ML20042E871

Annual Radiological Environ Surveillance Rept CY89. W/ 900426 Ltr

ML20042E871
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	12/31/1989
From:	Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
HL-1050, NUDOCS 9005030315
Download: ML20042E871 (43)

Text

. - .- .

3, Gewa %v emny '

~c. m esaw sen '

' A+4aw Ger;u 30903 -

Telt?p*xwm 404 S20 3195 vaanersa .

431nwrvu Cower Pany,3y i rw cr<e nw tu  ;

D emeQsw /03 bra 36201 l hpone K5 MzS 5531 j

r. +<i w!

W. O. Hairston, in  !

< Woor Vre Presdorg Nx16r Op; rat Drn HL-1050:

000440 l

April 26, 1990 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2  :

NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 i OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 .  :

6 MUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT.9. SURVEILLANCE REPORT j 4

Gentlemen:

In accordance with Plant Hatch Unit's 1- and 2 Technical . Specifications .;

Sections '6.9.1.6 and 6.9.1.7, Georgia Power Company. is submitting the .

enclosed Annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report for 1989. ,

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

. i any time.

f Sincerely,  ;

.t- YW W. G. Hairston, III SRP/eb

Enclosure:

Annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report .l c: (See next page.)

• I .

l ,

i l

9005030315 891?31

,=

PDR ADOCK 05GN321 FDL i

p <

gi

h Georgia Pcnver s$be U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Commission April 26, 1990 Page Two ,

l c: Georaia Power Company l Mr. H. C. Nix, General Manager-- Nuclear Plant i Mr. J. D. Heidt, Manager Engineering and Licensing - Hatch  !

l GO-NORMS l U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission. Washinaton. D.C.

l Mr. L. P. Crocker, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission. Reaion II Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator '

Senior Resident Inspector.- Hatch

(

l 1

?

0001050 ,

A  %

( .

.- -r L  :!

l L l 1

1 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY L EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT CALENDAR YEAR 1989 i

F 3

I 8 l

7 l

l 1 i 1

l i

t

F EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS i SECTION TITLE Pf_EE ,

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 [

2.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . 2-1 i

3.0 RESULTS

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Airborne . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3--

4.2 Direct Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.3 Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 .

4.4 Grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.5 River Water . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 4.6 Fish . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 4-11 ^

4.7 Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

6.0 CONCLUSION

S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-1 1

1 i

8 C

LIST OF TABLES l IMLE lillE f. AGE 1'

2-1

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 2-2 2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 2-5 .

3-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

- 3-2 4-1 LOCATION OF THE NEAREST ,

PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN EACH SECTOR 4-2 5-1 CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS 5-3 I

i 11

LIST Of FIGURES FIGURE IllLi g 2-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY 2-7 ,

2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING' LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY 2-8 i 23 LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL STATION FOR MILK 2 .

2-4 LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION 2-12 .

1 111 l

l y l l _ _. . . . . - -.-

i i

ACRONYMS

-l i

! EL Environmental Laboratory i

EPA Environmental Protection Agency Georgia Power Company GPC HNP Edwin I. Hatch Nuclea'- innt LLD Lower Limit of Detection MDA Minimum Detectable Activity MOD Minimum Detectable Difference  ;

NA Not Applicable 14DM No Detectable Measurement (s) -

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 l

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual ,

'~

REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RL Reporting Level TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter TS Technical Specifications  !

t T

iv .

c o EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT ,

1.0 INTRODUC110N The objectives of the Radiological- Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) are to ascertain the levels of radiation and. concentrations of radioactivity in the environs of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) and to evaluate any radiological impact to-the environment due to plant '

operations. Reported herein are the program's activities for calendar year 1989.

The specifications for the REMP are provided by Section 3/4.16 of the Technical Specifications (TS) for. Unit I and by Section 3/4.12 of the TS:

for Unit 2. The Unit 2 TS simply reference the Unit 1 TS. A single ,

program serves both units.

I A summary description of-the program is provided in Section 2. Maps showing the sampling locations are keyed to a table indicating the distance and direction of each sampling location from the main stack.

An annual summary of the main laboratory analysis results obtained from the samples utilized for environmental monitoring is presented in Section 3. A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological impacts upon the environment, is provided in Section 4.

The results of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program are presented in- '

Section 5. The chief conclusions are stated in Section 6.

I l-1

.- '. l I

2.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION

. A summary description of the REMP 'is provided in Table 2-1. -This table ,

portrays the program in the manner by which it is being regularly  ;

, carried out; Table 2-1 is essentially a copy. of Table 3.16.1-1 of the TS  ;

l which delineates the program's requirements. Sampling locations

! required by Table 2-1 are described in Table 2-2 and.are shown on maps l

in Figures 2-1 through 2-4. This description of the sample locations l closely follows that found in the table and figures of Section 3.0 of '

the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).

It is stated in Section 3.16.1.a of the TS that deviations are permitted- '

l from the required sampling schedule which is delineated in Table 2-1 L herein, if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, malfunction of equipment, or other '

l just reasons. Any deviations-are accounted for in the discussions for

each particula;* sample type in Section 4.

l During 1989,- all the laboratory analyses except for the reading of the thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were performed by Georgia Power Company's (GPC's) Environmental Laboratory (EL) in Smyrna, Georgia. The EL was previously called the Central Laboratory. The reading of the TLDs was provided by Teledyne Isotopes Midwest Laboratory in Northbrook, Illinois.

1 l

t I

p 2-1

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET I 0F 3)

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM'

.I Exposure Pathway Approximate Number Sampling and and/or Sample of Sample Locations Collection Freauency Type of Analysis and Freauency

1. Airborne Radionuclides 6 Continuous operation of Radioiodine canister': I-131 and sampler with sample analysis weekly..

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

?) (by location) for gamma isotopic b) analysis quarterly.

l

2. Direct Radiation 37 Quarterly- Gamma dose quarterly.

3. Ingestion Milk (a) 3 Biweekly Gamma isotopic and I-131 analyses biweekly -

Fish or 2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis on edible Clams (b) portions semiannually.

Grass or Leafy 3 Monthly during growing Gamma isotopiccnalysis monthly (c)

Vegetation season.

4 s

-+-.. w w _ . _ _ e, s we .ww e<w w + + - ' = - . , w ..w i ,v,- --w .*.w-+,v., --s-ei.% ,w----

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 2 0F 3)

SUMPARY DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway Approximate Number Sampling and 1 and/or Sample of Sample Locations Collection Freauency TYDe of Analysis and Frequency

4. Waterborne

Surface 2 Composite sample Gamma isotopic analysis monthly.

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

Sediment 2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis semiannually.

Drinking One sample of river River water collected 'I-131 analysis on each sample when Water (e) (f) water near the near the intake will be biweekly collections are required.

i intake and one a composite sample; the Gross beta and gama isotopic

' '? sample of finished finished water will be analyses on each sample; composite

" water from each of a grab sample. These (by location) for tritium, quarterly.

one to three of the samples will be 4

nearest water collected monthly supplies which. unless the calculated I could be affected dose due to consumption by HNP discharges. of the water is greater than 1 mres/ year; then the collection will be biweekly. The. >

collections may revert to monthly should the calculated doses become i less than 1 mrem / year.  !

