ML20073D576

1990 Annual Radiological Environ Surveillance Rept

ML20073D576
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	12/31/1990
From:	Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9104290128
Download: ML20073D576 (43)

Text

. - -

4 oc f a ote, cumnany n

te0 lNOf h0$$ C9'llef IMf kWDy

' Po3t (1f14 e B312ith e

P,trm'flythm A!abamit 3*;201 Italep' Wit: POS 577-72711 j

Geo@ hver

.)

s. t e.can.m, Jr.

lll,3Gll~~"'*"'

r% a emo etac ww 1

HL-1595 001499 April 24, 1991 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l

ATTN:. Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT Gentlemen:

In accordance with Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications, sections 6.9.1.6 and 6.9.1.7, Georgia Power Company is submitting the enclosed Annual Radiological Environmental Surveillance Report for 1990..

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

Sincerely,

' [h 5,

J. T. Beckham, Jr.

OCV/cr-Enclosure cc:

(Seenextpage.)

'j.

093335

-i '104290128 901231 h

l DR ADOCK 05000321 R

R PDR J

,~

l GeorgiaPower A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission April 24, 1991 Page Two I

cc: Georaia Power Comoany Mr. H. L. Sumner, General Manager -' Nuclear Plant Mr. J. D. Heidt, Manager Engineerin'g and Licensing - Hatch NORMS U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Comission-Washinaton. D.C.

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

U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Comission. Reaion II l-Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional-Administrator Mr. L. D. Wert, Senior Res_identI_nspector - Hatch State of Georaia l

Mr. J. D. Tanner, Comissioner - Department of Natural Resources

.k

..t...

l 4

L J

l i

u

+

^ j

^

!I

.'yn-(,

i e

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT ANNUAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT CALENDAR YEAR 1990 1

e s

2.__

A EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

{

SECTION TITLE fMd 1.0 IN1RODUCTION......................

1-1 2.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION...................

2-1 i

3.0 RESULTS-

SUMMARY

,...................,. 3-1 4.0 DISCUSSION 0F'RESULTS

.....:..~..........-4-1 4.1 Airborne

...............,......-. 4-3 i

4.2 Direct Radiation

.......-............. 4 5 4.3 Milk-........................4-7 4.4 Grass.-...-..................~...

.!4-9--

4.5 River Water.....................J. 4 10 4.7 Sediment 4-12

~

4.6 Fish 4 :

5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM...........

5 !

6.0 CONCLUSION

S......................=. 6-1 i

1 i

l}

I t

, I i

V t

t v

h i

s 4

l Lif

' i I

r 4

s

'~

h y

v-w-'. - -

se - y+

1g9gg (

,'y-

l LIST OF TABLES 161!LE IllLE PAQ1 2-1

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 2-2 2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 2-5 3-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

3-2 4-1 tr0lT10N OF THE NEAREST PE?,N\\NENT RESIDENCE IN EACH SECTOR 4-2 51 CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS-5-3 11 i

= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

... ~.

4_-

.4

' LIST OF. FIGURES ~

4 j

.u flGEE TITLE pgE H

2-1 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL-SAMPLING l

LOCATIONS ON SITE PERIPHERY 2-7.

1 2-2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY-8 2-3 LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL STATION'FOR MILK 22-11--

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

.l

^

.i q

l }-

i 1

si 3

.j l

l.i

,(

4 i

l i

r t

e i

k 4

5

,f, r

1 i

9 i

t. e 3

c

4

'111:-

a w

s e

i

.: ).

1 e1 1

-l g'

r

[#

Oi t

c. )._ '

1 1.-

L

'E.

~,

-M -

d I' '

3. f i '

(

?.f.

ACRONYMS CL Confidence Level EL Environmental Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency GPC Georgia Power Company HNP Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant LLD Lower Limit of Detection MDA Minimum Detectable Activity MDD Minimum Detectable Difference NA Not Applicable NDM No Detectable Measurement (s)

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

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The objectives of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) are to ascertain the levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactivity in the environs of the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) ond to evaluate any radiological impact upon the environment due to plant operations.

Reported herein are the program's activities for calendar year 1990.

The specifications for the REMP are provided in Section 3/4.16 of the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS) and in Section 3/4.12 of the Unit 2 TS.

The Unit 2 TS simply reference the Unit 1 TS; A single program serves both units.

A summary description of the program is provided in Section 2.

Maps showing the sampling locations are keyed to a table indicating the distance and direction of each sampling location from the main stack.

An annual summary of the main laboratory analysis results obtained from

-the samples utilized for environmental monitoring is presented in Section 3.

A discussion of the results, including assessments of any radiological' impacts upon the environment,-is provided in Section 4.

The results of. the Interlaboratory Comparison Program are-presented in Section 5.

Conclusions are stated in Section 6.

l l

l-1 1

i i

I 2.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION A summary description of the REMP is provided in Table 2-1.

This-table portrays the program in the manner by which it is being regularly 1

carried out. Table 2-1 is essentially a copy of Table 3.16.1-1 of the TS which delineates the program's requirements.

Sampling locations required by Table 2-1 are described in Table 2-2 and are shown on maps in Figures 2-1 through 2-4.

This description of the sample locations closely follows that found in the table and figures in Section 3.0 of-the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual-(0DCM).

It is stated in Section 3.16.1.a of the TS that deviations are permitted from the required sampling schedule, which is delineated in Table 2-1 herein, if samples are unobtainable due to hazardous conditions, unavailability, inclement weather, malfunction of equipment, or other just reasons. Any deviations are accounted for in the discussions for each particular sample type in Section 4.

During 1990, all the laboratory analyses,-except for the reading of the thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), were performod by Georgia Power t

Company's (GPC's) Environmental Laboratory (EL)-in Smyrna, Georgia.

The reading of the TLDs was provided by Teledyne Isotopes Midwest Laboratory in Northbrook, Illinois.

2-1

1+..

5-s

.(

TABLE 2-1 (SHEET 1 0F 3)

SUMMARY

.' DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Exposure Pathway;

' Approximate Number Sampling and j

and/or Sample:

'of' Sample' Locations Collection Freauency Tvoe of Analysis and Frecuency i

_1.

' Airborne-.

Radioiodine canister:

I-131 4Radioiodine

'6

' Continuous operation of and".

sampler with sample

- analysis weekly.

?Particulates collection weekly -

i Particulate sampler: analyze for gross beta radioactivity not less than

. 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following filter change '

=

weekly; perform gamma isotopic

. i F

~ '

analysis'on affected sample.when gross

~

r beta activity.-is.10 times the yearlyL.

Y mean of control samples;.and composite J

'W (by location) for_ gamma: isotopic

~

3::alysisl quarterly.

l

p

.=

~

'12.JDirect' Radiation:

337.-

' Quarterly Gamma dose l quarterly.

+

+

7g..

i 3... Ingestion; Milk (a)1 4..

_ Biweekly

. Gamma ~ isotopic and I-131 analyses j

biweekly:

J Fishlor'

?2L Semiannually.

LGamma isotopic analysis on' edible.

~

. C1 aus.l(b).:

portions semiannually.

,. ~

L (Grassor: Leafy' v_

Vegetation'

~~

3

Monthly during growing' Gamma isotopic analysis monthly (c).

iseason..

a.;sia.i-r, 4

.,f y

w

< x,

.+.+.,,. a,.an

< m

-w-a.-,

u-.

+.-~

-a...

