Text

1980 Annual Environ Rept,Radiological, Vol 2
	ML20003G653
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	04/28/1981
From:	; DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20003G652	List: ML20003G651; ML20003G653;
References
	PROJECT-561A NUDOCS 8104300410
	Download: ML20003G653 (121)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:a m 9 I 1980 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT RADIOLCGICAL - VOLUME #2 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POER STATION AND SHIPPINGPORT ATOMIC POER STATION I I l 8104300Y\\0 I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I ~ ABSTRACT This report describes the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program conducted during 1980 in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. The Radiological Environmental Program consists of on-slte sampling of water and gaseous effluents and off-site monitoring of water, air, river sediments, soils, food pathway samples, and radiation levels in the vicinity of the site. This report discusses the results of this monitoring during 1980. The environmental program outlined in the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications was followed throughout 1980. There were no radioactive liquid effluents released from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station since radioactive liquids are processed and re-cycled within the plant systems. The results of this environmental monitoring program show that Shippingport Atomic Poser Station and Beaver Valley Power Station operations have not adversely affected the surrounding environment. I I I I I

I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report E TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page Abstract i I. INTRODUCTION y A. Scope and Objectives of the Program 1 B. Description of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Site 2 I II. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS 6 I III. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS 9 A. Environmental Quality Control Prograns 9 B. Evaluation of the Quality Control Program Data 24 C. Standard Requirements and Limitations for Radiological and Other Effluents 25 D. Significant Changes and Reporting Levels 25 IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS 27 A. Monitoring of Liquid Effluents 27 1. Effluent Treatment, Sampling, and Analytical Procedures 33 l l 2. Results 34 B. Monitoring of Airborne Effluents 35 l l 1. Description of Airborne Effluent Sources 35 2. Airborne Effluent Treatment and Sampling 39 Analytical Procedures for Sa=pling Airborne Effluents 42 4. Results 45 l C. Solid Waste Disposal 47 11 l I

I DUQUESN LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 49 A. Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program 49 1. Program Description 49 2. China's Nuclear Test Fallout 49 3. Summary of Results 65 4. Quality Control Program 65 B. Air Monitoring 71 1. Characterization of Air and Meteorology 71 2. Air Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 71 3. Results and Conclusions 73 C. Monitoring of Sediments and Soils 76 1. Characterization af Stream Sediments and Soil 76 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Technique * - 76 3. Results and Conclusions 78 D. Monitoring of Feederops and Foodcrops 80 1. Characterization of Vegetation and Foodcrops 80 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 80 3. Results and Conclusions 82 E. Monitoring of Local Cow's Milk 83 1. Description - Milch Animal Locations 83 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 83 3. Results and Conclusions 86 I lii I

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPAST 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (continued) 88 F. Environmental Radiation Monitoring 88 1. Description of Regiona'l Backgrourd Sdiation Levels 88 and Sources 2. Locations & Analytical Procedures 88 I 3. Results and Conclusions 93 G. Monitoring of Fish 94 1. Descrip tion 94 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 94 3. Results and Conclusions '94 H. Monitoring of Surface, Drinking, and Well Waters ,96 1. Description of Water Sources 96 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 96 3. Results and Conclusions 100 I. Estimates of Radiation Dose to Man 103 1. Pathways to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station 103 a. Calculational Models - Beaver Valley Power Station 103 2. Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station 104 3. Airborne Pathway 107 4. Conclusions - Beaver Vallay Power Station 107 5. Dose Pathways to Man - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 107 a. Calculational Model - Shippingport Atomic Power I Station 109 6. Results and Conclusions - Sh ?pingport Atomic Power Station 110 iv I

I I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I LIST OF FIGURES I Figure No. P_ age, 1.0 View of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Site 3 I 1.1 Geographical Map - 40 Mile Radius 4 4.1 Liquid Discharge Points to Ohio River 28 I 4.2 Water Flow Schematic - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 29 4.3 Water Flow Schematic - Beaver Valley Power Station 30 4.4 Liquid Radwaste Systems - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 31 I 4.5 Liquid Radwaste Systems - Beaver Valley Power Station 32 4.6 Gaseous Waste Processing - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 36 4.7 Gaseous Waste Processing - Beaver Valley Power Station 38 4.8 Gaseous Release Points - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 40 I and Beaver Valley Power Station 4.9 Solid Waste Disposal Diagram 48 I 5.B.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Air Sampling Stations 72 5.B.2 Concentrations of Gross Beta in Air Particulates 74 ' O.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Sediments 77 5.D.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Feederop and Foodcrop 81 I 5.E.1 Dairy Farm Locations (August - September 1980 Survey) 84 5.E.2 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Milk 85 5.E.3 Concentrations of I-131 in Milk 87 5.F.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Radiation Monitoring 89 5.F.2 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Radiation Monitoring 90 5.F.3 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Radiation Monitoring 91 I 5.F.4 Environmental Monitorig Locations - Radiation Monitoring 92 5.G.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Fish 95 I 5.H.1 Surface Water and Wells - Locations '98 I I I v

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I LIST OF TABLES I Table Number Page III.1 Quality Control Data - TLD Comparisons 10 III.2 Quality Control Data - Water Split Samples 11 III.3 Quality Control Data - Split Samples - Miscellaneous 13 III.4 Quality Control Data - Spiked Samples 16 I III.5 Quality Control Data - Spiked Samples 17 III.6 Quality Control Data - Air Particulates and I-131 18 III.7 Quality Control Data - Milk and Water 22 IV.A.1 Effluent Treatment, Sampling and Analytical Procedures - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 33 IV.A.2 Effluent Treatment, Sampling and Analytical Procedures - I Beaver Valley Power Station 33 IV.A.3 Results - Liquid Effluents - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 34 IV.A.4 Results - Liquid Effluents - Beaver Valley Power Station 34 V.A.1 Environmental Monitoring Program Su= mary 50 V.A.2 Environmental Data - Chinese Nuclear Test (10-16-80) Fallout 54 I V.A.3 Environmental Monitoring Program Results (1980) 55 V.A.4 Pre-Operational Monitoring Program Results (1974-1975) 66 V.A.5 Typical LLDs for Gamma Spectrometry - DLC Centractor 70 V.I.1 Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station - Liquid Releases 105 V.I.2 Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station - Airborne Releases 108 I I I I I vi I

I I SECTION I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY l 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I I. INTRODUCTION The 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report for the Beever Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station summarizes the radiological environmental program conducted by the Duquesne Light Company in 1980. The Duquesne Light Company operates the Shippingport Atomic Power Station for the United States Department of Energy and the Beaver I Valley Power Station pressurized water reactor - Unit No. 1 as part of the CAPCO pool. Beave.r Valley No. 2 Unit was under construction in 1980 and is scheduled to start-up in 1986. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station operated throughout 1980, with the gross electrical generation during the year of 384,750 megawatt-hours. The plant has been in operation utilizing a light water breeder reactor (LWBR) core since September 21, 1977. I The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was the first large-scale central station nuclear reactor in the United States. Since initial power generation in December, 1957, operation of the pressurized water reactor at the Shippingport plant has supplied power to the I Duquesne Light Company system in addition to providing technology which has served as a basis for the development of pressurized water reactors in the nuclear industry. The highest average daily output generated at the Beaver Valley Power Station during the year was 808 megawatts net in December, 1980. The total gross electrical generation during the year was 349,400 megawatt-hours. A. Scope and Objectives of the Program The environmental program consists of effluent and environmental monitoring for radioactivity. Liquid and gaseous effluents from I the Beaver Valley Power Station and gaseous effluents from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station were collected, processed, sampled, and analyzed to ensure conformance with the applicable regulations and permits prior to their release to the environment. I Environmental sampling and analyses included air, water, milk, soil, vegetation, river sediments, fish, and ambient radiation levels in areas surroundiag both plants. I I I

I I SECTION I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I I. INTRODUCTION B. Descri* tion of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Site The Shippingport Atomic Power Station and the Beaver Valley Power Station are located on the south bank of the Ohio River in the I Borough of Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, on a 486.8 acre tract of land which is owned by the Duquesne Light Company. Figure 1.0 is an artist's view of both stations. The site is approximately one mile from Midland, Pennsylvania; 5 miles from East Liverpool, Ohio; and 25 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Figure 1.1 shows the site location in relation to the principal I population centers. Population density in the immediate vicinity of the site is relatively low. There are no residents within a 1/2 mile radius of either plant. The population within a 5 mile radius of the plant is approximately 18,000 and the only I area of concentrated population is the Borough of Midland, Pennsylvania, with a population of approximately 5,000. The site lies in a valley along the Ohio River. It extends from the river (elevation 665 feet above sea level) to a ridge along the border south of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Stations at an elevation of 1,160 feet. Plant entrance level at I both stations is approximately 735 feet above sea level. The two (2) stations are situated on the Ohio River at river I mile 34.8, at a location on the New Cumberland Pool that is 3.3 river miles downstream from Montgomery Lock and Dam, and 19.4 miles upstream from New Cumberland Lock and Dam. The I Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia border is located 5.2 river miles downstream from the site. The river flow is regulated by a series of dams and reservoirs on the Beaver, Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio Rivers and their tributaries. Flow ranges from a minimum of 5000 cubic feet per second (CFS) to a maximum of 100,000 CFS. The mean annual flow is approximately 25,000 CFS. Water temperature of the Ohio River varies from a minimum of 32 F to 84 F, the minimum temperatures occur in January and/or February and maximum temperatures _n July and August. Water quality in the Ohio River at the site location is affected primarily by the water quality of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Beaver rivers. The climate of the area may be classified as humid continental. Annual precipitation is approximately 33 inches typical yearly 3 I temparatures vary from approximately -3 F to 95 F with an annual average temperature of 52.8 F. The predominant wind direction is typically from the southwest in summer and from the northwest in winter. I 1980 Annual o g ca r n= ental Report - v -t 0{. [ l' .s l b. g j s M h l s i y: l li ii if si g H I L. o: g l 4 5 y n a n l L rc 4 s l 2 = E I g l = =[, >=

.e

"; I.xad=~, _

mg i

,j..,,2 J - F-pga BFa % [isj n.e l .l r; m m s.. \\ _-

I I SECTICN I DCQUESNE LIGE CCMPANT FIGURE 1.1 1980 Annual Radiological Invironnescal Rapor: I f ~ a I l \\ T l \\ ALLIANCE, 3CrS g \\ M I k >>4,, 10 l g l f 30E0 0F !!T.J u.IQUIIPA 3:INSEIG - g+- 6 l e I \\' -[ /s// 2f ?I==s3UBC3 22 %

WEIR,

,7 j rw 1 g esFOC 4 STZU3CIVILLI 9 l 2 2 WAsantGTON 40 I 'l W l 40 me ) Zoads RLvers Q CL:Lss GECGRAPHICAL MAP AliD ?RDICI2AL CC dMUNI':""ES ni 40-MILE RADIUS OF M SHI??C;G70RT ATOMIC ?OWER STATICN AND TEZ 3EAVER. VALLII ?CWER STX"!Ott FIGURE 1.1 i, l ?00RORl8;NAL I ~ ~'~ i

l I SECTION I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report-I j I. INTRODUCTION B. Description of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Site (continued) The design ratings and basic features of the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station are I tabulated below: Beaver Valley _ Shippingport Thermal & Elec. Racing - 2660 W* 852 MW 236.6 MW 72 MW MW-Each Reactor Type of Reactor PWR PWR* Number of Reactor 3 4 Coolant Loops Number of Steam Generators 3 - Vertical 4 - Horizontal and Type Steam Used by Main Turbine Saturated Saturated Both stations utilize two (2) separate systems (primary and secondary) for transferring heat from the source (the reactor) to the receiving component (turbine-generator). Because the two systems are isolated from each other, primary and secondary I waters do not mix; therefore, radioactivity in the primary system water is normally isolated from the secondary system. Reactor coolant in the primary system is pumped through the I reactor core and steam generators by means of reactor coclant pumps. Heat is given up from the primary system to the secondary system in the steam generators, where steam is formed and delivered to the main unit turbine, which drives the E The steam is condensed af ter passing 3 electrical generator. through the turbine, and returned to the steam generators to begin another steam / water cycle. I NOTE: MW - megawatts ther=al C megawatts electrical MW lI E 'isht "* car Sr** der c r* i3 I f

SECTION II DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I II. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Plant operations at both the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station had no adverse effects on the environment as a result of activities at either of the stations during 1980.. Comparisons of pre-operational data with operational I data indicates the ranges of values are in good agreement for both periods of time. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station operated throughout 1980; Beaver Valley Power Station experienced an extensive outage for major modifications ac required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. During the year, the radioactive releases from both stations were below the I limits of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and applicable permits for each station. The releases at Beaver Valley Power Station did not exceed the limiting conditions identified in the Beaver Valley Power Station I Operating License Technical Specifications. These releases are summarized in Tables IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 of this report. The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for CY 1980 is generally similar to that of CY 1979. There have been a number of modifications in the details such as number and location of sample points for selected media, the sampling and analysis frequency of some media and the specific analysis performed. (Refer to Table V.A.1 for the 1980 Radiological Monitoring Program outline.) A major portion of these modifications reflect the requirements of I the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's version of the standardized Effluent Technical Specifications for PWRs (for implementation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I) as set forth in NUREG-0472, Revision 2 (January, 1980) and interpreted by NUREG-0133 " Preparation of Radiological I Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants." These requirements are the basis for industry-wide uniform technical speci-fications for PWRs (such as Beaver Valley Power Station) as related l to radiological effluents and environmental monitoring programs. l 1 5 Proposed revisions to Beaver Valley Technical Specifications have been prepared in accordance with these requirements and have been i submitted to the NRC for approval. The Radiological Environmental l Monitoring Program for 1980 is a transitional program reflecting both l the current Technical Specifications and the pending Technical Speci-l fications. A few additional analyses which were originally incorporated l into the environmental monitoring program in order to obtain information l on ambient levels in environmental samples were deleted from the 1980 l program. Sufficient data was collected during prior years to pro dde l g adequate measure of these ambient activity levels. While the abo,e g changes result in variations in details in the 1980 program, :he over-l all function and results are not impaired. ' I I

SECTION II DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I II. RESUL1 nND CONCLUSIONS (continued) The results of the 1980 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program a re onsistent with those of previous years. Radioactivity above normal t.ent levels in the environs was detected in some analysis but these slight increases are attributed to the nuclear weapons test on October 16, 1980 by the People's Republic of China. Examrtation of effluent data from the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station demonstrate that none of the slightly elevated results are attributable to the operation of either power station. For the CY 1980, no analytical results of any of the environmental samples exceeded the Beaver Valley Technical Specification reporting limits. When detectable environmental radioactivity occurred, it was comparable to the national levels of radioactivity in the environ-ment and resulted in negligible exposure to members of the public. A summary of the 1980 operational environmental data (ranges and means) I for each sampling media is found in Table V.A.3. A summary of preop-erational (1974 - 1975) environmental data is found in Table V.A.4. The People's Republic of Ctina tested a nuclear weapons device on October 16, 1980. This test resulted in a slight increase in the radioactivity of certain media during November and December, 1980. In general, these increases are less than that associated with previous tests. The time periods in which the increase of activity in certain environmeatal media was seen corresponded to the passage of the plume over this part of the United States. This, along with the radionuclides found in some media samples, confirms that this slight increase was attributable to the Chinese test rather than a nuclear power plant. The Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications require sampling of four (4) dairies which have the highest calculated milk pathway potential. These four dairies are determined from calculations I based on the meteorological data and the latest milch animal survey. However, these dairies are frequently small, consisting of as few as one cow or goat. The availability of milk from single cow dairies and revisions due to updated calculations and surveys result in sampling of I several additional dairies during the year in different sampling periods. In order to provide continuity in the sampling / analyses program, the I environmental monitoring program includes three larger dairies. Samples from each of these dairies are obtained each month in addition to the four dairies required by the Environmental Technical Specifications. I During some sampling periods, one or all of the additional dairies could be among the four required dairies. Thus, there were at least four and possibly as many as seven dairies sampled in any sampling ieriod. The collection periods associated with each of the w ations is provided ) in the detailed summary of the milk monitoring program Of this report (Section V-E). I i SECTION II DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report II. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS (continued) Lessoas learned from the Three Mile Island incident indicated the need for more radiation monitors in all sectors surrounding the plant. In the l 1980 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, twenty-eight (28) new l sites were added to the existing thirteen (13) TLD radiation monitoring sites. Engineering and procurement are in progress for 16 Reuter-Stokes Pressurized Ion Chamber environmental radiation monitors to be used to I circle the plant site, one in each of the 16 sectors. Installation of the monitors and system operation is planned for mid-1981. Engineering is in progress to upgrade and modify the BVPS meteorological system to meet requirements in U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23, Rev. 1, and U.S. I NUREG-0654, Appendix 2. The Reuter Stokes radiation monitors and the upgraded meteorological system will be tied into a new computer network to help meet some of the requirements set forth in U.S. NRC NUREG-0654 (Criteria for Preparational Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants) and U.S. NRC NUREG-0737 (TMI Action Plan Requirements). The complete meteorological system modifications and new computer network are still I in the plaaa4.ng stage and a preliminary operational date is planned for October, 1982. 1 l l l 1 l 1 I SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report III. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Quality Control Programs The Quality Control (QC) Program used for the Beaver Valley - Shippingport Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program consisted of eight (8) elements. It should be opted that the comparisons made were at very low levels of raaloactivity and consequently, the activities at these levels are difficult to measure. However, acceptable correlation was achieved in most instances as outlined in the discussions and tables which follow. 1. Radiation Monitoring (Duquesne Light Company (DLC) Contractor Laboratory - DLC OC Laboratory - Independent Laboratory) An independent program of external radiation monitoring was conducted by the QC Laboratory using lithium fluoride TLDs sharing the same location as the DLC Contractor Laboratory TLDs and Independent Laboratory TLDs. Summary data of the QC Laboratory program is provided in Table III.l. Duplicate contractor TLD, QC TLD, Annual TLD, and Independent Lab TLD and continuous integrating monitoring by a Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) show generally gcod agreement aad demonstrate acceptable performance by the DLC Contractor Laboratory. The arithmetic mean of each laboratory agrees within + 6% of the arithmetic mean of the three laboratories. This is well within the precision of a typical TLD system. 2. Split Sample Program (DLC Contractor Laboratorv - DLC QC Laboratorv Samples of surface (river) water and drinking water were routinely split and analyzed by the DLC Contractor Laboratory and the DLC QC Laboratory. In addition, samples of other media, I such as milk, soil, sediment and feederop were also split with I the DLC QC Laboratory (a laboratory of the Department of Energy). l l A summnry of results of split water samples is provided in ' E Table III.2. A summary of milk, sediment, and feed / food crop split samples is provided in Table III.3. Some variation is expected due to small varir. cions in duplicate samples, varia-tions in analytical proceuures, and in calibration, source type, etc. Because of the overall ur.iformity of comparable results, it is concluded that the two laboratories are consistent and in agreement. -

P00RORMAL I Section III DUQUESNE LIGHT CCMPANY TA8LE !!!.1 1980 Annual Radiological Envirornnental Report TABLE III.1 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS TLO MONITORING mR/ Day IST 00ARTER 2ND OUARTER DLC DLC CLC QC Independent OLC DLC QC Independent OLC Location Contractor Lab Lab #3 PDER PIC Contractor Lab Lab #3 PDER PIC No. (CaSO.:0y) (L1F) (CaSO.:Tm) (2) M (C450.:Dy) (L1F) (CaSO.:Tm) (2) M 10 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.23(3) 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.22 0.24I3) 13 0.18 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.24 14 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.18 15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.12 I 27 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.17 23 3.13 0.22 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.19 29 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.24 0.21 32 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.27 45 0.20 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.28 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.25 0.27 46 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.20 47 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.18 48 0.18 0.19 0.18 51 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 3RD OUARTER 4T OUARTER CLC DLC CLC QC Independent OLC DLC QC Independent DLC Location Contractor Lab Lab 83 PDER PIC Contractor Lab Lab #3 POER PIC No. (CaSO.:0y) (LiF) (CaS0j:Tm) (2) M (CaSO,:Dy) (LiF) (CaSO.:Tm) (2) M 10 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.25(3) 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.25I3) 13 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.22 14 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.26 0.22 0.19 15 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.18 27 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.21 0.13 28 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.23 0.21 29 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.27 0.27 0.23 32 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.27 45 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.24 0.28 a6 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.18 r.19 0.19 0.18 0.20 47 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.18 48 0.17 0.16 51 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.17 (1) In this consolidated anvironsental program the pressurized ion chamber (PIC) continuous monitor readings tend to be slightly higher than the PJ readings due to the differences in the inherent physics of each sys tem.

so cccpensatory =easures have been taken to make both systems agree exactly because both systems were installed to monitor relative radiation levels rather than absolute levels. Each system provides a reasonably accurate measure of the absolute radiation levels.