)

e

~,. ._ .m... , , .. - . . . . . . _ . . . - , _ _ _ , . . s.-. , _ _ . . _ .m.. _ . ,_,,w.-._

P

?, *-

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 3 0F 3)

SUMi4ARY DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM  ;

NOTES

a. Up to three sampling locations within.5 miles and in different sectors. .

will be used as available. In addition, one or more control locations  ;

beyond 10 miles will be used,

b. Commercially or recreationally important fish ~ may be sampled. Clams may be sampled if difficulties are encountered in obtaining sufficient fish samples,

c. If gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet.the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD), a separate analysis for I-131 may be performed,

d. Composite samples shall be collected by collecting an~ aliquot at intervals not exceeding a few hours.

c. If it is found that river water downstream of HNP is used for drinking, water samples will be-collected and analyzed as specified herein. 1

f. A survey shall be conducted annually at least 50 river miles downstream of HNP to identify those who use Altamaha River water for drinking.

s t

4 i

r t

r I

2-4

1 i

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

l RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 1 Station Station Descriptive Direction (b) Distance (b) Sample Number Tyce fal location failes) Tvoe (cl :

064 0 Roadside Park WNW 0.8 D 101 I Inner Ring N 1.9 D 102 I Inner Ring NNE 2.5 0 103 I Inner Ring NE 1.8 AD l 104 I Inner Ring ENE 1.6 D  :

105 I Inner Ring E 3.7' D +

106 I Inner Ring ESE 1.1 DV 107 I Inner Ring _ SE 1.2 AD l 108 I Inner Ring SSE 1.6 0 109 I Inner Ring S 0.9 D ,

110 I Inner Ring SSW 1.0 0 ,

111 I Inner Ring SW 0.9 D 112 I Inner Ring WSW l.0 ADV -

113 I Inner Ring W 1.1 D 114 I Inner Ring WNW l.2 D i 115 I Inner Ring NW 1.1 D 116 I Inner Ring NNW 1.6 AD 170 C Upriver' WNW (d) R 172 I Downriver E (d) R 201 0 Outer Ring N 5.0 D 202 0 Outer Ring NNE 4.9 D .

203 0 Outer Ring NE 5.0 D 204 0 Outer Ring ENE 5.0 0 205 0 Outer Ring E 7.2 D 206 0 Outer Ring ESE 4.8 D 207 0 Outer Ring SE 4.3 D l 208 0 Outer Ring SSE 4.8 0 209 0 Outer Ring S 4.4 D 210 0 Outer Ring SSW 4.3 D 211 0 Outer Ring SW 4.7 D

, 212 0 Outer Ring WSW 4.4 D 213 0 Outer Ring W 4.3- D l 214 0 Outer Ring WNW 5.4 D l 215 0 Outer Ring NW 4.4 D ,

Outer Ring i- 216 0 NNW 4.8 D l 216 I

• Clark's Farm NNW 4.8 M 301 0 Toombs Central N 8.0 D 304 C State Prison ENE 11.2 AD-l 304 C State Prison ENE 10.8 M i

309 C Baxley Substatici S 10.0 AD Thompson's Dairy 316 C NNW 13.2 M 416 C Emergency News Ctr NNW 21.0 DV i

2-5 et

h i

l TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 2.0F 2) l i RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS  !

NOTES i i

l a. Station types: ,

C - Control I - Indicator '

l 0 - Other

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

c. Sample types: ,

A - Airborne' Radioactivity  !

D Direct Radiation M - Milk  ;

R - River (fish or clams,. shoreline sediment, and surface water)'

V Vegetation

d. Station 170 is located approximately 0.6 river miles upstream of the intake structure for river water, 1.1 river miles for sediment and clams, and 1.5 riv=c miles for fish.

Station 172 is located approximately 3.0 river miles downstream of the L

discharge structure for river water, sediment and clams, and 1.7 river ,

, miles for fish.

l 1 1 The location from which river water and sediment may be taken can be rather precisely defined. Often, the sampling locations for clams have to be extended over a wide area to obtain a sufficient quantity. High-water adds to the difficulty in obtaining clam samples; high water might also make an otherwise suitable location for sediment sampling.

unavailable. A stretch of the river on the order of a few miles or so l is generally needed to obtain adequate fish samples. The mile locations given above represent approximations of the locations where the samples +

are collected.

1 l

l 2-6

.tp=. 1 l

., ;, ' 9

'; ' ' j

.' '%s,% z,.lW

~

~. >'p '.Lw---

l i

s ;Am. ,

. + >

N- ~' toor, 3 f .-. gn .J, ' ..A4..

cm

~ t..

. .N-s . - s U... .

'- s.

g<*%.4

.N, .

s, s,

l ,

, 1 )

1)

/; >

., 4 ..

___LTE

+ . ,

f

~

.~ }

1 3 ,

.o gg D

b e e. % r%3 ,N I '

% J.J m,; e. -__._. i N's -

~

.;" g ,, ' f ' . g -  : ; -= a- '

y t !j. t  !! 1L a. .e g p f,, P t[

li IiW JG{"'

I N .. '

w- h.\ d f; y. W-*4 i.- .

. X"f

.!,._ _ .. \. }s i

%e i rt,

- - . .a. . .,

,3 i -

• • u

' ,,t'.It t' o ,

f^ 'sc. *'s..,_

/

.f-

.e s r.e : .

@ '.  ? ,d c * . ..m. :..

-us, . 1. '; . -

-5 s '.

. m ?J

y. i-

' .- i

.: t . . . .

. . , . . .:. _ _ ; ,n....

V ,, , _

gp. . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ .. .. .- .- ,

,. y}.  ;

.. -~ - ,

.i

... /. -

s. - , , -

-:  ? , .- .. ,... n

- , ;J m

t '

s fo 2

1

.. r u ,g)

.t. ..

. - > ;,: ,1 s13

~

9 . .z. ..

.,.:... y /y t 1._ y . . .,

[ M,"C  ; e

{

.u":s ' g% / -

l  :

l RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING l EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY

]

l FIGURE 2-1 l t

2-7 I

1 i

. i N *

\.

. e. -' , . .

\.*

.i

~*

'y .

i

• ~~*.

,e T. ..... s .* . .. 1

, 7.h -

'y, ,

' ^.  ;

a ,

i

.;s. r - .,w s* %.' 30

(

,c , . .

g ., ,, -.J .o. '

e * ,

,~ . , ' ;.- ..

~- '~ ..

. .1

)-

4 N,

.. ~. . .. . * . - .

- N s

f. . . .,,,.y

- . .,g-., . $. .

j e . 't'. '

..\ .

f '

6 y .. . . .- . .. *

. v. , ,

'i

'U. s ..W' ...

f

, I di'(; ', ' . ' . ! -/s

• T '- '.1

• i . '.

>.( 4' " *

, j.

Dv h. I ,, . g,,_ ,/ )

,, " # .'. / .

n u .

..'.,,.,...r.~ .J , .: '.

. .. g ......

l . , , . * .. **i

.. s -

a,s..'w ..

.m

,...~, ..

~

2

, 3 g( .

. ; i. ,

. . 'y. . - ----.-.*....n. x e .. -

c.. .

/.

.s .

's '

4; !N  ! , T%

.cM.

~

y . .,..

,.q g% ..

~ - w. u.

gsy.g~~g's

• C . s.

t. . .

'3

~ '-! :' *

&* i 4

\')' M, f.

). .Q ' . -.

. s

.].1..

- C. p._( . .' ,,

e . g ~ .y _Q: - . . .i

- ..f * *\ ,.