-+ -

A

~

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

. SUP9tARY. DESCRIPTION OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM i-Exposure Pathway

' Approximate Number Sampling and

- and/or Sample of Sample locations Collection Frecuency Type of Analysis and FrecuencY 4.

Waterborne

. Surface 2-1 Composite sample Gamma isotopic analysis monthly.

1 collected monthly (d).-

Composite (by location) for

{

tritium.' analysis quarterly.

. Sediment'

_2 Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis semiannually.

Drinking.

One sample of river

River water collected 1-131 analysis on each sample when

. Water (e)'(f)

- water.near.the-

'near.the intake.will be..

biweekly collections are required.

intake and one-.

-a' composite sample;.the.

Gross, beta land gamma isotopic.

'P

. sample of finished

' finished water will.be-analyses on each sample; composite b

water from each'of

'a grab sample.,. ' These (by location) for tritium analysis one'to'three'of.the

. samples will be

' quarterly.

nearest water

-collected monthly.

, supplies which

_unless the calculated-could be affected

' dose due.to consumption by HNP discharges.

of the ' water is greater 1

than 1 mres/ year; then.'

t the. collection will be-Lbiweekly. ::The

collections may" revert l

to: monthly should the--

calculated' doses become iless than11imres/ year.

4

+

~

x w.

e-

- ~ - - - - < - - -,

-~

~

+

c v

>~~

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

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF l

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM NOTES a.

Up to three sampling locations within 5 miles and in different sectors-will be used as available.

In addition, one or more control locations beyond 10 miles will be used, b.

Commercially or recreationally important fish may be sampled.

Clams may 3

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

c.

If gamma isotopic analysis is not sensitive enough to meet the Lower Limit of Detectien (LLD), a separate analysis for 1-131 may be performed, d.

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

c.

If it is found that river water downstream of 51NP is used for drinking, water samples will be collected and analyzed as specified herein, f.

A survey shall be conducted annually at least'50 river miles downstream of HNP to identify those who ust Altamaha River water for_ drinking. '

2-4 b

TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 1 0F 2) i RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS Station Station Descriptive

' Direction (b)

Distance (b) Sample

)

Number Tvoe (a) location (miles)

Tvoe (c) 064 0

Roadside Park WNW 0.8 D-101 I

Inner Ring N:

1,9-0 102 I

Inner Ring NNE 2.5

.0 103 I

Inner-Ring NE 1.8-

-AD 104 I

Inner Ring ENE-1.6-0 105 I

Inner Ring E

3.7 D

106 I

Inner Ring ESE 1.1 DV-107 I

Inner Ring SE 1.2 AD' l

108 I

Inner Ring SSE l '. 6 D

109 I

Inner Ring

.S 0.9-0 110 I

Inner Ring:

SSW-

'l ~ 0 0

111 I

Inner Ring' SW 0.9-D-

112 I

Inner Ring.

WSW_.

1.0

-ADV-113 I

Inner Ring W'

1.1 D

114 I

Inner Ring WNW'.

-1.2 0

115 I

Inner Ring NW l.1 D

116 I

Inner Ring

.NNW 1.6-AD 170 C

Upriver WNW

-(d)

R 172 I

Downriver E

-(d)

.R 201-0 Outer Ring N

.5.0 D

202 0

Outer Ring

-NNE 4.9-D 203 0

Outer' Ring NE 5.0 D

204 0

Outer Ring ENE 5.0-G-

205 0

Outer Ring

.E 7.2

.D.

206 0

Outer Ring ESEL 4.8

'D.

207 0

Outer Ring SE

'4.3 0

208 0

Outer Ring.

SSE-

'4.8 D.

209 0

.0 uter _ Ring

-- S 4.4-

'D-210 0

Outer Ring SSW-4.3 -

-D 211 0

Outer Ring SW -' '

4.7-D-

212 0

0 uter Ring-WSW=

4' 4 '

D

.213 0

_ Outer Ring

'W 4.3-D:

214 0

Outer Ring

WNW 5.4 D

=215 0

-Outer' Ring NW _

.4;4 D:

216 0-Outer Ring-.

NNW

'4.8:

D

-301

0 Toombs Central

'N 8.0.

L0.

1

'304 C

State Prison '

ENE

'11.2 AD 304 C

State Prison ENEL 10.8 M..

309 C

Baxley. Substation -

iS 10.0-AD-316

_C

. Thompson's Dairy'

.NNW 13.2 H

416 C.

Emergency News'Ctr

_NNW 21.0 DV: 5-o

?"

~

r a

TABLE 2-2 (SHEET 2 0F 2)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS NOTES a.

Station types:

C - Control 1 - Indicator 0 - Other b.

Direction and distance are reckoned from the main stack, c.

Sample types:

A - Airborne Radioactivity 0 - Direct Radiation M - Milk R - River (fish or clams, shoreline sediment, and surface water)

V - Vegetation d.

Station 170 is located approximately 0.6 river miles upstraam of the intake structure for river water, 1.1 river miles for sediment and clams, and 1.5 river miles for fish.

Station 172 is located approximately 3.0 river miles downstream of the discharge structure for river water, sediment and clams, and 1.7 river miles for fish.

The location from which river water and sediment may be taken'can be sharply defined.

Often, the sampling locations for clams have to be extended over a wide area to obtain a sufficient quantity.

High water adds to the difficulty in obtaining clam samples and may also.make an otherwise suitable location for sediment sampling unavailable. A stretch' of the river of a few miles or so is generally'needed to obtain adequate fish -semples. The mile locations given above-represent approximations of the locations where the samples are collected.

2-6

\\.

~

r 1*

' ' A*

~.. '

(,'g r

~

x/N cdsuo, &

• i

/

N-

coot, l..

4*,%.

.4

..A s

U. e. ag,- 3)% i

(..

s

.s 1

s,J's,

.s

%g E

j s

s '

s t

1

...Y

,)

)

l

~

f g{.

li

\\

e

,. g h*.*

1, E,1

[s

~

e i

'(

g

• G

.?

g-

-.-- - 7.:;,.

Q fd f'D L N s..sM i

l t

I_ L K W k.: *." d

,". < f...

a l'

NK A,(

y.. g-1.

".r.

. /.l...,

.1

.p i

/

D

.'... -. l.h.

I

. '. 3.... !

3 k,.

s g ','...

. ' N_

n.

.k.

%m,u.

f..

.a..~; },

,,. u.L9.i.

1~

a y.

a i

_ N

,?

,bi;,. '~'.i

, /

s V... /.m., ~

,_ V,,,i '

t

_. _.. _.. m

.g

>g, gg

\\gg

-e

~% A.. m A.z.

e v

7; u a..a...,\\

l

\\s

..s.....

.Y

\\

' ;i-

~.-

RG10 LOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 5AMPLING EDWIN 1 ' HATCH NUCLEAR 9' ANT l.DCATIONS DN SITE PERIPHERY-FIGURE 2-l' 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _

l

i A

.4

, g... '

'.., * *. '..l,,* *

/

• t,'.*

h..-

"~

• =*

J-f,,,,,,-*

,e e

\\,

r

.a g

r

..','>.',.s 4 'v.

e

?,

\\

4 s

u.

,,'t 4

w.. '**

)

.c *

• • =.

o

\\

.'I

\\.* -., 1-

,g s

• g,

,9. i j

t.,.\\

e

o.. er'.

, j j

=6 y...

~

/

.. a as-.

1 a

a

,( 4' M e

• s

. ;..,*g :........,,'..t,*

sE'.j

,,s*

. 6,

...<a. :. i... '.'

y'r #

.a

.- 7.

