HL-5147, Ei Hatch Nuclear Plant Radiological Environ Operating Rept for 1995

Ei Hatch Nuclear Plant Radiological Environ Operating Rept for 1995

ML20107K101
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	12/31/1995
From:	Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
HL-5147, NUDOCS 9604250422
Download: ML20107K101 (43)

Text

. - - - ._ _ - .-

Georgia Power company 40 invomess Centor Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Nabama 35201' Telephone 205 877 7279 J. T. Beckham, Jr.

b vice President - Nuclear GeorgiaPower Hatch Project ,, m,,,,tet,e ,ys,am April 19, 1996 Docket Nos. 50-321 HL-5147 50-366 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk

Washington, D. C. 20555

~

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Radiolonical Environmental Operatina Reoort for 1995 l

Gentlemen:

In accordance with Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications, Section 5.6.2, Georgia Power Company is submitting the enclosed Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 1995.

l If you have any questions in this regard, please contact this office at any time.

\

Sincerely, l I

'h d f J. T. Beckham, Jr.

WHO/DMC/ld  !

Enclosure:

Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 1995 cc: Georgia Power Company

! Mr. H. L. Sumner, Jr., Nuclear Plant General Manager NORMS i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D. C.

Mr. K. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch 4

U. S. Nuclear Re2ulatory Commission. Region 11 Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. B. L. Holbrook, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch State ofGeorzia J. L. Setser, Department of Natural Resources  !

American NuclearInsurers gy9963 l M. Marugg /,p 9604250422 951231 JF I, PDR ADOCK 05000321 l

g. PDR

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 1995 l

I

EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE EASE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1 2.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION 2-1 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 4-9

4. 4 Vegetation 4-10 4.5 River Water 4-11 4.6 Fish 4-12 4.7 Sediment 4-13  !

1 5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARIS0N PROGRAM 5-1

6.0 CONCLUSION

S 6-1 i

LIST OF TABLES TABLE IITLE EAGE 2-1

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 2-2 2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 2-5 31 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

3-2 41 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS 4-2 5-1 INTERLABORATORY COMPARIS0N PROGRAM RESULTS 5-2 I

l 4

11

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE EAGf.

2-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY 27 22 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY 2-8 2-3 LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION 2-11 iii

ACRONYMS A2LA American Association of Laboratory Accreditation ASTM American Society for Testing and Haterials CL Confidence Level

-El Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency GPC Georgia Power Company HNP Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plan HDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MDD Minimum Detectable Difference NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measuremer.t(s)

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting level TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specifications l

l 1

I l

iv

n .. -. - ..~., - .- - - _ .- . - . . - . - - - . . - -. . .

n 4

~

i

.EDWIN 1. HATCH NOCLEAR PLANT 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 I.

Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) and to assess'any radiological impact upon the environment due to plant operation.

Thebaseslfor.suchanassessmentincludeappropriatecomparisons 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 preoperational stage of the REMP began with the initial operation of REMP stations in. January of 1972. The operational stage began with initial criticality which was achieved on

{ September 12, 1974.

( The REMP is conducted in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Offsite

! Dose Calculation Manual (00CM). The REMP activities for 1995 are

! reported herein in accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 1

!. 5.6.2 and ODCM 7.1. This annual report was formerly called the  ;

4 Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report. All dates in this

repart are for 1995 unless otherwise indicated.

i A summary description of the REMP is provided in Section 2 of this i report; maps showing the sampling stations are keyed to a table l- which indicates the direction and distance of each station from the main stack. An annual summary of the main laboratory analysis l results obtained from the samples utilized for environmental monitoring is presented in Section 3. A discussion of the 4 results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon '

} the environment and the results of the land use census and the river survey, is provided in Section 4. The results of the {

1nterlaboratory Comparison Program are presented in Section 5.

~

i

Conclusions are stated in Section 6. ]

il l

, 1 1-1 I

4 w r* * .e.1 -a'r -

iv -w- w -- =--.,-r.- -

. - - , -. . -- --w- -

-r

1 2.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION A summary description of the RFMP is provided in Table 2-1. This table portrays the program in the manner by which it is being regularly carried out. Table 2 1 is essentially a copy of ODCM Table 4-1 which delineates the program's requirements. Sampling 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 closely follows the table and figures in ODCM 4.2.

In accordance with ODCM 4.1.1.2.1, deviations from the required 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 just reasons. Any deviations are accounted for in the discussions for the particular sample types in Section 4.

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 ol' Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) for radiochemistry. The A2LA is a nonprofit, nongovernmental, public service, membership society dedicated to the formal recognition of competent laboratories and related activities. Accreditation is based upon internationally accepted criteria for laboratory competence.

2-1

l l

i f

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 1 0F 3)

{

i

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Approximate Number Sampling and Collection Frecuency Tvoe of Analysis and Frecuency and/or Samole of Samole Locations

1. Airborne 6 Continuous operation Radiciodine canister: 1-131 Radiciodine of sampler with sample analysis, weekly.

and collection weekly Particulates Particulate sampler: analyze for gross beta radioactivity not less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following filter change, weekly; perform gamma isotopic analysis on affected sample when gross beta activity is 10 times the yearly mean of control samples; and composite (by 7

N location) for gamma isotopic analysis, quarterly.

2. Direct Radiation 37 Quarterly Gamma dose, quarterly.

3. Ingestion Milk (a) 1 Biweekly Gamma isotopic and 1-131 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 t

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 0F 3)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Approximate Number Sampling and Collection Frecuency Tvoe of Analysis and Frecuency and/or Samole of Samole Locations

4. Waterborne Surface 2 Composite sample Gamma isotopic analysis, monthly.

collected monthly (d) Composite (by location) for tritium analysis, cuarterly.