.s JQ

~.

's.,, 5. t. .

.. ~

. .: .g s 13 .3

..u s vi.e..:.l",,s ... . . .. .,. .. .' .. . .

.s.

. N. .

s .. % s. . .

( ..

1. . .

. s u- s 4: 5 G .~ ....,

r Rt .'./*.

4 m n' '

d<

a,e.).9...:

. . . _p; ,j .;;

l ', *

~

i. , . . . ,. s _

s  :

-(t .

.A s,

s~ s, t ~;h .r

( e

..,,...~_a .s

.;- t . ./r g .i ,

. .c.:. .

.. \ .

3 b d ~"".'%g.-2i;f; .7L.. ., AW. ^-aw. A4m l

7 t i

%. r >

a..

. . -s.

.: t

' g

'J

~

. x-M .k.,. \ 3/' g K,;

}.m .~ .-

8"?.(;, . .

M.

4% :i.

, e y * (~~_. > .

.<+yg.,:p.-

-.g n.

. ., -n

..a- .-

w. .h s.

. ./~.: - a wi -. -

') . - . - r, '

'-7 9 _

RADIOLOGICALENVIRONMENTkLSAMPLING l '

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET l'of 3) 2-8

,r . . - . , , -- , , , . , , , , , . - -

• j

. . . , .. . . . . . ,., , g *p.

~...a

. i

~

.,.g .

n . . .

,g . ..

ft:s.i , = ._ . ,

' d.. . - - .

,; . , c ..-- - .t,",- .

g :j, a  : v.

.i* .

t g, ,

,a .-- .

g, .

. . . * ( ?,;rf ' *.: . . . . ***

. s,

?_ , 't. . . . . %! j.;..V. ' ' .

. " a. .q e ' -

nui .

. * '.I,g

}: . '. ./

o' g * ** G 70 .? * ' .

..,n

.. s

n. . *.o a . ll"s .-

.e.y e. - .s. ]

~.s

,f

.h ~.

. . i

. s-

• =.n..c ... m *

. .,o.

. . . ~ -

t . s, .

.1 * *

, g ,., tg . y .

. s. ,ac. < e.. :

i. .

- y. ..

1

, . i

, .i ~

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

y . ......:- r.,. . , --.:-

3

. ,,. .. e....-.s...

s ., ~, . . ,

. . w ,

3. ,. ,, -

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

.e . .

4. .. m,.::... .s se.

N .' p... - m. . - -

4

- 'T~ i .

,i c'.

.mD.ss,. , n.

r

W, .,

,' ) *i. =~ \ " *'r.

\.

\

.x L

m. ; ...w p. n . . m. / n ..,.. . x. .*. *-- '.

• .**j.,.

i

.":;;4 t 't.. .

~ nE J. g.%,

'9' ;.10'*

o Jidi3

,. fi. .6 I .

i h,/.bi@.[ , ' .. 7 i ..: -8"1j '; 3.- f].'.j]

? .

, .. . .- l . .. **

. @\.

. f*

.J

• • . . . g.e \

./

/ ,

. r =,

. .m ,

,- - .2 . ..

.m -. s s. .

/ .

8

==. - . . .

. , . . .t, ,

p,,

?. %.7 \a

..l' :/ .*

4

Q g-:c.'"

a

=

. . pgget b*. * * "

.og 'd

. .8* -

gj 5.,j , ,g,

. , *j e . '

.yf. ' ' * *4., ~7,- ., yd."*.!*- -/,

} 3EJ"",;g--ar

.g

ll*-

.. , .l . . g. 1.,=

• / -. *

%. ~ ..

.. c.

e % )" %

's ' s l'

l *. .\ .

.t - 8 .

...-.. .i. . . ,. ... .- s

.t.' *-*

= . * ' ' - ~ w . .... . .

. ' ~ - "' .

• s- , t - t.

.-=.......N..

.e. .

Ilo'. . :..

.. . . . f. ". 4, . . .. .. ~~.

1 -. s. . . , i .'.. -. ...,,,,") a.

(,.

,  ; - y .; .

r ,. c. .. .

j ...

. g .. % , . y' , ,, -

. Q.i - -

._W_ .-i_ . , ' . e.

e' \ s . , . , . 6 .,

Qn W .. .. * -.

p,*. . '. ,, . r. '

' '~y g,:~~ \ . "'. .' ~;4,, * . , , ,

. .\  ;

' ,- ~ #' *

.- e"

'm

. ..;;/.

.....s...

4. .

- [.

O' 's,. ' h d e-

).

."~ " " ' ' ' ' " ' . , , . . , . ' :---

• s,,;,, g ,  % st

.e

• C,.

,, ...,/ "'% W 4 ' ,.gg./

) ***^

,4,sf. , , . . .. ,

i.s . ~~,-7 d

~g*

fl . )' e.' g

.. J. P,'.

0-: , , . s f

.. -I -'ae . . , * .

.o.  ?\.

r.

% -, . e,s; . . ?. . s 1

_y-

. f .

l

)

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

I 1

i n . ,r 1 . i n x. . . .

%._. v,

')*~7 6-

~

3

~

\ 4 p4~  :.?t i$~ 'C*

i.e .a e m "'e'-%. i  ; ~2:'E .M ny. '

i

(

{

' , ;t* l t t

t \.\.. '

tv i

./ p t ,l

- ~~ .

~.,t.

[ 3;;" ;

. . *4, '

• t t' J * ,

s.t. e-l

• r .ad' $,

.* - te.*

• g *\. }. .; '** g r= :Y . . af .

' y. '"

,3 e .. .p.. .) t

..W*****

s.* * * * * * *,3 ~:.i

/ *=

.- *. + 8* ..' . , , . J, i . . \\ .

'=w,4 ( *

• *O \

',,,/**.

• ( .

g% M, ' 7. l.,pb *

'l '

8,, 6 .-

sw m.

t

. , L . . .. . . :t ".

,p s

/ . .,. ;c,R' j, A g.

( ., rU.. , .y f=""

4 ...

~ * . Nd',a .* .. ,

mM. -- . g. , .a. - _

q.' . "!~. ~.s.

.'e

,v'= ~ .

.e

. P ,i . , .

\

., g .

c t .. .

.d.1. , "% , , y

~"'o-~. , ' ' . .* - ..e e .

.;a*" , ~~y'].D ,.

_s-:s .P&:s.

.. 1

~

. . . :" .Y '

.. s . , N.~ .,_s:t.,: f 3, w\.

s w.,,,f. ,ig M

., ,. /.. ..

. y. . ub . ,

..' d

.a*****-

• • **.***=

,/;s I . .. : s

. =. .

',/....****=.=.. ~ ,

g [;,_ 2 ~,~~

' .. , aa"~, ,

C*I =

I "*** ***[* *, ' , ' a ,

. ;-l,e

.j ,

, . .,gi.-, ., _

• ***'} e t

e . . . ,.

. , , , , , , , , . . . , ^

'.:** s

? ).),3 i '"

g, ND. o

.... ,fg, s g

• \

s' , .

,,, e '. ,

--s .

4

\./.'. ,,/'_ a .

• • . 9 3 .

====T'

......}..*

1

. . k ". . . t

...* ,'t

. 4. " .

i...'.'=...

• ' , , o' i i

.,1 ,,' ... L f ,, f. .'l - - -

' V '. ;. *; !" g %,

'===

't L.,,'" D,..

