HL-4553, Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant Radiological Environ Operation Rept,1996
| ML20138J572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1996 |
| From: | Sumner H SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| ENV-97-078, ENV-97-78, HL-4553, NUDOCS 9705080255 | |
| Download: ML20138J572 (47) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:1 o of .* D \ l Lewis Sumner Southern Nuclear j Vice President Operating Company,Inc. Hatch Pmiect Support 40 invemess Parkway i Post Office Box 1295 i Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Tel 205.992.7774 Fax 205.992." SOUTHERN L COMPANY Energy to Serve YourWorld" April 18, 1997 1 Docket Nos. 50-321 HL-4553 50-366 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ; ATTN: Document ControlDesk I Washington, D.C. 20555 l Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Radioloeical Environmental Operatinz Report for 1996 ; Gentlemen: ) 1 In accordance with Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications, Section 5.6.2, Southern Nuclear Operating Company is submitting the enclosed Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 1996. i If you have any questions in this regard, please contact this oflice at any time. Sincerely, M'h H. L. Sumner, Jr. HLS/WHO ENV-97-078
Enclosure:
Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 1996 cc: (See next page.)
^
9705000255 961231 00\ PDR ADOCK 05000321 ) R PDR
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 April 18,1997 cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. P. H. Wells, Nuclear Plant General Manager NORMS U.S. Nuclear Rerulatorv Commissiort Washinzton. D.C. Mr. K. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission. Rezion 11 Mr. L. A. Reyes, Regional Administrator Mr. B. L. Holbrook, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch State ofGeorgia J. L. Setser, Department of Natural Resources American NuclearInsurers R. A. Oliveira HL-4553
,< _i Enclosure Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Radiological Environmetal Operating Report for 1996 i l I I 1
e e t I I P
)
5 EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 1996 I 2 l I i l l I 1 l ll l i
1 EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT l RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS i i SECIlaR TITLE EAg[
'1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION 2-1 l 3.0 RESULTS
SUMMARY
3-1
- 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4-1 4.1 Airborne 4-4 4.2 Direct Radiation 4-6 4.3 Milk 4-8
) 4.4 Vegetation 4-9 4.5 River Water 4-10 4.6 Fish 4-11 j 4.7 Sediment 4-12 i 5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM 5-1 i
6.0 CONCLUSION
S 6-1 4 9 2 1 9 1 lI 1 i j
e i LIST OF TABLES + TABLE TITLE EAGE t 2-1
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 22 2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 2-5 3-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNL'AL
SUMMARY
3-2 4-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS 4-2 5-1 INTERLABORATORY' COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS 5-2 I i i 11
1 0 l l l LIST OF FIGURES i FIGURE TITLE pgg l l 2-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING l LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY 2-7 2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING ; LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY 2-8 j l 2-3 LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION 2-11 l l I l l b 4 iii
. _ . - _ _ ~ _ . . . . . - _ - - . . - , . . . . - _ . - . . . . -. - - -. . _ . ~ . -.
s i ACRONYMS A2LA American Association of Laboratory Accreditation ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CL Confidence Level EL Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency GPC Georgia Power Company HNP Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant IPC Interlaboratory Comparison Program MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement (s)- NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation ~ Manual 0A Ouality Assurance OC Ouality Control REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program l RL Reporting Level TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specifications i iv
_ - . .- . - m_. _ _ _ ._____ _ ._ - _ _._-_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ l , <* l I L l ECWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT l RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT l 1.0 INTRODUCTION The objectives of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) are to ascertain the levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactivity in the environs of the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) and to assess any radiological impact upon the environment due to plant operation. i t The bases for such an assessment include appropriate comparisons between results obtained at control stations (locations where radiological levels are not expected to be significantly affected by plant operation) with those obtained at indicator stations (locations where it is anticipated that radiological levels are more likely to be affected by plant operation), and comparisons ! between results obtained during preoperation with those obtained during operation. The preoptrational stage of the REMP began with the initial operation of REMP stations in January of 1972. The operational stage began with initial criticality of Unit 1 which was achieved on September 12, 1974. The REMP is conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM). The REMP activities for 1996 are reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS). 1 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1. All dates in this report are for 1996 unless 1 otherwise indicated. l j l A summary description of the REMP is provided in'Section 2 of this report; maps showing the sampling stations are keyed to a table which indicates the direction and distance of each station from the main stack. An annual summary of the main laboratory analysis results obtained from the samples utilized for environmental ; monitoring is presented in Section 3. A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon the environment and the results of the land use census and the rive. survey, is provided in Section 4. The results of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program (IPC) are presented in Section 5 -. Conclusions are stated in Section 6. I i I 1-1 I
_._ . . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . ~ _ ~ _ . _ . t 2.0
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION' A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2-1. This table portrays the program in the manner by which it.is.being l regularly carriea out. Table 2-1 is a representation of ODCM ; Table 4-1 which delineates the program's requirements. Sampling j locations required by Table 2-1 are described in Table 2-2 and are , shown on maps in Figures 2-1 through 2-3. This description of the sample locations is reproduced from the table and figures in ODCM i 4.2. In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1 deviations from the required l sampling schedule as set forth in Table 2-1 are permitted if- ' samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement' weather equipment malfunction or other i just reasons. Any deviations are accounted for in the discussions for the particular sample types in Section 4. i All laboratory analyses were performed by Georgia Power Company's ' (GPC) Environmental Laboratory (EL) in Smyrna. Georgia. Since 1987. the EL has been accredited by the American' Association of , Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) for radiochemistry. The A2LA is a ' nonprofit, nongovernmental, public service, membership society i dedicated to the formal recognition of competent laboratories and related activities. Accreditation is based upon internationally accepted criteria for laboratory competence (ISO /IEC Guide 25, 1990,- General Recuirements for the ComoetenrJE_gf,_[alibration and Testina Laboratories). ' l E I 4 e 2-1 i l
TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 1 0F 3)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Approximate Number Sampling and and/or Samole of Samole Locations Collection Frecuency Tvoe of Analysis and Freauency
- 1. Airborne 6 Continuous operation Radiciodine canister: I-131 Radioiodine of sampler with sample analysis, weekly.
and collection weekly Particulates Particulate sampler: analyze for gross beta radioactivity not less than 24 hours following filter change, weekly; perform gamma isotopic analysis on affected sample when gross beta activity is 10 times the yearly mean of na control samples; and composite (by 4 location) for gamma isotopic analysis, quarterly.
- 2. Direct Radiation 37 Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly.
- 3. Ingestion Milk (a) 1 Biweekly Gamma isotopic and I-131 analyses, biweekly.
Fish or 2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis on edible Clams (b) portions, semiannually. Grass or Leafy 3 Monthly during Gamma isotopic analysis, monthly (c). Vegetation growing season
~ . . . - . . _ _ _ . . - ~ . . - . . - . . - . - -._..-- . .
7 TABLE 2-1-(SHEET 2 0F 3)
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM , s Exposure Pathway Approximate Number Sampling and and/or Samole of Samole Locations Collection Frecuency Tvoe of Analysis and Frecuency r
- 4. Waterborne l Surface 2 Composite sample Gamma isotopic analysis, monthly.
collected monthly (d) Composite (by location) for tritium analysis, quarterly. Sediment 2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis, : semiannually. Drinking One sample of river River water collected I-131 analysis on each sample when i Water water near the near the intake will be biweekly collections are required. ! m (e & f) intake and one a composite sample: 'the Gross beta and gamma isotopic l d> sample of finished firished water will be analyses on each sample: composite water from each of a grab sample. These (by location) for tritium analysis. [ one to three of the samples will be quarterly, t nearest water collected monthly supplies which unless the calculated [ could be affected dose due to consumption ! by HNP discharges. of the water is greater ! than 1 mrem / year: then the collection will be } biweekly. The : collections may revert , to monthly should the [ calculated doses become ! less than 1 mrem / year. ! i f
l l l l I i TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 0F 3) ! l
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF L RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ,- l NOTES l'
- a. Up to three sampling locations within 5 miles and in ~different i sectors will be used as available. in addition, one or more '
control locations beyond 10 miles will be used. ; i
- b. Commercially or recreationally important fish may be sampled, i
. Clams may be sampled if difficulties are encountered in obtaining sufficient fish samples.
