ML20051M017
| ML20051M017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1982 |
| From: | Sieber J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Wigginton D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ND1MSL:1699, NUDOCS 8205170325 | |
| Download: ML20051M017 (1) | |
Text
Yt y
$VL
'A@
Telephone (412) 456 6000 Nuclear Division P.O. Box 4
,6hippingport. PA 150774004 April 28, 1982 ND1MSL:1699 1981 Annual Environmental Report Radiological - Volume #2 5
- United States Nuclear Regulatory Connission \
Mr. David Wigginton, Project Manager a= RECEfVED Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 (2 Division of Licensing !
c/o Document Control Desk MMY l 4 }982> ~.~
g- likEta sirvur % 0 Washington, DC 20555
" 7 88 t
Reference:
Beaver Valley Pouer Station Docket No. 50-334 1981 Annual Environmental Report
Dear Mr. Wigginton:
Attached are eighteen (18) copies of the 1981 Annual Environ-mental Report Radiological - Volume #2 for the Beaver Valley Power Station. The number of copies provided your office is in accordance with the distribution noted in Regulatory Guide 10.1.
/
Very truly yours,
. D. Sieber, Manager ,
Nuclear Safety & Licensing JWM: tar Attachment cc: J. J. Carey w/o attachment W. F. Wirth w/o attachment I Central File w/o attachment I g gy 820517.03dE k
L
[
E
[
E
[ 1981 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT L RADIOLOGICAL - VOLUME //2 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION AND SHIPPINGPORT ATOMIC POWER STATION E
[
[
[
E
[
E D
3 4D l
e
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPAhT 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
{ ABSTRACT This report describes the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program conducted during 1981 in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. The Radiological Environmental Program consists of on-site sampling of water and gaseous effluents and off-site monitoring of water, air, river sediments, soils, food pathway samples, and radiation levels in the vicinit'y of the site. This report discusses the results of this monitoring during 1981.
The environmental program outlined in the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications was followed throughout 1981.
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 Power Station and Beaver Valley Power Station 0 operations have not adversely affected the surrounding ;
environmunt.
E _ _ - - - - - _
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report TABLE OF CONTENTS
'I I. Page Abstract----------------------------------------------------------- 1 I. INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------- 1 A. Scope and Objectives of the Program 1 B. Description of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Site 2 II. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS-------------------------------------- 6 III. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS-------------------- 8 A. Environmental Quality Control Programs 8 B. Evaluation of the Quality Control (QC) Program Data 26 C. Standard Fequirements and Limitations for Radiological 27 I and Other Effluents D. Significant Changes and Reporting Levels 27 IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS--------------------------------------- 30 A. Monitoring of Liquid Effluents 30
- 1. Effluent Treatment, Sampling, and Analytical Procedures 36
- 2. Results 37 I B. Monitoring of Airborne Effluents 38
- 1. Description of Airborne Effluent Sources 38
- 2. Airborne Effluent Treatment and Sampling 43
- 3. Analytical Procedures for Sampling Airborne Effluents 47
- 4. Results 50 C. Solid Waste Disposal 52 I -u-
r DUQUESNE LfGHT COMPANY
( 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
( TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Page
{
A. Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program 54
( 1. Program Description 54
- 2. China's Nuclear Test Fallout 54
( 3. Summary of Results 74
- 4. Quality Control Program 74
{
B. Air Monitoring 80
( 1. Characterization of Air and Meteorology 80
- 2. Air Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 80
- 3. Results and Conclusions 83 C. Monitoring of Sediments 86
- 1. Characterization of Stream Sediments 86
- 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 86
- 3. Results and Conclusions 88 D. Monitoring of Feederops and Foodcrops 90 i
- 1. Characterization of Vegetation and Foodcrops 90
- 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 90 1
- 3. Results and Conclusions 92 E. Monitoring of Local Cow's Milk 93 1 Description - Milch Animal Locations 93
- 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 93
/ 3. Results and Conclusions 96
[
( -iii-(.
I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY {
l 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I
l TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (continued) Page F. Environmental Radiation Monitoring 98
- 1. Description of Regional Background Radiation Levels'and Sources 98 l 2. Locations & Analytical Procedures 98
- 3. Results and Conclusions 103 l
G. Monitoring of Fish 105
- 1. Description 105
- 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques 105 l 3. Results and Conclusions 105 H. Monitoring of Surface, Drinking, and Well Waters 107 l
- 1. Description of Water Sources 107
= 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques , 107
- 3. Results and Conclusions 112 l I. Estimates of Radiation Dose to Man 115
- 1. Pathways to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station 115
- a. Calculational Models - Beaver Valley 115 Power Station l 2. Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station Liquid 116 I Releases l
- 3. Airborne Pathway 119
- 4. Conclusions - Beaver Valley Power Station 119 I
- 5. Dosa Pathways to Man - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 121 l
- a. Calculational Model - Shippingport I Atomic Power Station 121
- 6. Results and Conclusions - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 122 iv-c -.
- - - - i
l 1 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Pm 1.0 View of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Site 3 1.1 Geographical Map - 40 Mile Radius 4 4.1 Liquid Dische.cge Points to Ohio River 31 5 4.2 Water Flow Sr. hematic - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 32 4.3 Water Flow Schematic - Beaver Valley Power Station 33 4.4 Liquid Radwaste Systems - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 34 4.5 Liquid Radwaste Systems - Beaver Valley Power Station 35 4.6 Gaseous Waste Processing - Shippingport Atomic Power Station 40 4.7 Gaseous Waste Processing - Beaver Valley Power Station 42 I 4.8 Gaseous Release Points - Shippingport Atomic Power Station and Beaver V-iley Power Station 44 4.9 Solid Waste Etsposal Diagram 53 5.B.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Air Sampling Stations 82 5.B.2 Concentrations of Gross Beta in Air Particulates 84 5.C.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Sediments 87 5.D.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Feederop and Foodcrop 91 5 5.E.1 Dairy Farm Locations (August - September 1981 Survey) 94 5.E.2 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Milk 95 5.F.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Radiation Monitoring 99 5.F.2 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Radiation Monitoring 100 5.F.3 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Radiation Monitoring 101 1 5.F.4 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Radiation Monitoring 102 5.G.1 Environmental Monitoring Locations - Fish 106 5.H.1 Surface Water and Wells - Locations 110 I
I E
I l I
-v-
1 l
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report ,
I g .
l 1
LIST OF TABLES 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 17 I III.5 Quality Control Data - Spiked Samples 18 III.6 Quality Control Data - Air Particulates and I-131 19 I III.7 III.8 Quality Control Data - Milk and Water Anomalous Measurements During 1981 24 29 IV.A.1 Effluent Treatment, Sampling and Analytical Procedures 36 Shippingport Atomic Power Station IV.A.2 Effluent Treatment, Sampling and Analytical Procedures 36 Beaver Valley Power Station IV.A.3 Results - Liquid Effluents - Shippingport Atomic Power 37 I Station IV.A.4 Result - Liquid Effluents - Beaver Valley Power Station 37 V.A.1 Environmental Monitoring Program Summary 55 V.A.2 Environmental Data - Chinese Nuclear Test (10-16-80) 60 Fallout V.A.3 Environmental Monitoring Program Results (1981) 63 V.A.4 Pre-Operational Monitoring Program Results (1974-1975) 75 V.A.5 Typical LLDs for Gamma Spectrometry - DLC Contractor 79 V.I.1 Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station - 117 Liquid Releases V.I.2 Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station - 120 Airborne Releases i
I I
I I
1 5
1 L - --
L SECTION I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANT 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I. INTRODUCTION The 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report for the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station
{ summarizes the radiological environmental program conducted by the Duquesne Light Company in 1981.
The Duquesne Light Company operates the Shippingport Atomic Power Station for the United States Department of Energy and the Beaver Valley Power Station pressurized water reactor - Unit No. 1 as part of the Central Area Power Coordination group. Beaver Vs11ey No. 2 Unit was under construction in 1981 and is scheduled to start-up in 1986.
The Shippingport Atomic Power Station operated throughout 1981, with the gross electrical generation during the year of 397,516 megawatthours. The plant has been in operation utilizing a light
[ water breeder reactor (LWBR) core since September 21, 1977.
The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was the first it rge-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 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 821 megawatts net in May, 1981.
The total gross electrical generation during the year was 5,023,100. megawatt-hours.
A. Scope and Objectives of the Program l The environmental program consists of effluent and environmental monitoring for radioactivity. Liquid and gaseous. effluents from 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. Environmental sampling
[ and analyses included air, water, milk, soil, vegetation, river sediments, fish, and ambient radiation levels in areas surrounding both plants.
[
f
k.
SECTION I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I. INTRODUCTION B. Description 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 Borough of Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, (f 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 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 area
[- within that radius of concentrated population is the Borough of Midland, Pennsylvania, with a population of approximately 4,300.
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 bordar south of the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Stations at an elevation of 1,160 feet. Plant ground level at both stations is approximately 735 feet above sea level.
The two (2) stations are situated on the Ohio River at river 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 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 32*F to 84*F, h the minimum temperatures occur in January and/or February and maximum' temperatures in 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, t The climate of the area- may be classified as humid continental. Annual precipitation is approximately 33 inches, typical yearly temperatures 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.
,l ll
=
~ NEl 8Z H = QM Co 90y = a, O
>y 3 %@ m 3l,,3 H $6, +r m )r f-hM N s~
e :* *',
g- ,% ,
O I
nu$
a .
- T S.
P 7 wE T
,s e
A T
.- Ds r, S X..
s- v T q e- R R
%^_
O _~ E P W N, G O N
I P
m
.~ '
P P s _ C I
M I
. (s x, H S ~ O T
A 6, Q~4-.
',3 r
' T R
O
.,- P
= .A "-
r d
G N
I P
P j5 .? _*
_ I
, .T H S
M ,
.e
- O,.
E H
)
% i T
D W 0 ~
- N A
1 N
- . O E - . I R L_ .
T M -
U G
I F
S.
P n
y A T
S R
E M Y E
L N- W O
P
~. L A
Y E
- V i. . ..[.
M R
,T' ~
L L
. E
. g A V
V A
E y4 R B ., . . Ng E
V
- j,, _'
M ?tN A E
T, B E
H
- r. T M m_ F O
7 W
E 8 .
I V
f
' a h 8 m,,
- *v
-( ,
t d %
M -
4
_ 4 h
Q xY g
te . '
ss .;,
)
M
/>
s
'. \. *
(
SECTION I FIGURE 1.1 DUQUESNI LIGHT COMPANY l 1981 Annual Radiologfcal Environmental Report 1
f YCLJCSTC'T l 42" m c23 :,2 l J %4 t ALLIANCI ', g \
\ , 3c==z P kg
' b
- fc3 so 30R0 0F j
'g,<ysam-Cc)M! QUI 2?A
- KISS;3G.C){
! b
! El a
\
l 1 z-o.
sm mzm;p STIU3CTVTT r d/ I
>I=seg /
MeKIIS? ORT ' '
3a-
/ g(h
', I o6 A JASHINGTCN ,
4e '
47 ld I
WEZELING I
\
\
Roads
- tivers
@ Ci:ies 1
GECGRA?EICAL MA? A:iD ?RINCUAL CC.%MITIIS IN 40 'CLE RADIUS OF 22 SHI??!NG7CRT ATCMIC ?CWIR 53!:CN AND T.I 3EA7IR 7.R' r? FC'JER STA!!CN l
FIGURI 1.1 I
SECTION I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I
I. INTRODUCTION l
L. 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 tabulated below:
Beaver Valley Shippingport Thermal & Elec. Rating - 2660t W 82W e 236.6 W t 2W e I W-Each Reactor Type of Reactor PWR PWR*
Number of Reactor 3 4 Coolant Loops Number of Steam Generators 3 - Vertical 4 - Ho'rizontal and Type Steam Used by Main Turbine Saturated Saturated I Both stations utilize two (2) separate systems (primary and secondary) reactor) fc r transferring heat from the source to the receiving component (turbine generatcr).
(the I Because the two systems are isolated from each other, primary and secondary 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 reactor core and steam generators by means of reactor coolant pumps. Heat is given up from the primary system to the secondary system in the steam generators, where I steam is formed and delivered to the main unit turbine, which drives the electrical generator. The steam is condensed after passing through the turbine, and returned to the steam generators to begin another steam / water cycle.
I NOTE: Wt -
megawatts thermal We -
megawatts electrical
- Light Water Breeder Core I
I l l
i
~
L F
- SECTION II .
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report s
[ II. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS j Plant operations at both the Beaver Valley Power Station and t the Shippingport Atomic Power Station had no adverse effects H on the environment as a result of activities at either of the stations during 1981. Comparisons of pre-operational data F with operational data indicates the ranges of values are in L, good agreement for both periods of time.
r The Beaver Valley Power Station and Shippingport Atomic Power
[ Station operated throughout 1981. During the year, the radioactive releases from both stations were below the limits of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and applicable permits for each I station. The releases at Beaver Valley Power Station did not L exceed the limiting conditions identified in the Beaver Valley Power Station Operating License Technical r Specifications.
L The environmental prq3 ram for 1981 was the same as in 1980 y except for several changes in dairy locations which were l revised as required by the Beaver Valley Technical 5 Specifications (Refer to Table V.A.1 for the 1981 Radiological Monitoring Program outline).
L The results of the 1981 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program are consistent with those of previous years. The p only radioactivity above normal ambient levels in the L environs other than world-wide fallout from Nuclear. weapons tests is noted in Table III.8. This radioactivity was only g detected near the Beaver Valley Power Station discharge and i
resulted in negligible exposure to members of the public. A summary of the 1981 operational environmental data (ranges and means) for each sampling media is found in Table V.A.3.
p A summary of preoperational (1974 - 1975) environmental ' data L is found in Table V.A.4.
r During January -
August, 1981, some media showed slight L increased radioactivity which is attributable to the fallout radioactivity from the nuclear weapons test conducted by the Republic of China on October 16, 1980. The weapons testing E- fallout radioactivity observed was typical of weapons testing k fallout observed nationally. The impact of fallout on some media analyses were sometimes delayed. For example, these r tests contributed to the elevated levels of strontium in milk collected at several dairies later in the year. Since farming practices, pasture conditions, and the use of stored feed are variables, not all dairies exhibited the same results. Also, the milk production of several dairies is very limited resulting in wider variations since random
r SECTION II DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
( 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
(, II. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS (continued) fluctuations in a few cows are not averaged as in larger herds. Some radionuclides from weapons tests, such as Cesium and strontium, are longer lived than others and could be detected in spite of the variables that affect the radioactivity found in milk.
Examination of effluents from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station and the Beaver Valley Power Station and environmental
( media demonstrated compliance with regulations and Station Technical Specifications. While there were three (3) results during the year which exceeded the reporting levels of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, these analyses after
[ evaluation were below limits identified in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Beaver Valley Technical Specificat. ions. They included three (3) surface water
( tritium values at the outfall of the Beaver Valley Power Station' and resulted from small quantities of tritium released from the Beaver Valley Power Station which were well below limits noted in 10CFR20. Shippingport Atomic Power Station did not release any liquid radioactive effluents during 1981.
l i
1 f - --
i I SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 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 seven (7) elements. It should be noted that the comparisons made were at very low levels of radioactivity and I 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 Campany (DLC)
Contractor Laboratory - DLC QC Laboratory - Independent Laboratory)
An independent program of external radiation monitoring I was conducted by the QC Laboratory using fluoride TLDs sharing the same location as the DLC lithium Contractor Laboratory TLDs and Independent Laboratory TLDs.
I 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 integre'ing.
W monitoring by a Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) show generally good agreement and demonstrate acceptable I performance by the DLC Contractor Laboratory.
arithmetic mean of each laboratory agrees within t 5.3%
of the arithmetic mean of the three laboratories. This The is well within the precision of a typical TLD system.
- 2. Split Sample Program (DLC Contractor Laboratory - DLC QC Laboratory)
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, such as milk, soil, sediment and feederop were also split with the DLC QC Laboratory (a laboratory of the Department of Energy).
I A summary of results of split water samples is provided in Table III.2. A summary of milk, sediment, and I feed / food crop split samples is provided in Table III.3.
Some variation is expected due to small variations in duplicate samples, variations in analytical procedures, and in calibration, source type, etc.
I I +
1 SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPAhT 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report Some contractor and QC laboratory feed / food sample analyses were not in good agreement. A review of the contractor and QC laboratory sample preparation precedu es determined that differences could occur which
{ would account for the poor comparisons. Subsequently, a change has been made to the contractor procedure to have the samples dried to a constant weight utilizing the
[.'i same technique as the QC laboratory.
Because of the overall uniformity of comparable results,
( it is concluded that the two laboratories are consistent and in agreement.
[
[
[
[ l l
1 i
[
[
[
t r" -
Section III DUQUE33E LICHT COMPANT TABLE 111.1 1981 Annusi Radiological tavironmental Report TABLE !!!.1 QUALITY CONTRJL RZStlLTS ItD MONITORING eJt/Dev IST OCARTER 2ND OUARTER DLC DLC DLC QC Independent D14 DLC QC Independent DLC Location Cm trector Lab Lab #3 FDER FIC Contractor Lab Lab #3 FDER FIC
%. (CaSo,tDv) (
.LiF) (CaSO th) 3 M ., (CaSO Dv) (tiF) (CaS0;tTu) (7) _ 1
[. 10 0.17 0.19 0.29 0.24 0.26 III 0.17 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.26 III 13 0.19 0.20 '0.21 0.26 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.21 14 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.18
[- 15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.)1 27 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.19 28 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.19 29 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.20 32 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.26 0.26 45 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.23 I1I * *
- 0.23 0.24 46 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.22 III 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.20 47 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.20 48 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.17 31 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.25 i,
3RD QUARTER &TH OUARTER DLC DLC
[ Location No.
DLC Contractor (CaSO :Dv)
QC Lab (LiF) (CaSO, tie)
Independent Lab #3 FDER R
DLC FIC g
DLC Contractor (CaSO :Dv)
QC Lab (L1F)
Independent Lab #3 (C450 t M)
FDER (2)
DLC FIC g
to 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.24 0.16 III 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.15 0.26 II 13 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.25 0.19 0.20 0.24 0.18 14 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.20 15 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.19
[ 27 28 0.19 0.21
'0.14 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.24 29 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.26 0.23 32 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.20 0.26 45 0.19 0.19 0.21 .0.28 0.24 II 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.22( I 46 0.16 0.17 e 0.22 0.21 II 0.16 0.13 0.20 0.18 0.21 III 47 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.19 e 0.24 48 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 51 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.15 (1) FIC Reading at location 10 taken in DLC Substation in Shirpinapart Soro, Location 45 taken at Kennedy's Corners. Location 46 taken at Industry Tire Shop.
(2) MC results from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
(3). In this consolidated environmental program the preneurised ion chamber (FIC) continuous sonitor readings tend to be slightly higter than the TLD readinge due to the differences to the inherent physics of each system. No compensatory measures have been takes to make both systese agree exactly because both systems were inatalled to soottor relative radiation levels rather than absolute levels. Each systes provides a reasonably accurtte measure of the absolute radiation levels.
- !".D
. lost or tolen.
l I
l Sectica 111 Dt;QUESNE LICHT C NPANT TABLE 111.2 1991 Annual Radiological Envirormental Report (Fase 1 of 2)
I TABLE III.2 QUALITY CONTROL RISCLTS SPLIT SA9 tE ANALYSf3 RESULTS Comearison of Coctreetse and DLC-0C tabe DLC Contracter DLC - QC Media Sampline Period Lab (1) Lab (1)
I Analysis Units Surface Water Cross a January < 1.9 < 1.8 pC1/1 April < 2.0 4.2 + 2.6 pC1/1 July i 1.8 1 1.8 pct /1 October i 1.1 1 1.3 pC1/1 Surface Water Cross 8 January 6.3 + 1.3 6.1 + 4.2 pC1/1 April 5.2 1 1.5 8.7 1 2.1 I
perft July 6.4 + 1.6 7.4 2 2.0 PCill October 4.221.2 5,4 1.8 Surface Water Co-40 January < 2.0 < 2.4 pC1/1 April < 2.0 < 3.5 pct /1 I July Oc tober 13.0 1 2.0
-4 4,4 g g,3 pC1/1 3arface Water Cs-134 January < 3.0 < 2.7 ipci/1 April < 3.0 < 4.3 pC1/1 8 July i 3.0 1 5.0 PC1/1 October pC1/1 1 2.0 f 2.0 I Surface Water Ca-137 January April July
< 3.0
< 3.0
< 4.0
< 2.5
< 4.5 1 5.0 pC1/1 pC1/1 pC1/1 I
Octob e < 2.0 pC1/1
_< 2.1 Surface Water Tritium ist Quarter 150 + 70 < 190 pC1/1 Composite 3rd Quarter 160 -+ 70 pCi/1 I Composite -< 175 Suface Water St-99 2nd Quarter 1,1.1 pC1/1 Cemposite -< C.63 4th Quarter I
< 1.8
, 1 0.71 pC1/1 Composite Surface Water Sr-90 2nd Quarter f 0.33 -< o,;g pC1/1 Lemposite
.th Quarter o.73 20.71 1 0.40
'I PC1/1 Composite Surface Water Co-60 2nd Quarter f,, 0.4 1 2.1 pCi/1 (high Composite i I
sensitivity pC1/1 analysis) 4th M a -eM e 4'g Composite (1) :'ncertatuties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95% confidence interval.
I I
5ection III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY Table III.2 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 2 of 2) '
TABLE III.2 (Continued)
QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS Comparison of C3ntractor and DLC-0C t.abe DLC contractor DLC - QC Media Analysis Sameling Period tab (1)_ Lab (1) Units Drinking Water Ca-137 February
- 3.0 < 3.6 pC1/1 sy 1 2.0 1 4.3 pC1/1 I August 1 4.1 pC1/1 1 3.0 November 1 5.0 1 2.0 PC1/1 Drinking Water Cs-134 February < 3.0 < 3.3 pCi/1 I my August November 3 2.0 i 3.0 1 2.0 1 4.0 1 4.2 g 4.7 PC1/1 pC1/1 pC1/1 I Drinking Water Co-60 February May August
< 3.0 1 2.0 i 3.0
< 9.6 1 3.2 1 5.3 pCi/1 pC1/1 pCi/1 November I
1 2.0 1 4.2 pC1/1 Drinking Water Cross n March < 0.46 1 1.6 pC1/1 June < 0.46 1 1.5 pC1/1 Augus t 1 1.7 pCi/1 1 0.55 December 10.55 5 0.61 pC1/1 Drinking Water Cross 3 March 7.0 1 1.6 6.2 1 1.7 pC1/1 June 1.7 + 1.4 pC1/1 I
4,4 3 t,4 August 7.0 1 1.6 7.2 1 1.8 pC1/1 Deceaeer 3.5 e 1.2 4.3 1 2.1 pC1/1 Drinking Water Tritium :nd Quarter 230 + $0 ** < 185 PCill 4th Ozarter 230 t 70 160 pct /1 Drinking Water A-9 5 / Zr-95 february 1 2.0 1 15.48 pC1/1 I !
l I l l
I I
(1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95% confidence interval.