4

.:,- .3.

t ,. y *s . - .

m ^ , r *;

1 g l**ra. ..

,q .

",~ . ,- >..el

\ .

f l  ;

. - n.:

. 9%.a.*

.'n

.s i

[

i ., e

• Jt .

.a

..n. . . . .

a

.. . - ?- .

a, . * .2 g, j ,,' ,. ,,., . .. * * . '

• ~~'". ...'.'.'""'3 4- t *. .

.i n '

. .\._,. 'btup..&P.. *

. .... ;r,'

'.,.",*J',,

q. .

1 .s - *: - ,' * . . .. . .. . ** 4

'. .. :.,.K. .;.

. . 6

-:c.-

l

,a* .

I 9

.s - . , f ..

)

SW. . '. * " *

• w. ,,

~. . .' .s

.. * / . ** *

'? 220' *'- . ..

. . **!.* *~ ~ '- . . . . .

% .. -  :- j.= :. . .

1

. ,, ,}

.g , * * . . . e . .  ; .. ,, j

~.,.,;'~. .. ..

• g

?

' r , . ., -

i  ?

, .'~. '

m.=a. *,. ,

~ a

..-- .N

.. . .. -.f. .

~.... ...

.-a..

a..' . .) . . . . .

- Q '. .. . '.. ..:- -~?.

'~E

~*'..-.

..s. . . . . .

y

. *.z' y

.f g . .., <

e , .

• '"'t.

(sH."".*: .

' ' ' . - ' . g. s. *.

ssw ...

.i. .. . .. * ,t~ e

' 190,'

'- '* .

• f $ g .- }.

• ;;. : ,, ' .7

, , . . . . ^ .

t. .? .

. ~ -, . a. .

t . .i

,:fj. , .. .': <

. , .... rt.s. . .

?. 1 - 3.,g.. .,.. , i , e ~. s . . ,

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

2;: / q. ,-

,,i , - v:As.[>!' , .a . \\,' Ysp.-

cu a s. . y- _

\,u, '

4 >

r ,. .

., s A' " p%r.

f f N. e- 'g, y.c e

w,,

.i

1. , i s

.. :s e s

'?. '

f < k ,,

,a f.- ..

3, h if

r. y-5 s . {r ,

w

- s M , ,' =,

Q ,, .

i.,) hs.

g r

, s,. V&

T) y5 I' ? i

~ dh5 s.S ,, g:Q - s_h. ..

1.p'

~

f -

g ,, '

I h

f, _ -

y N s '

,f % h3_. ,

N 7

k<. i ..,.\/[f-),#  :.

m

- ('

g'>%I.."<f'r" ,N 's,f,4T,f I,

c( / % , ,

v, .e .

i li:ag,'t ,

J +

3.,

.)

- u,,,t. )::,,,-o(c.v r... I 3

e'1 , ..

~

. , s -

yh y "c' / W'

=. ( ..i. . 1

- .. g

- s.m:n,r.m . g.-n=.:= g _ ,;,;,; ^%.3.Q V. . .

c h

1

..[ bi~t M .

.p.,m.,= _.ss 1t r'y  %,f !sr:.4:-) 7e y,e+y.0-r% . ,, -, -

. ,- e- .%.c r,+y ., m.pc am

.)d.k , ,;, , ,

T& ti 4 *

.Q %rk .'*--.;%.'.',}j=st

.i s, d 3 9..s ;

~ 3 > }f ' %e. i .:

J.'.%;9 yi-4!hs;r ;2I*%[.pn "'S s.: ~

.7s -

'I,.'

M (%t#t.  %.:'

N9U'U~~~'-ia l

J.j,h"A K:ht r .. -w~

.:r.' :

.:rl-- .t

, *. ?s,.2. f.9' Si).+'*If-4)3 4,~- rD

{7.'*%

n

~

.}.J

,. - .j?ia.?%";fgF5--:4~\,

4.fl! u. A i , a w-(KM.-' %1(t ..g.y=f Q::

- - ^ ~ - -

=='= <~

3 W #.. , .

'.. . y'= m./ (A L

}8 .. c YS,4, ..'en. 5 i L-Fp,,:.;%p* m* k , rd .

a .%.\.. ,. , M, -,l,' . V,+3 Y ,,*:: .M ?(

. . w .

1

f.

• u:f l  ;.e y;rb'~l ; .. \ ' .(.,." .Ni$ $

, ;f.,M'",y )!.b{,n . !.'i , ,

i l

1 LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL  ;

l EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL STATION FOR MILK l

1 FIGURE 2-3 1 2-11 w _ _ _ -___ - - . _ - _ _ . . . - - .-- -- . .-

. ,. , f j

i

)  :

, ..-.i-  ?

I 1

4.- '

i s

i I

i N -

.. N <2>  !

i 4 5 ^ '

y nu '

r ] ..

Guterd - f dsI.$1=Ta - ,

tLe  %,

l a.,

g j 5

r.  ;

• 45

.2  ;

i

?

i

.'w  ;

x -

t I

I LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL.  !

EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT STATION FOR TLDs AND VEGETATION  !

FIGURE 2-4 .

_ f 2-12 j

_ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . ......___-.___....u:..__:.. . _ . . . _ _ . _ .

1  !! '

l 3.0 RESULTS

SUMMARY

In accordance with Section 6.9.1.7'of the TS, summarized and' tabulated l results for all of the regular samples collected for the year at the designated indicator and control stations are presented in Table 3-1 in the format of Table 6.9.1.7-1 of'the TS. Only manmade radionuclides are reported. Results for samples collected at locations other than indicator or control stations or in addition to those stipulated by J Table 2-1 are included in Section 4, the discussion of results section, j

for the type sample. l 5

L J 1

[

l l

t 3-1 l

w -,

.~

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 0F 5)

~~

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL SUffiARY Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1989  :

l l

Medium or Type and Lower Limit All Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Number of' l Pathway Sampled Total Number of Locations Annual Mean Mean (b) Reportable (Unit of of Analyses Detection (a) Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Range Occurrences Measurement) Performed (LLD) Range Distance & Range (Fraction)  ;

(Fraction) Direction (Fraction)'

Airborne Gross Beta 10 18.4 Nos. 112 & 116 18.7 17.8 0 Particulates 309 5-34 Inner Ring 8-33 6-33 (fCi/m3) (206/206) 1.0 &-1.6 miles (51/51) (103/103)

WSW & NNW Gamma Isotopic .

24 i

Cs-134 50 NOM (c) ' NOM NOM 0 Cs-137 60 NOM NOM N0(* O Y

Airborne I-131 70 NOM NOM NOM 0 Radiciodine 310 (fC1/m3)

Direct Gamma Dose NA (d) 16.4 No. 104 22.2 18.0 0 ,

Radiation 75 11-27 Inner Ring 18 12-30 (mR/91 days) (64/64) 1.6 miles (4/4) (11/11)-

ENE Milk Gamma Isotopic (pCi/1) 60 Cs-134 20 NOM NOM ' NOM '0 C,-137 20 8.6 No. 216 8.6 7.9 0 8.6-8.6 Clark's' 8.6-8.6 7.9-7.9 (1/6). 4.8 miles- (1/6) (1/54)

NNW i

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 0F 5)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1989 Medium or Type and Lower Limit f.ll Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Number of'-

Pathway Sampled Total Number of Locations Annual Mean Mean (b) ' Reportable-(Unit of of Analtses Detection (a) Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Range Occurrences Measurement) Performed (LLD) Range Distance & Rarge (Fraction)

(Fraction) Direction (Fraction) 4 Ba-140 60 NDM NDM NDM 0 La-140 20 NDM NDM NDM 0.

