ML20081E691

Radiological Environ Monitoring Program Rept 23 1990

ML20081E691
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	12/31/1990
From:	Richard Anderson BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
BECO-LTR-91-62, NUDOCS 9105020084
Download: ML20081E691 (151)

Text

PNPS Technical Specifications Section 6.9.C.2

ES BOSTON E0ISON Pognm Nucieat Pour

tation Rooy Hdi Road Pivmouth. Mur,athusettr. 02300 e,

de t Ilu'U.',D fE,on, Ap ri 1 30. 1991 DECO 1.tr. 91-62 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Concission Attn: Document Control Desk Hashington, D.C.

20555 Doctet No. 50-293 L1LeniL!LauPP3-35

Dear Sir:

In accordance with the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Technical Specification Section 6.9.C.2, the Boston Edison Company submits the Annual Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program Report for 1990 (Report #23).

A b^y" A. Anderson

('

WM/bal Attachment cc:

Mr. Thomas T. Hartin Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Rd.

King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sr. NRC Resident Inspector - Pilgrim Statiori vrwnem ne

PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION I

I g

Radiol'gical Environmental Monite ing Program y

Report No. 23 I

i January 1 through December 31,1990 I

I I

I I

I 9:8?i8u

I I

I BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL HONITORING PROGRAM REPORT NO. 23 January 01 through December 31, 1990 I

I I

I I

Prepared by M % 4 W Xf-H. L.'Hos t Environmental Engineer A

_K. J. Sejkora h U '

M Environmental Program Manager I

Reviewed by:

C. S. Goddard Chemistry and Radwaste Section Manager Approved by:

/

/

d I

N. ' J[/ dim (s'c i o' Raditnogical Section Manager

I JJBLE Of CONTENTS I

4 BLt hat Executive Summary vii i

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Radiation and Radioactivity 1

l 1.2 Sources of Radiation 2

1.3 Nuclear Reactor Operations 3

1.4 Radioactive Effluent Control 9

1.5 Radiological Impact on Humans 12 2.0 Description and Results of the Radiological 17 Environmental Monitoring Program Results of Radiometric Analyses and 32 Heasurements 2.1 Air Particulate filters 34 2.2 Charcoal Cartridges 40 2.3 Soil 42 2.4 Direct Radiation 43 2.4.1 Environmental Thermoluminescent 43 Dosimetors

,I 2.4.2 Beach Surveys 44 2.4.3 Summary 44 2.5 Surface Water 52 2.6 Shellfish 55 2.7 Irish Hoss 58 2.8 American Lobster 61 2.9 Fishes 64 2.10 beuisant 67 I

I

-i-

I TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

I EaLt EME 2.11 Milk 71 2.12 Cranberries 76

)

l 2.13 Vegetation 79 2.14 Forage 82 3.0 Summary of Radiological Impact on Humans 85 4.0 References 88 Appendix A Special Studies A-1 Appendix B 1990 Radioactive Effluents B-1 Appendix C Radiological Environmental Technical C-1 Specifications Appendix D 1990 Land Use Census Results D-1 Appendix E PNPS Environmental Mcnitoring Program E-1 Discrepancies During 990 I

Appendix f Quality Assurance for tie Rauiological F-1 Environmental Monitoring Program I

I 1

I I

I I

I g. -

LIST OF TABLES Table Number flge 1.2-1 Sources and Doses of 2

Radiation 1.3-1 PNPS-1 Capacity Factor -

4 1990 I

2.0-1 1990 Routine Sampling 19 Locations 2.1-1 Summary of Radioactivity 35 Analysis Results for Air Particulate filters -

I 1990 2.2-1 Summary of Radioactivity 41 I

Analysis Results for Charcoal Cartridges -

1990 2.4.1-1 Off-site Environmental 45 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Results - 1990 2.4.1-2 Of f-site Environmental 48 Thermoluminescent I

Dosimeter Averages by Geographic Zone - 1990 2.4.1-3 On-site Environmental 49 I

Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Results - 1990 2.4.2-1 Beach Survey Exposure 50 Rates - 1990 I

2.5-1 Summary of Radioactivity 53 Analysis Results for Seawater - 1990 2.6-1 Summary of Radioactivity 56 Analysis Results for Shellfish - 1990 2.7-1 Summary of Radioactivity 59 Analysis Results for Irish Hoss - 1990 2.8-1 Summary of Radioactivity 62 Analysis Results for I

American Lobster - 1990 I

-lii-

1 i

)

UST OF TAB 1ES (cont.)

Igble Number hgg 2.9-1 Summary of Radioactivity 65 Analysis Results for Fishes - 1990 2.10-1 Summary of Radioactivity 68 Analysis Results for Sediment - 1990 2.10-2 Radioactivity Analysis 70 Results for Plutonium in Sediment - 1990 2.11-1 Summary of Radioactivity 72 Analysis Results for Milk - 1990 2.12-1 Summary of Radioactivity 77 I

Analysis Results for Cranberries - 1990 2.13-1 Summary of Radioactivity 80 Analysis Results for Vegetation - 1990 2.14-1 Summary of Radioactivity 83 Analysis Results for forage - 1990 3-1 Comparison of 1990 86 Maximum Estimated Doses from PNPS Effluents to Federal Dose Limits and Natural / Man-Hade Radiation Levels i '

I

-iv-

LIST OF FfGURES l

Fiaure Numbn IMgg 1.3-1 Radioactive fission 5

Products 1.3-2 Radioactive Activation 6

Product 1.3-3 Five Barriers that 8

Confine Radioactive l

Materials 1.5-1 Generalized Radiation 13 Exposure Pathways to I

Humans 2.0-1 Environmental 21 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Locations within Exclusion Area 2.0-2 Environmental 23 I

Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Locations Outside Exclusion Area to about Two Miles 2.0-3 Environmental 25 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air I

Sampling Locations Outside Property Boundary 2.0-4 Terrestrial and Aquatic 27 Sampling Locations 2.0-5 Environmental Sat.pling 29 I

and Measurement Control locations j

2.1-1 Radioactivity 37 Heasurements of Air Sample Filters Taken from On-site Locations and Control Location -

1990 I

I

-V-

i LIST OF FIGURES (coald l

Fioure Numb.tr hqe 2.1-2 Radioactivity 38 I

Measurements of Air Sample filters Taken from Property Boundary 1.ocations and Control I

Location 2.1-3 Radioactivity 39 I

Heasurements of Air Sample filters Taken from Off-Site Locations and Control Location 2.4.2-1 Environmental Radiation 51 Level Trends at Beaches l

Near Pilgrim Station 2.11-1 Radioactive Cesium-137 74 I

in Milk Samples Taken Near Pilgrim Station and from a Control Location 2.11-2 Radioactive Strontium-90 75 in Milk Samples Taken near Pilgrim Station and I-from a Control Location 1990 I

I I

I I

-vi-

g[QtI1VE SUMMAE l

Enton_Edhon company P11arim Nuc1 ear PC12f_ittilfD Radiologiral Environmental Monitorina Progrjug I

RRD9L1 January 1 through. December 31. 1990 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of the Boston Edison Company's Radiological I

Environmental Honitoring Program (REMP) conducted in the vicinity of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) during the period from January 1 to December 31, 1990.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of PNPS Technical Specifications section 6.9.C.2.

j The REMP has been established to monitor the radiation and radioactivity released to the environment ar, a result of Pilgrim Station's operation.

This I

program, initiated in August,1968, includes the collection, analysis, and j

evaluation of radiological data in order to assess the impact of Pilgrim 1

Station on the environment and on the general public.

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS The environmental sampling media collected in the vicinity of PNPS and at distant locations included air particulate filters, charcoal cartridges, seawater, shellfish Irish moss, American lobster, fishes, sediment, tilk, l

tranberries, vegetation, and animal forage.

During 1990, there were 1,418 samples collected from the atmospheric, aquatic I

and terrestrial environments.

In addition, 420 exposure measurements were obtained using envi'onmental thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and six exposure rate measutements were performed using a high pressure ion chamber.

These 1.418 samples and 420 monitoring devices were collected by Boston Edison I

Company and Hassachuietts Divisicin of Marine fisheries personnel.

All samples were collected as required by the PNPS Technical Specifications I

with the following exceptions:

2 out of 160 of the TLD measurements were missed, and samples of Group II fishes were not collected during the first quarter. Of the TLDs required by PNPS Technical Specifications, there were I

two TLDs which were found missing from their posted locations during the quarterly retrievals.

The missing TLDs and cages were relocated to be inconspicuous and less accessible, where possible.

In addition, Group.II (near-bottom distribution) fishes were not available in the vicinity of the I

discharge canal between January and March.

Therefore, samples of fish fron this category were not collected for the first quarter of the year.

I There were 1,600 analyses performed on the environmental media samples. All analyses were performed by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Environmental Laboratory in Westboro, Mass. All samples were analyzed as required by the PNPS Technical Specifications.

I

-vii-

I l

LMD U3E CENih The annual land use census in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station was conducted as I

required by Technical Specifications between Sepinber 11 and 29,1990.

A total of 31 gardens with an area of more than 500 square feet were identified within three miles of PNPS.

No new milk or meat animals were located during the census. Of the 31 garden locations identified, eight were sampled as part I

of the environmental monitoring program.

l R@IOLOGICAL IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT During 1990, all samples (except charcoal cartridges) collected as part of the REMP at Pilgrim Station continued to contain detectable amounts of I

naturally-occurring and man-rcade radioactive materials.

Shellfish (mussels) was the only sampling medium which showed radioactivity which could be attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation.

None of the radioactivity anal sis results exceeded the reporting levels specified in the PNPS Technica Specifications.

Furthermore, the detectable I

radioactivity which could be attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation was only a small percentage of the naturally-occurring and other man-made amounts of radioactivity.

In addition, off-site direct radiation measurements using environmental TLDs and a high pressure ion chamber ranged between 42 and 150 I

mR/yehr.

This range of radiation levels is consistent with natural background radiation levels for Massachusetts as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

I fBQ10 LOGICAL IMPACT TO THE GBERAL PUhllC During 1990, radiation doses to the general public as a result of Pilgrim Station's nperation continued to be well below the federal limits and much less than the dose due to other man-made and naturally-occurring sources of I

radiation.

The maximum estimated total body dose to the general public from radioactive I

effluents due to PNPS operations for 1990 was about 0.2 mrem for the year.

This conservative estimate is well below the EPA's annual dose limit to any member of the general public and is a fraction of a percent of the typical dose received from natural and man-made radiation.

In addition to dose calculations based on radioactive effluents, a special study was initiated to determine the dose contribution from radioactivity that l

was detected in mussels.

Results of this study showed that the radioactivity in shellfish would result in a maximum dose to a member of the general public of much less than one mrem, using extremely conservative assumptions.

I I

I

- " ' " ~

I CQKWilMS The 1999 Radiolooical Environmental Monitoring Program for Pilgrim Station resulted in the collection and analysis of hundreds of environmental samples and measureinents.

The data obtained were used to determine the impact of Pilgrim Station's operation on the environment and on the general public.

An evaluation of direct radiation measurements, environmental sample analyses, and dose calculations showed that all applicable federal criteria were met.

I Furthermore, radiation levels and resulting doses were a small fraction of those which are normally present due to natural and man-made background radiation.

Based on this information, there is no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station's operation.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I g

_ix.

1.0 INTRODUG110tf The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for 1990 performed by Boston Edison Company for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) is discussed in this report. Since the operation of a nuclear power plant results in the release of small amounts of radioactivity and low levels of radiation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires a program environment.jshedtomonitorradiationandradioactivityinthe to be establ This report, which is required to be published annually by Pilgrim Station's Technical Specifications section 6.9 C.2, summarizes the results of measurements of radiation and radioactivity in the environment in the vicinity of the Pilgrim Station and at distant locations during the period January 1 to December 31, 1990.

The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program consists of taking radiation measurements and collecting samples from the environment, analyzing them for radioactivity content, and interpreting the results.

Hith emphasis on the critical radiation exposure pathways to humans, samples from the aquatic, atmospheric, and terrestrial environments are I

collected.

These samples include, but are not limited to: air, soil, seawater, shellfish, lobster, fishes, milk, cranberries, vegetables, and forage.

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are placed in the I

environment to measure gamma radiation levels.

The TL0s are processed and the environmental samples are analyzed to measure the very low levels of radiation and radioactivity present in the environment as a result of PNPS operation and other natural and man-made sources.

These results are reviewed by BECo's radiological staff and have been reported semiannually or annually to the Nuclear Regulatory Comtrission and others since 1972.

In order to more fully understand how a nuclear power plant impacts humans and the environment, background information on radiation and radioactivity, natu"'I and man-made sources of radiation, reactor operations, radioactive effluent controls, and radiological impact on humans is provided.

It is believed that this information will assist the reader in understanding the radiological impact on the environment and humans from the operation of Pilgrim Station.

1.1 Radiation and Radioactivity l

All matter is made of atoms. An atom is the smallest part into which matter can be broken down and still maintain all its chemical properties.

Nuclear radiation is energy, in the form of waves or particles, that is given off by unstable, radioactive atoms.

l Radioactive material exists naturally and has always been a part of our environment.

The earth's crust, for example, contains l gg radioactive uranium, radium, thorium, and potassium.

Some radioactivity is a result of nuclear weapons testing.

Examples of radioactive fallout which is normally present in environmental

,l samples are cesium-137 and strontium-90, Some examples of radioactive materials released from a nuclear power plant are cesium-137, iodine 131, strontium-90, and cobalt-60.

Radiation is measured in units of millirem, much like temperature is measured in degrees. A millirem is a m!ure of the biological effect of the energy depost wd in tissue.

The natural and man-made 400 mrem.2.3:,greceivedinoneyearbytheaverageAmericanis300to radiatica #

Radioactivity is measured in curies.

A curie is that amount of radioactive material needed to produce 37,000,000,000 nucicar disintegrations per second.

This is an extremely large amount of radioactivity in comparison to environmental radioactivity.

That is why radioactivity in the environment is measured in picoeuries. One picoeurie is equal to one trillionth of a curie.

1.2 Sources of Radiation As mentioned previously, naturally occurring radioactivity has always I

been a part of our environment.

Table 1,2-1 shows the sources and doses of radiation from natural and man-made sources.

I Table 1.2-1 Sources attd_Qgses of Radiation 3 I

NATURAL MAN-MAQE I

Radiation Dose Radiation Dose Source (millirem /vear)

Source (millirem /vear)

Cosmic /cosmogenic 30 Medical / Dental X-rays 39 Internal 40 Nuclear Medicine 14 Terrestrial 30 Consumer Products 10 Radon / Thoron 200 Heapons fallout less than 1 I

Nuclear Power Plants Less than 1 APPROXIMATE APPROXIHATE l

TOTAL 300 TOTAL 60 Cosmic radiation from the sun and outer space penetrates the earth's atmosphere and continuously bomt,ards us with rays and charged particles.

Some of this cosmic radiation interacts with gases and particles in the atmosphere, making them radioactive in turn.

These radioactive byproducts from cosmic ray bombardment are referred to as cosmogenic radionuclides.

Isotopes such as beryllium-7 and carbon-14 are formed in this way.

'I I

2

a I

Additiont.11y, natural radioactivity is in our body and in the food tfe eat (about 40 millirem /yr), the ground we walk on (about 30 millireu/yr) and the air we breathe (about 200 millirem /yr).

All these sources contribute to a total dose of about 300 mrem per year from all natural sources of radiation.

Radon and thoron levels vary greatly with location. Many newspaper articles have recently appeared concerning elevated levels of radon / thoron at some locations in Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Residents of these areas have a higher annual dose as a result of higher levels of radon / thoron gases in these areas.

I In addition to natural radiation, we are r,ormally exposed to radiation from a number of man-made sources.

The single largest doses from man-made sources result from therapeutic and diagnostic g

applications of x-rays and rad!opharmaceuticals.

The annual dose to d

an individual in the U.S. fram medical and dental exposure is about 50 mrem. Consumer products, such as televisions and smoke detectors, contribute about 10 mrem /yr. Much smaller doses result from weapons

'I fallout (less than 1) and nuclear power plants (less than 1 mrem /yr).

Basically, the average person in the United States receives about 60 mrem per year from man-made sources.

1.3 lhtclear Reactor Operations Pilgrim Station generates about 670 megawatts of electricity at full I

power, which is enough electricity to supply the entire city of Boston, Massachusetts.

Pilgrim Station is a boiling water reactor whose nuclear steam supply system was provided by General Electric l

Co.

1he nuclear station is located on a 1600 acre site about five miles east-southeast of Plymouth Center.

Commercial operation began in December,1972.

Pilgrim Station was fully operational from January 1 to December 31, 1990.

Monthly capacity factors are given in Table 1.3-1.

Nuclear-generated electricity is produced at Pilgrim Station by many of the same techniques used for conventional oil and coal-generated electricity.

Both systems use heat to boil water to produce steam.

I The steam turns a turbine which turns a generator, producing electricity.

In both cases, the steam passes through a condenser where it changes back into water and recirculates back through the system.

The cooling water source for Pilgrim Station is the Cape Cod Bay.

The key difference between Pilgrim's nuclear power and conventional

'I power is the source of heat used to boil the water.

Conventional plants burn fossil fuels in a boiler, while nuclear plants make use of uranium in a nuclear reactor.

I I

TABLE 1.3-1 PNPS-1 Ct.PACITY FACTOR 199C I

OPERATING PERCENT CAPACITY (Based on 670 MWe)

B0Ath Percent Cancity January 99.4 February 97.4 March 30.0 April 5.4 May 77.9 June 96.3 July 55.1 August 94.5 September 21.6 October 98.7 November 96.8 December 94.5 Average 72.3 I

I I

g i -

I Inside the reactor, a nuclear reaction called fission takes place.

Particles, called neutrons, strike the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom.

I causing it to split into fragments called indioactive fission products.

The splitting of the atoms releases both heat and more neutrons.

The newly-released neutrons then collide with end split other uranium atoms, thus making more heat and releasing even more I

neutrons, and an and on until the uranium fuel is depleted or spent.

This process is called a chain reaction.

I I

/

i gy@W l

lf,",1*T.'i",%,"n,

=3l:=%'

,s h nuqQ\\s

+

Wi2 I

'c2.t":,":'.;o,,

n,

.on

w. -

neutron to ce t.

4 %.

\\

EE a th in t, action.

'typ*

l y,,,,,,

,(

., bo. sten

~

fa '

t aw

~ B s s I

< ;3 - w g x' I

nl l

s,wo u-sv q.g4

{ Neweas

1. ' '^

l j

g newom w,sc

%.*1 3,

,uwen NO k/

~

v,,,

=",,

_~

g$$Q ++

1 i4dN

.r,,we, Fi.. ion Products I

figure 1,3-1 Radioactive fission Products I

I -

I The operation of a nuclear reactor results in the release of small amounts of radioactivity and low levels of radiation.

The I

radioactivity originates from two major sources, radioacthe fission products 6nd radioactive activation products.

I Radioactive fission products (see figure 1.3-1)5 originate from the fissioning of the nuclear fuel.

These fission products get into the reactor coolant from their release by minute amounts of uranium on the outside surfaces of the fuel cladding, by diffusion through the I

fuel pellets and cladding and, on occasion, through defects or failures in the fuel cladding.

These fission products circulate along with the reactor coolint water and will deposit on the internal I

surfaces of pipes and equipment.

The radioactive fission products on the pipes and equipment emit radiation.

Examples of some fission products are cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90, xenon-133, and krypton-85.

Radioactive activation products (see Figure 1,3-2), on the other hand-originate from two sources.

The first is by neutron I

bombardment of the hydrogen, oxygen and other gas (helium, argon, nitrogen) molecules in the reactor cooling water.

The second is a result of the fact that the internals of any piping system or component are subject to minute yet constant corrosion from the reactor cooling water.

These minute metallic particles (for exarple:

nickel, iron, cobalt, or magnesium) are transported through the I

reactor core into the fuel region, where neutrons may react with the nuclei of these particles, producing radioactive products.

So, activation products are nothing more than ordinary naturally-occurring atoms that are made unstable or radioactive by I

neutron bombardment.

These activation products circulate along with the reactor coolant water and will deposit on the internal surfaces of pipes and equipment.

The radioactiv? activation products on the I

pipes and equipment emit radiation.

Examples of some activation products are cobalt-60, cobalt-58, iron-59, manganese-54, and zinc-65.

I I

(* Co 5

n l

g Co Neutron I

Stable Radioactive Cobalt Nucleus Cobalt Nucleus I

figure 1.3-2 Radioactive Activation Product I

l _

At Pilgrim Nuclear Pocer Station there are five independent protectivebarriersthatconfinetheseradioactgvematerials.

These I

five barriers, which are shown in Figure 1.3-3, are:

1) fuel pellets; 2) fuel cladding; 3) reactor vessel and piping; 4) primary containment (drywell and torus); and 5) secondary containment (reactor building).

The ceramic uranium fuel pellets provide the first barrier.

Most of the radioactive fission products are either physically trapped or I

chemically bound between the uranium atoms, where they will remain.

However, a few fission products which are volatile or gaseous may diffuse through the fuel pellets into small gaps between the pellets l

and the fuel cladding.

The second barrier, the fuel cladding, consists of zirconium alloy tubes that confine the fuel pellets.

The stall gaps between the fuel I

and the cladding contain the noble gases and volatile iodines which are types of radioactive fission products.

This radioactivity can diffuse to a small extent through the fuel cladding into the reactor I

coolant water.

The third barrier consists of the reactor pressure vessel, steel I

piping and equipment that confines the reactor cooling water.

The reactor pressure vessel, which holds the reactor fuel, is a 65 foot high by 19 foot diameter tank with steel walls about nine inches thick.

This provides containment for radioactivity in the primary I

coolant and the reactor core.

However, during the course of operations and maintenance small amounts of radioactive fission and activation products can escape through valve leaks or upon breaching I

of the primary coolant system for maintenance.

The fourth barrier is the primary containment.

1his consists of the I

drywell and the torus.

The drywell is a steel lined enclosure that is shaped like an inverted light bulb.

The drywell's steel pressure vessel is enclosed by an approximately five foot thick concrete wall.

The torus is a donut-shaped pressure suppression chamber.

The I

steel walls of the torus are nino feet in diameter with the donut itself having an outside diameter of about 130 feet.

Small amounts of radioactivity may be released from primary containment during l

maintenhnce.

The fifth barrier is the secondary containment or reactor building.

I The reactor building is the concrete building that surrounds the primary containment.

This barrier is an additional safety feature to contain radioactivity which may escape from the primary containment.

This reactor building is equipped with a filtered ventilation system I

that is used when needed to reduce the radioactivity that escapes from the primary containment.

I Host of the radioactive fission and activation products are confined by the five barriers.

However, small amounts of radioactivity do escape via mechanical failures and maintenance on valves, piping, and equipment associated with the reactor cooling water system.

The I

small amounts of radioactive liquids and gases that do escape the I

g o.

I SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAH OF PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION I

I I

l

3. REACTOR VESSEL FUEL PEES

5. SECONDARY CONTA!NMEta

\\

\\

/

-\\

/

\\rme/

g I

sm 9

l

\\ ( = col f e

'N h

i h

.1

. TURBINE g

Ek I 1

C

)

(( [ [k

. TORUS)

)

CONDENSER l

i r

i i

hl N

~

1 i

i MW N3

.: 2

,n g%

d

\\

l s

/

I REACTOR BUILDING DRYWELL I

figure 1.3-3 Five Barriers That Confine Radioactive Haterials I

various containment systems are further controlled by the liquid r

purification and ventilation filtration systems. Also, prior to a release to the environment, control systems exist to collect and purify the radioactive effluents in order to reduce releases to the I

environment to as low as is reasonably achievable. The control of radioactive effluents at Pilgrim Station will be discussed in more I

detail in the next section.

1.4 Radioactive Effluent Control l

The small amounts of radioactive liquids and gases that might escape the five barriers are purified in the liquid and gaseous waste I

treatment systems, then monitored for radioactivity, and released only if the radioactivity levels are below the federal release limits.

Radioactivity released from the liquid effluent system to the I

environment is limited, controlled, and monitored by a variety of systems and procedures which include:

I reactor water cleanup system; liquid radwaste treatment system; sampling and analysis of the liquid radwaste tanks; liquid waste effluent discharge header radioactivity monitor.

The purpose of the reactor water cleanup system is to continuously I

purify the reactor cooling water by removing radioactive atoms and non-radioactive impurities that may become activated by neutron bombardmant. A portion of the reactor coolant water is diverted from the primary coolant system and is purified by a high efficiency filter that removes radioactive particles suspended in the water.

Subsequent to that, the flow is directed through ion exchange resins where radioactive elements, diluted in the water, are removed through I

chemical procestes.

The net effect is a drastic reduction of the radioactive material that is present in the primary coolant water and consequently the amount of radioactive material that might escape l

from the system.

Reactor cooling water that might escape the primary cooling system l

anc o ber radicactive water sources is collected in floor and I

equipment drains. These drains direct this radioactive liquid waste to large holdup tanks. The liquid waste collected in the tanks is purified again using the liquid radwaste treatment system, which I

consists of a filter and ion exchange resins.

Processing of liquid radioactive waste results in large reductions of radioactive liquids discharged into Cape Cod Bay. Of all wastes processed through liquid raowaste treatment, 90 to 95 pctrent of all wastes are purified and the processed liquid re-used in plant systems.

Prior to release, the radioactivity in the liquid radwaste tank is sampled and analyzed to determine if the level of radioactivity is telow the release limits and to quantify the total amcunt of radioactive liquid effluent that would be released.

If the levels are below the federal release limits, the tank is drained to the liquid effluent discharge header. -

This liquid t7aste effluent discharge header has a shielded radioactivity monitor located on it.

This detector is connected to a radiation level meter and a strip chart recorder in the Control Room.

The radiation alarm is set so that the detector will alarm before radioactivity levels exceed the release limits.

The liquid effluent discharge header has an isolation valve.

If an alarm is received, the liquid effluent discharge valve will automatically i

close, thereby terminating the release to the Cape Cod Bay and

'a preventing any liquid radioactivity from being released that may g

exceed the release limits. An audible alarm notifies the Control Room operator that this has occurred, j

Another means for adjusting liquid effluent concentrations to be below federal limits is by mixing plant cooling water from the condenser with the liquid effluents in the discharge canal.

This larger volume of cooling water further dilutes the radioactivity levels far below the release limits.

The preceding discussion illustrates that many controls exist to I

reduce the radioactive liquid effluents released to the Cape Cod Bay j

to as far below the release limits as is reasonably achievable.

Radioactive releases from the radicactive gaseous effluent system to the environment are limited, conti. lied, and monitored by a variety of systems and procedures which in.:lude:

reactor building ventilatioa system; reactor building vent effluent radioactivity monitor; sampling and analysis of reactor building vent effluents; I

standby gas treatment system; main stack effluent radioactivity monitor and sampling; sampling and analysis of main stack effluents; augmented off-gas system; off-gas radiation monitor.

The purpose of the reactor building ventilation system is to collect l

and exhaust reactor building air. Air collected from contaminated areas is filtered prior to combining it with air collected from other parts of the building.

Dis combined airflow is then directed to the reactor building ventilation plenum which is located on the side of the reactor building.

This plenum, which vents to the atmosphere, has a shielded radiation detector located on it.

The radiation leval meter and strip chart recorder for the reactor building vent effluent I

radioactivity monitor is located in the Control Room.

To supplement the information continuously provided by the detector, air samples are taken periodically from the reactor building vent and are I

analyzed to quantify the total amount of radioactive gaseous and particulate ef fluent released.

If air containing elevated amounts of noble gases is routed past the reactor building vent's effluent radioactivity monitor, an alarm will alert the Control Room operators that release limits are being approached.

The Control Room operators, according to procedure, will I

isolate the reactor building ventilation system and initiate the-standby gas treatment system to remova airborne particulates and I

gaseous halogen radioactivity from the reactor building exhaust.

This 'iltration assembly consists of high-efficiency particulate air filters and charcoal adsorber beds.

The purified air is then directed to the main stack.

The main stack has dilution flow which further reduces concentration levels of gaseous releases to the environment to as far below the release limits as is reasonably I

achievable.

The approximately 330 foot tall main stack has a special probe inside I

it which draws a portion of the air out and passes it through a radioactivity monitoring system.

This main stack effluent radioactivity monitoring system samples radioactive particulates, iodines, and noble gases and collects a tritium sample.

The system also contains radioactivity detectors that monitor the levels of radioactive noble gases in the stack flow and display the result on radiation level meters and strip chart recorders located in the Control Room.

To supplement the information continuously provided by the detectors, the particulate, iodine, tritium, and gas samples are analyzed periodically to quantify the total amount of radioactive l

gaseous effluent being released.

The purpose of the augmented off-gas system is to reduce the

.I radioactivity from the gases that are removed from the condenser.

This purification system consists of a 30-minute holdup line to reduce the radioactive gases with short half-lives, a pre-filter to remove radic' active particulates, and several charcoal adsorbers to remove radioactive iodines and further retard the short half-life gases.

I The radioactive off-gas from the condenser is then directed into a ventilation pipe to which the off-gas radiation monitor is attached.

The radiation level meter and strip chart recorder for this detector are also located in the Control Room.

If the radiation alarm I

setpoint is exceeded, an audible alarm will sound to alert the Control Room operators.

In addition, the off-gas bypass and charcoal adsorber inlet valve will automatically re-direct the off-gas into the charcoal adsorbers if they are temporarily being bypassed.

If the charcoal adsorbers fail to return the radioactivity levels to below the alarm setpoint within 13 minutes, the off-gas releases will be automatically isolated, thereby preventing any gaseous radioactivity from being released that may exceed the release' limits.

Therefore, for both liquid and gaseous releases, radioactive effluent

.I control systems exist to collect and purify the radioactive effluents in order to reduce releases to the environment to as low as is reasonably achievable.

The effluents are always monitored, sampled I

and analyzed prior to release to make sure that radioactivity levels are below the release limits.

?f the release limits are being approached, isolation valves in some of the waste effluent lines will automatically shut to stop the release, or Control Room cperators will implement procedures to ensure that federal regulatory limits are always met.

1.5 Radioloaical Imojtet on Humans I

The final effluent control is the determination of the radiological dose impact to humans and comparison with the federal dose limits to the public.

As mentioned previously, the purpose of the continuous radiation monitoring and the periodic sampling and analysis is to measure the quantities of radioactivity being released to determine P

if the radioactivity release limits are complied with.

This is the first stage for assessing releases to the environment.

Next, calculations of the dose impact to the general public from Pilgrim Station's radioactive effluents are performed.

The purpose I

of these calculations is to periodically assess the doses to the general public resulting from radioactive effluents to ensure that these doses are being maintained as far below the federal dose limits as is reasonably achievable.

This is the second stage for assessing releases to the environment.

The types and quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents I-released from Pilgrim Station during 1990 were reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission semiannually.

The 1990 Radioactive Effluents are provided in Appendix B and will be discussed in more I

detail in Section 3 of this report.

These liquid and gaseous effluents were well belcw the federal release '.:its and were a small percentage of the PNPS Technical Specifications aperational objectives.

These measurements of the physical and chemical nature of the effluents are used to determine how the radionuclides will interact I

with the environment and how they can result in radiation exposure to humans.

The environmental interaction mechanisms depend upon factors such as the hydrological (water) and meteorological (atmospheric) characteristics in the area.

Information on the water flow, wind l

speed, wind direction, and atmospheric mixing characteristics are used to estimate how radioactivity will distribute and disperse in the ocean and the atmosphere.

The most important type of information that is used to evaluate the radiological impact on humans is data on the use of the environment.

Information on fish and shellfish consumption, boating usage, beach usage, locations of cows and goats, locations of residences, locations of gardens, drinking water supplies, and other usage information are utilized to estimate the amount of radiation and I

radioactivity received by the general public.

The radiation exposure pathway to humans is the path radioactivity l

takes from its release point at Pilgrim Station to its impact on man.

The movement of radioactivity through the environment and its transport to humans is portrayed in Figure 1.5-1.

lI I

I Examples of Pilgrim Station's Radiation Exposure Pathways I

~-

GASEOUS l

EFFLUENTS I

ITty LIQUID l [l$

N __

)

Qp jl

)

EFFLUENTS [

3. DIRECT FTADIXT{ON I

( T^TI "

4. DIRECT RADIATION

2. AIR INHALATION SOIL DEPOSITION)

1. DIRECT RADIATION (AIR SUBMERSION)

I C/

1. SHORELidDIRECT RADIATION s

l (FISHING. PICNIC)

'l

~I D

d.

5. CONSUMPTION DEPOSITION

2. DIRECT RADIATION

• D(VEGETATION)

(IMMERSION IN OCEAN I

BOATING, SWlMMING) lf

[

E@ @ @ @ %

g wewee

6. CONSUMPTION DEPOSITION INGESTION (MILK AND MEAT) k I

3. CONSL, PTION (FISH AN : SHELLFISH) dw iv I

U INGESTION G.2. m.21_.M.g,

a==":

E

,,,,,,. g -- e,._ _

I

-m.

,,.'., ::g?,. l':.

yg:::,, c.; /

I Figure 1.5-1 Generalized Radiation Exposure Pathways to Humans I

I I

I There are six major ways in thich gaseous effluents impact humans:

1) external radiation from an airborne plume of radioactivity; 2) internal radiation from inhalation of airborne radioactivity; 3) direct radiation emitted from Pilgrim Station;

4) external radiation from deposition of radioactive effluents on soil; f

5) internal radiation from consumption of vegetation containing I

radioactivity absorbed from the soil due to ground deposition of radioactive effluents; and, 6) internal radiation from consumption of milk and meat containing radioactivity deposited on forage which is eaten by cattle and other livestock.

l There are three major ways in which liquid effluents impact humans:

1) external radiation irom liquid effluents that deposit and g

accumulhte on the shoreline;

2) external radiation from immersion in ocean water containing radioactive liquids; and, 3) internal radiation from consumption of fish and shellfish containing radioactivity absorbed from the liquid effluents.

