 tottY N1 3 #0Caf N!LL 4 PROFEttY l Ptlt$1 i Cvittoct 1 f.ettaa. I CLF' I Ptyn%'m 18 mgett
>%$t ACA3 ft t010 et t!st et!DGE AAtA Witt - AL Citttt $gt $t 4 . ..~. ~ ..~. . ~ .. -. . . . . . _ .
43 313 331 Ill 322 lla It! 221 - 355 334 318 ,
44 til til 245 Ill 245 li! 233 til 211 til 45 211 til lif til ill 111 til ill 172 el 178 221 3 219 3:1 194 231 213 286 111 41 432 302 til 254 3;l . 2 54 231 til Ill 175 i a_ 48 112 112 til ill Ill 214 til ill til 4l Ill 123 Ill 1W 145 114 121 Ill 181 52 Ill 131 . 128 Ill 181 133 til til til ;
$1 til til III Ill til Ill 124 181 til 52 124 11 - 121 til 134 Ill 111 123 144 151 0 11 EA$f atte%fN 43 til 44 til 45 '. 83 I
, el ll? [
41 128 41 Ill el 215 to til il til 12
- 1. Aa VAwi$ tottl$tD It ( 4 7100C'Jt!!!. ,
- f. totty vaats (nJh !!t0) ttPit!!st fitait @t$tlonal.t RI$JLil (e g. Alt $ asp (It PR0t'.it$)
On 40 at vawt3 sttt at0v! (0 if leto. ,
- 3. Statlok 1 (EA$t 9ttateattt) CATA n07 tyA;'Jatt0 !!s;t AP R!$V'.t$ Wtt! ONkY P40Vitt0 FOR t>t Last Qcattti 0F till.
- 4. (A0W VAwt has at A$$0CIAf!D tAtD0s an0 3r$ttEAfl; Uu;ttillett TIN A$$%1 Aft 0 n;tn 11. PLEA $t t[Ftt 70 THE Coutilat!0n 0F 1111 Ety!t'.nettfa; t4PctatctY %Atttt.Y A4D lt!fl AL AAA;Y$!$ tt>0tt$ FOR tal itS>t:1!Yi tr.'ttiAintY YA.tti.
r
- i. .
i f
L
=
A-43 i
..m.n. J
- 1 12e s It: 2 N Avil 't; 2 8e;e 1 l' A95f! A. $45'alf 8. Gl^$$ lif A A8 RES#.fl 8 t 1[h $f171:45 tr.tN til'
- Statistic 1 *HI 2 W U n!LL 3 W" W!it 4 P108Etiv 5 pt:t$! I esttixt 1 f.In[At.
4 5! CAO (k I'.10 #8 U4! BIllG! al! A h A'[4 1 ;wt (4) 4I.::*::' 48.t*.:*: 5 .:::::: 4I .:::';: 4l.*::::. 36. ::::* 12.0 :...
25+ 1143t.;;;;;; 1:368.:::::: lill.:::: : 1:312.:::::: 12511. :::.* 72t3.::::.: 2 ti! . :"*;*
3 mesa !$4.155551 til.::';;* 113.11;;;; 216.451333 247.3*l531 2 :.36111' 222.:!:313 4 Sie (s.e. c8 seea) 24.15'l:8 II.llet:5 11.88:448 13.11115l 20 little 11.313513 31.5:'445 5 seosa til. ::::: 2:0.5 :::: 182.5 :::: 115.5:' . :* 111.::::*: til.:::.:: !?;.5:;*:
I he*f e*ce It344.18 tit s til't. lil?2 7:ll.3?5t:2 1113.53:*42 2:131.I'445: 4865.0373:2 til!!.5:stil
? St:ev (s!) i 145.3513:! 111. 44 t th 14.0185?l 15.484811 143.831348 51.3:1:18 15.14415:
I e s.im.e 1:'t.:::::: 1*':.:::::: 575.:::::: lil.:::::: 751 :::::: 4:1.:::::: 524 :::. ;
i u + nwe 41.:::::: 45. :*::: 11.:::::* 11.:::::: 1:2.:::::: :03.;;;;;* 111.:::. .
' ta*;e l*1.:::*:: lat.*:*::: 514.s :::: 5:1.:::.;; 457.::::': 305.::.::: 413. : *..:
It 5.eens 2.ftt:13 4.344:45 2.21:55 1.115146 ?.216 tl3 1.1:317: 2.:4'!:1 12 vtosis 10.2lla 'l 24.111354 7.11171: 5.13:llt 5.41::41 1.43'l:t 5 l'Ill5 0 Statistic 3 (Lis: Et i P.'s1** 1: 810!f 11 ( 15' al[A [4?[t $ 1 $? a!.u;j?w
- et N 12 :::::: 4?.;;;;;; 4l. ::::: 41.:::::*
2 $.. 10:11.:::::: 1:414.:::::: 1: 21.:::*:: 1:1:1. :::.:
3 me ss 113.218482 !!).218556 211.178:51 221.25::::
4 $(* (s.e c8 essa; l.t'l?!? 11.323!it 18.18:312 12.45:ll 5 se :'s- tit.l::::: 2:5. ::::: 'If.5;;;:0 2's. *::::
I teata-ce 3513.1778:3 8:26 515'45 18122.121?31 7411.555145 15tNr (ss) 12.175:?4 11.831152 '3*. lttal 16.554: 5 I s,.av 355 :::::: 456. ::::: 143.::":: 452. :::::
I *w o.= ll :::::: II :::::' I?. * :.:' 41.;;;;;;
1: la+;e 211.: :** 35?. ::::: le :::::: 4:4.::*:::
t' 5.ecess s. 4 3:1 ' !!a'l' 3 all!!l 1.;l458' 12 s, t es t s :.152215 1.5tlill 13.41315: 2. 13?t' til'.i va'J!$ (e g, ses% st:ed t!8tI5!s' 645.5 $!'s f*V.?$ In 8l La:ts.
! h"! ? a' s! As GC55 lET A l[$J.T F*4. ;'! CR $'AMM 15 < ( A!'
of'C'a : 4 t s . $' A'! 0% .
A-44 ,
A &
h ATTACHliENT 2 r
4 e
i h
A-45 ,
., 1 VC esorg3 33 siga p.g. g WAREN00SE 1907 GROSS ItTA FRt0UENCY DISTRl!UilCN 87 Acilvlif LEVEL
+
gg..
17--
16- -
15--
14--
13--
12- -
I
C o
u l--
n I
g..
9..
6--
3 4*
3
- g. .
1- - _
1 . .
g.
4 100 llt $$$ 40'l $40 644 I S'S l l'l l l'8 1990 till 12'l l
PCi/Cul!C metre eownt (45)
MEANT 254.2 STREV 185.4 i
A-46 ,
i , - ..
..t
.ERMW g3 rE3 33 3:54 Paee !
EA31 ROCKY MILL ROAS 1987 GROSS ItfA FREOUENCY lisiRIBUll0N If ACilVlif LEVEL 21--
10--
19-- ,
10--
11--
16--
15--
14-- g 13 .-
l 12 * ,
C
. e !!--
- u n t- -
t
. I 9
l*
g..
4 .-
1.
a f ;
4 i
3 2* ,
3- - __
t i
' ' ' W 4 104 200 300 del Ill 608 700 000 til litt !!te 1200 gC1/CUllC METER
- eeunt (48) '
MEANT 218 STEEV: 136.4 b
f
[
i f
A-47 ,
- ,. - --.,,---e -
. , . --, - , , , , , , . . , . , .,,.,,,_nr. . , - , - - - - , _ _ . _
'l f :-
PLC 03.r[3 33 II:se Page 1 PROPERTT LINE 1987 Gt055 DETA ratgUENCY 31STRIBUil0M 37 ACT!Vlif LEVEL 16--
r 14--
13- -
st- -
11- -
10--
g..
C e
v t-n t
7 T
- g. .
- g. .
3 2
1--
t M la 100 lit att 250 300 850 eil 450 500 518 600 658 I
pCl/CullC METER ee6st (4I)
MEAN 213.5 Si3CV 35.5 A-48 ,
i ,
- \ 1 g
L.
i ,s PPC 33.rE3 3g 1833y pg, g PERESTRIAN BRIBGE 1987 CROSS BETA FRESUENCY IISTR!3UI!ON SY ACTIVlif LEVEL L
16--
18--
14--
33 12-~
11--
It' g..
C e
u 9--
n t
y..
t 4- - !
l-- i 4
9 2 -*
g..
' I t -
III l10 209 288 att all 4tt 488 500 $$4 til 654 100 fli ett ist p C 1 / C ;1 9 1 C RETER count (43)
MEANT 247.3 STIEV 1 4 3 .. $
A-49
EWC e3-FL3 43 13:15 Page !
EAST UtfMOUTH 1987 Stoss 5tfA FRteutNCf 313ftl3Ul!0N 87 Ati!Vlif LEVEL 7
- 16*- f 14- -
33 . .
12- -
14- -
- g. .
C e
u 4- -
n t
9..
6--
- g. .
4--
i 3-- !
[
i 1
e 50 til i st 244 250 300 3$8 440 454 let $50 pCi/CUllC METER ;
sount (40) i REAN. 227.3 STBEV 38.8 i
i A-50 .
i
,-r, -,=.-.w,- - , , - - - - - . - ,m ,_ , , , - - - , . - - -.- - ,--e --
d 4 A l
ATTACHMENT 3 i
A-51
sets.nr er-Jun-us agte9 rege a
!EMPORAL fMANGES BE* WEEN WAREHOUSE ANI E.WEVROUTH 1987 GRSSS BETA RESULTS 1854--
0 10tI--
158--
188- -
lit- -
ett--
754-- ,
g Ill--
R 0 lit--
S el s .40- - 1 I
E lit-- T T
A tit- - a }
l est- - < ri }
i e' ! l's ,
'"~ !j!
M !! e f [
3
+
sit- I
,: j l$
s :: ,3,
"'y 9::
A0
- i, g{ ,
i t i t --d- i ! ,e't . i. ,! =
i
}. i j tit--
l ';l ,e A
i , t , 8 i /
's l ' 'n'
- Y &
i , "l
! 11l-*l' j . .t * /
ill--
10- - (
t l' le il 2 28 li 35 si 4 54 5
- WEEES (1987)
---c - U A R E H O U $ E
---& -- E. WE7MOUiH A-52 ,
stee.nr er-Jnn-se se:se rege :
TEMPORAL CHANGES IETWEEN E. ROCKV HILL RD AHD E. WETMOUTH 1307 GROSS 3 ETA RESULT 5 ille--
10It--
f5t--
t86--
958--
til--
150--
G ill--
R 0
3 658-- ,
S y
6st--
E 1 n34--
A
$44-- a A
I i 450-- [i' %
M s'
3 400 - i si i
a ne ei {
i 389 ,- l l s '.
4 ; ' a i i 6 i i gi 8I'Ti ' e' 'i 4 ,
li i 9 4 i
- ! s ' ' I li, I 'I l '. 's l
286 l , ,I A ',t '. A.
4 )'c ,,e ,i i
i , 4 , , i l i t -- ' ,4 jl a' A{ M is i 18l--
f it. : . : : : . . . . :
I 3 Ie il to 25 at il 44 45 St SS VEEK$ (1387)
---& -- E. VETMOUTH M-[. ROCKY HILL RE 1
l l
A-53
BECo.nr 27-JAN-88 15: 13 Page 1 TEMPORAL CHANGES l[IWEEN PROPERTT LINE AMB E. WETROUTH 1887 GROSS BETA RESULT 3 tell--
1980
- tit--
les-- ,
854--
??d- -
G R t e s j-0 1 3 650 7 5 1
, latm E
i til--
A
!st--
a I ; i i o g g -. l$
e si M l I, s' ,
3 4 8 8 ~I I' t ei l\ \
l h
.: \,
sie--
- s n i s e ii , ', 4e i all-* l 'i e 8
'l ) 4 l I t i t --L
- s
\ l,s ,"s a's \
a l 5,hnl e *l '
l k\i o
!g 't
' a tit ~ Js ,
l ,
j l t les- - y ).1 j
' e' s' l 's t to 2 3 35 4 45 5 35 WEEKS (1987)
--a-- E, WEfM0UTH
- - PROPEtif LINE b
4 A-54 i
_r_.
BEEO.AP 27-JAN-88 lit $4 Page 1 TEMPORAL CNANCES SCfWEEN PEDESTRIAN 2 RIDGE AND E. WEYM0biH 1987 GROSS 3 ETA RESULTS 1lat--
1 tit--
til- -
188~'
tit- - '
til- -
C 154 * (
G leg--
t 0
5 S 654h-E i lll- -
A 194 U a
- b. O i ,a ei y a i g -l" t I l
- . e e -- ; !i l s *
. !. (
(
i,i lit-"
a i
l l}
. i l
,i e i
8 i eg i n
500 l 8 8 i ,
<! i 4
'" h ! Al 200-" I' 'g s i
d
,o l,'
e'
. ,\
' ,t
,a
' 0 A
i i s
( ,, t
( #
,8j '
3 ,J Ill- ,8
'j r a tit--
l ' '
le : . l : : : l l l 6 5 le il 28 25 11 al 44 45 le il WEEE3 (IS67)
---& -- E. WEfMOUTH
--c - P E I E $ f R I A N 3R!3CE A-55
.9y. - - -a - - - . _ .-'w O
ATTACHf!ENT 4 A-56
- M * "* * ' ' N "U**ILW7m4.
8 COMPARE Are you coroaring 1 or 2 sampler? 2 Please enter a tableportion for sample 1r COL 1 OF BECO AP W>Yt b 8 *4^ ;
Please enter a tableportion for sample.2: COL 11 OF BEC6_AP t.ud7 rw 1(
Are you performing PARAMETRIC TEST (P), NONPARAMETRIC TEST (N) o r. are you UNDECIDEO(U)? U i Are the data PATRED7 N [
Tosting Samole 1 N'#^ AJcy n d 'y 4* d ) /*v*
W "^ I 'N '
Continue? (Yes) t WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY i
MEAN OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 254.156556 i VARIANCE OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 27344.361616 CALCULA'ED W = 0.743451 SL = 0.01 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05.
The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the POPULATION is NORMAL can be REJECTED.
Tccting Sampic 2 ( , (J e Continue? (Yes) i WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY MEAN OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 221.25 VARIANCE OP HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 7491.595745 CALCULATED W = 0.899979 SL = 0.01 i At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05,
, The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the. POPULATION is NORMAL can be REJECTEO.
Do you wish to continue with PARAMETRIC TEST (P), 5 or NONPARAMETRIC TEST (N) or ABORT (A)? N
- Enter type of comparison for Alternative Hypothesis: Sample 1 is NOT EQUAL (N), GREATER THAN(G), or LESS THAN(L) Sample 2:
~
i ANSARI-Bf:AOLEY TEST: ADJUSTING MEDIANS }
SAMPLE 1:
MEDIAN = 218 N =45 SAMPLE 2:
MEDIAN = 214 N =48 Z = 1.520246 SL = 0.128 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05.
There is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to REJECT the NULL HYPOTHESIS of EQUAL OISPERSIONS.
Centinue? (Yes)
A-57, t
Mann. Whitney Test: UNPA! RED samples with EQUAL DISPERSIONS TESTING the HYPOTHESIS that the MEDIAN of the DISTRIBUTION underlying SAMPLE 1 is NOT EQUAL To that of SAMPLE 2.
(NULL HYPOTHESIS: SAMPLE 1 MEDIAN is EQUAL TO that of SAMPLE 2.)
SAMPLE 1:
MEDIAN = 218 N = A5 SAMPLE 2:
MEDIAN = 214 N = A8 MANN-WHITNEY STATISTIC: CALCULATED = 1130.5 I = 0.388249 SL = 0.698 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05, there is {*j$UFFICI(NT EVIDENCE t o_R Ej{0,T the null hypothesis that 2.
SAMPLE 1 MEDIAN is EQUAL To that of SAMPLE
(
A-58 1
'l L..
l- i O COMDARE'
'A'e you comparing 1 or 2 samples? 2 m e , p m m w i. g % gg g g, Please enter a tableportion for sampie 1: COL 2 OF BECO AP I *d)Nd.g I ' '$/ *** * (
Please enter a tablecortion for sample 2: COL 11 OF BECO_ apt.wge=dk Are you performing PARAMETRIC TEST (P). NONPARAMETRIC TEST (N). [
or are you UNDEC10ED(U)? U Are the data PAIRE07 N Testing Sample 1 b 8 C- b 'I Continue? [Yes)
WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY MEAN OF-HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 216 VARIANCE OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 18618.297872 CALCULATED W = 0.62798 SL = 0.01 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05 The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the POPULATION is NORMAL can be REJECTED.
Testing Sample 2 L . ta p 4 Continue? [Yes)
WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY MEAN OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 227.25 L VARIANCE OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 7491.595745 ,
CALCULATED W = 0.899979 '
SL = 0.01 i l'
At a $1GNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05, 6 The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the POPULATION is NORMAL can be REJECTED.,
Do you wish to continu with PARAMETRIC TEST (P). !
or NONPARAMETRIC TEST N' or ABORT (A)? N Enter ty f comparison for Alternative Hypothesis: Sample 1 is NOT EQUA ,
G.EATEP THAN(G). or LESS THAN(L) Sample 2 N I
I ANSARI-SRAOLEY TEST: ADJUSTING ME0!ANS !
S A M Pl. E 1:
MEDIAN = 200.5 N =48 SAMPLE 2 ME0!AN = 214 l N =48 2 = 1.055422 SL = 0.291 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05 There is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to REJECT the NULL HYPOTHESIS of EQUAL DISPERSIONS.
L '
Continue? (Yes) ,
A-59 f r
.n o n . p e< er v.L .
UNP A!RE0 ' samples wit h EQUAL DISPL'RSIONS
. *cnn-Whitney Test
. TESTING the HYPOTHESIS that the MEDIAN of the O!STP!GUTION underlying !
SAMPLE 1 is NOT EQUAL TO that of SAMPLE 2.
_(NULL' HYPOTHESIS: SAMPLE 1 MEDIAN is EQUAL TO that-of SAMPLE 2.) l SAMPLE 1: -
MEDIAN = 200.5 N =48 i
SAMPLE 2: i ME01AN = 214 N = 48 .
t MANN-WH1TNEY STAT!STIC: CALCULATED = 1302.5 Z = -1.102857 [
SL = 0.27 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05, thers is~1NSUFFICIENT EV!DENCE to REJECT the null hypothesis that pr'~ j SAMPLE 1 MEDIAN is EQUAL To that of SAMPLE 2.
ga.h)(1lco.h (* 9 h* 4k ,
i k
L 4
- l I
f
?
f f
4
[
A-60 ,
t1 3 COM, PARE Are you comparing 1 or 2 samples? 2 Ae
- b WW" IN N kW $ I ' "#fC Please enter a tableportion for sample 1: COL 4 OF BECO_ A P Feepa+ L; d Please ent;r a tableportion for sample 2: COL 11 OF Are you cerforming PARAMETRIC TEST (P), NONPARAMETRICBECO_ TEST (N), AP s. Jyrw~4k or are you UNDECIDED (U)? U
'Are the data PA! RED 7 N Testing Sample 1 ?f*P^rb7 k' 4 Continue? (Yes)
WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY ,
MEAN OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 216.458333
-VARIANCE OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 9113.530142 CAL'ULATED W = 0.831966 SL - 0.01 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05.