- Reanalysis, first analysis showed 15.7 + 7.4, which is similar to L.T. result of the second analysis.
itesnalysis, first analysis showed 270 1 70. which is similar to the second analysis.
I I
I
[:
[
Section III DUQCESNE LIGHT COMPANT Tall.E 111.3 1981 Annual Radiological Envirousental Report (Fase ' of 2)
TAB 12 III.)
QUALITT CONTRcL RESULTS' SFtIT SAMPLE ANALTSIS RESULTS Comparison of %ntractor and DLC-oC Labe
[ e w Analysis Samelina Period DLC Contractor Lab (1)
OLC-QC Lab (1) Unite Milk I-131 3 17-81 < .16
- 0.37 pC1/1 (Location 25) 3,,4, 3,gy,gg , g,4 , 3,7 ,cgfg St-90 3-17-41 0.71 + .45 2.58 + 2.50 pC1/1 Ca-134 3-17-41 < 2.0 < 4.9 pC1/1 Cs-131 3-17-41 1 2.0 14.7
[ Co-60 3-17-41 1 2.0 18.4 PC1/1 pC1/1 E-40 3-17-41 1480 1 150 1300 250 pC1/1 Milk I-131 6-16-81 pC1/1
~at 0.09 ~< 0.35 (Location 25) K-40 6-16-81 1260 s 130 __ pegfg Ca-134 6-16-41 pC1/1 1 3.0 1 4.6 Co-137 6-16-41 1 3.0 1 4.9 pC1/1 Co-60 6-16-81 1 2.0 14.1 PC 1/1
[ .
Feed (location 25)
Se-7 K-40 6-16-81 6-10-81 2.35 g 0.38 14.9 0 1.5 0.62 1 0.12 pC1/sm Dry
- pCi/sm Dry Ma-54 6-16-41 0.04 1 0.037 -- PC1/gm Dry Nb-95ffr-95 6-16-41 0.83 ; 0.083 0.34 1 0.05. PCi/sm Dry
- Ru-103 6-16-81 0.092 1 0.035 pCi/sm Dry
- 0.020 1 0.015 Cs 137 6-16-81 0.070 1 0.034 0.021 1 0.011 pC1/gm Dry *
[- Ce-141 Co-144 6-16-41 6-16-81 0.084 1 0.051 -- PC1/gm Dry 0.86 1 0.13 0.21 1 0.08 pC1/ga Dry
- Feed Sr-90 4-22-81 to 0.10 2 0.012 0.22 2 0.07 pC1/sm Dry ee
'(Locatton 25) 6-16-81 Food 1-131 9-a-41 1 0.0057 < 0.037 pC1/gm Vet ...
(Cabbage) Be-7 9-8-81 . pC1/gs Wet 0.745 1 0.194 --
K-40 9-8-81 4.38 1 0.44 -- pC1/gu vet Co-60 9-8-41 1 0.01 pC1/gs Wet
$ 0.015 Cs-134 9-8-d1 1 0.01 g 0.018 pC1/gm W8C Ca-137 9-8-81 1 0.01 - pC1/gm- Wet 1 0.018 (1) Uncertanties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 951 confidence interval.
- Analy*ee are not in good agreement. Refer to Section III.A.2. (Split Saeple Program) for an explanation in the cause and the corrective action taken.
- Reanalyses, the first analyses resulte were 0.075 2 0.012 and 0.53 2 0.37 which are not in good agreena.c.
Ihis vee attributed to the dif ference in laboratory technique used to obtain constaat weight prior to analysis.
- OLC QC Lab Units are in pC1/st Pr Analysee not perfarned not required.
I Section !!I DUQUg5NE LIGIT COMPANY TABLE III.3 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (? age 2 of 2)
TABLE III.3
-I QUALITY CONTROL RESUI.!S SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS Rest *LTS Comparison of Contractor and DLC-QC Labs DLC
- Contractor DLC-QC Media Analysis $aeptina Period I b (1) Lab (1) " nits Food I-131 9-21-81 2 0.0046 1 0.043 pC1/gi Wet *e (Lettuce) Se-7 9-21-81 pC1/gs Wet 0.315 1 0.172 K-40 9-21-81 3.03 1 0.30 pC1/gm wet Co-60 9-21-81 2 0.01 3 0.03 pCi/ga wet 9-21-81 2 0.01 pC1/p Wet I
Cs-134 ,o,033 Ca-137 9-21-81 2 0.01 3 0.033 pCi/p 'det I Milk s r-89 Sr-90 Co-60 9-20-31 9-20-81 9-20-81 1 1.3 3.5 1 0.6 3 2.0 g 7.5
- 3,o : 3,3 f 4.7 pC1/1 pC1/1 pC1/1 Ca-134 9-20-91 2 2.0 g 5.0 PC 1/1 Cs-137 9-20 41 6.40 t 4.75 g 3,o pC1/1
. 1-131 9- 2Ct-81 2 0 .12 0.27 PC ill K-40 9 81 1310.0 2 130.0 . - _ pC1/1 Sediment Gr-A 10-22-81 17.0 1, 8.0 s 30.0 t 9.0 pC1/gs Dry Gr-3 10-22-81 34.0 t 3.0 44 5.0 pC1/gs Dry U-235 10-22-81 .037 1 008 i o,03 pCi/gs Dry U-234 10-22-81 0.69 1 0.17 0.87
- G.07 pci/gs Dry U-238 10-22-81 0.68 1 0.10 o,40 0,04 pct /gs Dry Sr-89 10-22-81 5 0.17 1 1.2 *** PC 1/gs Dry Sr-90 10-22-81 0.0*8 2 0.046 i o,o9 pC1/gs Dry K-40 10-22-81 13.7 ; 1.4 - - pct /gs Dry I Cs-134 Ca-137 Co-60 10-22-81 10-22-81 10-22-81 5 0.02 0.276 ; 0.030 0.306 t 0.036
' f 0.16 0,48
- 0.09 0.23 s 0.17 pC1/gs Dry pC1/g3 Dry pct /gs Dry I 5 0.1 Be-7 10-22-81 - - pC1/gs Dry Ce-144 10-22-81 g 0.09 - - pci/gs Dry Nb-95/2r-45 10-22-81 0.0498 2 0.0327 - - pC1/g3 Dry Ra-226 10-22-81 1.97
- 0.00
, - - pC1/gs Dry Th-22S 10-22-81 1.20 t 0.12 - -
pCi/gs Dry Milk -131 12-15-81 $ 0.12 i C.36 pct /1 I it-40 Ca-134 Cs-137 12-15-81 12-15-81 12-15-81 1050 t 300
< 3.0 2 3.0 55.0 1 5.0 pCi/1 pC1/1 PCill j Co-60 12-15-81 $ 3.0 g 4,7 pC1/1 (1) Cncertainties are based on countinig statistics and are specified at the 95 confide ice interval.
- 'he higher than aormal Sr-39 'CC was due to a low cneetcal yield obtained as a result of the NaRS0) preservative present in the silk sarples.
- DLC QC Lab Units are in pC1/gs hy
- Higher LI.D than normal fue to delay of sample in transtt to the OC La b Analysis not perfstmed aor required.
I
y SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
[ 1981/3.nual Radiological Environmental Peport I III. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONCIEERATIONS
- 3. DLC QC Laboratory Program L Spiked samples prepared by DLC QC Laboratory were routinely submitted to the Contractor Laboratory for analysis. Tables 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.
L
- 4. Comparisons of Similar Samp_les (DLC Contractor Laboratocy - DLC QC Laboratory),
Duplicate air particulate and charcoal- filters (radiciodine) samples were collected at Lecation CO and g compared during the year on a waekly basis. ' Comparison *
( of particulate and charcoal samples alternated from week to week. Duplicate monthly air particulate filters, composited from the weekly air particulate filters; were analyzed 6 nonths out of the year for gamma activity.
Duplicate quarterly air particulate filters, composited from the weekly air particulate filters, were analyzed
'for Gr-39 and Sr-90 activity for the second and third L -quarters of the year. Table III.6 provides data for this portioa of the Q.C. program; The results show g generally good agreement between the la'boratories and
[ demonstrate that the contractor performed ~ acceptably in the prcgran.
- 5. Contractor Internal QC Program The Contractor Laboratory maintained its own QC Program which inc!uded pa rt icipation in the Environmental Protection Agency -
Environmental Monitoring Safety Laboratory (EPA - EMSL) Intsrlaboratory Cross Check Program. This cross check program indicated that the Contractor 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 conformed to approved DLC procedures.
r-L r
( j ~
L r- SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY L 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report J
- 6. Special QC Program (DLC Contractor Laboratory -
[
Independent Laboratory - DLC QC Laboratory)
F Milk and water samples were prepared quarterly by an L, 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 L Independent Laboratory as well as the Contractor Laboratory. A summary of results of this portion of the
, QC program is provided in Table III.7. The results show
[ generally good agreement between the laboratories and demonstrate that the contractor performed acceptably in the program.
E i
E L
E r
r 1
r
Section III DUQUESNE LIGHT CCMPANT TABLE III.4 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Raport TABLE III.4
- - - QUALITT Cohf20L RESUT.TS SPIKE S M I.E AMAlfitS RESti,*S I
L Sample Type DLC and Contractor DLC - QC Sae le Date Ident. No. Analysis Lab (1) Lab (1) Units 3-1-81 53-39 Water: Sr-89 4.3 1 4.2 pC1/1 5.2 1 1.4 St-90 3.1 1 1.0 4.4 1 1.1 PCill 5-20-81 53-40 Water: I-131 5.3 1 0.2 10.6 3 1.0 ;C1/1 **
Ca-137 30.6 1 4.9 36.7 1 8.1 PC1/1 Co-60 30.3 1 6.7 38.3 1 7.2 pC1/1 7-20-81 53-41 Water Cross Alpha 11 1 2 1714 pC1/1 Cross Beta 3212 5114 PC1/1
- 10-16-41 53-42 Water Sr-49 < 2.5 < 0.85 pC1/1 Sr-20 10 t I 11 2 1.1 pC1/1 Co-60 35.6 2 5.6 38.0 2 4.2 pet /t Ma-54 44.6 1' 4.7 35.0 2 4.3 pC1/1 Ca-137 15.8 2 5.0 17.0 t 3.1 pC1/1 11-25-41 53-.3 Water I-L31 0.67 1 0.12 0.60 2 0.55 pCi/t Co-60 36 .9 6 .1 37.0 2 3.8 pC1/1 Cs-137 19.6 1 5.9 21.0 2 3.9 pC1/1 Mn-54 36.616.3 39,0 g 3,9 pct /t 1-8-32 53-44 Water R-3 1120 t 100 810 2 170 pC1/1 ese 53-45 Water cross Alpha 1 0,83 pCi/1 5 0.4 -
Cross Beta 25 2 1 2S 2.5 pCill (L) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95: confidence interval.
The Cross Seta results were not in good agreement for this satple. The results of the aaalysis were reviewed and no errors could be found. Other Grose 3 eta analysis shown in dtinking and surf ace water samples have yielded good agreenent between the laboratory results.
- "he I-131 results were not in good agreement for this sample. A subsequent 33-40-1 spiked water saspie whici was to be ased to verify the first result was delayed un transit to the contractor laboratory ani thus could not be used for verification due to the short half life of the isotope.
However, subsequent laboratcry I-131 analyses have yielded good agreement.
The tritium results were not in good agreeme-t for this sample. The results of the analysis were reviewed and no errors could be found. Other tritium analyses results shown in drinking and surface water results have yielded good agreewnt between the laboratories.
k I
W m
Section III 3CCUESNE LIGHT COMPAF' TABLE III.5 1981 Annual Radiological Enviror m ntal Report
, TABLE 111.5 QUALITY CONTROL RESLITS SPIKE SAMPLE ANALYSIS F
I Sample Type and DLC Contractor DLC - QC Samole Date Ident. No. Analvsts Lab (1) Lab (1) Units 2-20-81 52-49 Milk: Sr-90 7.2 1 0.7 14 4 1 1.1 pCi/1
- I-131 19 1 1 22.6 1 4.1 pct /1 Cs-137 51.4 3 7.2 47.8 8.6 pC1/1 5-28-81 52-50 Milk: 1-131 4.5 1 0.3 5.6 1 0.9 pCi/1 K-40 1230 1 120 -- pC1/1 Cs-137 57.4 1 6.9 55.9 1 8.6 pCi/1 3-25-81 52-51 Milk Sr-89 11 1 3 13 3 2 pC1/1 Sr-90 5.7 1 0.8 6.6 1 1.5 ,ci/1 1-131 7.710.2 8.6 1 1.0 pC1/1 K-40 1 10 t 120 --
Ca-137 44.1 1 7.0 51+.4 pC1/1 1-5-82 52-52 Milk I-131 8.4 2 0.3 9.4 1.2 pC1/1 I Ca-137 K-40 40.6 927 : 93 5.3 35 2 3.9 pC1/1 pC1/1 I
I I
I I
i 6 (1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 951 confidence interval.
a rae Sr-90 results are act in good agreement. Refer to Section III.3 (Evaluation of the Quality Control Prograa 04ta) for an explanation into the cause and the corrective action taken.
- - Analysis not performed nor required.
l L.
I P
l L,
section III DUQUESNE f.!CHT COMPANY TABLE III.6 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 1 of 5) i TABLE III.6 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS AIR PARTICt*LATES AND CMARCOAL FILTER: COMPARAELE SA!"PLE_S Air Particulates Air todita pct /Cu. Meter (Beta) pC1/Cu. Meter 01C OLC Contractor DLC - QC Contractor DLC - QC Sanmte Date t,ab (1) tab (1) Samole Date Lab (1) Lab (1) 1/05/81 to 0.18 1 0.01 0.081 + 0.004 e 1/12/81 to 1 0.010 1 0.035 1/12/81 1/19/81 1/19/81 to 0.17 1 0.01 0.20 1 0.01 1/26/81 to < 0.010 <
_ 0.021 1/26/81 2/02/81 2/02/81 to 0.091 + 0.006 0.11 + 0.004 2/09/81 to 1 0.009 1 0.022 2/09/81 2/16/81 2/16/91 to 0.12 + 0.01 0.13 + 0.005 2/u/81 to 1 0.008 1 0.019 2/23/81 3/02/81 3/03/81 to 0.12 + 0.01 0.15 + 0.006 3/9/S1 to 1 0.009 1 0.022
^ 3/09/81 3/16/81 3/16/81 to 0.11 + 0.01 0.14 + 0.005 3/23/81 to < 0.009 < 0.022 3/23/91 3/30/81 3/30/81 to 0.35 + 0.01 0.34 + 0.008 4/06/81 to < 0.009 < (.0046 4/06/81 4/13/81 4/13/81 ts 0.25 + 0.01
- 0.29 + 0.007
~ 4/20/81 to ~<
0.009 ~<
0.021 4/20/81 4/27/81 4/27/81 to 0.26 + 0.01 0.30 + 0.007 5/04/81 tu < 0.009 < 0.025 5/04/81 5/11/81 5/11/81 to 0.29 + 0.01 0.32 + 0.007 5/18/81 to < 0.010 < 0.023 5/18/81 5/26/81 5/26/81 to 0.16 + 0.01
~
0.16 + 0.006
- 6/01/81 to -< 0.009 -< 0 020 h 6/01/31 6/08/81 L
6/08/81 to 0.15 + 0.01 0.15 + 0.005 6/15/81 to < 0.009 < 0.021 6/15/81 6/22/81 6/22/81 to 0.15 + 0.01 0.16 + 0.006 6/29/81 to < 0.009 1 0.017 6/29/81 7/06/81 7/06/81 to 0.17 + 0.01 0.18 + 0.006
- 7/13/81 to -< 0.010 -< 0.014 7/13/91 7/20/81 7/20/81 to 0.08 + 0.006 0.09 + 0.004 7/27/81 to < 0.008 < 0.018 7/27/81 8/03/81 8/3/81 to 0.059 + 0.005 0.067 + 0.00u 8/10/91 to < 0.009 -< 0.021 f 8/10/81 3/17/81 L S/17/81 to 0.061 + 0.005 0.083 + 0.004 S/24/81 to < 0.009 < 0.022 8 / 24 / 8'. 8/31/81 8/31/81 to 0.026 + 0.003 0.033 t 0.002 9/S/81 to 1 0.010 9/8/81 -
. 0,025 9/14/81 9/14/81 to 0.030 + 0.003 0.031 t 0.003 9/21/81 to 1 0.009 , 0.023 9/21/31 9/28/81 ~
(1) "acertalattes are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95% confidence intervel.
Ide Cross 3 eta results are not in good agreement for this sample. The results of the analysis were reviewed and no errors could be found. I'he contractor lab reanalyzed the sample and duplicated the L the original result. Subsequent analyses have yielded good agreemnt between the Laboratory results.
r l
Se.tian 111 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE III.6 1981 Annual Radiological Environze.tal Report (Page 2 ol 5)
TABLE III.6 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS AIR PARTICUIATES AND GIMCOAL FILT!R! CCMPARABLE SAM.PLES Air Particulates Air to.ine pCitCa. Mater (Beta) pC1/Cu. Meter DLC f OLC Contractor OLC - QC Contractor DLC - QC Sample Data Lab (1) Lab (1) Sample Date Lab (I) Lab (1)
]
I 9/25/.91 to 10/5/81 0.020 2 0.003 0.031 2 0.003 10/5/81 to 10/12/81 i 0.009 <
~
0.018 l l
10/12/81 to 0.034 2 0.004 0.038 0.003 10/19/51 to ~< 0.010 ~< 0.021 10/19/31 I
10/25/81 10/26/81 to 0.023 2 0.003 0.029 : 0.003 11/2/81 to e 0.009
~ ~< 0.020 11/2/81 11/9/81 11/9/81 to 0.034 2 0.004 0.039 0.003 11/16/81 to < 0.01 < 0.018 I 11/16/81 11/23/81 to 0.027 1 0.003 0.031 2 0.003 11/23/81 11/30/81 to s ~e 0.01 ~< 0.019 11/30/81 12/7/81 I 12/7/81 ta 12/14/81 0.019 0.003 0.027 0.002 12/14/81 to 12/21/81
~< 0.01 <
0,018 12/21/81 :s 0.032 2 0.004 0.025 0.002 12/23/81 to ~< 0.01 $ 0.021 a2/23/31 1/4/82 I
I I
I I
I I ,,, . ..t...
1 1.. ... b.... .. - t 8 ...t..t .. ... ... .... 1 .. .. . ,, u . 1 ... 1.t.. 1.
I 1
g 1
i b
r l
L r
1 Section III DUQUE5NE LICHT C09A.W TA3LE III.6 r 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 3 of 5)
I L
TABLE III.6 QUALITY CONTROL 3
AIR PART!CL*LATES (eCL/s }
DLC Contractor DLC - QC Sample cate Nuclide Lab (1) La5 (1)
April Be-7 0.127 + 0.023 0.095 1 0.016
[ 3/30/81 to 4/27/81 settis
[ 3/30/81 to 4/27/81 Teledyne Nb/Zr-95 0.069 0.007
- 0.150 t 0.006 Ru-103 0.028 1 0.003 0.020 + 0.003 g Ru-106 0.022 1 0.018 0.019 + 0.009 i
Cs-137 0.004 + 0.002 0.0015 1 0.0011 Co-144 0.064 + 0.010 0.056 + 0.005 Ce-141 0.016 + 0.003 --
K-40 0.030 + 0.029 --
Th-228 0.006 0.003 --
- l 6/01/81 to 6/29/81 Settis Be-7 0.109 + 0.022 0.050 + 0.026 6/01/81 to 6/29/81 Teledyne 7b/Zr-95 0.048 2 0.005 0.052 2 0.004 Ru-103 0.007 + 0.003 < 0.003 Cs-137 0.0035 1 0.0019 0.0025 + 0.0015 Co-141 0.004 1 0.003 1 0.003 Ce-144 0.061 1 0.015
- 0.025 + 0.005 Others LLD LLD July 6/29/S1 to 8/3/81 settis Sa-7 0.124 + 0.02 0.11 : 0.02 6/29/31 to 8/3/81 Teledyne Mn-54 0.002 1 0.001 1 3.002 Mb/Zr-95 3.029 : 0.003
- 0.053 2 0.CC4 Ru-103 0.003 + 0.002
. 1 0.003 Ru-106 0.040 + 0.019 1 0.007e Cs-137 0.0038 1 0.0015 0.004 1 0.002 Ce-144 0.027
( (1) Uncertainties are based on countina statistics and are soec12:wd at the 951 confidence interval.
Analyses ar* not in good agreement. Pefer to Section III.E. (rvalutier. of the Cuality Control Program Data) for ac explanation in the cause and the corrective action taken.
I
{ -- Analysis not performed not required.
LLD Lower 11:mit of detector.
I 1
L I
L -
l:
L- .
b F
Section III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE 11I.6 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 4 of 5)
H TABLE 111.6 QUALITY CONTROL AIR PARTICULATES (oC1/e3 )
.. DLC Contractor DLC - QC Samole Date Nuc}ide Lab (1) _1.4M August
[. */3/81 to 8/31/R1 Bettia Se-7 0.164 2 0.022
- o.og3 0,g,og 8/3/81 to 8/31/81 Teledyne Ca-144 0.011
$ 0.nO4 0.006 Mb/Zr-95 g 0.002
[ 8/31/81 to 9/28/81 Bettis 8/31/81 to 9/28/81 Teledyne Be-1 Nb/Zr-95 0.117 2 0.021 g 0.001 0.102 2 0.019 0.003 2 0.002 ;
Th-228 0.002 2 0.001 --
Others LLD LLD Povember 11/2/81 to 11/30/81 Bettis Se-7 0.102 2 0.018 0.083 0.013 Others LLD LLD l
[
[
-(1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistice and are specified at the 95* confidence interval.
[- -
Analysis is not in good agreement. Refer to Section III. E. (Evaluation of the cuality Control Prograe Oata) for an explanation in the cause and corrective action taken.
-- Analysis got performed not required.
- LLD Lower 11rait of detector.
h p_r_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sSection III - DUQ TABLE III.6 1981 Annual iologic.1 Ra.UESNE LIGHT COMPANT Environment.1 Report (Page 5 of 5)
TABLE III.6
[~ . QUALITY CONTROL AIR FARTICULATE AND OIARCOAL FILTER - COMPARABLE FAMPLES LOCAT10t8 M - (pC,/m3)
[-~ DLC Contractor DLC - QC Samole Date Nuclide Lab (1) L.D (1) 2n. Quarter Composite 3/30/81 to 6/29/81 $r-49 0.0096 + 0.0016 0.012 : 0.002
$r-90 0.0014 1 0.0003 0.0020 + 0.0007
(..-.
3r. Quarter CAposite Air ritter 3r-89 1 0.0024 < 0.0007 6-29-81 to 9-2S-81 Sr-90 0.0005 + 0.00023 0.0011 t 0.0005
(
( .
[
[
[
[
[
[
[ <!, C.. ort. .t,.s .r. ,.... o. . .t1., et.t et,.s ... .re e,e 1,,e. .t t,. ,,, ,,., .e. e 1.,e_.1.
C
[ .
[
faction III DUQUESNE Licht COMPANT TABLE III.7 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 1 of 2)
[.