I Sediment 2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis, semiannually.

Drinking One sample of river River water collected 1-131 anafysis on each sample when Water water near the near the intake will be biweekly collections are required.

(e & f) intake and one a composite sample: the Gross beta and gamma isotopic q)

W sample of finished finished 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.

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 mremij;ar.

i l TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 0F 3) l

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM NOTES

a. Up to three sampling locations within 5 miles and in different sectors will be used as available. In addition, one or more control locations beyond 10 miles will be used.

l l

b. Commercially or recreationally important fish may be sampled.

Clams may be sampled if difficulties are encountered in obtaining sufficient fish samples.

I c. If gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet the

! Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC), a separate analysis l for 1-131 may be performed.

d. The composite samples shall be composed of a series of aliquots collected at intervals not exceeding a few hours.

e. if it is found that river water dr.wnstream 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 i downstream of the plant to identify those who use water from the Altamaha River for drinking.

i f

2-4 l l

1 l

TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 1 0F 2)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS Station Station Descriptive Direction Distance Sample Number TVDe (a) Location (b) (miles) (b) Tvoe (c) 064 0 Roadside Park WNW 0.8 0 101 1 Inner Ring N 1.9 D 102 I Inner Ring NNE 2.5 0 103 1 Inner Ring NE 1.8 AD 104 I Inner Ring ENE 1.6 0 105 1 Inner Ring E 3.7 D 106 I Inner Ring ESE 1.1 DV 107 I Inner Ring SE 1.2 AD 108 I Inner Ring SSE 1.6 0 109 1 Inner Ring S 0.9 D 110 1 Inner Ring SSW 1.0 D 111 1 Inner Ring SW 0.9 D 112 I Inner Ring WSW 1.0 ADV 113 I Inner Ring W 1.1 D 114 I Inner Ring WNW 1.2 0 115 I inner Ring NW 1.1 D 116 I Inner Ring NNW 1.6 AD 170 C Upstream WNW (d) R 172 1 Downstream E (d) R 201 0 Outer Ring N 5.0 D 202 0 Outer Ring NNE 4.9 D 203 0 Outer Ring NE 5.0 D 204 0 Outer Ring ENE 5.0 D 205 0 Outer Ring E 7.2 0 206 0 Outer Ring ESE 4.8 D 207 0 Outer Ring SE 4.3 D 208 0 Outer Ring SSE 4.8 D 209 0 Outer Ring S 4.4 D 210 0 Outer Ring SSW 4.3 0 211 0 Outer Ring SW 4.7 0 212 0 Outer Ring WSW 4.4 D 213 0 Outer Ring W 4.3 D 214 0 Outer Ring WNW 5.4 0 215 0 Outer Ring NW 4.4 D 216 0 Outer Ring NNW 4.8 D 301 0 Toombs Central N 8.0 D 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 i

j

l l

l I

i l

J l

TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 2 0F 2) l l

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS NOTES

a. Station types C - Control 1 - Indicator 0 - Other

b. Direction and distance are reckoned from the main stack.

c. Sample types A - Airborne Radioactivity D - Direct Radiation M - Milk R - River (fish or clams, shorelinc 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 j and clams, and 1.5 river miles for fish. l Station 172 is located approximately 3.0 river miles downstream of 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 ,

samples and may also make an otherwise suitable location for I sediment sampling unavailabl'.e 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.

2-6 f

! ~

's, ,.

._,"~ .

g . .\T ,J/  :.

1

'l y *5 . \  :

u ,s -

% m- ,

s  : b., .

s, (001, .,,

e .,.. w .. .

< c N-p't'.* Q\

, \

. R( s

~. -

tm - )

N .. . ,

w/

. .. _: . ios .

u

. ,-.(

- - e no .

i d-Vs

" + n bM

- ,,o n . -..... , ,

i e .

e -=; g ,

E( d ;,: FIp -

l

m. ,, y

, i" t m .: s

d. .. Ah 3.w.W 7y . N. ..s..af . yf

i

.,l Eg. . d 2 3;

.s . - .e - ;.

U

>/.._ __, !_ i u # I /  % .

!,._ J ," n .

I i  %,b % [" 3,

.,.:'.::::. < t. /

r .~ ,

.. ..a:.  %- - .

)

i y .

a g.

t f .. g"_ .

,l.

(.. .. .

m .'. , -

1_4_,. -

. .. /

.- 1 ,,, ._ . .

i-  ! ,

~

g

/: ,l

,3

, :v ' .- m  ! . .:::

... /.

. . .,y . , y~

M, . c.,b y.:- ,

A =.'1 ..Lp? (,.(;t /

w . i -

_ }_ _ A .,m:.. 3i I L n=pg F < ,,,,

'_ [-

s

\

I  % .

. r.zD Rf

_ )% .

T RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY EDWIN !. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2-1 2-7 .

W 1

'.  ; . .. : ;=

y

, /- _ y g f..

1 m -

s . . .s < .~ . .

... . - ~

g.:

.c . .

, n . . . .. . . ,. .,, .

. .~ '

.x

'( '. .6( . v

\-  ; . .

-7

\.

3 ,. . s .... .

. +, . . .. .

.:fy v - '

.r. '

/-

m.) * '-

.r z.

.n. .:-:

e. .

.&~.,,.. ,5 .

, , ~ .

Qf.

.~ . ., .:r:..: i ,i ,t

- , f ^ . .. a- ; ,

a

.s., (* .

r~~l. , v " .. \. ~ .: ..

. c ,, . . , . . ..; _ _.. ,..

,.-. I

. . . , . . I,  :. -  :!.9.  : ,% - : ... .

,g -

.s

. e

.- e vs ' ' g*

p ;.