~

.',. t U.

l

.., *' tg

, g, r'. '.

• /,

• • • ./..

t

'n

.=t.' %.

s..

-..'*,r=*

N.' '. i g

y

" !TT:y=,.

A s**

• g' 3 '-

.e';;',.[.

3

,[ l G,,

a.

==

+'

]

.I. '..

F.e

.=

• N,,,'"

9 *# '

E =,..,,e,,

g

... \\. 7

,,,,.,,..f

.=,

-t

,Q

'g *

's

/s

..A F

/

b

.=.t.

+.

% -i

'N s

K.

Mp

..i

1..

': s

':e r -

i.

q

' a p',,

j

%[

... j f

9 '.

1Q l '.,. ]....:^.

.. ; [. V } g.'f,,,%j 7 A, },,,

g.

,u _.l.

sk,

.,M

, _. '. J (

i g

g 1...

• n.=

y'.

%.c'%

A s.

.?...

's m

I. '. s*.

4 +j

.$s....

1*

• f-

+*

7,.ic.

f t i'l F

U

~~..}!. f/.. i.M ' y,*

...b _,ry.:V

d. i

' "' t

' e.

2. s, 3

-J

~

..R g

y t

..g, g

\\

. k.

l h, %

, =.

.g a W g:..

..,.:g}:fi J kg,v %@i&Q.

+

.s

,g

. py +

V

.f,,,

a.

i-

.4 t

{.

ma' i

~*'****. ) -

.' h* *.

[,.8. " ' ' 1,

~

...:. -'y

'x

,a

/.

.,I k.

i.j,.

.j,e*

/

,...s o _ y;.4, g,*, _ e( ', !,

y.[

a..

' fie

=..

.ir

.s,.,;'

y

.y

..

• A,.

3

. ~- ).:

,,i g,

a 1

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN-1. HATCH' NUCLEAR' PLANT LOCATIONS?BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY FIGURE 2-2 (SHEET 1 of 3) 2-8

.e

i g

i g

,...g.-

i

(

m n ~.~.%

.t

' hi,.=.

an I.':'. s. **~..

.I.

,s. 4 :..

s

.. 4,.....

i,;..,, '

w,- w.

.s-o e

-8

.s.

i 3.. -

.g:i

)

.. r s

mn-

. u.

g ;.

.i m.s.

.s.

f

< e..>

./

.c

~

j.

f...,

'3 3

--=

.n m

8

.fp

-l

.N =

g' -

i

.,-Q 9,9%

/

=

g 3

...s-

.g.

d

.i

~ s.. :..,y.r J.. r :..x

,.4.,. c.

s 3 ;.

~T:

g-t

..c.

x,s..

y,.

... s.,

e..,. -. 4..

...-s-o-.i

w. 4

.j

., g..

ws up.

3.,

-.s.,:.

,s,..- f...

4

~

i.

',s!c

,.s 1

BLi 4 p

... ~

c,.

1(m..c

+s,.

,e

., s.

x..

r o.=..

\\

. w*.

.s t

l.

4.. j.i.,

6 3 M.~!. J. -

. =... !.. -....,. *

. g ) l, w

.t.

--}

. o s.

s.

s

- 8.;

19.5 f.,10'e T ?.dt 3

.J.,

~..s i

sa..

y

J. :....

..s u.

p.

t Q,

.....w,.-

I.

...s x--

~

f.,c,s.,(T.

j g. - s ),/ /

y-:=>. g..'

w

. ~..

>.~..

,. c.-

'..g.

.../c s

n

~

~...a.

w

~.

,.,un

r..,,.

. x,.,..

~

.-e

..y.,..,

.. g.

8.

\\

Q :?.

',C

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

.. a.u-. rc

. s...

.s

.... u.~,. -. 110'. ;. -

.....-c...

s

,.. :,s

.g

. i.

. n,, ~

._ ) :., i. x.

. ' b,]... -

<.,.i 9-b *, sf 1

,n%;,.T..

F~~. N...

s.

a......

.;...~,

..=

M,.. o e.

e g 9;,. '

,q. y, l....

f...;%

.s

....s

., a.e i

e. = :: W.

..y

...e.....

..v. /

o. T_.

- -~...;;

..=ty v:. :-

' m:.

,x. 4>,

~

. '..... ~

-~

....,..s...

..... ~;.

... w g!.

.s.

.&.., ex,. - t.

.t, m,

.u.

. s=...

+

- 1

~

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING-EDWlH 1. HATCH NUCLEAR' PLANT LOCATIONS.BEYOND SITE-PERIPHERYc i

JIGURE;2-2L(SHEET 2:of 3)3

[* h

• s

)

L

=2 -

_ Li_i_

_.~~a s --

i n

w:nt Mt 43 i

...r 7

3.6. -

3 '.>- 42. 3D.2:

wx1 1.\\.

(

j/ q

.fl s.*

m-t s

s.

. -Y.

'~

• s ~

s' t

. u.. :.1 s

pr.:.:. ;t - g

g. j X

p.

*. [

/ f.

1F

i..

~

- \\

mNj

,g c.

1-.i3 g

.r.. -

s :

cf mr

• .g \\

f.-

.w

-m. **,...

. e.v*. S -

r

..}

,,),

\\

F g,....

,f' 1 t=;o Y.,

p

, ;. X.,...,,,, y,.

,2 y-y

\\

i

(

., i,,j, e-- -. *'j -

/'C'(g

s..

N;g ' i.,..P ' t g

~. 2.... "",

..... ' *t..y

,?

1 1

v.

-. * ~.

I \\

u y. 'y.t,,

,a W. "..?

s

• """~~

t

,,.;.. e..A;.

~g.e.i

. e.. e

\\

3

. ~.

~.:t- -.

i*c

.... 3

---7 t

a

... s.

2 s

.w

. =.,

. >.:.. s.

a

. ~....

w4.__

\\

4-u.a.,

~:

uur -

/&,

?",.....'.i.:.

. k ~'.'.'.,,.,' '

. O ? '.. ',... : '

%.c.

1.

-v....m --- 2 s...

i

s....g

..- y,.g:,

,i.

.c,,.-.. -

.r.

1

\\

f

.. i

..,. 2 e,

.g z

<~

.. + +.

.........., % f".:.:.1,. v&..r.; :.. y..,

M n.,

.-..--.-._.e..y..,....

s

, ~.

,,s....

l.a.

..l...

s sw'

• s

.. '..... ~..

.I c..

. zzo

1. :

... '. x.

j... y

~.

s.,.

.: r...

.~n.......

4.

.-. ' a -

. K

9....

=!<.

-~;

2 f

a r '.... -.. ' ' ~.

s.. '

..ssw.. " * :..

i.,o.. -

h. ' 3.Q

.s e

~.

r.,..

3

..... m...

. n, 4

vs s>

~

_Hi oh.. ~..._.,, i :, e ~

4

.s RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING EDWIN 1. HATCH 'ntJCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS BEYOND SITE PERIPHERY-l

WJRE.2-2 (SHEET 3 of 3) l 2-10

., \\

"D" I

l'

\\_

1-i

\\"

'I \\

'w ',., ', g

.C* r,.

s

's s

p-

J/ t.

u.s e

I J

tl,

4

• s.s 3 t. _ ~

w. -

. g.,)

h r

r w

i si f' h

• sh, f

( 3; i'

7 N.

.e

'e

\\,

v. 3

.s Q

J

~

1%,,.y L.