TABLE III.7 QUALITT CONTROL DATA
[ QC Sample Comparisons (All Analvees in pCi/1)
[ Sample ')ste Ident. No.
Sample Type and
_Analvets Independent Lab (1)
DLC Contractor Lab (1)
DLC - QC lab ft) 2-18-81 53-231 Vater Sr-90 16.1 1 5 14 + 1 14.2 1 1.4
[ Co-60 Fe-59 21 + 7 25 + 15 20.7 15 14.8 + 5.9*
25.0 t 8.5 1 20 Cs-137 26 + 8 24.6 + 4.2 34.6 + 7.6 Ca-134 29 10 23.4 6.1 32.5 7.4 2-18-81 ,53-232 Water: H-3 1500 + 70
, 1500 1 110 1560 + 270*
5-13-81 53-233 Water: 3r-89 4. 9 + . 9 3.5 1 2.7 5.0 + 1.9 Sr-90 15.7 1 4 11 1 1 16.4 + 1.5 **
Fe-59 50 1 20 42.1 1 12.6 37.9 + 7.6 "o-60 36.2 + 7.2
[ 27 1 9 31.9 1 3.S Cs-137 19 + 8 26.2 1 6.8 26.3 + 3.6 Cs-134 17 + 9 15.7 + 6.0 13.0 1 3.3 5-13-81 53-234 Water H-3 990 + 60 1070 + 90 730 + 270 9-ge.sg 53-235 Waters Sr-89 to 2 13.0 2 3.0 9.2 2 4.0 St-90 10 2 0.5 8.5 2 0.8 10.7 2 2.4
[ Mo-54 co-60 21 2 9 12 t. 8 29.5 2 5.8 17.0 t 5.9 20.5 2 5.0 11.0 2 5.5 Cs-134 1329 15.2 2 5.0 12.5 2 4.8 Co-137 14 2 8 15.7 2 5.5 21.0 2 5.2 9-16-81 53-236 Water: E-3 1350 2 40- 1320 t 90.0 940 2 300 12-2-81 53-237 Water: St-89 18 1 2 20 2 3.0 17.5 2 3.1
[ 5r-90 Co-60 I-131 21.5 2 0.6 2728 20 2 1.0 2341 2 5.2 17.1 2 4.8 21.8 2 2.3 23.4 2 3.8 14.3 2 2.2 1 50 Cs-134 18 2 9 12.1 2 4.' 12.1 2 2.9 Cs-137 28 2 a 39.4 e 5.6 30.7 2 3.3 12-2-81 53-238 Water R-3 1420 2 70 1410 2 100 1370 2 205 (1) Cacertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 95I confidence interval.
.
- Based on reanalysis as the first analysis, although in general agreement with the DLC Contractor Lab.
appeared to be biased low.
The 3r-90 results are not in good agreement. Refer to Section III.8. (Evaluation of the Ouality Control Program Cata) for an explanation into the cause and the corr.ctive action takan.
[ T - - - - - - - - - - -
[
p Section III DUQUESNE LIGHT CONFA.1T TA8t.E III.7 1981 Annumi Radiological Environmental Report (Page 2 of 2)
[.
TABLE III.7 QUALITT CONTROL DATA
[ QC Sample Comparisons (All Analysee in oC1/1)
[ Sample Type and Independent DLC Contractor DLC - QC Samole Date Ident. No. Analysis Lab (1) Lab (1) tab (1) 2-18-81 52-218 Milk: Sr-89 1612 16
- 2* 13.8 + 2.5
( St-90 15.7 + .4 14 + 1*
12.0 + 1.5
- j i
I-131 7.9 + .7 4.4 + 0.2*
, 4.7 + 0.6 Cs-13* 36 1 4 27.2 1 4.4 32.6 1 10.3 Cs-134 30.1 + 6.6 38.3 + 8.5 27 1 5 5-13-8 1 52-219 Milk Sr-89 lost f, 1.5** 4.2 1 2.9 Sr-90 lost 4.4 + 0.8** 14.3 1 2.1
( I-131 11.1 1 1.2 9.6 + 0.3 6.6 + 1.2 Cs-137 37 + 4
, 43.6 1 7.0 29.2 3 4.6 Cs-134 ,
18 + 4 18.0 + 7.2 21.5 1 3.5 9-16-81 52-220 Milk: Sr-89 to a 2 9.0 2 0.8 9.9 2 5.6 Sr-90 9.3 2 0.6 8.2 2 2.9 10.1 2 3.3 1 131 14.5 e 1.0 13.0 2 1.0 14.7 2 3.0 Ca-134 21 2 5 28.4 2 6.2 41.0 t 10.3 Cs-137 22 2 5 32.8 2 5.9 36.2 1 5.8 12-2-81 52-221 Milk: St-89 14 2 2 18 2 5 12.1 2 2.7 Sr-90 23.4 2 0.6 19 2 1 22.6 2 2.3 I-131 14.1 2 1.3 19 2 1 16.3 2 1 1 I i
Cs-134 . 20 t 5 20.8 2 5.8 21.4 2 3.7 Ca-137 35 2 5 42.2 2 5.8 38.6 2 4.1
[
[
[
(1) Uncertainties are based on counting statistics and are specified at the 951 confidence interval.
Reanalysis, first analysis were not in good agreement. Spiked semples from first analysie had not ben chealcally stabilized.
- The Sr-39 and St-90 results were not in good agreement. Refer to Section (Evaluation of the Quality Control
[ ' Program Data) for an explanation into the cause aM the corrective action taken.
[ .. .
- SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY h 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report 1
{ III. ENVIRONMENTAL' MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS
{
(
- 7. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Program The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also conducted a surveillance program in the vicinity of the site.
p Samples of air, river water, drinking water, sediment, L milk, vegetation, . fish and radiation monitoring are included in their program. 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
[ 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. Comparisons laboratories and the Contractor laboratory is acceptable, and between the independent demonstrates a satisfactory performance by the DLC contractor.
Some contractor and QC laboratory spiked radiostrontium-analyses were not in good agreement. That was attributed to
( incomplete Sr(NO separation of calcium from strontium 3 ) Precipitation step of the radiostrontium procedure in the and by incomplete mixing of the strentium car.ier with the
{- sample. An improved technique for more complete strontium separation- from calcium and for longer strontium carrier mixing time with the sample has been put into effect by the
- Contractor laboratory.
Some contractor and QC laboratory duplicate monthly air particulate filter samples were not in good agreement. A
{ review of the contractor and QC laboratory sample. preparation procedures determined that differences could occur which would account for the poor comparisons. Subsequently, a
. change has~been made to the contractor procedure to position the composite filter paper samples in front of the detector .)
in a progressive order of oldest to newest with the oldest sample 'being located closest to the detector, which is the same technique utilized'by the QC laboratory.
Based on. all available Q.C. data and the data from the
{ -Contractor's internal EPA Interlaboratory_ Cross Check Program, the Environmental Monitoring Program for 1981 is
~
acceptable.with respect to both accuracy and measurement.
{
g F .-
SECTION 11I DUQUESNE LIGHT CO}!PANY l 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report C. Standard Requirements and Limitations for Radiological and Other Effluents The Shippingport Atomic Power Station and Beaver Valley Power Station are governed by rules and regulations of the Federal Government and the Commonwealth 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-imposed limits have been established to further limit discharges to the environment.
Shippingport Atomic Power Station is operated in compliance with regulations and permits involving radioactive and other effluents. Limits noted in Department of Energy (DOE) Orders 5484.1 and 5480.1, 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 Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit #PA-0001589, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Industrial Waste Permit #0472205, and g Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources g
- Radioactive Gaseous Discharge Permit are observed and followed.
I Beaver Valley Power Station is subject to regulations which includ,e the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PDER) Industrial Waste Permit #0473211, Sewage Treatment Facilities Permit #0479403, Gaseous Discharge Permit #04-306-001, PA Code - Title 24, Part 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, and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications.
D. Significant Changes 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 lower limit of detection (LLD) for each sampling media analyzed during the preoperational period 1972
- 1975. Analytical results for sampling media noted in the Beaver Valley Power Station Environmental Technical l
I Specifications, which were greater than the statisticall/
significant values determined in the preoperational program (M + 2N or 10 x LLD), are values which require reporting as
'g an anomalous measurement. This report is forwarded to the E Nuclear Regulatory Commission within 10 (ten) days after the completion of a confirming analysis.
1 SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report D. Significant Changes and Reporting Levels (continued)
There were three (3) analytical results of environmental samples during 1981 which exceeded Beaver Valley Power Station reporting levels and are summarized in Table III.8.
The surface water tritium results were attributable to Beaver Valley discharges; however, all releases were well below limits noted in 10 CFR 20.
I i
d 1
W til
SECTION III DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
[- 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
[ TABLE III.8 Anomalous Measurements *'During 1981
[
Environmental Site Reporting Level Found
. Sample Date Media Location Level (Analyt. Results) ist Quarter Tritium in Surface 2A 1390 pC1/1 2290 pCi/l 1981 Water (1)
[
2nd Quarter Tritium in Surface 2A 1390 pCi/l 3870 pC1/1 1981 Water (1)
[ 4th Quarter Tritium in Surface 2A 1390 pCi/1 1430 pCi/l 1981 Water (1)
[
NOTE (1): Attributable to BVPS releases. (There were no releases which exceeded effluent limits for tritium as identified in 10 CFR )
20). !
[-
- Measurements which exceed the reporting levels in the Beaver Vciley Power Station Environmental Technical Specifications.
[
[
[
l
[
[ :
[
[
[
[
SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS A. Monitoring of Liquid Effluents Description of Liquid Effluents at the Shippingport Atomic I Power Station and the Beaver Valley Power Station.
Most of the water required for the operation of the Beaver I Valley and Shippingport stations is taken from the Ohio River, and returned to the river, used for makeup to various plant systems, consumed by station personnel, or discharged I to a septic system. In addition, small amounts of well water and liquid effluents are 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:
Table IV. A.1 - Effluent Treatment, Sampling, and Analytical Procedures - Shippingport Table IV.A.2 - Effluent Treatment, Sampling, and Analytical Procedures - Beaver Valley Table IV.A.3 - Results of Liquid Effluent Dischargas to the Environment - Shippingport I Table IV.A.4 - Results of Liquid Effluent Discharges to the Environment - Beaver Valley I
I I
I I
I - - - - - - - - - - - - _
L SECTION IV FIGURE 4.1 f DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY H 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report 1
r ..E saS 9 : FIGURE 4.1 =
L ,
~g s sDt
.m" %g5 s
0268 4 a~
g ut #MW ~
.2 55Ms ; g I gw 2g wumm "S"=
55g e .
L a .<e c g g 4 g! E y Ok stu8 a<=- ~"WC c r S~ ****
20 ;W:" 5 ,
.E E"[b EgS$ w d
[ "*
- .s 200t
.=m.
k*d a :>
+-
2 - =G=3 m g .
~
g,,.....,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,..............,,,,,,.......,,..,~ $
[ , -
2^7/W J3/OdSWdtf/Nf l (di?D/ JW) M3WOUddV 3*2G7/ 3!W < 4 y......u,us,u m n , m . m su m m m u n u m m m ,> m u ,u m , m , o y
< C
- m
[ 1 . E e
=
}' Z
-sm
[ J W . 0
=
3*r
- =
i 2 5 l}; b z aN$
v 2 5:w 4 E;W M "53 h
N, " ;!Y7
=
ac
!a F - >
c E s= saa
-e-
- 8 gt: y a_ 58_ 0 < .
9 m
m du m5 8 a E e s t
.a v a - '$
E- a m
[ 82
.c m.
.22 tuEt.
.w L
'=
j v
5:
- s t.
E g
g 8
[ a
" s)1 h L=e 3
- d
, s w JW" ) = 5 rE a
- e
[ _e -a a6 s..a a.
y a
e C
m l
[ 5.B3.8 .
+
e-ll; ~.,
- k. *
[ , %e=
) s a e .
.5 w I $'
k G
-g E
/
/ p
[ W xN 2:
W" a 4 X
k 24 s as
- sl E
<j
[. *~
iS %
vw = El r
Q N
jna JE et l M
$ 5 Q r- :-
wu -s E ) IE 52.
L \ EM jM5
=E .ES
___ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. .~
h L SECTION IV FIGURE 42 r DCC.L'ESNE LIGTI CCfPANY L 1981 Annua.t Radiological Envircrumntal Feprt F szcTIon Iv L FIGURE 4.2 b CAPPED TO L TREATED VATER PREVENT IIEAD TANK DISCHARCE PROCESSED RADWASTE To ogro F ,
' RADWASTE h RIVER
- PROCESSING
{ SYSTF21
. .6 iRADWASTE REACTCR I Rs. CYCLE RECEIVING TANKS j i
PLANT SYSTEMS
%7 STSTEM v
! NEUTRALI-WATER < m I L SOFTENERS IEE IANK i S
FILTERS <m ed DEMluCR-WATER -h " E
' BOILER ALIZERS STORACE SYSTEM I: 5 26 SERVICE UATER -
O SYSTEM "
k SANITARY WATER -
SYSTEM I A n m
ar CLEAL' ELL
_ RECYCLE SYSTEM
[ DE W. 1 PUMPS _ _ ~
R.P. AIR MANDLING UNITS s
DEEPVELL - l
[
R. P. COMPONENT s COOLERS '
i Rive'R WATER 800STZR PLTP l L T. P. CO:!PONENT s COOLERS '
l I
[ 8 SHIPPINCPORT P.S.
L t
tL11N UNIT CONDE:4SER ll a.. .
SCRCEN WASH CIRC. WATER PtHPS , PLMPS r- 70 FIRE PROTECfl0N SYSTEM
, FIRE PUMP TRAVELING DEBRIS SCREENS
\ ^ #'
STRAINER L
I CHIO RIVER k g 3, SHIPPINCPORT P.S. INTAKE SHIPP.NGPCRT P.S.
/\ROW DISCHARCE P WATER FLOW SCHDtATIC - ShIPPINGPORT ATCt4IC PCWER STATION l _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . - **
SECTION IV FIGURE 4.3 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radio hgical Environmental Report 1 SECTIO:3 IV FIGURE 4.3 l I .
EVAPORATICN LOSSES C ,
3 AV~1 VALLEY POWER STATIO:i C00 LINO TOWER l
, t.g,3 .,,
CVER-
_a FLC'*y
~ f I s i <
-a t /
P?.! ARY A:.D SECO::3ARY MIM d2AT , jg C UNII I ,g 7 EXCliA:;CCRS CC:!OENSER
] A::D C1 TILLERS
-g I
n NATER
[ ~R".'.TIO.C SY3~m I I 4P wr 1P RDCTOR 3ERVICO PLANT 10tLER sg:;tugy gg;;g SYSTL!S SYS n;g 37$7:3 37373)g I i I ' '
wr "r
) \
gA3qr37 RACL'ASTE p PRCCOSS....
I RECE!VING _
SYSTE:t I ST01't-sci:CN WAIOR s a.3 d w j
b SYSTPJ1 JL INTAKE PUMPS I
V l L l
r AUX AUX
- k Ag,g TEST SCREEN I
EFTLUENTS WASH J
( PUMPSg3; g (
A q w f N 4
r- _
BEATER
)( ) f SEAVER VALLEY BEAVER VALLEY BEAVER VALLEY BEAVER VALLEY BEAV 3 Vu. LEY SEAVER VALLEY VALLEY PCWER STATION POWER STATION POWER STATION Potter STATION PC%"ER STATION M ER STATION PCWER AUL DISCHARGE AUX. DISCHARGE DISCHARGE (002) DISCHARGE (003) DISCHAACT (001)
I (007)
. AUX. (OG6)
STA.iTAXE g 3EA7EE VALLEY ""-'
P0k"EP STATION WATER FLCW SOMEMATTc - BEAVE? VALLEY PCWER STATT0ti DISCEARCC (00'.)
i i!llI r a sMOdHO H o3WM C p.* _
3 3 aCA rH h C _
D r H@CH h3U g eO Ha 1 .
l' kp g]*$t4 r W4]1"D '
c .*
O w
c TO D H E
P PO AT C E GC NR I A P H I
O T" g
~
)-
N E
I C T
k T K
F N
NE EF l S l Np i
AK fag At ER~
t CVE EN FRu S EV LA ETp I RI CT D P P.
m r
R E
T E L
I C-NN P AH I I NClI l r
OXO m M E
T S
P H
U P
- I EC S
Y S M S R Sg y E Ey E
T n R E
T EP t F
S C g Oy S
Y T St 2 N R S A AP A P W K NK W R E LNT7 T T Y AN S R TA AE A A T
~
M I U W T E CL k I
CE M EF k E E N MT E PF E E T V A
S S N L T A-s
,l Y I F C s S t 1 F A I 1L CS N D
_ A E XN L O I EC T EM A R D NI S U RN C A I M A NL EI I H LE W OO LF H H IC O D EC T&
" L A
C O
C B
U S
I U
Q4 I - E I
+I " t S
w u T L4 H
C - R E
T L
S A
W
- E N ik I -
t r D O G F -
I I I U T F Q A I T L S P R M E U
P W P
- R -.
E C D - EES gL T A I n
r NI SN VTK AES I TK CSN S
O O
B lESK N
H O
T
(
[OTAA A S P H
l T T
- (
L P P G N
m r
K N
A I
P P
T I S l i
NE S I C Ak RU -
DS m N K I N M
E T
S A A Y R T S S D N S N E I T S P I K 1 A f* N N YH m_ RR E E I
A k
T U I S L E A
R R A A D O T W T
N S R T E D CU V H R Y D D T T E O NT f W A
l Y
I H CO AO A
T S C E M U C C
. T I
E N S C A Y U N a I U D A E V K S D O x S LV EI E
k O
T A
FR NN T N OI L
I S
S D I
R E k P P T E M S &
O S A
R C
N A
1 E
C G R
A I E T N P U MD C
e NT NC OA k
u b
CA E R DD I
D R A C U D U S S N E F V T E H L U L ,
N C C P S M P A AM F I
!N m S - A S N T RN I LD *
( K N A T I I P O D S N A K P
EO EE T N S I l WC T A S t
PN L N A A A A N S T T T .
n A I
N O1
- (
- T C O l
C A N L - O T
N N l l
,e C N AI A LE CG N
(
C e T P
T N N A N E O IC N O I A S O O N E E E O O U N -
S PH E T V M R C C S I ,
n a
7
- I r
m I l $N
.I i, R
F mMOdHO2 H 3
- hod 3M 9
n L
gE E t pH9NH OOsg i
l H@ g pp u UO OpO ONH M3 <eO .
t4H r 37(301O D
E
- t r l 3a h ,*
- 0 7
N RI J_ E A T A '
L AL W
9N F E M
E L
F SC S
E! f T
S Y
S R CA E OE E R T T M L
FS S T A N 7 I g
W G N u g D I L
f I I L O O O -
S C s -
- ' f -
7 4
W E N
A T
T S
E T
Ig O
T E nW
~ M A
D E
i aLW , aNgI T L -
C T Y -
S W C ~
E E -
T R -
- P f -
W N
F M L E E V L
E T
T S
Y S
V E S m E L A o E L W T lg [ T W A 5. S A I
H L D R 4W I I O R R M -~
U Q A I
L E P
V E
T L
I E
T L
I ED RI UU CQ F
-
- F I I
-~ FL l
l
~ ' J- T T E-l M E L
B
- ('ps l I g l l g
a l
A V
A i, R T E R V O A P E B
M f [ g M
m R O
T A
Y R R E K D D N N ES N IUTE D U E
C A
m QSN I AA LWT IES UTK IQSN IWT AA A
I M A
E T
IN A
R M D r -r ; C M S
)
D E
N ~ T I A A N a D I D NE M AN A N M &
S T
S P
M I
S. S S T
N O
C w
t w
N E
U S mNN uCA OI (
u W o EE s sDD
,3
SECTION IV TABLE IV.A.1 i TABLE IV.A.2
{
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report i
{
TABLE IV.A.1
- 1. Effluent Treatment, Sampling and Analytical Procedures - Shinoincoort Treatment. Sampling Standard and/or Effluent Tvoe and/or Monito ing Analytical Procedures (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 mi sample counted in a
[ is diluted by circulating cooling multichannel analyzer for 10 water. minutes for gross activity.
The counter can measure a minimum detectable activity (ICA) of 8.4 x 10~8 uC1/ml.
{
(b) Radioactive Collected, segregated and A 3000 mi sample is counteJ for Wasta Liquids processed as one of two types gross activity. The counter of liquid wastes: canmeasureaminimumdetgetable activity (MDA) of 5 x 10' uCi/ml.
(a) special waste (b) radioactive waste Sample taken of batch before
[ processing to remove radio-activity and reuse in plant systems. See Figure 4.4.
TABLE IV.A.2
- 1. Effluent Treatment. Sampling and Analytical Procedures - Beaver Valley Treatment. Sampling Standard and/or Effluent Type and/or Monitorina Analytical Procedures (a) Steam Syste:n Recycled or directed to Radwaste If discharged, procedures adhere Blowdown System for discharge. to Technical Specifications.
(b) Radioactive Concentration of radioactive ProceJures adhere to requirements
[ Waste materials released in waste effluents shall not exceed of Technical Specifications.
values specified in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B. Table II for unrestricted areas, and the
[ Environmental Technical Specifications.
[
[
[
[
. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - i
( SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY L 1981' Annual Radiological Environmental Report i
( TABLE IV.A.3
[- 2. Results: Shippingport Effluent Type Results for 1981
-(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 1981.
{- (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 1ess 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 no radioactive liquid discharged in 1978, 1979, 1980, or 1981.
TABLE IV.A.4
[ 2. Results: Beaver Valley Effluent Type Results for 1981
[ (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 Technical Specifications. No limits were
{ exceeded. These values have been reported in the Beaver Valley Power Station Semiannual l Effluent Reports for 1981.
[
[
[
L
L i SECTION IV
{ DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. -MONITORING EFFLUENTS i
B. Monitoring of Airborne Effluents
- 1. Description of Airborne Effluents / Sources
{ 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 corrosion and wear products, activated impurities
[ in reactor coolant, and small quantities of fission products originating from naturally occurring uranium 1:npurity and could become airborne from
{ reactor coolant, sampling maintenance and overhaul operations which require operations, and opening the system or working on contaminated components removed from the system. Stringent radiological controls which have been developed during 24 years of operations at Shippingport are exercised during these operations to prevent radioactivity from becoming airborne. Cobalt-60 is the nuclide of primar'y concern because of its long radioactive half-life and its concentration in reactor coolant. This radionuclide, present in the form of minute insoluble particles, could become airborne during maintenance operations on
/ contaminated components removed from this system.
L However, strict radiological 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 limits specified in DOE Order 5484.1. In f addition, air exhausted from potentially L contaminated areas, such as decontamination and maintenance areas, is passed through high-efficiency particulate air filters. These filters are routinely serviced, changed, and tested in-p1 ace.