The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the POPULATION is NORMAL can be REJECTED. V Tcsting Sample 2 Continue? (Yes)
WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY MEAN OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 227.25 VARI ANCE OF HYPOTHETICAL NORM AL POPL'L ATIONS = 7491.595745 CALCULATED W = 0.899979 SL = 0.01 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05, The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the POPULATION is' NORMAL can be REJECTED. L/
Do you with to contin with PARAMETRIC TEST (P),
or NONPARAMETRIC TEST or ABORT (A)? N Enter type f comparison for Alternative Hypothe is: Sample 1 is NOT EQUAL N) GREATER THAN(G), or LESS THAN(L) Sample 2: N ANSARI-BRAOLEY TEST: ADJUSTING MEDIANS SAMPLE 1:
ME01AN = 195.5 N = 48 SAMPLE 2:
MED]AN = 214 N =48 2 = 0.850247 '
t SL = 0.395 t
A'e a SIGNIF:CANCE LEVEL of .05, There is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to REJECT the NULL HYPOTHESIS of p' EQUAL DISPERSIONS.
Continua? (Yes) I I
t I
A-61 ,
1
D
[
t
.t t
Mann-Whitney Test:
TESTING the HYPOTHESIS thatUNPA! RED samples with EQUAL DISPERSIONS I SAMPLE 1 is NOT EQUAL To thatthe MEDI AN of the DISTRIBUTION underlying (NULL HYPOTHESIS: SAMPLE 1 of SAMPLE 2. l
. SAMPLE-1: MEDIAN is EQUAL To that of SAMPLE 2.) t ME0!AN
- =.195.5 N =48 .
?
SAMPLE 2 ME0!AN' = 214 N =48 i
a MANN-WHITNEY STATISTIC CALCULATED = 1278.5 '
2 -= -0.927014 t SL = 0.354 At a. SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .0$. !
there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE tes REJECT the null hypothesis that / !
w SAMPLE 1 MEDIAN is EQUAL TO that of SAMPLE 2. '
w.,% uw t. upA I i
t 4 !
f I
t
?
l I
i I
I
[
t l
?
l A-62 !
s s COMPARE *
- E# '&l 'fk"L*'
- L EN' 4 are you comparing 1 or 2 samples? 2 E. Up maWik please enter a tableportion for sample is COL 5 OF BECO. AP Pdd**iA ?n Ay Please enter a tableportion for sample 2: COL 11 OF B E CO _ A P s . Wa7 he -q( ,
Are you performing PARAMETRIC TEST (P), NONPARAMETRIC TEST (N),
or are you UNDECIDED (U)? U Are'the data PAIRE07 N TCsting Sample 1 AMT $h M '
b
- Continue? (Yes)
WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY MEAN OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 247.325531 VARIANCE OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 20531.97449 CALCULATED W = 0.758198 SL = 0.01 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05. /
The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the POPULATION is NORMAL can be REJECTED. L Testing Sample 2 4. no v45 .
Continue? (Yes)
WILK-SHAPIRO test of NORMALITY MEAN OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = 227.25 VARIANCE OF HYPOTHETICAL NORMAL POPULATIONS = T491.595745 CALCULATED W = 0.899979 SL = 0.01
- At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05.
The NULL HYPOTHESIS that the POPULATION is NORMAL can be REJECTED. pr Do you wish to continu with PARAMETRIC TEST (P),
on NONPARAMETRIC TEST N or ABORT (A)? N f comparison for Alternative Hypothesis Sarple 1 is Enter typ NOT EQUAL ,
GREATER THAN(G), or LESS THAN(L) Sample 2: N ANSARI-BRADLEY TEST: A0 JUSTING ME0!ANS SAMPLE 1:
MEDIAN = 199 N = 49 SAMPLE 2:
MEDIAN = 214 N =48 Z = 1.224859 SL = 0.221 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05.
There is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to REJECT the NULL HYPOTHESIS of v/
EQUAL O!SPERSIONS. ,
Continue? (Yes)
A-63 , ,
Cann-Whitney Test: UNPAIRED samples with EQUAL DISPERSIONS TESTING the HYPOTHESIS that the MEDIAN of the DISTRIBUTION underlying SAMPLE 1 is NOT EQUAL TO that of SAMPLE 2.
(NijLL HYPOTHESIS: SAMPLE 1 ME01AN is EQUAL 70 that of SAMPLE 2.)
SAMPLE 1:
MEDIAN = 199 N = 49 SAMPLE 2:
MEDIAN = 214 N a 48 MANN-WHITNEY STATISTIC: CALCULATED = 1187 Z = -0.079373 SL = 0.937 At a SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL of .05, there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to REJECT the null hypothesis that SAMPLE 1 MEDIAN is EQUAL TO that of SAMPLE 2.
9 I
0 A-64 9 m's _
u 1. Warehouse oco* coo oav r- 2. E. Rocky Hill Rd. 7. P-16 TLD Site g 3. W. Rocky Hill.Rd. 8. First Aid Trailer
- 9. ISS Bldg. Parking
~
00 .- 4. Pedestrian Bridge
- 5. Overlook 10. Soil Pile Contr. Lot
' 11. Unit 2 Laydown
- 6. Contractor Parking -
1 1 4 7 'r /
i ,_ i
---a r
.N .\ /l
~~
',rg-jai
\ -
y 3- _
.N k' /
ki ,
\h,/ ,l=
k, O h_
5
- v. h ,
~~
i h !,
\\\\(
? / :" <~~~~
a w
' @. p e
m m___, ,
- wi
="*='"="
. \\
~~ M) T2' > d ' d }w w \.
' al_ _Jg'%, (
Cy '"**1, = gE.-) J'
\
0 j y;.
Q
, f.~
0 7 O' "' b "'*'"""
! 'A_._
- S, A/ Dit,posal Area !
0 s
(D /; __
-^ l g
H Rocky Unit ydown HIl HillRd. 0.7 Mi./SSE 0.8 Mt./E 0.3 Mt./HNM Soil Sample Locations On Boston Edison Property
APPENDIX A SPECIAL STUDIES PART III: IRISH HOSS
APPENDIX A SPECIAL DOSE IMPACT STUDIES Part III: Irish Hoss I. Introduction As part of the REMP at PNPS, Irish moss (algae) is sampled and analyzed on a quarterly basis. During 1987. as in previous years, sampics from Station 11 (Discharge Canal Outfall) exhibited measurable quantities of cesium-137, cobalt-60 and manganese-54. Additionally, fourth quarter samples from Station 15 (Hanomet Point) and Station 22 (Ellisville: control station) also exhibited measurable quantities of cobalt-60. This special study documents the dose calculations that have been performed to evaluate the radiological impact to a hypothetical member of the general public.
II Background Irish moss (Chondrus criscus) is a marine red alga (heaweed) that is cornmon to temperate waters. Irish moss is 4 commercially valuable resource in western Cape Cod Bay, especially in the vicinity of PNPS. Irish moss has been ht vested for over a century from the waters from Scituate to Plymouth.(l)
This seaweed grows naturally attached to rocks, boulders, ledges, and shells for support, and is distributed f rom a few feet from shore to about a mile seaward. Greg cater level.l' test> concentrations are usually within 20 feet below mean low Irish moss is harvested by independent fishermen (called mossers) who use specially-designed long-handled rakes that scrape the moss off the rocky surfaces on which it grows. Typically, harvesting of Irish moss in the Plymouth area is carried out from the end of May mosswasharvestedinthePlymouthareain1987.(jQSeptember,butnoIrish
/
Once harvested, the Irish moss is eventually processed into a fine white powder called carrageenan, a starch-like extract used as an additive in foods and other commercial products. Carrageenan serves as a food stabilizer, thickener, and gelling agent. Products containing carrageenan include:
pudding, jello, cocoa mix, chocolate milk and syrup, ice cream, non-dairy coffee creamer, salad dressing milk of magnesia, air deodorizers, shampoo, toothpaste, and hand lotion.(II III. Radioactivity Heasurements Table I summarizes the positive results that were obtained from Irish moss samples taken in 1987. Heasurable quantities of cesium-137, cobalt-60 and manganase-54 were observed, but no other activity was measured that could be attributed to PNPS.
Although there is no specific regulatory guidance relating to the permissible ,
concentrations of radioisotopes in Irish moss, it will be shown that, even '
with the conservative assumptions, projected doses to any member of the general public from consumption of Irish moss is a small fraction of the annual dose limit.
A-66
t Table 1 1987 IRISH HOSS SAMPLES SH0HING DETECTABLE LEVELS OF RADIONUCLIDES Station Date Concentrations (pC1/kg) i 1 S.D.
Description Collected cesium-137 cobalt-60 manganese-54 Discharge 3/30/87 15.4 1 3.7 110.2 1 7.8 <18.0 Canal Outfall Discharge 5/21/87 16.4 4.2 95.0 1 8.9 <17.0 Canal Outfall Discharge 7/10/87 14.4 .t 3.4 57.6 1 7.9 <16.0 Canal Outfall 01schargs 10/08/87 18.6 1 5.9 771 i 17 65.9 i 6.8 Canal Outfall Hamomet 10/?6/87 (7.3 27.5 1 3.4 (8.0 Point Ellisville 11/05/87 <5.7 9.2 1 1.9 <6.0 (control)
"<" values indicate that less than the minimum detectable concentrations were obs ervr.d.
A-67 I
IV. Dose Calculations NRC Regulatory culde 1.1093 provides the methodology for projecting doses to o
the public frou ingestion of aquatic foods. As discussed previously, Irish most is not eaten directly, but is processed and used as a food additive. A reliable value for a usage factor (i.e., the amount of Irish moss ultimately consumed per year) could not be found in the literature, as Irish moss is utilized in so many different products. As an extremely conservative alternative, then, the usage factors for "other Jeafood" were used (R. G.
1.109 Table E-5).
In addition to assuming a conservative value for the usage factor, it is also assumed thc1 the peak concentrations of cesium-137, cobalt-60 and manganese-54 (observed in sample taken on 10/08/87) existed in all Irish moss that was consumed by the hypothetical maximum exposed individual.
Attachment A provides a detailed account of all equations, input data, assumptions and calculations. The results, summarized in the table below, indicate that the internal dose from the ingestion of Irish mos's harvested in the vicinity of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station wo'lld be less than 1 crem/ year. This amount of internal dose is not likely to cause any health effects, and is well below the dose that is normally received by naturally-occurring radionuclides (e.g., potassium-40) that are present in most foods.
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM INTERNAL DOSE FROM THE INGESTION OF IRISH HOSS HARVESTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PILGRIH NUCLEAR POWER STATION Organ Adul' Teenager Child (mrem /g) (mrem /yr) (mrem /yr)
Total Body 0.025 0.023 0.002 Maximur, Organ 0.160 (GI) 0.110 (GI) 0.039 (GI)
The 10CFR Part 50 Appendix I4 design objective for liquid effluents is 3 mrem /yr to the total body and 10 mrem / year to any organ. Therefore, the internal dose from ingestion of the Irish moss harvested in the vicinity of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is estimated to be only a small percentage of the "Is low as reasonably achievable" liquid dose design objectives in 10CFR50 Appendix I.
A-68
V. Comoarison of Estimated Maximum Doses with Dose Limits to the General Public. PNPS Technical Soecifications and Natural / Man-Made Radiation Levels )
i Two cf the federal agencies that are charged with the responsibility to protect the public from radiation and radioactivity are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NRC's radiation limits to the general public are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 Section 105.5 yhe Environmental Protection Agency's radiation limits for the general public are contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 190 Subpart B Section 10.0 In 10CFR 20.105, the NRC limits the levels of radiation in unrestricted areas resulting from the possession or use of radioactive materials such that they are not likely to cause any individual to receive a dose to the whole body, in any period of one calendar year, in excess of 500 mrem.
Comparison with the maximum estimated total body dose of 0.025 mrem /yr for the adult indicates that the resulting maximum total dose from direct ingestion of Irish moss is 0.005 percent of the NRC dose limit to the public.
In 40CFR190.10, Subpart 8, the EPA sets forth environmental standards for the uranium fuel cycle. During normal operation, the annual dose to the whole body shall not exceed 25 mrem. Comparison with the maximum estimated total body dose of 0.025 mrem /yr for the adult indicates that the resulting maximum total body dose from direct ingestion of Irish moss is 0.1 percent of the EPA dose limit to the general public.
The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station's Technical Specifications, Section 7.27 , contain limiting conditions for operation and operational objectives related to liquid radioactive effluents. Comparison of the maximum estimated total body dose of 0.025 mrem with the 3 mrem /yr Technical Specifications design objective indicates that the resulting maximum total body dose is 0.8 percent of this objective.
In order to put in perspective the consequences of the ingestion of Irish moss harvested in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station, it is useful to compare the maximum esti. mated dose to that from other sources of radiation exposure. The annual average dose from natural and manmade sources is 420 mrem. The maximum estimated annual dose from the ingestion of Irish moss 0.025 mrem. This maximum dose is based on conservative assumptions; for example, the maximum exposed individual is assumed to eat 12 pounds of Irish moss per year. In addition, it was determined that Irish moss was not harvested in the Plymouth area in 1987. Comparison of the maximum estimated dose to the natural / man-made radiation levels indicates that l this conservative estimate is less than one percent of the natural / man-made radiation levels.
I l VI. Conclusions In conclusion, the total radiological impact of slightly contaminated Irish moss in the vicinity of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is insignificant. This conclusion is based on the fact that the dose resulting from ingestion of the Irish moss would be less than 1 mrem /yr to the exposed individual, which is a small percentage of the regulatory limits set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l A-69
In addition, the reporting levels for radioactivity concentrations in environmental sampics listed in PNPS Technical Specifications Section 3.8.C.1 core not exceeded. This special study is included in the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Report as required by PNPS Technical
' Specifications Section 8.1.A.I. Therefore, this occurrence and subsequent actions were in compliance with the applicable Technical Specifications and federal regulations.
i I
I i
(
i i
A-70
References
- 1. Division of Marine Fisheries Newsletter, November - December 1984,
- 2. Personal Comunication: Hando Bagadi (Massachusetts Division of Harine Fisheries) to B. J. Dionne (Boston Edison Co.).
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Han from Routine Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance wit 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I," Regulatory Guide 1.109, Octobar 1977.
- 4. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 50, Appendix I.
- 5. United States of America, Code of Federal Reglations, Title 10, Part 20,
- 6. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 190.
- 7. Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-297, Facility Operating License (FOL), No. DPR-35 Appendix A.
l A-71
Attachcent A Internal Dose Calculation For Inaestion A L irish Moss JAken From the Outfall of Pilarim Station Discharge _ CAM 1 The appropriate equation from Reg. Guide 1.10a, 'Caleviation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purposes of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR part 50, Appendix I", Rev. 1, dated October 1977 is as follows:
Section C. Regulatory Position number 1b. Doses From Liquid Effluent Pathwavs. Aquatic Foods:
Rapj - 1100 Uao Ho [ OjBjpD alpj exp(-Atpt )
F i Where Rapj is the total annual dose to organ j of inCividuals of age group a from all of the nuclides i in pathway p, in mrem /yr
~
1100 is the factor to convert from (Ci/yr)/(ft3/sec) to pCi/ liter Uap is a usage factor that specifies the exposure time or intake rate for an individual of age group a associated with pathway p, in kg/yr Hp is the mixing ratto (reciprocal of the dilution factor) at the point of exposure (or point of harvest of aquatic food), dimensionless F is the flow rate of the liquid effluent, in ft /sec 3
Q) is the release rate of nuclide 1, in C1/yr Bjp is the equilibrium bioaccumulation factor for nuclide i in pathway p expressed as the ratio of the concentration in biota (in pCi/kg) to the radionuclide concentration in water (in pCi/litar), in liters /kg Daipj is the dose factor, specific to a given age group a, radionuclide 1, pathway p, and organ j, which can be used to calculate the radiation dose from an intake of a radionuclide, in mrem /pCi A.; is <:he radioactive decay constant of nuclide i, in br-i i
l A-72
tp is the average transit time required for nuclides to reach the point of exposure in hours. For internal dose, tp is the total time elapsed between release and intake The equation given above determines the dose from ingestion of aquatic foods based on the release rate of the nuclide from the discharge canal dilution and bioaccumulation factors. This equation will reduce to Rapj -
(Vap) ( Daipi)(C 1) since we have measured the Ci radioactivity concentration 1 in the mussels, ie: C1 = 1100 HgQj Bjp exp (- Aipt ).
F This calculation will use the maximum radioactivity concentration (pCi/kg) for the Irish moss as determined from analysis of algae collected at the outfall of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station discharge canal on October 8, 1987 and as measured by the Yanken Atomic Electric Co. Environmental Laboratory on Novenber 14, 1987.
Input Data:
1.
Uao,kg/yr 3.8 for teenagers and 1.7 kg/yr for children (Ref. NRCthe usage factor for "Othe Regulatory Guide 1.109. Table E-5, October 1977.)
- 2. Daipi is the ingestion dose factor for cesium-137, cobalt-60 and manginese-54 for the adult, teenager, and child, as shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3. (Ref, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Tables E-11 through E-14. October 1977.)
- 3. Ci is the maximum observed concertration of nuclide i in the Irish moss: Cj = 18.6 sci /kg for cesium-137, Ci - 771 pCi/kg for cobalt-60 and Ci = 65.9 pCi/kg for manganese-54.
Assumptions:
- 1. The adult, teenager and child will directly eat Irish moss raked from the Pilgr'a discharge canal which will contain the maximum observed cesium- M/ and cobalt-60 concentrations. This is a very conservative ^
assumption, since Irish moss is not ordin> 11y eaten directly, but is a processed food additive (as discussed in the main text).
- 2. The decay of all radionuclides from the time of harvest to the time of ingestion of the Irish moss is negligible.
Substituting the input values into the dose equation above yields the estimates of the annual dose to the respective organs of an adult, teenager and child shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The total body dose and the maximum organ dose totals for all the radionuclides are summarized below for each age group.