Qy J

.9 V

{;

• • • • \\.

. s *'

I 7

y

'T N

py *

,/

s lh

[

i 8

'.,.e*.

~ J s,.

/

(

1,lt ;A P

t g

j t

Ric

.A._I j

) d A th

}.

C(g,g.

h ir

.. V -

1

) --

'i s

69 e

y=~. W =J. % _ y,_ f

?;%.y.3.

MW

C(!/ _,, /

d reMA:2."a'a.4.

% Q.'#

H.S.P' L ?"

c$$. /e!

7 i,4 f;f, / = /.

1 D@ 29l;,

au

,$ 'F J-f" 'r MT

.M

'b ' f*N...

. sp p.

A._-k p e) '\\y,i "'

.i'"r% Q.fcif e%./, '-,

s f,. V '\\

g*.3)

.. s g

e, :.

.em.,= w v

~r%c

.t,:,.emh;-

..ar.v.nccom<

t d.

), [y=4

,

p, M /f

). g..,. S, i.

-r-

.m ii c.

f.

b "i~' 'i.'. '

X i[ @R ~'t. i.,,, S q Y,k %, % t 8

4..

-1

"{T

,= =}t?. y.

=

d.c.d"% w C.

4....' : - j : ~.f. 1. p, ~4 3

p.%.

3 n.a.

-w.

~

+ - n **

t e

c

+

t.. cl.%..:.r W'*>. ' '%

,:-, 4 _ u

.L,

, %: t s '- A.

't s.

1>

g :;;t"

• ih.f,;

',,[w;,4n.,J I' ;s't LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL STATION FOR MILK-1 FIGURE 2-3 j

2-11

L u,--

ar t

C C

s

\\

et i

4 5

44

(

t s

1_ sa et _

sca.a a su as e.t.utord a wnee.

I asup== Aas

,Ahhp

• 4/t, tirer U

h m.. 5

~..

r**l tailey

....,. w e

i j

. (.

4 I-f l

LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL l

EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT STATION:FOR TLDs~ AND' VEGETATION -

FIGURE 2-4

2 '12 -

1

.s

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

- e 3,0 RESVLTS

SUMMARY

-In_accordance with Section-6.9.1.7 of the TS, summarized'and. tabulated results for all of the regular samples collected for _the-year at-the' designatedfindicator and control stations _are presented in Table' 3-1 in-the. format of Table 6.9.1.7-1_ of the_ TS. - -Only manmade radionuclides are -

reported.: - Results:for samples collected 'at locations other.than_

indicatorf or control. stations or in-' addition to those stipulated-by :

Table 2-1: are -included in Section _4,- the discussion of results section,,

for the type sample.-

1 b

Ik h

l' a

h i

.j t

,i3-1 s,

ii1

..' ~,

,,, i.

_m2m____

_m__

.____._d

.m

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 1 0F 5)

^

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1990 Medium or Type and Lower Limit All Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Number of.

Pathway ~ Sampled Total Number of Locations Annual Mean Mean (b)

Reportable (Unit of of Analyses Detection (a)

Mean (b)

Name Mean (b)

Range Occurrences Measurement)

Performed (LLD)

Range Distance &

Range (Fraction)

(Fraction)

Direction (Fraction) l I

Airborne Gross Beta 10-19.3 No. 103 19.6 18.7 0

Particulates 316 7-37 Inner Ring

'8-35 7-36 (fCi/m3)

(212/212) 1.8 miles (53/53)

(104/104)

NE Gamma Isotopic

'24.

Cs-134 50 NDH (c)

NDM NDM 0

f;y Cs-137 60 NDH NDM NDH 0

m.

l Airborne I-131 70 NDM NDM NDM 0

~Radioiodine 317_

(fCi/m3)

)

Direct Gamma Dose NA (d)'

-14.9 No. 104 19.2 13.9 0

. Radiation.

75.

11-23 Inner Ring 15-23 12-16

'(mR/91 days);

(64/64).

1.6 miles (4/4)

(11/11)

ENE Milk Gamma Isotopic (pCf/1) 40 Cs-134 20_

NA NDM NDM-0 Cs-137 20 NA NDM NDM 0

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 2 0F 5)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

~

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1990 Medium or

. Type and Lower Limit All Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Number of

. Pathway Sampled Total Number of

' Locations Annual Mean Mean (b)

Reportable l

(Unit of, of Analyses Detection (a)

Mean (b)

Name Mean (b)

Range Occurrences Measurement)

Performed (LLD)

Range Distance &

Range (Fraction)

(Fraction)

Direction (Fraction)

Ba-140 60 NA NDM NDM 0

La-140 20 NA NDM NDM 0

1-131 1

NA NDM NDM 0

40 4'

w Grass Gamma Isotopic (pCi/kg wet) 39 I-131 60 NDM NDM NDM 0

l Cs-134 60 NDM NDM NDM 0

Cs-137-

~80 66.7 No. 112 66.7 34.5 0

1 58-82 Inner Ring 58-82 35-35 l

(3/26) 1.0 miles (3/26)

(1/13)

WSW Riv:r Water Gamma Isotopic.

(pCi/1) 24.

Mn-54 20 NDM NDM NDM 0

Fe-59 30 NDM NDM NDM 0

Co-58 20 NDM NDM NDM 0

Co-60 20

'NDM-

-NDM-NDM 0

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 3 0F 5) 6

~

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONdENTAL MONITORING. PROGRAM ANNUAL

SUMMARY

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Docket.Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1990 Medium or..

Type and.

Lower Limit

.All' Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Number of-Pathway Sampled.. Total-Number :

of Locations Annual Mean Mean (b)

Reportable

~(Unit of.

.of Analyses LDetection (a)

Mean (b)

Name Mean (b)

Range Occurrences

-Performed (LLD)

Range Distance &

Range (Fraction)

Measurement) ~

-(Fraction)

Direction (Fraction)

Zn-65 30 NDM NDM NDM 0

Zr-95 30 NDM NDM NDM 0'

Nb 95 20 NDM NDM NDM 0

'I-131 20 (e)

NDM' NDM NDM 0

Cs-134 20 NDM NDM NDM 0

y

.A Cs-137 20 NDM

'NDM NDM 0

~Ba-140 60 NDM NDH NDM 0

'La-140 20

.NDM NDK NDM 0

Tritium-3000 (f) 138.5 No. 172' 138.5 NDM 0

l>

132-145 Downriver.

132-145 p

8-

(2/4):

3.0 miles (2/4) o

'Fishi

. Gamma Isotopic

(pCi/kg wet)-

8-t D

Mn-54 100 NDM NDM-NDM 0

l

'Fe-59

.300 NDM NDM NDM 0

C0-58 100

NDM NDM

' NDM 0

C0-60 100 NDM NDM-NDM 0

I.-

a.

-TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 4 0F 5)

I

-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL SU MARY Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, DocLet Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Appling County, Georgia, Calendar Year 1990 Medium or.

-Type and Lower Limii.

All Indicator Location with Highest Control Locations Number.of L

Pithway Sampled. Total: Number-of Locations Annual Mean Mean (b)

Reportable.

L

.J(Unit of of-Analyses' Detection (a)

Mean (b)

Name Mean (b)

Range Occurrences it

-Measurement)

Performed (LLD)

Range Distance &-

Range (Fraction)

(Fraction)

Direction (Fraction) l Zn 300 NOM NOM NDM 0

Cs-134

'100 NOM NOM NOM 0

Cs-137 200 26.7-No. 172 26.7 24.2 0

I 20-31 Downriver 20-31 9-39 1

(3/3) 1.7 miles

.(3/3)

(5/5)

^ Sediment-1 Gama Isotopic

(pCi/kg. dry) 4-

w- -

Co-60' 40.(g)

~33.0.