[
[
E F. - - - - - - -
I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report l I The principle environmental release point for the Shippingport Atomic Power Station is the I containment ventilation exhaust. This point is continuously monitored, and analyses are performed on charcoal cartridges weekly for I-131 and monthly I for I-133 and I-135. Additionally weekly continuous air samples are obtained on fixed filter papers which are analyzed weekly for gross beta, j and composited monthly to identify gamma emitting 3 isotopes. Composite of the particulate filters are also analyzed monthly for gross alpha
<g determinations and quarterly for Sr-89 and Sr-90.
g A monthly gas sample is also obtained and analyzed for tritium.
il
- I
- I -
- I
- I
- I I
II I
il I
g -se-l
SECTION IV FIGURE 4.6
( DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY L 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report SURCE TANMS :
RESIN STCRACE TANKS ---
FLASH TANK :
SPRAY RECYCLE TANK GAS $" RIPPER 10N EXCHANGER r
[
T VENT G AS b COMPRESSCRS i, ., ,
HTCRCCEN ANAL,YZER ANO CAYALYTIC
[ HYOROGEN BURNER SYSTEM PRESSURE REDUCING g r VALVE f
VENT GAS ,
4170 CULIC FT (STF) SURGE CRUM '
[
GAS DECAY
[ ORUMS 133 CU8tC FT EACH (3TF) i' o ,, ,,
TEST TANKS -
OtLUTICN f CHEMICAL WASTE TANKS : FANS
[ .
l l STACK GAS MCNITORS
- TO STACM
- Shipping; ort Ato:ic Power Statiers Casecus Radioactice Vaste Processir.4 Syste=
l 5
FIGURE 4.6 F
s SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
(_ 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS
{
- a. Shippingport Atomic Power Station (continued)
[ Reactor plant exhausts from the Decontamination Foom, Sample Preparation Room, Laundry Room, Radiochemistry Laboratory, Gaseous Waste System, and Compacting Station are continuously sampled (i with fixed filter samplers. These samples are analyzed weekly for gross beta, and composited monthly to identify gamma emitting isotopes.
{
Processing of noble gases (predominantly short lived Xe-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 Specifications and Regulatory Guide 1.21. Prior to waste gas decay tank batch releases and containment
{ purge releases, an analysis of the principal gamma emitters include noble gases, iodines, and particulates. Figure 4.7 shows the gaseous radwaste system at Beaver Valley Power Station.
The environmental release points also require specific nuclide identification. These points
( include the Process Vent located on top of the Cooling Tower, the Ventilation Vent located on the top of the Auxiliary Building, and Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) Vent
{ located on top of the Containment. These points-are continuously monitored. Principal gamma emitters and tritium are analyzed on a monthly
[ basis. Analysis is also done on charcoal )
cartridges for I-131, 'I-133, and I-235 that 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. Composites of the particulate samples are analyzed monthly for gross alpha
[ determinations and quarterly for Sr-89 and Sr-90. j 1
g F
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPATI 1981 Annual Radiological Environmsntal Report BEAVEA VALLEY PtWER STATION GASEQUS RADICACT!YE WASTE PROCESSI:4 SYSTEM 3
3" 8
5 8
J -
$. = '
M e-m m o
( -
a A a
( -
e d
u .,
/
g ,-
a r-- 5 l s u i t
$ z l
[ e a
O l L
3 h 5
% o G G w
[ i l
- U = y SE 5 m j Q e = a 3 -= 0
[ W 2
v 2M
~0 3 9 3 "g , . as
- 3 as 2 ,
2 2 8 5
[ 8% I s
/ f, ' ll,-
[ o
=
n g 3
$ E
-- e
[ .
=
c
-i 3 s 5 v m e a a dL di n 5
[ . L m
H p a 4
{ ..
r -
2 E = *!
u : 2
- 6
~ E 7 E 2 I
@ ,-, 3 =
5 O E n s a y a s ; > u i - E i =
- 1r *
. = z n l > 5 "! 5 3 i 5
% 3, gs p
d I
a j
gj ou 21 E w 3 i
0 i c
L I. - - - - -
I SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Repori:
IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS
- 2. Airborne Effluent Treatment and Sampling
- a. Shippingport Atomic Power Station Gaseous wastes stripped from the reactor coolant at the Shippingport Station are circulated through a hydrogen analyzer and catalytic hydrogen burner system where the hydrogen is removed. The gases are initially stored in a vent gas surge drum, and
,I subsequently compressed and transferred to one of four gas storage drums. The decayed gases are sampled prior to release. In addition, the exhaust I from the containment is equipped with high efficiency particulate air filters and monitoring devices to prevent releases of radioactive particulates. Protective devices are 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, Radiochemistry Laboratory, and Compacting Station I 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 I are filtered and sampled for radioactivity at the release point also. Continuous air monitors are located within the containers, and other plant j areas to constantly monitor the condition of the
'E air. A stack release diagram is shown in Figure 4.8 identifying ventilation and gaseous release points for the Shippingport At ic Power Station.
- b. Beaver Valley Power Station Radioactive gases enter the gaseous waste disposal system from the degasifier vent chiller of the boron recovery system, and are directed to the gaseous waste charcoal delay subsystem upstream of
- I th' overhead gas compressor where the gas is l
chilled to condense most of the water vapor. Gases from the degasifier vent chillers contain primarily hydrogen and water vapor. A small amount of nitrogen and traces of the radioisotopes xenon, krypton, and iodine are also present in the gaseous effluent.
l l
I l
l SECT 20N IV FIGURE 4.8 I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report SECTION IV FIGURE 4.8 DISCHARCE POI'iTS - CASECUS VASTES Vent ilation Veut- \
I SLCRS Vent g u
[ /
I / , Le e s 4
v'/ <
Containment Ventilation #
System (Containment Air Normally recirc.-not vented)
Auxiliary Building Ventilation System I Exhausts Oaseous wastes to Cooling Tower; Air Ejector I .
CASEOUS RELEASE POINTS - BEAVER VALLEY PCUER STATION I .
Waste Disposal Building + Fuel Handling Building g Service 51dg. Exhausts
- . (Filt er ed) y()
I ' <
__ l ,
g-Concrete Enclosure Emerg. Filtration
, / /
p I t Casecus Waste Release (Filtered)
Ventilation Exhaus Air Ejector Nilt er ed) ;
I C JECUS RELEASE ?OI'iTS - S*4T??I'iCPCRT ATCHIC PCUER STATICM FIGURE 4.8
7 l
w SECTION IV LUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annu21 Rrdiological Environm:ntal R: port L
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 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 surge tank co 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 tanks are sampled and authorization obtained for discharge, p the flow of the waste gases from the decay tanks is L recorded and r ) idly diluted with about 1000 scfm of air in order to limit hydrogen concentration.
The gases are then combined with the containment
{ vacuum system exhaust, aerated vents of the vent and drain system, and the mata air ejector effluent. The mixture is then filtered through one I of the gaseous waste disposal filters, each of L which consists of a charcoal bed and a high efficiency filter. The filtered gases are then discharged by one of the gaseous waste disposal blowers to the atmosphere via the process vent on the top of the cooling towar. The radioactivity levels of the stream are monitored continuously.
{ Samples are also taken to determine the rate of activity released to the atmostphere. Should the radioactivity release concentration of the stream p go above the allowable setpoint, a signal from the radiation monitor will stop all flow from the decay tanks.
l l During a shutdown period after the containment has been sampled and the activity levels determined, the containment may be purged through the i
Supplementary Lee'. Collection Release System (SLCRS) Vent or, if the activity is low level, through the ventilation vent located on top of the Auxiliary Building.
l I
L E
E c- - - -
L .
SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY-
{ 1981 Annuni Rzdiological Environm2ntal Rsport Areas in the Auxiliary Building subject to radioactive contamination are monitored for radioactivity prior to entering the common ventilation vent. These . individual radiation
[ monitors aid in identifying. any sources of contaminated 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 (SLCRS) and to the I
[ SLCRS Vent. Release points are shown in Figure 4.8 for the Beaver Valley Power Station.
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
g
SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annuc1 Rcdiologicel Envircnm:ntal R: port IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS
- b. Beaver Valley Power Station (continued)
( Each filter bank consists of roughing filters, L charcoal filters, and pleated glass fiber type HEPA
. 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 lodine removal and the HEPA filters remove
( particulates and charcoal fines.
- 3. Analytical Procedures for Sampling Airborne Effluents
- 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 Decay Tank Prior to Discharge Gamma Ray Spectrum 1 x 10-5 pCi/cc of Gas Sample
- Gas from Prior to H-3 2 x 10-7 pCi/cc
[ Decay Tank Discharge Gas from Prior to C-14 1 x 10-7 pCi/cc
( Decay Tank Discharge
[
- A gas sample of measured volume is counted in a multi-channel analyzer for 10 minutes for gross activity. The counter has
[- a minimum detectable activity (MDA) of 1 x 10-8 pC1/cc for the predominant nuclide of Xe-133.
[
[
{
E -
[ SECTION !? DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Anual Radiological Environmental Rep rt
[ IV. MONITORINC EF71 RENTS
- 3. Analytical Ptocedures for Sampiler Airberne Ef fluents (continued)
[ Air Exhausts Sampling Type of Saarle Type frequenev Activity Analysis Deetectable 1.iaits (1) Air from the Plant ventilation Continuous Cross Canna 1.2 x 10 uC1/cc (Cas.
Exhaust Effluent Stresa Channel 8 ORMS)*
[ $ x 10-10 ,ggf,,
(Particulates Channel 12 CRMS)*
(2) Particulate P11ter in Plant Continuous Cross Seta 1 x 10' ' LC1/cc Ventilation Effluent Strese Weekly Sample (Particulate)
Particulate Filter in Plant Continuove Principle Cama 1 x 10' uC1/cc Ventilation Effluent Stream Monthly composite Particulate (Weekly if Crose
[ Particulate P11 tar in Plant Continuous 3 eta 1 1 x 10 13)
Cross Alpha 2 x 10*U uC1/cc i ventilation Effluent Stream Monthly Particulate Particulate Filter in Plant Continuova Sr-89. Sr-90 5 x 10"I' uC1/mi (Sr-89)
[. Ventilation Effluent Stresa Quarterly 1 x 10-14 UC1/mi (Sr-90) 1 Particulate (3) Charcoal Cartridge in Plant continuous 1-131 1 x 10"I uct/mi Ventilation Effluent Stream Weekly Charcoal Cartridge in Plant Monthly 1-133. 1-135 1 x 10*I3 uC1/a1 (1-131)
, Ventilation Effluent Stream Monthly 1 x 10' WC1/m1 (1-135)
[ (4) Evacuated Bomb Sample in Plant ventilation Effluent Stream Monthly H 2 x 10 vC1/mi (3) Particulate ?ilter in Reactor Continuous Cross Beta 1 x 10"I' UC1/cc Plant Exhaust from Decontaal- Weekly Particulate nation Room. Sample Preparation Room. Laundry Room. Radio-Chemistry Laboratory. Geseous l Weste System. and Compacting
[ Station.
Particulate filter in Reactor Continuous l
Principal Camma 1 x 10*I' 41/cc Plant Exhaust from Decontan1= Monthly Composite Particulate nation Room. Sample Preparation (Weekly if Cross Room. Laundry Room. Radio-
[. chemistry Laboratory, and Compacting Station.
Beta 1 1 x 10'13)
ORMS - Operational Radiation Monitoring System
- Although the ORMS Channels have no specifts function as f ar as effluent monitoring and reporting is concerned, these two (2) channels are being listed for information purposes. It is also noted that these channels provide alars functions in the Main Control Room when levels of 1.2 x 10-6 W1/cc are reached on Channel 8. or 1 x 10*9 uCi/cc on Chann Additionally, they shut the ventilagionsystembutterflyvalveswhen.levelsof1.2x10~g112. uci/cc are reached on Channel 8 or 1 x 10" uti/cc on Channel 12.
[
[ L -__ - _ - -
I L
SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
[
IV. }ONITORING EFTI,UENTS
- 3. Analytical Procedures for Samplina Airborne Effluents (continued)
- b. Beaver Valley Power Station The following tabulates the gaseous sampling and analysis schedules
~ Detectable Gaseous Sampling Type of Concentrations Source Frequency Activity Analysis (uCi/mlia
[ (1) Waste Gas Decay Tank ,
Each Tank Principal Gamma Esitters 10*'D Releases (2) Containment Purge Each Purge Principal Gamma Emitters 10-'"
.e1e.ses H-3 10
[
(3) Environmental Release Monthly Principal Gamma Emitters 10 Points (Gas Samples)
Weekly I-131 10-12 (Charcoal
[ Sample)
Weekly -10 I-133. I-135 10 (Charcoal Sample) d ~1 Weekly Principal Gama Emitters 10 (Particulates) (Ba-I.a-140. I-131, and others)
~
Monthly Gross a 10 d
Composite (Particulates)
[ Quarterly St-90 and Sr-89 10
~11 Composite d (Particulates)
[
- The above detectability lialts for activity analysis are based on technical feasibility and on l the potential significance in the environment of the quantities teleased. For some nuclides, l lower detection limits may be readily achievable, and when nuclides are measured below the
[ stated limits, they should also be reported.
, For certain mixtures of gama emitters, it may not be possible to measure radionuclides at ,-
levels near their sensitivity limits when other nuclides are present in the sample at much I higher levels. Under these circumstances, it will be more appropriate to calculate the levels of such radionuclides using observed ratios with those radionuclides which are measurable.
- Analyses shal) also be performed follow'sg each refueling, startup, or similar operational occurrence which could alter the mixture of nuclides.
To be representative of the average quantities and concentrations of radioactive materials in particulate fora released in gaseous effluents, sa::iples should be collected in proportion to the rate of flow of the effluent stream.
[
{.
L
4 SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS
- 4. Results
- a. Shippingport Atomic Power Station Analyses for the particulate airborne radioactivity in the plant effluents indicated that the gross alpha and beta activity concentrations were at or very near the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD).
Analytical results of charcoal filter samples showed that there were no instances of radioiodine concentrations above LLD.
Specific gamma analyses of weekly and monthly composite air filter samples were also performed.
Results showed naturally occurring radioactivity typical of " background air" and nuclides attributable to worldwide fallout from nuclear weapons testing. During 1981, there were two instances where activity, attributable to plant operations, was measured.
In the first instance, Manganese 54 activity was measured in the Decontamination Room Ventilation I Exhaust.
released The total amount of Mn-54 activity was 0.00000000383 curies at a concentration of 1.60 x 10.-15 pCi/cc. In the second instance, Cobalt 60 activity was measured in the Sample Preparation Room Ventilation Exhaust.
The total amount of C0-60 activity released was 0.0000000371 curies at a concentration of 3.30 x 10-15 pCi/cc.
Radiostrontium analyses of quarterly composite air filter samples showed Sr-89 and Sr-90 concentrations in air which wereatornear3he minimum detectable concentrations of 5 x 10 3
, pCi/ml, and 1 x 10-14 VCi/ml, respectively. The levels of Sr-89 and Sr-90 observed were extremely 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 coolant and found to be below the predicted levels presented in the LWBR Program Environmental Impact Statement.
There were two (2) releases of gaseous radioactivity from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1981. The total releases of gaseous radioactivity from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1981 were approximately 0.0002361 curies Xe-133 and 0.0000006 curies of Kr-85. These 1
[ -
SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY H 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report u amounts of radioactivity released from the .
Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1981 are I extremely .small and had a negligible effect on the
[ environment as shown in Section V.6.
- b. Beaver Valley Power Station Gaseous effluents from the Beaver Valley Power Station were released in accordance with conditions noted the
[ in Environmental Specifications. No limits were exceeded.
Technical These values have been reported in the Beaver Valley Power Station Semi-Annual Effluent Reports for h 1981.
[
[
[
~
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[-
[ _ _ - -
SECTION IV DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annuni Radiological Environm:ntal Report IV. MONITORING EFFLUENTS I
C. Solid Waste Disposal at the Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Stations During normal operations and periodic maintenance, Shippingport and Beaver Valley Power Station generated small j quantities of radioactive solid waste materials such as evaporator concentrates, contaminated rags, paper, plastics, filters, spent ion-exchange resins, and miscellaneous tools and equipment. These were disposed of as solid radioactive waste.
At Shippingport Atomic Power Station and the Beaver Valley l Power Station, the ccmpactable wastes were segregated and compressed in a 55 gallon compactor to minimize disposal volumes. The compressed waste, plus other drums of noncompactable waste, were then shipped 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 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 radioactive materials met the requirements of the United
- I States Department Regulatory Commission.
of Transportation and the Nuclear Shipments offsite were made in accordance with Department of Transportation regulations.
Figure 4.9 depicts solid waste handling at the site.
In 1981, the Shippingport plant disposed of a total of 5719 I cubic feet of radioactive solid waste having a radioactivity of about 120 curies. This included six (6) shipments of low level wastes and 14 shipments of ion total exchange resin.
At Bea'ver Valley Power Station approximately 7,517.5 cubic feet of radioactive solid waste were shipped offsite in 1981.
The thirty-six (36) shipments contained a total activity of 92.9 curies.
l Industrial solid wastes from both plants were collected in l portable bins, and removed to an approved offsite burial l ground. No burning or burial of wastes was conducted at either the Beaver Valley or Shippingport plant.
l I
j I l
I l
y DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPATl 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I SEcrICil IV SOLID WASTE DISPcSAL DIAGRAM FIGU2E 4.9 WADICA CIVI? SOf,D) WASTE DISPOSAL Radioactive Waste % Sludge Druming =
Disposal Evaporator Station 4e u
Q
~
o 5
Misc. Radioactive
'on oo'oY Solid Wastes
- Compactor and Druming -Stacion
}g I
Spent Radioactive Special Shipping _l' 2 Resin Casks & Containers Q( p
( - E 00' tyfo o' s INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DIACRAM J
Water Filtered; -
PK 1 Filters druemed----
,g 4 g
[
n m &
{ Sludge From Water Treatment Plant and
( [ @z Sewage Trear=ent ag gi <ggy n Plant (3VPS) 5 w
Trash Basket - Beaver Valley Debris and Trash Hopper e Screenheuse Shippingport From Screenhcuse j
I c -
W3 G* u 3
us
?
Trash & Garbage Storage Bin b*
g j C
FIGURE 4.9 - CO -
_ _-_=__=_-
l l
SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report l V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING A. Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program I
- 1. Program Description l The program consists of monitoring water, air, soil, river bottoms, vegetation and foodcrops, cow's milk, ambient radiation levels iri areas surrounding the site, l
and aquatic life as summarized in Table V.A.1. Further I
description of each portion of the program (Sampling Methods of Sample Analysis, Discussion and Results) are included in parts V-B through V-I of this report.
V-B - Air Monitoring l V-C - Sediments (Soil Monitoring is required every 3 years and was not required in 1981.) ;
V-D - Vegetation and Foodcrops !
l 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 l
- 2. China's Nuclear Test Fallout l Several media 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 V-B through V-H. Specific results for samples collected during the months when fallout from this test increased activities above normal I background levels are shown in Table V.A.2. A summary I
l of the background levels, are shown in Table V.A.2. A summary of the 1981 operational environmental data (ranges and means) for each sampling media is found in Table V.A.3.
R l
l l
l l
-s4-
M & M M M M & M W M M M M M M OV.A'.I T A B I.E $
CON S ol.I DaT E D RADIGl.0GICAL ENVIRONNENTAL HONITORINC PROGRAM DLC Sanple Sarigile Analysis (b)
Type of Sanple Points Sanple Point Dess.ription Sanple frequency h
Preparation frequency Analysis
- 1. Air Particulate 13. Continous Sanpling Weekly Couposite(d) Cross p. ICII-131 n.ier'sfaim and Radiolodine 30 Sh ppingport, PA. (5.5.) with saniple collect -- - - - - - -
46.1 Industry, PA (ilre Co.) tion at least Honthly Composite I -5'#"
32 Hidland,PA(S.S.) weekly.
48(a) Weirton, WV (a) Quarterly Couposite(d) 51 A11quippa, PA (S.S.) Sr-89, 90 47 East Iiver pool, Oil 27 Drunton's farm 28 Sherman's fasw 290 Deaver County llospital 3
- 2. 411 rec t 4'ar terly (k)
Continous y-Dose k Radiation 13 Heyer's Farm (ILD) Annually " ts 46 Industry, PA (Church) il' S 32 Hidland, PA (S.S.) RQ 48(a) Weirton, WV (a) 45.1 Raccoon Twp, PA Kennedy's Crnrs. #y P.
, 51 Aliquippa, PA (S.S.) EC u 47 East Liverpool, Oil 7q
- Dt CI DLCD
~ ~ ~
' 70' West. Dyr. School m
~8 if Raccoon Park Continuous Quarterly y-Dose ij 28 Sherman's faria 81 Southside School (IID) Annually 4 11 Drighton Twp. School 82 llanover Hunicipal Bldg. gg 12 Iogan School 83 Hill Creek Rd .
2Sp Deaver County llospital 14 llookstown f.
13 Potter Twp. School 84 llancock Co. Children llone O 74 Conn. Col-Center Twp. 85 Rts. 8 & 30 Intersection g 75 lloit Road 86 E. Liverpool Cahills House 76 Raccoon Twp. School 92 Georgetown Rd. 3
- )
17 Green Garden Rd (Wayne's) 87 Calcutta Road 59 Irons 88 Hidland lleights 78 Raucon Hun. Bldg. 89 Ohioville 27 Drunton's farm 90 fairview School 19 Rt. IB & Rt. 151 10 Shippingport Doro, PA 15 Georgetown 45 Ht. Pleasant Church 46.lindustry PA Tire Co. 60 lianey's farm 91 Pine Grove Rd and Doyle Rd. 93 Sunset lillis, Hidland 94 McCleery Rd, Ullson 95 McCleary Rd, Ilo111e Williams n
5.S. - Sutstation <
P s
0 TARIE V.A.I CUNSOLIDATED RADioloCIcAl. ENVIRONMENTAL McNiT OING FRoCRAM (Continued)
Gs, Dt.C "
Sample Sanple Analysis (b)
__ lyPe of. Sanple Points Sanple_ Poin_t, Descr_lption Sanple_i_requency_ _ _ Preparation E Irenguency__ Analysis
- 3. Surface 49.1 Arco Polymers (a) Inteimittent Ilonthly Composite of Water 2.1 Gross 6 Doienstream (Ilidland) Crucible Composite Sanples(j) Weekly Sanple (d) Gross = >
Collected Weekly y-scan 3 Shippingport Atomic Power Ucekly Grab Quarterly Composite C6-60, li-3 ~~~
Station Discharge Samples Only Sr-89, Sr-90 49(a) Montgomery Dam (llps tream) 2A Downstream BVi!S.0utfall 5 [ast Liverpool'(raw water) Daily Grab Sapple Only - Cn11ected Weekly (j)
!. Grounasater 13 Meyer's fam 14 liookstown, PA
- h 15 Georgetown, PA >
Shippingport Boro B 11 Quarterly Quarterly y-scan, Cross 8 E Gross a,11-3 "o
TreatmentPlant) Sanple Collected Dall Sanple_id _ S'*N l Weekly RWt lf Composi)te B) Gross a,' Gross a - 2 b
5 East Liverpool, Oli (East Quarterli~ComTg5 site (3)
- ~ ~
it-3 IC -60,'Sr-89,'~90 EC
' Liverpool Water Treaiment ES Plant) ,_,
- 6. Shoreline 2A Downstream DVPS Outfall Semlannual Semlannual y - scan, Gross a E Sediment Gross a a 3 Vicinity SAPS Discharge Urantune Isotopic 49 Upstream Side of Montgomery o Sr-89, 90 g Dam (a) **
SO Upstream side of New Cind>erland .