- c. If gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet the Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC.5, a separate analysis !
for I-131 may be performed,
- d. The composite samples shall be composed of a series of aliquot 3 collected at intervals not exceeding a few hours.
- e. If it is found that river water downstream of the plant is used for drinking, drinking water samples will be collected and analyzed as specified herein.
- f. A survey shall be conducted annually at least 50 river miles downstream of the plant to identify those who use water from .1 the Altamaha River for drinking. !
l ! 2-4
- 1 TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 1 0F 2) !
I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS l Station Station Descriptive Direction Distance Sample l Number Tvoe (a) Location (b) (miles) (bl Tvoe (c) ! 064 0 Roadside Park WNW 0.8 D j 101 1 Inner Ring N 1.9 D l 102 I Inner Ring NNE 2.5 0 103 I Inner Ring NE- 1.8 AD l 104 I Inner Ring ENE 1.6 D l 105 I Inner Ring E 3.7 D 1 106 I Inner Ring ESE 1.1 DV 107 I Inner Ring SE 1.2 AD 108 I Inner Ring SSE 1.6 D ) 109 I Inner Ring S 0.9 D ! 110 I Inner Ring SSW 1.0 D 111 I Inner Ring SW 0.9 0 112 I Inner Ring WSW 1.0 ADV l 113 I Inner Ring W 1.1 D I 114 I . Inner Ring WNW 1.2 D i 115 I Inner Ring NW 1.1 0 ; 116 I . Inner Ring NNW 1.6 AD 1 170 C Upstream WNW (d) R i 172 I Downstream E (d) R , 201 0 Outer Ring N 5.0 0 ; 202 0 Outer Ring NNE 4.9 0 l' 203 0 Outer Ring NE 5.0 D 204 0 Outer Ring ENE 5.0 D j 205 0 Outer Ring E 7.2 D 206 0 Outer Ring ESE 4.8 0 207 0 Outer Ring SE 4.3 D 208 0 Outer Ring SSE 4.8 0 1 209 0 Outer Ring S 4.4 D 210 0 Outer Ring SSW 4.3 D 211 0 Outer Ring SW 4.7 D 212 0 Outer Ring WSW 4.4 D i 213 0 Outer Ring W 4.3 D 214 0 Outer Ring WNW 5.4 0 i 215 0 Outer Ring NW 4.4 D 216 0 Outer Ring NNW 4.8- D 301 0 Toombs Central N 8.0 0 304 C State Prison ENE 11.2 AD 304 C State Prison ENE 10.3 M
- 309 C Baxley Substa S 10.0 AD 416 C Emer News Ctr NNW 21.0 DV 2-5
)
TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 2 0F 2) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS NOTES
- a. Station types C - Control 1 - Indicator 0 - Other
- b. Direction and distance are reckoned from the main stac,
- c. Sample types A - Airborne Radioactivity D - Direct Radiation M - Milk R - River (fish or clams, shoreline sediment, and surface water)
V - Vegetation
- d. Station 170 is located approximately 0.6 river miles upstream of the intake structure for river water, 1 1 river miles for sediment and clams, and 1.5 river miles for fish.
Station 172 is located approximately 3.0 river miles downstream of i l the discharge structure for river water, sediment and clams, and i 1.7 river miles for fish. The locations from which river water and sediment may be taken can be sharply defined. However, the sampling locations. for clams often have to be extended over a wide area to obtain a sufficient quantity. High water adds to the difficulty in obtaining clam 3 samples and may also make an otherwise suitable location for ' sediment sampling unavailable. A stretch of the river of a few miles or so is generally needed to obtain adequate fish samples. The mile locations given above represent approximations of the locations where samples are collected. i 2-6
. 1 i
f fy T g-c W ~ J/ .,4 4
- 8:- -
c
.. :7 \ ->
- y
- ,g (
F2. ' i ENotiss Au . ' ' 5 t.
'\
N, ED0Y, ,
' i A '
( . ,p h$ .. , 8 Ct;. ,
, s - ;
s j , I) ' Q, ' \ - \ \
'=
w S '
\ \
' s ' s I
-~- ) .
s, 4
.)
i
)
. 103 .
. . . e 1
g 11 5 - s
$ - *( #
',f
, 104 l
b
' o '," _ . ~' -%y.
\ (', j r
'e
- , m A * ._jl14f
- l g 4 ,, 170 _ . 4 - -
- f* j 4
( ,,
. pg - ~~ ~ c -R- s,. .
~\g L_ _ _N hp
,,r p%<fi7 's.1 I i .s ik.jf; s
n:~ u "
':: : M.!
~~- '
_ ~g
. d {\t 4* w[/l v.y
- = *,,;, ,
N
- r
/
=S@j \
c . . ; l 112 # 1 _3 / 06 . i
- i. %. f, 8 F-- -"=
'/ --iii s I:,
) . i
. i3 ,
f f .;1'o*
'c % -_&gy'; -
/
7% s sc >
, . .,u . . . m '. -
)
.s. ,
- x. .:. .
< m- 4 o j
i
' e%, f.. ..
,' ~~~~~
, [ ;. ..
d' , xa ,
-. . ,oe , en - /
9.:.V, y
^m '
" ?,"
N/ Iw
,3 a.. /-
. o VF m/ f>
=
= r "
N]%
.Iy, i
4 n s I,n== :.t ^* 'J"c's E /
.s -
~
-- [
- 1. 4 . /.e= l A
.rt
/
s
- x. .
, 2 ..d.
i / s ' c. , I . _ )5 f 1. ' . .___ M ,.\:".\ I4 ,M _g 1 , RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY a FIGURE 2-1 2-7
33 . * . . .
. . ~~~
e
' *~
l N,' . -
. .~.,'i'.
(3 01
- 1. . .,,
= . .- .... u , .... - . .
. .c ---. ., . a . , .,, ,,
...a.
'k. * ,- . <
.y . ,1
=..
\ -
..~,.s.
- t . ; . ,. ar'.
, . w -
t
.M/ * .
'. w u u. .~
,. s'. - *
~'
.*. ', b,\ M"' ,, *g ,,
I
/ f9.v .
F* *
,. * ' . .' , * ,h~ .
1. s, . .
- ; '*we/
f 't
.h,,
" ~ " ,
**,'+O.,, ,,-
v; /' ~ , . ....$q .* * ,,,. U ys ,./ .
- u. . ,
~
sJ . .., . . , .9 . . g.
^*
.' * ~ : s g** * ..J*.' ,\' * ' .;
~. . ,,
,: . j . ..s ,
, * * * *: ~ y . .. .
./
N . ,f*.T.
. .~
."*r.
p,
. , . , m. , f. ,
't
..,,,-3 . m.=, ' 26 g- .
20
'_ : :*'~ l. * >.Y' l ',i -*
1' ' , k' *. ,,
. G .1 *
! / t * < *. . ~
. g '.5. - * .'
T.*s \* o
$ . , f 216 -0 ' ; * , . .
,4 . .*
.W~ ~ ,.
., /*,' o. , :
,s. . ,_.-' ~~.20 N. :..- -J
,v, s
-(,.. -
- 4. : . .
.s s.. . .,
s . K .. . ~,....... .