(2) 3RC results from dennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. (3) PIC Reading taken in Shippingpert Boro at DLC Substation. 1e appears that the Q.C. Lab first quarter Q27 TJ badge was not posted in the environment at Site 27 with the other first quarter U.D's and was inadvertently returned to QC Lab at the beginning of the first quarter of 1930 1* D lost of stolen. -

P00R OKM Section III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE III.2 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 1 of 2) TABLE III.2 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS Comparison of Contractor and Ot.C-0C Labs DLC Contractor DLC - QC Media Analysis Samoling Period Lab (1) Lab (1) Units 1.3 pC1/1 < 1.2 Surface Water Gross 2 January 1.3 pC1/1 April < 1.6 July < 1.5 < 1.5 pC1/1 October 1 1.2 1 1.6 pCi/1 Surface Water Gross s January 2.6 11.0 8.4 14.1* pC1/1

April 3.7 11.0 4.2 1 3.9 pC1/1 July 5.4 1 1.1 7.6 1 1.8 pC1/1 October 3.0 11.0 6.1 1 3.1 N1/1 Surface Water Co-60 January

< 3.0 < 5.9 pC1/1 Z.3 1 5.9 pC1/1 April July 1 3.0 1 9.9 pC1/1 October 1 3.0 1 1.5 pC1/1 Surface Water Cs-137 January 1 3.0 1 4.3 pC1/1 April I E ~ < 2.0 July 3.0 1 14.0 pC1/1 October ~ 1 3.0 1 1.6 pC1/1 I Surface Water Tritium 1st Quarter 310 1 70 1 210 pC1/1 Composite 3rd Quarter 260 1 60 1 250 pCf/1 Cogosite I Surface Water Sr-89 2nd Quarter < 1.7 1.6 pC1/1 Composite I 4th Quarter i 1.9 6.0 1 1.9 ** pC1/1 ** Composite Surface Water Sr-90 2nd Quarter < 0.30 < 0.63 pC1/1 Composite 4th Quarter < 0.50 < 0.28 pC1/1 Cogosite Surface Water Co-60 2nd Quarter < 1.0 < 3.3 pC1/1 I (hign Composite sensitivity analysis) 4th Quarter Cohoosite 1 0.7 1 6.8 pC1/1 (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are s:ecifted at the 955 confidence interval. The Gross Beta results were not in good agreement for this sample The results of !.ie analysis were I raviewed and no errors could be found. Each lab reanalyzed remaining samle and duplicated the original analysis. Subsequent analyses have yielded good agreement between the laboratory results. The Sr-83 results 4ere not in good sgreement for this sample. The results of the analysis were reviewed and no errors rould be found. There was. not enougn of the original corcosited saeple remaicang to do a re-analysis, so a new co@ site sample was made up from the weekly samples that are held in storage. The resu%s of tne second sample are not yet available. -

Section III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE III.2 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 2 of 2) TABLE III.2 (Continued) I QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESJLTS Comparison of Contractor and OLC-0C Labs I DLC Contractor OLC - QC Media Analysis Sampling Period lab (1) Lab (1) Units < 3.0 < 3.5 pCf/1 5 Orinking Water Cs-137 February May 1 3.0 1 4.0 pC1/1 August 1 3.0 < 7.9 pC1/1 November < 3.0 < 4.7 pC1/1 Orinking Water Co-60 February < 3.0 < 4.2 pC1/1 May 1 2.0 1 5.5

Cf/1 7.2 pC1/1 August 2.0 4.'8 pC'/1 Noverter 1 2.0 Drinking Water Gross s i'.a rch 1 0.48 1 0.69 pC1/1 June 1 0.58: 3. 2.2 pC1/1 August

< 0.46 < 1.4 pC1/1 I Novecter 1 0.56 1 1.8

pCi/1 Crinking Water Gross,1 March 4.9 1 1.0 3.4 1 2'3 pC1/1 I

June 2.7 1 0.9 5.6 1 4.1 pCf/1 l 1 l August 3.2 1 0.9 5.7 1 4.1 pC1/1 Noventer 3.4 1 1.1 4.8 1 4.1

PC1/1 Orinking Water Tritium 2nd Quarter 210 1 60 1 160 pC1/1 4th Quarter 80 1 60 1 200 pC1/1 l

l l l I I Analysis performed on weekly sample which wn collected 12/2/80. E (1) Uncertainties are based on countieg statistics and are specified at the 95". confidence interval. g i l l {

i l Section !!! DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE III.3 I 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 1 of 2) TABLE 111.3 I QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS l Comparison of Contractor and DLC-0C Labs l DLC Contractor DLC - QC Media Analysis Samplina Period Lab (1) Lab (1) Units I Milk (Location 25) I-1 31 3-17-80 < 0.14 < 0.24 pC1/1 j 1.6 < 1.5 pC1/1 l Sr-89 3-17-80 Sr-90 3-17-80 6.0 + 0.9 4.5 + 0.9 pC1/1 I Cs-137 3-17-80 1 3.0 3.8 + 2.0 pC1/1 3.4 pC1/1 Co-60 3-17-80 < 3.0 K-40 3-17-80 1280 + 140 1330 + 70 pC1/1 I Other 3-17-20 LLD LLD pC1/1 Milk I .19 < 2.7 pC1/1 (Location 25) 1-131 7-01-80 K-40 7-01-80 1340 1 130 1240 1 340 pC1/1 l l Cs-137 7-08-80 6.2 1 5.7 1 19 pC1/1 I Feed Se-7 6-17-80 4.5 g 0.5 pC1/g (Location 25) Cs-137 6-17-80 0.06 3 0.03 1 0.16 pC1/g Co-60 6-17-80 <.02 < 0.13 pCi/g K-40 6-17-80 10.8 + 1.0 18.0 + 4.0 pC1/9 Food Sr-90 6-17-80 0.18 -.004 - 0.14 pC1/g + (Location 25) I Milk (Location 25) Sr-89 9-21-80 < 1.2 < 1.1 pC1/1 Sr-90 9-21-80 5.1 + 0.5 5.2 + 1.0 pC1/1 I I-131 9-21 -80 < 0.11 1 1.3 pC1/1 K-40 9-21-80 1210 1 120 1390 1 240 pC1/1 i Co-60 9-21-80 < 3.0 < 9.0 pC1/1 Cs-134 9-21-80 < 3.0 < 8.8 pC1/1 I Cs-137 9-21-80 < 3.0 < 7.3 pC1/1 Food (Cabbage) 1-131 8-21-80 < 0.008 < 0.06 pC1/g K-40 8-21-80 1.7 1 0.2 2.9 1 1.1 pC1/g Co-60 8-21-80 < 0.01 < 0.05 pC1/g 0.01 < 0.06 pC1/g Cs-134 8-21-80 I Cs-137 8-21-80 < 0.01 < 0.06 pC1/g Ce-144 3-21-80 1 0.10 1 0.34 pC1/g I Food (Lettuce) I-131 8-21-80 < 0.008 < 0.07 pC1/g K-40 8-21-80 1.6 10.2 3.3 1 1.8 pC1/g Co-60 8-21-80 1 0.02 1 0.08 pC1/g I < 0.03 < 0.08 pC1/g Cs-134 8-21-80 Cs-137 8-21-80 < 0.02 < 0.07 pC1/g Ce-144 8-21-80 1 0.10 1 0.36 pC1/g I LLD = Lower Limit Cetection (1) = Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 955 confidence interval. i l SECTION !!I DUQUESNE LIGHT CCMPANY TABLE III.3 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 2 of 2) l TABLE III.3 (Continued) QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS i I SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS i Comparison of Contractor and Ct.C-0C Labs DLC Contractor DLC - QC Media Analysis Samolino Period Lab (1) Lab (1) Units Milk l (Location 25) I-131 12/14/80 1 0.1 1 0.68 pC1/1 < 3.0 1.7 + 1.2 pC1/1 Ct-137 12/14/80 t Co-60 12/14/80 1 3.0 3.2 1 1.2 pC1/1 LLD LLD pC1/1 Others 12/14/80, Sediment (Location 3) Gross 2 7/9/80 10 16 18 1 7 pC1/gm Cry Gross s 7/9/80 29 + 2 38 1 7 pC1/gm Cry U-235 7/9/80 0.09 1 0.05 1 0.04 pC1/gm Cry U-234 7/9/80 1.38 1 0.3

1. 4 + 0.1 pC1/gm Dry U-238 7/9/80 1.0 t.2 0.9 1 0.1 pC1/gm Cry 1

< 0.18 < 0.03 pC1/gm Cry $r-89 7/9/80 Sr-90 7/9/80 0.043 t.023 0,1130,03* pC1/gm Cry

Cs-134 7/9/80 1 0.03 1 0.04 pCi/gn Dry Cs-137 7/9/80 0.45 1 0.06 0.48 1 0.1 pC1/gm Cry Co-60 7/9/80

<.002 < 0.07 pC1/gi Dry K-40 7/9/80 18 + 2 16 + 2 pC1/gm Cry i Be-7 7/9/80 0.49 1 0.42 LLD pC1/gm Cry Ce-144 7/9/80 < 0.10 < 0.30 pC1/gm Cry I I I l l 5 The Sr-90 results were not in good agreement for this sample. The results of the analysis were reviewed and no errors could be found. Each lab has enough sediment sample remaining to reanalyze for Sr-90. The analytical results of the second sample are not yet available. I LLD - Lower Limit of Detector l (1) - Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95 confidence interval. I

I SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I III. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS 3. DLC QC Laboratory Program Spiked samples prepared by DLC QC Laboratory were routinely submitted to the Contractor Laboratory for analysis. Tables I III.4 (water) and III.5 (milk) provide data from this portion of the QC program. The results demonstrate that the contractor performed acceptably in the program. 4. Comparisons of similar Samples (DLC Contractor _ Laboratory - DLC QC Laboratory) Duplicate air particulate and charcoal filters (radiciodine) samples were collected at Location #30 and compared during the year on a weekly basis. Comparison of particulate and I charcoal samples alternated from week to week. Duplicate monthly air particulate filters, composited from the weekly air particulate filters, are analyzed every other month for I gamma activity. Duplicate quarterly air particulate filters, composited fram the weekly air particulate filters, are analyzed for Sr-89, Sr-90 and alpha activity for the first and third quarters of the year. Table III.6 provides data I for this portion of the Q.C. program. The results demonstrate thiti the contractor performed acceptably in the program. 5. Contractor Internal QC Program The Duquesne Light Company Contractor Laboratory maintained its own QC Program which included participation in the I Environmental Protection Agency - Environmental Monitoring Safety Laboratory (EPA - EMSL) Interlaboratory Cross Check Program. This cross check program indicated that the I Contractor Laboratory results were in agreement with EPA - EMSL. DLC also audited the Contractor Laboratory and determined that internal QC practices were in effect and that procedures and laboratory analytical techniques I conformed to approved DLC procedures. I I I I

I I Section !!! DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE !!!.4 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report TA8LE !!!.4 QUALITY CCNTROL RESULTS SP!KE SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS I Sample Type DLC and Contractor CLC - QC Sample Date Ident. No. Analysis Lab (1) Lab (1) Units

3/21/80 53-33 Water: Sr-89 16 12 22.4 1 2.2
pC1/1

$r-90 1 .33 1 1.2 pC1/1 6/30/80 53 34 Water: I-131 22 12 28.511.4** pCf/1 I Cs-137 30.4 1 4.4 34.4 1 13.3 pCf/1 Co-60 6.0 1 3.7 9.6 1 9.5 pC1/1 I 6/30/80 53-35 Water: Gross a 7.1 1 1.8 9.3 1 3.1 pCf/1 3ross 3 19 12 25.4 i 4.9 pCf/1 11/13/80 53-26 Water: Sr-89 5.8 +, 2.8 10.9 1 1.3

pC1/1 I

Sr-90 1.8 1 0.9 1.8 t 1.0 pC1/1 Co-60 16 15 19.0 1 1.6 pC1/1 11/13/80 53-37 Water: 1 131 4.8 1 0.5 7.6 1

0. 7 **

pC1/1 I , 6.0 1 13 pCf/1 Co-60 12.8 + Cs-134 12.2 1 5. t 20 1 15 pC1/,1 Cs-137 136 1 14.0 136 1 21 pC1/1 H-3 230 1 70.0 1 200 pC1/1 2/16/81 53-38 Water: Gross 2 14 +, 5 11.5 1 2.3 pCf/1 Gross s 38 11 43.6 1 3.8 pCf/1 I I I I (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95 confidence interval. I The Sr-89 results were not in good agreement. Refer to Section 111.8. (Evaluation of the Quality Control Program Data) for an explanation in the cause of the poor agreement and the corrective acticn taken. The I-131 results were not in good agreement. Refer to Section III.B. (Evaluation of the Quality I Control Program Data) for an explanation into the cause of the poor agreement and the corrective action taken.

I

I section !!! DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE !!!.5 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I TABLE !!!.5 GUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SP!KE SAMPLE ANALY315 I Sample Type DLC and Contractor OLC - QC Sample Date Ident. No. Analysis Lab (1) Lab (1) Units I 3/21/80 52-45 Milk: 1-131 4.6 1 0.4 5.2 + 0.8 pC1/1 $r-89 7.6 1 2.7 12.8 1 2.6 pC1/1 3r-90 3.6 1 0.6 4.8 10.5* pC1/1

I Cs-137 21.7 + 5.6 15.1 + 3.2 pC1/1 pC1/1 K-40 1390 + 140 l

l Others LLD LLD pC1/1 6/23/80 52-46 Milk: 1-131 12.0 11.0 17.4 1 1. 2 ** pC1/1 ** 5.1 11.9 + 2.6 pC1/! Cs-137 13.3. pC1/1 K-40 1200 1 120 Co-60 7.3 g 5.2 pC1/1 Others LLD LLD pC1/1 11/13/B0 52-47 Milk: 1-131 7.1 + 0.3 8.3 1 1.3 pC1/1 $r-89 1.4 1 0.75 pC1/1 PC1/1

Sr-90 4.9 1 0.7 7.8 1 1.3 K-40 1260 11?O pC1/1 Cs-137 184 1 18 174 1 26 pC1/1 j

Others LLD LLD pC1/1 11/13/80 52-48 Milk: 1-131 8.8 1 0.3 10.5 1 1.4 pC1/1 I K-40 1350 1 130 1120 1 150 pC1/1 Cs-137 219 1 22 220 1 13 pC1/1 I Others LLD LLD pC1/1 l I I I I (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95t confidence interval. The Sr-90 results were not in good agreement. Refer to Section !!!.B. (Evaluation of the Quality Control Program Data) for an explanation into the cause of the poor results and the corrective I action taken. The I-131 results wars not in good agreement. Refer to Section !!!.B. (Evaluation of the Quality Control Program Data) for an explanation into the cause of the poor results and the corrective action taken. lI _17_ lI

I Section !!! CUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE !!!.6 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 1 of 4) TABLE !!!.6 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS I AIR PARTICULATES AND CHARCOAL FILTER: C W D h tE SAMPLES Air Particulates Air !cdire pC1/Cu. Meter (Beta) pC1/Cu. Meter DLC CLC Contractor DLC - QC Contractor DLC - QC Sarole Date Lab (1) Lab (1) Samle Da % Lab (11 La5 (1) I < 0.01 1 0.019 1/07/80 to

0.051 1 0.005
0.039 1 0.003 12/31/79 to 1/14/80 1/07/B0 1/28/80 1/21/80

- 0.019 < 0.007 1/21/80 to 0.0U + 0.003 0.030 + 0.002 1/14/80 to I ~ 2/04/80 to . 0.028 ~ 0.004 0.024 ~ 0.002 1/28/80 to - 0.006 ~ 0.023 + + 2/11/80 2/04/80 ~ 2/t5/80 - 0.004 0.026 ~ 0.003 2/11/80 to - 0.01' - 0.019 + 2/19/80 to 0.027 + 2/19/80 3/03/80 to 0.029 - 0.004 0.031 - 0.003 2/25/80 to - 0.006 ~ 0.023 + + I 3/10/80 3/03/80 3/17/80 to

o.033 - 0.004
0.026 - 0.002 3/10/80 to

< 0.007 ~ 0.020 + + ~ 3/24/80 3/17/B0 I 4/07/80 - 0.003 0.025 ~ 0.002 3/24/80 to < 0.003 < 0.020 3/31/80 to 0.025 + + 3/31/80 4/14/80 to 0.026 1 0.003 0.029 1 0.002 4/07/80 to - 0.007 - 0.0 31 4/21/80 4/14/80 4/28/80 to 0.027 1 0.004 0.001 1 0.002 4/21/80 to '" 0.001 ~ 0.022 5/05/80 4/28/80 I 5/12/80 to 0.024 + 0.003 0.024 1 0.002 5/05/80 to < 0.006 < 0.021 5/19/80 5/12/30 0.017 5/26/80 to 0.044 - 0.005 0.042 - 0.003 5/19/80 to - 0.006 + + ~ 6/02/B0 5/26/80 I i < 0.023 0.006 6/09/80 to 0.030 + 0.004 0.031 + 0.003 6/02/80 to 6/16/80 6/09/80 I l l 6/23/80 to 0.036 - 0.004 0.037 ~ 0.003 6/16/80 to - 0 007 < 0.024 + + ~ 3 6/30/80 6/23/80 0.021 1 0.003 6/30/80 to 7/14/70 7/07/80 - 0.007 < 0.022 7/07/70 to 0.028 1 0.004 ~ I 7/21/80 to 0.027 + 0.004 0.027 1 0.002 7/14/80 to - 0.007 ~ 0.020 7/28/80 7/21/80 8/04/80 to 0.027 1 0.003 0.027 1 0.002 7/28/80 to - 0.008 1 0.022 I S/11/80 8/04/80 8/18/80 to 0.030 1 0.004 0.027 1 0.002 8/11/80 to 1 0.008 1 0.022 8/25/80 8/18/80 _ 0.008 1 0.014 9/01/80 to 0.033 1 0.004 0.029 v. 0.003 8/25/B0 to 9/C8/80 9/01/80 9/15/80 to 0.024 - 0.003 0.028 ~ 0.002 9/08/80 to - 0.009 ~ 0.C23 + + l 9/22/80 9/15/80 l l (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95t confidence interval. The Gross Sets results were not in good agreement. The poor agree":ent between the Q.C. La0 and l 5 Contractor Lab results is attributable to the incorolete decay of the racon daughters which resulted in a higner result for tne sample counted by the Q.C. Lab 0

SECTION !!! DUQUESME LIGHT COMPANY TABLE !!!.6 1980 Ann 241 Radiological Environaintal tport (Pag) 2 of 4) I TABLE !!!.6 CUALITY CCNTROL RESULTS AIR PARTICULATES AND CHARCCAL FILTER: CC*PAoABLC !A WLES Air Particulates Air fodine pC1/Cu. Meter (Seta) pC1/Cu. Meter DLC DLC I Contractor OLC - OC Contractor CLC - OC Sample Cate Lab (1) Lab (1) Sa cle Oate Lab (1) Lab (1) 9/30/80 to 0.025 + + 10/06/80 ~ 0.004 0.023 ~ 0.003 9/22/80 to - 0.009 ~ 0.021 I 9/29/80 10/03/80 to

0.C2/ 2 0.003
0.036 1 0.003 10/06/80 to 1 0.010 1 0.017 10/20/80 10/13/80 I

- 0.00? 0.032 ~ 0.003 10/20/80 to - 0.009 10/27/80 to 0.031 0.C21 + 11/03/80 10/27/80 0.010 1 0.018 11/i0/80 to

0.055 1 0.005
0.067 + 0.003 11/03/80 to 11/17/80 11/10/80 I

11/24/30 to

0.045 ~ 0.004
0.058 ~ 0.003 11/17/B0 to

- 0.003 ~ 0.018 + 12/01/80 11/24/80 12/15/20 - 0.006 0.098 ~ 0.005 12/01/80 to + + < 0.009 0.030 12/08/80 to 0.087 12/C8/80 12/22/80 to 0.072 1 0.005 0.081 1 0.004 12/15/80 to 1 0.006 1 0.048 12/29/80 12/22/80 12/29/80 to < 0.009 < 0.022 1/05/81 I I I !I l lI l l (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95; confidence interval. I The Gross Beta results were not in good agreerrent. The poor agree-ent between the Q.C. Lab and a Contractor Lab results is attributable to the incomplete decay of the r3 con daughters whic's resulted in a higher result for the sample counted by the Q.C. Lab. l l !I l

I I Sect,on !!! DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE !!!.6 1980 Annual Radiolog, cal Environmental Report (Page 3 of 4) I TABLE !!.6 0UALITY CONTROL 3 AIR PARTICULATES (oC1/m ) DLC Contractor OLC - QC Sample Date Nuclide Lab (1) Lab (1) I January Be-7 0.083 1 0.013 0.11 1 0.02 (12/31/79 to 2/04/80) Th-228 0.0014 1 0.0005 0.033 1 0.023 K-40 Others LLO LLO March Be 7 0.13 + 0.06 0.07 + 0.03 (3/3/80 to 3/31/80) Others LLO LLD Pay ee 7 0.12 + 0.01 0.09 + 0.03 l (5/5/80 to 6/2/80) Others Lb LLO I July Be-7 0.116 1 0.012 0.085 1 0.019 (6/30/80 to 8/4/80) Others LLO LLO Septecer Be-7 0.10 + 0.02 0.06 1 0.02 (9/1/80 to 9/29/80) Others LLD LLD Nove@er (11/~s/80 - 12/1/80) Be-7 0.07 1 0.01 0.07 1 0.03 I Nb/Zr-95 0.004 1 0.002 Ru-103 0.005 1 0.002 Ce-141 0.003 1 0.002 Others LLD LLO I I I l (1) en e,ta,nt,e..,e,a,e. on _ t,n,,t.t,,t,.s an,a,e,,_,,,e, at t,e,5, _,,,en e,n,e,,a,. l lI

Section III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE !!!.6 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 4 of 4) I ~ TABLE !!!.6 QUALITY CONTROL I AIR PARTICULATE AND CHARC0AL FILTER - COMPARABLE SAMPLES LOCATION 30 - foci /m3) I OLC Contractor DLC - QC Samole Date Nuclide Lt*> (1) Lab (1) 1st Quarter Composite: Alpha 0.004 1 0.0015 0.00?3 1 0.0002 I Air Filter Sr-89 1 0.0013 1 0.00017 Sr-90 0.00035 1 0.00015 1.00043 3rd Quarter Composite: Alpha 0.0025 1 0.0007 0.0050 1 0.0011 Air Filter Sr-89 1 0.0024 1 0.0016 Sr-90 0.00056 1 0.00023 1 0.00044 I I I ~ l lI I l I I (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 955 confidence interval. I I I

I I TABLE !!!.7 ) Section !!! DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY (Page 1 of 2 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report TABLE III.7 I QUALITY CONTROL DATA QC Sample Comparisons (All Analyses in 0C1/11 I Sample Type OLC and Independent Contractor OLC - QC Sample Date Ident. No. Analyses Lab (11 Lab (1) Lab (1) I 2/13/80 53-223 Water: Cs-137 16 13 21.2 1 5.1 18.7 + 6.0 dr-90 10.8 1 4.0 9.0 1 0.6 11.4 11.3 Cs-134 12 15 12.8 1 4.6 11.717.0 Co-58 24 +6 27.0 1 4.9 21.7 + 8.1 23.2 Fe-59 48 1 14 64.2 1 9.0 60.4 + 2/13/80 53-224 Water: H-3 1420 1 80 1560 + 100 1460 1 270 5/14/80 53-225 Water: Cs-137 21 + 3 22.0 15.7 17.6 , 8. 3 + I Co-58 25 17 28.2 + 5.6 22.4 + 7.6 Cs-134 8 + 5 9.6 1 5.0 1 13 Mn-54 51 17 52.2 1 6.3 44.5 + 23.1 I 5/14/80 53-226 Water: H-3 1230 1 60 1120 1 90 980 + 260 8/13/B0 53-227 Water: Cs-137 17 17 20 1 7 14 + 11 Co-58 38 + 9 43.8 + 6.1 53.8 1 22.4 I Cs-134 39 + 9 36.5 + 7.3 36 + 16 4.5 Co-60 22 1 8 31.2 1 6.3 23.4 1 8/f3/80 53-228 Water: H-3 1070 1 60 1110 + 90 955 1 240 11/12/80 53-229 Water: Sr-89 5.5 1 0.9 5.0 1 2.1 5.6 ,, 1.6 + ,, 0.3 6.3 1 0.6 5.2 1 0.9 S r-90 7.0 + ( Mn-54 48 + 10 49.5 1 6.7 44.8 1 12.2 Co-58 27 + 11 25.0 1 5.6 17 + 90 Cs-137 18 + 6 20.6 + 4.8 17 18 Cs-134 10 16 8.7 + 4.8 < 7.2 11/12/80 53-230 Water: H-3 1133 + 60 1190 1 90 1470 + 260 l I I (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at 95% confidence interval. l --