Organ Adult Teenager Child (m.em/vr) (mrem /vr) (mrem /vr)
Total Body 0.025 0.023 0.022_ _
Haximum l
Organ 0.160 (GI) 0.110 (GI) 0.039(GI)
A-73 j l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _-J
i Table 1 INGESTION DOSE FACTORS AND DOSE FOR 80ULIS EATING IRISH MOSS FROM PILGRIM DISCHARGE CANAL QUANTITY NUCLIDE B0NE_ ' LIVER T.000Y THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI Dose MREM CS-137 7.97E-05 1.09E-04 7.14E-05 NO DATA 3.70E-05 1.23E-05 2.11E-06 Factor PCI Dose M.R ;M 0.007 0.010 0.007 -
0.003 0.001 0.0002 YR 3" Dose MRJ.M CO-60 % DATA 2.14E-06 4.72E-06 NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA 4.02E-05
% Factor PCI Dose L4 RIM 0.006 0.018 0.155 Y3
. Dose t9REE MN-54 NO DATA 4.57E-06 8.72E-07 NO DATA 1.36E-06 NO DATA 1.40E-05 Factor PCI Dose ttREM -
0.002 0.0003 -
0.0004 -
0.005 YR TOTAL ORGAN (MREM) 0.007 0.020 0.025 -
0.003 0.001 0.160 DDSE
(
l
"-----'w w - --- -_ - -
_---__-_.m. . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _
l r Table 2 INGESTION DOSE FACTORS AND DOSE FOR I HNAGERS EATING IRISH MOSS FROM PILGRIM DISCHARGE CANAL
[OUANTITY I NUCLIQE B0NE LIVER T.00DY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-L'_I
! Dose MB CS-137 1.12E-04 1.49E-04 5.19E-05 NO DATA 5.07E-05 1.97E-05 2.12E l Facter PCI Dose EM 0.008 0.011 0.004 -
0.004 0.001 0.0002 l YR Dose MRW CO-60 NO DATA 2.81E-06 6.33E-06 NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA 3.66E--05 Factor PCI
[ Dose MRW -
0.008 0.019 - - -
0.107 m YR Dose M13 MN-54 NO DATA 5.90E-06 1.17E-06 NO DATA 1.76E-06 NO DATA 1.21E-05 Facter PCI Dose MREM -
0.002 0.0003 -
0.0004 -
0.003 YR TOTAL ORGAN (MREM) 0.008 0.021 0.023 -
0.004 0.001 0.110 LOSE
-- ,------w - - - - - - . - ,,mw ---. , , - - - - - a e-, e -- -r.. =.-n- - - , - . - , --e, n , . - - . < , . ,- - , . - ,. , , - - - - . -
Table 3 INGESTION DOSE FACTORS AND DOSE FOR CHILD EATING IRISH MOSS FROM PILGRIM DISCHARGE CANAL 00ANIJTY NUCLIDE BONE LIVER T. BODY TH7ROID KIDNEY l LUNG GI-LLI Dose MREM CS-137 3.27E-04 3.13E-04 4.62E-05 NO DATA 1.02E-04 3.67E-05 1.96E-06 Factor PCI Dose MBEM 0.010 0.010 0.001 -
0.003 0.001 0.0001 YR l
Dose MREM CO-60 NO DATA 5.29E-06 1.56E-05 NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA 2.93E-05 m
Factor PCI SI Dose MREM -
0.007 0.021 - - -
0.038 YR Dose MREM MN-54 NO DATA 1.07E-05 2.85E-06 NO DATA 3.00E-06 NO DATA 8.98E-06 factor PCI Dose MBEM -
0.001 0.0003 -
0.0003 -
0.001 l YR TOTAL ORGAN (MREM) 0.010 0.018 0.022 -
0.0003 0.001 0.039 '
Dole
1 l
APPENDIX B 1987 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS G
l
i EF FLUEN9 ANOCAsT E dis *0$AL SEYlANNU Ab OEPOQT Supplementat Informotion (January - June 1987)
F a cil.,, Nsnm Nuclear Pome Stanon beensee DPR 33 I i mes.i.im umii -
- Neble Gases: .4 500 mrem /yr total body and s 300 mrem /yr '
h s, vin ei for skin at Site Boundary ,
ra,n,wiaies ha I.ines >. J ,i s1500 mren/yr to any or '
d La.a ein enis n bo 1 at Site Boundary and 0.Omren /
- Masim.m rerrrwisble Concentrenon 4 month 0.06 mrem for any / month organ for w tk out dwaste Treatment j i
Pn**4e the WPO wsed m deiermiming alh'.able telease rates we .im.entrainien 4 Fess.in end 4 inair,e pses 10CFRto b loJints Appendia S
. Parisculates halfInes >m Jass TeDie II J Liqu4 enlutnis H . 3, 3 X 101 M's/ml;su cost.10 CFR 20, Append S. Table 11 l
3 A*erige Enerp Pro.ide ile evenge energ) (U of the t4Jeanw leJe nusiate m *tiesw of fissam anJ 441nstm.m pws.#t erf Att 5XFEE 13(Qs x 1.84E4 + Ov x 1.8ES)5 1 4 Messweementi and 4ppronmeisons of Total Radiooe:ivit,s J
Pe..oJe he methods used to ovesut or arpinunsic the tot 41 #4Ja*4 nv y en e10uenis and liv neth.4s enJ n.
det eranne f adam w.hde somr*,siteon a Feien acd sciivanon pses e,t h lod.ne s ,
- s. Parn.wlsits a bosJ etil ene6 ^^*' ? s S. 8steh Retram P,o Qc ele sot 6 .mg infornwson erletw's ni bei.h ecler,e6 vi radiu4.-tive maierials an hquid and paseous effl.enis a Uqwd I. 6.wmhee of baish relesws 211
. Total nme pened sor haich eeleases 439.7 Hours A Wasimum tiae period foe 4 taich teles$' -16.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />
- 4. Average ome pereid sur bei.h sele 4ws
- s. Winsmom ume prn g foi a haich ee' eau -
. hours 4.e,4,e sire 4m n... Jwnn, penodi ur reie.w o h weni ainn.u 5 ho fk r s..ms siream ei 7.92E4 GPM l b cacom (Not AppbcsWe) ,
a Aknoemei neitem aGasekus b.Liqu d None 6
l 1
B-1 i
TABLE 1 A EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1987)
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES (January - June 1987)
Overter Overter Est. Total Unit 1 2 Error, %
A. Fission and activation gases
- 1. Total release Ci * *
- l l
- 2. Average release rate for period *
- uCi/sec I 3. Percent of Technical Specification limit % *
- B. Iodines
- 1. Totat iodine 131 Ci 41.94E-4 41.38E-5 3.0E+1 l
- 2. Average relet.se rate for period uCi/see 4 2.4 6E-5 <1.75E-6
- 3. Percent of Technical Specification limit % 4.10E-1 2.92r-2
~
C. Particulates
- 1. Particulates with half. lives > 8 days Ci <1.52E-4 < 4. 70E-5 3.0E+1 l (
- 2. Average release rate for period uCi/see <1.93E-5 <5.97E-6
- 3. Percent of Technical Specification limit % 3.67E-1 1.13r-1
- 4. Gross alpha radioactivity Ci < 5. 74 E-7 4.41E-7 ,
D. Tritium
- 1. Total release Ci <6.57E-2 < 7. 75E-2 4.2E+1 l ;
- 2. Average release rate for period uCi/see <n laF.1 <o AaE.1
- 8. Percent of Technical Specification limit % 2.21E-1 2.60E-1 ;
- Plant Shutdown 1st and 2nd Quarter 1987 a !
s i
I B-2
TABLE 18 EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1987) l GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - ELEVATED RELEASE (January - June 1987) I l
CONYINUOUS MODE BATCH MODE l Nucien Relened l Unit l Quaner 1l Owener 2 l Quener l Quener l I
- 1. Fission gases krypton 85 Ci *
- krypton 85m Ci *
- krypton 87 Ci *
- krypton 88 Ci * * .
xenon 133 Ci * .
xenon 135 Ci *
- xenon 135m Ci *
- xenon 138 Ci
- xenon 131m Ci *
- L xenor.137 Ci *
- xenon 133m Ci *
- Total for pe Jod Ci * -
Plant shutdown 1st and 2nd Quarter 1987 ,
- 2. Iodines L
l iodine 131 Ci <4.15E-5 <5.29E-6 iodine 133 Ci <1.19E-4 <1.05E-4 iodine 135 Ci 48.95E-4 42.08E-6 Total for period Ci <1.06E-3 <1.12E-4
- 3. Particulates t f
strontium 89 Ci <2.66E-7 < 2.08 E-7 i strontium 90 ,
Ci <9.00E-8 (6.16E-5 f eesium 134 [ Ci - -
[
cesium 137 Ci <2.87E-5 (2.28E-6 ;
barium lanthanum 140 Ci (4 . 8 3 E - 5 (1.61E-5 I chrorniura 51 Ci manganese 54 Ci - -
cooalt 58 Ci - -
iron 59 Ci - -
cobMt 60 Ci <2.81E-5 <3.42E-6 i sine-65 Ci - -
airconium niobium 95 Ci - -
I cenum 141 Ci - -
cerium 144 Ci - - t
! ruthenium 103 Ci - -
f ruthenium 106 Ci - -
[
B-3 l
l l
i TABLE 1C EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1987)
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS. GROUND LEVEL RELEASE 1
January - June 1987 CONTINUOUS MODE BATCH MODE j Nuchdes Released Urut Quarter 1 Overter Quarter Quarter 2 l
- 1. Fission gases krypton 85 Ci *
- krypton 85m Ci *
- krypton 87 Ci *
- krypton 88 Ci *
- xenen 133 Ci *
- x:non 135 Ci *
- xenon 135m Ci *
- menon.138 Ci *
- Total for period Ci * *
- Plant shutdown 1st and 2nd Quarter 1987 todine 131 Ci < 1.52E-4 < 2.47E-5 lodine 133 Ci < 4,10E-4 (1.68E-5 iodine 135 Ci ( 3.33E.3 < 1. 50E-5 Total for period Ci < 3.90E.3 < 5.65E-5 I I
- 3. Particulates strontium 89 Ci ( 9. 91 r 7 2.66E-7 strontium 90 Ci < 2.59E-7 9.00E-8 easium 134 Ci . .
cesium 137 Ci ( 1.04E-4 < 2.14E-6 barium lanthanum 140 Ci ( 2.32E-4 <1.90E-5 manganese 54 Ci . .
robelt 58 Ci . .
Iron 59 Ci . .
i cobalt-60 Ci ( 1,3 3E.4 <3,4pr.6 zine-65 Ci - .
airconium niobium 95 Ci . .
eenum 141 C . .
ruthenium 103 Ci . .
ruthenium 106 Ci - .
]
I r
l B-4 ,
-1 y.
i l
t r
TABLE 2A EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1987)
LlOUlD EFFLUENTS. SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES January - June 1987 4
Ouarter Overter Est. Total Unit 1 St 2 nd Error, %
A. Fiuion and activation products
- 1. Total release (not including tritium. Ci
- noble gases, or alpha) (4.11E-2 4.12E-1 3.0E+1
- 2. Average diluted concentration uCi/ml i during period < 1.07E-8 1.01E-7 f J 3. Percent of applicable limit %
2.Er 1 2-36 L B. Tritium i
- 1. Total relene Ci 1.35E0 3.08E-1 3.0E+1
- 2. Average diluted concentration uCi/ml during period 3.53E-7 7.54E-8
- 3. Percent of applicable limit % 2.12E0
- 5. 061.L_
C. Dissolved and entrained saaes 1
- 1. Total release Ci
- 2. Average diluted concentration uCi/mi , , l during period
- 3. Percent of applicable limit % *
- D. Gross alpha radioactivity l 1. Total releue l Ci l< 2.45E-4 l c 1.51E-4l 4.0E+1 l E. Volume of waste releued (prior liters 3.45E +6 2.78 E+6 2.0E+1 i to dilution)
F. Volume of dilution water used liters 3.82E+ 9 4.08 E+9 2.0E+1 !
during period l
- Plant Shutdown 1st and 2nd Quarter 1987
! i i 1 t
,i l
- B-5
TABLE 2B EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT G987)
LlOUID EFFLUENTS January - June 1987 CONTINUOUS MODE B ATCH MODE Nuchdes Released - Unit Quarter Quarter Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd l strontium 89 Ci < 1.27E-4 8.48E-5 strontium 90 Ci 4 4.29E-5 4.33E-5 cesium 134 Ci 8.36E-4 1.21E-2 ~
cesium 137 Ci 1.42E-2 2.90E-1 lodine 131 i Ci - -
cobalt 58 Ci - -
cobalt 60 Ci 4.06E-3 1.99E-2 fron 59 Ci - -
zme 65 Ci - -
manganese 54 Ci 5.25E-4 l 4.02E-4 chromium 51 C1 - -
l l
airconimum niobium 95 Ci - -
l molybdenum 99-technetium 99m Ci barium lanthanum 140 Ci - -
cerium 141 Ci - -
iodine 133 Ci 1 - -
cerium 144 Ci - -
silver 110m Ci - -
tron 55 Ci < 3.98E-3 4.54E-3 l unidentified l Ci l l 1.73E-2 l 8.53E-2l Total for period (above) Ct <4.11E-2 4.12E-1 l
i menon 133 ~ Ci 1.83E-6 -
xenon 135 Ci - -
I t
l B-6 ,
L
EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT
, Supplemental informetion July - December 1987 ,
Fe nbr, Pilgnm Nucleae Po er $tarkin 4 Ucense DPR.15
.i
- 1. Reguletary uWts a Fisnin and a ,.atuin sawi dr500 mrem /yr total body and 4.3000 mrem /yr for skin at Site Boundary I hNi$"iain.hattinn >= Ja, ) 41500 mrem /yr to any organ at Site Boundary _
t Lowd esnuenii 40.06 mrem / month for total body and ~0.20 :
mrem / month for any organ without Radwaste !
- . Maimum Permissiwe comanir non Ireatment >
Pnnide the MPCs uwd m deternumrg A ale release rates us om.eniranons.
J. Fessnin and activaine gews to CFR 20 !
i
- h. hwjines' Appendia B
] 6. P;rinctlaien, half bien >h ddF {
TaWe 11
- d. bquid eillutnis' H . 3 = 1 X 10-8 JCi/mt; su rest,10CFR 20. Aprendia B. Table !! !
i
). Average Energs j {
Provide the 4versye energ> lit of ilw raJainuslide stinstuit eet icleases os finns wi and a,1i,4 tion genes,il us, eppih;ab i
4
- 4. 13(Qs x 1.84E4 + Qv x 1.8ES)$ 1 Measurements and Apptonimetions or Totel Radioactivit.> !
y PnmJe the mett=ds used to nwasut or appiosianate the toist reasoa.1 vit) m el'Ouenis and the auth.=h used to determent radamushde comr=+utun.
- a. Faskm and 4 'tivatum yesen Ceu
- h. lodinn ;
- s. Particulates
- d. . bound elllienis' ^^*'"
- 5. belch Releasem Pio, ale tir sullowing informatum velcerg to bat.h tcleeses et radnwteve materials in liquwi and gaseous e(nuents. I t
i
- s. Uquid
! {
- l. niumher or batih rele.nes 252
- Tiwal time pened nor haich rele.wi 31190 min or 519.83 hrs i 3. uni,ium unw perna ror a batch releew 1000 min or 16.67 hra (
j 4 A.erage ome perne ior b.i h eesuso 123 min or 2.05 hrs ;
- 5. uinimum ome renod riu s hich reinw 15 min or 0.25 hrs
,' ei. A.er.gc strum (b. dunne penoas or eete,w or emueni into a rki.ing stenm. 1.05ES GPM
- I- b Cmeon (Not AppincaWe) i
(
i 6 Abnormal R:lesws
' t
. Liquid t;/A b, Gaseous f
i +
l 1 !
e r I
i i i h l
- B-7 i f
4 i,
a !
l TABLE 1 A EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMI ANNUAL REPORT (1957)
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES e
July - December 1987 Owarter Owerter E st. Totat Umt 3rd 4th Error. %
A. Fiuion and activation gues
- 1. Total releue i Ci * *
- j
- 2. Average releue rate for penod u Ci'see *
- l 3. Percent of Technical Specification limit % *
- B. Iodines
- 1. Total iodtne.131 Ci < 6. 7 3E-5
- 7.94E-3 3.0E+1 l
- 2. Avenge relene rate for period uCi/see < 8. 5 5E-6 < 1. 01 r-s l l 3. Percent of Technical Specification limit % 1.31E-5 3.10E-5 i C. Particulates
- 1. Particulates with half lives > 8 days Ci < l . 64 E-4 < l.25E-4 1 3'0E*l l
- 2. Average releue rate for period uCt/see < 2.08E-5 1.59E-5
- 3. Peteent of Technical Specification limit % 3.09E-5 4.88E-6 !
- 4. Gross alpha radioactivity Ci <9.13E-7 < l .03E-6 j D. Tritium
- 1. Total releue Ci < 7. 42E-2 < 3. 5 BE-1 1 4.2E+1 l
- 2. Average releue rate for period uCi/see < 9.42E-3 < 4.55E-2
- 3. Percent of "lechnical Specification limit % 1.40E-2 1.40E-2 !
l
- Plant shutdown 3rd & 4th quarters of 1987 r 4
7 I
I r
B-8
TABLE 1B EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (19871 ,
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - ELEVATED RELEASE July - Deceder 1987 CONTINUQUS MODE SATCH M00E l
Nwebees Released Umt i 3rd Owarter Quarter
!4 t h0wertee l l Qwarter - t c
- 1. Fission gases i krypton 85 l C l *
- i i krypton 85m i C I *
- i krypton S" l Ci * * '
krypton 85 l C 1 * !
xenon 133 l Ci *
- xenon 135 Ci a *
~~
xenon.135m Ci * !
- menon 138 Ci a
- xenon 131m Ci e
- xenon 137 C1 *
- xenon 133m Ci *
- Total for penod Ci a
- i
- Plant Shutdown 3rd & 4th quarter of 1987. i
- 2. Iodines 4
iodine 131 Ci 46.67E-6 41.45E-5 ,
iodme 133 Ci < 5.30E-6 m.1.34E-5 i iodine 135 Ci < 3. 01E-5 < 1. 60E-4 1 Total for period Ci '
< 4.20E-5 < 1. 8SE-4 '
- 3. Particulates i, strontium 89 Ci 42.74E-7 < 5.14E-7 .
strontium 90 Ci <5.09E-8 < 7.05E-8 !