~
.. ~.
K ... A.- ..: i .
. .. . a ,. , .
\.:c . . ,
L m, 1, . L,? i h.
. ~
.^ I g gy \.* L-n 21 - *** -'
- e' s -
j @ . 4('a,,
. g- , ,3 , ..s
. s N.
. ):, . .: e, - -
>.,,,,- . ... 9.: .f. .
,,., j ~ .- .
s x,, og ,.. .e . y* .
* ~
9 .
*i -
- 8. .
- g. . ,, ...
.....i'3 . . . \. .s .
3 ..
. e so. 4
.y 'q . . . . 'L N . .. . . a . .. .
.. i.., .g. - -
;-. e- g, 3, I ... . . . .
. g p
'N )/-
- gT. - . 1 . . . ..
p ,j g....g. . . '~-) ,
.w . . . .
- bg * , ' (.
'*6 . . :. . . .pi-, a'
* - ~ ; ,. . . ; .
g . g . f . y , .. .l 'f}. --
.; s .
s-g- _ d.s.
' .~. x., -
R. y q~~~~. i rgi p .
... : [.,. ,
3 g! 't.'2]3S( s
~~7; I
r*"**;j;,.,i;i'Pjd
- 5. -2; a
p_
.% f u-
'.51..-
tW@. g L
. *g.g ,*
N N bri ' t L u., :g.. .,: L i . j 3 . i s A.- s
. . . , - si.- ~ . ,J .
I . l. 2 '
( h., <
-- ~ , , :. v .,'~' ; f, ' ' . 1 , ,
-. r^*-- a- , ;
... . ~. . . . . d , M.d, '-....
g.,..:
'.: )
.... i f
- r. _
21 2 4- ...
*?*.'
. s, i l
',,,**'p.- ~ y
- l . .
i . ' ** *7 .- % 1., - 4Q , h, h* . , RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTAI. SAMPLING ' EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 1 of 3) 2-8
i . 4
.o. .
. o o- , ,,
I' - ,
, . , _e g
.. .....u.
202 . .: ., 'T* t'
- jj Z.if . =' *. . v.
- ' " "'" g 'l .
.g.
.. r. . m. . .:.,..
g... t ~;g -
, E. s .r .-
3 .
.. . s. ; N ;. %, s.
it:
. .::. -e. e , ( -
'l.
s. e .. m,. . l
~
, x- *
,/
70*
%~. d
,g*g, .,;p . ,,b I,
3
. , . .. ~
2
+
,r , ' 'r: . .
. su <
i1 , -3 *.
./ .. ,.
; g/ , ,
; /' %.
'. * ^- 2 . 3.
~'"
,,s - 2 9
- f* Y, I s ', f '?'
s 4 q. ,, t, s g y/ d? 0., . : .,, e. ..<
. . \
.../..,p /
,.. %. .,. ;. , , w. ,.6 s , e r n.
c:. ,\.
"~' .
,,g
.. .M
. - .- . ;- - - 4 s
) ..~ ;. :. . . . . - - y I ...
8,.,. x . 4. = m s% , i ~. . 4.:.;. a ... ve.. ........
., . = s v.. D. , s; . . . ,. ...... %..
ae.-
--. Y "' '
... t,
( ,1 !: W
.s . ,
1
)
-i
, e &,'./.'.: s s . m.. ..
\ ~.- ..
.iA
...: .i
.r ;. .
4 i ' ,,[ .i 3 4, 4.. t/.. m.
- r m -'"N. r\ .
.. . .,/ .
I
.v.a. .,. ,
. s. = . .;1 em es. E l
M3 y .!. 4,1 .,S, L 6 ..7 i 9
).....'3
-'y ,; ~ -..i.. A.
8 . .'. .' e 10' e
.s.. s4 m --
. am. . ... u.
1 .: a
.,. . . . . a.
.c.s. .
. s.
8 ...
. ........n..,.
. u, ..- ,i ..
1 x--~ , . . ..
. ./ . < . ,
c:==.-
. n ' i y ,s - -v.::::.w i v . M
\\ -
\ ., [ -w - ,
' 's i -
-M'
'o
/e . - h NS:.._ .d
..,p I n.y.,.\. . -s., %. .g '. -
,o.. - - -
\,
...- n .a L. .n.. s,
- n. . . '* .,: x . ::.~. .... ,
s g.-
,. -y ; ..V-
.. - ~. \
. .n .
,c, .
i
. n..i. .
- s. q q. , ,,,. - - ... , . . 9. : -su ! \
i .' .... . . p j
'\.,ess.
r ,_ i = .o u ..
,,,,/'
s.-
) . . y .,,,.,;,.,;,; \
.---.7
. . .. . c. g. ., ..~. f . y
,ilot, . h : ,.
9- < . t ,,, , . , . .
,,,,,,n.. < . . .: , s y
).* t.t.W#. n. ".~'. s..,,W$s.
q , .4 f'. ' s
, : .'. . . 4.- e
. hn ~
Y
~
5
..N...
{6}. i m
"W^
.s
- ' *.I ' .'"' . -
\
4
\.= ;w.- ., ' t
. ; y----f .-
, ,- e 1
. \
- \, .. , . . . .- ,.7 ,g A:.p x y 3. , ;p . 9, . . .,'f, , . .
30 , i u ., .i, s
, . ,.5 g . . w _ . . . .. ..
C m. . > - o*n- L el\ ::::;w~
..,,,*/, 4.. e s, e- :
> 3* 3 /. ,
.T,
' .,' .).,e:v.o. ';g:.J:
- f. ~.c,s. - .
- t. .. j .j .. .
'-p
.j ..g
.s
; . . ., #,, q-~'
- % ^~. - _\ '
! 'l . -
u r. 5' % ._. ,.t;/ . v {= RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLAN 1 LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 2 of 3) 29
. .r s i . ( , ,
wiw .2 7 s 6s- -ra 5 k 4,, 3 "
=2 7 &r ;./
- f. ., ; , g ---- '.@C .."- .3_.-].
o ,
,t t.s ,- *
, 3, , ,
- i. , ,,, P .
J . .- c!. ':
/ d,y ,/,
"u~ ' '.. . .'~-~
, -- 4-
.x
/, t \ o % '
(1 s
- .:;; y
.\ . '.l
~
.N~
~
( ...., j . / :9 7.s x s w.v . 4'6 ' .N
. . . -l * , h '.
;.= --* : m .... %,n
/;: y :, ..N 1,. .j,~ c ./;L ,.! '
m l ,\
]=
.,5:.
../
,v .'. .. . ey .
l ; ... ,
.-; p L...Jo.
,e , , ..,,
,..,t ., -
+4 x t ,. ' y r~ - v.. s ..
.'y
\a .
.-( (-. ..e.... y. . ... . . .Kf... . o_ .
,g g .A '
. V' '%, s.- .
'-.--- u ..
r .. c
.o t. : ,
o
~ r .t -
l .m. .\ ..
&' .j & ^. . Y. - * -
,, ; *^ .
r 4k s:. ct.4 / s
,...:. sr .
.-i L.,....~a
-A ., .. s 7.1
- f .2...........<.
s . . ., ,. i ,
- w. g J ... '. . .. ~., ', .
L- ' . p t- - - - -'-- . sh. W.C. -
.~S -
- /' -
j
. , .j
- y-)A. a i . J ... . 4.
--O.
M .- L ** b,% .4. q 4
/ -, ,,,/. .
9 . o '. - l s . O .
-. .O.
. . L. . .. .
e q,w.......;.. .- - , N'.M;! i .. , . 1
. - ;. x ., &51 j ...
) e' .i . .Qu sin., ' s- -
1
- - .. :s. - -
,s
. g.:r. .