No. 172 33.0 19.0 0

js 33 Downriver-33-33 19-19 i

11/2) 1.7 miles (1/2)

(1/2)

Cs-134 200 31.0' No. 172 31.0 NOM 0

31-31.

Downriver 31-31 i.

(1/2)

.1.7 miles (1/2)

Cs-137 200

130.5 No. 172 130.5 66.0

' O 61-200_

Downriver 61-200 55-77 (2/2)-

1.7 miles (2/2)-

(2/2) p c.

i:

h

.-e M

• -"-e

-Ah--

^-

• 'M-*-

"4

• N**a

- ' - -= ' ' = - - -

Am am

.-me e

Lr

s

~

TABLE 3-1 (SHEET 5 0F 5)

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL SlM4ARY

~

' Edwin I. Hatch' Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 t

Appling County, Georgia,' Calendar Year 1990

..y.

a.-

The LLD isidefined 'in table notation a of Table 4.16.1-1, of the TS. Except as noted otherwise, the values listed in the r

h column are..thoseLfoun;J in that table'.- 'In practice, the LLDs attained are generally much lower than the values listed.

i b.17Mean.and rangelare based upon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable' measurements at specified locations

~

isiir11cated in. parentheses.

'c.

Nci Detectable Measurement (s).--

d.

Not Applicable:

'7 ei Since no drinking water pathway exists, the:LLD from'the gama isotopic. analysis may be used (see. notation c of Table 6~

L.4.16;1-1Lof the1TS). - The value listed is' the objective.LLD.

fi..LIf ?a[ drinking water pathway. existed, ~a LLD of 2000 pCi/l would have been used (see notation d;of Table 4.16.1-1 of the

! TS),c g.y jThe-EL hasi eterminedithat1this value may be routinely attained. ~No value'was provided in Table.4.16.1-1 of the TS.

d ar w

L i

1 L

a A-..;... r_.ii ~ 1 2 2_ 2 c__ m ' a i _.~

2- ~L_~-

--.L w

--~~m--- --

- ~ - = - - - - - - -

i 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS An interpretation and evaluation, as appropriate, of the laboratory results for each type sample are included in this section.

Relevant camparisons are made between the difference in average values for

,udicator and control stations and the calculated Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) between these two groups at the 99 percent Confidence Level (CL).

The MDD is determined using the standard Student's t-test.

A difference in the average values which is less than the MDD is considered to be statistically indiscernible.

Pertinent results were also compared with past results including preoperations. The results-were examined to perceive any trends.

To provide perspective, a result might also be compared with its LLD or. Reporting Level (RL) which is provided by Table 3.16.1-2 of the TS. Attempts were made to explain any RLs or other high radiological levels found in the sauples.

One sample was not counted for a sufficient time. to attain the' LLD required by Table 4.1.6.1-1 of the TS. This failure occurred for the 1-131 analysis of the grass sample collected at Station 416 on December 3.

The vale attained and the maximum value permitted (the value-of the LLD from the above mentioned table) were 65 and 60 pCi/kg wet, respectively.

The annual land use survey as required by Section 3.16.2 of the TS was conducted on October 22.

The location of the nearest permanent residence in each of the 16 meteoroingical sectors within a distance of 5 miles as required by the survey is listed in Table 4-1.

The results of the milk animal component of the survey are presented in Subsection 4.3.

The results of the annual river survey required by Note f in Table 2-1 are presented in Subsection 4.5.

To flag any result which differed from the others in its set by a relatively large amount, the practice of testing all results for conformance to Chauvenet's Criterion 1 was introduced this year.

Identified outliers were investigated to determine reasons for deviating from the norm.

If an equipment malfunction or other valid physical reason was found, the anomalous result was deemed non-representative and excluded from the data set.

No datum was excluded for failing Chauvenet's Criterion only.

1.

G. D. Chase and J. L. Rabinowetz, Princiole of Radioisotone Methodoloav (Burgess Publishing Company, 1962) 87-90.

l 1

1 1

4 cp

-e TABLE-4-1

^

-LOCATION OF THE NEAREST

- PERMANENT-RESIDENCE IN EACH-SECTOR'-

SECTOR

. DISTANCE (mil e s_) -

2 N

2.0 NNE 2.9 NE-3.2 ENE 4.2 E

ESE 3.7 i

SE-

-- l '. 8 '

SSE 2.0 S-

1. 0 --

SSW l. 3 -.

SW l.1 WSW 1.1

'W 1.1-WNW-1.1-

-NW 3.6 NNW l.8.-

-

• None within 5 miles.

u

']

_,.k * [.

g

)

-e

, (i i

i

., 2i y..

(. !.-

1

-1

'.).'-

c

,x t

'V, 3-\\

, 3l 's

' '{ { '. a _; t I l

\\

t i

7

'7

~

g,

4 '

y k r..

~

} g.

q_-,

. 7, t.

s

__m1__nu _2___ u ! __.

a s

of

o 4.1 Airborne As indicated by Table 2-2, airborne particulates and airborne radiciodine are collected at 4 indicator stations (Nos. 103,_107, 112, and 116) which encircle the site boundary and at 2 control stations (Nos. 304 and 309) which are at least 10 miles from the plant. At these locations air is-continuously drawn through a Gelman Type A/E glass fiber filter and a SAI CP-200 charcoal canister in sequence to retain airborne particulates and airborne radioiodine, respectively. The filters and canisters are collected weekly.

As a consequence'of equipment malfunctions,_ the gross beta results for two airborne particulate samples and the I-131 result for one airborne radioiodine sample were rejected.

Each of the gross beta results had failed Chauvenet's criterion.

Last year there were three failures in obtaining adequate airborne particulate samples and two failures in obtaining adequate airborne radiciodine samples.-

The volume of air passing througr. the particulate filter and the cht" coal canister collected on January 22 at Station 304, was only about 60 percent of that to be expected. This. occurred because of a power failure due-to a blown fuse.- foth of these samples were therefore deemed to be inadequate; the anlysis resGt for each was rejected.

The gross beta result for the sample collected on November 26 at Station 309, was also rejected because the particulate filter had a hole in it and the result was very low. Much of.he particulate may not have been retained on the filter.

There was no reason.to reject the'l-131 result for the charcoal canister.

-As deposits build up on a particulate filter, the increased 3ressure drop across the filter may cause it.to rupture.

To lessen tie probability of holes developing in the filters, the air flow rate has been reduced at each of the air stations.

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

As seen in Table 3-1, the antual average weekly activity of 19.3 fCi/m3 for the-indicator stations is 0.6 fCi/m3 greater than that for the control stations. However, this difference is not discernible, since it is less than the-MDD, calculatedias 1.9 fC1/m3 During the 8 years prior to 1990, the absolute value of the difference between theiaverage weekly activities for the.3. The average activity. for the control indicator.and control stations was.never greater than about 2 fC1/m stations was greater than that'for the indicator stations on three occasions.. Although the differences: fluctuated randomly, the average activity over the entire 8-year. period for the control stations was about 0.1 fCi/m3 greater than'that-for the indicator stations.

The average weekly gross beta activity for all stations during.1990 was greater than that.for 1989 by 0.9 fCi/m3 (19.1 fCi/m3 verses 18.2 fCi/m3).