! cesium 134 Ct - -
t i
eesium 137 Ci - '
barium lanthanum 140 Ci ' < 1. 30E-5 e 1.47E-5 !
chromium 51 Ci - -
manganese 54 l C1 - 1 cobalt 55 1 Ci - -
tron 59 Ci - 1 -
[
cobsit 60 Ci 5.26E-7 3.51E-8
! rine 65 1
Cs - -
(
tirconium niobium 95 Ci - - [
cenum 141 C - -
cerium 14
- Ci - - ,
- ruthenium 103 } C - - !
ruthemum 106 l Ci - - ,
5-9 i f
I TABLE 1C EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMI ANNUAL REPORT (1987)
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS GROUND LEVEL RELE ASE Jaly - Ceced er 1987 CONTINUOUS MODE BATCH MODE Nwchdes Released Umt 3rd Owarter I. t h0w arter l Owarter l Ow arter {
I Fiuion gases ko*pton 55 Ci . .
krypton 55m Ci a .
ko pton 57 Ci e a krypton 85 Ci *
- xenon 133 Ci . .
xenon 135 Ci * ,
xenon 135m Ci e
- xenon 135 Ci *
- Total for pened Ci e *
- Plant shutdown 3rd 6 -th quarter of 1957.
2, lodines iodine 131 Ca < 6.0tE-5 4 6.49E-5 iodine 133 Ci 4 3.73E-5 4 5.95E-5 iodine 135 Ci < 1.80E-4 < 3.65E-4 Total for penod Ci < 2.78E-4 4 4.90E-4 3 Particulates strontium 89 Ci < l.?it-o < 2.4et-6 strontium 90 Ci < 4.67E-7 4 5.35E-7 cesium 134 Ci - -
cesium 137 Ci 7.75E-6 4. 7.86E-6 banum lanthanum 140 Ci < 1.15E-4 4 6.82E-5 manganese 54 Ci - -
cobalt 58 Ci - -
iron 59 Ci - -
cobet 60 Ci 2.47E-3 3.0BE-5 1 zine 65 Ci - -
eenum 141 Ci - -
ruthenium 103 Ci - -
ruthenium 106 Ci - -
l B-10
____ ____-________ _. _ A
l l
TABLE 2A E F F LUENT AND WASTE DISPOS AL SEMI ANNU AL REPORT (1957)
LIQUID EFFLUENTS SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES July - Decerter 1957 Ogarter O w ter Est Total Umt Jrd 4th E rror. N A. Fission and activation products i Ci
- 1. Total . elene (not ine uding tntium. l j noble gues, or alphai 4 9.1SE-1 ( l.03E-1 1 3.0E+1
- 2. Average diluted concentration uCiml dunng penod <l.70E-7 <l.46E-8
- 3. Percent of appheable limit cc 1.35E+1** 2.0SEO B. Tritium
- 1. Tota) releue Ci 5.69E-1 9.83E-1 1 3.0E+1 l
- 2. Astrage diluted concentration u Cs, ml dunns penod 1.05E-7 1.40E-7
- 3. Percent of apphenble hmit 4 8.40E0 1.98E+1 C. Diuolved and entrained gues
- 1. Total releue Ci * *
- l
- 2. Average diluted concentration u Ci/mi dunng period * *
- 3. Percent of apphcable limit % *
- D. Gross alpha radioactivity l 1. Total releue l Ci ls2.42E-4 lt.3.54E-4 l2 4.0E+1 l E. Volume of wute released (pner hters to dilution) 3.52E6 6.3BE6 1 2.0E+1
{
F. Volume of dilution wster used hters !
dunne penod 5.40E9 7.04E9 1 2.0E+1 i c Plant Shutdevn 3rd 6 4th quarter of 1987.
co The liquid radvaste treat:ent system was in use for the entire period between July 1. to Decembtr 31, 1987.
B-11
TABLE 28 EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT 0 987)
LIQUID EFFLUENTS July Decer.ber 1987 CONTINUOUS MODE' BATCH MODE Nucl. des Released Umt Quarter l Owarter Owener OhNer strontium 89 C <1.07E-4 . 1.30E-3 strontium 90 l Ci j < 3. 93E-5 < 4.38E-5 cesium 134 Ci 1 2.88E-2 6.42E-4 .
cesium 137 Ci 6.27E-1 2.35E-2 iodine 131 Ci - -
cobalt 5S Ci - -
cobalt 60 Ci 7.41E-2 2.70E-2 iron 59 Ci - -
zinc.55 ,, , , , _
Cl 3.95E-4 -
manganese 54 Ci 3.31E-3 3.53E-4 chromium 51 Ci - .
rirconimiim niobium 95 C1 molybdenum-99 - -
tecnnetiun-9 h Ci barium lanthanum 140 Ci - -
cerium 141 Ci - -
iodine 133 Ci .
cenum 144 Ci - -
st!ver 110m Ci - -
iron 55 Ci 47.01E-3 47.51E-3 l unidentified l Ci l l l 1. 77E-1 l4.21E-2 l Total for period Iabove) C1 (9.18E-1 <l.03E-1 xenon 133 l C l - -
xenon 135 l Ci I - -
B-12
Y b
APPENDIX C RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONhENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I
4
i OPERATIONAL 06]ECTIVES SURVE!LLANCE RECCIREMENTS 7.0 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 8.0 RA010 LOGICAL ENVIRONwENTAL M_0NJ_TORING PROGRAM MON!t0 RING PROGRAM 7.1 Monitoring Program 8.1 Monitoring Program ADD 1-icability: Specification: i l
At all times. A. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ;
}pfeification: The radiological environmental monitoring samples shall be A. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING collected pursuant te Table 8.1-1 from the specific locations given >
An environmental monitoring program in the table and figurt(s) in the :
shall be conducted to evaluate the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual !
effects of station operation on the (00CM) and shall be analyzed i environs and to verify the pursuant to the requirements of
~
effectiveness of the source Table 8.1-1 and tne detection Controls on radioactive materials. Capabilities required by Table 8.1 4 The radiological environmental monitoring program shall be 1. Cumulative dose contributions conducted as specified in Table for the current calendar year 8.1-1. from radionuclides detected in environmental samples Action: shall be determined in accordance with the
- 1. With the radiological methodology and parameters in r environmental monitoring program the ODCM. These results will not being conducted as specified be reported in the Annual in Table 8.1-1, prepare and Radiological Environmental :
submit to the Commission, in the Monitoring Report.
Annu&1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report required by SpecificAtton 6.9.C.2, & description of the reasons for not conducting the program as required and the r plans for preventing a recurrence.
- 2. With the level of radioactivity as the result of plant effluents in an environmental sampling medium at a specified location exceeding the reporting levels ,
of Table 7.1-1 when averaged !
over any calendar Quarter, prepare and submit to the Commission within 30 days, a i
special repc u that identifies the cause(s' for esteeding the limit (s) and defines the ,
corrective actions to be taken -
Amendment No. 89 229 f f
i
OPERA 7!ONAL OBJECTIVES SURVE!LLANCE R OUIREMEN75
. 7.1.A ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING -
(Continued) to reduce radioactive effluents so that the potential annual dose to a member of the public is less than the calendar year limits of Specifications 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 When more than one of the radionuclides in !
Table 7.1-1 are detected in the sampling medium, this report shall be submitted if:
concentration (1) + _ Concentration (2) . ...
~> 1.0 ,
reporting level (1) reporting leval (1) t When radionuclides other than !
those in Table 7.1-1 are i detected and are the result of plant effluents, this report shall be submitted if the !
potential annual dose to a member of the puclic is equal to or greater than the calendar year limits of Specifications 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 This report is not recuired if the measured '
level of radioactivity was not the result of plant effluents; however, in such an event, the condition shall be reported and described in the Annual Radiological Environmental t Monitoring Report.
- 3. With milk or fresh leafy !
vegetable samples unavailable from one or more of the sample locations required by Table 8.1-1, identify locations for obtaining replacement samples and add them to the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program within 30 t days. The specific locations from which samples were unavailable may then be deleted from the monitoring program.
Amendment No. 89 230
OPERAVIONAL OBJECTIVES SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 7.1.A ENVIRONMENTAL HONITORING (Continued)
Pursuant to Specification
. 6.9.C.2, identify the cause of the unavailability of samples and identify the new i location (s) obtaining i replacement samples in the next Annual Environmental Radiation
[ Honitring Report and also a include in the report the table
_ for the OOCH reflecting the new
[ location (s).
h B. LAND USE CENSUS f LAND USE CENSUS i
j A land use census shall be The land use census shall be conducted and shall identify. conducted during the growing
- within a distance of 8 km (5 season, at least once per 12
- miles), the location in each of months using that informttion that h the 16 meteorological sectors of will provide the be ' results, c- the nearest milk animal, the such as by a door. .ter sui vey,
[ nearest residence and the nearest aerial survey, or J. W sulting
- garden of greater than 50 m' local agriculture au...s ities. ;
(500 ft') producing broad leaf The results of the land use census vegetation. (For elevated shall be included in the Ar.nual releases as defined in Regulatory Radiological Environmental il Guide 1.111, Revision 1. July Monitoring Report.
1977, the land use census shall Broad leaf vegetation sampling of also identify, within a distance r of 5 km (3 miles), the locations at least three different kinds of F in each of the 16 meteorological vegetation may be perforred at the r sectors of all milk anirals and
~
site boundary in thch of the two all gardens'oT greater than 50 different direction sectors with F producing broad leaf the highest predicted 0/05, in
~
vegetation, lieu of the g.Trden census.
Specifications for broad leaf Action vegetation saspling in Table 8.1-1 shall be followed, including
- 1. With a land use census analysis of control samples, identifying a location (s) that i yields a calculated dose or dose commitment greater than
! the values currently being L
calculated in Specification
, 8.4.A. identify the ne=
_ location (s) in the nest Annual
- Environmental Radiological Monitoring Report.
L
, Amendment No. 89 231 h
' OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVf5 _ SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 7.1.8 LAND USE CENSUS t sntinued)
- 2. With a land use census toentifying a location (s) that yleids a calculated dose or dose commitment (via the :ame exposure pathway) 20 percent greater than at a location from which samples are currently being obtained in accordance with Specification 7.1, add the new location (s) to the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program within 30 days. The sampling location (s), excluding the control station location, having the lowest calculated dose or dose commitment (s), via the same exposure pathway, may be deleted from this monitoring i program after October 31 of the year in whicn this land use census was ccnducted. Identify the new location (s) in the next Annual Environmental Radiolog' al Monitoring Report and also include in the report a revised figure (s) and table for the ODCH reflecting the new location (s).
7.2 Dose - Liquids 8.2 Dose - Liquids Applicability: Specification:
At all times. A. Dose Calculations - Cumulative Specification:
dose contributions from liquid effluents shall be determined in A.
accordance with the ODCM for each j The dose or dose commitment to a calendar month during which
! member of the public from releases occurred.
I radioactive materials in liquid l effluents released at and beyond l
the site boundary shall be limited:
- 1. During any calendar quarter to
< l.5 mrem to the total body
) and to i 5 mrem to any organ, and l
- 2. During any calendar year to 1 3 l mrem to the total body and to 1 10 mrem to any organ.
Amendment No. 89 I 232 L .
OP! RATIONAL'08SECTIVES '
SURVEfLLANCE RE00fROMENTS 7.2 Dose - Lioulds (Continued)
Action With the calculated dose from the release of radioactive materials in
. liquid effluents exceeding any of the above limits, prepare and submit to the Commission within 30 days, a special report that identifies the cause(s),fcorrective actions taken, and corrective actions to be taken.
.7,3 Dose - Noble Gases 8.3 Dose - Noble Gases Applicability: Specificition:
At all times. A. Doff Calculations - Cumulativo Specification:
dose contributions for the total time period shall be determined in accordance with the ODCM for A. The air dose in areas at and beyond each calendar month during which
,. the site boundary due to noble gases releases occurred.
released in gaseous effluents shall be limited to the following:
- 1. During any calendar quarter, to 1-5 mrad for gamma radiation and i 10 mrad fcr beta radiation; and
- 2. During any calendar year, to i 10 mrad for g3mma radiation and i 20 mrad for beta radiation.
Action With the calculated air dose from
' radioactive noble gases in gaseous
-effluents exceeding any of the above limits, prepare and submit to the Commission within 30 days, a special report which identifies the cause(s), the corrective actions taken, and corrective actions to be ta k'in.
Ameodment No. 89 233
, . , , , , _ _ - , _ . , . - . _ . , , , , _ , - . _ ._ - . , . , , , , , . . -......_._.~~.,,,.,,_,,m._ , = , - - .
~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES SU1VEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 7.4 Dose - Iodine-131, Iodine-1332 8.4 Dose - Iodine-131 Iodine-133 Radioactive Material in Radioactive Material in 1
, Particulate Form, and Tritium Particulate Form, and Tritium Applicability: Specification:
At all times A. Dose Calculations - Cumulative dose contributions for the total Specification: time period shall be determined for iodine-131, lodine-133, A. The dose to a member of the public radioactive material in from iodine-131, iodine-133, particulate form with half-lives radioactive materials in greater than 8 days, and tritium particulate form with half-lives in accordance with the ODCH for greater than 8 days, and tritium each calendar month during which in gaseous effluents released to releases occurred.
areas at and beyond the site boundary shall be limited to the following:
- 1. During any calendar quarter to 1 7.5 mrem to any organ, and
- 2. During any calendar year to 1 15 mrem to any organ.
Action 4
With the calculated dose from the release of iodine-131, iodine-133, radioactive materials in particulate form, and tritium in gaseous effluents exceeding any of the above limits; prepare and submit to the Commission within 3D days, a special report which identifies the cause(s),
corrective actions taken, and the corrective actions to be taken.
7.5 Total Dose 8.5 Total Dose Applicability: Specification:
At all times. A. Dose Calculations - Cumulative dose contributtor.s from liquid Specification: and gaseous effluents shall be determined in accordance with A. The dose or dose commitment to any Specifications 7.2".A, 7.3.A. and l member of the public from Pilgrim 7.4.A; and in accordance with the Stat'.m sources is limited to 1 25 ODCH.
mrem to the total body or any organ (except the thyroid, which Amendment No. 69 234
OPERATlONAL OBJECTfVES SURVEfLLANCE REQUfREMENTS 7.5 Total Dose (Continued) is limited to 1 75 mrem) over a period of any calencar year.
Action With the calculated dose from the release of radioactive materials in 11guld or gaseous effluents exceeding twice the limits of Specifications 7.2.A, 7.3.A or 7.4.A; prepare and submit a special report to the Commission and limit the subsequent releases such that the dose or dose commitment to any member of the public from all eranium fuel cycle sources is limited to 1 25 mrem to the total body or any organ (except thyroid, which is limited to 1 75 mrem) over any calendar '
year. This special report shall include an analysis which demonstrates that radiation exposures to all members of the public from all uranium fuel cycle sources (including all effluent pathways and direct radiation) are less than the 40 CFR, Part 190 standard. Otherwise, obtain a variance from the Commission to permit releases which exceed the 40 CFR, Part 190 standard.
Amendment No. 89 235 l l
h
JA8LE 7.1-1 REPORTING LEVELS FOR RADIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES Reporting Levels '
Water Airborne Particulate Fish Analysis Milk Vegetables (pCl/L) or Gases (pCl/M') (pCl/kg, wet) (pC1/1) (pC1/kg. wet)
H-3 2 x 10*
Mn-54 1 x 10' 3 x 10*
Fe-59 4 x 10' 1 x 10*
Co-58 1 x 10' 3 x 10*
Co-60 3 x 10' 1 x 10*
Zn-65 3 x f0 2 x 10*
Zr-95 4 x 10' I-131 2 0.9 3 1 x 10*
Cs-134 30 10 1 x 10' 60 1 x 10' Cs-137 50 20 2 x 10' 70 2 x 10' Ba-140 2 x 10' 3 x 10' l
l
! Amendment No. 89 236
TABLE 8.1-1 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Locations Exposure Pathway (Direction-Distance) SampInng and or Sample Typ_e_ Type and Frequency from Reactor Collect:7n Frequency 0f Analysis AIRBORNE Particulates 11 Locations (See Continuous sampilng over Table 8.1-2) Gross beta radioactivity one week. 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or more after filter change' Quarterly 11 Locations (See Composite (by location) for Table 8.1-2) gamma isotopic' Radiolodine 11 Locations (See Continuous sampilng with Analyze weekly for I-131 Table 8.1-2) canister collection weekly DIRECT
- 40 Locations (See Quarterly Gamma exposure quarterly Table 8.1-3)
Plymouth Beach and Annually Gamma exposure survey' Priscilla/Hhite Horse Beach NATERBORNE Discharge Canal Continuous composite Gamma Isotopic' monthly, (Surface Hater) sample and composite fcr H-3 Bartlett Pond Weekly grab sample analysis quarteily (SE-1.7 ml)
Powder Point Heekly grab sample (NNH-7.8 ml)'
i AQUATIC She11ftsh Discharge outfall Quarterly (at approximate Gamma Isotopic **
(clams, mussels Duxbury Bay 3-month intervals)
, or quahogs as Manomet Point j available) Plymouth or Kingston .
! Harbor Marshfleid*
Ametduent No. 89 2Ii?
TABLE 8.1-1 (Continu0d)
OPERATIONAL R.nDIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
. i Locations Exposure Pathway (Direction-Distance) Samp1tng and or Sample Type Type and frequency from Reactor Collection Frequency of Analysis Lobster Vicinity of discharge Four times per season Gamma Isotopic
- on point edible portions Offshore
- Once per season Fish Vicinity of discharge Quarterly (when particular Gamma isotopic' on point species available) for Groups edible portions' Offshore
- I and II', in season for Groups III and IV',
annually for edch group Sediments Rocky Point Semlannually Gamma Isotopic2
Plymouth Harbor Durbury Bay l Plyncouth Beach Manomet Point Marshfleid INGESTION (Terrestrial)
Milk Plymouth County Farm, Semimonthly during Gamma isotopic *, radio-when available periods when animals are lodine analysis all samples (H-3.5 ml)* on pasture, otherwise Whitman Farm monthly (NH-21 ml)*
Cranberries Manomet Point Bog At time of harvest Gamma Isotopic" on edible (SE-2.6 mi) portions Bartlett Rd. Bog (SSE/S-2.8 ml)
Pine St. Bog (HNW-17 ml)*
Amendment No. 89 238
TABLE 8.1-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL RADIOL F.ICAL ENVIRONMENTAL HONITORING PROGRAM Locations Exposure Pathway (Direction-Distance) Sampilng and Type and Frequency gor _ sample _ Type from Reactor Collection Frequency of Analysis j Tuberous and green Plymouth County Farm At time of harvest Gamma Isotopic' on edible leafy vegetables (H-3.5 mi)* portions Bridgewater Farm (H-20 ml)*
Beef Forage Plymouth County Farm Annually Gamma Isotopic' (H-3.5 ml)*
Whitman Farm (NH-21 mi)*
i l
l l
l i
l Amendment No. 89 239
TABLE 8.1-1 (Con 91nued)
_ NOTES-If gross beta radioactivity is greater than 10 times the control value, gamma isotopic will be performed on the sample.