Section !!! DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TA8LE !!!.7 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page2'of2) I TABLE !!!.7 QUALITY CONTROL DATA QC Sample Comparisor.s (All Analyses in DC1/11 Sample Type DLC and Independent Contractor DLC - QC I Sample Date Ident. No. Analyses Lab (11 Lab (1) Lab (1) 3.5

2/13/80 52-214 Milk: Sr-89 14 12 5.9 11.6 17.4 +

Sr-90 14.3 1 0.8 8.0 + 0.6 14.6 + 1.4

I I-131 9.9 + 0.8 8.6 + 0.3 9.3 1 2.2 Cs-137 34 14 33.8 1 6.8 39.3 1 6.5 Cs-134 21 14 17.2 + 6.5 25.2 + 7.1 i

j 5/14/80 52-215 Milk: Sr-89 11 12 8.3 + 1.3 11 1 2.5 1.8

Sr-90 16.7 1 0.7 12 11 16

+ I-1 31 4.4 + 0.6 4.2 + 0.2 5.0 11.2 Cs-137 29 14 30.7 + 6.5 23.8 1 3.9 Cs-134 21 + 8 22.1 1 6.5 17.2 1 3.7 8/13/30 52-216 Milk: Sr-89 17 12 14 13 17.1 + 2.7 Sr-90 14.5 1 0.5 16 + 1 14.7 + 1.8 I-131 1.5 + 0.5 1.2 + 0.1 1 0. 90 ** Cs-137 33 + 4 32.5 1 5.8 33 1 10 Cs-134 29 + 4 38.8 1 6.2 21 1 12 '2 2 '8 28 E3 Sr-90 25.4 1 0.6 22 11 17.5 1 5.6 I-131 6.9 +. 0.9 3.7 1 0.2 6.0 1 1.3** Cs-137 22 16 16 1 5 36 1 12 Cs-134 21 16 19 15 16 1 13 I l I I I (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at 95% confidence interval. The Sr-89 and/or Sr-90 results were not in good agreement. Refer to Section !!I.8. (Evaluation l 3 of the Quality Control Program Data) for an explanation into the causes for the poor agreement l and the corrective actions taken. l The I-131 results were not in good agreement. Refer to Section III.8. (Evaluation of the Quality Control Program Data) for an explanation into the causes for the poor agreement and the corrective i I actions taken. 3 I i

SECTION IZI DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report III. ENVIRONMENTAL MOVITORING CONSIDERATIONS I 6. Special QC Program (DLC Contractor Laboratory - Independent Laboratory - DLC QC Laboratory) Milk and water samples were prepared quarterly by an Independent Laboratory. This included low level spiking of specified nuclides. The prepared samples were split three ways and analyzed by the DLC-QC Laboratory and Independent Laboratory as well as the Contractor Laboratory. A sur:: mary of results of this portion of the QC program is I provided in Table III.7. The results show generally good agreement between the laboratories and demonstrate that the contractor perforn:ed acceptably in the program. 7. Nuclear Regulatory Com.nission (NRC) Program The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also conducted a I surveillance program 32 the vicinity of the site. Samples of air, river water, drinking water, milk, vegetation, fish and radiation monitoring are included in their program. I The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's radiological laboratory is utilized by the NRC for analyzing these samples. Comparison of results also indicated agreement between the NRC Laboratory and the Duquesne Light Company Contractor laboratory. B. Evaluation of the Quality Control (QC) Program Data I The split sample program indicates that the Contractor laboratory is performing satisfactorily. In addition, three (3) independent laboratories are used to supplement the regular program. Compari-sons between the independent laboratories and the Contractor laboratory is acceptable, but review of the Q.C. spiked sample programs indicated that the Contractor laboratory analyses for radiostrontium and Iodine-131 may have a slightly low bit.s as I compared to the Q.C. Laboratory analyses. It was determined I that the bias low results of the rzdiostrontium analyses was caused primarily by incomplete separation of calcium from I strontium in the Sr (NO )2 precipitation step of the radio-3 strontium procedure. Traces of calcium carry over to the final strontium mount added to its mass and caused the apparent gravi-metric Sr yield tn be too high. This resulted in the slight low I bias of the calculated Sr-89 and Sr-90. An improved technique for more complete strontium separation from calcium was put into effect by the Contractor laboratory in November, 1980. While I this condition may have caused slightly lower analytical results for strontium in a few environmental samples, the bias was small enough that it does not change the basic conclusions of the I environmental radiological monitoring program. It was also I E

SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I"II. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS determined that the variation in the analytical results including Iodine-131 was due to the fact that both the Q.C. Laboratory and the Independent Laboratory spiked samples were not stabilized with the addition of concentrated hydrochloric acid and sodium bisulfit: to prevent the radionuclides from plating out on the sample bottle walls I and the loss of Iodine-131. Both laboratories have been notified to add the concentrated hydrochloric acid and sodium bisulfite to the spiked Q.C. samples in the same concentrations as added to the envir-I onmental samples. This condition, while affecting the Q.C. spiked sample analyses, did not affect the environmental sampl. analyses. The latter environmental samples are treated with these etabilizing chemicals at the time of collection. I Based on all available Q.C. data and the data from the Contractor's internal EPA Interlaboratory Cross Check Program, the Environmental I Monitoring Program for 1980 is acceptable with respect to both accuracy and precision of measurement. C. Standard Requirements and Limitations for Radiological and Other Effluents The Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Stations are gcVerned I by rules and regulations of the Federal Government and the Commc.nwealth of Pennsylvania. Effluent releases at both stations are controlled to ensure that limits set by Federal or State governments are not exceeded. In addition, self-l imposed limits have been established to further limit discharges l to the environment. I l Shippingport Atomic Power Station is operated in compliance with l regulations and permits involving radioactive and other effluents. Limits noted in Department of Energy (D.O.E.) Manual Chapters 0513 I and 0524, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) Standards No. 1-70 and 2-70, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources - Industrial Waste Permit #1832, and Environmental l l Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination i Systut (NPDES) Permit #PA-0001589, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Industrial Waste Permit No. 0472205, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Radio-active Gaseous Discharge Permit are observed and follow.4. Beaver Valley Power Station is subject to regulations which include the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PDER) Industrial Waste Permit #0473211, Sewage Treatment Facilities Permit #0472411, Gaseous Discharge Permit #04-306-001, PA Code - Title 24, Part I, I Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) Standards No. 1-70 and 2-70, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit #0025615, I and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications. ' = SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I III. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS D. Significant Changee and Reporting Levels Statistically significant changes in radiological environmental monitoring results are defined as the median value (M) plus two (2) times the 95% confidence interval (N), or ten (10) times the l lower limit of detection (LLD) for each sampling media analyzed t during the preoperational period 1972 - 1975. Analytical results ! l for sampling media noted in the Beaver Valley Power Station 3 Environmental Technical Specifications, which were greater than the statistically significant values determined in the pre-operational program (M + 2N or 10 x LLD), are values which require I reporting as an anomalous measurement. This report is forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within ten (10) days after the completion of a confirming analysis. During the CY 1980, there were no analytical results of environmental samples which exceeded the reporting levels in the Beaver Valley Power Station Environmental Technical Specifications. l l I I

SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. MONITORDIG EFFLUENTS A. Monitoring of Liquid Effluents Description of Liquid Effluents at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station and the Beaver Valley Power Station. Most of the water required for the operation of the Beaver Valley and Shippingport stations is taken from the Ohio River, and returned to the river, evaporated, consumed by station personnel, or discharged to a septic system. In addition, a small amount of well water and liquid effluents is discharged to the Ohio River using discharge points shown in Figure 4.1. Figures 4.2 through 4.5 are schematic diagrams of liquid flow paths for Shippingport and Beaver Valley - respectively. The following four (4) tables summarize radioactive liquid effluents at both the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Stations: Effluent Treatment, Sampling, and Analytical Table IV.A.1 Procedures - Shippingport Effluent Treatment, Sampling, and Analytical Table IV.A.2 Procedures - Beaver Valley Results of Liquid Effluent Discharges to the Table IV.A.3 Environment - Shippingport Results of Liquid Effluent Discharges to the Table IV.A.4 Environment - Beaver Valley \\

SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE 4.1 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report 35 FIGURE 4.1 g s.

Eg RE

=9: 5.9 EE 55!

Ei E

o 5 .u _ :- g-s = =. I .*~ 3.. s!b !Ehb 255" = ma< - != g c .s x s

s..

..g. r e = s ] 3 2 3 I Ugu N Il) t.5 ss l I I f $ .5

E"

!=. 3.= -c< l 5 sa g Mj _ja =,

s

!,s s_, =g 8 =.3 5 Ig I 3 u =

== 1 = s = !E =a J gi a I ex = 8~ ) "g " ~e l 1 (3 ..d A C 232 'h W I ElE 8 3 il ((; C se

a

.a ahs =g .s + i 'k 4 g w:.= s i 2 y A

W !!

! /V n e y s I l U tr .: n v! g:l EE );

E 5

.:: c : . E 8] :" l g i r, * ! k Eh I$= im !!8 l P00R BRE R I

DUQUESNE *::GHT CO.9A!PI I 1980 Annual Radiological Inviron= ental Repo - FIGWtE4.2 sect:cs IV g O n a,m-m n ur Tmm um Feoc532 N C I ^ lRAawAsig I ~4 f II M g n-m; m !.4 i WG I arl: :71:;c r'A' SYSTI:! 4 = Tuts J ryy t-g 4P stLITEu.t. k, g ~ UM I SOFTODS .e mm. E$ I 50ELIE ci:;u-I 4Atta STSTO ALL:D3 g $ntaCZ I niih n stav id ~ 8 Ad J TJD" fTsitM M i i .g. i =u m 13:!CLE STITI:t 1.F. All RA.M-. UNITS ~ 3EEFVILL 7131F5 1 r r l ,,, _N

a. r. emmt e

c:cLrss T I N#Q l 'm ** s H T. F. C:*.M3CfT l CCLEIS I i I sutretmictr r.s.

ttis C:st? C2CO311 )

3 4 _.sar usa f*#8 M 'I38 I'8T IU" ***IC'

g. c. nrra m (ij r.ac rer J

CEJ TsargLac

'b IIIALIEA SCIE 155 I-l m,,_.....,Tm c_ ~

,;=g,...

I WAtta FLCW SCit:tATIC

si!I7FINCPC T ATC:t!C PC*dC3 STATIOrt FIGWi! 4.2 I

P00RORl8lNAl. I i

t PCORDE EL ~ I SECTICN IV DUQUESNE LIGHT CO!! pan FIGURE 4,3 1980 Annual Radiological Enviren= ental Report I E7APORATION I.0SSES 1 1 BEAVII VALLET POWER STATION COOLI:;G TCVE1 I CVER-( E7 FLOW 7 I ( l 3 l '1 ". 6 PRI: TART A::D pg SEC3:::: ART m db CO bSE1 .y A3D CHILLEIS dk l WATEl TRIATI!:G SYSTE:( I I I 4 4 or or RIACT0!t SE17IC3 I PIANT BOILER SA ITART EATER STS E S

SYSTI21, SYSTEi ST3 TEM L

) k "^="^3:5 E u=viSTE ( 3 RECEIVING 4 0S ST02:1 I STS m wATrZ SN WASH j k j( I 3AKE PUMPS 1 I AL X AUX ( TEST St"* mi I ggg E A33 IN*AKE PUhPS A V Y i _ f I if SEA % El BEAVER YALLEY 3EAVER VALLEY BEAVII YALLET 3EAVER 7ALLET BEA7El 7ALI.EY SEAVER VALLET yg;;gy peg.E1 STATION PCh'E2 STATICN PCVER STATICN P0ku S*ATION PC*TER STATIO:T PCWIR $*aTION PChu AUL DISCEA10E ACI. DISCHARGE DISCEAROE (002) 3ISCHA20E (003) DISC 3 ARC: (001) S UI. (007) (CC6) S EAV'a VM h PCL'El STATION BEAVER VALLEY PCWE2 S*ATICti DISCHARGE (004) WA*CR FLCW SCHEMA *Ic FIGURE 4.3

1 l SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPMT FIGURE 4.4 I 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Raport I rame.:.

3al

, I no T 4" we 4 2 n1 = 2M l t W" 8 ~ $3 I jE l - - $Ie 3: 22g gs [ t

n.l t

am l I f Yh EWs -ww g b d 2 I 8

== e 8 I Of a = c Uw l =t 3 l s$

== t = =* G. g: I l d l' U u s e: = 32 = o' I a a5 E "f l l M*1 I x- .a e 3 si s sa l k: m ~ l ~" 2 g d 2" n a t l 3 l ~~ = I a n 5 o a 3 2, w= 3 .f u I t 5* f 8

I"

$2] l ( I 15.3]. s. su s E = ~ u. -u 3s 5

M a3 5a 1

I = 3 3 255 .nes au-se i t39:

s:

I ;E 4 3. ~ b"O a

X!E 4

5 35 5 1 =. 2 3 J -5 3 a s 3 - !. ! I

2 E5 %2 g )2 2.

w se j -n

3~

3<=j,g3 ^^ 2 e e 9 u., s, g g %? sa -!=-=a-g s 5 =s g : ss e-mm .s o -=s

m: 5;xc s

I =5 ;. =,>. ! O, *t 5 *. ! 3 ! ;I $. .a w A Il i l I I P001 OREL 31

M M\\M M M M g y y i l I u, Processed Water to t'8 Steam Gen. Drain Tank h Portable ~ ~~

I' L*V"1 O

)X L--c Drain Tank gg y Test ( ll t Tank J e I l Liquid Vents & Drain" l + g s I 1.1guld W8 L Recycled to Test Tmnk Waste @A l " E #* Solid Waste Sys. tem 9 Tanks l I e txJ m 9 h r , g M _ Sumps _ e l c yg W g C ling Tower Blowdown f Filter E l ut ' e* d Tanks ps C w i,, a I \\ j g E kn Is C Showers and r------ hP 2 Decon Sink s Filter Drains 7 h 7 (Contaminated 7' n N ~ w 0 \\ f) o U et s Blowdown Steam Cen. A Drain Tank 7 2; E5 m ? tn FIGURE 11.5 BEAVER VALLEY LIQUID WASTE SYSTEN

I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE IV.A.1 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report TABLE IV.A.2 TABLE IV.A.1 1. Effluent Treatment. Sampling and Analytical Procedures - Shiocinocort I Treatment Sampling Standard and/or Effluent Type and/or Monitorino Analytical Procedures I (a) Steam' System Directed to radwaste system if Secondary water is sampled for Blowdown radioactive. Normally directed any radioactive contamination. to discharge channel where it A 1000 m1 sample counted in a 1 is diluted by circulating cooling multichannel analyzer for 10 I water. minutes for gross activity. The counter can measure a minimum detectable activity (MDA) of 8.4 x 10'g uti/ml. I (b) Radioactive Collected, segregated and A 2000 ml sample is counted for Waste Liquids processed as one of two types gross activity. The counter of liquid wastes: canmeasureaminimumdetgetable activity (MDA) of 5 x 10' pC1/ml. (a) special waste I (b) radioactive waste Sample taken of batch before processing to remove radio-I activity and reuse in plant systems. See Figure 4.4. I TABLE IV.A.2 1. Effluent Treatment. Sampling and Ar.alytical procedures - Beaver Valley Treatment. Sampling Standard and/or Effluent Type and/or Monitorino Analytical Procedures (a) Steam System Recycled or directed to Radwaste If discharged, procedures adhere Blowdown System for discharge. to Technical Specifications. l (b) Radioactive Concentration of radioactive Procedures adhere to requirements Waste materials released in waste of Technical Specifications, effluents shall not exceed I values specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Table II for unrestricted areas, and the Environmental Technical Specificatio.;s. I I I I

I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE 'IV.A.3 1980 Annual. Radiological Environmental Report TABLE IV.A.4 I TABLE IV.A.3 2. Results: Shippingport Effluent Type Results for 1980 (a) Steam System The boilers were periodically blown-down. Blowdown The boilers are sampled prior to each blowdown. There was no radioactive liquid discharged in 1980. (b) Radioactive Since Shippingport first went into operation Waste Liquids in 1957, the total activity of liquid waste discharged each year has decreased more or I less continuously from a high of 0.53 Ci in 1965 to a low of less than 0.001 Ci in the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977. There was I no radioactive liquid discharged in 1978, 1979 or 1980. I TABLE IV.A.4 2. Results: Beaver Valley Effluent Type Results for 1980 (a) Steam System The Steam System Blowdown was recycled or Blowdown directed to the Radwaste System where it was monitored and discharged. No radioactivity was found in the water. (b) Radioactive Liquid effluents from the Beaver Valley Waste Liquids Power Station were released in accordance with conditions noted in the Environmental I Technical Specifications. No limits were exceeded. These values have been reported in the Beaver Valley Power Station Semiannual Effluent Reports for 1980. I I - -

I SECTION IV DUQUENSE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS B.' Monitoring of Airborne Effluents 1. Description of Airborne Effluents a. Shippingport Atomic Power Station The potential source of airborne radioactivity associated with the Shippingport station is the radioactivity contained in the reactor coolant system. This system contains the activated I corrosion and wear products, activated impurities in reactor coolant, and small quantities of fission 1 products originated from naturally occurring uranium I impurity and could become airborne from reactor coolant, sampling operatiens, and maintenance and overhaul operations which require opening the system or working on contaminated components removed from the system. I Stringent radiological controls which have been developed during 23 years of operations at Shippingport are exercised during these operations to prevent radio-I activity from becoming airborne. Cobalt-60 is the nuclide of primary concern because of its long radio-active half-life and its concentration in reactor coolant. This radiocuclide, present in the form of I minute insoluble particles, could become airborne during maintenance operations on contaminated components removed from this system. However, strict radiological I surveillance is maintained throughout the operating plant, including continuous monitoring of airborne radioactivity in the operating spaces to ensure that concentrations are less than the uncontrolled area I limits specified in DOE Manual Chapter 0524. In addition, air exhausted from potentially contaminated areas, such as decontamination and maintenance areas, I is passed through high-efficiency pirticulate air filters. These filters are routinely serviced, changed, and tested in-place. I The principle environmental release point for the Shippingport Atomic Power Station is the containment ventilation exhaust. This point is continuously I monitored, and analyses are performed on charcoal cartridges weekly for I-131 and monthly for I-133 and I-135. Additionally weekly continuous air samples are obtained on fixed filter papers which are analyzed weekly for gross beta, and composited monthly to identify gamma emitting isotopes. Composite of the particulate filters are also analyzed monthly I for gross alpha determinations and quarterly for Sr-89 and Sr-90..A monthly gas sample is also obtained and analyzed for tritium. I I -

I I SECTICN IV DUQUESNZ LIGHT CCMPANT FIGURE 4.6 1980 Annual Radiological EnvironmenCal Repor: SUNCC f.*NNS R OIN STCNAGE TA.*M S FLA3M TAN 4 I $PWAY ACCTC'1 TANX GAS 3? RIP 8tR IGN DCMANGCM I T l i I' I VENT CAs CC.PME5ECR$ h h h MTCACCDI I AMai.TIIM ANO Cant.TT:C MTCRCGDi SUMNER ' I pntssunt Acucrso VAI.YE _g -, CA. as70 CUSIC FT (sm synagcMuu 1 k. ' l i ear i i O O:,u O - ~ CA C TEST TANK $ ' Ott.UTlC4 I CMDIICat.W A37E TANKS FAM5 - l l l STACX CAS MCMITCMS ,C - I Sh1 pi: w... A- '* 7:ver Statias Casseds 7 l Radiane.are vasta fr:sessic.; try:a= I FIC::RE 4.5 I I

SECTION IV DUQUENSE LIGHT COMPANY l's tinual Radiological Environmental Report I IV. MONITORING EFLi. J a. Shipe.agport Atomic Power Station (continued) Reactor plant exhausts from the Decontamination Room, Sample Preparation Room, Laundry Room, Radiochemistry Laboratory, Gaseous Waste System, and Compacting Station are continuously sampled with fixed filter samplers. These samples are analyzed weekly for gross beta, and composited monthly to identify gamma emitting isotopas. Processing of noble gases (predominantly short lived Ic-133) is accomplished by collecting and storing the gases in Shippingport RWP vent gas system. After sampling and analysis, the gases are released when the storage tanks are full. Figure 4.6 shows a schematic diagram of the gaseous waste system in the - radioactive waste disposal system at Shippingport. b. Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) The Beaver Valley Power Station identifies isotopes according to the Environmental Technical I Specifications and Regulatory Guide 1.21. Prior to waste gas decay tank batch releases and containment purge releases, an analysis of the principal gamma I esitters is performed. The principal gamma emitters ir_clude noble gases, iodines, and particulates. Figure 4.7 shews the gaseous radwaste system at Beaver Valley Power Station. The environmental release points also require specific nuclide identification. These points include the I Process Vent located on top of the Cooling Tower, the Ventilation Vent located on the top of the Auxiliary Building, and the Elevated Release Point located on top of the Containment. These points are continuously I monitored. Principal gamma e-titters and critium are analyzed on a monthly basis. Analysis is also done on charcoal cartridges for I-131, I-133, and I-135 that I have continuously sampled the gas stream for a week. Weekly continuous samples are also obtained on filter paper to identify the particulates gamma emitting isotopes. Compos 1w, 'f the particulate samples are I analyzed monthly for gross alpha determinations and 3 quarterly for Sr-89 and Sr-90. I

I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE 4.7 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report Sr.Avtm VALLtf FCWII $?AT!CN CA$t0U$ RADICAC;1VI WA$tt FROCES$13C ST3 TEM E I

i. :

e a =. =. 3u W = 3 I n b E U m g r-- 5 g / E I t 1 = i = o I E s l C o a l a "x E i I = es to 5[ 31 E $" ( u 5 u i n ~ a e 2 3 e a l 2 E. $. 3 g = u a : 3 \\ E.5 w a g 8 = 2 o gg I'g i \\ (/// / / - E = E g '2' u 9 o 5 = e. = i p s a. 4L 2 Jg dL g ( e l E I O =- e t- = = .e c 0 2 x e b b E l = i l 2 y n n y a F c g a