Da*
y
- 1. Milk 25 Searight's Dairy Weekly III ._ f Weekly sample from I-131 6t* Allison 62* Lyon Biweekly (g) Searight'sonly~~)
BGeekliTgrazing y - scan
~
65* Belun When animals are Monthly (Indonrs) Sr-89, 90 66* Straight on pasture; 67*
I-131 Cs-131 Szatowski monthly at other 69* Collins times. -- ---
21 Brunton's Dairy (h) Monthly Monthly y - scan 29(a) Nicot's Dairy (h) Sr-89, 90 I-1311 Cs-131 s
- Additional datries required by Environmental Technical Specification 3.2.1.D.2. In aJJition to Scaright'n (Site 25), tiece def rien are selected when milk in available based on highent deposition factors. Sitea 27 and 29A are regulred for the Shippingport program.
4 I
e
M M M M M N M M M W M M M M M M U U $
' TAHl.E V.t.I CONSol.IDATED RADioIEUICAI. ENVIRoNHEffTAI. HnNIToRING PRGSRAM $
(Con t Iniseti) 3 g
x at 01 C i
Sample Sample Analysis *
. ._ _..I / pe_ o f Sanpl e _ _ . _ _ Po i,n t s. _ Sample _ Point._tp?scription Sanple frequency Preparation frequency _ _ _ Analysis (b)
- 8. Fish 2 Vicinity of BVPS #1 Semiannual Composite of edible y-scan on edible Station Discharge and parts by species (i) portions Shippingport Dis. Sta.
49(a) Upstream Side of flontgomery Dam
- 9. food Crops (Shipp. 10 (Three locations within Annual at Composite of each y-scan (Georg. 15 5 miles Selected by harvest if sanple species 1-131 on gecen (In fus. 46 Company) available leafy vegetables ;
48(a) _.._Jfeirt_on .WV o=
- 10. feesistuf f and 25 Searight's Dairy fann Morghly __ _ Honthly _ ____ _ _ _ _ __ nscan ____,,_k S' m 'ne r f o ra g e _ _ _ ._ . , _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ ___ _ Qua r.ter]y __ Quarterly _Coupos i te Sr-90 g e
- 11. Soll 13 Heyer's Tarni Cvery 3 years 12 Core Sanples 30 Shippingport, Pa. (1982, 1935, etc.) 3" Deep (3" Dia.
y-scan g'g 46 Industry, Pa.
Sr-90 p at each location Gross e oh 32 (North of Site) Midland (approx. 10' Gross u ,g fi 48(a) Weirton, W. Va. radius) 51 Aliquippa, Pa. Uranium Isotopic pr
& 47 C. Liverpool, Oh. L *f
,,, jj N
' 27 Drunton's Dairy y 22 South of BVPS Site 29A Nichol's Dalry _ yh
__ _ _ _ _ _ g 3
3 P,
e4 M
o
SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report TABLE V.A.1 CONSOLIDATED RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued)
Notes:
(a) Control sample station: These are locations which are presumed to be outside the influence of plant effluents.
(b) Typical 7 J's Gamma Spectrometry are shown in Table V. A.S.
( (c) In these cases a gamma isotopic analysis is done if the gross beta activity exceeds the reporting level of 0.53p C1/m3,
{ (d) Analysis composites are well mixed actual samples prepared of equal portions from each shorter term samples from each location.
(e) Composite samples are collected at intervals not exceeding 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
(f) Weekly milk sample from Searight's Dairy is analyzed for I-131 only.
(g) Milk samples are collected bi-weekly when animals are in pasture and monthly at other times. [ Assume April - October .
for grazing season (pasture).]
(h) The milk samples from Brunton's and Nicol's are collected .!
once per month. l (1) The fish samples will contain whatever species are available. I If the available sample size permits, then the sample will be 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 all fish in the sample will be mixed to give one sample.
(j) Composite samples are collected at intervals not exceeding 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at locations 49.1 and 2.1. Weekly grab samples are obtained at location 3, 49 and 2A. A weekly grab sample is also obtained from daily composited grab samples obtained by the water treatment plant operator at location 5.
(k) Two (2) TLD's are collected quarterly and annually from each monitoring location. Several TLD's were lost or stolen during the year.
SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
( Additional Notes:
-- Sample points correspond to site numbers shown on maps.
All Iodine I-131 analyses are performed within 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of sample collection if possible.
All Air samples are decayed for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before analyzing for Gross Beta.
(
[
[.
[
1'
[
[
i f
1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report TABLE V.A.2 Environmental Data - Chinese Nuclear Weapons Test (10/16/80) Fallout
( Tha Chinese nuclear weapons test on October 16, 1980 produced measurable and elevated levels of radioactivity in the atmosphere of the Eastern U.S.
from the end of October 1980 through the end of September 1981. Since a
( large number of samples were affected the listing below represents averages
( in many cases.
(pCi/m3) sal 4PLE f4EDIUt1 SA!4PLING PERIOD GROSS DETA
- 1. Air Particulate
( 10 ctations 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.13 (a) 10 stations 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.24 (a)
{ 10 stations 06/29/81-09/28/81 0.072 (a)
{ Sr-89 10 stations 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.011 10 stations 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.014 01 station 06/29/81-09/28/81 0.0029 lin-54 01 occurrence (b) 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.00091 15 cccurrences 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.0021 05 occurrences 06/29/81-09/28/81 0.0016 Zr-95/Nb-95 30 occurrences 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.047 30 necurrences 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.071 12 occurrences 06/29/81-09/29/81 0.019 Ru-103 30 cccurrm eer. 12/29/90-03.'30/81 0.019
[.
30 occurrences 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.010 OS cc:.arrences 06,29.'d -09 '28/31 0.0030 t
SEC1'ICN V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE V.A.2 1981 Annumi Radiological Environmental Rsport
(
Ru-106
[ 02 occurrences 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.015 19 occurrences 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.027 02 occurrences 06/29/81-09/28/81 0.013 01 occurrence 09/28/81-12/28/81 0.0089 Cs-137) (c) 08 occurrences 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.0023 30 occurrences 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.0039 13 occurrences 06/29/81-09/28/81 0.0026
{ 04 occurrences 09/28/81-12/28/81 0.0012 Ce-141 (d) 30 uccurrences 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.014 26 occurrences 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.011 04 occunu. ices 06/29/81-09/28/81 0.0030 Ce-144 26 occurrences 12/29/80-03/30/81 0.022 30 occurrences 03/30/81-06/29/81 0.061 18 occurrences 06/29/81-09/28/81 0.022 L
01 occurrence 09/28/81-12/28/81 0.0041
- 2. Feed and Forage
( (pCi/g (dry)
Mn-54 -
_02 occurrences 03/30/81-09/28/81 0.072
{
, Zr-95/Nb-95 F
i 04 occurrences 03/30/81-09/28/81 4.3 Ru-103 02 occurrences 03/30/81-09/28/81 0.12 SIrrICN V - A TABLE V.A.2 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report Ru-106 01 occurrences 03/30/81-09/28/81 0.53 Ce-141 02 occurrences 03/30/81-09/28/81 0.10 Ce-144 04 occurrences 03/30/81-09/28/81 1.4 E
- 3. Milk (pCi/ liter)
Sr-89 15 occurrences 05/03/81-07/13/81 6.2 I
(a) In comparison the averble gross beta activity in the third quarter of I 1980 (before the nuclear test) and in the fourth quarter of 1981 (nearly a year after the nuclear test) was 0.028 and 0.027, respectively.
I (b) The word occurrence means monthly observation.
year and with 10 stations, the maximum occurrences could be 30.
For a quarter of a I (c) There is a long term Cs-137 component due to atomspheric weapons test of past years. For example Cs-137 30 in the third quarter of 1980.
was observed 5 times out of a possible (d) Similarly, Cc-141 was observed once in the third quarter of 1980.
I I
I I
I I l 3 '
O. O O D O_
i; LNVIRONHLNTAL RADI0IDGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM SU6HARY g n
Name of Facility Duqisesne f.ight Company Docket No. 50-334 ,
Location of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual 1981 (County, State) >
['
Analysis 6 Lower Limit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator 1.ocations location with liighest Quar. Aan Control Locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean ( f) "Mean (f) Report ed (llnl* of Hessurement) Performed (LLD) ** Range Distance 6 Directions ** Range **Hange Nea suremen t s * "
Weirton, WV #48 Air Particulates- Cross (510) 2. 5 117(510/510) Industry, Pa #46 121(51/51) 115(51/51) O and Radiolodine Beta (15-380) 2.0 miles -- NNE (17-380) (20-370)
(X10~3 pCl/Cu. M.)
- Sr-89 (40) 2 12(21/40) Beaver Co. llosp. 829B 17(2/4) 14(2/4) O h (2.9-18) 8 miles -- ENE (16-18) (12-16)
Sr-90 (40) 0.3 0.82(29/40) Weirton, WV #48 0.89(3/4) Same as O g (0.31-2.0) 20 miles -- SW (0.31-2.0) liigh location -
n y C l l-131 (515) 10 Lt.D -- -- -- -
a y ;
17 vi T M l i m Camma (120) _
gg s, o u "
Be-7 20 104(120/120) East Liverpool.0H847 115(12/12) 101(12/12) 0 4 8
(58-172) . 6.5 miles - W (81-172) (71-133) E/ l 1 -
K-40 10 29(27/120) Weirton, WV #48 49(3/12) Same as o o p (13-94) 20 miles - SW (25-94) liigh location E ~l 0
Mn-54 0.8 2.l(20/120) Midland, PA 832 2.6(2/12) 1.LD 0 E (0.91-3.4) 0.9 mile - NNW (2.6-2.7) --
?
Zr-95/Nh-95 0.8 51(72/120) East Liverpool.0lif47 68(7/12) 33(8/12) 0 3 (7.9-128) 6.5 miles - W (11.4-128) (8.3-66) %
Ru-103 0.8 17(6R/120) Brunton Dairy 827 19(6/12) 15(7/12) 0 (2.0-32) (6.9-30) (4.4-25)
Ru-106 8 26(21/120) Brunton Dairy #27 39(3/12) 23(3/12) 0 (8.9-54) (23-54) (16-36)
Nominal lower Limit of Detection (LID)
- Mean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicate.I in parentheses (f) 7
- - Nonrouthne reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Culde 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical PS ecifications p (Appendix B) en b d
ENVIROfMLN!'AL RADIO!)OGICAL HONITORING PROGRAM StANARY ,
Name of Facility th2quesne Light Company Docket No. 50-334 k
<=
Location of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual 1981 ,
I (County, State)
Analysis 6 Lower Limit Number of Hedium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator Iscations Location with Illghest Quar. Mean Control Locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection ** Hean (f) Name "Hean (f) **Hean(f) Reported
( (Unit of Heasurement) Performed ( LI.D) ** Rang Distance 6 Directions "Ran g e " Range Hea su remen t s'
- l* Weirton, WV 848 i Air Particulates Cs-137 0.6 3.2(55/I:0) East Liverpool,Olif 47 4.2(5/12) 2.6(6-12) 0 l and Radiolodine (0.92-6.7) 6.5 mises -- W (2.7-6.7) (I.7-4.0)
(X10'3 pCl /Cu . H. ) y (cont inued) Ce-141 1 12(60/120) Heyers Dairy 813 15(5/12) 11(6/12) 0 %
(2.5-19) I.6 miles -- SW (9.3-19) (3.6-15)
Ce-144 3 38(14/120) Industry, PA 846 44(6/12) 33(8/12) 0 (4.1-97) 2.0 miles -- NNE (18-86) (9.0-64) {
t2 Ra-226 10 19(1/120) Industry, PA #46 19(1/l2) LI.D 0 k Ed i
2.0 miles -- NNE -- --
l o 5 l Th-228 1 2.9(14/120) Sherman Dairy 828 4.6(1/l2) LI D 0 % e*
(0.41-5.8) -- --
2 d
$I Others Table V.A.5 LLD -- -- --
d l g j X Y l B aM !
E
~
E' 1
Nominal lower Limit of Detection (LLD) ,,
Hean and range based upon detectable measurements only. I:raction of detectable measurement s at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) >
Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guido 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications r*
(Appendix R) M m
m W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W W W INVIRONMEN'IAL RADI0l0GICAL HONITORING Pit 0GRAH SitlHARY h
Name of Facility Thuluesne Light Company Docket No. 50-334 _
locat ion of f acility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual 1981 ,
(Count y, State) ,
Analysis & lower Limit Number of Medisse or Pathway Total Number of AI! Indicator locations Location with liighest Quar. Mean Cont rol locat ions Nontoutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Hean (f) Name **Mean(f) **Hean(f) Reported (Unit of Heasurement) Performed ( LI.D ) " Range Distance 5 Directions ** Range " Range Hea surement s*' ,
Montgomery Dam 849 Sediment Cross (8) 0.3 17(8/8) SAPS Discharge 803 20(2/2) 15(2/2) 0 g (pCi/g) Alpha (10-23) River Mile -- 34.8 (17-23) (14-lb) g (dry)
Cross (8) 1.0 43(8/8) BVPS Discharge 402A 52(2/2) 38(2/2) 0 h Beta (31-59) River Mlle -- 35.0 (46-59) (31-45) g Sr-89 (8) 0.2 1.1.D - - - -
ea o m Sr-90 (8) 0.05 0.061(5/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 0.098(1/2) 0.054(t/2) O E N (0.088-0.098) River Mile -- 35.0 - -
{* g i "
5
- U-233 and (8) 0.01 0.55(8/8) New Cumberland DantSO 0.63(2/2) 0.45(2/2) 0 D)
Y U-234 (0.34-0.80) River Mile -- 54.0 (0.46-0.80) (0.34-0.57) { g U-235 (8) 0.01 0.025(8/8) SAPS Discharge 803 4 0.034(2/2) 0.018(2/2) o o 3 (0.012-0.(137) River Mile - 34.8 (0.030 0.037)(0.012-0.023) l 4 u
U-238 (8) 0.01 0.39(8/8) New Cumberland Dam 850 0.42(2/2) 0.33(2/2) O a (0.25-0.51) River Hile -- 54.0 (0.33-0.51) (0.25-0.41) [
Camma (8)
Be-7 0.2 1.6(5/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 3.8(1/2) 0.88(2/2) 0 N (0.45-3.8) River fille -- 35.0 -
(0.45-1.3)
K-40 0.5 15(8/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 16(2/2) 14(2/2) 0 (12-20) River Hile -- 35.0 (13-20) (12-16)
Hn-54 0.01 0.081(2/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 0.08I(2/2) 1.1.D 0 (0.072-0.091) River Mile -- 35.0 (0.072-0.091)
Nominal lower Limit of Detect io.4 (l.l.D) $
to Hean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Iraction of detectable measurement s at specified locations is indicated in parenthesestfl [
Nonrout ine report ed measurements are defined in Regula. tory Guide 4.8 (Deu iser 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Stat ion Tecimical Specificat ions (Appendix 8) .
& M M M M M M M . .
U w.
S
- i LNVIRONMLNI AL RADIOL 0GICAL MONITORING PROGRAM SIDHARY Name of Facility Dumiesne Light Company Docket No. 50-334 4 e
location of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Report;ag Period Annual 1981 (County, State)
Analysis G lower Limit Number of Hedium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator locations ~ Location with Highest Quar. Mean Control locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection ** Mean (f) Name **Mean(f) **Mean(f) Reported (Unit of Measurement) Performed (LLD) " Range Distance 6 Directions **Hange " Range Measurements ***
Montgomery Dam 849 Sediment Co-58 0.03 0.On8(1/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 0.098(1/2) LLD 0 (gfi/g) --
River Mile -- 35.0 --
y (Jry) 2 (con t inued) 00-60 0.03 0.40(3/8) BVPS Discharge 802A .50(2/2) LLD 0 "
(0.1-0.91) River Mile -- 35.0 (0.1 .91)
{
Zr-95/Nb-95 0.03 o.go (7/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 1. 2(2/2) I.l(2/2) 0 k (0.050-2.0) River Mile -- 35.0 (0.44-2.0) (0.35-2.0) , H Ru-303 I 'J2' BVPS Discharge 802A E. O O.30(4/8) 0.55(1/2) 0.33(I/2) 0 g C (0.078-0.55) River Hile -- 35.0 -- --
y y Cs-137 E ra 0.02 0.42(8/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 0.68(2/2) 0.33(2/2) o g (0.26-0.74) River Mile -- 35.0 (0.63-0.74) (0.32-0.33) "
h" Ce-141 0.03 0.34(3/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 0.41(1/2) 0.35(t/2) o @
l (0.28-0.41) River Hile -- 35.0 -- --
{ 0 Ce-144 0.09 1,3(5/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 1.9(2/2) 0.70(2/2) O a (0.31-2.41 (1.5-2.4)
River Mile -- 35.0 (0.34-1,1)
{
w Ra-226 0.1 2.7(8/8) New Cumbertarul Dam 850 3.5(2/2) 2.2(2/2) 0 m (1.9-4.2) River Mlle -- 54.0 (2.N-4.2) (1.9-2.5) f Th-228 0.02 1.4(8/8) BVPS Discharge 802A 1.6(2/2) 1.4(2/2) 0 l (1.2-1.9) River Mile -- 35.0 (1.4-1.9) (1.4-1.4)
Others Table V.A.5 LID -- -- -- -
Nominal Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) [
Mean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) tw
- Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications N (Appendix B) y !
N .
M M . . . . . M . _O_ .7 m_ m M M .m M. v .. v en N
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM StDNARY 4
~
Name of Facility Duquesne Light Company Docket No. 50-334 b Location of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual _1981 e (County, State) >
i Analysis & Lower Limit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator locations -Location with liighest Quar. Mean Control locations Nontoutine Sampled , of Analysis Detection ' Mean (f) Name "Mean ( f) "Mean(f) Regert ed (Unit of Measurement) Performed (LLD) " Range Distance 4 Directions " Range ** Range Measurements ***
Feed and Forage Sr-90 (6) 0.003 0.10(6/6) Searight Dairy 825 -- one Sample o e (PCl/g)- (0.0057-0.25) 2.4 miles -- SW Location I
. (dry) "
Camma (12) I Be-7 0.3 4.1(8/12) -- -- -- 0 E (0.76-11) O K-40 0.5 18(12/12) -- -- -- 0 (7.4-35) {h o es i Mi- 54 0.01 0.072(2/12) -- -- -- 0 E ra (0.040-0.11) E 7 I- Zr-95/Nb-95 0.02 1.0(4/12) -- -- -- 0 "d
7
$i (0.32-2.3) {oj o
p-Ru-103 0.02 0.12(2/12) -- -- -- 0 0 4 i (0.092-0.16) $ )
Ru-106 0.2 0.53(t/12) -- -- -- 0 ~
-- j;l*
2 Cs-137 0.03 0.12(5/12) -- -- -- 0 2 (0.070-0.2I)
Ce-141 0.03 0.10(2/12) -- -- -- 0 (0.084-D.13)
Ce-144 0.1 I.4(4/12) -- -- --
0 (O.68-2.9)
Others Table V.A.5 Lt.D -- -- -- -
Nominal I.ower Limit of Detection (LLD) N
- Mean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of Jetectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentlieses(f) E Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Culde 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications N (Appendix B). p
(
O .. M. .O O M .M G. M_ G_ M. O M M V N
ENVIROfMENTAL RADIO!DGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM SUPHARY Mame of Facility Duquesne Lieht Company Docket No. 50-334 0 4
location of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual 1981 .
(County, State) ,
Analysis & lower I.imit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Number. of All Indicator Locations Iscation with liighest Quar. Mean Control locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean( f) "Mean (f) Report ed (Unit of Measurement) Performed (LLD) " Range Distance & Directions " Range " Range Mea su rement s"
- Weirton WV #48 Food and Carden 1-131 0.006 LLD --
Crops (pCi/ge)
WET Weight Gamma (13) -
Be-7 0.3 0.33(4/13) Shippingport, PA 880 0.53(2/3) 0.19(t/2) 0 7.
(0.087-0.75) (0.32-0.75) -- --
K-40 0.5 S.2(12/13) Industry, PA 846 8.2(3/4) 5,7(2/2) 0 (2.1-14) (2.E-14) (3.5-7.9) {
w E Cs-137 0.01 0.021(4/13) Georgetown,PA fl5 .025(3/4) 0.011(1/2) O E y (0.011-0.039) (0.015-0.039) ---
o in
$' N g Others Table V.A. LLD -- -- -- -
g g h
E 8 A
2 is.p il 4 3
" l
?
1:
Nominal lower Limit of Detection (Lib) $
" Mean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Traction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) E
- " Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specificat ions M (Appendix B)
(
W W D D _Q._ U D O. _W D O O O O.- O_ W E
I.NVIRONHLNTAL RADI0lDGICAL MONITORING FROGRAM SIMIARY Name of Facility Duquesne Light Company Decket No. 50-334 .O Location of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual 1981 (County, State)
Analysis f. Inwer Limit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Nember of All Indicator locations Location with Illghest Quar. Mean Cont rol locat ion s Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean(f) **Mean(f) Report ed (Dnit of Measurement) Performed ( LID) " Range Distance & Directions " Range " Range Measurements ***
Brunton Dairy 827 Milk 1-131 (140) 0.2 LID -- -- -
(FCi/ liter) _ !
Sr-89 (108) 2 5.6t(15/108) Relan 865 9.4(4/8) LLO O _g (I.7-17) (2.7-17) "
Sr-90 (108) 1 5.0(108/108) Collins 869 9.2(18/IN) 3:l(14/I4) 0 (0.71-14) (3.2-14) (2.0-3.8) k k
Camma (108)
K-40 100- gg32(108/108) Collins 869 1572(18/18) 1310(14/14) 0 g a (727-1900) (ll30-ISW) (1000-1660) y h h
e Cs-137 5 7.9 33/10g)
(4. -19)
Brunton pairy #27 9.8(2/14)
(7.1-12)
Same as o h
liigh Incation $
l Th-228 5- 12(2/108) Allison Farm #61 16(1/15) LID 0 O I
(8.3-16) -- " d Others Table V.A.5 LLD -- -- -- -
i g
5 E
E a
Nominal lower 1.imit of Detection (LLD) U
- Hean and range based ugen detectable measurements only. Fractica of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicatcJ in parentheses (f) p Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications n (Appendix B) e
7 .. O v n. . O _. m v m. m. _m .. ^ . _"_ m ... "
in ENVIROPNE.NIAL RADIOLOGICAL MnNIlORING PROGRAM StMttRY Name of Facility thiquesne Litht Company , Docket No. _J0-334 *
, *t location of I-acility Beaver, Pennsylvania Regnarting Period Anrusal 1981 e r (County, State) >
Analysis 6 Lower Limit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Number of All Indic.ator Locations Location with liighest Mean Control Locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean( f) **Mean(f) Reported
, (thit of Measurement) Performed (LLD) " Range Distance 6 Directions " Range ** Range Measurements I~ Weirton, WV 848
- External Radiation y(171qua rt erly) 0.05 0.18(171/171) Calcutta, 887 0.21(4/4) . 0.17(4/4) 0
[ (mR/ day) (0.17-0.23) 7.0 miles - NW . (0.20-0.22) --
I C l
y(42 annual) 0.05 0.18(42/42) llaney Farm 860 0.22(1/I) 0.18(1/I) 0 g (0.14-0.22) -- --
i fe I w Eh .