Gamma isotopic means the identification and quantification of I gamma-emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to the effluents from the facility.
If integrated gamma activity (less K-40) is greatsr than 10 time: the control value (less K-40), strontium-90 analysis will be performed on the sample.
Indicates control location.
5 Fish analyses will be performed on a minimum of 2 sub-samples, consisting of approximately 400 grams each from each of the following groups:
I. Bottom Oriented II. Near Bottom III. Anadromous IV. Coastal Distribution Micratory Winter flounder Tautog Alewife Bluefish Yellowtail founder Cunner Rainbow smelt Atlantic herring Atlantic cod Striped bass Atlantic menhaden Pollock Atlantic mackerel Hakes Mussel samples from four locations (immediate vicinity of discharge outfall, Manomet Point, Plymouth or Kingston Harbor, and Green Harbor in Marshfield) will be analyzed quarterly as follows:
One kilogram wet weight of mussel bodies, including fluid within shells will be collected. Bodies will be reduced in volume by drying at about 100'C. Sample will be compacted and Analyzed by Ge(L1) gamma spectrometry or alternate technique, if necessary, to achieve a sensitivity of 5 pCi/kg for Cs-134 Cs-137, Co-60, In-65,
- and Zr-95; and 15 pCl/kg for Ce-144. Sensitivity values are to be determined in accordance with a 951 confidence level on k. and a 50% confidence level on k. (See HASL-300 for definitions).
The mussel shell sample from one location will be analyzed each quarter.
4 One additional mussel shell sample will be analyzed seminnnually.
Unscrubbed shells to be analyzed will be dried, processed, and analyzed similarly to the mussel bodies.
i l
l Amendment No. 89 240
7ABLE 8.1-1 (Continuod)
NCIES l Because of the small volume reduction in pre-processing of shells, l sensitivities attained will be less than that for m.ssel bodies. The I equipment and counting times to be employed for analyses of shells will be tne same or comparable to that employed for mussel bodies so that the reduction in sensitivities (relative to those for mussel bodit s) will be strictly limited to the effects of poorer geometry related to lower samole volume reduction. Shell samples not scheculed for analysis will be reserved (unscrubbed) for possible later analysis.
If radiocesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) activity exceeds 200 pCl/kg (wet) in mussel bodies, these samples will be analyzed by radiochemical separation, electrodeposition, and alpha spectrometry for radioisotopes of plutonium, with a sensitivity of 0.4 pCi/kg.
Sediment samples from four locations (Hanomet Point, Rocky Point, Plymouth Harbor, and head of Duxbury Bay) will be analyzed once per year (preferably early summer) as follows:
Cores will be taken to depths of 30-cm, minimum depth, wherever sediment conditions permit, by a hand-coring sampling device. If sediment conditions do not permit 30-cm deep cores, the deepest, cores achievable with a hand-coring device will be taken. in any case, core depths will not be less than 14-tm. Core samples will be sectioned into 2-cm increments; surface and alternate increments will be analyzed, all others will be reserved. Sediment sample volumes (determined by core diameter and/or number of individual cores taken from any single location) and the counting technique will be sufficient to achieve sensitivities of 50 pC1/kg dry sediment for Cs-134, Cs-137, Co-60, 2n-65, and 2r-95 and 150 pC1/kg for Ce-144 In any case, individual core diameters will not be less than 2 inches.
The top 2-cm section from each core will be analyzed for Pu isotopes (Pu-238, Pu-239, and Pu-240) using radiochemical separations, electrodeposition and alpha spectrometry with target sensitivity of 25 pCi/kg dry sediment. Two additional core sli"K)NITORING PROGRAM l 7/8.1 Monitoring Program 1
7/8.1.A ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING An environmental radiological monitoring program is conducted to verify the adequacy of in-plant controls on the release of radioactive materials. The program is designed to detect radioactivity concentrations to ensure forth in 10 that CFRradiation dosesI. to individuals do not exceed the levels set 50, Appendix A supplemental monitoring program for sediments and mussels has been incorporated into the basic program (see Notes 6 and 7 to Table 8.1-1) as a result of an agreement with the Massachusetts Wildlife Federation. This supplemental program is designed to provide information on radioactivity levels at substantially higher sensitivity levels in selected samples to verify the adequacy (or, alternatively, to provide a basis for later modifications) of the long-term marine sampling schedules. As part of the supplemental program, analysis of mussels for isotopes of plutonium will be performed if radiocesium activity should exceed 200 pC1/kg in the edible portions.
The 200 pC1/kg radiocesium "action level" is based on calculations which show that if radiocesium from plant releases reached this level, plutonium could possibly appear at levels of potential interest.' The calculations also show that the dose delivered from these levels of plutonium would not be a significant portion of the total dose attributable to liquid effluents.
The program was also designed to be consistent, wherever applicable, with NUREG 0473.
Groundwater flow at the plant site is into Cape Cod Bay; therefore, terrestrial monitoring of groundwater is not included in this program.
Detection capabilities for environmental sample analyses are tabulated in terms of the lower limits of detection (LLD). The LLD in Table 8.1.4 is considered optimum for routine environmental measurements in industrial laboratories. It should be recognized that the LLD is defined as an a priori (before the fact) limit representing the capability of a measurement system and not as an a posteriori (after the fact) limit for a particular measurement.
Detailed discussion of the LLD, and other detection limits can be found in HASL Procedures Manual, HASL-300 (revised annually), curie, L.A.; "Limits for Qualitative Detection and Quantitative Determination - Application to Radiochemistry" Anal. Chem. 40, 586-93 (1968); and Hartwell, J. K.,
"Detection Limits for Radioanalytical Counting Techniques," Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company Report ARH-SA-215 (June 1975).
In measurable quantities having a potential dose (human food chain) significance comparable ta other nuclides if present at their detection limits.
Amendment No. 89 246
BASES 7/8.1.B LAND USE CENSUS This section is provided to ensure that changes in the use of areas at and beyond the site boundary are identified and that modifications to the radiological environmental monitoring prograni are made if required by the results of this census. The best information from the door-to-door survey, from aerial survey, or from consulting with local agricultural authorities shall be used. This census satisfies the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix I, Section IV.B.3. Restricting the census to gardens of greater than 50 m' provides assurance that significant exposure pathways via leafy vegetables will be identified and monitored, since a garden of this size is the minimum required to produce the QLantity (26 kg/ year) of leafy vegetables assumed in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for consumption by a child. To determine this minimum garden size, the following assumptions were made: 1) 20% of the garden was used for growing broad leaf vegetation (i.e., similar to lettuce and cabbage), and
- 2) a vegetation yield of 2 kg/m'.
7/8.2 DOSE - LIQUID This section is provided to implement the requirements of Sections ?I.A, 111.A, and IV.A of 10CFR50, Appendix I, to assure that the releases of radioactive material in liquid effluents will be kept "as low as is reasonably achievable." Because Pilgrim is not a site where plant operations can conceivably affect drinking water, none of these requirements are intended to assure compliance with 40 CFR 141. The dose calculations in the ODCM implement the requirements of 10CFR50 Appendin I Section III.A to ensure that the actual exposure of a member of the public through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated. The equations specified in the ODCM for calculating the doses due to the actual. release rates of radioactive materials in liquid effluents will be consistent with the methodology provided in Regulatory Gu'ide '.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR Part 50 Appendix I," Revision 1, October 1977 and Regulatory Guide 1.113 "Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I,"
April 1977. NUREG-0133 provides methods for dose calculations consistent with Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.113.
Amendment No. 89 247
BASES 7/8.3 DOSE - NOBLE GASES This section is provided t0 implement the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix I, Sections II.8, III.A, and IV.A to ensure that the releases of radioactive material in gaseous effluents will be kept "as lor as is reasonably achievable." The surveillance requirements implement the requirements of 10CFR50 Appendix I, Section III. A to ensure that the actual exposure of a member of the public through the appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated. The dose calculations established in the OOCH for calculating the doses due to the actual release rates of radioactive noble gases in gaseous effluents are conlistent with the methodology provided in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and Regulatory Guide 1.111, ' Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," Revision 1. July 1977. The ODCM equations provided for determining the air doses at and beyond the site boundary will be based upon the historical average atmospheric conditions.
NUREG-0133 proiides methods for dose calculations consistent with Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111.
7/8.4 DOSE - 10 DINE-131, 10 DINE-133, RADI0 ACTIVE .M TERIAL IN PARTICULATE FORM, AND TRITIUM This section is provided to implement the requirements of Sections II.C.
III.A and IV.A of 10 CFR50, Appendix I, to assure that the releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents will be kept "as low as is reasonably achievable." The ODCM calculational methods specified in the surveillance requirements implement the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix I, Section III.A to ensure that the actual exposure of a member of the public through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated. The ODCM calculational methods aporoved by the NRC for calculating the doses due to the actual release rates of the subject
(
materials are required to be consistent with the methodology provided in Regulatory Guides 1,109 and 1.111. These equations also provide for determining the actual doses based upon the historical average atmospheric conditions. The release rate specifications for iodine 131, radioactive material in particulate form with half-lives greater than 8 l days, and radionuclides other than noble gases are dependent on the
- existing radionuclide pathways to man, in areas at and beyond the site i boundary. The pathways which are examined in the development of these l calculations are
- 1) individual inhalation of airborne radionuclides, 2) deposition of radionuclides onto green leafy vegetation with subsequent consumption by man, 3) deposition onto grassy areas where milk animals and meat producing animals graze Uith consumption of the milk and meat by man, and 4) deposition on the ground with subsequent exposure of man.
J l
Amendment No. 89 24 i
8ASES 7/8.5 TOTAL DOSE l
This section is provided to meet the dose limitations of 40CFR190 that have now been incorporated into 10CFR20 by 46 FR 18525. The specification requires the preparation and submittal of a special report whenever the calculated doses from plant radioactive effluents exceed twice the design objective doses of 10CFR50, Appendix I. For sites containing up to 4 reactors, it is highly unlikely that the resultant dose to a member of the public will exceed the dose limits of 40CFR190 if the individual reactors i remain within the reporting requirement level. The special report will
'l describe a course of action that should result in the limitation of the annual dose to a member of the public to within the 40CFR190 limits. For the purposes of the special report, it may be assumed that the dose commitment to the member of the public from other uranium fuel cycle sources is negligible, except dose contributions from other nuclear fuel cycle facilities at the same site or within a radius of 8 km must be considered. If the dose to any member of the public is estimated to exceed the limits of 40CFR190, a request for a variance in a special report in accordance with 40CFR190.ll and 10CFR20.405C is considered to be a timely request and fulfills the requirements of 40CFR190 until NRC staff action is completed. This is provided that the release conditions resulting in violation of 40CFR190 have not already been corrected. The variance only relates to the lim.ts of 40CFR190, and does not ap; fly in any way to the other requirements for dose limitation of 10CFR20. An individual is not considered a member of the public during any period in which he/she is engaged in any operation that is part of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Amendment No. 89 249
APPENDIX D 1987 GARDEN AND HILK ANIMAL CENSUS RESULTS
0FFICE HEHORANDUM i Boston Edison Company
) RHG Control Number l To: C.E. Bowman From:
B J. Dionne Record Type A4.08 Date: April 14, 1988 Dept. Doc. REG 88-46 Safety-Related subject: 1987 GARDEN AND HILK-PRODUCING ANIMAL CENSUS Distribution:
J.P. Jens S.H. Reilly As required by PNPS Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications, the 1987 Garden and Hilk-Producing Animal Census has been conducted.
The results of the garden survey confirmed that no new gardens existed within five miles of Pilgrim Station that had not been previously sampled. A summary of the locations of gardens from which census samples were obtained is provided in Table 1. The gardens at the Work, Jenkins and Halmgren residences are the closest and the largest in the near vicinity (within one mile) of PNPS, and are each less than 500 square feet in area. These represent conservative garden locations for sample analysis. In addition to obtaining samples from these three gardens, samples were also obtained from the Moon residence and Whipple Farm.
Initial vegetation samples were obtained from all five locations on September 30, 1987. However, samples from the Whipple Farm and the H. Hoon residence cere of insufficient size to permit accurate analysis. As a result, additional samples were obtained from these locations on October 19, 1987.
The 1987 Town of Plymouth Animal Census recently became available to Boston Edison. This census, conducted in February and March of 1988, is summarized in Attachment A. A review of the census data indicates that there is a residence within 5 miles of PNPS that has goats, and another residence approximately 2.5 miles from PNPS that has beef cows. At the present time, the Public Information Department is in the process of contacting these individuals to inquire if they would be willing to participate in the sampling program. Specific information on milk-producing animals in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station is compiled in Table 2.
D-1
TABLE 1 VEGETABLE GARDENS HITHIN 5 MILES OF i PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 1
l LOCATION DISTANCE (HILES)/ SECTOR SAMPLES OBTAINED l
Alden Road Farm 0.8/SE green leafy vegetable (Hork Residence)
Jenkins Residence 1.3/HSH green leafy vegetable Malmgren Residence 1.0/SE green leafy vegetable Moon Residence 2.1/HSH broccoli, turnip Whipple Farm 1.5/SSH corn leaves TABLE 2 HILK-PRODUCING ANIMALS HITHIN 5 HILES OF PILGRIH NUCLEAR P0HER STATION 4
OWNER LOCATION APPR0X. DIST. NUMBER /ANIHAL PARTICIPATING FROH PNPS IN REMP? (*)
R. & S. Hitnes Long Pond Road less thaa 5 2 goats no Plimoth Harren Road 2.2 miles 6 cows no Plantation 7 goats no Plymouth Cherry Street 3.5 miles 30 cows yes County Farm 30 beef cows yes 15 beef steers J.E. Davis Beaver Dam Road 2.5 miles 2 beef cows no
(*) This column indicates whether or not the animals are currently part of the REMP. The Hitnes and Davis households will be contacted by the Public Information Department; Plimoth Plantation was contacted in 1987 and 1988 and declined to participate. The beef animals at the Plymouth County Farm are not sampled directly, but hay and forage samples are analyzed at that location.
D-2
ATTACHMENT.A
'IHE CCMWATAL'IH OT PASSACHUSLTIS -
Department of Teod and Ariculture Divisica of Animal Health Room 2103, levemtt Saltonstall Bldg.
100 Cambridge St., Poston, PA 02202 SUle!ARY SHEET
, Totals of the following statements are to be inserted by the Inspector of Animals upon co=pletion of city / town inspection of all animals and return with the hard-covered book (intcet) to the above address by January 1, 19 % .
PURE-GRADE BRED Nu=bar of Dairy Cows over two years _Q O Numbar of Dairy Heifers one to two years /h Numbsr of Dairy Calves under one year lk Number of Dairy Bulls Numbar of Dairy Steers Number of Dairy Herds (one animal constitutes a herd) l_
Numbcr of Beef Cows b __ N Numbar of Beef Heifers one to two years GO Number of Beef Calves under one year No Number of Beef Bulls O
. Number of Beef Steers M 8 Numbar of Beef Herds (one animal constitutes a herd) 5 Numb 2r of Oxen Numbsr of Horses (include work and saddle horses) k Numbar of Ponies _ M Number of Goats. G Number of Sheep M Number of Swine Nu;bor of Swine Herds (one animal constitutes a herd) /
' Number of Poultry b l Number of Poultry Flocks (one bird constitutes a flock) , k I (LaurieNeedel)
SIGNED: ~ '/> t l Inspector of Animals DATE COMPLETED: N!/[68 CITY / TOW: ((41A0bb/2 l
COUNTY: [II/nfAIAI k ._,
J "Publication N. 128 approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent."
- D-3 i
APPENDIX E REVISION OF TLD HEASUREMENTS l
l l
l l
4
APPENDIX E REVISION OF TLD HEASUREMENTS The Boston Edison Company (BECo) has participated in the International Intercomparison Study (IIS) for environmental TLDs since 1977 (Study #3).
This study is coordinated by the Department of Energy (D0E) who is an independent third party. These studies are typically conducted on an 18-month cycle. DOE irradiates the environmental TLDs, which usually involves both a laboratory irradiation and a field irradiation, to a known exposure. The irradiated TLDs are sent back to the appropriate sites where they are processed, and the results of the TLDs are transmitted to D0E. A final report is then generated by DOE in which the TLD results are compared to the known exposure.
The results of the BECo participation in the IIS are summarized in Table 1.
As can be seen, there have been eight studies to date; Study #8 was conducted in 1985-1986, and the next study is expected to commence during the latter part of 1988. Of the six studies in which BECo has participated, there were three ir, stances in which the results were in poor agreement with the known exposure. These three cases occurred in 1977 (field results only), 1984 and 1985.
To date, there have been two major changes to the environmental TLD system.
The first change occurred in mid-1983. At this time, the type of source used to calibrate the TLDs was changed from a depleted uranium plaque to a Shepard Mark IV Calibrator which contained a Cs-137 source. The second change occurred on January 1, 1987. Prior to this time, a Teledyne environmental system was used by BECo personnel, and now a Panasonic environmental TLD system is used with the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Environmental Laboratory as the dosimetry processor for BECo. Coincident with the new environmental TLD system, BECo now performs a quarterly QA test on the Environmental Laboratory's processing of the Panasonic environmental TLDs.
The IIS was the only quality assurance program BECo participated in prior to January 1, 1987. Due to this and the change to the program in 1983, there is some auestion as to the results obtained in the TLD program for 1977, the latter part of 1983, 1984 and 1985. The results for 1986 were adjusted and included in the 1986 Annual REMP Report. However, following these revisions, it was determined that inaccurate exposure times were used in the 4th quarter 1986 data. This correction is included in the tables that follow.