E E

E d 8V 36 5 j - C 6 L i

j E

C3 w 1 i

I I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS 2. Airborne Effluent Treatment and Samoling Shippingport Atomic Power Station a. Gaseous wastes stripped from the reactor coolant at the Shippingport Station are circulated through a hydrogen analyzer and catalytic hydrogen burner t j system where the hydrogen is removed. The gases are initially stored in a vent gas surge drum, and subsequently compressed and transferred to one of l four gas storage drums. The decayed gases are sampled i l 5 prior to release. In addition, the exhaust from the l containment is equipped with high efficiency particulate air filters and monitoring devices to prevent releases ' 3 of radioactive particulates. Protective devices are g utilized in the event of high airborne activity to automatically seal off the primary containment to prevent an inadvertent release of radioactivity. I Reactor plant exhausts from the Decontamination Room, Sample Preparation Room, Laundry Room, Radfochemistry Laboratory, and Compacting Station are also equipped with high efficiency particulate air filters, and are continuously monitored for radioactive particulates by the use of fixed filter monitors. Exhausts from the Gaseous Waste System are filtered and sampled for I radioactivity at the release point also. Continuous i I air monitors are located within the containers, and other plant areas to constantly monitor the condition of the air. A stack release diagram is shown in Figure 4.8 identifying ventilation and gaseous release points for both Beaver Valley Power Station and Shippingport Atomic Power Station. b. Beaver Valley Power Station I Radioactive gases enter the gaseous waste disposal system from the degasifier vent chiller of the boren recovery system, and are directed to the gaseous waste charcoal delay subsystem upstrean of the overhead gas I compressor where the gas is chilled to condense most of the water vapor. Radioactive gases from the degasifier vent chillers contain primarily hydrogen I and water vapor. A small amount of nitrogen and traces of xenon, krypton, and iodine are also present in the gaseous effluent. I

I SECTION IV DUQUENSE LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE 4.8 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report i I I FIGIRE A.8 DISCMARCT PortTS - CAS!T VAST'S I Ventilation Vent Elevated selease ' I I ~ f NO d V / containment ventilation I Systes (Containment Air Normally recirc.-not vented Auxiliary suilding l .Yentilatics Systam Exhausti 2 seous vastas to Cooling Tower; and I Air Ejector cAstet:5 Rttras': P0rcs - STAv!R VAttI? Mun $*ATION l I Waste Disposal Building .Tuel Randli=g Building . Service Bldg. Exhausts i= (Tiltered) -Concrete Ecclosure /

Emert. Tiltration I

Exhaust (Filtered) I Caseous Vaste Ventilation Exhaust Nilt ered) ; I. Release (Til ered) Air Ejector i i CASTCt3 'ELEAST ?OUCT - TO?C8C7d? ATS!! W" UATIN FIGJRI 4.3 = I P00R BREM l

i l SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS b. Beaver Valley Power Station (continued) The overhead gas compressor directs the radioactive gas stream to a gas surge tank. The system is designed I to return most of the gas to the volume control tank in the Chemical and Volume Control System (CVC System). A quantity of gas is periodically discharged from the I surge tank to one of the three (3) decay tanks for eventual release to the atmosphere via the process vent on top of the cooling tower. After the decay I tanks are sampled and authorization obtained for discharge, the flow of the waste gases from the decay tanks is recorded and rapidly diluted with about 1100 scfm of air in order to limit hydrogen concen-tration. The gases are then cor.bined with the containment vacuum system exhaust, aerated vents of the vent and drain system, and the main air ejector effluent. The mixture is then filtered through one of the gaseous waste disposal filters, each of which consists of a charcoal bed and a high efficiency filter. The filtered gases are then I discharged by one of the gaseous waste disposal blowers to the atmosphere via the process vent on the top of the cooling tower. The radioactivity levels I of the stream are monitored continuously. Samples are also taken periodically to determine the rate of activity released to the atmosphere. Should the radioactivity release concentration of the stream go above the allowable setpoint, a signal from the radiation monitor will stop all flow from the decay tanks. During a shutdown period after the containment has been sampled and the activity levels determined, the containment may be purged through the elevated release or, if the activity is low level, through the ventila-tion vent located on top of the Auxiliary Building. I Areas in the Auxiliary Building subject to radioactive contamination are monitored for radioactivity prior to entering the common ventilation vent. These individual I radiation monitors aid in identifying any sources of conts.minated air. The ventilation vent is also monitored continuously and sampled periodically. Upon a high radiation alarm, automatic dampers divert the system's exhaust air stream through one of the main filter banks in the supplementary leak collection and release system and to the elevated release point. SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS b. Beaver Valley Power Station (continued) Each filter bank consists of roughing filtsrs, charcoal filters, and pleated glass fiber type HETA filters. The roughing filters remove large particulates to prevent excessive pressure drop buildup on the charcoal and HEPA filters. The charcoal filters are effective for radioactive iodine ramoval and the HEPA filters remove I particulates and charcoal fines. 3. Analytical Procedure's for Sampling Airborne Effluents I a. Shippingport Atomic Power Station The following tabulates the gaseous sampling and analysis schedule: Vent Gas Decay Tank Releases Sampling Type Of Detectable Sample Type Frequency Activity Analysis Concentration ~ Gas from Prior to Gamma Ray Spectrum 1 x 10 uCi/cc Decay Tank Discharge of Gas' Sample * ~ Gas from Prior to H-3 2 x 10 uCi/cc Decay Tank Discharge ~ Gas from Prior to C-14 1 x 10 uCi/cc Decay Tank Discharge l A gas sample of measured volume is counted in a multi-channel analyzer for 10 minutes for gross activity. The counter has a minimum detectab '.e activity (MDA) of 1 x 10-8 uCi/cc for the predominant nuclide of Xe-133..

SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. HONITORING EFyLUENTS 3. Analytical Procedures for Samoling AirSorne Ef fluents (continued) Air Exhausts I Sampling Ty7s Of Sample Type Frequency Activ tv Analysis Detectable 1.imits (1) Air from the Plant Ventilation continuous Cross Gamma 1.2 x 10 uC1/cc (Cas, I Exhaust Effluent Stream Channel 8 ORMS)* 0 5 x 10 uci/cc (Particulace; Channel 12 CRMS)* ~14 (2) Particulate Filter in Plant Continuous Cross seca 1 x 10 ch Ver.;ilation Ef fluent Stream Weekly Sample (Particulate) Particulate Filter in Plant Continuous Principal Gamma 1 x 10' C1/cc Monthly Composite Particulate Ventilation Effluent Strean - (Weekly if Gross Beta 1 1 x 10-13) -15 Particulate Filter in Plant Continuous Cross Alpha 2 x 10 uci/cc Ventilation Effluent Stream Monthly Particulate Particulate Pitter in Plant Continuous Sr-89, Sr-90 $ x 10~1' uci/a1 (Se-89) Yent11ation Effluent Str'.am Quarterly 1 x 10' uci/a1 ($r-90) ~ I Particulate J ~13 (3) Charcoal Cartridge in Plant continuous I-131 1 a 10 uci/mi Ventilation Effluent Stream Weekly I

I3 Charcoal Cartridge 1A Plant Monthly I-133, I-135 1 x 10 uC1/ml (I-133)

Ventilation Effluent Stream Monthly 1 x 10' uC1/a1 (I-135) (4) Evacuated Somb Sample In Monthly H 2 x 10*I (H ) Plant Ventilation Effluent Stream ~l (5) Particulate Filter in Reactor Continuous Gross Beta 1 x 10 pCi/cc Plant Exhaust from Decentani-Weekly Particulate nation Roos, Sample Preparation Room, Laundry Room Radio-chemistry I.aboratory, Caseous I Wasta System, and Compacting Station. Particulate filter in Reactor continuous Principal Gamma 1 x 10 uC1/cc Plant Exhaust from Cecontani-Monthly Composite Particulate I nation Room Sanple Preparation (Weekly if Gross Room, Laundry Room Radio-Beta 1 1 x 10-13) chemistry Laboratory, Caseaus Waste Systes, and Compacting Station. CRMS - Operational Radiation Monitoring System \\ e Although the CRMS Channels have no specific function as far as effluent monitoring and reporting I is concerned, these two (2) channels are being listed for information purposes. It is also o that these channels provide alarm functions in the Main Control Room when levels of 1.2 x 10~gted pC1/cc are reached on Channel 8. or 1 x 10~9 uC1/cc on Channel 12. Additionally, they shut the ventilation system butterfly valves when levels of 1.2 x 10** uC1/cc are reached on Channel 8 or i 1 x 10*i uCi/cc on Channel 12. I P00R ORMAe

I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY l 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. M0ertTORINC EyyL"ENTS 3. Analvtical Procedures for Sasoline Airborne Effluents (continued) b. Beaver Valley Power Station The following tabulates the gaseous sampling and analysis schedule: Detectable Caseous Sampling Type of Concentrations Activity Analysis (uC1/ml)a Source Frequency (1) Waste cas Decay Tank Each Tank Principal Cama Emitters 10 I*1***** 10 H-3 I (2) Containant Purge Each Purge Principal Ca m a Emitters 10 4 Releases 10 E-3 (3) Environmental Release tfonthly Principal Cassia Emitters 10 Points (Cas Samples) E-3 104 ~12 Usekly I-131 10 I (Charcoal Sample) ~10 Veekly I-133, I-135 10 (Charcoal Sample) I ~11 Veekly Principal Camma Emitters 10 (Particulates) (Ba-ta-140 I-131, and others) ~ Ifoothly Composite Cross a 10 (Particulates) d ~U quarterly Composite Sr-90 and Sr-89 10 I (Particulates) ' The above detectability limits for activity analysis are based on technical feasibnity and on I the potential significance in the eovironment of the quantities released. For some nuclides, lower detection limits may be readily achievable, and when nuclides are measured below the stated limits, they should also be reported. i For certain mixtures of gn=ma esitters, it any not be possible to seasure radionuclides at levels near their sensitivity limits when other nuclides are present in the sample at much Under these circumstances, it win be more appropriate to calculate the = higher levels. levels of such radionuclides using observed ratios with those radionuclides which are measurable. I

Analyses shan also be performed fonoving each refueling, startup, or similar operational occurrence v51ch could alter the sixture of nuclides.

To be representative of the average quantities and concentrations of radioactive sacerials W , in particulate form released in gaseous effluents, samples should be collected in proportion I to the race of flow of the effluent streas. !I I 703 BRW.L

I I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS 4. Results a. Shippingport Atomic Power Station I Analyses for the particulate airborne radioactivity in the plant effluents indicated that the gross alpha and gross beta activity concentrations were at or very near the minimum detectable activities (MDA). Analytical I results of charcoal filter samples showed that there were no instances of radioiodine concentrations above MDA. Specific gamma analyses of weekly and monthly composite air filter samples were also performed. Results showed I naturally occurring radioactivity typical of " background air" and nuclides attributable to worldwide fallout from nuclear weapons testing. During 1980, there was one instance where Cobalt 60 activity, attributable to plant I operations, was measured in the Radio Chemistry Laboratory Ventilation Exhaust. The total amount of Co-60 activity releasedwg 0.00000000422 curies at a concentration of 6.33 x 10-pC1/ml. Radiostrontium analyses of quarterly composite air filter I samples showed Sr-89 and Sr-90 concentrations in air which wereatgrneartheminimumdgectableconcentrationsof 5 x 10 pCi/ml, and 1 x 10 pC1/m1, respectively. The levels of Sr-89 and Sr-90 observed were extremely I low and are typical of " background air" radiostrontium levels. Also tritium and carbon-14 gaseous releases in the effluents were estimated based on analyses of primary I coolant and found to be below the predicted levels pre-sented in the LWBR Program Environmental Impact Statement. ) There were five (5) releases from the Shippingport I Atomic Power Station during 1980. The total releases of gaseous radioactivity from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1980 were approximately 0.002415 I curies Xe-133 and 0.0001039 curies of Kr-85. These amounts of radioactivity released from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1980 are extremely small and had a negligible effeet on the environment. I I i I

SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPA1"Y 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I 4. Results (continued) b. Beaver Valley Power Station Gaseous effluents from the Beaver Valley Power Station were released in accordance with conditions noted in I the Environmental Technical Specifications. No limits were exceeded. These values have been reported in the Beaver Valley Power Station Semi-Annual Effluent 1 Reports for 1960. ' I I lE I E I l 1I l I 'I I I I

I I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmetnal Report I IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS I C. Solid Waste Disposal at the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Stations g During normal operations and periodic maintenance, Shippingport g and Beaver Valley Power Stations generated small quantities of radioactive solid waste materials such as evaporator concentrates contaminated rags, paper, plastics, filters, spent ion-exchange I resins, and miscellaneous tools and equipment. These were disposed of as solid radioactive waste. I At Shippingport Atomic Power Station and the Beaver Valley Power Station, the compactable wastes were segregated and compressed in a 55-gallon compactor to minimize disposal volumes. The compressed waste, plus other drums of noncompactable vaste, were then shipped I offsite for disposal at a site owned by the Department of Energy or a commercial radioactive material burial site licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or a state under agreement with I the NRC. No radioactive waste material was buried at the Shippingport or Beaver Valley Power Station site. All containers used for packaging, transport, and disposal of I radioactive materials met the requirements of the United States Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shipments offsite were made in accordance with Department of I Transportation regulations. Figure 4.9 depicts solid waste handling at the site. I In 1980, the Shippingport plant generated a total of 4,054 cubic feet of radioactive solid waste having a total radioactivity of 0.112 curies. This included five (5) shipments of low level wastes and one (1) shipment of irradiated components. At Beaver Valley Power Station approximately 10,011.5 cubic feet of radioactive solid waste were shipped offsite in 1980. The I twenty-nine (29) shipments contained a total activity of 533.7 curies. Industrial solid wastes from both plants were collected in portable I bins, and removed to an approved offsite burial ground. No burning or burial of wastes was conducted at either the Beaver Valley or Shippingport plant. I I I

I 3ECTION I7 DUQUESNZ LIGHT CCtfP.ctY FIGURE 4.9 1980 Annual Radiological I=vt :cmental Repor: 1 SOLD VAS ! U!SMSAL SUCm 7 2 4.* gg,g g jaDICA(- Iv! TCLD wam ONMAL Studge Drumening tadioactive Vaste i Disposal Evaoorator Station C 5 i = - - u

On O n*GY""

l Misc. Radicactive Ccupactor and Solid Vastas D vin =i=g Statien j I l >o Spent I.adioactive Special shippiss g "g I ~ Rosin

Casks la Containers g

CO~ ~r60*G', y I ~ t u INDUST 13L set,D VAS ! ST3?CTAL SUC7AM j l t ,l } Vater Tiltered; a T11 tars dru= sed ~d am .o l Sludge Trees Vater ( j Treatmenc Planc and p g. gy ] 3evass Trnat= ant-g 71 ant (17PS) w I , 7.astt 34sket - 3eaver 7 alley Debris and trash A Iry;er[a: Sereachcuse !hi;;i=gper: Fres Screerdeuse \\ I e ~ 1 I 9 m 1 I a

b
rasT t. carnage Iseerage Its uct I

m, m. P00RORMAl. !l

E SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report E V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING A. Environ = ental Radioactivity Monitoring Program 1. Program Description I The program consists of monitoring water, air, soil, river bottoms, vegetation and fooderops, cow's milk, ambient radiation levels in areas surrounding the site, and aquatic I life as s m rized in Table V.A.l. Further description of each portion of the program (Sampling Methods of Sa=ple Analysis, Discussion and Results) are included in parts V-B through V-1 cf this report. I V-B - Air Monitoring I V-C - Sediments (Soil Monitoring is required every 3 years and was not required in 1980.) V-D - Vegetation and Fooderops i V-E - Cow's Milk V-F - Environmental Radiation Monitoring V-G - Fish V-H - Surface, Drinking and Well Waters V-I - Estimates of Radiation Dose to Man i 2. China's Nuclear Test Fallout Several =edia monitored by this program showed increased I radioactivity which is attributable to fallout from nuclear weapon tests performed by China on October 16, 1980. These are discussed in the summaries of media affected in Section I V-B ?.hrough V-H. Specific results for air and milk samples collected during the months of November and December, when fallout from this test increased activities above normal I background levels, are shown in Table V.A.2. A summary of the 1980 operational environ = ental data (ranges and means) for each sampling media is found in Table V.A.3. I I I I

$hg< oEM{ *rN4 ggp-5 4.?- ef ${" EShEh o gg?oge ygn9 F 09 3 - - r 0 s s 1 S n 9 n a n n c e $a a a6 o a 8u a 6umi 1 i s c c up s n c ly ssa 09 s1 ss 09 t s s ss s0 ssio ssc 68 3 s s ,68 r o ss 9 ssnt oo 3 - - o r - 3 oo ooao a oos - 1 n r r or rr - or p C I r r rrrr s A GGy CS 11 CC 1 CS yI CC ySCCUI 1 e l 6 b c i si d sp e oo rt n C o o s ,I 0 n n 9 y sc a am i n y c cu, se l y s si9 yu k l n8 l q e i a-ae e a rr nr W D y 1US AF su e ni t e s od i t e i a s i ) l ) t r o) ) s) ) ) J pb b ob b b f s( p ra n m( ( p( ( ( ot m e c '0 t o o o m rs a Ce ye oe e ye eae s el1 m a i et l l t Cl t l t t pi epat. l a yp ri pyi ri i c r eicx pr l m es y m l s es see H ma ha t o l a h o t o ol p oeD ao A ap t S r p kS t p rp pb s cD er nmam mi "3 p K. S e n am e o H C_Q C oouo ody 2 "2 ( aA t p t r of uo ef 1 C eb u P Mu QC W R P G ) N y s. I c r c R n at U e ee T u Y I q N e t t e5 O r n n H F e e l l e8 t t a a y r9 h1 L g t t u u l T A n i i n n r m m n n e T i N l r r a a t y2 E p e e i i r r8 I. M m t t m m a e9 a n n e e u v1 A. N O S I I S S Q E( VR I E. N V lBE ) A a TL n h h ( A h C c o c c I s i m sm s md i a i an i t a C D a D DD D Da l l t l n S y ny n yr o i o t r r or o r e wb D i rn e e i e i A n t ea m t t m t nm R o a wl o a a o aeuu i t oP g W t g t ggC D t S P t St S rt E p r n d n anw T r ce o n r ro rh oe m A ir e it M a il e eM ecMN r t t w ma l ot w ws o a O D c uW f d) a) of oif f r F I s L P t o it ,Wt P o PDoo o y l Al H n l n B A ry l h O t S ye o es ( a ol a ye yS ee AP eir o N t eet o d r l ool ed ePdd t mP mt ait A o O n l t r p)ie AP pop l i l Aii rr riDarAP pV C i l S orr sm P rp l s l Sss oa ,n aS D oP ,rW o a pee y t ert a a pF nw F s p e a f sg, yv, p P V egvt ml , n ven V m V ymm g wo s o 'n 'l i nd ri np niaao J e ive a t aa nsut o nt L ol l t e e rbiLweP nm Li m r e riee i 'r a g 'r h t opas t u p eip r at Lt er enrr vt vit t pek r et nh pl ut rg lp vcpt wt o l a t.a i yoo yuucidd si1 e as acssm m auisasc d e s a erta ar pr ir aE r ep eippa h eoe eorihi nae 1 S BCSE(UA HT E(T BU BVUUD SHl G HSBNSMI EWA l ) ) es h h ) l t ( )( ) ) a pn a a a s ( ( 1 0 A mi (1 ao SP 2235 99 4 5 29 2390 1345 3219026781 44 4 45 1 111 1222334445 e l r p e r m t e

a a

t S W t a g f e n n w e d o c i m n a k. p r a h i u l e f s d o i y u i i e r o r T S D F S G S = _3]- W#- h_J j 1 2 3. 4 5 - hr F "t m a-do1

NOU8 4e > u 4 rn g d O h g Ea <.> , = M 5 Oge$ kyg%og kyg$E"EiN O 1 s 3 1 e 1 3 s s 1 y 1 1 e l 3 I nl eb a 1 n 0 ) 0 ea A I 9 c 9 rt ( ge r r g . n S nne n nS le c c c a a aov a e ,7 m93 s s 9 s1 y s 0 81 s 8 3f 9 o - 1 a rs r r - e r y S. C C y S y1l y S ,d y ) e sc 5 r i n 2i s e ) u ) yu l q b b eq ( t e ) ( aa nr ) t i r AF ) b ( e e S t ( e M mf) ( t i r g e i n')s o( e t s s sa r f y i r t i o o 't A l z o i s p p en ao s o m m h9 l o rd o p o f s o g2 n p gn p m C ot C i o ms( I m o r rd a ( o C y ea y an s 't i y C l t p l ea et l a h l y y r i y r S M ma l i eh ly l e se l e 7 pr ygkl h t ol h t o2 A ap k r et k r pb t r t R S e ea wn e t a mi n a s n G r ee ! o e o u od i. u ne O P WSBH WMQ Ce H Q ot ii R tS P i d G g d N y n as. I c i r R n r l no O e

e p

I t T u eh m c I q rt a t, a S N e ) suo s ay .f O r 1l t e l 2 sl nk f H F )( wst upoe ti e y n aa f D. io g ( yt p omie a l l A n l n y uat w t b y r l

1. i t

i yk anl. nsc l sa l e T lp k en t e thl s uvi t r N l e oh s i et ael h t 2 s E o M) m eweenm nt l a nra n a Y Nd a e! h r oi oioe nav o u 3 p O e S WB wamt C wcl Ah a MQ e A. R nJ u o VI n i t Vi t s EN t ae LE n ch B o i g Al.C f i TA( i h C cen I G po IA S d l l e u l as O D ca A n ib R o ) n l n h e i a S. e cl D t s r t E p r T i e i S a eb A r y p() li F T a l s O D c ) A y l i lo A S. I s y P ,) P r aa U L e r y ( l i t v a S. A O D i r ma S l ,P a na S aiy Ar r y ,( o( N t D ar y P aat t A o S t A D ems ,P W irAP pW( on ,FF r O n Di r n s ni i oP ,r a pw, C i s a .i o sD C a nssop e 't rk o 't ' D t C g,yv ,p goy, w 'n 'n P o nd r1 np nt rn h il h ns n h go oseg t oarint1 ol iet o g vi e i t 'l sys' l i st mepas t u pgst i nm p r noneink a k n r v pl ut r g pr ur r E l m auc onl onr oueaidd si1 i odi a n a eri ral yot lorh ehi nae 1 neue c ye S SBNI l A1.CS l BSBSHI EWA SGl W S bh. l wm d a ed r reg it o S ) )))) ucr es a jj) a ge p l t ( (((( el pn s et mi A B ao 57 9901 236 3789026781 0568 5 sr SP 222566666 1222334445 1 144 2 s o eep i r g ran i iasp J ep ee ii e t n d e l rh ai lp ng aiS l d m uo aa na a cl s r oJ e i o p f c i h U S ti o f F t et f rd r u i e o aa C t r J r r PR s e Jh o d d m At f e k rd o em p l in o eu Ty H A a F FS i U 8 9 0. yZ% wns._~% 7 1 w _===% - z V O s 1n7 e l i% l f!'