Fish (pCl/g)
Gamma (6)
K-40 0.5 3.0(6/6) BVPS Discharge 802A 3.2(3/3)
Montgomery Dam 849 2.8(3/3) 0 hd y g '
, (wet weight) (2.5-4.0) River Mile -- 35.0 (2.5-4.0) (2.6-2.9) g g i Cs-137 E E l "f 0.01 0.014(1/6) Mantgneery Dam 849 0.014(1/3) Same as 0 *
$ l River Mile -- 31.0 -- Iligh Location p n
< o others Table V.A.5 LID -- -- -- -
{4 0 4 i:
5 in Nominal lower Limit of Detection *1D) r-Mean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is in.ficated in parentheses (f)
- " Nunroutine reported measurements are definal in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) asal the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications *
(Appendix B). >
C
-i t
7 m. v....N .O. m. m_ m_ m .m v m m m . .. v . - ^- ^
.. in N
LNVIRefMLNTAL RADIOIKICAL MONITORING PROGRAM StDNARY +4 -
'o=
Name of Facility _Duquesne Light N= =v Docket No. 50-334 4
location of Facility Beaver, Pennsylvania Reporting Period Annual 1981 ,.
(County, State) >
' Ar.alysis 4 inwer Limit Number of Medium or Pathway, Total Number of All Indicator Locations Location with flighest Quar. Mean Control Locations Nonrontine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name "Mean(f) "Mean(f) Reported ;
(M:it of Measurement) Jerformed (LLDI ** Range Distance 5 Directions ** Range- ** Range _ Measurements ***
Montfumery Dam 849 Surface Water Cross (72)
2 LLD -- -- -- ' - -
A'
,(pCi/ liter) Alpha j' i Gross (72) I % 8(72/72) BVPS Discharge 802A l =
r Beta 8.l(12/12). 6.I(12/12) 0 $
- 5-15) River Mile -- 35.0 (3.9-15) (3.7-8.3) $ .
Camma (72) -
W Co-60 5 9. M 1 < a $VPS taischarge 802A 9.2(1/12) ~-- 0 5 River Mile -- 35.0 -- -- *-
Th-228 5 16'??.it BVPS Discharge 802A E 8 I
(13 19) River Mile -- 35.0 19(1/12) L!.D 0 2N i u -- -
_ o S Qre -!
7 , f oth.ers Table V.A.5 LLD -- -- -- -
h' C
, .- 0
- 4
~ ns {
Sr-89 (241- 1.5 LLD -- -- -- - sa 4 s3 Sr-90 (24) 0. 5 - 0.61(2/24) BVPS Discharge 802A 0.73(1/4) LID 0 $
(.5 .73) , River Mile -- 35.0 --
O t
Co-60 (24)(a) 1 2.l(1/24) BVPS Discharge 802A . 2.!(1/4) LlD 0 se River Mile -- 35.0 --
4
,0 v.
Tritium (24) 80 ggg21/24) BVPS Discharge 802A 1970(4/4) 150(4/4) 3 (50-3870) River Mile -- 35.0 (270-3870) (80-.190) r _p s ,
(a) Co-60 analyzed by high sensitivity method.
Nominal lower Limit of Detection (l.l.D)
- Mean and range based ugvi dete9taline measurements only. Fraction of Je ~ectable measurement s at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) N
. Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Culds. 4.8 (Dectober 1975) and the heaver Valley Power Station Technical' Specifications (Appendix B)
~
?
1- ., ,-
c=
W. W .. O .O _D. O .. O O .O . O W m .O- O .R- O .O V aa DNIRONMENTAL RADI0lJ0GICAL WNITORING PROGRAM StMIARY ,
O Name of Facility Duquesne Lleht Company Docket No. 50-334 n
-1 location of Facility Beaver. Penn M vania Reporting Period Annual 1981 e (County, State)
Analysis & thwer Limit Numl>er of Medium or Pathway Total Number of- Ali Indicator Locations Location with Ilighest Quar. Mean Control locations Nonroutine Sampled of Analysis Detection " Mean (f) Name **Mean(f) **Mean(f) Reparted (thiit of Measurement) Performed (LLD) ** Range Distance 6 Directions ** Range " Range Mea su remen t s * "
f l
Drinting Water I-13I (104) 0.2 0.23(1/104) Hidland, Pa 804 0.23(t/52) -- -
(gCi/ liter) -
River Mile -- 36.3 --
Cross (24) 0.6 LI.D -- -- -- -
U
=
Alpha Cross (24) 1 4.9(24/24) Midland Pa 804 5.0(12/12) -- O g l l
Beta (1.7-7.3) River Mile -- 36.1 (1.7-7.0) 'u E
- l Camma (104) Table V.A.5 Lt.D -- -- -- -
g .h Sr-89 (8) 1.5 E NM f.l.D -- -- -- - g n U N
Sr-90 (8) 0.4 Lib -- -- -- -
' E 8
- i5 00-60 (8)(a) l LID -- -- -- -
P Tritium (8) 90 190(8/8) Midland, Pa 804 200(4/4) --
0 (130-270) River Mile -- 36.3 (130-270) 7 5
Y l1 (a) Co-60 analyzed by high t ensitivity method.
- e Nominal lower Limit of Detection (LLD) $
Mean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) {
Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (December 1975) and the Iscaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications (Appendix B) ."
m C
i INVIRONHLNTAL RADIOLDGICAL HONITORING PROGRAM StMtARY n l Il Name of l'acility Dtuviesne Light Company Docket No. 50-314 3 location of Facility -It ea ver . Pennsylvania <t Reporting Period Annual 1981 (County,3 tate) ,
i I
Analysis 4 lower Limit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator Locations Location with flighest Quar. Mean Control locations Non rout ine Sampled of Analysis Detection I* Hean (f) Name 'Hean ( 7 "Hea n (f) Reported (Unit of Heasurement) Performed (LI D) ' Range Distance 6 Directions " Range ** Range Hes suremen t s'
- I Georgetown Pa 815 Grourk! Water Cross (16) 2 IID -. -- -- -
(pCi/ liter) ^'E *
~
Cross (16) I 2.6(15/16) Georgetown, PA #15 3.0(4/4) Same as o h Beta (1.1-5.7) 4.6 miles -- WNW (1.6-5.7) liigh location Camma (16) g i3 Th-228 5 25(1/16) Shippingport. PA til 25(1/4) LID 0 E 0.8 mile -- NII -- -- -
u Other Table V.A.5 1.I.D E Ib
-- -- -- - R p D
Tritium (16) 90 180(13/16) Georgetown, PA #15 215(4/4) Same as 0 [ "3
, (90-300) 4.6 miles -- WNW (180 300) liigh Location R C N
E
Y m a9 4 i5
?;
E 4 C
E i
g Nominal Lower Limit of Detection (LI.D) $
Hean and range based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable ricasurements at specified locations is indicated in parentheses (f) N
"* Nonroutine reported measurements are defined in Regulatory Guide 4.8 (Decembe 1975) and the Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications y (Appendix B) .
w
SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
( V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING A. Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program (continued)
- 3. Summary of Results (L 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).
Summarizes of results of analysis of each media are discussed in Sections V-B through V-H and an assessment
{ of radiatica doses are found in Section V-I.
V.A.4 summaries Beaver Valley Pouer Station pre-Table operational ranges for the various sampling media during the years 1974 and 1975.
[ data with operational data indicate the ranges of values are in good agreement for both periods of time.
Comparisons of pre-operational In the few cases where activity was detected, some of the activity was directly attributable to the October 1980 Chinese weapons test and the remaining detected
[ activities were near the lower limit of their detection (LLD) and are attributable 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 resulted in any detectable changes to
{ the environment attributable to either station.
- 4. Quality Control Program The Quality Control Program implemented by Duquesne Light Company to assure reliable performance by contractor and the supporting QC data are presented and discussed in Section III of this report. The lower limits of detection for various analysis for each media monitored by this program by the DLC Contractor
{ Laboratory are provided in Table V.A.S.
[
[
[ - - - - - ---
i SECTION V- A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE V.Ae4 l
l 1981 Annual Radiological Environ = ental Report (Page 1 of 4) )
TABLE V.A.4 (Page 1 of 4) ~
i ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Name of Tacility Shiestarport Acesi: Pever Station Cocket No. Not Amelicsble Name of Fac.ia:7 3eaver vallev ? ver state:s :ocitet No. 50-32
, I.ocation of Tacility Seaver 7.-nsvivesia Raper:1=g Period CT 1974 - 1975 W (County, state)
?'t!-C?CLA**0NM, PRCC7xi 5'JW_tRT (COM3n*D 1974 - 1975)
Medium or Pativay kver I.2 Lit Sampled Analysis and Total Number of All I:dicator O cactres (U-.it of Measure ent) of Analysis ?arfor ed Oetectims L13 Mean. (f) Racre Surface "Jacer Gross Alpha (40) 0.3 0.75 /40 0.6 - 1.1 Gross 3eca (120) 3.6 4.4 /120 2.3 - 11.4 Cama (1) 10 - 60 < ID Tritium (121) 100 300 0/121 130 - 500
$r-49 (0) - -
= se-90 (0) - -
C-14 (0) - -
Or ,k%g 'Jacer :-131 (0) -
- I .
PC1/1 Gross Alpha (30) 0.3 0.6
- /50 0.4 - 0.3 Gross Esta (208) 0.6 3.3 3/208 2.3 - 6.4 Cc:ma (0) - -
M elum (211) 100 310 U/211 130 - 1C00 G-14 (0) - -
Sr-49 (0) - -
Sr-90 (0) - -
.m
. Ground ' dater Gross Alpha (19) 0.3 < LQ PC1/1 Gross 3 eta 3/ 73I '} 1.3 - 3.0 (76) 0.6 2.9 Tritius Oll) 100 440 /31 50 - SCO Cama (1) 10 - 60 < LD Au / articulates Cross Alpha (138) 0.001 0.003 33/188 0.C02 - 0.C04 and Gaseous pCi/d Cross 3 eta (927) 0.006 0.07 927/ 927 0.02 - 0.3: -
St-89 (0) -
St-90 (0) -
I/ 816 I I-131 Ga (816)
(197) 0.04 0.08 0.07 - 0.08
- rsb-95 0.005 0.c4 122/ 197 0.01 - 0.16 In-106 0.010 0.04 50f197 g,;; , ),;9 C4-141 0.010 0.0 /197 0.01 - 0.04 Ca-la4 0.010 0.02 /197 0.01 - 0.0; )
Others .. <*'3 l e
SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE VeAe4 1981 Annuni Radiological Environstntal Raport (Page 2 of 4)
TABLE V. A.4 (Page 2 of 4)
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM SLTMARY Meme of Facility Shinetersort Atemic Pcwer Station Docket No. Not Aeolicable Name of Fa'c111c7 3eaver Vallev Power scacica Cocket No. 3 G- H.
Location of Tacility Seaver, Per.nsvivania Reporting Period CT 1974 - 1973 (County State)
FRE-CPERATIONAL F10G2AM $QfMAIT (CCMSINZ3 1974 - 1975)
Madissa or Fachway Iower 11 air Supled Analysia and Total Number of All w iescar locations (Unir of Measurement) of Analysis Performed Detection LIJ Mean. (f) !Canse
( Soil Gross Alpha (0) - -
PC1/s (dry)
(Tamplace Samples) Gross 3 eta (64) 1 22 64/64 14 - 32 3r-49 (64) 0.23 0.4 1/64 -
Sr-90 (64) 0.05 0.3 & /64 0.1 - 1.3
( U-234,235.238 (0) - -
Gama (64)
E-40 63 1.5 13 /64 5 - 24 Cs-137 0.1 1.3 56/ 64 0.1 - 6,8 Co-144 I 0.3 1.1 /64 0.2 - 3 Zr5b-95 0.05 0.3 /64 0.1 - 2 Ea=106 O) 0.3 1.1 /46 0.3 - 2
- Others < LID
[ Soil Gross Alpha (0) - -
PC1/g (dry)
(Cors Smspies) Grose 3eca (8) 1 21 g/8 16 - 28 St-89 (8) 0.23 < L13 se-90 (8) 0.05 0.2 5/8 0.08 - 0.5 Games (8)
E-40 -
1.3 13 8/ 8 7 - 20 Ca-137 0.1 1.2 7/ 8 0.2 - 2.4 Co-60 0.1 0.2 1/8 -
( Others < Lia
[
I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE V.A.4 lSECTIONV-A 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report (Page 3 of 4)
I l TABLE V.A.4 (Page 3 of 4)
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Name of Tacility Shieet-e-or- Ar =le ?-var Tenet u :ocitac No. ? fee weli- ele Name of Tacility 3eaver vanaw ?ever scar.:s Coczac 5o. $0-33*
locacion of Tacility Seever. ?e-ssvirtnia Reporting *.evel C? 1971 - 1975 (Caunty, Stata)
F1Z-CP!2A!!C5AI FICC2M $0M".AAT(COQUZ3 1974 - 1975)
N fnm or Pattway kvar limit sampled Analysis and Total Number of All Ir.dicater beations C*nic of Mansureene) of Analvsis Perfer ed Oetection 113 Mean (fi tante
,I Sediaants Gross ~
Alpha (0) -
PC1/3 (dry) 337 33 $ - 30 Cross seca (33) 1 13 3r-90 (0) - -
1T-234,125. 233 (0) - -
Camma (33) 13 /33 2 - 30 33 E-40 1.3 13 /33 1 - 30 Ca-137 0.1 0.4 /33 0.1 - 0.6 25b-95 0.03 0.8 ' /33 0.2 - 3.2 Ca-lu 0.3 0.3 3/33 0.4 - 0.7 au-106 0) 0.3 1.5 3
/33 1.3 - 1.3 Others 1!.3 l
Toodstuff Canna (8) 8 K-40 1 33 /8 10 - 33 L
Ca-L37 0.1 0.2 /S -
1 Er5b-95 0.05 0.2 /3 -
In-LC6 0I 1 I 0.3 0.8 /8 -
Ottars e i.13
$0 Teodstuff Gross 1sta (80) 0.05 IS /30 8 - 50 m PC1/3 (dry)
( Sr-49 (31) 0.023 0.2 33/91 0.04 - 0.93
- 90 (u 0.003 0.4 7=/ 1 0.02 - 0.31 g
Camma (SI)
E-40 1 19 I /81 3 - 46 Ca-L37 0.1 0.3 0/51 0.2 - 1.6 Ce-lu 0.3 1.3 3/81 0.9 - 2.6
'3 25b-95 0.03 0.8 * /81 0.2 - 1.3 h -106 M 0.3 1.4 /91 0.6 - 2.3 Otters e LI.3 I --
-//-
'SECTION V - A DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TABLE VeAe4 1981 Annusl Radiological Environmsntal Rsport (Page 4 of 4)
L TABLE V.A.4 (Page 4 of 4)
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM SU10fARY Name of Tacility $hisetsspor- Atomic Power Statico Occket No. Not Aeolicable Name of Tacility Beaver Van ov Pever Statica Ocekst No. 50-334 I4 cation of Tacility Seaver. Pennsvivania Raporting level CT 1974 - 1975 l (County. State) l l
FRE-OFERATICMAL PRCCRAM SW1t! (COM5INED 1974 - 1973) {
r W ha or Pathway Imer Limit T Sampled Analysis and Total Number k (Unit of Measurement) of All Indicator Locations of Aa=17sts Per dermed Detection ID Mean. (f) Rasse Milk I-131 (91) 0.25 0.6 '/ 91 L PC1/1 0.3 - 0.3 sr-89 (134) 5 7 4/134 6-E se-90 (134) 132 1 5.3 /134 1.5 - 12.3 Gamar (134) ca-137 10 13 D /134 E - 15 others e IL3 Estarnal Radiatica y - Monthly (559) 0.5 a1 0.20 3"/ 399 0.08 - 0.31 m&/ day y - Quarterly (195) 0.5 sa 0.20 H5 /195
- 0. 3 - 0.38 Y - Annual (48) 0.3 31 0.19 '3
/4a 0. n - 0.30 i
Fish crose 3 eta (17) 0.01 1.9 U/17 1.0 - 3.2
[ n St-90 (17) 0.005 0.14 17/17 0.02 - 0.50 Gemma (17)
E-40 0.3 17 2.4 /17 1.0 - 3.7 Ca-137 0.08 1 0.05 /17 -
Other e ILD
[
[
[
l
[
(N Coe ouci.er not included in maan. (Water taken from dried-up spring with high sediment and pecassium content. Not considered typical groundwater sample.)
May include Eu-106. Zu-103. 3e-7.
(
t .
g SECTION V - A TABLE V.A.5 l
- u. DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environ:nental Report l .
m w
o 4 m M M 4 M Pm m *P M M M N N M mM =P @ @
es 4 g d.e s o. e. ==. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. N. C.
- u.
- O C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C w
w c == s.
M m N N M N of M M N N N == == N M A4 N M M f./1 e4
==s C. e, C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. ==. M. C.
[
O er .= C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C w
>=
M 5
3
.2 l
Z U cE Q Im E l
- C LJ.
c * "J O.
C.
I I
3 M C e O C C C C C C Cr. C C C C C C C C C C C C C
$ $ wa m o O M M o M m n M M M N N M m N w w O C a u e I
[- b aC o o mes.e UU
= N o e tJ e
i i
G S
- a
- 8 5w J g C o
[ (U Z
m r.u
=
- C H
e W
2 Q
s ".J s
[ h=o Co A Um e
1 O
3 *=* 4 4 @ 4
- m. @. h
[
-.u=
O O C C C =* C == N N m M N N N O C C 4 N m @ =* .o w N N == e bM e5
$C=*
fe w %
g
[ 4 4
1 r,
dl0 b $
u -
[ S . a,
- J 'A S Qb
- 1. a= g e
S O es W VW*
%w
[- d
=***
O*
O O C vM M 4 M 30 m M C m W v v v @ w C 4 O C C y =. e 4 ==
C 3 o.
+= 1 %* M@ M . M @ == w w 23* ' *ecvy Q A O ~
[
h 'J .3e
- em M Ub C
3 e, Q Q "J==
4* "3 u
[ >
Q hO Owa m ,C e
$ t.
O Cb 2 ==
w 3
"'3 M 4 C N e O w y -
r=, 1* == 4 4 33 e
+=* =* v G3 7 O m A C C == == P". M M to e* *r i ed as eq .C
[ 5e C m me m oM 4 4
= /
'. == == == M == M == == == a == == N N O 7 e o e s s e == t == s e s % e e e e 3 U b. *e *e Z
e
= w u : u
- O
.J.
C C %
. v N N x = c 2 3
.A - -
E 3 - u v'n v = v v
- A n R Q O t 2, z's r e e e .e
- f.
I i
I L
r L SECTION V - B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
[' V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING B. Air Monitoring
- 1. Characterization of Air and Meteorology L The air in the vicinity of the site contains pollutants typical for an industrial area. Air flow is generally from the Southwest 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 p radioactive particulates at each of ten (10) off-L site air sampling stations. The locations of these stations are listed in Table V.A.1 and shown on a map in Figure S.B.1.
Samples are collected at each of these stations by continuously drawing about one cubic foot per
{ minute of atmosphere air through a glass fiber filter and through a charcoal cartridge. The former collects airborne particulates; the latter is for radioiodine sampling. Samples are collected for analysis on a weekly basis.
The charcoal is used in the weekly analysis of
{ airborne I-131.
for gross beta, The filters are analyzed each week then composited by station for monthly analysis by gamma spectrometry. They are further composited in a quarterly sample from each
[- s'tation for Sr-89/90 analysis. In order to reduce interference from natural radon and thoron
[ radiocctivities, all filters are allowed to decay for a few days after collection prior to counting for beta in a low background counting system.
{ b. Procedures Gross Beta analysis is performed by placing the f filter paper from the weekly air sample in a 2" x L 1/4" planchet and counting it in a low background, gas flow proportional counter.
E h F. - - - - -
rf SECTION V - B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY L' 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report c
L Gamma emitters are determined by stacking all the l filter papers from each monitoring station I collected during the month and scanning this composite on a lithium drifted germanium (Ge(Li))
{ gamma spectrometer.
r Radiciodine (I-131) analysis is performed by a L gamma scan of the charcoal in a weekly charcoal cartridge. The activity is referenced to the mid-g collection time.
L r
L
[
[
[ l
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
{ .
[ -_-- ---
SECTIon y - B IGURE 5.3.1 4
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMP. art !
1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report FIGURE 5.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL. WOMTORING LOCATIONS- A{g eJFu?G LFCATIC'S N u*ou c=m AIR e>Rr G ETAT!rts _
- SILJE LTE.121 f !
6,. .,
\ '
I 13 ftYER'S CAIRY Fe .
'~'
27 Sunm'S DarRY FM i Maeve- 'p , '"
- ~ ~~
S,-ERm'S DAIRY
~
23 [
l s.
I 29s m
su e counY w iry.
SsieginarcRre0R0
,f ^ - l-,-s., i ~
v
(:: .
s2 e _., wz I, .
I ca 3 U6 (NDUSTRY g pw , 42sayww+y j 37 EAST LI'ERPOOL, 0110 *
~
I .. [,' ..
38 WEIRTON, WEST VIRGINIA h
~
' /*' W 51 A.Imim 5, N g.
ig $ l \
,.? J
**"* ~'
- ~I ,
.: s *,.:.
~
M
. ,. , ..c---
- g 1
., i' , -,g -
- u,,,, a l
o t , I l, * %,
e -n ... \
/.
jg Rir *'- *Q
'i '
j.n.Q /, fj "~~~'
^
s -, C., ".. ,.> '
l 0
~.
4 ' /
g (, .,r/
~'I
,J a
9$,"*l
\
- Ma
/
. {
&fl '*
/
cna \ ~
Q W -
{ .
4 ,. -
<c I A6*me f 5 4,veam/* <a z I
<c A tem e }
l 5 m ,
h '
pgAvgR COUNTY j.g y y . . _ .J' ,
. m . cou m s.
4 \
- I l
'- x 's f
x _.
h*
Wsir %s % .,
- 8 J u/. c/ use,
~,
f~ .J
, w% '._
AIR S/IFU?G STATir/S RCUE 5. B .1
u SECTION V - B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING L
- b. Procedures (continued) r L 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 leached in nitric acid to bring deposits into solution. The mixture is then filtered. Half of the filtrate is taken for strontium analysis and is reduced in volume by evaporation. Strontium is precipitated as Sr(NO 3)2 using fuming (90%) nitric acid. An iron (ferric hydroxide) 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-f precipitated as oxalate. The yttrium oxalate is g mounted on a nylon planchet and is counted in a low g level beta counter to infer strontium-90 activity.
Strontium-89 activity is determined by precipitating SrC 3 from the sample after yttrium I separation. This precipitate is mounted on a nylon planchet and is covered with 80 mg/cm aluminum I absorber for level beta counting.