To the extent possible, the radiological dose impact on humans is based on-direct measurements of radiation and radioactivity in the lI environment (see Appendix A).

However, the operation of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station results in releases of only small amounts of radioactivity, and, as a result of dilution in the atmosphere and ocean, even the most sensitive radioactivity measurements and analysis techniques cannot detect these tiny amounts of radioactivity l-above that which is naturally present in the environment.

Therefore, l

radiation doses are calculated using radioactivity release data and l

computerized dose calculations that are based on very conservative (over-estimated) NRC-recommended models.

These computerized dose calculations are performed by or for Boston Edison Co. personnel.

3 Thesecomputercodesusetheguideginesandmethodologysetforthby

E the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.109.

The dose calculations are l

documentedanddescribedindetailintheyllgrimNuclearPower Station's Off-site Oose Calculation Manual which has been reviewed by the NRC.

Monthly dose calculations are performed by Boston Edison Co.

personnel. Semiannual dose calculations are performed for Boston Edison Co. by Yankee Atomic Electric Co., using their advanced "Y0DA" computer program.

It should be emphasized that because of the very conservative assumptions made in the computer code calculations, the

. I maximum hypothetical dose to an individual is considerably higher than the dose that would actually be received by a real individual.

I I

After dose calculations are performed, the results are compared to the federal dose limits for the public.

The two federal agencies I

that are charged with the responsibility of protecting the public from radiation and radioactivity are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The NRC, in 10CFR 20.105.8 limits the levels of radiation to unrestricted areas resulting from the possession or use of radioactive materials such that they limit any individual to a dose I

of:

1ess than or equal to 500 mrem per year to the total body.

In addition to this dose limit, the NRC has established design objectives for nuclear plant licensees. Conformance to these guidelines ensures that nuclear power reactor effluents are I

maintained as far below the legal limits as is reasonably achievable.

The NRC, in 10CFR 50 Appendix I,9 establishes design objectives for the dose to a member of the general public from radioactive material in liquid effluents released to unrestricted areas to be limited to:

less than or equal to 3 mrem per year to the total body,

-and-less than or equal to 10 mrem per year to any organ.

The air dose due to release of noble gases in gaseous effluents is l

restricted to:

less than or equal to 10 mrad per year for gamma radiation.

-and-less than or equal to 20 mrad per year for beta radiation.

The dose to a member of the general public from iodine-131, tritium, and all particulate radionuclides with half-lives greater than 8 days in gaseous effluents is limited to:

less than or equal to 15 mrem per year to any organ.

The EPA, in 40CFR190.10 Subpart B,10 sets forth the environmental standards for the uranium fuel cycle. During normal operation, the annual dose to any member of the public from the entire uranium fuel l

cycle shall be limited to:

less than or equal to 25 mrem per year to the total body, less than or equal to 75 mrem per year to the thyroid, e

-and-less than or equal to 25 mrem per year to any other organ.

I l

~'"-

I

The summary of the 1990 radiological impact for Pilgrim Station and comparison with the EPA dose limits and guidelines, as well as a I

comparison with natural / man-made radiation levels, is presented in Section 3 of this report.

l The third stage of assessing releases to the environment is the l

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP).

The description and results of the REMP at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station during 1990 will be discussed in Section 2 of this report.

i I

l l

l LI I

1 I I

lI 1 I

'g lI lI 1 I

t - -.

2.0 Descrir> tion and Results of the Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina Proaram The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) at Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station was initiated in August of 1968.

urpose of the pre-operational environmental monitoring program was

1) measure background levels and their variations in the environment in the area surrounding Pilgrim Station; and,

2) evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques.

years,fromAugust1968toJune1972.forapproximatelythreeandahalf The pre-operational program continued Examples of background radiation and radioactivity levels measured during this time period are as follows:

AirborneRgdioactivityParticulateConcentration(grossbeta): 0.02 -

1.11 pCi/m ;

I Direct Radiation (TLDs): 4.2 - 22 micro-R/hr (37 - 190 mR/yr);

Seawater Radioactivity Concentrations (gross beta): 12 - 31 pCi/ liter;

-Fish Radioactivity Concentrations (gross beta): 2,200 - 11,300 pCi/kg; e

Milk Radioactive Cesium-137 Concentrations: 9.3 - 32 pCi/ liter; Milk Radioactive Strontium-90 Concentrations: 4.7 - 17.6 pC1/ liter; Cranberries Radioactive Cesium-137 Concentrations: 140 - 450 pCi/kg; Forage Radioactive Cesium-137 Concentrations:

150 - 290 pCi/kg.

This information from the pre-operational phase is used as a basis for evaluating changes in radiation and radioactivity levels in the vicinity I

of the plant following plant r. ration.

In April 1972, just prior to initial reactor startup (June 12, 1972), Boston Edison Co. implemented a comprehensive operational environmental monitoring program at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

This program provides information on of:{gactivity and radiation levels in the environment for the purpose rad

1) demonstrating that doses to the general public and levels of radioactivity in the environment are within established limits and legal requirements; I

2) monitoring the transfer and long-term butidup of specific radionuclides in the environment to revise the monitoring program and environmental models in response to changing conditions;

3) checking the condition of the station's operation, the adequacy of operation in relation to the adequacy of containment, and the effectiveness of effluent treatment, so as to provide a mechanism of determining unusual or unforeseen conditions and, where appropriate, to trigger special environmental monitoring studies; I

4) assessing the dose equivalent to the general public and the behavior of radioactivity released during the unlikely event of an accidental release; and

5) determining whether or not the radiological impact on the environment and humans is significant.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that Boston Edison Company provide monitoring of the plant environs for radioactivity that will be released as a result of normal operations, including anticipated operational occurrences, and from postulated accidents.

The NRC has established guidelines which specify an acceptable monitoring program.I4 I

The Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program was designed to meet and exceed these guidelines. Guidance contained in theNRC'sRadiologicalAyessmentBranchTechnicalPositionon Environmental Monitoring has been used to improve the program.

In I

madewiththeMassachusettsHildlifefederation.Qonsofanagreement addition, the program has incorporated the provi The program was supplemented by including improved analysis of shellfish and sediment at l

substantially higher sensitivity levels to verify the adequacy of efflucnt controls at Pilgrim Station.

I Sampling locations have been established by considering meteorology, population distribution, hydrology, and land use characteristics of the Plymouth area.

The sempling locations are divided into two classes, indicator and control.

Indicator locations are those which are expected to show effects from PNPS operations, if any exist.

These locations were primarily selected on the basis of where the highest predicted environmental concentrations would occur. While the indicator locations I

are typically within a few miles of the plant, the control stations are generally located so as to be outside the influence of Pilgrim Station.

They provide a basis on which to evaluate fluctuations at indicator locations relative to natural background radiation and natural I

radioactivity and fallout from prior nuclear weapons tests.

The environmental sampling media collected in the vicinity of Pilgrim l

Station during 1990 included air particulate filters, charcoal cartridges, seawater, shellfish, Irish moss, American lobster, fishet, sediment, milk, cranberries, vegetation, and forage.

The medium, station I

number, description, distance, and direction for indicator and control samples are listed in Table 2.0-1.

These sampling locations are also displayed on the maps shown in Figures 2.0-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The radiation monitoring locations for the environmental TLDs are shown in Figures 2.0-1, 2. and 3.

The frequency of collection and types of radioactivity analysis are described in Appendix C, Table 8.1-1.

The land-based (terrestrial) samples and monitoring devices are collected by Boston Edison personnel from the Electrical Engineering and Station I

Operation Department's Environmental Laboratory.

The aquatic samples are collected by the Division of Marine fisheries - Pilgrim Station Project personnel.

The direct radiation measurements and soil radioactivity measurements are conducted by Yankee Atomic Electric Co. - Radiological I

Engineering Group and Environmental Laboratory personnel, respectively.

The radioactivity analysis of samples and the processing of the environmental TLDs is performed by Yankee's Environmental Laboratory personnel.

1 Table 2.0-1 Pilarim Nuclear Power Station's Radiological Environmen.tgl Inl90 Routine Samolina locations Hedia No Cole Deserip_t120 D1Lt.

DL Air Particulate 00 HS Harehouse 0.1 Mt ESE filtenf 01 ER E. Rocky Hill Road 0.3 Hi SE Charcoa1 Cartr_Ldati 03 HR H. Rocky Hill Road 0.2 Hi HSH 06 PL Property Line 0.3 Hi H

07 PB Pedestrian Bridge 0,1 H1 NNH I

OB OA Overlook Area 0.1 Mi SW 09 EB East Breakwater 0.3 Mi SE 10 CR Cleft Rock 0.9 Mi SH 15 PC Plymouth Center 4.1 Mi H

17 MS Manomet Substation 2.3 Mi SSE 21 EH East Heymouth Control 24 Mi NH I

Surface Water 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.1 Mi NNH 17 BP Barlett Pond 3

Hi SE 23 PP Powder Point Control 8

Hi NNW Shellfish 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Hi N

12 Ply-H Plymouth Harbor 3

Hi H

13 Dux-Bay Duxbury Bay Control 8

H)

NNH I

15 HP Manomet Point 3

Hi SE 23 PP Powder Point Control 8

M1 NNW 24 GH Green Harbor Control 9

Mi NNH Irish Hosi 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Mi N

15 MP Manomet Point 3

Mi SE I

22 EL E111sville 8

Mi SE 34 BR Brant Rock Control 10 Hi NNH American Lobster 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Mi N

I 12 Ply-H Plymouth Harbor 3

MI H

13 Dux-Bay Duxbury Bay Control 8

Mi NNH d

Fishes 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 Hi N

E 29 PC Priest Cove Control 30 Mi SH 30 JR Jones River Control 8

M1 NNH 92 HV Vineyard Sound Control 50 Hi SSH I

9B CC-Bay Cape Cod Bay Control 15 Hi ESE Sediment 11 DIS Discharge Canal 0.2 M1 N

l 12 Ply-H Plymouth Harbor 3

Mi H

13 Dux-Bay Duxbury Bay 8

M1 NNH 14 PLB Plymouth Beach 2

Hi H

15 MP Hanomet Point 3

Mi SE 24 GH Green Harbor Control 9

Mi NNW Hilk 11 CF Plymouth County Farn 3.4 Hi H

21 HF Whitman Farm Control 20 Mi HNH I - - - - -

Table 2.0-1 (continued)

Pilarim Nuclear Power Station's Radioloaical Environmental 1990 Samolina Locations litdia 80 GMit DescriR110D Dlit.

D1L.

C.ranberries 13 MR Manomet Pt. Bog 2.5 Hi SE 14 BR Bartlett Rd. Bog 2.7 Hi SSE 23 PS Pine St. Bog Control 17 Mi HNH I

Veaetation 11 CF Plymouth County Farm 3.4 Mi H

27 BF Bridgewater Farm Ctrl 20 Mi H

43 HH Whipple Farm 1.8 Hi SH 60 AF Hork Residence 0.8 Mi SE 77 MG Moon Residence 2.1 Mi HSH EteLiqtAgt 11 CF Plymouth County Farm 3.4 Mi H

l 12 HF Nhitman Farm Control 20 Mi HNH I

I I

I I - - - -

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M Figure 2.0-1 Envi ronmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Locations Within Exclusion Area AIR SAMPLE LOCATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL TLD LOCATIONS Di t.'

Di r."

L2 e Description Dist."

Dir *

[pdf Description f

d A

Station A 1300 ft W

EB East Breakwater 0.33 mi ESE B

Station B 1300 ft SSW OA Overlook Area 0.09 mi W

C Station C 1700 ft SE PS Pedestrian Bridge 0.13 mi N

O Station D 1700 ft NW PL Property Line 0.32 mi W

EB East Breakwater 1800 ft SE WR W. Rocky Hill Road 0.48 mi WNW F

Station F 1400 ft tM WS Warehouse 0.11 mi SSE G

Station G 1700 ft WNW I

Station I 1600 ft NW L

Station L 1400 ft ESE OA Overlook Area 500 ft V

P01 Sec H Shore 720 ft tmW P02 Fence Shore 440 ft NW P03 Fen L Screenh 330 ft NW PO4 Fen R Screenh 220 ft N

P05 Fen Water Tank 260 ft NE P06 Fen Culvert 280 ft ENE P07 Fen Intake 400 ft E

i l POS Fen New Admin 300 ft E

. P09 Fen TCF Side 450 ft E

l P10 Fen Intakc TCF 740 ft ESE P11 Gate Wh to TCF 620 ft SE P12 Fen W5 Con Gate 660 ft SSE P13 Fen Con & RHR 740 ft S

P14 Fen Butler B 750 ft S

P15 Fen Unit #9 740 ft SSW P16 Fen Swy M Gate 560 ft SW P17 Fen Shf M Gate 350 ft htN P18 I&C N Admin 290 ft S

P19 Compliance Area 280 ft S

P20 Dosimetry Window 220 ft SSE P21 W Admin & Turb 170 ft SE P22 QA/QC Area 450 ft SE P23 CMG Area 400 ft SSE P24 Old Admin Bld 2nd 190 ft W

P25 First Aid Trailer 250 ft kNW P26 Fence Warehouse 490 ft SE P27 TCF Boat Launch 640 ft ESI P28 TCF Cont. Lot 800 ft ESE PA Parking Area 1200 ft NNW P3 Pedestrian Bridge 700 ft N

PL Property Line 1700 ft NW TC Training Center 520 ft W

WR W. Rocky Hill Road 2600 ft WW WS Warehouse 600 ft SSE PMT Plymouth Met Twr 1400 ft NW H51 Halls Bog 2000 ft SSE CT Contractor tot 1100 ft SSE Values listed

" Distance and direction are measured f rom the centerline of the reactor to the samlingimonitoring location.

are approximate and are being evaluated in conjunction with revision of sampling location maps. _ _ -

m'

....F l

,)

Mww l

\\

~t

,../'

\\.....,

eeCq Fj

[

l

!, t

/

\\'

a g.

,f ' 9

/ p

lllll, T,'

'g f

[a }

hx l

4 7/

I i 's

{

i -

N E

c-i li N

s s

i x

\\ 1._

!?

's l

cica l it N

g,Il V.661 je g

...R l 'l -e i

E I

i

\\ fB y el9'

\\\\

l

• 1%)

\\

i

'Q-4 -4 4.J nJh u[l t

g 5

m

/

t T

q ll'd1 in.)

,n i

l i

F

• %-,-..')

ll

\\

A

! Y: yen

%4 l..

. nig a/h/

Y i

'sm' h Vw... M Q f r s /

lg in i

7 i

ul i

w l ll,

l 6

l

'N lr lf e-m

.ii ml ll I-l f

l

!6 e'

i

-.-.--.~.-...._....a.______________j 9 l

,I g

ll,I R.

II l lj

}'{

_h

~

==

. ' ' yzz t m

h.

c ! ! oo /

F h

~ ~ $ ! l,-

1m A

\\-.~......_.,,,,,,

Figure 2.0-2 Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Locations Outside Exclusion Area to About Two Miles AIR SAMPLE LOCATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL TLD LOCATIONS QNIRONMENTAL TLD LOCATIONS D 1.1,

• Dir.*

Qdd.g Descriptim Dist."

Dir."

@d_g Descri pti on Dist "

Di r.*

Gsfg pg;cription 3

AR Access Road 0.92 mi S

K Station K 1.4 mi SSE CR Cleft Rock 0.86 mi SSV i

BB 3A & Bartlett Rd 2.1 mi SSE ME Manomet Elm 2.1 mi SE MS Manomet Substation 2.3 mi SSE BD Bayshore Drive 0.81 mi WNW MP Manomet Pt 2.3 mi SE ER East Rocky Hill Rd 0.65 mi SE BS Bayshore 1.3 mi W

MR Manomet Road 0.98 mi S

BW Beachwood Road 2.5 mi SE MS Manomet Subst 2.3 mi SSE CR Cleft Rock 0.86 mi S

MT Micro Tower 0.58 mi SSW

, DR Dirt Road 0.94 mi SW PT Pines Estate 2.1 mi SSW E

Station E 1.2 mi 5

RC Rec Pool 1.3 mi WSW EM Emerson Road 1.1 mi SSE RW Right of Way 1.7 mi 5

EP Emer Rd & Pris 1.1 mi SE SP S Ply. Sub 2.8 mi W

l ER E Rocky Hill Rd 0.65 mi SE TP Taylor & Pearl 1.9 mi SE l

GH Greenwood House 0.57 mi SE TT Taylor & Tom Ave 1.5 mi SE GN Goodwin Property 1.4 mi SV VR Valley Road 1.8 mi SSW H

Station H 0.57 mi SV WC Warren & Clifford 2.1 mi W

J Station J 1.3 mi 5

WH White Horse Rd 1.3 mi SSE JG John Gauley 1.1 mi W

YV Yankee Village 1.4 mi WSW Valces listed are appronimate and

• Distance and direction are measured f rom the centerline of the reactor to the sampling / monitoring location.

are being evaluated in conjunction with revision of sampling location maps.

~23-f

lI figure 2.0-2 (cont.)

'I

\\

l I

g's b

c s@/ @f

.u

/,

rr 1

1 l

,g

./

r~

I

{ 4 0

?/

h-

[y @

i SCALE 0

M!LES 1

BOUNDARY KEY:

B0S"0N US0N C0FAhY

- - - [Ll 3 EA PILCRIM NUCEAR P0'ER STATION l

---

pg;gt (vrurx Insmh1 CGER #0 G SYMBOL KEY:

l-0 1LD 0

AIR SAMPLER I

I ---

m m

m m

m m

m m

M M

M m

m m

m M

Figure 2.0-3 Ec.vironmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeter and Air Sampling Locations Outside Property Boundary AIR SAMPLE LOCATIONS EWIRONMENTAL Ttts.OCATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL TLD LOCATIONS Code Description Dj,1M Dir."

Qgfg Qescri ption Dist.*

D__i_M fdL1 Des cri pti on Dist.*_

Dir,*

BB 3A & Bartlett 2.1 mi SSE MB Manomet Beach 3.4 mi SSE CR Cleft Rock 0.86 mi SSW BD Bayshore Drive 0.81 mi WW ME Manomet Elem 2.1 mi SE EW E.st Weymouth 24 mi W

BE Bourne Road 8.4 mi SSW MH Memorial Hall 4.7 mi WW MS Manomet Subst 2.3 mi SSE BR Beaver Dam Road 3.5 mi S

MM Main & Meadow 11 mi WSW PC Plymouth Center 4.1 mi W

BS Bayshore 1.3 mi W

MP Manomet Point 2.3 mi SE BW Beachwood Road 2.5 mi SE MS Manomet Subst 2.3 mi SSE CR Cleft Rock 0.86 mi S

NP North Plymouth 5.8 mi WW CS Cedarville Sub 10 ei S

PC Plymouth Center 4.1 mi W

CP College Pond 4.8 mi SW PT Pine Estates 2.7 mi SSW CW Church & West 10 mi W

RC Rec Pool 1.3 mi WSW DMF Div. Mar. Fish.

14 mi SSE RM Russell Mill 3.0 mi WSW DW Deep Water 5.3 mi W

RP Rt 3 Overpass 3.0 mi SW EA Earl Road 3.0 mi SSE SA Sherman Airport 8.4 mi WSW EL Ellisville Road 7.2 mi SSE ES Eim Street 8.1 mi W

EP Ener. Rd & Pris 1.1 mi SE 55 Standish Shores 6.5 mi W

EW E. Weymouth Sub 24 mi W

SP

5. Plymouth Sub 2.8 mi W

HD Hilidale Road 3.I mi V

TP Taylor & Pearl 1.9 mi SE HR Hyannis Road 4.8 mi SSE TT Taylor & Thomas 1.5 mi SE JG John Gauley 1.1 mi V

UC Up Coll. Pnd. Rd 7.4 mi SV KC King Caesar Road 8.1 mi NW WC Warren & Clifford 2.1 mi W

KS Kingston Subst.

10 mi WW YV Yankee Village 1.4 mi WSW SH Snake Hill Road 4.5 mi WSW LP Long Pond Road 5.7 mi SSW LR Landing Road 10 mi NW Values listed are approximate and

• Distance and direction are measured from tha centerline of the reactor to the sampling / monitoring location.

are being evaluated in conjunction with revision of sampling location maps. _

k figure 2.0-3 (cont )

f:I

%im%

si 1

R

nis,

\\

! I As 8k\\

e e

ni,,,,,

+

f eI

\\'

,s s;4

'3

/'

=+

l map)

N

/

\\ '/ o

){

\\

I y

,/v' I) '")

< e....

!l w! / h e

s

\\

\\

909

/

L

/

\\/

\\

• i #(. hh'

/ \\

l f

(

9 c

g "*/

y\\

4 s

'I p/

/

\\

es y

i-

\\g g%

.I NV

~

\\

(l j

/

%,1

)

etmas i

a s

3(

/

II i

,/e 4,,,,,

l, sm

'I i

BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY PitCRIM NUCLEAR P0E STAT 105

.--.--.. eman wusaenwm osmo i

- -. CWT 4 W9C lorJTK Olm M0W EUXM sun rtt. g

,g O AIR SMER

~2b'

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M Figure 2.0-4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Sampling Locations

[odg Descrio ti on Dist."

Dir."

[pd_g Descriotion Dist."

Dir.*

SEAWATER SEDIMENT DIS Discharge Canal 0.13 mi N

RP Rocky Point 0.21 mi N

BP Bartlett Pond 1.7 mi SE PLY-H Plymouth Harbor 3.0 mi W

PP Powder Point Control 7.9 mi h?M PLB Plymouth Beach 2.5 mi W

MP Manomet Point 2.5 mi ESE

$HELLFISH DUX-BAY Duxbury Bay Control 8.7 mi MN DIS Discharge Canal 0.21 mi N

GH Green Harbor Control 10 mi wu PLY 41 Plymouth Harbor 2.8. mi W

MP Manomet Point 3.0 mi ESE MILK CUX-BAY Duxbury Bay Control 7.8 mi NW CF Plymouth County Farm 3.5 mi W

PP Powder Point Control 8.0 mi NNW WF Whitman Farm Control 20 mi WM GH Green Harbor Control 9.9 mi NW IRISH MOSS CRANBERRIES DIS Discharge Canal 0.21 mi N

MR Manomet Pt. Bog 2.4 mi SE MP Manomet Point 2.2 mi ESE BT Bartlett Rd. Bog 2.7 mi SSE EL Ellisville 7.9 mi SSE PS Pine St. Bog Control 16 mi MM BK Brant Rock Control 10 mi NNW AMERICAN LOBSTER VEGETABLES DIS Discharge Canal 0.21 mi N

CF Plymouth County Farm 3.4 mi W

PLY-H Plymouth Harbor 4.0 mi WNW BF Bridgewater Farm Ctrl 20 mi W

DUX-B Duxbury Beach Control 5.8 mi NW WH WV pple Farm 1.8 mi SW DUX-BAY Duxbury Bay Control 7.1 mi NW AF Work Residence 0.8 mi SE PLB Plymouth Beach 2.5 mi V

ML JG FISHES MG Moon Residence 2.1 mi WSW DIS Discharge Canal 0.21 mi N

PLB Plymouth Beach 2.5 mi W

FORAGE

, JR Jones River Control 7.8 mi W

CF Plymouth County Farm 3.5 mi W

l CC-BAY Cape Cod Bay Control 15 mi E

WF vhitman Farm Control 20 mi MM NR N River-Hanover Control 15 mi NNW CA Cataumet Control 20 mi SSW PT Provincetown Control 20 mi NE BB Buzzards Bay Control 25 mi SSW PC Priest Cove Control 30 mi SV NS Nantucket Sound Control 30 mi SSE A0 Atlantic Ocean Control 30 mi E

W Vineyard Sound Control 40 mi SSW

• Distance and direction are ceasured from the centerline of the reactor to the sampling / monitoring location. Values listed are approximate and are being evaluated in conjunction with revision of sampling location maps.

l l l l

l 1

l

. _ _ - = _

Figure 2.0-4 (cont.)

[

we StMn Ltd 9

O *ifd um,

/'

!".,;n.:

/- l O r ci v

cz wu.xn

,* \\* @( '

Cr rea ur#,

I D s..un y,

n n

t, Cinc

-..., m,

s z,

t

)

7

%:y,.q/ y)~

i oco 7

m c'

l

_g

,/

c..,

s-,'

/

f( f.. \\lft,

1

/

i

\\-

l s

c,a eA>/

e ez s

' ($

fs. )%F c.r

~

e

/\\

^

g a

ti?

\\

"q w E

te,te MDa ggg D

\\

/C

\\

I

+

7

\\

t'

\\

+[

g "s

w/

)

/a 4

l.

1

\\

.n j

l

\\

20

t. / '

.oa a nw

- -c-i E

j m,isI.?.M*230I

I

W M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

Figure 2.0-5 Environmental Sampling And Measurement Control Locations

[odg Description Dist."

Dir."

fadg Descri ption Dist."

Dir."

o AIR SAMPLE TLD EW East Weymouth 24 mi W

KS iiiEgston Subst 10 mi MN LR Landing Road 10 mi NW

$EDIMENT CS Cedarville Sub 10 mi S

GH Green Harbor Control 10 mi NW CW Church & West 10 mi W

DUX-8AY Duxbury Bay Control 8.7 mi fen 991 Main & Meadow 11 mi WSW DNF Div. Mar. Fish 14 mi SSE EW East Weymouth Sub 24 mi W

SEAWATER MILK PP Powder Point Control 7.9 mi NNW WF Whitman Farm Control 20 mi VW

$11ELLFISH CRANBERRIES DUX-BAY Duxbury-Bay Control 7.8 mi NW PS Pir2e St. Bog Control 16 mi MN PP Powder Point Control 8.0 mi NW GH Green Harbor Control 9.9 sii kNW IRISH M0SS VEGETABLES BX Brant Rock Control 10 mi ttM BF Bridgewater Farm Control 20 mi W

WF Whitman Fann Control 20 mi MN AMERICAN LOBSTER FORAGE DUX-BAY Doubury Bay Control 7.1 mi NW VF Whitman Farm Control 20 mi WW FISHES I

JR Jones River Control 7.8 mi WW CC-BAY Cape Cod Bay Control 15 ni ESE NR N. River Hanover Control 15 mi NW l CA Cataumet Control 20 mi SSW l PT Provincetown Control 20 mi NE BB Buzzards Bay Control 25 mi SSW l PC Priest Cove Control 30 mi SW

[ NS Nantucket Sound Control 30 mi SSE i A0 Atlantic Ocean Control 30 mi E

MV vineyard Sound Control 40 mi SSW

• Distance and direction are measured f rom the c?nterline of the reactor to the sampling / monitoring location. Values listed are approximate and are being evaluated in conjunction with revision of sampling location maps. l l

l

Figure 2.0-5 (cont.)

1 SYMBOL KEY:

C3 SHCU51;H l

-$ $ $5$

04 WS.D MLU O

1Riss e s I

g M7JCM LDITER jk_

a nxs s

C SEAVATIR m'

x-O ctANEtxt

- r

^ ""

I u g a nn e

o 7'

6 0

MMS 10 l

u 7(t **j;@jfE d

c i:

w e

x

'N) g N

~

.l e

nd 1

s g

phe_

E 1

d l

$i!

N

5' u/ wD1R u'

n s.

r l

i a

vo-o?

g~

m

~

y* ) ^

l e

l

,n

-- 4'l BOSTON US0i C0FANY PILCRW NUCIIAR P0ER MTION

's t lk ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND

~\\fg E

l C

MEASUREMENT CONTROL LOCAil0NS I

t The frequency, types, minimum number of samples, and maximum locer limits l

cf detection (LLD) for the analytical measurements, are specified in the PNPS Technical Specifications (see Appendix C, Table 8.1-1 and Table 8.1-4).

I Upon receipt of the analysis results from Yankee Atomic Electric Co., the Boston Edison staff reviews the results.

Reporting levels for radioactivity concentrations in environmental samples are listed in Table 7.1-2 of Appendix C.

If the radioactivity concentrations are above the I

reporting levels, the NRC must be notified within 30 days.

For radioactivity which is detected that is attributable to Pilgrim Station's operation, calculations are performed to determine the cumulative dose contribution for the current year.

Depending upon the circumstances, a special study may also be completed (see Appendix A for 1990 special studies).

Most importantly, if radioactivity levels in the environment become elevated as a result of the station's operation, aa investigation is performed and corrective actions are recommended to reduce the amount of radioactivity to as far below the legal limits as is reasonably achievable.

The radiological environmental sampling locations are reviewed annually, and modified if necessary.

A garden and milk animal census is performed I

every year to identify changes in the use of the environment in the vicinity of the station to permit modification of the monitoring and sampling locations.

The results of the 1990 Garden and Milk Animal Census are reported in Appendix D.

The accuracy of the data obtained through Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program is ensured through a I~

comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) program.

BECo's QA program has been established to ensure confidence in the measurements and results of the radiological monitoring program through:

Regular audits of the sampling and monitoring program; An annual audit of the analytical laboratory by the sponsor companies; Participation in the United States Environmental Protection Agency cross-check program; Use of blind duplicates for comparing separate analyses of the same sample; Spiked sample analyses by the analytical laboratory; Boston Ediron Company's TLD QA Program and YAEL's TLD QA Program.

QA audits and inspections of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program are performed by the NRC, American Nuclear Insurers, and by Boston Edison Company's Quality Assurance Department.

The blind duplicates, split samples and spiked samples are analyzed by Boston Edison Company, Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Environmental I

Laboratory, and tha other four sponsor companies.

The 1990 results of this QA program are summarized in Appendix F.

These results indicate that the analyses and measurements which were performed during 1990 exhibited acceptable precision and accuracy.

I Ruults of Radiometrip Analyses and Meauremgnta The following pages summarize the analytical results of the environmental samples which were collected during 1990. Data for each environmental medium are included in a separate section. A discussion of the sampling program and results is followed by a table which summarizes the year's data for each type of medium.

The tables were ge AtomicElectricCompany'sERMAPcomputerprogram.gratedbytheYankee The unit of measurement for each medium is listed at the top of each table.

The left I

hand column contains the radionuclides which are being reported, total number of analyses of that radionuclide, and the number of measurements which exceed ten times the yearly average for the control station (s).

The latter are classified as "non-routine" measurements.

The next column lists the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) for those radionuclides which have detection capability requirements as specified in the PNPS Technical Specifications (see Table 8.1-4 of Appendix C).

Those sampling stations which are within the range of influence of Pilgrim Station and which could conceivably be affected by its operation I

are called " indicator" stations.

Distant stations, which are beyond plant influence, are called " control" stations Direct radiation monitoring stations are broken down into fe;r separate zones to aid in data analysis.

For each sampling medium, each radionuclide is presented with a set of statistical parameters.

This set of statistical parameters includes I

separate analyses for (1) the indicator stations, (2) the station having the highest annual mean concentration, and (3) the control stations.

For each of these three groups of data, the Yankee Atomic ERMAP computer program calculates:

The mean value of all concentrations including negative values and values celow LLO; The standard error of the mean; The lowest and highest concentrations; The number of positive measurements (activity which is three times I

greater than the standard deviation) divided by the total number of measurements.

Each single radioactivity measurement datum is based on a single measurement and is reported as a concentration plus or minus one standard deviation.

The quoted uncertainty represents only the random uncertainty associated with the measurement of the radioactive decay process I

(counting statistics), and not the propagation of all possible uncertainties in the sampling and analysis process.

A sample or measurement is considored to contain detectable radioactivity if the measured value (e.g., concentration) exceeds three times its associated standard deviation.

For example, a milk sample with a strontium-90 concentration of 3.5 t 0.8 pCi/ liter would be considered " positive" (detectable Sr-90), whereas another sample with a concentration of 2.1 0.9 pCi/ liter would be considered " negative", indicating no detectable strontium-90.

The latter sample may actually contain strontium-90, but the levels counted during its analysis were not significantly different than background levels.

The strontium-90 may be detectable at lower levels if the sample were counted for a longer period of time or analyzed in a different manner. <

I As an example of hod to interpret data presented in the results tables, refer to the first entry on the table for air particulate filters I

(page 35). Gro:,s beta (GR-B) analyses were performed on 572 routine samples (11 stations /wk

• 52 weeks).

None of the samples exceeded ten of detection (LLD) required by Technical Specifications is 0.01 pCi/m{mit times the average concentration at the control location.

The lower l For samples collected from the ten indicator stations, 517 out of 520 samples indicated detectable activity at the three-sigma (standard I

deviation) level.

Themeanconcentrationofgrossbetaactivityintgese 520 indicator station samples was 0.021 i 0.000 (2.1 i 0.0 E-2) pCi/m.

3 Individual values ranged from 0.0023 to 0.049 (2.3 - 48.5 E-3) pCi/m.

The indicator station which yielded the highest mean concentration was stationnumber10(gleftRock),whichyieldedameanconcentrationof pCi/m, based on 52 observations.

Individual values ranged 0.022

• 0.001 I

3 from 0.0056 to 0.0448 pCi/m. All 52 out of 52 samples showed detectable activity at the three-sigma level.

l At the control location, all 52 out of 52 samples yielded detenable grossbetagetivity,foranaverageconcentrationof0.022 0.001 pC1/m.

Indivi al samples at the control location ranged from 0.0052 to 0.047 pCi/m Referring to the third entry in the table, analyses for potassium-40 (K-40) were performed 44 times (quarterly composites for 11 stations

• I 4 quarters).

No samples exceeded ten times the mean control station concentration.

There is no LLD value listed for K-40 in the PNPS Technical Specifications.

At the indicator stations, individual concentrations of K-40 ranged from

-0.0053 to 0 0084 pCi/m, for a mean concentration of 0.0027 i 3

0.0006 pCi/m.

However, nang of the forty samples analyzed showed I

detectable amounts of potassium-40 at the three-sigma level.

It is important to note that the mean value presented is calculated from forty observations, all of which yielded Da detectable activity. Although the I

mean value appears to indicate some potassium-40 present in the samples, neither the individual observations nor the collective mean were significantly different from background levels.