M ,MN8 4, > gyCN [Qi Oh$4 c4 - ho g>h ( p$ hy0 , S,4$ M s e e s s o M y d la n A y M y sc i n M se yu l q ae nr AF M )e n ( o ) i ye et l( l a r pr el M M ma t a A ap ru R S e an G r un O P QA R P G M N y I c R n ) O e D T u L I q T N e ( U r M F su M L a o A n u T i n N l i E p t 1 M) m n Nd a o O e S C A. R u M VI n Vi EN t LE n B o ALC TA(C I M I i l iB d s G e I A e g l g n d O n ioni or ) D d A n l st n ) m 'n e 3 i R o ) i c0 ana i l u l oi D t a o. B es d sl M E i t C r r. ill T if i h l d et Mii A r m mp c s et a l tR WW D c r r s r r rot p i n s ldd - (( I s Aa ao i n T, cdC dh ooosdd u e i i .hI & t oaa L e PF yFH O D Ar O r (l i R ,l ag hRRl aa S .yAPi yy o o n 0ooi c l oo N t t rP art t.CAAo uk o3 oR l e vwI p l RR e S ent M O n ri ,Di nAnp PP rW hec p l l woo yy C i pD nwsD o oa ,n auP aws e & ra o s T 'y y, y, v,a rrk et dl ert err e g wo C ,a P p eCc8vt niiG esaa n s o t 'n n d end rrinp v o.iuavv gi ee t eoarnl oet tL oi ol c Lcl orerrl e i 'r s g t meaP onss t u nl ns dii nonCC l p lp pek r nrvl cnuut rq laiat m iyoouead .c edd sii t .laihaieucc a h eoerh eit aK nnael I HI RECMOFPCSMM S SHHGBSBMMR(I I EWA 2345678901 2345 88888888999999 e es ) g g l t a l e r pn ( l o l l i M mi 8 1 1 oo ll o d ao 0345789255 66781 oh oo o i SP 1 1 1 1 222344 44445 h c oC h. t 1 l cS h cd u5 o S cy SRB 1 o St h m. pl .n .. k c a v h o p. im pent rS n r r o o wd uR a m e 8 FB h widTrH P e t ncT ma a d lp a snoS oonC n ni m i rt rCR o o8 os a d s 'y e h ne ono1 oh S a net gat .t cec ct R onsigt C. l c ec. cu oar at ao f raer oo o t f HWBLPBHRCRRRS M c e e p r 90012345678901 y i T D 567 77777777788 W I I ,vy i M d

SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE V.A.1 1980 Annual Radiological Environs 2ntal R port TABLE V.A.1 CONSOLIDATED RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) I ~ Notes: (a) Control sample statien: These are stations which are presumed to be outside the influence of plant effluents. (b) Composite samples: In cases in which the sampling frequency is periodic, a composite sample is a grab samp34 taken from the well mixed total of the equal-sized periodic samples. For instance, a quarterly composite I smnple of monthly samples is a portion of the mixture of three, equal-sized =oothly samples. (c) In these cases, a y - isotopic analysis is done if the gross S value is I higher than the high 95 percentile value determinad from previous values. (d) The fish camples contain whatever species are available. If the available I sample size permits, then the sa=ple is separated according to species and compositing will provide one sample of each species. If the available size is too small to make separation by species practical, then edible parts of s11 fish in the sample are mixed to give one sample. (e) Two (2) TLDs are collected quarterly and annually from each monitoring location. Several TLDs were lost or stolen during the year. (f) Weekly milk sample from Searight's Dairy is analyzed for I-131 only. I (g) Dairies selected in confor=ance witn BVPS-ETS which requires sampling at dairies with highest potential dose pathway. (h) Automatic Surface Water Sampler automatically collcces 10 m1 to 40 =1 I sample every 15 minutes and retains sample in 5-gallon bottle. Necessary amount of sample collected weekly from 5-gallon bottle. I (1) Milk samples are collected by-weekly when animals are in pasture and monthly other times [assu=e April-October for grazing season (pasture)]. (j) Garden location within 5 miles of site. Additional Notes: - Sample points correspond to site nu=bers shown on maps. I -- All Iodine-131 analyses are perfor=ed with 40 hours of sa=ple collection if possible. -- All air samples are decayed for 72 hours before analyzing for gross Alpha and Beta. I lI

l i I SECTION V-A TABLE V.A.2 I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report Table V.A.2 Environmentrl Data - Lainese Nuclear Wespons Test (10/16/80) Fallout Airborne ( ) I Grgss S _y Sampling Site Sampling Period pCi/m x 10 1 0.1(1) 13 12/1 - 12/8 1.0 I 12/8 1.2 1 0.1 27 12/1 12/8 0.98 1 0.06 28 12/1 12/8 1.0 1 0.1 29B 12/1 l 30 12/1 - 12/8 0.90 1 0.06 32 12/1 - 12/8 1.1 1 0.1 46 12/1 - 12/8 1.1 1 0.1 12/8 1.0 1 0.1 47 12/1 I 12/8 0.98 1 0.06 48(3) 12/1 51 12/1 12/8 1.0 1 0.1 'I Sr389 Sampling Site Sampling Period pCi/m x 10 3 ig J 29B 9/30 - 12/29 3.5 + 1.9 30 9/30 - 12/29 2.2 I I.9 47 9/30 - 12/29 3.1 I 1.0 I 48 9/30 - 12/29 4.450.9 Milk ( } 3 I-131 lg Sampling Site Sampling Period pCi/l 66 (Straight) 11/17/80 4.3 + 0.2 12/16/80 0.31 1 0.15 I Notes: (1) Typical deviation bands for Gross Beta are 0.01. (2) BeaverValleyEnvironmentalTechnicalSpec{ficatignReporting 'I Level for airborne Gross 3 eta is 5.3 x 10 pci/m, for I-131 in milk is 4.8 pCi/1. No samples exceeded Technical Specification Limits for 1980. (3) Control station is located 20 miles (upwind) from the Beaver Valley site. I I

E M TABt1 V.A.) LNVlWNHLIGAl. RADIOLik lCAL BRIN 11DRINC PWh; DAM SLMinitY Name of Facility th guesne Light Company pocket %, Annual 1980 location af lacility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Peritsi 8 (County, State) ?> Analysis f. lawar Limit Huntier of Meditam or Pathway Total Numiser of All Ir.Jicator lucations location with liighest Ann. Mean Centrol Locations Neuroutine %sapted of Analysis Detection

- Hear (f)

Name "Mean(f)

- Mean(f)

Reported Qhilt of Heasurcaent ) PerforecJ (LtJ1] _ "Itange leistance f. Directions "Itange " Range Measurement s"* Weirton, WV848 Air Particulate Gross (520) 2 35(520/5/0) last Liverpool, Gl 847 35(52/52) 34(52/52) O and kaJioituline Beta (15-120) 6.5 miles - W (17-100) (It-98) (x 10'3 pCi/Cu. M.) G Gross (403 1 3.4(40/40) East liverpool, Gl 847 4.0(4/4) 3.7(t/4) 0 8

lpha (0.99-6.2) 6.5 miles - W (3.2-5.1)

(2.4-6.2) Sr-89(40) 2 3.3(4/40) Weirten. W.V. 848 4.4(1/41 Same u o 2" (2.2-4.4) 20 miles - SW high locatiosi o* C. S Sr-90(40) 0.2 0.38(25/40) MiJiasal. PA 832 0.59(2/4) 0.25(2/4) O n Q (0.15-0.79) 0.9 mile - NMs (0.47-0.70) (0.19-0.31) o I-131(520) 10 LLD E' N 4 C.smaa (120) u Be-7 20 til(120/120) Shippingport, PA 830 128(12/12) 105(12/I2) 0 s (63-243) 0.6 mile - LSE (69-243) (68-168) { K-40 to 53(17/'20) E. Liverpool, al 847 7645/12) 470/12) 0 R q (16-227) 6.5 miles - If (18-227) (36-59) h Z r-95/NB-95 0.8 7.9(20/120) Beaver Co. Ilosp., #29B 10(2/12) 5.5(2/12) O p" (l.3-16) 8 miles - l'NE (4.6 - 16) (4.6 - 6.5) Ru-803 0.8 9.3(20/120) Isklust ry PA., 846 I2(2/12) 8.6(2/12) 0 E' 2.0 miles - NNE (8.6-16) (7.9-9.2) 2 (3.6-16) N Cs-137 0.6 8.7(20/120) E9trion, WV 848 2.2(2/12) Same as 0 (0.96-2.6) 20 miles - SW (2.0-2.3) liigh location Ba-140/la-110 2 3.7(1/120) Industry, PA 846 3.7(1/82) LLD 0 2.0 miles - NNE C-141 I 7.4(23/120) H4/tand, PA., 832 8.6(2/12) 6.3(3/12) 0 (2.8-13) 0.9 mile - NNW (6.4-18) (3.2-11) E Nominal inwer Limit of Detection (LLD) Q Hean and range leascJ upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of Jetectable measurtscats at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) 4 Nonroutine reported measurement s are defined in Regulatory GuiJe 4.5 (Decemlier 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications (Appendia B)

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M w TABl1 V.A.3 LNVINONHLN1AL RADIOLDGICAL MONIIURING PROGRAM St# MARY Lee of Facility Dialesne Light Company Dodet No. B location of Facility Beaver. Pennsylvania geporting PerioJ Annual 1980 g (County, State) [ Analysis 4 tower Limit Number of MeJium or Pathway Total Nember of All InJicator locations Location with liighest Ann. Mean Control locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean( f) "Mean ( f) Reported (thalt of Measur.< ment ) PerforncJ (LLD) " Range Distance 4 Directions " Range " Range Mea su remen t s * " Air Particulate Ce-144 3 8.9(t/120) Midland PA #32 8.9(t/12) LID 0 and RadioloJine 0.9 mile NNh r (a 10'3 pCi/Cu.M.) (con't) Ra-226 10 28(5/120) Aliquippa. M 851 41(1/12) 27(1/12) 0 (21-41) S.5 miles - ISE f C Th-228 1 3.3(20/120) Meyers Dairy, 833 4.7(2/12) 3.6(1/12) o e-- o (1.2-5.8) 4.6 miles - SW (4.2-5.1) p g n c Others Table V.A.5 LID o

R C

-a e n kl 2 p., B 4 Ce E 2 2 4$ G Naminal tower

imit of Detection (LLD)

Mean and rang. % sed upu:. Jetectable measurements only. Fraction of Jetectable measurements at vpecified locations is indicated in gwrentheses(f) -[ Nouroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications (Appemlia B) \\ \\

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C M TADLl; V.A.3 INVikOrdt.MIAL RADlotDGICAL 60NITORING PROGRAM StMERY N.sme of Facility thpsesne 4.lght Company Doc ket No. Bucation of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual 1980 O (County, State) ?> Analysis f. lower I.imit Namtser of McJita. or Patlway Total Ntanber of All Indiretor locations location with liighest Ann. Mean Contrul locations Nonroutine SampicJ of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean(l) "MeanTt) Rei=rted (Unit of Meaborement) Per fo racJ (LLD) " Range Distance f. Dir$tions " Rang e " Rang e 64casurement s* " 6batgomery Dam 849 ScJiment Gross (8) 0.3 10(8/8) BVPS Disch, 802A 23(2/2) 16(2/2) 0 g (pCi/gn) Alpha (12-26) River Mile - 35.0 (19-26) (12-20) g (dry) k Gross (8) 1.0 3I(8/8) BVPS Disch, 8020 34(2/2) 28(2/2) 0 Beta (22-36) River Mile - 35.0 (34-34) (25-31) g w Sr-89(8) 0.2 LID g f b.x Sr-90(8) 0.05 0.050(2/8) New Cumberland Dam 850 0.051(I/2) Lib o R. (0.049-0.051) River Mile - 54.0 (0.049-0.051) g M U-233*U-234(8) 0.01 0.64(7/8) SAPS Discharge, 803 0.78(2/2) 0.62(1/2) O p C g (0.13-0.99) River Mlle - 34.8 (0.69-0.86) N og i U-235(8) 0.01 0.032(6/8) Montgomery Dan #49 0.04I(1/2) Same as o a Q (0.018-0.046) River Mile - 31.0 Iligh Incation h$ U-238(8) 0.01 0.47(7/B) SAPS Discharge, 803 0.55(2/2) 0.43(1/2) 0 (0.072-0.71) River Mile - 34.8 (0.49-0.60) g Camma(8I Be-7 0.2 1.6(5/8) New Cual,erland Dam 850 2.5(l/2) 1.5(2/2) o o (l.I-2.5) River Mile - 54.0 (1.1-1.9) a K-40 0.5 14(8/8) SAPS Discharge, 803 16(2/2) 13(2/2) 0 (11-17) River Mile -34.8 (15-17) (13-13) Co-60 0.03 0.i9(2/8) BVPS Discharge, 802A 0.27(I/2) LLD 0 (0.18-0.27) River Mile - 35.0 a D E Nominal inwer Limit of lietection (L1D) 4 Mean and range leased upon detectal.le acasurementa mly, Iraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) p Nouruutine reported measurement s are defined in kesuawory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications (Appendix B)

W W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TAbLis V. A.) LNVikOtelltGAL RADIOlEICAL HUNilUl4 LNG l'ROtaiad SIMlARY en bac of Iacility thopiesne Light Company th>c k et No. _ R M lucation of f acility Beaver, Pennsylvania Returting Pertu.'. Annual 1980 (County, State) ?> Number of Analysis 4 inwer Limit ( Nonroutine 3 trol Locations McJiur or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator Locations location witti liighest Ann. Mean S.espicJ of Analysis Detection

- Mean (f)

Name "Mean (f)

- Mean(f)

Reported (thilt of He.asurement ) PerfuracJ (LLD) " Range Distance 4 Directions ** Range

- Range Mea surement s* *
SeJicen t Cs-137 0.02 0.11(8/8)

SAPS Discharge, 801 0.42(2/2) 0.25 0 ( pCl/gs) (0.17-0.45) River Mile - 34.8 (0.39-0.45) (0.24-0.25) y3 (dry) o (cuntinueJ) Ra-226 0.4 2.5(8/8) New Cumberland Dam 850 3.l(2/2) 2.l(2/2) u (1.6 - 4.1) River Mile - 54.0 (2.1-4.1) (1.6-2.5) g Th-228 0.02 1.6(8/h) New Cumlierland Dam 850 1.8(2/2) 1.4(2/2) h E a$2 (1.2-2.3) River Mile - 54.0 (I.2-2,3) (1.2-1,6) Others Table V. A. 5 LID E D E ift E r i O N u M T c h B

4 C-

? 2 r Wainal lower Limit of Detection (LLD) Hean and range bascJ upon detectable measus %:nts only. Fraction of Jetectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parenthesesif) Nunroutine reported measurements are defincJ in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (Deceadier 19758 and the Beaver Valley Power Station Tecluitcal Specifications (Appendix B)

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M TABLE V.A.) 1.NVikiMILMTAL HADIOLD;1 CAL PklNITORING PRdL; RAM StHIARY in" N.ame ot' l acilit y 11thpWSN11 LlGIT COMPANY laock et No. O h tucation of Facility BEAVi k, l'LNNSYLVANI A Reporting Period ANNUAL 1980 (County, State) ?> Analysis E lower Limit Nualeer of HeJium or Pattaw.sy Total Numiber of All Indicator locations Incation with liighest Ann. Mean Cont rol locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Det ec t ion " Hean (f) Name "Mean (f) "Mean( f) Reported (their of Heasurement ) PerforacJ (LIS) " kang,e Distance 4 Directions " Range " Range Measurement s"

lced and Forage S r-90(4 )

0.001 0.089(4/4) Searight Dairy 825 One Sample 0 (pct /g) (0.018-0.19) 2.4 Hiles - SW !.ocation g = (dry) rL==a(12) Be-7 0.3 2.5(8/12) k (O.79-6.!) g w N K-40 0.5 14(12/12) g 8 (5.8-26) ^ n U oE 5 Cs-137 0.03 0.052(3/12) { g (0.037-0.062) m o 1 h y Ra-226 0.4 l.9(t/12) l a g 4 g Th-228 0.02 0.16(2/12) a g (0.15-0.87) l 4 E Others Table V.A. 5 1.ID ? ?;: [ l I Nominal lower 1.imit of Detect tun (1lb) g f Hean and range based upor. Jet ectable measurement s only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specificJ locations is indicated in parentheses (f) to j Nonrout ino reported measurements are defined in Regulatory CulJe 4.8 (Decent er 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications M (Appendix B)

== I i.,

M M M M M M EN M M M M M M M TABLE V.A.3 LfNIRIMit.NTAL RADIOllEICAL MONITORING.'k(CRAM SIDNARY Name of Facility U*4uesaw Light Company gagg,. No. s Annual 1980 Incation of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporttag Period (County, State) y Analysis & Lower Limit Number of MeJium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator Locations I.ocatlon with Highest Ann. Mean Control laestions Nontoutiae Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean(f) "Mean (f) Reported (lin i t o f Mea surement ) Performed (LID)

- Mange Distance & Directions ** Range

" Range Mea su remen t s"

Weirton, WV 848 CarJen Crops 1-131(7) 0.008 LLD r

(pCl/g) (wet) Gamma (7) .t.6(7/7) Georgetown, PA 815 3.9(2/23 1.6(t/l) 0 0 K-40 0.5 (1.6-4.7) 4.6 miles - WNW (3.1-4.7) h Others Table V.A. 5 a Es e a Brunton Dalry, #27 E" M E r-t Mi!L I-131(145) 0.2 2.3(2/145) Stsaight 866 .2.3(2/II) LID 0 0 E (pCi/t) (0.31-4.3) ,0.31-4.3) ( 8 E n Sr-89(ll3) 2 Lib

i S n

la gh Sr-90(ll3) 1 5.0(113/183) Straight 866 9.7(13/11)

3. 3 (19/19) 0 (0.66-19)

(3.7-19) (0.66-4.8) g Camma (II3) g K-40 100 ',,0(113/113) Irons Forn 859 1450(5/5) 1290(19/19) 0 (840-1640) 1.I miles - SSE (1360-1500) (890-1640) F E Cs-137 5 7.9(13/183) Nichols 829A 9.7.1/19) 7.0(2/19) 0 3 (1.5-10) 3.0 miles - NE (5.5-8.6) Others Table V.A. 5 Lib Nominal lower Limit of Iktection (LLD) Mean amt range liased upon Jetectable measurements only. I'raction of Jetectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) h Nouroutine relerted measurements are Jefined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications Q (Appendix B) "y >b

O TABLE V.A.3 INVIRONMLN1 AL RADlotDGICAP HONITORING PROGRAM SIMtARY Namc of Facility lOQUtiSNii LIGHT OlMPANY Docket No. location of Facility BFAVI.R. PLNNSYLVANIA Reporting Period ANNilAL 1980 O 7 (Cou..ty, State) Analysis & Lower Limit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator Locations Location with Highest Ann. Nan Control Locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection

- Mean (f)

Name

- Mean(f)

"Mean(f) Reported (thiit of Measurement) Performed ( LID) " Range Distance & Directions ** Range

- Range Measurements ***

Weirton, WV 848 tixternal Radiation Tl.D-y(**uarterly) 0.05 0.19(172/172) Calcutta, #87 0.22(4/4) 0.18(2/2) 0 g 3/J.sy) (0.13-0.27) 7.0 miles - NW (0.21-0.24) (0.17-0.18) ~ E TI.lby(Il annual) 0.05 0.I8(41/41) Calcutta 887 0.22(t/l) (a) 0 C (0.14-0.22) 7.0 miles - NW g U G =E C n 7 r-1 (a) The annual anJ fourth quarter Tib's were missing at station #48 on date of exchange with new year. C Ug o e y Fish Camma(6) Montgamery Dam 849 g (pCi/g) Be-7 0.2 0.23(t/6) Montgomery Dam 849 0.23(t/3) Same as O g (wet) River Mlle - 31.0 liigh location g S K-40 0.5 3.4(6/6) BVPS Discharge 802 4.~i3/3) 2.7(3/3) 0 m (2.4-6.0) River Mile - 35.0 (2.9-6.0) (2.4-3.3) hw Cs-137 0.02

0. 34(t/6)

BVPS Discharge 802 0.034(1/3) l> D 0 W River Mile - 35.0 E ( l Others Table V.A. 5 1.1.D Nominal lawer Limit of Detection (LLD) g Hean and range based upon detectable measurement s only. Fraction of Jetectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) Nouruutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications N (Appendix B) ,4 I. i. g

M M M M M M M M M M M M TAbli V.A.) INVIHufelLMAL RADIO!D;lCAL MONITOitlNG PRik; HAM SLDSLARY Name of Facility Duquesne Light C.,apany Docket No. location of l'acility Beaver, Pennsylvania itegerting Period Annual 1980 -s (County. State) Analysis t. Lawer Limit Ntaber of McJ itas or Pa t hway Total Number of All Indicator locations location with tilghest Ann. Mean Control locations Nonroutine S.ampl ed of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name

- Mean(f)

"Mean (f) ReportcJ (tluit of Me.asurement ) Performed (LLD) " Range Distance 4 Directions " Range

- Range Mea surement s* "

Montgomery Dam 849 e Surface Water Cross (72) 2 LLD (pCi/1) Alpha 5 Cross (72) 1 4.2(72/72) BVPS Discharge 802A 6.0(12/12) 4.4(12/12) 0 E Beta (2.2-15) River Mile - 35.0 (2.5-15) (2.3-8.3) g Es Camma(72) p p Cs-137 5 10(I/72) BVPS Discharge 802A 10(;/12) LLD 0 g g River Milo - 35.0 g p o s i Th-228 5 14(3/72) Crucible Steet 82.1 15(t/12) 14(2/12) 0 $ k { (12-15) (12-15) g h i others Table V.A. 5 1.LD { g Tritium (24) 80 240(24/24) BVPS Discharge 802A 510(4/4) 170(4/4) 0 (80-1130) River Mile - 35.0 (110 1130) (100-250) g e-Sr-89(24) 2 LLD g v Sr-90(24) 0.5 1.LD { Co-60(24)(a) I Lt.D Nominal Lower Limit of Detection (LID) h Moan and range tused upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentneses(f) r* Nouroutine reported me.asurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications (Appendix B) 4 (a) Co-t.0 analyzed by high sensitivity method.