Tnerefore, the TLD results for the above-mentioned time periods have been revised according to the percent difference indicated in Table 2 and are presented in Tables 3 to 17. For these time periods, PNPS was shut down for refueling and maintenance outages as follows: 1977 -- August to November; 1983-1984 -- December 1983 to December 1984; and 1986 -- April 12, 1986 until the present. The difference in the TLD measurements between the exclusion area and the distant locations was not statistically significant. Therefore, (
the direct radiation dose to any resident within one mile of PNPS from station operations for the above periods was not measureable above background radiation levels. i l
E-1
Table 1 Assessment of BECo Results to Internat'l Interconoarison Study Intercomparison BECo LAB RESULTS mrem FIELD RESULTS mrem Overall Study #/ Year Cal. Source BECo / 5tudy* % Diff. BECo / Study ** % Diff Assessment Study #3/1977 U-238(d) 74.8 2 10.0/91.7 2 7.3 -18.4% 30.8 10.1/58.0 13.7 -46.9% Good Agreement with Lab Results Lo Study #4/1478 U-238(d) 14.8 2 2.5/12.2 1.2 +21.3% 14.1 1.4/14.1 2 0.7 0% Good to Excellent Hi Agreement 46.8 4.7/45.8 4.6 +2.2%
Lo n, Study #5/1979 U-238(d) 70.9 13.9/ 75.2 3.8 -5.7% 31.9 10.1/30.0 3.0 +6.3% Excellent l Ea Hi Agreement 88.0 15.6/ 88.4 2 4.4 -0.4%
Study #6/1980 U/238(d) 129.6 1 17.0/158.0 8.0 -18% PRE-IRR 163.2 2 20.4/202.0 100 -19.2% Good Agreement 38.7 2 7.9/ 43.5 1 2.2 -11.0%
Study #7/1984 Cs-137 Co-60 25.826.6/79.92 4.0 -67.7% 39.1 ! 8.4/75.8 6.0 -48.4% Poor Agreement Cs-137 34.1 2 7.9/75.0 2 3.8 -54.5%
Study #8/1935 Cs-137 6.8 3.9/17.2 2 0.9 #1 14.4 2 4.8/29.7 2 1.5 -52.7% Poor Agreement
- 2 5.6 3.9/10.4 2 0.5 Calculated
- Independent Measurement with Pressurized ion chamber
e.
i w
Table 2 CUARitRI.Y AVERAGE DP050RE Raft $.1977 '
Ovettttly>verageLint Gemme DwserrJ4tet ISI QUARIER 2ND (23AmitR 3RD QUARitR 10NC diH QUARTER STATION MICR0RlFR MICR08tillR MICR0R/)fR MICROR/.HR 3 CP ~9.32 +- 0.58 12.23 +- 0.75 12.68 +- 0.61 13.12 +- 0.78 2 CR 10.66 +- 0.77 14.80 +-
4 3.12 13.75 +- 0.80 I4.12 +- 0.78 CS II.80 +- 0.86 12.65 +- 1.30 16.01 + . 0.95 14.65 +- 0.83 -
2 LR 11.51 +- 0.67 13.24 +- I.12 14.15 +- 1.10 14.42 + 0.93 4 EM 30.62 +- 0 58 13.38 +-
4 0.92 16.11 + - . l.97 . 15.88 +- 1.36 KS 9.35 +- 0.67 12.34 +- I.13 13.64 +- 1.21 12.66 +-
3 0.75 MB 11.31 e- 0.57 12.52 +- 1.15 15.45 +- 2.40 12.57 +- 0.75 3 Mt 16.40 +- 0.87 19.67 +- 2.62 17.32 +- 1.12 16.37 +- 1.02 '
3 MP 13.15 +- 0.78 14.59 +- '.24 15.19 +- 0.76 15.54 +- 1.10 3 MS 12.19 +- 0.69 15.94 +- 1.24 15.03 +- 1.01 15.46 +- 0.81 -
3 NP 14.74 +- 0.73 17.19 +- 1.22 15.22 +- 0.87 14.68 +- 0.96 -
3 PC 10.67 +- 0.61 10.99 +- 0.78 11.22 +- 0.55 12.19 +- 0.96 4 5A 10.07 +- 0.57 12.63 +- 0.83 10.78 +- 0.57 12.35 +- 0.61 3 SP 18.68 +- 0.61 I3.36 +- 0.93 13.28 +- I.35 13.66 +- .0.96 3 55 10.55 +- 0.57 15.94 +- 1.67 11.83 +- 0.72 13.20 +- I.01 2 WR 14.25 +- 0.72 17.48 +- 1.67 17.27 +- 0.78 16.43 +- 0.81 2 80 13.56 +- 0.69 16.78 +- 1.52 16.03 +- 0.89 16.29 +- 0.78 2 18 15.71 +- 0.89 17.04 +- B.93 15.80 +- 0.80 16.69 +- 0.84 3 EM 9.12 +- 0.64 12.98 +- 1.47 13.30 +- 0.98 12.92 +- 0.55 2 Mi 10.24 +- 0.50 17.28 +- 0.92 0.83 14.91 +-
'['
(.s 1 04 60.43 +- 3.78 64.6I +- 4.79 15.22 +-
38.49 +- 2.28 63.79 +-
0.96 6.40 1 PA 17.18 +- I.13 21.57 +- 1.64 19.32 +- I.19 16.00 +- 1.04 I PS 21.76 +- 1.71 31.54 +- '2.17 3
31.45 +- 1.78 45.84 +- 3.8' MH II.94 +- 0.84 12.72 +- 1.10 14.01 +- 0.78 13.10 +- 0.94 2 A 15.94 +-- I.26 17.30 +- 1.44 17.24 +- 0.78 17.35 +- 1.39 2 8 16.12 +- 1.09 17.65 +- 1.16 14.68 +- 0.81 16.60 +- 0.84 2 C 16.55 + - - 0.93 15.14 +- 1.13 15.49 +- 0.96 ~ 14.80 +- 0.81 2 D 15.88 +- 0.92 19.20 +- 1.26 17.35 +- I.12 '17.06 +- I.01-3 16.58 +- 1.22 12.92 +- I.18 E 14.77 +- 0.78 15.40 +- I.07 2 F 16.34 +- 3.47 17.04 +- 1.56 18.77 +- I.02 17.65 +- 0.96 2 G 13.46 +- 0.80 17.64 +- I.42 17.93 +- 0.98 16.78 +- I.06 3 2 H 16.90 +- 0.89 20.16 +- 2.07 17.51 +- 3.07 17.85 +- 0.92 _
2 1 15.34 +- 3.07 15.73 +- I.07 15,86 +- 1.07 15.58 +- 0.98 3 J 10.12 +- 0.57 11.57 +- 7.66 13.82 +- 0.98 12.20 +- 0.69 3 K 9.46 +- 0.46 11.13 +- 0.72 13.01 +- 0.80 11.36 +- 'O.66 2 L 16.17 +- I.23 15.36 +- 0.98 16.78 +- 1.09 15.28 +- 0.89 2 PL 18.13 +- 3.15 15.17 +- 1.24 16.49 +- 0.83 14.15 +- 0.87 I NS 31.78 +- 1.42 31.74 +- 2.10 27.25 +- 1.85 63.23 +- 3.32 2 M8 14.39 +- 0.75 16.66 +- 1.10 15.74 +- 1.13 14.97 +- 1.01 RL 2.50 +- 0.00 2.74 +- 0.00 1.21 +- 0.00 1.97 + 0.00 RL 2.34 +- 0.00 2.74 +- 0.00 1.12 +- 0.00 1.90 +- 0.00 September 1, 1987 Rev. 1 n
_, he a- - -
Table 3 GAHMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #3 1983 Micro-R/
Station Hour +- 2 Siama CP 6.58 +- 1.41 CR 9.49 +- 2.15 i CS 0.52 +- 0.06 l ER 7.91 +- 2.23 1 EH 12.43 +- 3.35 l KS 9.99 +- 3.35 HB 11.19 +- 4.03 HE .21 +- .04 HP 14.10 +- 4.08 HS 16.42 +- 4.43 NP . 7.81 +- 2.30 PC 8.47 +- 2.96 SA 21.74 +- 5.41 SP 9.96 +- 1.99 SS 9.47 +- 2.99 HR 12.20 +- 1.56 BD 8.14 +- 1.50 EB 9.41 +- 2.94 EM 12.95 +- 2.32 HT 9.17 +- 2.56 OA 27.85 +- 5.35 PA 10.66 +- 2.59 PB 17.65 +- 2.71 HH 9.61 +- 2.53 A 6.23 +- 1.21 B 9.17 +- 2.80 C 12.42 +- 1.99 D 8.64 +- 3.52 E 10.28 +- 2.62 F 5.81 +- 1.44 G 11.20 +- 1.20 H 13.86 +- 2.59 I 6.55 +- 1.53 J 3.79 +- 0.76 K 8.41 +- 1.36 L 16.19 +- 4.78 PL 10.34 +- 2.90 HS 24.39 +- 4.56 HB 11.05 +- 2.80 RL 4.41 +- 1.03 RL 5.32 +- 1.42 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 20.13 +- 4.59 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 9.57 +- 2.41 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 9.94 +- 3.15 Background (8-23 mi.) 11.17 +- 4.15 ep em er 1, 1987, Rev. 1 E-4
Table 4 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #4 1983 Micro-R/
SIA11An Hour f- 2 Sigma CP' 20.19 +- 8,10 CR 21.69 +- 6.81 CS 69.86 +- 13.81 ER 16.49 +- 3.26 EH 63.21 +- 18.04 KS 27.56 +- 3.61 MB 26.61 +- 5.74 ME -4.99 +- -1.16 MP 22.25 '
+- 7.44 MS 41.11 +- 15.14 NP 56.06 +- 16.95 PC 43.65 +- 24.86 SA 13.95 +- 4.46 SP 29.00 +- 7.84 SS 44.28 +- 11.50 HR 25.05 +- 8.39 BD 17.59 +- 8.45 EB 69.16 +- 36.22 EN 32.32 +- 8.18 MT 18.02 +- 6.23 OA 47.83 +- 17.73 PA 20.76 +- 3.89 P8 28.00 +- 8.36 WH 35.75 +- 15.20 A 31.91 +- 12.54 8 81.74 +- 20.26 C -1.47 +- -0.46 0 31.69 +- 8.53 E 28.43 +- 13.26 F 25.89 +- 7.84 G 20.67 +- 10.33 H 46.92 +- 17.97 I 52.27 +- 25.80 J 23.12 +- 3.44 ,
K 35.47 +- 6.63 '
L 26.81 +- 5.11 PL 55.88 +- 13.75 HS 54.76 +- 11.02 HB 38.44 +- 11.10 RL 4.79 +- 2.24 ,
RL 4.55 +- 0.89 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
i Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 37.85 +- 13.17 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 35.63 +- 16.01 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 33.36 +- 12.23 Background (8-23 mi.) 43.65 +- 13.56 eND - No data due to missing TLD.
September 1, 1987, Rev. 1 '
E-5
, Table 5 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #4 1983 l
Mic r o- R/
Station Hour g- 2 Siama CP 22.30 +- 5.55 CR 10.75 +- 2.68 CS 4.98 +- 1.24 ER 10.91 +- 2.72 EH 15.63 +- 3.22 KS 21.74 +- 5.42 MB 12.04 +- 3.00 ME 17.89 +- 4.46 HP 13.16 +- 3.27 MS 11.23 +- 2.80 HP 12.20 +- 3.04 PC 4.58 +- 1.14 SA 10.75 +- 2.68 SP 12.17 +- 3.12 SS 6.50 +- 1.62
- WR 13.80 +- 3.44 BD 10.82 +- 2.69 l EB 10.59 v- 2.64 EM 10.35 +- 2.58 MT 14.28 +- 3.56 OA 11.23 +- 2.80 PA 14.20 +- 3.53 PB 7.70 +- 1.92 HH 10.59 +- 2.64 A 7.86 +- 1.96 B 10.75 +- 2.68 C 12.92 +- 3.22 0 10.75 +- 2.68 E 12.35 +- 3.07 F 12.60 +- 3.14 G 9.95 +- 2.48 H 7.94 +- 1.98 I 3.05 +- 0.76 J 9.31 +- 2.32 K 28.32 +- 7.05 L 22.70 +- 5.65 PL 16.05 +- 4.00 HS 13.00 +- 3.24 HB 10.67 +- 2.66 RL 10.43 +- 2.60 RL 13.64 +- 3.39 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 11.54 +- 2.87 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 11.55 +- 2.88 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 13.10 +- 3.26 Background (8-23 mi.) 12.60 +- 3.14 October 28,1987, Rev. 2 E-6
- s TABLE 6 GAMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #1 1984 Micro-R/
'. ' Station _ Hour 1- 2 Sigma CP 11.88 +- 2.75
. - CR 16.03 +- 3.28
- b. CS 3.58 +- 5.67 ER 11.34 +- 4.66 EH 14.07 +- 2.23 KS 14.72 +- 6.30 MB 17.37 +- 5.38 ME 2.73 +- 1.03 MP 19.37 +- 6.15 MS 22.17 e- 5.18 NP 12.87 +- 3.50 PC 10.99 +- 4.53 SA 29.35 +- 6.17 SP 14.80 +- 3.04 SS 14.31 +- 5.04 HR 18.23 +- 3.32 ED 11.46 +- 1.98 EB 16.34 +- 3.10 EM 18.42 +- 4.96 MT 11.70 e +- 2.87 OA 37.33 +- 8.00 PA 15.55 +- 4.13 PB 35.36 +- 5.79 WH 10.87 +- 2.45 A 12.19 +- 4.72 B 18.52 +- 5.83 C 15.50 +- 5.61 D 12.45 +- 4.80 E 13.40 +- 4.45 F 10.12 +- 2.25 G 16.62 +- 3.99 H 21.82 +- 3.34 I 10.73 +- 3.02 J 8.97- +- 3.12 K 13.62 +- 2.06 L 24.03 +- 6.48 PL 16.09 +- 3.52 HS 41.46 +- 5.99 HB 15.75 +- 3.66 RL 18.22 +- 8.10 RL 19.70 +- 4.43 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near'Diant (0 .16 mi.) 32.43 +- 7.08 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 14.90 +- 4.13 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 13.97 +- 4.37 Background (8-21 mi.) 15.42 +- 5.26 August 1, 1986 Rev. 1 E-7
, TA8LE 7 GAMMA EXPOSURE (Tl')) DATA FOR QUARTER #21984 Micro-R/
Station Hour +- 2 Siama CP 30.77 +- 12.21 CR 7.12 +- 2.55 CS 4.74 +- 1.70 ER 3.60 +- 1.36 EH 4.21 +- 1.40 KS 3.27 +- 6.98 HB 4.29 +- 1.46 HE 13.16 +- 6.60 HP 7.83 +- 4.76 HS 8.18 +- 4.94 NP 8.04 +- 3.95 PC 0.32 +- 0.21 SA 5.79 +- 3.76 SP 4.49 +- 1.50 SS 2.67 +- 1.34 HR 6.66 +- 2.19 B0 4.23 +- 1.36 EB 7.77 +- 4.27 EH 3.08 +- 9.72 HT 3.50 +- 1.58 OA 3.76 +- 7.89 PA 21.46 +- 11.36 PB 37.63 +- 4.31 HH 5.20 +- 2.41 A 3.58 +- 1.50 B 5.67 +- 0.77 C 7.39 +- 1.32 0 3.66 +- 1.66 E 5.79 +- 2.33 F 6.62 +- 0.59 G 5.73 +- 1.13 H 9.60 +- 1.30 I 16.76 +- 15.34 J 28.60 +- 7.45 K 43.78 +- 4.39 L 35.04 +- 8.93 PL 10.22 +- 3.66 HS 20.78 +- 7.98 HB 8.26 +- 3.58 RL 5.28 +- 2.41 RL 7.98 +- 0.95 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 30.34 +- 9.55 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 7.06 +- 4.68 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 13.54 +- 6.80 Background (8-21 mi.) 11.86 +- 4.76 August 1, 1986 Rev. 1 E-8
_ -- - - - - - - -- -]
TABLE 8 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #3 1984 Micro-R/
Station _ Hour t- 2 Siama CP 12.63 +- 3.14 CR 15.61 +- 4.35 CS 3.72 +- 0.77 ER 14.20 +- 3.70 EW 18.97 +- 4.47 KS 18.00 +- 8.10 MB 17.23 +- 6.09 HE 3.58 +- 1.26 MP 19.90 +- 6.78 MS 29.70 +- 1.24 NP 12.50 +- 2.91 PC 13.97 +- 4.60 SA 31.42 +- 6.96 SP 16.03 +- 3.64 SS 15.12 +.. 5.06 HR 19.88 +- 3.16 BD 14.13 +- 3.12~
EB 18.72 +- 6.17 EM 15.89 +- 8.54 MT 13.08 +- 3.48 OA 39.88 +- 10.28 PA 22.43 +- 4.07 PB 41.44 +- 10.00 NH 15.81 +- 5.16 A 17.98 +- 6.70 B 18.66 +- 9.31 C 16.98 +- 5.08 D 15.34 +- 4.92 E 15.59 +- 4.53 F 13.14 +- 5.08 G 22.12 +- 5.10 H 20.95 +- 8.54 I 13.70 +- 6.94 J 11.68 +- 3.99 K 14.74 +- 3.20 L 23.66 +- 8.52 PL 15.59 +- 4.90 HS 42.21 +- 15.53 HB 16.68 +- 5.34 RL 28.14 +- .22 kL 3.62 +- 1.38 Ge9 graphical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 36.50 +- 12.43 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 16,88 +- 5.97 01stant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 15.34 +-
6.09 Background (8-21 mi.) 18.02 +- 6.70 August 1, 1986 Rev. 1 E-9
TABLE 9 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #4 1984 Micro-R/
Station Hour n 2 Sigma CP 26.48 +- 6.42 CR 4.60 +- 2.04 CS 3.72 +- 2.10 ER 8.02 +- 3.38 EM 7.45 +- 2.31 KS 21.32 +- 1.09 MB 6.48 +- 2.19 ME 7.65 +- 2.87 MP 7.51 +- 3.08 MS 5.38 +- 1.96 NP 6.92 +- 2.41 PC 3.14 +- 1.36 SA 5.34 +- 2.19 SP 11.78 +- 2.06 SS 6.60 +- 1.36 MR -
2.91 +- 1.07 B0 1.30 +- 7.49 E8 ND* +- NO EM 3.64 +- 1.17 MT 4.29 +- 2.49 OA 12.71 +- 3.54 PA 1.98 +- 1.40 PB 21.01 +- 6.86 MH 9.62 +- 3.66 A 4.29 +- 1.38 8 8.26 +- 2.02 C 4.55 +- 1.38 D ND +- ND E 4.86 +- 0.89 F 5.73 +- 1.01 G 7.35 +- 1.68 11 5.46 +- 2.06 I 18.16 +- 9.03 J ND +- ND K 19.78 +- 9.70 L 10.79 +- 4.01 PL 6.34 +- 4.11 MS 13.68 +- 7.27 i H8 7.65 +- 2.45 RL 4.07 +- 1.96 RL 3.91 +- 1.92
- ND -- No data due to missing TLD. Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 12.35 +- 6.17 ,
Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 7.00 +- 3.32 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 9.76 +- 5.20 Background (8-21 mi.) 9.45 +- 6.68 August 1, 1986 Rev. 1 E-10
Table 10 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #1 1985 Micro-R/
Sfation HOE _ - 2_11qM CP 8.89 +- 2.50 CR 12.76 +- 14.24 CS 4.64 +- 1.31 ER 9.56 +- 3.83 EH 12.02 +- 4.29 KS 14.76 +- 4.72 MB 2.28 +- 0.78 HE 5.40 +- 2.41 HP 11.16 +- 5.82 HS 15.97 +- 4.40 ..