In past years, it had been an order cf magnitude higher.

For example: the. average weekly activity was 140 fCi/m3 4-3

i during preoperations, P42 fCi/m3 during 1977, and 195 fCi/m3 dccing 1981.

Those high values were shown to be the result of-fallout from numerous nuclear weapons tests conducted on mainland China in the early 1970s and from 1976 through 1980. With the termination of the weap e s tests, the gross beta levels in recent years have become much lower.

The annual average was 33 fC1/m3 for 1982, and this steadily decreased to 22 fCi/m3 for 1985. However, during 1986 as a consequence to the-Chernobyl incident, the average activity increased to 37 fCi/m3 Tne annual averages for 1987 and 1988 were 23 and 22 fCi/m3, respectively.-

During 1990, for the fourth consecutive year, no manmade radionuclides were detected in the gamma isotopic analyses of the quarterly composites q

of air particulate filters.

During preoperations and each year _of operations through 1986, numerous fission products (some at fairly significant levels) and some activation products were detected.

These were generally attributed to the nuclear weapons tests.

With the-cessation of the tests, the number of radionuclides detected became scant and their levels low.

The-positive results found during-1986 were attributeri to the Chernobyl incident.

The charcoal canisters used for adsorbing iodine from the atmosphere were analyzed for I-131 by gamma spectroscopy.

1-131 was_not detected -

in any of the samples during the year. The maximum allowed LLD is 70 fCi/m3;- however, the activity usually attained was about a third of this value.

Positive results for airborne radiotodine are not normally obtained.

However, during 1976,1977, and 1978, positive levels of I-131 were found in nearly all of the samples collected for a period of a few weeks after the arrival-of the cloud from each_ of the Chinese nuclear weapons l

tests conducted at that-time; some of the levels were on the order of the maximum allowed LLD (that is, 70 fCi/m3).

In 1986 the same phenomenon occurred; only, the positive-levels were attributed to the Chernobyl incident. The highest airborne' I-131 level found to date was 217-fCi/m3 in 1977. The RL called for-in-Table 3.16.1-2 of -the TS-is-900 fCi/m3, i

i f

i n

4 -

=.

. ~, -

i 4.2 Direct Radiation Direct (external) radiation is measured by TLDs.

Two TLD badges are placed at each station; each badge contains four calcium sulfate TLD cards.

Two TLD stations are established in each of the 16 meteorological sectors about the plant. The inner ring of stations (Nos. 101 through 116) is located near the site boundary, while the outer ring (Nos. 201 throiigh 216) is located at a distance of about 4 to 5 miles.

These rings were installed at the beginning of 1980 to meet the requirements of Revision 1 to the Technical Position of the Radiological Assessment Branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated November 1979.

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

The 16 stations forming the inner ring are designated as the indicator stations. The three control stations (Nos. 304, 309 and 416) are at least 10 miles from the plant.

Stations 064 and 301 accommodate special interest areas.

Station 064 is located in an onsite roadside park, while Station 301 is located adjacent to Toombs Central School.

Station 210 in the outer ring is located adjacent to the Altamaha School, the only other nearby school.

As shown in Table 3-1, the average quarterly dose of 14.9 mR acquired at the indicator stations (inner ring) was 1.0 mR greater than that acquired at the control stations; this difference was not discernable, however, since it was less than the MDD of 1.6 mR.

For the 10 year period, 1980 through 1989: 1) the absolute value of the difference between the annual average quarterly doses acquired at these two station groups varied from 0 to 1.6 mR, 2) the average dose was greater at the indicator stations five times, and 3) the average dose at the indicator stations during this entire period was 0.02 mR less than that at the control stations. No trends in the data for these station groups were recognized.

The quarterly doses acquired at outer ring stations ranged from 10.7 to 20.5 mR with an average of 14.7 mR for the year, which is 0.2 mR less than that found for the inner ring.

There was no discernable _ difference between the averages of the inner and outer rings, since this difference was less than the HDD of 1.0 mR.

From 1980 through 1986, the average quarterly dose for the inner ring stations was greater than that for the outer ring stations by amounts ranging from 0.2 to 1.0 mR; the average difference was 0.6 mR. From 1987 through 1989, the average quarterly dose for the outer ring was greater than that for the inner ring by amounts ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mR; the average difference was 0.2 mR.

4-5

TheLquarterly doses in units of mR acquirediat the:special interest areas were:

(

Location Averaae

' Minimum Maximum Roadside Park 15.1 13.5 16.9 Toombs Central School 14.4 13.3-15.8 These doses are seen to be on the order of those acquired at the other' stations.

e The average quarterly dose for all of the TLDs placed in the field 4

varied very little from 1986 through 1988,. when 'it was 14.7,15.0cand

-i 15.1 mR, respectively.

For:1989, this overalli average was:16.6.mR or about 11 percent greater than that-for.the previous 3 year period.-LFor) 1990, the overall average quarterly dose of 14i7 mR returns to that of i

the 3 year period prior to 1989.-

Not infrequently, TLDs are lost-due to theft or vandalism.. Near the middle of each quarter, the-TLD stations are checked for missing on-

-damaged badge:;-replacement badges,are provided as needed.. If both badges are missiig et the end of the quarter,-the dose-for-the quarter at that location cannot be assessed.

Both-badges were missing at Station 309 at the end of the third quarter. During the year,-six-badges.from three different stations were-lost. The previous year,c eight badges from three different stations were lost 1 4

.1 d

L N

.4 6:

q D

Ht

6 0

4.3 Milk Milk samples from cows were obtained biweekly at Station 304 (the state prison dairy) throughout the year and at Station 316 (Thompson's dairy) for over 5 months.

Both of these locations are control stations.

Gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses were performed on each sample.

Since September 22, 1986, milk had been collected regularly at Thompson's Dairy. On June 4, the last sample was collected from this reliable station.

Before the next sampling date, dairy operations were terminated; all milk animals were removed from the premises. This station is being deleted due to the permanent unavailability of milk.

To locate a suitable replacement station, the county extension agents from five counties in the vicinity were contacted on June 29 and August

24. None was found.

Beginning in 1987, collections of goat milk were sometimes made at Clark's Farm, an indicator station which was designated as Station 216 and which was located 4.8 miles NNW of the plant.

The availability of milk samples at this station had been unreliable from the start.

Although 26 samples are nominally collected annually at each station, only 10 were collected at Clark's during 1987, 12 during 1988, 6 during 1989, and none during 1990.

All efforts (land use surveys and inquiries to county agents and others) to locate another indicator station during the past few years have been unsuccessful.

When the goats went dry in May 1989, the Clarks expected milking to resume in 5 or 6 months; in December 1989, they anticipated milking might begin again in the Spring; and in March 1990, their intention had become not to resume milking.

This station is being deleted.

The annual land use survey to identify the location of the nearest milk animal in each of the 16 meteorological sectors within a distance of 5 miles and the location of all milk animals within a distance of 3 miles was conducted on October 22.

No milk animals were found. A milk animal is a cow or goat producing milk for human consumption.

During the year, no man-made radionuclide was detected from the gamma isotopic analyses of the milk samples.

Each year since 1978, when gamma isotopic analysis of milk samples became a requirement,- positive levels of Cs-137 were found in some of the samples, except for 1987. No other man-made radionuclide has been detected in the milk samples by this type analysis.