M M M W M M M M M TAbl.E V.A.3 INVIRONMLNTAL RADIOLUCICAL MUNITORING PkOGRAM blMlARY M h Name of l'acility Iguesne 1.ight Cciassaoy A ket No. E location of l'acility Beaver. PennsylYdata .. _ Reporting PerioJ AnnusL1930 y (County, State) Analysis G inwer Limit 16mber of MeJium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator Incations location with flighest Ann. Mehn Control locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mesa (f) Name "Mean(f) "Mean( f) Reported git of Measurement) Performed (LLD) " Range Distance G Directions " Range " Range Mea su rement s"

Drinking Water 1-131(104) 0.3 0.23(1/104)

East Liverpool, Oil 805 0.23(1/52) None 0 (gfi/t) River Mile - 41.2 g o. Cross (24) 0.6 1.2(1/24) East Liverpool, oil 805 1.2(t/12) 0 Alpha River Mile - 41.2 h E Cross (24) 1 3.6(24/24) East Liverpool, al 805 3.7(12/12) O e-- Beta (2.6-5.8) River Milo - 41.2 (2.6-5.8) go j S N Camma(104) Table V.A. 5 LID o u N o$g Tritium (8) 80 150(6/8) Midland. PA 804 150(4/4) 0 g (80-210) River Mlle - 36.3 (80-230) O g g H u I Sr-89(8) 2 Lt.D { n k Sr-90(8) 0.5 0.52(t/8) MidlanJ. PA 804 0.52(1/4) U g River Mile - 36.3 l N Co-60(8)(a) I LtD g E !l' 2 ?. Nominal lower Limit of Detection (LID) h Mean and range bascJ upon Jetectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is Indicated in parentheses (f) g Nonraut ine reported measurements are defincJ in Regulatory Culde 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications (Appendia Bi p (a) Co-60 analyzed by high sensitivity methoJ.

.t TABLE U.A.3 LNVIRONMINTAL RAD 10111GICAL MONITORING PROGRAM St#DtARY Name of Facility Dtquesne ligtht Company Dodet No. location of 17acility Beaver, Pennsylvania Regerting Period Annual 1980 O (County, State) 7 e Analysis 6 Lower 1.imit Number of McJium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator locations location with Highest Ann. Mean Control locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean(f) "Mean (f) Reported (tinit of Measurement ) Performed (LLD) " Range Distance 6 Directions " Range " Range Measurements *** Georgetown, PA #15 Croundwater Gross (16) 2 LLD 5 (pCl/t) Alpha Cross (16) 1 2.4(15/16) llookstown, PA 814 3.4(4/4) 2.l(4/4) O Beta (0.81-4.6) 3 miles - WSW (2.2-4.6) (1.2-3.8) E" o Gamma (16) Table V.A. 5 LLD { h +. !2 m P-ll-3(16) ido 250(14/16) Heyer Farm, 813 310(2/4) 280(4/4) O (I00-460) 1.6 miles - SW (210-410) (210-320) S l E C 7 % e I d E n

0 al E,

5 F i N Nominal inwer Limit of Detection (LLD) / pi Mean and range lased ugen detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) is Nourout ine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Culde 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications N (AppenJim B) .w

I SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING A. Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program (continued) 3. Summary of Results All results of this monitoring program are summarized in Table V.A.3. This table is prepared in the format specified by NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8 and in accordance with Beaver Valley Power Station Operating License, (Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications). Summaries of results of analysis of each media are discussed in Sections V-B through V-H and an assessment of radiation doses are found in Section V-I. Table V.A.4 summaries Beaver Valley Power Station pre-operational ranges for the various sampling media during the years 1974 and 1975. Comparisons of pre-operational data with operational data indicate the ranges of values are in good agreement for both periods of time. In the few cases where activity was detected, some of the activity was directly attributable to the recent Chinese weapons test and the remaining detected activities were near the lower limit of their detection (LLD) and are attri-butable to the normal statistical fluctuation near the LLD level. The conclusion from all program data is that the operation of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Station has not I resulted in any detectable changes to the environment attributable to either station. 4. Quality Control Program T1.s Quality Control Program implemented by Duquesne Light Company to assure reliable performance by contractor and l the supporting QC data are presented and discussed in Section III of this report. The lower limits of detection I for various analysis for each media monitored by this program by the DLC Contractor Laboratory are provided in Table V.A.5. I !

I TABLE V.A.4 DUQUESNE LIGHT CCMPANT SE'."IION V - A (Page 1 of 4) 1980 Annual Radiological Environ = ental Report ., TABLE V.A.4 (Page 1 of 4) ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

f a.m. oc rammer runs =rwe-te:nz: 3-r teart-

. u.s se.== *n tr eas te I

same es r, r so m e a u - m er 5::: n :. u== se. m w - er r=1:1.r me. 7.=-,-tv =1a sa,ere.as rer_ 4 c-it's - im (Camary asases MMa..;4 ?"002M TSA2f fML'M"21974 - 19771 I Mediana er Fatammy Lower LimLe l w 4 ires. es 1 s n., m :ma.nz.e -.--- (Tait of ?.aa.- 21 ef am.alvet.s ?tr*sr=es Setecti-a '.*.3 ?aan. 'D S.anse 3/&O 0.4 - 1.1 Sarface Wasar Cases Alpha (&O) 0.3 0.75 auf Grome seca C20) 0.6 4.4

/1:0 1.3 - 11.4 I

omms (1) 10 - 60

C

ssasa.

C=) 10s 200 #l : 130 - s00 l ss=49 (0) ~ = 3r=90 (0) i--

== 1 C-14 (0) = = Orsaksas.aser

-L 1~

(3) pc1/1 i Cases Alpha 0 03 0.3 " 4.4 '/30 0.4 - 0.4 i Ocess sesa COS) 0.4 3.3 # l*00 1.3 - 6.4 Gama (0)

:*J.

120 - 1000 l. tainf.aus Gil) 100 30 Cath (0) ~

== so-49 (0) t 3r-90 (0)'

== == I e.) 0-

=

Ul73 'I 1.3 - 4.0 I trees nata CE) 0.4 2.3 U Tritim (31) 100 440 lti 80 - 300 Cama C) 10 - 60 e 113 s '3/138 0.302 - 0.006 I Air PartsmLaans Casse Alpes C3S) 0.001 0.003 and Gameses yC1/d Crees Seca (FIT) 0.006 0.07 Ift? 0.02 - 0.12 se as (0) Se=90 , (0) I-L31 (514) 0.04 0.08 2/g 3 g,gy,g,gg Gamum C37)

ssb-93 0.0c3 0.06 U l:37 0.41 - 3.14 00/137 0..*2 - 0.01 3m=106 0.010 0.04 3

Co-141 0.C0 0.0: /137 0.31 - 0.04 1 37 8.*1 - 3.34 1 Ca=144 0.010 0.02 othere e 1*3 ?00R DENAL ~"-

SECTION V - A DUQUESifE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE V.A.4 1980 Annual Radiological Enviroc= ental Report (Page 2 of 4) TABLE V.A.4 (Page 2 of 4) ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

I 3ame of Fac111rf ni'nrt-eser-1t==12 ?Swer St2tien Dockat so. Not 4ro11c.able same of Tassi:,c7 5eaver vau e, Fever sca n=n Docket Ye. w-iJ-Locattom of Tacility sesver. Pennsvi e taper *.ss Feriod cf 1974 - 1975 (Casury, Stata) ?EE-oFEIATIONAL 730GIAM St2MAIY (C:M53ED 1974 - 1973) I Lower Limit Medina or Fachmey $ g lad analysis and Total 3mber of All Indicator '_-- d== /t' air of w - c) of Analvvis 7edermed Oecoceion !1.D Mean. ID Tanee seil Gross Alpha (0) (Ta@te Samplas) Grose 3eca-(%) 1

1 g/M 14
31 7c1/s (dry) 3r 49

(%) 0.25 0.4 /M '8 Sr-90 (6A) 0.c5 0.3 /n 0.1 - 1.3 U-234,:23,:38 (0) I Caen (M) '3 z-40 1.3 u /64 3-:4 26/M 0.1 - 6.3 Co-137 0.1 1.3 co-Lu 0.3 1.1 I/M 0.2 - 3 Erstr-95 0.35 0.3 /% 0.1 Em-LD6 0.3 1.1 /4 03=2

C3 Others I

Soil Cross Alpha (0) g/8 la 'S l PC1/s (dry) I (cora Samplas) Ccoes 3eca (3) 1. I 21 l l Sr-49 (5) 0.*3

L2 Sr-90 (8) 0.05 0.2

/8 0.08 - 0.3 c-(a) s-40 1.3 u 3/s 7 - 20 I 7/8 0.2 - 2.4 co-u7 01 1.2 1 c.-40 01 0.:. /s < Lu others PIR ORIENAI. ' I

I TABLE V.A.4 SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Repor (Page 3 of 4) TABLE V.A.4 (Page 3 of 4) I ENVIR0!OiENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

sama of Tas111:9 nised - n useu -m e f*=Mse achac se. h-tso" - % t e 3amm of Tact:,ary 3asvw f al.ia, Pwer scacies.oc.nat so. M 1 assam of raatilty se e t==as-tranza w.asImi er ins - ins I (C M, stasal PEE-GrrR1**enAt 72cGRAM s122!aIZ(N 1974 - 1313) I or - of All !adisasse ?- <== Analysis and ; scal ammber aam. (f1 tamme w

ecee d.as !.*3 s,--' a of Anal *sts Perfersed (Uni ef wassaramame)

I Groes Alpha (c) ta4=-=ce uf ~ 1 is 33 3 - Jo FC1/s (dry) Groes seca (33) se-90 (c) U-234,15, 138 (c) 33/33. 3 - 30 13 camma (23) I 33 1.3 u /33 1 - 30 r4 o.1 c.4 U/ 3 c.1 - c.s 3 ca-ur 12 o.cs o.3 /33 c.: - 3.2

ssb-95 3/33 c.4 - c.7 c.3 0.3 co-144 OI C.3 1.3

/33 1.3 - 1.3 Em-LoS .m lI C-(s) reedsent! s/s 10 - 13 Pc1/s (dry) 1 37 r4 1/s c.1 o.2 co-137 3 1/8 c.25 0.2

ss>-95 1

01 c.3 c.3 /s so-Los 80 cross seca (so) 0.05 13 /so s - So Feedsents 33fgg g,34,g,93 se-49 (n) 0.o:s 0.2 se-90 (n) 0.005 0.4 7s/s1 c.o: - c.41 I camma (E) 73 1 13 /s1 5 - 44 x-4o I col o.3 l$1 c.* - 1.6 ca.-137 I c.3 1.3 /s1 o.9 - 1.5 co-1AA c.05 , o.3 /s1 0.1 - 1.3

sh-95

'3/si c.& - 3.3 O) 0.3 1.4 3e-LOG I I 0001 DMflNL

TABLE V.A.4 SECTION 7 - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environr. ental Repore (Page 4 of 4) TABLE V.A.4 (Page 4 of 4) l ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

3mme of Fasility Shiroinevert Atomia -ever feattri,a Occ,kat 5e. N tavlicable same of Tac 111:7 5eaver valle,7ever statien :ockat so. 50-3% f==d= of Fac11t=y Seaver. Penarrivania Zapo e sg Level CT 197f. - 1975 (Canary, Stasa) FEE-GyveAmir. 73DS&M 5:20fA2r (t"NEND 1974 - 1973) 1semur limit I Mediamk er Fachmay Sampled analysis and Tacal member of All *hter tacactans (Unit of t_ el of analysis Fordermed Neoctise '.23 Mean. If1 tante /1 0.3 - 0.3 9 Mills. I-133. (91) 0.*3 0.4 I '/134 6 - 11 Sr=49 (ue) 3 7 U sr-90 (234) 1 3.3 /134 1.3 -12.3 h @) co-u7 10 u 18/u4 11 - is l < 1:s Others 3"/399 0.04 - 0.31 t=, t ad* = e =" y - unashly (399) 0.3 at .0.*0 I y - Qlmartazly (195) 0.3 a1 0.20 /195 0.12. - 0.38 y - Ammaal (44) 0.3 at 0.13 "/48 0.11 - 0.30 I Fish. Gense Beta (17) 0.01 1.9 /17 1.0 - 3.2 ,,/ 7 0.02 - 0.30 PC1/s (wet) "d 1 Sr-90 (17) 0.003 0.14 I (17) 17 0.3 2.A /u 1.0 - 3.7 s 40 I 1 co-u7 0.0s 3 0.c5 /17 l' I I I I I l a'w t I' Cae oscitar not included is - a, (7ecar takan from dried-se spri=4 with high s f Soc cssaidered typical gemsidvatar sample.) l and potassium contant. say inclada 2e-104, 2a-L 3, 3 -7. P00R ORIGLNL

I I I SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIG*dT CC.'9ANY TABLE VoA.5 1980 Annual Radiological Environ = ental Report I e ese 4 me== 0 O O O O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. M. 4 O. ,3 M M est M pe t#l e e9 M M Pe M est is9 M 9 e aos.O. O. _m t.e O. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O e e e I 'l w I I est M ao me M ee e s9 og es ao es ao me me M es es og M g me se O. O. O. O. .O. O. O. O. O. O. O. 3 O. O. O. O. O. O.

==. M. C. l3

== r es O. e es== 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O =3 e in U e$ I e G 8 ese u N ~u H h n a a .2 De to O to I 8 O. U =7 O O g 2 78 O. O O.9 O O O O O O O O O, O 'O O O O O, -o M M M M M M M M 4 O N 4 4 e, en M es e M. O e M 4 M e-M _u

=

e e %e e es =* a J

g O

o g> w I i. o .4 - 3 = me .O k se M C e 5 y .H d I to 3 O3 I e c i e **% me l' =e e.M eG h l's 3== til. 4 4 4 4 4 e De se % I we de O O O O O am O as M M t#9 e9 M N M O O O 4 N ttt 4 **

== am wu e l e em M N an de W ne te 880 e

== D bo w e I

A 4

8"3 =e g ame

== Se

3 O

O u e.a. me e i I e e te to ** e e. I aQ e.e =o 7 Q== g

== me Q E e M a9 4 M e ett 89 O est w w w e 4

O 4 O O O O e.o.

le se

== M 4 so w A.e. one C O w"J

=

e9 2W = 1% M 4

=== e 2 2 *Q m.e. d

== 1 a. w S W he I ae3 e mee se b *3 e 3 I.: 9 = > to C I es e e 9 me 3 t#4 s's et,.q CD T y pe e O pe

==, 4 e g g re me ( O 89 4 sGe am M M #9 W9 M e .e am se es M

5 O

se W Es $t O ed9 .3 O-o me se est me M se se me e o e o ame e a.* e e e o a e e 2 me me re O eft i#t n#1 at 4 4 3 e e to j Q d O C ** 3 3 se e e e e e e 1 O e e .E

e y

e w e e e 'eJ n 'ee N N 5 M 4 * )* e* V Emi W S V W 5 >* e I B 3d Q as me,

I SECTION V - B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING B. Air Monitoring 1. Characterization of Air and Meteorology The air in the vicinity of thc site contains pollutants typical I for an industrial area. Air flow is generally from the South-west in summer and from the Northwest in the winter. 2. Air Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques a. Program The air is sampled for gaseous radioiodine and radioactive particulates at each of ten (10) off-site air sa=pling stations. The locations of these stations are listed in Table V.A.1 and shown on a map in Figure 5.B.1. Samples are collected at each of these stations by continuously drawine, about one cubic foot per minute I of atmosphere air thro.gh a glass fiber filter and through a charcoal cartridge. The former collects airborne particulates; the latter is for radiciodins I sampling. Samples are collected for analysi., on a weekly basis. The charcoal is used in the weekly aaalysis of airborne I I-131. The filters are analyzed each week for gross beta, then composited by station for monthly analysis by gamma spectrometry. They are further composited in a quarterly I sample from each station for alpha analysis and for Sr-89/ 90 analysis. In order to reduce interference from natural radon and thoron radioactivities, all filters are allowed to decay for a few days after collection prior to counting I for beta in a low background counting system. b. Procedures Gross beta analysis is performed by placing the filter paper from the weekly air sa=ple in a 2" x 1/4 planchet and counting it in a low background, gas flow proportional counter. Ga==a emitters are deter =ined by stacking all the filter papers from each monitoring station collected during the I month and scanning this composite on a lithium drifted germanium (Ge(L1)) gam =a spectrometer. Radiotodine (I-131) analysis is performed by a gamma scan I of the charcoal in a weekly charcoal cartridge. The activity is referenced to the mid-collection time. I I

I SECTION V - B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE 5.B.1 I 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report l ENVIRCNMENTAL McNITORING LOCATIONS Fiq. 5.B.1 N Ain SAMPt tr4Q LOCATicr45 Art supus: 5 tats 5*A. 90. (2$1I.!),!1 I [ *% BCMER CodNTT 13 utYtt 5 QAIRY FARM I w/ 27 sauntevs cAtti FAan l h l 28 51(CAMA 15 Catty '~ 29 SEAVER 00UMTY 457tTA&. 88/mSht? O/9 h fewer /gp7 4e"m4/L:, I O# ## { t 30 5HIPP!.7CRf SCR0 d %,, A.i.,, l \\ 32 " ION b. '%=<* 46 INCu5ftY 1' A I h-47 CAST 6 YERP001.. OH10 I +, }i \\ 48 ht!Rf01, hC5T VIRf !N:A , sWa,. s, n.m:m ?" ~' (,_ Q cace.-+ I a i C J , New.,%veWay O_ %. 7 ['p\\q~j-5i y a I i s,.r m u I caredct 4 C lQ _% r t,.. ' / p' "'""= r--- - - c,y,y J e ( e.,,3 s, # f,,,, s sr + f' ma,n l ,,m.., g

}Y"~" fj((lv.

f l~ _.1 %e r nc,f-a, e,. ~ s a n.+, ./\\, ,.a e \\ g, '4 E r,\\ / .n-tt g~';c '. ap, a / I a + E \\ v c. as a pr isi 5 \\ G h Jr%evee pwaperwanea c.0 -

e..

3 lg 5' \\ 4j# .,s,, b-a~"\\1 g l '~ t, g w e 3 ecmce ca. \\/ x~ mssindes cei:NTv I ~ N'd / ,,,h. s I air SAMPUNC, STATIONS p.. + \\N'k, FiquRE 5.6.1 I P00RORISNL

I SECTION V-A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONI".OMNG b. Procedures (continued) Strontium-89 and Strontium-90 activities are determined in quarterly composited air particulate filters. Stable strontium carrier is added to the sample and it is I leached in nitric acid to bring deposits into solution. The mixture is then filtered. Half of the filtrate is taken for strontium analysis (the remainder being saved for gross alpha analysis) and is reduced in volume by evaporation. Strontium is precipitated as Sr(NO )2 ) sing u 3 fuming (90%) nitric acid. An iron (ferric hydroxide I scavenge is performed, followed by addition of stable yttrium carrier and a 5 to 7 day period for yttrium ingrowth. Yttrium is then precipitated as hydroxide, is dissolved and re-precipitated as oxalate. The yttrium oxalate is mounted on a nylon planchet and is counted in a low level beta counter to infer strontium-90 activity. Strontium-89 activity is determined by precipitating I SrC0 from the sample af ter yttrium separation. 'Ihis 3 precipitate is mounted on a nylon planchet and is covered witn 80 mg/cm aluminum absorber for level beta counting. 2 Gross alpha activity is determined from the remaining half of solution prepared during the strontium analysis. The solution is filtered and then evaporated onto a 2-inch I stainless steel planchet. The sample is counted on a Beckman-Sharp Wide Beta II automatic counter for alpha activity. I 3. Results and Conclusions A summary of data is presented in Table V.A.3. a. Airborne Radioactive Particulates A total of five hundred twenty (520) weekly samples from ten (10) locations was analyzed for gross beta. Results were comparable to previous years; however, there were short-term increases due to the test of a nuclear weapons device by China on 10-16-80. Figure 5.B.2 illustrates the average concentration of gross beta in air particulates. I I I

i SECTION V-B FIGURE 5.B.2 DUQUESNE LZCHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Peport i I I e I i

3 I

!he 2% 9 1: I d3 I I I = M I 58 c= ~ I = ow 5 4 A U I 5$ = D m I I c a t I i 5 I I I = I ,5 I f a f e J J J wn.snal -x-

SECTION V - B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING a. Airborne Radioactive Particulates (continued) The weekly air particulate samples were composited to one hundred and twenty (120) monthly samples which I were analyzed by gamma spectrometry. Naturally occurring Be-7 was present in every sample. Occasional traces above detection levels of other nuclides were present. I Som .ere natural, others were residual from previous and recent nuclear weapons tests. Examination of effluent data from the Beaver Valley Power Station I and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station demonstrated that none of the slightly elavated results are attri-butable to the operation of either power station. A total of forty (40) quarterly samples were each analyzed for gross alpha, Sr-89, and Sr-90. Results were comparable to those in previous years, including pre-operational years. Based on the analytical results, the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station and Shippingport Atomic Power Station I did not contribute to any increase in air particulate radioactivity during CY 1980. b. Radiciodine l A total of five hundred and twenty (520) weekly charcoal filter samples were analyzed for I-131. No detectable I concentrations were found at any locations. l Based on analytical results, the operation of Beaver Valley l l Power Station and Shippingport Atomic Power Station did ! E not contribute to any increase in airborne radioiodine during CY 1980. l I l I I SECTION V - C DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPAhT 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING C. Monitoring of Sediments and Soils (Soil Monitoring is required every 3 years and was not required in 1980.) 1. Characterization of Stream Sediments The stream sediments consist largely of sand and silt. 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques a. Program River bottom sediments were collected quarterly above the Montgomery Dam in the vicinities of the Beaver Valley discharge and Shippingport discharge and above I the New Cumberland Dam. A Ponar or Eckman dredge is used to. collect the sample. The sampling locations are also listed in Table V.A.1 and are shown in Figure 5.C.1. Bottom sediments are analyzed for gross alpha and beta activity, strontium, uranium and the gamma-emitting I radionuclides. B. Analytical Procedures Gross beta - sediments are analyzed for gross beta by mounting a 1 gram portion of dried sediment in a 2" planchet. The sample is counted in a low background, I gas flow proportional counter. Self absorption corrections are made on the basis of sample waight. Gross alpha activity of sediment is analyzed in the I same manner as gross beta except that the counter is set up to count only alpha. I Gamma analysis of sediment is performed in a 100 m'. plastic bottle which is counted by a gamma ec trar ae ter. f I I I I