The station which yielded the highest mean concentration of K-40 was 3 is based on station 00. Again, the mean value of 0.0049 2 0.0012 pCi/m four observations, Dnag of which yielded any detectable activity.

I Therefore, no potassium-40 was detected in any of the samples collected from the sampling stations.

I I

I I -

I 2.1 Air Particulate Filters A type A/E glass fiber particulate filter, a charcoal cartridge, and an air sampling vacuum pump were used to collect radioactive airborne particulates and iodines. Results of the charcoal cartridge sampling are I

presented in Section 2.2.

The eleven locations sampled during 1990 are listed in Table 2.0-1.

Analyses of the air particulate filters for gross beta radiation are performed weekly.

In addition, quarterly composites of the particulate samples for each sampling location were analyzed for I

gamma-emitting nuclides. Although there were several instances of low sample volume due to power failures, pump failures, and crimped sample lines during the year, all particulate sample analyses met the maximum I

value for the lower limit of detection (LLD) during 1990.

The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for air particulates I

for 1990 is presented in Table 2.1-1.

The station identification numbers correspond to the locations identified in Table 2.0-1.

Naturally-occurring beryllium-7 was observed in several indicator and control station air particulate filters.

No radionuclides attributable I

to PNPS operations were detected in any of the samples collected during 1990.

I Trend plots of the gross beta activity vs. time for the on-site, property boundary and off-site indicator stations are provided in Figure 2.1-1, Figure 2.1-2, and Figure 2.1-3, respectively.

There were two instances when gross beta activity at Cleft Rock (AP-10) showed what appeared to be somewhat higher activity relative to other monitoring stations during the same time period.

In both instances, the I

sample activity was less than 5 times the activity of the control sample and was well below the activity in pre-operational samples collected between 1968 - 1972.

Analysis of air particulate samples collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.

I I

I I

I I

I Table 2.1-1 I-Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Air Particulate Filters - 1990 EWIRONMENT AL RADIOLOGICAL Pf DGRAM

SUMMARY

PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER stall 0N, PLYM3JfH, MA (JANUARY

• DECEMBER 1990)

UNITS: PCl/CU. M MEDIUM: Alt PARilCULATE INDICATOR $1AT10vs

$1 A110H WITH NIGHtST MAN CONTROL STAil0NS

, I RADIONUCLICES MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA.

RANCE RANGE (NON RCUTINE)*

LLD NO. CEi!C1E0**

NO.

kO. DETICTE0" NO. DEitCit0**

I CR l (572)

.01

(

2.1 4 0.0)E 2 10 (

2.2 a 0.1)E 2

(

2.2 a 0.1)E 2

( 0)

(

2.3

• 48.5)E 3

(

5.6 44.8)E 3

(

5.2 -

47.2)E +3 I

• (517/520)*

• ( 52/ 52)*

• ( 52/ $2)*

BE-7

( 44)

(

4.6 0.2)E 2 to

(

5.3 a 0.7)E 2

(

4,2 1.0)E + 2

( 0)

(

2.8 -

7.7)E 2

(

4.0

• 7.1)E 2

(

2.8 -

7.2)E 2 I

• ( 40/ 40)*

• (

4/ 4)*

• (

4/ 4)*

K 40

( 44)

(

2.7 4 0.6)I 3 00

(

4.9 a 1.2)E 3

(

5.4 a 18.9)E 4

( 0)

(

5.3 -

8.4)E 3

(

2.4 -

7.6)E 3

( 4.3

• 3.1)E 3 I-

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

MN 54 ( 44)

(

1.1 2 3.8)E 5 06

(

1.1 a 0.3)E 4

(

2.1 :

8.4)E 5

( 0)

( v4-5.3)E 4

(

4.2 -

19.1)t 5

(

1.2 -

2.6)E 4 I

, C/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

Co 58 ( 44)

(

3.9 4.1)E 5 03

(

1.4 1.2)E 4

(

6.3 a 21.1)E 5

( 0)

(

7.0

• 4.9)E 4

(

7.6 -

48.6)E 5

(

-6.2 -

3.5)E 4 I

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

FE 59 ( 44)

(

1.2 a 1.4)E 4 15

(

5.7 3.2)E 4

(

3.0 a 11.3)E 5

( 0)

(

2.5 -

1.6)E 3

(

1.4 -

13.7)E 4

(

1.1 -

3.7)E 4 I

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

Co 60 ( 44)

(

1.7 a 5.2)E 5 01

(

4.0 a 1.8)E 4

(

1.6 a 2.3)E 4

( 0)

(

-7.4 -

L3)E 4

(

6.4 -

73.3)E 5

(

7.2 -

2.5)E 4

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

2N 65 ( 44)

(

+1.2 1.0)E 4 to (

5.5 a 2.6)E 4

(

1.0

• 2.2)E 4

( 0)

(

1.6 -

1.1)E 3

(

1.5 -

11.2)E 4

(

3.7 -

6.2)E 4

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

22 95 ( 44)

(

2.5 a 1.1)t 4 00 (

6.5 a 1,9)E 4

(

2.73 3.2)E 4

( 0)

(

1.7 -

2.4)E 3

(

2.3 -

11.4)E 4

(

2.0

• 12.2)E 4 I

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

NON*ROL171NE REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF $1PARATE MEASUREMEWi$ WHICH WERE CRIAftR I

TwAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AvtRAGE BACKGRCONO FOR THE PERICO OF THE REPORT.

THE FRACTION OF SAMPtt AhALYSES YlELOING dei!CTABLE MEASUREMENTS (1.E. >3 5f0 DEVIATIONS) IS INDICATED WITH *(

)*.

I l

l _

I Table 2.1-1 (continued) l Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Air Particulate filters - 1990 ENYlRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM SihMART PILCRIM NUCLEAR P06TR $fAfl0N, PLYM(11TN, MA (JANUARY

• DECEMBER 1990)

MEDIUM: AIR PARTICULATE UN O ikDICATOR $1Ai!ONS STATION WliN '1CHE$T MEAN CONTR0( STAtl0NS J

!I RADIONUCLICES MEAN MEAN MEAN (WO. ANAliSES) REQUIRED RANCE

$1A.

RANCE RANCE (NON ROUTlWE)*

LLD NO. DETECTED **

No, h0. CETECTE0" No. DETECTE0" RU 103 ( 44)

(

3.8 7.0)E 5 09

(

2.3 s 3.5)E 4

(

4.0 s 228.9)E 6

( 0)

(

7.6 -

10.8)E -4

(

6.1 -

10.8)E 4

(

5.6 -

5.5)E 4 I

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

4 RV 106 ( 44)

(

6.0 t 3.5)E 4 15

(

3.7 0.8)E 3

(

1.2 :

11.2)E 4

( 0)

(

5.3 -

5.4)I 3

(

1.9 -

5.4)E 3

(

2.3 -

2.8)E 3

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• t 0/ 4)*

C$ 134 ( 44)

.01

(

2.1 s 0.4)E 4

'. 0

(

1.1 a 2.2)E 4

(

1..T s 0.5)E 4

( 0)

(

8.7 -

6.8)E 4

(

2.7 -

6.8)E 4

(

2.4 -

0.3)E 4

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (- 0/ 4)*

C$ 137 ( 44)

.01

(

1.2 a 0.4)E 4 03

(

3.9 a 1.2)E 4

(

5.3 t 8.4)E 5

( 0)

(

-3.5 -

5.9)E 4

(

9.1 -

59.4)E 5

(

t.1 -

2.5)E -4

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/

4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

BA 140 ( 44)

(

1.5 a 2.2)E 4 to (

5.4 3 5.8)E 4

(

-7.6 :

". 0)E 4

( 0)

(

3.4 -

3.0)E 3

(

3.9 -

20.1)E 4

(

1.9 -

0.5)E 3 I

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

CE 141 ( 44)

(

9.9 s 7.2)E 9 00

(

4.2 1 1.6)E 4

(

2,2 s 2.7)E -4

( 0)

(

1.0 -

1.3)E 3

(

3,0 -

73.1)E 5

(

9.0 -

3.4)E 4 I

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

CE 144 ( 44)

(

3.3 1.8)E 4 10 (

9t 12.0)E 4

(

-6.0 s 4.9)E 4

( 0)

(

1.9 -

3.8)E 3

(

1.9 -

3.8)E 3

(

2.0 -

0.1)E 3

• (

0/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

TH 232 ( 44)

(

3.6 t 1.6)E 4 17

(

1.1 a 0.3)E 3

(

-4.0 t 8.1)E 44

( 0)

(

1.7 -

2.3)E 3

(

6.8 -

20.2)E 4

(

2.3 -

1.2)E 3 I

• (

C/ 40)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• kON RCUTINE REFERS 10 THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE HEASUREMEN WHICd WERE CREATER THAN TEN (10) TIME $ THE AVERACE BACrCR3A0 FOR TWE FEk@ OF THE REPORT.

" THE FRACil0N OF SANPLE ANALYSES YlELCING OETECIABLE HEASUREMENTS (1.E. >3 STD DEVIAfl0N$) l$ IN0lCATED WlfH *(

)*,

1 I

r L

o 8 co Cn e OOOON 1 I I I I F

• L CL CL CL CL

(

lll

<>X lll

-- - l l l ; l l l l-4 il l l !

5

~

~

c Lf) O c

O c.-

' W

~*

-U W.

l j?

LL e-j 6

-O g

Eu (O C A.

OO 0

-a 1

N

.m D n

i

<C 4

l h

n 3S C

E%

, I. N-I Eu

?3 g,

a#

.M ',

$ f,.4 ze g

ys u

~#

fe

+

hNN

.< g3 8

m.,.

.i,,

.i.i.i.i i i i u_~

.i i,

.i E.

o.

o.

E.

o o

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O

(Y139 SSOBO) 8313H DI8nD / SBIUnDODId

I I

N MQ" I

oooN l

1 i i

n. CL CL CL 4<<<

I II

<! X I

I O

h

-- f-l l l l } l I l +-id

'M' b '!

! ! i m

~

0 mo O

L.)

Y~ # U

-o 0

1 I

I K

~*

te a

\\

CJ O

-o I

a Lo ED O C C2.

Mm

,' 3)

~"

w g

N

. *4 C

I

< 0

)

2-4 -+ <

',N.

R oS mO N[

y a.a I

$[

"U LV ee DC mD I

,h h

-1 t

a w

.- e 4

> C1 yaf..

m O Nk Y

I

• h

_m V L I

m%

C

$ ~*

o ca l

l-i--+ -f

• l l-i-l l ! P"Y +

--i-t l l 8@"

x 8

8 1'

R S

S

?

R R

S I

9 o

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 o.

o O

O o

o O

O O

O O

O O

(v138-ss080) 8313W DIeno / S3IenDooId I

I

.___,___~a_..__,_

-._m_.

.-_m.~.,__..x-

._m._____.-~.~.._..m_.m

________.._.______m.

I I

O LO N e I

wweN l l l l CL CL CL CL I

l ll i

lI

<1 X 1

'I

- : : : l : : : : : : : : :G u : :- :

C Bf'S @'

i OO l

L

• M

~O Go U Qt gm 4J @

n M U h

I

• m O

LL.J

, Oc '

-2 A

c) m M O I

C1 L N

-o E4 mC i

G

- de L

.g I

e4 V 7

4 C p.4 y

9 N

+

d.

N om a _ _w m

,I C

b-

@ O l

d

'M 4

C

-3 C4 La,

G) D EU G"h

4) O i

L _J

~7 D

)

to G)

I g

4' CM

1. EW s.

~

I as

~"

~

M O

>M E

.,x

,g G

"X e.

O e

• H C

l U C) g L

mx l'

CC x

H R

o

! l l l l l l l l l l W. - 17* ! ! l 8

8 8

8 R

S

?

A R

S 8'

9 9

o 9

8 9

9 9

9 9

o I

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O

O (vias-ssous) salaH DIeno / salenDoDId I

I

I 2.2 Charcoal Cartridges l

The same sample collection systems which were used to collect airborne particulates were also used to collect gaseous iodine on charcoal cartridges.

The Nucon Level A charcoal cartridges were analyzed weekly 4

E for gaseous iodine-131.

The eleven locations sampled during 1990 are

, B indicated in Table 2.0-1.

a A total of 572 charcoal cartridges were collected during 1990.

Despite

, g several instances of low sample flow resulting from power failures, pump failures, and crimped sample lines, the lower level of detection (LLD) was met for all 572 samples collected.

The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for charcoal cartridges collected during 1990 is provided in Table 2,2-1.

The results indicate that the mean value of the gaseous iodine-131 concentrations for the I

indicator stations is statistically no different than the mean value for the control station; that is, none of the results showed detectable levels of iodine-131.

I Therefore, analysis of charcoal cartridges collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due g

to Pilgrim Station, I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I _

i I

Table 2.2-1

'I Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Charcoal Cartridges - 1990 INVlt0NMthfAL RA010LOCICAL PROGRAM ELMMARY W

PlLCalM WUCLEAR POWit $1A110N PLYE UIN, KA (JANUARY

• DtCEMBit I M )

MEDIUM CKARCOAL CAtitIDGE UNlis: PCl/CV. M lWDICAfot $1A110kl StAfl0N VifN NICHt$f MEAN DOkit0L BfAftchs I

LADIONUCLlDE $

NEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. ANALY5tt) Rt0Vitto RANCE STA.

RANCE RAE!

(WON 20Vilht)'

LLD WD. Otticit0

ho.

ko. OtitCitD**

Wo. OtttCi!D*'

I 1 131 ($72)

.07

(

1.5 5.4)E.4 00 (

2.0 a 2.0)t 3

(

1.6 a 1.7)( 3

( 0)

(

4.9 4.7)t.2

(

2.9 3.0)!.2

(

2.6 3.3)t 2

'(

0/90)*

• (

0/ 52)*

't 0/ 52)*

WON.RauflWE ttritt 10 THE NUMatt OF SEPARAft MEASUREMthil VNICH Vtti CitAftt f

thAN f th (10) 11Mts THE AvitACE BACrCRouwD FOR THE Pitttx) of THE ttPORY.

W

• • THE f RACil0N OF SAMPLE ANALT$t$ YltLDlkt Dif tCT ABLE ME A$UREMtkil (1.1.

3 6fD DEVIAtl0NS) 18 IN0ltAtt0 WlfH *(

)*.

,'I I

I

I

(

1 1I I

,I I

l lI

~

h -

I 2.3 1011 Soil surveys at eleven locations are performed once every three years.

Since the surveys were conducted during 1988 at the required eleven 3

locations, plus several additional locations, no soil surveys were performed during 1990.

The results of the most recent soil survey were reported in the 1988 Annual Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program l

Report, issued in May 1989.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

' I I

'I I l

I 2.4 Direct Radiation Exposure rates from external radiation sources were measured during 1990 in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station using two metht.ds. Hensurements were obtained at 107 locations, only 40 of which are required by PNPS Technical Specifications, using environmental thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) which were posted and retrieved each quarter.

In addition, annual measurements were made at six local beaches using a high pressure ion chamber.

Indicator TL0s were placed in the vicinity of I

Pilgrim Station as shown in figures 2.0-1 through 2.0-3.

Control TL0s were placed at locations so as to be outside the influence of Pilgrim Station and are shown in Figure 2.0-5.

Only two out of the 160 TLDs (40 stations

• 4 quarters) required by Technical Specifications were not collected during 1990.

The TLDs I

located at Station J (1st Qtr.) and at Sherman Airport (4th Qtr.) were found missing from their posted locations during the quarterly retrievals.

In addition, six other TLDs were missed during the course of the year.

TLDs which were not retrieved are noted in Table 2.4.1-1.

In I

all cases, the missing TLD and cage were relocated to be inconspicuous and less accessible.

2.4.1 Environmental Thermoluminescent Oosimeters A state-of-the-art thermoluminescent dosimeter program was implemented in 1987 using the Panasonic UD-801 and UD-814 I

combination TLD packet.

Thermoluminescence is a process in which ionizing radiation, upon interacting with the sensitive material of tile TLD (the phosphor or ' element'), causes some of the energy l

deposited in the phosphor to be stored in stable electron ' traps' in the TLD material.

The energy stored in the TL0s as a result of interactions with radiation is removed and measured by a I

controlled heating process in a calibrated light reading system.

As the TLD is heated, the phosphor releases the stored energy as light.

The amount of light given off is directly proportional to the radiation dose the TLD received.

These highly sensitive TLDs I

are capable of accurately measuring exposures between 1 mR (well below normal environmental levels for the quarterly monitoring periods) and 200,000 mR.

Table 2.4.1-1 shows quarterly average exposure rates and annual exposure from direct gamma radiation at the off-site TLD stations.

The off-site exposure rates ranged from approximately I

5 micro-R/hr to 12 micro-R/hr, yielding annual exposures ranging from 43 mR to 100 mR.

Two TLD locations beyond the PNPS protected area fence yielded annual exposure rates of greater than 100 mR/yr.

These were Pedestrian Bridge (112 mR/yr) and Overlook Area (150 mR/yr).

I These locations are within the PNPS exclusion area in close proximity to the reactor building and indicate increased exposure as a result of reactor operation.

In addition, the TLD at Pedestrian Bridge is located over granite material used to I

construct the breakwaters, which can contribute to increased exposure due to its high content of naturally-occurring radionuclides. -

I In addition to average doses for each TLD for each readout period, average doses were calculated for four geographic zones.

I Table 2.4.1-2 lists environmental radiation levels that are consistent with past trends.

I Results from the 28 on-site TLDs are presented in Table 2.4.1-3.

Quarterly and annual average exposure rates are listed for each location. A number of these results are considerably higher than off-site locations, due to the close proximity of some on-site I

TLDs to radiation sources within Pilgrim Station.

2.4.2 Bu ch Surveys Sensitive radiation detection surveys using a high pressure ion chamber were performed at Plymouth I

DuxburyBeachduringJulyof1990.jeach,WhiteHorseBeach,and These measurements were performed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Radiological Engineering Group personnel.

l Tne purpose of this survey is to detect differences in the external exposure rate encountered at beaches near the plant (Plymouth and White Horse) and at a control location Q:wb3ry).

I The detector's calibration was checked before each measstenant.

The data in Table 2.4.2-1 indicate that the exposure rates at Plymouth Beach and White Horse Beach are not significantly different from the exposure rates measured at the distant control I

station in Duxbury.

The results of the 1990 beach surveys are in agreement with the l

previous beach surveys conducted annually from 1977 through 1989.

The graphical trend of the radiation levels at these l

beaches depicted in Figure 2.4.2-1 shows little change in the exposure rate over the thirteen year period.

Granite beach stones and gravel are present at three locations.

It has been demonstrated that proximity to beach stones results I

in higher exposure rates than in sandy areas (see Annual Report No, 10).

2.4.3 Summary The direct radiation (TLD) measurements and beach survey results I

for 1990 are comparable to previous years' background radiation levels and are within the expected natural background exposure i

rates in the northeastern part of the United States.

The low levels of radiation measured at all monitoring locations were the I

result of naturally-occurring sources, as well as fallout from nuclear weapons testing.

Therefore, analysis of direct radiation data collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant lI radiological impact on the environment or the general public due to Pilgrim Station.

I g

.o.

~

I&

L 6,

o.r

n. M.

. v. o. c. o. o. m. o. e.. o. c. M. N.,. 4. e. N. N. o. o. N.,.

L.5

~

" >e

- 4 N 4 4 W mt W C'sW W W W W d N CD 4 0 0 4 Mt M M 4 *it 9

~-

h) h

)g L

N d

+1+1.i+1+1+1 1+1+i.

+1.

+,+,+a+1+1+1+e.I.I+,.I

+1.t+t.i O

D%

P rt

- C. o. @. N. T M. N. 4. N. 4 0.

. 4. m. d. N. o. M. Ch.

. c N, Cf,< Ch 4. W.

N I

p N c Moge cN W M e r-.

N oN CD D

ab

.QCNco mmo("

e, + t ue--NNN 3 c c c c c c c v CO N 4 N O N 0 0 0 c c ib p

2 L

Y OQ

e. n I

l N. c. N. CD. o.. CD. N. N. CD. Ch. o. o. O. O. ". *. N. CD. o. O. (t

. CO. O. N.

t N y r N--O--ooooo"-oo--oo-ooCDooo O

i n 7

g m

.........i..l.l.i.................4.

.l..

O M. N. N. CD. N. N. CD. N. CD. W. N. O. Ch. 4. m. M. N. o. m. Ch. M. CD. M. o. O. N. M.

E 99 J

o b.

I g

p w C4 to w c N c c. *t c N. c 4 0 C. N O *t CD W CD c M. N,= *t M.t tb

-p M

Q q - N *- - e e.

.C

-c c

--e N -.- -

c--

- +

a-w ga.

o:

o

- -. ^.

(d

. N. N CO. N.O.c. N. O.o.N. N.N. O. **. *t. N. O. e-.. O. Ch. O. N. N. *t. CO.

N

"' m.

I

[QF gj Hi Noooooo-O-o-oo--oo-oooooooo b

b i

9 k153

.l

.i.e.................I.i....

.......t..

o r

-4e p'"

c. N. N. M. o. O. CO. M. N. @. CD. N. N. O. CB. C. N. CD. N. N. o. Ch O.

. N. M. W.

M O

ne I

M.,

b M-N-----_CN----.-.N O CD CD m O CD C N 4 N dO MN *7 W *f.t 4J N - - R., CD CD C *t N c

M A

<c h

b" a

o e

e. e. M.

. e. N. e. e. Cn. e. e. e. o. N

... m. Cn. e. N. o. N. m. N. m.

E N,

o I

~I z

s s *5 )

d 0 - '- o o o o o o o o - o o - o o o o 0 0 0 o o o o L

W Q

~

eh a

e

+ ' '

' +' '

r g

w hw

o. o N. N. N. o. m. n. o. Cn. N. N. o. M.

. 4 0.

. N. o.

. o. o.

. N. N.,,.

a er, w

5. me,1 M Ch N M CD N N OOWN O

. O O. N-fN OWO

+

M - N.- - - - -.- - -

O. c c N CD. *~/ Ch.

? OT w H

o N

M Iv r,

- -.f

.- -Ne.

+-

o os a

.a w

).,

O ;+3

=

~c t

co o

3

-NONMoo"aaasassa/gda;;sss:s; b Mb o o CD Ch o o a, W - o o O Ch Ch C Ch o Be r

Wa.causa i

cc n

a B*y m

wx d

e

.....l.i.............l.i....................l.,

g s

e. m.,. N. e. e. e. n. e. N. N. Cn. N. e. o.,,. M. N. e.,,. o. N. o. m.

. N. n.

u m

c n - N - - - -.. e o e e at e to 8 Cn M m e N e o e m at *r 9

m Cn to ch N o e o Uh a

g 3.83 s

g g-u 2

v L

q 3U3 3

kW2b2wy32Wd2dbdd2omb tkg 3d 3

f 2

3h22d2m%d2 C

w r

o

-m a

t g-

. '.1 J J a d '....:..' J J J J ' J J. ' J J J J J J J..: J

,3 fn M

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE U)

D H

m O M uf +- M M @ N N N O N N N N.t CD 0 o N CQ O - 0 N *t h

M+

.,.d

.J O

o. **... N. N. N. N. N. N. N. M. M. M. M. M. ("J. M. V. O. 4. w. c. CD. CO. O. Cn.

L Qg y

b. P,,

o o0o000o00000000000000000000 w

b owS s

t 5

~

U 3

bb u s e

a e s+ a~ s 2

e m

e no-a w

,W d(

6 Z Q W.g V

L

>m

~

3 ra, o

D D

Q *R -

R m < a

u. ~ o e o

=

=w:

~

-D D

M Pn g'.

p J

4 COE

~'

W 3

Q

C t:'. 3 ~5 5 5 $ - 5 5 5 [.~ 5 ?D.e C

h

~,

-~

p 5

a'

'0*ea B

hop a

enwe----Q>>&&

um G-WHH WWJ W&

OW W

W Q

D g*

• C *C < w =C aC *( *(

at t') ) m y<D o

0

>w Z

O

• C E{OOOMbOOO@

@ W 13 D M 1 kJ w V C

le ;3 J H >- r HHwN H et <C w-gW C

Mp

.J g)

h. p' P'"

A P*

p pm Q

h kb 04J L-OOko89s5:

585E8 7.y

I I

I.

I

m. CD.. C. (D. M. N. M. Cn. N. N. '"s (D. N. @. N. 4. N. M. **. O. c. o c, N. CO.

• • k *.

WW4WMW4mMW4044VOO4WWOdWWv4 L 4 Nh gD 3

n,

......i +i.i

..i......i................

I 8

y.,

kp

. $. $.1 $ $. N 1

.1N h

e g 5i E

N y M O O O g o ne,G o o@ PC2,y,qy N

W C tQ O

.. O.N.>o og CB C O

N L

emococo v.

yo m

p eg 4

o. D Io N. m. CD. to. N. O. N. o. e. O. to.. cn. c. to. N. N. to. o. m. M. & 4. o. o.

l m

9 g Co o o o - o o o o o o * **

• C - - o a

g..oooooMa....................i.............,g....

j st E,

p J

O

- N W O N V C O C M cD C 4 N 0 0 4 M - O N V -

E

• d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

• v, o CD l' g g g

5 g;

ddd s;q g

d o.

s0 CC A. W. D. 9. c. e. o. (O. D. N 4. %. o. n. c. D. D. k.

. D. to. r~. tts k 4. to.

Qm.

I y

g eg oooooooooooo-ooooo-ooooooo n

a 5.-

m s

z m

H p

- - - e. o. co. N. o. O. Cn. O. N. O. N. 4. o. Cn. to. M. m. g v.> (; v; ce. r.

r s-ccy Ie g

b eeeeeecess:caccusecasepeU2 g

k $,3

=

a h

v 2

b e

6 s?

1>

c. o. m. N. N. e. m. N. e. o. c. o. e. o. ~. o. cn. m.,,. o. en. n. e. e. n. o.

I g-

=

s L -

z w

c o

coo-ooooo oooooooooooooooo L

g *)

g g

3g w

o-N D

w Ly o - 4 m - w m m m mv)e<nev o em m N N N -

br 9

A I

.i T

as 4

m TC e

J W

5 2 5" L. '

. f-o

v. m. so. o. en. N. p. cn. m. c0. o. m. c0. m. en. en. m. e. m. o. c0. m. o. o. e.

o g

t g

-oo-o coo-o00o000o-00-oc p

ogD Ig w

3 e

...,.i..... p.i.................................'

6 5

3 C

W Z

0

e. o. v. m.. 9. IJ ui. m.. N.

. e.

. o.w. m.o. N.vr.in. N w,v. o. y J

H u,

v t

x I

s$

$3%%$5

$339$3DUC33U35$UUU$

g o-s.8.>

<H g

e L

=

v k

3 0b 3030 b

bW b 3bd b

3 b

E 8

i 88-I o

g

,g M

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE M

D ooN 00o b

3 "$t N H

co o o o P2 Pe n n n <n v v S o o 8 o o N,. =t o o O c0 8 0

z o

m---

r-o

- - - N n e r-e en E'*"c.7 I

W o

d J J J J J J J.' J J J J J J J a d a d d d d d d e.;

e w

h a w 5-r d

5

'~ o t M

0 v3 9

I 85 N

h@

@. H.T Q >

2 8

2 d

"8 -..5 y

L-ps w

~

u.

g @.

gw%

n u

.ea

>E h

5w-

• b

• h g3 0 f.-

N ma p--

ss.

u.-

w m

k H

b HHwd bu-

1. w hge wwwa$

g6 h.

h

~eZ eQe hP w

Dbgg.odQQQOh{~m" e

IY dg fc k b 9

]5 Q

gC e

mezegu<H4<agggt =

8 ge senss5: s J

P

-beg

- z.s,- n 3 w a m x

3 I

v;i m a w

b b

W b *)

Wb bb b

k l

l

\\

t l'

,i!

i M

m m

s 50841 51 4927544833654371 1 46 e

NV 54444475334554444435544555 u

rl EEr n

ya D. /

y F

1i!iiii21!1112i1i!11i11i1i m/vs LDf t

ry

?

m AT i 28397656851 461 786308907829 a

el r

0 US c

tr 9

t 9672305990503065749424662 o

re 1

i 9

M 5554459546565555545555557 6 l

ntr 1

g o n n

m

0. o i

6. g 07551 4 6. g6 6 5 6. g 1 07 3801 308 r

g o

4 m S

H 0n1 0O01 0n0000n1 On1 O1 1

0 t

o 1

1 1 1 T

i i

i i

i yr T

F is11i1i1ts1ii1 s 1is1i 1!11 n

bf

)

L V

s s

s s

o U

E 0

3.i 6 1 641 96.i5701 730.i9322602 m

dd i

M S

O.

F M

M M

/

ee 1

31 921 21 1 41 2 331 3223384 g i t E

D 1

1 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n

l a T

R pl i

S u.

l i

R i

o tc r

il )

m E

6545559766556796856760 a

2 as T

W O0000000O0000O0000001 4086 s

mce O01 00 c

E L

O e

sni M

A i 1111111ii111i1111!t i !1!11 eot F

V I

J t

uia

)

I i

(

91 961 548952839283588.t O

r 354 21 33427 3633344235*. 3 0. S. 9 3 l ti i

D S

T mE o

aav 34 496 t

vie e

1 1 1 1 1 7 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

• 1 1 1 1 1 U

D t

vd r

ye N

r dd e

l I

T a

t r

r c

edt T

N g

889557276596760658676557 99 a

t rr t m (O E

/

e e io t

o 00000O1 000000000OO00000000 r

O C

f nin v

e r

C S

r t C

i1111!111!1!1112ii1111! !11 e

oas E

C i

t(

N E

225881 61 721 91 7854441 791 531 t

f s

E S

u s 7 1

I T

35420424273633244235324496 f

ce 4 m1 hf M

A 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o

ii U

R tt L

e en E

n ri 4

0 a

F i

8 9 8 7 8 0 6 9 9. g M

U 91 8888998092991 1

l t t G

m2 r

f t r R

O O0O001 O0n01 000000O1 01 001 1

1 e

ore E

P T

i t

ac E

H X

S i1i1111i1s1

!!1111i11211i1 n

n n

E R

s e

asu L

T 953426386.i30240854391 64902 c

ee I

B F

M ndy A

L 2431 1 3332 27332331 34433396 e

ul 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cl r mT A

J T

t ice tnt N

m eir o

r a

E R

W E

WM E

WM E

MWW M

MWE r

F ej t

M I

S S

3 WS S

N

'4 D

WWSSWWMSSWSMIMSW SS M! 5SM f

t go SSWt SWSWt WSf ia m

t O

O d

rrl e

aen R

I r

v I

T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii u

nati A

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm s

o V

C a

l v i

N O

T 0001 2006000290000000000000 e

dai E

L S

01 451 57783784241 1 m

440000000 m

eud I

snn D

333344444555677888800001 44 e

ani E

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 r

ba T

a e

I sf c q ior S

A A

c f

m O

W D

T T

T T

i en F

F RE e

S R

TSAS S

S t

uon HE D

RBT ER H

c l i o WSW t

F S

T OL O

1 D

R OUST e

ati T

00t LoDPDUr1 RnT PSBS OI S i

vat f

T 0

L r

J 4

O O

LOA 7 &&ArHOOR 9EPAAAI ESWDA H

d eWib A

RJ RRDR UE DF i u 1

t I

E T

T E

NH!D PREUW F

I I

M B4 L

ESOAL RE m

.i 9

L T

L1 L

.t ER Lr &

F RJ d

a4r i

AERJPITISAOP9I L A

t A

P LTDT OA I O G

AD n

r t

T I

I t

WF I VLDCEAVT

&M A vro I

a edn 1

D EO f

R EJ HDSC E MRSOI S

l WLGVAW GOL O

t T

I OR GRRAGROJ. E' e

aic Lf LMEPGTRNL Of F

t D

S UEDt U I VW c

L E

UI AELOOJ YEOOTLPAIOH&IK0LfMI n

l ns N

1 m

QHDLT T

D RHMBPLF SEUSKDS DE a

aau t

utl s

Sp rn i

D M0BRCDi' HWPPSLCHCEASSWR4 4 W D

A BPLMOI DL! SEUSKBSCKCLF EE 1 t I

R1 F m

m tl tl llllil!

!lll' Ii iI i

I j

I I

Table 2.4.1-2 Off-site Environmental Thermoluminescent Oosimeter Averages by Geographic Zone - 1990

~

Average Exposure i S.D.

(mR/ Period)

Period

_ Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Enviromen':a1 TLD Zones.

_ < 2 mi 2 mi - 5 mi Ji_mi - 10 mi

> 10 mi ist Quarter 1990 16.3 r 4.1 13.9 1 2.8 13.5 1 1.7 15.0 1 2.0 2nd Quarter 1990 16.8 1 3.6 14.6 1 2.5" 13.9 1 1.4 15.1 1 2.1 3rd Quarter 1990 16.9 i 4.1 14.8 1 2.7 14.1 1 1.3 15.6 1 2.2 4th Quarter 1990 16.2 1 5.3 13.0 1 2.6 12.6 1 1.5 13.9 1 2.0 1990 Annual Exposure 66.1 1 17.1 56.5 1 10.7 54.3 1 6.0 59.6 i 8.1 I l- _

t M

M s

1 891 4036421 78039029794001 766 e

s f

AV F905353621 7 645521 08655677963

.u rl E D./

Er 1 61 232223 1 21 1 1 71 n

ya y

t i 11111111111111!11i111111ii1 o /v LDR s

i t

rv AT r 7391 435476425671 73771 669691 8 a

ei 3 S 3

M c

t r 37 676456841 357 04542939581 239 o

ro 0

i 802439351 36876836000?8703678 rA 1 1 31 1 at l

3231 9

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r

9 g

c n 1

n

0. o 3076797701 68992842653001 4593 r

i m

H o

4 1 1 1 31 25241 1 1 001 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 t

T yr

)

H 1111i.

t1111i1111111111i11111 i

S V

J m

bf T

E O

76782802248222641 091 33204908 r

dd L

D.