NP 7.71 +- 1.79 PC 9.36 +- 2.20 '
SA 23.80 +- 6.06 SP 6.21 +- 2.06 SS 11.68 +- 4.17 HR 13.71 +- 3.48 ,
BD 10.80 +- 2.55 '
EB ND* +- ND i EM 7.01 +- 2.53 i HT 1.95 +- 0.47 OA 18.34 +- 5.44 PA 9.90 +- 6.02 PB 15.00 +- 3.19 HH 6.26 +- 1.92 A 9.47 +- 3.83 8 0.43 +- 0.15 C 12.18 +- 3.95 D ND +- ND E 11.65 +- 6.57 F 7.60 +- 4.61 G 14.54 +- 3.74 H 12.01 +- 3.19 I 11.39 +- 4.29 J ND +- ND K 11.28 +- 2.34 L 10.26 +- 2.35 PL 13.86 +- 3.36 HS 9.82 +- 2.21 HB 12.75 +- 5.21 RL 1.74 +- 0.53 RL 2.55 +- 0.82 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 13.26 +- 4.22 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 9.02 +- 3.48 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 3.44 +- 2.82 Background (8-23 mi.) 13.80 +- 4.10
- ND - No data due to missing TLD.
September 1, 1987 Rev. 1 E-11 ,
- _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
Table 11 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #2 1985 Micro-R/
Station Hour +- 2 Siama CP 14.54 +- 3.60 CR 4.20 +- 1.86 CS 5.08 +- 2.00 ER 2.82 +- 1.24 EH '.08 +- 0.52 KS 13.01 +- 2.56 MB 0.34 +- 0.18 HE 1.18 +- 0.49 HP 5.37 +- 2.26 HS 2.98 +- 1.27 NP 5.33 +- 1.94 PC 3.27 +- 1.30 SA 0.72 +- 0.41 SP 3.34 +- 1.94 SS 2.90 +- 0.69 HR 3.41 +- 1.21 BD 3.62 +- 1.89 EB 2.02 +- 0.46 EM 3.56 +- 1.22 HT 3.65 +- 1.94 OA 18.48 +- 8.73 PA 6.54 +- 3.42 PB 8.08 +- 3.92 HH 5.50 +- 2.37 A 0.49 +- 0.12 B 1.31 +- 0.37 C 5.24 +- 1.33 0 0.84 +- 0.34 E 4.31 +- 0.40 F 3.60 +- 0.55 G 6.70 +- 2.30 H 6.38 +- 1.97 I 4.54 +- 1.02 J 0.44 +- 0.53 K 20.46 +- 4.84 L 13.47 +- 2.53 PL 5.!0 +- 1.60 HS 11.25 +- 4.78 HB 6.60 +- 0.53 RL 3.22 +- 1.33 RL 5.50 +- 3.01 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 11.09 +- 5.21 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 4.35 +- 1.25 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 5.25 +- 1.61 Background (8-23 mi.) 4.97 +- 1.37 September 1, 1987 Rev. 1 E-12 ,
Table 12 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #3 1985 Micro-R/
Station Hour -
2 Siam _1 CP 18.86 +- 2.64 CR 9.01 +- 1.74 CS 3.54 +- 0.58 ER 7.19 +- 1.77 EH 7.28 +- 0.81 KS 7.24 +- 1.51 HB 15.36 +- 3.33 HE 5.07 +- 1.98 HP 10.72 +- 1.79 HS 17.64 +- 2.69 NP 6.02 +. 1.16 PC 5.16 +- 1.24 SA 14.48 +- 2.03 SP 9.48 +- 0.53 SS 8.61 +- 1.17 HR 11.82 +- 1.83 BD 8.61 +- 1.37 EB 9.12 +- 1.80 EM 10.87 +- 1.89 HT 9.47 +- 1.54 OA 25.23 +- 4.09 PA 8.49 +- 2.08 PB 18.96 +- 3.42 HH 10.00 +- 3.28 A 8.18 +- 2.21 B 10.41 +- 2.93 C 9.67 +- 1.83 0 8.14 +- 2.49 E 9.04 +- 1.57 F 10.26 +- 2.29 G 9.99 +- 1.39 H 12.17 +- 0.53 I 6.37 +- 0.53 J 4.69 +- 1.24 K 6.60 +- 1.05 L 17.32 +- 2.67 PL 10.06 +- 2.03 HS 2E.01 +- 5.18 HB 0.00 +- 0.00 RL 3.50 +- 0.56 RL 2.35 +- 0.46 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 19.44 +- 3.69 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 9.28 +- 1.70 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 9.86 +- 1.92 Background (8-23 mi.) 8.14 +- 1.23 September 1, 1987 Rev. 1 E-13
Table 13 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #4 1985 Micro-R/
Station Hour +- 2 Siama CP 12.02 +- 3.50 CR 5.01 +- 1.56 CS 4.14 +- 1.33 ER 2.40 +- 0.96 EH 4.96 +- 1.63 KS 15.33 +- 3-06 MB 5.45 +- 1.13 HE 3.74 +- 1.27 HP 3.92 +- 1.18 HS 2.61 v- 0.92 NP 5.91 +- 2.32 PC 2.53 +- 0.58 SA 7.08 +- 2.00 SP 8.18 +- 1.92 SS 1.42 +- 0.41 HR 7.74 +- 1.56 BD 10.57 +- 3.21 EB 2.00 +- 0.43 EM 1.92 +- 0.61 HT 4.69 +- 1.22 OA 20.60 +- 5.48 PA 7.51 +- 3.07 PB 10.17 +- 1.65 HH 6.06 +- 1.60 A 7.94 +- 2.15 B 15.60 +- 2.52 C 5.42 +- 0.98 0 0.00 +- 0.00 E 4.44 +- 0.69 F 4.60 +- 0.73 G 5.91 +- 1.50 H 7.77 +- 2.00 I 1.46 +- 0.50 J 2.26 +- 0.23 K 18.69 +- 2.89 L 20.54 +- 3.82 PL 3.25 +- 0.35 HS 9.96 +- 1.22 HB ND' +- ND RL 1.79 +- 0.27 RL 1.59 +- 0.43 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 12.06 +- 2.86 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 6.17 +- 1.51 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 5.65 +- 1.88 Background (8-23 mi.) 7.88 +- 2.20
- ND - No data due to missing TLD.
September 1, 1987 Rev. 1 E-14
Table 14 GAKMA EXP05UNE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #1 1986
. Micro-R/
Station Hour g- 2_Siama L
CP 16.28 +- 4.48 CR 18.35 +- 5.05 CS 10.80 +- 2.97 ,
ER 15.39 +- 4.24 EH 17.33 +- (.77 20.27 KS +- 5.58 MB 21.74 +- 5.90 ,
ME 15.37 +- 4.23 MP 16.57 +- 4.56 i MS 15.69 +- 4.32 NP 23.23 +- 6.40 PC 13.94 +- 3.84 SA 26.34 +- 7.25 SP 18.92 +- 5.21 SS 17.48 +- 4.81 HR 21.02 +- 5.79 80 19.10 +- 5.26 EB 18.65 +- 5.13 EM 13.00 +- 3.58 HT 17.44 +- 4.80 OA 25.45 +- 7.01
> PA 16.74 +- 4.61 P8 26.03 +- 7.17 HH 12.44 +- 3.42 A.. 16.15 +- 4.45 B 18.21 +- 5.01 C 18.67 +- 5.14 0 11.99 +- 3,30
- E 21.74 +- 5.99 F 14.04 +- 3.86 G 18.34 +- 5.05 H 9.63 +- 2.65 I 13.61 +- 3.75 J 14.65 +- 4.03 K 17.30 +- 4.76 L 25.0i +- 6.89 .
PL 19.82 +- 5.46 HS 29.58 +- 8.14 HB 16.26 +- 4.48
- RL 1.61 +- 0.44 PL 1.48 +- 0.41 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 24.45 +- 6.73 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 17.16 +- 4.72 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 17.02 +- 4.69 Background (8-21 mi.) 18.68 +- 5.14 E-15
Table 15 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #2 1986 Micro-R/
Station Ho u t_ t- l_11sta CP 26.35 +- 12.46 CR 8.27 +- 3.91 CS 15.53 +- 7.34 ,
ER 12.14 +- 5.74 EW 13.46 +- 6.36 KS 21.46 +- 10.14 MB 11.25 +- 5.32 HE 16.85 +- 7.96 MP 14.94 +- 7.06 HS 13.64 +- 6.45 NP 15.08 +- 7.13 PC 8.91 +- 4.21 SA 11.85 +- 5.50 SP 14.53 +- 6.87 SS 13.00 +- 6.14 HR 14.08 +- 6.66 80 12.41 +- 5.87 EB 10.94 +- 5.17 EH 12.13 +- 5.73 MT 13.61 +- 6.43 OA 12.45 +- 5.88 PA 15.08 +- 7.13 PB 19.35 +- 9.15 HH 13.30 +- 6.29 A 14.80 +- 7.00 B 19.83 +- 9.37 C 15.56 +- 7.36 D ND* +- ND E 12.56 +- 5.94 F 13.46 +- 6.36 G 17.20 +- 8.13 H 15.12 +- 7.15 I 9.91 +- 4.68 J 10.66 +- 5.04 K 30.94 +- 14.63 L 31.23 +- 14.76 PL 11.56 +- 5.46 HS 18.80 *- 8.89 HB 17.01 +- 8.04 RL 0.88 +- 0.42 PL 1.78 +- 0.84 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 16.42 +- 7.76 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 15.6C +- 7.37 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 15.30 +- 7.23 Background (8 21 mi.) 15.56 +- 7.36
- ND - No Data due to missing TLD.
1 E-16
Table 16 GAMMA EXPOSURE (TLD) DATA'FOR QUARTER #3 1986 Micro-R/
Station Hour 1- 2 Sigma CP 5.33 +- 1.16 1.06 CR 4.88 +-
CS 9.32 +- 2.02 ER 5.48 +- 1.19
- EH 10.06 +- 2.18 KS 4.88 +- 1.06 ,
H8 5.03 +- 1.09 HE 9.77 +- 2.12
.HP 5.33 +- 1.16 HS 6.36 +- 1.38 NP 7.40 +- 1.60 PC 4.14 +- 0.90 SA 3.85 +- 0.83 L SP 12.58 +- 2.73 SS 7.84 +- 1.70 WR 5.48 +- 1.19 BD 5.33 +- 1.16 EB 5.03 +- 1.09 EH 6.07 +- 1.32 HT 6.81 +- 1.48 .
0A 13.76 +- 2.98 PA 10.80 +- 2.34 PB 15.54 +- 3.37 HH 9.62 +- 2.08 A 5.62 +- 1.22 B 6.07 +- 1.32 C 11.54 +- 2.50 j 0 7.99 +- 1.73 '
E- 3 11 +- 6.74 F 4.14 +- 0.90 G 5.03 +- 1.09 H 4.44 +. 0.96 i I 5.92 +- 1.28 i J 3.55 +- 0.77 K 4.14 +- f.90 L 4.74 +- 1.03 PL 4.06 +- 0.88 HS 4.83 +- 1.05 HB 4.59 +- 0.99
! RL 3.26 +- 0.71 PL 7.70 +- 1.67 Geographical Regional Averages for this period are:
Near Plant (0~.16 mi.) 11.23 +- 2.43 Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 5.71 +- 1.24 :
Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 6.45 +- 1.40 Background (8-21 mi.) 7.03 +- 1.52 ,
t i
E-17 l
i
' Tabl e 17 l GAMMA EXPOSURE.(TLD) DATA FOR QUARTER #4 1986 Exposure Rate Corrected Station (Micro R/hr) +- 2 Sigma I CP 22.30 +- 5.55 CR 10.75 +- 2.68 CS 4.98 +- 1.24 ER 1 0.91 +- 2.72 1 EW 15.63 +- -3.22 KS 21.74 +- 5.42 '
MB 12.04 +- 3.00 t ME 17.89 +- 4.46 MP -
13.16 +- 3.27
'MS 11.23 +- 2.80 NP 12.20 +- 3,04 PC 4.58 +- 1.14 SA 10.75 +- 2.68 SP 12.17 +- 3.12 :
SS 6.50 +- 1.62 :
WR 13.80 +-. 3.44 I BD- 10.82 +- 2.69 i EB 10.59 +- 2.64 ;
EM 10.35 +- 2.58 ;
MT 14.28 +- 3.56 i OA 11.23 +- 2.80 ;
PA 14.20 +- 3.53 ,
PB 7.70 +- 1.92 WH 10.59 +- 2.64 A 7.86 +- 1.96 3 B 10.75 +- 2.68 C 12.92 +- 3.22 l D 10.75 +- 2.68 L E 12.35 +- 3.07 l F 12.60 +- 3.14 !
G 9.95 +- 2.48 i H 7.94 +- 1.98 !
! 3,05 +- 0.76 I J 9.31 +- 2.32 i K 28.32 +- 7.05 ;
i L 22.70 +- 5.65 -t i PL 16.05 +- 4.00 WS 13.00 +- 3.24 !
HB 10.67 +- 2.66 i RL 10.43 +- 2.60 t PL 13.64 +- 3.39 [
Geographical Regional Averages for this period are: 7 Near Plant (0 .16 mi.) 11.54 +- 2.87 )
Exclusion Area (.25 .68 mi.) 11.55 +- 2.88 Distant Nbrhood (.7-6.5 mi.) 13.10 +- 3.26 a Background (8-21 Mi.) 12.60 +- 3.14 r
E-18 10/28/87, Rev.1 :
I
APPENDIX F QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL HONITORING PROGRAM
ADPENDIX F QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM I. Introduction The accuracy of the data obtained through Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is ensured through a comprehensive Quality Assurance Program. This appendix addresses those aspects of quality assurance that deal with the accuracy and precision of the analytical sample results and the environmental TLD measurement results that are obtained by Boston Edison from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Environmental Laboratory (YAEL). Much of the information contained herein has been summarized from the YAEL "Quarterly Status Report: April - June 1987," and the YAEL "Semi-Annual Quality Assurance Status Report: July - December 1987."
II. Laboratory Analyses Three separate Quality Assurance studies were performed during 1987 to demonstrate the validity of laboratory analyses by the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL).
- 1) YAEL participates in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Interlaboratory Comparison (crc +,s-check) program for those types of samples routinely analyzed by the laboratory. This provides an independent check of accuracy and precision of the laboratory analysis. When the results of the cross-check analysis fall outside of the control limit, an investigation is made to determine the cause of the problem, and corrective measures are taken, as appropriate.
- 2) YAEL maintains an interlaboratory quality control program to assure the validity and reliability of the data. This program includes quality control of laboratory equipment, use of reference standards for calibration, and analysis of blank and spiked samples. The records of the quality control program are reviewed by the responsible cognizant individual, and corrective measures are taken, as appropriate.
- 3) A blind duplicate program is maintained in which paired samples from the five sponsor companies, including Boston Edison, are prepared from homogeneous media and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The results from this blind duplicate program are used to check for precision in laboratory analyses.
The results of these studies are discussed below.
F-1
A. YAEL Intralaboratory and EPA Interlaboratory Results The results of the Quality Assurance Program are reported in two separate categories based upon YAEL acceptance criteria. The first criterion concerns accuracy, which is defined as the deviation of any one result from the assumed known value. The second criterion concerns precision, which deals with the ability of the measurement to be faithfully replicated by a comparison of an individual result to the mean of all results for a given sample set. In addition to evaluating all individual samples against the YAEL acceptance criteria, if the mean result of an EPA cross-check analysis exceeds the 3-sigma control limit (as defined by the EPA in their known value summary report) an investigation is conducted by YAEL personnel to determine the reason for the deviation.
The Quality Assurance Program implemented at the analytical laboratory indicated good precision and accuracy in reported values. Table I shows the cumulative results of accuracy and precision for laboratory analyses in 1987 for intralaboratory analyses and EPA interlaboratory cross-check onalyses. For accuracy, 61.7 and 87.4 percent of the results were within 5 and 10 percent of the known values, respectively, with 96.2 percent of all results falling within the laboratory criterion of 15 percent. For precision, 86.4 and 97.5 percent of the results were within 5 and 10 percent of the mean, respectively, with 99.6 percent of all results meeting the laboratory criterion of 15 percent.
The results of the EPA Interlaboratory Comparison program, when considered apart from the remainder of the Quality Assurance program, were satisfactory with respect to accura;y and precision in 1987. One hundred and sixty-eight analyses were performed on air particulate filters, milk, food, urine, and water. Based upon this sample analysis total, 166 analyses (i.e., 99.0 percent) met the EPA's definition of mean value criteria. The sample analyses that did not meet the criteria were Ru-106 analysis in a water sample and a gross beta analysis, also in a water sample. A recount of the beta samples yielded measurements that met the above criteria.
B. Blind Duelicate Program A total of 49 paired samples were submitted by the five sponsor companies for analysis during 1987. The database used for the duplicate analysis consisted of paired measurements of 26 gamma-emitting nuclides, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, low-level I-131 and gross beta. A dual level criteria for agreement was established:
if the paired measurements fall within i 15 percent of their average value, then agreement between the measurements has been met. If the value falls outside of the i 15 percent, then a two standard deviation range (95 percent confidence level) is established for each of the analyses. If the ranges overlap, agreement is obtained.
From the 49 paired samples, one thousand, two hundred and forty-two paired duplicate measurements were analyzed for 1987. A total of F-2
i Table 1 Intralaboratory and EPA Interlaboratory Results - 1987 TOTAL NUMBER CATAGORY OF MEASUREMENTS Q-31 0-101 0-15%*
Accuracy 729 450 637 701 !
(61.7%) (87.4%) (96.2%)
Precision 721 623 703 718 (86.4%) (97.5%) (99.6%)
This category also contains those samples having a verified zero concentration which were analyzed and found not to contain detectable levels of the nuclide of interest, t
F-3
99.5 percent of all measurements fell cithin the established criteria discussed above. The six measurements that did not meet the criteria were measurements of Ag-110H in milk, ho-99 in milk, Fe-59 in groundwater, Sb-124 in estuary water, Fe-59 in seawater, and Ho-99 in mussel bodies. In all of the above cases, the radionuclide in question was not detected in the sample and a .th s standard deviation acceptance criteria was met. The six duplicate measurements represent 0.5 percent of all the blind duplicate paired measurements made during 1987. No trend was evident with respect to repeated failings of measurements for the above radionuclides.
III. Environmental TLD Heasurements Two separate Quality Assurance studies were performed during 1987 to demonstrate the performance of the routine environmental dosimetry processing by YAEL. The quality of the dosimetric results is evaluated relative to independent third party testing and internal performance testing. These tests were performed totally independent of the processing of environmental TLDs at YAEL. In all of these tests, dosimeters were irradiated to known doses and submitted to YAEL for processing as unknowns. The Quality Assurance studies provide a statistical measure of accuracy, precision and consistency of the processing against a reliable standard, which in turn points out any trends or changes in performance.