I-131 1 NDM NDM NDM 0 58 Y Grass Gamma Isotopic

" (pCi/kg wet) 35 I-131 60 NDM NDM NDM 0 Cs-134 60 NDM NDM NDM 0 Cs-137 80 37.0 No. 106 38.5 NDM 0 17-63 Inner Ring 17-63 (11/23) 1.1 miles -(9/11)

.ESE River Water Gamma Isotopic (pCi/1) 26 Mn-54 20 NDM NDM NDM 0 Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM 0-Co-58 20 NDM NDM NDM 0 Co-60 20 NDM NDM NDM 0

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 0F 5)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1989 Medium or Type and Lower Limit All Indicator Location with Highest Control locations Number of-

-Pathway Sampled Total Number of Locations Annual Mean Mean (b) Reportable (Unit of of Analyses Detection (a) Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Range Occurrences' Measurement) Performed (LLD) Range Distance & Range (Fraction)

(Fraction) Direction (Fraction)

Zn-65 30 NOM NOM NOM 0 Zr-95 30 NOM NOM NDM 0 -

Nb-95 20 NOM NOM NOM 0 I-131 20 (e) NOM NOM NOM 0 Cs-134 20 NOM NOM NOM 0

$ Cs-137 20 NOM NOM NOM 0 Ba-140 60 NOM NOM NOM 0 La-140 20 NOM NOM NOM 0 Tritium 3000 (f) NOM. NOM NOM 0 8

Fish Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg wet) 8 Mn-54 100 NDM NOM NOM 0 Fe-59 300 NOM-- NOM NDM 0 C0-58 100 0 NOM NOM NOM

Co-60 100' NOM NOM. NOM .0

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

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 0F 5)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL SUP91ARY Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1989 Medium or Type and Lower Limit All Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Number of-Pathway Sampled Total Number of Locations Annual Mean Mean (b) Reportable (Unit of of Analyses Detaction (a) Mean (b) Name Mean (b) Range Occurrences-Measurement) Performed (LLD) Range Distance & Range (Fraction)

(Fraction) Direction (Fraction) j Zn-65 300 NDM NOM NOM 0 j Cs-134 100 NDM NOM NOM 0

, Cs-137 200 34.3 No. 172 28.9 28.9 0 14-70 Downriver 7-55 7-55 (4/4) 1.7 miles (3/4) (3/4) 4 u, Sediment Gamma Isotopic 5,(pCi/kg dry) 4 Co-60 40 (g) NDM No. 170 31.0 31.0 0

. Upriver 31-31 31-31 1.1 miles (1/2) (1/2)

~

Cs-134 200 NOM NDM NOM 0 Cs-137 200 56.0 No. 170 62.0 62.0 0 37-75 Upriver.24-100 24-100 (2/2) 1.1 miles (2/2) (2/2) 4

,,,s w e. ' -w-a ,e <-- r,. ,, a.<.- ,.-__.___.._,a _2_._____..,..-_..._,a..

. o; TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 0F 5)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNijAL

SUMMARY

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1989

a. The LLD is defined in table notation a of Table 4.16.1-1, of the TS. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in the column are those found in that table. In practice, the LLDs attained are generally much lower than the values. listed.

b. Mean and range are based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses.

c. No Detectable Measurement (s).

9, d . Not Applicable. ~

cn

e. Since no drinking water pathway exists, the LLD from the gamma isotopic analysis may be used (see notation c of Table 4.16.1-1 of the 'TS). The value listed is the objective LLD.

f. If a drinking water pathway existed, an LLD of 2000 pCi/l would have been ustd (see notation d of. Table 4.16-1 of the TS).

g. The El has determined that this value may be routinely attained. No value was provided .in Table 4.16-1 of the TS.

i 4.0 DISCUSSION Of RESULTS An interpretation and evaluation, as appropriate, of the laboratory results for each type sample are included in this section. Relevant comparisons are made between the difference in average values for indicator and control stations and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) between these two groups at the-99 percent. confidence level. The MDD is determined-using the standard Student's t-test. A difference in the average values which is less than the MDD is considered to be statistically indiTearnihle. Pertinent results are also compared with past results including preoperations and were examined to perceive any trends. To provide perspective, a result might also be compared with its LLD or Reporting level (RL) which is provided by Table 3.16.1-2 of the TS. Attempts were made to explain any RLs or other high radiological levels found in the samples. During the year there were no failures in the laboratory analyses for each of the samples in attaining the LLDs required by Table 4.16.1-2 of the TS.

The annual land use survey was conducted on October 23. .The location of.

the nearest permanent residence in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of 5 miles is tabulated in Table 4-1. The results of the annual milk animal survey are presented in Subsection 4.3. The

-o results of the annual survey conducted. downstream of the plant to determine whether water from the Altamaha River is being used for ,

drinking purposes are presented in Subsection 4.5.

AM** v\

'N 4-1

.. .. .. .. J

}

-i L TABLE 4-1 i .

LOCATION OF THE NEAREST  ;

PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN EACH SECTOR l SECTOR DISTANCE ~!

l (miles) -

l l

l N- 2.0 NNE 2.9 l

NE 3.2 -

4.2 l ENE l E- t 1

ESE 3.7 SE 1.8 SSE 2.0 S- 1.0 ,

SSW 1.3 i SW l.1 WSW l.1 '

W 1.1 WNW 1.1 '

NW 3.6 NNW l.8 f

• None within 5 miles. '

l l

f 4

4 4-2

c 4.1 Airborne ,

As indicated by Table 2-2, airborne particulates and airborne radiciodine are collected at 4 indicator stations (Nos. 103, 107, 112, and 116) which encircle the site boundary and at 2 control stations (Nos. 304 and 309) which are at least 10 miles from the plant. At these locations air is continuously drawn through a Gelman Type A/E glass fiber filter and an SAI CP-200 charcoal canister in sequence to retain airborne particulates and airborne radioiodine, respectively. The filters and canisters are collected week.f.

There were three failures in obtaining adequate airborne particulate .

samples and two failures in obtaining adequate airborne radioiodine samples during the year. The particulars regarding each are delineated in subsequent paragraphs.

The particulate filter collected at Station 309 on January 3 had inadvertently been mounted off center. Consequently, little dust had collected on the filter. To prevent a recurrence, those who install the -

filters were reinstructed in the steps to be followed in the installation process.

When collecting the samples at Station 112 on January 30, the power was l found to be off because of highway construction. GPC management at the Baxley Operating Headquarters were promptly notified, so that power  !

could be restored as soon as possibic. The samples collected on both i the dust filter and the charcoal canister were deemed to be inadequate.

The samples collected at Station 116 on March 27 were declared to be inadequate as the station had operated less than a day due to a power failure. The motor arid ruso were checked. GPC's Vidalia District was  !

notified, and they, in 'ura, notified the Altamaha Electric Membership Coop:.rative who replaced a blown transformer.  ;

Each of the air particulate filters is counted for gross beta activity.