F r

/

ee 6230276761 08606777842967588 j i t 1

U D

2237357572321 234222221 23321 v

1 S

T l a r

i pl E

S u

l i

R t

o tc 79403001 9277668573431 6032699 a

ua r

l l R

E s

cc U

O0321 24331 0O001 1

E 1 1 1 1 1 01 00 1 1 1 L

D e

s T

A R

i 111111ii1i1i1ii111i.i1?1111 h

em E

V I

t ui H

0421 6336506470608777368861 42 l t

(

N T

aa o

I r

1 523470464300792634651 7 69881 t

vi S

e 2237 348673321 t

33222221 22322 v

1 1 O

r ym r

D n

c l

t r

g 3788302061 6487232891 08299093 a

t r c

ed T

3

/

N R

e rb E

r D

1 1 1 51 25331 1 1 001 1 1 1 01 01 01 21 1 r

nv 1

r r

1 0

i 11t111111!1t11!ti111!11i

!1 e

ea r

C 0

S E

41 1 91 073292031 287 48401 59531 r

t 4

1 t

ds E

E S

e T

061 0638737 01 980086475397 N

1 494 f

vc 9 2

A 2230358683521 233222221 23442 o

ri 4 1

I R

1 M

et E

e sm U

E L

n br L

U 42764230294331 i

ci 1 01 27645362668 B

l t

0 C

A O

r f i 1 21 5224441 21 M

1 1 1 2321 1 1 1 1 1 3231 e

or T

P T

R X

S 11! ;

t a

E E

R

. i 111111 11111111111111111 n

n I

e as H

5 2 0 3,?.1 4373873439024456221 566 c

ee F

T 091 951 F, 1 551 96043757 42983475 e

u nd 2239348683421 234222221 23462 cl 1

i L

t ic A

tn n

ei T

a r

N R

EM E

E E

W M

E E

M EE r

ie I

S FMiEF SES CW SEES ESS f

t g E

D St EEEEESSSSSSW' SSSSSSWWSEE ia r

f t t 4

M t

d rr N

O e

ae m

I r

v O

T tttttttttttttttttttttttttttt u

na R

A ffffffff f fffffffffffffffffff s

o C

I O

T 0000000000000000000000000000 mda l

V L

S 0432680054264526598275095940 c

eu N

I 643222434766777532221 441 2468 sn E

D e

an r

ba E

a sf T

n i o I

o en S

E G

A C

LE t

uo i

GmT O

EE E

O DI C T

c l i 1 i 3 i ETTGRL AAI A PR R0t L r

va TT NR R

AAUPO HB e

at t

t N

3 l t l A I

J 4

O O

EEETT O

4 D R

9GGM E

0T A

i i

t EE REDIEO4 R#

D

&t R ER 1

WOEVAREKASKTC&E HMAEW REFDR R

ge d

ev ED f

I I

T T

0 I

A C

LT Ot Of FI ATT d

ad d

A P

0SSSTLTWGT WHJ T

I 1

FWAO1 n

r UNWHEI.IDCO4OmOAWAJ e

TI t

T I

0 AJ J

J t

LRWQI E 4

0J a

ed t

t WQ8USSF S

t t m

EEit TE0O vr T TI 1

4 f

E WAO I SC e

aa D

S RF f

1 t t t t 1 i 1 4 i t 3 Cf

/ 04 Rt c

d r

J T

WFFFFFFFFFGFFFFFFIORWQ0AFFTTET&

n l n r t f t t t t t r t f r f t L

E AEEEEEEEEE EEEEEE&OPWA DI T

D a

aa t

ut e

s nS 234S678301 2345678901 2345678 n

i D

300OO00001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 222222222 D

A WPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP I

m

I Table 2.4.2-1 Beach Survey Exposure Rates - 1990 1990 Direct Radiation Survey Results July 26. 1990 I

Exposure Rate Beach Terrain location Micro-R/hr + 1 std. dev.

White Horse Beach 7.4 1 0.4 Sandy.

Few granite (Near Hilltop Ave) boulders within thirty feet.

White Horse Beach 8.8 1 0.6 Sandy with small amounts (In Back of Full of gravel.

Sail Bar)

]

I Plymouth Beach 7.5 1 0.5 Sandy.

(Outer Beach)

Plymouth Beach 4.8 1 0.7 Sandy.

(Inner Beach)

Plymouth Beach 9.5 1 0.4 Sandy with gravel.

(Behind Bert's Breakwater and seawall Restaurant) nearby.

Duxbury Beach 7.6 i 0.3 Sandy with coarse (Control) gravel.

I I

I I

I M'

W M

M M

M M

M M

M M

i I

Figure 2.4.2-1 Environmental Radiation Levels At Beaches Near Pilgrim Station a

r a

e e

e s

e e

e a

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

i e

a e

i g

i, gg__

i 16--

g g

O 14--

I g

gg__

w G

10--

i g

I 8-n 6

H F

I 4__

2--

l l

l l

l l

l l

O i

i i

i i

i i

1977 1978 1979 198'>

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

--C Whitehorse Beach at Hilltop Ave.

l

--O-- Whitehorse Beach at Full Sail Bar l

-A-Plymouth Beach - Outer

-V-Plymouth Beach - Inner 0

Plymouth Beach at Berts

-X-Duxbury Beach Control

[,

I 2.5 Surface Hater I

Samples of surface water were collected at three locations: the Discharge Canal, Bartlett Pond, and Powder Point (control).

The Discharge Canal sample was collected by a continuously compositing sampler which extracts a sample of about 20 ml of water from the Discharge Canal every twenty I

minutes. Grab samples were collected weekly from each of the other two locations. Surface water samples were analyzed monthly for gamma isotopes with a quarterly composite analyzed for tritium.

All seawater l

samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of radioactivity analysis results for surface water samples I

collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.5-1.

There were no positive measurements of nuclides characteristic of Pilgrim Station's operation observed at any of the three sampling locations.

The only positive radioactivity measurements observed were due to I

naturally-occurring potassium-40.

Therefore, analysis of surface water samples collected during 1990 showed I

no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I --

(

I Table 2.5-1 I

Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Seawater - 1990 I

INvit0NhtWTAL LADIOLOCICAL PROGRAM SUMKAti P!Lt.tlM NUCLEAR POWit $f A110N, P'.TWIJTN, hA

(#NUAti DEClu8tt 19'2) i HtoltMt SEAWAftt UhlTS: PCl/KC lWDICATOR 51All0NS liAll0N WITN N!CHt$f MEAN CONft0L liATIONS R AD' 0NUCLl0t $

MEAN MEAN MEAN (ko. AhALT$tt) tt0Ultt0 RANCE

$1A.

LANCE RANCE (NON 10VIINt)*

LLD Wo. OfftCit0**

Wo.

NO. OtttCTED**

Wo. OtitCit0**

l st 7

( 42)

(

3.7 a 1.5)E o 17 (

6.9 a 2.0)t 0

(

1.2 s 2.3)t 0

( 0)

(

1.1 -

1.9)E 1

(

6.0 -

19.0)t 0

(

1.3 1.'/)t 1

{

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

K 40

( 42)

(

1.5 0.3)E 2 23 (

2.9 0.1)E 2

(

!.9 s 0.1)t 2

( 0)

(

1.0 -

36.6)E 1

(

2.5 -

3.4)t 2

(

2.5 3.4)t 2 I

• ( 14/ 28)*

• ( 14/ 14)*

• ( 14/ 14)*

MN 54 ( 42) 15.

(

6.8 s 17.9)f *2 if (

1.6 s 2.4)E *1

(

• 2.7 a 1.7)! *1

( 0)

(

1.4 -

1.8)E O

(

1.3 a 1.7)t 0

(

1.5 -

0.8)E 0 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

CO 58 ( 42) 15.

(

1.7 t 1.8)E 1 17 (

3.6 s 3.0)t *1

(

4.5 s 2.6)f *1

( 0)

(

2.0 1.9)E 0

(

2.0 1.9)E 0

(

2.2 +

1.7)t 0 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

FE 59 ( 42) 30.

(

+7.3 e 4.9)t 1 23

(

6.1 a 5.4)E 1

(

6.1 s 5.4)E 1

( 0)

(

6.3 -

5.3)t 0

(

2.3

• 4.1)E 0

(

• 2.3 -

4.1)t 0

• (

0/ 25)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

C/ 14)*

CO 60 ( 42) 15.

(

5.6 s 2.125 1 25 (

3.3 s 2.3)t 1

(

3.3 a 2.3)E.1

( 0)

(

4.2 -

1.6)! 0

(

1.6 -

1.5)E O

(

1.6 -

1.5)E O I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

2N 65 ( 42) 30.

(

4.2 a 3.t 1

11

(

6.0 a 6.2)f 1

(

1.2 s 61.8)E 2

( 0)

(

3.0 +

4.3)E o

(

2.7 -

4.3)E 0

(

3.2 4.5)E O

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

21 95 ( 42) 15.

(

3.5 s 3.1)t 1 17 (

4.3 s 4.8)E.1

(

2.4 s 4.3)E.1

( 0)

(

3.3

• 4.6)E 0

(

3.3 -

4.6)E 0

(

3.0 a 2.8)E O I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

RU 103 ( 42)

(

3.8 s 2.0)E 1 17

(

2.9 s 2.7)E 1

(

4.8 s 2.6)E 1

( 0)

(

2.5 -

1.7)E O

(

1.9 -

1.7)E D

(

2.0 0,9)E O

• (

0' 28)*

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

WON t3JI!NE ttFt*,810 THE NUM8tt OF stPARAff MEA $UREMthil VNICH kTkt GREAf tt I

THAM f tX (10) il4E5 fHE AvitAct BAttca0UNO FOR THE PERICD OF THE ttP0ti.

• • TMt FRAci!0N OF I AMPLE ANALYSES YttletkG CtitCTABLE MEASUREMtWit (1.E. 33 $10 DEV. All0NS) 18 IkotCAf t0 Vlin *(

)*.

i I

=-

l Table 2.5-1 (continued)

Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results I

for Seawater - 1990 I

ENVIRONMtWT AL RADlot,00lCAL PROGRAN

SUMMARY

PILCRIM WUCLEAR POWit $1A110N, Pt.YMOUTH, KA

(.lANUARY DECEM&tt 1990)

MtelW SEAWAftR UWlits PCl/R0 INDICATOR STAflows

$1Afl0N Wl1H WlCN!$f MEAN CONTROL STAfl0NS I

............e***..

.............ee..........

...........e....

RADIONUCL! DES MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. AkALY$tS) REQUIRED RANGE

$1A.

RANCE RAkGE ko.

No. OtitCTED N0. OtttCit0**

(NON R0011NE)*

LLO NO. OtttCit0

Ru*106 ( 42)

(

2.0 s 17.8)E 1 17 (

3.4 a 2.5)t 0

(

2.3 s 14.6)t 1

( 0)

(

2.2 -

1.6)E 1

(

1.2 -

1.6)E 1

(

9.6 -

10.2)! 0

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)'

• (

0/ 14)*

l 131 ( 42) 1.

(

9.1 s 3293.7)t 5 11

(

4.7 s 4.5)t 2

(

1.2 a 3.4)I 2

( 0)

(

3.9 -

3.0)E 1

(

3.0 -

3.0)t 1

(

1.3 -

3.6)E 1

• (

0/ 28)'

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

Cs 134 ( 42) 15.

(

7.0 a 1.7)E 1 17

(

3.8 s 2.6)t 1

(

• 1.1 a 0.3)E D

( 0)

(

2.4 -

1.2)1 0

(

2,4 -

1.2)E O

(

2.6 -

0.5)r 0

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)'

• (

0/ 14)*

C5 137 ( 42) 18.

(

3.3 1.9)E 1 23

(

1.0 s 2.9)E 1

(

1.0 s 2.9)! 1

( 0)

(

1.9 -

1.9)E O

(

2.5 -

1.7)E D

(

2.5 -

1.7)t 0

'(

C/ 22)*

• (

0/ 14)*

'(

C/ 14)*

6A 140 ( 42) 15.

(

5.9 s 42.7)E 2 17

(

1.6 s 65.1)t 2

(

6.7 s 6.9)E i

( 0)

( - 4. (. -

3.4)t 0

(

4.0 -

3.4)E 0

(

5.7 -

3.8)t 0

• (

0/ 28)*

'(

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

CE 141 ( 42)

(

3.6 a 3.7)E 1 17 (

4.8 s 5.6)E 1

(

2.2 s 63.6)E 2

( 0)

(

3.7 -

4.7)E o

(

2.5 -

4.7)t 0

(

5.1 -

3.7)E 0

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 14)'

'(

0/ 14)*

CE 144 ( 42)

(

1.2 a 1.2)E O 23

(

1.1 1.1)E D

(

1.1 s 1.1)E O

( 0)

(

1.1 -

1.7)E 1

(

5.5 -

9.1)E O

(

5.5 -

9.1)E O

• (

0/ 28)'

• (

0/ 14)*

'(

0/ 14)'

TM 232 ( 42)

(

2.2 s 0.6)t 0 11

(

2.5 s 0.8)t 0

(

1.1 s 0.8)E O

( 0)

(

4.8 -

8.5)! 0

(

2.5 -

8.5)E 0

(

2.9 -

7.8)E 0

• (

0/ 28)'

• (

0/ 14)*

• (

0/ 14)*

H3

( 12) 3000.

(

4.8 6.0)E 1 23 (

4.1 12.2)E 1

(

4.1 12.2)E 1

( 0)

(

2.3 -

1.9)E 2

(

2.3 -

3.6)E 2

(

2.3 -

3.6)E 2

• (

0/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

b/ 4)*

N0H R001!kt Riftt$ 10 THE NUMBER OF $tPAAATE MEASUREMEN11 WHICH WERf CREAftR I

THAN f tN (10) TIMit THE AVERA0t BACRCRCUND FOR THE PtRICD OF fut REPORT.

Tht FRACilON OF $ AMPLE ANAlitt$ YllL0 LNG OtitCTABLt MEASUREMthis (1.E. 73 sto Otvl AT10Ns) 18 INDICAf t0 Wif H *(

)*.

I

' I

, I

2.6 Shell fi sti I

Shellfish samples, which include soft shell clams, quahogs, and blue mussels, were collected quarterly from five locations:

the Discharge Canal, Hanomet Point, Plymouth Harbor, Ouxbury Bay (control), and Harshfield (control).

Shells and bodies were analyzed quarterly for I

gamma-emitting isotopes.

All shellfish samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

l The summary of radioactivity analysis results for shellfish collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.6-1.

This table shows positive measurements of beryllium-7, potassium-40, cobalt-60, silver-110m and I

thorium-232 in samples from the Discharge Canal.

In addition, there were positive measurements of beryllium-7, potassium-40, and thorium-232 at Manomet Point, Plymouth Harbor, Ouxbury Bay, and at the Marshfield control station.

The observed concentrations of beryllium-7, I

potassium-40, and thorium-232 are due to the natural occurrence of these radionuclides, whereas the observed concentrations of cobalt-60 and silver-110m were the result of Pilgrim Station radioactive liquic releases.

It should be noted that no soft shell clams or quahogs showed any detectable radioactivity that could be attributed to Pilgrim i

Station's operation.

A special study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the cobalt-60 and silver-110m detected in the blue mussels.

Appendix A presents the findings and results of this special study.

It was shown that if a I

person were to consume the maximum annual auantity of seafood (9 kilograms / year) with the concentrations of the above radionuclides (as found in the mussels in the discharge canal outfall), he would receive a I

dose of less than 0,001 mrem to the total body and about 0.01 mrem to the most restrictive organ (adult, gastrointestinal tract / lower large intestine).

This study noted that blue mussels, due to their filtration effect, concentrate the radioactivity in the water thereby making them a I

sensitive biological indicator.

Therefore, analysis of shellfish samples collected during 1990 showed no l

evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.

I I

I I

I I

Table 2.6-1 l

Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results j

for Shellfish - 1990 LWVIRONMik1 AL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM SJ4KARY l

P!LGR!N WUCLIAR POWLR $1Afl0s, PLYMOUfM, KA (J ANUARY LICEMBit I??O)

MLDluMa $ktLLFilu Ukift: PCl/KG bt!

INDIC,ATOR $fAflDW$

STAllCW VlfN WlChill MEAN C0h1ROL $fAfl0NS I

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee RADl0NVOLID!l MtAN MEAN htAN (NO. AkALT&tl) RtWlRED RANGE

$1A.

RANGE R Ak Gt

( ON RouflWE)*

LLD NO. $ttECitD**

NO.

WO. DtitCit0" NO. Otit*ftD**

I St 7

( $8)

(

!.8 s 0.9)t i 12 (

3.7 s 1.6)E 1

(

i.4 s 1.2): 1

( 0)

(

7.2 - 21.511 1

(

7.2 -

21.5)! 1

(

1.4 -

1.7)t 2 I

• (

2/ 28)*

• (

1/ 15)*

• (

3/ 30)*

K 40 ( $6)

(

8.2 s 0.7)E 2 15 (

1.0 s 0.1)t 3

(

7.6 s 1.2)E 2

( 0)

(

2.1 -

13.11t 2

(

8.5 -

13.1)t 2

(

1,A - 215.0)t 1

• ( 27/ 28)*

• (

5/ 5)*

• ( 23/ 30)*

MN 54 ( $8) 130.

(

4.6 s 8.D)E 1 11

(

9-.1 s 3.7)! 1

(

7.0 e 94.8)t 2

( 0)

(

1.5 -

0.9)t 1

(

8.6

• 20.3)t +1

(

1.3 -

1.3)E 1 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 8)'

• (

0/ 30)*

C0 58 ( $8) 130.

t 4.3 8.3)E 1 24

(

2.6 s 4.11t 1

(

7.3 s 8.8)t 1

( 0)

(

1.2 0.9)E 1

(

1.8 -

1.9)E O

(

1.4 -

0.8)E 1 I

• (

0/ 28)*

'(

0/ 10)*

'(

C' 30)*

Ft 59 ( $8) 260.

(

3.2 a 1.9)E D 11 (

5.6 7.1)t 1

(

1.4 s

2. 4 )t 0

( 0)

(

3.3 -

2.1)r 1

(

2.8 -

2.7)E 0

(

3.5 -

3.1)E 1 I

• (

0/ 28)*

'(

0/ 8)*

't 0/ 3J)*

Co 60 ( 58) 5.

(

4.7 s 14.2)E 1 11

(

6.7 a 2.5)t 0

(

3.2 1.5)E 0

( 0)

(

2.1 -

1.9)f 1

(

1.0 18.5)E O

(

3.2 -

1.7)E i I

• (

5/ 28)*

• (

5/ 8)*

• (

0/ 30)*

ZN-65 ( 58) 5.

(

i.5 e 1.4)! 0 it (

1.9 s 2.6)E 0

(

• i.0

• 1.7)t 0

( 0)

(

1.9 -

2.1)E 1

(

1.9 -

2.1)E 1

(

2.4 -

1.6)I 1 I

• (

0/ 28)'

• (

0/ 15)*

• (

0/ 30)*

2R 95 ( 58) 5.

(

1.4 a 1.2)t 0 13 (

2.3 a 3.7)t 0

(

2.0

• 2.4)! O

( 0)

(

+2.3 -

1.4)E 1

(

3.4

• 4.4)E i

(

3.4 -

4.4)E 1 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 20)'

• (

0/ 303' AC 110M( 58)

(

9.9 :

8.3)( 1 11

(

1.2 1.4)E 0

(

9.8 s 12.4)t 1

( 0)

(

1.0 1.1)E 1

(

1.3 -

10.9)E o

(

2.2 -

1.4)t 1 I

• (

1/ 28)*

'(

1/ 8)*

• (

0/ 30)*

WON ROUilbf Rif!R$ TO THE WUMBER Of $tPARAlt ME ACUREMEWi$ VHj(H htRI CREAf tR I

The-TEN (10) limit THE AVERAGE LACKGRWWD FOR ikt PIR100 0F THE REPORT.

THE FRAcil0N OF SAMPLE ANALYtt$ VitL0tha CritCTABLE PIASUPEMtWT5 (I.E. >3 STD CtvlAttchs) !$ INDICAftD VlfH *(

)*.

I g l

(

l 4

Table 2.6-1 (continued) l Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results l

for Shellfish - 1990 1

1

~

(WVIR0kMth1AL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAN $UMMARY PILGRIM WVCLt AR MMR ST Atl0N, PLYMNTN, kA (JANUART

• DittM8(t 1990)

MEDIUMS SHtLLil5N

(*l188 PCl/RG Vtf INDitATOR $1Afl0Nt

$1Atl0N WITN klGHill MEAN CONTROL $1Ai!OWS I

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeeeeeeee....eeeee RADl0NUCLlDt3 PtAN MIAN MEAN (Wo. AhALT8tt) At0VIRtD tANCE

$fA.

RA%t RANCE (Wom ROU1tht)*

LLO Wo. DfittitD'*

Wo.

k0. Dit!CitD**

Wo. DtitCitD**

I RU 103 ( 58)

(

+3.8 6.3)E *1 13 (

2.9 s 12.0)t +1

(

5.6 s 60.5)t.2

( 0)

(

• i.1

• 1.0)E 1

(

• 1.0 a 1.4)E 1

(

• 1.0 -

1.4)t 1

• (

0/ 28)*

'(

0/ 20)'

• (

0/ 30)'

RU 106 ( $8)

(

4.5 s 7.1)E 0 15

(

8.2 s 339.7)E *2

(

1.6 s 0.8)t 1

( 0)

(

1.2

• 0.8)E 2

(

6.3 a 12.3)E D

(

1.0 -

1.1)! 2 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 5)*

'(

0/ 30)'

l.131 ( $8)

(

).1 0.8)I i 12

(

1.9 s 1.4)E 1

(

1.7 s 1.0)t 1

( 0)

(

3.8

• 17.2)E i

(

+3.8

• 17.s)E 1

(

2.3

• 0.5)t 2 I-

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 15)*

't 0/ 30)*

CS 134 ( 58) 5.

(

1.0 s 0.9)E o 24

(

4.6 s 4.5)! 1

(

+2.8 s 1.3)E 0

( 0)

(

1.7

• 0.9)! 1

(

2.3 -

2.2)E D

(

2.0 -

1.2)E 1 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

C/ 10)*

• (

0/ 30)*

CS 137 ( 58) 5.

(

7.1 s 4.8)r 1 13

(

i.7 s 1.5)t 0

(

1.3 1.0)E O

( 0)

(

+2.5 -

10.4)t 0

(

1.1 1.6)( 1

(

1.1 +

1.6): 1 I

't 0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 20)*

'(

0/ 30)'

6A 140 ( 58)

(

3.4 s 2.8)E o 11

(

2.4 s 2.2)E 0

(

1.3 a 2.9)t 0

( 0)

(

6.3 -

1.3)E 1

(

• 1.0 -

1.1)E 1

(

+2.9 3.5)t 1 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 8)*

• (

0/ 30)*

Ct 141 ( 58)

(

5.1 s 1.3)E O 12

(

8.1 s 2.1)E O

(

1.1 1.9)E 0

( 0)

(

1.3

• 22.6)( 0

(

1.3 -

22.6)E O

(

1.6 -

3.4)! 1 I

• (

0/ 28)*

• (

0/ 15)*

• (

0/ 30)*

CE 144 ( $8) 15.

(

9.5 a 45.7)E 1 12

(

2.1 s 8.6)E 0

(

8.2 s 5.3)t 0

( 0)

(

-6.5 -

6.2): 1

(

6.5

• 6.2)t 1

(

8.4 -

8.1)E 1 I

• (

C/ 28)*

• (

0/ 1$)*

• (

0/ 30)*

TH 232 ( 58)

(

2.4 s 0.6)I i 13

(

6.2 s 0.9)E 1

(

4.7 s 0.7)E 1

( 0)

(

4.6 1140.015 1

(

6.9 - 166.0)E o

(

6.9 + 166.0)t 0

• (

8/ 28)*

• (

7/ 20)*

• ( 12/ 30)'

WON R M INE Riftt$ TO THE NUMBER of $tPARAff MEASUREHth15 WHICH VERE CREAftR THAN f tN (10) flMES THE AVERACE LACKCROUND f 0R THE PERICO Of THE EEPORf.

THE FRACTION 07 SAMPLE AhALTttl YitLDlWC OtitCIABLE MEASUREMEWi$

(1.E. >3 $10 Olv! Afl0WS) 151WDICATID Wif W '(

)*.

I I

2.7 Irish Hoss Irish moss (Chondrus crispn ) samples were collected quarterly at four locations: the Discharge Canal, Manomet Point, Ellisville (control), and Brant Rock (control).

Irish moss samples were analyzed quarterly for gamma-emitting isotopes. All Irish moss samples were collected and I

analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of radioactivity analysis results for Irish moss collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.7-1.

This table shows positive measurements of beryllium-7 and potassium-40 at the Discharge Canal.

In addition, there was detectable bery1110m-7, potassium-40, and thorium-232 I

in samples collected from Manomet Point and the control stations in Ellisville and Brant Rock.

The positive measurements of bery1110m-7, potassium-40, and thorium-232 in Irish moss are a result of naturally-occurring radioactivity.

There were no positive measurements of Pilgrim Station related nuclides at any sampling locations during 1990.

Therefore, analysis of Irish moss samples collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or on the general public due to Pilgrim Station.

I I

I I

I I

Table 2.7-1 asg Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results For Irish Hoss - 1990 (WVit0NMib1 AL RADIDLOGitAL f t0GR AM SWMARY PlLChlM WUCLlat PNtt $1 ATION, Pk143)1M. KA (JAWUARY. EtttMsti 1 MO)

VWlill PCl/LG Vt1 MrclVM: ItllN MS$

INDICATOR $1A110kl 51A110N W11H hlChill MEAN C0kttDL $1All0k$

LAD 10NVCLIDts MLAN MEAN NEAk (W3 AhALYsts) ttoultto RAk0t

$1A.

RAk;t (AkGt (kON.20U11WI)*

LLD Wo. OtitC1tD*'

W3.

WD. LifttitD*'

't0. It18 01t D*'

I st.7 ( 16)

(

2.1 0.4)t 2 11 (

2.6 0.5)t 2

(

1.8 a 0.4)t 2

( 0)

(

6.3 34.2)t 1

(

).2 +

3.4)! 2

(

6.9 -

38.5)t i I

• (

7/ 8)*

'(

4/ 4)*

• (

2/ B)*

K.40

( 16)

(

6.4 a 0.6)t 3 11

(

7.7 a 0.7)t 3

(

6.8 a 1.1)t 3

( 0)

(

4.6 -

9.6)! 3

(

6.6 9.6)t 3

(

4.7 -

13.9)( 3 I

'(

8/ t)*

• (

4/ 4)*

• (

8/ 8)*

MW 54 ( 16)

(

1.3 e 1.9)E 0 22

(

2.7 s 2.0)E D

(

1.7 e 1.4)( 0

( 0)

(

7.0 -

6.2)t 0

(

1.8

• 7.5)( 0

(

3.2

• f.5)( 0 I

• (

0/ 8)*

• (

0/

4)*

• (

0/ 8)*

Co 58 ( 16)

(

3.2 1.7)t 0 22

(

1.2 21.7)E.1

(

5.1 a 16.5)t.1

( 0)

(

8.7 3.5)! 0

(

4.7 5.6)E O

(

7.0 -

5.6)E O I

• (

C/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 8)*

Ft.59 ( 16)

(

1.1 0.6)E 1 34

(

2.8 a 2.1)t 0

(

2.9 5.8)( 0

( 0)

(

4.4 -

9.7)E i

(

7.1 2.8)t 0

(

3.$ -

2.3)E 1

• (

0/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 8)*

CD 60 ( 16)

(

2.4 s 3.2)E 0 34 (

4.4 8.0)E o

(

3.1 e 3.8)E o

( 0)

(

1.6 1.6)E 1

(

5.3 28.3)t 0

(

5.3 28.3)E O I

• (

0/ 8)*

'(

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

2N 65 ( 16)

(

6.5 3.6)E 0 11

(

7.3 t 7.3)E O

(

4.9

• 6.9)t 0

( 0)

(

1.1 -

2.4)t 1

(

1.1 -

2.4)( )

(

+4.9 1.4)! 1 I

• (

0/ 8)'

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 8)*

22 95 ( 16)

(

2.1 a 3.1)t 0 11

(

3.5 t 6.4)t 0

(

3.6 5.2)t 0

( 0)

(

7.7 19.3)t 0

(

• 7.7 19.3)t 0

(

2.9 -

1,7)E 1 I

• (

0/ 8)*

'(

C/

4)*

'(

C/ B)*

tu.103 ( 16)

(

1.0 e 1.8)E 0 34 (

3.6 a 2.3)t 0

(

2.0 4 1.6)t 0

( 0)

(

1.1 0.6)! 1

(

2.3 -

8.4)4 C

(

4.6 8.4)t 0 I

• (

0/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4 )*

• (

0/ 2)*

kok.t0UT!ht Rif tts 10 THE NUMtitt of stPARAtt PEAsuttMthis witH witt GttAtti I

THAh itu (10) flMES THE AvitACE SACKOR3JAD FOA Ikt Pitt00 CF THE ttP0tt.

Tht FRACil0N OF 5 AMPLE AkALYtts YltLDihG Clit *t Atti ME ASUREMf Wil (1.E. >3 $10 DEVI A110NS) 18 ?NDICATED W11H '(

)*.

I I _

I Table 2.7-1 (continued)

, l Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Irish Moss - 1990 (Wylt0hMtWTAL LADl0 LOGICAL FROGRAM

SUMMARY

PIECtlM NJCLI AR PWit 51 A110N, PLYMaltM, kA (JANJAkT

• CLClkCit 1990)

Ukift: ICl/LG Vtf MEDIUMt it!5N Mot $

INelCATOR STAflDNS

$1Afl0N With klGNEli MIAN COWikOL $1ATIONS I

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

..............eeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee, RAtl0NUCL!Ctl MEAN MtAN MiAN (h0. AkALY5tt) RtoultED RANCE StA.

R AN CE RANCE (NON R NilWI)*

LLD NO. Cittttt0**

No.

NO. DtTICitt

No. ClitCit0**

I tu 106 ( 16)

(

2.3 s 0.9)t i 22

(

).3 a 2.1)t 1

(

3.3 4 18.7)E 0

( 0)

(

6.3 -

i.7)! i

(

2.0 -

7.3)t 1

(

9.0 -

7.3)t 1 I

'(

0/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4)'

• (

0/ 8)*

1+131 ( 16)

(

2.7 a

1. 4 )t 1 15

(

3.4 8 2.0)E 1

(

7.6 97.7)! *)

( 0)

(

3.8 -

7.0 )E 1

(

+9.9 -

69.8)E 0

(

3,0 -

5.9)t 1 I

'(

0/ 6)*

• (

0/

4)*

'(

0/ 8)*

C5 134 ( 16)

(

• 1.4 :

1.1)t 0 15

(

1.7 a 172.6)E 2

(

3.6 a 2.4)E 0

( 0)

(

4.4 -

3.9)t 0

(

4.4 +

3.9)! 0

(

+1.5 -

0.7)t 1 I

• (

0/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4)'

• (

0/ 8)*

C$ 137 ( 16)

(

2.9 s 2.1)t 0 11

(

5.2 a 2.9)! 0

(

1.8 2.1)E 0

( 0)

(

5.3 -

10.6)t 0

(

2.5 -

10.6)E 0

(

9.1 -

8.7)( 0 I

• (

C/ 8 s'

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 8)*

6A 140 ( 16)

(

• 1.0 s 0.2)I 1 22

(

4.$ a 15.9)! 0

(

1.1 a 0.9)! 1

( 0)

(

1.6 -

0.1)E 1

(

4.2

• 2:2)E 1

(

4.4 -

2.2)E 1 I

• (

0/ 6)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 8)*

CE 141 ( 16)

(

3.2 s 3.0)E 0 11

(

3.3 a 4.9)E O

(

2.0 457.0)E 2

( 0)

(

+7.5 -

14.0)t 0

(

7.5 -

12.9)E D

(

2.1 -

1.9)E 1 I

• (

C/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4)*

'(

0/ 8)*

CE.144 ( 16)

(

• 1.8 t 6.0)t 0 it

(

4.0 t 8.4)t 0

(

6.8 :

8.6)E O

( 0)

(

+3.3 -

2.9)t 1

(

8.6 -

28.6)t 0

(

3.3 -

3.7)E 1 I

• (

0/ 8)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 8)*

TM 232 ( 16)

(

1.9 1.0)! 1 34

(

4.3 s 0.7)t 1

(

3.0 s 0.9)t i

( 0)

(

2.2 -

7.4)t 1

(

3.1 -

6.1)( 1

(

4.9 -

61.4)E O I

• (

1/ 8)*

't 0/ 4)*

• (

1/ 8)*

h0N RWilkt tif ERS 10 tht WUMBtt OF 5tPARAtt MtA5VREMtW15 WHICH WERt C.StAltR I

THAN ttN (10) 11Mts lHE AvtRACE BACKCR3)ND FOR 1HE PERIOD OF 1HE BLPORT.

181 FRAcil0N OF SAMPtt AkALYtts YllLDlWG OtitCTABLE MtA5UEEMikfl (I.6. >3 ste OtylATIONS) !s twelCAtto Witu *(

)',

I I _ _ - _ _ _ _. - _ _ _

I 2.8 AmericMLLebiter l

Lobster samples were collected four times per season in the vicinity of the Discharge Canal and annually at a control location.

Lobsters collected were analyzed for gamma-emitting isotopes. All lobster samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for American lobsters collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.8-1.

These results I

indicate that there were no positive measurements of any radioactivity other than naturally-occurring potassium-40 in either the indicator or the control samples.

Therefore, analysis of lobster samples collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.