YAEL began performance testing of the Panasonic environmental TLDs in July 1987. The testing that YAEL performed was both internal performance testing and testing by an independent third party. Boston Edison conducted quarterly tests on the environmental TLDs via an independent third party during 1987.
A. Intralaboratory and Independent Yhird Party Results A formalized YAEL acceptance criteria was not established for the Panasonic environmental program in 1987; however, there is a i 30 percent accuracy acceptance standard under field conditions as recommended by ANSI 545-1975, "American National Standard Performance, Testing and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (Environmental Applications)" which was applied. Acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision to be used in 1988 was adopted by the Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee (LQCAC) on November 13, 1987. Recognizing the inherent variability associated with each dosimeter type, control limits for both accuracy and precision of i 3 sigma plus 5 percent (for bias) were set by the LQCAC. The actual magnitude of the 3 sigma plus 5 percent control limits depends on the historical performance of euch type of dosimeter, with each response being indicative of random and systematic uncertainties, combined with any deviation attributable to TLD operation.
The results of the TLD Quality Assurance Study are reported in the categories of accuracy and precision. Accuracy was calculated by comparing each discrete reported dose to the known or delivered dose. The deviation of individual results relative to the mean reported dose in used as a measure of precision. l l
F-4
The Quality Assurance Progran implemented for d:simetry prccessing indicated good precision and accuracy in the reported values. In 1987, there were thirteen quality control tests. Performance statistics associated with the approximately 150 discrete dosimeters tested included a mean accuracy of -2.2 percent and associated standard deviation of 5.0 percent. These performance statistics include those dosimeters tested by Boston Edison Company personnel.
B. Boston Edison's TLD QA Program Boston Edison Company personnel evaluate the accuracy of the environmental TLDs on a quarterly basis, per PNPS Station Instruction RP.8010. "Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program."
Thit, instruction establishes acceptance criteria of: 1) the averdge of the percentage differences must be within i 10%; and, 2) no one result can be greater than i 15%. For 1907, all calculated averages of the percentage differences were within the 10% acceptance criterion, and no one result exceeded the 1!% criterion. (See Attachment.)
IV. Conclusions Laboratory analysis results for the EPA Interlaboratory Comparison program, the YAEL intralaboratory quality control program and the sponsor companies blind duplicate program met the laboratory criterion of 15 percent in 99.0 percent or more of all cases.
, The environmental TLD measurements for intralaboratory and independent third party comparisons resulted in a mean accuracy of -2,2 percent and an associated standard deviation of 5.0 percent.
Therefore, the quality assurance programs for the Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program indicated that the analysis and measurements which were performed by Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory during 1987 exhibited acceptable precision and accuracy.
I F-5
OFFICE MEMORANDUM >
Boston Edison Company To: J. P. Jens From: C. E. Bowman W Record Type A4.08 Date: March 8, 1988 Dept. Doc. REG 88-24 Non-Safety Related
Subject:
RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL TLD QUALITY ASSURANCE i PROGRAN TESTS FOR 1987 :
Distribution:
l
- 8. J. Dionne S. M. Reilly 1.. E. Whittenberger P. Robinson T. Sowdon
Attachment:
Environmental TLD QA Program: Sumary of 1987 Test Results In accordance with PNPS Station Instructic= SI-RP.8010. "Environmental TLD Quality Asturance Program," the accuracy of the TLDs used in the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program is evaluated on a quarterly basis. This memo describes the QA Testing Program and addresses the results of the quarterly tests. All quarterly results were within the acceptance criteria established in the above procedure.
The pror:edure for implementation of the TLD QA program involves submission of 20 sets of TLDs (each quarter) to Atlan-Tech Incorporated, Roswell, Georgia, where a pre-calibrated radiation exposure is delivered to each set of badges.
Each "set" consists of one Panasonic U0-801 TLD and one Panasonic UD-814 TLD.
Radiation exposures delivered to the Environmental TLDs during the 1987 testing program are as follows: first quarter, 63 mR; second quarter, 70 mR; third quarter, 93 mR; and fourth quarter, 20 mR. In each group of TLDs, two ,
sets are not irradiated, but are used as controls.
After irradiation, the TLDs are returned to Boston Edison's Braintree office.
At the end of each quarter, the badges are forwarded to the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory (YAEL) for processing along with the TLDs that are retrieved from around the plant. The QA TLDs are processed with the routine end-of-quarter environmental TLDs to ensure that the QA TLDs are processed in the same manner as the routine TLDs. Next, the reported exposures are compared to the delivered exposures, and the percentage difference is calculated. This calculation is documented on Attachment 9-1 of SI-RP.8010, "Environmental TLD QA Exposure Record." (See Attachment A.) The acceptance criteria are: 1) the average of the percentage differences must be within a 101, and, 2) no one result can be greater than
OCUWEN7 8JD/cic RETEi' SED MAR 22198J FOR USE
% 40 m iTow' i F-6 !
t
TO: J. P. Jens From: C. E. Bowman Date: March 8, 1988 Page: 2
Subject:
RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL TLD QA PROGRAM TESTS FOR 1987 For the 1987 Environmental TLD QA program quarterly tests, all calculated averages of the percentage differences were within the 10% acceptance criteria. Additionally, no single value exceeded the 15% criteria. The quarterly environmental TLD QA results are listed in the table below.
ENVIRONNENTAL TLD QUALITY ASSURANCE N M SIM4ARY OF QUARTERLY RESULTS FOR 1967 QUARTER # OF TLD DELIVERED PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCES SETS EXPOSURE (mR) AVERAGE HIGHEST INDIVIDUAL IRRADIATED First 15 63 4.75 10.4 Second 18 70 1.1 6.4 Third 18 93 1.9 4.5 Fourth 18 20 3.3 15.0 It should be noted that the results from one of the QA TLD sets for the Fourth Quarter test showed a percentage difference of exactly 15%, which, although acceptable per the criteria set forth in the procedure, was investigated and the results discussed with YAEL personnel. A review of the five individual TLD element readings and their respective glow curves was performed by YAEL personnel. The measurement results were found to be acceptable and met the YAFL procedural acceptance criteria. (See Attachment B.)
If you have any questions concerning.the above, please contact C. E. Bowman, (Braintree X8934) or 8. J. Dionne (Braintree X8933).
F-7
Attachment A (p. l' of 4)
ENVIROWENTAL TLD CA EXPOSURE REcong
/ QUARTER YEAR: f / /f//
Date of Irradiation: 3/b3AF Source: de-/37 '
Distance of TL0s from source: J-meters.
Configuration: _ #h A N e ;*/=M Exposure Level: 4' 3. 0 mR Irradlation Time: opre-offy: fr i..
Calibrated source strength and date: o_-
A/4. Mem w-/>
p :~ L% m lL& E4A f TLD Oelivered Reported Qty, TLD No. Designation Exposure troosure % Olff Comments mR .
nRIER mRus 1 St 77710/ /3. 0 92 4 SR SM 2 S2- Tf yteZ-
- 12. FD 9
- 2.64 M_+-66 3 f3 re7/e3
~ o. +4 - _:M e,sr%
ft: 974- - 9.19 a S4 787/e1 f.f. 9 +n.IA
'i ST 777Mr 62.479 - 0. 5/
i i $3' Tf7M4 12. e94 -1. ft
< S7 -
r FiM7 fM. 4// -M. 41 8 fr 777/of d /.194 -1.7f 9 S'y 1*r7/e9 ST. Tio -4. A T' 10 to TP7He 4/. re2- -1,99 11 4/ T11/// do. 49 c2 ,s.70 _
13 7(7)n. Co. /23* - 4. rt C3 ff7)t3 57.097 - 6.H 14 s+ rr7M rr az - 1. s t
~
15 cr 1rynr u ,r rz et- ~ t. n s 1\> CC rriffs &* woo d. $ 90 man , l' G7 Tf7na bensat ~ o. e 3- D 4/A 1 \ 1, .. EU AVIRAGE I d'O. o/ - + ff A * /e x i Date Re' ported Exposure Reclived: 4 /f// co.,ieted ey: &A-Sr. Radl61ogical Engineer Revie.ed w: &= - Rad. Ing. Group Leader Date: //FN7 Date: n!df f t F-8 PNPS 5!-RP.8010-7 Rev. 0 Pete 7 of 8
Attachment A (P. 2 of 4) (Nvi%NMENTAL TLD CA EXPOSURE RECORD QUARTER YEAR: ,,2 / /787 Date of Irradiation: r////.r7 Source: '; - /37 f I
~
q Otstance of TL0s from source: /o sieters, Configuraticin: Exposure Level:
- [5M:
a off R Irradiation Time: #. f" -- - ' 4-_ - Calibrated source strength and date:
#/# I4. m 4/.?+//7
- TLD Delivered Reported Qty. TLD No Designation - Exoosure i
1 Olff Exoosure - Comments
.nR .
mR/RR wi Rdelt 1 it t92 not so 91+ sA 453' 19 + o. Asa A/JA. s-t , 2 912 Ao1 3 11 192Ae1
*12.11C
~
+3 sse -W g.j gt i
*19, U 6 +a.213 4 72 192 A04 11.190 + 1.10e
% 14 171Aof 14.1Y2
- 4 194
\ 11 992Aal 12.1Lo + f 2 91
< 9//98 11 * ^=9 22.9BC
- L 4fa S 14.3 rs3 Air 49. 317 =1.033 i
9 141 911AM Th.Jfd +e.164 10 112 ty2Alb 1 9. 2 Te
~1.111 11 /r4 fra mi ve 912 +t. sit il /9/ 992A1L 614N
)3 217
~3.208 992 A/J 94.144 14 2tJ
+4. Alt
' t'imt 'sh m +a. s u 15 3M f12 Ais' ~ 9f.cas +L E et 16 2 79 tynAll.
- 41. t17 =lsfit 11 191 RNa b'1 72 152 43.131 18 its- T1145 V V C3,2L1 --^ . ;sm - L Ant
_11 291 211730 CartL ~ fL 40 ' 20 2 et 191reo M its- 3'9.21 AVERACE
+ /. /17 W W
- t sa A .
Date Re' ported Exposure Received: M /7 /ff7
! Coepleted by: 1_c - Reviewed by: kwu -- --
Sr. Aldlological Engineer Rad. Tng. Group Leader i Date: 7////P7 Date: 73r/rp i i 1 PNPS $1-RP.8010-7 Rev. O F-9 Page 7 of 8 I
Attachment A (P. 3 of 4) ATTACHMENT 1 ENv!RowCNTAL TLD CA EXPOSURE RECORD i QUARTER YEAR: 3 ' / /187 ,, Date of rradtation: 7/ise) Source: O d[ Otstance of TL0s from source: /.O nters. Conf 1guratton: ftce A:s r,u,, J; n r t w Exposure Level: 97.9 %R Irradiation Time: s.o ' Calibrated source strength :.nd date: f/r 4//, m f/ art e p TLD Delivered Reported Qty. TLD No. Designation Exposure Eroosure 7,Diff. Comments f oi / SIT sR . R/HR w Rht 1 4t l /ffi~ A7 3 f 8 f a.otsv 9 ,e hd.t. - 4. 6 m // C ri 2 ma i_ l 4R t A7 7 f a 1. < 1111 _f.331 i . . A. T u r, 3 Ea t 'l a ti es t w a t w,, 8 0 - f. i rf p_ 4 man i un aserae a,.4o - 4 . 2 n v. 5 var 1 4ro atteer 2e - . . .# p , v. 6 4al l et t Ri t 1bL n o .1 % e 1rct 1 422/441 11 t RD #1.64 . l .4 ft % 7 4aeffff a% P tr a e 91.si -a.ts 7. p 49e/414 SST1af 93.Aa .3 . er 3 7. 10 441' / 4 4 <- at t f ee =>.85 - a . o r s v. Il alti/49L es t til is.ff - i.et, L 12 4 111441 m3 t r11 , 41. L 1 e s . 2 fs Y. 13 weel.9e es t ri? er r3 + a . i t e _ v. 14 wert. m3 rn er , e . e > 4 7. 44 2r . _ 15 =$civae marrir stre a . f r a v. 16 mes in s e>a n it ago - r.i .n 7. 11 n on fren altn>> 9s.*C - 1.riu r. 18 m eg / rai d?e fit t/ tr i l 91 c o . a t e *2. 19 ni/r.9- #1, era co uth I ~ h:18) 20 nn / rar stiers m ura.i ~ r sa id AVE R. ACE 4.t:2 s.tJ h 4 :ie% Date Reported Exposure Received: /2sv- A ef/} Completed by: 13/ Sr. Rad % logical Engineer o Reviewed by: @E m= Rad. 4ng. Group Leader Date: n/Vdi- Date: th//[f7 i i F-10
Attachment A
'(P. 4 of 4)
ATTACHMENT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL TLD CA EXPOSURE RECORD QUARTER YEAR: d / Iq f 7_ Date of Irradiation: 12/10/7 7 Source: __ OA - 13 9 Distance of TL0s from source: l.06 meters. Configuration: het in (ll1-Exposure Level: 6.ORO __,R Irradiation Tiene: '7Q me/a , Calibrated source strength and date: 2. 774 Ca' @. 11 / 2 0 / 7 /7 TLD Delivered Reportec Qty. TLD No. Designation Exposure Exposure 1 Diff. Comments mR rnR / H R mR 1 226/326 FN 81 30 9 th 20 0.0 2 2vilaaq t'N 92 19 - ci .o 3 229/22e THA4 31 4 c;.o 4 22:1a31 FWB4 32 + 10 _5 22#2n PNa5 23 +-is #
.6 no/zr> 7948(., ao 0.0 7 24flati v'14 81 Co 0.0 8 M9]m t%BE Gb o. O 9 246/a'io 24499 20 n.0 10 20:1a11 TNAlo no n.o 11 195/292 EN8: 1 ao n.o 12 24i/Jos TH al2 26 o.O 13 29&/.2 % SHeta ni es,o 14 arri/077 e N 814 23 + 10 15 29e/nt t%Am oi + s.o 16 m og/a?g voyAm 20 a.O
, 17 Ar6/Jeb S w 8#'7 al F G.O 18 ata/ata t % 81R u v 22 + 10 19 293/afV 8'N TA0 nenTEOL - - 20 ati/Jr.f FN r80 TRAW5 IT- - - AVERAG! 9.3t 5.l'?.(w &ni @ Date Reported Exposure Received: Oa 3 / 19ff Ccepleted by: % A Reviewed by: m: Sr. RapoMgical Engineer Rac.'Er@. Group Leader Oate: }U1d n.19n Date: 3bo/M
, f referente,, oJtsched tuoto to Cf thw yh. 'O M S PNPS SI-RP.8010-7 Rev. O F-11 p g, 7 of g ,
Attachment B (P. 1 of 3) 4 l Meno to: twircemental TID QA Program File Frum: Bruce Dionne y h Date: March 10, 1988 subM: Investigation of 154 Deviation in Fourth Quarter Besults 1 Jim Bohrbacher of MEC was contacted cm March 4, 1988 regarding the data for TLD set raaber 232 for 4Q 1987. (that data exhi-bited a 15% deviatimt between the reported exposure and the delivered exposure for that set of TLDs. Although the acceptanes criteria ses not aw w , it was felt prudent to investigate i this since the accuracy was borderline.) . The results of the DEC investigation are as follows: ] The glow curves (attached) for the five separate TLD elements wi!Ain the set in question were reviewod and found to be accepta-ble. T-tests of the individual element readings pecnidad insuf-ficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the indicated values were statistically different from the mean. Therefore, the reported results are valid. 1 i l, 4 i a d d i 1 n
- F-12 ,
I _.
. Attachment B l (P. 2 of 3) v e_ r h <* n
- e. .
L.
. n
=.
8: as- e e4 J.r m m
- c. m 3 ,uv,, m W F% Q r.g A - .. \
w w N e a: b. 4%
~3 kre m g,,
U 39 E"*3 ab m m ECC N === A LA8 kg
@4 y em. La.s 5 to E L i ~
CL
- 00 C4 sN 8% ove r, ,
W C4 O eN O c. O 4.a- E
=c e.. ca
-3 c.
.. m ~I exs J J A W W e===.
s"e w E w _e 144 44- c4 p g A = Co O - o - o N. ECDP D O => c se* 08 a-L*- 0
-w
' O D e.e m as SS L 4#D eva **
Q A e*.*> La1 dg c4 04 r**e rw M evt I% t% g.4 84 -. ,, c4 LAJ g3 A sM
~ w O =3
'## a.e o M EIS
" sA U 00 DC a
" 2 ELS X LaJ c. 4J- gg A -
e_e W *LS LM C. g o "e aL E evt g.g E
*4 erre e4.*
O O c4 C4 c. #4 4CZp c. D g -s g m -g _J _, W [
>==
A
-- E gg _m O 45 C
- N 5.
= o w
F-13
l Attac!. ment B l (P. 3 of 3)
,e.
m.,. E; - e4 m e4
.=
r m u, n., m
- u. **
as w ,
~
u m
==
- v. u.
=
- = ra.,
c
.s. m m
- a. x
- u. w x, u
- w n w a s
c,
. w c.,
u.
.s e4 c
.v.
.y
=.
E 8 M
- 3. c. $ ~% -3
~
,=,
m d
- x. ..
La. W
. w E ,
t<. . o , o E ".' o ; "' o
=o =, o m.*.*
as-a.
==
t.
.v -
is 7 o . v.
"- (f - ed Z r84 2 F *
c.4 ar e ** g 4 ECD IAS rair- N F *=. D stre w .* Q g D t.4. M s,g,3 EE ** M u. aC
',==
.e ".
so *. un ca sco "e. E ev. x tas E gaa 3= ca
. 04
.v.e e~s%
a.4 c &&A C4 o ce p === eN *D
.ocf r=1 o M ~$ .. - .. o c. -
c e=> 3 m GCs " e au. E E T 22 u. Q =
- 9
=. o l
l l F-14
- 1 I
PNPS Technical Specifications G Section 6.9.C.2 aosmausw i Executive Offices j 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 BECo 88- 075 Ralph G. Bird May 2, 1988 Senior Vice President - Nuclear ll. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Deck Hashington, DC 20555 License DPR-35 Docket 50-293 'I ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT
Dear Sir:
In accordance with the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Technical Specification Section 6.9.C.2, the Boston Edison Company submits the Annual Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program Report for 1987 (Report #20). R. G."Bird b RPH/jcp/1910 Attachment cc: Mr. D. Mcdonald, Project Manager Olvision of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop: 14D1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Hhite Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior NRC Resident Inspector Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
-[
u s}}