*,...og .-
g
.g d ..-
.r,-
p *.- i
. ,i :
8
. . **...,....,"Y>".
. . 7. ., .', .
,7. .. . .y.
. 'a.
., ~;. .,
.2
-;t p_ -
. .... ~
- s. . . s, .
... g % .. . .:: .g.
1 .
. . . .-e , . ..
,< i .q . . .-
- ...:2 . . > . p . ;' ,
-r. - . -. . ~ . . . . .s t.sm. .s.o.1
..g. , . , .. e, ,e .
...w... ..- s
.. . ,~~
\.. .
.- .... ~~ . .
i W:, . . s l .\. *~ as . .* _ . . L- - . , ,
~' . .
/
g . [20* *[ , ' e r b ". .. ;,,,] . ., ,.. .
% l. * . * . . .
- x. @v.-.." N. . i. - *
.s. ,, ?
. ' eg 4 '
** * ,1 ..
.p *.-s
%. ~
." e /
,,7.. _ ,
.. ' . * ' .. ._ .,( ,
- d* ? '
.'~,
'I"',..'.' -
. . . . . .. M.. .
g %- , **. . .
,2 n
- t >- .y'- . . - .Q ,. -
. 'y
,. *...9.......'.q.
- .9. Se * ( .-
'1
] y.^
l' .f -
. . -. 2 . ,. , s. .2 .
r.
*s
- 4. . .
. .u . s . .
, jii '. ,;*. . .
g.. e * . 1 .. 4 $'$W. . . . . . . " .% . -
. :s
.c .,
. . V..c .; c- -
; .. ; '.L.. pg* .,s - . ,. -
.g -
i A
. , .g, A,:s.
,,,,, .y,, . g , , }. Q; .-D ,9 ,
a m,:, t 0.e . ' .2': ( i- -{ . .
. ' \.. . .x4yq,..
s
, y,,o:
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 3 of 3) 2-10
i 1 1
- -e E
- 8 -
1 4 j Nj -- ! l ... 5 A I i I j -
. . i..
- =
_.., f, t;;as;;as;;ag ' T jf scala a emLas emeed !
$ 2N ,w HNPl #,
//
e p ,
%,er l 1* '
s ... _ - I , , , ~ . .
}
laalg
.r..g
.. . .e
.. m i i
i t LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL Georgia Powerk row Ni.warew STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION
- s. ~ucuAa naur FIGURE 2-3 2-11
4 i 3.0 RESULTS
SUMMARY
In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, summarized and tabulated results l for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the l l designated indicator and control stations are presented in Table ;
; 3-1 in a format similar to that of Table 3 of the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission (NRC) Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, November 1979. Since no , reportable occurrences were called for during the year, the column
- entitled " Number of Reportable Occurrences" has been excluded from Table 3-1. Since no naturally occurring radionuclides were found in the plant's effluent releases, only man-made radionuclides are reported. Results for any samples collected at locations other
}. than indicator or control stations or in addition to those stipulated by Table 2-1 are discussed in Section 4 for the j particular sample type.
i i l I 1
'I l ?
b a } 4 J 3-1
^
[
~
i TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia l Indicator location with Highest Control Medium or Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean Locations Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Mean (b) ; (Unit of of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & Range Range . Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) i Airborne Gross Beta 10 21.3 No. 116 22.1 21.4 Particulates 318 9-42~ Inner Ring 12-37 9-31 i ( fC1/m') (212/212) 1.6 miles (53/53) (106/106) 1 NNW T Gamma Isotopic 24 Cs-134 50 NDM (c) NDM NDM i Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NDM , Airborne I-131 70 NDM NDM NDM ; Radioiodine 318 ( fCi /m') Direct Gamma Dose NA (d) 11.6 No. 104 15.0 11.3 Radiation 76 10-16 Inner Ring 12-16 10-12 . (mR/91 days) (64/64) 1.6 miles (4/4) (12/12) ENE i I t
... - -. . . . .-. ..- . . - . - . ~ - - . ~ . - . - . - - - - . - - - _ . - -
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia i , Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Medium or Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Mean (b) (Unit of of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & Range Range Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) ; Milk Gamma Isotopic !* (pCi/1) 27 Cs-134 15 NA NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NA NDM NDM [ Ba-140 60 NA NDM NDM La-140 15 NA NDM NDM I-131 1 NA NDM NDM 27 Vegetation Gamma Isotopic 5 (pCi/kg wet) 36 I-131 60 NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 60 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 80 47.2 No. 106 56.2 41.1 ; 33-69 Inner Ring 36-69 31-57 ! (7/24) 1.1 miles (4/12) (6/12)
- ESE ;
- - - . . -- .L-- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .----..s---a ..---x--.,----,---,_.-s-- - - - - - -s---,_i--a,-u--- - _ . - - , - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - --_-_-aw--a_ . - - - -
l
. TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 0F 6)
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia , Indicator Location with Highest Control " Medium or Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean Locations Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Mean (b) (Unit of of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & Range Range Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) River Water Gamma Isotopic (pCi/1) 24 Mn-54 15 NDM NDM NDM ; g Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM NDM NDM Co-60 15 NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 30 NDM NDM NDM Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM Nb-95 15 NDM NDM NDM' I-131 15 (e) NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 15 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 18 NDM NDM NDM Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM La-140 15 NCM NDM NDM 9
._ ___ _ ___._ __.____._____ __.__ _ _._ _ _____ _ ______ _ _. _ m _ _ _ _ _ __ .-m.. e - - . . . - . - . . . -
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia , i Indicator Location with Highest Control Medium or Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean . Locations Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Mean (b) (Unit of of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & Range Range : Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) Tritium 3000 (f) 144 No. 170 147 147 8 144-144 Upstream- 147-147 147-147 (1/4) 0.6 miles (1/4) (1/4) [ Fish (pCi/kg wet) Gamma Isotopic 8 Mn-54 130 NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 260 NDM NDM NDM Co-58 130 NDM NDM NDM Co-60 130 NDM NDM NDM Zn-65 260 NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 130 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 150 20.4 No. 172 20.4 18.0 13-28 1.7 miles 13-28 14-25 (2/4) Downstream (2/4) (3/4)
. _ _ _ . . .. - ~ . ~ . -.. - . .. - . - . . . .
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia 4: Indicator Location with Highest Control Medium or Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean Locations Pathway Sampled Total Number Detectable Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Mean (b) (Unit of of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & Range Range i Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) ! Sediment Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg dry) 4 Mn-54 42 77.7 No. 172 77.7 NDM w 77.7-77.7 3.0 miles 77.7-77.7 4 (1/2) Downstream (1/2) Co-60 70 118.5 No. 172 118.5 NDM
- 103-134 3.0 miles 103-134 (2/2) Downstream (2/2)
Cs-134 150 NDM NDM NDM Cs-137 180 106 No. 170 110 110 102-110 1.1 miles 103-117 103-117 (2/2) Upstream (2/2) (2/2) i
TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 6 0F 6) RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL
SUMMARY
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia NOTES
- a. The MDC is defined in ODCM 10.1. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in this column are the detection capabilities required by ODCM Table 4-3. The values listed in this column are a priori (before the fact) MDCs. In practice, the a posteriori (after the-fact) MDCs are generally lower than the values listed. Any a posteriori MDC greater than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section 4.
- b. Mean and range are based upon detectable measurements only.
The fraction of all measurements at specified locations which is detectable is placed in parenthesis.
- c. No Detectable Measurement (s).
- d. Not Applicable.
- e. If a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of 1 pCi/l would have been used (see Notation c of ODCM Table 4-3).
- f. If a drinking water pathway were to exist, a MDC of 2000 pCi/l would have been used (see Notation b of ODCM Table 4-3).