.z. . .,

..e@5.

t,%.*,.)

-. .1.y

.a ;4= .

~

~I .. ' !

c','.3'f..!,.gg% 2.-.:.^~ . . . . .~'X._ ; w' <  !

.u. s .

, . 2 .

.r..

\. y - .g./.sr ,.

s .-

s g:: .r y t: g,, . \ ,.

. k..:' . .,... '.

. t s...- s

?. . v. *

~.

t .',. 5 6 ,. -

w/. .

\ ,..v

...t.rY. m ',

o.: . ..

.:.,n N.

. ,p N=

3

. ~. .> g .. '

..,x . .

..,... e .y:

~

)....; s.

h e j:.... . \.. M / ,,,1 ,

• '4 ,

.l . . r -

s s

e.. ,

.,2 o . .%.

-v. . e , - . . . . .' ... .. p -

s (.. ,t -'9W l: N

. .(/ . . . _ .s.

. ,l s

d. . 3. .

. .. .' t 1 r . . o . . e. . 1,. . .

4c. .. .

./.

\. .

- y. . J .- . ,I L . p a l' ,

~~~ ! -

. - Q

. ,. ~ .. c.e- - -,

e .i

-.1; y 2. % -

7. . .,: ,..

~ ' ,;c  ! g,,,

2:, ,, .

F -

[ 5 - 2

.\_, ..

..w[ ,

y ,. - .,,

(

f" .1, L e

-- 1-- , 7 , 3 .

i,i i L y' ,I i .,15. -

• ?

i r j.

. ,/

ts .,l,. y! p

..j .- i , ./

s' .,

t .. -

i. vf. a.. ..

('~~;;-- -- :--

i

~\.

i

~...a., p.

. - > - l.,- ,

, '/,..

. ..i.t i .... -

--s-

. -.t . e, ' .-

'n

23. .r . -- ' - . .

.,e:,-4 y 'Yl~

. . * *. i nab S. , :,

1 a..d.i ~ 'N 41 1

RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTAk. SAMPl EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET I of 3) 2-8

i

.h. ,l1, ' . 'M. n . .. .

,[ ' {,. ) - .y. *-*. ., ..

n . (. Y. .

.s

n. /

.g ,

.... g r

,.. 3.a m . e

.> ;.c 3. . . ...

. . . . . ~

. . 's,; ~+ u.m ...e.. s

' ,j 8 a ..  : .

. um...

o . .1 . i

'/ ,1. L~ %y -

. ,0 v..' .- t, 'g.6 l a ., .. :.

n. > >  :

%,< \ i \,, 8_!

. .. 4 .

. . s. .

'.

• l ry

".. f,D .

g* -

g 3 I

,l'

.". .~ . : ., x .. ,

.w,<. . , v

> .e :e r

s . . ,. y .

is; . - ..;.x :

s.t m

.. ~

<  :: .  ;,. .::~. -

,.y.. .,  %- i

..a . e.gj*.. % rL.. :s. . ,,v..7i . e. -

e .

sm.,04 , y s

- y. -} , %q . Q.,. j... .

. . :'s.), .- .

• P,,

i ' .q ,. % ! <.

s ' . )"'- i Q. ;/); \ . ;,

e

.- i ..

s

..t .,.

r.s:

...... m . s..

i .i . ... .

. .'v : . \; -

5 : .. ,.. . . .

.4 M 3 . .z.c .

J .

6 /. \..7.

i. . .j;..J..:-8

.. ' 9 ,10' e

,1 3- .y

. e s. .

mt

\. ,j . . . ..

.6

.s' .

., p e .,.,

,1 .,.,,.,s , , f"

\ / .,! . . . , . ..: . .r. ..R 5,_/ q, .. .n v .. . ...j. .

e.,  ;

.. ., , . s, . .

i

.5j.. s

. ' t y%.a - (s,, . v.

- \ ,:

a . -

. 4; .

5

.,1 . . ..

. .......v..

Q, . *) '

.;. 4.. , A . ar.  ;: ~ ;i.. ,,. . - : .k

f. '.

i . '.' - l l \, hh f ~,

ut

.g

e. u. .......p.s. - + .

. /- .. . . . . - .. . g. .

m.  ;- . s. .. ) . ~....

./

. . ." 11 0 ' .

.. 4y ...%

t

% .- ... [ '. ,s gf.4 g

g.

. . g, . .;.,

.fr. ,' .g. . . .= . s " , 92 -

..n-... . w% a

. .. . - i.. .

Ym n,

..,..',. o.. .

,t ,

~ -1 . ' .i 3. . ..

.. w .~ .

q

. ;, l,,g.

l0 ,

_(.j ,.. ,

N. . . . .

.g.f,) .'"'- T z :o..G  ? Y' -

~

... ,\ ... ( #; .' . )

...r..... .. . - . ..i...,... .~

$.,555 N ,. \ ll*

M. , . :), >.~ .,Q..  %

/ . i

. '.m

~~

o. . v; . *e <:

<e , , ey.. e '-

1. , ,, ,

)

% .

• • - I

, . . \, _* _i

• RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 2 of 3) )

2-9

1 1

I

, . .F / 1 . -1 7 , t , I ' 9PA. - -

'.; .l.4 ..

7 .

3 _,.6x- ,.

q

5 i.'HnNL.

'L !

.f 3.,.s.m-2, 7~. . .0e.,}" .

3-(

t .

t i r, -

A... \. ., * ,

,. . ., L k..

-, , i

\ '

...y r .

%, s . . .

-. .1 u hw:~,a.:c: .j i.3, ,:. . ,} .- /' / - .

f).,

.,~~.,

v T... '.<-

l

\

eg \ l ,

x ,

~ d. .,' ,

I

~ 3, , :.1s

, .<..J......,.

i i

h ./-  :*

\.

\.

.6

%. ..1- i .r f .. -

.- ,L e

e. . ,> \

, 2 , a/

e

/ y%,. .,.

.t '.,'} [ - N' -

\ 4. F'

. e i m.

d. ,~.,.. ...I....;..... .

.Q ., .

I

. . . ^ .. . . . . . . _ '% ~~ . . e N M..- '-s!.

i *i A~r i  %. .- - 4 . .. >,.(..:. .

...f

" _ .'.~  ;. p; l ,. ._

s,. .a.,c , /" . 4....... :_s_,. .c.,0 , , . , . . . . . . .<-. . . . . . .

~~4

-s. ..

i . .: ;

. . . - . .. .x... . . .L.g. .

3.....,...,

s . - .

...,s ,.

g- .. . ..J.-.. ,,,,s. ,y ,  ;

.. > . e ,. . <.. .

r~e  : , I

y. y a.

a.

...~.,

l ,.. .:< :. .

- p' -

4 9, .

. ..e a

- ./ . ' .. .- t

. . N ,. 1 y . . . . l.. .p..,- , , . . . . r. .

r , -5

...w...........>,,.,..,.

~ . .

. .- p,~..w ..:

y.. ... .

.a. ,

s.,

,. . . .w,,..; .

. ,..... . . . ..- , ,..y s.

.... 6 . . , .,-

s, , -

.. :. . . y . . . . .

. . . . . c. .. . ..... ......

n . = : gy.,, , ;,.

. g. _ ..

. . . . .. ..w..

. . .-. . . n m,- a .- e .s

,.~~,

..;..  ;. s .........- a..

.S.:....,..

. . . .. .. . . ,w... .* . .

..a q ~..

p . .

,. . p.

t_,,

,j.--- s,

-g_y ; .

slpga _

.1, c. .

l

. .. . . , 7. g+

i,  ; y .^

%. , sp .. 3 ; :.... ,

s,.

< 4

. . .  : .. x . .~.. .

4..

/. . , .

.~.

s i. .

. . . . e. .. ..1,

% s. s...s, . ..

.(

.i . 3 .

,.+.-

. n 4 ....

. . ; .. .... .. . .s. . . . . . . . . . - --

. s .

. . ... , .b. .....g . s.?. ,. .

, g. , , . . , ... . ,,.

. . ~.

...,. . .. 2 .

,. .s o.: . . .. .y...- .

assw. .:. i. . . . , .

e

~ , p..

.dr.

i

. t . ;. J. .r . i*3... .g.opA,,. _L 3

.'g. . [..-->+_(, . ',y(q.. pi .

.1 si ,_  ;.:..

t .

. h. .

_Jes. ys, .o,e a . A .

l l

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 3 of 3) 2-10

\

i l

M l men M i

l $

5 - *  :

l I

4 N -

! I ... 3 5 A i I I j -

i e i ie es os

1. M y seus a emi.as l esteed '

,c=.6 m HNP, #//,

Oluer w~w

% ... ~ 2 \

o~~

.... t uun c

.. . ]

e

. . .. m ,

l

' l j

I LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL scmiN r. Hatch STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION Georgia Power aucuam4=r _

FIGURE 2-3 2-11

3.0 RESULTS

SUMMARY

l In accordance with ODCM 7.1.2.1, summarized and tabulated results  ;

I for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the designated indicator and control stations are presented in Table 3-1 in a format similar to that of Table 3 of the Nuclear 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 particular sample type.

1

)

I 1

3-1 l