During preoperations, a chemical separation technique was employed.to measure the Cs-137 levels in milk samples; the levels ranged from-2 to 60 pCi/l with an average value of 19.3 pCi/1. The frequency of I

occurrence, the range of values, and the average value in units-of pCi/l l

in milk samples during each of the following periods indicate Cs-137 is being found less often'and at lower levels.

i*

l.

t Period Frecuency Minimum Maximum Averaae 1978 1983 0.267 2.0 57.1 14.8 1984-1986 0.178 4.3 15.1 9.4 1988-1989 0.040 7.9 12.0 9.6 These positive values for Cs-137 are attributed to the nuclear weapons tests of the 1970s and before, and to the Chernobyl incident of 1986.

The lower levels after 1986 are believed, at'least partially, to be due-to changes in the location of the milk stations.

During-the latter half 4

of 1986, milk became permanently unavailable at two-stations. At one of these stations,- Johnson's Dairy (9.1 miles SW of. the plant), Cs-137 was frequently found at relatively high -levels.

During the year, I-131 was not detected in any of-the milk samples.

During preo)erations, all readings.for-I-131 were less than 2 pCi/1,,

which was tie allowed LLD at that time.

Positive results were found.

during each year of the first 5 years of operations (1974 through 1978);

these results ranged from 0.95 to 88 pCi/1.

In 1980, positive:results.

ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 pCi/1, while in 1986, positive results ranged from 0.6 to 20 pCi/1, In 1988, a single reading of 0.32 pCi/1 which was believed to have resulted from a procedural-deficiency was reported.

The LLD and RL for I-131 are 1 and 2 pCi/1, respectively.

All positive readings for I-131 have been generally attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests and the Chernobyl incident..

4-8

_ __ __=__

4.4 Grass The TS call for tha gamma isotopic analysis of grass samples collected monthly at three loca*1ons.

Two indicator staticns (Nos. 106 and 112) and one co, trol station (No. 416) have been designated for these collections.

Gama isotopic analysis has been performed on grass samples since 1978.

The results presented in Table 3-1 show that Cs-137 is the only manmade radionuclide detected; this has been the case since 1986.

The levels are typical of those generally found.

Positive results were found in only a)out 10 percent of the sampics collected.

Since 1985, positive results were found in approximately 25 to 50 percent of the samples collected at the indicator stations.

The present control station was established in 1989; the first positive result was found there this year.

The LLD and RL for Cs-137 are 80 and 2000 pCi/kg wet, respectively.

The presence of Cs-137 in grass samples is attributed to fallout from the nuclear weapons tests of years past and to a lesser extent from the Chernobyl incident-of-1986.

l l

4-9

=

4.5 River Water Surface water is composited from the Altamaha River at an upstream-L location (Station 170) and at' a downstream location (Station 172)_ using ISCO automatic samplers.

Small quantities-are collected at intervals not exceeding a few hours.

River water collected-by these machines-is:

picked up monthly; quarterly composites are_ composed of the monthly.

collections.

A gamma isotopic analysis is made.on each monthly-collection.- As usual, no manmade radionuclides were detected.

The occurrence of positive results for a manmade radionuclide has been infrequent. The only manmade radionuclides detected previously (by gamma isotopic analysis) l were as follows:

Level l

Y3jtt Ouarter Station Radionuclide foci /1) 1975

-4th 172 Ce-141 78.2~

1986 2nd 170 La-140 18.0' 1986 2nd 172 Cs-137 12.0 1988 2nd 170

'Cs-137 6.8 The positive results for 1986 were attributed to the Chernobyl incident.

Tritium analyses are-performed on the quarterly composites.

Positive results were found in_only two of the composites-from the indicator-.

(downstream) station. Up until.about five years ago, positive results-were usually found for each composite; the levels were generally 50-to 100 percent greater.

On October-11, the-annual survey'of the Altamaha River was conducted-downstream of the plant for at least 50 river miles to identify anyone-who may use river water for drinking-purposes'. As.in all previous surveys, no intakes for drinking water or-irrigation were observed.

This was corroborated by_.information obtained from the State-of Georgia-that no new surface water permits for drinking water _or. irrigation.

purposes on the Altamaha River had'been issued.

If river water should become used for drinking,- the TS requirements: for.itsisampling and analysis will be implemented; j

l

' l l

4~-10 4

1

..n

- t 4.6-Fish Gamma isotopic analyses were performed on the edible portion of tho' fish samples collected at the river-stations on April-16 and October 15. The control station (No.170) is located upstream of the plant, and the indicator station (No.172) is located downstream of the plant.- In-April, large mouth bass, mullet,, and red breast sunfish were collected at the control station while channel catfish was collected at the indicator sti, tion.

In October, large mouth bass and bluegill bream were collected at the control station while large mouth bass and redear sunfish were collected at the indicator station.

As shown-in Table 3-1, Cs 137 was the only manmade radionuclide detected. As tsual, it was found in all of the samples. The-average-4 level for all samples with positive results was about-80 percent of that.

for last year and only 35 percent =of that for the period of 1983 through 1988. The average level of 26.7 pCi/kg wet at the indicator station is-seen to be 2.5 pC1/kg' wet greater than that-at the control station.-

Howeve, this difference is not discernable since-it is-less than the-MDDof20.4 pct /kgwet.

The LLD and RL are 200 and.2000 pCi/kg wet,-

respectr'ely.

In the past, the only other manmade radionuclide detected in fish-samples by the gamma isotopic analysis were Co 60 and Cs-134..During preoperations, C0 60 was detected in one fish ' sample at a very low:

~

level.

During the period of 1983 through-1988,'Cs-134 was found in about half the samples at levels._on the order of those found for Cs-137.

B 4-11

e +.

j 4.7 Sediment The semiannual collections of sediment took place on April 30 and November 5 at the river stations. Although the TS_ require only :an-annual collection, a second collection was added last year _ to increase the statistical base.

A gamma isotopic analysis was performed on each-sample.

Positive results were obtained for Cs-137 in each sample. - Positive results were also found for both Co-60 and Cs-134 in the sample collected at the downstream station (No.172) in April, and for Co-60 only' in the sample collected at_the upstream station (No 170) in November.

Positive readings for Cs-137 have been found in every sample since 1980 i,

and in over 90% of all of the samples collected, including those during preoperations. As shown in Table 3-1, the average level; of 130.5 pCi/kg dry found at the indicator (downstream) station-was 64.5 pCi/kg dry greater-than that at the control (upstream) station. This difference-is not discernible, however, since-it is les's than the MDD of 490 pCi/kg dry. Typically, the Cs-137 levels have been several times-greater than those found this year.

The LLD for Cs-137 is 200 pC1/kg dry.

The activation product Co-60 was found in regular samples on four previous occasions - twice at each station. As shown in-Table 3-1, the levels found at the indicator and control stations (33 and 19 pCi/kg dry, respectively) are much lower than those found in previous-years (67.8 and 108 pCi/kg-dry at the indicator station, and'31 and 33 pCi/kg dry at the control station). The assigned LLD for 00-60 is 40 pCi/kg

dry, a

During the past 9 years, Cs-134 was detected in 40_ percent of the-regular samples collected at-the. indicator _ station.

The _ levels. ranged from 132 to 505 pCi/kg dry, with an average of 284.3 pCi/kg dry.