I I

I I

I I

I e

I$

I I

I I

i

I Table 2.8-1 I

Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for American Lobster - 1990 (WVit0 Wth1AL LAD 10 LOGICAL PROGRAM Su %ARY PILGtlM trJCLt At POWit $1 Afl0N, PLYMOUTH, kA (JANUARY. CtCtM$(t 1990)

MEDIUM AMitlCAW tt$$ttt UWlf81 PCl/tC Wit INDICAtot $ fail 0NS STAllDW W11N MICHt$1 MEAN CONit0L STAl!0k$

I eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee seeseeeeeeesesse RAD 10WUCLIDE$

MEAW M1AN MtAN 1

(NO. AkALT$t$) kt0V!tt0 LANGE

$fA.

RAkCE AAWCE (WON kOU11FE)*

LLD h0. OtitCitD" Wo.

h0. DLittitD NO. DElttitD" I

6t /

( 5)

(

8.8 s 4.0)t 1 89

(

3.0 s 7.2)t 1

(

3.0 7.2)t 1

( 0)

(

• 1.9 -

0.0)E 2 I

'(

0/ 4)*

'(

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

t 40 ( 5)

(

1.8 s 0.3)t 3 89

(

2.3 s 0.2)E 3

(

2.3 a 0.2)t 3

( 0)

(

1.2 -

2.4)! 3 I

• (

4/ 4)*

'(

1/ 1)'

• (

1/ 1)*

Made ( 5) 130.

(

4.3 s 29.0)t 1 11

(

4.3 s 29.0)t 1

(

9.6 9.5)t 0 0)

(

7.6 5.7)A 0

(

7.6

• 5.7)E O I

• (

0/ 4)*

't 0/ 4)'

• (

0/ 1)*

C0 58 ( 5) 130.

(

2.A s 3.0)t 0 89

(

2.5 s 99.4)E 1

(

2.5 99.4)E at I

1.1 -

0.3)t 1

( 0)

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

'(

0/ 1)*

FI 59 ( 5) 260.

(

5.7 s 8.4)t 0 F9 (

9.2 s 24.4)t 0

(

9.2 24.4)E 0

( 0)

(

1.8 -

1.9)t 1 I

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

't 0/ 1)'

Co 60 ( 5) 130.

(

5.1 6.8): 0 89 (

1.5 12.7)E o

(

1.5 s 12.7)E 0

( 0)

(

1.8 -

0.8)! 1

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

~

ZN 65 ( 5) 260.

(

1.4 s 1.8)E 1 il

(

1.4 s 1.8)E 1

(

3.5 s 2.1)E 1

( 0)

(

3.9 -

4.2)! 1

(

3.9 -

4.2)E 1 I

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)'

'(

0/

1)*

2a 95 ( 5)

(

B.4 13.3)E 0 89 (

5.0 s 2.0)E 1

(

5.0 a 2.0)E 1

( 0)

(

1.7 -

s.2)f 1 I

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

AC 110M( 5)

(

3.2 s 7.8)E 0 11

(

3.2 7.8)E D

(

1.9 1.0)E 1

( 0)

(

2.0 -

1.7)E 1

(

2.0 -

1.7)t 1 I

• (

0/ 4)*

'(

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

NOh RCU1th! ttFit$ 10 Tkt WUM8tt OF StPARAft MtA$UREMENTS VHICH Viti C EATER I

INAN f tW (10) TIMi$ THE AvttAGE BACKCROUWO P0A THE PEA!OD OF THE 2EPORT.

THE FRACTION OF $4MPLE AhALY$ts Y!!LDikG OtitCI Attt MEASUREMENi$

(!.t. >3 $f 0 ctvl Att0N$) l$ INDICAf tD viiN '(

)*.

l,

Table 2.8-1 (continued)

I Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for American Lobster - 1990 INVlt0NMINTAL RADIOLOCICAL PtoctAN $uHMAlf PittklM NUCLEAR POWit $f A110N, PLYM3J1N, MA (JANUAtt

• OECtwSER 1990)

Mt0lLP's sAttlCAN LDB$1tt M118 PCl/KG Vit IN0lCAfot $1Attok$

$fAft0N VlfN NICHt$1 mtAN CONit0L STAtlukt I

e.............eee,

.....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeee e,eeeeeeeeeeeeee RAD 10NUCL10t$

MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYST $) 11001110 kANJ.!

$1A.

RANGt LANGE (NON ROUllbt)'

L10 NO. Otittit0" WO.

h0. OtttCitD**

No. OtttCit0" tu 103 ( 5)

(

6.7 s 7.9)t 0 11 (

6.7 s 7.9)E O

(

4.3 9.8)t 0

( 0)

(

6.8 -

24.9)t 0

(

6.8 -

24.9)t 0 I

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)'

't 0/

1)*

RU 106 ( 5)

(

6.1 s 3.0)t i 89 (

2.9 s 7.0)E 1

(

2.9 s 7.0)E i

( 0)

(

1.0 0.3)E 2

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)'

• (

0/ 1)*

' 1+131 ( 5)

(

8.4 e 5.3)E 1 89 (

,3s 2.7)t 1

(

1.3 a 2.7)E 1

( 0)

(

2.4 -

0.1)E 2 I

'(

0/ 4)*

• (

U 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

Cl 134 ( 5) 130.

(

2.0 s 0.7)t 1 89

(

1.4 :

0.8)t 1

(

1.4 s 0.8)E 1

( 0)

(

3.5 -

0.4)! 1 I

't 0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

'(

0/ 1)*

C$ 137 ( 5) 130.

(

1.1 6.4)t 0 89

(

2.0 s 1.1)E 1

(

2.0 s 1.1)E 1

( 0)

(

1.5 -

1.2)E 1 I

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

SA 140 ( 5)

(

7.6 s 8.8)E 1 89 (

1.8 a 2.0)E 1

(

• 1.8 s 2.0)E 1

( 0)

(

3.3 0.7)t 2 I

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CE 141 ( 5)

(

i.6 3 0.?)E 1 89 (

2.7 s 1.6)E 1

(

2.7 s 1.6)E 1

( 0)

(

3.8 -

25.5)! C

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)'

• (

0/ 1)*

CE 144 ( 5)

(

6.8 a 2.0)t 1 89 (

3.9 :

5.4)! 1

(

3.9 :

5.4)E 1

( 0)

(

1.1

• 0.3)E 2 I

" 0/ 1)*

'(

0/

1)*

• (

C/ 4)*

1N 232 ( 5)

(

9.0 a 274.4)t 1 11

(

9.0 s 2 74.4)! - 1

(

3.8 s 4.4)E 1

( 0)

(

6.4 -

5.3)t 1

(

6.4

• 5.3)E 1 I

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 4)*

• (

0/ 1)*

WON 23) TINE ttFLt$ 10 TNE NUM8tt Of $1PARAf t MEA $UREMENT$ WHlCH WERt CREAlth I

IRAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERAGE BACKGPCUND FOR TN! Pit lCO OF THE ttPORT.

ThI FRACT10N OF $ AMPLE AhALY$t$ Yl!L0 LNG DritCTABLE MEA $UttMENi$

(l.t. >3 STD OtVIAfl0N$) l$ INDICAftD WlIN e(

}e, I -.

I 2.9 Etthei l

Fish samples of bottom-oriented (Group I)a and near-bottom (Group II)b species were collected quarterly (when available) in the vicinity of the Discharge Canal.

In additio samples of a adromous (Group III)' and coastalmigratory(GroupIV)b,specieswerecollected(wheninseason)in this same area.

Lastly, a sample from each group was collected at a distant control location.

Fish samples collected from the vicinity of the discharge canal were analyzed quarterly for gamma-emitting isotopes and fish samples collected at control locations were analyzed annually.

During 1990, Group II fishes were unavailable in the first quarter due to rough seas and the species not being found in the general area of the I

Discharge Canal. Only one of two subsamples of Group I fishes were collected during the first quarter for the same reasons Group II fish were not collected.

Fish samples from all other groups of fishes were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for fishes collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.9-1.

Naturally-occurring I

potassium-40 was detected in all 32 fish samples collected during 1990.

No radionuclides attributable to PNPS operations were observed in any indicator station samples.

Therefore, analysis of fish samples collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.

I aGroup I - Bottom Oriented:

Hinter Flounder, Yellowtail Flounder.

b I

Group II - Near-bottom Distribution:

Tautog, Cunner, Atlantic Cod, Pollock, Hake.

CGroup III - Anadromous: Alewife, Rainbow Smelt, Striped Bass, dGroup IV - Coastal Higratory:

Bluefish, Atlantic Herring. Atlantic Menhaden, Atlantic Mackerel.

lI I

I Table 2.9-1 l

Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for fishes - 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER $1 All0N, PLYM3 JIM, MA (JANUARY

• DECEMBER 1990)

UNiist PCl/KG WE1 MEDitM F15HES lkblCA10R STAfl0NS STATION WifH hlCEEST MEAN CONTROL $1Atl0NS I

RAD 10NUCL10E$

MEAN MEAN MEAN (WQ. ANALYSES) REQu! RED RANCE SIA.

RANCE RANGE (NON ROUTlWE)*

LLD No. DETECTE0**

No.

ko. DETECTED *'

Ho. OETECTE0**

I Bt 7 ( 32)

(

3.1 s 1.3)E 1 90 (

6.3 7.7)E 1

(

1.8 :

1.4)E 1

( 0)

(

9.2 -

14.6)E 1

(

6. / -

6.3)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• t 0/ 9)*

K 40 ( 32)

(

3.1 s 0.1)E 3 90 (

3.2 s 0.2)E 3

(

2.9 s 0.1)E 3

( 0)

(

2.3 -

4.0.)E 3

(

2.5 -

3.3)E 3

.I

'( 23/ 23)'

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

9/ 9)*

MM 54 ( 32) 130.

(

3.9 1.9)E O 98 (

6.4 s 2.1)E 0

(

3.0 s 3.J)E o g

( 0)

( + 2.7 -

1.2)E 1

(

1.6 -

12.3) 0

(

1.5 -

1.2)E 1 t

7

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 7)*

• (

0/ 9)'

ip Co 58 ( 32) 130.

(

2.0 s 2.3)E o 90

(

1.0 s 1.0)t 1

(

1.0 s 2.9)E 0 h

gc

( 0)

(

2.5 -

2.2)E 1

(

1.4 -

1.0)E 1

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/

• )*

p!;

e e

FE 59 ( 32) 260.

(

3.5 s 4042.5)E 3 92

(

5.P : 29 -

0

(

1.8 :

4.4)E 0

( 0)

(

4.1 4.2)E 1

(

2.1 -

1.8)E 1

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

O'

• (

0/ 9)*

Co 60 ( 32) 133.

(

3.9 s 2.3)E o 92 (

1.3 15.2)E O

(

3.2 s 23.4)E 1

( 0)

(

3.1 -

1.0)E 1

(

1.4 -

1.2)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

2N 65- ( 32) 260.

(

4.7 s 3.5)E O 98 (

2.6 s 75.0)J 1

(

3.2 s 6.3)E D

( 0)

(

3.2 -

4.6)E 1

(

3.5 2.5)t 1

(

3.5 -

2.5)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 7)*

• (

0/ 9)*

2R 95 ( 32)

(

3.8 a 3.0)E O 92

(

8.6 s 21.1)E 0

(

6.1 s 4.5)E 0

( 0)

(

2.2 -

2.9)E 1

( - 2.7 -

0.9)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

AG 110M( 32)

(

4.8 a 2.3)E 0 92 (

3.8 t 14.9)E O

(

3.1 t 24.5)E 1

( 0)

(

2.8 -

1.2)E 1

(

1.4 -

1.01E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

N0d RCUTihE REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WHICH WERE CREATER I

THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERACE BACKCROUND FOR ikE PERICO 0F THE REPORT.

THE FRACTION OF SAMPLE ANALYSES YlELDING DETECTABLE MEASUREMENTS (1.E. >3 STD DEVIAll0NS) IS INDICATED WITH *(

)'.

I I

I Table 2.9-1 (continued) l Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for fishes - 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL EA010LOClCAL FROGRAM

SUMMARY

PILCRIM NUCLEAR POWER ST Atlok, PLfMOUTH, MA (JANUART DECEMBER 1990)

MEDIUM: Fl$MES UNiitt PCl/KO VET IkDICATOR STAi!ONS STAi!ON Wl1H MICHEST MEAN CONTR0( $ FAT 10N$

I e.........eae.....

...............eeeeeeeeee RAD!0NUCLIDE S MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANCE MA.

RA.dCE RANCk (NON RCU1!NE)*

LLD No. DETECTED" No.

h0. DETECTE0" No. DETECTE0" I

RU 103 ( 32)

(

3.2 a 18.9)E 1 90

(

6.5 12.4)t 0

(

2.4 3 2.3)E o

( 0)

(

1.5 -

2.0)E 1

(

1.1 -

0.7)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

RU 106 ( 32)

(

1.4 15.4)E 0 90

(

1.5 a 0.7)E 2

(

1.4 a 2.5)E 1

( 0)

(

1.6 -

1.6)E 2

(

1.3 -

1.5)E 2 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

l 131 ( 32)

(

1.8 a 1.5)E 1 98 (

5.0 t 5.6)E o

(

2.1 e 2.4)E 1

( 0)

(

1.8 -

0.9)E 2

(

1.8 -

3.1)E 1

(

2.1 -

0.3)E 2 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 7)*

• (' 0/ 9)*

CS 134 ( 32) 130.

(

5.2 a 2.5)E O 11

(

5.2 a 2.5)E O

(

6.8 1.8)E 0

( 0)

(

2.8 -

3.2)E 1

(

2.8 -

3.2)E 1

(

1.5 -

0.1)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 9)*

CS 137 ( 32) 130.

(

5.7 t 1.8)E O 92 (

1.5 s 1.2)E 1

(

8.1 2.0)E 0

( 0)

(

1.4 -

1.9)E 1

(

1.6 - 168.0)E 1

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

SA 140 ( 32)

(

7.2 s 8.1)E 0 92

(

2.0 s 4.0)E 1

(

1.0 s 3.2)E O

( 0)

(

7.7 -

8.2)E 1

-(

1.1 -

2.0)E 1

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

CE+141 ( 32)

(

2.7 a 3.1)E O 98 (

7.9 a 4.7)E O

(

3.5 s 5.0)E 0

( 0)

(

3.2 -

2.6)E 1

(

1.9 -

1.8)E 1

(

2.4 -

1.8)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 7)*

• (

0/ 9)*

CE-1?

32)

(

6.1 s 0.4)E o 92

(

3.0 a 58.6)E O

(

1.9 s 1.1)E 1 0)

(

• 1.1 -

0.7)E 2

(

5.4 -

5.2)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 9)*

TM 232 ( 32)

(

1.2 t 0.7)E 1 11

(

1.2 s 0.7)E 1

(

2.1 a 13.0)E O

( 0)

(

5.0 -

10.7)E 1

(

5.0 -

10.7)E 1

(

6.3 -

7.7)E 1 I

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 23)*

• (

0/ 9)*

NON ROUTINE REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE MEAsu9EMEWi$ WHICH WERE CREATEk I

THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERACE BACKCRCOND FCR THE PERICO OF THE REPCRT.

THE FRACTION OF SAMPLE ANALYSES YlELDING CETECTA8LE MEASUREMsMi$

(I.E. >3 STD DEVIAiloNS) 15 (NQlCATED VITH *(

)*,

I I

~66-

2.10 Sediment l

Sediment samples were collected semiannually at five indicator stations including:

the Discharge Canal, Plymouth Harbor, Duxbury Bay, Plymouth Beach, and Hanomet Point, and at a control station in Marshfield.

There

,E-is a detailed procedure for sub-dividing individual sediment cores in 5

which samples are sectioned into 2-cm increments during the first half of the year (this applies to all locations except Plymouth Beach), and samples are sectioned into 5-cm increments during the second half of the year.

The surface and alternate sections were analyzed for gamma-emitting nuclides semiannually.

In addition, the surface section from each core and a mid-depth section from Rocky Point and Plymouth I

Mdtbor were analyzed for plutonium-238, 239, and 240 annually. All sediment samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990, The summary of radioactivity analysis results for sediment collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.10-1.

This table shows that positive measurements of potassium-40 and thorium-232 were observed at all indicator and control stations.

Positive measurements of beryllium-7 I

were detected on sediment samples from three indicator station samples.

The beryllium-7, potassium-40, and thorium-232 are all naturally-occurring radionuclides. Cobalt-60 was not detected in any samples during 1990.

Positive measurements of cesium-137 were detected in 32 sediment samples taken from indicator and control stations.

Unfortunately, Cs-137 was not directly analyzed for in pre-operational samples collected between 1968 and 1972.

However, the presence of detectable levels of cesium-137 in samples collected at control locations beyond the influence of Pilgrim Station indicates that the levels observed are indicative of fallout from nuclear weapons testing.

The maximum concentration of Cs-137 in any of the indicator station samples was 93 pCi/kg, essentially the same as the maximum concentration of 92.7 pCi/kg observed in control station samples.

1 The results of plutonium analyses for the 1990 samples are presented in l

Table 2.10-2.

When the 1990 analysis results were compared to results from previous years' analyses, there was no apparent trend to indicate that Pilgrim Station is contributing measurable levels of plutonium-238, l

239, or 240 in the environment.

Therefore, analysis of sediment samples collected dLring 1990 showed no g

eHdence of any significant radiological impact on the envi-onment due to l

l Piicim Station.

l l

i I

l

~

l l

Table 2.10-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results For Sediment - 1990 ENyltchMENT AL AAD10 LOGICAL PROGRAM Sug4ARY PILCRIM NUCLEAR POWER ST A110N, PLYM0JTN, MA (JANUARY DECEMBER 1990)

Unlit PC1/KG ORT MEDi'JHt SEDIMENT INDICATOR STAT 10NS

$1Atl0N WITH HlCMEST MEAN CONTROL $1AT10NS I

RADIONUCLICES MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RAkCE STA.

RANCE RANCE (NON ROUTINE)*

LLD NO. OETECTE0**

NO.

No. CETECTED"

.40. DETECTE0**-

I BE 7

( 61)

(

2.1 a 0.9)E 1 13

(

7.6 a 4.6)E 1

(

3.7 a 2.5)E 1

( 0)

(

8.7 -

22.1)E 1

(

5.4 -

48.1)E 1

(

8.6 -

8.1)E 1 I

• (

1/ 39)*

• (

2/ 11)*

• (

2/ 22)*

K-40

( 61)

(

9.5 0.2)E 3 13

(

1.5 t 0.1)E 4

(

).2 a 0.1)E 4

( 0)

(

8.1 -

13.2)E 3

(

1.0 -

1.9)E 4

(

8.3 -

18.6)E 3 I

• ( 39/ 39)*

• ( 11/ 11)*

• ( 22/ 22)*

MM 54 ( 61)

(

1.7 1 0.7)E o 24

(

7.7 s 17.0)E 1

(

2.0 s 1.4)E O

( 0)

(

8.2 -

9.0)E 0

(

8.4 -

10.1)E O

(

1.5 -

1.0)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

C/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

Co 58 ( 61) 50.

(

3.2 a 0.6)E G 14

(

2.1 1.3)E 0

(

4.0 a 1.4)E O

( 0)

(

1.0 -

0.7)E 1

(

5.0 -

2.0)E o

(

1.5 -

0.9)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 6)*

• (

0/ 22)*

Ft 59 ( 61)

(

1.1 a 1.6)E 0 24

(

3.3 a 4.5)E O

(

4.9 a 30.3)E 1

( 0)

(

2.5 -

2.0)E 1

(

1.5 -

3.0)E 1

(

2.0 -

3.0)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

CJ 60 ( 61) 50.

(

3.2 8.5)E 1 11

(

2.7 a 1.2)E O

(

2.3 s 1.2)E 0

( J)

(

-1.4 -

1.0)E 1

(

-3.9 -

10.4)E O

(

1.1 -

1.0)E 1

_I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

IN 65 ( 61) 50.

(

1.1 2.0)E O 12

(

5.2 s 3.7)E O

(

1.9 a 2.4)E 0

( 0)

(

3.3 -

2.9)E 1

(

1.7 -

2.5)E 1

(

1.8 -

2.9)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

IR-95 ( 61) 50.

(

4.2 a 1.' )E O 14

(

1.2 a 0.3)E 1

(

7.7 t 2.6)E 0

( 0)

(

1. 8 -

2.1)E 1

(

1.9 -

20.8)E O

(

2.2 -

3.1)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 6)*

• (

0/ 22)*

R0 103 ( 61)

(

1,6 s 0.7)E O 24

(

1.6 a 1.1)E O

(

4.9 a 11.1)E 1

( 0)

(

1.1 -

0.5)E 1

(

5.1 -

7.6)E 0

(

1.2 -

0.8)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

NON RQJTINE REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF SEPARAT: MEASUREMENTS WHICR WERE CREATER THAN TEN (10) f!MES THE AVERACE BACKGR3A0 FCR THE PERICO OF THE REf0RI.

THE FRACTION OF SAMPLE ANALYSES YlELDING DETECTABLE HEA$UREMENTS (i.E. >3 Sio DEVIA110NS) !$ IN0!CATED WITH *(

)*.

I l

1

-l Table 2.10-1 (continued)

Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Sediment - 1990 I

ENVIRONMENTAL RA010 LOGICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

PliGRIM EUCLEAR POWER STAi!ON, PLYMGliH, MA (JANUART DECEFSER 1990)

UNITS PC1/KG ORT MEDlW SEDIMENT INDICATOR STATIONS

$1Ai!0N WITH HIGHEST MEAN CONTROL STAi!ONS I

RADIONUCLIDES MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSE $) REQUIRED RANOE STA.

RANGE RANCE (NON. ROUTINE)*

LLD Wo. DETECTED" NO.

NO. DETECTED **

No. CETECTE0" RU.106 ( 61)

(

3.0 4.7)E O 12

(

1.4 a 0.7)E 1

(

3.0 t 8.5)E o

( 0)

(

7.8 5.0)E 1

(

3.4 5.0)E 1

(

9.7 8.7)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

C/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

1 131 ( 61)

(

3.7 a 5.3)E O 12 (

2.2 s 0.9)E 1

(

2.3 a 10.0)E o

( 0)

(

7.0 -

8.7)E 1

(

'9.2 87.4 )E O

(

1.4 0.7)E 2

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

CS 134 ( 61) 50.

(

8.1 t 6.9)E.1 13

(

6.2 19.2)E.1

(

3.8 s 10.6)E.1

( 0)

(

8.7 10.4)E 0

(

1.1 1.2)E 1

(

1.1

' 1.2)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

CS 137 ( 61) 50.

(

1.3 s 0.3)E 1 13

(

7.4 s 0.4)2 1

(

4.0 a 0.8)E 1

( 0)

(

9.4

• 66.8)E o

(

4.8 -

9.3)E 1

(

3.1 92.7)E o I'

• ( 11/ 39)*

• ( 11/ 11)*

• ( 11/ 22)*

CE.141 ( 61)

(

7.2 s 1.5)E o 13

(

1.7 1 0.3)E 1

(

1.5 t 0.2)E 1

( 0)

(

1.5 2.3)E 1

(

4.4 31.1)E C

(

2.7 31.1)E 0 l

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11P

• (

0/ 22)*

CE 144 ( 61) 150.

(

1.0 t 0.3)E 1 13

(

2.4 0.8)E 1

(

1.5 0.6)E 1

( 0)

(

5.7 5.3)E 1

(

2.0

• 6.9)E 1

(

4.0 6.9)E 1 I

• (

0/ 39)*

• (

0/ 11)*

• (

0/ 22)*

TH.232 ( 61)

(

3.5 s 0.2)E 2 13 (

7.0 s 0.4)E 2

(

5.3 1 0.4)E 2

( 0)

(

1.7 6.2)E 2

(

5.2 9.1)E 2

(

3.1 9.1)E 2 I

• ( 39/ 39)*

• ( 11/ 11)*

• ( 22/ 22)*

WON.R00TlWE REFERS 10 THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE FEASURFMEWi$ WHICH VERE GREATER I

THAN TEN (10) f!MES THE AVERAGE BACKGROUND FOR THE PERICO OF THE REPORT.

THE FRAcil0N OF SAMPLE ANALYSES TIELDING CETECTASLE MEASUREMENTS (1.E. $3 370 DEVIATICNS) l$ IN01CATED VITH *(

)*.

!I

'I -

4 I

. I TABLE 2.10-2 Radioactivity Analysis Results for Plutonium in Sediment - 1990 Results Location Core Depth (cm) pCi/Ka (dr+0 +-l S.D.

Plutonium 238 Plutonium 239, Plutonium 240 4 -

Rocky Point 0-2 NDA 2.97

• 0.51 Rocky Point 12-14 NDA 1.81

• 0.40 Plymouth Harbor 0-2 NDA 8.9

• 1.6 Plymouth Harbor 12-14 NDA 8.2

• 1.3 Plymouth Beach 0-5 NDA NDA Manomet Point 0-2 NDA 2.11

• 0.58 Duxbury Bay - Control 0-2 NDA 27.5

• 3.0 Marshfield - Control 0-2 NDA 2.43

• 0.33

• NDA indicates no detectable activity.

I-I I

2.11-1 tult Hilk samples were collected at twn locations during 1990:

the r

Plymouth County Farm and the Whitman Farm control station. When L

available, samples were collected semi-monthly when animals were on pasture (generally May through October) and monthly at other times.

Hilk samples were analyzed for iodine-131, strontium-89, 90 and gamma-emitting isotopes. All milk samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for the milk collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.11-1.

The results of I

radioactivity analyses for cesium-137 and strontium-90 are presented graphically in Figures 2.11-1 and 2.11-2 respectively.

Positive measurements of cesium-137 were detected at Plymouth County I

Farm.

Positive measurements of potassium-40 and strontium-90 were detected at both sampling locations.

No iodine-131 was detected in

.m milk during 1990. The presence of potassium-40 is due to l

naturally-occurring radioactivity.

The cesium-137 and strontium-90 is considered to be attributable to fallout from previous atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, since cesium-134 and strontium-89 were not I

present, as would be expected if the source were PNPS.

In addition, the pre-operational environmental monitoring program indicated the presence of cesium-137 and strontium-90 in milk at average levels of 18 pCi/ liter and 9 pC1/ liter, respectively.

If the pre-operational I

results are corrected for radioactive decay which would have occurred between 1972 and 1990, the expected levels would be or oCi/11ter for cesium-137 and 6 pCi/ liter for strontium-90. As can be seen in i

Figures 2.11-1 and 2.11-2, the maximum levels of cesium-137 (4.6 pCi/ liter) and strontium-90 (3.3 pCi/ liter) detected in 1990 milk samples are below the decay-corrected pre-operational levels.

Therefora, analysis of milk samples collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment or due to Pilgrim Station.

I I

I 'l J

Table 2.11-1 I

Summa n of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Milt - 1990 ENylRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROCAAM SUMMART PILCRIM NUCLEAR POWER $1 A110N, PLTMOUTH, KA (JANUART DECEMBER 1990) kEDIUM: MILK UN118 PCI/KC INDICATOR $1AT10NS stall 0N Vl1H HIGHE$f MEAN CONTROL $fAft0NS I

RADIONUCLIDES MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALTSES) REQUIRED RANCE

$fA.

RANGE RANCE I

(NON ROUTINE)*

LLD NO. DETECTEQ" NO.

No. DETECTE0**

NO. DETECTE0 SR 89 ( 38)

(

4.4 18.3)E 2 11

(

4.4 s 18.3)E 2

(

2.8 a 1.6)E 1

( 0)

(

1.3 -

2.0)E f,

( al.3 -

2.0)E 0

(

1.5 -

1.2)E o I

'(

0/ 19)*

'(

0/ 19)*

'(

0/ 19)'

st 90 ( 38)

(

2.3 0.1)E O 11

(

?.3 a 0.1)E 0

(

1.5 t 0.2)E 0

( 0)

(

1.0

• 3.3)E 0

(

).0 -

3.3)E O

(

6.1 - 359.0)E 2 I

• ( 17/ 19)*

• ( 17/ 19)'

• ( 12/ 19)*

BE 7 ( 38)

(

+2.7 a 1.6)E 0 21

(

7.2 206.6)E 2

(

7.2 206.6)E 2

( 0)

(

1. 6 -

0.9)E 1

(

1.7 -

1.6)E 1

(

1.7 -

1.6)E 1 I

• (

0/ 19)*

't of 19)'

'(- 0/ 19)'

K 40

( 38)

(

1.3 a 0.0)E 3 21

(

).4 s 0.0)E 3

(

1.4 s 0.0)E 3

( 0)

(

1.2 -

1.4)E 3

(

1.2 -

1.5)E 3

(

1.2 -

1.5)E 3 I

• ( 19/ 19)*

• ( 19/ 19)*

• ( 19/ 19)'

MN 54 ( 38)

(

1.8 a 2.5)E 1 11

(

1.8 4 2.5)E 1

(

1.1 2.3)E 1

( 0)

(

2.2 -

1.8)E 0

(

2 1.8)E 0

(

1. 7 -

1.7)E O I

• (

0/ 19)*

'(

0/ 19)*

'(

0/ 19)*

C0 58 ( 38)

(

1.2 a 2.4)E 1 11

(

1.2 a 2.4)E 1

(

4.6 a 2.6)E 1

( 0)

(

2.4 -

1.7)E 0

(

2.4 1.7)E O

(

2.7 -

1.5)E 0 I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

FE 59 ( 38)

(

8.4 a 5.4)E 1 21

(

3.3 s 5.6)E 1

(

3.3 s 5.6)E 1

( 0)

(

4.2 -

3.3)E o

(

6.2 -

5.8)E 0

(

6.2 -

5.8)E o I

• (

0/ 19)'

• (

0/ 19)'

• (

0/ 19)*

Co 60 ( 38)

(

7.4 a 3.7)E 1 21

(

7.1 t 3.5)E 1

(

7.1 2 3.5)E 1

( 0)

(

3.7 -

2.3)E D

(

4.9 -

1.0)E O

(

4.9 -

1.0)E 0 I

• (

0/ 19)*'

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

C/ 19)*

2N 65 ( 38)

(

3.8 :

6.0)E.1 11

(

3.8 a 6.0)E 1

(

5.3 a 6.2)E 1

( 0)

(

4.1 -

5.9)E O

(

4.1 -

5.9)E o

(

5.8 -

3.7)E o I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

NON*POJT!uE REFERS TO THE NUMSER OF SEPARATE MEASURE >isi$ WICH WRE CREATER I

THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERACE BACKOROJhD FOR THE PERIOD OF THE REPORT.

THE FRACTICN OF SAMPLE ANAlisES TIELDING DETECTABLE MEASUREMENTS (1.E. >3 STO DEV!Ai!0NS) l$ IN0!CATED WITH *(

)*.

I l -

~

Table 2.11-1 (continued) l Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results l

for Milk - 1990 (NVIR0kMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

PILCRIM NUCLEAR POWER ST Af t0N, PLYK1J1H, MA (JANUARY CECEMBER 1990)

MtolVM MILK UNiist PCl/KC INDICATOR STAfl0ht

$1Atl0N WITH NICREST MEAN CONTROL $1All0N8 I

RAD 10NUCLlots MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSIS) REQUIRED RANGE

$1A.

RANGE RANCE (NON+ ROUT!kt)*

LLO No. OtitCTED" NO.

ko. OtitCit0**

Wo. OttLCitD'*

I ZR*95 ( 38)

(

5.1 a 4.4)I 1 11

(

5.1 4.4)t 1

(

1.6 4 4.3)t 1

( 0)

(

3.6 -

4.0)E 0

(

3.6 -

4.0) 0

(

3.2 -

4.3)! 0 I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

RU 103 ( 38)

(

6.2 a 2.4)E 1 21

(

3.2 a 31.6)t 2

(

3.2 a 31.6)E -2

( 0)

(

2.8 -

1.4)E o

(

1.7 -

3.1)E O

(

1.7 -

3.1)E 0 I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

Ru 106 ( 38)

(

2.6 a 1.6)E O 21

(

2.8 a 1.8)E 0

(

2.8 1.8)E 0

( 0)

(

1.1 +

1.5)E i

(

1.0 -

1.7)t 1

(

1.0 -

1.7)E 1 I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

l 131 ( 38) 1.

(

1.9 s 2.5)E 2 21

(

4.7 :

3.1)E 2

(

4.7 3.1)E 2

( 0)

(

2.2 -

2.5)E 1

(

1.5 -

4.1)E 1

(

1.5 -

4.1)E 1 I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

CS 134 ( 38) 15.

(

7.6 a 2.3)E *1 11

(

7.6 a 2.3)E 1

(

9.8 1.8)E -1

( 0)

(

2.5 -

1.6)t 0

(

2.5 -

1.6)E C

(

2.3 -

0.6)E O I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

CS 137 ( 38) 15.

(

2.3 0.3)E 0 11

(

2.3 a 0.3)E o

(

9.3 s 2.4)E 1

( 0)

(

1.5 -

46.1)E 1

(

1.5 -

46.1)E 1

(

1.3 -

2.5)E O I

• (

5/ 19)*

• (

5/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

BA 140 ( 38) 15.

(

8.4 a 4.3)E 1 11

(

8.4 4.3)E *)

(

9.1 1 5.BR 1

( 0)

(

7.0 -

1.4)E 0

(

7.0 -

1.4) 0

(

6.5 -

4.6)E o I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

CE 141 ( 38)

(

-1.4 4 4.8)E 1 11

(

1.4 4.8)E 1

(

3.2 a 4.6)E -1

( 0)

(

3.9 -

2.4) 0

(

3.9 -

2.4)E O

(

3.3 -

3.5)E O

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

CE 144 ( 38)

(

6.6 173.8)E 2 21

(

1.5 t 1.9)E 0

(

1.5 1.9)E O

( 0)

(

9.3 -

15.4)E D

(

1.4 -

1.7)E 1

(

1.4 -

1.7)! 1 I

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

• (

0/ 19)*

NON 23JilWE REFERS 10 THE NUMBER CF SEPARAft MEASUREMENT! VMICH WERE GREAftR I

THAN TEN (10) flMts THE AVERACE 8ACKCRCUNO FOR IHE PERICO OF THE REFORT.