3-7
- _ - .. .. - - - - - - _- .. .. .. ..= --.- - .. - . - . . - - . . - - . _
i- ! . o-l 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS An interpretation and evaluation, as appropriate, of the : laboratory results for each type sample are included in this section. Relevant comparisons were made between the difference in average values for pairs of station groups (such as. indicator and control stations) and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) between these pairs at the 99 percent Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was determined using the standard Student's t-test. A l difference in the average values which was less than the MDD was , considered to bt statistically indiscernible. Pertinent results were also compared with past results including those obtained during preoperation. The results were examined to perceive any trends. To provide perspective, a result might also ; be compared with its Reporting Level (RL) or Minimum Detectable ' Concentration (MDC) whose nominal values are found in ODCM Tables 4-2 and 4-3. respectively. Attempts were made to explain any high , radiological levels found in the samples. During the year, there ! were no failures in the laboratory analyses for any of the samples ' in attaining the MDCs required.by ODCM Table 4-3. e All results were tested for conformance to Chauvenet's criterion (G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowetz, Princioles of Radioisotone Rethodoloav. Burgess Publishing Company, 1962, pages 87-90) to flag any values which might differ from the others in its set by a relatively large amount. Identified outliers were investigated to determine the reason (s) for the deviation from the norm. If due to an equipment malfunction or other valid physical reason, the anomalous result is deemed non-representative and excluded from ; the data set. No datum was excluded for failing Chauvenet's j criterion only. Any exclusions are discussed in this section j under the appropriate sample type. ' The annual land use census as required by ODCM 4.1.2 wa's conducted
- j. on November 13, 1996 to determine the locations of the nearest ,
permanent resioence and milk animal in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of 5 miles, and the locations of all milk animals within 3 miles. A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption. The locations of gardens greater than 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation'were also included in the census. The census results are tabulated in Table 4-1. ODCM 4.1.2.2.1 requires a new controlling receptor in ODCM 3.4.3. if the land use census identifies a location that yields a l' calculated dose greater than that currently being calculated. An analysis of the survey's results showed that there were none. 4-1 h l
i o
- l 1
TABLE 4-1 l LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles to Nearest Location in Each Sector SECTOR RESIDENCE MILK ANIMAL GARDEN N 2.0
- 3.8 NNE 2.9
- 2.9 l
NE 3.2
- 3.4 ENE 4.2
- 4.7 E * *
- ESE 3.7 *
- SE 1.8
- 3.4 SSE 2.0
- 21 S 1.0
- 1.8 SSW 1.1
- 2.9 !
SW 1.1
- 1.5 WSW 1.1
- 1.6 l W 1.1
- 1.4 l WNW 1.1 *
- NW 3.6 *
- NNW 1.8
- 2.1 None within 5 miles.
l l l 4-2 l
. . - . - . _ . . . . . - _ . = . - . - . - _ ~ ~ . . . _ - . . . - . - . . . . . . . - ~ . -
=
I l l ODCM 4.1.2.2.2 requires that whenever the land use census
-identifies a location which would yield a calculated dose (via the same ingestion pathway) 20 percent greater than that from a current indicator station, the new location must become a REMP l j station (if samples are available). None of the gardens yielded a l l calculated dose 20 percent greater than that for any of the current indicator stations for vegetation. No milk animals were found in the census. This result was corroborated by inquiries to l the. county extension. agents in 5 counties in the vicinity of the ,
l plant on. February .1,1996 an..' again on ~ September 18, 1996 in ! l regard to the location of suitable milk animals; none were found.. As required by Note f of Table 2-1, the annual survey of the Altamaha River downstream of the plant for at least 50 miles to , identify those who use water from the river for drinking purposes ! was conducted on September 16, 1996. As in all previous surveys,
- no intakes for drinking water or irrigation were observed. This result was corroborated by information obtained from the Georgia i Department of Natural Resources on September 19,1996
- it was confirmed that no water withdrawal permits for drinking water or irrigation purposes had been issued for this stretch of the Altamaha River. Should it become known that river water downstream of the plant is being used for drinking, the sampling and analysis requirements for drinking water as delineated in Table 2-1 would be implemented.
I l 5 l~ 4-3
4.1 Airborne 4 As indicated by Table 2-2 and Figures 2-1 and 2-2, airborne particulates and airborne radiciodine are collected at 4 indicator stations (Nos. 103. 107, 112 and 116) which encircle the site and are on the site periphery, and at 2 control stations (Nos.-304 and 309) which are at least 10 miles from the plant. At these locations air is continuously drawn through a Gelman Type A/E glass fiber filter and a SAIC CP-200 charcoal canister in sequence to retain airborne particulates and to adsorb airborne j radiciodine, respectively. The filters and canisters are collected weekly. Each of the air l particulate filters is counted for gross beta activity. A gamma i isotopic analysis is performed quarterly on a composite of the air j particulate filters for each station. Each charcoal canister is analyzed for 1-131 by gamma spectroscopy.
- ~
As seen in Table 3-1, the annual average weekly gross beta activity of 21.3 fCi/m' for the indicator stations was 0.1 fC1/m' less than that for the control stations. However, this difference j is not discernible, since it is less than the MDD, calculated as 1.4 f Ci /m'. During the past 8 years (1988 through 1995), the average weekly activity for the year at the indicator stations randomly varied from 0.9 fCi/m' greater than to 0.3 fC1/m' less than that for the control stations. Over the entire 8 year period, the average weekly activity for the indicator stations was 0.1 fCi/m' greater than that for the control stations. During this 8 year period, the annual average weekly gross beta I activity for all stations randomly varied from 18.1 pC1/m' in 1991 l to 22.3 pC1/m' in 1988; the average for the entire period was 19.8 1 f C 1/ m'. In past years, it had been an order of magnitude higher. For example: the annual average activity was 140 fCi/m' during preoperation, 242 fCi/m' during 1977,, and 195 fCi/m' during 1981. Those high values have been shown to be the result of fallout from numerous nuclear weapons tests conducted on mainland China in the early 1970s and from 1976 through 1980. With the termination of the weapons tests, the gross beta levels diminished. The annual average was 33 fC1/m' for 1982, and this steadily decreased to 22 fCi/m' for 1985. Then, during 1986 as a consequence to the Chernobyl incident, the average activity increased to 37 fCi/m': it dropped to 23 fCi/m' in 1987. 4-4
. . - . - . - -- . . - - . _ = - - - - . - ~ - _ . . . . . - . - - .. ..~ -. . . l l
! l l I i ! During 1996, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the ! l gamma isotopic 6nalysis of the quarterly composites of air ! particulate filters. During preoperation and each year of ! operation through 1986, numerous fission products and some ! activation products were detected. As stated above, these were generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests and to the ' Chernobyl incident. On only one occurrence since 1986, has a man-made radionuclide been detected in a quarterly composite: Cs-137 ! was found at a very low level for the first quarter of 1991 at ; Station 304. j l Airborne I-131 is not normally detected in the charcoal canisters ! ! and 1996 was no exception. However, during 1976, 1977 and 1978, ! i positive levels of I-131 were found in nearly all of the samples l L collected for a period of a few weeks following the arrival of the , l cloud from each of the Chinese nuclear weapons tests conducted at ! that time. Some of the levels were on the order of the MDC for > airborne 1-131 which is 70 fCi/m'. In 1986, the same phenomenon occurred because of the Chernobyl incident. The highest airborne l 1-131 level found to date in an individual charcoal canister was i l ?17 fCi/m' in 1977. The RL for airborne I-131 is 900 fCi/m'. i ! ! 1 i l l' 4 4-5 4
4 J i
)
1 4.2 Direct Radiation l Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent ! 4 dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic UD-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors which are ' , composed of calcium sulfate (with thulium impurity) crystals. The l ) gamma dose at each station is nominally based upon the average i j readings of the poosphors from the two badges. The two badges for j
- each station are sealed in a th1n plastic bag for protection from s
! moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for l periods of a quarter of a year (91 days). A visual inspection is *
- made at each station during the second month of the quarter to L assure the badges are on-station and to replace any missing or
! damaged badges. Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 meteorological
- sectors about the plant forming two concentric rings, The j stations comprising the inner ring (Nos. 101 through 116) are
- located near the site boundary, while those comprising the outer ring (Nos. 201 through 216) are generally located at distances of
- 4 to 5 miles. However, each of the stations in the East Sector is j at a radius which is a few miles greater than those for the other j stations in its ring. The flood plain in this sector prevents 1- easy access on a year-round basis to the site boundary and to the
- 1. 4 to 5 mile annulus. This two ring configuration of stations
- began with the first quarter of 1980.