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 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)

Concentration Range Distance & Range Range (Unit of of Analyses (Fraction)

Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction)

Airborne Gross Beta 10 21.7 No. 103 22.6 21.7 Particulates 311 9-40 Inner Ring 10-31 10-34

( fCi /m') (207/207) 1.8 miles (52/52) (104/104)

NE

<a Gamma Isotopic 24 Cs-134 50 NDM (c) NDM NDM Cs-137 60 NDM NDM NOM i Airborne I-131 70 NDM NDM NDM Radioiodine 311 '

( f Ci /m')

Direct Gamma Dose NA (d) 11.5 No. 104 15.1 10.8 Radiation 75 10-17 Inner Ring 11-17 9-12 (mR/91 days) (63/63) 1.6 miles (4/4) (12/12)

ENE l

.i

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 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)

Concentration Range Distance & Range Range (Unit of of Analyses (Fraction) (Fraction)

Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction Milk Gamma Isotopic (pCi/1) 26 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 26 Vegetation Gamma Isotopic ,

i' (pCi/kg wet) 36 I-131 60 NDM NDM NDM Cs-134 60 NDM NM NDM Cs-137 80 49.8 No. 106 59.9 47.6 31-89 Inner Ring 33289'- 41-58 (11/24) 1.1 miles (6/12) (3/12)

ESE

f TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 0F-6) j 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 r

-Medium or ' Type and Minimum Locations Annual Mean- Locations Detectable Mean (b) Na 0 Mean (b). Mean (b)' l Pathway Sampled Total Number (Unit of of Analyses Concentration Range. Distance & Range Range j Performed -(MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction) j Measurement) l.

River-Water Gamma Isotopic  ;

(pC1/1) 24 15 NDM NDM NDM-Mn-54 Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM Co-58 15 NDM 'NDM. '~

NDM  :

J Co-60 15 NDM NDM .NDM.

Zn-65 30 NDM NDM- NDM  ;

Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM  :

i Nb-95 15 NDM NDM NDM -[

, -j I-131 15 (e) NDM NDM NDM  !

Cs-134 15 -NDM NDM NDM ,

r Cs-137 18 NDM NDM' NDM  !

i --:

Ba-140 60 NDM NDM- NDM La-140 15 NDM NDM NDM' f

.i

.I c;

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 0F 6)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

l 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) of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & Range Range (Unit of Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction)

Measurement)

Tritium 3000 (f) 200 No. 172 200 NDM 8 200-200 Downstream 200-200 (1/4) 3.0 miles (1/4)

Gamma Isotopic

[ Fish (pCi/kg wet) 8 Mn-54 130 NDM NDM NDM Fe-59 260 NOM 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 25.0 No. 170 27.9 27.9

- 14-37 1.5 miles 20-41 20-41 (4/4) Upstream (3/4) (3/4)

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ e-

TABLE 3-l'(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 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) of Analyses Concentration Range Distance & Range Range (Unit of Measurement) Performed (MDC) (a) (Fraction) Direction (Fraction) (Fraction)

Sediment Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg dry) 4 Cs-134 150 NDM NDM NDM Y Cs-137 180 52.3 No. 170 80.6 80.6

• 45-59 1.1 miles60-101 60-101 (2/2) Upstream (2/2) (2/2) 6 L

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 6 0F 6)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAt

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 colunn 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 HDC greater than the value listed in this column is discussed in Section 4.

b. Mean and range are based upor, 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).

37

. 4. 0L 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 indicator and control stations and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) between these two <

groups at the 99 percent Confidence Level (CL). The MDD was i determined using the standard Student's t test. A difference in I the average values which was less than the MDD was considered to be' 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.

All results were tested for conformance to Chauvenet's Criterion 1 to flag any values which might differ from the others in its set.

by a relatively large amount. Identified outliers were 1 investigated to determine the reason (s) for the deviation from the l norm. If due to an equipment malfunction or other valid physical l reason, the anomalous result is deemed non-representative and i excluded from the data set. No datum was excluded for failing l Chauvenet's Criterion only. Any exclusions are discussed in this section under the appropriate sample type.

The annual land use census as required by ODCM 4.1.2 was conducted on November 13 to determine the locations of the nearest permanent residence 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 7 500 square feet producing broad leaf vegetation were also included j- in the census. The census results are tabulated in Table 4-1.

4 l

4

1. G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowetz, Princioles of Radioisotone )

Methodoloav, (Burgess Publishing Company,1962), pages 87-90. )

l 1

4-1 .,

1

,vr r - , , , -- a, , , . - - - . _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - . _ _ _

TABLE 4-1 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS Distance in Miles'to Nearest Location in Each Sector SECTOR RESIDENCE tLILK ANIMAL GARDEN N 2.0

• 1.9 NNE 2.9

• 2.9 NE 3.2

• ENE 4.2

• 4.7 E

ESE 3.7

• SE 1.8

• 3.5 SSE 2.0

• 3.7 5 1.0

• 1.5 SSW 1.1

• 2.3 SW 1.1

• 1.5 WSW 1.1

• 2.0 W 1.1

• 2.6 WNW 1.1

• 1.2 NW 3.6 NNW 1.8

• 2.8

• None within 5 miles.

4-2

ODCH 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 ,

calculated dose greater than that currently _being calculated. An

- analysis of the survey's results showed that there'were none.