THE FRACTION OF SAMPLE ANALYSES YttLDING CtfECTA8LE MEASUREMthis (1.E. >3 STD CtvlAT10NS) is INolCAtt0 VITH *(

)*.

I I _

,i' I

j~

1;tl'

l ffll.'(

i:tii.

rlih i

h ll 6

!I!

l i,

M M

1 1 M

1 2 MM TT DX 1

9

~

9 n

1 o

M i

T ta

,D co

?

M L

s

,N el l o pr mt g'

p,O M

an So C

k M

x, S l a i

1

?

Mm 1

o 1

nr

,A 2

if T

4 M

7 e

7d ru 3n g

1 a

-,J i

F M

mn uo T

ii st J

ea Ct T

S e

M vm ii M

t r cg al

',A oi iP d

ar Ra

,M eN M

n

,F e

k x

a 0

T 9

M 9

9 0

7 s

3 4

3 g

g o1 E<EoOJ_HM N U11HgJgOaH0

)3 M'

M illllil l

ll lljII lll(Ij, l

l

I ew 77 II HH I

l l

l l

l l

h C

e O

I

.sa (0

-Q U

O m.)

~2

~

~

a. o E L Da I

mC

-o o

s 2O e-1gm

-m N

d.

i e

C O

.,-i L a

m S.

I o

-c rs ci u i

s I c t

01 E (O

-1 3

2 w

I

.n c 4 O oa

/*,

cc L C I

aa OM mE

>c H L I

a ci

)

U r-4 r-4 D

'd

\\

O 0,.

I

-I vc g g h

I c

-w Wx (o

o e o H

l l

l l

l l

l l

8 I.

o a

m s

e o

v n

k om HVBOO7IM / S3IHn000Id 1

lI

I 2.12 Cranberries I

Cranberries were collected from three locations at the time of harvest:

the Manomet Point Bog, the Bartlett Road Bog, and the Pine Street Bog (control station). Cranberries were analyzed at harvest time for I

gamma-emitting isotopes in edible portions. All cranberry samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for cranberries I

collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.12-1.

Naturally-occurring potassium-40 was observed in all three cranberry samples.

Cesium-137 was detected at a concentration of 41 pCi/kg in a sample of cranberries I

collected near Pilgrim Station in September 1990.

Cesium-137 was seen at concentrations of 140 - 450 pC1/kg in pre-operational samples collected between 1968 and 1972.

Such levels were due to fallout resulting from nuclear weapons testing.

When corrected for radioactive decay, which I

would have occurred between 1972 and 1990, the expected levels would be between 90 and 300 pCi/kg.

The observed concentration of 41 pC1/kg is well below that expected for decay-corrected fallout cesium-137.

No other radionuclides attributable to Pilgrim Station operations were detected in any of the samples.

Therefore, analysis of cranberry samples collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.

I I

I I

I-I I

'I

' i

I Table 2.12-1 l

Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results l

for Cranberries - 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL RADICt00lCAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

P!LCRIM WVCLEAR P M R STA110N, PLYMOU1M, MA (JANUARY DECEMBER 1990)

MEDILMt CRANSERRIES UNitSt PCl/K0 kTT INDICATOR STAi!0NS STATION VIIM hlCHEST MEAN CONTROL STAfl0NS RADIONUCttoES MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED ItANCE StA.

RANCE RANCE (WON ROJTlWE)*

LLO Wo. DETECTED **

WO.

No. DETECTED **

Wo. DETECTE0**

I BE 7 ( 4)

(

7.2 a 9.3)E 1 13

(

2.4 a 1.5)E 2

(

5.4 a 6.7)E 1

( 0)

(

8.4 -

23.7)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

K 40

( 4)

(

7.2 1.2)E 2 14

(

9.7 a 2.1)E 2

(

8.5 a 1.6)E 2 I

( 0)

(

6.0 -

9.7)E 2

• (

2/ 3)*

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

1/

1)*

MW-54 ( 4)

(

8.3 s 306.6)E 2 99

(

6.1 a 8.0)E O

(

6.5 8.1)E O I

( 0)

(

3.9 -

6.1)E 0

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CO 58 ( 4)

(

-1.2 a 0.7)E 1 23

(

4.9 7.8)E 0

(

4.9 s 7.8)E 0

( 0)

(

2.6 -

0.1)E 1 I

• (

C/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

FE 59 ( 4)

(

).6 1 1.7)E 1 99 (

3.7 a 2.1)E 1

(

1.7 a 1.6)E 1

( 0)

(

1.7 -

3.7)E 1

.I

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

Co 60 ( 4)

(

5.2 a 2.6)E D 14

(

1.0 a 1.4)E 1

(

8.3 s 11.1)E 0

( 0)

(

2.1 -

10.4)E 0 I

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

2N 65 ( 4)

(

8.2 s 150.3)E 1 13

(

2.2 a 3.7)E 1

(

1.4 s 1.7)E 1 I

( 0)

(

2.9 -

2.2)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

22 95 ( 4)

(

2.4 a 1.1)E 1 23

(

1.4 a 1.6)E 1

(

1.4 s 1.6)E 1 I

( 0)

(

4.2 -

0.3)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

AC 110M( 4)

(

4.9 s 4.8)E 0 14

(

1.4 1.3)E 1

(

8.1 a 9.2)E 0

( 0)

(

-3,0 -

13.63E O

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/

1)*

I WCN ROJTikE REFERS 10 THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE HEASURT.MENTS WHICH VERE CREATER THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERACE 8ACK0ROJND FOR THE PERICO 07 THE kEPCRt.

THE FRACTION OF SAMPLE ANALYSES YlELDlWG DETECTABLE MEASUREMENis (i.E. >3 STD DEVIATIONS) 15 IN0lCA1ED W11H *(

)*.

I -

I 1

i Lg Table 2.12-1 (continued)

I Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results For Cranberries - 1990 I

i i

ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

?

l PILCRIM NUCLEAR f%tR STAi!ON, PLYMCUiW, MA l

(JANUARY DECEr4ER 1990) l 1

MEDIUM CRANSERRIES UNITS: PCl/KG WET j

INDICATOR STATIONS STATION WlIH NICHEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS j

j RADIONUCLICES MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANCE

STA, RANCE RANGE (NON RCUTINE)*

LLD NO. CETECTE0**

NO.

NO. CETECTE0" No. CETECTE0" f

RU 103 ( 4)

(

-6.5 :

7,7)E O 99 (

5.1 t 10.8)E 0

(

2.1 8.5)E O 1

( 0)

(

2.1

• 0.5)E 1 l

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

RU 106 ( 4)

(

5.3 s 2.7)E o 23 (

5.4 a 6.5)E 1

(

5.4 s 6.5)E 1 I

( 0)

(

0.0 -

8.4)E 0

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

I 131 ( 4)

(

2.9 t 25.6)E O 14

(

4.7 4.7)E 1

(

2.2 a 2.1)E 1 (4 0)

(

4.2 -

4.7)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

C/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CS 134 ( 4) 60.

(

• 1.4 0.2)E 1 23

(

6.3 a 7.9)E 0

(

6.3 7.9)E o lI

( 0)

(

1.7 -

1.1)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CS 137 ( 4) 60.

(

8.8 16.3)E 0 99

(

4.1 s 1.1)E 1

(

8.8 8.3)E O

( 0)

(

1.1 -

4.1)E 1

• (

1/ 3)*

• (

1/

1)*

• (

0/

1)*

sA 140 ( 4)

(

4.5 3.4)E 1 13

(

1.1 s 0.7)E 2

(

3.6 16.8)E 0 l

( 0)

(

8.8 - 112.0)E o

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CE 141 ( 4)

(

1.0 7.5)E 0 99 (

7.4 s 14.3)E O

(

6.4 t 13.3)E 0 l'

( 0)

(

1.6 -

0.7)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CE 144 ( 4)

(

1.7 t 2.0)E 1 99 (

4.7 s 4.8)E 1

(

2.9 1 4.8)E 1

( 0)

(

-2.0 -

4.7)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ -1)*

TM 232 ( 4)

(

4.9 a 1.1)E 1 23

(

1.1 0.4)E 2

(

1.1 a 0.4)E 2 I

( 0)

(

3.4 -

7.1)E 1

• (

0/ 3)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

I' NON RCUTINE REFERS TO THE WUMBER OF SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WHICH WERE CREATER THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERACE BACKCRCOND FCR THE PERICO OF THE REPCRT.

THE FRActlCN OF SAMPLE ANALYSES Y!ELO!NC DETECTABLE MEASUREMENTS (1.E. >3 STD DEVi Ai!CNS) !$ INDICATED dif H *(

)*.

2.13 Veaetation Samples of produce (tuberous and green leafy vegetables) were collected at the time of harvest from the required locations at Plymouth County Farm and Bridgewater Farm (control station).

In addition, samples of produce or naturally-growing leafy vegetation were also collected at or near gardens identified during the 1990 land Use Census.

These locations and the corresponding sample codes were:

Location Dist.

Dir.

Sample 10 Hall residence 0.5 mi.

SE 99 Fry residence 2.7 mi.

SH 99C, 99D Cotti residence 1.9 mi.

HSH 99E Hoon residence 2.1 mi.

HSH 99F, 99G Brook Road 1.7 mi.

SSE 99H Beaverdam Road 2.1 mi.

S 99I Clay Hill Road 1.0 mi.

H 99J Whipple residence 2.0 mi.

SH 99K Each sample of produce / vegetation was analSzed for gamma-emitting isotopes. All. samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of the radioactivity analysis results for vegetation collected in 1990 is presented in Table 2.13-1.

Positive measurements of beryllium-7, potassium-40, cesium-137 and thorium-232 were observed in the samples. Of these isotopes, the Be-7, K-40 and Th-232 are naturally-occurring, whereas the Cs-137 is a result of fallout from previous atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.

The highest observed concentration of Cs-137 of 152 pCi/kg was found in naturally-growing vegetation (ieaves from trees and shrubs) collected from Beaverdam Road in the vicinity of are identified garden.

This is comparable to the concentration of 210 pCi/kg observed in forage samples collected from the control location during 1990 (see section 2.14).

These concentrations are also comparable to the pre-operational levels of 150 - 290 pCi/kg observed in samples collected between 1968 and 1972.

Such concentrations are considered indicative of Cs-137 from nuclear weapons testing, and not a result of Pilgrim Station operations.

No other nuclides associated with generation of nuclear power were observed in any of the samples.

Therefore, analysis of vegetation samples collected during 1990 showed no evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to Pilgrim Station.

I

Table 2.13-1 I-Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results i

For Vegetation - 1990 l

(NVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

PILCRIM NUCLEAR PNER STAil0N, PL,TM0JTN, MA (JANUARY a OECEMBER 1990)

UNITSt PC1/KG bli ME0itMt ytGETAtl0N INDICATOR STAtt0NS STATION WITH WlChtST MEAN CONTROL STAitCNS I

.....e***e...e

............ e eeeee....e

• • e...........

RA010NUOL10E$

MEAN MEAN MEAM

(:40. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANGE STA.

RANCE RANGE (MON RJJTINE)*

LLO NO. OtitCit0**

ho.

No. OETECTE0**

Wo. OETECTED**

BE 7

( 16)

(

5.6 s 2.0)E 2 99J (

2.1 a 0.1)E 3

(

6.0 t 4.7)E 1

( 6)

(

7.6 - 211.0)E 1

(

3.2 12.4)E 1

• (

6/ 13)*

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

K-40

( 16)

(

3.1 a 0.2)E 3 99C (

4.4 a 0.1)E 3

(

2.1 :

0.6)E 3

( Os

(

1.4

• 4.5)E 3

(

9.2 -

30.1)E 2 I

• ( 13/ 13)*

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

3/ 3)*

HN 54 ( 16)

(

2.4 a 1.6)t 0 99E (

9.4 4.5)E O

(

3.0 t 4.4)E 0

( 0)

(

4.7 -

12.1)E 0

(

5.1 a 9.9)E O I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

Co 58 ( 16)

(

3,0 1.5)E 0 99E (

4.9 4,8)E O

(

1.2 s 9.4)E O

( 0)

(

1.5 -

0.5)E 1

(

1.9 -

1.3)E 1 I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

FE 59 ( 16)

(

3.7 s 4.6)E 0 99

(

4.1 1.6)E 1

(

1.2

• 0.7)E 1

( 0)

(

1.6 -

4.1)E 1

(

8.3 - 214.0)E 1 I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

Co 60 ( 16)

(

5.1 a 24.3)E 1 99

(

).3 1.1)E 1

(

1.2 0.6)E 1

( 0)

(

-1.9

• 1.3)E 1

(

2.5 -

0.3)E 1 I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

2M 65 ( 16)

(

4.8 a 2.7)E O 99E (

1.3 a 1.1)E 1

(

7.1 7.2)E 0

( 0)

(

2.2 -

1.3)E 1

(

1.6 -

0.7)E 1 I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

2R 95 ( 16)

(

2.0 t 2.2)E o 990 (

7.9 17.8)E o

(

8.7 a 151.1)E 1

( 0)

(

2.2 -

0.8)t 1

(

1.7 -

3.1)E 1 I.

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

AG 110M( 16)

(

3.1 a 2.3)E O 990 (

1.0 t 1.3)E 1

(

7.5 1 2.0)E O

( 0)

(

2.2 -

1.0)E 1

(

3.5 -

9.9)E O

• (

C/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

V.ON*ROUTIME REFERS TO THE NLMBER OF SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WHICK ktRE GREATER I

TRAN TEN (10) TIMES TNE AVERACE BACKCRO)NO FCR THE PERl00 0F THE REPORT.

THE FRACTION OF SAMPLE ANALYSES TIELOING OETECTABtt HEASUREMENTS (l.E. >3 STO DEVIAfl0NS) IS INDICATED WITH *(

)*.

I I

i _

l Table 2.13-1 (continued) i Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for Vegetation - 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

PILCRIM NUCLEAR POLTR STAi!ON, PLYMOUTH, MA (JANUARY CECEMBER 1990)

MEDIUMt VECETAfl0N UNifSt PCl/KG WET IN0!CATOR STATIONS STATION VITH HlChEST MEAN CONTROL STATIONS I.

...e***e..........

RADIONUCLICES MEAN MEAN MEAN (NO AkALTSES) REQUIRED RANCE STA.

RANCE RANGE (NON RCUTINE)*

LLD NO. DETECTED" NO.

NO. DETECTE0" NO. DETECTED **

RU-103 ( 16)

(

1.0 s 2.5)E O 990 (

1.6 s 1.1)E 1

(

1.4 s 9.3)E O

( 0)

(

1.8

• 1.6)E 1

(

2.0 -

0.8)E 1

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

RU-106 ( 16)

(

-6.0 s 16.0)E 0 990 (

/.2 8.6)E 1

(

4.5 s 50.9)E O I

(

8.1

• 9,2)E 1

( 0)

(

-9.4 -

8.9)E 1

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/. 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

l 131 ( 16)

(

5.1 a 5.0)E O 99C (

4.4 s 4.5)E 1

(

1.6 s 2.4)E 1

( 0)

(

2.0 -

4.4)E 1

(

5.9 -

2.4)E 1 I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

CS 134 ( 16) 60.

(

8,5 s 2.3)E O 99i (

2,1 a 9.9)E 1

(

1.5 s 0.4)E 1

( 0)

(

2.2 -

0.0)E 1

(

2.3 0.8)E 1

. I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

CS 137 ( 16) 60.

(

2.2 1.2)E 1 991 (

1.5 s 0.0)E 2

(

7.4 s 5.5)E O

( 5)

(

1.1 -

15.1)E 1

(

1.3 0.4)E 1 I

• (

5/ 13)*

• (

1/

1)*

• t 0/ 3)*

SA 140 ( 16)

(

1.3 a 2.8)E 0 99J (

1.9 s 0.9)E 1

(

6.8 :

9.1)E 0

( 0)

(

1.8 -

1.9)E 1

(

1.1 -

1.7)E 1

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

CE 141 ( 16)

(

5.0 s 2.2)E O 99C (

2.1 1.6)E 1

(

8.6 60.7)E 1

( 0)

(

6.4 -

21.4)E D

(

1.0 -

1.0)E 1

. I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

CE 144 ( 16)

(

2.8 :

9.9)E O 990 (

8.2 s 4.9)E 1

(

5.0 a 8.1)E 1

( 0)

(

5.8 -

8.2)E 1

(

2.0 -

0.7)E 2 I

• (

0/ 13)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

TM 232 ( 16)

(

5.3 s 2.0)E 1 99X (

2.1 s 0.1)E 2

(

1.3 s 2.7)E 1

( 4)

(

6.1 -

20.7)E 1

(

4.1

• 4.1)E 1 I_

• (

4/ 13)*

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

0/ 3)*

NON ROJTINE REFERS TV THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WHICH kTRE GREATEk

- THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERACE BACXCRCUND FOR THE PERICO OF ik! REPCRT.

THE FRACTICN OF SANFLE ANALYSES YlEL0 LNG CETECTABLE MEASUREMENTS (1.E. 23 ST0 DEV!ATIONS) IS IN0!CATED WITH *(

)*,

l 2.14 Forace l

Cattle forage is collected from two locations annually:

the Plymouth County Farm and the Whitman Farm (control station).

Forage samples were analyzed annually for gamma-emitting isotopes. All forage samples were collected and analyzed as required during 1990.

The summary of radioactivity analysis results for the forage collected during 1990 is presented in Table 2.14-1.

Positive measurements of I

beryllium-7 and potassium-40 were detected at both stations.

These l

l radionuclides are both naturally-occurring.

Cesium-137 was also detected I

at both stations at levels of 43 pCi/kg in the sample from Plymouth County Farm and at 210 pCi/kg in the sample from the control location at Whitman Farm.

l The observed concentrations of Cs-137 in forage at levels of 43 and 210 l

pCi/kg are comparable to pre-operational levels of 150-290 pCi/kg i

observed in samples collected from 1968 through 1972.

The levels l

observed in the 1990 sample would be considered indicative of Cs-137 from nuclear weapons testing.

No other radionuclides attributable to Pilgrim I

i Station Operations were observed in forage samples.

I Therefore, analysis of forage samples collected during 1990 showed no j

evidence of any significant radiological impact on the environment due to l

Pilgrim Station.

l l

l I I

.I l

I,

M Table ?. 14-1 Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results r

For Forage - 1990 L

ENVIRONMENTAL AA010 LOGICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

PILCRIM WUCLEAR POWER STATION, PLYM3JIN, MA (JAkuARY DECEMBER 1990)

I UNITSi PCl/KG WET KEDIUMa FORAGE I

IN0!CAf 0R STATIONS 574110N WITH WICMtSi MEAN CONTROL STAtlDNS e.................

........................e RADIONUCLIDES MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RAkGE STA.

RAN;E RANCE I

(NON ROJilNE)*

LLD NO. CETECTED**

No.

No. CETECTED**

Wo. DETECTE7**

EE 7

( 2)

(

1.5 a 0.2)E 3 21

(

2.2 s 0.2)E 3

(

2.2 s 0.2)E 3 I

( 0)

• (

1/

1)*

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

1/ 1)*

K 40 ( 2)

(

6.6 0.4)E 3 11

(

6.6 s 0.4)E 3

(

3.7 0.3)E 3 I

( 0)

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

1/ 1)*

MM 54 ( 2) 130.

(

6.6 s 15.2)E o 21

(

2.7 a 1.4)E 1

(

2.7 a 1.4)E 1

( 0)

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

co-58 ( 2) 130.

(

1.8 s 1.6)E 1 11

(

1.8 s 1.6)E 1

(

1.1 1.3)E 1 I

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

FE 59 ( 2) 2 60.

(

4.5 a 3.5)E 1 11

(

4.5 a 3.5)E 1

(

3.4 a 2.9)E 1 I

( 0)

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CO-60 ( 2) 130.

(

8.2 21.0)E o 21

(

2.7 a 2.1)E 1

(

2.7 a 2.1)E 1 I

( 0)

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

ZN 65 ( 2) 260.

(

1.0 s 3.4)E 1 11

(

1.0 s 3.4)E 1

(

5.1 2.7)E 1 I

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

2R 95 ( 2)

(

3.7

• 3.1)E 1 21

(

9.0 t 23.2)E 0

(

9.0 t 23.2)E o

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/

1)*

AG 110M( 2)

(

1.2 s 20.0)E O 11

(

1.2 :

20.0)E O

(

1.2

• 16.6)E O

( 0)

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

WON ACUT!WE REFER 5 TO THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WHICH WERE CREATER THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERAGE BACKCRCUND FCR THE PER100 0F THE REPCRT.

THE FRACil0N OF SAMPLE ANALTSES YlELDING CETECTABLE MEASUREMENTS (l.E. >3 EfD DEVIAtlCNS) 15 INDICATED WITH *(

)*. ___ - ___ -

I Table 2.14-1 (continued)

I Summary of Radioactivity Analysis Results for forage - 1990 ENVIR0kMENTAL RAD 101,0GICAL PROGRAM

SUMMARY

PILCRIM WUCLEAR POWER STATION, PLTMOUTH, MA (JANUARY. CECEMBER 1990)

UNIT 8: PCl/KG VET ME0ith FORA;E IN01CATOR STATIONS STATION VITH HICHEST MEAN CONTROL STATION $

I RADIONUCLl0ES MEAN MEAN MEAN (No. ANALYSES) REQUIRED RANCE STA.

RAkOE RANCE (NON.ROJTINE)*

LLD NO. DETECTE0**

No.

No. DETECTE0**

Wo. DETECTE0**

RU.103 ( 2)

(

0.0 1.8 )E 1 11

(

0.0 1.8)E 1

(

1.6 1.3)E 1 I

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

RU.106 ( 2)

(

+8.5 11.6)! 1 21

(

1.3 s 10.1)E 1

(

1.3 10.1)E 1 I

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

1 131 ( 2)

(

1.2 a 1.2)E 2 21

(

3.9 a 301.0)E.1

(

3.9 s 301.0)E.1 I

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• ( ' 0/

1)*

C$.134 ( 2) 130.

(

2.7 a 1.4)E 1 21

(

• 1.6 s 1.2)E 1

(

1.6 a 1.2)E 1

( 0)

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

Cs-137 ( 2) 130.

(

4.3 s 1.2)E 1 21

(

2.1 s 0.2)E 2

(

2.1 a 0.2)E 2 I

( 0)

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

1/ 1)*

• (

1/ 1)*

SA 140 ( 2)

(

6.8 s 63.9)E o 11

(

6.8 63.9)E 0

(

1.8 s 2.7)E 1

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CE-141 ( 2)

(

1.1 s 25.6)E 0 21

(

2.4 1.7)E 1

(

2.4 s 1.7)E 1

( 0)

I

• (

0/

1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

CE.144 ( 2)

(

2.4 s 7.2)E 1 11

(

2.4 s 7.2)E 1

(

4.3 s 6.1)E 1

.I

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

TH 232 ( 2)

(

6.4 5.9)E 1 21

(

1.1 s 0.6)E 2

(

1.1 a 0.6)E 2 I

( 0)

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/ 1)*

• (

0/

1)*

Noh.R31 TINE REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WHICH WERE GREATER THAN TEN (10) TIMES THE AVERAGE BACKCROUND FCR THE PERICD OF THE REPCRT.

THE FRACTION OF SA.MPLE ANALYSES Yttt,0 LNG DETECTABLE MEASUREMENTS (i.E. >3 STO DEVIATIONS) 15 INDICATED WITH *(

)*.

I I

.l.

3.0

SUMMARY

OF RAD 10Lg lCAL IMPACT ON HUMANO l

The radiological impact to humans from the Pilgrim Station's radioactive liquid and gaseous releases has been estimated using two methods; l) calculations based on measurements of plant effluents; and

2) calculations based on measurements of environmental samples.

The first method utilizes data from the radioactive effluents (measured at the point of release) together with conservative models that calculate thedisgersionandtransportofradioactivitythroughtheenvironmentto I

humans.

The second method is based on actual measurements of radioactivity in the environmental samples and on dose conversion factors recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The measured types and quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released from I

Pilgrim Station during 1990 were reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, copies of which are provided in Appendix B.

The measured levels of radioactivity in the environmental samples that required dose I

calculations are listed in Appendix A.

The maximum individual dose from liquid effluents was calculated using the following radiation exposure pathways (see Figure 1.5-1):

1) shoreline external radiation during fishing and picnicking at the Pilgrim Station Shorefront;

2) external radiation from the ocean during boating and swimming; and l

3) ingestion of fish and shellfish.

For gaseous effluents, the maximum individual dose was calculated using the following radiation exposure pathways:

1) external radiation from submersion in gaseous effluents; 2) inhalation of airborne radioactivity;

3) direct radiation from Pilgrim Station; 4) external radiation from soil deposition;

5) consumption of vegetables; and

6) consumption of milk and meat.

l The results from the dose calculations based on radioactive effluents are compared with the federal radiation dose limits and natural / man-made radiation levels in Table 3-1.

The dose assessment data presented was I

taken from the " Annual Dose Assessment to the General Public from Radioactive Effluents" report for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1990.

I 1

Table 3-1 Comparison of 1990 Maximum Estimated Doses from PNPS Ef fluents to l

Federal Dose Limits and Natural / Man-Made Radiation Levels I

1990 1990 1990 Liquid Gaseous Total EPA NRC Natural /

Body Dose Dose 00se' Limit Limit Han-made Part (mrem)

(mrem)

(mrem)

(mrem)

(mrem)

(mrom)

Total Body 0.0006 0.234 0.234 25 500 300 - 400 Skin 0.0004 0.085 0.085 Thyroid 0.0003 0.571 0.571 75 Organ 0.003 0.571 0.571 25

• Dose due to direct radiation from Pilgrim Station was not included in total dose, a3 the value for near-plant measurements was not statistically different than that for control locations.

J Two federal agencies establish dose limits to protect the public from radiation and radioactivity.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies a whole body dose limit of 500 mrem /yr to be received by the I

maximum exposed member of the general public.

This limit is set forth in Section 105, Part 20, Title 10, of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR20).

By comparison, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits the annual whole body dose to 25 mrem /yr, which is specified in Section 10, Part 190, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations (40CFR190).

Another useful " gauge" of radiation exposure is provided by the aniount of dose a typical individual receives each year from natural and man-made (eg, diagnostic X-rays) sources of radiation.

The typical American I

receives 300 to 400 mrem /yr from such sources.

As can be seen from the doses resulting from releases of radioactive I

effluents during 1990, all values are well within the federal limits specified by the NRC and EPA.

In addition, the calculated doses from effluents represent only a fraction of a percent of doses from natural and man-made radiation.

A second method of dose estimation involves calculations based on radioactivity detected in environmental media.

During 1990, one special study was performed to determine the dose impact associated with radionuclides detected in blue mussels.

These calculations are discussed in detail in Appendix A of this report.

l I l

I Internal radiation doses associated with ingestion of radioactivity in l

blue mussels are discussed in Appendix A.

The estimated maximum total body dose associated with the hypothetical ingestion of blue mussels taken from the Pilgrim Station Discharge Canal was 0.0006 mrem /yr.

All of the doses calculated from environmental media results, whether considered individually or collectively, are well within federal dose limits specified by the NRC and EPA.

In addition, the cumulative dose I

from such hypothetical exposures represents less than one percent of the typical annual dose received from natural and man-made sources.

l Therefore, the radiological impact from Pilgrim Station operation is of insignificant consequence to public health.

]

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

I 4.0 References l

1.

United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, Appendix A Criteria 64.

I Donald T. Oakley, " Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States."

2.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP/SID 72-1, June 1972.

3.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No. 93, I

" Ionizing Radiation Exposures of the Population of the United States,"

September 1987.

I 4.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 8.29,

" Instructions Concerning Risks from Occupational Radiation Exposure,"

Revision 0, July 1981.

5.

Boston Edison Company, " Pilgrim Station" Public Information Brochure 100M, HNTHP, September 1989.

l 6.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109,

" Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," Revision 1, October 1977.

7.

Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Off-site Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 3, August 1989.

8.

United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20.105.

9.

United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, Appendix I.

10. United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 Part 190.

11. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.1, I

" Program for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, April 1975.

I 12.

ICN/Tracerlab, " Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Pre-operational Environmental Radiation Survey Program, Quarterly Reports," August 1968 to June 1972, 13.

International Commission of Radiological Protection, Publication No. 43,

" Principles of Monitoring for the Radiation Protection of the Population," May 1984.

14. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0473, " Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Boiling Hater Reactors," Revision 3, September 1982.

I I -

I

15. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Branch Technical Position,

!l "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," Revision j

1, November 1979.

I Settlement Agreement Between Hassachusetts Hildlife Federation and Boston 16.

Edison Company Relating to Off-site Radiological Monitoring - June 9, 1977.

l 17.

J. E. Vossahlik, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Computer Program

'ERMAP," Version 3.1 - January 9, 1979.

I 18.

E. R. Cumming, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, "1990 Annual Cirect Radiation Survey," REG 206/90, August 28, 1990.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I APPENDIX A I

SPECIAL STUDIES BLUE HUSSELS I

I I

I I

I I

I

.I

I APPENDIX A I

SPECIAL DOSE IMPACT STUDIES I.

Blue Mussels:

l 1.

Introduction As a part of the routine radiological environmental sampling program at I

PNPS, blue mussels are sampled and analyzed on a quarterly basis.

During 1990, as in previous years, samples from the outfall of the PNPS discharge canal exhibited measurable quantities of cobalt-60. One sample also showed detectable silver-110m.

This special study documents the radiological analysis results as well as the dose calculations to evaluate the maximum radiological impact to a hypothetical member of the general public.

I II, Backaround Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) are harvested from the Cape Cod Bay area and sold on the commercial market.

Although mussels are not as popular a seafood as lobster or clams, they are eaten regularly (estimated maximum ingestion rate of 9 kg/yr per capita).

The uptake and elimination rates of radionuclides discharged by nuclear power plants by these filter-feeding mollusks has been studied and documented.

The uptake rate can be described by the biological accumulation factor which indicates how many times higher the concentration in the mossel will be than the radioactivity concentration in the water.

The biological accumulation factors documented in the literature for cobal 6g, cesium-134, cesium-137andmanganese-54rangtfrom 300-50,000 units This filtration or concentration effect by shellfish makes them a good indicator of radionuclide effects on the aquatic food chain because it is possible to detect radionuclides in the edible portions, even though the concentrations released into the discha wellwithintheNuclearRegulatoryCommission's10CFR20ggecanalare permissible concentrations.

The following sections of this document will describe:

1) the recent radioactivity concentration measurements on the mussels in the discharge canal outfall, 2) the estimated internal dose from the ingestion of these mussels, and 3) how these levels compare with existing regulatory limits and proposed guides or guidelines.

I

!I A-1

I III. Mussel Radioactivity Heasurements and Estimated Maximum Internal Dose From Incestion m

Samples of blue mussels were collected during each calendar quarter from I

the outfall of the PNPS discharge canal by personnel from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries as part of the routine radiological environmental monitoring program.

The mussel meat and surrounding liquid were removed from the shells to yield approximately I

500 grams of sample during each collection.

Samples were then submitted to Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Environmental Laboratory for analysis.

Samples were cognted on a lithium-drif ted germanium detector using standard procedures The only radionuclides attributable to PHPS operations that were detected in any of the 1990 mussel samples were cobalt-60 and I

silver-110m.

The silver-110m was 09tected in only one sample (2nd Qtr.), at a concentration of 10.9

!.4 pCi/kg.

The activity concentrations of Co-60 observed in the quarterly samples are as follows:

I-Collection Co-00 Concentration

• S.D.

Period in mussel meat (pCi/kg)

First Quarter 15.9 2 1.6 Second Quarter 18.5 1.6 Third Quarter 6.4

• 1.8 Fourth Quarter 5.8 2 1.5 I

Average 11.7 2 5.7 For comparative purposes, the average Co-60 concentration in mussels collected from the discharge canal outfall during 1987 was 89 pCi/kg, I

the average concentration in 1988 mussel samples was 37 pCi/kg and the average concentration in 1989 mussel samples was 22 pCi/kg.

The levels of Co-60 observed in mussels collected during 1990 are considerably I

lower than the levels detected in samples collected from the discharge canal outfall in previous years.

I Based on the average observed concentration of Co-60 and the concentration of Ag-110m in the mussel meat an estimate of the maximum s

internal dose from the ingestion of these mussels was calculated.

This was based on the conservative assumption that the maximum exposed I

individual would ingest mussels that were raked from the discharge canal outfall.

The calculations were performed in accordance with the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Off-site Dose Calculation Manual.7 The results l

shown in the following table indicate that the maximum organ dose from the ingestion of mussel bodies harvested from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station discharge canal outfall would be about 0.01 mrem /yr.

A-2

Q 1 kJLied Maximum Interna) Dose from Inag3 tion of Blue Hussels ta,Len from Pilarim Strdion Dischatge Canal Ou1Dl1 I

Organ Adult Teenager Child (mrem /vr)

(mrem /vr)

(mrem /vr)

Total Bod v _.

0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 _

I Haximum Oraan (GI) 0.01 0.006 0.002 I

IV.

CpLnnarison of Estimated Dose to Federal Dose limits and Normal Radiation Levels Two_ federal agencies establish dose limits to protect the public from radiation and radioactivity.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies a whole body dose limit of 500 mrem /yr to be received by the maximum exposed member of the general public.

This limit is set forth in Section 105, Part 0, Title 10, of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR20){,By comparison, the Environmental Protection I

Agency (EPA) limits the annual whole body dose to 25 mrem /yr, which is Regulations (40CFR190)g,Part190, Title 40,oftheCodeofFederal specified in Section I Another u.cful " auge" of radiation exposure is provided by the amount 4

of dose a typica individual receives each year from natural and man-made (e.g., diagnostic X-rays) sources of radiation.