) The 16 stations forming the inner ring are designated as the i indicator stations. The 3 control stations (Nos. 304, 309 and i 416) are at least 10 miles from the plant. Stations 064 and 301 , I accommodate special interest areas. Station 064 is located in an '
; onsite roadside park, while Station 301 is adjacent to the Toombs 1 Central School. Station 210 in the outer ring is adjacent to the Altamaha School, the only other nearby school.
The standard deviation for the quarterly result for each badge is l subjected to a self imposed limit of 1.4. This limit which was { based upon the standard deviations obtained with the Panasonic UD-814 badges during 1992 was calculated using a method developed by l the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Special l Technical Publication 150, ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and ; Control Chart Analvsis, Fourth . Revision, Philadelphia, PA, October i 1976). The limit serves os a flag to evoke an investigation. To be conservative, readings with a greater standard deviation are j deleted since the high standard deviation is interpreted as an ; indication of a suspect TLD. None of the badge readings for 1996 had a standard deviation greater than 1.4. 4-6
. _- .. . . . - . _ . . - - . . - - - _ - . _ - . - . - - - ~ . . _ . - . _ - - - . - -
4 1 As shown in Table 3-1, the average quarterly exposure of 11.6 mR J acquired at the indicator stations (inner ring) during 1995 was 0.3 mR greater than that acquired at the control stations. This difference is not discernible since it is less than the MDD of 0.9 , mR. During the 16 year period from 1980 through 1995, the average quarterly exposure for the year at the indicator stations randomly , varied from 1.4 mR greater than to 1.6 mR less than that for the ! ! control stations. The average quarterly exposure for the l l indicator stations over the entire 16 year period was about 0.3 mR greater than that for the control stations. j The quarterly exposures acquired at outer ring stations during
- 1996 ranged from 8.9 to 15.8 mR
- the average (to 3 significant figures) was 11.6 mR, the same as that for the inner ring. The )
average for the outer ring was actually 0.018 mR greater than that l l for the inner ring; however, there was no discernible difference l l between the averages for the inner and the outer rings, since the ! difference is less than the MDD of 0.638 mR. For the 16 year period beginning in 1980, the average quarterly exposure for the i year at the inner ring stations randomly varied from 1.0 mR 1 greater than to 0.5 mR less than that at the outer ring stations. Overall, the average quarterly exposure for the inner ring was about 0.2 mR greater than that for the outer ring, i j The quarterly exposures in units of mR acqu, ed during 1995 at the
- special interest areas which are listed below 3re seen to be j within the range of those acquired at the other stations.
- Station Averaae Minimum Maximum l
I
- 064 11.7 11.3 12.0 9
301 11.0 10.5 11.4 i i There was one failure in obtaining a quarterly dose measurement ! during 1996. The badges at Station 064 were found to have been stolen when exchanges were made at the end of the second quarter. In addition to tne above, replacement badges were installed at I Station 309 during the midquarter inspection on November 11 when it was discovered they had been stolen. Although the replacements were only on-station for 56 days, the results were acceptable i since Chauvenet's criterion was satisfied. The nominal corrective action taken for the 4 stolen badges i mentioned above was to move them to a less conspicuous location nearby. ! 4-7
] '
I 4 l - l t 4.3 Milk I Milk samples from cows are obtained biweekly from Station 304 (the l state prison dairy) which is a control station located more than .; 10 miles from the plant. Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses are
- performed on each sample. As discussed in Section 4.0, the land use census and other efforts to locate additional milk animals in ;
the vicinity were unsuccessful. ' , During 1996 as in the previous 6 years, no man-made radionuclides j were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the milk i samples. Except for 1987, Cs-137 was found in some of the samples each year from 1978 (when this analysis became a requirement) l through 1989. No'other man-mede radionuclides have been detected l } by this analysis of the samples. During preoperation, a chemical l
- separation technique was employed to measure the Cs-137 levels in i the samples. l During preoperation, the average positive level of Cs-137 was 19.3 pCi/1; during operation, the averages were 14.8 pCi/1 for the l l- period from 194 through 1983, and 9.6 pCi/l from 1984 through j 1989. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pCi/1, ;
respectively. l During 1996 as in the previous 7 years, 1-131 was not detected in i any of the milk samples. During preoperation, all readings were ! less than 2 pCi/l which was the allowed MDC at that time. l
- Positive results were reported each year during the first 5 years j
- of operation (1974 through 1978); these results ranged from 0.95 l l to 88 pCi/1. In 1980, positive results ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 j pCi/l: then in 1985, from 0.6 to 20 pCi/1. In 1988, a single l 4 reading of 0.32 pC1/1 which was believed to have resulted from a i procedural deficiency, was reported. The MDC and RL for 1-131 in j milk are l' and 3 pCi/1, respectively. ;
1 All the positive readings for Cs-137 and I-131 are generally l attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests and the I Chernobyl incident. I I l l l 4-8 l J
I l I 1 l i 4.4~ Vegetation Gamma isotopic analysis is performed on each grass _ sample ! collected monthly from two indicator stations (Nos. 106 and 112) and one control station (No. 416). Gamma isotopic analysis on
- - vegetation samples began during 1978 when it became a TS l requirement. $
The results presented in Table 3-1 show that Cs-137 was the only f man-made radionuclide detected during 1996: this has been the case l since 1986. The average value of 47.2 pCi/kg wet found at the i indicator stations was 6.1 pCi/kg wet greater than that found at ; the control station. However, this difference is not discernible, ; since it is less than the MDD, calculated as 20.6 pCi/kg wet. During the past 6 years (1990 through 1995), the averagt positive : activity found at the indicator stations randomly varied from 32.2 . pC1/kg wet greater than to 21.1 pCi/kg wet less than that found at
- - the control station. The average activity for the indicator stations over this 6 year period was 1.5 pC1/kg wet less than that
, for the control station. 1
'The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in vegetation samples are 80 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively. The presence of Cs-137 in the i
! vegetation samples is attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests of past years and to the Chernobyi incident. j l lt is related in Chapter 10 of the ODCM that the frequency for a i monthly surveillance '(such as, the collection of grass samples) is ! at least once per 31 days. The maximum allowed extension is not to exceed 25% of the surveillance interval. Thus the maximum interval between two consecutive collections of grass is less than 39 days. The grass collections on two occasions - January 29 and December 30, 1996 were each 42 days after the previous collection. Each of thesa deviations occurred because the earlier collection was advanced a week without considering how the interval to the next collection would be affected. Collection personnel were l' counseled on this issue to avoid reoccurrence. i i r t i 49 1 i
\
* \i
. _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ ~ -
-- _ . . . .- . . - . _ . - . . . ~ . . - _ . . . _ . - - . - _ . _ . . - . - - . . . -