ODCM 4.1.2.2.2 requires th'at_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 station.(if samples are available). None of the gardens yielded a r 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 ,

the county extension agents.in 5 counties in the vicinity of the plant on January 20 and again on August 8 in 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 18. As in all previous surveys, no intakes for drinking water or irrigation were observed. This result was corroborated by information obtained from the Georgia '

Department of Natural Resources on September 22: it was confirmed

that no water withdraws) permits for drinking water or irrigation-j purposes had been issued for this stretch of the Altamaha River.

Should it become known that river water downstream of the plant is used for drinking, the sampling and analysis requirements for

drinking water as delineated in Table 2-1 would be implemented.

4 i

1 i

i l

1 d

4 4

W 4-3

i ~

1

~

4.1 ~ Airborne i- As indicated by' Table 2 2 and Figure's 2-1 and 2-2, airborne porticulates and airborne radiciodine are collected at-4 indicator-1- 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 I glass fiber filter and a SAIC CP-200~ charcoal canister in sequence.

to retain airborne particulates and to adsorb airborne ,

s radiciodine, respectively.

The filters and canisters are collected weekly. Each of the air particulate filters is counted for gross beta activity. A gamma isotopic analysis is performed quarterly on a composite of the air -

1 particulate filters for each station. Each charcoal canister is analyzed for I-131 by gamma spectroscopy.

On December 11 the power was found to be off at Station 116 due to

- a broken wire which seemed to have failed as a result of high

{ winds. Arrangements were made to have'the Altamaha Electric i Membership Cooperative which provides power.to this station to promptly repai_r the. broken wire. The pump had run for only about l 34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br />. The laboratory analysis results were deemed to-be unacceptable as the gross beta activity failed to satisfy Chauvenet's criterion.

p

As seen in Table 3-1, the annual average' weekly gross beta l activity (to 3 significant figures) during 1995 for both the indicator and control stations was 21.7 fC1/m' . The average value j for the indicator stations was actually 0.018 fC1/m' greater than that for the control stations. However, this difference is not 1

- discernible, since it is less than the MDD, calculated as 1.4 l fC1/m'. During the past 7 years (1988 through 1994), the average weekly activity for the year at the indicator stations randomly varied from 0.9 fCi/m' greater than to 0.3 fCi/m' less than that I i for the control stations. Over the entire 7 year period, the average weekly activity for the indicator stations was 0.15 fCi/m' l l greater than that for the control stations. l l

l-Y s

4-4

]

4 During this 7 year period, the annual average weekly gross beta activity for all stations randomly varied from 18.1 pC1/m' in 1991 to 22.3 pCi/m' in 1988: the average for the entire period was 19.5 fCi/m'. In past years, it had been an order of magnitude higher.

For example: the annual average activity was 140 fC1/m' during preoperation, 242 fC1/m' during 1977, and 195 fC1/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 fCi/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.

During 1995, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis 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.

Airborne 1-131 is not normally detected in the charcoal canisters

and 1995 was no exception. However, during 1976, 1977 and 1978,

, positive levels of I-131 were found in nearly all of the samples collected for a period of a few weeks following the arrival of the 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 fC1/m'. In 1986, the same phenomenon occurred because of the Chernobyl incident. The highest airborne I-131 level found to date in an individual charcoal canister was 217 (C1/m' in 1977. The RL for airborne 1-131 is 900 fC1/m'.

4-5 i

}

4.2 Direct Radiation Direct (external) radiation is measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Two Panasonic UD-814 TLD badges are placed at each station. Each badge contains three phosphors which are compose 1 of calcium sulfate (with thulium impurity) crystals. The gamma dose at each station is nominally based upon the average readings of the phosphors from the two badges. The two badges for each station are sealed in a thin plastic bag for protection from moisture while in the field. The badges are nominally exposed for 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 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 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 ,

at a radius which is a few miles greater than those for the other stations in its ring. The flood plain in this sector prevents easy access on a year round basis to the site boundary and to the 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 indicator stations. The 3 control stations (Nos. 304, 309 and 416) are at least 10 miles from the plant. Stations 064 and 301 accommodate special interest areas. Station 064 is located in an onsite roadside park, while Station 301 is adjacent to the Toombs Central School. Station 210 in the outer ring is adjacent to the Altamaha School, the only other nearby school.

As shown in Table 3-1, the average quarterly exposure of 11.5 mR acquired at the indicator stations (inner ring) during 1995 was 0.7 mR greater than that acquired at the control stations. This difference is not discernible since it is less than the MDD of 1.0 mR. During the 15 year period from 1980 through 1994, 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 indicator stations over the entire 15 year period was almost 0.3 mR greater than that for the control stations.