The typical l

American receives 300 to 400 mrem /yr from such sources.

When the maximum estimated total body dose of 0.0006 mrem /yr is compared to the federal dose limits, such an exposure is well within established I

guidelines.

In addition, this maximum dose is a fraction of a percent of the radiation levels typically received each year by members of the general public.

V.

Conclusions I.

In conclusion, the total radiological impact associated with slightly contaminated mussels present in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station discharge canal outfall is insignificant.

This conclusion is based on the fact that the dose resulting from ingestion of these mussels would I

be much less than 0.01 mrem /yr to the exposed individual, which is well below federal radiation limits to the general public set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

l In addition, the maximum estimated dose is much less than one percent of the natural /msn-made rad'ation levels received annually by the average American.

I I

I A-3

I VI.

Eff.IALEC.LS 1.

Lowman, F. G., T. R. Rice, and F. A. Richards, 1971.

" Accumulation and Redistribution of Radionuclides by Marine Organisms in Radioactivity in i

the Marine Environment," National Academy of Sciences, pp. 168-169.

2.

Chapman, H. H., H. L. Fisher, and H. H. Pratt.

1968.

" Concentration I

factors of Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms".

Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, Report UCRL-50564.

I 3.

Heaver, C. L., "A Proposed Radioactivity Concentration Guide for Shellfish", U.S. Public Health Service, September,1967.

4.

Harrison, F. Personal communication with 0. E. McCurdy, 1972 (from I

Reference 9).

S.

United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Part 20.

6.

Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory Procedure No. 450,

" Identification and Quantitative Determination of Radionuclides by Gamma Ray Spectrometric Techniques" Rev. 4.

7.

Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Off-site Dose J

Calculation Manual, Revision 3, August 1989.

8.

United States of America, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 190.

I I

I I

I l

3 j

I I

I

^-4

w L

[

l I

APPENDIX B 1990 RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENTS I

l l

l 1

l

~

u EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT Supplemental Information (1990) facility Pilarim Nuclear Power Station Licensee DPR-35 I

1.

Regulatory Limits l

a.

Fission and activation gases:

500 mrem /yr total body and 3000 mrem /yr for skin at site boundary, 5,c. Iodines, particulates with half-lives >8 days, tritium:

1500 mrem /yr to any organ at site boundary, d.

Liquid effluents:

0.06 mrem / month for total body and 0.20 mrem / month for any organ (without radwaste I

treatment).

2.

Maximum Permissible Concentration.

a.

Fission and activation gases:

10 CFR 20 Appendix B Table II b.

Iodines:

10 CFR 20 Appendix B Table II c.

Particulates, half-lives >8 days:

10 CFR 20 Appendix B Table II I

d.

Liquid effluents:

2E-4 pCi/ml for entrained noble gases; 10CFR20 Appendix B Table II values for all other radionuclides.

3.

Average Energy Not applicable 4.

Methods used to determine radionuclide composition in effluents a.

fission and activation gases:

High-purity Ge gamma spectroscopy for b.

Ioaines:

all gamma emitters; radiochemistry c.

Particulates:

analysis for H-3, fe-55 (liquids only),

d.

Liquid effluents:

Sr-89, and St-90.

5.

Batch Releases a.

Liquid Quarter hL hL 1.

Number of batch releases:

10

.28 2.

Total time period for batch releases (minutes):

657 min 2210 min 3.

Maximum time period for a batch release (minutes):

._lBLni n 205 min 4,

Average time period for batch releases (minutes):

,__fi, min 79 mi!L 5.

Minimum time period for a batch release (minutes):

_ 20 min 20 min 6.

Average stream flow during periods of 9.43E+5L/m 7.85E+5L/m release of effluent into a flowing stream (liter / min):

b.

Gaseous:

Not applicable 6.

Abnormal Releases a.

Liquid:

None b.

Gaseous:

None B-1

I I

TABLE 1A EFFLUENT AND HAS.TLDISPOSAL SEMI ANNUAL REPORT (19901 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES Quarter Quarter Est. Total Unit 1st 2nd Error. %

A.

Fission and activation gases

1. Total release Ci 1.4EE+2 1.97E+2 22%

l

2. Averaae release rate for oeriod uCi/sec 1.80E+1 2.50E+1

3. Percent of Tech. SDec. limit B.

Iodines E Total iodine-131_

C1 1.28E-3 1.38E-3 20%

l

2. Averaae release r6 L for neriod uC1/sec

1. 63 E -4 1.75E-4

3. Percent of lech. Soec. limit C.

Particulates

1. Particul. with half-lives >8 days Ci

_2.29E-4 2.25E-4 21%

l L_Averaae release rate for DeE101_. uCi/ set 2.90E-5 2.86E-5

3. Percent of Tech. Soec. limit

4. Gross aloha radioactivity Ci NDA NDA D. Tritium l

1. Total release C1 2.61E+0 2.92E+0 207 l

2. Averaae release rate for Deriod uCi/sec 3.31E-1 3.71E-1

,3. Percent of Tech. Soec. limit Notes for Table 1A:

Percent of Technical Specification Limit Values in Section A.3 through D 3 are to be provided in the annual supplemental dose assessment report to be issued prior to April 1, 1991.

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

l l

2.

LLD for gross alpha listed as NDA is 1E-11 pCi/ml.

i.

l I

i B-2 1

I TABLE IB EFFLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1990)

GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - ELEVATED RELEASE CONTINUOUS H0DE BATCH HODE l

Nuclides Released I

Unit l Ouarter i Ouarter Guarter Ouarter l

1st 2nd Not applicable I

1.

Fission gases Kr-85m Ci 2.53E1 4.16El Kr-87 C1 NDA 5,50E0 Kr-88 Ci 2.67El 4.12E1 Xe-133 Ci 8.47El 9.18E1 Xe-135 C1 1.41E0 8.56E0 Xe-135m Ci NDA NDA Xe-138 Ci 3.52E0 8.61E0 Total for Deriod Ci 1JH 1.97E2 I

2.

Iodines I-131 Ci

87E-4 1.38E-3 j _3 61E-3 I-133 Ci 7.86E-3 Total for oeriod Ci 4.40E-3 9.24E-3 3.

Particulates I

ST-89 Ci 1.10E-5 3 91L-5 Sr-90 C1 3.10E-7 3.47E-7 Cs-134 Ci NDA NDA Cs-137 Ci NDA NDA I

Ba/La-140 Ci 6.16E R 9.88E-5 Total for oeriod Ci 7.29E 1.39E-4 Notes for Table IB:

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLDs for nuclides listed as NDA are as follows:

Fission gases:

1E-4 pCi/mi Iodines:

1E-12 pCi/ml Particulates:

1E-11 pCi/ml B-3

I I

TABLE IC EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1990)

GASEQUS EFFLUENTS - GROUND LEVEL RELEASE CONTINUOUS MODE BATCH H0DE

~

l Nuclides Released I

Unit i Ouarter l

Ouarter Quarter l

Ouarter l

l lst 2nd No Batch Mode Releases During 1990 I

1.

Fission gases Kr-85m Ci NDA NDA Kr-87 Ci NDA NDA Kr-88 Ci NDA NDA Xe-133 Ci NDA NDA Xe-135 Ci N E. A NDA Xe-135m Ci NDA ffDA Xe-138 Ci NDA NDA Total for oeriod Ci NDA NDA 2.

Iodines 1-131 Ci 4.95E-4 NDA I-133 Ci 3.99E-3 tDA Total for Deriod Ci 4.49E-3 NEA 3.

Particulates I

_Mn-54 Ci 4.321-6 NDA C2-60 Ci 6.55E-6 6.91E-6 Sr-89 CJ_

6.5QE-5 7.97E-5 Sr-90 Ci NDA NDA I

Cs-134 Ci NUA NDA Cs-137 Ci 1.51E-7 NDA Ba/La-140 Ci 8.00E-5 NDA I

Total fo_r oerios Ci 1.561-4 8.66E-5 Notes for Table IC:

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLDs for nuclides listed as NDA are as follows:

I Fission gases:

lE-4 pCi/mi lodines:

IE-12 pCi/ml Particulates:

1E-Il pC1/mi B-4

TABLE 2A LFfLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL SEHIANNUAL REPORT (1990)

LIQUID EFFLUENTS SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES I

Quarter Quarter Est. Total

,_ Unit

. Ist 2nd __,

Error. %

A.

Fission and activation products I

1. Total release (not including Ci tritium noble gases. or aloha) 1.26E-3

_,_1.22E-2 12%

2. Average diluted concentration pCi/ml J urina Deriod 2.03E-9 _

___LD5 E-9___

I

. Percent of aDolicable limit 9.71E-3%

1.66E-2%_

B.

Tritium

1. Total release Ci 4.18E-1 2.40E+0 10%

l I

2. Average diluted concentration pC1/ml durina ceriod 6.75E-7 1 3.91-6

3. Percent of ADD 11(JLble limit 2.52E-2%

4.62E-2%.

C.

Dissolved and entrained gases

1. Total release Ci 1.75E-4 NDA 16%

l

2. Average diluted concentration pCl/mi durina ceriod 2.83E-10 NDA

3. Percent of apD1icable,.J.iml L 1.42E-4%

NDA D.

Gross alpha radioactivity l1.Totalrelease l

"i l

NDA I

NDA l

34%

l I

E.

Volume of waste released (prior to dilution) liters 2.36E+5 1.15E46 6%

F.

Volume of dilution water used during period liters Notes for Table 2A:

1.

HDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLD for dissolved and entrained gase.; listed as NDA is 1E-5 pCi/ml.

3.

LLD for gross alpha listed as NDA is 1E-7 pCi/ml.

l B-5

l TABLE 2B l

EFFLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1990)

LIQUID EFFLUENTS CONTINUOUS H0DE BATCH H0DE

[ Nuclides Released i Unit i

Ouarter l

Ouarter Ouarter 1

On.r.itL__ l 1.

Fission and Activation Products I

Cr-51 Ci Not ADplicablt__

1.36E-4 4.39E Mn-54 Ci 1 73E-5 3.79E-3 fe-55 Ci 3.9EE-6 6. 61E-1__

fe-59 Ci NDA 8. 0]_L-L_

I Co-5_8 Ci 1.79E-5 2. 4EE-L,.

Cst-60 Ci 4.101-4 4.52E-3 Zn-65 Ci NDA 6.11E-7 I

St-89 Ci 1.14E-5 1,46E-5*

Sr-90 Ci 2.78E-6 1.J3E-5*.

2r/Nb-95 Ci NDA NDA I

Mod 9/Tc-99m Ci NDA NDA Rh-105 Ci NDA NDA Aa-110m Ci 8.29E-7 5.40E-4 Sb-122 Ci N D A _ ___

NDA I

I-131 Ci ND/L NDA 1.73E-6 EDA Cs-134 Ci 3.77[-4 2.44E-4 Cs-137 Ci I

Ba/La-140 Ci 2.77E-4 NDA Ce-141 Ci NDA NDA Ce/Pr-144 Ci NDA NDA H f-181 Ci NDA NDA Total for oeriod Ci 1.26E-3 1.22E-2 2.

Dissolved and Entrained Noble Gases Xe-133 C.1 1.63E-5 NDA Xe-135 Ci 1.59E-4 NDA Total for oeriod Ci 1.75E-4 NDA I

Notes for Table 28:

l Activities for 2nd Qtr. include estimates of 1.46E-6 Ci for Sr-89 and 6.76E-6 Ci for Sr-90 based on minimum detectable activities in a sample for which the LLO of SE-8 pCi/ml was not achieved.

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLDs for nuclides listed as NDA are as follows:

I-131 1E-6 pCi/ml Xe-133 1E-5 pCi/ml I

Xe-135 lE-5 pCi/ml All Others SE-7 pCi/mi B-6

I fHLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL.SDi1NMBLR20RI g

Supplemental Information (1990) facility Pilorim Nuclear Power Station Licensee._0fR.35 1.

Regulatory Limits I

a.

Fission and activation gases:

500 mrem /yr total body and 3000 mrem /yr for skin at site boundary, b,c. Iodines, particulates with half-lives >8 days, tritium:

1500 mrem /yr to any organ at site boundary.

d.

Liquid effluents:

0.06 mrem / month for total body and 0.20 mrem / month for any organ (without l

radwaste treatment).

2.

Maximum Permissible Concentration a.

fission and activation gases:

10 CFR 20 Appendix 0 Table II b.

Iodines:

10 CFR 20 Appendix B Table II c.

Particulates, half-lives >8 days:

10 CFR 20 Appendix B Table II d.

Liquid effluents:

2E-4 pC1/mi for entrained noble gases; 10 CFR 20 Appendix B Table II values 3.

Average Energy Not applicable 4.

Methods used to determine radionuclide composition in effluents a.

fission and activation gases:

High-purity Ge gamma spectroscopy for b.

Iodines:

all gamma emitters; radiochemistry I

c.

Particulates:

analysis for H-3, fe-55 (liquids only),

d.

Liquid effluents:

Sr-89, and Sr-90.

5.

Batch Releases a.

Liquid Quarter 3rd 4 tlL.

1.

Number of batch releases:

24 12 2.

Total time period for batch releases (minutes):

1.00E+3 7.55E+L l

3.

Maximum time period for a batch release (minutes):

1.05E+2 1.05E+2 4.

Average time period for bstch releases (minutes):

4.17E+1 6.29E+1 5.

Minimum time period for a batch release (minutes):

_LO0E+1 2.50E+1 6.

Average stream flow during periods of release of effluent into a flowing stream (liter / min):

1.17E+6 1.17E+6 b.

Gaseous:

Not applicable 6.

Abnormal Releases f

a.

Liquid: None b.

Gaseous:

None B-7 1

I TABLE 1A II EFFLUENT A3D_1MSJLDISf0MLS[HI ANNUAL REPORT (1990)

GASEOUS EFFLUENTS SUMMATION Of ALL RELEASIS Quarter Quaiter Est. Total Unit 31) 4th Error. %

I A.

Fission and activation gases

1. Total release Ci 2.77L 2 2. 9] E + 2 221 l

I L_Arg r a c e r e i gnic,,_talt_f.QI._p e r i o d

_uti/see 3.51E+1 3. 6 91.t].,_,,

3. Percent of Tech. Sp m _ limit B.

Iodines

1. Total iodine-131 Ci

4. 4_1L-3 2.11E-3 20%

_l ufCJJ. igg 5.66E-4 2.67E-4 CJ

2. Averaae release rate for oeriod 3__. Percent of Tech. SDec. limit 7.

g C.

Particulates

1. Particul. With half-lives >8 days Ci 1.9BE-4

_3.31E-4 21%

l L Averace release rate for oeriod uCi/sec 2.51E-S 4. Z QE-5_,,_

I

3. Percent of Tech. SDec. limit NDA NDA

4. Gross aloha radioactivity Ci

0. Tritium

1. Total relgase Ci 4.40(.t0___.LS21.tQ l

20%

l L,_A,y_pnge release rate for Deriod

_yCi/ set ___S.dff-L 7.E7E-1 I

3. Percent of Tech. SDec. limit l

Notes for Table IA:

Percent of Technical Specification Limit Values in Section A.3 through D.3 I

are to be provided in the annual supplemental dose assessment report to be issued prior to April., 1991.

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLD for gross alpha listed as NDA is 1E-11 pCi/ml.

I I

I I

B-0

I TABLE IB

'I EFFLUENT ANQ_ HASTE D1SEQSALl[RIAN_NI)ALR[20RT C1990)

GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - ELEVATED RELEASE CONTINUOUS H0DE BATCH H0DE l~NuclidesReleased l

Unit l Oggiter l

Ouarter 0 garter

l. Quarter l

3rd 4th N/A N/A I

1.

Fission gases Kr-85m Ci 7.80E+1 6.69E+1 Kr-87 Ci NDA f(DA Kr-88 Ci

5. 3H + 1 4.8QE+1 I

Xt-133 Ci 1.19E+2 1_Ji[+2 Xe-135 Ci 6 6BE+0 4.37E40 2

Xe-135m Ci 5.11E40 5.58E+0 Xe-138 Ci 1.14E+1 NDA Total for Deriod Ci 2.74E+2

.2.80E+2 2.

Iodines 1-131 Ci 3.79E-3.

1.89E-3 1-133 Ci 9.96E-3__

9.92E-3

~

Total for oeriod Ci 1.37E-2 1.18E-2 3.

Particulates SrIf9 Ci 2.43E-5 2.29E-5 St-90 Ci 1 16E-6 NDA I

Cs-134 Ci NDA NDA Cs-137 Ci NDA NDA Ba/La-140 Ci 5.72E-5 3.59E-5 Total for oeriod Ci 8.31E-5 5.88E-5 4.

Tritium l

H-3 I

Ci l

2.05E-1 1

1.62[-i l

I l

Notes for Table 1B:

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLDs for nuclides listed as NDA are as follows:

l Fission gases:

IE-4 pCi/ml Iodines:

1E-12 pCi/ml l

Particulates:

1E-11 pCi/ml B-9

I TABLE IC

'I EFFLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL SEHIANNUAL REPORT (19301 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS _- GROUND LEVEL RELEASE CONTINUOUS H0DE BATCH H0DE g

l__tQclidesReleased i

Unit l

Og rter i

Ouar_ter Quarter l

Ouarter l

3rd 4th N/A N/A I

1.

Fission gases Kr-85m Ci NDA NDA Kr-87 Ci NDA NDA Kr-88 Ci NDA NDA I

Xe-133 Ci NDA 5.00E+0 Xe-135 Ci 2.74E+0 6.25E+0 Xe-135m Ci NDA NDA I

Xe-138 Ci NDA NDA Total for oeriod Ci 2.74E+0 1.13f+1 2.

Iodines

~

I-131 Ci 6.73E-4 2.18E-4 1-133 Ci 1.50E-3 1.221-3 Total for oeriod Ci 2.18E-3 1.51E-3 3.

Particulates Sr-89 C) 1.15E-4 2.61E-4 Sr-90 Ci NDA

4. 45L-6 I

Cs-134 Ci NDA NDA Cs-137 Ci NDA NDA Ba/La-140 Ci NDA 7.00E-6 Total for oeriod Ci 1.15E-4 2.72E-4 4.

Tritium l

H-3 I

Ci I

4.19E+0 5.81E+0 l I

l Notes for Table IC:

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLDs for nuclides listed as NDA are as follows:

Fission gases:

1E-4 pCi/ml Iodines:

1E-12 pC1/ml l

Particulates:

1E-11 pCi/ml B-10

I TABLE 2A EFFLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1990)

LIOUID EFFLUENTS SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES Quarter Quarter Est. Total

_1lni t 3rd 4th Error. %

A.

Fission and activation products

1. Total release (not including I

_ tritium noble anses. or aloha)

Ci 1.62E-3 5.75E-4 12%

2. Average diluted concentration durina ceriod uCi/mi 1.38E-9 6.49E-10

3. Percent of aoolicable limit 6.23E-3%

3.45E-31 B.

Tritium

1. Total release Ci 8.58E-1 4.58E-3 9.4%

l

2. Average diluted concentration I

durina ceriod uCi/ml 7.33E-7 5.17E-9

3. Percent of acolicable limit 2.44E-2%

1.72E-4%

C.

Dissolved and entrained gases

1. Total release Ci NDA NDA 16%

l

2. Average diluted concentration

__.,durina ceriod pli/ml NDA NDA

3. Percent of acolitable limit NDA NDA I

D.

Gross alpha radioactivity l_1.Totalrelease I Ci l

NDA l

NDA I

34%

l I

E.

Volume of waste released (orior to dilution) liters 2.56E+5 1.61E+4 5.7%

F.

Volume of dilution water used durina ceriod liters 1.17E+9 8.86E+8 10%

I Notes for Table 2A:

1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLD for dissolved and entrained gase: listed as NDA is 1E-S pCi/ml.

3.

LLD for gross alpha listed as NDA is IE-7 pCi/ml.

I B-ll

! I TABLE 2B ll EFFLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1990)

LIOUID EFFLUENTS CONTINUOUS H0DE BATCH H0DE l

Nuclides Released l

Unit i

Ouarter l

Ouarter Guarter 1 00arter l

N/A N/A 3rd 4th I

1.

Fission and Activation Products Cr-51 Ci 4.74E-5 NDA Hn-54 Ci 4.94E-5 1.32F,_5_

Fe-55 Ci 3.28E-4 1.05E-4 I

Fe-59 Ci NDA NDA Co-58 Ci 1.97E-5 2.78E-6 Co-60 Ci 7.15E-4 2.69E-4 Zn-65 Ci 6.85E-6 NDA Sr-89 Ci NDA 4.56E-6 Sr-90 Ci 7.73E-6 3.27E-6 Zr/Nb-95 Ci NOA NDA I

Ho-99/Tc-99m Ci NDA NDA Rh-105 Ci NDA NDA Aa-110m Ci 9.57E-6 NDA I

Sb-122 Gi NDA NDA I-131 Ci NDA NDA Cs-134 Ci NDA NDA I

Cs-137 Ci 4.27E-4 1.77E-4 Ba/La-140 Ci 8.17E-6 NDA Ce-141 Ci NDA NDA Ce/Pr-144 Ci NDA NDA I

H f-181 Ci NDA NDA

__ Total for oeriod Ci 1.62E-3 5.75E-4 2.

Dissolved and Entrained Noble Gases I

Xe-133 Ci NDA NDA Xe-135 Ci HDA NDA Total for period Ci NDA NDA Notes for Table 28:

I 1.

NDA is no detectable activity.

2.

LLDs for nuclides listed as NDA are as follows:

Sr-89 SE-8 pCi/mi I-131 1E-6 pCi/mi I

Xe-133, 135 lE-5 pCi/mi All Others SE-7 pCi/mi B-12

I I

I I

I I

I I

I APPENDIX C RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SURvt1LLAN:t Rt00!RtutNTS OPtRAT10NAL OBJECTIVES 7.0 RAD 10LCC1 CAL (WIROWtNTAL 8.0 RADIOLOGICAL (WIROWINt AL R$h110TlhG PRDGRAM RDslTOR!hs FRDGRAw 8.) M.,gnitorino Procram 7.1 Monitorine Procram Specification:

Applicability:

A.

EWIRONMENTAL MON!TORING At all tienes.

The radiological environmental Speciffeation:

Wohitoring sa?ples shall be Collected pursuant to Table 8.1 1 A.

EWlRONMENTAL H')N110 RING from the specific locations given I

in the table and figure (s) in the An environmental monitoring program Offsite Dose Calculation Manual shall be conducted to evaluate the (ODCM) and shall be analyzed I

effects of station operation on the pursuant to the requirements of environs and to verify the Table 8.1 1 and the detection effectiveness of the source capatilities required by lable controls on radioactive materials.

I 8.1-a.

The radiological environmental 1.

Cumulative dose contributions monitoring program shall be for the curre.t calendar year conducted as specified in Table from radionuclides detetted I

8.1-1.

in environmental samples Shall be determined in Action:

accordance with the I

~

methodology and parameters in

1. With the radiological the ODCH. These results will environmental monitoring program be reported in the Annual not being conducted as specified Radiological Environmental I

in Table 8.1-1, prepare and Monitoring Report.

l submit to the Commission, in the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report I

reovired by Specification 6.9.C.2, a description of the reasons for not conducting the program 45 required and the I

plans for preventing a e

recurrence.

2. With tht level of radioactivity as the tesult of plant effluents I

in an environmental samp1tng l

medium at a specified location l

exceeding the reporting levels l.

of Table 7.1-1 when averaged over any calendar cuarter.

prepare and submit to the

/

j Commission within 30 days, a l

special report that identifies the cause(s) for exceeding the Ilmit(s) and defines the corrective actions to be taken 229 Amendment No. 89 C-1

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OP[ tat 10Nat Of3(CTIVt$

$gtv[1Llas;[ R[0J1c[wtNTs 7.1.A ENv!RONw.tNTAL MONITOR 1 %

(Continued) to reduce radioactive effluents I

50 that the potential annual dose to a member of the public is less than the calendar year I

Itmits of Specifications 7.2 7.3. and 1,s.

When more than one of the radionuclides in Table 7.1-1 are detected in the I

sampling medium, this report shall be submitted if:

concentration (1) concentration (?)....

> 1.0 I

~

reporting level (1) reporting level (1)

. When radionuclides other than those in Table 7.1-1 are I

detected and are the result of plant effluents, this report shall be. submitted if the I

potential annual dose to a member of the public is equal to or greater than the calendar year limits of Specifications I

7.2. 7.3. a nd 7.4 This report is not required if the measured level of radioactivity was not the result of plant effluents; I

however. In such an event. the condition shall be reported and described in the Annus)

I Radiological Environmental Mor.1toring Report.

3. With milk or fresh leafy I

vegetable samples unavailable from one or more of the sample locations recuired by Table B.1-1. Identify locations for I

obtaining replacement samples and add them to the Radiological Environmental konttoring Program within 30 I

days. The specific locations from which samples were

' unavailable may then be deleted from the sonitoring prograe.

I Amendment No. 89 233 C-2

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OPIRAT10NAL OfJfCTIVf5

$URVt1LLAN0t R(001R(wthtS I

7.1.A ENVIRONMENTAL.%N!10 RING (Continued)

Pursuant to Specification 6.9.C.2, identify the cause of the unavailability of samples and identify the new location ($) obtaining I

replacement samples in the next Annual [nvironmental Radiation Monitoring Report and also include in the report the table I

for the ODCM reflecting the new location (s).

B.

LAND USC CCNSUS B.

LAND U5t CtNSUS A land use census shall be The land use census shall be conducted and shall identify, conducted during the growing within a distance of 8 km (5 season, at least once per 12 miles), the location in each of months using that information that the 16 meteorological sectors of will provide the best results, the nearest milk animal, the such as by a door-tc-door survey, nearest residence and the nearest serial surveys or by consulting garden of greater than 50 m' local agriculture authorttles.

(500 ft') producing broad leaf The results of the land use census vegetation. (For elevated shall be included in the Annual releases as defined in Regulatory Radiological [nvironmental Guide 1.111, Revision 1 July Monitoring Report.

1977, the land use census shall E

also identify, within a distance Broad leaf vegetation lampling of 5

of 5 km (3 elles). the locations at least three different kinds of in each of the 16 meteorological vegetation may be performed at the sectors of all milk animals and site t>oundary in each of the two I

a11 gardens 7 greater than 50 different direction sectors with F producing broad leaf the highest predicted D/Os, in vegetation.

lieu of the garden census.

Specifications for broad leaf Action vegetation samp1tng in Table 8.1-1 shall be followed, including

1. With a land use census analysis of control samples.

E identifying a location (s) that 3

yields a calculated dose or dose commitment greater than the values currently being E

calculated in Specification i

i 5 8.4.A. identify the new l

location (s) in the nest Annual l

Environmental Radiological

~

Monitoring Report.

Amendment No. 89 231 C-3

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIf! CATIONS OrtuTIONat 05.1tCT1vts svevtitL6N;f Rt0VIRtwtNts 7.1.8 LAND USE C(NSUS (Continued)

2. Nlth a land use census identifying a location (s) that yleids a calculated dose or dose comitment (via the same exposure pathway) 20 percent greater than at a location from which samples are currently being obtained in accordance with Specification 7.1, add the new location (s) to the Radiological (nyt ronmental Monitoring Program within 30 days. The sampling location (s). escluding the control station location, having the lowest calculated dose or dose ccevtitment(s), via E

the same esposure pathway, may 3

be deleted from this monitoring program after October 31 of the year in which this land use

,I census was conducted. Identify the new location (s) in the next Annual [nvironmental Radiological Monitoring Report I

and also include in the report a revised figure (s) and table for the ODCH reflecting the new location (s).

7.2 Dose - Liculds 8.2 (95e - Licuids Applicability:

Specification:

At all times.

A.

Dose Calculations - Cumulative dose contributtons from Itquid I

$pecification:

effluents shall be determined in accordance with the ODCM for each A.

The dose or dose comitment to a calendar month during which

. 3 member of the public from releases occurred.

'!g radioactive materials in llovid effluents released at and beyond the site boundary shall be Ilmited:

1. During any calendar quarter to

< 1.5 mrem to the total body and to f 5 mrem to any organ,

• f and

2. During any calendar year to 1 3 trem to the total body and to 3 I

10 mrem to any organ.

Amendment No. 89 232 i

- =lu w-i

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS DPIRai10AAL OB3tCTIVIS Sutvt1LLAN;! Riovittutkis 7.2 Dose - tlouids (Continued)

Action With the calculated dose frce the I

release of radioattive materials in Itcuid effluthts entetding any of the above limits, prepare and subtrit to the Comission within 30 days, a I

special report that identifies the Caust(s). correttive actions taken, and corrective actions to be taken.

7.3 [ Lose - koble Cases B.3 Dost - Notle Cases Atriitability:

Stetification:

At all times.

A.

Dost Calculations - Cumulative cose contributiont for the total Specification:

time period shall be determined I

in accordance with the ODCM for A.

The air dose in areas at and beyond each talendar month during which the site boundary due to noble gases releases otturred.

released in gaseous effluents shall I

be limited to the following:

1.

During any talendar Quarter, to 1 5 mrad for ga m.a radiation and I

i 10 mrad for beta radiation; and 2.

During any talendar year, to i I

10 mrad for gamma radiation and i 20 mrad for beta radiation.

Action With the calculated air dose from radioactive noble gases in gaseous effluents esteeding any of the above I

limits, prepare and submit to the Comission within 30 days, a special report which identifies the I

cause(s), the corrective actions taken, and Corrective actions to be taken.

I Amendment No. 89 233 I

C-5

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OttraT10Nat Of3tCTIVI$

$VRVt1LlaN:t Rt0J1RivtNTS I

7.4 Dost - todint 131. losine 133.

8.4 Dost - lodint 131. Todine 133.

Raetosttivt katerial in Racioactive Material i r.

Particulate Form one Tritium Particulatt form, anc Tritive Applicability:

$ttelfication:

At all times A.

Dost Caltviations - Cumulative cose contributions for the total I

jettifttation:

time period shall be determined for lodine-131, todine 133.

A.

The dost to a member of the public radioactive material in from todine-13), todint.133, particulate form with half-lives I

radioattive materials in greater than 6 days, and tritium particulate form with half-lives in accordante with the ODCM for greater than 8 days, and tritium each talendar month during which I

in gastout effluents released to releasts occurred.

Areas at and beyond the site t>oundary shall be limited to the following:

I 1.

During any talendar tivarter to 1 7.5 miem to any organ, and 2.

During any talencer year to i 15 mrem to any organ.

Action With the calculated dose from the release of iodint-131, lodine-133, I

radioactive materials in partituinte form, and tritium in gaseous effluents etteeding any of the above limits; prepare and I

submit to the Commission within 3D cays, a special report which icentifies the cause(s),

corrective actions taken, and the I

corrective actions to be taken.

7.5 Total Dose 8.5 Total Dose Arpittability:

Specifttation:

At all times.

A.

tote Calculations - Cumulative I

cose contributions from 110910 Specification:

and gaseous effluents shall be determined in accordance with A.

The dose or dose comitment to any Specifications 7.2.A, 7.3.A, and

^

member of the public from Pilgrim 7.4.A; and in attordance with the Station sources is limited to 1 25 ODCH.

arem to the total body or any organ (estept the thyroid, which Amendment No.

89 234

~

C-6

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIf! CATIONS oc twoN AL oe.ittt!Ws sunVi!LL AA:t RIN1Rtwints 7.5 Total Dost (Continued) 15 limited to 3 75 mren) over a period of any calendar year.

3 Attle Mith the calculated delt free the reltale of racicattive materials I

in liquid or gastout effluentl titteding talte the limits of Specifications 7.2.A. 7.3.A. or I

7.4.A; prepart and submit a special report to the Comtlllion and limit the lubltQutnt reltales such that the dost or done I

CCeltment to any member of the public from all uranium futi tycle sourtet in Ilmited to 3 25 arte to the total tiedy or any organ I

(tittpt thyroid, which 15 limited to 3 75 mrtm) over any talencer year. Thlt special report shall inclugt an analysis which I

demonstrates that radiation tiposures to all memetr$ of the public from all urentue fut) Cycle I

sources (including all effluent path =4yl and direct radiation) are Itll than the 40 CFR, Part 190 standard. Otherwlle. obtain a I

variante from the Commillion to permit reltalel which entted the 40 CFR Part 190 stancard.

I I

I I

I Amendment No. 89 235 I

g co -

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M TABLE 7.1-1 REPORTING ttytLS FOR RA0104CTIVITY C0%tMTRAff0RS IN ENV10044ENTtt SAMPtts A

Reporting levels i

io l

Mater Airborne Particulate Fish Milk Vegetables is I

Analysts CoC1/L) or Gases (pC1/M')

(pC1/kg. wet)

(pC1/1)

(PCIIkg. wet' 8

H-3 2 x 10' N

A Mn-54 1 x 10' 3 x 10' j5 Te-59 4 x 10' 1

10' jj o

Co-58 1 x 10' 3 a 10*

!E

!E Co-60 3 x 10' 1 x 10*

jj Zn-65 3 x fo' 2 x 10*

g o

Ir-95 4 x 10' j@

n I-131 2

0.9 3

1 x 10'

2 Cs-134 30 10 1 x 10' 60 1 x 10'

!3R Cs-137 50 20 2 x 10' 70 2 x 10' Ba-140 2 x 10' 3 x 10'

]

l3 2

Amnde nt No. 89 236 i

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

TA5tE_8.1-1 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL EMVIRowetRTAL NONITORING_PWOGRAM Locations Exposure Pathway (Direction-Distance)

Sampilng and Type and Frequency g

.or Sample Type _

from Reactor Co11rction Frequency of Analysis S

AIRBORNE 8

Particulates 11 Locations (See Contl.'uous sampilnq over Gross beta radioactivity Table 8.1-2)

One week 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or more after filter change' h

Quarterly 11 Locations (!ee Compostte(bylocatto.1f6 Table 8.1-2) gawana Isotoptt' y

m Radlolodine 11 f.ocations (See Continuous sampling with Analyze weekly for I-137 5 7

Table 8.1-2) canister collection weekly DIRECT' 40 Locations (See Quarter ly Gassuaexposurequarterlyh Table 8.1-3)

E l

Plymouth Beach and Annually Gauses exposure survey' 9

Prisc111nifhite Horse Beach A

HATER 90RME Discharge Canal Continuous composite Gauneisotopic' monthly,h (Surface Water) sample and compostte for M Bartlett Fo M Neekly grab sample analysis quarterly' 9

(SE-1.7 mi)

Powder Point Neckly grab sample (MMW-7.8 mi)*

w AQUATIC ~'

Shellfish Discharge outra11 Ovarterly (at approntmate Ga===a Isotopic' '

(class. mussels Duxbury Bay 3-month Intervals) or quahogs as Ma m t Point available)

Plymouth or Klngston Harbor Marshfleid' Amendment No.