As seen in Table 3-1, the annual average weekly reading of 18.4 fCi/m3 for the indicator stations is 0.6 fCi/m3 greater than that for the  ;

control stations. However, this difference is not disgernible since it f is less than the MDD which was calculated as 1.9 fCi/m3 During the seven years prior to 1989, the absolute value of the difference between the average weekly readings for t been approximately 1 or 2 (01/m3.he The indicator and control average reading stations for the control has

• stations has been greater than that for the indicator stations on three occasions. Although the differences have fluctuated rardomly, the '

average reading for the control stations has been about 0.16 fCi/m3 ,

greater than that for the indicator stations during this seven year period, s The average weekly activity for all stations during 1989 was approximately 18 fC1/m3 In past years, it has been an order of ,

magnitude higher than that now found. For example: it was 140 (Ci/m3  !

4-3 i r

h:

P

,, = +

[

I during preoperations, 242 fC1/m3 during 1977, and 195 fCi/m3 during 1981. Those high values were shown to be the result of fallout from numerous nuclear weapons tests conducted on mainland China in the early i seventies and from 1976 through 1980. With the termination of the  ;

weapons tests, the gross beta levels in recent years have become much lower. The annual average was 33 fCi/m3 for 1982, and this steadily decreased to 22 fCi/m3 for 1985. However, during 1986 as a consequence to the Chernobyl incident, the average activity increased to 37 fCi/m3 The annual averages for 1987 and 1988 were 23 and 22 fCi/m3, respectively. ,

During 1989, for the third consecutive year, no manmade radionuclides were detected in the gamma isotopic analyses of the quarterly composites '

of air particulate filters. During preoperations and each year of operations thraugh 1986, numerous fission products (some at fairly '

significant levels) and some activation products were detected. These were generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests. With the cessation of the tests, the number of radionuclides detected became scant and their levels became low. The positive results found during 1986 were attributed to the Chernobyl incident.

The charcoal canisters used for adsorbing iodine from the atmosphere are analyzed for 1-131 by gamma spectroscopy. 1-131 was not detected in an of the samples during the year. The maximum allowed LLO is 70 fCi/m3; y however, the LLD usually attained was about a third of this value. '

l l Positive results for airborne radioiodine are not normally obtained.

However, during 1976,1977, and 1978, levels of I-131 which were generally on the order of the maximum allowed LLD (that is, 70 fCi/m3) were found in nearly all of the samples collected for a period of a few weeks after the arrival of the cloud from each of the Chinese nuclear weapons tests conducted at that time, in 1986 the same phenomenon occurred; only the positive levels were attributed ta the Chernobyl .

incident. The highest airborne 1-131 level yet found was 217 fCi/m3 in 1977. The RL called for by Table 3.16.1-2 of the TS is 900 fCi/m3 1

i 4-4

l l

4.2 Direct Radiation {

Direct (external) radiation is measured by TLDs. Two TLD badges are placed at each station; each badge contains 4 calcium sulfate TLD cards.  ;

l Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 meteorological >

sectors about the plant. The inner ring of stations (Nos. 101 through .

116) is located near the site boundary, while the outer ring (Nos. 201  :

through 216) is located at a distance of about 4 to 5 miles. These

• rings were installed at the beginning of 1980 to meet the requirements i of Revision 1 to the Technical Position of the Radiological Assessment  :

Branch of the NRC, dated November 1979. However, each of the stations '

in the East Sector is at a radius which is a few miles greater than the l other stations in its ring; flood plains in this sector prevent easy access on a year-round basis to the site boundary and to the 4 to 5 mile  !

annulus. The 16 stations forming the inner ring are designated as the  ;

, indicator stations. The three control stations (Nos. 304, 309 and 416) .

l are at least 10 miles from the plant. Station 416 was added at the 1 beginning of 1989 to enhance the statistical base for the control t

stations. Stations 064 and 301 accommodate special interest areas. f Station 064 is located in an onsite raadside park while Station 301 is ,

located adjacent to Toombs Central School. Station 210 in the outer ring is located adjacent to the Altamaha School, the only other nearby i school, t As may be seen from Table 31, the average quarterly dose of 16.4 mR l acquired at the indicator stations (inner ring) over the year was 1.6 mR l 1ess than that acquired at the control staticns; this difference was not l discernable, however, since it was less than the MDD of 2.3 mR. For the l l nine year period, 1980 through 1988: the absolute value of the  :

I difference between the annual average quarterly doses acquired at these ,

l two station groups has varied from 0 to 1 mR, the average dose was greater at the indicator stations five times, the average dose at the indicator stations during this entire period was 0.15 mR greater than  ;

that at the control stations. No trends in the data for these station '

groups were recognized.

The quarterly doses acquired at outer ring stations ranged from 11.8 to 23.2 mR with an average of 16.5 mR for the year which is 0.1 mR greatcr ,

than that found for the inner ring. There was no discernable difference  :

between the averages of the inner and outer rings since this difference '

I was less than the MDD of 1.1 mR. Since the installation of-the-two rings (at the beginning of 1980)'through 1986, the average quarterly ,

i dose for the inner ring stations had always been greater than that for the outer ring stations by amounts ranging from 0.2 to 1.0 mR; the average difference had been 0.6 mR. From 1987 through 1989, the average l quarterly dose for the outer ring'has been greater than that for the  :

inner ring by amounts ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mR; the average difference has been 0.2 mR.

4-5 *

)

The quarterly doses in units of mR acquired at the roadside park and at Toombs Central School were respectively:

Averaae Minimum Maximum 16.1 13.9 18.3 16.6 15.3 18.2 The doses acquired at the special interest stations are seen to be within the range of those acquired at the other stations.

The average quarterly dose for all of the TLDs placed in the field has varied very little during the previous three years. From 1986 through 1988, it was 14.7, 15.0 and 15.1 mR, respectively. For 1989, it was 16.6 mR or about 11% greater than the overall average for the previous-three year period. This increase was more or less across-the-board; all categories of statinns showed relative increases by approximately this amount.

Not infrequently, TLDs aro lost due to theft and damaged due to vandalism. Near the middle of each quarter, the TLD stations are checked for missing or damaged badges;' replacement badges are provided as needed. When both badges are missing at the end of'the quarter, there are no means by which to assess the dose at that location for the quarter. Both badges were missing at station 304 at the end of the third quarter. A total of 8 badges from 3 different stations was found to be missing during the year. The previous year a total of 7 badges was found to be missing from 2 different stations.

4-6

4.3 Milk Milk samples from cows were obtained biweekly throughout the year at Station 304 (the state prison dairy) and at Station 316 (Thompson's dairy). Both of these locations are control stations. Goat milk samples were also obtained biweekly from March 13 through May 23 at Station 216 (Clark's farm) which is an indicator station. Gamma isotopic and I-131 analyses were performed on each sample.

The annual land up survey to identify the location of the nearest milk animal in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of 5 miles and the location of all milk animals within a distance of 3 miles was conducted on October 23. No milk animals were found. A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.

Collections at Clark's, which began in 1987, have continually been an on again, off-again situation. Although 26 samples are nominally collected annually at each station, only 10 were collected at Clark's during 1987, 12 during 1988 and 6 during 1989. All efforts (land use survtys and inquiries to county agents and others) to find another indicator station have been unsuccessful in recent years. When the goats went dry in May (1989), the Clarks expected milking to resume in 5 or 6 months; in December, they anticipated milking might begin again in the spring.