4-6

- . . _ - - . - . . _ ._._ _ . _ . ~ . - - . _ _ __ __. - _ . _ -_

t i

4 The quarterly exposures acquired. at outer ring stations dur.ing . ,

. 1995 ranged from 8.4 to'15.3 mR with.an average!of 11.3 mR which is 0.2 mR less than that found for the inner. ring. There was no

discernible difference between the averages'for.the inner and the' i 2

outer rings, since the difference is less than the MOD of 0.7 mR. .i for -the 15 year period beginning-in =1980, the" average quarterly J- exposure for-the year at the inner ring, stations randomly varied' from'1.0 mR greater than to 0.5 mR less than that at the outer

, ring stations. .0verall, the average quarterly exposure for the >

inner ring was about 0.2 mR greater. than that for the outer ring, i The' quarterly exposures in units of mR acquired during 1995 at 'the special. interest areas which are listed below are seen to be

~

t within'the' range of those acquired at the other stations. l Station Averaae Minimum Maximum 4

064' 11.0 10.7 11.3 i 301 10.5 10.4 10.7 l There were two failures in obtaining a quarterly dose measurement j during 1995, Station 064 for the first quarter and Station 115 for .

a the fourth quarter. On two occasions, only one badge was  !

available to obtain the quarterly dose, TLDs 105A and 106A both in

• the second' quarter. Two badges (TLD 113B exposed during the second quarter.and TLD 101B exposed during the fourth quarter) 6 were not used as the result for each had a standard deviation

i. which was greater than the self imposed limit of 1.4: the companion badge only was used in these cases for determining the l quarterly dose.

When exchanges were made at the end of the first quarter, both

badges were missing at Station 064. During the midquarter l ,

inspection on November 13. both. badges were found to have been destroyed at Station 115 as a consequence of logging operations being conducted in the area. Since the badges at Station 115 were only on-station for 50 days, the result were tested for conformance with Chauvenet's criterion; they failed the test and ,

were therefore excluded from the data base.

During the second quarter, TLD 105B was found to have been crushed i by loggers and TLD 106B was found to have been stolen.

No reason was determined for the high standard deviations found ,

with the results for TLD 1138 for the second quarter and for TLD

, 1018 for the fourth quarter. They were visually inspected under a

+- - microscope; the glow curve and test results for the anneal data and the element correction factor were reviewed.  ;

4-7

)

4

3- ,

The standard-deviation limit of 1.4 was' calculated'using a meth'od2 developed by the American Society for' Testing and Materials (ASTM).. The calculation was based upon the standardideviations obtained with~the Panasonic U0 814 badges during 1992. This limit

. serves as a flag to evoke an investigation. To be conservative, readings with a greater standard deviation are deleted since the high standard deviation is interpreted as an indication.of a

' suspect'TLD.

In addition to the above, replacement' badges were installed at

. Station 206 during the midquarter inspection ~on May 8 when it;was discovered they had been stolen. Although the replacements were only on station for 56 days the results were acceptable since.

Chauvenet's criterion was satisfied.

The' nominal corrective' action taken for the 5 stolen badges mentioned above was to conceal the badges by placing them in a nearby bush or tree. For the badges destroyed by the logging operations, the corrective action was to reinstall the badges on a power pole or other stable object not likely to be affected by such operations in the future.

I i

2. ASTM Special Technical Publication 150, ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis, Fourth Revision.

Philadelphia, PA, October 1976.

4-8

4,3 Milk Milk samples from cows are obtained biweekly from Station 304 (the 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 1995 as in the previous 5 years, no man-made radionuclides were detected from the gamma isotopic analysis of the milk samples. Except for 1987. Cs-137 was found in some of the samples each year from 1978 (when this analysis became a requirement) through 1989. No other man made radionuclides have been detected by this analysis of the samples. During preoperation and the early years of operation, a chemical separation technique was employed to measure the Cs-137 levels in the samples.

During preoperation, the average positive level of Cs-137 was 19.3 pC1/1; during operation, the averages were 14.8 pCi/l for the period from 1978 through 1983, and 9.6 pCi/l from 1984 through 1989. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in milk are 18 and 70 pC1/1, respectively. I for the past 6 years, 1-131 has not been detected in any of the l

. milk samples. During preoperation, all readings were less than 2 '

pCi/l which was the allowed MDC at that time. Positive results were reported each year during the first 5 years of operation (1974 through 1978); these results ranged from 0.95 to 88 pCi/1.

In 1980, positive results ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 pC1/1; then in 1986, from 0.6 to 20 pCi/1. In 1988, a single reading of 0.32 pC1/1 which was believed to have resulted from a procedural deficiency, was reported. The MDC and RL for 1-131 in milk are 1 i and 3 pCi/1, respectively.

I All the positive readings for Cs-137 and I-131 are generally i attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident.

4-9

l 4.4 Vegetation Gamma isotopic analysis is performed on each grass sample ]

collected monthly from two indicator stations (Nos. 106 and 112) I and one-control station (No. 416). Gamma isotopic analysis on j vegetation samples began during 1978 when it became a TS '