As shown in Table 3-1, the: single-positive result for this year which

. occurred at the indicator station was much lower - only 31 pCi/kg dry, 1

-Positive levels of 40 and 50 pci/kg dry were found in'samp.les collected L

at the control station-during preoperations and'1984,-respectively, a

In past years, various fission roducts and activation products:were-found in-sediment samples; the $evels were significant in some o' the-samples. Their presence was generally attributed to the ~ nuclear weapons-tests or-to the Chernobyl incident'.

l t

l l'

l 4-12 2

5.0 INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM Section 3.16.3 of the TS requires that analyses be performed on radioactive materials supplied as part of an Interlaboratory Comparison Program approved by the NRC.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Radioactivity Laboratory Intercomparison Studies (Crosscheck) Program conducted by the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada, provides such a program..

Reported herein, as required by Section 4.16.3 of the TS are the results of the EL's participation in the EPA Crosscheck Program.

The Crosscheck Program was designed for laboratories involved with REMPs; it includes environmental media and a variety of radionuclides with activities at or near environmental levels.

Participation in the program ensures that independent checks on the precision and accuracy of the measurements of radioactive materials in environmental sample matrices are performed; REMP results can thereby be demonstrated to be reasonably valid.

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

The Crosscheck Program provides each participant with documentation of its performance; this can be helpful in identifying any instrument or procedural problems.

The EL's participation in the program consists of the analyses on the radioactive materials supplied by the program that correspond with those required by Table 2-1.

Analyses were performed in a normal manner.

Each sample was analyzed in triplicate as required by the program.

Results obtained from the gross beta and gamma isotopic analyses of air filters, the gamma isotopic and 1-131 analyses of milk samples, and the tritium and gamma isotopic analyses of water samples are summarized in Table 5-1.

Delineated in Table 5-1 for each of the environmental media are the type analysis performed, EPA's collection date, the known value and expected precision (one standard deviation) provided by the EPA, the average-result obtained by the EL, the standard deviation of the EL's result, the normalized deviation (from the known result)._and the normalized range.

The normalized deviation and normalized range were also provided by the EPA.

The normalized deviation from the known value provides a' measure of the central tendency of the data (accuracy).

The normalized range is a measure of the dispersion of the data (precision). An absolute value of 3 standard rieviations was-established by the EPA as the i

i 5-1 l

l

I control limit.

An absolute value of 2 standard deviations was-established as the warning limit.- The El considers-any value greater than the control limit as unacceptable.

Investigations are undertaken whenever any value exceeds'the warning limit or whenever a plot of the values indicates a trend.

As may be seen from Table 5-1, the normalized deviation and the normalized range in each case were within control limits but the warning _

limit was exceeded for the I-131 analysis'in milk on April 27 and for Ru-106 in water on February 9.

In addition, a trend was recognized in plots of the values of the normalized deviation for 00-60, Ru 106, and -

t Ba-133.

Each of the above out of limit and trending cases prompted an investigation.

~

The investigation of the high value of the normalized deviation for the 1-131 in milk revealed nothing unusual about sample preparation or about the calculations. The investigation of the high-normalized: deviation

-value for'Ru-106 in water and the evaluations of the trends of the normalized deviation values recognized for three-of the radionuclides 1 have lead to some adjustments in the calculations, in the instrumentation' and also in the. preparation of samples - changes-to peak background correction values, proper adjustments to a preamp 1.ifier pole zero on one.

t of the detectors, and the implementation of a.more homogeneous mixture of the samples.

I 5-2 i

i 19 v

e,

- de v

,w v-rw~e

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

T CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS l

)

Date.

-Known Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized Analysis Collected-Value Precision Averace Deviation Deviation Rance Air Filters (pCi/ filter)

Gross Beta 03/30/90

-31.0 5.0 32.33 0.58-0.46 0.12-08/31/90.

62.0 5.0 63.33 1.15 0.46 0.24 1

Cs-137 03/30/90 10.0-5.0 12.33 2.31-0.81 0.47

.08/31/90

.20.0 5.0 23.67 3.06 1.27 0.71 f

' Milk (pCi/l) i. T 9'

I-131.

'04/27/90 99.0-10.0-114.33 3.21 2.66 0.35-09/28/90-

58.0 6.0' 52.00 1.00

-1.73 0.20.

N

!Cs-137-

. 04/27/90 24.0 5.0 25.00 4.00

'O.35 0.95' 09/28/90-

20.0

.5,0 18.67 0.58

-0.46 0.12 Wa'ter (pCi/1)'

- H-3 02/23/90:

_4976.0

<498.0"

'5067.00 136.67 0.32 0.31

06/22/90 2933.0' 358.0:

'2963.33-64.29 0.15-0.20 1

10/19/90

...7203.0 '

1720.0

.7147.00 130.13

-0.13 0.43 Co-60L 02/09/90:

15.0-

' 5. 0..

14;67 2.52

-0.12 0.59-106/08/90 324.0c

s. 5. 0 :

20.67 0.58.

-1.15 0.12 --

110/05/90:

'20.0 :

5.0 19.33

~ 0.58 -

-0.23 0.12

Zn :02/09/90.

139.0 1410 136.67-

~6151

--0.29 0.55 06/08/90f 1148.0-L15.0 142.67..

13.20

-0.62 1.04

-10/05/90' 115.0r 12.0-107.00:

6.24x

-1.15 0.59' t

m, md k..

.e.w-v--.

lam-d uk.

-_2c--

Mac e.w != M.

i s wi-l ---

-u -- --

+=M 5--~h-h*.-e

+w

-'i '

.x-.

C-.7v'--

-*a

'-. =. -

.+e

c;

... :: I:t TABLE 5-1 (SHEET 2.0c 2)

CROSSCHECK PROGRAM RESULTS Date Known.

. Expected Reported Standard Normalized Normalized I

-Analysis'

' Collected.

Value-Precision Averaae Deviation Deviation Rance

Ru-106 02/09/90 139.0 14.0

'119.67 14.36

-2.39 1.26 06/08/90 210.0' 21.0

'213.67 24.13 0.30 1.61 10/05/90 151.0 15.0 138 6.51

-1.42 0.51

~Cs-134-

.' 02/09/90 ~

18.0 5.0 16.33 3.21

-0.58 0.71 04/17/90 15.0

~ 5.0 16.33 0.58 0.46 0.12

~06/08/90 24 0

'5.0 25.00 5.20 0.35 1.12' i

10/05/90 12.0 5.0 11.67 2.08

-0.12 0.47

'Cs-1371 102/09/90

'18.0 5.0.

17.67 0.58

-0.12 0.12

04/17/90

15. 0..

5.0 16.67

.1. 53. '

-. 0. 58.

0.35 m:

.06/08/90 25.0:

5.0.

25.67 2.52 0.23 0.59 1

10/.05/.90 :-

12.0::

' 5.0 12.00L 1.73 0.00 0.35-

~Ba-133; LO2/09/90:

74.0 7.0, 71.33

-1.53

-0.66 0.25 106/08/90

. 99.0' 1 10.0 109.00 2.65 1.73 0.30

.i

10/05/90 110.0j

/11.0 103.33-3.79

-1.05

.0.38 l

~

c-

.i 1

.h

'i

-n,~

5

t

.1_

m

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

.1...

[.

.,0 s

J f

6.0 CONCLUSION

S This report confirms _the licensee's conformance'with Section 3/4.16 of;-

the TS during the year.

It showsithat" all ' data:were carefully: examined.-

A summary and a_ discussion of. the results of tN -laboratory analyses for -

each type sample collected are presented.-

No measurable radiological impact upon the environment -as_ a consequence

-l of plant discharges tolthe atmosphere. and to the river was established, a

t cf r

?

I i

- ~

b

3 cj a

a

-s

'6-1 ti t

ll L

4 1

k

,te

-.. ~, _

a-.

-