- - - ~, 49 B o e I i [ 8 'I \\ = p g' g g 4 + fil !i e i -a

t e

lu? f n l L ', f j, 4 'n kjf } i,f 4 \\ o8 WEST VIRGINIA I ,f J" ollio 9 n [N ~j aN PENNSYLVANIA 8 ,,(

N f; j

1;,,, ' g l I O ijl[. 9 j a n J @i e .e..w t il, i P f f 4;.s. j a b ) } )j e o t a, i f' f m } j ._. _. "l . 4w s;.q; g,.L.._. J 3 6 x - - f. g / g g g 0 f k~ 9) q'f .,*a -.=;a * ",, %I; V / ~~ T^~ a ih '- [2' ','j (' 4m c w i C"") / \\ p !3'.0 s ~6 \\ l E

d. '

O'[,@h R I I a a \\ t 4

":3

N

'G r ' Ip',,['N I R 85 l :\\. '\\ -2 # X -1 /y E r A sm@ByN AV t c '~ a p ~..t _yg

w,/,

=-

l I SECTION V - C DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Repcrt V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING b. Analytical Procedures (continued) Strontium 89 and 90 are determined by radiochemistry. A weighed sample of sediment or soil is leached with HNO

3 A stable carrier is added for determination of recovery.

Strontium concentration and purification is ultimately realized by precipitations of strontium nitrate in fuming nitric acid. Additional hydroxide precipitations and barium chromate separations are also used. The purified strontium is converted to a carbonate for weighing and I counting. Samples are counted soon after separation (5 - 7 days is allowed for yttrium ingrowth). Activities arecalculatedonthebasisofappropriateSr-g9decayand Y-90. Separate mounts covered with a 80 mg/cm aluminum absorber are used for counting in a low background beta counter. U_ranium isotopic analysis of sediment samples were performed by alpha spectrometry after leaching and isolation of the uranium by anion exchange chromato-graphy plus mercury cathode electrolysis, then electroplated onto a planchet. 3. Results and Conclusions a. Results I The results of sediment analysis are summarized in Table V.A.3. I There were no significant differences between these. current levels and those previously detected in boch upstream and downstream sediment samples. Results-from gross alpha analysis tend to vary significantly as is characteristic of actual radioactivity in the environment, but all results were within the range anticipated. I I I I I SECTION V - C DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 3. Results and Conclusions (continued) a. Results (continued) Uranium isotopic analyses were performed by alpha l spectroscopy. The results suggest that only naturally occurring U-234 and U-238 were present since the activities were nearly always the same in each sample and the levels are within the expected range of natural uranium activities. In equilibrium, U-234 and U-238 have the same activity. l I b. Conclusion Other than a very small amount of Co-60 at the outfall of Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Pouer Station. the sediment analyses do not indicate any increased radioactivity attributable to Beaver Valley Power Station. Since Shippingport Atoraic Power Station did not release any radioactive liquid j waste during 1980, it did not contribute to any changes 5 in river sediment radioactivity. Small amount of Cs-137 from fallout was found in all river sediment samples including those upstream above Montgomery Dam which I are unaffected by plant effluents. I !I I I

SECTION V - D DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPAh"I 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING D. Monitoring of Feederops and Fooderops 1. Characterization of Vegetation and Foe:lirscu According to a survey made in 1975, there were approximately 700 farms in Beaver County. The principle source of revenue for the fams was in dairy products which amounted to nearly $3,200,000.00. Reveaues from other farm products were as follows: ~ Crops $f,400,000.00 Horciculture $ 565,000.00 Mar.t $ 831,000.00 Poaltry $ 760,000.00 The percentage of crop land in Beaver County is approximately 17%, pasture land - 6.5%, forest land - 47.8%, and other land uses - 28.7%. 2. Sampling Program and Analvtical Techniques a. Program I Representative samples of cattle feed are collected monthly from the nearest dairy (Searight). See Figure 5.D.l. Each sr.mple is analyzed by gnmn spectrometry. The monthly samples are composited into a quarterly sample which is analyzed for Sr-90. Foodcrops (vegetables) were collected at garden locations I during the summer of 1980. Cabbage and lettuce vere obtained from gardens in Shippingport, Pa., Georgetown, Pa. and Industry, Pa. Cabbage was collected.It a garden in Weirton, W. Va. All samples were analyzed for gamma I emitters (including I-131 by gamma spectrometry). b. Procedures Gamma emitters, including I-131, are determined by scanning a dried, homogenized sample eith the gnm n spectrometry system. A Ge(L1) detector is utilized I with this system. Strontium 90 analysis for feedstuff is performed by a procedure similar to that described in V.C.2. M M M M M m m e e g g g g 05z ~ FIGURE 5.D.1 (* Mourno+raar Dari r.. O l I~l Car =tlen U I ~~~ O e O AMANGPWir h O .,Grougeroi.wr \\ o w> / c a'.x ' ^%. l 9 '(' ?! m 3; / h e r $E O WE.ST$ Q Gad <p-l g1 N pggy3yyy,y,4 VlE$IhlA p/ U1 [ N xff#. t N, c' sa g4 \\ / a t' g w /foog$ rows / y o O k h l.EGEND: Q s Q x - Vegetable Carden l '(

1 Asc~@p C

a @ - searia t'. nairy var. h n l Feederop E!!VIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM "GJ"*'" FEEDCROP AND FOODCROP LOCATIONS

n g

FIGllRE 5.D.1 4 m

SECTION V - D LUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report i V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 3. Results and Conclusions A summary of results is provided in Table V.A.3. The predominant isotope detected was naturally occurring K-40 in both food and feed. Other activity is attributable to residuals from previous nuclear weapons tests or naturally occurring radionuclides. All results were consistent with (or lower than) those obtained in the pre-operational program. These data confirm that Shippingport Atomic Power Station and Beaver Valley Power Station did not contribute to radioactivity in foods and feeds in the vicinity of the site. II ll ll f ll I I SECTION V - E DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING E. Monitoring of Local Cow's Milk 1. Description - Milch Animal Locations During the seasons that animals producing milk (milch animals) l for human consumption are on pasture, samples of fresh milk are obtained from these animals at locations and frequencies l noted in Table V.A.l. This milk is analyzed for its radio-l iodine content calculated as Iodine-131. The analyses are performed within eight (8) days of sampling. l Detailed field surveys are performed during the grazing season to locate and enumerate milch animals within a five (5) mile radius of the site. Goat herd locations out to fifteen (15) miles are identified. Survey data for the most recent survey conducted in August, 1980 is shown in Figure 5.E.1. 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques a. Program Milk was collected from three (3) reference dairy farms within a 10-mile radius of the site. Additional dairies, l which represent the highest potential milk pathway for radiciodine based on milch animal surveys and meteorological data were selected and sampled. These dairies are subject to change when more recent data (including census) indicate other locations are more appropriate. The location of each is shown in Figure 5.E.2 and described below. Number of Much Distance and Direction Collection Site Dairv Animals From Site Period 25 Searight 51 Cows 2.2 miles-southwest Jan. - Dec. 27 Brunton 80 Cows 7.3 miles-southwest Jan. - Dec. l 29A Nichol 45 Cows 8.0 miles-northwes t Jan. - Dec. 59 Irons 1 Cow

2.3 miles-south May - Aug.

I 60 Haney 2 Cows

2.6 miles-west Jan. - Mar.

61 Allison 45 Cows ":. 3 miles-west /sw. Jan. - Dec. 62 Lyon 25 Cows 3.4 miles-west /sw. Jan. - June / I Aug. - Dec. 63 Conkle 42 Cows 3.8 miles-west /sw. Apr. - May 66 Straight, C. 1 Cow

3.1 miles-southwes t July - Dec.
Milk usage - home only.

I SECTION V-E FIGURE 5.E.1 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report FleuttE 5.E.1 COW & GOAT SURVEY-SUMMER,1980 l ~ I / j'i L ){. 7 [ 't - emdr i

g Jg

= u fC~'- p-N i' W X K' a [hy \\- I l ) 4 is 1 ~. l a A y.) ..g -- - ] r f 1. +. / ,Y n .. m Q 7 h% QY 03 k & = 1 ( a A.. i Q. ' )a v j p / o e / ~ _m_ \\ I .o t s. s Mf /- n m o y z )J-- ef ^ g l A 7 u y l [ s, /' - L EG E N D " " ~~ l ['._ J cGOATS ecows w -. _ FIGURE 5.E.1 i j I SECTION V - E DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I ENvlRONME.NTAL McNiToamq LocATicMS FIGURE EE2 MILK l n { sc via ceuur< ([. su o. L T u mmo g,,,.6 im a-es./ " =. a,+,s ~, .ne., t I _m.m .q g 3.3 s m. s %, j$ 6.

== u-u mzm 62 !.YC:4 l ~ l Q, e=. a u .,m-3 .t 5 a

== ce e %T) a,.,. e ~w-I x l l t sa~is q g ,f f: Roches( v -e 4 ^, ,.p ' ? Pi.9 Mon 5 ,h 4 e,-w 1 I h

c. n,.,Q

_L y_ p

r/ ^'*" {n C

~ x cy-i y 7 g l l ~_x - m sc l C* ..~ if ...,f L,:.] j~~ ,,<.,p ) (S':f[", ./\\ s by.,ge .I a, g " f:. m /\\. n< N ~u I 2*$* 4 g .e~, ).w a~ca, er l [ 1, " '" ,//. #+ - v s a + t ~ p;- - % g i +, 6, I s a e r ~ s 3 ecwee ca. / 1 3 , nsm~ dca eeu~n \\ s i c '" \\ e g \\. ~ u s hemme====amas= man n l C \\ MILK LOCATIONS \\'D,h FIGURE 5.E.z 1s[,R,,T G k, I _ss

I I SECTION V - E DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING E. Monitoring of Local Cow's Milk (continued) a. Program (continued) The sample from Searight Dairy was collected and I analyzed weekly for radiciodine using a procedure with a high sensitivity. Samples from each of the other selected dairies were collected monthly when I cows are indoors, and bi-weekly when cows are grazing. This monthly or bi-weekly sample is analyzed for Sr-89, Ss 90, ga=ma emitters including Cs-137 (by Spectrometry) and I-131 (high sensitivity analysi ). b. Procedure I Radioicdine (I-131) analysis in milk was normally per-formed using chemically prepared samples and analyzed with a beta-gamma coincidence counting system. Gamma emitters are determined by gn==a spectrometry of a one liter Marinelli container of milk. I Strontium analysis of milk is similar to that of other foods (refer to V.C.2) except that milk samples are prepared by addition of Trichloracetic Acid (TCA) to I produce a curd which is removed by filtration and discarded. An oxalate precipitate is ashed for counting. 3. Results and Conclusions I A total of one hundred and forty-five (145) samples were analyzed for I-131 during 1980. All I-131 activities in milk I were below the minimum detectable leyel (0.3 pCi/1), except for samples collected at sample site during November and December. These positive results are attributable to fallout from the Chinese Weapon, Test of October 16, 1980. Examina-I tion of effluent data from the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station demonstrated that none of the elevated results are attributable to the operation l l of either power station. Refer to Figure 5.E.3 and Table ' W V.A.2. These positive values ranged up to 4.3 pCi/1. This is significantly lower than caused by similar wcapons tests in 1976, 1977 and 1978. A total of one hundred and thirteen (113) samples were analyzed by ga==a spectrometry and for strontium. Both he Cs-137 and Sr-90 levels were within the nor= ally expected range. l The dairy with the detectable levels of I-131 consisted of one cow. I I I

! M M M M M M M M m me mm mm m m m m i FIGURE 5.E.3 El CONCENTRATIONS,OF I-131 IN HILK y HILK COLLECTED AT STRAIGHT FARM, STATION 66 BEGINNING 07/01/80 E! i 5.0 o LLD C = 1 o - a POSITIVE VALUE N l' / n 8 y ae tu i l rM 1.0 0 %r 9M o &3 "5 y" 0.5 (g an i ae B Ur 2 3 0.1 CHINESE NUCLEAR y f TEST - 10/,16/80 ol n. a. m n, a a a .c, a na r 1980 l'8 w

I SECTION V - F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report i V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING i F. Environmental Radiation Monitoring 1. Description of Regional Background Radiation Levels and Source _s I The terrain in the vicinity of the Shippingport and Beaver i Valiey Power Station generally consists of rough hills with j altitude variations of 300 to 400 feet. Most of the land I is wooded. The principal geologic features of the region are nearly I flat-lying sedimentary beds of the Pennsylvania Age. Beds of limestone alternate with sandstone and shale with abundant interbedded coal layers. Pleistocene glacial deposits I partially cover the older sedimentary deposits in the northwest. Most of the region is underlain by shale, sandstone, and some coal beds of the Conemaugh Formation. Outcrops of sandstone, shale, and limestone of the Allegheny Formation exist within I the Ohio River Valley and along major tributary streams. Based on surveys reported in previcus annual reports, exposure I rates ranged from 6 to 12 pR/hr. Results for 1980 indicated that background radiation continued in this range. 2. Locations & Analvtical Procedures f Ambient external radiation levels at the site were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). There were three ' I (3) types used in the Duquesne Light Company Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. They are calciur sulphate dysprosium, CaSO (Dy) in teflon matrix, lithium fluoride 4 (LiF), and thulium activated calcium sulfate (CaSO :Tm). 4 The lithium fl.uoride TLDs were posted and analyzed by a laboratory of the Department of Energy (DOE) as an independent I check of environmental radioactivity levels. The CaSO :Tm TLDs 4 l were used as a back-up and as a QC program. The locations of I the TLDs are shown in Figures 5.F.1 thru 4. Comparisons of l TLD results are presented in Section III.l. In 1977,1978 and 1979, there were a total of thirteen (13) off-site environmental TLD locations. In 1980, the total of I off-site TLD locations was incraased to forty-three (43) to comply with the pending requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's version of the standardized Effluent Technical Specifications for PWR's. g 1 lI

E i I SECTION Y - F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE 5.F.1 1980 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I NORTMwr_ST GUAD'? ANT (!) uDIA:Icx mMITeRIxG c m s) 0FFSITE RADIATION D0SIMETERS (TLDs) 1 vw .a lG ~%. I Sector Site Location + 1 70 Western 3eaver 1 23 Sherman's Dairy 13 86 East Liverpool 13' 60 Haney's Fars I I is 15 Georgetown / N \\ 14 37 Calcutta ~ } .(,,} 14 47 E. U.versool N Water Co. i } i I '{ 15 32

!idland S.S.

\\ \\ 13 88 ltidland Heights ( 15 89 Chioville g 16 90 Fairview School,,,,, ; g i i i 16 93 Sunsac E111s-(' I ,' ltidiand j / g g ,,,.... - = " D y ? I ~ \\ \\ / _. t s i 7 ~, R \\ s l' ,i ,,r* e-- =.=\\r ' v %.d j w=... F /s. ; 5 l 6 1 ,s m q lgh f .5 #' lf-g i ~ E w / : '\\k 'd.W: l .L.-...---}.. =~ \\ 1 t- / 1 %l, $ I d /, <1 - w.. N gesece /,,l s' = -A \\ f p/- g N 's ? . q :n ~ta / y a y, - - 9-nm I %g-v e3v3 c/ A

u i,

/ , p,e, m, 1;x.s g4 x ys'.3,c@a/r;.;g/. g = g c g sog-,, c ,, h s, ,.,. O s. -r P00R ORIGINE ^- I

I I SECTIG V - F DUQUESNE LICHT COMPANY FIGURE 5.F.2 1980 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I l MORT *dEAST QUAD 2 ANT (2) RAD uTIcN 3.oNIToRI.c < m,3 OFFSITE RADIATION DOSIMETERS (TLDs) VA4 = =en E l Sector JJ1e g , estera Seaver l 1 70 W 1 23 Shersaa's airy 2 2 11 Pine crove 6 Doyle I 2 71 3rigston Two. Scheel l 3 46.1

adustry (Tire ca.)

4 s.s/ \\I f N

=;;;;-"

j 3 298 Seaver county Hosp. g I h 4 e 1 gj/ l\\ j c.e it, c.m..e cc te, u.> { 7. Na 5 31 Aliquippa T .Y P as eat Chirch J=. / 4 l Q-p,-r )i y ,p' N -l x g ,e s [y A *Y1 .p,$,/fN 1 7~'...... f Ye1 ] E f %t ~~ ~ -s t ol/ i? \\ \\ ..b '^ . 4 ~. --_s,' /; , h - g!: '\\ f L -.s N./ I /4 /. 2 a-o m ~~ i l* ~s i e j .s l .... r u, ,/y

7 g

x g,se. \\ / . _ m, Lb r Tii) .~ ) .w-u.,ggsl, u y 3 v l , % N * \\ \\ L,. C W I . Q(' ~ I h /j# Q l ' & u % ' T, W ? j I 300R DiliBlWL I

I I SECTION Y-F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANT FIGURE 5.F.3 1980 ANNUAL RADIOLCGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I s - er co - m-- I Of- ? ' / x..z., v. ; x %m s lp : ' @1 ) ip d~ .,7 4, C,,. 'A ). \\ l

i.g-s!.3y :.':

,-l ~

2....

Nm Oy,..f, -.)1 f ,s I h 'N , M,4 ,WM. fMpid~t$W@,, I + 7U i g gg te / l (' N c.,1 ~.- hw.- ^ ,k, \\s' b. k l l. \\ ~ e. r,, y( s ]Q{\\ [.T~ / e. ) s. m. s.7.._ 3x j' lg h 'y i K f /j \\ / i \\ f\\ / Y \\ i {i\\ n i k? h "" \\* l \\- feeter 111e toc a rt rif jk \\g I \\, 4 / g... M S 63 i s S $1 Ali4uippe g r \\ 3 73 Molt Road

e 4

'f . :. Pleasaa cuire's ( [ ,s __. j 6 43.1 Raccoon ?ww.

m%,t '

p\\ *,.,h,,_.k p u s is ua n.u-t i' i ".t;;" "" l )=b -rg i;

= =.M
" '"' i l

/ /l 4 n""L";. m 9 80 Raccoon Fara I \\ 9 81 Sethside School s ~~ g 9 82 Y.aaover.katc;;41 Sug. g i i g ~._. _., _. '. 1 -- most e..:we b) . is.. r.wc,.%..v'M-e< 3r^r e I GFFSIE WTHIN MCT"C" *N' I 203CRQJ[ -

1 I SECTION V - F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANT FIGURE 5.F.4 1980 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT I Sou mwe sr QUADTEANT (4) m IAn cN m I m nG (n m - h \\ l ~ 'j f i / R s+ p-j q i j' y, , c, C&! 4 g y 4i x s 97- / n g .e, _ O 8g f b.p.

l M\\

.I \\ .LkJ \\ y 'N ,b,, gy'. - l b l M p W_ \\, i e \\\\' T - N 1 I %/' \\ j -==*'**' ,a - N 'j -s 2: <[ -

f

\\ y 5 .\\ <m a . 43

c., Q:

\\ - (, g ' % ',c e un / l I \\T /. / \\J.! '\\ l - A -. -"*" \\ f / \\ i % s-A; I \\ I I N p 8,d e a. o e e e j c., 6 e v / @f:\\ =~. ~ Sector j,} tie, toestion I I / 9 43 Racoon Park 3 9 $L Southside $c'wel ,3 9 32 Manover hateLpal 1144 f 13

4

'.'eirton Wasse Cowgany jf f g. 13 $3 !*.Lil Cross Road ad A7, Q a I 13 95

seCleary Road

[ ayer's Faru 11 13 w 11

4 Moonstswa

, N 11 8 Rancets Childree's Rees N. I 12 92 Oeerget swet Road / 12 It. 3 and it. 33 [ I 13 56 E. Overvoet u 3 R.aer. rar. som..r ceae=wr ~'~ .--..-..0FF.SITERADIATIONDOSIMITERS(TLDs) (4') I I l I

I s1 SECTION V - F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY g 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 2. Locations & Analytical Procedures (continued) The lithium fluoride (LiF) TLDs used for environmental purposes are pre-selected and annealed at least 5 working i l days prior to use. The radiation dose accumulated from l 5 the anneal date to the date of posting is accounted for utilizing background readings from five (5) TLD chips l 3 which are processed within 24 hours of the posting date. l E The calibration of the TLD reader is performad within 24 hours of processing the posted environmental TLDs. The environmental TLDs are processed after retrieval and a I background correction is made to account for the back-ground radiation accumulated from the date of retrieval t to the date of processing. The calcium sulfate (CaSO :Dy) TLDs were annealled shortly 4 before placing the TLDs in their field locations. The radiation dose accumulated in-transit between the field i location and the laboratory was corrected by annealing control l dosimeters shortly before the field dosimeters were removed from the field location, then shipping the freshly annealed I control dosimeters with the exposed field dosimeters to the l laboratory for readout at the same time. All dosimeters were exposed in the field in a special environmental holder. l g The dosimetry system was calibrated by reading calcium sulfate 5 d simeters which.have been wposed in an accurately known gamma radiation field. l 3. Results and Conclusions Data obtained with the contractor TLD (CaSO :Dy in teflon) 4 during 1980 are summarized in Table V.A.3, and the quality I l control TLD results ar, listed in Table 111.1. 'he annual exposure rate of all off-site TLD's 9veraged I 19 mR/ day in 1980. As in previous years, there ws some variation among locations and seasons an 'ould be expected. I In 1980, ionizing radiation dose determinttions averaged approximately 69 mR for the year. This is comparable to previous years. There was no evidence of anomalies that could be attributed to operation of Beaver Valley Power j Station or Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Three sets i of TLDs of different types, each provided and analyzed by l a separate laboratory, demonstrate good agreement and con-E firm that changes from natural radiation levels, if any, l j l 3 are neglible. I