As may be seen from Table 3-1, one positive result of 8.6 pCi/l for Cs-137 was found at the indicator station and another of 7.9 pCi/l was found at a control station. No other manmade radionuclides were found from the gamma isotopic analyses. These low levels are typical of those found in recent years. Except for 1987, positive levels of Cs-137 had been found in some of the samples sinco 1978 when gamma isotopic analysis of milk samples became a requirement. The average positive levels were 14.8 pCi/l from 1978 through 1983 and 9.4 pCi/1 from 1984 through 1989. To provide perspective, it should be noted the LLD and RL for milk are respectively, 20 and 70 pCi/1.

As discussed in.Section 4.4, Cs-137 is not infrequently found in grass tamples. Hence its appearance in the milk of grazing animals is to be expected.

A positive 1-131 level of 0.47 pCi/l with an uncertainty of 0.27 pCi/l at the 95% confidence level and with a minimum detectable activity (MDA) of 0.46 pCi/1 was found in the sample collected on May 23 at Clark's.

The sample collected on May 22 at Thompson's showed an 1-131 level of 0.80 pCi/l with an uncertainty of 0.60 pCi/1; this result was less than its MDA of 1.02 pCi/1, however. An investigation of these analyses, and other related analyses for the same time period, indicated the strong liklihood that the samples had been cross contaminated in the laboratory from glassware used to prepare I-131 Standards. For this reason, these results are not considered valid and are not shown in 4-7

Table 3-1. To diminish the probability of a recurrence, laboratory i l personnel were reminded not to use the same glassware to process  !

standards and samples. The glassware for standards is to be labeled j "For Standard Use Only".  :

During preo>erations, all readings for I-131 w'ere less than 2 pCi/1  ;

which was tie allowed LLD at that time. Positive results were found i during each year of the first five years of operations (1974 through  !

1978); these results ranged from 0.95 to 88 pCi/1. In 1980, positive  ;

results ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 pC1/1; then in 1986, positive results  ;

ranged from 0.6 to 20 pCi/1. In 1988, a single reading of 0.32 pC1/1  ;

was reported; it was believed to have resulted from a procedural '

deficiency, however. The LLD and RL for I-131 are of 1 and 2 pCi/1, respectively, j All of the positive readings for Cs-137 and for I-131 hkve been [

generally attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests.  ;

However, the positive levels in 1986 were largely attributed to the ,

l Chernobyl incident. [

t i

i i

l l

s l

l 4-8 j

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

l 4.4 Grass The TS call for the gamma isotopic analysis of grass samples collected monthly at 3 locations. Two indicator stations (Nos. 106 and 112) and a <

single control station (No. 416) have been designated for these j collections. At the beginning of 1989, Station 416 replaced Station 309. Gamma isotopic analyses have been performed on grass scmples since 1978.

The Cs-137 levels at the former control station (No. 309) had generally overshadowed those at the indicator stations during the 11 year period from 1978 through 1988. It was decided to replace Station 309 after it )

came to be believed that these levels were probably not representative l of the background levels prevailing in the environs.

Adequate samples were not available at Station 106 for the collection on i March 16. The station had been reseeded on JPnuary 30, but growth had )

not been sufficient to obtain the March sample. Each year since Station i 106 began to operate in 1986, one or two samples have not been available. The failures are attributed to slow winter growth and the '

lack of green forage elsewhere in the woods for the deer and rabbits this time of year. l The results presented in Table 3-1 show Cs-137 as the only manmade radionuclide detected; this has been the case since 1986. Positive results were found only at the indicator stations. Positive results were found in nearly half of the samples collected at the indicator stations or at about twice the rate of the previous two years. The average level of 37 pCi/kg wet is the lowest found for indicator stations since the grass collections began but only slightly less than the average for last year of 40.1 pCi/kg wet and less than half of that averaged from 1982 through 1987. The LLD and RL for Cs-137 are 80 and 2000 pC1/kg wet, respectively. The presence of Cs-137 in grass samples is attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests of years past and to a lesser extent from the Chernobyl incident of 1986.

4-9 n

F 4.5 River Water Surface water is composited from the Altamaha River at an upstream location (Station 170) and at a downstream location (Station 172) using .

1500 autometic samplera. Small quantities are collected at intervals not exceeding a few hours. River water collected by these machines is picked up monthlf; quarterly composites are composed of the monthly '

collections.

Although 12 samples are nominally collected at each station during the year, 13 were collected during 1989 as collections were moved forward to

. accommodate scheduling problems. As a consequence, the quarterly  ;

composite for the tritium analysis for each station for the fourth quarter was composed of four " monthly" collections.

A gamma isotopic analysis is made on each monthly collection. As usual, j; no manmade radionuclides were detected. The occurrence of positive results for a manmade radionuclide has been infrequent. The only i manmade radionuclides detected previously (by gamma isotopic analysis) >

were as follows:

Xgar Quarter Station Radionuclide Level (001/1) 1975 4th 172 Ce-141 78.2 1986 2nd 170 La-140 18 1986 2nd 172 Cs-137 12 1988 2nd 170 Cs-137 6.8 The positive results for 1986 were attributed to the Chernobyl incident.

Tritium analyses are performed on the quarterly composites. No positive  :

results were obtained. in past years, positive results at levels of a ,

few hundred pCi/l had been found in a greater fraction of the samples. .

On September 25, the annual survey of the Altamaha River was conducted I downstream of the plant for at least 50 river miles to identify anyone l who may use river water for drinking purposes. As in all nr;,ivus ,

I surveys, no intakes for drinking water or irrigation were observed.

This was corroborated by information obtained on September 22 from the State of Georgia that no new surface water permits for drinking water or irrigation purposes on the Altamaha River had been issued. If river -

, water should become used for drinking, the TS requirements for its sampling and analysis will be implemented.

I i

1 4-10

o 4.6 Fish Gamma isotopic analyses were performed on the edible portion of the fish ;

samples collected at the river stations on April 25 and October 30. The control station (No.170) is located upstream of the plant and the indicator station (No.172) is located downstream of the plant. Hullet l

were collected at both stations in April. In October large mouth bass and red ear sunfish were collected at both stations; redbreast sunfish were collected at the control stations only; and bluegill sunfish were collected at the indicator station only.

As shown in Table 3-1, Cs-137 was the only manmade radionuclide detected. It was found in all but one of the samples. The average level at the indicator station of 34.3 pC1/kg wet is seen to be 5.4 pC1/kg wet greater than that at the control station. However, this difference is not discernable since it is less than the MDD of 63.8 pCi/kg wet. The'LLD and RL are 200 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively.

The average level at each of the stations was less than half of the j everage over the prior six years. This was the first year since 1983 that Cs-134 was not found; dJring the past feW years, it Was found in about half of the sampins.  :

a e

1 1

4-11 f o-

o * = ,

1 4.7 Sediment j The semiannual collections of sediment took place on May 8 and November 6 at the river stations. The TS require only an annual collection, it was decided to add a second collection as a consequence of finding  !

slightly elevated levels of Cs-134 and Cs-137 at the indicator station in 1988; infrequently occurring activation products were also found. c A gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each sample. Positive  ;

results were obtained for Cs-137 in each sample and for Co 60 in the-

~

sample collected at the upriver station (No. 170) in November.

Positive readings for Cs-137 have been found in every sample since 1980 and in over 90% of all of the samples collected, including those during ,

preoperations. As shown in Table 3-1, the average level of 56 pCi/kg dry found this year at the indicator station was 6 pCi/kg dry less than that at the control station. . This difference is not discernible, however, since it is less than the MDD of 296 pCi/kg dry. Typically, the Cs-137 levels have been several times greater than those found'this  ;

year; on occasion they have been about an order of magnitude greater.