requirement.

The results presented in Table 3-1 show that Cs-137 was the only man made radionuclide detected during 1995: this has been the case since 1986. The average value of 49.8 pC1/kg wet found at the indicator stations was 2.2 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 30.6 pC1/kg wet.

During the past 5 years (1990 through 1994), the average positive activity found at the indicator stations randomly varied from 32.2 pCi/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 5 year period was 2.3 pCi/kg wet less than that for the control station.

The MDC and RL for Cs 137 in vegetation samples are 80 and 2000 pC1/kg wet, respectively. The presence of Cs-137 in the vegetation samples is attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests of past years and to the Chernobyl incident.

4-10

. ~ . _ _ . . . _ - > _ _ _ m a

I4 4.5 River-Water Surface water is composited from the Altamaha River at an upstream

~

h' location'(Station 170) and at a downstream location-(Station 172) b 'using ISC0_ automatic samplers. Small quantities'are collected at

intervals not exceeding a few hours. River water samples collected by.these machines are picked up monthly: quarterly i- composites are'made from the monthly collections.

l A gamma' isotopic analysis is conducted on each monthly collection.

As.is usually the case, no man-made radionuclides were detected i during 1995; positive results are seldom found. The only man made radionuclides detected previously (by gamma isotopic analysis) are

presented below: .the levels are in units of pCi/1.

lean Quarigt l Station- Radionuclide Level 4

1975 4th 172 Ce-141 18.2 1986 2nd 170 La 140 18.0

! 1986 2nd 172 Cs-137 12.0 l 1988 2nd 170 Cs-137 6.8 The' positive results for 1986 are attributed to the Chernobyl i incident.

i Tritium analysis is performed on each quarterly composite.

Detectable results were found in only one sample during 1995: the

! sample collected at the indicator station for the third quarter had an activity of 200 pCi/1. Before 1986, positive results were usually found in each composite at levels typically between 200 and 400 pCi/1. Subsequently, the number of positive results and

.their levels diminished. The last positive results were found in 1990 when two samples at the indicator station'each had. levels of '

approximately 140 pCi/1.

The annual 50 mile downstream survey of the Altamaha River to determine if river water has begun to be used for drinking j purposes is discussed in Section 4.0.

i l

};

4+11 h

re- r, ,

4

,1 U

p -.

2

'4.6 Fish 2

Gamma isotopic analysis is performed on the edible portion of the fish samples collected at the river stations on April 6 and

. November 9. The control station (No. 170) is. located-upstreamlof i the plant while the-indicator station (No. 172)'is located downstream. Channel catfish were collected at the' control station .

in April; largemouth bass were collected at each station in both 2.

April'and November; and redear sunfish were collected at the control station in November and at the indicator station in both j months.

As shown in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was the only man-made radionuclide i- detected during 1995. It.was found in each sample except the

redear sunfish collected at the control station in November. The j average level of 25.0 pCi/kg wet at the indicator station is seen ,

to be 2.9 pC1/kg wet less than that at the control station. This j difference, however is not discernible since it is less than the i

MDD of 26.8 pCi/kg wet. The MDC and RL for Cs-137 in fish are 150 l and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively.

3 l There seems to have been a reduction in the Cs-137 level after i 1988. This is illustrated by comparing the range and mean of annual averages in units of pC1/kg wet at the indicator and

control stations for the 1984-1988 period with the 1989-1994

! period, i-

! 11am 84-88 89-94 Indicator Station Mean 84.0 32.9

< Lowest 62.0 26.7

j. Highest 117.0 41.6 Control Station Mean 49.1 25.9

3. Lowest 33.3 24.2

< Highest 63.3 28.9 l In the past, the only other 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 g was found in about _ half of the samples at levels on the order of i

those found for Cs-137.

-, D I

4-12 1

_, ,1

l I

4.7 Sediment Sediment is collected along the shoreline of the Altamaha River at an upstream control stations (No. 170) and a downstream indicator station (No. 172). A gamma isotopic analysis is performed on each s ampl e .

During 1995, collections were made on May 1 and November 6. As usual, Cs-137 was detected in each sample. Positive readings for Cs-137 have 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 52.3 pCi/kg dry found i at the indicator station was 28.3 pC1/kg dry less than that found at the control station. This difference is not discernible as it is less than the MDD of 150 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. during preoperation as well as during operation. The levels for 1995 are typical of and within the range of those found previously.

In past years, various fission and activation products were occasionally found in the sediment samples. Their presence was generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests or to the Chernobyl incident, although plant releases were not ruled out, especially in recent years. This year (1995) is the first year since 1987 when only Cs-137 was found in the sediment samples.

l 4 13

I~

5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARIS0N PROGRAM As. required by ODCM 4.1.3, the El participates in an interlaboratory comparison program whose purpose is to ensure that' '

independent checks are performed on the precision and accuracy of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices. Analyses are conducted'on radioactive materials  ;