I ( SECTION V - C DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY l 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report l V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING l l G. Monitoring of Fish t 1. Description Fish collected near the site are generally scrap fish. During 1980, fish collected for the radiological monitoring program included carp and catfish. I 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques a. Program Fish samples are collected semi-annually in the New Cumberland pool of the Ohio River at the Beaver Valley I and Shippingport effluent discharge points and upstream of the Montgomery Dam. The edible portion of each different species caught is analyzed by gamma spectrometry. Fish sampling locations are shown in Figure 5.G.l. b. Procedure A sample is prepared in a standard tared 300 ml plastic bottle and scanned for gamma emitting nuclides with gamma spe.:trometry system which utilizcs a Ge(L1) detector. 3. Resulte and Conclusions A su.cary of the results of the fish monitoring data is I previded in Table V.A.3. Nine (9) fish were caught in May and June. Eight (8) more samples we.re caught during October - November. Except for naturally occurring K-40 I and Be-7, the only gamma emitter which was detected in any samples was a trace of Cs-137 in one sample. Cesium-137 is a long lived fission product and some residual activity persists from previous weapons testing programs. This I indicates that the operation of the Shippingport Atomic l Power Station and the Beaver Valley Power Station has not resulted in radioactivity in fish in the Ohio River. I I I I

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N El 5* (( FIGURE 5.c.1 y M o u rti o n s'a y 11 a n - v. o pq .g L - - --] - b, b g6 ,b 0 11/ o l '] g ,,,,( gJ' o %,. qconc,crwa O Jkiewqmr 1, ~ e .n:c am E.o l ,/ in k

c. c:

l 2 l w p/1 h V / grwa "Mf" t \\ \\ t nescros ~G

'T(

En \\ e N <o l \\,! e 4 a ( = FISil l H l ~ //ooggrayAp 1 SITE k8)g QQg g Q 14 0. LOCATIori r

d pggi 2

Near Deaver Valley Power Station Discharge h Fish Sampling Locations 3 O 49 up.creo. - nonego.ery o l EINIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM r y FISil SAMPLING I4 CATIONS L E l Z 3:::= v. h l P I

I I SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING H. Monitoring of Surface. Drinking, and Well Waters 1. Description of Water Sources The Ohio River is the main body of water in the area. It l is used by beth the Beaver Valley and Shippingport plants I for water make-up and receiving plant liquid effluents. l In addition, river water is used for cooling purposes at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station and make-up for the cooling tower at the Beaver Valley Power Station. Ohio River water is a source of water for some towns both upstream and downstream of the Beaver Valley and Shippingport g plant sites. It is used by several municipalities and ' g industries downstream of the site. The nearest user of the Ohio River as a potable water source is Midland Borough Municipal Water Authority. The intake of the treatment plant is approximately 1.5 miles downstream and on the opposite side of the river. The next downstream users are East Liverpool, Ohio, and Chester, West Virginia, which are g approximately 6 and 7 miles downstream, respectively. The ! g heavy industries in Midland, as well as others downstream use river water for cooling purposes. Some of these plants I also have private treatment facilities for plant sanitary water. Ground water occurs in large volumes in the gravel terraces which lie along the river, and diminishes considerably in l I the bedrock underlying the site. Normal well yields in the bedrock are less than 10 gallons per minute (gpm) with occasional wells yielding up to 60 gpm. l 2. Sampline and Analytical Techniques i a. Surface (Raw River) Water The sampling program of river water includes six (6) sampling points along the Ohio River. Raw water samples I are normally collected at the East Liverpool (Ohio) Water i Treatment Plant [ River Mile 41.2] daily and composited into a monthly sample. Weekly grab samples are taken from the Ohio River at the '.,llowing locations: Upstream of Montgomery Dam [ River Mile 31.8]; at discharge from Shippingport Atomic Power Station [ River Mile 34.8]; and near the discharge from the Beaver Valley Power Station [ River Mile 35.0]. Two automatic river water samplers I -

I SECTION V - H DUQEdSNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 2. Sampling and Analytical Techniques (continued) a. Surface (Raw River) Water (continued) are at the following locations: Upstream of Montgomery I Dam (River Mile 29.6]; and at Crucible Steel's river water intake { River Mile 36.2]. The automatic sampler takes a 20 m1 to 40 m1 sample every 15 minutes and is collected on a weekly basis. The weukly grab samples I and automatic water samples are composited into monthly samples from each location. In addition, a quarterly composite sample is prepared for each sample point. I The monthly composites are analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma emitters. The quarterly composites I are analyzed for tritium (H-3), strontium 89 (Sr-89), strontium 90 (Sr-90), and cobalt 60 (high sensitivity). Locations of each sample point are shown in Figure 5.H.l. b. Drinking Water (Public Supplies) I Drinking (treated) water is collected at both Midland (PA) and East Liverpool (OH) Water Treating Plants. An automatic sampler at each location collects 20-50 milliliters every 20 minutes. These intermittent samples are then composited I into a weekly sample. The weekly sample from each location is analyzed by gamma spectrometry. The weekly samples are also analyzed for radiciodine (I-131). Monthly composites of the weekly samples are analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, and by gnemn spectremetry. Quarterly com-I posites are analyzed for H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Co-60 (high sensitivity). Locations of each sample point are shown in Figure 5.H.l. c. Ground Water Grab samples were collected each quarter from each of four I (4) well locations (see Figure V.H.1) within four (4) miles of the site. These locations are: One (1) well at Shippingport, PA One (1) well at Meyer's Farm (Hookstown, PA) One (1) well in Hookstown, I i One (1) well in Georgetown, PA Each groundwater sample is analyzed for gross ai,ha, gross beta, tritium, and by gamma spectrometry. I

I SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE 5.H.1 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I ew e 4 ~- Q % -{ \\ s l 4 e a[ =/ 5. t 7 i s e 6 .T I eg c8 = s E t M '-% a E O RG s. E 3 3 V} / E ke g u / ) a m / 4' W E 7 =s 5 ' a / 55 8 i / d= ~ . l' _ j m ~ . / w5 l fg g' G8 lI cf [ / 3 S 2 e e E e U ~ g s c I i O u. L 4 l ~N l M@ r l 2 e N LI l 1 4 !! =

i " l !s!!!s;=_iiiis::.,

= la 2

s. sl 'I u

s e r 3! 1 l sSi'!! i i!!i!!!!!sas!!!53!!aj5j;!!!! O c' 2 [if ~2-- si g,// a. L I e s e i h \\h y I ( ) t I

I I SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 2. Sampling and Analytical Techniques (continued) d. Procedure l Gross alpha and gross beta activities are determined first by evaporating one liter of the sample on a hotplate. The residue is mounted and dried on a 2-inch stainless steel planchet. The sample is counted in a low background, gas flow proportional counter. Self-absorption corrections are made on the basis of sample weight. Gamma analysis is performed on water sample by g loading one liter of sample into a one liter g marinelli container and counting on a Ge(L1) gamma spectrometry system. j Strontium-89 and 90 are determined on water samplet i by a procedure similar to that described in V.C.2 except that the leaching step is eliminated. Cobalt-60 is determined with a sensitivity of 1 pCi/l by evaporating 2 liters of sample on a hotplate and transferring the residue to a 2-inch planchet. The planchet is counted on a Ge(Li) l spectrometer system. l l Tritium is determined in water samples by converting i 2 ml of the sample to hydrogen and counting the activity in a 1 liter low level gas counter which is operated in the proportional range in anti-coincidence mode. I I I I SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 3. Results and Conclusions A summary of results of all analyses of water samples (surface, drinking, and ground) are provided by sample type and analysis I in Table V.A.3. These are discussed below, a. Surface Water A total of seventy-two (72) samples were each analyzed for gross alpha, grosa beta, and gamma activity. Twenty-four (24) quarterly composited samples were I analyzed for tritium (H-3) and radiostrontium (Sr-89 and Sr-90) as well as a high sensitivity analysis for Co-60. No alpha, Sr-89, Sr-90 or Co-60 were detected in surface water during CY 1980. All beta activities were within I normal range. Other than the naturally occurring radio-nuclide of Th-228 which was detected in several samples, the only other gamma emitter detected was Cs-137 at 10.3 + 4.4 pCi/1 in a BVPS discharge sample comp ( sited I for January. This is a very low-level activity and could have been caused either by fallout fram historical weapons testing or authorized releases from Beaver Valley Power Station. Cs-137 was not detected in any other downstream surface water or drinking water sample during the same period of time. The tritium data was within the praoperational ranges during CY 1980. No detectable increase in radioactivity in the Ohio River can be attributed to Shippingport Atomic Power Station since it did not discharge radioactive liquids during 1980. l [ l 1 -100-

8 SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 3. Results and Conclusions (continued) b. Drinking Water A total of twenty-four (24) samples were analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta. All results were within preoperational data ranges. A total of eight (8) samples were analyzed for tritium (H-3),. radiostrontium (Sr-89 and Sr-90), and cobalt (Co-60). No Sr-89 or Co-60 were detected. The tritium data were within the preoperational range indicative of normal environmental levels. Sr-90 was detected in one 4th quarter drinking water sample taken from East Liverpool. Sr-90 was not detected in any of the surface water samples taken during the fourth quarter. This low-level result could be caused either by expected variability in analyses results producing an apparent indication I attributable to counting statistics when no activity was present or r; fallout from the recent Chinese weapons test. The absence in all other samples suggests the former. A total of another one-hundred and four (104) samples were analyzed by gamma spectrometry. No gamma emitting I radionuclides were detected by these analyses. A total of one hundred and four (104) samples were analyzed for radioiodine (I-131) using a highly sensitive technique. A detectable level of I-131 was l measured in one (1) weekly sample collected on October 2, 1980 at East Liverpool. The result of 0.23 pCi/ liter for this sample is only slightly above the minimum detectable activity of 0.2 pCi/ liter. This positive result could not be attributed to station discharges. The result may be attributed to expected variability in the analyses i results of very low levels of activity or to fallout l from the recent Chinese weapons test. II -101-

SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report j V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 3. Results and Conclusions (continued) c. Well Water A total of sixteen (16) samples were each analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium and by gamma spectrometry. No gamma emitting radionuclides or alpha activity were detected in any of the samples. The gross beta and tritium data are within pre-operational ranges. d. Summary The data from water analysis demonstrate that neither Beaver Valley Power Station nor Shippingport Atomic Pcwer Station contributed a significant increase of radioactivity in local river, drinking or well waters. The few positive results which could be attributable to authorized releases from Beaver Valley Power Station are characteristic of the effluent. These results confirm that the station assessments, prior to authorizing radioactive discharges, are adequate and that the environmental monitoring program is sufficiently sensitive. Further, the maximum detected activity attributable to Beaver Valley Power Station was. only a small fraction (<0.2%) of the concentration (averaged over a year) permitted by the Federal Reguletions for water consumed by the public. The Ohio River further reduced this concentration prior to its pottatial use by members of the public. -102-

SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING I. Estimates of Radiation Dose to Man 1. Pathways to Man - Beaver Vallev Power Station a. Calculational Models - Beaver Valley Power Station The radiation doses to man as a result of Beaver Valley operations were calculated for both gaseous and liquid effluent pathways using NRC computer codes IOQDOQ, GASPAR, anc LADTAP. Dose factors listed in Beaver Valley Power Station Environmental Technical Specifications were used to calculate I doses to maximum individuals from radioactive noble gases in discharge plumes. Beaver Valley effluent data, based on sample analysis in accordance with the schedule set forth in Appendix B of the BVPS license, were used as the radionuclide activity input. Each radionuclide contained in the semi-annual effluent report format of Regulatory Guide 1.21 was considered. Certain radionuclides which were not detected in the effluents were not included in dose calculations when the inventory of such nuclides available for discharge was judged to be negligible. As a result, only noble gases, radioiodines, strontium, and tritium were included as source ter=s based on I the lower detectable limits of analysis (all sansi-tivities for analysis at Beaver Valley were equal to or better than required by the Beaver Valley license). All gaseous effluent releases, including Auxiliary Building Ventilation, were included in dose assess-ments. The release activities are based on laboratory l analysis. When the activity of noble gas was below detection sensitivity, either the inventory based on its MDL or an appropriate but conservative ratio to either measured activity of Kr-85 or Xe-133 was used. Meteorological data collected by the Beaver Valley Power Station Meteorology System.r.s used as input to X0QD0Q which in turn prov'ded input for GASPAR. Except when more recent oc specific data was available, all inputs were the same.ts used in the Beaver Valley Power Station Environmental Statements or in Regulatory Guide 1.109. The airborne pathways evaluated were beta and gamma doses from noble gas plu=es, inhalation, the " cow-milk child", and other ingestion pathways. I 1 l -103-l

l SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY j 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Calculational Models - Beaver Valley Power Station a. I (continued) All potentially radioactive liquid effluents, including steam generator blowdown, are released I by batch mode after analysis by gamma spectrometry using a GeLi detector. Each batch is diluted by cooling tower blowdown water prior to discharge into the Ohio River at the Beaver Valley Power Station outfall (River Mile 35.0). The actual data from these analyses are tabulated and used as the radionuclide activity input term in LADTAP. The maximun individual for liquid pathways is located at Midland. Except when more recent or specific data for the period is available, all other input to LADTAP are obtr.ined f rom the Beaver Valley Power Station Environmental Statement or Regulatory Guide 1.109. Pathways, which were evaluated, are drinking water, fish consumption, shoreline recreation, swimming, and boating. 2. Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver I Vallev Power Station Liould Releases a. Liquid Pathway - Fav4""m Individual The doses which are calculated, based on the model presented above in V.I.1, are su=marized and compared to Beaver Valley Power Station license limits below. An additional breakdown of these doses by pathway and organ is provided in Table V.I.1. For these calcula-tions, a hypothetical maximus individual (s) was located at Midland since this is the nearest location which significant exposure of a member of the public could potentially occur. -104-

M M M M M M M M TABLE V.I.1 1980 Radiation Dose to Maximum Individual" mrem /yr. .rs Beaver Valley Power Station - Liquid Releases O 8z CRITICAL USAGE Wil0LE y PATilWAY GROUP FACTOR SKIN ORGAN TilYROID BONE BODY H b Fish Consumption Adult 21 kg N/A 0.023 0.000082 0.015 0.016 Teen 16 kg N/A 0.023 0.000049 0.016 0.009 (liver) r Drinking Water Infant 510 1 N/A 0.007 0.0051 0.002 0.0062 (Liver) Shoreline Activities Teen 67 hr. 0.0031 0.020 g " es E# p.j TOTAL HREM 0.0031 0.027 0.0051 0.0208 0.0201 $' m CRITICAL (Teen) (Adult) (Infant) (Child) (Infant) INDIVIDUAL (Liver) o' % $ r* 4 2" H 8 DOSE TO INDIVIDUALS DURING 1980 FROM NATURAL RADIATION EXPOSURE g' n pg Ambient Gamma Radiation: 69 18" @fd O Radionuclides in Body : O" _4_" g Global Fallout TOTAL mrem 91 E E " Located at Midland Drinking Water Intake b Child - Usage Factor 6.9 kg/yr. " Adult - Usage Factor 7301/yr. Pre-operational average ambient ganuna radiation E d <3 " National Academy of Sciences, "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing N Radiation", llEIR Report, 1972. e t

SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPAhT 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 2. Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station Liquid Releases (continued) Actual Doses (mres/yr.) - Calculated Using Site Effluents Appendix I

Analysis Dose - Calculated Using NRC Model Effluents Regulatory Limit Doses - NRC Staff Guidelines RM50-2 Appendix I Calculated Report (Con-RM50-2 (Re.

Ratio of (1.21 Re-servative Limit w/o Calculated ported Re-Non-accident Cost / Benefit Dose vs. leases Doses) Analysis) Reg. Limit TOTAL BODY Adult 0.0201 2.78 5.0 0.00402 Teen 0.0113 0.712 5.0 0.00226 Child 0.0079 Not Reported 5.0 0.00157 Infant 0.0062 Not Reported 5.0 0.00124 ANY ORGAN Adult 0.0270 Not Reported 5.0 'O.00538 (Liver) Teen 0.0255 Not Reported 5.0 0.0051 (Liver) Child 0.0250 Not Reported 5.0 0.0050 (Liver) Infant 0.00724 Not Reported 5.0 0.00145 - (Liver) I Maximum Total Body Dose - Capsule Summary mrem 1980 Calculated 0.0201 Appendix I Estimated 2.78 Final Environmental Statement 0.112 Thyroid Dose - (Larzest Expected Organ Dose) 1980 MIculated 0.00505 ~ Final r.nvironmental Statement 0.96

10 CFR 50 Appendix I

-106-

SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 2. Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station Liquid Releases (continued) b. Population Doses The 1980 calculated dose to the entire pcpulation of almost 4 million people within 50 miles of the plant was: Largest Isotope Man-Millire= Contributors TOTAL BODY 47.0 H-3 37.3 mrem Co-60 6.14 = rem Cs-137 2.15 mrem IHYRCID 39.9 H-3 37.3 mrem I-131 2.47 mrem The estimated quarterly dose in the NRC Final Environ = ental State =ent is 104 Man-Millirem. The Calculated Dose is less than the background annual dose received by five (5) people of the 4 million people evaluated. The increased dose to this population is less than 0.00001% of normal I background dose already received. 3. Airborne Pathway - (Beaver Valley Power Station) The doses to the public for Beaver Valley Power Station airborne radioactive effluents during 1980 are provided in Table V.I.2. They include the contribution all pathways. I Tritium is r.he primary radionuclide contribution to these doses. The data demonstrate compliance with 10CFR, Appendix I design objective limits. I 4. Conclusions - (Beaver Valley Power Station) I The calculated dons to the public from the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 1 are below 10CFR50, Appendix I design object'ves, and resulted in only a small incremental dose to that which area residents already received as a result of natural background the doses constituted no =eaningful risk to the public. I 5. Dose Pathways to Man - Shippingport Atomic Power Station i The radiation doses to man as a result of operations at the I Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1980 were calculated for the liquid and gaseous effluent pathways. There were no radioactive liquid discharges from the Shippingport Atomic I Power Station during 1980. -107-

iN5 FFn < Mh@ < I H ocS E N r ys 9~ y n r$o RE% UR0eEE pi nya2-23 E SOD EN m LO e I I r 2 7 4 3 MT 0 0 0 o - A n 0 0 0 o, 0L a 5U m 0 0 0 o PO P FI O X TI ND 7 6 EN CE 0 0 M y RP O 0 )t EP 0 i PA 8 v 9 i 1(tca no ai Mda oR t e E en V sr I oo T Db IC r E M ni XJ 2 oA I B m Ii DO e 5 5 .t N r 1 Va EN m i n PG Ed o PI L ai AS BRt E A a D TdteS tar M l e uw E m co R e l P U r a S m C y O e P M f l XL 3 9 9 0 ol EA 0 0 0 1 sV MD 0 0 0 0 a U t UI 0 0 0 0 l r MV ue I I M cv XD ea AN R e MI B I x M i dnep p A NA Y 0 G D 5 R O R O B D F I C L O 0 A N G R 1 T I N v O K U u T S L T M 18' M

I SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 5. Dose Pathways to Man - Shippingport Atomic Power Station (continued) Effluent monitoring at the Shippingport Station during 1980 I has shown that the radioactivity releases were substantially below the Federal radioactivity concentration guides. The environmental monitoring program has demonstrated that the radiation exposure to the general public from the Shippingport Station operations was too low to measure and could only be estimated with the calculational models described below using measured or estimated effluent radioactivity data. a. Calculational Models - Shippingport Atomic Power Station I The radiation doses to man from Shippingport Atomic Power Station operations were estimated using calculational models recommended by the International Commission on I Radiological Protection (ICRP Publ. 2, 1959) and employ the general guidelines of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Regulatory Guide 1.109) established to maintain compliance with 10CFR50 Appendix I. I The air dose pathways considered were inhalation, imuersion in gaseous and suspended particulate activity, and the ingestion of food and milk produced in the Shippingport vicinity. It was conservatively assumed that food products consumed by the public were produced in the Shippingport area throughout CY 1980. The maximum potentially exposed individual for the air pathways was located at the site boundary. It was conservatively assumed that the maximum individual resides continually at the site boudary. Modeling parameters and usage factors used in the pathway calculations were consistent with values reco. amended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109). The population distribution within 50 miles of the site was based on census data projected for 1980 as provided in the LWBR Program Environmental Impact I Statement (ERDA 1541). Furthermore, the air pathway calculation employed site-specific meteorological and wind direction data. I I -109-

SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1980 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 6. Results and Conclusions - ShippinRport Atomic Power Station Evaluation of the radiation dose-to-man calculations for the airborne effluents show that the maximum annual radiation I exposure potentially received by an individual residing at the site boundary is less than 1 mrem. The maximum dose to an individual is well below the 10CFR50 Appendix I dose limits. Furthermore, the radiation exposure to the entire population of 4 million persons within 50 miles of the Shippingport Station was less than 10 person-rem. This dose is negligible compared to the typical general use of more than 360,000 person-rem received by all individuals from typical background radiation. In conclusion, the radiation exposure received from the Shippingport Station during CY 1980 by any member of the general public is a very small fraction of the background radiation and has, therefore, no significant effect on the general public. I I I -110-

DISTRIBUTION LIST Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (17 copie,4) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch &. 1 I Division of Operating Reactors c/o Distribution Services Branch, DDC, ADM Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Boyce H. Crier ( 2 copies) Director of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Clifford L. Jones, Secretary Department of Environmental Resources Cocm.onwealth of Pennsylvania South Office Building Harriaburg, PA 17105 Carl K. Gaddis, Manager United States Department of Energy Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office Post Of fice Box 109 West Mifflin, PA 1:122 Admiral H. G. Rickover Director, Naval Reactors United States Department of Energy Washington, DC 15122 Mr. D. E. Patterson, Acting Director Division of Operational and Environmental Safety United States Department of Energy Washington, DC 20013 United States Department of Energy Headquarters Library Washington, DC 20013 United States Department of Energy Technical Information Center Post Office Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 I

I DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) J. M. Arthur Chairman of the Board I Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 S. G. Schaffer President Duquesne Light Company I 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 C. N. Dunn I Vice President - Operations Duquesne Light Company 4 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 E. J. Woolever Vice President, Engineering & Construction Division Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 H. A. VanWassen Project Manager, Beaver Valley Power Station Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue l Pittsbargh, PA 15219 l B 5 G. W. Mbore General Superintendent - Power Stations Department Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 I S. L. Pernick Manager of Environmental Affairs Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 R. J. Washabaugh Manager, Quality Assurance Duquesne Light Company i j Beaver Valley Power Station l P. O. Box 186 Shippingport, PA 15077}}

ML20003G653

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

=

Navigation menu

ML20003G653

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

=

Navigation menu

Search