The LLD for Cs-137 is 200 pCi/kg dry.

The activation product, Co-60, was found in regular samples on' three previous occasions. In 1986, readings of 33 and 108 pCi/kg dry were  ;

i found at the control (upriver) and indicator (downriver) stations, respectively; in 1988, a reading of 67.8 pCi/kg dry was found at the indicator station. The reading of 31 pCi/kg dry found this year is almost the same as that previously found at the control station. The '

assigned LLD for Co 60 is 40 pCi/kg dry.

In past years, various fission products and activation products, some at significant levels, were found in sediment samples. Except for 1988, i

these were attributed to the nuclear weapons tests or to the Chernobyl l incident. A satisfactary explanation for the levels found during 1988 other than plant effluents has not been found, r

1 i

1 i

4-12

1

( i 5.0 Interlaboratory Comparison Program l

Section 3.16.3 of the T$ requires that analyses shall be performed on  !

l radioactive materials supplied as part of an Interlaboratory Comparison i Program that has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission i (NRC). The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental  ;

Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Crosscheck) Program j conducted by the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory in las i

Vegas, Nevada provides such a program and the El participates in the  !

l program. Reported herein, are only those results where the type analysis  :

and sample in the EPA Crosscheck Program are the same as that delineated I in Table 2-1. l .

! The crosscheck program was designed for laboratories involved with REMPs;  !

the program involves environmental media and a variety of radionuclides l with activities at or near environmental levels. Participation in the t program ensures that independent checks on the precision and accuracy of  ;

the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample I matrices are 3erformed as part of a quality assurance program to  :

demonstrate t1at the results are reasonably valid.  :

Simulated environmental samples are distributed regularly to the participants who analyre the samples and return the results to the EPA for statistical analysis and comparisons with known values and with results obtained from other participating laboratories. The crosscheck  ;

program thus provides each participant with documentation on the precision and accuracy of its performance; the >rogram helps in i indicating instrument or procedural problems; tie program also provides each participant ~with a comparison of its performance to that of other I laboratories.

1 i l The El performed the analyses called for by the program on each sample provided by the EPA. Analyses were performed in a normal manner. Each sample was analyzed in triplicate as required by the program. Table 51 provides a summary of the relevant results of the EL's participation in the program.

The results listed in Table 51 were obtained from the gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of air filters, the gamma isotopic analysis of a milk sample, and the tritium and gamma isotopic analyse:; of water samples. Not shown in Table 5 1 are the results from the gross beta analysis on the air filters collected on August 25 and the 1131 analysis on the milk sample collected on April 28. The EPA invalidated the gross beta results on the air filters for the August 25 collection for all participants due to problems they had with I-131 in these air filters.

The EPA also invalidated the results of the 1-131 analysis of the milk l samples collected on April 28 for all participants as the activity placed in the sample by the EPA was much less than the activity routinely measured by most of the participants.

5-1 e

i The acceptance criteria used by the El are warning limits and control  !

limits defined es the 95% and 99% confidence levels. respectively, for j both the normalized deviation and the normalized range. The normalized  :

deviation is a nieasure of the accuracy of the data. The normalized rango (

is a measure of the precision of the data. Results are evaluated for trends and out of control limit conditions. ,

It is noted from Table 51 that the normalized range for Ru-106 in the l water sample collected on October 6 exceeded the control limit. It was '

also noted that the Ru-106 and Ba-133 results in water samples exhibited evidence of negative bias. Evaluation of these analyses demonstrate that bias and precision are not due to sample preparation, instrument quality ,

control or instrument calibration. The decay schemes for Ru 106 and Ba-133 sungest possible negative bias due to summing losses from analytical peaks. Corrections for losses due to summing are being-evaluated.

in past years, the NRC's ' Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements" was used in this report to determine agreement with known values.

It was decided to adopt the more restrictive criteria, described above, ,

that was already being employed by'the EL. .

f 5

5-2 1

O O

TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 1 0F 2)

CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS Date Known Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized Analysis. Collected Value Precision Averaae Deviation Deviation Ranoe Air Filters (pCi/ filter)

Gross Beta 3/31/89 62.0 5.0 63.33 0.58 0.46 0.12 Cs-137 3/31/89 20.0 5.0 25.67 0.58 1.96 0.12 8/25/89 10.0 5.0 9.33 0.58 -0.23 0.12 Milk (pti/l)

Cs-137 4/28/89 50.0 5.0 49.00 2.00 -0.35 U.47 T

w Water (pCi/l)

H-3 2/24/89 2754.0 356.0 2696.67 90.74 -0.28 '

0.28 6/23/89 2754.0 356.0 2696.67 90.74 -0.28 O.28 10/20/89 3496.0 364.0 3240.00 120.00 -1.22 0.39 Cr-51 2,kO/89 235.0 24.0 217.67 13.01 -1.25 0.64 Co-60 2/10/89 10.0 5.0 9.67 .58 -0.12 0.12 6/09/89 31.0 5.0 28.33 1.53 -0.92 0.36 10/06/89 30.0 5.0 31.33 1.53 0.46 0.36 Ru-106 2/10/89 178.0 18.0 171.00 17.69 -0.67 1.29 6/09/89 128.0 13.0 112.00 13.89 -2.13 1.26 10/06/89 161.0 16.0 140.67 ,

35.23 -2.20 3.88 Lmm_a.___ _ . _ _

m - - -

~ _

~

t TABLE 5-l' (SilEET 2 0F 2)

CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS Date Known Expected- Reported Standard Normal 3 zed Normalized Analysis Collected Value Precision Averace Deviation De_viat'on Ranoe Cs-134 2/10/89 10.0 5.0 9.67 2.08 -0.12 0.47 4/18/89 20.0 5.0 20.00 1.73 :0.00 0.36 6/09/89 39.0 5.0 38.00 2.00 -0.35 0.47 10/06/89 29.0 5.0 29.33 5.03 ;0.12 1.35 10/31/89 5.0 5.0 4.67 0.58 -0.12 0.12 Cs-137 2/10/89 10.0 5.0 10.67 2.89 0.23 0.59 4/18/89 20.0 5.0 18.67 4.16 -0.46 0.95 6/09/89 20.0 5.0 20.67 1.53 0.23 0.36 10/06/89 59.0 5.0 62.67 3.21 1.27 0.71 10/31/89 5.0 5.0 5.33 0.58 0.12 0.12

)- Ba-133- 6/09/89 49.0 5.0 45.33 2.31 -1.27 0.47 10/06/89 59.0 6.0 51.33 4.51 -2.21 0.89 o

.y. ,

o...,

6.0 CONCLUS10kS This report has-shown the licensee's conformance with Section 3/4.16 of ,

the TS during the year. It has shown that all data were carefully ~;

examined. A summcry and a discussion of the results of the laboratory ,

analyses for each type sample collected are presented,  ;

y No measurable radiological . impact upon the' environment as a consequence i of plant discharges to the atmosphere and to the river was established, ,

The results of the EL's participation.in an Interlaboratory Comparison  !

Program were presented. One result exceeded a control. limit; however, an investigation was made, and corrective actions.are.being evaluated, i a

I t l

.h

.. h f

1 i

h 6-1

.,