l i l l 4.5 River Water Surface water is composited from the Altamaha River at an upstream I location (Station 170) and-at a downstream location (Station 172) using ISCO automatic samplers. Small quantities are collected at i intervals not exceeding a few hours. River water samples ; i collected by these machines are picked up monthly; quarterly i l _ composites are :.iade from the monthly collections. l i, \ l A gamma isotopic analysis is conducted on each monthly collection. l [ As is usually the case, no man-made radionuclides were detected' j l during 1996: p t. 4tive results are seldom found. The only man-made l radionuclides detected previously (by gamma isotopic analysis) are l presented below; the levels are in units of pCi/1. l l yrit Guarter Station Radionuclide Level I
- 1975 4th 172 Ce-141 78.2 l 1986 2nd 170 La 140 18.0 )
l 1986 2nd 172 Cs-137 12.0 1 1988 2nd 170 Cs-137 6.8 ! I I l The positive results for 1986 are attributed to the Chernobyl l incident. l A tritium analysis is performed on each. quarterly composite. Prior to 1986, positive results were usually found in each quarterly composite at levels generally between 200 and 400 pC1/1. l Subsequently, the number of positive results and their levels diminished, in 1996, detectable results were found only in the fourth quarter when the levels were 144 and 147 pCi/l at the l indicator and control stations, respectively. These results are l typical of those found in recent years; in five of the previous 10 years tritium was not been detected at all.. The MDC and RL for tritium in river water are 3000 and 30,000 pCi/1., respectively. The annual 50 mile downstream survey of the Altamaha River to determine if river wate' has begun to be used for drinking purposes is discussed in Section 4.0. l 1
'l l
! l ! i 4 l I i 4-10
1 1 4.6 Fish Gamma isotopic analysis is performed on the edible portion of the fish samples collected at the river stations on April 22 and October 14, 1996. The control station (No.170) is located upstream of the plunt while the indicator station (No. 172) is located downstream. With one exception, largemouth bass and redear sunfish were collected at each station in both April and l October; in April, channel catfish were collected at the control ) station in lieu of the redear sunfish. I As shown in Table 3-1 Cs-137 was the only man-made radionuclide l detected during 1996. It was not found in either of the samples l from the indicator station in April and in the redear sunfish from the control station in October. The average level of 20.4 pCi/kg wet at the indicator station is seen to be 2.4 pCi/kg wet more than that at the control station. This difference, however is not i discernible since it is less than the MDD of 31.7 pCi/kg wet. The I MDC and RL for Cs-137 in fish are 150 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively. There appears to have been a reduction in the Cs-137 level after 1988. This is illustrated by comparing the range and mean of annual averages in units of pCi/kg wet at the indicator and control stations for the 1983-1988 period with the 1989-1995 period. llem 83-88 89-95 Indicator Statiqn Mean 81.2 31.8 Lowest 62.0 23.8 Highest 117.0 41.6 Control Station Mean 64.0 26.2 Lowest 3'.3 20.7 Highest 138.6 28.9 In the past, the only otner man-made radionuclides detected in fish samples by gamma isotopic analysis were Co-60 and Cs-134. During preoperations. Co-60 was detected in one fish sample at a very low level . During the period of 1983 through 1988. Cs-134 was found in about half of the samples at levels on the order of j those found for Cs-137, i 1 4-11 1
e ,-* I 4.7 Sediment Sediment was collected along the shoreline of the Altamaha River on'May 20 and November 4, 1996 at the upstream control stations (No. 170) and the downstream indicator station (No. 172). A gamma isotopic analysis was perf ormed on each sample. Detectable levels of Mn-54, Co-60 and Cs-137 were found in one or more of the samples. Mn-54 was found in the indicator station sample collected in November at a level of 77.7 pCi/kg dry. In 1975,1986 and 1991, it was found in one of the indicator station samples at levels ranging from 28 to 57.2 pCi/kg dry; also in 1986, it was found in the sample from the control station at a level of 26 pCi/kg dry. The assigned MDC for Mn-54 in sediment is 42 pCi/kg dry. Co-60~ was fcund in both of the indicator samples with levels of 103 and 134 pCi/kg dry. Co-60 which was initially detected in 1986, has been found every year since, except during 1987 and 1995. It was found in one of the control station samples for three of the years between 1986 and 1990 with readings ranging from 19 to 33 pCi/kg dry and with an average reading of 27.7 pCi/kg dry. It was found in 55 percent of the regular samples l collected at the indicator station during the 10 year period,1986 through 1995; annual average levels ranged from 33 to 218 pC1/kg ; dry with an overall average of about 70 pCi/kg dry. The assigned l j MDC for Co-60 in sediment is 70 pC1/kg dry. No trend was I recognized in the results from year to year. As usual Cs-137 was found in each sample; it has been found in approximately 93 percent of all of the regular samples collected. ' including those during preoperation. As shown in Table 3-1, the ; average level of 106 pCi/kg dry found at the indicator station was 4.0 pCi/kg dry less than that found at the control station. This difference is not discernible as it is less than the MDD of 56.2 , pCi/kg' dry. The MDC for Cs-137 in sediment is 180 pCi/kg dry. The Cs-137 levels have varied widely and randomly through the years. The levels for 1996 are typical of and within the range of those found during recent years but only a third to a half of the levels generally found a few decades ago. ! Other activation or fission products were occasionally found in past years. Their presence was generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests or to the Chernobyl incident, although plant [ releases were not ruled out. 1 1 1 i I 5 4-12 4 .
1 ~ j.
. . F 1
d t a 4-Assuming the 1996 results are due to plant releases, the annual whole body dose to an individual by direct radiation from sediment i~ with the average concentrations found at the indicator station less that found at the control station was estimated to be approximately 4.1 microrem (using the methodology and parameters of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109. Revision 1. October 1977) or about 3 0.14 percent of the 3 mrem limit for liquid releases from one unit ) j as stipulated by ODCM 2.1.3. This extremely low dose, although i i . calculable, is insignificant with respect to radiation dose and I j regulatory limits. 1 d 1 'l i 4-i i i 4-13
I 5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM in conformance with ODCM 4.1.3, the EL participates in an ICP . which satisfies the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1. " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring , Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment", February 1979. The guide indicates that the ICP is i to be conducted with the EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) ! Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies , (Cross-check) Program or an equivalent program, and that the ICP L should include all of the determinations (sample ; medium /radionuclide combinations) that are both offered by the EPA e and included in the REMP. The ICP had beer conducted utilizing ! the EPA program through the end of 1995 when it became unavailable ' to utilities. Like the EPA program, the replacement ICP which was initiated at the beginning of 1996 is a third party blind testing program which provides a means to ensure ir. dependent checks are performed on the , precision and accuracy of the measurements of radioactive i materials in environmental sample matrices. It includes ; essentially the same determinations with the same frequencies that > l had beer, utilized with the EPA program. j The replacenent ICP is conducted by Analytics, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. Analytics has a documented 0A (Quality Assurance) j program and the capability to prepare OC (Quality Control) materials in a manner that ensures tracability to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Analytics provides the ! cross check samples to the EL who performs the laboratory analyses and sends their results to Analytics for statistical analyses. The documented evaluations provided by Analytics can De helpful to the Et in identifying any instrument or procedural problems. Reported herein, as required by ODCM 4.1.3.3 and 7.1.2.3 is a summary of the results of the EL's participation in the ICP. l Summarized in Table 5-1 are the results obtained during 1996 for:
- the single analyses of beta-ray and gamma-ray emitters in air
!- filters and gamma-ray emitters in milk; and the two analyses for tritium and gamma-ray emitters in water samples. Delineated in Table 5-1 for each of the media / analysis combinations are: the specific radionuclides, Analytics's preparation dates. lae known values, the expected precisions, the ; i average results obtained with their standard deviations, and the ! I resultant normalized deviations and normalized ranges. The normalized deviations and normalized ranges are calculated using i the methodology of the EPA program. ! 4 l 5-1 s i J
e d t TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 0F 3) INTERLABORATORY C0t1 PARIS 0N PROGRAM RESULTS Specific Date Known Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized Radionuclide Pre 9ared Value Precision Averaoe Deviation Deviation Rance Beta-ray Emitters in Air Filters (pCi/ filter) Sr-89 09/26/96 132.0 7.00 107.0 5.70 -5.05 0.97 Sr-90 09/26/96 53.0 5.00 42.0 1.41 -3.11 0.30 Gamma-ray Emitters in Air Filters (pCi/ filter) Cr-51 12/12/96 211.0 11.00 190.0 6.80 -3.31 0.69 [ Mn-54 12/12/96 204.0 10.00 205.0 1.70 0.17 0.19 Fe-59 12/12/96 49.0 5.00 54.0 3.90 1.73 0.92 Co-58 12/12/96 120.0 6.00 115.0 4.00 -1.45 0.73 Co-60 12/12/96 109.0 5.50 104.0 2.10 -1.57 0.45 Zn-65 12/12/96 92.0 5.00 99.0 4.70 2.42 1.19 Cs-134 12/12/96 173.0 9.00 138.0 2.60 -6.73 0.33 i Cs-137 12/12/96 192.0 10.00 182.0 2.80 -1.73 0.29 Ce-141 12/12/96 274.0 14.00 244.0 3.70 -3.70 0.31
. 1 TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2 0F 3)
INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Specific Oate Known Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized Radionuclide Preoared Value Precision Averaae Deviation Deviation Ranae Gamma-ray Emitters in Milk (oCi/1) Cr-51 06/19/96 563.0 28.00 561.0 43.68 -0.12 2.52 Mn-54 06/19/96 300.0 15.00 299.0 10.50 -0.12 0.63 Fe-59 06/19/96 7/.0 5.00 95.0 1.80 6.24 0.39 Co-58 06/19/96 93.0 5.00 90.0 2.40 -1.04 0.39 Co-60 06/19/96 84.0 5.00 78.0 5.14 -2.08 1.14 Zn-65 06/19/96 58.0 5.00 79.0 26.87 7.27 10.86 Cs-134 06/19/96 166.0 8.30 151.0 26.70 -3.13 0.19 Cs-137 06/19/96 410.0 20.50 398.0 144.60 -1.01 0.60 Ce-141 06/19/96 215.0 10.75 206.0 4.16 -1.45 0.41 Tritium in Water (pCi/1) H-3 06/19/96 4915.0 491.50 4930.0 64.55 0.05 0.17 12/12/96 2686.0 268.60 2687.0 106.90 0.01 0.35
TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 3 0F 3) INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Specific Date Known Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized Radionuclide Preoared Value Precision Averace Deviation Deviation Ranae Gamma-ray Emitters in Water (pCi/1) Cr-51 03/12/96 322.0 16.10 323.0 17.00 0.11 1.48 09/26/96 646.0 32.00 596.0 50.51 -2.70 3.83 Mn-54 03/12/96 31.0 5.00 32.0 1.73 0.35 0.39 09/26/96 239.0 12.00 227.0 16.52 -1.73 1.93 Fe-59 03/12/96 83.0 5.00 89.0 3.50 2.08 2.85 09/26/96 50.0 5.00 66.0 81.90 5.54 1.09 Co-58 03/12/96 48.0 5.00 49.0 6.00 0.35 0.85 [ 9.00 159.0 5.51 -2.89 0.70 09/26/96 174.0 Co-60 03/12/96 76.0 5.00 75.0 2.65 -0.35 0.63 09/26/96 151.0 8.00 148.0 5.29 -0.65 0.72 Zn-65 03/12/96 97.0 5.00 96.0 9.29 -0.35 1.44 09/26/96 93.0 5.00 91.0 10.26 -0.69 3.50 Cs-134 03/12/96 58.0 5.00 55.0 5.00 -1.04 0.27 09/26/96 295.0 15.00 257.0 2.31 -4.39 0.32 Cs-137 03/12/96 64.0 5.00 62.0 5.00 -0.69 1.43 09/26/96 225.0 11.00 214.0 13.80 -1.73 1.78 Ce-141 03/12/96 88.0 5.00 83.0 5.00 -1.73 1.28 09/26/96 423.0 21.00 382.0 12.12 -3.38 0.68
- i e , \
i l l 4 The normalized deviation from the known value provides a measure of the central tendency of the data (accuracy). The normalized range is a measure of the dispersion of the data (precision). An f absolute value of 3 standard deviations for the normalized deviation and for the normalized range was established by the EPA , as the control limit. An absolute value of 2 standard deviations = was established by the El as the warning limit. Investigations
! are undertaken whenever any value exceeds the warning or control limits.
The program supplied by Analytics, although similar to the EPA's, , did possess differences that posed problems in the analyses. , These differences are outlined below along with the investigative determinations and any planned corrective actions. < The control limits of the normalized deviation for both Sr-89 and ! Sr-90 were exceeded in the analysis for the beta-ray emitters in 4 air filters. The activity recovery for both radionuclides was i low. OC spikes were prepared to evaluate the self absorption curves. The curves were found to be valid. The cross-check water sample for Sr-89/90 (used for the effluents program) was analyzed J with excellent results: these accurate results indicate a processing problem with the air filters. The air filters were packaged with a plastic wrap. The wrap was not dissolved with the ; filter. In the future, the filter wrap will be processed with the ! filter; also, the counting time may be increased. l } The warning and control limits for the normalized deviation of the I analysis for gamma-ray emitters in air filters were exceeded for ; one and three of the radionuclides, respectively. The Analytic's l air filters contained nine gamma-ray emitters whereas Cs-137 was - the only gamma-ray emitter in the EPA air filters. The standard used in calibrating the detectors was recounted and the activity l recovery exceeded 95%. Geometry differences were ruled out. The l background corrections for the germanium detectors are being
; reviewed as a possible source of bias.
5
\
I I 5-5
e
- j Regarding the analysis for the gamma-ray emitters in milk: the warning limit for the normalized deviation was exceeded for one radionuclide while the control limit was exceeded for three radionuclides; the warning and control limits for the normalized range were each exceeded for one radionuclide. For the two analyses of the gamma-ray emitters in water: the warning and control limits for the normalized deviation were each exceeded for three radionuclides; the warning and control limits for the normalized range were respectively exceeded for one and two of the radionuclides. Each milk and water sample containcd the same nine gamma-ray emitters as the air filters. An6lytics provided diluted one liter samples of milk and water. The one liter sample may be 4
replaced with a 4 liter sample to improve the statistics. The background corrections for the germanium detectors are being reviewed as a possible source of bias. A low concentration of I-131 was also present in the milk sample but not in the water samples. The concentration was substantially reduced by decay due to the 5 days in transit from Analytics to the EL. The level had become too low for detection by the gamma ; detectors; it could have been detected by the chemical separation process, however.. With the EPA samples, the activity had always been sufficient for measurement by the gamma detectors. Plans for a larger sample and longer counting times will improve the probability of detecting 1-131 on the gamma counters. l S-6 L
o *
6.0 CONCLUSION
S This report confirms the 11censee's conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the 00CM during 1996. It shows that all data were carefully examined. A summary and discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses for each type sample were presented. The presence of Mn-54 and Co-60 in the shoreline sediment a few miles downstream of the discharge structure is indicative of plant l releases. The consequent dose which was shown to be a trivial l fraction of the ODCM limits poses no measurable radiological impact to the environment or the public. No discernible radiological impact upon the environment or public as a consequence of plant discharges to the atiaosphere and to the river was established for the other REMP samples. i i
)
t l 6-1 i}}