- 3. Results and Conclusions l
A summary of data is presented in Table V.A.3.
- a. Airborne Radioactive particulates l
I A total of five hundred ten (510) weekly samples from ten (10) locations was analyzed for gross beta
} (Ten samples were lost in transit) . Results were comparable to previous years; however, I increases in January - August due to the test of a nuclear weapons device by China on there were 10-16-80.
Figure 5.B.2 illustrates the average concentration I of gross beta in air particulates.
l l
l l
I l
l I -_--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ .
.nn8z < l
. ? 8 y v,*w'm
[gH l
$fE !8Pk gl1E en j C
. E D
w V
-- n O
N
_v
. 1
~ _
. 8 9 j T C
1 . O
- S E
T A
L A
A(
\
/
P E
S
- U C
I T
R
' \ \-
. A P
A G U
A
. R I
A \
N \\
- I A
T E
A L
J B
- S S
O R N U
1 8
9 1
G F
O N J
)"
S N
O I
3 Y A
- T A
R T
N A
N E
C N
O C
E G A
% R P
A
- A R
E V
[l R A A N
A
,L B
E F
, N w /
/
/
A J
s
- 1 5
1 1
. . _ e e ,-
. iy
L
[ SECTION V - B DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report L V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- a. Airborne Radioactive Particulates (continued)
The weekly air particulate samples were composited to one hundred and twenty (120) monthly samples which were analyzed by gamma spectrometry.
Naturally occurring Be-7 was present in every sample. Occasional . traces above detection levels of other nuclides were present. Some were natural,
( others were residual from previous and recent nuclear weapons tests. These are listed in the summary Table V.A.2. Examination of effluent data from the Beaver Valley Power Station and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station demonstrated that none of the slightly elevated results are -
attributable to the operation of either power station.
( A total of forty (40) quarterly samples were each
[ analyzed for Sr-89, and Sr-90. Some results were slightly elevated to those in previous years, which is attributed to the Chinese nuclear test.
Based on the analytical results, the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station and Shippingport Atomic Power Station did not contribute to any increase in
[ air particulate radioactivity during CY 1981.
- b. Radiciodine A total of five hundred and fifteen (515) weekly charcoal filter samples were analyzed for I-131.
( (Five samples were lost in transit.) No detectable concentrations were found at any locations.
Based on analytical results, the operation of
[ Beaver Valley Power Station and Shippingport Atomic Power Station did not contribute to any increase in airborne radioiodine during CY 1981.
(
(
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
SECTION V - C DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 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 1981.)
i
- 1. Characterization of Stream Sediments
( The stream sediments consist largely of sand and silt.
- 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques F
l
- a. Program River bottom sediments were collected quarterly L, above the Montgomery Dam in the vicinities of the Beaver Valley discharge and Shippingport discharge and above 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.l.
Bottom sediments are analyzed for gross alpha and I beta activity, strontium, and the gamma-emmitting radionuclides. .
- b. Analytical Procedures l Gross beta - sediments are analyzed for gross beta I
l by mounting a 1 gram portion of dried sediment in a 2" planchet. The sample is counted in a low background, gas flow proportional counter. Self absorption corrections are made on the basis of sample weight.
{ Gross alpha activity of sediment is analyzed in the I
l same manner as gross beta except that the counter is set up to count only alpha.
Gamma analysis of sediment is performed in a 100 ml plastic bottle which is counted by a gamma spectrometer. ,
1 l
1 E
1 1
i
SECTION V - C FIGURE 5.C.1 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report FIGURE 5.C.1 ENVIRGdWENTAt. MONITORING LOCATIONS- SELIfE SEI?BTS & SOIL N u""*** :"*
MAWN CCUd7 l ; ,I L 90E' PE MIPITS , 1 W' '
l
&:A -
m
-eem sws outenu
- a. +
1 og i
"* w=v . ,/ m i-3 Vicinity SAPS Cischarge \
y[
l
] tipstrem Side of .%.tgcrurf 49 I ,, L .-
. ,/ I 'r'
~
i 50 L treart Side of New '
i i creer13rd em des,,,, ve,-
l i
[4 'i,
('t.
, , _ . ~ . -
E l g J
I a .) e- .
1 Poe :
13
- ccmm . _.. 7* W i
Mca/er's fam y -
22 27 South of BVPS Site 3r:nten's Oairl O ~ ~ ~ -'l i
~j- *
- f. .
29A Nichol's Dairf -
l 30 Shippi x;por , PA
$ j% /,/
l 32 Midlarsi i , {Abrassha,' l 46 Irxiustr/, PA 1 g ., [
47 E. :.tw.rpool, CH e V /
48 Wewton, W.VA. N ,- e ' /
31 Aliquippa, PA 09eete//e "
~
.. :. d.T.; '
,' "~~'
e ----. M .
% IN '-
g "I g { ,,
- 7.%
~
y .
. y g,,y f*
- I e V .'r',= lQ l
o n J
,
- J- %,q -
Si , .~'s;
~
,/
W t /
E .
"' i 43 g"y*\ \
c,,, Ate / R f /8J ,
s Y ;, ,.
c f , 5
~,-
frpa%eed eses /
/
L Ace g 2 h'gg
}
l P 5 E '
/ '
d'W' y
b; g
h -
savsa cou m I A useamme couwry
\,
1 '
4 N .
i';;,;,x 1
8 -
N '- p
.u.i. w x,-
a s 4 N
\ %s.
g - 's ,
{ _ _ _ . _ _ _
I L
f SECTION V - C DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY L,- 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report r-L V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- b. Analytical Procedures (continued)
Strontium 89 and 90 are determined by radiochemistry. A weighed sample of sediment or t soil is leached with Nitric Acid HNO . A stable L carrier is added for determination of. recovery.
Strontium concentration and purification is e ultimately realized by precipitations of strontium
( nitrate in fuming hydroxide precipitations nitric and acid.
barium Additional chromate separations are also used. The purified strontium is converted to a carbonate for weighing and
, counting. Samples are counted soon after separation (5 - 7 days is allowed for yttrium ingrowth). Activities are calculated on the basis of appropriate Sr-89 decay and Y-90. Separate mounts covered with a 80 mg/cm 2 aluminum absorber are used for counting in a low background beta counter.
Uranium isotopic analysis of sediment samples were
{ performed by alpha spectrometry after leaching and isolation of the uranium by anion exchange chromatography plus mercury cathode electrolysis, then electroplared onto a planchet.
- 3. Ecsults'and Conclusions
- a. Results The results of sediment analysis are summarized in Table V.A.3.
There were no significant differences between these current levels and those previously detected in both upstream and downstream sediment samples.
E'
SECTION V - C DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1981 Annual Radiological Environmenral Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- 3. Results and Conclusions (continued)
- a. Results (continued)
Uranium isotopic analyses were performed by alpha spectroscopy. The results suggest that only naturally occurring U-234 end U-238 were present since the activities were nearly always the same in each sample and the levels are within the expected j range of natural uranium activities. In a equilibrium, U-234 and U-238 have the same activity.
- b. Conclusion Other than a very small amount of Co-38, Co-60, and I Mn-54 at the outfall of Beaver Valley Power Station, the sediment analyses do not indicate any increased radioactivity attributable to Beaver I Valley Power Station. Since Shippingport Atomic Power Station did not release any radioactive liquid waste during 1981, it did not contribute to any changes in river sediment radioactivity. Small amounts of Cs-137 fcom weapons testing fallout was i found in all river sediment samples including those upstream above Montgomery Dam which are unaffected by plant effluents.
I I
I I
I I l I
SECTION V - D DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING D. Monitoring of Feederops and Fooderops
- 1. Characterization of Vegetation and Foodcrops According to a survey made in 1981, there were approximately 650 farms in Beaver County. The principle source of revenue for the farms was in dairy products which amounted to nearly $4,659,000.00. Revenues from other farm products were as follows:
Crops $2,143,000.00 Horticulture $ 551,000.00 I Meat Poultry
$1,274,000.00
$ 392,000.00 The percentage of crop land in Beaver County is I approximately 17%, pasture land - 6.5%,
47.8%, and other land uses - 28.7%.
forest land -
- 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques
- a. Program Representative samples of cattle feed are collected monthly from the nearest dairy (Searight). See Figure 5.D.1. Each sample is analyzed by gamma I spectrometry. The monthly samples are composited into a quarterly sample which is analyzed for Sr-90.
Foodcrops (vegetables) were collected at garden locations during the summer of 1981. Cabbage and lettuce were obtained from Shippingport, PA, and I Weirton, WV. Cabbage, were collected from Georgetown, PA, and cabbage, lettuce, and swiss chard Jettuce, and escarole were collected from Industry, I PA. All samples were analyzed for gamma emitters (including I-131 by gamma spectrometry).
- b. Procedures Gamma emitters, including I-131, are determined by scanning a dried, homogenized sample with the gamma spectrometry system. A Ge(Li) detector is utilized with this system.
I Strontium 90 analysis for feedstuff'is performed by a procedure similar to that described in V.C.2.
I I -9o-
l M M M ee m M M M M M M M M M N m m m
! m l n i "
l h e l ff FIGUPI 5.n.1 ~
u Moarq onsRv . Dart
- F - ~l o
% Ca7. deer 01110 %* l I---1 Af i
~? MIDt.AMD l G
{Qt's l w l0 p' -
8 rA5 l l .Bogo Qc \ g H
its soOL. Y ' &CORqCTOWN a //PPINGPORY n c,'a, , I
^
s
g cW . (x % I 5 ,.
r H
/
X T. \ ]W.
/'.,"~L 5! p_.~P.'iNhT %.:.__.
, % '.. k t
/ k T '\' %j%
I
[\ [
-t b ;-
%\x\\ 'A.D&%j!
!!l I
% ,_l -
,P / 0's 5 \' 1 N Q Nk g,4 bdPs \
k i
((
/
j
/
h/,hI f
f
(
~- b l
, e-x N,f' ' y.. '
o ..,g _N 'v-)
e-f i
D s g
( j%l 3.&bij,tv h , p&: 3N90 a a ..
e -hl\
4
\ .. ~TV*
~
i k t
<~
b ((s4 \ )# '
e
}.
\ \ k, R L, [I I j
~
6 '*6 o.5 -1)f!-3';
k <-\ \
k f ~ T_:; T /
p s a W/
- 4/ymw\< / /
4.:,@.:,, - %a l.
- ~
f N ' =
1J : f @ W,.ikfh, .Y IN
,/ r #%
u \ ja s g
y a 5
w 12 i
sy
' Ai* W 7 'Sg,
[ N/+ x Tg *** - - -
4 ;
hs'h _ _ , _
+e 3 5
T.ru .~,
2'$:
\% O GOATS l 8
E Y .";' J
- COWS _ _ _ _
l SECTION V - E I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY FIGURE 5.E.2 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report ENVIRCNadENTAL. ndONITORIN3 LOCATIONS- PIL'(
um mom I s l
! MIII Q.
Site Location '-
%,% , i y, w ., m,,,,
25 Searight ~~
/ l
l [
27 29A Brunton N g. . ,
'"L-. . .
I M [' r-Nichol i 61 Allison N,',,",,, ,
- , . t, ~ ,
- 62 Lyon J -
'. i 65 Belan i
4" ) -
l i ,, y, 66 Straight ?-
~ '.
I r 67 Szatowski ' ' ' -
J' -
! 69 Collins @ '- -
~
J' -- *^~*"#
$ i (N .i
/
pacts,4. ;
I i
c, .
cam / f.
i OtanwUe '
l -
.. . .e- ^ \,
. s
- . ~ ..
, r v. , -e-------. . ..
- Og
{ (. 7 8 *'
9 -
u..., a ,
1 . i *, - 9.h*
O '
- U e, , .* *' &
[' g ~ ^
r
=A , e., &p.
~
I
- / t OWY
- .,- / /
~~
c 4 / -
. , Q i
- o c, . ~f,!. ti
' O *~ [n - ..\
..,s , ,, .i 8
g '
er.a r m w f d /
I "
I ,,j , ,
. C7 \ *
/
Y v .27 e i- s.
- { S '. -
< w '\
g , w-~.. e Z I
!I
~~
!'g m 5
/ ~~
j , y *. .
3*
A WASHlNOTON COUNTY \,
l A
" 's N .
( %
W.i& %. ,
!I l
O*
p t a s Js.t. af Muws 4
I \Q 4 lly LfGTI7S m a 3.E.2
s SECTION V - E
[ DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
( V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING E. Monitoring of Local Cow's Milk (continued)
- a. Program (continued) f The sample from Searight Dairy was collected and L analyzed weekly for radioiodine using a procedure with a high sensitivity. Samples from each of the other selected dairies were collected monthly when
( cows are indoors, and bi-weekly when cows are grazing. This monthly or bi-weekly sample is analyzed for Sr-89, Sr-90, gamma emitters including Cs-137 (by Spectrometry) and I-131 (high
{. sensitivity analysis).
- b. Procedure Radiolodine (I-131) analysis in milk was normally performed using chemically prepared samples and
(_ analyzed with a beta gamma coincidence counting system.
[ Gamma emitters are determined by gamma spectrometry of a one liter Marinelli container of milk.
g Strontium analysis of milk is similar to that of L other foods (refer to V.C.2) except that milk saniples are prepared by addition of Trichloracetic Acid (TCA) to produce a curd which is removed by
{. filtration and discarded.
is ashed for counting.
An oxalate precipitate
- 3. Results and Conclusions
{.
A total of one hundred and forty (140) samples were analyzed for I-131 during 1981. All I-131 activities in milk were below the minimum detectable level (0.3 pC1/1).
{ A total of one hundred and eight (108) samples were analyzed by gamma spectrometry and for strontium. The Cs-137, Sr-89, and Sr-90 levels were elevated as a
[ result of the Chinese nuclear test in October 1980. It L should be noted that in the case of these nuclides, the levels did not increase immediately after the fallout from the October, 1980 test. These delays are typical due to the variables of farming practices, pasture conditions, and use of stored feed. For example, the uptake and subsequent inclusion of these radionuclides
{ in tht. milk may not occur if pasture conditions are excellent'or supplemental feed, subjected to fallout exposure, are not required. Thus, the activity of these
{
I I
SECTION V - E DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
( longer half-life isotopes in milk may not reach its peak level when the pasture is growing rapidly, but instead will occur as pasture conditions degenerate with the
( approach of hotter and/or dryer weather of the summer.
Because of the limited inventory of fallout activity deposited, these activity levels gradually return to normal. In addition to pasture conditions, herd size
, and milch animal type and breed result in variations from location to location. All available data support the conclusion that levels of radioactivity in milk are
[- not attributable to either Beaver Valley Power Station or Shippingport Atomic Power Station. ,
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
s- ..
- SECTION V - F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report .
h V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING F. Environmental Radiation Monitoring ,
- 1. Description of Regional Background Radiation Levels and ..
Sources The terrain in the vicinity of the Shippingport and-Beaver Valley Power Station generally consists of rough hills with altitude variations of 300 to 400 feet. Most of the land is wooded.
The principal geologic features of the region are nearly
{
flat-lying sedimentary beds of the . Pennsylvania Age.
Beds of limestone alternate with sandstone and shale ',
with abundant interbedded coal layers. Pleistocene glacial deposits 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 the Ohio River Valley and along major tributary streams. -
{ Based on surveys reported in previous annual' reports, exposure rates ranged from 6 to 12 pR/hr., Results- for 1981 indicated that background radiation continued in '
this range. '
- 2. Locations & Analytical Procedures 4
( Ambient external radiation levels at the- site were measured using .thermoluminescent ' dosimeters (TLDs).
There were three (3) types used in the Duquesne Light-Company Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
{-
They are calcium sulphate dysprosium, Cas 4 (Dy) in teflon matrix. lithium fluoride (LiF),- and . thulium activated calcium sulfate (CaSo4:Tm). ,
The lithium fluoride TLDs were posted and analyzed by a laboratory of the Department of Energy (DOE) as an.
(' independent check of environmental radioactivity levels.
The CaSO :Tm TLDs were used as a back-up and' as .a QC program.4 The 'lecations of the TLDs are shown in Figures 5.F.1 thru 4. Comparisons of TLD results are presented in Table III.1.
In 1977, 1978 and 1979,-there were a total of. thirteen
[.
(13) off-site environmental TLD locations. In 1980 and 1981,- the total of off-site TLD locations was increased to forty-three (43) to comply with the pending
{J requirements- 'of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's version of- the standardized Effluent ~ Technical Specifications for PWR's.
[
.. . - . . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - . - _ - - - - _ - - _ - - _ - -a
SECTION V - F FIGURE 5.F.1 DUQUESNE LIG'dT COF2A!TI L 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report f
th NCRTHWEST QUAORANT I
\*/ Sc3 c.t va4.uc'e Pows.4 3 rarios a *
,~ . ,4 l
/
. . .e , y /
t ae e..
.... .m.,.
j f l' ll :::,9t';;;;*' \
L ti;::r (rs '
j
/
t 3.,;;. 75 - -
ll 12 5141asto 3.3. I "
11 00 %d i is s
- s si u
3 r.4.t,and 6
. m .1.t.sen u.sgs.te ..... t A0 II i
8 '54118 j [
'al
. . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . j' I
[
/ \ w i
/ h L ! ) ,/h~ 'N
) , $, 'j a
( .Q \ ; \, . . . . . . .
. . - -' 'f_
- N, g s i
, f l/
cN L ,
N j s
y
$j p'--)<== f .)= --g!f 'N]
~ ~
T </ "x '
)6 L
/ g; ---~O n/
i4
[ .,.-
- 'vG ,,,/l
\
[ ( ',/ * /' L- g _K; N -',
),
- 4y i, #
( ,
. _ . . . . _ . . . . . , . . _ ..._.t._.__,. 's 7
,9
.a , .
\ae -----
} ' t. ,
~ j. ~.-
r e .- ';..a;.
a lt . /.,x. h. . __" ~I$..y ' , _ ' ' !,~\ 8- ~.
, '. ,' ,:-3.V /
/
- r. . .... \ v , . ,
- s3 3 . . ; . . ,/ '
~ -, \g s
\
\
,v
. d#' <s p'
/ s 1
.f m .-
Es l- - ,
., , n. . . ;
i
- x/ .
- '~ '
gs , .
y
' l f, . :- a-l ;
m , ,p, , x , 5 n' lw _ f w,/
y, T*
c . ,.
- ~
8
\ ^\&, , "
,3 '
y 4 f.
\ 92 ; ~/
f 'N
/
'\f ;
v'-T.A l :
. I ,, ,
O \ ' / p/ ,, Y A M } ,: s L
e
r l S!CTION V - F FIGURE 5.F.2 4
r DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY L 1981 Annual naatolosteal Environmentat aeport F
L -
somast weamr se w n w ay d a sancu @
g 3 %
[
I'i8 I.7 *fi..v.,
.( / 1 !! ll*."'"J.T C...
i / 2\ *
'i..
. I'Z Z E.*id' r 4 Ni '! 00::'U.J"'
===;....
s
.@y ,
/ r 3: n.
\ ,
j ._. .
- a
, n u., ~..
= r .. ..... ,a. .
E 1 : j/ N_ - -:
.i.:
= ....-
s Q,. -Dr.=
' s g s .
2 ' (
d
, _ _ _ p:- . -
7 -
__ 'Q x...
/
u ., .
s t
~ ,-
3s s, y /
e.
c c .
, ... a ;_ ~
f' /
'x g g
~= .q.
E , , /,g-g4
.- N, , ___., f
< j ,,f ...
/ ,-
p- .\ 6%fx -
' 'q j-[-f i ,,
t
.g ,- -
c.. m8 w-
,Cz;;;ue9# f ,i 1
9 4p 'y
+s . p ;-
sy y _/
9.s.
't; ->
a .
3 /c f _ , . .. - ~ ~ ~ . ,
n ~
-cv y [
d .h<
. r ,'
c
'-4 , 32 -
w t-c.- fs-,g
+ ~
.t, g !
r p
L Y" ' N '- .- % ,
(
l I
[/
) j
'j
- /
.{ g s \;.N 4 5.
4 .
y 1, ,
{,, * ' / h'*.
N / ' '
i Si s m e,,, _ - " ' ,
A N
)
hc,'N d
4 ,/ ./
gif, D H 0/ d\ f)
E
-100-1
F FIGURE 5.F.3 (SECTIONV-DUQUESNE LIG'dT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Envicon= ental Report e w u, ,;t v z < 4 c a- r =* .
-[
&' , , y ,,f'#;.- !
. - ---f '
[ % .:..kW =f; ::
':.~)4 T Q. t
\- i/
/
p,
__ j ..'/ " ,
L,N _.
!k%, - B- .,/
A ' e\. a A-
- . - 3 1 n -
. , y
- * ~
gi }, , ',' ' ,
- ~l ,,- ,
'2 Y/ ,@
-/ ,\
- g v s-$j x, ii ,4 <TN s
, sv "3h Si r ;
m_,,,
=N -
s
.,. LGK, O if f '
,1 j,1 g l i - - a-
! s y % s
' /
Ag j. - TNX g /
% # \ s =A _1 N63 !
r ' - I '/
]' 7(yd J '
[,i ,- -
[..
p- - -----
3 j @) ( s
~
[
7 \ = = ' = cy y/ '
,/
[ /.
[
1 \
s s N
- .O N C /
M f( 's f
{ .
. g .. -
/ ;
G,K ....
(
a ~ < , -:
Sfs , ~; .w-N y
y s
y(NM-C
) ,/
' )
f
~
- y, T
- im + (,,Q.L._
1
/
' g -- --
/,\ . ,,,,,,
s :; med::
.: y f- .
i
,w,K-,' : ::..
==e..
- g.pg,g ~gp=;
..... ; 3 ;
f 6 M' do '-
,\ 7 9
19
- t Iran's r ars marcoon *4ainta; 8;as.
- ;* B r' ant 9 De *eC;.afi's Oa Ary s rv mee s s ** st. 19 and pt. 11; I EE-co; u USU."r naae v unic.=; sun.
8
- /
'N %_ s# . *
@T)4 EAST CCACR44T 3 u -u etw c , ,. cy q,t, 3,c,o ,
L r
-101-
i L
~
l SECTION V - F FIGURE 5.F.4 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPA'Tl 7 W- : Annual Radiological Environ : ental Repor:
L r .* _
t , . ,
( -
y' '
i w '
\ \
al( ' / \'N'.-
j 'N ,/ 'N ' gy, y
[ l j .....~.-
- y i - 4
,.x% / x s l ,
g 8 ,/
s
%. s%q.U- '-,o.
l s 't %c/ ~-= \
~
f x
N T
4
- /
k- n
\ /s ,t , . ' - .
8 I
- g. ( 10 '
8' $
j 'j W._
Y Q- <
E '
) \,
N
'.?
h\ \ -Tf@ /' %4,w,L. -
x e-L '
{, h' \w ' /s 4 d Q@l s u__ -
F M ,g\ \ ',- 6" O# -
L ( e
/
/
S h , ,. N y ,
, !/ ,
.' ? ,
s
- N
./
'. )
x ,
4 h%
[ , l
- N p , 88 --
...---.. N---.-- .-.\"-.s- -
N -
h/
[
i
'.-- sl \ -
N ,
i
--- - - - n
\ /- -- /_
f
~ ~ '
{[ l , , /
a
<s - v l
{ . \. ,
/ i l
1' @, .=
ll ,!
b i b
_)'
s..
l!