supplied by the Performance Evaluation Program manWed by the l Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at their Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada. In past years. this EPA Program was known as the Intercomparison Studies (Crosscheck) Program. 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 EPA program.

The EPA program was designed for laboratories involved with REMPs and includes' environmental media and a variety of radionuclides with activities which might be as low as environmental levels.

Simulated environmental samples are distributed regularly to the j participants who analyze the samples and return the results to the l EPA for statistical analysis and comparisons with known values and with results obtained from other participating laboratories. The j EPA then provides each participant with documentation of its

performance

this can be helpful in identifying any instrument or procedure problems.

The El analyzes the EPA supplied samples consistent with the requirements of Table 2-1. Analyses are performed in a normal

, manner. Each sample is analyzed in triplicate as required by the program. Results obtained during 1995 for the gross beta and l-gamma isotopic analyses of air filters, the gamma isotopic analysis of milk samples, and the tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples are summarized in Table 5-1.

Delineated in Table 5-1 for each of the environmental media are the type analyses performed. EPA's collection dates, the known values and expected prerisions provided by the EPA, the average results obtained and reported by the El along with the standard deviations of these results, and the normalized deviations and the normalized ranges from the known results. The normalized deviations and normalized ranges were also provided by the EPA.

5-1

-- = - -- . ..

TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 0F 2)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Radionuclide Date Known Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized or Analysis Collected Value Precision Averaae Deviation Deviation Rance Air Filters (pCi/ filter)

Gross Beta 08/25/95 86.6 10.0 89.00 3.00 0.42 0.35 Cs-137 08/25/95 25.0 5.0 30.00 3.00 1.73 0.71 Milk (pCi/1)

I-131 09/29/95 99.0 10.0 98.33 5.69 -0.12 0.65

[

Cs-137 09/29/95 50.0 5.0 49.00 1.00 -0.35 0.24 Water (pCi/1)

H-3 03/10/95 7435.0 744.0 7033.33 257.16 -0.94 0.38 08/04/95 4872.0 487.0 4530.00 121.24 -1.22 0.29 Co-60 06/09/95 40.0 5.0 38.67 4.04 -0.46 0.83.

11/03/95 60.0 5.0 58.00 4.00 -0.69 0.95 Zn-65 06/09/95 76.0 8.0 80.33 10.50 0.94 2.05 11/03/95 125.0 13.0 126.33 6.35 0.16 0.50

e TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2 0F 2)

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM RESULTS Radionuclide Date Known Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized-or Analysis Collected Value Precision Averace Deviation Deviation Rance Cs-134 06/09/95 50.0 5.0 44.00 2.65 -2.08 0.59 11/03/95 40.0 5.0 34.00 -3.46 -2.08 0.71_

Cs-137 06/09/95 35.0 5.0 40.00 6.08 i.13 1.57 11/03/95 49.0 5.0 51.33 1.53 ;0.81 0.35 ,

Ba-133 06/09/95 79.0 8.0 72.00 4.36 41.52 0.59 T

w G .

a t

m s?

w e

I f

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 '

absolute value of 3 standard deviations for the normalized l deviation and for the normalized range was established by the EPA I as the control limit. An absolute value of 2 standard deviations was established as the warning limit. The El considers any value greater than the control limit as unacceptable. Investigations are undertaken whenever any value exceeds the warning limit or whenever a plot of the values indicates a trend.

An investigation was undertaken due to the following conditions which may be noted from Table 5-1:

1. The warning limit for the normalized range was exceeded for Zn-65 in the gamma isotopic analysis of the water sample collected on June 9:

, 2. The warning limit for the normalized deviation was exceeded for Cs-134 in the gamma isotopic analysis of the water sample collected on June 9 and November 3; and

3. A downward trend was indicated from plots of Cs-134 found from the gamma isotopic analysis of water samples.

1 The EPA samples for gamma isotopic analysis are diluted to produce four separate one liter marinellis. The samples are counted and statistically analyzed. The three samples with the overall best precision are reported to the EPA. The June 9 sample with the Zn-65 was analyzed in this manner. One of the analysis results was determined to be suspect. The remaining three samples were reported to the EPA. The samples in the future will be counted on at least two different detectors to rule out any suspect analysis.

The EPA stated that there were problems with the analysis of Cs-134 and that laboratories using commercial standards for calibration of their gamma counting systems may experience problems with coincidence summing of the primary energy peak for Cs-134. The energy peak is 604 key. The concentration of the standards used did not produce the adequate summing effects.

The activity for Cs-134 in water is trending low. This indicates a likely problem with the background correction factors. The background correction factors for the gamma counting systems need to be evaluated as the detectors were relocated to a different room in 1994. The background of the room will be evaluated and new correction factors determined.

5-4

6.0 CONCLUSION

S This report confirms the licensee's conformance with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the ODCM during 1995, 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. -

No discernible radiological impact upon the environment or public as a consequence of plant discharges to the atmosphere and to the river was established.

6-1