89 237

=

=

- _ _ = _.__

_ = = - - - -

=

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M TABLE 8.1-1 (Continued)

OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRtymtnTAt. MONITORING PWOGRAM Locations Exposure Pathway (Direction-Distance)

Sampling and Type and Frequency U

_or Sample Ty p from Reactor Collection Frequency of Analysis Qo toester Vicinity of discharge Tour times per season Gaasna Isotopic' on r '>

g ylnt edible portions J

Offshore-Once per season Fish Vicinity of discharge Quarterly (when particular Gaauna tsotopic' on r:

point species available) for Groups edible portions' O

Offsho e*

I and II'. In season for 7

Groups III and IV'.

$f annually for each grcup l

c, Sediments Rocky Point Seelannually Camma Isotopic * * '

5-1.

Plymouth Harbor r

C Durbury Bay M

Plymouth Beach Q

Manonet Polnt s:

Marshfleid y

r-IMGESTIOM e

(Terrestrial)

Z n

Nilk Plymouth County Farm.

Semisonthly during Gaasna Isotopic'. radlo-Z when available periods when animalt are lodine analysts all samples E

(W-3.5 m!)*

on pasture, othervl',e 2;

Whitman Farm monthly

(;

j (NH-21 al)*

g l

Cranberries Manomet Point Bog At time of harvest Gassma Isotopic' ort edible l

(SE-2.6 mi) port 1ons i

Bartlett Rd. Bog l

(55E/5-2.8 al)

Pine St. Bog i

(WMW-17 ml)*

j i

l Amendw nt No.

29 238 l

M M

M M

M l

e i

't i

l TABLE 8.1-1 (Continued)

OPERATIONALRADIO1t0F.lCALENVIRONMENIALM08tITORINGPROGRAM

[

locations Esposure Pathway (Olrection-Olstance)

Sampilng and Type and Frequency 5

i or Sample Type _

from_ Reactor Collection frequency of Analyp S

Tuberous and green Plymouth County Fara At time of harvest Cama Isotopic' on edible o

g l

leafy vegetables (W-3.5 ml)*

portions Bridgewater Farm 9'

F (W-20 ml)*

El Seer Forage Plymouth County Farm Annually Gamma Isotopic'

$6 (W-3.5 mi)*

=

9l Whitman Farm (nW-21 n:1 )

• M6 z">

?

r-

~l MR E

R

~

t R

M 9

4 2,

i s

i i

t Amendment No. 89 239 -

[

i I

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPEClf! CATIONS I

aBLt B.'l 1 scontinued)

N01(5 I

If gross beta radioactivity is greater than 10 tires the control value, gamn isotopic will be performed on the sample.

I 8

Cama Isotopic means the idthttfication and Quantification of gama-emitting radionut11 des that may be attributable to the effluents from the fattitty.

If integrated gama activity (less K-40) is greater than 10' times the control value (less K-40), strontium-90 analysis will be performed on the sample.

Indicates control location.

8 Fish analyses will be performed on a minimum of 2 sub-samples consisting of approximately 400 grams each f rom each of the following groups:

1.

Bottom Oriented

!!. Near Bottom

!!!. Ana drenous IV. Coastal

.Distributton Micratory I

Winter flounder Tautog Alewife Bluefish Yellowtail founder Cunner Rainbow smelt

'tlantic herring Atlantic cod Striped bass atlantic menhaden I

Pollock Atlantic r.ackerel Hakes I

Wssel samples from four locations (1 mediate vicinity of discharge outf all. Hanomet Point. Plymouth or Kingston Harbor, and Green Harbor in Warshfield) will be analyzed quhrterly as follows:

I One kilogram wet weight of mussel bodies, including fluid within shells will be collected. Bodies will be reduced in volume by drying at about 100'C. Sample will be compacted and analyzed by Ge(Li) gama spectrometry or alternate technique, if necessary, to I

achieve a sensitivity of 5 pti/kg for Cs-134, Cs-137. Co-60. In-65 and Zr-95; and 15 pC1/kg for Cc-144. Sensitivity values are to be determined in accordance with a 951 confidente level on k, and a 50% confidente level on k. (See HA5L-300 for definitions).

The mossel shell sample from one location will be analyzed each quarter.

One additional mussel shell sample will be analyzed semiannually.

I Unstrubbed shells to be analyzed will be dried, pr.ocessed, and analyzed similarly to the mussel bodies.

I I

Amendment No.

89 240 l

4 C-12

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TABLE B.1-) t N t,t i rg.e t NDiB I

Secause of the small volume reduction in pre-processing of shells, sensitivities attained will be itss than that for mussel bodies. The egutpment and counting times to be employed for analyses of shells will be the same or comparable to that employed for mussel bodies 50 that the I

reduction in sensitivities (relative to those for mussel bodits) will be strictly lleited to the effects of poorer geometry related to lower steple volume reduction. Shell samples not scheduled for analysts will be reserved (unscrubbed) for possible later analysis.

If radloceslum (Cs-134 and Cs-137) activity exceeds 200 pCi/kg (wet) in mussel bcdies these samples will be analyted by radiochemical I

separation, electrodeposition and alpha spectrometry for radioisotopes v -

of plutonium, with a sensitivity of 0.4 pC1/Ag.

Sediment samples from four locations (Mane, met Point, Rocky Point, Plymouth Harbor, and head of Dusbury Bay) will be analyzed once per year (preferably early sumer) as follows:

Cores will be taken to depths of 30-tm, minimum depth, wherever I

sediment conditions permit, by a hand-coring sampling device. If sediment conditions do not permit 30-tm deep cores, the deepest cores achievable with a hand-coring device w'll be taken, in any case, core depths will not be less than 14 cm. Core samples will be I

sectioned into 2-cm increments; surf ace and alternate increments will be analyzed, all others will be reserved. Sediment sample volumes (determined by core diameter and/or number of Individual cores taken from any single location) and the counting technique I-will be sufficient to achieve sensitivities of 50 pct /kg dry sediment for Cs-134. Cs-137 Cc-60, 2n-65, and Zr-95 and 150 pCi/kg for Ce-144. In any case, individual core diameters will not be less I

than 2 inches.

The top 2-cm section from each core will be analyzed for Pu isotopes (Pu-238, Pu-239, and Pu-240) using radiochemical separations, I

electrodeposition, and alpha spectrometry with target sensitivity of 25 pC1/kg dry sediment. Two additional core sinces per year (sid-depth sitte from two core samples) will be similarly analyzed.

These locations may be altered in accordance with results of surveys discussed in Specification 8.1.B.

Hinimum sensitivities for gamma exposure measurements are as follows:

Gama erposure - 1 R/hr average exposure rate.

Gama exposure survey - 1 R/hr exposure rate.

241 Amendment No. 89

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I

lABLE 6.1 2 AIR PARTICULAl[S. CASE 005 RAD 101001hE, AND S0lt SURVilLL AH2t ST A110NS Sampling Location Distance and I

(Samt e Desionation)

Direction fron, Reactor i

Offsite Stations East Weymouth (EW) (Control Station) 21 miles NW Plymouth Center (PC) 4.0 miles W-WNW Manomet Substation (MS) 2.5 miles SE Cleft Rock Area (CR) 0.9 miles S Onsite Stations Rocky Hill Road (ER) 0.8 miles SE Rocky Hill Road (WR) 0.3 miles W-WNW Overlook Area (OA) 0,03 miles W Property Line (PL) 0.34 miles NW Pecestrian Bridge (PB) 0.14 miles N East Breakwater (EB) 0.35 miles ESE Warehouse (WS) 0.03 miles SSE I

I I

I I

242 Amendment ho. 89 I

C-14

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TABLE B.1-3 ErTERNAL CAWA EXPOSURE SURV(ILLAN0( STATIONS' Distance and Dosimeter Location (Desionation)

Direction free Station ONSITE STATIONS I

i Property Line (D) 0.17 miles NNW Property Line (F) 0.12 miles NW l

Property Line (I) 0.14 miles W Property Lin6 (G) 0.20 alles WSW Rocky Hill Road (A) 0.12 miles SW Property Line (H) 0.21 miles SSW Public Parking Area (PA) 0.07 miles N-NNE Pedestrian Bridge (PB) 0.1 miles NE Overlook Area (OA) 0.03 miles H East Breakwater (EB) 0.26 miles ESE Property Line (C) 3.3 miles ESt-SE Property Line (HB' L34 miles CE Rocky Hill Road (B) 0.26 miles $$E I

Microwave Tower (MT) 0.38 miles S Emerson Road (EN) 0.68 miles SE-SSE White Horse Road (WH) 0.89 miles SE-SSE Property line (E) 0.75 miles SSE-S Rocky Hill Road (HR) 0.3 miles W-WNW Property Line (J) 1.36 miles SSE-S Property Line (K) 1.42 miles SSE-S Rocky Hill Road (ER) 0.8 miles SE Property Line (L) 0.40 miles E *-

I I

Amendment No.

89 243 I

I c.,,

l I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I

TABLE 8.1-3 (Continued) i EXTEthat CAWA trPOSUR[ SURvilLLA CE STATION 5' Distance and Dosimeter Location (Desicnation)

Direction from Station ONSITE STATIONS (Continued)

Harehouse (WS) 0.1 miles SE Property Line (PL) 0.3 miles W OFFSITE STATIONS Dunbury (SS) 6.25 miles SSW SW Kingston (KS) 10 miles WNW horth Plymouth (hP) 5.5 miles NNW Plymuth Center (PC) 4.0 miles W-WhW South Plymouth (SP) 3 miles WSW Bayshore Drive (BD) 0.7 miles W.WNW Cleft Rock Area (CR) 0.9 miles S Manomet (MP) 2.25 miles ESE-S Manomet (ME) 2.5 miles SE Hanomet (MS) 2.5 miles SSE Hanomet (HB) 3.5 miles SE-SSE College Pond (CP) 6.5 miles SSW-SW Sagamore (CS) 10 miles SSE-S Plymouth Airport (SA) 8 miles WSW East Weymouth (EW)*

21 miles hw Saquish Neck (SN)*

4.6 miles'NNW Thermal Luminescent Oostmeters (TLDs)

Control Station TLDs for this location will be provided to a third party and will be analyzed for gama exposure whenever returned to Boston Edison Company.

I Amendment No. 89 244 I

3 --.;

eeBLE 8.1-4 f

MAXIMUM VALUES FOR THE.LOWtR t.lMITS Or DETECTION (LLD)*

Mater Airborne Particulate Net Solids Milk Food Products Dry Sollds n

Analysts (pCI/kg)

_or Gas _(pCl/M'L (pCl/kg. wet)_

(pC1/q)

(pCl/kg wet)

(pC1/kg, dry) gross beta 4'

1 x 10-'

8

~

's 2000* -

g

• • Mn 15 130

[

z(

"Fe 30 260 o

" "Co 15 130 50 i

I g

l "In 30 260 50 g

IC "Ir 15 50 E

I 1

7 x 10-'

1 60*

i l

1

" * ' "Cs 15, 18 1 x 10-'

130 15 60 50 9

Ba 15 15

%8 150

" *Ce 5;

Refer to 00CM for LLD definttlon;

• LLD for sprface water.

• ttD for leafy vegetables.

• If no drinking water pathway exists, a value of 3000 pct /1 may te used.

l l

245 l

Amendment No. 89

i I

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BASES 7/8.0 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONM[NTAL MONITORING PRD3 ram 7/8.1 Monitorino Procram 7/8.1.A ENVIRONMENTAL MNITORING An environmental radiological monitoring program is conducted to verify

~I the adequacy of in-plant controls on the release of radioactjve materials. The program is designed to detect radioactivity concentrations to ensure that radiation doses to individuals do not exceed the levels sat forth in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I.

A supplemental monitoring program for sediments and mussels has been incorporated into the basic program (see Notes 6 and 7 to Table 8.1-1) as a result of an agreement with the Massachusetts Hild1tfe Federation. This I

supplemental program is designed to provide information on radioactivity levels at substantially higher sensitivity levels in selected samples to verify the adequacy (or, alternatively, to provide a basis for later modifications) of the long-term marine sampilng schedules. As part of the I

supplemental program, analysis of mussels for isotopes of plutonium will be performed if radiocesium activity should exceed 200 pC1/kg in the edible portions.

The 200 pC1/kg radiocesium " action level" is based on calculations which show that if radiocesium from plant releases reached this level, plutonium could possibly appear at levels of potential interest.' The I

[

calculations also show that the dose delivered from these levels of plutonium would not be a significant portion of the total dose attributable to liquid effluents.

I The program was also designed to be consistent, wherever applicable, with NUREG 0473.

Groundwater flow at the plant site is into Cape Cod Bay; therefore, I

terrestrial monitoring of groundwater is not included in this program.

Detection capabilities for environmental sample analyses are tabulated in I

terms of the lower limits of detection (LLD). The LLD in Table 8.1.4 15 considered optimum for routine environmental measurements in industrial laboratories. It should be recognized that the LLO is defined as an a oriori (before the fact) limit representing the capability of a I

measurement system and not as an a posterivri (af ter.the f act' ilmit for a particular measurement.

Detailed discussion of the LLD, and other detection limits can be found in I

NASL Procedures Manual, NASL-300 (revised annually), curie, L. A.; " Limits for Qualitative Detection and Quantitative Determination - Application to Radiochemistry", Anal. Chem. 40. 586-93 (1968); and Hartweni, J.

K.,

I

" Detection Limits for Radioanalytical Counting Techniques.* Atlanti;;

Richfleid Hanford Company Report ARH-SA-215 (June 1975).

In measurable quantitles having a potential dose (human food chain)

I i

significance comparable to other nuclides if present at their detection limits.

Amendment No. 89 246 C-18

I RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS g

7/8.1.8 LAND USE CENSUS This section is provided to ensure that changes in the use of areas at and beyond the site boundary are identified and that modif.lcations to the radiological environmental ponitoring program are made if req'oired by the u

I results of this census. The best information from the door-t door survey, from aerial survey, or from consulting with local agricultural authorities shall be used. This census satisfies the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix 1.Section IV.B.3.

Restricting the census to gardens I

of greater than 50 m' provides assurance that significant exposure pathways via leafy vegetables will be identified and monitored, since a garden of this size is the minimum required to produce the Quantity (26 kglyear) of leafy vegetables assumed in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for consumption by a child. To determine this minimum garden tire, the following assumptions were made: 1) 20% of the garden was used for growing broad leaf vegetation (i.e., similar to lettuce and tabbage), and

2) a vegetation yield of 2 kg/m'.

7/8.2 DO$t - L1001D This section is provided to implement the requirements of Sections ll.A.

Ill.A, and I/ A of 10CFR50, Appendix 1, to assure that the releases of radioactive material in liquid effluents will be kept *as low as is reasonably achievable." Because Pilgrim is not a site where plant I

operations can conceivably affect drinking water, none of these requirements are intended to assure compliance with 40 CFR 141. The dose calculations in the ODCM implement the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendii 0

1, Section !!!.A to ensure that the actual exposure of a member of the public through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated. The equations specified in the 00CM for calculating the doses due to the actual release rates of radioactive materials in liquid I

effluents will be consistent with the methodology provided in Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I " Revision 1, October 1977 and Regulatory Guide I

1.113, " Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of implementing Appendix 1,"

April 1977. NUREG-0133 provides methods for dose calculations consistent with Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.113.

I I

Amendment No. 89 247 l

~-

C-19

_I

lI RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BASES i

/

7/8.3 DOSE - NDBLE CASES I

This section is proviced to implement the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix 1. Sections !!.B. !!!.A. and IV.A to ensure that the releases of radioactive material in gastous effluents will be kept "as loy 45 is I

reasonably achievable

• The surveillance requirements implement the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix 1. Section !!!.A to ensure that the actual exposure of a member of the pubilt through the appropriate pathways is unilkely to be $Ubstantially underestimated. The dose I

calculations established in the 00CM for calculating the doses due to the actual release rates of radioactive noble gases in gaseous effluents are consistent with the methodology provided in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and I

Regulatory Guide 1.111. "Hethods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases frce Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," Revision 1 July 1977. The ODCM ecuations provided for determining the air doses at and beyond the site boundary will be based upon the historical average atmospheric conditions.

NUREG-0133 provides methods for dose calculations consistent with Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111, 7/B.4 DOSE - 10 DINE-13), 100lNE-133, RADIDACTIVE MATER 14 IN PARilCULATE F081H, AND TRittVM This section is provided to implement the requirements of Sections !!.C.

I

!!!.A and IV.A of 10 CFR50, Appendix 1 to assure that the releases of radioactivt materials in gaseous effluents will be kept "as low as is

/

reasonably achievable." The ODCM calculational methods specified in the f

I surveillance requirements implement the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix

1. Section Ill.A to ensure that the actual exposure of a member of the public through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated. The ODCH calculational methods approved by the NRC for calculating the doses due to the actual release rates of the subject materials are required to be consistent with the methodology provided in Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111. These equations also provide for determining the actual doses based upon the historical average I

atmospheric conditions. The release rate specifications for iodine-131, radioactive material in particulate form with half-lives greater than B days, and radionuclides other than noble gases are dependent on the I

existing radionuclide pathways to man, in areas at and beyond the site boundary. The pathways which are examined in the development of these calculations are: 1) individual inhalation of airborne radionuclides, 2) deposition of radionuclides onto green leafy vegetation with subsequent I

consumption by man, 3) deposition onto grassy areas where milk animals and meat producing animals graze bith consumption of the milk and meat by man, and 4) deposition on the ground with subsequent exposure of man.

T' I

I Amendment No.

89 246 I

C-20

~

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNIC 4L SPECIFICATIONS

..1 7/8.5 TOTAL DOSE I

This section is provided to meet the dose limitations of 40CFR190 that have now been incorporated into 10CFR20 by 46 FR 18525. The specification requires the preparation and subetttal of a special report whenever the calculated doses from plant radioactive effluents exceed tulce the design objective doses of 10CFR50, Appendix 1.

For $1tes containin9 up to 4 reactors, it is highly unlikely that the resultant dose to a member of the pubitt will exceed the dose Ilmits of 40CFR190 if the individual reactors remain within the reporting requirement level. The special report will describe a course of action that should result in the Ilmitation of the annual dose to a member of the public to within the 40CFR190 Ilmits. For the purposes of the special report, it may be assumed that the dose commitment to the member of the public from other uranium fuel cycle sources is negitgtble, except dose contributtons from other nuclear fuel cycle facilities at the same site or within a radius of 8 km must be considered. If the dose to any member of the public is estimated to exceed the limits of 40CFR190, a request for a variance in-a spegla1 report in accordance with 40CFR190.11 and 10CFR20.405C is considered to be a timsly request and fulfills the requirements of 40CFR190 untti NRC staff action is completed. This is provided that the release conditions resulting in violation of 40CFR190 have not altvady been corrected. The varta'.ce only relates to the limits of 40CFR190, and does not apply in any way to the other requirements for dose limitation of 10CFR20. An individual is not considered a member of the pubitc during any period in which he/she is engaged in any operation that is part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

I l

~

I r'

l i

Amendment No. B9 249 I

l C-21

e e

a

-a-a a.

., s aw.aa~wu-.-..--.w n-.m

.s o

-a

, aa. u

--a.

. was

...a..

--~>-.-ae

-.s,-.x6-

-m.a wn.s.a+--s~,u.4m-,--.-aww-a a-a.+

+.ws-a b,

4 d

i o

!lI A

Y l,

l-1 I

j APPENDIX 0 1990 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS 1

i i

f r

t 4

a

!I j

4 J

s i I flI o

!E 4

a,<-

u

I APPENDIX D l

1990 LAND USE CENSUS RESULTS The annual land use census for gardens and milk and meat animals in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station was performed between September 11 and 29, 1990, lhe census was conducted by driving along each improved road / street in the Plynouth area within three miles of Pilgrim Station to survey for visible gardens with an area of greater than 500 square feet.

In compass sectors where no gardens were identified within three miles (SSH and NNH sectors), the survey was extended to five miles.

In addition, the Town of Plymouth Animal Inspector was contacted for information regarding milk and meat animals.

A total of 31 gardens were identified in the vit:inity of Pilgrim Station. A majority of these gardens had been identified during previous land use censuses.

Atmospheric deposition (0/0 values) at the locations of the identified gardens were compared to those for the existing sampling program locations.

These comparisons enabled Boston Edison Company personnel to ascertain the best locations for monitoring for releases of airborne radionuclides.

Gardens yielding higher 0/Q values than those currently in the sampling program were also sampled as part of the radiological environmental monitoring program.

Based on analysis of the gardens identified during the 1990 land use census, sampled vegetables or naturally-growing vegetation were collected at or near I

gardens at the following locations:

Hall residence - Rocky Hill Road 0.5 mi. SE I

Gadbois residence - Brook Road 1.7 mi. SSE Minahan residence - Beaverdam Road 2.1 mi. S Fry residence - Jordan Road 2.7 mi. SW I

Cotti residence - Bay Colony Drive 1.9 mi. HSH Hanlon residence - Clay Hill Road 1.0 mi H

Permission is being sought from owners of these gardens to permanently add I

these locations to the sampling program.

In addition to these special locations, samples were also collected at or near tk Plymouth County Farm (3.5 mi. H), Whipple Farm (1.8 mi. SW), Moon residence (2.1 mi, HSH) and from the control location at Bridgewater Farm (20 mi. H).

A Failure and Malfunction Report (F&MR) was filed during 1990 related to the garden census.

Four gardens identified during the 1989 land use census were not officially added to the sampling program. Of the four gardens identified during the 1989 census, one was no longer grown and another had changed ownership.

However, despite these gardens not officially being part of the I

program, samples were collected at or near these four locations during 1990.

No new milk or meat animals were identified during the land use census.

In I

addition, the Town of Plymouth Animal Inspector stated that their office is not aware of any animals at locations other than the Plimoth Plantation and the Plymouth County Farm.

Samples of milk and forage have historically been collected from the Plymouth County Farm and were part of the 1990 sampling program.

I D-1 l

i

. I I

I I.

I I

APPENDIX E PNPS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM DISCREPANCIES DURING 1990 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

APPENDIX E PNPS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM DISCREPANCIES DURING 1990 I_

In the event of major discrepancies, a failure and Malfunction Report (F&MR) is generated to document the nature of the discrepancy and the corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence.

During 1990, two F&MRs were filed related to the radiological environmental monitoring program.

An F&MR was generated in October 1990 to document a degradation of the composite water sampler at the PNPS discharge canal.

In this event, the I

weighted intake filter had become disconnected from the sample line during the last day of the week sampling period.

The sample line was allowed to float freely and may have intermittently sampled the discharge canal flow, potentially not meeting the requirement for continuous composite sampling as required in Technical Specification Table 8.1-1.

The filter was replaced when the problem was identified and steps taken to ensure proper placement of the sampler intake.

I An FLHR was also filed during 1990 related to the garden census.

Four gardens identified during the 1989 land use census were not officially added to the sampling program, as required by Technical Specification 7.1.0.2.

However, despite these gardens not officially being part of the program, samples were collected at or near these four locations during 1990. Of the four gardens identified during the 1989 census, one was no longer grown and another had changed ownership.

Permission to sample replacement gardens is being sought.

There were also a few instances of minor discrepancies in the radiological I

monitoring program during 1990.

These discrepancies are noted below.

None of these discrepancies resulted in any appreciable impact on the environmental sampling program.

On a few occasions, low sample flow was obtained on air samplers due to failure of the power supply or pump.

Despite the low volumes collected in these instances, all airborne particulate and charcoal iodine samples met the I

required value for lower level of detection specified in the PNPS Technical Specifications.

Only two of the 160 environmental thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) required by Technical Specifications were not collected during 1990.

The TLD at Station J was found missing from its posted location during first quarter TLD retrievals, as was the TLD at Sherman Airport during fourth quarter retrieval.

l One Subsample of Group I (bottom-criented) and both subsamples of Group II (near-bottom distribution) fishes were not collected in the vicinity of the i

PNPS discharge canal outfall during the first quarter of 1990.

Concerted and repeated efforts by personnel from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries failed to catch required fish samples from these two categories during the January-March sampling period.

Species from these two categories l

tend to move to deeper waters during cold months and were not available in the l

area for capture.

In general, the minor discrepancies noted during 1990 resulted from circumstances beyond the control of Boston Edison and contractor personnel responsible for collection of samples.

None of the discrepancies resulted in ll an adverse affect on the monitoring program.

E-1 l

I l

I-

I I

\\

APPENDIX F QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL HONITORING PROGRAM OURING 1990 LI

I iI t

I l

i E-2

APPENDIX F QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM DURING 1989 I

I.

Introduction The accuracy of the data obtained through Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) is ensured through a comprehensive Quality Assurance Program.

This appendix addresses those aspects of quality assurance that deal with the accuracy and I

precision of the analytical sample results and the environmental TLD measurement results that are obtained by Boston Edison from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Environmental Laboratory (YAEL).

Huch of the information contained herein has been summarized from the YAEL

" Semi-Annual Quality Assurance Status Report:

January - June 1990," and the YAEL " Semi-Annual Quality Assurance Status Report:

July -

December 1990."

II.

Laboratory Analyses The quality control programs that were performed during 1989 to demonstrate the validity of laboratory analyses by YAEL include the following:

1) YAEL participation in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Interlaboratory Comparison (cross-check) program for those types of samples routinely analyzed by the laboratory.

This provides an independent check of accuracy and precision of the laboratory analyses. When the results of the cross-check analysis fall outside of the control limit, an investigation is made to determine the cause of the problem, and corrective measures are taken, as appropriate.

2) YAEL interlaboratory quality control program to assure the validity l

and reliability of the data.

This program includes quality control of laboratory equipment, use of reference standards for calibration, and analysis of blank and spiked samples.

The records of the I-quality control program are reviewed by the responsible cognizant individual, and corrective measures are taken, as appropriate.

3) A blind duplicate program is maintained in which paired samples from I

the five sponsor companies, including Boston Edison, are prepared from homogeneous media and sent to the laboratory for analysis.

The results from this blind duplicate program are used to check for precision in laboratory analyses.

The results of these studies are discussed below.

I lI I

f-I 1

A.-

YAEL Intralaboratory and EPA Interlaboratory Results Results of the Quality Assurance Program are reported in two separate categories based upon YAEL acceptance criteria.

The first criterion concerns accuracy, which is defined as the deviation of any one result from the assumed known value.

The second criterion concerns precision, which deals with the ability of the measurement I

to be faithfully replicated by a comparison of an individual result to the mean of all results for a given sample set.

In addition to evaluating all individual samples against the YAEL acceptance criteria, if the mean result of an EPA cross-check analysis exceeds the 3-sigma control limit (as defined by the EPA in their known value summary report) an investigation is conducted by YAEL personnel to determine the reason for the deviation.

The Quality Assurance Program implemented at the analytical laboratory indicated good precision and accuracy in reported I

values.

Table 1 shows the cumulative results of accuracy and precision for laboratory analyses in 1990 for YAEL intralaboratory analyses and EPA interlaboratory cross-check analyses.

For I

accuracy, 68 and 88 percent of the results were within 5 and 10 percent of the known values, respectively, with 96 percent of all results falling within the laboratory criterion of 15 percent.

For precision, 84 and 97 percent of the results were within 5 and 10 percent of the mean, respectively, with 99.7 percent of all results meeting the laboratory criterion of 15 percent.

The results of the EPA Interlaboratory Comparison program, when considered apart from the remainder of the Quality Assurance program, were satisfactory with respect to accuracy and precision in 1990. A total of 184 analyses were performed on air particulate filters, milk, and water.

Based upon this sample analysis total, 180 analyses (i.e., 98 percent) met the EPA's definition of " control limit" acceptance criteria for accuracy.

I I

l I

l-1I F-2

I TABLE 1 INTRALABORATORY AND EPA INTERLABORATORY RESULTS - 1990 Total Number of Heasurements I

Number of within deviation ranae*

Cateaory Measurements 0-5%

0-10%

0-15%**

YAEL INTRALABORATORY ANALYSES Accuracy 578 440 543 565 (76.1%) (93.9%)

(97.8%)

Precision 580 529 568 578 (91.2%) (97.9%)

(99.7%)

EPA INTERLABORATORY ANALYSES Accuracy 184 79 129 163 (42.9%) (70.1%)

(88.6%)

Precision 183 115 173 183 (62.8%) (94.5%)

(100%)

TOTAL COMBINED ANALYSES I-Accuracy 762 519 672 728 (68.1%) (88.2%) -(95.5%)

Precision 763 644 741 761 (84.4%) (97.1%)

(99.7%)

l Values in parentheses indicate percentage of analysis results within the deviation range.

I-This category also contains those samples having a verified zero concentration which were analyzed and found not to contain detectable levels of the nuclide of interest.

I I

F-3

I B.

Blind Duolicate Proaram I

A total of 52 paired samples were submitted by the five sponsor companies for analysis during 1990.

The database used for the I

duplicate analysis consisted of paired measurements of 26 gamma-emitting nuclides, H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, low-level I-131, and gross beta.

The sample media included milk, groundwater, sea / river water, food trops, marine algae, and mussel meat.

A dual level criteria for agreement was established:

if the paired measurements fall within i 15 percent of their average value, then I

agreement between the measurements has been met.

If the value falls outside of the i 15 percent, then a two standard deviation range (95 percent confidence level) is established for each of the analyses.

If the ranges overlap, agreement is obtained.

From the 51 paired samples, 1321 paired duplicate measurements were analyzed for 1990.

All measurements fell within the established I

criteria discussed above. No trend was evident with respect to repeated failings of measurements for the listed radionuclides and media.

III.

Environmental TLD Heasurements Two separate quality control programs were performed during 1990 to I

demonstrate the performance of the routine environmental TLD processing by YAEL. The quality of the dosimetric results is evaluated relative to independent third party testing and internal performance testing.

These l

tests were performed independent of the processing of environmental TL0s at YAEL.

In all of these tests, dosimeters were irradiated to known doses and submitted to YAEL for processing as unknowns.

The quality I

control programs provide a statistical measure of accuracy, precision and consistency of the processing against a reliable standard, which in turn points out any trends or changes in performance.

YAEL began performance testing of the Panasonic environmental TLDs in

~

July 1987.

The testing included internal performance testing and testing by an independent third party.

Boston Edison conducted quarterly tests on the environmental TLDs via an independent third party during 1990.

A.

Intralaboratory and Independent Third Party Results A i 30 percent accuracy acceptance standard under field conditions is recommended by ANSI 545-1975, "American National Standard I

Performance, Testing and Procedural Specifications for Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (Environmental Applications)."

Acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision to be used in 1990 was adopted by the Laboratory Quality Control Audit Committee (LQCAC) on November 13, 1987.

Recognizing the inherent variability associated with each dosimeter type, control limits for both accuracy and precision of i 3 sigma plus 5 percent (for bias) were I

set by the LQCAC.

The actual magnitude of the 3 sigma plus 5 percent control limits depends on the historical performance of each type of dosimeter, with each response being indicative of random and I

systematic uncertainties, combined with any deviation attributable to TLD operation.

F-4

The results of the TLD quality control programs are reported in the categories of accuracy and precision.

Accuracy was calculated by comparing each discrete reported dose to the known or delivered dose.

The deviation of individual results relative to the mean reported dose in used as a. measure of precision.

The quality control program implemented for dosimetry processing I

indicated good precision and accuracy in the reported values.

In 1990, there were 96 quality control tests.

All 48 environmental TLDs tested during January - June 1990 were within the control limits for both accuracy and precision.

The comparisons yielded a mean accuracy of - 5.5 percent, with an associated standard deviation of

• 3.5 percent.

The comparisons exhibited a precision value with an overall standard deviation of 1.9 percent.

The 48 I

TLDs tested in July - December 1990 showed a mean accuracy of 0.4 percent with an associated standard deviation of

• 4.5 percent.

TLDs measured during the second semiannual period exhibited a I

precision value with a standard deviation of 1.8 percent, well within the acceptance criteria.

In total, all 96 environmental TLDs tested during 1990 were within the control limits for accuracy

(* 20.0%) and precision (* 12.8%).

B.

Boston Edison's TLD QA Program Boston Edison Company personnel evaluate the accuracy of the environmental TL0s on a quarterly basis, per PNPS Station I

Instructicn RP 8010, " Environmental TLD Quality Assurance Program."

This instruction establishes acceptance criteria of:

1) the average of the percentage differences must be within i 10%; and,

2) no one I

result can be greater than i 15%.

For the 72 environmental TLDs tested during 1990, the average difference was +0.36%.

All calculated averages of the percentage differences were within the 10% acceptance criterion, and no individual result exceeded the 15%

I criterion.

IV. Conclusions Laboratory analysis results for the EPA Interlaboratory Comparison program, the YAEL intralaboratory quality control program, and the sponsor companies blind duplicate program met the laboratory criterien I

of less than 15% deviation in 99.8% of all cases.

The environmental TLD measurements for intralaboratory and independent third party comparisons resulted in both mean accuracy and precision within 3 percent deviation.

Therefore, the quality assurance programs for the Boston Edison Company's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program indicated that the analysis and measurements which were performed by Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory during 1990 exhibited acceptable accuracy and precision.

F-5