.h_is.2;.,._..
- ~l::: ::::' :A,:!P- !
,/ l ....... .._. .....
\
y L D. ' !
" / ef
. i
!! l' '41.i;; M:" -.
e~ \
!! !! ::".;M'"
\
!! :: 0 ::: M :'ti!" - '
\
li :: ;
{ o ., ..N.c.:L,u'.! "
1 f
\
50UD4%EST WRANT ' ' '
N u @we, wo +== sr.<,e . , ,
-102-F l ___ __ __ _ _ - _ _
4 SECTION V - F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report 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 days prior to use. The radiation dose accumulated from the anneal date to the date of posting is accounted for utilizing background readings from five (5) TLD chips which are processed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the posting date. The calibration of the TLD reader is performed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of processing the posted environmental TLDs. The envirormental TLDs are processed after retrieval and a background correction is made to eccount for the background radiation accumulated from the date of retrieval to the date of processing.
I The calcium sulfate (CaSO4 :Dy) TLDs were annealed shortly before placing the TLDs in their field I locations. The radiation dose accumulated in-transit between the field location and the laboratory was corrected by annealing control dosimeters shortly before the field dosimeters were removed from the field location, then shipping the freshly annealed control dosimeters with the exposed field dosimeters to the laboratory for readout at the same time. All dosimeters were exposed in the field in a special environmental holder. The dosimetry system was calibrated by reading calcium sulfato dosimeters which have been exposed in an accurately known gamma radiation field.
3 Results and Conclusions Data obtained with the contractor TLD (CaSO4 :Dy in teflon) during 1981 are summarized in Table V.A.3, and the quality control TLD results are listed in Table III.1.
The annual exposure rate of all off-site TLD's averaged
.18 mR/ day in 1981. As in previous years, there was some variation among locations and seasons as would be expected.
In 1981, ionizing radiation dose determinations averaged approximately 66 mR for the year. This is comparable to previous years. There was no evidence of anomalies that could be attributed to the operation of either Beaver Valley Power Station or Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Three sets of TLDs of different types, each i provided and analyzed by a separate laboratory, demonstrate good agreement and confirm that changes from natural radiation levels, if any, are neglible.
-103-
SECTION V - F DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
. 1981 Annual Radiological Envirenmental Report Lessons learned from the Three Mile Island incident indicated the need for more radiation monitors in all sectors surrounding the plant. Engineering and
[
procurement are in progress for Pressurized Ion Chamber environmental radiation monitors 16 Reuter-Stokes to be used to circle the plant site, one in each of the r 16 sectors. Installation of the monitors for system L operation which was begun in 1/81 will continue through 1982. Engineering is 21so 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. 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 p Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness L 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 in the planning stage and a preliminary operational date is currently scheduled for December 1982.
E u
E u
E E
n L
F L
[ -104-
I SECTION V - G DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING G. Monitoring of Fish
- 1. Description Fish collected near the site are generally scrap fish.
During 1981, fish collected for the radiological monitoring program included carp and catfish.
- 2. Sampling Program and Analytical Techniques
- a. Program I Fish samples are collected semi-annually in the New Cumberland pool of the Ohio River at the Beaver Valley 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.1.
- b. Procedure I A sample is prepared in e standard tared 300 ml plastic bottle and scanned for gamma emitting nuclides with gamma spectrometry system which utilizes a Ge(Li) detector.
- 3. Results and Conclusions A summary of the results of the fish monitoring data is provided in Table V.A.3. Four (4) fish were caught in June. Eight (8) more samples were caught in September.
Except for naturally occurring K-40, the only gamma emitter which was detected in any sampics 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 indicates that the operation of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station and the Beaver Valley Power Station has not resulted in
, radioactivity in fish in the Ohio River.
I I
SECTION V - G FIGURE 5.G.1 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I
FIGURE 5.G.1 s h s
p s, _ s, &go c- -
h d '
l a' k,s %) O_
8 !e m
- s. ,o t /- , a >
L o o5 u s o
=5
( h,o '~ S s 53 t (hk c-s.
j
/ Q m
E t
=
O e
=
H
/ Z O. E 4 L
/~ / $ k
^
J I J
~
b $$
~
s s* a =
E U3 r A Z O #
,- ___ / g i
e -- .) -
/
/ & y s
_ l 's/
l 0 1 i 3 o
m __ J s
o }
o W l h a n
~
C /
I
{
L - 4 Ob y 7 -
-Tw-
~ N k i
e t:- k[ g
/ m e
3 O b $ = to 5
_ =~ - u h e :e ;
s ., c .s
- (
> 1 S $ .5
=
E n
= cc s b )
~
.k
[
} ...g g ====-P b
- 2S
=
~' ~
O 'O 5\
SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report 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 is used by both the Beaver Valley and Shippingport plants for water make-up and receiving plant liquid effluents. 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 I Station.
Ohio River water is a source of water for some towns both upstream and downstream of the Beaver Valley and Shippingport plant sites. It is used by several municipalities and industries downstream of the site.
I 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.
I The next downstream users are East Liverpool, Ohio, and Chester, West Virginia, which are approximately 6 and 7 miles downstream, respectively. The heavy industries in I Midland, as well as others downstream use river water for cooling purposes. Some of these plants 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 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.
- 2. Sampling and Analytical Techniques
Weekly grab samples are taken from the Ohio River at the following locations: Upstream of Montgomery Dam [ River Mile 31.8]; at discharge from I Shippingport Valley Atomic Power Station [ River Mile 34.8]; and near the discharge from the Beaver Power Station [ River Mile 35.0]. Two automatic river water samplers are at the following locations: Upstream of Montgomery Dam [ River Mile 1 -107-
L r SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY L 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I
29.6]; and at Crucible Steel's river water intake (River Mile 36.2]. The automatic sampler takes a 20 m1 to 40 mi sample every 15 minutes and is
[ collected on a weekly basis. The weekly grab L
samples and automatic water samples are composited into monthly samples from each location. In
[ addition, a quarterly composite sample is prepared L for each sample point.
r The monthly composites are analyzed for gross
[ alpha, gross beta, and gamma emitters. The quarterly composites are analyzed for tritium (H-3), strontium 89 (Sr-89), strontium 90 (Sr-90), and cobalt 60 (Co-60) (high sensitivity).
Locations of each sample point are shown in Figure r 5.H.1.
L
- b. Drinking Water (Public Supplies)
[ 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 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 gamma spectrometry. Quarterly composites are analyzed
[ for H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90 and Co-60 (high sensitivity).
L Locations of each sample point are shown in Figure 5.H.1.
E E
E
[
-108-
L r SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
[ 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I c. Ground Water L
Grab samples were collected each quarter from each r
of four (4) well locations (see Figure 5.H.1)
L 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, PA One (1) well in Georgetown, PA Each groundwater sample is analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, and by gamma spectrometry.
E E
[
L L
[
1 E
E
-109-F
r- , m w w r- c- r- <- w m
en a
. d t-4 O
g 'A fT <
C L Mourq O+1ca v .D^nt ,
I- I h
- s L-
%*. 7 di I EE
\QV 01/10 l l ~
? - - -
MIDLAND ) @
Og;o pNERR j y 5,3 l l
g1 I0 .Boeo op \ E ou @',Qconqcrown L 0 O###'"Y**Y s a
[.i / L^
f N l
_/ W.8
~'
$ 2.s l n 50
/
WU' MNJJSYLVAhllA
'/
H V/A?ti/M/A / + W/ $N
,,, a
\
\y >L
}?EACYOR Sirr
~'
$0 X if SAMPs.E N h rVPE UP SAPU M POINT SAMFLING POINT DISCRIPTION j ($ M SUNFACE WAllR 2A STATION DISOLANGE / D 2.1 CkUCIBLE S1 EEL [
3 SHIPr!NGPORT STATION DISCHARGE
~ [
H 5 EAST LIVikPool WATER PIANT 49 (HAW WATER)
UPSfkFAH Sil>E HONT60MtRT DAM
[
'O 49.1 ARLO POLYMARS O 2.0 BVPS OUTFAtL STkUCTURE -
N DNINNING WATkk 4 MIDIAND WAf tR PIANT OO/GSTOAVA/
(TkEATED WATtR) -
/ .
5 EAST LIVikFoul WATtR PIMT @ WELL WATER
<TsEATED WAmo Will Walt R 11 1 WtLL IN SHIPPINGrokT, PA @ SURFACE WAIER & DRINKING WATER N g
- 1) WEIL AT MtYtHS DAIRY FARM 14 H4meESTuWN, PA c
y ns ctuucETowN. PA en gg y,ggg gg y ,,- ( gay,7g,,,,, 3,g7,gy, LOCATIONS - SURFACE WATER, t WELLS m
e
4 SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
- 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- 2. Sampling and Analytical Techniques (continued)
I L d. Procedure H Gross alpha and gross beta activities are L 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 l 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 loading one liter of sample into a one liter marinelli container and counting on a Ge(Li) gamma spectrometry system.
Strontium-89 and 90 are determined on water samples 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/1 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) spectrometry system.
Tritium is determined in water samples by converting 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.
L r
[
E E
[ -111-E~
L _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report
[ V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING L
- 3. Results and Conclusions r
L A summary of results of all analyses of water samples (surface, drinking, and ground) are provided by sample r type and analysis in Table V.A.3. These are discussed
[ below.
- a. Surface Water i
A total of seventy-two (72) samples were each analyred for gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma activity. Twenty-four (24) quarterly composited
, samples were analyzed for tritium (H-3) and radiostrontium (Sr-89 and Sr-90) as well as a high sensitivity analysis for Co-60.
No alpha or Sr-89 were detected in surface water
~
during CY 1981. All beta activities were within normal range. Other than the naturally occurring radionuclide of TH-228 which was detected in two samples, the only other gamma emitter detected was Co-60 at 9.18 i 4.19 pCi/1 in a BVPS discharge sample composited for February. This is a very low-level activity and is less than 10*. of the Environmental Technical Specification Reporting Level. The activity is attributed to an unusually high sedim.ent content contained in the sample. See Section V.C.3, Monitoring of Sediments and Soils.
Co-60 was not detected in any other downstream surface water or drinking water sample during the same period of time.
[ The tritium levels in Beaver Valley Power Station outfall were elevated above preoperational levels during the first, second, and fourth quarters, but
' none of these data suggests detectable increases over preoperational levels downstream of the station. The tritium activity at the Beaver Valley
[ Power Station outfall is consistent with station L data of authorized radioactive discharges from Beaver Valley Power Station and were well within p limits permitted by NRC license.
L r
L
-112-
L s SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
[ 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING L
- 3. Results and Conclusions (continued) r L A trace amount of Sr-90 was detected in a fourth quarter downstream sample. The result of 0.73 t c 0.71 pCi/ liter is only slightly above the minimum l
detectable activity of 0.5 pCi/ liter. This positive result could not be attributed to station discharges. The result may be attributed to
[ expected variability in the analyses results of very low levels of activity or to fallout frem the Chinese nuclear test.
L 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 1981.
- 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, Sr-90, or Co-60 were detected. The tritium data were within the preoperational range indicative of normal environmental levels.
L A total of another one-hundred and four (104) samples were analyzed by gamma spectrometry. No
[ gamma emitting 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 measured in one (1) weekly sample collected on L July 21, 1981, at Midland. 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 results of very low levels of activity. In addition, surface water analysis for the same period did not indicate the presence of (I-131).
E
-113-
O l
- SECTION V - H DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- 3. Results and Conclusions (continued)
_ c. Well Water y A total of sixteen (16) samples were each analyzed l for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium and by gamma I
l spectrometry.
any of the samples.
No alpha activity was detected in data are within preoperational ranges.
The gross beta and tritium In one sample the naturally occurring gamma emitter thorium was detected.
I t d. Summary The data from water analyses demonstrate that l neither Beaver Valley Power Station nor I Shippingport Atomic Power Station centributed a significant increase of radioactivity in local civer, drinking or well waters. The few positive l
results which could be actributable to authorized releases from Beaver Valley Power Station are
- characteristic of the effluent. . These results I confirm that the station assessments, prior to I 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. 46*.) of the concentration (averaged over a year) permitted by the Federal Regulations for water consumed by the public. The Ohio River further reduced this concentration prior to its potential use by members of the public.
lI I
lI I
i
,I
-114-L .
L SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING L
I. Estimates of Radiation Dose to Man I
L 1. Pathways to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station y a. Calculational Models - Beaver Valley Power Station The radiation doses to man as a result of Beaver Valley operations were calculated for both gaseous f and liquid effluent pathways using NRC computer codes X0QD0Q2, GASPAR, and LADTAP. Dose factors listed in Beaver Valley Power Station Environmental Technical Specifications were used to calculate
[ 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 inchded 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 terms based on the lower detectable
[ limits of analysis (all sensitivities for analysis L 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 assessments. The release activities are based on 1aboratory analysis. When the activity of noble
{ gas was below detection sensitivity, either the inventory based on its MDL or an appropriate but p conservative ratio to either measured activity of L Kr-85 or Xe-133 was used. Meteorological data collected by the Beaver Valley Power Station Meteorology System was used as input to XOQD0Q2 which in turn provided input for GASPAR. Except when more recent or specific data was available, all inputs were the same as used in the Beaver Valley Power Station Environmental Statements or in
{ Regulatory Guide 1.09. The airborne pathways evaluated were beta and gamma doses from noble gas p plumes inhalation, the " cow-milk child", and other L ingestion pathways.
F L
-115-
s SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- a. Calculational Models - Beaver Valley Power Station (continued)
L All potentially radioactive liquid effluents,
- including steam generator blowdown, are released 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
_ maximum 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 obtained from 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 Valley Power Station Liquid Releases
- a. Liquid Pathway - Maximum Individual The doses which are calculated, based on the model presented above in V.I.1, are summarized and p compared to Beaver Valley Power Station license L, limits below. An additional breakdown of these doses by pathway and organ is provided in Table V.I.1. For these calculations, a hypothetical maximum individual (s) was located at Midland since this is the nearest location which significant exposure of a member of the public could
{ potentis11y occur.
E E
E E
c L
-116-
R F7 _F 7 F7 F7 FR M FR F7 W 7_ FR F L_J ~ T F1 i U l_ I 1 I TABLE V.I.1 m 1981 Radiation Dose to Maximum Individualamrem /yr.
Beaver Vallev Power Station - Liquid Releases ]
s O
CRITICAL USAGE W110LE PATHWAY GROUP FACTOR SKIN ORGAN THYROID BONE BODY s Fish Consumption Adult 21 kg N/A 0.0409 0.00088 0.0254 0.0292 (Liver)
Drinking Water' Infant 510 1 N/A 0.013 0.0178 0.00289 0.0104 (Liver)
G Shoreline Activities Teen 67 hr. 0.0')19 -- -- --
0.0016 $
- s .
TOTAL MREM 0.0019 0.0476 0.0178 0.0335 0.0358 E l
" e, l CRITICAL (Teen) (Adult) (Infant) (Child) (Adult) l
! INDIVIDUAL (Liver) E'E l SS \
Se )
, DOSE TO INDIVIDUALS DURING 1981 FROM NATURAL RADIATION EXPOSURE $M C' d Ambient Gamma Radiation: 69 $@e m
Radionuclides in Body : 18* $@
Xk Global Fallout : 4* 8 P:
u4 to TOTAL mrem 91 ,9, S
" Located at Midland Drinking Water Intake b Child - Usage Factor 6.9 kg/yr. k
" Adult - Usage Factor 730 1/yr.
d Pre-operational average ambient gamma radiation g
" National Academy of Sciences, "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of @
Ionizing Radiation", BEIR Report, 1972. <
s L
' s b
'k'; E g
- SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGilT COMPANT 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report __
F V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING s
- 2. Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver Valley Power Station Liquid Releases (continued)
L i Actual Doses (mrem /yr.) -
Calculated Using Site _
~ Effluents Appendix I
- Analysis Dose - Calculated Using
' NRC Model Effluents Regulatory Limit Doses - NRC Staff Guidelines RM50-2 f Appendix I L Calculated Report (Con- RM50-2 (Re. Ratio of (1.21 Re- servative Limit w/o Calculated ported Re- Non-accident Cost / Benefit Dose vs.
1 cases Doses) Analysis) Reg. Limit TOTAL BODY F
Adult 0.0358 2.78 5.0 0.00716 Teen 0.0199 0.712 5.0 0.00398 L Child 0.0134 Not Reported 5.0 0.00268 Infant O.0104 Not Reported 5.0 0.00208 ANY ORGAN Adult 0.0476 Not Reported 5.0 0.00952 (Liver)
Teen 0.045 Not Reported 5.0 0.009
{ (Liver)
Child 0.0439 Not Reported 5.0 0.00878
[ (Liver)
L Infant 0.0178 Not Reported 5.0 0.0026 (Thyroid)
Maximum Total Body Dose - Capsule Summary mrem F
L 1981 Calculated 0.0358 Appendix I Estimated 2.78 Final Environmental Statement 0.112 Thyroid Dose -
(Largest Expected Organ Dose) 1981 Calculated 0.0178 Final Environmental Statement 0.96
E
-""~
F -- - - - - - - -
SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annuci Radiological Environm:ntal Ecport I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
! 2. Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man - Beaver j Valley Power Station Liquid Releases (continued)
- b. Population Doses The 1981 calculated dose to the entire population g of almost 4 million people within 50 miles of the g plant was:
Largest Isotope Man-Millirem Contributors T9TAL BODY 79.9 H-3 70.8 mrem I Co-60 3.5 mrem CS-137 3.2 mrem THYROID 95.0 H-3 70.8 mrem I-131 22.6 mrem I The estimated quarterly dose in the NRC Final Environmental Statement is 104 Man-Millirem.
Calculated Dose is less than the backgrcund annual The I dose received by two (2) people of the 4 mil.'. ion people evaluated.
population is less The increased dose to this than 0.0001% of normal background dose already received.
I 3. A borne Pathway - (Beaver Valley Power Station) j The doses to the public for Beaver Valley Power Station airborne radioactive effluents during 1981 are provided in Table V.I.2. They include the contribution of all I pathways. Tritium contribution to these doses.
co'mpliance with 10CFR50, Appendix is the primary radionuclide The data demonstrate I design objective limits.
4 Conclusions - (Beaver Valley Power Station)
I The calculated doses to the public from the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit NO. 1 are below ILCFR50, Appendix I design ,bjectives, and resulted in I only a small incremental dose to that which area residents already received as a result of natural background the doses constituted no meaningful risk to the public.
I
!I - 119-
o F7 F7_ F7 FR FR FR F7 FR FR FR FR FR C L_.J T F~1 F T f 1 1 1 1 E
O TABLE V.I.2 g
=
Results of Calculated Radiation Dose to Man (1981) <
Beaver Valley Power Station - Airborne Radioactivity APPENDIX I* 50-MILE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE DESIGN OBJECTIVE PERCENT OF POPULATTON DOSE ,,
ORGAN INDIVIDUAL, mrem mrem APPE'IDIX I man rem oo a
5 TOTAL BODY 0.4081 5 8.16% 0 412 -
l EE 2e o
SKIN 1.130 15 7.53% 1.43 g O Z e
h
?
LUNG 0.413 -- --
0.44 hh m 5 TilYROID 2.922 -- --
0.922 NE 2 i6 a
l
b N
FJ l
~
t
- SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 1981 Annual Radiological Environmental Report I V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING L
- 5. Dose Pathways to Man - Shippingport Atomic Power Station The radiation doses to man as a result of operations at thu Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1981 were
- calculated for the liquid and gaseous effluest pathways.
l There were no radioactive liquid discharges from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station during 1981.
I Effluent monitoring at the Shippingport Station during L 1981 has shown that the radioactivity releases were substantially below the Federal radioactivity r- concentration guides. The environmental monitoring L 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 der.cribed below using measured or estimated effluent radioactivity data.
{
- a. Calculational Models Station
- Shippingport Atomic Power The radiation doses to man from Shippingport Atomic Power Station operations were estimated using calculational models racommended by the International Commission on 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.
The air dose pathways considered were inhalation, immersion 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 1981. The maximum potentially exposed individual for the air pathways was located p at the site boundary. It was conservatively L assumed that the maximum individual resides continually at the site boundary.
E E
r L
-121-
SECTION V - I DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
~
1981 Annual Radiological invironmental Report
- V. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
- 5. Dose Pathways to Man - Shir;igngport Atomic Power Station (continued) l Modeling parameters and usage factors used in the pathway calculatiot-e were consistent with values
[
L recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109). The population distribution within 50 miles of the site was based on census data as provided in the LWBR Program L Environmental Impact Statement (ERDA 1541).
Furthe rn.o re , the air pathway calculation employed site-specific meteorological and wind direction
[ data.
L
- 6. Results and Conclusions - Shippingport Atomic Power F Station L
Evaluation of the radiction dose-to-man calculations for
~ the airborne effluents show that the maximum annual L radiation exposure Potentially received by an individual residing at the site boundary is less than 0.1 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 p less than 1 person-rem. This dose is negligible L 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 1981 by any member of the
{ general background radiation and has, therefore, no significant public is a very small fraction of the effect on the general public.
E E
u L -122-r-
E __ -- _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - -
L DISTRIBUTION LIST r
L United Stees Nuclear Regulatory Commission (18 copies)
- Atta: :fr. D. A. Chaney, Project Manager Operating Rc1ctors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
) c/o Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Mr. R. C. Haynes, (2 copies) r Regional Administrator L United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue p King of Prussia PA 19406 L
Mr. P. S. Duncan, Secretary Department of Environmental Resources
[ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania L
South Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17105 I
e Mr. C.K. Gaddis, Manager United States Department of Energy Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office
[ Post Office Box 109 Pittsburgh, PA 15122-0109
[ Admiral K. R. McKee L
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Naval Reactors United States Department of Energy
[
Washington, DC 20585 L
Mr. D. E. Patterson, Acting Director Div(sion of Operational and Environmental Safety
( United States Department of Energy Washington, DC 20013 L United States Department of Energy Headquarters Iibrary Washington, DC 20013 f
L United States Department of Energy Technical Information Center r Post Office Box 62
[ Oak Ridge, TN 37830 J.M. Arthur Chairman of the Board Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 L
E -_--- _---- -_-- -
L DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued)
S. G. Schaffer President 7~
Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 I
_ J. J. Carey Vice President - Nuclear Duquesne Light Company l^ P.O. Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077
~
E. J. Woolever Vice President, Nuclear 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 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 J. D. Sieber
_ Manager, Nuclear Safety & Licensing Department Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 S. L. Pernick E- Manager of Environmental Affairs L, Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue w
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
~
C. E. Ewing
__ Manager, Quality Assurance Duquesne Light Company Beaver Valley Power Station P.O. Box 186 Shippingport, PA 15077 W. F. Wirth Director Radiological Safety Programs
~
Duquesne Light Company Deaver Valley Power Station
~~
P.O. Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077 w
A w
N w
h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ __- - _ -